Medieval English Towns - Glossary

[MAIN MENU]

 

abatement

Sometimes called "fresh abatement", or in some towns "fresh force", this was a crime of recent unlawful intrusion (sometimes by force – in which case the term hamsoken, or housebreaking, is applied) into a property in order to gain physical possession thereof; this sort of thing might occur, for example, when the owner died and there was a dispute over who inherited. The assize of abatement was a legal action to recover possession; it was the borough equivalent of novel disseisin, although its emphasis was on quick remedy (no essoins were allowed). Consequently the concern of the court was less with who had rightful title to a property than with whether an occupant had been dispossessed; thus the rightful owner, if seizing a property from its tenant for (for example) non-payment of rent, without going through due process of law (initiated by writ), could be obliged to restore the property to the tenant. The object was to restore the status quo and thereby oblige a claimant to seek his rights through the courts, which involved obtaining a writ from the king.

aids

SEE taxation

alderman

The Anglo-Saxon ealdorman (meaning "chief man") was an officer of the king who was essentially leader of a shire, which included the presidency of the shire court; as they became more powerful and transformed into earls, the shire-reeve took their place at head of a shire. The name survived for two types of town official, of far lesser status yet important locally. One type was the executive officer of a gild, notably a Merchant Gild. The earliest expression of organized association (as opposed to the folkmoot an unwieldy institution because insufficiently organized) among townsmen may have been, in not a few cases, a Merchant Gild. In some towns (e.g. Lynn, Leicester) the gild alderman seems to have been the community leader in the establishment of initial self-government and later surrendered place to a mayoralty perhaps considered more representative of all segments of the community. Similarly, the alderman's assistants the scabins foreshadowed borough chamberlains, although their (continental) origins had them as the equivalent of jurats. The second use of the title was for the members of the town council. This use is not common until the fifteenth century, when the conciliar structure was becoming two-tiered as class differentiation necessitated separate representation; "aldermen" referred to the members of the upper council, more influential. The choice of name may have been the influence of London, where the aldermen were ancient and had roles not dissimilar to the "doomsmen" or "lawmen" (associated mainly with boroughs which developed, or came, under Danish influence, such as Lincoln, Chester, York, and even London); the lawmen, in groups usually of 12, formulated judgements. Certainly each alderman exercised authority over one of the London wards and jointly the aldermen were the city's council. It may have been at London that the term "ealdorman" was extended from heads of shires to heads of boroughs.

alien

SEE foreigner

amercement

The term refers to a financial penalty imposed by judicial authorities on guilty parties (both parties guilty of a crime of which accused, or guilty of making a charge found by the court to be groundless). It means to be "subject to the mercy of" a judgemental power, although "mercy" itself derives from a Latin term used for a punitive compensation; a party found guilty of anything was said to be "in mercy" – that is, subjectible to a penalty to be judged by the court. Amercement was the common punishment for most crimes of lesser gravity, since there was no extensive prison system in the Middle Ages. Today we would use the term "fine", but in medieval England this had a slightly different application, being a sum of money paid voluntarily (although still with a compensatory connotation, and usually after some kind of formal legal or quasi-legal proceeding) to some other individual – often the king – in return for the grant of some right (e.g. freeman's status), benefit, or property.

assize

Assize was a concept used in several contexts; in some of these its etymology may refer back to the term for a "session" or "sitting" of a legal tribunal, while in others its derivation is from terminology for an assessment. When referring to a type of legal procedure; it came to be applied in a general sense to a session of a court applying such procedures, and gradually came to be used more specifically (but variously) for the jury, the judges or the enactments of the court. Grand and Petty Assizes were invoked for actions concerning real estate; although essentially civil actions and thus potentially within the jurisdiction of borough courts, there could be a criminal element where dispossession had occurred, resulting in a breach of the peace – a plaintiff could initiate an action in such cases by obtaining a writ of novel disseisin, whose equivalent in the boroughs was called "fresh force". A slightly different, but related, use of the term was for assizes of bread, wine and ale and assizes of weights and measures. These were concerned with the regulation of retailing practices, through the assessment of prices and quality, and the examination and enforcement of standards (including prices). They were thus of a quasi-judicial character. In towns, existing officers and/or individuals specifically appointed to the task would be charged with keeping the assizes (i.e. surveying business practices, testing measures used to dispense food or drink); dealing with offences against the assizes was often amalgamated with leet proceedings.
For rents of assize SEE farm
For further background information on judicial assizes see:

• Medieval Sourcebook: The Assizes of Bread, Beer, & Lucrum Pistoris
• Medieval Sourcebook: Judicium Pillorie (The Judgment of the Pillory)

attachment

SEE distraint

 

bailiff

The landlord of a franchise (be it manor or town) did not get involved in the daily administration of his property and its inhabitants; he appointed officials to undertake duties such as collection of gable rents or the supervision of services due him from his tenants. He might select one from his tenants to exercise the office of reeve (from the Anglo-Saxon gerefa); the medieval sheriff was simply the king's shire-reeve. Or he might employ a man to act as the bailiff of his estates. The first administrative officers we find in English towns are reeves: in Anglo-Saxon times there are passing mentions of portgerefa and wicgerefa. In the first centuries after the Conquest they are usually referred to by their Latin name of prepositus (provost) meaning "leading man"; they too were appointees of the lord of the borough, but presided over (although did not directly control) the folkmoot. After self-government was acquired, the term ballivus (implying jurisdiction over a certain area – bailiwick) gradually came to be preferred in towns, although it is not clear whether there is any real significance to the change. In most towns one or more bailiffs acted as the executive officer, presiding over local courts, at first, and only later were they superseded by mayors.

borough

Derives from the Old English term burh, which was originally applied to any fortified place, such as a thegn's house or a hilltop – not necessarily a populated place. During the wars between Anglo-Saxons and Danes it was particularly applied to centres of population which were protected with defensive earthworks; such of those centres which continued to flourish in later times came to be boroughs. The term burgus often appears to be used in a technical sense, as distinct from "town" (villata), such as in the 1200 proceedings at Ipswich, usually relating to the town as a legal/administrative entity. Another term sometimes used in a general sense, but sometimes with a more technical meaning, was liber burgus, "free borough", (or the slightly older liber burgagium, referring to burgage tenure); this came into vogue at the close of the twelfth century and was popular throughout the thirteenth, when many communities sought this status through charters from their lords. It involved the grant of special privileges reducing the degree of servitude of burgesses to their lord and/or increasing the degree of corporate autonomy from external authorities; the precise set of privileges varied from town to town. This status was most commonly given to new town foundations, and implied their acquisition of privileges already in possession of many of the older, established towns (a specific town might be used as a model for a new foundation). Some historians have preferred to restrict “borough” to towns whose urban status had legal recognition, notably through their endowment with charters granting typically urban privileges; they use terms such as "market town" or “non-burghal town” to identify settlements that lacked charters but had other characteristics considered urban.

burgage

A burgage tenement was a piece of property within a borough, normally comprising a residential plot with or without additional non-agricultural land, that was held by certain distinctive customs ("burgage tenure") typically involving a money rent – as opposed to labour services which characterized rural tenures – known as hawgable or landgable and payable to the lord of the borough (regardless of what other rents payable a property might accumulate over the course of time). Note that the rent was for the plot itself; it was up to the renter to put up a house and/or other buildings thereon, and the burgage rent was not adjusted based on what buildings were erected (these being, theoretically, moveables). A burgage tenement was characteristically a plot distinctively long and narrow, as originally laid out or built on; such plots were usually laid out in a series, at right angles to a street, with the narrow ends giving access onto the street (particularly when that street served as a marketplace) – the aim being to fit in as many plots as possible with street frontage, given that residents were typically traders or artisans who might wish to do business with passers-by. The residential building fronted the street, backed by more open ground used for working, storage, or garden purposes, sometimes with a service lane or ditch at the rear of a burgage series. As the town developed, population growth often led to the plot being subdivided; or, less commonly, as socio-economic stratification increased, more prosperous residents might acquire adjoining tenements and merge them. In the former case, new rents might be applied to the subdivisions, but the original burgage rent of the whole is sometimes still evidenced in documents; similarly, the original boundaries of burgage plots can often still be identified from old maps. Another characteristic of burgage tenure ("tenure" being a term connoting occupation more than outright ownership, since most real estate was held of some lord and ultimately the king) was that a burgage property could be sold, bequeathed, or otherwise disposed of more freely than was normally the case with rural property, so that it was in effect owned by the tenant. Burgage tenure is considered the most basic criterion to categorize a settlement as a borough, some small boroughs having little or nothing else by which to define themsleves as such. However, not all properties within borough boundaries were burgage tenements. What was important about burgages to those boroughs whose communities had collectively been granted charters of liberties, at the time when they were securing their first grants of self-government, was that the holders of burgage tenements owed suit to the borough court and were (at first) an important source of revenue that was put towards payment of the fee farm. Such boroughs therefore sought to confirm, within the terms of the grants, the local customs affecting the conditions of burgage tenure and the jurisdiction of their local court over cases relating to burgage properties, and early custumals show some preoccupation with tenurial matters; by the thirteenth century burgage tenure was a sufficiently standardized characteristic of boroughs that it was considered implicit in the grant of liber burgus status. Burgage tenure was not restricted to boroughs, however, but could be implemented in relation to selected properties within a rural manor, where not always displacing other tenurial obligations, though historians generally interpret its presence as an indication of a town-founding venture by the manorial lord. Rents were typically moderate – a common amount being a penny per month – to help attract settlers (who could be expected to furnish other revenues for the landlord and contribute to the general improvement of the local economy) and might be waived for a set period while new tenants established themselves; the rent was important not just as revenue for the landlord, but also as acknowledgement of the landlord's ownership and associated rights. Although “burgage” was sometimes used in medieval documents as a noun denoting a property itself, it is more properly understood adjectivally: that is, as the attributes (tenurial privileges) associated with a property. The concept was considered important at a time when historians were seeking to define “town” according to legal and constitutional characteristics and assumed that a burgess was someone who had the right to hold property by burgage tenure. That tenure can still be considered one of the most fundamental characteristics of a town, no matter its size or prominence in the urban hierarchy.

burgess

Although Domesday seems to have used this term fairly consistently to apply to town residents contributory towards the customary payments due the king from boroughs, later in the Middle Ages its varied application does not suggest a precise, universally agreed, technical definition. Broadly, however, it referred to residents of a borough, usually those residents who were members of the borough community in terms of sharing in communal responsibilities and rights; hence we often find the term "comburgess" used, to emphasise that an individual was a fellow member of the enfranchised community (although the term also came to be used, on occasion, to refer to burgesses of higher status). At Lynn the poorest townsmen were clearly described as non-burgesses, "burgesses" evidently being equated with those residents who had become freemen; this appears also the case in Ipswich. Yet in Colchester the same class of poorer residents was described as being burgesses. Outsiders ("strangers" or "foreigners") were sometimes allowed to acquire some of the same – notably commercial – privileges by entering the franchise under the special status of "foreign burgess". Towards the end of the Middle Ages "burgess" was more likely to be used to distinguish one group of privileged townsmen from a less privileged group.

burh

SEE borough

 

chamberlain

The title originated with an officer of a royal household who was responsible for the Chamber, which included the administration of the king's household's budget. Boroughs later mimicked this, introducing officers to take charge of collecting revenues and paying expenses in part to relieve executive officers of some of their work but perhaps more to place a check on possible embezzlement by those officers. It is not clear how early there were dedicated financial officers in borough administration (the absence of mention in the Ipswich proceedings of 1200 is notable), but merchant gilds appear to have had them from the beginning. It was probably London who first gave its financial officers the title of "chamberlain", perhaps in part because the city treasury was kept safe in a particular chamber in the Guildhall. Treasurers and receivers were other names used for this type of officer.

charter and deed

Charters and deeds – terms to some extent interchangeable –, along with quitclaims, refer primarily to evidentiary documents recording (that is, commemorating and reporting) grants from one party to another, to which at least the grantor/donor appended his seal, the medieval equivalent of a signature, as validation. Deeds were legal instruments generally concerned with conveyances – transfers by gift, sale, or lease – of one or more parcels of real property (moveable or immoveable), or rents from the same; or, rather, of legal title to possession (seisin) of that property. But they were really only a written confirmation and memento of a physical transaction effecting the transfer in the presence of witnesses and/or context of some institution exercising legal authority, through a ceremony entailing oral declaration and hand-over of a small piece of soil or some other symbolic token of the property (this act/event, known as livery of seisin, strictly speaking being the actual deed, meaning gift), in exchange for some compensatory consideration (normally a lump-sum payment and/or annual rent or service) specified in the deed. A transcript or abstract of the terms of the deed, including identification of the parties and witnesses to the act, and often, though not always, a description of the conveyed property (typically in terms of its location relative to adjacent properties or topographical features) would be registered into the formal record (e.g. court roll) compiled by that authority, although this registration might take place at a later time, perhaps in conjunction with the sealing and hand-over of the original deed along with older deeds related to the same property.
Charters could deal with land grants but were, just as often, the written record of a delegation of rights, privileges, or authority (to exercise rights and privileges) to an individual or institutional grantee; such exercise of authority was generally tied to a particular landed estate and not portable beyond the boundaries of that estate. Most charters were issued by the monarch (in whom all rights were, ultimately, vested), but sometimes by an intermediate lord, whose seigneurial status entailed a set of rights accorded by the king. The grantor's seal was appended to the charter. Fees were charged by the king for the issue and sealing of charters, copies of which were registered on the Charter Rolls or, later, the Patent Rolls. When granted to towns, such charters of liberties established the jurisdictional and constitutional foundations on which the degree of urban self-government was based.
A quitclaim was also a transfer of rights, though in regard to real estate, by which a grantor disclaimed his/her rights, or interest, in the said property in favour of a grantee's, again often for some monetary consideration; it was not, in itself, a transfer of physical property, but rather extinguished some third party's rights, actual or potential, in a property of which seisin had already been transferred. Assurance of the transfer of ownership sometimes gave rise to both a deed and a quitclaim from donor to the new owner, but the latter often sought quitclaims from spouses, close relatives, or heirs of donors, at the same time as a deed or at later date, to mitigate any future risk of legal challenges to ownership.
In the quo warranto proceedings of the Late Middle Ages, claims of rights were expected to be supported by documentation, peferably drawn up in the correct legal terminology and sealed; to retain safely and be able to present such documentation in a legal proceeding was advantageous, though not essential, for attestation of deed witnesses (if still alive) or communal memory of ownership could also be important; lost originals could be replaced by official transcripts (exemplifications) made from registered versions.

comburgess

SEE burgess

community

Assigning a valid meaning to the concept of 'community' is a problem that continues to plague historians, geographers, and sociologists. For present purposes we may think of it as a system or network of social relations within a more-or-less definable geographic area (typically, a locality, though boundaries may not be entirely clear-cut), whereby membership in a social group contributes to identification of individuals, based on a perceived set of common interests, norms, rights, obligations, and activities, operating – whether through formal institutions or informal behaviours – to mutual (though not necessarily equitable) benefit, and with individuals committed to supporting and maintaining those shared characteristics and the underlying ideology. Towns are generally considered a type of communal unit, though modern historians are wary of isolating them from their hinterland, or surrounding sphere of influence: social, economic, and sometimes administrative. The Latin term communitas (or its Anglicized form commonalty) was frequently used in late medieval England to characterize (among other associations) the residents of a town as a group, or at least a subset of those residents who made a particular commitment to mutual support, in a way that implied common action, shared responsibility, and exercise of communal privileges. But it was often used too vaguely to let us know if at any time a technical meaning – such as restriction to the burgess or enfranchised element of the town population – was intended. The town community is to some degree a later expression of the folkmoot and is often seen acting as a cohesive unit, even before the law formally recognized it as corporate entity. Occasionally we hear of the "commune", which means something similar but connotes a sworn association whose goal is the achievement of self-government; this was more a continental manifestation which could pursue its aims through violent rebellion against noble overlords, and so English kings (particularly those of the twelfth century) tried, with limited success, to prevent this extreme expression of community within their realm.
See also:

• Political values and attitudes

For further information about communes see:

• Wikipedia: "Medieval commune"

compurgator

SEE pledge

constable

Two linked challenges faced by the monarchy after the Norman Conquest, as it sought to expand the scope and control of a national government, concerned the enforcement of law (beyond the unsatisfactory local mechanism of frankpledge) and preservation of the peace, and the ability to muster the populace for military service at need. In 1181 the Assize of Arms required every adult free man to be in possession of weaponry of certain types (determined by socio-economic status). When invasion from France was feared in 1205, the military and police duties of county sheriffs were turned over to constables, each to take charge of the militia of a hundred, and themselves subordinate to chief constables; the name (deriving from Latin terms meaning "count of the stable") had originally been applied to imperial officers whose duties included responsibility for military equipment. In 1252 a royal writ reiterated both the role of the constables (who may not have lasted once the scare in 1205 was over) and the Assize of Arms, which was also more closely defined; in boroughs, mayors or bailiffs were allowed to exercise the duty of constables. A second royal order of that year required "watch and ward", which established (or confirmed) in boroughs a nightwatch of 12 men to apprehend any suspicious characters until it could be ascertained what the reason was for them being abroad in the dark. These initiatives were all tightened up by the Statutes of Winchester and Westminster in 1285 which, among other things, required that town gates be kept closed and guarded from sunset to sunrise. It is probably from this time that Norwich, for example, had one constable for each of its four hundredal leets with sub-constables for each sub-leet, while Lynn (only a single hundred/leet) was nonetheless divided into ten constabularies or wards which also served for militia musters as well as for administrative purposes not envisaged by the royal legislation. Although elected locally, constables were strictly speaking officers of the king. They had the power to hold inquisitions in cases of individuals arrested at night. By the close of the Middle Ages, the constables were being subordinated to aldermen with minor judicial authority (echoing the London aldermanry system that predated the Plantagenet constables).

crafts

Occupations or occupational groups that have in modern times been referred to as trades, together with the associations (gilds) that emerged to represent the interests of the leading practitioners (employers known as masters) within such groups, were known in the Middle Ages, collectively or individually, as crafts or misteries (the latter term surviving today in the French word for craft or craftsmanship, métier). Although the work of these artisans (whether craftsmen or the rarer craftswomen) involved mechanical tasks, they were distinguished from manual labourers by the requirement for a specialized knowledge of one or more manual skills and/or industrial processes. What we know today as the professions, which, in terms of organization and a higher degree of respect, were still developing during the Middle Ages, might at times be lumped with the crafts, since they required specialized expertise. "Mistery" seems to owe little to the need for mastery of a skill (and still less to the notion of occupations guarding secrets of their crafts, transmitted to others only through apprenticeship), but to derive from the Latin ministerium, one of whose meanings was simply "occupation". Although today we more commonly use "trade" in connection with commerce, buying and selling were incidental, though necessary, tasks for craftsmen. They would usually buy, or in some cases make, their own raw materials or tools and sell the products they manufactured -- normally by retail, although sometimes in bulk to middlemen, or by wholesale if their productivity enabled them to take on a secondary, mercantile role. In the sense of this conjunction of industrial and commercial activities, craftsmen can be said to have been operators of businesses.

customs

Customary rules which formed one basis for local administration of justice; some features of these heark back to Anglo-Saxon traditions – the local practices which were established (in a non-literate age) as law through repetitive application, while others are the product of specific ordinances made by borough governments during the Late Middle Ages. Although these customs may vary in details from one borough to another, most reflect the same general concerns and preoccupations. When these rules were compiled in lists, as reference tools for town officers, the resulting document was called a "custumal". The term "customs" was also applied to customary dues (monetary, in-kind, or personal service) owed to the king or to some other lord of a territory, and a manorial record of these dues was also termed a 'custumal'. A third use of the term was for duties payable on merchandise being imported or exported; these customs might be for the profit of the town levying them (although, to avoid confusion, I have used the term "tolls" for these) or be part of the national system of customs collection.

 

discreet

This adjective was a quality used to refer to men with decision-making authority in borough government – as a group they were sometimes referred to as the discretiores. In fact, the term was used in a variety of contexts in the Late Middle Ages (e.g. see Bracton), usually with connotations of wisdom, prudence, sound judgement, or responsible behaviour; it was typically, although not exclusively, applied to individuals or groups acting in some kind of official capacity, and reflects the medieval belief that the ideal ruler combined intelligence and justice. That it is so often used in a way suggesting not simply a quality, but a recognized status – sometimes social, sometimes political – gives the term an almost technical character. There is no single modern descriptor that well captures the full medieval meaning. However, I have chosen to translate the term as "judicious", with discretiores translated as "the more judicious men"; my intent being to choose a quality with connotations of officialdom.
SEE ALSO prudhommes

distraint

In legal actions it was sometimes necessary to compel, or attach, a party to come to court to participate in proceedings; this could apply both to the plaintiff, to ensure he went ahead with prosecuting his case, and particularly to the defendant, who might prove more reluctant to come to answer an accusation. One method of compulsion – particularly where a party could not be attached by sureties – was to distrain on the personal property of the defendant; that is, to seize some of the defendant's possessions so that he could only regain them by providing sureties for coming to court, or by an illegal rescue (or, a less common option known through procedures to combat it, by colluding with a third party who would pretend the attached items were really his, not the defendant's). Usually accessible moveables at the defendant's residence or place of business, or in his fields, were targeted. "Distraint" might refer to the action of arrest (also called distress) or to the objects arrested. Sometimes a recalcitrant defendant might have to be distrained repeatedly. Distraint could also be applied to compensate a plaintiff in cases of debt, arrears of rent, or the cost of damages awarded by the court, where the convicted party refused to pay. Unless distraint was authorized by the court (so that a town officer, or even the plaintiff himself, could undertake it), it was itself a crime – with some exceptions. The process of distraint is described somewhat in the custumal of Ipswich, cap.34, 42 and 43 and that of Norwich, cap.14, cap.28 and cap.30, while that of Yarmouth (1491 edition) indicates some of the complications involved in this aspect of legal procedure. "Attachment" was a more general term for the means by which a defendant could be obliged to answer a charge; it might be accomplished by pledges, through personal property voluntarily offered or (if necessary) distrained, or by having the defendant arrested ("attached by the body"). Goods or items that were subject to dispute or involved in a supposed crime could also be attached, for production as evidence in court. In cases where moveables could not be accessed, because in a locked building, they might be sequestered so that the owner was also unable to access them.

Domesday Book

Briefly, the Domesday Book was the outcome of King William I's attempt to find out just what it was he'd conquered in 1066. As a newcomer, he knew little of the resources of England, and particularly of those resources on which the king had direct call. But he knew well enough that the land was the source of wealth and power. And so in 1086 he sent inquisitors through the shires to conduct a survey. This resulting and nameless description of the country was coming, less than a century later, to be called "Domesday" – the day of judgement; for the survey officially established who owned what (or whom) and who owed what (money or services) to whom. There were two main volumes, which have been styled Great Domesday and Little Domesday, the latter covering East Anglia, and several of what historians have termed satellite reports, such as the Exeter Domesday (covering some of the south-western shires). While not comprehensive in its coverage, the survey provides a picture of much of the country which is unparallelled for medieval England. In particular there are gaps in coverage of the towns (London, Bristol and Winchester being the most notable absences), but well over 100 places called boroughs or inhabited by groups of burgesses are surveyed, and 32 of them are distinguished within the organization of the survey by being described at the head of their county sections; if we are less rigid in our criteria, the number of towns dealt with by Domesday may exceed 120, and together they account for about 10% of the total population of England at that time. So Domesday gives us our first real look at English medieval towns, with comparative information applicable to both the period immediately preceding the Conquest, and the period when the survey was undertaken; the comparison allows us to see, for example, the adverse effects of the Conquest – many boroughs had suffered damage and depopulation, either in the course of the resistance to the Normans, or because of the planting of castles in key strategic urban centres, to control the local and regional populations.
For further information see:

• The Domesday boroughs and wiks
• Domesday Book: Britain's finest treasure
• The Domesday Book Online
• Medieval Sourcebook: The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: The Domesday Book, 1086
• Medieval Sourcebook: The Domesday Book 1086 - Instructions and Example
• The Domesday Texts
• Domesday - Prosopography of Anglo-Saxon England

doomsmen

SEE alderman

 

essoin

Essoins were excuses for non-attendance at a court session. It was anticipated that, for various reasons, a man might not be able to attend a court session to prosecute or defend a charge and so provision was made for a certain number of absences without penalty, which were expected to be genuine and valid (the court had to consider and rule on whether or not it would accept an essoin). Permissible excuses were: illness serious enough to confine one to bed; absence abroad; being busy in the king's service; and misadventure en route to court. The excuse had to be presented by some friend or agent of the essoined party; some men appear so frequently delivering essoins that it seems they did it as part of their livelihood. Since only in certain cases could judgements be rendered in the persistent absence of a defendant, essoins were often used as part of a strategy to delay the progress of cases. Such abuses might occasionally be flagrant, as for example at Writtle in 1437/38, where the court roll records that a defendant who had been essoined was then spotted in court; the court promptly nullified the essoin, but this was reversed when the suitors to the court (many of whom must have had occasion to benefit from essoins) unanimously declared that in such cases the custom was for the essoin to remain in force, notwithstanding. On the other hand, some types of case, requiring speedy remedy, such as abatement or piepowder pleas, restricted or eliminated essoins.

 

farm

One party might acquire, on a basis similar to a lease, from another party one or more rights, jurisdictions, revenues or properties – often a combination thereof – by taking them to farm (today we still talk about "farming out" sources of revenue). A farm was a pre-determined lump-sum amount assessed for one year (although payments might be made in instalments) on an estimation of the value of the revenues. In theory at least, a farm was a fixed, or "firm", amount from year to year, as opposed to a rent, which might fluctuate according to property values; however, in practice farms were often renegotiated if the value of the sources of revenues changed, while "rents of assize" (of which burgage rents are one example) were considered to have a fixed value that could not be changed by, for example, a new owner (such rents themselves being subject to sale, gift or bequest, quite independently from the ownership of the real estate itself). The firma burgi, or fee-farm of a borough, was the annual sum due the Exchequer in return for the king allowing the farmer to administer the borough – or rather, administer its sources of revenue (which might include property rents and taxes, local tolls, court amercements). Before the period of self-government, boroughs were farmed by local potentates (e.g. county sheriffs) or entrepreneurs; the aim was to be able to make a profit from the revenues beyond the amount due for the farm, and this could result in extortionate measures. Hence the desire of the townsmen to acquire the farm for themselves, which necessitated taking the reins of local administration. With the grants of self-government to boroughs by (principally) kings Richard I and John, the farm became in effect a perpetual lease. The amount of the fee-farm was fixed at the time of the original negotiation, but might increase if subsequent additions to jurisdictions, revenues etc. were granted, or decrease if the value of borough revenues demonstrably decline: thus, for example, we see many adjustments in valuations at the time of Domesday Book, while towards the end of the Middle Ages many towns were making cases for reduction of their fee-farm due to local hardship or abnormal expenses (e.g. building defensive fortifications). Boroughs themselves sometimes farmed out to townsmen sources of revenue (with associated offices, if applicable) or communal properties, since this assured the borough a guaranteed (lump sum) revenue, regardless of what income the farmer was able to extract.

femme covert and femme sole

Common law differentiated the legal rights of married and single women, and the terms feme covert and feme sole still survive in legal terminology, although considered archaic. Single women, or widows who did not remarry, of course had to be dealt with by the courts as individuals with their own legal rights and responsibilities. But after marrying, a woman was considered subordinate to her husband, property she brought to the marriage passed into his control, and for legal purposes (such as most property transactions or contractual arrangements) the marriage unit was represented by the husband, whose dealings before the courts were deemed to cover his wife too. That is, a wife was “concealed behind” or “shielded by” her husband in dealing with the law, and for women the state of marriage was often (and still is in legal terminology) referred to as “coverture”. A “femme coverte de baroun” (woman covered under a man – London’s townsmen often being referred to as barons) had limited independence, as an individual, for legal purposes; technically, since all property and possessions were under her husband’s control, she had no material resources with which to enter into legal transactions. However, the situation was not always clear-cut and local custom varied, in regard to, for example, bequests to married women, or their own right to bequeath property, or in the case of propertied widows who remarried. In fact, visible practice seems not infrequently at odds with legal theory. Furthermore, borough custom was less restrictive than common law in its perception of the joint rights of husband and wife to property, including that held before marriage. One consequence was that a townsman was not entitled to dispose of real property which his wife brought to the marriage, nor property acquired after marriage, without the wife’s consent, given without duress. The other side of the femme covert coin was that a husband was answerable for his wife’s debts or misdeeds, a fact that sometimes obscures in court records evidence of women’s activities. As it was not uncommon for wives of townsmen to engage in trade or craft activities independently of their husbands’ businesses, the latter obtained protection (e.g. from debts incurred by their wives) through the legal fiction of classifying a married women who traded on her own account as a femme sole. Similarly, and perhaps also a deviation from an earlier rule, a wife might be tried as a femme sole for certain offences.

feudalism

A term not used in the Middle Ages, but coined by historians (and still considered a useful short-hand by some, though avoided by others as an artificial construct) to characterize medieval society, or more particularly a military and political system in which the various members of the militaristic aristocracy formed enduring ties within a hierarchy defined by privileges and mutual obligations. The concept assumes a weakness of any central government which necessitated devolution of jurisdictional power, based on the tenure of land, and enabled the imposition of service demands on sub-tenants. Difficulties have arisen in achieving a consensus on any definition of feudalism, partly because none seem applicable to all countries of medieval western Europe, and because it is hard to see feudalism as as the sole, pervasive, encompassing 'system' characterizing the bonds that tied medieval society together. This ignores, for instance, the importance of 'community'; while to employ the now-old adage that medieval towns were 'islands in a feudal sea' (made famous by Postan, although the metaphor seems to have originated with Pirenne) is to misunderstand both sides of the equation, it is significant that the strongest critique of the concept of feudalism has been advanced by Susan Reynolds who began as an urban historian. As regards the existence of feudalism in England, debated issues have been whether its roots lay in Anglo-Saxon society or whether a Norman introduction, as well as whether the English monarchy was ever so weak that the development of a 'feudal system' was needed to preserve public order. A further area of dispute has been the notion that late medieval England saw the emergence of 'bastard feudalism', in which social dependencies based on land tenure were superseded by personal allegiances: contractual relationships in which services of retainers were remunerated through money or comparable benefits. This Web site is (fortunately) not directly concerned with feudalism, but as a convenient adjective 'feudal' is used provisionally, in the understanding that there are disagreements over its validity.

folkmoot

SEE moot

foreigner / alien

The perspectives of the everyday person of the medieval world were more parochial than today (when the mass media and telecommunications have given us a global outlook). Sense of identity, and feelings of "patriotism" were more focused on the local community and less on the nation-state, which was a relatively undeveloped concept at that time. Today we apply the term "foreigner" to someone who is from outside of the national community, and "alien" (other than the technical application in regard to immigration) to a being from another planet. Within the narrower focus of the medieval English mind, a foreigner was someone who was not strictly a member of the local community although was likely to be from some other community in England – often a neighbouring one; an alien was someone from another country. "Outsider" and "stranger" were terms applied less discriminately to such individuals. "Foreign" could, however, also be applied to someone who was resident in a town but not a fully enfranchised member of the burgess community. Aliens could likewise take up residence in a town and might integrate into the community – in some towns reliant on international trade, they could found important dynasties – but as the Late Middle Ages worn on, with growing nationalism (complicated by other factors such as commercial rivalries) fostered prejudice against non-natives, it became harder for aliens to settle and win acceptance within town society.

forestalling or regrating

Forestalling and regrating were similar offences in which middlemen purchased goods, particularly victuals, in order to resell them; regrators usually divided the goods into small lots to sell by retail, whereas forestallers might sell them again by wholesale. Forestalling was the more serious, involving interception of goods en route to market (or before the hour when the market could legally begin business), in order to buy them and then sell them in open market at a price higher than for what they would originally have sold; or, since town authorities kept a close eye on market prices and could control them somewhat, the profiteering might be achieved by buying wholesale at lower than the current market price and then reselling close to the market price. Sometimes the purpose was artificially to create a shortage of goods, so that the "fair" price established in the marketplace would be higher than it ought. A secondary concern of borough authorities may have been that forestalling could result in the evasion of tolls due on goods brought to market. Forestalling was thus an infringement of community rights, viz. that all burgesses should have the opportunity to obtain sufficient supplies for household needs at the lowest cost possible. Although it acquired the more precise meaning of intercepting goods before they reached a market stall, in its Anglo-Saxon/Danish origins the term simply meant to obstruct, by standing in front of someone (just as a stall was originally a placement – whether of an individual or a stand – in marketplace, street or fair); by the eleventh century one particular application of the term was to illegal ambushes on the king's highway that prevented travellers from proceeding. In that sense, forestalling was an act of violence in which the forestalled party was an unwilling victim. In the later sense the forestalled party would be consenting, even if coercion was applied, but the act of violence was instead against the community. The modern use of "forestall" hearks back to that original broad sense of obstruction/prevention; the term "pre-empt", also used in a broad sense today, similarly is connected with the purchase (Latin emptio) of goods before they could reach a public venue. Late tenth century regulations regarding London commerce used a Latinized Old English term, forceapum, to express the concept. Although "forestall" could be used in a later period to refer to illegal interceptions not related to trade (e.g. the rescue from officials of goods they had distrained), it mainly came to be used as a charge against middlemen. However, commercial enterprise – including the resale of goods by middlemen – was fundamental to the economic character of towns, and regrating was controlled more through licencing and limitation than by suppression (at Oxford, for instance, the number of regrators operating from shops was fixed by an agreement between university and town, the latter taking a licence fee per shop). The fear was that regrators would resort to forestalling, and very likely they did so. That instances of forestalling constantly appear in borough court records also suggest that the fines were not disincentives, but a roundabout way of licensing the practice.
See also:

• Forestalling at Nottingham and London

For further background information see:

• Medieval Sourcebook: Statuta de Forstallariis (Statute of Forestallers), c. 1300

franchise

SEE freedom

frankpledge

A system of policing and law enforcement found at the lowest level of society; later part of the manorial system of administration of justice and, by extension, that of towns. It hearks back to the earliest application of the "jury" in Anglo-Saxon England which relied on the knowledge of an accused man's peers and neighbours to vouch for guilt or innocence. Late Anglo-Saxon law required, in most parts of England, every adult male commoner, (unless part of the household of a lord), to be a member of a "tithing" – "ten people" (although in practice groupings were not necessarily of the exact number) – later known as a frankpledge, after tithings acquired the responsibility of members standing surety for one another. Supposedly reputable persons – clergy, nobility, gentry, and leading members of urban society – were, or became, exempt from this system, on the notion that their status in society was itself an assurance of good behaviour. Tithings were grouped into larger units known as hundreds, although townships could also serve as parent units. The tithing was communally responsible for ensuring that any of its members accused of a crime appeared in court to answer for it, or for the pursuit and capture of a member who fled (failing which, the group could be answerable for compensating an injured party). The group was also responsible for bringing to the court's attention, through presentments voiced by their leader (the tithingman – later known as the capital pledge, that is, chief pledge), any crimes committed by its members. In theory these presentments were made by the capital pledges together, acting as a jury representing the local community, and might also extend to identifying offences committed by others outside the tithing system. What were called "views of frankpledge" were held periodically to ensure that all eligible males were members of a tithing, to take an oath from them that they would not engage in illegal behaviour or endorse that of others, and to hear presentments. In towns we find membership of tithings organized on a neighbourhood basis, and groups of tithings were associated together in wards, or leets, hence the administration of frankpledge tended to be through leet courts. In rural areas frankpledge tended to become bound up with manorial administration. The classic form of frankpledge is found mainly in eastern England, but variations elsewhere. Only those of fixed abode, whether free or servile, could be in frankpledge; those who were itinerant (e.g. vagrants or fugitives) were naturally suspect, unlikely to find guarantors, and lacked property that could be distrained to oblige them to answer to justice. Important men were also outside the frankpledge system; their households formed a kind of tithing, its members being in the "mainpast" of the head of the household, who was answerable for their behaviour. Migration and freeholding (under which a man's property could become a pledge for him answering to justice) undermined the tithing system, and the disruption caused by the Black Death also had an impact; yet leet administration adapted and remained a useful component of judicial administration until the end of the Middle Ages.
For further background information see:

• Bracton: "On the Laws and Customs of England: At the view of frankpledge"
• The frankpledge system

freedom

The borough freedom is not a reference to the vaunted but exaggerated adage that "town air makes free", but rather to the set of rights and privileges – which were referred to collectively as the liberty or the franchise (or in their plural form, liberties or franchises) – that townsmen acquired through chartered grants from their lords, as well as traditional rights (usages) as indicated in custumals. A freeman in the borough context was not therefore one who was personally free, i.e. not a serf or villein (although this was normally a sine qua non), but a member of the enfranchised community; the rights possessed by the community (e.g. burgage tenure) tended towards promoting more personal freedom than most of the extra-urban population had. In a few towns (notably London) there were explicit customs that a villein successfully residing in town for a year and a day without his lord claiming him back could be considered personally free, and the notion may have been adopted generally by English towns, but throughout the Late Middle Ages there was a running battle on this question, with challenges both in individual cases and at a broader level by seeking parliamentary prohibition; however, this personal freedom was not the same thing as becoming a freeman of a town. A resident was not, in most towns, automatically a freeman but acquired this privileged status by entering the freedom, or taking up the franchise, which might happen automatically in some cases (notably sons of freemen), or in others be acquired through a one-time membership fee (or fine). Women might enjoy a similar set of franchises, if unmarried daughters of resident freemen or widows of freemen, although while they were married their rights were determined by the status of their husbands. Depriving someone of freeman's rights (disfranchisement) was one of the more drastic non-corporeal punishments available to borough authorities. "Franchise" or "liberty" could also be used to refer to the territorial area within which the borough rights and freedoms were in effect; territory and jurisdiction were conceptually intertwined.

fresh force

SEE abatement

 

gild

Gilds (more commonly spelled today as "guilds") were associations of men and women sharing common interests. There were various types of such associations, it being a flexible form of social institution, although more often than not names other than "gild" were used by contemporaries. Some gilds were fraternities created for socio-religious purposes, which included conviviality, communal religious celebration, and charity (usually mutual support). Other gilds had a more businesslike purpose. Members of the same craft or trade came to organize themselves in the Late Middle Ages into gilds, and might be formally constituted with official approval, or adulterine. On one hand this was a response to efforts of borough governments to control trade and craft practices: craftsmen needed to band together to protect their interests, but also for self-regulation, to satisfy government requirements for the setting and policing of standards. On the other it was a mechanism for established practitioners to suppress competition by restricting practice of a trade or craft to gild members. The two purposes intersected in the apprenticeship system, which ensured that young men interested in following a craft acquired the necessary skills and were inculcated with the values of the gild establishment, while at the same time restricting competition to qualified craftsmen, by requiring several years of apprenticeship before an individual could graduate to running his own business. The same two principles applied to merchants, whose gilds came into existence earlier than those of the crafts. Since the mercantile element of the community was prominent and influential, merchant gilds could be powerful institutions within a town, although this varied considerably from place to place.
For further background information see:

• Gloria Betcher on Medieval Guilds
• Gary Richardson on Medieval Guilds
• Medieval Guilds and Craft Production

 

hamsoken

SEE abatement

hanse

This Old English term was sometimes applied to the commercial (as opposed to the social) aspect of merchant gilds, or to the fee (which might be monetary or in-kind goods) for becoming a partner in the mercantile advantages accorded to gild members; see examples from Lynn, Ipswich, Lincoln, and York. It was possible, in some towns at least, for non-burgesses to acquire a membership in the hanse component of a merchant gild, which allowed them to trade in the town without paying tolls. The term is more commonly known, however, in application to the Hanseatic League, an association (i.e. an informal gild) of mercantile towns in what is today northern Germany. The German Hanse established a permanent base in London and from there expanded its influence to provincial towns so that, by the fifteenth century, it was dominating much of England's international commerce.
For further background on the Hanseatic League see:

• ORB Online Encyclopedia: Hanseatic League

hosting

"Hosting" or "hostage" was practiced in a number of towns (e.g. Yarmouth, Ipswich, Norwich, Southampton), particularly those active in international commerce, even before it became the subject of a royal statute. A visiting merchant from abroad, if intending more than just an overnight stay, would be taken under the wing of a merchant of the town. This might include providing the visitor with lodging and storehouse facilities for his merchandise, and usually involved the host assisting the visitor to sell his goods – sometimes simply through advice, but sometimes as a deal-maker. In principle hosting could be beneficial to the visitor, unfamiliar with local marketing rules or without local business connections, and also beneficial to the town, since the host could then supervise the business activities of the visitor – and be held accountable by the town if the visitor committed any fraud. However, the practice was subject to abuse by the hosts, who had a competitive advantage regarding the visitor's merchandise and who might try to cheat the visitor or to cheat the town of tolls due on imported merchandise.

hue and cry

In the absence of a police force, apart from the town sergeants (who served an enforcement rather than a crime detection role), apprehending criminals was partly the responsibility of the community – an ancient principle, embedded in Anglo-Saxon law from the tenth century and maintained under the Normans, though implementation was subject to local variation. This responsibility was handled either by reporting crimes after the fact (often through formal mechanisms such as view of frankpledge), or – if the crime were witnessed in process or discovered after being freshly committed – by raising hue-and-cry. Raising the hue entailed loud proclamation by the witness/discoverer or the victim, male or female, in order to alert those in the vicinity. Those persons then had the obligation to join with the declarer of the crime in pursuing the criminal, usually to the boundary of the community, continuing the clamour in the process. Anyone participating in hue-and-cry had the right to arrest a criminal. In this context the carrying of arms was permitted and a criminal violently resisting arrest might be killed with impunity, but not otherwise – lynchings were very rare, and even wounding or killing a criminal to hinder flight was unlawful. Victims of conspicuous crimes (e.g. rapes or assaults) might also raise hue-and-cry, even if the culprit had escaped, in order to summon those who could witness the effects of the crime. A similar concept to hue-and-cry has survived in the contemporary Western convention that someone seen fleeing the scene of a crime should be met with cries of "Stop, thief!", in order to encourage the public to apprehend the criminal. A post-medieval counterpart of the hue was the posse of the American frontier, but this was organized and led by an officer, whereas the hue was more spontaneous (although capital pledges or constables may have played a role). Arrests could sometimes be effected through the hue, with captured criminals either being marched off to gaol or held until the authorities could arrive; felons caught red-handed were easier to convict. Anyone discovering a corpse was expected to raise the hue immediately, even if the body was cold so that no pursuit was practicable; to fail to do so would have cast suspicion on that "first finder". Failure to raise hue, or of the community to respond to the hue, could result in a neighbourhood being fined once the crime was reported to the courts. At night, when many crimes were committed, the hue would have been a less efficient mechanism; towns instituted night-watches – again a community-based mechanism – to compensate. Furthermore, the hue was a mechanism susceptible to abuse, and numerous instances are recorded of individuals punished, or accused, for raising the hue unjustly – often, it seems, as the result of some inter-personal argument or brawl, whereas the hue was intended as a response to felonies (which included assault in which blood was drawn, or likely to be drawn, and house-breaking). During the Late Middle Ages women seem to have remained more reliant on the hue, to protect themselves or their property, than did men (for whom it was perhaps easier to bring complaints before officials or prosecutions into court).
For further background see:

• Bracton on procedure in pleas of the Crown

hundred

A unit of local administration that comes to our attention in the tenth century, the name may have originated to refer to a territory of 100 "hides" (a measurement of area), or to a grouping of 100 men for peace-keeping purposes (a larger-scale version of the tithing); we cannot be sure which (if either), due to inconsistent application of the term, and the two uses might have become fused over time. Any such measurements may have been more a matter of theoretical principle than practice. In the former Danelaw the "wapentake" had a similar role. Generally, as a territory a hundred was larger than a village but smaller than a county, but the precise relationship of hundreds and towns is uncertain. Many towns had acquired, by the time of Domesday, the status of a hundred (or at least a half-hundred – which made little practical difference). The hundred court may have developed out of and/or superseded the older folkmoot, for it administered customary law or folk-right, but again the relationship is unclear; in the post-Conquest period it is seen dealing with less serious criminal and civil cases. An ordinance of King Edgar (957-75) prescribed how hundred courts were to function but, rather than an innovation, seems to describe a system already in operation.
For further background information see:

• The Laws of King Edgar, 959-975 A.D.: This is the Ordinance how the Hundred shall be held

husting

SEE moot

 

incorporation

The borough community is seen acting jointly to pursue common interests or goals – i.e. in a corporate fashion – from at least the twelfth century on. However, the law made no formal recognition of this (even though the king effectively recognized the existence of communities in his dealings with towns), which was often inconvenient. One of the last major concessions, in terms of chartered liberties, that the king made to towns in the Middle Ages was their incorporation (i.e. making the town a fictitious personality in the eyes of the law). There were five characteristics associated with this: the right of perpetual succession; the right to use a "common seal" as the signature of the borough to official documents expressing community will; the right to sue, and be sued; the right to make by-laws; and the right to hold property communally. Since almost all of these features had been in use in boroughs prior to incorporation, the recognition of this by royal grant was probably not such a significant step forward for boroughs that it might appear to us; however this grant often went hand in hand with other powers, such as the right to have a mayor as the executive officer (once associated with the dreaded commune, whose spectre had greatly diminished by the time of incorporation), and the grant of local jurisdiction over Sessions of the Peace. Perhaps equally important to the borough government was that incorporation reduced the liability of individual officers to be sued for transgressions or defaults of the community, while it made it easier for the borough to acquire communal property which was an increasingly important source of revenue to support administrative costs. To the historian, incorporation is simply the logical culmination of the development of borough government throughout the Late Middle Ages, creating the form of the post-medieval borough.

inquest, or inquisition

SEE law, waging of

 

jurat

Meaning "sworn man", the term was principally applied specifically to burgesses who took oath to assist and counsel the borough executive – i.e. the town councillors. Like "mayor", "jurat" came to England from the continental commune, where "scabin" was another term used for the same type of officer, although jurats were from the start officers selected by and from the ranks of citizens, whereas scabins had ties to the feudal establishment. In England, town councils were referred to somewhat obliquely by a variety of terms, including potentiores, bon hommes or probi homines (although those terms might also be more widely applied to members of the ruling class), or simply by the number of members of the council – normally "the 12" or "the 24"; jurat similarly is a term usually encountered in the plural, collective form. In some towns they might have more localized (yet no less indistinctive) names, such as "portmen" or "wardmen". But it was not until the close of the Middle Ages that, as the ruling class – represented by borough executive and upper council – began to monopolize power, the dignity and greater distinctiveness of "alderman" came to be used as their title.

 

law, waging of

Under English common law for a private individual (as opposed to a public official or a leet jury, for example) to simply complain that an offence had been committed was insufficient to oblige the accused to face legal proceedings; some form of corroborative proof was required. One of the ways for a plaintiff to initiate a legal action was to establish reasonable cause in the eyes of the court by producing a body of supporters – secta (suitors to the court), whence the term "suit" – and some "good proof", perhaps no more than the word of the supporters that the complaint had foundation. This practice gradually lapsed, although the concept was retained in the legal formula of court records referring to the plaintiff "producing suit", which eventually came to mean no more than bringing a legal action against someone. One of the options that might be open to a burgess to defend himself against a plea or suit was to "do his law" through purgation; it could also be used by the plaintiff to uphold his accusation. For the defendant, waging law meant finding men who would take oath to his innocence, in support of the defendant's own oath; the number of these compurgators varied according to the crime; twelve "hands" (i.e. individuals) was the number for many charges. For the plaintiff it meant an oath that the accusation he had made was genuine. Doing, or waging, one's law was a principle of Anglo-Saxon law. The other standard option for judicial investigation was by inquest, a Norman introduction, allowed to boroughs to try civil cases (whereas the king reserved criminal cases for his own legal system); an inquest, which was sometimes referred to as putting oneself "on the country" or being tried "by the country", might be called upon not just to determine guilt or innocence, but for various other purposes such as the assessment of legal damages, the valuation of property, or apportionment of a communal tax; jurors were usually chosen from groups expected to be most knowledgable of the matter being dealt with. From this, as well as from an Anglo-Saxon group responsible for identifying crimes (like the later capital pledge presenters of the leet court), evolved trial by jury. The jury was, in some regards, similar to the compurgators, except that it was called into being by public authorities to state (under oath) its opinion on the guilt or innocence of an individual, rather than participating voluntarily to support an individual's claim of innocence.

lawmen

SEE alderman

leet court

A type of court with a similar jurisdiction to view of frankpledge – that is, matters touching on public order, safety, and health. It seems to have been the Assize of Clarendon (1166) that led to the amalgamation of presentments of crimes with administration of frankpledge. The leet was essentially the territorial aspect of frankpledge: numbers of tithings were organized into leets, or wards, which were normally sub-units of the hundred; in some towns, constabularies were similar sub-units. A leet might have its own court (as in Norwich) although more usually it simply made its presentments in a special (full) session of the town's hundred court. In less developed towns, the leet court might be essentially the legislative arm of local government. Offences were presented by a jury of capital pledges, also known as headboroughs (from "borh" meaning pledge), after the articles of leet jurisdiction were read out to them. These articles were typically concerned with breaches of the assizes of bread and ale and offences against the community – such as matters affecting public health and safety, private usurpation of public property (e.g. encroachments of buildings, or blocking of rights-of-way), and performance of public officials. The only punishment within the power of a leet court was the setting of amercements, the amount of each being assessed by a second jury (affeerors). As a result of this limited punitive power, the repetitive offences by the same individuals brought before leet proceedings year after year sometimes have more the appearance of a licensing system. More serious crimes could also be presented (i.e. made public) by the leet jury, but were referred to higher authorities. In some towns the leet system was partially superseded by the constabulary system.

liber burgus

SEE borough

liberties

SEE freedom

Livery of seisin

Since one of the characteristics of burgess status was relative freedom in acquiring and disposing of "burgage property", borough courts had a particular concern with property law, as expressed through both common law and local custom. In an age before written records became the norm, grants by which real property (or its incorporeal hereditaments) was transferred, whether by gift or sale, were effected by oral agreements. The agreement itself did not transfer possession, or perhaps more strictly initiate occupation by the grantee. The transfer was deemed as having formally taken place by the witnessed handing over, by seller or donor, of a token, such as a handful of soil, representing the real estate; this act was known as livery of seisin. As the use of written records of such transactions became more common, the contractual agreement (typically a deed identifying grantor and grantee, describing the property being transferred. stating the terms under which the transfer takes place, and naming those purportedly witnessing the transfer), to which the grantor appended his seal if he had one, substituted as the object handed over. Common law, however, saw the written deed as evidence, but not the instrument, of a title transfer, and thus secondary to the physical act of conveyancing. To protect the claim to title of the grantee, or the grantee’s heirs (particularly in a time after the witnesses to livery of seisin might be dead), it became advantageous, though not at first obligatory, to have such property transactions reported in a court of record. This involved an acknowledgement (or recognizance) by the parties of what had already taken place; the full text or an abstract of a title deed was copied court records, but it was the parties’ acknowledgement of the transaction before borough officials that seems to be the principal matter recorded. It is possible that livery of seisin may also have occurred on that occasion (and court officials are often identified in deeds as the lead witnesses). Since property disputes were supposed to be resolved in court, the registration of a transfer in a court roll came to serve as a proof of equal or greater value than the testimony of human witnesses. The use of borough courts for this purpose also enabled the authorities to ensure that, in cases where applicable, the spouse of the grantor was a freely consenting party to the transaction; this helped prevent future legal challenges to title, notably dower claims by widows, but perhaps also claims by heirs that patrimonial property had illegally been alienated. The royal courts at Westminster provided a similar service giving firm title, through the registration of what were called final accords (written up as tripartite indentures, of which the copy retained at Westminster formed a record known as feet of fines); but for most townsmen this was too expensive a process.

 

manor

A territorial estate that served as a unit of private jurisdiction and administration over subordinate tenures and population (e.g. through view of frankpledge, used to govern and enforce fiscal and service liabilities of the manor-owner to the king and of manorial residents to the manorial lord; associated, but not coordinate, with the feudal system, being rather a complementary system. Grants of manors were used by the king to reward, tie to him, and spread administrative burdens onto the shoulders of, his leading barons (tenants-in-chief), while royal confiscation of manors was the harshest non-physical punishment the king could impose on disloyal barons; these barons in turn might, in a process known as subinfeudation, re-grant manors, or parcels of land within them, to their own followers (at least before the statute of Quia Emptores limited that practice) as free-holdings or feudal tenures – soome of these becoming subordinate manors susceptible to further division. Thus, manors were held ultimately, though not necessarily directly, of the Crown. Manors exhibit such variability that it can be risky to generalize about them; they could be large or small, geographically compact or dispersed; their territorial extent was not permanently fixed, and they could be enlarged through subsequent acquisitions or land reclamation, or shrink as a result of alienation of portions or division into separate sub-manors. Although there was, in most cases, a residential dimension to manors, it was not necessarily a full-time one (greater nobles preferring to live in castles, which were more secure, though some manor-houses were fortified). Owner and tenant were thus often not the same, so that some manors were little more than a source of income for their chief lords; others, or parts thereof, known as demesne lands, (i.e. those over which the lord had immediate dominion) were retained and managed directly by the lord (or, rather, by his officials) for his own benefit or to support his local household; the demesne would usually include a manor-house that served, in some cases as at least, as an occasional residence of the owner, though in others as the home of his steward or his tenant. The collective holdings of a tenant-in-chief, whether contiguous or noncontiguous, in some particular region, or (more commonly) distributed across various regions, of the realm sometimes became known as an honour – J.H. Round asserted that "When a great fief escheated to the king, it retained its corporate existence under the name of an 'Honour' [Victoria County History of Essex, vol.1, p.344]. Each honour included a manor designated as an administrative base, or caput (capital manor), and custody of an entire honour could be conveyed, by grant or inheritance; honours had a relatively high degree of administrative independence from other jurisdictional units (e.g. shires). The manorial system is primarily associated with rural territory and the economic organization characteristic of agricultural communities. Newer and smaller towns tended to be planted, or develop, on, or within, manors, but older (pre-Conquest) towns were usually outside the mainstream manorial system, though might have manorial elements; like manors they could also be held by mesne lords, rather than directly by the king.

mayor

A mayor was an elected executive officer of a borough, with similar powers and responsibilities to a bailiff. However, it may be that townsmen had difficulty ridding themselves of the image of the bailiff as the servant of a higher authority, and that a mayor (whose title emphasizes a relationship with the community of which he is leader) represented by contrast the borough's aspirations to administrative independence; over the course of the Middle Ages, many towns persuaded the king to let them replace bailiffs with mayors. We cannot push this theory too far, for urban political development in England (in the context of a relatively strong and centralized monarchy) was less revolutionary than in many parts of the European continent. Nonetheless, the mayor of London – the earliest example in England – is associated with the period of the commune (an emulation of continental examples of self-assertive efforts to gain independence). And in some towns, such as Lynn, perhaps inspired by London's example, mayors were created to lead the community in pressuring borough lords to cede power, particularly where bailiffs (controllers of local courts) remained appointees of the lords. However, while the king gradually became willing to permit the introduction of mayors as chief officers of boroughs, he made sure that these officers remained answerable to the Crown.

messuage

SEE tenement

misteries

SEE crafts

moot

Deriving from a Old English term meaning "meeting", a moot was a decision-making mechanism. As folkmoot, it was a usually open-air gathering of a community, sometimes headed by a royal official (in which manifestation it might be a shiremoot, hundred-moot, or burh-moot), for the administration of local affairs and particularly the administration of justice through local custom. Under Alfredian law, the folkmoot seems to be the mainstay of legal administration. Towns had their own version of the moot, which had aspects both of court and of council meeting; the various names by which versions of this was known in different towns included burhgemot, portmoot, portmanmoot, assembly, and congregation. Assembly and congregation represented more the legislative aspect of the folkmoot, while the others were more the judicial aspect; decision-making remains at the root of each. Husting was yet another term used for a court whose origins may be said to lie with the moot. The term, with Norse derivations (possibly associated with a verb "to speak"), refers to a meeting of the folk (Anglo-Saxon "thing") – that is male adult free men – inside a building (house), in contrast with the open-air folkmoot. The Viking "thing" had legislative and judicial functions; its method of voting, said to be by participants making a noise with their weapons, was known as "wapentake", and this later became associated with the region over which the thing had jurisdiction. Although medieval London had both a folkmoot and a husting (the latter visible as early as the tenth century), we should not read too much into this differentiation.

murage

A special toll or tax that boroughs could levy, if they received royal licence to do so, on condition that the proceeds to be put towards the building or repair of town walls. The licences specified a limiting period within which the levy could take place. The king was normally inclined to grant such licences, since it was in his interest that his towns be well protected. We find such licences granted from early thirteenth to late fifteenth centuries; examples can be seen at Norwich, Lynn, Yarmouth, Northampton, and Exeter.

 

oligarchy

A form of government in which power is deliberately monopolized by an organized elite and applied to the social and/or economic benefit of that elite, and in which the power of the elite is maintained by force or by shaping the constitution to confine or avoid requirements for consultation of, or accountability to (including by election), the populace. Many historians have considered medieval borough governments to be oligarchies, particularly towards the end of the Middle Ages, when they were becoming the "closed corporations" of the Tudor period. Life membership of councils and co-optation - in which members of the corporation have exclusive control over the filling of vacancies in their ranks - have been considered indicators of oligarchic forms of government in medieval towns. While it can be argued that all government involves, to some degree, a ruling elite, oligarchy is characterised by the self-interested policies or actions of the rulers. By contrast, aristocracy is a form of government by a usually hereditary elite which is in theory paternalistic. Some historians have used the terms "patriciate" and "meritocracy" to describe a ruling elite which governs by right of superior abilities or experience (but not necessarily birth), and "plutocracy" to describe an elite whose power derives from economic status rather than birth. However, these terms should not be considered synonymous with oligarchy, since they do not carry the baggage of the self-interested exercise of power.

 

peer

Today the term is used in phrases such as "peer of the realm" or "a jury of my peers". In either case the term means "equal" in legal or social status, and so it was with the use of the term in medieval boroughs where the term was used to refer to members of the enfranchised community – theoretically a community of equals. The term "commoner", which today we associate with connotations of non-aristocracy, similarly really meant member of a community (although by the end of the Middle Ages it was already acquiring, in the usage in official borough records, connotations of socio-political inferiority); "comburgess" was used in a similar fashion, although it also came to be applied to the mayor's peers (i.e. the town councillors). In the cases of both "peer" and "commoner" there was the implication of sharing in communal rights, and the terms can be connected with the concept of being at scot and lot. I am inclined to suspect an etymological connection between the Latin term for peers (pares) and pars, which can refer both to sharing in something and the concept of membership.

piepowder

"Piepowder" comes from a French term meaning "dusty feet" and applied to an exceptional judicial process for trying civil cases involving travellers (usually merchants) from outside the locality. Given that outsider defendant or plaintiff could not afford, and so was not motivated, to linger in a town while a case proceeded in the normal slow fashion of borough courts, whose sessions were typically held only once a week, the purpose of piepowder courts was to render swift justice according to procedures known collectively as the law merchant. While piepowder court sessions may have originated to serve fairs held once or twice a year at certain places, the same form of speedy justice was instituted on a regular basis in at least some towns, under the name of foreign court. An accelerated legal process was achieved not so much by changing procedural rules and rights, but by convening sessions of the court on a daily or even hourly basis, thereby reducing the impact of procedural delays that could drag out a case, and by prohibiting appeals to superior courts.
For further background information see:
Piepowder court at Colchester and

• World Wide Words or Wikipedia

pledge

"No man without a lord" was an ancient adage of English law. It was important to the administration of justice, which required compensation for most crimes, that accused parties could be obliged to answer charges either by having property which could be arrested (later, "attached") or "lords" who would oblige them to answer. Also ancient was the practice of an accused man clearing himself by obtaining supporters (compurgators) who would take oath to his innocence. In the borough, where men were "free", this manifested itself in the form of pledges (sometimes referred to as "gage and pledge"), sureties, and mainprise; such guarantees of behaviour might be required in a variety of circumstances – including repayment of debts, performance of official duties or entrance into the franchise – but are most commonly associated with legal procedures. The accused was expected to provide a guarantee (money or goods, often referred to as pledges) or to find guarantors (variously known as pledges, sureties, mainpernors, or manucaptors – the last two terms stemming from a supporter taking the hand of the person to be supported) for his appearance in court to answer a charge, or at a later stage for complying with a court judgement. In certain cases where the accused failed to defend or to fulfill a judgement (e.g. repayment of a debt) the guarantors might themselves be liable for the award judged and any court fines due from the defendant. Similar concepts today are seen in bail, or bonding and collateral in cases of debt or financial contract; the terms surety and mainpernor are still used in specific technical senses, different from each other, although it is not clear that there was any real differentiation in the Middle Ages. In the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, an accuser might, in some cases, initiate an action through a pledge, to assure the court that his charge was with foundation, not frivolous, fraudulent, or malicious, and that he would pursue it. At a slightly earlier time, an accuser might have to produce several supporters at the initiation of a legal action to establish reasonable cause for a case to proceed. Initiation of charges before a leet court was made by Capital Pledges (or the equivalent), each representing a tithing.

probi homines

SEE prudhommes

provost (or prepositus)

SEE bailiff

prudhommes

Prudhommes or prodeshommes (Latin: probi homines, sometimes expanded to probi et legales homines) was a term used to refer to a particular subset of the urban population at least as early as the mid-twelfth century. In many of its earlier occurrences it is found in contexts related to judicial or political administration, and refers to a category of townsman active in, or qualified for, authoritative roles involving the giving of testimony or making of decisions. It increasingly came to be a synonym for the urban rulers and the class from which they were drawn. It is not easy to come to grips with a precise rendering of the term which conveys in modern language the medieval connotations. After much thought and examination of contexts in which the term is used, I have settled on the translation of "reputable men". H.T. Riley, editor of key records of medieval London, translated it as "substantial men", but this focuses primarily on the economic status of the councillors, whereas the term was, I am certain, intended more (though not necessarily exclusively) to express something about moral/ethical fibre and social responsibility – which is reflected in one of the medieval English equivalents of the term: "good men". I suspect some association with the common use in the twelfth century of the adjective fier appplied as a compliment to men of demonstrated (and therefore reliable) quality or virtues; also with the medieval preoccupation with honour, the perception others have of one's (at least seeming) virtuous behaviour. I have elsewhere suggested "law-abiding" as a rendering, although this alone does not capture the complexities of the term. Upright, judicious, prudent, respectable, trustworthy, proven, credible, creditable, capable are all adjectives reflecting facets of what medieval people understood from the term. We have the same expectations that our "rulers" today be persons of integrity. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries some theorists were starting to conceptualize 'political virtues'; in their field the term 'prudent' can occasionally be found used almost as a synonym for 'virtuous'. In the political context, Aquinas and his followers identified three defining attributes of prudence (one of the cardinal virtues): the capacity to advise, to judge, and to command. Aristotle, the inspiration for so much medieval political theory, had spoken in terms of a pragmatic wisdom that was desirable for citizens, particularly those who governed, or advised governors of, communities; this he envisaged as the foundation for making sound and rational judgements or decisions, based on habituatedly virtuous behaviour and a life experience that enabled one to distinguish what was truly appropriate and beneficial from that which merely seemed so. Marsiglio of Padua (following Cicero) took this further by identifying the possessors of practical wisdom, whom he called prudentes, as the leading agents in the emergence of civil communities operating under the rule of law. These characteristics suggest a kind of urban aristocracy, exemplified by the family that steered Ipswich into its self-governing phase.
SEE ALSO discreet.

purgation

SEE law, waging of

 

quitclaim

When acquiring real estate it was advisable to ensure that no persons other than the seller or giver had any legal claims on the property, or any part thereof; this primarily applied to the spouse or kin (particularly heirs) of the grantor. In the event of potential claims (whether valid or not) the solution was to debar them by obtaining a type of deed or charter known as a quitclaim, by which the claimant(s) explicitly relinquished, or disclaimed, any rights or interest in the property. This release of rights protected the grantee from future challenge to title. A property transaction might entail multiple quitclaims to bar all potential claimants. Quitclaims might also be required in other circumstances where rights were to be extinguished.

 

recognizance

This was a formal acknowledgement before witnesses of a binding transaction between parties. Making the acknowledgement before legal authorities, or reporting it to them, with a view to having it registered in court rolls, established an official record to which reference could be made to prove or disprove subsequent legal disputes related to the transaction; this was superior to any other means of proof. Recognizances could be applied to the incurrence of a debt, a transfer of real estate (including via testamentary bequest), or certain disclaimers of rights to real estate. Recognizances represent a consensual situation, as opposed to the adversarial situations legal authorities more often dealt with, and were intended to avoid the risk of drawn out legal disputes. In situations where property involved in a transaction was considered by the law to be jointly owned by a husband and wife (normally this was the case with property owned by a woman prior to the marriage), it was required for the wife to make a personal and free-will acknowledgement (before the authorities) of consent to her husband alienating the property.

reeve

SEE bailiff

regrating

SEE forestalling

 

scot and lot

Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (1898) defined "scot and lot" as

"A levy on all subjects according to their ability to pay. Scot means tribute or tax, and lot means allotment or portion allotted. To pay scot and lot, therefore, is to pay the ordinary tributes and also the personal tax allotted to you."

Historians have followed suit in focusing on the taxation aspect, in part because of the slightly misleading breakdown of borough charter privileges made by Ballard. However, the actual situation is more complex. To be "at scot and lot" meant having a share in the obligations and responsibilities of a member of the community; in return members shared in communal privileges and advantages – not all town-dwellers were part of that privileged community. In essence, scot and lot was an indicator of status, in terms of membership. Some historians have connected the status of being at scot and lot with householding, and certainly we should not ignore that 'lot' is a term applied to real estate plots, which in the case of new town foundations might be allotted to settlers; householding, however, was not a prerequisite (although in some towns it later became a requirement) for citizenship, but there was a natural concern that members of the community have property – whether real or moveable – by which they could be distrained if they failed to pay their contributions. "Scot" seems clearly enough associated with being contributory to taxations, aids or customary dues imposed on the community (e.g. see the Norwich custumal). The term survives today in the idiom that someone "got off scot-free". Similarly, "lot" survives in concepts such as "lottery" and "to cast one's lot in with". It is a Teutonic term that found its way into Norse, Old English and the Romance languages; the derivation is uncertain, but may be associated with a term for a piece of wood, in reference to the use of such in the drawing of lots. Drawing lots was associated with such things as the order of dividing plunder; by extension, the term "lot" came to be associated with a share in a distribution of goods or property, calling to mind the customary right of each burgess – an urban status possibly synonymous with being at scot and lot – to claim a share in any commercial bargain underway in a public place (again, see the Norwich custumal, and for the reciprocity of obligation and privilege, that of Yarmouth). The Leges Quatuor Burgorum explicitly applied the term lot to that situation, while the Northampton custumal talks about dividing up essential goods (victuals) by "divination" (i.e. casting lots). A royal charter to Chesterfield (1294) uses the entire phrase "lot and scot" in this context of sharing in bargains. If, as seems possible, scot and lot referred to the two-sided coin of sharing in both obligations and advantages, the nearest modern equivalent to the concept may be the colloquialism "You pays your money, and you takes your chances", although this – decontextualized from a social setting – has lost the original's nice expression of reciprocity. There is a further application of "lot" which must be considered. The drawing of lots was anciently a method of selecting from a group one or more individuals for some role – such as a winner, or an office-holder. "Accepting one's lot in life" may heark back to election to office. This form of election was considered to call into play divine judgement, and could still be found in Yarmouth at the end of the Middle Ages. The London authorities explicitly made this connection in 1415: "every freeman is bound to be a partaker in Lot, which is liability to hold office, and in Scot, which means contribution to taxes and other charges" [H.T, Riley, Memorials of London and London Life, 602]. It is evident that "scot and lot" is not, as in Brewer's definition, two terms with essentially the same meaning, but presents two separate yet related concepts. The two may represent dual responsibilities, of contributing to taxation and bearing one's fair burden in administrative duties (the latter, as a pivotal element of the definition of citizenship, traceable back at least to the time of Aristotle, whose Athens of course provides the best-known government in which officials were chosen by lot), or the opposites of obligation and benefit; perhaps "lot" itself communicated more than one idea.

seisin

SEE livery of seisin

 

tallage

SEE taxation

taxation

In addition to specialized taxes such as customs duties on merchandise, medieval townsmen were subject to general taxes, similar in some ways to modern income tax. Aids were not regular impositions, in contrast to the fee farm which was a fixed annual payment. They were, in theory, voluntary gifts of money to the king to assist him with unusual expenses (such as the costs of marrying off a daughter); however, when the king requested an aid, it was unwise not to comply. Tallages were more explicitly obligatory and were lump sums which borough authorities had to to distribute fairly among individual burgesses; this was usually done proportionately according to personal wealth, as determined by a valuation of real estate or goods and chattels. Royal tallages came to absorb aids under their heading, and were themselves superseded after 1275 by taxes imposed through parliament, called lay subsidies, or tenths (reflecting the percentage of personal wealth due as payment, which was higher in towns than in rural areas where the rate was a fifteenth). Borough authorities might themselves impose local tallages, as a way of raising special funds for particular purposes or sometimes – before other sources of revenue were well-developed – as a foundation of borough finances (such being the case in thirteenth-century Lynn). Taxes were no more popular in the Middle Ages than they are today, and there occurred resistance, evasion, and complaints of unfair assessments; special measures sometimes had to be taken to protect tax-collectors.

tenement

The word is little used today, except as a specialized legal term restricted to certain situations. Essentially it means no more than a piece of real estate that was subject to tenure (being held under definable conditions) under common law. It was used in this general sense in the Middle Ages, but most commonly for property with buildings on it (in contrast to a field or meadow, for example). A similar term to "tenement" was "messuage" and it is often difficult to tell if these terms were being used interchangeably or if some significant difference was understood. This was the French version of the Latin mansio, which (although it too could be used in a general sense for a piece of property) was usually applied to a plot of land on which a residence stood; and the term later came to be applied specifically to a residential property. However, the Middle Ages it seems often to have been used generally for a piece of owned land, of no fixed size or purpose. Our poor understanding of how messuage and tenement were used is partly due to a lack of more detailed description of the properties in the original documents. "Capital messuage/tenement" was a term often used to refer to the property where an individual normally lived, or had at one time lived, i.e. his or her principal property. It was also used, as a property was sub-divided over time, to refer to the part considered to represent the original whole from which the burgage rent or landgable remained payable. These two uses were probably connected, the assumption being that sub-division entailed selling off peripheral parts of a large plot for further building, while the seller/owner continued to live in the original dwelling on the plot.

time immemorial

The modern expression "from (or since) time immemorial", is the equivalent of the medieval Latin phrase tempore quo non extat ( or existit) memoria, and is normally encountered in regard to some legal right, privilege, practice, or procedure that is known (or alleged) to have been in effect in some locality for so long that its origin occurred beyond the time of living memory and before such things were recorded in writing. In essence, it is claimed as a customary right or privilege, as in the phrase consuetudines a tempore quo non extat memoria usitata et approbata (see translation). The concept is phrased more variably in Anglo-Norman French and Middle English, but examples are de temps dount memorie ne court ("from a time from which no memory runs") and befor time than no mynde is ("time out of mind"). On this basis medieval courts would accept customary practices as legally binding, without need to provide documentary proof of a legitimate source of any such practice, even when they differed from common law (which to large degree was based on case law and precedent, and might be considered cusstomary itself ). The concept does not necessarily connote origins in antiquity, and problems could arise when contesting parties both claimed immemorial rights, as normally the older right would prevail. By the Statute of Westminster (1275) 'time immemorial' was defined as prior to the accession of Richard I (July 1189), which date approximated the period when formal legal records were beginning to be created as a matter of course, not just by the central government but by local administrative agencies. In practice, however, courts were still willing, in certain cases at least, to entertain claims of time immemorial applied to rights or customs suspected to be more recent than 1189, so long as witnesses could attest to such rights or customs having been continuously observed, unchallenged, for as long as they could remember (and this narrower definition much later became embedded in law), though written records pre-dating the lifetime of such witnesses were likely to outweigh memory. Towns authorized by royal charters to create or modify their own customs or by-laws, or to adopt those already held by other towns, could use the charters, rather than claim of immemoriality, to uphold their practices (except where an opposing party could produce an older charter). In the Late Middle Ages lawyers preferred to play both cards, if they could.

tithing

SEE frankpledge

township

An area or district within some larger unit (e.g. county, hundred, parish, manor), a township was defined not so much by its territorial extent as the communal/administrative purposes it served within a greater jurisdiction; initially at least, townships lacked jurisdictional independence or, for the most part, their own administrative mechanisms. In medieval usage, a township usually incorporated at least one concentration of population, but commonly several villages and hamlets, and frequently at least one church. It was not the same thing as a town, however, and did not necessarily have distinctive urban characteristics. Nor was it normally coterminous with a village, manor, or parish, although it could be in some cases; it was more common for large manors or parishes to contain multiple townships. Multi-township units were more typical of northern England, but there the term could sometimes be used as equivalent to parish or manor. To muddy matters further, in Latin documents the term was rendered as "vill", "villa", or "villata", which were also applied to villages.

 

waste

The medieval application of the term is much like its modern connotations, but it was used in a legal sense referring to land that was unoccupied, undeveloped or uncultivated. As a result the land could not be the source of any tax or other revenue to its owner. Borough governments were keen to obtain control (from the lord of the town) over wasteland within the town boundaries, since they could then a lease out plots of land. The term was similarly applied to property that had been allowed to deteriorate, or had even been purposely damaged, so that its value (whether in terms of selling price or rentability) decreased.

withernam

In its strict sense, withernam was the possible resort of an individual whose goods had been distrained to force him to answer in court for an accusation brought against him by another. Should the defendant feel the distraint to be unjust he could seek from the authorities an act of counter-distraint, to restore the distress taken (this procedure subsequently being known as replevin) or, if the goods originally distrained were not within the area of the authorities' jurisdiction, to seize other goods of the plaintiff. This found application in the urban environment in a broader form. If, for example, a burgess visiting another town committed (or was accused of committing) some wrong against a resident but, having departed, could not be brought to justice, it might be allowable to distrain on any other of his fellow-burgesses at that time in town. Alternatively, if a burgess, while in another town, suffered financial loss as the result of unjust actions of the town (e.g. collecting toll from a merchant of a borough exempt, by royal charter, from paying tolls) or of one of its townsmen, then compensation might be exacted in the home-town of the offended party through distraint from any within-reach resident of the erring town. Thus the innocent individual was considered liable for the wrong committed, by reason of being a member of the same community to which belonged the actual perpetrator of the wrong. In extreme cases, this could lead to a cycle of reprisals and counter-reprisals, and to a breakdown of relations between towns or even nations (and so became an issue for royal foreign policy). The two sides of the coin are seen from regulations at Yarmouth and Ipswich, the former of which instances a practice that developed as bureaucratic procedure sophisticated, of sending official letters to the authorities of the offender's town, warning of reprisals unless justice were done; as an attempt at peaceable resolution of problems and as a precaution in case the matter reached the king's courts, such letters were an advisable alternative to escalating an inter-urban dispute through precipitous action.




[top]

main menu