i74 MANORIAL ADMINISTRATION
reeves took advantage of their position, and either deceived and
swindled their masters or oppressed and bullied their fellows. Op-
pression, no doubt, was always possible, and human nature being
what it is, we may be sure that even-handed justice was not infalli-
bly administered. It would be hard to believe that bribery did not
exist in the circumstances or that favouritism did not flourish.
It was so easy to arrange. The reeve frequently had full authority
as to how the day's work should be expended, so that it was easy
for him to arrange matters to the satisfaction of his friends, and
to give this one an easy task, or to let him slip away early. There
was obviously a limit to such proceedings: no reeve could afford
to fly in the face of the majority of his fellows, and a rough and
ready give and take characterised the general relations between
reeve and peasants. At times a reeve went too far, and his
fellows complained of the matter at the next Manor Court as they
had a right to do. It was then for the lord to enquire into the
matter, and to determine what was the truth, and this he did
generally by means of a manorial jury. It will be seen, therefore,
that the reeve had only a limited opportunity for oppression—
always provided, however, that his lord was prepared to see
justice done and that the peasants who formed the Court were
not oppressed and afraid to speak their mind. Thus, in 1278, we
have a long complaint before the Court, in which the reeve was
accused of discriminating between rich and poor, of taking
bribes, and of excusing men from their work for certain pay-
ments. Some of the charges were believed to be true by the jury,
while others were dismissed, and the case may serve as an ad-
mirable example of the way in which the Manor Court acted as a
check on any outrageous action by a reeve.1 In another court, in
1278, a reeve brought a man before the Court, and asserted that
he feigned sickness and failed to come to work, while all the
time he was hale and at work in his own barn and yard. The
manorial jury evidently regarded this as a piece of malice on the
reeve's part, and he was not believed, and as a result he was fined
for his misbehaviour.2
Generally, however, it was not the peasant but the lord who
suffered at the hands of the reeve, and when we recall the reeve's
position, and the multifarious opportunities he had for taking a
1 Selden Soc. u, 95. * Ibid. 91.