Villainage in England: Essays in English Mediaeval History

The treatment of the arable gives the clue to all other sides of the subject. The rights of common usage of meadow and pasture carry us back to practices which must have been originally applied to arable also. When one reads of a meadow being cut up into strips and partitioned for a year among the members of the community by regular rotation or by lot, one does not see why only the grass land should be thus treated while there is no re-allotment of the arable plots. As for the waste, it does not even admit of set boundaries, and the only possible means of apportioning its use is to prescribe what and how many heads of cattle each holding may send out upon it. The close affinity between the different parts of the village soil is especially illustrated by the fact, that the open-field arable is treated as common through the greater part of the year. Such facts are more than survivals, more than stray relics of a bygone time. The communal element of English mediaeval husbandry becomes conspicuous in the individualistic elements that grow out of it.

The question has been asked whether we ought not to regard these communal arrangements as derived from the exclusive right of ownership, and the power of coercion vested in the lord of the soil. I think that many features in the constitution of the thirteenth century manor show its gradual growth and comparatively recent origin. The so-called manorial system consists, in truth, in the peculiar connexion between two agrarian bodies, the settlement of villagers cultivating their own fields, and the home-estate of the lord tacked on to this settlement and dependent on the work supplied by it. I take only the agrarian side, of course, and do not mention the political protection which stands more or less as an equivalent for the profits received by the lord from the peasantry. And as for the agrarian arrangement, we ought to keep it quite distinct from forms which are sometimes confused with it through loose terminology. A community paying taxes, farmers leasing land for rent, labourers without independent husbandry of their own, may be all subjected to some lord, but their subjection is not manorial. Two elements are necessary to constitute the manorial arrangement, the peasant village and the home farm worked by its help.

If we turn now to the evidence of the feudal period, we shall see that the labour-service relation, although very marked and prevalent in most cases, is by no means the only one that should be taken into account. In a large number of cases the relation between lord and peasants resolves itself into money payments, and this is only another way of saying that the manorial group disaggregates itself. The peasant holding gets free from the obligation of labouring under the supervision of the bailiff, and the home estate may be either thrown over or managed by the help of hired servants and labourers.

But alongside of these facts, testifying to a progress towards modern times, we find survivals of a more ancient order of things, quite as incompatible with manorial husbandry. Instead of performing work on the demesne, the peasantry are sometimes made to collect and furnish produce for the lord's table and his other wants. They send bread, ale, sheep, chicken, cheese, etc., sometimes to a neighbouring castle and sometimes a good way off. When we hear of the firma unius noctis, paid to the king's household by a borough or a village, we have to imagine a community standing entirely by itself and taxed to a certain tribute, without any superior land estate necessarily engrafted upon it; a home farm may or may not be close by, but its management is not dependent on the customary work of the vill (consuetudines villae), and the connexion between the two is casual. The facts of which I am speaking are certainly of rare occurrence and dying out, but they are very interesting from a historical point of view, they throw light on a condition of things preceding the manorial system, and characterised by a large over-lordship exacting tribute, and not cultivating land by help of the peasantry.

We come precisely to the same conclusion by another way. The feudal landlord is represented in the village by his demesne land, and by the servants acting as his helpers in administration. Now, the demesne land is often found intermixed with the strips of the peasantry. This seems particularly fitted for a time when the peasantry did not collect to work on a separate home farm, but simply devoted one part of the labour on their own ground to the use of the lord. What I mean is, that if a demesne consisted of, say, every fifth acre in the village fields, the teams of four virgaters composing the plough would traverse this additional acre after going over four of their own instead of being called up under the supervision of the bailiff, to do work on an independent estate. The work performed by the peasants when the demesne is still in intermixture with the village land, appears as an intermediate stage between the tribute paid by a practically self-dependent community, and the double husbandry of a manorial estate linked to a village.

Another feature of transition is perceivable in the history of the class of servants or ministers who collect and supervise the dues and services of the peasants. The feudal arrangement is quite as much characterised by the existence of these middlemen as modern life by the agreements and money dealings which have rendered it useless. In the period preceding the manorial age we see fewer officers, and their interference in the life of the community is but occasional. The gathering of tribute, the supervision of a few labour duties in addition, did not require a large staff of ministers. It was in the interest of the lord to dispense as much as possible with their costly help, and to throw what obligations there were to be performed on the community itself. It seems to me that the feudal age has preserved several traces of institutions belonging to that period of transition. The older surveys, especially the Kentish ones, show a very remarkable development of carriage duties which must have been called forth by the necessity of sending produce to the lord's central halls or courts, while the home farms were still few and small. The riding bailiffs appear in ancient documents in a position which is gradually modified as time goes on. They begin by forming a very conspicuous class among the tenants, in fact the foremost rank of the peasantry. These radmen, radulfs, rodknights, riders, are privileged people, and mostly rank with the free tenants, but they are selected from among the villagers, and very closely resemble the hundredors, whose special duties have kept up their status among the general decay. In later times, in the second half of the thirteenth century and in the fourteenth, it would be impossible to distinguish such a class of riding tenants. They exist here and there, but in most cases their place has been taken by direct dependents of the lord. Besides, as the home-farm has developed on every manor, their office has lost some of the importance it had at a time when there was a good deal of business to transact in the way of communicating between the villages and the few central courts to which rents had to be carried. And, lastly, I may remind the reader of the importance attached in some surveys to the supervision of the best tenants over the rest at the boon works. The socmen, or free tenants, or holders of full lands, as the case may be, have to ride out with rods in their hands to inspect the people cutting the corn or making hay. These customs are mostly to be found in manors with a particularly archaic constitution. They occur very often on ancient demesne. And I need hardly say that they point to a still imperfect development of the ministerial class. The village is already set to work for the lord, but it manages this work as much as possible by itself, with hardly any interference from foreign overseers.

One part of the village population is altogether outside the manorial labour intercourse between village and demesne. The freeholders may perform some labour-services, but the home-farm could never depend on them, and when such services are mentioned, they are merely considered as a supplement to the regular duties of the servile holders. At the same time, the free tenants are members of the village community, engrained in it by their participation in all the eventualities of open field life, by their holdings in the arable, by their use of the commons. This shows, again, that the manorial element is superimposed on the communal, and not the foundation of it. I shall not revert to my positive arguments in favour of the existence of ancient freehold by the side of tenements that have become freehold by exemption from servile duties. But I may be allowed to point out in this place, that negatively the appearance of free elements among the peasantry presents a most powerful check to the theory of a servile origin of the community: it throws the burden of proof on those who contend for such an origin as against the theory of a free village feudalized in process of time.

In a sense the partizans of the servile community are in the same awkward position in respect to the manorial court. Its body of suitors may have consisted to a great extent of serfs, but surely it must have contained a powerful free admixture also, because out of serfdom could hardly have arisen all the privileges and rights which make it a constitutional establishment by the side of the lord. The suitors are the judges in litigation, the conveyancing practice proceeds from the principle of communal testimony, and in matters of husbandry, custom and self-government prevail against any capricious change or unprecedented exaction. And it has to be noticed that the will and influence of the lord is much more distinct and overbearing in the documents of the later thirteenth and of the fourteenth century, than in the earlier records; one more hint, that the feudal conception of society took some time to push back older notions, which implied a greater liberty of the folk in regard to their rulers.

Whichever way we may look, one and the same observation is forced upon us: the communal organisation of the peasantry is more ancient and more deeply laid than the manorial order. Even the feudal period that has formed the immediate subject of our study shows everywhere traces of a peasant class living and working in economically self-dependent communities under the loose authority of a lord, whose claims may proceed from political sources and affect the semblance of ownership, but do not give rise to the manorial connexion between estate and village.

APPENDIX

I

See p. 52, n. 2 [Y.B. Pasch. 1 Edw. II, pl. 4. f. 4.]

Trans.

Symon de Paris porta breve de transgression vers H. bailliffe sire Robert Tonny et plusours autres, et se pleint, qe W. et H. certein jour luy pristrent et emprisonerent etc. a tort encountre la pees etc. Pass respond pur toutz, forspris le bailliffe, qe riens nount fait encountre la pees, et pour le bailliff yl avowea le restreinement par la resoun qe lavantdit S. si est villeine lavandit R. qi bailliffe yl est, et fuist trove a N. en soun mes, le quel vint a lui tendist office de Provoist et il la refusa et ne se voilleit justicier etc. Tond. rehercea le avowery, et dit qe a cele avowery ne doit il estre resceve pur ceo qe S. est Fraunc Citizene de Londre, et ad este touz ceux diz anz, et ad este Vicounte le Roy en mesme la Citee, et rend accounts al Eschequer, et ceo voloms averrer par Record, et uncore huy ceo jour est Alderman et de la Ville de Londre, et demande jugement, sils puissent villenage en sa persone allegger. Herle. A ceo qil dient qil est citezen de Londre nous navoms qe faire, mes nous vous dioms, qil est villein R. de Eve et de Treve, et les Auncestres Ael et Besayel et toux ces Auncestres ses terres tennantz deinz le manoire de N. et ces Auncestres seisitz des villeins services des Auncestres S. come affaire Rechat de Char et de Sank et de fille marier, et de euz tailler haut et bas, etc., et uncore est seisi de ces freres de mesme le piere et de mesme la mere et demande Jugement si sour luy, come sour soun villein en soun mese trove, ne puisse avowere faire. Tond. Fraunc homme et de fraunc estat et eux nient seisi de luy, come de lour villein prest etc. Ber. Jeo ai oi dire qe un homme fuist prist en la bordel, et fuist prist et pendu, et sil eust demorre a lostiel, il neust en nul mal etc. auxient de ceste parte, sil eust este fraunc Citezen pur qe neust il demorre en la Citee? Ad alium diem; Tond. se tient qil ne fuist seisi de lui come de soun villein ne de ses villeins services etc. Pass. la ou il dit qe nous ne sumes pas seisis de lui come de nostre villein, il nasquit en nostre villeinage, ou commence nostre seisine, et nous lui trova mese en soun mes, et la nostre seisine continue, Jugement. Ber. Vous pledietz sour la seisine, et il pleident sour le droit issint naverrez james bon issue de plee. Herle. Seisi en la fourme qe nous avoms dit. Ber. La Court ne restreinera tiel travers sanz ceo qe vous dietz, que vous estez seisitz de lui come de vostre villein et de ses villeinz services, et sic fecit. Et alii e contra.

II

See p. 54, n. 1 [Y.B. Trin. 29 Edw. III, f. 41. I do not give a translation of this document because it has been explained with some detail in my text.]

Sur l'estatut de labourer.

Le servant suit par attorney, et le Master in propre persone. Que dit qe le servant fuit soun villein regardant al Manoire de C. et dit qil avoit mestre de ses services et de luy, pur qe nous luy prisoms come nostre viliein, come list a nous. Jugement si etc. tort in nostre party par tiel reteignement puit assigner. Et nota, qil fist protestacion, qil ne conust pas qil fuit in le service le plaintiffe etc. Et nota, qe le servant dit auxi, qil fuit le villein le Master qi plede, et dit qil fuit distreint, et auxi les amis pur luy tanqe qil convensist par cohercion venir a ses Seigneours. Burt. Le servant est par attorney, qe ne puit par soun ple faire sans Master villein. Purqe ceo ple ne gist in soun bouche. Et non allocatur par Wilb. qi dit qe le ple nest pas al breve: car mesqe il fuit icy in propre persone, et voillet conustre qil fuit villein ce nabat pas vostre breve (le quel qil fuit frank ou villein) si vous poies maintenir qil fuit in vostre service, si ce ne fuit par autiel mattier (come il ad plede) ou autre semblable. Et puis le servant weyva, et dit qil ne fist pas covenant etc. Et alii e contra. Et nota, qe l'opinion fuit, qe si villein fuit chace et distreint de venir a son Seignour propre, qe ce luy excusera del' penance del l'estatut. Sed Burt. negavit, eo qe ce vient de sa folie qil voilleit faire covenant dautre servir, qant il fuit appris qil fuit autry villein. Et ideo quere. Qant al' plea le Master Burt. challange ceo qil navoit pas alleger qil fuit seisi de luy come de soun villein. Et non allocator par Wilb. Qui dit, sil soit soun villein, soun plee est assez fort: car seisi et nient seisi ne fera pas issue.Op. Curiae. Et sic nota. Puis Burt. dit que l'on allege est quil est soun villein regardant a soun manoire de C. nous dioms qe mesme le manoire fuit in le seisin un A. que infeffa le defendant de mesme le manoire; et dioms qe tout le temps que il fuit allant et walkant a large a sa frank volunte come frankhome, sans ce qil fuit unque seisi de luy in son temps, et cety qe ad l'estat A. ne fuit unques seisi de luy, tanques ore qil de soun tort demesne luy pris hors de nostre service. Purque nous nentendons pas que par tiel cause il nous puit ouster de nostre accord. Finch. Et nous Jugement, depuis qil ne dedit pas qil nest nostre villein de nostre manoire de C. et le quel nous fuit seisis de luy devant, ou non, ou nostre feffor seisi, etc. ou ce ne puit my estre a purpose: car il alast alarge, purtant ne fuit il enfranchy. Purque etc. Th. Si vostre feffor ne fuit unques seisi de luy, coment qil vous dona le manoire, jeo di que ce de que il navoit pas le possession ne puit pas vestir in vous. Purque etc. Jer. Villeins regardants al' manoires sont de droit al' Seignour de prendre les a sa volunte, et sil face don le manoire a un autre, a quel heur que l'autre les happa, il est asses bon. Th. Sir, uncre mesque il soit issint entre luy et le grantor ou le villein, nous qe sums estrange ne serrons pas ly purtant: car si home qi soit estrange veigne in pais, et demurges par xx ou xxx ans, et nul home met debat sur luy, ne luy claime come seruant, il list a moy de prendre soun service, et de luy recevoir in mon service pur le terme solonque nostre covenaunt: et il nest pas reason qe jeo soy perdant, depuis qe in moy default ne puit etre ajuge, causa ut supra. Gr. Per mesme le reason qe vous luy purrets retenir tanque al' fine de terme, si poit un autre: et sic de singulis, et sic in infinitum: issint le Seignour ouste de soun villein a toujours, et ce ne seroit pas reason. Puis Th. n'osa pas demurrer; mes dit qil ne fuit pas soun villein de soun manoire de C. Prest etc. Fiff. Ceo n'est pas respons:Op. Curiae. car coment qil nest pas soun villein del' manoire, etc. sil fuit soun villein in gros, asses suffist. Et non allocatur pur ce quel avoit traverse soun respons in le manere come ce fuit livere, etc.

Common Pleas Roll (Record Office)[Trin. 29 E. III, r. 203, v. Oxon.]

Thomas Barentyn et Radulfus Crips Shephird attachiati fuerunt ad respondendum tam domino Regi quam Priori hospitalis Sancti Iohannis Ierusalem in Anglia quare, cum per ipsum dominum Regem et consilium suum pro communi utilitate regni Regis Anglie ordinatum sit, quod si aliquis seruiens in seruicio alicuius retentus ante finem termini concordati a dicto seruicio sine causa racionabili vel licencia recesserit, penam imprisonamenti subeat et nullus sub eadem pena talem in seruicio suo recipere vel retinere presumat, et predictus Thomas predictum Radulfum nuper seruientem predicti Prioris in seruicio suo apud Werpesgrave retentum qui ab eodem seruicio ante finem termini inter eos concordati sine causa racionabili et licencia predicti Prioris recessit, in seruicium predicti Thome quamquam memoratus Thomas de prefato Radulfo eidem Priori restituendo requisitus fuerit admisit et retinuit in Regis contemptum et predicti Prioris grave dampnum ac contra ordinacionem predictam. Et unde predictus Prior per Ricardum de Fifhide attornatum suum queritur quod cum per ipsum Regem et consilium suum etc. ordinatum sit quod si aliquis serviens in servicium alicuius retentus ante finem etc. a dicto seruicio sine causa etc. recesserit penam imprisonamenti subeat et nullus sub eadem pena talem in seruicio suo recipere vel retinere presumat, predictus Thomas predictum Radulfum nuper seruientem predicti Prioris in seruicio suo apud Werpesgrove retentum scilicet die Lune proxima post festum Sancti Laurentii anno regni domini Regis nunc Anglie vicesimo octavo ad deseruiendum ei in officio pastoris etc. scilicet die Lune in septimana Pentecostes a festo Sancti Michaelis Archangeli tunc proximo sequenti per unum annum proximum sequentem qui ab eodem seruicio ante finem termini … recessit, in seruicium predicti Thome quamquam idem Thomas de prefato Radulfo eidem Priori restituendo requisitus fuerit admisit et retinuit in Regis contemptum et predicti Prioris grave dampnum ac contra ordinacionem etc. et predictus Radulfus a seruicio predicti Prioris ante finem sine causa etc. videlicet predicto die Lune in septimana Pentecostes recessit in Regis contemptum ad predicti Prioris grave dampnum ac contra ordinacionem etc. unde dicit quod deteriorates est et dampnum habet ad valenciam viginti librorum. Et inde producit sectam.

Et predicti Thomas et Radulfus per Stephanum Mebourum attornatum suum veniunt. Et defendunt vim et iniuriam quando etc. et quicquid etc. Et protestantur quod ipsi non cognoscunt quod predictus Radulfus fuit seruiens predicti Prioris nec retentus cum eodem Priore prout Prior superius versus eos narravit et predictus Thomas dicit quod predictus Radulfus est villanus suus ut de manerio suo de Chalgrave per quod ipse seisivit eundem Radulfum tanquam villanum suum prout ei bene licuit. Et hoc paratus est verificare unde petit iudicium si predictus Prior injuriam in persona sua assignare possit. Et predictus Radulfus dicit quod ipse est villanus predicti Thome ut de manerio predicto et quia idem Radulfus extra dominium predicti Thome morabatur parentes ipsius Radulfi districti fuerunt ad venire faciendum predictum Radulfum ad predictum Thomam dominum suum et ad eorum sectam et excitacionem idem Radulfus venit ad predictum Thomam absque hoc quod ipse retentus fuit cum predicto Priore ad deseruiendum ei per tempus predictum prout idem Prior superius versus eum narravit. Et de hoc ponit se super patriam. Et predictus Prior similiter. Et idem Prior quo ad placitum predicti Thome dicit quod predictus Radulfus non est villanus ipsius Thome ut de manerio suo predicto prout idem Thomas superius allegat. Et hoc petit quod inquiratur per patriam. Et predictus Thomas similiter. Preceptum etc.

III

See p. 66, n. 2., and p. 78, n. 2

The so-called Mirror of Justice is still in many respects an unsolved riddle, and a very interesting one, as it seems to me. The French edition of 1642 from which quotations are so frequently made presents a text perverted to such an extent, that the gentleman from Gray's Inn to whom we owe the English translation of 1648 took it upon himself to deal with his original very freely, and in fact composed a version of his own which turned out even less trustworthy than the French. Ancient MSS. of the work are very scarce indeed; the fourteenth century MS. at Corpus College, Cambridge, is the only one known to me; although there are also some transcripts of the seventeenth century. This means that the work had no circulation in its time. It is very unlike Bracton, or Britton in this respect, and indeed in every other. Instead of giving a more or less learned or practical exposition of the principles of Common Law it appears as a commentary written by a partisan, acrimonious in form, almost revolutionary in character, full of stray bits of information, but fanciful in its way of selecting and displaying this information. 'Wahrheit und Dichtung' would have been a proper title for this production, and no wonder that it has excited suspicion. It has commanded the attention of the present generation of scholars notwithstanding the odd way in which the author, Andrew Horne, or whoever he may be, cites as authority fictitious decisions given by King Alfred and by a number of legal worthies of Saxon times who never gave judgment save in his own fruitful imagination. This may be accounted for by peculiar medieval notions as to the manner in which legal discussion may be most efficiently conducted, but altogether the Mirror, as it stands, appears quite unique, quite unlike any other legal book of the feudal period. It must be examined carefully by itself before the information supplied by it can be produced as evidence on any point of English medieval history. Such an examination should lead to interesting results, but I must reserve it for another occasion. What I have said now may be taken simply as a reason for the omission in my text of those passages of the Mirror which bear on the question of villainage. I may be allowed to discuss these passages in the present Appendix without anticipating a general judgment on the character of the book and on its value.

The author of the Mirror shows in many places, that he is hostile not only to monarchical pretensions, but also to the encroachments of the aristocracy. He is a champion of the lower orders and gladly endorses every rule set up by the Courts 'in favour of liberty.' In this light he considers the action 'de nativitate' as conferring an advantage upon the defendant, the person claimed as a villain, but considered as free until the contrary has been proved854. Another boon consists in the fact, that the trial must be reserved for the decision of the Royal Courts and cannot be entertained in the County855. So far the Mirror falls in with the usual exposition of our Authorities—it takes notice of two facts which are generally recognised as important features in trying a question of status. But the Mirror does not stop there, but further formulates an assertion which cannot be considered as generally accepted in practice, though it may have emerged now and then in pleadings and even in decisions.