Book 1 — CHAPTER XI. FOLCLAND. BÓCLAND. LǼNLAND.

It was a wise insight into the accidents of increasing population which limited the amount of the original éðel, or allodial estate. By leaving, as it were, a large fund to be drawn upon, as occasion might serve, the principle, that every freeman must be settled on land, was maintained, without condemning society to a stationary condition, as to numbers. The land thus left, of which the usufruct, under certain conditions, was enjoyed by the freemen, was called Folcland, terra publica, ager publicus. It was distinguished from the éðel by not becoming absolute property in the hands of individuals, consequently by not being hereditary. The dominium utile might be granted; the dominium directum remained in the state, which was a perpetual feoffee for certain trusts and uses. And hence folcland was subject to rents of divers kinds, and reversion. The folcland could also be applied to reward great public services, in which case estates of alod, or éðel, were carved out of it, and presented to him whom the community desired to honour^[523]. The service which Wulf and Eofer did 290by slaying Ongenðeów was rewarded with a grant of land and rings^[524]. The clearest view of the nature and object of folcland is given us by Beda, who complains that it is diverted from its proper purpose,—which is, to be granted as a support to those whose arms would defend the country,—under pretence of erecting monasteries, which are a disgrace to their profession. The following are his extremely important words:

“And since there are both very numerous and very extensive tracts, which, to adopt the common saying, are of use neither to God nor man,—seeing indeed that in them there is neither maintained a regular life according to God’s law, nor are they possessed by the soldiers or comites of secular persons, who might defend our race from the barbarians,—if any one, to meet the want of our time, should establish an episcopal see in those places, he will be proved not to incur the 291guilt of prevarication, but rather to perform an act of virtue^[525].”

And again, he continues:

“By which example it behoves also your Holiness, in conjunction with our religious king, to abrogate the irreligious deeds and writings of our predecessors, and to provide for the general advantage of our kingdom, either in reference to God, or to the world: lest in our days, either through the cessation of religion, the love and fear of an inspector at home should be abandoned; or, on the other hand, the supply of our secular militia decreasing, we should not have those who might defend our boundaries from the incursions of barbarians. For, what is disgraceful to say, persons who have not the least claim to the monastic character, as you yourself best know, have got so many of these spots into their power, under the name of monasteries, that there is really now no place at all where the sons of nobles or veteran soldiers can receive a grant^[526]. And thus, idle and unmarried, being grown up to manhood, they live on in no profession of chastity; and on this account, they either cross the sea and desert the country which they ought to serve with their arms; or, what is even more criminal and shameless, having no profession 292of chastity, they give themselves up to luxury and fornication, and abstain not even from the virgins consecrated to God^[527].”

The evils of a course which, by preventing the possibility of marriage, tends to the general neglect of morality, are as obvious in this state of society, as in those where the indefinite partition of estates reduces all the members of the higher classes to a state of poverty,—a fact perfectly familiar in countries where the resources of trade are not permitted to mitigate the mischief of subdivision.

The folcland then in England was the national stock. It is probable that the same thing occurred in other Teutonic states, and that the folcland there also formed a reserve from which endowments of individuals, homeborn or foreign, and of religious houses, were made. Thus, “Princeps de eius recuperatione simul et postulatione multum gavisus, et suum ad hoc consensum et parentum adeptus est favorem; deditque illi in eisdem partibus, multas possessiones de publico, quatinus viciniori potentia soceris acceptior factus, non minori apud illos, quam in genitali solo praecelleret dignitate^[528].”

We cannot now tell the exact terms upon which the usufruct of the folcland was permitted to individual holders. Much of it was probably distributed in severalty, to be enjoyed by the grantee during his life, and then to revert to the donor the State. As the holders of such lands were most probably not included in the Marks, like the owners 293of allodial property, they may have formed the proper basis of the original gyldscipas, and have been more immediately subject to the jurisdiction of the scírgemót; for it is impossible to believe that their condition was one of such perfect freedom as that of the original allodial owners.

A portion also of the folcland may long have subsisted as common land, subject to the general rights of all^[529]. In this respect it must have resembled the public land of the Romans. Only that, the true Roman burghers or Patricians, being comparatively few, while the other claimants were many, and self-defence therefore commanded the utmost caution in admitting them to isotely,—the struggles between the Patrician and Plebeian orders necessarily assumed in Rome a character of exasperation and hostility which was wanting in England. But it does not appear that in this country, the tribes of the Gewissas could have made any claim to the folcland of the Mercians, or that those of the Welsh would have found favour with any Saxon community.

In whatever form the usufruct may have been granted, it was accompanied by various settled burthens. In the first place were the inevitable charges from which no land was ever relieved; namely military service, alluded to by Beda, and no doubt in early times performed in person: the 294repair of roads, bridges and fortifications. But besides these, there were dues payable to the king, and the geréfa; watch and ward on various occasions; aid in the royal hunting; convoy of messengers going and coming on the public service, from one royal vill to another; harbouring of the king, his messengers and huntsmen; lastly provision for his hawks, hounds and horses. In addition to these, there were heavy payments in kind, which were to be delivered at the royal vills, to each of which, various districts were apparently made appurtenant, for this purpose; and on which stores, so duly delivered, the king and his household in some degree depended for subsistence. These were comprised under the name Cyninges-feorm, or Firma regis.

It is from the occasional exemptions granted by the authority of the king and his witan, that we learn what burthens the folcland was subject to: it may therefore be advantageous to cite a few examples, which will make the details clear.

Between 791 and 796, eighty hides of land at Westbury and Hanbury were relieved by Offa from the dues to kings, dukes and their subordinates; except these payments, that is to say, the gafol at Westbury (sixty hides), two tuns full of bright ale, and a comb full of smooth ale, and a comb full of Welsh ale, and seven oxen, and six wethers, and forty cheeses, and six langðero (?), and thirty ambers of rough corn, and four ambers of meal, to the royal vill^[530].

295In 863, an estate at Marsham was to pay by the year, twenty staters of cheese, forty lambs, forty fleeces, and two days’ pastus^[531] or feorm, which last might be commuted for thirty silver shillings (argentea)^[532].

In 877, Bishop Tunberht, with the consent of his chapter, appropriated lands at Nursling to the use of the refectory. His charter says he grants it, “liberam ab omnibus terrenis difficultatibus omnium gravitudinum, sive a pastu regis, principis, exactoris; et ab omni aedificiorum opere, tributo, a paraveredis, a taxationibus quod dicimus wíterǽdene; omnium rerum saecularium perpetualiter libera sit, excepta expeditione et pontis aedificatione^[533].” As he could not do this by his own authority, he probably only means to record that they had been so freed by the Witena-gemót.

In 883, twenty years later, a monastery is freed from all which the monks were still bound to pay to the king’s hand, as cyningfeorm, both in bright ale, beer, honey, oxen, swine and sheep, in short from all the gafol, much or little, known or unknown, that belongs to the lord of the nation^[534].

The dues from the monastery at Taunton were as follows: a feorm of one night for the king, and 296eight dogs and one dog-keeper; and nine nights’ keep for the king’s falconers; and carriage with waggons and horses for whatever he would have taken to Curry or Wilton. And if strangers came from other parts, they were to have guidance to the nearest royal vill upon their road^[535].

The payments reserved upon twenty hides at Titchbourn, which Eádweard in 901-909 granted to Denewulf of Winchester for three lives, were probably the old royal gafol: they were now transferred to the church as double-commons for founder’s day. They amounted to, twelve sexters of beer, twelve of sweetened Welsh ale, twenty ambers of bright ale, two hundred large and one hundred small loaves, two oxen fresh or salted, six wethers, four swine, four flitches, and twenty cheeses; but if the day of payment should fall in Lent, an equivalent of fish might be paid instead of flesh^[536].

“Insuper etiam, hanc praedictam terram liberabo ab omni servitute saecularium rerum, a pastu regis, episcopi, praefectorum, exactorum, ducum, canum, vel equorum seu accipitrum; ab refectione et habitu illorum omnium qui dicuntur Fæstingmen,” etc.^[537]

“Sint liberati a pastu principum, et a difficultate illa quod nos Saxonice dicimus Festingmen; nec homines illuc mittant qui accipitros vel falcones portant, aut canes aut caballos ducunt; sed sint liberati perpetualiter in ævum^[538].”

“Ab opere regali et pastu regis et principis, vel iuniorum eorum; ab hospitorum refectione vel venatorum; 297etiam equorum regis, falconum et ancipitrum, et puerorum qui ducunt canes^[539].”

“Ut sit liberatum et absolutum illud monasterium ab illis causis quas Cumfeorme et Eafor vocitemus; tum a pastu accipitrorum meorum, quam etiam venatorum omnium, vel a pastu equorum meorum omnium, sive ministrorum eorum. Quid plura, ab omni illa incommoditate Æfres et Cumfeorme, nisi istis causis quas hic nominamus: praecones si trans mare venirent ad regem venturi, vel nuncii de gente Occidentalium Saxonum vel de gente Northanhymbrorum, si venirent ad horam tertiam diei vel ad medium diem, dabitur illis prandium; si venirent super nonam horam, tunc dabitur eis noctis pastum, et iterum de mane pergent in viam suam^[540].”

“Et illam terram iii manentium in Beonetlege, in occidentale plaga Saebrine etiam liberabo a pascua porcorum re[g]is, quod nominamus Fearnleswe^[541].”

“Liberabo illud a pastu et ab refectione omnium ancipitrum et falconum in terra Mercensium, et omnium venatorum regis vel principis, nisi ipsorum tantum qui in provincia Hwicciorum sunt; etiam similiter et a pastu et refectione illorum hominum quos Saxonice nominamus Wælhfæreld, ⁊ heora fæsting, ⁊ ealra Angelcynnes monna, ⁊ ælþeódigra rǽdefæstinge, tam nobilium quam ignobilium^[542].”

In 875, Ceólwulf, the intrusive king of Mercia, 298freed all the bishopric of Worcester, “tota parochia Hwicciorum,”—in other words all the churches belonging to it,—from the “pastus equorum regis,” and their keepers^[543].

Many of the instances we meet with, both in England and upon the Continent, are those of churches or monasteries: this is natural, inasmuch as the clergy were most likely to obtain and record these exemptions. But how, it may be asked, did it happen that such exemptions were necessary? It seems to me that, when Christianity was introduced, and folcland was granted for the erection or the endowment of a church, the burthens were not always discharged; and that the piety of later times was occasionally appealed to, to remedy the carelessness or alter the policy of early founders.

Folcland may be considered the original and general name of all estates save the hlot, sors or alód of the first markmen: the whole country was divided into Folclands, containing one or more hides, subject to folcriht or the public law,—and hence having no privilege or immunity of any sort; in many instances where Beda uses terra unius tributarii, terra familiae unius, and similar expressions, he can only mean to denote separate and distinct portions of folcland, and the words of Ælfred’s translation imply the same thing.

The power of disposal over this land lay in the nation itself, or the state; that is, in the king and his witan; but in what way, or by what ceremonies, 299it was conferred, we no longer know. Still there is great probability that it was done by some of those well-known symbols, which survived both at home and abroad in the familiar forms of livery of seisin,—by the straw, the rod or yard, the cespes viridis and the like^[544]. We may however distinctly assert that it was not given by book or charter, inasmuch as this form was reserved to pass estates under very different circumstances.

The very fact that folcland was not the object of a charter causes our information respecting it to be meagre: it is merely incidentally and fortuitously that it is mentioned in those documents from which we derive so much valuable insight into the antiquities of Saxon England. But even from them we may infer that it was not hereditary.

Towards the end of the ninth century, Ælfred, who appears to have been ealdorman or duke of Surrey, devised his lands by will. He left almost all his property to his daughter; and to his son Æðelwald (perhaps an illegitimate child,) he gave only three hides of hereditary land, bócland, expressing however his hope that the king would permit his son to hold the folcland he himself had held. But as this was uncertain, in order to meet the case of a disappointment, he directed that if the king refused this, his daughter should choose 300which she would give her brother, of two hereditary estates which he had devised to her^[545].

Again, shortly before the Conquest, we find Abbot Wulfwold thus informing Gisa bishop of Wells, Ægelnoð the abbot, Tofig the sheriff, and all the thanes in Somerset^[546]:

“Eádweard the king, my lord, gave me the land at Corfestige which my father held, and the four farms at Æscwíc, and the fields of meadow-land thereunto belonging, and in wood and field so much that I had pasture for my cattle and the cattle of my men; and all as free in every respect as the king’s own demesnedemesne, to give or sell, during my day or after my day, to whomsoever it best pleases me.”

In both these cases it is clear that the land was holden as a benefice; that the tenant had only a life interest, which Wulfwold however succeeded in converting into a fee.

As the State were the grantors, so also there appears to have been no restriction as to the persons of the grantees. Of course this does not include serfs, or others below the degree of freemen; although an emancipated serf may sometimes have been provided with an estate of folcland, by general donation. But there is no reason to doubt that every other class might obtain grants of folcland. Those of a duke and of various bishops have been mentioned; Wulfwold’s father was probably, at least a thane. But even the king himself could and did 301hold land of this description. The boundary of an estate is said to run to the king’s folcland; “ab occidente Cyninges folcland quod habet Wighelm et Wulfláf^[547].”

At a very early period however it became a practice to carve hereditary estates out of the folcland, which thus became the private property of the individual, and could by him be given, sold, or devised at his pleasure; by which the reversion to the state was defeated, and the common stock insofar diminished. It was also usual to release such land from all the dues which had previously been rendered from it, and to make it absolutely free^[548], with the exception of the three services which were inevitably incident to all landed possession, and which are consequently known by the names of Communis labor, Generalis incommoditas, Onus inevitabile, Trinoda necessitas, and similar expressions. These estates were always granted by book or charter, and hence bore the name of bócland: and it is questionable whether the two descriptions did not, at a very early period, comprise all the land in England, as the families of the first allodial possessors died out, and their possessions either reverted to the state, or became alienated under circumstances which included them in the category of bócland.

We learn that the pretext upon which these conversions 302of folcland into bócland were made at first, was the erection and endowment of a religious house upon the land, by the grantee; and we also learn that sometimes the conversion was made, the thane presented with the estate, but the church or monastery not constructed. Soon after the introduction of Christianity into Northumberland, it appears indeed to have been customary to grant much greater privileges and immunities to church-lands than were found advisable at a later period, or than seem to have been permitted in the provinces south of the Humber. It stands to reason that there could be no reversion in lands granted to a corporation: hence folcland which had been presented to a church assumed what may be called a hereditary character^[549], and could only lapse by total destruction of the particular body,—a circumstance which could obviously never be contemplated, but which did actually occur during the civil wars, internal dissensions and foreign invasions, which gradually changed the face of the whole country^[550]. But the lands which the Northumbrian princes devoted to pious purposes, were most likely relieved from all burthens whatsoever: we have conclusive evidence that even military service was excused in that district before the time of Beda. In all probability, 303it was not suspected how much the defences of the country might become impaired by grants of the kind. The passages already cited from Beda’s epistle to Ecgberht may be adduced in corroboration of these assertions, but we have more direct evidence in his history^[551]. Oswiú on his conversion placed his daughter Eánflǽd in the convent presided over by Hild, and with her he gave twelve estates, “possessiunculae terrarum,” most likely folcland, each estate comprising ten hides; in which, Beda continues, “Ablato studio militiae terrestris, ad exercendam militiam coelestem locus facultasque suppeteret,”—or as the Saxon translator expresses it, “Those twelve bóclands he freed from earthly warfare and earthly service, to be employed in heavenly warfare.” It is very clear that the duties of military service were removed in this case, and that religious warfare was to be the destination of those that held the lands. Similarly when Benedict Biscop decided upon devoting himself to a monastic life, he surrendered his lands to the king^[552]. These must obviously have been folcland, the retaining of which he considered impossible, under the circumstances; and which, not being his own, he could not take with him into a monastery: “despexit militiam cum corruptibili donativo terrestrem, ut vero regi militaret;” and these words of Beda clearly show how we are to understand what he says of Oswiú's grant to Whitby.

304The gaining of a hereditary character for lands, and especially the relief from heavy dues, were advantages which might speedily arouse the avarice and stimulate the invention even of barbarians. Accordingly those who could gain access to the ear of the king and his witan, bought, or begged or extorted grants of privileged land, which they either converted entirely into private estates, or upon which they erected monasteries, nominally such: and over these, which they filled with irregular and often profligate monks, they assumed the jurisdiction of abbots; with such little advantage to the service of religion, that we have seen Beda describe them as a public scandal, and recommend even the desperate remedy of cancelling, by royal and episcopal authority, the privilegia or charters on which their immunities reposed.

To the growing prevalence of this fraud we probably owe it that, at least in Wessex, the custom arose of confiscating land on which the conditions of the grant had not been fulfilled. Thus Ini called in the lands which Cissa had granted to Hean the abbot and Cille the abbess, his sister, because no religious buildings had been erected thereon: “Sed Ini rex eandem terram, postea dum regno potiretur, diripiens ac reipublicae restituit, nondum constructo monasterio in ea, nec ullo admodum oratorio erecto^[553];” that is, as I understand it, folcland they had been, and folcland they again became. But even this did not meet all the exigencies of the case, 305and it therefore probably became necessary, even in bócland granted to the church, to reserve the military and other services, which the clergy could cause to be performed by their own dependent cultivators or tenants, even if they were not compelled to serve themselves,—a point which is by no means clear^[554].

A majority of the documents contained in the Codex Diplomaticus Ævi Saxonici are conversions of folcland into bócland, or confirmations of such conversions. They almost universally contain a clause declaring or proclaiming—such is the technical word for this important public act, by which prince and king, ealdorman and sheriff, were at once made strangers to the land—the estate free from every burthen save the inevitable three; a clause giving the fullest hereditary possession, and the power to dispose of it by will at the testator’s pleasure; and finally a clause stating that this is done by the authority of the king, with the advice, consent and license of his Witan or counsellors. They remain therefore to the last important public acts, and are, I believe universally, to be considered acts of the assembled Witena-gemót or great council of the nation^[555]. And as by their authority folcland could be converted into bócland, so it appears could the reverse take place; and a change in the nature of two estates is recorded^[556], where the king 306gave five ploughlands of folcland for five of bócland, and then made the folcland bócland, the bócland folcland.

In this general spoliation it is to be supposed that the kings would not omit to share: accordingly we find them causing estates to be booked to them by their witan; which estates, when thus become their private and heritable property, they devise and deal with at their pleasure: and indeed, as the king’s consent was necessary to all such conversions, he was much better able to obtain that of his witan in his own case, than bishops, thanes or others were in their cases: these generally found themselves compelled to pay handsomely for the favour they required. With respect to ecclesiastical lands, we frequently find a loss of very large estates submitted to, in order to secure freedom to what remained. There are also a few instances in which lands having descended, encumbered with payments, the owners engage some powerful noble or ecclesiastic to obtain their freedom,—that is, to persuade the witan into abolishing the charges. The gratuity offered to the member whose influence was to carry these ancient private acts of parliament, is often very considerable. Towards the closing period of the Anglosaxon polity, I should imagine that nearly every acre of land in England had become bócland; and that as, in consequence of this, there was no more room for the expansion of a free population, the condition of the freemen became depressed, while the estates of the lords increased in number and extent. In this way the ceorlas or free 307cultivators gradually vanished, yielding to the ever growing force of the noble class, accepting a dependent position upon their bócland, and standing to right in their courts, instead of their own old county gemótas; while the lords themselves ran riot, dealt with their once free neighbours at their own discretion, and filled the land with civil dissensions which not even the terrors of a foreign invasion could still. Nothing can be more clear than that the universal breaking up of society in the time of Æðelred had its source in the ruin of the old free organization of the country. The successes of Swegen and Cnut, and even of William the Norman, had much deeper causes than the mere gain or loss of one or more battles. A nation never falls till “the citadel of its moral being” has been betrayed and become untenable. Northern invasions will not account for the state of brigandage which Æðelred and his Witan deplore in so many of their laws. The ruin of the free cultivators and the overgrowth of the lords are much more likely causes. At the same time it is even conceivable that, but for the invasions of the ninth and tenth centuries, the result which I have described might have come upon us more suddenly. The sword and the torch, plague, pestilence and famine are very effectual checks to the growth of population, and sufficient for a long time to adjust the balance between the land and those it has to feed.

An estate of bócland might be subject to conditions. It was perhaps not always easy to obtain from the Witan all that avarice desired: accordingly 308we sometimes find limitations in grants, to a certain number of lives with remainders and reversions. And it was both law and custom not only that the first acquirer might impose what conditions he pleased upon the descent of the estate, but that to all time his expressed will in that respect should bind those who derived their title from him^[557]. Ælfred requires his Witan, who are the guarantees and administrators of his will, to see that he has not violated the disposition of his ancestors by leaving lands to women which had been entailed on the male line, and vice versâ^[558]; and we have cases of grants solemnly avoided for like want of conformity. More questionable in point of principle is the right attempted to be set up by some of these purchasers, to bar escheat and forfeiture of the land upon felony of their heirs or devisees.

It is to be presumed that a tenant of folcland was permitted to let the same,—upon condition no doubt that he conveyed no estate superior to his own. The holders must have been allowed to place poor settlers upon their estates, whose rents and services, in labour and kind, would be important to their own subsistence. Of course in bócland no limitation could be thought of; it was the absolute, inheritable property of the purchaser, and he could in general dispose of it as freely as if it were alod itself. But there seems no reason to doubt that much the same course was adopted in both descriptions 309of estate; the folcland being held beyond question for term of life, at every period of which our history takes cognizance, whatever may have been the case at first. A portion called the inland, or dominium, demesne, was reserved for the lord’s homestead, house and farms, and the dwellings of his serfs, esnes, læts, and other unfree and poor dependents. This was cultivated for him by their industry, and he repaid their services by protection, food, clothing, and small perquisites, all of which now pass under the general name of wages^[559]. On the upland and in the forests, sometimes his own, sometimes subject only to his rights of common, they tended his sheep, oxen and steeds at the fold, or his swine in the mast, lying out during the appointed season of the year^[560], or within the circuit of his own inclosures they exercised such simple manufactures as the necessities of the household required. The spinner and weaver, the glove- or shoemaker, the smith and carpenter, were all parts of the family. The butter and cheese, bread and bacon, were made at home; the beer was brewed and the honey collected 310by the household. The remainder of the land the owner leased on various conditions to men who had no land; demanding in return for that commodity, indispensable in a country which has not yet learnt to manufacture, rents paid in kind, in labour, and even in money. This labour-rent, yet called robot in Slavonic countries, as well as the other dues, naturally varied in various districts, partly with the importance of land^[561], to the cultivator, and the value of its produce to the owner. And at last political motives may have had some weight, when the number and condition of a man’s dependents might affect his own influence and position in the state: but in general we shall be justified in saying that land was very valuable, and the conditions on which it was to be obtained harsh and onerous^[562]. Such land, whether in large or in small portions, whether leased on long or short terms, large or small rents, was called by the common name of Lǽn, or loan^[563]. It was considered to be lent; and where the lǽn was on folcland, it is obvious 311that no certain time could be assigned, and that the after-tenant could have only a tenancy at will. In any case it was reasonable that misconduct in the holder, which would have entailed upon him the forfeiture of his own real property, should not be permitted to interfere with the rights of the reversioner: lǽnland therefore could not be taken from the owner, for the crime of the tenant. In the year 900 a certain Helmstán was guilty of theft, and the sheriff seized all his chattels to the king: and Ordláf entered upon the land, “because it was his lǽn that Helmstán sat on: that he could not forfeit^[564].” A similar principle prevailed in grants for lives, especially where ecclesiastical corporations were the grantors and reversioners; and which, though to a certain extent they conveyed estates of bócland, gave, strictly speaking, lǽn or beneficiary tenures^[565]. But as the clergy were not always quite sure of meeting with fair treatment, we find them not unfrequently introducing into their instruments a provision that no forfeiture shall be valid against their rights; this, from the great strictness with which the provisions of a book or charter were always construed, and in general from the fear of violating what had been confirmed by the signature of the cross and the threat of eternal punishment, may have had some effect. In such cases it may 312be presumed that the guilt of the grantee entirely cancelled the grant; the remaining lives, if any, losing the advantage which they derived through the grantee; forfeiture really taking effect, but for the benefit of the grantor, not the civil power^[566]. The tenant of lǽnland, who by his services acquired the good will of the lord, might hope to have his tenure improved, if not into an absolute possession of bócland, yet into one for his own or more lives. In a translation of St. Augustine of Hippo’s Soliloquia, attributed like so many other things to Ælfred of Wessex, there occurs this passage^[567]:

“But it pleaseth every man, when he hath built himself some cottage upon his lord’s lǽn, with his assistance, for a while to take up his rest thereon, and hunt, and fowl and fish, and in divers ways provide for himself upon the lǽn, both by sea and 313land, until the time when by his lord’s compassion he can earn a bócland and eternal inheritance.”

And instances occur in more formal documents. In 977, Oswald, Archbishop of York and Bishop of Worcester, made a grant of three hides at Teddington, for three lives, to Eádríc his thane, with reversion to Worcester: “Now there are three hides of this land which Archbishop Oswald booketh to Eádríc his thane, both near town and from town, even as he before held them as lǽnland^[568].”

In another grant of the same prelate, between 972-992, made to his client Ælfsige, of a dwelling in Worcester city, for three lives, he adds, “Also we write [or book] to him the croft appurtenant to that tenement, which lies to the east of Wulfsige’s croft; that he may hold it in as large measure, for bócland, as he before held it for lǽnland^[569].”

In 977, the same convent at Worcester booked three hides for three lives to the monk Wynsige, even as his father had held them^[570]; and in 978-992, they gave to Goding the priest, also for three lives, the tenement which he himself had without the city gate^[571]. In both these cases lǽn appears to have been converted into estate for successive lives.

Where there was lǽn, there could properly be no book, because the possession of the charter itself was prima facie evidence (indeed nearly conclusive evidence) in favour of the holder. Hence, where from any circumstance the books were withheld, the tenant had only a lǽn: this was the case with 314Helmstán’s estates mentioned above: he had deposited his charters with Ordláf as a security on an occasion when this duke helped him to make oath to some property. On Helmstán’s felony, Ordláf seized the land to himself, and the document from which we learn this is obviously his appeal to Ælfred’s son and successor, against an attempt to disturb Helmstán’s original title, under a judgment given by Ælfred. Nor was it unusual for books to be thus retained as securities, by which the tenant having only a lǽn could be evicted, if not at pleasure, at least by legal process^[572]. And the same remarks apply to a very common mode of disposing of estates, where the clergy were grantees. Either to avoid litigation with justly exasperated heirs, or to escape from the commands of various synods, the clergy used to take deeds of gift from living tenants, impounding the books of course, and leaving the life-interest only to the owner. Such an estate in technical Latin was named praestaria; but it was obviously a lǽn, and was generally charged with recognitory payments^[573].

It may not be uninteresting, before I close this chapter, to give some examples of the gafol or rent paid upon lands whether held for lives, or as, more strictly, lǽnland. They are extremely valuable from the insight they give into the details of social life, and the daily habits of our forefathers.

315Twenty hides of land at Sempringham were leased by Peterborough to Wulfred for two lives, on condition of his getting its freedom, and that of Sleaford (both in Lincolnshire): upon this estate the following yearly rent was reserved. First, to the monastery: two tons of bright ale, two oxen, fit for slaughter, two mittan or measures of Welsh ale, and six hundred loaves. Secondly to the abbot’s private estate: one horse, thirty shillings of silver or half a pound, one night’s pastus, fifteen mittan of bright and five of Welsh ale, fifteen sesters of mild ale^[574].

A little earlier, Oswulf, a duke in Kent, devised lands to Christchurch Canterbury, which he charged with annual doles to the poor upon his anniversary. Forty hides at Stanhampstead were to find one hundred and twenty loaves of wheat, thirty loaves of fine wheat^[575], one fat ox and four sheep, two flitches of bacon, five geese, ten hens, and ten pounds of cheese. If it fell on a fast-day, however, there was to be (instead of the meat) a wey of cheese, and fish, butter, eggs ad libitum. Moreover, thirty ambers of good Welsh ale, on the footing of fifteen mittan, and one mitta of honey (perhaps to make into a drink) or two of wine. From his land 316at Burnan were to issue one thousand loaves, and one thousand raised loaves or cakes; and the monks themselves were to find one hundred and twenty more of the latter^[576].

Werhard gave two juga or geoc of land to Canterbury. The rent of one at Lambahám was forty pensas (weys) of cheese, or an equivalent in lambs and wool; the other, at Northwood, rendered one hundred and twenty measures, which the English call ambers, of salt^[577].

Lufe, in 832, charged the inheritors and assigns of her land at Mundlinghám, with the following yearly payment to Canterbury, for ever; that is to say: Sixty ambers of malt, one hundred and fifty loaves, fifty white loaves, one hundred and twenty alms-loaves, one ox, one hog and four wethers, two weys of bacon and cheese, one mitta of honey, ten geese and twenty hens^[578].

In 835, Abba, a reeve in Kent, charged his heirs with a yearly payment to Folkstone, of fifty ambers of malt, six ambers of groats (gruta?), three weys of bacon and cheese, four hundred loaves, one ox, and six sheep, besides an allowance or stipend in money to the priests^[579]. And Heregyð, his wife, 317farther burthened her land at Challock with payments to Canterbury, amounting to: thirty ambers of ale, three hundred loaves, fifty of them white, one wey of bacon and cheese, one old ox, four wethers, and one hog, or six wethers, six geese and ten hens, one sester of honey, one of butter, and one of salt; and if her anniversary should fall in winter, she added thirty wax-lights^[580].

In 902, Bishop Denewulf leased fifteen hides of church-land at Eblesburn to his relative Beornwulf for forty-five shillings a year, with liberty to Beornwulf’s children to continue the lease. One shilling (sixty of which went to the pound) is so very small a rent for ten acres, that we must either suppose the land to have been unusually bad, or Beornwulf’s connection with the bishop much in his favour^[581]. He was also to aid in cyricbót, and pay the cyric-sceat. About the same time Denewulf leased forty hides at Alresford to one Ælfred, at the old rent of three pounds per annum, or four shillings and a half per hide. He was however also to pay church-shot, the amount of which is not stated, and to do church-shot-work, and find men to the bishop’s reaping and hunting^[582].

Between 901-909, king Eádweard booked twenty hides of land to Bishop Denewulf. The payments reserved have been already mentioned: instead of going to the king as gafol or rent, they were to be expended in an anniversary feast on founder’s 318day. I have already stated that this may be the old charge on folcland: it was a grant from the monks to the bishop, probably negotiated by Eádweard. All parties were satisfied: the monks probably got from the land as much as they could expect from any other tenant, or what, if folcland, they would themselves have had to pay; the bishop got the land into his own hands, to dispose of at his pleasure, and the king was rewarded for intervention with all the benefits to be derived on his anniversary from the prayers of the grateful fathers at Winchester.

At the close of the ninth century, Werfrið bishop of Worcester claimed land under the following circumstances. Milred a previous bishop had granted an estate in Sopbury, on condition that it was to be always held by a clergyman, and never by a layman, and that if no clergyman could be found in the grantee’s family, it should revert to the see. By degrees the family of the grantee established themselves in the possession, but without performing the condition. At length Werfrið impleaded their chief Eádnóð, who admitted the wrong and promised to find a clergyman. The family however all refused to enter into holy orders. Eádnóð then obtained the intercession of Æðelred duke of Mercia, the lady Æðelflǽd, and Æðelnóð duke of Somerset; and by their persuasion, Werfrið (in defiance of his predecessor’s charter) sold the land to Eádnóð for forty mancuses, reserving a yearly rent of fifteen shillings, and a vestment (or perhaps some 319kind of hanging) to be delivered at the episcopal manor of Tetbury^[583].

Ealdwulf bishop of Worcester leased forty acres of land and a fishery for three lives to Leofenað, on condition that they delivered yearly fifteen salmon, and those good ones too, during the bishop’s residence in Worcester, on Ashwednesday^[584].

Eádríc gafeled (gafelian), i. e. paid yearly rent or gafol for two hides with half a pound, or thirty shillings, and a gare, a word I do not understand^[585].

In 835, the Abbess Cyneware gave land to Hunberht, a duke, on condition that he paid a gablum, gafol or rent of three hundred shillings in lead yearly to Christchurch Canterbury^[586].

The ceorlas or dependent freemen who were settled upon the land of Hurstbourn in the days of Ælfred, had the following rents to pay; many of these are labour rents, many arise out of the land itself, viz. are part of the produce.

From each hide, at the autumnal equinox, forty pence. Further they were to pay, six church-mittan of ale, and three sesters or horseloads of white wheat. Out of their own time they were to plough three acres, and sow them with their own seed, to house the produce, to pay three pounds of gafol-barley, to mow half an acre of gafolmead and stack the hay, to split four foðer orloads of gafolwood and stack it, to make sixteen rods of gafol-hedging^[587]. 320At Easter they were further to pay two ewes and lambs, two young sheep being held equivalent to one old one: these they were to wash and shear out of their own time. Lastly, every week they were to do any work which might be required of them, except during the three weeks, at Christmas, Easter and the Gangdays^[588].

The following customs and payments are recorded in various manors: some of the words I cannot translate. “In Dyddanham there are thirty hides; nine of these are inland (demesne), twenty-one are let^[589]. In Stræt are twelve hides, twenty-seven yards of gafolland; and on the Severn there are thirty cytweras^[590]. In Middleton are five hides, fourteen yards of gafolland, fourteen cytweras on the Severn, and two hæcweras on the Way. At Kingston there are five hides, thirteen yards of gafolland, and one hide above the ditch which is now also gafolland, and that without the ham^[591], is still in part inland, in part let out on rent to the ship-wealas^[592]: to Kingston belong twenty-one cytweras on the Severn, and twelve on the Way. In Bishopstún 321are three hides, and fifteen cytweras on the Way: in Lancawet are three hides, two hæcweras on the Way, and two cytweras.

“Throughout that land each yardland pays twelve pence, and four alms-pence: at every weir within the thirty hides, every second fish belongs to the landlord, besides every uncommon fish worth having, sturgeon or porpoise, herring or sea-fish; and no one may sell any fish for money when the lord is on the land, until he have had notice of the same. In Dyddenham the services are very heavy. The geneát must work, on the land or off the land, as he is commanded, and ride and carry, lead load and drive drove, and do many things beside. The gebúr must do his rights; he must plough half an acre for week-work, and himself pay the seed in good condition into the lord’s barn for church-shot, at all events from his own barn: towards werbold^[593], forty large trees^[594] or one load of rods; or eight geocu build^[595], three ebban close: of field enclosure fifteen rods, or let him ditch fifteen; and let him ditch one rod of burg-enclosure; reap an acre and a half, mow half an acre; work at other works ever according to their nature. Let him pay sixpence after Easter, half a sester of honey at Lammas, six sesters of malt at Martinmas, one clew of good net yarn. In the same land it is customary that he who hath seven swine shall give three, and so forth always 322the tenth, and nevertheless pay for common of masting, if mast there be^[596].”

Unquestionably these are heavy dues, and much aggravated by the circumstances of the estate or yardland being but small, the tenant born free, and some of the services uncertain. I shall conclude this chapter with a few lines translated from that most valuable document called “Rectitudines singularum personarum^[597];” as far as the cases of the Geneát, Cotsetla and Gebúr are concerned^[598]. First of the Geneát or comrade.

“The Geneát-right is various, according to the custom of the land. In some places he must pay landgafol, and a grass-swine yearly; ride and carry, lead load; work and feed his lord^[599]; reap and mow; hew deer-hedge and hold sæte^[600]; build and enclose the burh [or mansion]; make new roads to the farm; pay church-shot and alms-fee; hold headward and horseward; go on errand, far or near, whithersoever he is directed.” This is comparatively free, and it is only to be regretted that we do not know what amount of land in general could be obtained at such a rent. We next come to the Cotsetlan, whom Ælfred in a passage already cited states to be on lǽnland, and who are obviously poor freemen, suffered to settle on the lord’s estate.

“The Cotsettler’s right is according to the custom. In some places he must work for the lord, every 323Monday throughout the year; or three days every week in harvest; he need pay no landgafol. He ought to have five acres; more if it be the custom. And if it be less, it is all too little, for his service is often called upon. He must pay his hearth-penny on holy Thursday^[601] as it behoves every freeman to do; and he must acquit^[602] his lord’s inland, on summons, at seaward and at the king’s deer-hedge^[603]; and at such things as are in his competence: and let him pay his church-shot at Martinmas.

“The customs of the Gebúr are very various; in some places they are heavy, but in some moderate. In some places it is usual that he shall do two days week-work, whatever work may be commanded him, every week throughout the year; and three days week-work in harvest, and three from Candlemas to Easter. If he carries^[604], he need not work himself as long as his horse is out. He must pay at Michaelmas ten gafol-pence, and at Martinmas twenty-three sesters of barley, and two hens^[605]; at 324Easter one young sheep or two pence; and he shall lie out from Martinmas till Easter at the lord’s fold^[606]; and from the time when the plough is first put in till Martinmas, he shall plough one acre every week, and make ready the seed in the lord’s barn: moreover three acres on request, and two of grass-ploughing^[607]. If he require more grass, let him earn it on such conditions as he may. For his rent-ploughing [gafolyrð] he shall plough three acres and sow them from his own barn; and pay his 325hearth-penny; and two and two shall feed one stag-hound; and each gebúr shall give six loaves to the inswán [that is, the swain or swineherd of the demesne] when he drives his herds to the mast. In the same land where these conditions prevail, the gebúr has a right, towards first stocking his land, to receive two oxen, one cow and six sheep, and seven acres in his yard of land, ready sown. After the first year let him do all the customs which belong to him; and he is to be supplied with tools for his work, and furniture for his house. When he dies, let his lord look after what he leaves.

“This land-law prevails in some lands; but, as I have said, in some places it is heavier, in others lighter; seeing that the customs of all lands are not alike. In some places the gebúr must pay honey-gafol, in some meat-gafol, in some ale-gafol. Let him that holds the shire take heed to know always what is the old arrangement about the land, and what the custom of the country!”

I can only add the expression of my opinion, that a careful study of the condition of the peasantry in the eastern parts of Europe will assist in throwing much light upon these ancient social arrangements in this country. Hard as in some respects the condition of the dependent freeman appears, it must be borne in mind that the possession of land was indispensably necessary to life, unless he was to become an absolute serf. In a country that has little more manufacture than the simple necessities of individual households require, no wealth of raw material and consequently little commerce,—where 326households rejoice in a sort of self-supporting, self-sufficient autonomy, and the means of internal communication are imperfect,—land and its produce are the only wealth; land is the only means whereby to live. But the Saxon peasant knew his position: it was a hard one, but he bore it: he worked early and late, but he worked cheerfully, and amidst all his toils there is no evidence of his ever having shot at his landlord from behind a stone wall or a hedge.

327