(logo)
(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Open Source Books | Project Gutenberg | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Children's Library | Additional Collections

Search: Advanced Search

Anonymous User (login or join us)Upload
See other formats

Full text of "English local government, from the Revolution to the Municipal Corporations Act"

ENGLISH LOCAL GOVEKNMENT 



FROM 



THE REVOLUTION 



TO 



THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT 




ENGLISH LOCAL GOVERN- 
MENT FROM THE REVOLU- 
TION TO THE MUNICIPAL 
CORPORATIONS ACT: THE 
MANOR AND THE BOROUGH. 
BY SIDNEY AND BEATRICE 
WEBB. PART ONE. 




LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO., 39 
PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON, 
NEW YORK, CALCUTTA AND BOMBAY. 
1908. 



CONTENTS 

BOOK III 
THE MANOE AND THE BOROUGH 

PAOE 

INTRODUCTION. ......... 3 

PART I 

CHAPTER I 

THE LORD'S COURT 9 

(a) THE LAWYER'S VIEW OF THE LORD'S COURT . . 11 

(6) THE COURT BARON 13 

(c) THE COURT LEET ....... 21 

CHAPTER II 

THE COURT IN RUINS . . . . . . . . 31 

(a) THE HIERARCHY OF COURTS . . . . 32 

(6) THE COURT OF THE HUNDRED ..... 50 

(c) THE COURT OF THE MANOR 64 

(i.) THE BAMBURGH COURTS 89 

v 



ENGLISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT 

PAGE 

(ii.) THE COURT LEET OF THE SAVOY ... 96 

(ill) THE COURT LEET AND COURT BARON OF MAN- 
CHESTER. ....... 99 

(d) THE PREVALENCE AND DECAY OK THE LORD'S COURT 114 



CHAPTER III 

THE MANORIAL BOROUGH 127 

(a) THE VILLAGE MEETING 128 

(6) THE CHARTERED TOWNSHIP . 134 

(c) THE LORDLESS COURT 148 

(d) THE LORD'S BOROUGH . . . . . . . 160 

(e) THE ENFRANCHISED MANORIAL BOROUGH . . . 178 
(/) MANOR AND GILD . . . . . . .186 

(</) ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT AND DECAY . . . . 200 

CHAPTER IV 

THE CITY AND BOROUGH OF WESTMINSTER . .212 
(a) BURLEIGH'S CONSTITUTION . . . . .213 
(6) MUNICIPAL ATROPHY 223 

CHAPTER V 

THE BOROUGHS OF WALES 232 

(a) INCIPIENT AUTONOMY 235 

(6) THE WELSH MANORIAL BOROUGH . . . .241 
(c) THE WELSH MUNICIPAL CORPORATION . . . 254 



CONTENTS vii 

CHAPTER VI 

f PAGE 

THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION . . . . .261. 

(a) THE INSTRUMENT OF INCORPORATION .... 267 

(b) CORPORATE JURISDICTIONS . . . . . 275 

(c) CORPORATE OBLIGATIONS . . . . . .285 

(d) THE AREA OP THE CORPORATION . . . 288 

(e) THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE CORPORATION . . . 292 
(/) THE SERVANTS OF THE CORPORATION . . . 302 
(#) THE CHIEF OFFICERS OF THE CORPORATION . . 306 
(h) THE HEAD OF THE CORPORATION .... 309 

(i) THE BAILIFFS 318 

(j) THE HIGH STEWARD AND THE RECORDER . . . 321 
(k) THE CHAMBERLAIN AND THE TOWN CLERK . . 324 
(I) THE COUNTY OFFICERS OF THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION 328 
(m) THE MAYOR'S BRETHREN AND THE MAYOR'S COUNSELLORS 333 
(n) THE COURTS OF THE CORPORATION . . .337 

(o) COURTS OF CIVIL JURISDICTION 339 

(p) THE COURT LEET 344 

(g) THE BOROUGH COURT OF QUARTER SESSIONS . . 349 
(?) COURTS OF SPECIALISED JURISDICTION . . . .358 

(fi) THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURTS OF THE MUNICIPAL 

CORPORATION 360 

(t) THE MUNICIPAL CONSTITUTIONS OF 1689 . . 367 



viii ENGLISH LOCAL GOVERNMENT 

CHAPTER VII 

PAGE 

MUNICIPAL DISINTEGRATION 384 

(a) THE RISE OF THE CORPORATE MAGISTRACY . . 384 
(6) THE DECLINE or THE COMMON COUNCIL . . .390 

(c) THE ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW STATUTORY AUTHORITIES 394 

(d) THE PASSING OP THE FREEMEN . . . . .396 

(e) THE MINGLING OP DECAY AND GROWTH . . . 402 



BOOK III 

THE MANOE AND THE BOEOUGH 

INTRODUCTION. 

CHAPTER I. THE LORD'S COURT. 
II. THE COURT IN RUINS. 

III. THE MANORIAL BOROUGH. 
IV. THE CITY AND BOROUGH OF WESTMINSTER. 
V. THE BOROUGHS OF WALES. 
VI. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. 
VII. MUNICIPAL DISINTEGRATION. 
,, VIII. ADMINISTRATION BY CLOSE CORPORATIONS. 
,, IX. ADMINISTRATION BY MUNICIPAL DEMOCRACIES. 
X. THE CITY OF LONDON. 

XL THE MUNICIPAL REVOLUTION. 



VOL. II. FT. I 



INTRODUCTION 

IN a preceding volume l we have dealt with two main forms 
of English Local Government, the Parish and the County ; 
organisations which existed from one end of the kingdom to 
the other. But to the rule of the County to some slight 
extent also to the rule of the Parish there were, up and 
down England, numerous exceptions, out of which had 
developed, as it happens, not the least important, and, as some 
may think, the most picturesque parts of the Local Government 
of England between the Ee volution and the Municipal Cor- 
porations Act, namely, those connected with the Manor and 
the Borough. It does not lie within our province to inquire 
whether some or all of these exceptions to the uniform 
organisation of Parish and County may not represent a once 
universal government, either Manorial or of Village Community 
character. Whether or not this was the case, the continued 
existence of these forms after 1689 compels us to devote a 
volume to the various Exemptions, Immunities, and Franchises 
which enabled the inhabitants of particular localities to exclude 
the authority of the County at large, or that of one or other of 
its officers; and thereby to enjoy, within their own favoured 
areas, some peculiar forms of self-government. 2 

1 English Local Government from the Revolution to the Municipal Corporations 
Act, vol. i. The Parish and the County, 1906. 

2 It may occur to the student that there was, between 1689 and 1835, 
another kind of definitely localised local governing body, not based on 
immunities or exemptions, but wielding, within its area, new and specialised 
powers. Such authorities were, for instance, the Turnpike Trustees or the 
various types of Street Commissioners, established by Local Acts. With all 
these authorities we deal in another work. It must suffice here to note that, 
although affecting limited areas, they did not constitute exceptions to the rule 
of the County. They might, in fact, without inconsistency with the County 
or with each other, have been multiplied so as to cover the whole area. 

3 



4 THE MANOR AND THE BOROUGH 

The proportion of the Local Government of England that 
was, in 1689, carried on, whether by prescription, by Charter, 
or by statute, in the form of exemptions from or exclusions of 
County jurisdiction, was far larger than is commonly supposed. 

Thus, with a few insignificant exceptions, the whole force 
of police that then existed owed its appointment neither 
to the Parish nor the County, but to Manorial Courts or 
Municipal Corporations ; whilst the magistracy of the large 
towns was provided, not by the Commission of the Peace, but 
by the Mayors, Aldermen, and Eecorders. The suppression of 
nuisances, which comprised at that time nearly the whole 
regulative activity of local authorities, was practically 
monopolised by the Leets of private Lords and of enfranchised 
Boroughs ; for the recovery of small debts, the Court Baron of 
the Lord, or its municipal analogue, often called the Court of 
Record or the Court of Pleas, had largely ousted the Court of 
the Sheriff of the County at large. Markets and fairs were 
matters neither of Parish nor of County concern, but were 
under the control of the individual or Corporate owners of 
Franchises; whilst many lay and clerical Lords, and most 
Municipal Corporations, had their own gaols, if no longer their 
own privileges of "pit and gallows." More important than 
these common services, which, in 1689, were still small in 
extent, was the administration of the land, a service not now 
usually connected with Local Government. But even at the 
end of the seventeenth century, no small fraction of the surface 
of the Kingdom was still managed by or in connection with 
those local governing authorities that we class as Seignorial 
Franchises and Municipal Corporations. In thousands of 
rural Manors the rotation of crops, the dates at which the 
various agricultural operations should be undertaken, the 
management of the pastures, quarries, and fisheries, the care 
of the cattle, and the breeding of stock formed part of the 
business of the same open " Court " that suppressed nuisances, 
fined minor offenders, chose the local officers, and tried petty 
actions for debt and damages. In hundreds of urban districts 
the Manorial Courts or the Municipal Corporations were 
administering not only the remnant of the ancient commons, 
but also dwelling-houses, wharves, docks, quays, piers, shambles, 
and market places. The tolls and dues levied by these 



INTRODUCTION 5 

authorities, whether by Charter, prescription, or mere ownership 
of the soil, formed in the aggregate no unworthy rivals of the 
various County and Parish Rates. By 1835, it is true, the 
agricultural business of these local governing bodies had, with 
the progress of inclosure, shrunk into insignificance. The 
importance of the urban properties and the revenue from tolls 
had, on the other hand, in many places greatly increased. 

In our history of the County we showed that, in 1689, 
practically its whole business, from one end of England to 
the other, was transacted by judicial process, in open Courts 
of Justice, in the guise of enforcing fixed personal obligations. 
By 1835, as we have seen, this had been silently transformed 
into administration by committees, meeting in private, appoint- 
ing, instructing, and controlling a salaried staff of officers 
according to a variable policy decided on from time to time 
by the committees themselves. The Seignorial Franchises 
and Municipal Corporations seem, at first sight, to admit of 
no such simple generalisation. We shall, indeed, describe the 
successive stages of what appears to us to be an analogous 
evolution. But instead of being able to trace this evolution, 
within the very period with which we are dealing, in the life- 
history of one vigorous organism, what we have is rather 
a collection of apparently heterogeneous individuals, showing 
signs of having been arrested in their development at different 
stages of their growth ; some remaining in a rudimentary state ; 
some even reverting to simpler types; and some, again, stand- 
ing still at what seems full maturity. Those local governing 
authorities that we describe in our chapters on " The Lord's 
Court " and " The Court in Euins " never developed, from first 
to last, anything beyond the machinery of a judicial tribunal, 
designed to enforce pre-existing rights and obligations. In 
subsequent chapters we shall describe, under the terms the 
" Lordless Court," the " Lord's Borough," and the " Enfranchised 
Manorial Borough," organisations marked by the possession of 
specialised administrative structure of various grades of com- 
plexity, from the mere creation of one or two new officers 
and the custody of a common purse up to a full equipment 
of Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Councillors, but exhibiting 
during the whole century and a half little or no development, 
aud in some cases even retrograding to the simpler form of 



6 THE MANOR AND THE BOROUGH 

a Lord's Court. The more highly organised bodies that we 
analyse in our various chapters on Municipal Corporations 
usually, we may observe, exhibiting no great tendency to 
develop have in their constitutions the administrative 
structure predominant, whilst the judicial tribunals and 
judicial processes have sunk to a subordinate, and sometimes 
to an insignificant position. It adds to the complexity, and, 
as we think, to the impression produced of arrested development, 
that, so far as the period between 1689 and 1835 is concerned, 
we find all the different types coexisting in each successive 
decade. In 1835 there were still rural Manors in which 
the archaic Lord's Court provided the local services by the 
enforcement of ancient personal obligations. Already, in 
1689, the Corporation of the City of London was transacting 
its extensive business by an administrative apparatus more 
highly developed than that of the most advanced County a 
hundred and fifty years later apparatus more complicated 
than any modern constitution can show. 

Yet in face of this apparent heterogeneity, and of what we 
may call the sluggishness of development among our various 
individuals, the very multitude of the specimens, and their 
variety in detail, enables us to set them out in such an order 
that they are seen, alike in constitution and in function, to 
pass almost imperceptibly one into another. Nor is it only 
between the separate organisms themselves that there are no 
sharp dividing lines. In particular instances we may see the 
Court Leet and View of Frankpledge becoming inextricably 
confused with the General Sessions of the Peace ; the Court 
Baron or Customary Court with the Borough Court of Eecord 
or Court of Pleas ; and the Jury of either or both of these 
Manorial Courts with the Court of Common Council. The 
student, we suggest, will find it impracticable to regard the 
various individuals otherwise than as members of one and the 
same genus ; nor, we must add, otherwise than as units in an 
ascending series. There is, in fact, no logical stopping point, 
when all the specimens are reviewed, between the most 
insignificant Court of a petty Lord of the Manor, held once 
or twice a year at his Hall, for the admission of a new tenant 
or the appoiutment of the Constable, and the many-chartered 
Corporation of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commonalty of the 



INTRODUCTION ^ 

City of London ; an all-embracing government in perpetual 
session ; a County of itself, controlling the services of the most 
important mercantile port in the world ; administering a 
revenue of regal magnificence ; and exercising judicial and 
even legislative functions, asserted to be independent of the 
High Court of Parliament itself. 

We do not wish to assert that this ascending series 
of surviving specimens necessarily represents the successive 
stages in the life-history of the most fully-developed Chartered 
Municipality. Such a hypothesis we leave to be tested by 
the historians of the Manor and the Borough. It is, indeed, 
plain, even on a survey of what existed between 1689 and 
1835, that part of the Municipal structure and some Municipal 
functions are not to be found, even in germ, in any Manorial 
origin. The historian must take account of those ancient 
shire towns distinguished by heterogeneity of tenure. 1 Also 
the remnant of Gild organisation clinging to many eighteenth 
century Municipalities possibly even the frequent admission 
to the Freedom of the Corporation by Servitude of Apprentice- 
ship points to an ancestry unconnected with the Manor. 
We must, moreover, not forget the working of the imitative 
faculty, and of the tendency to assimilation. A constitution 
which had, by custom and by law, developed out of one form 
of association may be subsequently adopted by, or imposed 
upon, other groups of persons associated together for quite 
other reasons. But whether or not our classification suggests 
any plausible theory of the growth of the Manor and the 
development of the Borough, some such classification of the 
ascending series of franchises and immunities, exemptions and 
privileges, customs and powers, that existed between 1689 
and 1835 outside the County and over and above the Parish, 
is indispensable to any adequate survey of English Local 
Government. 

A thoroughly intelligent description of these Seignorial 
Franchises and Municipal Corporations, even as they existed 
in 1689, would require an historical erudition that we do not 
possess. Already in the seventeenth century these mediseval 
institutions had fallen more or less into decay, leaving, in the 

1 Township and Borough, by Trof. F. W. Maitland, 1898 ; The Domesday 
Boroughs, by A. Ballard, 1906. 



8 THE MANOR AND THE BOROUGH 

majority of cases, only disconnected fragments of what we may 
assume to have once been a complicated if not a systematic 
structure. Without an adequate knowledge of what exactly 
was the Manor in its prime, and of the part played by the 
Borough in the local government of the twelfth century, it is 
difficult, and sometimes impossible, to trace and to understand 
the significance of such remnants as remained at the end of 
the seventeenth century. Our lack of knowledge of what the 
organism in its maturity was and did necessarily hampers our 
interpretation of its remains. A further difficulty is caused 
by the fact that these remnants, in many cases, did not remain 
unaltered. In the Municipal Corporation in particular, the 
new growths of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries are 
often found inextricably twined about the old structure the 
gain by accretion coming, in some specimens, to be more than 
equivalent to the loss by decay. In the case of some of the 
larger and more populous Chartered Municipalities, such as 
Norwich and Bristol, Nottingham and Southampton, the 
development of a Corporate Magistracy so completely sub- 
merged the more ancient structure, whether Gild or Manorial, 
that we might almost have described them as particular 
varieties of a specialised form of the County ; whilst in the 
exceptional instance of the City of London, one or more of its 
outgrowths its so-called Commission of Sewers, if not also its 
Corporation of the Poor might, in addition, have conveniently 
been classed with the Statutory Bodies for Special Purposes 
that we shall describe in the succeeding volume. 



CHAPTEE I 

THE LORD'S COURT 

IN many parishes of England, town as well as country, we 
find existing, in the latter part of the seventeenth century, 
a sort of local governing authority that was neither Parish 
Vestry nor County Justices, neither Statutory Body nor 
Municipal Corporation, but one or other tattered remnant of 
the old jurisdiction of the Manor. Here and there would 
be found public officers exercising peculiar functions under 
strange titles. An Aleconner or a Pinder, a Swine-ringer or a 
Burleyman, a Common Driver or a Constable sometimes 
even a vaguely influential potentate called a Portreeve or a 
Boroughreeve derived his authority neither from the meet- 
ing of the inhabitants in Vestry assembled, nor from the 
Justices of the Peace ; neither from Statute nor from Charter. 
Once or twice a year a " Court " would be held, to which 
people would resort, for purposes they scarcely knew what. 
At this " Court Leet," or " Halmot Court," or " Soke Court," 
or " Court Baron," or " Forest Court," or " Hundred Court," or 
"Swainmoot," or "Lawday," as it was variously styled in 
different instances, all sorts of matters of common interest, 
as well as questions connected with individual property rights, 
might be dealt with. In one place all transfers of copyhold 
property, on death or on alienation, would be registered with 
quaint ceremonies, accompanied by the exaction of customary 
fines and fees. In another, various arrangements about the 
commonfield agriculture, the " town bull and boar," the use of 
the " town's plough," or the management of the common 
pasture would form the bulk of the business. In others, 
flgain, the presentment of nuisances and the condemnation 





io THE LORD'S COURT 

of offenders to a fine would seem to fill the greatest place. 
It was in such a Court, as Butler tells us in Hudibras, that 
the villagers would 

. . . impeach a broken hedge, 

And pigs un ringed ; at Vis. Franc. Pledge, 

Discover thieves, bawds, and recusants, 

Tell who did play at games unlawful, 
And who filled pots of ale but half-full. 1 

What was invariable in such a Court was the appointment of 
one or more officers ; and the plain citizen, to whom the 
Manor had seemed but a harmless antiquity, might discover 
that he had been summarily chosen to discharge some onerous 
public function without fee or reward, or that he had been 
condemned to pay a small fine for this or that offence against 
the well-being of the little community. 2 

1 Hudibras, by Samuel Butler, Canto II. It will be remembered that 
Shakespeare makes Christopher Sly, in his "very idle words "- 

Rail upon the hostess of the house 

And say you would present Jier at Uie Leet 

Because she brought stone jugs and no seal'd quarts. 

(Taming of the Shrew, Induction, Scene ii.). 

2 We know of no adequate study of the Lord's Court, as an organ of Local 
Government, from the beginning to the end of its development. By far the 
most authoritative, as well as the most interesting, account of its actual form 
and working is to be gathered from the various writings of Professor F. W. 
Maitland ; notably his Select Pleas in Manorial and other Seignorial Courts, 
1889, and The, Court Baron, 1891, both volumes of the Selden Society ; and 
Tlie History of English Law, by Sir F. Pollock and F. W. Maitland, 1895, 
vol. i. For the latest discussion of the conflicting views see Surveys Historic 
and Economic, by Prof. W. J. Ashley, 1900, and T)i Growth of the Manor, by 
Professor Vinogradoff, 1905. Useful bibliographies will be found in Miss F. G. 
Davenport's Classified List of Original Materials for English Manorial and 
Agrarian History, 1894 ; and The Manor and Manorial Records, by N. J. 
Hone, 1906. Bacon gives a clear account of the functions of the Court Leet in 
his Answers to Questions proposed by Sir Alexander Hay touching the Office of 
Constable, 1608, and in vol. vii. pp. 748-754 of the 1858 edition of his Works ; 
and its relation to other judicial institutions is well stated in The History of 
English Law, by Professor W. S. Holdsworth, 1903. Among the numerous 
legal treatises and manuals for Stewards not to speak of half-a-dozen archaic 
works of the sixteenth century we may mention The Order of Keeping a Court 
Leet and Court Baron, by Jonas Adames, 1593 ; Jurisdictions, or the Lawful 
Authority of Courts Leet, etc., by John Kitchin, 1598 (and about fourteen other 
editions in English or French down to 1675) ; The Complete Copyholder, by Sir 
Edward Coke, 1630 (and half-a-dozen other editions down to 1764); The 
Relation between a Lord of the Manor and the Copyholder his Tenant, by Charles 
Calthorpe, 1635 ; The Court- Keeper's Guide, etc., by William Sheppard, 1641 



THE LAWYERS VIEW OF THE LORD'S COURT n 



(a) The Lawyer's view of the Lord's Court 

The common bewilderment as to the meaning of the 
Lord's Court was not shared by the authors of the elaborate 
manuals of its jurisdiction and procedure, prepared for the 
instruction of Stewards and others who had the duty of 
" keeping Courts." In these popular manuals we find dis- 
played a clear-cut theory of the origin, exact constitution, and 
precise functions of the Courts of Lords of Manors, asserted 
with an assurance that may usefully be contrasted with the 
modesty of conjecture of such modern investigators as 
Professors Maitland and Vinogradoff. We may, in the 
twentieth century, doubt whether " the methodically learned 
John Kitchin of 1 Gray's Inn, Esquire, and Double Reader" 

(and about eight other editions down to 1791) ; Treatise of the Antiquity, 
Authority, Uses, and Jurisdiction of the Ancient Courts of Leet, by Robert Powell, 
1642, 1688 ; The Authority . . . of . . . County Courts, Courts Leet, and Courts 
Baron, by William Greenwood, 1st edition, 1668, 9th edition, 1730 ; Lex 
Custumaria, by S. C[arter], 1701 (other editions to 1796) ; Practice of Courts Leet 
and Courts Baron, by Sir William Scroggs, 1st edition, 1714, 4th edition, 1728 ; 
The Complete Court-Keeper, by Giles Jacob, 1st edition, 1713, 8th edition, 1819 ; 
Lex Maneriorum, by W. Nelson, 1728; History of the High Court of Parliament 
. . . and . . . of Court Baron and Court Leet, by T. Gurdon, 1731 ; The Complete 
Steward, by John Mordant, 1761 ; Jurisdiction of the Courts Leet, by Joseph 
Ritson, 1791 ; Practical Treatise on Copyhold Tenure, etc., by R. B. Fisher, 
1794, 1804; Treatise on Copyholds, by Charles Watkins, 1st edition, 1797, 
4th edition, 1825 ; Laws respecting Copyhold and Court -Keeping, etc., by 
Henry Fellowes, 1799 ; Practical Treatise on Copyhold Tenure, by John Scriven, 
first edition, 1816, seventh edition, 1896 ; C'opyJiold and Court-keeping Practice, 
by Rolla Rouse, 1837 ; The Law of Copyholds, by Leonard Shelford, 1853 ; 
and especially The Law of Copyholds, by C. I. Elton and H. J. H. Mackay, 
2nd edition, 1893. The last-named work (with those of Watkins and Scriven) 
we have found the most useful. An admirable account of a mediaeval Manor 
will be found in The Economic Development of a Norfolk Manor, 1086-1565, 
by Miss F. G. Davenport, 1906. For references to MS. Manor Rolls, see 
p. 116. The most complete series of published records of a Court Leet, extend- 
ing from 1552 to 1846, is The Court Leet Records of the Manor of Manchester, 
edited by J. P. Earwaker, twelve vols., 1884-1890. The Durham Halmote Rolls 
(Surtees Society) and Leet Jurisdiction in the City of Norwich, by Rev. W. 
Hudson, 1892 (Selden Society), may be consulted for earlier proceedings. 
The best descriptions known to us of the actual proceedings of Courts Leet in 
the nineteenth century are those of the Court at Ashton-under-Lyne in 1844 
(Health of Towns Commission, First Report, Appendix, vol. ii. pp. 71-73) ; 
of the Court at Berkeley in 1890, in Gloucestershire Notes and Queries, vol. iv. 
1890, p. 27 ; and of the Court at Durham in 1805, in Memorials of S. Giles', 
Durham, edited by J. Barmby, 1896, p. 7. See also History of the English 
Landed Interest, by R. M. Gamier, 1892, ch. xxix. and xxx. We know 
of no work describing the part played by the Lord's Court between 16S9 
and 1835. 



12 THE LORD'S COURT 

knew quite as much about the origin and early development 
of the Court Leet and Court Baron as he supposed. Even 
what he described as its contemporary nomenclature and 
procedure was, as we shall presently show, unlike the actual 
facts of many of the Courts that were being held around him. 
But such treatises as Kitchin's Jurisdictions and Jacob's 
Complete Court -Keeper had a significance not possessed by 
any similar handbooks for parish officers or Justices. The 
Overseers of the Poor and the Surveyors of Highways, like 
the Clerk of the Peace, could turn to numerous statutes 
authoritatively defining their powers and duties. But the 
Lord's Court was not the creation of any Act of Parliament. 
There was not even a Royal Charter prescribing its constitu- 
tion or procedure. In default of any authoritative document, 
the Steward whom the Lord appointed to hold his Court 
naturally accepted the guidance of the contemporary legal 
manuals. Hence the perpetual republishing and elaborating 
of these manuals by a succession of legal experts can hardly 
have failed to have tended gradually to transform the Courts 
as they were into the Courts as the lawyers thought they 
ought to be. Moreover, the legal theory of the seventeenth 
century has, for us, a further value. It preserves some of 
the spirit which had inspired the Manorial Courts in their 
prime, without some understanding of which their function 
can hardly be appreciated. Before describing the fragments of 
Manorial Jurisdiction actually forming part of English Local 
Government between 1689 and 1835, we think it, therefore, 
convenient to give in outline the constitution, procedure, and 
functions attributed to the Lord's Court by the contemporary 
legal authors. 

We note, first, that, in the lawyer's view, we have before 
us not one Lord's Court, but several ; with different constitu- 
tions and functions, different procedures and officers. There 
is evident a tendency to elaboration, one learned authority 
making out as many as five different Courts. 1 But this 

1 In R. B. Fisher's Practical Treatise on Copyhold Tenure, 1794, these are 
given as the Court Leet, the View of Frankpledge, the Court Baron, the 
Customary Court, and the Court of Survey. But there is no evidence that 
there was ever a separate Court called the View of Frankpledge, this being 
merely a duty undertaken by the Sheriff's Turn and afterwards by the Lord's 
Court (as Court Leet). The Court of Survey (occasionally called also ' ' Court 



THE COURT BARON 13 

elaboration and distinction was largely, if not entirely, analytic. 
The models for procedure offered to Stewards constantly 
assumed that the various kinds of Court would be held at 
one and the same time, as connected parts of what was in 
fact a single sessions of one and the same tribunal. We are 
unable to find contrary to a common impression that even 
the most punctilious lawyer asserted that the several Courts 
which he analytically distinguished ought, as a matter of law, 
always to be held at different times or at different places. So 
far as analytic distinction was concerned, the Courts resolved 
themselves, in the lawyer's view, into two sharply contrasted 
tribunals, the Court Baron and Customary Court on the one 
hand, and the Court Leet and View of Frankpledge on the 

other. 1 



(b) The Court Baron 

The Great Court of the Manor, or Court Baron, was, in the 
lawyers' view, essentially a private Court of the Lord, necessarily 
incident to every Manor, having for its object the maintenance 
of the rights of the Lord against his tenants and of the privileges 
of the tenants against the Lord, together with the settlement 
of their mutual differences and the organisation of their common 
affairs. It was not a Court of Eecord, but a private jurisdic- 
tion forming part of the estate and property of the Lord. 
The Court was to be summoned by notice given by the Steward 
to the Eeeve or Bailiff, and by him affixed to the Church door, 
or handed to the Parish Clerk to be read in Church, according 

of the Supervisor " see Seven Somerton Court Rolls, by A. Ballard ; Transactions 
of Oxfordshire Archaeological Society, 1906) was only a special sitting of the 
Court Baron, at which every tenant of the Manor had to produce his title, 
and special inquiry was made of the mutual rights and privileges of Lord 
and tenants. It was "generally held immediately upon the descending 
of a Manor to a new Lord, or upon the purchase of a Manor, to inform 
the new owner of every respective estate which he has a right to as Lord, and 
the tenure and customs by which they are held " (The Laws receding Copy- 
holds and Court-keeping, by Henry Fellowes, 1799, p. 43). Elaborate details 
of what a Court of Survey should inquire into are given in The Surveyor's 
Dialogue, by John Norden, originally published in 1607, and in a fourth 
edition in 1738 (see pp. 120-213). 

1 That the legal manuals from the thirteenth century onward distinctly 
contemplated the holding, in one undivided sessions, of all the two, three, four, 
or even five Courts that they analytically distinguished, will be clear to 
any one who examines the model agenda for the sessions that most of them 
supply. In this agenda the items belonging to the several Courts are inter- 



14 THE LORD'S COURT 

to local usage. 1 It was to be presided over by the Lord or 
his Steward, and had to be attended by all the tenants of the 
Manor, whether freeholders or copyholders. Neglect to attend 
the Court subtraction, or non-performance of suit of Court 
was punishable in the absence of an "essoin," or excuse 
admitted as sufficient, by a fine, and theoretically even by 

mingled ; and one Jury after another is to be sworn and charged. As in the 
Court rolls, so in " the manuals for Stewards which come to us from the 
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, we cannot discover two Courts or two 
methods of constituting the Court " (History of English Law, by Sir F. Pollock 
and F. W. Maitland, 1895, vol. i. p. 581). The later manuals are to the 
same effect. "After the Steward has gone through his charge to the jurors 
of the Court Leet," says Sir William Scroggs, "he may proceed to his charge 
to the Homagers or Court Baron " (The Practice of Courts Leet and Courts Baron, 
by Sir William Scroggs, 4th edition, 1728, p. 22). Even Sir Edward Coke 
alludes to Courts "of this double nature." The common practice "where 
a Court Leet and Court Baron are held together" is referred to (ibid. p. 11 ; 
Lex Custumaria, by S. C[arter], 1701, p. 73) ; or "where the three Courts are 
held at the same time " (Practical Treatise on Copyhold Tenure, by R. B. Fisher, 
1794, p. 167). The five necessary attributes of the Lord's Court, according to 
a widely read authority, were "The Lord is chief to command and appoint, 
the Steward to direct and record, the freeholders to affeer and judge, the 
copyholders to inform and present, the Bailiff to attend and execute" thus 
merging the Customary Court with the Court Baron (The Authority, Jurisdic- 
tion, and Method of Keeping County Courts, Courts Leet, and Courts Baron, by 
W. Greenwood, 9th edition, 1730, pp. 309-405). So, too, in the hundred 
pages of ',' customs " of particular Manors given by Watkins, the items belonging 
to the Court Baron, Customary Court, and Court Leet are not distinguished 
one from another (A Treatise on Copyholds, by Charles Watkins, 4th edition, 
1825, vol. ii. pp. 477-576). "The various Courts," says an able antiquary, 
' ' were conducted very much on the same lines in all Manors ; that is, all 
business connected with the transfer of land was duly settled, presentments 
were made of the tenants for various offences, as trespass, assault, blood- 
drawing, drunkenness, pound - breaking, disorderly conduct, etc., and for 
disobeying sanitary regulations in not cleansing ditches. Actions between 
tenants were tried, an immense boon to them, for they had a Court of Justice 
in their own locality, acquainted with the parties to the suit and the witnesses " 
(The History of Dulwich College, by W. Young, 1889 ; vol. ii. ch. ii., on the 
Court Rolls, by F. B. Bickley, p. 266). In fact, any careful student of the 
lawyers' treatises, as of the Court Rolls, will, notwithstanding all the analytic 
differentiation, have no difficulty in inferring of the Courts which they are 
describing that as Professor Maitland tells us of those of the thirteenth 
century "the Court which had been enforcing the customs of the Manor did 
not become some other Court when it turned to punish breaches of the peace 
or to adjudicate upon actions of debt between the tenants ; a lawyer might 
analyse its powers, might insist that some were royal franchises, while others 
were not, but all its powers, whatever they might be, were used in the mass 
and apparently with little thought as to the various titles by which they had 
been acquired" (Select Pleas in Manorial and other Seignorial Courts, by 
Prof. F. W. Maitland, 1889, p. xviii ; see also History of English Law, by Prof. 
W. S. Holdsworth, 1903, pp. 68-69). 

1 Practical Treatise on Copyhold Tenure, by John Scriven, 1816, pp. 433-449. 
It was said that at least sixteen days' notice ought to be given (The Order of 
Keeping a Court Leet and Court Baron, by Jonas Adames, 1593, p. 1). 



THE COURT BARON 15 

forfeiture of the tenement. The " free suitors," or freehold 
tenants of the Manor, holding of the Lord, in fee simple, land 
liable to escheat to him, were assumed to constitute the Homage ; 
and the presence of at least two such freeholders, if not three, 1 
was declared to be indispensable to a legal Court Baron. But 
as subinfeudation had been forbidden since the Statute of Quia 
Emptores in 1290 there were, by 1689, few Manors in which 
this condition could be complied with ; and the lawyers had 
been driven to assert that a " Customary Court Baron " could 
be held in the presence of copyholders only, who themselves 
constituted the Homage. 2 And by special custom, there might 
be separate Homages or Juries, sometimes of freeholders and 
copyholders respectively, having distinct functions. " If," said 
a writer of 1656, " the custom of the place be to make two or 
more Juries, or one Grand Jury and divers Petit Juries, it is 
good to observe it." 3 

The Court was to be opened by formal proclamation and 
summons to all concerned to attend. The roll of those owing 
" suit of Court " had to be read, and the names noted of those 
who were present. The " essoins " of the absentees were to be 
received and considered, and the defaulters to be fined. The 
Homage or Jury was then to be sworn, four at a time ; and 
the Steward had to address to them a formal " charge." The 
judgments of the Court were made either by the whole 
" Homage," or by a Jury of Homagers,* and they were embodied 
in the form of presentments to the Court, which were accepted 
and pronounced by the Steward. 

The principal business of the Court was to declare and en- 
force the ancient customs of the Manor, which, whether relating 

1 In the Manor of Dymock (Gloucestershire) the legal quorum was, by custom, 
three ; see the "customs" as elaborately recorded in an indenture of 1565, en- 
rolled in Chancery in 1657 ; mentioned in Jurisdictions, by John Kitchin, in 
1598 ; and given in A Treatise on Copyholds, by C. Watkins, 4th edition, 1825, 
vol. ii. pp. 487-491. 

2 The Bf lotion between the Lord of the Manor and the Copyholder his Tenant, 
by Charles Calthorpe, 1635, p. 72. 

3 Tlie Court- Keeper's Guide, by William Sheppard, 1656, p. 20. " In some 
cases," said the lawyers, " the Steward may impanel a second Jury to inquire 
into the concealments of the first, and fine them " {The Practice of Courts Leet 
and Courts Baron, by Sir William Scroggs, 4th edition, 1728, p. 16). 

4 "Out of the copyholders choose your Homage," says a manual (Laics 
respecting Copyholds and Court-keeping, by Henry Fellowes, 1799, pp. 32- 
43). 



1 6 THE LORD'S COURT 

to the incidents of land tenure, or to the use of the common 
fields or waste, were legally binding on both the Lord and his 
tenants. At one Court annually, the Manorial officers were to 
be appointed tihe Keeve or Greave, or Bailiff, who collected 
the Lord's quit-rents and heriots, his " fines certain " and " fines 
arbitrary," his " work silver " and his " customary penny," his 
" chevage " and " childwite," his " boscage " and " foldage " ; the 
Beadle, who gathered in the fines and amercements ; the 
Hayward, who had in charge the common or waste ; l some- 
times a Common Driver or a Herdsman, a Hog-ringer or a 
Swineherd, a Woodward or a " Greave of the Moors," a " Sur- 
veyor of Hedges " to see that the tenants enclosed during 
seed-time and harvest, 2 or other officers connected with the 
customary privileges of the community. These officers were in 
the vast majority of cases "presented by the Homage" 
sometimes several persons for the Steward to choose one. 
The question of liability to service in the several offices, 
and of the remuneration, if any, for such service, was deter- 
mined by the ancient customs of the Manor in each case. 
Moreover, the Court was said to have a vaguely defined 
power to enact By-laws, binding on all the tenants of the 
Manor, at least in matters, such as the use of the waste, in 
which they had a common interest. It was the business of the 
Homage or Jury also to make presentments of escheats and 
surrenders of tenements, and of the death of any tenant of the 
Lord ; of dower and freebench, of " waste," " emblements," and 
" botes." New tenants had also to be admitted by the Steward, 
on payment of the customary fees and fines, and with due per- 

1 It does not seem possible to accept Mrs. Grote's simple etymology which 
made Hayward = hogwarden (Some Account of the Hamlet of East Burnham, 
by a Resident, i.e. Harriet Grote, London, 1858, p. 28) ; nor is the later identifi- 
cation of Hayward with hedgewarden more trustworthy. The duties of the 
mediaeval Hayward, harvestman or reaper (in Latin, mtssor or messarius), a mere 
farm servant, "who seems to have acted sometimes as pounder," are fully described 
by Walter de Henley ; see also pp. xxv and xxxiii of The Durham Halmot Rolls 
(Surtces Society, 1889), and at p. 140 of The Court Baron (edited by F. W. 
Maitland and W. P. Baildon for the Selden Society, 1891). The word is used 
for shepherd in the "Journal of a Gloucestershire Justice, 1715-1756," in Law 
Magazine and Review, vol. ix. p. 280. But in the sixteenth and seventeenth 
centuries the Hayward might act in almost any capacity as an officer of the 
Lord's Court. Kitchin gives the title as synonymous with Greave or Beadle 
(Jurisdictions, etc., by John Kitchin, p. 93 of edition of 1675). 

2 As at Gnossall (Staffordshire) ; see The Manor and Manorial Records, by 
N. J. Hone, 1906, p. 193. 



THE COURT BARON 17 

formance of the ancient ceremonies of the Manor. 1 The Court, 
moreover, had the important function of hearing plaints and 
deciding disputes. It had, said Kitchin, been "ordained to 
determine injuries, trespasses, debts, and other actions," 2 at any 
rate among the tenants of the Manor, and by immemorial 
custom, also actions against mere residents within the Manor ; 
but in all cases limited, by the judges' construction of an 
ambiguous statute, to actions for less than forty shillings. 3 It 
might or might not examine witnesses, as the freeholders, who 
were both the judges and the jurymen, chose to decide. 4 The 
Court could be held anywhere within the Manor, or, by custom, 

1 See the extensive collection of the customs of particular Manors recorded in 
A Treatise on Copyholds, by Charles Watkins, 4th edition, 1825, pp. 477-576. 

2 Jurisdictions, etc., by John Kitchin, 1598, p. 6. "A Court Baron, "says 
another authority, " consisteth of the Lord, Tenants, Steward, and Bailiff within 
the Manor, and is sometimes called the Copyholders' Court, especially when it is 
for trial of titles of their lands, for taking and passing estates, surrenders, admit- 
tances, and grants ; and herein the Lord or his Steward is judge (as the custom of 
the place is) ; yet this Court is sometimes called the Freeholders' Court, when 
the actions and proceedings are for trial under 40s., and is something like a 
County Court, and the proceeding much the same, and was without doubt 
granted to the Lord originally by the King ; but now most are by prescription, 
and are commonly held once in three weeks, and may be as often as the Lord or 
Steward thinks fit, who is supreme judge in law and equity" (The Practice of 
Courts Leet and Courts Baron, by Sir William Scroggs, 4th edition, 1728, pp. 
39-40). 

3 The Statute of Gloucester, 1278, limiting actions in the King's Courts to cases 
in which not less than 40s. was at issue, was construed by the judges as for- 
bidding such actions in the County Court and Court Baron (Select Pleas in 
Manorial Courts, by F. W. Maitland, p. Ivi). At Dover, by custom, the Lord's 
Court had jurisdiction without limit of 40s. (Jurisdictions, by John Kitchiu, 
1598) ; and in at least several scores of Manors possibly those once connected 
with such ecclesiastical corporations as the Knights of St. John the Court had 
jurisdiction in probate and testamentary cases (Treatise on the Law of Copyholds, 
by John Scriven, 7th edition, 1896, p. 423). The wills proved in nearly 
fifty such Courts, between 1562 and 1815, are now deposited at Somerset House, 
London, or at various diocesan registries (see the list in The Manor and Manorial 
Records, by N. J. Hone, 1906, pp. 22, 302). 

4 The Practice of Courts Leet and Courts Baron, by Sir William Scroggs, 4th 
edition, 1728, p. 3. Whether the Court had anciently heard counsel or allowed 
appearance by attorney is not clear. That it did so in places in the eighteenth 
century is plain, but we suspect that this was exceptional. We read in 1731 of 
"the Freeholders' Court having lost most of its business, lawyers and attorneys not 
finding an account in giving attendance there for one or two cases, and the parties 
finding it difficult to have the assistance of lawyers there" (The History of the 
High Court of Parliament . . . and . . . of Court Baron and Court Leet, by 
T. Gurdon, 1731, vol. ii. p. 610). Occasionally even leading counsel would 
appear. At a " Baronial Court " held in the archiepiscopal Manor of Lambeth in 
1828, with a Jury of copyholders, both the Attorney - General and Henry 
Brougham were engaged for the several parties in a copyhold case (Augell v. 
Angell ; see Times, January 7, 1828). 

VOL. II. PT. I C 



1 8 THE LORDS COURT 

in one Manor for other Manors belonging to the same Lord. 
It could be called together whenever the Lord or his Steward 
chose, without unreasonably inconveniencing the tenants ; but 
usually, by custom, it was to be held every three weeks a 
period apparently derived from a Writ of Henry III. to the 
Sheriff of Lincoln, authorising the Courts of the Lords to be 
so held, 1 whence they were frequently termed Three Weeks' 
Courts. Finally, as was eventually decided by the Court of 
King's Bench in 1822, neither the right to hold such a Court, 
nor its jurisdiction in petty actions, was lost by mere non-user ; 
so that it could be revived after a lapse of half a century. 2 

We have said above that the lawyers declared the Court 
Baron to be a private jurisdiction of the Lord of the Manor, 
and not a public tribunal. But we must warn the student 
against a misunderstanding by which we ourselves were long 
misled. When it was held that the Court Baron was of 
private, not of public nature, those words were used in a 
sense very different from that nowadays given to them. All 
that the lawyers meant was that the Court Baron was not 
a Court of the King, to be held only by his authority or 
subject to his will. What the modern student has to bear 
in mind is that the Court Baron, however little of its power 
it may have owed to the King, had within its sphere no small 
part of the administration of the common affairs of the 
inhabitants of the Manor. It was, in fact, an organ of local 
government, alike legislative, executive, and judicial in 
function, with attributes that we shall, in our subsequent 
analysis, find of considerable interest. It was the Court 
Baron, and not the Court Leet, that had jurisdiction over the 
commonfield agriculture that survived, in many cases, down 
to the nineteenth century, and over the common pastures and 
wastes that were destined in certain places to become streets 
of dwelling-houses, market-places, wharves, and docks. It 
was the Court Baron, and not the Court Leet, that could 
claim authority -over fisheries and weirs, and generally over 
the banks and channels of rivers and estuaries, out of which 

1 Close Roll of 18 Henry III. ; see The Law of Copyholds, by 0. I. Elton and 
H. J. H. Mackay, 2nd edition, 1893, p. 300. 

2 R. v. Steward of Manor of Havering atte Bower, 1822 ; in Reports of Cases, 
etc., by E. V. Barnewall and E. H. Alderson, 1822, vol. v. pp. 691-692 ; Reports 
of Cases, etc., by James Dowling and A. Ryland, 1823, vol. ii. pp. 176-177. 



THE COURT BARON 19 

might spring prescriptive rights to tolls and dues. It was 
the Court Baron, and not the Court Leet, that provided the 
tribunal for the trial of petty actions for debt and trespass, 
which we shall see figuring prominently among the Courts 
by which the autonomy of Manorial Boroughs and Municipal 
Corporations was built up. It was the Court Baron, and 
not the Court Leet, that chose the Eeeve, the chief local 
officer of the little community, who became responsible for 
collecting the money tributes due to the Lord of the Manor, 
exactly as the chief officer of the Manorial Borough 1 was 
responsible to the Lord for .his quit-rents, or as the Mayor 
of the fully-developed Municipal Corporation was answerable 
for the " farm " of the Borough to the King. Finally, it was 
the Court Baron, not the Court Leet, that contributed what 
became the predominant principle of eighteenth - century 
Local Government common consent and local autonomy 
the Homage being, unlike the Leet Jury, themselves the 
judges of the Court, interpreting, and therefore developing, 
the Customs of the Manor as if these concerned themselves 
alone, without the intervention of the Lord or his Steward, 
and without reference to the interests of the rest of the 
community. To the lawyer the Court Baron of the Manor 
might seem essentially a law court, " the lowest judicial unit 
of the Kingdom." But " in practice though primarily a law 
court, the Manor Court would also serve as the administrative 
and, in some sense, as the legislative organ of the community 
of the Manor." 2 " The majority of homagers," noted a learned 
Steward of the seventeenth century, " sworn at the Lord's 
Court, for the better preservation of order, have, time beyond 
memory of all men, used, with the Lord's consent, to make 
By-laws, as well for the stinting and limiting the number, 
as for appointing times for the putting the tenants' cattle 
into the common pastures, wastes, and commons of the 
Manor. And- such By-laws, made with reasonable penalties, 
and clauses for distress for such penalties, have, by the time 
aforesaid, been binding and concluding to all the tenants of 
the Manor. The like orders and consent bind for the mending 

1 See Chap. III. "The Manorial Borough." 

2 History of Municipal Government in Liverpool, by Prof. Ramsay Muir, 
1906, p. 2. 



20 THE LORD'S COURT 

of tenants' ways, and for the establishment of the common 
good, and preventing of public annoyances, provided that such 
orders crossed not the law or statutes of the Kingdom." l It 
may be that it was the Court Leet and View of Frankpledge 
that gradually assumed the greater prominence in those places 
in which the Lord's Court continued, without further develop- 
ment, to be the local governing authority. But it is the 
constitution and legal attributes of the Court Baron that we 
shall presently find of equal, if not of greater, significance 
in our description of the Manorial Boroughs and our analysis 
of the Municipal Corporations. 

Such being the importance of what we may term the 
Court Baron aspect of the Lord's Court, we may be pardoned 
for drawing the attention of the sociological student to one 
of its attributes, unnoticed by the lawyers, which had, we 
suggest, an adverse influence on its eighteenth-century develop- 
ment. The common agreement upon which rests the authority 
of a modern Municipality is that of inhabitants at large that 
is, of the consumers of its services. The Court Baron, on 
the other hand, was essentially the organ, not of the citizens 
or consumers as such, but of the occupying owners of 
agricultural land that is to say, it belonged to the genus of 
Associations of Producers. 2 The student of other types of 
Associations of Producers will not be surprised to find the 
Homage resenting the intrusion of " foreigners " and the 
invasion of the commons by " landless residents." The same 
spirit led to the exaction of tolls and dues in the market and 
at the landing stage from those who had not been admitted 
as tenants of the Manor ; and led, even in unincorporated 
villages, to the Reeve, as representative of the Homage, 

1 History and Antiquities of Lewes, by T. W. Horsfield, 1824, vol. i. p. 179 
(quoting a document of 1662). 

2 By the term "Associations of Producers" we mean societies or com- 
munities of persons who are engaged in the production of commodities or 
services, and who themselves own or control the whole or part of the material 
instruments of production, or are otherwise self-directing. The best known 
examples of such associations are the Merchant and Trade Gilds of the Middle 
Ages and, in our own generation, what are called Productive Co-operative 
Societies or "self-governing workshops" (to be distinguished from the so-called 
Distributive Co-operative Societies or "stores," which do also much production, 
and are Associations of Consumers). See, on the whole subject, The Co- 
operative Movement in Oreat Britain, by Beatrice Potter (Mrs. Sidney Webb), 
1900. 



THE COURT LEET 21 

charging a fee to such persons for the privilege of opening 
a shop. It was, we suggest, the fact that the Court Baron 
had the attributes that belong to an Association of Producers, 
that caused it, as we shall see in our account of the Manorial 
Boroughs, to develop into a close body, renewing itself by 
co-option, from which the ordinary inhabitant was excluded. 

(c) The Court Led 

The Court Leet 1 and View of Frankpledge was, so the 
lawyers held, not a private incident to a Manor, but a public 
jurisdiction, a Franchise assumed to have been obtained by 
Royal Grant to the Lord of the Manor, with a view to spare 
his tenants the trouble of attending the Sheriff's Turn. 
Such a grant can seldom be traced except in Charters to 
Boroughs ; but in Manors in which a Court Leet had actually 
been held time out of mind the grant was presumed. The 
Court Leet, unlike the Court Baron, was a Court of Record, 
and the Steward who presided was not merely its officer but 
an integral part of the Court itself, 2 empowered summarily to 
punish by fine any contempt committed in Court, and even 
to commit the offender to prison in default of payment. He 
could take a recognisance of the peace ; 3 and, in fact, " in 
matters within the jurisdiction of the Leet, the Steward," so 
the lawyers held, " had [in Court] powers equal with the 
Justices " themselves in their own Courts. 4 It was a char- 

1 " The word Leet ... is not to be found either in the Saxon law or in Glanvil, 
Bracton, Briton, Fleta, or the Mirror (our most ancient law writers), nor in any 
statute prior to 27 Edward III. c. 28 " (The Jurisdiction of the Courts Leet, by 
J. Ritson, 3rd edition, 1816, p. 1 ; A Short Treatise of the History and Anti- 
quities and Jurisdiction of all the Courts of Law, by Henry Aldridge, 1835, p. 
193). The word seems to be of East Anglian local usage. "Towards the 
end of the thirteenth century the word Leet (leta), which seems to have spread 
outward from the East Anglian counties, was becoming a common name for 
such a Court " (History of English Law, by Sir F. Pollock and F. W. Maitland, 
vol. i. book ii. ch. iii. sec. 5, p. 568 ; see also Leet Jurisdiction in the City of 
Norwich, by Rev. W. Hudson, 1892 ; Select Pleas in Manorial Courts, by F. W. 
Maitland, 1889, pp. xvi and Ixxiii ; The Coventry Leet Book, by M. D. Harris, 
1907). 

2 Holroyd v. Breare and Holmes, in Reports of Cases, etc., by E. V. Barnewell 
and E. H. Alderson, 1822, vol. ii. p. 473. 

8 7 Henry VI. c. 12 (1429) ; 10 Henry VI. c. 8 (1432) ; 11 Henry VI. c. 7 
(1433). 

4 Practical Treatise on Copyhold Tenure, by John Scriven, 7th edition, 1896, 
p. 441. For instances of the Court Leet becoming indistinguishable from the 
Petty or General Sessions of the Peace, see pp. 350-352. 



22 THE LORD'S COURT 

acteristic feature of this Court that it had to be attended by 
the people at large. In legal theory the obligation to attend 
and, if required, to take part in the proceedings extended to 
every male resident within the Manor over twelve some 
said over sixteen years of age, who had dwelt there for a 
year and a day. It was, perhaps, with reference to this 
obligation that the 42nd section of Magna Charta had 
provided that these Courts were " to be held but twice a year, 
a mouth after Michaelmas and Easter." But though any 
" View of Frankpledge " or enrolment in tithings had long 
since been obsolete, the roll of the inhabitants was, in 1689, 
still supposed to be called over, and every one had to answer 
to his name. 1 New residents (or perhaps only new freeholders) 

1 " You must call to the Constable for a Leet Bill, which should compre- 
hend all inhabitants of the Leet within the precinct above the age of 16 " 
(The Practice of Courts Leet and Courts Baron, by Sir William Scroggs, 4th 
edition, 1728, p. 18). The Statute of Marlboroiigh (52 Henry III. c. 10) 
excused from attendance at the Sheriff's Turn, and impliedly at the Lord's Court, 
peers, ecclesiastics, and women. Prior to that statute it seems that every 
one over 1 2, including servants and women, had to attend (Practical Treatise on 
Copyhold- Tenure, by John Scriven, 7th edition, 1896, p. 438). But tenants 
in Ancient Demesne were always held to be exempted (The Law of Ancient 
Demesne, by J. P. Yeatman, 1894 ; Villainage in England, by P. Vinogradoff, 
1892, p. 89 ; TJw Manor and Manorial Records, by N. J. Hone, 1906, ch. 
vii.). How long the View of Frankpledge was kept up is uncertain. Long 
after the Lord's Court had lost its power of trying felonies, a great authority 
incidentally tells us that it "retained the duty of viewing the frankpledges . . . 
which it exercised, it is said, as la 1 e as 10 Henry VI. (1432) in Cornwall" 
(The Tenures of Kent, by C. I. Elton, 1867, p. 154). We owe to Mr. Seebohm an 
even later example. In 1470 we see the Court at Hitchin (Herts) still admit- 
ting men into " the tithing of the Lord the King " ; and presenting that " John 
Crouche is of the age of 12 years and more, and has resided within the precinct 
of this View for one year and beyond, and is out of the tithing of the Lord the 
King. Therefore he is in mercy, and it is ordered to distrain him to put him- 
self on the tithing of the Lord the King " (translation from MS. Court Rolls, 
Hitchin, portfolio 177, No. 60, in Public Record Office). We do not know 
whether this fining of absentees from the Lord's Court, as we see it in the 
eighteenth century, can be connected with the mediaeval chevagium(see Select Pleas 
in Manorial Courts, by Professor F. W. Maitland, 1889, p. xxxi). "The 
strict theory of the law," we are told, " seems to have required that all the 
frankpledges should attend the view ; but as a matter of fact it was usual 
for none but the Chief Pledges to attend ; often, however, they had to bring 
with them a sum of money which was accepted in lieu of the production 
of their tithings " (History of English Law, by Sir F. Pollock and F. W. 
Maitland, 1895, vol. i. p. 557). It may be, as has been suggested, that the 
Leet Jury was composed of, or in some way represents, the Headboroughs, and 
that these were the heads of tithings, or Capital Pledges. In some cases, how- 
ever, there seems to be no connection between the Jury and either Headboroughs 
or Capital Pledges ; and the fining of all tenants of the Manor seems often to 
be unconnected with the Leet Jury. These and other customary payments to 
the Manor require further study. There is, for instance, the frequent custom of 



THE COURT LEET 23 

were then "sworn to be faithful and loyal to the King," all 
absentees being subject to a fine. Here the legal function of 
the ordinary inhabitant ceased. But the Bailiff or Reeve had 
to summon not only the inhabitants generally, but also two or 
three dozen of the more respectable and substantial residents 
to serve as jurymen, either for the occasion of the coming 
Court or Lawday, or, according to local custom, sometimes 
during the ensuing twelve months. The principal functions 
of this Jury were inquisitorial and judicial. It was " charged " 
on its appointment to discover all persons who had committed 
any offence against the commonweal, whether contrary to the 
lawful customs of the Manor or to the law of the land ; and 
to " present " such offenders to the Court. For though the 
Court Leet was practically the Court of the Lord of the Manor, 
and was presided over by his Steward, it administered, so the 
lawyers said, not the Lord's will but the King's justice, and 
the Lord himself could be " presented " in his own Court for 
a breach of the law and condemned accordingly. The Court 
Leet was, in fact, a local criminal court as the lawyers said, 
the King's Court holden by the Lord, but the King did not 

"common fine," payment made annually either by every tenant or resident, 
whether present in Court or not, or by the officers of particular townships on 
behalf of their townships. There is much reason to suppose, as Ritson declared, 
that this " common fine," or " certum letoe," was a payment made to excuse all 
the suitors but the Chief Pledges from appearing at the Court (Jurisdiction of 
the Courts Leet, by J. Ritson, 3rd edition, 1816, p. 120). At the Easter Leet of 
the Manor of Wimbledon (Surrey) " the Headboroughs pay a Common Fine, for 
Putney, 6s. 8d. ; Roehampton, 2s. ; Mortlake, 8s. 4d. ; Barnes, 5s. ; Wimbledon, 
formerly 8s. 4d., but abated by reason of the parsonage to 6s. 8d." (The Law 
of Copyholds, by C. Watkins, 4th edition, 1825, vol. ii. pp. 554-556). In a 
case brought before the Court of King's Bench a customary exaction of ten shil- 
lings each from the jurymen as Chief Pledges was upheld (Term Reports, vol. ii. 
p. 42 ; Jurisdiction of the Courts Leet, by J. Ritson, 1816, p. 100). On the 
other hand, this view does not explain the cases in which a payment is exacted from 
all and sundry, whether they attend or not. " Cert Money and Common Fine," 
says an eighteenth-century writer, " is a fine paid by resiants or residents of several 
Manors to the lords thereof, for the certain keeping of the Leet, and sometimes 
to the Hundred (as the Manor of Hook in Dorsetshire pays Cert Money to the 
Hundred of Egerdon). And Common Fine is a certain sum of money which 
the residents within the View of some Leets paid to the Lord thereof, called in 
divers places Headsilver, in others Cert Money and Headpence ; and was first 
granted to the Lord towards the charge of his purchase of the Court Leet, 
whereby the residents had now the liberty of doing their Suit Royal nearer 
home, and not be compelled to go to the Sheriffs Turn. As in the Manor of 
Sheapshead in the County of Leicester, every resident pays a penny per head to 
the Court held after Michaelmas, which is there called Common Fine" (The 
Complete Steu-ard, by John Mordant, 1761, vol. i. p. 37). Other synonyms 
were " King's Silver," "Headmouey," and " Chief Silver." 



24 THE LOR EPS COURT 

interfere either by appointing judges or other officers, or by 
reviewing or controlling its proceedings. It was the Lord's 
own Steward who presided over the Court, selected the 
inhabitants who were to serve as the Jury, instructed them 
as to their duties, and appointed, on their nomination, the 
Constable, the Aleconners, and the other public officers of the 
Manor, whilst all the fines imposed went into the pocket of 
the Lord, or were the perquisites of the Manorial officers. 

The Court Leet differed, however, markedly from a 
modern criminal court both in its procedure and in the 
practical range of its jurisdiction. The Court, it was assumed, 
would act without instigation from any prosecutor, and needed 
to issue no summons to a defendant. Everybody was, in 
fact, presumed to be in attendance. The Jury presented 
offenders out of their own knowledge, sometimes aided by the 
reports of the various officers, and their presentments appar- 
ently condemned such offenders, even in their absence. There 
was no necessity to hear witnesses, and neither attorney nor 
counsel would be present, 1 though the Court would listen to 
a defendant in extenuation or denial of the accusation. In 
their presentment the Jury not only declared the defendant 
guilty of the offence mentioned, but also indicated the appro- 
priate penalty. As the Court had no gaol at its command, and, 
as seventeenth-century lawyers held, no power of imprison- 
ment, 2 this penalty nearly always took the form of a money 

1 " When they are discharged the same day," says Ritson, "it would seem 
necessary for them to proceed chiefly upon evidence, and indeed there is gener- 
ally, if not always, a proclamation for that purpose. . . . The proceedings 
. . . are without expense, the suitor pays no fees, and advocates or attorneys 
of course never enter it " (Jurisdiction of the Courts Leet, by J. Ritson, 3rd 
edition, 1816, pp. 23-24). But, as above mentioned, lawyers did sometimes 
attend the Lord's Court, which was at once Court Baron and Court Leet. 

2 Coke, who always took a limited view of the power of the Lord's Court, 
seems first to have asserted this (The Compleat Copyholder, by Sir E. Coke, 
1630), and it became accepted. "The Court Leet," says a law book of 1745, 
quoting Sir William Scroggs, " is the only Court which may fine but not 
imprison" (The Justice of Peace, by Theodore Barlow, 1745, p. 159). The 
stocks for drunkards (4 James I. c. 5), the pillory and tumbril for bakers and 
brewers (51 Henry III. st. 1, c. 6), and the ducking-stool and brank (or scold's 
bridle) were, however, available, and seem to have been lawfully inflicted as 
punishments by the Court Leet (Jurisdiction of the Courts Leet, by Joseph 
Ritson, 1816, p. 12), at any rate in the Middle Ages (see for a case in 1290, 
Select Pleas in Manorial Courts, *by F. W. Maitland, 1889, p. 98). Ritson com- 
plained that Coke had taken an unduly limited view of the Court's powers 
(Jurisdiction of the Courts Leet, by Joseph Ritson, 1816, p. 19). 



THE COURT LEET 25 

fine or " amercement." The presentment was then referred 
by the Steward to two Affeerors, 1 or officers appointed to 
" affeer " the amercement, by which was to be understood its 
final assessment at a definite money penalty, usually less 
than the maximum indicated for the particular class of offence. 
Such a fine, if not at once paid in Court, had to be collected 
by the Bailiffs, or Beadles, or " Serjeants " of the Manor, or, if 
no such officers had been appointed, by the Constable, who, 
with or without a Manorial distress warrant from the Steward, 
had power to distrain on the goods of defaulters. 2 The pre- 
sentment of the Jury, made in one form and received by the 
Steward in Court, might be " retired " or reversed the same day, 
if the Steward chose to allow it, by another Jury ; but was, so 
the lawyers held, " the day passed, as true and sacred as the 
Gospel," not subject to traverse or appeal, in that or any other 
Court. 3 Even more peculiar in modern eyes was the scope of 
the Court Leet's jurisdiction. As we see it in the legal text- 
books of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, it had 
already lost its authority over the great majority of criminal 
offences. " Petty treasons and felonies," says Kitchin, " are 

1 Whether the affeerors were chosen by the Steward or by the Jury is not 
clear. In the Manor of Worplesdon (Surrey) it was customary, " for the Law- 
day," for "one to be a freeholder, but if a Court without a Lawday " for both 
to be copyholders (Treatise on Copyholds, by C. Watkins, 4th edition, 1825, 
vol. ii. pp. 559-561). 

2 "A Steward may by parole command a Bailiff to make distress " (Treatise 
of the Antiquity . . . of the Ancient Courts of Leet, by Robert Powell, 1642, p. 
33). "The Lord may have an action of debt or distrain for it of common 
right ; and such distress may be taken in the streets, and be sold " (The Justice 
of Peace, by Theodore Barlow, 1745, p. 159). 

3 Jurisdiction of the Courts Leet, by Joseph Ritson, 1816, pp. 9-10. But 
though not subject to appeal, or, strictly speaking, to traverse, a presentment 
that affected the party's freehold property might be made the subject of com- 
plaint to the Court of King's Bench, which that Court would try. Moreover, 
that Court's jurisdiction in other matters was not ousted by the fact that they 
had been dealt with in the Lord's Court. Thus, when the Jury of the Lord's 
Court of the Manor of St. Giles's in the Fields on complaint of the keeping of 
over 400 hogs by a distiller near St. Giles's Pound, with a stench that was 
abominable, had formally presented that this was no nuisance, such a decision 
did not prevent an indictment being brought in the Court of King's Bench, 
when the Jury found that it was a nuisance (R. v. Smart, 1734 ; see notes 
of trial among the Hardwicke MSS. ; Life of Lord Chancellor Hardwicke, by 
G. Harris, 1847, vol. i. pp. 265-270). The lawyers drew a distinction between 
offences. It was said by Hale, " that if there be a presentment in a Leet for a 
personal misdemeanour it is a conviction, and conclusive ; but if it be for a 
nuisance or any matter that concerns freehold, the party may come up after- 
wards and traverse" (Jurisdiction of the Courts Leet, by J. Ritson, 1816, p. 140). 



26 THE LORD'S COURT 

enquirable and presentable in a Leet, but not punishable 
there." All matters of indictment had, indeed, been trans- 
ferred to the assizes by a statute of Edward IV. The Court 
Leet, meeting only once or twice a year, with its cumbrous 
machinery of universal attendance and its inability to impose 
sentences of imprisonment, was obviously unfitted for dealing 
with petty police cases. The whole business of the conser- 
vancy of the King's peace, including, therefore, every ase of 
assault, was, in fact, taken over by the Justices of the Peace 
in Petty or Quarter Sessions. It was to these Justices, and 
not to the Court Leet, that Parliament throughout the six- 
teenth and seventeenth centuries confided the jurisdiction with 
regard to the new statutory offences, which were superseding so 
many of the old Common Law misdemeanours. Thus, by 1689, 
there remained to the Court Leet, in the lawyer's view, little more 
than the petty delinquencies connected with the Assize of Ale, 
the Manorial market, and the use of the highways, together 
with the wide and elastic offence denoted by a common 
nuisance. 

To the modern student, the Suppression of Nuisances 
seems a comparatively insignificant part of Local Government. 
But to the lawyer and the administrator of 1689 it comprised, 
along with the Eelief of the Poor, practically the whole of 
local administration. As we shall see in the subsequent 
volume, in which we deal with the Suppression of Nuisances, 
this was the root out of which sprang such services as the 
Maintenance of Roads, the Drainage of Towns, the Paving and 
Cleansing and Lighting of Streets, and the whole of what we 
now call Public Health. " A common nuisance," says a con- 
temporary lawyer, " seems to be an offence against the public, 
either by doing a thing which tends to the annoyance of all 
the King's subjects, or by neglecting to do a thing which the 
common good requires." l When we come to describe the 
regulative activity sanctioned by this definition we shall see 
that it covers an amazing range of requirements, both positive 
and negative; each generation with or without express 
direction from the Legislature dropping out some offences 
and adding others, the categories now swelling, now contract- 

1 Justice of the Peace, by R. Burn, 6th edition, 1758, vol. ii. p. 432 ; citing 
a dictum of Hawkins. 



THE COURT LEET 27 

ing, so that the volume of individual personal activity dealt 
with was always varying. Thus, in the Courts Leet of the 
fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, we find the Stewards directing 
the Juries to present persons guilty of " eavesdropping " or 
" theftbote," of maintenance or barratry, of " being a common 
and turbulent brawler " or " a common scold," of " selling 
unbaited beef " or " gashing hides." In the seventeenth and 
eighteenth centuries the more common " annoyances of all the 
King's subjects," to which the Juries directed their attention, 
were unscoured ditches or unmended highways, trees over- 
hanging the road, refusing to pave the street in front of one's 
house, or declining to serve as Ale -taster, Dog -muzzier, or 
Scavenger. From the middle of the eighteenth century down 
to the very end of the period with which we are dealing, we 
find, in the roll of presentments, quite other kinds of personal 
conduct stigmatised as common nuisances such as the 
emission of smoke, heaping refuse on unoccupied land, per- 
mitting privies and cesspools to drain into the newly-made 
sewers, leaving cellar flaps open and unguarded, retaining 
hanging signs, permitting dangerous bulls to go at large, 
keeping mastiffs unmuzzled, or allowing pigs to roam in the 
streets. In fact, it is difficult to find any kind of personal 
conduct, whether intrinsically innocent or plainly criminal, 
and whether or not expressly included among statutory 
offences, which might not, at one period or another, have 
found its way, as a common nuisance, into the presentments 
of a Court Leet Jury. 

Closely connected with this judicial business was the 
power assumed to be possessed by the Court Leet, equally 
with the Court Baron, of making new By-laws, binding on all 
the residents within the Manor. The earlier legal writers 
found the Court Leet making such By-laws, and accepted this 
function as warranted by tradition. Gradually it became of 
undoubted authority. " It seemeth that of common right," 
wrote Dr. Burn in 1756, "any Court Leet, with the assent of 
the tenants, may make By-laws under certain penalties, in 
relation to matters properly within the cognizance of such 
Court, such as reparation of the highways and the like." 1 
Within what limits this By-law-making power would have 
1 Justice of tlw Peace, by Dr. R. Burn, vol. iii. p. 240 of edition of 1820. 



28 THE LORDS COURT 

been, in any particular generation, upheld by the King's 
Courts must remain uncertain, as the point cannot be said 
to have been very definitely determined. But whether or not 
the King's Courts would have upheld their dicta, we find the 
legal manuals unhesitatingly advising the Stewards that such 
By-laws might be made. 

The Court Leet exercised also another important function 
which we do not nowadays associate with a criminal tribunal. 
It had the duty of appointing whatever staff of public officers 
to attend to the government of the locality that custom 
required. There were, first of all, the officers charged with 
" conserving " the King's peace within the Manor. In a small 
rural Manor this meant only the appointment, year by year, of 
one of the residents to serve as Constable. In larger parishes 
there might be several Constables for different hamlets or 
tithings ; they might be called " Chief Pledges," " Boroheads," 
" Borsholders," " Tithingmen," " Deciners," " Headboroughs," 
" Thirdboroughs," or by other ancient titles of which the 
original meaning had been forgotten ; but their duty was 
always to preserve order -in the little community. The legal 
form seems to have been for the Jury to present one or more 
persons as liable to serve the particular office, and for the 
Court that is the Steward to appoint one or more of the 
persons so presented. In addition to these officers, particular 
Manors had, by custom, to appoint such others as Aleconners 
or Ale-tasters, Carnivals or Carnals, the Finder, Pinner, or 
Poundkeeper, the Dyke-reeve or Moss-reeve or Wall-reeve, and 
the Burleymen or Bylawmen. Sometimes in an old " forest " 
district the Court had to appoint a " Greave of the Forest," 
and various subordinate forest officers. In the numerous 
unincorporated market towns it was the Court Leet that had 
to appoint the Bread-weighers and Viewers or Inspectors of 
Weights and Measures, the Market-lookers, the Searchers and 
Sealers of Leather, the Pecksealers, and the indispensable 
Bellman or Town-crier ; whilst in populous towns there might 
also be Town Scavengers, Dog-muzzlers, Clerks of the Wheat, 
Fish, and Butchery Markets, or even, as at Lewes, a " Clerk of 
the Spars and Withs." l The whole official staff of a Court 

1 The History and Antiquities of Lewes, by T. W. Horsfield, 1824-32, 
p. 174. 



THE COURT LEET 29 

Leet might thus be very numerous in exceptional cases even 
exceeding a hundred. 1 In all these offices service was com- 
pulsory upon all adult male residents within the Manor, and 
could be enforced by summary fine and distraint on any 
recalcitrants. It was taken for granted by the lawyers that 
every respectable male resident was liable under legal obliga- 
tion to serve the Manor in his turn, 2 without salary or other 
remuneration. It was, in fact, no part of the conception of 
local government, at the time when the Court Leet was in its 
prime, that there should be anything that we should now call 
the Municipal administration of public services, that is to say, 
the employment of paid officers to do positive services for the 
common enjoyment. Every service requisite for the simple 
life of the little community was a duty imposed, as a condition 
of tenure or an obligation of status, upon some individual 
resident or another. If every man did his duty in obeying 
the law of the land and the customs of the Manor if he 
neither broke the King's peace nor committed a public 
nuisance all would be well. But as men were perverse and 
weak, there would be defaulters unless some one was responsible 
for seeing that the Law and the By-laws were adhered to. In 
the old system of frankpledge, the " Capital Pledge " was 
apparently held responsible for his " tithing," or group of 
inhabitants, on all counts. In the Court Leet, as we find 
it in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, each Manorial 
officer was technically responsible for presenting the com- 
mission of one specified offence throughout the whole Manor. 
The Jury was responsible, on the information given by these 
officers, for presenting and amercing all offenders. " The soul 
of the system," says a learned antiquary, " consisted in the 
universal obligation of every member of a tithing [that is, in 
theory, every adult male] to disclose and bring to punishment 
every breach of the laws and customs by which the community 



1 The Court Leet Records of the Manor of Manchester, vol. vi. p. 241 (Court 
of 5th October 1686, when 110 officers were appointed). 

2 By Common Law, the Deputy Steward of the Salford Court explained in 
1835, the choice of persons to serve as Constable rested with the Court, unless 
there was a valid custom to the contrary. Such a custom existed in the town- 
ship of Urmston, the "nomination of Constables by house-roll, so that each 
person in the township bears the burden in his turn " (Manchester Times, 
1835). 



3 o THE LORD'S COURT 

was bound." * It is this note of the social obligation of every 
citizen, pervading both the legislation and the legal manuals of 
the sixteenth century, that we find characterising, in particular, 
the government of numerous little communities by the Court 
Leet of the King holden by the Lord of the Manor. 

1 Leet Jurisdiction in the City of Norwich, by Rev. William Hudson, 1892, 
p. Ixxv. 



CHAPTER II 

THE COURT IN RUINS 

WE now pass from the clear-cut theories of contemporary 
lawyers to the actual constitution and working of the Lord's 
Court between 1689 and 1835. It will be at once apparent 
that we are dealing with an institution that is nowhere in its 
prime, but in every instance falling into decay. In some 
Manors the Lord's Court still provided the principal machinery 
of Local Government; in others there survived only a mere 
shred of a constitution. In many districts it is the manage- 
ment of the land that has passed away ; in others, the function 
of trying petty cases of debt and trespass ; in others, again, it 
is the power of fining nuisance -mongers or of appointing 
Constables that has been lost. What will become abundantly 
clear is that the Lord's Court, as it actually existed, differed 
widely from the lawyer's view of what it ought to have been. 
In many of the cases that we shall describe there was no 
separation, either in constitution or procedure, between what 
the lawyers termed the Court Baron of the Lord, and the 
Court Leet of the King. In these cases we see one and the 
same Court, in a single undivided sitting, transacting, through 
one set of officers and one Jury, without distinguishable order 
or precedence, all the business of the little community, whether 
this business related to the maintenance of the Lord's rights, 
the conveyance of a plot of land from seller to purchaser, the 
mutual arrangement of the common rights of the tenants, the 
keeping up of fences and dykes, the crops to be sown in 
particular fields, the dates at which the various agricultural 
operations were to begin, the trial of civil actions, the present- 
ment of public nuisances and minor crimes, the fining of 

31 



3 2 THE COURT IN RUINS 

offenders, and the choice and appointment of an indefinite 
variety of local public officers. We find, in fact, in the 
majority of our examples, simply an Undifferentiated Court 
This absence of the theoretical differentiation between Court 
Baron and Court Leet will become apparent to the reader of 
the descriptions alike of the Courts of the Hundred, Honour, or 
Barony, and those of the Manor or Borough in the Middle 
Ages, it may be said, all tribunals were Undifferentiated Courts 
but we shall recur to it specifically when we come to the 
Court of the Manor. 

(a) The Hierarchy of Courts 

The actual constitution of the Lord's Court was, however, 
in some places more complicated than is described by the 
lawyers. We discover still existing in some parts of the 
country between 1689 and 1835 a curious array of Courts 
above Courts, and jurisdictions within jurisdictions. We come 
across Hundred Courts, Honour Courts, Soke Courts, Barony 
Courts, Knight's Courts, or Forest Courts, wielding authority 
over large districts within which are also various distinct 
Halmote Courts, Courts Baron, Courts Leet, or Borough Courts. 
In the ruinous condition into which these Courts had, by 1689, 
everywhere fallen, we cannot with any certainty unravel what 
relationship they had once borne to each other, except that 
the smaller Courts stood in a certain position of inferiority 
to those of wider jurisdiction. We cannot, for instance, say 
that the relationship was ever one of Courts of First Instance 
and Courts of Appeal there was, we imagine, in mediaeval 
jurisdiction, taking the form of punishing defaults, nothing 
corresponding to the customary modern right of a defendant 
in a civil action to appeal against a decision of a Court of 
First Instance. 1 Nor do we find evidence of any right of 

1 Whether such a right of appeal had ever existed we do not assume to 
decide. In one great ecclesiastical jurisdiction, at least, such a right of hearing 
appeals was, in 1284, strenuously asserted on behalf of the Hundred Court, 
and as strenuously denied on behalf of the Court of the Manor. At Crondal, 
in Hampshire, where the Manor belonged to a priory, it was claimed by the 
Bishop of Winchester, as Lord of the Hundred Court, that "where the Prior 
and his Steward and his other ministers, for a bribe, or through partiality, or 
in any other manner, refuse to do justice [in the Court of the Manor] to any 
plaintiff of the Hundred of Crundale, the Lord Bishop of Winchester and his 
Steward have power at the first Hundred [Court] at Blackheathfield to inquire, 
terminate, and amend this wrong." To this the Convent, as owner of the Manor, 



THE HIERARCHY OF COURTS 33 

appeal to an outside or higher jurisdiction in the civil suits 
between tenants of the Manor. But it seems clear that, in 
some cases at any rate, the presentments of the inferior Courts 
were enforced by actions taken at the head Court ; moreover, 
there is reason to believe that the head Court did not always 
refrain from dealing with cases which might have been within 
the jurisdiction of the inferior Court ; and it certainly had 
some sort of jurisdiction in default. 1 " It seems a good 
prescription," says Sir William Scroggs, " for a Grand Leet 
(to which other inferior Leets may be subordinate, as that 
to the Torn) to oblige the Chief Pledges and a certain number 
of the resiants or inhabitants of every town, etc., within its 
precinct to appear at every such Grand Leet, to inquire into 
such offences as were not inquired into in the inferior Leet." 2 
We may perhaps infer that if an offence had not been presented 
in the Court of a petty Manor, it might be presented in the 
Court of the Honour or Grand Leet of some wider jurisdiction, 
if such existed ; and if not presented at any subordinate Court, 
then at the Court of the Hundred. 3 Hence, we venture 
though without desiring in any way to imply a complete 
subordination of one to the other to describe these interest- 
ing series as Hierarchies of Courts. 

made answer ' ' that it is altogether to be denied, because he [the Bishop] has no 
right to intrude himself in the Prior's Courts ; because if bondmen, they have 
no refuge except to their Lord, and if freemen, the King alone and his Justices 
ought to hear and terminate complaints of a false judgment." It was admitted 
that the tenants of the Manor owed suit and service to the Bishop's Hundred 
Court, which held the View of Frankpledge for the whole Hundred ; and it 
was eventually agreed that the tenants should not be called to account in the 
Court of the Manor for anything already dealt with by the Hundred Court. We 
gather that the jurisdiction in appeal or in default was left undecided (Records 
and Documents relating to the Hundred and Manor of Crondal, by F. J. Baigent, 
Hampshire Record Society, Part I. p. 16). 

1 Ritson seems to have been unable to conceive of a Hierarchy of Courts. 
He asserts that the jurisdiction of the " Leet of the Hundred " was only over so 
much of the Hundred as was not within the jurisdiction of the Court Leet of a 
Manor ; and similarly with the Sheriff's Turn (Jurisdiction of the Court Leet, by 
J. Ritson, 3rd edition, 1816, p. 5). 

2 The Practice of Courts Leet aiid Courts Baron, by Sir William Scroggs, 4th edi- 
tion, 1 728, p. 3 ; see History of English Law, by F. W. Maitland, 1 895, vol. i. p. 569. 

3 Practical Treatise on the Law of Copyholds, by John Scriven, 7th edition, 
1896, p. 436. It is noteworthy that, in the sixteenth century, the Hundred 
was still regarded as the jurisdiction next above that of the Manor. In 1555, 
when it was provided that the Courts Leet should deal with offences under the 
first Highways Act (2 and 3 Philip and Mary, c. 8), the Stewards of Leets were 
to render returns of all estreats and fines, not to the Justices of the Peace or to 
any County officer, but to the Bailiff or High Constable of the Hundred. 

VOL, II. FT. I D 



34 THE CO UR T IN R UINS 

For the most remarkable of these Hierarchies of Courts 
we must go to the West of England. The wide area of the 
Vale of Berkeley, comprising the ancient Hundred of that 
name in the County of Gloucester, had been ruled over, time 
out of mind, by a series of mutually related Courts of the Lord 
of Berkeley Castle. There was, first, the Hundred Court for 
the whole area; then the numerous Halmotes or Halimotes, 
the Lord's Courts for the separate Manors within the Hundred ; 
and, finally, certain differentiated Courts, called Borough Courts 
or Leets, held in and for certain favoured townships, which 
had, by ancient seignorial grants, been constituted Boroughs. 1 

In 1689 this Hierarchy of Courts, which had existed 
" time out of mind," was still in full, though somewhat formal, 
operation. Twice a year the Lord's Steward issued his precept 
to the -Bailiff of the Hundred, directing him to summon to 
the Court of the Hundred and Honour of Berkeley also called 
the Court Leet or Law Day " to be holden at the Booth 
Hall in the town of Berkeley " ; to command the attendance 
of the persons who were to form the Jury these in 1733 
were thirty in number ; in 1V34, forty-two ; drawn from a score 
of different Manors, and to require the Constables of the 
Manors and the Tithingmen of the several parishes and 
townships that " they give notice of holding the same in 
the respective parish churches on the Sunday next before 
the Leet," in order that not they only, but also all who 

1 For information as to the Courts of the Hundred of Berkeley we are indebted 
to the courtesy of the Earl of Berkeley, of his land steward, Mr James Peter, 
and of Mr Hutton, steward of his Lordship's Courts, who kindly permitted con- 
sultation of the records in the muniment room at Berkeley Castle ; as well as to 
our friend Miss Hadley, Archivist to the London County Council, who was good 
enough to devote part of a holiday to the work. A detailed description of the 
Hundred Court at Berkeley in 1890 will be found in Gloucestershire Notes and, 
Queries, vol. iv. p. 27 ; and some account of the Hundred Rolls in ibid. vol. 
v. pp. 85-88. See also Fifth Report of Royal Commission on Common Law 
Courts, 1833 ; House of Commons Returns of Hundred Courts, 1839, and of 
Courts of Request, 1840 ; The Berkeley Manuscripts, by Sir John Maclean, 
3 vols., 1883-85 (Bristol and Gloucester Archaeological Society) ; and (for the 
two Boroughs) First Report of Municipal Corporation Commissioners, 1835, 
Appendix, vol. i. p. 19 ; Report of Royal Commission on Uureformed Corpora- 
tions, 1880 ; History of the Town of Berkeley, by Rev. John Fisher, 1856 and 
1864; "Corporation Insignia," in Notes and Queries, 2nd ser. vol. v. p. 
519 ; and " Extinct Corporations of Wotton and Berkeley," in Notes and Queries, 
7th ser. vol. ii. p. 64 ; A New History of Gloucesterslwre, by Samuel Rudder, 
1779, pp. 846-854; and Historical Notes relating, to the Borough of IVotton, 
by W. H. Wright, 1872 (in Cheltenham Public Library). 



THE HIERARCHY OF COURTS 35 

had business at the Court, might be present. The Tithingman 
of Stinchcombe we know not why had to bring with him 
two men. In the manuscript " Precedent Book," which has 
been the guide of many generations of Stewards, we can almost 
see before us the whole procedure of this ancient tribunal. 
The Steward opens the Court by calling on the Bailiff for a 
return of the Jury, which, together with that of the Tithingmen 
and Constables of Manors, is formally called over, and the 
absentees fined ; for attendance is compulsory, and right down 
to the middle of the nineteenth century the fines are enforced. 
The Constable of Bevington comes into Court near the Steward, 
and, half -bent, prays for the prosperity of the noble family 
of the Berkeley s. The Tithingman of Woodmancote brings 
a " tag " with which to tie up Lord Berkeley's " writings " 
under penalty of ten shillings fine. The Jury is sworn, in 
groups of four, one Bible being supplied to be held by each 
group, and the King's Proclamation against Profaneness and 
Immorality is read. The Steward delivers his charge to the 
Court, directing the Jury to inquire into every conceivable 
offence committed within the Hundred, from manslaughter 
down to the robbing of hen-roosts, from the unlawful pursuit 
of game to conspiracies by artificers, from felony to forestalling 
and regrating all still declared to be " presentable " in this 
Court, even if successive Stewards have felt obliged to sub- 
stitute that word for " punishable." Then the Jury examines 
into the state of repair of the highways and bridges, the 
stopping -up or diversion of footpaths and watercourses, and 
the obstruction of the roads by encroachments or laying of 
timber. All those who can give information relating to any 
of these delinquencies are commanded to give it then and 
there in Court. Various officers of the Hundred continue 
to be appointed, at any rate the Bailiff of the Hundred and 
the Haywards of the several Manors, even after the appoint- 
ment of others had been discontinued. Various Acts of 
Parliament are solemnly read and proclaimed. The present- 
ments made at the last previous Court are read over, and those 
which are reported to have been complied with are crossed off. 
Meanwhile the Jury has completed its new presentments, which 
are written out by the Bailiff, and signed by the several jury- 
men. The Constables make their returns, and are sworn to 



36 THE COURT IN RUINS 

the truth thereof. The Steward, with such formal solemnity 
as he can command, then closes the Court. Other sittings of 
the Court are held by the Steward every three weeks, to which 
the subordinate Manors owe no attendance, though the free- 
hold tenants of the Barony are supposed to be present and to 
form the Court. The business of these three-weekly sittings, 
for which a Jury of householders was summoned when required, 
was, at any rate in the nineteenth century, confined to the trial 
of civil actions for debt arising anywhere within the Hundred 
of Berkeley. Throughout the whole of the eighteenth and 
nineteenth centuries this ancient Court continued to be held, 
its formalities and ceremonies gradually dropping off one by 
one its criminal jurisdiction already gone before 1700, its 
presentments of nuisances hardly lasting beyond 1800, 1 its 
hearing of civil suits passing in the middle of the nineteenth 
century to the new County Court, its fines for non-attendance 2 
not surviving the third quarter of the nineteenth century; 
until, in 1900, the thousand -years' record is broken, and the 
Court is silently discontinued. 

We pass now to the Halimotes, or Courts Baron, held 
on behalf of the Lord of Berkeley in the several Manors of 
the Hundred. These were either " General Halimotes," held 
normally once a year, or " Special Halimotes," held when 
required for some urgent business. These Courts, we are 
informed, dealt during the eighteenth century only with 
admissions of new copyholders, transfers of property, 3 and 

1 In 1801 the owners of the land adjoining a road, and the owner of a 
footbridge over a brook were presented for not repairing these highways ; and 
the latter Avas amerced in forty shillings, leviable on his goods and chattels (MS. 
Entry Book, Berkeley Hundred Court, October 1801). 

2 " We present that it appears by the oath of John Neale, Bailiff of the said 
Hundred, that he, the said Bailiff, did, on 16th April, go to the dwelling-house 
of N. W. of Cambridge in the Parish of Slimbridge within the said Hundred, to 
levy on his goods and chattels the sum of five shillings, being an amercement 
imposed on him for not attending at the last Court Leet for the said Hundred to 
servo on the Jury. And we present that it further appears to us by the oath of the 
said Bailiff that R. U. brother to the said N. U. did on the said 16th April in- 
stant pay to the said Bailiff the sum of five shillings in discharge of such amerce- 
ment for the use of the said Lord of the said Hundred " (MS. Entry Book, Berkeley 
Hundred Court, 18th April 1803). A similar entry occurs six months later. 

3 Here is a typical entry. " N. W., gentleman, came to this Court by 
warrant of attorney from W. W. H., and surrendered a close of pasture late 
Symonds, held by the life of the said W. W. H., and the estate of W. W. H., 
after which proclamation was made and J. H., the life in reversion, came and 
was admitted" (MS. Court Rolls, "Wotton, 20th October 1732). 



THE HIERARCHY OF COURTS 37 

purely Manorial offences. The Steward presided, the rest of 
the Court consisting of what was called " the Homage," being 
all the copyhold tenants of the particular Manor, who sat 
without individual summons by virtue of their tenancy. In 
the score or more of such Courts actually held in the year 
1733, we noticed that the Homage numbered from two to 
about a dozen. Attendance was compulsory, under penalty of 
a fine of five shillings, which was usually " affeered " to one 
shilling. 1 It is interesting, as bearing on the relationship of 
the several Courts in this Hierarchy, to find it expressly stated 
that the fines imposed by the Manor Courts were recovered 
by action in the Berkeley Hundred Court at one of its three- 
weekly sittings. 2 So far as we have ascertained, the only 
business of these Halimotes during the eighteenth century 
that can be said to relate to Local Government was their 
appointment of a Eeeve of the Manor, who had power to 
distrain on the cattle of the lands of any copyhold or lease- 
hold tenant of the Manor for any amercement imposed by the 
Court. 3 Service as Eeeve was compulsory on the copyhold 
and leasehold tenants in rotation, " the furthest behind in 
serving the office of Reeve " being always appointed, even if 
a woman, or a group of officials like the Overseers of the 
Poor, when these happened to have a copyhold or leasehold 
workhouse. 4 But the office could always be served by a 

1 MS. Precedent Book, Berkeley. At a Court Baron at Ham Manor 
defaulters were amerced half a crown, affeered to one shilling (MS. Entry Book, 
Court Baron, Ham, 14th October 1797); but at one at Cam, ten shillings, 
affeered to two (ibid. Cam, 7th October 1833). 

2 Gloucestershire, Notes and Queries, vol. iv. pp. 27-30. 

3 " The Homage also present that the Reeve of this Manor in virtue of his 
office may distrain for rent or for any amercement imposed in the Lord's Court 
upon any copyholder or leaseholder, as well as the cattle of such copyholders or 
leaseholders as of any other renting or occupying the copyhold or leasehold 
land or tenements of such leaseholder or copyholder, provided the cattle be found 
feeding upon the same copyhold or leasehold estate ; and further that the Reeve 
is not bound to ascertain whose cattle those they may so distrain are, but 
finding the same in or upon such copyhold or leasehold lands or tenements may 
lawfully distrain them, as now and at all times out of memory hath been 
accustomed to do " (MS. Entry Book, Courts Baron of many Manors, October 
1810). 

4 A woman is appointed Reeve "as being furthest behind," and serves by 
deputy (MS. Court Roll Book, Court Baron of Hurst Manor, 14th October 1799). 
"The Homage present that the Overseers of the Poor of this tithing are the 
furthest behind in serving the office of Reeve for the house called the workhouse 
on Berkeley Heath" (MS. Court Roll Book, Court Baron of Berkeley, 5th 
October 1833). 



38 THE COURT IN RUINS 

" sufficient deputy." l Right down to the very end of the 
nineteenth century these Manor Courts were still being held, 
the Juries were presenting encroachments and Manorial 
defaults, and petty officers were being appointed. 2 

The third sort of Courts held within the Hundred of 
Berkeley were those of the townships or so-called " Boroughs " 
of Berkeley and Wotton. These were each styled " Court 
Leet with View of Frankpledge and Court Baron," and separate 
records were apparently in each case kept. But what was 
actually held in each of these picturesque little towns was 
only one Court. Once a year the Steward issued his precept 
to the " Serjeant of the Borough," requiring him " to summon 
all such persons as owe suit to the Court Leet and Court 
Baron of the Borough," and to " warn a sufficient number of 
the most able in the Borough to serve on the Grand Jury." 
On the appointed day the Steward opened the Court by calling 
on the Constable to read first the " Resiant Roll," with loud 
proclamation to " all who live within the jurisdiction of this 
Court " to come forward and do the suit they owe, and then 
the " Jury Panel," those who did not answer to their names 
being amerced. The jurymen were then sworn, in the same 
groups of four that we have already described in the Hundred 
Court. At each of these Courts there were two distinct 
Juries, each usually exceeding a dozen in number the 
Homage, composed of freehold, leasehold, and copyhold tenants 
of the Manor ; and the " Grand Jury " or " Leet Jury," made 
up merely of residents. The Juries both made presentments, 
those of the Homage relating to surrenders and admissions, 
conveyances and other property business, together with purely 
Manorial defaults, such as suffering a messuage to decay, 
allowing water from a new well to injure a neighbour's house, 
or removing a gate and not replacing it, for which small 

1 "At this Court it was found and presented by the Homage that G. S. is 
the furthest behind in serving the office of Reeve for a close called Rowles Court 
Leaze. We therefore order the said G. S. to take upon him the said office, either 
by himself or his sufficient deputy, in one month's time under the penalty of 
5, to be levied upon his goods and chattels, or to be recovered by action of 
debt for the use of the Lord of the said Manor " (MS. Entry Book, Court 
Baron of Slimbridge Manor, 12th October 1797). 

2 See, for instance, the interesting description of the proceedings in 1887 of 
"the Court for the Manor of Wotton Foreign," being 'so much of the Parish of 
Wotton as lies outside the Borough, in Gloucestershire Notes and Queries, vol. 
iv. pp. 27-30. 



THE HIERARCHY OF COURTS 39 

amercemeuts are imposed. The Grand Jury or Leet presented 
all manner of nuisances relating to highways and water- 
courses ; unlicensed alehouses, scolds and eavesdroppers ; the 
delinquencies of butchers and bakers ; pound breach and 
rescue of cattle ; and encroachments on the streets. The 
officers appointed at the previous Court then made their 
returns of offenders against the laws and Bylaws concerning 
their several departments handing in small scraps of paper 
on which we fear they had too often perfunctorily written 
" omnia bene," or words to that effect. 1 But the Court would 
sometimes insist on the office being executed. " We present 
E. C. and E. S.," reports the Grand Jury of Wotton in 1713, 
" for neglecting their office, particularly not taking up vagrants. 
We do fine them ten shillings each." 2 Then the officers of the 
Borough for the ensuing year were appointed, the Grand Jury 
presenting three names as suitable persons to be Mayor, and 
two names in the case of other officers, for the selection of one 
by the Steward. For each of the two Boroughs the Court 
appointed a Mayor, a Serjeant, a Constable, and one or two 
Ale-tasters, Carnivals, and Searchers and Sealers of Leather. 3 
Sometimes other officers a Scavenger or a Surveyor are 
mentioned as acting under the appointment and direction of 
the Mayor. At Berkeley it was the custom we observe it 
still in force between 1797 and 1804 for the Court to recite 
and declare every year a string of heterogeneous rights or By- 
laws, on the presentment, be it noted, of the Homage Jury. 
ISTo pigs are to go at large, under penalty of three and fourpence, 
the Hayward being ordered to impound any found wandering 
and to take his own fee of twopence ; no " soil, dung, apple 
must, or any other stinking matter " is to be deposited in 

1 "We have served the office to the best of our knowledge and we have 
found it all well " (Return of Searchers and Sealers of Leather, Court Rolls of 
Wotton, 2nd October 1714). "We present that we have found no flesh nor 
fish that have been brought to our market and exposed for sale, upon our 
vigilant search, but what hath been fit and wholesome for the body of man ; 
and that we have nothing more to present at this time " (Return of Carnivals, 
ibid. October 1709). "We have took care that the bulls have been baited, ere 
that the meat hath been sold for the same, and we have carefully looked after 
all other meat and fish" (ibid. 30th September 1710). 

2 MS. Court Rolls, Wotton, 3rd October 1713. 

3 Aldermen are mentioned (among the Leet Jury) both in Berkeley and in 
Wotton (MS. Entry Book, Wotton Court, 20th October 1737 ; Berkeley Court, 
21st October 1745). These were (in 1833 at Berkeley) the twelve members of 
the close Town Council. 




40 THE CO VR T IN R UINS 

Berkeley streets, under penalty of a pound, and the Scavengers 
are ordered to sweep up all dirt into heaps every Saturday, 
for the officers of the Lord to carry it out of the Borough ; no 
timber or other obstruction is to be put in the streets; the 
common pasturage on Berkeley Heath is not to be usurped or 
surcharged ; every person coming into the Borough to carry 
on business or set up a household we gather without having 
been born or perhaps apprenticed within the Borough is to 
pay the Mayor six and eightpence as of old ; nobody but the 
Mayor shall put up any stall in the Market or Fair ; the right 
of all persons to a free wharf or landing place on the river is 
declared and perpetuated ; and there is a stern prohibition of 
taking in " inmates " to be a nuisance to the Borough. On 
the other hand, at "VVotton, it is the Grand Jury that we see 
making presentment of stopped-up watercourses, broken gullies, 
and filth thrown down the gutter in " a time of flood to the 
great annoyance of" a certain mill. A butcher is presented, 
on the knowledge of one of the jurymen, " for putting stinking 
meat to sale in our market " ; and other frequenters for selling 
goods " by weight unlawful being too light." So, too, we find 
the Grand Jury ordering that no persons shall stand with 
goods in a certain passage on market day, that posts and rails 
be set up for the protection of foot passengers, that obstructive 
encroachments be removed, and that certain unlawful windows 
that overlook the almshouses be stopped up. 1 

Another case of a Hierarchy of Courts continuing in active 
existence is presented by the great Manor of Taunton, extend- 
ing over nearly the whole of Taunton " Deane," or Vale, in 
Somerset. 2 Here the Manor transcended even the Hundred, 

1 " Item, we order that for the future no person shall lay dung ... in 
the street called . . . (MS. Court Rolls, Wotton) ; all persons that do claim 
any right to the Chipping Well shall pay their proportion toward the repairing 
the same, upon the pain of five shillings " (ibid.). 

2 The Customs of the Manor of Taunton and Taunton Dcane, by Richard 
Locke, 1785 ; The Ancient Customs of Taunton Deane, by H. B. Shillibeer, 
1821 ; History of Taunton, by Joshua Toulmin, 1st edition, 1791, 2nd 
edition, edited by James Savage, 1822 ; History of Somerset, by John Collinson, 
1791, vol. iii. pp. 225-240 ; General Account of West Somerset, by Edward 
Jeboult, 1873 Part II. The Valley of the Tone, Part III. Taunton ; On the 
Origin of Gilds, with a Notice of the Ancient Gildha.ll of Taunton, by J. H. 
Pring, 1883 ; "The Customs of the Manor of Taunton Dcane," by W. A. Jones, 
in Somerset Archaeological and Natural History Society, vol. xviii. pp. 76-99 ; 
House of Commons Return of Courts of Request, 1840, p. 140. 



THE HIERARCHY OF COURTS, 41 

the Lord's Court at the head of the Hierarchy, which continued 
to be held down to Victorian times, exercising jurisdiction over 
no fewer than five Hundreds and many tithings and parishes. 
Besides this Court, there existed minor Courts for the Liberty 
(by which we understand the precinct of the Castle), and for 
the " Hundred of Taunton Market " ; which (like Berkeley and 
Wotton) had been granted exceptional autonomy, under the 
name of a Borough. 1 The " ancient customs of the Manor," 
formally presented and recorded in 1647 and again in 1817, 
enable us to gain some vision of this interesting Hierarchy. 
The highest Court seems to have rejoiced in a number of 
different names or nicknames, according to the date at which 
or the purpose for which it was held. In 1647 it sat as a 
Court of Survey. Twice a year it was the Court Leet or 
Lawday. On the occasion on which, once a year, the Manorial 
officers were chosen it was the " Choice Court." The sitting 
" next after Michaelmas Lawday " was the " Fulfilling Court," 
when two tenants in each Hundred were sworn to view the 
list of amercements for the past year, and to " affeer " them ; 
it may be that there was a second " Fulfilling Court " in the 
spring. There was the " Ossinge Court," or " Penn Court," 
of which the meaning is unknown to us. Finally there was 
the " Three Weeks' Court," called also the Court Baron, held 
every three weeks, primarily as a petty debt court, 2 though it 
dealt also with defaults. This score or more of Courts 
incidentally referred to as " Tenants' Courts " 3 all held in the 
Great Hall of the Castle of Taunton, before the Steward or, 
in the case of the Three Weeks' Court, by the Clerk of the 
Castle had to be attended by all the customary tenants of 
the Manor, but these, if not specially summoned as jurymen, 
could escape on payment of small fines a penny each time, 
or eightpence for the year, bought exemption from the Court 
Baron or Three Weeks' Court, and threepence each time did 
the same for the others. At the Leet or Lawday, twice a year, 

1 " Outfaring Courts" are also mentioned (The Customs of the Manor of 
Taunton and Taunton Deanc, by Richard Locke, 1785), which were perhaps 
those held for the " Outfaring " part of the Vale, sixteen parishes which had been 
alienated from the Manor by William I. (History of Taunton, by Joshua 
Toulmin, 1822, p. 45). 

2 House of Commons Returns of Hundred Courts, 1839, and of Courts of 
Request, 1840. 

3 Customs of the Manor of Taunton and Taunton Deane, by R. Locke, 1785. 



42 THE COURT IN RUINS 

there was summoned a " Grand Jury," which seems not only 
to have presented nuisances and Manorial offences, but also to 
have heard and decided disputes relating to copyhold tenements. 
At one of the two Leets or Lawdays the Grand Jury presented 
suitable persons to serve as High Constable for the Hundred 
of Taunton Deane, and as Tithingmen for one or two of the 
tithings. It is not apparent how the numerous Petty Constables 
or Tithingmen for the other tithings were appointed, though it 
is stated that these all had to attend the Court Baron or Three 
Weeks' Court to present defaults ; and also to attend the two 
Leets or Lawdays. That this attendance had fallen into 
desuetude, may be inferred from the fact that it was recorded 
in 1647 that the Tithingmen of twenty-seven tithings had 
to pay a shilling each yearly to be excused from bringing in 
their bushel measures to be tried by the standard on the two 
Lawdays. 1 At the Choice Court, the tenants had to make a 
choice of persons to be appointed as " Eeceiver to receive the 
Steward at the two Leets or Lawday Courts ; and one several 
Eeeve for every Hundred to gather the Lord's rents ; and 
Beadles to serve the Lord's Courts, and to gather the amerce- 
ments and customary works, and to make account thereof to 
the Eeeve as hath been accustomed within every Hundred." 2 
The office of Eeeve had to be served in turn by the " bond- 
land" tenants those having houses on their holdings 
according to a rotation known as "the Eecognition of the 
Manor." There were "certain plots of ground in each 
Hundred, the profits of which are appointed to the Eeeves 
for the time being." 3 Two tenants had also to be appointed 
annually as Viewers, and sworn to present any customary 
tenant neglecting to keep his house in repair. 4 

Among the minor Courts of the Hierarchy, we know 

1 Ancient Customs of Taunton Deane, by H. B. Shillibeer, 1821, Appendix, 
p. 9. 

2 Ibid. By 1821 the Bailiff had, it seems (in all the Hundreds except one), 
superseded the Reeve in the collection of the Lord's rents and dues. It is to be 
noted that, between 1781 and 1801, these included six heriots, varying from 
42 to 84 each (ibid. pp. 92-93). 

3 Ibid. p. 114. 

4 Ibid. p. 107. Other officers of the Manor in 1647 were the Constable of 
Taunton Castle, the Bailiff of the Castle, the Clerk of the Castle, and the 
Porter, or Keeper of the Gate of the Castle all, we assume, appointed by the 
Lord or his Steward ; the Woodward and the Overseers or Surveyors of the 
Water-works, Wears, and Banks, of whom we know nothing (ibid. Appendix). 



THE HIERARCHY OF COURTS 43 

nothing of the two Lawdays per annum and the " Three 
Weeks' Courts," which the Clerk of the Castle is said to have 
held for the Liberty of the Precinct of the Castle, nor of the 
" Outfitting Courts," of which we have a bare mention. But 
in the Borough of Taunton the Clerk of the Castle held not 
only a " Borough Court " every fortnight, presumably for petty 
debt business, but also two " Lawday Courts " annually, at 
which were chosen, right down to Victorian times, the two 
Portreeves, who collected the Lord's quit-rents in the Borough 
and enjoyed the privilege of letting for their own profit the 
standings in the market-place; 1 two Bailiffs, who seem to 
have been 2 the chief executive officers of what had become a 
flourishing market centre ; together with two Constables, six 
Tithingmen, and one or more Ale-tasters. The two Constables 
did much of the administrative work of the town under the 
Bailiffs : billeting soldiers, managing the almshouses, and dis- 
tributing various dole charities. In return they enjoyed the 
patronage, presided at an annual " Constables' Feast," kept the 
profits of the market scales, and succeeded to the more 
lucrative office of Portreeve. 8 But the real rulers were the 
Bailiffs, who had, by the end of the eighteenth century, made 
themselves virtually permanent, and, after 1792, were recognised 
by Parliament as the returning officers for the Borough. " The 
Jury year after year empanelled are," we are told in 1821, 
" called the Packed Jury. . . . One of the Bailiffs . . . did 
publicly assert that the Bailiffs going out of office always took 
care to assemble such persons as jurors as would return the 
nominees of themselves. ... It is notorious that some years 
ago a Jury was summoned, and it being rumoured that they 
meant to alter the succession of Bailiffs, they were immedi- 
ately dismissed, and another Jury empanelled. . . . For a 
succession of years four individuals only have filled the office 
of Bailiffs, two of them taking the same in alternate years." 4 
This Court of the Borough of Taunton had in fact attained to 
a measure of autonomy, the Jury electing the Bailiffs and the 

1 History of Taunton, by Joshua Toulmin, 1821, p. 277. 

2 Before 1627 and after 1792 the interval having been filled by a Chartered 
Municipal Corporation. 

3 General Account of West Somerset, by Edward Jeboult, 1873, Part III., 
Taunton, pp. 24-26. 

* Ancient Customs of Taunton Deane, by H. B. Shillibeer, 1821. p. 130. 



44 THE COURT IN RUINS 






Bailiff selecting the Jury, without the interference of the Lord's 
Steward. It had, moreover, developed a certain amount of 
administrative structure. As such it falls into our class of 
Manorial Boroughs, to be dealt with in a subsequent chapter. 
We mention it here merely to complete our survey of the 
Hierarchy of Courts. 

Hierarchies of Courts were, of course, not confined to the 
South and West of England. In Northumberland, for 
instance, there continued to be held, down to the middle of 
the nineteenth century, a whole array of Courts on the wide 
domains of the Duke of Northumberland. 1 

1 We were unable to examine the MS. records of these Courts, but there 
seem to have been () Great Courts of the Baronies of Alnwick, Tindale, and 
perhaps Prudhoe ; (6) Halmote Courts or Courts Baron for particular Manors, 
of which fifteen were still being held in 1839, for petty debt cases, aud possibly 
other business ; and (c) a Court for the Manor of the Borough of Alnwick, 
nominally every three weeks, but actually only half-yearly, at which Burgesses 
or Freemen were admitted, nuisances presented, Bylaws made, offenders amerced, 
copyhold properties transferred, and the Borough officers formally appointed and 
sworn. With the struggle of this Borough Court for autonomy we shall deal 
later, when we describe the Manorial Borough of Alnwick. It would be interest- 
ing to discover what exactly were the functions and the relations of the highest 
members of these Northumberland Hierarchies. For instance, we hear of a 
"Knight's Court," or "curia militaris," held at Alnwick Castle, nominally 
attended by the great freehold tenants, and exercising jurisdiction over the 
entire barony of Alnwick. Such Courts, though apparently disused between 
1741 and 1791, were being held in the latter part of the seventeenth and the 
beginning of the eighteenth centuries ; dealing, we infer, primarily with 
successions and admissions, disputes between free tenants of different Manors, 
encroachments of one Manor on another, and defaults not duly presented in 
the inferior Courts. At the Knight's Coiirt held in 1707, for instance, "the 
tenants of Chillingham, Fawdon, and Swinhoe were amerced 20d. each township, 
who owe service to His Grace for watching the Fair according to ancient custom," 
for their default in not sending in the men whom they had to furnish to guard 
the Borough of Alnwick at the great Alnwick Fair. Latterly, at any rate, the 
"Knight's Court" appointed Constables for various Manors, for which Courts 
were not held, and dealt with many minor offences and defaults throughout a 
wide district. The Court of the Barony of Tindale, on the other hand, held at 
Wark, seems to have survived down to 1846 as a petty debt Court, meeting three 
times a year, and resorted to only in cases in which the defendants did not 
reside within the jurisdiction of any subordinate Courts (MS. Records of the 
Corporation of Alnwick, 1594-1835; Feudal and Military Antiquities of 
Northumberland and the Scottish Borders, by Rev. C. H. Hartshorne, 1858 (being 
vol. ii. of "Memoirs of the Archaeological Institute of Great Britain, etc.," for 
1852) ; History of Alnwick, by George Tate, 1869 ; History of Northumberland, 
vol. i., by E. Batcson ; Fifth Report of Royal Commission on Courts of Law, 
1833, pp. 170-171 ; House of Commons Returns of Hundred Courts, 1839, and 
of Courts of Request, 1840). 

We do not even know whether the Alnwick "Knight's Court " is to be 
identified with the Capital Court of the Barony, stated in 1483 to be held every 
twenty days, harvest excepted. The term "Knight's Court " (curia militaris) 



THE HIERARCHY OF COURTS 45 

In the "Liberty of the Hundred of Macclesfield," in 
Cheshire, where the Earl of Derby held sway, we find an 
intricate series of jurisdictions within jurisdictions. There 
was the Court for the Hundred of Macclesfield, held annually 
as the " Court of Great Leet " and monthly as a Court Baron 
or " Court of Trials," exercising authority over the whole of 
the Liberty of the Hundred. The records of its annual Leet 
sessions show it appointing Constables for those townships 
which had no Courts of their own, and receiving presentments 
from these Constables as well as from its own " Grand Jury," 
relating to offences throughout the Hundred outside the 
Forest and the Borough of Macclesfield selling ale without 
licence, various public-house disorders, breaking the Assize of 
Bread, failure to repair pavement, " keeping two mongrel curs 
unmuzzled," breaking the peace and making an affray, en- 
croachments on the waste, " keeping a gun," and " keeping 
a brace of greyhounds and killing a hare in Birtles ; is a 
great killer and destroyer of hares," adds the Constable. 

At its nominally monthly sessions, or " Court of Trials " 
which gradually came to be only two or three times a 
year the same Steward presided with the same Officers, but 
an entirely different Jury was empanelled, the " Jury for 
Trials," by which pleas of debt and trespass to an unlimited 
amount were dealt with. Meanwhile the Forest of Maccles- 
field, comprising part of the Hundred nine of the townships 
being, in fact, partly in the Forest and partly outside it had 
its own Courts. We do not know whether a Swainmote was 
held later than that of 1616, of which we have seen the 
records, but throughout the eighteenth century and down to 

is unusual, but not unknown elsewhere. In the Honour of Forncett in Norfolk, 
comprising several Manors having their own Courts, there was held, in the 
fifteenth century, an Honour Court or "Knight's Court" (The Economic 
Development of a Norfolk Manor, 1086-1565, by F. G. Davenport, 1906, 
Appendix I.). In the Isle of Wight, right down to the middle of the nineteenth 
century, there continued to be held the " Knighton Court or Knight's Court," 
by the Steward of the Governor of the Island, in the Town Hall of Newport, 
every three weeks. Its functions became restricted to petty debt suits, in 
which it exercised jurisdiction over the whole island except the Borough of 
Newport. After the end of the eighteenth century even this function became 
disused, and the Court continued in form only (House of Commons Return 
of Courts of Request, 1840, pp. 46-47). The Archbishop of York held a 
"curia militaris " for the Liberty of Ripon from, at any rate, the fourteenth 
right down to the nineteenth oentury, In 1840 it was a Court for civil actions, 
unlimited in amount (ibid. pp. 174-175). 



46 THE COURT IN RUINS 

the middle of the nineteenth we find a "Halmote Court," 
called subsequently " Court of Kecord for the Manor and 
Forest of Macclesfield," held by the same Steward as the 
Hundred Court, and eventually on the same day as the latter. 
At the six-monthly meetings of this Court for the Manor and 
Forest it acted also as a Court Leet, appointing Constables 
for the several townships in the Forest. At the other sittings 
of the Court conveyances of copyholds were made and an 
extensive business was done in the trial of civil actions, 
without limit of amount. Finally, there were also held, at 
least in the sixteenth century, two separate Courts for the 
Borough of Macclesfield, both using the Town Hall one the 
" Portmote," or " Great Leet of the Borough," by Lord Derby's 
Deputy Steward, which seems to have dealt with the usual 
nuisances and affrays, false weights and measures, the regula- 
tion of the common, and the trial of civil actions ; and the 
other "the Mayor's Court," held by the Mayor of the Borough, 
apparently for the trial of civil actions in which both parties 
were Burgesses. How exactly these several Courts had 
come into existence, and what was the precise demarcation 
among them all, we have been unable to ascertain. What is 
interesting is that all the resiants of the Hundred, including 
those in the Manor of the Forest and those in the Borough, 
owed suit and service to the Hundred Court; while all 
those in the Borough, including the Mayor and Corporation, 
owed suit and service also to Lord Derby's Portmote. A 
dispute between the Earl of Derby and the Borough in 1569, 
as to the relations of the two competing Borough Courts, led 
to an award by two judges attempting to define their several 
spheres, and giving separate keys of the Town Hall to the 
Mayor and the Steward respectively. We gather that Lord 
Derby's "Portmote," or "Town Leet," was discontinued 
sometime in the seventeenth century, leaving the Mayor's 
Court in possession of the field. This continued, as the 
"Borough Court," to try personal actions without limit of 
amount. Meanwhile the ordinary business of a Court Leet, 
formerly done by Lord Derby's Portmote, was apparently 
silently absorbed by the Mayor, ex-Mayor, and two Aldermen, 
sitting as Justices for the Borough. A Charter of Charles II. 
had made them Justices, and given power to hold general 



THE HIERARCHY OF COURTS 47 

Sessions of the Peace, but not to try felonies. This amounted 
to little, if any, more jurisdiction than had been possessed by 
the Portmote; and what we have, in fact, is a Court Leet 
passing insensibly into what was called a Court of Quarter 
Sessions. Thus in 1761-1762 we see the Borough Justices 
in what they called Quarter Sessions appointing the Burley- 
men, the Fish and Flesh Wardens, the Moss Lookers of 
Densmoss (a part of the Borough Common), the Searchers 
and Sealers of Leather, a Scavenger, a Pig-catcher, a Beadle, 
and the two Common Lookers ; and dealing indiscriminately 
with assaults and affrays, trespasses on the Common, wrongful 
enclosures of the waste of the Borough, false weights and 
measures, and exposing unwholesome meat for sale. 1 

How far this hierarchical organisation of the Lord's Court 
still existed in 1689, and how quickly the surviving remnants 
disintegrated, we have been unable to ascertain. From the 
scanty records that we have been able to consult, we infer 
that it continued over large parts of England during the 
eighteenth century, but everywhere becoming more formal 
than real, and everywhere falling rapidly into decay. 2 

1 MS. Records, Macclesfield Hundred Court, 1688-1835 ; MS. Court Books 
of ditto, 1698-1808 ; MS. Records, Court Leet and Halmote Court of Maccles- 
field Manor and Forest, 1684-1835 ; MS. Award of 1569 ; MS. Records, 
Macclesfield Portmote, 1591 ; MS. Records, Macclesfield Borough Court, 1761 ; 
MS. Quarter Sessions Rolls, 1761-1762 (all in Lord Derby's Macclesfield Estate 
Office) ; House of Commons Returns of Petty Debt Courts, Hundred Courts, and 
Courts of Request, 1828, 1839, and 1840 ; Fifth Report of Royal Commission 
on Courts of Law, 1833, p. 35a ; 'Report on Certain Boroughs, by J. T. Hogg, 
1838, pp. 51-74 ; History of Macclesfield, by John Corry, 1817 ; Maclesfelde in 
ye Olden Time, by Isaac Finney, 1873 ; Contributions towards a History of 
. . . Prestbury, by F. Renaud (Chetham Society, 1876) ; Host Cheshire, by J. P. 
Earwaker, 1880, vol. ii. pp. 459-525 ; History of the County Palatine of Chester, 
by Geo. Ormerod, 2nd edition, 1882, vol. iii. pp. 739-757. 

2 We catch glimpses of a similar Hierarchy of Courts in the great episcopal 
domains in various dioceses. The Hundred Court of Farnham, in Surrey, for 
instance, still held, but shrunken to the mere copyhold business of Farnham 
itself, apparently once had jurisdiction over a wide stretch of the Bishop of 
Winchester's domains (see Collections of Records and Documents relating to the 
Hundred and Manor of Crondal, by F. J. Baigent, Hampshire Record Society, 
1891 ; The Manor of Manydown, Hampshire, by G. W. Kitchin, 1895 ; Victoria 
County History of Hampshire, vol. ii. 1906, pp. 579-586), including the Manorial 
Boroughs of Farnham and Alresford, the latter to be subsequently described. As 
late as 1718 a " Court of the Bishopric " was held, at which representatives of a 
score of Manors attended (MS. Manor Rolls, Farnham, 1718). We do not know in 
what connection stood the " Cheyney Court," which we find held throughout the 
eighteenth and for the first third of the nineteenth century ; latterly, at least, 
at Winchester, within the cathedral precincts, and exercising jurisdiction 
throughout the Bishop's temporalities, extending to over two hundred towns and 



48 THE COURT IN RUINS 

We suggest that it may possibly be that in the former exist- 
ence of a Hierarchy of Courts we have the explanation of some 
of the quaint instances in which the representation of a small 
hamlet has survived in a comic form. In Dorsetshire, for 
example, we read that " the Tithingman of Combe Keynes is 
obliged to do suit at Winfrith Court ; and after repeating the 

villages. In 1833 its business was confined to hearing petty debt cases (Fifth 
Report of Royal Commission on Courts of Common Law, 1833, p. 88a). 
Similarly, in the diocese of St. Albans, the Manor Rolls of Winslow (Bucking- 
hamshire) in the time of Edward III. show that " in case of a dispute a Court 
was held under the great ash tree at St. Albans, and the decision of this 
superior Manorial Court of headquarters settled the question " (The English 
Village Community, by F. Seebohm, 1883, p. 31). So the Abbot of Gloucester 
in the thirteenth century held a ' ' Libera Curia " for his great freehold tenants, 
whilst each separate Manor had its own Halmote (Select Pleas in Manorial 
Courts, by F. W. Maitland, 1889, p. xix). We may likewise infer a Hierarchy 
of Courts in the great Honour of Clitheroe, of which " the customs of the copy- 
holds " were ' ' ascertained by the Jury of Survey within the forest of Pendle in 
the Manor of Igtenhill, 1666." Throughout the wide extent of the Honour 
there were " Hamlet Courts" twice a year, which we may interpret as Halmote 
Courts. There was also a Court of the Honour, attended by all th'e tenants. The 
Homage or Jury presented a Greave or Bailiff. There was also a Deputy Greave, 
elected in open Court by a majority of the tenants. All "real" plaints were 
to be tried in this Court, by a Jury of twenty-four tenants (The Law of Copy- 
holds, by 0. I. Elton and H. J. H. Mackay, 2nd edition, 1893, Appendix VIII. 
p. 511). There was, moreover, within the Honour at least one Manorial Borough, 
that of Clitheroe, where a ' ' Court of Record " sat weekly under a Recorder 
(House of Commons Return of Courts of Request, 1840, pp. 68-69), and inde- 
pendent administrative structure had been developed, to which we subsequently 
refer (pp. 156, 205). Another instance of a Hierarchy of Courts, with subordin- 
ate Manors and Boroughs of various degrees of independence, is presented by a 
Welsh Lordship typical, we suspect, of other Welsh jurisdictions. The Manor 
paramount of Cantref Moelynaidd comprehends four Hundreds of Radnorshire 
and twelve mesne Manors. The Boroughs of Knighton, Cnwelas, New Radnor, 
and Rhayader, together with the obsolete Boroughs of Pain's Castle and 
Presteign, are also included in it. The Manor paramount continued, through- 
out the eighteenth century, and indeed through most of the nineteenth, to exercise 
jurisdiction over them all, except the Borough of New Radnor. The Steward 
held a Court Baron for the whole lordship every three weeks, the business of 
which had become confined to petty debt cases, for which a Jury of six men 
was summoned when required. Courts Leet were also held within the mesno 
Manors, and also (at least in the Bailiwick of Gladestry and Colfa) a Court 
Baron monthly for small debts. Within the Boroughs, the Steward of the 
Lordship also held Courts Leet, at which Juries of Burgesses nominated new 
Burgesses, who were admitted and sworn and thereby became entitled to the 
Parliamentary franchise for these Boroughs. The two ancient Boroughs of 
Pain's Castle and Presteign either lost, or had never possessed, such Courts, and 
the House of Commons disallowed in 1690 the claims of their Burgesses to vote. 
The Borough of New Radnor (p. 236), on the other hand, had become largely in- 
dependent of the Hierarchy, getting a Royal Charter establishing a close Cor- 
poration, and holding its own Courts (History of Radnorshire, by Rev. J. Williams, 
in Archceologia Cambrensis, 3rd ser. vols. iii. p. 26, andiv. p. 1, 1857-58 ; First 
Report of Municipal Corporation Commission, 1835, vol. i. pp. 357-362), 



THE HIERARCHY OF COURTS 49 

following incoherent lines, pays threepence and goes out with- 
out saying another word : 

" With my white rod, 
And I am a fourth post, 
That threepence makes three, 
God bless the King, and the Lord of the Franchise, 
Our Weights and Measures are lawful and true, 
Good-morrow, Mr. Steward, I have no more to say to you. 

" On default of any of these particulars the Court Leet 
of Combe is forfeited." * It does not appear to be an 
unwarranted inference that the Tithing of Combe Keynes, 
though possibly having a minor Court of its own, had not 
been granted the privilege of standardising its own weights 
and measures, and had to do suit at the superior Court at 
Winfrith by four men, of whom the Tithingman was the leader, 
and eventually the proxy for the others, paying a penny each 
for their absence. The attendance of the Tithingmen of the 
whole Hundred was (as we have seen at Taunton) usual at 
the Hundred Court. " If there be more than one Tithingman, 
as always is in the Hundred Court," says a widely circulated 
manual, "swear them all in like manner, and receive from 
them the Common Fine or King's Silver. Then take from 
them their resiant rolls or lists of their tithings ; call them 
over and mark them that answer thus, ' appears.' " 2 The 
attendance even of the Tithingman might be dispensed with, his 
staff or rod of office being sent to represent him. Thus in 
the Hundred of Twyford, in Kent, " there was," we read, " till 
of late years a singular though a very ancient custom kept up 
of electing a Deputy to the Dumb Borsholder of Chart, as it 

1 History and Antiquities of Dorset, by John Hutchins, 1774, vol. i. p. 127 ; 
Ancient Customs of Taunton Deane, by H. B. Shillibeer, 1821. Can "post" bo 
derived from " prepositus, " the word used for Reeve ? 

2 TJie Complete Courtkeeper, or Land Steward's Assistant, by Giles Jacob, 1st 
edition, 1713 ; 8th, 1819, p. 30. We may catch a glimpse in 1774 of such 
attendance of the Tithingman at the Court of the Hundred at Whitchurch in 
Dorsetshire, comprising nineteen tithings. At the Court of this Hundred the 
residents in all the tithings were supposed to attend, and (as in the Hundred 
of Berkeley) to serve on its Juries. Two Constables were regularly appointed 
for the Hundred. But subordinate Courts were also held in some, at any 
rate, of the Manors within the Hundred, at which Petty Constables for these 
Manors (or apparently for the tithings) were appointed. Only in twelve out of 
the nineteen tithings did the Hundred Court appoint the Petty Constable (R. 
v. Genge, in Reports of Cases, etc., by Henry Cowper, 1783, pp. 13-17). 

VOL, II. PT. I E 



5 o THE COURT IN RUINS 

was called, claiming liberty over fifteen houses in the precinct 
of Pizeinwell, every householder of which was formerly 
obliged to pay the keeper of this Borsholder one penny yearly. 
This Dumb Borsholder was always first called at the Court 
Leet holden for the Hundred of Twyford, when its keeper, 
who was yearly appointed by that Court, held it up to his 
call, with a neckcloth or handkerchief put through the iron 
ring fixed at the top, and answered for it. This Borsholder 
of Chart, and the Court Leet, has been discontinued about 
fifty years, and the Borsholder who is put in by the Quarter 
Sessions for Wateringbury claims over the whole parish. This 
Dumb Borsholder is made of wood, about three feet and half an 
inch long, with an iron ring at the top, and four more by the 
sides near the bottom, where it has a square iron spike fixed, 
four inches and a half long, to fix it in the ground, or on 
occasion to break open doors, etc., which used to be done " it 
is said down to 1748 " without a Warrant of any Justice on 
suspicion of goods having been unlawfully come by and con- 
cealed in any of these fifteen houses." l 



The Hierarchy of Courts that we find so well preserved in 
the Vale of Berkeley and at Taunton Deane, and less perfectly 
elsewhere, throws, we think, some light on the nature and 
origin of the various other Courts, up and down the country, 
that we find existing under the name of Hundred Courts, 
without any apparent connection with separate Courts of 
minor jurisdiction. When, in the fourteenth century, the 
Hundred Courts were merged in the County Courts of the 
Sheriffs if that is what happened those Hundred Courts 
which had already passed, as valuable Franchises, into 
private hands were not affected. 2 Not infrequently, therefore, 
these continued to be held, and it may be that they went on 
without intermission into the eighteenth century ; sometimes 

1 History and Survey of Kent, by Edward Hasted, 1797, vol. v. p. 107 ; 
Observations on Popular Antiquities, by John Brand, vol. i. p. 132 of 1841 
edition; Kent's Capital, 1906. So, too, we read that, in Essex, "Lambourn 
Manor was held by service of the Ward Staff" (i.e. the Constable's or Watch- 
man's staff), which was carried into Court with quaint ceremonies (Ancient 
Manorial Customs in the County of Essex, by R. S. Charnock, 1870, pp. 17-22). 

2 Lex Maneriorum, by W. Nelson, 1728, p. 190. 



THE COURT OF THE HUNDRED 51 

held, as of old, like that of Fawsley, " beneath the spreading 
branches of an enormous beech tree." l We are inclined to 
doubt, however, whether the few specimens of which we have 
particulars are all of the same species. In some cases the 
surviving Hundred Court appears simply to have outlived 
the Hierarchy, whilst often itself combining with the Court of 
its principal Manor. In other cases we may suspect that the 
term Hundred Court never has denoted the superior member 
of any Hierarchy of Courts, and that it represents much the 
same jurisdiction as was elsewhere exercised by the ordinary 
Manor Courts. In rare instances, again, a so-called Hundred 
Court is found among the various Courts held by Municipal 
Corporations in and for their Boroughs, with no wider juris- 
diction than a Borough Court. 2 As such it will fall to be 
described in subsequent chapters. 

What appears to be a common feature of the so-called 
Hundred Courts between 1689 and 1835 is their extreme 
attenuation of function. The majority of those that survived 
into the eighteenth century seem to have been little more 
than Courts for the trial of petty civil actions for debt and 
damages, and, as such, hardly come within the scope of Local 
Government as we have defined it. Other Hundred Courts, 
whilst retaining traces of the Court Baron side, appear 

1 This Hundred Court was thus held in Fawsley Park until the beginning 
of the eighteenth century, when it was removed to Everdon (History and 
Antiquities of Northamptonshire, by George Baker, 1822,- vol. i. p. 238; 
Victoria Couiity History of Northamptonshire, vol. i. 1902, p. 298). 

2 Such was the Colchester "Hundred and Foreign Court." Such, too, 
was the " Hundred Court " of Kid welly, in Carmarthenshire ; and such were those 
in the Cinque Ports (p. 378). 

Less clear is the case of the Hundred Court of Gloucester, which continued, 
as its Minutes show, to be nominally held by adjournment weekly before the 
Mayor and the two Sheriffs of the City. What it did is not apparent, as the 
Minutes contain, after 1680, little more than a perpetual repetition of the 
names of the suitors, who were the owners of certain estates in Gloucestershire 
and Herefordshire, the jurisdiction over which had, somehow or another, come 
to belong to the Corporation of Gloucester. It swore in Constables (infra, p. 341). 
During the whole period there was held also the Court Leet of the City of 
Gloucester half-yearly, before the Steward of the two Sheriffs, the MS. Minutes 
of which, between 1784 and 1819, show it to be making presentments of the 
usual kind. Whether the "Hundred Court" of Gloucester was merely held 
by the Corporation by right of its ownership of a Hundred, just as the Corpora- 
tion of the City of London held the Bailiwick of Southwark ; or whether, as 
Mr. Adolphus Ballard has suggested, it was a Court of the owners of those 
lands within the County which had to maintain the city wall, we must leave 
for antiquarian research. 



52 THE COURT IN RUINS 

chiefly as emasculated Courts Leet, appointing Constables and 
occasionally presenting nuisances. Our general impression 
is that these isolated Hundred Courts had once been un- 
differentiated Courts, dealing with all sorts of business 
indifferently, at one and the same Court, by one set of 
officers ; 1 and that the appearance of specialisation has 
resulted from the unevenness of the decay into which their 
various functions were falling. Pending further study of 
the records of the various Hundred Courts from the fourteenth 
to the nineteenth century, we can do no more than set forth 
such particulars as we have been able to glean of those which 
existed after 1689. 

A remarkable case of survival of an ancient Hundred 
Court, detached from the Manor Courts within the Hundred, 
is that of Salford, 2 in Lancashire, where we find the Steward 
of the Earl of Sefton, throughout the eighteenth, and down 
even to the middle of the nineteenth century, continuing to 
hold " the Court Leet, View of Frankpledge, and Court of 
Eecord of our Sovereign Lord the King for his Hundred or 
Wapentake of Salford." This Court evidently represented 
an ancient tribunal of which the jurisdiction extended nomin- 
ally to the whole of the modern Hundred of Salford perhaps 

1 Thus we are told that the "Hundred Court of Perveth" in Cardiganshire 
seems to have been held as a " Court Leet and Law Day " twice a year, and as 
a ' ' Court Baron " fortnightly ; it maintained the stocks and regulated the 
common, dealt with presentments and heard civil actions, and appointed both 
Constable and Reeve (prepositus or "major") see Treatise on Copyholds by 
C. Watkins, 4th edition, 1825, p. 503. 

2 The archives of Salford, long neglected, scattered, and destroyed, are only 
now being collected and studied. Some records of the Lord's Court from 1597 
to 1669 apparently the active Court of the Seignorial Borough, comparable 
with that of Berkeley or Wotton have lately been published (The Portmote, 
or Court Leet, Records of tJie Borough or Town and Royal Manor of Salford, 
by J. G. de T. Mandley ; Chetham Society, vols. xlvi. and xlvii., 1902). Stray 
records of Salford Courts exist, both of earlier arid of later date, some being 
preserved among the archives of the modern Salford Hundred Court of Record 
in Manchester, while those from 1828 to 1867 are in a thick, leather-bound 
volume now in the Salford Public Library. See also the particulars in House 
of Commons Return of Courts of Request, 1840 ; and Fifth Report of Royal 
Commission on Courts of Common Law, 1833 ; and the occasional reports in 
the newspapers, especially Manchester Guardian, 4th May 1833, 8th October 
1836, 18th October 1837 ; Manchester Chronicle, 4th May 1833 ; Manchester 
Times, 19th December 1835 ; and, on the whole subject, Med'Ueval Manchester 
and the Beginnings of Lancashire, by James Tait, 1904, p. 9. The Manchester 
Municipal Code, vol. v., 1899, gives the Acts and Orders in Council, 1868-1893, 
with a short memorandum on the history of the Court (pp. 267-268). 



THE COURT OF THE HUNDRED 53 

to the whole of the ancient " Salfordshire," still described as 
" the King's Manor of the Hundred of Salford," of which the 
Earl of Sefton was not styled Lord but Steward, and which 
included some fifty parishes or townships, among them being 
Oldham, Bolton, Bury, arid Manchester itself. 1 Judging from 
such fragmentary records as have survived, the Court of the 
Hundred of Salford was in fact once as all-embracing as the 
Court of the Hundred of Berkeley, having under it many 
other Courts ; perhaps even the Court of the Barony of 
Manchester itself, with its own subordinate Halimotes or 
Courts Baron of the separate Manors, which we may assume 
to have been un differentiated Courts, or (in the case of Salford 
and Manchester at any rate), like Berkeley or Wotton, the 
Leets or Moots of favoured townships which seignorial Charters 
had made into so-called Boroughs. We shall describe 
presently the vigorous life of the Manchester Court Leet. 
In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries there had been 
another such Borough Court held at Salford itself, called the 
Portmote, presumably under the charter of the Earl of 
Chester and Lincoln of 1231. At some period between 
1669 and 1828 apparently between 1738 and 1800 
it seems to have coalesced with or been merged in the 
Hundred Court, which presumably had continued to exercise 
a wider jurisdiction. 2 When we are again enabled to take 

1 Eoger the Poitevin retained the township of Salford in demesne when he 
enfeoffed under-tenants for the rest of his estate, a separation which had 
lasting consequences. "A stroke of a Norman baron's pen divorced Manchester 
and Salford in all but their devotions, and what he sundered no one has been 
able to bring together again, though they have long since ceased to be separated 
by green fields sloping down to a trout stream. A stranger who found himself 
in Deansgate, and wanted to know why two types of tram-car were running in 
what seemed to him a single city, would be mightily astonished if we told him 
that this was the doing of a foreign Count of the eleventh century. But so 
it is. It may be doubted whether it occurred to any citizen of Manchester 
resident in Broughton, who, during the recent deadlock between the two 
tramway committees, was turned out of the car at the city boundary, and had 
to walk several hundred yards in the rain to catch a Salford car, to curse the 
memory of Count Roger the Poitevin. He might have done this with some 
justice " (Hediceval Manchester and the Beginnings of Lancashire, by James 
Tait, 1904, p. 10). 

2 We imagine that in many other cases the Court of the Hundred had 
become combined with that of its principal Manor. Thus, in the Hundred of 
Crewkerne in Somerset, which constituted a single "Lordship," extending over 
seven tithings, in the sixteenth, seventeenth, or eighteenth centuries, there was 
only one Court held, called the Hundred Court and Court Baron. At the 
principal sessions of this Court each year the Lord nominated not only the 



54 THE COURT IN RUINS 

up the story in 1828, it is not the Portmote of the Borough 
but the " Court Leet, View of Frankpledge, and Court of 
Record ... for the Hundred or Wapentake of Salford " 
that is being held in Salford. By this time the Court, so 
far as the area outside Salford Borough was concerned, had 
ceased to stand in any relation whatever to such Manor 
Courts as were still held within its ancient jurisdiction. In 
1833, for instance, the Deputy Steward explained probably 
on the authority of Joseph Eitson's learned book that " the 
business of this Court solely applied to townships which had 
not the benefit of Courts Leet of their own. This being 
the Hundred Court Leet, it was their duty, therefore, to elect 
Constables in such cases . . . and in the event of proper 
persons not being returned by the townships to the Court, 
or where two lists were presented, they must elect such 
persons as would faithfully discharge the duties of the office." ] 
We accordingly find the Salford Hundred Court in 1828 
attended every half-year by the Constables, Deputy Constables, 

Bailiff of the Hundred, but also the Portreeve of the little town of Crewkerue, 
who collected the profits of its fair and market. The suitors of the Court 
elected the Reeve, who was responsible for collecting the quit-rents and fines 
due from the tenants. The other sessions held during the year were known as 
the Three Weeks' Courts, and at these the Tithingmen of the several districts 
were bound to attend, each bringing with them four of their neighbours, who 
were called "four posts," and who had to make presentments (The Book of 
the Art, by G. P. R. Pulman, 4th edition, 1875, pp. 247-250 ; quoting an 
MS. Survey of the Manor in 1599). Possibly a similar case is that of the 
' ' Manor, Hundred, and Borough " of Bradford in Wiltshire, which we see 
holding its "Court Leet, View of Frankpledge, and Court Baron" in 1819, and 
appointing a Constable and an Assistant Constable for the Hundred, together 
with a factotum, who combined in himself "the five offices of Bailiff of the 
Hundred, Assistant Constable of the Hundred, Haywarden, Tithingnian of 
the Old Town and Tithingnian of the New Town of Bradford." It is reported 
to the Home Office that the new and zealous Constable has presented this 
pluralist for making false presentments to the Quarter Sessions, swearing that 
the roads were in good repair when they were not (Home Office Domestic State 
Papers in Public Record Office, No. 10, 13th April and 1st May 1819, and 
January 1820). 

1 Report of Proceedings of Salford Court Leet, Manchester Chronicle, 4th 
May 1833. This view was upheld by the Court of King's Bench in 1822, 
as against the inhabitants of the Township of Failsworth, who claimed to meet 
annually to elect their own Constable, but failed definitely to allege that they 
did this by prescription. The action of the Salford Court in appointing a 
Constable for this Township was confirmed (R. v. Lane, in Reports of Cases, etc., 
by E. V. Barnewall and E. H. Alderson, 1823, vol. v. pp. 488-489). Ritson 
had said that the Leet of a Hundred had jurisdictioii only over such parts of 
the Hundred as were not within the jurisdiction of the Court Leet of any 
Manor (Jurisdiction of the Courts Leet, by J. Ritson, 3rd edition, 1816, p. 5). 



THE COURT OF THE HUNDRED 55 

and Assistant Constables of forty out of the fifty townships 
included within the Hundred; and enabling such nuisances 
in these townships as noxious smells and smoke from factories, 
obstructions of the highway, leaving roads unfenced in 
dangerous places, foul ditches, exposing unwholesome food 
for sale, and using false weights or measures to be presented 
and fined. 1 The Court was always held at Salford. We 
gather that the jurymen were chosen from residents of the 
so-called " Borough " of Salford, not, as at Berkeley, from the 
various Manors of the Hundred ; the so-called Burgesses of 
Salford Borough were required to attend under penalty of 
sixpence, and inhabitants of the Borough not being Burgesses, 
under penalty of threepence ; new Burgesses had to be sworn 
in ; and it is evident that the principal business of the Court 
related to that Borough, for which, besides the officers of 
the Hundred, it appointed annually a Boroughreeve, two 
Constables, a Dog -muzzier, an Ale -taster, By law -men and 
Inspectors of Flesh and Fish. The Hundred Court seems, 
in fact, to Lave been the only active "police and sanitary 
authority " which the township of Salford enjoyed, until the 
rise, early in the nineteenth century, of a democratic Open 
Vestry, and the advent, in 1829, of a statutory body of Police 
or Street Commissioners ; and the fact that this Court 
appointed the Boroughreeve, gave it complete authority in 
what had already become a crowded and insanitary factory 
town. 

Meanwhile there was being continuously held at Salford 
another series of Courts, from three weeks to three weeks, also 

1 See, for instance, MS. Minutes, Salford Hundred Court Leet, 9th April 
1828. We add two examples as typical: "The jurors of our Lord the King 
upon their oaths present that at Aucoats Bridge within Ardwick in the said 
Hundred of Salford ... is a manufactory for making sal ammoniac next to 
the King's common highway there leading from Manchester to Ashton . . . 
which emits great quantities of noisome and noxious fumes and vapours to the 
great nuisance of all the King's subjects passing and travelling there, by the 
default of Ebenezer Breillatt. . . . Therefore he is in mercy. . . . And they 
amerce him in five shillings, and he is commanded to abate the same within 
two months under the pain of one hundred pounds" (ibid. 9th April 1828). 
In 1833 the Deputy Constable of Pendleton said he had been requested by the 
respectable inhabitants of that township to present a number of owners and 
occupiers of property abutting "the Black ditch . . . full to overflowing of 
refuse of dyehouses . . . causing an intolerable stench . . . the most intoler- 
able nuisance in the neighbourhood." The Jury thereupon presented the 
offenders (ibid. April 1833). 



56 THE COURT IN RUINS 

purporting to be those of the Court of the Salford Hundred or 
Wapentake. Every third Thursday one or other of the three 
Deputy Stewards, whom the Earl of Sefton had appointed for 
this special purpose, 1 held his Court for the trial of actions for 
debt or damages under forty shillings within the wide limits of 
the Hundred. Over a thousand such actions a year were being 
dealt with by this Court in 1835, 2 notwithstanding the con- 
current existence as petty debt tribunals of the Court Baron of 
Manchester and of statutory Courts of Requests in and for 
Manchester, Oldham, Bury, and Rochdale. 3 

Amid the political agitation of 1829-32, the Radicals began 
to chafe against the " self-elect " constitution of the Salford 
Hundred Court, by which they meant exclusively the half-yearly 
sessions for the appointment of Borough officers. They recalled 
the fact that the Earl of Sefton, as a Whig peer, had supported 
the Reform Bill ; and some of them urged him to be true to 
his faith in representative government, and to cause his Deputy 
Steward to leave off packing the Jury with Tories. Lord 
Sefton fell in with this view, and from 1835 onward the jury- 

1 In 1835, at any rate, and for many years previously, these Deputy Stewards 
were the members of one of the leading firms of solicitors at Manchester, and 
quite distinct from the Deputy Steward, a barrister, whom the Earl appointed to 
hold the half-yearly Courts. 

2 House of Commons Return of Courts of Request, 1840 ; Fifth Report of 
Royal Commision on Courts of Common Law, 1833, pp. 26a, 53a, 61a, 78<z, 108a, 
132a, 16, 106. 

3 Somewhat akin to the position of the Salford Hundred Court was apparently 
that of Bradford at Wellington in Shropshire. This Court, held by the Duke of 
Cleveland under Royal Letters Patent of 1672, had once exercised full jurisdiction 
over the whole Hundred. By the nineteenth century, however, it had come to 
exercise what we may call Leet jurisdiction, and to appoint Constables only for 
those Manors within the Hundred which no longer held Courts of their own. It 
continued, however, to sit fortnightly for the preliminary stages of civil actions, 
and twice a year for the trial of causes arising anywhere within the Hundred. 
At the two general Courts (one of them being utilised for the appointment of 
Constables, etc.) it is said that the Constables of the Hundred had to attend 
(Fifth Report of Royal Commission on Courts of Common Law, 1833, pp. 106ff, 
167ffl, 168a ; House of Commons Return of Hundred Courts, 1839, p. 5 ; and of 
Courts of Request, 1840, pp. 132-133). Here, too, we may mention the Courtof 
the Hundred of Whitchurch (Dorset), which did not try civil suits, but appointed 
two Constables for the Hundred and Tithingmen for such of the nineteen Tithings 
within the Hundred as did not have Courts of their own. When a resident in 
one of the Tithings for which a Manor Court was held had been appointed 
Constable for the Hundred by the Hundred Court, he appealed to the Court of 
King's Bench for exemption, on the plea that the Hundred Court had no right to 
appoint a resident "within a private Leet." But he was held liable to serve the 
Hundred (R. i>. Genge, 1774, in reports of Cases, etc., by Henry Cowper, 1783, 
pp. 13-17> 



THE COURT OF THE HUNDRED 57 

men at the half-yearly meetings were taken by lot from a list of 
the five hundred highest rated inhabitants. 1 At the same time 
it became taken for granted that this Jury should accept, for 
the offices of Boroughreeve and Constables, the nominations 
made by the open Vestry Meeting. 2 Under these circumstances 
there seems to have been no popular objection to the continu- 
ance of the formal participation of the Hundred Court in the 
Local Government of the Borough, and its half-yearly sessions 
accordingly went on being formally held, and its annual appoint- 
ments of Boroughreeve and other officers being made, down to 
1867. No objection seems ever to have been made to the 
three-weekly trial of civil actions, under which form, by virtue 
of successive Acts of Parliament, and with only the slightest 
change of name, the ancient Court of the Wapentake or Hundred 
of Salford survives to this day. 3 

On the South Coast of England we find, right down to 
1855, at Brighton, in Sussex, the Court of the Hundred of 
Whalesbone, or more properly, Wellesbourne. This was de- 
scribed as " the Leet or Lawday and View of Frankpledge," 
not for any one Manor but for the whole of the Hundred, the 

1 The reformer who secured this change was one J. S. Ormerod, who was pre- 
sented with a gold snuff-box by his admirers. His reply contains the following 
passages, which we give as specimens of the feeling that prevailed. ' ' When I 
first thought of making an effort to prevent the Borough of Salford . . . from 
being ruled and governed in its Municipal constitution by men who had nothing 
to recommend them but superstition and bigoted Toryism ; when I found also 
that these men were chosen by a class of individuals who were self-elected from 
men possessing precisely the same politics as themselves ; when I found that 
these men were so ignorant as to boast of having been upon that Jury thirty 
years, some for more than twenty, others for twenty " he determined to 
approach Lord Sefton, who made inquiry and directed his Deputy Steward to 
adopt a new plan (Manchester Times, 19th December 1835). 

2 See, for instance, Manchester Guardian, 8th October 1836. 

3 In 1846 its jurisdiction was preserved and enlarged, so as to enable it to 
deal with actions up to 50, by 9 and 10 Victoria, c. 126. In 1868 it was 
amalgamated with the Court of Record held by the Manchester Corporation 
under its Charter of 1838 and 17 and 18 Victoria, c. 84, and given the new 
title of the Salford Hundred Court of Record (31 and 32 Victoria, c. 130). 
The Earl of Sefton was thereby continued as High Steward, with a right to 
receive one-third of the fees arising from such cases as would have been within 
the jurisdiction of the old Salford Court, less a proportion of the expenses, but 
in no case to amount to less than two hundred guineas a year (sec. 35). The 
Boroughs of Oldham, Boltou, Heywood, and Rochdale successively got them- 
selves exempted from the jurisdiction of the Salford Hundred Court, in all 
matters in which the modern County Court has cognizance (Orders in Council 
of 30th December 1878, 16th August 1886, and 15th March 1893, and the 
Oldham Corporation Act 1886, 49 and 50 Victoria, c. 117). 



$8 THE COURT IN RUINS 

Lord or Steward of the Hundred being the Earl of Aber- 
gavenny. The Hundred of Whalesbone comprised the parish 
of Brighthelmston (now Brighton) with the " Boroughs " or 
hamlets of Preston and Patcham a much smaller area than 
the Hundred of Berkeley. Within the Hundred there were, 
however, a number of reputed Manors and parcels of Manors, 
inextricably confused by partitions and alienations. Bright- 
helmston itself, in the days when its importance lay in its 
fishing, had had an important Manor Court of its own, of which 
the " ancient customs " had been of sufficient consequence to 
be investigated by a special Royal Commission of 1580. 1 
What Lord's Courts were held in the eighteenth century within 
the Hundred, and exactly for what purposes, we have been 
unable to ascertain. 2 But the Hundred Court continued 
vigorously to exist, though, as we gather, principally, if not 
entirely, for the purpose of appointing annually at Easter the 
various officers of the Hundred : the High Constable, twelve 
Headboroughs or Assistant Constables, 3 an Aleconner, and a 
Searcher and Sealer of Leather. It had apparently only one 
Jury, summoned by the Deputy Steward. It seems not to 
have dealt with actions for debt or damages. Of the history 
of this ancient jurisdiction during the eighteenth century we 
know nothing. We find it after the Parliamentary election of 
1825 coming into sharp conflict with the Vestry, which refused 
to pass the High Constable's accounts. The items objected to 
related to the swearing in of special constables " during the late 
county election," and the payments to private persons for 
apprehending suspected criminals and vagrants. 4 These items 
appeared, in accordance with the provisions of 18 George III. 
c, 19 (1779), in the Overseers' accounts, and as it had never 
become quite clear whether the consent of the Vestry was 
necessary to their validity, the County Magistrates did not 
scruple to pass the Overseers' accounts containing the items 

1 History of Brighthelmston, by J. A. Erredge, 1862 ; Compendious History 
of Sussex, by M. A. Lower, 1870, vol. i. pp. 77-84 ; Sussex Archaeological 
Collections, vol. ii. p. 38. We recur to this in the following chapter (p. 173). 

2 There is evidence that Manorial Courts were held for property business ; 
see, for instance, the reference to the surrender of certain tenements by the 
Churchwardens of Brighthelmston " at a General Court Baron for the Manor of 
Allingworth" (MS. Vestry Minutes, Brighton, 3rd February 1806). 

3 Brighton Herald, 9th April 1825. 

4 Ibid. 17th September 1825 and 29th July 1826. 



THE COURT OF THE HUNDRED 59 

objected to. 1 The friction between the Vestry and the Hundred 
Court continued ; and in 1828 the Vestry sent an elaborate 
memorial to the Earl of Abergavenny, as " the Lord of the Leet 
of the Hundred of Whalesbone," protesting against " the great, 
notorious, and crying abuse," that the outgoing High Constable 
packed the Jury summoned to elect his successor, and " the 
choice has consequently not been congenial to the wishes 
of the inhabitants." 2 It appears that the same little set 
of the Vicar, the County Justices resident in the town, and 
other Tory magnates had appeared as jurymen year after year, 
the Vicar acting always as Foreman. In answer to this 
memorial the Steward addressed to the Vestry a long and able 
description of the procedure of the Hundred Court. In future, 
he adds, " I shall require the High Constable to return to me 
... a list of at least fifty of the most respectable inhabitants 
. . . and I shall advise that such list be made known to the 
public. . . . From this list I shall select by ballot 2 3 to form a 
Jury. ... If any reasonable and fair objection shall be stated 
in Court ... to any gentleman so summoned ... I shall not 
hesitate to dispense with the attendance of that juryman." 3 
The result was that within a short time the Vestry and the 
High Constable became on excellent terms, 4 and the Hundred 
Court continued to be held for nearly another generation. 5 

1 MS. Minutes, Quarter Sessions, Sussex, 20th October 1825. Such a case 
had then recently occurred at the Cheshire Quarter Sessions, where the 
Constable of Ashton-under-Lyne had laid his accounts before the Vestry, and 
had an item disallowed (the expense of prosecuting a Dissenting Minister for 
preaching in the streets) ; two Justices had nevertheless allowed the Overseers' 
Accounts including this item. One out of the eight Overseers appealed to 
Quarter Sessions, which confirmed the allowance. The Court of King's Bench 
dismissed an appeal on the ground that it was not promoted by a majority of 
the Overseers, without, therefore, deciding that the action of the Justices had 
been wrong (R. v. Justices of Lancashire, in Reports of Cases, etc., by E. V. 
Bamewall and E. H. Alderson, 1823, vol. v. pp. 755-758). 

2 Brighton Herald, 2nd February 1828. 

3 MS. Vestry Minutes, Brighton, 25th January and 22nd February 1828. 
* Ibid. 20th January 1831. 

6 For the so-called Hundreds of Sussex and Kent, and their relations to the 
"Rapes "or " Lathes " of these Counties, see " The Hundred of Eastbourne and 
its Six Boroughs," by Rev. William Hudson, Sussex Archaeological Collections, 
vol. xlii. p. 189, 1899, and "Liberties and Franchises within the Rape of 
Hastings," by W. D. Cooper, Sussex Archceological Collections, vol. vi., 1853, 
pp. 57-70. " In Sussex," we learn of the thirteenth century, " each Hundred 
seems to have had a Beadle, that is, a summoner, who was called an Alder- 
man," and who sometimes performed the suit of court due by the tenants of 
the Hundred at superior Courts (History of English Law, by Sir F. Pollock 
and F. W. Maitland, 1895, vol. i. p. 545). At Swanborough, one of these 



60 THE COURT IN RUINS 

The Hundred Courts which remained in private hands are 
scarcely to be distinguished from the Courts of Franchises, 
Liberties, Lordships, or Honours which had obtained exemption 
from the jurisdiction of, or concurrent jurisdiction with, the 
County Court. The Franchise or Liberty often included 
several Hundreds. In the " Seven Hundreds " of Cirencester 
in Gloucestershire, for instance, which had for five or six 
centuries enjoyed great exemptions from the Sheriff of the 
County, there continued to be held, in the eighteenth century, 
a three-weekly Court under the Steward of Earl Bathurst. 
Its business seems to have been exclusively the trial of 
small civil suits, personal actions, and debts under forty 
shillings. It was, we are told, regarded as " vexatious, dila- 
tory, and expensive," and so was superseded in 1792 by the 
effect of a Local Act, which created a Court of Bequests, under 
seventy-five Commissioners, who took it in turn to sit as judges. 1 

In Kent the " Seven Hundreds " constituted a Franchise, 
having a Court of its own, held by the Bailiff. This Court 

"Hundreds," which belongs to the Marquis of Abergavenny, and comprises 
several parishes, " Boroughs," and Manors, the ancient Court of the Hundred 
was held right down to our own day. There attended the Constable and 
Alderman of the Hundred, the Headboroughs of the Parishes, and one or two 
dozen jurymen. Annoyances and defaults were presented and amerced, and 
civil suits under forty shillings were tried. The Jury presented persons to 
serve as Constable and Alderman of the Hundred (down to 1860) and Head- 
boroughs of the various parishes (down to 1842), of whom the Steward chose 
one ("The Hundred of Swanborough," by J. Cooper, in Sussex Archaeological 
Collections, vol. iv., October 1890). See also The Perambulation of Kent, by 
W. Lambard, 1576, p. 21 ; Robinson on Gavelkind, 5th edition, by C. J. Elton 
and H. J. H. Mackay, 1897, p. 211. Of the village of Lamberhurst we read 
that "a fair is held here yearly on 10th October for toys and pedlary, the 
profits of which the Portreeve of the Hundred of Milton receives of ancient 
custom, which officer executed within this Hundred the office of Clerk of the 
Market in all points whilst the Market was held, but it has been disused time 
out of mind" (History of Kent, by E. Hasted, 1797 to 1801, vol. vii. p. 53). 
For Tenterden Seven Hundreds, see History of the Weald of Kent, by R. Furley, 
1871, vol. i. pp. 315-324, vol. ii. p. 555 ; History of the Weald of Kent, by 
T. D. W. Dearn, 1814, pp. 162, 233-245 ; House of Commons Return of Courts 
of Request, 1840. 

1 History of Cirencester, by K. J. Beecham, 1887, pp. 162-170. This 
Court of Requests was, like others, itself superseded after 1846 by the new 
County Courts. We may mention here (though we have no information as to 
their Courts) the analogous "Seven Hundreds" of Worcestershire, which had 
of old such extensive immunities ; the Hundreds of Windsor Forest, and, 
best known of all, the Chiltern Hundreds (Desborough, Stoke, and Bray in 
Buckinghamshire), of which the Stewardship remaining, as it does, in the 
gift of the Chancellor of the Exchequer has become a minor part of the 
machinery of Parliamentary procedure (see The Stewardship of the Clillrrn 
Hundreds, by F. 8. Parry, a privately printed Treasury Memorandum of 1893 ; 



THE COURT OF THE HUNDRED 61 

was held during the eighteenth century, and only discon- 
tinued after the whole Franchise had been sold by the Crown 
in 1817 to a private landowner. Within the Franchise, as 
we learn from a survey of the time of the Commonwealth, 
"there belongeth to each Hundred a Court Leet, where the 
Constables and Borsholders are elected, and all nuisances are 
amerced by the Steward and Jury, which Court is held when- 
ever the Lord or Steward may appoint." In six of these "Seven 
Hundreds" the Court used to be held by the Steward or Bailiff 
for the profit of the Crown. In the seventh, comprising Tenter- 
den, the chief town, the ownership of this so-called " royalty 
of the Court of the Bailiwick of the Seven Hundreds" was 
vested in the Mayor and twelve Jurats of the Municipal Cor- 
poration, by whom the Court was, in 1814, still being held. 

Throughout the wide area of Yorkshire there were Courts 
in every Wapentake, the division corresponding with the 
Hundred. We catch a glimpse of these Courts in 1641 in 
the notebook of a Yorkshire farmer. "The baily [Bailiff] of 
every Wapentake," he says, " is to keep a Court, which is 
called the Wapentake Court, Three Weeks' Court, or Sheriffs' 
Turn, where any petty cause or small trespass may be heard 
and ended once within three weeks." In at least two Wapen- 
takes these Courts continued to be held for more than two 
centuries much as Henry Best describes them ; some remnants 
lingering until the middle of the nineteenth century. 1 

In Cheshire there continued to be held an active Hundred 
Court for the Hundred of Wirral, which includes the town of 
Birkeuhead. This was held on lease from the Crown until 
1819, when it reverted to the Commissioners of Woods and 
Forests, by whom it was sold in 1820 for 500 to a Liverpool 
attorney. The Court continued for another generation to do 
an extensive business in petty debt cases, especially those 
arising in the rapidly growing town of Birkenhead. 2 

" The Ancient Hundreds of Buckinghamshire," by Morley Davies, in Home 
Co-unites Magazine, vol. vi. pp. 134-144 ; article by J. H. Round in Victoria 
County History of Buckinghamshire, vol. i. 1905, p. 225). 

1 Rural Economy in Yorkshire in 1641, by Henry Best, Surtees Society, 
vol. xxxiii., 1857, p. 91 ; House of Commons Return of Courts of Request, 
1840, pp. 170-171. 

2 Fifth Report of Royal Commission on Courts of Common Law, 1833 ; 
House of Commons Returns of Hundred Courts, 1839, and Courts of Request, 



62 THE COURT IN RUINS 

At least a score of other Hundred Courts continued to be 
held in different parts of the country throughout the eighteenth, 
aiid down to the middle of the nineteenth, century, 1 principally 
as tribunals for the trial of small civil suits. We find them 
also, here and there, appointing not only Bailiffs and Constables 
for the Hundred or Liberty itself, 2 but also Constables and 
Haywards for Manors within the Hundred, but not exercising 
any other functions of the mediaeval Courts. Similarly, there 
existed down to the same period a score of Courts of Honours, 
Lordships, or Liberties, 3 which were not styled Hundred Courts, 

1840 ; History of the Hundred of Wirrod, by W. Mortimer, 1847 ; Liverpool 
Courier, 9th April 1869. 

1 Among these other surviving Hundred Courts the principal were those for 
the other Hundreds of Lancashire, Amounderness (held by a Steward for the 
Duchy itself), West Derby (held by the Earl of Sefton), Lonsdale (held by the 
Earl of Lonsdale) ; that held by the Duke of Richmond for "Richmondshire," 
comprising five Wapentakes of the North Riding of Yorkshire ; those of 
Scarsdale and Chesterfield in Derbyshire, held by the Duke of Devonshire under 
a grant of 1631 ; that of Bucklow (Cheshire), held on lease from the Crown by 
the Egertons of Tatton ; that of Grumbald's Ash (Gloucestershire), held by the 
Duke of Beaufort under lease from the Crown down to 1835, until which date 
it appointed Constables and Haywards for the Manors within the Hundred, as 
well as tried petty debt cases ; those of Chew Magna (Somerset), which ceased to 
be held about 1836 ; Keynsham (Wiltshire), Portbury (Wiltshire), Whit- 
stone (Wiltshire), Offlow (Staffordshire), Durnford (Sussex) ; St. Briavel's 
(Gloucestershire), held by a Steward for the Crown ; Henbury (Gloucestershire), 
Thornbury (Gloucestershire) ; Huntingstone (Huntingdonshire), belonging to the 
Earl of Sandwich ; Penwith (Cornwall), Pain's Castle (Radnor), and the Duke of 
Beaufort's Court Baron for the Hundred of Crickhowell (Breconshire). Some 
particulars as to their activity in 1830-40 may be gathered from the Fifth 
Report of the Commission on Courts of Common Law, 1833, and the House of 
Commons Returns of Hundred Courts, 1839, and Courts of Request, 1840. 

2 " Bailiffs and Constables of Hundreds .are chosen annually at the Courts 
Leet for the several Hundreds and Liberties within the County " (A Guide to 
the Practice of the Court of Quarter Sessions for the County of Somerset, by J. 
Jesse, 1815, p. 20). 

3 Such as the Nottinghamshire Peverel Court, held by Lord Middleton as 
Steward, and exercising jurisdiction, concurrently with the two County Courts, 
within the whole of the Counties of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire except the 
Corporate towns ; Tutbury Honour Court, held by the Duke of Devonshire at 
Tutbury (Staffordshire) every three weeks for civil actions by residents within 
the Honour, which included parts of no fewer than six Counties and had its 
own Coroner as well as its own Bailiff (Three Centuries of Derbyshire Annals, 
by J. C. Cox, pp. 71-84) ; the Court Baron of the Honour of Pontefract (York- 
shire), with jurisdiction over 350 townships, in a district of 600 square miles, 
and held twice a year each at Leeds, Bradford, and Huddersfield ; Allertonshire 
Liberty Court (Yorkshire), held by the Bishop of Ripon every three weeks, for the 
thirty-two townships within the Liberty ; the Court of the Liberty and Honour 
of Pickering Lythe (Yorkshire), held twice a year only ; Skipton Honour Court 
(Yorkshire), held under Letters Patent of 1307 by the Earl of Thanet as Lord 
of the Honour ; Whitby Strand Liberty Court, held by the Cholmleys as Bailiffs 



THE COURT OF THE HUNDRED 63 

but which exercised jurisdiction over areas within which there 
were at least several Manors, and which occasionally extended 
to hundreds of square miles. We cannot help regretting that 
so little examination has been made of the sixteenth, seven- 
teenth, and eighteenth century records of these Hundred 
Courts, and other Courts of wider jurisdiction than that of a 
Manor, from which additional light might be thrown on 
the relations of the different Courts of the ancient 
Hierarchy. 1 

of the Liberty, in succession to the Abbots of Whitby (Yorkshire) ; Kidwelly 
Honour or Lordship and Liberty Court, held by the Earl of Cawdor for three 
"commotes" of Carmarthenshire, comprising nineteen Manors and sixteen 
Parishes ; Perfeth Court Baron, also held by the Earl of Cawdor, as Lord of 
the Lordship ; the Court of Pleas for the Honour of Leicester, held by a steward 
for the Duchy of Lancaster, in some connection with the Courts Leet of nine 
Manors within the Honour ; the Ramsey Court of Pleas, held under ancient 
charters by the Lord of the Liberty of Ramsey (Huntingdonshire) ; Ampthill 
Honour Court (Bedfordshire), not held for the trial of actions after the 
eighteenth century ; Bromfield and Yale Lordship Court (Denbighshire), held at 
the beginning of the eighteenth century by the Grosvenors as Lords of the 
Lordship ; and various other Welsh Lordship Courts, such as Chirk, which 
ceased to be held in consequence of an adverse judgment of the Court of King's 
Bench about 1827 (Williams v. Lord Bagot, Reports of Cases, by Barnewall and 
Cresswell, vol. iii. pp. 235, 772, etc.). With these should perhaps be classed the 
great Wakefield Court Baron held by the Lord of the extensive jurisdiction of 
Wakefield, which included, by 1835, a quarter of a million inhabitants, and 
exercised important functions in connection with weights and measures, as well 
as dealing with a couple of thousand civil actions annually. Some information 
about them in 1830-40 may be gathered from the House of Commons Returns 
of Hundred Courts, 1838, and Courts of Request, etc., 1840, and the Fifth 
Report of the Royal Commission on the Courts of Common Law, 1833. 

1 We cannot pretend to deal with the various Forest Courts, held under 
picturesque names in districts which were technically royal forests. The special 
forest laws (as to which the various editions of John Manwood's Forest Laws, 
from 1598 to 1665, were authoritative) apparently ceased to be enforced after 
the Commonwealth, the Act " for the limitation of Forests," 16 Charles I. c. 16 
(1640), having practically brought the old system to an end. Some attempt 
was made to revive the Courts on the Restoration ; but we do not actually know 
that either the six- weekly "Court of Attachment" or "Woodmote," the 
"Court of Regard" every third year, or the "Court of Justice Seat" was held 
after the Revolution (Life of Lord Justice Guilford, by the Hon. Roger North, 
1808, vol. i. p. 75 ; The Rural Life of England, by William Howitt, 1838, 
vol. ii. p. 59). But Courts continued to be held, sometimes under the 
ancient forest name of "Swainmote" or "Swanimote," sometimes under that 
of Halmote Court, in various forest districts, especially in the Forest of Dean, 
though they seem to have decayed rapidly after the first quarter of the 
eighteenth century, and to have become often formal only. To this day, 
however, in the Forest of Dean, the Steward of the Crown holds his Court 
annually at the '' Speech House," wearing a cocked hat, and equipped with a 
sword. We may yet read The Rights of His Majesty's Forest Asserted, in a 
Charge given at a Swanimote Court held . . . before the Verderers of the Forest 
of Windsor, 1717, by Nathaniel Boothe, Steward of the Court, 1719; and 



64 THE COURT IN RUINS 



The Court of the Hundred, where it continued into the 
eighteenth century, retained, as we have seen, little beyond its 
function as a tribunal for petty actions of debt, combining 
with this, in a few instances, the more or less formal appoint- 
ment of Constables and other officers. This was not the case 
with the innumerable Manor Courts that existed in 1689, 
many of which continued, right into the nineteenth century, 
to be active local authorities, managing the commonfields and 
pastures, suppressing nuisances, providing the police, and trying 
cases of debt and trespass in the little communities over which 
they had jurisdiction. 1 It is, in fact, the existence of the 
humble Court of the Manor, much more than that of the 
enigmatical and pretentious Courts of the Hundred, Honour, 
Barony, or Forest, that compels us to include the Lord's Court 
in our survey of English Local Government between 1689 
and 1835. 

It is significant that this Court of the Manor, as we find 

"The Rolls of the Court of Attachment of the Royal Forest of Walthara" 
between 1713 and 1848 are printed as vol. v. of the Report of the Epping 
Forest Commissioners, 1873. See Select Pleas of the Forest, by G. J. Turner 
(Selden Society, 1901) ; Remarks on Forest Scenery, by W. Gilpin, 1791, with a 
good list of Forests ; Historical Inquiries concerning Forests and Forest Laws, 
by Percival Lewis, 1811 ; the statutes of 1817 and 1829 ; an able article in 
Edinburgh Review, April 1902 ; Ihe Royal Forests of England, by J. C. Cox, 
1905 ; and A History of English Law, by Prof. W. S. Holdsworth, 1903, pp. 
340-352. Also the various reports of the Commissioners of Woods, Forests, and 
Land Revenues, especially those of 1788 and 1853 ; that of the House of 
Commons Committees on the Forest of Dean, 1874, and on the Woods and 
Forests, 1889 and 1890 ; Report on the Forest of Dean, by H. C. Hill, 
published by the Stationery Office, 19th July 1887 ; The Forest of Dean, by 
H. G. Nicholls, 1858 ; an exceptionally well-informed article in The English 
Historical Review, vol. xxi., 1906, pp. 445-459 ; The History of the Forest of 
Dean in Gloucestershire, by John Nisbet ; History of Knaresborough, by Eli 
Hargrove, 1798 ; Histoi'y of the Forest of Rossendale, by T. Newbigging, 1868 ; 
The Honour and Forest of Pickering, by R. B. Turton (North Riding Record 
Society, N.S., vols. i.-iii., 1894-96); The Forest of Essex, by W. R. Fisher, 
1887 ; Annals of tlie Ancient Royal Forest of Exmoor, by E. J. Rawle, 1893 ; 
The Great Forest of Brecknock, by John Lloyd, 1905 ; vol. ii. of the Victoria 
County History of Hampshire, 1905, pp. 409-470, for the New Forest; and 
chap, iv., "Forest Police," in The History of Police in England, by Captain 
Melville Lee. 

1 "Every Manor," it was said, "is a little Commonwealth whereof the 
tenants are the members, the land the body, and the Lord the head" (The 
Surveyor's Dialogue, by John Norden, 4th edition, 1738, p. 44). 



THE COURT OF THE MANOR 65 

it existing after 1689 from one end of England to the other, 
is an Undifferentiated Court. Whatever it may be termed by 
the Steward, it combines and confuses in its actual procedure 
and work the attributes which the sixteenth-century lawyer 
ascribed to his three or four distinct tribunals. In the vast 
majority of the Manors that we have examined, we see the 
Steward giving notice, once or twice a year, that he would 
hold, not the various separate Courts given in the text-books, 
but, under one name or other, simply the Lord's Court. This 
might be held in the open air, beneath some aged tree j" 1 it 
might, as at Selborne in Hampshire, be in an ancient barn of 
the Manor farm ; 2 it might be at the Lord's Manor-house 
(perhaps for this reason in Southern England often called a 
Court) ; 8 or occasionally in some old building in the village 
known as the Court House, 4 or even, in a few cases, the Town 
Hall, or Gild Hall. 5 It was a common practice to " open the 
Court " at the ancient place and then instantly to adjourn to 
the largest room of the village inn. 6 There would be a 
customary date for holding the Court, which would be seldom 
departed from it might be soon after Michaelmas or Easter ; 
it might, as at Coggeshall in Essex, be on Whit Monday ; 7 it 
might, as at Andover in Hampshire, be "the Sunday next 
before St. Michael " ; 8 in many of the Manors of the Bishop 
of Winchester we read of " the Turn of St. Martin," or " the 

1 Treatise on Copyholds, by Charles Watkins, 4th edition, 1825, vol. ii. 
p. 9. At Newton (Norfolk), in 1531, it was "under the oak " (The Manor and 
Manorial Records, by N. J. Hone, 1906, p. 132). 

2 Practical Treatise on Copyhold Tenure, by R. B. Fisher, 1794, p. 59. 

3 Or " place, " which maybe from "placitum" (Treatise on Copyholds, by 
Charles Watkins, 4th edition, 1825, vol. ii. p. 11). Mr. Seebohm connects 
" Court " with " curtis," which. is "so often applied to the later Manor-house " ; 
and with the " cohortes " around a Roman villa {English Village Community, 
by F. Seebohm, 1883, p. 263). 

4 So at Epworth in Lincolnshire (see History and Topography of the Isle of 
Axholme, by Rev. W. B. Stonehouse, 1839, pp. 143-149). 

6 At Coggeshall in Essex the Court was always held at the Shambles in the 
market-place (Treatise on Copyholds, by C. Watkius, 4th edition, 1825, vol. ii. 
p. 574). At Bungay it was held "in the Corn Cross," until the demolition of 
that building in 1810 (History of Suffolk, by Rev. A. Suckling, 1846, p. 129). 

8 Treatise on Copyholds, by C. Watkins, 4th edition, 1825, vol. ii. p. 9. 
At Yardley Hastings, in Northamptonshire, the Court was always formally 
opened in an ancient hall in the village, and then adjourned to the village inn 
(Practical Treatise on Copyhold Tenure, by John Scriven, 1816, p. 5). 

7 Treatise on Copyholds, by C. Watkins, 4th edition, 1825, vol. ii. p. 574. 

8 Firma Burgi, by Thos. Madox, 1726, p. 210; Treatise on Copyholds, 
by Charles Watkins, 4th edition, 1825, vol. ii. p. 477. 

VOL. II. PT. I F 



66 THE COURT IN RUINS 

Turn of Hock " ; l it might even be, as in a Manor near 
Kochford, Essex, "at cockcrowing, before the day was well 
light." 2 At such a Court in different Manors called in- 
differently the View of Frankpledge, the Court Baron, 8 the 
Turn, the Court Leet, the Lawday, the Leet, or simply the 
Great Court or the Little Court there would attend most of 
the men of the village, whether freeholders or copyholders, 
leaseholders or cottagers. In Manor after Manor we find 
evidence that some sort of roll of names was read over, and 
defaulters fined. Thus at Standon in Staffordshire, during the 
eighteenth century, the fine for non-attendance was a shilling 
for freeholders, sixpence for leaseholders and other tenants of 
the Manor, and twopence for cottagers. 4 Elsewhere it often 
seems to have been only the freehold or copyhold tenants of 
the Manor whose attendance was insisted on. At Braintree 
in 1653 the tenants who did not appear were severally fined 
three shillings; in 1665, freeholders two shillings and copy- 
holders one shilling ; whilst in 1732 the absent freeholders 
had to pay only a shilling each and the copyholders half a 
crown. 5 At Devonport, about 1800, we read that "all the 
tenants are obliged to attend, or be amerced two and sixpence." 6 

1 See MS. Manor Rolls, Farnliam, Surrey, 8th October 1717, for one of many 
examples. 

2 " The Honour of Eayleigh in Essex . . . hath a Custom Court kept yearly 
the Wednesday next after St. Michael's Day ; the Court is kept in the night 
and without light but as the sky gives, at a little hill without the town called 
the King's Hill, where the Steward writes only with coals and not with ink. 
And many men and Manors of great worth hold of the same, and do suit unto 
this strange Court, where the Steward calls them with as low a voice as possible 
he may ; giving no notice when he goes to the Hill to keep the same Court ; 
and he that attends not is deeply amerced if the Steward will"' (The Surveyor's 
Dialogue, by John Norden, 4th edition, 1738, p. 161). How much truth and 
how much significance there was in this account of what was apparently nick- 
named "the Lawless Court" we cannot say (see Law Dictionary, by John 
Cowell, 1727, under this appellation ; Treatise on Copyholds, by Charles Watkins, 
4th edition, 1825, vol. ii. p. 9). 

3 Court Barou is clearly "curia baronis," and the meaning of "curia 
baronis " is significantly explained by the variant "curia nobilis viri R.R." 
that we find as the title of the Braintree Court in the earliest roll (1616). It 
was simply the Lord's Court. There seems to have been every variety in the 
name borne by the Court in different Manors, and we can trace little connection, 
in the period 1689-1835, between these variations of name and the equally great 
variations in function. 

4 The History of Standon, by Edward Salt, 1888. 
6 MS. Manor Rolls, Braintree (Essex). 

The, Plymouth Dock Guide, p. 28 (circa 1800). At Leamington the Earl of 
Aylesford, as Lord of the Manor, revived the Lord's Court in that Manor in 



THE COURT OF THE MANOR 67 

An indisputable element in the Lord's Court, and the 
primum mobile upon which all its action depended, was the 
Jury or Homage, the sample of the inhabitants by which the 
community as a whole was represented. The Jury was 
always formally summoned by the Bailiff or Beadle, at the 
command of the Steward, but exactly in what way the im- 
portant task of selection was performed is seldom to be dis- 
covered. It may be that, in some cases, the tenants of the 
Manor were supposed to be taken haphazard in rotation. In 
some Manors, as we have reason to believe, the choice 
was controlled by the Steward. In the Manor of Dymock, 
Gloucestershire, by ancient custom recorded in 1565 and 
1657, the Steward chose one "free-bencher" and the tenants 
another, these two jointly selecting the twelve tenants who 
were to form "the Lord's Homage." In case of their dis- 
agreement, the Steward decided. 1 On the other hand, a 
learned lawyer writes in 1825 that, "So far at least as my 
own experience extends, the Steward of the Court is totally 
ignorant even of the names of the jurors until the delivery to 
him by the Bailiff of the persons summoned as jurymen, 
together with the resiant roll, or names of those who are 
liable to perform suit to the Lord at the particular Court." 2 

The Jury was sometimes appointed to serve until the 
holding of the next Court, and sometimes appointed, sworn, 
and discharged at each Court. 3 The number varied, twelve 

1828, after ninety years' desuetude. "Over 900 householders answered to their 
names and paid their fines" (Complete History of Royal Leamington Spa, by 
T. H. B. Dudley, 1896-97, pp. 188-89). A Steward who holds Courts in many 
Manors in the Southern Counties informed us (1906) that when he first took 
in this duty he frequently found the villagers swarming to the Court, though 
it was called a Court Baron, and they were neither freeholders nor copyholders. 
These residents presented themselves as of old, believing vaguely that they had 
some right or were under some obligation to attend ; and they were sometimes 
much aggrieved at being told that they had no part in the ceremony. 

1 Treatise on Copyholds, by C. Watkins, 4th edition, 1825, vol. ii. pp. 
487-491. 

2 Treatise on Copyholds, by John Scriven, 2nd edition, 1823, vol. ii. 
p. 845. 

3 "The Jurymen," says Ritson, "in some Manors continue in office for a 
whole year, while in others they are sworn and discharged in the course of the 
day" (Jurisdiction of the Courts Leet, by Joseph Ritson, 1816, p. 9). "In 
some Manors it is not the practice to summon a fresh Jury whenever a Court is 
held, but the same tenants are summoned for successive Courts, vacancies in 
the list being filled from time to time by the Steward, or by the permanent 
Foreman and the Steward together " (Law of Copyhofds, by 0. I. Elton and 
H. J. H. Mackay, 2nd edition, 1893, pp. 197-198). 



68 THE COURT IN RUINS 

or more being the most frequent. Here again, whilst we find 
some of the names used by the lawyers, we seek in vain for 
some of their distinctions. In the Court at Braintree the 
well-kept records make it clear that there was only one Jury, 
which consisted, as the names reveal, of the ordinary house- 
holders of the little town ; and which made all the present- 
ments of the Court. In the Court of the "Honour and 
Manor" of Hampton Court, between 1800 and 1808, we 
find the twelve to fourteen jurors described as " the jurors as 
well for the Court Leet as for the Court Baron and Customary 
Court " there being, in fact, only one Jury for what was, in 
practice, a single undifferentiated Court. So, in many scores 
of Manors in ecclesiastical hands, within the dioceses of 
Canterbury, London, and Winchester, of which we have been 
permitted to consult the Manor Eolls, we find that the Jury 
was sworn as the Jury of the King and the Lord; though 
where business affecting property had to be done it was 
frequently styled also the Homage. On the other hand, at 
Epworth, in Lincolnshire, there were, in 17*76 at any rate, 
clearly two Juries, but these were not called the Homage and 
the Leet Jury respectively ; nor did their several functions 
correspond with the lawyer's distinctions. They are referred 
to as the Grand Jury and the Copyhold Jury. The " Grand 
Jury and Inquest of the Manor" termed in 1587 "inquisitio 
magna," when thirty persons were sworn apparently dealt 
indifferently with pleas of debt, successions to property, pre- 
sentments of such public nuisances as short weight in bread, 
presentments of such common misdemeanours as assaults and 
affrays, and presentments (in 1631) of such Manorial offences 
as " trespasses in the sown fields " by wandering beasts. 
"The Grand Jury," it was solemnly recorded in 1776, "may 
settle disputes on freehold lands, as to the boundaries, etc., 
and the Copyhold Jury may do the same on copyhold lands. 
The Grand Jury may make Bylaws, and compel observance 
of the same." We gather that " offences within the Manor," 
including public nuisances, were presented indifferently by 
either Jury. 1 

1 "Notes from the Court Rolls of the Manor of Epworth," by Charles 
Jackson, The Reliquary, vol. xxiii., 1883, pp. 44-48, 89-92, and 174-175 ; 
History and Topography of the Isle of Axholme, by Rev. W. B. Stonehouse, 
1839, pp. 143-149. On the other hand, we find the term Grand Jury used 



THE COURT OF THE MANOR 69 

The presentments of the Jury, when accepted by the 
Steward, and (in the case of amercements) " affeered " or 
revised by the affeerors, became the findings of the Court. 
These presentments appear to have comprised indifferently 
the recital of the customs of the Manor, the making of new 
By-laws, the appointment of officers, the verdicts in the civil 
actions tried, and the conviction and the fining of offenders, 
whether in respect of public nuisances, Manorial defaults, 
breaches of By-laws, or such misdemeanours as assaults, affrays, 
and even petty larcenies. These presentments were made by 
the Jury, either " on their own view and knowledge," or upon 
the testimony of one or other of the officers of the Court or 
other witnesses ; l or, in civil suits, after hearing the parties 
to the suits, and, it may be, their counsel and witnesses. We 
imagine that, in many instances, the presentments were dis- 
cussed by the Jury, then and there, in open Court, and 
written down by the most practised scribe among them. On 
the other hand, there is reason to believe that these pre- 
sentments were sometimes drawn up and signed by the Jury- 
men in a separate meeting. "For the most part," writes an 
experienced lawyer at the end of the eighteenth century, 
" they generally come ready prepared with them, and deliver 
a copy of them signed by the several tenants to the Steward 
to enter in the Court rolls " 2 a duty which he sometimes 
neglected to perform. 

The officers of the Court might be few or numerous, and 
they differed from Manor to Manor, in their numbers and in 
their titles, far more according to the size and character 
of the community than with any relation to the particular 
name of the Court. The Lord's Steward summoned and 
presided over the Court whatever it was called. The Bailiff, 
though this title is sometimes used as synonymous with 
Eeeve or Greave, was always the Lord's man, selected by the 
Steward. The residents or homagers whose presence was 
specially required as jurymen were warned to attend by the 

simply for a Court Leet Jury ; as, for instance, in Jurisdiction of the Courts 
Lcet, by J. Ritson, 3rd edition, 1816, p. 3. 

1 Where the Jury "are discharged the same day," says Ritson, "it should 
seem necessary for them to proceed chiefly upon evidence ; and, indeed, there 
is generally, if not always, a proclamation for that purpose " (Jurisdiction of 
the C&urts Leet, by J. Ritson, 3rd edition, 1816, p. 24). 

2 Treatise on Copyholds, by C. Watkins, 4th edition, 1825, vol. ii. p. 383. 



70 THE COURT IN RUINS 

Bailiff whether the Court was styled Court Baron or Court 
Leet. We find Keeves, Hay wards, and Herdsmen appointed 
at the same Court, whatever its appellation, as Constables, 
Ale-tasters, and Scavengers. We find Courts calling themselves 
nothing but Courts Baron nevertheless appointing Head- 
boroughs, Constables, Ale-tasters, and Scavengers ; making 
presentments on all sorts of subjects ; and seizing light weights 
and short measures. 1 We find Courts calling themselves 
nothing but Courts Leet nevertheless appointing Reeves and 
Haywards and a variety of functionaries whose business it was 
to manage the common pasture. It is extremely rare to find 
any definite salary assigned to any of these officers 2 the 
Court had, indeed, normally no Corporate funds out of which 
such a salary could be paid but we suspect that some small 
provision for the remuneration of some of them was not in- 
frequent. Thus we read of " Constable's acres," " Eeevewick 
lands," and " Beadlewick lands," which were either held by 
the tenure of service in turn as Constable or as Reeve and 
Beadle respectively, or else were enjoyed for the year by those 
who served in those offices. 3 Sometimes there was a particular 
profitable right attached to one of the offices, such as the 
profits of the pound, the forfeitures of swine found unringed or 
at large, or the money penalties incurred for breach of stint 
of common. More usually, however, the officers found such 
remuneration as they got in their power to exact small 
customary fees. The profitable character of the Steward's 
fees is often alluded to. " Court-keeping " on behalf of Lords 
of Manors, or as deputy for their Stewards, was, at any rate 
in the seventeenth century, one of the recognised means of 

1 As, for instance, at Torquay ; sec History of Torquay, by J. T. White, 
1878, p. 134. 

2 The leading instance of a Lord's Court having salaried officers, and, down 
to 1780, levying its own rate for their payment, is that of Manchester, which 
we subsequently describe in detail (p. 99). In the Manors of Stepney and 
Hackney, in 1622, then almost entirely rural in character, the Reeve was in each 
case entitled to a salary of 2 : 13 : 4 and 3:6:8, together with a piece of 
cloth for a coat (Treatise on Copyfwlds, by C. Watkins, 4th edition, 1825, 
vol. ii. pp. 508-533). 

3 The Village Community, by G. L. Gomine, 1890, pp. 274-275. We note 
that in the fourteenth century, in Forncett Manor, there were 20 acres designated 
"Reeveship lands," and 15 acres " Messorship lands," which were charged with 
an annual burden of two shillings per acre for the 'benefit of the two tenants 
serving those offices (The Economic Development of a Norfolk Manor, 1086- 
1565, by F. G. Davenport, 1906, pp. 50-51). 



THE COURT OF THE MANOR 71 

livelihood for the young barrister. 1 But there were evidently 
other fees. The Bailiff or Beadle of the Court might, for 
instance, get a fee for administering the oath to persons 
newly appointed. " He had been sworn in as a Pig-ringer by 
the Court Leet, and paid fourpence for his oath," deposed 
one of the parties to a settlement case in 1792, when the 
judges held that this office was one " of great antiquity and 
serviceable to the parish." 2 Whether the Court of the Manor, 
calling itself either Court Leet or Court Baron, had any legal 
authority to levy any compulsory tax, was never decided by the 
Superior Courts. But it was not uncommon for the Jury, in 
order to provide the Reeve or Hayward or Fieldsmen with the 
small sums necessary to effect petty improvements in the 
commonfields, or to carry out certain necessary repairs, to 
order that a levy of a few pence or a few shillings per beast 
should be made, the amount being collected from all the 
users of the common lands by the officers concerned. 3 We 
occasionally see this simple financial transaction expanding 
into a system of buying and selling " stints," or rights of 
common, either for the common benefit or for the convenience 
of individual owners. We may even find instances (as at 
Great Tew) of the levy being made, not per beast, but on the 
annual value of all the tenements, like the Poor Bate. 4 

.The Undifferentiated Court, as it existed between 1689 
and 1835, might conceivably be the result of a gradual co- 
alescence and merging of previously existing separate Courts ; 
or it might, as we are inclined to believe, be a continuance of 

1 1 James I. c. 5 (1603) ; see the Autobiography of the Hon. Roger North, 
edited by Rev. A. Jessopp, 1887, for a good description of " court-keeping " about 
1680. " Some few years ago there was a design of bringing a Bill into Parliament 
for regulating the fees of Stewards of Manors, but the Legislature thought 
it much too delicate a matter to interfere in, and the design was dropped " 
(Treatise on Copylmlds, by C. Watkins, 4th edition, 1825, vol. ii. p. 454). 

2 R. v. Inhabitants of Whittlesey, 4 J.R. 807 ; Fenland Notes and Queries, 
vol. i. p. 253. In London, in the nineteenth century, the unfortunate house- 
holder compelled by a surviving Manorial Court to serve as Constable was some- 
times mulcted of half a crown by the officer of the Court who administered the 
oath (Second Report on the State of the Police in the Metropolis, 1817, p. 394). 

3 To cite one example out of many, the Court of Hitchin in 1819 levied 
fifteen pence per beast (English Village Community, by F. Seebohm, 1883, pp. 
443-453). 

4 In a few exceptional cases, of which we shall subsequently describe 
Manchester and Lewes as the chief, this levy by the Lord's Court became a 
substantial rate for the purposes of urban government (pp. 103, 173). 



7* THE COURT IN RUINS 

a simple tribunal, in which the process of differentiation had 
not yet begun. But it is not uncommon to find, where two 
or more sessions of the Court are held each year, a certain 
difference made between the business done at these several 
occasions. What we have called the property business the 
admissions and surrenders, and the receipt of fines and heriots 
took place, if required, apparently at every Court. The 
trial of civil actions took place, apparently, from three weeks 
to three weeks, or whenever the Court was held, a Jury being 
summoned only when required. The appointment of officers, 
whether Keeve, Beadle, or Hay ward on the one hand, or 
Constable, Ale-taster, or Scavenger on the other, occurred only 
once a year, normally at the Michaelmas Court. Sometimes 
the presentment of nuisances and other specifically Court Leet 
business is confined to the same occasion, which is often 
designated as the Lawday, 1 the View of Frankpledge, or the 
Leet. 2 In the Manor of Wistow (Yorkshire) the particular 
Sessions of the Lord's Court that was held at Lammas was 
" the fearing (i.e. affeering) Court," at which apparently the 
amercements of offenders were assessed. 3 During the eighteenth 
century we meet with a certain number of cases in which the 
Steward has plainly attempted to distinguish between the busi- 
ness done by this Court. Thus at Braintree, from 1709 onwards, 
the Steward tries to make a distinction in his records between 
the Court Leet on the one hand and the Court Baron and 
Customary Court on the other. There is still only one Court 
held, and only one Jury summoned. But the appointment of 
Constables and other officers, together with the presentments 
of nuisances, are entered in the book under the heading " Visus 
franc plegum cur." ; whilst a separate heading on the same 

1 Thus the customs of the Manor of Worplesdon in Surrey prescribed that 
Courts were to be held twice a year, once with a Lawday (Law of Copyholds, 
by Chas. Watkins, 4th edition, 1825, vol. ii. p. 559). At Braunton in Devon- 
shire there used to be "Monthly Courts" for dealing with civil suits, and four 
times a year a " Law Court," at one of which a Reeve, Ale-tasters, Pound-keeper, 
Crier, Beadle, and " Gatewardens " (perhaps from gate, meaning a lane) were 
appointed ("The Customs of the Manors of Braunton," by R. Dymond, in Trails- 
actions of the Devon Association, vol. xx., 1888, pp. 254-303). 

2 In the Manor of Wimbledon (Surrey) the Easter Court was the one desig- 
nated as the Leet, when the Headboroughs of the several tithings had to attend 
(Law of Copyholds, by C. Watkins, 4th edition, 1825, vol. ii. pp. 554-556). 

3 History of the Parishes of Sherburn and Ccnvood, by W. Wheater, 1882, 
p. 281. 



THE COURT OF THE MANOR 73 

page, " Modo d. Cur. Baron et Customar," precedes the formal 
presentment and fining of absent freehold and copyhold 
tenants of the Manor, the admissions of new tenants, and the 
recording of property transfers. 1 In the Manor of Hitchin, 
where the rolls of 1471 describe the Court simply as "the 
View of Frankpledge, with the Court held there," those 
between 1721 and 1819 reveal a Court which styles itself 
Court Leet and Court Baron, but having only one Jury, 
called the Homage, doing all the business that was done 
appointing Herdsmen and " Pit -keepers," regulating the 
common herd and the enjoyment of the common pasturage, 
levying a rate of fifteenpence per beast, and presenting 
dangerous footpaths and other nuisances. 2 At the beginning 



b 



of the nineteenth century the language of the entries changes. 
We hear not only of the Homage, but of "jurors for our 
Lord the King," who make presentments of encroachments, 
digging gravel on the common, and other offences for 
which fines are imposed and made payable to " the Lord of 
the Leet." But this same Jury is presently found equally 
presenting the deaths of tenants of the Manor and the 
admission of new ones. From 1819 onward the proceedings 
become still more differentiated according to the lawyers' 
formula. The Court still held as one Court only is now 
styled " the Court of the View of Frankpledge of our Sovereign 
Lord the King with the General Court Baron of W. W., 
Esquire." There are both " jurors of our Lord the King " and 
" the Homage of this Court." They jointly declare " the 

1 This is the common form adopted by the Stewards of some scores of Manors 
in the South of England belonging to Bishops and chapters, of which, by the 
kind permission of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, we have been enabled to 
examine the rolls. But these Stewards have usually grouped, along with the 
Leet presentments of the "Jury of the King and of the Lord," other present- 
ments which clearly form part of the Court Baron business, such as those of the 
deaths of freeholders of the Manor and of encroachments on the Lord's waste 
confining those under the heading "Modod. Cur. Baron" to other property 
business. We may here note that these ecclesiastical Manor rolls were mostly 
kept in Latin down to the middle of the eighteenth century, or several genera- 
tions later than was elsewhere customary. 

2 MS. Manor Rolls, Hitchin (Herts), for 1470-1471, in Public Record Office 
(portfolio 177, No. 60) ; and those from 1721 onward, in possession of the 
Commissioners of Woods and Forests, to whom we are indebted for the privilege 
of inspection. The roll for 1819 is printed in The English Village Community, 
by F. Seebohm, 1883, pp. 443-453 ; see also History of Hertfordshire, by N. 
Salmon, 1728, p. 162 ; The Royal Manor of Hitchin, by Wentworth Huyshe, 1906. 



74 THE COURT IN RUINS 

boundaries, extent, rights, jurisdiction, and customs of tho 
said Manor." The Lord, they assert, has " Court Leet and 
View of Frankpledge " twice a year, and also " General and 
Special Courts Baron and Customary Courts at his will." 
The Court Leet appoints two Constables, six Headboroughs, 
two Aleconners, two Leather Searchers and Sealers, and one 
Bellman, who acts also as Watchman and Crier. The Leet 
Jury presents various nuisances. The Homage has its own 
presentments about the customs relating to property, the 
freedom of the market from tolls, and the obligation of the 
Lord to provide the pound and stocks. Can we believe that 
this new and sudden elaboration of what had, for three 
centuries at least, been a single undifferentiated Court, with a 
single Jury, indicates anything more than the historical 
knowledge and antiquarian zeal of a new Steward of the 
Manor ? 

Whatever was the Court, its business was, it is clear, of 
the most varied kind. Thus, in the little town of Brain tree in 
Essex, which we have already described as being ruled by an 
enigmatical Select Vestry, or " Four and Twenty," l we see the 
Lord's Court, between 1616 and 1813, appointing Constables, 
Ale-tasters, Fish and Flesh Tasters, and Leather Searchers; 
presenting nuisances as distinguished from Manorial defaults ; 
enforcing the Assizes of Bread and Ale ; punishing the usual 
market offences; acting down to 1713 in conjunction with 
the Company of the Twenty-four that we have already 
described as the Parish Vestry ; and even levying rates 
on the inhabitants for repairing the common pump and 
scavenging the streets. At the same meetings of the Court 
we have the admission of new tenants of the Manor, the 
transfer of properties on death or alienation, and, by the same 
Jury, the presentment of encroachments on the Lord's waste, 
and the defaults of tenants in not scouring ditches. In the 
little Manor of Standon, for which the rolls exist from 1338 
to 1773, we see the Lord's Court, down to the first quarter of 
the eighteenth century at any rate, equally combining both 
Court Baron and Court Leet business making presentments 
of highway and other nuisances and forbidding the harbouring 
of vagrants and also dealing with admissions, heriots, convey- 
1 English Local Government, Vol. I. The Parish and the County. 



THE COURT OF THE MANOR 75 

ances, encroachments on the waste, defaults of tenants, and 
other property matters. 1 So in the interesting Lord's Court 
at Epvvorth that we have already mentioned, the " customs " 
elaborately recorded in 1776 reveal a tribunal at which By- 
laws were made, nuisances were presented, the common 
pasturage was regulated, officers were appointed, offenders 
were fined, new tenants of the Manor were admitted, the fines 
for copyhold alienations were fixed, and civil suits between 
tenants of the Manor were determined. 2 At Devonport, as we 
are told by a local chronicler about 1800, 3 the Lord's Court 
" has the privilege of Court Leet and Court Baron, which is 
annually held some time in the month of October. ... It 
has the power of fines and even of imprisonment for small 
offences ; and all horses, cattle, implements, and utensils of any 
kind which shall appear to a Coroner's Jury to have occasioned 
the death of any person within the Manor, be it of whatever 
kind or value, are liable to be forfeited to the Lord of the Manor." 
A less familiar function of the Lord's Court, and one that 
we suspect was, even in 1689, still of greater public interest 
to every inhabitant of the village than those hitherto described, 
was the management of the agricultural operations of the little 
community. In nearly every Manor there were common 
pastures ; sometimes woods into which the tenants of the 
Manor might send their pigs ; sometimes valuable hay-meadows 
shared by lot or by a primitive scramble ; more frequently 
large open " commons " of coarse herbage ; and invariably 
roadside strips and odds and ends of unoccupied land forming 
part of " the Lord's waste." The simple acts of administration 
which the enjoyment of these common rights involved formed 
part of the business of every Manor Court. We see appointed 

1 History of Standon, by Edward Salt, 1888. 

2 History and Topography of the Isle o/Axholmc, by Rev. W. B. Stoneliouse, 
1839, pp. 143-149. 

3 The Plymouth Dock Guide (circa 1800), p. 28. The right of the Lord 
of the Manor to deodand, or forfeiture of any article causing the death of a 
human being, was not abolished until 1846 (9 and 10 Victoria, c. 62 ; see 
The King's Coroner, by R. H. Wellington, 1905, p. 169). Besides knives and 
bludgeons, horses and cattle, the wheel of a vehicle and a mill-wheel have been 
thus forfeited. In 1841, after an accident on the Great Western Railway at 
Sonuing, a railway carriage is said to have been taken by the Lord of the Manor 
as a deodand. In 1840 the deodand was valued by the Jury at 2000 in the 
case of an accident on the London and Birmingham Railway (Monthly Law 

iic, vol. x.. 1841, p. 15). 



76 THE COURT IN RUINS 

such officers as Herdsmen, 1 to drive out and borne, and watch 
over, the pigs, sheep or cattle, horses or asses that the individual 
proprietors contributed to the common herd or flock. There 
are Common Drivers 2 to see that only the cattle and horses 
of the tenants of the Manor use the commons, and these only 
up to the permitted number, or " stint of common," free from 
disease and properly marked. There are Pig-ringers, whose 
duty it is to prevent any swine wandering on the wastes 
without being properly ringed. There is a Finder or Pound- 
keeper, who arrests stray beasts or animals found at large in 
contravention of any of the regulations of the little community, 
and confines them in the Pound, until the owner redeems them 
by the customary small fine or fee. It is part of the business 
of the Lord's Court not only to appoint these officers, but also 
to supervise their work, to make and revise the By-laws that 
they enforce, and to give them any necessary instructions 
from time to time. 

The agricultural functions of the Lord's Court extended, 
however, to much more than the administration of the common 
pastures. The England of 1689 was still, in the main, a 
country of " common fields " wide expanses of arable laud, 
divided into innumerable narrow strips called "pieces," "selions," 
or "lands," all in separate ownership, but thrown open after 
harvest to common pasture ; cultivated severally by their 
owners upon a uniform system, usually that of the well-known 
three years' course. 8 Each Manor had its particular order 
of cultivation, by which, for instance, approximately one-third 
of its arable area was devoted, in rotation, to "tilthgrain" 
or winter corn, " etchgrain " or spring corn, and fallow. This 
" open field " system of agriculture involved a great deal of 
collective regulation, which fell, as we shall show, to the Jury 
at the Lord's Court, acting through officers for whom the most 
significant title was that of Fieldsmen. 4 

1 Termed also Swineherds, Hogreeves, Neatherds or Noltherds, Common 
Herds, Shepherds, etc. At Hornsea there was a " Nowtherd, whose office it was 
to look after the sheep in the pastures" (An Accowni of Hornsea in Holdcrness in 
the East Riding of Yorkshire, by E. W. B., 1847-64). 

2 Or Common Keeper ; often, we suspect, called Haywards, Finders, etc. 

3 See, for instance, the evidence yielded by ' ' the Elizabethan Village 
Surveys," described by W. J. Corbett in Transactions of Royal Historical 
Society, N.S. ix., 1897, pp. 67-87. 

4 Or Burlcymeu or Bylaw-men. In the Manor of Hornsea, four "sworn 



THE COURT OF THE MANOR 77 

We do not think that the extent and complication of this 
agricultural business of the Lord's Court has been at all 
adequately realised. Professor Maitland, for instance, to 
whom we in common with all students of English institutions 
owe the deepest gratitude, suggests that " so far as the arable 
land is concerned, the common field husbandry, when once it 
has been started, requires little regulation. . . . The truth is 
that if you have cut up a field into acre strips, given a parcel 
of dispersed strips to each of many men, and given to each man 
a right to turn out his beasts on the whole field during a cer- 
tain part of the year, you have made an arrangement which 
maintains itself with unhappy ease. These men must follow 
the accustomed course. If one man strives to break through 
it, he must straightway trample on his neighbour's crops or 
suffer his own to be trampled on, for only as a rare exception 
is there a beaten way to a strip. . . . We underrate the 
automatism of ancient agriculture and of ancient government." l 
However true may be this suggestion about the common 
agriculture of the English Manor of the thirteenth century 
and on this we offer no opinion it was, we think, certainly 
not true of many an English Manor between 1689 and 1835. 
By that time, at any rate, even the simplest three -course 
system included some variety and choice among crops. More- 
over, even the smallest Manor was divided into more than 
three parts, 2 and these parts necessarily differed among them- 
selves in their requirements. The actual operations to be 
performed during the year at the various parts of the area of 
the Manor, were, even in 1689, not very different in number 
or diversity from those performed over the same area to-day. 
We suggest, in fact, that the Manor had, somehow or another, 
to arrive at nearly as many separate small decisions in the 

tenants of the Manor were annually appointed at the Court as Bylaw-men, 
commonly two for Hornsea Fields and two for Southorp. Their office was, among 
other things, to look after the stocking of the pastures by the fanners and 
owners of common rights ; and they also directed the employment of ' the Town's 
ploitgh ' or ' Common plough ' " (An Account of Hornsea in Holderness in the 
East Riding of Yorkshire, by E. W. B., 1847, p. 64). 

1 Township and Borough, by F. W. Maitland, 1898, p. 25. 

2 This was the case even in earlier times. Thus, in the Manor of Forncett, 
Norfolk, in the fourteenth century, " the rolls contain no clear indication that 
there were within the vill three great fields. . . . 'Campi' are mentioned, 
but they were numerous and small " (The Economic Development of a Norfolk 
Manor, 1086-1565, by F. G. Davenport, 1906, p. 27). 



7 8 THE COURT IN RUINS 

course of the year as those which occupy the time and thought 
of a modern farmer. It had to be settled each year which 
seed wheat, barley, oats, rye, sainfoin, turnips, grass, clover, 
rye-grass, " thetches " or peas * should be sown in each 
of the numerous subdivisions of the great fields. The 
dates at which these separate sections were to be opened and 
closed to common pasture had to be fixed. There were 
different kinds of common pasture to be arranged for in varying 
proportions, according to the common needs sheepfolds in 
such and such a field, up to such and such a date ; horses in 
such and such a field ; the " cow common " to be in such and 
such a place ; the " horse hitching " in another. In order to 
keep the various parts of the land in good condition, the kind, 
and still more the degree, of use to which they might be 
severally put had each year to be determined with considerable 
care, and portions set apart from time to time to be allowed 
to lie a summer unused, in order that they might recover. 
The various offences against the order of the Manor the 
trespasses on each other's strips, the illicit use of the pasturage, 
the straying of animals into the corn, neglecting fences, or 
disobeying the orders as to the course or the dates of cultiva- 
tion had all to be prosecuted and tried at the Court. 2 The 

1 Even in the fourteenth century at least four crops were regularly cultivated 
in England, and a choice had therefore to be made. ' ' The areas assigned to 
the different kinds of crops varied somewhat from year to year " (ibid. p. 28). 

2 We must own to being surprised at the paucity of the records of the actual 
presentment and punishment of such predial offences. We imagine that the 
village may have known how to compel obedience to the communal decisions by 
sanctions less formal and less dilatory than the tardy amercement by the 
Michaelmas Jury. But many examples can be found in the records of Manor 
Courts if they are sought for. Thus the MS. rolls of the Court of the Manor 
of Hitchin for 1470-71 record the presentment and amercement of persons for 
allowing a hedge to grow on to a lane, ploughing up a greenway, encroaching 
on a greenway, ploughing up a balk, and ploughing the end of a "Land" to 
harm (Court Rolls in Public Record Office, portfolio 177, No. 40 ; an example 
that we owe to the kindness of Mr. Seebohm). The rolls of the Court held at 
Gnossall, Staffordshire, in the sixteenth century contain many references to 
similar offences (The Manor mid Manorial Records, by N. J. Hone, 1905, pp. 
188, 191, 192, 195, 198, 201). So, at Epworth, at the end of the seventeenth 
and beginning of the eighteenth century we see the Court fining persons for 
allowing their cattle to stray into the cornfield, for suffering their fences to 
lie down, for keeping sheep in the cornfield after the date fixed for their removal, 
and for riding over the cornfield (" Notes from the Court Rolls of the Manor of 
Epworth," by C. Jackson, in the Rfliquary, vol. xxiii., 1883, pp. 44-48, 89-92, 
174-175). In our subsequent account of the Manorial Borough of Godmanchester 
we shall give other examples (p. 184). 



THE COURT OF THE MANOR 79 

common bull and boar had to be provided, and regulations 
made for their use. 1 There were always gaps in the hedges 
to be repaired, gates to be mended, paths and roads to be put 
in order, ditches to be -scoured, and the walls of the pound to 
be kept up. There might even be, as at Hornsea in the 
East Riding of Yorkshire, the " town's plough " or " common 
plough " to be looked after and managed. This, we are told, 
" was an implement of great size, used for making deep furrows 
in the fields for drainage ; and for this purpose, when the 
ground was in a proper condition, the Bylaw-men, at their 
discretion, called on the farmers for the requisite force for 
managing the plough ; this was six or eight or more oxen (at 
that time much used for draught), headed by two horses, with 
several men and boys." 2 We shall, in subsequent chapters, 
describe the large part that agricultural management of this 
sort played in the business transacted by such a Manorial 
Borough as Godmanchester, and by such a Municipal Corpora- 
tion as Berwick-on-Tweed. Here we shall confine ourselves 
to one leading instance of similar business performed, on no 
inconsiderable scale, by the Court of the Manor. 

The Manor of Great Tew in Oxfordshire, apparently co- 
extensive with the Parish of the same name, distinguished in 
history as the home and place of burial of Falkland, had, 
during the eighteenth century, probably about as many 
inhabitants as it has to-day, namely, between three and four 
hundred. These three or four score of families were, nearly 
all of them, engaged in and dependent on the cultivation of 
the three thousand acres of the Manor. The management of 
these agricultural operations nowadays performed individually 

1 The provision of the Manor Bull and Boar is frequently made the subject 
of presentments. In the Manor of Fulham the obligation was declared by the 
Lord's Court to be on the Rector, in respect of his great tithea (Presentments of 
1550 and 1680, in Fulham Old and New, by C. J. Feret, 1900, vol. ii. pp. 
120-121). So it was in 1819 at Hitchin (English Village Community, by 
F. Seebohm, 1883, pp. 443-453). The following is a common form of present- 
ment in Manors of the South of England among the Court Leet business. " We 
do present A. B. , being a tenant of the Lord of the Manor, shall keep a bull or a 
boar for the tenants" (MS. Manor Rolls, l< Court of View of Frankpledge, " 
Caddington, Essex, 22nd May 1713, among the archives of the Ecclesiastical 
Commissioners). The custom is referred to in Shakespeare's Henry IV., Act ii, 
scene 2, and in the last chapter of Sterne's Tristram Shandy. 

2 This interesting survival continued, as one of the regular functions of the 
Lord's Court, down to the local Inclosure Act of 1809 (An Account of Hornsca 
in ffolderness in the East Riding of Yorkshire, by E. W. B., 1847, pp. 64-65). 



So THE COURT IN RUINS 

by the half a dozen capitalist farmers as exclusively private 
concerns formed, it is clear, the principal part of the business 
of the " Vis. Franc. Pledg. cum Cur. Baron, prehonorabilis 
Antonii dni. vice comit. de Falkland dni. Manerii," held every 
October. The presentments of the Jury of this Court, probably 
a majority of all the owners of the strips of land to be 
cultivated, give us a picture of the variety and intricacy of 
the decisions which had to be come to even in the Court of a 
tiny village. We see how numerous and complicated were 
these decisions, even in a normal year, without any alteration 
of the customary three years' course. But we are able to do 
more than that. We may even see the little community 
deciding, in 1*761, on the revolutionary step of changing from 
a three to a nine years' course at a date, be it noted, when 
many a capitalist farmer was still wedded to the old-fashioned 
routine, 1 thus indicating that agricultural administration by 
the Lord's Court was not necessarily so inefficient nor so 
unprogressive as is sometimes supposed. We append extracts 
from the Court rolls for the years 1692, 1756, 1759, and 
1761 respectively. 2 

Orders of 2lst April 1692 

We do order to make a horse hich [hitching] 3 for this year, 
and we do agree that it shall be from the Pool head up the pool 

1 A similar agricultural revolution is recorded of the village of Hunmanby 
in Yorkshire, some time prior to 1794. By unintelligent cultivation, the 
commonfields had become "worn-out." At last the co-owners of the strips 
were persuaded to adopt a six years' course of (1) turnips fed off by sheep, (2) 
seeds, (3) seeds, (4) seeds, (5) wheat, (6) oats or pease. The grass seeds, 
hurdles and nets, and wages of the shepherd were paid for, and the sheep 
supplied, by the co-owners in proportion to their holdings. The Field-reeves 
and Shepherd were appointed, regulations made, and the dates of the various 
operations determined, we are told, at meetings of those concerned, which 
may have been simply Courts of the Manor (General View of the Agriculture of 
the East Riding of Yorkshire, by Isaac Leatham, 1794, pp. 45-46; The English 
Peasantry, by Gilbert Slater, 1907, p. 88). 

2 We are indebted for these interesting records to Mr. M. E. Boulton, the 
present Lord of the Manor ; and (for those of the latter years) to Mr. Adolphus 
Ballard, M.A., Town Clerk of Woodstock, and Clerk to the Oxford Board of 
Guardians, author of Notes on the History of Chipping Norton, 1893 ; Chronicles 
of the Royal Borough of Woodstock, 1896 ; The Domesday Boroughs, 1905 ; 
The Domesday Inquest, 1907, etc. Mr. Ballard's stimulating researches lead us 
to look forward with interest to further historical work from his pen. 

3 For other uses of "hitching the fields," "hitchland," and "hatching 
ground," see The English Peasantry, by Gilbert Slater, 1907, pp. 23-30, 76, 81. 



THE COURT OF THE MANOR 81 

side to Hollo Lake, and up Hollo Lake to the upper side of 
William Watson's . . . and so along the hade [head ?] way to the 
end of William Keynold's headland end. And so it shall come 
for[e]lands [?] on the home side of the wat[e]ry balke in Millslads, 
and every Land into the great Pool the head shall go with the 
land ; he that maketh default shall forfeit to the Lord of the Manor 
for every default 1. 

And we do further order that the aforesaid hichin[g] shall 
be tide [tied ?] with horses and e[a]ten of [f] by or before the 
17th day of Aug. next, and none to be mowed or cut or carried 
away, . . . 

We do order that the winter corn-field shall be from the horse 
hi[t]ching all up the west side of Wood Way, all up to the up[p]er 
side of Whete [Wheat ?] land. 

We do order to keep ten sheep for a yard-land for this summer 
common and no more ; the defaulter shall forfeit to the Lord of the 
Manor 4d. for every sheep and 1 pen[n]y to the tellers for every 
default. 

We do order to keepe the cow common on the 1 4th day of 
May and not before, and all the gaps in Down he[d]ge and ... to 
be stopped sufficiently, every man his own gaps, by or befor the 
same day. 

We do order to keep but one horse for the yard-land and no 
more, and there shall be no mare nor mares tide [tied] in the 
common field. . . . 

We do order that no man shall ti[e] his horse or horses in the 
corn-field. . . . 

We do order the sheep and folds to be reed [?] out of 
the corn-field by or before the 22nd day of this instant 
April. . . . 

We do order that no man shall baite his horse or horses in 
hollters [halters ?] or out of hollters in the field, nor no man shall 
ti[e] his horse or horses on mowed ground till the horses hi[t]ching 
be reede [?]. . . . 

And every man shall ty [tie] his own ground till a quarter of 
the field be reede [1] of the grain that it was laid for under the 
same fine. 

And we do order that no man letteth any Land on the Sainfoin 
Hill to any out-town man, he or they, be them whom they will, 
shall have no more power after he hath taken of[f] his own crope 
to ty [tie] any horse or horses to bait any sort of catill [cattle] on 
the said grounds. . . . 

We do order that every man shall scour up his trench at Hollo 
Lake by or before May day next, . . . 

We do order that every man shall fence his own pe[a]se Lands 
from Butcher's Row he[a]d to Wood-way Ford and from Bryer 
VOL. II. PT. I r : 



82 THE COURT IN RUINS 

Lands ford to Tew Park corner, by or before the 7th day of May 
next. . . . 

We do order the jury to mete [meet] on the 22nd day of 
this inst. April by 8 of the clock in the morning, at Preston 
Pool Hill. . . . 

We do order the Fieldsmen and empower them [to set] 8 horse 
commons and no more, and they are to set to every husbandman 
that hath most need one apiece, to the millers 4 apiece if - need be ; 
3/ to be for every common. 

Orders of 28th October 1756 

It is ordered by the Jury that no person shall keep more than 
eighteen sheep to the yardland this winter, and every person shall 
brand his sheep or mark them on or before 21st of November next, 
and to lay as many upon the turnips as they will, which shall not 
be deemed any part of the eighteen above mentioned ; the defaulter 
to pay three shillings and fourpence. 1 

. . . that the cows shall break the hangings of Horse Hill in a 
fortnight after the Cow Hill is broke, and in a week after the 
hanging is broke to break the hanging of Chescomb Hill and the 
top of Chescomb Hill, or as the Fieldsmen shall direct; and the 
herd not to break without the Fieldsmen's direction, the defaulter 
for every default to forfeit to the Lord of the Manor three shillings 
and fourpence. 

. . . that every Cow Common occupied by any person that has 
not at least a quartern of land in his occupation shall be deemed a 
Cottage Common, and every person that occupies more than a 
quarter of a Yardland and occupies more than two Cows Common 
[a] yardland, all that is over shall and is hereby deemed Cottage 
Commons ; and it is ordered by the Jury that every Cottage 
Common, or the owner or occupier thereof, shall pay (in lieu of 
having the hanging of Horse Hill and the top and hanging of 
Chescomb Hill laid to the Cow Common this next Summer) the 
sum of five shillings, which money is hereby ordered to be paid to 
the Fieldsmen on or before the twelfth day of May next ; and if 
any cottager shall not be able to sell his Common for fourteen 
shillings a common, the Fieldsmen, upon having notice thereof on 
the day aforesaid, he shall be obliged to pay him or them after the 
rate of nine shillings a Common at Gunpowder Treason 2 following, 

1 The opening and closing formal words of each subsequent order are 
omitted from the text for the sake of brevity. All the penalties for disobedience 
were increased from three and fourpence in 1756 and 1759 to ten shillings 
in 1761, the year of the revolution in the course of cultivation. 

2 Meaning, of course, the 5th November. 



THE COURT OF THE MANOR 83 

which money so raised by the five shillings on every Cottage 
Common shall be laid out in scouring the darnings [1 dammings], 
trenching the Cow Common, mending the rudaAvay [1 roadway], 
and doing other good husbandry throughout the Field without 
regard to one's man ground rather than another, which nine 
shillings a Common is to be rated upon the cattle that are laid 
upon the Common, share and share alike. . . . 

. . . that no person that is to occupy lands in the Common 
Field of Great Tew shall have liberty to sell Sheep Commons to 
any person that does not occupy at least a quarter of a yardland in 
the Common Field, but if they have any Commons to sell they are 
to give notice to the Fieldsmen a week before Martinmas next, and 
if the Fieldsmen can't sell them to people that occupy at least a 
quarter of a yardland, the Commons are ordered to be paid for 
after the rate of ninepence a Sheep Common, to be raised by a levy 
the same as the Poor's Lev} 7 . 1 . . . 

. . . that the sheep shall be hained off the young sainfoin all 
this winter, and the Park Hill sainfoin at Martinmas next ; and the 
Little Oxenden sainfoin [is] to lie to the Common till Mayday 
next, and Chescomb Hill its hangings to lie to the Sheep Common 
till Mayday next. . . . 

. . . that the horses shall be hained out of the Commonfield 
on or before the 31st day of December next. . . . 

. . . that the Farr Hill shall be broke up this winter for 
turnips, and that Upper Barnwell shall be winter ploughed and 
sowed grass seeds with the spring grain to be sown thereon next 
spring ; and that the Hayward or Fieldsmen shall pound all 
manner of cattle off the turnips the same as if the Farr Hill was 
cornfield. . . . 

. . . that the horse hitchin [? hitching] shall be from Park 
Hill to London Way on the Old Hill next to Galleythorns, one 
Land to a yardland, and that the remainder of the Hill shall lie for 
a summer fallow, and Oxenden sainfoin to be fed with sheep next 
summer with it. . . . 

. . . that between the hedges, being the clover quarter, shall 
be hained from the sheep on or before the Martinmas next, and 
from all manner of cattle on or before the 31st day of December, 
and the gaps in the Millway hedge and Alice hedge to be stopped 
by the owners on or before the 31st day of December next; and 
every person to mound their own Landsends. . . . 

. . . that the Jury meet on Preston Pool Hill on the 16th 
November next by ten o'clock to do such matters between tenant 
and tenant and Lord and tenant as shall be wanting. . . . 

. . . that Priest Croft and the Leys shall be added to the Cow 

1 Note the change from a levy per head of cattle, or per right of common 
to a levy upon the annual value of each tenement. 



84 THE COURT IN RUINS 

Common for the year 1758, and the Northfields both to be laid to 
the Cow Common the year 1759. . . . 

The Jury appoints T. L. and W. L. to be Constables. 

The Jury appoints G. L., J. B., T. L., and J. M. Fieldsmen for 
the year ensuing. 

The Jury appoints J. B. to be Hayward for the year ensu- 
ing. 

The Jury presents the death of T. S., Quaker, by which there 
is a yardland and a half, and a small close called the Longgreen, 
fallen to the Lord of the Manor. 

The Jury presents that Widow F.'s lifehold tenement (is) going 
to decay, and that she ought to repair the same. 



Orders of 12nd October 1759 

It is Ordered by the Jury to sow all Little Oxenden, the 
Furlong called the Plank Pitts, Ten Lands over Oxenden Bottom 
next to Woodway, and Eight Lands next to Woodway in Ellden 
Stump furlong, pease the next spring, being in the year 1760, and 
in the spring 1761 to sow the same with barley, and to lay the 
same down with ryegrass and clover, the defaulter for every 
default to forfeit to the Lord of the Manor three shillings and 
fourpence. . . . 

... to sow turnips upon Wheatland, Piked and Broad Castors, 
Hollow Marsh Hill, and to Alepath, except the furlongs next to 
Woodway, the next spring, being the year 1760, and in the spring 
1761 to sow the same barley and lay it down with ryegrass and 
clover. . . . 

. . . that Wheatland, Piked and Broad Castors, and Hollow- 
marsh Hill, and from Churchway to Alepath, to be hained from all 
manner of cattle next summer on the 14th day next after Old 
Midsummer. . . . 

. . . that the Slad from the Brook by Woodway side up to 
Hollow Marsh, and all the furlongs shooting into Woodway, includ- 
ing Mr. Nevill's Hadland [? headland] at Hoare's Stone, and all the 
furlongs above Chipping Norton way from Woodway to Rattock, 
be sowed thetches for a horse hitchin [? hitching] this next spring, 
and to be sowed wheat as soon as the thetches are tied off, and in 
the spring 1761 to be sowed barley and laid down with grass 
seeds. . . . 

... to sow Lent grain the next spring on the furlong below 
Chipping Norton Way and all the rest part of the Westfield, and in 
the spring or summer 1761 to sow the same turnips, and to hain 
the said turnips from all manner of cattle on the 14th day next 
after Old Midsummer 1761, 



THE COURT OF THE MANOR 85 

. . . that the hangings of Horse Hill and the hangings of 
Chescomb Hill be pastured by the cows this next summer 1760, 
and that Forest Croft and the Leys be pastured by the cows in the 
summer 1761, and that the two North fields be pastured by the 
cows in the summer 1762. . . . 

. . . that the Lands' ends on Chescomb Hill be mounded by 
the owners of the Lands ; and gates to be hung on the road by the 
Constables on or before the 16th day of November next. . . . 

. . . that the Lands' ends on Horse Hill be mounded by the 
owners of the Lands on or before a fortnight before Old Ladyday 
next ; and that the gaps in Down Hedge against Horse Hill and 
the Hollow way side be mounded by the owners at the same time ; 
and that the gates be put up by the Constable by the same 
time. . . . 

. . . that all Park Hill, and all Oxenden (except what is 
before ordered to be sowed pease), ryegrass and clover this next 
spring. . . . 

. . . that the occupiers of land in the Commonfield shall have 
the liberty of laying as many sheep on their turnips as they will 
carry, which said sheep are not to be deemed any part of the 
sixteen above mentioned. 

But in case of wet weather while the sheep are at turnips they 
are to have the liberty of Great Oxenden and Little Oxenden 
before it is sowed and nowhere else ; and no person that has sheep 
at turnips that does not occupy at least a quarter of a yardland 
shall have the liberty of coming upon either of the Oxendens in 
wet weather. . . . 

. . . that the folds be hained out of the winter Cornfields on 
or before the 21st November next ; and no person shall turn upon 
his neighbour's winter corn (except what is sowed amongst the 
turnips on the turnip division) after the 21st of November. . . . 

. . . that the horses shall be hained out of the Commonfield on 
or before St. Thomas, Old Style, next. . . . 

. . . that Farr Hill shall lie for a sheepwalk all next summer 
and that three sheep to a Yardland may be laid on the Farr Hill 
three weeks before May Day next, which three sheep shall be over 
and above the sixteen sheep laid upon the Winter Common, for the 
encouragement of them and an inducement to all occupiers of land 
that sow turnips. . . . 

. . . that the Old Hill shall be mowed for hay next summer, 
and the sheep to have it afterwards till Martinmas then next 
following, and no longer. . . . 

. . . that the Old Hill and Galleythorns be hained from sheep 
to-morrow, and all Park Hill from all manner of cattle and folds at 
the same time. . . . 

. . . that Churchway be mounded on both sides from Ayles- 



86 

hedge to Woodway, by the Yardland, on or before a month before 
Martinmas. . . . 

. . . that the gaps in Ayle.shedge be mounded by the Owners 
on or before Ladyday next. . . . 

It is Ordered by the Jury to mound the sainfoin from Wood- 
stock Way to the Mill hedge, every Land's end by the owner of 
the Land ; and where the furlong shoots up the brook, to be 
mounded by the two outside hides ; and to mound the wheat at 
Huckerswell, every one their own Land's ends ; and to mound the 
barley from Cloncil Corner to Barn well Ford, every man his 
Land's ends ; and the barley in Brook Furlong and Long Furlong 
to be mounded by the two outside hides ; and the gaps to be 
stopped in Millway hedge on or before Mayday. . . . 

Orders of 23rd October 1761 

It is Ordered by the Jury that Horse Hill be mounded by the 
two outside hides and the owners of the Lands' ends, on or before 
the 16th day of November next; the defaulter for every default to 
forfeit to the Lord of the Manor ten shillings. 

. . . that the grass seeds on Alepath Furlong, Hollowmarsh 
Hill, Wheatland and Broad Castors and Picked Castors, Little 
Oxenden, the Plank Pits, Eldenstump Furlong, and all Great 
Oxenden and Park Hill be hained from the sheep on the 22nd day 
of November next ; and the said grass seeds and the sainfoin to be 
hained from all manner of cattle on the 21st day of December 
next, the defaulter for every default to forfeit to the Lord of the 
Manor ten shillings. 

. . . that the Cow Common be hained from horses on the 
21st day of December next, and the Cow Common and Chescomb 
Hill to be hained from all manner of cattle on the 23rd day of 
March next. . . . 

. . . that the sheepfolds be hained out of the Cornfields on the 
22nd of November next. . . 

. . . that the horse hitchiri [? hitching] be in the Fallowfield 
beginning at the side next Cuckoo's Holt, a yard to a Yardland ; 
and that the horses shall not be hitched or tied on any other 
part of the Commonfield till after it is mowed, except on the 
highways. . . . 

. . . that all Huckerswell be sowed turnips this next summer, 
1762, and sowed barley with grass seeds, spring 1763 ; mowed for 
hay, summer 1764; sheepwalk, 1765; oats, 1766; fallow, 1767; 
wheat, 1768; pease, 1769. . . . 

. . . that between the hedges shall be sowed turnips in 
summer 1763, and every year after for eight years after the 
manner of Huckerswell. 



THE COURT OF THE MANOR 87 

. . . that Upper Barnwell be sowed turnips, 1764, and every 
year after for eight years after the manner of Huckerswell. 

. . . that the Lower side of Woodstock way beyond the Brook 
shall be sowed turnips, 1765, and every year after for eight years 
after the manner of Huckerswell. 

. . . that Galleythorns and the Old Hill be sowed turnips, 

1766, and every year after for eight years after the manner of 
Huckerswell. 

. . . that Park Hill and Great Oxenden be sowed turnips, 

1767, and every year after for eight years after the manner of 
Huckerswell. 

. . . that Upper Oxenden, Plankpits, and Ten Lands next 
Woodway, in both Eldenstump Furlong and over Oxenden Bottom 
and Wheatland and Broad and Picked Castors and Hollowmarsh 
Hill to Alepath be sowed turnips, 1768, and every year after for 
eight years after the manner of Huckerswell. 

. . . that from Alepath to the Great Pool be sowed turnips, 
1769, and every year after for eight years after the manner of 
Huckerswell. 

. . . that the Westfield from Alepath and Woodwayford be 
sowed barley or oats next spring, and ryegrass and clover ; that it 
shall be mowed for hay, 1763; sheepwalk, 1764; oats, 1765; fallow, 
1766; wheat, 1767; and pease, 1768. . . . 

. . . that the grass seeds at Great Oxenden and Park Hill 
shall be broke for the sheep at Old Ladyday next and not 
before. . . . 

. . . that all the grass seeds sowed last spring shall be mowed 
for and hay to Park Hill; and Great Oxenden to be sheepwalk, 
and all the grass seeds besides after they are mowed, except 
Chescomb Hill. . . . 

. . . that the Hay ward shall pound all horses, pigs, hogs, etc., 
that are found grassing about the waste in the town. 

The Jury elect S. D. Hayward, and agree to pay him two 
shillings a yardland ; and he is to keep the crows from off the 
wheat immediately that the wheat is out of danger ; and to keep 
the crows five weeks before harvest from off the wheat till reaping 
time; and' to keep the Field free from moles and wants, 1 and is to 
employ his whole time in doing the said duty. 

This vivid picture of the administration of commonfield 
agriculture by the Lord's Court raises some interesting 
questions. How did the twelve or fifteen members of the 
Jury of Great Tew manage to formulate all these com- 
plicated orders ? We learn from contemporary letters that 

1 I.e. hedgehogs. 



88 THE COURT IN RUINS 

their discussions were prolonged and tempestuous. In 1755 
the Court had actually to be adjourned because these " fathers 
of the hamlet " could not arrive at an agreement by nightfall. 
When the spring came round there arose " a great demur 
amongst the town's people about some of them trespassing 
the last Court Order " ; and the local representative of the 
Steward was obliged to send to him for the original document, 
or a copy of it, "for the Fieldsmen," who were to enforce it. 
In October the Lord of the Manor himself writes to his solicitor : 
" I am afraid I must trouble you to come and hold a Court 
here, though I doubt 'tis probable we shall be obliged to 
adjourn again as we did last year on account of squabbles." 
Within five years, as we have seen, the reformers got their 
way, and made the great revolution of adopting a nine years' 
course. That this did not do away with argument and 
discussion, we may realise from the fact that in 1763 the 
Lord of the Manor reports that they " could not finish the 
business of the Court till near ten this evening." ] 

The problem remains why we possess so little record of 
the agricultural decisions of the Lord's Court, which must, 
in thousands of Manors, have been formulating orders 
analogous to those of Great Tew. In Manor after Manor 
we find the books of records kept by the Stewards between 
1689 and 1835 giving attention to little else than the 
admissions of new tenants, the surrenders of copyholds, and 
other conveyancing business. There is a growing attenuation 
of the record. Sometimes the appointment of officers is 
recorded, sometimes not. The presentments of nuisances die 
away. The pleas in debt and trespass, with the verdicts arrived 
at, are often not entered at all, or entered in a separate book. 
When, as at Great Tew, the Jury had long and elaborate 
presentments, they prepared these on separate sheets of 
paper, which they delivered, as we are elsewhere expressly 
told, " to the Steward to enter in the Court rolls." 2 It is 
plain that the Steward, who was not interested in the tenants' 
agricultural operations, omitted the very heavy task of copying 

1 MS. Letters from Great Tew to Edward Ryves of Woodstock, 9th April and 
23rd October 1756 and 28th October 1763 ; in the possession of Mr. Ballard. 

2 Treatise, on Copyholds, by C. "VVatkius, 4th edition, 1825, vol. ii. p. 383. 
The interesting presentments of the Jury of Great Tew are written on large sheets 
of paper, those of each year being entirely distinct from those of other years. 



THE BAM BURGH COURTS 89 

these lengthy presentments into his book ; and the loose sheets, 
like the corresponding loose papers of the Vestry, the Municipal 
Corporation, and the Court of Quarter Sessions, have been far 
less perfectly preserved, and even less carefully looked for, 
than the bound volumes. 1 

We might leave at this point our account of the Court 
of the Manor, content with the foregoing generalised descrip- 
tion of its constitution and procedure. But, to give greater 
actuality to our survey, we take from our collection half a 
dozen specimens for individual description. In these Manors 
the Courts will be seen to range from a wholly undifferentiated 
tribunal transacting all kinds of business, through Courts 
calling themselves by composite names, but transacting only 
one kind of business, up to Courts which correspond, in their 
duality, closely with the lawyers' view of what the Lord's 
Court ought to be. Whether this duality had always existed, 
or whether it was merely the product of a disintegration of 
function, we leave to the judgment of the historian. 

(i.) The Ba/niburgh Courts 

It has been observed that, in more than one respect, the 
County of Northumberland has, in the past, been a century 
or two later in constitutional development than the more 
settled parts of the South of England. Accordingly, it is to 
Northumberland that we turn for the best examples of 
Manorial Courts continuing in full and unrestricted activity 
throughout the eighteenth century. Along the six miles 
of wild rocks and sandhills from Budle Point to Beadnell Bay 
the little fishing villages and scattered agricultural hamlets 
were under the dominion of the Lord of the Castle of 
Bamburgh, 2 that rises to this day so picturesquely on its black 
rock from amid the sweeping stretches of sparkling white 
sand. Here we find a particularly full and varied Manorial 

1 For another instance, at Laxton (Notts), see The English Peasantry, by 
Gilbert Slater, 1907, ch. ii. 

2 In 1704 the Bamburgh Manors, which had belonged to the Forsters, were 
acquired by Lord Crewe, Bishop of Durham, and were on his death in 1720 
left in trust for charitable purposes. We are indebted to the existing trustees, 
and to Mr. W. T. Hinclmarsh of Alnwick, for access to the MS. records from 
1695, See also the History of Northumberland, by E. Bateson, vol. i. (1893), 
in which some extracts are given (pp. 1G9-172). 



90 THE COURT IN RUINS 

jurisdiction extending throughout the whole of the period 
under our consideration. In the hall of the ancient castle 
two Courts were regularly held, the View of Frankpledge and 
Court Baron of the Manor of the Castle, with jurisdiction 
extending over the whole of the great Manor of about fifty 
square miles ; and the Court of the Manor of the " Borough " 
of Bamburgh itself, governing the little village that clustered 
round the fortress. The Court of the Manor of the Castle 
claimed, in 1689, the attendance of some two hundred suitors 
of various grades. There were, first of all, the free tenants 
of the Manor great personages residing in Scotland and the 
South of England, who held lands of the Lord of Bamburgh, 
and who, between 1689 and 1835, were regularly summoned 
at his Courts, and as regularly " essoined." The real attend- 
ants at these Courts were the more assiduous or the more 
dependent of the eight or nine score of " Freeholders," " Copy- 
holders," " Leaseholders," and " Cottagers " of the " demesnes " 
of Bamburgh and North Sunderland, and of the three vills 
or townships of Beaduell, Shoreston, and North Sunderland, 
together with the " Resiants in Bamburgh Castle " itself, all 
of whom are elaborately recited in the records. At this Court, 
which was held only once a year (with frequent omissions 
in the years between 1695 and 1774) all kinds of business 
was transacted. Constables, Pounders, and Ale-tasters were 
appointed for each of the three constituent townships. Minor 
offences principally trespasses by animals in the common- 
fields, nuisances, assaults, and affrays were presented and 
amerced. The townships themselves were amerced for non- 
repair of pinfolds and stocks. 1 New copyholders were admitted 
and successions to property registered. Occasional orders 
were made as to the management of the common pasture, the 
particular fields in which horses were to be tethered, the 
repair of the " headland," 2 and the obnoxious habits of some 
of the inhabitants of Beadnell, who had started extracting fish 
oil in the streets. 3 But the principal business of the Court 

1 MS. Court Rolls, Manor of the Castle of Bamburgh, 1707, etc. 

2 Ibid. 1st October 1705. 

8 "Ordered that none of the inhabitants of Beaduell shall boil or extract 
oil out of fish in the town streets, or within the houses there, the same being 
not only noxious and offensive, but also dangerous to the neighbourhood " 
(ibid. 22nd April 1719). 



THE BAM BURGH COURTS 91 

was the trial of civil actions between inhabitants of the 
Manor for debts or damages not exceeding 39s. lid. In the 
earlier years of the eighteenth century there was always an 
array of such actions to be dealt with at every Court. It 
was, indeed, a serious offence in any inhabitant to bring before 
any other tribunal, whether civil or criminal, any matter 
which could be dealt with at the Court of the Manor. In 
1705, for instance, we find two of the tenants fined 39s. lid. 
each, one for getting the other arrested on a writ issued 
by the King's Court at Westminster, and the other for 
indicting his adversary at Quarter Sessions. 1 Eight down 
to the middle of the nineteenth century this Manorial juris- 
diction in civil actions and petty offences was maintained and 
continued ; though we note the stream of cases getting 
gradually smaller, and all attempt at enforcing an exclusive 
jurisdiction is abandoned. 2 

The whole of the business of this Court seems to have 
been transacted by the dozen or so of jurymen summoned by 
command of the Steward. Down to 1707 there was one 
Jury only, described as the " Jury of Inquiry and of Trial 
of Actions." From 1707 onward we find in the records 
always two Juries sworn, a " Jury of Inquiry " and a " Jury 
for the Trial of Causes." But the two Juries were, in fact, 
the same persons, though the names usually occur in different 
orders. 3 It is to be noted that the differentiation of the 

1 "Upon the oath of T. H. we present the said H. J. for causing T. H. to 
be indicted at the General Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the county, 
whereas if he had any cause of action or complaint against the said T. H. the 
same might have been redressed and punished in this Court ; for which he is 
amerced 39s. lid. Upon oath of H. J. we present T. H. for causing the said 
H. J. to be arrested upon a writ out of some of the Courts at Westminster at 
the said T. H.'s suit; whereas the cause of action being under 39s. lid. . . . 
and therefore cognisable in this Court, he might have had redress in this 
Court ; we do therefore amerce him 39s. lid." (ibid. 1st October 1705). 

2 The Court appears to have been held usually once a year, even for civil 
suits ; but half-yearly meetings occasionally occur, and even (as between 1779 
and 1786) other meetings. It was assumed in 1839 that it had the right to 
three-weekly sessions, but was then, in fact, held only once a year, with an 
average of only one or two cases (House of Commons Return of Courts of 
Request, 1840, p. 114). 

3 We suspect that the Jury was appointed to serve for the year. A possible 
cause of the nominal differentiation between its two main functions of present- 
ment and of trial is suggested by an entry of 1748. "In the cause between 
Mills and Taylor, A. A. sworn on 'Jury instead of George Taylor" (MS. 
Court Rolls, Manor of Bamburgh, 6th July 1748). It was obviously convenient 



92 THE COURT IN RUINS 

Jury into two Juries bore no resemblance to the lawyers' 
distinction between the Homage of the Court Baron and the 
Jury of the Court Leet. At Bamburgh the Jury of Inquiry 
continued to act both as the Homage of the Lord and the 
Jury for the King; admitting new copyholders, regulating 
the commons, appointing Constables, and presenting public 
nuisances. The second Jury was, as its name implies, 
restricted to the trial of " plaints and pleas " between parties. 1 
We pass now to the Manor of the Borough of Bamburgh, 
for which the same Steward, assisted by the same Bailiff, held 
entirely separate Courts. Here again we have the elaborate 
array of classes of persons owing suit and service Free 
Suitors, Freeholders, Cottagers, Leaseholders, and " Farmers," 
whatever may be meant by this term. 2 But the Court is, 
down to 1719, termed, in its records, a Court Baron only; 
and we do not feel sure whether (as we shall subsequently 
describe in the case of Alresford) the Lord had not retained 
the View of Frankpledge and Court Leet when granting to 
the " Borough of Bamburgh " the privilege of a separate Court. 
The " Borough of Bamburgh " had had, indeed, a long and 
eventful history. For more than two hundred years it had 
ranked as a " Free Borough," even receiving Royal Charters 
and sending members to Parliament. But it was practically 
destroyed in the Scotch wars of the fifteenth century ; and it 
seems then to have reverted to a position of Manorial subordina- 
tion, retaining of its former status nothing more than the 

to be able to omit from the Jury for the Trial of Actions persons interested in a 
particular suit, without necessarily omitting them from the Jury of Inquiry. 

1 It is to be noted that there are (as we have seen in the Courts at Hitchin 
and elsewhere) distinct signs that the Stewards latterly tried to make their 
Courts what the lawyers were saying that they ought to be. Thus, from 1779, 
we find the Jury which does all the main business termed the Jury for our 
Lord the King, and the Jury which tries actions only is termed the Homage 
Jury for the Trial of Causes (ibid. June and October 1779). 

It is interesting to find that in the Manor of Blanchland, also belonging 
to the Crewe Trustees, where the Courts were held by the same Steward as those 
of Bamburgh, we find practically the same terms used. There is the same 
recital of Freeholders, Leaseholders, and Cottagers, as liable to suit and service ; 
and the same "Jury of Inquiry and for Trial of Causes." But in this remote 
rural Manor there were, from 1785 at any rate, no "causes," and very few 
presentments of nuisances, so that the holding of the Court was discontinued 
after 1812, in spite of an urgent petition from the inhabitants (MS. Court Rolls, 
Manor of Blanchland, 1785-1812). 

2 We did not notice any explicit mention of Copyholders, so that it is possible 
that " Farmers" here mean "customary tenants " by copy of Court Roll. 



THE HAMBURG H COURTS 93 

name of Borough, and the separation of its Court from that of 
the rest of the Manor. 1 In its decay the Manor of the Borough 
passed to the Priory of Nostell in Yorkshire ; which acquired 
also the two neighbouring townships of Elford and Fleethani, 
and apparently added them to the jurisdiction of the Borough 
Court. At the beginning of the eighteenth century, the owner- 
ship of the Manor of the Borough was reunited with that of 
the Manor of the Castle, and presently we find the Steward, 
who held both Courts, giving them both the same title of View 
of Frankpledge and Court Baron. 2 Both dealt, in fact, with 
the same heterogeneous kinds of business, though in differing 
proportions. The Court of the Borough, like that of the 
Castle, actually empanelled only one set of jurymen for all 
its business; and this remained as a single Jury until 1727, 
when it became nominally differentiated into a Jury "ad 
inquirendum " and a Jury " per treatione causae " (sic), but 
nevertheless consisted always of the same twelve or thirteen 
persons. The Court of the Borough had, however, its own 
distinctive character, both in function and in structure. 
It formally admitted new tenants to the " burgageship " of the 
Manor of the Borough. It had far more presentments of 
nuisances than the Court of the Castle, and these nuisances 
were rather more distinctively urban in their character. It 
dealt with weights and measures, with the mutual obligations 
of millers and their customers, and with the clearing of the 
lanes from loose stones. 3 ' It had to make a large number of 
regulations for the use of the " Burrow Yards " (or Borough 
Yardlands, commonfields under plough), as well as for stinting 
the common pastures. 4 What is, however, still more distinctive 

1 For Bamburgh as a Borough see History of Northumfierlaiid, by E. Bateson, 
1893, vol. i. pp. 114-148. It is mentioned as a Borough in 1197 ; it received 
Royal Charters in 1255, 1321, 1332, 1382, and 1405; it was represented 
in the Parliament of 1295 ; and it was destroyed between 1419 and 1439. 
Its population probably at no time exceeded a few hundreds, but it was divided 
into four Wards, and elected four Bailiffs. 

2 MS. Court Rolls, Manor of the Borough of Bamburgh, 1719, etc. 

3 " Ordered that the several occupiers of the lands and grounds of Bamburgh 
shall, upon notice from the Constables, assist to clear the lanes of stones and 
molehills" (ibid. 23rd April 1719). "Every person within this Manor shall 
grind at the mill they are accustomed to. ... The miller shall wait on his 
customers to carry the grist to his mill and back again within forty eight hours' 
warning" (ibid. 4th May 1731). 

4 "None of the inhabitants of Bamburgh shall for the future put any of 
their cattle to feed in any of the Burrow Yards (? Borough Yardlands) until ajl 



94 THE COURT IN RUINS 

is the fact that, throughout the whole proceedings, we are 
conscious of the " Freeholders of the Borough " in the back- 
ground, as constituting a standing part of the government, 
with functions of their own. We have no records of the 
meetings of these Freeholders we have not even any such 
reports from them brought into Court as those presented by 
the Jury of the Manor of Great Tew but we learn something 
about them from the records of the Court itself. We must, of 
course, visualise them, not as the owners of freehold houses in 
a crowded city, 1 but as the owners of scattered strips of arable 
land in the " Borough yards," or common-fields, with rights of 
common pasturage. In 1 705 we find them entering into a 
Corporate agreement with the Lord, duly ratified and recorded 
at the next Court, as to their " free liberty " to depasture on 
the Town Moor, to have " the eatage " of certain fields, and to 
drive their cattle in summer on the seashore, whilst, if the 
weather is very bad, they are to be free to use also the Castle 
demesne ground. 2 We see them authorised by the Court to 
make " a general rate or assessment " on themselves, in order 
to raise a sufficient sum to make 'good the fences ; and to 
collect the said rate or tax by one of themselves. 3 We even 
find them on one occasion directed to decide upon and, by a 
mere majority vote, to assess upon all the inhabitants of the 
Borough, for repairing and cleansing the well, a compulsory 
rate or tax, which the Court will enforce by distraint. 4 The 

the corn groAving thereon shall be led in " (ibid. 9th September 1760). ' ' No stints 
of horses shall be kept for sheep, nor sheep for horses, and the stinting Day is to 
be 10th of May yearly " (ibid. 9th September 1760). " It is also ordered that the 
several rabbit cuts in the said moor ought to be filled up at the end of every 
hunting (i.e. shooting) season to prevent all mischiefs by the horses or cattle 
falling therein" (ibid. 23rd May 1775). "The several holds in the said moor 
which have been made for the purpose of burning for kelp ought to be filled up 
at the end of every burning season, and the stones surrounding the same to be 
removed" (ibid. 23rd May 1775). 

1 We do, however, read that " no person living out of freehold mansion-house 
shall keep any horses upon Hamburgh Commons" (ibid. 13th October 1722). 

2 Ibid. 2nd October 1705. 3 Ibid. October 1790 ; also 1794. 

4 " It is at this Court, by and with the consent of the Jury, thought fit and 
ordered that the Freeholders of the Town of Bamburgh do, some time before the 
next Court, . . . agree upon and lay an assessment upon every inhabitant or 
householder . . . for and towards the repairing and cleansing the Kiln Well, 
as to the said Freeholders, or major part of them, shall seem fit and expedient." 
Any one refusing to pay was to forfeit one and eightpence, to be levied by distraint 
(ibid. 16th October 1696). On the other hand,- the way to the well Avas 
ordered to be repaired, not by a tax, but by the tenants of the adjoining lands 
(ibid. 15th October 1699). 



THE HAMBURGH COURTS . 95 

existence in the fourteenth century of a chartered Borough of 
Bamburgh makes it probable that the rights and privileges of 
the Freeholders of this Manor were but the remnants of a 
decayed autonomy. But for this historical probability, we 
might almost have seen in them the nascent germ of what, in 
other circumstances, developed into such Manorial Boroughs as 
Alnwick or Arundel, presently to be described. 1 

1 The records of the " Court of View of Frankpledge with Court Baron" of 
the Manor of Tweedmouth and Spittal, between 1658 and 1663, with far less 
full minutes down to 1819, offer an exceptionally clear view of an Undifferentiated 
Court. This Manor, lying opposite the Borough of Berwick-on-Tweed, was 
purchased for 570 by the Municipal Corporation in 1652-1657, in order that 
the latter might be able to clear out ' ' the numerous company of disorderly, 
uncivil, and lawless persons, principally Scotswomen of evil fame," who were 
harboured there. The MS. records of the Courts that continued to be held by 
the Corporate Lord of the Manor show the extreme heterogeneity of the business. 
The fifteen Jurymen who were invariably sworn at each six-monthly Court dealt 
indiscriminately, in their presentments, with the appointment of Constables 
and the amercement of nuisance-mongers, with actions for debt and the punish- 
ment of "a blood and affray," with the lack of a Pound and the admission of 
new copyhold tenants of the Manor, with defective weights and measures and the 
defaults of tenants in keeping their ditches scoured, with the harbouring of 
"inmates " and the keeping of ducks and geese " to abuse the water," with the 
grant of a portion of the waste and the ordering of the strangers to find security 
that they will not become chargeable, with prohibitions of the boiling of salmon 
in the village itself and the method by which "the assessment that was gathered 
for repairing the highways" (1663) was to be accounted for by the Bailiffs. 
The entries show that the Court passed higgledy-piggledy from one kind of 
business to the other, whether it was the presentment of a nuisance, the admission 
of a new copyholder, the appointment of a Constable, the verdict in an action 
on the case between two inhabitants, or the punishment of a common scold. 
But there are variations in the record. From 1658 to 1663 there are numerous 
and extremely heterogeneous entries in English, including many civil actions. 
From 1663 to 1732 the entries are in Latin, and relate exclusively to the property 
business of the Manor. We see no reason to suppose that the busy local tribunal 
came suddenly to an end, and we suspect that the presentments of the Jury 
(as at Great Tew) were written on separate loose sheets, which a new Steward 
neglected to copy into his book. From 1732 to 1764 the entries are in English, 
but still exclusively relating to conveyancing, etc. Between 1764 and 1771, 
whilst admissions and conveyances, etc., are recorded as by "the Homage" 
evidently a new Steward had learnt that this was the legal formula there are a 
certain number of " presentments of the Jury," and "orders of the Court," 
relating to the appointment of Constables, nuisances, and weights and measures, 
which the Jury went round to inspect. After 1771, again, we have nothing but 
conveyances recorded. The Steward makes no entry in this book of the findings 
of the Jury in civil suits. Yet we know that this very Court, which determined 
dozens of civil actions in the seventeenth century, was still determining them in 
the nineteenth century, and had doubtless been doing so continuously. Over 
200 summonses were taken out in 1839, over 100 cases heard, and half a dozen 
judgments enforced by execution against property (House of Commons Return 
of Courts of Request, 1840, p. 125). 



96 THE CO UR T IN R UINS 



(ii.) The Court Leet of the Savoy 

In contrast with the little fishing ports of Northumberland 
stands the so-called Precinct of the Savoy, in 1689 a tiny 
scrap of densely populated, extra-parochial territory around the 
ancient palace, prison, and chapel of the Savoy in Westminster. 
Here the Manorial rights have continued to belong to the 
Crown, in respect of the Duchy of Lancaster, and the Lord's 
Court to be regarded, apparently, as exercising only Court 
Leet functions has been held uninterruptedly for at least 
five centuries down to the present day. 1 Every year during 
the past five centuries the Steward, as of old, has held this 
ancient Court, the Bailiff formally notifying the residents to 
attend, and expressly summoning about a score of them to 
serve on the Jury. At the end of the seventeenth century, 
and (as the records show) throughout the eighteenth century, 
the Court was an effective local governing authority in the 
absence of any effective Vestry, the only authority for the 
Precinct, other than the much- occupied Middlesex Quarter 
Sessions. 2 At the sessions of this Court were appointed the 
four Burgesses and the four Assistant Burgesses, each serving 
for life, a number to which the Precinct was entitled under 
the Act of 1585, in imitation of the constitution of the Court 
of Burgesses for Westminster. The Court also appointed 
annually from among the respectable householders four 
Constables, four Aleconners, and two Flesh-tasters, who were 

1 The early records of this Court, mentioned as held in 1399, have dis- 
appeared, but the proceedings between 1682 and 1789 are summarised in 
precise detail in the Digest of the Proceedings of the Court Leet of the Manor and 
Liberty of the Savoy, which Joseph Ritson, the learned antiquary, who was then 
the Steward, published in 1789. For its work since that date there is its great 
bound volume of current records, "The Court Book of the Manor and Liberty 
of the Savoy," for access to which (and much information) we are indebted to 
the courtesy of Mr. G. R. Askwith, the present Steward. 

2 The Precinct of the Savoy, as an extra- parochial place, had apparently for 
a long time no parish officers. We hear of a sort of Select Vestry in 1635 and 
1732 (see Vol. I. The Parish and the County, p. 186), which may not have con- 
tinued in authority. The inhabitants held annual meetings to choose Trustees 
for regulating the Nightly Watch under 14 George III. c. 90 (1774). A body of 
Paving Commissioners, similarly elected, was established by 5 and 6 William IV. 
c. 18 (1835). When at last the Precinct was required in 1855 to take rank 
among the Parishes of Westminster for the election of a member of the 
Metropolitan Board of Works, the election was also made at the mooting of 
ratepayers, which had by this time assumed to be an open Vestry, 



THE COURT LEET OF THE SAVOY 97 

required to serve their year of office, and severely fined in 
default. 1 These officers were required severally to make their 
presentments of nuisances and defaults to the next Court, 
when the Jury did not fail to inflict substantial fines on 
the offenders. Shopkeepers using fraudulent weights and 
measures, 2 residents keeping houses of ill-fame, 3 traders ob- 
structing the streets by leaving timber, casks, or packing-cases 
about, or stopping up the footway by ladders ; 4 owners allowing 
their premises to become structurally unsafe ; soap-boilers 
conveying offensive soaplees along the Strand ; 5 the Keeper 
of the Savoy Prison for ill-treating the military prisoners 
detained there 6 even the proprietor of Exeter Change for 
" keeping a tiger carelessly secured in a shed on Savoy Hill 
to the great alarm of the neighbours " 7 found themselves 
reprimanded, warned, and smartly fined for their delinquencies. 
During the eighteenth century the " Commissioners of the 
Pavement " and the " Commissioners of Sewers," both statutory 
authorities for the City of Westminster, were repeatedly pre- 
sented for their neglect. The condition of the "Strand 
Bridge," of " Strand Lane Stairs," of " Essex Stairs," and of 
" Surrey Stairs " was perpetually exercising the minds of the 
Jury. 8 Nor did the Court lack its paid professional officers. 
Besides the Bailiff, whose remuneration lay in his fees, there 
was an Upper Beadle and an Under Beadle, each with a 
gorgeous staff of office, and (in 1795) an Assistant Constable. 
Year after year the proceedings go on, in the nineteenth 
century growing steadily more perfunctory. The advent of 
the new police in 1829 evidently accelerates the process of 
decay. In 1861 the Court petitions Parliament to be in- 
cluded, like the City of Westminster, in the abolition of the 

1 As lately as 1791 an inhabitant was summarily fined 7 for refusing to 
serve as Constable (MS. Records, Savoy Court, 1791). 

2 "Upon the return of the Aleconners, they present Mr. F., Cheesemonger, 
in Butcher Row, for having scales which they found deficient, and do amerce 
him in the sum of forty shillings " (MS. Records, Savoy Court, 1785). Similarly 
a baker, " for breaking the Assize of Bread," is fined forty shillings (ibid. 1792). 

3 Ibid. 1809 (very frequently also between 1682 and 1789). 
* Ibid. 1795. 

6 Ibid. 1796, 1797, 1807, 1809, 1810 (30 fine). 

6 1795 and 1798; in 1810 the Jury visited the prison and found "all well" 
(ibid). 

t Ibid. 1798. 

8 Digest of the Proceedings of the Cowrt Leet of the Manor and Liberty of the 
Savoy, by J. Ritson, 1789. 

VOL. II. PT. I H 



98 THE COURT IN RUINS 

"Annoyance Jury." After this date the officers' presentments 
cease, and the proceedings become formal only, though fines 
continued to be nominally inflicted on keepers of houses of 
ill-fame (as a method of driving them out of the Precinct) 
down to 1880. The Court still (1907) continues to be held, 
with elaborate ceremony, the Steward formally " charging " 
the Jury, and insisting on its attendance. The proceedings, 
however, are confined to a punctilious maintenance of ancient 
boundary marks, and the five -centuries -old "Court of the 
Steward, Bailiff', and Burgesses of the Manor and Liberty of 
the Savoy," fully alive and active in 1807, lingers in 1907 
only as a shadow of the past. 1 

1 We may mention another extra-parochial place in the Metropolis, governed, 
apparently, by a Lord's Court. The Tower of London has, time out of mind, 
been the nucleus of a "Liberty," or area exempted from some or all of the 
jurisdiction of the County. According to a statute of 1663 this Liberty of 
"the Tower Hamlets" included no fewer than twenty-one places, comprising 
Shoreditch, Hackney, and the whole eastern part of Middlesex, within which 
were many separate Manors. These were, at any rate for militia purposes, under 
the Constable of the Tower, who acted in many ways as Gustos Rotulorum and 
Lord-Lieutenant. Whether anything in the nature of a Hundred Court was 
ever held we cannot tell ; but Courts of Quarter Sessions were regularly held in 
the Tower itself until the reign of James II., when they were removed, as the 
concourse of people within the fortress was deemed unsafe. Meanwhile a Court 
was being held in the Tower, exercising Leet jurisdiction over the "Liberties" 
of the Tower in a narrower sense, extending, in fact, only to "the circumference 
without the Tower" and to extra -parochial places close by, such as Little 
Minories, Old Artillery Ground, and Wellclose Square. We hear in the sixteenth 
century of the presentments of "Her Majesty's Inquest of the Tower." Those 
of the "Leet Jury" for 1679 are preserved. The official orders and Letters 
Patent of James II. expressly mention this Court Leet of the Tower, and con- 
firm the immunity of the "Liberties" from the authorities of the Cities of 
London and Westminster. Whether this Court of the " Precinct " of the Tower, 
as this adjacent " Liberty " came to be called, in any way represented a shrunken 
Court for the whole of the Tower Hamlets, superior to the Courts of the Manors 
within them, we cannot ascertain. Even as the Court Leet of the Precinct, it 
apparently faded away early in the eighteenth century. From an interesting 
petition of 16th February 1727 (preserved in War Office Ordnance Records, 
Misc. No. 1, Entry Book re Tower Liberty, in Public Record Office), we gather 
that the Court was held under the Steward of the Constable of the Tower, and 
that the Jury presented persons to serve as officers of the Precinct, including, 
since 1601, two Overseers of the Poor, who accounted regularly to the Court. 
The Court disposed of various funds, including fees paid by publicans for 
licences ; the rent of a shed on Tower Hill built by the Court itself, and of 
another on Tower Wharf; "the disposal of the Bulwark Bar" (apparently a 
toll) ; fines imposed for oaths ; fees on burials at the chapel of the Tower ; fees 
on licences to watermen to work the Tower ferries on Sundays ; voluntary con- 
tributions at the Chapel, and otherwise ; and, finally, a rate levied on the 
inhabitants of Tower Hill. With these revenues the Court relieved the poor 
and administered the government of the Precinct. Latterly, however, by the 
neglect of Governors and of the Court, " the late Gentleman Porter" has 



COURT LEET AND COURT BARON OF MANCHESTER 99 



(iii.) The Court Leet and Court Baron of Manchester 

The Manor of Manchester affords an example of a Lord's 
Court continuing to serve as an active local governing authority 
for a vast population and one of the greatest of English 
provincial towns, 'not merely between 1689 and 1835, but 
right down to 1846, under conditions very different from 
those of the rural fishing villages of Bamburgh, and even from 
those of the Precinct of the Savoy. 1 

The first point that we notice is that at Manchester there 

appropriated the income of the Bulwark Bar, and some of the other revenues 
have been left unclaimed, with the result that the rate on the inhabitants has 
been increased. The military authorities are therefore requested to restore the 
privileges of the Court Leet. We have been unable to trace any of the records 
of this Court or to find out when it actually ceased to be held (see The Survey 
of London, by John Stow, vol. i. p. 77, of Strype's edition of 1720 ; History and 
Antiquities of the Tower of London, by John Bayley, vol. ii. pp. 654-670, and 
Appendix, pp. 112 and 121 of 1st edition only, 1825). 

1 Owing to the public-spirited action of the Manchester Town Council the 
records of this Court from 1552 to 1846 have been printed in full (see The 
Cowrt Leet Records of the Manor of Manchester, in twelve volumes, edited, with 
notes and introduction to each volume, by J. P. Earwaker, 1884-1890). Extracts 
from these rolls had already been edited by John Harland in two volumes of 
the Chetham Society's publications (1864 and 1865). The Town Council has 
also published The Constables' Accounts of the Manor of Manchester (1612-1776), 
three vols., edited by J. P. Earwaker, 1891-1892. For the early history of 
the Manor see the scholarly treatise by Professor James Tait, Mediaeval Manchester 
and the Beginnings of Lancashire, 1904 ; which does not, however, clear up the 
complicated relationship between the Hundred and the Manor, the Manor and 
the Parish, and the Parish and the Townships. Something is to be gathered 
on these points from Chapters from the Early History of the Barony, Lordship, 
Vill, etc., of Manchester, by J. Harland, 1861-1862 (vols. 53, 56, and 58 of the 
Chetham Society); the article on "The Feudal Baronage," by W. Farrer, in 
the Victoria County History of Lancashire, vol. i., 1906 ; and from the series 
of histories of the several chapelries in course of publication by the Chetham 
Society, viz. those of Denton, by J. Booker (vol. 37) ; Didsbury and Chorlton, 
by J. Booker, 1857 (vol. 42); Stretford, by H. T. Crofton, 1899-1903 (vols. 
N.S. 42, 45, and 51); Birch, by J. Booker, 1857 (vol. 47); and Newton, by 
H. T. Crofton, 1904-5 (vols. 52-55), for some of which references we are indebted 
to Dr. W. E. Axon. See also Didsbury, Sketches, Reminiscences, and Legends, by 
Fletcher Moss, 1890. For incidental references to the Manorial Court, see the 
account of the customs enrolled in 1623 (History of Boroughs, by H. A. Merewether 
and A. J. Stephens, 1835, vol. i. pp. 541-545) ; A Picture of Manchester, by Joseph 
Aston, 1816, pp. 27-30, 168 ; An Essay on English Municipal History, by 
James Thompson, 1867, ch. xiv ; Manchester Guardian, 18th October 1817, 
4th May and 19th October 1833, 12th October 1836, 25th October 1837, 
13th January and 10th February 1838 ; Manchester Courier, 15th October 1836 ; 
and the case of Rutter v. Chapman, 1839. The close of its history is described 
in the introduction to vol. xii. of The Court Leet Records of the Manor of 
Manchester, by J. P. Earwaker, 1890 ; Alderman Cobden, by Sir E. W. Watkin, 
1891 ; Cobden as a Manchester Citizen, by W. E. A. Axon, 1904. 



loo THE COURT IN RUINS 

was, at any rate in the nineteenth century, not one Lord's Court, 
but a pair of Courts two separate and distinct tribunals, held 
in different places, at different times, by different officers of the 
Lord of the Manor, served by different staffs of subordinates, 
and preserving entirely distinct records. There was the 
" Court Baron of the Manor of Manchester," a " Three Weeks' 
Court," of which the functions seem to have been confined to 
the trial of civil actions under forty shillings. 1 There was the 
"Court Leet and View of Fraiikpledge held in and for the 
Manor of Manchester," which, as we shall see, closely resembled 
what the lawyers thought that a Court Leet ought to be. It 
is true that at this Court the Jury elected a Boroughreeve, an 
officer whose title would have led us rather to expect his 
election at the Court Baron. But the Boroughreeve of 
Manchester had nothing to do with collecting the Lord's rents 
and dues from his burgage or other tenants, nor had he even 
to manage any of the common affairs of the tenants of the 
Manor. For the period with which we are concerned he was 
merely the head police officer, 2 superintending the two Con- 
stables and representing the little community to the rest of the 
world. Whatever inter-mixture of the agricultural or other 
common interests of the tenants of the Manor there may have 
been in preceding centuries, the Manchester Court Leet between 
1689 and 1835 was concerned exclusively with the suppression 
of the ever -increasing urban nuisances, the making of the 
usual By-laws for the regulation of the streets, and the appoint- 

1 Particulars as to the actual work and character of the Court Baron for 
Manchester are scanty ; see the Fifth Report of the Royal Commission on the 
Courts of Common Law, 1833, pp. 53a, 75a, 78a, and especially 1-5& ; A Picture 
of Manchester, by Joseph Aston, 1816, p. 30 ; History of Lancashire, by John 
Corry, 1825, vol. ii. p. 477. 

2 "We came on to Manchester, one of the greatest, if not the greatest mere 
village in England. It is neither a walled town, city, nor Corporation ; it sends 
no members to Parliament ; and the highest magistrate there is a Constable 
or Headborough ; and yet it has a Collegiate Church, besides several other 
churches ; takes up a large space of ground ; and, including the suburbs, or that 
part of the town on the other side of the bridge [Salford], it is said to contain 
above 50,000 people. ... I cannot doubt but this increasing town will, some 
time or other, obtain some better face of government and be incorporated, as it 
very well deserves to be " (A Tour through the whole Island of Great Britain, 
by D. Defoe, vol. iii. pp. 219, 220 of edition of 1742). Defoe greatly exaggerated 
the population of Manchester and Salford, which on his visit probably did not 
reach 20,000. In 1689 Manchester alone was put at about 6000 ; in 1774 at 
41,000 ; in 1801 it was 84,000, and in 1831, 122,000. 



COURT LEET AND COURT BARON OF MANCHESTER 101 

ment of the multitudinous public officers requisite for these 
objects. 1 

The Court Leet of the Manor of Manchester is remarkable 
for its highly developed organisation. Held always by the 
Steward of the Lord of the Manor, with a Jury appointed at 
the preceding Court, it seems from the earliest recorded times 
to have claimed the attendance of every " Burgess " of the 
Township of Manchester, or his eldest son or wife, under 
penalty of threepence fine. This obligation on every holder of 
a burgage tenement may be connected with the grant of the 
charter of 1301 and the practice of the Portmanmoot of the 
Township. 2 In the eighteenth century, when the meaning of 
the custom had been forgotten, it seems to have been assumed by 
the Court that every male resident over twelve years of age was 
under obligation to attend ; and we have evidence that an im- 
mense list of names -was actually called over, with a view to 
imposing, for the profit of some of the officers, a fine of three- 
pence each on those who did not answer to their names. 3 

1 We must leave to the historians of earlier centuries to decide whether the 
Court Baron and Court Leet of Manchester, as we find them in 1689, were 
descended from one Court of the Manor or from more than one Court. In the 
fourteenth century there had been a Court Baron of Manchester, sitting from 
three weeks to three weeks, exercising jurisdiction over the whole Barony of 
Manchester. Professor Tait supposes this Court, in shrinking in jurisdiction to 
the township of Manchester, to have become what we find, in 1552, as the 
Court Leet (Mediaeval Manchester and the Beginnings of Lancashire, by James 
Tait, 1904, p. 35). On the other hand, the Charter of 1301 gave the 
inhabitants of the township a "curia burgi," "Portmanmoot," or Borough 
Court of their own, which elected the head officer or Reeve, and had jurisdiction 
over the Burgesses of the narrower area of the township in debt and assault. 
This Court seems to us more likely to have been the ancestor of the Court Leet 
of the earliest records of 1552. What is revealed in those records is exactly a 
Borough Court. It is never described as a Court Baron. We suspect that the 
Court of the Barony of Manchester at no time coalesced with the Portmanmoot, 
Borough Court, or Court Leet of the Township. The so-called "Court Baron of 
Manchester " of the eighteenth century may have been the direct descendant of 
the Court of the Barony. On the other hand, it is possible that the Great Court 
of the Barony was simply discontinued. We suggest that the Court Baron 
that we find in the eighteenth century, exercising jurisdiction only over the 
Township, may be the descendant of the Halmote Court held by the Lord for 
the Manor of the Township alone, the Court Baron side of which he retained in 
his own hands when he granted to his new Burgesses the right to hold a 
separate Portmanmoot. 

2 There was a similar obligation at Salford and Stockport, which had received 
baronial Charters in the thirteenth century, on which the Manchester Charter of 
1301 was probably modelled (Mediceval Manchester and the Beginnings of 
Lancashire, by James Tait, 1904, p. 51). 

3 In the formal charge to the Jury of the Steward for 1788 (Roberts) we 
have it stated that the poorer inhabitants, "to avoid payment of the threepence, 



102 THE COURT IN RUINS 

But the distinguishing feature of the Manchester Court 
was the unusually large number of officers who were nominated 
by the Jury and formally appointed by the Court. These 
officers were required to serve their term of twelve months, 
all of them originally without remuneration. At their head 
was the Boroughreeve, the executive chief of the little com- 
munity, who presided at all public meetings, and though with- 
out any of the authority of a Justice of the Peace, in many 
ways acted as the representative of the town. " In no Corpora- 
tion," says a writer of 1816, "is the Mayor for the time being 
treated with more respect, the paraphernalia of a mace-bearer 
excepted, than the Boroughreeve of Manchester." 1 Second 
only to the Boroughreeve were the two Constables, who were 
always appointed together, and who acted jointly and severally 
as his principal lieutenants, without, so far as we can ascertain, 
any distinction of function. But besides these dignitaries, the 
Court appointed annually an ever-increasing array of other 
officers, who, by 1689, had come to number over one hundred. 2 
Among these were the usual Aleconners and Scavengers, with 
innumerable others, such as Market-lookers and Muzzlers of 
Mastiff Dogs. It seems long to have been the practice, when- 
ever the need for any new function or any particular nuisance 
or abuse forced itself upon the attention of the Jury, for a new 
and compulsorily serving officer to be appointed 3 to see that 

attend the Court and listen to the calling over an immense roll of names, until 
they answer to their own, by which the greater part of the day is lost. ... As 
to the common practice of calling over all the names of so populous a Manor as 
Manchester, it occasions loss of time to the poor, is productive of no advantage, 
no emolument but a trifling perquisite to the inferior officers of the Court, and 
the liberality of the present Lord of the Manor would induce him to correct this 
practice " ("Charge of 1788," reprinted in The Court Leet Records of the Manor 
of Manchester, vol. ix. p. 244). 

1 A Picture of Manchester, by Joseph Aston, 1816, p. 27. At Birmingham 
and Bolton, as well as at Salford, the Chief Officer of the Lord's Court bore the 
same title, which we have not found elsewhere, though Portreeve is not uncom- 
mon in the South of England, and Headborough, Boroughhead, and Borsholder 
are frequently met with. 

2 Already in the earliest record, that of 4th October 1552, we find 59 officers 
appointed (The Court Leet Records of the Manor of Manchester, vol. i. p. 1) ; 
the number rising to 110 on 5th October 1686 (vol. vi. p. 241), and to 138 on 
15th October 1756 (vol. viii. p. 1). 

3 The Burgesses had possessed a right to pasture their pigs in the woods 
and on the waste of the manor. "In the sixteenth century pigs wandering 
about the streets and even into the churchyard became such a nuisance that a 
public swineherd was started, who assembled his charges with a horn in the 
morning, and led them out to the Lord's waste at Collyhurst " (Mediaeval Man- 



COURT LEET AND COURT BARON OF MANCHESTER 103 

the regulations of the Court were enforced ; and once an office 
was created, it continued to be filled year after year, even if its 
functions had become obsolete. These compulsory offices were, 
however, rapidly becoming merely honorary sinecures. " Many 
of these offices," said the learned Steward of the Manor in 
1788, "have an appearance of throwing a degree of indignity 
on the possessors, and it not infrequently happens that the 
muscles of the gravest are relaxed when they hear the most 
respectable names being annexed to the offices of Scavengers, 
Market-lookers, and Muzzlers of Mastiff Dogs." But the duties, 
he explained, were more easy and dignified than the titles im- 
plied. " If a Scavenger see any person obstructing the streets 
in any manner whatever; or if a Market-looker find any un- 
wholesome meat exposed for sale, he has nothing to do but to 
make a memorandum of the offender's name, and the time of 
committing the offence, and to give information thereat at the 
next Court Leet, and the offender will be amerced." * Unlike 
most other Manorial Courts, that of Manchester levied a rate 
on the inhabitants we find " Mysegatherers " appointed as 
early as 1554, and the "Town Lay" is regularly mentioned 
down to 1780, when it was merged in the Poor Eate levied by 
the Overseers. 2 Either out of this rate, or else by customary 

Chester and the Beginnings of Lancashire, by James Tait, 1904, p. 49). The 
Court even appointed its own public musicians in the form of the " Town Waits," 
who were ordered by the Court to play through the town on every Thursday 
evening "according to the ancient custom." They were evidently remunerated 
by voluntary gifts from the inhabitants (The Court Leet Records of the Manor of 
Manchester, 5th October 1669 and 16th April 1672, vol. v. pp. vi, 99, 166). 

1 A Charge to the Grand Jury of the Court Leet of the Manor of Manchester, 
by William Roberts, 1788 ; reprinted in The Court Leet Records of the Manor 
of Manchester, vol. ix., Appendix I., p. 251. 

2 Thus, in 1590, the Jury present the stairs leading to the river as in a bad 
state, and they order the "Myselayers for the time being, calling unto them the 
Constables, with six other honest neighbours, shall assess the inhabitants of the 
town for the repairing of the stairs ; and have appointed A. B., etc., to receive 
the same moneys so gathered, and to bestow the same, and give an account of 
the remainder to the next Jury " (ibid. vol. ii. p. 50). It was probable that 
such " Town Rates " or " Constables' Rates " were elsewhere levied by the Lord's 
Court (instead of by the Vestry as Church Rates), but the only other case of 
which we have definite mention is that of Lewes (Sussex), where, in 1772, at the 
" Lawday " it was " resolved that the Constables and Jury at the Court Leet or 
Lawday chosen shall and do continue to have power to make and collect a town tax 
for defraying the necessary expenses of the borough " (signed by 86 inhabitants). 
In 1822-1823 the Constables were still levying a "town tax" of a shilling in 
the pound (The History and Antiquities of Lewes, by T. W. Horsfield, 1824- 
1832, p. 211 ; see infra, p. 173). 



104 THE CO URT IN R UINS 

fees, paid officers could be remunerated, and already in the first 
half of the seventeenth century there were evidently such 
deputies in existence. In 1648 we see the Court appointing 
a permanent officer, the Deputy Constable, 1 who serves continu- 
ously year after year, on whom most of the work is gradually 
devolved, and to whom an ever-rising annual salary is awarded. 2 
Presently other salaried officers are added, in the shape of one, 
two, and eventually four Beadles, resplendent, a century ago, in 
" livery of brown, with scarlet collars, coat, waistcoat, breeches, 
and leggings." 3 

The Court thus constituted and served attempted 
courageously to cope with all the needs of the growing 
town. " Cows, horses, sheep, pigs, dogs all required regula- 
tion, and had it. Pigs, as the most perverse animals, required 
the firmest and most rigorous handling ; and hundreds of 
folio pages of Jury orders relate to swine alone and their 
numerous misdeeds and nuisances, their eating corn in the 
market and desecrating the churchyard." 4 We see the Jury 
not only enforcing the Assize of Bread and Beer, but also 
insisting that all the innumerable officers should duly make 
the presentments incidental to their several offices, from the 
use of unlawful weights and measures and the exposure for 
sale of " unbaited " beef, up to the enforcement of the obligation 

1 10th October 1648. "It is ordered by this Jury that whereas there is 
found much inconveniences by paying Deputy Constables' wages per particular, 
and that the said Deputy Constable, that shall be made choice of by and for the 
assistance of these Constables, shall have for all the service and attendance due 
and appertaining to the said office of Deputy Constable the sum of ten pounds 
per annum, and that to be paid by fifty shillings per quarter " (The Court Leet 
Records of the Manor of Manchester, vol. iv. p. 25). 

2 It was 20 in 1756, 30 in 1762, 80 in 1778, 150 in 1786, the same 
in 1802 when Nadin was appointed; 200 in 1805 ; in 1821 Lavender was 
appointed at 350, and raised in 1822 to 600, at which figure it remained until 
his death in 1833. Beadles, at first one and ultimately four, begin at 5 only, 
but end with 78 a year each (ibid. vols. iv. to x.). These salaries and many 
other expenses were charged in the Boroughreeve's accounts, which were annually 
submitted to the Court and passed by the Jury (for these accounts from 1612 to 
1776, see The Constables' Accounts of the Manor of Manchester, by J. P. Ear- 
waker, 3 vols., 1891-1892). In the nineteenth century, as described in a pre- 
vious volume, we find them presented to and passed by the Open Vestry, prior 
to their inclusion in the Poor Rate, in accordance with 18 George III. c. 19 of 
1778, which prescribed this for the accounts of the ordinary Parish Constables. 

3 Reminiscences of Old Manchester and Salford, by an Octogenarian, 1887, 
p. 18. 

4 Manchester Court Leet Records, by John Harland, Chetham Society, vol. 
63, 1864, p. viii. 



COURT LEET AND COURT BARON OF MANCHESTER 105 

to keep watch in turn, and the execution of various new By- 
laws forbidding waggons to stand in the streets or the playing 
of football or " tipcat " in the streets. 1 We gather that the 
presentments were made either by the Jury as a whole, by 
any of the officers, or even by individuals not officers, whose 
complaints occasionally led directly to orders by the Jury. 2 
The majority of the presentments and orders between 1731 
and 1846 relate either to market offences, the sale of unwhole- 
some or " unmarketable " meat or fish, " blowing veal," the use 
of deficient weights or short measures, or the cutting or gashing 
of hides ; or, on the other hand, to the innumerable nuisances 
of a growing city, from allowing swine to roam in the streets, 
or not repairing or cleaning the pavement, up to such modern 
annoyances as excessive factory smoke, 8 the stench from gas 
lime, 4 mock auctions, and the firing of pistols. 5 What is 
remarkable in the Manchester Court is the freedom with 
which it used what it conceived to be its power of making 
By-laws, by which it did not scruple to create new punishable 
offences. Thus in 1731 we find the Jury, "upon complaint 
made by several persons of people bringing milk to town 
suffering their horses to stand in the street with their cans on, 
whilst they sell their milk," peremptorily ordering the milk- 
sellers " that they shall not suffer them to stand in the streets, 
but that they shall set down their cans and put their horses 
in some stables ; or we do amerce them five shillings apiece." 6 
In 1732 the Jury orders that "the Scavengers do see that the 

1 The Court Led Records of the Manor of Manchester, 12th October 1608, vol. 
ii. pp. vi, 239-240. 

2 Thus, 18th April 1733, "whereas complaint hath been made to us that 
W. B. . . . suffers his large bull-dog to go abroad unmuzzled," the Jury orders 
that the dog is to be muzzled in future, or that in default W. B. shall be fined 
twenty shillings " (ibid. vol. vii. p. 20). 

3 Inl801,asa local annalist records, " the Court Leet Jury presented eleven 
owners of factories for not consuming their smoke ; they were fined respectively 
100, but the fines were respited to allow time for their being altered" 
(Manchester Historical Recorder, 1874, p. 65). 

4 The Court Leet Records of the Manor of Manchester, 20th October 1820 
(vol. xi. p. 6). 

Ibid. 21st October 1831 (vol. xi. pp. 257-258). 

6 1st October 1731 (ibid. vol. vii. p. 7). The By-law is repeated two years 
later, when the fine is raised to ten shillings, and the Jury "order that the 
Bellman shall publish this order three several times, in one week's time, at the 
Milk Market, and that the Constable pay him for his pains" (ibid. vol. vii. 
p. 26). It is again repeated in 1744, when the fine is raised to thirty-nine 
shillings (ibid. vol. vii. p. 131). 



io6 THE COURT IN RUINS 

dirt swept together shall not be left in heaps, but orders to be 
given to the usual inhabitants to remove the same, and not 
suffered to lie in heaps in the middle of the street." l At the 
same Court it is recorded that "we ... upon complaint 
made to us of servants and persons employed in looking after 
horses do frequently bring their horses into the public streets, 
and there dress them, which becomes a nuisance . . .do order 
that no person shall presume to do the like for the future, and 
that this be made public." 2 Next year it is commanded that 
" no person does for the future break any hogsheads ... in 
the street called Millgate ... or any other hogsheads within 
this Manor, without immediately cleansing and sweeping the 
same, on penalty of forty shillings for each offence." 8 In 
1737 it is ordained that "for the future no tanner or other 
person shall lay down raw hides in the street or passage beside 
the shambles," under penalty of twenty shillings for each 
offence. 4 

The Court had also, in a sense, important administrative 
functions. The most valuable incidents of the Manor were 
the profits of the Soke Mill and Oven, 6 and of the Market. 
The large and growing revenues yielded to the Lord by these 

1 The Court Leet Records of the Manor of Manchester, 5th May 1732 (vol. vii. 
p. 11). 

2 Ibid. 5th May 1732 (vol. vii. p. 10). 

8 Ibid. 18th April 1733 (vol. vii. p. 20). "Long Millgate was," down to 
Victorian times, "a leading thoroughfare, the highway to the North of England " 
(Reminiscences of Old Manchester and Salford, by an Octogenarian, 1887, p. 43). 

4 The Court Leet Records of the Manor of Manchester, 6th October 1737 (vol. 
vii. p. 66). 

6 Trie Charter of 1301 had continued the obligation of the Burgesses to 
grind their corn at the Lord's mill, to dry their malt at his kiln, and bake their 
bread at his oven. These monopolies continued to be actively enforced, for his 
profit, by his lessees and agents, giving rise, in the seventeenth and eighteenth 
centuries, to constant friction ; and, it is said, between 1550 and 1758 to no 
fewer than sixty lawsuits. The exactions of the lessees of the Soke Mill in 
1757 provoked the serious riots of that year, which led, in 1758, to a Local 
Act restricting the monopoly to the drying of malt. The monopoly had passed 
to the Trustees of the Manchester Grammar School, who were accorded, in partial 
compensation, a perpetual exemption from all local rates and taxes (32 
George II. c. 61). The remaining monopoly of the malt kiln continued in 
their hands, their profit or tax being twopence a bushel. This was said to 
induce brewers to settle outside the boundary (A Picture of Manchester, by 
Joseph Aston, 1816, p. 168). Nevertheless it was, in 1825, productive of no 
less than 2250 a year (Mediaeval Manchester and the beginnings of Lancashire, 
by James Tait, 1904, p. 50). This impost continued until the premises were 
sold to a railway company and the mill was discontinued (History of Corn- 
milling, by E. Bennett and J. Elton, 1898-1904). 



COURT LEET AND COURT BARON OF MANCHESTER 107 

monopolies were either leased or else collected under the 
direction of the Steward, who himself appointed his toll- 
gatherers and other agents. 1 But the Burgesses, the jurymen, 
and the officers of the Lord's Court had also their part to play. 
The annual Fair, for instance, held under a grant of 1227 at 
" Four Acres " or " Acrefield," represented, it is clear, an 
interference with ancient rights of commonfield agriculture 
and common pasture. 2 In the course of the eighteenth century 
this three-days' Fair became in the main a popular holiday, 
and in the nineteenth century a saturnalia. It yielded, however, 
no small revenue to the Lord, and was therefore continued in 
ancient form. 8 " On the second day the Steward of the Lord 
of the Manor (accompanied in procession by the Boroughreeve, 
the- two Constables, and a few persons who represent Burgesses 
who owe suit to the Court of the Lord) proclaims the right of 
the Lord of the Manor to hold the Fair in that place." 4 More 
important was the participation of the Court in the adminis- 
tration of the ancient prescriptive Market, which had been 
held weekly since at any rate 1282. Though the Lord 
collected his own dues, it would seem that the actual manage- 
ment of the various market-places and the making of market 
rules and By-laws were, like the presentment of offenders 
against them, in the hands of the Court. We find the Jury 
deciding the hour at which the markets for flour, wheat, and 
oats respectively shall be opened by the ringing of a bell, and 
ordering " that no person does hereafter presume to sell any 

1 In 1731 the Court amerced the "Receiver of the Tolls" ten shillings, for 
*not keeping a certain street clear (The Court Leet Records of the Manor of 

Manchester, vol. vii. p. 8). 

2 ' ' An ancient custom obtained of pelting the first animal driven into the 
Fair with acorns and striking it with whips. This has been very conjecturally 
explained as a survival of an original protest of the inhabitants against the 
interference with their grazing rights by the establishment of the Fair" 
(Mediaeval MancJiester and the Beginnings of Lancashire, by James Tait, 1904, 
p. 45). The Fair days were the 20th, 21st, and 22nd of September. From 
fair-time till February the Acrefield was common pasture ; from February till 
fair-time under arable cultivation. " As late as the beginning of the eighteenth 
century, corn growing on Acrefield had sometimes to be hastily cut and carried 
away before the fair or the people would have trampled it down " (ibid. p. 45). 

3 In 1708 Lady Ann Bland got a private Act enabling her to enclose the 
Acrefield and build St. Ann's Church ; but she had to submit to the condition 
that a space 30 yards wide should be left open for the Fair. 

4 A Picture of Manchester, by Joseph Aston, 1816, p. 215. The Fair grew 
to be such a nuisance in the nineteenth century that it was moved, first to 
Shudehill, and then to Campfield ; but it was not finally abolished until 1876. 



io8 THE COURT IN RUINS 

meal before such bell rings, on pain of punishment." l They 
order the " cheese market " to be removed from one place, and 
the " fish market " from another, assigning new sites at their 
discretion. 2 They insist on stopping the butchers from selling 
meat right into the night of Saturday, and even on Sunday 
morning, imposing a closing time of eleven o'clock at night. 3 
They forbid, under penalty of a fine, any sack of oats to be 
offered for sale that contains less than 18 strokes, Winchester 
measure ; or any horseload of coal weighing less than two 
hundred pounds, six score to the hundred, sack included ; or 
any cartload less than twelve hundred pounds. 4 They prohibit 
fruit stalls at this place or that, and exclude hucksters from 
the market. 6 In 1774 they remove the earthenware market 
which had grown up " in the street called Smithy Door " to 
f the north side of the old churchyard. 6 They exclude all dogs, 
whether " male or female," from the flesh market. 7 

How far these administrative decisions with regard to such 
important a source of Manorial revenue as the Manchester 
market were really left to the discretion of the Jury, and 
how far they represented only a convenient method of 
strengthening and promulgating the decisions of the Manorial 
officers, we cannqt now determine. What is clear from the 
records is that year by year the Court went on appointing 
its officers, making its presentments, and imposing its fines 
with unslackened zeal, and doing an undiminished amount of 
work right down to the nineteenth century. Meanwhile 
the township of Manchester which had in 1774 still only 
41,000 inhabitants had sprung rapidly into a densely 
crowded, populous city. The mere " keeping the peace " in 
this heterogeneous aggregation of factory operatives, newly 
gathered together from all parts, soon transcended the scanty 
powers wielded by the Boroughreeve and his two Constables. 
As officers of the Court Leet they were not Justices of the 

1 The Court Led Records of ike Manor of Manchester, 16th April 1735, 
vol. vii. p. 38. 

a Ibid. 29th April 1736, vol. vii. p. 48. 

3 Ibid. 27th April 1738, vol. vii. p. 70. 

* Ibid. 29th April 1736, vol. vii. p. 49. 

6 Ibid. 6th October 1737, vol. vii. p. 66 ; 22nd October 1741, vol. vii. 
p. 110. 

6 Ibid. 12th October 1774, vol. vii. p. 159. 

f Ibid. 14th April 1828, vol. xi. p. 189. 



COURT LEET AND COURT BARON OF MANCHESTER 109 

Peace, and the whele city had to depend for a police court 
on the good pleasure of half a dozen of the neighbouring 
country gentlemen, who took it in turns to ride into the 
town and commit offenders to the County gaol. 1 The nightly 
" watching " of such a town was utterly beyond the power 
of the two wealthy warehousemen or merchants who had been 
appointed Constables; and the obligation really enforced in 
the seventeenth century on all the inhabitants to " watch " 
in turn, bringing " each a Jack, a Sallet, and a Bill," 2 " or 
hire some sufficient person to do it," 3 was manifestly im- 
practicable among a wage-earning, factory-working population. 
In 1765, and again in 1792, Acts of Parliament were 
obtained by the principal inhabitants establishing a body 
of Police Commissioners for Manchester and Salford, with 
power to appoint paid watchmen, light the streets, and levy 
a police rate ; but so great was apparently the reluctance 
to these new measures that until 1797 practically nothing 
was done, and the dignity of the Court Leet remained un- 
impaired by any rival authority. As late as 1799 we find 
the Steward declaring the " new constitution of local govern- 
ment " to have been a failure, and urging the Jury to be 
active and all-embracing in their presentments. 4 

1 " The towns of Manchester and Salford and the adjacent towns and villages 
now united with them by contiguous streets and buildings comprise a popula- 
tion far exceeding 100,000, and form together the largest provincial town in 
Great Britain ; yet among this vast community there is not one resident Magis- 
trate nor any Municipal government but the officers of the Court Leet, among 
whom there is no permanent authority above that of a Petty Constable. . . . 
For the local administration of justice, five Magistrates of the County residing 
nearest to the place have, much to their honour, undertaken the whole of this 
tiurthensome duty ; one of them resorting to the town for this purpose every 
Monday, and two every Thursday, by a rotation among themselves " (Report 
of the Committee appointed to secure Reforms, etc., 1808). 

2 The Court Leet Records of the Manor of Manchester, 6th October 1568, 
vol. i. p. 123. 

3 Ibid. vol. vi. 

4 "Now, Gentlemen," said the Steward to the Jury in 1799, "what has 
happened since the erection of the new constitution of local government ? During 
the wet and dark winter months the streets have remained uncleansed and 
without lights ; for some time no watchmen or patrols were appointed security 
and temptation were thus afforded to plunder, and none could pass through the 
streets in safety ; escaping personal violence, they were in imminent personal 
danger from the numerous unguarded cellar-pits and various obstructions that 
everywhere interrupted their passage. . . . Though innumerable buildings are 
everywhere rising up and crowded together ... no party walls have been 
erected. . . . Streets are still crowded with annoyances which the power of the 
new Act was calculated to remove. Offenders are everywhere encouraged by 



1 10 THE CO URT IN R UINS 

A new period opens for Manchester with the nineteenth 
century. In its opening years, as we shall describe in a 
subsequent volume, the Police Commissioners began at last 
actively to bestir themselves, and they gradually organised 
something like an efficient service of watching, cleansing, 
and lighting the town. For the first eighteen years of the 
century the Police Commissioners were, however, completely 
dominated by the officers of the Lord's Court. The Borough- 
reeve for the time being not only presided at all the meetings, 
but also acted as Treasurer and as Chairman of the General 
or Finance Committee ; whilst the two Constables acted as 
Chairmen of the two principal administrative departments, 
namely, the Watch Committee and the Committee for Lighting 
and Scavengering. Such police force as existed, either night- 
watchmen or " patrols," was thus under their personal command. 
Many of the offences which had formerly been presented at 
the Lord's Court had now been forbidden by explicit clauses 
in the Police Commissioners' Acts, and were therefore sum- 
marily dealt with by the Justices, but the Commissioners 
went on making use also of the Lord's Court as a convenient 
tribunal, and the Jury did not discontinue its own activity, 
especially with regard to false weights and measures and 
unwholesome food. We even find this energetic Court at the 
beginning of the nineteenth century presenting and fining 
mill-owners for letting their cotton factories get into a dirty 
condition, whilst the most common of all nuisances punished 
at this date was the emitting of large quantities of smoke by 
the new steam engines. The Lord's Court remained, in fact, 
a dignified and influential tribunal. The Steward was a 
learned barrister, who opened the six-monthly " Court Leet 
and View of Frankpledge" with an elaborate proclamation. 
The jurymen were chosen by the Steward from among the 
wealthy leaders of the commercial and manufacturing class, 
always predominantly Tory and Anglican in opinion. The 
annually nominated Constables were invariably local magnates 
belonging to the industrial aristocracy of the town. In turn 
one of the past Constables served as Boroughreeve. 1 Down to 

the impunity with which their trespasses are committed" ("Charge of John 
Cross, Esquire," reprinted in The Court Leet Records of the Manor of Manchester, 
vol. ix. Appendix II.). 

1 "It has long been a rule in the choice of the Boroughreeve to select those 



COURT LEET AND COURT BARON OF MANCHESTER in 

1818, at any rate, all the "police and sanitary" government 
of Manchester remained unchallenged in the hands practically 
of the little knot of leading inhabitants who were summoned 
as jurymen to the Lord's Court and who took it in turns to 
serve as Boroughreeve. This supremacy was made possible, 
first, by the genuine public spirit which they showed in dis- 
charging the onerous duties of the Manorial offices ; and, 
secondly, by their practical wisdom in admitting into the 
governing circle not only the Churchwardens, Overseers, and 
Surveyors of Highways, but also the principal Whig and Non- 
conformist merchants and warehousemen. 

We have already described the advent, at Manchester in 
1818, of a turbulent Democracy, which first showed itself in 
tumultuous Vestry meetings at the Collegiate Church, and 
proceeded, about 1827, to swamp the Police Commissioners 
by qualifying, in hundreds, for membership of that body. 
This Democracy, made up for the most part of the small 
shopkeepers and publicans, felt itself completely excluded 
from the choice of Boroughreeve and Constables. The Steward 
did not summon its members as jurymen to the Lord's Court, 
still less were they appointed to any of the Manorial offices 
or as special constables. But the Constables' accounts, in- 
cluding the salary of the Deputy Constable, had, by statute, 
to be presented by the Overseers to the Vestry meeting, and 
had to be passed by that assembly. We have seen, in a 
preceding chapter, how eagerly the Eadicals seized, from 1820 
onward, this opportunity of cavilling at every item of the 
expenditure of such "unrepresentative" authorities as the 
Boroughreeve and Constables. At Leeds, it will be re- 
membered, it was the action of the " unrepresentative " Mayor 
and Corporation that was similarly objected to. The 
Manchester officers had neither the authority of Justices 
of the Peace nor the power to levy a County Rate. But 
they were backed up by the neighbouring County Justices, 
and above all, they were supported by the opulent Whigs of 
Manchester itself a class which at Leeds, where it was 
excluded from the Corporation, had made common cause with 
the Democracy. The result was that, though between 1818 

gentlemen who have already served the office of Constable " (A Picture of 
Manchester, by Joseph Aston, 1816, p. 27). 



112 THE COURT IN RUINS 

and 1837 there were uproarious scenes at the Vestry and 
Police Commissioners' meetings, from which the Boroughreeve 
was once forcibly ejected, 1 the governing circle of the Lord's 
Court held its own to the end. When in 1828 the constitu- 
tion of the Police Commissioners was reformed by a new Act, 
the Boroughreeve and Constables dominated the new elective 
body as successfully as they had the old one. The growing 
force of night and day police remained effectively under their 
control. The Lord's Court went on presenting offenders and 
enforcing its fines. Finally, with the change in public feeling 
which came with the Keforin Bill, and perhaps still more with 
the change in social habits which was inducing the wealthier 
inhabitants more and more to live outside the town, this 
opulent governing circle became tired of its duties. It was 
found increasingly difficult to find a suitable person to act 
as Boroughreeve, 2 and in 1836 and 1837 the individuals 
nominated preferred to pay heavy fines, running up to 100, 
rather than serve. 8 Eichard Cobden, then a young but 
prosperous calico printer, summoned as a juryman in 1837, 
drew up a protest calling for some change, which his 
colleagues on the Jury consented to sign. 4 Out of this 

1 " At a meeting of the Commissioners (1827) party spirit ran so high that 
the Boroughreeve, C. Cross, Esquire, who presided, was assaulted and forcibly 
ejected" (The Manchester Historical Recorder, 1874, p. 92). 

2 We have already mentioned (Vol. I. The Parish and the County, pp. 19, 63) 
that the Tyburn Ticket, exempting the holder from parish offices, fetched a much 
higher price in Manchester than elsewhere. In 1804 the two persons appointed 
Constables claimed exemption as holders of such tickets, but the Court refused to 
allow it. The case was carried to the King's Bench, which maintained the 
exemption (Mosley v. Stouehouse and Railton, llth February 1806 ; The Court 
Led Records of the Manor of Manchester, vol. ix. pp. 215, 216). 

3 Manchester Guardian, 12th October 1836. 

* We append this protest, which is of interest as the earliest publication by 
Cobden, as published in the Manchester Guardian, 25th October 1837. "The 
Jury serving at the Court Leet of the Lord of the Manor of Manchester cannot 
separate without publicly making known the very great difficulties they have had 
to encounter in the discharge of their most important duty, the selection of a 
Boroughreeve for this township. From the great increase of the trade of the 
places and the consequent conversion of the dwelling-houses situated in the centre 
of the town into warehouses, the manufacturers, merchants, and other principal 
inhabitants of Manchester have, with a very few exceptions, removed their 
residences into the out-townships ; but as the jurisdiction of this Court does not 
extend beyond the ancient and circumscribed limits of Manchester, the Jury have 
been placed in a difficult position, owing to the very restricted number of residents 
who are eligible to serve the office of Boroughreeve, and the difficulty is materi- 
ally increased by the aversion which now and for some time past has been mani- 
fested by the individuals selected to fill the office. In proof of which, at the 



COURT LEET AND COURT BARON OF MANCHESTER 113 

grew the movement, headed by Cobden and the Brothers 
Potter, for the incorporation of the Borough. " Is Man- 
chester," indignantly asked Cobden at a public meeting, " to 
be governed from Rolleston Hall, in Staffordshire ? " l 

last Court Leet the person named for Boroughreeve voluntarily incurred a large 
pecuniary penalty rather than accept the office ; and again, on the present occa- 
sion the individual appointed has declined to serve, and thus subjected himself 
to a still heavier fine. But so far from there being a prospect of any diminution 
of this difficulty in future, the Court has deemed it necessary to declare that, 
seeing the fear of pecuniary penalties is insufficient, it will proceed by indictment 
against all such as may refuse to accept its appointment. In the meanwhile the 
changes of abode referred to are still going on, and it is known that many indi- 
viduals, to escape from the jurisdiction of this Court, are now preparing to remove 
to the out-townships ; from which the Jury are of opinion that the difficulties of 
their successors at the next Court Leet will be much increased, and possibly 
they 'may be compelled, in the absence of proper persons, to make choice of an 
unfit individual to hold the most important office in the town. The Jury regard 
such a state of things as highly inimical to the best interests, and derogatory to 
the just dignity, of this the second town of the Empire, and they earnestly hope 
and recommend that immediate steps may be taken to remedy the evil." This 
was signed by the whole fifteen jurymen, among them being such leading indus- 
trial magnates as Daniel Broadhurst, William M'Connel, and Edmund Potter, 
as well as Richard Cobden himself. 

1 Manchester Guardian, 10th February 1838. Rolleston Hall was the resid- 
ence of the Lord of the Manor. A Charter was granted in 1838, but, owing to 
political and legal difficulties, it was not until 1842 that it was confirmed by 
Act of Parliament. In 1846 the Town Council bought from Sir Oswald Mosley, 
for the enormous sum of 200,000, the Manor and all the rights and incidents ; 
and the Lord's Court, regarded as a symbol of feudalism and a remnant of the 
past Tory supremacy, was allowed quietly to lapse. The Manor had iieen worth 
in 1282, 131 ; in 1665 (with shrunken area), 212 ; in 1579 it was sold for 
3000 ; in 1596 a Mosley bought it for 3500 ; the town might have bought 
it in 1808 for 90,000, but thought the price excessive ; by 1846 unearned 
increment had brought it to 200,000 ! (see figures given in Mediaeval Man- 
chester and the Beginnings of Lancashire, by James Tait, 1904, p. 37). 

Some of the smaller towns of Lancashire seem to have had, between 1689 
and 1835, a local government under the Lord's Court, on the same lines as that 
of Manchester. ' ' The towns of Great and Little Bolton the two Boltons, as 
they were commonly called had from time immemorial . . . been subject to 
the local authority of the Lords of the respective Manors. . . . Once a year in 
each place there was a Court Leet, the agent of the Lord of the Manor being the 
presiding authority, and this Court would proceed to appoint a Boroughreeve 
as head officer, and a staff of officials as Constables, Ale-tasters, Pig-ringers, Bell- 
men, and other functionaries." As at Manchester, "the powers of the Courts 
Leet were not extinguished or absorbed on the establishment in 1792 of a 
statutory body of Street Commissioners, and the annual Court Leet visit to 
Church on the first Sunday morning after election, preceded as it was by a grand 
breakfast the same morning at one of the leading inns, used to be a ceremonial 
invested with much consequence" (Annals of Bolton, by James Clegg, 1888, 
sec. 2, p. 9). Latterly, at any rate, there was a paid Deputy Constable with paid 
assistants (Autobiography of a Lancashire Lawyer, by John Taylor, 1883, p. 32). 
Much the same conditions existed at Rochdale, though we do not gather that 
its chief officer was styled Boroughreeve (History of Rochdale, by Henry Fishwick, 
1889, p. 62) ; and at other towns in South Lancashire and Cheshire. 

In the ancient town of Ashtou-under-Lyne, we have an instance of the 

VOL. II. PT. I I 



ii 4 THE COURT IN RUINS 



(d) The Prevalence and Decay of the Lord's Court 

We have now set before the reader a description of each 
of the types of Lord's Courts that we find exercising any of 
the functions of Local Government between 1689 and 1835. 
It remains to be considered how widely these types prevailed 
in the England and Wales of that period, and at what rate 
their activities gradually dwindled away. On these points we 

effective survival of the Court of the Manor as a local governing authority. 
The owner of the township in the nineteenth century waa the Earl of Stam- 
ford and Warrington, drawing, in 1844, a rental of 30,000 a year from some 
two thousand tenants. Though a body of Street Commissioners had been 
established under Local Acts, the admirably preserved records of the "Court 
Leet and View of Frankpledge and Court Baron of the Manor of Ashton- 
under-Lyne," confirmed by a full account of its proceedings for the year 1844, 
make it clear that, down to the middle of the nineteenth century at any rate, 
it was this Court that was the most important local governing authority. 

What we may call its Court Baron side, the trial of civil actions, though 
mentioned as active by Aikin (1795) and Corry (1825), had apparently fallen 
into disuse after the establishment of a Court of Requests by Local Act of 1808. 
The ancient Manorial sokemill had long been disused. But throughout the whole 
of the nineteenth century the Steward annually proclaimed, by placards and adver- 
tisements in the newspapers, the date of the approaching Court at the ancient 
Manor Courthouse, issuing special summonses to the existing Jury and officers, and 
also to the persons elected by him to serve as jurymen for the ensuing twelve 
months. At nine o'clock, we are told in 1844, " the Court is opened by proclama- 
tion. The Foreman of the Jury delivers in a written verdict," in which, at the 
Michaelmas Court, proper persons are " presented " to serve. The " verdict " of 
the Jury then proceeds to present ' ' the several offences that had been inspected 
during the preceding six months, which the Steward reads in a loud voice in the 
hearing of every one present ; and at the conclusion of the reading undertakes, 
as far as Lord Stamford is concerned, to remedy without unnecessary delay the 
grievances presented in the verdict." The presentments (which, when they 
related to freehold property, were sometimes "traversed" by the defendant ; see 
a case, 29th April 1795) were numerous and important. The Manor contained a 
considerable number of small freeholders, or holders of leases for long terms or 
several lives, who, in their sub-lettings, often proved "careless or avaricious 
landlords, whom neither the Local Acts nor common law could effectually reach." 
Hence the presentments of the Jury were used, both by Lord Stamford's agents 
and by the Street Commissioners, as convenient means of compelling such land- 
lords to provide proper sanitary conveniences, to maintain pavements and fencing, 
to provide and cleanse drains, and to repair the roads. "When the Steward 
had finished the reading of the verdict, he uniformly directs one of the 
officers of the Leet to call over the names of the suitors which comprehend 
all the tenants of Lord Stamford, and also all the freeholders (or frankpledgers, 
as they were anciently called) without the Manor, whether they be tenants of 
his Lordship or not. In cases where the suitors appear by proxy, when their 
names are called in Court a charge of twopence per head is exacted as an 
acknowledgment, and one of the Bailiffs of the Court receives the same in a 
leathern purse attached to the end of a rod ten or twelve feet in length. . . . 
The Steward then addresses the Jury from the bench on the matters to be 



PREVALENCE AND DEC A Y OF THE LORDS COURT 115 

do not find ourselves able to give any very accurate information. 
No list or other systematic record of these Courts has ever 
been made. Their proceedings were never reported in the 
newspapers nor recorded by any superior tribunal. There is 
reason to believe that the Steward, interested only in the 
business relating to the properties of the several tenants of the 

inquired of by them, embracing the subjects laid down in the law books (see 
Kitchin on Courts) as coming under the cognisance of Courts Leet ; and as 
occasion requires, he directs their attention to special circumstances like a 
Judge of Assize. ... It is customary for about sixty or eighty of the gentle- 
men of the town and neighbourhood to dine together at the Commercial 
Hotel, the Steward of the Manor in the chair. The interchange of goodfellow- 
ship that takes place on these occasions between the representative of Lord 
Stamford and his tenantry contributes in no small degree to diffuse in Ashton- 
under-Lyne a feeling of attachment to his Lordship's person and family ; and to 
perpetuate from one generation to another a tacit acquiescence in the verdicts of 
his Court Leet Jury, and to preserve from oblivion and extinction many of the 
ancient rights, liberties, and customs of the Manor." The decisions of the Court 
were, in fact, fully enforced. The fines imposed on defaulters and offenders 
were included in a Manorial distress warrant, given to the Bailiffs after every 
Court by the Steward. When any person contumaciously refused to pay, the 
Bailiff of the Manor simply seized his goods without further authority and sold 
them under the hammer. 

The Ashton Court is remarkable as continuing down to the present day (1907) 
not only to be held, but actually to exercise local government functions. Every 
year the Court is held in ancient form, a " Mayor of the Manor, two High 
Constables, four Constables, twelve Bylaw-men, one Inspector of Weights and 
Measures, one Pounder, one Ale-taster, and three Bellmen " being appointed, 
together with a Jury of thirteen and a foreman. Presentments of nuisances are 
still regularly made by the Jury, to the number of half a dozen or so annually, 
and the persons in default are amerced. What is perhaps more remarkable is 
that the proceedings are still fully effective. The persons presented pay the 
fines imposed and remedy the nuisances complained of. No resistance is met 
with, but in case of default we are informed by the Steward of the Manor that 
he would have no hesitation in issuing a warrant and distraining for the fine. 
The presentments now refer usually to the highways, the persons presented 
being the Municipal Corporations, district councils, and other highway authorities, 
or occasionally private individuals. Even such great potentates as the Town 
Council of Manchester and the London and North-Western Railway Company 
are similarly treated (MS. Records, Manor Court of Ashton-under-Lyne, 1795- 
1906, for access to which we are indebted to the present Earl of Stamford and 
the trustees of the estate, and to Mr. Hall, the courteous Steward of the Manor ; 
the graphic account of the actual proceedings of the Court in 1844, given 
by the then Steward for the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the State of Large 
Towns and Populous Districts, Appendix to First Report, vol. ii. pp. 71-73 ; 
Description of the Country from Thirty to Forty Miles Round Manchester, by J. 
Aikin, 1795 ; History of Ashton-under-Lyne, by J. Butterworth, 1823 ; another, 
by the same, 1827 ; Historical Account of Ashton, by E. Butterworth, 1842 ; 
Illustrations of the Customs of a Manor in the North of England, by S. 
Hibbert-Ware, 1822 ; Custom-Roll and Rental of the Manor of Ashton, 1422, by 
J. Harland (Chetham Society, vol. Ixxiv. 1869) ; History of the County Palatine 
and Duchy of Lancaster, by Edward Baines, vol. ii. pp. 300-329 of edition of 
1888-1893 ; History of Lancashire, by John Corry, 1825, vol. ii. pp. 497-523 ; 
Mediceval Manchester and the Beginnings of Lancashire, by James Tait, 1904). 



1 16 THE CO URT IN R UINS 

Manor, often omitted to enter the lengthy presentments of 
the Jury about the management of the commonfield agriculture, 
the petty nuisances of the hamlet, and the appointment of 
Fieldsmen and Finders. Such scanty archives as the Stewards 
did keep are now for the most part hidden away among title 
deeds of property in family muniment rooms or solicitors' 
offices. 1 Even where antiquarian zeal has led to the printing 
and publication of Manor Eolls, this has, in almost all cases, 
chosen rather the earlier periods and has stopped short of the 
eighteenth century. 

At the outset of our inquiries we shared the common 
opinion that these Manorial jurisdictions had, so far at any 
rate as Local Government functions were concerned, come 
silently to an end before our period. 2 But as we extended 
our researches from County to County this impression wore off. 
1 We are even inclined to suggest that, in 1689, the holding of 
a Manorial Court for the suppression of nuisances, the manage- 
ment of the common pasture, and, less frequently, of the 
commonfield agriculture and the appointment of Constables 
and other officers for the district, was, in the thousands of 
Manors that must still have existed, the rule rather than the 
exception. It is true that already in the middle of the 
seventeenth century we hear that the Lord's Court is held " in 
some lazy lordships not at all, but left as a thing obsolete and 
useless." 8 At the Restoration it was even thought necessary 

1 The collections of Manor Rolls of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries 
most easily accessible to the student arc those of the Manors in the hands of 
such public authorities as the Commissioners of Woods, Forests, and Land 
Revenues (a list of about 100 of whose Manors is given in a Parliamentary Paper 
of 6th July 1845), and the Ecclesiastical Commissioners, who have in their 
London offices at least as many. To both collections we have most courteously 
been permitted access. The extensive collections at the Public Record Office 
(see its List and Index, No. 6), the British Museum, Lambeth Palace, the 
Bodleian Library, and the Oxford and Cambridge Colleges seem to relate 
principally to the earlier centuries. A useful list of Manor records in the 
principal public depositories is given in The Manor and Manorial Records, by 
N. J. Hone, 1906, pp. 243-301. 

2 So competent an antiquarian as the late F. B. Bickley could state that by 
1700, " and indeed as early as the middle of the seventeenth century, the Lords 
of the Manor had lost the jurisdiction they possessed in earlier times, and the 
rolls become merely registers of the transfer of land by succession, surrender, 
sale, or mortgage" (History of Dulwich College, by W. Young, 1889, vol. ii. 
chap. ii. on the Court Rolls, by F. B. Bickley, p. 266). 

3 Pacts Consultum, a Directory to the Public Peace, briefly describing the 
Antiquity, Extent, Practice, and Jurisdiction of Several Country Corporation 
Courts, especially the Court Leet, by Judge Jenkins, 1657, p. 2. 



PREVALENCE AND DECAY OF THE LORD'S COURT 117 

to provide that where the Lord's Court had for any reason not 
appointed a Constable, two Justices might temporarily exercise 
that power " until the Lord of the Leet shall hold his Court." 1 
A somewhat later writer complains that "through the ignorance 
of unskilful Stewards this Court is almost become a shadow, 
so that in many places Justices of the Peace swear the 
Constables, and the inhabitants present the nuisances at the 
Sessions which ought to be presented here, whereby the Lord 
loses the benefits of his fines and amercements, and in time 
may totally be divested of the whole jurisdiction and profit of 
his Leet, of which inconveniences some Lords are less sensible 
because they never knew the true value and benefit of this 
jurisdiction." 2 On the other hand, as evidence that these 
Courts had not become a negligible quantity, we may note 
that the celebrated " Orders and Directions " of the Privy 
Council of 1630 definitely placed no small share of the 
responsibility for the enforcement of local police regulations 
upon the Stewards of the Lord's Courts. 8 These Courts had, 
indeed, still so much vitality in 1659 that an ardent Utopian 
of that date thought it necessary to propose " that all Lords of 
Manors keeping constant Courts Baron and Courts Leet or 
either of them shall discontinue the same, and shall have the 
value of the profits of their Courts," on a ten years' average, 
paid to them out of public funds ; whilst it was also to be 

1 13 and 14 Charles II. o. 12, sec. 15. 

2 Historical Antiquities of Hertfordshire, by Sir Henry Chauncy, 1700, p. 100. 

3 Among these "Orders and Directions" were the following: "That 
Stewards to Lords and Gentlemen, in keeping their Leets twice a year, do 
specially inquire upon those articles that tend to the reformation or punishment 
of common offences and abuses : as of Bakers and Brewers for breaking of 
Assizes ; of Forestallers and Regraters ; against Tradesmen of all sorts for selling 
with under weights, or at excessive prices, or things unwholesome, or things 
made in deceipt. Of people, breakers of houses ; common thieves and their 
receivers ; haunters of Taverns or Alehouses ; those that go in good clothes 
and fare well, and none know whereof they live ; those that be night-walkers ; 
builders of Cottages and takers in of inmates ; offences of Victuallers, Artificers, 
Workmen, and Labourers. That the petty Constables in all Parishes be chosen 
of the abler sort of Parishioners, and the office not to be put upon the poorer 
sort, if it may be : Watching in the night and Warding by day, and to be 
appointed in every Town and Village for apprehension of rogues and vagabonds 
and for safety and good order" (MS. Register, Privy Council, 1631 ; Orders 
and Directions, together with a Commission for the Better Administration of 
Justice, 1630 ; see The State of the Poor, by Sir F. M. Eden, 1797, vol. i. p. 156 ; 
History of Vagrants and Vagrancy, by C. J. Ribton-Turner, 1887, p. 152 ; 
Early Histoi-y of English Poor Relief , by E. M. Leonard, 1900, p. 158). 



ii8 THE COURT IN RUINS 

ordained that " all Hundred Courts " were " to cease, and to 
be for ever hereafter discontinued." l And we have indirect 
evidence of the continued activity of the Lord's Court in the 
fact that neither the Minutes of Vestries nor the orders of 
Petty and Quarter Sessions during the seventeenth century 
contain, so far as we have noticed, any references to the 
appointments of Constables by the Justices. 2 The proceedings 
of the Middlesex Justices at the end of the seventeenth and 
the beginning of the eighteenth century contain, indeed, 
frequent references to the Constables appointed, not by the 
Justices but by the various Lord's Courts. In 1727 Parlia- 
ment expressly directed the Turnpike Act of that year " to be 
read at every Leet." 3 Even as late as 1788-1793 we find 
the Quarter Sessions of Somersetshire and Oxfordshire thinking 
it worth while formally to recommend " to Lords of Leets " 
and " to Stewards of Courts " that they should take care to 
appoint none but efficient and trustworthy Constables. 4 

Nevertheless, though thousands of Manorial Courts were 
being held, no student of the records can fail to become aware, 
from the very beginning of the eighteenth century, that these 
ancient tribunals were being rapidly superseded by other 
forms of social organisation. To take first the Court Baron 
side. The progress of enclosure during the sixteenth and 
seventeenth centuries must have greatly diminished the 
business of the Courts. The lack of any standing administra- 
tive machinery, and of explicit Corporate rights to the land 
even the absence of publicity and the want of Corporate 
personality and perpetual succession disabled the tenants of 
the Manor and the Jury of the Court from withstanding the 
constant pressure for the substitution of complete individual 
ownership for the ancient communal management of the 
cornfields and the hay meadows. In the course of the 
eighteenth century, the rapid succession of Inclosure Acts, of 

1 Chaos, an interesting anonymous scheme for reconstruction, 1659, p. 
26. 

2 In 1706, in the Vestry of St. Giles-in-the-Fields, "the Foreman of the 
Leet Jury is desired to move the Court that another Constable and Headborough 
be added for the first and second divisions of the parish " (Account of the 
Hospital and Parish of St. Giles-in-the-Fields, by J. Parton, 1822, p. 282). 

8 1 George II. c. 19. 

* MS. Minutes, Quarter Sessions, Somerset, Epiphany, 1788 ; Bristol Gazette, 
24th January 1788 ; Oxford Journal, 18th May 1793 



PREVALENCE AND DECA Y OF THE LORD'S COURT 119 

which, between 1689 and 1835, over 4000 were passed, 1 
deprived thousands of Manorial Courts of their business 
connected with the co-operative management of agriculture, 
which had once formed so large a part of the Local Govern- 
ment of the village. 2 Along with this agricultural revolution 
must be noted the steady decline in the number of copyholds 
and customary freeholds, which in Sir Edward Coke's time 
had made up one-third of England, 8 but which, in the course 
of the next two centuries, were always becoming enfranchised 
into complete freeholds, or merged in larger properties. There 
remained to many a Court Baron only one public function, 
that of the decision of petty actions for debt and trespass. But 
the " Homage " of freeholders and copyholders, even when free- 
holders and copyholders still attended the Lord's Court, hardly 
afforded the best judicial tribunal for civil suits. Moreover, 
in the vast majority of Manors there came to be no freehold 
tenants liable to escheat to the Lord, and the copyholders 
shrunk up in number, or entirely ceased to exist. Whether 
or not from this cause, the hearing of petty debt cases was 
generally discontinued ; 4 and we see this function passing 

1 Report of House of Commons Committee on Agricultural Distress, 1836, 
p. 501. 

2 " A strangely large proportion of the Inclosure Acts . . . sounded the 
death -knell each for one Manorial Court" (North Riding Quarter Sessions 
Records, by Rev. J. C. Atkinson, vol. vii. p. xxiii). It must be remembered that, 
over a large part of England, the enclosure of the commonfields had taken place 
without statutory authority (see The Domesday of Inclosures, 1517-1518, by 
I. S. Leadam (Royal Historical Society, 1897); "The Movements for the In- 
closure and Preservation of Open Lands," by Sir R. Hunter, in Journal of the 
Royal Statistical Society, June 1897). Of the 2000 Inclosure Acts of the 
eighteenth century, a large proportion related to south-east England ; and this 
is true, though to a lesser extent, of the 2000 Acts of 1800-1835. These 
Inclosure Acts, and the facts with which they deal, have, until lately, escaped 
proper study. Much light is thrown upon them by the work of Dr. Gilbert 
Slater, The English Peasantry and the Enclosure of Comrnonfields (1907). 

3 Bagnall v. Tucker, in Reports of Divers Choice Cases, etc., by R. Brown- 
low, 1675, vol. ii. p. 156 ; Treatise on Copyholds, by C. Watkins, 4th edition, 
1825, voL i. p. 6. 

4 The history of petty debt courts does not fall within our scope, but we 
may mention that we have found it impossible (as we did also in the analogous 
cases of the County Courts and Hundred Courts) to form any idea of the extent 
to which the Manorial Courts continued actually to serve in this capacity 
between 1689 and 1835, or how they fulfilled this duty. Our first impression 
was that this particular function of the Lord's Court had become almost entirely 
disused. Thus we find the Privy Council in 1664 establishing, by a grant 
under the Great Seal, "a Court of Record to try small actions," in response to 
a petition from the inhabitants of Stepney and Hackney, who alleged that these 
Manova formed "a Liberty exempt both from the Sheriff's Bailiffs or the Knight 



tio THE COURT IN RUINS 

silently away to the " Courts of Conscience " or " Courts of 
Bequests," established by particular statutes of the eighteenth 
century. Presently the Lord's Court, as a Court Baron, in 
distinction from a Customary Court and a Court Leet, comes 
to be held only in the exceptional cases (such as Epworth) 

Marshal's men " (MS. Acts of Privy Council, 14th and 21st September 1664). 
The Manorial Courts were not mentioned, although we know that they were 
held ; and we can only assume that they did not then deal with pleas of debt. 
We read indeed, in 1728, that "of late this authority is seldom executed in some 
Manors, for that Courts Baron, which at first were held every three weeks, are 
now held no oftener than Courts Leet, viz. twice in the year. But . . . many 
Manors still retain their ancient power and authority in this particular " 
(Practice of Courts Leet and Courts Baron, by Sir William Scroggs, 4th edition, 
1728, pp. 195-200). Further investigation into Manor records showed us that 
a large number of Courts continued in vigorous activity as petty debt tribunals. 
In not a few cases (as we have mentioned in the case of Bamburgh, Northumber- 
land) we find tenants of the Manor fined for venturing to take their petty debt 
cases to any other tribunal. In 1774 we hear that the Court Baron sits every 
three weeks in the Manor of Trematon, Cornwall, and we see its Bailiff arresting 
a defendant who had been condemned to pay over 14 for damages and costs. 
On appeal its action was upheld by the King's Bench (Rowland v. Veale, in 
Reports of Cases by H. Cowper, 1783, pp. 18-22). "Down to about 1800," 
says the historian of an Oxfordshire Manor, "it appears from the Court books 
cognisance was taken of causes under forty shillings at Courts held in Bampton " 
(History of Bampton, by J. A. Giles, 1st edition, 1847, p. 104). On the other 
hand, when, in 1764, the Lord of the Manor of Warrington, Cheshire, sought 
to revive the jurisdiction in civil suits, his action seems to have been resisted 
as an innovation (Annals of the Lords of Warrington and Bewsey from 1587, 
by W. Beamont, 1873, pp. 116-117). We see the civil suits gradually falling 
into desuetude in the Manor of Havering atte Bower in Essex, where its Court, in 
1822, had heard no pleas of debt since 1776, none of replevin since 1790, and 
none of ejectment since 1806 ; but was, as we have already mentioned, never- 
theless required by the Court of King's Bench in 1822 to entertain a petty debt 
suit (R. v. Steward of Havering atte Bower; see p. 18). So, in 1817, the 
Court Baron of the great Manor of Wakefield, Yorkshire, was found in full 
activity as a civil debt court (Holroyd v. Breare and Holmes, in Reports of Cases, 
etc., by R. V. Barnewall and E. H. Alderson, 1822, vol. ii. p. 473). Up and down 
the country, it is clear, there were, especially in the North of England, scores 
of such Courts still hearing pleas of debt and trespass up to forty shillings, 
right down to the reign of Victoria. Yet so little was heard of them that it 
could be said by a great authority in 1825 that actions were at that date "now 
very rarely, indeed, if ever brought" in the Court Baron (Treatise on Copyholds, 
by C. Watkins, 4th edition, 1825, vol. ii. p. 382). In 1833 these tribunals 
were included in the inquiries of a Royal Commission, and they were incident- 
ally reported as deciding civil actions in scores of places from Northumberland 
to Cornwall (Fifth Report of Royal Commission on Courts of Common Law, 
1833, pp. 6, 20, 69, 77, 103, 133, 146, 191, etc.). In 1840 a return describes 
more than fifty Courts Baron in Northumberland, more than a score in Durham, 
half a dozen in Yorkshire, half a dozen in Wales, and half a. dozen elsewhere 
(besides Hundred Courts, Honour Courts, and Borough Courts), still acting as 
petty debt Courts, and dealing, in some instances, with hundreds of pleas 
annually (House of Commons Return of Courts of Request, 1840). The 
County Courts Act of 1846 (9 and 10 Vic. c. 95) allowed Lords to surrender 
their civil jurisdictions, to be merged in the new County Courts ; and the 
amending Act of 1867 (30 and 31 Vic. c. 142) formally deprived them of any 



PREVALENCE AND DECAY OF THE LORD'S COURT 121 

" where a body of freeholders have a set of customs relating 
to fines, heriots, regulation of commons, and the like, resembling 
the customs of copyhold tenants." * 

The Court Leet function of the Manorial Court the 
suppression of public nuisances, the enforcement of personal 
obligations, and the appointment of police officers was 
simultaneously being eaten into by newer forms of social 
organisation. After the first quarter of the seventeenth century 
we do not find Parliament conferring any jurisdiction upon 

outstanding jurisdiction in matters falling within thatf of these Courts (Treatise 
on the Law of Copyholds, by John Scriven, 7th edition, 1896, p. 434 ; see article 
in Nineteenth Century, October 1897 ; A History of English Law, by Prof. 
W. S. Holdsworth, 1903, p. 418). 

1 Law of Copyholds, by C. I. Elton and H. J. H. Mackay, 2nd edition, 
1893, p. 300. Where the Lord's Court has long since abandoned any functions 
of Local Government, and has become purely formal, we sometimes find it still 
making presentments of encroachments on the ' ' Waste " of the Manor. Thus 
in the records of the "General Court Baron" of the Manor of Titburst and 
Kendalls in Hertfordshire (access to which we owe to the kindness of Mr. E. C. 
Phillimore), though any local government work had long before fallen into 
desuetude, we find, on 22nd June 1801, two presentments of persons making 
enclosures of the waste of the Manor. So at Barnes (Surrey), where the Lord's 
Court is still (1906) held, we read of a proclamation of the Court on 27th July 
1894 against a tenant illegally digging gravel, and of his being "fined" 50 
by the Lord of the Manor (History of the Parish of Barnes, by J. E. Anderson, 
1900, p. 11). 

More usually the Lord's Court became simply an opportunity for recording 
alienations of copyhold property, when a complacent Steward entertained at 
dinner a score of the Lord's tenantry. The Court was sometimes revived for 
this purpose after long desuetude. Thus " the Reeve and Constable of the Leet 
of Tunstall, . . . important civil officers in their day," had apparently ceased to 
be appointed after 1691. "But in the year 1826," the Lord's Court "was 
revived and has been since held annually as an audit for chief rents, for swear- 
ing in Constables, etc., and as a festive meeting and bond of connection between 
the Lord and his tenants" (The Borough of Stoke on Trent, by John Ward, 
1843, p. 78). It is interesting to note that as early as three centuries ago the 
dinner had already become an important part of the ceremony. At Worplesdon 
(Surrey) the customs of the Manor formally recite that "the Homage and 
officers attending the Court and the Lawday have their dinner at the Queen's 
charge," the Queen owned the Manor, "but on a special Court at the charge 
of the party desiring it." Similarly, at Dymock (Gloucestershire), Whiston 
and Claines (Worcestershire), Alvechurch (ditto), and many other Manors. In 
the Manor of Earl's Court (Middlesex), it is expressly provided that "any 
tenant may call a Court at his own charge, without suit unto the Lord ; the 
Steward and tenants to have their dinner provided and the Steward to be 
pleased for his pains" (Treatise on Copyholds, by C. Watkins, 4th edition, 1825, 
pp. 487, 545, 548, 549, 559). In the Manor of Bishopstoke (Hants), in 1752, 
the Jury "present that the Lord Bishop of the Manor ought at every Court 
to find and allow unto the Jury and Homage a dinner of plain butcher's meat 
and something in moderation to drink, in lieu of the pains and trouble they are 
at in attending and doing the business of the same Court, agreeably to the 
customs of this and other Manors belonging to the bishopric" (MS. Manor 
Rolls, Bishopstoke, 1752). 



1 22 THE CO URT IN R UINS 

the Court Leet. 1 From the very beginning of the eighteenth 
century we become aware of the rapid supersession of its 
functions, sometimes by new statutory bodies of Street 
Commissioners or Turnpike Trustees to be hereafter de- 
scribed ; sometimes by the Vestry of the Parish ; sometimes 
by the Justices of the County. The presentments at the 
Lord's Court become steadily more perfunctory, often de- 
generating into a careless return of " omnia bene," or, as 
in a Welsh Manor in 1804, "all well but the pigs." 2 
In some large and relatively populous parishes, such as 
Woolwich and Tooting, we see the Vestry assuming the 
right to pass the By-laws which elsewhere would have been 
considered the business of the Lord's Court. 8 In the same 
years the Middlesex Justices in Quarter Sessions were taking 
upon themselves freely to quash particular appointments of 
Constables made by the Lord's Courts, discharging some 
persons 4 and appointing others as they thought fit. Towards 
the end of the eighteenth century it is not uncommon to find 
Vestries nominating Constables. Presently their appoint- 
ment by the Justices, in default of the Lord's Court, became 
the common form. In 1800, for instance, we gather that in 
the extensive district of the Newport Three Hundreds of 
Buckinghamshire, there were only four parishes in which the 
Constables were still appointed at the Lord's Court. 8 By 
1829 we are told that " Petty Constables, though sometimes 
appointed in Court Leet according to ancient practice, and 
occasionally sworn into office either by the Lord of such 

1 The last instance is 21 James I. c. 21 (1623), as to innkeepers' offences. 
8 MS. Manor Roll, Maenol (in Diocese of Bangor), 1804, among the archives 
of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners. 

3 See our preceding volume, The Parish and the County, pp. 56-60, 105, etc. 

4 In contrast, we may note that when, in 1652, a Constable for the Hundred 
of King's Wimborne in Hampshire complained to the Judge at Assizes that he 
had not been relieved of his office, though his year had expired, the Court would 
not do more than direct the Steward for the Manor of King's Wimborne to 
choose another person (MS. Circuit Books, Western Circuit, 9th July 1662). 

6 These were Bow, Brickhill, Castlethorpe, Haversham, and Stoke Ham- 
mond. The words "Court Leet "are written against these in MS. Minutes, 
Quarter Sessions, Buckinghamshire, Easter, 1800. Nevertheless in Gloucester- 
shire, and doubtless elsewhere, every appointment by the Justices continued for- 
mally to be made only ' ' until the Lord of the Leet shall hold his Court and 
appoint another in his stead " (MS. Minutes, Quarter Sessions, Gloucestershire, 
Epiphany, 1825 ; see for a similar form, A Guide to the Practice of the Court of 
Quarter Sessions for the County of Somerset, by John Jesse, Junior, 1815, p. 22), 



PREVALENCE AND DEC A Y OF THE LORD'S COURT 123 

Court or by Justices out of session, are now generally 
nominated by their respective Parish Vestries, and sworn 
into office by the Justices at the Quarter Sessions, which is, 
on every account, the better and more regular mode." l " In 
the rural districts," wrote Chadwick only a few years later, 
"the Courts Leet have generally fallen into desuetude." 2 Here 
and there some valuable source of revenue kept the Lord's 
Court alive right down to Victorian times ; it might be, as 
in the case of the Great Court of the Manor of Wakefield, 
the right to inspect and exact fees for standardising the 
weights and measures over an area of 230 square miles; 8 
it might, as at Bradford, 4 Devonport, 6 and various other 
places, be a profitable market, with its power to levy toll ; 
it might, as at Farringdon in Berkshire, be a prescriptive 
right to levy a " toll traverse " on cheese and corn arriving 
in the Manor; 6 or it might, as at Manchester, Leeds, Wake- 

1 Practical Guide to the Quarter Sessions, by W. Dickinson and T. N. Tal- 
fourd, 1829, p. 60. 

2 Poor Law Commissioners' General Report on the Sanitary Condition of the 
Labouring Population, 1842, p. 296. 

3 See Court Rolls of the Manor of Wakefield, by W. P. Baildon, vol. i. 
(1274-1297), 1901 ; History of Wakefield, by Thomas Taylor, 1886. The 
Manorial rights to this inspection of weights and measures, when actually exer- 
cised, were preserved in 22 and 23 Vic. c. 56, sec. 10 (1859), and 41 and 42 Vic. 
c. 49, sec. 49 (1878). The Act 55 and 56 Vic. c. 18 enabled local authorities 
to buy out the owners of such rights. The West Riding County Council had to 
pay 5000 in compensation in 1892 to get the function into its own hands (Our 
Weights and Measures, by H. J. Chaney, 1897, pp. 54-55). In the Manors of 
St. Giles-in-the-Fields and Stepney, Middlesex, the Manorial officers continued 
to be chosen for this purpose during the eighteenth century, and to levy fees and 
fines on persons using faulty weights and measures. These rights were upheld 
in the Court of King's Bench ; see Duke of Bedford v. Alcock, 1 Wils. 248 ; 
Sheppard v. Hall in Reports of Cases, etc., by R. V. Barnewall and J. L. Adolphus, 
1833, vol. iii. p. 433 ; Morning Advertiser, 4th January 1806 ; Treatise on Copy- 
holds, by John Scriven, 7th edition, 1896, p. 435. Similar jurisdictions con- 
tinued to be exercised in these and other London Manors during the early part 
of the nineteenth century (see, for instance, a case in Clerkenwell, in 1832, 
Wilcock v. Windsor and Others, in Reports of Cases, etc., by R. V. Barnewall and 
J. L. Adolphus, 1833, vol. iii. pp. 43-50). 

4 Historical Notes on the Bradford Corporation, by W. Cudworth, 1881, 
citing the case, Rawson v. Wright, in which this monopoly was successfully 
maintained in 1825. 

6 It is interesting to note that at Devonport, where the market yielded to 
the Lord of the Manor in 1830 a profit of nearly 3000 a year, the Lord's Court 
continued to appoint annually twelve "Constables for the Manor," even after 
the local Justices in Petty Sessions had taken to appointing fifteen Constables of 
their own (Brindley's Plymouth, Devonport, and Stonehouse Directory, 1830). 

8 In this case the Lord of the Manor in 1822 successfully maintained his 
right to exact and distrain summarily for sixpence on every ton of cheese and a 



124 THE COURT IN RUINS 

field, Bradford, and Ossett, be a Soke Mill, in which the Lord 
had known how to maintain a lucrative monopoly. 1 

It is, of course, impossible to ascribe to any one cause, 
or to assign to any one year, the setting in of the decay of 
the Lord's Court as an organ of Local Government. Just as 
no statute had created it, or endowed it with jurisdiction, so 
no statute ever abolished it, or even abrogated its powers. 
Its gradual fading away was, in fact, spread over several 
centuries. The persistent hostility of the King's Courts at 
Westminster, to be" traced even in the thirteenth century, 
became specially accentuated in Sir Edward Coke, and 
was strengthened by the influences of the Commonwealth, 
which gave a shake to all feudal forms from which they 
never recovered. But apart from this disfavour of the 
King's Courts, at all times the jealous rivals of local juris- 
dictions, and apart from the disintegrating influences of seven- 
teenth-century politics, the very ideas on which the Court 
of the Manor was based became ever more out of harmony 
with the new conceptions of social organisation. The 
principle of Government by the Common Agreement of the 
persons immediately concerned the principle which lay at 
the root of such local autonomy as existed in the Court 
Baron was ever more undermined by the growing tendency 
to base all civil relations on the strictly ascertained legal 
rights of the individual as an individual. Moreover, the 
Common Agreement on which the Court Baron rested was, 
as we have mentioned, essentially that of an Association of 
Producers, enjoying in individual ownership the use of the 
land, coupled with the power to levy taxes on the landless 
residents, who presently became the bulk of the population, 
and naturally resented their exclusion. 

The Court Leet side of the Manorial Court was, as we may 
now see, equally out of harmony with the ideas and the needs 
of the eighteenth century. The limitation of the Leet to 

penny on every quarter of corn ; he had in return to maintain market-house, 
lock-up house, pound, two pairs of stocks, and the stalls of the market ; to 
provide a brass bushel measure, and to repair half a bridge over the Thames 
(Rickards v. Bennett and Another, 1822, in Reports of Cases, etc., by J. Dow- 
ling and A. Ryland, 1823, vol. ii. pp. 389-398). 

1 History of Committing, by R. Bennett and J. Elton, 1898-1904, vol. iii. 
cbap. viii., " Feudal Laws and Customs." 



PREVALENCE AND DECAY OF THE LORD'S COURT 125 

yearly or half-yearly meetings was specially inapplicable to 
the suppression of urban nuisances. 1 Its whole procedure, in 
its successive stages of presentment, amercement, affeering, and 
distraining for small fines was cumbrous and often ineffective ; 
and the absence of any provision against a recurrence of the 
offence gave the locality the very minimum of protection. 
But we suggest that the break-up of the Court Leet is to be 
attributed, in the main, to the abandonment by the English 
people of the root-principle on which the Court depended. 
This principle, to put it shortly, was that, however men might 
differ in faculties or desires, they were all under an equal 
obligation to serve the community, by undertaking, in turn, all 
the offices required for its healthy life. This principle is 
manifested in the annual nomination of officers, their com- 
pulsory service, and its limitation to a single year. It is seen 
in the supremacy of the Jury, taken haphazard from the 
neighbours, and deciding, without experts, and even without 
witnesses, " on their own view and knowledge." It lies at the 
base of the usual absence of any permanent staff or Corporate 
revenue, and of the inability to see the necessity for more 
frequent meetings of the Court, or for its separation into 
committees. It accounts for the fact that Parliament was 
disinclined to endow this shifting Jury and perpetually 
changing group of amateur officers with any new functions, 
even if it ever occurred to any year's Court to ask for new 
powers, to be executed in future years by successive new 
groups of jurymen and officers whose character no one could 
foresee. We may recognise a noble element in this idea of 
universal equality of social obligation the opposite, be it 
observed, of the eighteenth-century idea of universal equality 
of civil and political rights. But when this universal equality 
of social obligation meant each citizen taking, in turn, an 
" equal and identical " share in the service of the community, 
it proved impracticable for any but the most primitive society. 
Division of labour, implying specialisation of structure and 

1 The Court might have sat more frequently by the device of adjournment, 
but this was a device it seldom learned to use, and which had certainly not been 
contemplated in Magna Carta. In a case in 1832, an adjournment of a Court 
Leet from May to December was held to be not improper (Wilcock v. Windsor 
and Others, in Reports of Cases, etc., by R. V. Barnewall and J. L. Adolphus, 
1833, vol. iii. pp. 43-50). 



126 THE COURT IN RUINS 

function, became in fact a necessity of progress. Yet the 
twentieth-century student will perhaps regret that it was not 
the element of an identical equality, but the very notion of 
social obligation itself, which was swept away by the rival 
panacea of universality of civil and political rights. 



CHAPTER III 

THE MANOKIAL BOROUGH 

WE have now to describe a somewhat heterogeneous collection 
of local governing authorities which appear to us to be inter- 
mediate between the Lord's Court and the autonomous 
Municipal Corporation creating its own Justices of the Peace. 
The bulk of these authorities are plainly " Manorial " in their 
constitution. They are made up of such familiar parts as 
the Jury of Presentment, nominating or appointing Reeves, 
Constables, and other officers ; they transact the public business 
at " Courts," called indifferently Leets, Views of Frankpledge, 
Courts Baron, Courts of Pleas, Courts of Record, Three Weeks' 
Courts, or Burghmotes; they exercise seignorial powers over 
the inhabitants at large often absorbing indeed all the 
privileges of the Lord. They are frequently, we might almost 
say usually, termed " Boroughs " or " Free Boroughs." But we 
shall find, as Professor Maitland indicates, that " the Borough 
community will be closely related to the village community." l 
In some instances the so-called Boroughs are members of the 
seignorial Hierarchies of Courts that we have already described. 
In other places they are merely the urban parts of large 
Manors, becoming, by the grant of a measure of autonomy, 
what we shall term " Lord's Boroughs," the rest of the Manor 
being often designated " the Foreign." In a small minority of 
cases we find functions analogous to those of the Lord's 
Borough exercised by rudimentary authorities, which, so far as 
the accessible evidence is concerned, cannot actually be proved 
to have ever had any connection with a Lord's Court. But all 
these authorities, whether demonstrably seignorial in origin, or 

1 Township and Borough, by F. W. Maitland, 1898, p. 51. 
127 



128 THE MANORIAL BOROUGH 

doubtfully so, occupy, between 1689 and 1835, a similar 
position in the local government of the country, between the 
Parish and its officers on the one hand, and the Lord-Lieutenant, 
High Sheriff, and Justices of the County on the other. Hence 
we group the whole of these authorities under the loose 
designation of Manorial Boroughs a phrase which we use 
merely to distinguish them from the Municipal Corporations 
empowered to create their own Corporate Justices of the Peace. 1 
We must leave it to the historian of the Manor to decide 
whether some of the authorities which, between 1689 and 
1835, fell within this class are appropriately designated 
" Manorial." In order that the student may bear this 
reservation in mind, we begin with those instances which seem 
to have least connection with the Lord's Court, and in which 
the constitutional structure is most rudimentary. 



(a) The Village Meeting 

The most rudimentary it may possibly be the least 
significant of quasi-manorial administrations existing in 1689 
were the recurring village meetings, unchartered and unnamed, 
that regulated the commonfield agriculture, the town's plough, 
the customary privilege of gleaning, 2 the bull and boar, the 
common herd, the pasturage on the commons and the waste, 
and sometimes the quarry and the fishing grounds, without 
any obvious relation to any Lord of the Manor. No one has 
yet explored the extent to which such customary sharings of 
user of land, with or without legal ownership, have existed 

1 We know of no general description of the class of local authorities that 
we term Manorial Boroughs. The phrase "Manorial Corporations" was used 
in the analytic index and tables of the Municipal Corporation Commission's 
Report, 1835-1838, to designate some of the towns which they excluded from 
their list of Municipal Corporations ; but they did not define its scope. Their 
separate reports on such of the Manorial Boroughs as they investigated, together 
with those of the Commission of 1876-1880, are the principal accessible 
materials ; but, as will be seen, we have made great use of the MS. archives of 
such towns as Alnwick, Alresford, Altrincham, Aruudel, Beccles, Birmingham, 
Christchurch, Godmanchester, Lymington, Tetbury, and Wisbech ; and of the 
local histories. See also Miss Bateson's articles in English, Historical Eeview, 
1900-1902 ; and her Borough Customs (Selden Society, 1904 and 1906). 

2 The gleaning rules of Helpston in Lincolnshire in 1722 seem to have been 
the following: "That no person shall glean peas or beans till the peas or 
beans be carried by the owners thereof, nor to carry away grain in sheets or 
blankets, but to glean in bands only " (Fenland Notes and Queries, vok iii. p. 304). 



THE VILLAGE MEETING 129 

up and down England and Wales ; nor enumerated the 
different forms under which some assembly or committee of 
the " commorants " arranged for the enjoyment of these 
" dolewoods " or " oxgangs," these " cattlegates " or " sheep- 
heaves," these " stints " and " horseleazes," these " pasturegates " 
and " cowsgrasses." 1 

An interesting example of village government of this sort 
is afforded by the little village of Berwick in Sussex. Here, 
as we gather, nothing in the nature of a Manorial Court has 
been held for centuries. The inhabitants in 1721 are found 
governing themselves by voluntary agreement, then embodied 
in writing, in which the Eector joins. The arable fields, 
known as " tenantry-land," were unenclosed, and owned in 
severalty in the usual scattered strips. We have no record 
of decisions, like those of the Lord's Court of Great Tew, as 
to the crops to be sown. But each owner was to contribute 
a certain quota of sheep 2 to a common flock, to be placed 
in charge of a shepherd, and folded on the cornfields after 
a certain date. From information that we have gathered 
privately, we learn that, for the pasture lands, the Commoners 
cast lots annually for the parts of the common meadow they 
were severally to use during the ensuing year. As it was 
not thought seemly for the Eector to cast lots, he was allowed 
to use always the lot next to the brook. These rights to use 
the common lands seem to have been gradually bought up 
and exchanged by the principal landowner. But to this day 
(1907), as we are informed by the daughter of the late 
incumbent, the Parish Clerk has, by virtue of his office, 
the right to turn out one bullock upon what was formerly 
a commonfield, between certain fixed dates in the year ; and 
this " right " is annually purchased from him by the farmer 
of those particular fields. 3 

Another curious survival is seen in the ancient village of 

1 See the Law of Copyholds, by C. I. Elton and H. J. H. Mackay, 2nd 
edition, 1893, p. 16. 

2 "Agreed that the sheep that are stocked for the Tye shall be stocked in 
this proportion, namely [the Rector] 16 for his privileges there ; Widow Godly, 
16 ; S. Stace, 8 ; Thomas Susan, 14 ; and those which have no land but their 
privileges shall keep only 3 ewes to their privileges, and no more." 

s "Berwick Parochial Records," by Rev. G. M. Cooper, in Sussex Archaeo- 
logical Collections, vol. vi., 1853, pp. 240-241 ; supplemented by private 
information. 

VOL. II. PT. I K 



130 THE MANORIAL BOROUGH 

Yarnton in Oxfordshire, where there are three so-called "Lot 
Meadows," containing over 200 acres of valuable hay-fields. 
These have, time out of mind, been divided among the two 
tithe owners and the thirteen owners of shares, some of which 
are still appurtenant to neighbouring farms, whilst others 
are held by persons neither owning nor farming land. What 
is interesting is that, with the exception of the two " tidals " 
or " tithals," the shares of the co-owners, although all bearing 
distinct names, such as " Dun," " William of Bladon," " Eothe," 
etc., and dealt with as incorporeal hereditaments, are not repre- 
sented by any definite pieces of land, but only by the right 
to draw lots annually for a thirteenth part in each of the 
" drafts " or sections into which the fields are then and there 
divided. The following description is by one who witnessed 
in 1905 a ceremony that was plainly of ancient usage : 

" On the day on which the meadows are appointed to be 
drawn . . . the Headsman meets the owners of these shares 
at the tidals in Oxhey. He has with him a bag containing 
thirteen boxwood balls of about 1^ in. in diameter, on each 
of which is written the name of one of these shares. At the 
first post, one of those present dips his hand into the bag 
and withdraws one of the balls ; the name on the ball is 
called out, and a man with a scythe cuts half a dozen swathes 
to make a bare place, on which the owner of the lot cuts his 
initial. The whole company then walks on to the next stake, 
and a second ball is withdrawn. The man with the scythe 
again cuts half a dozen swathes, and the owner cuts his 
initial in the turf; and the performance is repeated till all 
the thirteen balls have been withdrawn, and every one of the 
thirteen owners has obtained his lot in the first draft. . . . 
In order to divide the lots, a man walks through the high 
grass from one post to the corresponding post on the other 
side of the field, and the track thus trodden shows the boundary. 
... It is obvious that this is the best way to divide the 
growing grass on unenclosed meadows. Every owner has his 
lot in each of the eight drafts, and the chance of the lot 
renders it most improbable that one man will get the pick 
of the field while his neighbour gets all the worst portions. 
As one of the farmers present said to me, ' They must have 
been clever old folk who thought this out.' To show how 



THE VILLAGE MEETING 131 

the lot works out, it will be sufficient to state that the owner 
of the share called Dun drew Lot 1 in the first draft of Oxhey, 
9 in the second, 12 in the third, 4 in the first draft of the 
West Mead, 3 in the second, 1 1 in the third, 1 1 in the fourth, 
and 8 in the fifth." l 

Similar village organisations connected with common 
agricultural interests may be found by the explorer in other 
parts of England. 2 It is, however, rare to find them getting 

1 "Till the beginning of the last century all three fields had to be cut the 
same day as they were drawn ; Oxhey on the first Monday after old St. Peter's 
Day, West Mead on the second Monday, and Pixey on the third. This custom 
was the cause of much disturbance and riot : outside labour had to be employed, 
and there was an influx of disorderly harvesters into the village ; but, in 1817, 
the vicar of Yarnton persuaded all parties to agree to a change, allowing the 
grass to be cut at any time before the cattle are turned into the meadow. 

"The owner of each complete share is entitled to turn on to the meadows 
ten beasts after the grass is cut, but in so doing he must be careful to send no 
sheep or entire animals. The meadows are thrown open for stock on the 
Monday after August 12th, but there appears to be no rule fixing the date 
when the meadows are again laid up for hay ; in practice it is found, however, 
that as the meadows are very liable to floods, the cattle begin to lose flesh 
before the end of October, and they are, therefore, taken off" (" Lot Meadows, 
an interesting survival," by Adolphus Ballard, Country Life, 18th Nov. 
1905 ; see also Three Oxfordshire Parishes, by Mrs. Staple ton, Oxford Historical 
Society, 1893, pp. 307-310). " Traces of a similar sharing of meadows by lot are 
said to be found to-day in the Lammas grounds in Hackney Marshes ; and old 
deeds of the thirteenth century in the chartulary of Godstow speak of Lot 
meadows at Cassington, the adjacent parish to Yarnton, and at Bletchingdon 
in the Cherwell Valley. The St. Frideswide's chartulary speaks of Lot meadows 
at Eynsham, which is the next parish to Cassington. " 

We have already mentioned elsewhere the common organisation of the four 
villages in Northamptonshire that share among them the Ashe Meadow ; 
appointing six "Fieldmen" to lay out the meadow in lots, which were drawn 
for at an annual gathering, and mown under the direction of "Crocusmen" 
(History and Antiquities of Northamptonshire, by John Bridges, 1791, vol. i. 
p. 219 ; The Village Community, by G. L. Gomme, 1890, p. 269). Similar 
lot meadows existed at Bestmoor (Oxon) ; see The English Peasantry and the 
Enclosure of Common Fields, by Gilbert Slater, 1907, p. 35. 

2 For instance, near the villages of Congresbury and Puxton in Somerset, 
there was, down to 1811, an extensive common, called the Dolmoors, running 
into both the parishes, the householders of which had the right of pasturage. 
This common was divided into twenty-four parts, and was managed by two 
officers, called Overseers of the Dolmoors, who served for one year and then 
nominated their successors. Every year, on the Saturday before Midsummer 
Day, a meeting was held in Puxton Church, by sound of bell, in the early 
morning, at which the villagers attended. The business was to draw lots for the 
privilege of having the use of twenty-three of the parts for the ensuing year, 
and to let by auction, by "inch of candle," the twenty-fourth part, "the 
Outdrift " or " the Outlet," for a sum of money varying from about one to three 
pounds, which was devoted to defraying the incidental expenses of the year. 
This ancient custom was only terminated by the 1816 award under the Inclosure 
Act of 1811 (History and Antiquities of the County of Somerset, by J. Collinson, 
1791 ; Delineations of the North- West Division of the County of Somersetshire 



1 32 THE MANORIAL BOROUGH 

beyond the undeviating maintenance of an ancient custom, 
without other administrative machinery than a public meeting 
and an officer the " Headsman," Common Herd, Fieldsman, 
or " Overseer," paid by customary fees or contributions. 1 
But "between village and Borough," as Professor Maitland 
tells us, " there is no insuperable gulf, and if our villages had 
* remained lordless they might perhaps in course of time have 
exhibited the decisive symptoms of Corporate unity." 2 

The first step in such an evolution might be the establish- 
ment of a standing committee. Of this the leading case is 
that of Aston and Cote, 3 two hamlets in the parish of 
Bampton, Oxfordshire, where the commoners had, time out of 
mind, down to Victorian days, maintained a " Sixteens," or 
standing administrative committee, on which each served in 
turn, every four yardlands annually furnishing one member. 
This body, as we learn from the case which the Lord of the 
Manor submitted to Counsel in 1657, had, from time 
immemorial, been accustomed " to make orders, set penalties, 
choose officers, and lot the meadows, and do all such things as 
are usually performed or done in the Courts Baron of other 

by J. Rutter, 1829, p. 36 ; The Sea-Board of Mendip, by F. A. Knight, 
1902, pp. 228-232 ; The Village Community, by G. L. Gomme, 1890, pp. 268- 
269 ; Archceologia, vol. xxxv. p. 471 ; Notes and Queries for Somerset and 
Dorset, vol. vi. p. 109). 

1 We ought not to forget that Domesday Book itself testifies to the existence 
of some entirely "lordless" villages (Domesday Book and Beyond, by F. W. 
Maitland, 1897, p. 133 ; The Domesday Inquest, by A. Ballard, 1906, pp. 138, 
146 ; article by J. H. Round in Victoria County History of Hertfordshire, vol. i. 
1905). Moreover, it seems worth considering whether some of these apparently 
autonomous village organisations may not have been, as the ' ' berewicks " of 
Domesday possibly were, colonies or off-shoots from a Manor, forming distinct 
agricultural units in new settlements, and gaining a practical autonomy as 
they removed from the parent stock (see Domesday Book and Beyond, by F. W. 
Maitland, 1897, p. 114 ; The Growth of the Manor, by P. Vinogradoff, 1905, 
p. 224 ; History of Municipal Government in Liverpool, by Ramsay Muir, 1906, 
p. 3 ; article by F. M. Stenton in Victoria County History of Derbyshire, vol. i., 
1905, p. 311). 2 Township and Borough, by F. W. Maitlaud, 1898, p. 35. 

3 For the discussion of this interesting case, see Professor F. W. Maitland's 
article, ' ' The Survival of Archaic Communities, " in Law Quarterly Review, vol. ix. , 
July 1893 ; The Village Community, by G. L. Gomme, 1890, pp. 158-170 ; 
Villainage in England, by P. Vinogradoff, 1892, pp. 392, 450 ; History of 
Bampton, by J. A. Giles, 1847, p. 79 ; The Manor and Manorial Records, by 
N. J. Hone, 1906, pp. 12-13 ; Archceologia, vol. xxxiii. p. 269 and vol. xxxv. 
p. 470 ; The Jurist, New Series, vol. xii. part ii. p. 103. Journal of Archaeo- 
logical Institute, vol. xliv. p. 405 ; Qentleman's Magazine, 1839, vol. ii. p. 640 ; 
Proceedings of Society of Antiquities, vol. ii. p. 62, vol. iii. pp. 54, 86 ; and the 
Inclosure Award, 1855. 



THE VILLAGE MEETING 133 

Manors." The orders of the Sixteens were formally proclaimed 
from the Town Cross, and were then universally accepted as 
binding on the community. Four of the most influential 
members of the Sixteens were annually chosen to be Grass 
Stewards, and also to represent the men of Aston and Cote at 
the Lord's Court of Bampton, to which the hamlets apparently 
owed suit of court. The Sixteens had also to provide every 
season four two -year- old bulls to run on the common pasture. 
In return they were authorised to levy a fee for each cow 
placed on the Common, and to sell the bulls at the end of the 
season. The Sixteens appointed all the officers of the village, 
allotting to each the particular share of the " Town Hams " 
that custom assigned for the remuneration of the post the 
Constable's Ham, the Herd's Ham, the two Water Stewards' 
Hams, the Hayward's Ham, the Water Hayward's Ham, and 
so on. The remainder of the " Town Hams " were " disposed 
of at the discretion of the Sixteens, some for the public use of 
the Town, as for making of gates, bridges, etc., and some sold 
to make ale for the merry meeting of the inhabitants." We 
need not in this work describe the elaborate arrangements that 
were still in force in 1657 for the annual sharing out by 
lot of the common meadow among the owners of strips in 
the commonfield ; the gathering of the villagers under the 
direction of the Grass Stewards and the Sixteens, when the 
grass was ripe to cut, and the eager rushing of each man with 
his scythe to mow the part allotted to him. Nor does it 
enter into the plan of this work to go into the hotly debated 
question of the probable origin of this remarkable organisation, 
or to discuss whether it can be sufficiently accounted for by 
the supposition that it represented a district shared between 
three separate Manors. 1 It suffices us to note that the 

1 It maybe important to trace the constitutional influence of "intercom- 
moning," or the use of pasture lands more or less jointly by several villages, 
parishes, or Manors ; of which traces may be found in Marshland Fen (Norfolk) 
and in Lincolnshire fenlands, and also in the Essex marshes (see Domesday 
Book and Beyond, by F. W. Maitland, 1897, p. 367 ; The Forest of Essex, by 
W. R. Fisher, 1887, pp. 265, 277, 289 ; and the article by J. H. Round in 
Victoria County History of Essex, vol. i. pp. 369-374). 

We may briefly note some other cases of village organisation. " The people 
of Ibthorpe," we read of a hamlet in the parish of Hurstbourn Tarrant, 
Hampshire, "are Lords of their own Manor, and to this day exercise their 
Manorial rights, in respect of which they have exclusive common rights on the 
seventy acres of common land at Pillheath, including a right to everything that 



t 3 4 THE MANORIAL BOROUGH 

attempt made in 1657 to reduce the inhabitants to a position 
of ordinary Manorial dependence did not succeed ; and that 
the rule of the Sixteens, curiously resembling, as we shall see, 
that of the simplest Manorial Boroughs, continued until the 
middle of the nineteenth century. 



(b) The Chartered Township 

If the Village Meeting, desiring legal authority for the 
management of its common estate, obtained a Eoyal Charter, 
it might develop, out of a rudimentary constitution analogous to 
that of Aston and Cote, a form of government even approaching 
a Municipal Corporation. 

Among the possessions of the wealthy Abbey of St. Edmund 
was a fen or marsh of 1400 acres near the village of Beccles 
in Suffolk, which the Abbot had been accustomed for centuries 
to let to the townsfolk, getting his annual rent from four 
" Fenreeves " whom they elected at a public meeting. At the 

grows on this common, with liberty to take it away for their use in Ibthorpe, 
but not for sale " (Paper by Mr. T. W. Shore, in The Antiquary, vol. xvii. 
p. 52, 1888 ; TJte Village Community, by G. L. Gomme, 1890, p. 260). In 
other villages we find ancient regulations resting on the agreement of a public 
meeting of the villagers. Thus the inhabitants of Wiuteringham in Lincoln- 
shire framed in 1685 a formal code of By-laws, said to be agreed to "at a parish 
meeting." "Item, 13 it was ordained, "that none shall burne or bake at any 
unlawful time of night, on paine of 3/4. Item, none shall dry any hempe or 
flax by the fire upon paine of 3/4. Item, none shall smoke tobacco on the streets 
upon paine of 2/- for every default " (History of Winterton and the Adjoining 
Villages, by W. Andrew, 1836, p. 105). Similar "fire rules" are found in 
other villages, though whether promulgated at the Lord's Court or Parish Vestry 
or merely by common agreement it is not easy to determine. At Helpston, 
in Lincolnshire, it was ordered in 1722 that no person was to " fetch fire from 
any neighbouring house without the same being carried in a lanthorn or wanning 
pan, for every offence to pay ten shillings." Also it was ordered "that no 
person whatsoever shall smoke tobacco in the town, street, or in any stable, barn, 
or outhouse, without a sufficient muzzle, hood, or cover for the same, under the 
penalty for every offence of five shillings " (Fenland Notes and Queries, vol. iii. 
pp. 303-306). 

Other villages had "Gild Halls" and "Town Bailiffs." At Leverington, in 
the Isle of Ely, there was an ancient "Gild Hall," used latterly as free 
tenements for paupers, and an annually chosen "Town Bailiff." This 
distinction seems to have been due to its possession of "townlands," producing 
no less than 300 a year, which were vested in trustees, one of whom served 
annually as Town Bailiff (Historical Account of Wisbech, by W. Watson, 1827, 
p. 471 ; History of Wisbech, by K Walker and T. Cradock, 1849, p. 503 ; 
History of Wisbech, by F. J. Gardiner, 1898, p.- 380). It is now, with a 
population in 1901 of 1124, governed by a Parish Council, with its endowments 
held for charitable purposes by separate trustees. 



THE CHARTERED TOWNSHIP 135 

dissolution of the abbey, the townsfolk, by judicious payments 
to the King, got this arrangement continued in slightly varied 
form, the position being regularised by Koyal Letters Patent 
and Charter of 1584 and 1605 respectively, which definitely 
established a Corporate body of " the Portreeve, Surveyors, and 
Commonalty of Beccles Fen." l This anomalous Corporation, 
created primarily to regulate a large common pasture rather 
than to govern a town, consisted of two Chambers, one of 
twelve and the other of twenty-four members, each filling 
vacancies by co-option. The members of the Twelve were 
alone eligible to serve as Portreeve, on election by the two 
Chambers of the Corporation voting together. The whole 
body of the commonalty, including the members of the two 
Chambers, met to enact "statutes, laws, articles, rules, and 
orders touching the pasture and fen," which made up all 
their property, and " also concerning the good rule, state, and 
government of the Commoners of or in the same fen " who 
seem to have been all the householders of Beccles, for whose 
" common benefit and utility " the revenue was to be expended. 
The Charter had granted or continued to this Corporation the 
right to hold, quite apart from the Manorial Courts, its own 
Court of Justice, the so-called " Fen Court," at which the 
Portreeve and the two or three Surveyors were the judges, 
and in which the principal part was played by the " Common 
Clerk " of the Corporation, and by the Inquest or Jury of the 
Commoners. This was a Court of Eecord for " plaints con- 
cerning the Fen," having power to punish by fine or imprison- 
ment, or by exclusion from "commoning in the Fen." But 
neither the Portreeve nor the Corporation had ever been 
granted magisterial powers or regulative authority in anything 
beyond the management of the Fen. 

Notwithstanding this limitation of their legal authority, 
we see the Portreeve, Surveyors, and Common Council of 
Beccles Fen gradually slipping into the position of administer- 

1 The MS. records of the Beccles Corporation are imperfect, no book of 
minutes having been found, and we were able to consult only a collection of 
scraps of orders, etc., from 1719 to 1832, and various presentments, charges, 
orders, etc., of the Manorial Court, 1628-1842. See also First Report of 
Municipal Corporation Commission, 1835, Appendix, vol. iv. p. 2133 ; Some 
Account of the Corporation of Beccles Fen, 1807 ; and the History and Antiquities 
of the County of Suffolk, by Rev. A. Suckling, 1846, vol. i. pp. 1-35. 



136 THE MANORIAL BOROUGH 

ing much more than their common pasture. Their property, 
which came eventually to yield over 1000 a year, made them 
practically the dominant influence in this little town of a 
couple of thousand inhabitants. The Lord of the Manor had, 
indeed, the stallage of the market, and held his Courts a 
Court Baron, a " Land Leet," l and also (for the regulation of 
the fishing and navigation of the Eiver Waveney) a " Water 
Leet." But the Manorial Courts evidently became very 
perfunctory, the presentments of the Homage and Juries 
steadily declining in number and importance, and the sessions 
of the Courts becoming less frequent. 2 After the middle of 
the eighteenth century, these Manorial Courts do practically 
nothing but present persons to serve as Constables, Flesh- 
searchers, and Ale-founders, with occasionally a Headborough. 
As the need for some more regulative authority becomes felt, 
we see the Corporation and its Portreeve coming more and 
more to the front. Their " Fen Court " is, indeed, abandoned, 
the last sessions having been in 174 1. 3 But it is the Portreeve 
and his two Serjeants at Mace who enforce such of the Fen 
By-laws of 1613 as are not obsolete. It is the Portreeve, 
Surveyors, and Commonalty who in 1740 make the new 
regulations necessitated by the growing habit of keeping geese 
to supply the London market, 4 and who in 1762 revise the 
stint for sojourners, "certificate -men," householders "not 
paying task," and those who "pay task to the king" 
respectively. 6 It is the Portreeve's Feast, provided annually 
at the Corporate expense, which is the great event of the year 
in Beccles. In 1785 it is the Portreeve who, by the Deputy 
Steward of the Corporation and out of the Corporation funds, 
prosecutes before the County Justices those inhabitants who 
commit encroachments and nuisances in the streets. 6 It is 

1 This "Land Leet" called its Jury "The Jury of Headborough s " (MS. 
records, Beccles Manor, 23rd September 1728, 24th September 1729), which 
may be compared with the Jury of Constables mentioned in The Parish and the 
County, Book I. Chap. III. "The Court of Quarter Sessions," pp. 464-466. 

2 Between 1750 and 1800 there were, for instance, only five "Water Leets." 

3 First Report of Municipal Corporation Commission, 1835, Appendix, 
vol. iv. p. 2138. 

4 MS. records, Beccles Corporation, 31st March 1740. 5 Ibid. 1762. 

6 Ibid. 1st September 1785. It is interesting to notice that, in 1760, the 
Chief Constable for the Hundred of Wangford had before the Corporation of 
Beccles Fen had taken up this Municipal duty presented Beccles nuisances at 
Quarter Sessions (MS. Minutes, Quarter Sessions, Suffolk, 6th October 1760). 



THE CHARTERED TOWNSHIP 13? 

the Corporation revenue which provides most of the relief of 
the poor and maintenance of the roads. At last, in 1796, 
legal authority is given to this government by a Local Act 
for paving, lighting, cleaning, watching, and improving the 
streets of Beccles, 1 under which the Portreeve and Surveyors, 
ex officio, with several other members of the Corporation 
named in the Act, were made Commissioners to carry out the 
new duties, with power to levy a rate on the inhabitants. 

From 1796 to 1835, when the population of the town 
was increasing from 2500 to nearly 40 OO, 2 the activities of 
the Corporation of Beccles Fen were indistinguishable from 
those of the Beccles Street Commissioners, who were, in fact, 
practically the same persons. When in 1804 the Commis- 
sioners decided to pave the town, the Corporation sold part 
of the Fen for 3000 to meet the cost. The payments for 
watchmen, fire engines, lamps, and repairing the pavements 
come sometimes out of one fund and sometimes out of another. 
This was the less material in that practically all that was left 
over of the Corporate income was paid " in relief of the town 
for Poor, Lamp, Church, and (Highway) Composition Kates," 
this subsidy amounting, on an average, to 792 a year. 3 By 
1835, in short, the Portreeve, Surveyors, and Commonalty of 
Beccles Fen, originally only the managing committee of an 
extensive common pasture, had, whilst letting slip even such 
judicial powers as they had once exercised, assumed practically 
the whole government of the town, and were accordingly 
recognised as such and reformed by the Municipal Corporations 
Act of 1835. 4 

1 36 George III. c. 51. 

2 History of Suffolk, by Rev. A. Suckling, 1846, vol. i. p. 34. 

3 MS. Records, Beccles Corporation, 7th April 1831. 

4 We may name here the Corporation of the ' ' Warden, Assistants, and 
Commonalty " of Godalming in Surrey, incorporated by successive Royal 
Charters, evidently governing the little town, but apparently entirely uncon- 
nected with any of the Courts of the several Manors that existed in the parish. 
Without property, taxing power, or magisterial jurisdiction its position in the 
town became, already by the end of the seventeenth century, titular and 
honorary only, the government passing to the Justices and to a body of Street 
Commissioners established by Local Act in 1825 (First Report of Municipal 
Corporation Commission, 1835, Appendix, vol. ii. p. 735 ; Parish and Church 
of Godalming, by S. Welman, 1900). 

Such a Corporation of " Bailiff and Burgesses " existed, too, at Great Dunmow 
in Essex, under sixteenth-century Royal Charters a self-renewing Society of 
Twelve, who owned the markets, collected such tolls as they could, and gave 
themselves an annual feast entirely unconnected with the Manor. It remained 



138 THE MANORIAL BOROUGH 

An even more remarkable instance of the development of 
a committee for managing a landed estate into something very 
near to a fully developed Municipal Corporation is presented 
by the " ancient seaport " of Wisbech, in the Isle of Ely, with 
its Town Bailiff, ten Capital Burgesses, and Commonalty of forty- 
shilling freeholders a quasi-municipal government which may 
with some warrant claim to have furnished between 1689 
and 1835 the most pure, energetic, and enlightened urban 
administration in the Kingdom. 1 

We do not need in this work to trace the origin of the 
Wisbech town government in the religious Gild of the Holy 
Trinity, the richest of all the Wisbech Gilds, that dominated 
the town from at least 1379 down to 1549. 3 Here it suffices 
to relate that on the dissolution of this fraternity by the 
reforming zeal of Edward VI. the townsfolk succeeded in 
obtaining, or rather in purchasing, through the good offices of 
their Lord, the Bishop of Ely, not only the property of the 
Gild, but also a Eoyal Charter which incorporated them for 
the purpose of managing this landed estate, maintaining the 
Grammar School, providing for the poor, and looking after 
" banks, shores, and streams," with an implied authority to 
uphold and enforce the customs of the little community. 
Perhaps because it primarily concerned the management of 
a common property, and did not expressly convey any powers 

unreformed in 1835, and was dissolved only after the Municipal Corporations Act 
of 1883. This town of nearly 3000 inhabitants, having been twice refused a 
Charter of incorporation, is now (1907) governed only by a parish council (First 
Report of Municipal Corporation Commission, 1835, Appendix, vol. iv. p. 2215; 
ditto, 1880, part i. p. 37, partii. p. 294 ; History of Dunmow, by J. W. Savill, 
1865). 

1 For Wisbech we have had the advantage of examining the well-kept records 
from 1616 to 1835 ; see also Report of House of Commons Committee on 
Corporations, 1833 ; First Report of Municipal Corporation Commission, 1835 
Appendix, vol. iv. p. 2551 ; Report of Historical Manuscripts Commission 
1883 ; Reasons . . . against embanking the Salt Marsh belonging to Sutton 
1720 ; Introduction to the Charter of Wisbech, by Mann Hutchesson, 1791 
Historical Account of the Ancient Town of Wisbech, by W. Watson, 1827 
History of Wisbech, with an Historical Sketch of the Fens (Anon.), 1833 ; History 
of Wisbech and the Fens, by Neil Walker and T. Cradock, 1849 ; History of 
Wisbech, 1848-1898, by F. J. Gardiner, 1898. The population, said to have 
been 1705 in 1676, was 4710 in 1801, and 8777 in 1831. 

2 The existing records of the Gild begin in 1379 ; see Report of Public 
Record Commissioners, 1837 ; Report of Historical Manuscripts Commission, 
vol. ix. p. 293 ; Introduction to the Charter of Wisbech, by Mann Hutchesson, 
1791 ; History of Wisbech and the Fens, by N". Walker and T. Cradock, chap. 
Hi. pp. 280-301. 



THE CHARTERED TOWNSHIP 139 

of government, this Charter was, for a Tudor instrument, 
unusually democratic in form. Ten of the " better, more 
honest, and more discreet inhabitants " l called at first " the 
Company of the Ten," and afterwards " Capital Burgesses " 
were to be freely elected at an annual assembly, or Common 
Hall, of all the inhabitant householders. During the next 
century and a half this simple constitution was rendered 
somewhat more definite, the choice of Capital Burgesses being 
first confined by agreement of the householders to forty- 
shilling freeholders, and then the constituency, by Charter of 
161 1, 2 being at the instance of the Corporation itself, alarmed 
at the disorder of the public assemblies, similarly limited. 
This franchise, whilst it excluded the mere hired man, cottager, 
and temporary sojourner, still admitted, as we believe, most of 
the independent householders of the little fishing and trading 
port, which had, by 1689, a population under two thousand. 
In contravention of the common legal theory, no provision 
was made in the Charters for any head of the Corporation, but 
local custom, transmitted from the Gild, had established a Town 
Bailiff, an officer who represented the township to the County 
and executed the decisions of the Capital Burgesses and 
assemblies of freeholders. 3 Between 1689 and 1835 we 
find the office filled by the Capital Burgesses in annual 
rotation, though in some cases a successful and public-spirited 
administrator remained for several years in succession. 4 We 
find no trace of the Lord of the Manor the Bishop of Ely 
holding any Court in Wisbech after the dissolution of the 
Gild. 5 The townsfolk themselves levied tolls and dues, took 
the waste on long lease, and in 1786 acquired the lease of 
the market rights. The parish officers, whether Churchwardens, 
Overseers, or Surveyors, appear, throughout the eighteenth 
century, as humble subordinates of the Bailiff and Burgesses ; 
and it is only at the beginning of the nineteenth century that 

1 The terms used at first were "gratia eminentiae " and "de melioribus " 
(Introduction to the Charter of Wisbech, by Mann Hutchesson, 1791, pp. 8, 15). 

2 History of Wisbech, by N. Walker and T. Cradock, 1849, pp. 319-321. 

3 A Town Clerk was first appointed in 1679. 

4 In a few instances one in 1565 the Town Bailiff seems not himself to 
have been a Capital Burgess (History of Wisbech, by N. Walker and T. Cradock, 
1849, p. 306). 

6 The "Company of the Ten" themselves heard civil cases during the six- 
teenth century as a sort of voluntary arbitration tribunal (ibid. pp. 308-310). 



HO THE MANORIAL BOROUGH 

the Open Vestry of inhabitants rises to any position of 
importance. Above all these authorities we are conscious of 
the Justices of the Peace of the Isle of Ely, meeting in Quarter 
Sessions at Ely and holding Petty Sessions at Wisbech, but 
only intervening in the affairs of the town when requested to 
do so by the Town Bailiff and Capital Burgesses. The records 
from 1689 to 1835 make it clear that the freeholders obeyed 
the directions of their first Charter in electing and re-elect- 
ing at the Annual Meetings that were always held in the 
Gothic hall of the ancient Grammar School the ten " of the 
better, more honest, and more discreet inhabitants," the Vicar 
figuring nearly always in the list, the others comprising several 
" Esquires," " Gentlemen," and " Captains," whilst a few only, 
designated "Mr.," served to represent the shopkeepers or 
farmers of the township. 

It would be an interesting subject for special inquiry why 
it was that this simple constitution produced, for the whole 
century and a half that we are considering, a government of 
remarkable excellence. About the fact the student of all the 
available evidence can, we think, have no doubt. The elabor- 
ately kept records, coupled with current traditions and the 
actual state of the town, demonstrate the existence of an 
administration which possibly first taking on a distinctively 
Municipal and governmental character in the emergency of the 
plague in 1586 * combined, from decade to decade, the three 
great qualities of popular assent, purity of administration, and 
continuity of enlightened policy. The note of what the 
historians of the town term the "direct control of the 
people" ' is particularly strong. Even in 1669, at an 
epoch when Municipal Corporations were being stripped of 
all popular features, the freeholders of Wisbech managed, by 
prompt and vigorous action at Court, to prevent the trans- 
formation of their ten Capital Burgesses into a Close Body, 3 
and, whilst retaining their privilege of popular election, even 
secured the definite recognition, in the new Charter, of the 
obligation of the Capital Burgesses, not only to allow in- 

1 Historical Account of . . . Wisbech, by W. Watson, 1827, p. 207. 

2 History of Wisbech, by N. Walker and T. Cradock, 1849, p. 347. 

3 Historical Account of . . . Wisbech, by W.. Watson, 1827, p. 219; 
History of Wisbech, by N. Walker and T. Cradock, 1849, pp. 329-331 ; First 
Report of Municipal Corporation Commission, 1835, Appendix, vol. iv. p. 2551. 



THE CHARTERED TOWNSHIP 141 

spection of all their accounts, but also to submit them to the 
" Common Hall " for its approval. 1 It was perhaps a per- 
sistence of this pugnacious watchfulness that induced suc- 
cessive Capital Burgesses to consider themselves the ministers, 
and not the masters, of the town. 2 Though the Charter made 
necessary only one meeting of the freeholders annually, we 
find a frequent consultation by the Capital Burgesses of their 
fellow-freeholders or the inhabitants at large. Thus even 
when they have to appoint a schoolmaster in 1690, this is 
done "at a meeting in the Town Hall . . . the Capital 
Burgesses being seven in number, by and with the consent 
of eleven others of the Burgesses." 3 When in 1699 the 
Capital Burgesses think it necessary to prohibit the squatting 
of cottagers upon the Lord's Waste, and to arrange for the 
erection of a wall at the Town Bridewell, they lay these 
matters before Assemblies of Burgesses, and obtain their 
express consent, and even their active co-operation in the 
work. 4 So intimate and informal was the relationship between 
the Capital Burgesses and the Burgesses at large, that it is 
often impossible to distinguish from the records which of the 
meetings were confined to the smaller and which were open to 
the larger body of governors ; our own impression being that 
whenever any important new departure was contemplated, the 
Capital Burgesses made a point of calling their constituents 
into council to approve the proposal. Nor did the Capital 
Burgesses always confine their consultations to the freeholders. 
When in 1775 a local drainage Bill before Parliament seemed 
likely injuriously to affect the interests of the town, the 
Capital Burgesses summoned all the merchants and tradesmen 
to a Public Meeting, for which a special report was prepared, 
and from which authority was obtained to oppose the Bill at 

1 Charter of. 21 Car. II. 1669 ; see First Report of Municipal Corporation 
Commission, 1835, Appendix, vol. iv. p. 2552. From 1818 the accounts were 
printed and published. 

a Thus it was formally resolved in 1826 that no alterations should be made 
in the Free Grammar School ' ' without the direction of the Burgesses at large 
being taken thereon at a public meeting " ; that a similar meeting should be held 
before any Bill was promoted altering the existing Local Act, or effecting any 
improvement in the town, or in the navigation (MS. Minutes, Wisbech Corpora- 
tion, 2nd November 1826). 

3 Ibid. 6th June 1690 ; so again, 31st January 1707. 

Ibid. 1699 ; 22nd February 1700 ; 6th November 1720. 



142 THE MANORIAL BOROUGH 

an estimated cost of 200 from the Corporate funds. 1 It was 
after friendly consultation with " the clergy and some of the 
principal inhabitants of the town " that the Capital Burgesses 
submitted to the assembly of freeholders resolutions "for 
considering the best means of extending education among 
children of the poor/' and started a " Lancastrian " School. 2 
From 1809 onwards we find coming in the inhabitants in 
Vestry assembled, the Capital Burgesses habitually deferring 
to any express resolution of this public meeting. It was in 
consistency with this constant reliance on popular assent that 
we find the Bailiff and Burgesses of Wisbech in 1833 warm 
in their welcome of the Municipal Corporation Commissioners, 
and uncompromisingly outspoken in their advocacy of a 
popularly elected Town Council as the leading feature of 
the Municipal Corporations Reform Bill, against which the 
governing bodies of nearly all the Municipalities in the land 
were protesting. 8 

This dominant fact of popular control does not seem at 
any time to have impaired the executive efficiency of the 
Capital Burgesses. Though the " Company of the Ten " was 
annually elected by the public meeting of freeholders, which 
seems to have been an occasion of some public interest, even 
the scene of sharp electoral contests lasting till midnight, at 
which between one and two hundred freeholders voted, 4 it 
appears to have been fairly stable in its membership. At no 
time was it the close preserve of party exclusiveness 5 or the 
plaything of political struggles ; the substantial inhabitants, 
indeed, took their share of service as a public obligation and 
not as a private advantage. And their duties were far from 

1 MS. Minutes, Wisbech Corporation, 21st December 1775 ; 8th January 
1776. 

2 Ibid. 27th March and 19th April 1811. 

3 Ibid. 16th and 28th March 1833 ; 6th January 1834 ; Report of House 
of Commons Committee on Corporations, 1833 ; First Report of Municipal 
Corporation Commission, 1835, vol. iv. p. 2551 ; History of Wisbech, by N. 
Walker and T. Cradock, 1849, p. 337 ; History of Wisbech (anon.), 1833, p. 150. 

4 The quaint customs of the election are described in the Historical Account 
of . . . Wisbech, by W. Watson, 1827, pp. 230-233 ; History of Wisbech 
(anon.), 1833, pp. 145-146. 

5 As the Test Act applied to the Wisbech Corporation, the Capital Burgesses 
had to be at least "occasional conformists"; and when in 1819, 1821, and 
1822 an avowed Nonconformist was elected, he was .passed over (ibid, (anon.) 
1833, p. 150 ; ibid, by N. Walker and T. Cradock, 1849, p. 335 ; ibid, by 
F. G. Gardiner, 1898, p. 93). 



THE CHARTERED TOWNSHIP 143 

light. They met frequently sometimes twenty times in a 
year and attended regularly, deciding such issues as arose, or 
formulating them for submission to the popular assembly. 
But it was on the one among them who served as Town Bailiff 
that they relied for the daily task of town administration. It 
was the Town Bailiff whom they ordered to set the poor to 
work, pave the streets, scour the ditches, cleanse the market- 
place, collect the rents, and promote or oppose Bills in 
Parliament, exactly as if he had been their salaried servant, 
though such phrases as " at his convenience," " as he shall 
judge necessary," " at his discretion," or " as occasion offers " 
soften the peremptory tone of their multitudinous orders. 
Over the financial transactions of the Town Bailiff the Capital 
Burgesses throughout maintained the strictest censorship. 
" Ordered that no Town Bailiff shall expend upon any one 
work above forty shillings without a particular order from 
the Hall, and also that no workman's bill that exceeds the 
sum of forty shillings shall be paid by the Town Bailiff 
without being first perused and having the consent of the 
Hall thereto." l He was not even allowed to let the smallest 
tenement without the consent of his colleagues. 2 On the two 
occasions in 150 years on which a Town Bailiff neglected to 
deliver up, on quitting his office, a precise account of his 
stewardship, he was prosecuted with relentless rigour. 8 In 
1774 we note the beginning of a system of executive com- 
mittees, always consisting of the Town Bailiff* and two other 
Capital Burgesses. From this date committees to light the 
town, to settle the rates of tolls and dues, to audit the 
accounts, and to let the lands become practically continuous. 
These committees seem to have been little more than devices 
for strengthening the authority of the Town Bailiff, for, as 
decade follows decade, we find the activity and importance of 
this dignitary constantly increasing. We gather, indeed, that 
towards the end of our period his official work became so 

1 MS. Minutes, Wisbech Corporation, 8th November 1694, 9th November 
1725, 26th October 1730. 

2 "Ordered that no Town Bailiff do put any person into any town house 
without the consent of the Hall " (ibid. 8th November 1765). 

3 Ibid. 1752-1756, 26th October 1778 ; History of Wisbech, by N. Walker 
and T. Cradock, 1849, p. 332. Subsequent Bailiffs were required to give 
security for 500 (MS. Minutes, Wisbech Corporation, 26th October 1778). 



144 THE MANORIAL BOROUGH 

continuous that it was not easy to keep up the succession of 
citizens with sufficient leisure, ability, and public spirit to 
undertake this onerous unpaid office a difficulty which, in 
1829, nearly brought the government of the little town to a 
standstill, 1 and may have accounted for the enthusiasm with 
which the Capital Burgesses accepted the reforms of 1835. 

When we survey the administrative results obtained by 
Wisbech in the course of a century and a half, we are able to 
appreciate the pride and satisfaction of the whole body of 
inhabitants in their local government. At no time and for no 
purpose did the Corporation levy a rate. From first to last 
the Capital Burgesses, in a spirit of what their historians call 
" a healthy poverty," 2 made shift with the rents of the Gild 
property, together with the ancient tolls and dues yielded by 
the trade of the port. Already in 1689 we find them 
managing their landed estate on the most approved modern 
principles. At a time when other Corporations were dealing 
with their property in secret conclave, conceding to their 
members beneficial leases, granting long terms for trifling 
fines, and improvidently alienating their freeholds, the Capital 
Burgesses of Wisbech were habitually letting their farms and 
town tenements by public auction for a term of twenty years, 
with carefully drafted covenants, which seem to have been 
strictly enforced. In 1751 they were quick to take advantage 
of the lowering in the current rate of interest, successfully 
negotiating a reduction of the rate on their loans to 4 per cent ; 
and in 1774, alarmed at the slow rate at which this bonded 
debt was being reduced, they arranged for its conversion into 
life annuities. 3 Unlike the practice of so many other towns, in 
restricting contracts to members of the Municipal Corporation, 
the Capital Burgesses forbade any of their own number to be 
pecuniarily interested in the Corporation work or directly or 
indirectly to undertake the work of a paid office. 4 At no time 
did the Burgesses put forward any claim to exclude non- 
freemen from trading. 5 Such Corporate feasting as the habits 
of the time demanded were enjoyed by all the Burgesses in 

1 MS. Minutes, Wisbech Corporation, 14th November 1829. 

2 History of Wisbech, by N. Walker and T. Cradock, 1849, p. 347. 

3 Ibid. pp. 333-334. 

4 MS. Minutes, Wisbech Corporation, 14th December 1795. 

6 History of Wisbech, by N. Walker and T. Cradock, 1849, p. 338. 



THE CHARTERED TOWNSHIP 145 

common ; the maximum sum to be spent was carefully limited, 1 
and the whole of them were finally discontinued in 1767 
owing to a growing sense of decorum. After that date, at any 
rate, the Capital Burgesses paid even for the annual dinner 
that they allowed themselves. 2 To the same growth of decorum 
we may perhaps attribute their success in suppressing, in 1786, 
the annual custom of " bull running," which had prevailed at 
Wisbech, as at Stamford and elsewhere, "time out of mind," 
and had degenerated into a carnival of brutal disorder. 3 

This strict and economical administration of the Corporate 
revenues was combined with an active policy according to the 
best light of the time. When the relief of the poor was the 
main function of the Capital Burgesses, we see them, instead of 
giving doles and pensions, providing hemp on which to set the 
poor to work; building a workhouse in 1720 out of bricks 
made on their own land; establishing in 1691, and again in 
1764, regular schools of spinning; and supplying the children 
with both religious and industrial instruction. 4 When most 
other towns were still relying for their Municipal services on 
the performance by each individual householder of his ancient 
personal service, Wisbech was already being paved, sewered, 
cleansed, lighted, watched no doubt very imperfectly, but at 
least on some general plan by paid officers or public contracts, 
at the expense of the Corporate funds. 5 But the householder 
was not allowed to escape. From the middle of the eighteenth 
century onward, we find the Town Bailiff issuing printed 
notices to the inhabitants, insisting on the cessation of this or 

1 MS. Minutes, Wisbech Corporation, 26tli October 1692 ; 5th November 
1767 ; History of Wisbech, by N. Walker and T. Cradock, 1849, pp. 324-325. 

2 Historical Account of Wisbech, by W. Watson, 1827, p. 230. 

3 History of Wisbech, by F. J. Gardiner, 1898, p. 25. 

4 MS. Minutes, Wisbech Corporation, 20th February 1622, 7th July 1691, 
14th November 1720, 1764, etc. ; History of Wisbech, by N. Walker and 
T. Cradock, 1849, pp. 327, 424 ; ibid, by F. J. Gardiner, 1898, p. 312. 
They even anticipated by seventeen years the statute requiring the outdoor 
paupers to wear a badge, resolving in 1680, "to pay for the stamp and 180 
badges provided for the poor " (ibid. p. 327). 

5 Items for paving the streets, repairing the causeways, and maintaining 
bridges occur in the minutes in 1689, 1690, 1692, 1694, 1697, 1699, 1700, 
1703, 1705, 1709, etc. ; for sewers to carry away waste water in 1693 and 1715 ; 
for the maintenance of the five town pumps in- 1696, 1708, 1714, etc. ; for 
sinking a new well and erecting a new pump in 1714 ; for cleansing the streets 
and scavenging in 1621, 1705, 1721, 1723, 1725, etc.; for repairing the town's 
fire engines in 1707 ; for increasing the number of fire buckets in 1716 ; for 
watching the town in 1618, 1708, 1733. 1735 ; for lighting the town in 1715 ; 

VOL. II. PT. I L 



146 THE MANORIAL BOROUGH 

that street nuisance or encroachment, and following up these 
notices by prosecutions before the Justices of those who disobey 
such injunctions. 1 In 1810, when the population and trade 
were rapidly increasing, the Capital Burgesses strengthened 
the police powers thus exercised by the Town Bailiff by 
obtaining a Local Act, in which, among other things, the 
definition of public nuisance was enlarged and a more speedy 
summary remedy provided. A paid Town Inspector was then 
appointed to enforce the law. 2 Meanwhile the navigation of 
the tidal river, on which the prosperity of the town depended, 
was, from 1710 onwards, constantly being improved at the 
public expense. The buoys and beacons were the object of 
continual attention ; a special officer, the " Beaconer," was 
appointed to look after them ; the channels, always liable to be 
silted up, were dredged and deepened ; pilots were licensed and 
a harbour-master was appointed ; a public crane was erected 
as early as 1719, a public warehouse built in 1788, and a 
special timber wharf constructed in 1 7 9 5 ; 8 a more com- 
modious "custom house" was provided in 1801, whilst 
throughout the whole period we see the Capital Burgesses 
carefully watching the numerous drainage schemes or canal 
Bills promoted by the neighbouring Fenland authorities, lest 
any new project should interfere with the depth of the river 
channel. 4 The " ancient seaport," as we find it described in 
1720, remained for a century more one of the most important 
of English havens for the coasting trade, with several scores of 
ships belonging to it, exporting to London, it was said, more 
oats and vegetable oil than any other port, and sometimes as 
much as 8000 firkins of butter in a year. 5 In 1786 the 
Capital Burgesses succeeded in buying up the lease of the 

and so on. It was about this time that Defoe found Wisbech "a well-built 
market town . . . esteemed the best trading town iu the Isle (of Ely), as 
having the convenience of good water-carriage to London, whither they send 
great quantities of oil and butter (A Tour Through the Whole Island of Great 
Britain, by D. Defoe, vol. i. p. 84 of 1748 edition). 

1 MS. Minutes, Wisbech Corporation, 10th November 1785 (as to deposit 
of dirt) ; 28th June 1785 (as to hogs wandering in the streets). 

2 MS. Minutes, Wisbech Corporation, 16th July 1810 ; 50 George III. 
c. 206 ; History of Wisbech, by N. Walker and T. Cradock, 1849, pp. 339-340. 

3 MS. Minutes, Wisbech Corporation, 5th June 1795. 

4 Ibid. 13th July 1719, 12th February 1744, 26th December 1749; 
Reasons . . . against embanking the Salt Marsh belonging to Sutton, 1720, 

6 Ibid.; History of Wisbech (anon.), 1833, p. 249, 



THE CHARTERED TOWNSHIP 147 

market rights, which had been granted by the Bishop of Ely to 
a private lessee, when they at once provided standard Weights 
and Measures and set to work to enforce market regulations. 
At first they let the tolls by public auction. In 1810, how- 
ever, their Local Act l gave them increased market powers, and 
during the next few years, when agricultural prices and rents 
were alike high, the Capital Burgesses used these powers to 
erect a public exchange and commodious market buildings for 
corn and fat cattle respectively ; they freed the shambles ; 2 
they established a fish market; they provided a spacious 
public warehouse for the storage of wool; they contrived an 
elaborate system of allotting the stalls in the corn market by 
ballot, so as to avoid favouritism ; 3 they appointed their own 
collectors of market tolls and a Market Beadle; and in 1829 
they were far-sighted enough to decide " with a view to 
increase the beneficial purposes of the several markets, and to 
induce the public to resort to the town in greater numbers," 
on a policy of drastic reduction in the amount of the market 
tolls. 4 Space does not permit us even to mention all the 
manifold public enterprises successfully administered by these 
Wisbech Burgesses their constant struggle to reclaim the 
" drowned lands " of their estate ; their replacing of the old 
wooden bridge in 1756-1758 by a handsome stone one ; 5 their 
erection of public stairs at a precipitous descent ; 6 their pro- 
vision of flat pavements for their footways in 1811; their 
active and generous co-operation in the provision of facilities 
for religious worship; and their liberal subscriptions to such 
enlightened enterprises as the provision in 1826 for public use 
of hot and cold salt-water baths, the maintenance of an iceboat 
to prevent any stoppage of the drainage current by frost, 7 and 
the provision of a savings bank. But it was perhaps in their 
zeal for public education that the Capital Burgesses of Wisbech 
were most in advance of the rulers of other towns. The 
Grammar School, for the maintenance of which they had been 
originally incorporated, was always the subject of their liveliest 
interest and constant attention. The master whom they 

1 50 George III. c. 206. f 

2 MS. Minutes, Wisbech Corporation, 16th July 1816. 

3 Ibid. 13th September 1811. 4 Ibid. 2nd November 1829. 
6 Ibid. October 1756, 21st October 1757. 

6 Ibid. 21st March 1690. 7 Ibid. 6th January 1802. 



I 4 8 THE MANORIAL BOROUGH 

appointed, though always in holy orders, was expressly for- 
bidden to accept a living, or even to officiate as a clergyman. 
He was not allowed to become a Magistrate or even a Capital 
Burgess. He was, relatively to the standard of the times, paid 
a liberal salary and provided with skilled assistance. 1 In 
addition to this ancient Grammar School, the Capital Burgesses 
started a Sunday school in 1786, and, in co-operation with some 
of the principal inhabitants, in 1811-1813, also a " Lancas- 
trian school " for the children of the poor. 2 They were even 
so exceptionally enlightened, at the very early date of 1714, 
as to rearrange and open to the public a library of books, 
apparently provided by a voluntary book club in the seven- 
teenth century, which was subsequently expressly designated a 
" public library " ; 3 providing new shelving, getting the books 
catalogued, and appointing a paid librarian, whose catalogue 
was " to be lodged in the Town Hall for the public use." 

(c) Tlie, Lordless Court 

We pass now to the bulk of Manorial Boroughs, a hetero- 
geneous crowd of authorities exhibiting in 1689 every variety 
of constitutional structure, but all alike falling short of 
autonomous Corporate Magistracy, and all connected in some 
way with the Manorial jurisdiction, from which they may prob- 
ably have sprung. We group these into the three sub-classes, 
not very clearly distinguishable, that we term respectively the 
Lordless Court (where there was practically no Municipal 
structure), the Lord's Borough (where Municipal structure had 
been developed, but this had remained connected with the 
Lord's Court), and, derivative from one or other of these, the 
Enfranchised Manorial Borough. 

An interesting example of the Lordless Court is furnished 
by the little "Borough" of Newbiggin-by-the-Sea in 
Northumberland, which held its markets and fairs by Royal 
grants of 1309 and 1319 and had in 1382 even sent 
members to Parliament. This little port, in 1689 a mere 
fishing village, had shaken itself loose from any control or 

1 MS. Minutes, Wisbech Corporation, 1st November 1 6 8 9 , 6 th November 1704. 

2 Ibid. 27th March and 19th April 1811. 

3 Ibid. 6th August 1714 ; History of Wisbech (anon.), 1833, p. 164 ; 
ibid, by F. J. Gardiner, 1898, p. 214. 



THE LORDLESS COURT 149 

interference by the Lord of the Manor. It had been incorpor- 
ated by no Charter, either from the King or from its Lord. 
But the Lord of the Manor, Lord Widdrington, had apparently 
let slip his rights; and after his attainder in 1715, no Courts 
were held on behalf of any Lord until 1741. This long 
abandonment of the village to an unchecked autonomy, and 
the confusion and uncertainty into which the seignorial rights 
had fallen, seem to have led to the assumption by the Free- 
holders that they had no superior but the King. Accordingly 
these proprietors of the ancient " freeledges " or farms, into 
which the township had been divided from time immemorial, 
themselves held an annual " Court," which we can trace, 
from about 1730, continuously for at least a hundred years. 
During the eighteenth century, at any rate, they held the 
markets and fairs for their own profit, and even levied 
" quayage " dues on all ships entering their little harbour, 
according to Eoyal Letters Patent of 1316. To the Crown 
they paid an ancient fee-farm rent of a little more than 10 
a year. " Whereas," they declared, " the Freeholders of the 
Town of Newbiggin . . . have time out of mind made 
orders among themselves for the stinting and eating of the 
Common Town Green and Loaning belonging to Newbiggin 
aforesaid, we whose hands are hereunto subscribed and put, 
being the present Freeholders of the said Town ... in pursu- 
ance of the said custom, do unanimously consent and agree" 
to various orders and regulations. In 1720 Lord Widdrington's 
estates and Manors were bought by the York Buildings 
Water Company of London, apparently as a speculative 
investment ; and in due course the Company took steps to 
reduce the Freeholders of Newbiggin to due Manorial subjection. 
In 1731 we see the Freeholders contributing "a shilling a 
freehold " to defend their rights and privileges. But more 
expensive proceedings were at hand. In 1733 a long 
Chancery suit was begun against them, which lasted ten 
years, but ended in some inconclusive way, leaving their 
privileges unimpaired. 

" The proceedings of this suit," writes Dr. Creighton, 
"show us a community completely self-governed, with no 
interference from a Lord, and little from the Crown. ... In 
1730, back to which date the Freeholders' books survived, we 



ISO THE MANORIAL BOROUGH 

find the arable laud already divided, but the pasture land still 
held in common. The Freeholders meet and make By-laws 
for the pasturage. They appoint Constables, Ale-tasters, and 
Bread-weighers. They levy tolls on boats and ships, and 
receive payments for carts loading seaweed from the shore, for 
lobster- tanks in the rocks, for stones quarried on the fore- 
shore. The money they receive from these rents is divided 
among the Freeholders in proportion to the ancient freeledges 
or farms." 1 They even took to themselves all wrecks thrown 
upon their rocky coast, and sold the privilege of gathering 
seaweed. For nearly a century after the Chancery suit we 
find them governing the little town; declaring, in 1730, that 
the Ale- tasters whom they appointed " are to have at every 
alehouse in the town one quart"; in 1753 ordaining "no 
ducks to be kept in town"; in 1762 "that the Constable 
weigh all butter and bread that shall be offered for sale iii 
the said township." Similar entries occur down to 1829. 
This humble government remained undiscovered by the 
Municipal Corporation Commissioners of 1835, and even by 
those of 1876-1880. The little group of Freeholders seems 
gradually to have let drop its public functions, whilst retaining, 
and even enlarging, its proprietary rights. It has enclosed 
parcels of land, let them on lease, and allowed quarries to be 
opened. The shares have (1907) gradually become con- 
centrated, it is said, in the hands of a couple of owners, who 
have bought up many of the " stints " of their colleagues, 
separately from their freeholds, taking conveyances of these 
separated " stints " as transferring all rights in the collective 
ownership. Meanwhile the little town, growing again into a 
port with some little trade and a population of a couple of 
thousands, has equipped itself with the commonplace machin- 
ery of an Urban District Council under the Public Health 
Acts, apparently leaving all its quondam public possessions 
to become exclusively the private property of these two 
proprietors. 2 

1 "The Northumbrian Border," by Mandell Creighton, in Archaeological 
Journal, vol. xlii., 1885, p. 62. 

2 The two Freeholders who are reputed to have got control of all the shares 
find, it is said, some difficulty in disposing of the property, owing to the ambiguity 
of their title, and we believe that litigation is pending (1907). To a similar 
difficulty experienced by their predecessors we owe much of our information. 



THE LORD LESS COURT 151 

The origin of some of the governments that we have called 
Lordless Courts may be suggested by the history of the so- 
called Borough of Tetbury in Gloucestershire. 1 Here we find 
a large Manor owned by the Berkeleys, extending five miles by 
three, and divided into two parts, " the Borough " and " the 
Foreign." Early in the seventeenth century "the Borough" 
had already, under successive seignorial Charters, acquired a 
certain degree of independence. At the Court held by the 
Lord's Steward every October, the Jury presented the names 
of three persons, out of which the Steward had to choose one 
as "King's Bailiff," whilst the other officers Constables, 
" Wardsmen " (who were " Assistants to the Constables "), 
Carnals, Ale-tasters or " Assizemen," and a Searcher and Sealer 
of Leather were freely elected by the Jury. The market tolls 
were strictly limited by ancient custom; the Lord had granted 
" common of pasture " over Tetbury Warren between certain 

Copy of the case submitted to counsel two generations ago passed into the hands 
of the late Mr. Woodman, and furnished Dr. Creighton with his facts. That 
copy has disappeared from among the Woodman MSS. ; but Mr. J. Crawford 
Hodgson has another copy of it, which he kindly allowed us to see. The 
Chancery suit was Gregory ;;. Pattinson, 1733 to 18th June 1743. See also The. 
History of Northumberland, by Kev. J. Hodgson, vol. ii. part ii., 1832, pp. 213- 
220; paper on "The Northumbrian Border," by Rev. M. Creighton, in 
Archaeological Journal, vol. xlii., 1885, p. 62. 

1 For the history of Tetbury we have had the advantage of consulting the MS. 
records of the Feoft'ees, including minutes, accounts, and records of the Manorial 
Courts, etc. ; a unique copy of the presentments of the Court in 1623, setting 
forth the then constitution of the Borough ; Articles of Agreement anno VII. 
Car. I. for tJie purchase of the Manor, Tolls . . . with Judge Coxes opinion on, 
some cases concerning the same, 1782 ; By-laws made for the Borough, London 
Gazette, 12th September 1687 ; a "Case on the Tolls of the Fairs and Markets," 
1790 ; 54 George III. cap. cxliv. (Tetbury Inclosure Act, 1814); 57 George III. 
cap. ii. (Tetbury Paving Act, 1817) ; 2 and 3 Vic. c. 7 (Sale of Advowson 
Act, 1839); Further Report of Commissioners to inquire into Charities, 1828, 
p. 351 ; History of the Town and Parish of Tetbury, by Rev. Alfred T. Lee, 
1857 ; also New History of Gloucestershire, by Samuel Rudder, 1779, pp. 727- 
733. 

Gloucestershire had other reputed Boroughs, such as Chipping Sodbury, 
which had between 1681 and 1688 Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses, and 
afterwards a Bailiff nominated by the Homage Jury at the Lord's Court ; Dursley, 
with much the same organisation ; Newnham, electing annually a Mayor and six 
Aldermen, but actually governed by two "Beams" or Constables (First Report 
of Municipal Corporation Commission, 1835, Appendix, vol. i. pp. 37, 49 ; ditto, 
1880, part i. p. 33, part ii. p. 406 ; Ancient and Present State of Gloucestershire, 
by R. Atkyns, 1768, pp. 347-354 ; New History of Gloucestershire, by S. Rudder, 
1779 (for Chipping Sodbury, pp. 671-676) ; Chapters of Parochial History 
(Dursley), by J. H. Blunt, 187 7 ; "Notes on the Borough and Manor of Newnham," 
by R. J. Kerr, in Transactions of Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological 
Society, vol. xviii., 1893). We refer separately to Chipping Campden (p. 180), 



152 THE MANORIAL BOROUGH 

dates, and there was also pasturage all the year round on 
certain other wastes of the Manor. 1 

This Manorial constitution was destined during the seven- 
teenth century to be developed, by the gradual transfer of the 
Lord's rights, into an almost complete autonomy. A wealthy 
Alderman of the City of London, Sir William Romney, first 
took the market on lease from the Lord, at a substantial rent, 
together with the ancient " Tolzey " ; and then in 1610 
bequeathed the remainder of his lease, partly for charitable 
purposes and partly for the common good, to a body of trustees 
for the town, of whom he named the first thirteen, empowering 
them to co-opt their successors. Some years later we find 
this charitable trust made the subject of inquiry by commis- 
sioners for the Court of Chancery, who were, in fact, some of 
the neighbouring magnates, with a view to placing it on a 
more permanent basis. In consultation with the " King's 
Bailiff" for the time being (who was elected, it will be 
remembered, at the annual Court of the Manor), and the 
principal inhabitants, the Commissioners recommended the 
consolidation of the authorities of the town into a recognised 
governing body, 2 consisting of the Bailiff, and twelve " Brethren 
and Assistants," known as the " Thirteen," representing, we 
may assume, the original trustees, and a " company or society 
called the Four-and-Twenty " ; the Thirteen to fill vacancies 
by co-option from out of the Four-and-Twenty ; and recruits 
for the Four-and-Twenty to be chosen by the two bodies 
jointly. The Thirteen were, by a provision as to which the 
legal authority might be questioned, to have the power to levy 
a rate upon the inhabitants, in supplement of their trust funds, 
and to appoint the Schoolmaster, the Lecturer, and the inmates 
of the almshouses. This constitution was sanctioned by the 
Court of Chancery, and embodied in an instrument under the 
Great Seal. 8 

But a further stage was yet to come. In 1632 the Lady 
Berkeley and her son, Lord Berkeley, being concerned to 
promote the welfare of their principal Borough of Berkeley, 

1 This constitution is described in the presentments of the Court held in 
October 1623, of which a unique MS. copy has been placed at our disposal. 

2 The resemblance of this constitution to that of.Beccles should be noted. 

3 Further Report of Royal Commission to inquire into Charities, 1828, 
p. 351. 



THE LORDLESS COURT 153 

and needing ready money, offered to sell the Manor of 
Tetbury, both " the Borough " and " the Foreign." It seems 
that, possibly because there was no large estate within the 
Manor, but four or five score small occupying freeholders, the 
noble owners intimated their willingness " not only that every 
particular tenant . . . might for their own particular and 
private uses buy the inheritance of their several tenements 
. . . but also that such parts thereof as might be convenient 
and necessary might be bought and purchased for the public 
and general good of the said Borough to have continuance 
for ever for their public good and benefit." " Therefore," we 
are told, "the Bailiff and the rest of the Thirteen and other 
of the inhabitants of the said Borough . . . did consider and 
treat among themselves what might be fit for them to do ... 
and upon mature and deliberate consideration had at several 
meetings in public, they did think it fit for the general good 
of the said Borough " to subscribe among themselves the sum 
of 840, with which to buy not only the whole Manor with 
its Courts, warren, waste lands, rents, royalties, liberties, and 
franchises, but also an existing lease of the warren, and even 
the advowson of the living, so that the Borough might appoint 
its own clergyman. The "Articles of Agreement" then 
concluded between the Lord and Lady Berkeley on the one 
hand and the principal inhabitants of Tetbury on the other, 1 
afford a charming vision of a great deal of public-spirited 
activity in the town. Unlike most Charters and other 
instruments of this period, this agreement aimed at placing 
the property in trust, not for the members of the governing 
body, or of any Corporation, or even for a class of Burgesses, 
Freeholders, or Freemen, but for all the inhabitant house- 
holders for the time being. Thus all the residents were free 
to trade, to use the market, and to worship in the church. 
The existing Commoners agreed to forgo their rights of 
pasture over certain lands, in order to permit these to be 
ploughed and sown with corn until the proceeds had sufficed 
to complete the reimbursement to the trustees of any sums 

1 The MS. copy of the Articles of Agreement in our possession shows that 
the formal agreement was made with (a) four trustees, (b) the Bailiff and the 
rest of the Thirteen, (c) " the company or society called the Four-and -Twenty," 
and (d) 44 persons "all of the number called the Commonalty " (who were possibly 
the freeholders). 



154 THE MANORIAL BOROUGH 

that they had expended. The pasturage was subsequently 
to be enjoyed, not only by the owners of " the ancient 
messuages," but also by those of " newly erected messuages 
or cottages," and even by immigrants into the Borough after 
they had lived there seven years, or on payment of the sum 
of 5, immediately they took up residence. 1 This remark- 
able co-operative purchase of the Manor, under carefully 
drawn Articles of Agreement, incidentally, and possibly un- 
intentionally, led to a change in the constitution. The legal 
ownership was vested in seven Feoffees, filling vacancies among 
themselves by co-option, who were jointly Lords of the 
Manor, and as such held the Courts. These became, it is 
clear, along with the Bailiff, the Executive of the Borough, 
acting in more or less consultation with the Thirteen, who 
were, we are told, always " the gravest, chiefest, and discreetest 
townsmen " ; and who continued to audit the accounts and 
give a sort of confirmatory authority to the actions of the 
Feoffees and the Bailiff. The Bailiff was " usually the senior 
Thirteen who had not yet served that office." The Four-and- 
Twenty seems to have had no function beyond that of 
furnishing recruits to the Thirteen, and we do not gather 
that it continued to meet otherwise than as the Jury which 
the Bailiff summoned to the Court of the Feoffees, with which 
it is believed to have become identical. 2 

Under this Corporate government Tetbury continued to 
flourish, growing in population from about 1200 in 1700 to 
about 3500 in 17*79, when it ranked as "the third town in 
Gloucestershire," 3 buildingfor itself in 165 5 a market hall, setting 
up public pumps, and even widening its streets, out of its not 
inconsiderable Manorial revenues. The Feoffees' six-monthly 
Courts, with the two Juries, one for " the Borough," the other for 
" the Foreign," occasionally included among their presentments 
orders to the Feoffees not to dispose of any of the " Town's 
Stock " without the consent of the inhabitants, complaints as 
to the condition of the streets, and formal indictments of 

1 In 1640 the last remnant of the Lord's rights was got rid of by the 
purchase, for 1400, of the reversion of the Markets and Fairs after the expiry of 
the lease. This purchase had been provided for, by anticipation, in the Articles 
of 1632, and the trustees had saved up money for it. 

2 MS. note recording old tradition. 

3 New History of Gloucestershire, by S. Rudder, 1779, pp. 727-733. 



155 

officers for neglect of duty. This Court was also used by the 
Feoffees publicly to let by auction to the highest bidder both 
the tolls of the market and the manure of the streets. But 
from a case submitted to Counsel in 1790 we gather that 
the Feoffees found difficulty at that date in enforcing their 
authority, and were doubtful as to the powers that either they 
or their " Court Leet and Court Baron " could actually put in 
force against nuisance-mongers. How far and how rapidly the 
Feoffees, the Jury, and the Bailiff were, in the early decades of 
the nineteenth century, superseded by the County Justices, 
who had come to hold regular Petty and Special Sessions in 
the Borough, or by the inhabitants in Vestry assembled, we 
have been unable to ascertain. In 1814 the Feoffees cordially 
assisted in obtaining an Inclosure Act, and in 1817 a Paving 
and Lighting Act. 

Meanwhile the little town of Tetbury was being rapidly 
left behind by the changing course of trade and industry. 
The market had been, at the beginning of the eighteenth 
century, the most frequented in the district, large quantities of 
wool, yarn, and serge, as well as of corn, bacon, cheese, and 
cattle, changing hands : so much as 1000 being dealt with on 
a single day. Gradually, however, it decayed ; the population 
declined to half the total of 1779 ,- the Corporate revenues fell 
away to a few pounds annually ; the functions of the Bailiff, 
the Feoffees, and the Thirteen silently diminished to next to 
nothing, until the so-called " Borough " of Tetbury became 
almost indistinguishable in its government from the neighbour- 
ing villages. 1 

1 It was not discovered by the Municipal Corporation Commissions of 1835 
and 1876-1880. It became first a Local Board and then an Urban District 
Council, under the Public Health Act (population in 1901, 1989, or little 
over half the highest point reached more than a century previously). The 
Feotfees now regard themselves exclusively as trustees of a. small charitable 
endowment. 

Melton Mowbray, in Leicestershire, may be cited as an analogous case of a 
benefaction to the town becoming the basis of local autonomy (see An Essay on 
English Municipal History, by James Thompson, 1867, pp. 146-152 ; the 
various papers by Thomas North in the Transactions of the Leicestershire 
Architectural and Archaeological Society, vols. iii. and iv., 1874-1875). Here lands 
were leased and purchased by the inhabitants in 1549-1565 and vested in 
Feoffees, the money being found by a quite extra-legal special levy. At first we 
gather that Town Wardens and " Spinny Wardens, " Overseers for Pavements 
and Bridgemasters, Constables and Swineherds, a Hay ward and a "Town's 
Husband," were all elected annually at a public meeting of the inhabitants. 



156 THE MANORIAL BOROUGH 

Here and there we discover examples of Lordless Courts 
of less obvious origin than the Borough of Tetbury. In the 
wild and mountainous region that separates the verdures of 
Windermere from the spreading sands of Morecambe Bay, we 
find a "Society and Fellowship of the Four -and -Twenty," a 
Close Body meeting at the ancient abbey church of Cartmel, 
which we have assumed to be a Parish Vestry analogous to 
that of Braintree in Essex, and have already described it as 
such. 1 It seems, however, to have itself possessed Manorial 
jurisdiction over the seven townships of the parish, and 
to have held its own Manorial Courts for the appointment 
of officers and the regulation of the life of the inhabitants. 2 
How the Four -and -Twenty "Sidesmen" of Cartmel, as 
they were eventually termed, came to possess this great 
Manor ; how the unincorporated parish could legally hold 
it without its being vested in feoffees or trustees ; how 
the Sidesmen got the right to receive the fines and 
amercements of the Courts held by a Steward on their 

But an executive committee was chosen in 1582, and in 1628 we find "ten or 
twelve of the principal men of the parish " acting as a Close Body, which seems 
to have ruled, with the Trustees and Town Wardens, for over a century. By 
1775, however, even this Close Body had fallen into desuetude, and discontent 
began to be manifested at the Trustees ruling alone. After some years' struggle 
a deed of compromise was signed in 1793, by which the town gave itself a new 
constitution, the whole authority resting in the annual public meeting, which 
chose all the officers. This, though a troublesome and occasionally turbulent 
authority, continued without legal warrant for three quarters of a century, until 
the administration passed under the Public Health Acts, first to a Local Board 
and then to an Urban District Council (population in 1901, 7454). 

As possibly analogous to Tetbury and Melton Mowbray, we may cite the 
so-called Borough of Clitheroe, one of the townships of the great parish of 
Whalley in Lancashire, and formerly part of the extensive Honour of Clitheroe, 
with a population increasing from 1368 in 1801 to 5213 in 1831, which had 
received a seignorial Charter in the twelfth century. Here the government was 
in the hands of the owners of the ancient burgage hereditaments, who,, having 
been duly admitted as Burgesses, elected annually two of themselves as Bailiffs, 
and were eligible to be summoned by the Bailiffs on an " Inquiry Jury," which 
served as a sort of occasional council. The Bailiffs acted as Lords of the Manor, 
holding (with their Recorder) a Borough Court for the trial of personal actions 
of any amount, and (by their Town Clerk as Steward) a Court Leet, at which a 
series of Manorial officers were appointed (including a paid "Well-cleaner"). 
See First Report of Municipal Corporation Commission, 1835, Appendix, vol. 
iii. p. 1483 ; Ancient Charters and other Muniments of the Borough of Clitheroe, 
by J. Harland, 1851 ; History of the original Parish of Whalley, by T. D. 
Whitaker, vol. ii., 1876, pp. 68-99 ; and pp. 48, 205 of the present work. 

1 The Parish and the County, Book I. Chap. V. Section (a), The Close 
Vestry by Immemorial Custom. 

2 Annals of Cartmel, by James Stockdale, 1872; Cartmeltoniana, by Rev. 
W. ftbliott, 1854 ; Tfie Rural Deanery of Cartmel, edited by R. H. Kirby, 1892. 



THE LORDLESS COURT 157 

behalf ; * what exactly had been their relation to one particular 
township of their great parish, Flookburgh by name, which 
possessed ancient Municipal regalia and a sword of office and 
was reputed once to have been a Chartered Borough; 2 how 
they acquired the power of disposing at their will of the waste 
and commons, eventually dividing up the whole area under 
Inclosure Acts among some 300 freeholders; 3 how they 
managed to take deodands and forfeitures, 4 and even to 
appropriate the proceeds of wrecks upon the shore, 5 we must 
leave as interesting inquiries to the historian of a preceding 
period. 

But government by a Lordless Court was not always 
confined to small and isolated communities. The best t 
example of such a government is furnished, indeed, by the 
Manorial Borough of Birmingham. 6 The town of Birmingham, 
having in 1689 probably under 12,000 inhabitants, and fifty 
years later not more than twice that number, sprang, like 
Manchester, in the second half of the eighteenth century, from 
a mere manufacturing village, which had forgotten that it was 
ever called a Borough, into a densely crowded, great industrial 

1 Annals of Cartmel, by James Stockdale, 1872, p. 168. 

2 Ibid. pp. 121, 291. 3 Ibid. pp. 326-384. 

4 " It is ordered that (three names) shall be appointed to collect these sums 
of money hereafter mentioned, being deodands and forfeited goods, viz. of J. F. 
53/- ; of R. S. 40/- for horse and wheels ; W. H. for the running gear of Staveley 
watermill, 48/4 ; of C. B. for 10 lent by M. K for L. R.'s horse and saddle ; 
and that these sums be paid before Christmas next or else the same be put in 
suit. Also that the men aforesaid do view a cockboat at N. and do sell the 
same" (Minute of 1653, ibid. p. 83). 

6 Ibid. pp. 293-295. Cartmel was not inquired into either by the Municipal 
Corporation Commissioners of 1833-1835 or by those of 1876-1880. 

Throlcmorton's Survey of the Borough and Manor of Birmingham, 1553, 
by W. B. Bickley and Joseph Hill, 1891 ; Memorials of Old Birmingham, by 
J. Toulmin Smith, 1863 ; The Gild of Holy Cross, Birmingham, by Lucy 
Toulmin Smith, 1894; History of Birmingham, by William Button, 1st edition, 
1781, 7th edition, 1840 ; Hints for a History of Birmingham, by James Jaffray, 
1855 (?) ; History of the Corporation of Birmingham, by J. T. Bunce, vol. i., 
1878 ; Tlie Duty of the Respective Officers appointed by the Court Leet in the 
Manor of Birmingham, 1789 ; A Concise History of Birmingham, 1817 (?) ; The 
Picture of Birmingham, by James Drake, 1825 ; Historical and Descriptive 
Sketch of Birmingham, 1830 ; The State of the Court of Requests and the Public 
Office of Birmingham, by Joseph Parkes, 1828. The Court Leet records exist 
only from 1799, and are unimportant ; the MS. Minutes of the Street Com- 
missioners are available from 1776 ; whilst we have only been able to find MS. 
Vestry Minutes for St. Martin's (the principal) parish back to 1795. On the 
other hand much may be gleaned from the newspapers (of which a large sample ; ' 
is to be found in A Century of Birmingham Life (1741-1841), by J. A. Langford, 
1868) ; and contemporary references. 



158 THE MANORIAL BOROUGH 

centre, containing by 1835 a population of more than 150,000. 
Like Manchester, too, it had no Municipal Corporation, and 
was dependent for all magisterial authority on the Justices 
of the Peace of the County. But though Birmingham 
remained, equally with Manchester, under a Manorial form 
of government, the actual working of it was very different. 
It was not merely that at Birmingham the more important 
Municipal services had, from 1776 onwards, increasingly passed 
into the hands of a statutory body of Street Commissioners, 
which we shall subsequently describe. 1 What was even more 
important, Birmingham had, already at the end of the seven- 
teenth century, shaken off nearly all the authority of the Lord 
of the Manor, and, by the beginning of the nineteenth century, 
had ousted him from the last remnant of power. The govern- 
ment, nominally Manorial, took the form of what was practi- 
cally a Lordless Court. As at Manchester, the chief officers 
of the town were chosen annually at the Court Leet, 2 presided 
over by the Lord's Steward. But by long tradition the 
selection of the Jury was not in the hands of the Steward, 
but was left to the "Low Bailiff" chosen at the previous 
Court. 8 The Lord of the Manor had, in fact, let slip all 
his authority over the Court Leet, except the formal presiding 
of his Steward ; and the Court itself had, in the nineteenth 
century, 4 allowed its own powers to lapse. There was a busy 
Manorial market, but in 1806 the Street Commissioners 

1 Book IV. Chap. IV. The Street Commissioners. 

2 The formal procedure of the Court Leet is given in The Duty of the, Respec- 
tive Officers appointed by the Court Leet in the Manor of Birmingham, by Thomas 
Lee, Steward of the Manor, 1789, partly reprinted in the History of the Corpora- 
tion of Birmingham, by J. T. Bunce, 1878, vol. i. pp. 4, 19, where the Court 
Leet is described. 

3 " The function of the Low Bailiff is to summon an annual Court Leet, at 
which he chooses a Jury, who elect all the officers for the ensuing year. . . . 
The choice, therefore, of all these virtually rests with the Low Bailiff, as holding 
the absolute choice of the electing Jury " (The Picture of Birmingham, by James 
Drake, 1825, p. 18). In 1722, and again in 1792, this custom of leaving the 
selection of the Jury to the Low Bailiff was contested. In order to secure the 
election of Church and Tory officers, the Steward on each occasion chose the Jury 
and elected his nominees. On each occasion the Whig Nonconformists fought 
the issue at the assizes, with the result of establishing the customary right of the 
Low Bailiff (History of the Corporation of Birmingham, by J. T. Bunce, 1878, 
vol. i. pp. 17, 19). 

4 Hutton, writing in 1794, observes that the "duties of office are little 
known except that of taking a generous dinner, which is punctually observed. 
It is too early to begin business till the table is well stored with bottles and too 
late afterwards" (History of Birmingham, 3rd edition, 1795, p. 144). 



THE LORDLESS COURT 159 

farmed the tolls and the management from the Lord, who 
thus lost all interest in the appointment of officers, and the 
Court Leet itself lost all practical control over market 
regulation. It continued to appoint annually a whole 
hierarchy of Manorial officers, as it was said, "to govern 
the town." "A High Bailiff, who inspects the markets and 
sees that justice is observed between buyer and seller, 
rectifying the weights and dry measures ; a Low Bailiff, 
who summons a Jury who choose all the other officers, viz. 
two Constables and one Headborough ; two High Tasters, who 
" examine the goodness of the beer and its measure ; and two 
Low Tasters, or Meat Conners, who inspect the meat exposed 
for sale, and cause that to be destroyed which is unfit for food. 
Deritend, being a hamlet of Birmingham, sends its inhabitants 
to the Birmingham Court Leet, where a Constable is elected 
for them, and at which all the Town Officers are chosen and 
sworn in ; the whole in the name of the Lord of the Manor." l 
But these officers did not in practice pay any attention to 
their nominal duties. After the end of the eighteenth century, 
at any rate, 2 they reported no offenders, the Jury made no 
presentments, and the Court levied no fines. The annual 
holding of the Court was transformed into an elaborate 
luncheon given by the retiring Low Bailiff to his friends and 
the principal inhabitants, at which the formal appointment of 
officers for the ensuing year was made. 3 There was not even 
the interest of religious or political rivalry, it having long 
been " customary to chose the High Bailiff from the Church- 
men and the Low Bailiff from the Dissenters." The only 
functions really performed were ceremonial. " To the High 
Bailiff," we are told, " is conceded by custom the duty 
formerly exercised by the Constables of convening and 
conducting the business of all public meetings in the town. . . . 
He proclaims the two fairs, one at Whitsuntide, the other at 
Michaelmas, going in procession with the other town officers, 

1 A Concise History of Birmingham (anon.), 5th edition, 1817, pp. 38-39. 

2 The History of the Corporation of Birmingham, by J. T. Bunce, 1878, 
vol. i. p. 13, gives a few instances of amercements for market offences between 
1779 and 1796. 

8 Thus, in 1825, "the Court Leet assembled ... at the Public Office 
about 1 2 o'clock and proceeded from thence to the Royal Hotel, where they par- 
took of a sumptuous cold collation, after which the following gentlemen were 
chosen to fill the offices" (Birmingham Journal, 29th October 1825). 



160 THE MANORIAL BOROUGH 

the Jury of the Court Leet, and a retinue of his personal 
friends, attended by a band of music to enliven the scene." l 
Yet in the eyes of the Birmingham Radicals of 1830 the 
Court Leet and the High Bailiff loomed large as a relic 
of feudal tyranny, "a close, self -elected, in-and-in body, 
irresponsible to or uncontrolled by public opinion." 2 . . . 
" It is true that they have no power in the vulgar accepta- 
tion of the word. . . . But the assumed power of conferring 
on public meetings a character of Town's Meetings, and 
stigmatising other meetings regularly and openly convened 
by public requisition as not Town's Meetings ; of defraying 
the expenses of some and refusing the costs of others is a 
species of bastard power which must and will be soon 
extirpated. This rusty machinery may, in fact, be said to have 
usurped the right of petition and public meetings. It was 
aforetime always necessary to ask the Manager of the Court 
Leet whether he would let his man-servant the High Bailiff 
call such and such a meeting, and if cold water was thrown 
upon the meeting by the power behind the throne no meeting 
was called." 3 Yet the annual Courts Leet continued nomin- 
ally to be held, and High and Low Bailiffs to be appointed for 
Birmingham, after the town had been definitely incorporated 
as a Municipal Borough, and, in fact, down to 1854, when the 
practice was silently discontinued. 4 

(d) The Lord's Borough 

From the Lordless Court we pass by slight distinctions to 
the Lord's Borough, itself developing with almost imperceptible 
gradations into the Enfranchised Manorial Borough. Of the 
Lord's Borough the specimens range themselves in a practically 

1 An Historical and Descriptive Sketch of Birmingham, 1830, pp. 85-87. 
This "proclaiming the fair" is described in the Birmingham Journal, 20th 
May 1826, from which it appears that the function ended with a "sumptuous" 
dinner, given by the High Bailiff. 

2 Birmingham Journal, 16th October 1830. 

3 Ibid. 30th October 1830. The High Bailiff " became chairman of all 
Town's Meetings and the nominal leader of the town in all public affairs " 
(Birmingham Journal, 26th November 1864 ; Modern Birmingham and its 
Institutions, by J. A. Langford, vol. ii. p. 266). 

4 The Town Clerk informs us that the Birmingham Corporation, though 
owning the market rights, has never bought the Manor, which remains, as mere 
property, in private hands. 



THE LORD'S BOROUGH 161 

continuous series, from merely rudimentary examples, through 
the so-called Boroughs of Berkeley and Wotton, described in 
the last chapter as mere subordinate parts of a Hierarchy of 
Courts, up to the Borough of Arundel, where the dependence 
on the Court of the Lord was more nominal than real. What 
marks this series off from the Lordless Court is the presence, 
even in its lowest members, of new constitutional structure, 
additional to that of the most highly evolved Lord's Court : 
constitutional structure, which, in the highest members of the 
series, becomes itself the supreme, if not the only governmental 
authority of the town. 

We may take as a specimen of the merest rudiment of a 
Lord's Borough the tiny community of Holy Island, off the 
Northumberland coast. Passing over all its celebrity in 
ecclesiastical history, we find Holy Island in 1689 under a 
primitive constitution. There are two Bailiffs, twenty -four 
Burgesses, and an unlimited number of Stallingers. 1 The 
Burgesses, called also " Freemen," are the owners of the ancient 
freehold tenements of the Island, which are twenty-four in 
number. They claim and are accorded an exceptionally large 
" stint " of pasturage on the commons of the Island. They 
alone elect one of the Bailiffs, the other being the nominee of 
the Lord. The Stallingers have no share in the election of a 
Bailiff, and but small stints of pasturage. But they have to 
attend the Lord's Court, and there they may possibly serve on 
the Jury, which presents nuisances and nominates a Serjeant, 
Constables, Aleconners, Bread- weighers, and other petty officers, 
though whether they may share in the trial of petty debt 
cases is less certain. This constitution went on until 1793, 
when an Inclosure Act ignored the distinction between Bur- 
gesses and Stallingers, which faded away. 2 

If a village community such as Holy Island had " received 
a few Chartered privileges from a mediaeval baron," it might, 

1 " Stallangiator " is used about 1270 for "a staller, or tenser, a foreigner 
who paid for a stand in the market and did not enter the Freedom of the 
Borough" (Borough Customs, by Mary Bateson, vol. i., 1904, p. 112). The 
student will not fail to notice the close analogy between the twenty-four "Bur- 
gesses" of Holy Island and the usual " Four-and-Twenty " of a Northumber- 
land parish (see The Parish mid the County, 1906, pp. 179-181). 

2 History of North Durham, by T. Raine, 1852, p. 161. Holy Island 
(population in 1901, 405) is now governed by a Parish Council of its own. 

VOL. II. PT. I M 



162 THE MANORIAL BOROUGH 

as Professor Maitland points out, even be " allowed a precarious 
place on the roll of English Boroughs." l But such Chartered 
Boroughs, for all their pretensions, might amount, in fact, 
constitutionally, to no more than Holy Island. Thus, the 
ancient " Borough of Petersfield," in Hampshire, returning 
two Members of Parliament, was, in 1689, hardly to be 
distinguished from a mere Court of the Manor. But at the 
Annual Leet or Lawday the officers appointed comprised (in 
addition to the Bailiff, Constables and Tithingmen) a Mayor, 
and two Ale-tasters, who were called Aldermen. The Jury 
was selected and summoned by the Lord's Steward, so that the 
Mayor and Aldermen, like the other officers, might be said to 
be indirectly the mere nominees of the Lord. Moreover, the 
Lord retained in his own hands all the jurisdiction, the profits 
of the Courts, and the administration of the market. Yet the 
Mayor and Burgesses of Petersfield claimed to be a Corporation ; 
the town called itself a Borough and returned Members to 
Parliament as a Borough; it seems once to have had a 
Merchant Gild ; and the Mayor and Burgesses had, in the 
past, even asserted that their Corporation owned the Borough, 
and had been, time out of mind, legally seized of its fairs and 
markets. The Burgesses of Petersfield, had received seignorial 
grants and Charters of the fifteenth century, purporting to give 
them the same rights as were enjoyed by the citizens of 
Winchester; and but for the fact that a case was decided 
against them in 1613, might eventually have made their 
Manorial Borough independent of the Lord of the Manor. 2 

1 Township and Borough, by F. W. Maitland, 1898, pp. 16-17. 

2 We have not been able to discover any MS. archives of Petersfield, beyond 
the Charters. Most information is to be found in the Report of the Case of the 
Borough of Petersfield . . . determined by ... the House of Commons in 1820 
and 1821, by JR. S. Atcheson, 1831, and the volumes on Parliamentary election 
cases by Thomas Carew(1755), Douglas (1775-77), Cockburn and Rowe (1833), 
and Perry and Knapp (1833) ; First Report of Municipal Corporation Commis- 
sions, 1835, Appendix, vol. ii. p. 797 ; Report of ditto, 1880, Part I. p. 90 ; 
Evidence, p. 76 ; The Gild Merchant, by C. Gross, vol. ii. p. 387. See also 
General History of Hampshire, by B. B. Woodward, T. C. Wilks, and C. 
Lockhart, 1861-69, vol. iii. pp. 317-322. 

In much the same position as Petersfield were, we imagine, several small 
Manorial Boroughs of Devonshire, such as Bovey Tracey, which had a Portreeve 
or Mayor, as well as a Bailiff, annually chosen at the Lord's Court, with a 
"Mayor's Riding," or " Mayor's Show, " on "Rood mass Day," and a "Portreeve's 
Park," or field, of which the Mayor for the year had the profits ; or Harton or 
Hartland, where the Portreeve was chosen at the Court Leet ; or Modbury, with 
a great nine days' fair, proclaimed by the Portreeve and Borough Jury at the 



THE LORDS BOROUGH 163 

The men of Alresford, only twelve miles distant from 
Petersfield, counted themselves more fortunate. 1 Here the 
ecclesiastical potentate of the south of England, the Bishop 
of Winchester, had, in 1570 or 1572, granted a written 
constitution to " our Borough and Town of New Alresford," 
making the local governing authority independent of the 
Manorial Court. "Know ye therefore," runs this verbose 
seignorial Charter, "that we, the said Bishop, have granted, 
and for us and our successors for ever ordained, that for the 
future there shall be for ever within our Town and Borough 
of New Alresford aforesaid one Bailiff and eight Burgesses 
of the better and more creditable inhabitants." In the 
involved legal phraseology of the day, the Bishop proceeds 
to name the first holders of these offices, but he provides that 
they shall choose from among themselves the Bailiff year by 
year, and fill vacancies in their own number by co-option. 
The Bishop does more than this. He starts this seignorial 
Corporation with two Courts of its own : one termed a Court 
Baron or Three Weeks' Court, for the settlement of disputes 
and debts among the inhabitants, and the other, a Court of 
Pie Powder, for the regulation of the great fair of Alresford 
to which the whole country-side then resorted. Moreover, 
he expressly relinquishes to his nascent Corporation certain 
of the powers usually connected with the holding of the Court 
Leet or Lawday, such as "Bloodshed, together with the 
amercements and pains thereof " ; the " Assize of Bread, Ale 
and Wine " ; the making orders " and constitutions among the 

site of the old market cross ; or Newton Abbot and Newton Bushell, two 
moieties of one parish, each governed by its own Portreeve, chosen annually at 
the Lord's Court (History of Devonshire, by R. N. Worth, 1895, pp. 240, 
307, 319; "Early History of the Manor of Hartland," by R. P. Chope, 
in Proceedings of Devonshire Association, 1902, vol. xxxiv. pp. 418-454 ; 
Modbury, by G. A. Cawse, 1860 ; Report of Municipal Corporation Com- 
mission, 1880, Part I. pp. 17, 37, Part II. pp. 840, 860 (Bovey Tracey and 
Harton) ). Such, too, may have been Colyford in Dorsetshire, reputed to have 
been a chartered Borough, and having a Mayor who took the profits of the fair 
(The Book of the Axe, by G. P. R. Pulman, 4th edition, 1875, pp. 789-790). 

1 For Alresford we have seen only MS. copies of the Charters ; the MS. 
archives of the Manorial courts, 1657-1720, 1781-1835 ; and sundry unconsecu- 
tive archives of 1628-1705, jurors' book, 1825, etc. A minute book of the 
Corporation, mentioned in 1880, was not found. See also Report of Municipal 
Corporation Commission, 1880, Part I. pp. 8, 141 ; report of local inquiry by 
the Charity Commissioners in Hampshire Chronicle, 26th March 1887 ; also 
Sketches of Hampshire, by John Duthy, 1839, pp. 107-108. 



164 THE MANORIAL BOROUGH 

artificers and other inhabitants of the Borough " ; the " con- 
trolling and correction of weights and measures " ; and the 
making of By-laws " for the public good " and their enforcement 
by fine and distress. The Corporation was to act as Eeeve, 
and thus secure to its own officers the collection of the 
Bishop's rents. The Bishop even ceded the fair and the 
markets, with their profits and tolls. Yet he retained his 
Hundred Court and his Court Leet or Lawday, at which the 
Bailiff and Burgesses, together with all the adult male in- 
habitants, were bound to appear. 

Notwithstanding these liberal concessions and express 
stipulations of autonomy, fortified by all the paraphernalia 
of parchment and seal, we do not find, in actual practice, that 
the Bailiff and Burgesses of Alresford amounted to much more 
than the Mayor and Aldermen of Petersfield. Discouraged 
by a great fire in 1689, which swept away church, market 
buildings, and council house, they gave up holding the Three 
Weeks' Court, which was their only machinery for making 
By-laws, etc. Throughout the eighteenth century we see 
them, without jurisdiction of their own, contentedly using the 
Bishop's Court to get' their officers including even the 
Bailiff appointed and their regulations enforced. The 
markets and fairs became steadily less frequented and less 
valuable. But the little Corporate body still derived some 
revenue from stallage and tolls, and retained the ownership 
of a few cottages, which kept up some fragments of Municipal 
dignity, allowed of a few charities, and provided an annual 
feast. Undiscovered by "the Municipal Corporation Com- 
missioners of 1835, this miniature Corporation, having only 
one paid officer, the Deputy Hayward, with twenty shillings 
a year, lingered on until 1887, when its property was, by 
scheme of the Charity Commission, transferred to trustees for 
charitable purposes, and the Corporation itself was finally 
dissolved. 1 

1 The Bishop of Winchester created other Manorial Boroughs on his vast 
estates, enjoying various degrees of autonomy. One of these was Gosport, which 
always styled itself a Borough, and in 1684 strenuously defended its independ- 
ence against the claim of the Mayor of the adjoining Borough of Portsmouth to 
exercise jurisdiction and take certain ancient dues. From the MS. records 
of the Bishop's " Court Leet and Court Baron" which we have consulted from 
1623 to 1835, we gather that this Court was held by the Bishop's Steward 
twice a year. There was, however, also a "Three Weeks' Court" held by the 



THE LORD'S BOROUGH 165 

In the little " Borough " of Altrincham 1 in Cheshire in 
1689, and for long after, probably numbering only a few 
hundreds of families we have an interesting example of a 
Lord's Borough of great antiquity, having, in strict law very 
little autonomy, and still less of independent Municipal 
structure, and yet contriving to perform, throughout the 
eighteenth century, practically the whole civil government of the 
town, including most of the work done elsewhere by the Parish 
Vestry and the Justices in Petty Sessions. The " Court Leet 
and Court of Pleas," which we may regard as the descendant 
of the Portmanmoot or Borough Court conceded by Seignorial 
Charter about 1290, was one of the Hierarchy of Courts of 
the Barony of Dunham Massey. 2 Held every six months 

Clerk or Bailiff, nominally on behalf of the Lord of the Manor. The principal 
part was played by the Homage or "Grand Jury," the members of which were, 
we imagine, summoned by the officers whom the former Jury had itself 
nominated. This Jury submitted annually the names of persons to fill the 
offices of "Bailiff"' (called also Beadle in 1701), Constable (at first one only, 
latterly twelve), Overseer of the Ferry or Passage, Ale-taster or Aleconner, 
Coal-meter, and Cryer. We find the Jury in 1623 levying a rate for erecting 
a cage and stocks, and making various regulations for the cleansing of the 
streets and ditches. A sixty years' gap in the records at this point may have 
coincided with the encroachments of Portsmouth. From 1684 to the middle 
of the eighteenth century the presentments show us a government of the 
ordinary type, the Jury struggling to maintain the authority of the Court, 
fining absentees, presenting the common nuisances of obstruction of the streets, 
filthy hogsties, dirt and dung left unremoved, pigs wandering at large, etc. 
In 1698 "a standing law" is made that "every housekeeper do once every 
week for ever cleanse the kennel " ; and another that ' ' no person do from 
henceforth keep above one boat to let, to work " in the passage or ferry by 
which so many of the men of Gosport lived, and then to let it only to "settled 
inhabitants." From about 1750 the presentments become rapidly fewer, and 
the Court sinks to a mere apparatus for annually appointing the Bailiff and 
Constables. Without Charter, without property, and without a Corporate 
Magistracy, the claims of Gosport to be a Borough seem to have been forgotten ; 
it was not discovered by the Municipal Corporation Commission in 1835 ; and 
it remained without effective local autonomy until the formation of a Local 
Board (now Urban District Council) under the Public Health Acts. 

1 For Altrincham the student should consult the MS. records of the Courts 
of the Barony of Dunham Massey, 1689-1835, and of Altrincham, 1658-1835, 
for access to which we are indebted to the Earl of Stamford and to Mr. Hall, 
the courteous Steward of the estate ; First Report of Municipal Corporation 
Commission, 1835, vol. iv. p. 2575 ; ditto, 1880, pp. 9 and 652 ; Historical 
Antiquities, by Sir Peter Leycester, 1673, pp. 203-204 ; History of Cheshire, by 
G. Ormerod, 1819, vol. i. pp. 399, 417 ; in 1828 edition, vol. i. p. 536, etc. ; 
History of Altrincham and Bowden, by A. Ingham, 1879. 

2 At the Court of the Barony of Dunham Massey we see amerced inhabitants 
and officers (e.g. Surveyors of Highways) of Altrincham among other places. 
New Freeholders are presented by the " Freehold Jury." Among the names of 
the "Leet Jury " we note those of Altrincham residents. 



166 THE MANORIAL BOROUGH 

before the Lord's Steward and the "Mayor of the Borough," 
and attended by a " Grand Jury " or Grand Inquest of 
Freeholders of the Borough, it elected annually all the officers 
of the town ; presenting, in the case of the Mayor, three 
names from which the Steward chose one. Besides a 
Mayor, a Bailiff, and two Constables, along with such usual 
officers as Burleymen, Finders, Ale-tasters, Dog-muzzlers, 
Scavengers, and Market-lookers, we see this tribunal appoint- 
ing its own " Laylayers " to assess and collect the rates that it 
levied; and even, throughout the eighteenth century, the 
Surveyors of Highways and the Overseers of the Poor. 1 In 
the background (just as we were at Bamburgh) we are conscious 
of separate meetings of the Burgesses or Freeholders some- 
times of " the Mayor and Burgesses " who may perhaps have 
carried on the executive government between the six-monthly 
Courts. These Burgesses were, for the first half of the 
eighteenth century, systematically " admitted " by the Jury at 
the Lord's Court, and sworn by the Steward, on their succession 
to their burgages, serving in due course the various offices in 
rotation. After 1759 this formal admission seems to have 
been disused, and the Freeholders fade out of sight. A 
remnant of the former custom was, however, preserved, in the 
presentment, year by year, of one Freeholder as a " colt " or 
recruit to the Grand Jury. 

What was remarkable at Altrincham, down to the latter 
part of the eighteenth century, was the amplitude of the 
jurisdiction of the Borough Court. It not only regulated its 
extensive Town Field, cultivated in the usual strips, and the 
wide common pastures, 2 but also sanctioned the enclosure and 

1 The appointment of "Lay lay era" or Assessors at the Court continued 
down to 1839, at least. Assessors of the Land Tax were also appointed by the 
Court. We suspect that the nomination or appointment of Overseers of the 
Poor and Surveyors of Highways passed out of its hands early in the nineteenth 
century, when a church was built at Altrincham, and we assume that local 
Vestry meetings then began to be held. 

2 " Ordered that the Town Field be enclosed ... on the 2nd of February 
each year, and that person that neglects making up his payments by that 
time appointed shall be amerced in ten shillings. . . . That the Pinners of the 
Town Field neglecting doing his office from the 2nd day of February yearly till 
such time as the last or least parcel of corn or hay therein shall safely be gotten 
out by the owner thereof ; that if any damages should happen by either horse, 
cow, sheep, or swine, etc., . . . the Pinners shall be liable to make good treble 
damage, . . . and that for every default made by tethering, or leasowing in the 



THE LORD'S BOROUGH 167 

improvement of successive portions of land by individual 
owners. It closed footpaths when it thought fit upon any 
lands within the Borough. It was exceptionally active in 
enforcing the scouring of ditches, and also in defining the 
boundaries between individual properties. 1 But the same 
Grand Jury of Freeholders paid equal attention to what we 
may call police and sanitary functions. They dealt with 
tumults and affrays, finding in 1716 that one J. E. " has 
made a disturbance and tumult of a high nature," for which 
they "do amerce him in ten shillings." 2 The Altrincham 
Court even rivalled the Manchester Court Leet in the 
elaborateness of its By-laws regulating the personal conduct 
of the inhabitants, especially as regards Sabbath breaking, 
the harbouring of " inmates," carrying " fire from house to 
house uncovered," 8 and the fouling of the Town Wells. 4 It 
gradually accumulated a long array of officers, each charged 
to enforce some particular obligation. The Court was a 
particularly active Market authority, though all the profits of 
the Market, like those of the Cornmill, 5 went to the Lord. It 
even performed various Municipal services, paving and 
lighting the streets, maintaining a water-supply by public 
pumps and fountains, keeping a fire-engine, 6 and undertaking, 
by a Municipal Bakehouse, to provide accommodation for all 
the baking for hire within the Borough even enforcing, for 
the sake of regulating the hours, etc., a strict monopoly of 
this service, and laying down the " rules of baking." T 

night, shall forfeit ten shillings " (MS. Records, Altrincham Corporation, 26th 
April 1699). 

In 1698 the Pinners of the Town Field present persons for "tethering his 
little blind mare in the same Town Field and breaking the tether, and going 
loose eating George Clayton Junior's pease," and for "tethering his nag and 
breaking the tether in the Town Field in the open day to the damage of the 
corn" (ibid. 12th October 1698). 

1 Ibid. 20th October 1773 ; 14th October 1778. 

2 Ibid. 25th April 1716. 3 Ibid. 15th April 1719. 

* " If any one wash his hands or feet at the Town Well [he] shall pay 
twelvepence " (ibid.). 

6 In 1712 various persons were amerced for "withdrawing their grist from," 
or "not grinding at" the Lord's mill at Dunham (ibid. 23rd April and 1st 
October 1712). 

8 Ibid. 15th April 1762. 

7 " We do make an order that no one do make a common practice to allow 
others to bake in his oven to the hindrance of the Common Bakehouse of the 
Town, on pain of sixpence" (ibid. 21st October 1696). 

" We find by a former order that the Baker of the Bakehouse has disregarded 



168 THE MANORIAL BOROUGH 

But what distinguishes Altrincham, so far as we know, 
from the Lord's Courts and Manorial Boroughs in other parts 
of England, was its curious usurpation of all the civil powers 
of the Parish and its Vestry. The Court, by its Grand Jury, 
not only appointed, in flagrant disregard of the statutes, the 
Surveyors of Highways and the Overseers of the Poor, 1 but 
also received and allowed their accounts, and gave them 
frequent and peremptory orders. 2 We find the Court even 
deciding what Statute Labour and Team Duty should be 
exacted for the roads, and contracting in the matter with 
the Turnpike Trustees. The Court took repeated action 
against the harbouring of inmates. 3 It governed the poor, 
ordering those in receipt of relief to be " badged," 4 directing 
particular children to be apprenticed, 5 compounding with 
putative fathers for bastard children, 6 appointing a salaried 
Overseer, and, in 1750, contracting at eighteenpence per 
week per head for the maintenance of all the inmates of the 
workhouse. 6 We discover the same all-embracing Court 
ordering the destruction of sparrows (" a very injurious bird 
within the limits of this Township ") r ; paying for the prose- 

the order of drawing it at such an hour, being six o'clock in the evening ; and 
do make a further order that the said Baker of the Common Bakehouse for the 
future do heat the oven at a sufficient time that he may draw for supper at six 
o'clock" (MS. Records, Altrincham Corporation, 4th April 1711). 

In 1741 the Baker was again peremptorily ordered "to set bread in the 
public oven at seven o'clock " in summer, and eight o'clock in winter, "and not 
before" (ibid. 14th October 1741). 

In 1743 the tenant of the Bakehouse was ordered to bake "so early in the 
morning as that the inhabitants . . . may have their puddings, pies, and other 
eatables out of the oven precisely at twelve o'clock " (ibid. 1 2th October 
1743). 

Owing to the " Public Bakehouse " being insufficient, a new one is ordered to 
be built, and the prohibition of other baking for hire is repeated (ibid. 19th 
April 1769). The Baker continued to be negligent, and was amerced (ibid. 21st 
October 1772). Two Jurymen were deputed to inspect, and "to regulate the 
rules of baking" (ibid. 6th May 1778). 

1 Ibid. 26th April 1720. 

2 See, for appointment of Surveyors, ibid. 15th May 1717 ; for instructions 
to them, 7th October 1725 ; for regulation of Team Duty and Statute Labour, 
22nd October 1760 ; for agreement with the local Turnpike Trustees, 20th 
October 1773. 

s In 1709, for instance four Aldermen were ordered to " go through the Town 
and review what inmates are come into the Town, and give a full account to the 
Overseers" (ibid. 12th October 1709). 

4 Ibid. 15th April 1719. " 6 Ibid. 26th April 1720. 

e Ibid. 13th April 1758. 

7 Ibid. 16th October 1755, 19th April 1763, and 22nd April 1789. 



THE LORD'S BOROUGH 169 

cution of felons l ; and finding (by hiring substitutes) the 
quota of militiamen demanded from the Township or 
Borough. 2 There was, in fact, throughout the eighteenth 
century no Vestry meeting in Altrincham. 

The Altrincham Court continued to be held long after 
the close of the eighteenth century continues, in fact, even 
to this day (1907), formally to elect its "Mayor" and other 
officers. But after the close of the eighteenth century we 
see its functions shrinking gradually into those of a mere 
Leet, presenting petty nuisances. The trial of civil suits, 
which we find down to 1662 recorded in the same minutes 
as the other business, seems, in the course of the eighteenth 
century, to have become detached as a separate Court Baron, 8 
which went on hearing an ever-dwindling number of pleas 
down to 1793. The regulation of the commonfields gradually 
ceases, presumably with the progress of enclosure. From the 
first quarter of the eighteenth century we are conscious of 
" Town's Meetings " of inhabitants, occasionally ordered and 
paid for by the Borough Court, at which various common deci- 
sions were taken. 4 Towards the end of the eighteenth century 
the Constables, the Surveyors, and the Overseers seem increas- 
ingly to have regarded these Town's Meetings as their real 
superiors, rather than the Borough Court, with its Jury of Bur- 
gesses, now representing only a small minority of the residents. 
In 1802 the Borough got a church built having hitherto wor- 
shipped at the church of the extensive Parish of Bowden and 
presently started Churchwardens of its own, and formal Vestry 
meetings, with which the Town's Meetings probably became 
merged. 6 As the local organ of civil government, the Borough 
Court had been superseded by the Township Vestry and the 
Petty and Special Sessions of the County Justices of the Peace. 6 

1 MS. Records, Altrincham Corporation, 12th May 1736. 

2 Ibid. 15th October 1759. 

* In 1712 the Borough Court fines a man twenty shillings " for proceeding 
at law against R. C." presumably before some other tribunal "contrary to 
several orders of this Court" (ibid. 1st October 1712). 

4 " We agree to have no more Town's Meetings but what's at the expense of 
those that appear, and to meet at the Court-house" (ibid. 5th May 1742). 

6 We see them, for instance, adopting the Lighting Act, just like an ancient 
autonomous parish. Provision was specially made in the Municipal Corporations 
Act of 1883 for a continuance of the ancient appointments of Mayor, etc., at 
Altrincham (46 and 47 Viet. c. 18, sec. 23). 

8 The neighbouring Borough of Stockport, also established by Seignorial 



i;o THE MANORIAL BOROUGH 

More remarkable in various respects was the working 
constitution of Lewes, an ancient market-place and " Borough 

Charter in the thirteenth century, had many features in common with Altrinc- 
ham. Down to the middle of the eighteenth century, whilst their formal con- 
stitutions were almost identical, the Lord's Steward seems, at Stockport, to have 
retained the real power. It was the Steward who selected the Jury of the Great 
Court Leet or Portmote, from among the freeholders (who were all required to 
be sworn and admitted as Burgesses) ; the Steward chose annually four persons 
as suitable to be Mayor, of whom the Jury elected one ; the Steward paid the 
Mayor a small salary from the Lord's funds, and required him to be in attend- 
ance at the Lord's Court ; the Steward even selected the Constables, for formal 
appointment by the Court. But the industrial development which, in the latter 
part of the eighteenth century, transformed the two square miles of rural town- 
ship around the village of Stockport into an irregular agglomeration of mills, 
factories, and workmen's cottages, and numbering, by 1801, more than 14,000, 
and by 1831, more than 25,000 persons, deprived the Lord of the Manor of all 
control over anything but his actual rents. The jurisdiction of his Court Baron 
in petty debt cases quietly faded away about 1764 ; the presentments of nuisances 
at his Court Leet became steadily more perfunctory and less respected, partly, no 
doubt, because the disparity between them and the actual needs of the town 
became ever more glaring ; an Inclosure Act in 1805 and a Court of Requests Act 
in 1806 incidentally superseded ancient seignorial rights ; until finally, in 1826, 
the principal inhabitants completed the decay of the Manorial authority by 
obtaining a Local Act, under which the paving, cleansing, lighting and watching 
the town was taken over by a body of Street Commissioners. As at Altrincham, 
there had been, at Stockport, no Vestry meetings ; not even for the great parish 
of which the township formed only a part. By a peculiar custom the four 
Churchwardens were, down to our own day, chosen annually by the four Lords 
of Manors in the parish, who were called (from 1464 at least), the " prsepositi " 
or "the four posts" of the parish. This was all the more remarkable in that 
the lands of these proprietors were exempt from the Church Rate, their share 
being paid out of the Poor Rate for the whole parish. The Churchwardens so 
chosen rendered no accouuts to any Vestry (Stockport Ancient and Modern, 
by H. Heginbotham, vol. i., 1877, pp. 199, 211, 268). 

Notwithstanding the absence of any Royal Charter or Corporate Justices, 
and the complete decay into which had fallen any powers that this Manorial 
Borough may once have exercised, Stockport was included in the Municipal 
Corporations Act of 1835 as a Municipal Borough, whilst Manchester and 
Salford, having similar thirteenth - century Seignorial Charters, were, like 
Altrincham, denied this privilege. We attribute this distinction partly to the 
insignificant fact that Stockport's chief officer was called a Mayor, and not 
a Boroughreeve ; and partly to the accident that the Municipal Corporation 
Commissioners had no detailed information showing the purely Manorial 
character of Stockport before them, owing to the refusal of T. J. Hogg, one of 
their number, to present, with what he considered undue haste, the reports on 
the towns that he had visited. 

For Stockport we have relied on the Report on Certain Boroughs by T. J. 
Hogg (Municipal Corporation Commission), 1838, p. 129 ; Home Office Domestic 
State Papers and Magistrates Book (in Public Record Office) for 1818-1819 and 
1835 ; Stockport Ancient and Modern, by H. Heginbotham, 1882-1892 ; History 
of the County Palatine and City of Chester, by G. Ormerod, vol. iii. pp. 788-806, 
edition of 1882 ; East Cheshire, by J. P. Earwaker, vol. i., 1877, pp. 329-421 ; 
Stockport Inclosure Act, 45 George III. c. 91 (1805) ; Stockport Court of 
Requests Act, 46 George III. c. 114 (1806) ; Stockport Paving and Lighting 
Act, 7 George IV. c. 118 (1826). 



THE LORDS BOROUGH 171 

Town " of Sussex, once of considerable importance, and in 
1689, though much decayed, still sharing with Chichester the 
honour of being the capital of the county. 1 We find it at 
that date without anything in the nature of a Chartered 
Corporation, divided into four parishes ; styled a Borough, and 
governed for all Municipal purposes as a single unit, under a 
peculiar close body. " There is, and always hath been," records 
the Steward of the Manor in 1662, " time out of mind within 
this Borough a Society of the wealthier and discreeter sort of 
the townsmen, commonly called ' The Twelve/ out of which 
society the Constables are always chosen, the elder, of course, 
according to his seniority ; the younger is chosen by the elder, 
with the consent of the greater part of the Jury (sworn at the 
Lawday), out of such of the Society as were never formerly 
Constables within this Borough ; for never was it known that 
any man was twice younger Constable or twice Headborough ; 
and these Constables then elected make choice of their Head- 
boroughs with consent as aforesaid (of the greater part of the 
Jury) and of the other officers before remembered, at the Law- 
day, without any contradiction or altercation by the Steward. 
The Society known as 'The Twelve' are never so few as 
twelve, nor more than twenty-four, and upon death or removal 
are supplied by election of the greater part of the subsisting 
Society. Town charges disbursed by the Constables for the 
common good of the inhabitants are yearly viewed, examined, 
allowed, and taxed in August or September by the Twelve, 
who in confirmation thereof subscribe their names to the 
Assessment, which is a sufficient warrant to the Headboroughs 
for the collection thereof. Now, town charges are of this or 
the like nature, viz. 40s. per annum to the Clock-keeper and 

1 We have not examined the MS. records of Lewes, which have been well 
extracted in Ancient and Modern History of Lewes and Brighthelmston, by 
William Lee, 1795, and The History and Antiquities of Lewes, by T. W. Hors- 
field, 1824-1827 ; see also the papers by W. Figg and Rev. E. Turner on "Old 
Lewes " and ' ' The Ancient Merchant Gild of Lewes and the subsequent Muni- 
cipal Regulations of the Town" in Sussex Archaeological Society's Collections, 
vol. xiii., 1861, and vol. xxi., 1869, pp. 90-107; The Gild Merchant, by C. 
Gross, 1890, vol. ii. p. 145 ; History . . . of Sussex, by T. W. Horsfield, 
1835, vol. i. p. 201 ; Historical . . . Account of the Coast of Sussex, by J. D. 
Parry, 1833, p. 325 ; History of . . . Surrey and Sussex, by Thomas Allen, 1829- 
1830, vol. ii. p. 543 ; Victoria County History of Sussex, vol. i., 1905, pp. 382-383. 
It was overlooked by the Municipal Corporation Commission of 1835, but was 
reported on by that of 1880 (Report, Part I. pp. 60, 144-145). 



172 THE MANORIAL BOROUGH 

Bell-ringer; payment for mending and repairing the market- 
house, sessions house, bridge, stocks, cucking-stool, pillory, 
butts for whipping rogues, conveying malefactors to gaol, for 
the suppression of disorders and restraining offenders ; also of 
later times disbursements for King's provision of wheat, oats, 
coals, carriages, etc. ; brazen weights and measures ; charges 
on the shire town." l 

What may once have been the exact distribution of 
authority in Lewes between the Manorial Court and the 
peculiar Fellowship of the Twelve, is not easy to determine. 
During the seventeenth century, at any rate, we see the power 
of the Twelve steadily waning, their functions of passing By- 
laws and taxing the town being gradually assumed by the 
Leet Jury. Towards the end of that century, we are told, 
" political and religious divisions . . . seem to have paved the 
way for the above-noted encroachments on the ancient rights 
of the Fellowship," until in 1709 the record of their meetings 
comes to an end, and in 1720 their last surviving member 
dies. From this time forth Lewes was governed by its two 
" High Constables," annually presented by the Jury at the 
Lord's Court, and sworn in by the Steward; by the Head- 
boroughs nominated by the High Constables ; by the Lord's 
Court itself, which occasionally made By-laws and suppressed 
nuisances ; and by quite " extra - legal " meetings of the 
inhabitants, " publicly convened in their Town Hall " by the 
High Constables. The government of Lewes, in fact, during 
the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries bears a singular 
resemblance to that which we have described at Braintree, 
which did not claim to be a Borough, but which had the same 
kind of Fellowship or Company, working in close connection 
with the Lord's Court, equally coming to an end at the 
beginning of the eighteenth century, to be in both cases 
succeeded by public meetings of the inhabitants. But Braintree 
was a single parish, and its Fellowship was regarded as merely 

1 History of Lewes, by T. W. Horsfield, 1824, p. 174, quoting an account of, 
1662. "The Constables, in conjunction with the Twelve, exercised the 
privilege of decreeing laws for the due regulation of the town, and even pushed 
their authority so far as to commit to prison, or to the stocks, those who 
ventured to question the legality of their decrees, and refused to conform to their 
requirements" (ibid. p. 176). There had also been a subordinate body called 
the Twenty-four ("The Ancient Merchant Gild of Lewes," by Rev. E. Turner, 
Su&sex Archaeological Collections, vol. xxi. , 1869, pp. 90-107). 



THE LORD'S BOROUGH 173 

a Close Vestry, to be in due course replaced by an Open 
Vestry. 1 The four little parishes of Lewes, claiming collectively 
to rank as a Hundred, cannot be supposed to have had one 
Vestry in common, either close or open. Moreover, the Lewes 
Fellowship levied a " Town Tax " upon the whole Borough for 
the Constables' expenses, including whatever was laid out for 
the common purposes of the town, whenever the little property 
of the Borough did not suffice. Payment of this rate which 
certainly seems of doubtful legality was apparently usually 
made without question, but it was spasmodically resisted as 
early as 1584, when it was enforced, as it had been "time out 
of mind," by distraint and sale. 2 We find it again resisted in 

1 So too, at Brighthelmston, the little fishing village whose development 
into the fashionable seaside resort of Brighton we have already described, there 
seems to have been in the sixteenth century a government like that of Lewes 
or Braintree we know not whether to call it a Manorial Borough. " From 
time immemorial the government of the Borough (or Lower Town) with which 
the [Upper] Town was connected, was entrusted to two . . . Headboroughs who 
sat alternately in the Borough Court, or together if necessity required it, and 
the Jurors, or sworn Assessors of this Court, were selected from such of the 
Decenners or Frankpledges as were in attendance, having no causes to be tried. 
Hence the origin of the Society of the Twelve, of whom such frequent mention 
is made in the Books of Customs, and whose duty it appears to have been to 
act as a Committee of Counsel to the Headboroughs, thereby securing to them- 
selves rights and privileges which ' the landmen ' [of the Upper Town] did 
not possess. . . . They claimed the exclusive right of composing the Jury 
of the Borough Court, and on the Lawday. The choice of the Constable, 
as well as of the Headboroughs, rested chiefly with them. They filled up 
vacancies in their own body, and pleaded immunity from the Borough Common 
Fine." But this supremacy of the fishermen did not endure. The Elizabethan 
Commissioners of 1580 revised the "customs" so that the government was 
shared equally between those "of the sea" and those "of the land." The 
prosperity of the Lower Town seems, however, rapidly to have declined, and 
it was finally ruined by the great storm of 1703. The Society of the Twelve 
each of whom, as at Braintree, had once had his own "street or circuit" to 
superintend came to an end about 1772 ("The Early History of Brighton," 
by Rev. E. Turner, in Sussex Archaeological Collections, vol. ii., 1849, pp. 38-52). 
As at Braintree, the fact that Brighton formed but one parish resulted in 
the quasi - municipal powers lapsing to the Open Vestry already described. 
Another case of connection between the Lord's Court and a "Twelve" is 
afforded by East Stonehouse, Devonshire, a Manor included in the parish of 
St. Andrew's, Plymouth, but never in Plymouth Borough. In 1594 it was 
completely under the rule of its Lord, but regulations were made with " the 
consent and frank assent of twelve discreet and able persons of and within the 
said town and liberties" (History of Devonshire, by R. N. Worth, 1895, pp. 
226-229). 

2 "Here I think fit to remember," says an old authority, "that about the 
twenty-sixth year of Queen Elizabeth, ten of the most aged of the Twelve came to 
John Shirley, Esq., afterwards Serjeant at Law, whose clerk I then was, to 
have his opinion what course might be taken against such refractory persons 
as refused to pay town charges assessed as aforesaid. But before he delivered 



174 THE MANORIAL BOROUGH 

1721, when the members of the Court Leet Jury agree to 
indemnify the Constables for any costs they might be put to 
in enforcing it. 1 In 1765, when the Borough had lost most 
of its property, and the Town Tax was more than ever needed, 
an adjourned Lawday results in a similar indemnity by " fifty- 
six of the most respectable inhabitants of the Borough." 2 
Finally, in 1772, the public meeting resolves "that the 
Constables and Jury at the Court Leet or Lawday chosen, 
shall and do continue to have power to make and collect a 
Town Tax for defraying the necessary expenses of the Borough." 8 
Thus fortified, the High Constables and Jury seem to have 
gone on levying such a Town Tax as was required, in 1822- 
1823 amounting even to as much as one shilling in the pound. 4 
Another variety of the Lord's Borough one exhibiting 
all the worst features of the close Municipal Corporations 
that we shall hereafter describe is seen in the Mayor and 
Burgesses of Arundel, the little town nestling under the 
ancient Sussex castle of the Duke of Norfolk. 5 Here the 

his resolution he demanded of them what they used to do formerly in the 
like cases. Their answer was that, time out of mind, they had ever levied such 
taxation by distress after three days, the tax not satisfied, to sell the goods 
distrained, rendering the overplus to the owners thereof which course he told 
them was warrantable by usage, and so justifiable by law. Distresses, by 
opinion of Serjeant Heath and Mr. Foster, are justifiable by law, and may 
legally be maintained, being made and confirmed by common consent of the 
inhabitants of the whole Borough time beyond all memory, consisting of four 
parishes, attendant at one Lawday, and that the charges are public, lying 
upon the whole inhabitants as in one Borough, and not as divided parishes " 
(Ancient and Modern History of Lewes and Brighthelmston, by William Lee, 
1795, pp. 191-192). 

1 Ibid. p. 211. a Ibid. p. 212. 

3 History of Lewes, by T. W. Horsfield, 1824, p. 211. 

4 Ibid. p. 229. This little Manorial Borough, not being reported on in 
1835, went on unchanged, the High Constables and Jury levying annually their 
extra-legal Town Tax to eke out the Corporate revenues. By 1880, when the 
population had grown to 6000, it yielded 70 a year. In 1806 the principal 
inhabitants had obtained a Local Act constituting a body of Street Commissioners 
to pave, light, cleanse, and watch the Borough (ibid. p. 223, and Appendix, 
p. xliii). Lewes was created an ordinary Municipal Corporation in 1881, 
contrary to the recommendation of the Municipal Corporation Commission of 
1880 (Report, Part I. p. xi). 

6 MS. Minutes, Arundel Corporation, 1539-1835; ditto of "Borough 
Court," 1758-1835; MS. Archives, Court Leet, 1722-1740; First Report of 
Municipal Corporation Commission, 1835, Appendix, vol. ii. p. 672 ; History 
and Antiquities of the Castle and Town of Arundel, by Rev. M. A. Tierney, 
1834 ; Sussex Archaeological Collections, vol. vii. 1854 ; History of . . . 
Western . . . Sussex, by J. Dallaway, 1815-30, vol. ii. Part I. pp. 90-183 ; 
History . . . of Sussex, by T. W. Horsfield, 1835, vol. ii. pp. 122-132 ; 



THE LORD'S BOROUGH 175 

organisation of an ancient "Borough," mentioned in Domesday, 
had been defined by " articles of agreement " ratified and 
recorded by two of the Judges of Queen Elizabeth's reign, 
on the occasion of some dispute, 1 and this working constitution, 
unfortified by any Charter, remained practically intact down 
to 1835. In the various manuscript records of the old 
Corporation between 1689 and 1835, we can watch the 
administration carried on in the name of the Borough by 
the " Company " or " Society " of Burgesses, a close body of 
indefinite number, 2 consisting in practice only of about a 
dozen members, and open only to those whom the existing 
members chose to admit. This body, existing independently 
of any other authority, owned valuable water meadows, 
cottages, market and quay dues, and the Town Shambles. It 
held the " Borough Court " every three weeks, which like 
the Court Baron granted to the men of Alresford not only 
determined pleas of debt and trespass, but also made By-laws, 
confirmed the appointment of officers, and received and acted 
on presentments of nuisances, short weights and measures, 
and individual defaults. 

Meanwhile the Lawday, or Court Leet and View of 
Frankpledge of the Earl of Arundel, was being held annually 
by his Steward. At this Court the members of the 
" Company " or " Society " of Burgesses, and indeed all the 
adult male inhabitants, were bound to attend, and the Mayor 
was chosen. But the members of the Jury, who, as we 
have seen, were the primum mobile of such a Court, were 
selected by the outgoing Mayor, who was expressly bound 
to return to the Steward a majority of the Company or 
Society of Burgesses, adding to them " so many other of the 
principal inhabitants as shall make up the full number of, 
four-and-twenty according to the ancient custom." 8 Thus 

History of the Counties of Surrey and Sussex, by T. Allen, 1829-1830, vol. ii. 
pp. 520-524 ; Victoria County History of Sussex, vol. i., 1905, pp. 383-384. 

1 In these "articles" (to be found in the MS. records of the Borough) 
the men of Arundel make good their claim to be free from any interference 
from the officers of the Hundred Court of the Earl of Arundel, thereby re- 
minding us of the existence of a Hierarchy of Courts in the once more extensive 
Honour of Arundel, which, in the eleventh century, included the two whole 
Rapes of Chichester and Arundel, and more than 90 square miles. 

2 There are traces of its having been twenty-four in number. 

8 Compare the similar custom at Alnwick, described at p. 191. 



176 THE MANORIAL BOROUGH 

it was the Close Body of the Company or Society of Burgesses 
that controlled the Jury. The Jury chose two of the Close 
Body, out of whom " the Commons, not being of the Jury," or, 
as we read later, " the scot and lot men," elected one to be 
Mayor for the ensuing year. All the other officers two 
Constables, two Portreeves, two Aleconners, two Searchers 
and Sealers of Leather, and two Affeerors were nominated 
by the Jury, which also " presented " the usual urban nuisances. 
We need not describe the complicated interaction of 
the Company or Society of Burgesses and the Lord's Court. 
To all intents and purposes this exclusive little group of 
Burgesses, though preserving the form of subordination to the 
Lord's Court, had become the sole Municipal authority of the 
town, and completely master of their own proceedings. We 
cannot discover that, beyond maintaining a certain Municipal 
pomp and ceremony, this Company or Society of Burgesses 
was of any appreciable utility to the inhabitants. It is true 
that they held the Borough Court, but they charged high 
fees to suitors, and they let both the civil and criminal sides 
of this tribunal gradually sink to mere forms. 1 At one time 
half the Church Rate was contributed from Corporate funds, 
to the ease of the inhabitants, but this was refused after 1822. 
The Mayor and Burgesses claimed to be the " Bridgemasters " 
of the ancient stone bridge over the Arun, but they threw 
the cost of its repair upon the Poor Rate. They levied all 
the dues they could on the scanty market. They owned the 
quay, and exacted tolls on all goods landed from the river. 2 
They reserved for themselves the filling of all the local offices, 
the ex-Mayor even by custom always becoming one of 
the parish Overseers for a year. 3 But all this became, during 
the eighteenth century, mainly a matter of ceremony and 
routine, the duties being neglected or left to the two or 

1 It seems from the scanty records that the so-called "Borough Court" 
took over from the Court Leet after about 1740 the work of dealing with the 
presentments of the usual urban nuisances and defaults, which we find the 
Constables and Portreeves making between 1758 and 1800 in the Borough 
Court, after which these, too, become perfunctory and formal. 

2 The paving, cleansing, lighting, watching, and improving the town had 
been abandoned to a body of Street Commissioners, established by Local Act 
(25 George III. c. 90) in 1785. The Mayor and Burgesses were ex officio 
Commissioners, along with other citizens named in the Act, and qualified by 
property ownership. 

8 MS. Minutes, Arundel Corporation, 4th April 1769. 



THE LORD'S BOROUGH 177 

three paid subordinates. The scanty manuscript records of 
their proceedings make it plain that the Burgesses regarded 
themselves, not as trustees, but as absolute owners of their 
revenues, which they shamelessly shared among their members. 
The pasturage on the water meadows was reserved exclusively 
for the members' cattle ; the members got profitable allotments 
in severalty and beneficial leases. 1 Serving the office of 
Mayor, a privilege which came round to each Burgess every 
eight or ten years, was rewarded by an allowance of 100, 
" the profits, dues, rents, and benefits arising from the quay 
and the butchers' shambles," and other perquisites. 2 The 
" feastings " of the little company were almost incessant. At 
each three-weekly meeting of the Borough Court there was 
a feast to the Burgesses and their wives and all the officers. 
At every meeting of the Burgesses there was a dinner. At 
the annual Court Leet there was a dinner for the Burgesses 
and Jury. On the annual receipt of a buck from the Duke 
of Norfolk there was a " venison feast." 8 At " the going 
forth " of the retiring Mayor there was a " great feast." At 
every admission of a new Burgess there was "a handsome 
entertainment of eatables and drinkables for the Mayor and 
old Burgesses and their wives." 4 If we mistake not, the 
Mayor and Burgesses of Arundel must have provided them- 
selves with a costly banquet nearly every other week 
throughout the year. Nor were these feasts extended to 
the town at large. The Burgesses repeatedly instruct the 
Mayor not to invite non-burgesses, under penalty of a fine. 5 
So profitable and attractive was membership of this convivial 
Company, closely cemented by family relationship, identity of 
religious creed and similarity of political opinions, that the 
fee exacted from those who were favoured with the privilege 
of Admission was gradually raised from 7 in 1726 to no 
less than a hundred guineas in 1828, in addition to a 
sumptuous banquet. 6 By 1833 the Company, now styling 

1 MS. Minutes, Arundel Corporation, 30th April 1744 ; History of . . . 
Arundel, by Rev. M. A. Tierney, 1834, p. 709. 

2 See the list of Mayors, 1798-1826, in MS. Minutes, Arundel Corporation. 
8 Discontinued after 1831, ibid. 7th June 1831. 

4 Ibid. 8th Oct. 1741 and 27th Nov. 1830. 

5 Ibid. 12th Sept. 1649 ; ditto, 1701. 

6 Ibid. 3rd Oct. 1726, 21st Sept. 1738, llth March 1789, 17th Nov. 1796, 
17th April 1828, and 27th Nov. 1830. 

VOL. II. PT. I N 



178 THE MANORIAL BOROUGH 

itself a Municipal Corporation, though claiming no Corporate 
Magistracy, had definitely shrunk to a fixed number of thirteen 
Burgesses, one of whom served as a Mayor. Their admitted 
Corporate revenues seem then to have amounted to about 
300 a year. With the record that we have indicated it 
is not surprising that the Mayor and Burgesses of Arundel 
thought it prudent, in 1833, to keep all inquiries at arm's 
length. They refused to allow even the Duke of Norfolk's 
chaplain to complete his ducal history from their records. 1 
The Government fared only slightly better. The Mayor and 
Burgesses of Arundel formally declared that they regarded 
the issue of a Koyal Commission for an inquiry into the 
Municipal Corporations as "an exercise of the prerogative 
which they are advised is illegal, and which they think would 
be dangerous to the liberty of the subject ... a violation of 
the Bill of Rights, an intrusion on the rights of Englishmen " ; 
and though they did not persist in refusing to have anything 
to do with the Commission, they confined their information 
to the barest minimum. 2 



(e) The Enfranchised Manorial Borough 

It is, as we already stated, not easy to draw a line between 
a Manorial Borough in which the Corporate body was as 
practically autonomous as that of Arundel, and those Boroughs, 
demonstrably Manorial in their origin, in which the connection 
with the Lord's Court had become only formal. In the two 
neighbouring Boroughs of Christchurch and Lymington, in 
Hampshire, 3 where the population in 1831 was between one 

1 History and Antiquities of the Castle and Town of Arundel, by Rev. M. A. 
Tierney, 1834, preface, p. vii. 

2 First Report of Municipal Corporation Commission, 1835, Appendix, vol. ii. 
p. 667. 

3 For Christchurch, see the large MS. volume in which an extensive series 
of miscellaneous records (1485-1857) is bound up ; MS. Acts of Privy Council, 
9th and 18th November 1670 ; First Report of Municipal Corporation Com- 
mission, 1835, Appendix, vol. ii. p. 1251; ditto, 1880, parti, p. 24 ; part ii. 
p. 108 ; The Antiquities of the Priory of Christchurch . . . with some general 
particulars of the Castle and Borough, by Benjamin Ferrey and E. W. Bayley, 
1834 and 1841. For Lymington, see MS. Minutes of Corporation, 1574-1835; 
First Report of Municipal Corporation Commission, 1835, Appendix, vol. ii. p. 
743 ; History of Lymington, by David Garrow, 1825.; Records of the Corporation 
of the Borough of New Lymington, by C. S. Barbe, 1848 ; Old Times revisited in 
the Borough and Parish of Lymington, by Edward King, 1879 and 1900. See 



THE ENFRANCHISED MANORIAL BOROUGH 179 

and two thousand, the connection with the Lord of the Manor 
had, by the end of the seventeenth century, sunk into nothing 
more substantial than the ceremonial swearing in of the in- 
dependently chosen Mayor and other officers at the Lord's 
Court, and the payment of a fee-farm rent to the representative 
of some ancient grantor. In each of these Boroughs there 
was a Close Body of Mayor and Burgesses, of unknown origin, 
existing by prescription independently of any other authority, 
occasionally called " the Company," appointing all the officers, 1 
and disposing of the trifling town lands and the equally 
insignificant tolls and dues of market and harbour. Neither 
Corporation held any Court, though there are traces of informal 
arrangements among the Burgesses for compulsory arbitration 
in disputes. 2 During the seventeenth century both these 
Corporations had been active in making By-laws for the good 
government of their Boroughs, organising the " Watch and 
Ward," setting the Assize of Bread, repairing bridges and 
causeways, paving the streets, and even " paying the poor." 
In the latter part of that century we see their activities 
dwindle away. They continued, however, to control their 
markets and their little harbours, and maintain some Municipal 
dignity. 8 By the end of the eighteenth century they had still 

also, for both these and other neighbouring Boroughs, the paper on "Early 
Boroughs in Hampshire," by T. W. Shore, in Archaeological Review, vol. iv. 
1889; Topographical Remarks relating to . . . Hampshire, by Richard Warner, 
1793 ; General History of Hampshire, by B. B. Woodward, T. 0. Wilks, and 0. 
Lockhart, 1861-1869. 

1 At Christchurch the earlier dependence of the Borough had left a mark in 
the oath of the Burgesses, who swore on admission to "maintain all accustomed 
and ancient services of right belonging to the Lord of the Castle of the Honour 
of Christchurch, and now in the inheritance of the Right Honourable Henry 
Earl of Clarendon, whose Burgesses you are" (MS. Records, Corporation of 
Christchurch, 20th September 1693, etc.). There seems originally to have been 
only "a Portreeve or Prepositus, of late time," it was said in 1670, "for 
better credit called a Mayor," but merely the "sworn servant" of the Lord 
(MS. Acts of Privy Council, 9th November 1670). In the eighteenth century 
we find the Company of Burgesses nominating three of their number for Mayor, 
of whom the "Commonalty" or resident householders chose one (see the full 
description in MS. Minutes, Christchurch, 19th November 1805 ; and First 
Report of Municipal Corporation Commission, 1835, Appendix, vol. ii. 
p. 1254). 

2 MS. Minutes, Christchurch Corporation, 25th January 1641. 

3 At Lymington the Corporation exacted a licence fee (in 1563 and 1699) 
from any person who should " drag for oysters upon the haven " (MS. Minutes, 
Lymington Corporation, 1699) ; and from 1711 onwards this fishery was let on 
lease, with reservation to the Corporation of power " to set a moderate price for 
all such oysters" (ibid. 3rd December 1711). 



i8o THE MANORIAL BOROUGH 

further declined, existing thenceforth only for the election of 
members of Parliament, the periodical leasing of the remnant 
of their property and their dues, and the expenditure of the 
proceeds on an annual " Mayor's Breakfast " or other festivity, 1 
latterly paid for by the " patron " of the Parliamentary seat. 2 

At the very top of our series of Manorial Boroughs we 
place the little rural township of Godmanchester in Hunting- 
donshire, for many centuries completely enfranchised from 
seignorial influence, fortified by successive Eoyal Charters, 
occasionally enjoying a Commission of the Peace of its own, 
and only falling short of the full status of a Municipal 
Corporation in never actually acquiring the power of creating 
its own Corporate Magistracy. 8 Yet, looked at from another 

1 History of Lymington, by David Garrow, 1825, p. 48. 

2 First Report of Municipal Corporation Commission, 1835, Appendix, vol. 
ii. p. 1255. 

Chipping Campden, in North Gloucestershire once an important wool- 
stapling centre received a Royal Charter in 1604, confirming a then existing 
prescriptive Corporation of the Bailiffs and Burgesses. This Corporation con- 
sisted of a Common Council, made up of fourteen Capital Burgesses (two of them 
serving as Bailiffs) and twelve Inferior Burgesses. The Capital Burgesses were 
alone eligible for election as Bailiffs, and it was they alone who elected the 
Bailiffs, and filled vacancies among the Capital and Inferior Burgesses alike. 
But there was also a body of Freemen, recruited by Birth and Apprenticeship, 
and the payment of half a crown as fee. In ancient times the privilege of 
trading or pursuing any craft had been confined to the Freemen, and in 1780 
and 1794 the Common Council vainly strove to enforce this monopoly. There 
was a Court of Record, held every four weeks, at which civil actions up to 
6 : 13 : 4 had once been tried, but which had come by 1689 to be merely a 
name for the periodical meetings of the Bailiffs and Burgesses. The town was 
by this time in slow but continuous decay ; the revenues of the Corporation 
gradually sank to next to nothing ; and it came more and more under the 
influence of the chief local landowner, the Earl of Gainsborough, who was always 
appointed High Steward. Undiscovered by the Municipal Corporation Com- 
missioners in 1835, it lingered on, with population dwindling to under 2000, until 
1886, when it was finally dissolved under the Municipal Corporations Act of 
1883 (46 and 47 Viet. c. 18), and its little property vested by scheme of the 
Charity Commissioners in 1889. See MS. Minutes, Chipping Campden 
Corporation and Town Trust and also those of Vestry ; Report of Municipal 
Corporation Commission, 1880, part i. pp. 23-24; "The Manor and 
Borough of Chipping Campden," by Rev. S. E. Bartleet, in Transactions of the 
Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, vol. ix., 1884, pp. 134-195 ; 
Ancient and Present State of Gloucestershire, by R. Atkyns, 1768, pp. 161- 
168 ; New History of Gloucestershire, by S. Rudder, 1779, pp. 319-324 and 
Appendix. 

3 Our chief sources of information as to Godmanchester have been the elaborate 
MS. Archives (" Stock Book," "Book of Entries," and " Court Book ") of the Cor- 
poration from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries ; see also First Report 
of Municipal Corporation Commission, 1835, Appendix, vol. iv. p. 2235 ; and 
History of Godmanchester, by Robert Fox, 1831. 



THE ENFRANCHISED MANORIAL BOROUGH 181 

standpoint, the Parish and Borough of Godmanchester is only 
one step removed from the Chartered Township, such as we 
have seen in Beccles and Wisbech, or from such Lordless 
Courts as Cartmel and Newbiggin-by-the-Sea ; full, indeed, of 
survivals from the still more rudimentary Village Meeting or 
Court of the Manor of the primitive agricultural community. 

It does not fall within the plan of this work to trace the 
rise of Godmanchester from its position as a Manor in Ancient 
Demesne, nor to describe how its residents got from King John, 
in return for the substantial fee-farm rent of 120 a year, a 
grant of the Manor itself, with all its profits and prerogatives. 
Confirmed by various subsequent Royal Charters and Letters 
Patent, the "men of Godmanchester" maintained their 
privileges and immunities until, by Charter of 1604, they 
were ex