rural services, were in the main free and attended the royal courts. But at a subsequent period, when the distinction between those admitted to the royal courts and those under the lord's jurisdiction became the decisive test of tenure and status, and the primary factor in social grouping, these peasants obtained recognition as privileged tenants, and were henceforth termed sokemen. This is shown by the history of the men of Kent. To all intents and purposes most of them were free sokemen, and by this name were sometimes actually designated 1. They performed no week-work and discharged their obligations by the payment of a money-rent; their tenure was protected and their status was that of freemen. Thus in the thirteenth century "there was no villeinage in Kent "2; and yet in Domesday they are described as villeins. Their condition in the intervening period does not appear to have undergone any change in social advancement, but there had been a change in terminology. Further, some confusion may also arise from the fact that the term sokemen was sometimes extended to include tenants other than freeholders. The lawyers of the thirteenth century distinguished between three kinds of men, freemen, villeins and sokemen, and the sokemen enumerated in this classification were not freeholders at all, but privileged villeins confined for the most part to manors on the Ancient Demesne of the Crown. They differed from the ordinary villein in the legal protection afforded to their holdings and in the certainty of their services. “There is another kind of villeinage", says Bracton, "held of the king since the Conquest of England, called villein socage, which is villeinage but privileged. The tenants, for instance, of demesnes of the king have this privilege that they cannot be removed from the soil, as long as they are willing and able to do the required services . . . they perform villein services, but certain and fixed "3. Their villeinage was thus exceptional 1 Vinogradoff, Villainage, 206. 2 Il ad nul vylenage en Kent: Year Book, 30 Edw. I. p. 169. 3 Bracton, f. 209. Thus in 1282 the men of the bishop of Carlisle at Horncastle brought a writ against him for exacting other services than those due to him, and won their case: Vict. County Hist. Lincolnshire ii. 300. On the Ancient Demesne, see Vinogradoff, Villainage, c. 3. and privileged, but none the less their exclusion from the public courts and the exaction of week-work stamped their tenure as servile. They were accordingly quite distinct from the free sokemen, and at the best they can only be described as villein sokemen. tenements. (2) In other cases the increase in the number of free (i.) Createnants was real and not merely apparent, and can be tion of free definitely traced to the creation of new holdings carved out of the demesne or the waste. Instead of the demesne remaining in the lord's occupation a portion of it, sometimes differentiated from the rest by the term 'inland,' was often alienated to tenants at a money-rent and held in free tenure. This practice was fairly common, as we may infer, for example, from a charter of the earl of Chester (1285), which enjoined that "if any convert the earl's demesne into tributary land, whether it be a farmer or a bondman that hold it, he shall pay tithe "1. Two circumstances favoured the practice of curtailing the demesne in the interests of new tenants. It was necessary to reward the services of manorial officials 2, and in the feudal age services of almost any kind were usually requited by a grant of land. Again the growth of population involved the need for making some provision on their behalf, and it was easier to sever a portion of the home farm than to attempt a redistribution of the manorial holdings. The cultivation of the waste afforded another method of coping with the pressure of population. Land was reclaimed for purposes of tillage, and was either added to the demesne or granted out to tenants. The clearance of the waste (essart) was of advantage to the lord who received the rent, and to those who were allowed to occupy it, but it conflicted with the interests of the villagers whose rights over the waste were proportionately diminished. The new holdings thus fashioned out of the demesne and the waste were seldom large in size, and consisted as a rule only of a few acres, but there was no regularity. Among the new tenants for whom opportunities of rural employment were thus afforded 1 Charter Rolls, ii. 317. • Infra, p. 55. 3 Infra, p. 73. (iii.) Commutation. Officials of the manor. The were artisans1, for the mediaeval workman usually combined the cultivation of a small plot of land with industrial pursuits. (3) Finally, the class of free tenants was recruited to an increasing extent from tenants in villeinage who had commuted their labour services for the payment of rent in money. But this was a development which will be examined later in connexion with the break-up of the manorial system 2. The different groups of tenants comprised within the manorial community were knitted together, not only by their common interests in the open fields, but also by their common subjection to the lord of the manor. The authority of the lord was exercised through a ministerial body which formed an important element in the rural population. A thirteenth-century treatise, the Seneschaucie 3, describes the duties of the different manorial officers, the seneschal, bailiff and other servants of the demesne, upon whose industry and ability depended the working of the manorial system. Where the lord owned several manors, the charge of their administration was entrusted to the seneschal or steward, who must, says the treatise, show seneschal. fidelity, prudence and foresight, and possess a knowledge of legal lore to safeguard the lord's rights and advise the bailiffs in their difficulties. Twice or thrice in the year he is to make his round and visit the manors of his stewardship, making inquiry of rents and services and customs, amending what is wrong and protecting the lord's interests as need arises. He should know how much land is in demesne and the amount of crop it is expected to produce. "And if there be any cheating in the sowing, or ploughing, or reaping", on the part of the customary tenants, "he shall easily see it". He may not remove the bailiff, but if the latter is incompetent, "or if he have committed trespass or offence in his office, let it be shown to the lord and to his council, and he shall do as he shall think good". The seneschal is to be responsible to the lord, who must not abdicate his authority by entrusting to the steward powers 1 E.g. Hale, Domesday of St. Paul's, 52 (weaver with five acres). Printed in Walter of Henley, Husbandry (ed. E. Lamond, 1890). which are beyond a seneschal's province; for example, the seneschal may not sell or enfranchise a villein without special warrant from the lord. In the main the duties of the seneschal are those of general supervision. He "ought on his coming to each manor to see and inquire how they are tilled, and in what crops they are, and how the cart-horses, and avers, oxen, cows, sheep and swine, are kept and improved". He must also ascertain "how the bailiff bear himself within and without, what care he takes, what improvement he makes, and what increase and profit there is in the manor in his office, because of his being there. And also of the provost and hayward and keeper of cattle and all other officers, how each bears himself towards him, and thereby he can be more sure who makes profit and who harm". The bailiff in his turn is responsible for the manage- The ment of the estate. He must know "everything connected bailiff. with his baillie . . . for a bailiff is worth little in time of need who knows nothing and has nothing in himself without the instruction of another". He is to "rise early every morning and survey the woods, corn, meadows and pastures, and see what damage may have been done". He should take care that the ploughs accomplish their appointed task day by day, and cause the land to be marled, folded, manured and improved. He must see that the customary tenants perform their services, and that the horses, and oxen, and all the stock are well kept, that the corn be well and cleanly threshed, and the land well ploughed and well sown. He must also dispose of the surplus produce of the manor in neighbouring markets. The reeve is chosen by the village community as the best husbandman in their midst. His duties are manifold, and embrace the supervision of all the actual work done by the tenants on the farm. In practice, where the manor included both a bailiff and a reeve, it must have been difficult to draw a clear line between their functions. But the bailiff enjoyed a position of greater responsibility, while the reeve would seem to have been answerable for any shortcomings on the part of the tenantry. The rest of the treatise is taken up with a description of other manorial servants: the hayward who The office of reeve. ought to be an active and sharp man, early and late looking after the wood, and corn and meadows; the auditors to whom accounts are rendered and the complaints of the tenants brought; the ploughmen who must be men of intelligence and know how to drive the oxen without beating or hurting them; the waggoners who should load and carry without danger to the horses, and lastly the cowherds, swineherds, shepherds and dairymaids. In the thirteenth century the reeve was inferior to the bailiff alike in status and functions; broadly speaking, he represented the interests of the villagers as the bailiff represented those of the lord. The office was an unpopular one on account of the responsibility involved, and liability to serve as reeve was regarded as proof of villeinage 1. The following passage from the manor rolls of Brightwaltham (1293) will serve to illustrate both the choice of a reeve and the large payments made to avoid the burden. The jurors on the manor say that John Atgreen, John of Southwood, Thomas Smith and Richard Young are the best and most competent men of the whole vill for the purpose of filling and executing the office of reeve. And of these the steward has chosen Thomas Smith for the office. Afterwards the said Thomas made fine that he might be absolved from the office of reeve and gives the lord forty shillings " 2. In earlier times the relation between the reeve and the bailiff would seem to have been the reverse. The gerefa and the bedellus are mentioned in Domesday and were, it is supposed, of villein origin3. The reeve at this period acted on behalf of the lord's interests and took precedence of the 'beadle' to whom he was superior 4. His duties in Saxon times are set forth in an eleventh-century treatise on the Gerefa, the terms of which recall the description given above of the steward and the bailiff. "The sagacious reeve ought to know both the lord's land-right and the folk-rights, even as the counsellors of olden days have determined; and the season of every crop that pertains to a homestead; since, in 1 Vinogradoff, Villainage, 318 (n. 3); Neilson, Customary Rents, 101. |
