After what has now been said, it is needless to repeat that in Domesday the manerium and the villa are utterly different things.(1*) In a given case the two may coincide, and throughout a great tract of England such cases were common and we may even say that they were normal. But in the east this was not so. We may easily find a village which taken as a whole has been utterly free from seignorial domination. Orwell in Cambridgeshire will be a good example.(2*)
In King Edward's day this vill of Orwell was rated at 4 hides: probably it was somewhat underrated for at the date of the survey it was deemed capable of finding land for nearly 6 teams. The following table will show who held the four hides before the Conquest: --
H.
V. A.
Two sokemen, men of Edith the Fair
2/3
A sokeman, man of Abp Stigand
1 1/3
A sokeman, man of Robert Wimarc's son
1 1/3
A sokeman, man of the King
2/3
A sokeman, man of Earl AElfgar
1 1/3
A sokeman, man of Earl Waltheof
3
A sokeman, man of the King
1/3
Sigar, a man of AEsgar the Staller
1 1/3
Turbert, a man of Edith the Fair
3 1/4 5
Achil, a man of Earl Harold
1
A sokeman of the King
1
St. Mary of Chatteris
1/3
St. Mary of Chatteris
1/4
4 0
0(3*)
It will be seen that eight of the most exalted persons in the land, the king, the archbishop, three earls, two royal marshals or stallers, and that mysterious lady known as Edith the Fair, to say nothing of the church of Chatteris, had a certain interest in this little Cambridgeshire village. But then how slight an interest it was! Every one of the tenants was free to 'withdraw himself,' 'to give or sell his land.' Now we cannot say that all of them were peasants. Achil the man of Harold seems to have had other lands in the neighbouring villages of Harlton and Barrington.(4*) It is probable that Turbert, Edith's man, had another virgate at Kingston:(5*) he was one of the jurors of the hundred in which Orwell lay.(6*) Sigar the man of AEsgar was another juror, and held land at Thriplow, Foxton, Haslingfield and Shepreth; he seems to have been his lord's steward.(7*) But we may be fairly certain that the unnamed sokemen tilled their own soil, though perhaps they had help from a few cottagers. And they cannot have been constantly employed in cultivating the demesne lands of their lords. They must go some distance to find any such demesne lands. The Wetherley hundred, in which Orwell lies, is full of the sokemen of these great folk: Waltheof, for example, has 3 men in Comberton, 4 in Barton, 3 in Grantchester, 1 in Wratworth: but he has no demesne land, and if he had it, he could not get it tilled by these scattered tenants. The Fair Edith has half a hide in Haslingfield and we are told that this belongs to the manor of Swavesey. Now at Swavesey Edith has a considerable manor,(8*) but it can not have got much in the way of labour out of a tenant who lived at Haslingfield, for the two villages are a long ten miles apart. As to the king's sokemen, their only recorded services are the avera and the inward. The former seems to be a carrying service done at the sheriff's bidding and to be only exigible when the king comes into the shire, while inward seems to be the duty of forming a body guard for the king while he is in the shire: -- if in any year the king did not come, a small sum of money was taken instead.(9*)
Lest it should be thought that in picking out the village of Orwell we have studiously sought a rare case, we will here set out in a tabular form what we can learn of the state of the hundred in which Orwell lies. The Wetherley hundred contained twelve vills: it was a land of true villages which until very lately had wide open fields.(10*) In the Confessor's day the lands in it were allotted thus: --
Cambridgeshire. Wetherley Hundred(11*)
1. COMBERTON. A vill of 6 hides.
H. V. A.
C.
B.
1. Seven sokemen of the King
1
1
0
A sokeman, man of Earl Waltheof |
4
0
A sokeman, man of Abp Stigand |
3
0
2. A man of Earl Waltheof
1 15
1
0
3. A sokeman, man of the King
1
0
A sokeman, man of Abp Stigand
1 15
2
0
A sokeman, man of Earl Waltheof
1 15
4. The King
2
2
0
5
0
5
3 15(12*) 12
0
II. BARTON. A vill of 7 hides.
1. Two sokemen, men of Earl
Waltheof
1
1 15
A sokeman, man of Earl Waltheof
3 15(13*) 5
0
A sokeman, man of Earl Waltheof
1
0
2. Juhael, the King's hunter
1
0
0
1
0
3. A sokeman, man of Edith the Fair
2
0
4. Twenty-three sokemen of the King 3
0
0
6
0
7
0
0
12
0
III. GRANTCHESTER. A vill of 7 hides.(14*)
1. Five sokemen, men of the King
3
0
1
0
2. Two sokemen, men of the King
2
1
0
6
0
A sokeman, man of AEsgar the Staller
2
0
3. A sokeman, man of Earl AElfgar
3
0
Three sokemen, men of Earl
4
0
Waltheof
2
0
0
4. Godman, a man of Edith the Fair
1 15
1
0
5. Juhael, the King's hunter
1
0
4
6. Wulfric, the King's man
15
3
7
0
0
12
7
IV. HASLINGFIELD. A vill of 20 hides.
1. The King
7
1
0
8
0
2. Five sokemen, men of the King
3
0
0
A sokeman, man of AEsgar the
4
0
Staller
1
3
0
3. Ealdred, a man of Edith the Fair 1
0 15
1
4
4. Edith the Fair, belonging to Swavesey
2
0
4
5. Sigar, a man of AEsgar the Staller 5
0
0
6
0
6. Two sokemen of the King
1
1
3
2
0
7. Merewin, a man of Edith the Fair
12
0
0
20
0
0
22
0
V. HARLTON. A vill of 5 hides.
H. V. A. C. B.
1. Achil, a King's thegn and under
him five sokemen of whom
four were his men while the
fifth was the man of Ernulf
4
0
0
6
0
2. Godman, a man of AEsgar the Staller 1
0
0
1
0
5
0
0
7
0
VI. BARRINGTON. A vill of 10 hides.
1. EadricPur, a King's thegn
3
0
Fifteen sokemen, men of the King 4
1 15
Four sokemen, men of Earl AElfgar 2
0 15
Three sokemen, men of AEsgar the
11
0
Staller
1
0
0
EadricPur, holding of the Church
of Chatteris
15
2. The Church of Chatteris
2
0
0
4
0
3. Ethsi, holding of Robert Wimarc's son
20
3
4. Achil the Dane, a man of Earl Harold
40
6
5. A sokeman, man of the King
15
2
11
0
0(15*) 17
3
VII. SHEPRETH. A vill of 5 hides.
1. Four sokemen, men of the King
1/2 0 15
2
2
A sokeman, man of Earl AElfgar
2. The Church of Chatteris
1
1 15
1
4
3. Sigar, a man of AEsgar the Staller 1
0
0
1
0
4. Heming, a man of the King
1 15
4
5. The Church of Ely
15
2
5
0
0
5
4
VIII. ORWELL. A vill of 4 hides.
1. Two sokemen, men of Edith the Fair
20
A sokeman, man of Abp Stigand
1 10
A sokeman, man of Robert
1
4
Wimarc's son
1 10
A sokeman, man of the King
20
A sokeman, man of Earl AElfgar
1 10
2. A sokeman, man of Earl Waltheof
3
0
1
0
A sokeman, man of the King
10
3. Sigar, a man of AEsgar the Staller
1 10
4
4. Turbert, a man of Edith the Fair
3 12 1/2 1
4
5. Achil, a man of Earl Harold
1
0
2
6. A sokeman, man of the King
1
0
3
7. The Church of Chatteris
10
1
8. The Church of Chatteris
7 1/2
1/2
4
0
0
5
2 1/2
IX. WRATWORTH. A vill of 4 hides.
1. A sokeman, man of Edith the Fair
3 10
A sokeman, man of Abp Stigand
3
0
A sokeman, man of Earl AElfgar
1 10
3
0
A sokeman, man of Robert Wimarc's son
10
A sokeman, man of the King
20
2. A sokeman, man of Earl Waltheof
2 20
A sokeman, man of Robert Wimarc's son
10
1
0
3. A sokeman, man of Edith the Fair
1 10
4
4. A sokeman, man of the King
1
0
3
5. Two sokemen, men of the King
2
0
4
4
0
0
5
3
X. WHITWELL. A vill of 4 hides.
H. V. A. C. B.
1. A sokeman, man of Earl AElfgar
1 20
A sokeman, man of Robert
Wimarc's son
1 0 1 4
A sokeman, man of the King
2 0
2. A sokeman, man of Abp Stigand
15
A sokeman, man of Edith the Fair
10
4
[A sokeman]
15
3. Six sokemen, men of the King
1 1 0
A sokeman, man of Robert
Wimarc's son
2 0 2 0
A sokeman, man of Earl AElfgar
1 0
4. Godwin, a man of Edith the Fair
2 0 1 0
____________ _____
4 0 0 5 0
XI. WIMPOLE. A vill of 4 hides.
1. Edith the Fair
2 2 15 3 0
2. Earl Gyrth
1 1 15 2 0
____________ ______
4 0 0 5 0
XII. ARRINGTON. A vill of 4 hides.
1. AElfric, a King's thegn
1 1 10
A sokeman, man of Earl Waltheof
1 0 0
A sokeman, man of the Abbot of
Ely
1 0 0 8 0
A sokeman, man of Robert Wimarc's son
20
2. A man of Edith the Fair
2 0
4
_____________________
4 0 0(16*)8 4
Now if by a 'manor' we mean that our historical economists usually mean when they use that term, we must protest that before the Norman Conquest there were very few manors in the Wetherley hundred. In no case was the whole of a village coincident with a manor, with a lord's estate. The king had considerable manors in Comberton and Haslingfield. Sigar had a manor at Haslingfield; the church of Chatteris had a manor at Barrington besides some land at Shepreth; Wimpole was divided between Edith and Earl Gyrth; Harlton between Achil and Godman. But in Barton, Grantchester, Shepreth, Orwell, Wratworth, Whitwell and Arrington we see nothing manorial, unless we hold ourselves free to use that term of a little tenement which to all appearance might easily be cultivated by the labour of one household, at all events with occasional help supplied by a few cottagers. Indeed it is difficult to say what profit some of the great people whose names we have mentioned were deriving from those of their men who dwelt in the Wetherley hundred. We take the Mercian earl for example.(17*) One of the sokemen of Grantchester, four of the sokemen of Barrington, one of the sokemen of Shepreth, one of the sokemen of Orwell, one of the sokemen of Wratworth, two of the sokemen of Whitwell were AElfgar's men. That AElfgar got a little money or a little provender out of them is probable, that they did some carrying service for him is possible and perhaps they aided him at harvest time on some manor of his in another part of the county; but that they were not the tillers of his land seems clear.(18*)
What is more, our analysis of this Wetherley hundred enables us to drive home the remark that very often a sokeman was not the sokeman of his lord or, in other words, that he was not under seignorial justice.(19*) AElfgar had ten sokemen scattered about in six villages. Did he hold a court for them? We think not. Did they go to the court of some distant manor? We think not. The court they attended was the Wetherley hundred-moot. One of the sokemen in Arrington was in a somewhat exceptional position -- exceptional, that is, in this hundred. Not only was he the man of the Abbot of Ely, but his soke belonged to the Abbot; and if he sold his tenement, and this he could do without the Abbot's consent, the soke over his land would 'remain' to the Abbot.(20*) He was not only his lord's man but his lord's justiciable and probably attended some court outside the hundred. But for the more part these men of Wetherley were not the justiciables of their lords. It was a very free hundred when the Normans came there: much too free for the nation's welfare we may think, for these sokemen could go with their land to what lord they pleased. Also be it noted in passing that the churches have little in Wetherley.
In 1086 there had been a change. The sokemen had disappeared. The Norman lords had made demesne land where their English antecessores possessed none. Count Roger had instituted a seignorial court at Orwell. He had borrowed three sokemen 'to hold his pleas' from Picot the sheriff and had refused to give them up again.(21*) Apparently they had sunk to the level of villani. Two centuries afterwards we see the hundred of Wetherley once more. There is villeinage enough in it. The villein at Orwell, for example, holds only 10 acres but works for his lord on 152 days in the year, besides boon-days.(22*) And yet we should go far astray if we imposed upon these Cambridgeshire villages that neat manorial system which we see at its neatest and strongest in the abbatial cartularies. The villages do not become manors. The manors are small. The manors are intermixed in the open fields. There are often freeholders in the village who are not the tenants of any lord who has a manor there. A villein will hold two tenements of two lords. The villein of one lord will be the freeholder of another. The 'manorial system' has been forced upon the villages, but it fits them badly.(23*)
In the thirteenth century the common field of a Cambridgeshire village was often a very maze of proprietary rights, and yet the village was an agrarian whole. Let us take, for example, Duxford as it stood in the reign of Edward I.(24*) We see 39 villein tenements each of which has fourteen acres in the fields. These tenements are divided between five different manors. Four of our typical 'townsmen' hold of Henry de Lacy, who holds of Simon de Furneaux, who holds of the Count of Britanny, who holds of the king. Two hold of Ralph of Duxford, who holds of Basilia wife of Baldwyn of St George, who holds of William Mortimer, who holds of Simon de Furneaux, who holds of the Count of Britanny, who holds of the king. Eight hold of the Templars, who hold of Roger de Colville, who holds of the Earl of Albemarle, who holds of the king. Nine hold of William le Goyz, who holds of Henry of Boxworth, who holds of Richard de Freville, who holds of the king. Sixteen hold of John d'Abernon, who holds of the Earl Marshal, who holds of the king. Three of the greatest 'honours' in England are represented. Three monasteries and two parochial churches have strips in the fields. And yet there are normal tenements cut according to one pattern, tenements of fourteen acres the holders of which, though their other services may differ, pay for the more part an equal rent.(25*) The village seems to say that it must be one, though the lords would make it many. And then we look back to the Confessor's day and we see that a good part of Duxford was held by sokemen.(26*)
Perhaps we shall be guilty of needless repetition; but what is written in Domesday about maneria is admirably designed for the deception of modern readers whose heads are full of 'the manorial system.' Therefore let us look at two Hertfordshire villages. In one of them there is a manerium which Ralph Basset holds of Robert of Ouilly.(27*) It has been rated at 4, but is now rated at 2 hides. There is land for 4 teams. In demesne are 2 teams; and 3 1/2 villani with 2 sokemen of 1 hide and 5 bordarii have 2 teams. There are 1 cottager and 1 serf and a mill of 10 shillings and meadow for 3 teams. It is now worth ?; in King Edward's day it was worth ?. Now here, we say, is a pretty little manor of the common kind. Let us then explore its past history. 'Five sokemen held this manor.' Yes, we say, before the Conquest this manor was held in physically undivided shares by five lords. Their shares were small and they were humble people; but still they had a manor. But let us read further. 'Two of them were the men of Brihtric and held 1 1/2 hides; other two were the men of Osulf the son of Frane and held 1 1/2 hides; and the fifth was the man of Eadmer Atule and held a hide.' We will at once finish the story and see how Robert of Ouilly came by this manor. 'No one of these five sokemen belonged to his antecessor Wigot; every one of them might sell his land. One of them bought (i.e. redeemed) his land for nine ounces of gold from King William, so the men of the hundred say, and afterwards turned for protection to Wigot.' So Robert's title to this manor is none of the best. But are we sure that before the Conquest there was anything that we should call a manor? These five sokemen who have unequal shares, who have three different lords, who hold in all but 4 team-lands, whose land is worth but ?, do not look like a set of co-parceners to whom a 'manor' has descended. When Robert of Ouilly has got his manor there are upon it 2 sokemen, 3 villeins, 5 bordarii, a cottager and a serf. It was not a splendid manor for five lords.
We turn over a few pages. Hardouin of Eschalers has a manor rated at 5 1/2 hides.(28*) It contains land for 8 teams. In with demesne are 2 hides less 20 acres, and 3 teams; 11 villani the priest and 5 bordarii have 5 teams. There are 4 cottagers and 6 serfs. It is worth ?; in the Confessor's day it was worth ?0. Who held this manor in the past? Nine sokemen held it. Rather a large party of joint lords, we say; but still, families will grow. Howbeit, we must finish the sentence: -- 'Of these, one, Sired by name, was the man of Earl Harold and held 1 hide and 3 virgates for a manor; another, Alfred, a man of Earl AElfgar, held 1 1/2 hides for a manor; and the other seven were sokemen of King Edward and held 2 hides and 1 virgate and they supplied the sheriff with 9 pence a year or 2 1/4 averae (carrying services).' No, we have not been reading of the joint holders of a 'manor'; we have been reading of peasant proprietors. Two of them were substantial folk; each of the two held a manerium at which geld was paid; the other seven gelded at one of the king's maneria under the view of his bailiffs. Maneria there have been everywhere; but 'manors' we see in the making. Hardouin has made one under our eyes.
We hear the objection that, be it never so humble, a manor is a manor. But is that truism quite true? If all that we want for the constitution of a manor is a proprietor of some land who has a right to exact from some other man, or two or three other men, the whole or some part of the labour that is necessary for the tillage of his soil, we may indeed see manors everywhere and at all times. Even if we introduce a more characteristically medieval element and demand that the tillers shall be neither menial servants nor labourers hired for money, but men who make their living by cultivating for their own behoof small plots which the proprietor allows them to occupy, still we shall have the utmost difficulty if we would go behind manorialism. But suppose for a moment that we have a village the land of which is being held by nine sokemen, each of whom has a hide or half-hide scattered about in the open fields, and each of whom controls the labour of a couple of serfs, shall we not be misleading the public and ourselves if we speak of nine manors or even of nine 'embryo manors'? At any rate it is clear enough that if these estates of the sokemen are 'embryo manors,' then these embryos were deposited in the common fields. In that case the common fields, the hides and yardlands of the village are not the creatures of manorialism.
We have seen free villages; we have seen a free hundred. We might have found yet freer hundreds had we gone to Suffolk. We have chosen Cambridgeshire because Cambridgeshire cannot be called a Danish county, except in a sense in which, notwithstanding the wasted condition of Yorkshire, about one half of the English nation lived in Danish counties. When men divide up England between the three laws, they place Cambridgeshire under the Danelaw; but to that law they subject about one half of the inhabitants of England. There may have been many men of Scandinavian race in Cambridgeshire; but we find hundreds not ntakes, hides not carucates, while among the names of villages there are few indeed which betray a Scandinavian origin. The Wetherley hundred was not many miles away from the classic fields of Hitchin.(29*)
But in truth we must be careful how we use our Dane. Yorkshire was a Danish county in a sense in which Cambridgeshire was not Danish; it was a land of trithings and ntakes, a land without hides, where many a village testified by its name to a Scandinavian settlement. And yet to all appearance it was in the Confessor's day a land where the manors stood thick.(30*) Then we have that wonderful contrast between Yorkshire and Lincolnshire which Ellis summed up in these figures: --
Sochemanni Villani
Bordarii
Lincolnshire
11,503
7,723
4,024 Yorkshire
447
5,079
1,819
Perhaps this contrast would have been less violent if Yorkshire had not been devastated: but violent it is and must be. It will provoke the remark that the 'faults' (if any faults there be) in a truly economic stratification of mankind are not likely to occur just at the boundaries of the shires, whereas so long as each county has a court from which there is no appeal to any central tribunal, we may expect to find that lines which have their origin in fiscal practice will be sharp lines and will coincide with the metes and bounds of jurisdictional districts.
Nor should it escape remark that the names by which a grand distinction is expressed are in their origin very loose terms and etymologically ill-fitted to the purpose that they are serving. In English the villanus is the tunesman or, as we should say, the villager. And yet to all seeming the sokeman is essentially a villager. What is more, the land where the sokemen and 'free men' lived was a land of true villages, of big villages, of limitless 'open fields,' whereas the hamleted west was servile. Then again sokeman is a very odd term. If it signified that the man to whom it is applied was always the justiciable of the lord to whom he was commended, we could understand it. Even if this man were always the justiciable of a court that had passed into private hands, we could still understand it. But apparently there are plenty of sokemen whose soke 'is' or 'lies' in those hundred courts that have no lord but the king. The best guess that we can make as to the manner in which they have acquired their name is that in an age which is being persuaded that some 'service' must be done by every one who holds land, suit of court appears as the only service that is done by all these men. They may owe other services; but they all owe suit of court. If so we may see their legal successors in those freeholders of the twelfth century who are 'acquitting' their lords and their villages by doing suit at the national courts.(31*) But when a new force comes into play (and the tribute to the pirate was a new and a powerful force) new lines of demarcation must be drawn, new classes of men must be formed and words will be borrowed for the purpose with little care for etymological niceties. One large and widely-spread class may find a name for itself in a district where the ordinary 'townsmen' or villagers are no longer treated as taxpayers responsible to the state, while some practice peculiar to a small part of the country may confer the name of 'sokemen' on those tillers of the soil who are rated to the geld. We are not arguing that this distinction, even when it first emerged, implied nothing that concerned the economic position of the villein and the sokeman. The most dependent peasants would naturally be the people who could not be directly charged with the geld, and the peasants who could not pay the geld would naturally become dependent on those who would pay it for them; still we are not entitled to assume that the fiscal scheme accurately mirrored the economic facts, or that the varying practice of different moots and different collectors may not have stamped as the villeins of one shire those who would have been the sokemen of another.(32*)
Be this as it may, any theory of English history must face the free, the lordless, village and must account for it as for one of the normal phenomena which existed in the year of grace 1066. How common it was we shall never know until the material contained in Domesday has been geographically rearranged by counties, hundreds and vills. But whether common or not, it was normal, just as normal as the village which was completely subject to seignorial power. We have before us villages which, taken as wholes, have no lords. What is more, it seems obvious enough that, unless there has been some great catastrophe in the past, some insurrection of the peasants or the like, the village of Orwell and other villages might be named by the dozen -- has never had a lord. Such lordships as exist in it are plainly not the relics of a dominion which has been split up among divers persons by the action of gifts and inheritances. The sokemen or Orwell have worshipped every rising sun. One has commended himself to the ill-fated Harold, another to the ill-fated Waltheof, a third has chosen the Mercian AElfgar, a fourth has placed himself under the aspiring Archbishop; yet all are free to 'withdraw.' We have here a very free village indeed, for its members enjoy a freedom of which no freeholder of the thirteenth century would even dream, and in a certain sense we have here a free village community. How much communalism is there? Of this most difficult question only a few words will now be said, for our guesses about remote ages we will yet a while reserve.
In the first place, we cannot doubt that the 'open field system' of agriculture prevails as well in the free villages as in those that are under the control of a lord. The sokeman's hide or virgate is no ring-fenced 'close' but is composed of many scattered strips. Again, we can hardly doubt that the practice of 'co-aration' prevailed. The sokeman had seldom beasts enough to make up a team. It is well known that the whole scheme of land-measurements which runs through Domesday is based upon the theory that land is ploughed by teams of eight oxen. It is perhaps possible that smaller teams were sometimes employed; but when we read that a certain man 'always ploughed with three oxen,'(33*) or used 'to plough with two oxen but now ploughs with half a team,'(34*) or 'used to plough with a team but now ploughs with two oxen,'(35*) we are reading, not of small teams, but of the number of oxen that the man in question contributed towards the team of eight that was made up by him and his neighbours. When of a piece of land in Bedfordshire it is said that 'one ox ploughs there,' this means that the land in question supplies but one ox in a team of eight;(36*) and here and not in any monstrous birth do we find the explanation of 'terra est dimidio bovi et ibi est semibos':(37*) -- there is a sixteenth part of a teamland and its tenant along with some other man provides an ox. There may have been light ploughs as well as heavy ploughs, but the heavy plough must have been extremely common, since the term 'plough team' (caruca) seems invariably to mean a team of eight.
Then one notable case meets our eye in which the ownership of land, of arable land, seems to be attributed to a village community. In Goldington, a village in Bedfordshire, Walter now holds a hide; there is land for one team and meadow for half a team. 'The men of the vill held this land in common and could sell it.'(38*) Apparently the men of the vill were AElfwin Sac, a man of the Bishop of Lincoln who held half a team-land and 'could do what he liked with it,' nine sokemen who held three team-lands between them, three other sokemen who held three team-lands, and AElfmaer, a man of Asgil who held three team-lands.(39*) How it came about that these men, besides holding land in severalty, held a tract in common, we are left to guess. Nor can we say whether such a case was usual or unusual. Very often in Little Domesday we meet an entry which tells how x free men held y acres and had z teams; for example, how 15 free men held 40 acres and had 2 teams.(40*) In general we may well suppose that each of them held his strips in severalty, but we dare not say that such a phrase never points to co-ownership.
Then as to such part of the land as is not arable: -- Even in the free village a few enclosed meadows will probably be found; but the pasture ground lies open for 'the cattle of the vill.' At the date of the survey, though several Norman lords have estates in one vill, the common formula used in connexion with each estate is, not 'there is pasture for the cattle of this manor, or of this land,' but 'there is pasture for the cattle of the vill.' Occasionally we read of 'common pasture in a context which shows that the pasture is common not to several manorial lords but to the villeins of one lord.(41*) In the hundred of Coleness in Suffolk there is a pasture which is common to all the men of the hundred.(42*) But, as might be expected, we hear little of the mode in which pasture rights were allotted or regulated. Such rights were probably treated as appurtenances of the arable land: -- 'The canons of Waltham claim as much wood as belongs to one hide.'(43*) If the rights of user are known, no one cares about the bare ownership of pasture land or wood land: -- it is all one whether we say that Earl Edwin is entitled to one third of a certain wood or to every third oak that grows therein.(44*)
Sometimes the ownership of a mill is divided into so many shares that we are tempted to think that this mill has been erected at the cost of the vill. In Suffolk a free man holds a little manerium which is composed of 24 acres of land, 1 1/2 acres of meadow and 'a fourth part of the mill in every third year.'(45*): -- he takes his turn with his neighbours in the enjoyment of the revenue of the mill. We may even be led to suspect that the parish churches have sometimes been treated as belonging to the men of the vill who have subscribed to erect or to endow them. In Suffolk a twelfth part of a church belongs to a petty manerium which contains 30 acres and is cultivated by two bordiers with a single team.(46*) When a parish church gets its virgate by the 'charity of the neighbours,'(47*) when nine free men give it twenty acres for the good of their souls,(48*) we may see in this some trace of communal action.
Incidentally we may notice that the system of virgate holdings seems quite compatible with an absence of seignorial control. In the free village, for example in Orwell, we shall often find that one man has twice, thrice or four times as much as another man: -- the same is the case in the manorialized villages of Middlesex, where a villein may have as much as a hide or as little as a half-virgate; but all the holdings will bear, at least in theory, some simple relation to each other. Thus in Orwell the virgates are divided into thirds and quarters, and in several instances a man has four thirds of a virgate. In Essex and East Anglia, though we may find many irregular and many very small holdings, tenements of 60, 45, 40, 30, 20, 15 acres are far commoner than they would be were it not that a unit of 120 acres will very easily break into such pieces. Domesday takes no notice of family law and its 'vendere potuit' merely excludes the interference of the lord and does not imply that a man is at liberty to disappoint his expectant heirs. Very possibly there has been among the small folk but little giving or selling of land.
Nor is a law which gives the dead man's land to all his sons as co-heirs a sufficient force to destroy the system of hides and virgates when once it is established by some original allotment. In the higher ranks of society we see large groups of thegns holding land in common, holding as the Normans say 'in parage.' We can hardly doubt that they are co-heirs holding an inheritance that has not been physically partitioned.(49*) Sometimes it is said of a single man that he holds in parage.(50*) This gives us a valuable hint. Holding in parage implies that one of the 'pares,' one of the parceners -- as a general rule he would be the eldest of them -- is answerable to king and lord for the services due from the land, while his fellows are bound only to him; they must help him to discharge duties for which he is primarily responsible.(51*) This seems the import of such passages as the following -- 'Five thegns held two bovates; one of them was the senior [the elder, and we may almost say the lord] of the others'(52*) -- 'Eight thegns held this manor; one of them Alli, a man of King Edward, was the senior of the others'(53*) -- 'Godric and his brothers held three carucates; two of them served the third'(54*) -- 'Chetel and Turver were brothers and after the death of their father they divided the land, but so that Chetel in doing the king's service should have help from Turver his brother'(55*) -- 'Siwate, Alnod, Fenchel and Aschil divided the land of their father equally, and they held in such wise that if there were need for attendance in the king's host and Siwate could go, his brothers were to aid him [with money and provisions]; and on the next occasion another brother was to go and Siwate like the rest was to help him; and so on down the list; but Siwate was the king's man.'(56*) No doubt similar arrangements were made by co-heirs of lowlier station.(57*) The integrity of the tenement is maintained though several men have an interest in it. In relation to the lord and the state one of them represents his fellows. When the shares become very small, some of the claimants might be bought out by the others.(58*)
But, to return to the village, we must once more notice that the Canons of St Paul's have let their manor of Willesden to the villeins.(59*) This leads us to speculate as to the incidence and collection of those great provender rents of which we read when royal manors are described. In King Edward's day a royal manor is often charged with the whole or some aliquot share of a 'one night's farm,' that is one day's victual for the king's household. Definite amounts of bread, cheese, malt, meat, beer, honey, wool have to be supplied; thus, for example, Cheltenham must furnish three thousand loaves for the king's dogs and King's Barton must do the like.(60*) Then too Edward the sheriff receives as the profits of the shrievalty of Wiltshire, 130 pigs, 32 bacons, certain quantities of wheat, malt, oats, and honey, 400 chicken, 1600 eggs, 100 cheeses, 100 lambs, 52 fleeces.(61*) Between the king and the men of the manor, no doubt there stands a farmer, either the sheriff or some other person, who is bound to supply the due quantity of provender; but to say that this is so does not solve the problem that is before us. We have still to ask how this due quantity is obtained from the men of the village. It is a quantity which can be expressed by round figures; it is 3000 dog-cakes, or the like. We do not arrive at these pretty results by adding up the rents due from individuals. Again, just in the counties which are in the homes of freedom we hear much of sums of money that are paid to a lord by way of free will offering.(62*) In Norfolk and Suffolk the villagers will give a yearly gersuma, in Lincoln they will pay a yearly tailla, and this will be a neat round sum; very often it is 20 shillings, or 40 or 10.
In this particular we seem to see an increase of something that may be called communalism, as we go backwards. Of course in the cartularies of a later age we may discover round sums of money which, under the names of 'tallage' or 'aid' are imposed upon the vill as a whole; but in general we may accept the rule that tributes to be paid by the vill as a whole, in money or in kind, are not of recent origin. They are more prominent in the oldest than in other documents. As examples, we may notice the 'cornage' of the Boldon -- one vill renders 20 shillings, another 30 shillings for cornage;(63*) also the contributions of sheep, poultry, bread and cloth which the vills of Peterborough Abbey bring to the monks on the festival of their patron saint-one vill supplying ten rams and twenty ells of cloth, another four rams, five ells of cloth, ten chicken and three hundred loaves.(64*) But then we have to notice that a village which has to pay a provender rent or even a tailla or gersuma is not altogether a free village. Its communal action is called out by seignorial pressure.
And as we go backwards the township seems to lose such definiteness as is given to it by the police law of the thirteenth century.(65*) This was to be expected, for such law implies a powerful, centralized state, which sends its justices round the country to amerce the townships and compel these local communities to do their duties. Once and once only does the township appear in the Anglo-Saxon dooms. This is in a law of Edgar. If a man who is on a journey buys cattle, then on his return home he must turn them on to the common pasture, 'with the witness of the township.' If he fails to do so, then after five nights the townsmen are to give information to the elder of the hundred, and in that case they and their cattle-herd will be free of blame, and the men who brought the cattle into the town will forfeit them, half to the lord and half to the hundred. If, on the other hand, the townsmen fail in the duty of giving information, their herd will pay for it with his skin.(66*) The township has very little organization of which the state can make use. It does not seem even to have an 'elder' or head-man, and, from the threat of a flogging, we may gather that its common herdsman will be a slave. Purchases of cattle cannot be made 'with the witness of the township'; the purchaser ought to seek out two or three of those twelve standing witnesses who are appointed for every hundred.(67*) So again, in the twelfth century we see the finder of a stray beast bringing it into the vill; he conducts it to the church-door and tells his story to the priest, the reeve and as many of the best men of the vill as can be got together. Then the reeve sends to the four neighbouring vills, calls in from each the priest, the reeve and three or four men and recounts the tale in their presence. Then on the following day he goes to the head-man of the hundred and puts the whole matter before him and delivers up the beast to him, unless indeed the place where it was found straying was within the domain of some lord who had sake and soke.(68*) Here again, the organization of the township appears to be of a most rudimentary kind. It has no court, unless its lord has sake and soke; it has no power to detain an estray for safe custody. In this very simple case it requires the help of other vills and must transit the cause to the hundred court. And so again, though there may be some reason for thinking that at one time the murder fine -- the fine payable if the slayer of a foreigner was not arrested -- was primarily eligible from the vill in which the corpse was found, the hundred being but subsidiarily liable, still this rule seems to have been soon abandoned and the burden of the fine, a fine far too heavy for a single vill, was cast upon the hundred.(69*) For all this, however, the law knew and made use of the township. The Domesday commissioners required the testimony of the priest, the reeve and six villani of every vill. So soon as the law about suit to the hundred court becomes at all plain, the suit is due rather from vills than from men, and the burden is discharged by the lord of the vill or his steward, or, if neither of them can attend, then by the priest, the reeve and four of the vill's best men.(70*)
How could these requirements be met by a vill which had no lord? It would be a fair remark that the existence of such vills is not contemplated by the Norman rulers. The men who will represent the vill before the Domesday commissioners will in their eyes be villani. This assumption is becoming true enough. We have seen Orwell full of sokemen; in 1086 there is never a sokeman in it; there is no one in it who is above the rank of a villein. Count Roger and Walter Giffard, Count Alan and Geoffrey de Mandeville can make such arrangements about the suit of Orwell, the reeveship of Orwell, as they think fit. Everywhere the Frenchmen are consolidating their manors, creating demesne land where their English antecessores had none, devising scientific frontiers, doing what in them lies to make every vill a manor. Thus is evolved that state of things which comes before us in the thirteenth century. The work of the foreigners was done so completely that we can see but very little of the institutions that they swept away.
On the whole, however, we shall do well not to endow the free township of the Confessor's day with much organization. We may be certain that, at least as a general rule, it had no court; we may doubt very gravely whether it always had any elder, head-man, or reeve. Often it was a small and yet a heterogeneous and a politically distracted body. Some of its members might be attached to the house of Godwin, some had sworn to live and die for the house of Leofric. Just because it is free it has few, if any, communal payments to make. Only if it comes under a single lord will it have to render a provender rent, a tailla or gersuma. As a sphere for communal action there remains only the regulation of the arable lands, the woods and waste. We cannot say for certain that these give scope for much regulation. The arable strips are held in severalty; if by chance some of them are held in common, this in all probability is a case rather of co-ownership than of communal ownership. The pasture rights may well be regarded as appurtenances of the arable strips. The practice of 'co-aration' need not be enforced by law. the man who will not help his neighbours must be content to see his own land unploughed. The course of agriculture is fixed and will not be often or easily altered. The 'realism' which roots every right and duty in a definite patch of soil, the rapid conversion of new arrangements into immemorial customs, the practice of taking turn and turn about, the practice of casting lots, these will do much towards settling questions such as our modern imaginations would solve by means of a village council. No doubt, from time to time a new departure is made; new land is reclaimed from the waste, perhaps the pasture rights are stinted or redistributed, a mill is built or a church is endowed; -- but all this requires no periodic assemblies, no organization that we dare call either permanent or legal. Once in five years or so there may be something to be done, and done it will be by a resolution of the villagers which is or calls itself a unanimous resolution. If the Cambridgeshire townships had been land-owning corporations, each of them would have passed as a single unit into the hands of some Norman baron. But this did not happen. On the contrary, the Norman barons had to content themselves with intermixed strips; the strips of AElfgar's men went to Count Roger, the strips of Edith's men went to Count Alan. We are far from denying the existence of a communal sentiment, of a notion that somehow or another the men of the vill taken as a whole owned the lands of the vill, but this sentiment, this notion, if strong, was vague. There were no institutions in which it could realize itself, there was no form of speech or thought in which it could find an apt expression. It evaded the grasp of law. At the touch of jurisprudence the township became a mere group of individuals, each with his separate rights.(71*)
This book is provided by FunNovel Novel Book | Fan Fiction Novel [Beautiful Free Novel Book]