Skip to main content

Full text of "Township and borough"

See other formats 


This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project 
to make the world's books discoverable online. 

It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject 
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books 
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover. 

Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the 
publisher to a library and finally to you. 

Usage guidelines 

Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the 
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to 
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying. 

We also ask that you: 

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for 
personal, non-commercial purposes. 

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine 
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the 
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. 

+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find 
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it. 

+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just 
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other 
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of 
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner 
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe. 

About Google Book Search 

Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers 
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web 



at |http : //books . google . com/ 




/jr 5^0'^ ') i-C i^ 




FROM 

The...b«que«t. of 



r 



TOWNSHIP AND BOROUGH. 



KoiOlon: C. J. CLAY and SONS, 

CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE, 

AVE MARIA LANE, 



STEVENS AND SONS, Ltd, 

119 AND lao, CHANCERY LANE. 




CI«0oto: 363, ARGYLE STREET. 

%itn^i F. A. BROCKHAUS. 

|Ui» ffocfi: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY. 

IBomtaii: E. SEYMOUR HALE. 



TOWNSHIP AND BOROUGH 



BEING THE 



FORD LECTURES 

DELIVERED IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD 
IN THE OCTOBER TERM OF 1897 



TOGETHER WITH AN APPENDIX OF NOTES RELATING 
TO THE HISTORY OF THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE 



BY 



FREDERIC WILLIAM MAITLAND, LL.D. 

DOWNING PROFESSOR OP THB LAWS OF ENGLAND 
IN THR UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE. 



CAMBRIDGE : 
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 

1898 
[Ml Rights restrveJ.] 



Er Sjb^l . SI ■ o 
/3 



HARVARD 

UNlVER^ITYl 

LIBRARY 



PRINTED BY J. AND C. F. CLAY, 
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS. 



PREFACE. 

TO the University of Oxford I made a poor return 
for a high honour and hospitable forbearance ; but, 
having given the lectures, I feel bound to show, if I 
can, that there is some evidence behind the theories 
that I ventured to advocate, and this I try to do in an 
appendix of notes. 

If either lectures or notes are of any value, this is 
in a great measure due to the friendliness and courtesy 
which have enabled me to make use of some unpublished 
documents relating to the town and fields of Cambridge. 
My thanks are more especially due to the Mayor and 
Town Council, to the Master and Fellows of Jesus 
College, to Mr Horace Darwin lately Mayor of the 
Borough, to Mr J. E. L. Whitehead the Town Clerk, 
to Mr T. Musgrave Francis who allowed me to inspect 
his copies of the Inclosure Awards, to Mr J. W. Clark 
the Registrary of the University who lent me a manu- 
script copy of the Liber Memorandorutn of Barnwell 
Priory (a book which he should edit), to Mr R F. Scott, 
Bursar of St John's Collie, and to Mr A. Gray, 
Fellow and Tutor of Jesus College. Mr Gray not 



vi Preface. 

only permitted me to see his notes of the charters of 
St Radegund but also taught me so much about rural 
Cambridge that I fear that I may be telling a story 
which he should have told. I hardly need say, for this 
I hope is evident, that I am deeply in debt to Dr Otto 
Gierke. 

Perhaps in my lectures I passed too often and too 
rapidly backwards and forwards between the domain of 
economic history and the domain of law, or even of 
legal metaphysics. But I wished to illustrate the close 
interdependence of fact and theory, for it seems to me 
that the coming historian of our English towns must, 
among his other tasks, set himself to study and explain, 
as two phases of one process, the transition from rural to 
urban habits and the evolution among the townsmen of 
that kind and that degree of unity which are corporate- 
ness and personality. He will neglect neither English 
life nor Italian thought : neither the butts and balks of 
the town field nor the new idea. I hope that his coming 
is at hand. 



F. W. M. 



Cambridge, 

19M Feb, 1898. 



TABLE OF CONTENTS. 



PAGES 

Township and Borough— Six Lectures . . . i 

Appendix of Notes and Evidence relating chiefly 
TO Cambridge 99 

§ I. A Roman Cambridge ?, p. 99. — § 2. The extent of the Grentebrige 
of Domesday Book, p. 99. — § 3. Number of houses in Grentebrige, p. 99. — 
§ 4. Number of houses in transpontine Cambridge, p. 100. — § 5. Extent of 
the house-covered nucleus in 1279, p. 100. — § 6. Sparsity of houses, p. 100. — 
§ 7. Landgrytheslane as a limit of the burhgriG, p. loa— § 8. Houses still 
sparse in cent, xv., p. loi. — § 9. Analysis of the nucleus in 1279, P* loi.— 
§g[o> Comparison of 1279 ^^h 1749, '801, 1841, p. 102. — 5Lii, Intensive 
growth of houses in cent, xvii., p. 102. — § 12. *The new erected cottages 
and divided tenements,* p. 103.— § 13. Divided tenements in St Andrew's 
parish, p. 103. — § 14. Census of Barnwell, of St Peter's, of St Giles's, and of 
Green Street, p. 104. — § 15. Results from cent xvii., p. 105. — § 16. 'Causes 
of the increase of our poor in Cambridge,' p. 105.— -§ 17. Question about 
the coalescence of two vills deferred, p. 106. 

$ 18. The Eastern or Barnwell Fields : their extent in 181 1, p. 106.— 
$ 19. The cispontine commons, p. 107.— § 20. The four fields— Ford- 
Middle — Bradmoor — Sturbridge, p. 107. — § 21. The three-field husbandry, 
p. 107.— § 22. Inclosure Award of 181 1, p. 108.— § 23. Terrier of the 
Eastern Fields, p. 108.— § 24. Extent of Ford Field, p. 109.— § 25. Arable 
between Trumpington Road and Coe Fen, p. iii.— § 26. Peterfiouse on 
the arable, p. in.— § 27. Coe Fen Leys, p. in.— § 28. St Thomas's Leys 
or Swinecroft, p. 112.— § 29. Swinecroft arable, p. 112. — § 3a Selions in 
Swinecroft, p. 1 12.—$ 31. Award of Swinecroft in 1808, p. 1 15.— § 32. Tithe 
in Swinecroft, p. 115. — $ 33. Remarks on the parochial system, p. 116. — 
§ 34. Parker's Piece arable, p. 116.— § 35. Christ's Piece arable, p. 118.— 
$ 36. The arable came close to the town ditch, p. 118. 



viii Table of Contents. 

§ 37. The Western Fields. The castle in Chesterton, p. 119.— § 38. 
Boundary of the Western Fields, p. 119.— § 39. Area of the Western 
Fields, p. 12a — § 4a Inclosure Award of 1805, p. 12a — § 41. Four 
Fields — Grithow — Middle— Carme — College, p. 121. — § 42. Older names — 
Grithow — Middle — Little — Carme (Port), p. 121. — § 43. Long Green and 
Carme Field, p. 122. — § 44. Lack of meadow-land in Cambridge, p. 122.— 
§ 45. Old names in the fields, p. 123. — § 46. Reasons for dispersing strips, 
p. 123. 

§ 47. Terrier of Western Fields from cent xiv., p. 123. — § 48. Date 
and form of terrier, p. 124. — § 49. Number of cuUurae^ p. 124. — § 5a 
Analysis of terrier, p. 124. — § 51. Acreage in terrier, p. 127. — § 52. Strips 
falling into mortmain, p. 128.— § 53. Roger of Harleston and St John's 
College, p. I28.~§ 54. The Franciscan conduit, p. 129.— § 55. Terrier of 
Eastern Fields from cent, xiv., p. 129. 

$ 56. The religious and the fields, p. i32.--§ 57. The lay strip-owners, 
p. I33*— § 58. Mayors and bailiffs of Cambridge, p. 133.-— § 59. Repre- 
sentatives of the borough in Parliament, p. 14a— § 60. The Inquisitio 
Nonarum^ p. 141. 

§ 61. The Hundred Rolls, p. 142. — § 62. The houses in 1279, p. 143.— 
§ 63. The house-owning families in 1279, p. 147. — § 64. The house-owners 
of Barnwell, p. 148. — § 65. Growth and decay of the suburb of Barnwell, 
p. 148. — § 66. The fields in 1279, p. 149. — § 67. Acreage in 1279, p. 159. — 
§ 68. The land-owners in 1279, p. 1 59. — § 69. Rapid traffic in acres, p. i6a — 
§ 70. Rents in 1279, P* i^- 

§ 71. Religious houses endowed by burgesses, p. 161. — § 72. Foundation 
of St John's Hospital, p. 161. — § 73. Patronage of the Hospital, p. 161. — 
§ 74. Benefactors of the Hospital and Nunnery, p. 162. — § 75. Benefactors 
of Barnwell Priory, p. 162. 

§ 76. The Cambridge families, p. 163.— § 77. The St Edmunds family, 
p. 163. — § 78. The Blancgernons, p. 163.— § 79. The Dunnings and 
Pytbagoras's School, p. 164. — § 80. Hervey fitz Eustace, p. 165. — § 81. 
The family 'of Cambridge,' p. 166. — § 82. The Dunnings as patricians, 
p. 166.— § 83. Cambridge GeschUchterf^ p. 167.— § 84. Tallage of 12 19, 
p. 167.— § 85. Land-owning and other families, p. 168. — § 86. Tallage of 
121 1, p. 168.— § 87. *The men of Cambridge,* p. 17a — § 88. Amercements 
of 1 177, p. 17a 

§ 89. The charter of Maurice Ruffus: a dissipated tenement, p. 171.— 
§ 90. The field in Domesday Book, p. 173— § 9i- T**© field before the 
Conquest, p. 174.— § 92. The advowsons and the families, p. I74-— -§ 93. 
St Sepulchre and St George, p. 174.— § 94- St Peter without the Gate: Ivo 
Pipestraw, p. i75.--§ 95. St Michael: the sons of Absalom, p. 175.— 
§ 96. St John, p. 176.— § 97. St Clement, p. 176.— § 98. All Saints by 
the Castle, Trinity, All Saints by the Hospital, St Andrew, St Benet, 
St Mary, p. 176.—$ 99. The burgess's own church (Eigenkirche\ p. 177. 



Table of Contents. ix 

§ loa The county families, p. 177.-— § loi. The fiefs. The Scottish 
fief, p. i78.--§ 102. The Leicester and Mortain fiefs, p. 178.— § 103. The 
Breton fief or honour of Richmond, p. 178. — § 104. The Mortimer estate, 
p. 179. — § 105. Peculiar character of the Mortimer estate, p. 179. — § 106. 
Provenience of the Mortimer estate, p. 179. 

§ 107. The 'high-gable' rents, p. 180.— § 108. The * customs' of Domes- 
day, p. 181. — § 109. The haw-gafol and ancient history, p. i82.--§ no. 
The theory of two vills that have coalesced, p. 182.— § in. Inferences from 
tithe, p. 183. — § 112. Manors in Cambridge, p. 183. — § 113. The manors 
and the borough court, p. 184. — § 114. The borough court's jurisdiction 
over the fidds, p. 184. 

§ 115. Grant of the vill, p. 185.— § 116. The right to escheats, p. 185.— 
§ 117. The corporation's seignory, p. 185. — § 118. The mortnuun licences, 
p. 186. — § 1 19. The intramural waste : rights of king and burgesses, p. 187. — 
§ 1 20. Henry 1 1 1., the waste and the Carmelites, p. 187. — § 121. The petition 
of 1330 for leave to approve the waste, p. 188. — § 122. Lord Tenterden on 
the ownership of the soil, p. 188. — § 123. Leases of intramural waste, 
p. 189. — § 124. Sales of road-side waste in later times, p. 189.— § 125. 
The right to approve in other towns, p. 189. 

§ 126. History of the green commons: Picot's 'ablation,' p. 190. — 
§ 127. Mr Freeman on Oxford and Cambridge * folk-land,' p. 191. — § 128. 
Sites of Nunnery and Priory taken from Greencroft, p. 191. — § 129. The 
burgesses and the Barnwell site, p. 192. — § 130. Insurrection of 1381, 
p. 192.— § 131. The Mayor's apology, p. 192. — § 132. Preservation of the 
green commons, p. 193. — § 133. The commons in recent times, p. 193. — 
§ 134. The rights of commoners, p. 193. — § 135. Projected inclosures of 
the green conmions, p. 194. — § 136. Parishes and commons, p. 195. — § 137. 
General theory of borough pastures, p. 195.— -§ 138. Instances of burgensic 
user in common, p. 196. — § 139. Burgensic user in severalty: Nottingham, 
Bedford, p. 198. — § 140. Borough pastures and borough houses, p. 199.— 
§ 141. The Lauder case, p. 200. — § 142. Pasture of the shire-boroughs, 
p. 201.— § 143. The lordship over the Cambridge fields, p. 201. — § 144. 
The final struggle between Merton College and the Municipal Corporation, 
p. 202. 

§ 145. Borough finance at Cambridge, p. 204. — § 146. The free revenue 
of die Town, p. 205. — § 147. The old revenue appropriated to the fee-farm 
rent, p. 207. — § 148. Borough finance at Oxford, p. 209. 

§ 149. Earliest history of the borough: the 'burh-geat,' p. 209.— § 150. 
The borough as a garrison town, p. 210. — § 151. The Roman towns, 
p. 2ia — § 152. Cambridge as moot-stow, p. 211. — § 153. The fourth 
penny of the 'republic,' p. 212. — § 154. Cambridge and the trade of 
Cambridgeshire, p. 213. 



ILLUSTRATIONS. 

Views of the Cambridge Fields prom Loggan's Cantabrigia 
ILLUSTRATA Before page i 

Rough Sketch of the Town of Cambridge . Before page 55 

Rough Sketch illustrating the townward boundary of the 
FIELDS in 1800 Before page 107 



TOWNSHIP AND BOROUGH. 



I. 



On the 20th of January, 1803, Mr Justice Lawrence 
and a jury of merchants were sitting at the Gildhall 
in London to try an issue between the Mayor, Bailiffs 
and Burgesses of the Borough of Cambridge and the 
Warden, Fellows and Scholars of Merton College in 
the University of Oxford. 

The value of the matter directly in dispute was not 
very high ; but the question that was opened was large. 
A lordship over some 1,200 acres, or about two square 
miles of land, went a-begging. There were five claimants. 
There was the municipal corporation of Cambridge ; 
there was Merton College, Oxford ; there were two 
Cambridge colleges, Jesus and St John's ; there was 
Sir Charles Cotton, the squire of a village called 
Madingley. 

This debatable tract of 1,200 acres lay, we modems 
should say, immediately outside the town of Cambridge. 
Our ancestors would have said that it was a part and 
a great part, more than a third, of the town {villa) 
of Cambridge, though it lay outside the defensible and 
house-covered area. 

What had happened was this: — An Act of Par- 
liament had directed the inclosure of vast 'open and 

N» M. I 



Township and Borough. 



commonable ' fields, arable fields, in which the strips 
of divers owners lay intermixed. Ring-fenced plots 
were to be awarded to these owners in lieu of their 
scattered strips. Allotments were also to be made 
to those who, though they had owned no strips, had 
been exercising rights of pasture. Allotments were also 
to be made to the owners of the tithe. But dispersed 
among the arable strips there were many small pieces 
of waste land ; there were the balks of green sward, 
the odds and ends. Who owned them ? Who could 
claim an allotment in their stead? 

That someone owned them was generally assumed. 
Suppose that you are inclosing the open field of an 
ordinary village. Allotments must be made to the 
owners of the strips, to commoners, to the owners of 
the tithe; but an allotment should also be made in 
respect of *the soil of the waste.' In general you will 
easily find an owner for it. There will be some obvious 
manorial lord. But here this ownership goes a-begging. 
A municipal corporation claims it ; three learned cor- 
porations claim it ; the squire of a neighbouring village 
claims it. An. Act of Parliament directs them to try 
their claims one against the other. Some one should 
be lord of this field. Nulle terre sans seigneur. 

To finish the tale, the municipal corporation was 
successful. It obtained a verdict, and in consequence 
it received an allotment of somewhat less than five acres 
out of the 1,200 that were distributed. 

At this time on the other side of the town of Cam- 
bridge there lay another wide expanse of open arable 
field. An Act of 1807 provided for its inclosure. Here 
also the ownership of the waste was in dispute. It 
was claimed by the municipal corporation ; it was also 
claimed by those who represented the Prior of Barnwell ; 
but the Prior's successors did not go to trial, and out 



A Disputed Lordship. 



of the i,ioo acres that were inclosed nine acres were 
given to the incorporate Town as an equivalent for its 
manorial rights. 

Thus was decided a question, or one part of a 
question, that had been simmering for centuries. Briefly 
we may put it thus: — What did King John mean, or 
rather what did King John really do, when he granted 
to the burgesses of Cambridge the town of Cambridge 
with all its appurtenances, to have and to hold it for 
ever of him and his heirs to them and their heirs at 
a rent of £dtO blanch and ;^20 by tale } What did he 
mean, or rather what did he really do, when he com- 
manded that the burgesses and their heirs should have 
and hold the said town with all its appurtenances well 
and peaceably, in meadows and pastures, mills, pools 
and waters with all their liberties and free customs* } 
Were the burgesses collectively or corporatively lords 
of the town in such sense that they intervened in the 
feudal scale of land-tenure between the king and any 
man who held a house within the ditch or an acre- 
strip without the ditch } Were the burgesses collectively 
or corporatively the 'tenants in demesne,' or, as we 
should now say, the owners, of whatever land within 
the ambit of the town was not held in severalty : of the 
wide pastures, of the balks and odds and ends of sward 
that lay among the arable strips, of the ditches, of the 
king s ditch, of the streets and lanes and market places 'i 
It was a big question. Happily it was faced in what 
I may call prehistoric times: I mean in 1803. A jury 
of merchants at the Gildhall, untroubled by * the village 
community ' or * the origin of the borough,' made short 
work of it. 

Will you think me ill bred if I talk of the town in 

^ Cooper, Annals, i. 33. This charter is closely similar in form to the 
Oxford charter of 1 199 : Ogle, Royal Letters addressed to Oxford, p. 5. 



Township and Borough. 



which I live ? What else have you left me to talk of ? 
What fields has not Oxford made her own? 

But Cambridge had fields. I am not telling you 
that outside what we should call the town of Cambridge, 
that is, the house-covered space, there were pieces of 
land which we should call fields and that some of these 
lay within the boundary of the municipal and par- 
liamentary borough of Cambridge* I am using the 
words in their medieval sense. Cambridge had fields 
{campos) as the neighbouring villages had fields: vast, 
hedgeless, fenceless tracts of arable land, in which the 
strips of divers owners lay interspersed * hide-meal and 
acre-meal.' Cambridge had fields which were 'open and 
commonable ' : fields such as are depicted on those beau- 
tiful maps that Mr Mowat published. Cambridge had 
fields as Lower Hey ford had fields. 

David Loggan the engraver drew pictures of Oxford 
and of Cambridge also. In his general views of Cam- 
bridge we see in the background the houses, the colleges 
and churches, the castle-mound and the remains of the 
dismantled castle : in the foreground lies the open field, 
and I do not know that better pictures of an open field 
were ever drawn. 

Celebrated thus by art, our Cambridge field has been 
celebrated by poetry also, at least if that excellent indi- 
vidualist Thomas Tusser was a poet. In the Cambridge 
field, if we borrow his eyes, we may see at their worst 
the evils of the old champion (or, as we say, champain) 
husbandry : the husbandry, that is, of open and common- 
able campi. 

By Cambridge, a town I do know, 
Where many good husbands do dwell, 

Where losses by lossels do shew 
More here than is needfull to tell. 



The Cambridge Field. 



The champion robbeth by night, 

And prowleth and filcheth by day, 
Himself and his beast out of sight 

Both spoileth and maketh away 
Not only thy grass but thy corn 
Both after and ere it be shorn \ 

Art and poetry left something for modern science. 
When Mr Seebohm was restoring the open field of the 
English Village Community, it was I believe a terrier of 
this Cambridge field that taught him to teach us what 
butts and gores were like'. 

Besides fields, Cambridge had meadows or leys which 
during a part of every year were commonable. Also it 
had pasture-land which was never inclosed or enjoyed 
in severalty, * the green commons of the town ' ; for the 
more part they are green and open still. But further, so 
late as the reign of James I., Cambridge, its fields and its 
green commons, can upon occasion be treated as an 
agrarian whole. In 1624 the Vice-Chancellor of the 
University and the Mayor of the Borough issued an 
ordinance touching the commons of the town. Every 
occupier of an ancient tenement having of old time broad 
gates may turn out two head of cattle. Every occupier 
of other tenements and cottages may turn out one. 
Every person having six score acres of land in Cam- 
bridge field may turn out six, and so in proportion for 
any greater or less quantity of land'. 

Observe what this reverend Vice-Chancellor and this 
worshipful Mayor are doing. They seem to be legislating 
for an agrarian commonwealth. They are decreeing that 
the pasture of the town must still subserve the arable of 

^ Tusscr, A Comparison between Champion Country and Severall, 
stanzas 12-3, in Five Hundred Points, ed. Mavor, 181 2, p. 207. 

^ Seebohm, English Village Community, 3rd ed. p. 19. 

^ Cooper, Annals, iii. 164. For the houses 'with broad gates,' see also 
ibid. ii. 333. 



Township and Borough. 



the town. And what is the unit of arable that gives the 
normal share of pasture-right ? It is six score acres, a 
long hundred of acres, a hide. 

Thus through the crust of academic learning, through 
the crust of trade and craft, of municipality and urbanity, 
the rustic basis of Cambridge is displayed. These here- 
ditary enemies, these representatives of Town and Gown, 
have for once laid their heads together in order that they 
may stint the common of a community that ploughs. 
\ A curious community it had become. The principal 
jshare-holders in the arable were not 'natural persons/ 
but chartered corporations. There are various Cam- 
bridge colleges, and this is what brings the Vice-Chan- 
cellor into the business. There is Jesus College which 
represents the Nuns of St Radegund ; there is St John s 
College which represents an ancient Hospital ; there is 
the College of Corpus Christi which ever since its founda- 
tion has owned many strips ; there is Caius College with 
a title derived from the Mortimers of Attleburgh. Then 
there is Merton College, which was endowed by its 
founder, by Walter of Merton himself, with strips that 
he had purchased, for reasons that I dare not guess \ in 
the open and commonable fields of Cambridge. The 
Vice-Chancellor and the Mayor are agreeing in 1624 
that he who occupies a hide of such strips may keep six 
horses or bullocks on the commons of the town. They 
are also ordaining that every occupier of an ancient 
tenement in Cambridge 'having of old time broad gates,' 
that is, gates receptive of cattle, may turn out two beasts. 

It is a curious case because the strip-owners are for 
the more part colleges. But does not its curiosity end 
here } In other words, is it not right and proper that 
a borough should have fields, arable fields, 'open and 

^ Rashdall, Universities, ii. 483 : * no doubt in view of the possibility of a 
migration.' 



Summa Rusticitas. 



commonable fields ' ? I speak not of the smaller or of 
the newer boroughs, of the enfranchised manors. I speak 
of the great, old boroughs, those shire-boroughs, those 
civitates, which already in Domesday Book are sharply 
separated from the ordinary villages. I see that when 
Henry VIII. sold the spoils of Godstow and Rewley to 
Dr George Owen, the conveyance spoke of arable land 
in Oxfordfield\ 

Might we not aim yet higher? In the twelfth 
century when William FitzStephen sings the praises 
of London, he does not say that somewhere near it lie 
fertile arable fields ; he says that the arable fields of the 
town of London are fertile*. 

Historians of our universities will not let us forget 
that Erasmus accused the Cambridge townsmen of a 
preeminence in boorishness. * Vulgus Cantabrigiense 
inhospitales Britannos antecedit, qui cum summa rusti- 
citate summam malitiam coniunxere'.* We should distort 
his words if we took them to mean that there were, in 
Tusser's phrase, 'many good husbands* in Cambridge, 
though husband and boor have a common origin. But 
was the plan, the map, of this ancient borough exception- 
ally rustic ? I shall not admit it until many Inclosure 
Awards have been studied. 

Time was when we in England had a respectably 
neat system of legal geography, and when we seldom 

^ Royal Letters, ed. Ogle, p. 153 : * Ac totum illud messuagium nostrum 
ac omnes terras arrabiles nostras in Oxfordfylde ac omnia prata pascuas 
pasturas et pecias terrae in Burge mede et prope Charwell eidem messuagio 
pertinentia modo vel nuper in tenura Roberti Colyer aut assignatorum 
suorum scituata iacentia et existencia in parochia S. Egidii iuxta portam 
borialem ville Oxonie dicto nuper monasterio de Regali loco alias dicto 
Rewley dudum spectantia et pertinentia.' 

' Munimenta Gildhallae, ii. 4: 'Agri urbis sationales non sunt ieiunae 
glareae, sed pingues Asiae campi, qui faciunt laetas segetes, et suorum 
cultorum repleant horrea Cerealis mergite culmi.' 

> Rashdall, Universities, ii. 553 ; MuUinger, Hist Univ. Camb. i. 504. 



8 Township and Borough. 

spoke of parishes, except when we were speaking of 

!:cclesiastical affairs. The whole country (this was the 
heory, if not precisely the fact) was cut up into vills or 
uowns. The law assumed that every acre of land lay in 
some town, some villa. If in a court of law you claimed 
an acre of land, you were bound to name the villa in 
which it lay. A mistake about this matter would be 
fatal ; your writ would be quashed. Now every borough 
is a villa, a town. Indeed, in course of time we allow 
the urban places to appropriate to their exclusive use this 
good old word, and then we awkwardly distinguish the 
towns from the townships or borrow * villages ' from the 
French. However, the borough is a villa, and if you 
look at the English boroughs as they stood on the eve of 
their reformation, as they stood when in 1833 they were 
visited by the royal commissioners, you will often find 
that their boundaries have provided wide enough room 
for fields and meadows and pastures. You will read that 
*the local limits of the Borough of Derby contain 1,660 
statute acres \' that the limits of Northampton comprise 
1,520 acres and include 'a considerable quantity of agri- 
cultural land^* that *the Borough of Bedford includes the 
whole town [that is, the whole house-covered area] which 
lies nearly in its centre encircled by a broad belt of land ; 
its area being 2,164 statute acres',* and, to take one last 
example, that *the ancient borough' of Nottingham covered 
no less than 9,610 acres and 'included a considerable 
quantity of forest, meadow and common land without the 
walls of the town*.' On the other hand, the fortified space 
was never very large. I learn from Mr Boase that intra- 
mural Oxford contained little more than 80 acres'. 

^ App. to Munic. Corp. Rep. 1835, vol. iii. p. 1849. 

2 Ibid. iii. 1965. ' Ibid, i v. 2103. * Ibid. iii. 1985. 

^ Boase, Oxford, 55 : ' The wall enclosed a small rectangular space, 
measuring about half a mile from east to west, and a little more than a 
quarter of a mile from north to south.' 



Town and Township. 



In a legal record of 1426 we may read that there is a 
high-way lying in the town, the villay of Oxford in a 
certain place called Greenditch within the parish of St 
Giles outside the North Gate of the town of Oxford, 
which high- way the township {pillatd) of Oxford is bound 
to repair. Whatever else Oxford may be, it is a villay a 
town ; and, whatever else the community of Oxford may 
be, it is a villatUy a township\ A township should no 
more mean a little town than a fellowship should mean a 
little fellow. 

I have been endeavouring to suggest to you that those^ 
who would study the early history of our towns (and I 
now use that word in its modern sense) have fields and! 
pastures on their hands. Perhaps the suggestion is 
needless. The relationship of the town community, the 
nascent civic corporation, to the village community, the 
relationship of the town community to the town lands, 
the relationship of the oldest burgenses to arable strips 
and green commons, these have been a focus of that 
vigorous German controversy which we are watching 
with interest. But it is unnecessary, though it may be 
profitable, to look abroad. The Bishop of Oxford has 
taught us that ' the burh of the Anglo-Saxon period was 
simply a more stricdy organised form of the township*. * I f 
that be so, we must not leave out of view nine-tenths of the 
borough's territory. After what Mrs Green has written 
and Mr Stevenson has edited, it is plain that the early 



^ Royal Letters, ed. Ogle, pp. 339, 340 (a.D. 1426) : 'quedam alta via 
domini Regis iacens in villa Oxonie in quodam loco vocato Grenedyche 

infra parochiam S. Egidii extra portam borialem ville Oxonie quam 

quidem altam viam . . villata Oxonie . . reparare debet' For Greenditch, 
see Wood's City of Oxford, ed. Clark, p. 345. Mr Clark says of it * now 
St Margaret's road.' In the view of those who endeavoured to make the 
township of Oxford liable for the repair of this road, the town of Oxford 
extended far beyond the northern wall. 
. ' Stubbs, Const Hist i. 99. 



lo Township and Borough, 

history of one ancient shire-borough, I mean Notting- 
ham, can not be the history of a small house-covered 
spaced 

Possibly therefore I may turn your thoughts towards 
a luminous point if I try to interest you in the story of 
this lordship, this ownership, that went a-begging at 
Cambridge. For a long time past there had been an 
intermittent dispute. In 1616 the University declared 
that of the soil of Cambridge *no certain lord was known'; 
also that King John's grant of * the vill of Cambridge ' to 
the burgesses and their heirs was not a grant of *the 
soil'.' Even in 1826, when the fields had been inclosed, 
a quarrel among the inhabitants about a toll brought the 
old documents once more before the courts, and the 
lawyers were wrangling over the question whether Cam- 
bridge was or was not on the ancient demesne of the 
crown. 

All this interests me. Long before I knew of these 
debates affecting the ground on which I daily walk, certain 
general considerations had led me to believe, first, that 
the soil of a truly ancient borough, a shire-borough 
recognized as such by Domesday Book, would very 
possibly have no obvious lord, and secondly, that if a 
king of the twelfth or thirteenth century took upon 
himself to grant such a borough to its burgesses, he might 
be sowing the seeds of a pretty law-suit ^ A certain 
uncertainty about lordship and ownership, or about 
somewhat that is neither exactly lordship nor exactly 
ownership, may, so I think, be a leading thread in the 
early history of our oldest boroughs. Look at Oxford or 

^ So of Colchester, Mr Round has written in the Antiquary, vol. vi. 
p. 255: 'Perhaps the most salient feature revealed... is the stamp of a 
primitive rural community imprinted on a walled and populous town, a 
former Roman colonial 

2 Cooper, Annals, iii. iio-i. 

' Hist. Eng. Law (ed. i), i. 635. 



The Beginnings of Ownership. 1 1 

look at Cambridge in Domesday Book. Why does the 
clerk write Terra Regis below and not above the account 
of the borough ? Perhaps because there is * no certain 
lord/ or no certain owner, of the soil. 

But I have another and a more general purpose in 
view when I ask your attention to this disputation. A 
student of our towns and villages must come to close 
quarters with some legal ideas, and the task of unravelling 
their history is not going to be so easy as it looked a 
while ago. That is a warning which comes to us from 
many quarters. We may see it in Mr Baden-Powell's 
book on the Indian Village, and in Dr Gierke's book on 
the German Community. We may see it everywhere. 
We shall have to think away distinctions which seem to 
us as clear as the sunshine ; we must think ourselves 
back into a twilight This we must do, not in a hap- 
hazard fashion, but of set purpose, knowing what we are 
doing. 

Did it not seem to some of us, at all events in the 
examination room, that the question about the origin of 
property in land was straightforward ? On the one 
hand, we had something to give away, 'property' or 
'ownership'; on the other, there were various claimants: 
the tribe, the clan, the village, the family, the individual. 
We were to give this article, this commodity, to one 
claimant, and then it was to be passed from hand to 
hand. The only difficulty lay in the order of succession. 
Where do you put your family? Before or after the 
village community 'i 

To be serious, we know now, even if we did not 
always know, that this is much too simple. Before we 
have gone far back in our own history, the 'belongs' 
(if I may so say) of private law begins to blend with the 
' belongs ' of public law ; ownership blends with lordship, 
rulership, sovereignty in the vague medieval dominium, 



12 Township and Borough. 

and the vague medieval communitas seems to swallow up 
both the corporation and the group of co-owners. We 
know or are beginning to know this; but a particular 
example may bring it sharply before our minds. When 
King John granted the vill of Cambridge to the burgesses 
and their heirs, did he mean to confer an ownership of 
the soil upon a municipal corporation ? One point seems 
certain. Neither John nor his chancellor would have 
understood the terms of our question. Both the right 
that is given and the person or persons to whom it is 
given are hazily and feebly conceived. 

You know why I say 'person or persons.* I think 
that the historian of our town3 will have to face that 
difficulty. Also I fancy that in this country lawyers have 
done something to deter historians from fairly facing it, 
by concealing from them its moral and economic interest. 
The invention of 'fictitious personality,* as it is sometimes 
called, is put before us as a feat of skill, an ingenious 
artifice of jurisprudence. The inference is readily drawn 
that it concerns only lawyers. But is that true ? Can I 
in the few minutes that are left to me persuade you that, 
however meanly you may think of legal technicalities, 
there is a problem here which deserves patient and 
sympathetic investigation ? 

In 1833 Cambridge, like other boroughs, was visited 
by royal commissioners. Of Cambridge, as of most other 
boroughs, they reported some evil tidings. In Cambridge, 
however, they found what was rare, a member of the 
corporation who courageously defended what they re- 
garded as a bad abuse : namely, the sale of some pieces 
of the corporation s land to corporators at small prices. 
'He thought' we are told 'that the property [of the 
corporation] belonged bona fide to the corporation and 
that they had a right to do what they pleased with their 
own.' ' Such,' the commissioners exclaim, ' is the theory 



The Common-Councillors apology. 13 

of a member of the Cambridge common council, which, 
however frequently it may have been acted upon, has 
seldom, we conceive, been openly supported by so un- 
flinching an advocate\' 

And yet the common-councillor*s theory seems 
verbally plausible.* The property of a corporation is 
unquestionably its property, and are we to be angry 
whenever a noun in the singular governs a verb in the 
plural ? If so, we had better not read medieval records, 
for even universitas is sometimes treated as a *noun of 
multitude*.' 

I must not carry further the defence of my fellow- 
townsman. Certainly in this context there is a vast 
difference between 'its' and * theirs.* In our eyes this 
is a difference between decency and scandal. But I 
think we have reason to believe that it is also a 
difference between modernity and antiquity, and (if I 
may so use the words) between urbanity and rusticity. 
The common-councillor was ignoring a moral and 
economic achievement accomplished in the niedieval 
boroughs, the diffSerentiation of *its* from 'ours.' 

This was a moral and economic, not primarily a legal 
achievement. Legally the common-councillor was not 
so very far wrong. Our law, if I am not mistaken, had 
never dictated to the boroughs what they should do with 
their property ; it had trusted to their honour. If, ob- 
serving all constitutional forms, holding duly convened 
meetings and so forth, the corporators divided among 
themselves the income or the land of the corporation, 
they were, I believe, unpunishable and their acts were 

1 Munic. Corp. Report, App. vol. iv. p. 2199; A Digested Report of the 
Evidence as to the Corporation of Cambridge, published by H. Wallis, 
Cambridge, 1833, p. 63. 

' Gierke, Genossenschaftsrecht, ii. 49, gives instances; e*g. * controversia 
quam universitas villanorum in W. moverunt.' 



14 Township and Borough. 

valid \ But, whatever may have been the law, we surely 
feel that in William IV.'s reign it was scandalous that 
the corporators of a great town should think, or act as 
though they thought, that the property of the corpora- 
tion, or such remnants of it as had not been squandered, 
was their property: was their property moraJly, or as 
the common-councillor said, bona fide. 

From a discourse on personality, the personality of 
the corporation aggregate, I shrink. Ought we to apply 
to it such adjectives as * ideal,' * moral/ 'mystical,' * ju- 
ristic,' 'fictitious,' 'artificial'? Is it not, on the other 
hand, as real as the personality of a man ? Foreign 
lawyers, Romanists and Germanists, are disputing stren- 
uously. A great deal of what they are saying is in- 
teresting to students of English history, though it is 
sometimes couched in terms which are more abstract' 
than we like. Just because our own legal history has 
been continuous, just because there has been no violent 
breach between 'folk-law and jurist-law*,' we have never 
been driven very far into what many of us would con- 
temptuously call legal metaphysics, and I am not going 
to make the plunge. It is not of the technical shape 
which lawyers give to the idea, but of the economic and 
moral substratum that I am speaking. Such a sub- 
stratum there is : in other words, men will not think of 
the group or the town as a person until this idea is 
forced upon them by business and projects and current 
notions of right and wrong. 

^ See Grant, Corporations (1850), p. I29ff. Mr Grant, writing after the 
Municipal Reformation, seems to hold that the Court of Chancer}' would 
have interfered. But I can not find among his authorities any that proves 
this, and, if we consider what the corporations had actually been doing for 
a long time past, the silence of the law reports will seem eloquent. It will 
be understood that I am not speaking of cases in which a municipal 
corporation had been made a trustee for some definite purpose. 

' It was, I believe, Beseler's Volksrecht und Juristenrecht (Leipzig, 1843) 
that opened the controversy about the nature of the German Genossenschaft, 



Moral Corporateness. 15 

Now-a-days it is difficult to get the corporation out 
of our heads. If we look at the doings of pur law courts, 
we may feel inclined to reverse a famous judgment and 
to say that while the individual is the unit of ancient, 
the corporation is the unit of modem law. In an uni- 
versity town the difficulty is perhaps at its worst. Oxford 
and Cambridge are peopled by ' group-persons.' We are 
not content with what the law does for us. Morally, 
though not legally, some at least of our multitudinous 
societies and clubs are persons. The law-student feels 
a little shock of surprise when he is told that his 
college is a person and that his college boat club is 
not — or rather, are not. The club, like the college, 
seems to have property, to owe and be owed money. 
The property of the club is not for him exactly and 
bona fide (as the common-councillor said) the property 
of its members — at least it is not so in all cases. 

I say this because we ought to notice that if there is 
anything that should be called fiction in this matter — ^and 
I doubt it — we must not regard that fiction as the work 
of lawyers. On the contrary, at least in modern England, 
the lawyer is not the motive force, but the drag on the 
wheel, and must protest that the layman is (if you please) 
* feigning* more rapidly than the law will allow. It is 
not the lawyer but the man of business who makes the 
mercantile firm into a person distinct from the sum of 
the partners*. It is the layman who complains that the 
club can not get its club-house without *some lawyer's 
nonsense about trustees.* Such in these days is our 

1 Lindley, Partnership, Bk. i. ch. 7 (6th ed. p. 118): * Commercial men 
and accountants are apt to look upon a firm in the light in which lawyers 
look upon a corporation, i.e. as a body distinct from the members 
composing it, and having .rights and obligations distinct from those of 
its members.... But this is not the legal notion of a firm. The firm is 
not recognized by lawyers as in any way distinct from the members 
composing it' 



1 6 Township and Borough. 

' propensity to feign ' (if I may borrow a famous phrase) 
that the law can find no place for the new persons, the 
new species and genera of persons, whom we are daily 
calling into existence. 

In passing I may observe that in England we have 
had a second legal expedient for dealing with the affairs 
of organized groups, an expedient of which our neigh- 
bours seem to know little or nothing : I mean the trust. 
In the fourteenth century, just when we were taking over 
from the canonists the dogma that the corporation must 
have its origin in some act of sovereign power, we were 
hard at work developing the trust, and soon it had 
become an useful instrument not only in the sphere of 
private law and family settlements, but also in the sphere 
of public or semi-public affairs and, if I may so say, of 
group-organizing law. 

This by the way, for leaving the legal machinery out of 
sight, I would ask your attention for the underlying moral 
fact. We feel that the disclosures of 1833 were disgrace- 
ful. We observe also that few men have had the courage 
of this common-councillor. Very rarely in the great towns 
had the property of the corporation been frankly divided 
among the corporators. Too often it had been sold or 
let to them at an undervalue. The inadequate price or 
inadequate rent was a tribute paid to civic virtue. The 
corporators in the great towns had known and felt that 
the property of the corporation was not exactly their 
own bona ficU}. 

But it is, so I think, with other feelings that we 
observe what had happened in some little towns, or 
rather villages, which long ago received a few chartered 

* Munic. Corp. Rep. 1835, p. 45: 'Some sense of impropriety, indicated 
by the secrecy with which such transactions are conducted, has accompanied 
the execution of long leases for nominal considerations or the alienations in 
fee of the corporate property to individual corporators.' 



Rustic Community. 17 

privileges from a medieval baron and therefore were 
allowed a precarious place on the roll of English boroughs. 
Economically they were rural villages. In one case we 
are told that * most of the senior burgesses were in the 
rank of labourers \* Well, there used to be a commoni 
pasture; it had disappeared; it had been cut up intoi 
plots, which had been let on long and highly beneficial' 
leases to burgesses, or rather villagers. Now I should 
like to put this to you as a question not of law, but of 
morals : Has any great wrong been done } Do you feel 
inclined to speak of misappropriation } For my own 
part I am not prepared to use very hard words, because 
I do not expect to find in a village community of an old 
type any clear perception of a difference between * its * 
and * theirs,' and, if such a perception I found, I should 
doubt that it was born in the village. 

Perhaps then our best comment on the common- 
councillor's apology would be sumtna rusticitas^. 

^ Munic. Corp. Rep. 1835, App. vol i. p. 289 (Laugharne). 

^ I do not mean to imply that the distinction between the property of a 
corporation and the property of the corporators must always represent a 
deep moral difference. The modem incorporated trading company aims at 
making gain which is to be divided between the corporators. They, if 
unanimous, may put an end to the corporation, and, when its debts have 
been paid, divide its property; indeed our law enables a majority of a 
certain strength to extinguish the corporation against the wishes of the few. 
Here the distinction between ' its ' and * theirs * may be highly technical, and 
may sometimes be ignored in common discourse. When the idea of a 
corporation has once been fashioned, it can be employed for the most 
various purposes ; but I do not think that this idea could be fashioned until 
current morality had perceived that the Town had property which was not 
co-owned by the existing burgesses. See Gierke, Genossenschaftsrecht, ii. 
573 fid It will also be understood that I am not an apologist of all that was 
done in the small boroughs and disclosed by the Reports of 1835 and 1880. 
Beneficial leases to corporators are not so easily defensible as would have 
been a frank and final distribution of the common land among the members 
of the community. 



M. 



1 8 Township and Borough. 



II. 



/ 



The borough community is corporate ; the village 
I community is not. This is a real and important difference. 
In the fifteenth century it stands out in the clear light 
A form of thought has been fashioned in which it can be 
expressed. There were sentences in the Digest which 
had set men thinking: in particular, a sentence which 
sharply distinguished between the debts due to or from 
the universitas and the debts due to or from the singulis. 
The canonists had been making a theory. The body 
corporate is a * fictitious person * and owes its personality 
to some act of sovereign power. Sinibald Fieschi, who 
in 1243 became Pope Innocent IV., was, it is said, the 
first to proclaim in so many words that the universitas is 
persona ficta. 

t That theory bore fruit here. Incorporation must be 
the outcome of royal charter. The royal charters that 
are granted to our towns begin to use definitely creative 
words. The king makes something. He constitutes and 
erects a body corporate and politic in deed, fact and 
name (in re, facto et nomine). It has been common to 
reckon a charter granted in 1439 by Henry VI. to the 
men of Hull as the first definite instance of municipal 
incorporation; but in truth, as Dr Gross has shown, 
lawyers had been gradually adopting a theory and 
fashioning a formula*. 

^ Dig. 3. 4. 7 § I (Ulpian) : ' Si quid universitati debetur, singulis non 
debetur : nee quod debet universitas sing^li debent' 

* Gross, Gild Merchant, L 93 ff.: *It can be demonstrated that towns 
were formally incorporated a century earlier. True the formula of in- 
corporation differs somewhat from that of Henry the Sixth's charters, being 
much simpler than the latter; but this was due to the fact that the jurists 
had not yet shrouded the notion in misty complexity.' Dr Gross has done 



The Corporation in Theory. 19 

Now I think it very true to say with the Bishop of 
Oxford that the ancient boroughs of England were 
corporate some while before the days of Henry VI/ The 
lawyers have to admit it. They allow that the corporate 
character can be, and in the case of many great towns has 
been, gained *by prescription,* and the old boroughs were 
in no hurry to buy new charters containing the creative 
formula. In 1605 Cambridge and Oxford within a few 
months of each other secured it*. The two Universities 
had secured it by Act of Parliament in 1571'. The case 
of our colleges is very similar to that of our towns. It 
would be a good work to print a series of collegiate 
beside a series of burghal charters. The college that is 
founded in the fifteenth century, for instance, the King's 
College at Cambridge, will be solemnly made one body 
corporate and politic in deed, fact and name, and be told 
that it may have a common seal. In the thirteenth 
century the scholars of Walter of Merton or Hugh of 
Balsham might want something from the king, for in- 
stance, leave to hold land in mortmain ; but they did not 

us a great service by illustrating the evolution of the formula; but the 
words by which he has described the process are hardly those that I should 
have chosen. To my mind, the movement is from vagueness towards 
simplicity, though it is also a movement from curtness to verbosity. 

^ Stubbs, Const Hist iii. 605 : * Thus viewed, all the ancient boroughs 
of England, or nearly all, must have possessed all the rights of corporations 
and have been corporations by prescription long before the reign of 
Henry VI.' 

^ Cambridge, 30 Ap. 1605, Cooper, Annals, iii. 17; Oxford, 29 July, 
1605, Ogle, Royal Letters, p. 228. 

' Stat 13 Eliz. c. 29: Ah Acte for Thincorporation of bothe Thuniversy- 
ties. The bull of 131 8 which Cambridge obtained from John XXII. (Fuller, 
Hist Camb. p. 35; Bliss, Calendar of Papal Registers, ii. 172) says: 
'Statuimus ut in predicto loco... sit de cetero studium generale. Volentes... 
quod collegium magistrorum et scholarium eiusdem studii universitas sit 
censenda, et omnibus iuribus gaudeat quibus gaudere potest et debet 
universitas quecunque legitime ordinata.' Nevertheless, what the Cambridge 
masters sought at the pope^s hand was more probably an authoritative right 
to teach than what we mean by ' incorporation.' 

2 — 2 



20 Township and Borough. 

want incorporation. Nobody, no body, wanted it In 
131 1, as Mr Rashdall tells us, the scholars of William of 
Durham borrowed a seal, having none of their own\ 
Legal theory registers the accomplished fact. 
It takes a great poet to put this well. 

Justinian's Pandects only make precise 
What simply sparkled in men's eyes before, 
Twitched in their brow or quivered on their lip, 
Waited the speech they called but would not come*. 

I do not say that the result was wholly admirable. 
Some phrases were borrowed from the Italian decretists 
which might well have been left alone. But articulate 
speech had come at last to the help of twitching brows 
and quivering lips. 

Let us admit then that the corporateness of the' old 
boroughs was not manufactured but grew and is percept- 
ibly older than the charter for Hull. On the other hand, 
there seems to be some danger in these days that we may 
misplace and antedate those thoughts and feelings and 
practices which are the essence of corporateness, and by 
so doing may turn history inside out. 

There are some who would have us believe that 
groups, families, clans, rather than individual men, were 
the oldest * units ' of law : that there was law for groups 
long ages before there was law for individuals. In the 
earliest stage, we are told, all is 'collective.* Neither 
crime nor debt, neither property nor marriage nor pater- 
nity can be ascribed to the individual. Far rather the 

1 Rashdall, Universities, ii. 471; William Smith, Annals of University 
College (1728), p. 46. A nascent belief that the corporate character must 
have an authoritative origin is marked by a writ of 1348 for Gonville Hall; 
Documents relating to the University and Colleges of Cambridge, ii. 213. 
Edward III. says: *Concessimus...eidem £dmundo...quod ipse collegium 
predictimi...de novo erigere ct creare et nomen eidem collegia impanere,,, 
possit' 

* Browning, The Ring and the Book, Count Guido, 1781. 



The Primitive Legal Unit. 21 

group itself, the clan or family, is the one and only 
subject of rights and duties \ 

Now I can not help fancying that a laudable reaction 
against the individualism of Natural Law has carried 
some of us into extravagant phrases. To me it seems 
that the supposed law for groups, whenever it becomes 
concrete and practicable, is found to involve a great deal 
of law for individuals, and sometimes of law that looks 
suspiciously modem. Sir Henry Maine has said that 
*the Family, in fact, was a Corporation.' But then, he 
has also told us that * the Patriarch, for we must not yet 
call him the Pater-familias,* was a * trustee for his children 
and kindred,* and * in the eye of the law' represented the 
collective body*. This patriarchal trustee, who represents 
a corporation, looks to me, I must confess it, suspiciously 
modern. He may be a savage, but he is in full evening 
dress. At any rate, however, he is an individual man ; 
and, if he is treated as trustee and representative, there 
is law enough for individuals and to spare. 

^ Post, Bausteine fiir eine allgemeine Rechtswissenschaft, i. 74 : * In den 
primitivsten, auf Blutsverwandtschaft gestiiuten ethnisch-morphologischen 
Verbanden giebt es iiberall kein individuelles Recht und keine individuelle 
Pflicht Man findet hier weder ein individuelles Verbrechen, noch eine 
individuelle Schuld, weder ein individuelles Eigenthum, noch eine in- 
dividuelle Ehe Oder Vaterschaft Vielmehr ist der Verband selbst, das 
Geschlecht oder der Stamm als Ganzes hier alleiniges Rechtsubject ; er 
allein hat Rechte und Pflichten, und zwar nach Analogie der heutigen 
vdlkerrechtlichen Rechte und Pflichten.* 

* Maine, Ancient Law, ed. 6, p. 184: *But though the Patriarch, for we 
must not yet call him the Pater-familias, had rights thus extensive, it is 
impossible to doubt that he lay under an equal amplitude of obligations. 
If he governed the family, it was for its behoof. If he was lord of its 
possessions, he held them as trustee for his children and kindred. He had 
no privilege or position distinct from that conferred on him by his relation 
to the petty commonwealth which he governed. The Family, in fact, was a 
Corporation; and he was its representative or, we might almost say, its 
Public officer. He enjoyed rights and stood under duties, but the rights 
and the duties were, in the contemplation of his fellow-citizens and in the 
eye of the law, quite as much those of the collective body as his own.' 



22 Township and Borough, 

If we speak, we must speak with words ; if we think, 
we must think with thoughts. We are moderns and our 
words and thoughts can not but be modern. Perhaps, as 
Mr Gilbert once suggested, it is too late for us to be 
early English. Every thought will be too sharp, every 
word will imply too many contrasts. We must, it is to be 
feared, use many words and qualify our every statement 
until we have almost contradicted it. The outcome will 
not be so graceful, so lucid, as Maine's Ancient Law. 

But just in this matter of archaic * corporations,' what 
I think we should demand before we let the phrase pass is 
some proof that the men who constitute the group are 
prepared to contrast what Dr Gierke calls the all of unity 
with the all of plurality, to contrast an 'its' with an *ours,' 
or to say that though this land is ours in a certain sense, 
it is not ours in another sense, for we are not co-owners 
of it 

This is the contrast which emerges in the medieval 
boroughs slowly and painfully. Less help than we might 
have expected had been given by the example of religious 
groups, religious houses. For one thing, the group that 
was in the strictest sense ' religious ' was too monarchical 
to be instructive; the abbots will was the abbeys will. 
Then again, in Jthe ecclesiastical sphere the dead yet 
living saint could appear as a person to whom rights and 
duties and even wrongful acts^ might be attributed. No 
such supernatural aid would come to the burgesses in 
their effort to separate their unity from their plurality. 
I need not say that there were no joint-stock companies 
to serve as a model. 

The borough community is corporate; the village 
community is not. Some injustice will be done by every 
distinction of this sort. Law sees differences of kind 

^ D. 6. ii. 13: ^Aliam Nessetocham tenuit Turstinus Ruf!us...moc[o 
Sanctus Paulus invasit.' 



Unity and Plurality in the Village. 23 

where nature has made differences of degree. Some 
litde accident might throw a township on one side of the 
line or the other. No accurately exhaustive list of our 
corporate boroughs ever was or could be made\ But in 
rough, so it seems to me, the law was right The village 
community was not corporate. Corporateness came of 
urban life. 

If I say a few words about the English village of the 
oldest time, they will be said very diffidently : the more 
diffidently because I feel the temptation to take a side 
and knowingly yield to it. Admitting that there are in 
this village both unity and plurality, if I in some sort 
plead the cause of plurality, this will be because our 
natural tendency is to overestimate the unity. No sooner 
have we allowed, as allow, I think, we must, that the land 
belongs to a community, than our modern brains are at 
work conferring ownership upon a corporation. The 
Village, with a capital Vy has land. Its land is owned 
by an * it ' whose will is manifested in the votes of an 
assembly. 

I fear that we are instilling into our primitive village 
thoughts which even in the boroughs of the twelfth 
century were waiting a speech that would not come. 

Now, in the first place, I can not see the English 
village of the remotest days as populous. I doubt we 
ought often to suppose more than some ten to fifteen 
households, and I think it no paradox but a very simple 
truth that the fewer our numbers, the further we are 
from any constitutional unity. It is the crowded town 
that is one: a Town with a capital T. When there is 

^ As our law admitted that the corporate character might be acquired 
by prescription, there was always a chance that it would be claimed on 
behalf of some town for the first time, and, as a matter of fact, the 
commissioners of 1833 and 1880 found the line obscure. 



24 Township and Borough. 

no longer any hope of continuous agreement, then conies 
the demand for and the possibility of an organic union, 
a permanent habit of agreeing to differ and yet to be 
permanently one. 

Mere numbers are important. I am persuaded that 
we hurry the history both of our villages and of our 
towns because we fill them too full. There are some 
thoughts which will not come to men who are not tightly 
packed. 

Then it should be remembered that we are tempted 
or compelled to draw inferences about free villages, from 
villages that are not free. We see the village of the 
thirteenth century. We see it in its 'extents* and its 
court rolls, with a good deal of organization. But it is 
no longer a free, a lordless village. Far otherwise; 
most of its inhabitants are the lord's bond-men, his 
nativi. By a mental process we remove the lord and 
set the villeins free. Too often, so it seems to me, we 
make these changes and suppose that all else will remain 
unchanged, that the organization, the bye-laws, the court, 
will remain, though the lord has gone. But does not the 
village owe much of its compactness to its lord? His 
hall has become a centre for this little world. If we 
remove that hall, the village will not be disintegrated, 
but it will be decentralized. 

I am not very hopeful of a portable village community 
which we might take about with us frofn one quarter of 
the globe to another. A Natural History of Institutions 
is a fascinating ideal, but we must have a care or our 
Natural History will bear to real history the relation that 
Natural Law bore to real law. Explorations in foreign 
climes may often tell us what to look for, but never what 
to find. If we have to consider the village community 
as organism, we must consider it also as organ or member 
of a larger whole. We must not transplant it unless we 



Automatism of the Community. 25 

are prepared to take with it much that is not-itself. That 
our own village community of the oldest time had no 
jurisdiction, no power of speaking right, of deeming 
dooms, must I think be admitted : Dr Stubbs has said 
as much\ Therefore, before we borrow traits from 
remote lands, the jurisdictional and governmental scheme 
that prevails there should be examined. 

Then I think that we underrate the automatism of 
ancient agriculture and of ancient government So far 
as the arable land is concerned, the common-field 
husbandry, when once it has been started, requires 
little regulation. We see that in our Cambridge case. 
In 1803 there was no court, no assembly, which had 
been habitually regulating the husbandry of the Cam- 
bridge field. There lay the difficulty. Had there been 
such a court, its lord would have been an obvious lord 
for the field, an obvious owner for the odds and ends 
of waste. But for some centuries the common-field 
husbandry had needed no regulation ; it had been 
maintaining itself. 

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 certain 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 neighbours crops or suffer 

^ Stubbs, Const. Hist, l §43: Mn all these forms and relations the 
townsmen retain their right of meeting and exercising some sorts of judicial 
work, although, until the criminal jurisdiction in court leet comes to the 
lords of manors by special grant, their participation in such matters is of the 
character simply of police agency. Their assemblies are rather gemots or 
meetings than proper courts ; for any contentious proceedings among men 
so closely connected and so few in number must have been carrie 
immediately to the hundred court.' 



26 Township and Borough. 



his own to be trampled on, for only as a rare exception 
is there a beaten way to a strip. Something can be done 
by exchanges and by buying out the small people ; but 
the common-field husbandry can maintain itself for cen- 
turies after every one has called it a nuisance^ 

When we come to the pasture land, we see more 
room and more need for regulation : also we seem to see 
a room and a need for a communal or corporate owner- 
ship. In old days, however, the pasture is apt to appear 
as a mere appurtenance of the arable. The arable feeds 
men ; the pasture feeds the beasts which till the arable. 
Add to this that the whole scheme of scattering the 
acre-strips has aimed at equality or proportionality. 
Tenements are to be equal in size and value, or the noble 
man is to have just twice or thrice what the common 
man has. Thus we easily arrive at a measure for pasture 
rights. The man with a full tenement may turn out so 
many beasts ; the man with half a tenement may turn 
out half as many. * Every person having six score acres 
of land in Cambridge field may have on the commons six 
horses or bullocks, and so in proportion for any greater 
or less quantity of land*: so say Mr Mayor and Mr Vice- 
Chancellor in 1624. Where your village community 
becomes a borough community this old method of 
admeasurement is likely to break down, and we may 
fairly be surprised to find it in the Cambridge of 
James I.'s day. But if and so long as your village 



1 John Smyth, in his Lives of the Berkeleys, i. 11 3-4, states that in the 
Severn valley a general custom was established which permitted a land- 
owner to inclose his strips in the open fields if he would renounce a 
proportionate part of his right to depasture other strips. 'All along this 
tract of ground, wee inclose, convert and keepe in severall to ourselves, our 
ground which before laye open with the comon feilds, under prescription of 
mos patriae, the custome of the countrey : abridginge withall ourselves of 
ratable comon for sheep and other cattle, according to the acres of our 
enclosures.' 



Ownership of IVaste Land. 27 

community is purely agricultural, this plan is equitable 
and likely to be permanent. The freeholder's 'ancient 
arable' becomes the base and measure of his pasture 
rights. 

As with rights, so with duties. Equality or pro- 
portionality having been established, all manner of 
problems solve themselves. Simple arithmetic reigns 
over the village. A tax or duty that is cast upon the 
village divides itself spontaneously. 

Let it not escape us that a communistic division of 
the fruits of the earth must have been far from the minds 
of those -who cut up the field into countless strips and 
endeavoured to secure an exact equality by giving to 
every man a large number of dispersed fragments. The 
obvious advantages of larger allotments were sacrificed, 
in order that all the * husbands ' might have a fair start. 
They were to have a fair start, because each was to live 
of his own. 

There remains the ownership of the pasture. It 
remains, and, as the case of Cambridge will show us, 
it can remain feebly conceived for long ages. 

Legal ideas never reach very far beyond practical 
needs. Now-a-days we are persuaded that the owner- 
ship of the soil stretches down into the depths of the 
earth, and the mines that men dig are very deep. I 
suppose that the landowner may lawfully dig deeper and 
deeper still until he reaches that centre where all earthly 
ownerships are subtending acute angles. There he might 
be stopped by the rights of the antipodes. But put the 
case that, if he went straight on, he would come out in the 
ownerless high seas. We can afford to leave that case 
undecided. Even so the ownership of the pasture can 
go a-begging, can be unapprehended or but feebly appre- 
hended, until people want to do something that is new. 

A definitely conceived indefiniteness seems the / 



28 Township and Borough. 

essence of our modern notion of ownership. The 
owner may do with the land whatever is not forbidden. 
In this he differs from the man who may do just one 
thing with it : the man who has a right of way or right 
of pasture. Now this indefiniteness of ownership is 
definitely conceived, because now-a-days there really are 
hundreds of different uses to which a man may put his 
land. Remove this possibility, which is the creature of 
science and art, and is not ownership as we conceive 
it nearly gone ? Has it not lost its characteristic in- 
definiteness and fallen to the level of a right of way or 
right of pasture ? 

We should remember this when we are tracing the 
growth of seignorial power. The king s or the lord's 
rights over the land can grow without any one being 
despoiled of what he feels to be his. What is at stake is 
not the felt present but a remote and unsuspected future. 
Who will own the minerals under a field ? That is not 
an interesting, it is hardly a possible, question until their 
value has been discovered. 

Rights which seem to us to be of utterly different 
kinds can blend together when land is fated, as it were, 
to be used in one way and one only. The man who is 
reaping his acre-strip will be able to enjoy some of the 
forth-coming bread and beer ; but not all of it ; the king 
will come round for his share. The king has a right 
that he can give away; he may give it to one of his 
thegns or to a bishop. Call it governmental, call it 
proprietary, call it what you will, it ends in bread and 
beer ; and that is where the cultivator's right ends. We 
may easily have an ownership and several over-owner- 
ships, just because all of them lack the definitely 
conceived indefiniteness of modern ownership ^ 

^ In illustration of what has been urged in Domesday Book and Beyond 
touching the Anglo-Saxon king's ' alienable superiority,' I can now refer to 



Ownership and Rulership. 29 

Perhaps it is not always sufficiently remembered that 
at the present day almost all the land in the world 
* belongs' to 'communities.* There is the international 
'belongs/ The whole force of a highly organized com- 
munity will be employed to prevent one yard of the soil 
of France from being — shall I say 'appropriated' by 
another state ? That word may serve to reproduce the 
old haze. But now-a-days we expect of a conquering 
state that it will not appropriate in one sense what it 
appropriates in another; we expect that as a general 
rule the old owners of the fields and houses will be 
suffered to own them still. Sovereignty has been 
transferred; ownership is where it was. However, we 
hav§ only to go back to the last century in order to see 
that this international 'belongs' has been regarded as 
being very like any other 'belongs.' The story of the 
map of Europe is upon the surface a story of inheritance, 
conveyance, dower and marriage portion. 

A piece of land ' belongs ' to a county. The county 
council resists a proposal that this tract should be torn 
from it and given to its neighbour. Cambridgeshire and 
in a certain sense 'the men of Cambridgeshire' have 
lately lost part of their territory. This, we say, is not 
a matter of property ; it is a matter of local rates. But 
transfer the dispute to an age when there is an earl , 
entitled to the third penny of the county ; straightway 
it takes a proprietary tinge ; we are proposing to diminish 
his county and his income. 

Mr Baden-Powell's, Indian Village Community, pp. 207-213: * It became a 
recognised attribute of the ruling power that, as a matter of custom, it had 
the combined right to the share of the produce, the right to the waste, and 
the right to tolls and transit dues. This aggregate of rights was... spoken of 
as ike Zamfnddrf,,,. The old State-right, or Zamlndarl was magnified into 
a general superior ownership.... An extremely vague notion prevailed as to 
ownership in the soiL.,, A claim to a certain share of the produce is the 
tangible element and apparent symbol of right rather than any theory of 
soil ownership, whether individual or collective.' 



30 Township and Borough. 

^1 \ A municipal corporation owns a few, but only a few, 
of the houses in the town. Over the whole town it 
exercises a certain governmental power. We have here 
two different ideas ; they can be sharply contrasted. For 
one thing, we are accustomed to think that the govern- 
mental power is delegated by the state. That notion 
of delegation will grow faint as we go backwards. There 
will be a sort of lordship over the whole town, and of 
a few houses there will be landlordship. 

Landlord : we make one word of it and throw a 
strong accent on the first syllable. The lordliness has 
evaporated ; but it was there once. Ownership has 
come out brightly and intensely ; the element of su- 
periority, of government, has vanished ; or rather^ it is 
in other hands. 

What therefore we have to watch in early times is 
not the transfer of something, some thing, called owner- 
ship from one sort of 'units' to another. It is the 
crystallization round several different centres and in very 
different shapes of that vague * belongs ' which contains 
both public power and private right, power over persons, 
right in things. And I must confess to doubting whether 
in the common course a crystal of which we can say 
'This is ownership and it is nothing but ownership' 
forms at all until it forms round the individual man. 
He has a great advantage. He is the only unit in 
which there is no plurality. 
V- The struggle of ownership and rulership to free 
themselves from each other, a struggle which pervades 
both the life and the thought of the middle ages, could 
hardly be better illustrated than it is in the work of an 
Oxford philosopher and Chancellor \ Richard Fitz Ralph, 
Archbishop of Armagh. With Mr Poole for guide, you 
can not miss the point If in the fourteenth century 

^ Diet Nat. Biog. xix. 194. 



The Medieval Dominium. 31 

we are to compose this sad dispute about evangelical 
poverty and pacify the Christian world, we must go 
deep, we must analyze our ideas, we must define do- 
minium, we must d^fiVi^ proprietas. Not every dominium 
is proprietas. There is a baron with a barony ; above 
stand count, duke, king. Each of the four has a do- 
minium over the land, but only the baron's dominium 
is a proprietas of the land, for he has an immediate 
dominium and the other dominia are mediate. Then, \ 
however, we must admit that count, duke and king, ! 
each of them has a proprietas (that is, an immediate ' 
dominium), not in the land, but in his dominium : a f 
property in his lordship. Thus for this acute speculator y 
ownership and rulership are but phases of one idea, and 
this though the Digest has been lying open these two 
centuries and more. All political power exhibits pro- 
prietary traits, and every ownership of land is actually 
or potentially a right of governing and doing justice ^ 

But, to return to our pastures. Are not * the green 
commons* of the village too common to be owned by 
a community ? Perhaps I put the question ill ; but in 
one form or another it should be put, for popular ex- 
positions of the village community will sometimes leave 
this question in the happy haze of 'collective owner- 
ship.' Now I am very ready to believe that haze is 
its native atmosphere, and that, when we have plucked 
it out and inspected it in the modern daylight, we 

* See the portions of Fitz Ralph's treatise De Pauperie Salvatoris 
printed at the end of Mr Poole's edition of Wyclyffe's De Dominio DwinOy 
pp. 279, 467. The king's right to tax the baron appears as an use which 
the king makes of the revenues {reddiius) of the land. The conversion of a 
lordship or seignory into an incorporeal thing is familiar to students of 
English law. For the slow differentiation of rulership and ownership see 
Gierke, Genossenschaftsrecht, iiL 616. A dominium ratione iurisdiciianis 
et gubernaiionis is distinguished from a dominium rcUione proprietatis. 
At last Jacobus Almainus (ob. 1515} says: proprietas et imperium nulla 
societate coniunguntur. 



32 Township and Borough. 

must once more tenderly put it back into the medieval 
muddle. That seems to me a work which Dr Gierke 
has been admirably performing in his fascinating book. 
Only let us know that haze is haze. May be there is 
an element of co-ownership in the case and an element 
of corporate ownership. May be our ancestors did not 
distinguish the all which is plurality from the all which 
is unity \ But we must. If we do not, we ought to 
applaud the common-councillor who says that the pro- 
perty of a municipal corporation is bona fide * their * 
property. 

When in 1835 Parliament took the municipal cor- 
porations in hand, it taught them that their revenues 
were to be expended *for the public benefit of the 
inhabitants of the towns^' The public, not the common, 
benefit. Had the word common been used, might not 
the inhabitants have divided the income among them- 
selves.^ But that is the word which haunts us in the 
middle ages. Even in the boroughs the common bell 
calls the commons of the town from the common streets 
and the green commons to the common hall, and in 
common hall assembled they set their common seal to 
a lease of their common land, for which a fine is paid 
into their common chest. All is common ; nothing 
u- public ; the English for res publica is commonwealth ; 
the public house was once a common inn. But what is 
common to us, is it not partly yours and partly mine ? 
We are tempted to think so. 

* Genossenschaftsrecht, ii. 47: *so steckt in dem Einen Begriff der 
Gesammtheit ungetrennt und untrennbar noch das doppelte Merkmal, dass 
sie einheitliche AUgemeinheit und vielheitliche Summe von Individuen ist' 

* Municipal Corporations Act, 1835, sec 92: *and in case the borough 
fund shall be more than sufficient for the purposes aforesaid, the surplus 
thereof shall be applied, under the direction of the Council, for the public 
benefit of the inhabitants and improvement of the borough.' This is now 
represented by Mun. Corp. Act, 1882, sec 143. 



The Community and the Commons. 33 

Suppose that we place a pure and unfettered owner- 
ship of the pastures in an universitas of villagers. Will 
their idea of community be realized if the pasture rights 
of the singuli are at the mercy of the assembled body ? 
These rights are so necessary to every husbandman that 
any decisive exhibition of that ownership which we 
attribute to the universitas must go far towards destroy- 
ing the bond which holds these men together. 

I believe that before the Reformation of 1835 there 
were some boroughs in which the pasture land stood 
absolutely at the disposal of the municipal corporation \ 
The individual burgess merely because he was a burgess 
was allowed to turn out beasts upon this land, but he 
had no right which hampered the power of the corpo- 
ration to sell the land or put it to some other use. Such 
right as he had we might compare to the right that the 
fellow of a college has to sit in the ' common ' room or 
play at bowls in the college garden. But you will, I 
think, find that even in the boroughs this supremacy of 
the corporate One over the pasture rights of the plural 
Many marks a late and high and distinctively urban stage 
of development ; and at the present time there are good 
reasons why a prudent lecturer should not say that such 
supremacy existed in any particular borough. All that 
we know of the rural arrangements of medieval England 
warns us that the fellow s right to play at bowls in the 
college garden, a right which would disappear if a reso- 
lution in favour of new buildings were carried by a 
majority of one, must not be our model when we think 
of the hidesman s right to feed his cattle on the 'common' 
land. 

Thus the element of unity that there is in the vil- 
lage may soon begin to appear as a mere power of 
government and regulation, and instead of a proprietary 

1 See Append. §§ 138—143. 
M. 3 



34 Township and Borough. 



corporation we may find what we call a * local authority/ 
an organ of subordinate government. The transition 
is easy because the line between public and private law 
is not drawn, is not felt. Am I putting this clumsily 
and pedantically } Let me give an example. The pig, 
which plays a troublesome part in the medieval town, 
may serve. Now suppose that some town council or 
parish council forbids me to keep a pig in my back- 
yard. It no more claims a proprietary right in my 
back-yard than it claims a proprietary right in my pig. 
But if a village moot forbids the villagers to put pigs 
on the common, because pigs rout up the ground, this 
is a more ambiguous act. We may see in it a pro- 
prietary claim, a claim to own the waste and decide 
what shall be done with it, or merely a claim to that 
sort of police power which endeavours to prevent harm 
by ringing pigs and muzzling dogs. Especially if there 
is a lord pressing, forward his right to all that is not 
definitely appropriated, the old right of the community 
may take this turn towards a merely regulative power, 
which in the end may be regarded as delegated by the 
state. 

To us a crucial question would be : What are the 
powers of a majority } There should apparently be 
some sphere within which the will of the majority should 
prevail, and then there should be indefeasible rights. 
But we have every reason to believe that this question 
was obscured from view. 

One of the great books that remain to be written 
is The History of the Majority. Our habit of treating 
the voice of a majority as equivalent to the voice of an 
all is so deeply engrained that we hardly think that it 
has a history. But a history it has, and there is fiction 
there: not fiction if that term implies falsehood or 
caprice, but a slow extension of old words and old 



The Powers of Majorities, 35 

thoughts beyond the old facts. In the earlier middle 
ages it is unanimity that is wanted ; it is unanimity that 
is chronicled; it is unanimity that is after a sort ob- 
tained. A shout is the test, and in form it is the 
primary test to-day in the House of Commons. But 
the few should not go on shouting when they know 
that they are few. If they do, measures can be taken 
to make them hold their peace. In the end the assembly 
has but one voice, one audible voice; it is unanimous. 
The transition to a process which merely counts heads 
or hands is the slower because in some manner that 
no arithmetic can express ,the voices of the older, wiser, 
more worshipful, more substantial men are the weightiest 
The disputed, the double elections that we read of in 
every quarter, from the papal and imperial downwards, 
tell a very curious story of constitutional immaturity. 
But until men will say plainly that a vote carried by a 
majority of one is for certain purposes every whit as 
effectual as an unanimous vote, one main contrast be- 
tween corporate ownership and mere community escapes 
them\ 

In an immobile state of society this contrast and 
many other contrasts may remain latent for a long while. 
As a test of ownership we are wont to think of alien- 
ability. But if the villagers once meditate an alienation 
of their pasture land the existence of the community is 
already in jeopardy. As a matter of fact (such is my 
guess) the ownership of the waste land was in most cases 
crystallizing round another centre, the lord to whom the 
village had been 'booked* by the king. There was 
no awkward plurality in him. Between village and 
borough 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 

^ As to all this matter, see Gierke, Genossenschaftsrecht, ii. 478 ff. 

3—2 



36 Township and Borough. 

unity ; but I imagine that in the old days the community 
was too automatic to be autonomous, too homogeneous 
to be highly organized, too deeply immersed in com- 
monness to be clearly corporate, too plural to be legal 
unit, too few to be one. And at any rate I feel that 
we shall hardly take an interest of the right kind in the 
history of our boroughs, unless we are first persuaded 
that many ideas which are in all our heads and in- 
expugnable therefrom first came to light and dominance 
in urban life. 



III. 



Was Oxford to become * a military centre ' ? A few 
years ago when that question was in debate, Mr Freeman 
said some memorable words about the ignorance of those 
who seemed to think that 'if there had been no uni- 
versity, there would have been no Oxford at all.' These 
people, he said, would be amazed if they were told that 
for ages before the first germs of the university showed 
themselves, Oxford was ' a military centre and a political 
centre, a centre in the very strictest of senses^' Those 
words seem to me to go to the heart of an important 
matter. 

I am far from thinking that any one history should 
be told of all our boroughs. Little could be said of 
Canterbury and Lincoln that would be true of Birming- 
ham or of Brighton. Even if we take account only of 
those towns which are called civitates or burgi in Domes- 
day Book, it is probable, if not certain, that we have a 
miscellaneous class before us. Nevertheless it seems 
to me that throughout a wide tract of England there 
were in 1086 no boroughs which were not or had not 

1 Freeman, English Towns and Districts, 238. 



Borough and Shire. yj 

been in some distinct and legal sense the centres of 
districts, the chief towns of shires. Cambridge was one 
of them. 

Oxfordshire, capital Oxford ; Bedfordshire, capital 
Bedford ; Hertfordshire, capital Hertford ; Staffordshire, 
capital Stafford ; Herefordshire, capital Hereford. I hope 
that children still *say their counties' in that way. It is 
a way that takes us far back. The shire has a burh, a 
borough. For choice it stands at a ford. Shire and 
burh are knit together. The shire maintains the burh ; 
the burh defends the shire. 

Cambridgeshire, capital Cambridge. The town is 
cut in two by the river. The river is spanned by a 
bridge. Until lately we called it the Great Bridge. 
Dwellers on the Thames may look at it with contemp- 
tuous eyes ; but in some sort it is the most famous bridge 
in England : the one bridge that gives name to a county. 

The duty of maintaining that bridge lay upon the 
county ; the lands of the shire owed it bridge-boot, or, 
to use a later phrase, they owed it pontage. Many lands 
had in course of time secured a chartered or prescriptive 
immunity from the charge, but in the middle of the last 
century those which were not free contributed according 
to their hidage. For example, in 1752 the Duke of 
Bedford paid £^6 for six hides of land in Dry Drayton ; 
it was the boot that they owed to the Great Bridge\ 

Just above the bridge rises the mound that is in the 
narrowest sense the burh of Cambridge. The castle has 
come and gone ; the old burh remains. But it is not in 
Cambridge; it is in Chesterton, a vill whose nucleus 
lies a mile or so away I Is Oxford castle in Oxford } 

1 Cooper, Annals, iv. 286. The pontage accounts are among the Bowtell 
MSS. at Downing College. 

* Ibid. iL 132 (from Meres's Diary): in 1557 'Chesterton procession 
came into the castle yarde ' during the Gang Week. The theory that the 
castle is in Chesterton was, I take it, inferentially obtained from the fact 



38 Township and Borough. 

Cambridge castle was not in Cambridge : that is to say, 
it was not within the *town' that was granted to the 
burgesses ; and I believe that the castle precinct, * the 
castle fee,' has seldom been for all legal purposes a 
piece of a borough. Cambridge castle was guarded by 
knights whose lands, like those which owed the pontage, 
were scattered about in various parts of the county. 

I have ventured to argue before now that the con- 
nexion between shire and borough lies near the root 
of the difference between the boroughs and the other 
vills\ May I say one word about this connexion in 
later days } I think that we sometimes make undue 
haste to cut the boroughs loose from their counties. I 
need not say that the ordinary borough was economically 
dependent on the neighbourhood. Its market was a 
district-market and no world-market. But further, many 
of those ancient boroughs which deserve our best atten- 
tion were economically dependent on the county's organi- 
zation. If you wanted to discover the place where the 
shire moot was held, what should you do ? I think that 
I should begin by asking a policeman my way to the 
county gaol. Legally, it may be, outside the borough, 
but for economic purposes within the borough, we should 
often find the spot, where in century after century the 
great people of the shire met month by month, and where 
the king s justices sometimes sat for a month at a time 
with * the whole county ' before them. In Cambridge (or 
rather, as a matter of law, just outside Cambridge) there 
stood an old wooden * shire house' at the foot of the 
castle mound ^ 

that the castle was not within *the liberties' granted to the townsfolk. 
Every piece of land ought to be in some vill, and, if the castle is not in 
Cambridge, clearly it must be in Chesterton. 

* Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 172. 

* Hughes, Cambridge Castle, Camb. Antiq. Soc Proc viii. 188. This 
was demolished in 1747 when the county justices advanced into the middle 



The Borough as Moot-stow. 39 

The burghers' talk about excluding the sheriff must 
not deceive us. They do not want him to meddle with 
their affairs ; but there would be a piteous outcry if he 
held his court elsewhere*. Canibridge is the right and 
proper moot-stow for the thegns of the shire, and has 
been so ever since those thegns formed a famous gild. 
The shire moot wanes ; but the quarter sessions of the 
shire thegns become important. The borough is still the 
centre of the county's business. The county elections, 
the county assizes, the county sessions, these all bring 
in thegns and money to the borough. And the influence 
of the thegns does not end there. Slowly, as a seat in 
Parliament becomes covetable, they begin to take but too 
deep an interest in the affairs of the borough. Ultimately 
a Cambridgeshire thegn who lived at Cheveley, the Duke 
of Rutland, became the 'patron* {dominus et advocatus 
we might say) of the borough of Cambridge, and I have 
heard tell that elections in the city of Oxford sometimes 
coincided with the wishes of an Oxfordshire thegn who 
lived near Woodstock. 

In Lewis's Topographical Dictionary I read of Cam- 
bridge that *the townhall...is obscurely situated behind 
the shire-hall,* for the shire thegns had abandoned their 
old house by the castle and made a new one right in the 
middle of the borough. This is a symbolic truth : the 
town-hall is obscurely situated behind the shire-hall. In 
1833 we are told that the borough court has fallen into 
discredit and disuse, while the county court — not a * new 
county court,* but our old friend the shire moot — is still 

of the town. They retired again to the castle precinct in 1842. Cooper^ 
Annals, il 279; iv. 19, 258. 

* Merewether and Stephens, Hist. Boroughs, L 468: *The king [in 1256] 
granted to the good men of Guildford and their heirs that the county court 
of Surrey should for ever be held in the town of Guildford ; and that the 
justices itinerant should hold the pleas of the county and assizes of all the 
county in that town/ 



40 Township and Borough. 

doing useful work in Cambridge as an exactor of small 
debts \ For good and ill, borough and shire have been 
bound together. And after many centuries, standing 
either at Oxford or at Cambridge, we may still ask Quis 
separabit ? 

I The market is another link : and it is a legal link. 
Men are not to buy and sell elsewhere : that is to say, if 
they buy elsewhere they imperil their necks. Cattle- 
lifting must be suppressed. Men must buy cattle before 
a court of law or before official witnesses in a borough, 
or else they must take the risk of being treated as thieves. 
That is, I think, the original principle. But very soon 
it is evident that a market implies toll, also that a market 
benefits the vill in which it is held. Henry I. bans the 
trade of Cambridgeshire to the borough of Cambridge : 
* I forbid any boat to ply at any hithe of Cambridgeshire, 
except at the hithe of my borough of Cambridge, neither 
shall carts be laden unless in the borough of Cambridge, 
nor shall any take toll elsewhere, but only there'.' 

We must not, however, be in a hurry to see an urban 
element wherever we see a market. It is a market for 
raw produce : corn-market, pease-market, hay-market, 
beast-market, hog-market for the neighbourhood. The 
names of the streets will tell the tale. 

Burgum de Grentebrige pro uno hundret se defendit*. 
Mr Round has explained what this means. The borough 
pays geld for a hundred hides*, pays, that is, full ten times 
as much as an average vill in Cambridgeshire would pay ; 

^ Digested Report of Evidence given before the Commissioners, Cam- 
bridge, 1833, p. 95: 'Mr Harris said the county court is held in Cambridge 
and is much practised in for recovery of debts under forty shillings.' 
Report, 1835, App. vol iv. p. 2192. 

« Append. § 155. 

8 D. B. i. 189. 

^ Round in Domesday Studies, i. Ii7ff.; also Round, Feudal England, 
156. 



Borough and Hundred. 41 

it pays as much as is paid by one of our perfect Cam- 
bridgeshire hundreds that have just their hundred hides. 
But further, it is jurisdictionally a hundred ; it has a court 
which stands on a level with the hundred courts. I can 
not find that Cambridge has ever been deemed a part of 
any of the adjacent hundreds, and by Cambridge I mean 
some five square miles of land. Five hundreds touch 
that tract; they converge upon it; but it lies outside 
them all'. 

The borough is a vill which is a hundred ; or it is 
a vill which has an organization similar to that of a 
hundred. This idea is familiar to us ; it is in our classical 
book*. Perhaps it is a little too familiar, for is there not 
here a new departure in the history of institutions ? We 
are to have a tUn, a vill, with a jurisdictional organ, with 
a moot that can speak law. Ought we not to ask what 
thought lies behind this vill that is a hundred ? Will it 
be fantastic to compare small beginnings with a great 
achievement ? 

The city of Washington is not in any of the united 
states of North America. Why not } Because it is the 
moot-stow of the great republic. The civitas of Cam- 
bridge is not in any of the hundreds. Why not } Because 
it is the count/s town, the moot-stow, fortress and port 
of the republic of Cambridgeshire. I hasten to say that 
I did not invent that phrase; it is eight centuries old. 
In the Conqueror's day the church of Ely claimed the 

* Fleamdyke Hundred (Ditton, Cherry Hinton), Thriplow Hundred 
(Trumpington), Wetherley Hundred (Grantchester with Coton, Barton with 
Whiiwell), Northstow Hundred (Madingley, Girton), Chesterton Hundred 
(Chesterton). Apparently in Leicestershire also five hundreds converge 
upon the county town. 

' Stubbs, Const Hist i. loi, 438, 443; Gross, Gild Merchant, i. 79. In 
the vocabulary which the English settlers carried into Ireland, the borough 
court seems to have been usually called * the hundred ' of the town or city. 
See the Irish Cartae, Privilegia etc. (Rec. Com. 1889), p. 6 Dublin, p. 13 
Waterford, p. 24 Cork, p. 25 Drogheda. 



42 Township and Borough. 

fourth penny of the republic of the province of Grant- 
bridge^. We may suppose some jealousy between the 
hundreds. The stronghold, the market, the meeting 
place of the shire should be in none of them. 

I have used the word ctvitas. In Domesday Book 
it is applied to towns which lack cathedral churches : to 
Oxford, Gloucester, Leicester, Shrewsbury, Colchester. 
I think that we were near to a settled usage which would 
have made that term equivalent to * county town.' Before 
a bishop could seem to be necessary to the existence of a 
ctvitas y some English sees had to be removed out of 
obscure villages*. But also there were other difficulties. 
The legal geography of the southern counties was not so 
artificially neat as was that of the midlands. For example, 
Penenden Heath by Maidstone was the moot-stow of 
Kent, and perhaps we may regard this as a compromise 
between Canterbury and Rochester. I am far from 
wishing to thrust an uniformly artificial scheme upon all 
England ; but any traces of artifice may be precious clues. 
It is best to begin with the easy cases, with the great 
block of shires which take their names from towns and 
have a borough apiece. Wessex may wait a while until 
Mercia is understood. 

Let me fully admit that the history of our towns must 
not be merely the history of legal arrangements. The 
trade winds blow where they list, and defy the legislator. 
It were needless to say that half-fledged boroughs such 
as Manchester, and mere villages such as Birmingham, 
will outstrip the old shire-cities. But even in the middle 

1 Append. § 154. 

^ Coke upon Littleton, 109b: 'The burgh of Cambridge, an ancient 
city, as it appeareth by a judiciall record (which is to be preferred before all 
others) where mos civitaHs Cantabrigiae is found by the oath of twelve men, 
the recognitors of that assize; which (omitting many others) I thought good 
to mention in remembrance of my love and duty almae matri academicte 
Cantabrigiae,* The case to which Coke refers is printed in Placit Abbrev. 98. 



The University Town. 43 

ages there were ups and downs in the fortunes of the 
boroughs. I think that both Oxford and Cambridge had 
good luck. 

Mr Green once drew a spirited indictment against 
your University. * It found Oxford a busy prosperous 
borough and reduced it to a cluster of lodging-houses. 
It found it among the first of English municipalities,' and 
it so utterly crushed its freedom that the recovery of some 
of the commonest rights of self-government has only 
been brought about by recent legislation*.' Certainly there 
is truth here; but the picture has another side. Look 
at the shire-boroughs that lie between Oxford and 
Cambridge. Look at Huntingdon, Bedford, Hertford, 
Buckingham; each stands in Domesday Book proudly 
enough at the head of a shire. Look more especially at 
a town which may have been Oxford's twin sister. Look 
at Wallingford, and reckon up the bishops and abbots 
and counts and barons who had houses there. Materially 
the advent of the scholars meant to the burgesses a large 
demand for food and lodging. Spiritually it meant an 
example of organization and a stimulating battle for right. 
And at any rate a new-fangled university was a better 
inmate than an ancient cathedral church. 

I say this because in my view there is an element of 
national or tribal purpose and policy in the earliest history 
of these county towns. As this fades away, the old 
borough must face rivalry and trying times. In the 
struggle for prosperity it must rely upon its own economic 
merits. Other towns have acquired courts and markets, 
and there is a race for charters. However, an example 
has been set; a new type of town, of vill, has come 
into existence^ 

1 J. R. Green, Stray Studies, p. 333. 

* It will be understood that I am in no way denying the influence of the 
French upon the English towns during the new period that begins with the 
Conquest. 



44 Township and Borough. 

But though the ancient borough is not an ordinary 
vill, an ordinary /^«, none the less it is a vill, a tiin, and 
the community that inhabits it is a township. This being 
so, ought it not to be an agrarian unit ; ought it not to 
have arable fields and pasture that subserves them ? I 
do not wish to dictate to strange cities, to London, for 
example, or to Oxford, and to say to their citizens, ' You 
must find your common fields.' That would be an ex- 
treme of folly and impertinence. The possibilities are 
many. Still our Cambridge case will show that it may 
be worth our while to look beneath the Roman print of 
modem municipality and beneath the black letter of 
medieval burgherhood for the runes of the ancient village. 
In some sort Cambridge was still an agrarian unit in the 
seventeenth century. 

Shall we then by way of hypothesis (it can be no 
better) start with an ordinary English village ? Let us also 
suppose it to be a free, a lordless village, as lordless as a 
village can be where there is a king about National 
policy decrees that this place is to be the stronghold, the 
place of assembly, the market of a shire : that it is to be 
extra-hundredal and is to have a moot of its own. There 
will be a ferment in the vill. There will be a new 
demand for houses. The old nucleus of homesteads will 
grow denser. The Cambridge of the Confessor's day 
has four hundred houses : ten times as many as the 
ordinary village would have, though its fields are no 
larger than are those of many an ordinary village. 

It seems to me possible that the great men of the 
shire were bound to keep houses and retainers, burgmen, 
burgenses, knights, in this stronghold and place of refuge. 
I do not press that theory upon you\ The fact remains 
that for one reason or another the English magnates did 
in many cases acquire these borough haws. Oxford is 

1 Append. §§ 150—152. 



The Borough as Agrarian Unit. 45 

here the splendid example. Six bishops, besides abbots 
and counts and mighty men of war, have houses in it and 
men in it But you will see the same phenomenon on a 
smaller scale in boroughs which soon drop out of the 
race : in Buckingham for example, and in Winchcombe, 
the capital of the ancient Winchcombeshire\ Borough 
society is mixed. Not only are there social grades 
within it ; but there are feudal or vassalic distinctions. 
These men are the ' men ' of different lords. 

We may guess that the old hides will go to pieces. 
If the market is successful, they may go to pieces very 
rapidly. There will be a traffic in acre-strips. A man 
will try to get a few next each other. It is no longer 
necessary that his strips should be equally divided be- 
tween the various fields : he may sell com in one year 
and buy in another. His tenement need not be self- 
sufficing ; the whole vill will not produce all that it eats. 

A danger lies here. The land is becoming mobile at 
a time when the feudalizing and manorializing processes 
are at work. It is perhaps improbable that any lord will 
make a manor of this complex vill, this heterogeneous 
group. But it is very possible that he may succeed in 
detaching from it large parts of its field and working them 
up into external manors. The more the borough flourishes 
as a place of trade, the better his chance of doing this, 
for the community that inhabits the town is ceasing to be 
a community of self-supporting agriculturists. 

I have sometimes fancied that this happened at 
Oxford in very old days : that Oxford had wide arable 
fields lying outside the north gate of the town ; that Port 
Meadow was subservient to the plough-teams of a corn- 
growing group of men who lived in Oxford ; and that 
those manors of Walton and Wolvercote and Holywell 

^ For Winchcombeshire, see Royce, Winchcombe Landboc, p. ii; 
Taylor, Domesday Survey of Gloucestershire, 220. 



< 



46 Township and Borough. 

which appear already in Domesday Book\ were formed 
out of the Oxford fields. There are, I think, many signs 
of continuous friction between the burghal community 
and the landholders of the North Gate Hundred. Fric- 
tion there must be before arable and pasture can be 
finally torn asunder. In 1561 a witness swore that the 
men of Wolvercote, Godstow, Binsey and Medley had 
always enjoyed common of pasture in Portmead, also 
that the citizens of Oxford could not drive their cattle 
to Portmead without passing through 'the lordships of 
Walton ^' On the other hand, the citizens would not 
admit that there was a Walton Manor : there was only a 
Walton Farm situate wholly within the liberties of the 
city of Oxford*. How this may be now-a-days I do not 
know; but I see it said in 1870 that some neighbouring 
villages had common in Port Meadow*. As to the manor 
of Holywell, the burgesses of 1279 protested that it had 
belonged to a burgess, the father of the celebrated John 
of Oxford, and had been * newly subtracted from the 
borough'.' In after-times there were, so Anthony Wood 
tells, many contentions about jurisdiction between its lord 
and the townsmen*. Its lord was that college, Merton 
College, which held a suburban manor at Cambridge also, 
and in our own century competed with the Cambridge 
burgesses for a lordship over the Cambridge field. 

I must ask you to forgive this trespass, and must 
confess that the North Gate Hundred is a puzzle to 

1 D. B. i. 154, 157, 159; Parker, Early History of Oxford, 208, 225, 249, 
255 ; Wood's City of Oxford, ed. Clark, i. 335 ff. ; ii. 186 ff. 

* Royal Letters, ed. Ogle, 180-1. As to this dispute with Dr Owen, see 
also Records of Oxford, ed. Turner, 21 1-3-5, 223, 278, 294; Royal Letters, 
195. 

' Records of Oxford, 253, 

* Pari. Pap. 1870: Return of Cities and Boroughs possessing Common 
Lands, p. 23. 

* Rot. Hund. ii. 805. 

« Wood's City of Oxford, ed. Clark, i. 380-1. 



Borough Pastures. 47 

the stranger. I should account it a compliment to a 
town if we said that at a very early time it could afford 
to see its arable fields detached from it and worked up 
into external manors. When and where this sacrifice 
is possible without economic ruin, we are coming to 
urban life. I think that we may even regard an 
arable 'shell' (to use Mr Seebohm's phrase) as an im- 
pediment to the growth of municipality. 

Pasture must and will be important to the towns- 
folk throughout the middle ages and in much later days. 
If in 1833 you had asked the corporator (burgess, 
freeman) of a borough what good he got by being a 
corporator, he would often have answered : * Pasture, and 
now that Parliament has begun to meddle with electoral 
rights, nothing but pasture \* In many old and great 
boroughs the corporator merely as corporator turned 
out his beast, and, if any one turned out more beasts 
than his neighbour, this was because he had attained 
a certain rank in the corporation ; he was alderman or 
the like*. This is a much more urban, corporate scheme 
than is possible until the arable has been wrenched from 
the pasture*. 

That the ancient shire-borough never becomes a 
manor, this I dare not say*. But I feel pretty sure 
that Cambridge never passed through the manorial 

^ By way of example we may take Stamford. App. to Mun. Corp. Rep. 
183s, vol iv. p. 2530: *The present body of freemen form but a small 
portion of the inhabitants of the town, and during the last five years the 
number of admissions has considerably diminished. Those who are entiUed 
by birth or apprenticeship only take up their freedom for the purpose of 
stocking the common ; and among the other inhabitants few are disposed to 
purchase it' 

* See Append. § 139. 

' See the whole of the section entitled Die Stadtpersdnlichkeit und die 
Stadtmark in Gierke's Genossenschaftsrecht, ii. 649. 

^ Buckingham (D. B. i. 143) looks like a little burg tacked on to a royal 
manor. 



48 Township and Borough. 

phase. Little manors might be formed within it ; but 
it was no manor. It stood in a close relation to the 
king; but it was no royal manor. 

Its court was, if you please, a royal court I should 
prefer to say that it was a national court, for the earl 
took the third penny. The king drew from the town 
a considerable revenue which was farmed by the sheriff. 
There were the profits of the court and the profits of 
the market. There were also house rents and land 
rents {hawgafol and landgafot) which were paid by some, 
but by no means all, of the inhabitants. Inside as well 
as outside the borough the free landholders seek lords 
and pay a little money by way of * recognition * for 
patronage and warranty. But I can not find that in 
Cambridge there ever was any royal demesne in the 
narrowest sense of that word : any land whose produce 
went to the king s bams. * The burgesses,' says Domes- 
day Book, 'used to lend the sheriff their teams thrice 
a year,' perhaps to help in tilling the neighbouring royal 
vill of Chesterton. That is light service. Now Picot 
the Norman wants such a loan nine times a year ; and 
he also wants carts and carrying service. That is not 
heavy ; that is not degrading ; there is no villeinage in it\ 

On whose land then does this town, this borough, 
stand ? He who dictated the plan of Domesday Book 
deliberately and in instance after instance refused to 
answer that question. He might have put Oxford and 
Cambridge on the Terra Regis \ he refused to do it I 
almost hear him saying what our University said in 
1616: *0f the soil of Cambridge no certain lord is 
known.' 



* D. B. i. 189: *Burgenses T. R. E. accomodabant vicecomiti carrucas 
suas ter in anno: modo novem vicibus exiguntur. Nee aueras nee cumis 
T. R. £. inveniebant, quae modo faciunt per consuetudinem impositam.' 
Many free people in Cambridgeshire owed the king a little carrying service. 



Lordship over the Borough. 49 

But surely the king is lord ? Yes, our scribe might 
have written Terra Regis once for all on the frontispiece 
of the book, for the king is lord of all England. 

These nice shades of the medieval dominium are 
difficult to catch. He wants to distinguish the king's 
demesne from the fiefs. What is in a fief is not in 
the king's demesne. But there are bits of who shall 
say how many fiefs in the borough } The Count of 
Mortain has ten houses in Oxford and three in Cam- 
bridge. The king's lordship over Oxford differs by a 
perceptible shade from his lordship over Bensington. 
The king s lordship over Cambridge differs by a per- 
ceptible shade from his lordship over Chesterton. It 
is a little less landlordly, a little more kingly, a trifle 
less private, a trifle more public. 

Then as to the waste land at Cambridge within and 
without the ditch, I fancy that any ownership of it was 
but feebly conceived. It was being used by the bur- 
genses. They complain that Picot, who has been building 
a mill, has stolen part of the pasture\ These men are 
the men of different lords. Taken in mass they have 
no lord but the king. If Henry I. gives away a piece 
of this green land as the site for a religious house, 
he will not be resisted : perhaps he will do a popular 
act^ But it is not necessary to talk of the ownership 
of waste land yet : we can leave that matter in doubt 
for a long while to come. 

If we could obtain a history of the pasture rights, 
we might be obtaining a history of much else. For 
instance, we have to face the question of a burghal 
'patriciate.* Is it to be a definite patriciate of the 
hidesmen or yardsmen, the holders of full shares in the 
arable } My guess would be that the old tenements 

^ Append. § 126. * Append. § 128. 

M. 4 



50 Township and Borough. 



went to pieces too fast to allow any permanent crystal- 
lization in this rustic shape. The account which Domes- 
day Book gives of Colchester and its fields, an account 
unique in its particularity, shows us tenements of all sizes 
from thirty acres down to an acre\ At least one other 
principle may have been contending for the mastery. 
Some boroughs ard already divided into wards : there 
were ten wards, ten custoduUy in Cambridge. A little 
later we see in some towns that the ward has its here- 
ditary alderman. To-day the term ward has a pacific, 
municipal sound : still ought it not to mean something 
that needs defence and is defended, defended against 
external attack ? In short, is it not possible that we 
have on our hands the military captains of the burgmen } 
And there may be hereditary lawmen or doomsmen 
also. 

I must break off these conjectures and begin at the 
other end such story as I have to tell. If we could 
master the borough of the twelfth century we should 
be the better able to interpret the sparse evidence that 
comes to us from remoter days. But I do not think 
pat we shall have mastered the borough of the twelfth 
century if we have not looked beyond wall and ditch to 
the arable fields and the green commons of the town. 
There is much else to be studied besides the proprietary 
rights which men have in the houses, the acres and the 
pasture. By all means let us study the gilds and all 
that is commonly regarded as the constitutional side of 
burghal history. But proprietary rights in lands and 
houses are important ; rights of pasture were very im- 
portant. Real property is a great reality. If we do 
not build our borough on the solid proprieted soil, we 
shall build it in the air. 

* D. B. ii. 104. See Mr Round's papers in The Antiquary, vol. vi. 
(1882). 



German Theories of the Borough. 51 

We have opportunities. There are charters and 
terriers in the archives of our colleges which should be 
forced to tell the tale of two ancient county towns which 
comprised the Port Meadow at Oxford and the Port 
Field at Cambridge. The oldest of all inter-university 
sports was a lying match. Oxford was founded by 
Mempricius in the days of Samuel the prophet, and 
Cambridge by the Spanish Cantaber in the days of 
Gurguntius Brabtruc. A match in truth-seeking is a 
much more thrilling contest ; the rules of the game are so 
much more intricate. It goes on and I hope will never 
be decided. You have many books that we must envy ; 
I think that you will envy our Architectural History 
and the Annals of our great town clerk. And yet there 
is room ; there is soil. 

But, glancing for one moment at those interesting 
and stimulating German theories, dare I make any guess 
about what will be accepted and what rejected by the 
student of those old English boroughs which strike the 
keynote in our municipal history ? Something should 
be risked or there will be nothing to contradict. With 
us the bishop will play no such prominent part as is 
assigned to him elsewhere. There will be no *immu- 
nist' holding the whole town. It will not be subjected 
to manorial rule {Hofrecht). There may be many mini- 
sterialesy many * knights' in it; but the community 
will not consist of the dependants of one great lord. 
The market will be important; but the borough court 
will be no mere market court, nor will its law be mainly 
market law {Marktrecht). Voluntary, gild-like, asso- 
ciation will be active there; but not until late in the 
day will it mould the institutions of our town. There 
will be much freedom, much ancient, aboriginal freedom 
The borough community will be closely related to the 
village community. The differentiating principle will 

4—2 



:he I 

be/ 



52 Township and Borough. 

y^ found in those arrangements which have made this town 
'a military centre and a political centre/ the stronghold, 
the market and the moot-stow of a shire. 



IV. 

The vill, town, borough of Cambridge contains about 
3,200 acres, or in other words, about five square miles 
of land. As vills go in Cambridgeshire, it is large, but 
not extravagantly large. Larger vills are to be found 
even outside the fen. It is cut into two not very unequal 
parts by the river. 

Within this territory there lay in the middle ages 
the ditched, defensible and house-covered nucleus. In 
the thirteenth century a suburb, well outside the ditch, 
had grown up around the by no means ancient Priory 
of Barnwell ; there was a small suburb at Newnham ; 
and in various directions houses were arising along the 
roads which entered the town. This nucleus also was 
cut by the river ; the smaller half lay to the north ; the 
two halves were connected by the bridge which gives 
a name to borough and shire. 

As the river flows now north, now east, it may be 
convenient if I speak of the two halves of the vill as 
cispontine and transpontine. Already in Henry II I. 's 
day the Cambridge man placed himself south of the 
river when he spoke of his town. What lay to the 
north was 'the ward beyond the bridge.' To-day the 
sight-seer who pays Cambridge a hurried visit will 
perhaps never cross the river. Only one of our colleges, 
Magdalene, and part of another, St Johns, are trans- 
pontine. 

The agrarian plan suggests that at some remote time 
there were two economically distinct communities, each 



The Plan of Cambridge. 53 

of which had its proper fields. Also it is a common, 
though disputed, opinion that a Roman town once stood 
on the river s northern bank\ When light dawns in the 
thirteenth century, the transpontine fields are for the 
more part paying tithe to one set of churches, the cis- 
pontine to another set. Moreover at the beginning of 
our own century the' theory of the inclosers seems to 
have been that a cispontine house might have pasture 
rights in the cispontine, but not in the transpontine fields. 
On the other hand, no such rule was, so far as I am 
aware, applied to the green commons : indeed there was 
little green on the transpontine side. The evidence does 
not all point in one direction ; and at any rate, if there 
was a coalescence of two townships, I am inclined to 
push this far back behind the Norman Conquest. The 
very name of one of the two, if two there ever were, 
seems irrecoverable*. 

In Domesday Book the borough of Cambridge is set 
before us as a single whole, though it has been divided 
into ten custodiae or wards. Thenceforward it appears 
as a good specimen of the old shire-boroughs. It was 
without a rival, without a second, as the chief town of 
its county. It had castle and Jewry, market-place and 
tolbooth, all complete. It was a 'port' with 'hithes* 
and * quays.' A fair held in one of its arable fields, 
Sturbridge Field, was to become in course of time the 
most famous of English fairs. Also it had some fifteen 
or sixteen parish churches, and, measured by this index 
of ancient wealth, might vie with Oxford. That it was 
as rich or as populous as Oxford I should not contend. 
The poll taxes of Richard II.'s day suggest the pro- 
portion 5 : 4 in your favour*. In the twelfth century 
Cambridge will render an aid of £\2 when Oxford 

^ Append. § i. ^ Append. § i la 

' Powell, Rising in East Anglia, 121. 



54 Township and Borough. 

renders ;^20^ ; but under Edward I. its fee-farm rent 
is full as heavy as that of Oxford'. Already in the 
Confessor s time it paid geld for a hundred hides : that 
is, it paid full ten times what the ordinary Cambridgeshire 
village would pay. Clearly therefore in the eleventh 
century it was not a vill of the common kind ; its taxable 
wealth did not lie wholly in its fields. But fields it had. 
It was cast in an agrarian mould. 

Out of the 3,200 acres we must give but few to the 
ditch-encircled patch of houses, or (since I believe that 
mums will cover ditch and bank') I will say to intra- 
mural Cambridge. There are now about 300 acres of 
green common : somewhat less than a tenth of the 
territory. It lies for the more part along the river. As 
we go back in our story we may have to increase this 
quantity ; but not I think very largely within the historic 
time. Then in 1800 there were two vast sheets of arable 
land: the cispontine and transpontine fields. Speaking 
very roughly, we might set down each of these sheets 
at 1,200 acres. There were also some leys of meadow; 
but some at least of them had once been ploughed. The 
amount of arable seems rather to increase than to diminish 
as we go back to remote days. The margin of cultivation 
has been very near to the centre of our town. And yet 
if we begin to talk of hides of 120 acres, we may find 
ourselves guessing that this territory, where near 40,000 
people now live, was once laid out for the support of 
hardly more than twenty barbarian households. The 

1 Domesday Book and Beyond, 175. 

* R. H. ii. 788, 793, 796: Oxford pays £fiZ. ox. icL Ibid. ii. 356: 
Cambridge pays ;^4o, plus £20 by tale, plus locxr. of new increment 
Ultimately its rent was 105 marks or £^o, In the reign of Charles II. this 
rent was sold to Sir George Downing, and under the will of his grandson, 
another Sir George, it now forms part of the endowment of Downing 
College. 

' Parker, Early History of Oxford, 236. 





1 

i 




V 

1 




.-i^ ^ N 


.>^o"*°^^\.... 




^eumiarket 


Xo St Neots =^ ! - 

V-.... 


^== 




r 

• 
• 

# 


•■^^ *> 




ooTO" 


\ 
1 

To 




1 St Giles. 


10 St Ben 




2 St Peter ad castrum. 


11 St Bot< 




8 All Saints ad castrum. 


12 St Joh; 




4 St Clement. 


13 St Pet« 




5 St Sepulchre. 


14 St Ant 




6 All Saints in the Jewry. 


15 St Trir 




7 St Michael. 


16 Nunner 




8 St Mary in the Market. 


17 Bamwe 




9 St Edward. 


18 Market 















The Fields of Cambridge. 55 

• . 

Cambridge of 1066 contained some 400 houses, the Cam- 
bridge of 1279 contained more than 500, the Cambridge 
of 1 80 1 contained nearly 1,700. But the mess, the maze; 
that those barbarians had made could only be cleared) 
up by Act of Parliament. , 

Starting at the hither end of the story, we can look 
at the awards made and the maps drawn by the com- 
missioners who are inclosing the fields. The green 
commons are not to be inclosed. The cispontine fields, 
which are commonly known as the Barnwell Fields, 
consist chiefly of four tracts, called Sturbridge Field, 
Bradmore Field, Middle Field and Ford Field. In old 
days the two fields which were as remote as possible from 
each other, Sturbridge and Ford Fields, were reckoned 
as a single field. This points to a * three-field ' course of 
culture. In 181 1 when certain titherowners have been 
compensated and the municipal corporation has received 
nine acres for that debated lordship, the lion's share falls 
to Mr Panton, the successor of the Prior of Barnwell, 
but several of our colleges, notably Jesus and St John's, 
take large pieces. Altogether I reckon that about twenty- 
two persons, * natural and juristic,' had owned the land. 
Then rights of pasture over it seem to have been success- 
fully claimed on behalf of upwards of a hundred houses 
situated in the cispontine part of Cambridge. These 
fields are now being covered by a dense mass of brick 
and mortar. The railway station is in Middle Field. 

The transpontine fields had been Grithow Field, 
Middle Field, Little Field and the Carme Field. That 
last name can hardly be older than the settlement of the 
Carmelite Friars in Newnham. This seems to be the field 
which in older documents bears the name of Port Field, 
for a Port Field we had. These transpontine fields 
swept along 'the backs of the colleges,' from the small 
suburb at Newnham to the confines of the vill of Girton. 



56 Township and Borough, 

College gardens and cricket grounds have felt the 
plough. The academic interest was yet stronger here 
than it was on the other side of the town. Nine of 
our colleges, besides your Merton, received allotments: 
St John's and Jesus large allotments. The commoners 
who were compensated seem to have had houses in the 
transpontine part of the town. A handsome share went 
to Sir Charles Cotton, the squire of the neighbouring 
village of Madingley. He was a descendant of Sir John 
Hynde, who was recorder of the borough and a rising 
lawyer in those blessed days when monasteries were being 
disendowed \ 

Now of these western or transpontine fields we have 
in our University Library a field-book or terrier*. It 
was made to all appearance soon after the middle of the 
fourteenth century. It is the most elaborate thing of 
its kind that I have ever seen. In each field it describes 
the various furlongs or shots in such a manner that an 
ingenious man, who had time to spare and a taste for the 
Chinese puzzle, might depict them on a map. Then it 
tells us of the strips in each furlong. It tells us how 
many selions, ridges or beds, belong to a given man 
and what is their acreage. It tells us to whom they 
pay their tithe. 

Let me translate one small piece of the account that 
is given to us of Grithow Field. ' A furlong lying cross- 
wise to the field of Girton and abutting at its western 
head upon the Mill-way. The selions of this furlong 
are to be reckoned at their western head.' Then a part 
of this furlong is described as follows : — 

5 selions, which used to be 7, of the land of the Clerks of 
Merton, containing about 3 a. 2 r. abutting on the aforesaid way 
and tithing to St Giles. 

1 Diet Nat. Biog. ; Hailstone, Hist of Bottisham, 325 ff. 

2 Append. § 47. 



The Cambridge Field-Books. 57 

I selion of the Hospital of St John the Evangelist, containing 
about 2 R., abutting on the aforesaid way and tithing to St 
Radegund. 

I selion of Robert Long now in the hand of the Prior of Bam- 
well, containing about i r., abutting upon the aforesaid way (the 
green plot intervening) and tithing partibly to St Giles and 
St Radegund. 

I selion of the Nuns of St Radegund, containing about ij R., 
abutting upon the aforesaid way (the green plot intervening) and 
tithing partibly to St Giles and St Radegund. 

I must not dwell on the purely agrarian features that 
are thus disclosed, the furlongs and ridges, the butts and 
gores. They would be familiar to you, for this terrier 
supplied Mr Seebohm with some of his best materials 
when he was expounding the open field. I have also 
been able to study, though only in a modern copy, a 
terrier of the cispontine or Barnwell Fields, and by the 
aid of these and of the minute account of Cambridge that 
is recorded upon the Hundred Roll of 1279, I think that 
I can answer in general terms a question of some interest: 
Who owned these arable strips in the thirteenth and 
fourteenth centuries ? 

First let me say that when these terriers were made 
the proprietary arrangement of the strips no longer 
displayed that regularity which we may easily find in 
the villages. The acres are no longer tied by legal 
bonds into hides and virgates, into parcels of 60, 30 and 
15 acres. Nor, as we look down the list of owners, do 
we see the same names recurring in the same sequences. 
The average size of the parcel that any man has in one 
place is but little more than an acre; but some of the great 
people, especially the Prior of Barnwell, have in some 
cases got five or ten acres next each other. There is no 
longer any of that equality or proportionality which the 
dispersion of the strips was designed to secure. This 
dispersion must have been as great a nuisance in the 



58 Township and Borough. 

fourteenth century as it was in the nineteenth. Indeed 
we might be inclined to say that in 1350 it could not last 
much longer, did we not know that it was going to last 
for four hundred and fifty years, and did we not know or 
guess that many people who had no arable strips turned 
out their beasts to graze upon the idle field. 

But if we go a little further back, to the early years 
of the thirteenth century, we do find some regularity and 
some recurrent sequences. I have seen a copy of a 
charter by which one Maurice Ruflfus gave fifteen acres, 
a half-virgate, to St John s Hospital. These fifteen acres 
consisted of thirty-six strips dispersed abroad in both 
sets of fields, ex utraque parte aqtcae, and I think that 
Maurice would have had to walk five or six miles in 
order to make a tour of his fifteen acres. Now in at 
least nineteen out of thirty-six cases he had Adam the 
son of Eustace for one of his two neighbours \ That is 
intelligible ; that is as it should be ; we see traces of a 
rota. 

Another sign of antiquity catches our eye. We are 
told to what churches the strips pay their tithe, and we 
find that the distribution of the right to tithe is as 
intricately irrational as the distribution of proprietary 
rights. In a field called Swinecroft, in which I happen 
to live, I see a furlong or shot of some five-and-twenty 
acres (in truth I see it whenever I look out of my 
window) in which nine persons held strips and eight 
churches took tithel Thus even if an owner succeeds 
in getting several strips next each other, they must 
remain separate for the purpose of decimation. In this 
furlong, for example, the White Canons have eight ridges 
lying together ; but two tithe to St Peter, the next four 
to St Mary, and the last two divide their tithe be- 
tween St Mary and St Peter. This is a matter of some 

1 Append. § 89. " Append. § 32. 



The Owners of the Strips. 59 

importance. If the parishes in the town represented, as 
some think, little communities, little townships, which 
had coalesced, we should surely find that the strips 
which tithed to a particular church would lie together. 
But, except that as a general rule the transpontine fields 
tithe to one set of churches, the cispontine to another, 
I see no trace of such coalescence. All is in wild 
disorder and seems plainly to tell of a time when men 
'went with their land* to what churches they pleased\ 
The fields were made by people who knew nothing of 
a parochial system. Whether they knew anything of 
Christianity, who can tell.*^ 

But let us look at the persons who own the strips 
soon after the middle of the fourteenth century. And 
first we will observe that not a strip is owned by the 
corporation of Cambridge, or by the men of Cambridge 
in any communal or collective fashion. I see no trace of 
any arable which had been royal demesne land and had 
passed to the corporation or community as part of the 
vill that was granted to them. 

We have nearly got rid of the colleges. We have 
nearly scraped them off as though they were a modern 
deposit. Merton already has its land, and the Univer- 
sity has a few strips, but only one Cambridge college is 
represented. It is Corpus Christi, a college of an unique 
character that has been recently founded and endowed 
by gilds of Cambridge townsmen. Instead of colleges 
we now find religious houses. There are some strips 
which belong to the Prior of Huntingdon, to the 
Prior of Anglesey, to the Minoresses of Waterbeach 
and Denny; but the houses which have most stand 
within the boundary of the vill. The White Canons of 

^ D. B. i. 280 (Borough of Derby) : ' De Stori antecessor! Walterii de 
Aincurt dicunt quod sine alicuius licentia potuit facere sibi aecclesiam in 
sua terra et in sua soca, et suam decimam mittere quo vellet.' 



6o Township and Borough. 

Sempringham have lately acquired a seat in the town and 
some strips in its fields ; but they are new comers. The 
great holders are the Priory of Barnwell, the Nunnery of 
St Radegund and the Hospital of St John ; to these we 
may add the House of Lepers at Sturbridge. St John's 
Hospital stood within the ditch where St John's College 
now stands, the other houses without the ditch, but 
within the vill, the Lepers* Hospital lying far remote 
from human habitation. 

Now it is plain that we must treat these religious 
houses as we treated the colleges. We must dissolve 
them ; we must scrape them off as though they were a 
modern deposit ; for modern they are : that is to say, 
not one of them is as old as the Conquest. Thus the 
question occurs : Whence did their endowments proceed ? 
From great people in great parcels or from small people 
in small parcels } 

I believe that with few exceptions they came in small 
parcels from small people, or rather from people who 
were great only in Cambridge. First I will notice that 
the two hospitals seem to be of burgensic foundation \ 
We have two stories told by juries in the thirteenth 
century about the Hospital of St John. A certain 
burgess, Henry Frost by name, gave a plot of land to 
the township of Cambridge for the construction of a 
hospital. That is one story. The other tells how a 
townsman called Henry Eldcorn, by the assent of the 
community, built a hospital on a piece of poor, waste land 
(that belonged to the community. The point of both 
Istories is the same: namely, that the patronage of the 
hospital, the right to choose a master, belongs, not to the 
Bishop of Ely, who has usurped it, but to the men of 
Cambridge, or, if they can not have it, then to their lord 
the king'. A similar complaint is made about the Lepers* 

1 Append. § 72. * R. H. i. 55 ; ii. 359. 



Burgensic Hospitals. 6i 

Hospital. Closely similar complaints are made by the 
burgesses of Norwich\ Northampton', and Nottingham*. 
These burgensic hospitals, these claims to patronage are 
very interesting. Perhaps in no other quarter do we 
hear so early what we can only construe as a corporate 
claim. The men of the town as a mere mass of indi- 
viduals can hardly be patrons, co-owners of the patronage, 
and yet in some sense or another the men of the town 
ought to be patrons. Just because that sense 'quivers 
on their lip * but can not get itself into words, the bishop 
has his chance. The immature, the nascent *it* can 
hardly resist him. 

Now I think it clear that these hospitals obtained 
most of their arable strips from burgesses, or at any rate 
from inhabitants, of Cambridge. The same is true of 
the canons of Barnwell and the nuns of St Radegund*. 
They are our Cambridge versions of the canons of 
Oseney and the nuns of Godstow. Indeed a close 
parallel might be drawn between Oseney and Barnwell. 
In each case we see the rough Norman castellan and 
the devout wife, the miracle or the vision, the location 
of a few canons within or just without the castle, the 
subsequent erection of an Augustinian house in a more 
commodious place by the river. But there is, if I 
mistake not, a difference of some importance. Robert 
of Ouilly can endow his canons with hides of land — I 
was going to say in the Oxford fields, but had better 
say in close proximity to the walls of Oxford. I can 
not find that our Picot the sheriff or his successor Pain 
Peverel provided anything within the limits of Cambridge 
beyond a site. 

The site at Barnwell, a matter of thirteen acres, was 

1 R. H. L 530. « R. H. ii. 2. 

' Records of Nottingham (ed. Stevenson), i. 91. 
* Append. §§ 74—5. 



62 Township and Borough. 

given to Pain for this purpose by Henry 1/ Apparently 
it was a piece of the green common of the town. In 
Edward I/s day and again in Richard II.*s the men, or 
at least the lower orders, of Cambridge seem to be 
protesting that the Priory inclosure stands where it 
ought not, impeding their drift-way from one pasture to 
another. So the rebellious 'commons' of 1381 destroy 
wall and fence and water-gate, to the Prior's great 
damage*. However, the canons had at one time been 
popular in the town. They seem to have obtained a 
third or more of the cispontine and a good share of the 
transpontine fields by means of small donations. The 
largest gift of which I read was made by a prior of the 
house : a gift of 140 acres. They came to him from 
his father, whose deeply interesting name was Osbert 
Domesman. 

The case of the nuns is not dissimilar. Malcolm, 
king of Scotland, provided them with a site of ten acres 
outside the ditch. Perhaps, but this is not certain, it 
was carved from the green common, and perhaps 
Malcolm thought that as Earl of Huntingdon a third of 
the green common should be his to give away. But the 
arable came from humbler quarters. A gift of fifteen 
acres, of a half-virgate, was a handsome gift to the nuns'. 
Your royal or noble founder sometimes does his founding 
pretty cheaply. What he gives you is his name ; and it 
is a valuable advertisement. 

We can thus treat the religious houses as we treated 
the colleges. They are a modern deposit and we scrape 
them away. When in our retrogressive course we have 
reached the year iioo, they must be gone or nearly 
gone. Stories indeed come to us from Ely of acres in 
Cambridge which were given to St Etheldreda in very 

^ Append. § 128. * Append. § 131. 

5 Append. § 74. 



Endowment of Religious Houses. 63 

old days ; but to all seeming she no longer had those 
acres at the Conquest, and these stories, true or false, 
tell of small acquisitions\ Am I not right in saying that 
in the early history of Oxford you do not now-a-days 
assign any dominant influence to the nuns or the canons 
of St Frideswide ? We have not even a St Frideswide. 
The borough does not grow up under the shadow and 
patronage of a great church. 

However, in the twelfth and following centuries a 
leading part in the agrarian history of the borough is 
played by the piety, charity, otherworldliness of the men 
of Cambridge. Ultimately, though at too late a day to 
do much harm, claims to lordship over these fields will 
be made by the successors of canons and nuns who 
promised prayers in return for acres. More than halffv 
the strips in our fields went to religion. Many had gonq 
by 1279, more by 1360. But still a good share was in 
the living hand of lay and natural persons. And the 
living hand was lively. When our terriers were made, 
two considerable estates had lately been amassed. One 
Stephen Morris, who inherited some strips, had bought 
others from thirteen different persons. One Roger 
Harleston, who seems to have been a new-comer in the 
town, had purchased in seven different quarters. He is 
a country gentleman with an estate at Cottenham. He 
comes into Cambridge, has a house there, and amasses 
what will be called ' Harleston's manor': it afterwards 
passed to St John's College. He was mayor of Cam- 
bridge; four times he represented the shire in Parliament. 
During the insurrection of 1381 he seems to have been 
odious to the rebels; his house in Cambridge was 
pillaged by the mob'. 

I have before me a list of the mayors and bailiffs 
who held office during the fourteenth century and the 

* Append. § 91. * Append. § 53. 



64 Township and Borough. 



last years of the thirteenth, and can say with some 
certainty that among the leading men of the borough 
'the landed interest/ if such we may call it, was well 
represented. Very often the office-holders were strip- 
holders or at any rate belonged to families which had 
held strips. We must not indeed speak of a land-owning 
aristocracy. I see men becoming mayors and bailiffs 
and paying heavy taxes whom I can not connect with 
the fields. Also, if we except a few people, such as 
Roger Harleston, who seem to be buying out their 
neighbours, the holdings of these burgesses are very 
small if judged by a rural standard : far smaller than that 
virgate of thirty acres which we ascribe to the ordinary 
villein. Even the estate which Walter of Merton pur- 
chased seems to have comprised no more than two 
virgates of arable in the Cambridge fields. It could not 
be otherwise, so much has gone to pious uses. More- 
over, the rapidity with which these religious houses have 
acquired multitudinous strips in small parcels provokes 
the remark that the burgess can afford to give away his 
land. No doubt he is often pious at life*s end and his 
heir s expense, but still agriculture is not the main source 
of his prosperity. A little com grown in the fields ekes 
out a revenue derived from trade or craft. However, 
it is clear that the Cambridge burgess who went to 
Parliament often had a dash of the 'good husband* 
about him\ 

Though religion completed, it did not, I think, initiate 
the disintegrating process, the process which destroyed 
the old scheme of hide and yardland. During the 
thirteenth century the acre-strips were passing from man 
to man with marvellous rapidity. He who has a dozen 
acres will often have acquired them in half-a-dozen 
different ways. They are like the bits of glass in a 

* Append. §§ 57— 6a 



The Burgensic Families. 65 

kaleidoscope. They are always forming new proprietary 
patterns*. 

Then the darkness settles down. What sort of men 
were those burgenses of the twelfth century who paid for 
the earliest charters, the men who wanted to farm the 
borough and to have a gild merchant? Who can say 
with any certainty ? But of this I feel fairly sure that 
some of the leading men of Cambridge were rich in 
arable strips. The men who have many acres to give to 
hospital, priory and nunnery, are bailiffs of the town and 
in their court witness each other s charters. 

Their constantly recurring names I am beginning to 
know. One family I will mention ; it is that from which 
proceeds the Merton estate in Cambridge. Walter of 
Merton bought from the heir of a man who bought from 
Eustace the son of Hervey the son of Eustace the son 
of Dunning. The Merton estate comprised sixty arable 
acres. It comprised also that 'stone house' which for 
some inscrutable reason has been called the School of 
Pythagoras : you had Plato's well and Aristotle's well at 
Oxford. A great deal more land than this was at one 
time and another in the hands of the descendants of 
Dunning. 

This Dunning we have to place far back in the 
twelfth century. Soon after the year 1200 his grandson, 
Hervey FitzEustace, is one of the foremost of those 
men of Cambridge who are witnessing charters and 
endowing religious houses, and, though the family parts 
with much of its land, it remains in Cambridge and 
well-to-do. It supplies the borough with mayors under 
Edward I. and Edward II. Hervey had lands in other 
parts of the shire. Hervey kept a seal of a bellicose 
kind; it bore a mounted knight with drawn sword. 
But, for all this, he was Hervey the Alderman, and 

1 Append. § 69. 
M. S 



66 Township and Borough. 

Hervey the Mayor, and no earlier mayor of Cambridge 
have I yet seen\ He was tallaged along with the other 
men of the town, and paid less than some of them, less 
than Bartholomew the Tanner, less than Kailly the 
Tanner*. 

I had some hope of finding a knot of land-owning 
'patricians,' the successors of old hidesmen. It is fading. 
Already in the twelfth century, so it seems to me. the 
burghal society is versatile and heterogeneous. Some 
wealthy burgesses own land ; others own none. The 
market has mobilized the land ; the land is in the 
market 

Nor is it true that all the strips are held by men of 
Cambridge. Men who are great or fairly great outside 
Cambridge, men of county families, as we should say, 
held patches in these fields : were the lowest freeholders, 
the 'tenants in demesne' of patches in these fields. For 
instance, a Robert of Mortimer can give a whole plough- 
land to the Hospital. He belongs to a family estated in 
Norfolk and Cambridgeshire. It long retains some of 
its strips, until ultimately they pass to Gonville Hall and 
Caius College*. 

This leads me to one other remark. We know that 
according to law every landholder in England is con- 
nected with the king by some longer or shorter thread of 
tenure : C holds of B and B of A and A of the king. 
Land in a borough is not exempt from this rule. In the 
case of each of these strip-holders we ought to be able 
to detect the longer or shorter thread that ties him to 
the king. Now we can see enough to say that these 
threads are very numerous and make no simple pattern. 
In this field all jumbled up together there were minute 
fragments of the Huntingdon fief, which was held by the 
kings of Scotland, of the Leicester fief and perhaps of 
* Append. §§ 79-80. * Append. §§ 83-7. ^ Append. § 104. 



The Borough and Feudalism. 67 

the de Vere or Oxford fief. The greatest honours in 
England, the honour of Britanny and the honour of 
Mortain are or have been represented*. 

In Cambridgeshire this sort of arrangement, or rather 
of chaos, is not peculiar to the borough. Feudal 
geography lies all athwart the village geography. A 
map which distinguished the manors, a map which 
distinguished the honours, could hardly be drawn on any 
smaller scale than that of six inches to the mile. But in 
our borough field a larger scale would be needed. In 
this I see the work of commendation, the work of those 
wonderful beings who * were so free ' that they could go 
with their land to what lord they pleased. Norman rule 
freezes the commendation into tenure, but the frozen sea 
is billowy still. The strips that were commended to 
Waltheof must be held of the king of Scotland, the 
strips that were commended to the court beauty, to 
Edith the Fair, must be held of the Breton counts. 
Fifteen out of the sixty acres that Walter of Merton 
purchased for his scholars have owed scutage to Earls of 
Leicester, to Beaumonts and Montforts. 

Cambridge does not look as if it had ever been a| 
feudal unit. Still less does it look as if it had ever been 
a manorial unit. Agrarian unit it can not help being ^ 
after a sort. The barbarians willed it and graved their 
will upon the land. 



V. 



If in the thirteenth century we look down upon the 
borough field from the feudal point of view, we see 
patch- work. If we look for the ownership or * tenancy 
in demesne' of the strips, we are looking through a 

* Append. §§ 102-3. 

5—2 



68 Township and Borough. 

kaleidoscope. The hides have gone to pieces ; the little 
fragments that composed them are passing swiftly from 
man to man, and are always forming new proprietary 
patterns until many of them become quiescent in the 
dead hand of priory or hospital, nunnery or college. 
Even then many exchanges are made. 

This, if true of the field, is yet truer of the intra- 
mural space and of the houses that stand upon it. At 
Cambridge I can not see this nucleus as a densely 
compacted group of houses. Vicos locant non in nostrum 
morem : we know those words very well ; but it is so 
much mos noster to see * connected and coherent edifices * 
in whatever we call a town, that we are wont to forget 
the warning. Originally there will be a sparse and 
straggling cluster of homesteads and cottages. Suam 
quisque domum spatio circumdaL It seems to me that 
throughout the middle ages there was plenty of curtilage 
in Cambridge : there were gardens and orchards and 
little paddocks. Materially and spiritually there was rus 
in urbe. Also there was a good deal of unenclosed, 
waste ground, which but slowly began to assume the 
character of potential building sites, and therefore to cry 
aloud for an owners You will remember how Dr Stubbs 
has said that in Oxford * there were considerable vacant 
spaces which were apt to become a sort of gypsey 
camping-ground for the waifs and strays of a mixed 
population'.' 

Summa rusticitas. The pig was ubiquitous. In 
abundant records we may read far more than is pleasant 
of the filth of Oxford and Cambridge. But if they seem 
exceptionally filthy, that is not because they were nastier 
than other boroughs, but because some of their in- 
habitants were learning to be nice, and, at least in 
Cambridge, even under Elizabeth, there was a strong 

1 Append. §§ 6ff. ^ Const. Hist iii. p. 6i8. 



Houses and Rents. 69 

smack of the farm-yard. It proceeded from 'houses 
having broad gates\' gates receptive of cattle, houses 
where * good husbands ' dwelled. As we go back in our 
history I see more of such houses. A few are * stone 
houses ' ; but building-stone was hard to come by. 

Now of the houses in Oxford and Cambridge, their 
holders and their rents, we may learn a great deal. No 
other towns in England are so open to our view, for the 
accounts that are given of them on the Hundred Rolls 
of Edward I.'s time are matchlessly full. It is as if 
King Edward had wished to set our schools of history 
a task that might be begun at home. 

In Cambridge the houses change hands very quickly. 
Often a burgess is the owner, or lowest freeholder, of 
three or four houses which have come to him by as many 
routes. This shows that not a few of the inhabitants 
must live in houses which they hold for years or at will. 
Sometimes three or four rents are paid out of one house 
to three or four landlords who stand one above the other 
on the scale of tenure. Often the lowest freeholder pays 
what looks like a full rent. At Oxford the amount of 
rent that is paid to the religious is very large ; indeed it 
seems an exception, rather than the rule, if a house 
pays nothing to Oseney, Abingdon, Ensham, Godstow, 
St Frideswide's or some other convent. A good many 
of these rents are, I take it, rents charge (or, as we 
now say, rentcharges) constituted by the piety of the 
burgesses. It is a remarkable feature of the boroughs 
that the tenurial rent paid by tenant to lord becomes 
practically indistinguishable from the mere rentcharge 
which implies no tenure. But, looking back to the 
Oxford of 1086, we see in it many houses belonging to 
magnates, bishops, earls and barons, and if we ask what 
has become of these houses in 1279, I suppose the 

* Cooper, Annals, iL 333. 



70 Township and Borough, 

answer is that they have been given to the religious by 
the successors of the shire thegns. A house or a rent 
might easily be coaxed from a well-to-do man who had 
no other interest in the town. At Cambridge, where 
the ecclesiastical element was hardly so strong, I see a 
good deal of rent going out of the town into lay hands, 
the hands of knightly families seated in Cambridgeshire 
and the neighbouring counties \ 

Then in Oxford there are a few houses, and ap- 
parently only a few, which pay what is called *landgable.' 
They pay a rent (generally a light rent) to the bailiffs of 
the borough 'towards the farm of the vill/ In Cambridge 
we distinguish between the hawgable that is paid for 
houses and the landgable that is paid for arable strips. 
Less than half our houses, much less than half our acres, 
make the payment. In 1279, though not quite trivial, it 
was certainly very light, and I can not but think that a 
penny or two pence for a house, a half-penny or farthing 
for an acre would have been a light rent in the Cambridge 
of the remotest days. Out of all the landgable and 
hawgable, the bailiffs of our town obtain less than ;^8. 
They have to pay about £^o at the Exchequer for the 
farm of the borough. To all appearance therefore house- 
rents and land-rents have formed but a smaH part of the 
revenue that the king drew from the town'. 

It is curious how old English terms which should 
simply mean house-rent and land-rent seem to have 
become distinctive of the boroughs. They persist there 
even when their meaning has been forgotten, and men 
fancy that the * high-gable rent ' has to do with the high 
gables of their houses. The names are old and the rents 
look old. 

Now it would be interesting to inquire in borough 
after borough why some houses pay gafol and others do 

* Append. § 100. « Append. § 107. 



Landgafol and HawgafoL 71 

not One natural suggestion would be that originally 
the burden was general, but that the houses which came 
to the hands of the religious escaped from this charge as 
they escaped from many other charges. However, the 
Cambridge evidence does not point in this direction. 
Many of the houses and strips in which the convents 
are concerned pay the gafol\ indeed the Priory of 
Barnwell contributed more than a third of the total sum 
that the bailiffs received, while they obtained nothing 
from many tenements in which neither magnates nor 
churches were interested. Is not this, I would ask, a 
relic of commendation ? Some men ' sought ' the king 
and paid a few pence for his patronage ; other men chose 
other lords\ 

In course of time mesne tenure becomes politically 
unimportant in the borough ; the mere existence of the 
feudal thread is sometimes forgotten. The landlord is 
reduced to the position of the man with a rentcharge. 
The burgesses claim the right to give their houses by 
their last wills * like chattels.' The borough court enables 
them to uphold this custom. It had ah important effect 
It made escheat rare, very rare. The medieval land- 
lord, who had enfeoffed a tenant in fee simple, had still 
a strong interest in the land. The land was still his in a 
very real sense, for it would be his to enjoy if the tenant 
died without an heir. Take away or reduce towards zero 
the chance of an escheat, then his grasp on the land will 
be relaxed. Also the burgesses exclude, if they can, by 
a custom of their borough court, all rights to wardship, 
reliefs, heriots. The citizens of York, says Domesday 
Book, pay no relief. But if you deprive a lord of these 
casualties, he is practically reduced to the position of 
a man with a rentcharge*. We may say that the 

1 Append. § 109. * D. B. i. 298 b. 

3 Placit Abbrev. 310: The king takes all escheats in London. Ipswich 



72 Township and Borough. 

mercantile spirit of the borough affects the houses ; it 
claims to bequeath them 'like chattels/ and it is in the 
boroughs that landownership first reaches a modern 
degree of purity and intensity*. But have we given the 
full explanation ? Why are the lords so weak that they 
must suffer these changes ? Because feudally, tenurially, 
the borough is patch-work. The country knight with 
three or four houses within the wall will not find it 
worth his while to maintain that vigilant control which 
would secure the feudal dues. He will not keep a court 
in which the deaths of tenants will be presented. He 
must be content with his rent, and already in the 
thirteenth century the value of money is falling. 

The proprietary state of affairs in these old boroughs 
seems to me admirably suited for the production and 
maintenance of a pure rent-paying tenure, which in the 
end will become a mere * cash-nexus.' We have external 
lords and an internal court which is manned by their 
tenants. And then the burghal community is always 
coming into closer contact with the king, who has 
privileges of all sorts for sale. We might almost say 
that it and he tacitly conspire to squeeze out all lordship 
but his. We might add that they conspire to deceive or 
perplex modern historians by speaking of the borough as 
forming part of or standing on the king's demesne. Well, 
it is the king's demesne borough; no lord intervenes 

Domesday (Black Book of the Admiralty, vol ii.), p. 141 : No tenant in the 
town is to do homage or fealty to his chief lord. Journal of Archaeol. 
Assoc xxvii. 471 : The burgesses of Hereford * do not use to do fealty or any 
other foreign service to the lord of the fees' but only pay rents. Lyon, 
History of Dover, ii. 320 : * No fealty, relief or other suit shall be due to no 
lord of the fee for no lands or tenements, the which be within the franchise 
[of the town of Romney].' 

^ Gierke, Genossenschaftsrecht, ii. 675: 'Das Grundeigenthum in der 
Stadt...erschien als ein freies und reines Individualrecht .und somit iiber- 
haupt als das erste deutsche Privateigenthum an Grund und Boden, welches 
gant und nur Privateigenthum war.' 



Manors in the Borough. 73 

between him and the community taken as a whole, 
though the relations in which he stands to the various 
houses and acre-strips are infinitely various, and from 
many he gets no farthing of rent. If we ask by what 
right he tallages other people's tenants, the best answer 
may be that those other people are between the upper 
and the nether milestone, and that the burgesses have 
good reason for submitting to the exactions of a king 
who has sold them much and has much to sell them. It 
is well to be his burgesses, no matter whose tenants they 
may be, if he can ban all the trade of Cambridgeshire to 
their doors and withdraw the sheriff from their court. 
So they make free use of his royal name\ 

However, there were little manors in Cambridge. 
About the history of some of the proprietary units which 
bore this name of * manor * in recent centuries, I am very 
uncertain, and I am by no means sure that all of them 
were ancient, or even had ancient kernels. I seem to 
see one of them being put together very rapidly in the 
fourteenth century by Roger of Harleston, mayor of the 
borough and knight of the shire. Also I doubt whether 
some of these proprietary units would ever have earned 
the name of ' manor ' at the hands either of the modern 
lawyer or of the historical economist. For one thing, 
they were very small. For another, though the Master 
of the Hospital seems to have exacted some boon-days 
from his tenants, I doubt the land was tilled by means 
of labour-service. Courts, however, were kept. The 
Master of the Hospital kept a court at Newnham ; 
Leonius Dunning kept a court in the same suburb*. 



^ The old boroughs are tallaged along with the royal manors ; but this 
seems to me an innovation. In the oldest financial rolls we see a special tax 
(quxilium^ donum) thrown onto the old boroughs. See Domesday Book and 
Beyond, 174. 

* Append. § 112. 



74 Township and Borough. 

I fancy that the estate which had about it the strongest 
manorial character was the Merton estate. I speak 
under correction, but it seems to me that a good many 
of the strips which formed this proprietary unit were not 
in the fields of Cambridge, but in the adjoining fields 
of Chesterton, Grantchester and Girton, and the Grant- 
chester strips had not come from the Dunnings*. There 
was nothing to prevent a man from working strips of a 
borough field along with strips of other fields into a 
manor, and getting them tilled by villeins who lived in 
neighbouring villages. In Cambridgeshire, as I have 
already said, the manorial geography of the thirteenth 
century is lying all athwart the village geography, or 
common-field geography, of the older time. 

Then we observe that the lords of these manors are 
often paying rents to the bailiffs of the town, are paying 
rents to the nascent municipal corporation. Take the 
Prior of Barnwell for instance. He pays in one sum 
£2. lys. for landgable and hawgable. Some of the 
strips and some of the houses that he acquired owed 
gafoly and he must now pay it to the bailiffs of the town 
who are the king s farmers. Here are the elements of a 
nice little quarrel. If the Town becomes conscious of its 
personality, will it not assert that the Prior is its tenant 
and holds his land * of * the Town at a rent of fifty-seven 
shillings ? The Scholars of Merton pay 4^. \od. The 
Nuns pay, the Hospital pays, the Mortimers pay. 

All along from remote days there has been a borough 
court, an old national court whose profits went to king 
and earl : two pence to the king, a penny to the earl. 
It is a court for the town ; not merely for the intra-mural 
space, but for the whole town, the five square miles. 
This burghal moot, the one old organ of the borough, 
claims jurisdiction over the fields ; in a sense the fields 
1 R. H. ii. 459, 565- 



Firma Burgi. 75 



are its fields. Early in the thirteenth century people who 
are great or fairly great outside Cambridge go into the 
borough court to litigate over the title to acres that lie 
in the fields\ If a lord distrains for rent, if Leonius 
Dunning or the Master of the Hospital distrains for rent, 
the replevin action will be brought against him in the 
borough court*. The land-owners went into that court 
to execute their deeds of conveyance ; their wills were 
proved there. 

Whether this moot exercised any regulative control 
over the culture of the fields I can not say. So again, 
as to the regulation of the pasture rights, I have little 
but darkness or ignorance to report until the fifteenth 
century is reached. What was happening then we shall 
see hereafter. Great people, however, such as the Prior 
of Barnwell and the Master of the Hospital, could be 
presented and amerced in the borough court for sur- 
charging the pasture. 

But now let us fix our eyes upon a central chapter in 
the long story of the borough field. In the twelfth 
century the burgesses of Cambridge want to farm the 
town. After some temporary leases, they made a final 
settlement with King John. He granted to them and 
their heirs the vill of Cambridge. They were to hold it 
freely and quietly, entirely, fully and honourably in 
meadows and pastures, mills, pools and waters at a rent 
of £^0 blanch and ;^20 by tale. The earl's rights, for 
he also had been interested in the revenue of this old 
shire-borough, were purchased by an annuity of ;^io 
paid to Earl David and his assignees'. 

Now we all regard * the purchase of the fee-farm ' as 

* Append § 114. ' Append. § 113. 

s Cooper, Annals, i. 37. For the third penny of the boroughs, see an 
excellent note by Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, 287. 



76 Township and Borough. 

an important step, and as such the men of Cambridge 
regarded it They had paid Henry II. 300 marks of 
silver and a mark of gold that they might have their 
town at farm, et tie vicecomes se inde intromittat^. That 
is the main point : — the sheriff is not to meddle. The 
borough court is to be free from his control. But could 
anything be ruder than the words that are used? In 
form we have a grant of a thing, a vill, a tract of land, 
to a party of men, who are in some fashion to be its 
co-owners, they and their heirs. 

Have you ever pondered the form, the scheme, the 
main idea of Magna Carta? If so, your reverence for 
that sacred text will hardly have prevented you from 
using in the privacy of your own minds some such words 
as 'inept' or 'childish.* King John makes a grant to the 
men of England and their heirs. The men of England 
and their heirs are to hold certain liberties of that prince 
and his heirs for ever. Imagine yourself imprisoned 
without the lawful judgment of your peers and striving 
to prove while you languish in gaol that you are heir to 
one of the original grantees. Now-a-days it is only at a 
rhetorical moment that Englishmen 'inherit* their liberties, 
their constitution, their public law. When sober, they do 
nothing of the kind. But, whatever may have ' quivered 
on the lip' of Cardinal Langton and the prelates and 
barons at Runnymead, the speech that came was the 
speech of feoffment. Law if it is to endure must be 
inherited. If all Englishmen have liberties, every 
Englishman has something, some thing, that he can 
transmit to his heir. Public law can not free itself from 
the forms, the individualistic forms of private law*. 
/' But really there is more individualism than you might 
think in this arrangement for 'farming the town.' I need 

I Cooper, Annals, i. 28. 

* Gierke, Genossenschaftsrecht, il 429 ff. 



The Bailiffs and the Community. 77 

not say that the liability for this rent is not going to be 
merely the liability of a corporation. Madox showed 
once and for all (it was his great exploit) that the liability 
was the liability of all the burgesses and every burgess*. 
Indeed the nascent corporation had little or no property 
which was * its ' and not * their ' property, if we except 
some feebly conceived right in the soil on which * they' 
pastured * their' cattle. King John looks to them, not to 
any *it/ But you might at least suppose that they, taken 
somehow in the mass, mean to share the profit or bear 
the loss of this transaction. That, I believe, is not the 
plan. The annually elected bailiffs are (if you will 
forgive the phrase) to *run' the borough. 

In the unreformed borough of later times you will 
often find that there is some officer called a treasurer or 
chamberlain who is receiving the greater part of the 
corporation's revenue and who accounts for it in the 
decent, modern fashion. But he does not receive the 
whole revenue or make all the payments that must be 
made. The oldest part of the revenue is collected by 
older officers, namely the bailiffs, and out of it they make 
the oldest of all payments : in particular, they discharge 
the fee-farm rent of the town. And when you look 
closely into the arrangement you will find that these 
bailiffs are still taking the risk of loss. If the revenues 
that they collect are insufficient to satisfy the fee-farm 
rent, then the loss should fall on them, though all the 
burgesses are liable to the king. 

That is the point of a good many stories which lie 
scattered up and down. I will take one from Mr Boase. 
Thomas Cromwell is told that the men of Oxford would 
like to have the lands of the dissolved friaries. *The 
greatest occasion of the poverty of this town is the 
payment of their fee-farm. Such as before they have to 

^ Madox, Firma Burgi. 



yS Township and Borough. 

be bailiffs hath be pretty occupiers, if in there yere corn 
be not at a high price, then they be not able to pay their 
fee-farm. And for the worship of their towne they must 
that yere keep the better houses, feast their neighbours, 
and w^ar better apparel, which makith them so poor 
that few of them can recover again*.* So in 1447 ^^ 
Gloucester folk say that, as their revenue falls short by 
;^20 of their fee-farm rent, *in time the town will be 
without bailiffs'.' So in 1276 it is said that 'they who 
have once been bailiffs of Lincoln can scarcely rise from 
poverty and misery'.' In Cambridge there were four 
bailiffs. Each of them had certain revenues assigned to 
him and had to find as best he might a certain sum. 
towards the fee-farm rent. At Cambridge, as at Oxford, 
there was a king's mill to be managed ; it was an 
important affair. But each year the incoming mayor 
and bailiffs bought from their predecessors and after- 
wards sold to their successors the chattels that were in 
the mill*. They were liable, and liable in the last resort, 
for all the repairs of the mill, and in 1392 a royal writ 
forbade them to exact for this purpose any subsidy from 
the community*. 

It is a curiously clumsy and, I should say, a curiously 
individualistic plan. The communal element in it con- 
sists in the community's power of forcing a man to serve 
as bailiff. 

But suppose that the bailiffs make a profit. What 
ought they to do with it.^ I believe that the oldest 
answer is : Stand a dinner. You will find that a dinner 
is often expected of the bailiffs. In the sixteenth century 
the bailiffs* * bankett ' caused searchings of heart among 

1 Boase, Oxford, 112: London to Cromwell, 8 July, 1538. 

^ Gloucester Corporation Records, ed. Stevenson, p. 15. 

^ Green, Town Life, ii. 25a * Cooper, Annals, i. i8a 

* Ibid. i. 140. 



Medieval Individualism. 79 

the civic fathers at Oxford. In 1563 your citizens think 
that *a small drinking' will do instead. In 1565 they 
repent themselves and will have the banquet after all ; 
but in 1 571 economy (or was it puritanism ?) and a small 
drinking are once more triumphant \ 

Some part of the gluttony with which the rulers of 
the boroughs were accused in 1835 was a survival from a 
very old time when, if money was to be spent for the 
good of the town, there was but one obvious way of 
spending it. Those were not the days of baths and 
wash-houses and free libraries, of electric lighting and 
technical education. The common good of the town is 
the common good of the townsfolk ; and this means a 
banquet, or at least a small drinking*. 

It is long before the community outgrows the old, 
automatic, self-adjusting, scheme of * common ' rights and 
duties. Cambridge was very dirty; its streets were 
unpaved. In 1330 the masters of the University com- 
plained to the king in Parliament. What, let us ask, 
will be the answer to their petition } How ought the 
town to be paved } Should the municipal corporation 
let out the work to a contractor, or should it institute a 
* public works department ' ? Nothing of the sort. The 
mayor and bailiffs should see that every man repairs the 
road over against his own tenement*. That is the way 
in which the men of Cambridge should pave the town of 
Cambridge. That is the way in which they will pave it 
in the days of Henry VIII. and of George III.* 

* Records of the City of Oxford, 306, 311, 337. Compare Cooper, 
Annals, iii. 146. 

^ In 1829 Mr Taunton, arguing for the Corporation of Cambridge in one 
of the disputes about tolls, supposes that the bailiffs had been entitled to 
apply any profit that they made ' for the payment of the expenses of their 
office, and perhaps also— and I do not see any great harm in it if the fact 
was so — for the purpose of paying for a good dinner once a year.' See 
Gierke, Genossenschaftsrecht, ii. 370 ff. 

5 Rolls of ParL ii. 46; v. 429-43a * Cooper, Annals, i. 409; iv. 429. 



8o Township and Borough. 

The men of Cambridge after many struggles obtained 
I control over a great fair. It was to become the greatest 
fair in England. What was their idea of the manner in 
which this * franchise' should be made profitable to the 
town ? It was this, that every burgess should, if he 
wished it, have a booth of his own in the fair. That 
booth was to be his vendible, heritable, bequeathable 
booth, though none but a burgess was to be capable of 
holding it. Indeed in course of time a very curious 
form of property was developed. The booth was treated 
as copyhold property 'held oV the corporation by the 
burgess, and yet you will understand that the material 
booth only existed for a few weeks in the year. The 
booths were erected in one of the arable fields ; the 
owners of the strips made no complaint since the 
refuse of the fair was such good manure. Far indeed 
was it from the minds of the men of Cambridge that the 
whole profit of this * franchise ' should go into a common 
^chest and be expended for the good of an *it.* The fair 
was their fair, and they (each for himself) meant to make 
profit thereout\ 

No ; the Town which has rights and duties, the 
Town which owes and is owed money, the Town which 
can make a contract even with one of the townsmen, the 
Town which can be landlord or tenant, the Town with 
which the treasurer can keep an account, slowly struggles 
into life. If we are to understand the process we must 
study at close quarters the methods in which the affairs 
of the borough are conducted, the growth and expenditure 
of a revenue, the incidence of profit and loss. We must 



1 Cooper, Annals, i. 149, 150; ii. 70, 133, 270, 325. However, there 
were * treasurer's booths,' the rents of which went to the common chest. 
The right of the individual burgess in his * booth ' is a very curious instance 
of the iura singulorum in re universitatis. The statement about the 
manure is from Defoe's description: Cooper, Annals, iv. 176. 



The Town's Lordship over the town. 8i 

watch carefully for the first appearance of the common 
chest, for the appearance of a treasurer, and for the 
appearance of a council that administers property beside 
or in the stead of the old moot that deemed dooms. 
What I may call the business side of municipal life must 
come by its rights. Political and constitutional history 
will thereby gain a new reality. If we fail to see this 
need, it is because we carry our methods of business into 
an age which knew them not and our thoughts into an 
age which did not and could not think them. 

We go back to King John s charter. In some sort, 
some vague sort, the vill of Cambridge has for centuries 
past belonged to *the men of Cambridge.' And now it 
is to belong to them in some other and some more 
definite sense. They and their heirs are to hold it of 
King John and his heirs at a rent. When we think of 
the grantor and his royal rights, of the grantees and 
their complex interests, of the strips in the fields and the 
odds and ends of sward, of the green commons of the 
town, of the house-covered nucleus, of the potential 
building sites, of the patch-work of fiefs, the net-work of 
rents, the borough court and the little manors, we shall 
say that King John's language is hardly worthy of the 
occasion. There will be a deal of disputation before a 
jury of London merchants puts the right or wrong 
accent on his majesty's words. 



VI. 

What did King John mean, or rather, what did he 
really do when he granted the town of Cambridge to the 
burgesses of Cambridge and their heirs ? On the one 
hand, did he mean to place the burgensic community, or 
the burgesses taken somehow in the mass, upon the feudal 

M. 6 



82 Township and Borough, 

ladder of land-tenure, so that this community would hold 
every inch of the soil of the vill either ' in demesne * or 
*in service.' To put the question in a more modem 
shape : — Was this community to be owner of the waste 
and landlord of all the tenanted land ? Or, on the other 
hand, was the community merely to step into the sheriflTs 
shoes as collector and farmer of certain royal revenues, 
house rents, land rents, market tolls and the profits of 
mills and courts ? 

If the community is to be landlord of the whole vill, 
then strict logic will compel us to say that it is lord of the 
Earl of Huntingdon, lord of the Earl of Leicester; it 
stands feudally between the king and some mighty people 
who perhaps are unaware that scraps of their fiefs lie in 
the fields of Cambridge. Also, and this is of more im- 
portance, no tenement in Cambridge can now escheat to 
the king. If it escheats to no lower lord, it escheats to 
the community. 

I believe that we may say with some certainty that 
the king did not mean to abandon the escheats*. The 
sheriff had not been entitled to them ; the burgesses 
would not be entitled to them. At the present day 
the municipal corporation of London still, so I under- 
stand, holds in fee-farm not only *the city of London,' 
but also *the county of Middlesex.' We do not, however, 
conceive that it is a landlord interposed between the 
Queen and the Middlesex freeholder. But if the com- 
munity of Cambridge is not to have the escheats, has it 
any seignory, any lordship of any sort or kind over the 
vill 'i And what of the waste lands within and without the 
ditch } A sheriff would not have been entitled to make 
his own profit of them. 

I think it fairly plain that the king did not mean to 
abandon his hold, such as it was, upon the waste. Still 

^ Append. § ii6. 



Escheat and Approvement. 83 

the question was not pressing, and the state of affairs was 
complicated. The intramural waste consisted chiefly of 
market places, streets and lanes daily used by the inhabi- 
tants. The extramural waste consisted chiefly of green 
commons, upon which the beasts of burgesses, canons, 
nuns and knights were rightfully grazing. Apparently 
Henry I. had given away a piece of green common in 
order that Pain Peverel might build a priory upon it*; 
but I doubt the king would have claimed more than a 
somewhat indefinite right of innocuous 'approvement' 
Tenants of very great people were turning their beasts 
onto the waste. 

Then in 1 330 there was an event of importance. The 
townspeople went to the king with a pitiful tale of a 
crushing fee-farm rent and inadequate resources. They 
asked leave to 'approve',' that is, to make their profit of, 
the small lanes and waste places of the town. The king 
told them that a jury might be summoned to inquire 
whether their prayer could be g^nted without damage 
to him or to others. If an inquest was taken, the record 
is not forthcoming ; at least it has been searched for on 
more than one critical occasion. Three centuries after- 
wards the Cambridge gownsmen will protest that the 
burgesses let the matter drop*. 

I doubt it. Very soon after this the corporation — for 
we may fairly speak of a corporation now — began to 
grant leases of bits of 'waste' or 'common' ground within 
the ditch, and such leases were accepted by the colleges. 
This was just the time, the middle of the fourteenth 
century, when in rapid succession colleges were being 
founded at Cambridge. There were lanes to be stopped ; 
nooks and corners to be utilized; the potential were 

^ Append. § 121. 

* For this word, see Oxf. Eng. Diet. 

' Cooper, Annals, i. 84; Rolls of Pari ii. 47. 

6—2 



84 Township and Borough. 

becoming actual building sites. I am inclined to infer 
that the burgesses had obtained the desired licence, and 
not that they had taken French leave. You will see, 
however, that they had made what might prove to be an 
awkward admission: John's charter had not given them 
any absolute mastery over these waste places\ On the 
other hand, at least if no royal licence had been obtained, 
the colleges were making awkward admissions when they 
accepted leases. Then in the fifteenth century the kings 
made admissions. Henry VI., when he was founding 
King's College, bought divers lanes and void places from 
the corporation, and Edward IV. requested the corpora- 
tion to sell some of its (or their) common land to Queens' 
College ^ 

Such transactions are very interesting in my eyes. 
I fancy that it is in the course of dealings with intra- 
mural 'waste' that a true corporate ownership of land 
first sharply severs itself from the old nebulous community. 
The piece of land that is let on lease ceases to be 'common ' 
in the sense that it can be used in common by the men of 
the town. The rent that takes its place should not be 
divided between them, but should be expended for the 
good of 'the town.' The Town that seals leases, that 
takes rents, is becoming a person ; it is ascending from 
the * lower case ' and demands a capital T. 

I see this process in another quarter. Slowly emerges 
the idea that the Town is the lord of all the houses, or at 
least of all that pay the haw-gavel. We have an oppor- 
tunity of studying the growth of this idea. You know 
that when a tenement is to be given in mortmain, the 
king orders that inquiry be made whether the gift will 
damage him or any one else (inquisitio ad quod damnum). 
In answer to this question, the jurors will talk about the 
tenure of the land. Now in the oldest inquests relating 

1 Append. § 122. 2 Append. § 120. 



The Corporation as Lord. 85 

to Cambridge, the theory expressed by the verdict is that, 
if a tenant holds of no one else, he holds in chief of the 
king, even though he pays gavel to the men of the town : 
they collect the king's rents, but they are not lords of the 
land. There is a change about the middle of the four- 
teenth century. We then hear a distinct assertion that ] 
* the men of Cambridge * stand as mesne lords between I 
the king and the people who pay the gavel \ 

Then at the beginning of the sixteenth century the 
corporation obtained an important recognition of its lord- 
ship. Two colleges, Michael House and Gonville Hall, 
went to it for mortmain licences. The admission was 
made that a certain manor which had been in the hands 
of great people, the Mortimer manor with 99 acres of 
arable land * in the fields and town of Cambridge,' was 
'held of* the corporation*. That escheats were ever 
claimed I do not know: that seems to me the weak 
spot in a Town's feudal armour. 

There is a point of view whence we may regard the 
fourteenth century as the golden age of the boroughs. 
The transition from 'community' to corporation is accom- 
plished: the town (if I may repeat the phrase) gets its 
capital T. This is not pure gain to town or nation, 
and some have seen here the beginning of the long 
process which culminates in shame and disaster. The 
conciliar constitution, which takes the place of the looser 
moot constitution, may easily become a narrow oligarchy. 
The * all ' that is unity will not coincide with, may stand 
far apart from, the 'all' of inhabitants. But there is much 
to be said of the valuable lessons in the political art which 
Englishmen were teaching themselves in their town halls', 
and at any rate there was a great technical advance. The 

1 Append. § 117. * Append. § 118. 

3 Green, Town Life, ii. 273. 



86 Township and Borough. 

Town is a person, and may be a landowner among land- 
owners, lessor, hirer, creditor, debtor. It will soon begin 
to speculate in land. The corporation of Cambridge will 
take a lease of the Mortimer manor, thus becoming tenant 
of its tenant \ I believe that some similar transaction 
with Merton College complicated the dispute of 1803*. 
When the White Canons of Sempringham had been 
disendowed, the Town acquired their lands and became 
the owner of strips in those fields over which it claimed a 
lordship'. 

Does it own the green commons ? There will be 
difficulties about the development of ownership in that 
quarter. In the first place, there are powerful * commoners' 
who stand outside the community : the Prior of Barnwell 
for instance. In the second place, there is a growing class 
of small folk, who are apt to call themselves 'the commons 
of the town,' though they also are getting left outside the 
corporate community, and they take a deep interest in the 
green commons of the town, as is evident at the insurrec- 
tion of 1 38 1. Some control over both the green land and 
the idle field the corporation exercised. When the Prior 
turned out too many beasts, they were impounded, and 
in 1505 arbitrators decided that he must be 'sessed and 
stinted ' according to the quantity of his land, like other 
people*. The exact nature of this stint I do not know, 
but from what follows I fancy that it had been of the old 
rural kind which gives the arable a strong claim upon the 
pasture. If so, it might well be unpopular among * the 
commons of the town.' Trouble was brewing in that 
quarter. Did the corporation own the green land, and, 
if so, could it do what it pleased with its own.'^ 

* Cooper, Annals, i. 298 ; iii. 19. * Append. § 145. 
3 Cooper, Annals, ii 71. 

* Cooper, Annals, i. 279. Also the corporation seems to have received 
four pence an acre for saffron planted in the fields (ibid. 344) ; I suppose 
that the planting of saffron broke the common course of cultivation. 



Municipalization and Insurrection. 87 

In Edward VI/s day it seems to have licensed some 
few inclosures. There was an outcry. * A pece of noysom 
ground is taken in owte of the common and enclosed with 
a muddle wall at the ende of Jesus lane, for the whyche 
the incorporation of the towne is recompensed, but not 
the whole inhabytauntes of the towne, which finde them- 
selves injured \' Thus the corporation of the town, the 
all that is unity, no sooner begins to realize and exercise 
its ownership than it is opposed to a clamorously plural 
all, which find * themselves* injured. 

We have reached 1549. Such complaints were re- 
ceiving encouragement in high quarters. There was a 
serious insurrection. It was the time of Kett's rebellion, 
and the 1549 like the 1381 leaves its mark on our fields. 
The fences went down and up went a rude hedge-breaker s 
hymn telling how the stakes were flung into the river. 

S)rr I thinke that this wyrke 
Is as good as to byld a kyrke 
For Cambridge bayles truly 
Gyve yll example to the cowntrye 
Ther comones lyke wises' for to engrose 
And from poor men it to enclose. 
♦ ♦♦♦♦♦ 

The poor say god blesse your harte 

For if it contynewyd they shuld smarte 

The wives of it also be glad 

Which for ther cattell lyttel mete had 

Some have but one sealy cow 

Wher is no hay nor straw in mowe 

Therefore it is gud consciens I wene 

To make that comon that ever hathe bene". 

*To make that comon that ever hathe bene': — but 
'common* will bear many shades of meaning, and these 
hedge-breakers do not seem to find their ideal in a 
'municipalization of the land.* 

* Cooper, Annals, ii. 38. * Can this word be right ? 

' Cooper, Annals, ii. 41. 



88 Township and Borough. 

The inclosures had not, I think, been of a very 
serious kind\ The ruling body, so far as I can see, 
was endeavouring to play a conservative part, and to 
maintain the ancient rustic arrangement. The pasture 
was still to subserve the arable. Old houses, more 
especially those with broad gates, might send beasts 
to the green, and, for the rest, the number of cattle was 
to be proportioned to the shares of tilled land'. There 
was still a town bull. All who turned beasts onto the 
common ground were to pay for the support of this 
august animal', and were to put their cattle before the 
common herd. In Oxford also there was at this time a 
common herd, and a habitation for him was to be built 
over Port Mead Gate*. 

But there were strip-holders who would not contribute : 
the colleges. More and more strips had been falling into 
their hands. In 1554 they had, we are told, refused to 
be rated for the quantity or quality of their cattle. They 
felt, I fear, that they had no common ground with the 
common herd. And now we begin to hear about the 
fee-farm. These scholars, who *have nothing but by 
suffrance* in the common ground, will not permit the 
burgesses to make profit of the soil as by setting willows 
and other gainage towards the levying of their fee-farm 
wherewith they stand charged to the Queen's highness'. 
A Town which thinks itself oppressed always tries to 
show that the security of the fee-farm rent is being 
impaired. 

In 1579 the corporation desired to inclose a piece of 
green for a short while and to employ the profits in 
raising a hospital for the relief of the poor. The 
University was aroused. Letters came down from the 

^ Cooper, Annals, ii. 38. 

* Cooper, Annals, ii. 55. 3 Cooper, Annals, ii. 85. 

* Oxford City Documents, 428. ^ Cooper, Annals, ii. 88. 



Ownership of the Common Ground. 89 

Privy Council telling the burgesses that, however laud- 
able their desire for a hospital might be, they must not/ 
make inclosures without the consent of those interested! 
in the common : in particular, the Vice-Chancellor should[ 
be consulted \ 

The incorporated *men of Cambridge' were in a strait 
between these academic hidesmen and ' the poor inhabi- 
tants of the town* with their seely cows. In 1583 the 
corporation issued an elaborate 'Act for avoiding of the 
surcharge of the com on'.' An alderman *yf he houlde 
and occupie one plowe land* may turn out four beasts : 
and so forth. A house, unless it were built three years 
before the date of this ordinance, is to confer no right of 
pasture. These will seem very proper regulations if we 
regard the Cambridge community as agricultural, and 
that alderman with his one plough land looks charmingly 
Anglo-Saxon. The number of commoners should not 
be subject to indefinite increase. But the rule was too 
stringent. In the same year a concession was made * for 
the relief of the poor people of this town.' The line is to 
be drawn now and not three years ago. Any one who 
now has a foredoor opening into any street or common 
lane may send a beast to the green*. No house that is 
built hereafter will give the right. It is a natural restric- 
tion ; but not perhaps very urban, nor easily enforceable 
if the town grows. 

At the same time the corporation was endeavouring 
to regulate the use of the arable fields in a manner not 
unfavourable to the poor. No cattle great or small are to 
be put upon the stubble until the poor people have passed 
over and gleaned in the same. On the other hand, no 
one is to depasture any balk until the com growing on 
either side be carried or set in shock. The master of a 

1 Cooper, Annals, ii. 369. ^ Cooper, Annals, ii. 391. 

3 Cooper, Annals, ii. 392. 



90 Township and Borough. 



college may keep two geldings upon the green, but no 
other *scholler colHgener' shall keep any\ 

Then in 1587 there was open war with the Uni- 
versity'. One William Hammond had put hogs *a cattle 
not commonable' on the green. They were impounded 
by order of the Mayor. The man was a bailiff of Jesus 
College and therefore, so it was contended, within the 
chartered privileges enjoyed by scholars* servants. The 
Vice-Chancellor imprisoned the pounders and defied a 
habeas corpus. The University told Lord Burghley that 
the colleges were * in effect* the owners of all the lands in 
the fields, and therefore had a better right to regulate the 
pasture than had the municipal corporation. An historical 
argument was advanced. The corporation holds no court 
baron, whereas there are at the least three lordships in the 
fields having tenants and keeping court baron and leet, 
the manor of Cotton Hall, the Radegund manor and the 
Merton manor*. This was in those days an effective 
argument, though it was far from proving all that it was 
meant to prove. The borough court was older than 
manorialism ; Cambridge had never been a manor, though 
little manors had been formed in Cambridge. 

Then the University made a bold move and struck 
straight at the citadel of the town. In 1601 it obtained 
from Queen Elizabeth a lease of the tolbooth or common 
gaol*. Now if the charters of ancient kings had conveyed 
the ownership of any soil, surely it was the soil on which 
stood this symbol of municipality. Then the Attorney 
General, Sir Edward Coke, a loyal gownsman, took 
proceedings against the town gaoler for intruding into 
a place that pertained to the Crown. When Coke was 
no longer Attorney, the matter was referred to Sir Henry 



1 Cooper, Annals, ii. 392. * Cooper, Annals, ii. 437. 

« Cooper, Annals, ii. 444. * Cooper, Annals, ii. 615. 



The Soil of the Borough. 91 

Hobart and Sir Francis Bacon, who seem to have been 
unwilling to decide the legal question, but to have told 
the University that its venture was discreditable. ' They 
thought it not fit for the honour of the University to 
question so ancient a title \' Thus the townsmen kept the 
tolbooth, and their turn to play had come^ 

Oxford had by this time a bishop and was called a 
'city,' also its mayor had been made escheator. The 
Cambridge folk would not be behind hand. They desired 
that Cambridge might be a city *as it hath [been] of 
ancient time*,' and their mayor was to be as grand a 
man as the mayor of Oxford. I am at one with them 
in thinking that Cambridge, an old shire-borough, was, 
according to an ancient usage, as good a civitas as any 
in England, and that the theory which makes a bishop 
essential to a city was borrowed from France and mis- 
understood by its borrowers. However, though the 
burgesses spoke prettily of the University, the masters 
and scholars scented some deep-laid plot Among other 
things the townsfolk asked for an 'explanation' of that 
old grant in fee-farm. Again I am at one with them in 
thinking that such a grant does need explanation. The 
University protested that King Johns charter 'never 
carried the soil' and asked that it might be, not explained, 
but recalled, 'seeing this colour of being lords of the soyle 
encourageth them to build and pester every lane and 
comer of the towne with unholsome and base cottages, 
which receive none but ydle and poore distressed people 

I Cooper, Annals, iii. 27. 

" The quarrel about the tolbooth was old. The University was attacking 
a weak, though central, spot, for, granted that in some sort the tolbooth had 
been given to the corporation, still it was 'the king's prison.' See two 
letters of Thomas Cromwell, Cooper, Annals, i. 373, 377. The University 
also went so far as to question the Town's title to the King's Mill. This is 
apparent from a paper preserved by Cole. See Brit Mus. MS. Addit. 5852, 
f. 192 b. The University's theory about the mill seems to me a long mistake. 

' Cooper, Annals, iii. 107. 



92 Township and Borough. 

that live and pray uppon the University^' You at 
Oxford were making a similar complaint: 'the insatiable 
avarice' of the citizens had burdened your University 
with 150 new cottages*. • 

Then as to the escheatorship our academic rulers 
made a remark which interests me deeply and has been 
in some sort the motto of my discourse. They say that 
heretofore there has been no need in Cambridge for any 
escheator, * because, no certeine lord of the soyle being 
knowne, the rents and services of houses and lands in 
Cambridge have not been exactly looked into'/ If an 
escheator is set to work, they argue, all the tenures will 
be converted into tenures in capite, for no one will be 
able to show by what other tenure a dead man held his 
land, and the Crown will claim a wardship of his heir. 

Now, as a college never leaves an infant heir, these 
collegians were showing a thoughtful consideration for 
others. But what they said about rents and services 
seems to me of great importance. The rents and 
services have not been exactly looked into. Feudally 
Cambridge was patch-work, net-work, mess ; many of 
the tenurial threads had been forgotten. However (to 
finish this episode) the University knew how to please 
the pedantic king : * Reipublicae literariae cives sumus.' 
To which he answered: 'Non honestatur plebeia civitatis 
appellatione Musarum Domicilium*.* So Cambridge is but 
a borough to this day, and I doubt our mayor is escheator. 

Happily for the municipal seignory, the colleges had 
varying interests and were not always the best of friends. 
Some of them had already taken from the burghal cor- 
poration conveyances of 'common ground' when there 
was a large transaction. Hard by Trinity there lay an 



1 Cooper, Annals, iii. iia ' Boase, Oxford, 137. 

3 Cooper, Annals, iii. iii. ^ Cooper, Annals, iii. 11 3-4. 



The Missing Lordship. 93 

enviable piece of green. After long negotiations this 
was conveyed to the college. In exchange the college 
conveyed to the corporation a patch of arable ridges in 
one of the cispontine fields, Middle Field\ ' For the 
avoiding of scandal and oppression that might be attri- 
buted or laid to the Town or College/ this tract was to be 
converted *from tillage unto sward ground/ and, for the 
purpose of pasture rights, was to be substituted for the 
green which the college was acquiring'. Then St John's, 
the holder of many strips in the fields, took offence. An 
amusing dispute ensued. In its details we are not inter- 
ested; but the Johnians could represent the action of 
their neighbours as the base betrayal of a great cause. 
The men of Trinity have admitted the Town s owner- 
ship of the waste, its lordship over the fields, whereas 
who knows where the lordship is.*^ May be with Merton, 
may be with St Johns, may be with Jesus: *of all in 
Cambridge Jesus College is as lykely to haue a lordship 
by Radigund as any other.* Soon after this, however, 
the Johnians themselves were making a bargain with the 
Town, and then it was Merton's turn to protest*. The 
Town was one; the Colleges were many. 

Then in 1624 there is an armistice, and we see the 
Mayor and Vice-Chancellor laying their heads together 
in order that they may stint the pasture : — Six beasts for 
six score acres: two beasts for a house with broad gates: 
one beast for every other house or cottage*. There had 
been a scare about the growth in Cambridge of an indigent 
populace, attracted thither from the villages by the green 
commons and those chances of pilfering and filching grass 
and com that were offered by the open field and the 

1 Append. § 34. * Cooper, Annals, iii. 58. 

» R. F. Scott, Enclosure of Trinity College Walks, Camb. Antiq. Soc. 
Proc. viii. 261; Willis and Qark, Architectural History, ii. 407. 
* Cooper, Annals, iii. 164. 



94 Township and Borough. 



champion husbandry^. No doubt the peculating unthrift, 
of which Tusser complained, was at its worst in the out- 
skirts of a growing town. We have heard the hymn of 
the hedge-breaker ; let us listen to the hymn of the good 

husband. 

More profit is quieter found 

Where pastures in severall be 
Of one seely acre of ground 

Than champion maketh of three. 
Again what a joy it is known 
When men may be bold of their own*. 

But, what with seely acres and seely cows, the disruption 
of this old community is a slow and painful process. 

And now, I regret to say it, our Cambridge annalist 
ceases to tell of open fields and green pastures. Men 
were thinking of other things. A ' less thegn * of the 
neighbourhood, Oliver Cromwell of Huntingdon Esquire, 
was made a free man of the town*, represented it in 
parliament, and then 'timbered* the old burk once 
more*. Parliament seems to suck the life blood of all 
other institutions. At length the municipal corporation 
became hardly better than a Tory dining-club, com- 
mended body and soul to a thegn of the shire, and, 
as Domesday would say, non potuit recedere ad alium 
dominum. The story of the decline and fall of the 
corporations is curious if disgraceful. The constitutions 
of Oxford and Cambridge were closely similar on paper. 
They went to the bad in different ways. The free men 
of Oxford were numerous; the free men of Cambridge 
few. Too many of the Oxford corporators lived in the 
work-house ; too many of the Cambridge corporators 

^ Append. § i6. 

3 Tusser, A Comparison between Champion Country and Severall, stanza 
22, ed. Mavor, 1812, p. 209. 

' Cooper, Annals, iii. 297. 

* For Cromwell's works at the castle, see Hughes, Camb. Antiq. Soc. 
Proc. viii. 197. 



Demoralized Personality. 95 

lived near Cheveley. It is of beer and mob-rule that 
we read in the one town ; in the other of oligarchy and 
wine: * excellent wine/ said an unregenerate alderman, 
*and plenty of it\' 

There are two remarks about the municipal decay 
that I should like to make, since they bear on my story. 
The shameless misuse by the last two Stuarts of the 
prerogatival processes whereby the medieval boroughs 
had been sometimes capriciously vexed and sometimes 
wholesomely controlled had this among its bad effects, 
that after a Glorious Revolution the corporations stood 
free from national supervision. No one was going to 
seize liberties or cancel charters any more ; the ancient 
royal rights were dead and nobody was to revive them. 
One almost trivial consequence of this grave change is 
that we are no longer likely to hear of domtnus Rex as 
a possible claimant for the seignorial allotment in the 
Cambridge fields. Secondly, Parliament fostered the 
notion that the property of the corporation was morally 
the property of the corporators, by entrusting to other 
bodies, groups of commissioners and the like, those new 
powers and duties that were to answer new urban needs. 
The watching, paving, lighting of the town, these matters 
were no affair of the corporation ; with the relief of the 
poor it had nothing to do. There was a vicious circle ; 
the corporation was untrusted because untrustworthy, 
untrustworthy because untrusted. For what end then 
did its property exist } For the election of the patron's 
nominee, and then for the 'common* good of the 
corporators : and that may mean dinners or a division of 
the income or even of the lands among them. Morally\ 
the Town loses its personality ; for it loses the sense of^ 
duty. I 

* For Oxford, see Munic Corp. Rep. 1835, App. i. 97; for Cambridge, 
iv. 2185. 



96 Township and Borough, 

Apparently the green commons at Cambridge were 
utterly neglected. Everybody turned out what beasts 
he pleased, taking the risk of having to drag them from 
a dismal swamp. That was a temporary solution of the 
problem. What was common was dirty and noisome\ 

I need not say that all this is otherwise now-a-days. 
The commons are drained and the cows that I see there 
seem to be seely enough. But our interest lies in the 
fields where lordship goes a-begging. I suppose that 
the colleges and other landholders from time to time did 
what they could to accommodate themselves and each 
other in the barbarians* maze of acre-strips. Something 
could be done by exchanges ; but not all. At length in 
the first years of our century a project for the inclosure 
of the transpontine fields was mooted, and then arose the 
question : Who is lord ? Who should take the seignorial 
allotment ? Who all this time has been owning these 
balks? The incorporate Borough did not, I believe, 
advance its claim until the eleventh hour. Parliament 
sent the question to a jury of London merchants. 
Merton College, the successor of the Dunnings, bore the 
brunt of the struggle. If I am not mistaken, it was the 
only owner that could boast of copyholders and still kept 
manorial courts. Also, being (if I may so say) an 
absentee landlord, it had less to accuse itself of in the 
matter of awkward admissions than some oth^ claimants 
may have had. The trial took but one day : the times 
were pre-historic ; or post-historic, for the admirable 
Madox had left no successor. I know only a report in a 
Cambridge newspaper, and I dare say that it understates 
the Mertonian case. For the municipal corporation 
John's charter was displayed — a grant of the vill of 
Cambridge to the burgesses of Cambridge and their 
heirs — and some modern acts that could be construed as 

1 Append. § 134. 



A Victory of Collectivism. cff 

acts of ownership were proved. On the other side 
reliance was placed on the manorial courts. Mr Justice 
Lawrence, it would seem, told the jury that they had 
better find a verdict for the Town ; and this they did\ 
In the cispontine fields, which were soon afterwards 
inclosed, the Prior of Barnwell by his successors asserted 
a lordship, but in the end declined the combat. Dominus 
Rex, you will observe, was not among the claimants. 
Had the case occurred three centuries earlier, I doubt 
he would have been silent. 

It looks like a masquerade : Picot's canons and 
Malcolm's nuns, Walter of Merton and that militant 
mayor Hervey the son of Eustace the son^ of Dunning, 
pk^^iing before a jury of London merchants for the 
ownership of the balks and odds and ends of sward that 
occurred in the barbarians' labyrinth, pleading against a 
community that has had adventures, a knot of heathen 
hidesmen, a township of * early English* burgmen, a 
corporation of medieval burgesses, which has somehow 
become hoth persona Jicta and a Tory dining club. 

We might be in the fashion if we gloried a little over 
this victory of a Town. Might we not see here a return 
to the good old days, a restoration of the primitive and 
legitimate dominance of the community over the in- 
dividual ? Well, I don't know about that. Perhaps we 
had better leave the ownership of these balks, or of the 
allotment which takes their place, just where we found it, 
in the happy haze of 'collectivism.' Let us hear once 
more the atavistic voice of the common-councillor. * He 
thought that the property belonged bona fide to the 
corporation and that they had a right to do what they 
pleased with their own.... The corporation had a right to 
expend their income on themselves and their friends, 

1 Append. § 145. 
M. 7 



98 Township and Borough. 

without being bound to apply any part of it to the good 
of the town.' 

I see no cause to quarrel with the verdict ; but I 
think that as students of history we have some cause to 
quarrel with the quietly made assumption that these 
fields had some manorial lord, that there must be a lord 
with manorial rights in this waste, rights of a proprietary 
order which should not be abolished without compen- 
sation. These old county towns do not pass through 
the manorial phase. The king was their lord, but not 
their manorial lord ; in the eleventh century hardly their 
landlord ; the land on which they stood was not Terra 
I Regis, But I admit that in the middle ages it is hard to 
^ draw the line between private right and public power ; or 
rather, I have been trying to persuade you by a modem 
example that it is exceedingly hard to disengage those 
elements of property and rulership which are blent in 
the medieval dominium, and to unravel those strands of 
corporateness and commonness which are twined in the 
medieval communiias. 



APPENDIX 

OF NOTES AND EVIDENCE RELATING 
CHIEFLY TO CAMBRIDGE. 

§ I. At Cambridge, as at Oxford, a supposed Roman town 
has been retiring before the modern investigator^ The Cam- 
boritum^ Roman Station of our ordnance map is a disputed 
conjecture. With this we need not meddle. 'Chaque jour 
rid6e d'une survie des institutions municipales romaines a perdu 
plus de terrain I' What perished in Germany, Gaul, Spain, 
Italy did not persist in abandoned Britain. It has, however, 
been a common belief that the Grentebrige of Domesday Book 
lay wholly to the north of the river', and this theory of a little 
transpontine Cambridge we must not allow to pass unquestioned. 

§ 2. In the first place, the tower of St Benet's Church raises 
its protest. The houses which that church implies were a part 
of Grentebrige or they are not accounted for in the Conqueror's 
geld-book. The Survey of Cambridgeshire has no .name to 
spare for the vanished village. 

§ 3. But further, the Grentebrige of the Confessor's time 
had, so it seems to me, too many houses to be packed into the 
transpontine area. It was a town of 400 houses divided into ten 
wards. In 1086, when William made the inquest, 27 houses 
(but no more) had been destroyed in order that the castle might 
be reared, and two of the ten wards had been thrown tc^ether. 
This double ward had 54 houses. We add the 2y and thus 
obtain 81. The other eight wards contained 48, 41, 45, 50, 37, 37, 
32, and 29 houses respectively. Altogether there had been 400 
houses, and these were distributed with^ome approach to equality 
among the ten wards. We know that the second of these wards 

^ For Oxford, Parker, Early History of Oxford, 63; for Cambridge, Hughes, 
Cambridge Castle, Camb. Antiq. Soc. Proc. vol. viii. p. 173; Atkinson and Clark, 
Cambridge, 4. \ 

' Flach, Les origines de Tancienne France, ii. 116. 

' Babington, Ancient Cambridgeshire, 1 1 ; Freeman, English Towns and Districts, 
338. 

7—2 



icx) Grentebrige in 1086. 

was called the Bridgeware!. We know also that the fourth ward 
contained a church which belonged to the abbey of Ely^ 

§ 4. Were all, or nearly all, these houses on the left or 
northern bank of the river? Apparently the partizans of a 
little Cambridge propose to force 400 houses into a space which 
in 1279 contained some 70 or 80, which in 1749 contained no 
more than 209, and in 1801 no more than 276. 

§ 5. Two centuries after the Conquest the Cambridge of the 
Hundred Rolls has only 550 houses or thereabouts, yet it in- 
cludes the 17 medieval parishes, it includes the little hamlet of 
Howes on the confines of Girton, it includes the suburb of 
Newnham, it includes the considerable suburb of Barnwell with 
nearly 100 houses. The house-bedecked area extends south- 
wards as far as the King's Ditch and the Trumpington Gate, and 
there are still houses beyond. At this time the three transpontine 
parishes (St Giles, St Peter by the Castle, All Saints by the 
Castle) have in all only some 70 or 80 houses. 

§ 6. I see the Grentebrige of the Confessor's day as a very 
sparse group of houses. I should not be surprised if it already 
reached as far south as the King's Ditch of later days and if only 
two or three of its ten wards were transpontine. At this time a 
vill of 40 houses was rather large than small. Cambridge had 
400. Take the house-bedecked nucleus of an ordinary village 
and magnify it ten-fold ; it will cover a good space of ground. 
I would not suggest that the nucleus of a borough was as 
loosely compacted as was the nucleus of a common vill : but we 
must leave much room for what we should call farm-bui^ings, 
for orchards and little crofts. / 

In its account of York, Domesday Book tells of minutae 
mansiones which were 50 feet wide*. In its account of Wallingford 
it tells of II houses on an acre, of 6 houses on an acre, of 
7 houses on two acres'. 

§ 7. The assumption that there was no ditch round the 
town until Henry III. made one seems to me improbable*, and. 

1 Hamilton, Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiae, iii. The evidence may, however, 
be so read that a certain ward, known as the Sixth, had been utterly destroyed. See 
Atkinson and Clark, Cambridge, 9. ■ D. B. i. 198. • D. B. i. 56. 

^ Domesday Book shows in a casual way that various boroughs are ditched or 
walled. Dr Stubbs, Const. Hist. i. 438, reckons Canterbury, Nottingham, York, 
Oxford, Hereford, Leicester, Stafford, Lincoln and Colchester in this class. 



Houses in 1279. 



lOI 



Prof. Hughes has gone far towards disproving it\ Just outside 
the town ditch of the thirteenth century there ran a lane. 
Before it became our modern Pembroke Street it had borne 
various names. The most ancient of these is Landgrytheslane*. 
Is not this the limit of the ordinary land-peace ? Within the 
ditch the stricter burhgri^ reigns. If this be the true explana- 
tion, both name and limit should be very ancient. 

§ 8. No one can look at Mr Clark's beautiful plans without 
seeing that the Cambridge of the fourteenth and fifteenth cen- 
turies was not thickly crowded with houses. There was plenty 
of room for many more. When Henry VI. purchased a large 
site for his magnificent college he had not to deal with any 
countless multitude of householders*. 

§ 9. As our argument depends in part on the supposition 
that the account of the town which we obtain in 1279 is, so far 
as buildings are concerned, fairly complete, I have analyzed it 
with the following results*. 



Cambridge in 1279. 







Vacant 


Shops 


Bams 


Parishes 


Houses 


Places 


and Booths 


etc. 


St Giles 


37 


4 




I 


St Peter (Castle) 


18 




I 




All Saints (CasUe) 


17 


4 


5 


3 


St Clement 


34 


I 


5 




St Sepulchre 


8 








All Saints (Hospital) 


10 


I 


3 


4 


St Radegund 


2 








St Michael 


19 


4 


I 


4 


St Mary 


45 


8 


30 




St Edward 


27 


2 


15 




St John 


40 


4 






St Benet 


49 


9 






St Botolph 


38 


3 


2 




St Peter (Gate) 


34 


5 


4 




St Andrew 


II 


I 






Trinity 


10 








Barnwell 


95 


2 






Unspecified 


40 


I 


9 





534 



12 



49 75 

* Camb. Antiq. Soc. Proc. viii. 31, 155. * Rot Hund. ii. 381. 

» Willis and Clark, Architectural History, i. 334 ff. 

^ Cooper (L 58) reckoned 535 messuages, 76 shops and stalls, 5 granges and 6 
granaries. My calculation is wholly independent of his. 



I02 Intensive Growth of Urban Nucleus. 

§ lo. We may compare these with later figures, and for this 
purpose will leave out of account the shops and booths {seldae) 
of 1279, as they were not dwelling-houses*. 

Houses in Cambridge at four periods. 





"79 




1749 


1801 


1841 


St Giles 


37 


St Giles 


145 


194 


463 


St Peter (Castle) 


18 


St Peter 


64 


82 


137 


All Saints (Castle) 


17 










St Clement 


34 


St Clement 


109 


109 


204 


St Sepulchre 


8 


St Sepulchre 


97 


104 


133 


All Saints (Hospital) 


10 


All Saints 


122 


127 


230 


St Radegund 


2 










St Michael 


19 


St Michael 


60 


51 


75 


St Mary 


45 


St Mary (Great) 


156 


140 


185 


St Edward 


27 


St Edward 


113 


131 


120 


St John 


40 










St Benet 


49 


St Benet 


117 


no 


162 


St Botolph 


38 


St Botolph 


146 


117 


126 


St Peter (Gate) 


34 


St Mary (Less) 


98 


94 


141 


St Andrew 


II 


St Andrew (Great) 


203 


168 


395 


Trinity 


10 


Trinity 


158 


185 


456 


Barnwell 


95 


St Andrew (Less) 


48 


79 


1953 


Unspecified 


40 










Total 


534 




1636 


1691 


4780 



§ I L Besides the extensive growth of the town, these figures 
seem to tell of an intensive multiplication of tenements which in 
some cases is startling, and will be yet more startling when we 
remember that large areas have been subtracted for the founda- 
tion of colleges. Still the result does not seem incredible*. 
Let us take, for example, the transpontine area, where before 
1800 there was little extensive growth. In 1279 there are 
72 houses; in 1749 there are 209, and in 1801 there are 276, 
besides Magdalene College. Now early in the seventeenth 
century a strict inquiry was prosecuted by those who were 
frightened at the intensive growth of the town. We learn from 

^ The figures for 1749 (Carter's), 1801 (census) and 1841 (census) I take from 
Cooper, Annals, iv. 174, 470, 637. 

* It will be remembered that the present parish of St Andrew the Great lay almost 
wholly without the ditch. The very small number of houses assigned to Trinity parish 
may surprise us; but the stability of parish boundaries must not be taken for granted. 



Divided Tenements. 103 



the presentments then made that the parish of St Peter con- 
tained about 58 and the parish of St Giles about 148 families^ 
also that the whole population of the latter was about 576. 
Then we further learn that St Giles's parish has 396 inhabitants 
who are * harboured in the new erected houses and cottages and 
divided tenements ' : in other words, full two-thirds of the in- 
habitants seem to be regarded as the result of building operations 
of recent date and as a nuisance that invites the plague and 
raises the poor-rate. 

§ 12. The documents whence I have drawn this information 
deserve a word of notice, since, though they are not medieval, 
they throw some light on the erection of houses within the old 
urban nucleus. In the days of Elizabeth and her two next 
successors there was a scare at Cambridge, as elsewhere, about 
over-crowding. Some minute statistics were collected at Cam- 
bridge. The results are preserved at the University Registry in 
a volume lettered * Town 37. 3.' Of some parishes there is an 
elaborate census. As regards six of the parishes the outcome is 
summed up thus in a document written in 1632 : — ' There are 
harboured and entertayned in the new erected howses cottages 
and divided tenements of the severall landlords and owners 
mentioned in the sayd presentments the numbers of persons in 
every of the parishes hereafter named, viz. in 

St Andre wes pari she 560 persons 

Trinity parishe 360 persons 

St Gyles parishe 396 persons 

St Qements parishe 179 persons 

Little St Marys 148 persons 

St Bennitts parishe 85 persons 

The total of the persons harboured in 
the new erected howses and cottages 
and divided tenements— the six 

parishes is 1728' 

§ 13. The following from among the returns for the parish 
of St Andrew [the Great] will illustrate the division of the 
ancient tenements. 

* Bennett Colledge for the Red Hart. Mr Sandiford holds it 
by lease. It is divided into two. Dr Hangar for the Malt 
Mill, one ancient tenement divided into 3. Mr Austin for the 
Wrastlers divided into 3. Mr Bambridge one tenement divided 



I04 Over-Population. 

into two. Mr Martyn of London one ancient tenement out 
of the stables whereof hath beene erected 4 other tenements. 
Dr Chaderton and Edm. Ainsworth for one ancient tenement 
since sold into two parts and divided into 4 tenements, one 
whereof is Dr Chaderton's and 3 Edmond Ainsworth's.' 

§ 14. In an undated statement of 'the names of every 
householder and the number of his family in Barnwell ' the total 
given for the population is 264 and the names of 67 house- 
holders are set down. These householders include a farmer, 
5 husbandmen, 20 labourers, a shepherd, a thatcher, 2 black- 
smiths, 2 wheelwrights, 2 victualers, a brewer, 2 tailors, 2 bakers, a 
weaver, a cooper, a carpenter, a glover, a screenmaker, 7 'inmates,' 
2 sojourners and about 12 persons with no specified occupation. 

In St Peter's parish the heads of families are about 58 and 
include a gentlewoman, a bootwright (boatwright ?), a dyer, a 
cooper, a potter, a pikemonger, a fishmonger, 2 innkeepers, 

2 tapsters, 2 tailors, 3 butchers, a joiner, a collar-maker, 2 chand- 
lers, a bricklayer, a blacksmith, a carpenter, 6 watermen, 4 porters, 
12 labourers and about 13 persons of unspecified occupation, 
some of whom are widows. 

In St Giles's parish the names, about 148 in all, include 
59 labourers and 27 widows, 8 victualers, 7 cordiners, 6 butchers, 

4 masons, 3 bakers, 2 tanners, 2 watermen, a bonelace-maker, an 
oatmeal-maker, 4 gentlemen, i yeoman and a few others. The 
whole population of this parish is about 576, and it seems to be 
supposed that 396 persons are living in houses which have been 
either erected or divided within the last 60 years ; about 40 of 
them are not 'town-born' but have for the more part come 
from neighbouring villages ; 7 horses and 29 cows are ascribed 
to these 396 persons. 

In an account of St Michael's parish a long section is 
devoted to Green Street. Apparently 32 families of 151 souls 
live in 26 houses, of which 13 are 'new cottages,' and there are 

3 empty tenements 'all new built.' The heads of families 
include 5 tailors, 4 alehousekeepers, 4 musicians, 3 smiths, 
2 joiners, 2 cobblers, 2 masons, an apothecary, a poulterer, an 
ostler, a cooper, a baker, a button-maker, a shoe-maker and the 
' cooke of Keys college.' Only three persons are living in their 
own houses ; 8 houses belong to Mr John Mercer of Chesterton, 

5 to Mr John Rose, 3 to Mr Alderman Lukin. 



The Poor and the Commons, 105 

§ 15. The general impressions left upon my mind by these 
curious returns, which well deserve publication, are (i) that the 
number of houses on a given area had been rapidly increasing 
during the past sixty years, and (2) that in the poorer parts of 
the town, namely, the parishes of St Giles and St Peter and the 
Barnwell suburb, the number of * labourers' was large, and as 
these labourers do not include bricklayers, watermen, porters etc., 
they must, I think, for the more part be engaged in agriculture. 
There were still some 2000 acres to be tilled by someone. 
Even in 1801 there were 92 families 'chiefly employed in 
agriculture,' to be set against 1368 employed in trade, manu- 
facture or handicraft\ 

§ 16. In a paper contained in the same volume we may find 
' the chief causes of the increase of our poore in Cambridge,' 
and, as two of these reasons concern the divided tenements and 
the green commons of the town, they may be worthy of our 
notice in this place'. 

* I. The poore persons dwellinge in cottages and divided 
tenements are suffered to enioye the bennifitt of the Commons, 
and when the magistrats have offered to keepe them off, by 
force they have putt on their cattell, and this liberty of 
comoninge and tollerance of the magistrate hath much increased 
the multitude of poore amongst us. 

2. When the commons are bare they scrape (.^) or feede 
menns come and grasse to feede their cattell, and spende their 
whole tyme in ^urvayinge for them, and will not be held to 
labour to gett a livinge otherwyse, soe that when the landlord 
seizeth uppon his [the tenant's] cattell for his rent or they [the 
beasts] dye, he [the tenant] is in present want and must either 
beg stele or borrow .... 

Meanes to relieve us, 

I. That all persons dwellinge in cottages and new erected 
howses or divided tenements be utterly debarred of commoning 
and theire cattell impounded yf they be taken there and the 
persons resisting severely punished.' 



^ Cooper, Annals, iv. 470. 

• This paper is indexed as being *in Registrary Tabor's writing.* 



io6 The Eastern Fields, 



§ 17. We are deferring the perhaps unanswerable question 
whether the territory of Cambridge was not originally divided 
between two tuns. We have been speaking of the borough 
revealed to us by Domesday Book, and have argued for a widely 
spread and loosely compacted group of homesteads, a group 
divided by the river but united by the bridge which gives a 
name to the town. 

§ 18. We may begin our account of the fields by visiting 
the Eastern or Barnwell Fields, as they were on the eve of their 
inclosure in 181 1*. 

The area that is to be dealt with may be thus described. 
Start at the railway bridge well-known to oarsmen. Thence go 
south along the borough boundary, following it as it turns west 
until it comes to Hobson's Brook. For a long way you have 
pursued the line of Coldham's Brook and have had Coldham's 
Common on your right; you have crossed successively the 
Newmarket Road, Coldham's Lane, and (near the Sanatorium) 
the line of the Mill Road ; sloping south-west you have cut the 
road to Cherry Hinton, and turning due west you have cut the 
Hills Road leaving Cavendish College a little to your left and 
outside the borough ; and then going on due west you have 
struck Hobson's Brook. Now turn north towards the town and 
follow the brook. After a few yards and at the fence which 
ends Senior Wrangler's Walk, the borough boundary goes off to 
the left in order that it may hit and pursue the Vicar's Brook : 
Empty Common will then intervene between it and you. Keep 
straight along Hobson's Brook past the Botanical Garden and 
Brookside until you come to the Conduit Head. Turn to the 
right down Lensfield Road. Cross the Hills Road at Hyde 
Park Comer. Begin going down Gonville Place, but, as soon as 
you have Parker's Piece on your left, cross over onto the grass. 
The boundary of the fields is not Gonville Place but a line on 
Parker's Piece which is (for rough purposes) parallel to Gonville 
Place and some thirty to fifty yards from it. When you have 

* Award dated 10 April i8n. I must ask my readers to accept my Rough Sketch 
of the Town of Cambridge as being a very rough sketch intended merely to show the 
main agrarian features. In details it is inaccurate; in particular, the river was divided 
into branches which made a sort of archipelago. For careful maps of the house-covered 
nucleus, see Willis and Clark, Architectural History, and Atkinson and Clark, Cam- 
bridge Described. 



Madingley^ 
Road 



OPEN 




MOOR 





GRANTCHESTER 



/o the Mile 



SKETCH Sh 



The Agrarian Plan. 107 

traversed Parker's Piece, turn to the left along Park Side and 
Parker's Street towards the centre of the town. Go down 
Emmanuel Street with Christ's Piece on your left ; then by 
Short Street to the Newmarket Road. To the left a few yards 
along that road. Then round the frontiers of the Jesus closes 
with Midsummer Common on your right until you are at the 
beginning of Lower Park Street Then make straight for the 
river. Down the river to the railway bridge. 

§ 19. Then from the wide territory that we have encircled, 
we must deduct three large pieces that are not to be inclosed, 
namely, Midsummer Common (about (A acres), Sturbridge 
Common (about 45 acres) and Coldham's Common (about 86 
acres). There remain about 11 50 acres, and only about 50 of 
them are already inclosed: the remaining iioo are subject to 
the commissioners' powers. The inclosed portions consist almost 
entirely of the Abbey Farm which marks the site of Barnwell 
Priory, a tenuous line of houses and cottages, which straggles 
along the Newmarket Road and constitutes all that there is of 
inhabitable Barnwell, and a few little closes that lie in the same 
quarter. We must destroy streets by the ten and houses by the 
hundred to restore the Cambridge of a century ago. 

§ 20. This clearance effected, the agrarian plan is visible. 
Between the Trumpington Road and the Hills Road, but 
bounded on the townward side by Lensfield Road, lay Ford 
Field, so called from the ford by which the London Road entered 
the territory of Cambridge. Between the Hills Road and the 
line of the Mill Road, but bounded on the townward side by 
Parker's Piece (not then so large as it now is) lay Middle Field. 
Between the Mill Road and the Newmarket Road lay Bradmore 
Field ; but the townward part of it which is bounded by the 
East Road (then Gravel Pit Road), the Newmarket Road, 
Christ's Piece and Parker Street was known as the Clayangles 
or Clayhanger. Bradmore Field seems to have extended east 
only as far as Coldham's Lane. Then on both sides of the 
Newmarket Road lay Sturbridge Field (in old documents 
Estenhale), bounded by Sturbridge Common, Coldham's Com- 
mon, Brick Kiln Road (River Lane) and the river or towing 
path. 

§21. We have traces of a three-field culture. The Liber 
Memorandorum of Barnwell Priory states that the Prior and 



io8 Commoners in the Eastern Fields. 

Canons hold three ploughlands in demesne, whereof, according 
to the best estimate that could be made by the husbandmen 
and the elders {secundum quod potest estimari per agricultores et 
seniores\ they have in the field called Brademerefeld and 
Meledich 13 score acres, and in Middilfeld 14 score acres, *and 
in Fordefel and Estenhale, reckoned as one field {pro uno campo) 
12 score acres.' Fordfield and Estenhale (Sturbridge Field) are 
the two outside fields and as far from each other as may be; 
but they are reckoned as one, probably because they are sown 
at the same time\ 

§ 22. In 1 81 1 when 9 acres had been allotted to the municipal 
corporation for its * right in the waste ' and five tithe-takers had 
been compensated (the Radegund tithes belonging to J^sus 
College were not commuted,) there were, I think, about 22 land- 
owners to be satisfied. Then there were about 12 other persons 
with houses in Barnwell (St Andrew the Less) who had rights 
of common. Something less than half an acre was allotted for 
each right. Then the Act had admitted that there were other 
commoners with houses in the other parishes of cispontine 
Cambridge. They were to be compensated by the allotment to 
them of pasture ground. The three pieces selected for this 
purpose were a plot in Middle Field (4 A. o R. 20 P.) which has 
since been thrown into Parker's Piece, the plot in Middle Field 
(4 A. 3 R. 1 1 P.) known as Donkey's Common, and the neigh- 
bouring plot in Bradmore Field (2 A. 2 R. 12 P.) known as 
Peter's Field. The right of common was successfully claimed 
on behalf of 1 19 houses, which were divided among the parishes 
thus: — All Saints 11, Andrew the Great 20, Benet 12, Botolph 3, 
Clement 17, Edward 7, Mary the Great 8, Mary the Less 7, 
Michael 4, Sepulchre 8, Trinity 22. It will be seen that all the 
cispontine parishes were represented. 

§ 23. We have spoken of the area that was inclosed in 181 1. 
But we can bring the fields nearer yet to the centre of the town. 
I have been allowed to use a terrier belonging to Jesus Collie. 
It describes Sturbridge Field, Clayangles, Bradmore Field and 
Ford Field. Middle Field is described in another little book. 
These books are of recent date. Mr Gray tells me that the 

^ Lib. Memorand. de Bernewelle (Harley, 3601) f. 35 b. I have been osiiig a 
transcript of this MS. kindly lent to me by Mr J. W. Clark. 



Extent of Ford Field. 109 

handwriting is that of Dr Caryl, who was Master of the College 
from 1758 to 1780. The whereabouts of the various culturae or 
furlongs is sometimes stated in modern terms. But, as is evident 
from the names of the persons to whom the strips are ascribed, 
the original whence these terriers derive was compiled in the 
second half of the fourteenth century. Going across the strips, 
it states (i) the number of the selions {i,e, ridges or * lands') that 
each strip contains, (2) the acreage of the strip, (3) its owner, 
and (4) the church to which it tithes, this church being indicated 
by an initial letter. Thus : — 



Selions 


A. 


R. 


P. 






I 




3 





Alb. Can. 


E. 


I 




I 





P. de B. 


Bot. 


I 




2 





P. de Ang. 


A. 


2 


I 


I 





Will. Essex 


Ben. 



Here the four proprietors are the White Canons, the Prior of 
Barnwell, the Prior of Anglesey and William Essex, and 
apparently the four churches are those of SS. Edward, Botolph, 
Andrew and Benet. 

§ 24. Now, according to this book, a good piece of Ford 
Field lies to the west of the Trumpington Road between that 
road and Coe Fen. Walking into Cambridge by that road we 
now-a-days have on our left hand Belvoir Terrace, then the 
grounds of the Leys School, then Coe Fen Lane, then Scroope 
Terrace with Scroope House behind it, St Peter's Terrace, and 
the grounds of Grove Lodge, while the park of Peterhouse 
extends behind Grove Lodge and St Peter's Terrace. All this 
seems to have been part of Ford Field, and was described 
thus*:— 

Ford Field, 

Furlong 59 (contains about 3 R., is by Trumpington Ford on 
the west side of London road in the field called Cofen and 
lies south and north). 

Sel. A. R. p. 

Ph. Cayley by the way B. 

I o Nuns P. 

^ The identification of the churches to which tithe is paid is not without 
difficulty. But I think that A = Andrew (the Great), B= Benet, Bo = Botolph, 
E = Edward, El = the Almoner {EUmosinarius) of Barnwell, M = Mary (the Great), 
P = Peter outside Trumpington Gate or Peterhouse, R=Radegund. 



I lo Terrier of Ford Field. 



Furlong 


6o (east and 


west at the north end of the last and lies transverse). 


Sel. 


A. 


R. 


p. 








2 




2 


o 


P. B. 




El. 


2 




3 


o 


Ph. Cayley 




B. 


2 




3 


o 


Walt. Bedford 




El. 


I 




2 


o 


Han. Poplington 




B. 


2 




3 


o 


Ph. Cayley 




B. 


I 




I 


o 


Jno. Gibbon 




M. 


I 




I 


o 


Bar. Peryn 




M. 


2 


I 


o 


o 


Si. Bernard 




EL 


2 


I 


o 


lO 


P. B. 




EL 


2 


I 


o 


o 


Ph. Cayley 




EL 






2 


o 


Alb. Can. 




B. 






3 


20 


P. B. 




P. 






3 


o 


Pet. Bingham 




EL 


3 


I 


2 


o 

20 


P. de Angles. 
Alb. Can. 




A. 
M. 






2 


O 


Jno. Turner 




M. 






I 


O 


Pet. Bingham 




EL 






I 


o 
o 


Alb. Can. 
J. Hogon 




EL 
M. 


2 




3 


o 


P. B. 




EL 


2 




3 


o 


Alb. Can. 




EL 


2 




2 


o 


Bar. Peryn 




B. 


4 


2 


O 


17 


P. B. Hawke dole (a close) 


A. 




Furlong 6i 


(east 


and west at north end of last) 








I 


o 


Alb. Can. headland 




B. 






I 


o 


Rob. Piper 




A. 






2 


o 


Alb. Can. 




B. 






I 


I 


P. B. 




EL 






I 


o 


Rob. Piper 




A. 






I 


o 


Hugh Scale 




B. 


8 


3 


O 


o 


Alb. Can.* 




EL 


3 


I 


o 


o 


P. B. 




EL 


3 


I 


o 


o 


Baldw. Barker 




EL 


I 




2 


o 


Univ. 




P. 


' 




2 


o 


P. B. 
A Lane 




P. 




4 


O 


o 


Mortimer's dole' 




R. 


I 


I 


o 


o 


Alb. Can.» 




E. 


6 








Alb. Can. Peterhouse Garden* 


ELM. 


1 'White Canons' dole/ 


Note 


in MS. 






> * Mortimer's dole is all the close except the headland from the lane to Peterhouse 


garden.' 


Note in MS. 












• • This acre Is headland to Mortimer's dole and crosses 


the lane to the southest 


land of the White Canons' dole which is at the hedge corner.' 


Note in 


MS. 


* 'Ing 


le's croft is Peterhouse garden.' Note in MS. 







Coe Fen -Leys. 1 1 1 



§ 25. There can, I think, be no doubt that this is the land 
that lies between the Trumpington Road and Coe Fen. Let us 
go back along it: outwards from the town. We start at the 
south of the Fitzwilliam Museum. First comes Inglis or English 
Croft once held by the White Canons, but purchased by Peter- 
house in the reign of Elizabeths Then comes Mortimer's dole, 
which I take to be the site of Scroope Terrace and Scroope 
House. Then comes Coe Fen Lane. South of this our terrier 
requires about 25 'acres.' I believe that the grounds of the 
Leys School and of Belvoir Terrace will supply nearly the 
requisite quantity". 

§ 26. But more : Peterhouse itself stands on land that once 
lay in selions and was arable*. Thus we are brought within a 
few yards of the town ditch. If the reader who is accustomed 
to field maps will now look at the space that is bounded by Mill 
Lane, Coe Fen and the Trumpington Road, he will see a very 
good specimen of a cultura^^ and, if I mistake not, that lane 
still represents the sinuous plough-line: *the aratral twist' we 
might call it'; but it is also the line of beauty, for our winding 
English lanes would not have wound so pleasantly if men could 
have ploughed straight*. 

§ 27. How long this area remained arable I do not know. 
It, or a great part of it, became known as Coe Fen Leys and 
men spoke of a grass strip in it as * a ley in Coe Fen Leys.' 
The mere fact that it was accounted to be composed of * selions ' 
(that is of ridges, beds, * lands' ') would I believe be proof that it 
was once ploughed. The ridge that was a selion or * land ' when 
arable, became a * ley ' when it was laid down as grass. 

1 Willis and Clark, i. i. 

^ See on Ordnance Map the parcels numbered 18, 34, 35, 38, 39. It will be 
remembered that the old * acres' are not measured. 

• Willis and Clark, vol. i. pp. i — 8, and vol. iv. plate a. 

• I use the word cuUura because the English furlang^ having become the name for 
a measure of length, might import a false suggestion. 

• Domesday and Beyond, 379. 

< See Dr Isaac Taylor's paper in Domesday Studies, i. 61 : * I have examined 
thousands of these S shaped rigs, and I find that they invariably swerve to the left or 
near side, which seems to be explained by the fact that the driver, who walked back- 
wards, would most conveniently have directed the oxen by pulling them round by their 
head-gear with his right hand instead of with his left.' Meitzen, Siedelung, i. 88, uses 
a preferable phrase : * die Figur eines umgekekrten S.* 

' Domesday and Beyond, 383. 



112 Pembroke Leys. 



§ 28. We have now to consider another set of leys, namely, 
the area known as Pembroke Leys or St Thomas's Leys, or, at 
an earlier time, Swinecroft. When Downing College was in the 
making, this area was subjected to special treatment; the 
lammas right of pasturage was to be extinguished. The terrier 
which we have been using describes Swinecroft as a sort of 
appendage to Ford Field. From this terrier and the Award 
with an accompanying map which was made in 1808^ we can 
venture a fair guess about the original constitution of Swinecroft 

§ 29. Take the space bounded on the north by Pembroke 
Street and Downing Street", on the east by the line of the Hills 
Road (Regent Street'), on the south by Lensfield (formerly 
Conduit) Road and on the west by the Trumpington Road. 
Abolish Tennis Court Road as a novelty. Then bisect this 
parallelogram by a line running from north to south. Then lay 
out each half of the parallelogram as a cultura whose furlongs 
run from east to west. 

At an early time, however, building began at the north- 
eastern and north-western corners of this space. At the north- 
western Pembroke Hall arose*. Then there was more building 
along the Trumpington Road, while on the eastern side a strip 
of roadside waste has in recent times afforded room for the 
houses of Regent Street. 

The line which divided the two culturae lay to the west of 
the Downing avenue. I believe that it is pretty well represented 
by the esistern face of the new buildings of Pembroke, the 
western range of Downing College and the house of the 
Professor of the Laws of England ^ 

§ 30. We will now take the old terrier and compare it with 
the Award. We will look first at the eastern cultura^ that 
nearest Regent Street, and proceed southwards from Landgrithes- 
lane or Downing Street. 

^ Among the muniments of Downing College, dated 8 Jan. 1808. 
' Formerly Landgrithes Lane, Hoghill Lane, Bird Bolt Lane etc. See Willis and 
Clark, i. 123. 

• But perhaps from the first the eastern boundary of the arable was the line now 
marked by Downing Place. 

* Willis and Clark, vol. i. p. lai and vol. iv. plate 6. 

' The two culturae seem to have come near to their ideal. The distance from my 
house to the Trumpington Road and to Regent Street is a short furlong. 



St Thomas's Leys. 



"3 





Terrier 






1 


In i8o8 






Sel. 


Owner 


Acreage 


Owner 


Acreage 






A. 


R. 


P. 




A. 


R. P. 


4 


J. Payne, now a 
garden 


I 


2 


o 


Benet College 


I 


I 12 


3 


Nuns, garden- 
ground 

Way-balk* 


I 


O 


O 


Purchased^ of Jesus 
Common balk 




3 39 
i6 


I 


J. Gibbon 




2 


o 


Purchased of Hobson* 


5 




6 


J. Harrington 


2 


O 


o 


Charity 


2 


3 23 


4 


Nuns 

Way-balk3 


2 


O 


o 


Purchased of Jesus 


2 


2 25 


2 


Nuns 




3 


o 








6 


J. Preston 


3 


o 


o 


Purchased of Peterhouse 2 


I II 












Road 




24 


I 


Cutlers half-acre 




2 


o 


Purchased of Mr 






8 


Alb. Can. 


4 


o 


o 


Towneley 


2 


o 17 


I 


University 




2 


o 


Purchased of Uni- ^ 






2 


Alb. Can. 


I 


O 


o 


versity 
Purchased of Mr 
Towneley 


• 3 


o 25 




Mortimer's dole 


8 


2 


o* 


Purchased of Caiu 
College 


s 

7 


2 36 



All goes pretty smoothly in this cultura. The strips of the 
Nuns pass to Jesus College, those of the Mortimers to Caius. 
The University, to all appearance, had a half-acre in the 
fourteenth century and in the nineteenth. The lands of the 
White Canons were purchased by the municipal corporation, and 
must, I suppose, have passed from it to Mr Towneley. 

We turn to the other, the western, cultura and will b^in on 
this occasion at the south in the Lensfield Road. The terrier 
gives 



2 selions. Nuns with a gore i 



R. P. 
o o. 



The Award ascribes a little more than an acre . to Jesus College. 

Next the terrier gives 

A. R. p. 
4 selions. J. de Camb.' 120. 



' • Purchased ' means purchased by Downing. 

' See Loggan's plan, Willis and Clark, ii. 754. The course of this way is still 
marked by old thorn-trees, soon to be destroyed in the interests of geology* 
' Visible on Loggan's plan, Willis and Clark, ii. 754. 
^ Well marked on Loggan's plan, and apparently garden ground. 

M. 8 



114 Swtnecroft. 



Land that belonged to John of Cambridge in the fourteenth 

century we expect to find in the hands of Corpus in the 

nineteenth, and the Award tallies with our expectation. Then 

the terrier gives 

A. R. p. 
1 6 selions. J. Carbonell 420. 

and this land has passed to Mr Russel. Then comes a way- 
balk in the terrier, and a road on the map of 1808. From 
this point onwards there would be more trouble about the 
identification of the strips, owing to the erection along the 
Trumpington Road of houses whose gardens ran far back. 
The terrier proceeds thus: — Alb. Can. i A. 2R.; Alb. Can. 2R.; 
R. Arden, i A. 2 R. ; Bar. Peryn, i R. 20 P. ; Chantry of St Peter, 
2R.; Bar. Peryn, 2R.; Tho. Jacob, 2 A.; way-balk; John Smith, 
next Pembroke garden, i P. Going along this line the owners 
from whom Downing College purchased what lies within its 
wall were Mr Towneley (who here and elsewhere seems to 
represent the White Canons), Peterhouse, Little St Mary's parish 
(the chantry of St Peter), Mr Thackeray, and the Master of 
Peterhouse. 

The following description of a piece of the Downing land is 
taken from a deed of 1737, and shows us that St Thomsis's Leys 
were still traditionally accounted a part of Ford Field : * All 
those twelve sellions of pasture or ley ground containing by 
estimation 10 acres (be the .same more or less) lying and being 
in a certain Field in Cambridge aforesaid called Ford Field or 
St Thomas's Leys in a certain Furlong called Swine's Croft on 
the south side of the said town of Cambridge ^' 

The following is a description written in 1667 of the 
Mortimer's Dole in Swinecroft (the south-eastern corner of the 
Downing estate, nearest to the Roman Catholic chapel): * Seven- 
teen Sellions pasture or leys lying upon the Highway called 
Deepway [Lensfield Road] leading from the Stone Bridge by 
the Spital [close to the Conduit Head] towards the south : and 
Mr Palmer's land jure uxoris in the occupation of James 
Haddowe towards the north: abutting upon the way called 
Preachers Streetway [Regent Street] alias Hadstock Way 
leading towards Hogmagogge Hill towards the east : and upon 
two sellions of Jesus College Land and four sellions of Corpus 

* Archives of Downing College. 



/ 

Selions in Swinecroft. 115 

Xti College Land both inclosed and in the occupation of W°* 
Saunders in part, and upon sixteen sellions of Mr Nicholson in 
part, towards the west: containing by estimation nine acres.' A 
note over s^ainst this description states that 'there were 18 [not 
17] layes or sellions but when the town was fortified [in the 
Cromwellian days] one of these was cut into a great ditch and 
the bank was thrown upon it^' 

§ 31. Now a great part of this land had long been under 
grass, and the name of St Thomas's Leys, which seems to have 
spread gradually over it^ can not have been acquired while it 
was arable. But it was once ploughed in selions, and they may 
be seen to this day*. 

I take it that when the arable was turned to meadow, the 
lammas right took the place of the right to depasture the idle 
field. When Downing College had acquired the strips, an Act 
of Parliament was passed for the extinction of the lammas right 
Claims were allowed in respect of about 280 houses in the 
parishes of SS. Benet, Botolph, Mary the Less and Andrew the 
Great, and a money compensation for each 'right' was paid. 
The representative of the Prior of Barnwell (Mr Panton) was 
compensated for a sheep-walk, 'the going of 18 score sheep from 
Lammas to Lady Day every year*' Claims were made in 
respect of houses in the parishes of SS, Mary the Great, Michael, 
Trinity, Edward, Sepulchre, Giles and Peter, and of All Saints, 
but were disallowed. The principle enforced seems to have 
been that no one could have common unless he had a house in 
one of the four parishes in which the land lay. How old that 
rule was I can not say, but it does not look medieval. It lays 
too much stress on parochial arrangements. 

§ 32. Before leaving these leys, we may observe that their 
distribution for the purpose of paying tithe among the churches 



^ Archives of Downiag Collie. Punctuation by editor. 

" Willis and Clark, ii. 753. 

' East of the Downing avenue the undulations are plainly visible, though the 
ridges are low. 

^ Downing College also claimed and was compensated for a similar right: from 
which of its predecessors this right was derived I have not inquired. More than half 
of the commoning houses were owned by colleges. Corpus had 78 'rights.* The 
municipal oorpdration unsuccessfully claimed * the soil of the lands and grounds called 
St Thomas's Leys also (sic) the waste lands and soil thereof.* 

8—2 



ii6 Urban Parishes. 

of the town was exceedingly intricate. If I construe the terrier 
aright, the eastern cultura gives us the following series: — ^ selions 
to Botolph ; 3 to Michael ; i to Andrew ; 6 partibly, two-thirds 
to Andrew, one-third to Benet ; 4 to Radegund ; 2 partibly, half 
to Peter, half to Botolph; 6 partibly, half to Peter, half to 
Andrew ; i to Mary ; 2 to Peter ; 4 to Mary ; 2 partibly, half to 
Mary, half to Peter ; i to Peter ; i to Barnwell ; an unspecified 
number to Radegund. Eight churches take tithe from this one 
cultura, 

% 33. This provokes a remark about the parochial system. 
Is not its application to these town-fields gradual and fairly 
modern ? When in the middle ages a piece of land is said to 
be in the parish of St A., thereby is generally meant that 
between it and St A.'s church there are two bonds: (i) the 
parson of that church has the care of the souls of those who 
inhabit that land and they should go to that church : (2) he is 
entitled to the tithe of that land. But now suppose the plot 
to be an acre-strip in the middle of an open field. Suppose 
also that it tithes to St B. and lies between strips which 
tithe to SS. C. and D. In what possible sense can it be in 
the parish of St A. ? Perhaps we answer that if a house were 
built on it, then the care of the householder's soul would rest 
with the parson of that parish, who also might be entitled to 
mortuaries and similar dues. But, until men think of breaking 
up their common field, these duties and rights are of too 
hypothetical an order to be conceived. The only practical 
bond between the strip and the church is the tithe. In 
researches in the outskirts of towns we may make too much 
of parish boundaries. Often they will represent fairly modem 
arrangements. It sfeems to me that a man of the thirteenth 
century would have said either that these acre-strips were in 
no parish, or more probably that each strip was in the 
parish to whose church it tithed. In the latter case if you 
walked across the field you would change your parish every 
few seconds. 

§ 34. But, to return, both west and east of the Trumpington 
Road we have brought the arable near to the town ditch. 
Let us go further east. In 181 1 Middle Field still invaded for 
some fortj' yards the south-east side of what now is known as 



Parkers Piece. 117 



Parker's Piece. The residue, the great bulk, of that Piece was 
conveyed to the municipal corporation by Trinity College in 
161 3. Until then it had been arable; it was to be turned 
'from tillage unto swards' The beginning of a terrier of 
Middle Field is preserved in one of Baker's MSS. and is to the 
point". 

Middlefeild begyns by the south wall of the Fryers Preachers 
[Emmanuel College] and at St Andrewes Bame. The Furlong est 
and west betwene Hynton way [the Mill Road line] and Hadstock way 
[the Hills* Road line] : Moniales dim. acr. North : — 2 acr. 3 rode more 
south — 3 rod. south : — Dola Michaelis xiiii. acr. Dola S** Marie et 
Gleba Ecclesie x acr. Albi Canonici dim. acr. Universitatis more south 
i. acr. Roberti Barbor olim Chaddehall i. acr. et jacet ab Linton \corr, 
Hinton] way usque Hadstock way. 

The description is not so clear as might be wished; but 
apparently we have a cultura lying immediately outside the 
south {ix, south-east) wall of Emmanuel. First comes a half- 
acre of the Nuns. Then a wider strip of the Nuns. Then 
Michael Dole of 14 acres. Then glebe of St Mary's Church 10 
acres ; and so forth. In 161 3 the grant from Trinity contained 
15 acres parcel of and belonging to Michael House Grange, and 
10 acres parcel of the glebe land of Great St Mary's. Trinity 
was fortunate in being able to dispose of 25 acres lying together 
at the town end of a common field. 

The account given of Middle Field in the terrier written by 
Dr Caryl is in the main much older than the conversion of 
Parker's Piece * from tillage unto sward/ but just at this point it 
seems to .have been adapted to suit modern times. The first 
cultura of this field is said to lie east and west, beginning by 
Emmanuel College. A note adds : ' The first two selions abut 
on the College's new building eastward. The seven next extend 
from Hadstock way to Hinton way under the College wall. 
The three next are that part of the garden which juts out by 
Dr Barnes* brewhouse.' Then the composition of the atltura is 
described as follows : 



' Willis and Clark, ii. 409 ; Cooper, Annals, iii. 58. 

' Baker MSS. xxxvi. p. 1^0 (Camb. Univ. Libr. Mm. i. 47.) 



ii8 Chrisfs Piece. 



Selions 


A. 


R. 


P. 






2 




2 


o 


Nuns, a garden 


A. 


7 


2 


3 


o 
A 


Nuns, a garden 
way-balk 


El. 


3 




3 


o 


Nuns, a garden 


El. 








Parker's Piece 




I 




I 


o 


Nuns, short 


M. 


I 




2 


o 


Alb. Can. 


M. 


2 


I 


O 


o 


University 


El. 


I 


I 


o 


o 


Rob. Barber*. Goward 


El. 


I 




2 


o 


Nuns« 


M. 


I 


I 


O 


o 


Alb. Can. next the lane 


El. 








King's Lane. 





§ 35. From all this it seems plain that at one time Middle 
Field included all that we know as Parker's Piece and came up 
to the very wall of Emmanuel College or its predecessor, the 
Dominican Friary. To this we must add that the terrier at 
Jesus College shows us Christ's Piece as part of Clayangles ; and 
it is laid out in selions. Thus : — 

Barton croft ^ 

Begin to reckon next the lane leading from Green's brewhouse 
to Maid's Causeway. 

Selions A. R. P. 

2 I I o Nuns with a gore next the lane E 

2 I 2 o Nuns M.A. 

2 IOC Nuns* E. 

4 I 2 o Nuns R. 

A way -balk from Emman. lane to Walls lane. 

6 o o All the residue of the croft to 

Christ's College wall, viz. A. 

3 2 o Ja. Hadley 

2 2 o the rest Christ's Coll. 

§ 36. Once more therefore we have brought the arable near 
to the town ditch. I fancy that at one time, if the burgess of 

^ ' Extends from Hinton way to Hadstock way.' Note in MS. 

* * Abut east on Hinton way, west on University, on the south of Parker's piece 
and the north side of Coward's acre here call'd Rob. Barber.' Note in MS. 

* Gcrton Crofte in Willis and Clark, ii. 189. The terrier here has a note: 
'Christ's College pieces.' 

* 'Call'd Rodolph's acre.' Note in MS, 



The IVestern Fields. 119 

Cambridge crossed the ditch, he came out at once, or almost at 
once, upon the great sheet of ploughed land, and that the 
erection of houses in this quarter implied no curtailment of the 
green. The man who was lucky enough to have a strip that 
was bounded by a road could build upon it. This must have 
slightly interfered with the common use of the idle field, but 
only slightly, and I do not think that in 1279 there were many 
houses outside the ditch, except the Barnwell suburb, of which 
hereafter. 

§ 37. We are now to visit the Western Fields, If we cross 
the river at the Great Bridge and walk up Magdalene Street 
and Castle Street, an extremely small part of Cambridge, some- 
times none at all, is on our right hand. The borough* just 
includes Magdalene and its grounds and a small patch of land 
between Chesterton Lane and the castle mound. Then the 
boundary comes into the street in which we walk. The Shire 
Hall and the County Police Station are in Chesterton. When 
these are past, the boundary swerves away to our right and 
includes a small square of land which in 1805 was for the more 
part open land, known as Sail Piece, but is now densely peopled. 
Then the boundary comes back into and pursues the street that 
is now becoming the Huntingdon Road. In the castle's ex- 
clusion from the borough there may be something of leg^l 
fiction ; but still the fact remains that in this quarter the open 
fields of another vill, namely Chesterton, came to the very verge 
of the fortified nucleus of Cambridge. The selions of the 
Chesterton fields are well marked on Loggan's plan. 

§ 38. Now in 1802 an Act was passed for inclosing and 
laying in severalty the open and commonable lands in St Giles's 
parish. That parish included almost the whole of transpontine 
Cambridge*. The area that required inclosure may be cir- 
cumscribed thus: — Start in the Huntingdon Road at the top 
of Pleasant Row: follow the borough boundary, which is the 
Huntingdon Road, for about a mile until, when opposite Howe 
House, the boundary turns to the left. Follow it over the 

^ The 'parliamentary* borough is more extensive; but this is a novelty. 

* Award dated 14 May, 1805. Having swallowed up All Saints by the Castle^ 
St Giles included everything but the small parish of St Peter and a piece of St Mary 
the Less in the Newnham quarter. See p. 111, note 4. 



120 The Western Fields. 

fields until it strikes the St Neots or Madingley road: Moor 
Barns Farm is a little to your right The borough boundary then 
goes, and you must go, some few yards along that road towards 
Cambridge ; then it turns to the right over the fields, zigzags a 
good deal, but at last strikes the Barton Road at the bridge over 
the Bin Brook. Follow it homewards along the Barton Road. 
You have been perambulating the line which divides Cambridge 
from Chesterton, Girton, Madingley, Coton and Grantchester. 
When the Barton Road takes a sharp turn to the left at the 
comer of the Caius Cricket Ground, you turn and pursue it 
Here for the first time you quit the borough boundary, which 
makes straight for the mill stream. You must now go along 
the road at the backs of the colleges (Queen's Road) to its 
junction with the St Neots Road. You pursue the St Neots 
Road for a few yards : then up Bandyleg Walk (Lady Margaret's 
Road) and by Mount Pleasant to your starting place. 

§ 39. By far the greater part of this area was uninclosed. 
The commissioners found that the tract with which they were 
instructed to deal contained 1361 A. OR. 39 P. in alL Of 
open and commonable fields, common meadows and other 
open and commonable lands and Wciste grounds there were 
1238 A. I R. 22 P. ; of homesteads, gardens, orchards and ancient 
inclosures 89 A. i R. 7 P. ; of public and private roads (in- 
cluding the town streets and lanes) and public drains there were 
33 A. 2 R. 10 P. The tract thus measured was not quite the 
same as the area that we have perambulated, for it included the 
urban part of the parish. Within the circuit that we have 
drawn there lay little but uninclosed land. There were a few 
closes, but they seem to have contained less than 60 acres. 
There were three houses; I read of no more^ 

§ 40. The municipal corporation received two pieces, 
(4 A. I R. 2 P.) for its * manorial rights/ There were six tithe- 



^ The area that we have circumscribed seems to have contained about 1 184 acres 
roads neglected)^ of which 57 were inclosed. There were (i) a small patch of closes 
at the Howe comer of the area, (ii) another patch at the Newnham comer, and (iii) 
some closes near Moor Bams. There were also two closes belonging to St John's 
Collie. Outside our area the Commissioners inclosed Sail Piece and a little land 
by the pound on Pound Hill. Also they allotted some small pieces of green to the 
Johnians to rectify their frontier; but in other respects the green between the college 
boundaries and the Queen*s Road was not within the scope of their powers. 



The Western Fields. 121 

owners. About 18 freeholders were to be compensated for land, 
besides a few copyholders of Merton College. One small piece 
seems to have been deemed copyhold of Madingley, and another 
copyhold of one of the Grantchester manors^ Then about 30 
other persons received small plots in exchange for rights of 
common connected with tenements in St Giles's parish. We 
hear nothing on this occasion of commoners from other parishes. 

§ 41. From the Award we can discover that there were four 
great fields. The whereabouts of one of these can be easily as- 
signed. It was the segment whose radii are the Huntingdon and 
St Neots Roads. It was called Grithow {ix. Gravel Hill) Field, 
or corruptly Great Howe Field*. The other three fields were 
Middle Field, Carme Field and College Field. Their boundaries, 
which the commissioners were effacing, I can not clearly discern. 
Apparently, however, College Field was the name given by 
them to the tract that is bounded by the Bin Brook and the 
road by which you would drive from * the Backs ' to Barton*. 

§42. If this really was the nomenclature of 1800, then I 
think that names had been oddly shifted. In the ancient terriers 
the four fields are Grithow, Middle, Little and Carme; and 
though, owing to the disappearance of the old paths and ditches, 
it is difficult to make a map from these terriers, still it seems to 
me plain that the tract that I have described as College Field 
(Ridley Hall, Newnham College and Selwyn College now stand 
upon it) is their Carme Field. Next beyond the Bin Brook is 
their Little Field, and beyond that is Middle Field. Both come 

* Jacob Smith (• Copy of Merton Hall *) receives a R. «6 P. ; Story's Charity 
('Copy Merton*) 3 R.; William SUnley (*Copy Merton Hall*) 3 R. 36 P.; William 
Short ('Copy Merton*) 38 P.; Harman Jones ('Copy Merton Hall*) « P.; 
William Bostock (*Copy Merton*) la P.; Richard Comings ('Copy Grantchester*) 
I A. 3 R. IIP.; Elias Carter ('Copy Madingley*) 4 A. 3 R. 29 P. There is nothing 
to surprise us if a few strips have been absorbed into manors lying in neighbouring 
villages. 

' Girton*s old name is Gretton or Gritton. In old times the boundary between the 
fields was not at all points the St Neots Road. Near the town a little of Middlefield 
came over onto the north side of the road. We have to remember that fields are often 
older than roads. Also the new-fangled practice of 'making* roads with stone has 
given to our roads a prominence which the medieval way had not. 

' For very rough purposes we may picture it as a right-angled triangle; the Caius 
Cricket Ground lies at the right angle; the Trinity Garden or * Roundabout* lies near 
one of the other angles; the third angle is where the Bin Brook is crossed by the Barton 
Road. 



122 Long Green. 



to the St Neots Road, and the division between them seems to 
be a track known as the Bartonway, which, starting somewhere 
near the foot of Lady Margaret's Road made across the fields 
for Barton \ The Carme Field seems to have taken its name 
from a block of twenty selions in the Newnham quarter, which 
in the fourteenth century was held by the Hospital but was 
known as the Carmedole. Perhaps it had once been held by or 
for the Carmelites (Fr. les Carmes), who had their first house at 
Newnham. At an earlier time this field may have been the 
Portfield of which we hear in the thirteenth century ; I am not 
sure, however, that the whole of the Western Fields were not 
known as the Portfield". To find a Portfield or Portmeadow 
outside a borough is not uncommon. The little bridge where 
the Bin Brook enters the Cambridge Fields was apparently 
known as Portbridge. 

§ 43. Between these fields and the river there lay the green 
pasture called Long Green. The remains of it are still open ; 
but much of it has been acquired at one time and another by 
the colleges'. It was once of considerable size ; still, taken at its 
largest, it would seem but a small pasture to set beside the huge 
mass of arable that lay to its west. Part even of the Johnian 
* wilderness' has been ploughed and lay in Carme Field*. 

§ 44. There was little meadow in medieval Cambridge. 
William Harrison (1577) has noted this defect Cambridge, he 
says, has to import wood and coal. * Moreover it hath no such 
store of medowe grounde as may suffice for the ordinarie 
expences of the towne and Universitie, wherefore they are 
inforced in lyke sort to provide their haye from other villages 



^ As to this way, see Babington, Ancient Cambridgeshire, p. 10. 

* I have seen a charter in the Archives of Merton College which seemed to point 
in this direction. 

^ For the various transactions between the Colleges and the Town, see Willis and 
Clark, passim, 

* Willis and Clark, vol. ii. p. 138; vol. iv. plate 20. The important lease there 
quoted shows Carmefield crossing the line of the Queen's Road; the west head of 
some strips belonging to Corpus extend * over the common waie.* Often the ways are 
superimposed upon the fields. There is a tract that I have not mentioned, namely, a 
triangular piece which lies in the parish of St Mary the Less, with the Mill Pool 
for its apex and the Mill Stream, the road to Barton and the borough boundary as its 
sides. I am not certain that Carmefield did not extend into this tract ; bat, not being 
in St Giles's parish, it was outside the Inclosure Act. 



Field Names. 123 



about, which minister the same unto them in verye great 
abundance ^' 

§ 45. The terriers that I am about to mention are full of 
interesting names. In the Western Fields we may find Erles 
dole, Tunmannis aker, Shermannis rod, Goidzmedole, Gordeaker, 
Blakaker, Barkeresaker, Gaggesaker, Sponyaker, Karlokaker, 
Lampeaker, Prioures dole, Brunne.forth dole, Porthors dole, 
Mordole, Chalkwell dole, Aldermanis hyl. In the Eastern 
Fields are Bad husband's headland, Walnut dole. Timber dole, 
Hawke dole, Cherry dole, Overthwart dole, Hogmoor, Smock 
alley way, Hop acre. Stake acre, Hore acre, Nocket acre, Frog 
acre, Crouch acre, and Pest-house Furlong, while the site of the 
famous Sturbridge Fair is marked by Garlick Row, Cheese Row 
and Duddery Leys. There is also extant an attempt to explain 
the whereabouts of the various land-marks in the Western 
Fields: for instance, Wlwyes* dich, Edwynedich, and Endlesse 
Waye, so called * because yt nether haeth beginnyng nor endynge/ 
It may be hoped that at some time or another these documents 
will be edited by one whose patience and ingenuity will restore 
the defaced pattern of the fields'. 

§ 46. A few words in the description of Endlesse Waye 
deserve attention. 'Endlesse way beginnethe two furlonge 
above St Needes his waye towarde Coton feeldes and beginnethe 
at the xi'^ sellion of Bennet Colledge which now be lees and is 
called ducke pytt because yt standeth in winter full of water/ 
This vividly illustrates the reason why in the old days of 
allotment a man was given some strips in all parts of the field. 
If the year was wet, he would not wish to have much of his 
arable in * ducke pytt.' 

§ 47. The state of the Western Fields in the fourteenth 
century is minutely described in a terrier purchased by Mr 
Bradshaw and given by him to the University Library*. Appar- 
ently this book belonged at one time to Corpus, or was annotated 
by someone who was especially interested in that college's 

^ Cooper, Annals, ii. 350; Harrison's England, Bk. ii. ch. iii. 

* Mr Stevenson tells me that this points to a Wulfwig. 

* He will not neglect the important paper by Prof. Hughes on the Castle, Camb. 
Antiq. Soc. Proc viii. 173; nor that by Mr A. Crayon the Watercourses, Ibid. ix. 61. 
Mr Gray's remarks touching the ancient course of the river are of great value. 

« MS. Add. 9601. 



124 The Western Fields. 

estates. It well deserves to be carefully edited. Meanwhile 
I can only state roughly and, it is to be feared, inaccurately, 
some of the main results that can be won from it. 

§ 48. Its date I have not precisely fixed ; but we shall not 
go far wrong if we assign it, or the original whence it flows, to 
the years round 1360. This is shown by a comparison of the 
names of the persons mentioned in it with the names of the 
mayors, bailiffs and parliamentary representatives of the borough. 
In the following table I have marked a mayor with M, a bailiff 
with B, and a parliamentary representative with R. 

The form of the entries, when Englished, is the following: — 

I selion of Thomas Bolle late of John of Toft about [i rood] — 
Radegund. 

I selion of the College of Corpus Christi late of T. of Cambridge 
about [half an acre] — Radegund. 

5 selions of the aforesaid Hospital about [i acre i rood] — Giles. 

The acreage is supplied by a second hand. The name of the 
church to which tithe is paid stands in the margin, e.g. Rad,y 
Eg,, Rotund, The size of the selions (ridges, ' lands ') varied a 
good deal. It is common to find that the selion is a half-acre ; 
but sometimes it is an acre, sometimes only a rood or a half- 
rood. The terrier often notes that the number of selions in a 
given parcel of land has been changed. The current of change 
seems to have set towards wide beds. It will be remembered 
that the selion is the visible fact, stamped on the surface of the 
earth. The acreage on the other hand is a matter of traditional 
reputation. 

§ 49. The culturae were of all sizes. I make 30 ' furlongs * 
in Grit How Field, 24 in Middle, 1 1 in Little and 14 in Carme. 
So doing, I count some very small pieces (as little as two acres) 
which, however, were quarentittae per se. I believe that as time 
went on some of the land was converted * from tillage unto 
sward.' An instance of such conversion we have lately seen 
in Duck Pit. 

§ 50. The following table gives the outcome of such rude 
calculations as I have been able to make. 



The Western Fields in Cent. xiv. 



125 







Roods in 


Roods in 


Roods in 


Roods in 






Present Holder* 


Late Holders 


Grithow 


Middle 


Little 


Carme 


Total 


No. of 






Field 


Field 


Field 


Field 


Roods 


Parcels 


Hospital of St ) 
John \ 




239 


423 


140 


139 


941 


139 


Prior of Barnwell 




299 


275 


78 




652 


83 


St Radegund 




24 


65 






89 


14 


White Canons 




8 




6 




14 


3 


Prior of Hunting-) 
don ( 




62 


58 


5 


n 


162 


31 


Nuns of Beach 




23 


94 




31 


148 


39 


Sturbridge Hos- 
pital 




12 








12 


5 


Church of St Giles 




4 


4 






8 


2 


Chantry at St 
Clements 


















12 


'' 






23 


7 


Chantry at St ) 
















Peter'sCwithout)! 










13 


'3 


3 


Chantry at St ) 
Sepulchre's \ 




71 


41 


11 


3 


126 


30 


Chantry at Coton 






I 






I 


I 


Parishioners of ) 








8 




8 




St John \ 










I 


Parishioners of ) 
















St Sepulchre \ 






12 






12 


I 


Merton College 




94 


127 




28 


249 


18 


Cambridge Uni- 
versity 






II 


8 


37 


56 


9 


Corpus College 




2 








2 


I 




R. Barbour 








12 


12 


2 




T. Cambridge 


94 


117 


13 


60 


284 


68 




J. Gedyn 








6 


6 


1 




J. Poplington 






6 


17 


23 


6 




J. Redhead 




13 






13 


4 




G. Seman 


72 


194 


4 


79 


349 


59 




W. Snorying 






2 


2 


4 


2 




H. Tanglemere 








14 


14 


4 


Sir B. Burghersh 






28 






28 


I 


Mortimer's land 




40 


96 


24 




160 


8 


W. Aleyn 






2 




6 


8 


4 


R. Ardeme {B) 










18 


18 


5 


T. Attcchurch 


J.Blankpain(il/./?.) 


2 






2 


I 




S. Houdlo 


3 








3 


I 




W. Lavenham 


40 


16 






56 


12 


T. Audde 




27 


17 




2 


46 


7 


R. Baldeston 


J. Comberton {fi) 4 


6 






10 


2 


J. Baldcwyn (^) 


A. Stowe 








2 


2 


2 


J. Barker {B) 


N. Bradenash 






15 


18 


33 


6 


H. Beech {B) 










9 


9 


4 



126 



The JVestern Fields in Cent. xiv. 



Present Holders 


Roods in 
Late Holders Grithow 
Field 


Roods in 
Middle 
Field 


Roods in 
Uttle 
Field 


Roods in 
Carme 
Field 


Toul 
Roods 


Naof 
Parcels 


H. Blankpain 




12 








12 


2 


K. Bluntesham 


H. Toft (B) 




12 






12 


I 


T. Bolle 




i8 


8 






26 


7 


R.Brigham(J/./?.) 




II 


17 




4 


32 


5 


W. Burton {R) 


W. Dene 




I 






I 


I 


G. Bushell 


S. Refham(iT/./?.) 




3 






3 


1 


A. Cottenham 










12 


12 


3 


J. Cotton (iJ/./?.) 


T. Comberton 


20 


22 




6 


48 


II 


N. Crocheman 






17 


6 


12 


35 


8 


R. Fowkes (J/) 


his father 








2 


2 


I 


W. Goldsmith 


W. atte Cundut 




8 






8 


I 


T. Jekke 


his father 


19 








19 


6 


R. Harleston (J/) 




2 


2 






4 


2 




J. Berton 




34 






34 


3 




R. Goldsmith 


9 


50 






59 


9 




W. Lolworth {R) 


24 


27 






51 


15 




R. Longe 




2 






2 


I 




G. Seman 


12 


18 






30 


5 




R. Tablet 


40 


53 


10 


26 


129 


30 




W. Ward 


25 


3» 


8 


24 


95 


18 


A. Kynyton 


his father 








8 


8 


I 


W. Lolworth {B) 


J. Laton 




4 






4 


I 


R. London 




4 








4 


I 


R. Longe 




27 


34 






61 


15 


T. Marblethorpe \ 




8 


8 






16 


6 


R. Martin 


Various 




4 




35 


39 


13 


R. Morris (^) 




30 






20 


50 


5 


Ste. Morris, sen. \ 




10 


14 




4 


28 


4 




his father 


61 


71 


22 


70 


224 


46 




W. Bekeswell i^B) 


12 


22 


6 




40 


9 




J. Berton 


99 


26 




2 


127 


9 




J. Blangroun 




4 






4 


I 




R. Brandon 








10 


10 


I 




R. Brigham {M.R,) 








2 


2 


I 




Vic. St Clement's 




4 






4 


I 




J. Comberton {B) 


4 


4 






8 


4 




R. Houdlo 


8 








8 


2 




S. Houdlo 




6 






6 


2 




W. Lolworth {B) 




4 






4 


I 




J. MarshaU 




4 






4 


I 




J. Redhead {B) 


II 


25 






36 


12 




R. Yslep 


2 








2 


1 



The JVestern Fields in Cent. xiv. 



127 





Roods in 


Roods in 


Roods in 


Roods in 






Present Holders 


Late Holders Grithow 


Middle 


Uttle 


Carmc 


Total 


No. of 




Field 


Field 


Field 


Field 


Roods 


Parcels 


Ste. Morris, jun. 






8 






8 


I 




J. Comberton {B) 


2 








2 


I 




J. Pittock (,M.R,) 


12 


37 






49 


14 




G. Seman 


24 








24 


3 


T. Morris {B) 




130 


142 


17 


55 


344 


61 


R. Niket 


J. Refham 


4 








4 


I 


J. Norton 




5 








5 


3 


J. Pilct (^M. R,) 


his father 




II 


16 


29 


56 


13 


J. Sharp 


T. Wintringham (B) 








2 


2 


I 


W. Sherwynd 






20 






20 


4 


J. Templeman 






6 






6 


2 


W. Thaxted 






I 


12 




13 


2 


J. Touche 


J. Martyn 








2 


2 


I 


Ri. Tuliet {M) 




15 


17 






32 


8 


Ro. Tuliet {R) 




10 


28 


12 




50 


6 


G.Wardeboys(^) 










II 


II 


I 


J. Weston 


Various 


18 


5 


2 


82 


107 


28 


J. Wymark 


R. Longe 




6 






6 


2 


N. Wymark 


W. Bekeswell (^) 




6 






6 


I 


Unspecified 


Sturbridge Chapel 


4 








4 


I 




Merton Coll. 


16 








16 


I 




R. Dunning {M) 


12 


44 






56 


2 




W. Lavenham 


10 








10 


I 




T. Morris (^) 


8 








8 


I 




G. Seman 


2 








2 


I 




R. Seman 


4 








4 


I 




In dispute 


4 








4 


I 




St Giles 




4 






4 


I 




University 




3 






3 


I 




N. Morris 




2 






2 


I 




T. Blangroun 




4 






4 


I 



Totals 



1878 2503 431 951 5763 IOI9 



§ 51. In some cases the acreage of a strip is not stated; 
perhaps some 70 acres may be thus accounted for*; also I have 
reason to fear that I have made some mistakes on the side of 

^ Add in Grithow Field the following selions of which acreage is not given : 
St Radegund 4, Corpus i, S. Morris sen. 4, R. Longe i and a gore, Merton College, 
5 gores, a selion and a butt. In Middle Field : Hospital 9, Barnwell i, St Radegund 
5, Nuns of Beach 1, Merton 8, Corpus 40, Mortimer 8, T. Bolle 4, R. Harleston 1, 
S. Morris sen. 9, G. Bushell 10 and a gore. In Little Field: Hospital 16, T. Audele 
10, R. Harleston 8. In Carme Field: Hospital 7, Corpus 6, J. Barker a, N. Croche- 
man i, R. Martyn i, J. Weston 4, T. Sturmyn i, J. Pilet 3 butts. 



1 28 Roger of Harleston. 

omission. I suspect the terrier of describing full 1520 'acres/ 
This is much more than would be wanted were * acres ' invari- 
able. In 1805 nearly the whole of St Giles's parish was set down 
at 1 36 1. The Ordnance Survey sets it at 1393, but this includes 
what was St Peter's. According to the award of 1805, ^f I ^^^ive 
rightly followed its figures, the segment between the Huntingdon 
and St Neots Roads, if we take Pleasant Row and Lady 
Margaret's Road as its townward limit, contained 431 acres; 
and the segment between the St Neots Road and the Barton 
Road, if we take the Queen's Road as its townward limit, 
contained 853. This would give us but 1284 acres for our fields. 
We may infer that the old estimated acres were small ; but also 
I fancy that the Carme Field of the terrier crossed the Barton 
Road and came close to the present course of the mill stream*. 
While most of the strips in the Western Fields tithe to Giles or 
Radegund, there are two or three aUturae in Carme Field whose 
strips are tithing for the more part domui S. Petri, and we 
should expect that now-a-days these culturae would be included 
in the parish of St Mary the Less. 

§ 52. But, to pass from geography, we see that the larger 
half of the land is already in the dead hand : according to my 
figures 3221 out of 5763 roods. However we also see that a 
good many strips have but newly fallen into mortmain. The 
700 roods belonging to the collie of Corpus Christi were lately 
owned by Cambridge burgesses. Then, among the laity the 
movement seems to be towards concentration. Roger Harleston 
has acquired strips from at least seven different quarters. 
Stephen Morris the elder has thirteen predecessors in title 
besides his father. The Black Death may have brought land 
into the market. 

§ 53. Roger of Harleston (that is, of Harston) is an in- 
teresting person. I think that he was a new-comer in Cambridge. 
He was mayor in or about 1357, and in 1376, 1377, 1378, 1380 
and 1383 he represented the shire in Parliament During the 
rebellion of 1381 his house at Cottenham and his house in 
Cambridge were pillaged': he seems to have made himself 

> See the parcels numbered 17, 16, 30 on the Ordnance Map. 

* Rec. Off. Assize Rolls, No. 103; Powell, Rising in East Anglia, pp. 43, 51; 
Return of Members of Parliament, i. 193, 197, 199, 203, 417. it is possible that the 
mayor was the father of the knight of the shire. 



The Franciscan Conduit. 129 

hated. His house in Cambridge stood in Harleston's Lane, 
now Thompson's Lane. The lands that he had acquired in the 
fields of Cambridge and Coton were known as * Harleston lands', 
and in Henry VHI.'s reign had fallen to St John's College. 
The same college had also by that time acquired from Dr 
Thompson the ' Mores (dissyllable) lands * consisting of 217 acres 
in the fields of Cambridge, Newnham and Coton ; and these 
seem to be the estate of the Morris family^ Thus this college 
became the successor, not only of the ai)cient Hospital, but of 
two other prominent landowners of the fourteenth century. 
*St John's Barns,' the barns of the Hospital, seem to have 
been situated on the spot where the Westminster College is 
now being built 

§ 54. A valuable piece of evidence may be adduced at this 
points In 1325 the guardian of the Friars Minor purchased a 
long and narrow strip of land running through the fields. It 
was to be the course of a conduit, and is to this day the course 
of the conduit which supplies the fountain in the great court of 
Trinity. The strip was two feet wide and 1467 ells {virgae 
cissoris) in length. The following are the names of the vendors 
of the strip and the number of ells purchased from them : — 
Hospital ICO, Barnwell Priory 12, Th. Morys 250, Wil. Lavenham 
300, Geof Seman 500, Hugh Pyttok 8, Nuns of Waterbeach 20> 
Prior of Huntingdon 8, Rob. Brigham 12, Th. Balls 8, Ste. 
Morys 8, Joh. Pyttok 8, Wil. Lolworth 6, Wil. Bekeswell 8, Wil. 
Marbilthorp* 10, Wil. Redwood 9, R. Tableter 200. In our terrier 
Roger Harleston, Stephen Morris and Corpus College have 
already absorbed the land of a good many of the owners who 
are here mentioned. 

§ 55. Turning to the Eastern Fields, we shall find that the 
ecclesiastical element is yet stronger. These fields seem to have 
comprised 75 furlongs {culturae) which were distributed thus : — 
Sturbridge Field Nos. 1-6; Clayangles or Croft Land Nos. 
7-13; Bradmore Field Nos. 14-34; Middle Field Nos. 35-58; 
Ford Field Nos. 59-73 ; Swinecroft Nos. 74, 75. The terrier at 
Jesus College, which I have been permitted to use, was, as 

^ Baker, Hist. St John's, ed. Mayor, i. 344, 354, 381. 
« Willis and Clark, ii. 427, 678. 

' Marblethorpe's lands or some of them seem to have passed to Clare College : 
Baker, Hist. St John's, ed. Mayor, i. 357. 

M. Q 



130 The Eastern Fields in Cent. xiv. 

already said, written by a modern hand : hence the appearance 
of Christ's College ; but apparently it is descended from a book 
of even date with that which describes the Western Fields, and 
I have no reason to think that any considerable number of 
changes were made in the list of landholders. The following is 
a rough summary of its contents*. 







ii 


li 


fa 

II 

2* 


t 


fa 


11 


^1 


Barnwell, Prior 


205 


292 




501 


109 


637 


1744 


305 


Almoner 


6 






18 


II 




35 


13 


Pittancer 


40 






7 




7 


54 


15 


*St Radegund 


8 


92 


19 


119 


114 


216 


568 


165 


White Canons 


48 


98 


28 


89 


40 


151 


454 


150 


Anglesey, Prior 


II 


6 




39 


5 


8 


69 


22 


Denny, Abbess 




6 




5 


2 




13 




Huntingdon, Prior 




2 




48 




18 


68 


13 


Sturbridge Chapel 


64 






14 


3 


16 


97 


28 


St Mary, Chantry 








5 


2 


I 


8 




St Peter, Chantry 






2 








2 




A gild 








5 




4 


9 




University 




9 


2 


7 


3 


32 


53 


21 


Corpus College 




9 




35 


18 


29 


91 


29 


Michael House 












3 


3 




[Christ's College] 










10 




10 




Mortimer's Land 




48 


34 


120 




40 


242 




Arden, R. {B) 






6 








6 




Arnold, J. (B) 




4 










4 




Ashwell, J. 










I 




I 




Barber, R. {B) 




14 




6 




7 


27 




Barker, B. 




4 










4 




Barrington, J. 






8 








8 




Barton, J. 










3 




3 




Beche, H. {B) 








I 






I 




Bedford, W. 




6 










6 




Bernard, J. 








I 






I 




Bernard, S. 




6 




34 


I 


4 


45 


23 



^ Apparently the terrier copied by Dr Caryl was originally made for the Prior of 
Barnwell or else corrected by some one interested in his land, for in the statement of 
the content of his strips perches are often mentioned, while in other cases such accuracy 
is rare. In stating totab I have here and elsewhere neglected fractions of a rood. Add 
as unmeasured 6 selions of the White Canons in Ford Field, and a parcel belonging 
to Corpus in Bradmore. Parker's Piece is excluded ; see above, p. 117. 



The Eastern Fields in Cent. xiv. 131 





\u 


1I 


li 


Ck' 


J^ 


ll 


II 


ii 




W 


6m" 


CA 


CQ 





S 


H(S 


^^ 


Bingham, P. 




7 








5 


12 


6 


Blankpayn, J. 




4 










4 




Brackley, R. 








4 






4 




Brigham, R. (il/. R,) 


2 












2 




Bush, J. 








3 


I 




4 




Caldwell, E. 










6 




6 




Cambridge, J. 




6 




5 




26 


37 


II 


Cambridge, T. 


4 






2 




I 


7 




Carbonel, J. 






18 






3 


21 




Cayley, P. {M. R,) 




64 




17 


2 


58 


141 


32 


Comberton, J. (^) 








6 




23 


29 


12 


Combcrton, R. 












14 


14 


2 


Cotton, C. 








7 


15 




22 


8 


» y{M,R,) 




I 






15 


4 


20 


6 


„ T. 








31 




12 


43 


8 


„ w. 










7 




7 


2 


Cowper, J. 


4 












4 


2 


Cutler 






2 








2 


I 


Essex, W. 








5 


I 




6 


2 


Eversdon, R. 


3 


7 








13 


23 


9 


Firmar*, A. de 








8 




14 


22 


7 


Fish, W. 










3 




3 


I 


Gibbon, J. {M,R,) 




13 


2 






4 


19 


5 


Hadley 










14 




14 


I 


Hillesworth 




I 










I 


I 


Hogon 




I 










I 


I 


Holme, J. 








2 






2 


I 


„ T. 








I 




2 


3 


2 


Horwood,W. (ilf.i?.) 








5 






5 


2 


Ironmonger, J. 












8 


8 


2 


Jacob, T. 






8 








8 


I 


Joachim, T. 








8 




2 


10 


5 


Lister, J. 












8 


8 


I 


Martyn, R. 








16 






16 


5 


Masterman, R. (if/. R.) 


3 












3 




Morris, J. {M,R,) 




6 




29 


5 


39 


79 


21 


Morris, S. {B.M.) 








3 






3 


3 


Pawe, N. {E) 




3 




3 


4 


15 


25 


13 


Payne, J. W 






6 








6 


I 


Peryn, B. 




21 


3 


>5 


10 


47 


96 


Zl 


Piper, R. 




2 










2 


I 


Pocket, B. 


5 












5 
9— a 


3 



132 Lands of the Religious. 





w 






\u 












1* 




P 




1^ 






il 


Pocket, J. 








2 






2 


I 


Poplington, H. 




4 










4 


2 


Porter, J. {B) 








2 






2 


I 


Potton, N. 




I 










I 


I 


Powle, R. 


7 






I 




6 


14 


4 


Preston, J. 






12 








12 


I 


Reder, W. 








7 






7 


5 


Richman, R. 








4 






4 


I 


Roger, N. 










I 




I 


I 


Rogers, J. 








3 






3 


2 


„ P. 










8 




8 


I 


Rosby, M. 


I 












I 


I 


Scale, H. 




2 










2 


2 


Smith, H. 


3 






14 




12 


29 


15 


» J. 






I 








I 


I 


Sterne, R. 








I 


6 




7 


5 


Stevens, J. 








7 




4 


II 


5 


„ M. 








3 






3 


I 


Thorpe, J. 












3 


3 


I 


„ T. 


I 












I 


I 


Triplow, H. 








4 






4 


I 


Trumpington, A. 










I 




I 


I 


Tuliet, R. {M) 








II 






II 


2 


Turner, J. 


I 












I 


I 


Ware, J. 








2 






2 


I 


Warwick, G. 












3 


3 


2 


White, J. 




4 










4 


I 


Uncertain 


37 


14 




97 


52 


24 


224 


21 



Total 453 757 151 1382 473 1523 4739 113S 

§ 56. We shall not go very far wrong if we say that a third 
of the Eastern Fields belonged to Barnwell Priory, another third 
to other ecclesiastical or collegiate bodies, and the remaining 
third to men of the town. It will be seen that the Nuns of 
St Radegund and the White Canons are richer in this quarter 
than in the Western Fields, also that the Hospital has nothing 
here. Probably a good deal of exchanging had been done^ 

* Among the Jesus charters, of which I have seen Mr Gray's notes, is one (Q. 35) 
whereby the Hospital gives the Nans 7 a. 1 R. scattered in Barnwell Fields, in 
exchange for the same amount of land in Portfield, some of which is near the 



Office-holders and Land-holders. 133 

The Prior of Barnwell and the Nuns have some continuous 
tracts of considerable size; the Nuns are rich in Clayangles, 
which lies handy to their house. But often when two strips of 
the same owner lie together they must still be distinguished, for 
they tithe to different churches. Thus in the Clayangles and 
close to the town we find the following series. 









A. R. 


P. 


4 selions 


Nuns 


A.d.B. 


2 





I „ 


Prior of Barnwell 


E. 


2 





I r> 


Nuns 


A.d.B. 


2 





2 „ 


Nuns, partible 


A. d. B. A. 


I 





3 » 


Nuns 


E. 


I 






Here in a space of five acres three churches take tithe : namely, 
if I rightly construe the symbols, St Andrew of Barnwell {A,d3\ 
St Andrew the Great {A) and St Edward {E), What is more, 
there are strips belonging to the Nuns which tithe to the Almoner 
of Barnwell, and strips belonging to the Prior which tithe to 
St Radegund. 

§ 57. The laity have little in all these Eastern Fields. 
Their tenements are small, and I take it that many of the men 
who are mentioned are poor people who till the soil that belongs 
to the religious houses. Their names are not those of the great 
burgensic families. Still there are exceptions : Robert Brigham, 
Philip Caley, John Cotton, John Gibbon\ William Horwood and 
John Morris are mayors of the town and might, were they 
modems, write M.P. after their names. Peryn and Tuliet are 
good old Cambridge names. 

Across the water the laity were much stronger, and even in 
the fourteenth century the men who hold land there are very 
often the big men of the borough. This I can best show by 
means of the subjoined lists, in which I mark with an asterisk 
the names which occur in the terrier. 

§ 58. In the Library of Downing College is a volume 
bequeathed to it by Alderman J. Bowtell. It was purchased by 
him at the sale of the books of Dr Charles Mason. It contains 

Bin Brook. By another charter (Q. 36) the Canons of St Edmund's chapel (White 
Canons) give the Nuns 4 A. 3 r. 16 P. lying in 3 parcels in Barnwell Fields in exchange 
for 3 A. 4 R. 13J p. lying in 4 parcels in Swinecroft. 

^ In 1 38 1 there were two John Gibbons. One of them was drawn and hanged for 
his part in the insurrection. 



134 



Mayors and Bailiffs. 



the results of Dr Mason's researches among the muniments of 
Trinity and Corpus Christi. He has made a calendar of the 
Mayors and Bailiffs mentioned in the deeds. This runs from 
Hen. ni. to Hen. VH., dates being rare before lo Edw. I. It is 
a very elaborate piece of work, with exact dates and references, 
which I here omit As the year of office did not coincide with 
the r^nal year, the statement here made that a certain man was 
mayor in a certain regnal year means only that, according to 
Dr Mason's calendar, that man was mayor in some part of that 
year. The well-known antiquary William Cole laboured among 
the charters at Corpus for the same end. The result is a 
calendar of Mayors and Bailiffs preserved in Brit Mus. MS. 
Addit 5833, whence I here draw a few names which are enclosed 
in square brackets. By a combination of the two lists, Mason's 
and Cole's, a complete catalogue of the office-holders should 
some day be made by a patriotic burgess. I set an asterisk 
against names that occur in our field-books. 



Henry III. 
Mayors 
Rog. de Wykes 

Ric Laurence 
Joh. Ent 

Job. le Rus 

Joh. Martjm 
Joh. Martyn 

Joh. Martyn 

Joh. Martyn 

Joh. Martyn 
Joh. Martyn 

Joh. Martyn 

Joh. Martyn 



Mayors and Bailiffs of Cambridge, 
AND Edward I. (without date). 

Bailifi^. 

Pet de Wilburgham, Will Eliot, Joh. Porthors, Walt. 

Ent. 
Will. Eliott, Sim. ad Aquam, Ger. ad Stagnum. 
Joh. Porthors, Mic. Pilet, Rog. de Weresfeild, Joh. de 

Ailsham, Rob. de Maddingley. 
Joh. Porthors, Ernie Mercator, Tho. Plole, Herv. Tine- 
tor. 
Mic. Pilet, Joh. Porthors, Rob. de Maddingley. 
Joh. de Ailsham, Ger. de Vivariis, Mic Pilet, Rob. de 

Maddingley. 
Joh. Porthors, Will. Goldring, Sim. Godeman, Herv. 

Tinetor. 
Regin. de Cumberton, Sim. ad Aquam (de Bradele), Joh. 

Peryn, Rog. de Wethersfeild. 
Rob. Wymund, Rob. Tuylet, Galf. le Ferour, Joh. Gerund. 
Rob. Wymund, Joh. Porthors, Rob. Tuylet, Jae. Fer- 

rarius. 
WilL de Huhn, Tho. de Madingley, Alan de Welles, Joh. 

Prentyz. 
Job. Peryn, Rog. de Wethersfeild, Joh. de Caumpes, 

Hump, le Draper. 



Mayors and Bailiffs. 



135 



Mayors 
Bart. Cogging 

Bart Cogging 

WilL Eliot 
Job. Dunning 

Job. Butb 

Job. Butb 

Job. Butb 

Job. Butb 

Job. Martyn 



Bailifi&. 

Rob. Wymund, Job. Palfryman, Sim. de Bradeie, Ric. 
Bateman jun. 

Job. Portbors (Porter), Rob. Wymund, Job. de Ailsbam, 
Cerard ad Vivarium (de Vy ver) (ad Stagnum). 

Hen. Tuylet, Hen. Nadun, Job. Butb, Job. Palfryman. 

Job. de Leek, Sim. Codeman, Calf. Knyvet, Job. Robe- 
lard. 

Job. Portbors, Mic. Pilet, Ric. Bateman jun., Job. de 
Ailsbam. 

Rob. de Madingley, Rog. de Wetbersfeld, Job. Palfry- 
man, Sim. de Bradely. 

Job. Cerund, Will. Seman, Ric. Bateman jun., Ric. de 
Hokele. 

Tbo. Tuylet, Ric. Crocbman, Job. Colding, Step. Hunne 
(Hunt). 

Rob. de Sbelford, Regin. de Cumberton, Job. de Brank- 
tree, Job. Pawe. 



Ann. Mayors 

54 Job. fil. Martyn 

55 Job. Martyn 



I Bart Coggyng 

6 Job. Butb 

10 Job. Martyn 

11 Job. Butb 



12 Job. Martyn 

13 Job. But 

14 Job. But 

15 Job. But 



Henry III. (28 Oct. 1216.) 
Bailiffs 
Hen. Tuyletb, Job. de Ailsbam, Rob. Wymund, 

Hen. Nadun. 
Job. Portbors, Regin. Sberwyne, Will Elliott, Rog. 
de Wilburgbam. 

Edward I. (20 Nov. 1272.) 

Job. Portbors, Rob. Wymund, Job. de Ailsbam, 

Cer. de Stagno. 
Job. Cerund, Will. Seman, Ric. de Hokele, Ric. 

Bateman jun. 
Job. Portbors, Mic. Pilet, Rob. de Maddingle, Qob. 

Peryn]. 
Will. Seman, Job. Portbors, Ric. Laurence, Ric. 

Bateman jun. 
[Job. Cerund, Ric. fil. Ric. Bateman, Will. Seman, 

Ric. de Hockele.] 
Rob. Wymund, Rob. Tuylet, Calf. Fabrarius, Job. 

Cerund. 
Rog. de Wetbersfeld, Job. le Palfrynian [alias le 

Palfreyur], Rob. de Maddingley, Sim. de 

Bradeley. 
Job. Portbors, Mic. Pylet, Ric. Bateman, Job. de 

Aylesbam. 
Job. Martyn, Job. Peryn, Hump, de Costesey, Rog. 

de Wetbersfeld. 



136 



Mayors and Bailiffs. 



Ann. 


Mayors 


16 


Joh. Martyn 


17 


Job. Martyn 


18 




19 


Joh. But 


20 


Job. But 


21 


Mic. Pilet 


22 


Rob. Tuylet 


23 


Job. Gerund 


24 


Job. But 


25 


Job. Dunning 


26 


Job. Dunning 


27 


Job. Dunning 


28 


Gui. le Specer 


29 


Sim. de Stockton 


30 


Sim. de Stockton 


31 


Sim. de Stockton 


32 


Sim. de Stockton 


33 


Job. Goldring 


34 


Job. Dunning 


35 


Sim. de Stockton 



Bailiffs 
Rob. de Sbelford, Regin. de Cumberton, Job. Pawe, 

Job de Branketre. 
Job. Peryn, Job. de Caumpes, Rog. de Wetbersfeld, 

Hump, le Draper. 
Job. Butb et Micb. Pylat Gardiani, 
Job. Portbors jun., Galf. le Ferur, Job. de Banketre, 

Rob. Stersman. 
Tbos. Tulyetb, Ric Crocbman, Job. Goldring, Stepb. 

Hunk [or Hunne]. 
Will, de Hulm, Tbos. le Mercer (alias de Madingle), 

Job. Prentyz, Alan de Welle. 
Rob. Matfray, Mic. fitz Job., Mic. Wolward, Walt 

de Fulbume. 
Gui. le Specer, Pet le Barkere [Bakere], Sim. 

Sepbare, Job. Peryn. 
Will. Pyttock, Job. de Kymbele (Kynburle), Rob. 

de Hinton, Will, de BekeswelL 
Job. Gogging, Sim de Refbam, Ric [Rad.] de 

Cumberton, Walt de Berking. 
Will, de Leeds, Hen. de Berton, Galf. de Costesey, 

Aunsel de Costesey. 
Galf. Knyvet, Sim. Godeman, Job. de Lockton, 

Job. Robylard. 
Sim. de Stockton, Rob. Culling, Job. Prentyz, Ric 

Dunning. 
Walt. Cole, Tbos. [Pbil.] Cumberton, Ric de 

Bodekesbam, Rob. de Cumberton piston 
Rob. Pistor de Cumberton, WilL Martyn, Mat. 

Aurifaber, Rob. de Brunne. 
Qob. de Scbelford, Will. Engayne, WilL de Orwelle, 

Humf. Godlombe.] 
Will. Martyn, Mat Aurifaber, Rob. de Daker 

(Baker), Rob. de Brunne. 
Job.de Cumberton, Regin. Bercarius, WilL Tburroc, 

Rob. Setbford [Seckford]. 
WilL de Cumberton, Rog. le Hafter, Job. iil Ric 

Wombe. 
[Job. Moris], Adam Godson, Ric. Wolward, Pet 

de Brigbam [Byrlingbam]. 
Job. Edward, Sim. de Armine (Brunne), Rob. de 

Welles, Rad. de Cumberton jun. 
[Sim. de Brune (alias de Reynbam), Job. Edward, 

Rad. de Cumberton jun., Rob. de Welle.] 



Mayors and Bailiffs. 



137 



Aim. Mayors 
I Job. Dunning 

3 Job. Dunning 

4 Sim.de Refham* 

5 Sim. de Refham* 

6 Gui. le Spicer 

7 GuL le Spicer 

8 Job. Morrice* 

9 Gui. le Spicer 

10 Job. Morrice* 

1 1 Rob. Dunning* 

12 Rob. Dunning* 

13 Eudo de Help- 

ringbam 

14 Eudo de Help- 

ringbam (cleri- 
cus) 

1 5 Sim. de Refbam* 

16 Sim. de Refbam 

17 Rob. Dunning* 

19 Eudo de Help- 

ringbam 

20 [Eudo de Help- 

ringbam] 



Edward II. (8 July 1307.) 

Bailifis 
Job. [Fikeys], WilL de Brunne, Tbos. de Tendring 

(le Taylour), Rad. Hankyn [alias de Comber- 
ton]. 
Rob. Tuylet jun.*, Job. CuUing, Rog. de Coste- 

sey*, Jac. Godlomb. 
Hen. de Toft*, Will. Carbonel, Sim. de Bradele, 

Rob. Dunning*. 
Job. Pilet*, Regin. de Trumpcton, Tbo. de Brank- 

tree. 
Job. Duck, Job. de Cumberton*, Job. de Trumpe- 

ton, Tbo. de SnaylwelL 
Bart. Morrice, Will. Camifex, Job. Martyn, Rob. 

le Long. 
Galf. de Costeseye, Alan de Walscte [le Walscbe], 

Will. Holay, WiU de Bedeford. 
Job. Tuylet, Ric. de Tbacksted, Ad. de Bungey, 

Galf. de Warboys*. 
Job. de Leeke, Tbo. de Elm, Will. Seman, Bart 

Tannator. 
Job. de Deneford, Rob. de Boltun, Gilb. [Rob.] de 

Cbateriz, Will, de Bodeney. 
Tbo. de Cottenbam, WilL de Lenne, Galf. Duke, 

Will, le Hayward. 
Job. de Tycbewell, Alan de Refbam*, Will, de 

Pocklington, Ric de Trippelawe. 
Job. Berfote, Henr. de Holm, [Ric. Modbrok, Hen. 

de Wynepol]. 

Hen. de Toft*, Ric. [Rob.] de Brunne, Rob. de 

Cumberton, Job. Pilat*. 
Rob. de Bray [Bery], Will, de Tbaxted* Will, de 

Sledemere, Job. le Barber. 
Ric. Tuylet*, Job. de Newton, Sim. de Morden*, 

Hen. Knyvet 
Milo de Trumpeton, Rob. de Brunne, WilL Holay, 

Job. de Cumberton*. 



138 



Mayors and Bailiffs. 



Ann. Mayors 

1 Eudo de Help- 

ringham 

2 Eudo de Help- 

ringham 

3 Hen. de Toft* 

4 Job. Pylat* 

5 Job. Pylat* 

6 [Job. Pittocke] 

7 Job. Pyttock* 

8 Job. Pyttock* 

9 Job. Pyttock* 

10 Job. Pyttock* 

1 1 Ric. Tuylet* 

12 Ric. Tuylet* 

12 Ric Tuylet* 

13 [Ric. Tuylet* 

13 [or 14] Ric. Tuy- 
let* 

15 Pbil. Caley* 

16 Pbil. Caley* 

17 Bartb. Morrice* 



Edward III. (25 Jan. 1327.) 

Bailiffs 
Job. Outlawe, Alan de Badburgbam. 



18 Bartb. Morice* 

19 Ric. Tuylet* 



Rob. de Cumberton, Sim. de Bradeley, Galf. de 

Wareboys*. 
Job. Knyvet, Hug. Pyttock* Rog. [Alex.] le Hus- 

seb [Husser], Rob. Martyn. 
Rob. Seman, Hen. Peryn, Stepb. de Panfeild, Job. 

de Teversbam. 

Galf. de London, Sim. Bernard*, Rob. de Ticbewcll, 

Dan. de Felstede. 
Rob. Hassock, Will de Warwic, Hen. de Beche*, 

Will, de Heybam. 
Job. le Spencer, Will, le Forster mercenarius, 

Albric. Mercenarius, Will, de Refbam. 
Sim. de Cbesterton, Rog. Cbaundler, Tbo. de 

Wintringbam, Ric. Bradcnbetb,[Nic. de Stowe]. 
Tbo. de Wells, Laur. Pittock, Hen. de Brunne, 

Will de Hinxton. 
Job. de Bamton, Bened. Pyttock, Job. Baron, WiD. 

[Ric] Martyn. 
Job. de Toft, Will, atte Cburcbstile (de Campesse),. 

Ric. de Arderne*, Nic Pa we*. 
Herv. Pilat, Job. de Baldoc, Job. de Bemay, Job. 

de Cumberton pelliparius*. 
Sim. de Refbam, Rog. le Cbandelur, Job. de 

Tbackstede, WiL le Glasenwrygbt.] 
Job. de Refbam, Job. de Bungey, Laur. de Talle- 

wortb. Job. de Bronne. 
Jacob. fiL Agnetis (Fisber), Eric [Brice] de Refbam 

(Balsbam), Job. le Porter, Sim. Scape wyche 

[Staupwik]. 
Edm. de Ovyngton, Job. Amald*, Job. Vavasour,. 

Rob. de Weton. 
Will, de Horwode*, Hugb le Faber [le Smytb] de 

Bcmewell*, Job. de Marbletborp, Rog. de 

Brandon. 
[Dan de Felstede, Job. Wytb, Job. de Marbiltborp^ 

WiU. de Horwood*.] 
Job. de Bemwell, Job. de Shadewortb, Job. le 

Tableter, Ric. de Weston. 
Job. de Brunne, Stc. Morrice*, Job. Redhede*^ 

Will de Brigham. 



Mayors and Bailiffs. 



139 



Ann. Mayors 

20 Ric. Tuylet* 

21 Phil. Cay ley* 

22 Rob. Brigham* 

23 Rob. Brigham* 

24 Will. Horwode* 

25 Will. Horwode* 

26 Will Horwode* 

27 Step. fiL Job. 

Morrice* 

28 Step. fil. Job. 

Morice* 

29 Step. fil. Job. 

Morice* 

30 [Rog. de Harlas- 

ton* 
30-1 Rog. de Harles- 
ton* 

32 Rog. de Harles- 

ton* 

33 Step. fil. Bart. 

Morrice* 

34 Step. fil. Bart. 

Morice* 

35 Step. fil. Job. 

Morrice*. [Step. 
Morice jun.] 

36 Step. fiL Job. 

Morice* 
36-7 Job. Morrice* 

38 Job. London 

39 Edm. Lyster 

40 Job. London 

41 Job. Morris* 

42 Ric. Fouke* 

43 Job. Morris 
45 Job. Gybbon* 



Bailiffs 
Herv. Pilat, Job. Baldok, Job. de Cumberton*, 

Job. de Berney. 
Will, de LoUewortb*, Hen. le Clerk [alias de Midil- 

ton], Ric. de Tbaksted, Galf. de Warwick*. 
Tbo. de Welles, Rob. Martyn, Hen. de Becbe*, 

Dan. de Felsted. 
Tbo. Morrice sen.*, Stepb. Morrice jun.*. Job. 

Purrey. 
[Rog. de Brampton, Job. de Marbyltborp, Hug. le 

Smytb.] 
Job. de Paunfeld, Tbos. de Marbletborp*, Ric. 

Powell, WilL de Lindeseye (Condesie). 
Ric. fil Job. Morrice*, Job. Segeuill [Segevil], Job. 

de Poklinton, Edm. Lyster. 
Job. de Essex, Tbo. Pope (Piper), Job. de Wyne- 

ston. Will. Wynde. 
Rog. de Refbam, Tbo. Morrice*, Job. Tyler, And. 

de Todenbam [Cotenbam]. 



Job. de Baldok, Job. Wytb, Rog. de Refbam, 

Job. de Bemeye.] 
Job. de Roiston, Will, le Glaswrigbt, Tbo. Bole, 

Job. le Burn (Tumour). 
Job. Gybbon*, Job. Abuseman (?). 



Job. Berle, Job. Baldwyne, Job. Hylburgwortb. 



Ric. Fyncbinfeld, Will. Burton, Will. Hosteler, 
Pet. Lewicb (?). 



Job. Titesbale, Will. Clopton, Tbo. Marbletborp*, 
Rob. Barber*. 

Ric. de Ardeme*, Job. Barker. 



140 Representative Burgesses. 



Ann. Mayors 


Bailiffs 


46 Joh. Gybon* 


Lyster, Tho. LoUcworth, WUl. Noled, Will. 




Ostler. 


47 WiU. Horewode* 




48 Joh. Blankpayn 




49 Joh. Morrice* 




50 Joh. Gybbon* 




50 Joh. Cotton* 





§ 59. Representatives of the Borough in Parliament^. 

Joh. de Cantebrege, Bened. Godsone. 

Joh. fil. Paulini, Tho. de Maddingle. 

Tho. de Maddyngle, Rog. Maniaunt 

Mich. Pylet, Tho. de Maddingle. 

Mich. Pylet, Tho. de Maddingle. 

Sim. de Refham, Will, de Combertone. 

Joh. de Shelforde, PhiL Pawe. 

Joh. Morice, Joh. Cullyng. 

Mich. Pylet, Joh. Culling. 

Rog. de Costeseye, Mat le Orfevrc. 

Mat. le Orfevre, Rog. de Costeseye. 

Rog. de Costeseye, Mat le Orfevre. 

Rob. Tuillet* Rog. de Costeseye. 

Will, de Lolleworthe, WilL Tuyllet*. 

Joh. de Coulinge, Edm. de Cantebrige. 

Rob. Dunnynge*, Ric de Kimberle. 

Tho. de Cotenham*, Galf. de Lenne. 

Tho. de Cotenham*, Galf. de Lenne. 

Joh. Pyttoke*, Galf. de Lenne. 

Will, de Lolleworthe*, Joh. Pytoke*. 

Joh. de Denford, Joh. Pilat*. 

Joh. Moriz* Hen. de Toft*. 

Eudo de Helpryngham, WilL de Lolleworthe*. 

Galf. de Leen, Tho. de Cotenham*. 

Joh. Moriz*, Joh. de Neutone. 

Steph. de Cantebrige, Joh. le Clerk. 

Joh. de Neutone, Tho. Andreu. 

Joh. Pilat*, Galf. de Lenne. 

Joh. Pylat* Galf. de Lenne. 

Joh. de Neutone, Will, de Saham. 

Edm. de Cantebrigge, Joh. de Lyngwode. 

PhiL de Cayly* Will, de Saham. 

* From the blue book. 



23 


Edw. L 


1295 


26 


. » 


1298 


29 


» 


I 301 


30 


M 


1302 


33 


» 


1305 


34 


>l 


1306 


35 


» 


1307 


I 


Edw. IL 


1307 


5 


» 


I3II 


6 


i> 


I3I2 


6 


» 


I3I3 


7 


>» 


1313 


8 


» 


I3I5 


12 


}} 


I3I8 


12 


j> 


I3I9 


14 


» 


1320 


15 


)> 


I32I 


15 


» 


1322 


16 


» 


1322 


17 


i> 


1324 


19 


» 


1325 


20 


>» 


1327 


I 


Edw. IIL 


1327 


2 


»> 


1328 


2 


9) 


1328 


2-3 


>» 


1328-9 


4 


f) 


1330 


4 


}} 


1330 


6 


»> 


1332 


6 


» 


1332 


6 


»» 


1332 


8 


>» 


1334 



Landowners as Tax-payers. 141 

Galf. de Len, Will, de Saham. 

Joh. Morice*, Will, de Saham. 

Joh. Morice* Joh. Which'. 

Galf. de Lenne, Joh. Pytcok* [corr. PyUok'\ 

Joh. Morice*, Joh. Pitcock*. 

Joh. Morice*, Joh. Pitcoke*. 

Joh. Pytcoke* Will, de LoUeworthe*. 

Rob. de Bregham*, Joh. Pitcoke*. 

>» W l> » 

Phil. Cailly*, Edm. de Ovyngtone. 

» »> » » 

Joh. Pitcoke* Edm. Rokeland. 
Tho. de Cotenham* Will, de LoUeworthe*. 
Joh. de Hiltone, Nic. de Felmersham. 
Hen. de Middeltone, Will, de Horewode*. 
Joh. de Baldoke, Hen. de Middeltone. 
Step. fil. Bart. Morice*, Joh. de Baldoke. 
Joh. de Essex, Joh. Londone. 
Joh. de Essex, Joh. (1) Morice. 
Joh. de Londone, Will. Horwode*. 
Joh. de, Londone, And. Cotenham*. 
Joh. Londone, Will. Horwode*. 
Joh. Morice*, Edm. Lystere. 
Joh. Moryce*, Edm. Lytestere. 
Joh. Morys*, Joh. Blaunkpayn. 
Joh. Morice*, Joh. Blankpayn. 
Edm. Listere, Joh. Blaunpayn. 
Joh. Gyboun*, Joh. Cantebrigge. 
Joh. Morice*, Joh. de Cottone*. 
Edm. Redemede, Joh. Moris sen. 
Joh. Cottone*. 

§ 60. We can apply another test. In 1340 Parliament 
granted the king a ninth of movables in cities and boroughs. 
About 432 people were taxed in Cambridge^ The poorest class 
consisted of those who were to pay six-pence apiece, and whose 
goods therefore (for this is the true order of medieval logic) were 
appraised at 4J. 6d, The Prior of Barnwell was to pay 30J., the 
Scholars of Merton icxf., the Prioress of 3t Radegund 13^. 4^., 
and so forth. Now we will make a list of the men whose goods 
are valued at 40J. and upwards. 

Thomas of Welles 54.^., John Redhed 45.^., Geof. Seman 40^., 
Ric. TuUiet 6ay., Alan Refham 72^., Hugh Pyttok 58J. 6^., John 

^ Nonamm Inquisitiones (Rec. Com.), 116 fT. ; see also Cooper, Annals, i. 93. 



9^ 


Edw. III. 


1335 


ID 


» 


1336 


10 


» 


1336 


II 


>« 


1337 


II 


» 


1337 


12 


» 


1338 


12 


)> 


1338 


12-3 


» 


1339 


13 


>> 


1339 


13 


» 


1340 


14 


)) 


1340 


15 


» 


I34I 


20 


» 


1346 


22 


» 


1348 


28 


»» 


1354 


29 


» 


1355 


32 


» 


1358 


34 


» 


1360 


34 


»» 


I36I 


37 


» 


1363 


38 


*> 


1365 


40 




1366 


43 




1369 


46 


» 


1372 


47 


>» 


1373 


50 


n 


1376 


51 


» 


1377 


2 


Ric. II. 


1378 


2 


9> 


1379 


3 


)9 


1380 


4 


» 


1380 



142 The Hundred Rolls. 

Shadworth 49J. 6d.^ John le Meresch 45^., Alicia Helpryngham 
60s,, John Pyttok 45^., Will. Lolleworth 45^., Bened. Pyttok 45^., 
Rob. Bury i8cxf., Laur. Talworth 5 8 J. 6rf., Tho. Cotenham 40^., 
Ste. Paunfield 54.^., Joh. Shatfield 72s,, Reg. Trumpeton 45^., 
Rob. Goldesmyth 45^., Bricius de Refham 60s,, Ric. le Tabletter 
I Bar., Joh. de Tablettor 45 j., Joh. Vavasour 72^., Rob. Brigham 
60$-., Edm. Ovyton 200s,, Sim. Refham 45^., Joh. Andreu 6os,» 
Bar. Peryn 45^., Joh. Neuton su., Will. Thacsted 60s., Joh. 
Barynton 45 j., Rob. Comberton 162s., Th. Wyttringham 45.^., 
Rob. Cotenham 54.^., Hen. Bech 45^., Ad. Dungeye 45^., Hen. 
Brune 545., Geof. Wardeboys 45^., Tho. Morice 40$"., Will. Stowe 
54-r., Ric. Shitlyngton 60$". 

Out of these 41 names I believe that 18 appear in our field- 
books as those of the past or present holders of land. Roger of 
Harleston has not yet come on the scene. One of the persons 
whose estates he acquires, Richard the Tableter, is almost the 
richest man of the town. His name may show that agriculture 
is not the origin of his wealth, but we may remark by the way 
that among the leading burgesses of Cambridge in the fourteenth 
century surnames which imply trade or craft are rare when 
compared with surnames derived from neighbouring villages, 
such as Barton, Coton or Cotton, Cottenham and Comberton. 

How did the burgess of the fourteenth century who owned a 
couple of acres cultivate them or get them cultivated ? I think 
that any talk of market-gardening or spade-husbandry must be 
put out of the question by the 'commonableness' of the field. 
Perhaps he paid one of the few men who had beasts and ploughs 
to do the ploughing for him ; or perhaps one farmer would take 
leases from many different people. 

§ 61. We must pass to a remoter time. A marvellously full 
account of Cambridge is given on the Hundred Roll of 1279^ 
No other borough in England can show such a record. I have 
endeavoured to tabulate some small part of the information that 
it offers. First we will look at the urban nucleus. In the 
following table I give for each parish the names of the owners 
of houses etc., or, to speak more nicely, of the freeholders who 
hold houses in demesne. A number preceding a man's name 
means that he has that number of houses. A bracketed 

* Rot. Hund. ii. 356. 



The Houses in \2r]<^. 143 

number following a name indicates the number of pence that 
a house pays by way of haw-gaveP. 

§ 62. St Giles. 

Houses: Leonius Dunning. Hospital. Walt, de Berdefeld. Walt. fil. 
Reg. le Bercher. Marg. fil. Rad. Norman. Will Norman (J). Sim. fiL 
Hen. de Berton (}). Will Botte (2). Amicia Dunnyng (3). 2 Amicia 
Dunnyng. Amicia Dunnyng (i). Geof. Andre (i). Geofl Andre (^). Geof. 
Andre (i). Geof. Andre (i). Geof. Andre (i). 2 Geof. Andre. Rob. 
Wimund. Marg. fil. Rob. Wimund. Matild fil. Rob. Wimund. 2 Norman 
le Cupere. Sarra fiL Norm, le Cupere. Job. le Mire. Rob. Lauman. Will. 
fiL Walt Norman. Amice fil. Alb. le Sunr. Ad. Scot Morice le Tailur. 
WilL fiL Jordan. Isab. fil. Tho. de Froyslake (i). Rog. fiL Ric. Ampe. 
Rog. fil. Ric. Ampe, Rob. fiL Rob. Seman (i). Laur. Seman (ij). 

Vacant places : Will. Norman. 2 Geof. Andre. Mich. Wulward. 

Bams etc,: J oh. Porthors. 

St Peter by the Castle. 

Houses: 2 WilL le Plowritte. Alan del Hawes. Alan del Hawes (i). 
Alan del Hawes (i). 2 Rob. Wimund. Agn. fiL PhiL le Tailur. Morice 
le Tailur. 2 Joh. Warin. Mich. Wulward. J oh. Dunning. Rog. de 
Wetherfeld (2). Geof. de Spertegrave. Rob. fiL Rob. Seman. Laur 
Seman. Tho. Godeman (2^). 

Shops etc,: Alice ux. WilL le Barbur (i). 

All Saints by the Castle. 

Houses: Nich. Andre (3^). Hen. Blangemun. Hen. Blangemun (i). 
Geof. de Spertegrave. Hen. Faber. WilL de Standon. Marg Warin. 
Eva fiL Christ de Huntedon. Joh. Porthors. 2 Sabina Huberd'. Sabina 
Huberd (i)*. WiL de Pikering. Ric. Laurence. Heiresses of WilL Braci. 
Heiresses of WilL Braci (i). Joh. fiL WilL Braci. 

Vacant places: Hen. Blangemun. Morice le Tailur. WilL fil. Walt 
Norman (2). Rog. fil. Ric. Hampe. 

Shops etc: 4 Marg. Warin (i). Sabina Huberd* (i). 

Bams etc,: Ste. Pistor. Sabina Huberd. Hen. Toylet 

St Clement. 

Houses: Hen. le Coteler (i). Tho. le MarsscaL Joh. Porthors. Rob. 
de Lunden. 2 Joh. But. Helewisa Plumbe (i). Ric de Parham. 
Marg. de S. Albano. Cecilia fiL Agn. Plumbe. Ric. Aldzod (i^). Ste. 
Pistor. Ste. Toli (2). Rob. fil. WiL Toylet (i). Ric. fiL WilL Seman (li). 
Nic. fiL WilL Seman (ij). Nic. fiL WilL Seman. Sabina Huberd. Marg. 
de Aula. Tho. Godeman. 2 WilL de Hulmo. Geof. le Cuner. Will, de 
Pikering (2). 2 WilL de Pikering. Will. Seman (2). WilL Seman (2). 
Giles fiL Joh. de Berton (i). Hen. de Berton (i). Hen, de Berton. Joh. 
de Wautham. Marg. fil. Edm. de Stewincton (i). Alice de Pinchestre. 

^ In a few cases the gavel covers some land as well. 
' Perhaps in St Clement's. 



144 ^^^ Houses in 1279. 

Vacant places : Rog. fiL Ric. Hampe. 

Shops etc: Tho. le MarsscaL Rob. fil. Aunger. Ric. Prest. Nic. 
Morice (i). Nic. Morice (i) 

St Sepulchre. 

Houses: Prior of Bam well 2 Hospital (i^). Geof. Andre. 2 Bar. 
Cogging. Mariota de Bcrton. Hen. Toylet. 

All Saints by the Hospital. 

Houses: Will, de Rudham. Avicia fil. SinL Godeman. Alicia fil. Sim. 
Godeman. 2 Agn. de Huntedon {\\ Walt. Pylat. Joh. fil. Will Waubert. 
Lucia fil. Will. Toylet. Ric. Crocheman (li). Will, de Billigford. 

Vacant places : Ric. Wombe. 

Shops etcr. Will. Seman. Sim. Constabularius. Alicia fil. Sim. Godeman. 

Bams etc: Rob. fil. Will. Toylet. Will. Seman. Ric. de Hockele. 
Hen. Toylet. 

St Radegund. 

Houses: Nuns of St Radegund (3). Agn. de Huntedon. 

St Michael. 

Houses: Prior of Anglesey. Ad. fil. Will. Burges. Ric. de Hockele. 
Matild. fil. Yfanti. Ric. Wombe. Hen. Toylet. Will. Crocheman (4). 
Ad. de le Grene. Marg. fil. Fulc. de Bernewelle. Ric. le Ber. Mr Will, 
de Beston. Mr Ad. de Boudon. Rector of St Michael's (2). Sim. 
Constabularius. Will, de la Bruere (4). Mr And. de Giselham (2). 
Mr Rad. de WalepoL Sim. fil. Sim. Godman. Ric Crocheman. 

Vacant places: Ad. fil. Will. Burges. Ric. Bateman. Will. Crocheman. 
Prior of Anglesey. 

Shops etc: Ric. Bateman jun. (J^). 

Bams etc: Nic. Morice. Alice Soror Ernisii. Prior of Anglesey. 
Prior of Ely. 

St Mary. 

Houses: Luke fil. Sim. Roy. Cecilia vid. Pet. de Welles. Sim. fiL Joh. 
de Bradele. Ric. de Hockele. Rog. de Ridelingfeld. Joh. le Franceys. 
Nic. Aurifaber (i). Nic. Aurifaber (2). Reg. de Comberton (i). Reg. de 
Comberton. Reg. de Comberton (2). Joh. Balle. Alice Soror Ernisii 
Mercatoris. Joh. Yve. Tho. de Amigton. Ric. Bateman. 2 Marg. 
Abicon. Wakelin le Barbur. Walt le Hunte. 2 Galf. le Ferrur. 
Tho. le Coteler. Rob. le Witesmyth. Will, de Tingwiche. Joh. Matelasc. 
Tho. Mercator. Marg. fil. Joh. de Flocthort. 3 Will le Comber. 2 Ric. 
Bateman jun. 2 Walt, le Plomer. Will, le Lorimer (2). Rob. fil. Rob. de 
Maddingele (2). Rob. fiL Rob. de Maddingele (i). Rob. fil. Rob. de 
Maddingele. 2 Matild. fil. Yfanti. 2 Simon de Potton. Joh. de Robelond 
(li). WilL Crocheman (i). 

Vacant places: Osb. le Ferrur. Joh. le Franceys. Ric. Bateman. 
Walt, le Hunte. Walt le Plomer. Tho. Podipol (2). Matild. fiL Yfanti. 
Simon Prat 



The Houses in 1279. 145 

Shops etc.: Tho. de Impiton. Rad. Scutard. Nic. Aurifaber. 2 Ric. 
Bateman. Marg. Abicon (24?). 2 Will, de Norfolchio. Walt. Wragon. 
Walt le Hunte. Galf. le Fcrrur. Rob. le Witesmyth. Rob, de S» 
Botulpho. Tho. Mercator. 2 Will le Comber. 4 Ric Bateman. WilL le 
Lorimer. Simon de Potton. 2 Tho. Blome. Warin. de Teversham. WilL 
Castelein. Ric Wombe (8). 2 Gilb. Bernard. Nuns of SwafT&am (20^). 

St Edward. 

Houses: Luke fil. Sim. Roy (6), Ric Laurence. Osb. le Ferrur (i). 
Joh. de Branketre. 3 Isabella Morini. 2 Alaa de Sneylewelle. Joh. 
de Westwick (i). Joh. de Westwick. Marg. fil. Nic ultra Forum. Will. 
Paris. Derota fil. Nic ultra Forum. Rad. Scutard. WilL Ide. Joh. le 
Franceys (i). Rog. de Wilburham (2). Joh. le Barbur. Rob. Karun. 
Ric. Bateman jun. Matild. fiL Yfanti (i). Sim. Prat Gilb. Bernard. 
Gilb. Bernard (i). 2 Gilb. Bernard (i). 

Vacant places: Tho. Godeman. Gilb. Bernard. 

Shops etc,: Nic Morice (8). Rob. Wulward (8). Joh. de Branketre. 
Isabella MorinL Alan Scutard. 3 Tho. fiL Edm. Molendinarii. Tho. fil. 
Edm. Molepdinarii (8). Mich. fil. Julian. Pageley (2). Mich. fil. Julian. 
Pageley. Ric Bateman. 2 Galf. le Ferrur. Rob. de S. Botulpho. 

St John. 

Houses: 2 Prior of Ely. Prior of Hospitallers. Guy de Mortimer. 
Joh. Dunning. Laur. Seman. Joh. Porthors. WilL Seman. WilL 
Seman (i). WilL Seman (^). Will. Seman (i). 2 Mariota de Bertone 
(haw-gavel but unspecified). Mat ux. Ran. ad Portam (4). 2 Nic. 4c 
Draiton. 2 Sim. fiL Joh. de Bradele. Sim. fiL Joh. de Bradele (i). Joh. 
fiL Ric Gregor'. Sim. fiL Sim. ad Aquam. Ric. de Hockele (2). Ric. de 
Hockele. Ric. de Hockele (i). Rob. le Steresman (|). Sim. Scan (4). 
Sim. Scan (^). Rog. de Redelingfeld (haw-gavel with other lands). Rog. 
de Redelingfeld. Joh. de Berkinke. Nic. de Totington (i). Nic. de 
Totington. Abb. de Wardone (i^). Abb. de Teletye (i). Joh. Auwre (2). 
Thom. fiL EdnL Molendinarii. WilL le Comber. Matild. fiL Yfanti (2). 
Matild. fiL Yfanti. Alice fil. Sim. Godeman. 

Vacant places: Marg. fiL Rob. Wimimd. Ric de Hockele. Sim. fiL 
Ric de Hockele. Nic de Totington. 

St Benet. 

Houses: Rob. fiL Will. Longe. Reg. le Bercher. Tho. fiL Walt de 
Berdefield. WilL Seman (ij). Hen. de Berton (i). Hen. de Berton (i). 
Bar. Gogging. Ad. le Barbur. Sepehar le Gaunt'. Avice fiL WilL Braci 
(I). Joh. fil. Ranulph. Marg. fiL WilL Sot (2). Nic Morice (2). Nic 
Morice (2). Nic. Morice (i). Nic Morice (i). 2 Cecilia vid. Pet de 
Welles. Joh. fil. Herv. Gogging. 2 WilL de Rudham. Rad. de Comberton 
(i). Rad. de Comberton. Geva ux. Tho. Swin. Rob. Wulward. WilL 
Erchebaud. Will. fiL Ben. de Harleton (i). Ric le Herde. 2 Osb. le 
Ferrur. WilL Cocus (i). Joh. de Wysbeche (i^). Walt de Hynton. 

M. 10 



146 The Houses in 1279. 

2 Joh. de Branketre. Will Ic Bleckestere (i). Will le Comber. WiH le 
Kaleys. Tho. Carpentarius. Basilia de Touleslond (i). Joh. de Fincham 
(i). Ric. de Sneylewelle (i). Rad. Beupam. Ad. fiL Will Burgess. Alan 
de Sneylewelle. Marg. Abicon. Walt, le Hunte. Marg. fiL Fulc de 
Bemewelle. Gilb. Bernard. 

Vacant places: Luke fil. SinL Roy. Bar. Cogging (2). Cecilia vid. Pet 
de Welles (i). Osb. le Ferrur (i). Osb. le Ferrur. Hen. Capellanus. 

2 Joh. de Branketre. Gilb. Bernard. 

St Botulph. 

Nouses: Bar. Cogging (i). Bar. Cogging (i). Alan. Attepond (i^) 

3 Gerard de Wivar*. Gerard de Wivar' (2). Hen. fil. Tho. Hardi. Tho. 
Hogiton. Walt. fil. Hen. de Cestretone. Hen. de Bertone (|). Joh. de 
Wautham. i Ad. le Barbur (i^). Sepehar le Gaunt'. Mariota de Bertone 
(i). Amb. fil. Geof. Pistor. Walt. Bercharius. Walt fiL Hen, de Howes 
(i). Ste. Hunn* (2). Avice fiL WiL Braci (i). Joh. le Palfi-eyman (i). 
Joh. Martin. Will. fiL Alice de Shelford. Nic. de Braiton. Elena vid. 
Reg. Sherewind (i). WilL Sab'. Will. Molendinarius. 4 Saer de 
Ferrynges. Cecilia fiL Pet de Welles. Sim. fil. Sim. ad Aquam. Sim. 
fil. Sim. ad Aquam (i^). Alice fil. WilL Lucke. Joh. Auwre (4). WilL le 
Blunt (2). Ric. Wombe (ij). 

Vacant places: Bar. Cogging (2). Will. Seman (i). Joh. de Westwick. 
Shops etc: 2 Gerard de Wivar*. 

St Peter without the Gate. 

Houses: 2 Prior of Anglesey. Hen. de Ho. WilL de Sauston, Joh. 
Perin (i^). Joh. de Eilsham (i). 8 Joh. de Eilsham. Luc de St Edmund 
(gavel with other lands). Alan Baselei. Herv. Pippe. Alan Attepond. 
Sepehar le Gaunt'. Pet fil. Tho. Swyn (2). Pet fil. Tho. Swyn. Tho. fiL 
Edm. MolendinariL Sabina fil. Joh. Paternoster. 

Houses at Newnham: WilL le Tanur. Alan Bainard. 2 Amb. fil. Joh. 
Goderich. Rob. fil. And. Frede. Alan Attepond. Saer de Ferrynges. 
Joh. de Branketre. 3 Joh. Martin. 

Vacant places: 2 Hen. de Ho. Hen. de Ho (^). 

Shops: 3 Amb. fiL Joh. Goderich. Alice fil. WilL le Barbur. 

Vacant places at Newnham: Ger. de Wivar*. Saer de Ferrynges. 

St Andrew. 

Houses: 4 Nuns of St Radegund. Nuns of St Radegund (i). Tho. 
Godeman. Walt Bercharius. Alan Scutard. Joh. le Franceys. Reg. de 
Comberton (i). Joh. Balle. 

Vacant places : Tho. Godeman. 

Trinity. 

Houses: Marg. Warin. Alice fiL Hug. de Berton. Alice fiL Abr. le 
Chapeler. Ric Laurence (i). Ric. Laurence. Rob. fiL WilL Toylet 
Mariota de Berton (i^). Sim. fiL Pet le Corder (2). Joh. le Franceys (i). 
Hug. de Brunne. 



Rents in 1279. 147 



Barnwell. 

Houses: 3 Prior of Barnwell. 2 Ric Pet. Galf. Paie. Hen, Mercator. 
Osb. Carectarius. 4 Hugo Mainer. Hugo Mainer (2). Isab. fil. WilL 
Paie. Ric. Hastings. Hug. le Noreis. 3 Ric. Jado. Isab. vid. WilL Paie. 
2 Rog. de Huntingfeld. Tho. Oliver. Rad. de WinepoL Sarra fiL Tho. le 
Mazun. Lecia vid. Pet Stote. 2 Oliver Prat WilL Theversham. Matild. 
Jun. Rob. le Neve (4). Isondia Salandin. Matild. Tele. Pet Ling. 
WilL de Celer. Joh. fil. Job. CruL 2 Job. CruL Adam Cementarius. 
Job. de Firmar. 2 Ad. Oliver. 2 Ric. Lincke. 3^ Hug. fiL Galf. Fabri. 
2 Beatrix vid. Galf. Fabri. Joh. Stokin. Walt de Bomell. Job. TaiL 
2 Hen. Cardun. Agnes de Firmar\ Eudo Cocus. Laurencius DixL 
i Nic de Firmar. 2 Galf. fil. Tho. Dalt'. 2 Hug. de Bninne. Tho. 
Stebing. 2 Dionisia vid. WilL de Huntedon. Mich. fiL Dionis. de Hunte- 
don. 2 Joh. RusseL WilL Brodeie. Nic. Albus. WilL Paie. Isab. fiL 
Joh. de Eia. Galf. fiL Galf. de Bumwell. 2 Jochim Salandin. Walt. 
Mercator. Aldus Waveloc. 2 Rob. de Theversham. Mich. Carectarius. 
Rob. le Fulere. Galf. Salandin. Hug. de Nedham. Rad. de Theversham. 
Joh. Net 2 Alan le Stabler. Marg. Sped. Joh. le Man. Gilb. Bernard. 

2 Oliver le Porter. Galf de BumwelL WilL Jado. Eudo fiL Winfr*. 

Vacant places: Joh. Crul. Rob. de Theversham. 

Parish Unspecified. 

Houses: 12 Prior of BamwelL Galf. de Donewitch. Scholars of Merton. 

3 University. Hen. Blangemun (i). Tho. de Impiton. Matild. fiL Tho. 
de Froysselake. Isab. fil. Tho. de Froyslake. 2 Mich. Wulward. Gait 
Spertegrave. Ric. Laurence. Ric. Laurence (i^). Rob. fil. Aunger. Sim. 
de Potton. 6 Hen. de Waddon. Hug. de Brunne. 

Vacant places: Hen. de Waddon. 
Shops: 3 Rob. fil. Aunger. Hen. de Waddon. 
Shops in market: Hospital. Prior of Anglesey. Bar. Gogging. 
Houses at Howes: Ric. fil. Sim. Brenhande. Joh. fil. Walter. Rob. Rie. 
Joh. Attegrene. Walt de Howes. 

§ 63. In many cases a man holds several houses ' in 
demesne*: that is to say, he has no freeholder below him. 
Barnwell excluded, there seem to be nearly two houses for 
every house-owner. I infer thence that many houses were let 
for years or at will. Of tenants for years the record would 
take no notice. Houses which pay the haw-gavel to the bailiffs 
are found in all parts of the town. But, leaving this out of 
account, the freeholder often pays a rent, or several rents, for 
his house. These rents vary from the nominal rose to sums 
that look like full rents. I make the average 45. in one parish^ 
5^. in another ; but a rent of 20s. is not unknown. It is not 

10 — 2 



148 The Barnwell Suburb. 

easy, however, to distinguish in all cases the tenurial rent (' rent- 
service'), whence we might argue to the provenience of the 
tenement, from the * rent-charge ' constituted in favour of a 
religious house or of a money-lender. However, it is fairly 
clear that a considerable number of houses or sites have come 
to the present ' tenants in demesne ' from the members of a few 
rich families, in particular the Dunnings and Blancgemons, and 
the St Edmunds family. The Blancgernons were well estated in 
transpontine Cambridge and in St Clement's parish ; Leonius 
Dunning appears as a rent-receiver in many parts of the town. 
There has been a great deal of buying and selling, and the 
net-work of rents is exceedingly complex. 

§ 64. In Barnwell matters are simpler than elsewhere. This 
suburb looks as if it had been recently formed on the lands of a 
few persons. Almost every house pays rent to the Priory, or to 
Luke of St Edmunds, or to William de Nonancurt (or Nova- 
curt*), or to Philip de Colville a knight of the shire, or to 
Leonius Dunning who seems to have but lately acquired his 
interest in this quarter from a certain 'lord of Ressedene.* 
The rents, though often less than a shilling, are probably 
substantial rents for small tenements, and do not look like 
mere recognitions. 

§65. That there should be about a hundred houses 'in 
Bamweir is remarkable. In a statement made early in the 
seventeenth century of *the names of every householder and 
the number of his family in Barnwell,' the total population is 
set down at 264. In 1749 we hear of but 48 houses in the 
parish of St Andrew the Less, and of but 79 in 1801. It is 
possible that the 'Barnwell' of 1279 came closer to the town 
ditch than St Andrew's parish came at a later day, but much 
relief can not be found in this supposition. May we not see 
the Barnwell of Edward I.'s time as what we should call an 
agricultural village, which is detached from the main town, and 
has grown up to meet the Priory's demand for labour on the 
large quantity of arable that it has acquired } In the last of the 
middle ages there would be nothing strange in the depopulation 
of such a village or the * decay ' of its houses, and it was too far 
from the centre of urban life to become urban. However, so 

^ The Novacuri of the printed book seems to be a mistake for Nonacurt, 



The Fields in 1279. 149 

far as I am aware, Barnwell, though sometimes spoken of as 
vUla or town, has always been legally a part of * the town ' of 
Cambridge, and in the thirteenth century it is a * ward ' of the 
borough. 

§ 66. We may now examine the fields as they were in 1279. 
In the first column of the following table I place the names of 
the owners ('tenants in demesne'); in the second I try to 
indicate very briefly what may be learnt about the past history 
of the tenements, mentioning, when this is possible, the name of 
the family from which the land has proceeded or which has had 
some seignory over it*. 

The Fields in 1279. 

A. R. 



Bishop of Ely A water mill and a meadow 






Prior of Barnwell Site of Priory 


13 





Three ploughlands (gavel 57 s) apparently 






comprising the following items : 






Gift of Earl David, near gate of the 






Priory 


2 





Gift of Countess Maud 


2 





Gift of Dunning, in cispontine fields 


50 





Gift of Asketel« 


50 





Gift of B. Blangernun (Ely fee) 


20 





Gift of B. Blangernun 


72 





Purchase of Reg. Cyne, in Bradmere ... 


27 





Gift of W. Waubert, in Portfield 


4 





Gift of St Haukston 


7 





Gift of Johel father of late prior 


6 





Gift of T. Toylet (Blangernun fee) 


24 





Gift of T. Toylet (le Rus) 


28 





Gift of T. Toylet (Melt) 


7 


H 


Gift of T. Toylet (Pistor) ..^ 




2 


Gift of T. Toylet (Parieben) 


3 


2 


Gift of T. Toylet (Parieben) 


2 





Gift of T. Toylet 


I 


3 


Exchange with Mr Nigel 


6 





Gift of Roysia fil. Reg. de Marisco ... 


2 





Gift of Isabella of Needingworth 


I 





Gift of Eustace of Nedham 




2 


Gift of Acius Frere (Blangernun fee) ... 


6 






^ A few crofts of unmeasured extent are omitted. I have included the suburban 
sites of the religious houses. 

^ R. H. ii. 356: 'ex donadone Alketille.' To mistake j for /is easy. 



ISO 



The Fields in 1279. 



A. R. 



Gift of Joh. le Kaleys and Basilia his wife 

in fields of Cambridge 

Purchase from Tho. Plote 

Purchase from Alex, de Grange 

Gift of Bart Gogging 

Gift of Nicholaa of Hemingford, before 

Barnwell gate 

Gift of Geof. of Barnwell in fields of 

Barnwell 

Exchange with Geof. Faber 

Gift of Hen. Melt (gavel 3<>.) 

Gift of Galf. Melt (gavel i*) 

Total for Barnwell 391 A. 3^ R. 

St Radegund Gift of king Malcolm, site near Greencroft 

Gift of Nigel bp. of Ely, near preceding 
Gift of Eustace bp. Ely, near Greencroft 

Gift of Regin. de Argentan 

Gift of Ric fiL Laur. of Littlebury (old 

descent) 

Gift of Phil. fiL Ad. of Girton 

Gift of Hervey fil. Eustace (Dunning)... 
Gift of Hug. fil. Aspelon (old descent) 
Gift of Phil, of Hoketon (old descent) 

Gift of Marg. Fixien 

Gift of Margaret widow of Ralph Parson 
Gift of Jordan fiL Rad. de Brecete (old 

descent) 

Gift of Step. fiL Alveva 

Gift of Maud ux. Sim. Bagge 

Gift of Joh. fil. William (old descent) 

Gift of War. Grim 

Gift of Joh. Grim 

Total for St Radegund 77 A. oR. 

The Hospital Apparently in all two ploughlands, of 

which the particulars follow: 

Gift of Rob. Mortimer ; King John ; gavel 
20*; one ploughland (say) 

Gift of Anton chaplain of Stocton (Blan- 
gemun) 

Gift of Baldwin Blangemun 

Gift of said Baldwin, in Bin Brook ... 

Gift of Galf. Prat of Ely (Blangemun) 

Gift of Galf. Prat, below Barnwell 

Gift of Nic. of Hemingford 



40 



3 o 



o 

2 
o 

I 



4 

5 

2 

2 

3 

IS 

6 

I 

2 

10 

4 
5 

I 
I 

2 



o 
o 
o 

2 

2 
I 
O 
O 

o 

2 

o 

o 

3 
o 

2 



120 O 



The Fields in 1279. 



151 



Sturbridge Hospital 
Prior of Anglesey 

Scholars of Merton 



Prior of Huntingdon 

Dominicans 
Franciscans 
Friars of the Sack 

Carmelites 
Friars of B. Mary 
Sabina Huberd 

Ralph of Quy 
Leonius Dunning 



Will de Novacurt 

Geo£ Andre 
Hen. Blangemun 



Alan de Hawes 
Rob. Wymund 



Joh. Attegrene 



Gift of Maur. Ruflfus, in said fields ... 
Gift of Hervey fiL Eustace (Dunning) 

Gift of Will. Toylet 

Gift of Mich. Clerk of Huntingdon 
Gift of Eustace fil. Hervey (Dunning) 
Gift of Pet fiL Richard, in Newnham 
Gift of Gilb. Pistor, in Newnham Crofts 
Total for Hospital 179 A. 2R. 

Divers gifts 

Gift of Rob. fiL Rob. Huberd; gavel ii<>; 

in Barnwell Fields 

Purchase, ultimately from Dunnings ; 

gavel 3«. 10* 

Purchase, ultimately from Dunnings ; 

Leicester fee* 

Gift of Ralph of TrubdviUe and Agnes 

his wife 

Site of house; divers gifts; about 
Site of house; divers gifts; about 
Site of house; Ric. of Icklingham and 

others; about 

Site of house at Newnham ; Mic. MaJherbe 
Site of house; H. de Berton; gavel 4*. 
Emma de la Leye ; ancestors of Reg. de 

Grey 

Felicia of Quy; held of Trubelvilles ... 
Half a knight's fee, held of the Mortimers, 

who hold of the Bruces. But perhaps 

all of this that lies in Cambridge will 

be accounted for below 
Old descent; Chokesfield fee; gavel 13". 

'i' 

Bought from Dunnings 

Barnwell Priory 

Barnwell Priory; gavel i* 

Longys; gavel \^ 

Karloc; gavel ]^ 

Bought from Dunnings 

Tuylet; Dunning 

St Edmunds fiamily 

St Edmunds family 

Dunning 

Felicia of Quy; Trubelvilles 

Clai 



A. 


R. 


15 





I 





14 





8 





2 


2 


3 







2 


24 


2 


8 





45 





15 





60 





8 





6 





3 





3 





16 





38 






60 

2 
I 

2 



* Apparently the same 15 acres are recorded twice, on pp. 360, 391. 



152 



The Fields in 1279. 







A. 


R. 




Rumbold; Clai 


,, 


2 




Lungis; Barnwell Priory 




3 


Norman le Gupere 


Clayere; Lungis 


,, 


2 


John Dunning 


Eustace Dunning 


., 


2 




le Gire 


,, 


2 


Geof. Spartegrave 


Fithion; Radegund; Dunning ... 


12 





Hen. Faber 


Lungis; Barnwell Priory 


2 





Will, de Standon 


Dunning 


I 


2 


Rob. fil. Rob. Seman 


Old descent 


II 





Laur. Seman 


Spartegrave; Bernard; Kiriel ... 


I 





Will, de Howes 


Houton 


2 


2 


Ric. Laurence 


Barnwell Priory 


I 


2 




Exchange with St Radegund 


2 


2 




Stowe 


I 





Ric. fil. Ric. Laurence 


St Edmunds family 




2 




Dunnings 


.. 


2 


Joh. Porthors 


Bought from Dunnings 


18 





Rob. fil. Aunger le Rus 


Descent; Blangemuns 


42 


2 




Descent ; Will, de Dagenhale ; gavel 1 1 


<» 22 







Barnwell Priory 


4 







Childman 


2 





Joh. But 


Matilda Corde 


2 





Ste. Pistor 


Agn. Piscatrix 


.. 


2 


Rob. fiL Will. Toylet 


Hen. Toylet ; gavel i J^ 


I 





Sabina Huberd 


Anglesey Priory 


9 







Bought from Dunnings 


9 





Tho. Godeman 


Mich. Pilet ; St Edmunds family 


4 







Mich. Pilet 


.. 


2 




Hen. le Lindraper; gavel ]^ 


.. 


2 




Porthors; Dunnings 


4 





f 


Porthors; Barnwell Priory 


6 





WiU. Seman 


St Edmunds 


2 


I 




Walt. Em; 


Joh. Frost 


3 


2 




Wilt. Em 


Childman 


3 







Walt. Em 


Ace; in Barnwell Fields 


,, 


2 




Walt. Em 


, Clay 


»«• 


2 




Walt. Em 


; Longis ; gavel J** ... 


2 







Walt. Em 


, Porthors 


I 







Walt. Em 


, fil. Yvo 


.. 


3 




Walt. Em , 


Dunning 




2 




Walt. Em 


; Nado 


... 


I 




Walt Em 


Coles 


2 





Giles fil. Joh. deBerton 


WiU. fil. Yvo; Hynton 


I 







Fittere; gavel \^ 


7 


2 




Parleben ; gavel i^** 


I 


2 




Parleben 


... ... ... ..• 


I 


2 



The Fields in ittjc).- 



153 



Agn. de Berton 

Hen. de Berton 
J oh. de Eilesham 



Amb. fU. Joh. Godriche 
Rector of St Ed- ) 
munds Chapel I 



Luke of St Edmunds 
Bart. Cogging 



H. de ) 
tone I 



Gcr. de Vivariis 
Will. fil. 

Cestretone 
Mariota de Berton 
Pet fil. Ric. de Berton 
Cilesfil.Ric.de Berton 
Matil. fil.Ric de Berton 
Mariota de Berton 
Nic. Morice 



Sim. ad Aquam 

Cilb. Pistor; in Portfield and Littlemore 
Aspelon Crim; gavel i^; in Swinecroft 

Bought from Diinnings 

Various 

Malherbe; in field towards Barnwell ... 

Forreward 

Barnwell Priory 

Bought from Dunnings 

Ric. fiL Yvo 

Cilb. Aurifaber; Parleben 

Bought from Dunnings 

Joh. Frost 

Bought from Dunnings 

Selede; Barnwell Priory 

Wisman; Wombe ; Barnwell Priory ... 

W. fil. Yvo; gavel \^ 

St Edmunds family 

Brithnor; old descent 

Ceof. Doy 

Bought of Dunnings 

Pinecote; old descent 

Aure; old descent 

Rob. Aunger 

St Edmunds family; gavel \\^ 

Joh. le Rus 

Mortimer 

Descent; Pyrot; Argentan; gavel 25". io|'* 

Michel; Barnwell Priory 

Rob. Hubert; old descent 

Childman; St Edmunds family 
Parleben ... ... ... 

Porthors 

Amb. de Neuham ; Hospital 

Lungis; Barnwell Priory 

Bought from Dunnings 

Bought from Dunnings 

Bought from Dunnings 

Bought from Dunnings 

Nic. Morice; Laur. de Brock 

Bought from Dunnings 

Porthors; Dunning 

Bought from Dunnings 

Descent from Toylet 



A. 


R. 




li 




I 


I 







2 


I 





I 


2 


3 





7 


2 


3 





2 


3 


I 


2 


I 





7 





I 


2 


I 







3 




I 


I 





I 







2 


4 





2 







2 


I 





12 


3 


2 


3 


I 





70 





16 





3 





I 





I 





I 







2 


I 





12 





6 





6 





6 





I 


2 


18 





7 





6 





6 






154 



The Fields in 1279. 







A. 


R. 




Wombc; ancient descent 


2 







Blodles 


2 







Wil. fil. Yvo; Trubelville 


2 







Cogging 


I 







Wombe ... 


3 







Hynton 


4 







Parleben; Laur.de Broc 


2 







Kayli 


2 







Job. Potekin; old descent 


I 







St Edmunds family; Hynton 


2 





Job. Martyn 


Barnwell Priory 


5 







St Edmunds family; Pyrot 


I 







Le Hose 


I 







Toylet; Dunning 


3 







Bought from Dunnings; in Newnham 


I 







Toylet; in Newnham 


I 





Cecilia, widow of 
Pet. de Welles / 


Childman; Cogging; But 


4 







Welles 


20 







Welles; Wombc 


I 







Welles; Amb. de Neuham 


3 





Rob. Wulward 


Cogging; old descent 




2 




Attehyl 




2 


Sim. de Bradele 


Warin Ascin (or Astines) 


I 


2 




Astines 


2 





Ad. fil. Will. Burges 


St Edmunds family 


I 





Sim. fil. Sim. ad Aquair 


\ Bought from Dunnings 


2 


3 




Bought from Dunnings 


2 







H in ton; old descent 




2 




Ampe; gavel \\^ 


I 


2 




Childman 


2 







Astines 


2 


2 




Wisman 




2 


Ric de Hockele 


Bought from Dunnings 


I 







Bought from Dunnings 


I 


3 




Bought from Dunnings 




2 


Sim.fil.Ric.deHockele Porthors; Barnwell Priory 


4 


3 


Rob. and Sim. fiL 
Ric. de Hockele 


St Edmunds family 


2 





Ric. de Hockele 


Bought from Dunnings 


2 





Rob. le Steresman 


Bought from Dunnings 


2 





Sim. Scan 


Bought from Dunnings 


I 







Malherbe 


I 







Astines 


I 


2 




St Edmunds family 




I 


Rog. de Rcdelingfeld 


Astines: gavel 6^.6^ 


26 






The Fields in 1279. 



155 









A. 


R. 


Joh. dc Bcrkinke 


Bought from Dunnings ... 


... 


I 





Isab. Morini 


W. fiL Yvo ... 


... . 


2 


I 




Aleyns; gavel i^; fields of Barnwell . 


I 







Morin; gavel i* 




. 


2 


Joh. de Wcstwick 


Cogging ; fields of Barnwell 




I 





Rog. de Wilburham 


Morin ; gavel J* 




. 


2 


Reg. de Comberton 


Crul; fields of Barnwell ... 




,, 


3 




Saverei; old descent 




». I 







Barnwell Priory 




, 2 





Luc Carectarius 


Henges; Barnwell Priory 




. 3 





Alice sister of Emi- 
sius Mercator 


Bought from Dunnings ... 




4 


3 


Ric. Bateman sen. 


Sir Berenger le Moyne ... 




3 





Marg. Abicon 


Dunning; Barnwell fields 




3 







Descent 




, I 







Descent; gavel 2^ 




2 





Will le Comber 


Alsope; old descent; gavel i<* 




1. I 





Ric. Bateman jun. 


Rethe ; old descent 




, I 


2 




Blodles; old descent 




, I 


2 




Laurence 




, 


2 


Walt le Plomer 


Old descent ; Dunning ... 




, f 





Rob. fiL Rob. de 
Madingele 


Barnwell Priory; in Binbrook 




3 







Bought from Dunnings ... 




^ 







Malherbe ... 




, 3 







Descent; in Binbrook 




, I 







Waubert 




, 


3 




Nadon; in Newnham Crofts 




, 


I 




le Neve 




, 


I 


Marg. iiL Rob. de 
Madingele 


St Edmunds family 




2 





Matild. fiL Yfant 


le Host; in parish of St John 




2 







Alsope; Haliday 




I 


3 




Cogging 




I 





Sim. de Potton 


L. de St Edmund 




I 







L. de St Edmund 




, 


3 


Geof. le Ferur 


Kenewy 




I 


2 


Ric. Wombe 


Le Rus 




20 







Cememere ; gavel 5<* 




5 







Lota ; old descent ; gavel i<>; 3 selions (& 


ay) I 


2 




Seman ; old descent ; gavel \^ 






I 




Pateware 




I 







A. fiL Eustace 




I 


2 




le Child 




I 


2 




de la Fermere 




2 







A. fiL Eustace 




I 






156 



The Fields in 1279. 



Hen. Toylet 



Sim. fiL Sim. Godeman 



Avice fil. Sim. Gode- 
man 



Alice fil. Sim. Gode- ) 
man j 

Joh. de Fulton 
Joh.fil.WiU.Waubert 
Ric. Crocheman 
Ric Pet* 



Geof. Paie 



Hugh le Noreis 



Ric. Jado 
Isabella Paie 



de Marnis 

Melt 

Bought of Dunnings 

Howes 

Wyntebotesham 

Walt, de Neuham 

Godeman 

Gogging 

Waubert ; 6 selions (say) 

Pistor 

Childman ; gavel lo* 

Aure; St Edmunds 

Bought of Dunnings 

Dunnings ; in Swinecroft 

Burs; le Chapeler; Barnwell Fields 

Burs; Castelein 

Bought of Dunnings 

Aure; Haukeston; le Rus 

Porthors 

W. fil. Yvo 

Long^s 

Porthors 

W. fil. Yvo 

St Edmunds family 

Descent; in Newnham 

Wombe; Barnwell Priory 

Priory 

St Edmunds 

St Edmunds 

Dunning 

Priory 

Priory 

Deresle 

Doi ; old descent 

St Edmunds 

St Edmunds 

St Edmunds 

St Edmunds 

Novacurt 

Priory 

St Edmunds 

St Edmunds 

Novacurt; Earl of Huntingdon... 
Priory 



A. 


R. 


I 







2 


29 







2 


I 





I 


2 




3 


2 





3 







2 


7 


2 


7 





5 


2 


2 







2 




3 




li 


6 


3 


2 





I 


2 




2 


8 


2 


2 


2 


6 





I 





I 







2 


3 







2 


3 





I 


2 




I 




2 


I 





I 







2 


I 







I 




2 


I 


I 


I 


2 


I 





2 


2 




2 



^ The following lands are ' in Barnwell.' 



The Fields in 1279. 



157 





Priory 




Priory 


Tho. Oliver 


Dunning 


Oliver Prat 


St Edmunds 


Will Theversham 


Colville 


Isondia Salandin 


St Edmunds 


MatiL Tele 


Novacurt 




Priory 




St Edmunds 


WilL de Celario 


St Edmunds 




Novacurt 




Astines 




St Edmunds 


Joh. fil. Job. Crul 


St Edmunds 


Job. Crul 


St Edmunds 




St Edmunds 


Joh. de Firmar* 


Astines ; 




Dunning; Ressedene 


Ad. Oliver 


St Edmunds 


Ric Lincke 


Dunning; Ressedene 


Hug. fiL Galf. Fabri 


Priory 




St Edmunds; half a virgate 




Priory 




Colville 




Dunning 1 




St Edmunds 


Eudo Cocus 


St Edmunds 


Nic de Firmar' 


Priory 




Dunning 




St Edmunds 




St Edmunds 




St Edmunds 


Galf. fiL Tho. Dalt 


St Edmunds 




Priory 




Priory ... 




Novacurt 




Novacurt 




Novacurt 


Hug. de Brunne 


St Edmunds 




St Edmunds 




Colville 




Wombe 




John Doe 




Priory 



(say) 



A. R. 

2 
2 
I 
2 
2 
2 
2 

I I 
2 

I O 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 
2 

3 

2 

15 o 

I o 

I 

I 

2 
2 
2 
I 

3 

2 

I I 

I 
4 o 
I o 

2 
I o 

2 

2 

I O 

I o 

2 
2 
2 
2 



158 



The Fields in \2,*]C). 







A. R. 


Tho. Miet 


St Edmunds 


I o 


Dionisia widow of 
W. de Huntedon 


Novaoirt ... 


3 o 




Priory 


20 




Priory 


I 




le Rus 


I 2 




St Edmunds 


2 




St Edmunds 


32 


Joh. Russel 


Priory 


2 




Priory 


I 




Dunning - ... 


2 




Dunning 


3 




Astines 


I 2 


Rob. de Thcversham 


St Edmunds 


I 




le Wimur 


2 




St Edmunds 


2 




Melt 


2 




Dunning 


il 


Rob. le Fulere 


St Edmunds 


2 


Geof. Salandin 


Dunning; Roscedene 


3 




St Edmunds 


2 


Rad. de Theversham 


St Edmunds 


I 




St Edmunds 


2 




St Edmunds 


2 




St Edmunds 


2 


Joh. Net 


St Edmunds 


I 


Al. Stabler 


St Edmunds 


I 




Madingley ... 


I 


Marg. Sped 


St Edmunds 


I 2 




St Edmunds 


2 


Gilb. Bernard 


Novacurt 


3 




Cokerel; gavel \^ 


I 




Malherbe ; gavel i^ 


2 




Salandin 


2 




Dunning 


2 




Brodie 


4 




King ... 


I 




Dunning 


I 2 




St Edmunds 


2 




St Edmunds 


I 




Melkeston 


I 




Astines 


I 2 




Novacurt 


2 


Oliver le Porter 


St Edmunds 


I 




Colville 


2 


Galf. de Barnwell 


Colville; Priory 


4 




Tota 


J 1783 3j 



Assartation. 159 



§ 6j. The quantity of land thus accounted for falls short by- 
several hundred acres of the amount described in the terriers of 
the fourteenth century. The suggestion is ready that between 
the two dates there was ' assartation ' on a grand scale : in other 
words, that a large part of the green commons was ploughed 
and appropriated. This guess, however, would not be easily 
acceptable. In the first place, I think that, had there been a 
great extension of the appropriated land, the outcry that it 
would have occasioned would still be plainly audible. In 
Edward I.'s day and again in Richard II.'s the townsfolk were, 
as we shall see hereafter, protesting against an inclosure made 
by or for the Canons of Barnwell far back in the twelfth century. 
Secondly, the terriers in every portion of the area that they 
describe reveal an intermixture of strips so complex and dis- 
orderly that we can not easily believe it to be the work of 
modem times. It seems to me therefore that we must accuse 
the Hundred Rolls of omission. I doubt they have given 
enough to the religious houses. According to them, the Canons 
of Barnwell would have about 390 acres of arable. An almost 
contemporary estimate which comes from the Priory gives them 
780 acres in the Eastern Fields*, and the annalist of the house 
tells of certain handsome gifts (for example, 140 acres pro- 
ceeding from Osbert .the Doomsman) which are not mentioned 
on the rolls. 

§ 68. Thus the hope of quantitative analysis fades away, as 
is commonly the case in the middle ages, and we must be 
content with quality and tendencies. And first let us look at 
the men who in 1279 are holding strips in the fields as 'tenants 
in demesne.' There are about 21 tenants with more than 
10 acres. We will see who some of them are. 

John of Eilesham with 9 houses near Peterhouse and 11 acres was a 
bailiff of the town ; he seems to have made a rich marriage. 

Simon son of Simon Atwater {ad Aquam) with 3 houses and 1 1 acres 
was, or his father was, a bailiff of the town. 

Robert son of Robert of Madingley has 3 houses and 12 acres. He was 
a bailiff of the town ; Thomas of Madingley was one of its first represen- 
tatives in parliament. 

John Martyn has 4 houses and 12 acres. John Martyn was many times 
mayor. 

^ See above, p. 108. But the terriers show that this was an exaggeration. 



i6o Traffic in Acres. 

Simon Godeman and his sisters have 3 houses and 37 acres. Simon 
Godeman was bailiff. 

William Seman has 7 houses, a shop, a granary and 17 acres. He was 
bailiff. 

Bartholomew Gogging has 5 houses, a booth and 22 acres. He was 
mayor. 

John Porthors, the son of John of Barton, has 3 houses, rents from many 
others, 18 acres in the fields of Cambridge, and 34 acres in the fields of 
Chesterton. He was bailiff. 

Nicholas Morice has 4 houses, 3 shops, 58 acres. A little later there art! 
many land-holding, office-holding Morices in the borough. 

Henry Toylet has 3 houses, a grange, a g^nary, 44 acres. He serves as 
bailiff and is a member of a family which has made considerable gifts to the 
churches and will long hold land and offices ^ 

I have no wish to make the agricultural element in the 
Cambridge of Edward I.*s day too prominent. John But, who 
is often mayor, seems to have only two acres in the fields. But 
can we be sure that he is not the John But who has 20 acres at 
Swaflfham* ? 

§ 69. What may seem a dreary list of names and numbers 
has here been printed in order to illustrate a rapid traflSc in 
, parcels of land. The man who has in all but a dozen acres will 
hold them by half-a-dozen different titles. Each generation 
tries to accommodate itself to the clumsy environment provided 
for it by remote and barbarous ancestors. A man succeeds in 
getting a few adjacent strips ; but his little territory is soon 
broken up again among his children or dissipated by pious gifts. 
Descent to females is common, and girls often have acre-strips 
for their marriage portions. There is no lord who can insist 
that vii^tes are integers. 

§ 70. These freeholders pay rents; sometimes to each other, 
sometimes to those who live outside the borough. The rents, 
however, are light: a rose or a gillyflower, a penny or two pence 
per acre. The rack-rent of an acre, if we may judge from 
neighbouring villages, would not have been less than eighteen 
pence, two shillings or yet more, and in one case the Prior of 
Barnwell is getting two shillings for an acre in our fields'. To 
the rent-receivers we shall return hereafter. 

1 The name appears in a great variety of forms Toylet, Tuilet, Tuliet, Tulieth etc 
« R. H. ii. 494. 

' R. H. ii. 397. In the Barnwell Liber Memor. f. 87 b is a valuation of some land 
in Chesterton that belonged to Richard Laurence and Roger of Wethersfield who 



Foundation of the Hospital, i6i 

§ 71. The task that I have described* as that of scraping off 
the religious houses from the map should be accomplished. We 
may doubt whether in the year 1 100 any church was interested 
in the Cambridge Fields, except perhaps the church of Ely; and ' 
the abbots and bishops of Ely seem to have strangely neglected 
the growing importance of the county town. 

§ 72. That the Brethren of the Hospital, the Canons of 
Barnwell and the Nuns of St Radegund obtained the bulk of 
their Cambridge lands from the burgenses is I think fairly plain. 

Touching the foundation of St John's Hospital we have two 
accounts both given by juries in Edward I.*s day. That which 
stands upon the Hundred Roll is well known*. A certain 
burgess of Cambridge, Henry Frost by name, gave to the 
township of Cambridge a certain plot of land for the construc- 
tion of a hospital for the use of the poor and infirm ; and the 
presentation of a master used, and of right ought, to belong to 
the burgesses. The other verdict is a little older, it was given 
in an action between Eleanor the Queen Dowager and the 
Bishop of Ely. The jurors found that the site of the Hospital 
was once a very poor, waste place of the community of the 
town, and that Henry Eldcorn of the said town by the assent of 
the community built there a very poor cottage to lodge the poor, 
and afterwards obtained from Bishop Eustace, the diocesan 
(a.D. 1 197-12 1 5), an oratory and burying ground for the use of 
the poor, which oratory and burying ground were of («>. belonged 
to) the said community ; and the said Eustace conferred on the 
said place the church of Horningsea ; and by the consent of the 
said community the said bishop thenceforth continued patron of 
that place ; but, owing to the lapse of time, the jurors could not 
say whether this happened in the reign of Richard or in that of 
John'. 

§ 73. I believe that the disputes about this matter illustrate 
the difficulty men found in conceiving a large group as a legal 

have been convicted of felony. The arable acre is valued at u. d<f. per annum or 
30f . for sale ; the acre of meadow at is, per annum or 34J. for sale. I am afraid that 
Roger was a bailiff of Cambridge ; he was hanged. 

* See above p. 60. ' Rot. Hund. ii. 359. 

' Inquest taken at Rojrston on the morrow of St James the Apostle, 3 Edw. I. 
I take thb from a Report of a Committee of the Town Council of Cambridge on the 
Borough-Rate, 3 Oct 1850, the work, it is believed, of Mr C. H. Cooper. This 
valuable report gives no references, but Cooper's work is trustworthy. 

M. II 



1 62 Endowment of Religious Houses. 

unit capable of exercising such a right as ecclesiastical patronage. 
The 'community* builds a hospital on 'common' land; therefore 
the patronage of it belongs to the king, or (since Cambridge is a 
dower town) to the queen dowager; or, if it belongs to * the men 
of Cambridge/ this is so, because they farm the king's rights, 
and in so doing have struggled into corporateness. I should not 
be suiprised if both kings and bishops obtained a good deal of 
ecclesiastical patronage in this way, for it seems to me that in 
the lordless villages of eastern England the parish church must 
often have been a 'subscription church/ the outcome of some 
communal effort of the villagers*. But could ' they' be patrons ? 
They were too many. 

§ 74. With the exception of a carucate obtained from 
Robert Mortimer, who had it from King John — it may have 
been an escheat — I can not see that the Hospital has received 
any large gifts in the fields of Cambridge. Its benefactors bear 
the names of Dunning, Hemingford, Blancgemon, Tuliet . The 
advowson of St Peter beyond Trumpington Gate it has obtained 
from Henry son of Sigar. Then again, the recorded gifts that 
are made to the Nuns are not large ; one of the Dunnings has 
given 15 acres, Hugh son of Absalom 6, the Grims 3, Margaret 
widow of Ralph Parson ip, and so forth. And it is so with 
Barnwell. Great people, Picots, Peverels and Pecch^s may start 
the house; but the strips in the fields come from Dunnings, 
Blancgemons, Cayleys. 

§ 75. The annalist of the Priory, after saying that the Canons 
have some 780 acres in the Eastern Fields, proceeds thus': — 
'And of these lands a certain knight in the retinue of Pain 
Peverel, Albert Chivet by name, gave the land which William of 
Writele sometime held of the said Pain within the borough and 
without to the amount of 60 acres. And to increase the gift he 
gave the furlong (culturd) which lies before the gate of the 
Canons free and quit of secular service in perpetual alms.' Then 
he tells how Prior Hugh gave 140 acres in the fields of Cambridge 
which once belonged to his father, Osbert Domesman*. Next 
he speaks of a gift of 3 acres proceeding from Dame Nichole 
heiress of Sir William of Hemingford. Then of 2 acres given 

^ Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 144. ' Lib. Memor. f. 35 b. 

' Cf. Lib. Memor. f. ai b. 



The Burgensic Families. 163 

by the Countess Maud which he places close to St Giles's 
church. ' And many other lands the Prior and Canons hold in 
the fields of Cambridge and Barnwell, some by purchase, some 
by gift, the particulars whereof it would be long to relate/ 
That is all : the little gifts of great ladies are remembered, but 
the 780 acres were not obtained from the great Thomas Tuliet 
gave 60 acres ; his heirs unsuccessfully disputed the gift*. John 
le Caleys and Basilia his wife gave 40 acres ; a Blancgernon gave 
72. The man whose one name was Asketel gave 50 ; the man 
whose one name was Dunning 50. 

§ 76. As we go backward towards the twelfth century the 
gifts grow somewhat larger and the bundles of strips that are 
given begin to look like aliquot parts of hides. We seem to see 
the old hides and yardlands reconstituting themselves, and at 
the same time we are among the men who buy the first burghal 
charters from the king and desire to farm the borough. Who 
are they ; what like are they } A little may be learnt 

§ TT, In the fourteenth century we see the White Canons of 
Sempringham with numerous strips, which after the dissolution 
of the monasteries were bought by the corporation of the town. 
These Canons had a chapel in the town ; it was dedicated to 
St Edmund. They were brought to Cambridge by a family 
which took its name from that chapel*. In 1279 the head of the 
family was Luke of St Edmund, who was the son of Walter of 
St Edmund, who is also called Walter 'at St Edmund's church •.* 
Luke was a rich man ; he had 70 acres in demesne, and a 
great many tenements in Barnwell were held of him. His was 
one of the ' first families ' of the town. It was connected with 
the sons of Absalom (Aspelon) who were connected with the 
Blancgemons*. 

§ 78. When * the commons * rebelled in 1381, a mob attacked 
the house of Roger son of Richard Blankgren*. Our terriers 
tell of John Blangron a skinner. The name expands as we go 
backwards. The Blancgemons are rich and pious. There was 
a Baldwin Blancgernon with many strips to give and to sell. 



* Lib. Memor. fil 35, 4a b. 

* Rolls of Parliament, i. 65 b ; Cooper, Annals, i. 62. • R. H. il 397. 

* Jesus Charters, M. «. 3, L. 1 (Mr Gray's notes). 
^ Powell, Rising in East Anglia, 50. 

II — 2 



1 64 The Dunnings. 



The name is a nick-name. Baldwin or some ancestor of his had 
a white moustache*. 

§ 79. Greatest of all were the Dunnings. I write the name 
thus at Mr Stevenson's instigation', and mean that it should be 
pronounced as Dooning. Stranger things have happened than 
that the founder of Downing College should be of this race. In 
1279 it is divided into two branches. One is represented by 
Leonius or Leoninus son of Adam, who holds a great deal of 
land *in demesne and in service.' He is said to hold half a 
knight's fee of the Mortimers, who hold of the Bruces*. He 
kept a court at Newnham for his tenants. The other branch we 
can trace far back. A man who had no name but Dunning 
begat Eustace, who begat Hervey, who begat Eustace and 
Thomas. Eustace the younger begat Richard, and Thomas 
begat John who was living at Cambridge in 1279. But the 
greater part of the property of this branch had been sold by 
Eustace fitz Hervey fitz Eustace fitz Dunning : some, but by no 
means all of it, including ' the School of Pythagoras,' to Master 
Guy of Castle Barnard, whose heir, William de Mannefield, sold 
to Walter of Merton*. It appears from several deeds copied in 
the Cartulary of St John's Hospital that Hervey had a brother 
called Adam fitz Eustace, so apparently the two branches go 
back to Eustace the son of Dunning. 

As regards the sale to Merton, I leave that part of the story 
to be told by some member of the college in whose admirably 
arranged archives there are numerous deeds relating to this 
matter. But I will mention three documents at the Record 
Office, in order that they may not be forgotten*. 

By a fine levied on the 6th of October 1271 between Master 
Peter, Custodian of the House of Scholars of Merton, and 
Richard Dunnynge, Richard conveyed to the Mertonians a rent 

* Godefroy gives grenon, grenutit guemon^ germm, gemun^ . . .moustache, favoris. 
' Gloucester Corporation Records, p. xv. • R. H. ii. 390. 

* See Kilner, School of Pythagoras. Mr Atkinson, Cambridge Described, 79, says 
of the house: * It dates from the latter part of the twelfth century.' 

^ A great deal of information touching the Merton deeds was given by Kilner, 
author of the curious book about Pythagoras's School, to Cole the Cambridge anti- 
quary, and will be found in Brit. Mus. MS. Addit. 5831 f. 71. The courtesy of the 
bursar of Merton College allowed me to see the original documents; but I did not 
examine them closely. A history of this most interesting manor could only be written 
by one of ' the Clerks of Merton.* 



Hervey son of Eustace, 165 

arising from certain land in Over, and further remised and quit- 
claimed ' all the right and claim that he had in the five acres of 
land and sixty shillingsworth of rent and the messuage where a 
stone house is situate {et ntesuagio ubi domiis lapidea sita est) 
with the appurtenances in Cambridge which Eustachius Dunnyng 
father of the said Richard sometime heldV 

By another fine levied on the 25 th of November 1276 William 
de Manyfelde conveyed (by conusance de droit) to the Custodian, 
Scholars and Brethren of the House of Scholars of Merton a 
hundred acres of land and fourteen shillingsworth of rent with 
the appurtenances in Cambridge and Chesterton, and in return 
received the sum of ;f 100'. 

By another fine levied on the 3rd of February 1279 between 
Richard of Hedensouere and Joan his wife demandants and 
Master Peter of Abingdon, Custodian of the House of Scholars 
and Brethren of Merton tenants, Richard and his wife remised 
and quit-claimed all the right which Joan had claimed as widow 
and doweress of Richard Duninge in one-third of one messuage 
and of seven score acres of land and of six poundsworth and ten 
shillingsworth of rent and of a rent of twenty capons in Cam- 
bridge, Barnwell, Chesterton, Girton and Howes. In return 
Richard and Joan received ten marks of silver*. 

These fines were, I take it, supplemental to the main con- 
veyances which are at Merton. When the story is fully told, it 
will, I believe, show that Eustace the son of Hervey fell into 
debt and mortgages. 

§ 80. His father, Hervey the son of Eustace, kept a seal 
which bore on it a mounted knight with drawn sword*. In 
John's reign he was frequently 'levying fines' in the king's 
court. Within a few years he was thus concerned with 50 acres 
in the fields of Cambridge and Newnham, S^ acres at Creton 
(Girton ?), 3 messuages in Cambridge, other 3, a messuage and 
9 acres in Cambridge, 3J virgates at Cheveley, and a hide at 
Gamlingay*. In the Johnian cartulary he appears as Herveus 

^ Record Office, Feet of Fines, Cambridgeshire, 55 Hen. III., A* 
' Record Office, Feet of Fines, Cambridgeshire, 5 Edw. I., No. 9. 
' Record Office, Feet of Fines, Cambridgeshire, 7 Edw. I., No. 3. 
** This I learned from Mr Gray's notes of the Jesus Charters: Q. 11. 
' Fines, ed. Hunter, i. 159 — 338. 



1 66 Cambridge Patricians. 

Althemtannus and as Herveus Maior^. If he was Cambridge's 
first mayor, and I know none older, then Cambridge's first 
mayor held a great deal of land and seems to have been of 
knightly rank*. 

§ 8i. Incidentally I may remark that the fluidity of sur- 
names makes it difficult for us to account for that family called 
*of Cambridge* which owns many strips in the fourteenth 
century and plays a lai^e part in the foundation of the College 
of Corpus Christi. There is John of Cambridge', Justice of the 
Common Bench, with a fine stone house in the town*. Earlier 
there is Thomas of Cambridge, Baron of the Exchequer. Already 
in 1295 a John of Cambridge represents the borough in parlia- 
ment. But, though I can not find the family on the Hundred 
Roll of 1279, it is probably there*. The surname * of Cambridge' 
was not acquired inside Cambridge. A young man leaves his 
native town, goes to Westminster, makes a fortune at the bar, is 
known to his fellows in London as John of Cambridge, and 
comes back a wealthy man with a new name which adheres to 
his family. It does not seem impossible that these Cambridges 
are of the race of Dunning. 

§ 82. Eustace son of Hervey and Leonius son of Adam have 
sold so many houses and acres, that at first we might be inclined 
to claim for the Dunning family some exceptional position in, 
or even some sort of lordship over the town. But, though it is 
obvious that they were wealthy, I think we can only give them 
a primacy among equals. There are other good estates, that of 
the Blancgemons for example, and the hide or more of Osbert 
the Domesman ; and, after all, we have but 3000 acres on our 

^ Gift by Maurice Ruffus of land in the parish of All Saints, Hiis testibus, 
fialdewino Blancgemun, Herveo Althermanno, Roberto Seman, Falcone Crocheman. 
Gift of four acres by Hugh son of Stephen, Hiis testibus, Baldewino Blancgemun, 
Domino Herveo Maiore, Ada fratre suo, Roberto Seman, Ricardo filio Laurentii, 
Willelmo de Sancto Eadmundo, Thoma filio Joachim. Hitherto the earliest mention 
of a mayor has been found in a writ of 1135: Cooper, Annals, i. 43; Atkinson and 
Clark, Cambridge, 19. 

' He was living as late as 16 Hen. III. (1231 — 1) : Cambridge Fines (Antiq. Soc.) 
\^, His son Eustace was living in 41 Hen. III. (1156 — 7): Ibid. 36. Adam Dunning 
was living in 34 Hen. III. (1139 — 40): Ibid. 11. 

' Diet. Nat. Biog. ; Josselin, Historiola, 4, 1 1 ; Masters, Hist. Corpus Christi, p. 8. 

* Willis and Clark, i. 158—160. 

• Rot. Hund. ii. 371 : a house is bought of Matilda fil. J oh, CanL clerici. Possibly 
this is to the point. See also Cambridge Fines (Antiq. Soc.) pp. 68, 71. 



Cambridge in 12 19. 



167 



hands. When we see how much Eustace sells (sells * out-and- 
out * without reservation of a rent), the guess is permissible that 
much may have come to him by recent purchases. And at any 
rate we see these Dunnings mixing in the borough court with 
the other men of the boroughs Leonius Dunning married 
Matilda daughter of Robert of St Edmund*. No hard line 
should be drawn between these * law-men,* ' dooms-men,' * alder- 
men * of a great borough and the county families'. 

§ 83. These large possessions within the limits of the 
borough raise the question whether we ought to think of a 
land-owning patriciate, a cluster of burgensic Geschlechter who 
own the hides and rule the town. I have therefore made some 
search for the accounts of early taxes and the like. The 
following account of a tallage is taken from the Pipe Roll of 
3 Hen. III. (1219)*. 



§ 84. Tallage of Cambridge, 12 19. 





£. s. 


d. 




£' s^ 


d. 


Hildebrand Punch {p) 


13 


8 


Alex. le Fittere {b) 


II 





Adam Wantarius (b) 


I 2 





Elyas fil. Osberti (b) 


7 


10 


WiU. Doi {b) 


12 


8 


Ric. le Gelmier (b) 


I 9 





WiU. fiL Eadwardi ifi) 


II 





Galf. fr. Yvonis (b) 


7 


4 


Rad. Wambe ijb) 


I 8 


4 


Mich. fil. Ordgari {b} 


I 6 


8 


Job. a Selide {P) 


I 5 


8 


Hen. fil. Elye (b) 


I 





Greg. fiL Hugonis {p) 


12 


8 


Yvo fil. Absalonis (b) 


3 6 





Yvo Macecrem {b) 


13 


2 


Regin. Scortecnicht (b) 


II 





Ric. Guthier 


I 14 





Reg. fil. Aluredi (b) 


2 13 


4 


Richemannus ifi) 


7 


4 


Galf. Clait (b) 


15 





Ric. de Porta {b) 


5 6 


8 


Hugo Piscator 


II 





Simon Bagge {p) 


2 16 


8 


Rad. fiL Galfndi (b) 


I 3 





Rog. Doy {p) 


6 


ID 


Galf. Wulfward {b) 


7 


10 


Adam Ic Teler {p) 


I 3 


6 


Childman {b) 


14 


4 


Kaiily Tannator \b) 


2 13 


4 


Ketellus Mercator {b) 


13 





Will de Seltford ip) 


I I 


4 


Win. Hitti (b) 


6 


4 


Osb. Ic Comberc {p) 


6 


4 


Aldredus gener Ketelli (b) 


13 






^ For example, Lib. Memor. f. 43 b: Thomas Toylet's charter for Barnwell is 
witnessed by William de Stowe, Roger de Wykes mayor of Cambridge, Robert of 
St Edmund, Eustace Dunning, Leonius Dunning, William Tele, John of Toft. There 
are many other instances in the Johnlan cartulary. 

' R. H. ii. 364. • Stubbs, Const Hbt. i. 675. 

* A copy was made for me by Miss Salisbury; but she is not responsible for the 
expanded form of the names. I set the letter {b) against those names which will recur 
in the list of 12 11. 



i68 



The Landed Interest. 





£• 


J. 


d. 




£• s. 


d. 


Warinus fiL Normanni {b) 




II 


o 


Reg. de Abbinton (b) 


I 3 


o 


Frere (Jf) 


I 


7 


4 


Tho. Doi (b) 


14 


8 


Herveus fil. Eustachii {p) 


2 


o 


o 


Ric. le Peminer (?) (b) 


6 


lO 


Galf. Hareng {b) 




lO 


4 


Walt. fil. Escolice (b) 


II 


o 


Rinerius de Winebod[e- 








Ric. de Bemewelle (b) 


3 i6 


8 


sham] {p) 




II 


o 


Godric. de Haure (b) 


9 


4 


Ric. fil. Ricardi ip) 




13 


8 


Sim. fil. Godrici (b) 


I 4 


8 


Hen. Vivien {p) 




II 


o 


Sumer {b) 


7 


4 


Ric. Wulfward ifi) 


2 


3 


4 


Reg. Godscho (b) 


2 lO 


8 


Tho. Pupelotus {p) 




II 


6 


Yvo fil. Matilldis (b) 


lO 


4 


Joh. fil. Helene ip) 




7 


4 


Walt. Eare (b) 


I 4 


o 


Rob. le Wanter ip) 




6 


lo 


Hugo de Kertlinge (b) 


6 


4 


Joh. Crocheman ip) 


I 


I8 


8 


Will. Billing (b) 


I i8 


8 


Jord. Nicker {p) 


I 


12 


4 


Joh. de Estfliet (b) 


I lO 


o 


Bened. Feltrarius ip) 




6 


lO 


Bart. Tannator 


3 6 


8 


Edw. fil. Edwardi (p) 


2 


i6 


8 


Walt. fil. Anketilli 


12 


o 


Sim. le Taillur {p) 




12 


8 


Ric. Curtesius (b) 


I 4 


8 


Rad. Prutfot {b) 


2 


i6 


o 


Gilleb. Curtesius (b) 


'5 


o 


Sim. Niger {p) 


I 


2 


4 


Ric. Bulling (b) 


7 


4 


Reg. de Fordham {p) 




lO 


o 


Will. Prest (^) 


7 


lO 


Fulco Crocheman {b) 


2 


15 


o 


Pet. Criket {b) 


6 


4 


Bern. fil. Eadrici ip) 




6 


8 


Rad. Pirle (^) 


7 


lO 


Joh. Lane (p) 




12 


8 


Adam Weriel (b) 


6 


4 


Herv. fil. Selede {b) 


I 


7 


o 


Joh. Faber (b) 


II 


o 


Will Wulsi {b) 


I 


8 


o 


Bald. Blancgernun (^) 


2 O 


o 


Will Macecrem (^) 


2 


13 


4 


Rob. Custance (b) 


II 


o 


Walt. Sissard {p) 




II 


o 


Rob. Vivien (^) 


2 6 


o 


Hen. Telarius {p) 




7 


4 


Walt. Blundus {b) 


14 


8 


Ric. Gibelot (^) 


I 


14 


o 


Ric. de Storteford (b) 


I 2 


o 


Herv. Cogging (p) 




8 


4 









§ 8$. Names are so purely personal that it is difficult to 
connect this list with the Hundred Roll. Still I think it fairly 
plain that the affairs of the borough of Cambridge can not in 
1 2 19 have been solely or even chiefly in the hands of those 
men who held most land within the vill. Hervey Fitz Eustace 
(Dunning) and Baldwin Blancgernon are two strong representa- 
tives of the landed interest. But, when it comes to a taxation 
of chattels, they both escape with a contribution of £2 ; and 
fourteen people are taxed more heavily. The richest men in 
the town appear to be Richard at the Gate, Richard of Barnwell 
and Bartholomew the Tanner, and they are men who leave but 
little mark upon the titles to lands and houses. 

§ 86. We can now go back for another eight years. On 



Cambridge in 121 1, 



169 



the Pipe Roll of 13 John we find Amerciamenta hominum de 
Cantebrige, Three years afterwards the same set of impositions 
is entitled Taillagium villate de Cantebrige, and I think that we 
have to deal rather with a tallage than with amercements. The 
list on the roll of 13 John is as follows*. 



Afnercements of Catnbridgey 121 1. 





;f. 


J. 


d. 




£^ 


J. 


d. 


Hildebrand Punc {a) 


I 


6 


8 


Hen. Telarius (/i) 




13 


4 


Ad. le Wanter {a) 




13 


4 


Ric. Gibelot {a) 


3 








Job. fil. Alueue [? Elene] {a\ 




13 


4 


Herv. Gogginor {c^ 


2 








Rob. le Wanter (a) 




13 


4 


Ric. ad Portam (<i) 


10 








Job. Crocbeman {a) 


3 


6 


8 


Regin. de Abitone (a) 


2 








Jord. Niker (a) 


2 








Uxor Reginaldi 


2 








Rad. le Feutrer 




13 


4 


Sim. Bagge {a) 


5 








Rob. Faber 


2 








Tom. Doi (a) 


I 


6 


8 


Will. Doi {/I) 


I 


6 


8 


Selede Pinberd 


2 








Bened. Feutrer {a) 




13 


4 


Rog. Doy (a) 




13 


4 


Edw. fil. Edwardi (a) 


5 








Ad. le Teler (a) 


2 








Will. fil. Edwardi (a) 


I 








Ric. le Peiner (a) 




13 


4 


Sim. le Tailur (a) 


I 


6 


8 


Job. nepos Hugonis 


I 


13 


4 


Apsilon fil. Segar 




13 


4 


Kaili Tanur(^) 


5 








Rad. Pnidfot (a) 


5 








Will, de Selford {a) 


2 








Sim. Niger {a) 


2 








Osb. le Combere (/?) 




>3 


4 


Regin. de Fordebam {a) 


I 








-\lex. Futere (a) 


I 








Fulco Crocbeman (a) 


5 








Elyas fil. Osberti {a) 




13 


4 


Rad. Wambe {a) 


2 


'3 


4 


Ric le Gelmer (a) 


2 


13 


4 


Yvo Pipestrau 




'3 


4 


Walt. fiL Colic' [Escolice] {a 


) I 








Job. fil. Selede (a) 


2 


6 


8 


Ric de Bernewelle (a) 


10 








Bernard fiL Edrici {d) 


2 








Algar de Welle 


I 


6 


8 


Job. Lane (a) 


I 


6 


8 


Walt. fiL Absalon 


2 


13 


4 


Herv. fil. Selede (a) 


2 


13 


4 


Galf. fiL Yvonis (a) 




'3 


4 


Will. Wulsi (a) 


2 


13 


4 


Mat. fiL Galfridi 




13 


4 


Galf. fil. Roberti 










Godricus le Haur* (/?) 


I 








WilL Macecren {a) 










Sim. fiL eius {a) 


I 


6 


8 


Greg. fil. Hugonis {a) 




6 


8 


Sumer {a) 




13 


4 


Yvo Macecren {a) 




6 


8 


Micb. fil. Orgar (a) 


2 


13 


4 


Ric. Gudred 










R^n. Godso {a) 


5 








Serlo Wanter 




13 


4 


Yvo fil. Matildis {a) 


I 








Walt Sissard (a) 


I 








Walt Ere (a) 


2 








Alan. Telarius 




13 


4 


Mart. Wulward 


4 








Ricbeman (a) 




13 


4 


Rad. frat Yvonis 




13 


4 



* PipeRoU, 13 Job. m. 8. 
on the roll of 1119. 



I set the letter (a) against those names which occurred 



lyo 



Land and Trade. 





l^ 


s. 


</. 




£• 


J. 


d. 


Hen. fil. Elye (a) 


2 


o 


o 


Aldredus gener Ketel {d) 


I 


13 


4 


Yvo fiL Absalon (a) 


5 


o 


o 


War. fil. Normanni {a) 


I 


o 


o 


Regin. Mulloc 




13 


4 


Frere (/i) 


2 


13 


4 


Hug. de Kertlinge {a) 




13 


4 


Rog. Blund 




13 


4 


Will. Billing (a) 


3 


6 


8 


Will Sciper 


2 


o* 


o 


Regin. Sorteknit (rt) 


I 


o 


o 


Will. Pandevant 


I 


o 


o 


Job. de Estflet {a) 


3 


6 


8 


Bald. Blangemun {a) 


6 


13 


4 


Regin. fil. Alurdi {a) 


5 


6 


8 


Hcrv. fil. Eustachii (a) 


3 


6 


8 


Brithnod Tanur 


6 


'3 


4 


Rob. Seman 




13 


4 


Galf. Clait {b) 




6 


8 


Galf. Harcng {a) 


I 


o 


o 


War. fil. Anketil 




o 


o 


Reiner de Winebod (a) 


I 


o 


o 


Ric. Curteis {a) 




6 


8 


Rob. Curtance (a) 


I 


o 


o 


Gileb. Curteis (a) 




6 


8 


Ric. Pottcrc 


I 


o 


o 


Hub. Piscator 




o 


o 


Rob. Vivien (a) 


4 


o 


o 


Rad. fiL Galfridi {a) 


2 


o 


o 


Ric fil. Ricardi (a) 


I 


6 


8 


Ric. Billing {a) 




13 


4 


Hen. Vivien {a) 


I 


o 


o 


Will. Prest (a) 




13 


4 


Ric. Wulwarde (a) 


4 


o 


o 


Pet. Criket \a) 




13 


4 


Walt. Blundus («) 


I 


6 


8 


Rad. Pirle (a) 




n 


4 


Tom. Pupelot («) 


I 


o 


o 


Galf. Wulward (a) 




13 


4 


Will Hitti {a) 




13 


4 


Cbildman {a) 


I 


6 


8 


Godef. Pie 




13 


4 


Ad. Werial {a) 




13 


4 


Absalon de Neweham 




13 


4 


Galf. Sibert 




13 


4 


Ric. Storteford (?) (n) 


2 


o 


o 


Job. Faber (a) 


I 


o 


o 


Rob. Cocus 


I 


o 


o 


Ketel Mercator («) 


I 


6 


8 


Ketel Gag 




13 


4 


Absalon Frost 


I 


o 


o 











§ 87. These two lists are so much alike* that we may trust 
them to be giving us the names of all or nearly all those ' men 
of Cambridge ' who can be directly taxed, and these will be the 
men who buy charters and obtain a grant of ' the town.' There 
are somewhat more than a hundred in a town which has four or five 
hundred houses. There are great differences of wealth among 
them; one will pay fifteen times as much as another. Once 
more we see that the Dunning and the Blancgemon are not 
very highly rated. The taxation is heavy. In 121 1 no one is 
charged with less than a mark. The usual rate of scutage is at 
this time two marks on the knight's fee ; but scutages are more 
frequent than tallages. 

§ 88. Finally, I will print a list taken from the Pipe Roll of 
1 177 (23 Hen. II.) which apparently gives the amercements 

^ There is a curious relationship between the two. A batch of names in the same 
sequence will occur in both. It looks to me as if some arrangement by streets or wards 
lay behind both lists. 



The Corn Trade. 



171 



inflicted upon men of Cambridge and its shire for some offence 
connected with the exportation or importation of com. They 
are punished quia duxerunt bladumper aquam sine licentia [contra 
prokibitioneni] iusticiar[ii] ; perhaps they have infringed some 
prohibition issued during the recent rebellion. 



Amercements of 1177*. 





£, s. 


d. 


£' 


s. 


d. 


Hildebrandus de Cante- 






Absalon Strammare i 


6 


8 


brige^ 


2 





Walt, ^re 


6 


8 


Job. de Lencia 


6 


8 


Galf. Soutland 


6 


8 


Rob. fil. Archetilli 


6 


8 


Daiman de Cantebrige 


6 


8 


Adricus de Len 


3 6 


8 


Godric. iCre 


6 


8 


Eustach. fil. Bernardi 


I 6 


8 


Galf. Boigris \ 
^dmundus J 


6 


8 


Godland et Rad. frat. eius 


6 


8 


Absalon et Walt frat. eius 


I 13 


4 


Rad. de Bradeleya 


6 


8 


Ric. de Dittone 


6 


8 


Will. Finche 5 








Regin. de Moneia 


6 


8 


Will, de WeUe 


6 


8 


Turketell de Ponte 


6 


8 


Ric. Plumbarius 


6 


8 


Osb. Crane 


6 


8 


Hen. Frostuir 


13 


4 


Aluricus Huchepain 


6 


8 


Godlandus 
Osbertus 


6 


8 


Rob. de Niweport 


6 


8 


Osgot frat. Alfgari 


6 


8 


Hawan et frat. suus 


6 


8 


Will, le Brun 


I 





Aszius Camifex 


6 


8 


Will. Lof 


6 


8 


Godard. le Scipre i 








Rob. fU. Selid' 


6 


8 


Rad. fil. Alfgari 


6 


8 


Everard. de Powis 


6 


8 


Yngelmar. de Cantebrige 


6 


8 


Tiedricus 


6 


8 


Estmund 


6 


8 


Aelizia de Cestretone 


6 13 


4 


Godard. le Trottere 


6 


8 


Alanus le Bret 


I 





Wulfwarde de Ponte 


6 


8 


Will, de Froisselake 


6 


8 


Alfelinus de Ponte 


13 


4 


Rad. Wastel \ 
Steph. Nichtwat j 






Alfgar. Blundus 


6 


8 


13 


4 


Ric. et Eust. de Bernewelle 


6 


8 


Albric Ruffus 


13 


4 


Ailwinus frat. Wulfwardi 2 








Galf. Murdac 


6 


8 


Spileman Salnarius 


6 


8 


Serlo Sellarius 


6 


8 


Walt. fil. Gileberti 


6 


8 


Lefwin. frat. Serlonis 


6 


8 


Job. de Cestretone 


6 


8 


WiU. Stramare \ 






Alfgar. de Exninga 


13 


4 


Serlo frat. eius J 


13 


4 


Will, et And. de Suaueshed 


6 


8 



§ 89. In the archives of St John's College there is a beauti- 
ful cartulary of St John's Hospital. The charters in it which 



1 Pipe Roll, as Hen. II. m. 10 d. 

' Is this the Hildebrand Punch who heads the other lists? 



172 Maurice Redes Charter. 

refer to Cambridge are of the highest interest and deserve to be 
printed. The following deed, which seems to come from King 
John's day or thereabouts, is of exceptional importance. 

Carta Mauricii Ruffi de quindecim acris terre et de 
quadam terra in ludaismo, 

Sciant etc. quod ego Mauricius Ruffus de Cantebrige dedi et concessi et 
hac mea carta confirmavi in liberam puram et perpetuam elemosinam pro 
salute anime mee et animarum omnium antecessorum et successorum 
meorum Deo et Hospitali Sancti Johannis Evangeliste de Cantebrige 
illam medietatem tocius terre mee in ludaismo de Cantebrige, que medietas 
est versus portam de Bemewelle, et preterea quindecim acras terre in 
camp[is] de Cantebrige ex utraque parte aque, scilicet, dimidiam acram 
in Howescroftesande que abuttat super Mulleweie iuxta terram Hervei 
filii Eustachii, et unam acram ad capud illius dimidie acre iuxta terram 
Thome Lungis, et dimidiam acram iuxta terram Radulfi de Trubelvile 
et abuttat super Grenesheld ad Gretho, et unam acram que abuttat super 
viam Sancti Neothi iuxta terram domini Baldewini Blancgemun, et unam 
acram subtus Cotes iuxta terram Walteri filii Alicie Blancgemun et 
abuttat ad unum capud super Smalemadwe et ad aliud capud super 
Herdewickeweie, et unam acram super Brochenefurlong inter terram 
domini Baldewini Blancgemun et terram domini Willelmi fratris eius, 
et dimidiam acram que abuttat super Hunteduneweie iuxta terram Ade 
filii Eustachii, et unam rodam que abuttat super viam Sancti Neoti iuxta 
terram ipsius Ade filii Eustachii, et unam rodam in eadem quarentena 
iuxta terram predicti Ade, et unam rodam que abuttat super viam Sancti 
Neoti ad crucem iuxta terram predicti Ade, et unam rodam ad Bertuneweie 
inter terram predicti Ade et dolam predicti Hospitalis, et dimidiam acram 
que est forera que abuttat super dolam predicti Hospitalis ad Brunneforde, 
et unam rodam que abuttat super Smalemadwe et super dolam dicti Hospi- 
talis, et unam rodam in Dale inter terram Ade filii Eustachii et terram 
Willelmi Blodles, et Butebrok dimidiam acram que abuttat super Clint- 
haneden iuxta terram predicti Ade, et dimidiam acram ad capud illius 
dimidie acre inter terram predicti Ade et terram quam Galfridus dc Ely 
tenet de domino Baldewino Blancgemun, et unam rodam in longum pasture^ 
iuxta Edinebrok et abuttat super terram que fuit Warini filii Asketini, et 
unam rodam in Binnebrok^ iuxta terram Ade filii Eustachii, et unam rodam 
que vocatur Linrode, et dimidiam acram ad Brunneforde inter terram 
predicti Ade et terram que fuit Warini filii Asketini, et ex alia parte 
aque in campo versus Bernewelle unam rodam que abuttat super Rug^eie 
iuxta terram predicti Ade, et unam rodam in Clayhangre inter terram 
predicti Ade et terram Ricardi filii Yvonis, et dimidiam acram in Clayhangre 

* Both words in full. 

* Observe the contrast between Binnebrok and Butebrok. 



A dissipated Tene^nent. 173 



iuxta terrain ipsius Ricardi filii Yvonis, et unam rodam in Middelfurlong 
iuxta terram Ade filii Eustachii, et unam rodam ad capud illius rode iuxta 
terram predicti Ade, et unam rodam [que]^ abuttat versus Brademere iuxta 
terram Sancte Radegundis et terram predicti Ade, et unam rodam que 
abuttat super septem acras domini Prions de Bemewelle, et unam rodam 
que abuttat super Hintuneweie iuxta terram Johannis Aluredi, et dimidiam 
acram que abuttat super Hintuneweie ad putte, et tres rodas que abuttant in 
Hintunefen iuxta terram Ade filii Eustachii, et unam rodam ad capud 
illarum trium rodarum que abuttat super Pissewelleweie, et unam rodam 
ad Chalkputtes que abuttat super Hintuneweie iuxta terram predicti Ade, 
et unam rodam que abuttat super dolam Warini filii Asketini, et unam 
rodam ad Pissewellesande que abuttat contra magnam stratam iuxta terram 
Sancte Radegundis, et unam rodam in Middelfurlong inter terram Sancte 
Radegundis et terram Ade filii Eustachii et abuttat super foreram domini 
Prions de Bemewelle, et unam rodam que abuttat super Hintuneweie inter 
propnam terram meam et terram predicti Ade filii Eustachii Tenendas et 
habendas adeo libere et quiete, bene et in pace, plenarie et honorifice 
imperpetuum sicut aliqua elemosina melius liberius et quiecius alicui loco 
religioso potest conferri et ab aliquibus viris religiosis possideri. Et ego 
Mauricius et heredes mei warantizabimus defendemus et acquietabimus 
predictam medietatem predicte terre in ludaismo et predictas quindecim 
acras sicut iacent predicto Hospitali et fratribus ibidem Deo servientibus 
sicut liberam puram et perpetuam elemosinam contra omnes homines et 
feminas et precipue dotes et impignoraciones. Ut autem hec mea donatio, 
concessio, carte confirmatio et warantizatio rata et inconcussa imperpetuum 
permaneat, banc cartam sigiUi mei appositione corroboravi, hiis testibus. 
Domino Petro de Niwenham et Domino Johanne de Ry et Domino Hugone 
capellanis, Magistro Waltero de Wylburham, Herveo filio Eustachii, Roberto 
Seman, Ada filio Eustachii et aliis. 

We have here an estate of i $ acres lying in 36 parcels which 
are scattered about in both sets of fields ; some lie close to 
Girton, some close to Cherry Hinton. In nineteen cases Maurice 
the donor has Adam fitz Eustace (Dunning) as one of his neigh- 
bours. The landowners who are mentioned are Hervey fitz 
Eustace, Adam fitz Eustace, Baldwin Blancgemon, William his 
brother, Ralph of Troubleville, T. Lungis, W. Blodles, G. Ely, 
Warin son of Asketin, Richard son of Yvo, and John Alfred's 
son. They are a miscellaneous party. 

§ 90. From Domesday Book we can learn nothing of the 
Cambridge fields. We could not even learn that Cambridge 
had fields, though we see that there is common pasture and 
that the bui^esses have ploughs. The borough pays geld for 

^ A small hole. 



174 ^^ Etheldreda and the Fields. 

a hundred hides ; but in a great borough taxation is no longer 
based on land-ownership. 

§ 91. A little information about yet older days may be 
cautiously collected from the Liber Eliensis, the compiler of 
which book had some ancient documents before him, though 
we can not trust him implicitly. In Edgar's day one Oslac 
borrowed from Bishop ^Ethelwold 40 aurei and gave in return 
40 acres of land apud Grantebnicge^. Then the brethren of the 
church of Ely bought from one Brithlave a well-built house 
{praedium optime aedificatum apud GranUbrtuge) and 30 acres 
of arable and a meadow*. They further bought 7 acres from the 
son of Bishop iEthelmaer, and 7 acres from Sisled, and 5 from 
Hungeva a widow, who gave them 10 more and a fishery*. Also 
they had in exchange from Wine 53 or 63 acres and a fishery 
in Grantebrucge. Then a hide of land in Grantebrucge was given 
by Ogga of Mildenhall and successfully defended against his 
kinsman Uvi, and 16 acres api4d Grantebrucge were exchanged 
with Osmund Hocere*. How St Etheldreda lost these lands does 
not appear. But the point of interest is that within the borough 
field she must be content with small transactions, whereas she is 
receiving whole villages in the open country. 

§ 92. No clue to the history of the boroughs would be more 
important than that which we should hold if the advowsons of 
the borough churches would tell their tale. Unfortunately many 
of them are appropriated to religious houses at an early date and 
their donors are not remembered. At Cambridge, however, a 
few grains of information may be collected. 

§ 93. Between 11 14 and 11 30 the Abbot of Ramsey con- 
veyed a piece of land in Cambridge, being the churchyard of 
St George, to Randolf with the Beard, Robert and Anger * and 
the others of the fraternity of the Holy Sepulchre ' for the con- 
struction of a church in honour of the Holy Sepulchre, which 
was to be subject to Ramsey Abbey. Another deed of the like 
import mentions Durand of Cambridge in the place of Randolf 
with the Beard". Somehow or another the advowson of this 



^ Liber Eliensis, ed. Stewart, p. 134. ' Liber Eliensis, p. 135. 

' Liber Eliensis, p. 135. ^ Liber Eliensis, pp. 131, 133. 

^ Cart. Rams. L 145; ii. 164. Mr Atkinson, Cambridge Described, p. 164, says: 
* To judge by the style of architecture, which is the only evidence we have as to date, 



Burgesses and Advowsons. 175 

(the Round) church soon passed to Barnwell Priory*. However, 
one of the first glimpses that we have of Cambridge after that 
given by Domesday Book shows us a gild building a church, 
and it shows us also a church of St Geoi^e that soon dis- 
appears. 

§ 94. A curious record attributed to Richard I.'s reign tells 
how a jury is summoned to declare whether St Peter's church is 
in the gift of the king or in the gift of Herbert the Chaplain, 
Reginald son of Alfred, William of Caldecot and Ivo 'de 
Pipestr*.' The jurors say that neither the king nor his ancestors 
ever gave the church, but that one Langlinus who held that 
church and was its parson 'gave' that church, 'in the manner 
then customary in the city of Cambridge,* to a kinsman of his 
called Sigar, who held it for more than 60 years and was its 
parson, and who afterwards gave it to his son Henry, who held 
it for 60 years and gave it to the Hospital of Cambridge by his 
charter. Whereupon it is adjudged that the Hospital shall have 
that church*. To all appearance the four defendants are in 
some sort the representatives of the Hospital. The church in 
question is that of St Peter outside Trumpington Gate, which 
has given place to St Mary the Less. In Edward I.'s day jurors 
say that it has belonged to the Hospital from time immemorial, 
having been given by Henry the son of Sigar'. An Aspilon or 
Absalom son of Sigar was tallaged in 121 1*. 

§ 95. The Ivo of whom we have just read seems to have 
borne the nick-name Pipestraw*. He was patron of another 
church, namely, that of St Michael, and to this he presented 
William son of Absalom. In 1231 Ivo and William were both 
dead and there was litigation about the advowson. Ivo had 
four sisters. One of them had a grandson, John son of Isaunt, 
or Ifaunt. Another had two sons, William son of Absalom and 

it [the Round Church] was built between i no and 1 140.' The Ramsey charter seems 
to show the accuracy of this inference. 

* Rot. Hund. ii. 391. 

' Placit. Abbrev. 98; Coke upon Littleton, 109 b; Cooper, Annals, i. 99. 

* Rot Hund. ii. 359, 393. 

^ The name Absalom, which becomes Aspelon, Aspilon, and finally Asplin, seems 
to have taken root in Cambridge at a time when Old Testament names were very rare 
among English Christians. Is it due to the Breton influence? 

* He is tallaged in laii. The terrier copied by Dr Caryl shows a parcel of land 
in one of the Barnwell Fields which is called Pipestraw Gores. 



176 Burgesses and Churches. 



Walter his brother*. Seventy years later a somewhat different 
pedigree is put before us. The advowson descends from Regi- 
nald Pipestraw to his son Ivo, from Ivo to his daughter Alice, 
from Alice to her son Yfant, from him to his son Alfred, from 
him to his sister Maud *de Walda* or Atte Wolde*. Maud 
wanted to give it to the University'. 

§ 96. Then we can connect the sons of Absalom with 
another church, that of St John. William fitz Absalom was its 
patron. He died and the advowson descended to his brother 
Hugh, who gave it to the Priory of Barnwell. In 1220, after 
Hugh's death without issue, an unsuccessful attempt was made 
to recover it by Mabel de Marenny his sister and Adam son of 
Philip. Adam seems to be the son of Ada, another sister 6f 
Hugh*. 

§ 97. We pass to St Clement's. Hugh son of Absalom gave 
the advowson to the Nuns of St Radegund*. Then Walter son 
of William de St Edmund confirmed the grants made by his 
ancestor Hugh son of Absalom and his uncle Walter. Walter 
of St Edmund is a member of the family which holds the church 
or chapel of St Edmund. Hugh son of Absalom has for cousin 
Aldusa daughter of William Blancgernon*. 

§98. By a fine levied on i Jan. 12 19 Baldwin Blancgernon 
quit-claimed the advowson of the church of All Saints in the 
suburb of Cambridge to the Prior of Barnwell, and in return the 
Prior and Canons received him and his heirs into the benefit of 
their prayers'. The church in question is that of All Saints by 
the Castle, and we see tha^t already the transpontine part 
of Cambridge can be spoken of as a suburb. Then in 1279 
the advowson of Trinity Church belonged to the Abbey of 
West Dereham, to which it had been granted by William of 
Yarmouth Vintner'. All Saints by the Hospital was given to 
the Nuns by one Sturmi, who in his charter called himself simply 
Ego Sturmi de Cantebrig. Among the witnesses was Absalom 

^ Bracton^s Note Book, pi. 523. Walter is tallaged in iiii. 
' R. H. ii. 387. ' Cooper, Annals, i. 65. 

• Bracton's Note Book, pi. 103, 104. 

• Jesus Charters, M. 1. 3 (Mr Gray's notes). 

• Jesus Charters, L. a (Mr Gray*s notes). 

' Record Office, Feet of Fines, Henry III. Camb. ^i. 

• Blomefield, Hist Norfolk, 8vo. ed. vii. 34. 



The County Families. 177 

presbyter^. Then we are told that a man called Absalom was 
both patron and rector of St Andrew (the Great) and gave the 
advowson to Ely'. St Benet belonged to the Argentans, a 
county family; St Mary the Great to the king. 

§ 99. Thus we have not a few indications of the days when ' 
the burgesses, sometimes clubbing together in a gild, built the , 
churches, and appointed the parsons * according to the then 
custom of the city of Cambridge,' and we think of the entry in 
Domesday which tells how the burgenses of Norwich held fifteen 
churches, and how twelve burgenses had held the church of the 
Holy Trinity*. A church, it must be remembered, had been a | 
source of revenue to its patron, to its owner*. It was not unlike / 
a mill ; he ' banned ' his tenants and dependants to the one and \ 
to the other. The disorderly mess of tithes that we see in the , 
Cambridge fields is the result of this process. ' 

§ 100. Then there are external landowning families, county 
families, which have a proprietary interest in the town and its 
fields. As already said the lin^ of demarcation is not severe. 
At Trumpington in 1279 there are Cayleys with a nice little 
manor'. A Ralph Cayley has given 30 acres in that village to 
St Radegund. But in the Cambridge Fields John Cayley has 
given to Barnwell Priory 40 acres and the service of many 
tenants^ William Cayley has a house in St Benet's parish, and 
Alan Cayley has been a strip-holder'. Early in the thirteenth 
century Kailly the tanner was one of the richest men of the / 
town. In the next century Philip Cayley is mayor of the 
borough and holds acres in the fields. Younger sons, we may - 
suppose, ' go into business,' and thriving burgesses buy land in ' 
the neighbouring villages. But we also see on the Hundred ; 
Rolls that rent is going outside the borough to Colvilles, Pyrots, 
Argentans, Troubelvilles, Cockfields. The Prior of Huntingdon 
owes his strips in the fields to a Troubelville'. The Troubel- 
villes and their successors the de Greys are estated near 

^ Jesus Charters, D. ii. 

* Bentham, Ely* p. 146. * D. B. ii. 1 16 b. 

^ Stutz, Die Eigenkirche, Berlin, 1895; Geschichte des kirchlichen BeneBzial- 
wesens, Berlin, 1895. The already antiquated 'custom of the dty of Cambridge' to 
which the jurors refer permitted the patron to * give ' the church to a parson. 

• R. H. ii. 548. • Ibid. 357. 
' Ibid. 376, 378. 8 Ibid. 391. 

M. 12 



178 The Honours. 



Huntingdon at a village which is known, as Hemingford 
Troubelville or (at a later time) Hemingford Grey*. There 
is a Hemingford family which has had land in Cambridge to 
give away ; Dame Nichole of Hemingford gave some to Barnwell 
Priory*. May she not be the Dame Nichole whose name is 
attached to a hythe in Cambridge, * Dame Nichole's Hythe* * ? 
There is a Nonancourt family interested in Barnwell. In 
some way or other it is connected with the family of Adam 
of Cockfield, who was a considerable landowner in eastern 
England ^ 

§101. But much greater people were concerned. Leonius 
Dunning held part of his land of a Mortimer who held of Robert 
Bruce. Part of the land of Eustace Dunning was held of the 
Earl of Leicester. Now if any grand ' honour ' is to appear in 
Cambridge and its fields, we should expect it to be that honour 
of Huntingdon which represents the estates of Waltheof and has 
passed to the royal family of Scotland. Any earl's share, erles- 
dole, that had been allotted in (he fields of Cambridge might be 
looked for among their possessions. They or their assignees 
were entitled to an ancient rent of ;^io which represented the 
third penny of the borough'. King Malcolm's gift to the nuns 
of 10 acres next Greencroft may be the act of an earl who 
regards a third of the waste as his own. Not many miles from 
Cambridge this Scottish stratum crops out in the village of 
Oakington, where there is a manor which is held of Balliols and 
Bruces*. 

§ 102. To account for the appearance of the Leicester fief is 
not so easy. It may be seen in Cambridge and in the adjacent 
villages of Girton, Grantchester and Barton^ In these villages it 
seems to hold the place that was held in 1086 by the Mortain 
fief*. In 1086 the Count of Mortain had three houses in Cam- 
bridge; he was standing in the shoes of Judhael the Huntsman*. 

§ 103. Domesday Book would lead us to expect that another 
great fief would be represented in the borough, namely, the 

* R. H. ii. 679. ' Ibid. 357. See above, p. i6a. 

' Ibid. 367, 390. Willis and Clark, ii. 390. See lib. Rub. Scac. 531. 
^ Bracton's Note Book, pL 1393; Blomefield, Hist. Norfolk, 8vo. ed., viiL 

4"» 4»4' 

' See Cooper, Annals, i. 37. * R. H. ii. 449. 

' R. H. ii. 459, 563. 565. 8 D. B. i. 193. • D. B. ii. 189. 



The Mortimers' Lands. 179 

honour of Britanny and Richmond, for Count Alan, the suc- 
cessor of Edith the Fair, had five burgesses. In the thirteenth 
century there is a good deal of the Breton fief scattered about in 
Cambridgeshire. Count Stephen, who died in 11 37 or there- 
abouts, held a mill in Cambridge and gave its tithe to a French 
monastery which had a cell at Swavesey*. 

§ 104. There is one estate of exceptional interest, namely, 
that of the Mortimers. In 1501, when Gonville Hall was ac- 
quiring it from the representatives of Lady Scrope of Bolton, it 
was described as being the manor of Newnham and consisting 
of the Newnham water-mill with an adjoining close, one other 
close called Newnham close, and 99 acres in the town and fields 
of Cambridge*. In the terriers we find 'Mortimers' land' 
scattered about in the various furlongs. We turn first to the 
Western Fields. In Grithow Field lie the following parcels: 
2A+2A + 6A. In Middle Field: 2A-|-iah-ia+20A, besides 
8 selions constituting 'Chalkwell dole,' which we may perhaps 
set down for 16 A, In Little Field : 3 A + 3 A, We pass to the 
Eastern Fields. In Ford Field lie the following : 4 A (Mortimers' 
dole) -h 8 A (Mortimers' dole). In Swinecroft : 8 A 2 R (Mortimers' 
dole). In Bradmore : 7 A (Mortimers' dole) + 14 A (Mortimers* 
dole) + 9 A (Mortimers' dole). In Middle Field : 10 A (Mortimers' 
dole). 

§ 105. Now the interesting feature of this estate is the large 
size of the parcels of which it is composed. Other people 
sometimes have several adjacent acres; but almost without 
exception the Mortimers' parcels are unusually large. This 
may possibly be the result of exchanges and good management 
in fairly recent times; but, as the Mortimers do not seem to 
have been resident in Cambridge, we may hesitate before as- 
cribing to them an unique success in the endeavour to bring 
order out of chaos. May not their estate represent an allotment 
made in the oldest days to some chieftain; secundum digna- 
iionem, as Tacitus said ? 

§ 106. Unfortunately at this point the Hundred Roll is 
obscure. We read in it how Robert Mortimer gave a whole 
ploughland to the Hospital. This he had by the gift of King 

1 Dugdale, Baronage, L 47 ; Monasticon, vi. 1009. 
' Cooper, Annals, i. 157, a86. 

12 — 2 



i8o The Haw-^gafol. 



John, who perhaps obtained it by way of forfeiture : the * Nor- 
manni' were forfeiting their lands in John's day. But this 
cannot be the Mortimers' land of later times since it has already 
passed to the Hospital. Then we read that Leonius Dunning 
has inherited from his father Adam half a knight's fee and a 
water-mill, which are held of William son of Robert Mortimer, 
who holds of the Bruces. The difficulty is that we read of no 
land held by the Mortimers ' in demesne,' and therefore of none 
which (unless we suppose some surrender or escheat) will naturally 
become the ' Mortimers' lands ' of the terriers. Some loyal son 
of Gonville and Caius should solve the problem, for the Mor- 
timers' lands or plots obtained in lieu thereof have become 
profitable. However, the mention of the Bruces points straight 
to Waltheof and ancient earls. An exceptional estate might 
well come down this line. On the other hand, there are some 
signs which suggest that the Mortimers filled the place of the 
Breton counts and therefore of the fair but enigmatical Ediths 

§ 107. The story of the land-gavel and haw-gavel should be 
of importance, but is not easily interpreted. In Domesday 
Book we read : * De consuetudinibus huius villae vii. lib. per 
annum et de landgable vii. lib. et ii. orae et duo denarii V Four 
centuries afterwards under Richard III. we have the earliest 
haw-gavel roll of the borough. The total amount that stands in 



^ These Mortimers of Attleborgh, for whose pedigree see Blomefidd, Hist. Norfolk, 
8vo. ed., i. 506, had Kingston as the centre of their Cambridgeshire property, and they 
there held of the Pecch^ (R. H. iL 514). In Foxton and Harston they held part of 
the Richmond fief (Ibid. 547, 553). It does not seem at all certain that the Roger 
Mortimer who appears as mesne lord of a manor in Trumpington belongs to this 
family. An attempt to derive the Mortimers* lands in Cambridge from Alan of Britanny 
through the Zouches has been made. The supposed link is the William * Zouche of 
Mortimer' who lived under Edw. II. and III. He was a son of Robert, 3rd Baron 
Mortimer of Richard's Castle, and took the name of Zouche from his mother, a Zouche 
of Ashby. But a Zouche-Mortimer marriage at this late date can not account for a 
Mortimer having land in Cambridge under John ; besides it seems to take us from the 
right set of Mortimers to their more famous namesakes of the Welsh march. On the 
other hand, we find (see above p. 179) that the Breton Counts had a water-mill in 
Cambridge, and it is difficult to say what mill this was if it was not the Newnham 
mill, which formed an important part of the Mortimer estate. As to this mill, see the 
inquest of 97 Edw. III. in Baker MSS. xxv. 59. Blomefield, i. 508, tells how, in the 
time of the Barons' War, Robert Mortimer had a servant (seijeant?) named Leonine. 
This makes us think of Leonius or Leoninus Dunning, for the name is very rare. 

« D. B. i. 189. 



High Gable Rents. i8i 

charge upon it is £j. \s. i\d} At this date the haw-gavel or 
' high-gable rent * certainly includes the land-gavel, the rent paid 
for strips in the fields. Half-way between these two documents 
stands the Hundred Roll. The total sum of the land-gavel and 
haw-gavel there mentioned seems to lie between £j and ;^8*. 
Examining a few particular instances, we find a close agreement 
between 1279 and 1483. Thus on the roll of 1279 we are told 
that the Scholars of Merton pay 4^. \od. for haw-gavel and land- 
gavel*: and on the haw-gavel roll this is exactly the sum 
charged against them. So in the older document the Nuns of 
Radegund seem to be liable for 14^. 4^/. ; and 14.^. 4f^/. is what 
they pay under Richard HI.* The Prior of Barnwell pays 
53^*. ^ in 1483: and in 1279 he seems liable for 57^., or 
perhaps 57^. 4^. 

Now all this seems to point to the conclusion that for some 
centuries before Richard HI. the total amount levied by way of 
land-gavel and haw-gavel was somewhat more than £7, and 
then we see that the land-gavel of Domesday Book is seven 
pounds, two ounces and two pence: that is apparently £j. y. 6d. 
We are strongly tempted therefore to hold that the land-gavel 
of 1086 includes the gavel paid for the haws or houses and to 
see a marvellous permanence. 

§ 108. If, however, we accept this theory, then we must give 
some explanation of those 'customs of the borough* which were 
distinct from the 'landgable' and brought in £7. In recent 
times the interpretation of this passage was bitterly disputed 
among the inhabitants of Cambridge. One opinion was that 
these 'customs' would justify a toll which the corporation 
exacted from carts entering and leaving the borough, while 
those who disliked and victoriously opposed the toll declared 
that the consuetudines of Domesday pointed to the ' high-gable 
rents.' I do not think that we are compelled to choose between 
these two theories. Even if we suppose that the rents which the 
king receives from houses are included in the ' landgable,' there 



^ Cooper, Annals, i. 997. The roll is of the first year of Ric. III. 
> I make it nearly £%, 
» R. H. U. 360. 

^ In R. H. ii. 359, col. i, entry 5, they are charged with 14. I take this to mean 
14 shillings, not pence. 



1 82 The Two ToTvns. 

is still a great deal for the * customs ' to cover. There are the 
profits of the court and the market toUs^ 

§ 109. It is therefore a plausible hypothesis that the total 
sum due to the king or his farmers from lands and houses 
remains at a little more than £7 from the days of the Confessor 
onwards until modern times, when the gavel-pence became 
trivial. If so, then we may provisionally treat what the 
Hundred Rolls tells us about the apportionment of this burden 
as indicative of a very ancient state of affairs. By no means 
all the houses pay the gavel ; in the fields it is the exception 
rather than the rule. Also it is very light. There are a few 
shops which pay as much as Zd. apiece*, but a house often pays 
only a penny or a half-penny. In the thirteenth century such 
rents, if not nominal, were extremely small. Even if we go back 
to far remoter days, a penny is but the thirtieth part of the 
traditional price of the ox*. 

§ 1 10. Whether the whole of what became the territory of 
Cambridge was from the first the land of a single tun or whether, 
there were once two tijns, each with its own fields, this is a 
question which the map will suggest to us*. If there ever were 
two tiins, then, as tiins go in Cambridgeshire, both of them had 
small, rather than large territories : territories as small as that of 
Girton. Also we are compelled to ask ourselves what was the 
name of the southern or eastern tiin. That it was not called 
Barnwell is, I think, clear. The well-known account of the 
foundation of the Priory supposes that 'Barnwell' was merely the 
name of a spring in the fields of Cambridge*. Also, so far as I 
am aware, this name was never given to the whole of our cispon- 
tine Cambridge, but covers only the Priory, which is far outside 
the ditch, and a group of houses which immediately surrounds, 
and may well be the creature of, the Priory. True, that the 

^ That D. B. speaks of the consuehidines as though they were paid by houses does 
not, I think, prove that those consuetudines were rents. The king, I take it, woukl 
not get the wites (nor perhaps the market tolls) of those who lived in houses which 
belonged to immunists. Consuehtdims is Domesdajr's largest word: see Domesday 
and Beyond, 67 fL 

* Perhaps these shops projected into the street and their rent covers a purpresture. 

* Domesday and Beyond, 44. 

* As to this question, see Atkinson and Clark, Cambridge, 8 ff. 

' Lib. Memor. f. 13 : Pain Peverel bestows * locum iacentem in campis Cantabrigie 
pro tresdedm acris drca fontes de Bemewelle.' 



The Urban Manors. 183 

« 

whole of the Eastern Fields are sometimes called the campi de 
Bemewelle, This usage, however, was not unnatural at a time 
when the Priory owned a full third of those fields, so that a third 
at least of the acres had their agricultural focus in Barnwell. 

§ III. It may be roughly true that the Eastern Fields 
tithed to cispontine churches, and that the Western Fields 
tithed either to St Giles or to the Nuns, who held the church 
of St Clement, which, though not transpontine, is very near the 
river. But apparently there were many strips in the Newnham 
quarter of the Western Fields which were ascript to the church 
of St Peter without the Trumpington Gate, and tithe was still so 
fluid for a century after the Norman Conquest, that an argu- . 
ment based on its distribution might fall far short of the days 
when the fields were first laid out and cut into strips\ 

§ 112. Whether there ever was within the limits of Cam- 
bridge anything that would earn from our historical economists 
the name of a * manor ' is a difficult question. In recent centuries 
the colleges, as we should expect, let their lands to farmers for 
terms of years*, and the municipal corporation let the lands of 
the White Canons. Some of the evils which would naturally 
flow from the intermixture of strips may have been obviated if 
one farmer took leases from two or three landlords. The estates 
held by Merton, St John's, Jesus, Caius and Trinity Hall" were 
called manors, and the name * hall ' or * manor-house ' was given 
to the house in which the farmer lived. Merton had a few copy- 
holders and held courts for them. In the thirteenth century 
Leonius Dunning and the Master of the Hospital held courts at 

^ See Gray, Old Courses of the Cam, Cam. Ant. Soc. Proc. ix. 74. Mr Gray 
seems inclined to draw the line between the two townships in such a manner as to 
throw St Clement's parish into the northern township which had the Western Fields. 
Very many of the strips in these fields tithed to St Radegund, and the nuns may have 
taken the tithe in right of their church of St Clement, for with the three transpontine 
churches they had nothing to do. But this theory seems to open new difficulties. The 
vill with the Western Fields stretches just a little across the river so as to shut off the 
other vill firom the bridge. 

' See notes of leases granted by St John's in Baker, Hist. St John's (ed. Mayor), 
vol. i. pp. 354 ff. 

* The manor of Cotton Hall. Apparently thb had formerly been known as 
Caylyse. Cooper, Annals, ii. 39, 407. On the Hawgavel Roll of i Ric. HI. 
Thomas Cotton is charged for the tenement called Caylyse. As to the Cayley 
fiunily, see above p. 177. *The manor house, an old brick mansion, stood opposite 
Pembroke.' Mr Gray has shown me a picture of the Jesus or Rad^und manor-house. 



1 84 The Borough Court. 

Newnham. It is to be remembered, however, that even the 
largest of these estates was small if judged by a rural measure. 
Merton had tenants in the neighbouring vills of Grantchester, 
Chesterton and Girton and may have been 'able to work its land 
in the manorial fashion : that is to say, to get the demesne tilled 
by labour due from tenants by reason of their tenure. The 
Hospital seems to have exacted some boon-days. But on the 
whole I think that from a very early time the main part of 
the work was done by the landowner's servants or by hired 
labourers. The rapidity with which the strips were passing 
in the thirteenth century from owner to owner seems incom- 
patible with any high degree of manorialism. We have seen 
that ' Harleston's manor ' was not formed until the middle of 
the fourteenth century. 

§ 1 13. Such plea-rolls of the borough court as are extant — 
unfortunately they are few — show that the whole territory of 
Cambridge was within its jurisdiction. In 1295 John Goldring 
brings replevin for a horse taken in his croft at Newnham by 
Master Guy, Master of the Hospital, who avows for homage, 
fealty, suit to his court of Newnham from three weeks to three 
weeks and the service of one penny a year. In the same year 
the same John brings replevin against Leonius Dunning for two 
house-doors (kostia) carried off at Newnham: Leonius avows 
for homage, fealty, suit to his court of Newnham from three 
weeks to three weeks and the service of 3i|rf. a year. Simon 
of Lynn brings replevin for a hurdle taken in his house at 
Newnham by the Master of the Hospital, who avows for 
homage, fealty, a service of \2d. a year, two weedings and two 
boon-days^ It will be seen that the distrained tenant is off at 
once to the borough court 

§ 114. That court also entertained suits in which the title 
to land in the fields was in debate. In 1220 we see it seised of 
an action in which Mabel of Nonancourt claims 72 acres against 
Adam of Cockfield, who is no burgess but a man of fairly high 
station with a good deal of land that he holds by military 
service. Hervey son of Martin, John Crocheman, Walter son 

^ Roll in the borough archives. All are cases of 33 Edw. I. In the last case the 
service is described thus: — 'et per servicinm duarum cercler' duarum precar' et xii. 
den. per annum.' 



Firma Burgi. 185 



of Walter and Walter son of Ernise carry the record of the 
court before the king's justices. Its accuracy is questioned, and 
the recorders are ready to defend it by the arm of a champion ^ 
The jurisdictional territory of the court is the vill of Cambridge : 
not the ditch-enclosed space, but the whole vill. Charters of 
feoffment of lands and houses are commonly attested by the 
mayor and bailiffs ; probably they were executed in court, and 
they may have been copied on rolls that are not now forth- 
coming. On the other hand, I have seen no trace on these 
rolls of any governmental regulation of the arable land : no 
by-laws touching its culture : nothing of the kind. 

§ 1 15. The exact nature of the rights that the king bestows 
when he grants a town to the townsfolk is obscure. The core 
of the gift consists of those revenues which a sheriff has here- 
tofore received, house-rents and land-rents (haw-gavel and 
land-gavel), market tolls, profits of the court, profits of the 
king's mills. Around this there is a fringe of debatable matter : 
a nebulous fringe which solidifies as potential become actual 
utilities. There is waste or unappropriated land both inside 
and outside the ditch or wall: also there is a seignory over 
houses and appropriated land. 

§ 116. The weak spot in the case of the burgesses, who 
would give to the grant its largest possible scope, is that the 
king does not mean that they shall take the escheats. This 
seems clear from an inquiry addressed to the jurors in 1279: 
' Touching the king's farmers who hold cities, boroughs or other 
manors of the king at fee-farm and who by reason of the farm 
take the escheats and alienate or retain them'.* The Cambridge 
jurors *de isto articulo nichil sciunt' They do not claim es- 
cheated tenements. But if the right to escheats is not conveyed, 
how about a seignory, and, if there is no seignory, what of the 
ownership of the waste } 

§ 117. It seems to me that the theory changes. Gradually 
the townsfolk (becoming incorporate) begin to assert that, at 
all events where haw-gavel is paid, they («/ universi) stand as 
a mesne lord between the tenants and the king. The evidence 
consists of inquisitiones ad quod damnuniy some of which I have 

' Curia Regis Rolls, No. 74, m. 9, and No. 75, m. 5 d. See Bracton*s Note Book, 
pi. 1393. * R. H. ii. 39a. 



1 86 The Municipal Seignory. 

seen at the Record Office, while many were printed in 1850 by 
a committee of the Town Council*. 

The following is an example from 1294 : 

If the king licenses Roger of Rydelingfield to give to the University four 
messuages and thirty acres in Cannbridge, this will be to the damage of the 
king in this, that the king will lose the escheat, which would be worth ^^40; 
and it will be to the damage of the town of Cambridge in this, that the 
said tenements were and ought to be geldable to all aids, contributions 
and burdens. Moreover they are held in chief of the king and render every 
year dr. (^d, of haggabil for the farm of the town to the men of Cambridge 
who hold the town of the king at fee-farm'.... 

Here the theory is plain. Roger holds immediately of the 
king, though he pays haw-gavel to the men of the borough. 
There are various other inquests which put the matter in the 
same fashion. And now contrast this from 1353: 

It will not be to the damage of the king or of any other if he licenses 
the Alderman and Brethren of the Gild of Corpus Christ! and B. Mary of 
Cambridge to grant five messuages and twelve cottages to the Master and 
Scholars of the House of Corpus Christi and B. Mary of Cambridge. And 
the jurors say that a moiety of one of the said houses is held of John of Toft 
by the service of dr. a year and the other moiety of Robert Came by the 
service of &r. a year. And one other messuage is held of the Prioress of 
St Radegund by the service of lOf. a year. And one other of the Abbot 
of Ramsey by the service of 5^. a year. And one other is held by the 
service of izr. a year of the men of the town of Cambridge who hold the 
said town at perpetual fee-farm of our lord the king^... 

So again in the same year, when houses bought for the Hall 
of the Annunciation are to be made over to Corpus Collie, it is 
said that they are held of the Prior of Barnwell, Thomas Morice 
and Edmund Caily by the service of 13.^. a year 'and are like- 
wise held of the men of Cambridge by the service of. \d, a year 
for hagable, which men hold the said vill of the king in perpetual 
fee-farm*.' Here * the men ' are lords. 

§ 118. The high- water mark of this theory may be found 
in the mortmain licences granted in 1 506 by the corporation to 
Michael House and Gonville Hall. In the latter case there is 

* Borough Rate Report ; the work, it is believed, of Mr C. H. Cooper. I have used 
a copy at the University Registry. 

* Borough Rate Report, p. 56. 

» Rec. Off. Inq. a. q. d. 17 Edw. III. 37. 
« Rec. Off. Inq. a. q. d. 37 Edw. III. 41. 



The Intramural Waste. 187 

a distinct assertion that the Mortimer manor was ' holden of the 
mayor, bailifTs and burgesses as of their high gable (!), by the 
yearly rent of i&f.*' 

The theory can fluctuate because in a borough, where 
tenements are devisable and no wardships can be claimed, a 
seignory over a freeholder practically resolves itself (if the right 
to the escheat be excluded from view) into a mere right to an 
immutable rent, and perhaps the only chance which it has of 
showing that it is a seignory is that aflbrded by the Mortmain 
Statute. 

§ 119. As to the waste land within the ditch (it would 
chiefly consist of streets, lanes, odds and ends) I do not think 
that the king of the thirteenth century would have admitted 
that this ground was 'holden of him by the burgesses. They 
had succeeded to the rights of the sheriff*, and it was not for 
a sheriff* or other royal bailiff* to make profit for himself by 
inclosing waste lands. At the same time I do not suppose that 
in general estimation the king was free to do just what he 
pleased with the open spaces. We have seen the burgesses 
building a hospital on their common land ; we have seen also 
that the result of this is a disputed right of patronage*. 

§ 120, It is possible that Henry III. bought waste land 
from the community. By a writ of 6 Feb. 1292, Edward I. 
grants to the Carmelite Friars of Cambridge leave to inclose 
within two walls 'a certain place of ours between their abode 
and the river Grante which King Henry our father bought de 
hatninibus eiusdem ville^J I think it probable that we ought to 
say ' the men,' though the phrase is ambiguous, owing to Latin's 
lack of articles. The writ goes on to declare that the Friars 
are to make two doors in the said walls ' through which we and 
our heirs and our faithful people ' may at all times have ingress 
and egress for the defence of the said town when there is need. 
This looks as if the piece of ground in question had been a lane 
or open space giving access to the river. It must soon have 
become obvious that the king's ownership (if ownership it was) 
of streets and lanes must be of an attenuated kind, and that, if 
he was to be charitable to Carmelites and others, he must 

* Cooper, Annals, i. 357, 385, 386; Boiongh Rate Report, 17. 

' See above, p. 161. * Rot. Pat. 3o Edw. I. m. 31 (imprinted). 



1 88 The Right of Approvement. 

consider the necessities of the burgesses to whom he had 
granted *the town.' It is also to be observed that if the 
corporation was tenant of the waste, it was tenant in chief, 
and like any other tenant in chief would require royal licence 
for an alienation. Thus the situation might remain indefinite. 

§ 121. The corporation of Cambridge had occasion to rue 
the petition of 1330*. Leave to approve the small lanes and 
waste places was asked because the only revenue applicable to 
the discharge of the fee-farm rent consisted of tolls levied from 
strangers who came into the town on market-day. This 
unlucky document was vouched by the University in 1616 to 
prove that John's charter conferred no ownership of the soil". 
Then, shortly before the Municipal Reformation of 1835, there 
were bitter lawsuits between the (Tory) corporation and some 
townsmen about a general toll (not a market toll) exacted from 
carts entering or leaving the town. The corporation was de- 
feated in two long trials, of which full reports were published. 
The two reports are in the University Library (Z.23.12): 
(i) A full report of the important toll cause of Brett v, Beales, 
Cambridge, no date, preface dated 25 March, 1826: (2) A full 
and accurate report of the important Cambridge Toll Cause, 
Cambridge, no date (but this trial began on 16 December, 
1829). At the later trial Scarlett (Lord Abinger) made the 
most of the petition of 1330: Either at that date the cor- 
poration had only a market toll or else it told a lie. 'A beggar 
who will lie will also steal; he will rob, he will usurp, he will 
pilfer ; and if the corporation of Cambridge were at that time 
commencing a proceeding of treachery and of falsehood,* 
etc. etc". 

§ 122. There was also some discussion about the ownership 
of the waste ground. Scarlett, arguing against the corporation, 
said : * It is by no means clear that the corporation at that time 
[1330] had, and certainly did not think they had, the freehold of 
the soil : because, if they were lords of the soil at that time, 
they need not have asked the king for leave to approve the 
lanes and wastes.* However, he admitted that * the documents 
may be in that respect ambiguous*.* Lord Tenterden, who was 

1 Rot. Pari. ii. 47 ; Cooper, Annals, i. 84. ^ Cooper, Annals, iii. 109. 

' Toll Cause, No. a, p. 196. * Toll Cause, No. i, p. 117. 



Ownership of the Waste. 189 

trying the cause, told the jury that somehow or another the 
corporation had become owners of the soil. 'That the cor- 
poration therefore, you see, are the owners of the town and 
owners of the soil of the town, is a fact that I think can now no 
longer be disputed*.* 

§ 123. Great reliance was placed on the numerous leases 
of 'waste' or 'common' ground granted by the corporation. 
Those that were produced began, it would seem, with a lease 
of 6 November, 1350, to Trinity Hall of 'a certain gutter or 
water-courseV In course of time many collies took either 
leases or conveyances from the Town. Henry VI. in the 
interests of King's College and Edward IV. in the interests 
of Queens' may be said to have clinched the matter by suffi- 
ciently admitting that the corporation was owner of the intra- 
mural waste'. 

§ 124. A bad time came in 1790 and some scandalous 
things were done. It was said in 1833 that Cambridge would 
have had one of the richest corporations in England had not the 
land been mismanaged. One of the worst stories is of some 
antiquarian interest I believe that most of the roads that 
entered Cambridge were but narrow tracks, superimposed, as it 
were, upon the arable. But the Hills Road or Hadstock Way 
must have had broad strips of waste on either hand. In 1791 
much of this waste was sold for a song to the nominee of 
an alderman^ 

§ 125. As to the historical point, I think that as a general 
rule the king's grant of * the town ' was not conceived to confer 
upon the community a mastery over the waste ; but that this 
mastery was often separately petitioned for and separately 
granted. An early instance is the charter for Bristol granted 
by John, Earl of Mortain'; and this charter is of great im- 
portance, because it becomes the precedent for the charters of 

^ Toll Cause, No. 3, p. 171. This explicit declaration having been made from the 
jadgment-seat, I have felt the freer to discuss the historical question. 

« Willis and Qark, i. an; Toll Cause, No. i, pp. 32— 5a; Toll Cause, No. «, 
p. 75. 

» Willis and Clark, i. 343; ii. 6; Searle, Hist, of Queens* College, i. 85. 

^ See Loggan's plan ; also Digested Report of Evidence given before the Com- 
missioners, Cambridge, 1833, pp. 48, 49; App. Rep. Mun. Corp. Com. 1835, vol. iv. 
p. 1199. 

' Seyer, Charters of Bristol, p. 10. 



190 The Green Commons. 

the Irish boroughs, of which Bristol is the ' metropolis \' In 
1358 the burgesses of Newcastle doubt whether they may dig 
the coal under the town lands, since the liberty of so doing has 
not been expressly conceded to them". The citizens of Lincoln 
seem to have gone to Edward II. for a grant of, or licence 
to approve, the waste places': the citizens of Coventry to 
Richard II.*: the citizens of Canterbury and the burgesses of 
Nottingham to Henry IV.*. 

In 1 32 1 the burgesses of Colchester presented a petition 
closely similar to the Cambridge petition of 1 330. The revenues 
applicable to the satisfaction of their fee-farm rent of ;^35 
consisted, so they said, of tolls and customs and were in- 
adequate ; so they asked the king's leave for the approvement 
of the waste places of the town. They were told that they 
might have an inquest ad quod damnum^, 

§ 126. The written history of the green commons of Cam- 
bridge begins with a difficult passage in Domesday Book. 

* Reclamant autem [burgenses] super Picotum viceco- 

mitem communem pasturam sibi per eum et ab eo ablatam. 

Ipse Picot fecit ibi iij. molend. qui aufer. pasturam et plures 

domos destruunt et mol. unum abbatis de Ely et alterum 

Alani comitis. Ipsa molend. reddunt ix, lib. per annum'.' 

It is not very clear whether Picot has erected three mills 

or a third mill. In the latter case we have the three mills of 

later days, namely, the Abbot's (afterwards Bishop's) Mill, the 

Zouche or Mortimer or Newnham Mill, and the King's Mill 

which Picot the sheriff has made. The Conqueror issued in 

favour of the church of Ely a writ which said : ' Molendinum 

de Grantebrigge quod Picotus fecit destruatur si alterum dis- 

turbatV Secondly, I am not sure that Picot's 'ablation' of 

the common pasture was more serious than that which was 

occasioned by the erection of a mill. If, however, he had done 

worse, we must not assume that he kept what he took. One 

object of William's inquest was to make Picot and his fellows 

^ See for instance the charter for DubUn, Rot Cart. Joh. p. 79. 

* Merewether and Stephens, Hist. Boroughs, ii« 656. 
' App. Rep. Mun. Corp. Com. 1835, vol. iv. p. 1358. 

^ Ibid. iii. 1796. ' Ibid. ii. 686 ; Records of Nottingham, ii. 8. 

* Rolls of Parliament, i. 397. ^ D. B. i. 189. 

* Inq. Com. Cant. ed. Hamilton, p. xxii. 



Picofs Misdeeds. 191 

give back what was not their own» and we have just seen how 
the king was prepared to order the destruction of Picot's mill 
if it could be proved to be hurtful to the Ely mill In later 
documents I can not see any ring-fenced estate such as we 
might trace to the theft of a large piece of common. 

§ 127. Mr Freeman has said of Picot that * among his other 
evil deeds, he robbed the burghers of Grantbridge of their 
folkland, while those of Oxford keep theirs to this day*.' Then 
of Oxford and Portmeadow Mr Boase says, * the city always 
kept it even from Robert d'Oilgi, while at Cambridge the 
Norman sheriff robbed the townsmen of their folkland ^' I 
think that this is a little hard on Picot, and very hard on the 
burghers of Grantbridge. In the nineteenth century the in- 
corporate burghers of Grantbridge still owned some 300 acres 
of green common and successfully vindicated * manorial rights ' 
over some square miles of arable land. And is it strictly true 
to say that the city of Oxford has always kept Portmeadow } 
Were there no people in neighbouring villages or hamlets who 
turned out beasts upon it ? 

§ 128. It is not certain that the site of St Radegund's 
nunnery came out of the green. King Malcolm gave ten acres 
next Greencroft (Midsummer Common) reserving a rent of two 
shillings. Bishop Nigel of Ely gave four acres next Malcolm's 
ten. There may have been a cultura here, and there would be 
nothing strange in the earl holding ten or the bishop four con- 
tiguous acres, or at any rate being able to acquire them for the 
endowment of the nuns'. On the other hand, the site of 
Barnwell Priory was to all appearance a tract carved from the 
green. Pain Peverel begged it from Henry I. Pain gives to 
the Canons 'a place lying in the fields of Cambridge, to wit 
thirteen acres around the springs of Barnwell, which King Henry 
gave me.' This place, we are told, extends along the high-road 
the full length of the Canons' courtyard, while in depth it 
stretches over dry land and fen to the river bank\ When the 
fields were partitioned at the beginning of the nineteenth 
century there was at this point an inclosed block of about 

' English Towns and Districts, p. 943. ' Oxford (Historic Towns), p. 14. 

* Gray, Charters of St Radegund, Camb. Antiq. Soc. Proc viii. 304 £ 
^ Liber Memorandorum, f. 13: *a magna plateajosque in riveriam de Cantebrigia 
in sicco et marisco secandum quod curia eomm in longum extendit.' 



192 The Barnwell Site. 

one-and-twenty acres belonging to the representative of the 
dissolved Priory. It extended back from the Newmarket Road 
to the towing-path, or * public haling way*/ We may doubt 
whether the burgesses of Henry I/s time thought that this land 
was just his to give ; but for a while these Austin Canons were 
popular and the burgesses were hardly yet a person. 

§ 129. Then in Edward I.'s day we hear that they accused 
the Prior of obstructing their drift-way. Some malicious folk 
declared that the townsmen were wont, and of right ought, to 
have a drift-way for their beasts through the middle of the court 
at Barnwell between the bake-house of the Prior and Canons 
and the river bank, to wit, from the pasture of Greencroft to the 
pasture of Estenhale and back again : in other words, between 
Midsummer Common and Sturbridge Common*. 

§ 130. A century later, in the eventful year 1381, Cambridge 
was for some days in the hands of a rebellious mob*. When the 
insurrection had been suppressed, Hugh de la Zouche and other 
justices were sent to punish the malefactors and there was some 
drawing and hanging in Cambridgeshire. On the interesting 
roll which records the doings of these justices, we see the Prior 
of Barnwell presenting a bill of trespass against the Mayor of 
Cambridge*. He * and his commons ' with force and arms broke 
the close of the Prior and Convent, to wit, walls, palings and 
hays, and cut down and carried off the trees growing there to 
the value of ;£'400, and broke the palings and gates of the 
Watergate and carried off the gates thereof and other things, to 
wit, fish, sedge, turf and other things, to the damage of the Prior 
and Convent to the amount of £2000^. 

§ 131. The Mayor's defence was that whatever wrong had 
been done was done by a mob which had him in its power and 
coerced him by threats of decapitation. Incidentally he con- 
fessed that 'the commons' had claimed a right to destroy the 
Prior's fences. I will give this part of the plea as it stands on 
the roll, for there are suggestive interlineations:...* quod notum 

1 It is described as * Horse Fair Close, Hog Yard, etc., 18 A. o R. i3 p. Abbey 
Farm, house, garden, yard etc., a A. 3 R. 13 P.' 

* Liber Memorandorum, f. 49 b. 

* Powell, Rising in East An^ia, pp. 41 ft 
^ Assize Rolls, No. 103, nu i. 

' The vast sums at which damages are laid must not be taken seriously. 



The Peasants Rebellion. 193 

fuit eis pro auditis^ antecessorum suorum de communitate 
ville Cantebrigie quod ante tempus memorie et post tempus 
memorie quod omnes burgenses ac communes residentes in villa 
Cantebrigie [et tenentes Regis ville predicted] habere deberent 
communam [pasture] ad pascendum averia sua cuiuscunque 
generis ac chaceam et rechasiam suam usque in pasturam suam 
vocatam Estenhale ad eorum libitum in loco [illo nuper vocato 
la Drove ut de iure ville Regis predicte] ubi predicti arbores, 
palicia et haie existabant, et quod locus predictus iniuste ab eis 
[et tenentibus Regis] per Priorem de Bernewelle per clausturas 
[et arbores] predictas [deforciatus et] impeditus existat, unde 
post tempus memorie fuerunt seisiti, voluerunt uti et...* pasturam 
et chaceam predictas in forma que supra.' 

§ 132. I do not infer from this that the Prior had done 
anything new. It is the old story. His court-yard with its 
water-gate obstructs the drift-way from Midsummer Green to* 
Sturbridge Green. The assertion that the townsfolk had been 
seised of this way * within the time of memory ' was probably 
untrue. Excited mobs are not careful about dates ; but I think 
that if the Prior had been guilty of any recent inclosure, we 
should have heard a much more specific allegation. I see here 
an old grievance that has long been treasured, and this story 
makes me unwilling to believe that the extent of the green 
commons had been seriously curtailed by inclosures or assar- 
tations. 

§ 133. As r^ards the regulation of the commons I have 
nothing to add to the documents which stand in Cooper's 
Annals, and to which I refer in a note^ In the sixteenth and 
seventeenth centuries the arable still has heavy claims upon the 
pasture and is for the more part in the hands of persons 
(collies) who stand outside and aloof from the corporation. 
On the other hand, the community has an old claim upon the 
idle field as well as upon the greens. Also the corporation has 
difficulties with 'the poor inhabitants of the town' who are 

^ Sic, They meant that they had heard from their ancestors. 

* When medieval burgesses are in a scrape they always suggest that their alleged 
rights are the king's rights. 

' Margin damaged. 

< Cooper, Annals, i. 91, 155, 157, 279, 344, 417; U. 36, 38, 40, 46, 54, 55, 85, 
88, 240, 169, 339, 369, 391, 392, 437, 444; iii. no, 164, 114, 139. 

M. 13 



194 Treatment of the Green Commons. 

multiplying somewhat rapidly in *the new erected cottages 
and divided tenements.' 

§ 134. After this came the evil days of the Rutland Club. 
The corporation, it was said, shamefully neglected the commons ; 
anybody and everybody seems to have turned out any beasts 
that he had, unless indeed he feared having to haul them from 
the mire*. In 1833 it was said that the mayor, who lived 
opposite Butt Green, would have been dead of cholera long 
since, had he not been of a strong constitution. One theory 
seems to have been that all the inhabitants had the right to turn 
out beasts ; but there was a tradition which would have confined 
it to the freemen and 'the inhabitants having gable gates': 
apparently a confused reminiscence of the ' broad-gates ' and the 
* high-gable' (haw-gavel) rents*. The commissioners reported 
as follows : * Freemen, being butchers, have a right of common 
*for sheep on 19 acres of land, called the Sheeps' Green. This 
land is open on three days in the week to the cows of all 
the inhabitants of Cambridge. The commons belonging to 
the borough consist of 310 acres. Some of it is lammas land. 
The inhabitants at large enjoy the right of depasturing these 
commons.' 

§ 135. In 1 84 1, after the Municipal Reformation, proposals 
for the inclosure of certain parts of the greens were mooted. 
On that occasion a committee of the Town Council reported 
that 'the legitimate right to use these commons at all was 
centred in comparatively a very few individuals and that such 
rights were rendered absolutely valueless by other people 
trespassing most unwarrantably upK>n that which does not in 
any way belong to them'.* The propK)sed inclosure excited 

1 Petition to Parliament of 34 May 1833 printed in Digested Report of Evidence 
given before Mun. Corp. Commission, p. xviii. : ' The said Commons, if properly 
regulated, would be exceedingly valuable... but the said Corporation shamefully neglect 
the same, neither paying any attention to the drainage of them, nor taking any measures 
to prevent persons not having a right of common from sending their cattle thereon, by 
reason whereof the said Commons are frequently flooded, and the whole of them are 
so much overstocked that the inhabitants of the said Town derive little or no advantage 
therefrom.* 

' Digested Report, p. 88: Mr Pryme stated that he had heard from Aldermen 
Bond and White that * the right of common is in the freemen, and the inhabitants 
having gable gates. That in point of fact it is in all the inhabitants.' 

• Cooper, Annals, iv. 634. 



Parochialism. 195 



opposition and came to nothing. A similar project met with 
a like fate in 1850*. I have purposely kept myself in complete 
ignorance of the practice that has obtained in modem times 
in order that I might not plead or seem to be pleading any 
cause, and I have no reason to believe that there is any cause to 
be pleaded. 

§ 136. We have seen above how the commoners were 
treated when the Eastern and Western Fields were inclosed and 
the lam mas right over St Thomas's Leys was extinguished*. 
Those commoners who were not also strip-owners were regarded 
as having rights that were bound up with houses. Without 
hinting any doubt as to the justice of the Awards, I may say 
once more that the parochialism which they display does not 
look medieval. For a couple of centuries and more before the 
year 1800 the parish had been, even in the boroughs, an im- 
portant unit for secular purposes. Even in the boroughs, the 
parish maintained its own poor. As Gneist has remarked*, the 
council of the English borough had not, as the council of a 
foreign town would have, all the powers of * local self-govern- 
ment ' in its hands. The parish was the unit of the Poor Law. 
Then in the south of England the rural vill was generally a 
parish, and the rural parish was generally a vill. So, when the 
time came for Inclosure Acts, what usually wanted inclosing 
was the land of some 'parish,' and it seemed an anomaly 
that a house in one parish should confer rights of pasture 
in another. The 'parish' has done a good deal of harm to 
English law and English history. Might we not even now 
give it back to its priest } We may envy the Americans their 
* towns.' 

§ 137. An important chapter in the history of our boroughs 
should be devoted to rights of pasture. Dr Gierke has given a 
deeply interesting account of the fate which befalls the old 
' common land ' (Almende) of a German community when that 
community developes into a civic corporation*. The corporate 
Town now owns this land. Different parts of it will be used in 
different fashions, (i) Part of it will directly serve corporate 
purposes ; for instance, there will be a town-hall, (ii) Part of it 

' Cooper's Annals, v. 23-5. * See above, pp. 108, 115, lai- 

' Gneist, Self-government, 580. * Genossenschaftsrecht, ii. 682 ff. 

13—2 



196 Burgensic User of Common Land. 



will indirectly serve similar purposes ; it is let and the rent 
is paid into the town-chest (iii) Part lies open to public use ; 
there are streets that are used alike by bui^hers and non- 
burghers. But (iv) there is often a large tract from which the 
burghers make profit by depasturing their cattle or the like; 
this land is the subject of the so-called bilrgerliche Nutzungen. 
This user by the burghers is, however, quite at the mercy of the 
Town, of the corporation. It in no way impairs or incumbers 
the Town's ownership of the land. The Town acting by its 
proper organ might subtract the land from this use and devote 
it to another. Further, the individual burgher now gets what- 
ever right he has merely by being burgher, or by virtue of his 
rank in the civic community. He has a right to be treated 
in this matter like all other burghers, or all other burghers of 
the civic class to which he belongs ; he is not to be capriciously 
excluded from what his peers enjoy; but there his right ends. 
He is a corporator who is suffered to use the property of the 
corporation. There is no longer any notion of his being one 
of many joint proprietors, and on the other hand we must not 
think of his right as ius in re alienay a sort of servitude imposed 
on land which the corporation owns. 

§ 138. I should suppose that before the Municipal Refor- 
mation this stage of development had often been attained in the 
great English boroughs, though, as our Cambridge case may 
suggest, it was attained slowly, and perhaps most slowly where 
there was much uninclosed arable land within the 'town/ 
From the Report of 1835 I will give a few illustrations of what 
I take to be pure 'burgensic user' of land owned by the 
corporation*. 



^ I must not imply that in all the cases here mentioned, the corporation had power 
to withdraw the land from the use to which it was put by the freemen. In more than 
one great town there has been quarrelling about this point in recent days, and the 
costliness of a law-suit when it involves an ancient history has kept more than one 
pretty case out of the courts. The most instructive decisions of modem times have 
dealt with the liability to local rates of (1) the owning corporation and (1) the using 
commoners. From a case concerning Lincoln (Law Reports, a Queen's Bench, 482) 
the reader will be able to work back to cases concerning York, Nottingham, Sudbury 
and Huntingdon. The Act of 1835 remodelled the corporations and at the same 
time contained a salvo for the rights of the freemen. Whatever may now-a-days be the 
nature of the freeman's right under this salvo, he is no longer a corporator sufiEered to 
enjoy the property of the corporation. 



Borough Pastures. 197 



Oxford (i. 102). 

The privileges and emoluments of y^i^ freemen at large are... a right of 
common over Port Meadow, about 439 acres in extent ^ 

Worcester (i. 155). 

The privileges of iYitfreefnen are... a limited right of common over about 
twenty acres of land. 

Beverley (iii. 1459). 

The burgesses residing within the town have the privilege of depasturing 
cattle being their own property, on lands belonging to the corporation 
containing about 4,217 acres. They are allowed to depasture three cows 
in Westwood Pasture; one horse in Hum Pasture; three beasts in Figham 
Pasture and six beasts in Swinemoor Pasture, from the 14th of May to the 
14th of February. This privilege, if enjoyed to its utmost extent, would be 
worth £2$ 2L year.... Persons depasturing are subject to the payment of a 
small sum on every head of cattle depastured. This sum varies from 
5^. 6d, to \6s, 6d z, head. 

Northampton (iii. 1969). 

The freemen are entitled to common of pasture for six head of cattle on 
about 200 acres of land on payment of a fee fixed by the corporation. 

Haverfordwest (i. 241). 

The common of Portfield is a large meadow situate within the borough, 
and containing about 1,000 acres of land. Upon this meadow the burgesses 
are entitled to right of common for all conmionable cattle, without stint, at 
all times of the year. 

Pembroke (i. 367). 

The burgesses are entitled to right of common for all beasts at all times 
of the year over about 15 acres of conmion land within the borough, called 
'The Common '....It was some time since proposed and agreed to by a 
majority of the burgesses that this conmion should be inclosed and let and 
that the proceeds shotdd be applied towards the improvement of the town. 
It was accordingly let... [The rents were too high ; the lots were abandoned, 
and the common is now whoUy unproductive.] 

Grimsby (iv. 2251—2). 

Freemen paying scot atid lot have the right of puttmg stock upoo the 
commons belonging to the corporation.... It appears to be understood that 
persons would not now be allowed to purchase their freedom, by reason 
of such admissions lessening the value of the existing freemen's right of 
common (!). 

Hartlepool (iii 1535). 

The corporation are entitled to the Town Moor, over which the freemen 
exercise the right of pasturage ; beyond this no profit is made of it. This 

^ For the sixteenth century see Records of Oxford, ed. Turner, passim. 



198 Borough Pastures, 



land adjoins the town, and lies betwixt it and the sea. Since the increased 
demand for building land, it is estimated as being worth about £20fxx). 

Lancaster (iii. 1605). 

The free burgesses are entitled to a right of common on Lancaster Moor, 
but in practice the common is used by almost every one who has property 
adjoining it. The eighty senior burgesses are entitled to an equal share in 
the net income arising from some ground called Lancaster Marsh, the 
property of the corporation. Lancaster Marsh was formerly a stinted 
pasture; and, by an old custom, of the commencement of which there is 
no record in the corporation books, the senior eighty resident freemen were 
alone entitled to the herbage. 

Morpeth (iii. 1628). 

[A constitution with trade companies.] The free brothers of companies 
are entitled to two stints of common of pasture for two of their own beasts, 
on a tract of land... containing 401 acres, subject to an annual payment of 5J. 
a year and a load of manure for each stint. The privilege is extended to 
widows during their widowhood. 

Newcastle upon Tyne (iii. 1647). 

Under the provisions of a recent Act of Parliament the resident burgesses 
and their widows are entitled to a common of pasture each for two cows, 
being their own property, upon a tract of land belonging to the corporation, 
containing about 1,100 acres called the Town Moor.. ..Under the same Act 
of Parliament a portion of this moor is enclosed, and let by public auction. 
It produces a rent oi £,100, This is divided among such of the poor freemen 
and their widows as do not enjoy the right of pasturage. 

Shrewsbury (ii. 2018). 

As regards the Quarry and Kingsland :— The burgesses had formerly what 
were called turns — that is right of pasture by turns — on these lands. This 
right of pasture has been converted into a money payment: that for the 
Quarry is £\. \s, each to 24 burgesses; that for Kingsland 4J. (uL each to 
30 burgesses. The order of payment to the burgesses is regulated by the 
ancient rules which applied to the enjoyment of the pasturage. The pay- 
ment goes according to the streets in a certain rotation. The widows and 
daughters of deceased burgesses are entitled to payment in their turn. 

§ 139. These we might call instances of *burgensic user in 
common.' But there were also instances of *bui^ensic user in 
severalty': that is to say, cases in which a corporator merely 
as corporator, or as member of a certain class of corporators, 
was suffered to enjoy in severalty a certain piece of the land 
of which the corporation was owner. 

Nottingham (iii. 1985) an ancient borough with a gigantic territory was 
the grand instance. The burgesses are entitled if resident to take in order 



Burgensic User in Severalty. 199 

of seniority what is called a * burgess-part,' that is an allotment of land in the 
fields or meadows at a small ground-rent payable to the corporation, or a 
yearly sum in lieu of the allotment, at the discretion of the corporation. 
These burgess-parts are 254 in number. They are unequal in value, and 
form in fact a sort of lottery.... These allotments are not considered as free- 
holds ; but the common hall exercise the right of resuming them during the 
life of the burgess. Resumptions of the burgess parts have been frequent of 
late years.... 

Somewhat similar arrangements were to be found at Berwick 
(iii. 1443) and at Stafford (iii. 2028) and perhaps in the Portfield 
at Marlborough (i. 85). They should be carefully distinguished 
from cases in which a corporation had contracted a habit of 
making beneficial leases to corporators. The corporator with 
a lease had a right such as an outsider might have. At least at 
Nottingham there seems to have been a mere user by the 
corporator of the land of the corporation. The corporation 
' resumed * a * burgess-part ' when it pleased, and in the past had 
even done this without compensation. This seems to bespeak 
not a low but a high stage of municipal development, though 
one that was only likely to occur in a town that had more waste 
than was requisite for * common ' pasturage. 

Another instance may be taken from Bedford (iv. 2106). 
Two bailiffs were annually elected. A pasture 25 acres in 
extent and divided into 25 lots was formerly held by the bailiffs 
rent-free during their own lives and afterwards by their widows. 
'In 1 8 14 the corporation finding themselves in pecuniary 
difficulties... abolished this privilege. Four lots are still held by 
the widows who had acquired a vested interest ; the remaining 
21 are now let for £^\ a year.' Here, again, the corporation, 
while showing respect for 'vested interests/ abolishes a 'bur- 
gensic user ' of its property. 

§ 140. From what may be regarded as the normal type there 
were some aberrations. It is possible that at York (iii. 1745), 
where the freemen of the various wards had different pastures, 
we have traces of coalesced communities ; but an arrangement 
of this kind seems to have been very rare. It is only, I think, 
in boroughs of a low order that the right of pasture is conceived 
in recent days as bound up with particular houses ^ In boroughs 

> See Godmanchester, iv. 1236; and Clitheroe, iii. i486; also Gateshead, iii. 1516. 
But at Nottingham, iii. looi, the occupiers of old toftsteads had special rights. 



200 The Case of Lauder. 



of the lowest order the waste was owned, not by the corporation, 
but by a manorial lord> and sometimes in such a case any right 
of pasture that there might be was quite unconnected with 
corporatorship, but was claimed as * appendant' or 'appur- 
tenant' in a thoroughly individualistic and rural fashion. 
Lastly, an undue contraction of the burgensic body has 
sometimes led to the result that "'inhabitants' who are not 
corporators assert and perhaps acquire rights of common which 
are not at the mercy of the corporation*. I do not think that 
this should be regarded as other than the regrettable effect of a 
regrettable cause. In order that substantial justice may be 
done, it may be necessary at times to declare that a municipal 
corporation is a ' trustee ' of land which the ' inhabitants ' have 
an * equitable ' right to use. But this can hardly be a desirable 
arrangement'. 

§ 141. I can not but think that Sir Henry Maine 
went far astray when he made the borough of Lauder a 
classic case of archaic rural arrangements', (i) The whole 
amount of the land that was set apart to be ploughed was no 
more than 130 acres or thereabouts. This was divided into 
105 shares. A share therefore, if judged by a truly ancient 
standard, would be ridiculously small. We should have a 
hundred men sharing what was hardly more than a single hide. 
(2) I may observe that a charter of 1502, after reciting the 
destruction of older documents, grants to the burgesses and 
community of Lauder the said burgh for ever with all and 
sundry lands and 'with power to the said burgesses and com- 
munity to break up and plough their common lands for their 
greater convenience and profit*.' This suggests to me that the 
practice of ploughing up a part of the common pasture is not more 
ancient than the charter. In the later middle ages and thence 
onwards an acre of arable would be a pleasant addition to 

^ See e^. what is said of Bodmin, i. 447. 

■ Goodman v. Mayor of Saltash^ 7 Appeal Cases 633. The feat of finding a 'trust ' 
m a charter of Reginald de Vautort was a bold exploit of modem equity, which will 
not, I hope, mislead any student of the middle ages, especially as Lord Blackburn 
shrank from it. 

* Pari. Pap. 1870, Return of Borotighs and Cities possessing Commons. Maine, 
Village Community, 97 : * It may be doubted whether a more perfect example of the 
primitive cultivating community is extant in England or Germany.' 

^ Return, p. 40. 



The Missing Lordship. 201 

the resources of a burgess. Lauder Common was lai^e; it 
contained 1700 acres; if 130 acres were ploughed, enough 
would be left for cattle. In the fact that sometimes one and 
sometimes another part of the common was ploughed I can 
see nothing that is decisively ancient The practice of tilling 
a piece of land until it will bear little and then allowing it to go 
back for some years to the waste was the. common practice in 
some parts of Britain in yet recent times. I should guess that 
we have in this famous case a *burgensic usage* of no vast 
antiquity. In calling it by that name, however, I do not mean 
to take a side in the extremely interesting controversy which 
divided the men' of Lauder in 1868. But to speak of these 
130 acres as 'the arable mark' of a 'primitive cultivating 
community' is surely an error. 

§ 142. In 1870 a Return was made 'of all Boroughs and 
Cities in the United Kingdom possessing Common or other 
Lands, in respect of which the Freemen or other privileged 
Inhabitants claim any exclusive Right of Property or Use.' 
The inquiry was addressed to nearly three hundred places in 
England and Wales. The answers seem to show that in modern 
times the towns in which the corporation owned a considerable 
tract of pasture land were for the more part just those old 
shire-boroughs upon whose importance in early history I have 
been dwelling. I may mention the case of Oxford (about 
330 acres), Cambridge (about 285 acres), Gloucester (about 
300 acres), Lincoln (about 500 acres), Northampton (about 
200 acres), York (nearly 400 acres), Colchester, Derby, Durham, 
Huntingdon, Leicester, Warwick. There were other boroughs, 
such as Beverley, Berwick and Sudbury with wide pastures; 
but north of the Thames the county towns were prominent in 
this respect. 

§ 143. From a tract printed in 1802 for private circulation 
and entitled A Narrative of the Proceedings on the St Giles's 
Inclosure Bill (Univ. Libr. Z. 23. 5) I gather that the proposal 
for the inclosure of the Western Fields at Cambridge came from 
St John's College. A meeting of proprietors was held at the 
Rose Tavern on the 23rd of November, 1801, and favoured the 
project The general opinion among the promoters seems to 
have been that the lordship belonged to Merton College. 



202 The Trial in 1803. 

Mr Marsh, who was managing the bill on behalf of St John's 
College, is reported to have said ' that he had always considered 
the manor as belonging to Merton College in Oxford ; that at 
least the only court baron in the parish of St Giles had been 
holden by the said college from time immemorial; that he 
had heard, indeed, of one attempt made by the [municipal] 
corporation, some years ago, to exercise a sort of manorial 
power within the said parish, but that St John's and Merton 
College had united in resisting the attempt, and that the 
corporation had submitted. ... He recollected that the said 
corporation, about twenty years ago, merely under the pretence 
of being owners of the soil, threatened to cut down all the trees 
in Erasmus's walk.' The incorporate Town opposed the bill in 
parliament, and to meet its objections, clauses were inserted 
directing that the various claims to an ownership of the waste 
should be tried by jury. The writer of the pamphlet (apparently 
a Cambridge gownsman) is scornful of the Town's right, since 
* the whole quantity of land belonging to the corporation in the 
parish of St Giles amounts only to an acre and a half ; and even 
that pittance is let upon a lease of nine hundred and ninety-nine 
years.' He thinks it 'extremely rash' of the corporation of 
Cambridge to dispute the Merton title. 

§ 144. The following is an account of the trial : 

Guild- Hall, Jan. 2a 

Sittings before Mr Justice Laurence, and a Special Jury of MerchofUs, 

The Mayor of Cambridge v, Merton College. 

This case occupied the whole day. It was conducted by Mr Erskine, 
Mr Gibbs, Mr Wood, Mr Wilson and Serjeant Bailey, for the plaintiffs, who 
were the Mayor, Bailiffs, and Burgesses of the town of Cambridge, and by 
Mr Garrow, Mr Dancey, Mr Warren, and Mr Puller, for the defendants, 
who were Fellows of Merton Hall, in Oxford, and Jesus College, and 
St John's, in the University of Cambridge. 

Mr Erskine, who opened this case with great clearness and perspicuity, 
observed, that this proceeding arose out of a private Act of Parliament, 
which was lately passed, for dividing, allotting, and inclosing the common 
fields and meadows within the parish of St Giles's, in the town of Cambridge. 
On the passing of that Act, which had for its object the inclosing of these 
open fields within this parish, different claims were brought before Parlia- 
ment, with regard to the right of the soil of the lands that were to be 
inclosed and improved; and they reserved in the Act a power for the 



Cambridge Corporation v. Merton College. 203 



different claimants to try this right The learned Counsel proceeded to 
state the nature of the evidence he meant to produce, and which he did 
produce, in support of the plaintiffs* claim to the soil of the open fields and 
waste lands in this parish. The town of Cambridge consisted of fourteen 
parishes, and there was no doubt but the right to the soil of all the lands in 
the different parishes, as described in the Act of Parliament, belonged to the 
Corporation of Cambridge, except the lands in the parish of St Giles's, which 
were claimed by the defendants. 

Mr Garrow here observed, that he meant only to trouble the Court and 
Jury in support of the claim of Merton Hall. 

The first piece of evidence produced on the part of the plaintiffs was a 
charter, or rather an instrument, admitting that a charter had been granted 
by Henry II. of all these lands, &c. now claimed by the Corporation of 
Cambridge. This was dated in the year 1160, and was confirmed by King 
John in the eighth year of his reign, A.D. 1207; and there was then produced 
a charter of Richard II. in the 5th year of his reign, and in the year 1382. 

The Counsel for the plaintiffs then proceeded to shew a variety of acts of 
ownership under this grant from the Crown. They shewed a number of 
leases granted by the Corporation to different persons, of the waste lands 
in the parish of St Peter's, St BeneYs, St Andrew's, &c. and then they gave 
a variety of instances of such leases which they had granted, of lands of this 
description, in the parish of St Giles's. These leases were of an ancient date, 
and bad been renewed from time to time, down to the present day. They 
also shewed, from the books of the Corporation, a number of instances, 
where they had granted, for a valuable consideration, a licence to plant 
trees on different parts of these lands, and they had received a sum of 
money from a Vice-Chancellor of the University, for permitting some trees 
to stand as an ornament, and as a shade to the walks. 

On the part of Merton College, the defendants, in order to answer the 
evidences of the plaintif!is, began with producing an original deed, dated the 
54th of Henry III. from which it appeared that Wm. De Manfield had 
granted them a stone house and garden adjacent to it, in the parish of 
St Giles's. They then produced a copy of a grant to the Warden and 
Scholars of Merton Hall. This was a confirmation by Charles I. of the 
Manor of Merton College, in Cambridge, which is called Pythagoras's 
Farm. They then shewed, that from the 14th of Henry VIII. downwards, 
a Court belonging to this Manor had been regularly held, at which pre- 
sentments had been made. They also shewed that the Corporation of 
Cambridge paid 20f. per annum to Merton, for a mill which they leased 
from the defendants. 

It further appeared in evidence, that the farm of Merton College, which 
was situated in the parish of St Giles's, in the town of Cambridge, only 
contained from 50 to 60 acres, to which they had an undoubted right, and 
nobody was disputing it with them. But they contended they had a right 
to all the open fields and waste lands in the parish, which amounted to 
1,200 acres. The tenant of Merton Farm had an extensive sheep-walk over 
the whole parish when the com was taken off. He had a right of going on 
the lands of those who did not hold of Merton College ; St John's College 



204 Income and Personality. 



had a right equally extensive, and Sir Charles Cotton had also a right of this 
sort, but limited. 

After a short reply from Mr Erskine ; 

Mr Justice Laurence summed up the evidence given on both sides with 
great precision and correctness and pointed out to the Jury the most 
important parts of it, as applied to the question they had to decide. He 
was of opinion, the evidence for the plaintiffs greatly preponderated. 

The Jury found a verdict for the Corporation of Cambridge, and that no 
part of these lands belong to Merton College. 

[Cambridge Chronicle^ 29 January, 1803.]* 

§ 145. The evolution of a borough corporation is very 
closely connected with what I may be allowed to call the 
emergence of a freely disposable revenue which the bui^esses 
will treat as the income of the Town. By a freely disposable 
revenue I mean one which will not be wholly or nearly ex- 
hausted in the payment of the fee-farm rent that is due to the 
king. We may surmise that a steady income of this kind is by 
no means primeval and perhaps would hardly be found before 
the fourteenth century in any but the largest towns. To all 
appearance the fee-farm rents were heavy, and I doubt whether 
they could always be met out of the old revenue which the 
sheriff had received. To get rid of his interference, the 
burgesses were willing to promise the king as handsome an 
equivalent for the ancient royal dues as any farmer would 
have offered. It is only in course of time that the bui^esses 
find that the 'community' has an income which is at 'its' 
disposal, and, unless I am mistaken, a considerable part in 
this change is played by those leases of waste and * common ' 
land which the community begins to grant in answer to an 
increasing demand for building sites. We may easily exaggerate 
the corporate wealth of a medieval borough. Owing to the 
highly centralized government which prevailed in this country, 
the English borough community had very little, if any, power 
of habitually raising by way of direct rates or taxes a revenue 
that was to be expended according to the votes of the communal 
assembly or the ruling magistrates. The ' meaner sort ' are off 
to Westminster at once if the potentiores impose tallages, unless 
indeed the money is wanted for the discharge of some debt that is 
due to the king. This distinguishes the English from the foreign 

^ Some phrases in this report are misleading. The dispute was about lordship 
over the fields and ownership (tenancy in demesne) of the balks and other bits of ' waste.' 



Borough Finance. 205 

town : Westminster is so near, so accessible. But a * corporate 
personality ' is hardly required until there is a corporate income. 

§ 146. The foregoing remarks are due in part to a perusal 
of some of the accounts kept by the officers of the town of 
Cambridge. Near the end of the last century Mr Bowtell, an 
alderman of the borough, purchased a large quantity of these 
valuable documents when they were being sold as waste paper. 
He caused them to be bound and afterwards generously gave 
them to Downing College. They go back as far as 15 10 and 
admirably illustrate the finance of an English town of the 
sixteenth century. For the more part they are the audited 
accounts of the annually elected treasurers, of whom there were 
two at a time. The accountants first charge themselves with 
receipts and then discharge themselves by stating what they 
have expended. I will say a few words of the main heads of 
income and outgo, choosing the year which ended at Michaelmas 
15 19 as an example. 

(i) First among the items of charge stand *the rents and 

farms of lands, tenements and grounds belonging to the said 

Treasury specified in the rental.' These amount in all to about 

;^54. Their nature may be shown by a few examples: 

£,, s, d, 
Inprimis of the Master and Fellows of Benet College for 

three buttresses built upon the common ground annexed to the 

tenement at Small Bridges 3 

Item of Mr John Belle for a parcel of a void ground of 
the common ground inclosed to his tenement in the which be 
late dwelt in Cambridge 4 

Item of the said John Belle for a common lane inclosed 
to the said tenement 2 

Item of the same Hugh [Chapman] for a shop built upon 
the comer of the tolbooth 13 4 

Item of the Master and Fellows of the College of St Michael 
for two common lanes inclosed and a tenement set built upon 
the conmion ground 5 o 

Many of these rents are very small and the total amount is 

largely due to three items. 

£,. J. d. 
Item of Robert Sympson for the farm of the mill called 

Newnham Mill and the land called Mortimer's Land ... 18 o o 

Item of Hugh Chapman for the farm of the Bishops Mill 10 10 o 
Item of [John] Lete of Barnwell for the farm of the land 

called the Chapel Ground 220 



2o6 Borough Finance. 



These three entries represent speculations on the part of the 
Town. It was renting the Newnham Mill and Mortimer's Land 
at £\i. dr. &/. from Gonville Hall. It was renting the Bishops 
Mill at £g, icxr. from the Bishop of Ely. It was renting the 
Chapel Ground from the same prelate. The 'out rents' that 
the town has to pay appear on the other side of the account 
On the whole, the treasurers seem to be charged with some ;£'20 
in respect of rents payable for pieces of the * common ground/ or, 
in other words, for what had once been pieces of the intramural 
* waste ' of the town. 

(2) Then there are the rents received for certain booths 
belonging to the Town in Sturbridge Fair. There are booths 
in the Chapel Ground, in Cheapside, the Duddery, and Birchin 
Lane (these were the names of streets in the fair) and there are 
Alebooths; also there are payments made for 'packs' in the 
fair. Under this head the treasurers account for about £i2. 

(3) There is a very variable sum derived from the fines of 
newly admitted freemen. In 1 5 1 8-9 this amounts to ;Ci 8. 1 3^. 4^. 

In that year the total charged against the treasurers was 
£%T, 1 5 J. 4^/. On the other hand they were allowed items of 
discharge amounting to £i6\. os. 6^d., and so the Town re- 
mained in their debt for £71. $s. 2\d. 

Among the outgoings we may notice first a balance of 
^^74- 7s. I id. paid to the treasurers of the last preceding year. 
The other main items are ' decay of rent ' (certain of the rents 
which stand due to the Town in its rental can not be levied and 
the treasurers are excused for not having levied them), * pay- 
ments of out rent ' {i£. rents due from the Town, in particular 
for the mills that it holds by lease from (jonville Hall and the 
Bishop of Ely), * fees and rewards,' ' reparations ' and * charge of 
diriges! Repairs must be done to the gildhall, the tolbooth, the 
houses and fairbooths that belong to the Town, and sometimes 
the ditches must be scoured. The Town having received legacies 
(some of its booths in the fair were thus obtained) is bound to 
make provision for the dirges of its benefactors. The mayor 
receives £\ ^ year * for his robe.* Considerable payments must 
be made to * the learned counsel ' of the Town by way of re- 
taining fees. If a parliament has been sitting, the representative 
burgesses must have their wages. Generally a good deal of 
money must be spent in litigation, or in maintaining the privi- 



The Old Revenue. 207 



leges of the borough ; the leading burgesses are often riding to 
London or elsewhere about the Town's affairs and their travelling 
expenses must be defrayed. Lastly, there are numerous presents 
to be made to all sorts of people, who whenever they come to 
Cambridge expect a pike, a tench, a bream, a gallon of claret or 
of malmsey or even hard cash. 

As large sums were occasionally required for new charters 
and the like, borough finance could not be very stable, and the 
Town was often in debt to its treasurers. In 1538 Cambridge 
had a balance of ;f 131 on the wrong side of its account This 
debt was reduced year by year until in Edward VI/s day there 
was a small balance on the right side. 

§ 147. Now these accounts seem to take no notice of certain 
sources of revenue, and of just those sources which are of the 
greatest interest to students of a remoter past, to wit, the profits 
of the courts, the tolls, and the * high-gable rents.' With the 
income thence derived the treasurers seem to have had nothing 
to do. It went into the hands of the mayor and bailiffs. So 
also we see nothing in the treasurers' accounts of that old charge, 
the fee-farm rent due to the king. Of accounts kept by the 
mayor and bailiffs I have seen but two fragments. The one 
b^ins about Christmas in 2 Henry VIII. (1510); the other 
about Christmas in 15 Henry VIII. (1523). 

From the second of these I take the following headings : 

' The account of the computants within-written of the issues and profits 
by them received from the Tuesday the 22nd day of December unto the 
Tuesday next before the feast of the Annunciation of our Blessed Lady in 
the 15th year of the reign of ...Henry VIII for 2 portes and 12 weeks.' 

' The account of the accountants within-named of the issues and profits 
by them received from the 3rd day of May in the i6th year of ...Henry 
VIII unto Tuesday the 26th day of July in the year abovesaid for 12 weeks 
and two portes.' 

The next account runs from 26 July to Michaelmas * that is 
to say for ten weeks porte.' 

In the earlier fragment similar headings are given in Latin. 
The first period runs from Sunday before Christmas to Sunday 
before St Edward pro xij septimanis at ij*~* portibus. The next 
from Sunday before St Edward to Sunday 8 June videlicet pro 
xij septimanis et ij*^ portibus. The next takes us to Sunday 



2o8 Borough Finance. 



22 July videlicet pro vj septimanis. The next to Michaelmas 
pro X septimanis et ij**"* portibus. 

What these * ports ' are does not clearly appear. Seemingly 
a * port ' occurs every six weeks, and I take it to be some session 
of the borough court. At any rate at short intervals, six, ten, 
twelve weeks, the mayor and bailiffs seem to strike an account 
of all that they have received and paid. For instance, for 
twelve weeks ending on the Sunday before St Edward 151 1 
the following receipts are recorded : 

The bailiff of the Bridge for the said two ports 18 6 

The bailiff of the Market for the same i 19 i 

The bailiff of the High Ward for the same 55 

The bailiff of the [King's] Mill for money remaining in the 
hand of Richard Eyton for wheat sold to him and unpaid at 

the last port 15 2 

The said bailiff for 3 coombs of meslin sold by him remain- 
ing from the last port 4 10 

The said bailiff in clear money for wheat and meslin sold 

by him i 7 9 

The mayor of the town for the said two ports i 3 7^ 

Total 6 14 4^ 

Then besides this the bailiff of the Mill has in hand 61 coombs 
of wheat and 3 of meslin. Then come the items of discharge, 
amounting to £6. 4s, id, * And so there remains in the bag in 
clear money los/ Also there are some waifs and strays still to 
be sold. 

So far as I can see, there come into this account (i) the 
profits of the King's Mill, (2) all the profits of the court, fines, 
forfeitures, waif and stray, (3) all the tolls, (4) the profits of two 
fairs belonging to the Town, namely, Reech Fair and Midsummer 
Fair, also certain of the profits derived from Sturbridge Fair, 
(S) the * high-gable rents' amounting now to £6. 

At Michaelmas a balance was struck for the whole year. 
The chaige against the accountants was £74. 14s, 2cL The 
items of discharge amounted to £%6. y. ^d, * And so in decay 
;fii. 9^. 2d! I understand this to mean that the mayor and 
bailiffs have to find this deficiency out of their own pockets. 

By far the largest item of discharge consists of £70 paid into 
the Exchequer for the fee-farm of the borough. But there are 
some other old rents to be paid : £4 to the Prior of Caldwell, 



The Burhgeat. 209 



£\ to the Prior of Kenilworth, £\ to Merton College. The 
mayor is allowed 2s. and the recorder \s, a week. The wages 
of the Serjeants and tollers also appear, and some allowances are 
made to the bailiff of the mill for repairs done upon it But 
apparently what we may call the old revenue of the Town is 
barely sufficient to meet the king's fee-farm rent, and the bailiffs 
make no profit, but a loss by their offices. 

§ 148. Apparently a similar story might be told of the 
finances of Oxford. In 1549 the bailiffs have ' taken and enjoyed 
towards the payment of the king's fee-farm' (i) all perquisites 
of courts, waif, stray and so forth, (2) certain tolls and customs, 
and (3) the profits of that moiety of the Castle Mills which 
belonged to the City. Then in 1549 it is ordained that these 
molendinary profits are no longer to be received by the bailiffs, 
but are to be taken ' by the mayor and commonalty of the said 
city to the use of the whole body of the said city,* and instead 
a sum of ;f 20 a year is to be paid to the bailiffs by the key- 
keepers of the said city. Also the bailiffs are henceforth ex- 
onerated from the annuity of £\^ payable to Oriel College, and 
this annuity is henceforth to be paid by the mayor and com- 
monalty^ Rearrangements of this kind can be made from 
time to time; but there still are two distinct revenues. 

Someday the accounts of many towns must be examined. 
When that has been done, we shall beg^n to understand the 
details of the process which gives to the town that personality 
which the village lacks, and converts a community into a cor- 
poration. 

§ 149. To turn for a moment to very early history, I have 
elsewhere committed myself to the guess that the magnates of 
the shire may have been bound, not only to repair the fortifica- 
tions of the borough, but also to keep houses and retainers in 
it". In support of this 'garrison theory,' if I may so call it, I 
made use of an argument which must be abandoned. Mr Steven- 
son has shown that what is required of the ceorl who thrives to 
thegn-right, is a burh-geat, not a burh-geat-setl*. To what he 
has said I may add that I have lately noticed for the first time 
that a charter granted to Robert Fitz Harding and printed in 

* Records of the City of Oxford, ed. Turner, 199. 

* Domesday Book and Beyond, 190. ' English Hist. Rev. lui. 489. 

M. 14 



2IO The Garrison Town. 

John Smyth's Lives of the Berkeley s (i. 22) contains the following 
clause : * cum tol et them et zoch et sache et belle et burgiet et 
infankenethef.' Certainly the burgiet seems to be some outward 
and visible sign of jurisdiction or lordly power, and at any rate 
I can no longer contend that the thriving ceorl is expected to 
have a town house. 

§ 150. In an admirable article Mr James Tait has mar- 
shalled the arguments which can be brought against this garrison 
theory^ I still think that it explains some things that are not 
easily explicable ; in particular the cnihts in the boroughs and 
the distribution among divers rural manors of the burgages and 
burgesses that belong to one and the same lord. Moreover I 
have not supposed, or at least did not mean to suppose, that ' a 
military class became mere bourgeois in two such stormy cen- 
turies as the tenth and eleventh/ for I suspect a good many of 
the burgenses of the Confessor's day of being warlike folk : for 
example, the equites of Nottingham. However, I ought to have 
stated in express words that what can be read of certain im- 
portant towns (Norwich is one) would certainly not suggest the 
garrison theory, and is scarcely compatible with the belief that 
in those towns the magnates of the neighbourhood have been 
compelled to keep houses. To my mind it seems so little 
probable that a single history will serve for all the boroughs, or 
even for all the county towns, that I may not have sufficiently 
insisted on this improbability. The traits which originally 
served to differentiate the borough from the mere village may 
have been, and I think they were, very few : but by permuting 
and combining them we may soon have on our hands a large 
number of possible cases. As I can find no serious cause for 
quarrelling with Mr Tait's summary of what I had written, I 
feel bound to confess, not that I said too much of the borough 
as a military centre or of the borough as the scene of a special 
peace (for of that I am not yet convinced), but that I said too 
little of the borough as a tiin and as the market and moot-stow 
of a shire. In the third of these lectures I have endeavoured to 
redress the balance : not, I fear, very successfully. 

§ 151. I have never meant to assert that there were no 
exceptionally treated 'towns' before the days of Alfred and 

^ English Hist Rev. xii. 76B. 



Towns of Roman Origin. 211 

Edward the Elder, though I have said that 'at latest' in the 
struggle between the Danish invaders and the West-Saxon 
kings the establishment and maintenance of fortified towns was 
seen to be a matter of importance. Mr Tait asks whether we 
can * safely sweep aside all possibility of separate treatment 
before the ninth century of those old Roman civitates which 
either never ceased to be inhabited or were soon repeopled.' I 
should be very sorry to do anything of the sort, and am sorry if 
I have suggested, for I did not mean to suggest, that ' this class 
of towns first received a court in imitation of the new military 
foundations of Edward.' Mr Tait takes Canterbury as an in- 
stance. It seems to me very possible, though proof is wanting, 
that ' the burh of the men of Kent ' had a court of its own long 
before Edward's day ; but it also seems to me very possible that 
in times equally remote the walls of Dorovemia were being 
maintained by the Kentish folk as a matter of national or tribal 
importance. There is a curious charter dated in 804 by which 
the kings of Mercia and Kent grant to the abbess of Lyminge 
six acres in the civitas of Dorovernia 'ad necessitatis refugium*.' 
What precisely this may mean I do not know, but it seems to 
hint that the burh of the men of Kent is a place of refuge, to 
which in case of need the abbess and her flock may betake 
themselves. Also if, as Mr Tait says, Canterbury was a royal 
residence early in the seventh century, I should not be surprised 
to find a royal peace pervading it and extending perhaps for 
*one league, three perches and three feet' along the roads 
outside. I do not think that we have proof of the existence of 
a legal class of exceptionally treated towns until the Danes are 
upon us, but I should be the last to argue thence that no such 
towns existed. 

§ 1 52. The importance of Cambridge as a place of assembly 
during the age which preceded the Norman Conquest might 
be fully illustrated by the stories that are told in the Liber 
Eliensis. Bishop iEthelwold buys land at Lindon from Leofric: 
haec itaque emptio et conventio in territorio quod dicitur Grante- 
brygge facta est coram melioribus eiusdem provinciae (p. 117). 
He buys land at Streatham: the price is paid in oppido quod 
dicitur Grantebrygge (p. 1 19). He buys more land at Streatham 

1 Kemble, 188 (i. 150); Birch, 317 (I 444). 



212 The Republic of Cambridgeshire. 

and pays for it coram omnibus apud civitatem quiu dicitur 
GranUbrigge (p. 120). Indeed Cambridge is put before us as 
the usual place where payment is made if land in the shire is 
sold (pp. 121, 126, 130, 135). Then iEthelwine the ealdorman 
holds a grand court at Cambridge, grande placitum dvium et 
hundretanorum coram xxiiij, itidicibus subtus Themigefeld prope 
Maideneburge (p. 137). Transactions take place there, coram 
iota cvvitaU or coram coetu dvium (p. 140) ; the totus coetus qui 
tunc apud Grantebricge convenerat is witness (p. 151). The 
abbot of Ely comes to Cambridge and buys land at Toft, coram 
tota civiUite\ he then demands a wed of the vendor: in other 
words, a pledge for the delivery of seisin. But all men answer 
that Cambridge, Norwich, Thetford and Ipswich enjoy such 
immunity and dignity that if anyone buys land there he has no 
need of any wed (p. 140). Then some merchants of Ireland 
arrived at Cambridge and one Leofstan a priest stole some of 
their wares. He begged mercy of 'the citizens,' who granted 
him his life and property (p. 148). 

§ 153. In the Inquisitio Eliensis at the end of what is said 
of the abbey of Ely's possessions in the borough of Cambridge, 
there stands this sentence : ' In provincia Grentebrigge reclamat 
abbas quartum nummum ut carte sue testantur et homines de 
syra*/ Then in the great placitum of the Conqueror's reign we 
read : * Insuper et omnem quartum denarium rei publice de 
Grantebrice a tempore iEdgari regis Sanctique iEthelwoldi 
presulis possedit semper abbas monasterii Ely usque modo, 
quem vero Picotus vicecomes nunc iniuste contra tenetV If we 
put these two texts together we shall probably infer that what 
the abbot claimed was the fourth penny of the county or of the 
county-court. Then in the would-be charter granted by Edgar 
the king is supposed to bestow in Latin 'omnem quartum 
nummum reipublicae in provincia Grantaceaster,' or in English 
'■Bone feorBan pening on folclicre steore into GrantanbricgeV 
Again, in the charter ascribed to Edward the Confessor : * omnis- 
que quartus nummus reipublicae in provincia Grantecestriae et 
aliquae terrae in ipsa villa\' Also in this last document the isle 
of Ely is said to lie ' in comitatu Grantecestriae.' The mention 

* D. B. iv. 508; Inq. Com. Cant ed. Hamilton, lai. 

* Inq. Com. Cant. 195. ' Kemble, Cod. Dip. 563 (iii. 58, 61). 
^ Kemble, Cod. Dip. 907 (it. 144). 



Borough and Shire. 213 

of Grantchester rather than Grantbridge in certain of these 
documents raises a difficult question which I must not touch ; 
they all, however, seem to be aiming at the fourth penny, not of 
one vill, but of a \Aio\t provincia. Domesday Book says nothing 
about the matter, and suggests by its silence that the abbot's 
claim was rejected. 

§ 154, The following writ, whereby Henry I. bans the trade 
of Cambridgeshire to the borough of Cambridge, I copy from a 
book known as the Cross Book and preserved in the municipal 
archives. I do not see sufficient reason for questioning its 
authenticity. Henry II.'s Charter for Nottingham declares that 
the men of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire ought to come to 
the borough of Nottingham on Fridays and Saturdays with their 
wains and p^^ckhorses {cum quadrigis et summa^is suis), and 
that no one for ten leagues round Nottingham may work dyed 
cloth except in the boroughs Also the same king declares that 
the citizens of Lincoln may have their gild merchant of the men 
of the city ' and of the other merchants of the county".* 

Henricus Rex Angl. Heru. Eliensi Episcopo* et omnibus 
baronibus suis de Grentebrugescira salutem. Prohibeo ne aliqua 
navis applicet ad aliquod litus de Cantebrugescira^ nisi ad litus 
de burgo meo de Cantebruge neque carece onerentur nisi in 
burgo de Cantebruge neque aliquis capiat alibi theolonium nisi 
ibl Et quicunque in ipso burgo forisfecerit ibidem faciat rectum. 
Quod si quis aliter fecerit precipio ut sit michi inde ad rectum 
coram iustida mea quando precepero inde placitare. T. CancelL 
et Milon de Gloc*. 

^ Records of Nottin^iam, i. i. ' Gross, Gild Merchant, ii. 146. 

• Hervey the Breton, first Bishop of Ely, 1 109— 11 31. 

^ The change of spelling from Grtnt to the later form Cani seems an insufficient 
cause for the rejection of this writ. We are dealing not with a would-be original, but 
with a professed copy. 

* The T. before Ca$tceli stands, I take it, for Testilms and is not the Chancellor's 
initial. Miles of Gloucester, the constable, ob. 1143. See Mr Round's article in 
Diet Nat. Biog. Gloucester^ Miles de. Another text, an Inspeximus of Edward VI, 
gives : Teste Caneellario et MUone de Gloecestria et Ricardo Bass[e^ apud Ltmdomam, 
In Diet. Nat. Biog. Mr Round speaks of Richard Basset, inclining to place his death 
a little before 1 145. I can not find that the burgesses obtained a confirmation of this 
writ before the reign of Edward VI. 



INDEX. 



Abbey Fann, 107, 191 

Accounts, Borough, 905 

Advowsons of borough churches, 174 fif. 

Alderman, Hereditary, 50 

Ancient demesne, 10, 11, 41, 49, 71 

Approvement, Right of, 83, 187 

Arable and pasture, 5, 16, 86, 89 

Aratral twist, iii 

Architectural History of Cambridge, 51 

Armachanus, 31 

Assartation, 159 

Automatism of communities, 15, 79 

Bacon, Sir F., 9 
Baden-Powell, Mr B. H., ir, aS 
Bailiffs, Liability ol^ 77, 108 
Bailiffe of Cambridge, 78, 134-141, 159, 

ao7 
Balsham, Hugh of, 19 
Barnwell, 104, 107, 148, 181, 193 
Barnwell Priory, a, 51, 55, 61, 71, 75, 

86, 107, 148, 161, 183, 191-3 
Bedford, Town of, 8, 199 
Bensington, 49 
Bequest, Power of, 71 
Beseler*s Volksrecht u. Juristenrecht, 14 
Beverley, Town of, 197 
Binnebrok and Butebrook, 171 
Bishop and borough, 41, 51, 91 
Blancgemon family, 163, 168 
Boase, Mr C. W., 8, 77, 191 
Booths in Sturbridge Fair, 80, 206 
Borough and Befe, 49 
Borough and hundred, 41 
Borough and manor, 47, 73, 183 
Borough and shire, 36 ff., an 
Borough as lord, 83, 85, 186 
Borough council, 85 



Borough court, 41, 74, 184-5 

Borough pastures, 47, 190 ff. 

Borough's personality, 74, 85 

Borough, Wards of, 50 

Bowtell, Alderman J., 133, 305 

Bradmore Field, 57, 107, 139 

Brett V. Beales, 188 

Bridgeboot, 37 

Bristol, 189 

Britanny, Honour of, 67, 179 

Broad gates, Houses with, 5, 67, 69, 194 

Browning, Robert, 30 

Bruce fief, 178 

Buckingham, Town of, 45 

Bull, Town, 88 

Burdens, Communal, 37 

Burgage tenure, 71 

Btligerliche Nutzungen, 196 

Burgesses as landowners, 64, 133 ff. 

Burgess-parts, 199, 300 

Burh, 9, 37 

Burh and township, 9 

Burhgeat, 309 

Burhgrith, loi 

Caius, see Gonville 
Canon law and corporations, 18 
Cambridge, John o( 166 
Cantaber, 51 

Canterbury, Town of, 190, 311 
Carme Field, 55, i3i 
Carmelite friars, 55, 133, 187 
Caryl, Dr L., 109, 130 
Castle and borough, 37, 119 
Castle, Cambridge, 37, 94, 119 
Castle-guard, 38 
Cayley family, 177 
Chesterton, 37, 49, 119 



2l6 



Index. 



Cheveley, 39 

Christ's Piece, 119 

Churches in Cambridge, 174-7 

City and bishop, 41, 91 

City and borough, 43, 91 

Clark, Mr J. W., loi 

Clayhanger, 107 

Clubs, Property of, 15 

Coalescence of townships, 53, 106, 189, 

199 
Coe Fen Lane, 11 1 
Coe Fen Leys, iii 
Coke, Sir Edward, 90 
Colchester, Town of, 50, 190 
Coldham's Green, 107 
Cole, William, 134, 164 
Collectivism, so, 97 
Collie Field, isi 
Colleges, Incorporation of, 19 
Comital rights, 75 
Commendation, 67 
Common and public, 33 
Common chest, 81 
* Common,' Meaning oi^ 33 
Common room, 33 
Communitas, Medieval, la, 98 
Conduit, The Franciscan, 119 
Cooper, C. H., 51, 161 
Copyholds, i3i 
Corporate income, 304 
Corporate liability, 77 
Corporations, Theory of, la £ 
Corpus Christ! Coll^;e, 6, 59, 166, 186 
Cotton Hall, 90, 183 
Cotton, Sir Charles, i, 56, 304 
Council, Borough, 85 
County court, 38-9 
County families, 177 
County rates, 39 
Cromwell, Oliver, 94* 115 
Cromwell, Thomas, 77 
Coventry, Town of, 190 
Cultivation, Methods of, 107, 143 
Cultura, III 

Dame Nichole's hythe, 178 
Danegeld, 40, 54 
David Earl of Huntingdon, 75 
Decay of villages, 148 
Demesne boroughs, 73 



Demesne, Royal, 48-9, 73 

Derby, Town of, 8 

De Vere fief, 67 

Devise, Power to, 71 

Digest, The, 18, 31 

Dinner, The baUiflb*, 78 

Dispersion of strips, 35, 37, 57, 58, 

ia3» i7« 
Ditch, The King's, 100 
Divided tenements, 103 
Dominican friary, 118 
Dominium, Medieval, 11, 31 
Doomsman, Osbert the, 63, 159, 163 
Doomsmen, 50, 63 
Downing College, 54, ii3 if., 305 
Dunning family, 63, 73, 164-6 

Eastern Fields, 106, 139 

Ecclesiastical patronage, 163, 174 if. 

Edith the Fair, 67, 179, 180 

Edmund, St, see White Canons 

Edward IV., 84 

Eigenkirche, Die, 177 

Eldcom, Henry, 60, 161 

Eliensis, Liber, 173, 3ii 

Ely, Church of, 41, 63, 161, 174, 305, 

311-3 

English and foreign towns, 195, 304 

English Croft, iii 

Erasmus, 7 

Erasmus's Walk, 303 

Escheat, 71, 83, 85, 185 

Escheator, 93 

Estenhale, 107, 193 

Etheldreda, St, 174 

Evangelical poverty, 31 ' 

Families, Buigensic, 163 

Family as corporation, 31 

Farming the town, 77, 185 

Fee-farm rent, 3, 54, 70, 75, 88, 185-9, 

304 ff. 
Fiefs in borough, 49, 178 
Field names, 133 
Fieschi, Sinibald, 18 
Filth of boroughs, 68 
Finance of boroughs, 304 
Firma burgi, 77, 185-9 
Firm of partners, 15 
Fitz Eustace, Hervey, 65, 164-6 



Index. 



217 



FiU Ralph, Richard, 31 
Fitz Stephen, William, 7 
Ford Field, 55, 107, 108 
Formula of incorporation, 18 
Fourth penny, iii 
Freeman, E. A., 36, 191 
French influence in boroughs, 43 
Frideswide, St, 63 
Frost, Henry, 60, 161 
Furlong, 11 1 

Gable gates, 194 

Garrison towns, 44, 309 ff. 

Geld, 40, 54 

Geography, English legal, 7 

German theories of the towns, 9t 51 

Gierke, Dr O., 11, 13, 17, 31, 35, 47, 

7«. 195 
Gilds of Cambridge, 59, 174 
Girton, lai 

Gloucester, Town of, 78 
Gluttony, Municipal, 79 
Gneist, Dr R. von, 195 
Gonville Hall, 30, 66, 85, 179 
Grantchester, 313 
Greenditch, Oxford, 9 
Green, J. R., 43 
Green, Mrs, 9 
Green Street, 104 
Grimsby, Town of, 197 
Grithow Field, 55, 131, 139 
Gross, Dr C, 18 
Guildford, Town of, 39 

Harleston, Roger, 63, 73, 138 
Harrison, William, 133 
Hartlepool, Town of, 197 
Haverfordwest, Town of, 197 
Hawgafol, 48, 70, 74, 84, 143, 180 
Hemingford family, 163 
Henry I., 40, 83, 191, 313 
Henry III., 187 
Henry VL, 18, 84, 189 
Henry VHI., 7 
Herd, The common, 88 
Heterogeneous tenure, 43, 93 
Hidage, 6, 37 

Hide and yardland, 6, 57, 64 
High gable rents, 70, 180 
Hofrecht, 51 



Holywell, Oxford, 46 
Hospital, see John, St 
Hospitals, Burgensic, 61, 161 
Houses and pasture rights, 195, 199 
Houses, Sparsity of, 68, 100, 143 
Hull, Oiarter for, 18 
Hundred and borough, 41 
Htmdred Rolls, 57, 69, 143, 149 
Huntingdon fief, 63, 75, 178 
Huntingdon Priory, 59 
Husband and boor, 7 
Husbandry, Course of, 35, 107, 301 
Hynde, Sir John, 56 

Immunists, 51 

Indosure Acts, 3, 96, 106, 303 
Indosures, 87, 88, 159, 194 
Increase of population, 91 
Individualism, Medieval, 77 
Inhabitants, Trusts for, 300 
Inherited public law, 76 
Innocent IV., 18 
Insurrection of 1381, 63-3, 193 
Insurrection of 1549, 87 
International right, 39 
Inter-University mendacity, 51 
Irish boroughs, 41, 190 

Jacobus Almainus, 31 

James I., 93 

Jesus Coll^;e, 1, 55, 56, 93, 108, 303 

John, King, 3, 10, I3, 81, 91, 303 

John XXII., Pope, 19 

John, St, CoU^;e of, i, 6, 55, 63, 

139, 171, 303 

John, St, Hospital of, 6, 60, 74, 75, 

161 
Joint-stock companies, 17, 33 
Jura singulorum in re universitatis, 80 
Jurisdiction in villages, 35 
Jurisdiction of borough court, 184 

Rett's rebellion, 87 

King and borough, 48, 73, 185, 193 

King's Coll^;e, 19, 84, 101, 189 

Ijmmas land, 115 
Lancaster, Town of, 198 
Landgafol, 48, 70, 74, 84, 180 
Landgritheslane, loi 

15 



2l8 



Index. 



Landholders and officeholders, 141 

Lauder, Community of, soo 

Laughame, Town of, 17 

Lawmen, 50 

Lawrence, Mr Justice, i, 101 

Leases of waste land, 83, 189, 904 

Legal ideas, 97 

Leicester fief, 66, 178 

Lepers* Hospital, 60 

Leys of pasture, in 

Lincoln, Town of, 78, 196, 913 

Lindley, Sir N., 15 

Little Field, 55, lai 

Loggan, David, 4 

London, Fee-farm of, 89 

London, Fields of, 7 

Long Green, 193 

Lordship and landlordship, 30 

Lordship and ownership, 31 

Madingley, i, 56 

Madox, Thomas, 77, 96 

Magna Carta, Scheme of, 76 

Maine, Sir H., ii-s, 900 

Majority, Powers of, 39 

Malcolm, King of Scots, 69, 178 

Manorial geography, 67 

Manors in boroughs, 48, 73, 183 

Manors in Cambridge, 73, 90, 183 

Maps of Tillages, 4 

Market, 40, 913 

Marktrecht, 51 

Marlborough, Duke of, 39 

Mason, Dr Charles, 133 

Mayors of Cambridge, 64-5, 1 34-1 41, 

i59» '<56 
Mempricius, 51 
Merton College, i, 46, 56, 59, 65, 74, 

8^. 90, 93. 0. '«!. 164, 909flf., 909 
Merton, Walter of, 6, 19, 164 
Middle Field, 55, 107, 199 
Middlesex, Farm of, 83 
Mills at Cambridge, 78, 190, 905, 908 
Mills, Burgensic, 78 
Minerals, Right to, 97 
Ministeriales, 51 
Moot-stow, Borough as, 38 
Moral corporateness, i5» 96 
Morpeth, Town of, 198 
Morris family, 63, 198-9 



Mortain, Honour of, 67, 178 
Mortimer family, 6, 66, 179 
Mortimer manor, 66, 85-6, 179, 905 
Mortmain licences, 85 
Mowat, J. L. G., 4 
Municipal Commission, 19, 16 
Municipal Reform Act, 39 
Murus, Meaning of^ 54 

Natural history of institutions, 94 
Natural law, 91 
Newcastle, Town o( 198 
Newnham, 59, 73 
Newnham Mill, 180, 190* 905 
Nonancourt fiunily, 148, 178, 184 
Nonarum inquisitio, 141 
Northampton, Town of, 8, 61, 197 
North Gate Hundred, Oxford, 46 
Nottingham, Town of^ 8, 10, 61, 190, 

198. «i3 
Nulle terre sans seigneur, 9 
Nunnery, see Rad^und, St 

Office, Compulsory, 78 
Oligarchy in borough, 85 
Oriel Coll^;e, 909 
Oseney, 6i 

Ouilly, Robert of, 61, 191 
Over-ownership, 98, 31 
Owen, Dr George, 7 
Ownership and lordship, 98flr. 
Oxford, Agrarian, 7, 45 
Oxford, Bailiffs of, 77 
Oxford, Borough finance at, 909 
Oxford, Houses and rents in, 69 
Oxford, John o( 46 

Panton, Mr, 55, 115 

Parishes and fields, 11 5-6, 195 

Parker's Piece, 93, 117 

Parochial sjrstem, 59, 115-6, 195 

Pastures, 96, 31, 195 

Pastures in boroughs, 33, 47, 86 ff., 

190 ff. 
Patriarch as trustee, 9i 
Patriciate, Burgensic, 49, 66 
Patronage of borough, 39 
Patronage of churches, 174 ft 
Patronage of hospitals, 61 
Paving streets, 79 



Index. 



219 



Peasants* rebeltion, 61-3, 19a fif. 

Pembroke Leys, 111 

Pembroke, Town of, 197 

Persona iicta, 18 

Personality, la, 95 

Peterhouse, Site of, iii 

Peverel, Pain, 61, 83, 191 

Picot the sheriff, 61, 190 

Poll taxes, 53 

Pontage, 37 

Poole, Mr R. L., 30 

Poor, Increase of, 105 

Poor, Relief of, 89, 195 

Population of Cambridge, 101 ff. 

Population of villages, 13 

Port Bridge, isa 

Port Field, 55 

Port Meadow, 46, 191, 197 

'Ports' at Cambridge, 108 

Post, Dr A. H., 91 

Prescription, Corporations by, 19, 13 

Property, Origin of, 11, 30 

Proprietas, Medieval, 31 

Public and private law, 11, 30, 34, 76 

Pythagoras, School of, 65, 164, 903 

Queens* College, 84, 189 
Quo warranto, 95 

Radegund, Nunnery of St, 6, 61, 74, 

90» 93» «3«» «6a, 191 
Rashdall, Mr H., 6, 7, 10 
Rates on borough pastures, 196 
R^^lation of commons, 89, 93 
Reliefs, 71 

Religious endowments, 63, 69, 161 
Rent charges, 69, 148 
Rents in boroughs, 69, 147, 160 
Replevin actions, 75, 184 
Respublica, 33, 41, 111 
Richmond, set Britanny 
Roman town, 53, 99, 3ii 
Round, Mr J. H., 10, 40 
Rufius Maurice, 58, 173 
Rutland Club, 95, 194 
Rutland, Duke of, 39, 94 

Sail Piece, 119 

Saint Edmunds, Family of, 163 

Saints as persons, 13 



Scarlett, Sir James, 188 

Seebohm, Mr F., 5, 57 

Selions, 56, 109 

Sempringham, see White Canons 

Sheepwalk, 115 

Sheriff and borough, 39, 76 

Shire house, 38 

Shire moot, 38, 39 

Shrewsbury, Town of, 199 

Smyth's Lives of the Berkelejrs, 46, 110 

Stamford, Town of, 47 

Stevenson, Mr W. H., 9, 164, 109 

Stint of common, 5> 86, 89, 93 

Stubbs, Dr W., 9, 19, 35, 68 

Sturbridge Fair, 53, 80, ao6, 308 

Sturbridge Field, 55, 107 

Sturbridge Green, 107, 191 

Sturbridge Hospital, 60 

Stutx, Dr U., 177 

Surnames of burgesses, 143, 166 

Swinecroft, 58, rii, 139 

Tait, Mr James, 310 

Tallage, 73, 167, 169 

Taxes at Cambridge, 141, 167, 169, 171 

Tenterden, Lord, 188 

Tenurial heterogeneity, 43 

Terra Regis, 48 

Terriers, 56, 108, 133 

Third penny, 74-5 

Thomas's, St, Leys, 113 

Three-field husbandry, 55, 107 

Tithe, Distribution of; 58, 115, 133, 183 

Tolbooth, 90 

Toll Cause, 188 

Town and Gown, 83 ff. 

Town and township, 9 

Townhall, 39 

Trinity College, 93, 117 

Trinity Hall, 183 

Troubelville family, 177 

Trust, Law of, 16 

Tusser, Thomas, 4, 94 

Ulpian, 18 

Unanimity and majority, 35 

Undervalue, Sales at, 16, 17, 189 

Units, Legal, 30, 30 

Universitas, 13 

Universitas and singnli, 18 



220 Index. 

Universities^ Incorporation of, 19 Waste, Manorial, 3 

University College, Oxford, so Western Fields, iso 

White Canons, 59, 139, 163 
Village community, i8fif. Winchcombeshire, 45 

Wolvercote, 45 
Wallingford, Town o^ 43, 100 Worcester, Town of, 197 

Waltheof, Earl, 67, 178, 180 

Walton Manor, Oxford, 45 York, Town of^ 100^ 199 

Wards of borough, 50 

Waste in boroughs, 68, 84, 185 Zamindari, 99 

Waste, Leases of, 81, 189 Zouche family, 180, 190 



CAMBRIDGE: PRINTBD BY J. AND C. P. CLAY, AT THE UNIVBESITY PRESS. 



CONSERVED 
MARVARnmUJ^El 



I^M 



W-ldarwr Obraty 



3 2044 094 400 561 



IN 



i' • 



t .