THE NATURE AND FUNCTION OF THE MANOR COURT 1350-1700 submitted by Mary Saaler for the degree of Ph. D. UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON January 1994 — 1 — ProQuest Number: 10105720 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. uest. ProQuest 10105720 Published by ProQuest LLC(2016). Copyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 Abstract The aim of the study Is to analyse the records of three manor courts over a relatively long time-scale, with the object of identifying the changes which occurred in the nature and function of the manor court from 1350 until 1700. The principal source material consists of previously untranslated and untranscribed records of the view of frankpledge, or court leet, and court baron of the Surrey manors of Carshalton, Farleigh and Merstham, which lie 16-26 km. from London. Since the manors differ in their historical and geographical background, we can use this material to make comparisons and to identify broader regional trends. Following a discussion of the history of the manors and the extent and compilation of the records, with the aid of a computer data-base, I have examined the functions of the view. These are defined as a) residence, b) supervision of trade, c) minor criminal offences, d) management of the environment and e) the procedures of payment, distraint and dispute settlement. This is followed by an assessment of the roles of officials, identified as tithingmen, ale tasters, constables and jurors. This leads to a discussion of the influence of external factors, such as the quarter sessions and parliamentary legislation. - 2 - I have similarly analysed the records of the court baron to show changes in property-holding, the role of the jurors and in procedures, such as dispute settlement, use of pledges and distraint. By making this investigation, we can see the reactions of the community to social and economic factors as it developed from a medieval to anearly modern society. — 3 — TABLE OF CONTENTS page GENERAL INTRODUCTION 8 1. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 13 CARSHALTON FARLEIGH MERSTHAM AND ALBURY 2. RECORDS 32 CARSHALTON FARLEIGH MERSTHAM AND ALBURY 3. VIEW OF FRANKPLEDGE 42 CARSHALTON I. Jurisdiction of the view terri tory people II. Work of the view 1) residence a) enrolment b) default c) keeping the watch 2) supervision of trade and traders a) brewers and sellers of ale b) bakers and sellers of bread c) millers d) fishmongers 3) minor criminal offences a) assault b) theft c) hue and cry d) disturbances of the peace 4) management of the environment a) water b) enclosures c) roads d) bridges e) orders III. Procedures at the view 1) payments a) residence b) supervision of trade and traders c) minor criminal offences d) management of the environment 2) distraint 3) settlement of disputes and use of pledges — 4 — MERSTHAM page I. Jurisdiction of the view II. Work of the view 1) residence a) enrolment and default b) common fine 2) supervision of trade and traders 3) minor criminal offences 4) management of the environment III. Procedures at the view 1) payments 2) distraint 3) settlement of disputes and use of pledges IV. Officials of the view 1) tithingmen 2) ale tasters 3) constables 4) Jurors of the view 4. WHY DID THE VIEW OF FRANKPLEDGE DISAPPEAR? 263 5. COURT BARON 274 I. Work of the court baron FARLEIGH CARSHALTON MERSTHAM ALBURY II. Procedures at the court baron 1) enquiries 2) distraint 3) settlement of disputes and business between tenants 4) pledges III. Jurors of the court baron CARSHALTON FARLEIGH MERSTHAM ALBURY 6. ADAPTATION AT THE COURT BARON 437 7. GENERAL CONCLUSIONS: THE PROCESSES OF CHANGE 452 - 5 - FIGURES page 1. Surrey parishes and hundreds in 1832. 12 TABLES 1. Number of individuals mentioned in each 50 year period. 53 2. Total number of residents unsworn or withdrawn. 62 3. Average number of defaulters in each 50 year period. 64 4. Average number of brewers in each 50 year period. 77 5. Number of individuals charged with offences in each 50 year period. 94 6. Number of fines in each 50 year period. 163 7. Average fines. 163 8. Number of penalties in each 50 year period. 177 9. Use of distraint in each 50 year period. 181 10. Number of brewers in each 50 year period. 221 11. Composition of the jury of the view at Carshalton in each 50 year period. 261 12. Property transactions in each 50 year period. 278 13. Landholdings in acres (excluding woodland). 282 14. Inheritance transactions in each 50 year period. 287 15. New tenancies in each 50 year period. 287 — 6 — page 16. Proportions of free and customary tenants in Farleigh. 292 17. Distraint orders in Carshalton. 351 18. Distraint orders in Farleigh. 357 19. Distraint orders in Merstham. 359 20. Distraint orders in A 1bury. 361 21 . Frequency of distraint orders. 361 22. Business between tenants In Carshalton 1350-99. 367 23. Business between tenants in Farleigh 1400-99. 377 24. Business between tenants in Merstham 1350-99. 382 25. Business between tenants in Merstham 1400-99. 384 26. Proport ion of jurors to tenants. 417 27. Proport ion of defaulters to tenants. 431 28. Proport ion of tenants present at meetings. 433 - 7 - GENERAL INTRODUCTION The aim of this study is to examine the degree of change in the nature and function of the manor court in three Surrey manors over a period of 350 years. This work is based on the local records of Surrey manors; it does not produce a history of Surrey, but it provides an analysis of detail which allows us to compare changes in the social process in an area of Surrey in a way which may be may be relevant potentially to areas outside Surrey. The individual manors are small enough for us to examine the history of each one and, when studied together, they describe patterns of change in the eastern part of Surrey. The manors of Carshalton, Farleigh and Merstham were chosen for this work principally because of the quantity of records available for each manor over such a wide time-scale, providing plenty of material for a comprehensive analysis. Because they also provide a variety of geographical environments, we can study the effect of location on the work of the manor courts. The purpose of this enquiry is to assess the amount of change by examining closely the procedures of the manor courts and the actions of the people mentioned in the records. In order to examine the records objectively, I have compiled a computer data-base of names. Since the - 8 - compilers of the original records used names as a way of identifying individuals, I have followed a similar procedure. Individuals have been identified by name, date and manor, with further information about occupation, office-holding, property and inheritance. Where people held the same names, the compilers of the original records usually included additional information and defined them as 'senior’ or 'junior', or by occupation or property. With the name as an identifier, all the events associated with that name have been listed. By using these procedures, we can accumulate information about ordinary people whose lives would otherwise be unnoticed. There is no simple rule for the spelling of names; where modern standard spelling exists for names like Bolton, Henley and Miller, I have used the modern form. With some names there are so many variations that it is difficult to find a modern standard form and I have used the form which is most common in the records; for example, Dylcok, Fromond and Leycester. For the place- names I have used the spellings which are used at present, if the places can be identified. For places which cannot be identified, I have used the spelling which is most commonly used in the records. As a way of dealing with such a large amount of information, I have separated the work of the manor court - 9 - into the two elements of a) the view of frankpledge, or court leet, and b) the court baron. The two elements had separate origins and had different functions, since the view was concerned with residents and the court with tenants. However, in practice, the two meetings frequently involved the same people. In some cases, the records of the two meetings were kept distinct and separate throughout the period, in other cases, the distinction was less clear. There is no surviving view of frankpledge for Farleigh, but the records of the court baron are very comprehensive. I have looked at the roles of local officials to examine the degree of change. The roles of the jurors of the view and the court baron have caused particular problems. The Assize of Clarendon clearly defined the roles of juries in royal courts as a) juries of presentment and b) trial juries, with a clear distinction between the two roles. 1 However, there is no evidence of such a distinction at the manor court where local jurors presented cases, held enquiries, and made decisions. In the absence of conflicting evidence, we have to assume that a group of jurors fulfilled all these roles.