Durham E-Theses
Manorial courts in England before 1250.
Stocks, Katharine Jane
How to cite: Stocks, Katharine Jane (1998) Manorial courts in England before 1250., Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/1046/
Use policy
The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:
• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source
• a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses
• the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.
Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details.
Academic Support O ce, Durham University, University O ce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107 http://etheses.dur.ac.uk Manorial courts in England before 1250
Katharine Jane Stocks
The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be published without the written consent of the author and information derived from it should be acknowledged.
' '3 `ý ý . Wý
Submittedfor the degreeof Doctor of Philosophy
University of Durham
Departmentof History 1998
13 JAN 1999 Abstract
Katharine Jane Stocks, `Manorial courts in England before 1250' (Ph.D. thesis, University of Durham, 1998)
The thesis looks at the developmentof the early manorial court, outlining the researchinto thirteenth centurycourts and the sourcesavailable for study beforethe middle of the century.The date is significant becausethe earliest surviving court rolls for the courts of the lord of the manor date from 1246.Extensive use is madeof evidencefrom accountrolls, especiallythe Pipe Rolls of the bishopric of Winchester'sestate, from the early thirteenth century.Four chapterscover the main questionsdiscussed. Chapter Il dealswith when and where the courts were held and offers possibleexplanations for the seemingabsence of courts in certain manors. ChapterIII discusseswhat types of businesswere dealt with in the early thirteenth century courts and, using statistical analysis,how much businesswas conducted. ChapterIV coversthe questionof who attendedcourt, both in terms of statusand gender,and chapterV dealswith the financial aspectsof the court. Theseinclude studiesof who madepayments to court and how much they paid for different reasons. Table of Contents
Page
Abbreviations 6
I Background and sources 11 II Where and when were the courts held? 66 III What did the courts do? 88 IV Who attendedthe court? 131 V What paymentswere madeto the court? 151 VI Conclusion 171
Appendix A- Downton (Wilts. ) entries for 1247-8, secondsub-section 177 Appendix B- Occurrenceof perquisitesections in the bishopric of Winchester'saccount rolls 178 Appendix C- Resultsof linear regressionanalysis 179 Appendix D- Perquisitepayments per year 187 Appendix E- The Least SquaresMethod 188
Appendix F- To test whetherthe gradientof the line of regressionis significant 193 Appendix G- To test whetherthere is a significant increase in the volume of business,1237-1244 195
Bibliography 197 Declaration
This thesis is submittedfor the award of Doctor of Philosophy.No part of this thesishas been submittedpreviously for any other degreein this or in any other university.
Statement of copght
The copyright of this thesisrests with the author.No quotation from it should be publishedwithout her prior written consentand information derived from it should be acknowledged. Acknowledgments
I would like to thank, first and foremost, Prof. P.D. A. Harvey. Without his constant support, encouragement and kindness this thesis would not have been completed, nor even attempted.
I would also like to thank Mrs. Cathy Thompson of the IT centre at the University of Durham for her invaluablehelp in the designingand creationof the databaseand Dr. R.P. Bennell of the Royal Military College of Science,Shrivenham, for his advice and guidancewith the statisticalanalysis: without their assistance,the detailedanalysis of the entriesrecorded in the WinchesterPipe Rolls would not have beenpossible.
My thanks also goesto the staff of the University of Durham library and of the libraries and record offices who helpedme with my studies,particularly the staff of the HampshireRecord Office. ABBREVIATIONS
Ault, Private Jurisdiction Ault, W. O., Private Jurisdiction in England (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1923)
Bracton Bracton on the Laws and Customs of England, trans. S.E. Thorne (Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 4 vols, 1968-1977)
Battle Abbey Chronicle The Chronicle of Battle Abbey, ed. and trans. E. Searle (London, Oxford University Press, 1980)
Beckerman, `Innovation' Beckerman, J.S., `Procedural Innovation and Institutional Change in Medieval English Manorial Courts', Law and History Review, vol. x, 1992, pp. 197-252
Bennett, English Manor Bennett, H. S., Life on the English Manor (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1937)
Beveridge, `Dating' Beveridge, W. H., `The Winchester Rolls and Their Dating', Economic History Review, vol. ii, 1929, pp. 93-113
BL British Library
Carte Nativorum Carte Nativorum: A Peterborough Abbey Cartulary of the Fourteenth Century, eds C.N. L. Brooke and M. M. Postan (Northamptonshire Record Society, vol. xx, 1960)
Cartularium Monasterii Glouc. Historia et Cartularium Monasterii Sancti Petri Gloucestriae, ed. W. H. Hart (Rolls Series, 3 vols, 1863-7)
Cartularium Monasterii Rames. Cartularium Monasterii de Rameseia,eds W.H. Hart and P.A. Lyons (Rolls Series,3 vols, 1884-93)
CloseRolls, 1231-4 CloseRolls of the Reign of Henry Npreserved in the Public Record Office, 1227-12 72 (London, H. M. S.O., 14 vols, 1908-38)
Court Baron The Court Baron, eds F. W. Maitland and W. M. Paley (Selden Society, vol. iv, 1891) Court Rolls, Adam de Stratton Court Rolls of the Wiltshire Manors of Adam de Stratton, ed. R. B. Pugh (Wiltshire Records Society, vol. xxiv, 1970)
Curia Regis Rolls Curia Regis Rolls of the Reign of Henry III (London, H. M. S.O., 17 vols, 1922-91)
Domesday Book Domesday Book: Seu Liber Censualis Wilhelmi Primi Regis Angliae, eds A. Farley and H. Ellis (London, 4 vols, 1783-1816)
Drew, 'Portland' Drew, J.S., 'Early Account Rolls of Portland,Wyke and Elwell', Dorset Natural History and SocietyProceedings, 1xvii, 1946, .4rchaeolo, gy vol. pp.34-54
Drew, `Wyke' Drew, J.S., `Early Account Rolls of Portland, Wyke and Elwell', Dorset Natural History and Archaeology Society Proceedings, vol. lxvi, 1945, pp. 31-45
Du Cange, Glossarium Du Cange, C. du F., ed., Glossarium ad Scriptores Mediae et Infinice Latinitatis (Niort, L. Favre, 10 vols, 1883-7)
Early Yorkshire Charters Early YorkshireCharters, eds W. Farrer and C.T. Clay (Edinburgh,Ballantyne, Hanson and Co., 12 vols, 1914-65)
Elton Manorial Records Elton Manorial Records,12 79-1351, ed. and transcribedS. C. Ratcliffe, translatedD. M. Gregory (The RoxburgheClub, 1946)
Faith, English Peasantry Faith, R., TheEnglish Peasantryand the Growth of Lordship (London, LeicesterUniversity Press, 1997)
Fryde,British Chronology Fryde, E.B., et al., eds,Handbook of British Chronology (3rd edn, Royal Historical Society, 1986)
Harvey, Cuxham Harvey, P.D. A., A Medieval Oxfordshire Village: Cuxham 1240-1400 (London, Oxford University Press, 1965) Harvey, `Treatises' Harvey, P.D. A., `Agricultural Treatises and Manorial Accounting in Medieval England' Agricultural History Review, vol. xx, 1972, pp. 170- 82
Harvey, 'Inflation' Harvey, P.D. A., 'The English Inflation of 1180- 1220', Past and Present,no. 1xi, 1973,pp. 3-30
Harvey; Manorial Records Harvey, P.D. A., Manorial Records(Archives and the User, no.5; London, British Records Association, 1984)
Hatcher, 'Serfdom' Hatcher,J., 'English Serfdomand Villeinage: Towardsa Reassessment',Past and Present,no. xc, 1981, pp.3-3 9
Hilton, 'Freedom' Hilton, R.H., 'Freedomand Villeinage in England', Past and Present,no. xxxi, 1965,pp. 3-19
Homans,English Villagers Homans,G. C., English Villagers of the Thirteenth Century (Cambridge,Massachusetts, Harvard University Press,1942)
HRO HampshireRecord Office
Jocelin ofBrakelond The Chronicle ofJocelin ofBrakelond concerning the Acts ofSamsonAbbot ofthe MonasteryofSt. Edmund,ed. and trans. H.E. Butler (London, ThomasNelson and Sons, 1949)
Kosminsky, Studies Kosminsky, E.A., Studiesin the Agrarian History ofEngland in the ThirteenthCentury (Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1956)
LegesHenrici Primi LegesHenrici Prim!, ed. and trans. L. J. Downer (London, Oxford University Press,1972)
Levett, Manorial History Levett, A. E., Studiesin Manorial History (London, Oxford University Press,193 8)
Maitland, DomesdayBook Maitland, F.W., DomesdayBook and Beyond (Cambridge,Cambridge University Press,1897)
May, 'Franchise' May, AN, 'The Franchisein Thirteenth Century England,with specialreference to the Estatesof the Bishopric of Winchester' (unpublishedPh. D. thesis, University of Cambridge,1960) May, 'Impoverishment' May, A. N., 'An Index of ThirteenthCentury PeasantImpoverishment? Manor Court Fines', EconomicHistory Review,2nd ser.,vol. xxvi, 1973, pp.389-402
Oschinsky,Walter ofHenley Oschinsky,D., Walter ofHenley and other Treatiseson EstateManagement andAccounting (London, Oxford University Press,1971)
Pollock and Maitland, History Pollock, F., and F.W. Maitland, A History of English Law (2nd edn, Cambridge,Cambridge University Press,2 vols, 1898)
Post, 'Arnercernents' Post, J.B., 'Manorial Arnercernentsand Peasant Poverty', EconomicHistory Review,2nd ser.,vol. xxviii, 1975,pp. 3 04-11
PRO Public RecordOffice
Razi and Smith, 'Historiography' Razi, Z., and R. Smith, 'The Historiographyof Manorial Court Rolls', in Medieval Societyand the Manor Court, edsZ. Razi and R. Smith (London, Oxford University Press,1996)
Razi and Smith, 'Origins' Razi, Z., and R. Smith, 'The Origins of the English Manorial Court Rolls as a Written Record:A Puzzle', in Medieval Societyand the Manor Court, edsZ. Razi and R. Smith (London, Oxford University Press,1996)
SelectPleas SelectPleas in Manorial and other Seignorial Courts, ed. F.W. Maitland (SeldenSociety, vol. ii, 1889)
Statutesof the Realm The Statutesofthe Realm (London, 10 vols, 1810- 28)
Stenton,Anglo-Saxon England Stenton,F. M., Anglo-SaxonEngland (3rd cdn, London, Oxford University Press,197 1)
Swiftý 'Administration' Swift, E., 'The Machinery of Manorial Administration with specialreference to the Lands of the Bishopric of Winchester,1208-1454' (unpublishedM. A. thesis,University of London, 1929) Titow, 'Land and population' Titow, J.Z., 'Land and Populationon the Bishopric of Winchester'sEstates, 1209-1350' (unpublished Ph.D. thesis,University of Cambridge,1962)
Titow, 'Population' Titow, J.Z., 'Some Evidenceof the Thirteenth CenturyPopulation Increase', Economic History Review,2nd ser.,vol. xiv, 1961,pp. 218-24
Titow, Rural Society Titow, J.Z., English Rural Society,1200-1350 (London, George,Allen and Unwin, 1969)
Van Caenegem,Royal Writs Van Caenegem,R. C., Royal Writs in Englandftom the Conquestto Glanville. Studiesin the Early History ofthe CommonLaw (SeldenSociety, vol. Ixxvii, 1958-59)
YCH The Victoria History of the Countiesof England (in progress,1900- )
Vincent, 'Winch. Pipe Rolls' Vincent, N., 'The Origins of the WinchesterPipe Rolls', Archives,vol. xxi, 1994,pp. 25-42
WinchesterPipe Roll, 1208-9 ThePipe Roll ofthe Bishopric of Winchester1208- 9, ed. H. Hall (London, London Schoolof Economicsand Political Science,1903)
WinchesterPipe Roll, 1210-11 ThePipe Roll ofthe Bishopric of Winchester1210- 1211, ed. N. R. Holt (Manchester,Manchester University Press,1964)
10 I Background and sources
The aim of this thesisis to study the developmentof the early manorial court before 1250.The simple but fundamentalquestions of 'who, what, when, where and why' will be addressedin later chapters,but the main purposeof chapterI is to detail what we currently know aboutthe early developmentof the manorial court and to introducethe sourcesused in subsequentchapters. It will becomeapparent that relatively few studieshave beenconducted on the early developmentof the manorial court and that most of the work has focusedon the late thirteenth centurybecause this is the earliesttime from which we haverolls of court. Evidencefrom before 1250,the main bulk of which is from the first half of the thirteenthcentury, takes various forms and its sourcesare describedin sectionthree.
The origins of the manor and its court
Before one can embarkon a history of the manorial court, one must look first at the history of the manor itself. Many historiansargued that the form of estatestructure which becameknown as the manor cameto prominencearound the time of the Norman Conquest.P. Vinogradoff, for example,placed the formation of the manor firmly after the Norman Conquest,whereas F. W. Maitland and F.M. Stentonallowed for some Norman influenced developmentprior to 1066.1It was thought that, for much of the Anglo-Saxonperiod, societywas basedon the free ceorl who owned his hide of land and who had no lord but the king. Thesemen formed free, lordlesscommunities, with the smallestcommunity unit being known as the mark. J.M. Kemble describedthe mark as a voluntary associationof free men who were basically self-sufficient: eachmark organisedits own systemof cultivation and were, in effect, a union which could deal with the administrationofjustice and the securityof their own community.2
' P. Vinogradoff, The Growth ofthe Manor (3rd edn, London, GeorgeAllen and Unwin, 1920),esp. p.365. Maitland, DomesdayBook, esp.pp. 140-163and pp.374-97. Stenton,Anglo-Saxon England, esp. rp. 470-502. J.M. Kernble, TheSaxons in England (London, Longman,Brown, Greenand Longrnans,2 vols, 1849), i, pp.35-71. ii 3 F. Seebohm,writing in 1883,was one of the first to challengeKemble's theory. The 'classical' manor, as describedby J.Z. Titow, consistedof four elements:the demesne;land in the handsof tenants;dependent peasantry; the owner's rights of 4 lordship over the manor's inhabitants. Seebohmsuggested that land had beendivided into land held in demesneand land held in villeinage long before the Norman Conquest and that there was evidenceto suggestthat 'hams' and 'tuns' of the sixth centurymay also have been,in effect, manors.His argumentwas supportedby evidencefrom the tenth century,the RectitudinesSingularum Personarum and two documentsdated 900 and 956 A. D., from the seventhcentury, the Laws of Ine, and from the sixth century,the laws of Ethelbert.5 His views were not popular, however,until T.H. Aston and H.P. R. Finberg challengedthe then acceptedview of Anglo-Saxonsociety in the late 1950sand early 1960s.6
T. H. Aston, writing in 1957, argued that Anglo-Saxon society was not a free, land equal, peasant society, but a hierarchical society where the king granted actual land. which in turn gave the recipient landlord rights over the peasants on the He reinforced Seebohm's point that, although there was no reference to a manor, a distinction was made between demesne land and peasant land as early as the Laws of
Ine, 688-726.7 The distinction rested on the interpretation of 'gesett land', the phrase used in the Laws of Ine. Some historians, such as F. Liebermann, had interpreted the term as 'sown land' or 'cultivated land' whereas Seebohm and Aston viewed the term to mean 'land settledby tenants'.8 If the land was 'settled by tenants', this would imply ownershipof the land by a lord who rentedpart of his land to othersthereby fulfilling at
3 F. Seebohm,The English Village Community(London, Longmans,Green and Co., 1883),pp. 126-80. 4 Titow, Rural Society,p. 18. Titow did note that there were exceptionsto this 'classical' interpretation. E.A. Kosminsky detailed six variations on the classicalmanor found in the HundredRolls (1279), but noted that over half of the manorswere of the 'classical' type and that probably not lessthan 80 per cent of the manorsrecorded either consistedof the demesne,villein and freehold lands(type a) or demesneand freehold lands only (type b), where figures could be ascertained.Kosminsky, Studies, pp. 84-6. 5 F. Seebohm,The English Village Community(London, Longmans,Green and Co., 1890),pp. 126-80and p.457. 6 T. H. Aston, 'The Origins of the Manor in England', Transactionsofthe Royal Historical Society(5th ser., vol. viii, 1958),pp. 59-83. H. P.R. Finberg,Lucerna: StudiesofSome Prohlems in the Early History ofEngland (London, Macmillan and Co. Ltd, 1964),pp. 13143. 7 T. H. Aston, 'The Origins of the Manor in England', Transactionsofthe Royal Historical Society(5th ser., vol. viii, 1958),pp. 59-83. 8 Die Gesetzeder, 4ngelsachsen,ed. F. Liebermann(Halle, Max Niemeyer, 3 vols, 1898-1916),i, pp.88- 123.
12 leasttwo of Titow's four generalcharacteristics: demesne land and land in the handsof tenants.The land, accordingto Aston, was usually colonisedto a certainextent and the grant of land also gavelandlord rights, thus fulfilling a further elementof Titow's 6classical'manor.
H.P. R. Finberg re-examinedthe two documentsused by Seebohmand severely criticised F.W. Maitland's dismissalof their authenticity.Finberg arguedthat, as Seebohmhad suggested,the chartersprovided substantialevidence to illustrate the existenceof a manorial arrangementduring the tenth century.9 The form of estate structurewhich later becameknown as the manor was not, therefore,an eleventh century creationbut seemsto have beenin use in the tenth century,with its origins being placed at least as early as the late seventhcentury.
A significant contribution to the debateon the growth of a hierarchicalsociety in the Anglo-Saxonperiod hasrecently been made by R. Faith. Drawing togetherwork conductedon the late Anglo-Saxondevelopment of field systemsand the emergenceof the nucleatedsettlement, the village, Faith has challengedthe traditional interpretation of the composition of the manor. The phrasein dominio in the thirteenth centurymeans landsworked directly by the lord, his home farin, not let to tenants.The core of Faith's argumentwas that land held in dominio in earlier periods,the lord's inland, should be viewed not simply as the discretehome farm areabut as including the lands of the tenantswho worked it. It was only the new emphasison seignorialspace under the Anglo-Normansand the creationof the separatehome farm which led to a narrowing in the use of the term.10 The full implications of this argumenthave yet to be appreciated, but this will obviously affect the view of the early developmentof the manorial court.
Few historianshave discussedthe early manorial court in any greatlength. C.M. Andrews, writing in 1892,did stressthe importanceof manorialjurisdiction in the developmentof the manor and suggestedthat the court could be tracedback to the
9 H.P. R. Finberg,Lucerna: StudiesofSome Problems in the Early History ofEngland (London, Macmillan and Co. Ltd, 1964),pp. 13143. 10Faith, English Peasantty,esp. pp. 201-2 and 221-3.
13 beginning,at least,of the tenth century! 1He notedthat he was reluctantto discussthe matter further, however,as, rather poetically, the 'question of pre-Normanmanorial jurisdiction is involved in obscurity and as yet the clouds have not sufficiently cleared for us to introduceany satisfactorydiscussion here'. 12 F. W. Maitland, writing in 1897, noted that the origins and antiquity of seignorialjustice had beentreated with some hesitancy,the texts leaving much room for differencesof opinion.13 The texts are limited in number and often ambiguous,but the alterationof the interpretationof Anglo- Saxonsociety necessitates a re-examinationof the early developmentof seignorial justice.
The term most commonly usedto describea manorial court after 1066up to aboutthe late twelfth centurywas halimotum,the Latinized English form of the Anglo- Saxonhallmoot. The first documenteduse of the word halimotum appearsin the Leges Henrici Primi, which was a compilation of older laws and other material written in 1118 14The from the Anglo-Saxon the about . adaptationof the word and use of what were mainly Anglo-Saxon laws suggestthat a type of local private court was most likely to have beenin place well before 1066.F. M. Stentonnoted that the use of the Old English heall gemot did suggestthat suchcourts were in use before the Conquest,but his interpretationof Anglo-Saxon societyled him to suggestthat such courts were in use under Edward the Confessorand no commentwas madeon the possibleorigins of the 15 court. J.M. Kemble wrote aboutthe court of the markmen,mearcm6t, by which each mark dealt with the affairs of the community in isolation from all other marks: each mark had its own CUStOMS.16Interestingly, he commentedthat thesedifferent customs seemedanomalous in a different order of social existence,by which he meantthe relationshipbetween lord and tenant.In the attachedfootnote he specifically mentioned manorsand the territorial jurisdiction of a lord which continuedto use the individual
11 C.M. Andrews, The Old English Manor (Baltimore, John Hopkins Press,1892), pp. 66 and 79-81. For a critique of Kemble's work, seepp. 1-81. 12ibid., p. 137. 13Maitland, DomesdayBook, p.307. 14Du Cange,Glossarium, iv, p. 159.Leges Henrici Primi, pp.34. 15Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, p.502. 16The word mearcmdtwas found in CodexDiplomaticus Aevi Saxonici, ed. J.M. Kemble (English Historical Society,6 vols, 1839-48),iii, p.71. The document,from the reign of Edgar, was dated971.
14 customsof the mark. The later courts of the greatlandowners, he continued,were adaptationsof the mark courts,with the lord himself having beenthe first markman, entrustedto be the so-calleddefender of the free man.17 The developmentof the manorial court from the Anglo-Saxoncourts was, therefore,recognised, but the generallyheld view of Anglo-Saxon societyensured the developmentwas given a date no earlier than the eleventhcentury.
With the changein the generalinterpretation of Anglo-Saxon society,it would be easyto assumethat, as elementsof the manorial structurecan be tracedback to the seventhcentury, elements of the manorial court could also be identified. It is at this point that we must look at the terminology usedand define exactly what is meantby a court. The word hallmoot itself was derived from hall andgemot, meaning a meetingor assemblyin the hall of the lord. 18These terms do not immediately suggestthat the Anglo-Saxon lord held a court as such for his tenantsbut, if the peaceof the community was to be maintained,incidents of damageto propertyand so forth would havehad to have beendealt with in a meetingof somekind. The differencebetween a general meeting in which a lord punisheda peasantfor damagingcrops and a specific court where a peasantwas amercedfor the sametype of incident is, in effect, minimal. Ultimately it is the differencebetween a generalmeeting in which mattersof local customwere dealt with and a meeting specifically for mattersof local custom.The questionwhich arisesnaturally, therefore,is a what point did this changeof emphasis occur?At what point did the meetingbecome a recognisablemanorial court? The recordsof paymentsto court in the first half of the thirteenthcentury show that the earliestcourt rolls of the mid-thirteenthcentury do not representthe origins of the manorial court. As we shall see,no fundamentalchanges occurred in the recordingof paymentsto court in the recordswe have of manorial courts in the early thirteenth century, suggestingthat the courts,by then, were well established.19 A confirmation charterof a grant of land by the prioressof Nuneaton,c. 1155,witnessed by the
17J. M. Kemble, TheSaxons in England (London, Longman,Brown, Greenand Longinans,2 vols, 1849), i, pp.54-5 and 54n. 's H. Kurath et al., eds,Middle English Dictionary (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in progress, 1952-), iv, p.450-1 and vi, p.720. 19See p. 46.
15 hallmoot, suggeststhat the hallmoot did have a specific identity in real terms as well as in royal documentationin the mid-twelfth century,but the witnessingof actions confirmed by chartermay have occurredequally in a generalmeeting or in a court.20 The distinction betweenadministration and judgement seems to havebeen emerging in the early thirteenth century and graduallythe hallmoot becameassociated with the legal rather than the administrativeaspects of manorial life. Exceptionsto the strict separation of administrationand judgement, however, can still be found in the thirteenth century records.The accountsof Froyle (Hants.), a manor of St Mary's Abbey, Winchester, provide a mid-thirteenth century examplewhere an administrativematter seemsto have beenrecorded in the sectionof accountswhich dealt with paymentsto court, presumablybecause the administrativebusiness was conductedin the court itself. The first entry in the court paymentsection of the accountrolls, which recordedall payments to court, was often a paymentfor pasturesold followed by a paymentfor or in lieu of carriage(by pack animals).Only an amountof paymentwas noted in suchcases, not those liable for the payment,which distinguishesthem from the rest of the paymentsin that sectionof the accounts.The distinction may only be one of recordingprocedure, however,as selling pasturewithout the permissionof the lord would have beenseen, no doubt, as a punishableact. The court roll of the manor of Urchfont (Wilts. ), also a manor of St Mary's Abbey, for December1259 showsthat businessother than strictly court businesswas recordedin the early court rolls. The roll beganwith an estimateof unthreshedcom and a list of livestock in the demesnewhich were presumablymade in 21The development be from court. of the manorial court, therefore,seems to a general meetingdealing with all mattersincluding infractions of customto a specific court which dealt mainly with judicial mattersbut could also be used,on occasion,at least until the mid-thirteenth century,as a forum for more generalpurposes. The timing of this developmentwill be discussedfurther in the conclusionto the thesis.22
The manor was the basic unit of private estatemanagement and was managedin one of two ways: direct control or leasing.By far the most common form of
20See p. 100. 21Harvey, Cuxham, p. 80. 22See pp. 174-6.
16 managementin the twelfth centurywas leasingof someform, the renting out of manors for a predeterminedreturn in kind or money.The Chronicle of Battle Abbey notedthat, throughoutthe estate,the best land was kept in hand for the church's demesneand the rest was rentedout. 23 However, the economicsituation in the late twelfth and throughoutmuch of the thirteenth centurypersuaded many greatlandlords to take direct control of their manorsand to elect a representativefrom eachmanor who would be financially accountableto the lord for all income and expenditureas well as the stock of the manor.This situation was arguablybrought aboutby the rise in prices for agricultural producefrom about 1160onwards, especially between 1180 and 1220 which was a period of high inflation.24 Population was also increasingat this time, pushingprices still higher. The lords would have benefitedfrom theseeconomic factors whetherthey continuedto leasetheir lands or took them into direct control, but controlling the manorsdirectly was more flexible and they could benefit immediately from further increasesin prices.Jocelin of Brakelondnoted that Abbot Samsonhad receivedE25 and E20 from land in successiveyears where a knight had offered him only E4 in rent. 'This happeningand the like madehim hold everythingin his own hands', 25 saving only one manor. The adoptionof the direct control of the manors,or demesne farming as it has becomeknown, was not universal,however: the bishop of Winchester, for example,seems to have kept certainmanors under leasethroughout the early thirteenth centUry.26
A large proportion of the revenueof a manor was from the saleof agricultural produce,but it was by no meansthe only sourceof revenue.Labour services,required for profitable agricultural production,were demandedby the lord from many of his tenantsand failure to carry out theseservices properly incurred a paymentin the lord's court. The court of the lord of the manor not only dealt with amercementspaid for failure to perform servicesdue to the lord but certain lords could also hear a great variety of cases,ranging from incidents of pigs being let loose in the lord's corn field to
23Battle Abbey Chronicle, p.77. 24Harvey, 'Inflation', pp.3-3 0. 25Jocelin ofBrakelond, p.33. Abbot Samsonwas electedin 1182 and died in 1211. 26 The manorsusually noted as being 'at farm' are Fawley and Ower (both Hants.). Orgarswick(Kent), a ChristchurchCathedral Priory manor,was also at farm in 1207-8. 17 incidentsof obstructingthe king's highway. The jurisdictional right to hearthese two caseexamples, however, was not the sameand not all lords could necessarilyhear cases of obstructingthe king's highway. It needsto be established,therefore, by what right the lord of the manor held a court and, consequently,what casescould be heard.
Early development of the manorial court
Few historianshave concernedthemselves with the early developmentof manorial courts.F. W. Maitland's seminalwork SelectPleas in Manorial and other Seignorial Courts looked to the early developmentof private courts,but eventhis work 27 describedthem 'as they were at the end of the thirteenthcentury'. There has,however, beena recentrevival of interestof work on the early courts,begun in 1980by P. Hyams. His work on the common law in the twelfth and thirteenth centuriesdealt with the 28 difficult topic of a villein's legal status. J.S. Beckerman, in 1992, looked more towards the court itself in discussing changes in the procedure of court between 1250 and 1350.29 More recently, in 1996,Z. Razi and R. Smith edited a work entitled Medieval Societyand the Manor Court. As the title suggests,this was not solely a work on the manorial court, but its place in medieval society.The collection of essayswere all based on the use of the court roll and a surveyof the extant court rolls forms an appendixto the volume. 30
The late thirteenth centuryprovides a benchmarkfor manorial court developmentnot becauseof any particular developmentin court procedure,necessarily, but becauseof developmentsin recordingpractice. The 1270swas the first decadefrom which court rolls for manorial courts survive in significant numbers.Many detailed court rolls, however, survive from the fourteenthcentury and, as a result, the description
27 Select Pleas, p. XVi. 29P. R. Hyams,King, Lords and Peasantsin Medieval England; The CommonLaw of Villeinage in the Twetflh and ThirteenthCenturies (London, Oxford University Press,1980). 29Beckerman, 'Innovation', pp. 197-252.This article was basedon Beckerman'sPh. D. thesis;J. S. Beckerman,'Customary Law in English Manorial Courts in the Thirteenth and FourteenthCenturies' (unpublishedPh. D. thesis,University of London, 1972). '0 Z. Razi and R. Smith, eds,Medieval Societyand the Manor Court (London, Oxford University Press, 1996).
18 of manorial courts at the end of the thirteenthcentury is often retrospectivein nature: the court is most frequently describedby historiansas a combinationof later courts recordedin the manorial court rolls, the court baron and the court leet. It is necessary, therefore,to understandwhat is meantby theseterms.
The court baron was a private court with its jurisdiction basednot on the grantingof royal rights by the king but on the right of every lord to hold a court for his tenants.Judgements were madeaccording the customof the manor,which varied considerablybetween manors and was attestedto by the lord's tenants.Suit, the requirementto attendcourt, was owed by everytenant of the lord and the court dealt with the everydaylife of the manor and its tenants.The court heardcases about tenure of land, customaryservices due, customarypayments due and the settling of disputes, and was the only court which could deal with mattersof villein tenureand conditionsof service.31 The court also heardmany casesdealing with suchthings as agrarianoffences, administrativefailures and also mattersof court procedure.The casesdealt with in this court were not generallycriminal affairs but mattersaffecting the running and profitability of the manor, and it was in that role that the court was also usedfor the 32 election of manorial officials, suchas the reeve.
The jurisdiction of the court leet was royal in nature,exercised by a lord by grant of the king, and was, in effect, the sheriff s tourn in private hands.The sheriff s tourn was a specialsession of the hundredcourt, held twice a year, to deal with minor Criminalmatters, such as bloodshed,and with major criminal matterswhich were then presentedto the justices.33 In addition to these,the sheriff also took the view of frankpledge,whereby the tithings were checkedto seewhether they were full and that every boy over the ageof twelve was in a tithing. The tourns cameto be known simply
3' Harvey, Manorial Records,pp. 45-6, and WinchesterPipe Roll, 1210-11,p. xxvii. Seebelow pp.24-9 on legal freedomand villeinage status. 32Occasional references are also madeby historiansto customarycourts, althoughF. W. Maitland did statethat he had not come acrosssuch a term in the original documents.Select Pleas, pp.xvi-xvii.. The customarycourt was a much later development,noted by Coke in the seventeenthcentury, held for the unfree tenantsof the lord, as opposedto the court baron which then becamea court specifically for the free tenants.See W. S. Holdsworth,A History ofEnglish Law (London, Methuen and Co. Ltd, 16 vols. and index, 1922-72),i, 1922,pp. 181-2,for more detail. 33For further discussionof the articles of enquiry for the sheriffs' tourris, seebelow, pp.90-1.
19 as views of frankpledge,despite the view being only one elementof the tourn's business,and, by the beginningof the fourteenthcentury, the tourns in private hands 34 becameknown as courts leet. The sheriff s tourn, by the 1217reissue of Magna Carta, was to be held at Michaelmasand Easter.In practice,however, the tourns and the view of frankpledgemay well have beenheld more frequently by the sheriffs, or at different times: the clausewas included in the numerousreissues of Magna Cartaup to 1297and complaintsagainst sheriffs holding tourns more frequentlythan twice a year were heard as late as 1357.35It may well be the case,therefore, that private tourns, the courts leet, were also held more frequently.
To view the thirteenth centurycourt as a body containingthese later developmentswithin it has certain merits, but the court of the lord of the manor was, ultimately, their predecessor:the distinct courts developedfrom the generalcourt of the lord of the manor, not vice versa.It seemsfar more accurateto treat the single court of the lord not as a combinationof courts but as a court dealing with two types of jurisdiction: private and royal. After all, the quo warranto proceedingsof the late thirteenth century did not ask which courts were held by a lord but what powers did his court exercise?36 The demarcationof private and royal justice only beganto emergeas a result of the Angevin legal reforms which were crystallisedtowards the end of the thirteenth centuryby Edward I. The rights exercisedby many of the lords in the late thirteenth centuryhad graduallybeen claimed as royal rights by the crown from the reign of Henry I onwards:F. W. Maitland describedthe main developmentsin the extensionof royal jurisdiction, mainly under Henry II, which encroachedseverely on privatejurisdiction. 37Great efforts to reserveroyal rights for the crown or, at least,have royal rights recognisedas suchwere madeby Edward I and from the Statuteof Quo
34W. A. Morris, The FrankpledgeSystem (London, Longrnans,Green and Co., 1910), pp. 141,112-150, especiallypp. 118-19and 132. SeeSelect Pleas, pp.lxxiii-lxxvi for the origins of the term 'leet'. "Statutes ofthe Realm, i, p. 19 of Charterof Liberties section.W. A. Morris, TheFrankpledge System (London, Longmans,Green and Co., 1910), pp. 118-20. 3' SelectPleas, pp.xvii-xviii. 37ibid., pp.Iiii-lx.
20 Warrantoin 1290the right to exerciseroyal jurisdiction, to hold a franchise,was to be issuedby royal charter.38
Edward I, however, had to recognise existing claims to franchisal (royal) jurisdiction basedon grantsof Anglo-Saxonsoc, sac,toll, team and infangthief held beforethe coronationof Richard I. Sokewas the right to hold a court dealing with certain offencesdeemed to be under royal jurisdiction: the lord who held sokecould hearcases such as bloodshedwhich, by that time, would normally havebeen heard in the hundredor county court. F.W. Maitland believedthat sokewas the right to hold a court for tenants, by the king to lord to hold his 39This one's a grant enablea own Court. interpretationof soke,however, was significantly affectedby Maitland's view of Anglo- Saxonsociety. If Anglo-Saxon societywas a societyof equals,bar the king, only the king could hold a court for his subjects.The grantingof soke,therefore, was seenas a specialaward by the king for a lord to hold a court for one's tenants.F. M. Stenton, holding a similar opinion, noted that it could be generallyassumed that sokewas land by 106640 With the Anglo-Saxon awardedwith a grant . reinterpretationof social structure,however, the right to hold a court to deal with the infractions of customby one's tenantswould seemto havebeen an inherentpart of lordship rather than a specific right awardedby the king: ultimately in a hierarchicalsociety someform of customor law enforcementwould be necessary.The awardingof soke,therefore, seems to have grantedadditional royal rights ofjurisdiction in addition to the basic laws stipulatedby the custom of eachindividual manor.
The LegesHenric! Primi, c. 1118,stated that the right of sokewas usually but not automaticallyawarded when land was grantedor confirmed by the king. High ranking men, such as archbishops,bishops and earls,had the rights of soke,sake, toll, team and infangthief over the lands which they held by virtue of their office and also had the rights of sokeand sakeover the less seriouscases on lands which they held
39 See,for example,T. F.T. Plucknett,Legislation ofEdward I (London, Oxford University Press,1949), esp.pp. 35-48 for ffirther details. 39Select Pleas, pp.xxii-xxiii. 40 Presumablythis notion was taken from the LegesHenrici Primi, ch. 20,2, p. 123, seebelow.
21 41 privately. The awarding of soke was usually accompanied by sac, toll, team and infangthief, all of which conveyed complimentary rights. Sac was the right to the amercements received from the court held by right of soke: soc and sac, therefore, were 42 usually granted together. The earliest extant use of the phrase soc and sac is found in a charter from King Eadwig to the Archbishop of York in 956, the earliest extant grant of 43 the right of royal jurisdiction. Toll has been interpreted as the right to tallage one's villeins, but the term may have originally been interpreted as the right to take tolls or be quit of tolls, a royal rather than a general right of lordship. This would have enabled a lord to demand a payment whenever cattle or goods were sold within his lands. Similarly team has been interpreted as the right to the possessionsof one's villeins including their children, but may originally have been the right to hold a court which could hear cases where men were accused of wrongful possession of cattle, for which the usual proof of innocence was the guarantee by witnesses to the original payment of 44 toll. Infangthief was the right to hang one's own thieves caught on one's own land, with the more unusual utfangthief being the right to hang one's own thieves wherever they 45These therefore, the lord to deal were caught. grants, enabled with matters of royal jurisdiction as well as matters concerning the running of the manor.
Occasionally,it seemsthat a lord could be awardedspecific rights, rather than the standardsoc, sac,toll team and infangthief. One charter,dated between 1158 and 1162 details the franchisegranted by King Henry Il to Meaux Abbey. The monks receivedcourts in their demesnelands with the forfeitures of fugitives and felons, infangthief, the assizeof breadand ale and the free appointmentof bailiffs, constables and all officers, with the authority to judge and carry out judgements,amercements and
41The soke of the king doesnot passwith the granting of the manor; this will dependon personal arrangements.' ibid., ch. 19,3, p. 123.Harvey, Manorial Records,p. 45. As late as the early thirteenth century,however, it may have beenthe casethat a lord who held a manor not directly of the Crown would require the permissionof his overlord to hold a court for his tenants.The examplequoted was that of Gilbert de Gant who specifically grantedBridlington Priory (Yorks.) the right to hold a court for the priory's tenantsin Edenham(Lincs. ). 42Select Pleas, pp.xxii-xxiii. 43Stenton, Anglo-Saxon England, pp. 494-5. 44 SelectPleas, pp.xxii-xxiii. Stenton,Anglo-Saxon England, p.498. 45 W. S. Holdsworth,A History ofEnglish Law (London, Methuen and Co. Ltd, 16 vols. and index, 1922- 72), i, 1922,p. 20.
22 46 forfeitures anywherein their lands. Another charter,dated between 115 0 and 1165, for the forest to the Priory Cranbome(Dor 47 grantedsoke view of pleas of .).
The granting of soke, therefore, transferred rights to hear caseswhich were deemed to be under royal jurisdiction. The lord of the manor who held soke could hear cases dealing with both private and royal jurisdiction, with his authority in each case coming from the relationship between lord and tenant and a royal grant respectively. A mid-thirteenth century court could, for example, deal with marriage licences and then itiffingements concerning the assize of ale. Bishops Forithill (Wilts. ), which was a manor in the bishopric of Winchester's estate, provides one such example. In 1247-8, John Snelgar paid 2s. for his daughter Alice to be married and then paid 6d. for breaking 48 the assizeof ale. The first paymentis a strictly 'domanial' one, being a paymentto obtain the lord's licence for the daughterof an unfreetenant to marry, while the second paymentconcerns specifically royal jurisdiction. Presumablythe detailing of the type of jurisdiction by which a casewas heardwas not generallyconsidered to be of sufficient importanceto be noted in the court records.The interspersalof domanialand assize entriesin the recordsof thesecourt proceedingsin the mid-thirteenthcentury clearly showsthat no real distinction was madebetween jurisdictions in this single court of the lord.
By the late twelfth century,in addition to the jurisdictional rights described above,a large number of lords controlled the jurisdiction of an entire hundred,thus having royal jurisdictional rights over their own men in the hundredand over the men of other lords, as the manor and the hundredwere rarely, if ever, geographically 49 coterminous. The LegesHenrici Primi mentions 'a sokewhich somehave on their own land over their own men, and which somehave over their own men and over 50A dispute strangers',which may refer to sucha situation. over conflicting royal rights grantedfor a lord's own tenantsand for thosewhich encompassedan entire hundred
46Early YorkshireCharters, iii, p. 101. 47 Earldom ofGloucester Charters, ed. R.B. Patterson(London, Oxford University Press,1973), pp. 64-5. 48HRO II M59/B 1/21 49Select Pleas, p.xxvi. 50Leges Henrici Primi, ch. 9,4a, p. 107.
23 arosebetween the archbishopof Canterburyand the abbotof St Edmund's in 1186, when a man was murderedin a manorbelonging to the archbishopricbut which was in the abbot's hundred.The quarrel over jurisdictional rights was brought beforethe king who, on inspectingthe chartersof both parties,declared that the charterscontradicted 51 eachother and that he knew 'not what to say', and the suit remained'unjudged'. H.M. Cam elaboratedon this close associationbetween seignorial control of royal rights in the manor and the hundred,drawing attentionto the distinction in terminology between hundredumintrinsecum in which royal rights ofjurisdiction and suit of court were grantedover the lord's own lands,and hundredumforinsecum,where the samerights 52 were grantedover land which was not held in demesne. The bishopric of Winchester's manor of Taunton (Som.) provides an excellentexample of this as the estateaccounts 53 record court paymentsfrom a hundredumforinsecum.
Thus, courts held by the lord of the manor as late as the mid-thirteenthcentury dealt with a wide variety of mattersunder different jurisdictions. Not only did the court deal with 'domanial' or customarymatters about the social and economicbusiness of the manor but they also dealt with minor and, on occasion,major criminal casesas a result of the interpretationof soke.Nor were the courts necessarilyrestricted to the territorial boundariesof the manor but could encompassan 'external hundred'. They were not the distinct courts of the courts leet and the courts baron of the fourteenth 54 century,but a combinationof all jurisdictions held by the particular lord. It is this combination ofjurisdictions, which must be seenas a whole rather than a sum of its parts,which was known as the hallmoot or manorial court.
The courts were held by the lord of the manor or his stewardor other officials and every direct tenantwho participatedin the life of the manor had obligations to the
5'jocelin ofBrakelond, pp.50-2 and p.5 In. The chartersreferred to are those outlining the liberties awardedto eachreligious establishment. 52H. M. Cam, 'Manerium cum Hundredo: the Hundred and the HundredalManor' in Liberties and Communitiesin Medieval England, ed. H. M. Cam (London, Merlin Press,1963), pp. 64-89. " The entriesin the perquisitesection for Taunton in the WinchesterPipe Rolls are sub-dividedinto various manors,such as Holway and Staplegrove,with the final division being that of 'hundredum forinsecum'. 54Select Pleas, pp.xvi-xvii. 24 court. The suitors at the lord's court, therefore,consisted of what royal jurisdiction consideredto be both free and unfreetenants. Freedom, or privilege, is a matter of type 55 and degree and is, thus, often difficult to gauge. It is a complicated notion which can not be used in an abstract form: ultimately, any discussion of freedom begs the question 'freedom to do whatT. A man may be free, for example, to work the land in his tenancy as he sees fit but may not be free to leave his tenancy: his freedom is dependent upon the specific question asked. R. H. Hilton pointed out that, like notions of freedom today, twelfth and thirteenth century writers used freedom to mean different things in different contexts: the legal treatises ascribed to Glanville and Bracton refer to the free as peasants, in effect, whereas Magna Carta seems to refer to the free as members of the aristocracy. 56
In this thesis,freedom is taken to be legal freedom:if a personwas deemed unfree, they were unableto seekjustice in a royal court over mattersof land and conditions of tenure. Suchmatters for the unfree were consideredto be the lord's concernand were to be dealt with in his private court. Pleasabout all other matters, however, suchas bloodshedor breakingthe assizeof ale, could be heardin the royal 57 courts regardlessof the statusof the participants. Thosedeemed free could take any caseto the royal courts but were still requiredto attendthe manorial court. The distinction betweenlegally free and unfree is important to any study of manorial history as certain casesheard within the court were, by the very definition of legal freedom, limited to thoseconsidered to be legally unfree.Payments for daughtersto marry, for example,were madeonly by thosedeemed legally unfree.The manorial court was the only court which could recogniseland conveyancesof the legally unfree,which meant that all unfree conveyanceswere conductedin the manorial courts. It did not mean, however,that all land conveyanceswere, necessarily,performed by the unfree, as the free could also use the manor court to record suchtransactions. It is likely, however,that most of the land conveyancesrecorded in the rolls were thoseof unfreetenants.
" For a discussionon the meaningof 'freedom' seeMaitland, DomesdayBook, pp.62-94. 56Hilton, 'Freedom', pp.4-5. 57Titow, Rural Society,p. 57.
25 It has generally been accepted that the villeins of Domesday Book were classed as free men and that by the late thirteenth century a considerable proportion of the villein population, the customary freeholders, had lost their free legal status. This loss was viewed to have been a gradual development, but R. H. Hilton has suggestedthat the alteration in legal status was far more rapid than assumed by P. Vinogradoff 58Hilton
argued that from evidence provided by contrasting twelfth and thirteenth century surveys and the subsequent proliferation of villeinage court cases in the Curia Regis Rolls, that great changes occurred in the legal status of the vast ma ority of villeins 59 during the last two decades of the twelfth century. The timing of these changes would then correspond to the adoption of demesne fanning by many of the great landlords and the direct enforcement of labour services and customary payments by the lords. In the words of J. Hatcher, it was at this point that estate management and the common law came together. 60
A lack of legal freedomhad both obligations and restrictions.The unfree were requiredto work on the lord's demesneand serveas manorial officials. They were also restrictedin their ability to leavethe lord's land, marry, receiveeducation, join religious orders,buy and sell property, and brew, mill and bake.61 Many of theserequirements had beendefined by the mid-twelfth century,but in the late twelfth and thirteenth centuriesperformance of theseobligations and adherenceto theserestrictions became testsof legal unfreedom:the performanceor paymentof week-work, merchet,heriot, tallage, toll and leyrwite, for example,were consideredto be proofs of unfreedom.62
Legal freedomrested on two criteria: personalfreedom and tenurial freedom. Personalfreedom was, as the phrasesuggests, the stateinto which one was born. The lack of personalfreedom manifested itself in the inability to do certain things without the permissionof the lord: an unfreeman would be subjectto the restrictionsstated aboveconcerning his freedomof movement,freedom to marry, freedomto receive
58 p. Vinogradoff, Villeinage in England (London, Oxford University Press,1892), pp. 218-20. 59Hilton, 'Freedom', pp.6-19. 60Hatcher, 'Serfdom', p.34. 61Hilton, 'Freedom', pp. 10-11. 62Hatcher, 'Serfdom', pp. 10 and 28-30.
26 educationand so forth. Freedom,in the tenurial sense,was a freedomfrom the obligation to perform certain labour servicesfor holding a certainpiece of land. If a tenantheld a free tenurehe would only be requiredto perform boon-works.These consistedof works such as ploughing, reapingand haymaking,whilst week-work services,owed from unfree tenements,comprised more menial tasks such as weeding, ditching and muck-spreading.Bracton noted, in a slightly tautological manner,that bondsmenor villeins who held villeinagesby villein and uncertainservices did villein and uncertaincustoms and whateverthey were bid: the holder of a tenementheld in villeinage was liable for uncertainservices and that he neednot know at night what he 63 must do the following day. The performanceof servicesin general,therefore, did not necessarilydenote a lack of legal freedom:it was the uncertainnature of particular 64 serviceswhich becamethe key factor.
Confusion seemsto have arisen,however, between personal freedom and tenurial freedom.The legal treatiseattributed to Glanvill, datedc. 1180,noted that if a free man married a villein and lived on a villein tenement,he would lose his legal rights 65 as long as he remainedbound by the villein tenure. Bracton also noted the existenceof a lack of freedomas a result of tenure.There were free men, at the time of the Conquest, he noted, who, after they had beenejected from the land and then returned,had takenup the sametenements to hold in villeinage, by doing certain, specified,servile works. They were still consideredfree men becausethey completedtheir servile works by reasonof their tenements,not their person.The lord was not allowed to removethem from their tenementas long as they madethe necessarypayments nor did the free tenant haveto remain in the tenementif they no longer wished to, this being in direct contrast to the personallyunfree tenant's restriction of movement.The free tenantholding an unfree tenuredid have alteredlegal rights, however,as they could not claim mort d'ancestoror novel disseisin.66
63Bracton, ii, p.37 and iii, p. 131. 64For examplesof caseswhere performanceof boon-workswas consideredto be a sign of freedom,see Faith, English Peasantry,pp. 259-60. 65The treatise on the laws and customsofthe realm ofEngland commonlycalled Glanvill, ed. and trans. G.D. G. Hall (London, Nelson and Sons, 1965),p. 58. 66Bracton, ii, p.37. Mort d'ancestorand novel disseisindid not apply to a free man in an unfreetenure becausean unfree tenureobviously has no rights of 'ownership' or 'heredity' for the tenant.
27 The Chronicle of Battle Abbey may make a referenceto what would later becometenurial unfreedoinas early as 1102.It was noted that a greatmany settlerswere persuadedto come from neighbouringcounties and overseasto settle on lands ownedby the abbey.They built houseson the sites and 'along with rent due from the land, these men from then on have habitually performedvarious servicesfor the church by custom, though they are free in other respects'.No detail aboutthe servicesperformed were noted so it is not known whetherthese tenants performed week-work, a sign of unfreedomin the thirteenth century,or simply boon-work, which did not denote unfreedom.67 The manor of Elton (Hunts.), however,provides a definite early fourteenth centuryexample where a paymentof two caponswas madeyearly at Easterfor a bondmanto dwell on a free tenement.The bondmanwas also specifically requiredto attendthe view of frankpledgeeach year and detailedhis two pledges.68
The holding of unfree tenuresby free men createda problem in using the performanceof week-work as a distinction betweenlegally free and unfree tenantsfrom the late twelfth century onwards.As referredto above,Bracton noted that the free did perform servile works 'but certain and specified' as opposedto the unspecifieddemands 69The that the free of week-work. phraseologysuggests performedonly specifiedtasks, but unspecifiedworks also seemto have beencarried out by free tenantsas a result of their unfree tenure.Bracton noted later that uncertainservices were demandedof personallyfree and unfree tenantsif they held by unfreetenure, thus both free and unfree tenantswould perform week-work by virtue of their tenancy.The free tenant, Bracton continued,would not, however,be requiredto pay merchetbecause that paymentwas only required from personallyunfree tenants.Week-work was, therefore, consideredto be a sign of unfree tenurebut, with the increasingconfusion over free tenantsholding unfree tenements,it becameeasier to determinelegal statusby signsof personalobligations, such as the paymentof merchet.It is paymentsfor thesepersonally
67 Battle Abbey Chronicle, p.77. Referenceis also madeto customaryrent and services,p. 5 1. it is suggestedthat theserentals were madec. 11020, p.53n.. 68 The example,from a court roll, is dated 1312.Elton Manorial Records,pp. lxvi and 193. 69The phrasewas 'sed certa et nominata', Bracton, ii, p.37.
28 unfree obligations,rather than the tenurial unfreeobligations, which were regularly recordedas mattersof precedent.
Tenurial freedomand personalfreedom, therefore, did not necessarilycoincide: 70 an unfree man may hold a free tenureor a free man may hold an unfree tenure. E.A. Kosminsky detailedan instancein the HundredRolls of 1279 in the manor of Podington (Beds.) where John de Pavenhamheld one virgate of freehold land from Nicholas le Cruse.In turn, two villeins held the virgate from John: the land was free but the tenants were unfree.71 Such instances, however, were seenas exceptionsto the rule: recordsand governmentsurveys tend to portray the standardsituation as free men holding free lands 72 andunftee men holding unfree lands.
The lord or his representative,whether he be a stewardor anotherofficial, presidedover the court but did not act asjudge in casesbrought before the court. The tenantshad obligations to the lord and, by the late thirteenth century,these may have included the requirementto attendcourt, declarethe customarylaw of the manor and 73 serveon a jury if called to do so. J.S. Beckermannoted that betweenabout 1250and 1350the manorial court adoptedan increasingnumber of royal court procedures,the three major developmentsbeing the adoptionof trial by j ury, presentmentby j ury and an increasingreliance on documentaryproof. Before the introduction of thesemethods, however,there were a numberof forms of trial, someof which continued,perhaps in 74 modified form, until the fifteenth centuryor evenlater. Trial by the ordeal of fire or water was probably used,argued Beckerman, only in manorswith franchisaljurisdiction and not frequently after the Fourth LateranCouncil of 1215which ruled that clergy could not be involved in this form of trial. Trial by battle was also limited in use, accordingto Beckerman,as, because of its military nature,it was not a commonform of trial amongstmost peasants.75 A charter,dated 1147or 1148, specifically mentioning
70Titow, Rural Society,pp. 56-7. 7' Kosminsky,Studies, p. 8 1. 72ibid., p.202. 73Ault, Private Jurisdiction, p. 138 and p. 135. 74Beckerman, 'Innovation', p.209. 75ibid., p.203. Jocelin of Brakelond mentioneda trial by battle, but this was betweenHenry of Essexand Robert de Montfort for treason,rather than any caseheard in a manorial court. Jocelin ofBrakelond, p.70.
29 the restorationof certainlands including all the tithings of the manor of Sherborne (Gloucs.) and rights to all liberties, customsand jurisdictions by battle as well as by water or fire and all pleaspertaining to the samemanor savingthe rights of the king, doessuggest that suchmethods could, theoretically,have been used. 76
The main form of proof usedin the manorial court beforethese developments was, therefore,compurgation. Compurgation, or oath-swearing,was a methodby which the accusedswore their innocenceand 'waged their law'. The 'waging of law', often three-handed,six-handed or eventwelve-handed, meant that the accusedwould get two, five or elevenoath-helpers respectively, to swearto their good character.It was not, as with the ordealsby fire, water and battle, a test of fact, but a test basedon the conscienceof the accusedand the oath-helpers:if perjury were committed,true justice, it was thought, would be carried out by divine judgement.Failure to accuratelywage one's law was also seenas a sign of divine intervention and, ultimately, guilt. The developmentsfrom about 1250onwards, therefore, were seenas a move away from 77 proof by divine judgementto proof by attestationof fact. The trial by jury, Beckerman commented,was introducedto decidefactual issuesof a case.Previously it had beenthe responsibility of the whole court to make ajudgement,butjudgement by ajury became more feasiblewith the generallygrowing population and the increasingnumber of cases.78 The jury of presentmentwas introducedas a method of collective accusation,a jury would be formed and would be bound to answerspecific questionsasked by the lord's stewardor bailiff. This was adopted,according to Beckerman,to relieve the individual suitors and the manorial officials of the task of prosecutingpetty offences. Initially the stewardsand bailiffs seemto have usedthe lists of articles preparedfor the
76The grant, from the widowed CountessMabel of Gloucesterand her son, Earl William, to Jocelin, Bishop of Salisbury,restored various hundreds,markets, tolls and all the tithings of the manor and all the liberties and so forth. Earldom of GloucesterCharters, ed. R.B. Patterson(London, Oxford University Press,1973), pp. 155-6. 77 It should be noted that compurgationmay well have included someelement of attestationto fact by the end of the thirteenth century as the oath-helpersmay have had personalknowledge of the events,not just of the defendant.Beckerman, 'Innovation', pp.2 10-11. 78 The Chronicle of Battle Abbey gives an examplefrom the abbot's court (held in the nameof the king) wherebyRobert de Chilton was declaredguilty by the generaljudgement. Battle Abbey Chronicle, p. 113. 30 sheriffs' view of frankpledge,but gradually,from about 1250,the lists were extendedto 79 incorporatematters of seignorialjurisdiction.
J.S. Beckermandescribed the developmentsin manorial courts betweenabout 1250and 1350but noted that the lords' interestin the courts and the subsequent changesin court procedurewere a reflection of the greatinterest shown by the lords in 80 the exploitation of their estateas a whole. Demesnefarming, however,was at its most intensebetween approximately 1200and 1350.81It seemsstrange that the lords who took advantageof the favourableeconomic situation by adoptingdemesne farming in the late twelfth or early thirteenth century failed to recognisethe financial benefitsof adoptingroyal court proceduresin manorial courtsuntil fifty yearslater. The Bec court rolls of the late 1240sare the earliestextant original court rolls, but interestin the recordingof court paymentsin the early thirteenth centurysuggests that there was alreadyan increasingimportance placed on written documentation.The evidence provided by the court rolls, therefore,may not signify the beginningsof the adoptionof royal court procedurebut merely the beginningsof it being fully recorded.The impressionthat all thesedevelopments occurred from 1250,therefore, may simply be a result of the adoptionof one, the compiling of the court roll. Other developmentsmay have occurredbefore 1250but, without the written evidence,this is difficult to determine.Ultimately, however,it may simply be the survival of the rolls which provided Beckermanwith his 1250date.
One other function of the manorial court was the election of the manorial officials. The reeve,the haywardand other officials were electedeach year, usually at 82 Michaelmas,from the villeins of the manor. The estatemanagement treatise Seneschaucy,written about 1260,noted that the reeveshould be electedand presented
79See pp. 90-1. goBeckerman, 'Innovation', pp. 199-200. 91Titow, Rural Society,p. 54. Beckermanalso gives thesedates in his own article, Beckerman, , Innovation', P.199. " Other methodsof selectionwere used,the lord could chosea villein arbitrarily or could makethe final choice from a selectionsuggested by the tenants,but the usual methodwas by election. Bennett,English Manor, pp. 169-72and 178-82.
31 by commonassent and that he should only hold the post for one year unlesshe proved capable,just and able to further the lord's interests.83
It should be rememberedthat the manorial courts were not necessarilythe only private courts held within the estate:lords of large estatesmay well haveheld an honour court for their free tenantsin addition to the manorial courts.84 Manorial documentation representsonly one level of administrationwithin the estateand, with the sometimes complicatedsystem of manorial holdings, other private courts may well have taken place. Merton College, for example,held a manorial court for the manor of Cuxham (Oxon.). The manor, however,was part of the honour of Wallingford and the rights to the view of frankpledgewere reservedby the honour. The view for the manor,therefore, was taken through the honour's manor of Chalgroveand, hence,recorded in the 85 Chalgrovecourt rolls. The bishop of Winchester,whose accounts form the basisof this thesis,does not, however,seem to haveheld a central court which would have 86 heardappeals of casesfrom the individual manorial courts.
Court recordsbefore 1300
Most of the evidencefor the manorial court in the last quarterof the thirteenth centuryis provided by the manorial court rolls, which survive in increasingnumbers from the 1270sonwards. The late thirteenth centuryrolls usually noted the nameof the manor and the date of the court, followed by the namesof thoseessoined (excused). The amountof arnercernent,with the nameof the personliable and the reasonfor payment, 87 were then listed and a sum total of paymentswas usually recorded.
The use of court rolls in this study, however,is limited by their date of compilation. The 1260sseem to have producedconsiderably fewer rolls than the 1270s
93 Oschinsky, Walter ofHenley, pp.275 and 279. SeeHarvey, 'Treatises', p. 173, for the dating of the Seneschaucy. 84See Pollock and Maitland, History, i, p.586 for examples. B5 Manorial Records, 48. For Harvey, p. an example of a manor which was held of several lords, see p. 2. 96Swift, 'Administration', p. 24. 87Harvey, Manorial Records, pp.51-3. See,for example,Court Rolls, Adam de Stratton.
32 and the two precedingdecades have revealed fewer still. The earliestextant original court roll, edited and translatedby F.W. Maitland, datesfrom 1246and pertainsto the 88 English estatesof the Abbey of Bec. The earliestcourt was for the Hockday term, beginningwith the manor of Bledlow (Bucks.) on 12 May 1246.Three other manors were accountedfor in that term, Swincombe(Oxon. ) on 13 May, Tooting (Surr.) on 20 May and Ruislip (Middlesex) on 22 May. F.W. Maitland also included selectpleas from other Bec courts for the period 1247-9.89These are the earliestand only surviving original court rolls from before 1250.
Details of a limited numberof casesin other courts may be found elsewhere. Casesfrom manorial courts may be found in the court books of St Albans Abbey. There are sevencourt books containingpre-1250 data, from the Hertfordshiremanors of Codicote(1237), Park (1237), Cashio(1238), Kingsbury with Westwick and Childwick 90 (1240), Abbot's Langley (1244),Norton (1244) and Barnet (1246). A. E. Levett has transcribedthe pre-1250entries of six of the sevenmanors in an appendixto her Studies in Manorial History, the earliestentry being in the court book of the manor of Park, 13 July 1237.91The court books contain details of court cases,focusing on thosewhich may have beenused as precedents.The three main types of caseswere administrative activities, suchas successionto and surrendersor exchangesof land,judicial decisions incurring payment,such as transferof land, marrying without licence or failure to carry out services,and inter-tenantdisputes, such as disputesover land or dower. The dateof compilation of thesecourt books is uncertain,but the earliestsections were probably compiled between 1355and 1377.The late date of compilation suggeststhat someform
" Select Pleas. 89The courts noted were Ogbourne(Wilts. ) on 16 Sept. 1247 and 27 May 1249,Wantage (Berks. ) on 18 Sept. 1247,Weedon Beck (Northants.) on 29 Sept. 1247,19 Juneand 18 Aug. 1248 and 8 Nov. 1249, Wretham(Norf. ) on 4 Oct. 1247,Blakenham (Suff. ) on 8 Oct. 1247,Tooting (Suff.) on 15 Oct. 1247, Deverill (Wilts. ) on 9 Nov. 1247,Povington (Dor.) on 16 Dec. 1247,Ruislip (Middlesex) 4 and 8 Feb. 1248,Bledlow (Bucks.) on 6 Aug. 1249,Cottisford (Oxon.) on II Nov. 1249.For additional information on theselands and court rolls, seeM. Morgan, TheEnglish Lands ofthe Abbey ofBec (London, Oxford University Press,1968). 90Levett, Manorial History, pp.79-96. Court books for the manorsof Rickmansworthand Hexton are referred to in other manuscriptsbut are no longer extant.The court roll or book for the manor of Tyttenhanger(123 8-? ) has also beenlost, pp.76n. and 82. 91ibid., pp.300-337. The manor not included in the appendixis Abbot's Langley.
33 of detailedrecords was kept of thesetransactions in the 1230s,which were then copied, in whole or in part,'into the court books.
A limited number of court entries survive, in extract, from the late 1230s. A fourteenthcentury RamseyAbbey cartularycontains extracts from five courts held in 1239-40.92The courts were held in the court of Brancasterand Ringstead(both Norf. ) 3 March and the datesof the entrieswere given as 22 February1239,25 Februaryand 93 1240for Brancasterand 23 Februaryand 4 March 1240for Ringstead. The selected entriesdeal with mattersof precedent,detailing casesabout land, services,marriages and aids. Unlike the St Alban's court books, it may not be the casethat an original detailedrecord of court was kept. Would there havebeen any needto recordthese had been mattersof precedentin a cartularyif a contemporaryfair copy court roll compiled?It may be the case,therefore, that the recordingof thesematters of precedent in RamseyAbbey were a different rather than an additional record of important court business.
The Curia RegisRolls provide a numberof casesin the early thirteenth century in which may suggestthat specific court rolls were not necessarilykept the majority of four private courts before the middle of the thirteenth century.W. O. Ault detailed cases in the rolls where the lack of recordsin what he assumedto be manorial courts was 94 in (County noted. In 1204,a caseabout the ownershipof certain lands Silksworth Durham) was recordedwhere Geoffrey, son of Geoffrey,made a complaint againstthe court of the bishop of Durham,presumably the manor court of Silksworth, that his suit 95 should not be heardthere becausethe court had no record nor ever had one. In 1206,a casewas recordedwhere a charterabout half a carucateof land was supposedto have beenmade in the court of Bury St Edmunds.The carucatewas in Welnetharn(Suff ), and Ault suggestedthat the court was the manor court of Welnetham.The defendant,
92Cartularium Monasteril Rames.,i, pp.402-29. 93The date of the Brancastercourt of 25 February 1240 is given in the Rolls Seriespublication as 26 February,which was actually a Monday, not the Sundayafter the feast of St Matthew the Apostle (24 Feb.) as given in the dating clause. 94W. O. Ault, 'The Earliest Rolls of Manor Courts in England', Studia Gratiana, vol. xv, 1972,pp. 51 I- 18. 95Curia RegisRolls, iii, pp. 108-10.The Latin is 'que recordurnnon habetnec nunquamhabuit'.
34 one Alexander, son of Robert,denied that the charterhad beenmade and placedhimself upon the nine namedwitnesses to the supposedcharter. If a record of the court had been made,there would have beenrecourse to written documentationrather than relying on the testimonyof the witnesses.96 In the sameyear, in a caseabout three virgatesof land in Prestonin the parish of Banstead(Surr. ) and one hide in Berges,also within the parish,the court of the archbishopof Canterbury,which Ault understoodto be the manor court of Preston,was summonedto make a record. Four knights cameand recordedfor the court that John de Bergesbrought a writ of right in the court of John de SantoClaro and soughtone hide of land and its appurtenancesin Bergesagainst Gilbert de Preston.97 The specific summoningof the court to make a record,Ault argued,would suggestthat it was not normal procedureto do so. The word Ault translatedas 'to make 98 a record', however,was recordari which may also mean 'to report'. It is possible, therefore,that the manor court was summonedto report and that four knights reported what had occurred,rather than recording it: the testimonywould have beenoral rather than written.
Another explanationis also possible.The private courts of the lord, like the hundredand wapentakecourts, were not deemedto be courts of record.Any roll producedfrom thesecourts did not have force in a royal court and it seemsthat the entriesin the Curia RegisRolls may simply have beenreferences to oral witnessbeing heard,possibly by the sheriff or perhapsby the four knights in the abovecase, which 99 then enabledthe actionstaken in the court to be usedas evidencein a royal court. Ault also noted a casein 1214,in which the earl of Chesterwas orderedto make a record or report in his court of Granthamand that the record or report should be known by four knights and by his letters! 00Again, the use of four knights to hearthe report may
96ibid., iv, p.317. The Latin is 'quod curia archiepiscopisummonita Ut ad ferendurninde recordum;et quatuormilites, scilicet Willemus de Ciriton, Hugo de Daditon', Willemus Poinant,Anfridus de Dene, venereuntet recordati fuerunt pro curia 97ibid., iv, pp.264-5. The Latin is 'et inde ponit se superpredictos testes'. 98R. E. Latham,ed., RevisedMedieval Latin Word-List (London, British Academy, 1965),p. 3 95. " H. M. Cam, TheHundred and the Hundred Rolls: An Outline ofLocal Governmentin Medieval England (London, Methuen and Co., 1930),p. 178. "' Curia RegisRolls, vii, p.243. The Latin is 'et precepturnest vicecomiti quod ipse recordari faciat corarneo in curia comitis de Grahamloquelarn illarn et recordurnillud scire faciat etc. per quatuormilites et literas suasetc. '.
35 representthe transformationof manorial court businessinto recognisablelegal evidence. The fact that the recordsof the manorial court could not be usedas proof in a royal court doesnot necessarilymean that they were not compiled, but it doesseem unlikely that full recordswere kept of court businessin private courts in the early thirteenth century.
Just why full recordsof manorial court proceedings,in the form of manorial court rolls, startedto appearin the mid-thirteenth century is an interestingquestion. The motives behind the compilation of specific court recordswere seenby F.W. Maitland as primarily financial in nature:the recordsenabled the lord to make surehis local official accountedfor the correct amountof payment.101 This view, however,has been dismissedin favour ofjudicial motives. R.B. Pugh suggestedthat the detail recordedin the rolls, while not necessaryfor a financial document,was necessaryto havewritten record of manorial precedents,precedents which had previously beenorally attestedto by so-called'collective memory'.102 Z. Razi and R. Smith modified this theory in an attemptto explain the timing of the introduction of specific court records:they suggestedthat the production of a written record was undertakento make the manorial court more attractiveto a lord's free tenants.The popularity of the royal courts had increasedfollowing the Angevin legal reforms and the court rolls may well havebeen instituted to tempt the free tenantsback to manorialjustice. 103 The 1270sand 1280s witnessedconsiderable measures to limit seignorialjurisdiction which resultedin the introduction of royal court proceduresin a far larger number of manors.They suggested that the attemptto limit seignorialjurisdiction had begunin the 1260swith the baronial reform movementand the civil war, particularly the Provisionsof Westminster(1259) and the Statutesof Marlborough (1267) which took stepsto preventthe lords forcing 104 their free tenantsto plead their casein private courts. The lords, thenceforth,had to attract their free tenantsto the private courtsrather than force them and the so-called 'modernising' of the courts,they commented,may also have helpedto placatethe
101Select Pleas, p.xiv. 102Court Rolls, Adam de Stratton, p.2 1. 103Razi and Smith 'Origins', pp.45-8. 104 SeeDocuments ofthe Baronial MovementofReform and Rehellion, 1258-67,eds R.F. Trehameand (London, Oxford I. J. Saunders University Press,1973), pp. 137-57 for the Provisionsof Westminsterand Statutesof the Realm, i, pp. 19-25 of 'The Statutes'section for the Statuteof Marlborough.
36 unfreetenants. The adoptionof royal procedureand documentation,it was hoped, would attractthe lord's tenantsto his own court. The limited number of court rolls from the 1240sand 1250s,it was suggested,was due to the 'slack administrationof justice' under Henry III which enabledthe lords to usevarious forms of coercionto keepthe free tenantswithin their own courts.105
The desirefor documentaryproof, in particular proof of land tenureand conveyances,and the increasinginfluence of royal jurisdiction, therefore,resulted in the 106 proliferation of manorial court rolls from 1270onwards. There may well have beena financial motive in bringing more of the lord's tenantsto his own manorial court, but it seemsthat providing justice and being seento providejustice for all his tenantswas a more prominent motive. Whateverthe motive, however,the court rolls provide a wealth of information which has beenutilised by researchersin many fields of medieval history. The earliestpublished rolls are thoseedited by F.W. Maitland from the English lands of the Abbey of Bec from 1246.He also editedthe rolls of the Bishopric of Ely's manor of Littleport for 1285-1327.107Other thirteenth centuryrolls havebeen published, suchas the court rolls of Adam de Stratton(Wilts. ), 1275-87and the court rolls of the Priory of Durham, 1296-1384, including a number in translation,such as the court rolls of the manor of Elton (Hunts.), 1279-135 1, and the rolls of Ramsey,Hepmangrove and Bury, the earliestroll dating from 1268.108The rolls obviously provide information for the study of legal developmentsin privatejurisdiction, developmentsin royal jurisdiction in private handsand in the relationshipbetween royal and private jurisdiction. The rolls also provide information on social and economicaspects of medieval life, ranging from studieson demographyand the role of women to agriculture
105Razi and Smith 'Origins', pp.48-9. 106ibid., pp.48-9. Razi and Smith do commentthat this argumentis basedon the assumptionthat the extant rolls provide a representativesample of the chronologicaldevelopment of the rolls. 101Select Pleas and Court Baron. 108 Court Rolls, Adam de Stratton. Halmota Prioratus Dunelmensis,A. D. 1296 - A.D. 1384, ed. J. Booth and W. H. D. Longstaffe (SurteesSociety, vol. lxxxii, 1889).The roll datedc. 1300has been redated to c. 1295. Seeoriginal documents,housed at 5 The College, Durham.Elton Manorial Records.The Court Rolls ofRamsey,Hepmangrove and Bury, 1268-1600,ed. and trans.E. B. DeWindt (Toronto, Pontifical institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1990).
37 and the land market. Statisticalanalysis of the data is also possible,with William Page's 109 study of labour servicesbeing the earliestattempt.
With the lack of original court recordsfrom before 1246,however, we must look elsewherefor evidenceof early manorial courts.Manorial accounts,mainly from the 1240s,do provide details of many aspectsof the manorial court and have beenthe major sourceof information for this thesis.These accounts were all of 'phaseone' type, enrolled post-auditaccounts which reflect the stateof accountbetween the lord and his ' 10 official as agreedby the lord. Accounts for manorsfrom fourteendifferent estates survive from before 1250,but one of these,the accountsfor the honour of St Clare, "' Gloucester,provides no information concerningmanorial courts at all. The information about manorial courts recordedfor the other thirteen estateswas in the form of paymentsmade to court: the collective term for suchpayments in the rolls being perquisita. Theseperquisita sectionsor, in a slightly earlier form, purchacia sections, 112 varied in composition. The single piece of parchment18 month 'vacancy' account roll of the bishopric of Winchester'sestate for 1240-1gave no more than a total amount for the accountfor the entire estate,whereas the 1246-7accounts for Tredington and Fladbury,two manorsbelonging to the bishopric of Worcester,gave a total amountfor 113 the year for eachmanor. Someaccounts, such as those from Winchester,whether from the bishopric or from monasticestablishments, gave detailed information of the 114 individual amountspaid, the personconcerned and the reasonfor the payment. Occasionally,the perquisitesections for certain manorswere divided into two or more parts and a sum total is given for eachpart and then a total perquisitepayment was usually given below.' 15The detail provided by the entrieswhich noted the individual amountspaid, the personliable for paymentand the reasonfor the paymentwas not
109Razi and Smith, 'Historiography', pp.2-33. 110Harvey, Manorial Records,pp. 29-3 1. They are not profit and loss accounts,but the information provided could be usedto make such calculations.Titow, Rural Society,p. 25. 1'1See p. 62. 112The word 'perquisite' will be usedto refer to both purchacia andperquisita sections.In later chapters, where noted,the word will refer to all paymentswithin thesesections bar paymentsfor recognition. 113PRO SC 6/1143/1, Bodleian Library WorcestershireRoll 4 114For example,Muniments of the Dean and Chapter,Winchester, L38/2/1, W53/10/1. 115For example,Bitterne in the WinchesterPipe Roll for 1246-7gives a sum of 41s. for the first section and 4 Is. 4d. for the second.The total sum is then given at E4 2s. 4d. The foreign hundredfor Taunton in the WinchesterPipe Roll for 1218-19is just one exampleof a perquisitesection being split into three. 38 necessaryfor an accountroll, as a sum total would provide the samefinancial information required.Indeed, on many occasions,the sum total of the individual paymentsrecorded did not equalthe sum total written at the end of the section.This may well be a result of inaccuratecopying of individual payments,which is apparent throughoutthe various rolls. 116
By far the most valuable collection of manorial accountsis from the bishopric of Winchester'sestate, comprising twenty-two extant annualrolls dating from before 1250,the earliestof which is for the year 1208-9.Not only do the bishopric accounts provide the largestcollection of early rolls, but the information for the paymentsmade to court is also one of the most detailed:for eachpayment an amount,a nameand a reasonis given. The only other two estatesor manorsfor which suchdetail was given also belongedto religious establishmentsin Winchester:St. Mary's Abbey and the CathedralPriory. St Mary's Abbey providesthe only other seriesof accounts,thirteen annualaccounts before 1250,the earliestdating from 1233-4.The accountswere for one manor only, Froyle (Hants.), but provide a similar amountof detail to the bishopric accounts.It may be the casethat thesewere original draft-type documentswhich were then to be usedto compile enrolled accountsfor the entire estate,similar to the fair copiesof the WinchesterPipe Rolls.117 The CathedralPriory provides two documents, the first an accountfor the manor of Wyke-next-Portland(Dor. ) for 1242-3,the second an accountfor twenty-two manorseach manors account covering one of two years, either 1247-8or 1248-9.This may have beenintended for use as an exampleof account ' 18 compilation, hencethe combinationof two accountingyears. Two other estates provide details of possiblepayments made to court: Southwick Priory (Hants.) and the ' Count of Aumale's accountfor the manor of Burstwick (EastRiding). 19These accounts do not record the paymentsspecifically as perquisitepayments, but the form and placing of the paymentswithin the rolls suggestthat they could indeedbe paymentsmade to court. It should be noted, however,that the detail in all of theseaccount rolls was not as
"' For further detail on the types of errors in the rolls, seepp. 151-2. 117 Harvey, Cuxham,p. 28. P.D. A. Harvey also suggestedthat this might be the casewith the Cathedral Priory accounts. ' 18Drew, 'Wyke', p.3 1. "9 WinchesterCollege, 14484,15376,PRO SC 6/1078/6.
39 great as that found in the court rolls. The names given in the bishopric accounts are often limited to a forename and the reason given in all accounts is generally stylised, comprising one or two words. An entry in a court roll detailing a payment for a compromise to be reached by two named persons over a specifically named case, for example, may be recorded in the account rolls as an amount by one named person for a 120 compromise.
All other manorial accountsrecord only a sum total of perquisitepayments. The perquisitetotal was often referredto as pleasand perquisitesand may or may not have included paymentsof relief and heriots. The phraseused sometimes denoted the inclusion of heriots, for example,for pleas,perquisites and heriots, but it is possiblethat a financial sum describedas perquisitescould contain paymentsfor heriots without specific note being made:the individual paymentsin the WinchesterPipe Rolls, for example,detail heriot payments,while the sectionis merely titled perquisita. The use of the accountswhich record only a sum total is limited as with only one or, on occasion, two accountssurviving from most manors,it is impossibleto comparethese payments in any meaningful way. It is also impossibleto determinewhether these accounts detail a representativeyear for eachparticular estate.Certain manors,however, do provide a numberof sum totals of court paymentswhich enablescomparisons to be made.
All the extant manorial accountsdate from the first half of the thirteenth century. The accounts,further details of which can be found in sectionthree, are by far the most valuable sourcefor the study of early manorial courts,but other earlier, more varied sourcesare also useful. We might expectto find numerousreferences to manorial courts in early compilations of laws and legal treatises,but remarkablyfew documentsgive details of private jurisdiction. One of the earliestcompilations of laws and other material was the RectitudinesSingularum Personarum and the Gerefa, copied from earlier texts in the late eleventhor early twelfth century.The two tracts were linked togetherat that time but it has recentlybeen argued that they were fundamentally
120For example,Select Pleas, p. 14, manorial court of Ruislip (Middlesex), 4 Feb. 1248, 'Richard Malville gives 2s. for licence to compromisewith William of Pinner in a plea of trespass.Pledges Robert Maurewardand William Field.' In Bitterne (Hants.:bishopric of Winchester)in 1247-8,'For 2s. from Brian de Fallel' for a licence to compromise'.
40 different in original purpose.The RectitudinesSingularum Personarum was a functional documenton the rights and obligationsof workers and tenants,probably written in the mid-tenth century, an alternativeversion of which was included in the legal treatise Quadripartitus. The Gerefa,by contrast,was a literary work on the duties of the reeve, probablywritten in the late tenth or early eleventhcentury. Neither tract, however,make specific referencesto courts of the lord.12 1 The legal treatiseattributed to Ranulph de Glanville, datedbetween 1187 and 1189,is an important sourcefor royal jurisdiction but, unfortunately,the treatisewas mainly concernedwith 'civil litigation by writ before the king's justices'. Referencewas madeto criminal casesand to the procedurein the county court, but 'litigation in feudal courts' was expresslyexcluded. 122 Similarly in Walter Map's Courtiers' Trifles, despitehis position as royal justice in 1173,his subject 123 was 'the theatreand the arenathat I haunt' not the suits of the law courts. Again, the Dialogus de Scaccario,the Courseof the Exchequer,written c. 1176,makes no referenceto private courts.124
Private courts are mentionedoccasionally in legal works, however.The word halimotum first appearsin the LegesHenrici Primi, compiled in about 1118,where 'Every caseshall be determinedin the hundredcourt or county court or the hallmoot of thosewho have soke or in the courts of feudal lords or in the boundarycourts of feudal 125 equalsor as it pertainsto establishedplaces for court proceedings.... Private courts are also mentionedelsewhere in the text, but alwaysin associationwith royal hundred and wapentakecourts. 126 One legal treatisealso mentionedprivate jurisdiction: the early thirteenth centurytreatise De Legibus et ConsuetudinibusAnglice focused on royal jurisdiction, but did refer to manorial courts.This treatise,the earliestextant copy of which was written in the first five yearsof Edward I's reign, has long beenattributed to
121 P.D. A. Harvey, 'RectitudinesSingularum Personarum and Gerefa, English Historical Review,vol. cviii, 1993,pp. 1-22. 122 The Treatiseon the Laws and Customsofthe Realm ofEngland commonlycalled Glanvill, ed. and trans.G. D. G. Hall (London, Nelson and Sons, 1965),p. xi. 123 Walter Map, De Nugis Curialium, Courtiers' Trifles, ed. and trans.M. R. James,revised C.N. L. Brooke and R.A. B. Mynors (London, Oxford University Press,1983), p. 21 1. 124 Dialogus de Scaccario, The Courseofthe Exchequerby Richard, Fitz Nigel and Constitutio Domus Regis, The Establishmentofthe Royal Household,ed. and trans. C. Johnson(London, Oxford University Press,1983). 125Du Cange,Glossarium, iv, p. 159.Leges Henrici Prim!, pp.34. 126 lord Courts of the are mentionedin chapters9.4,20.1a, 20.2,34.1,34.1a, 56.1,56.4,57.8 and 78.2. 41 Henry de Bracton, king's clerk 1240,justice in eyre 1245,judge coram rege 1247.S. E. Thornehas suggestedthat Bracton was not the only original contributor to the work but that a number of clerks, working independently,had noted examplesof casesand that the sometimesconfused and contradictoryinformation provided by De Legibuswas a result of developmentsin the law over a considerableperiod of time rather than confusionon the part of Bracton. Correctionsto entrieswere being madeas early as 1220and 1230,Thorne argued,which would suggestthat the gatheringof material for De Legibuswas conductedover decadesrather than in the 1250salone. Thome suggestedthat De Legibus was in the handsof Bracton by 1234at the latest and that Henry then alteredand addedto the original material with examplesfrom his own 127 experience. The laws detailedin De Legibus,therefore, seem to relateto the situation in 1250s. during most of the first half of the thirteenth century,not just the situation the
The Curia Regis Rolls, althougha record only of casesheard in the king's court, in occasionallyprovide details of casesof appealagainst decisions made private courts. but Four caseshave alreadybeen noted suggestingthe lack of court records, other cases 17 also provide small details of court businessand procedure.The publishedrolls, volumes,date from the reign of Richard I through to 26-27 Henry 111,1242-3.128There 6 I 2 are also two volumes printed by the Record Commission,for the years Richard to John.129 The indices of the publishedCuria RegisRolls provide referencesto private courts,but they are, in the main, honorial or boroughcourts. A number of cases judgements specifically refer to hallmoots, however,and one specific caserefers to 130 madewithin the pale of the manor of Basing. Occasionalreferences to private courts have also been found in the closerolls, specifically for the year 1234.The courts of the lords, as with most other documentation,were mentionedin associationwith mattersof the hundredand wapentakecourts. 131
127Bracton, i, p.xl, and iii, pp.xxviii, xxx-xxxi, xxxv-xxxvi and x1iii. 128Curia RegisRolls. 129Rotuli Curiae Regis, ed. F. Palgrave(London, Record Commission,2 vols, 1835). 130Curia RegisRolls, iv, p. 16, vi, pp. 128 and 290, xiv, no. 1162,and xvi, no. 132, 'in palis'. The early volumesdo not number eachentry individually, hencepage numbers are given rather than entry numbers. The referencesto hallmoots are found in the hundredand local court sectionsrather than the private court sectionsin the indices. 131Close Rolls, 1231-4.
42 Referencesto courts were also madein private charters,but a brief surveyof the published charters relating to Salisbury, Bristol, Yorkshire, Northamptonshire, the Danelaw, the earls of Hereford, the earls of Chester, the earls of Gloucester, the Redvers family, the honour of Mowbray, Rufford Abbey and others, has revealed only a small 132 number of references to manorial courts. The majority of the estates,both lay and ecclesiastical, for which such material survives generally held soke (at the very least) as well as the basic domanial rights over their direct tenants, so the likelihood of finding a 133 large amount of material with specific references to manor courts seems slight. References to the jurisdiction of manorial courts do appear occasionally in cartularies compiled in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, but are often in the form of a 134 gift of soke and sake, toll, team and infangthief. Occasional references to private courts were made in chronicles, but the private courts referred to were not necessarily manorial courts: Jocelin of Brakelond's acts of Samson, Abbot of Bury St Edmund's, for example, referred to a private court but it was a portmoot, a borough court, not a hallmoot. 135
One other obvious possiblesource remains: Domesday Book. DomesdayBook is, of course,an important sourcefor any study of medieval history. It is also one of the few official royal documentsto usethe manor as the standardunit rather than the vill. Unfortunately,there are few referencesto courts and none specifically to manorial courts. There are referencesto curia, but often the word refers to a courtyardrather than
For a list of chartersconsulted see bibliography, pp. 197-207. The Redversfamily seemedto have enjoyedextended privileges over their Isle of Wight lands,with PaganTrenchard, his son Robert and William Alwin all acting as private sheriffs for those landsbetween c. 1140 and c. 1200.From 1200,the title of such a position seemsto have been 'bailiff of the Island', as held by Walter de Insula. Charters ofthe RedversFamily and the Earldom ofDevon, 1090-1217,ed. R. Bearman(Devon and Cornwall Record Society,new ser., vol. xxxvii, 1994),pp. 26-37 and 120. See pp. 109 and 170-1 for charterscontaining references freedom of the boroughsof Newport and Lymington from hundredand shire courts. 134For a printed examplesee Leiston Ahhey Cartulary and Butley Priory Charters, ed. R. Mortimer (Suffolk RecordsSociety, vol. i, 1979),p. 78. This is a charter(Oct. 1189x Mar. 1190) from John, Count of Mortain confirming the original donationof Leiston manor by Ranulf de Glanville to the Abbey. The grant included soke and sake,toll, team and infangthief pertainingto the manorjust as King Henry his father and King Richard his brother conceded. 135Jocelin ofBrakelond, p.99. The word usedwas 'portmanemot'.Abbot Samsonwas electedin 1182, with Jocelin becominghis chaplainfour monthslater.
43 a legal court. 136References are made to manors without halls, however, the possible significanceof which will be discussedin chapterII.
There is, therefore,a considerableamount of evidencefor the study of the early manorial court, but it should be noted that the vast majority of evidenceis for the early thirteenth century.It should also be noted that the majority of evidencerelates to southernEngland, the Winchesterarea in particular, which may limit the geographical scopeof the findings detailedin this thesis.In addition, the vast majority of information which provided the basisfor the statisticalanalysis, comes from accountrolls and, of these,from the bishopric of Winchester'sestate. Z. Razi and R. Smith, amongstothers, havewarned of the biases,both known and unknown, which may arisefrom the use of 137 one classof record. However, it is hopedthat the use of the more detailedaccounts, althoughlimited in geographicalarea covered and type of information, will, in combinationwith the legal treatisesand occasionalreferences elsewhere to manorial 138 courts,provide this study with a breadthwhich the accountsalone do not provide.
Early manorial accounts
There are three, or possibly five, estateswhich provide detail of individual paymentsmade to the manorial court before 1250.The three main estateswhich provide accountscentre on Winchesterand are the bishopric, the CathedralPriory and St Mary's Abbey, Winchester.Further accounts,those for Southwick Priory and the Burstwick manor of the Count of Aumale, contain lists of paymentswhich may also be payments to court. Of theseaccounts, the bishopric of Winchesteraccounts, also known as the WinchesterPipe Rolls, provide by far the greatestamount of information: the bishopric accountsdetail casesin 1258of the 1294perquisites sections compared to 20 from St Mary's Abbey, 13 from the CathedralPriory, 3 from Southwick Priory and I from the Count of Aumale's manor of Burstwick.
136Domesday Book, i, 35b, 175b, ii, 206. 137Razi and Smith, 'Historiography', p.23. 138Razi and Smith commentedthat manorial court rolls, despitetheir local character,were put to greatuse by Seebohm,Vinogradoff and Maitland in their studiesof medievalEnglish rural society as a whole. ibid., p.7.
44 139 The bishopric of Winchesteraccounts
The bishopric of Winchester'saccounts are recordedon large piecesof parchmentsewn together in Exchequerstyle, with eachrotulet comprising one membrane.The accountsdetailed in the rolls are for the temporal revenueof the estate and do not contain any revenuereceived from the spiritualities of the bishopric. The rolls were not usedin the auditing processbut were compiled after the audit, presumablyto be usedas a point of referencefor the following year's audit or to settle land disputes.The origin of theserolls is uncertain.H. Hall suggestedthat the rolls had beencompiled before 1172because of the distinctive terms usedin the Pipe Roll of the Exchequerfor the bishopric's estatefor that year and referencesto rolls of Bishop 140 Richard of Ilchester(1173-1188) and Bishop Godfrey de Lucy (1189-1204). E. Swift noted an internal referenceto accountshaving beenmade in 1187,but N. Vincent has arguedthat referencesmade to the rolls of the previous bishopswere to 'one-off 141 surveys. Vincent suggestedthat the WinchesterPipe Rolls were initiated by Peterdes Roches,bishop of Winchesterfrom 1205to 1238 and baron of the king's exchequer from 1205 142Vincent that the the have . argued enrolmentof post-auditaccounts may begunin either c. 1205-6or evenin 1208-9.Besides the characterof Peterdes Roches himself, the impetusbehind compiling a 1205-6account may have beendes Roches' election to the seeand his wish to rebuild the economyof the estateafter the vacancy. Vincent arguedthat he may havehad to accountto the king for his expenditurebetween June 1205,when the episcopacywas confirmed by the Pope,and 24 March 1206,when desRoches received his temporalities,during which time the king took no profit from the see.143 H. Hall has suggestedthat des Rocheswas awardedthe profits of the see during the year prior to his consecration,from the deathof Godfrey on 11 or 12
139HRO I IM59/131/1to I IM59/131/23.Available on microfiche. PRO SC 6/1143/1. PRO E 407/5/6. 140Winchester Pipe Roll, 1208-9,pp. xi-xii. Fryde, British Chronology, p. 276. It seemsthat the majority of the bishopric's manorswere at farm in 1172,which would suggesta developmentfrom leasingto direct farming occurredat somepoint between1172 and 1187.P. D. A. Harvey, 'The Pipe Rolls and the Adoption of DemesneFarming in England', EconomicHistory Review,2nd ser., vol. xxvii, 1974,pp. 345- 59. 141Swift, 'Administration', p. 18. The referenceis to an entry in the accountfor WinchesterMinster 1236- 7, 'in rotuli R. episcopi'. Vincent, 'Winch. Pipe Rolls', pp.27-8. 142ibid., pp. 25-42. 143 ibid., pp. 40-1.
45 September1204 to Peter's consecrationon 25 September1205, citing letters to that 144 effect dated21 September1204 and 19 August 1205. Hall did note, however,that the detailedin ExchequerPipe Rolls Michaelmas1205 145The profits of the seewere the of . profits of the see,therefore, seem to have beenin the king's handsuntil at least June 1205.Vincent also suggestedthat the 1208-9roll may indeedhave beenthe first roll compiled as a reactionto the Interdict and the king's subsequentconfiscation of all 146 church lands. Ultimately, however,Vincent found it impossibleto specify an exact date.
There survive 23 annualWinchester Pipe Rolls down to 1252 for the years 1208- 9,1210-12,1213-14,1215-16,1217-21,1223-7,1231-3,1235-7,1244-9 and 1251-2. Two rolls, one summaryaccount for Easter 1240to Michaelmas 1241 and a more detailedaccount for Easterto Michaelmas 1240,survive from the vacancywhich lasted from the deathof Peterdes Roches,9 June 1238,to the consecrationof William Raleigh on 13 September1243.147
The information regardingcourts or, more specifically, court paymentswas recordedin a sectionentitled perquisita which was usually at the end of the cashcharge accountand which appearsto have beenone of the first divisions which occurredin the recording of manorial accounts.From the earliestextant accountroll for the bishopric of Winchester'sestate, the accountis divided into separateparagraphs for different elementsof the account:the various items of stock, for example,are given separate paragraphsaccording to type. The only marginal headingsor subheadings,however, are usually for the paymentsin court, the cashdelivery, the cashexpenses, the corn account 148 and the stock account. In the early WinchesterPipe Rolls the perquisitesections are
144Peter des Roches was not electedto the seeuntil 5 February 1205.Fryde, British Chronology,p. 276. WinchesterPipe Roll, 1208-9,p. ix. 145Winchester Pipe Roll, 1208-9,pp. xi-xii. 146Vincent, 'Winch. Pipe Rolls', pp.40- 1. 147The 1240-1 'vacancy' roll consistsof only one piece of parchmentwritten on one side only. The perquisiteentry is for the whole estatefor the whole year is given as the sum total of 3731i.7s 5;-A.. (PRO SC 6/1143/1). The accountalso containsa sectionfor heriots and stray property. The 'half-year' roll of Michaelmas 1240 to Easter 1241 is similar in form to the other WinchesterPipe Rolls apart from the fact that the membranesare sewntogether in Chancerystyle. (PRO E 407/5/6). For a summaryof the contestedappointment of William Raleigh, seeBracton, iii, pp.xl-xliii. 148Winchester Pipe Roll, 1208-9,pp. vii-viii.
46 entitled Purchor Depurch'which Hall, in his edition of the 1208-9roll, extendedto Purchasia or De purchasUs.N. R. Holt followed the conventionin his edition of the 1210-11 roll despiteone entry, for WinchesterMinster, being abbreviatedin the original to Depchac'. It is the only entry in the seriesof rolls to 1252which gives letters after the V and would seemto imply that the extensionofpurch' and depurch' should be purchacia and depurchaciis which is Franco-Latinrather than the Anglo-Latin 149 purchasia.
Unfortimately, certain rolls in the seriesare darnaged,with only two years,those of 1223-4and 1247-8,containing all perquisitesections completely intact. The damage usually takesthe form of lost entrieseither at the beginning or end of eachline due to the edgesof the parchmentbeing torn or missing entirely. This damagevaries from merely losing the title of the sectionto casessuch as those in 1217-18where damageto the main body of the text is considerable.The entriesfor Wargrave(Berks. ) and Fareham(Hants. ) in that year are severelydamaged, with about half of the original entriesremaining. Damage also occursto the bottom edgeof the piecesof parchment resulting in the loss of entrieswithin a sectionand possibly, on occasion,entire sections. This is shown in the manor of Brightwell (Wilts. ) in 1226-7where the end of the parchmentis missing and only the title of the perquisite sectionremains.
The sheervolume of information provided by eachroll is a merit of these particular accounts.The Winchesterrolls consist of up to 34 large piecesof parchment ' 50 written on both sides,recording detailed information for the large estate. The bishopric held lands in sevendifferent counties,Hampshire (including the Isle of Wight), Oxfordshire, Berkshire,Buckinghamshire, Surrey, Somerset and Wiltshire and there are perquisiteentries for between38 and 66 manorsin eachyear from 1208to 1252.151There are 14 manorswhich appearin every year before 1252for which the roll
149Du Cange,Glossarium, vi, p.573, H. Kurath et al., eds,Middle English Dictionary (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in progress,1952- ), vii, p. 1463 and W. Rothwell et al., eds,Anglo-Norman Dictionary (London, Modern HumanitiesResearch Association, 1992),pp. 568-9. 150This occurs in 1248-9. 131Separate accounts containing perquisite sections were recordedfor 38 manorsin 1210-11and 66 accountscontaining perquisite sectionswere recordedin 1248-9.The averagenumber of manorsfor which perquisitesections were recordedbetween 1208 and 1252 is 56. The accountingunits of Alresford 47 survives and have separateperquisite entries in each of those 23 years. Some manors are not recorded in the accounts in every year, but when the accounts are recorded they do 152 contain perquisite payments. The manor of Taunton is always recorded in the rolls, but the perquisite section, like many other sections for that manor, is sub-divided. These sub-divisions represent different Somerset manors around Taunton: Rimpton is the only Somerset manor which is not included within the Taunton account. Manors such as Bishops Hull, Staplegrove and Trull, therefore, appear as sub-headings within the perquisite section. In this case, only when perquisite payments were received from these manors did their name appear as a sub-heading. There are, however, in every year bar 1245-6, accounts of manors recorded which do not contain perquisite sections. Some
manors seem to have never recorded perquisite payments. Prevett (Hants. ), for example, has an account entry in 1208 and 1211 but does not record any perquisite payments and Tisted (Hants.) has entries in 1232 and 1235 but, again, records no payments of court. These manors are unusual, however. Prevett seems to have originally been part of the manor of West Meon, a manor held by Winchester Cathedral Priory, which suggests 153 that the manor was contested. Control of the manor of Tisted was also contested in the early thirteenth century but seisin of the manor was regained by the bishopric between 1217 and 1228.154
It has generallybeen assumed that the bishopric of Winchester'saccounts ran from Michaelmasto Michaelmas,but no specific datesare recordedat the headof the rolls: the 1208-9roll, for example,is datedonly by the phrase'the fourth year' of Peter 155 des Roches' episcopacy. The assumptionseems to have beenmade because of the close links with the royal Exchequerand becausemost manorial accountsby the late 156 thirteenth centuryhad adoptedthis dating system. Peterdes Rocheswas consecrated on 25 September1205, and it is just possiblethat until his deathin 1238 the accounts
Borough, 1210-11, Rimpton, 1232-3and Buttermere, 1248-9appear to have recordedtwo accounts within the rolls in theseyears. 152 For example,the manor of Calbourneon the Isle of Wight doesnot record an accountin 1208-9,but recordsan account,with a perquisitesection, for every other extant year. 153 VCHHants, iii, p.336 and pp.342-5. West Meon had belongedto the Bishopric before 1205 and full control was only relinquishedin 1284. 154ibid., iii, pp.58-62. 155 WinchesterPipe Roll, 1208-9,pp. ix-x, WinchesterPipe Roll, 1210-11,p. xviii. 156 WinchesterPipe Roll, 1208-9,pp. ix-x, Harvey, Cuxham,pp. 22-3.
48 ran from 25 Septemberto 25 Septemberthe following year, thus being datedprecisely by his episcopalyears. ' 57It doesseems more likely, however,that the accountsran from Michaelmasto Michaelmas.
Certain rolls contain dateswhich were usually enteredeither in the margin or closeto the manor heading.The datesseem to be datesof audit and the chronologyof the entriessuggests that the manorswere generallyentered into the fair copy roughly in order of audit. The order in which the manorsare recordedin the account,however, is not consistentfrom year to year which, in turn, may suggestthat the order in which the audit was conductedwas not necessarilyconsistent either. It may, however,simply be a result of the scribeof the fair copy recordingthe information as it cameto hand.The Oxfordshire,Berkshire and Buckinghamshiremanors, for example,are usually grouped togetherbut the order within the group and the datesof audit vary considerablyfrom 158 year to year. The yearsfor which the audit datesare recordedfor most manorsare 1220-1,1223-4,1225-6,1226-7,1231-2,1232-3,1235-6,1236-7 and 1244-5.One date and six datesrespectively are recordedfor 1245-6and 1246-7.The saintsdays referred to rangein date from St Fides (6 Oct.) to the feast of St Fabian and St Sebastian(20 Jan.), but the most regularly useddates occur in November. Thesedates did not detail the end of the account,nor eventhe compilation of the account,but the date of the audit of the account.No referencehas been found for Michaelmas(29 September)but Martinmas (11 November)was usedregularly.
William Raleigh was electedbishop of Winchesterin 1240,consecrated on 13 September1243 and receivedhis temporalitieson 10 September1244. The first roll for his episcopacywas datedas the secondyear of his appointmentwhich, using the dateof his consecration,would be 13 September1244-5. In this roll, however,the perquisite entry for Taunton (Som.) containscases totalling 74s. 6d. which relate to the previous year. The accountsof the seeup to 11 September1244 were kept in the Exchequer
157Beveridge, 'Dating', p. 108. 158In 1244-5,for example,the manorswere auditedbetween Monday 16 October 1245 (Adderbury, Oxon.) and Tuesday24 October 1245 (Wargrave,Berks. ). In 1220-1,they were auditedbetween Monday 22 November 1221 (Brightwell, Berks.) and Tuesday30 November 1221 (Wargrave,Berks). In 12234 the audit for thesemanors was taken in early December.
49 which suggeststhat the previousyear referredto in the Taunton entry actually meantthe time betweenthe receiving of temporalities(10 Sept.) and the end of the accounting 159 year presumablyat Michaelmas(29 Sept.). The entriesfor Witney and Witney borough (Oxon.) in 1244-5are also unusual.Both manorshave two receiptssections each,the secondsection being recordedas the secondyear. The first section,like the Taunton entry, seemsto refer to the period between10 September1244 and Michaelmas.Both manorsrecord the dateof audit as 18 October 1245which, 160 presumably,was part of the annual'Michaelmas' audit.
The detailedindividual caseentries generally consist of an amountfollowed by a name followed by a reasonfor payment:'Et de vjd. de Roberto Snelgarpro mellea', 'And for 6d. from Robert Snelgarfor affray'. The 'standardform' of 'amount, name, reason', however,is not alwaysconsistent. In 14 yearsthe number of caseswhich record no reasonis below 14 per cent of the total numberof cases.In the remaining 9 years, however, over 41 per cent of all casesrecord no reason,with the highestpercentage, 74 per cent, being for 1219-20.161In addition, the use of bynamesis inconsistent,thus making comparisonbetween people very difficult. In ten of the rolls the use of bynames is infrequent: 1215-16,1218-21,1223-4,1225-7,1231-2and 1235-7.Occasionally a distinction betweenpeople of the samefirst nameis made:For 5s Eudo Palm' for the 12d from have land For 18d for same(the marriageof his daughter)For the sameto ..... 162 Eudo from the same(wood). For 6d from Eudo Palm' for the same(wood). The distinction betweenEudo and Eudo Palm' in the secondpairing would seemto imply that they were different men. Bynames,in yearswhen few are recorded,tend to be used only when the entriesare consecutive,but they are by no meansalways used.In East Meon (Hants.) in 1218,a certain William madea paymentof 6d. which was followed by a paymentmade by a William de Mara, again for 6d.. It seemsthat the bynamewas used to distinguish betweenthe two Williams, but later caseentries in the samemanor in the
159Fryde, British Chronology,p. 276 and Beveridge,'Dating, p. 108. 160The datesare given as 'Die mercur' sanctiluce' and 'anno ij. The feast of St Luke is 18 October, which was a Wednesdayin 1245.These instances clearly show that thesewere not audit to audit accounts. 1611 to 13 per cent: 1209-12; 1217-18; 1224-5; 1233-52.42 per cent: 1214-16; 1225-6.53 per cent: 1231-2.64 to 68 per cent: 1218-19; 1220-1; 1226-7.71 to 74 per cent: 1219-20; 1223-4. 162The paymentswere 'De v s. Eudonepalm' pro simili {filia maritanda). De xii d. eodernpro terra habenda De d. Eudone (bosco). De A d. de Eudone (bosco)'...... xviii pro simili pahn' pro simili 50 sameyear recordWilliam paying 3s. followed by William paying 6d. followed by anothercase where William paid 6d.. In Fareharn(Hants. ) in 1236,three Richardswere recordedconsecutively, each payment being six penceand only the first recordinga reason.It is impossibleto tell in suchcases where no bynameis given whetherthe paymentswere madeby the sameman.
The WinchesterPipe Rolls contain 35 instanceswhere the perquisitesections gives only a sum total of court paymentsfor the manor rather than the usual detailed individual caseentries. This is particularly noticeablein 1215-16where 8 of the 40 manorswhich recordpayments of court record a sum only. The 1215-16entries are not unique, however; Cheriton (Hants.) in 1217-18,for example,records a sum total of 28s 4d.163 The Downton (Wilts. ) and Harwell (Berks.) entriesfor 1217-18consist of 5 and 13 casesrespectively, but a numberof the 'individual' entriesare, in fact, sum totals in themselves.The entriesfor WinchesterMinster in 1236-7and Bishops Fonthill in 1244- 5 also contain sum totals.164
The perquisitesections in the early Pipe Rolls contain a wide variety of cases including marriagepayments and land transactionswhich were later recordedin separatesections in the account.The separationof thesedoes not occur until 1259,but indications of the grouping do becomeapparent. In the manor of Witney (Oxon.) in 1245-6the perquisitesection was divided into three sub-sections,each with a sum total, the first noted perquisitepayments and the other two sub-sectionsnoted land transactionsonly. The perquisitepayments for the manor of Downton were also divided, but into four sub-sections.The paymentsappear to be grouped,notably the 29 payments for mowing the lord's meadowpoorly in the secondsub-section, and 13 paymentsfor default of carrying timber, 14 paymentsfor default of carrying wood and 47 payments for not carrying the prosecutionof thievesthrough to the gallows in the fourth sub-
163'De perquisitis xxviij sol' iiij d'. 164 The paymentswere 'perquisitis cum fine de Thethinges',case 4 of 5, 'placit' et purch" casesI of 13, &pcrquis'tempore F- Wastehus", case74 of 75 and 'placit' et perquisit' post hundredurnde hockdai', case28 of 28, respectively.
51 section. Groups of similar casesof ten and above payments also occur in the first and 165 third sub-sections.
The recordingof manorial court paymentsmade in kind can be found in various sectionsof the accounts.Payments made in wax, curnin and ploughsharesare sometimesincluded in the perquisitesection but, gradually,these were given separate sub-headingswithin the account:by the 1240sit was fairly unusualto have non-cash paymentswithin the perquisitesection. Heriots paid in cashwere recordedin the perquisite sectionwhereas, it seems,if they were paid in kind they were enteredin the livestock account.This method seemsthe most sensiblefor the compilation of accounts as, regardlessof the source,the livestock accountremained separate from the cash account.It does,however, mean that not all manorial court businesswhich resultedin a paymentin kind was necessarilyrecorded within the perquisite section.
The WinchesterPipe Rolls are a valuable sourcefor many elementsof early thirteenth centuryhistory due to the detail and sheervolume of evidence.As a result, many historianshave based their researchon theseenrolled accounts.The two earliest surviving rolls, thosefor the accountingyears 1208-9and 1210-11have beenedited by 166 H. Hall and N. R. Holt respectively. One other Pipe Roll has beenpublished, 1301-2, 167 with the 1409-10roll due to be publishedin the near future. W. H. Beveridgewrote an important article dating the Pipe Rolls and usedthe rolls in his study of corn yields, 168 prices and wages. The work by N. Vincent on the origins of the WinchesterPipe Rolls has alreadybeen noted. 169 J. Z. Titow hasmade wide use of the rolls to study 170 yields, weather,the condition of the peasantryand population increase. In association
163The paymentswere 'pro defaltaad meremiumcariendam', 'pro defectuad boscharncariendam' and 6quianon secuti sunt latronesad furcas'. The first sub-sectionhas groups of casestotalling 10 and 14 and the third sub-sectionhas casestotalling 10 and 11. The secondsub-section forms Appendix A, p. 177. 166Winchester Pipe Roll, 1208-9,and WinchesterPipe Roll, 1210-11. 167The Pipe Roll ofthe Bishopric of Winchester,1301-2, ed. M. Page,(Winchester, Hampshire County Council, vol. xiv, 1996).The 1410-11roll is also edited by Mark Page. 168W. H. Beveridge,'Yield and Price of Com in the Middle Ages', Economic History, a supplementto the EconomicJournal, vol. ii, 1927,pp. 155-67.Beveridge, 'Dating'. W. H. Beveridge, 'Wages in the WinchesterManors', EconomicHistory Review,vol. vii, 1936,pp. 2243. 169Vincent, 'Winch. Pipe Rolls'. 170J. Z. Titow, 'Evidence of Weatherin the Account Rolls of the Bishopric of Winchester, 1209-1350', Economic History Review,2nd ser., vol. xii, 1959,pp. 3 60407. Titow, 'Population'. J.Z. Titow, 'Some Differencesbetween manors and their Effects on the Condition of the Peasantin the Thirteenth Century',
52 171 with M. M. Postan,Titow also looked at heriots and prices in the Winchesterrolls. D. L. Farmer,like Beveridgeand Titow, also usedthe rolls for the study of yields, prices and wages.172 M. Beresfordused the recordsto study the developmentof new towns, 173 whilst A. E. Levett and A. Ballard usedthem to study the effects of the Black Death. E. Swift's thesison manorial administrationwas basedlargely on the Winchester 174 rolls. Other works have used the rolls for the study of particular manors: C. C. Thornton's study of the manor of Rimpton, for example, made specific use of the rolls as did a supplementary chapter to the Black Death Study by A. Ballard, for Witney 175 Brightwell and Downton. N. S.B. and E. C. Gras also used the Pipe Rolls in their study 176 of the manor of Crawley (Hants.).
Only one study hasused the details of court paymentsprovided by the WinchesterPipe Rolls: AN May's doctoral thesis studiedthe manorial courts of the estatesof the bishopric of Winchesterthroughout the thirteenth century,but his work is of limited useto the presentstudy. He studiedonly three particular manors,those of Bishops Waltham (Hants.), Farnham(Surr. ) and Downton (Wilts. ), in a restricted number of yearswhich, althoughconsidered to be representative,may not presentthe full picture. The manorsare all of a considerablesize and there are greatyear by year variations, both of which may distort his results.He also studied only the franchisal
Agricultural History Review,vol. x, 1962,pp. 1-13.Titow, 'Land and Population'. J.Z. Titow, Winchester Yields,A Study in Medieval Agricultural Productivity (Cambridge,Cambridge University Press,1972). 171M. M. Postanand J.Z. Titow, 'Heriots and Priceson Winchestermanors', EconomicHistory Review, 2nd ser., vol. xi, 1959,pp. 392-41 1. 172D. L. Farmer,'Grain Yields on the WinchesterManors in the Later Middle Ages', EconomicHistory Review,2nd ser., vol. xxx, 1977,pp. 555-66. D. L. Fanner, 'Crop Yields, Prices and Wagesin Medieval England', Studiesin Medieval andRenaissanceHistory, vol. vi, 1983,pp. 117-55. 173M. Beresford,'The Six New Towns of the Bishops of Winchester,1200-1255', Medieval Archaeology, vol. iii, 1959,pp. 187-215.A. E. Levett and A. Ballard, 'The Black Death' in Oxford Studies in Social and Legal History, ed. P. Vinogradoff (London, Oxford University Press,vol. v, 1916),pp. I- 217. 174SWifý 'Administration'. 175C. C. Thornton, 'The Demesneof Rimpton, 938 to 1412:A Study in Economic Development' (unpublishedPh. D. thesis,Leicester University, 1988).A. Ballard, 'The Manors of Witney, Brightwell and Downton' in., OxfordStudies in Social andLegal History, ed. P. Vinogradoff (London, Oxford University Press,vol. v, 1916),pp. 181-217. 176N. S.B. and E.C. Gras, The Economicand Social History of an English Village, Crawley, Hampshire, AD 909-1928 (Cambridge,Massachusetts, Harvard University Press,1930).
53 business,such as breachesof the assizeof ale, rather than the entire businessof the 177 courts.
Other accountswith detailed courtpayments
Thirteen accountsfor this period survive for the manor of Froyle which belonged to the Abbey of St. Mary's, Winchester.178 The accountscomprise of betweenone and five piecesof parchmentsewn together in chancerystyle, with writing often on one side only. Twelve of the thirteen rolls are datedby the abbacialyear of 'Abbess A. ', Agnes, with the first year being for Michaelmas1235-6. These annual rolls provide accountsfor 1235-8,1239-45,1246-7and 1248-50.The earliestroll, dated 'De xvy Anno Domine', relatesto the seventeenthyear of the previousabbess and seemsto accountfor the year 12334.179The rolls containperquisite sections which are similar in form to the WinchesterPipe Rolls, having a sectiontitle, a standardform of 'amount, name,reason' type entry and a sum total for the section.The rolls also record heriot paymentswithin the stock accountand in 1249-50begin to recordthe recognition paymentsin a separate section.
The earliestroll surviving in the WinchesterCathedral Priory archive is the 180 accountroll for the manor of Wyke next Portland (Dor.). The accountis madeup of two piecesof parchmentsewn in Chancerystyle, with the accountwritten on one side only. A brief summaryof the accountis written towardsthe end of the parchmenton the dorse side. The accountis for the period Michaelmas 1242to Michaelmas 1243.The information relating to court businessis divided into a number of headingsin this roll: Warranty of the court; Perquisites;Marriage fines; Heriots. The warranty of court and the perquisitessection each have separatesum totals, of 36s. 8d. and 39s. respectively, whereasthe marriagefines and heriots have a combinedtotal of I Os..Detail is given in eachof the four sectionsand the standardpattern for the individual entry is followed:
177May, 'Franchise'. May also publishedan article basedon this work. May, 'Impoverishment'. 178BL Additional Charter 17457to 17468.HRO 123M88W/l. 179Details about the dating of the rolls can be found in Harvey, Cuxham,p. 22n. BL Additional Charter 17468. 180Muniments of the Dean and Chapter,Winchester, W53/10/1.
54 6d. from Robert Buddafor infringementof pasture,for example.Payment was madein money exceptin the caseof the first five paymentsfor the warranty of court. Thesewere paid in pepper,cumin and wax.
An accountroll also survivesfrom the late 1240sfor twenty-two manorsin Hampshire,Wiltshire and Dorset.The roll originally consistedof eight membranes,but the seventhmembrane has been cut, leaving only the manor nameof Wyke extant.181 The accounts,although all sewntogether in Exchequerstyle, seemto come from different years.The manorentries are datedusing referenceto the Prior, John de Cauz, who was Prior of St. Swithun's from 1247to 1249.A year is given only for those manorsrecorded at the beginningof eachmembrane, with Michelmersh, Overton, Easton,Long Sutton,Barton Priors (all Hants.) and Stockton (Wilts. ) all accountingfor the secondyear of John de Cauz's period of office. ' 82Portland (Dor.), however,which is the first manor entry on the fourth membrane,accounts for the third year of the Prior's office. Presumably,the accountfor the manor of Elwell was also for the third year as the 183 manor was also recordedon the reverseof the membrane.
Three of the twenty-two manorsdo not record perquisitepayments: Worthy (Hants.), Littleton (Hants.) and Wyke (Dor.). The perquisite sectionof the nineteen remaining manorswere recordedat the end of the receipt accountand detail individual paymentsin the style of the WinchesterPipe Rolls: the standardentry noted the amount of payment,the personliable and the reasonfor the payment,and a sum total of perquisitepayments was recordedat the end of the section.
The perquisiteentry for Portland is unusualin that it has beenorganised by case type. Containedwithin the text are three paragraphmarks indicating a changein type of casefrom the generalperquisite payments to heriot payments,then marriagepayments
is1 Muniments of the Dean and Chapter,Winchester, L3 8/2/1. The actual accountsfor this manor, therefore,are missing. 182The manor of Littleton, recordedon the reverseof the final piece of parchment,also recordsthat the year of the accountwas the secondof John's period of office. 183Drew datesboth the Portland and Elwell accountsto the third year, Michaelmas 1248to 1249.Drew, 'Wyke', p.3 1.
55 and, finally, land transactions.This division, althoughsubtle in the text, foreshadows the division of paymentsmade in the bishopric of Winchester'sPipe Rolls where land transactions and marriage payments became a separate section from 1259 onwards.
An edition and translation of accounts from the Winchester Cathedral Priory's estatehas beenpublished by J.S. Drew in the DorsetNatural History and Archaeology Society Proceedings. The manors selected were Wyke, 1242-3 and Portland and Elwell, 1248-9.184
Four accountssurvive from the Southwick Priory estatefor the late 1240s.185 The earliestaccount, for the manor of Stubbingtonon PortseaIsland (Hants.) for 1246- 7, containsno perquisitesection, but the accountsfor 1248-9and 1249-50do contain possibleperquisite entries. The 1248-9account is written on two membranessewn togetherchancery style, with writing on both sides.The last six entriesmay be perquisite entriesas they record specific namesand amountsof payment.They do not, however, usually record a reasonfor payment.The 1249-50account for Stubbington also comprisestwo membranessewn in chancerystyle, but a third small piece of parchmenthas been sewn to the headof the secondpiece. The final three entriesin this receiptssection record namesof individuals and an amount of payment,which may also be perquisitepayments. Accounts also survive for the manorsof Moundsmere(Hants. ) and PrestonCandover (Hants. ), which consistof three piecesof parchmentsewn chancerystyle. Thesedate from 1248-9.The accountfor Moundsmerehas no perquisite section,but the accountfor PrestonCandover lists elevennames who paid an amercement.
The manor of Burstwick in the East Riding of Yorkshire belongedto the Count of Aurnale.186 The record consistsof one membranewritten on one side only and the roll is badly damagedand stained.The roll is not a full accountas it recordsa list of
'" ibid.. 185Winchester College, 14484,15376. 196pRO SC 6/1078/6.
56 187 receiptsonly and is datedto the early or mid-thirteenthcentury. The introductory dating passagewhich is badly damagedand stainedis followed by a record of items sold. There is then a recordof namesand amountsof paymententered in list form and a sum total of receipts.It seemsthat the majority of the namesand paymentsrecorded do, in fact, representperquisite payments. The positioning of the sectionat the end of the receiptsaccount follows the patternof the WinchesterPipe Rolls and one entry records 188 a reasonfor the payment:Walter madea paymentto have the mercy of the court. The first thirty-four entriesin the list, apart from the aboveentry, note only a name,such as 189 Alan, son of Andrew, and an amount,5d.. Five of the remaining eight entriesin the list, however,seem to havemore information regardingthe personor personsliable for the payment:there are five referencesto a date,Pentecost, Martinmas or Michaelmas 190 and considerablesums of moneyare involved. The condition of the membranemakes it impossibleto readthe full entriesfor thesefinal eight records,but it may be the case that at least five of theselater entrieswere for tithings or hundredsfor certain periods throughoutthe year.
Accountsfor other estates
The accountsfor the estateof RamseyAbbey (Hunts.) provide a link between the accountsdetailing the individual perquisitepayments and the accountsgiving only a sum total of paymentsto court. Threeaccounts before 1250 survive from the estateof RamseyAbbey, one of which was for Broughtonwith Kings Ripton (Hunts.). 191The accountconsists of one piece of parchmentand was for the year Michaelmas 1243to Michaelmas 1244.The perquisiteentry was the final entry in the receiptssection and consistedof two sum totals, one for Broughton and one for Kings Ripton. The previous entry, however,was for gersuma,an entry payment.In the other account,a single
197 P.D. A. Harvey, 'Mid-Thirteenth CenturyAccounts from Bury St EdmundsAbbey', Transactionsofthe British ArchaeologicalAssociation,for 1994,in the press. 188The paymentwas 'Waltero pro misericordia,ij m". 189Four of the entriesare so stainedthat no nameis legible. 190Of the final eight entriesthree entriesare so badly stainedthat only the amountof paymentis legible. From the position of the recordedamounts for thoseentries and the value of the paymentsit seemsmore likely that theseentries were for individuals rather than tithings or hundreds. 191PRO SC 6/875/6 and BL Additional Charter34903.
57 membranefor the sameyear for the manorsof Elsworth, Knapwell and Graveley(all Cambs.), the perquisitepayment recorded in the accountfor Graveleywas also preceded by an entry payment.The combinedaccounts for Elsworth and Knapwell listed three entry payments,one paymentfor merchet(for permissionto marry), the total perquisite 192 paymentsand, finally, a paymentfor permissionto rent land. This showsthe division of thosepayments usually groupedunder the title of perquisitesin the bishopric of Winchester'saccounts. It also emphasisesthe difficulties in comparingthe sum total perquisiteentries as one can neverbe surewhether one is comparinglike with like.
One later accountalso survivesfor Broughtonwith Kings Ripton and for the manor of Warboys(Hunts. ). The accountconsisted of one piece of parchment,with one accountwritten on eachside. The date of the accountwas Michaelmas 1249to Michaelmas 1250.For the manor of Broughton with Kings Ripton, once again,the perquisite entry was the final entry in the receiptssection, but the entry recordsonly a combined sum total in this year. The receiptssection included paymentsfor the view of frankpledgeand one entry fine, with the two entriesimmediately before the perquisite paymentbeing for a heriot paid in cashand to have licence, which was presumablya paymentfor permissionto marry. The perquisitepayment for Warboyswas also the final paymentrecorded in the receiptssection of the account.There were 7 paymentsfor land and 6 paymentsfor licenceor permission,again presumably to marry, recorded immediately beforethe perquisiteentry. All surviving RamseyAbbey accounts, therefore,seem to treat land and marriagepayments as distinct categoriesfor the purposeof the accounts.J. A. Raftis conductedwork on the RamseyAbbey estatebut W. O. Ault, in his more generalwork on privatejurisdiction, devotedan entire chapterto the manor courts of RamseyAbbey. 193
The Archbishop of Canterbury'sestate provides one seriesof enrolled accounts for the year 1236-7.The accountsprobably coveredthe entire estatebut accountsfor only 9 manorssurvive and only 7 accountscontain extant perquisitepayments. The
192The phraseused was 'pro licencia conducenditerras'. 193J. A. Raftis, The EstatesofRamsey Abbey (Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies,1957). Ault, Private Jurisdiction.
58 manuscriptcomprises 3 membranes,sewn Chancery style, the third membranebeing severelydamaged with much of the original information now lost or illegible. There is writing on both sidesof the documentbut, in places,it is very faint. Of the 7 manorsfor which paymentsto court remain extant,2 record perquisitepayments alone and 5 record various combinationsof perquisites,fines, amercementsand reliefs. The totals are recordedfor eachtype of payments,however, so the entry for Croydon (Surr.), for example,gives a sum total of perquisitepayments, a sum total of amercementsand a 194 sum total of fines. The accountfor Harrow on the Hill (Middlesex) containssum totals for reliefs, perquisitesand amercementsbut also containsindividual paymentsby which particular peoplewere fined for having land: thesepayments are presumably details of paymentsrecorded as sum total 'fines' in the other accounts.Again, this highlights the difficulty in ascertainingwhether one is comparinglike with like when dealing with thesesomewhat imprecise terms.
Fourteenmanors are recordedin one seriesof accountsfor the Abbey of St 195 Benet Hulme. The rolls comprise 15 membranes, with each manor having one
membrane bar Ludham. which had 2 and Swanton Abbot and Estone, in Scottow, which seem to have recorded a joint account on one membrane and individual accounts on the 196 final membrane. All information for this joint account has been lost, however, as the
membrane has been cut and only part of the title remains. In total, 13 of the membranes were cut in a similar fashion, with 6 of these also being cut ftirther down the parchment. Of these 6,4 appear to have lost the end piece of parchment. Only five of the manors
contain perquisite entries, providing ten separate sections in total, but these are sum totals of amounts rather than individual cases. The date of the accounts are 1239-4 1, but the actual dates of account vary from manor to manor. Four of the manors record periods of account of approximately one year, but the manor of Hovetune records four
194The manuscriptis wom and only the 'pro f... ' of 'pro finibus' survives.It hasbeen assumedthat the paymentis 'pro finibus' from the length of the wom passageand comparisonwith other accounts. 195Norfolk Record Office MF/RO 382/18 Est/I, Est/2/1/1,Est/2/1/2,101426/3/13. 196The exact location of Estoneis uncertain,but seemsto be associatedwith Scottow village (Norf. ). St Benet ofHolme 1020-1210,trans. J. R. West (Norfolk Record Society,vols ii and iii, 1932), ii, p.287. 59 irregular periodsbetween 29 September1239 and an unknown date in November 1240. 197 The shortestperiod of accountin Hovetuneis just under one month.
Later accountsfor the abbeyrecorded 10 manors,7 of which recordedperquisite paymentseither as a single manoror in combinationand, again, the period which the accountscover varied for eachmanor. All sevenperiods of account,however, fell within the Michaelmas1244-5 accounting year. The accountstotal 14 membranes,with 9 membranesforming Est/2/1/2and 4 membranesforming Est/2/1/1. A single membrane,101426/3/13, also seemsto be a membranefrom the account.These may well have beenpart of one documentand it seemsthat the accountscontained in Est/2/1/1 were recordedat the end of the account.The perquisitepayments were sum totals and all occur as the final entry in the receiptssection.
Eight accountsfor Woodstockand sevenother manorsor neighbours(all Oxon.) survive from before 1250.198Each year of accounts is written on two pieces of parchment sewn chancery style, with all eight years being sewn together in Exchequer style. The accounts are often written on one side of the parchment only. The dates of the accounts are in regnal years, from 27 Henry III to 34 Henry 111,1242to 1250. All manors for all years record a perquisite payment except Wootton (Oxon. ) in 1245-6. The payment is a sum total, sometimes including payments for frankpledge as well as for perquisites. Payments of heriots in cash are also recorded within the receipts section.
An account roll survives for the bishopric of Worcester's manors of Fladbury 199 (Worcs. ) and Tredington (Warks. ). The single membrane is large in size, comparable to the Winchester Pipe Rolls, and the account is written on both sides. It seems that this account was once included in a larger collection of accounts, probably for the entire estate. The entry for the manor of Tredington is divided into two, with separate accounts for Michaelmas 1246 to 13 April 1247 and 13 April 1247 to the following Michaelmas.
197Two manorsrecord one period of paymentand two manorsrecord two periods of payment,all approximatelyone year in length.Ile manor of Hovetunerecords payments for the following dates:29 Sept.to 23 Oct. 1239;23 Oct. to 7 Dec. 1239;7 Dec. 1239to 29 Sept. 1240; 29 Sept.to ? Nov. 1240. 198PRO SC 6/962/4 199Bodleian Library WorcestershireRoll 4.
60 Each accountcontains a sum total of perquisitepayments recorded within but not at the 200 end of the receiptssection of the account. The secondaccount also recordstwo heriot paymentsin the stock account.The Fladbury entry is written on the reverseof the parchmentand the accountis for the year 1246-7.The perquisiteentry is, again, a sum total and forms the penultimateentry in the receiptssection. No heriot paymentsare 201These in C. Dyer's the recorded. early accountsare mentioned work on estatesof the bishopric of Worcester,680-1540.202
Accountscontaining perquisite sections for 13 manors,either individually or as 203 a combination,survive from the estatesof Bury St. Edmunds(SUff ). The accounts are found in a registerfrom the Abbey which containscopies of a variety of documents and which was probably a late fourteenthcentury combination of earlier books. The perquisite sectionsare found in the copiesof the cellarer's, chamberlain'sand sacrist's departmentaccounts, which were all written in a mid-thirteenth century hand.These entries, like thosein the RamseyAbbey cartulary,were copies and were not usedin the estateaccounting process. 204 The datesof the accountsvary for eachmanor or combination of manors,between the dates20 July 1248and 28 July 1250.205The main focus of the accounts,however, seems to be on the year July 1248-9.There are twelve detailedperiods of account,with eachmanor or combination of two manorshaving one period of accountbar the manor of Warkton (Northants.). This manor hasthree separate periods of accountcovering two accountingyears: 29 Sept. 1247-8,29 Sept. 1249to 5 May 1250and 5 May to 28 July 1250.
A single membraneaccount for Little Dumnow Priory (Ess.) survivesfor the year 1239-40.206The accountgives details of sevenmanors but only one manor,
200The entrieswere 'Et de l4s. et 8d. de finibus et perquisitis Curie', and 'Et de 2s. et 5d. de perquisitis Curie'. 201The entry was 'Et de 4 Is. de finibus et perquisitis Curie. 202C. Dyer, Lords and Peasantsin a ChangingSociety (London, Pastand PresentSociety, 1980). 203BL Harley MS. 645. ff. 193-8,252,260-1. 204All this information is taken from an as yet unpublishedarticle. P.D. A. Harvey, 'Mid-Thirteenth CenturyAccounts from Bury St EdmundsAbbey', Transactionsofthe British Archaeological Association, for 1994,in the press. 205Six of the manorsare recordedin combinationsof two, thus producing three accounts. 206Essex Record Office D/DM Q2.
61 Henham.(Ess. ), recordsa perquisitepayment. It seemsthat the paymentwas not actually madein that year,however, as the paymentwas recordedas being owed.
P.M. Barnes' chapter in the Interdict Documents provides an introduction to and a transcription of three documents relating to the lands of Christ Church Cathedral between 1207 1213 207The 'Issues 1207-8' document the priory and . provides earliest record of perquisite payments in a roll of accounts. The roll was compiled to support the claim by Christ Church Cathedral Priory to compensation from King John during the Interdict. The roll seems to have been drawn up at Canterbury, presumably from manorial rolls of some kind, at some point between the exiled monks' return in July 208 1213 and the end of the Interdict. The document, which P.M. Barnes entitled 'Issues', suffered damage to the head of the first membrane but the 3 legible manor names on that membrane noted the period of account as in the time of Fulk de Cantelu. The second of the 5 membranes specified the exact period of account as 20 July 1207 to 2 209 February 1208. Of the 21 manorswhich recordedaccounts, 9 manorsrecorded 210 perquisitepayments. The perquisiteentries consisted of perquisitepayments or a combination of fines and perquisites,reliefs and perquisitesor reliefs, heriots and perquisites.Canterbury Cathedral Priory also producedsix assisascaccarii rolls which detailedpayments to court for the years 1224-5,1229-30,123 0-1,123 5-6,123 6-7 and 1242-4.The entrieswere, again,sum totals only, accountingfor about 30 manors.211
Two other groupsof accountsfor before 1250have beenidentified, thosefor the honoursof Clare and Gloucesterand the Burgh and other estates.212 The former accounts,as has beenmentioned above, do not contain any paymentsto court. The latter, for the Burgh and various other estates,were a collection of accountscompiled by
207Library of the Dean and Chapterof CanterburyRental 38, Roll 1. 208Notification of the relaxation of the Interdict reachedKing John on II February 1214. 209The feastof St Margaretto the Purification. 210 Orgarswick(Kent), I of the 21 manors,was at farm and may not, therefore,be expectedto record gerquisitepayments. I Ilese accountshave not been looked at in person.The information was provided by P.D. A. Harvey. AssisaScaccarii rolls, 1-6. 212 Honour of Clare and Gloucester,PRO SC 6/1109/8 - SC 6/1109/11. 62 men put in charge of escheats by the crown. They were not internal accounts of the 213 manor.
The tables below, figures 1 and 2, provide a summary of the material available, detailing the estates,the datesfor which information is available,the number of manors and the countiesfor which perquisitesections are recorded,the total numberof perquisitesections for eachestate and the type of paymentrecorded, whether it be individual paymentsor a sum total.
213Again, the Burgh estateaccounts have not beenlooked at in person.The information was, once again, provided by P.D. A. Harvey.
63 Figure I
Estates which record individual peLquisite payments Estate Dates Number of Counties Number Number Number manors each of which which year which perquisite contain give record sections individual sum perquisite payments totals payments only Bishopric of 1208-52 38 to 70 Hants. Wilts. 1294 1258* 35 Winchester Berks. Oxon. (Hants. ) Bucks. Surr. Som. Isle of Wight
The '18 month 1240-1 Estate Presumably 1 0 1 vacancy'roll amalgamated as above 15 Apr. 1240 - 29 Sept. 1241 (PRO SC 6/1143/1)
Ile '6 month 1240-1 43 Hants. Wilts. 43 43 0 vacancy'roll Berks. Oxon. Surr. 15 Apr. 1240 - Bucks. 29 Sept. 1240 Isle of Wight (PRO E40715/6)
St Mary's Abbey, 1233-50 1 Hants. 13 13 0 Winchester (Hants. )
Winchester 1242-3, 1 to 19 Hants. Wilts. 20 20 0 Cathedral Priory, 1247-9 Dor. (Hants. )
Southwick Priory 1248-50 1 to 2 Hants. 3 3 0 (Hants. )
Count of Aumale early or I East Riding I 1 0 (East Riding) mid- thirteenth century
* Four of the 'individual' paymentsare totals in themselves.Brightwell in 1226-7would haverecorded individual payments,but damageto the roll hasresulted in the loss of all information bar the perquisite sub-heading.
64 Figure 2
Estates which record sum total perquisite payments Estate Dates Number of Counties Number Number Number manors each of which which year which perquisite contain give record sections individual sum perquisite payments totals payments only Ramsey Abbey, 1243-4, 3 to 5 Hunts. 6 0 6** (Hunts. ) 1249-50 Cambs.
Archbishopric of 1236-7 7 Surr. Kent 7 0 7 Canterbury (Kent) Middlesex
St Benet Hulme 1239-41 5 to 7 Norf, 17 0 1 (Norf. ) 1244-5
Royal estates: 1242-50 7 to 8 Oxon. 63 0 63 Woodstock and members (Oxon. )
Bishopric of 1246-7 2 Worcs. 3 0 3 Worcester (Worcs. ) Warks.
Bury St Edmunds 1247-50 13 Suff. Norf. 12 0 12 Abbey, (Suff. ) Northants.
Little Durunow 1239-40 1 Ess. 1 0 1 Priory (Ess.)
Canterbury 1207-8, 9 Kent 9 0 9 Cathedral Priory 1224- (Kent) 44***
Honours of Clare 1234-7 0 0 0 0 and Gloucester (Gloucs. ) I
** Thesesix sectionsgive a sumtotal for perquisitepayments, but list individual paymentsfor land and marriage. *** Seefootnote 211 above.
65 II Where and when were the courts held?
Where were manorial courts held?
DomesdayBook makesno specific referenceto the holding of manorial courts, mentioning curia mainly as a courtyardrather than a particular court. DomesdayBook doesrefer, however,to a numberof manorswithout halls, maneriumsine halla. 1This seemsto havebeen of somesignificance and may indicate that no court was held in this manor becausethere was no meetingat the hall, no hallmoot. Bracton mentionsa similar situation in discussingthe transferralof casesfrom the lord's court to the county court. A casecould go to the county court if the lord was consideredincapable of doing justice, one reasongiven for this being if the lord had no court. If the lord did not havea court, the officer was to go to the lord's residenceprovided it was in the samefee as the land claimed.If therewas no court and no residencethen the demandanthad proved default. It seemsthat Bractonwas describinga situation where a manor had no hall and, therefore,no court. This is not certain,however, as the lord could hold a court wherever 2 he wished on his fee, not necessarilyin a hall. A. E. Levett's work on the courtsof St Albans Abbey showedthat the hallmootsof the abbeywere to a greatextent migratory: the court underthe ash-treewas simply a hallmoot not held in a hall, conductingthe samebusiness and evendealing with the samecases as heardin the hallmoot.3 It does not seemunusual that courtswere held outside,with courts being held underthe Court Oak and on Court Hill in the Essexmanors of MoulsharnHall and Little Leigh respectively.4 As late as 1530-1,the Almoner's accountsof Norwich Cathedralnoted that the court met underthe oak.5 The descriptionof the manor court of Knyttington (Berks.), however,was by far the most detailed,with the court being held 'in a certain greenplace over againstthe houseof Hugh de Gardin when it was fine, and in wet
'Domesday Book, i, 35b, 175b,iL206 for 'curia' references,and i, 12,307b, 308 for 'maneriumsine halla' references. 2'Bracton,iv, pp.49-54. 3 Leven, Studies,pp. 13442. 4 Bennett,English Manor, p.203. 5 N. J. Hone, TheManor and Manorial Records(London, Methuenand Co., 1906),p. 131n.
66 weather,by leaveof the bailiff in the manorhouse or in that of one of the tenants'.6, rhe meetingplace of the court seems,therefore, to havebeen weather dependent: if the weatherwas clementthen the court would be held outside at a place establishedby custom;if the weatherwas inclement,the court would generallybe held in the hall of the manor.
If the manorialcourt was not customarilyheld in a hall, then the phrasesmanor without hall' usedin the DomesdayBook may not necessarilyindicate that because there was no physicalhall therewas no manorial court: there would be no needto have a hall specifically for a court if the court was usually held under the oak tree, for example.The phrase,however, does seem to be of importance.There are over 60 referencesto halls in DomesdayBook, with entriesrecording that two men had two 7 halls or that landswhich previouslyhad two halls now only had one. R. Faith suggested that a 'manor without hall' was a settlementof peasantfarmers rather than a settlement 8 owned by one particular lord: the hall, therefore, signified lordship. This, does not,
however, necessarily mean that a 'manor without hall' could not be interpreted as a manor without a court because,if the manor had no lord, the manor could not have a lord's court. The very basis of the jurisdiction of the court, the relationship between the
lord and tenant, would not apply if there was no lord. The exercise of sac and soc were often noted in Domesday Book but, in a number of entries, sac and soc were associated with the hall, suggesting ajurisdictional link of some kind. In the wapentake of Oswaldbeck in Nottinghamshire, it was noted that land in Sturton le Steeple and West 9 Burton was held by Sperauoc who, in addition, held land in Fenton. The land in Fenton was described as two bovates of land and two parts of one bovate at geld, and one carucate with sac and soc without a hall. It was obviously possible to exercise the rights of sac and soc without a hall, but the holding of land elsewhere may suggest that the
6 Bennett, English Manor, p.203. 7 For instances of two men having two courts see Domesday Book, i, 62b, 63b, 41b, 41 (three men, three halls), 284b (ten men with a hall each). For instances of two halls being replaced by one see ibid., i, 27, 62,309b. For a combined instance where two men held two halls which then became one hall, see ibid., i, 45. a Faith, English Peasantry, p. 15 1. 9 The wapentake of Oswaldbeck became a part of the Bassetlaw wapentake, J.E. B. Glover et al., The Place-Names ofNottinghamshire (English Place-Name Society, vol. xvii, 1940), p.24-5.
67 jurisdiction was exercisedin a hall which presumablySperauoc had on his other lands.10 In Langton (Yorks.), the holding of sacand soc was again associatedwith a hall: a man " called Tor relinquishedland with soc and sacbut no hall. It may be possiblethat the jurisdiction over certainmanors was simply combinedwith anothermanor: in Sussex, 12 an entry was madestating that two landswere held but only one hall. Presumablyall casesfor the hallmoot were taken to the one hall. The most significant link betweensac, soc and halls, however,is an entry which reads'the wapentakesays that Earl Alan ought to have soc over the hall of Grimchel whose land the bishop of Durham holds in Neutone'.13 For the earl to have soc over the lands of Grimchel would not necessarilybe particularly unusual,but the phrase'to have soc over the hall' suggeststhat soc would normally havebeen excised in the hall itself. the earl's right to exercisesoc would seem to overrule decisionswhich would normally have beentaken in Grimchel's hall.
Not all administrativeunits were detailedin manorial accountrolls necessarily held manorial courts. Certain units of the bishopric of Winchester'sestate recorded in the WinchesterPipe Rolls, for example,did not enter perquisitepayments as they had no tenants.The mill at Winchesterwas given a distinct entry in 1208-9,1213-14,1215- 16 and 1218-19,and a separateentry was madefor a mill in 1223-4,1225-6,1226-7, 1231-2,1232-3,1235-6,and 1236-7.14Churches also occasionallyhad separateentries: Calbourne(Isle of Wight), Hambledon(Hants. ), Newchurch and Alresford (Hants.) all 15 had separateaccounts for churchesin certain rolls. East Meon Church (Hants.) is the main exception,having separateaccounts from East Meon for all 23 accountingyears between 1208and 1252.16Not all accountingunits with no perquisitesection had no
10No mention of a hall is made,however, for Sperauoc'sother lands in the wapentake.'terra j carucate cum sacaet socasine aula', DomesdayBook, i, p.286b. 11'Ibi Torsin et Finegal ij haulas,Tosin cum sacaet socaet tercius nomine Tor relinq' terram cum sacaet socased non haulam', ibid., i, p.309. 12ibid., i, p.26b. 13'Dicit wapentacaquod ComesAlanus debethabere socam super aulam Grimchel cuius terram habet episcopusdunelmensis in Neutone'. ibid., i, p.376. Neutoneseems to be associatedwith Tealby, Lincs., ibid., index, p.324. 14 The mill at Southwark(Surr. ) is given a separateentry in 1210-11 and the mill at Durngat' is given a separateentry in 1213-14. 15Calbourne church 1231-2and 1232-3,Hambledon church 1246-7and 1247-8,Newchurch church 1232- 3, Alresford church 1248-9. 16For anotherexample of a churchbecoming a separatemanor in its own right, seeFaith, English Peasantry,pp. 165-7.The exampleused was LambournChurch (Berks.). Seep. 70.
68 tenants,however. There were 38 occasionswhen manorswhich recordedperquisite sectionsin six or more rolls had an accountwhich did not contain a perquisitesection. Southwark(Surr. ), for example,recorded perquisite payments in nine separaterolls, but accountsfor the manorwere actually recordedin twenty rolls, thus elevenaccounts for the manor did not containperquisite payments.
The bishopric accountswere not alone in this phenomenon.Some of the manors on the CanterburyCathedral Priory estatein 1207-8did not record perquisite payments.17 It is possiblethat receiptsfrom court were accidentally excludedfrom the list of receiptsbut, consideringthe financial purposeof theserolls, this seemsan unlikely explanationfor all instances.The purposeof the rolls, however, doessuggest anotherpossible reason for a manor recordingno perquisitepayments. The accounts were recordsof expenditureand receipt and only thosecases which incurred payment were actually recordedin the accounts.It is impossibleto tell how many other cases were heardwhich did not incur a monetarypayment. The recording of heriot payments in kind within the stock accountshows that not all court paymentswere necessarily recordedwithin the perquisitesection itself but, equally, stock was also accountedfor in the rolls, so it seemsmost unlikely that receiptsof stock madeas paymentsto court would not be duly noted as such.One is left with the obvious conclusionthat no perquisite paymentswere recordedbecause no perquisitepayments were made: it seems that, for somereason, no courts were held in thesemanors in particular years.
Below is a table detailing the seventeenmanors which enter perquisitepayments in six or more of the WinchesterPipe Rolls but, for one or more years,do not enter perquisitepayments within the accounts.
17Documents concerning Christ Church CathedralPriory, Canterbury, 1207-1213,in Interdict Documents,eds. P.M. Barnesand WR Powell (Pipe Roll Society,vol. lxxii, 1960),pp. 33-85.
69 Figure I
Occurrence of perquisite payments
07892
V denotes years in which accounts were recorded and perquisite sections included x denoted years in which accounts were recorded but no perquisite section was included Spaces have been left where no account for the manor was entered for the particular year
From the table it is easy to see that most of the irregularities in tile recording or failure to record the perquisite payments for a manor occurred bellore 1240, with only Southwark (Surr. ) and East Meon Church (Hants. ) not recording payments after that date. The explanation for the East Meon Church omission, however, was giveil ill tile margin of the 1251-2 Pipe Roll: it seems to have been simply a scribal error. The marginal note, in a different but contemporary hand, commented that the pei-L]Lilsite ' 8 payments had been left out. It seems, therefore, that payments were made to tile court of East Meon Church in 1251-2 but that the section was simply missed out during the compilation of the post-audit account. This Could be the reason for other niallors not recording perquisite payments, but the marginal explanation does not occur in any other
18 The phrase was 'deficit capitulum de perquisitis'.
70 roll. The perquisitepayments were recordedin a separatesection within the receipts accountfrom the earliestextant bishopric roll: it seemsunlikely that one of the few early identifiable titled sectionswould be omitted as frequently as the abovetable shows, althoughit may explain the 'one-off' omissionsin manorssuch as Bishopstone (Wilts. ) and Rimpton (Som.).
If the lack of perquisitepayments was not attributableto scribal error in the majority of thesecases, the obvious explanationfor the omission is that no paymentsto court were made.The bishop of Winchesteracted as the king's representativeand would, therefore,have been responsible to the king for breachesof royal law within the bishopric's estate.It is just possiblethat no breachesof royal law took place in a particular manor in a particular year, but a large proportion of regular manorial court businesswas customaryin natureand it would be remarkableif for one manor in one specific year no breachesof manorial customtook place when, in previous and subsequentyears, a considerablenumber of such breacheshad beenrecorded. Although, therefore,a lack of paymentsto court may not necessarilysuggest that no court was held, it doesseem that the possibility of holding a court which demandedno payments was slight. The bishop of Winchester,as the king's representative,should have held the view of frankpledgetwice a year in eachmanor: the omission of paymentsfrom these courts, therefore,does seem to suggestthat no court was actually held. The entriesin the half-year vacancyroll seemto supportthis as in the manorsof Wield and East Meon Church (both Hants.) only one paymentis madein eachof the perquisite sections,these being tithing paymentsfor Hockday.This may, therefore,represent a single view of 19 frankpledgepayment, with any other mattersbeing postponed.
If no courts were held in thesemanors in theseyears, however, how were breachesof the law, whethercustomary or royal, dealt with? There seemsto be no obvious pattern in the occurrenceof the accountswhere no perquisitepayments were recorded,but the bishopric of Winchester's 1215-16accounts seem to require special consideration.Where accountswere recordedfor Ivinghoe (Bucks.), Morton (Bucks.),
19PRO E 407/5/6. Esher(Surr. ), however,did not record any perquisitepayments.
71 North Waltham (Hants.), Overton(Hants. ) and Witney (Oxon.) between1208 and 1252, only the 1215-16accounts missed out the perquisitepayments. This roll is unusualin that accountsfor a numberof manorsseem to be missing and the information which was provided was brief. the roll really seemsto be incomplete,with the accountfor Ivinghoe consistingof the manorname alone. It may be the casethat the political disturbancesof that year disruptedthe running of the estatein someway. If the steward or other official of the lord did not go to the manor, for whateverreason, then cases could not be heard:it was the role of the officer to presideover the court and, without him, no such court could be held. Had there beengeographical pattern to the manors which did not contain perquisitepayments within their accounts,this may have suggestedthat the official had beenunable to visit a specific areaor county. No such pattern can be found, however,as the 17 manorsin figure I represent6 of the 7 counties in which the bishopric held lands.Of the 5 manorsmentioned above, Ivinghoe and Morton were both Buckinghamshiremanors, but West Wycombe, another Buckinghamshiremanor, did recordperquisite payments in that year. A similar situation arisesfor the other manors,with the Oxfordshiremanor of Adderbury and numerous 20 Hampshiremanors recording perquisite payments within the 1215-16account.
It is unfortunatethat the accountfor the following year, 1216-17,presuming that such an accountwas made,is no longer extant: this may have shedsome light on the eventsof the previous year. It may be the casethat the breachesof royal and customary law in 1215-16were actually dealt with in 1216-17:the casesbeing merely postponed. The postponementof individual casesseems to have beena fairly regular occurrence with the use of essoins.Each person was entitled to essoin,that is excusehimself from court, up to three times. The Abbey of Bec court rolls list those who have essoined themselvesat the beginningof eachcourt: the court for Bledlow (Bucks.) on 12 May 1246noted nine essoins,either for particular casesor for the generalsummons. In three it how the to had been C. of theseentries was noted often right essoin claimed.21G. Homansnoted that it was 'usual custom' to be allowed summonsesto three different
20Hampshire manors which recordedperquisite payments include Ashmansworth,Bishops Sutton, Bishops Waltham, Bitterne, Cheriton and Crawley amongstothers. 21It was noted in separatecases that essoinshad beenmade for the first, secondand third time. Select Pleas, p.6.
72 courts, to have ordersissued to be distrainedfor failure to attenda further three different 22 courts and to then havethe option of three essoins. It was possible,therefore, to only come to trial in the tenth meetingof the court. This processdoes not accountfor the complete absenceof paymentto court, but it doesshow that casescould be postponed for a long time.
It is possible,therefore, that caseswere accumulated.The boroughs,in general, produced a small number of cases,as did the smaller manors. The records of the manor of Cuxham (Oxon. ), a manor belonging to Merton College, Oxford, showed that the long manorial court was held infrequently and at irregular intervals, with a period as as four years between two sessionsof court in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth 23 centuries. This may have been the reason for the irregular recording of perquisite payments in the manor of Southwark (Surr. ). This manor was unusual in that the bishopric's manor was one of five manors in Southwark, the other four being owned by the crown, the archbishop of Canterbury, the prior of Bermondsey and the order of the 24 Templars. Postponementof casesin this geographicallyisolated manor of the bishopric's estatewould seemto be the most plausible explanationof the omissions. Accumulation of casesmay also havebeen the reasonbehind the three omissionsfor WinchesterMinster: the accountsfor 1218-19,1220-1and 1224-5may well have been accountedfor in the rolls of the following years.
One other possibleexplanation would be the combination of courts. Courts of three separatemanors seem to havebeen combined in the estatesof Crowland Abbey in the mid-thirteenth century: the Cambridgeshiremanors of Dry Drayton, Oakington and Cottenharnwere accountedfor as independentunits, but shareda single manorial court. The sharingof a court is apparentfrom the court rolls, surviving from 1290,which
22Homans, English Villagers, p.315. 23Harvey, Cuxham,p. 82. The manorial court of Cuxhamdid not exercisethe view of frankpledge,which may have madeit easierto accumulatecases. This was held by the honour of Wallingford and taken at the manor of Chalgrove,p. 72. Other casesseem to have been settledout of court during the yearswhen no courts were held. 24Southwark was in Surreyuntil the creationof the London County Council in 1888.M. Carlin, Medieval Southwark (London, HambledonPress, 1996), pp. xxii, 19n. The book does contain a section on manor courts, pp. 112-14,but the information given is for the sixteenthcentury. 73 detailed from which manoreach payment came. In the accountrolls, however,each manor recordedseparate profits of court, including a quota of the court expenditure. From the accounts,therefore, there is nothing to indicate that the three manorshad only one court.25 This may be the most likely explanationfor the boroughswithin the Winchesterestate. The boroughsof Alresford (Hants.), Downton (Wilts. ), Farnham (Surr.) and Witney (Oxon.) all haveaccounts in certain yearswhich do not record perquisite payments,but it seemsquite possiblethat thesewere included within the accountsfor the larger manorsof the samename. This may also be the casewith the manors of Woodhayand WoodhayTomes (Hants.). The boroughsof Newtown (Hants.) and Downton (Wilts. ) have accountswith no perquisitesections for one and two years respectively,these being the first accountsfor theseparticular manors.This gives the appearanceof a 'slow start' to the recordingof perquisitepayments, which may be a result of a combinationor a postponementof casesfor that time.
Combinationof courtsmay also have occurredin manorswhich were at farm. The leasingof manorshad beena usual form of estatemanagement since the eighth century and, althoughmany estatestook manorsunder direct control towardsthe end of the twelfth and beginningof the thirteenthcenturies, some manors seem to have remainedat farm: the examplesof the bishopric of Winchester'smanors of Fawley and 26 Ower (both Hants.) have alreadybeen noted. The leasingof manorslimited the amount of information recordedin the accountrolls considerably.Often a brief 27 reference was made noting that the said manors were at farm. Rights to hold a court, however, were not included in the fixed payment for the manor as the lord remained lord regardless of his management policy. This is shown by the two Buckinghamshire manors of Ivinghoe and Morton which both recorded perquisite payments in two years 28 when the manorswere at farm. The occasionof manorsbeing at farm and the
25F. M. Page,The Estates of CrowlandAbhey: A Study in Manorial Organisation (Cambridge,Cambridge University Press,1934), pp. 13,38 and 33 Iff. 26Faith, English Peasantry,pp. 180-1. Seep. 17n. 27For example,in 1236-7the men of Ower were recordedas renderingthe accountfor 36s. 8d. for the farm of Ower and, similarly, 46s. for the farm of Fawley by the men of Fawley manor. This was then followed by the accountfor Bitteme. 28Ivinghoe (Hants.) was at farm 1208-16.Morton (Bucks.) was at farm 1208-11and 1231-3.Titow, 'Land and Population', p.7.
74 omission of perquisitepayments from accounts,however, do seemto coincide in a number of instances,and in the manorof BishopsFonthill (Hants.) in particular. The manor was at farm for the accountsfor 1208-16,1219-25and for 1231-3.These dates cover all the 'missing' accountsand those where the perquisitepayments were excluded.This may also explain the 1215-16omission of perquisite sectionsin Ivinghoe, and possibly at North Waltham (Hants.) and Overton (Hants.), both of which may have beenat farm during that year.29 It may be the casethat the court of a manor at farm was merely incorporatedinto the court of a nearbymanor or that the profits of the court were recordedin the accountsof sucha manor. The receipt of farm for the manors of Fawley and Ower (both Hants.) was often noted in the accountfor Bitterne (Hants.): the paymentsof the courts of Fawley and Ower were, likewise, incorporatedinto the perquisite sectionof the Bitterne account.A combinedaccount for court paymentsfor the two manorswas madein the 1208-9roll, and eachmanor accountedfor a separate court in 1211-12.After that, althoughthe manorswere accountedfor separatelyin a number of rolls, 1236-7for example,the court paymentswere recordedwith the Bitterne paymentsto court. In that year, in the Bitterne perquisite section,2 payments were madeby the tithing of Fawley and Ower, I by the men of Ower and 1 by Odo of Ower. The tithing paymentsof Fawley and Ower at Martinmas and Hockday suggest that the view was combinedand a paymentby twelve men of Fawley and Ower for 30 default at the hundredcourt of Bitterne supportsthis. The inclusion of paymentsother than tithing payments,such as entry fines, may suggestthat the courts were indeed combined,or may simply show that the view for Fawley and Ower was taken at the Bitteme view and that casesfor the manorsat farm were postponeduntil the view.31
It is interestingto note that royal manorswere also farmed out in the early thirteenth century.Basingstoke (Hants. ), for example,was at farm between 1207and 1256.R. S. Hoyt commentedthat no manorial court rolls survive for the royal manors
29 All datesfor which manorswere at farm can be found in ibid., p.7. 30The paymentwas 'de hominibusxij de falele et ore quia feceruntdefalt' ad hundr' de biteme', 1248-9, case3 1. 31 For example,entry paymentswere madein 1226-7,case 10; 1235-6,cases 7 and 10; 1244-5,case 17; 1248-9,case 28. 75 farmed out to their tenants,which itself may be a consequenceof a combination of these 32 courts or of court paymentswith other royal manorsnot at farm.
It seems,therefore, that in the early thirteenth century courts were not necessarilyheld in a hall but in a customaryplace, whether that be in a hall, on a hill or under a specific tree.Nor were the courts held in every manor for every year. The combination of casesmeant that it was not necessaryto hold courts in all manorsand the accumulationof casesmeant that they did not necessarilytake place every year. Paymentsto court were recordedevery year for a considerablenumber of manors, however, which begsthe question,how frequently were the courts held?
When were manorial courts held?
Private courts were mentionedrarely in royal documentationas they were of little interest to the crown: only when the court dealt with free men or with areas of royal jurisdiction were they of concern to the king. As a result, private courts tended to be mentioned only in association with royal courts. One such instance is found in a close roll entry of a letter of 11 October 1234 addressedto the sheriff of Lincoln but, as it referred to both hundreds and wapentakes, it seems likely that it was sent to all 33 sheriffS. The letter seems to have been sent to clarify how often local royal courts were 34 to be held as confusion had obviously arisen from earlier letters. An August close roll entry of the same year had stated that hundred courts were to be held twice a year, but the October entry, referring to the 1225 reissue of Magna Carta, reaffirmed that the 35 hundred courts were to be held every three weeks. In detailing the frequency of hundred and wapentake courts, however, the October entry also mentioned another type of court, that of curie magnatum. The phrase curie magnatum was used only twice in the entry, but the context is important: 'tam hundreda et wapentacia quam curie
32R. S. Hoyt, The Royal Demesnein English Constitutional History: 1066-1272(New York, American Historical Association, 1950),pp. 137-8. 33Close Rolls, 1231-4,pp. 588-9. 34ibid., pp.592-3. 35 Statutesofthe Realm, i, pp. 19 and 24-5 of 'The Chartersof Liberties' section for the 1217 and 1225 reissuesof Magna Carta which both contain the relevantclause.
76 magnaturnAnglie' and 'hundredaet wapentakyaet etiam curie magnatum'.The useof gaswell as' and 'and also' suggeststhat the curie magnatumwere a distinct type of court, not merely hundredcourts in private hands.It seemsmost likely that thesecurie magnatumwere honorial courts,as the October 1234entry referredto the free statusof the men concerned.It is possible,however, that the curie magnatumincluded manorial courts, as free men might also be requiredto attendthe court of the manor. The October entry had statedthat the hundredand wapentakecourts and the curie magnalumwere to be held every threeweeks, rather than every two weeksas had occurredunder Henry 11.36The phraseologysuggests that the curie magnatummay not necessarilyhave met every two weeksin Henry II's reign but from 1234they were to meet every three weeks.
There are a number of referencesfrom the late thirteenth and fourteenthcentury to manorial courts taking place everythree weeks:a free tenant was requiredto do suit of court every threeweeks in 1267-8in the manor of Randwick (Gloucs.) and a villein in the manor of Barnhorne(Suss. ) also owed suit to the manorial court at a three weekly interval in 1361-237 The the Wakefield, 1297-1309, that . court rolls of manor of show the courts took place in this manor approximatelyevery three weeks,depending on feast days.38 Other court rolls, however,show that courts in the late thirteenth centurywere not always held as often as this. The court rolls of the manor of Halesowen(Worcs. ) record, on average,11 courts eachyear between1270 and 1282 and did not hold a court 39 every three weeksuntil the fourteenthcentury. Recordsof the manorial court of Sevenhampton(Wilts. ) and the associatedhundred court of Highworth (Wilts. ) show
36The Latin is 'quod inter predictosduos turnos teneanturhundreda et wapentakyaet etiam curie magnatumde tribus septimanisin tres septimanas,ubi prius teneri solent de quindenain quindenam'.A tenth centuryroyal ordinancerequired the hundredcourt to meet every four weeks.Die Gesetzeder Angelsachsen,ed. F. Liebermann(Halle, Max Niemeyer,3 vols, 1898-1916),i, p. 192-3. In contrast,an 1188 charter from John, Count of Moreton, to the burgessesof Bristol noted that the hundredcourt should be held only once in the week, 'Et quod Hundredumtanturn semel teneatur in septimana. Bristol Charters 1155-1373,ed. N. D. Harding (Bristol Record Society,vol. i, 1930),pp. 8-13. 37Cartularium Monasterii Glouc., iii, p.46, 'et debetsectam. ad curiam de Ryndewike de tribus septimanis in tres septimanas'.Custumals ofBattle Abbey in the ReignsofEdward I and Edward 11,1283-1312,ed. S.R. Scargill-Bird (CamdenSociety, 2nd ser., 1887),vol. 4 1, p. 19, 'et sectamcuriae in Manerio de tribus septimanisin tres septimanas,relevium et heriettum'. 38Court Rolls ofthe Manor of Wakefield,vol. ii, 1297-1309,ed. W. P. Baildon (Yorkshire Archaeological Society Record Series,vol. xxxvi, 1906),p. vii. 39Z. Razi, Life Marriage and Death in a Medieval Parish: Economy,Society and Demographyin Halesowen 1270-1400(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,1980), p. 37 and p.48. Seventeencourt sessionswere held in 130 1. No roll survivesfrom 1273.
77 that between1275 and 1287the hundredcourt met from fourteento sixteentimes a year 40 whilst the manor court met from sevento ten times a year. The manorial courts, therefore,did not necessarilytake place as often as every three weeks in the late thirteenth century.
The early thirteenthcentury account rolls do not give datesfor court sessions. Information aboutthe frequencyof courts gleanedfrom indirect referencesto visits by officials to the manor,the durationof accountand datesand divisions within the perquisite sectionsthemselves suggest that the manorial courts of the early thirteenth century, like thoseof the late thirteenth century,did not take place as frequently as allowed. The significanceof visits to the manor by officials was that a manorial official was requiredto presideover the sessionof court: the expensesrecorded for visits by the steward,for example,sometimes gave details of the frequencyof visits and, thus, suggestthe possiblefrequency of sessionsof court. In the bishopric of Winchester's 1208-9 accountroll, for example,the food allowancefor the stewardin the manor of Overton (Hants.) was noted as being for five occasions,whilst in 1210-11 in Farnharn (Dor. ) the expenseswere for two occasions.The WinchesterCathedral Priory account for Wyke next Portland (Dor.), in 1242-3,refers to the expensesof 0. the stewardat two visits, and the accountfor Heigharn(Norf. ), a St Benet Hulme manor, notesthat the 1 stewardincurred expenseson six occasionsin the accountingyear 1239-40.4 There are many difficulties in using this information, however.The rolls often refer to tallies in respectof the steward'sexpenses, but the number of visits may not necessarilybe the sameas the number of tallies.42 Other recordsalso note that the expenseswere incurred on various occasionsand sometimesthe expensesof a number of visitors to the manor were included in one entry.43 Even when the exact number of visits of the stewardalone was recorded,as in the examplesabove, this may not necessarilycorrespond exactly to
40Court Rolls, Adam de Stratton, p.2. TheRolls ofthe Highworth Hundec4 1275-1287, ed. B. Farr (Wiltshire Archaeologicaland Natural History SocietyRecords Branch, 2 vols, vols xxi and xxii, 1966-8), xxi, P.9. 41Drew, 'Wyke', p.4 1. Norfolk Record Office MF/RO 382/18, Est 1, 'in e... senescalliper vj vices iiijs. iij ob'. ' 42The Cuxhamrecords provide an exampleof this in 1317-18when one tally coveredthe expensesof Walter de Burton' for threshingcom on many visits. Harvey, Cuxham,p. 320 and p.45n.. 43For example,'in expensisdomini Abbatis, Senescalli,et Barth' servientisper varia temporav. 1(cheese) Norfolk Record Office MF/R0 382/18, Est 1.
78 the number of court sessionsheld. The steward was not the only manorial official who could preside over court proceedings: the account for Woodhay (Hants. ) noted that one 44 case in 1251-2 was heard in the court before the bailiff. The author of Seneschaucy also implies that by this time the bailiff may be holding the courts as he was required to be just in all he did. It was also implied, by a list of things the bailiff must not do without the steward, that the more simple and probably less profitable cases could be heard by the bailiff alone: payments concerning free land or the lord's jurisdiction, for 45 example, would need to be heard by the steward. Courts could, therefore, be held without the presence of the steward and, equally, his presence in a manor did not necessarily mean that a session of court was held. In addition, a visit by the steward may not necessarily incur expensesand, thus, his visit would not be recorded in the account roll. Despite these considerable difficulties, if courts were held on all occasions incur-ring the steward's expensesin Heigham, for example, only six courts would have been held during the year.
Indications of the frequencyof courtswere also given by the duration of account. The accountsof the Royal Exchequerran from Michaelmas(29 Sept.) to Michaelmas, but this practicewas not necessarilyfollowed in manorial accountsat this time.46 The accountsof Bury St Edmundsprovide a numberof examplesof different datesused for the accountingyear: Warkton (Northants.), ran from the feast of Michaelmasto the samefeast in the following year while the manor of Barton (Suff.) usedthe feast of St Margaret (20 July) for the accountingyear. 47 Southwold (Suff.), also belonging to the Bury St Edmundsestate, recorded accounts which did not run to a full year: the dates 48 usedwere those of St Giles (I Sept.) and St Margaret. Other manorsalso record accountsfor 'incomplete' years,for example,the accountsfor Bastwick (Norf. ), a St Benet Hulme dates Michaelmas St Matthew (21 Sept). 49 Some manor, usedthe of and . manorsdid not evenrecord the datesfor the account:the bishopric of Winchester's
44The phraseused is 'in curiam corambailivo', Woodhay(Hants. ), 1251-2,case 20. 45Oschinsky, Walter of Henley, p.27 1. 46Harvey, Cuxham,pp. 22-3. 47BL Harley MS. 645, f. I 98r. and f. I 95r. 43BL Harley MS. 645, f. 195r. 49Norfolk Record Office MF/RO 382/18, Est/ 1.
79 50 accounts do not give covering dates, only the episcopal year. The presence of a perquisite section in these varied accounts, however, shows that one or more courts were held during the period of the account but, as the rolls usually accounted for about one year, these dates reveal little about the frequency with which the courts were held. The accounts for the St Benet Hulme manor of Hoveton (Norf. ), however, recorded perquisite payments for three distinct periods within the year: sum totals for perquisite sections were made for the period 29 September 1239 to 23 October, 23 October 1239 to 7 December, 7 December 1239 to 29 September 1240.51These entries would seem to indicate that three or more courts were held in this manor in the accounting year 1239- 40.
Certain accountsdo mention specific dateswithin the perquisite section:the earliest date-relatedcourt entry in the bishopric of Winchester'saccounts occurs in 1211-12when two hundredsand four tithings madea paymentat Hock Day in Hambledon (Hants.) 52In 1218-19in the Bishops Forithill (Wilts. ) . manor of a payment was recordedby the tithings at Martinmasand Hock Day (the secondTuesday after Easter).This is the earliestreference to a court at Martinmas (I I Nov. ) and the first link betweenthe two datesused for the view of frankpledgein the mid-thirteenth century accountscompiled in the Winchesterarea. In the 1244-5bishopric accounts,for example,the first entry in the manorof Crawley (Hants.) is a paymentfrom the tithing at Martinmas and a later entry recordsa paymentfrom the tithing at Hock Day. The account for the WinchesterCathedral Priory manor of Enford (Wilts. ) for 1248-9also mentioneda paymentmade by the hundredfor the term of Hock Day and both Martinmas and Hock Day were also mentionedin tithing entries in the manorsof Long 53 Sutton, Crondall and Barton Priors (all Hants.). In nine of the manorsin the Priory's estate,however, reference was madeto Idedies,namely Michelmersh, Houghton,
50See p. 48. 51 The manor also records perquisite payments for the period 29 September to about 30 November 1240. The parchment has been damaged where the dating occurs. The date is noted by reference to Saint Andrew (30 November) but includes reference to a Wednesday, hence either refers to 28 November or 5 December. 52 Hock Day was the second Tuesday after Easter. 53 Muniments, of the Dean and Chapter, Winchester, L38/2/1, Or. 'Et de 12d. de hundredo de termino de la hockedai. ' Muniments of the Dean and Chapter, Winchester, M 8/2/ 1, ff. 5r, 6v and 7r.
80 Chilbolton, Wonston,Overton, Alton, Easton,(all Hants.), Wroughton and Little Hinton 54 (both WiltS. ). Thereare a numberof variations in the spelling of laedles,but it seems 55 that they are all law days. Paymentswere always madefor two law dayswhich suggeststhat the Idediesand the tithing entriesat Martinmas and Hock Day were the samething.
Paymentsmade at Martinmas (I I Nov. ) and Hockday (the secondTuesday after Easter) indicate that at leasttwo courts were held in thesemanors, but divisions within the perquisite sectionsof somemanors suggest that three or more courts may have been held. The perquisiteentry for the 'foreign hundred' of the bishopric of Winchester's manor of Taunton(Som. ) was divided into three sectionsin eachof the years 1218-19to 1225-6.The roll for 1219-20actually referredto three dateswithin the year, using 'At 56 Michaelmas', 'After Christmas' and 'After Easter' as sub-headings. The 1218-19roll had no referenceto datesbut the other four yearscontained references to at least one of the three datesnoted in the 1219-20roll; the 1224-5roll only mentionedEaster, but as it describedthe third of the three sub-sectionsit may be assumedthat the patternof the 1219-20roll was maintained.57 The terminology of the remaining three yearsvaried slightly from the 1219-20pattern. The 1220-1roll usedHock Day insteadof 'After " Easter', suggestingthat the phraseswere interchangeable. The other two rolls used Michaelmas,Christmas and Easter,but included the phraseadfiftedendedal, meaning 'in the fortnight'. 59The phrasewas usedin 1217-18when a paymentwas madeby the hundredfor concealmentin the fortnight after Christmasand the fortnight after Easter.60 The ordering of the casessuggests that three courts were also held in this accounting year. The paymentsmade by the tithings were recordednear the beginning of the
54The tithing entry for Easton,for example,is 'Et de 13s.4d. de thedingade duabuslaedies. ' Muniments of the Dean and Chapter,Winchester, L3 8/2/ 1, f. 6r. 55Variations include 'laedahes'(f I v.), 'laedaes' (f2r. ) and 'laedayes' (Ov. ). 56The Latin is 'Hundredurnforinsecurn ad festurn.sancti Michaeli', 'Item post Natal", and '... post Fasch'. ' 7 The Latin is 'Ad fiftededai post pascha.' 58The Latin is 'Post festurn.sancti Michaelis', 'Item post pascham, and 'hockedai.1 59The use of the phrase'in the fortnight' doesnot seemto be precise.The phraseis used in 1224-5,'Ad fiftededai post Pascha',1225-6, 'ad fiftededai post festurn,sancti Michaelis' and 1223-4,'ad fiftededai post festurnsancti Michaelis', 'Item ad fiftededai post natalem' and 'Item hundredurnad fiftededai post pascha'. 60The entriesare 'De 68s. de toto hundredopro concelamentoad fiftededai post Natalem' and 'De 7 Is. de hundredopro concelamentoad fiftededai post pascham'.
81 perquisite section,with the hundredpayment mentioning Christmasbeing towardsthe middle of the sectionand the hundredpayment mentioning Easterbeing nearerto the end. Following the chronologicalordering of the 1219-20roll, it seemsprobable that the fifteen tithing paymentsnoted near the beginning of the sectionwere madeat the Michaelmascourt.
It seems,therefore, that at leasttwo courts were held in most manorson the bishopric of Winchester'sestate and that, in the foreign hundredof Taunton (Som.) and the St Benet Hulme manor of Hoveton (Norf. ), at least three courts were held. It also seemsthat the caseswere recordedchronologically within the sectionsas the entriesfor Martinmas alwaysprecede those for Hock Day and the Michaelmas,Christmas and Easterentries are recordedin that order. The perquisite section for Bishops Fonthill (Wilts. ), 1244-5,provides further indication that the caseswere recorded chronologically. The sectioncontains 28 cases,case I for the tithing at the hundred court of Martinmas and case25 for the tithing at the hundredcourt of Hock Day. The following two cases,26 and 27, relate to the tithing and a certain Galfridus Snelgar respectively,and the final entry, 28, recordsa paymentfor pleas and perquisitesafter the Hock Day hundredcourt. 61 It seemsclear that caseswere enteredchronologically, as those before Hock Day are distinguishedfrom those after. This chronological method would, no doubt, have beenthe natural way to record paymentsfrom the court and it seemsunlikely that the orderingwould be alteredsignificantly betweenthe original recording and the making of a fair copy.
The position of casesrelated to the seasonalactivities of mowing (in May and June) and harvest(in August and September)also suggestthat the caseswere recorded chronologically. Where the perquisitesection of a bishopric of Winchester'smanor was sub-divided,the harvestentries always fell in the final sub-division: in 1232-3,Fareham (Hants.) was divided into two sections,with the elevenharvest entries falling between cases46 and 64 of the 69 casesin the secondof two sub-divisions; in 1247-8in the manor of Calboume(Isle of Wight), the two harvestentries were cases57 and 58 of the
1The Latin is 'pro placitis et perquisitis post hundredurnde hockdai'.
82 68 casesin the secondof two sub-divisions;in Downton (Hants.) in the sameyear, cases 98,99,106 and 107 of the 109 casesin the fourth of four sub-divisionswere also harvest entries.For the bishopric of Winchester'sestate between 1208 and 1252,67 perquisite sectionscontained an entry mentioning harvest.In 41 of theseinstances all the entrieswhich mentionedharvest were recordedover two-thirds of the way through their respectiveperquisite sections. For example,in Ashmansworth(Hants. ) in 1245-6, the three entriesmentioning harvestwere recordedas cases28,29 and 30 of the 35 casesin the perquisitesection. All three of theseentries, therefore, occurred after the two-thirds point of 23 cases.Regards mowing entries, 16 perquisite sectionscontained such entries,with 10 of thosemanors recording all mowing entrieswithin the last third of the section.
Somemanors did haveharvest and mowing entriesnear the beginning of the section and, therefore,may haverecorded payments made for infringementsactually made in the previous accountingyear. Mardon (Hants.) in 1225-6,for example,had harvest entriesas cases4 and 5, with the first tithing entry, presumablyat Martinmas, being case8 of the 84 casesection. The perquisitesection for Overton (Hants.) in 1236- 7 had a harvestentry as case14 of the 85 casesin total, but this may have beenheard in the first court of the accountingyear as the first eight caseswere for tithings. Downton Borough (Hants.) in 1251-2had mowing entriesas cases3 and 4 of the 31 casesin the perquisite section.It would seem,therefore, that the casesprobably refer to mowing in 1251, rather than 1252.In certainmanors the harvestentries were split, so that Farnham (Dor.) in 1236-7,for example,had harvestentries as cases8,9 and 131 of the 145 cases. It seemslikely that the first two entriesrelated to the harvestin 1236 whereasentry 131 related to the harvestof 1237.Another exampleis provided by Bishops Waltham (Hants.) in 1245-6,where the two harvestcases were cases42 and 204 of the 223 case section.Bishops Waltham was a large manor which may accountfor the seeminglylate positioning of the first harvestentry.
On 28 occasions,only 1 harvestentry is containedwithin a manor's perquisite section.Figure 2 representsthe position of those28 entrieswithin their respective
83 manors. The position of each entry has been calculated as a percentagc, with I per cent being the first case and 100 per cent being the final case. For exampic, a Inallor whicil had 50 cases and had its only entry mentioning harvest as case number 40 would produce a 'position percentage' of 80 per cent. This entry would then be placed in the '80-89%' section in figure 2. These particular perquisite sections have been used to save confusion over the percentagesinvolved when dealing with multiple entries and when dealing with those manors where the harvest entries arc split. The recording of'only one harvest entry in these perquisite sections does not seem to be unusual in any respect, thus the selection has been considered to be a fair sample.
Figure 2
'Harvest entry' position
10 - 12 08-C m 26 0 4- E :, 2 z 0 100% 80-89% 60-69% 40-49% 20-29% 1-9% 'Position Percentage'
The chart shows that 10 of the 28 manors had the entry mentioning harvest as the final entry in the perquisite section, and that over half ofthe manors recorded tile entry within the final 10 per cent of cases. The recording of entries rclated to tile harvest of the previous year also seems to be shown in the occurrence offour entries within tile first 30 per cent of cases.
In somemanors the harvestand mowing casesseem to have been in in unusual position if strict chronological ordering is to be assumed. In Overton (I lants. ) in 1215-6, for example, the 5 harvest entries are cases 38-43 in the 98 case section. The entries, therefore, are neither near the end of the section, indicating payincrit rclating to 1236, nor near the beginning of the section, indicating payment relating to the 1235 harvest.
8.1 The paymentsdo not seemto be linked to the tithings either, as the tithing entriesare casesI and 82. Thereare a numberof possiblereasons for the unusualpositioning of the seasonalentries, such as, delays in the discoveryof the infringement, delaysin the notifying the court, delaysin paymentdue to essoinor to simple clerical error.
The organisationof entrieswithin certainperquisite sectionsalso calls the chronological orderinginto question.There seemsto be little thematic division of cases in the WinchesterPipe Rolls before 1250,but it doesoccur in two instances.62 In Witney (Oxon.) in 1245-6the first of three sub-sectionsrecorded normal perquisite paymentswhereas the two other sub-sectionsrecorded payments for land transactions. The perquisite sectionfor Downton (Hants.) in 1247-8was also sub-divided,seemingly by type of case,with the seasonalmowing entriesappearing in the secondof four sub- sections.The first sectiondealt with tithing paymentsand entry fines alone, whereasthe secondsection dealt with repetitiouspayments concerning wood, pastureand meadow.63 It seemsthat the paymentsrelating to mowing were made for offenceswhich occurred in 1247 as the third and fourth sectionsdeal with more varied cases.The fourth section containedharvest entries which, one assumes,relate to 1248.The 1248-9entry for Downton seemsto return to the strictly chronologicalapproach, however, as all of the mowing and harvestentries for that year were containedin the final fifteen cases.64 The accountfor the WinchesterCathedral Priory manor of Wyke next Portland (Dor.) in 1242-3has separatesections for warranty of the court, perquisites,marriage payments and heriots and the thematicdivision of the perquisite section is also apparentin the Portland 65The 1248-9 for Portland heriots, manor of . priory account groups all the the marriagepayments and the land transactionsinto separatesub-sections which, although not separatedfrom the main body of the perquisite section,are noted by a paragraph mark within the text and recordedafter the other court payments.66
62See pp. 51-2. 63The secondsub-section forms Appendix A, p. 177. 64 The 1248-9Downton mowing entriesare cases133 and 134, with the harvestentries being cases137 and 146 of the 146 entries. 63Drew, 'Portland', pp.35-7 and 45-47. 66Muniments of the Dean and Chapter,Winchester, L38/2/1.
85 There are, obviously,exceptions to the strictly chronological approach,but it does seemthat the vast majority of perquisitesections in the pre-1250account rolls are recordedin chronologicalorder. For the manorswhich sub-divide the sectionby case type, it may still be the casethat entrieswere recordedchronologically within the sub- sections.
If chronologicalordering can be assumed,then the position of the 'Martinmas entry' is of greatimportance. The WinchesterPipe Rolls provide two examplesof sub- divided perquisitesections where the secondsub-section began with a tithing entry. The manor of BishopsWaltham (Hants.) in 1244-5contained 5 sub-divisions,the second and fourth of which containedreferences to tithings. More importantly, the fourth sub- section containeda referenceto Hock Day. It may be the case,therefore, that in the large manor of BishopsWaltham the first sub-sectionrepresented cases heard before Martinmas, with the secondsub-section representing cases heard between Martinmas and possibly Christmas,the third representingcases between Christmas and Hock Day, the fourth representingcases between Hock Day and somedate possibly in July and the fifth sectionrepresenting cases between then and the end of the accountingyear. Difficulties arisewith this particular year, however,as it is just possiblethat the first sub-sectionrefers to casesheard during the vacancyrather than strictly within the 1244- 67 5 accountingyear.
The vacancy does not affect the other Winchester Pipe Roll example of the first tithing entry appearing in the second sub-section. The manor of East Meon (Hants. ) in
1247-8 recorded no tithing payments in the first of three sub-sections, but a hundred payment mentioning Martinmas was the first entry in the second sub-section and the equivalent Hock Day payment was the first entry in the third sub-section. It seems, therefore, that the first sub-section does represent cases heard in a manorial court session which was held before the court at Martinmas. Such instances are unusual, however: in a large number of manors, the first entry in the perquisite section makes reference to Martinmas. This positioning would seem, therefore, to suggest that in those
67See p. 124 and 124n.for examplesof paymentsrecorded in the 1244-5perquisite sections which noted thatthe offencewas made during the vacancy. 86 manorsno paymentsto court were madebetween the beginning of the accountand Martinmas.
The manor of SouthWalsham (Norf. ), which was part of the St Benet Hulme estate,provides a datedexample where no paymentswere receivedduring a two month period.68 The accountfor 29 Septemberto 25 November recordedno perquisite payments,but the manor did hold a court as a paymentof 5s. was recordedfor perquisitesbetween 25 Novemberand 29 Septemberin the following year.
The royal documentationin Henry III's reign may suggestthat manorial courts were held initially every two weeksand then, after 1234,every three weeks,but it seems more likely that the manorial courtswere held much less frequently than this. The cartulary entriesof the late thirteenthcentury do suggestthat that courts took place every three weeks,but the evidencefor the late thirteenth century provided by actual court recordsdoes not readily supportthis as the sessiondates given are usually more than three weeksapart. Commonsense suggests that for the majority of manorsin the early thirteenth centurythere was no needto hold a court every three weeks: 64 per cent of manorson the bishopric of Winchester'sestate had seventeenor more caseswithin one accountingyear, which equatesto one (or more) casesevery three weeks;30 per cent of manorshad fifty-one cases,which equatesto three (or more) casesevery three weeks. In the bishopric's estate,therefore, over one-third of manors,36 per cent, did not have enoughcases which produceda monetarypayment to actually hold a court every three weeks.Unfortunately, the early thirteenth century evidencecan do little more than show that in most manorsat leasttwo or, in limited cases,three or four courts took place within the accountingperiod of eachroll. It may also show, if one assumesthat the entrieswere recordedchronologically, that in certain manorson the bishopric of Winchester'sestate no court paymentswere madefor an approximatesix week period betweenthe feast daysof Michaelmasand Martinmas.
68Norfolk Record Office MF/RO 3 82/18 Est/1.
87 III What did the courts do?
Court procedureand variely of business
Before any businesscould be conductedin the manorial court, a court had to be assembled.How, therefore,was the court summoned?It seemsthat most manorshad a regular place in which the court was held, whether it be in a hall or under a particular tree. The dateof the court, however,may not have been so regular as the courts do not 1 seemto have beenheld everythree weeksas was permitted. It may have beenthe case that the courts were held on particular stipulateddays but, if not, notification would be required as to when the next court was to be held. This may have beenachieved by detailing the dateof the next court whilst the current court was still in session.2 The use of the court as a generalforum for disseminatinginformation was not unusualand it would seemsensible to set a datefor the next court for the suitors, for specific people involved in casesand essoins.It may have beenpossible to issuea generalsummons eachtime the court was to be held, or this methodmay have beenused if the date of a pre-determinedcourt was to be altered.H. S. Bennett suggestedthat the method of summoningpeople to court varied considerablybetween manors. A general announcementmay havebeen made, at church for example,or specific peoplemay have 3 been requiredto give notice of the court. Thesepeople may have beenthe reeveor bailiff, presumablyif the court was to be held by the steward:a certain William de Widd' madea paymentin 1244-5to the court of West Wycombe (Bucks.: bishopric of 4 Winchester)for failing to cometo the summonsof the bailiff. It is unknown whether the sessionto which William was summonedwas a 'court leet' held by the steward, however, as the first paymentin the perquisite sectionfor that year is a combined paymentfor both Martinmasand Hockday. William's paymentwas case26 of the 66 casesrecorded so there is no indication to which court the summonswas made.There were 39 casesrecorded in the WinchesterPipe Rolls for incorrect summoningof the
1 Seepp. 66-87. 2 Bennett,English Manor, p.20 1. 3 ibid., pp. 181 and 202. 4 The paymentwas 'quia non venit ad summonitionemballivi', case26.
88 court.5 Of thesecases, 14 mentionedthe manorial occupationof the personliable for the payment.In 4 casesthe paymentwas madeby a beadleand in 5 casesa haywardmade the payment.In 2 further casesthe personwas describedas a messor,which seemsto 6 have beena term synonymouswith both the beadleand the hayward. The remaining three caseswere paid by millers (2 cases)and a smith. In a late thirteenth century court roll of the RamseyAbbey manor of Kings Ripton (Hunts.), it was noted that it was the 7 role of the beadleto summonthe Abbot of Ramseyto the next court to answera plea.
The manorial court was presidedover by the lord of the manor or his stewardor other officials. The LegesHenrici Primi, of about 1118,noted that the right of soke was, 8 in the caseof hallmoots,exercised chiefly by reevesof manors. One paymentin Woodhay (Hants.) in 1251-2,however, would suggestthat this was not necessarilythe caseby the mid-thirteenthcentury: a paymentwas madefor false pleading in the court before the bailiff. 9 Other paymentswere madebecause actions were not conductedin the presenceof the bailiff, suggestingthat his presencewas usually required for such cases:in Ivinghoe (Hants.) in 1246-7,payments were maderespectively for making an 10 accord and making a boundarywithout the bailiff. It also seemsthat in Bitteme (Hants.) in 1247-8,payments were madebecause money was taken when a man was " received into a tithing without the bailiff. The cartulary of St Peter's Abbey, Gloucester,noted in the sectionabout the managementof manorsthat the hallmoot 12 should be heardbefore the bailiff. The author of Seneschaucy,written c. 1260,noted that it was the role of the reeveand the beadleor haywardto receive plaints, make
5 The reasonswere recordedas not making the summons,for defective summoningand for poor, false or unjust summoning. 6 Bennett,English Manor, pp. 178-9.Homans also noted that it would be a mistaketo assumethat men bearing two different titles necessarilyperformed different duties, G.C. Homans,English Villagers ofthe Thirteenth Century (Cambridge,Massachusetts, Harvard University Press,1942), p. 290. 7Select Pleas, p. 112. The exampleis from 1294. 1Leges Henric! Prim!, p. 123. 9 The paymentwas 'pro stultiloquio in curie coramballivo', case20. 10The paymentswere: 'pro concordiafacta absqueballivo', case 112; 'divisa facta sine ballivo', cases36 and 37. It is just possiblethat 'divisa' may be translatedas a court or court day, but the two men making that paymentwere John and Richard de la Dune, suggestingthat it was indeeda boundary or someland division betweenmembers of the samehousehold. R. E. Latham, ed., RevisedLatin Word-List (London, British Academy, 1965),p. 154. 11The paymentwas 'pro denariorecepto de Willelmo qui recept' in decima sine ballivo', cases4 and 5. 12The paymentwas'coram loci ballivo' Cartularium Monasteril Glouc., iii, p.221. The cartulary has been datedto the latter half of the thirteenth century, i, p.x. 89 13 attachmentsand then to deliver them to the bailiff. It was the bailiff, therefore,who seemsto have presidedover the manorial court by this date.
How were casesbrought to court? Individuals could bring pleasto court about particular infringementsof law or custom.Usually the individual was personally involved and land boundarydisputes were often brought to court in this way. Numerous cases,however, seemto havebeen brought to the court's attention by meansother than personalpleas. It was consideredthe court's responsibility to bring infringementsof law to the attention of the lord in court and to assistin this process,specific questionswere askedof the court about infractions of laws, for example,whether any blood had been shedor any watercoursehad beendiverted. Originally, theselists seemto have been intended for the sheriff's useat the bi-annualtourns or views of frankpledgeand a number of lists do survive. A formulary entitled The Manner of Holding Courts, dated approximately 1342,detailed 38 articleswhich were to be presentedat the view of frankpledge.These articles detailedmatters which were againstthe crown, including determining whether all who owed suit to court were in attendanceand all who were twelve or over were in a tithing. Oncethese inquiries had beenmade, the essoinswould then be listed and the casesheard. 14 It seems,however, that theselists were adaptedfor use in other courts. One suchadapted list, datedto the latter half of the thirteenth century, was noted in the cartularyof St Peter'sAbbey, Gloucester.The list contained 40 articles, 29 of which referredto royal jurisdiction, similar to those listed in the formulary. The remaining II articlesreferred to the private jurisdiction of the hallmoot, enquiring into suchmatters as tenantsmarrying without licence and the custodyof meadow, fields and woods.15 The 1340sformulary also details such articles, but in a separatecourt: 10 articles were listed in this court 'as to how the lord's franchiseis maintained'. Thesearticles, focusing on the lord's customaryrights, were then followed
13Oschinsky, Walter ofHenley, p.279. SeeHarvey, 'Treatises', p. 173, for the dating of the Seneschaucy. 14 The phrasewas 'encontrele coroune'. Court Baron, pp. 15-18and 93-101. Another fourteenthcentury exampleof articles of the view of frankpledgecan be found in the leger book of StoneleighAbbey, written about 1392, The StoneleighLeger Book, ed. R.H. Hilton (London, Dugdale Society, 1960),pp. 98- 100. 15Cartularium Monasterii Glouc., iii, pp.221-2. The list of articles has beenpublished in translation in Titow, Rural Society,pp. 189-90. 90 16 by the individual casesheard. The St Peter'sAbbey cartulary, therefore,shows the adaptationof what were originally lists madefor royal courts into lists which included questionsof customarylaw. The order of entry of casesin the accountrolls, however, show little identifiable pattern:only the rolls noted abovebegin to distinguish between different types of casesand then only betweenpayments for land and marriageas 17 opposedto all other paymentsfrom court.
J.S. Beckermandetailed the developmentof the manorial court between 1250 and 1350 from a court of presentment,whereby it was the entire court's responsibility to bring infringementsof royal law to justice, to a systemwhere presentmentswere made 18 by j uries when infringementsof customas well as royal law had occurred. The court rolls for the English lands of the Abbey of Bec show that, in supportof Beckerman's argument,presentments were madeby the whole court in the late 1240s:the first case detailed in the earliestextant manor court roll, 12 May 1246,for Bledlow (Bucks.), noted that the court presenteda case,a certain Simon Combe had set up a fence on the lord's land.19 Of the 7 casespresented to the Bec courts before 1250,the court presented 4, the township presentedI and the remaining 2 entriesmerely statedthat 'it was presented'.It is just possiblethat the two ambiguousentries were presentmentsmade by juries, but from the evidenceprovided by theseearly court rolls, it is impossibleto dispute Beckerman'spost- 1250 time-line for the developmentfrom casespresented by the whole court to casespresented by juries. It is possible,however, to dispute his choice of 1250 for the beginningof the use of presentmentsof mattersof a customary nature, as opposedto its use for the infringementsof royal law. The casenoted above dealt with a matter of customaryrights, the building of a fence on the lord's land, rather than royal law. The use of presentmentfor customarycases before 1250 should not be over emphasised,however, as the remaining 6 presentedcases dealt with breachesof royal law. The other casesdealt with failure to be in a tithing, bribery of a jury of the
16The phrasewas 'coment le fraunchisele seignurest garde'. Court Baron, pp. 15-18 and 93-106. 17See p. 85 for examples. 18Beckerman, 'Innovation', pp. 197-252esp. pp. 198 and 23 1. 19Select Pleas, p.6.
91 king's eyre, a bondsmanbeing a fugitive and living outside of the lord's manor, the stealing of geese,grievous wounding and the throwing of stones.20
It was also the role of individual manorial officials to presentcases to court. The hayward was appointedto guardthe lord's com and presentto the court anyonewho 21 trespassedor damagedthe corn in any way. Other officials also presentedcases related to their post: the ale-tasters,for example,presented breaches of the assizeof ale.22
Unfortunately,it is impossibleto determinefrom the earlier recordsof courts or accountrolls just how a casewas brought to court as only the financial result of a case was recorded.The casesof presentmentin the court rolls clearly show the limitations of the accountrolls as the action taken by the court in 5 of the 7 casesdetailed in the Bec rolls did not involve a financial settlement:these cases would not, therefore,have been mentionedin the accounts.The presentmentsresulted in the removal of the fence in the casenoted above,the return of a fiigitive bondsman,distraint and imprisonment.Only the two casesof imprisonmenteventually resulted in a financial transaction,with each 23 prisoner paying 2s., presumablyto be released. It is, therefore,impossible to tell from the accountrolls whetherthe casewas presented,never mind by whom.
Once a casewas presented,the court was required to decideon an appropriate courseof action. The court itself was not chargedwith determining the facts of such a casebut with presentingthe initial information of the infiingement of the lord's rights or royal law. A casepresented by the court, by its very nature,required no 'proof as such becauseit was, in itself, a statementof fact. William, for example,may have been presentedby the court for failing to plough the lord's field satisfactorily: the court, by presentingthe case,had alreadyestablished that William was at fault. The court merely had to decideon a punishmentfor the infringement, financial or otherwise.In this way
20ibid., pp.6-19. 21Harvey, Manorial Records,p. 46. 22Homans, English Villagers, p.312. 23Cases of presentmentcan be found in the rolls of the court of. Bledlow (Bucks.) 12 May 1246;Ruislip (Middlesex) 22 May 1246;Weedon Beck (Northants.) 29 Sept. 1247 and 19 June 1248; Ogbourne (Wilts. ) 27 May 1249.
92 caseswhich were presentedby the court differed from casesbrought to the court by individuals: caseswhich were not 'presented'required proof.
Proof of innocencebefore 1250,Beckerman suggested, was madeby compurgation,the swearingon oath of a certain number of men to the good characterof the defendant.24 The earliestextant court rolls, supportingBeckerman's argument, suggestthat compurgation,the waging of one's law, was in use in the late 1240s.One early exampleof defenceby compurgationwas from a court held on 12 May 1246 in Bledlow (Bucks.): Richard Newmere to to the law 25The a certain of was go six-handed. Bec rolls only mention the numberof men requiredfor waging one's law on three occasions:each time the defendantwas requiredto wage his or her law six-handed,that is producefive otherswho would also attestto his or her good character.The other 26 caseswhich involved compurgationmerely statedthat the defendantwas 'at law'. The WinchesterPipe Rolls detailedmany paymentspro lege, 'for law'. The exact meaning ofpro lege is uncertainhowever: it may mean 'for the waging of one's law' or, equally, it may be a more generalphrase used for paymentsmade for a caseto be heardby the court. The vast majority ofpro lege casesoccurred before 1240: all bar 7 of the 3 81 casesdate from beforethe vacancy.If the former interpretationof the phraseis correct, this distribution may representa dramaticdecline in the use of waging one's law, or may be attributable,at leastin part, to the increasein detail recordedin the later rolls: 267 paymentswere recordedfor relaxing one's law, pro lege relaxanda, which may or may not describesimilar casesto the shorterpro lege. Combining thesepayments gives 551 paymentsfor the seventeenrolls before 1240and 97 paymentsfor the six rolls after 1240,averaging 32 and 16 casesper year. This is a very crude comparison,but it does
24Beckerman, 'Innovation', pp.203-1 1. 25Select Pleas, p.7. 26ibid., pp.6-22. Examplesof compurgationcan be found in the rolls of the court of. Bledlow (Bucks.), 12 May 1246 (six-handed);Ruislip (Middlesex), 22 May 1246 and 4 Feb. 1248 (six-handed);Ogboume (Wilts. ), 16 Sept. 1247;Wantage (Berks. ), 18 Sept. 1247;Tooting (Surr.), 15 Oct. 1247 (where a default was made in the waging of law which resultedin the defendantbeing placed in mercy); Deverill (Wilts. ), 9 Nov. 1247;Povington (Dor.), 16 Dec. 1247;Weedon Beck (Northants.), IS Aug. 1248 (six-handed).
93 suggestthere may havebeen a declineof somedegree in the use of waging one's law in 27 the 1240s,ten yearsbefore Beckerman's time-line.
Figure I Number of pro lege andpro leg-erelaxanda payMents 1208-37(seventeen years) 1244-52(six years) pro lege payments 374 7 pro lege relaxanda payments 177 90 Total number of payments 551 97 11 1
If the numberof paymentsfor waging one's law was declining in the 1240s,how else were casesresolved in the manorial court? Compromiseseems to have beenused as a way to resolvedisputes: payment for permissionto compromise,or for failure to obtain permission,occurred 54 times within the WinchesterPipe Rolls, with the earliest instancebeing found in the earliestextant roll. One entry, in 1246-7 in Ivinghoe (Bucks.), noted that the paymentwas madebecause the compromisewas madewithout the bailiff. The recordsfor the Abbey of Bec's manor of WeedonBeck (Northants.) on 8 29 November 1249noted that arbitratorswere usedin a dispute over land.
Inquestswere anotherway of resolving a dispute.The WinchesterPipe Rolls recorded562 caseswhere paymentwas madefor an inquest,the vast majority of which, in contrastto thepro lege payments,were recordedafter 1240: only 17 paymentswere madebefore the vacancy.Again, this may be the result of a dramatic rise in the number of casescalling for an inquest,presumably by the whole court, or may be becauseof developmentsin recordingpractice. The inquestsseem to be used for casesconcerning land, with numerousentries for inquestsbeing followed by paymentsfor entry fines. A number of entriesin Calbourne(Isle of Wight) recordedthat the inquisition of the court was requestedto decidewho held the greaterright to certain lands. One case,where a
27Examples of the waging of one's law can be found as late as the fifteenth century. F.M. Page,The EstatesofCrowlandAhbey: A StudyIn Manorial Organisation (Cambridge,Cambridge University Press, 1934),p. 41. 29 SejeCt pleas, p. 21.
94 paymentwas madeby RogerNigro for an inquestby the court into who held the greater right over half a furlong of land then held by his sister Matilda seemsto have beenwon 29 by Roger as he is later recordedas making an entry paymentfor half a furlong of land. It is unclear whetherthe inquestwas usedfor other types of caseat this time but, as all additional information providedby the accountrolls gives details of land as opposedto any other type of case,it may be that inquestswere usedexclusively for casesinvolving land.
Again, the difficulties in terminology may presenta highly distorted view of court procedure.This difficulty is highlighted by the phrasepro consideratione.The phrasepro considerationexy hominumfrom the Mardon (Hants.) accountin 1232-3 suggeststhat pro considerationeshould, perhaps, be interpretedas a specific requestfor judgement, withpro considerationecurie being seenas a paymentfor the ruling of the entire court. If this is the case,the questionarises: Is the difference betweenthe phrases pro inquisitione curie habendaand pro considerationecurie habendaa real difference 30 or simply a matter of terminology?. It may be that the phraseswere usedto describe different types of cases,but the small amountof additional information given for cases like that for the inquests, land requestingthe considerationof the court, refers only to .31 Not only were the casesfor the considerationof the court often followed by entry payments,as with the inquestpayments, but East Meon (Hants.) in 1244-5provides one examplewhere the caseswere actually recordedas one: Adam de Ifeld' madeone paymentfor the considerationof the court over land which he soughtagainst John de 32 Ifeld' and for an entry fine for the sameland. It seems,therefore, that the distinction
29The paymentswere 'pro inquisitionecurie habendade dimidio furling' terre quam matilda nigra soror ipsius tenet utrum ipse maius Jushabeat' and 'pro fine dimidio ferling' tcrre'. Calboume(Isle of Wight), 1247-8,cases 20 and 23. Other examplesof inquisition paymentswhich were then followed by entry paymentscan be found in the samemanor, cases 35 and 37,45 and 46, and in other manors,for example, the Taunton manor of Staplegrove(Som. ), cases43 and 44 and Burghclere(Hants. ), 1251-2,cases 16 and 17. 30For example,these phrases may be found in 1244-5in Overton (Hants.), case82, and Ivinghoe (Bucks.), case 19, respectively. 31One casein Ashmansworth(Hants. ) in 1235-6noted that paymentwas madeby John for consideration againstThomas. It seems,however, that this casewas also over land as the next paymentmade by the sameJohn was for disseisinof land: presumablyhe lost his case.Ashmansworth 1235-6, cases 12 and 13. 32East Meon (Hants.), 1244-5,case 118. 'pro considerationecurie de terra quam petit de Johannede Ifeld' et pro fine eiusdemterre'. A further exampleof a combinedpayment can be found in Bishops Waltham (Hants.) in 1231-2,case 79. 95 was one of terminology ratherthan practice:pro considerationecurie habendaand pro inquisitione curie habendaseem to havebeen interchangeable. The two phraseswere used within the sameperquisite section in Farnhamin 1245-6,but this seemsto be the 33 only instancewhere this occurs. Matters involving land tenure,therefore, could be describedas paymentsfor an inquestor for the considerationof the court. It is also possible that paymentsfor the verdict of the court,pro veredicto curie, describedsimilar cases.There were 26 paymentsfor verdicts to be madein the WinchesterPipe Rolls, with only one containingadditional information as to the natureof the original case:the 34 additional information onceagain referred to land. As with the considerationand inquest of the court, therefore,the verdict of the court is also associatedwith land cases by the caseof Robert Babeflod,who madea paymentfor the verdict of the court and for having land 35Below, figure 2, is table detailing the subsequently . a number of cases for inquisition, considerationand verdict payments.
Figure 2 PgMents for the inquisition, considerationand verdict of the court 1208-37(seventeen years) 1244-52(six years) pro inquisitione payments 17 545 pro considerationepayments 106 97 pro veredictoPayments 20 6 total number of payments 143 648
If thesephrases do describesimilar cases,143 were recordedin the seventeenrolls before 1240 and 648 were recordedin the six rolls after 1240.Requests for the decision of the court, therefore,seem to havebecome a more popular way to resolve disputes from the 1240sonwards.
It must alwaysbe rememberedthat the accountsare fair copies and, as such,may disguisethe work of numerousdifferent scribeswho may have had their own
33Farnhain (Surr. ), 1245-6,cases 9 and 65. 34Bentley (Hants.), 1224-5,case 5. 35Twyford (Hants.), 1244-5,cases 4 and 5. 96 terminology. In addition to this, the WinchesterPipe Rolls cover over forty yearsand spanthe episcopaciesof threebishops during which time it would seemnatural for terminology to change.36 Ultimately, the scribesmay not have beenas consistentas we would have hoped: if the simple phrasepro simili can be abbreviatedto five different forms within one perquisitesection, it is not incomprehensiblethat words, such as consideration,inquest and verdict, may be substitutedfor eachother within the rolls.37
Beckermansuggested that land lawsuits were tried by an inquest of the entire court but that gradually,from 1250,these verdicts were given by juries becauseof an increasein the volume of litigation, an increasein population and a resulting decline in the intimate knowledgeof the entire village. This jury, initially usedfor disputesover land, was then usedto decideother cases,with the samejury usually deciding all cases in one sessionof court.38 The manor court of Bledlow (Bucks.) provides a detailed example of Beckerman'spre-1250 procedure: ajudgement by the whole court was made on 6 August 1249over who held the greaterright to a certain piece of land. It is most interesting to note, however,the scribal error madein this entry. The roll noted that the jury of the whole court was to inquire as to who held the greaterright to the land, but 39 originally the roll read lajury of twelve lawfid men'. Juries were certainly in use for casesinvolving disputesover land in the 1240s,with the Abbey of Bec rolls noting the use ofjuries in such casesin all extantyears before 1250.40Could this scribal error indicate that the use ofjuries had becomeso common-placein inquestsover land rights that the scribe assumedthe decisionwould have beenmade by a jury? The Winchester Pipe Rolls recordedmany paymentsfor the inquest,the considerationand the verdict of the whole court, but the rolls also detailedseventeen cases involving a jury of twelve men, the earliestrecorded in 1226-7in East Meon (Hants.). In over half of the cases,11, the paymentwas simply to have a jury of twelve men or to have the considerationor
36Bishops of Winchester:Peter des Roches, 1205-38; William Raleigh, 1240-50;Aymer de Valence, 1250-60.Fryde, British Chronology,p. 276. 37Bishops Waltham and Bishopstokein the year 1245-6both record five different abbreviationsof dsimili'. 38Beckerman, 'Innovation', pp.212-15. 39Select Pleas, p.20 and 20n.. 40Juries were mentionedin the court rolls for: Ruislip (Middlesex) 22 May 1246,4 and 8 Feb. 1248; Tooting (Surr.) 15 Oct. 1247;Weedon Beck (Northants.) 19 Juneand 18 Aug. 1248; Bledlow (Bucks.) 6 Aug. 1249.
97 verdict of twelve men. In the remaining6 casesadditional information was given as to the nature of the original casefor which ajury was requested:in all instancesthe original casewas over land or specific property.Juries do not seemto have bcenused for all casesbefore 1250,therefore, but it doesseem that from at least 1226-7,juries were used,on occasion,to decidematters of disputedland rights.
Three entriesin the Pipe Rolls did use a different number of men for the jury. In Bishops Waltham (Hants.) in 1215-16and in Farnharn(Surr. ) in 1231-2,a jury of twenty-four men was used,perhaps in appealhearings, whereas in Burghclere(Hants. ) in 1236-7 jury 41There 111 a of six men was used. were other caseswhich recordeda paymentbeing madeto have ajury or for falsejudgement, but the number of men on the jury was not noted.The only indication of the number of men on eachjury was given by 42 the grouping of 'false oath' or 'false judgement' payments. Paymentsusually appeared in groups within the records:in Twyford (Hants.) in 1213-14,11 nameswere recorded successively;in Woodhay(Hants. ) in 1218-19,the list comprised7 names;in Crawley (Hants.) in 1236-7,5 men were listed; in Farnharn(Surr. ) in 1247-8,10 nameswere recorded;a paymentfor falsejudgement was madeby the whole hundredin Bishopstoke(Hants. ) in 1247-8.
The use of ajury did not necessarilymean that the jury was one of trial. It is unclear from the Abbey of Bec court rolls as to whether thesejuries alreadyknew the facts of the caseor were appointedto determinethose facts. The use of the term 'inquest', in associationwith the jury in Ruislip (Middlesex) on 22 May 1246,and the term 'inquire', in associationwith the juries in Tooting (Surr.) on 15 Oct. 1247,Weedon Beck (Northants.) on 18 Aug. 1248and Bledlow (Bucks.) on 6 Aug. 1249,may suggest that the twelve were indeedunaware of the facts of the caseinitially and that their 43 purposewas to determinethose facts. The manorial court of Ruislip also noted a case where paymentwas madeto have ajury of twelve determinethe ownershipof a certain
41William Cunne,who madethe paymentto have a jury of 24 men, was not recordedin the accounts under that namebefore his 1231-2payment. It may be the case,however, that he was one of the many Williams recordedby their first namealone in the accountsfor Farnhamprior to that date. 42The paymentwas 'pro falsojuramento. 43The words were 'inquisicione' and 'inquirendum'.
98 croft. It is againunclear whether the casewas resolvedby twelve men who knew the position of the boundariesor whetherthey madea judgement without previous knowledge, but it seemsthat they may not havebeen aware of the original boundariesas the samejury was usedto determineanother boundary case. Two yearslater, on 4 February 1248,a namedjury of twelve was usedin the court of the samemanor to determinethe ownershipof a messuage.Again, it is unclear whether the jurors knew the facts of the casebut the samejury was usedin anothercase in the samecourt, which would again suggestthat no previousknowledge was required. A similar situation arose in the manor of WeedonBeck (Northants.) in the court of 18 August 1248,where twelve namedjurors were to determinewho held the greaterright to certain lands in two separatecases. 44
Do theseearly court rolls suggest,therefore, that the jury trial was in place before Beckerman's1250 to 1350time-line? P. Hyams expressedhis hesitancyin acceptingBeckerman's time-line for the adoptionof royal court procedureby the manor courts as the major developmentsof 1260to 1280coincided with the survival of the 45 bulk of early manorial documentation. The paymentsmade forjuries in the WinchesterPipe Rolls do suggestthat juries who had no previous knowledgeof a specific casewere in use,at leastin land disputes,over twenty yearsearlier than previously assumed.It seemsthat Beckerman'sdate of 1250may also, perhaps,be a little late for the use of a singlejury in all casesof disputedland in one sessionof court but, as it is impossibleto determinefrom the accountrolls how many sessionswere held within the year and who madeup eachjury, we cannotbe certain that this development occurredmuch before 1246.
The conveyanceof land, as opposedto disputesover land, formed a considerable part of manorial business.Land grantswere mattersof precedentand, as such,were usually conductedin front of numerouswitnesses to avoid later disputes.References to land grantsbeing agreedupon in the presenceof or attestedto by the hallmoot occur in
44Select Pleas, p. 17, Interestingly,although the text stated'twelve jurors', fifteen nameswere actually recorded. 43p. Hyams, 'What did EdwardianVillagers Understandby LawT in Medieval Societyand the Afanor Court, eds Z. Razi and R. Smith (London, Oxford University Press,1996), pp.80-1.
99 certain private charters.One chartermade in the presenceof the hallmoot, dated between 1181and 1190,recorded the quitclaim of two bovatesin Eakring by Robert StarrIett and his wife to Rufford Abbey (Notts.). The quitclaim was madebefore the 46 lord of Eakring, his wife and the hallmoot of Eakring. Referencewas also madein that charter to a previous agreementmade before the hallmoot, in which the two bovates 47 were given to Ougrim the forester,presumably Robert's father. In an earlier example, dated c. 1155, the hallmoot was recordedas attestingto a confirmation charter.The charter was a confirmation of a land grant madeby the prioress,prior and conventof Nuneatonto a certain Brian of land in Swinford and was attestedto by sixteennamed 48 attesteesand the whole hallmoot.
By witnessingconveyances recorded in charters,the hallmoot seemsto have maintained a 'generalmeeting' air to someextent and it is this versatility which ultimately createsthe problem of an accuratedistinction betweena generalmeeting and a specific court. It should be noted,however, that charterswere also witnessed,on occasion,by the hundredcourt: an early thirteenth century charterabout land releasein the full hundredcourt of Wrangdyke(Rutland) was witnessedby the full hundredand 49 many othersnot in the hundred. One charter,dated between 1166 and 1194,details an agreementwhich was madein the wapentakecourt of Strafford (Yorks.), and which seemsto have beenwitnessed by thoseattending courL The charterdetails a gift of two bovatesand other lands as set out by the wapentakecourt, thus emphasisingthe use of thesecourts in transactionsof land.50 Charters were also witnessedin honour courts: in a convoluted charterfrom the honour of Mowbray, datedbetween 1163 and 1169,a sworn testamentwas madeby a certain Samsonand his wife in the presenceof the
46The phrasewas 'coram Alimot de Aicring". 47Rufford Charters, ed. C.J. Holdsworth (Thoroton SocietyRecord Series,4 vols, 1970-81), ii, p.424. 4' The phrasewas 'totum.halimotum'. DocumentsIllustrative ofthe Social and EconomicHistory ofthe Danelaw, ed. F.M. Stenton(British Academy,Records of the Social and Economic History of England and Wales, vol. v, 1920),pp. 248-9. 49F acsIMil es of EIary Char tMNersfro or thaMP t onshire Collections, ed. F.M. Stenton(Northamptonshire Record Society,vol. iv, 1930),p. 30-1. soEarly YorkshireCharters, vi, p.240- 1. The phrasewas 'sicuti divisurn fuit in wapentac'. Other examplesmay be found in iii, p.403 and iv, p. 249-51. 100 whole court.51 It would seemfrom theseexamples that witnessing charterswas consideredto be court business,as opposedto 'general meeting' business,and thus the witnessing of chartersby the hallmoot shouldnot be seenas a deviation from, but an integral part of, hallmoot business.
Charterswere not the only meansof securingland transfers.The transfer of land by charter implied the holding of land freely: Robert Starrlett and his wife held freely the land which they grantedto Rufford Abbey; the prioress,prior and convent of 52 Nuneatonheld freely the land which they grantedto Brian. Villeins, however, theoretically had no control over the landsthey occupiedand could not, therefore, 53 legally alienateor exchangeit without the permissionof the lord. Transfers,whether they be salesor sub-lettings,involving villeins and villein land should have occurredby the processof 'surrenderand admittance'.The procedureof surrenderand admittance recognisedthat villein land was owned by the lord which made it necessaryfor the villein to surrenderthe land to the lord and for the lord to admit a new tenant.The processingof villein land transfersthrough the manorial court ensuredentry payments were made and, if the tenancywas conveyedto a family member,a heriot payment.It 54 also ensuredfull recognition of the villein statusof the land.
Transfer of land by villein charter,however, seems to have taken place throughout the thirteenth century.55 The Carte Nativorum, containedwithin a mid- fourteenthcentury cartulary of PeterboroughAbbey, detailed481 charterswhere some of the sellersof land and most of the buyerswere, as the title suggests,villeins. The datesof thesecharters, the majority of which camefrom the secondhalf of the thirteenth century, suggesta considerabletransfer of property amongstvilleins at that time. Some
51Charters ofthe Honour ofMowhray, 1107-1191,ed. D. E. Greenway(Records of Social and Economic History, new ser., vol. i, 1972),p. 168. Another exampleof grantsbeing madein an honorial court may be found in Early YorkshireCharters, ii, pp.498-9. 52See above. 53For an explanationof the statusof the villein as chattel, seeP. Hyams,King, Lords and Peasantsin Medieval England: The CommonLaw of Villeinage in the 7wel6h and Thirteenth Centuries(London, Oxford University Press,1980), p. 2. 54J. A. Raftis, Tenureand Mohility: Studiesin the Social History of the Medieval English Village (Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies,1964), pp. 65-68. 55For an introduction to the work on the peasantland market seeP. D. A. Harvey, ed., The PeasantLand Market in Medieval England (London, Oxford University Press,1984), esp. pp. 1-28.
a 101 of the charters, 58 in total, have been dated to the mid or early thirteenth century, which again suggests an active peasant land market was operating among the villein tenants of the Peterborough Abbey estate before 1250. These charters not only refer to purchases of land made at the time of the charter but often referred to transactions made many years before. M. M. Postan noted that one inquest held in 1292 referred to a transaction 56 which probably took place at the turn of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. -me details of court cases in the cartulary of Ramsey Abbey noted a number of instances where a villein tenant paid an amercement for having bought land by charter. The earliest example noted that a certain Gilbert Hardwyn, after having recognised his villein status in court, admitted to having bought 20 acres and a fold by charter. Gilbert then delivered the lands, fold and charter into the hands of the abbot who, in turn, granted the land and fold to Gilbert in return for one mark. Gilbert also admitted to having bought a further two acres of land by charter from Alan, son of Robert: for this transgression Alan paid one mark to have his land returned and Gilbert paid half a mark. 57The Abbot of Ramsey was obviously keen to determine which lands had been transferred by charter as this was not the only example recorded in the cartulary, but the practice seems to have continued in many estates. Indeed, Postan suggests that it may not have been the lord's intention to put a stop to the peasant land market but to gain 58 more control over it.
The Carte Nativorum, although dealing with mainly unfree tenants, dealt with land which was considered to be held by both free and unfree tenure. The purchase of free land by villeins may not have caused a great deal of concern for the lord, Postan argued, as the services required of the tenant, by virtue of his personal status, remained the same. Indeed, it may have had slight benefits for the lord, as the theoretical owner of the villein was also, theoretically, the owner of the villein's property. Nor was the purchase considered illegal: villeins could legally purchase land from another lord and 59 would even be entitled to claim novel disseisin if the need arose. The alienation of the lord's own land to tenants of another lord, however, must have been a concern. An early
56Carte Nativorum, pp. xvi-xix andxxvii-ix, esp.p. xxxviii. 57Cartularium Monasteril Rames.,i, pp.4234. 58Carte Nativorum, pp.x1viii. 59ibid., p.xliv. 102 fourteenthcentury case in Elton (Hunts.), a RamseyAbbey manor, noted that two mcn were pledgesfor a certainNicholas the smith to guaranteethat Nicholas would not alienatea specific half an acreof free land, nor any other free land if he held it, without special licence of the lord.60
The bulk of the land detailedin the Carte Nativorum was free land purchasedby unfree tenants,but someof the conveyancesinvolved unfree land. R.H. Hilton showed that the majority of the leasesfor life recordedin the documentsof GloucesterAbbey, datedto the secondhalf of the thirteenth century,were of villein land and that, in most 61 cases,villein customswere still to be performedby the new tenant. The chirographs show that the abbot was fully awareof certainvillein land transactionsother than by surrenderand admittance,but transactionsof villein land do seemto have occurred without his approval: one chirographdetailing a life leaseof villein land to a certain 62 Stanbald,noted that Stanbaldhad alreadybought the land. This chirograph,therefore, may simply have legalisedthe existing situation.Although theseleases often involved the performanceof services,the distinction betweenfree and villein land was often blurred and seemsto have becomeincreasingly so with the rise in the amountof villein 63 land held for money rent during the thirteenthcentury. The possibility for confusion led L. A. Slota to arguethat the useof surrenderand admittancefor villein lands was adoptedto provide a clear distinction betweenthe transferralof villein and free land.64 R.M. Smith had suggestedthat the standardisationof the use of surrenderand admittancein the latter half of the thirteenth century for villein tenurewas linked to the introduction of presentmentjuries, which neededto identify standardprocedures in 65 order to presentbreaches of suchprocedure to court. Slota, although recognisingthe importanceof Smith's argument,noted that in the St Albans estatesthe standardisation
60Elton Manorial Records,p. 20 1. 61Hilton noted that 12 of the 49 chirographscan be datedbefore 1263.R. H. Hilton, The English Peasantryin the Later Middle Ages (London, Oxford University Press,1975), p. 148. 62ibid., pp. 149-50. 63ibid., p. 147. " In the late thirteenth centuryphrases specifying the villein natureof the tenancywere usedto avoid confusion betweensubstitution, used for transferralof free hold land, and surrenderand admittance.L. A. Slota, 'Law, Land Transfer and Lordship on the Estatesof St Albans Abbey in the Thirteenth and FourteenthCenturies', Law and History Review,vol. vi, 1988,p. 129. 65R M. Smith, 'Some Thoughtson "Hereditary" and "Proprietary" Rights in Land under CustomaryLaw in Thirteenth and FourteenthCentury England', Law and History Review,vol. i, 1983,p. 106.
103 of land transfer occurred before the regular use of presentment juries. M. M. Postan suggested that the Ramsey Abbey collection of land transfers by villein charter represented an early crackdown on this type of transaction, and that subsequent transactions should, therefore, have been conducted by surrender and admittance. The reason behind this crackdown was, in his view, financial: timely transfers of land, he argued, could cost the lord dearly but, more importantly, Postan suggested that the opportunity to raise rents and increase entry payments provided by conveyances of land, especially in a time of increasing population and shortage of land, could render 66 significant financial benefits for the lord. The increasing use of the practice of surrender and admittance did not completely stop unfree land transfers being recogniscd by charter, however: Slota noted that in the estate of St Alban's Abbey, a presentment was made in 1272 bringing to the court's attention a transferral of villein land made by 67 charter.
Casesmentioning charterswere noted in the WinchesterPipe Rolls, with three instancesof paymentsbeing madeto havea charterfrom the bishop and a further three paymentsbeing madeto have chartersfor specific lands or confirmations of landsheld, the earliest entry being in 1210-11.An entry in the Bishops Waltham accountfor 1247- 8 noted that the paymentwas madeto have a charterof the lord bishop for 13 acresof 68 land and for a confirmation of a ftirther 10 acres. Paymentswere also madein the WinchesterPipe Rolls for permissionto sub-let land. Sub-letting of land seemsto have been a reasonablyfrequent procedure: the RamseyAbbey manor of Elton (Hunts.), for example,recorded two fourteenthcentury cases where two men madepayments for sub- letting half an acre of bondlandto free men without licence.69 The paymentsto court for sub-letting, therefore,show that the bishop of Winchesterwas allowing the alienation of small sectionsof land within his estate.The standardphrase seems to have beenpro terra dimittenda, for land to be demised,and Postansuggested that, becauseof the
66Carte Nativorum, pp.xlvi-xlvii. 67 L. A. Slota, 'Law, Land Transfer and Lordship on the Estatesof St Albans Abbey in the Thirteenth and FourteenthCenturies', Law andHistory Review,vol. vi, 1988,p. 128. 69Payments for charters:Witriey (Oxon.), 1210-11,cases 36 to 38; Cheriton (Hants.), 1247-8,case 27. Paymentsfor chartersmentioning specific landsor persons:Hambledon (Hants. ), 1246-7,case 47; Bishops Waltham (Hants.), 1247-8,case 244; Twyford (Hants.), 1251-2,case 6. 69Elton Manorial Records,p. 313. The datewas 1342.
104 formulaic reasongiven, this type of paymentwas well establishedby 1208_9.70The numbersof thesepayments, however, dropped significantly after 1225-6:only 20 of the 112payments for demiseof land between1208 and 1252were recordedafter 1226. Paymentof servicesdue from the land ensuredthat unlicensedsub-letting did not go uncheckedfor long: the decline in the numberof paymentsfor permissionto sub-let, therefore,seems to representa changeof policy by the bishop of Winchesterin which 71 alienation of land was not permittedon the scalepreviously allowed.
The wish by tenantsof all kinds to haveconveyances of land recordedin a chartershows the increasingemphasis placed on written proof. The increasing importanceof written evidencewas shownby the considerablenumber of spurious chartersfound in published sourcesand, indirectly, a phraseused in the Chronicle of Battle Abbey. Abbot William of Marmoutier was askedto producewritten evidenceof his claim that Battle Abbey had, sinceits foundation,been subject to Marmouticr to which the Abbot reportedlyreplied that the gift of sucha greatman as the king did not needdocumentary proof or an eyewitness.The grant, it was then contested,was so great that it could not be authenticif not confirmed by charteror at leastby oral testimonyof witnesses.The use of certe in the descriptionemphasises the view that written evidence 72 was consideredto be much strongerproof of claim than oral testimony. The procedure of surrenderand admittanceconducted in court did reinforce the lord's rights over his land and his unfree tenantsand provide financial reward,but it did also provided the tenant with a written record of the transfer.It is virtually impossibleto determinethe main motive behind surrenderand admittancecases but the chartersof the unfree tenantssuggest that the wish for written evidenceof tenureby the tenantthemselves 73 may have beena major factor.
70Carte Nattvorum, pp.xxxvii-xxxviii. 71J. A. Raftis, Tenureand Mobility. Studiesin the Social History of the Medieval English Village (Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies,1964), pp. 77. 72BattleAbbey Chronicle, p. 115. One of the Bury St Edmundschronicles also emphasisesthe importance of documentaryproof, stating that if the Abbey could prove its right to free election, by charter,then King John would concede.The Chronicle of the Election of Hugh Abbot of Bury St Edmundsand later Bishop ofEly, ed. and trans. F-M. Thomson(London, Oxford University Press,1974), p. 113. 73Postan did note that the villein chartersmay not necessarilybe taken as ultimate proof by a private or royal court but that in informal disputes,and possibly in court, the charter could be usedas evidence. Carte Nativorum, p.xIiii. Tenantsof the bishopric of Winchester'sestate made five paymentsto have 'pro record" but, as note above,pp. 34-5, 'recordari' may be translatedas a written record or an oral report. 105 One other function of the courts in the bishopric of Winchester'sestate seems to havebeen the election of the manorial officials. One casefrom the manor of Burghclere (Hants.), 1218-19,noted that a paymentwas madefor the poor choice of the reeve.An entry for Bishops Fonthill in 1246-7recorded a payment'for the election of the reeve and for many transgressions':presumably the election was conductedincorrectly or the choice of reevewas consideredto be poor. Other entriesdetailed the election or poor 74 choice of grangers,shepherds, haywards and beadles. Paymentswere also madein court in order not to be the reeve:in 1211-12in Bishopstone(Wilts. ), for example,a 75 paymentwas madenot to be a reeve. Elections seemto have beenheld every year, but 76 one personmay have beenre-elected from year to year. The casesdetailing the failure to summonthe court correctly gavethe samenames for two manorsin two different years.In Calbourne(Isle of Wight) in 1244-5and 1245-6,Roger de Lostedemade poor summonsand in Fareham(Hants. ) in 1244-5and 1247-8,Galfridus Spiring made defectivesummons to court. Unfortunately it is not known which manorial post these men held.
A free person involved in a case in a manorial court was, theoretically, able to have an attorney. A close rolls entry, dated 21 February 1234, noted that a man may have an attorney act for him, in both prosecution and defence, in a court whether the court be of the county, the hundred, the wapentake or any of the king's court, or of the court of the king's lords, without specific letters from the king. These rights applied to any free man who owed suit, which may suggest that those deemed legally unfree may 77 not necessarilyhave held this right. The Statuteof Merton, dated 1235-6,noted that every free man who owed suit to the county, hundred,wapentake or to the court of his
74'Berebrettus' or granger(in chargeof the granges),Twyford (Hants.), 1247-8,cases 37 and 59; 'bercarius' or shepherd,Burghclere (Hants. ), 1246-7,case 2, Itchingswell (Hants.), 1246-7,case 4,1247- 8, case26, and 1251-2,case 3 1; 'haywardus' or hayward,Itchingswell (Hants.), 1246-7,case 4. A paymentwas madein the half-year vacancyroll (PRO E 407/5/6) to be a beadle,'budellus', in Farnham (Hants.), f.20. 75The paymentwas 'ne sit prepositus'.Other examplesof similar paymentscan be found in the Hampshiremanors of Overton and North Waltham in 1217-18and Bishopstoke,Crawley and Hambledon in 1247-8. 76Bennett, English Manor, p. 167. 77Close Rolls, 1231-4, p.55 1. The phrasesused were 'curias domini sui' and 'quilibet liber homo qui sectasdebet nostri'.
106 78 lord could appoint an attorneyto do suit for him. An attorneycould be appointed, therefore,to perform both the serviceof suit and in a specific caseof a free man heard in the lord's court. The WinchesterPipe Rolls detail fourteencases detailing payments 79 madefor attorneys,the earliest dated 1217-18,with one or two casesin a year at most. All, interestingly,were from the foreign hundredof the manor of Taunton.This was not a manorial court, but a hundredcourt, and thus, althoughthe practicewas obviously known and usedwithin the bishopric's estate,no paymentwas madefor an attorneyin a manorial court in the Winchesterestate. This may be a reflection of the unfree statusof many of the participantsin the casesheard in court or may be that the practicewas simply not usedin manorial courts in the early thirteenth century.Attorneys were used later in the thirteenth century, however,for both suit of court and to representa person in a particular case:the court rolls of RamseyAbbey recordeda number of instancesof attorneysacting in thesecapacities on behalf of tenantsand, in one prolongedcase, the Abbot himself.80
Punishment for breaches of customary or royal law and court procedure were varied. The manorial court for Tooting (Surr.: Abbey of Bec) on 20 May 1246 noted that lands were seized by the lord until the defendant produced a warrantor. Distraint of 81 property was also used in a case where a man was not in a tithing. Terms of imprisonment were deemed necessary for the punishment of two offenders in Ogboume 82 (Wilts.: Abbey of Bec) on 27 May 1249. G.C. Homansnoted that offenderswere occasionallyput in the stocksand that paymentswere sometimeslevied in work rather 83 than cash,but financial amercementswere, by far, the most common punishment. Unfortunately, the limitations of the accountrolls are again highlighted, as only cases which resultedin a financial outcomewere recorded.It is, therefore,impossible to
78StatUteS ofthe Realm,p. 4 of 'The Statutes'section. Trovisum quod quilibet libere homo qui sectam debetad Com' Trithing, Hundr' et Wapentach',vel ad curiain domini sui libere possit facereattornaturn suum ad sectasillas pro eo faciend'.' 79Payments for attorneysoccurred once in 1217-18,1236-7,1245-6 and 1251-2.Two paymentswere recordedin 1219-20,1220-1,12234,1232-3 and 1247-8. soSelect Pleas, pp.52,79,112-21 and 142. :1 ibid., p. 8. This occurred in Ruislip (Middlesex), 22 May 1246. 2 ibid., p. 19. 83Homans, English Villagers, p.3 10.
107 determinewhich punishments,other than financial, were usedbefore 1246and to what extent they were used.
In conclusion,cases were brought to the manorial court before 1250by presentmentby the whole court, possibly in responseto a direct questionby the lord's official, by a manorial official, or by specific requestfrom an individual for his or her caseto be decidedin court. Once brought to the court's attention, a casecould be resolvedin a number of ways: by the defendantwaging his or her law; by an investigationby the court or jury; by compromise.Payments seem to have beenincurred at every step of the process,in bringing a caseto court, in waging one's law, in requestingan investigation,in compromising,in failing to do any of the abovecorrectly and as a generalpunishment. The court also performeda more administrativerole in providing a forum for the conveyancingof land, either in the form of a charteror the surrenderand admittanceof villein tenants,and electing manorial officials.
How much businesswas done in court?
A fundamentalquestion which needsto be addressedis how much businesswas actually conductedin thesemanorial courts. It hasbeen shown that in the early thirteenth centurythese courts do not seemto have beenheld as frequently as allowed by royal command.It has also beensuggested that the introduction of royal procedure and recordingpractice was to encouragefree tenantsto attendthe courts which, in turn, 84 may suggest that the court had limited appeal. In trying to assessthe volume of business, it is essential that we have a comparative value: herein lies the difficulty. It is impossible to determine the exact number of courts held in the bishopric of
Winchester's manors, which makes it impossible to determine whether the amount of business conducted at each court changed significantly. It is also impossible to determine with any satisfactory level of accuracy, the population of each manor, thus making it impossible to compare the overall population with the number of people making payments to court. The only valid analysis possible is to compare the volume of
84See pp. 76-87 and 36-7 respectively.
108 businesswithin eachmanor, bearing in mind that population is rarely, if ever, static. This providesus with an insight into the developmentof the volume of businessin the bishopric of Winchester'sestate from a baselevel provided by the 1208-9account. It is, therefore,possible to detectchanges in the volume of businessin the entire bishopric estateand within individual manorsduring the first half of the thirteenth century.It is also possibleto look more closely at the types of paymentbeing madeand analyse changesin the relative importanceof particular types of casesheard within the manorial court.
The overall volume ofbusiness
The following results, unlessotherwise stated, are basedon all manorsfor all 23 85 yearsand for all perquisitepayments. The figures used for the number of casesare actually the number of namesrecorded in the accounts.This is not necessarilythe number of entriesrecorded in the rolls, as certain entriesrecord paymentsby more than one person,for example,an l8d. paymentfrom Robert, William and John for breaking the assizeof ale. The WinchesterPipe Rolls are a fair copy of the original accountsand, as such,may not be exact copiesof the originals: the scribe of the fair copy of accounts for the estatesof Adam de Strattonin the late thirteenth century rearrangedor condensedthe information from the original draft-type documentwhen compiling the 86 enrolled accountsfor that estate. It may be the casethat the multiple nameentries representa single event in which all those liable for the paymentwere involved. It seemsmore likely, however,that the multiple nameentries were a method by which the scribe of the fair copy reducedthe amount of writing involved: separatepayments by Robert, William and John may have beencombined, thus maintaining the fundamental information provided by the original accountsbut reducing the work of the scribe.The
85These payments exclude annualrecognitions which, in somemanors, are noted in separatesections in the later rolls. 96Accounts and Surveysofthe Wiltshire Lands ofAdam de Stratton, ed. M. W. Farr (Wiltshire Archaeologicaland Natural History SocietyRecords Branch, vol. xiv, 1958),p. ix-xi. Comparisonsof the accountsand the reeve's draft accountsfor 1275-9show that information from the reeve's draft account was often different to the information in the full account:in 1276-7for example,the reeve's account simply recordsan entry paymentwhereas the full accountrecords the amountof land and the previous tenant.
109 entriesfor Downton in 1247-8seem to supportthe latter possibility, as a numberof the entriesinvolve multiple names.87 Nine paymentswere madefor transgression/trespass of wood, which included one multiple nameentry, paid by 'Radulfus aynulf' and his associates.Three individual paymentswere then recordedfor transgression/trespassof pasture.Twelve paymentsfor an unknown reasonwere recordedin the following manner:five single-namepayments, one two-namepayment, one single-namepayment 88 and five two-namepayments. Fourteenpayments were madefor mowing the meadow badly, with all paymentsmade in two-nameentries bar the final three-nameentry. The monetaryvalue of the paymentssuggest that the scribedid indeedcombine these repetitiousentries, as the 'standard' amountfor an unknown reasonand for mowing the 89 meadowbadly seemsto have been6d.. When the entry containedtwo names,the paymentwas doubledto 12d. and the final three-nameentry recordeda paymentof l8d.. To treat the multiple nameentries as one infringementof the lord's rights, therefore, would potentially createa distortedview of the amountof businessconducted by the court.
There are a number of multiple reasonentries where paymentis madefor two reasonswithin a single entry. The most commonentry of this type is for having land and 90 taking a wife, which accountsfor 365 of the 435 multiple reasonentries. Paymentsfor land and for taking a wife are closely linked and may have beenconsidered as one case within the original court. The remaining seventycombinations of reasonsare not statistically significant and havebeen categorised as 'others' in the analysisof payments unlessotherwise stated.
Below is a chart showing how the useof the number of namesand the number of reasonsaffects the overall number of casesin eachyear. For example,in 1208-9,there were 970 casesrecorded in the Pipe Roll, 18 of which containedmultiple namesand 8 of which containedmultiple reasons.Therefore, by separatingthe multiple nameentries,
87See Appendix A for greaterdetail, p. 177. 88The term 'unknown' simply refers to entrieswhere no reasonfor the paymentwas recorded. 89Only one of the 'one-name' entries,William Sewy,records a paymentwhich is not 6d. (I 2d.) 90The paymentwas 'pro terra et uxore habenda'.
110 a further 18 cases (eqUivalent to 2 per cent of cases) al-Caddcd to tilc total, and bý separating the multiple reason entries a further 8 cases (I per cent) would be added.
Figure I
Diffcrences when using, nanics and reasons I'Orthe minibcr ol'cascs
(D 7 1 m G Percentage ofcases 3: 2D which contain 'multiple* names 00 75 E 0 Percentage ofcases which contain CL 'multiple* 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 reasons 09 11 12 14 11618 19 20 21 24 25 26 27 32 33 36 37 45 46 47 48 49 52 Year ending
The graph clearly shows that the percentage ofmUltiple reason entries varies between 0 and I per cent for all years bar 1235-6. There is greater fluctuation in the percentage of multiple name entries, especially after 1244. For the 11ollowingresults, the number of names has been used to signify the number ofcases. Therefore in 1209-9, for example, the number of cases would be 988.
Figure 2 and the corresponding bar chart, figure 3, display tile average number of' cases (names) per manor in each year.
Figure 2
The average number ofcases per manor tor the years 1209-9 to 1251-2 Year Average Year Average Year Average number of number of' number of cases per CasesPer CasesPCr manor manor illanor 1208-9 22 1220-1 31 1236-7 38 1210-11 42 1223-4 38 1244-5 70 1211-12 30 1224-5 37 1245-6 60 1213-14 33 1225-6 39 1246-7 73 1215-16 19 1226-7 34 1247-8 64 1217-18 24 1231-2 32 1248-9 58 1218-19 37 1232-3 41 1211-2 61 1219-20 35 1235-6 37 Figure 3 The averagenumber of casesper manor. 1208-9to 1251-2
80 TO 60 0 60 E 40 30 1! 20 a) lo 0 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 09 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 36 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 Year ending
The use of averagesis a crudemethod of analysiswhich may concealvariations betweenmanors: the number of manorsrecording perquisite payments in the WinchesterPipe Rolls between 1208and 1252was not consistentfrom year to year and, for any one year, manorsfor which the sectionshave beendamaged or were missedout by for any reasonmay representthe loss of a small number of perquisitepayments or, contrast,may representthe loss of literally hundredsof payments.An averagenumber of caseswhich implies a steadyincrease in the volume of businessfor all manorsmay but conceala dramatic increasein businessfor a small number of manorsand a slight steadydecrease in the volume of businessfor the remaining manors.Analysis of the whole estatealso concealsvariations between manors of different type and size. The rolls contain accountsfor boroughsand churcheswhich, one would assume,may producedifferent paymentsto a rural manor. The size of the manorsalso vary significantly: total receiptsfor eachmanor containing a perquisitesection in 1208-9,for example,range from L9 14s.4d. to El 81 8s. 81,id. and in 1251-2they rangefrom 0 13s. 81,A to L275 15s. 1/4d..91 The geographicallocation of the manorsmay also produce regional variations, with the bishopric's estateencompassing manors from seven counties.The difficulty in comparing'like with like' is further complicatedby non- static factors within eachmanor itself. Changein population in a manor during the 43 yearscovered by the rolls usedin this study is an obvious factor. Damageto the rolls is
91The totals for Taunton are excludedas they are sum totals of all the Taunton manors. 112 also a factor as comparisonthroughout this thesisis, of necessity,made on the number of surviving entriesrather than the numberof entriesoriginally recorded.The data provided by the rolls, therefore,will not supportextremely detailed statisticalanalysis but the use of basic statisticalmethods may give someindication of a possibleoverall trend in the data.
Using the least squaresmethod, it was possibleto find a so-called'line of best fit', which indicated whetherthere was a generaltrend in the averagenumber of cases per manor. The line of best fit for the abovedata was y=0.943x - 1117.This showed that the generaltrend, the slope of the line, was positive as the numericalvalue precedingthe x in the equationwas positive. The correlation coefficient indicateshow well the line of best fit actually representsthe data,which in this case,was valued at Irl = 0.848. As the value of r, the correlation coefficient, was greaterthan the critical value for a level of significanceof 99.8 per cent (0.61), there was very strong evidence 92 to suggestthat the line of best fit provided a clear representationof the data.
The averagenumber of casesper manor, therefore,increased in a linear fashion as the yearsprogressed: the size of the increase,however, is also important. It is possiblethat a line of regressionmay be significant, in that it provides a good statistical representationof the true data,but that the line itself has a gradientapproaching zero. This meansthat the number of casesis not dependentupon the year, i. e. that the number of paymentsremains constant. In this casethe line of regressionwould be significant but the size of the increasein the volume of businesswould not be significant. The t-test 93 was usedto assessthe magnitudeof the increasein the overall volume of business. The value of t calculatedfor the abovedata produced a level of significanceof 99.95 per cent. This showsthat there is extremely strong evidenceto suggestthat the increasein the volume of businesswas statistically significant. It seems,therefore, that there was a
92 All statistical analysiswas undertakenon the advice of Dr. R.P. Berinell. D. G. Rees,Foundations of Statistics (London, Chapmanand Hall, 1987),pp. 367-8 and 400-1. For a full explanationof the least : uaresmethod and correlation coefficient, seeAppendix E, pp. 188-92. 9PFor an explanationof the t-test in this context seeAppendix F, pp. 1934. D. G. Rees,Foundations of Statistics (London, Chapmanand Hall, 1987),pp. 404-7. 113 definite quantifiable increasein the overall volume of businessin the bishopric of Winchester'sestate between 1208 and 1252.
Analysis of individual manorssupported this conclusion.94 Sixty-four manors which had entriesin six or more of the possibletwenty-three rolls were analysed.Of these,32 manors,(50 per cent), showeda significant linear trend in the overall volume of businessbetween 1208 and 1252at the 99.8 per cent level of significance.This showedthat there was very strong evidenceto suggestthat the trend in the volume of businesswas linear in form. Taking a level of significanceof 90 per cent, 50 manors(78 per cent) producedsignificant linear approximationsfor the overall volume of business, 1208-52.Testing the significanceof the magnitudeof the increaseshowed that all 50 manorsproduced a significant increasein the volume of businessat or abovea 95 per cent level of significance.All manorswhich showeda linear trend, therefore,showed a significant increasein the volume of businessbetween 1208and 1252.
The increasein the volumeof businesson the bishopricof Winchester'sestate may be attributableto a number of factors. The increasemay be due purely to a rise in population. The population as a whole in Englandwas increasingin the thirteenth century and one would assumethat the population of the bishop of Winchester'sestate would also have risen in the first half of the century.The only figures available for the population of the manorsof the bishopric's estate,however, are from work carried out by J.Z. Titow on the custumalsof the mid-thirteenth century and the Taunton 95 hundredpennypayments. Titow's work showeda rise in the total population of Taunton from approximately 1759in 1208-9to about 2845 peoplein 1248-9:this 96 constitutesan annualpercentage increase of 1.2 per cent. The population of this manor did increase,therefore, and one might expecta proportional rise in the number of paymentsmade to court.
94 SeeAppendix C Table I Column A for finther details, pp. 179-80. 95 For all figures usedbelow relating to population seeTitow, 'Land and Population, p.96 and Titow, 'Population', pp.218-24. 96 Titow, 'Population, pp.218-24. This figure was obtainedusing the compoundinterest law for the numberof malesover 12 in 1208-9(612) and 1248-9(990). C.J. Tranter,Advanced Level Pure Mathematics(4th edn, London, Hodder and Stoughton,1975), p. 41.
114 If the population increasewas the sole reasonfor the increasein the volume of businessin the manorial courts,one may expectthat the proportion of the populace attendingcourt would remain the same.In Taunton in 1208-9there were 612 adult 97 males which, using the 1851 census material, equated to 1759 people in total. There were 133 payments made to court in that year, which represents payments by 8 per cent of the total population assuming each payment was made by a different person. In 1247- 8, there were approximately 2845 people in Taunton and 546 payments were made to court. This represented payments being made by 19 per cent of the population. Using the cumulative annual increase figure gained from Taunton for other manors within the bishopric's estate produced some similar results. In Alresford (Hants. ) the mid- thirteenth century custumal recorded 96 tenants which represented a total population of 413 people. The cumulative rate of 1.2 per cent was then applied to calculate an estimated total population for 1208-9, this being 259 people. In that year, 6 payments were made to court by these 259 people, which constituted 2 per cent of the population. In 1247-8 the corresponding figures were 91 payments from 413 people, constituting 22 98 per cent of people from the manor making payments to court. These figures are, obviously, highly inaccurate as they assume that each payment was made by a different tenant and that the Taunton ratio of tenant to total population also holds for the manor of Alresford, but they do suggest that the increase in the volume of business may be attributable to an increase in the percentage of population making payments to court in certain manors in addition to a presumed population increase.
It is alsopossible that the numberof casesincreased in certainmanors because the sametenants were making an increasingnumber of paymentsto the court,rather thana regularnumber of paymentsbeing made by a greaterpercentage of the population:William, for example,may have paid one amercement in 1231-2but in 1244-5was liable for threeseparate payments. Unfortunately, study of the numberof tenantshas been made difficult by theheavily abbreviated entries in certainrolls,
97 From the 1851 censusTitow was able to calculatethat the adult malesover twelve constituted approximately34.8 per cent of the total population. Titow, 'Population', pp.218-24. 9 ibid., pp.218-24.
115 making it virtually impossibleto distinguish betweenthe individuals." It is also very difficult to comparenames from one year to the next as the bynamesand surnamesdo not seemto be consistent.
It seemsmost likely that the increasein the volume of businesswas attributable to a combinationof thesereasons, as they are by no meansmutually exclusive.The numberof casesmay have increasedbecause of the increasein the numberof tenants making paymentsboth in generalterms, due to the population increase,and as a percentageof the lord's tenants.Equally, theseindividual tenantsmay be making a greaternumber of paymentsto the court. The remainderof this chapterattempts to explain the changesin the volume of businessin greaterdetail, by analysingshorter time spanswithin the 43 yearscovered by the rolls and analysingwhat types of payment contributedto the overall change.
The volumeofdifferent typesofbusiness
An analysisof the volume of so-called'franchisal' businessof the courts of the bishopric of Winchesterwas conductedby AN May in his doctoral thesisof 1960.The term 'franchisal' was usedto describeall perquisitepayments which were not payments for land, marriageor tithingpenny.May's analysis,therefore, included 'true' franchisal payments,such as for casesof bloodshed,and basic domanialpayments, such as for 100 caseswhere serviceswere not completedsatisfactorily. He concludedfrom his researchthat the volume of 'franchisal' businesshardly changedduring the yearsof 101 Peterdes Roches' episcopacy. He also statedthat for the years 1244to 1258there was a rise in the volume of 'franchisal' businessof the order of betweentwo times and four times the pre-1244 level.102 May's results,however, have severelimitations. First, by concentratingon the 'franchisal' elementsof court business,May excludedcertain types of court business.The separationof land transactionsand marriagepayments from the rest of the perquisitepayments occurred in the WinchesterPipe Rolls in 1259:
99 See p. 50-1. 100For the remainder of thechapter, 'franchisal' should be understoodas the term used by A.N. May. 101Peter des Roches was consecrated on 25 September1205 and died 9 June1238. 102May, 'Franchise',p. 26. andpp. 56-8. 116 enforcing such a division on a study of manorial courtsbefore 1250would seemto excludewhat was an integral part of court business.The changein recordingpractice may well have beenno more than an accountingdevice rather than a changein the court itself. 103Second, May basedhis conclusionsfor the first half of the thirteenth century on only six years: 1210-11,1220-1,1223-4,1232-3,1245-6and 1256-7.The year by year variations are considerableand not representedby May's data:the averagevolume of businessfor eachmanor in 1210-11 seemsto be large in comparisonto the other yearsin Peterdes Roches' episcopacy.In addition to this, the numberof franchisal paymentsin 1220-1and 1223-4were estimatedbecause of the lack of reasonsfor paymentrecorded in the rolls: between62 and 86 per cent of the entriesused by May in 104 thosetwo yearsprovide no reasonfor payment. Third, May basedhis resultson only three manorsfrom the entire estate,Bishops Waltham (Hants.), Downton (Wilts. ) and Farnham(Surr. ). 105He chosethree large manorsto make his studies'statistically respectable'but the choice of large manorsmay indeedhave presenteda distorted picture.106 In 1210-11,for example,Bishops Waltham recordedthe largestnumber of cases(126), Downton recordedthe secondlargest number (124) and Farnhamrecorded the sixth largestnumber of cases(79). In terms of percentages,the manorswere all within the 'largest' 16 per cent of manorsin that year, i. e. the manorsall camein the top 16 per cent of manorswhen put in 'number of cases'order. In fact, taking into account all 23 years,the number of casesrecorded in Bishops Waltham always falls within the 'largest' 13 per cent of manors,bar one, with Downton falling within the top 18 per cent, bar one, and Farnhamfalling within the top 32 per cent for eachyear, bar one. The 4exceptionsto the rule' for eachmanor are yearsin which damagehas occurredto the 107 rolls and, hence,the original number of casesis unknown. All three manors, therefore,recorded significantly high numbersof paymentsthroughout the early thirteenth century. Indeed,Bishops Waltham in 1246-7contains the greatestnumber of
103See Post, 'Amercements',pp. 304-1 1, for a full criticism of May's methodology. 104It is not known on what basisMay estimatedthe number of franchisalcases. 105May did study all the availablerolls for Bishops Waltham (Hants.) between1244 and 1258,and he doescomment that he looked at other rolls, May, 'Franchise', pp. 19,56-8. '06ibid., pp. 14-1S. 107Damage occurred to the following perquisitesections: Bishops Waltham (Hants.) in 1219-20;Downton (Wilts. ) in 1231-2;Farnham (Surr. ) in 1219-20.The percentages,42%, 36% and 50% respectively, representthe relative position of the manor basedon the numberof surviving entries.Downton records sum totals in two years, 1215-16and 1217-18,hence the numberof casesin theseyears are also unknown. 117 casesfor any manor between1208 and 1252.The very reasoningbehind May's choice of manors,therefore, does not ensurestatistical respectability as the sampleis too small and is not truly representativeof the entire estate.
The payments recorded in the Pipe Rolls were divided into ten types of payment. The categories used by May were the basis of the division, with three extra categories included. May's categories were: jurisdiction; process; services; property; inter-tenant disputes; assize; miscellaneous. The three additional categories used in this thesis are 108 land, marriageand 'no reasongiven'. Thesecategories are unsatisfactoryin many ways as paymentsmade for suchthings as an inquestof the court about a virgate of land could be classedas an inter-tenantdispute because, presumably, the tenureof the virgate was in dispute,as a processpayment, because the paymentwas for a particular process of the court, an inquest,to be carried out, or as a land paymentbecause the disputewas over a virgate of land. The paymentsmade in the rolls havebeen classified according to May's definitions in an attemptto producea valid comparison.
The large number of entriesfor which no reasonswere recordedhave created difficulties for the analysisof the types of paymentmade in manorial courts.It may be the casethat no reasonwas recordedwhen a particular paymentwas made,for example, for wood. It was not, however,used consistently for an entire type of payment,such as all property payments,as BishopsWaltham in 1210-11,for example,records entries for all ten categoriesof payment.It may also be the casethat thoseentries recording no reasonwere actually for the samereason as the previous entry: it was, perhaps,an attemptto reducethe amountof writing by the scribe.Analysis of individual manors showedthat of the 613 perquisitesections which recordedentries giving no specific reasonfor payment,474 also recordedpayments of 'the same'. If the 'no reason' paymentswere a heavily abbreviatedform of 'the same, the percentageof the remaining 'known' paymentswould show a considerablylower incidenceof payments enteredas 'the same': there seemsto be no correlation,however, betweena high number of 'no reason' paymentsand a low percentageof the remaining paymentswhich
logPayments in the 'none' categorygive no reasonfor the payment.
118 are describedas 'the same'. In Bishops Sutton (11ants.), for example,41 per cent of the 'known' paymentsin 1226-7,1231-2and 1235-6were for'the same'.The numberof 4noreason' cases,however, varied considerably:in 1226-7there were 70 payments,41 of which recordedno reasonand 12 recorded'the same'; in 1231-2,the corresponding figures were 56,24 and 13; in 1235-6the figures were 75,4 and 29. Entering no reason for paymentdoes not, therefore,seem to be a method of recordingrepetitious payments, but more of a simple exclusion of detail.
The large number of entrieswhich record no reasonfor paymentmay also bias resultsif included in the analysis.A high number of 'no reason' paymentsresults in an artificially low number of all other types of paymentin comparisonwith other years. The nine yearswhich producedthe largestpercentages of 'no reason'payments over the entire estate(43 per cent to 78 per cent) all relate to yearsbefore 1233;thus theseyears yield a relatively low number of all other payments.Comparison of the number of all other types of paymentover a period of time, therefore,is greatly affectedby the inclusion or exclusion of thoseyears in which there is a high percentageof 'no reason' entries.The Taunton manor of Poundisford(Som. ), for example,records a significant increasein the number of land and marriagepayments between 1208 and 1252but, by removing the data for the yearsin which the number of paymentsrecording no reasonis greaterthan 50 per cent of the total number of paymentsfor that manor, the increaseis no longer significant.109 The resultsbelow have beenbased on thoseyears for which the percentageof 'no reason' paymentsin eachmanor is lessthan 50 per cent. Data for particular manorscontaining sum total paymentshave also beenremoved.
Analysis of what May termed as 'franchisal' paymentsand land and marriage paymentsshowed that an increasingproportion of the paymentsmade in the courts were 'franchisal' in nature: 51 manorsrecorded a 90 per cent or abovelevel of significance for a linear trend in the volume of 'franchisal' businesswhilst only 18 manorsrecorded a level of significanceof 90 per cent or above for a linear trend in land and marriage ' 10 payments. The overall trends in the volume of 'franchisal' businessand land and
109The value of 50 per cent was chosenarbitrarily. 110 SeeAppendix C Table I ColumnsB and C for further details, pp. 179-80.
119 marriagepayments can be seenin the following table, figure 4. This showsthe number of manorsfor which the linear approximationof the volume of businessis or is not representativeof the true data,indicated by the levels of significance.
Figure 4 Number of manorswith sianificant lines of best fit Level of significance Number of manorsfor Number of manorsfor of line of regression(Is which the 'franchisal' which the land and the line of regressiona paymentswere significant marriagepayments were good fit? ) (64 manorsin total) significant (64 manorsin total) 99.8% 26 3 99% 12 2 98%- 6 2 95% 4 4 90% 3 7 lessthan 90% 13 46
The Mest was usedto assessthe level of significanceof the size of the increase in the volume of business.Analysis of the 51 manorswhich produceda significant linear approximationto the figures for the 'franchisal' paymentsshowed that all 51 of those lines of regressionproduced an increasein the volume of businesswhich was significant in magnitude.All 18 of the significant land and marriagepayment regression lines were significant in the magnitudeof the increaseor, where appropriate,decrease: Southwark(Surr. ) produceda significant decreasein the number of land and marriage payments.These results highlight the difficulties of linear regressionanalysis, namely that if the trend is not linear no further analysisof this type may take place. The results do show, however,that a large proportion of manorsrecorded a significant linear increasein the volume of 'franchisal' business.It seems,therefore, that the increasein the overall volume businesswas more attributableto the increasein 'franchisal' paymentsrather than to a rise in the number of land and marriagepayments.
120 Analysis of the individual types of payment,such as propertypayments, "' confirms thesefindings. The resultsshowed that there was very strongevidence to acceptthe linear approximationfor the overall number of paymentsin sevenof the ten categoriesfor the period 1208-52:the level of significancewas 99.8 per cent. The exceptionswere the land and marriagepayments, where the linear trend was significant at 99 per cent and thus consideredto be strong evidence,and the 'no reason' payments, 12 where the distribution was similar to a normal distribution curve centredon 1224-5.1 The magnitudeof the increasein eachcategory was extremelysignificant: paymentsfor mattersrelating to the 'franchisal' paymentsof the assizeof breadand ale, inter-tenant disputes,jurisdiction, process,property, servicesand miscellaneouspayments all producedlevels of significanceof 99.95 per cent. The magnitudeof the increasein paymentsfor land and for marriagewere significant at 99.5 per cent. Over the 43 years coveredby this study, it seemsthat the increasein the overall volume of businesswas mainly due to the increasein 'franchisal' payments,all elementsof which increased significantly. Land and marriagepayments also increasedsignificantly, but the level of significancewas noticeably lower than the 'franchisal' business.It is most unfortunate, however,that, becauseof the definition of 'franchisal' in May's work, it is impossibleto use thesecategories to ascertainwhether the increasewas a result of an increasein soke- relatedpayments or an increasein domanial amercements.It is possible,however, to test May's conclusionson a much larger samplefor the first half of the thirteenth century.
Analysis of the data for Peterdes Roches' episcopacywas conductedto test May's theory that the volume of 'franchisal' businesschanged little during this period! 13Study of the overall volume of businessshowed that 24 manors(40 per cent) producedsignificant trendsbetween 1208and 1237 (at or abovea level of 90 per cent),
111The analysisconducted on the types of caseswas basedon the entire estateas the small numberof specific types of casesfor eachmanor would not supportthis level of statistical analysis. The multiple reasonentries of land and marriagewere included in the land payments.There total numberof theseparticular multiple reasonentries range from 2 to 45 casesin any one year. 113 SeeAppendix C Table 2 for further details, pp. 181 -2. 121 114 all of which were significant in magnitudeat a level of 95 per cent or above. Significant increaseswere producedby 22 manorsand 2 showedsignificant decreasesin the volume of business.Change was obviously occurring in the volume of business during Peterdes Roches' episcopacyand analysisof the elementsof court business showedthat this changewas attributableto an increasein both 'franchisal' and, less frequently, land and marriagepayments. Of the 60 manorswhich provided data for the period 1208-37,18 producedlinear approximationsvalid at a level of significanceof 90 per cent or abovefor 'franchisal' paymentsfor that period, all of which were significant increases(at or abovea level of 95 per cent). Significant linear trends(at or above90 per cent) were producedby 9 manorsfor the land and marriagepayments, all of which producedsignificant changesin the volume of this type of business:8 manorsshowed significant increasesand one, Overton Borough (Hants.), showeda significant decrease in the number of land and marriagepayments. These results show, therefore,that 18 of the 60 manors,30 per cent, produceda significant linear approximationto the data for 1208-37which was also significant in the magnitudeof increasein the volume of 'franchisal' businessduring Peterdes Roches' episcopacy.The difficulties inherentin regressionanalysis are again apparent,but 30 per cent of manorsshowed a significant increasein the number of 'franchisal' payments:May's claim that little changedduring Peterdes Roches' episcopacyclearly failed to take into accountconsiderable variations betweenmanors.
Study of the individual manorsProduced no obvious differencesbetween those manorswhich showedan increasein the volume of businessand thosewhich did not. Beauworth(Hants. ), for example,which recordedsignificant increasesin the overall volume of businessand in 'franchisal' businessin particular, was a relatively small manor with total receiptsof E13 9s. 2W. in 1208-9and E35 14s.8W. in 1236-7.The figures from the Custurnalshows the tenantpopulation of the manor to be seventeen. Alresford (Hants.) also recordedsignificant increasesin the overall volume of business and 'franchisal' businessin particular, but, by contrast,was a considerablylarger manor
114 Thetotal numberof manorswhich have values for 3 or moreyears before 1238 is 60. Thereare 4 of theoriginal 64 manorswhich have only 2,1 or 0 setsof recordsbefore 1238. This makeslinear regression analysisimpossible for thesemanors. 122 with the equivalenttotal receiptsof E1147s. 8d. and L126 12s. I d.. The Custumal recordsa tenantpopulation of ninety-six. Alresford was not only different in size to Beauworth,but also had a boroughattached to it which recordedseparate receipts. Alresford Borough (Hants.) did not produceany significant lines of regressionfor this data,but Downton Borough (Wilts. ), againby contrast,did: a significant decreasein the overall volume of business.Geographical position doesnot seemto link the manors which show an increasein business.Harwell, with a tenantpopulation of 61, and Mardon, with a population of 158,both producedsignificant increasesin the overall volume of business,'franchisal' paymentsand land and marriagepayments, but are ' 15 situatedin Berkshire and Hampshirerespectively. The Taunton manor of Trull in Somersetalso producedsignificant increasesin all three categories.It seems,therefore, that the reasonsfor the increasesor decreasesin the volume of businessbetween 1208 and 1237,like those for 1208to 1252,were manor specific.
116 Similar analysiswas conductedusing the 1244-52data. The overall volume of businessincreased significantly in about half of the manorswhich produceda trend in data: of the 11 manorswhich producedsignificant trend lines (at or abovea 90 per cent level of significance),6 producedsignificant increasesin the volume of business(at or above95 per cent) and 5 producedsignificant decreases.Levels of significanceof 90 per cent or abovefor a linear trend in the volume of 'franchisal' businesswere produced for 10 manors,6 of which producedsignificant increasesat or above95 per cent and 4 of which produceda significant decreasein the volume of business.The land and marriagepayments for the sameperiod produced6 manorswith lines of regression significant at 90 per cent or above,with all manors,bar the Taunton manor of Staplegrove,producing significant decreasesin the volume of businessat or abovethe a 95 per cent level of significance.The samplefor all theseresults was, statistically speaking,very small, the greatestnumber of datapoints for any one manor being six. As a result, a limited number of manorsproduced significant lines of regression,which makesany generalisationabout the whole estateopen to debate.It seems,however, that
115All referencesto the population of manorsare taken from Titow's work on the Custumals,Titow, 'Land and Population', p.96. 116For the period 1244-52,3 of the 64 manorshave no data: WinchesterMinster (Hants.); Taunton Chipley (Som.); Woodhay Tomes (Hants.). SeeAppendix C Table 3 for ftu-therdetails, pp. 183-4. 123 there is no generaltrend in the overall volume of businessbut that the volume of 'franchisal' businessmay have increasedand, conversely,the numberof land and marriagepayments may have decreasedbetween 1244and 1252.Once again there seemsto be little to connectthose manors which show an increasein the volume of businessbetween 1244 and 1252.Hindon Borough, a relatively small, Wiltshire manor, producedsignificant increasesin the overall volume of businessand in 'franchisal' payments.The Taunton manor of Poundisford,a small, rural, Somersetmanor also producedsignificant increasesin thesecategories. The only common factor apparent betweenthese two manorsis the size, but this factor is not commonto all the manorsas both Beauworth(Hants. ), a relatively small manor, and Fareham(Hants. ), a much larger manor, record significant decreasesin the overall volume of business.The lack of any obvious trendsin the data may be attributableto the arrival of new bishops: 1244-5was the first full year in which William Raleigh held the temporalitiesof the seeafter an effective six year vacancyand 1251-2was the first record of the episcopacyof Aymer de Valence.Cases may well have accumulatedover the vacancyperiods, with 13 cases 117 noting in temporeRegis supportingthis theory.
Below, figure 5, is a summaryof the results detailed in this chapterthus far. The figures representthe percentageof manorswhich producedsignificant linear approximationsto the datawhich were significant in magnitude,either as increasesor as decreasesin the volume of business.
117These payments were recorded in Crawley,East Meon, Overton, Overton borough (all Hants.) and Ivinghoe(Bucks. ) in 1244-5.The payments were for daughtersmarrying (8), leavingthe manor (1) and for variousreasons associated with landor property(4). 124 Figure 5
Percentageof manorswhich producedsignificant lines of best fit Years 1208-52 1208-37 1244-52
Increaseor decrease,+ve or -ve +ve -ve +ve -ve +ve -ve Overall volume of business 78% 0% 37% 3% 10% 8%
Number of 'franchisal' 80% 0% 30% 2% 10% 6% payments I Number of land and marriage 27% 2% 13% 2% 2% 8% payments Total numberof manors 64 64 60 60 61 1 61
The percentagerepresents the percentageof manorswhich produceda linear trend in the data: 78%, therefore,represents the 78 % of manorswhich produceda linear increase (representedby the positive, +ve, gradient)for the years 1208-52.
It seemsclear that thevolume of businessconducted in the manorialcourt increasedin the first half of the thirteenth century in over three quartersof the manorsin the estate.The increaseseems to be attributablemore to the 'franchisal' paymentsrather than the land and marriagepayments, but the land and marriagepayments should not be ignored.The results also show that the developmentof the court with the accompanying changesin the volume of businesswas not a processbegun in the episcopacyof William Raleigh: Peterdes Roches' episcopacywas not a period of manorial court stagnationbut of expansionin the volume of businessin over one third of the manorsin the bishopric of Winchester'sestate.
The volume of businessduring the vacancy,1238-44
Verification of May's claims that the post-1240 volume of 'franchisal' business was double or even quadruplethe pre-1238level was also attempted.The methodology May usedto producethese results was to averagethe data for 1210-33,presumably using data from 1210-11,1220-1,1223-4and 1232-3only, and compareit to the 1245-6 data.This is a very crude comparisonwhich fails to take into accountany trend in pre- 1232data. May's methodologyalso fails to take into accountany increasewhich may
125 have occurredbetween 1233 and 1237 as well as during the sevenyears when estatewas in the king's hands.There are, of course,many factors affecting the volume of business, not just the bishop, or lack thereof, as headof the estate,as has beendiscussed above. May assumedthat there was no increasein the volume of businessbetween 1233 and 1245,but it hasbeen shown abovethat the volume of businessdid increasein certain manorsduring Peterdes Roches' episcopacyand it is equally valid to assumethat the volume of businessduring the vacancyincreased at the samerate as during the thirty yearsprior to the vacancy.Any prediction about the volume of businessduring the vacancymust remain tentative, but one should not ignore the passingof sevenyears within the short time-spanof this analysis.The following resultshave beenbased on the assumptionthat any trend in the data for 1208-37continued during the vacancy.
Significant linear trends in the databetween 1208and 1237,inclusive, have been shown in a number of manorsin the bishopric of Winchester'sestate: if thesetrends were to continueduring the vacancy,would the 'jump' in the data,described by May as occurring between1233 and 1245,be so dramatic in appearance?The question, therefore,is whether the seeming'jump' in data is merely due to the lack of recordsfor sevenyears (twelve yearsin May's data) or whether there was a significant increasein the volume of 'franchisal' businessover and abovea possible 'expected' numberof 118 casespredicted by the trendsin the 1208-37data.
118The statisticalmethod of analysiswas adoptedfollowing discussionswith Dr. R.P. Bennell.
126 Figure 6 Number of pMments madein Bishops Waltham 300 Iy-1.323x. 1537_ I
200 U)
CD .0E :3 z 100
0 1200 1220 1240 1260
Accounting year ending
The graphabove showsthe number of casesfor Bishops Waltham (Hants.). The line of regressionfor the 1208-37data has beenextended to give a predictedvalue for 1244-5.This predictedvalue, therefore,is the number of caseswhich would be recorded for 1244-5if the 1208-37trend continuedduring the vacancy.The predictedvalue for Bishops Waltham was 110 cases,with the actual number of casesrecorded in the 1244- 5 roll being 228. By using the Mest, it was possibleto obtain a quantitativecomparison betweenthe true value and the predictedvalue for 1244-5.119In the caseof Bishops Waltham, the value of t was 3.570, which gavea level of significanceof 99.5 per cent. This meantthat there was strong evidencethat there was a significant increasein the volume of businessbetween 1237 and 1244.North Waltham (Hants.), in contrast,had a predictedvalue for 1244-5of 15 and a 'true' value ofj ust 10: there was obviously no significant increasein the volume of businessin this manor during the vacancy.120
The comparisonof datausing this statistical method is, once again, limited by the use of regressionanalysis: comparison was only possiblefor manorswhere the 1208-37data produced a significant trend. It may be the case,however, that this group
119See Appendix G for an explanationof the Mest, pp. 195-6. 120 The equationfor the 1208-37line of regressionfor North Waltham (Hants.) is y=0.1 87x - 218. 127 of manorsrepresents a statisticallyrandom sampleas there are no obvious link between them. From thesemanors, it seemsthat just under half of the manorsrecorded a significant increasein the volume of business.Of the 24 manorswhich produced significant lines of regressionfor the overall volume of businessfrom 1208to 1237,10 showeda significant increasein the volume of businessbetween 1237 and 1244(at or abovea 90 per cent level of significance)and 14 did not. Analysis was also conducted on the 'franchisal' payments,with 10 manorsshowing significant increasesbetween 1237and 1244and 8 showing no increase.Study of the land and marriagepayments showedthat 5 manorsproduced significant increasesand 4 producedno increasein the volume of businessfor the period 1237-44.121May commentedthat the magnitudeof the increasein volume in his three manorswas of striking similarity: it seemsthat this is not the casefor all manors.
May also studiedthe volume of 'franchisal' businessexcluding paymentsmade for jurisdiction and process.122 This was done to assessthe number of so-called'real' paymentsrather than so-called'by-product' paymentsmade as a result of the holding of court. May claimed that there was a large increasein the volume of 'real' paymentsbut that the increasein different manorswas not as regular as the increasein the total numberof paymentshad been.The results from the Mest, however,showed that the number of manorswith a significant increasein the volume of 'real' paymentsbetween 1238 and 1244was, once again,just under half of the total number of manorswhich producedsignificant lines of regressionfor 1208-37:6 manorsproduced significant values of t and 8 did not.
It seems,therefore, that the two-fold or four-fold increasein the volume of businessdescribed by May between1233 and 1245may have appearedto be so dramaticbecause of the twelve year gap betweenhis points of reference.Averaging the databefore 1233may also have contributedto exaggeratingthe supposedincrease. The use of lines of regression,although it has limitations, eradicatesthe difficulties caused by averagingsets of data and provides comparablevalues for specific years,hence
121 SeeAppendix C Table 4 for finther details, pp. 185-6. 122May 'Franchise', pp.56-7.
128 avoiding the difficulties producedby 'missing' data.The results of the t-testsshow that just under half of the manorsanalysed produced a significant increasein the volume of businessduring the vacancy.The Tauntonmanor of Trull (Som.), for example, produceda completeset of Mest results,with significant increasesin the overall volume of business,'franchisal' businessand 'real' business.Cheriton (Hants.), by contrast,did not producesignificant increasesin any of the three categories.Mardon (Hants.) produceda significant increasein the number of casesoverall and in the numberof 'franchisal' payments,but not in the number of franchisalpayments when the jurisdiction and processpayments were excluded.This result would indicate that it was the 'by-product' paymentswhich increasedsignificantly, not the 'real' payments.
The resultsprovided by the Mests suggestthat there was not an increasein the volume of businessduring the vacancyin all manorsin the bishop of Winchester's estate.It seemsthat about half of the manorsdid witness a 'jump' in the volume of business,but that half did not. The distribution of manorswhich showedsignificant increasesin the volume of businessdoes not seemto be geographicallyconcentrated in any one county. The manorswhich record a dramatic increasein the overall volume of business,for example,are found in Hampshire,Wiltshire, Somersetand Surrey,whilst the manorswhich do not show a dramaticincrease are found in Hampshire,Wiltshire, Somerset,Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire.The size of the manor, again, seems irrelevant to the findings: Crawley (Hants.), with 54 tenantsin the mid-thirteenth century,did not producea dramaticincrease whereas the manor of Harwell (Berks.), with a tenantpopulation of 61 in the mid-thirteenth century, did producea dramatic increasein the overall volume of businessduring the vacancy.The 'franchisal' paymentsproduce similar results:both Bishops Waltham (Hants.) and Morton (Bucks.) produceddramatic increasesin the volume of 'franchisal' business,with respective tenantpopulations of 376 in 1259-60and 28 in the mid-thirteenth century. Rimpton (Som.), with a tenantpopulation of 30, did not produceda dramatic increasein the volume of land and marriagepayments, but nor did the large manor of Twyford (Hants.) which had a tenantpopulation totalling 196. The size and geographicallocation of the manor, therefore,does not seemto explain the reasonwhy certain manorsdisplay a
129 dramaticincrease in the volume of businessover the period. Nor doesthe type of manor seemto affect the results:Downton Borough (Wilts. ) produceda dramaticincrease in the overall volume of businessbut Hindon Borough (Wilts. ) did not. Unsatisfactory though it is, it seemsthat there is no identifiable link betweenthe manorswhich show a dramaticincrease in the volume of businessduring the vacancyand thosewhich do 123 not.
Although the WinchesterPipe Rolls record over 54 000 paymentsto court between1208 and 1252,once thesepayments are analysedin manorsand then in types of paymentwithin eachmanor, the number of casesbeing dealt with is small. Statistical analysisof such a small amountof datamust always be treatedwith caution: a single casemay make a significant difference.One must also rememberthe loss of casesdue to damageand rolls which are no longer extant: thesemay have madea considerable differenceto the results obtainedin this chapter.A. N. May's categorieswere, on re- examination,flawed in a number of ways but, by using his methodology,the results obtainedmay be comparedwith his findings. May had suggestedthat the volume of franchisalbusiness remained static during Peterdes Roches' episcopacy,but it hasbeen shown that increasesin the volume of franchisalbusiness did occur in 30 per cent of manors.He also suggestedthat therewas a dramatic increasein the volume of business following the vacancyat the end of Peterdes Roches' episcopacy,but this too can be challenged.It seemsthat any generalisationabout the manorswithin the bishopric of Winchester'sestate must be treatedwith greatcaution. This is not surprisingas the bishopric held lands in sevencounties and recordedperquisite payments for up to 66 manorsin any one year. The manorsshould, therefore,be viewed individually when consideringchanges in the volume of businessof court.
123All tenantpopulation figures are taken from Titow, 'Land and Population', p.96. Thesevalues, in turn, were taken from mid-thirteenthcentury custumals.
130 IV Who attendedthe court?
One questionwhich arisesfrom the study of manorial courts is who, precisely, attendedthese court sessions?It has beenmentioned above that the lord of the manor had what cameto be regarded,from the late twelfth and early thirteenthcenturies, as legally freeand unfree tenants.' Were all tenantsrequired to attendcourt, or were the free requiredto attendonly the view of frankpledge?Who dominatedthe court business?Did the role of women alter during the early thirteenth century?Z. Razi commentedin his study of Halesowenbetween 1270 and 1400that the rangeof activities of the manorial court was so wide that he could not imagine how anyonecould have avoidedappearing before the court from time to time. He did note, however,that there were variations in the proportional representationof different elementsof society. He suggestedthat rich tenantsappeared more frequently than poor tenants,servants, sub-tenantsand freeholdersand that women and the young were under-representedin comparisonto the adult male. He also noted that migrant labourersand other non- 2 residentswere occasionallyinvolved in court business. With the inconsistencyin the use of bynamesand surnamesand the lack of information about the individuals recorded in the perquisitesections of the accountrolls, it would be impossibleto createsuch a full picture for any of the manorsbefore 1250,but someindication of the composition of the court may be achieved.
The role of the free and the unfree tenant
W. O. Ault, in his work on private jurisdiction in England,stated that, theoretically, all direct tenantswho participatedin the life of the manor, whether free or 3 unfree, owed suit to the manor court. The Anglo-Saxon word hallmoot, as has been noted, describeda meeting in a hall, a generalmeeting presumablydiscussing all
1See pp. 24-9. 2 Z. Razi, Life, Marriage and Death in a Medieval Parish. Economy,Society and Demographyin Halesowen1270-1400 (London, CambridgeUniversity Press,1980), pp. 24. A debateon this topic can be found in Z. Razi and R. Smith, eds,Medieval Societyand the Manor Court (London, Oxford University Press,1996), pp. 298-368. 3 Ault, Private Jurisdiction, pp.7-8.
131 the both judicial It mattersconcerning the organisationof manor, administrativeand .4 seemssensible to assumethat, as thesematters applied to all tenants,all tenantswere requiredto attend.
The serviceof suit of court was rarely mentionedin the twelfth century surveys. Ault argued that the suit of the villein was not mentioned because it was 'taken for granted'. He then suggested that not many of the freeholders owed suit of court but that the absence of references to suits owed was becausejurisdictional items were rarely 5 included in the surveys. R. C. Van Caenegem suggested that suit of court was owed only by the unfree and the free tenants of unfree tenures, i. e. the tenurially unfree. The free tenant in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, in his opinion, did not, therefore, owe 6 suit of court. These views, however, were based on the pre-Hilton assumption of a gradual distinction between free and unfree tenants, as opposed to the rapid changes which are now thought to have occurred in legal status at the end of the twelfth century. Ultimately, it would have been impossible to determine who owed suit of court in the eleventh and twelfth centuries using the definitions of legal freedom and unfreedom which only began to emerge in the late twelfth century. The distinctions between free and unfree tenants as it was understood in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries were not apparent in the two preceding centuries and, therefore, the obligation to perform suit of court defined by this particular criterion of legal status can not have preceded the definition of legal status itself It seems, therefore, that suit of court was owed by all tenants and that the suit of all was 'taken for granted' in the eleventh and early twelfth centuries.
By the late thirteenth century,however, the obligation to perform suit of court by the free tenant did needto be specified.The mid-thirteenth century treatiseattributed to Bracton noted that all servicesand customsdue to the lord should be specifically detailedin charters'acquiring dominion' and that any serviceor custom due to the lord not detailed in the charterwas understoodto be remitted. The servicesand customs
4 Seepp. 15-16. 5 Aulý Private Jurisdiction, pp. 127-39 6 Van Caenegem,Royal Writs, p.24. Ault, Prtvate Jurisdiction, p. 135.
132 referredto were thosedue to the lord rather than those due to the king: servicesdue to the king about mattersof royal jurisdiction, such as dealing with casesof writ of right or preservingthe king's peaceby passingjudgement on a thief for example,did not needto be specified.What did needto be specified,therefore, was any customaryact required from the tenantby the lord: one exampleof such a customaryact given by Bracton was doing suit of the lord's court from fortnight to fortnight or three weeksto three weeks.7 Bracton's legal treatiseonly dealt with free men, as only free men were eligible to receiveroyal justice, the implication, therefore,being that the customaryact of suit of court was carried out by free men but that, by the mid-thirteenth century,if the charters of thesefree men did not stipulatethe performanceof suit of court, the servicewas understoodto be remitted.
The Statuteof Marlborough in 1267 statedthat no freeholderwas bound to do suit at his lord's court unlessthe obligation was stipulatedin his charteror had been carried out before 1230.8One such stipulation may be found in a confirmation charter, datedbetween 1208 and 1217,whereby Ranulf Earl of Chesterconfirmed to Peterthe clerk and his heirs all lands and gifts and quittanceof suit to the county and hundred 9 court, portmoot, hallmoot, toll, passage,castlework and other customsand exactions. The Statute,by including the clauseabout performance of suit of court before 1230, implies that suit was owed by free men before this date and would continueto be performedunless a charterdetermined otherwise. Examples of commuting suit of court may be still be found in the late thirteenth century: 40 shillings of silver was paid to quitclaim the suit of court owed every three weeksto the court of Gelham(Essex) in 1288.John Gaugeof Old is describedas being accustomedto perform his suit of court,
7Bracton, ii, pp. 112-14. 8Statutes ofthe Realm, i, p.21 of 'The Statutes'section. 9 The Charters ofthe Anglo-Norman Earls ofChester, c. 1071-1237,ed. G. Barraclough(Record Society of Lancashireand Cheshire,vol. cxxvi, 1988),no. 286. There are numerousreferences to quittancefrom suit to various courts, such as the hundredand county courts and to courts in general(saving thoseheld before the earl or his chiefjustice) but, in the brief survey of private chartersconducted, this was the only specific referenceto quittancefrom suit to manorial courts. For examplesof quittancesfrom suit of hundredand county courts seenos 245,348,353 (spurious),379 and 402. For examplesof quittances from suit of hundredcourts, wapentake courts and portmoots seenos 400 or 458,364,281 or 372 respectively.One charter,no. 381, mentionsa wichmoot, 'wychmot'. For examplesof quittancesfrom suit of court in generalsee nos 267 and 377. The volume also containsa writ addressedto the reevesand bailiffs of 'his soke', but the order is abouttithes rather than court business,no. 166.
133 which may suggestthat his original charterdetailed such serviceor, perhapsmore likely, that the family had performedsuch servicebefore 1230.10
Thirteenth century surveysalso containedreferences to free men owing suit. Ault noted that suit to the manorial court of only 22 of the 165 free men was stipulated in the Ramseyestate survey. ' 1It should be noted, however,that the suit of court which was assumedto be owed by all villein tenantsdid, on occasion,merit a specific note in surveys:Ault noted that the thirteenth century RamseyAbbey surveyspecified that a group of villeins was bound to attend all sessionsof the manorial court. More interestingly,however, a previous entry had noted a collective agreementmade between the Abbot and a different group of unfree tenantsresulting in the commutationof suit of court.12 Commutation of suit of court into a monetarypayment, therefore, seems to have beenconducted, if only on a very limited basis,by the unfree as well as the free tenants.
How and why did the developmentfrom an assumedelement of serviceto a servicerequiring specification for the free tenanttake place?Suit of court was a fairly onerousservice. Although it seemslikely that most thirteenth century manorial courts did not take place every three weeksas permitted, it doesseem that the tenantswere keen to avoid such services,possibly commuting the serviceto a monetarypayment. Commutationof servicesof a variety of forms seemsto have beena fairly regular occurrence:R. Faith detailedthe commutationof a large number of servicesfrom the tenantsof the warland.13 The commutationof servicesin general,often to a token paymentwhich took on the appearanceof a rent, may, therefore,have becomeso common-placethat the actualperformance of the individual serviceswould needto be specified.Faith did note, however,that kings were reluctant to relinquish serviceslinked to the attendanceof court: evenwhen all the lands surroundingroyal residenceswere grantedout, servicesrelating to the court and to householdand hunting, were reserved.14
10Sir Christopher Hatton's Book ofSeals, ed. L. C. Loyd and D.M. Stenton(London, Oxford University Press,1950), p. 150, no. 209. 11Ault, Private Jurisdiction, p. 130. 12ibid., p. 127. 13Faith, English Peasantry,pp. 99-114. 14ibid., p. 102.
134 The lord of a manor, often with similar requirementsto the king, may also havebeen reluctantto excuseor allow the commutationof theseservices, but the division of land into smaller and smaller holdings may have resultedin the division of servicesowed. " H.M. Cam detailedcases where suit to the hundredcourt was divided, a matterwhich was obviously contentiousas the Provisions of Oxford in 1259and later the Statuteof Marlborough in 1267 statedthat no additional suit of court should be owed if division of land was made.16 Although, theoretically, all tenantsshould have owed suit to the manorial court, it may be the casethat the serviceof suit in the manor was also divided. The developmentof the obligation to perform suit of court, therefore,seems to have beenfrom an assumedservice to a serviceincorporated into a generalcommutation paymentor possibly divided and then, by 1267,to a servicewhich requiredspecification if it was to be conducted.
It is important to rememberthat there was a difference betweensuit of court and occasionalattendance at court. The free tenantwas still bound to attendcourt when he had committed a breachof customarylaw or, presumably,if he was namedin a case. The II freeholdersnoted in the extent for the manor of Elton in the HundredRolls of 1279did not owe suit to the manorial court, but 6 of them appearedin the court rolls of 17 the previousyear. Ultimately, the free tenantwas still a tenant of the lord and subject to the customarylaw of the manor: if pigs belonging to a free tenant damagedthe lord's crops, for example,the lord would obviously insist upon compensationin the form of a paymentmade to the manorial court. One of the paymentsmade to the court in Elton ' 8 was for bad ploughing, a matter of customaryrather than royal law. Freetenants were also perfectly able to bring non-customarycases to the lord's court: just becausethey were permitted to use royal justice did not necessarilymean that they always did so. The Curia Regis Rolls detailedcases of appealwhere the plaintiff soughtredress for
15ibid., p. 154. 16H. M. Cam, The Hundred and the Hundred Rolls: An Outline oftocal Governmentin Mediaeval England (London, Methuen and Co., 1930),pp. 174-5.Statutes ofthe Realm, i, pp.21-2 of 'The Statutes' section. 'Annales de Burton A. D. 1004-1263' in Annales Monasticl, ed. H. R. Luard, (Rolls Series,4 vols and index, 1864-9), i, pp.445-53. The annalesare mainly in a fourteenthcentury hand,with the first few leavesin a late thirteenth centuryhand, p. xxvii. 17Rotuli Hundredorum (London, Record Commission,2 vols, 1812-18),ii, pp.656-8, SelectPleas, pp.90- 5, cited in Ault, Private Jurisdiction, pp. 134-5. is ibid., p. 134.
135 injustice in a lord's court: the casesof free men, therefore,had beenheard in private courts.19 Indeed, it has beensuggested that the adoption of royal procedurein the manorial court was done in an attemptto attract the free back to the lord's court.20 The free still seemto have wantedto distancethemselves from the unfree in legal matters, however,as complaintsby two men who claimed to be free were heardas to the serving juries in RamseyAbbey in 127821 Two freeholders on with unfree men the estate . of the were noted in the Elton court becausethey claimed, by their free status,that they did not 22 haveto serveon a jury, which would presumablyhave beenwith unfree tenants. However, the 1342 formulary noted the use of a jury of 6 free men and 6 bondmenin a manorial court and the Custurnalsof Battle Abbey noted that the 1312extent of the 23 manor of Limpsfield (Surr.) was madeby ajury of free and unfree men.
It seems,therefore, that, before 1267,suit of court was owed by free and unfree alike, but that the free were increasinglyreluctant to perform such a service,possibly commuting their servicewhenever possible or obtaining individual exemptionsfrom their lord. This did not excludethem from the manorial courts, however,as they, like the unfree, were bound by customarylaw. In addition, in many estates,the lord was the king's representative,by grant of soke,which meantthat royal justice was being conductedby the lord in his courts in addition to customarylaw. The freeholdersof the RamseyAbbey manor of Shillington owed suit to the manorial court when the case involved free men or when thieveshad beencaptured and were to be tried there.24 The free man was, therefore,bound to attendcourt when mattersof royal justice were being considered.
19For example,Curia RegisRolls, ii, p.80. For an exampleof ajudgement being upheld by the king's court seeibid., iii, p.79. It must be remembered,however, that someof the lord's courts were probably honorial rather than manorial. 20Razi and Smith, 'Origins', pp.45-8. Seepp. 36-7 above. 21Select Pleas, p.94. The proof of obligation to or actual paymentof merchetby themselvesor family memberswere given as evidenceof unfreedornin both cases. 22Elton Manorial Records,p. 3. Ault, Private Jurisdiction, p. 124. 23 Court Baron, p. 105. CustumalsofBattle Abbey, ed. S.R. Scargill-13ird (CamdenSociety, 2nd ser., vol. x1i, 1887),p. 137. 24Cartularium Monasterii Rames.,i, p.45 8. 'et facit sectamad curiarn de Broughtone,et ad curiarn manerii Schitlyngdone,cum placiturn liberorurn moturn.ftierit in eadem,et cum forte latronesibidern capiantur,eorundern intererit judicio. A similar entry is also found on p.460. Ault, Private Jurisdiction, pp. 133-5. Presumablythis was as a result of the awardingof infangthief.
136 What light, therefore,can the pre-1250accounts shed on the questionof the statusof thosewho attendedcourt? The information given in the nameelement of any individual entry recordedin the accountsdoes not provide sufficient detail to determine whetherthe personliable for the paymentwas consideredto be free or unfree in the eyes of the law, but certain reasonsfor the paymentsmade to court do give someindication of the legal statusof the namedperson. Some payments of a customarynature were only applicableto the unfree tenantsof the lord: unfree tenantscould not marry without the permissionof the lord, hence,any paymentmade for a licence to marry, merchet, indicatedunfree status.Payments were also madeto the court when a woman was unchaste:leyrwite was literally a paymentfor lying down, but paymentwas a sign of 25 unfree status. Requiring the lord's permissionto educateone's son was anothersign of a lack of legal freedom. Such cases,unlike thosefor marriagesof daughters,are rare in the accountrolls, but the Froyle (Hants.: St Mary's Abbey) accountfor 1248-9does give one example,where John de Kipping madea paymentto the court for a licence so that 26 his son could receive schooling. The unfree also required the permissionof the lord to 27 join religious orders.
Other paymentsmade to court also indicate the unfree legal statusof the person making the payment.The unfreewere requiredto completevarious servicesfor the lord which, if not satisfactorily completed,incurred an arnercementin court. Paymentswere madein the WinchesterPipe Rolls for defective works and defaults in servicesof the lord as well as more specific paymentsfor failure to shearthe lord's sheep,for example.28 Heriots, the giving of the best live beastor chattel on the deathof a tenant, was a sign of unfree status,but the number of heriots paid in cashin the accountsis limited. Heriots, by their very nature,were more frequently paid in kind in the first half
25T. North, 'Legerwite in the Thirteenthand FourteenthCenturies', Payt andPresent, no. cxi, 1986,p. 4. 26The entry was 'Et De iiijs. De Johannede Kipping' pro licencia habendaut filius suusposset adire scolas'. HRO 123M88W/l. 27For details of servicesused to determinestatus see, for example,P. Vinogradoff, Villeinage in England (London, Oxford University Press,1892), esp. pp. 153-73or P. Vinogradoff, 'Agricultural Services', EconomicJournal, vol. 10,1900, pp.308-22. 28See, for example,Wargrave (Berks. ) 1208-9,Itchingswell (Hants.), 1248-9and Ashmansworth (Hants.), 1251-2.
137 29 of the thirteenthcentury and were recordedin the stock account. This againhighlights the financial natureof the records:only the court businesswhich producedmonetary profit was recordedin the perquisitesection of the accounts.
The reasonsfor the paymentsto court suggestconsiderable involvement in court businessby the lord's unfree tenants,but manorsseldom comprisedunfree tenants alone. Various figures for the ratio betweenlegally unfree and free tenantshave been estimated,originating from E.A. Kosminsky's work on the HundredRolls. Kosminsky suggestedan approximateratio of villein householdsto free peasanthouseholds of 3:2, 30 althoughnoting greatdiversity betweenmanors. E. King, by contrast,suggested that the ratio was reversed:villein householdsto free householdsconstituted a ratio of 2:3.31 J. Hatchersuggested that if the landlessand those living in towns were taken into consideration,unfree householdswould have accountedfor just over one third of all households.32 The percentageof unfree households,therefore, has beenestimated at between33 and 60 per cent. Even allowing for manorial variation, a considerable percentageof the householdsin most manorswere legally free. J.Z. Titow, however, has suggestedthat in the bishopric of Winchester'sestate a very small number of the tenantswere free. Titow noted that on 25 of the bishopric's manors,well under 5 per cent of the population comprisedfree tenants,on 5 manorsthe free constituted approximately5 per cent and only in the manorsof Fareham,Hambledon, Woodhay )all Hants.), Morton (Bucks.) and East Knoyle (Wilts. ) were their percentagesmuch 33 higher. W. O. Ault's work on the RamseyAbbey estatealso showeda small number of free tenantson what were reasonablylarge manors:the averagenumber of freeholders
29A brief survey of the bishopric's accountshas revealedno namesassociated with the paymentof heriots in kind. The nameof the personliable for the heriot seemsto be mentionedonly when paymentwas made in cash. 30In a footnote, Kosminsky commentedthat a comparisonof the villein and free populations,as opposed to households,would probably producea proportionally higher numberof villeins becauseof the assumed greaternumber of villeins in a household.His calculationswere as follows: 40 per cent of the total arable land was held by villeins; 30 percentwas held by freeholders,one-fifth of whom were not peasants (constituting 6 per cent of the total arable land), hence24 percentof arable land was held by free peasants. The ratio of villein land to freehold land held by peasantswas, therefore,40: 24, or 5:3. Of all land held by peasants,therefore, the ratio would be 62 per cent to 38 per cent, approximately3: 2. Kosminsky,Studies, pp 205-6 and 206n. King, England, 1175-1425(London, Routledgeand Kegan Paul Ltd, 1979),p. 50. 32Hatcher, 'Serfdom, pp.6-7. 33Titow, 'Land and Population', p.97. Thesefigures were calculatedfrom the custumals.
138 34 in the Ramseymanors was six. The role of thesefree tenants,whatever their number, is difficult to assessbecause only one payment,that of relief, seemsto be restrictedto the legally free.
The WinchesterPipe Rolls recorded53 paymentsbetween 1208and 1252which be for 35Relief by the heir tenant appearto payments relief . was a paymentmade of a to take possessionof land, a type of inheritancetax, in effect. Only the free had to pay relief specifically as only the free could legally have heirs: the unfree, as chattelsof the lord, had no rights of inheritance.The inheritancerights of the free were dictatedby royal law and inheritanceof the free could, therefore,be recognisedin royal courts.The unfree, who inherited land only through local custom rather than law, did not have such redress.The custom of passingtenure from father to son could be overruledby the lord of the manor, but it seems,in practice,that the majority of tenureswere passedon to the nominatedsuccessor.
Most types of paymentrecorded in the accountsseem to have beenapplicable to both free and unfree tenantsalike: both free and unfree would be equally liable for paymentsmade, for example,for the destructionof the lord's property or for false complaint. When dealing with the distinction betweenfree and unfreetenants, one must not lose sight of the fact that the relationshipbetween the lord and his tenants,whether they were legally free or unfree,was far from equal. The majority of casesheard in the lord's court in the early thirteenth century were reinforcementsof the lord's rights, not just the reinforcementof the lord's rights over his unfree tenants.The free tenantsas well as the unfree were bound by the customarylaw of the manor as, in turn, was the lord himself. royal law had not removedthe needto obey the customarylaw. The lord was obliged to adhereto local custom and there are caseswhere the lord himself made
34Ault listed the number of villeins in eachmanor, with numbersranging from 20 villeins in Gidding to over 100 in Weston and Shillington. The figures appearto have been calculatedfrom the extentsand the cartulary for RamseyAbbey. Ault, Private Jurisdiction, p. 127. 35The paymentswere recordedin 23 different manorsin 5 different countiesin 19 of the 23 extantyears.
139 payments to the manorial court but, in theory, it was possible for the lord to overrule 36 local custom.
The five estatesfor which individual court paymentsare detailedbelonged to four religious establishmentsand to the Count of Aumale. All five held the right of soke in many manorsin addition to the rights inherent in the relationship betweenlord and tenant.37 The early thirteenth centuryinterpretation of soke grantedroyal jurisdiction to the holdersand, as such,the lords of theseestates could exerciseroyal jurisdiction over the lands held by virtue of their office. The lords were, therefore,the king's legal representativesand, as such,would hear casesfrom all men, both free and unfree, within their manors.Soke entitled the lord to hear casesabout bloodshed,diversion of watercourses,blocking of the highway and so forth. Thesecases applied to both free and unfree men and can not, therefore,be usedto determinelegal status.38 It seems, however,that at least one paymentto the manor court of Wargrave(Berks. ) in 1246-7 may have beenmade by a free man as two paymentswere madefor enteringinto a plea in court and appearingin court beforethe king's bailiff without the lord's bailiff, Entering into a plea before the king's bailiff, as William de Upton had done, showslegal freedom,but there is doubt as to whetherRoger Haward, the other personnamed, was free. The bynameHaward suggeststhat Roger was unfree as haywardswere appointed from the lord's unfree tenantsand the phrasingof the entry, he 'appearedin court', 39 suggeststhat he may not have initiated the plea.
The researchinto the proportion of free to unfree tenantswas not conductedas a total population of the manor, but as the number of households.F. Davenportin 1900 was the first historian to usethe court rolls to trace the history of particular families.40 it is possibleto trace families or householdswithin the accountrolls but unfortunately,as
36See, for example,Ault, Prtvate Jurisdiction, p. 215. SeeN. J. Hone, The Manor and Manorial Records (London, Methuen and Co., 1906),p. 16 for much later examples. 37,LegeS HenriCi priMi. ch. 20,2, p. 123. 38Payments were 'pro sanguineeffuso'. 39The paymentswere 'quia comparavitballivis domini Regis absqueballivo suo' for Roger de Haward, case33, and 'quia intravit in placito coram ballivis domini Regis absqueballivo suo' for William de Upton, case59. 40Razi and Smith, 'Historiography', p-8.
140 has been mentioned above, the lack of consistent use of bynames and surnames in the bishopric accounts makes the study of individuals very difficult before about 1240. This leaves only six extant accounting years between the 1244-5 account and the final 1251-2 41 roll usedin this study. The St Mary's Abbey manor of Froyle (Hants.), however,has perquisitepayments for thirteen yearsbetween 1233 and 1250.These records, although limited to one manor,tend to have considerabledetail about eachindividual making a paymentand are not interruptedby a six year vacancyin the late 1230sand early 1240s as with the bishopric accounts.
Using the Froyle accounts,it was possibleto suggestcertain family relationships.One family namewhich occurredin most yearswas that of de Isenhurst. Gunnilda de Isenhurst,first noted in 1233-4as paying 4s. as an entry fine, was probably the mother of at least five children. William, describedas her son in the separate sectionsfor pledgesin 1248-9and recognitionsin 1249-50,paid a relief of 27s., presumablyon the deathof his father, in 1241-2.He was also recordedin 1244-5as making a paymentto the court for leaving the lord's land. It seemsthat anotherson of Gunnilda also lived outsidethe manor as John, also describedas son of Gunnilda de Isenhurst,was paired with William in the pledgesand recognition sectionsof 1248-9 and 1249-50respectively. Gunnilda may well have had anotherson, Robert, who was always describedas son of Gunnilda with no mention of the surname,but as no other Gunnilda is mentionedin the Froyle accountsit seemsreasonable to assumethat Robert was a third son. He was recordedin the pledge sectionof the 1248-9accounts with a certain Payn,and madepayments in the perquisite sectionsin 1246-7and 1248-9for transgression/trespassof pastureand in 1249-50again for pledge.Gunnilda also seems to have had two daughtersas two of the five paymentsshe made to court were for the marriageof a daughter.42 Four other men with the de Isenhurst nameappeared in the accounts:Gilbert madepayments to court in 1237-8and 1239-40;Hugh madea paymentin 1239-40;Nicholas madea paymentin 1243-4;Peter made a recognition
41Individuals making non-monetarypayments in up to nine different accountscan be traced successfully in the manor of Calbourne(Isle of Wight), but there is no evidenceto suggestthat thosemaking the paymentswere related. 42The two marriagepayments were in 1236-7and 1244-5.Gunnilda is also recordedas making payments for an unspecifiedamercement in 1241-2and for transgression/trespassof pasturein 1248-9.
141 payment,for living outsidethe manor, in 1244-5.Isinghurst, however, seemsto have beena place as it was a mentionedin a rental of 1539.43The bynamede Isenhurst, therefore,does not necessarilyimply a family relationship betweenthe peoplewho are recordedwith the suffix.
The use of bynamesin theseearly accountsseverely limits the possibility of family studies.Two other bynamesseem to have featuredsignificantly in the proceedingsof court, de Suneburiand de Kipping, but thesetoo seemto be placesrather than family names.44 The de Suneburi suffix was usedfor 5 different forenameswithin the rolls, 4 men and I woman, whilst the de Kipping suffix was usedfor possibly 10 45 different family members,8 men and 2 women. Theseaccounted for 23 and 20 cases respectively.It is impossibleto determine,however, whether thesepeople were related.
The value of family groupingsin this context is in determining a person's legal status.Gunnilda de Isenhurst,for example,was unfree becauseshe made payments for her daughtersto marry. It follows, therefore,that the rest of her family were also unfree, a fact which could not necessarilybe determinedfrom their own individual payments. The legal statusof Robert, Gunnilda's son, for example,could not be ascertainedfrom his paymentsfor pledgeand transgression/trespassof pasture,but his unfreedomcan be assumedbecause of his relation to Gunnilda. Unfortunately, William, son of Gunnilda, was recordedas paying relief, which, as has beennoted above,was a paymentmade only by the free tenant.This highlights the difficulty in determiningthe legal statusof thosemaking paymentsto the manorial court and, once again, highlights the possibility of scribal error. The relief entry for William, recordedas 'the same' as the previous entry, may have more accuratelybeen described as an entry fine, as the two entries
43VCHHants, ii, p.501. 44Sonnebury appears in a rental of 1415.Kipping seemsto be associatedwith two placesin Hampshire, Wyck, a hamlet in the parish of Binstead,and Church Oakley. Wyck is within the samehundred as Froyle and a certain John Cuppying and his wife Ela dealt with land there in 1228 and 1236.Nicholas Kipping held land in Church Oakley, which was in the Chuteleyhundred, at the beginning of Henry III's reign and was recordedas still being there in 1241.ibid., ii, pp.501,487 and 226 respectively. 45The 'de Suneburi' nameswere Herbert, William, Alan, John and Isabell. The 'de Kipping' nameswere Randolf, Radulf, John, Nicholas, Sampson,Widon, Henry, Thomas,Matilda and the widow of William. Sampson,John, Widon, Henry and Matilda were all grouped in one paymentin 1246-7.It is not known whetherRandolf and Radulf were the sameperson, nor Matilda and William's widow.
142 46 immediately after William indeedwere. The uncertaintyof the tenure,as described above,may also account,at leastin part, for the confiision.47 Status as determinedby type of paymentto court, therefore,should be treatedwith caution.
Studiesof families and their role in the community have also beenconducted by E.B. DeWindt and E. Britton, categorisingfamilies into four groupsdepending on the frequencywith which local offices were held: group A containedfamilies who regularly provided local office holders; group B families occasionallyproduced office holders; group C families never provided suchmen; group D was a miscellaneouscategory for individuals and known outsiders.These groups were then used in the study of pledges made in court.48 Pledges, or sureties,were madein court to ensurethat certain obligations were carried out. Pledgeswere made,for example,to ensurethat people who essoinedthemselves, excused themselves from court, attendedthe following court session:Richard Miller, for example,was both essoinerand pledge for Gregoryof Sydenhamin 1246.49If the pledgewas not kept, a financial penalty would be incurred: a certain Arnold Smith was recordedas being in mercy for failing to produceWilliam Scut whosepledge he was.'O Unfortunately, the accountsrolls, as financial documents, recordedonly thosepledges where a paymentwas incurred for failure to perform the required obligations. There were 862 paymentsfrom pledgesin the 23 extant rolls for the bishopric and limited analysiscould be conductedon thosepersons. It would not be possibleto conductanalysis on the DeWindt and Britton model, however, as very few entriesprovide the nameof the personfor whom the pledgewas made.51
46The entrieswere, 'Et de Ixs. de relevio Agn' fil' herberti. Et de xxvij s. de Willelmo de Isenhurstpro simili. Et de xxs. de Willehno Sturm' pro fine terre. Et de xijd. de Nicholao de ripa pro simili'. BL Additional Charter 17462. 47See p. 103. 48E. B. DeWindt, Land and People in Holywell-cum-Needingworth(Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1971),esp. pp. 244-50. Britton also usedthe samemethodology, E. Britton, The Communityof the Vfll.ý A Study in the History of the Family and Village Life in Fourteenth-Century England (Toronto, Macmillan Press,1977). 49Select Pleas, p.6. The manor court of Bledlow (Bucks.: Abbey of Bec). 50Arnold Scut also seemsto have claimed that William Miller was his pledge as William Miller is recordedas being at law to prove that he was not William Scut's pledge. William Miller then provided two pledgesof his own. The court of Deverill (Wilts. ), 9 Nov. 1247.ibid., p. 13. 51The most commonforms recordedwere simply 'for pledge', 'pro plegiagio' or 'pro plevina'. Longer explanationswere given but provided little extra information, for example,'because he did not have whom he had pledged, 'quia non habuit quempleg". An additional 48 paymentswere for failing to have the personwhom he had madebail for, 'quia non habuit quemmanucepit.
143 The entriesdetailing paymentsfor pledgeswere interspersedthroughout the perquisite sections,but one roll for the St Mary's Abbey manor of Froyle did record a separatesection which appearsto consistof pledges.The 1248-9roll containsentries of the form 'De vj d. de Stephanofilio Alexandri. hugoneboll' pl ". It seemsthat a 6d. paymentwas requiredfrom Stephen,son of Alexander, and that the paymentwas pledgedor assuredby Hugo Boll. The name Stephen,son of Alexander, doesnot appear in the perquisitesection of the rolls for any year before 1250 in that form but Hugo Boll does:Hugo madea paymentfor an amercementin 1237-8.Of the 12 people for whom a pledgewas made,such as Alexander's son Stephen,9 namesdo not appearin any perquisite sectionbefore 1250.Of the surnamesor bynames,2 were usedin perquisite sectionsbut for different first names.Both surnamesor bynameswere occupational,a merchantand a furrier, which suggeststhat they were indeedbynames rather than names applied to a specific household.Only three nameswere from known families, John and William, sonsof Gunnilda de Isenhurst,combined in one entry, and John, brother of Michael de Padekeden.By contrast,virtually all the householdnames detailed as pledgeswere recordedin perquisitesections before 1250,often more than once.Those recordedas acting as pledgesincluded Gunnilda's son Robert de Isenhurst,and Herbert de Suneburi,who was recordedin the perquisite sectionsfor three different years." It is virtually impossibleto carry out a detailed study in accordancewith the A, B, C, D groupingsof DeWindt and Britton, but the pledging of little known individuals by membersof what seemto be major contributorsto the paymentsto court, suggeststhat the leading men (type A) did pledgefor the lower statusmen. The pledging of the two de Isenhurstmen by Michael de Padekedensuggests that pledging 'between' the major playersexisted and the pledging of John de Padekeden,again by Michael, suggeststhe existenceof intra-householdpledging. DeWindt emphasisedthe pledging which occurredbetween status groups, suggesting that this showedco-operation between the groups.53 Britton, by contrast,emphasised the pledging which occurredbetween the leading households,suggesting a type of classconsciousness and a conflict betweenthe
52Herbert was recordedin 1236-7,1243-4and 1248-9. 53 E.B. DeWindt, Land and People in Holywell-cum-Needingworth(Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1971).
144 54 households of different groups. Unfortunately, because of the lack of'surviving material, it is impossible to determine which interpretation best describes the situation in the pre- 1250 courts.
The gender question
Who exactly made payments to court? One obvious distinction between those who made payments to court was whether they were male or female. The vast majority of payments were made by men, 82 per cent of the total, with women contributing 9 per 55 cent of all payments to court. Tithings accounted for 6 per cent of the total payments to court. The remaining 3 per cent of entries were of four main types: places (hundreds, boroughs, place names); occupations; groups, (male, female, occupational or unspecified); unclassifiable (damaged or ambiguous names). These are described as 'Additional' payments in figure I below.
Figure I
The Percentageof pqyments made by men, women and tithings
Men 82%
Averages do not necessarily present the full picture as they may hide considerablefluctuations within the rolls, but it seemsthat the proportion of payments made by men, women and tithings remained fairly constant throughout the early
54E. Britton, The Community of the Vill: A Study in the History of the Family and Village Life in Fourteenth-Century England (Toronto, Macmillan Press, 1977). 55The analysis for this chapter was based on 52387 entries recorded in the perquisite sections. Entries were excluded from analysis where no name was recorded, where the name was missing due to damage to the rolls and where the related payment was for recognition.
145 thirteenth century.Men accountedfor 82 per cent of the paymentsmade to court for the period 1208to 1252:in eachyear, this figure rangedfrom 71 per cent in 1215-16to 85 per cent in 1208-9.There seemsto be no identifiable trend in the databut the majority of the yearsstudied produced percentages of between75 and 85 per cent: only the percentagefor 1215-16lay outsidethis range.The proportion of paymentsto court madeby men, therefore,remained reasonably constant during this period with all bar one roll producing over three-quartersof entriespaid by men. The value of the contribution madeby women to the overall volume of businessin eachyear in proportional terms, as with the men, seemsto have remainedreasonably constant. Women accountedfor 9 per cent on averageof the total number of paymentsmade to court for the period 1208-52.In eachyear, their contribution was between5 per cent and II per cent of the overall volume of business:5 per cent in 1219-20and II per cent in 1215-16and 1235-6.Tithings, on average,constituted 6 per cent of all paymentsmade to court, with year by year analysisshowing that between4 and 8 per cent of all paymentsin any particular year were attributableto tithings. Once again,there seemsto be no identifiable trend in the proportion of paymentsmade by tithings, which seemsto have remainedreasonably constant between 1208 and 1252.
It has beenshown abovethat the volume of overall businessincreased between 56 1208 and 1252. If the proportion of the payments made by men, women and tithings remained approximately the same, then it follows that the number of payments made by each of these groups must have increased: 9 per cent of 100 payments would be 9 payments whereas, if the volume of business increased to 200 payments, 18 payments would have to be made to maintain a level of 9 per cent. The number of payments made to court by men increased significantly between 1208 and 1252: 436 payments were made by men in 1215-16, rising to 3596 payments in 1246-7. The linear approximation to the data was highly significant both in accuracy and magnitude, with levels of 57 significance of 99.8 per cent and 99.95 per cent. The amount of payments made to court by women also increased, with similar levels of significance, over this period: 65
56See pp. 113-14. 57 The equationfor the line wasy= 58.728x- 70315.
146 58 payments were made by women in 1215-16, rising to 380 in 1248-9. The number of' times women made payments to court, therefore, increased dramatically between 1209 and 1252, constituting, approximately, a fivefold increase. Payments made by tithings also increased with the same levels of significance between 1208 and 1252, from a minimum of 29 in 1215-16 to a maximum of 228 in 1246-7.59Payments made by tithings, therefore, as with payments by men and women, increased in slicer number during this period.
These three groups, men, women and tithings, produced 97 per cent of all payments made to the court. They all produced significant increases in the overall volume of business between 1208 and 1252, but maintained a fairly constant proportion of payments. These payments, however, were for different types of offence.
Figure 2
Percentage of different types of person making payments for each categoly of reason
100 90 80 70 CD 60 .3 El Men c 50 EWomen 40 CL 30 ElTithings 20 IDAdditional 10 0 A IT iLm PC Pp s0N Category of reason for payment*
* The letters correspond to the following types of payment: assize, inter-tenant disputes, jurisdiction, land, marriage, process, property, ýervices, other/miscellaneous and no reason given.
It is clear from the abovechart (figure 2) that men madethe majority of payments in all categories of payment: payments by men constituted between 66 and 92 per cent of each type of case. Men, therefore, paid over four-fifths of all property, inter- tenant dispute, service and assize payments, whilst contributing approximately two-
" The equation for the line was y=7.543x - 9066. 59 The equation for the line was y=3.829x - 45 77.
147 thirds of processpayments. Of the paymentsmade by women, the greatestnumber of paymentsfor reasonsassociated with land and marriage:approximately one fifth of all land payments(21 per cent) and one quarterof all marriagepayments (25 per cent) were madeby women. Women also madea considerablecontribution to the assizepayments with just under one sixth of assizepayments (16 per cent) being madeby women.The tithing payments,by contrast,were for what AN May describedas 'by-product' payments,the jurisdiction and processpayments which were madeas a 'by-product' of the court proceedings.60 Tithings paid over one-fifth of all jurisdiction paymentsand just under one-quarterof all processpayments (22 and 24 per cent respectively).The men, therefore,made payments in all categoriesbut the paymentsmade by women and tithings seemto have greaterconcentration within specific categories.
Another way to analysethe data was to look at eachgroup individually. This assistedanswering questions such as 'If you were a man in the early thirteenth century, what was the most common reasonfor making a paymentto court?'. Of all payments madeby men, the largestproportion was for property payments,which constituted25 per cent of the casesfor which they paid the court (figure 3): if you were male, therefore,one in every four paymentsto court were for property related cases.This was over double the percentageof paymentsmade for any other known category,with land " paymentsconstituting 12 per cent of the payments. Taking paymentsby women as a whole, reasonsassociated with land accountedfor the greatestnumber of payments:29 per cent of paymentsmade by women were for land (figure 4). Paymentsfor property and assizeboth constituted 13 per cent of paymentsmade to court by women, with marriagepayments accounting for 10 per cent. Of the businessattributable to women, therefore,just under one in every three dealt with land, one in eight dealt with property, one in eight dealt with assizeand one in ten dealt with marriage.62 Over half of the paymentsmade by tithings were for processpayments, 54 per cent: every other payment,therefore, was for process.Jurisdiction paymentswere the secondlargest
60May, 'Franchise', pp.57-8. 61Payments where no reasonwas recordedconstituted 22 per cent of all paymentsmade by men. 62These figures representjust under two-thirds of all paymentsmade by women.
148 'known' category of payments constituting just over one in six payments, 17 per cent, of 63 all tithing payments.
Figure 3 Figure 4
Percentageof total number of payments Percentage of total number ol'payments made by men made by wornen
25 30 25 20 20 15 15 10 10 CL 5 5 0 0 A IT JLM Pc Pp S0N A IT JLM Pc Pp S0N
Type of payment* Type of payment*
Figure 5
Percentageof total number of payments made by tithings
60 50 4) 40 30 20 CL 10 0 A IT JLM Pc Pp S0N
Type of payment*
* The letters correspond to the following types of payment: assize, inter-tenant disputes, jurisdiction, land, marriage, process, property, 5ervices, other/miscellaneous and no reason given.
In conclusion, it seems that by the mid-thirteenth century the free were not necessarily obliged to perform suit of court, but they were required to attend court when cases involving royal jurisdiction or cases involving themselves were heard. The unfree did owe suit of court, with the exception of the Ramsey unfree tenants' agreement not to perform suit seeming to prove the rule. Of those people recorded in the perquisite section of the accounts, the vast majority were men, with women making significant
63Payments where no reason was recorded constituted 22 per cent of all payments made by tithings.
149 contributionsto paymentsinvolving land, marriageand the assizeof breadand alc and tithings making significant contributionsto casesarising from the holding of the court. Extensivedetailed study of individuals was not possible,but occasionallythe activities of one personor a numberof membersof a family could be determined.The recordsof the manor of Froyle suggestthe presenceof inter-familial and intra-familial pledging in the manorial court but, unfortunately,provides the only instancewhere pledgeswere recordedin such detail. Ultimately, the limited and inconsistentinfon-nation given in the perquisite sectionsseverely restricts the study of those attendingthe manorial court.
150 V What pgymentswere madeto the court?
The vast majority of information aboutmanorial courts before 1250comes from accountrolls, the main purposeof which was to record the temporal income, expenditure,com and stock of a manor. The perquisitesection within the receipts,as has beennoted, either detailedthe individual paymentsand then gavea total amount ' receivedfrom the court or simply recordedthe total amount. Where individual paymentswere given, the sum of the individual payments(the 'calculated' total) did not always equalthe total given (the 'stated' total). There are three possiblereasons for theseinconsistencies: damage to the rolls may have causedthe loss of certain individual entries;the calculation of the 'stated' total was incorrect; errors were madein the copying of the individual entries.In the event of damageto the rolls, it is obvious that the 'stated' total should be deemedmore accurate(if extant) as it is impossibleto determinethe value of the missing entries.
In the numerouscases where all individual paymentsremain extant and the 'stated' total doesnot equalthe 'calculated' total, the error must lie either with the 'stated' total or within the perquisitesection itself It is possiblethat a calculation error may have occurredin the 'stated' total, but the level of auditing which had taken place before the compilation of thesefair copieswould suggestthat errors of suchnature would be limited.2 It is also possiblethat the figure given as the 'stated' total may be a transcription error rather than a calculation error: the scribe may have accidentally missedout an T or an 'x', for example,in copying the 'stated' total. The occurrenceof this, however, also seemsto be extremelylimited. This becameapparent in the study of randomly selectedmanors which produceddifferent 'calculated' and 'stated' totals for the perquisitepayments. In Bitteme in 1210-11, for example,the sum of the individual perquisitepayments was L2 15s.8d. whereasthe given total for the perquisite section was E2 l6s. 2d.. If the 'stated' total for the perquisitesection was merely a scribal error, the total given for the whole receiptssection would not equal the sum of the 'stated'
1 Seepp. 44-65 for details on individual estates. 2 Theseaccounts were all of phaseI type, henceall post-auditaccounts. Harvey, Manorial Records, pp.29-3 1.
151 totals copied from the original documents.However, in all manorstested, the sum of all the 'stated' totals did equalthe 'stated' total for the receiptssection, suggesting that the 'stated' totals were indeedmore accurate.In Bitterne, therefore,the sum of all the 'stated' totals within the receiptssection was LIS l7s. 101,id., the exact figure given as the sum of all receipts.3
It seemsthat transcriptionerrors would be more likely to occur within the individual entriesof the perquisitesection: the mistakesmade by the scribesof these fair copy accountssuggest that it was easyto repeatentries and, one would assume,miss out entire entriesin what were often very repetitiouslists of payments.With the use of reasonably'standard' paymentsit would havebeen relatively easyto mistakenlyrecord paymentsof 6d. rather than 12d. or 3s. rather than 2s.. The perquisiteentries for Alresford in 1247-8 provide numerous examples of corrected scribal errors which are worthy of note. The errors are of two main forms, incorrect information and repetition: these include the deletion of a repeated amount of payment, 'et de vjd. ', the deletion of
an entire repeated entry, 'Et de Njd. de Roberto de Haywod' pro simili', and the intended
deletion of a 6d. payment above which the supposed correct figure of 12d. had been 4 noted. It seems far more likely that minor transcription errors would occur in one of the up to 350 individual entries in the perquisite sections of rolls (which themselves
consisted of up to 34 membranes), rather than in a total which contributed to the total of 5 all receiptsfor the manor. Thesedocuments were primarily financial in nature:the information provided by the individual paymentswas adequatelysummarised in the total perquisitepayment. The detail, therefore,was not strictly necessaryfor the financial accountand thus the accuracyof the total would, ultimately, have beenmore important.
By studying the perquisitepayments in the first half of the thirteenth century it was possibleto addressone of the fundamentalquestions about manorial courts: was the
3 The other manorstested were EastKnoyle (Wilts. ), 1220-1;Wield, 1231-2;Bishops Sutton, 1236-7; Mardon, 1245-6; Itchingswell (all Hants.), 1251-2. 4 The 'calculated' and 'stated' totals for Alresford (Hants.) in 1247-8differ by 3s. 6d.: the 'calculated' total is LIO I s. 8d. and the 'stated' total is LIO 5s. 2d.. 5 The roll for 1248-9contains the largestnumber of membranesfor the rolls before 1252.
152 lord's motive in holding thesecourts primarily financial in nature?AN. May proposed that the financial aspectof the courts was not the main reasonbehind the holding of manorial courts becausethe value of the perquisitereceipts did not keep up with the expansionof court business.He suggestedthat this failure to maintain a similar increase was due to a decreasein the 'rate of fine': that the so-called'crimes' which had incurred a paymentof 6d. at the beginningof the thirteenth century incurred a paymentof only 3d. by the end of the century.He also suggestedthat there was an increasein the variety of rate of paymentand that the emergenceof the 3d. paymentas a regular amountof paymentwas a thirteenth centuryphenomenon. His explanationof theseevents was 6 peasantimpoverishment, as opposedto a loss of interestby the lord. Here we examine the validity of May's findings for the first half of the thirteenth century, agreeingin part with his conclusionsbut suggestingthat the developmentshe proposedwere not necessarilyapparent by 1250.
The resultsbelow were basedon the values given as the 'stated' total of the perquisite sectionsfor eachmanor minus any paymentsfor recognitions:where a total was not given or was missing due to damage,the sum total of the extant individual paymentswas used.The recognition paymentswere removedfrom the calculationsas two accountsproduced disproportionately large receiptsfrom recognitions.The proceedsfrom recognitionswere usually containedwithin the perquisite sectionsfor all manorsin the WinchesterPipe Rolls. The accountsfor 1244-5,1247-8,1248-9and 1251-2,however, recorded recognition paymentsfor eachmanor either within the perquisite sectionor in a separaterecognition section.This inconsistencyseems to have resultedfrom the large amountof recognition paymentsreceived in 1244-5,the first accountfor William Raleigh's episcopacy.A total of E415 Is. I Od.was receivedfrom recognitionsin that year, 18s.of which was recordedwithin the perquisitesections of 7 eight manors. The rolls for 1247-8and 1248-9record recognitionseither within the perquisite sectionor under a separaterecognition sub-heading,depending on the manor. Adderbury (Oxon.) in both yearsand Hindon Borough (Wilts. ) in 1248-9are the only
6 May, 'Impoverishment', esp. pp. 390 and 397. 7 These manors were Ivinghoe (Bucks. ), Ashmansworth, Woodhay, Itchingswell, Bishops Waltham, Fareham, Burghclere (all Hants. ) and Harwell (Berks. ). The last two also recorded recognition payments in separate recognition sections.
153 manorsto recordthe paymentsunder a separatesub-heading and, as they are of limited financial value (3s., 3s. 6d. and 2s.), they seemto be the result of someconfusion on the part of the scribe as to the usual place to record recognitions.The 1251-2roll, the first full year of Aymer de Valence's episcopate,records large amountsreceived from recognition paymentsand, once again,the majority of the recognition paymentsare recordedin separatesections: the accountsproduced recognition paymentstotalling E520 Is. IId., E45 l7s. 2d. of which was containedwithin the perquisitesections of 6 8 entirely different manors. Had the value of recognitionscontained within the perquisite sectionsin 1251-2been less, it might have beenpossible to effectively ignore the recognition paymentswithin the perquisitesections as they would have beenstatistically insignificant: all yearsbefore 1250record recognition paymentsranging from no money receivedto El 3s. 10d..The figure of over L45, however, can not be seenas statistically insignificant and thus all recognition paymentsmust be removed from the calculations.9
It should be noted that the removal of all recognition paymentsdoes create difficulties: the lack of detail provided by certain rolls about the reasonfor the payments 10 meansthat one can not be surewhether all recognition paymentswould be removed. The entriesfor the manor of Calboumeon the Isle of Wight also suggestthat exclusion of suchpayments may be more difficult than appearsat first. Calboumeusually recordedfour paymentsin kind (wax) which, before 1240were recordedas pro manutenementoand after 1240as pro recognitione. It may be that pro manutenemento was a scribal error, repeatedyear after year, or that the translation ofpro manutenementoas maintenanceor supportmay needto be modified. The subtractionof individual paymentsfrom the 'stated' total also reducesthe known accuracyof the figures: one is assumingthat any mistakesmade in the transcription of the individual paymentswere not madein any recognition entries.
Despitethese quite seriouslimitations, the removal of all recognition payments seemsto be the most satisfactorysolution to the problem createdby the inconsistent
8 Thesemanors were Rimpton (Som.), Esher(Surr. ), FarehamBorough, Newtown, Mardon (all Hants.) and Downton (Wilts. ). The last two also recordedrecognition paymentsin separaterecognition sections. 9 SeeAppendix D for details, p. 187. '0 Seepp. 118-19for detail on which yearsprovide limited detail as to the reasonfor payment.
154 recording of the recognitionpayments either within the perquisitesections or within a separatesection and the disproportionatelylarge financial value of recognitionpayments within the sectionsin 1251-2:ultimately, the distortion createdby the removal of recognition paymentswithin the perquisitesection would be far lessthan that createdby the inclusion of the recognition sectionsfor the later rolls. In general,the figures given should be treatedas a minimum value of perquisitepayments to allow for any missing data.
Taking into accountthe difficulties inherentin the data, it was possibleto addressthe fundamentalquestion: was the purposeof the court in the first half of the thirteenth centurymainly financial or were other purposes,such as enforcing the lord's rights, deemedmore important?An obvious initial test for this theory was to see whether the overall financial gain from the perquisitepayments increased between 1208 and 1252.The total amountof perquisitepayments in eachyear for the entire estate varied from 1165 5s. 6ý-A.for 40 manorsin 1215-16to L667 19s. I Od.for 60 manorsin 1244-5,the totals for 1208-9and 1251-2being E2285s. 3d. (46 manors)and E4145s. 1I%d. (63 manors)respectively. The total value of perquisitepayments for the entire estatewas accuratelyrepresented by a straight line, with a level of significanceof 99.8 per cent and produceda positive gradientwhich was also extremely significant (99.95 per cent). The total amountof money gainedfrom the perquisitepayments for the entire estate,therefore, increased significantly between1208 and 1252.
155 Figure 1
Total monetga value of perquisitepayments for the bishopric of Winchester'sestate 700
0 CL 500 c
-Mr(D
m M 16 300
10 0 L-- 1200 1220 1240 1260
Year ending
How 'real' was this increase?There may have beenmany reasonsnot directly associatedwith the perquisitepayments which would produce suchan increasefor the entire estate:an increasein the size of the estateby acquisition of new manors,for example,would probably increasethe overall amountreceived from the courts." Incompleterolls or damagedrolls also affect the sum total of perquisitepayments for certain years:in 1215-16the entry for Ivinghoe (Bucks.) consistsof the manor name alone; in 1226-7damage to the accountfor Brightwell (Berks.) has left only the 'perquisite' sub-headingextant. Further study was conductedto determinewhether the overall increasein monetarygain was shown in individual manorswhich also had the benefit of eliminating the variable associatedwith the fluctuating size of estate.Of the 64 manorsanalysed, 28 producedsignificant lines of regressionfor the value of perquisitepayments between 1208 and 1252 at or abovea 90 per cent level of significance.All lines were significant in magnitudeat or abovea level of 95 per cent and all showedsignificant increasesin the value of perquisitepayments. Significant linear increasesin the total value of paymentsmade to court were made,therefore, in 44 per cent of manors.This increasemay have beendue to external factors such as an increasein the number of tenantsor may have beendue to the increasein the numberof
11 Esher(Surr. ), for example,was first accountedfor in 1236-7.See Appendix B, p. 178.
156 12 casesheard in court, which was shown above. Comparingthe manorswhich produced a linear increasein monetarygain with thosemanors where the number of cases increasedshowed that 27 manorsproduced significant increasesin both volume of businessand proceedsof court and that 23 produceda significant linear increasein the volume of businessalone. These results suggestthat an increasein the volume of businessdid not necessarilyherald a proportional monetarygain: 46 per cent of manors which showedan increasein the volume of businessdid not producea complementary rise in the proceedsof court. Logically, therefore,it seemsthat the averagemonetary value of eachpayment must have decreased.This would be achievedby introducing a greaternumber of small payments(less than or equal to 6d.) or reducingthe number of large payments(greater than 12d.). 13
Analysis to test this theory, originally expoundedby A. N. May, was conducted using the perquisitepayments of the 14 manorswhich producedperquisite sectionsfor eachof the 23 surviving accountsbetween 1208 and 1252.14The proportion of paymentsfor thesemanors seems similar to the proportion of paymentsfor the entire estate:the manorsrepresent between 26 and 40 per cent of the total perquisitereceipts. 15 It seemsthat these 14 manorsmay be usedas a representativesample for the entire estate.Of the 14 manors,9 were Hampshiremanors, but this is merely a reflection of the distribution of the manorswithin the bishopric's estate.Of the 6 other countiesin which the bishop held lands,4 are representedby thesemanors: Downton and East Knoyle (Wilts. ); Harwell (Berks.); West Wycombe(Bucks. ); Taunton foreign hundred
(Som.). None of the 14 manorsis a borough,but the accountsof Alresford and Downton which are containedwithin the 14 detail separateperquisite sectionsfor boroughsin the rolls before 1252.The manorsappear to be representativeas the survival of these particular rolls and of the perquisitesections of the individual manorswithin the rolls appearsto be random.It should be noted, however,that the manorsare not strictly a statistically random sampleas all 14 manorswere held by the bishop by 1208and
12See pp. 113-14and Appendix C Table I pp. 179-80. 13The reduction of the 'average' paymentwas also noted by A. N. May in his study of 'franchisal' businessfor the whole of the thirteenthcentury. May, 'Impoverishment', p.305. 14ibid., esp.pp. 392-5. 15 The actual value of the perquisitereceipts for thesemanors is between166 8s. 8d. and L215 6s. I d..
157 remainedwithin the bishopric's estateuntil 1252:the samplecannot, by definition, contain any manorsacquired by the bishop from 1210 onwardsnor manorswhich did not remain in the handsof the bishop until 1252.16
The perquisitepayments (excluding recognitions)were divided into four categories:zero value payments(to cover damagedentries and anomaliessuch as paymentsin kind); paymentsof 6d. or less; paymentsgreater than 6d. and lessthan or equal to 12d.;payments over l2d.. Of the 56 lines of regression,20 proved to be significant both in the accuracywith which they representedthe data and the magnitude 17 of the increaseor decreaseproduced.
Figure 2 Increasesand decreasesin small. medium and large pqMents Standardmanor name Was there a Was there a Caseswhere Caseswhere Caseswhere significant significant payment(x) payment(x) payment(x) increasein increasein was greater was greater was greater the overall the overall than Od.and than 6d. and than 12d. volume of monet lessthan or lessthan or x> 12 business? gaLn? equal to 6d. equal to 12d. 0 This table showsthat 13 of the 14 manorsproduced an increasein the volume of businessconducted by the courts between1208 and 1252.It also showsthat the overall monetarygain in half of the manorsdid not increasesignificantly, thus the increasein businessdid not necessarilyproduce a similar increasein monetarygain. The 16Manors which were put to fann are also excluded. 17The levels of significancewere 90% and 95% respectively. 158 breakdownof the proportion of paymentsshows that 8 of the 14 manorsproduced a significant increasein the proportion of paymentswhich were below 6d., 9 manors recordeda significant decreasein the proportion of large payments(over 12d.) and 2 manorsproduced significant decreasesin intermediatepayments. The one manor which bucked the seemingtrend in the decreasein the proportion of large paymentswas Woodhay (Hants.), which produceda significant increasein the number of large paymentsup to 1250.This may be due to Woodhayhaving a 'very considerable' 18 amount of tenantcolonisation within the manor. In 1244-5,26 of the 32 large payments(over 12d.) were land or land and marriagepayments. The results in the table are basedon a limited sampleof manorsand a small number of regressionlines producedby thosemanors, but it is possibleto make some suggestionsas to the generaltrends within the bishopric of Winchester'sestate. The manor of Cheriton (Hants.) providesa good working example.Cheriton produceda significant increasein the volume of businessbetween 1208 and 1252,but did not produce an increasein the proceedsof court. This stemmedfrom the significant increase shown in the number of small paymentsand the significant decreasein the numberof large payments,thus reducingthe 'average' paymentand allowing an increasein volume of businessto occur without a complementaryrise in the proceedsof court. Similar patternsmay be found in EastKnoyle (Wilts. ), Taunton foreign hundred(Som. ), West Wycombe (Hants.) and Crawley (Hants.), the last of which also produceda decreasein the intermediatepayments. Alresford producedincreases in both overall businessand overall monetarygain whilst still producing an increasein the proportion of small paymentsand a decreasein the number of large payments.A similar pattern emergedfor Mardon (Hants.) and in Bishops Sutton (Hants.) the decreaseoccurred in the intermediaterather than the large payments.There are, of course,many manor to manor variations, but the generaltrend which seemsto have emergedby 1250was an increasein the proportion of small paymentsaccompanied by a decreasein the proportion of large payments.These increases and decreaseswere sometimes 18Titow, 'Land and Population', p.83. 159 sufficiently greatto reducethe 'average'payment so that the overall monetarygain from the proceedsof court did not increasewith the increasingvolume of business. A similar patternwas found to have occurredin Froyle, a Hampshiremanor of St Mary's Abbey, Winchester.The extant accountsrun from c. 1233to beyond 1250, providing 13 accountsfor this period. There was a significant increasein the numberof casesrecorded for the manor: the level of significancefor the increasein the volume of businesswas 95 per cent for approximationto the data and 97.5 per cent for the magnitudeof the increase,the numberof casesranging between 15 and 49. As with half of the bishopric's manors,however, there was no significant increasein the revenue received from theseperquisite sections. The perquisitesections seemed to include money gainedfrom the saleof pasture,the inclusion of which would have affectedthe value of paymentsconsiderably and madethe findings incomparablewith thosefrom the bishopric. The value of payments,therefore, was attainedby using the 'stated' total minus the paymentsmade for pasture.No trend in the value of the perquisitepayments was apparentwhen thesepayments were excludedfrom the totals. There was, however, a significant increasein the proportion of small paymentsand a complementary decreasein the proportion of large payments,with levels of significanceof 90 per cent for approximationto the data and 95 per cent for the magnitudeof the increaseor decreaseas appropriate. There are many possiblereasons for an increasein the number of small payments.AN May suggestedthat the increasewas not due to loss of interestby the central administrationbecause the work of the courts increased(shown by the increase in the volume of business)and the ability to collect paymentswas not limited (shown by the high rents and entry fines). He proposedthat the reduction in the individual amount paid to court was due to peasantimpoverishment. The social and economicpressures, more apparentin the latter half of the century, led to a greaternumber of offencesbeing committed. If the main aim in demandingpayments from offenderswas not financial but a deterrentto challengingthe lord's rights, 'small fines, and plenty of them, would 160 do the job'. 19This argumenthas merit, but there are other possiblereasons behind the increasein the numberof small payments. The reduction in the amountof individual paymentsmay also be due to the introduction of different types of case.AN May, whilst stressinghis belief that the reduction in the rate of paymentwas due to peasantimpoverishment, did commentthat the increasein the numberof assizepayments alone could causea considerabledrop in the rate of paymentand that virtually all the so-called'new business'incurred payments of 6d. or less.20 The formulaic reasonsnoted in the accountslimit any in depth study into this possibility, but study of the assizeof breadand ale paymentsfor all years before 1252 suggeststhat the introduction of a large amountof this type of payment may have had a more dramaticeffect on the number of small paymentsmade to court than May suggested.The contribution of the assizecases to the number of casesheard in court was limited in the early thirteenth centurybut by the 1240sand early 1250sthe contribution increasedapproximately eightfold. The assizepayments represented 2 per cent of the total number of known reasonsin 1208-9and remainedbetween 0 and 3 per 21 cent until 1232-3when they represented7 per cent of the total. The percentagesfor 1235-6and 1236-7were similar, at 5 per cent and 6 per cent respectively.In the 1240s, however, the percentageof assizepayments rose to betweenII and 15 per cent, with the value for 1251-2reaching 17 per cent. The dramaticrise in the number of theseassize entries and their relative contribution to the overall number of entriesdistorts the related 'rate of fine' of the individual payment.The vast majority of theseassize payments were for 6d.: in 1251-2,for example,there were 421 paymentsof 6d. or less,49 paymentsof 22 between 7d. and 12d. and just 9 payments over 12d.. AN May, in his argument for a decline in the rate of payment, failed to point out that the majority of assize payments had always been 6d. or less: there was no decline in the rate of fine for such payments between 1208 and 1252. The rise in the number of small payments, therefore, may not have been due to the reduction of payments for all types of cases (possibly due to 19May, 'Impoverishment', pp.395-9. 20ibid., pp.396-7. 21All percentagesare rounded.The valuesused for the percentagesare the numberof assizecases and the total number of casesminus the caseswhere no reasonwas recordedfor the payment. 22The term '6d. or less' excludesthe entrieswere the monetaryvalue was zero. 161 peasantimpoverishment) but an increasein the proportion of individual caseswhich had, in the majority of instances,always rendered small financial reward. AN. May did recognisethat the assizepayments may well increasethe number of paymentsof 6d. or less, but arguedthat the increasein the numberof casesof this type could not be the sole explanationas it would neither explain the drop in the number of large paymentsin absoluteterms nor the drop from 6d. to 3d. within the small paymentscategory. Unfortunately for his argument,the decline in absoluteterms of the large paymentsdid not happenin the first half of the thirteenth centurynor, as will be explainedbelow, was 23 there a significant increasein the number of 3d. payments. It may also be possible,if the increasein the assizepayments was a major contributory factor to the increasein the proportion of small payments,not that the paymentswere madeby an increasinglyimpoverished entire society but that the new paymentsencompassed a greaterpercentage of the population. J.B. Post suggestedthat the inclusion of assizepayments in calculationswas unwise as the paymentsseem to be licensing feesrather than simple amercementsfor breachof the assize.24 If this is correct, then the paymentswere presumablymade not necessarilyby the 'poorer sectionsof the community', but by different sectionsof the community. The analysisof who madepayments for the assizeof breadand ale showedthat the number of women making thesepayments was considerable:it may be the case,therefore, that the paymentsfor assizedid introducedifferent, as opposedto lower, sectionsof societyinto the manorial court, namely women.25 Theoverall financial return from themanorial court did increasein the bishopric'sestate during the first half of thethirteenth century. The financialbenefits of the courtsshould not be underestimated,but it doesseem that the forcebehind the manorialcourt was not primarilyfinancial in nature.The smallvalue of themajority of individualpayments to courtsuggest that it wasthe enforcementof the lord's rightsover his tenantswhich wasthe main focus of thecourt before 1250: Fleta described the 23See pp. 163-7. 24 poSt, 'Amercements', p. 308. 25See pp. 145-50. 162 steward,whose duty it was to hold the manorial court, as one eagerto protect his lord's rights in all thingS.26 Labour serviceswere requiredby the lord to maintain the profitability of farming the demesnelands and theseservices increased in real value as the level of inflation rose.Labour servicesalso cameto be usedto identify legal status, which also increasedtheir inherentvalue. The long-term benefits of enforcing the lord's rights in the manorial court thus ensuredan adequatenumber of labourersfor the demesnelands and proof of the villein statusof thoseobliged to perform suchworks. 27 The lord's rights, ratherthan financial gain, therefore,seems to have beenthe main motive for the majority of the paymentsto the manorial courts before 1250. AN. May also suggestedthat there was an increasein the variety of ratesof payment:that in the beginningof the thirteenth centurythere were habitual paymentsof 6d. and 12d.but by the end of the centurypayments for I d., 2d., 3d., 4d., 5d., 8d., 9d. and 1Od. were being made.He suggestedthat multiple nameentries were combinations of entriesmade by the scribe of the fair copy and that the paymentrecorded in the rolls should be divided betweenthe peoplenamed in the entry. Where the value was not divisible by the number of namesto give equal so-called'rounded' amounts,May either divided by 'rounded' amountsand createda lower 'rounded' amount for one personor simply divided the value by the numberof people and roundedup to the nearest penny.28 This methodologywas severelycriticised by J.B. Post as the number of offencesfor which a personmade a single paymentis unknown in most entries,thus calling into questionthe validity of a 'basic rate' of amercement.In addition to this, Post arguedthat the grouping of peoplein one entry did not necessarilyimply that each personcommitted the offence an equalnumber of times. Equal division of payment, therefore,would not be accurate,increasing the number of smaller paymentsand decreasingthe number of larger payments,thus altering the datato favour May's 29 views. It has beenshown, in Downton in 1247-8,how the scribe seemsto have combinedtwo paymentsfor 6d. into one paymentfor 12d.by two people and three paymentsfor 6d. into a single paymentof l8d. by Robert Herl', William Trapel and 26 Fleta, eds and trans. H. G. Richardson and G. O. Sayles (Selden Society, vol. lxxii, 1955), p. 24 1. 27 Harvey, 'Inflation', pp. 21-3 23May, 'Impoverishment', pp. 3 89402. 29Post, 'Amercements', pp. 306-7. 163 William Akerman.30 MiS would supportAN May's equal division theory, but other entries,such as from Alresford in 1224-5for l8d. from Clement and W. son of Roger for failing to do plough-service,tend to supportPost's view wherebyClement may have committed the offence twice and henceowe twice as much as Roger's son. Taking into accountPost's criticisms, the following resultshave beenbased on the number of entries in the rolls rather than the number of names,thus avoiding the difficulties of dividing entries.This methodologydoes, of course,have its own limitations: William Trapel and William Akerman in the aboveDownton exampleobviously did make some contribution to the 18d.payment but this methodologywill assumethat Robert Herl' was liable for the total payment. Figure 3 Number of standardand 'non-standard'pgyMents Categoryof payments Number of payments Valueof zero* 1593 'Non-standard'payments between Id. and5d. inclusive 114 Paymentsof 6d. 22802 'Non-standard'payments between 7d. and IId. inclusive 137 Paymentsof 12d. 11572 'Non-standard'payments between 13d. and 17d. inclusive 70 Paymentsof 18d. 597 'Non-standard'payments between 19d. and 23d. inclusive 30 Wholenumber multiples of Is. between2s. and 19s. inclusive 11560 14or I markpayments (6s. 8d., 13s. 4d. ) 2831 'Non-standard'payments between 2s. and U 350 Wholenumber multiples of LI 874 Wholenumber multiples of 14mark (which are not whole pounds) over L1 500 'Non-standard'payments over LI 210 Total 53240 * Thesefigures include the non-principal namesin multiple nameentries, such as William Trapel and William Akerman, and entrieswhere the amountof paymentis damaged.They also include non-monetary payments,such as wax. 30See Appendix A, p. 171 and pp. 109-10. 164 Between 1208 and 1252 by far the largest number of payments were those of 6d.. Using the figures recorded by the scribes, 22702 payments of 6d. were made, compared to 11572 payments of 12d. and 5612 payments of 2s.. These are by far the most frequently recorded payments: all other payments record less than two thousand entries per value. Taking the standardpayments to be 6d., 12d., 18d.,any whole numbermultiple of one shilling up to and including nineteenshillings, any whole numbermultiple of one pound and any whole numbermultiple of half a mark (6s. 8d.), the 'standard'payments accountfor 50736of the 53240payments. Removing the zero value paymentsleft only 911 non-standardpayments in the period 1208-52:2 per cent.These non-standard paymentsseem to be distributedfairly evenlythroughout the rolls, ranging from 15 occurrencesof non-standardpayments in 1208-9to 61 occurrencesin 1232-3. Figure 4 Number of 'non-standard']2gyMents per ye Ycar Numbcr of Year Number of 'non-standard' 'non-standard' paymcnts payments 1208-9 15 1226-7 38 1210-11 30 1231-2 49 1211-12 42 1232-3 31 1213-14 58 1235-6 26 1215-16 24 1236-7 28 1217-18 44 1244-5 47 1218-19 39 1245-6 39 1219-20 35 1246-7 39 1220-1 38 1247-8 47 1223-4 38 1248-9 42 1224-5 46 1251-2 44 11225-6 42 It seems,therefore, that the irregularpayments do not increasesignificantly in the first half of the thirteenthcentury using this methodology,but it may be the casethat May's division of paymentscreated a numberof non-standardpayments. This possibility was testedusing the non-standard3d. payment. 165 A. N. May noted the rise in the use of the 3d. payment stating that payments of 3d. 'are found early in the century, and more frequently in the middle of the century, but 31 by the end of the century they had become very common indeed'. In total, by not using May's division of multiple name entries, the rolls from 1208 to 1252 record only 24 3d. payments. These occur in 1211-12,1217-18,1218-19,1223-4,1231-2,1235-6,1236-7, 1244-5,1245-6,1247-8,1248-9 and 1251-2, totalling no more than 5 in any one year. The 'more frequent' use of the 3d. payment using this methodology does not seem to have occurred by the early 1250s. Indeed, the 2d. payment records 23 payments, equally well distributed throughout the rolls, reaching its highest frequency, 7 occurrences, in 1244-5. It does not seem obvious from these results that the 3d. payment should become so frequent by the end of the thirteenth century. Using May's division of payment, however, produces 94 additional payments of 3d., 72 of which were from the 1240s onwards. It seems,therefore, that it was May's methodology which produced most of the 3d. payments for the first half of the thirteenth century. The 3d. paymentsare not commonin the other availablepre-1250 accounts. The accountsfor Froyle (Hants.:St. Mary's Abbey, Winchester)produced only 3 payments of 3d. before 1250,in the years12434,1246-7 and 1248-9.The manorof Crondal (Hants.:Winchester Cathedral Priory) produced2 paymentsof 3d. in the accountfor 1248-9,but no other priory manorproduced such payments. Indeed, the perquisite paymentsfrom the priory show a remarkablelevel of standardisation:deviation from the standardmultiples of 6d. and mark valuesgenerally occurred only in paymentsfor 32 land. Only in the late thirteenthcentury do paymentsof Id., 2d. and so forth become commonin the court rolls: a sessionof the manorcourt of Sevenhamptonin 1288,for example,although using the regularpayments of 6d. and 12d.also usedpayments of 3d. 33 p and 10d.. M. Smith notedthat in the Bury St Edmundsmanors of Redgraveand Rickinghall (both Suff.), the emergenceof the 3d. paymentstook place in the early 31 May, 'Impoverishment',p. 395. 32 For example,Hurstbourne (Hants. ) producedpayments of 7PA.,9d. and 15d. for land paymentsin 1248-9. 33Court Rolls, Adam de Stratton,p. 109. 166 34 1280s. Lower fmes of I d. and 2d. then emerged: the court of the Ramsey Abbey manor of Kings Ripton (Hunts) in 1294 recorded payments of 1d. and 2d. as well as the regular 6d. payments.35 It is impossibleto determinewhich methodis more accuratefor paymentsmade by more than one person.The l8d. paymentin Downton in 1247-8seems to support May's theory of simple division by the numberof names,whereas the l8d. paymentin Alresford in 1224-5,although accounted for by May as two 9d. payments,supports 36 Post's view. Ultimately, thesemultiple namepayments make up the minority of cases recordedin the WinchesterPipe Rolls. It seems,therefore, that the courtswere held primarily not for financial reasons but for the assertionof the lord's rights and maintenanceof order within the estate. Proportionally,the numberof 6d. or lesspayments increased in 57 per cent of the manorsstudied and 64 per cent showeda decreasein the numberof paymentsover 12d.. This proportionalchange, however, although possibly attributablein part to a reduction in the 'rate of fine', seemsto havebeen mainly a result of the introduction of new types of payment,notably for the assizeof breadand ale, which were alwayslevied at 6d. or below. The 3d. payment,which to AN May suggestedgrowing peasant impoverishment,was rare in the early thirteenthcentury: only 2 per cent of payments deviatedfrom the standardamounts and a large numberof thesewere paymentsfor land. One fmal questionwhich needsto be addressedis what contribution did the paymentsto court maketo the lord's overall receipts?J. Z. Titow notedthat the paymentsin the bishopricof Winchester'sestate during Peterdes Roches' episcopacy basicallyranged between L250 and E400whilst between1245 and 1302the value rangedbetween L400 and L500,but what did this meanin real tennS?37 Detailed 34 R-M. Smith, 'Some Thoughtson "Hereditary" and "Proprietary"Rights in Land under CustomaryLaw in Thirteenthand FourteenthCentury England', Law and History Review,vol. i, 1983,p. 105. 33 seieCt neas, p. 112. 36 See pp. 163-4. 37 Titow, 'Land and Population',p. 62. 167 analysis of these figures would be unsatisfactory as the size of the estate varied considerably between accounts: it has already been noted that between 38 and 66 manors were accounted for in the Winchester Pipe Rolls between 1208 and 1252.38In addition, one factor which should always be bome in mind when considering financial gain is inflation: the rise in the total face value of the perquisite payments may have been partially or completely negated by a fall in the real value of money. The period 1180 to 1220 was one of high inflation, thus reducing the 'real' value of the entire 39 income of the bishopric as well as the perquisite sections. The exchequer accounts for the Winchester estate whilst in the hands of the king produced total receipts of, possibly, E1516 10s. 8d. in 1171-2 and E1507 9s. 9d. in 1188-9.40These compare to approximate least E2582 3d. for 1208-9 E4407 8s. 4V4d.for 1220-1 41The in totals of at and . rise the total amount received may be a result of inflation and may not, therefore, have represented a rise in real income, but the size of the increase does suggest that there was a considerable rise in the income of the estate in real terms. It hasalready been noted that the size of estatevaried considerably,but it is important to gain a 'ball-park' figure to appreciatethe financial value, or lack thereof,of the court paymentswithin the bishopric's estate.The accountsfor six yearswere chosen,one from everydecade of the bishopric's accountsstudied, to gain suchan approximatefigure. It was possibleto comparethe proportion of total receiptsmade up by the perquisitepayments: using the total receiptsfigures, however, introduced many more variablesto the calculations.The factorsaffecting the perquisitesections, such as damage,would be exaggeratedwhen using the total receipts.Other variableswould also be introduced:the price of corn and stock doubledor trebled between1180 and 1220 and rose graduallyuntil 1260;year by year variationsin price would also affect the total 3SSee p.47. 39 Harvey, 'Inflation', pp.3-30. 40The figure for 1271-2is calculatedfrom the figure of L379 2s. 8d. given for a quarterof the year. The Great Roll of the Pipefor the EighteenthYear of the Reign of King Henry 11,AD. 1171-2(Pipe Roll Society,vol. 18,1894), pp.85-7. The figure for 1188-9was taken from The Great Roll ofthe Pipefor the First Yearofthe Reign ofKing Richard I, A.D. 1189-90,ed. J. Hunter (London, RecordsCommission, 1844),pp. 5-6. The year given by Hunterrefers to the regnalyear ratherthan the accountingyear, seeJ. H. Round, 'The Dating of the Early Pipe Rolls', English Historical Review,vol. xxxvi, 1921, pp.321-333. 41These figures are approximatebecause they only include manorswhich containedperquisite sections. 168 receipts for any given year.42 Using data from 1208-9,1210-11,1220-1,1236-7,1245-6 and 1251-2, perquisite payments as a percentage of the total receipts for the estate ranged between 4 per cent in 1236-7 and 16 per cent in 1251-2. There seemsto be no trend in these percentagevalues which may be a result of the fluctuations in the price of corn, for example, rather than fluctuations in the value of perquisite payments. Individual manor analysis showed that the contribution made to the overall receipts by the perquisite payments ranged between approximately 0 per cent and 57 per cent, with over one-third of manors falling between 0 and 5 per cent and just under half falling between 0 and 7 per cent.43 In only 7 per cent of the manors studied in the 6 years did the contribution made by the perquisite payments exceed one quarter of the total receipts. In 93 per cent of manors, therefore, the value of the payments to court was less than 25 per cent of the total receipts, with the majority, 57 per cent, contributing 8 per cent or less to the total receipts. These 'ball-park' figures suggest that the court payments representeda varying proportion of the overall receipts for the manor, with a general figure of about 8 per cent, the 'half-way' point, seeming to be as accurate as the data will permit. No other accountsgive detailsof more than one year in this period of rapid inflation, but study of the St Mary's Abbey manorof Froyle (Hants.) showedsimilar fluctuationsin the contributionmade by the perquisitepayments to the overall receipts between1233 and 1250.The percentagesranged from 25 per cent in 1233-4to a possible3 per cent in 1249-50,again with no particulartrend within this singlemanor. 44 For the WinchesterCathedral Priory estate(Hants., Wilts., Dor.) in 1242-3and 1247-9, the percentagesranged from 2 to 36 per cent betweenmanors and for the crown's eight manorscentrcd around Woodstock (Oxon. ) between1242 and 1250,the percentage contribution rangedfrom 2 to 13 per cent. Someof the variation in the accountsfor Woodstockand other manorsmay be attributableto the accountingprocedure, however, as the perquisitepayments were includedin paymentsfor any combinationof pleas, 42 Harvey, 'Inflation'. pp.34. 43 36 per cent of manorsproduced percentages between 0 and 5 per cent.49 per cent of manorsproduced percentagesbetween 0 and 7 per cent. 44No sumtotal was given for the perquisitesection in 1249-50,so the figure usedwas the calculatedtotal of all the individual paymentscombined. 169 view of frankpledge, fines, amercementsand tolls. In the Ramsey Abbey estate (Hunts., Cambs.) for 1243-4 and 1249-50, the contribution ranged by only 3 per cent between manors, from 2 to 5 per cent. In the archbishopric of Canterbury's accounts (Kent, NEddlesex, Surr.) for 1236-7, the contribution made by the courts varied between just I 45 and 2 per cent. The distribution of these estatesmay suggest that the more eastern estates produced proportionally lower contributions from the perquisite payments compared to the eastern estates.The bishopric of Winchester's manor of Esher (Surr.), however, records perquisite payments which accounted for 19 per cent of the overall receipts in 1236-7,30 per cent in 1245-6 and 15 per cent in 1251-2. The figures from the various estatesclearly show the great variety in the proportional contribution made by the perquisite payments to the overall receipts in any one year both between manors in the same estate and between estatesas a whole. It is importantto rememberthat the early enrolled accountsdetailed receipts, expensesand stock for the manors:they were not profit and loss accounts.Ile contribution to the receiptsmade by the paymentsto court may not havebeen large, but the contribution to the overall profit of the manormay have beenconsiderably greater. The holding of court was not, in itself, a particularly expensivematter: expensesmay have beenincurred by a visiting stewardif he presidedover the court but, on the whole, the expenseswere minimal in comparisonto the expensesof growing corn, for example. Proportionally,therefore, the contributionmade by the perquisitepayments to the profits of the manor would havebeen much higher than the contribution madeto the overall receipts. 45 Seebibliography for referencesto the original documents,p. 197. 170 VI Conclusion 'Me findings in this thesis are, as always, limited by the sources available. Numerous authors have warned about relying on one source of evidence, but the heavy reliance on the manorial accounts and the bishopric of Winchester's Pipe Rolls in particular has, unfortunately, been unavoidable! In the study of pre-1250 manorial courts, therefore, little can be said of essoins, for example: references to essoins were 2 made but they were few in number and gave little detail. As financial records, the accounts provide little information on punishments other than monetary payments. There are payments in kind, in wax, curnin and ploughshares, but the only reference to another form of punishment seemsto be the 47 repeated references in the bishopric's accounts for Downton in 1247-8 to payments being made for not following court 3 procedure through to the hanging of thieves on the gallows. Attachments or arrests were made, but we only learn of them when they were conducted improperly and, thus, incurred an amercement.4 There are no records of payments excused becauseof poverty but, as a record of receipts, this is to be expected: no payment was actually received, so no payment was recorded. As a financial document, the entries of individual amounts, the person liable and the reason for the payment are additional to requirement, as the simple sum totals of perquisite payments made in many of the accounts is sufficient for the purpose of the record. Despite the limitations of the account rolls for the study of the manorial court, we must appreciate that we are fortunate to have the information they do provide. The manorialcourt, like many courts,was namednot with referenceto the type ofjurisdiction but to the areaand the peopleover whom thejurisdiction was exercised. The term 'manorial court' doesnot appearto havebeen common in the medievaltexts and referenceswere often madesimply to the court of a particularplace, Sevenhampton, 1See p. 44. 2 Overton(Hants. ), 1246-7and 1251-2,'quia non habuit quemesson". 3 Seep. 5 1. 4 Overton(Hants. ), 1246-7,case 8 and Woodhay(Hants. ), 1246-7,case 32, 'quia non habuit quem attachiavit'. 171 for example.-5 'Me infrequent use of the term 'manorial court', however, may not have been unusual: as F. Pollock and F.W. Maitland noted, references to the manor in general also seem to have been limited. 6 The term 'hallmoot', as noted in chapter I, was used but royal documents, on the whole, seem to refer to 'courts of the lord' and fourteenth century records begin to detail courts leet, views of frankpledge and courts baron rather 7 than manorial courts specifically. The court books of St Albans Abbey noted that the extracts were taken from the hallmoot which was held 'at the manor of Park', for example, but these were introductory passagesto the extracts rather than the titles for each particular court. The court books were compiled in the third quarter of the fourteenth century and these titles, therefore, may have used fourteenth century terms: the records of the individual hallmoots which were copied into the books were simply 8 noted as, for example, the 'hallmoot of Park'. The other early court roll extracts, detailed in the Ramsey Abbey Cartulary, gave titles of 'the court at Ringstead' or 'the court at Brancaster' and the court rolls of the English lands of the Abbey of Bec recorded the 'pleas of the manors' mther than naming a specific court, although the 9 word 'court' was used in a number of entries. It is possible that the use of the phrase rmanorial court' may have become more frequently used from the fifteenth century when the definition of the manor was given in terms ofjurisdiction: the manor was described as the people over whom the lord exercised jurisdictional rights in private ' 0 courts. For the period of this study, however, the courts were referred to either as hallmoots or simply as courts of a particular place. The manorialcourt in the thirteenthcentury could hearany casearising from the manor unlessroyal jurisdiction reservedthe right to hearthe case.Royal rights were 5Adam de Stratton, Court Rolls. 6 Pollock and Maitland, History, i, pp.594-5. 7 The courtsof the bishopricof Durhamwere recordedas 'Halmota tenta apud Hesilden', for example, Halmota Prioratus Dunelmensis,A. D. 1296- A.D. 1384,eds J. Booth and W.H. D. Longstaffe(Surtees Society,vol. lxxxiL 1889),p. 7. For detailsof the terms,such as courts leet and views of fiankpledge,used for the estatesof CrowlandAbbey, seeF. M. Page,The Estates ofCrowland. 4bbey.A Studyin Manorial Organisation(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,1934), p. 35. ' Levett, Manorial History, pp.300,309,313,316 and 327 for introductorypassages for Park, Cashio, Kingsbury, Codicoteand Norton. Cartularium Monasterii Rames.,i, pp.411 and 423. 9 SelectPleas, pp. 6,9 and 19. The word 'court', 'curia', is usedin entriessuch as 'the court presented... or things to be postponed'to the next court', pp.6 and 9. 10 Maitland, DomesdayBook, pp.153 and 163,Harvey, Manorial Records,p. 2. 172 sometimesawarded, however, by way of soketo the lord of the manor, wherebyhe could pronouncejudgement on certainroyal mattersarising from the manor. It may be that historiansare creatingtheir own problemsin seekingan exact definition of the jurisdiction of the manor court. It doesnot seem,from the integrateduse of different jurisdictions within a court, that in most instancesa strict distinction was madebetween what was consideredto be manorial and what was royal jurisdiction. Indeed,the Quo Warranto proceedingsshow that a distinction may have beenquite vagueeven in the late thirteenth century.The defining of royal jurisdiction under the Normansand Angevins led to manorialjurisdiction being a somewhatnegative concept: royal jurisdiction did not deal with land disputesof unfree men, basic domanial offencesor customaryservices and dues.Manorial jurisdiction, therefore,dealt with all the cases royal jurisdiction excludedand may be consideredto be 'domanial' jurisdiction. This was the basis,therefore, of manorialjurisdiction. In somemanors, further jurisdictions were addedby the awardingof soke,but this did not make the courts any less 'manorial': they were still consideredto be manorial courts becausejurisdiction was exercisedover the tenantsof the manor.The court of the manor was still the court of the manor whether it dealt with casessuch as bloodshedor not. When referring to the manorial court, therefore,one must always bear in mind the variations ofjurisdiction exercisedwithin thesecourts. Many of the resultsnoted in this thesishave beenobtained from statistical analysisof over 54 000 entriesin the perquisitesections of the WinchesterPipe Rolls. The use of statistical analysistends to imply a precision which can not be supportedby the type of data.A gradientof 4.76333656644tends to look impressiveand is valuable in an explanationof the methodused, but the calculation of a rise in the number of cases " to II decimal placesis not meaningful in a practical sense. Statisticstoo can presenta distorted picture as has beenshown with AN May's use of averages.One only has to rememberthe quotation attributedto Benjamin Disraeli, 'There are three kinds of lies: " SeeAppendix E, pp. 188-92. 173 12 lies, damnedlies and statistics'to appreciatethis. It is hoped,however, that consultationwith statisticianshas resulted in the best form of analysisfor the data. The resultsfor the volume of businessand proceedsof court have shown that treating the estateas a whole may not reflect the eventsin any one particular manor. C.C. Thornton, in his work on Rimpton, noted that many of the published studies making use of the WinchesterPipe Rolls analysedtopics acrossthe whole estateand made few referencesto the contextualdetail of the localities. He noted that the 'average picture' may not fully representthe rangeof individual experienceand it seemsthat this 13 is certainly the casewith the perquisitepayments. One fundamentalquestion remains when consideringmanorial courts: at what date were manorial courts first held? The origin of the manorial court was touchedupon in chapter1, but the precisedate of the court's origin is uncertain.The jurisdiction and procedureof late thirteenth and early fourteenthcentury manorial courts are fairly well documentedbut the transitional phase,from a generalmeeting in the lord's hall to the casesnoted in the court rolls, has far less documentationwhich describesthe stageof developmentat any one point in time. It hasbeen noted that the introduction of the court rolls did not representan introduction of the court itself and that the form of the early accountrolls suggestthat the court was well establishedbefore 1208.14Before the thirteenth century,however, the evidenceis scarce.With this lack of written evidence any conclusionsmust be conjectural,but the motives behind the holding of the court may provide someindication of the origins of the recognisablemanorial court. What were the motives behind holding a manorial court? The courts do not seem to have beenheld for financial reasonsbut to reinforce the authority of the lord, maintain order and, often, to ensureall labour serviceswere conductedfully and properly. One question,therefore, is at what point did theseelements become so 12R. T. Brain et aL, eds., Oxford Dictionary of Quotations(3rd edn, London, Oxford University Press, 1981), p. 187. 13C. C. Thornton, 'The Demesneof Rimpton, 938 to 1412:A Study in Economic Development' (unpublishedPh. D. thesis,Leicester University, 1988),p. 16. 14See pp. 15 and 46. 174 important as to require suchenforcement? A further questionis why did the lords chooseto use a court as the methodof enforcement?The services,for example,were owed and it was the lord's right to demandthese services. Strictly speaking,there was no need for a court as suchto demandthe proper completion of services:all that was required was a generalmeeting and possibly the occasionaluse of punishments.In the laws of Edgar, IV Edgar 962-3, it was noted that a landlord might evict and kill his tenant for non-paymentof rent: a somewhatextreme punishment. ' 5 The key to ascertainingwhen manorial courts developedinto a recognisablethirteenth century form, therefore,is the questionwhy did the manorial courts develop? It seemsthat the developmentof the manorial court was, in someway, part and parcel of the exploitation of land. R. Faith has suggestedthat the Anglo-Saxon manor was divided into inland and warland. The inland was populatedby tenantswho owed considerableservices to the lord and whose lands were intermingled with thoseof the lord. Only in the Norman period, Faith suggested,did the lord separatehis lands from those of the inland tenants,creating an untenanteddemesne land which neededto be 16 cultivated by servicesfrom the lord's tenants. The legally unfree were not allowed to leave the lord's land without his permission:the main elementof a lord's labour force, therefore,was bound to the manor,thus ensuringan adequatenumber of peopleto work the land. The unfree also performeda greatervariety of services,including the seeminglyall-encompassing week-work, which provided the lord with considerable versatility. In the late twelfth century,lords of estatesbegan to adopt the management systemwhich has becomeknown as demesnefanning to managetheir estates.This involved direct control of manorsrather than leasingfor a fixed paymentand greater interest in the everydayworkings of the estate.With the inflation which occurred between 1180and 1220,the real value of labour servicesincreased and great emphasis was placed on providing sufficient labour for the demesnelands. One aim of the lord, therefore,was to keep as many tenantson his lands as possibleand securethe greatest amount of work from them. It was, therefore,in the interest of the lord to detail which 15Die Gesetzeder Angelsachsen,ed. F. Liebermann(Halle, Max Niemeyer, 3 vols, 1898-1916),i, 206-7, IV Edgar 1.2, noted in Faith, English Peasantq, p. 121. 16ibid., esp.pp. 2214. 175 tenantswere unfree and punish any tenantwho did not completethe servicesowed to the proper standard. The free, too, owed servicesand thesewere also important to the lord. It seems, however, that with the reinvigoration of the royal courts, the lords recognisedthe potential value of a manorial court. Just as Henry Il reformed the royal courts and introduced new elementsinto royal justice, so the lords followed suit in a reformation of the hallmoot. The reformation was gradual,but, increasingly,onto the basisof a general meeting of the hallmoot, a legal framework and legal procedureswere placed,resulting in the formation of a specific court. Ultimately, the court was a way of providing justice and being seento provide justice, an important elementof that elusive concept,'good lordship'. The king was being seento providejustice and the adoption of royal court proceduresin manorial courts may have beendone for similar reasons.It has been suggestedthat the lords begancompiling court rolls and usedjuries of presentmentand trial in an attemptto attract the free tenantsback to their private courts: surely it is equally possiblethat the Anglo-Saxonhallmoots developedinto the manorial courts of the thirteenth centuryby a similar adoptionof what were originally royal initiatives. The origin of the manorial courts as recognisedin the thirteenth century, therefore, seemsto date only to the previous century.Faith suggestedthatjustice in England was not sufficiently seignorialisedto maintain private courts held specifically 17 by lords for their tenantsfor domanialmatters until the twelfth century. Before the mid to late twelfth century there was little impetus for the lord to establisha specific court: the reinvigoration of royal justice, further encouragedby a combination of demographic and economicchanges in the secondhalf of the twelfth century, however, provided such impetus. 17ibid., p. 121. 176 Appendix A aap fl I vownton (w us. ) enines ior iz 1-0.5cuullu buv-bc;ULIUII Shillings Pence Name Reason Real Rewson 0 6 thorn[a] Elyot del[i]c[t]o bosci delLilcltlo bosci 0 6 hu onre) b[erlcar[io] Stimlili del[ijcjtjo bosci 0 12 hendicol Grand S[irn]ili del[ilc[t)o bosci 0 6 Elyot vilefiz S(irn]ili delfilc[tlo bosci 0 12 Joh[anne]mot[elndinarfiol S[iM]ifi del[ijc[tlo bosci 0 6 WaKerol ster S[irnjili dcl[ilc[tlo bosci 0 12 Rad[ulfo] aynulf, (S[iml li) (del[ijc[tjo bosci) 0 (12) Cu[M) SociisSuis S[irnjili del[i]c[t]o bosci - 0 6 Rel[ijc[tla pet[ri] Gyde s[im]ili del[i]c[tjo bosci 0 6 Ric[ardo] Wudefald' s[im]ili del[ijc[t]o bosci 0. 6 Willfelmol comichha! del[ilc[t]o pastur[c] del[ilc[t]o pastur[c] 01 6 Juetade fuckedene S[irnjili del[ijc[tjo pastur[e] 0 12 Rad[ulfb] may S[irn]ili del[ilc[t]o pastur[e] 2 0 villata de nuFnItOn' 0 6 Joh[ann]ehykine S[irn]ill 0 6 Jueta S(irn]ili 0 12 Will[elmol sewy S[iM]ifi 0. 6 Walt[ero] de hulle S[irnjili 01 12 Richerna[n), (S[im]ili) 01 112) [et] Rel[i]c[t]a fukedene Sfirnlili 0 6 Joh[anne)norm [n] S[irn]ili 0 12 Will[elmo] scaindell', (S[iM]fi) 0 (M Ada coco -sfirn]ili 0 12 codernWill[elmo], (S[im]li) 0 112) [et] [crist]ina S[irn]ili (S[im]ili) 0 112 henr[ico] le g[ra] t, 0 1(12) Walt[erol Iggera[m] S[im]ili 0 112 G. fulcon', (S[im]ili) 0 1(12) Rel[i]c[t]aWollo S[irn]ili 0 12 hug[one] Rufo, IS[im]li) 0 (12) Rob[erto] Rech r S[irn]ili 0 12 Will[elmol Sewy, (p[ra]to d[omilni male falcat[ol) (p[ralto d[omi]ni male falcat[ol) 0 (12) Will[elmo] dall p[ra]to d[orni1ni ale falcat(o] p[ralto d[omi]ni male falcat[o] 0 12 Will[elmol blundo, (S[imlili) (p[ra]to d[omi]ni male falcat[ol) falcat[o] 01 (12) [cristlina cabbel S[irn]ill p[ra]to d[omilni male 01 12 Will[elmo] fume, (S[im]i1i) (p[ralto d[omilni male falcat[o)) 01 (12) Ad' Scloper S[irn]ili p ralto d[omi]ni male falcat[o] 01 12 Walt[ero] Sewy, (S[imlili) (p[ralto d[omi]ni male falcat[o]) 0I J12) Rad[ulfb] Sweyt s[im]ili [ta]to d[omi]ni male falcat[o] 0 12 Rad[ulfb] hauer, (S[im]ili) (p[ralto d ornflni male falcatfol) falcatfol 0 (12) Ric[ardo] norm S[irn]ili p[ra]to d[omilni male falcat[o]) 0 12 Will[elmol ayllward', (S[imjili) (p[ra]to d[omilni male falcat[o] 0 (12) Ada straytor S[irnjili p[ralto d[orni]ni male 0 12 Rad[ulfo] alward, (S[imlili) (p[ralto d[omi]ni male falcat[o]) 0 (12) de bottehafnil S[irnlili p[ralto cl[ornflni male falcatfol osb[erlt[o] _ 0 112 Walt[ero) scteb (S[im]ili) (p[ra]to d(omilni male falcat[o]) 01 (12) Rad[ulfb] bferlnard' Stimlili p ralto d[omilni male falcat[o] (p[rajto d[omi]ni falcat[o]) 0 12 Walt cro aim' (S[im]ili) male 0 (12) Will[elmo] Goseuile S[irnjifi ra to d Orni ni ma ea cat o 0 12 Elyot de Wyk, (S[im]ili) (pfra]to d[omilni male falcat[o]) falcat[ol 0 (12) Rob[crto] paliz S[itnjili p[ra]to d[omijni male 0 12 Emys de botteharn, (S[im]ili) (p[ra]to d[omilni male falcat[ol) 0. (12) Rad[ulfb] pasch' S[irn]ili p[ra]to d[omiln! male falcat[ol 0 12 Will[elmo] bretfol', (S[im]ili) (p[ra]to dforni]ni male falcat[ol) 0 112) Rob[erto] eternete S[irn]ili p[ra]to d omi]ni male falcat[o] 0 12 Rob[ertol c[ralsset (p[ra]to d[omilni ma ca cat[ol) 0 (12) Ada piscatoe S[iM]ifi p[ralto cl[ornflni male falcat[o) 0 18 Rob[crtol herl', (S[im]ili) (p[ralto d[omilni male falcat[o]) (18) Will[elmol (S[iml li) tp[ralto d[omi]nimale falcat[ol) '0 , t[ral el, 10 1118) , Will [elmo] d[omi]ni falcatfol akerma[nj IS[im]ill p[ralto male 13 10 1-_ lWard[a]pullor[umlarestat[oruml_ Ward[a] pullor[urn) arestatlorumI fI dennte Pytencled Ahreviatinn. q fI denote information in MultiDle nameentries denotesno information given 177 Appendix B Occurrence of Derauisite sections in tile bishooric ol'Winclicsicr's account vo 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 22 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4i 9 1 2 4 6 8 9 0 4 5 6 7 2 3 6 7 6 7 8 92 .5 Adderbury v V v V , v v V V v V v V v V v v, , Alresford v v v v v/ v v v v V v v, , Alresford Borough x x V V v v v v, v v, I Ashmansworth v V V V v V / V V V v V / v v, Ashford V V V v BeauiNorth v v v/ V, V v V1, V V v V vl' Bentlev v/ v V Bishops Fonthill x x x x V v x V v V V V V Bishops Sutton v V v V v V V v / v V / Bishops Waltham v V V */ V V V V v V v V v V Hishopstoke V V v V v v / V / V v Bishopstone v x V .1 V V V Bitterne v V V V v V V V / / V v V v V v Bright, A ell / Burghclere c C C C C v v ý/ / / v V v Calbourne / Isle ofWight I/ I/ v, v I/ v I/ I/ v v/ v 1( Cheriton / V / v V V v V V / / Crawlev I/ v, I/ v v v V, Dow-11toll / V V V,' Downton Borough x x v V East Knovle v, I/ v/ v/ East Mcon V x East Won Church vr v/ V Esher Farchain V v Farnham llambledon V v V Harwell Ilighelere c Ilindon Borough Itchingswell lVinghoe v x Marclon v V v, V V V( Morton v, Newtown North Waltham x V V Overton V v x / / Overton Borough ve v Rimplon v x V V V V Soke of Winchester South, Aark x x x x v/ x x x x x Taunton Bishops [full I/ v v Taunton Chipley v I/ v Taunton Corfe v v v v V, v v V v Taunton Foreign hundred v v / v V *, v V V Taunton Fulford v v v v ve Taunton 11011%ay v V V Taunton Kingston St Mary v Y/ V V le Taunton Milliand V V Taunton Nailshourne v V/ v/ Taunton Otterford 'raunion Poundisford Taunton Staplegrove v V ve v Taunton Trull V Twvford v V v, Woodha) Tornes VvVvxvVx V account contains a perquisite section x account does not contain a perquisite section c the accounts are combined (blank) there is no account for the man Appendix C Results of linear regression analysis Table 1: 1208-52 1208-52 A B C Standardmanor name Significant Significant Significant increasein increasein changeinland overall 'franchisal' and marriage business payments payments 1208-52? 1208-52? 1208-52? Adderbury x Alresford Alresford Borough Ashford Ashmansworth x x Beauworth V/ V Bentley V/ V, Bishops Forithill Bishops Sutton Bishops Waltham_ Bishopstoke x Bishopstone x Bitteme %/ Brightwell x Burghclere Calboume Cheriton Crawley Downton Downton Borough x x East Knoyle x East Meon x East Meon Church V, V, Esher x Fareham Farnham Hambledon Harwell Highclere Hindon Borough Itchingswell Ivinghoe x Mardon %/ Morton x Newtown x x North Waltham x Overton %/ Overton Borough x Rimpton x Soke of Winchester x x x x x / -ve _Southwark 179 Taunton Bishops Hull %/ %/ x Taunton Chipley x x Taunton Corfe v x Taunton Foreign Hundred x Taunton Fulford x Taunton Holway Taunton Kingston St Mary Taunton Millland Taunton Nailsbourne Taunton Otterford Taunton Poundisford Taunton Staplegrove x Taunton Trull Twyford x %401 x Wargrave %/ t/ Warren x West Wycombe Wield WinchesterMinster Witney x Witney Borough x Woodhay Woodhay Tomes X Total = 64 manors 50 V 14 ic 51 V 13 x 18 %/ 46 x %/ the line of best fit was significant in magnitudeand positive v"-ve the line of best fit was significant in magnitudeand negative x the line of best fit was not significant in magnitude 180 Appendix C Results of linear repression analysis Tablc Two: 1208-37 1208-37 A B C Standard manor name Significant Significant Significant changein changein changeinland overall 'franchisal' and marriage business payments payments 1208-37 1208-37 1208-37 Adderbury V, x x Alresford I/ x Alresford Borough x x Ashford (n= 1) Ashmansworth x V, Beauworth x Bentley x Bishops Fonthill Bishops Sutton x Bishops Waltham I/ Bishopstoke x x x Bishopstone x Bitteme %/ Brightwell x Burghclere Calboume x Cheriton Crawley Downton Downton Borough -ve East Knoyle East Meon x East Meon Church x x Esher (n 2) Fareham V, Farnham %/ x Hambledon x x x Harwell x %/ %/ Highclere x x Hindon Borough %/ x Itchingswell x x Ivinghoe Mardon Morton x Newtown x x North Waltham je Overton Overton Borough -ve Rimpton x Soke of WincheTter (n 1) Southwark x x 181 Taunton Bishops Hull Chipley _Taunton Corfe -ve _Taunton Foreign Hundred x x _TauntonTaunton Fulford x Taunton Holway x Kingston St Mary Jc x _TauntonTaunton Millland x Taunton Nailsboume x Otterford x x _TauntonTaunton Poundisford x x Taunton Staplegrove x Trull I/ _Taunton x x _TwyfordWargrave x x Warren x x x West Wycombe A x Wield %/ x _ Minster x x x _WinchesterWitney x x x Witney Borough (sum totals) Woodhay %/ %/ %/ _ Tomes x x x _Woodhay Total = 60 24 36 ic 18V 32x 9V 51 x L manors %/ V the line of best fit was significant in magnitudeand positive V-ve the line of best fit was significant in magnitudeand negative x the line of best fit was not significant in magnitude (n=l)/(n=2) analysisnot possibleusing this methodas the numberof years(n) for which data was availablewas insufficient (sum totals) analysisnot possibleusing this methodbecause the data was given as sum totals only 182 ADDendix C Results of linear regression analysis Table 3: 1244-52 1244-52 A B C Standard manor name Significant Significant Significant changein changein changeinland overall 'franchisal' and marriage business payments payments 1244-52 1244-52 1244-52 Adderbury x Alresford Alresford Borough Ashford x x Ashmansworth x -ve Beauworth -ve Bentley Bishops Fonthill x Bishops Sutton x x Bishops Waltham x x Bishopstoke x x -Xx Bishopstone -ve x Bitterne x x Brightwell x x Burghclere x x Calboume x -ve Cheriton x Crawley -ve -ve Downton x Downton Borough x East Knoyle East Meon x East Meon Church -ve Esher x V Fareham ,, -ve ,, -ve -ve Farnham Hambledon -ve Harwell Highclere Hindon Borough Itchingswell x x Ivinghoe x Mardon V -ve x Morton -ve x Newtown North Waltham x Overton x x Overton Borough x Rimpton x Soke of Winchester jC x x x x _Southwark 183 BishopsHull x x V, -ve _TauntonChipley (n 0) _TauntonCorfe _TauntonForeign Hundred _TauntonFulford _TauntonTaunton Holway x x Kingston St Mary _TauntonMillIand _TauntonNailsboume x _TauntonOtterford x _TauntonTaunton Poundisford Staplegrove _TauntonTrull x x _Taunton x x _TwyfordWargrave x x x x _WarrenWest Wycombe x x x x _WieldWinchester Minster (n 0) _Witney Borough x _WitneyWoodhay x x x Woodhay Tomes (n=0) Total = 61 manors 11 V 50 x 10 V 51 x 6V 55x V, the line of best fit was significant in magnitudeand positive V1,-ve the line of best fit was significant in magnitudeand negative x the line of best fit was not significant in magnitude (n=O) there was no data for thesemanors 184 Appendix C Results of linear repression analysis Table 4: Is there a sinificant increasein businessbetween 1237 and 1244? 'Jump' in data? A B C D ihere Standardmanor name Is there a Is there a Is there a Is a significant significant significant significant increasein increasein increasein land increasein overall 'franchisal' and marriage dreal' business? payments? payments? payments? Adderbury Alresford x x Alresford Borough Ashford Ashmansworth Beauworth x x x Bentley BishopsFonthill _Bishops Sutton %/ W, Bishops Waltham- Bishopstoke Bishopstone _Bitterne x x _Brightwell Burghclere Calboume Cheriton Crawley x Downton Downton Borough East Knoyle East Meon _East Meon Church Esher Fareham Farnham -w/ Hambledon _Harwell x x Highclere Hindon Borough x Itchingswell Ivinghoe _Mardon Morton x Newtown North Waltham x Overton x x Overton Borough Rimpton x x x Sokeof Winchester _ _Southwark Iss Taunton BishopsHull TauntonChipley TauntonCorfe Taunton Foreign Hundred Taunton Fulford TauntonHolway TauntonKingston St Mary Taunton Mililand x TauntonNailsboume TauntonOtterford TauntonPoundisford Taunton Staplegrove, Taunton Trull Twyford x Wargrave Warren West Wycombe Wield WinchesterMinster Witney Witney Borough Woodhay W, WoodhayTomes Total = Number of manors 10 14 A 10 1/ 8 5V 4x 6%/ 8x for which respective1208- 37 data is representedby a significant linear regression.See Table Two above. %/ the line of best fit was significant in magnitudeand positive x the line of best fit was not significant in magnitude 186 Appendix D PerguisitepoMents per yqar Year Sum of Sum of Sum of Sum of Total amount Sum of 'stated' additional 'stated' additional of recognition perquisite perquisite 'calculated' recognition 'calculated' payments payments totals perquisite totals recognition within excluding totals totals perquisite recognition section payments 1208-9 53515 1268 0 0 0 54783 1210-11 61970 532 0 0 0 62502 1211-12 59298 34 0 0 0 59332 1213-14 92042.5 1641 0 0 0 93683.5 1215-16 34275.5 5391 0 0 0 39666.5 1217-18 70471 10735 0 0 151 81055 1218-19 112777 3102 0 0 12 115867 1219-20 72271 12865 0 0 12 85124 1220-1 114861.5 3550 0 0 98 118313.5 12234 99505.5 1390 0 0 70 100825.5 _1224-5 68744 538 0 0 72 69210 1225-6 70152 866 0 0 54 70964 1226-7 61371 3341 0 0 58 64654 1231-2 85512 7284 0 0 88 92704 1232-3 98606.5 2945 0 0 82 101469.5 1235-6 90036 841 0 0 226 90651 1236-7 70198 7890 0 0 160 77928 1244-5 160414 120 76666 22740 216 160318 1245-6 123231 624 0 0 164 123691 1246-7 120919.5 19144 0 0 134 139929.5 1247-8 137453.5 681 42 0 244 137890.5 1248-9 138717.5 152 72 0 196 138673.5 1251-2 1 106702.75 3735 98872.5 14944.5 11006 99431.75 All figures are given in pence(d. ) 187 Appendix E The Least SquaresMethod Let y= ax +b be the straight line sought, with x and V being data points (x on the horizontal axis and y on the vertical axis) and a and b being constants. The value of a represents the gradient or slope of the straight line and b represents the value of y when the line crossesthe vertical y axis, i. e. when x=0. So, if all the data lay on a straight line, ax-b =0 But, as the data does not lie exactly on a line, we have for any point: yi - axi -b= Ai where yj and xi are individual data points and Ai is the corresponding error or distance from the line of best fit. To avoid errors cancelling as a result of them occurring as both positive and negative values, (i. e. above and below the line of best fit) we square and add the data, giving )2 A2 axi -b i n where is the symbol for summationfrom i=1 to i=n. (yi In words, the sum of the squares of the errors, - axi - b)2, where yj and x, are the first pair of values of the given data and Yn and Xn are the final pair of values, equals the sum of the squares of the errors, (Aj2). For the 23 pairs of values for the bishopric of Winchester's estate, for example, yj and x, would be the values for 1208-9 and Yn and xn would be Y23 and X23 for 1251-2. We minimise the sum of the squaresof the errors, thereby minimising the error between the line y= ax +b and the actual data, by partially differentiating with respem to a and b and setting the two expressions to zero. Thus ýj Zi and d9 188 i. e. a [ (yi ý -a- - axi - b)2 and [n CO E(yi-axi-b) 2] =0 T b i=l i. e. 2(yi - axi - b)(-xi) =0 and 2(yi - axi - b)(-l) =0 i. e. nnn -Exiyi+ aExi' +bExi =0 i=l i=l i=l and nn Exi -fVj +a +nb =0 (2) i=1 i=1 These are two simultaneous equations for a and b. Hence, it is possible to calculate the value of a and b, the gradient of the line obtainedand the point at which the line crossesthe y axis. n Let E represent E, then the value of b in terms of a from Equation 2 is: i=1 Eyi-aExi b= = the valueof y when x=0. n Placing the expression for b into Equation 1 gives, (Z yi xi) E Ex? + -aE (Z -:- xiyi a 8 xi) = i.e. (Ey)(Ex') (Ex')(Ex') Ex? + -Exiyi+ a nn -a =0 i.e. [1: xi2 I x'n E xi)I+ (Eyi xi) xjyj+a nE so that (Y-YO(E X0 line. a xiyi -n=(Y: the gradient of the E X62 XOT -TO The line of best fit, therefore,can be found using thesetwo equationsby calculating a and then using the value obtained in the equationfor b. A further test is required however to assessthe level to which the assumedstraight line actually represents the 189 data, i.e. whether the line is statistically a 'good fit'. This is done by calculatingthe value of r, the 'correlation coefficient'. The correlation coefficient, r This number is defined to be: (E xiyi - [Ex? (57 v t -- y? The null hypothesis, HO, is that there is no correlation between the values of x and y: p=0. The alternative hypothesis, HI, is that there is a correlation between the values of x and y: p00. (p is the true coefficient of correlation between x and y and r is the estimate of the correlation. ) From tables consulted in H. R. Neave's Statistics Tables,for n= 23, the critical value of known as rc using the 0.2 percent level of significance is 0.610.1 The test is known r, ,, as a two-tailed test because the value of p may be positive or negative. When the correlation coefficient gained from the above equation is greater than the critical value of r, i. e. when Ir J> re, the null hypothesis may be rejected in favour of the alternative hypothesis.2 In other words, there is a correlation between the data and the line of best fit. The strength of the correlation is shown by the magnitude of r, with r= ±1 being the maximum and minimum values for r. Examples 1 and 2 overleaf have the same gradients (a = 0.350) but the correlation coefficients are different as the data points in example 1 are generally nearer to the line than those in example 2. As a result, the correlation coefficient in example 1 is higher than that in example 2. 1H.R. Neave,Statistics Tables(London, GeorgeAllen and Unwin, 1978),p-58- 21rI is the absolute value of r regardlessof whether it is positive or negative. 190 I.. I I 0.350x + 0.969 y=0.350x + 0.878 r=0.961 r=0.817 If the value of the coefficient is less than the critical value (0.610) then the null hypoth- esis must be accepted. This means that the data is not statistically well represented by a straight line. It could be the case that the data fits a curve or that the data is scattered. The closer the absolute value of the correlation coefficient, Ir1, gets to zero, the more scattered the data is, so any straight line found would not truly represent any -trends in the data. General Example Using the data from Bishops Waltham as an example, n= 23 n is the number of different data points, i. e. the number of years for which we have data for a particular manor. Exi = 667 E xi is the sum of the values of x (i. e. the sum total of the last two digits of each year of account, 09,11,12,14,16, etc. ) E yj = 3482 E yj is the sum of the values of y (i. e. the sum total of the number of casesfor the manor. ) So, 120622 Ex2i = 23467 r Vi2 659028 , = Hence, (57YOT xi) (3482)(667) E xiyi - 120622- 23--- a=n (667)(667) (T,XO(Y"Ti) 23467- 23 E X?1 - 191 4.76333656644 and Eyi +a Fxi (4.76333656644)(667) b= = 3482 + n 23 13.2545439211 Thus, 4.76333656644x+ 13.2545439211 Testing the correlation coefficient, (57 xiyi -n yi)(5-'xi) 2 V, nn 1212ýý 120622- j [23467 (667)(667) / [659028 (3482)(3482)] 2,3 -%, - 23 19644 V4124V131883.478261 0.8423166799 Hence, since Ir J> r,, (0.8423166799> 0.610), there is strong evidence to reject the null hypothesis in favour of the alternative hypothesis at the 0.2 per cent (two-tailed) level of significance. For Bishops Waltham therefore there is strong evidence to suggest that the relationship between the year and the volume of business is linear in form and that the data i'l well represented by the line of best fit, y=4.76333656644x + 13.2545439211. 192 Appendix F To test whether the gradient of the line of regression is significant Let the line of regression be YL `a+ PLI- The Null Hypothesis, HO: There was a constant number of casesper year (i. e. the gradient is not significant). PL = The Alternative Hypothesis, HI: The number of casesaltered significantly with time (i. e. the gradient is significant). A0 It is assumed that 6L, the value of the gradient, has a normal distribution, PL ,N (mean,variance) ßL N(ß, {cr 2/r (X, - - X)21) fl: )21_ß2{E(xi2)-1/n(E (yi2)-1/n(5. y, zi)n ßt N(O, /Z (xi x)') , , n-2 where P= the gradient of the line of regression, where n= the sample size (i. e. the number of data points), where y= the number of cases, where x= the year, and where 2= the average value of x. Test statistic The sampleis consideredto be statistically small if the number of data points is less than 30, (n < 30), in which casethe West must be usedto analysethe data. 193 the line of regression the of the null hypothesis lim t= gradient of - gradient standard deviation of the gradient of the line of regression where the standard deviation =V variance. Thus 0-0 n-3 i. e. 0-0 n-2 L(Xi-X)2 (n -2 degreesof freedom) The value of t obtained is then compared to the critical values of t in the statistical tables.1 1H.R. Neave,Statistics Tables(London, GeorgeAllen and Unwin, 1978),p. 41. 194 Appendix G To test whether there is a significant increase in the volume of business, 1237-1244 Let yo = the 'true' (observed) value for 1244-5. Let YL " the predicted value from the 1208-37data for 1244-5. The Null Hypothesis, Ho: There was no dramatic increase in the volume of businessbetween 1236-7 and 1244-5. yo(1245) :-- YL(1245) The Alternative Hypothesis, HI: The number of casesincreased significantly between 1236-7 and 1244-5. yo(1245) > YL(1245) The linear regression for the 1208-37data is an approximation to the 'true' data and as such involves an element of error: the 'true' value for 1220-1 for example is slightly different from the value given by the line of regression. Hence the 'true' value (yo) for any year is the value predicted by the line of regression (YL) plus or minus an error value (,-). YO " YL +C It is assumed that the predicted value and the value of the error have a normal distri- bution: N(mean, vaxiance) So, (X - i)2 VL-N a+Px, 1+1/n+ where a= the intercept value of the line of regression (1208-37), where P= the gradient of the line of regression (1208-37), where n= the sample size (i. e. the number of data points between 1208 and 12371 where -* = the average value of x, and where x in this instance equals 1245, 195 and 02 1/n(EX, )21 F, (yj2) 1/n(Fy,)21 - (F,(x2i) c-N 0,1 - - n-2 The distribution of yo therefore is (a f 1 (Z 2) 2} ß2 {E(x2i) (X ±)2 (y, /n (Z y, ) 1/n(E X, )2) - 1- -1 - yo-N +ßx, 1+1/n+ E(Xi - 2)2 n-2 The fundamental question is: How many standard deviations does yo (the 'true' data point) lie away from the mean of the distribution (the predicted value for 1245). Test statistic As the value of n (the number of data points) is less than 30, the sample is considered to be small. The t-test must therefore be used. t= the number of standarddeviations 'between' the 'true' and the predicteddata deviation /(variance). where the standard = , Thus observed value predicted value t - .,/(vaxiance of Vo) yo (C'+ ox t= 1 - (X-2)2 fE( +Z( -, 1+ 1/n )2 n-2 (x = 1245) yo - (a+ OX) E(. (yi-g)2-, 62 Ti-1)2} I 1+ I/n+ n- (n -2 degreesof freedom) The value of t is then compared to the critical values of t in the statistical tables.1 1H. R. Neave,Statistics Tables(London, GeorgeAllen and Unwin, 19T8),p. 41.196 BIBLIOGRAPHY Manuscript sources- accountrolls Bodleian Library Bishopric of Worcester,1246-7 WorcestershireRoll 4 British Library Bury St EdmundsAbbey, 1247-50 Harley MS. 645 ff. 193-8,252,260-1 RamseyAbbey, 1249-50 Additional Charter34903 St Mary's Abbey, Winchester, 1233-50 Additional Charters17457 - 17468 EssexRecord Office Little Dumnow Priory, 123940 D/DMQ2 HampshireRecord Office Bishopric of Winchester,1208-52 1IM59/Bl/I - 1IM59/Bl/23 St Mary's Abbey, Winchester,1248-9 123M88W/I LambethPalace Library Archbishop of Canterbury,1236-7 ED 1139 Norfolk Record Office St BenetHulme, 1239-41,1244-5 MF/RO 382/18 Est/I, Est/2/1/1,Est/2/1/2 101426/3/13 Public Record Office Bishopric of Winchester,Apr. - Sept. 1240 E 407/5/6 Bishopric of Winchester,Apr. 1240- Sept. 1241 SC 6/1143/1 Count of Aumale, early - mid thirteenth century SC 6/1078/6 Honour of Clare and Gloucester,1234-7 SC 6/1109/8 - SC 6/1109/11 RamseyAbbey, 1243-4 SC 6/766/19, SC 6/875/6 Royal estates(Woodstock with members),1242-50 SC 6/962/4 WinchesterCollege Southwick Priory, 1247-9 14484,15376 WinchesterDean and Chapter WinchesterCathedral Priory, 1242-3 W53/10/1 WinchesterCathedral Priory, 1247-9 L38/2/1 197 Publishedsources Accountsand Surveysof the Wiltshire Lands ofAdam de Stratton, ed. M. W. Farr (Wiltshire Archaeologicaland Natural History SocietyRecords Branch, vol. xiv, 1958) AnnalesMonastici, ed. H.R. Luard (Rolls Series,4 vols and index, 1864-9) Bracton on the Laws and CustomsofEngland, trans. S.E. Thorne (Cambridge, Massachusetts,Harvard University Press,4 vols, 1968-77) Bristol Charters 1155-1373,ed. N. D. Harding (Bristol Record Society,vol. i, 1930) The Calverley Charters, eds W. P. Baildon and S. Margerison(Thoresby Society, vol. vi, 1904) Carte Nativorum: A PeterboroughAbbey Cartulary ofthe Fourteenth Century, eds C.N. L. Brooke and M. M. Postan(Northamptonshire Record Society,vol. xx, 1960) Cartularium Monasterii de Rameseia,eds W.H. Hart and P.A. Lyons (Rolls Series,3 vols, 1884-93) The Charters ofthe Anglo-Norman Earls of Chester,c. 1071-123 7, ed. G. Barraclough (Record Societyof Lancashireand Cheshire,vol. cxxvi, 1988) Charters ofthe Honour ofMowbray, 1107-1191,ed. D. E. Greenway(Records of Social and Economic History, new ser.,vol. i, 1972) Charters of the RedversFamily and the Earldom ofDevon, 1090-1217,ed. R. Bearman (Devon and Cornwall Record Society,new ser.,vol. xxxvii, 1994) The Chronicle ofBattle Abbey, ed. and trans. E. Searle(London, Oxford University Press,1980) The Chronicle ofJocelin ofBrakelond concerningthe Acts ofSamsonAbbot ofthe MonasteryofSt. Edmund,ed. and trans.H. E. Butler (London, ThomasNelson and Sons, 1949) The Chronicle of the Election of Hugh Abbot of Bury St Edmundsand later Bishop of Ely, ed. and trans. R.M. Thomson(London, Oxford University Press,1974) CloseRolls ofthe Reign ofHenry Npreserved in the Public Record Office, 1227-12 72 (London, H.M. S.O., 14 vols, 1908-38) CodexDiplomaticus AM Saxonid, ed. J.M. Kemble (English Historical Society,6 vols, 1839-48) The Court Baron, eds F.W. Maitland and W.M. Paley (SeldenSociety, vol. iv, 1891) 198 The Court Rolls ofRamsey,Hepmangrove and Bury, 1268-1600,ed. E.B. DeWindt (Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies,1990) Court Rolls ofthe Manor of Wakefield,vol. ii, 1297-1309,ed. W.P. Baildon (Yorkshire ArchaeologicalSociety Record Series,vol. xxxvi, 1906) Court Rolls ofthe Wiltshire Manors ofAdam de Stratton, ed. R.B. Pugh (Wiltshire RecordsSociety, vol. xxiv, 1970) Curia RegisRolls ofthe Reign ofHenry III (London, H. M. S.O., 17 vols, 1922-91) CustumalsofBattle Abbey in the ReignsofEdward I and Edward 11,1283-1312,ed. S.R. Scargill-Bird (CamdenSociety, 2nd ser.,vol. x1i, 1887) Dialogus de Scaccario, The Courseofthe Exchequerby Richard, Fitz Nigel and Constitutio DomusRegis, The Establishmentofthe Royal Household,ed. and trans. C. Johnson(London, Oxford University Press,1983) DocumentsIllustrative ofthe Social and EconomicHisto? y ofthe Danelaw, cd. F.M. Stenton(British Academy,Records of the Social and Economic History of Englandand Wales,vol. v, 1920) Documentsof the Baronial MovementofReform and Rebellion, 1258-67,eds R.F. Treharneand I. J. Saunders(London, Oxford University Press,1973) DomesdayBook., Seu Liber CensualisWilhelmi Primi RegisAngliae, edsA. Farley and H. Ellis (London, 4 vols, 1783-1816) Earldom of GloucesterCharters, ed. R.B. Patterson(London, Oxford University Press, 1973) Early Yorkshire Charters, eds W. Farrer and C.T. Clay (Edinburgh, Ballantyne,Hanson and Co., 12 vols, 1914-65) Elton Manorial Records,1279-1351, ed. and transcribedS. C. Ratcliffe, translatedD. M. Gregory (The RoxburgheClub, 1946) Facsimiles ofEarly Chartersftom NorthamptonshireCollections, ed. F.M. Stenton (NorthamptonshireRecord Society,vol. iv, 1930) Fleta, eds and trans. H. G. Richardsonand G.O. Sayles(vols 2-4 all published: Selden Society,vols lxxii, lxxix, and xcix, 1955-84) Die Gesetzeder Angelsachsen,ed. F. Liebermann(Halle, Max Niemeyer, 3 vols, 1898- 1916) 199 The Great Roll ofthe Pipefor the Eighteenth Year ofthe Reign ofKing Henry II, A.D. 1171-2(Pipe Roll Society,vol. 18,1894) The Great Roll of the Pipefor the First Year of the Reign ofKing Richard 1,A. D. 1189- 90, ed. J. Hunter (London, RecordsCommission, 1844) Halmota Prioratus Dunelmensis,A. D. 1296 - A.D. 1384, edsJ. Booth and W.H. D. Longstaffe(Surtees Society, vol. lxxxii, 1889) Historia et Cartularium Monasterii Sancti Petri Gloucestriae,ed. W.H. Hart (Rolls Series,3 vols, 1863-7) Interdict Documents,eds. P. M. Barnesand W. R. Powell (Pipe Roll Society,new ser., vol. lxxii, 1960) LegesHenricl Prim!, ed. and trans. L. J. Downer (London, Oxford University Press, 1972) Leiston Abbey Cartulary and Butley Priory Charters, ed. R. Mortimer (Suffolk Records Society,vol. i, 1979) ThePipe Roll ofthe Bishopric of Winchester1208-9, ed. H. Hall (London, London Schoolof Economicsand Political Science,1903) ThePipe Roll ofthe Bishopric of Winchester1210-1211, ed. N. R. Holt (Manchester, ManchesterUniversity Press,1964) ThePipe Roll ofthe Bishopric of Winchester,1301-2, ed. M. Page(Winchester, HampshireRecord Series,vol. xiv, 1996) TheRolls of the Highworth Hundred, 1275-1287,ed. B. Faff (Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society RecordsBranch, 2 vols, vols xxi and xxii, 1966-8) Rotull Curiae Regis, ed. F. Palgrave(London, RecordCommission, 2 vols, 1835) Rotull Hundredorum (London, Record Commission,2 vols, 1812-18) Rufford Charters, ed. C.J. Holdsworth (Thoroton SocietyRecord Series,4 vols, 1970- 81) St BenetofHolme 1020-1210,trans. J.R. West (Norfolk Record Society,vols ii and iii, 1932) SelectPleas in Manorial and other Seignorial Courts, ed. F.W. Maitland (Selden Society,vol. ii, 1889) 200 Sir Christopher Hatton's Book ofSeals, ed. L. C. Loyd and D. M. Stenton(London, Oxford University Press,1950) TheStatutes ofthe Realm,(London, 10 vols, 1810-28) TheStoneleigh Leger Book, ed. R.H. Hilton (London, Dugdale Society, 1960) The Treatiseon the Laws and Customsofthe Realm ofEngland commonlycalled Glanvill, ed. and trans. G.D. G. Hall (London, Nelson and Sons, 1965) Walter Map, De Nugis Curialium, Courtiers' Trifles, ed. and trans.M. R. James,revised C.N. L. Brooke and R.A. B. Mynors (London, Oxford University Press,1983) UnDublished secondary works May, AN, 'The Franchisein Thirteenth CenturyEngland, with specialreference to the Estatesof the Bishopric of Winchester' (unpublishedPh. D. thesis,University of Cambridge,1960) Swift, E., 'The Machinery of Manorial Administration with specialreference to the Lands of the Bishopric of Winchester,1208-1454' (unpublished M. A. thesis,University of London, 1929) Thornton, C.C., 'The Demesneof Rimpton, 938 to 1412:A Study in Economic Development' (unpublishedPh. D. thesis,University of Leicester,1988) Titow, J.Z., 'Land and Populationon the Bishopric of Winchester'sEstates, 1209-1350' (unpublishedPh. D. thesis,University of Cambridge,1962) Secondplyworks Andrews, C.M., The Old English Manor (Baltimore, John Hopkins Press,1892) Aston, T. H., 'The Origins of the Manor in England', Transactionsofthe Royal Historical Society,5th ser.,vol. viii, 1958,pp. 59-83 Ault, W. O., Private Jurisdiction in England (New Haven,Yale University Press,1923) Ault, W. O., 'The Earliest Rolls of Manor Courts in England', Studia Gratiana, vol. xv, 1972,pp. 511-18 Ballard, A., 'The Manors of Witney, Brightwell and Downton' in Oxford Studiesin Social and Legal History, ed. P. Vinogradoff (London, Oxford University Press,vol. v, 1916),pp. 181-217 201 Beckerman,J. S., 'ProceduralInnovation and Institutional Changein Medieval English Manorial Courts', Law and History Review,vol. x, 1992,pp. 197-252 Bennett,H. S., Life on the English Manor (Cambridge,Cambridge University Press, 1937) Beresford,M., 'The Six New Towns of the Bishops of Winchester,1200-1255', MedievalArchaeology,vol. iii, 1959,pp. 187-215 Beveridge,W. H., 'Yield and Price of Com in the Middle Ages', EconomicHistory, a supplementto the EconomicJournal, vol. ii, 1927,pp. 155-67 Beveridge,W. H., 'The WinchesterRolls and Their Dating', EconomicHistory Review, vol. ii, 1929,pp. 93-113 Beveridge,W. H., 'Wages in the WinchesterManors', EconomicHistory Review,vol. vii, 1936,pp. 22-43 Brain, R.T., et al., eds, The Oxford Dictionary of Quotations(3rd edn, London, Oxford University Press,198 1) Britton, E., The Communityofthe Yill.ý A Study in the History ofthe Family and Village Life in Fourteenth-CenturyEngland (Toronto, Macmillan Press,1977) Cam, H.M., The Hundred and the Hundred Rolls: An Outline o)f L ocal Governmentin Medieval England (London, Methuen and Co., 1930) Cam, H. M., 'Manerium cum Hundredo: the Hundredand the HundredalManor' in Liberties and Communitiesin Medieval England, ed. H. M. Cam (London, Merlin Press, 1963),pp. 64-89 Carlin, M., Medieval Southwark(London, HarabledonPress, 1996) DeWindt, E.B., Land and People in Hoiýwell-cum-Needingworth(Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies,1971) Drew, J.S., 'Early Account Rolls of Portland,Wyke and Elwell', Dorset Natural History and. 4rchaeologySociety Proceedings, vol. 1xvi, 1945,pp. 31-45 and vol. lxvii, 1946,pp. 34-54 Du Cange,C. du F., ed., Glossariumad ScriptoresMedice et InfiniceLatinitatis (Niort, L. Favre, 10 vols, 1883-7) Dyer, C., Lords and Peasantsin a ChangingSociety (London, Pastand PresentSociety, 1980) 202 Faith, R., The English Peasantryand the Growth ofLordship (London, Leicester University Press,1997) Farmer,D. L., 'Grain Yields on the WinchesterManors in the Later Middle Ages', EconomicHistory Review,2nd ser.,vol. xxx, 1977,pp. 555-66 Farmer,D. L., 'Crop Yields, Pricesand Wagesin Medieval England', Studiesin Medieval and RenaissanceHistory, vol. vi, 1983,pp. 117-55 Finberg,H. P. R., Lucerna: StudiesofSome Problems in the Early History ofEngland (London, Macmillan and Co. Ltd, 1964) Flower, C.T., An Introduction to the Curia RegisRolls, 1199-1230A. D. (Selden Society,vol. cxii, 1944) Fryde, E.B., et al., eds,Handbook ofBritish Chronology (3rd edn, Royal Historical Society, 1986) Glover, J.E. B., et al., The Place-NamesofNottinghamshire (English Place-Name Society,vol. xvii, 1940) Gras,N. S.B. and E.C., The Economicand Social Histo?y ofan English Village, Crawley, Hampshire,AD 909-1928(Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press,1930) Harvey, P.D. A., A Medieval Oxfordshire Village: Cuxham1240-1400 (London, Oxford University Press,1965) Harvey, P.D. A., 'Agricultural Treatisesand Manorial Accounting in Medieval England' Agricultural History Review,vol. xx, 1972,pp. 170-82 Harvey, P.D. A., 'The English Inflation of 1180-1220'Past and Present,no. 1xi, 1973, pp.3-30 Harvey, P.D. A., 'The Pipe Rolls and the Adoption of DemesneFarming in England', EconomicHistory Review,2nd ser.,vol. xxvii, 1974,pp. 345-59 Harvey, P.D. A., Manorial Records(Archives and the User, no.5; London, British RecordsAssociation, 1984) Harvey, P.D. A., ed., ThePeasant Land Market in Medieval England (London, Oxford University Press,1984) Harvey, P.D. A., 'Initiative and Authority in SettlementChange' in TheRural Settlementsof Medieval England: Studiesdedicated to Maurice Beresfordand John Hurst, eds M. Aston, D. Austin and C. Dyer (Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1989),pp. 31-43 203 Harvey, P.D. A., 'RectitudinesSingularum Personarum and Gerefa, English Historical Review,vol. cviii, 1993,pp. 1 -22 Harvey, P.D. A., 'Mid-Thirteenth CenturyAccounts from Bury St EdmundsAbbey', Transactionsof the British Archaeological Association,for 1994,in the press Hatcher,J., 'English Serfdomand Villeinage: Towards a Reassessment',Past and Present,no. xc, 1981,pp. 3-39 Hilton, R.H., 'Freedom and Villeinage in England', Past and Present,no. xxxi, 1965, pp.3-19 Hilton, R.H., The English Peasant?y in the Later Middle Ages (London, Oxford University Press,1975) Holdsworth, W. S., A History ofEnglish Law (London, Methuen and Co. Ltd, 16 vols and index, 1922-72) Homans,G. C., English Villagers of the ThirteenthCentury (Cambridge,Massachusetts, Harvard University Press,1942) Hone, N. J., The Manor and Manorial Records(London, Methuen and Co., 1906) Hoyt, R.S., The Royal Demesnein English Constitutional History: 1066-1272(New York, American History Association, 1950) Hyams, P.R., King, Lords and Peasantsin Medieval England; The CommonLaw of Villeinage in the Tweýfthand ThirteenthCenturies (London, Oxford University Press, 1980) Kemble, J.M., The Saxonsin England (London, Longman,Brown, Greenand Longmans,2 vols, 1849) King, E., England, 1175-1425(London, Routledgeand Kegan Paul Ltd, 1979) Kosminsky, E.A., Studiesin the Agrarian History ofEngland in the ThirteenthCentury (Oxford, Basil Blackwell, 1956) Kurath, H., et al, eds,Middle English Dictionary (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, in progress,1952- ) Latham, R.E., ed., RevisedMedieval Latin Word-List (London, British Academy, 1965) Levett, A. E., Studiesin Manorial History (London, Oxford University Press,1938) Levett, A. E., and A. Ballard, 'The Black Death' in Oxford Studiesin Social and Legal History, ed. P. Vinogradoff (London, Oxford University Press,vol. v, 1916),pp. 1 -216 204 Maitland, F.W., DomesdayBook and Beyond(Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1897) May, A. N., 'An Index of Thirteenth CenturyPeasant Impoverishment? Manor Court Fines', EconomicHistory Review,2nd ser.,vol. xxvi, 1973,pp. 389-402 Morgan, M., The English Lands of the Abbey ofBec (London, Oxford University Press, 1968) Morris, W.A., The FrankpledgeSystem (London, Longmans,Green and Co., 1910) Neave,H. R., Statistics Tables(London, George,Allen and Unwin, 1978) North, T., 'Legerwite in the Thirteenth and FourteenthCenturies', Past and Present,no. cxi, 1986,pp. 3-16 Oschinsky,D., Walter ofHenley and other Treatiseson EstateManagement and Accounting (London, Oxford University Press,197 1) Page,F. M., TheEstates of CrowlandAbbey: A Study in Manorial Organisation (Cambridge,Cambridge University Press,1934) Plucknett,T. F.T., Legislation ofEdward I (London, Oxford University Press,1949) Pollock, F., and F.W. Maitland, A History ofEnglish Law (2nd edn, Cambridge, CambridgeUniversity Press,2 vols, 1898) Post,J. B., 'Manorial Amercementsand PeasantPoverty', EconomicHistory Review, 2nd ser.,vol. xxviii, 1975,pp. 304-11 Postan,M. M., and J.Z. Titow, 'Heriots and Priceson Winchestermanors', Economic History Review,2nd ser., vol. xi, 1959,pp. 392-41 I Raftis, J.A., The EstatesofRamseyAbbey (Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies,1957) Raftis, J.A., Tenureand Mobility., Studiesin the Social History ofthe Medieval English Village (Toronto, Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies,1964) Razi, Z., Life Marriage and Death in a Medieval Parish: Economy,Society and Demographyin Halesowen1270-1400 (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,1980) Razi, Z., and R. Smith, eds,Medieval Societyand the Manor Court (London, Oxford University Press,1996) Rees,D. G., FoundationsofStatistics (London, Chapmanand Hall, 1987) 205 Rothwell, W., et al., eds,Anglo-Norman Dictionary (London, Modem Humanities ResearchAssociation, 1977-92) Round,J. H., 'The Dating of the Early Pipe Rolls', English Historical Review,vol. xxxvi, 1921,pp. 321-333 Seebohm,F., The English Village Community(London, Longmans,Green and Co., 1883) Slota, L. A., 'Law, Land Transferand Lordship on the Estatesof St Albans Abbey in the Thirteenthand FourteenthCenturies, Law and History Review,vol. vi, 1988,pp. 121- 138 Smith, R.M., 'Some Thoughtson "Hereditary" and "Proprietary" Rights in Land under CustomaryLaw in Thirteenth and FourteenthCentury England', Law and History Review,vol. i, 1983,pp. 95-128 Smith, R.M., "'Modernization7'and the corporatemedieval village community in England: somesceptical reflections', in Explorations in Historical Geography.- Interpretative Essays,eds A. R.H. Baker and D. Gregory(London, Cambridge University Press,1984) pp. 140-79 Stenton,F. M., Anglo-SaxonEngland (3rd edn, London, Oxford University Press,197 1) Titow, J.Z., 'Evidence of Weatherin the Account Rolls of the Bishopric of Winchester, 1209-1350',Economic History Review,2nd ser.,vol. xii, 1959,pp. 360-407 Titow, J.Z., 'Some Evidenceof the Thirteenth CenturyPopulation Increase', Economic History Review,2nd ser.,vol. xiv, 1961,pp. 218-24 Titow, J.Z., 'Some Differencesbetween Manors and their Effects on the Condition of the Peasantin the Thirteenth Century', Agricultural History Review,vol. x, 1962,pp. I- 13 Titow, J.Z., English Rural Society, 1200-1350(London, George,Allen and Unwin, 1969) Titow, J.Z., WinchesterYields, A Study in Medieval,4gricultural Productivity (Cambridge,Cambridge University Press,1972) Tranter, C.J., AdvancedLevel Pure Mathematics(4th edn, London, Hodder and Stoughton,1975) Van Caenegem,R. C., Royal Writs in Englandftom the Conquestto Glanville. Studies in the Early History ofthe CommonLaw (SeldenSociety, vol. Ixxvii, 1958-59) 206 The Victoria History of the CountyofBampshire (London, 5 vols and index, 1900-14) The Victoria History of the CountyofSurrey (London, 4 vols and index, 1902-14) Vincent, N., 'The Origins of the WinchesterPipe Rolls', Archives, vol. xxi, 1994, pp.25-42 Vinogradoff, P., The Growth of the Manor (3rd edn, London, GeorgeAllen and Unwin, 1920) Vinogradoff, P., Villeinage in England (London, Oxford University Press,1892) 207