YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

TOWNSHIP AND BOROUGH,

aonHon: C. J. CLAY and SONS,
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS WAREHOUSE,
AVE MARIA LANE,
AND
STEVENS AND SONS, Ltd,
119 AND 120, CHANCERY LANE.

ffllBBsoin: 263, ARGYLE STREET.
Utipjig: F. A. BROCKHAUS.
jSeta Horft: THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.
BnmtiaB: E. SEYMOUR HALE.

TOWNSHIP AND BOROUGH

BEING THE

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

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

BY

FREDERIC WILLIAM MAITLAND, LL.D.
DOWNING PROFESSOR OF THE LAWS OF ENGLAND
IN THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE.

CAMBRIDGE :
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS.
1898
[All Rights reserved.]

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

(J 6

C

PREFACE.
TO the University of Oxford I made a poor return
for a high honour and hospitable forbearance ; but,
having given the lectures, I feel bound to show, if I
can, that there is some evidence behind the theories
that I ventured to advocate, and this I try to do in an
appendix of notes.
If either lectures or notes are of any value, this is
in a great measure due to the friendliness and courtesy
which have enabled me to make use of some unpublished
documents relating to the town and fields of Cambridge.
My thanks are more especially due to the Mayor and
Town Council, to the Master and Fellows of Jesus
College, to Mr Horace Darwin lately Mayor of the
Borough, to Mr J. E. L. Whitehead the Town Clerk,
to Mr T. Musgrave Francis who allowed me to inspect
his copies of the Inclosure Awards, to Mr J. W. Clark
the Registrary of the University who lent me a manu
script copy of the Liber M ernor andorum of Barnwell
Priory (a book which he should edit), to Mr R. F. Scott,
Bursar of St John's College, and to Mr A. Gray,
Fellow and Tutor of Jesus College. Mr Gray not

vi Preface.
only permitted me to see his notes of the charters of
St Radegund but also taught me so much about rural
Cambridge that I fear that I may be telling a story
which he should have told. I hardly need say, for this
I hope is evident, that I am deeply in debt to Dr Otto
Gierke. Perhaps in my lectures I passed too often and too
rapidly backwards and forwards between the domain of
economic history and the domain of law, or even of
legal metaphysics. But I wished to illustrate the close
interdependence of fact and theory, for it seems to me
that the coming historian of our English towns must,
among his other tasks, set himself to study and explain,
as two phases of one process, the transition from rural to
urban habits and the evolution among the townsmen of
that kind and that degree of unity which are corporate-
ness and personality. He will neglect neither English
life nor Italian thought : neither the butts and balks of
the town field nor the new idea. I hope that his coming
is at hand.

F. W. M.

Cambridge, 19M Feb. If

TABLE OF CONTENTS.

PAGES
Township and Borough— Six Lectures . . . i
Appendix of Notes and Evidence relating chiefly
TO Cambridge  99
§ 1. A Roman Cambridge?, p. 99. — § 2. The extent of the Grentebrige
of Domesday Book, p. 99. — § 3. Number of houses in Grentebrige, p. 99. —
§ 4. Number of houses in transpontine Cambridge, p. 100. — § 5. Extent of
the house-covered nucleus in 1279, p. 100. — § 6. Sparsity of houses, p. 100. — -
§ 7. Landgrytheslane as a limit of the burhgriS, p. 100. — § 8. Houses still
sparse in cent, xv., p. 101. — § 9. Analysis of the nucleus in 1279, p. loi. —
§ 10. Comparison of 1279 ^i'^ I749i 1801, 1841, p. 102. — § 11. Intensive
growth of houses in cent, xvii., p. 102. — § 12. 'The new erected cottages
and divided tenements,' p. 103.— § 13. Divided tenements in St Andrew's
parish, p. 103. — § 14. Census of Barnwell, of St Peter's, of St Giles's, and of
Green Street, p. 104. — § 15. Results from cent, xvii., p. 105. — § 16. 'Causes
of the increase of our poor in Cambridge,' p. 105. — § 17. Question about
the coalescence of two vills deferred, p. 106.
§ 18. The Eastern or Barnwell Fields : their extent in 181 1, p. 106. —
§ 19. The cispontine commons, p. 107. — § 20. The four fields — Ford —
Middle— Bradmoor — Sturbridge, p. 107.— § 21. The three-field husbandry,
p. 107. — § 22. Inclosure Award of 181 1, p. 108.— § 23. Terrier of the
Eastern Fields, p. 108.— § 24. Extent of Ford Field, p. 109.— § 25. Arable
between Trumpington Road and Coe Fen, p. iii. — § 26. Peterhouse on
the arable, p. in. — § 27. Coe Fen Leys, p. in.— § 28. St Thomas's Leys
or Swinecroft, p. 112. — § 29. Swinecroft arable, p. 112. — § 30. Selions in
Swinecroft, p. 112. — § 31. Award of Swinecroft in 1808, p. 115. — § 32- Tithe
in Swinecroft, p. 115. — § 33. Remarks on the parochial system, p. 116. —
§ 34. Parker's Piece arable, p. 116.— § 35. Christ's Piece arable, p. 118.—
§ 36. The arable came close to the town ditch, p. 118.

viii Table of Contents.

§ 37. The Western Fields. The castle in Chesterton, p. 119.— § 38-
Boundary of the Western Fields, p. 119.— § 39- Area of the Western
Fields, p. 120.— § 40. Inclosure Award of 1805, p. 120.— § 41. Four
Fields— Grithow— Middle— Carme— College, p. 121.— § 42. Older names—
Grithow— Middle— Little— Carme (Port), p. 121.— § 43. Long Green and
Carme Field, p. 122.— § 44. Lack of meadow-land in Cambridge, p. 122.—
§ 45. Old names in the fields, p. 123.— § 46. Reasons for dispersing strips,
p. 123. § 47. Terrier of Western Fields from cent, xiv., p. 123. — § 48. Date
and form of terrier, p. 124. — § 49. Number of culturae, p. 124. — § 50.
Analysis of terrier, p. 124. — § 51. Acreage in terrier, p. 127. — § 52. Strips
falling into mortmain, p. 128. — § 53. Roger of Harleston and St John's
College, p. 128. — § 54. The Franciscan conduit, p. 129. — § 55. Terrier of
Eastern Fields from cent, xiv., p. 129.
§ 56. The religious and the fields, p. 132. — § 57. The lay strip-owners,
p. 133.— § 58. Mayors and bailiffs of Cambridge, p. 133. — § 59. Repre
sentatives of the borough in Parliament, p. 140. — § 60. The Inquisitio
Nonarum, p. 141.
§ 61. The Hundred Rolls, p. 142. — § 62. The houses in 1279, p. 143. —
§ 63. The house-owning families in 1279, p. 147. — § 64. The house-owners
of Barnwell, p. 148. — § 65. Growth and decay of the suburb of Barnwell,
p. 148. — § 66. The fields in 1279, p. 149. — § 67. Acreage in 1279, p. 159. —
§ 68. The land-owners in 1279, p. 159.— § 69. Rapid traffic in acres, p. 160. —
§ 70. Rents in 1279, p. 160.
§ 71. Religious houses endowed by burgesses, p. 161. — § 72. Foundation
of St John's Hospital, p. 161. — § 73. Patronage of the Hospital, p. 161. —
§ 74. Benefactors of the Hospital and Nunnery, p. 162. — § 75. Benefactors
of Barnwell Priory, p. 162.
§ 76. The Cambridge families, p. 163. — § 77. The St Edmunds family,
p. 163. — § 78. The Blancgernons, p. 163.— § 79. The Dunnings and
Pythagoras's School, p. 164. — § 80. Hervey fitz Eustace, p. 165. — § 81.
The family 'of Cambridge,' p. 166. — § 82. The Dunnings as patricians,
p. 166. — § 83. Cambridge Geschlechterf, p. 167.— § 84. Tallage of 1219,
p. 167.— § 85. Land-owning and other families, p. 168. — § 86. Tallage of
1211, p. 168. — § 87. 'The men of Cambridge,' p. 170. — § 88. Amercements
of 1 177, p. 170.
§ 89. The charter of Maurice Ruffus: a dissipated tenement, p. 171. —
§ 90. The field in Domesday Book, p. 173. — § 91. The field before the
Conquest, p. 174. — § 92. The advowsons and the families, p. 174. — § 93.
St Sepulchre and St George, p. 174. — § 94. St Peter without the Gate: Ivo
Pipestraw, p. 175. — § 95. St Michael : the sons of Absalom, p. 175. —
§ 96. St John, p. 176.— § 97. St Clement, p. 176.— § 98. All Saints by
the Castle, Trinity, All Saints by the Hospital, St Andrew, St Benet,
St Mary, p. 176. — § 99. The burgess's own church {Eigenkirche), p. 177.

Table of Contents. ix
§ IOO. The county families, p. 177. — § loi. The fiefs. The Scottish
fief, p. 178. — § 102. The Leicester and Mortain fiefs, p. 178. — § 103. The
Breton fief or honour of Richmond, p. 178. — § 104. The Mortimer estate,
p. 179. — § 105. Peculiar character of the Mortimer estate, p. 179. — § io6.
Provenience of the Mortimer estate, p. 179.
§ 107. The 'high-gable' rents, p. 180.— § 108. The 'customs' of Domes
day, p. 181. — § 109. The haw-gafol and ancient history, p. 182. — § no.
The theory of two vills that have coalesced, p. 182. — § in. Inferences from
tithe, p. 183. — § 112. Manors in Cambridge, p. 183. — § 113. The manors
and the borough court, p. 184. — § 114. The borough court's jurisdiction
over the fields, p. 184.
§ 115. Grant of the vill, p. 185. — § 116. The right to escheats, p. 185. —
§ 117. The corporation's seignory, p. 185. — § n8. The mortmain licences,
p. 186. — § 1 19. The intramural waste : rights of king and burgesses, p. 187. —
§ 120. Henry III., the waste and the Carmelites, p. 187. — § 121. The petition
of 1330 for leave to approve the waste, p. 188. — § 122. Lord Tenterden on
the ownership of the soil, p. 188.— § 123. Leases of intramural waste,
p. 189. — § 124. Sales of road-side waste in later times, p. 189. — § 125.
The right to approve in other towns, p. 189.
§ 126. History of the green commons: Picot's 'ablation,' p. 190. —
§ 127. Mr Freeman on Oxford and Cambridge 'folk-land,' p. 191. — § 128.
Sites of Nunnery and Priory taken from Greencroft, p. 191.— § 129. The
burgesses and the Barnwell site, p. 192.— § 130. Insurrection of 1381,
p. 192.— § 131. The Mayor's apology, p. 192.— § 132. Preservation of the
green commons, p. 193. — § 133. The commons in recent times, p. 193. —
§ 134. The rights of commoners, p. 193.— § I35- Projected inclosures of
the green commons, p. 194.— § 136. Parishes and commons, p. 195. — § 137.
General theory of borough pastures, p. 195.— § 138. Instances of burgensic
user in common, p. 196. — § 139. Burgensic user in severalty: Nottingham,
Bedford, p. 198. — § 140. Borough pastures and borough houses, p. 199.—
§ 141. The Lauder case, p. 200. — § 142. Pasture of the shire-boroughs,
p. 201.— § 143. The lordship over the Cambridge fields, p. 201.— § 144.
The final struggle between Merton College and the Municipal Corporation,
p. 202. § 145. Borough finance at Cambridge, p. 204.— § 146. The free revenue
of the Town, p. 205. — § 147. The old revenue appropriated to the fee-farm
rent, p. 207. — § 148. Borough finance at Oxford, p. 209.
§ 149. Earhest history of the borough : the ' burh-geat,' p. 209.— § 1 50.
The borough as a garrison town, p. 210. — § 151. The Roman towns,
p. 210.— § 152. Cambridge as moot-stow, p. 211.— § 153. The fourth
penny of the 'republic,' p. 212.— § 154- Cambridge and the trade of
Cambridgeshire, p. 213.

ILLUSTRATIONS.
Views of the Cambridge Fields from Loggan's Cantabrigia
Illustrata  Before page i
Rough Sketch of the Town of Cambridge . Before page 55
Rough Sketch illustrating the townward boundary of the
fields in 1800  Before page 107

TOWNSHIP AND BOROUGH.

L

On the 20th of January, 1803, Mr Justice Lawrence
and a jury of merchants were sitting at the Gildhall
in London to try an issue between the Mayor, Bailiffs
and Burgesses of the Borough of Cambridge and the
Warden, Fellows and Scholars of Merton College in
the University of Oxford.
The value of the matter directly in dispute was not
very high ; but the question that was opened was large.
A lordship over some 1,200 acres, or about two square
miles of land, went a-begging. There were five claimants.
There was the municipal corporation of Cambridge ;
there was Merton College, Oxford ; there were two
Cambridge colleges, Jesus and St John's ; there was
Sir Charles Cotton, the squire of a village called
Madingley. This debatable tract of 1,200 acres lay, we moderns
should say, immediately outside the town of Cambridge.
Our ancestors would have said that it was a part and
a great part, more than a third, of the town (villa)
of Cambridge, though it lay outside the defensible and
house-covered area.
What had happened was this : — An Act of Par
liament had directed the inclosure of vast ' open and
M. I

Township and Borough.

commonable ' fields, arable fields, in which the strips
of divers owners lay intermixed. Ring-fenced plots
were to be awarded to these owners in lieu of their
scattered strips. Allotments were also to be made
to those who, though they had owned no strips, had
been exercising rights of pasture. Allotments were also
to be made to the owners of the tithe. But dispersed
among the arable strips there were many small pieces
of waste land ; there were the balks of green sward,
the odds and ends. Who owned them ? Who could
claim an allotment in their stead ?
That someone owned them was generally assumed.
Suppose that you are inclosing the open field of an
ordinary village. Allotments must be made to the
owners of the strips, to commoners, to the owners of
the tithe ; but an allotment should also be made in
respect of 'the soil of the waste.' In general you will
easily find an owner for it. There will be some obvious
manorial lord. But here this ownership goes a-begging.
A municipal corporation claims it ; three learned cor
porations claim it ; the squire of a neighbouring village
f claims it. An Act of Parliament directs them to try
their claims one against the other. Some one should
be lord of this field. Nulle terre sans seigneur.
To finish the tale, the municipal corporation was
successful. It obtained a verdict, and in consequence
it received an allotment of somewhat less than five acres
out of the 1,200 that were distributed.
At this time on the other side of the town of Cam
bridge there lay another wide expanse of open arable
field. An Act of 1807 provided for its inclosure. Here
also the ownership of the waste was in dispute. It
was claimed by the municipal corporation; it was also
claimed by those who represented the Prior of Barnwell ;
but the Prior's successors did not go to trial, and out

A Disputed Lordship.

of the I, IOO acres that were inclosed nine acres were
given to the incorporate Town as an equivalent for its
manorial rights.
Thus was decided a question, or one part of a»
question, that had been simmering for centuries. Briefly
we may put it thus : — What did King John mean, or
rather what did King John really do, when he granted
to the burgesses of Cambridge the town of Cambridge
with all its appurtenances, to have and to hold it for
ever of him and his heirs to them and their heirs at
a rent of £/\.q blanch and ^20 by tale ? What did he
mean, or rather what did he really do, when he com
manded that the burgesses and their heirs should have
and hold the said town with all its appurtenances well
and peaceably, in meadows and pastures, mills, pools
and waters with all their liberties and free customs^ ?
Were the burgesses collectively or corporatively lords
of the town in such sense that they intervened in the
feudal scale of land-tenure between the king and any
man who held a house within the ditch or an acre-
strip without the ditch ? Were the burgesses collectively
or corporatively the 'tenants in demesne,' or, as we
should now say, the owners, of whatever land within
the ambit of the town was not held in severalty : of the
wide pastures, of the balks and odds and ends of sward
that lay among the arable strips, of the ditches, of the
king's ditch, of the streets and lanes and market places ?
It was a big question. Happily it was faced in what
I may call prehistoric times: I mean in 1803. A jury
of merchants at the Gildhall, untroubled by ' the village
community ' or ' the origin of the borough,' made short
work of it.
Will you think me ill bred if I talk of the town in
1 Cooper, Annals, i. 33. This charter is closely similar in form to the
Oxford charter of 1199 : Ogle, Royal Letters addressed to Oxford, p. 5.

Township and Borough.

which I live 1 What else have you left me to talk of :
What fields has not Oxford made her own }
But Cambridge had fields. I am not telling you
that outside what we should call the town of Cambridge,
that is, the house-covered space, there were pieces oi
land which we should call fields and that some of these
lay within the boundary of the municipal and par
liamentary borough of Cambridge. I am using the
words in their medieval sense. Cambridge had fields
{campos) as the neighbouring villages had fields : vast,
hedgeless, fenceless tracts of arable land, in which the
strips of divers owners lay interspersed 'hide-meal and
acre-meal.' Cambridge had fields which were 'open and
commonable ' : fields such as are depicted on those beau
tiful maps that Mr Mowat published. Cambridge had
fields as Lower Heyford had fields.
David Loggan the engraver drew pictures of Oxford
and of Cambridge also. In his general views of Cam
bridge we see in the background the houses, the colleges
and churches, the castle-mound and the remains of the
dismantled castle : in the foreground lies the open field,
and I do not know that better pictures of an open field
were ever drawn.
Celebrated thus by art, our Cambridge field has been
celebrated by poetry also, at least if that excellent indi
vidualist Thomas Tusser was a poet. In the Cambridge
field, if we borrow his eyes, we may see at their worst
the evils of the old champion (or, as we say, champain)
husbandry : the husbandry, that is, of open and common

able ca'mpi.

By Cambridge, a town I do know.
Where many good husbands do dwell.
Where losses by lossels do shew
More here than is needfull to tell.

The Cambridge Field.

The champion robbeth by night,
And prowleth and filcheth by day,
Himself and his beast out of sight
Both spoileth and maketh away
Not only thy grass but thy corn
Both after and ere it be shorn'.
Art and poetry left something for modern science.
When Mr Seebohm was restoring the open field of the
English Village Community, it was I believe a terrier of
this Cambridge field that taught him to teach us what
butts and gores were like^
Besides fields, Cambridge had meadows or leys which
during a part of every year were commonable. Also it
had pasture-land which was never inclosed or enjoyed
in severalty, ' the green commons of the town ' ; for the
more part they are green and open still. But further, so
late as the reign of James I., Cambridge, its fields and its
green commons, can upon occasion be treated as an
agrarian whole. In 1624 the Vice-Chancellor of the
University and the Mayor of the Borough issued an
ordinance touching the commons of the town. Every
occupier of an ancient tenement having of old time broad
gates may turn out two head of cattle. Every occupier
of othei* tenements aiid cottages may turn out one.
Every person having six score acres of land in Cam
bridge field may turn out six, and so in proportion for
any greater or less quantity of land I
Observe what this reverend Vice-Chancellor and this
worshipful Mayor are doing. They seem to be legislating
for an agrarian commonwealth. They are decreeing that\
the pasture of the town must still subserve the arable of
1 Tusser, A Comparison between Champion Country and Severall,
stanzas 12-3, in Five Hundred Points, ed. Mavor, 1812, p. 207.
2 Seebohm, English Village Community, 3rd ed. p. 19.
3 Cooper, Annals, iii. 164. For the houses 'with broad gates,' see also
ibid. ii. 333.

6 Township and Borough.

the town. And what is the unit of arable that gives the
normal share of pasture-right 1 It is six score acres, a
long hundred of acres, a hide.
Thus through the crust of academic learning, through
the crust of trade and craft, of municipality and urbanity,
the rustic basis of Cambridge is displayed. These here
ditary enemies, these representatives of Town and Gown,
have for once laid their heads together in order that they
may stint the common of a community that ploughs.
A curious community it had become. The principal
share-holders in the arable were not ' natural persons,'
but chartered corporations. There are various Cam
bridge colleges, and this is what brings the Vice-Chan
cellor into the business. There is Jesus College which
represents the Nuns of St Radegund ; there is St John's
College which represents an ancient Hospital ; there is
the College of Corpus Christi which ever since its founda
tion has owned many strips ; there is Caius College with
a title derived from the Mortimers of Attleburgh. Then
there is Merton College, which was endowed by its
founder, by Walter of Merton himself, with strips that
he had purchased, for reasons that I dare not guess \ in
the open and commonable fields of Cambridge. The
Vice-Chancellor and the Mayor are agreeing in 1624
that he who occupies a hide of such strips may keep six
horses or bullocks on the commons of the town. They
are also ordaining that every occupier of an ancient
tenement in Cambridge 'having of old time broad gates,'
that is, gates receptive of cattle, may turn out two beasts.
It is a curious case because the strip-owners are for
the more part colleges. But does not its curiosity end
here ? In other words, is it not right and proper that
a borough should have fields, arable fields, 'open and
1 Rashdall, Universities, ii. 483 : ' no doubt in view of the possibility of a
migration.'

Summa Rusticitas. 7
commonable fields ' ? I speak not of the smaller or of
the newer boroughs, of the enfranchised manors, I speak
of the great, old boroughs, those shire-boroughs, those
civitates, which already in Domesday Book are sharply
separated from the ordinary villages. I see that when
Henry VIII. sold the spoils of Godstow and Rewley to
Dr George Owen, the conveyance spoke of arable land
in Oxfordfield\ Might we not aim yet higher? In the twelfth
century when William FitzStephen sings the praises
of London, he does not say that somewhere near it lie
fertile arable fields ; he says that the arable fields of the
town of London are fertile^
Historians of our universities will not let us forget
that Erasmus accused the Cambridge townsmen of a
preeminence in boorishness. ' Vulgus Cantabrigiense
inhospitales Britannos antecedit, qui cum summa rusti-
citate summam malitiam coniunxere^' We should distort
his words if we took them to mean that there were, in
Tusser's phrase, 'many good husbands' in Cambridge,
though husband and boor have a common origin. But
was the plan, the map, of this ancient borough exception
ally rustic ? I shall not admit it until many Inclosure
Awards have been studied. ^
Time was when we in England had a respectably
neat system of legal geography, and when we seldom
1 Royal Letters, ed. Ogle, p. 153 : 'Ac totum illud messuagium nostrum
ac omnes terras arrabiles nostras in Oxfordfylde ac omnia prata pascuas
pasturas et pecias terrae in Burge mede et prope Charwell eidem messuagio
pertinentia modo vel nuper in tenura Roberti Colyer aut assignatorum
suorum scituata iacentia et existencia in parochia S. Egidii iuxta portam
borialem ville Oxonie dicto nuper monasterio de Regali loco alias dicto
Rewley dudum spectantia et pertinentia.'
2 Munimenta Gildhallae, ii. 4: 'Agri urbis satidnales non sunt ieiunae
glareae, sed pingues Asiae campi, qui faciunt laetas segetes, et suorum
cultorum repleant horrea Cerealis mergite culmi.'
s Rashdall, Universities, ii. 553 ; MuUinger, Hist. Univ. Camb. i. 504.

8 Township and Borough.

spoke of parishes, except when we were speaking of
ecclesiastical affairs. The whole country (this was the
theory, if not precisely the fact) was cut up into vills or
towns. The law assumed that every acre of land lay in
some town, some villa. If in a court of law you claimed
an acre of land, you were bound to name the villa in
which it lay. A mistake about this matter would be
fatal ; your writ would be quashed. Now every borough
is a villa, a town. Indeed, in course of time we allow
the urban places to appropriate to their exclusive use this
good old word, and then we awkwardly distinguish the
towns from the townships or borrow ' villages ' from the
French. However, the borough is a villa, and if you
look at the English boroughs as they stood on the eve of
their reformation, as they stood when in 1833 they were
visited by the royal commissioners, you will often find
that their boundaries have provided wide enough room
for fields and meadows and pastures. You will read that
'the local limits of the Borough of Derby contain 1,660
statute acres\' that the limits of Northampton comprise
1,520 acres and include 'a considerable quantity of agri
cultural landV that 'the Borough of Bedford includes the
whole town [that is, the whole house-covered area] which
lies nearly in its centre encircled by a broad belt of land ;
its area being 2,164 statute acres^' and, to take one last
example, that 'the ancient borough' of Nottingham covered
no less than 9,610 acres and 'included a considerable
quantity of forest, meadow and common land without the
walls of the town'.' On the other hand, the fortified space
was never very large. I learn from Mr Boase that intra
mural Oxford contained little more than 80 acres I
1 App. to Munic. Corp. Rep. 1835, vol. iii. p. 1849.
2 Ibid. iii. 1965. ' Ibid. iv. 2103. ^ Ibid. iii. 1985.
5 Boase, Oxford, 55 : ' The wall enclosed a small rectangular space,
measuring about half a mile from east to west, and a little more than a
quarter of a mile from north to south.'

Town and Township.

In a legal record of 1426 we may read that there is a
high-way lying in the town, the villa, of Oxford in a
certain place called Greenditch within the parish of St
Giles outside the North Gate of the town of Oxford,
which high-way the township {villata) of Oxford is bound
to repair. Whatever else Oxford may be, it is a villa, a
town ; and, whatever else the community of Oxford may
be, it is a villata, a township\ A township should no
more mean a little town than a fellowship should mean a
little fellow.
I have been endeavouring to suggest to you that those
who would study the early history of our towns (and I
now use that word in its modern sense) have fields and
pastures on their hands. Perhaps the suggestion is
needless. The relationship of the town community, the
nascent civic corporation, to the village community, the
relationship of the town community to the town lands,
the relationship of the oldest burgenses to arable strips
and green commons, these have been a focus of that
vigorous German controversy which we are watching
with interest. But it is unnecessary, though it may be
profitable, to, look abroad. The Bishop of Oxford has
taught us that ' the burk of the Anglo-Saxon period was
simply a more strictly organised form of the township ^ ' I f
that be so, we must not leave out of view nine-tenths of the
borough's territory. After what Mrs Green has written
and Mr Stevenson has edited, it is plain that the early

1 Royal Letters, ed. Ogle, pp. 339, 340 (a.d. 1426) : 'quedam alta via
Qomini Regis iacens in villa Oxonie in quodam loco vocato Grenedyche
infra parochiam S. Egidii extra portam borialem ville Oxonie  quam
quidem altam viam .. villata Oxonie .. reparare debet.' For Greenditch,
see Wood's City of, Oxford, ed. Clark, p. 345- Mr Clark says of it 'now
St Margaret's road.' In the view of those who endeavoured to make the
township of Oxford liable for the repair of this road, the town of Oxford
extended far beyond the northern wall.
2 Stubbs, Const. Hist. i. 99.

lo Township and Borough.
history of one ancient shire-borough, I mean Notting
ham, can not be the history of a small house-covered
space \
Possibly therefore I may turn your thoughts towards
a luminous point if I try to interest you in the story of
this lordship, this ownership, that went a-begging at
Cambridge. For a long time past there had been an
intermittent dispute. In 1616 the University declared
that of the soil of Cambridge 'no certain lord was known';
also that King John's grant of ' the vill of Cambridge ' to
the burgesses and their heirs was not a grant of 'the
soiP.' Even in 1826, when the fields had been inclosed,
a quarrel among the inhabitants about a toll brought the
old documents once more before the courts, and the
lawyers were wrangling over the question whether Cam
bridge was or was not on the ancient demesne of the
crown. All this interests me. Long before I knew of these
debates affecting the ground on which I daily walk, certain
general considerations had led me to believe, first, that
the soil of a truly ancient borough, a shire-borough
recognized as such by Domesday Book, would very
possibly have no obvious lord, and secondly, that if a
king of the twelfth or thirteenth century took upon
himself to grant such a borough to its burgesses, he might
be sowing the seeds of a pretty law-suit'. A certain
uncertainty about lordship and ownership, or about
somewhat that is neither exactly lordship nor exactly
ownership, may, so I think, be a leading thread in the
early history of our oldest boroughs. Look at Oxford or
1 So of Colchester, Mr Round has written in the Antiquary, vol. vi.
p. 255: 'Perhaps the most sahent feature revealed... is the stamp of a
primitive rural community imprinted on a walled and populous town, a
former Roman colonia.^
2 Cooper, Annals, iii. iio-i.
2 Hist. Eng. Law (ed. i), i. 635.

The Beginnings of Ownership. 1 1
look at Cambridge in Domesday Book. Why does the
clerk write Terra Regis below and not above the account
of the borough ? Perhaps because there is ' no certain
lord,' or no certain owner, of the soil.
But I have another and a more general purpose in
view when I ask your attention to this disputation. A
student of our towns and villages must come to close
quarters with some legal ideas, and the task of unravelling
their history is not going to be so easy as it looked a
while ago. That is a warning which comes to us from
many quarters. We may see it in Mr Baden-Powell's
book on the Indian Village, and in Dr Gierke's book on
the German Community. We may see it everywhere.
We shall have to think away distinctions which seem to
us as clear as the sunshine ; we must think ourselves
back into a twilight. This we must do, not in a hap
hazard fashion, but of set purpose, knowing what we are
doing. Did it not seem to some of us, at all events in the
examination room, that the question about the origin of
property in land was straightforward ? On the one
hand, we had something to 'give away, ' property ' or
'ownership'; on the other, there were various claimants:
the tribe, the clan, the village, the family, the individual.
We were to give this article, this commodity, to one
claimant, and then it was to be passed from hand to
hand. The only difficulty lay in the order of succession.
Where do you put your family? Before or after the
village community ?
To be serious, we know now, even, if we did not
.always know, that this is. much too simple. Before we
have gone far back in our own history, the 'belongs'
(if I may so say) of private law begins to blend with the
' belongs ' of public law ; ownership blends with lordship,
rulership, sovereignty in the vague medieval dominium.

12 Township and Borough.

and the vague medieval communitas seems to swallow up
both the corporation and the group of co-owners. We
know or are beginning to know this ; but a particular
example may bring it sharply before our minds. When
'King John granted the vill of Cambridge to the burgesses
and their heirs, did he mean to confer an ownership of
the soil upon a municipal corporation ? One point seems
certain. Neither John nor his chancellor would have
understood the terms of our question. Both the right
that is given and the person or persons to whom it is
given are hazily and feebly conceived.
You know why I say 'person or persons.' I think
that the historian of our towns will have to face that
difficulty. Also I fancy that in this country lawyers have
done something to deter historians from fairly facing it,
by concealing from them its moral and economic interest.
•^The invention of 'fictitious personality,' as it is sometimes
called, is put before us as a feat of skill, an ingenious
artifice of jurisprudence. The inference is readily drawn
that it concerns only lawyers. But is that true ? Can I
in the few minutes that are left to me persuade you that,
however meanly you may think of legal technicalities,
there is a problem here which deserves patient and
sympathetic investigation ?
-. In 1833 Cambridge, like other boroughs, was visited
by royal commissioners. Of Cambridge, as of most other
boroughs, they reported some evil tidings. In Cambridge,
however, they found what was rare, a member of the
corporation who courageously defended what they re
garded as a bad abuse : namely, the sale of some pieces
of the corporation's land to corporators at small prices.
'He thought' we are told 'that the property [of the
corporation] belonged bona fide to the corporation and
that they had a right to do what they pleased with their
own.' ' Such,' the commissioners exclaim, ' is the theory

The Common-Councillors Apology. 13
of a member of the Cambridge common council, which,
however frequently it may have been acted upon, has
seldom, we conceive, been openly supported by so un
flinching an advocated'
And yet the common-councillor's theory seems
verbally plausible. The property of a corporation is
unquestionably its property, and are we to be angry
whenever a noun in the singular governs a verb in the
plural ? If so, we had better not read medieval records,
for even universitas is sometimes treated as a ' noun of
multitude ^'
I must not carry further the defence of my fellow-
townsman. Certainly in this context there is a vast
difference between 'its' and 'theirs.' In our eyes this
is a difference between decency and scandal. But I
think we have reason to believe that it is also a
difference between modernity and antiquity, and (if I
may so use the words) between urbanity and rusticity.
The common-councillor was ignoring a moral and
economic achievement accomplished in the medieval
boroughs, the differentiation of 'its' from 'ours.'
This was a moral and economic, not primarily a legal i
achievement. Legally the common-councillor was not
so very far wrong. Our law, if I am not mistaken, had
never dictated to the boroughs what they should do with
their property : it had trusted to their honour. If, ob
serving all constitutional forms, holding duly convened
meetings and so forth, the corporators divided among
themselves the income or the land of the corporation,
they were, I believe, unpunishable and their acts were
1 Munic. Corp. Report, App. vol. iv. p. 2199; A Digested Report of the
Evidence as to the Corporation of Cambridge, published by H. Wallis,
Cambridge, 1833, p. 63.
2 Gierke, Genossenschaftsrecht, ii. 49, gives instances ; e.g. ' controversia
quam universitas villanorum in W. moverunt.'

14 Township and Borough.
valid\ But, whatever may have been the law, we surely
feel that in William IV.'s reign it was scandalous that
the corporators of a great town should think, or act as
though they thought, that the property of the corpora
tion, or such remnants of it as had not been squandered,
was their property : was their property morally, or as
the common-councillor said, bona fide.
From a discourse on personality, the personality of
the corporation aggregate, I shrink. Ought we to apply
to it such adjectives as 'ideal,' 'moral,' 'mystical,' 'ju
ristic,' ' fictitious,' ' artificial ' ? Is it not, on the other
hand, as real as the personality of a man ? Foreign
lawyers, Romanists and Germanists, are disputing stren
uously. A great deal of what they are saying is in
teresting to students of English history, though it is
sometimes couched in terms which are more abstract
than we like. Just because our own legal history has
been continuous, just because there has been no violent
breach between 'folk-law and jurist-law V we have never
been driven very far into what many of us would con
temptuously call legal metaphysics, and I am not going
to make the plunge. It is not of the technical shape
which lawyers give to the idea, but of the economic and
moral substratum that I am speaking. Such a sub
stratum there is : in other words, men will not think of
the group or the town as a person until this idea is
forced upon them by business and projects and current
notions of right and wrong.
1 See Grant, Corporations (1850), p. i29ff. Mr Grant, writing after the
Municipal Reformation, seems to hold that the Court of Chancery would
have interfered. But I can not find among his authorities any that proves
this, and, if we consider what the corporations had actually been doing for
a long time past, the silence of the law reports will seem eloquent. It will
be understood that I am not speaking of cases in which a municipal
corporation had been made a trustee for some definite purpose.
2 It was, I believe, Beseler's Volksrecht und Juristenrecht (Leipzig, 1843)
that opened the controversy about the nature of the German Genossenschaft.

Moral Corporateness. 15
Now-a-days it is difficult to get the corporation out
of our heads. If we look at the doings of our law courts,
we may feel inclined to reverse a famous judgment and
to say that while the individual is the unit of ancient,
the corporation is the unit of modern law. In an uni
versity town the difficulty is perhaps at its worst. Oxford
and Cambridge are peopled by 'group-persons.' We are
not content with what the law does for us. Morally,
though not legally, some at least of our multitudinous
societies and clubs are persons. The law-student feels
a little shock of surprise when he is told that his
college is a person and that his college boat club is
not — or rather, are not. The club, like the college,
seems to have property, to owe and be owed money.
The property of the club is not for him exactly and
bona fide (as the common-councillor said) the property
of its members — at least it is not so in all cases.
I say this because we ought to notice that if there is
anything that should be called fiction in this matter — and
I doubt it — we must not regard that fiction as the work
of lawyers. On the contrary, at least in modern England,
the lawyer is not the motive force, but the drag on the
wheel, and must protest that the layman is (if you please)
'feigning' more rapidly than the law will allow. It is
not the lawyer but the man of business who makes the
mercantile firm into a person distinct from the sum of
the partners^ It is the layman who complains that the
club can not get its club-house without 'some lawyer's
nonsense about trustees.' Such in these days is our
1 Lindley, Partnership, Bk. i. ch. 7 (6th ed. p. 118); 'Commercial men
and accountants are apt to look upon a firm in the light in which lawyers
look upon a corporation, i.e. as a body distinct from the members
composing it, and having rights and obligations distinct from those of
its members.... But this is not the legal notion of a firm. The firm is
not recognized by lawyers as in any way distinct from the members
composing it.'

1 6 Township and Borough.
' propensity to feign ' (if I may borrow a famous phrase)
that the law can find no place for the new persons, the
new species and genera of persons, whom we are daily
calling into existence.
In passing I may observe that in England we have
had a second legal expedient for dealing with the affairs
of organized groups, an expedient of which our neigh
bours seem to know little or nothing : I mean the trust.
In the fourteenth century, just when we were taking over
from the canonists the dogma that the corporation must
have its origin in some act of sovereign power, we were
hard at work developing the trust, and soon it had
become an useful instrument not only in the sphere of
private law and family settlements, but also in the sphere
of public or semi-public affairs and, if I may so say, of
group-organizing law.
This by the way, for leaving the legal machinery out of
sight, I would ask your attention for the underlying moral
fact. We feel that the disclosures of 1833 were disgrace
ful. We observe also that few men have had the courage
of this common-councillor. Very rarely in the great towns
had the property of the corporation been frankly divided
among the corporators. Too often it had been sold or
let to them at an undervalue. The inadequate price or
inadequate rent was a tribute paid to civic virtue. The
corporators in the great towns had known and felt that
the property of the corporation was not exactly their
own bona fide^.
But it is, so I think, with other feelings that we
observe what had happened in some little towns, or
rather villages, which long ago received a few chartered
1 Munic. Corp. Rep. 1835, p. 45: 'Some sense of impropriety, indicated
by the secrecy with which such transactions are conducted, has accompanied
the execution of long leases for nominal considerations or the alienations in
fee of the corporate property to individual corporators.'

Rustic Community. i'l
privileges from a medieval baron and therefore were
allowed a precarious place oh the roll of English boroughs.
Economically they were rural villages. In one case we
are told that ' most of the senior burgesses were in the
rank of labourers \' Well, there used to be a common
pasture ; it had disappeared ; it had been cut up into
plots, which had been let on long and highly beneficial
leases to burgesses, or rather villagers. Now I should
like to put this to you as a question not of law, but of
morals : Has any great wrong been done ? Do you feel
inclined to speak of misappropriation ? For my own
part I am not prepared to use very hard words, because
I do not expect to find in a village community of an old
type any clear perception of a difference between ' its '
and ' theirs,' and, if such a perception I found, I should
doubt that it was born in the village.
Perhaps then our best comment on the common-
councillor's apology would be summa rusticitas'^.
1 Munic. Corp. Rep. 1835, App. vol. i. p. 289 (Laugharne).
2 I do not mean to imply that the distinction between the property of a
corporation and the property of the corporators must always represent a
deep moral difference. The modern incorporated trading company aims at
making gain which is to be divided between the corporators. They, if
unanimous, may put an end to the corporation, and, when its debts have
been paid, divide its property; indeed our law enables a majority of a
certain strength to extinguish the corporation against the wishes of the few.
Here the distinction between ' its ' and ' theirs ' may be highly technical, and
may sometimes be ignored in common discourse. When the idea of a
corporation has once been fashioned, it can be employed for the most
various purposes ; but I do not think that this idea could be fashioned until
current morality had perceived that the Town had property which was not
co-owned by the existing burgesses. See Gierke, Genossenschaftsrecht, ii.
573 ff. It will also be understood that I am not an apologist of all that was
done in the small boroughs and disclosed by the Reports of 1835 and 1880.
Beneficial leases to corporators are not so easily defensible as would have
been a frank and final distribution of the common land among the members
of the community.

m.

1 8 Township and Borough.

n.

The borough community is corporate ; the village
community is not. This is a real and important difference.
In the fifteenth century it stands out in the clear light
A form of thought has been fashioned in which it can be
expressed. There were sentences in the Digest which
had set men thinking : in particular, a sentence which
sharply distinguished between the debts due to or from
the universitas and the debts due to or from the singuli\
The canonists had been making a theory. The body
corporate is a ' fictitious person ' and owes its personality
to some act of sovereign power. Sinibald Fieschi, who
/in 1243 became Pope Innocent IV., was, it is said, the
first to proclaim in so many words that the universitas is
persona ficta.
That theory bore fruit here. Incorporation must be
the outcome of royal charter. The royal charters that
are granted to our towns begin to use definitely creative
words. The king makes something. He constitutes and
erects a body corporate and politic in deed, fact and
name {in re, facto et nom,ine). It has been common to
reckon a charter granted in 1439 by Henry VI. to the
men of Hull as the first definite instance of municipal
incorporation; but in truth, as Dr Gross has shown;!
lawyers had been gradually adopting a theory and
fashioning a formula^
1 Dig. 3. 4. 7 § I (Ulpian) : ' Si quid universitati debetur, singuhs non
debetur : nee quod debet universitas singuli debent.'
2 Gross, Gild Merchant, i. 93 ff.: 'It can be demonstrated that towns
were formally incorporated a century earlier. True the formula of in
corporation differs somewhat from that of Henry the Sixth's charters, being
much simpler than the latter; but this was due to the fact that the jurists;
had not yet shrouded the notion in misty complexity.' Dr Gross has done

The Corporation in Theory. 19
Now I think it very true to say with the Bishop of '
Oxford that the ancient boroughs of England were
corporate some while before the days of Henry VI.^ The
lawyers have to admit it. They allow that the corporate
character can be, and in the case of many great towns has
been, gained 'by prescription,' and the old boroughs were
in no hurry to buy new charters containing the creative
formula. In 1605 Cambridge and Oxford within a few
months of each other secured it^ The two Universities
had secured it by Act of Parliament in 1571". The case
of our colleges is very similar to that of our towns. It
would be a good work to print a series of collegiate
beside a series of burghal charters. The college that is
founded in the fifteenth century, for instance, the King's
College at Cambridge, will be solemnly made one body
corporate and politic in deed, fact and name, and be told
that it may have a common seal. In the thirteenth
century the scholars of Walter of Merton or Hugh of
Balsham might want something from the king, for in
stance, leave to hold land in mortmain; but they did not
us a great service by illustrating the evolution of the formula; but the
words by which he has described the process are hardly those that I should
have chosen. To my mind, the movement is from vagueness towards
simplicity, though it is also a movement from curtness to verbosity.
1 Stubbs, Const. Hist. iii. 605 : 'Thus viewed, all the ancient boroughs
of England, or nearly all, must have possessed all the rights of corporations
and have been corporations by prescription long before the reign of
Henry VL'
2 Cambridge, 30 Ap. 1605, Cooper, Annals, iii. 17; Oxford, 29 July,
1605, Ogle, Royal Letters, p. 228.
3 Stat. 13 EUz. c. 29: An Acte for Thincorporation of bothe Thuniversy-
ties. The bull of 1318 which Cambridge obtained from John XXII. (Fuller,
Hist. Camb. p. 35; BUss, Calendar of Papal Registers, ii. 172) says:
' Statuimus ut in predicto loco. ..sit de cetero studium generale. Volentes...
quod collegium magistrorum et scholarium eiusdem studii universitas sit
censenda, et omnibus iuribus gaudeat quibus gaudere potest et debet
universitas quecunque legitime ordinata.' Nevertheless, what the Cambridge
masters sought at the pope's hand was more probably an authoritative right
to teach than what we mean by ' incorporation.'

20 Township and Borough.

want incorporation. Nobody, no body, wanted it. In
131 1, as Mr Rashdall tells us, the scholars of William of
Durham borrowed a seal, having none of their own'.
Legal theory registers the accomplished fact.
It takes a great poet to put this well.
Justinian's Pandects only make precise
What simply sparkled in men's eyes before.
Twitched in their brow or quivered on their lip.
Waited the speech they called but would not come I
I do not say that the result was wholly admirable.
Some phrases were borrowed from the Italian decretists
which might well have been left alone. But articulate
speech had come at last to the help of twitching brows
and quivering lips.
, Let us admit then that the corporateness of the old
boroughs was not manufactured but grew and is percept
ibly older than the charter for Hull. On the other hand,
there seems to be some danger in these days that we may
misplace and antedate those thoughts and feelings and
practices which are the essence gf^ corporateness, and by
so doing may turn history inside out.
There are some who would have us believe that
groups, families, clans, rather than individual men, were
the oldest ' units ' of law : that there was law for groups
long ages before there was law for individuals. In the
earliest stage, we are told, all is 'collective.' Neither
crime nor debt, neither property nor marriage nor pater
nity can be ascribed to the individual. Far rather the
1 Rashdall, Universities, ii. 471; William Smith, Annals of University
College (1728), p. 46. A nascent belief that the corporate character must
have an authoritative origin is marked by a writ of 1348 for Gon ville Hall;
Documents relating to the University and Colleges of Cambridge, ii. 213.
Edward III. says: 'Concessimus... eidem Edmundo.. .quod ipse collegium
predictum...de novo erigere et creare et nomen eidem collegia impomre...
possit.' 2 Browning, The Ring and the Book, Count Guido, 1781.

The Primitive Legal Unit. 21

group itself, the clan or family, is the one and only
subject of rights and duties'.
Now I can not help fancying that a laudable reaction
against the individualism of Natural Law has carried
some of us into extravagant phrases. To me it seems
that the supposed law for groups, whenever it becomes
concrete and practicable, is found to involve a great deal
of law for individuals, and sometimes of law that looks
suspiciously modern. Sir Henry Maine has said that
'the Family, in fact, was a Corporation.' But then, he
has also told us that ' the Patriarch, for we must not yet
call him the Pater-familias,' was a ' trustee for his children
and kindred,' and 'in the eye of the law' represented the
collective body^ This patriarchal trustee, who represents
a corporation, looks to me, I must confess it, suspiciously
modern. He may be a savage, but he is in full evening
dress. At any rate, however, he is an individual man ;
and, if he is treated as trustee and representative, there
is law enough for individuals and to spare.
1 Post, Bausteine fiir eine allgemeine Rechtswissenschaft, i. 74: 'In den
primitivsten, auf Blutsverwandtschaft gestiitzten ethnisch-morphologischen
Verbanden giebt es iiberall kein individuelles Recht und keine individuelle
Pflicht. Man findet hier weder ein individuelles Verbrechen, noch eine
individuelle Schuld, weder ein individuelles Eigenthum, noch eine in
dividuelle Ehe oder Vaterschaft. Vielmehr ist der Verband selbst, das
Geschlecht oder der Stamm als Ganzes hier alleiniges Rechtsubject ; er
allein hat Rechte und Pflichten, und zwar nach Analogie der heutigen
volkerrechtlichen Rechte und Pflichten.'
2 Maine, Ancient Law, ed. 6, p. 184: 'But though the Patriarch, for we
must not yet call him the Pater-familias, had rights thus extensive, it is
impossible to doubt that he lay under an equal amplitude of obligations.
If he governed the family, it was for its behoof. If he was lord of its
possessions, he held them as trustee for his children and kindred. He had
no privilege or position distinct from that conferred on him by his relation
to the petty commonwealth which he governed. The Family, in fact, was a
Corporation; and he was its representative or, we might almost say, its
Public officer. He enjoyed rights and stood under duties, but the rights
and the duties were, in the contemplation of his fellow-citizens and in the
eye of the law, quite as much those of the collective body as his own.'

22

Township and Borough.

If we speak, we must speak with words; if we think,
we must think with thoughts. We are moderns and our
words and thoughts can not but be modern. Perhaps, as
Mr Gilbert once suggested, it is too late for us to be
early English. Every thought will be too sharp, every
word will imply too many contrasts. We must, it is to be
feared, use many words and qualify our every statement
until we have almost contradicted it. The outcome will
not be so graceful, so lucid, as Maine's Ancient Law.
But just in this matter of archaic ' corporations,' what
I think we should demand before we let the phrase pass is
some proof that the men who constitute the group are
prepared to contrast what Dr Gierke calls the all of unity
with the all of plurality, to contrast an 'its' with an 'ours,'
or to say that though this land is ours in a certain sense,
it is not ours in another sense, for we are not co-owners
of it. This is the contrast which emerges in the medieval
boroughs slowly and painfully. Less help than we might
have expected had been given by the example of religious
groups, religious houses. For one thing, the group that
was in the strictest sense ' religious ' was too monarchical
to be instructive ; the abbot's will was the abbey's will.
Then again, in the ecclesiastical sphere the dead yet
living saint could appear as a person to whom rights and
duties and even wrongful acts' might be attributed. No
such supernatural aid would come to the burgesses in
their effort to separate their unity from their plurality.
I need not say that there were no joint-stock companies
to serve as a model.
>^ The borough community is corporate ; the village
community is not. Some injustice will be done by every
distinction of this sort. Law sees differences of kind
I D. B. ii. 13: 'Aliam Nessetocham tenuit Turstinus Ruffus. ..modo
Sanctus Paulus invasit.'

Unity and Plurality in the Village. 23
where nature has made differences of degree. Some
little accident might throw a township on one side of the
line or the other. No accurately exhaustive list of our
corporate boroughs ever was or could be made'. But in
rough, so it seems to me, the law was right. The village
community was not corporate. Corporateness came of
urban life.
If I say a few words about the English village of the
oldest time, they will be said very diffidently : the more
diffidently because I feel the temptation to take a side
and knowingly yield to it. Admitting that there are in
this village both unity and plurality, if I in some sort
plead the cause of plurality, this will be because our
natural tendency is to overestimate the unity. No sooner
have we allowed, as allow, I think, we must, that the land
belongs to a community, than our modern brains are at
work conferring ownership upon a corporation. The
Village, with a capital V, has land. Its land is owned
by an ' it ' whose will is manifested in the votes of an
assembly. I fear that we are instilling into our primitive village
thoughts which even in the boroughs of the twelfth
century were waiting a speech that would not come.
Now, in the first place, I can not see the English
village of the remotest days as populous, I doubt we
ought often to suppose more than some ten to fifteen
households,, and I think it no paradox but a very simple
truth that the fewer our numbers, the further we are
from any constitutional unity. It is the crowded town
that is one : a Town with a capital T. When there is
1 As our law admitted that the corporate character might be acquired
by prescription, there was always a chance that it would be claimed on
behalf of some town for the first time, and, as a matter of fact, the
commissioners of 1833 and 1880 found the Une obscure.

24 Township and Borough.

no longer any hope of continuous agreement, then comes
the demand for and the possibility of an organic union,
a permanent habit of agreeing to differ and yet to be
'permanently one.
Mere numbers are important. I am persuaded that
we hurry the history both of our villages and of our
towns because we fill them too full. There are some
thoughts which will not come to men who are not tightly
packed. Then it should be remembered that we are tempted
or compelled to draw inferences about free villages, from
villages that are not free. We see the village of the
thirteenth century. We see it in its ' extents ' and its
court rolls, with a good deal of organization. But it is
no longer a free, a lordless village. Far otherwise ;
most of its inhabitants are the lord's bond-men, his
nativi. By a mental process we remove the lord and
set the villeins free. Too often, so it seems to me, we
make these changes and suppose that all else will remain
unchanged, that the organization, the bye-laws, the court,
will remain, though the lord has gone. But does not the
village owe much of its compactness to its lord ? His
hall has become a centre for this little world. If we
remove that hall, the village will not be disintegrated,
but it will be decentralized.
I am not very hopeful of a portable village community
which we might take about with us from one quarter of
the globe to another. A Natural History of Institutions
is a fascinating ideal, but we must have a care or our
Natural History will bear to real history the relation that
Natural Law bore to real law. Explorations in foreign
climes may often tell us what to look for, but never what
to find. If we have to consider the village community
as organism, we must consider it also as organ or member
of a larger whole. We must not transplant it unless we

Automatism of the Community. 25
are prepared to take with it much that is not-itself. That
our own village community of the oldest time had no
jurisdiction, no power of speaking right, of deeming
dooms, must I think be admitted : Dr Stubbs has said
as much'. Therefore, before we borrow traits from
remote lands, the jurisdictional and governmental scheme
that prevails there should be examined.
Then I think that we underrate the automatism of
ancient agriculture and of ancient government. So far
as the arable land is concerned, the common-field
husbandry, when once it has been started, requires
little regulation. We see that in our Cambridge case. ¦
In 1803 there was no court, no assembly, which had
been habitually regulating the husbandry of the Cam
bridge field. There lay the difficulty. Had there been
such a court, its lord would have been an obvious lord
for the field, an obvious owner for the odds and ends
of waste. But for some centuries the common-field
husbandry had needed no regulation; it had been
maintaining itself.
The truth is that if you have cut up a field into acre-
strips, given a parcel of dispersed strips to each of many
men and given to each man a right to turn out his beasts
on the whole field during a certain part of the year, you
have made an arrangement which maintains itself with
unhappy ease. These men must follow the accustomed
course. If one man strives to break through it, he must
straightway trample on his neighbour's crops or suffer
1 Stubbs, Const. Hist. i. §43: 'In all these forms and relations the
townsmen retain their right of meeting and exercising some sorts of judicial
work, although, until the criminal jurisdiction in court leet comes to the
lords of manors by special grant, their participation in such matters is of the
character simply of police agency. Their assemblies are rather gemots or
meetings than proper courts ; for any contentious proceedings arhong men
so closely connected and so , few in number must have been carried
immediately to the hundred court.'

26 Township and Borough.
his own to be trampled on, for only as a rare exception
is there a beaten way to a strip. Something can be done
by exchanges and by buying out the small people ; but
the common-field husbandry can maintain itself for cen
turies after every one has called it a nuisance'.
When we come to the pasture land, we see more
room and more need for regulation : also we seem to see
a room and a need for a communal or corporate owner
ship. In old days, however, the pasture is apt to appear
as a mere appurtenance of the arable. The arable feeds
men ; the pasture feeds the beasts which till the arable.
Add to this that the whole scheme of scattering the
^acre-strips has aimed at equality or proportionality.
Tenements are to be equal in size and value, or the noble
man is to have just twice or thrice what the common
man has. Thus we easily arrive at a measure for pasture
rights. The man with a full tenement may turn out so
many beasts ; the man with half a tenement may turn
out half as many. ' Every person having six score acres
of land in Cambridge field may have on the commons six
horses or bullocks, and so in proportion for any greater
or less quantity of land' : so say Mr Mayor and Mr Vice-
Chancellor in 1624. Where your village community
becomes a borough community this old method of
admeasurement is likely to break down, and we may
fairly be surprised to find it in the Cambridge of
James I.'s day. But if and so long as your village

1 John Smyth, in his Lives of the Berkeleys, i. 113-4, states that in the
Severn valley a general custom was established which permitted a land
owner to inclose his strips in the open fields if he would renounce a
proportionate part of his right to depasture other strips. 'All along this
tract of ground, wee inclose, convert and keepe in severall to ourselves, our
ground which before laye open with the comon feilds, under prescription of
mos patriae, the custome of the countrey : abridginge withall ourselves of
ratable comon for sheep and other cattle, according to the acres of our
enclosures.'

Ownership of Waste Land. 27
community is purely agricultural, this plan is equitable
and likely to be permanent. The freeholder's 'ancient
arable' becomes the base and measure of his pasture
rights. As with rights, so with duties. Equality or pro
portionality having been established, all manner of
problems solve themselves. Simple arithmetic reigns
over the village. A tax or duty that is cast upon the
village divides itself spontaneously.
Let it not escape us that a communistic division of
the fruits of the earth must have been far from the minds
of those who cut up the field into countless strips and
endeavoured to secure an exact equality by giving to
every man a large number of dispersed fragments. The
obvious advantages of larger allotments were sacrificed,
in order that all the ' husbands ' might have a fair start.
They were to have a fair start, because each was to live
of his own.
There remains the ownership of the pasture. It
remains, and, as the case of Cambridge will show us,
it can remain feebly conceived for long ages.
Legal ideas never reach very far beyond practical*
needs. Now-a-days we are persuaded that the owner
ship of the soil stretches down into the depths of the
earth, and the mines that men dig are very deep. I
suppose that the landowner may lawfully dig deeper and
deeper still until he reaches that centre where all earthly
ownerships are subtending acute angles. There he might
be stopped by the rights of the antipodes. But put the
case that, if he went straight on, he would come out in the
ownerless high seas. We can afford to leave that case
undecided. Even so the ownership of the pasture can
go a-begging, can be unapprehended or but feebly appre
hended, until people want to do something that is new.
A definitely conceived indefiniteness seems the

28 Township and Borough.
essence of our modern notion of ownership. The
owner may do with the land whatever is not forbidden.
In this he differs from the man who may do just one
thing with it : the man who has a right of way or right
of pasture. Now this indefiniteness of ownership is
definitely conceived, because now-a-days there really are
hundreds of different uses to which a man may put his
land. Remove this possibility, which is the creature of
science and art, and is not ownership as we conceive
it nearly gone ? Has it not lost its characteristic in
definiteness and fallen to the level of a right of way or
right of pasture ?
We should remember this when we are tracing the
growth of seignorial power. The king's or the lord's
rights over the land can grow without any one being
despoiled of what he feels to be his. What is at stake is
not the felt present but a remote and unsuspected future.
Who will own the minerals under a field ? That is not
an interesting, it is hardly a possible, question until their
value has been discovered.
Rights which seem to us to be of utterly different
kinds can blend together when land is fated, as it were,
to be used in one way and one only. The man who is
reaping his acre-strip will be able to enjoy some of the
forth-coming bread and beer ; but not all of it ; the king
will come round for his share. The king has a right
that he can give away ; he may give it to one of his
thegns or to a bishop. Call it governmental, call it
proprietary, call it what you will, it ends in bread and
beer ; and that is where the cultivator's right ends. We
may easily have an ownership and several over-owner
ships, just because all of them lack the definitely
conceived indefiniteness of modern ownership'.
Mn illustration of what has been urged in Domesday Book and Beyond
touching the Anglo-Saxon king's 'alienable superiority,' I can now refer to

Ownership and Rulership. 29
Perhaps it is not always sufficiently remembered that
at the present day almost all the land in the world
' belongs ' to ' communities.' There is the international
'belongs.' The whole force of a highly organized com
munity will be employed to prevent one yard of the soil
of France from being — shall I say ' appropriated ' by
another state ? That word may serve to reproduce the
old haze. But now-a-days we expect of a conquering
state that it will not appropriate in one sense what it
appropriates in another ; we expect that as a general
rule the old owners of the fields and houses will be
suffered to own them still. Sovereignty has been
transferred ; ownership is where it was. However, we
have only to go back to the last century in order to see
that this international ' belongs ' has been regarded as
being very like any other 'belongs.' The story of the
map of Europe is upon the surface a story of inheritance,
conveyance, dower and marriage portion.
A piece of land ' belongs ' to a county. The county
council resists a proposal that this tract should be torn
from it and given to its neighbour. Cambridgeshire and
in a certain sense ' the men of Cambridgeshire ' have
lately lost part of their territory. This, we say, is not
a matter of property ; it is a matter of local rates. But
transfer the dispute to an age when there is an earl
entitled to the third penny of the county ; straightway
it takes a proprietary tinge ; we are proposing to diminish
his county and his income.
Mr Baden-Powell's, Indian Village Community, pp. 207-213: ' It became a
recognised attribute of the ruling power that, as a matter of custom, it had
the combined right to the share of the produce, the right to the waste, and
the right to tolls and transit dues. This aggregate of rights was... spoken of
as the Zamindari.... The old State-right, or Zamlndari was magnified into
a general superior ownership.... An extremely vague notion prevailed as to
ownership in the soil.... A claim to a certain share of the produce is the
tangible element and apparent symbol of right rather than any theory of
soil ownership, whether individual or collective.'

30 Township and Borough.
A municipal corporation owns a few, but only a few,
of the houses in the town. Over the whole town it
/exercises a certain governmental power. We have here
two different ideas ; they can be sharply contrasted. For
one thing, we are accustomed to think that the govern
mental power is delegated by the state. That notion
of delegation will grow faint as we go backwards. There
will be a sort of lordship over the whole town, and of
a few houses there will be landlordship.
Landlord : we make one word of it and throw a
strong accent on the first syllable. The lordliness has
evaporated ; but it was there once. Ownership has
come out brightly and intensely ; the element of su
periority, of government, has vanished ; or rather it is
in other hands.
What therefore we have to watch in early times is
not the transfer of something, some thing, called owner
ship from one sort of 'units' to another. It is the
crystallization round several different centres and in very
different shapes of that vague ' belongs ' which contains
both public power and private right, power over persons,
right in things. And I must confess to doubting whether
in the common course a crystal of which we can say
'This is ownership and it is nothing but ownership'
forms at all until it forms round the individual man.
He has a great advantage. He is the only unit in
which there is no plurality.
The struggle of ownership and rulership to free
themselves from each other, a struggle which pervades
both the life and the thought of the middle ages, could
hardly be better illustrated than it is in the work of an
Oxford philosopher and Chancellor', Richard Fitz Ralph,
Archbishop of Armagh. With Mr Poole for guide, you
can not miss the point. If in the fourteenth century
' Diet. Nat. Biog. xix. 194.

The Medieval Dominium. 31
we are to compose this sad dispute about evangelical
poverty and pacify the Christian world, we must go
deep, we must analyze our ideas, we must define do
minium, we must d&^r\.& proprietas. Not every dominium
is proprietas. There is a baron with a barony ; above
stand count, duke, king. Each of the four has a do
minium over the land, but only the baron's dominium
is a proprietas of the land, for he has an immediate
dominium and the other dominia are mediate. Then,
however, we must admit that count, duke and king,
each of them has a proprietas (that is, an immediate
dominium), not in the land, but in his dominiwm : a
property in his lordship. Thus for this acute speculator -
ownership and rulership are but phases of one idea, and
this though the Digest has been lying open these two
centuries and more. All political power exhibits pro
prietary traits, and every ownership of land is actually
or potentially a right of governing and doing justice'.
But, to return to our pastures. Are not ' the green
commons' of the village too common to be owned by
a community ? Perhaps I put the question ill ; but in
one form or another it should be put, for popular ex
positions of the village community will sometimes leave
this question in the happy haze of ' collective owner
ship.' Now I am very ready to believe that haze is
its native atmosphere, and that, when we have plucked
it out and inspected it in the modern daylight, we
1 See the portions of Fitz Ralph's treatise De Pauperie Salvatoris
printed at the end of Mr Poole's edition of Wyclyffe's De Dominio Divino,
pp. 279, 467. The king's right to tax the baron appears as an use which
the king makes of the revenues {redditus) of the land. The conversion of a
lordship or seignory into an incorporeal thing is familiar to students of
English law. For the slow differentiation of rulership and ownership see
Gierke, Genossenschaftsrecht, iii. 6i6. A dominium ratione iurisdictionis
et gubernationis is distinguished from a dominium ratione proprietatis.
At last Jacobus Almainus (ob. 15 15) says: proprietas et imperium nulla
societate coniunguntur.

32 Township and Borough.
must once more tenderly put it back into the medieval
muddle. That seems to me a work which Dr Gierke
has been admirably performing in his fascinating book.
Only let us know that haze is haze. May be there is
an element of co-ownership in the case and an element
of corporate ownership. May be our ancestors did not
distinguish the all which Is plurality from the all which
is unity'. But we must. If we do not, we ought to
applaud the common-councillor who says that the pro
perty of a municipal corporation Is bona fide ' their '
property.
/ When in 1835 Parliament took the municipal cor
porations in hand, it taught them that their revenues
were to be expended 'for the public benefit of the
Inhabitants of the towns'.' The public, not the common,
benefit. Had the word common been used, might not
the inhabitants have divided the Income among them
selves ? But that is the word which haunts us in the
middle ages. Even in the boroughs the common bell
calls the commons of the town from the common streets
and the green commons to the common hall, and In
common hall assembled they set their common seal to
a lease of their common land, for which a fine Is paid
into their common chest. All Is common; nothing
public ; the English for res publica Is commonwealth ;
the public house was once a common Inn. But what is
common to us. Is It not partly yours and partly mine ?
We are tempted to think so.
' Genossenschaftsrecht, ii. 47: 'so steckt in dem Einen Begriff der
Gesammtheit ungetrennt und untrennbar noch das doppelte Merkmal, dass
sie einheithche Allgemeinheit und vielheitliche Summe von Individuen ist.'
2 Municipal Corporations Act, 1835, sec. 92: 'and in case the borough
fund shall be more than sufficient for the purposes aforesaid, the surplus
thereof shall be applied, under the direction of the Council, for the public
benefit of the inhabitants and improvement of the borough.' This is now
represented by Mun. Corp. Act, 1882, sec. 143.

The Community and the Commons. 33
Suppose that we place a pure and unfettered owner
ship of the pastures in an universitas of villagers. Will
their idea of community be realized if the pasture rights
of the singuli are at the mercy of the assembled body ?
These rights are so necessary to every husbandman that
any decisive exhibition of that ownership which we
attribute to the universitas must go far towards destroy
ing the bond which holds these men together.
I believe that before the Reformation of 1835 there
were some boroughs in which the pasture land stood
absolutely at the disposal of the municipal corporation'.
The individual burgess merely because he was a burgess
was allowed to turn out beasts upon this land, but he
had no right which hampered the power of the corpo
ration to sell the land or put it to some other use. Such
right as he had we might compare to the right that the
fellow of a college has to sit in the ' common ' room or
play at bowls in the college garden. But you will, I "
think, find that even in the boroughs this supremacy of
the corporate One over the pasture rights of the plural
Many marks a late and high and distinctively urban stage
of development ; and at the present time there are good
reasons why a, prudent lecturer should not say that such
supremacy existed in any particular borough. All that
we know of the rural arrangements of medieval England
warns us that the fellow's right to play at bowls in the
college garden, a right which would disappear if a reso
lution in favour of new buildings were carried by a
majority of one, must not be our model when we think
of the hidesman's right to feed his cattle on the 'common'
land. Thus the element of unity that there is in the vil
lage may soon begin to appear as a mere power of
government and regulation, and instead of a proprietary
1 See Append. §§ 138—143.
M. 3

34 Township and Borough.

corporation we may find what we call a ' local authority,'
an organ of subordinate government. The transition
^is easy because the line between public and private law
is not drawn, is not felt. Am I putting this clumsily
and pedantically ? Let me give an example. The pig,
which plays a troublesome part in the medieval town,
may serve. Now suppose that some town council or
parish council forbids me to keep a pig In my back
yard. It no more claims a proprietary right in my
back-yard than it claims a proprietary right in my pig.
But if a village moot forbids the villagers to put pigs
on the common, because pigs rout up the ground, this
Is a more ambiguous act. We may see in it a pro
prietary claim, a claim to own the waste and decide
what shall be done with It, or merely a claim to that
sort of police power which endeavours to prevent harm
by ringing pigs and muzzling dogs. Especially if there
is a lord pressing forward his right to all that is not
definitely appropriated, the old right of the community
may take this turn towards a merely regulative power,
which in the end may be regarded as delegated by the
state. To us a crucial question would be : What are the
powers of a majority? There should apparendy be
some sphere within which the will of the majority should
prevail, and then there should be indefeasible rights.
But we have every reason to believe that this question
was obscured from view.
One of the great books that remain to be written
is The^ History of the Majority. Our habit of treating
the voice of a majority as equivalent to the voice of an
all is so deeply engrained that we hardly think that it
has a history. But a history it has, and there is fiction
there: not fiction if that term implies falsehood or
caprice, but a slow extension of old words and old

The Powers of Majorities. 35
thoughts beyond the old facts. In the earlier middle
ages it is unanimity that is wanted ; it is unanimity that
is chronicled ; it is unanimity that is after a sort ob
tained. A shout is the test, and in form it is the
primary test to-day in the House of Commons. But
the few should not go on shouting when they know
that they are few. If they do, measures can be taken
to make them hold their peace. In the end the assembly
has but one voice, one audible voice ; it is unanimous.
The transition to a process which merely counts heads
or hands is the slower because in some manner that
no arithmetic can express the voices of the older, wiser,
more worshipful, more substantial men are the weightiest.
The disputed, the double elections that we read of in
every quarter, from the papal and imperial downwards,
tell a very curious story of constitutional immaturity.
But until men will say plainly that a vote carried by a
majority of one is for certain purposes every whit as
effectual as an unanimous vote, one main contrast be
tween corporate ownership and mere community escapes
them\ In an immobile state of society this contrast and
many other contrasts may remain latent for a long while.
As a test of ownership we are wont to think of alien
ability. But if the villagers once meditate an alienation
of their pasture land the existence of the community is
already in jeopardy. As a matter of fact (such is my
guess) the ownership of the waste land was in most cases
crystallizing round another centre, the lord to whom the
village had been 'booked' by the king. There was
no awkward plurality in him. Between village and
borough there is no insuperable gulf, and, if our villages
had remained lordless they might perhaps in course of
time have exhibited the decisive symptoms of corporate
1 As to all this matter, see Gierke, Genossenschaftsrecht, ii. 478 ff.
3—2

36' Township and Borough.

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

IIL

Was Oxford to become ' a military centre ' ? A few
years ago when that question was In debate, Mr Freeman
said some memorable words about the ignorance of those
who seemed to think that 'if there had been no uni
versity, there would have been no Oxford at all.' These |
people, he said, would be amazed if they were told that
for ages before the first germs of the university showed \
themselves, Oxford was ' a military centre and a political
centre, a centre In the very strictest of senses'.' Those
words seem to me to go to the heart of an important
matter. I am far from thinking that any one history should
be told of all our boroughs. Little could be said of
Canterbury and Lincoln that would be true of Birming
ham or of Brighton. Even if we take account only of
those towns which are called civitates or burgi in Domes
day Book, it is probable, if not certain, that we have a
miscellaneous class before us. Nevertheless it seems
to me that throughout a wide tract of England there
were in 1086 no boroughs which were not or had not
1 Freeman, English Towns and Districts, 238.

Borough and Shire. 37
been in some distinct and legal sense the centres of
districts, the chief tdw'ns of shires. Cambridge was one
of them. Oxfordshire, capital Oxford ; Bedfordshire, capital
Bedford ; Hertfordshire, capital Hertford ; Staffordshire,
capital Stafford ; Herefordshire, capital Hereford. I hope
that children still 'say their counties' in that way. It is
a way that takes us far back. The shire has a burh, a
borough. For choice it stands at a ford. Shire and
burh are knit together. The shire maintains the burh ;
the burh defends the shire.
Cambridgeshire, capital Cambridge. The town is
cut in two by the river. The river is spanned by a
bridge. Until lately we called it the Great Bridge.
Dwellers on the Thames may look at it with contemp
tuous eyes ; but in some sort It is the most famous bridge
in England : the one bridge that gives name to a county.
The duty of maintaining that bridge lay upon the
county ; the lands of the shire owed it bridge-boot, or,
to use a later phrase, they owed it pontage. Many lands
had in course of time secured a chartered or prescriptive
immunity from the charge, but in the middle of the last
century those which were not free contributed according
to their hidage. For example, in 1752 the Duke of
Bedford paid ^36 for six hides of land in Dry Drayton ;
it was the boot that they owed to the Great Bridge'.
Just above the bridge rises the mound that is in the
narrowest sense the burh of Cambridge. The castle has
come and gone ; the old burh remains. But it is not in
Cambridge ; it is in Chesterton, a vill whose nucleus
lies a mile or so away". Is Oxford castle in Oxford ?
1 Cooper, Annals, iv. 286. The pontage accounts are among the Bowtell
MSS. at Downing College.
2 Ibid. ii. 132 (from Meres's Diary): in 1557 'Chesterton procession
came into the castle yarde ' during the Gang Week. The theory that the
castle is in Chesterton was, I take it, inferentially obtained from the fact

38 Township and Borough.
Cambridge castle was not In Cambridge : that is to say,
it was not within the 'town' that was granted to the
burgesses ; and I believe that the castle precinct, ' the
castle fee,' has seldom been for all legal purposes a
piece of a borough. Cambridge castle was guarded by
knights whose lands, like those which owed the pontage,
were scattered about In various parts of the county.
I have ventured to argue before now that the con
nexion between shire and borough lies near the root
of the difference between the boroughs and the other
vills'. May I say one word about this connexion in
later days ? I think that we sometimes make undue
haste to cut the boroughs loose from their counties. I
need not say that the ordinary borough was economically
dependent on the neighbourhood. Its market was a
district-market and no world-market. But further, many
of those ancient boroughs which deserve our best atten
tion were economically dependent on the county's organi
zation. If you wanted to discover the place where the
shire moot was held, what should you do ? I think that
I should begin by asking a policeman my way to the
county gaol. Legally, it may be, outside the borough,
but for economic purposes within the borough, we should
often find the spot, where in century after century the
great people of the shire met month by month, and where
the king's justices sometimes sat for a month at a time
with ' the whole county ' before them. In Cambridge (or
rather, as a matter of law, just outside Cambridge) there
stood an old wooden 'shire house' at the foot of the
:astle mound-.
±at the castle was not within 'the liberties' granted to the townsfolk.
Every piece of land ought to be in some vill, and, if the castle is not in
Cambridge, clearly it must be in Chesterton.
' Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 172.
2 Hughes, Cambridge Castle, Camb. Antiq. Soc. Proc. viii. 188. This '
vas demolished in 1747 when the county justices advanced into the middle

The Borough as Moot-stow. 39
The burghers' talk about excluding the sheriff must
not deceive us. They do not want him to meddle with
their affairs ; but there would be a piteous outcry if he
held his court elsewhere^ Cambridge is the right and
proper moot-stow for the thegns of the shire, and has
been so ever since those thegns formed a famous gild.
The shire moot wanes ; but the quarter sessions of the
shire thegns become Important. The borough is still the
centre of the county's business. The county elections,
the county assizes, the county sessions, these all bring
in thegns and money to the borough. And the influence
of the thegns does not end there. Slowly, as a seat in
Parliament becomes covetable, they begin to take but too
deep an Interest in the affairs of the borough. Ultimately
a Cambridgeshire thegn who lived at Cheveley, the Duke
of Rutland, became the ' patron ' (domimis et advocatus
we might say) of the borough of Cambridge, and I have
heard tell that elections in the city of Oxford sometimes
coincided with the wishes of an Oxfordshire thegn who
lived near Woodstock.
In Lewis's Topographical Dictionary I read of Cam
bridge that 'the townhall...Is obscurely situated behind
the shire-hall,' for the shire thegns had abandoned their
old house by the castle and made a new one right In the
middle of the borough. This is a symbolic truth : the
town-hall is obscurely situated behind the shire-hall. In
1833 we are told that the borough court has fallen into
discredit and disuse, while the county court — not a ' new
county court,' but our old friend the shire moot — is still
of the town. They retired again to the castle precinct in 1842. Cooper,
Annals, ii. 279; iv. 19, 258.
1- Merewether and Stephens, Hist. Boroughs, i. 468: 'The king [in 1256]
granted to the good men of Guildford and their heirs that the county court
of Surrey should for ever be held in the town of Guildford ; and that the
justices itinerant should hold the pleas of the county and assizes of all the
county in that town.'

40 Township and Borough.

doing useful work in Cambridge as an exactor of small
debts'. For good and 111, borough and shire have been
bound together. And after many centuries, standing
either at Oxford or at Cambridge, we may still ask Quis
separabit ?
The market is another link: and it is a legal link.
Men are not to buy and sell elsewhere : that is to say, if
/they buy elsewhere they imperil their necks. Cattle-
lifting must be suppressed. Men must buy cattle before
a court of law or before ofificial witnesses in a borough,
or else they must take the risk of being treated as thieves.
That is, I think, the original principle. But very soon
it is evident that a market implies toll, also that a market
benefits the vill In which it is held. Henry I. bans the
trade of Cambridgeshire to the borough of Cambridge:
' I forbid any boat to ply at any hithe of Cambridgeshire,
except at the hithe of my borough of Cambridge, neither
shall carts be laden unless in the borough of Cambridge,
nor shall any take toll elsewhere, but only there ^'
We must not, however, be in a hurry to see an urban
element wherever we see a market. It is a market for
, raw produce : corn-market, pease-market, hay-market,
beast-market, hog-market for the neighbourhood. The
names of the streets will tell the tale.
Burgum de Grentebrige pro uno hundret se defendif^.
Mr Round has explained what this means. The borough
pays geld for a hundred hides^ pays, that is, full ten times
as much as an average vill in Cambridgeshire would pay ;
1 Digested Report of Evidence given before the Commissioners, Cam
bridge, 1833, p. 95: ' Mr Harris said the county court is held in Cambridge
and is much practised in for recovery of debts under forty shiUings.'-
Report, 1835, App. vol. iv. p. 2192.
2 Append. § 155.
3 D. B. i. 189.
4 Round in Domesday Studies, i. Il7ff.; also Round, Feudal England,
156.

Borough and Hundred. 41
it pays as much as is paid by one of our perfect Cam
bridgeshire hundreds that have just their hundred hides.
But further, it is jurisdlctionally a hundred ; it has a court
which stands on a level with the hundred courts. I can
not find that Cambridge has ever been deemed a part of
any of the adjacent hundreds, and by Cambridge I mean
some five square miles of land. Five hundreds touch
that tract ; they converge upon it ; but it lies outside
them all\
The borough is a vill which is a hundred ; or it is
a vill which has an organization similar to that of a
hundred. This idea is familiar to us ; it is in our classical
book''. Perhaps it is a little too familiar, for is there not
here a new departure in the history of institutions ? We
are to have a t'iin, a vill, with a jurisdictional organ, with
a moot that can speak law. Ought we not to ask what
thought lies behind this vill that is a hundred ? Will it
be fantastic to compare small beginnings with a great
achievement ?
The city of Washington is not in any of the united
states of North America. Why not ? Because it is the
moot-stow of the great republic. The civitas of Cam
bridge is not In any of the hundreds. Why not ? Because
it is the county's town, the moot-stow, fortress and port
of the republic of Cambridgeshire. I hasten to say that
I did not invent that phrase; it is eight centuries old.
In the Conqueror's day the church of Ely claimed the
1 Fleamdyke Hundred (Ditton, Cherry Hinton), Thriplow Hundred
(Trumpington), Wetherley Hundred (Grantchester with Colon, Barton with
Whitwell), Northstow Hundred (Madingley, Girton), Chesterton Hundred
(Chesterton). Apparently in Leicestershire also five hundreds converge
upon the county town.
2 Stubbs, Const. Hist. i. loi, 438, 443 ; Gross, Gild Merchant, i. 79. In
the vocabulary which the English settlers carried into Ireland, the borough
court seems to have been usually called ' the hundred ' of the town or city.
See the Irish Cartae, Privilegia etc. (Rec. Com. 1889), p. 6 Dublin, p. 13
Waterford, p. 24 Cork, p. 25 Drogheda.

42 Township and Borough.

fourth penny of the republic of the province of Grant-
bridged We may suppose some jealousy between the
hundreds. The stronghold, the market, the meeting
place of the shire should be in none of them.
I have used the word civitas. In Domesday Book
it Is applied to towns which lack cathedral churches : to
Oxford, Gloucester, Leicester, Shrewsbury, Colchester.
I think that we were near to a settled usage which would
have made that term equivalent to 'county town.' Before
a bishop could seem to be necessary to the existence of a
civitas, some English sees had to be removed out of
obscure villages I But also there were other difificulties.
The legal geography of the southern counties was not so
artificially neat as was that of the midlands. For example,
Penenden Heath by Maidstone was the moot-stow of
Kent, and perhaps we may regard this as a compromise
between Canterbury and Rochester. I am far from
wishing to thrust an uniformly artificial scheme upon all
England; but any traces of artifice may be precious clues.
It is best to begin with the easy cases, with the great
block of shires which take their names from towns and
have a borough apiece. Wessex may wait a while until
Mercia Is understood.
Let me fully admit that the history of our towns must
not be merely the history of legal arrangements. The
trade winds blow where they list, and defy the legislator.
It were needless to say that half-fledged boroughs such
as Manchester, and mere villages such as Birmingham,
will outstrip the old shire-cities. But even in the middle
1 Append. § 154.
2 Coke upon Littleton, 109b: 'The burgh of Cambridge, an ancient
city, as it appeareth by a judiciall record (which is to be preferred before all
others) where mos civitatis Cantabrigiae is found by the oath of twelve men,
the recognitors of that assize; which (omitting many others) I thought good
to mention in remembrance of my love and duty abnae matri academiae
Cantabrigiae^ The case to which Coke refers is printed in Placit. Abbrev. 98.

The University Town. 43
ages there were ups and downs in the fortunes of the
boroughs. I think that both Oxford and Cambridge had -
good luck.
Mr Green once drew a spirited indictment against
your University. ' It found Oxford a busy prosperous
borough and reduced It to a cluster of lodging-houses.
It found It among the first of English municipalities, and
it so utterly crushed its freedom that the recovery of some
of the commonest rights of self-government has only
been brought about by recent legislation^' Certainly there
is truth here ; but the picture has another side. Look
at the shire-boroughs that lie between Oxford and
Cambridge. Look at Huntingdon, Bedford, Hertford,
Buckingham ; each stands in Domesday Book proudly
enough at the head of a shire. Look more especially at
a town which may have been Oxford's twin sister. Look
at Wallingford, and reckon up the bishops and abbots
and counts and barons who had houses there. Materially
the advent of the scholars meant to the burgesses a large
demand for food and lodging. Spiritually It meant an
example of organization and a stimulating battle for right.
And at any rate a new-fangled university was a better
inmate than an ancient cathedral church.
I say this because in my view there is an element of
national or tribal purpose and policy in the earliest history
of these county towns. As this fades away, the old
borough must face rivalry and trying times. In the
struggle for prosperity it must rely upon its own economic
merits. Other towns have acquired courts and markets,
and there is a race for charters. However, an example
has been set ; a new type of town, of vill, has come
into existence^
1 J. R. Green, Stray Studies, p. 333.
2 It will be understood that I am in no way denying the influence of the
French upon the English towns during the new period that begins with the
Conquest.

44 Township and Borough.
But though the ancient borough is not an ordinary
vill, an ordinary t-ltn, none the less It Is a vill, a ti4,n, and
the community that Inhabits it is a township. This being
so, ought it not to be an agrarian unit ; ought it not to
/ have arable fields and pasture that subserves them ? I
do not wish to dictate to strange cities, to London, for
example, or to Oxford, and to say to their citizens, ' You
must find your common fields.' That would be an ex
treme of folly and Impertinence. The possibilities are
many. Still our Cambridge case will show that It may
be worth our while to look beneath the Roman print of
modern municipality and beneath the black letter of
medieval burgherhood for the runes of the ancient village.
' In some sort Cambridge was still an agrarian unit in the
seventeenth century.
Shall we then by way of hypothesis (It can be no
better) start with an ordinary English village ? Let us also
suppose it to be a free, a lordless village, as lordless as a
village can be where there is a king about. National
policy decrees that this place is to be the stronghold, the
place of assembly, the market of a shire : that it is to be
extra-hundredal and is to have a moot of its own. There
will be a ferment in the vill. There will be a new
demand for houses. The old nucleus of homesteads will
grow denser. The Cambridge of the Confessor's day
has four hundred houses : ten times as many as the
ordinary village would have, though its fields are no
larger than are those of many an ordinary village.
It seems to me possible that the great men of the
shire were bound to keep houses and retainers, burgmen
burgenses, knights, in this stronghold and place of refuge'
I do not press that theory upon you'. The fact remains
that for one reason or another the. English magnates did
in many cases acquire these borough haws. Oxford is
' Append. §§ 150—152.

The Borough as Agrarian Unit. 45
here the splendid example. Six bishops, besides abbots
and counts and mighty men of war, have houses In it and
men in it. But you will see the same phenomenon on a
smaller scale in boroughs which soon drop out of the
race : in Buckingham for example, and in Winchcombe,
the capital of the ancient Winchcombeshire'. Borough
society is mixed. Not only are there social grades
within it ; but there are feudal or vassalic distinctions.
These men are the ' men ' of different lords.
We may guess that the old hides will go to pieces.
If the market is successful, they may go to pieces very
rapidly. There will be a traffic in acre-strips. A man
will try to get a few next each other. It is no longer
necessary that his strips should be equally divided be
tween the various fields : he may sell corn in one year
and buy in another. His tenement need not be self-
sufficing ; the whole vill will not produce all that it eats.
A danger lies here. The land is becoming mobile at
a time when the feudalizing and manoriallzing processes
are at work. It is perhaps improbable that any lord will
make a manor of this complex vill, this heterogeneous
group. But it is very possible that he may succeed In
detaching from it large parts of its field and working them
up into external manors. The more the borough flourishes
as a place of trade, the better his chance of doing this,
for the community that inhabits the town is ceasing to be
a community of self-supporting agriculturists.
I have sometimes fancied that this happened at
Oxford in very old days : that Oxford had wide arable
fields lying outside the north gate of the town ; that Port
Meadow was subservient to the plough-teams of a corn-
growing group of men who lived in Oxford ; and that
those manors of Walton and Wolvercote and Holywell
1 For Winchcombeshire, see Royce, Winchcombe Landboc, p. ii;
Taylor, Domesday Survey of Gloucestershire, 220.

46 Township and Borough.
which appear already In Domesday Book', were formed
out of the Oxford fields. There are, I think, many signs
of continuous friction between the burghal community
and the landholders of the North Gate Hundred. Fric
tion there must be before arable and pasture can be
finally torn asunder. In 1561 a witness swore that the
men of Wolvercote, Godstow, Binsey and Medley had
always enjoyed common of pasture in Portmead, also
that the citizens of Oxford could not drive their catde
to Portmead without passing through 'the lordships of
Walton'.' On the other hand, the citizens would not
admit that there was a Walton Manor : there was only a
Walton Farm situate wholly within the liberties of the
city of Oxford'. How this may be now-a-days I do not
know; but I see It said in 1870 that some neighbouring
villages had common in Port Meadow ^ As to the manor
of Holywell, the burgesses of 1279 protested that it had
belonged to a burgess, the father of the celebrated John
of Oxford, and had been 'newly subtracted from the
borough'.' In after-times there were, so Anthony Wood
tells, many contentions about jurisdiction between Its lord
and the townsmen". Its lord was that college, Merton
College, which held a suburban manor at Cambridge also,
and In our own century competed with the Cambridge
burgesses for a lordship over the Cambridge field.
I must ask you to forgive this trespass, and must
confess that the North Gate Hundred is a puzzle to
1 D. B. i. 154, 157, 159; Parker, Early History of Oxford, 208, 225, 249,
255 ; Wood's City of Oxford, ed. Clark, i. 335 ff.; ii. i86ff.
2 Royal Letters, ed. Ogle, 180-1. As to this dispute with Dr Owen, see
also Records of Oxford, ed. Turner, 211-3-5, 223, 278, 294; Royal Letters,
195. 3 Records of Oxford, 253.
4 Pari. Pap. 1870: Return of Cities and Boroughs possessing Common
Lands, p. 23.
f' Rot. Hund. ii. 805.
0 Wood's City of Oxford, ed. Clark, i. 380-1.

Borough Pastures. 47
the stranger. I should account it a compliment to a
town if we said that at a very early time It could afford
to see its arable fields detached from it and worked up
into external manors. When and where this sacrifice
is possible without economic ruin, we are coming to
urban life. I think that we may even regard an
arable ' shell ' (to use Mr Seebohm's phrase) as an im
pediment to the growth of municipality.
Pasture must and will be important to the towns
folk throughout the middle ages and in much later days.
If in 1833 yoH had asked the corporator (burgess,
freeman) of a borough what good he got by being a
corporator, he would often have answered : ' Pasture, and
now that Parliament has begun to meddle with electoral
rights, nothing but pasture'.' In many old and great
boroughs the corporator merely as corporator turned
out his beast, and, if any one turned out more beasts
than his neighbour, this was because he had attained
a certain rank In the corporation ; he was alderman or ^
the like'. This is a much more urban, corporate scheme
than is possible until the arable has been wrenched from
the pasture'.
That the ancient shire-borough never becomes a
manor, this I dare not say'. But I feel pretty sure,
that Cambridge never passed through the manorial
1 By way of example we may take Stamford. App. to Mun. Corp. Rep.
1835, vol. iv. p. 2530: 'The present body of freemen form but a small
portion of the inhabitants of the town, and during the last five years the
number of admissions has considerably diminished. Those who are entitled
by birth or apprenticeship only take up their freedom for the purpose of
stocking the common; and among the other inhabitants few are disposed to
purchase it.'
2 See Append. § 139. ,.,,.. . .¦
3 See the whole of the section entitled Die Stadtpersonlichkeit und die
Stadtmark in Gierke's Genossenschaftsrecht, ii. 649.
* Buckingham (D. B. i. 143) looks like a little burg tacked on to a royal
manor.

48 Township and Borough.

phase. Little manors might be formed within it ; but
.it was no manor. It stood in a close relation to the
/king; but it was no royal manor.
Its court was, if you please, a royal court. I should
prefer to say that it was a national court, for the earl
took the third penny. The king drew from the town
a considerable revenue which was farmed by the sheriff.
There were the profits of the court and the profits of
the market. There were also house rents and land
rents {haivgafol and landgafol) which were paid by some,
but by no means all, of the inhabitants.- Inside as well
as outside the borough the free landholders seek lords
and pay a little money by way of 'recognition' for
patronage and warranty. But I can not find that in
Cambridge there ever was any royal demesne in the
narrowest sense of that word : any land whose produce
went to the king's barns. 'The burgesses,' says Domes
day Book, 'used to lend the sheriff their teams thrice
a year,' perhaps to help in tilling the neighbouring royal
vill of Chesterton. That is light service. Now Picot
the Norman wants such a loan nine times a year ; and
he also wants carts and carrying service. That is not
heavy ; that is not degrading ; there is no villeinage in it'.
On whose land then does this town, this borough,
stand ? He who dictated the plan of Domesday Book
deliberately and in instance after instance refused to
answer that question. He might have put Oxford and
Cambridge on the Terra Regis : he refused to do it. I
almost hear him saying what our University said in
1616: 'Of the soil of Cambridge no certain lord is
known.'

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

Lordship over the Borough. 49
But surely the king is lord ? Yes, our scribe might
have written Terra Regis once for all on the frontispiece
of the book, for the king is lord of all England.
These nice shades of the medieval do'minium are
difficult to catch. He wants to distinguish the king's
demesne from the fiefs. What is in a fief is not in
the king's demesne. But there are bits of who shall
say how many fiefs in the borough ? The Count of
Mortain has ten houses in Oxford and three in Cam
bridge. The king's lordship over Oxford differs by a
perceptible shade from his lordship over Bensington.
The king's lordship over Cambridge differs by a per
ceptible shade from his lordship over Chesterton. It
is a little less landlordly, a little more kingly, a trifle
less private, a trifle more public.
Then as to the waste land at Cambridge within and
without the ditch, I fancy that any ownership of it was
but feebly conceived. It was being used by the bur
genses. They complain that Picot, who has been building
a mill, has stolen part of the pasture'. These men are
the men of different lords. Taken in mass they have
no lord but the king. If Henry I. gives away a piece
of this green land as the site for a religious house,
he will not be resisted : perhaps he will do a popular
act'. But it is not necessary to talk of the ownership
of waste land yet : we can leave that matter in doubt
for a long while to come.
If we could obtain a history of the pasture rights,
we might be obtaining a history of much else. For
instance, we have to face the question of a burghal
'patriciate.' Is it to be a definite patriciate of the
hidesmen or yardsmen, the holders of full shares in the
arable? My guess would be that the old tenements
1 Append. § 126. ^ Append. § 128.
M. ^

50 Township and Borough.
went to pieces too fast to allow any permanent crystal
lization in this rustic shape. The account which Domes
day Book gives of Colchester and its fields, an account
unique in its particularity, shows us tenements of all sizes
from thirty acres down to an acre'. At least one other
principle may have been contending for the mastery,
Some boroughs are already divided into wards : there
^were ten wards, ten custodiae, in Cambridge. A littie
later we see in some towns that the ward has its here
ditary alderman. To-day the term -ward has a pacific,
municipal sound : still ought it not to mean something
that needs defence and is defended, defended against
external attack ? In short, is It not possible that we
have on our hands the military captains of the burgmen ?
And there may be hereditary lawmen or doomsmen
also. I must break off these conjectures and begin at the
other end such story as I have to tell. If we could
master the borough of the twelfth century we should,
be the better able to interpret the sparse evidence that
comes to us from remoter days. But I do not think
that we shall have mastered the borough of the twelfth
century if we have not looked beyond wall and ditch to
the arable fields and the green commons of the town.
There is much else to be studied besides the proprietary j:
rights which men have in the houses, the acres and the
pasture. By all means let us study the gilds and all
that is commonly regarded as the constitutional side of
burghal history. But proprietary rights in lands and
houses are Important ; rights of pasture were very im
portant. Real property is a great reality. If we do
not build our borough on the solid proprieted soil, we
shall build it in the air.
1 D. B. ii. 104. See Mr Round's papers in The Antiquary, vol. vi,
(1882).

German Theories of the Borough. 5 1
We have opportunities. There are charters and
terriers in the archives of our colleges which should be
forced to tell the tale of two ancient county towns which
comprised the Port Meadow at Oxford and the Port
Field at Cambridge, The oldest of all inter-university
sports was a lying match. Oxford was founded by
Mempricius in the days of Samuel the prophet, and
Cambridge by the Spanish Cantaber In the days of
Gurguntlus Brabtruc. A match in truth-seeking is a
much more thrilling contest ; the rules of the game are so
much more intricate. It goes on and I hope will never
be decided. You have many books that we must envy ;
I think that you will envy our Architectural History
and the Annals of our great town clerk. And yet there
is room ; there is soil.
But, glancing for one moment at those interesting
and stimulating German theories, dare I make any guess
about what will be accepted and what rejected by the
student of those old English boroughs which strike the \
keynote in our municipal history ? Something should
be risked or there will be nothing to contradict. With
us the bishop will play no such prominent part as is
assigned to him elsewhere. There will be no 'immu-
nist' holding the whole town. It will not be subjected
to manorial rule {Hofrecht). There may be many mini-
steriales, many 'knights' in it; but the community
will not consist of the dependants of one great lord.
The market will be important; but the borough court \
will be no mere market court, nor will its law be mainly
market law {Marktrecht). Voluntary, gild-like, asso
ciation will be active there; but not until late in the
day will it mould the institutions of our town. There
will be much freedom, much ancient, aboriginal freedom.
The borough community will be closely related to the
village community. The differentiating principle will be

52 Township and Borough.

found In those arrangements which have made this town
'a military centre and a political centre,' the stronghold|
the market and the moot-stow of a shire. ¦

IV.
The vill, town, borough of Cambridge contains about
3,200 acres, or in other words, about five square miles
of land. As vills go in Cambridgeshire, it is large, but
not extravagantly large. Larger vills are to be found
even outside the fen. It is cut into two not very unequal
parts by the river.
Within this territory there lay in the middle ages
the ditched, defensible and house-covered nucleus. In
the thirteenth century a suburb, well outside the ditch,
had grown up around the by no means ancient Priory
of Barnwell ; there was a small suburb at Newnham ;
and In various directions houses were arising along the
roads which entered the town. This nucleus also was
cut by the river ; the smaller half lay to the north ; the
two halves were connected by the bridge which gives
a name to borough and shire.
As the river flows now north, now east, it may be
convenient if I speak of the two halves of the vill as
cispontine and transpontine. Already in Henry 1 1 I.'s
day the Cambridge man placed himself south of the
river when he spoke of his town. What lay to the
north was 'the ward beyond the bridge.' To-day the
sight-seer who pays Cambridge a hurried visit will
perhaps never cross the river. Only one of our colleges,
Magdalene, and part of another, St John's, are trans
pontine. The agrarian plan suggests that at some remote time
there were two economically distinct communities, each

The Plan of Cambridge. 53
of which had its proper fields. Also it is a common,
though disputed, opinion that a Roman town once stood
on the river's northern bank'. When light dawns in the
thirteenth century, the transpontine fields are for the
more part paying tithe to one set of churches, the cis
pontine to another set. Moreover at the beginning of
our own century the theory of the inclosers seems to
have been that a cispontine house might have pasture
rights in the cispontine, but not in the transpontine fields.
On the other hand, no such rule was, so far as I am
aware, applied to the green commons : indeed there was
little green on the transpontine side. The evidence does
not all point in one direction ; and at any rate, if there
was a coalescence of two townships, I am inclined to
push this far back behind the Norman Conquest. The
very name of one of the two, if two there ever were,
seems irrecoverable".
In Domesday Book the borough of Cambridge is set
before us as a single whole, though it has been divided
into ten custodiae or wards. Thenceforward it appears
as a good specimen of the old shire-boroughs. It was
without a rival, without a second, as the chief town of
its county. It had castle and Jewry, market-place and
tolbooth, all complete. It was a 'port' with 'hithes'
and 'quays.' A fair held in one of its arable fields,
Sturbridge Field, was to become in course of time the
most famous of English fairs. Also it had some fifteen
or sixteen parish churches, and, measured by this index
of ancient wealth, might vie with Oxford. That it was
as rich or as populous as Oxford I should not contend.
The poll taxes of Richard I I.'s day suggest the pro
portion 5 : 4 in your favour ^ In the twelfth century
Cambridge will render an aid of £12 when Oxford
1 Append. § I. 2 Append. § no.
3 Powell, Rising in East Anglia, 121.

54 Township and Borough.
renders .^20' ; but under Edward I. its fee-farm rent
is full as heavy as that of Oxford^ Already in the
Confessor's time it paid geld for a hundred hides : that
is, it paid full ten times what the ordinary Cambridgeshire
village would pay. Clearly therefore in the eleventh
century it was not a vill of the common kind ; its taxable
wealth did not lie wholly in its fields. But fields it had.
It was cast in an agrarian mould.
Out of the 3,200 acres we must give but few to the
ditch-encircled patch of houses, or (since I believe that
murus will cover ditch and bank') I will say to intra
mural Cambridge. There are now about 300 acres of
green common : somewhat less than a tenth of the
territory. It lies for the more part along the river. As
we go back in our story we may have to increase this
quantity ; but not I think very largely within the historic
time. Then in 1800 there were two vast sheets of arable
land : the cispontine and transpontine fields. Speaking \
very roughly, we might set down each of these sheets
at 1,200 acres. There were also some leys of meadow;
but some at least of them had once been ploughed. The
amount of arable seems rather to increase than to diminish
as we go back to remote days. The margin of cultivation
has been very near to the centre of our town. And yet
If we begin to talk of hides of 120 acres, we may find
ourselves guessing that this territory, where near 40,000
people now live, was once laid out for the support of
hardly more than twenty barbarian households. The
' Domesday Book and Beyond, 175.
2 R H. ii. 788 793, 796: Oxford pays ^63. o^. 5^. Ibid. ii. 356:
Cambridge pays £,,0, plus ^20 by tale, plus 100.. of new increment.
Ultimately its rent was 105 marks or ^70. In the reign of Charles II. this
rent was sold to Sir George Downing, and under the will of his grandson,
Cdlege. ^°''^'' " """^ ^°™' P^" °^ '^' endowment of Downing
s Parker, Early History of Oxford, 236.

^n

%.

V.,-v o ^

oto^

1 St Giles.
2 St Peter ad castrum.
:j All Saints ad castrum,
4 St Clement.
5 St Sepulchre

j-o Ba''t°"'

10 St Benet.
11 St Botolph.
12 St John.
13 St Peter extra portam.
14 St Andrew

6 All Saints in the Jewry. 15 St Trinity.
7 St Michael. 16 Nunnery of St Radegund
8 St Mary in the Market. 17 Barnwell Priory.
9 St Edward. 18 Market.

The house-covered space is shaded ; the green comraoihs are dotted.

ROUGH SKETCH OF T<

To Newmarket

^ ^ H^P ; N G T O N

^

%

Scale : Tivo Inches to the Mile

TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE.

The Fields of Cambridge. 55
Cambridge of 1066 contained some 400 houses, the Cam
bridge of 1279 contained more than 500, the Cambridge
of 1 80 1 contained nearly 1,700. But the mess, the maze,
that those barbarians had made could only be cleared
up by Act of Parliament.
Starting at the hither end of the story, we can look
at the awards made and the maps drawn by the com
missioners who are inclosing the fields. The green
commons are not to be inclosed. The cispontine fields,
which are commonly known as the Barnwell Fields,
consist chiefly of four tracts, called Sturbridge Field,
Bradmore Field, Middle Field and Ford Field. In old
days the two fields which were as remote as possible from
each other, Sturbridge and Ford Fields, were reckoned
as a single field. This points to a ' three-field ' course of
culture. In 181 1 when certain tithe-owners have been
compensated and the municipal corporation has received
nine acres for that debated lordship, the lion's share falls
to Mr Panton, the successor of the Prior of Barnwell,
but several of our colleges, notably Jesus and St John's,
take large pieces. Altogether I reckon that about twenty-
two persons, 'natural and juristic,' had owned the land.
Then rights of pasture over It seem to have been success
fully claimed on behalf of upwards of a hundred houses
situated In the cispontine part of Cambridge. These
fields are now being covered by a dense mass of brick
and mortar. The railway station is in Middle Field.
The transpontine fields had been Grithow Field,
Middle Field, Little Field and the Carme Field. That
last name can hardly be older than the settlement of the
Carmelite Friars in Newnham. This seems to be the field
which in older documents bears the name of Port Field,
for a Port Field we had. These transpontine fields
swept along 'the backs of the colleges,' from the small
suburb at Newnham to the confines of the vill of Girton.

56 Township and Borough.
College gardens and cricket grounds have felt the
plough. The academic interest was yet stronger here
than it was on the other side of the town. Nine of
our colleges, besides your Merton, received allotments:
St John's and Jesus large allotments. The commoners
who were compensated seem to have had houses in the
transpontine part of the town. A handsome share went
to Sir Charles Cotton, the squire of the neighbouring
village of Madingley. He was a descendant of Sir John
Hynde, who was recorder of the borough and a rising
lawyer In those blessed days when monasteries were being
disendowed'. Now of these western or transpontine fields we have
in our University Library a field-book or terrier^ It
was made to all appearance soon after the middle of the
fourteenth century. It is the most elaborate thing of
its kind that I have ever seen. In each field it describes
the various furlongs or shots in such a manner that an
ingenious man, who had time to spare and a taste for the
Chinese puzzle, might depict them on a map. Then it
tells us of the strips in each furlong. It tells us how
many selions, ridges or beds, belong to a given man
and what Is their acreage. It tells us to whom they
pay their tithe.
Let me translate one small piece of the account that
Is given to us of Grithow Field. ' A furlong lying cross
wise to the field of Girton and abutting at its western
head upon the Mill-way. The selions of this furlong
are to be reckoned at their western head.' Then a part
of this furlong is described as follows :—
5 selions, which used to be 7, of the land of the Clerks of
Merton, containing about 3 a. 2 r. abutting on the aforesaid way
and tithing to St Giles.
1 Diet. Nat. Biog.; Hailstone, Hist, of Bottisham, 325 ff.
2 Append. § 47.

The Cambridge Field-Books. 57
I selion of the Hospital of St John the Evangelist, containing
about 2 R., abutting on the aforesaid way and tithing to St
Radegund. I selion of Robert Long now in the hand of the Prior of Barn
well, containing about i r., abutting upon the aforesaid way (the
green plot intervening) and tithing partibly to St Giles and
St Radegund. I selion of the Nuns of St Radegund, containing about i^ R.,
abutting upon the aforesaid way (the green plot intervening) and
tithing partibly to St Giles and St Radegund.
I must not dwell on the purely agrarian features that
are thus disclosed, the furlongs and ridges, the butts and
gores. They would be familiar to you, for this terrier
supplied Mr Seebohm with some of his best materials
when he was expounding the open field. I have also
been able to study, though only in a modern copy, a
terrier of the cispontine or Barnwell Fields, and by the
aid of these and of the minute account of Cambridge that
is recorded upon the Hundred Roll of 1279, I think that
I can answer in general terms a question of some interest:
Who owned these arable strips in the thirteenth and
fourteenth centuries ?
First let me say that when these terriers were made
the proprietary arrangement of the strips no longer
displayed that regularity which we may easily find in
the villages. The acres are no longer tied by legal
bonds into hides and virgates, into parcels of 60, 30 and
15 acres. Nor, as we look down the list of owners, do
we see the same names recurring in the same sequences.
The average size of the parcel that any man has in one
place is but little more than an acre; but some of the great
people, especially the Prior of Barnwell, have in some
cases got five or ten acres next each other. There is no
longer any of that equality or proportionality which the
dispersion of the strips was designed to secure. This
dispersion must have been as great a nuisance in the

58 Township and Borough.
fourteenth century as it was in the nineteenth. Indeed
we might be inclined to say that in 1350 it could not last
much longer, did we not know that it was going to last
for four hundred and fifty years, and did we not know or
guess that many people who had no arable strips turned
out their beasts to graze upon the idle field.
But If we go a little further back, to the early years
of the thirteenth century, we do find some regularity and
some recurrent sequences. I have seen a copy of a
charter by which one Maurice Ruffus gave fifteen acres,
a half-vlrgate, to St John's Hospital. These fifteen acres
consisted of thirty-six strips dispersed abroad in both
sets of fields, ex utraque parte aquae, and I think that
Maurice would have had to walk five or six miles in
order to make a tour of his fifteen acres. Now In at
least nineteen out of thirty-six cases he had Adam the
son of Eustace for one of his two neighbours'. That is
intelligible ; that Is as It should be ; we see traces of a
rota. Another sign of antiquity catohes our eye. We are
told to what churches the strips pay their tithe, and we
find that the distribution of the right to tithe is as
intricately Irrational as the distribution of proprietary
rights. In a field called Swinecroft, in which I happen
to live, I see a furlong or shot of some five-and-twenty
acres (in truth I see it whenever I look out of my
window) in which nine persons held strips and eight
churches took tithel Thus even If an owner succeeds
in getting several strips next each other, they must
remain separate for the purpose of decimation. In this
furlong, for example, the White Canons have eight ridges
lying together ; but two tithe to St Peter, the next four
to St Mary, and the last two divide their tithe be
tween St Mary and St Peter. This is a matter of some
' Append. § 89. 2 Append. § 32.

The Owners of the Strips. 59
importance. If the parishes in the town represented, as
some think, little communities, little townships, which
had coalesced, we should surely find that the strips
which tithed to a particular church would lie together.
But, except that as a general rule the transpontine fields
tithe to one set of churches, the cispontine to another,
I see no trace of such coalescence. All is in wild
disorder and seems plainly to tell of a time when men
' went with their land ' to what churches they pleased'.
The fields were made by people who knew nothing of
a parochial system. Whether they knew anything of
Christianity, who can tell ?
But let us look at the persons who own the strips
soon after the middle of the fourteenth century. And
first we will observe that not a strip is owned by the
corporation of Cambridge, or by the men of Cambridge
in any communal or collective fashion. I see no trace of
any arable which had been royal demesne land and had
passed to the corporation or community as part of the
vill that was granted to them.
We have nearly got rid of the colleges. We have
nearly scraped them off as though they were a modern
deposit. Merton already has its land, and the Univer
sity has a few strips, but only one Cambridge college Is
represented. It is Corpus Christi, a college of an unique
character that has been recently founded and endowed
by gilds of Cambridge townsmen. Instead of colleges
we now find religious houses. There are some strips
which belong to the Prior of Huntingdon, to the
Prior of Anglesey, to the Minoresses of Waterbeach
and Denny ; but the houses which have most stand
within the boundary of the vill. The White Canons of
1 D. B. i. 280 (Borough of Derby) : ' De Stori antecessori Walterii de
Aincurt dicunt quod sine alicuius licentia potuit facere sibi aecclesiam in
sua terra et in sua soca, et suam decimam mittere quo vellet.'

6o Township and Borough.

Sempringham have lately acquired a seat in the town and
some strips in its fields ; but they are new comers. The
great holders are the Priory of Barnwell, the Nunnery of
St Radegund and the Hospital of St John ; to these we
may add the House of Lepers at Sturbridge. St John's
Hospital stood within the ditch where St John's College
now stands, the other houses without the ditch, but
within the vill, the Lepers' Hospital lying far remote
from human habitation.
Now It is plain that we must treat these religious
houses as we treated the colleges. We must dissolve
them ; we must scrape them off as though they were a
modern deposit ; for modern they are : that is to say,
not one of them is as old as the Conquest. Thus the
question occurs: Whence did their endowments proceed?
From great people in great parcels or from small people
In small parcels ?
I believe that with few exceptions they came in small
parcels from small people, or rather from people who
were great only in Cambridge. First I will notice that
the two hospitals seem to be of burgensic foundation'.
We have two stories told by juries in the thirteenth
century about the Hospital of St John. A certain
burgess, Henry Frost by name, gave a plot of land to
the township of Cambridge for the construction of a
hospital. That is one story. The other tells how a
townsman called Henry Eldcorn, by the assent of the
community, built a hospital on a piece of poor, waste land
that belonged to the community. The point of both
stories is the same: namely, that the patronage of the
hospital, the right to choose a master, belongs, not to the
Bishop of Ely, who has usurped it, but to the men of
Cambridge, or, if they can not have it, then to their lord
the king". A similar complaint is made about the Lepers'
1 Append. § 72. 2 r. jj. i. 55 ; ii. 359.

Burgensic Hospitals. 6i
Hospital. Closely similar complaints are made by the
burgesses of Norwich', Northampton^ and Nottingham'.
These burgensic hospitals, these claims to patronage are
very interesting. Perhaps in no other quarter do we
hear so early what we can only construe as a corporate
claim. The men of the town as a mere mass of indi
viduals can hardly be patrons, co-owners of the patronage,
and yet in some sense or another the men of the town
ought to be patrons. Just because that sense ' quivers
on their lip ' but can not get itself into words, the bishop
has his chance. The immature, the nascent ' It ' can
hardly resist him.
Now I think it clear that these hospitals obtained
most of their arable strips from burgesses, or at any rate
from Inhabitants, of Cambridge. The same is true of
the canons of Barnwell and the nuns of St Radegund^
They are our Cambridge versions of the canons of
Oseney and the nuns of Godstow. Indeed a close
parallel might be drawn between Oseney and Barnwell.
In each case we see the rough Norman castellan and
the devout wife, the miracle or the vision, the location
of a few canons within or just without the castle, the
subsequent erection of an Augustinlan house in a more
commodious place by the river. But there is, if I
mistake not, a difference of some importance. Robert
of Ouilly can endow his canons with hides of land — I
was going to say in the Oxford fields, but had better
say in close proximity to the walls of Oxford. I can
not find that our Picot the sheriff or his successor Pain
Peverel provided anything within the limits of Cambridge
beyond a site.
The site at Barnwell, a matter of thirteen acres, was
1 R. H. i. 530. ^ R. H. ii. 2.
3 Records of Nottingham (ed. Stevenson), i. 91.
* Append. §§ 74—5-

62 Township and Borough.
given to Pain for this purpose by Henry I.' Apparently
it was a piece of the green common of the town. In
Edward I.'s day and again in Richard I I.'s the men, or
at least the lower orders, of Cambridge seem to be
protesting that the Priory inclosure stands where it
ought not, impeding their drift-way from one pasture to
another. So the rebellious 'commons' of 138 1 destroy
wall and fence and water-gate, to the Prior's great
damaged However, the canons had at one time been
popular in the town. They seem to have obtained a
third or more of the cispontine and a good share of the
transpontine fields by means of small donations. The
largest gift of which I read was made by a prior of the
house : a gift of 140 acres. They came to him from
his father, whose deeply interesting name was Osbert
Domesman. The case of the nuns is not dissimilar. Malcolm,
king of Scotland, provided them with a site of ten acres
outside the ditch. Perhaps, but this Is not certain, it
was carved from the green common, and perhaps
Malcolm thought that as Earl of Huntingdon a third of
the green common should be his to give away. But the
arable came from humbler quarters. A gift of fifteen
acres, of a half-virgate, was a handsome gift to the nuns'.
Your royal or noble founder sometimes does his founding
pretty cheaply. What he gives you is his name ; and it
is a valuable advertisement.
We can thus treat the religious houses as we treated
the colleges. They are a modern deposit and we scrape
them away. When In our retrogressive course we have
reached the year 11 00, they must be gone or nearly
gone. Stories Indeed come to us from Ely of acres in
Cambridge which were given to St Etheldreda in very
1 Append. § 128. 2 Append. § 131.
3 Append. § 74.

Endowment of Religious Hottses. 63
old days ; but to all seeming she no longer had those
acres at the Conquest, and these stories, true or false,
tell of small acquisitions'. Am I not right in saying that
in the early history of Oxford you do not now-a-days
assign any dominant influence to the nuns or the canons
of St Frideswide ? We have not even a St Frideswide.
The borough does not grow up under the shadow and
patronage of a great church.
However, in the twelfth and following centuries a
leading part in the agrarian history of the borough is
played by the piety, charity, otherworldliness of the men
of Cambridge. Ultimately, though at too late a day to
do much harm, claims to lordship over these fields will
be made by the successors of canons and nuns who
promised prayers in return for acres. More than half
the strips in our fields went to religion. Many had gone
by 1279, more by 1360. But still a good share was in
the living hand of lay and natural persons. And the
living hand was lively. When our terriers were made,
two considerable estates had lately been amassed. One
Stephen Morris, who inherited some strips, had bought
others from thirteen different persons. One Roger
Harleston, who seems to have been a new-comer in the
town, had purchased in seven different quarters. He is
a country gentleman with an estate at Cottenham. He
comes into Cambridge, has a house there, and amasses
what will be called ' Harleston's manor': it afterwards
passed to St John's College. He was mayor of Cam
bridge ; four times he represented the shire in Parliament.
During the insurrection of 1381 he seems to have been
odious to the rebels; his house in Cambridge was
pillaged by the mob^
I have before me a list of the mayors and bailiffs
who held office during the fourteenth century and the
1 Append. § 91. ^ Append. § 53.

64 Township and Borough.

last years of the thirteenth, and can say with some
certainty that among the leading men of the borough
'the landed interest,' if such we may call it, was well
represented. Very often the office-holders were strip-
holders or at any rate belonged to families which had
held strips. We must not indeed speak of a land-owning
aristocracy. I see men becoming mayors and bailiffs
and paying heavy taxes whom I can not connect with
the fields. Also, if we except a few people, such as
Roger Harleston, who seem to be buying out their
neighbours, the holdings of these burgesses are very
small if judged by a rural standard : far smaller than that
virgate of thirty acres which we ascribe to the ordinary
villein. Even the estate which Walter of Merton pur
chased seems to have comprised no more than two
virgates of arable in the Cambridge fields. It could not
be otherwise, so much has gone to pious uses. More
over, the rapidity with which these religious houses have
acquired multitudinous strips in small parcels provokes
the remark that the burgess can afford to give away his
land. No doubt he is often pious at life's end and his
heir's expense, but still agriculture is not the main source
of his prosperity. A little corn grown In the fields ekes
out a revenue derived from trade or craft. However,
it is clear that the Cambridge burgess who went to
Parliament often had a dash of the 'good husband'
about him'.
Though religion completed. It did not, I think, initiate
the disintegrating process, the process which destroyed
the old scheme of hide and yardland. During the
thirteenth century the acre-strips were passing from man
to man with marvellous rapidity. .He who has a dozen
acres will often have acquired them in half-a-dozen
different ways. They are like the bits of glass in a
1 Append. §§ 57—60.

The Burgensic Families. 65
kaleidoscope. They are always forming new proprietary
patterns'. Then the darkness settles down. What sort of men
were those burgenses of the twelfth century who paid for
the earliest charters, the men who wanted to farm the
borough and to have a gild merchant ? Who can say
with any certainty ? But of this I feel fairly sure that
some of the leading men of Cambridge were rich in
arable strips. The men who have many acres to give to
hospital, priory and nunnery, are bailiffs of the town and
in their court witness each other's charters.
Their constantly recurring names I am beginning to
know. One family I will mention ; it is that from which
proceeds the Merton estate in Cambridge. Walter of
Merton bought from the heir of a man who bought from
Eustace the son of Hervey the son of Eustace the son
of Dunning. The Merton estate comprised sixty arable
acres. It comprised also that 'stone house' which for
some inscrutable reason has been called the School of
Pythagoras : you had Plato's well and Aristotle's well at
Oxford. A great deal more land than this was at one
time and another in the hands of the descendants of
Dunning. This Dunning we have to place far back in the
twelfth century. Soon after the year 1 200 his grandson,
Hervey FitzEustace, is one of the foremost of those
men of Cambridge who are witnessing charters and
endowing religious houses, and, though the family parts
with much of its land, it remains in Cambridge and
well-to-do. It supplies the borough with mayors under
Edward I. and Edward II. Hervey had lands in other
parts of the shire. Hervey kept a seal of a bellicose
kind; it bore a mounted knight with drawn sword.
But, for all this, he was Hervey the Alderman, and
1 Append. § 69.
M. 5

66 Township and Borough.
Hervey the Mayor, and no earlier mayor of Cambridge
have I yet seen'. He was tallaged along with the other
men of the town, and paid less than some of them, less
than Bartholomew the Tanner, less than Kailly the
Tanner^ I had some hope of finding a knot of land-owning
'patricians,' the successors of old hidesmen. It is fading.
Already in the twelfth century, so it seems to me, the
burghal society is versatile and heterogeneous. Some
wealthy burgesses own land ; others own none. The
market has mobilized the land ; the land Is in the
market. Nor is it true that all the strips are held by men of
Cambridge. Men who are great or fairly great outside
Cambridge, men of county families, as we should say,
held patches In these fields : were the lowest freeholders,
the ' tenants in demesne ' of patches in these fields. For
instance, a Robert of Mortimer can give a whole plough-
land to the Hospital. He belongs to a family estated in
Norfolk and Cambridgeshire. It long retains some of
its strips, until ultimately they pass to Gonville Hall and
Caius College'.
This leads me to one other remark. We know that
according to law every landholder in England Is con
nected with the king by some longer or shorter thread of
tenure : C holds of B and B oi A and A of the king,
Land In a borough is not exempt from this rule. In the
case of each of these strip-holders we ought to be able
to detect the longer or shorter thread that ties him to
the king. Now we can see enough to say that these
threads are very numerous and make no simple pattern.
In this field all jumbled up together there were minute
fragments of the Huntingdon fief, which was held by the
kings of Scotland, of the Leicester fief and perhaps of
1 Append. §§ 79-80. 2 Append. §§ 83-7. 3 Append. § 104.

The Borough and Feudalism. 67
the de Vere or Oxford fief. The greatest honours in
England, the honour of Britanny and the honour of
Mortain are or have been represented'.
In Cambridgeshire this sort of arrangement, or rather
of chaos, is not peculiar to the borough. Feudal
geography lies all athwart the village geography. A
map which distinguished the manors, a map which
distinguished the honours, could hardly be drawn on any
smaller scale than that of six inches to the mile. But in
our borough field a larger scale would be needed. In
this I see the work of commendation, the work of those
wonderful beings who ' were so free ' that they could go
with their land to what lord they pleased. Norman rule
freezes the commendation into tenure, but the frozen sea
is billowy still. The strips that were commended to
Waltheof must be held of the king of Scotland, the
strips that were commended to the court beauty, to
Edith the Fair, must be held of the Breton counts.
Fifteen out of the sixty acres that Walter of Merton
purchased for his scholars have owed scutage to Earls of
Leicester, to Beaumonts and Montforts.
Cambridge does not look as if it had ever been a
feudal unit. Still less does it look as if it had ever been
a manorial unit. Agrarian unit it can not help being
after a sort. The barbarians willed it and graved their
will upon the land.

V.
If in the thirteenth century we look down upon the
borough field from the feudal point of view, we see
patch-work. If we look for the ownership or 'tenancy
in demesne' of the strips, we are looking through a
1 Append. §§ 102-3.
5—2

68 Township and Borough.
kaleidoscope. The hides have gone to pieces ; the litde
fragments that composed them are passing swiftly from
man to man, and are always forming new proprietary
patterns until many of them become quiescent in the
dead hand of priory or hospital, nunnery or college.
Even then many exchanges are made.
This, If true of the field, is yet truer of the intra
mural space and of the houses that stand upon it. At
Cambridge I can not see this nucleus as a densely
compacted group of houses. Vicos locant non in nostrum
more'm : we know those words very well ; but it Is so
much mos noster to see ' connected and coherent edifices '
in whatever we call a town, that we are wont to forget
the warning. Originally there will be a sparse and
straggling cluster of homesteads and cottages. Sua'm
qitisque domu^n spatio circumdai. It seems to me that
throughout the middle ages there was plenty of curtilage
In Cambridge : there were gardens and orchards- and
little paddocks. Materially and spiritually there was rus
in urbe. Also there was a good deal of unenclosed,
waste ground, which but slowly began to assume the
character of potential building sites, and therefore to cry
aloud for an owner'. You will remember how Dr Stubbs
has said that In Oxford ' there were considerable vacant
spaces which were apt to become a sort of gypsey
camping-ground for the waifs and strays of a mixed
population I'
Summa rusticitas. The pig was ubiquitous. In
abundant records we may read far more than is pleasant
of the filth of Oxford and Cambridge. But if they seem
exceptionally filthy, that Is not because they were nastier
than other boroughs, but because some of their In
habitants were learning to be nice, and, at least in
Cambridge, even under Elizabeth, there was a strong
1 Append. §§ 6ff. 2 const. Hist. iii. p. 618.

Houses and Rents. 69

smack of the farm-yard. It proceeded from 'houses
having broad gates',' gates receptive of cattle, houses
where ' good husbands ' dwelled. As we go back in our
history I see more of such houses. A few are ' stone
houses ' ; but building-stone was hard to come by.
Now of the houses in Oxford and Cambridge, their
holders and their rents, we may learn a great deal. No
other towns in England are so open to our view, for the
accounts that are given of them on the Hundred Rolls
of Edward I.'s time are matchlessly full. It is as if
King Edward had wished to set our schools of history
a task that might be begun at home.
In Cambridge the houses change hands very quickly.
Often a burgess is the owner, or lowest freeholder, of
three or four houses which have come to him by as many
routes. This shows that not a few of the Inhabitants
must live in houses which they hold for years or at will.
Sometimes three or four rents are paid out of one house
to three or four landlords who stand one above the other
on the scale of tenure. Often the lowest freeholder pays
what looks like a full rent. At Oxford the amount of
rent that is paid to the religious is very large ; indeed It
seems an exception, rather than the rule, If a house
pays nothing to Oseney, Abingdon, Ensham, Godstow,
St Frideswide's or some other convent. A good many
of these rents are, I take it, rents charge (or, as we
now say, rentcharges) constituted by the piety of the
burgesses. It is a remarkable feature of the boroughs
that the tenurial rent paid by tenant to lord becomes
practically indistinguishable from the mere rentcharge
which implies no tenure. But, looking back to the
Oxford of 1086, we see in it many houses belonging to
magnates, bishops, earls and barons, and if we ask what
has become of these houses in 1279, I suppose the
1 Cooper, Annals, ii. 333.

yo Township and Borough.

answer is that they have been given to the religious by
the successors of the shire thegns. A house or a rent
might easily be coaxed from a well-to-do man who had
no other Interest in the town. At Cambridge, where
the ecclesiastical element was hardly so strong, I see a
good deal of rent going out of the town into lay hands,
the hands of knightly families seated in Cambridgeshire^
and the neighbouring counties'.
Then in Oxford there are a few houses, and ap
parently only a few, which pay what is called 'landgable.'
They pay a rent (generally a light rent) to the bailiffs of
the borough 'towards the farm of the vill.' In Cambridge
we distinguish between the hawgable that Is paid for
houses and the landgable that is paid for arable strips,
Less than half our houses, much less than half our acres,
make the payment. In 1279, though not quite trivial, it
was certainly very light, and I can not but think that a
penny or two pence for a house, a half-penny or farthing
for an acre would have been a light rent in the Cambridge
of the remotest days. Out of all the landgable and
hawgable, the bailiffs of our town obtain less than .^8.
They have to pay about ^70 at the Exchequer for the
farm of the borough. To all appearance therefore house-
rents and land-rents have formed but a small part of the
revenue that the king drew from the townl
It is curious how old English terms which should
simply mean house-rent and land-rent seem to have
become distinctive of the boroughs. They persist there
even when their meaning has been forgotten, and men
fancy that the ' high-gable rent ' has to do with the high ¦
gables of their houses. The names are old and the rents ;
look old.
Now it would be interesting to inquire in borough
after borough why some houses pay gafol and others do
1 Append. § IOO. 2 Append. § 107.

Landgafol and Hawgafol. 71
not. One natural suggestion would be that originally
the burden was general, but that the houses which came
to the hands of the religious escaped from this charge as
they escaped from many other charges. However, the
Cambridge evidence does not point in this direction.
Many of the houses and strips in which the convents
are concerned pay the gafol; indeed the Priory of
Barnwell contributed more than a third of the total sum
that the bailiffs received, while they obtained nothing
from many tenements in which neither magnates nor
churches were interested. Is not this, I would ask, a
relic of commendation ? Some men ' sought ' the king
and paid a few pence for his patronage ; other men chose
other lords'.
In course of time mesne tenure becomes politically
unimportant in the borough ; the mere existence of the
feudal thread is sometimes forgotten. The landlord Is
reduced to the position of the man with a rentcharge.
The burgesses claim the right to give their houses by
their last wills 'like chattels.' The borough court enables
them to uphold this custom. It had an important effect.
It made escheat rare, very rare. The medieval land
lord, who had enfeoffed a tenant in fee simple, had still
a strong interest in the land. The land was still his in a
very real sense, for it would be his to enjoy If the tenant
died without an heir. Take away or reduce towards zero
the chance of an escheat, then his grasp on the land will
be relaxed. Also the burgesses exclude, if they can, by
a custom of their borough court, all rights to wardship,
reliefs, heriots. The citizens of York, says Domesday
Book, pay no relief^ But if you deprive a lord of these
casualties, he is practically reduced to the position of
a man with a rentcharge'. We may say that the
1 Append. § 109. 2D. B.i. 298 b.
3 Placit. Abbrev. 310: The king takes all escheats in London. Ipswich

72 Township and Borough.
'mercantile spirit of the borough affects the houses ; it
claims to bequeath them 'like chattels,' and it is in the
boroughs that landownership first reaches a modern
degree of purity and intensity'. But have we given the
full explanation ? Why are the lords so weak that they
must suffer these changes ? Because feudally, tenurially,
the borough is patch-work. The country knight with
three or four houses within the wall will not find it
worth his while to maintain that vigilant control which
would secure the feudal dues. He will not keep a court
in which the deaths of tenants will be presented. He
must be content with his rent, and already in the
thirteenth century the value of money Is falling.
The proprietary state of affairs in these old boroughs,
seems to me admirably suited for the production and
maintenance of a pure rent-paying tenure, which in the
end will become a mere 'cash-nexus.' We have external
lords ^nd an internal court which is manned by their
tenants. And then the burghal community is always
coming into closer contact with the king, who has
privileges of all sorts for sale. We might almost say
that it and he tacitly conspire to squeeze out all lordship
but his. We might add that they conspire to deceive or
perplex modern historians by speaking of the borough as
forming part of or standing on the king's demesne. Well,
it is the king's demesne borough; no lord intervenes
Domesday (Black Book of the Admiralty, vol. ii.), p. 141 : No tenant in the
town is to do homage or fealty to his chief lord. Journal of Archaeol.
Assoc, xxvii. 471 : The burgesses of Hereford ' do not use to do fealty or any
other foreign service to the lord of the fees ' but only pay rents. Lyon,
History of Dover, ii. 320: ' No fealty, relief or other suit shall be due to no
lord of the fee for no lands or tenements, the which be within the franchise
[of the town of Romney].'
1 Gierke, Genossenschaftsrecht, ii. 675 : ' Das Grundeigenthum in der
Stadt. ..erschien als ein freies und reines Individualrecht und somit uber-
haupt als das erste deutsche Privateigenthum an Grund und Boden, welches
ganz und nur Privateigenthum war.'

Manors in the Borough. 73
between him and the community taken as a whole,
though the relations in which he stands to the various
houses and acre-strips are infinitely various, and from
many he gets no farthing of rent. If we ask by what
right he tallages other people's tenants, the best answer
may be that those other people are between the upper
and the nether mill-stone, and that the burgesses have
good reason for submitting to the exactions of a king
who has sold them much and has much to sell them. It
is well to be his burgesses, no matter whose tenants they
may be, if he can ban all the trade of Cambridgeshire to
their doors and withdraw the sheriff from their court.
So they make free use of his royal name'.
However, there were little manors in Cambridge.
About the history of some of the proprietary units which
bore this name of ' manor ' In recent centuries, I am very
uncertain, and I am by no means sure that all of them
were ancient, or even had ancient kernels. I seem to
see one of them being put together very rapidly In the
fourteenth century by Roger of Harieston, mayor of the
borough and knight of the shire. Also I doubt whether
some of these proprietary units would ever have earned
the name of ' manor ' at the hands either of the modern
lawyer or of the historical economist. For one thing,
they were very small. For another, though the Master
of the Hospital seems to have exacted some boon-days
from his tenants, I doubt the land was tilled by means
of labour-service. Courts, however, were kept. The
Master of the Hospital kept a court at Newnham;
Leonius Dunning kept a court in the same suburb I
1 The old boroughs are tallaged along with the royal manors ; but this
seems to me an innovation. In the oldest financial rolls we see a special tax
{auxilium, donum) thrown onto the old boroughs. See Domesday Book and
Beyond, 174.
2 Append. § 112.

74 Township and Borough.
I fancy that the estate which had about It the strongest
manorial character was the Merton estate. I speak
under correction, but it seems to me that a good many
of the strips which formed this proprietary unit were not
In the fields of Cambridge, but in the adjoining fields
of Chesterton, Grantchester and Girton, and the Grant
chester strips had not come from the Dunnings ^ There
was nothing to prevent a man from working strips of a
borough field along with strips of other fields Into a
manor, and getting them tilled by villeins who lived in
neighbouring villages. In Cambridgeshire, as I have
already said, the manorial geography of the thirteenth
century is lying all athwart the village geography, or
common-field geography, of the older time.
Then we observe that the lords of these manors are
often paying rents to the bailiffs of the town, are paying
rents to the nascent municipal corporation. Take the
Prior of Barnwell for instance. He pays In one sum
£2. ijs. for landgable and hawgable. Some of the
strips and some of the houses that he acquired owed
gafol and he must now pay it to the bailiffs of the town
who are the king's farmers. Here are the elements of a
nice little quarrel. If the Town becomes conscious of Its
personality, will it not assert that the Prior Is its tenant
and holds his land ' of ' the Town at a rent of fifty-seven
shillings ? The Scholars of Merton pay ^s. lod. The
Nuns pay, the Hospital pays, the Mortimers pay.
All along from remote days there has been a borough
court, an old national court whose profits went to king
and eari : two pence to the king, a penny to the earl.
It Is a court for the town ; not merely for the intra-mural
space, but for the whole town, the five square miles.
This burghal moot, the one old organ of the borough,
claims jurisdiction over the fields ; in a sense the fields
1 R. H. ii. 459, 565.

Firma Burgi. jc^

are its fields. Early in the thirteenth century people who
are great or fairly great outside Cambridge go into the
borough court to litigate over the title to acres that lie
in the fields\ If a lord distrains for rent, if Leonius
Dunning or the Master of the Hospital distrains for rent,
the replevin action will be brought against him in the
borough court^ The land-owners went into that court
to execute their deeds of conveyance ; their wills were
proved there.
Whether this moot exercised any regulative control
over the culture of the fields I can not say. So again,
as to the regulation of the pasture rights, I have little
but darkness or ignorance to report until the fifteenth
century is reached. What was happening then we shall
see hereafter. Great people, however, such as the Prior
of Barnwell and the Master of the Hospital, could be
presented and amerced in the borough court for sur
charging the pasture.
But now let us fix our eyes upon a central chapter in
the long story of the borough field. In the twelfth
century the burgesses of Cambridge want to farm the
town. After some temporary leases, they made a final
settlement with King John. He granted to them and
their heirs the vill of Cambridge. They were to hold it
freely and quietly, entirely, fully and honourably in
meadows and pastures, mills, pools and waters at a rent
of ^40 blanch and /20 by tale. The earl's rights, for
he also had been interested In the revenue of this old
shire-borough, were purchased by an annuity of ^10
paid to Earl David and his assignees'*.
Now we all regard ' the purchase of the fee-farm ' as
1 Append. § 114. 2 Append. § 113-
3 Cooper, Annals, i. 37. For the third penny of the boroughs, see an
excellent note by Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, 287.

y6 Township and Borough.

an Important step, and as such the men of Cambridge
regarded It. They had paid Henry II. 300 marks of
silver and a mark of gold that they might have their
town at farm, et ne vicecomes se inde intromittat^ . That
is the main point : — the sheriff" is not to meddle. The
borough court is to be free from his control. But could
anything be ruder than the words that are used? In
form we have a grant of a thing, a vill, a tract of land,
to a party of men, who are in some fashion to be its
co-owners, they and their heirs.
Have you ever pondered the form, the scheme, the
main idea of Magna Carta ? If so, your reverence for
that sacred text will hardly have prevented you from
using in the privacy of your own minds some such words
as 'inept' or 'childish.' King John makes a grant to the
men of England and their heirs. The men of England
and their heirs are to hold certain liberties of that prince
and his heirs for ever. Imagine yourself imprisoned
without the lawful judgment of your peers and striving
to prove while you languish in gaol that you are heir to
one of the original grantees. Now-a-days it is only at a
rhetorical moment that Englishmen 'inherit' their liberties,
their constitution, their public law. When sober, they do
nothing of the kind. But, whatever may have ' quivered
on the lip' of Cardinal Langton and the prelates and
barons at Runnymead, the speech that came was the
speech of feoffment. Law if it is to endure must be
Inherited. If all Englishmen have liberties, every
Englishman has something, some thing, that he can
transmit to his heir. Public law can not free itself from
the forms, the individualistic forms of private law'.
- But really there is more individualism than you might
think in this arrangement for 'farming the town.' I need
^ Cooper, Annals, i. 28.
2 Gierke, Genossenschaftsrecht, ii. 429 ff.

The Bailiffs and the Community. 77

not say that the liability for this rent is not going to be
merely the liability of a corporation, Madox showed-^
once and for all (it was his great exploit) that the liability
was the liability of all the burgesses and every burgess'.
Indeed the nascent corporation had little or no property
which was ' its ' and not ' their ' property, if we except
some feebly conceived right in the soil on which 'they'
pastured 'their' cattle. King John looks to them, not to
any 'it.' But you might at least suppose that they, taken
somehow in the mass, mean to share the profit or bear
the loss of this transaction. That, I believe, is not the
plan. The annually elected bailiffs are (if you will
forgive the phrase) to ' run ' the borough.
In the unreformed borough of later times you will
often find that there is some officer called a treasurer or
chamberlain who is receiving the greater part of the
corporation's revenue and who accounts for it In the
decent, modern fashion. But he does not receive the
whole revenue or make all the payments that must be
made. The oldest part of the revenue is collected by
older officers, namely the bailiffs, and out of it they make
the oldest of all payments : In particular, they discharge
the fee-farm rent of the town. And when you look
closely into the arrangement you will find that these
bailiffs are still taking the risk of loss. If the revenues
that they collect are insufficient to satisfy the fee-farm
rent, then the loss should fall on them, though all the
burgesses are liable to the king.
That is the point of a good many stories which lie
scattered up and down. I will take one from Mr Boase.
Thomas Cromwell is told that the men of Oxford would
like to have the lands of the dissolved friaries. ' The
greatest occasion of the poverty of this town is the
payment of their fee-farm. Such as before they have to
1 Madox, Firma Burgi.

78 Township and Borough.
be bailiffs hath be pretty occupiers, if in there yere corn
be not at a high price, then they be not able to pay their
fee-farm. And for the worship of their towne they must
that yere keep the better houses, feast their neighbours,
and wear better apparel, which makith them so poor
that few of them can recover again'.' So in 1447 the
Gloucester folk say that, as their revenue falls short by
;i^20 of their fee-farm rent, 'in time the town will be
without balllffsl' So In 1276 It is said that 'they who
have once been bailiffs of Lincoln can scarcely rise from
poverty and misery'.' In Cambridge there were four
bailiffs. Each of them had certain revenues assigned to
him and had to find as best he might a certain sum
towards the fee-farm rent. At Cambridge, as at Oxford,
there was a king's mill to be managed ; it was an
important affair. But each year the incoming mayor
and bailiffs bought from their predecessors and after
wards sold to their successors the chattels that were in
the mill'. They were liable, and liable in the last resort,
for all the repairs of the mill, and in 1392 a royal writ
forbade them to exact for this purpose any subsidy from
the community I
It is a curiously clumsy and, I should say, a curiously
individualistic plan. The communal element in it con
sists in the community's power of forcing a man to serve
as bailiff. But suppose that the bailiffs make a profit. What
ought they to do with it.? I believe that the oldest
answer is : Stand a dinner. You will find that a dinner
is often expected of the bailiffs. In the sixteenth century
the bailiffs' ' bankett ' caused searchings of heart among
1 Boase, Oxford, 112: London to Cromwell, 8 July, 1538.
2 Gloucester Corporation Records, ed. Stevenson, p. 15.
3 Green, Town Life, ii. 250. 4 Cooper, Annals, i. 180.
^ Ibid. i. 140.

Medieval Individualism. 79

the civic fathers at Oxford. In 1563 your citizens think
that 'a small drinking' will do instead. In 1565 they
repent themselves and will have the banquet after all ;
but in 1 571 economy (or was it puritanism ?) and a small
drinking are once more triumphant'.
Some part of the gluttony with which the rulers of
the boroughs were accused in 1835 was a survival from a
very old time when, if money was to be spent for the
good of the town, there was but one obvious way of
spending it. Those were not the days of baths and
wash-houses and free libraries, of electric lighting and
technical education. The common good of the town is~,
the common good of the townsfolk ; and this means a
banquet, or at least a small drinking ^
It is long before the community outgrows the old,
automatic, self-adjusting, scheme of ' common ' rights and
duties. Cambridge was very dirty ; its streets were
unpaved. In 1330 the masters of the University com
plained to the king in Parliament. What, let us ask,
will be the answer to their petition } How ought the
town to be paved ? Should the municipal corporation
let out the work to a contractor, or should it institute a
' public works department ' ? Nothing of the sort. The
mayor and bailiffs should see that every man repairs the
road over against his own tenement'. That is the way
in which the men of Cambridge should pave the town of
Cambridge. That is the way in which they will pave It
in the days of Henry VIII. and of George III.'
1 Records of the City of Oxford, 306, 311, 337. Compare Cooper,
Annals, iii. 146.
2 In 1829 Mr Taunton, arguing for the Corporation of Cambridge in one
of the disputes about tolls, supposes that the bailiffs had been entitled to
apply any profit that they made ' for the payment of the expenses of their
office, and perhaps also— and I do not see any great harm in it if the fact
was so— for the purpose of paying for a good dinner once a year.' See
Gierke, Genossenschaftsrecht, ii. 370 ff.
3 Rolls of Pari. ii. 46 ; v. 429-430. * Cooper, Annals, i. 409 ; iv- 429-

8o Township and Borough.

The men of Cambridge after many struggles obtained
control over a great fair. It was to become the greatest
/fair in England. What was their idea of the manner in
which this ' franchise ' should be made profitable to the
town ? It was this, that every burgess should, if he
wished It, have a booth of his own in the fair. That
booth was to be his vendible, heritable, bequeathable
booth, though none but a burgess was to be capable of
holding it. Indeed in course of time a very curious
form of property was developed. The booth was treated
as copyhold property 'held of the corporation by the
burgess, and yet you will understand that the material
booth only existed for a few weeks in the year. The
booths were erected In one of the arable fields ; the
owners of the strips made ' no complaint since the
refuse of the fair was such good manure. Far indeed
was It from the minds of the men of Cambridge that the
whole profit of this ' franchise ' should go into a common
chest and be expended for the good of an 'it.' The fair
was their fair, and they (each for himself) meant to make
profit thereout'.
V No ; the Town which has rights and duties, the
Town which owes and is owed money, the Town which
can make a contract even with one of the townsmen, the
Town which can be landlord or tenant, the Town with
which the treasurer can keep an account, slowly struggles
into life. If we are to understand the process we must
study at close quarters the methods in which the affairs
of the borough are conducted, the growth and expenditure
of a revenue, the Incidence of profit and loss. We must
1 Cooper, Annals, i. 149, 150; ii. 70, 133, 270, 325. However, there
were 'treasurer's booths,' the rents of which went to the common chest.
The right of the individual burgess in his 'booth' is a very curious instance
of the iura singulorum in re universitatis. The statement about the
manure is from Defoe's description: Cooper, Annals, iv. 176.

The Towns Lordship over the town. 8i
watch carefully for the first appearance of the common
chest, for the appearance of a treasurer, and for the
appearance of a council that administers property beside
or in the stead of the old moot that deemed dooms.
What I may call the business side of municipal life must
come by its rights. Political and constitutional history
will thereby gain a new reality. If we fail to see this
need, it is because we carry our methods of business into
an age which knew them not and our thoughts Into an
age which did not and could not think them.
We go back to King John's charter. In some sort,
some vague sort, the vill of Cambridge has for centuries
past belonged to 'the men of Cambridge.' And now it
is to belong to them in some other and some more
definite sense. They and their heirs are to hold It of
King John and his heirs at a rent. When we think of
the grantor and his royal rights, of the grantees and
their complex interests, of the strips In the fields and the
odds and ends of sward, of the green commons of the
town, of the house-covered nucleus, of the potential
building sites, of the patch-work of fiefs, the net-work of
rents, the borough court and the little manors, we shall
say that King John's, language is hardly worthy of the
occasion. There will be a deal of disputation before a
jury of London merchants puts the right or wrong
accent on his majesty's words.

VI.
What did King John mean, or rather, what did he
really do when he granted the town of Cambridge to the
burgesses of Cambridge and their heirs ? On the one
hand, did he mean to place the burgensic community, or
the burgesses taken somehow in the mass, upon the feudal 6

82 Township and Borough.
ladder of land-tenure, so that this community would hold
every inch of the soil of the vill either ' in demesne ' or
'in service.' To put the question in a more modern
shape : — Was this community to be owner of the waste
and landlord of all the tenanted land } Or, on the other
hand, was the community merely to step into the sheriff's
shoes as collector and farmer of certain royal revenues,
house rents, land rents, market tolls and the profits of
mills and courts ?
If the community is to be landlord of the whole vill,
then strict logic will compel us to say that It is lord of the
Earl of Huntingdon, lord of the Earl of Leicester; It
stands feudally between the king and some mighty people
who perhaps are unaware that scraps of their fiefs lie in
the fields of Cambridge. Also, and this is of more Im
portance, no tenement in Cambridge can now escheat to
the king. If It escheats to no lower lord, it escheats to
the community.
I believe that we may say with some certainty that
the king did not mean to abandon the escheats'. The
, sheriff had not been entitled to them ; the burgesses
would not be entided to them. At the present day
the municipal corporation of London still, so I under
stand, holds in fee-farm not only 'the city of London,'
but also 'the county of Middlesex.' We do not, however,
conceive that it is a landlord Interposed between the
Queen and the Middlesex freeholder. But if the com
munity of Cambridge Is not to have the escheats, has It
any seignory, any lordship of any sort or kind over the
vill ? And what of the waste lands within and without the
ditch ? A sheriff would not have been entitled to make
his own profit of them.
I think it fairiy plain that the king did not mean to
abandon his hold, such as it was, upon the waste. Still
' .'Append. § ii6.

Escheat and Approvement. 83
the question was not pressing, and the state of affairs was
complicated. The intramural waste consisted chiefly of
market places, streets and lanes daily used by the inhabi
tants. The extramural waste consisted chiefly of green
commons, upon which the beasts of burgesses, canons,
nuns and knights were rightfully grazing. Apparently
Henry I. had given away a piece of green common In
order that Pain Peverel might build a priory upon it';
but I doubt the king would have claimed more than a
somewhat indefinite right of innocuous 'approvement.'
Tenants of very great people were turning their beasts
onto the waste.
Then in 1330 there was an event of importance. The
townspeople went to the king with a pitiful tale of a
crushing fee-farm rent and inadequate resources. They
asked leave to 'approve',' that is, to make their profit of,
the small lanes and waste places of the town. The king
told them that a jury might be summoned to inquire
whether their prayer could be granted without damage
to him or to others. If an inquest was taken, the record
is not forthcoming ; at least it has been searched for on
more than one critical occasion. Three centuries after
wards the Cambridge gownsmen will protest that the
burgesses let the matter drop'.
I doubt It. Very soon after this the corporation— for
we may fairly speak of a corporation now — began to
grant leases of bits of 'waste' or 'common' ground within
the ditch, and such leases were accepted by the colleges.
This was just the time, the middle of the fourteenth
century, when in rapid succession colleges were being
founded at Cambridge. There were lanes to be stopped ;
nooks and corners to be utilized; the potential were
1 Append. § 121.
2 For this word, see Oxf Eng. Diet.
3 Cooper, Annals, i. 84; Rolls of Pari. ii. 47-
6—2

84 Township and Borough.
becoming actual building sites. I am inclined to infer
that the burgesses had obtained the desired licence, and
not that they had taken French leave. You will see,
however, that they had made what might prove to be an
awkward admission: John's charter had not given them
any absolute mastery over these waste places'. On the
other hand, at least If no royal licence had been obtained,
the colleges were making awkward admissions when they
accepted leases. Then In the fifteenth century the kings
made admissions. Henry VI., when he was founding
King's College, bought divers lanes and void places from
the corporation, and Edward IV. requested the corpora
tion to sell some of its (or their) common land to Queens'
College I
Such transactions are very Interesting in my eyes.
I fancy that It is in the course of dealings with intra
mural 'waste' that a true corporate ownership of land
first sharply severs itself from the old nebulous community.
The piece of land that Is let on lease ceases to be 'common'
in the sense that it can be used In common by the men of
the town. The rent that takes Its place should not be
divided between them, but should be expended for the
good of 'the town.' The Town that seals leases, that
takes rents. Is becoming a person ; it is ascending from
' the ' lower case ' and demands a capital T.
I see this process In another quarter. Slowly emerges
the idea that the Town Is the lord of all the houses, or at
least of all that pay the haw-gavel. We have an oppor
tunity of studying the growth of this idea. You know
that when a tenement Is to be given in mortmain, the
king orders that inquiry be made whether the gift will
damage him or any one else {inquisitio ad quod damnum).
In answer to this question, the jurors will talk about the
tenure of the land. Now in the oldest inquests relating
1 Append. § 122. 2 Append. § ,20.

The Corporation as Lord. 85
to Cambridge, the theory expressed by the verdict is that,
if a tenant holds of no one else, he holds in chief of the
king, even though he pays gavel to the men of the town :
they collect the king's rents, but they are not lords of the
land. There is a change about the middle of the four
teenth century. We then hear a distinct assertion that
' the men of Cambridge ' stand as mesne lords between
the king and the people who pay the gavel'.
Then at the beginning of the sixteenth century the i-'
corporation obtained an important recognition of its lord
ship. Two colleges, Michael House and Gonville Hall,
went to it for mortmain licences. The admission was
made that a certain manor which had been in the hands
of great people, the Mortimer manor with 99 acres of
arable land 'in the fields and town of Cambridge,' was
'held of the corporation'. That escheats were ever
claimed I do not know: that seems to me the weak
spot in a Town's feudal armour.
There is a point of view whence we may regard the^
fourteenth century as the golden age of the boroughs.
The transition from 'community' to corporation is accom- |
plished: the town (if I may repeat the phrase) gets its \
capital T. This is not pure gain to town or nation,
and some have seen here the beginning of the long
process which culminates in shame and disaster. The
conciliar constitution, which takes the place of the looser
moot constitution, may easily become a narrow oligarchy.
The ' all ' that is unity will not coincide with, may stand
far apart from, the 'all' of Inhabitants. But there is much
to be said of the valuable lessons in the political art which
Englishmen were teaching themselves in their town halls',
and at any rate there was a great technical advance. The

1 Append. § 117. '' Append. § ii8.
3 Green, Town Life, ii. 273.

86 Township and Borough.
TTown Is a person, and may be a landowner among land
owners, lessor, hirer, creditor, debtor. It will soon begin
to speculate in land. The corporation of Cambridge will
take a lease of the Mortimer manor, thus becoming tenant
of its tenant'. I believe that some similar transacdon
with Merton College complicated the dispute of 1803'.
When the White Canons of Sempringham had been
disendowed, the Town acquired their lands and became
the owner of strips In those fields over which it claimed a
lordship'.
V Does it own the green commons ? There will be
difficulties about the development of ownership in that
quarter. In the first place, there are powerful 'commoners'
who stand outside the community: the Prior of Barnwell
for instance. In the second place, there Is a growing class
of small folk, who are apt to call themselves 'the commons
of the town,' though they also are getting left outside the
corporate community, and they take a deep Interest In the
green commons of the town, as is evident at the insurrec
tion of 1 38 1. Some control over both the green land and
the idle field the corporation exercised. When the Prior
turned out too many beasts, they were impounded, and
in 1505 arbitrators decided that he must be 'sessed and
stinted ' according to the quantity of his land, like other
people'. The exact nature of this stint I do not know,
but from what follows I fancy that it had been of the old
rural kind which gives the arable a strong claim upon the
pasture. If so, it might well be Unpopular among 'the
commons of the town.' Trouble was brewing in that
quarter. Did the corporation own the green land, and.
If so, could it do what it pleased with Its own?
' Cooper, Annals, i. 298 ; iii. 19. 2 Append. § 145.
3 Cooper, Annals, ii. 71.
* Cooper, Annals, i. 279. Also the corporation seems to have received
four pence an acre for saffron planted in the fields (ibid. 344); I suppose
that the planting of saffron broke the common course of cultivation.

Muiticipalisation and Insurrection. 87
In Edward VI. 's day it seems to have licensed some
few inclosures. There was an outcry. ' A pece of noysom
ground is taken in owte of the common and enclosed with
a muddle wall at the ende of Jesus lane, for the whyche
the incorporation of the towne is recompensed, but not
the whole inhabytauntes of the towne, which finde them
selves injured'.' Thus the corporation of the town, the
all that is unity, no sooner begins to realize and exercise
its ownership than it is opposed to a clamorously plural
all, which find 'themselves' injured.
We have reached 1549. Such complaints were re
ceiving encouragement in high quarters. There was a
serious insurrection. It was the time of Kett's rebellion,
and the 1549 like the 1381 leaves its mark on our fields.
The fences went down and up went a rude hedge-breaker's
hymn telling how the stakes were flung into the river.
Syr I thinke that this wyrke
Is as good as to byld a kyrke
For Cambridge bayles truly
Gyve yll example to the cowntrye
Ther comones lykewises^ for to engrose
And from poor men it to enclose.
******
The poor say god blesse your harte
For if it contynewyd they shuld smarte
The wives of it also be glad
Which for ther cattell lyttel mete had
Some have but one sealy cow
Wher is no hay nor straw in mowe
Therefore it is gud consciens I wene
To make that comon that ever hathe bene'
'To make that comon that ever hathe bene': — but
'common' will bear many shades of meaning, and these
hedge-breakers do not seem to find their ideal in a
'municipalization of the land.'
1 Cooper, Annals, ii. 38. ' Can this word be right ?
3 Cooper, Annals, ii. 41.

88 Township and Borough.

The inclosures had not, I think, been of a very
serious kind'. The ruling body, so far as I can see,
was endeavouring to play a conservative part, and to
maintain the ancient rustic arrangement. The pasture
was still to subserve the arable. Old houses, more
especially those with broad gates, might send beasts
to the green, and, for the rest, the number of cattle was
to be proportioned to the shares of tilled land'. There
was still a town bull. All who turned beasts onto the
common ground were to pay for the support of this
august animal', and were to put their catde before the
common herd. In Oxford also there was at this time a
common herd, and a habitation for him was to be built
over Port Mead Gate^
But there were strip-holders who would not contribute :
the colleges. More and more strips had been falling into
their hands. In 1554 they had, we are told, refused to
be rated for the quantity or quality of their catde. They
felt, I fear, that they had no common ground with the
common herd. And now we begin to hear about the
fee-farm. These scholars, who 'have nothing but by
suffrance' In the common ground, will not permit the
burgesses to make profit of the soil as by setting willows
and other gainage towards the levying of their fee- farm
wherewith they stand charged to the Queen's highness'.
A Town which thinks itself oppressed always tries to
show that the security of the fee-farm rent is being
impaired. In 1579 the corporation desired to inclose a piece of
green for a short while and to employ the profits in
raising a hospital for the relief of the poor. The
University was aroused. Letters came down from the
' Cooper, Annals, ii. 38.
2 Cooper, Annals, ii. 55. 3 Cooper, Annals, ii. 85.
« Oxford City Documents, 428. '" Cooper, Annals, ii. 88.

Ownership of the Common Ground. , 89

Privy Council telling the burgesses that, however laud
able their desire for a hospital might be, they must not
make inclosures without the consent of those interested
in the common : in particular, the Vice-Chancellor should
be consulted'. The incorporated 'men of Cambridge' were in a strait
between these academic hidesmen and 'the poor Inhabi
tants of the town' with their seely cows. In 1583 the
corporation issued an elaborate 'Act for avoiding of the
surcharge of the comon I' An alderman 'yf he houlde
and occupie one plowe land' may turn out four beasts :
and so forth. A house, unless it were built three years
before the date of this ordinance, is to confer no right of
pasture. These will seem very proper regulations if we
regard the Cambridge community as agricultural, and
that alderman with his one plough land looks charmingly
Anglo-Saxon. The number of commoners should not
be subject to indefinite increase. But the rule was too
stringent. In the same year a concession was made ' for
the relief of the poor people of this town.' The line Is to
be drawn now and not three years ago. Any one who
now has a foredoor opening into any street or common
lane may send a beast to the green'. No house that Is
built hereafter will give the right. It Is a natural restric
tion ; but not perhaps very urban, nor easily enforceable
if the town grows.
At the same time the corporation was endeavouring
to regulate the use of the arable fields In a manner not
unfavourable to the poor. No cattle great or small are to
be put upon the stubble until the poor people have passed
over and gleaned In the same. On the other hand, no
one is to depasture any balk until the corn growing on
either side be carried or set in shock. The master of a
1 Cooper, Annals, ii. 369. ^ Cooper, Annals, ii. 391.
3 Cooper, Annals, ii. 392.

90 Township and Borough.
college may keep two geldings upon the green, but no
other 'scholler colligener' shall keep any'.
Then in 1587 there was open war with the Uni
versity ^ One William Hammond had put hogs 'a cattle
not commonable' on the green. They were impounded
by order of the Mayor. The man was a bailiff of Jesus
College and therefore, so it was contended, within the
chartered privileges enjoyed by scholars' servants. The
Vice-Chancellor imprisoned the pounders and defied a
habeas corpus. The University told Lord Burghley that
the colleges were ' in effect' the owners of all the lands in
the fields, and therefore had a better right to regulate the
pasture than had the municipal corporation. An historical
argument was advanced. The corporation holds no court
baron, whereas there are at the least three lordships in the
fields having tenants and keeping court baron and leet,
the manor of Cotton Hall, the Radegund manor and the
Merton manor'. This was in those days an effective
argument, though It was far from proving all that it was
[meant to prove. The borough court was older than
/ manorialism ; Cambridge had never been a manor, though
litde manors had been formed In Cambridge.
Then the University made a bold move and struck
straight at the citadel of the town. In 1601 It obtained
from Queen Elizabeth a lease of the tolbooth or common
gaoP. Now If the charters of ancient kings had conveyed
^ the ownership of any soil, surely it was the soil on which
stood this symbol of municipality. Then the Attorney
General, Sir Edward Coke, a loyal gownsman, took
proceedings against the town gaoler for intruding Into
a place that pertained to the Crown. When Coke was
no longer Attorney, the matter was referred to Sir Henry
1 Cooper, Annals, ii. 392. 2 Cooper, Annals, ii. 437.
3 Cooper, Annals, ii. 444. 4 Cooper, Annals, ii. 615.

The Soil of the Borough. 91

Hobart and Sir Francis Bacon, who seem to have been
unwilling to decide the legal question, but to have told
the University that its venture was discreditable. ' They
thought it not fit for the honour of the University to
question so ancient a title'.' Thus the townsmen kept the
tolbooth, and their turn to play had come'.
Oxford had by this time a bishop and was called a
'city,' also its mayor had been made escheator. The
Cambridge folk would not be behind hand. They desired
that Cambridge might be a city 'as it hath [been] of
ancient time',' and their mayor was to be as grand a
man as the mayor of Oxford. I am at one with them
in thinking that Cambridge, an old shire-borough, was,
according to an ancient usage, as good a civitas as any
in England, and that the theory which makes a bishop
essential to a city was borrowed from France and mis
understood by its borrowers. However, though the
burgesses spoke prettily of the University, the masters
and scholars scented some deep-laid plot. Among other
things the townsfolk asked for an 'explanation' of that
old grant in fee-farm. Again I am at one with them In
thinking that such a grant does need explanation. The
University protested that King John's charter ' never
carried the soil' and asked that it might be, not explained,
but recalled, 'seeing this colour of being lords of the soyle
encourageth them to build and pester every lane and
corner of the towne with unholsome and base cottages,
which receive none but ydle and poore distressed people
' Cooper, Annals, iii. 27.
2 The quarrel about the tolbooth was old. The University was attacking
a weak, though central, spot, for, granted that in some sort the tolbooth had
been given to the corporation, still it was 'the king's prison.' See two
letters of Thomas Cromwell, Cooper, Annals, i. 373, 377- The University
also went so far as to question the Town's title to the King's Mill. This is
apparent from a paper preserved by Cole. See Brit. Mus. MS. Addit. 5852,
i. 192 b. The University's theory about the mill seems to me a long mistake.
' Cooprer, Annals, iii. 107.

92 Township and Borough.
that live and pray uppon the University^' You at
Oxford were making a similar complaint : ' the Insatiable
avarice' of the citizens had burdened your University
with 150 new cottages'.
Then as to the escheatorship our academic rulers
made a remark which Interests me deeply and has been
in some sort the motto of my discourse. They say that
heretofore there has been no need in Cambridge for any
escheator, 'because, no certeine lord of the soyle being
knowne, the rents and services of houses and lands in
Cambridge have not been exactly looked into'.' If an
escheator Is set to work, they argue, all the tenures will
be converted into tenures in capite, for no one will be
able to show by what other tenure a dead man held his
land, and the Crown will claim a wardship of his heir.
Now, as a college never leaves an infant heir, these
collegians were showing a thoughtful consideration for
others. But what they said about rents and services
seems to me of great importance. The rents and
services have not been exactly looked into. Feudally
Cambridge was patch-work, net-work, mess ; many of
the tenurial threads had been forgotten. However (to
finish this episode) the University knew how to please
the pedantic king : ' Relpublicae literariae elves sumus.'
To which he answered: 'Non honestatur plebela civitatis
appellatione Musarum Domiclllum'.' So Cambridge is but
a borough to this day, and I doubt our mayor Is escheator.
Happily for the municipal seignory, the colleges had
varying Interests and were not always the best of friends.
Some of them had already taken from the burghal cor
poration conveyances of 'common ground' when there
was a large transaction. Hard by Trinity there lay an

1 Cooper, Annals, iii. no. 2 Boase, Oxford, 137.
3 Cooper, Annals, iii. in. 4 Cooper, Annals, iii. iig-4.

The Missing Lordship. 93

enviable piece of green. After long negotiations this
was conveyed to the college. In exchange the college
conveyed to the corporation a patch of arable ridges in
one of the cispontine fields. Middle Field'. ' For the
avoiding of scandal and oppression that might be attri
buted or laid to the Town or College,' this tract was to be
converted ' from tillage unto sward ground,' and, for the
purpose of pa,sture rights, was to be substituted for the
green which the college was acquiring'. Then St John's,
the holder of many strips in the fields, took offence. An
amusing dispute ensued. In its details we are not inter
ested; but the Johnians could represent the action of
their neighbours as the base betrayal of a great cause.
The men of Trinity have admitted the Town's owner
ship of the waste, its lordship over the fields, whereas
who knows where the lordship is? May be with Merton,
may be with St John's, may be with Jesus: 'of all in
Cambridge Jesus College is as lykely to haue a lordship
by Radlgund as any other.' Soon after this, however,
the Johnians themselves were making a bargain with the
Town, and then It was Merton's turn to protest'. The
Town was one; the Colleges were many.
Then in 1624 there is an armistice, and we see the
Mayor and Vice-Chancellor laying their heads together
in order that they may stint the pasture : — Six beasts for
six score acres : two beasts for a house with broad gates :
one beast for every other. house or cottage^ There had
been a scare about the growth in Cambridge of an indigent
populace, attracted thither from the villages by the green
commons and those chances of pilfering and filching grass
and corn that were offered by the open field and the
1 Append. § 34. 2 Cooper, Annals, iii. 58.
3 R. F. Scott, Enclosure of Trinity College Walks, Camb. Antiq. Soc.
Proc. viii. 261 ; Willis and Clark, Architectural History, ii. 407.
* Cooper, Annals, iii. 164.

94 Township and Borough.
champion husbandry'. No doubt the peculating unthrift,
of which Tusser complained, was at its worst in the out
skirts of a growing town. We have heard the hymn of
the hedge-breaker ; let us listen to the hymn of the good
husband. More profit is quieter found
Where pastures in severall be
Of one seely acre of ground
Than champion maketh of three.
Again what a joy it is known
When men may be bold of their own'.
But, what with seely acres and seely cows, the disruption
of this old community Is a slow and painful process.
And now, I regret to say it, our Cambridge annalist
ceases to tell of open fields and green pastures. Men
were thinking of other things. A ' less thegn ' of the
neighbourhood, Oliver Cromwell of Huntingdon Esquire,
was made a free man of the town', represented it in
parliament, and then 'timbered' the old burh once
more^ Parliament seems to suck the life blood of all
other Institutions. At length the municipal corporation
became hardly better than a Tory dining-club, com
mended body and soul to a thegn of the shire, and,
as Domesday would say, non potuit recedere ad alium
dominum. The story of the decline and fall of the
corporations Is curious if disgraceful. The constitutions
of Oxford and Cambridge were closely similar on paper.
They went to the bad in different ways. The free men
of Oxford were numerous ; the free men of Cambridge
few. Too many of the Oxford corporators lived in the
work-house; too many of the Cambridge corporators
1 Append. § i6.
- Tusser, A Comparison between Champion Country and Severall, stanza
22, ed. Mavor, 1812, p. 209.
3 Cooper, Annals, iii. 297.
* For Cromwell's works at the castle, see Hughes, Camb. Antiq. Soc.
Proc. viii. 197.

Demoralized Personality. 95

lived near Cheveley. It is of beer and mob-rule that
we read in the one town ; in the other of oligarchy and
wine: 'excellent wine,' said an unregenerate alderman,
'and plenty of it'.'
There are two remarks about the municipal decay
that I should like to make, since they bear on my story.
The shameless misuse by the last two Stuarts of the
prerogatival processes whereby the medieval boroughs
had been sometimes capriciously vexed and sometimes
wholesomely controlled had this among its bad effects,
that after a Glorious Revolution the corporations stood
free from national supervision. No one was going to
seize liberties or cancel charters any more ; the ancient
royal rights were dead and nobody was to revive them.
One almost trivial consequence of this grave change is
that we are no longer likely to hear of dominus Rex as
a possible claimant for the seignorial allotment in the
Cambridge fields. Secondly, Parliament fostered the
notion that the property of the corporation was morally
the property of the corporators, by entrusting to other
bodies, groups of commissioners and the like, those new
powers and duties that were to answer new urban needs.
The watching, paving, lighting of the town, these matters
were no affair of the corporation ; with the relief of the
poor it had nothing to do. There was a vicious circle ;
the corporation was untrusted because untrustworthy,
untrustworthy because untrusted. For what end then
did its property exist ? For the election of the patron's
nominee, and then for the 'common' good of the
corporators : and that may mean dinners or a division of ,
the income or even of the lands among them. Morally
the Town loses its personality ; for it loses the sense of
duty. 1 For Oxford, see Munic. Corp. Rep. 1835, App. i. 97; for Cambridge,
iv. 2185.

96 Township and Borough.
Apparently the green commons at Cambridge were
utterly neglected. Everybody turned out what beasts
he pleased, taking the risk of having to drag them from
a dismal swamp. That was a temporary solution of the
problem. What was common, was dirty and noisome'.
I need not say that all this is otherwise now-a-days.
The commons are drained and the cows that I see there
seem to be seely enough. But our interest lies In the
fields where lordship goes a-begging. I suppose that
the colleges and other landholders from time to time did
what they could to accommodate themselves and each
other In the barbarians' maze of acre-strips. Something
could be done by exchanges ; but not all. At length in
the first years of our century a project for the inclosure
of the transpontine fields was mooted, and then arose the
question : Who is lord "i Who should take the seignorial
allotment ? Who all this time has been owning these
balks ? The Incorporate Borough did not, I believe,
advance its claim until the eleventh hour. Parliament
sent the question to a jury of London merchants.
Merton College, the successor of the Dunnings, bore the
brunt of the struggle. If I am not mistaken, it was the
only owner that could boast of copyholders and still kept
' manorial courts. Also, being (if I may so say) an
absentee landlord, it had less to accuse itself of in the
matter of awkward admissions than some other claimants
may have had. The trial took but one day : the times
were pre-historic ; or post-historic, for the admirable
Madox had left no successor. I know only a report in a
Cambridge newspaper, and I dare say that It understates
the Mertonian case. For the municipal corporation
John's charter was displayed — a grant of the vill of
Cambridge to the burgesses of Cambridge and their
heirs — and some modern acts that could be construed as
'^ Append. § 134.

A Victory of Collectivism. 97
acts of ownership were proved. On the other side
reliance was placed on the manorial courts. Mr Justice
Lawrence, It would seem, told the jury that they had
better find a verdict for the Town ; and this they did'.
In the cispontine fields, which were soon afterwards
inclosed, the Prior of Barnwell by his successors asserted
a lordship, but in the end declined the combat. Dominus
Rex, you will observe, was not among the claimants.
Had the case occurred three centuries earlier, I doubt
he would have been silent.
It looks like a masquerade : Picot's canons and
Malcolm's nuns, Walter of Merton and that militant
mayor Hervey the son of Eustace the son of Dunning,
pleading before a jury of London merchants for the
ownership of the balks and odds and ends of sward that
occurred In the barbarians' labyrinth, pleading against a
community that has had adventures, a knot of heathen
hidesmen, a township of ' early English ' burgmen, a
corporation of medieval burgesses, which has somehow
become hoih persona ficta and a Tory dining club.
We might be In the fashion if we gloried a little over
this victory of a Town. Might we not see here a return
to the good old days, a restoration of the primitive and
legitimate dominance of the community over the in
dividual ? Well, I don't know about that. Perhaps we
had better leave the ownership of these balks, or of the
allotment which takes their place, just where we found it,
in the happy haze of 'collectivism.' Let us hear once
more the atavistic voice of the common-councillor. ' He
thought that the property belonged bona fide to the
corporation and that they had a right to do what they
pleased with their own.... The corporation had a right to
expend their Income on themselves and their friends,
1 Append. § 145.
M. 7

N

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

APPENDIX
OF NOTES AND EVIDENCE RELATING
CHIEFLY TO CAMBRIDGE.
§ I. At Cambridge, as at Oxford, a supposed Roman town
has been retiring before the modern investigator'. The Cam-
boritum, Roman Station of our ordnance map is a disputed
conjecture. With this we need not meddle. 'Chaque jour
rid6e d'une survie des institutions municipales romaines a perdu
plus de terrain I' What perished in Germany, Gaul, Spain,
Italy did not persist in abandoned Britain. It has, however,
been a common belief that the Grentebrige of Domesday Book
lay wholly to the north of the river'', and this theory of a little
transpontine Cambridge we must not allow to pass unquestioned.
§ 2. In the first place, the tower of St Benet's Church raises
its protest. The houses which that church implies were a part
of Grentebrige or they are not accounted for in the Conqueror's
geld-book. The Survey of Cambridgeshire has no name to
spare for the vanished village.
§ 3. But further, the Grentebrige of the Confessor's time
had, so it seems to me, too many houses to be packed into the
transpontine area. It was a town of 400 houses divided into ten
wards. In 1086, when William made the inquest, 27 houses
(but no more) had been destroyed in order that the castle might
be reared, and two of the ten wards had been thrown together.
This double ward had 54 houses. We add the 27 and thus
obtain 81. The other eight wards contained 48, 41, 45, 50, 37, 37,
32, and 29 houses respectively. Altogether there had been 400
houses, and these were distributed with some approach to equality
among the ten wards. We know that the second of these wards
1 For Oxford, Parker, Early History of Oxford, 62 ; for Cambridge, Hughes,
Cambridge Castle, Camb. Antiq. Soc. Proc. vol. viii. p. 173; Atkinson and Clark,
Cambridge, 4.
^ Flach, Les origines de I'ancienne France, ii. 216.
^ Babington, Ancient Cambridgeshire, 1 1 ; Freeman, English Towns and Districts,
238.

IOO Grentebrige in 1086.
was called the Bridgeward. We know also that the fourth ward
contained a church which belonged to the abbey of Ely'-
§ 4. Were all, or nearly all, these houses on the left or
northern bank of the river? Apparently the partizans of a
little Cambridge propose to force 400 houses into a space which
in 1279 contained some 70 or 80, which in 1749 contained no
more than 209, and in 1801 no more than 276.
§ 5. Two centuries after the Conquest the Cambridge of the
Hundred Rolls has only 550 houses or thereabouts, yet it in
cludes the 17 medieval parishes, it includes the little hamlet of
Howes on the confines of Girton, it includes the suburb of
Newnham, it includes the considerable suburb of Barnwell with
nearly 100 houses. The house-bedecked area extends south
wards as far as the King's Ditch and the Trumpington Gate, and
there are still houses beyond. At this time the three transpontine
parishes (St Giles, St Peter by the Castle, All Saints by the
Castle) have in all only some 70 or 80 houses.
§ 6. I see the Grentebrige of the Confessor's day as a very
sparse group of houses. I should not be surprised if it already
reached as far south as the King's Ditch of later days and if only
two or three of its ten wards were transpontine. At this time a
vill of 40 houses was rather large than small. Cambridge had
400. Take the house-bedecked nucleus of an ordinary village
and magnify it ten-fold ; it will cover a good space of ground.
I would not suggest that the nucleus of a borough was as
loosely compacted as was the nucleus of a common vill: but we
must leave much room for what we should call farm-buildings,
for orchards and little crofts.
In its account of York, Domesday Book tells of minutae
mansiones which were 50 feet wide^- In its account of Wallingford
it tells of II houses on an acre, of 6 houses on an acre, of
7 houses on two acres 3.
% 7. The assumption that there was no ditch round the
town until Henry III. made one seems to me improbable'', and
1 Hamilton, Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiae, 121. The evidence may, however,
be so read that a certain ward, known as the Sixth, had been utterly destroyed. See
Atkinson and Clark, Cambridge, 9. "^ D. B. i. 298. * D. B. i. 56.
•" Domesday Book shows in a casual way that various boroughs are ditched or
walled. Dr Stubbs, Const. Hist. i. 438, reckons Canterbury, Nottingham, York,
Oxford, Hereford, Leicester, Stafford, Lincoln and Colchester in this class.

Houses in 12'] c).

IOI

Prof. Hughes has gone far towards disproving it^ Just outside
the town ditch of the thirteenth century there ran a lane.
Before it became our modern Pembroke Street it had borne
various names. The most ancient of these is Landgrytheslane^.
Is not this the limit of the ordinary land-peace .' Within the
ditch the stricter burhgri^ reigns. If this be the true explana
tion, both name and limit should be very ancient.
§ 8. No one can look at Mr Clark's beautiful plans without
seeing that the Cambridge of the fourteenth and fifteenth cen
turies was not thickly crowded with houses. There was plenty
of room for many more. When Henry VI. purchased a large
site for his magnificent college he had not to deal with any
countless multitude of householders^
§ 9. As our argument depends in part on the supposition
that the account of the town which we obtain in 1279 is, so far
as buildings are concerned, fairly complete, I have analyzed it
with the following results\

Cambridge

in 1279.

Vacant
Shops
Barns
Parishes
Houses
Places
and Booths
etc.
St Giles
37
4
I
St Peter (Castle)
18
I
All Saints (Castle)
17
4
5
3
St Clement
34
I
5
St Sepulchre
8
All Saints (Hospital)
10
I
3
4
St Radegund
2
St Michael
19
4
I
4
St Mary
45
8
30
St Edward
27
2
IS
St John
40
4
St Benet
49
9
St Botolph
38
3
2
St Peter (Gate)
34
5
4
St Andrew
II
I
Trinity
10
Barnwell
95
2
Unspecified
40
I
9
534
49
75
12
1 Camb. Antiq. Soc. Proc. viii. 32, 255- ' ^°^- ^"nd. u. 381-
» Willis and Clark, Architectural History, i. 334 ff.
* Cooper (i. 58) reckoned 53S messuages, 76 shops and stalls, 5 granges and 0
granaries. My calculation is wholly independent of his.
I02 Intensive Growth of Urban Nucleus.

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

1279

1749

1801

1841

St Giles

37

St Giles

145

194

463

St Peter (Castle)

18

St Peter

64

82

137

All Saints (Castle)

17

St Clement
34
St Clement
109
109
204
St Sepulchre
8
St Sepulchre
97
104
133
All Saints (Hospital)
10
All Saints
122
127
230
St Radegund
2
St Michael
19
St Michael
60
51
75
St Mary
45
St Mary (Great)
156
140
185
St Edward
27
St Edward
113
131
120
St John
40
St Benet
49
St Benet
117
no
162
St Botolph
38
St Botolph
146
117
126
St Peter (Gate)
34
St Mary (Less)
98
94
141
St Andrew
II
St Andrew (Great)
203
168
395
Trinity
10
Trinity
158
185
456
Barnwell
95
St Andrew (Less)
48
79
1953
Unspecified
40
Total 534 1636 1691 4780
§ II. Besides the extensive growth of the town, these figures
seem to tell of an intensive multiplication of tenements which in
some cases is startling, and will be yet more startling when we
remember that large areas have been subtracted for the founda
tion of colleges. Still the result does not seem incredible^
Let us take, for example, the transpontine area, where before
1800 there was little extensive growth. In 1279 there are
72 houses; in 1749 there are 209, and in 1801 there are 276,
besides Magdalene College. Now early in the seventeenth
century a strict inquiry was prosecuted by those who were
frightened at the intensive growth of the town. We learn from
1 The figures for 1749 (Carter's), 1801 (census) and 1841 (census) I take from
Cooper, Annals, iv. 274, 470, 637.
"^ It will be remembered that the present parish of St Andrew the Great lay almost
wholly without the ditch. The very small number of houses assigned to Trinity parish
may surprise us; but the stability of parish boundaries must not be taken for granted.
Divided Tenements. 103

the presentments then made that the parish of St Peter con
tained about 58 and the parish of St Giles about 148 families,
also that the whole population of the latter was about 576.
Then we further learn that St Giles's parish has 396 inhabitants
who are ' harboured in the new erected houses and cottages and
divided tenements ' : in other words, full two-thirds of the in
habitants seem to be regarded as the result of building operations
of recent date and as a nuisance that invites the plague and
raises the poor-rate.
§ 12. The documents whence I have drawn this information
deserve a word of notice, since, though they are not medieval,
they throw some light on the erection of houses within the old
urban nucleus. In the days of Elizabeth and her two next
successors there was a scare at Cambridge, as elsewhere, about
over-crowding. Some minute statistics were collected at Cam
bridge. The results are preserved at the University Registry in
a volume lettered ' Town 37. 3.' Of some parishes there is an
elaborate census. As regards six of the parishes the outcome is
summed up thus in a document written in 1632 : — ' There are
harboured and entertayned in the new erected bowses cottages
and divided tenements of the severall landlords and owners
mentioned in the sayd presentments the numbers of persons in
every of the parishes hereafter named, viz. in
St Andrewes parishe  560 persons
Trinity parishe  360 persons
St Gyles parishe  396 persons
St Clements parishe  i79 persons
Little St Marys  148 persons
St Bennitts parishe  85 persons
The total of the persons harboured in
the new erected howses and cottages
and divided tenements — the six
parishes is ... ... ... ••• 1728
§ 13. The following from among the returns for the parish
of St Andrew [the Great] will illustrate the division of the
ancient tenements.
' Bennett Colledge for the Red Hart. Mr Sandiford holds it
by lease. It is divided into two. Dr Hangar for the Malt
Mill one ancient tenement divided into 3. Mr Austin for the
Wrastlers divided into 3. Mr Bambridge one tenement divided

I04 Over-Population.
into two. Mr Martyn of London one ancient tenement out
of the stables whereof hath beene erected 4 other tenements.
Dr Chaderton and Edm. Ainsworth for one ancient tenement
since sold into two parts and divided into 4 tenements, one
whereof is Dr Chaderton's and 3 Edmond Ainsworth's.'
§ 14. In an undated statement of 'the names of every
householder and the number of his family in Barnwell ' the total
given for the population is 264 and the names of dj house
holders are set down. These householders include a farmer,
5 husbandmen, 20 labourers, a shepherd, a thatcher, 2 black
smiths, 2 wheelwrights, 2 victualers, a brewer, 2 tailors, 2 bakers, a
weaver, a cooper, a carpenter, a glover, a screenmaker, 7 'inmates,'
2 sojourners and about 12 persons with no specified occupation.
In St Peter's parish the heads of families are about 58 and
include a gentlewoman, a bootwright (boatwright .'), a dyer, a
cooper, a potter, a pikemonger, a fishmonger, 2 innkeepers,
2 tapsters, 2 tailors, 3 butchers, a joiner, a collar-maker, 2 chand
lers, a bricklayer, a blacksmith, a carpenter, 6 watermen, 4 porters,
12 labourers and about 13 persons of unspecified occupation,
some of whom are widows.
In St Giles's parish the names, about 148 in all, include
59 labourers and 27 widows, 8 victualers, 7 cordiners, 6 butchers,
4 masons, 3 bakers, 2 tanners, 2 watermen, a bonelace-maker, an
oatmeal-maker, 4 gentlemen, i yeoman and a few others. The
whole population of this parish is about 576, and it seems to be
supposed that 396 persons are living in houses which have been
either erected or divided within the last 60 years ; about 40 of
them are not 'town-born' but have for the more part come
from neighbouring villages ; 7 horses and 29 cows are ascribed
to these 396 persons.
In an account of St Michael's parish a long section is
devoted to Green Street. Apparently 32 families of 151 souls
Uve in 26 houses, of which 13 are 'new cottages,' and there are
3 empty tenements 'all new built.' The heads of families
include 5 tailors, 4 alehousekeepers, 4 musicians, 3 smiths,
2 joiners, 2 cobblers, 2 masons, an apothecary, a poulterer, an
ostler, a cooper, a baker, a button-maker, a shoe-maker and the
• cooke of Keys college." Only three persons are living in their
own houses ; 8 houses belong to Mr John Mercer of Chesterton,
5 to Mr John Rose, 3 to Mr Alderman Lukin.

The Poor and the Commons. 105
§ 15. The general impressions left upon my mind by these
curious returns, which well deserve publication, are (i) that the
number of houses on a given area had been rapidly increasing
during the past sixty years, and (2) that in the poorer parts of
the town, namely, the parishes of St Giles and St Peter and the
Barnwell suburb, the number of ' labourers ' was large, and as
these labourers do not include bricklayers, watermen, porters etc.,
they must, I think, for the more part be engaged in agriculture.
There were still some 2000 acres to be tilled by someone.
Even in 1801 there were 92 families 'chiefly employed in
agriculture,' to be set against 1368 employed in trade, manu
facture or handicraft'.
§ 16. In a paper contained in the same volume we may find
'the chief causes of the increase of our poore in Cambridge,'
and, as two of these reasons concern the divided tenements and
the green commons of the town, they may be worthy of our
notice in this place^.
' I. The poore persons dwellinge in cottages and divided
tenements are suffered to enioye the bennifitt of the Commons,
and when the magistrats have offered to keepe them off, by
force they have putt on their cattell, and this liberty of
comoninge and toUerance of the magistrate hath much increased
the multitude of poore amongst us.
2. When the commons are bare they scrape (.') or feede
menns corne and grasse to feede their cattell, and spende their
whole tyme in purvayinge for them, and will not be held to
labour to gett a livinge otherwyse, soe that when the landlord
seizeth uppon his [the tenant's] cattell for his rent or they [the
beasts] dye, he [the tenant] is in present want and must either
beg stele or borrow .... Meanes to relieve us.
I. That all persons dwellinge in cottages and new erected
howses or divided tenements be utteriy debarred of commoning
and theire cattell impounded yf they be taken there and the
persons resisting severely punished.'
^ Cooper, Annals, iv. 470.
2 This paper is indexed as being 'in Registrary Tabor's writing.'

io6 The Eastern Fields.

§ 17. We are deferring the perhaps unanswerable question
whether the territory of Cambridge was not originally divided
between two tuns. We have been speaking of the borough
revealed to us by Domesday Book, and have argued for a widely
spread and loosely compacted group of homesteads, a group
divided by the river but united by the bridge which gives a
name to the town.
§ 18. We may begin our account of the fields by visiting
the Eastern or Barnwell Fields, as they were on the eve of their
inclosure in 181 1\
The area that is to be dealt with may be thus described.
Start at the railway bridge well-known to oarsmen. Thence go
south along the borough boundary, following it as it turns west
until it comes to Hobson's Brook. For a long way you have
pursued the line of Coldham's Brook and have had Coldham's
Common on your right ; you have crossed successively the
Newmarket Road, Coldham's Lane, and (near the Sanatorium)
the line of the Mill Road ; sloping south-west you have cut the
road to Cherry Hinton, and turning due west you have cut the
Hills Road leaving Cavendish College a little to your left and
outside the borough ; and then going on due west you have
struck Hobson's Brook. Now turn north towards the town and
follow the brook. After a few yards and at the fence which
ends Senior Wrangler's Walk, the borough boundary goes off to
the left in order that it may hit and pursue the Vicar's Brook :
Empty Common will then intervene between it and you. Keep
straight along Hobson's Brook past the Botanical Garden and
Brookside until you come to the Conduit Head. Turn to the
right down Lensfield Road. Cross the Hills Road at Hyde
Park Corner. Begin going down Gonville Place, but, as soon as
you have Parker's Piece on your left, cross over onto the grass.
The boundary of the fields is not Gonville Place but a line on
Parker's Piece which is (for rough purposes) parallel to Gonville
Place and some thirty to fifty yards from it. When you have
1 Award dated 20 April 181 1. I must ask my readers to accept my Rough Sketch
of the Town of Cambridge as being a very rough sketch intended merely to show the
main agrarian features. In details it is inaccurate; in particular, the river was divided
into branches which made a sort of archipelago. For careful maps of the house-covered
nucleus, see Willis and Clark, Architectural History, and Atkinson and Clark, Cam
bridge Described.

SKETCH SHOWING TOWNWARD BOUND/>

F?Y OF THE CAMBRIDGE FIELDS IN 1800

The Agrarian Plan. 107
traversed Parker's Piece, turn to the left along Park Side and
Parker's Street towards the centre of the town. Go down
Emmanuel Street with Christ's Piece on your left ; then by
Short Street to the Newmarket Road. To the left a few yards
along that road. Then round the frontiers of the Jesus closes
with Midsummer Common on your right until you are at the
beginning of Lower Park Street. Then make straight for the
river. Down the river to the railway bridge.
§ 19. Then from the wide territory that we have encircled,
we must deduct three large pieces that are not to be inclosed,
namely. Midsummer Common (about 66 acres), Sturbridge
Common (about 45 acres) and Coldham's Common (about 86
acres). There remain about 1150 acres, and only about 50 of
them are already inclosed: the remaining iioo are subject to
the commissioners' powers. The inclosed portions consist almost
entirely of the Abbey Farm which marks the site of Barnwell
Priory, a tenuous line of houses and cottages, which straggles
along the Newmarket Road and constitutes all that there is of
inhabitable Barnwell, and a few little closes that lie in the same
quarter. We must destroy streets by the ten and houses by the
hundred to restore the Cambridge of a century ago.
§ 20. This clearance effected, the agrarian plan is visible.
Between the Trumpington Road and the Hills Road, but
bounded on the townward side by Lensfield Road, lay Ford
Field, so called from the ford by which the London Road entered
the territory of Cambridge. Between the Hills Road and the
line of the Mill Road, but bounded on the townward side by
Parker's Piece (not then so large as it now is) lay Middle Field.
Between the Mill Road and the Newmarket Road lay Bradmore
Field; but the townward part of it which is bounded by the
East Road (then Gravel Pit Road), the Newmarket Road,
Christ's Piece and Parker Street was known as the Clayangles
or Clayhanger. Bradmore Field seems to have extended east
only as far as Coldham's Lane. Then on both sides of the
Newmarket Road lay Sturbridge Field (in old documents
Estenhale), bounded by Sturbridge Common, Coldham's Com
mon, Brick Kiln Road (River Lane) and the river or towing
path. §21. We have traces of a three-field culture. The Liber
Memorandorum of Barnwell Priory states that the Prior and

io8 Commoners in the Eastern Fields.
Canons hold three ploughlands in demesne, whereof, according
to the best estimate that could be made by the husbandmen
and the elders (secundum quod potest estimari per agricultores et
seniores), they have in the field called Brademerefeld and
Meledich 13 score acres, and in Middilfeld 14 score acres, 'and
in Fordefel and Estenhale, reckoned as one field (^pro uno campo)
12 score acres.' Fordfield and Estenhale (Sturbridge Field) are
the two outside fields and as far from each other as may be;
but they are reckoned as one, probably because they are sown
at the same time\
§ 22. In 1811 when 9 acres had been allotted to the municipal
corporation for its ' right in the waste ' and five tithe-takers had
been compensated (the Radegund tithes belonging to Jesus
College were not commuted,) there were, I think, about 22 land
owners to be satisfied. Then there were about 12 other persons
with houses in Barnwell (St Andrew the Less) who had rights
of common. Something less than half an acre was allotted for
each right. Then the Act had admitted that there were other
commoners with houses in the other parishes of cispontine
Cambridge. They were to be compensated by the allotment to
them of pasture ground. The three pieces selected for this
purpose were a plot in Middle Field (4 A. o R. 20 P.) which has
since been thrown into Parker's Piece, the plot in Middle Field
(4 A. 3 R. II p.) known as Donkey's Common, and the neigh
bouring plot in Bradmore Field (2 A. 2 R. 12 P.) known as
Peter's Field. The right of common was successfully claimed
on behalf of 119 houses, which were divided among the parishes
thus : — All Saints 1 1, Andrew the Great 20, Benet 12, Botolph 3,
Clement 17, Edward 7, Mary the Great 8, Mary the Less 7,
Michael 4, Sepulchre 8, Trinity 22. It will be seen that all the
cispontine parishes were represented.
§ 23. We have spoken of the area that was inclosed in 181 1.
But we can bring the fields nearer yet to the centre of the town.
I have been allowed to use a terrier belonging to Jesus College.
It describes Sturbridge Field, Clayangles, Bradmore Field and
Ford Field. Middle Field is described in another little book.
These books are of recent date. Mr Gray tells me that the
1 Lib. Memorand. de Bemewelle (Harley, 3601) f. 35 b. I have been using a
transcript of this MS. kindly lent to me by Mr J. W. Clark.

Extent of Ford Field. 109
handwriting is that of Dr Caryl, who was Master of the College
from 1758 to 1780. The whereabouts of the various culturae or
furlongs is sometimes stated in modern terms. But, as is evident
from the names of the persons to whom the strips are ascribed,
the original whence these terriers derive was compiled in the
second half of the fourteenth century. Going across the strips,
it states (i) the number of the selions (i.e. ridges or 'lands') that
each strip contains, (2) the acreage of the strip, (3) its owner,
and (4) the church to which it tithes, this church being indicated
by an initial letter. Thus : —

Selions

A.

R.

p.

I

3

0

Alb. Can.

E.

I

I
0
P. de B.
Bot.
I
2
0
P. de Ang.
A.
2
I
I
0
Will. Essex
Ben
Here the four proprietors are the White Canons, the Prior of
Barnwell, the Prior of Anglesey and William Essex, and
apparently the four churches are those of SS. Edward, Botolph,
Andrew and Benet.
§ 24. Now, according to this book, a good piece of Ford
Field lies to the west of the Trumpington Road between that
road and Coe Fen. Walking into Cambridge by that road we
now-a-days have on our left hand Belvoir Terrace, then the
grounds of the Leys School, then Coe Fen Lane, then Scroope
Terrace with Scroope House behind it, St Peter's Terrace, and
the grounds of Grove Lodge, while the park of Peterhouse
extends behind Grove Lodge and St Peter's Terrace. All this
seems to have been part of Ford Field, and was described
thus':— Ford Field.
Furlong 59 (contains about 3 R., is by Trumpington Ford on
the west side of London road in the field called Cofen and
lies south and north).
Sel. A. R. P. Ph. Cayley by the way B.
I o Nuns P-
1 The identification of the churches to which tithe is paid is not without
difficulty. But I think that A = Andrew (the Great), B = Benet, Bo = Botolph,
E=Edward, El = the Almoner (Elemosinarius) of Barnwell, M = Mary (the Great),
P = Peter outside Trumpington Gate or Peterhouse, R = Radegund.
I IG

Terrier of Ford Field.

Furlong 60 (east and west at the north end of the last and lies transverse).
Sel. A. R. p.
2 2 o P. B. El.
2 30 Ph. Cayley B.
2 30 Walt. Bedford El.
I 20 Han. Poplington B.
Ph. Cayley B.
I I o Jno. Gibbon M.
I I o Bar. Peryn M.
2 I o o Si. Bernard El.
2 I o 10 P. B. El.
2 IOO Ph. Cayley El.
Alb. Can. B.
P. B. P.
Pet. Bingham El.
P. de Angles. A.
Alb. Can. M.
Jno. Turner M.
Pet. Bingham EI.
Alb. Can. El.
J. Hogon M.
P. B. El.
Alb. Can. El.
Bar. Peryn B.
P. B. Hawke dole (a close) A.
Furlong 61 (east and west at north end of last).
Alb. Can. headland B.
Rob. Piper A.
Alb. Can. B.
P- B. El.
Rob. Piper A.
Hugh Scale B.
300 Alb. Can.i El.
3 I o o P. B. El.
3 IOO Baldw. Barker El.
I 2 o Univ. p.
I 2 o P. B. p.
A Lane
400 Mortimer's dole^ R.
I 100 Alb. Can.3 E.
6 Alb. Can. Peterhouse Garden* El. M.
1 ' White Canons' dole.' Note in MS.
¦^ 'Mortimer's dole is all the close except the headland from the lane to Peterhouse
garden.' Note in MS.
This acre is headland to Mortimer's dole and crosses the lane to the southest

I
II
3
3 2
o

p. oooo
o
o o o
10 o
o
20 o
o
20 o o
ooo
o o
17

o
o o I
o
o o
ooo
o o
o

land of the White Canons' dole which is at the hedge corner.' Note in MS,
¦* ' Ingle's croft is Peterhouse garden.' Note in MS.

Coe Fen Leys. 1 1 1

§ 25. There can, I think, be no doubt that this is the land
that lies between the Trumpington Road and Coe Fen. Let us
go back along it : outwards from the town. We start at the
south of the Fitzwilliam Museum. First comes Inglis or English
Croft once held by the White Canons, but purchased by Peter
house in the reign of Elizabeths Then comes Mortimer's dole,
which I take to be the site of Scroope Terrace and Scroope
House. Then comes Coe Fen Lane. South of this our terrier
requires about 25 ' acres.' I believe that the grounds of the
Leys School and of Belvoir Terrace will supply nearly the
requisite quantity^
S 26. But more : Peterhouse itself stands on land that once
lay in selions and was arable'- Thus we are brought within a
few yards of the town ditch. If the reader who is accustomed
to field maps will now look at the space that is bounded by Mill
Lane, Coe Fen and the Trumpington Road, he will see a very
o-ood specimen of a cultura\ and, if I mistake not, that lane
still represents the sinuous plough-line : ' the aratral twist ' we
might call it'; but it is also the line of beauty, for our winding
English lanes would not have wound so pleasantly if men could
have ploughed straight^.
§ 27. How long this area remained arable I do not know.
It, or a great part of it, became known as Coe Fen Leys and
men spoke of a grass strip in it as 'a ley in Coe Fen Leys.'
The mere fact that it was accounted to be composed of ' selions '
(that is of ridges, beds, ' lands' ') would I believe be proof that it
was once ploughed. The ridge that was a selion or ' land ' when
arable, became a ' ley ' when it was laid down as grass.
1 Willis and Clark, i. 1.
2 See on Ordnance Map the parcels numbered 28, 34, 35, 38, 39. It will be
remembered that the old 'acres' are not measured.
3 Willis and Clark, vol. i. pp. 1—8, and vol. iv. plate 2.
* I use the word tatora because the English /«?-/»»^, having become the name for
a measure of length, might import a false suggestion.
' Domesday and Beyond, 379.
6 See Dr Isaac Taylor's paper in Domesday Studies, i. 61 : 'I have examined
thousands of these S shaped rigs, and I find that they invariably swerve to the left or
near side, which seems to be explained by the fact that the driver, who walked back
wards, would most conveniently have directed the oxen by pulling them round by their
head-gear with his right hand instead of with his left.'^ Meitzen, Sledelung. 1. 88, uses
a preferable phrase : ' die Figur eines umgeliehrten S.'
' Domesday and Beyond, 383.

1 1 2 Pembroke Leys.

§ 28. We have now to consider another set of leys, namely,
the area known as Pembroke Leys or St Thomas's Leys, or, at
an earlier time, Swinecroft. When Downing College was in the
making, this area was subjected to special treatment ; the
lammas right of pasturage was to be extinguished. The terrier
which we have been using describes Swinecroft as a sort of
appendage to Ford Field. From this terrier and the Award
with an accompanying map which was made in 1808' we can
venture a fair guess about the original constitution of Swinecroft.
§ 29. Take the space bounded on the north by Pembroke
Street and Downing Street^ on the east by the line of the Hills
Road (Regent Street'), on the south by Lensfield (formerly
Conduit) Road and on the west by the Trumpington Road.
Abolish Tennis Court Road as a novelty. Then bisect this
parallelogram by a line running from north to south. Then lay
out each half of the parallelogram as a cultura whose furlongs
run from east to west.
At an early time, however, building began at the north
eastern and north-western corners of this space. At the north
western Pembroke Hall arose^ Then there was more building
along the Trumpington Road, while on the eastern side a strip
of roadside waste has in recent times afforded room for the
houses of Regent Street.
The line which divided the two culturae lay to the west of
the Downing avenue. I believe that it is pretty well represented
by the eastern face of the new buildings of Pembroke, the
western range of Downing College and the house of the
Professor of the Laws of England ^
§ 30. We will now take the old terrier and compare it with
the Award. We will look first at the eastern cultura, that
nearest Regent Street, and proceed southwards from Landgrithes-
lane or Downing Street.
1 Among the muniments of Downing College, dated 8 Jan. 1808.
2 Formerly Landgrithes Lane, Hoghill Lane, Bird Bolt Lane etc. See Willis and
Clark, i. 123.
= But perhaps from the first the eastern boundary of the arable -was the hne now
marked by Downing Place.
* Willis and Clark, vol. i. p. r2i and vol. iv. plate 6.
" The two culturae seem to have come near to their ideal. The distance from my
house to the Trumpington Road and to Regent Street is a short furlong.

st Thomas's Leys.

"3

Terrier

In i8o8
Sel.
Owner
Acreage
Owner
Acreage
A.
R.
P.
A.
R.
P.
4
J. Payne, now a
garden
I
2
O
Benet College
I
I
12
3
Nuns, garden-
ground Way-balk 2
I
o
O
Purchased' of Jesus
Common balk
3
39 i6
I
J. Gibbon
2
O
Purchased of Hobson's
6
J. Barrington
2
O
0
Charity
2
3
23
4
Nuns Way-balk3
2
O
O
Purchased of Jesus
2
2
23
2
Nuns
3
o
6
J. Preston
3
O
O
Purchased of Peterhouse
Road
2
I
II
24
I
Cutlers half-acre
n
O
Purchased of Mr
8
Alb. Can.
4
O
o
Towneley
2
0
17
I
University
2
o
Purchased of Uni- '
2
Alb. Can.
I
O
O
versity
Purchased of Mr
Towneley j
3
O
25
Mortimer's dole
8
2
O*
Purchased of Caius
College
7
2
36
All goes pretty smoothly in this cultura. The strips of the
Nuns pass to Jesus College, those of the Mortimers to Caius.
The University, to all appearance, had a half-acre in the
fourteenth century and in the nineteenth. The lands of the
White Canons were purchased by the municipal corporation, and
must, I suppose, have passed from it to Mr Towneley.
We turn to the other, the western, cultura and will begin on
this occasion at the south in the Lensfield Road. The terrier
gives A. R. p.
2 selions. Nuns with a gore i o o.
The Award ascribes a little more than an acre to Jesus College.
Next the terrier gives A. R. p.
4 selions. J. de Camb.' 120.
' ' Purchased ' means purchased by Downing.
" See Loggan's plan, Willis and Clark, ii. 754. The course of this way is still
marked by old thorn-trees, soon to be destroyed in the interests of geology.
' Visible on Loggan's plan, Willis and Clark, ii. 754.
* Well marked on Loggan's plan, and apparently garden ground.
114 Swinecroft.

Land that belonged to John of Cambridge in the fourteenth
century we expect to find in the hands of Corpus in the
nineteenth, and the Award tallies with our expectation. Then
the terrier gives A. R. p.
l6 selions. J. Carbonell 420.
and this land has passed to Mr Russel. Then comes a way-
balk in the terrier, and a road on the map of 1808. From
this point onwards there would be more trouble about the
identification of the strips, owing to the erection along the
Trumpington Road of houses whose gardens ran far back.
The terrier proceeds thus: — Alb. Can. i A. 2 R.; Alb. Can. 2R.;
R. Arden, i A. 2 R. ; Bar. Peryn, i R. 20 P. ; Chantry of St Peter,
2R.; Bar. Peryn, 2 R.; Tho. Jacob, 2 A.; way-balk; John Smith,
next Pembroke garden, i p. Going along this line the owners
from whom Downing College purchased what lies within its
wall were Mr Towneley (who here and elsewhere seems to
represent the White Canons), Peterhouse, Little St Mary's parish
(the chantry of St Peter), Mr Thackeray, and the Master of
Peterhouse. The following description of a piece of the Downing land is
taken from a deed of 1737, and shows us that St Thomas's Leys
were still traditionally accounted a part of Ford Field: 'All
those twelve sellions of pasture or ley ground containing by
estimation 10 acres (be the same more or less) lying and being
in a certain Field in Cambridge aforesaid called Ford Field or
St Thomas's Leys in a certain Furiong called Swine's Croft on
the south side of the said town of Cambridge'.'
The following is a description written in 1667 of the
Mortimer's Dole in Swinecroft (the south-eastern corner of the
Downing estate, nearest to the Roman Catholic chapel): 'Seven
teen Sellions pasture or leys lying upon the Highway called
Deepway [Lensfield Road] leading from the Stone Bridge by
the Spital [close to the Conduit Head] towards the south: and
Mr Palmer's land jure uxoris in the occupation of James
Haddowe towards the north: abutting upon the vvay called
Preachers Streetway [Regent Street] alias Hadstock Way
leading towards Hogmagogge Hill towards the east : and upon
two sellions of Jesus College Land and four sellions of Corpus
' Archives of Downing College.

Selions in Swinecroft. 1 1 5
Xti College Land both inclosed and in the occupation of W""
Saunders in part, and upon sixteen sellions of Mr Nicholson in
part, towards the west: containing by estimation nine acres.' A
note over against this description states that ' there were 1 8 [not
17] layes or sellions but when the town was fortified [in the
Cromwellian days] one of these was cut into a great ditch and
the bank was thrown upon it'.'
§ 31. Now a great part of this land had long been under
grass, and the name of St Thomas's Leys, which seems to have
spread gradually over it^ can not have been acquired while it
was arable. But it was once ploughed in selions, and they may
be seen to this day^
I take it that when the arable was turned to meadow, the
lammas right took the place of the right to depasture the idle
field. When Downing College had acquired the strips, an Act
of Parliament was passed for the extinction of the lammas right.
Claims were allowed in respect of about 280 houses in the
parishes of SS. Benet, Botolph, Mary the Less and Andrew the
Great, and a money compensation for each ' right ' was paid.
The representative of the Prior of Barnwell (Mr Panton) was
compensated for a sheep-walk, 'the going of 18 score sheep from
Lammas to Lady Day every year*.' Claims were made in
respect of houses in the parishes of SS. Mary the Great, Michael,
Trinity, Edward, Sepulchre, Giles and Peter, and of All Saints,
but were disallowed. The principle enforced seems to have
been that no one could have common unless he had a house in
one of the four parishes in which the land lay. How old that
rule was I can not say, but it does not look medieval. It lays
too much stress on parochial arrangements.
§ 32. Before leaving these leys, we may observe that their
distribution for the purpose of paying tithe among the churches

' Archives of Downing College. Punctuation by editor.
= Willis and Clark, ii. 753.
' East of the Downing avenue the undulations are plainly visible, though the
ridges are low.
* Downing College also claimed and was compensated for a similar right: from
which of its predecessors this right was derived I have not inquired. More than half
of the commoning houses were owned by colleges. Corpus had 78 ' rights.' The
municipal corporation unsuccessfully claimed ' the soil of the lands and grounds called
St Thomas's Leys also {sic) the waste lands and soil thereof.'
8—2

ii6 Urban Parishes.

of the town was exceedingly intricate. If I construe the terrier
aright, the eastern cultura gives us the following series : — 4 selions
to Botolph ; 3 to Michael ; i to Andrew ; 6 partibly, two-thirds
to Andrew, one-third to Benet ; 4 to Radegund ; 2 partibly, half
to Peter, half to Botolph; 6 partibly, half to Peter, half to
Andrew ; i to Mary ; 2 to Peter ; 4 to Mary ; 2 parribly, half to
Mary, half to Peter ; i to Peter ; i to Barnwell ; an unspecified
number to Radegund. Eight churches take tithe from this one
cultura. § 33. This provokes a remark about the parochial system.
Is not its application to these town-fields gradual and fairly
modern ? When in the middle ages a piece of land is said to
be in the parish of St A., thereby is generally meant that
between it and St A.'s church there are two bonds : (i) the
parson of that church has the care of the souls of those who
inhabit that land and they should go to that church : (2) he is
entitled to the tithe of that land. But now suppose the plot
to be an acre-strip in the middle of an open field. Suppose
also that it tithes to St B. and lies between strips which
tithe to SS. C. and D. In what possible sense can it be in
the parish of St A. ? Perhaps we answer that if a house were
built on it, then the care of the householder's soul would rest
with the parson of that parish, who also might be entitled to
mortuaries and similar dues. But, until men think of breaking
up their common field, these duties and rights are of too
hypothetical an order to be conceived. The only practical
bond between the strip and the church is the tithe. In
researches in the outskirts of towns we may make too much ' ' ' • •
of parish boundaries. Often they will represent fairly modern
arrangements. It seems to me that a man of the thirteenth
century would have said either that these acre-strips were in
no parish, or more probably that each strip was in the
parish to whose church it tithed. In the latter case if you
walked across the field you would change your parish every
few seconds.
§ 34. But, to return, both west and east of the Trumpington
Road we have brought the arable near to the town ditch.
Let us go further east. In 1811 Middle Field still invaded for
some forty yards the south-east side of what now is known as

Parker s Piece. 1 1 7

Parker's Piece. The residue, the great bulk, of that Piece was
conveyed to the municipal corporation by Trinity College in
1613. Until then it had been arable; it was to be turned
'from tillage unto sward'.' The beginning of a terrier of
Middle Field is preserved in one of Baker's MSS. and is to the
points Middlefeild begyns by the south wall of the Fryers Preachers
[Emmanuel College] and at St Andrewes Barne. The Furlong est
and west betwene Hynton way [the Mill Road line] and Hadstock way
[the Hills' Road line] : Moniales dim. acr. North : — 2 acr. 3 rode more
south — 3 rod. south : — Dola Michaelis xiiii. acr. Dola S" Marie et
Gleba Ecclesie x acr. Albi Canonici dim. acr. Universitatis more south
i. acr. Roberti Barbor olim Chaddehall i. acr. et jacet ab Linton {corr.
Hinton] way usque Hadstock way.
The description is not so clear as might be wished ; but
apparently we have a cultura lying immediately outside the
south (i.e. south-east) wall of Emmanuel. First comes a half-
acre of the Nuns. Then a wider strip of the Nuns. Then
Michael Dole of 14 acres. Then glebe of St Mary's Church 10
acres; and so forth. In 161 3 the grant from Trinity contained
15 acres parcel of and belonging to Michael House Grange, and
10 acres parcel of the glebe land of Great St Mary's. Trinity
was fortunate in being able to dispose of 25 acres lying together
at the town end of a common field.
The account given of Middle Field in the terrier written by
Dr Caryl is in the main much older than the conversion of
Parker's Piece ' from tillage unto sward,' but just at this point it
seems to have been adapted to suit modern times. The first
cultura of this field is said to lie east and west, beginning by
Emmanuel College. A note adds : ' The first two selions abut
on the College's new building eastward. The seven next extend
from Hadstock way to Hinton way under the College wall.
The three next are that part of the garden which juts out by
Dr Barnes' brewhouse.' Then the composition of the cultura is
described as follows :

¦ Willis and Clark, ii. 409 ; Cooper, Annals, iii. 58.
= Baker MSS. xxxvi. p. 130 (Camb. Univ. Libr. Mm. i. 47.)

II 8 Chris fs Piece.

Selions

A.

K.

1'.

2

2

o

Nuns, a garden

A.

7

2

3

o
A

Nuns, a garden.
way-balk

El.

3

3
o
Nuns, a garden
El.
Parker's Piece
I
I
o
Nuns, short
M.
I
2
0
Alb. Can.
M.
¦¦>
I
0
o
University
El.
I
I
o
o
Rob. Barber'. Goward
El.
I
',
0
Nuns 2
M.
I
I
0
o
Alb. Can. next the lane
El.
King's Lane.
A.
R.
P.
I
I
o
I
2
O
I
o
o
I
2
o
§ 35. From all this it seems plain that at one time Middle
Field included all that we know as Parker's Piece and came up
to the very wall of Emmanuel College or its predecessor, the
Dominican Friary. To this we must add that the terrier at
Jesus College shows us Christ's Piece as part of Clayangles ; and
it is laid out in selions. Thus : —
Barton croft 8.
Begin to reckon next the lane leading from Green's brewhouse
to Maid's Causeway.
SeUons A. r. p. Nuns with a gore next the lane E
Nuns M.A.
Nuns^ E.
Nuns R.
A way-balk from Emman. lane to Walls lane.
6 o o All the residue of the croft to
Christ's College wall, viz. A.
3 2 o Ja. Hadley
2 2 o the rest Christ's Coll.
§ 36. Once more therefore we have brought the arable near
to the town ditch. I fancy that at one time, if the burgess of
' ' Extends from Hinton way to Hadstock way.' Note in MS.
Abut east on Hinton way, west on University, on the south of Parker's piece
and the north side of Coward's acre here call'd Rob. Barber.' Note in MS.
3 Gerton Crofte in Willis and Clark, ii. [89. The terrier here has a note:
'Christ's College pieces.'
*" ' Call'd Rodolph's acre.' Note in MS.
The Western Fields. 1 19
Cambridge crossed the ditch, he came out at once, or almost at
once, upon the great .sheet of ploughed land, and that the
erection of houses in this quarter implied no curtailment of the
green. The man who was lucky enough to have a strip that
was bounded by a road could build upon it. This must have
slightly interfered with the common use of the idle field, but
only slightly, and I do not think that in 1279 there were many
houses outside the ditch, except the Barnwell suburb, of which
hereafter. § 37. We are now to visit the Western Fields. If we cross
the river at the Great Bridge and walk up Magdalene Street
and Castle Street, an extremely small part of Cambridge, some
times none at all, is on our right hand. The borough' just
includes Magdalene and its grounds and a small patch of land
between Chesterton Lane and the castle mound. Then the
boundary comes into the street in which we walk. The Shire
Hall and the County Police Station are in Chesterton. When
these are past, the boundary swerves away to our right and
includes a small square of land which in 1805 was for the more
part open land, known as Sail Piece, but is now densely peopled.
Then the boundary comes back into and pursues the street that
is now becoming the Huntingdon Road. In the castle's ex
clusion from the borough there may be something of legal
fiction ; but still the fact remains that in this quarter the open
fields of another vill, namely Chesterton, came to the very verge
of the fortified nucleus of Cambridge. The selions of the
Chesterton fields are well marked on Loggan's plan.
§ 38. Now in 1802 an Act was passed for inclosing and
laying in severalty the open and commonable lands in St Giles's
parish. That parish included almost the whole of transpontine
Cambridge^ The area that required inclosure may be cir
cumscribed thus:— Start in the Huntingdon Road at the top
of Pleasant Row: follow the borough boundary, which is the
Huntingdon Road, for about a mile until, when opposite Howe
House, the boundary turns to the left. Follow it over the

' The 'parliamentary' borough is more extensive; but this is a novelty.
2 Award dated 14 May, 1805. Having swallowed up All Saints by the Castle,
St Giles included everything but the small parish of St Peter and a piece of St Mary
the Less in the Newnham quarter. See p. 122, note 4.

I20 The Western Fields.
fields until it strikes the St Neots or Madingley road: Moor
Barns Farm is a little to your right. The borough boundary then
goes, and you must go, some few yards along that road towards
Cambridge ; then it turns to the right over the fields, zigzags a
good deal, but at last strikes the Barton Road at the bridge over
the Bin Brook. Follow it homewards along the Barton Road.
You have been perambulating the line which divides Cambridge
from Chesterton, Girton, Madingley, Coton and Grantchester
When the Barton Road takes a sharp turn to the left at the
corner of the Caius Cricket Ground, you turn and pursue it
Here for the first time you quit the borough boundary, which
makes straight for the mill stream. You must now go along
the road at the backs of the colleges (Queen's Road) to its
junction with the St Neots Road. You pursue the St Neots
Road for a few yards : then up Bandyleg Walk (Lady Margaret's
Road) and by Mount Pleasant to your starting place.
§ 39- By far the greater part of this area was uninclosed.
The commissioners found that the tract with which they were
instructed to deal contained 1361 A. or. 39 P. in all. Of
open and commonable fields, common meadows and other
open and commonable lands and waste grounds there were
1238 A. I R. 22 P. ; of homesteads, gardens, orchards and ancient
inclosures 89 A. I R. 7 P. ; of public and private roads (in
cluding the town streets and lanes) and public drains there were
33 A. 2 R. 10 P. The tract thus measured was not quite the
same as the area that we have perambulated, for it included the
urban part of the parish. Within the circuit that we have
drawn there lay little but uninclosed land. There were a few
closes, but they seem to have contained less than 60 acres.
There were three houses ; I read of no more'
§ 40. The municipal corporation received two pieces,
(4 A. I R. 2 P.) for its • manorial rights.' There were six tithe-

' The area that we have circumscribed seems to have contained about 1 284 acres
roads neglected), of which 57 were inclosed. There were (i) a small patch of closes
at the Howe corner of the area, (ii) another patch at the Newnham corner, and (iii)
some closes near Moor Barns. There were also two closes belonging to St John's
College. Outside our area the Commissioners inclosed Sail Piece and a little land
by the pound on Pound Hill. Also they allotted some small pieces of green to the
Johnians to rectify their frontier; but in other respects the green between the college
boundaries and the Queen's Road was not within the scope of their powers.

The Western Fields. 121
owners. About i8 freeholders were to be compensated for land,
besides a few copyholders of Merton College. One small piece
seems to have been deemed copyhold of Madingley, and another
copyhold of one of the Grantchester manors'. Then about 30
other persons received small plots in exchange for rights of
common connected with tenements in St Giles's parish. We
hear nothing on this occasion of commoners from other parishes.
§ 41. From the Award we can discover that there were four
great fields. The whereabouts of one of these can be easily as
signed. It was the segment whose radii are the Huntingdon and
St Neots Roads. It was called Grithow {i.e. Gravel Hill) Field,
or corruptly Great Howe Fields The other three fields were
Middle Field, Carme Field and College Field. Their boundaries,
which the commissioners were effacing, I can not clearly discern.
Apparently, however. College Field was the name given by
them to the tract that is bounded by the Bin Brook and the
road by which you would drive from 'the Backs' to Barton'.
§42. If this really was the nomenclature of 1800, then I
think that names had been oddly shifted. In the ancient terriers
the four fields are Grithow, Middle, Little and Carme ; and
though, owing to the disappearance of the old paths and ditches,
it is difficult to make a map from these terriers, still it seems to
me plain that the tract that I have described as College Field
(Ridley Hall, Newnham College and Selwyn College now stand
upon it) is their Carme Field. Next beyond the Bin Brook is
their Little Field, and beyond that is Middle Field. Both come
' Jacob Smith (' Copy of Merton Hall ') receives 2 R. 26 P. ; Story's Charity
('Copy Merton') 3 R. ; William Stanley ('Copy Merton HaU') 3 R. 36 P.; William
Short ('Copy Merton') 38 P.; Harman Jones ('Copy Merton HaU') 22 P.;
WiUiam Bostock ('Copy Merton') 22 P.; Richard Comings ('Copy Grantchester')
I A. 3 R. 11 P.; Elias Carter ('Copy Madingley') 4 A. 3 R. 29 P. Tliere is nothing
to surprise us if a few strips have been absorbed into manors lying in neighbouring
villages. ' Girton's old name is Gretton or Gritton. In old times the boundary between the
fields was not at all points the St Neots Road. Near the town a little of Middlefield
came over onto the north side of the road. We have to remember that fields are often
older than roads. Also the new-fangled practice of 'making' roads with stone has
given to our roads a prominence which the medieval way had not.
' For very rough purposes we may picture it as a right-angled triangle; the Caius
Cricket Ground lies at the right angle; the Trinity Garden or 'Roundabout' lies near
one of the other angles ; the third angle is where the Bin Brook is crossed by the Barton
Road.

122 Long Green.

to the St Neots Road, and the division between them seems to
be a track known as the Bartonway, which, starting somewhere
near the foot of Lady Margaret's Road made across the fields
for Barton'. The Carme Field seems to have taken its name
from a block of twenty selions in the Newnham quarter, which
in the fourteenth century was held by the Hospital but was
known as the Carmedole. Perhaps it had once been held by or
for the Carmelites (PV. les Carmes), who had their first house at
Newnham. At an earlier time this field may have been the
Portfield of which we hear in the thirteenth century ; I am not
sure, however, that the whole of the Western Fields were not
known as the Portfield^ To find a Portfield or Portmeadow
outside a borough is not uncommon. The little bridge where
the Bin Brook enters the Cambridge Fields was apparently
known as Portbridge.
§ 43. Between these fields and the river there lay the green
pasture called Long Green. The remains of it are still open;
but much of it has been acquired at one time and another by
the colleges^ It was once of considerable size ; still, taken at its
largest, it would seem but a small pasture to set beside the huge
mass of arable that lay to its west. Part even of the Johnian
•wilderness' has been ploughed and lay in Carme Field*-
§ 44. There was little meadow in medieval Cambridge.
William Harrison (1577) has noted this defect. Cambridge, he
says, has to import wood and coal. ' Moreover it hath no such
store of medowe grounde as may suffice for the ordinarie
expences of the towne and Universitie, wherefore they are
inforced in lyke sort to provide their haye from other villages
' As to this way, see Babington, Ancient Cambridgeshire, p. 20.
^ I have seen a charter in the Archives of Merton College which seemed to point
in this direction.
¦' For the various transactions between the Colleges and the Town, see Willis and
Clark, passim.
" Willis and Clark, vol. ii. p. 238; vol. iv. plate 20. The important lease there
quoted shows Carmefield crossing the line of the Queen's Road; the west head of
some strips belonging to Corpus extend ' over the common waie.' Often the ways are
superimposed upon the fields. There is a tract that I have not mentioned, namely, a
triangular piece which lies in the parish of St Mary the Less, with the MUl Pool
for Its apex and the Mill Stream, the road to Barton and the borough boundary as its
sides. I am not certain that Carmefield did not extend into this tract ; but, not being
m St Giles's parish, it was outside the Inclosure Act.

Field Names. 123

about, which minister the same unto them in verye great
abundance'.' §45. The terriers that I am about to mention are full of
interesting names. In the Western Fields we may find Fries
dole, Tunmannis aker, Shermannis rod, Goidzmedole, Gordeaker,
Blakaker, Barkeresaker, Gaggesaker, Sponyaker, Kariokaker,
Lampeaker, Prioures dole, Brunneforth dole, Porthors dole,
Mordole, Chalkwell dole, Aldermanis hyl. In the Eastern
Fields are Bad husband's headland. Walnut dole. Timber dole,
Hawke dole. Cherry dole, Overthwart dole, Hogmoor, Smock
alley way. Hop acre. Stake acre, Hore acre, Nocket acre, Frog
acre, Crouch acre, and Pest-house Furlong, while the site of the
famous Sturbridge Fair is marked by Garlick Row, Cheese Row
and Duddery Leys. There is also extant an attempt to explain
the whereabouts of the various land-marks in the Western
Fields: for instance, Wlwyes^ dich, Edwynedich, and Endlesse
Waye, so called 'because yt nether haeth beginnyng nor endynge.'
It may be hoped that at some time or another these documents
will be edited by one whose patience and ingenuity will restore
the defaced pattern of the fields'.
§ 46. A few words in the description of Endlesse Waye
deserve attention. ' Endlesse way beginnethe two furlonge
above St Needes his waye towarde Coton feeldes and beginnethe
at the xi* sellion of Bennet Colledge which now be lees and is
called ducke pytt because yt standeth in winter full of water.'
This vividly illustrates the reason why in the old days of
allotment a man was given some strips in all parts of the field.
If the year was wet, he would not wish to have much of his
arable in ' ducke pytt.'
§ 47. The state of the Western Fields in the fourteenth
century is minutely described in a terrier purchased by Mr
Bradshaw and given by him to the University Library*. Appar
ently this book belonged at one time to Corpus, or was annotated
by someone who was especially interested in that college's
' Cooper, Annals, ii. 350; Harrison's England, Bk. ii. ch. iii.
' Mr Stevenson tells me that this points to a Wulfwig.
' He will not neglect the important paper by Prof. Hughes on the Castle, Camb.
Antiq. Soc. Proc. viii. 173 ; nor that by Mr A. Gray on the Watercourses, Ibid. ix. 61.
Mr Gray's remarks touching the ancient course of the river are of great value.
* MS. Add. 2601.

124 T^^^ Western Fields.
estates. It well deserves to be carefully edited. Meanwhile
I can only state roughly and, it is to be feared, inaccurately,
some of the main results that can be won from it.
§ 48. Its date I have not precisely fixed ; but we shall not
go far wrong if we assign it, or the original whence it flows, to
the years round 1360. This is shown by a comparison of the
names of the persons mentioned in it with the names of the
mayors, bailiffs and parliamentary representatives of the borough.
In the following table I have marked a mayor with M, a bailiff
with B, and a parliamentary representative with R.
The form of the entries, when Englished, is the following: —
I selion of Thomas BoUe late of John of Toft about [i rood] —
Radegund. I selion of the College of Corpus Christi late of T. of Cambridge
about [half an acre] — Radegund.
5 selions of the aforesaid Hospital about [i acre i rood] — Giles.
The acreage is supplied by a second hand. The name of the
church to which tithe is paid stands in the margin, e.g. Rad.,
Eg., Rotund. The size of the selions (ridges, ' lands ') varied a
good deal. It is common to find that the selion is a half-acre ;
but sometimes it is an acre, sometimes only a rood or a half-
rood. The terrier often notes that the number of selions in a
given parcel of land has been changed. The current of change
seems to have set towards wide beds. It will be remembered
that the selion is the visible fact, stamped on the surface of the
earth. The acreage on the other hand is a matter of traditional
reputation. § 49. The culturae were of all sizes. I make 30 ' furlongs '
in Grit How Field, 24 in Middle, 1 1 in Little and 14 in Carme.
So doing, I count some very small pieces (as little as two acres)
which, however, were quarentinae per se. I believe that as time
went on some of the land was converted ' from tillage unto
sward.' An instance of such conversion we have lately seen
in Duck Pit.
§ 50. The following table gives the outcome of such rude
calculations as I have been able to make.

The Western Fields in Cent. xiv.

125

Roods in

Roods in

Roods in

Roods in

Present Holders
Late Holders
Grithow
Middle
Little
Carme
Tot.ll
No. of
Field
Field
Field
Field
Roods
Parcels
Hospital of St
John
239
423
140
139
941
139
Prior of Barnwell
299
275
78
652
83
St Radegund
24
65
89
14
White Canons
8
6
14
3
Prior of Hunting
don
62
S8
5
37
162
31
Nuns of Beach
23
94
31
148
39
Sturbridge Hos- )
pital i
12
12
5
Church of St Giles
4
4
8
2
Chantry at St j
Clements \
I 2
I I
23
7
Chantry at St 1
Peter's (without)}
13
13
3
Chantry at St )
Sepulchre's \
71
41
II
3
126
30
Chantry at Coton
I
I
I
Parishioners of )
8
8
St John i
1
Parishioners of )
St Sepulchre \
12
12
I
Merton College
94
127
28
249
i8
Cambridge Uni- )
versity !
II
8
37
56-
9
Corpus College
2
2
I
R. Barbour
12
12
2
T. Cambridge
94
117
13
60
284
68
J. Gedyn
6
6
1
J. Poplington
6
17
23
6
J. Redhead
13
13
4
G. Seman
72
194
4
79
349
59
W. Snorying
-7
2
4
2
H. Tanglemere
14
14
4
Sir B. Burghersh
28
28
I
Mortimer's land
40
96
24
160
8
W. Aleyn
2
6
8
4
R. Arderne {B)
18
18
5
T. Attechurch
J. Blankpain {M.R.)
2
2
I
S. Houdlo
3
3
I
W. Lavenham
40
16
56
12
T. Audele
27
17
2
46
7
R. Baldeston
J. Comberton {B) 4
6
10
2
J. Baldewyn {B)
A. Stowe
2
2
2
J. Barker {B)
N. Bradenash
15
18
33
6
H. Beech [B)
9
9
4
126

The Western Fields in Cent. xiv.

Roods in

Roods in

Roods in

Roods in

Present Holders

Late Holders (

jrithow

Middle

Little

Carme

Total

No. of

Field
Field
Field
Field
Roods
Parcels
H. Blankpain
12
12
2
R. Bluntesham
H. Toft (B)
12
12
I
T. Bolle
l8
8
26
7
R. Brigham (Af./?.)
II
17
4
32
s
V/. Burton {R)
W. Dene
I
I
I
G. Bushell
S. Refham (M.R.)
3
3
I
A. Cottenham
12
12
3
J. Cotton {M.R.)
T. Comberton
20
22
6
48
II
N. Crocheman
17
6
12
35
8
R. Fowkes (M)
his father
0
2
I
W. Goldsmith
W. atte Cundut
8
8
I
T. Jekke
his father
19
19
6
R. Harleston (M)
2
2
4
2
J. Berton
34
34
3
R. Goldsmith
9
50
59
9
W. Lolworth {R)
24
27
51
15
R. Longe
2
2
I
G. Seman
12
18
30
5
R. Tablet
40
53
10
26
129
30
W. Ward
25
38
8
24
95
18
A. Kynyton
his father
8
8
1
W. Lolworth {B)
J. Laton
4
4
I
R. London
4
4
I
R. Longe
27
34
61
IS
T. Marblethorpe
{B)
8
8
16
6
R. Martin
Various
4
35
39
13
R. Morris {B)
30
20
50
5
Ste. Morris, sen.
{M)
10
14
4
28
4
his father
61
71
22
70
224
46
W. Bekeswell {B)
12
22
6
40
9
J. Berton
99
26
2
127
9
J. Blangroun
4
4
R. Brandon
10
10
R. Brigham {M.R.)
2
2
Vic. St Clement's
4
4
J. Comberton {B)
4
4
8
R. Houdlo
8
8
S. Houdlo
6
6
W. Lolworth {B)
4
4
J. Marshall.
4
4
36
J. Redhead {B)
II
25
12
R. Yslep
2
2
The Western Fields in Cent. xiv.

Totals

1878

2503

431

951

5763

127

/ Present Holders
Ste. Morris, jun. )
{M) \

Roods in
Late Holders Grithow Field

Roods in
Middle Field 8

Roods in
Little
Field

Roods in
Carme Field

Total
Roods 8

No. of
Parcels I

J. Comberton {B)

2

2
I
J. Pittock(il/./?.)
12
37
49
14
T. Morris {B)
R. Niket
G. Seman
J. Refham
24
130 4
142
17
55
24
344 4
3
61 I
J. Norton
5
5
3
13
J. Pilet {M. R.)
his father
II
16
29
56
J. Sharp
T. Wintringham {B)
2
2
I
W. Sherwynd
20
20
4
J. Templeman
6
6
2
W. Thaxted
J. Touche
J. Martyn
I
12
0
13 2
2 I
Ri. Tuliet {M)
IS
17
32
8
Ro. Tuliet (/?)
10
28
12
50
6
G. Wardeboys {B)
II
II
I
J. Weston
Various
18
5
2
82
107
28
J. Wymark
R. Longe
6
6
2
N. Wymark
W. Bekeswell {B)
6
6
I
Unspecified
Sturbridge Chapel
4
4
I
Merton Coll.
16
16
I
R. Dunning {M)
12
44
56
2
W. Lavenham
10
10
I
T. Morris (B)
8
8
I
G. Seman
2
2
I
R. Seman
4
4
I
In dispute
4
4
I
St Giles
4
4
I
University
3
3
I
N. Morris
2
2
I
T. Blangroun
4
4
I
IOI9
§ 51. In some cases the acreage of a strip is not stated;
perhaps some 70 acres may be thus accounted for^; also I have
reason to fear that I have made some mistakes on the side of
' Add in Grithow Field the following selions of which acreage is not given :
St Radegund 4, Corpus 1, S. Morris sen. 4, R. Longe i and a gore, Merton College,
5 gores, a selion and a butt. In Middle Field : Hospital 2, Barnwell i, St Radegund
3, Nuns of Beach 2, Merton 8, Corpus 20, Mortimer 8, T. Bolle 4, R. Harleston 2,
S. Morris sen. 9, G. Bushell 10 and a gore. In Little Field: Hospital 16, T. Audele
10, R. Harleston 8. In Carme Field: Hospital 7, Corpus 6, J. Barker 2, N. Croche
man I, R. Martyn 1, J. Weston 4, T. Sturmyn i, J. Pilet 3 butts.
1 28 Roger of Harleston.
omission. I suspect the terrier of describing full 1520 'acres.'
This is much more than would be wanted were ' acres ' invari
able. In 1805 nearly the whole of St Giles's parish was set down
at 1 361. The Ordnance Survey sets it at 1393, but this includes
what was St Peter's. According to the award of 1805, if I have
rightly followed its figures, the segment between the Huntingdon
and St Neots Roads, if we take Pleasant Row and Lady
Margaret's Road as its townward limit, contained 431 acres;
and the segment between the St Neots Road and the Barton
Road, if we take the Queen's Road as its townward limit,
contained 853. This would give us but 1284 acres for our fields.
We may infer that the old estimated acres were small ; but also
I fancy that the Carme Field of the terrier crossed the Barton
Road and came close to the present course of the mill stream^
While most of the strips in the Western Fields tithe to Giles or
Radegund, there are two or three culturae in Carme Field whose
strips are tithing for the more part domui S. Petri, and we
should expect that now-a-days these culturae would be included
in the parish of St Mary the Less.
§ 52. But, to pass from geography, we see that the larger
half of the land is already in the dead hand : according to my
figures 3221 out of 5763 roods. However we also see that a
good many strips have but newly fallen into mortmain. The
700 roods belonging to the college of Corpus Christi were lately
owned by Cambridge burgesses. Then, among the laity the
movement seems to be towards concentration. Roger Harleston
has acquired strips from at least seven different quarters.
Stephen Morris the elder has thirteen predecessors in title
besides his father. The Black Death may have brought land
into the market.
§ 53- Roger of Harieston (that is, of Harston) is an in
teresting person. I think that he was a new-comer in Cambridge.
He was mayor in or about 1357, and in 1376, 1377, 1378, 1380
and 1383 he represented the shire in Pariiament. During the
rebellion of 1381 his house at Cottenham and his house in
Cambridge were pillaged^: he seems to have made himself
1 See the parcels numbered 17, 16, 30 on the Ordnance Map.
2 Rec. Off. Assize Rolls, No. 103; Powell, Rising in East Anglia, pp. 43, 52;
Return of Members of Parliament, i. 193, 197, 199, 203, 217. It is possible that the
mayor was the father of the knight of the shire.

The Franciscan Conduit. 129
hated. His house in Cambridge stood in Harleston's Lane,
now Thompson's Lane. The lands that he had acquired in the
fields of Cambridge and Coton were known as ' Harleston lands',
and in Henry VIII.'s reign had fallen to St John's College.
The same college had also by that time acquired from Dr
Thompson the ' Mores (dissyllable) lands ' consisting of 217 acres
in the fields of Cambridge, Newnham and Coton ; and these
seem to be the estate of the Morris family^. Thus this college
became the successor, not only of the ancient Hospital, but of
two other prominent landowners of the fourteenth century.
' St John's Barns,' the barns of the Hospital, seem to have
been situated on the spot where the Westminster College is
now being built.
§ 54. A valuable piece of evidence may be adduced at this
pointl In 1325 the guardian of the Friars Minor purchased a
long and narrow strip of land running through the fields. It
was to be the course of a conduit, and is to this day the course
of the conduit which supplies the fountain in the great court of
Trinity. The strip was two feet wide and 1467 ells {virgae
cissoris) in length. The following are the names of the vendors
of the strip and the number of ells purchased from them : —
Hospital IOO, Barnwell Priory 12, Th. Morys 250, Wil. Lavenham
300, Geof. Seman 500, Hugh Pyttok 8, Nuns of Waterbeach 20,
Prior of Huntingdon 8, Rob. Brigham 12, Th. Balls 8, Ste.
Morys 8, Joh. Pyttok 8, Wil. Lolworth 6, Wil. Bekeswell 8, Wil.
Marbilthorp' 10, Wil. Redwood 9, R. Tableter 200. In our terrier
Roger Harleston, Stephen Morris and Corpus College have
already absorbed the land of a good many of the owners who
are here mentioned.
§ 55. Turning to the Eastern Fields, we shall find that the
ecclesiastical element is yet stronger. These fields seem to have
comprised 75 furlongs {culturae) which were distributed thus : —
Sturbridge Field Nos. 1-6; Clayangles or Croft Land Nos.
7-13; Bradmore Field Nos, 14-34; Middle Field Nos. 35-58;
Ford Field Nos. 59-73 ; Swinecroft Nos. 74, 75- The terrier at
Jesus College, which I have been permitted to use, was, as
' Baker, Hist. St John's, ed. Mayor, i. 344, 354. 381-
2 Willis and Clark, ii. 427, 678.
s Marblethorpe's lands or some of them seem to have passed to Clare College :
Baker, Hist. St John's, ed. Mayor, i. 357.
M. 9

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

bo-o
-a o

¦V^ -si .55 -s«

A |« ^<2

.0 o

m o S Hp<
Barnwell, Prior 205 292 501 109 637 1744 305
Almoner 6 18 11 35 13
Pittancer 40 7 7 54 15
St Radegund 8 92 19 119 114 216 568 165
White Canons 48 98 28 89 40 151 454 150
Anglesey, Prior 11 6 39 5 8 69 22
Denny, Abbess 6 52 13 5
Huntingdon, Prior 2 48 18 68 13
Sturbridge Chapel 64 14 3 16 97 28
St Mary, Chantry 521 84
St Peter, Chantry
A gild 5 4

I
9 3
21

University 92 7 3 32 53 --
Corpus College 9 35 18 29 91 29
Michael House 3 3 i
[Christ's College] lo 10 i
Mortimer's Land 48 34 120 40 242 7 I
3
I I
9

Arden, R. {B) 6 6
Arnold, J. {B) 4 4
Ash well, J.

3 I
I I

Barber, R. (5) 14 6 7 27 ,
Barker, B. 4 41
Barrington, J. 8 81
Barton, J. ,
Beche, H. {B) i
Bedford, W. 6 61
Bernard, J. i i i
Bernard, S. 6 34 i 4 45 23
1 Apparently the terrier copied by Dr Caryl was originally made for the Prior of
Barnwell or else corrected by some one interested in his land, for in the statement of
the content of his strips perches are often mentioned, while in other cases such accuracy
is rare. In stating totals 1 have here and elsewhere neglected fractions of a rood. Add
as unmeasured 6 selions of the White Canons in Ford Fiefd, and a parcel belonging
to Corpus in Bradmore. Parker's Piece is excluded ; see above, p. 117.

The Eastern Fields in Cent. xiv. 131

f^

h
."So 3
u5
(2«
H
i !l
u
ll
Bingham, P.
7
5
12
6
Blankpayn, J.
4
4
I
Brackley, R.
4
4
I
Brigham, R. {M. R.)
'¦>
2
I
Bush, J.
3
I
4
2
Caldwell, E.
6
6
I
Cambridge, J.
6
5
26
37
II
Cambridge, T.
4
T
I
7
4
. Carbonel, J.
18
3
21
4
Cayley, P. {M. R.)
64
17
2
58
141
32
Comberton, J. {B)
6
23
29
12
Comberton, R.
14
14
2
Cotton, C.
7
15
22
8
„ J. {M. R.)
I
15
4
20
6
„ T.
31
12
43
8
„ W.
7
7
2
Cowper, J.
4
4
2
Cutler
2
2
I
Essex, W.
5
I
6
2
Eversdon, R.
3
7
13
23
9
Firmar', A. de
8
14
22
7
Fish, W.
3
3
I
Gibbon, J. {M. R.)
13
2
4
19
5
Hadley
14
14
I
Hilles worth
I
I
I
Hogon
I
I
I
Holme, J.
2
-
I
„ T.
I
2
3
2
Horwood, W. {M. R.)
5
5
8 8
2
Ironmonger, J.
8
"
Jacob, T.
8
I
Joachim, T.
8
2 8
10 8
5 I
Lister, J.
Martyn, R.
16
16
5
Masterman, R. {M. R.)
3
3
I
Morris, J. {M.R.)
6
29
5
39
79
21
Morris, S. (B.M.)
3
3
3
Pawe, N. (B)
3
3
4
15
25 6
96 2
13
Payne, J. (R)
6
Peryn, B.
21
3
15
10
47
37 I
Piper, R.
2
5
3
Pocket, B.
5
9—2
132

Lands of the Religious.

fa

fa

1^ a; o
CO
tlu
fa
11
II
ll
Pocket, J.
2
2
I
PopUngton, H.
4
4
2
Porter, J. {B)
2
2
I
Potton, N.
I
I
I
Powle, R.
7
I
6
14
4
Preston, J.
12
12
I
Reder, W.
7
7
5
Richman, R.
4
4
I
Roger, N.
I
I
I
Rogers, J.
„ P-
3
8
3
8
2 I
Rosby, M.
I
I
I
Scale, H.
2
2
2
Smith, H.
3
14
12
29
15
„ J-
I
I
I
Sterne, R.
I
6
7
5
Stevens, J.
7
4
II
5
„ M.
3
3
I
Thorpe, J.
3
3
I
„ T.
I
I
I
Triplow, H.
4
4
I
Trumpington, A.
I
I
I
Tuliet, R. {M)
II
II
2
Turner, J.
I
I
I
Ware, J.
2
2
I
Warwick, G.
3
3
2
White, J.
4
4
I
Uncertain
37
14
97
52
24
224
21
Total
453
757
151
1382
473
1523
4739
1138
I 56. We shall not go very far wrong if we say that a third
of the Eastern Fields belonged to Barnwell Priory, another third
to other ecclesiastical or collegiate bodies, and the remaining
third to men of the town. It will be seen that the Nuns of
St Radegund and the White Canons are richer in this quarter
than in the Western Fields, also that the Hospital has nothing
here. Probably a good deal of exchanging had been done^
^ Among the Jesus charters, of which I have seen Mr Gray's notes, is one (Q. 35)
whereby the Hospital gives the Nuns 7 A. i R. scattered in Barnwell Fields, in
exchange for the same amount of land in Portfield, some of which is near the
Office-holders and Land-holders. 133

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

A.
R.
P.
4 selions
Nuns
A. d. B.
2
0
0
I »
Prior of Barnwell
E.
2
0
I
Nuns
A. d. B.
2
0
2 „
Nuns, partible
A. d. B.
A.
I
0
0
3 »
Nuns
E.
I
0
0
Here in a space of five acres three churches take tithe : namely,
if I rightly construe the symbols, St Andrew of Barnwell {A.d.E),
St Andrew the Great {A) and St Edward {E). What is more,
there are strips belonging to the Nuns which tithe to the Almoner
of Barnwell, and strips belonging to the Prior which tithe to
St Radegund.
§ 57. The laity have little in all these Eastern Fields.
Their tenements are small, and I take it that many of the men
who are mentioned are poor people who till the soil that belongs
to the religious houses. Their names are not those of the great
burgensic families. Still there are exceptions : Robert Brigham,
Philip Caley, John Cotton, John Gibbon^ William Horwood and
John Morris are mayors of the town and might, were they
moderns, write M.P. after their names. Peryn and Tuliet are
good old Cambridge names.
Across the water the laity were much stronger, and even in
the fourteenth century the men who hold land there are very
often the big men of the borough. This I can best show by
means of the subjoined lists, in which I mark with an asterisk
the names which occur in the terrier.
§ 58. In the Library of Downing College is a volume
bequeathed to it by Alderman J. Bowtell. It was purchased by
him at the sale of the books of Dr Charies Mason. It contains
Bin Brook. By another charter (Q. 36) the Canons of St Edmund's chapel (White
Canons) give the Nuns 4 A. 3 E. 16 P. lying in 3 parcels in Barnwell Fields in exchange
for 3 A. 2 R. 13J p. lying in 4 parcels in Swinecroft.
^ In 1381 there were two John Gibbons. One of them was drawn and hanged for
his part in the insurrection.
134

Mayors and Bailiffs.

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

Mayors and Bailiffs of Cambridge.
Henry III. and Edward I. (without date).
Mayors Bailiffs.
Rog. de Wykes Pet. de Wilburgham, Will. Eliot, Joh. Porthors, Walt.
Ent.
Ric. Laurence Will. Eliott, Sim. ad Aquam, Ger. ad Stagnum.
Joh. Ent Joh. Porthors, Mic. Pilet, Rog. de Weresfeild, Joh. de
Ailsham, Rob. de Maddingley.
Joh. le Rus Joh. Porthors, Ernie Mercator, Tho. Plote, Herv. Tine-
tor.
Joh. Martyn Mic. Pilet, Joh. Porthors, Rob. de Maddingley.
Joh. Martyn Joh. de Ailsham, Ger. de Vivariis, Mic. Pilet, Rob. de
Maddingley.
Joh. Martyn Joh. Porthors, Will. Goldring, Sim. Godeman, Herv.
Tinctor.
Joh. Martyn Regin. de Cumberton, Sim. ad Aquam (de Bradele), Joh.
Peryn, Rog. de Wethersfeild.
Joh. Martyn Rob. Wymund, Rob. Tuylet, Galf le Ferour, Joh. Gerund.
Joh. Martyn Rob. Wymund, Joh. Porthors, Rob. Tuylet, Jac. Fer-
rarius.
Joh. Martyn Will, de Hulm, Tho. de Madingley, Alan de Welles, Joh.
Prentyz.
Joh. Martyn Joh. Peryn, Rog. de Wethersfeild, Joh. de Caumpes,
Hump, le Draper.

Mayors and Bailiffs.

135

Mayors
Bart. Gogging
Bart. Gogging
Will. Eliot
Joh. Dunning
Joh. Buth
Joh. Buth
Joh. Buth
Joh. Buth
Joh. Martyn

Bailiffs.
Rob. Wymund, Joh. Palfryman, Sim. de Bradele, Ric.
Bateman jun.
Joh. Porthors (Porter), Rob. Wymund, Joh. de Ailsham,
Gerard ad Vivarium (de Vyver) (ad Stagnum).
Hen. Tuylet, Hen. Nadun, Joh. Buth, Joh. Palfryman.
Joh. de Leek, Sim. Godeman, Galf. Knyvet, Joh. Robe-
lard.
Joh. Porthors, Mic. Pilet, Ric. Bateman jun., Joh. de
Ailsham.
Rob. de Madingley, Rog. de Wethersfeld, Joh. Palfry
man, Sim. de Bradely.
Joh. Gerund, Will. Seman, Ric. Bateman jun., Ric. de
Hokele.
Tho. Tuylet, Ric. Crochman, Joh. Golding, Step. Hunne
(Hunt).
Rob. de Shelford, Regin. de Cumberton, Joh. de Brank-
tree, Joh. Pawe.

Ann. Mayors
54 Joh. fil. Martyn
55 Joh. Martyn

I Bart. Goggyng
6 Joh. Buth
10 Joh. Martyn
II Joh. Buth

12 Joh. Martyn
13 Joh. But
14 Joh. But
15 Joh. But

Henry III. (28 Oct. 1216.)
Bailiffs
Hen. Tuyleth, Joh. de Ailsham, Rob. Wymund,
Hen. Nadun.
Joh. Porthors, Regin. Sherwyne, Will Elliott, Rog.
de Wilburgham.
Edward I. (20 Nov. 1272.)
Joh. Porthors, Rob. Wymund, Joh. de Ailsham,
Ger. de Stagno.
Joh. Gerund, Will. Seman, Ric. de Hokele, Ric.
Bateman jun.
Joh. Porthors, Mic. Pilet, Rob. de Maddingle, [Joh.
Peryn].
Will. Seman, Joh. Porthors, Ric. Laurence, Ric.
Bateman jun.
[Joh. Gerund, Ric. fil. Ric. Bateman, Will. Seman,
Ric. de Hockele.]
Rob. Wymund, Rob. Tuylet, Galf. Fabrarius, Joh.
Gerund.
Rog. de Wethersfeld, Joh. le Palfryman [alias le
" Palfreyur], Rob. de Maddingley, Sim. de
Bradeley.
Joh. Porthors, Mic. Pylet, Ric. Bateman, Joh. de
Aylesham.
Joh. Martyn, Joh. Peryn, Hump, de Costesey, Rog.
de Wethersfeld.

136

Mayors and Bailiffs.

Ann

Mayors

16

Joh. Martyn

17

Joh. Martyn

18

19

Joh. But

20

Joh. But

21

Mic. Pilet

22

Rob. Tuylet

23

Joh. Gerund

24

Joh. But

25

Joh. Dunning

26

Joh. Dunning

27

Joh. Dunning

28

Gui. le Specer

29

Sim. de Stockton

30

Sim. de Stockton

31

Sim. de Stockton

32

Sim. de Stockton

33

Joh. Goldring

34

Joh. Dunning

35

Sim. de Stockton

Bailiffs
Rob. de Shelford, Regin. de Cumberton, Joh. Pawe,
Joh de Branketre.
Joh. Peryn, Joh. de Caumpes, Rog. de Wethersfeld,
Hump, le Draper.
Joh. Buth et Mich. Pylat Gardiani.
Joh. Porthors jun., Galf. le Ferur, Joh. de Banketre,
Rob. Stersman.
Thos. Tulyeth, Ric. Crochman, Joh. Goldring, Steph.
Hunk [or Hunne].
Will, de Hulm, Thos. le Mercer (alias de Madingle),
Joh. Prentyz, Alan de Welle.
Rob. Matfray, Mic. fitz Joh., Mic. Wolward, Walt.
de Fulburne.
Gui. le Specer, Pet. le Barkere [Bakere], Sim.
Sephare, Joh. Peryn.
Will. Pyttock, Joh. de Kymbele (Kynburle), Rob.
de Hinton, Will, de Bekeswell.
Joh. Gogging, Sim de Refham, Ric. [Rad.] de
Cumberton, Walt, de Berking.
Will, de Leeds, Hen. de Berton, Galf. de Costesey,
Aunsel de Costesey.
Galf. Knyvet, Sim. Godeman, Joh. de Lockton,
Joh. Robylard.
Sim. de Stockton, Rob. Culling, Joh. Prentyz, Ric.
Dunning.
Walt. Cole, Thos. [Phil.] Cumberton, Ric. de
Bodekesham, Rob. de Cumberton pistor.
Rob. Pistor de Cumberton, Will. Martyn, Mat.
Aurifaber, Rob. de Brunne.
[Joh. de Schelford, Will. Engayne, Will, de Orwelle,
Humf. Godlombe.]
Will. Martyn, Mat. Aurifaber, Rob. de Daker
(Baker), Rob. de Brunne.
Joh.de Cumberton, Regin. Bercarius, Will. Thurroc,
Rob. Sethford [Seckford].
Will, de Cumberton, Rog. le Hafter, Joh. fil Ric.
Wombe.
[Joh. Moris], Adam Godson, Ric. Wolward, Pet.
de Brigham [Byrlingham].
Joh. Edward, Sim. de Armine (Brunne), Rob. de
Welles, Rad. de Cumberton jun.
[Sim. de Brune (alias de Reynham), Joh. Edward,
Rad. de Cumberton jun., Rob. de Welle.]

Mayors and Bailiffs.

137

Ann. Mayors
I Joh. Dunning
3 Joh. Dunning
4 Sim.de Refham*
5 Sim. de Refham*
6 Gui. le Spicer
7 Gui. le Spicer
8 Joh. Morrice*
9 Gui. le Spicer
10 Joh. Morrice*
II Rob. Dunning*
12 Rob. Dunning*
13 Eudo de Help-
ringham
14 Eudo de Help-
ringham (cleri
cus)
15 Sim.de Refham*
16 Sim. de Refham
17 Rob. Dunning*
19 Eudo de Help-
ringham
20 [Eudo de Help-
ringham]

Edward II. (8 July 1307.)
Bailiffs
Joh. [Fikeys], Will, de Brunne, Thos. de Tendring
(le Taylour), Rad. Hankyn [alias de Comber
ton].
Rob. Tuylet jun.*, Joh. Culling, Rog. de Coste
sey*, Jac. Godlomb.
Hen. de Toft*, Will. Carbonel, Sim. de Bradele,
Rob. Dunning*.
Joh. Pilet*, Regin. de Trumpeton, Tho. de Brank-
tree.
Joh. Duck, Joh. de Cumberton*, Joh. de Trumpe
ton, Tho. de Snaylwell.
Bart. Morrice, Will. Carnifex, Joh. Martyn, Rob.
le Long.
Galf. de Costeseye, Alan de Walsete [le Walsche],
Will. Holay, Will de Bedeford.
Joh. Tuylet, Ric. de Thacksted, Ad. de Bungey,
Galf. de Warboys*.
Joh. de Leeke, Tho. de Elm, Will. Seman, Bart.
Tannator.
Joh. de Deneford, Rob. de Boltun, Gilb. [Rob.] de
Chateriz, Will, de Bodeney.
Tho. de Cottenham, Will, de Lenne, Galf Duke,
Will, le Hayward.
Joh. de Tychewell, Alan de Refham*, Will, de
Pocklington, Ric. de Trippelawe.
Joh. Berfote, Henr. de Holm, [Ric. Modbrok, Hen.
de Wynepol].
Hen. de Toft* Ric. [Rob.] de Brunne, Rob. de
Cumberton, Joh. Pilat*.
Rob. de Bray [Bery], Will, de Thaxted* Will, de
Sledemere, Joh. le Barber.
Ric. Tuylet*, Joh. de Newton, Sim. de Morden*,
Hen. Knyvet.
Milo de Trumpeton, Rob. de Brunne, Will. Holay,
Joh. de Cumberton*.

138

Mayors and Bailiffs.

Ann. Mayors
I Eudo de Help-
ringham
2 Eudo de Help-
ringham
3 Hen. de Toft*
4 Joh. Pylat*
5 Joh. Pylat*
6 [Joh. Pittocke]
7 Joh. Pyttock*
8 Joh. Pyttock*
9 Joh. Pyttock*
lo Joh. Pyttock*
1 1 Ric. Tuylet*
12 Ric. Tuylet*
12 Ric. Tuylet*
13 [Ric. Tuylet*
13 [or 14] Ric. Tuy
let*
IS Phil. Caley*
16 Phil. Caley*
17 Barth. Morrice*

18 Barth. Morice*
19 Ric. Tuylet*

Edward III. (25 Jan. 1327.)
Bailiffs
Joh. Outlawe, Alan de Badburgham.
Rob. de Cumberton, Sim. de Bradeley, Galf de
Wareboys*.
Joh. Knyvet, Hug. Pyttock* Rog. [Alex.] le Hus-
seh [Husser], Rob. Martyn.
Rob. Seman, Hen. Peryn, Steph. de Panfeild, Joh.
de Teversham.
Galf. de London, Sim. Bernard* Rob. de Tichewell,
Dan. de Felstede.
Rob. Hassock, Will, de Warwic, Hen. de Beche*,
Will, de Heyham.
Joh. le Spencer, Will, le Forster mercenarius,
Albric. Mercenarius, Will, de Refham.
Sim. de Chesterton, Rog. Chaundler, Tho. de
Wintringham, Ric. Bradenheth, [Nie. de Stowe].
Tho. de Wells, Laur. Pittock, Hen. de Brunne,
Will, de Hinxton.
Joh. de Barnton, Bened. Pyttock, Joh. Baron, Will.
[Ric] Martyn.
Joh. de Toft, Will, atte Churchstile (de Campesse),
Ric. de Arderne*, Nie. Pawe*.
Herv. Pilat, Joh. de Baldoc, Joh. de Bernay, Joh.
de Cumberton pelliparius*.
Sim. de Refham, Rog. le Chandelur, Joh. de
Thackstede, Wil. le Glasenwryght.]
Joh. de Refham, Joh. de Bungey, Laur. de Talle-
worth, Joh. de Bronne.
Jacob, fil. Agnetis (Fisher), Eric [Brice] de Refham
(Balsham), Joh. le Porter, Sim. Scapewyche
[Staupwik].
Edm. de Ovyngton, Joh. Arnald*, Joh. Vavasour,
Rob. de Weton.
Will, de Horwode* Hugh le Faber [le Smyth] de
Bernewell* Joh. de Marblethorp, Rog. de
Brandon.
[Dan de Felstede, Joh. Wyth, Joh. de Marbilthorp,,
Will, de Horwood*.]
Joh. de Bernwell, Joh. de Shadeworth, Joh. le
Tableter, Ric. de Weston.
Joh. de Brunne, Ste. Morrice* Joh. Redhede*,
Will, de Brigham.

Mayors and Bailiffs.

139

Ann. Mayors
20 Ric. Tuylet*
21 Phil. Cayley*
22 Rob. Brigham*
23 Rob. Brigham*
24 Will. Horwode*
25 Will. Horwode*
26 Will. Horwode*
27 Step. fil. Joh.
Morrice*
28 Step. fil. Joh.
Morice*
29 Step. fil. Joh.
Morice*
30 [Rog. de Harlas-
ton*
30-1 Rog. de Harles
ton*
32 Rog. de Harles
ton*
33 Step. fil. Bart.
Morrice*
34 Step. fil. Bart.
Morice*
35 Step. fiL Joh.
Morrice*. [Step.
Morice jun.]
36 Step. fil. Joh.
Morice*
36-7 Joh. Morrice*
38 Joh. London
39 Edm. Lyster
40 Joh. London
41 Joh. Morris*
42 Ric. Fouke*
43 Joh. Morris
45 Joh. Gybbon*

Bailiffs
Herv. Pilat, Joh. Baldok, Joh. de Cumberton*,
Joh. de Berney.
Will, de LoUeworth*, Hen. le Clerk [alias de Midil-
ton], Ric. de Thaksted, Galf de Warwick*.
Tho. de Welles, Rob. Martyn, Hen. de Beche*,
Dan. de Felsted.
Tho. Morrice sen.*, Steph. Morrice jun.*, Joh.
Purrey.
[Rog. de Brampton, Joh. de Marbylthorp, Hug. le
Smyth.]
Joh. de Paunfeld, Thos. de Marblethorp* Ric.
Powell, Will, de Lindeseye (Condesie).
Ric. fil Joh. Morrice*, Joh. Segeuill [Segevil], Joh.
de Poklinton, Edm. Lyster.
Joh. de Essex, Tho. Pope (Piper), Joh. de Wyne-
ston. Will. Wynde.
Rog. de Refham, Tho. Morrice* Joh. Tyler, And.
de Todenham [Cotenham].

Joh. de Baldok, Joh. Wyth, Rog. de Refham,
Joh. de Berneye.]
Joh. de Roiston, Will, le Glaswright, Tho. Bole,
Joh. le Burn (Tumour).
Joh. Gybbon*, Joh. Abuseman (?).

Joh. Berle, Joh. Baldwyne, Joh. Hylburgworth.

Ric. Fynchinfeld, Will. Burton, Will. Hosteler,
Pet. Lewich (?).

Joh. Titeshale, Will. Clopton, Tho. Marblethorp*,
Rob. Barber*.
Ric. de Arderne*, Joh. Barker.

140 Representative Burgesses.

Bailiffs
.Lyster, Tho. Lolleworth, Will. Noled, Will.
Ostler.

Ann. Mayors
46 Joh. Gybon*
47 Will. Horewode*
48 Joh. Blankpayn
49 Joh. Morrice*
50 Joh. Gybbon*
50 Joh. Cotton*

§ 59. Representatives of the Borough in Parliament^.
Joh. de Cantebrege, Bened. Godsone.
Joh. fil. Paulini, Tho. de Maddingle.
Tho. de Maddyngle, Rog. Maniaunt.
Mich. Pylet, Tho. de Maddingle.
Mich. Pylet, Tho. de Maddingle. '
Sim. de Refham, Will, de Combertone.
Joh. de Shelforde, Phil. Pawe.
Joh. Morice, Joh. Cullyng.
Mich. Pylet, Joh. Culling.
Rog. de Costeseye, Mat. le Orfevre.
Mat. le Orfevre, Rog. de Costeseye.
Rog. de Costeseye, Mat. le Orfevre.
Rob. Tuillet*, Rog. de Costeseye.
Will, de LoUeworthe, Will. Tuyllet*.
Joh. de Coulinge, Edm. de Cantebrige.
Rob. Dunnynge* Ric. de Kimberle.
Tho. de Cotenham*, Galf de Lenne.
Tho. de Cotenham*, Galf. de Lenne.
Joh. Pyttoke*, Galf. de Lenne.
Will, de LoUeworthe*, Joh. Pytoke*.
Joh. de Denford, Joh. Pilat*.
Joh. Moriz* Hen. de Toft*.
Eudo de Helpryngham, Will, de LoUeworthe*.
Galf. de Leen, Tho. de Cotenham*.
Joh. Moriz* Joh. de Neutone.
Steph. de Cantebrige, Joh. le Clerk.
Joh. de Neutone, Tho. Andreu.
Joh. Pilat* Galf. de Lenne.
Joh. Pylat* Galf de Lenne.
Joh. de Neutone, Will, de Saham.
Edm. de Cantebrigge, Joh. de Lyngwode.
Phil, de Cayly*, Will, de Saham.
^ From the blue book.

23

Edw. 1

1295

26

J)

1298

29

))

1301

30

))

1302

33

))

1305

34

))

1306

35

?)

1307

I

Edw. II. 1307

5

))

1311

6

11

1312

6

ll

1313

7

¦i-i

1313

8

•i-i

1315

12

)j

1318

12

J)

1319

14

»

1320

15

5?

1321

15

J)

1322

16

))

1322

17

57

1324

19

J)

1325

20

3)

1327

I

Edw. III. 1327

2

))

1328

2

"i-i

1328

2-3

»

1328-9

4

5)

1330

4

3J

1330

6

5J

1332

6

J5

1332

6

1-i

1332

8

)1

1334

Landowners as Tax-payers. 141
Galf de Len, Will, de Saham.
Joh. Morice*, Will, de Saham.
Joh. Morice* Joh. Which'.
Galf de Lenne, Joh. Pytcok* [corr. Pyttok^
Joh. Morice*, Joh. Pitcock*.
Joh. Morice*, Joh. Pitcoke*.
Joh. Pytcoke*, Will, de LoUeworthe*.
Rob. de Bregham*, Joh. Pitcoke*.
tt )j )j )j
Phil. Cailly*, Edm. de Ovyngtone.
It J) )) ),
Joh. Pitcoke*, Edm. Rokeland.
Tho. de Cotenham* Will, de LoUeworthe*.
Joh. de Hiltone, Nie. de Felmersham.
Hen. de Middeltone, Will, de Horewode*.
Joh. de Baldoke, Hen. de Middeltone.
Step. fil. Bart. Morice*, Joh. de Baldoke.
Joh. de Essex, Joh. Londone.
Joh. de Essex, Joh. (?) Morice.
Joh. de Londone, Will. Horwode*.
Joh. de Londone, And. Cotenham*.
Joh. Londone, Will. Horwode*.
Joh. Morice*, Edm. Lystere.
Joh. Moryce*, Edm. Lytestere.
Joh. Morys*, Joh. Blaunkpayn.
Joh. Morice* Joh. Blankpayn.
Edm. Listere, Joh. Blaunpayn.
Joh. Gyboun*, Joh. Cantebrigge.
Joh. Morice*, Joh. de Cottone*.
Edm. Redemede, Joh. Moris sen.
Joh. Cottone*.
§ 60. We can apply another test. In 1340 Parliament
granted the king a ninth of movables in cities and boroughs.
About 432 people were taxed in Cambridge^. The poorest class
consisted of those who were to pay six-pence apiece, and whose
goods therefore (for this is the true order of medieval logic) were
appraised at 4J. 6d. The Prior of Barnwell was to pay 30J., the
Scholars of Merton \os., the Prioress of 3t Radegund 13X 4^.,
and so forth. Now we will make a list of the men whose goods
are valued at 40J. and upwards.
Thomas of Welles 54^-., John Redhed 45.^., Geof Seman 40J.,
Ric. TuUiet 60s., Alan Refham 72s., Hugh Pyttok 58.y. ed., John
1 Nonarum Inquisitiones (Rec. Com.), 216 if. ; see also Cooper, Annals, i. 93.

9 Edw. III.

1335

10

J>

1336

10

3J

1336

II

•>•>

1337

II

)T

1337

12

tt

1338

12

)J

1338

12-3

»

1339

13

))

1339

13

»

1340

14

)>

1340

15

J)

1341

20

))

1346

22

55

1348

28

1)

1354

29

51

1355

32

3)

1358

34

5)

1360

34

»

1361

37

))

1363

38

1)

1365

40

1366

43

1369

46

))

1372

47

)»

1373

50

•it

1376

51

»

1377

2

Ric. II.

1378

2

»

1379

3

TJ

1380

4

»

1380

142 The Hundred Rolls.
Shadworth 49J. 6d., John le Meresch 45^., Alicia Helpryngham
60s., John Pyttok 45^-., Will. Lolleworth 45^., Bened. Pyttok 45^.,
Rob. Bury \%os., Laur Tal worth 58^. 6d., Tho. Cotenham 40^.,
Ste. Paunfield 54?., Joh. Shatfield 72J., Reg. Trumpeton 45.?.,
Rob. Goldesmyth 45^., Bricius de Refham 60s., Ric. le Tabletter
iSoj-., Joh. de Tablettor 45 j., Joh. Vavasour 72^-., Rob. Brigham
60.5-., Edm. Ovyton 200i-., Sim. Refham 45^., Joh. Andreu 60s.,
Bar. Peryn 45^., Joh. Neuton %is.. Will. Thacsted 60s., Joh.
Barynton 453-., Rob. Comberton 1625-., Th. Wyttringham 45 j.,
Rob. Cotenham 54.?., Hen. Bech 45^., Ad. Dungeye 4Si-., Hen.
Brune 54^., Geof. Wardeboys 45^., Tho. Morice 40J., Will. Stowe
54J., Ric. Shitlyngton 60s.
Out of these 41 names I believe that 18 appear in our field-
books as those of the past or present holders of land. Roger of
Harleston has not yet come on the scene. One of the persons
whose estates he acquires, Richard the Tableter, is almost the
richest man of the town. His name may show that agriculture
is not the origin of his wealth, but we may remark by the way
that among the leading burgesses of Cambridge in the fourteenth
century surnames which imply trade or craft are rare when
compared with surnames derived from neighbouring villages,
such as Barton, Coton or Cotton, Cottenham and Comberton.
How did the burgess of the fourteenth century who owned a
couple of acres cultivate them or get them cultivated ? I think
that any talk of market-gardening or spade-husbandry must be
put out of the question by the ' commonableness ' of the field.
Perhaps he paid one of the few men who had beasts and ploughs
to do the ploughing for him ; or perhaps one farmer would take
leases from many different people.
§ 61. We must pass to a remoter time. A marvellously full
account of Cambridge is given on the Hundred Roll of 1279'.
No other borough in England can show such a record. I have
endeavoured to tabulate some small part of the information that
it offers. First we will look at the urban nucleus. In the
following table I give for each parish the names of the owners
of houses etc., or, to speak more nicely, of the freeholders who
hold houses in demesne. A number preceding a man's name
means that he has that number of houses. A bracketed
^ Rot. Hund. ii. 356.

The Houses in 1279. 143
number following a name indicates the number of pence that
a house pays by way of haw-gaveU
§ 62. St Giles.
Houses: Leonius Dunning. Hospital. Walt, de Berdefeld. Walt. fil.
Reg. le Bercher. Marg. fil. Rad. Norman. Will. Norman (^). Sim. fiL
Hen. de Berton (J). Will. Botte (2). Amicia Dunnyng (3). 2 Amicia
Dunnyng. Amicia Dunnyng (i). Geof Andre (i). Geof Andre (J). Geof
Andre (i). Geof Andre (J). Geof Andre (i). 2 Geof Andre. Rob.
Wimund. Marg. fil. Rob. Wimund. Matild fil. Rob. Wimund. 2 N orman
le Cupere. Sarra fil. Norm, le Cupere. Joh. le Mire. Rob. Lauman. WiU.
fil. Walt. Norman. Amice fil. Alb. le Sunr. Ad. Scot. Morice le Tailur.
Will. fil. Jordan. Isab. fil. Tho. de Froyslake (|). Rog. fil. Ric. Ampe.
Rog. fil. Ric. Ampe. Rob. fil. Rob. Seman (i). Laur. Seman (iJ).
'Vacant places : Will. Norman. 2 Geof Andre. Mich. Wulward.
Barns etc.: Joh. Porthors.
St Peter by the Castle.
Houses: 2 Will, le Plowritte. Alan del Hawes. Alan del Hawes %.
Alan del Hawes %. 2 Rob. Wimund. Agn. fil. Phil, le Tailur. Morice
le Tailur. 2 Joh. Warin. Mich. Wulward. Joh. Dunning. Rog. de
Wetherfeld (2). Geof. de Spertegrave. Rob. fil. Rob. Seman. Laur
Seman. Tho. Godeman (2J).
Shops etc.: Alice ux. Will, le Barbur (i).
All Saints by the Castle.
Houses: Nich. Andre (3^). Hen. Blangernun. Hen. Blangemun (i).
Geof de Spertegrave. Hen. Faber. Will, de Standon. Marg Warin.
Eva fil. Christ, de Huntedon. Joh. Porthors. 2 Sabina Huberd^. Sabina
Huberd {l)\ Wil. de Pikering. Ric. Laurence. Heiresses of Will. Braci.
Heiresses of Will. Braci (i). Joh. fil. Will. Braci.
Vacant places: Hen. Blangernun. Morice le Tailur. Will. fil. Walt.
Norman (2). Rog. fil. Ric. Hampe.
Shops etc.: 4 Marg. Warin (|). Sabina Huberd ^ (|).
Barm etc.: ^ii^.Yntox. Sabina Huberd. Hen. Toylet.
St Clement.
Houses: Hen. le Coteler (i). Tho. le Marsscal. Joh. Porthors. Rob.
de Lunden. 2 Joh. But. Helewisa Plumbe (i). Ric de Parham.
Marg. de S. Albano. Cecilia fil. Agn. Plumbe. Ric. Aldzod {\\). Ste.
Pistor. Ste. Toli (2). Rob. fil. Wil. Toylet (i). Ric. fil. Will. Seman (i^).
Nie. fil. Will. Seman (iJ). Nie. fil. Will. Seman. Sabina Huberd. Marg
de Aula. Tho. Godeman. 2 Will, de Hulmo. Geof. le Cuner. Will, de
Pikering (2). 2 Will, de Pikering. Will. Seman (2). Will. Seman (2).
Giles fil. Joh. de Berton (i). Hen. de Berton {\). Hen. de Berton. Joh.
de Wautham. Marg. fil. Edm. de Stewincton {\). Alice de Pinchestre.
1 In a few cases the gavel covers some land as well.
2 Perhaps in St Clement's.

144 T^^^ Houses in 1279,
Vacant places : Rog. fil. Ric. Hampe.
Shops etc.: Tho. le Marsscal. Rob. fil. Aunger. Ric. Prest. Nic.
Morice (J). Nic. Morice (J)
St Sepulchre.
Houses: Prior of Barnwell. 2 Hospital (ij). Geof Andre. 2 Bar.
Gogging. Mariota de Berton. Hen. Toylet.
All Saints by the Hospital.
Houses: Will, de Rudham. Avicia fil. Sim. Godeman. Alicia fil. Sim.
Godeman. 2 Agn. de Huntedon (J). Walt. Pylat. Joh. fil. Will. Waubert.
Lucia fil. Will. Toylet. Ric. Crocheman (ij). Will, de Billigford.
Vacant places : Ric. Wombe.
Shops etc.: Will. Seman. Sim. Constabularius. Alicia fih Sim. Godeman.
Barns etc.: Rob. fil. Will. Toylet. Will. Seman. Ric. de Hockele.
Hen. Toylet.
St Radegund.
Houses: Nuns of St Radegund (3). Agn. de Huntedon.
St Michael.
Houses: Prior of Anglesey. Ad. fil. Will. Burges. Ric. de Hockele.
Matild. fil. Yfanti. Ric. Wombe. Hen. Toylet. Will. Crocheman (4).
Ad. de le Grene. Marg. fil. Fulc. de Bernewelle. Ric. le Ber. Mr Will.
de Beston. Mr Ad. de Boudon. Rector of St Michael's (2). Sim.
Constabularius. Will, de la Bruere (4). Mr And. de Giselham (2).
Mr Rad. de Walepol. Sim. fil. Sim. Godman. Ric. Crocheman.
Vacant places: Ad. fil. Will. Burges. Ric. Bateman. Will. Crocheman.
Prior of Anglesey.
Shops etc.: Ric. Bateman jun. (J).
Barns etc.: Nic. Morice. Alice Soror Ernisii. Prior of Anglesey.
Prior of Ely.
St Mary.
Houses: Luke fil. Sim. Roy. Cecilia vid. Pet. de Welles. Sim. fil. Joh.
de Bradele. Ric. de Hockele. Rog. de Ridelingfeld. Joh. le Franceys.
Nic. Aurifaber (i). Nic. Aurifaber (2). Reg. de Comberton (i). Reg de
Comberton. Reg. de Comberton (2). Joh. Baile. Alice Soror Ernisii
Mercatoris. Joh. Yve. Tho. de Arnigton. Ric. Bateman. 2 Marg.
Abicon. Wakelin le Barbur. Walt, le Hunte. 2 Galf le Ferrur.
Tho. le Coteler. Rob. le Witesmyth. Will, de Tingwiche. Joh. Matelasc.
Tho. Mercator. Marg. fil. Joh. de Flocthort. 3 Will, le Comber. 2 Ric.
Bateman jun. 2 Walt, le Plomer. Will, le Lorimer (2). Rob. fil. Rob. de
Maddingele (2). Rob. fil. Rob. de Maddingele {\). Rob. fil. Rob. de
Maddingele. 2 Matild. fil. Yfanti. 2 Simon de Potton. Joh. de Robelond
(4). Will. Crocheman (i).
Vacant places: Osb. le Ferrur. Joh. le Franceys. Ric. Bateman.
Walt, le Hunte. Walt, le Plomer. Tho. Podipol (2). Matild. fil. Yfanti.
Simon Prat.

The Houses in 1279. 145
Shops etc.: Tho. de Impiton. Rad. Scutard. Nic. Aurifaber. 2 Ric.
Bateman. Marg. Abicon (24?). 2 Will, de Norfolchio. Walt. Wragon.
Walt. Ie Hunte. Galf. le Ferrur. Rob. le Witesmyth. Rob. de S.
Botulpho. Tho. Mercator. 2 Will, le Comber. 4 Ric. Bateman. Will, le
Lorimer. Simon de Potton. 2 Tho. Blome. Warin. de Teversham. Will.
Castelein. Ric. Wombe (8). 2 Gilb. Bernard. Nuns of Swaffham (20J).
St Edward.
Houses: Luke fil. Sim. Roy (6). Ric. Laurence. Osb. le Ferrur (i).
Joh. de Branketre. 3 Isabella Morini. 2 Alan de Sneylewelle. Joh.
de Westwick (i). Joh. de Westwick. Marg. fil. Nic. ultra Forum. Will.
Paris. Derota fil. Nic. ultra Forum. Rad. Scutard. Will. Ide. Joh. le
Franceys (l). Rog. de Wilburham (2). Joh. le Barbur. Rob. Karun.
Ric. Bateman jun. Matild. fiL Yfanti (i). Sim. Prat. Gilb. Bernard.
Gilb. Bernard (i). 2 Gilb. Bernard (i).
Vacant places: Tho. Godeman. Gilb. Bernard.
Shops etc.: Nic. Morice (8). Rob. Wulward (8). Joh. de Branketre.
Isabella Morini. Alan Scutard. 3 Tho. fil. Edm. Molendinarii. Tho. fil.
Edm. Molendinarii (8). Mich. fil. Julian. Pageley (2). Mich. fil. Julian.
Pageley. Ric. Bateman. 2 Galf. le Ferrur. Rob. de S. Botulpho.
St John.
Houses: 2 Prior of Ely. Prior of Hospitallers. Guy de Mortimer.
Joh. Dunning. Laur. Seman. Joh. Porthors. Will. Seman. W^ill.
Seman (J). Will. Seman (J). Wilh Seman (i). 2 Mariota de Bertone
(haw-gavel but unspecified). Mat. ux. Ran. ad Portam (4). 2 Nic. de
Draiton. 2 Sim. fil. Joh. de Bradele. Sim. fil. Joh. de Bradele (i). Joh.
fil. Ric. Gregor'. Sim. fil. Sim. ad Aquam. Ric. de Hockele (2). Ric. de
Hockele. Ric. de Hockele (i). Rob. le Steresman (f). Sim. Scan (4).
Sim. Scan (J). Rog. de Redelingfeld (haw-gavel with other lands). Rog.
de Redelingfeld. Joh. de Berkinke. Nic. de Totington (i). Nic. de
Totington. Abb. de Wardone (ij). Abb. de Teletye (i). Joh. Auwre (2).
Thom. fil. Edm. Molendinarii. Will, le Comber. Matild. fil. Yfanti (2).
Matild. fil. Yfanti. Alice fil. Sim. Godeman.
Vacant places: Marg. fil. Rob. Wimund. Ric. de Hockele. Sim. fil.
Ric. de Hockele. Nic. de Totington.
St Benet.
Houses: Rob. fil. Will. Longe. Reg. le Bercher. Tho. fil. Walt, de
Berdefield. Will. Seman (iJ). Hen. de Berton {\). Hen. de Berton (i).
Bar. Gogging. Ad. le Barbur. Sepehar le Gaunt'. Avice fil. Will. Braci
(i). Joh. fil. Ranulph. Marg. fil. Will. Sot (2). Nic. Morice (2). Nic.
Morice (2). Nic. Morice (i). Nic. Morice (^). 2 Cecilia vid. Pet, de
Welles. Joh. fil. Herv. Gogging. 2 Will, de Rudham. Rad. de Comberton
%. Rad. de Comberton. Geva ux. Tho. Swin. Rob. Wulward. Will.
Erchebaud. Will. fil. Ben. de Harleton (^). Ric. le Herde. 2 Osb. le
Ferrur. Will. Cocus (i). Joh. de Wysbeche {\\). Walt, de Hynton.

146 The Houses in 12^]^.
2 Joh. de Branketre. Will, le Bleckestere (i). Will, le Comber. Will, le
Kaleys. Tho. Carpentarius. Basilia de Touleslond (i). Joh. de Fincham
(i). Ric. de Sneylewelle ( I ). Rad. Beupam. Ad. fiL Will. Burgess. Alan
de Sneylewelle. Marg. Abicon. Walt, le Hunte. Marg. fil. Fulc. de
Bernewelle. Gilb. Bernard.
Vacant places: Luke fil. Sim. Roy. Bar. Gogging (2). Cecilia vid. Pet.
de Welles (i). Osb. le Ferrur (i). Osb. le Ferrur. Hen. Capellanus.
2 Joh. de Branketre. Gilb. Bernard.
St Botulph.
Houses: Bar. Gogging (i). Bar. Gogging (i). Alan. Attepond (i^)
3 Gerard de Wivar". Gerard de Wivar" (2). Hen. fil. Tho. Hardi. Tho.
Hogiton. Walt. fil. Hen. de Cestretone. Hen. de Bertone (f). • Joh. de
Wautham. \ Ad. le Barbur (i^). Sepehar le Gaunt'. Mariota de Bertone
(i). Amb. fil. Geof Pistor. Walt. Bercharius. Walt. fil. Hen. de Howes
(i). Ste. Hunn' (2). Avice fil. Wil. Braci (i). Joh. le Palfreyman (i).
Joh. Martin. Will. fil. Alice de Shelford. Nic. de Braiton. Elena vid.
Reg. Sherewind (i). Will. Sab'. Will. Molendinarius. 4 Saer de
Ferrynges. Cecilia fil. Pet. de Welles. Sim. fiL Sim. ad Aquam. Sim.
fil. Sim. ad Aquam (i^). Alice fil. Will. Lucke. Joh. Auwre (4). Will, le
Blunt (2). Ric. Wombe {\\).
Vacant places : Bar. Gogging (2). Will. Seman (^). Joh. de Westwick.
Shops etc. : 2 Gerard de Wivar'.
St Peter without the Gate.
Houses: 2 Prior of Anglesey. Hen. de Ho. Will, de Sauston. Joh.
Perin (ij). Joh. de Eilsham (|). 8 Joh. de Eilsham. Luc. de St Edmund
(gavel with other lands). Alan Baselei. Herv. Pippe. Alan Attepond.
Sepehar le Gaunt'. Pet. fil. Tho. Swyn (2). Pet. fil. Tho. Swyn. Tho. fil.
Edm. Molendinarii. Sabina fil. Joh. Paternoster.
Houses at Newnham: Will, le Tanur. Alan Bainard. 2 Amb. fil. Joh.
Goderich. Rob. fil. And. Frede. Alan Attepond. Saer de Ferrynges.
Joh. de Branketre. 3 Joh. Martin.
Vacant places : 2 Hen. de Ho. Hen. de Ho (^).
Shops: 3 Amb. fil. Joh. Goderich. Alice fil. Will, le Barbur.
Vacant places at Newnham: Ger. de Wivar'. Saer de Ferrynges.
St Andrew.
Houses: 4 Nuns of St Radegund. Nuns of St Radegund (i). Tho.
Godeman. Walt. Bercharius. Alan Scutard. Joh. le Franceys. Reg. de
Comberton (i). Joh. Baile.
Vacant places : Tho. Godeman.
Trinity. Houses: Marg Warin. Alice fil. Hug. de Berton. Alice fil. Abr. le
Chapeler. Ric. Laurence (i). Ric. Laurence. Rob. fil. WiU. Toylet.
Mariota de Berton (i^). Sim. fil. Pet. le Corder (2). Joh. le Franceys (i).
Hug. de Brunne.

Rents in 1279. 147

Barnwell.
Houses: 3 Prior of Barnwell. 2 Ric. Pet. Galf Paie. Hen. Mercator.
Osb. Carectarius. 4 Hugo Mainer. Hugo Mainer (2). Isab. fil. WiU.
Paie. Ric. Hastings. Hug. le Noreis. 3 Ric. Jado. Isab. vid. WiU. Paie.
2 Rog. de Huntingfeld. Tho. Ohver. Rad. de Winepol. Sarra fil. Tho. le
Mazun. Lecia vid. Pet. Stote. 2 Oliver Prat. Will. Theversham. Matild.
Jun. Rob. le Neve (4). Isondia Salandin. Matild. Tele. Pet. Ling.
WiU. de Celer. Joh. fil. Joh. Crul. 2 Joh. Cml. Adam Cementarius.
Joh. de Firmar. 2 Ad. Oliver. 2 Ric. Lincke. 3^ Hug. fil. Galf. Fabri.
2 Beatrix vid. Galf. Fabri. Joh. Stokin. Walt, de BorneU. Joh. TaU.
2 Hen. Cardun. Agnes de Firmar'. Eudo Cocus. Laurencius DixL
\ Nic. de Firmar. 2 Galf fil. Tho. Dalt'. 2 Hug. de Brunne. Tho.
Stebing. 2 Dionisia vid. WUl. de Huntedon. Mich. fiL Dionis. de Hunte
don. 2 Joh. RusseL WiU. Brodeie. Nic. Albus. WiU. Paie. Isab. fil.
Joh. de Eia. Galf. fiL Galf. de BurnweU. 2 Jochim Salandin. Walt.
Mercator. Aldus Waveloc. 2 Rob. de Theversham. Mich. Carectarius.
Rob. le Fulere. Galf Salandin. Hug. de Nedham. Rad. de Theversham.
Joh. Net. 2 Alan le Stabler. Marg. Sped. Joh. le Man. Gilb. Bernard.
2 Oliver le Porter. Galf. de BurnweU. Will. Jado. Eudo fil. Winfr".
Vacant places: Joh. Crul. Rob. de Theversham.
Parish Unspecified.
/ftf«jM: 12 Prior of BarnweU. Galf de Donewitch. Scholars of Merton.
3 University. Hen. Blangemun (i). Tho. de Impiton. Matild. fil. Tho.
de Froysselake. Isab. fil. Tho. de Froyslake. 2 Mich. Wulward. Galf.
Spertegrave. Ric. Laurence. Ric. Laurence (4). Rob. fil. Aunger. Sim.
de Potton. 6 Hen. de Waddon. Hug. de Brunne.
Vacant places: Hen. de Waddon.
Shops: 3 Rob. fil. Aunger. Hen. de Waddon.
Shops in market : 'a.Q%^\\.3S.. Prior of Anglesey. Bar. Gogging.
Houses at Howes: Ric. fil. Sim. Brenhande. Joh. fil. Walter. Rob. Rie.
Joh. Attegrene. Walt, de Howes.
§ 63. In many cases a man holds several houses ' in
demesne': that is to say, he has no freeholder below him.
Barnwell excluded, there seem to be neariy two houses for
every house-owner I infer thence that many houses were let
for years or at will. Of tenants for years the record would
take no notice. Houses which pay the haw-gavel to the bailiffs
are found in all parts of the town. But, leaving this out of
account, the freeholder often pays a rent, or several rents, for
his house. These rents vary from the nominal rose to sums
that look like full rents. I make the average d^. in one parish,
5.?. in another ; but a rent of 20s. is not unknown. It is not

148 The Barnwell Suburb.
easy, however, to distinguish in all cases the tenurial rent (' rent-
service'), whence we might argue to the provenience of the
tenement, from the ' rent-charge ' constituted in favour of a
religious house or of a money-lender However, it is fairly
clear that a considerable number of houses or sites have come
to the present ' tenants in demesne ' from the members of a few
rich families, in particular the Dunnings and Blancgernons, and
the St Edmunds family. The Blancgernons were well estated in
transpontine Cambridge and in St Clement's parish ; Leonius
Dunning appears as a rent-receiver in many parts of the town.
There has been a great deal of buying and selling, and the
net-work of rents is exceedingly complex.
§ 64. In Barnwell matters are simpler than elsewhere. This
suburb looks as if it had been recently formed on the lands of a
few persons. Almost every house pays rent to the Priory, or to
Luke of St Edmunds, or to William de Nonancurt (or Nova-
curt'), or to Philip de Col ville a knight of the shire, or to
Leonius Dunning who seems to have but lately acquired his
interest in this quarter from a certain 'lord of Ressedene.'
The rents, though often less than a shilling, are probably
substantial rents for small tenements, and do not look hke
mere recognitions.
§ 65. That there should be about a hundred houses ' in
Barnwell' is remarkable. In a statement made early in the
seventeenth century of 'the names of every householder and
the number of his family in Barnwell,' the total population is
set down at 264. In 1749 we hear of but 48 houses in the
parish of St Andrew the Less, and of but 79 in 1801. It is
possible that the 'Barnwell' of 1279 came closer to the town
ditch than St Andrew's parish came at a later day, but much
relief can not be found in this supposition. May we not see
the Barnwell of Edward I.'s time as what we should call an
agricultural village, which is detached from the main town, and
has grown up to meet the Priory's demand for labour on the
large quantity of arable that it has acquired .? In the last of the
middle ages there would be nothing strange in the depopulation
of such a village or the ' decay' of its houses, and it was too far
from the centre of urban life to become urban. However, so
1 The Novacurt of the printed book seems to be a mistake for Nonacurt.

The Fields in 1279.

149

far as I am aware, Barnwell, though sometimes spoken of as
villa or town, has always been legally a part of ' the town ' of
Cambridge, and in the thirteenth century it is a ' ward ' of the
borough. § 66. We may now examine the fields as they were in 1279.
In the first column of the following table I place the names of
the owners (' tenants in demesne ') ; in the second I try to
indicate very briefly what may be learnt about the past history
of the tenements, mentioning, when this is possible, the name of
the family from which the land has proceeded or which has had
some seignory over it".

The Fields in 1279.

Bishop of Ely
Prior of Barnwell

A water mill and a meadow
Site of Priory 
Three ploughlands (gavel 57 s) apparently
comprising the following items :
Gift of Earl David, near gate of the
Priory 
Gift of Countess Maud 
Gift of Dunning, in cispontine fields
Gift of Asketel^ 
Gift of B. Blangernun (Ely fee)
Gift of B. Blangemun 
Purchase of Reg. Cyne, in Bradmere
Gift of W. Waubert, in Portfield
Gift of St. Haukston 
Gift of Johel father of late prior
Gift of T. Toylet (Blangernun fee)
Gift of T. Toylet (le Rus)
Gift of T. Toylet (Melt) 
Gift of T. Toylet (Pistor)
Gift of T. Toylet (Parleben)
Gift of T. Toylet (Parleben) ...
Gift of T. Toylet 
Exchange with Mr Nigel
Gift of Roysia fil. Reg. de Marisco
Gift of Isabella of Needingworth
Gift of Eustace of Nedham
Gift of Acius Frere (Blangemun fee)

13

22
5050
207227 4 7
6
24 28 7 3 2 I
6 2 I

oooo
o oo
o oo oo 2^22O 3
oo o 2
o

I have included the suburban

1 A few crofts of unmeasured extent are omitted.
sites of the religious houses. .
« R. H. ii. 356 : -ex donacione AlketiUe.' To mistake s for / is easy.

I50

The Fields in 1279.

Gift of Joh. le Kaleys and Basilia his wife
in fields of Cambridge 
Purchase from Tho. Plote 
Purchase from Alex, de Grange
Gift of Bart. Gogging 
Gift of Nicholaa of Hemingford, before
Barnwell gate  
Gift of Geof of Barnwell in fields of
Barnwell 
Exchange with Geof Faber 
Gift of Hen. Melt (gavel 3'^.) 
Gift of Galf Melt (gavel i^) 
Total for Barnwell 391 A. 3J R.
St Radegund Gift of king Malcolm, site near Greencroft
Gift of Nigel bp. of Ely, near preceding
Gift of Eustace bp. Ely, near Greencroft
Gift of Regin. de Argentan 
Gift of Ric. fil. Laur. of Littlebury (old
descent) 
Gift of Phil. fil. Ad. of Girton 
Gift of Hervey fil. Eustace (Dunning)...
Gift of Hug. fil. Aspelon (old descent)
Gift of Phil, of Hoketon (old descent)
Gift of Marg. Fixien 
Gift of Margaret widow of Ralph Parson
Gift of Jordan fil. Rad. de Brecete (old
descent) ...  
Gift of Step. fil. Alveva 
Gift of Maud ux. Sim. Bagge 
Gift of Joh. fil. William (old descent)
Gift of War. Grim 
Gift of Joh. Grim  
Total for St Radegund Tj A. o r.
The Hospital Apparently in all two ploughlands, of
which the particulars follow :
Gift of Rob. Mortimer; King John; gavel
20= ; one ploughland  (say)
Gift of Anton chaplain of Stocton (Blan
gernun) 
Gift of Baldwin Blangernun 
Gift of said Baldwin, in Bin Brook ...
Gift of Galf Prat of Ely (Blangernun)
Gift of Galf Prat, below Barnwell
Gift of Nic. of Hemingford 

40

3 o

10 4 52
23
15 6 I
2
10 4 5 I I
2

120 o

The Fields in 1279.

151

Sturbridge Hospital
Prior of Anglesey
Scholars of Merton

Prior of Huntingdon
Dominicans FranciscansFriars of the Sack
Carmelites Friars of B. Mary
Sabina Huberd
Ralph of Quy
Leonius Dunning

WiU. de Novacurt
Geof. Andre
Hen. Blangernun

Alan de Hawes
Rob. Wymund

Joh. Attegrene ^ Apparently the

Gift of Maur. Ruffus, in said fields
Gift of Hervey fiL Eustace (Dunning)
Gift of Will. Toylet 
Gift of Mich. Clerk of Huntingdon
Gift of Eustace fil. Hervey (Dunning)
Gift of Pet. fil. Richard, in Newnham
Gift of Gilb. Pistor, in Newnham Crofts
Total for Hospital 179 A. 2R.
Divers gifts 
Gift of Rob. fiL Rob. Huberd; gavel 11*;
in Barnwell Fields
Purchase, ultimately from Dunnings ;
gavel 3'. 10'^ 
Purchase, ultimately from Dunnings
Leicester fee^ 
Gift of Ralph of TrubelviUe and Agnes
his wife ...
Site of house ; divers gifts ; about
Site of house ; divers gifts ; about
Site of house ; Ric. of Icklingham and
others; about 
Site of house at Newnham; Mic. Malherbe
Site of house; H.de Berton; gavel 4*.
Emma de la Leye ; ancestors of Reg. de
Grey 
Felicia of Quy; held of TrubelviUes ...
Half a knight's fee, held of the Mortimers,
who hold of the Bruces. But perhaps
aU of this that lies in Cambridge wiU
be accounted for below
Old descent; Chokesfield fee; gavel 13^
li^ 
Bought from Dunnings ...
Barnwell Priory 
BarnweU Priory; gavel \^
Longys; gavel \'^ 
Karloc ; gavel \^ 
Bought from Dunnings ...
Tuylet; Dunning 
St Edmunds family
St Edmunds family
Dunning 
Felicia of Quy ; TrubelviUes
Clai 
same 15 acres are recorded twice, on pp. 360, 391.

A.
1514 8
2 3

24

45

15

60

16
38

60 2 I
2

152

The Fields in

1279.

Norman le Cupere
John Dunning
Geof Spartegrave
Hen. Faber
WiU. de Standon
Rob. fil. Rob. Seman
Laur. Seman
Will, de Howes
Ric. Laurence

Ric. fil. Ric. Laurence
Joh. Porthors
Rob. fil. Aunger le Rus

Joh. But
Ste. Pistor
Rob. fil. Will. Toylet
Sabina Huberd
Tho. Godeman

Will. Seman

Giles fil. Joh. de Berton

Rumbold; Clai 
Lungis ; Barnwell Priory...
Clayere; Lungis 
Eustace Dunning 
le Gire 
Fithion ; Radegund; Dunning 
Lungis; Barnwell Priory 
Dunning ... ... 
Old descent 
Spartegrave; Bernard; Kiriel 
Houton 
Barnwell Priory ... ... 
Exchange with St Radegund 
Stowe 
St Edmunds family 
Dunnings 
Bought from Dunnings 
Descent; Blangernuns 
Descent; WiU. de Dagenhale; gavel 11''
Barnwell Priory 
Childman  ... 
Matilda Corde 
Agn. Piscatrix 
Hen. Toylet; gavel ij* 
Anglesey Priory 
Bought from Dunnings 
Mich. Pilet; St Edmunds family
Mich. Pilet 
Hen. le Lindraper; gavel \^ 
Porthors; Dunnings 
Porthors; BarnweU Priory 
St Edmunds  
Walt. Em ; Joh. Frost 
Walt. Em; Childman 
Walt. Em; Ace; in BarnweU Fields ...
Walt. Em; Clay 
Walt. Em; Longis ; gavel Y' 
Walt. Em; Porthors 
Walt. Em; fiL Yvo 
Walt. Em ; Dunning 
Walt. Em; Nado 
Walt. Em; Coles 

WiU. fil. Yvo ; Hynton
Fittere; gavel \^ ...
Parleben ; gavel ij*
Parleben 

A.

. R.

2

3

2

2
2
12
0
2
0
I
2
II
0
I
0
2
2
I
2
2
2
I
0
2
2
18
0
42
2
22
0
4
0
2
0
2
0
2
I
0
9
0
9
0
4
0
2
2
4
0
6
0
2
I
3
2
3
0
2
2
2
0
I
0
3
2
I
2
0
I
0
7
2
I
2
I
2
The Fields in 1279.

153

Agn. de Berton

Hen. de Berton

Joh. de EUesham

Amb. fiLJoh.Godriche
Rector of St Ed- \
munds Chapel f

Luke of St Edmunds
Bart. Gogging

Ger. de Vivariis
WiU. fil. H. de 1
Cestretone f
Mariota de Berton

Sim. ad Aquam 
Gilb. Pistor; in Portfield and Littlemore
Aspelon Grim; gavel i*; in Swinecroft
Bought from Dunnings 
Various 
Malherbe; in field towards BarnweU ...
Forreward ... ... 
BarnweU Priory . . 
Bought from Dunnings 
Ric. fil. Yvo 
Gilb. Aurifaber; Parleben 
Bought from Dunnings 
Joh. Frost 
Bought from Dunnings 
Selede ; Barnwell Priory 
Wisman ; Wombe ; Barnwell Priory . . .
W. fiL Yvo; gavel \^ 
St Edmunds family 
Brithnor; old descent
Geof. Doy 
Bought of Dunnings 
Pinecote; old descent 
Aure ; old descent 
Rob. Aunger 
St Edmunds famUy; gavel ^\^
Joh. le Rus 
Mortimer 
Descent; Pyrot; Argentan; gavel 25=. io|"*
Michel; Barnwell Priory 
Rob. Hubert; old descent 
Childman; St Edmunds family
Parleben 
Porthors 
Amb. de Neuham; Hospital 

Lungis; Barnwell Priory
Bought from Dunnings
Pet. fil. Ric.de Berton Bought from Dunnings
Giles fiL Ric.de Berton Bought from Dunnings
MatiLfiLRicdeBerton Bought from Dunnings

Mariota de Berton
Nic. Morice

Nic. Morice; Laur. de Brock
Bought from Dunnings ...
Porthors; Dunning
Bought from Dunnings ...
Descent from Toylet

A.

R.

Ii

I

I

0

2

I

0

I

2

3

0

7

2

3

0

2

3

2
0
0
2
0
3
I
0
0
2
4
0
2
0
2
I
0
12
3
2
3
I
0
70
0
16
0
3
0
I
0
I
0
I
0
2
I
0
12
0
6
0
6
0
6
0
I
2
18
0
7
0
6
0
6
0
154

The Fields in i2']().

Joh. Martyn

Cecilia, widow of
Pet. de WeUes

Rob. Wulward
Sim. de Bradele
Ad. fil. Will. Burges
Sim. fil. Sim. ad Aquam

Ric. de Hockele

Sim. fil. Ric. de Hockele
Rob. and Sim. fil. 1
Ric. de Hockele f
Ric. de Hockele
Rob. le Steresman
Sim. Scan

Rog. de Redelingfeld

Wombe ; ancient descent
Blodles 
WiL fiL Yvo; TrubelviUe
Gogging 
Wombe 
Hynton
Parleben; Laur. de Broc
KayH 
Joh. Potekin; old descent
St Edmunds family; Hynton
Barnwell Priory
St Edmunds family ; Pyrot
Le Hose
Toylet; Dunning 
Bought from Dunnings ; in Newnham
Toylet; in Newnham
Childman ; Gogging ; But
Welles 
Welles; Wombe 
Welles; Amb. de Neuham
Gogging; old descent
Attehyl 
Warin Ascin (or Astines)
Astines 
St Edmunds family
Bought from Dunnings ...
Bought from Dunnings ...
Hinton; old descent
Ampe; gavel i\^ 
Childman
Astines Wisman
Bought from Dunnings ...
Bought from Dunnings ...
Bought from Dunnings ...
Porthors; BarnweU Priory
St Edmunds family
Bought from Dunnings ...
Bought from Dunnings ...
Bought from Dunnings ...
Malherbe 
Astines St Edmunds family
Astines: gavel 6».6'i

A. R.
2 o
2
2 I
3
4 22 I
2 5 II
3 I
I

20 1
3

2 II
I
26

The Fields in \'2ri<^.

155

Joh. de Berkinke
Isab. Morini

Joh. de Westwick
Rog. de WUburham
Reg. de Comberton

Luc. Carectarius
AUce sister of Erni-
sius Mercator
Ric. Bateman sen.
Marg. Abicon

WiU. le Comber
Ric. Bateman jun.

Walt, le Plomer
Rob. fil. Rob. de
Madingele

Marg. fiL Rob. de 1
Madingele J
MatUd. fil. Yfant

Sim. de Potton
Geof le Ferur
Ric. Wombe

Bought from Dunnings ...
W. fiL Yvo 
Aleyns; gavel i'^; fields of Barnwell
Morin; gavel ^ ...
Gogging; fields of Barnwell
Morin; gavel J* 
Crul; fields of Barnwell 
Saverei; old descent 
Barnwell Priory
Henges ; Barnwell Priory
Bought from Dunnings 
Sir Berenger le Moyne 
Dunning; BarnweU fields
Descent Descent ; gavel 2*
Alsope ; old descent; gavel i* ...
Rethe ; old descent 
Blodles; old descent 
Laurence Old descent ; Dunning 
BarnweU Priory; in Binbrook ...
Bought from Dunnings 
Malherbe ... 
Descent ; in Binbrook 
Waubert 
Nadon; in Newnham Crofts
le Neve 
St Edmunds family 
le Host; in parish of St John ...
Alsope; Haliday 
Gogging 
L. de St Edmund 
L. de St Edmund 
Kenewy 
Le Rus 
Gernemere ; gavel
Lota ; old descent ;
Seman; old descent
Pateware 
A. fiL Eustace
le Child 
de la Fermere
A. fiL Eustace

5'' 
gavel I''; 3 selions (say)
gavel \^ 

A. I
2 I

4 3

2 II II
20 5

o 3
o o 32oo 2 I
o 2 2
O O

156

The Fields in i2']().

Hen. Toylet

de Marnis 
Mek 
Bought of Dunnings
Howes 
Wyntebotesham Walt, de Neuham ...
Godeman 
Gogging 
Waubert ; 6 selions
Pistor 
Childman

(say)

Sim. fil. Sim. Godeman

Avice fil. Sim. Gode- 1
man J

Alice fil. Sim. Gode- 1
man J
Joh. de Fulton
Joh. fiL WUL Waubert
Ric. Crocheman
Ric. Pet.i

Geof. Paie

Hugh le Noreis

Ric. Jado
Isabella Paie

gavel lo* 
Aure; St Edmunds 
Bought of Dunnings 
Dunnings; in Swinecroft
Burs ; le Chapeler ; BarnweU Fields
Burs; Castelein 
Bought of Dunnings
Aure; Haukeston; le Rus
Porthors 
W. fiL Yvo 
Longis 
Porthors 
W. fiL Yvo 
St Edmunds family 
Descent; in Newnham 
Wombe; Barnwell Priory
Priory 
St Edmunds ... 
St Edmunds
Dunning  
Priory 
Priory Deresle  ,
Doi ; old descent 
St Edmunds 
St Edmunds 
St Edmunds 
St Edmunds 
Novacurt 
Priory 
St Edmunds 
St Edmunds 
Novacurt; Earl of Huntingdon...
Priory 
^ The foUowing lands are ' in BarnweU.'

A. I
29 I
I
23
77 5
2

2 O
I 2
2

2
OOo 2
O 2
O 22
O O 2
O I
2 I2
O 2 2

The Fields in 1279.

157

Tho. Oliver
Oliver Prat
WiU. Theversham
Isondia Salandin
MatU. Tele

WiU. de Celario

Joh. fiL Joh. Crul
Joh. Crul
Joh. de Firmar"
Ad. Oliver
Ric. Lincke
Hug. fiL Galf. Fabri

Eudo Cocus
Nic. de Firmar'

Galf fil. Tho. Dalt

Hug. de Brunne

Priory 
PrioryDunning 
St Edmunds 
Colville 
St Edmunds 
Novacurt 
Priory 
St Edmunds 
St Edmunds 
NovacurtAstines 
St Edmunds 
St Edmunds 
St Edmunds 
St Edmunds 
Astines 
Dunning; Ressedene
St Edmunds 
Dunning; Ressedene
Priory ... 
St Edmunds ; half a virgate
Priory 
Colville 
Dunning 
St Edmunds 
St Edmunds 
Priory 
Dunning 
St Edmunds 
St Edmunds
St Edmunds 
St Edmunds 
Priory 
Priory ... - 
Novacurt 
Novacurt 
Novacurt 
St Edmunds 
St Edmunds 
Colville 
Wombe 
John Doe 
Priory 

(say)

IS

R. 22 I
2 22 2 I
2
O 2 2 2222 22 232
O O II
2
2 2 I
3 2
oi II
oo 2o 22
O O 2 2 2 2

158

The Fields in 1279.

Tho. Miet
Dionisia widow of
W. de Huntedon

Joh. Russel

Rob. de Theversham

Rob. le Fulere
Geof Salandin
Rad. de Theversham

Joh. Net
Al. Stabler
Marg. Sped
Gilb. Bernard

Oliver le Porter
Galf de BarnweU

St Edmunds
Novacurt 
Priory 
Priory 
le Rus 
St Edmunds
St Edmunds
Priory 
Priory 
Dunning 
Dunning
Astines 
St Edmunds
le Wimur 
St Edmunds
Mek 
Dunning
St Edmunds
Dunning ; Roscedene
St Edmunds
St Edmunds
St Edmunds
St Edmunds
St Edmunds
St Edmunds
St Edmunds
Madingley ...
St Edmunds
St Edmunds
Novacurt 
Cokerel ; gavel i*
Malherbe ; gavel ^'^
Salandin 
Dunning 
Brodie King 
Dunning 
St Edmunds
St Edmunds
Melkeston 
Astines 
Novacurt 
St Edmunds
Colville 
Colville; Priory

A. R.

 I 0

 3 0

2 0

I 0

I 2

2

3 2

2

I 0

2 0

3 0

I 2

I 0

2

2

2

Ii

2

3

2

I 0

2

2

2

I 0

I

I

I 2

2

3 0

I 0

2 0

2

2 0

4 0

I 0

I 2

2

I

I 0

I 2

2

I

2

4 0

Total 1783 Z\

Assartation. 1 59

§ 67. The quantity of land thus accounted for falls short by
several hundred acres of the amount described in the terriers of
the fourteenth century. The suggestion is ready that between
the two dates there was ' assartation ' on a grand scale : in other
words, that a large part of the green commons was ploughed
and appropriated. This guess, however, would not be easily
acceptable. In the first place, I think that, had there been a
great extension of the appropriated land, the outcry that it
would have occasioned would still be plainly audible. In
Edward I.'s day and again in Richard II.'s the townsfolk were,
as we shall see hereafter, protesting against an inclosure made
by or for the Canons of Barnwell far back in the twelfth century.
Secondly, the terriers in every portion of the area that they
describe reveal an intermixture of strips so complex and dis
orderly that we can not easily believe it to be the work of
modern times. It seems to me therefore that we must accuse
the Hundred Rolls of omission. I doubt they have given
enough to the religious houses. According to them, the Canons
of Barnwell would have about 390 acres of arable. An almost
contemporary estimate which comes from the Priory gives them
780 acres in the Eastern Fields', and the annalist of the house
tells of certain handsome gifts (for example, 140 acres pro
ceeding from Osbert the Doomsman) which are not mentioned
on the rolls.
I 68. Thus the hope of quantitative analysis fades away, as
is commonly the case in the middle ages, and we must be
content with quality and tendencies. And first let us look at
the men who in 1279 are holding strips in the fields as 'tenants
in demesne.' There are about 21 tenants with more than
10 acres. We will see who some of them are.
John of EUesham with 9 houses near Peterhouse and 11 acres was a
bailiff of the town ; he seems to have made a rich marriage.
Simon son of Simon Atwater {ad Aquam) with 3 houses and 11 acres
was, or his father was, a bailiff of the town.
Robert son of Robert of Madingley has 3 houses and 12 acres. He was
a bailiff of the town ; Thomas of Madingley was one of its first represen
tatives in parliament.
John Martyn has 4 houses and 12 acres. John Martyn was many times
mayor. 1 See above, p. 108. But the terriers show that this was an exaggeration.

i6o Traffic in Acres.
Simon Godeman and his sisters have 3 houses and yj acres. Simon
Godeman was bailiff.
WUliam Seman has 7 houses, a shop, a granary and 17 acres. He was
bailiff. Bartholomew Gogging has 5 houses, a booth and 22 acres. He was
mayor. John Porthors, the son of John of Barton, has 3 houses, rents from many
others,, 18 acres in the fields of Cambridge, and 34 acres in the fields of
Chesterton. He was bailiff.
Nicholas Morice has 4 houses, 3 shops, 58 acres. A little later there are
many land-holding, office-holding Morices in the borough.
Henry Toylet has 3 houses, a grange, a granary, 44 acres. He serves as
bailiff and is a member of a family which has made considerable gifts to the
churches and will long hold land and offices'.
I have no wish to make the agricultural element in the
Cambridge of Edward I.'s day too prominent. John But, who
is often mayor, seems to have only two acres in the fields. But
can we be sure that he is not the John But who has 20 acres at
Swaffham" .'
§ 69. What may seem a dreary list of names and numbers
has here been printed in order to illustrate a rapid traffic in
parcels of land. The man who has in all but a dozen acres will
hold them by half-a-dozen different titles. Each generation
tries to accommodate itself to the clumsy environment provided
for it by remote and barbarous ancestors. A man succeeds in
getting a few adjacent strips ; but his little territory is soon
broken up again among his children or dissipated by pious gifts.
Descent to females is common, and girls often have acre-strips
for their marriage portions. There is no lord who can insist
that virgates are integers.
§ 70. These freeholders pay rents ; sometimes to each other,
sometimes to those who live outside the borough. The rents,
however, are light: a rose or a gillyflower, a penny or two pence
per acre. The rack-rent of an acre, if we may judge from
neighbouring villages, would not have been less than eighteen
pence, two shillings or yet more, and in one case the Prior of
Barnwell is getting two shillings for an acre in our fields'. To
the rent-receivers we shall return hereafter.
1 The name appears in a great variety of forms Toylet, TuUet, Tuliet, Tulieth etc.
2 R. H. ii. 494.
3 R. H. ii. 397. In the Barnwell Liber Memor. f 87 b is a valuation of some land
in Chesterton that belonged to Richard Laurence and Roger of Wethersfield who

Foundation of the Hospital. i6i
§ 71. The task that I have described' as that of scraping off
the religious houses from the map should be accomplished. We
may doubt whether in the year 1 100 any church was interested
in the Cambridge Fields, except perhaps the church of Ely ; and
the abbots and bishops of Ely seem to have strangely neglected
the growing importance of the county town.
§ 72. That the Brethren of the Hospital, the Canons of
Barnwell and the Nuns of St Radegund obtained the bulk of
their Cambridge lands from the burgenses is I think fairly plain.
Touching the foundation of St John's Hospital we have two
accounts both given by juries in Edward I.'s day. That which
stands upon the Hundred Roll is well known^- A certain
burgess of Cambridge, Henry Frost by name, gave to the
township of Cambridge a certain plot of land for the construc
tion of a hospital for the use of the poor and infirm ; and the
presentation of a master used, and of right ought, to belong to
the burgesses. The other verdict is a little older, it was given
in an action between Eleanor the Queen Dowager and the
Bishop of Ely. The jurors found that the site of the Hospital
was once a very poor, waste place of the community of the
town, and that Henry Eldcorn of the said town by the assent of
the community built there a very poor cottage to lodge the poor,
and afterwards obtained from Bishop Eustace, the diocesan
(A.D. 1197-1215), an oratory and burying ground for the use of
the poor, which oratory and burying ground were of {i.e. belonged
to) the said community ; and the said Eustace conferred on the
said place the church of Horningsea ; and by the consent of the
said community the said bishop thenceforth continued patron of
that place ; but, owing to the lapse of time, the jurors could not
say whether this happened in the reign of Richard or in that of
John^ § 73. I believe that the disputes about this matter illustrate
the difficulty men found in conceiving a large group as a legal
have been convicted of felony. The arable acre is valued at i.f. M. per annum or
iOJ. for sale ; the acre of meadow at 2J. per annum or 24J. for sale. I am afraid that
Roger was a bailiif of Cambridge ; he was hanged.
1 See above p. 60. ^ Rot. Hund. ii. 359.
2 Inquest taken at Royston on the morrow of St James the Apostle, 3 Edw. I.
I take this from a Report of a Committee of the Town Council of Cambridge on the
Borough-Rate, 3 Oct. 1850, the work, it is believed, of Mr C. H. Cooper. This
valuable report gives no references, but Cooper's work is trustworthy. II

1 62 Endowment of Religious Houses.

unit capable of exercising such a right as ecclesiastical patronage.
The ' community' builds a hospital on ' common' land ; therefore
the patronage of it belongs to the king, or (since Cambridge is a
dower town) to the queen dowager; or, if it belongs to ' the men
of Cambridge,' this is so, because they farm the king's rights,
and in so doing have struggled into corporateness. I should not
be surprised if both kings and bishops obtained a good deal of
ecclesiastical patronage in this way, for it seems to me that in
the lordless villages of eastern England the parish church must
often have been a ' subscription church,' the outcome of some
communal effort of the villagers'. But could ' they' be patrons .'
They were too many.
§ 74. With the exception of a carucate obtained from
Robert Mortimer, who had it from King John — it may have
been an escheat — I can not see that the Hospital has received
any large gifts in the fields of Cambridge. Its benefactors bear
the names of Dunning, Hemingford, Blancgernon, Tuliet. The
advowson of St Peter beyond Trumpington Gate it has obtained
from Henry son of Sigar. Then again, the recorded gifts that
are made to the Nuns are not large ; one of the Dunnings has
given 15 acres, Hugh son of Absalom 6, the Grims 3, Margaret
widow of Ralph Parson 10, and so forth. And it is so with
Barnwell. Great people, Picots, Peverels and Pecches may start
the house ; but the strips in the fields come from Dunnings,
Blancgernons, Cayleys.
§ 75. The annalist of the Priory, after saying that the Canons
have some 780 acres in the Eastern Fields, proceeds thus=:—
'And of these lands a certain knight in the retinue of Pain
Peverel, Albert Chivet by name, gave the land which William of
Writele sometime held of the said Pain within the borough and
without to the amount of 60 acres. And to increase the gift he
gave the furlong {cultura) which lies before the gate of the
Canons free and quit of secular service in perpetual alms.' Then
he tells how Prior Hugh gave 140 acres in the fields of Cambridge
which once belonged to his father, Osbert Domesmanl Next
he speaks of a gift of 3 acres proceeding from Dame Nichole
heiress of Sir William of Hemingford. Then of 2 acres given
1 Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 144. 2 Li^,_ Memor. f. 35 b.
^ Cf Lib. Memor. f. 22 b.

The Burgensic Families. 163
by the Countess Maud which he places close to St Giles's
church. ' And many other lands the Prior and Canons hold in
the fields of Cambridge and Barnwell, some by purchase, some
by gift, the particulars whereof it would be long to relate.'
That is all: the little gifts of great ladies are remembered, but
the 780 acres were not obtained from the great. Thomas Tuliet
gave 60 acres ; his heirs unsuccessfully disputed the gift'. John
le Caleys and Basilia his wife gave 40 acres ; a Blancgernon gave
72. The man whose one name was Asketel gave 50 ; the man
whose one name was Dunning 50.
§ 76. As we go backward towards the twelfth century the
gifts grow somewhat larger and the bundles of strips that are
given begin to look like aliquot parts of hides. We seem to see
the old hides and yardlands reconstituting themselves, and at
the same time we are among the men who buy the first burghal
charters from the king and desire to farm the borough. Who
are they ; what like are they .' A little may be learnt.
\ yj. In the fourteenth century we see the White Canons of
Sempringham with numerous strips, which after the dissolution
of the monasteries were bought by the corporation of the town.
These Canons had a chapel in the town ; it was dedicated to
St Edmund. They were brought to Cambridge by a family
which took its name from that chapeP. In 1279 the head of the
family was Luke of St Edmund, who was the son of Walter of
St Edmund, who is also called Walter ' at St Edmund's church'.'
Luke was a rich man ; he had 70 acres in demesne, and a
great many tenements in Barnwell were held of him. His was
one of the ' first families ' of the town. It was connected with
the sons of Absalom (Aspelon) who were connected with the
Blancgernons*. § 78. When ' the commons ' rebelled in 1381, a mob attacked
the house of Roger son of Richard Blankgren^ Our terriers
tell of John Blangron a skinner. The name expands as we go
backwards. The Blancgernons are rich and pious. There was
a Baldwin Blancgernon with many strips to give and to sell.

' Lib. Memor. ff. 35, 42 b. 3 p « •¦ „,
2 RoUs of Parliament, i. 65 b ; Cooper, Annals, 1. 62. K. n. 11. 397-
* Jesus Charters, M. 2. 3, L. 2 (Mr Gray's notes).
= PoweU, Rising in East Anglia, 50. II — 2

164 The Dunnings.

The name is a nick-name. Baldwin or some ancestor of his had
a white moustache'.
§ 79. Greatest of all were the Dunnings. I write the name
thus at Mr Stevenson's instigation ^ and mean that it should be
pronounced as Dooning. Stranger things have happened than
that the founder of Downing College should be of this race. In
1279 it is divided into two branches. One is represented by
Leonius or Leoninus son of Adam, who holds a great deal of
land 'in demesne and in service.' He is said to hold half a
knight's fee of the Mortimers, who hold of the Bruces". He
kept a court at Newnham for his tenants. The other branch we
can trace far back. A man who had no name but Dunning
begat Eustace, who begat Hervey, who begat Eustace and
Thomas. Eustace the younger begat Richard, and Thomas
begat John who was living at Cambridge in 1279. But the
greater part of the property of this branch had been sold by
Eustace fitz Hervey fitz Eustace fitz Dunning : some, but by no
means all of it, including ' the School of Pythagoras,' to Master
Guy of Castle Barnard, whose heir, William de Mannefield, sold
to Walter of Merton*. It appears from several deeds copied in
the Cartulary of St John's Hospital that Hervey had a brother
called Adam fitz Eustace, so apparently the two branches go
back to Eustace the son of Dunning.
As regards the sale to Merton, I leave that part of the story
to be told by some member of the college in whose admirably
arranged archives there are numerous deeds relating to this
matter. But I will mention three documents at the Record
Office, in order that they may not be forgotten^
By a fine levied on the 6th of October 1271 between Master
Peter, Custodian of the House of Scholars of Merton, and
Richard Dunnynge, Richard conveyed to the Mertonians a rent
¦¦ Godefroy gives grenon, grenun, guenion, gernon, gernun,... moustache, favoris.
^ Gloucester Corporation Records, p. xv. ' R. H. ii. 390.
* See Kilner, School of Pythagoras. Mr Atkinson, Cambridge Described, 79, says
of the house: ' It dates from the latter part of the twelfth century.'
* A great deal of information touching the Merton deeds was given by Kilner,
author of the curious book about Pythagoras's School, to Cole the Cambridge anti
quary, and will be found in Brit. Mus. MS. Addit. 5832 f. 72. The courtesy of the
bursar of Merton College allowed me to see the original documents ; but I did not
examine them closely. A history of this most interesting manor could only be written
by one of ' the Clerks of Merton.'

Hervey son of Eustace. 165
arising from certain land in Over, and further remised and quit
claimed ' all the right and claim that he had in the five acres of
land and sixty shillingsworth of rent and the messuage where a
stone house is situate {et mesuagio ubi domus lapidea sita est)
with the appurtenances in Cambridge which Eustachius Dunnyng
father of the said Richard sometime held'.'
By another fine levied on the 25th of November 1276 William
de Manyfelde conveyed (by conusance de droit) to the Custodian,
Scholars and Brethren of the House of Scholars of Merton a
hundred acres of land and fourteen shillingsworth of rent with
the appurtenances in Cambridge and Chesterton, and in return
received the sum of ;^ioo^.
By another fine levied on the 3rd of February 1279 between
Richard of Hedensouere and Joan his wife demandants and
Master Peter of Abingdon, Custodian of the House of Scholars
and Brethren of Merton tenants, Richard and his wife remised
and quit-claimed all the right which Joan had claimed as widow
and doweress of Richard Duninge in one-third of one messuage
and of seven score acres of land and of six poundsworth and ten
shillingsworth of rent and of a rent of twenty capons in Cam
bridge, Barnwell, Chesterton, Girton and Howes. In return
Richard and Joan received ten marks of silver^.
These fines were, I take it, supplemental to the main con
veyances which are at Merton. When the story is fully told, it
will, I believe, show that Eustace the son of Hervey fell into
debt and mortgages.
§ 80. His father, Hervey the son of Eustace, kept a seal
which bore on it a mounted knight with drawn sword*. In
John's reign he was frequently 'levying fines' in the king's
court. Within a few years he was thus concerned with 50 acres
in the fields of Cambridge and Newnham, 5^ acres at Creton
(Girton ?), 3 messuages in Cambridge, other 3, a messuage and
9 acres in Cambridge, 3^ virgates at Cheveley, and a hide at
Gamlingay'. In the Johnian cartulary he appears as Herveus

1 Record Office, Feet of Fines, Cambridgeshire, 55 Hen. III., A-
2 Record Office, Feet of Fines, Cambridgeshire, 5 Edw. I., No. 9.
^ Record Office, Feet of Fines, Cambridgeshire, 7 Edw. I., No. 3.
» This I learned from Mr Gray's notes of the Jesus Charters : Q. 22.
' Fines, ed. Hunter, i. 259 — 338.

1 66 Cambridge Patricians.

Althermannus and as Hei-veus Maior": If he was Cambridge's
first mayor, .and I know none older, then Cambridge's first
mayor held a great deal of land and seems to have been of
knightly rank^
§ 8i. Incidentally I may remark that the fluidity of sur
names makes it difficult for us to account for that family called
' of Cambridge ' which owns many strips in the fourteenth
century and plays a large part in the foundation of the College
of Corpus Christi. There is John of Cambridge', Justice of the
Common Bench, with a fine stone house in the town*. Earlier
there is Thomas of Cambridge, Baron of the Exchequer. Already
in 129s a John of Cambridge represents the borough in parha
ment. But, though I can not find the family on the Hundred
Roll of 1279, it is probably there"- The surname ' of Cambridge'
was not acquired inside Cambridge. A young man leaves his
native town, goes to Westminster, makes a fortune at the bar, is
known to his fellows in London as John of Cambridge, and
comes back a wealthy man with a new name which adheres to
his family. It does not seem impossible that these Cambridges
are of the race of Dunning.
§ 82. Eustace son of Hervey and Leonius son of Adam have
sold so many houses and acres, that at first we might be inclined
to claim for the Dunning family some exceptional position in,
or even some sort of lordship over the town. But, though it is
obvious that they were wealthy, I think we can only give them
a primacy among equals. There are other good estates, that of
the Blancgernons for example, and the hide or more of Osbert
the Domesman ; and, after all, we have but 3000 acres on our
1 Gift by Maurice Ruffiis of land in the parish of All Saints, Hiis testibus,
Baldewino Blancgernun, Herveo Althermanno, Roberto Seman, Fulcone Crocheman.
Gift of four acres by Hugh son of Stephen, Hiis testibus, Baldewino Blancgernun,
Domino Herveo Maiore, Ada fratre suo, Roberto Seman, Ricardo filio Laurentii,
Willelmo de Sancto Eadmundo, Thoma filio Joachim. Hitherto the earliest mention
of a mayor has been found in a writ of 1235: Cooper, Annals, i. 43; Atkinson and
Clark, Cambridge, 19.
2 He was living as late as i6 Hen. III. (1231 — 2) : Cambridge Fines (Antiq. Soc.)
16. His son Eustace was living in 41 Hen. HI. (1256 — 7): Ibid. 36. Adam Dunning
was living in 24 Hen. III. (1239 — 40): Ibid. 22.
¦* Diet. Nat. Biog. ; Jossehn, Historiola, 4, it ; Masters, Hist. Corpus Christi, p. 8.
¦¦ WiUis and Clark, L 158—160.
^ Rot. Hund. ii. 37 1 : a house is bought of Matilda fil. Joh. Cant, clerici. Possibly
this is to the point. See also Cambridge Fines (Antiq. Soc.) pp. 68, 71.

Cambridge in 12 19.

167

hands. When we see how much Eustace sells (sells ' out-and-
out' without reservation of a rent), the guess is permissible that
much may have come to him by recent purchases. And at any
rate we see these Dunnings mixing in the borough court with
the other men of the borough'. Leonius Dunning married
Matilda daughter of Robert of St Edmund- No hard line
should be drawn between these 'law-men,' 'dooms-men,' 'alder
men' of a great borough and the county families ^
§ 83. These large possessions within the limits of the
borough raise the question whether we ought to think of a
land-owning patriciate, a cluster of burgensic Geschlechter who
own the hides and rule the town. I have therefore made some
search for the accounts of early taxes and the like. The
following account of a tallage is taken from the Pipe Roll of
3 Hen. III. (1219)*.

84. Tallage of Cambridge, 12 19.

£¦

Hildebrand Punch {b)

13

8

Adam Wantarius {b)

I 2

0

WilL Doi {b)

12

8

WiU. fil. Eadwardi {b)

II

0

Rad. Wambe {b)

I 8

4

Joh. fil. Selide {b)

I 5

8

Greg. fil. Hugonis {b)

12

8

Yvo Macecrem {b)

13

2

Ric. Guthier

I 14

0

Richemannus {b)

7

4

Ric. de Porta {b)

5 6

8

Simon Bagge {b)

2 16

8

Rog Doy {b)

6

10

Adam le Teler (b)

I 3

6

KaiUy Tannator {b)

2 13

4

WiU. de Seltford {b)

I I

4

Osb. le Combere {b)

6

4

' For example. Lib. Memor. f. 43 b ;

£. .. d.
Alex, le Fittere {b) no
Elyas fil. Osberti {b) 7 10
Ric. le Gelmier {b) 190
Galf fr. Yvonis {b) 7 4
Mich. fil. Ordgari {b) 168
Hen. fil. Elye {b) i o
Yvo fil. Absalonis {b) 3 6
Regin. Scortecnicht {b) 1 1
Reg. fil. Aluredi {b) 213
Galf Clait {b) 15
Hugo Piscator n
Rad. fil. Galfridi (b) i 3
Galf Wulfward {b) 7
Childman {b) H
Ketellus Mercator {b) 13
WiU. Hitti {b) 6
Aldredus gener Ketelli {b) 13
Thomas Toylet's charter for Barnwell is

o o
o 4o oo
10 4
o 4o

witnessed by WiUiam de Stowe, Roger de Wykes mayor of Cambridge, Robert of
St Edmund, Eustace Dunning, Leonius Dunning, William Tele, John of Toft. There
are many other instances in the Johnian cartulary.
2 R. H. ii. 364. ^ Stubbs, Const. Hist. i. 675.
* A copy was made for me by Miss Salisbury; but she is not responsible for the
expanded form of the names. I set the letter {b) against those names which will recur
in the list of 12 ti.

1 68

The Landed Interest.

£¦

s.

d.

£.

J.

d.

Warinus fiL Normanni {b)

II

o

Reg. de Abbinton {b)

I

3

0

Frere {b)

I

7

4

Tho. Doi {b)

H
8
Herveus fil. Eustachii {b)
2
o
0
Ric. le Peminer (?) {b)
6
10
Galf Hareng {b)
lO
4
Walt. fil. Escolice {b)
II
0
Rinerius de Winebod[e-
Ric. de BerneweUe (b)
3
i6
8
sham] {b)
II
o
Godric. de Haure {b)
9
4
Ric. fil. Ricardi {b)
13
8
Sim. fil. Godrici {b)
I
4
8
Hen. Vivien {b)
II
o
Sumer {b)
7
4
Ric. Wulfward {b)
2
3
4
Reg. Godscho (b)
2
10
8
Tho. Pupelotus {b)
II
6
Yvo fil. MatiUdis {b)
10
4
Joh. fiL Helene {b)
7
4
Walt. Eare {b)
I
4
0
Rob. le Wanter {b)
6
lO
Hugo de KertUnge (^)
6
4
Joh. Crocheman {b)
I
i8
8
WiU. BiUing {b)
I
i8
8
Jord. Nicker {b)
I
12
4
Joh. de Estfliet {b)
I
10
0
Bened. Feltrarius {b)
6
lO
Bart. Tannator
3
6
8
Edw. fil. Edwardi {b)
2
i6
8
Walt. fil. AnketiUi
12
0
Sim. le TaiUur {b)
12
8
Ric. Curtesius {b)
I
4
8
Rad. Prutfot {b)
2
i6
o
Gilleb. Curtesius {b)
15
0
Sim. Niger {b)
I
2
4
Ric. BuUing {b)
7
4
Reg. de Fordham {b)
lO
o
WiU. Prest (*)
7
10
Fulco Crocheman {b)
2
15
o
Pet. Criket {b)
6
4
Bern. fil. Eadrici {b)
6
8
Rad. Pirie (^)
7
10
Joh. Lane {b)
12
8
Adam Weriel {b)
6
4
Herv. fil. Selede {b)
I
7
o
Joh. Faber {b)
II
0
WiU. Wulsi {b)
I
8
o
Bald. Blancgernun (<5)
2
0
0
WiU. Macecrem (3)
2
13
4
Rob. Custance {b)
11
0
Walt. Sissard {b)
II
o
Rob. Vivien (^)
2
6
0
Hen. Telarius {b)
7
4
Walt. Blundus {b)
14
8
Ric. Gibelot (/5)
I
14
o
Ric. de Storteford {b)
I
2
0
Herv. Gogging {b)
8
4
I 85. Names are so purely personal that it is difficult to
connect this list with the Hundred Roll. Still I think it fairiy
plain that the affairs of the borough of Cambridge can not in
12 19 have been solely or even chiefly in the hands of those
men who held most land within the vill. Hervey Fitz Eustace
(Dunning) and Baldwin Blancgernon are two strong representa
tives of the landed interest. But, when it comes to a taxation
of chattels, they both escape with a contribution of £2 ; and
fourteen people are taxed more heavily. The richest men in
the town appear to be Richard at the Gate, Richard of Barnwell
and Bartholomew the Tanner, and they are men who leave but
little mark upon the titles to lands and houses.
§ 86. We can now go back for another eight years. On
Cambridge in 1 2 ii .

169

the Pipe Roll of 13 John we find Amerciamenta hominum de
Cantebrige. Three years afterwards the same set of impositions
is entitled Taillagium villate de Cantebrige, and I think that we
have to deal rather with a tallage than with amercements. The
list on the roll of 13 John is as follows'.

Amercements of Cambridge, 121 1.

£¦

J.

d.

£¦

s.

d.

Hildebrand Punc {a)

1

6

8

Hen. Telarius (a)

13

4

Ad. le Wanter {a)

13
4
Ric. Gibelot {a)
3
0
0
Joh. fil. Alueue [? Elene] {a)
13
4
Herv. Gogginor (a)
2
0
0
Rob. le Wanter (a)
13
4
Ric. ad Portam {a)
ID
0
0
Joh. Crocheman {a)
3
6
8
Regin. de Abitone {a)
2
0
0
Jord. Niker {a)
2
0
0
Uxor Reginaldi
2
0
0
Rad. le Feutrer
13
4
Sim. Bagge {a)
5
0
0
Rob. Faber
2
0
0
Tom. Doi {a)
I
6
8
WiU. Doi {a)
I
6
8
Selede Pinberd
2
0
0
Bened. Feutrer {a)
13
4
Rog. Doy {a)
13
4
Edw. fil. Edwardi {a)
5
0
0
Ad. le Teler {a)
2
0
0
Will. fil. Edwardi {a)
I
0
0
Ric. le Peiner {a)
13
4
Sim. le TaUur {a)
I
6
8
Joh. nepos Hugonis
I
13
4
Apsilon fil. Segar
13
4
Kaih Tanur (a)
5
0
0
Rad. Prudfot {a)
5
0
0
WUl. de Selford {a)
2
0
0
Sim. Niger {a)
2
0
0
Osb. le Combere {a)
13
4
Regin. de Fordeham {a)
I
0
0
.Alex. Futere {a)
I
0
0
Fulco Crocheman {a)
5
0
0
Elyas fil. Osberti {a)
13
4
Rad. Wambe {a)
2
13
4
Ric. le Gelmer {a)
2
13
4
Yvo Pipestrau
'3
4
Walt. fil. Colic' [Escolice] {a) i
0
0
Joh. fiL Selede {a)
2
6
8
Ric. de Bernewelle {a)
10
0
0
Bernard fil. Edrici {a)
2
0
0
Algar de Welle
I
6
8
Joh. Lane {a)
I
6
8
Walt. fil. Absalon
2
13
4
Herv. fiL Selede {a)
2
13
4
Galf fil. Yvonis {a)
13
4
Will. Wulsi {a)
2
13
4
Mat. fiL Galfridi
13
4
Galf fil. Roberti
I
0
0
Godricus le Haur' {a)
I
0
0
Will. Macecren {a)
5
0
0
Sim. fiL eius {a)
I
6
8
Greg. fil. Hugonis {a)
I
6
8
Sumer {a)
13
4
Yvo Macecren (a)
I
6
8
Mich. fil. Orgar {a)
2
13
4
Ric. Gudred
3
0
0
Regin. Godso {a)
5
0
0
Serlo Wanter
13
4
Yvo fil. Matildis {a)
I
0
0
Walt. Sissard {a)
I
0
0
Walt. Ere {a)
2
0
0
Alan. Telarius
13
4
Mart. Wulward
4
0
0
Richeman {a)
13
4
Rad. frat. Yvonis
13
4
1 Pipe RoU, 13 Joh. m
ou the roll of 1219.
8. I set the letter (a) against those names which occurred
170

Land and Trade.

£¦

s.

d.

£.

J.

d.

Hen. fil. Elye {a)

2

0

0

Aldredus gener Ketel {a)

I

13

4

Yvo fil. Absalon {a)

5

0

0

War. fil. Normanni {a)

I

0

0

Regin. MuUoc

13

4

Frere (a)

2

13

4

Hug. de KertUnge {a)

13
4
Rog. Blund
13
4
Will. BiUing {a)
3
6
8
WiU. Sciper
2
0
0
Regin. Sorteknit {a)
I
0
0
Will. Pandevant
I
0
0
Joh. de Estflet (a)
3
6
8
Bald. Blangernun {a)
6
13
4
Regin. fil. Alurdi {a)
5
6
8
Herv. fil. Eustachii (a)
3
6
8
Brithnod Tanur
6
13
4
Rob. Seman
13
4
Galf Clait {b)
6
8
Galf Hareng {a)
I
0
0
War. fil. Anketil
0
0
Reiner de Winebod {a)
I
0
0
Ric. Curteis {a)
6
8
Rob. Curtance {a)
I
0
0
Gileb. Curteis {a)
6
8
Ric. Pottere
I
0
0
Hub. Piscator
0
0
Rob. Vivien {a)
4
0
0
Rad. fil. Galfridi {a)
2
0
0
Ric. fil. Ricardi {a)
I
6
8
Ric. Billing {a)
13
4
Hen. Vivien {a)
I
0
0
Will. Prest {a)
13
4
Ric. Wulwarde {a)
4
0
0
Pet. Criket {a)
13
4
Walt. Blundus {a)
I
6
8
Rad. Pirie {a)
13
4
Tom. Pupelot (a)
I
0
0
Galf Wulward {a)
13
4
WilL Hitti {a)
13
4
Childman {a)
I
6
8
Godef. Pie
13
4
Ad. Werial {a)
13
4
Absalon de Neweham
13
4
Galf Sibert
13
4
Ric. Storteford (?) {a)
2
0
0
Joh. Faber {a)
I
0
0
Rob. Cocus
I
0
0
Ketel Mercator {a)
1
6
8
Ketel Gag
13
4
Absalon Frost
I
0
0
§ 87. These two lists are so much alike' that we may trust
them to be giving us the names of all or nearly all those ' men
of Cambridge ' who can be directly taxed, and these will be the
men who buy charters and obtain a grant of ' the town.' There
are somewhat more than a hundred in a town which has four or five
hundred houses. There are great differences of wealth among
them ; one will pay fifteen times as much as another. Once
more we see that the Dunning and the Blancgernon are not
very highly rated. The taxation is heavy. In 1211 no one is
charged with less than a mark. The usual rate of scutage is at
this time two marks on the knight's fee ; but scutages are more
frequent than tallages.
§ 88. Finally, I will print a list taken from the Pipe Roll of
1 177 (23 Hen. II.) which apparently gives the amercements
' There is a curious relationship between the two. A batch of names in the same
sequence will occur in both. It looks to me as if some arrangement by streets or wards
lay behind both lists.
The Corn Trade.

171

inflicted upon men of Cambridge and its shire for some offence
connected with the exportation or importation of corn. They
are punished quia duxerunt bladum per aquam sine licentia \contra
prohibitionein\ iusticiar[ii] ; perhaps they have infringed some
prohibition issued during the recent rebellion.

A mercements of 1 1 77 '.

£¦

Hildebrandus de Cante
brige^
Joh. de Lencia
Rob. fil. ArchetiUi
Adricus de Len
Eustach. fil. Bernardi
Godland et Rad. frat. eius
Absalon et Walt. frat. eius
Ric. de Dittone
Regin. de Moneia
Turketell de Ponte
Osb. Crane
Aluricus Huchepain
Rob. de Niweport
Osgot frat. Alfgari
WiU. le Brun
WUl. Lof
Rob. fil. Selid'
Everard. de Powis
Tiedricus
AeUzia de Cestretone
Alanus le Bret
WiU. de Froisselake
Rad. Wastel 1
Steph. Nichtwat J
Albric Ruffus
Galf Murdac
Serlo Sellarius
Lefwin. frat. Serlonis
Will. Stramare 1
Serlo frat. eius f

6 6
3 6
I 6 6
I 13 6666 666
I o 666 6
6 13
I o 6
1313 666

13 4

Absalon Strammare
Walt, ^re
Galf. Soutland
Daiman de Cantebrige
Godric. jEre
Galf Boigris
/EdmundusRad. de Bradeleya
WiU. Finche 5
WiU. de Welle
Ric. Plumbarius
Hen. FrostuU'
Godlandus 1
Osbertus J
Hawan et frat. suus
Aszius Carnifex
Godard. le Scipre i
Rad. fil. Alfgari
Yngelmar. de Cantebrige
Estmund Godard. le Trottere
Wulfwarde de Ponte
Alfelinus de Ponte
Alfgar. Blundus
Ric. et Eust. de Bernewelle
Ailwinus frat. Wulfwardi 2
Spileman Salnarius
Walt. fil. Gileberti
Joh. de Cestretone
Alfgar. de Exninga
WiU. et And. de Suaueshed

s. d.
6 8
6 8
6 8
6 8
6 8
6 8
6 8
o o
6 8
6 8
13 4
6 8
6 8
6 8
o o
6 8
6 8
6 8
6 8
6 8
13 4
6 8
6 8
o o
6 8
6 8
6 8
13 4
6 8

§ 89. In the archives of St John's College there is a beauti
ful cartulary of St John's Hospital. The charters in it which
1 Pipe RoU, 23 Hen. II. m. 10 d.
2 Is this the Hildebrand Punch who heads the other lists?

172 Maurice Rede s Charter.
refer to Cambridge are of the highest interest and deserve to be
printed. The following deed, which seems to come from King
John's day or thereabouts, is of exceptional importance.
Carta Mauricii Ruffi de quindecim acris terre et de
quadam terra in ludaismo.
Sciant etc. quod ego Mauricius Ruffus de Cantebrige dedi et concessi et
hac mea carta confirmavi in liberam puram et perpetuam elemosinam pro
salute anime mee et animarum omnium antecessorum et successorum
meorum Deo et Hospitali Sancti Johannis Evangeliste de Cantebrige
Ulam medietatem tocius terre mee in ludaismo de Cantebrige, que medietas
est versus portam de Bernewelle, et preterea quindecim acras terre in
campps] de Cantebrige ex utraque parte aque, scilicet, dimidiam acram
in Howescroftesande que abuttal super MuUeweie iuxta terram Hervei
filii Eustachii, et unam acram ad capud illius dimidie acre iuxta terram
Thome Lungis, et dimidiam acram iuxta terram Radulfi de Trubelvile
et abuttal super Grenesheld ad Gretho, et unam acram que abuttal super
viam Sancti Neothi iuxta terram domini Baldewini Blancgernun, et unam
acram subtus Cotes iuxta terram Walteri filii Alicie Blancgernun et
abuttat ad unum capud super Smalemadwe et ad aUud capud super
Herdewickeweie, et unam acram super Brochenefurlong inter terram
domini Baldewini Blancgernun et terram domini Willelmi fratris eius,
et dimidiam acram que abuttat super Hunteduneweie iuxta terram Ade
filii Eustachii, et unam rodam que abuttat super viam Sancti Neoti iuxta
terram ipsius Ade filii Eustachii, et unam rodam in eadem quarentena
iuxta terram predicti Ade, et unam rodam que abuttat super viam Sancti
Neoti ad crucem iuxta terram predicti Ade, et unam rodam ad Bertuneweie
inter terram predicti Ade et dolam predicti Hospitalis, et dimidiam acram
que est forera que abuttat super dolam predicti Hospitalis ad Brunneforde,
et unam rodam que abuttat super Smalemadwe et super dolam dicti Hospi
talis, et unam rodam in Dale inter terram Ade filii Eustachii et terram
Willelmi Blodles, et Butebrok dimidiam acram que abuttat super Clint-
haneden iuxta terram predicti Ade, et dimidiam acram ad capud iUius
dimidie acre inter terram predicti Ade et terram quam Galfridus de Ely
tenet de domino Baldewino Blancgernun, et unam rodam in longum pasture'
iuxta Edinebrok et abuttat super terram que fuit Warini filii Asketini, et
unam rodam in Binnebrok^ iuxta terram Ade filii Eustachii, et unam rodam
que vocatur Linrode, et dimidiam acram ad Brunneforde inter terram
predicti Ade et terram que fuit Warini filii Asketini, et ex alia parte
aque in campo versus Bernewelle unam rodam que abuttat super Rugweie
iuxta terram predicti Ade, et unam rodam in Clayhangre inter terram
predicti Ade et terram Ricardi filii Yvonis, et dimidiam acram in Clayhangre
^ Both words in full.
^ Observe the contrast between Binnebrok and Butebrok.

A dissipated Tenement. 173

iuxta terram ipsius Ricardi fiUi Yvonis, et unam rodam in Middelfurlong
iuxta terram Ade fihi Eustachii, et unam rodam ad capud Ulius rode iuxta
terram predicti Ade, et unam rodam [que]* abuttat versus Brademere iuxta
terram Sancte Radegundis et terram predicti Ade, et unam rodam que
abuttat super septem acras domini Prioris de Bernewelle, et unam rodam
que abuttat super Hintuneweie iuxta terram Johannis Aluredi, et dimidiam
acram que abuttat super Hintuneweie ad putte, et tres rodas que abuttant in
Hintunefen iuxta terram Ade filii Eustachii, et unam rodam ad capud
iUarum trium rodarum que abuttat super Pissewelleweie, et unam rodam
ad Chalkputtes que abuttat super Hintuneweie iuxta terram predicti Ade,
et unam rodam que abuttat super dolam Warini filii Asketini, et unam
rodam ad Pissewellesande que abuttat contra magnam stratam iuxta terram
Sancte Radegundis, et unam rodam in Middelfurlong inter terram Sancte
Radegundis et terram Ade fihi Eustachii et abuUat super foreram domini
Prioris de Bernewelle, et unam rodam que abuttat super Hintuneweie inter
propriam terram meam et terram predicti Ade filii Eustachii Tenendas et
habendas adeo hbere et quiete, bene et in pace, plenarie et honorifice
imperpetuum sicut aliqua elemosina melius liberius et quiecius aUcui loco
religioso potest conferri et ab aUquibus viris religiosis possideri. Et ego
Mauricius et heredes mei warantizabimus defendemus et acquietabimus
predictam medietatem predicte terre in ludaismo et predictas quindecim
acras sicut iacent predicto Hospitali et fratribus ibidem Deo servientibus
sicut liberam puram et perpetuam elemosinam contra omnes homines et
feminas et precipue dotes et impignoraciones. Ut autem hec mea donatio,
concessio, carte confirmatio et warantizatio rata et inconcussa imperpetuum
permaneat, hanc cartam sigilli mei appositione corroboravi, hiis testibus.
Domino Petro de Niwenham et Domino Johanne de Ry et Domino Hugone
capellanis, Magistro Waltero de Wylburham, Herveo filio Eustachii, Roberto
Seman, Ada filio Eustachii et aliis.
We have here an estate of 1 5 acres lying in 36 parcels which
are scattered about in both sets of fields ; some lie close to
Girton, some close to Cherry Hinton. In nineteen cases Maurice
the donor has Adam fitz Eustace (Dunning) as one of his neigh
bours. The landowners who are mentioned are Hervey fitz
Eustace, Adam fitz Eustace, Baldwin Blancgernon, William his
brother, Ralph of Troubleville, T. Lungis, W. Blodles, G. Ely,
Warin son of Asketin, Richard son of Yvo, and John Alfred's
son. They are a miscellaneous party.
§ 90. From Domesday Book we can learn nothing of the
Cambridge fields. We could not even learn that Cambridge
had fields, though we see that there is common pasture and
that the burgesses have ploughs. The borough pays geld for
' A small hole.

174 S^ Etheldreda and the Fields.
a hundred hides ; but in a great borough taxation is no longer
based on land-ownership.
§ 91. A little information about yet older days may be
cautiously collected from the Liber Eliensis, the compiler of
which book had some ancient documents before him, though
we can not trust him implicitly. In Edgar's day one Oslac
borrowed from Bishop ^thelwold 40 aurei and gave in return
40 acres of land apud Grantebrucge^. Then the brethren of the
church of Ely bought from one Brithlave a well-built house
{praedium optime aedificatum apud Grantebrucge) and 30 acres
of arable and a meadow I They further bought 7 acres from the
son of Bishop ^thelmser, and 7 acres from Sisled, and 5 from
Hungeva a widow, who gave them 10 more and a fishery'. Also
they had in exchange from Wine 53 or 63 acres and a fishery
in Grantebrucge. Then a hide of land in Grantebrucge was given
by Ogga of Mildenhall and successfully defended against his
kinsman Uvi, and 16 acres apud Grantebrucge were exchanged
with Osmund Hocere*. How St Etheldreda lost these lands does
not appear. But the point of interest is that within the borough
field she must be content with small transactions, whereas she is
receiving whole villages in the open country.
§ 92. No clue to the history of the boroughs would be more
important than that which we should hold if the advowsons of
the borough churches would tell their tale. Unfortunately many
of them are appropriated to religious houses at an early date and
their donors are not remembered. At Cambridge, however, a
few grains of information may be collected.
§ 93. Between 11 14 and 1130 the Abbot of Ramsey con
veyed a piece of land in Cambridge, being the churchyard of
St George, to Randolf with the Beard, Robert and Anger ' and
the others of the fraternity of the Holy Sepulchre ' for the con
struction of a church in honour of the Holy Sepulchre, which
was to be subject to Ramsey Abbey. Another deed of the like
import mentions Durand of Cambridge in the place of Randolf
with the Beard^. Somehow or another the advowson of this

^ Liber Eliensis, ed. Stewart, p. 134. 2 Liber Eliensis, p. 135.
3 Liber Eliensis, p. 135. - Liber Eliensis, pp. 131, 133.
" Cart. Rams. i. 145; ii. 264. Mr Atkinson, Cambridge Described, p. 164, says:
' To judge by the style of architecture, which is the only evidence we have as to date.

Burgesses and Advowsons. 175
(the Round) church soon passed to Barnwell Priory'. However,
one of the first glimpses that we have of Cambridge after that
given by Domesday Book shows us a gild building a church,
and it shows us also a church of St George that soon dis
appears. I 94. A curious record attributed to Richard I.'s reign tells
how a jury is summoned to declare whether St Peter's church is
in the gift of the king or in the gift of Herbert the Chaplain,
Reginald son of Alfred, William of Caldecot and Ivo ' de
Pipestr'.' The jurors say that neither the king nor his ancestors
ever gave the church, but that one Langlinus who held that
church and was its parson ' gave ' that church, ' in the manner
then customary in the city of Cambridge,' to a kinsman of his
called Sigar, who held it for more than 60 years and was its
parson, and who afterwards gave it to his son Henry, who held
it for 60 years and gave it to the Hospital of Cambridge by his
charter. Whereupon it is adjudged that the Hospital shall have
that church''. To all appearance the four defendants are in
some sort the representatives of the Hospital. The church in
question is that of St Peter outside Trumpington Gate, which
has given place to St Mary the Less. In Edward I.'s day jurors
say that it has belonged to the Hospital from time immemorial,
having been given by Henry the son of Sigarl An Aspilon or
Absalom son of Sigar was tallaged in 121 1*.
§ 95. The Ivo of whom we have just read seems to have
borne the nick-name Pipestraw^ He was patron of another
church, namely, that of St Michael, and to this he presented
William son of Absalom. In 123 1 Ivo and William were both
dead and there was litigation about the advowson. Ivo had
four sisters. One of them had a grandson, John son of Isaunt,
or Ifaunt. Another had two sons, William son of Absalom and
it [the Round Church] was buUt between 1 1 20 and 1 140.' The Ramsey charter seems
to show the accuracy of this inference.
' Rot. Hund. ii. 392.
2 Placit. Abbrev. 98; Coke upon Littleton, 109 b; Cooper, Annals, 1. 29.
" Rot. Hund. ii. 359, 393- , „ . ,.
• The name Absalom, which becomes Aspelon, Aspilon, and finally Asphn, seems
to have taken root in Cambridge at a time when Old Testament names were very rare
among English Christians. Is it due to the Breton influence? , , , „j
' He is tallaged in 1211. The terrier copied by Dr Caryl shows a parcel of land
in one of the BarnweU Fields which is called Pipestraw Gores.

176 Burgesses and Churches.
Walter his brother'. Seventy years later a somewhat different
pedigree is put before us. The advowson descends from Regi
nald Pipestraw to his son Ivo, from Ivo to his daughter Alice,
from Alice to her son Yfant, from him to his son Alfred, from
him to his sister Maud 'de Walda' or Atte Woldel Maud
wanted to give it to the University °.
§ 96. Then we can connect the sons of Absalom with
another church, that of St John. William fitz Absalom was its
patron. He died and the advowson descended to his brother
Hugh, who gave it to the Priory of Barnwell. In 1220, after
Hugh's death without issue, an unsuccessful attempt was made
to recover it by Mabel de Marenny his sister and Adam son of
Philip. Adam seems to be the son of Ada, another sister of
Hugh*. § 97. We pass to St Clement's. Hugh son of Absalom gave
the advowson to the Nuns of St Radegund". Then Walter son
of William de St Edmund confirmed the grants made by his
ancestor Hugh son of Absalom and his uncle Walter. Walter
of St Edmund is a member of the family which holds the church
or chapel of St Edmund. Hugh son of Absalom has for cousin
Aldusa daughter of William Blancgernon "-
§98. By a fine levied on i Jan. 1219 Baldwin Blancgernon
quit-claimed the advowson of the church of All Saints in the
suburb of Cambridge to the Prior of Barnwell, and in return the
Prior and Canons received him and his heirs into the benefit of
their prayers'. The church in question is that of All Saints by
the Castle, and we see that already the transpontine part
of Cambridge can be spoken of as a suburb. Then in 1279
the advowson of Trinity Church belonged to the Abbey of
West Dereham, to which it had been granted by William of
Yarmouth Vintner'. All Saints by the Hospital was given to
the Nuns by one Sturmi, who in his charter called himself simply
Ego Sturmi de Cantebrig. Among the witnesses was Absalom
1 Bracton's Note Book, pl. 523. Walter is tallaged in 1211.
2 R. H. ii. 387. 3 Cooper, Annals, i. 65.
» Bracton's Note Book, pl. 103, 104.
' Jesus Charters, M. 1.. 3 (Mr Gray's notes).
' Jesus Charters, L. -l (Mr Gray's notes).
' Record Office, Feet of Fines, Henry III. Camb. A-
' Blomefield, Hist. Norfolk, 8vo. ed. vii. 34.

The County Families. 177

presbyter^. Then we are told that a man called Absalom was
both patron and rector of St Andrew (the Great) and gave the
advowson to Ely=. St Benet belonged to the Argentans, a
county family; St Mary the Great to the king.
§ 99. Thus we have not a few indications of the days when
the burgesses, sometimes clubbing together in a gild, built the
churches, and appointed the parsons 'according to the then
custom of the city of Cambridge,' and we think of the entry in
Domesday which tells how the burgenses of Norwich held fifteen
churches, and how twelve burgenses had held the church of the
Holy Trinity. A church, it must be remembered, had been a
source of revenue to its patron, to its owner*. It was not unlike
a mill ; he ' banned ' his tenants and dependants to the one and
to the other. The disorderly mess of tithes that we see in the
Cambridge fields is the result of this process.
§ IOO. Then there are external landowning families, county
families, which have a proprietary interest in the town and its
fields. As already said the line of demarcation is not severe.
At Trumpington in 1279 there are Cayleys with a nice little
manor". A Ralph Cayley has given 30 acres in that village to
St Radegund. But in the Cambridge Fields John Cayley has
given to Barnwell Priory 40 acres and the service of many
tenants^ William Cayley has a house in St Benet's parish, and
Alan Cayley has been a strip-holder'. Early in the thirteenth
century Kailly the tanner was one of the richest men of the
town. In the next century Philip Cayley is mayor of the
borough and holds acres in the fields. Younger sons, we may
suppose, ' go into business,' and thriving burgesses buy land in
the neighbouring villages. But we also see on the Hundred
Rolls that rent is going outside the borough to Colvilles, Pyrots,
Argentans, Troubelvilles, Cockfiields. The Prior of Huntingdon
owes his strips in the fields to a Troubelville' The Troubel
villes and their successors the de Greys are estated near
^ Jesus Charters, D. 1 1 .
2 Bentham, Ely, p. 146. ' D. B. ii. ii6b.
* Stutz, Die Eigenkirche, Beriin, 1895; Geschichte des kirchlichen Benefizial-
wesens, Berlin, 1895. The already antiquated 'custom of the city of Cambridge' to
which the jurors refer permitted the patron to ' give ' the church to a parson.
» R. H. ii. 548. ' Ibid. 357-
' Ibid. 376, 378. ' Ibid. 391. 12

178 The Honours.

Huntingdon at a village which is known as Hemingford
Troubelville or (at a later time) Hemingford Grey'. There
is a Hemingford family which has had land in Cambridge to
give away ; Dame Nichole of Hemingford gave some to Barnwell
Priory^' May she not be the Dame Nichole whose name is
attached to a hythe in Cambridge, ' Dame Nichole's Hythe' ' ?
There is a Nonancourt family interested in Barnwell. In
some way or other it is connected with the family of Adam
of Cockfield, who was a considerable landowner in eastern
England*. § IOI. But much greater people were concerned. Leonius
Dunning held part of his land of a Mortimer who held of Robert
Bruce. Part of the land of Eustace Dunning was held of the
Earl of Leicester. Now if any grand ' honour ' is to appear in
Cambridge and its fields, we should expect it to be that honour
of Huntingdon which represents the estates of Waltheof and has
passed to the royal family of Scotland. Any earl's share, erles-
dole, that had been allotted in the fields of Cambridge might be
looked for among their possessions. They or their assignees
were entitled to an ancient rent of iTio which represented the
third penny of the borough". King Malcolm's gift to the nuns
of 10 acres next Greencroft may be the act of an earl who
regards a third of the waste as his own. Not many miles from
Cambridge this Scottish stratum crops out in the village of
Oakington, where there is a manor which is held of Balliols and
Bruces*. § 102. To account for the appearance of the Leicester fief is
not so easy. It may be seen in Cambridge and in the adjacent
villages of Girton, Grantchester and Barton'. In these villages it
seems to hold the place that was held in 1086 by the Mortain
fief*. In 1086 the Count of Mortain had three houses in Cam
bridge ; he was standing in the shoes of Judhael the Huntsman'.
§ 103. Domesday Book would lead us to expect that another
great fief would be represented in the borough, namely, the
' R- H. IL 679. 2 Yoii. 35^. See above, p. 162.
3 Ibid. 367, 390. Willis and Clark, ii. 390. See Lib. Rub. Scac. 531.
•• Bracton's Note Book, pl. 1393 ; Blomefield, Hist. Norfolk, 8vo. ed., viii.
412, 414.
" See Cooper, Annals, i. 37. <¦ R. H. ii. 449.
' R. H. il. 459, 563, 565. 8 D. B. ;_ ,g^ 9D. B. ii. 189.

The Mortimers' Lands. 179
honour of Britanny and Richmond, for Count Alan, the suc
cessor of Edith the Fair, had five burgesses. In the thirteenth
century there is a good deal of the Breton fief scattered about in
Cambridgeshire. Count Stephen, who died in 1137 or there
abouts, held a mill in Cambridge and gave its tithe to a French
monastery which had a cell at Swa vesey'.
§ 104. There is one estate of exceptional interest, namely,
that of the Mortimers. In 1501, when Gonville Hall was ac
quiring it from the representatives of Lady Scrope of Bolton, it
was described as being the manor of Newnham and consisting
of the Newnham water-mill with an adjoining close, one other
close called Newnham close, and 99 acres in the town and fields
of Cambridge". In the terriers we find 'Mortimers' land'
scattered about in the various furlongs. We turn first to the
Western Fields. In Grithow Field lie the following parcels :
2A-t-2A-l-6A. In Middle Field : 2A-|-iA-f-iA-t-20A, besides
8 selions constituting 'Chalkwell dole,' which we may perhaps
set down for 16 A. In Little Field: 3A-f-3A. We pass to the
Eastern Fields. In Ford Field lie the following : 4 A (Mortimers'
dole) -f 8 A (Mortimers' dole). In Swinecroft : 8 A 2 R (Mortimers'
dole). In Bradmore: 7 A (Mortimers' dole)-)- 14 A (Mortimers'
dole) -1- 9 A (Mortimers' dole). In Middle Field : 10 A (Mortimers'
dole). § 105. Now the interesting feature of this estate is the large
size of the parcels of which it is composed. Other people
sometimes have several adjacent acres; but almost without
exception the Mortimers' parcels are unusually large. This
may possibly be the result of exchanges and good management
in fairly recent times; but, as the Mortimers do not seem to
have been resident in Cambridge, we may hesitate before as
cribing to them an unique success in the endeavour to bring
order out of chaos. May not their estate represent an allotment
made in the oldest days to some chieftain; secundum digtia-
tionem, as Tacitus said .-'
§ 106. Unfortunately at this point the Hundred Roll is
obscure. We read in it how Robert Mortimer gave a whole
ploughland to the Hospital. This he had by the gift of King
1 Dugdale, Baronage, i. 47 ; Monasticon, vi. 1002.
2 Cooper, Annals, i. 257, 286.

i8o The Haw-gafol.
John, who perhaps obtained it by way of forfeiture : the ' Nor
manni ' were forfeiting their lands in John's day. But this
cannot be the Mortimers' land of later times since it has already
passed to the Hospital. Then we read that Leonius Dunning
has inherited from his father Adam half a knight's fee and a
water-mill, which are held of William son of Robert Mortimer,
who holds of the Bruces. The difficulty is that we read of no
land held by the Mortimers ' in demesne,' and therefore of none
which (unless we suppose some surrender or escheat) will naturally
become the ' Mortimers' lands ' of the terriers. Some loyal son
of Gonville and Caius should solve the problem, for the Mor
timers' lands or plots obtained in lieu thereof have become
profitable. However, the mention of the Bruces points straight
to Waltheof and ancient earls. An exceptional estate might
well come down this line. On the other hand, there are some
signs which suggest that the Mortimers filled the place of the
Breton counts and therefore of the fair but enigmatical Edith'.
§ 107. The story of the land-gavel and haw-gavel should be
of importance, but is not easily interpreted. In Domesday
Book we read : ' De consuetudinibus huius villae vii. lib. per
annum et de landgable vii. lib. et ii. orae et duo denariil' Four
centuries afterwards under Richard III. we have the earliest
haw-gavel roll of the borough. The total amount that stands in

' These Mortimers of Attleburgh, for whose pedigree see Blomefield, Hist. Norfolk,
8vo. ed., i. 506, had Kingston as the centre of their Cambridgeshire property, and they
there held of the Pecches (R. H. ii. 514). In Foxton and Harston they held part of
the Richmond fief (Ibid. 547, 553). It does not seem at all certain that the Roger
Mortimer who appears as mesne lord of a manor in Trumpington belongs to this
family. An attempt to derive the Mortimers' lands in Cambridge from Alan of Britanny
through the Zouches has been made. The supposed link is the WiUiam ' Zouche of
Mortimer' who lived under Edw. II. and III. He was a son of Robert, 3rd Baron
Mortimer of Richard's Castle, and took the name of Zouche from his mother, a Zouche
of Ashby. But a Zouche-Mortimer marriage at this late date can not account for a
Mortimer having land in Cambridge under John ; besides it seems to take us from the
right set of Mortimers to their raore famous namesakes of the Welsh march. On the
other hand, we find (see above p. 179) that the Breton Counts had a water-mill in
Cambridge, and it is difiicult to say what mill this was if it was not the Newnham
mill, which formed an important part of the Mortimer estate. As to this mill, see the
inquest of 27 Edw. III. in Baker MSS. xxv. 52. Blomefield, i. 508, tells how, in the
time of the Barons' War, Robert Mortimer had a servant (seijeant?) named Leonine.
This makes us think of Leonius or Leoninus Dunning, for the name is verv rave
2 D. B. i. 189.

High Gable Rents. i8i
charge upon it is £7. \s. 3^^.' At this date the haw-gavel or
'high-gable rent' certainly includes the land-gavel, the rent paid
for strips in the fields. Half-way between these two documents
stands the Hundred Roll. The total sum of the land-gavel and
haw-gavel there mentioned seems to lie between £"] and ;^8*.
Examining a few particular instances, we find a close agreement
between 1279 and 1483. Thus on the roll of 1279 we are told
that the Scholars of Merton pay 4J. \od. for haw-gavel and land-
gaveP: and on the haw-gavel roll this is exactly the sum
charged against them. So in the older document the Nuns of
Radegund seem to be liable for 14J. 4^. ; and 14J. A,\d. is what
they pay under Richard III.* The Prior of Barnwell pays
53J-. 4^. in 1483: and in 1279 he seems liable for ns., or
perhaps S7J. 4^.
Now all this seems to point to the conclusion that for some
centuries before Richard III. the total amount levied by way of
land-gavel and haw-gavel was somewhat more than £7, and
then we see that the land-gavel of Domesday Book is seven
pounds, two ounces and two pence : that is apparently £"]. 3^. 6d.
We are strongly tempted therefore to hold that the land-gavel
of 1086 includes the gavel paid for the haws or houses and to
see a marvellous permanence.
§ 108. If, however, we accept this theory, then we must give
some explanation of those ' customs of the borough ' which were
distinct from the 'landgable' and brought in £7. In recent
times the interpretation of this passage was bitterly disputed
among the inhabitants of Cambridge. One opinion was that
these 'customs' would justify a toll which the corporation
exacted from carts entering and leaving the borough, while
those who disliked and victoriously opposed the toll declared
that the consuetudines of Domesday pointed to the ' high-gable
rents.' I do not think that we are compelled to choose between
these two theories. Even if we suppose that the rents which the
king receives from houses are included in the ' landgable,' there
^ Cooper, Annals, i. 227. The roll is of the first year of Ric. III.
2 I make it nearly ;^8.
SR. H. iL36o.
^ In R. H. ii. 359, col. i, entry 5, they are charged with 14. I take this to mean
14 shiUings, not pence.

1 82 The Two Towns.
is still a great deal for the ' customs ' to cover. There are the
profits of the court and the market tolls'.
I 109. It is therefore a plausible hypothesis that the total
sum due to the king or his farmers from lands and houses
remains at a little more than £7 from the days of the Confessor
onwards until modern times, when the gavel-pence became
trivial. If so, then we may provisionally treat what the
Hundred Rolls tells us about the apportionment of this burden
as indicative of a very ancient state of affairs. By no means
all the houses pay the gavel ; in the fields it is the exception
rather than the rule. Also it is very light. There are a few
shops which pay as much as %d. apiece^ but a house often pays
only a penny or a half-penny. In the thirteenth century such
rents, if not nominal, were extremely small. Even if we go back
to far remoter days, a penny is but the thirtieth part of the
traditional price of the ox^.
§110. Whether the whole of what became the territory of
Cambridge was from the first the land of a single tiin or whether
there were once two tuns, each with its own fields, this is a
question which the map will suggest to us*. If there ever were
two tuns, then, as tuns go in Cambridgeshire, both of them had
small, rather than large territories : territories as small as that of
Girton. Also we are compelled to ask ourselves what was the
name of the southern or eastern tiin. That it was not called
Barnwell is, I think, clear. The well-known account of the
foundation of the Priory supposes that 'Barnwell' was merely the
name of a spring in the fields of Cambridge^ Also, so far as I
am aware, this name was never given to the whole of our cispon
tine Cambridge, but covers only the Priory, which is far outside
the ditch, and a group of houses which immediately surrounds,
and may well be the creature of, the Priory. True, that the
' That D. B. speaks of the consuetudines as though they were paid by houses does
not, I think, prove that those consuetridines were rents. The king, I take it, would
not get the wites (nor perhaps the market tolls) of those who lived in houses which
belonged to immunists. Consuetudines is Domesday's largest word : see Domesday
and Beyond, 67 ff.
2 Perhaps these shops projected into the street and their rent covers a purpresture.
' Domesday and Beyond, 44.
* As to this question, see Atkinson and Clark, Cambridge, 8 ff.
" Lib. Memor. f. 13: Pain Peverel bestows 'locum iacentem in campis Cantabrigie
pro tresdecim acris circa fontes de BerneweUe.'

The Urban Manors. 183

whole of the Eastern Fields are sometimes called the campi de
Bernewelle. This usage, however, was not unnatural at a time
when the Priory owned a full third of those fields, so that a third
at least of the acres had their agricultural focus in Barnwell.
§ III. It may be roughly true that the Eastern Fields
tithed to cispontine churches, and that the Western Fields
tithed either to St Giles or to the Nuns, who held the church
of St Clement, which, though not transpontine, is very near the
river. But apparently there were many strips in the Newnham
quarter of the Western Fields which were ascript to the church
of St Peter without the Trumpington Gate, and tithe was still so
fluid for a century after the Norman Conquest, that an argu
ment based on its distribution might fall far short of the days
when the fields were first laid out and cut into strips'.
§ 112. Whether there ever was within the limits of Cam
bridge anything that would earn from our historical economists
the name of a ' manor ' is a difficult question. In recent centuries
the colleges, as we should expect, let their lands to farmers for
terms of years', and the municipal corporation let the lands of
the White Canons. Some of the evils which would naturally
flow from the intermixture of strips may have been obviated if
one farmer took leases from two or three landlords. The estates
held by Merton, St John's, Jesus, Caius and Trinity HalP were
called manors, and the name 'hall ' or ' manor-house' was given
to the house in which the farmer lived. Merton had a few copy
holders and held courts for them. In the thirteenth century
Leonius Dunning and the Master of the Hospital held courts at
' See Gray, Old Courses of the Cam, Cam. Ant. Soc. Proc. ix. 74. Mr Gray
seems inclined to draw the line between the two townships in such a manner as to
throw St Clement's parish into the northern township which had the Western Fields.
Very many of the strips in these fields tithed to St Radegund, and the nuns may have
taken the tithe in right of their church of St Clement, for with the three transpontine
churches they had nothing to do. But this theory seems to open new difiiculties. The
viU with the Western Fields stretches just a little across the river so as to shut off the
other vill from the bridge.
' See notes of leases granted by St John's in Baker, Hist. St John's (ed. Mayor),
vol. i. pp. 354 flf.
' The manor of Cotton Hall. Apparently this had formerly been known as
Caylyse. Cooper, Annals, ii. 39, 407. On the Hawgavel Roll of i Ric. III.
Thomas Cotton is charged for the tenement called Caylyse. As to the Cayley
family, see above p. 177. 'The manor house, an old brick mansion, stood opposite
Pembroke.' Mr Gray has shown me a picture of the Jesus or Radegund manor-house.

1 84 The Borough Court.
Newnham. It is to be remembered, however, that even the
largest of these estates was small if judged by a rural measure.
Merton had tenants in the neighbouring vills of Grantchester,
Chesterton and Girton and may have been able to work its land
in the manorial fashion : that is to say, to get the demesne tilled
by labour due from tenants by reason of their tenure. The
Hospital seems to have exacted some boon-days. But on the
whole I think that from a very early time the main part of
the work was done by the landowner's servants or by hired
labourers. The rapidity with which the strips were passing
in the thirteenth century from owner to owner seems incom
patible with any high degree of manorialism. We have seen
that 'Harleston's manor' was not formed until the middle of
the fourteenth century.
§ II 3. Such plea- rolls of the borough court as are extant —
unfortunately they are few — show that the whole territory of
Cambridge was within its jurisdiction. In 1295 John Goldring
brings replevin for a horse taken in his croft at Newnham by
Master Guy, Master of the Hospital, who avows for homage,
fealty, suit to his court of Newnham from three weeks to three
weeks and the service of one penny a year. In the same year
the same John brings replevin against Leonius Dunning for two
house-doors {hostia) carried off at Newnham : Leonius avows
for homage, fealty, suit to his court of Newnham from three
weeks to three weeks and the service of 3 1 fa?, a year. Simon
of Lynn brings replevin for a hurdle taken in his house at
Newnham by the Master of the Hospital, who avows for
homage, fealty, a service of I2<^. a year, two weedings and two
boon-days\ It will be seen that the distrained tenant is off at
once to the borough court.
§ 114. That court also entertained suits in which the title
to land in the fields was in debate. In 1220 we see it seised of
an action in which Mabel of Nonancourt claims 72 acres against
Adam of Cockfield, who is no burgess but a man of fairly high
station with a good deal of land that he holds by military
service. Hervey son of Martin, John Crocheman, Walter son
1 Roll in the borough archives. All are cases of 23 Edw. I. In the last case the
service is described thus:— 'et per servicium duarum cercler' duarum precar' et xii.
den. per annum.'

Firma Burgi. 185

of Walter and Walter son of Ernise carry the record of the
court before the king's justices. Its accuracy is questioned, and
the recorders are ready to defend it by the arm of a champion'.
The jurisdictional territory of the court is the vill of Cambridge :
not the ditch-enclosed space, but the whole vill. Charters of
feoffment of lands and houses are commonly attested by the
mayor and bailiffs ; probably they were executed in court, and
they may have been copied on rolls that are not now forth
coming. On the other hand, I have seen no trace on these
rolls of any governmental regulation of the arable land : no
by-laws touching its culture : nothing of the kind.
§ 115. The exact nature of the rights that the king bestows
when he grants a town to the townsfolk is obscure. The core
of the gift consists of those revenues which a sheriff has here
tofore received, house-rents and land-rents (haw-gavel and
land-gavel), market tolls, profits of the court, profits of the
king's mills. Around this there is a fringe of debatable matter :
a nebulous fringe which solidifies as potential become actual
utilities. There is waste or unappropriated land both inside
and outside the ditch or wall : also there is a seignory over
houses and appropriated land.
§ 116. The weak spot in the case of the burgesses, who
would give to the grant its largest possible scope, is that the
king does not mean that they shall take the escheats. This
seems clear from an inquiry addressed to the jurors in 1279:
' Touching the king's farmers who hold cities, boroughs or other
manors of the king at fee-farm and who by reason of the farm
take the escheats and alienate or retain them'.' The Cambridge
jurors 'de isto articulo nichil sciunt.' They do not claim es
cheated tenements. But if the right to escheats is not conveyed,
how about a seignory, and, if there is no seignory, what of the
ownership of the waste .''
§ 117. It seems to me that the theory changes. Gradually
the townsfplk (becoming incorporate) begin to assert that, at
all events where haw-gavel is paid, they {ut tmiversi) stand as
a mesne lord between the tenants and the king. The evidence
consists of inquisitiones ad quod damnum, some of which I have
' Curia Regis Rolls, No. 74, m. 9, and No. 75, m. 5 d. See Bracton's Note Book,
pL 1393. ' R- H. ii. 392.

1 86 The Municipal Seignory.
seen at the Record Office, while many were printed in 1850 by
a committee of the Town Council'.
The following is an example from 1294 :
If the king licenses Roger of Rydelingfield to give to the University four
messuages and thirty acres in Cambridge, this will be to the damage of the
king in this, that the king will lose the escheat, which would be worth .£40;
and it will be to the damage of the town of Cambridge in this, that the
said tenements were and ought to be geldable to all aids, contributions
and burdens. Moreover they are held in chief of the king and render every
year 6j. i>\d. of haggabil for the farm of the town to the men of Cambridge
who hold the town of the king at fee-farm^....
Here the theory is plain. Roger holds immediately of the
king, though he pays haw-gavel to the men of the borough.
There are various other inquests which put the matter in the
same fashion. And now contrast this from 1353:
It will not be to the damage of the king or of any other if he licenses
the Alderman and Brethren of the Gild of Corpus Christi and B. Mary of
Cambridge to grant five messuages and twelve cottages to the Master and
Scholars of the House of Corpus Christi and B. Mary of Cambridge. And
the jurors say that a moiety of one of the said houses is held of John of Toft
by the service of ds. a year and the other moiety of Robert Came by the
service of %s. a year. And one other messuage is held of the Prioress of
St Radegund by the service of loj. a year. And one other of the Abbot
of Ramsey by the service of 5^. a year. And one other is held by the
service of \is. a year of the men of the town of Cambridge who hold the
said town at perpetual fee-farm of our lord the king^....
So again in the same year, when houses bought for the Hall
of the Annunciation are to be made over to Corpus College, it is
said that they are held of the Prior of Barnwell, Thomas Morice
and Edmund Caily by the service of 13.$-. a year 'and are like
wise held of the men of Cambridge by the service of \d. a year
for hagable, which men hold the said vill of the king in perpetual
fee-farm*.' Here ' the men ' are lords.
§ 118. The high-water mark of this theory may be found
in the mortmain licences granted in 1506 by the corporation to
Michael House and Gonville Hall. In the latter case there is
' Borough Rate Report ; the work, it is believed, of Mr C. H. Cooper. I have used
a copy at the University Registry.
' Borough Rate Report, p. 56.
5 Rec. Off. Inq. a. q. d. 27 Edw. III. 37.
* Rec. Off. Inq. ¦^. q. d. 27 Edw. III. 41.

The Intramural Waste. 187
a distinct assertion that the Mortimer manor was ' holden of the
mayor, bailififs and burgesses as of their high gable (!), by the
yearly rent of i8j.''
The theory can fluctuate because in a borough, where
tenements are devisable and no wardships can be claimed, a
seignory over a freeholder practically resolves itself (if the right
to the escheat be excluded from view) into a mere right to an
immutable rent, and perhaps the only chance which it has of
showing that it is a seignory is that afforded by the Mortmain
Statute. § 119. As to the waste land within the ditch (it would
chiefly consist of streets, lanes, odds and ends) I do not think
that the king of the thirteenth century would have admitted
that this ground was 'holden of him by the burgesses. They
had succeeded to the rights of the sheriff, and it was not for
a sheriff or other royal bailiff to make profit for himself by
inclosing waste lands. At the same time I do not suppose that
in general estimation the king was free to do just what he
pleased with the open spaces. We have seen the burgesses
building a hospital on ^eir common land ; we have seen also
that the result of this is a disputed right of patronage^
§ 120. It is possible that Henry III. bought waste land
from the community. By a writ of 6 Feb. 1292, Edward I.
grants to the Carmelite Friars of Cambridge leave to inclose
within two walls 'a certain place of ours between their abode
and the river Grante which King Henry our father bought de
hominibus eiusdem ville^! I think it probable that we ought to
say ' the men,' though the phrase is ambiguous, owing to Latin's
lack of articles. The writ goes on to declare that the Friars
are to make two doors in the said walls ' through which we and
our heirs and our faithful people ' may at all times have ingress
and egress for the defence of the said town when there is need.
This looks as if the piece of ground in question had been a lane
or open space giving access to the river. It must soon have
become obvious that the king's ownership (if ownership it was)
of streets and lanes must be of an attenuated kind, and that, if
he was to be charitable to Carmelites and others, he must
1 Cooper, Annals, i. 257, 285, 286; Borough Rate Report, 17.
2 See above, p. 161. = Rot. Pat. 20 Edvy. I. m. 21 (unprinted).

1 88 The Right of Approvement.
consider the necessities of the burgesses to whom he had
granted 'the town.' It is also to be observed that if the
corporation was tenant of the waste, it was tenant in chief,
and like any other tenant in chief would require royal licence
for an alienation. Thus the situation might remain indefinite.
§ 121. The corporation of Cambridge had occasion to rue
the petition of 1330'. Leave to approve the small lanes and
waste places was asked because the only revenue applicable to
the discharge of the fee-farm rent consisted of tolls levied from
strangers who came into the town on market-day. This
unlucky document was vouched by the University in 1616 to
prove that John's charter conferred no ownership of the soiP.
Then, shortly before the Municipal Reformation of 1835, there
were bitter lawsuits between the (Tory) corporation and some
townsmen about a general toll (not a market toll) exacted from
carts entering or leaving the town. The corporation was de
feated in two long trials, of which full reports were published.
The two reports are in the University Library (Z.23.12):
(i) A full report of the important toll cause of Brett v. Beales,
Cambridge, no date, preface dated 25 March, 1826: (2) A full
and accurate report of the important Cambridge Toll Cause,
Cambridge, no date (but this trial began on 16 December,
1829). At the later trial Scarlett (Lord Abinger) made the
most of the petition of 1330 : Either at that date the cor
poration had only a market toll or else it told a lie. ' A beggar
who will lie will also steal; he will rob, he will usurp, he will
pilfer ; and if the corporation of Cambridge were at that time
commencing a proceeding of treachery and of falsehood,'
etc. etc.'.
§ 122. There was also some discussion about the ownership
of the waste ground. Scarlett, arguing against the corporation,
said : ' It is by no means clear that the corporation at that time
[1330] had, and certainly did not think they had, the freehold of
the soil : because, if they were lords of the soil at that time,
they need not have asked the king for leave to approve the
lanes and wastes.' However, he admitted that ' the documents
may be in that respect ambiguous ^' Lord Tenterden, who was
1 Rot. Pari. ii. 47 ; Cooper, Annals, i. 84. ^ Cooper, Annals, iii. 109.
3 Toll Cause, No. 2, p. 196. ¦> Toll Cause, No. i, p. 117.

Ownership of the Waste. 189

trying the cause, told the jury that somehow or another the
corporation had become owners of the soil. 'That the cor
poration therefore, you see, are the owners of the town and
owners of the soil of the town, is a fact that I think can now no
longer be disputed'.'
§ 123. Great reliance was placed on the numerous leases
of 'waste' or 'common' ground granted by the corporation.
Those that were produced began, it would seem, with a lease
of 6 November, 1350, to Trinity Hall of 'a certain gutter or
water-courseV In course of time many colleges took either
leases or conveyances from the Town. Henry VI. in the
interests of King's College and Edward IV. in the interests
of Queens' may be said to have clinched the matter by suffi
ciently admitting that the corporation was owner of the intra
mural waste ^
§ 124. A bad time came in 1790 and some scandalous
things were done. It was said in 1833 that Cambridge would
have had one of the richest corporations in England had not the
land been mismanaged. One of the worst stories is of some
antiquarian interest. I believe that most of the roads that
entered Cambridge were but narrow tracks, superimposed, as it
were, upon the arable. But the Hills Road or Hadstock Way
must have had broad strips of waste on either hand. In 1791
much of this waste was sold for a song to the nominee of
an alderman ^
§ 125. As to the historical point, I think that as a general
rule the king's grant of ' the town ' was not conceived to confer
upon the community a mastery over the waste ; but that this
mastery was often separately petitioned for and separately
granted. An early instance is the charter for Bristol granted
by John, Earl of Mortain"; and this charter is of great im
portance, because it becomes the precedent for the charters of
' Toll Cause, No. t, p. 171. This explicit declaration having been made from the
judgment-seat, I have felt the freer to discuss the historical question.
' Willis and Clark, i. 211; ToU Cause, No. i, pp. 32 — 52; Toll Cause, No. m,
P- 75. ' Willis and Clark, i. 343; ii. 6; Searle, Hist, of Queens' College, i. 85.
* See Loggan's plan ; also Digested Report of Evidence given before the Com
missioners, Cambridge, 1833, pp. 48, 49; App. Rep. Mun. Corp. Com. 1835, vol. iv.
p. 2199. " Seyer, Charters of Bristol, p. 10.

190 The Green Commons.
the Irish boroughs, of which Bristol is the 'metropolis'.' In
1358 the burgesses of Newcastle doubt whether they may dig
the coal under the town lands, since the liberty of so doing has
not been expressly conceded to them'. The citizens of Lincoln
seem to have gone to Edward II. for a grant of, or licence
to approve, the waste places' : the citizens of Coventry to
Richard II.*: the citizens of Canterbury and the burgesses of
Nottingham to Henry IV.'.
In 1 32 1 the burgesses of Colchester presented a petition
closely similar to the Cambridge petition of 1330. The revenues
applicable to the satisfaction of their fee-farm rent of ^^35
consisted, so they said, of tolls and customs and were in
adequate ; so they asked the king's leave for the approvement
of the waste places of the town. They were told that they
might have an inquest ad quod damnum^.
§ 126. The written history of the green commons of Cam
bridge begins with a difficult passage in Domesday Book.
' Reclamant autem [burgenses] super Picotum viceco-
mitem communem pasturam sibi per eum et ab eo ablatam.
Ipse Picot fecit ibi iij. molend. qui aufer. pasturam et plures
domos destruunt et mol. unum abbatis de Ely et alterum
Alani comitis. Ipsa molend. reddunt ix. lib. per annum'.'
It is not very clear whether Picot has erected three mills
or a third mill. In the latter case we have the three mills of
later days, namely, the Abbot's (afterwards Bishop's) Mill, the
Zouche or Mortimer or Newnham Mill, and the King's Mill
which Picot the sheriff has made. The Conqueror issued in
favour of the church of Ely a writ which said : ' Molendinum
de Grantebrigge quod Picotus fecit destruatur si alterum dis-
turbatV Secondly, I am not sure that Picot's 'ablation' of
the common pasture was more serious than that which was
occasioned by the erection of a mill. If, however, he had done
worse, we must not assume that he kept what he took. One
object of William's inquest was to make Picot and his fellows
1 See for instance the charter for Dublin, Rot. Cart. Joh. p. 79.
' Merewether and Stephens, Hist. Boroughs, ii. 656.
^ App. Rep. Mun. Corp. Com. 1835, vol. iv. p. 2358.
¦• Ibid. iii. 1796. " Ibid. ii. 686 ; Records of Nottingham, ii. 8.
* Rolls of Parhament, i. 397. ' D. B. i. 189.
* Inq. Com. Cant. ed. HamUton, p. xxii.

Picot's Misdeeds. 191
give back what was not their own, and we have just seen how
the king was prepared to order the destruction of Picot's mill
if it could be proved to be hurtful to the Ely mill. In later
documents I can not see any ring-fenced estate such as we
might trace to the theft of a large piece of common.
§ 127. Mr Freeman has said of Picot that ' among his other
evil deeds, he robbed the burghers of Grantbridge of their
folkland, while those of Oxford keep theirs to this day'.' Then
of Oxford and Portmeadow Mr Boase says, ' the city always
kept it even from Robert d'Oilgi, while at Cambridge the
Norman sheriff robbed the townsmen of their folkland'.' I
think that this is a little hard on Picot, and very hard on the
burghers of Grantbridge. In the nineteenth century the in
corporate burghers of Grantbridge still owned some 300 acres
of green common and successfully vindicated ' manorial rights '
over some square miles of arable land. And is it strictly true
to say that the city of Oxford has always kept Portmeadow .''
Were there no people in neighbouring villages or hamlets who
turned out beasts upon it }
§ 128. It is not certain that the site of St Radegund's
nunnery came out of the green. King Malcolm gave ten acres
next Greencroft (Midsummer Common) reserving a rent of two
shillings. Bishop Nigel of Ely gave four acres next Malcolm's
ten. There may have been a cultura here, and there would be
nothing strange in the earl holding ten or the bishop four con
tiguous acres, or at any rate being able to acquire them for the
endowment of the nuns'. On the other hand, the site of
Barnwell Priory was to all appearance a tract carved from the
green. Pain Peverel begged it from Henry I. Pain gives to
the Canons 'a place lying in the fields of Cambridge, to wit
thirteen acres around the springs of Barnwell, which King Henry
gave me.' This place, we are told, extends along the high-road
the full length of the Canons' courtyard, while in depth it
stretches over dry land and fen to the river bank*. When the
fields were partitioned at the beginning of the nineteenth
century there was at this point an inclosed block of about
' English Towns and Districts, p. 243. '' Oxford (Historic Towns), p. 14-
" Gray, Charters of St Radegund, Camb. Antiq. Soc. Proc. viii. 304 ff.
' Liber Memorandorum, f. 13: 'a magna platea usque in riveriam de Cantebrigia
in sicco et marisco secundum quod curia eorum in longum extendit.

192 The Barnwell Site.
one-and-twenty acres belonging to the representative of the
dissolved Priory. It extended back from the Newmarket Road
to the towing-path, or 'public haling way'.' We may doubt
whether the burgesses of Henry I.'s time thought that this land
was just his to give ; but for a while these Austin Canons were
popular and the burgesses were hardly yet a person.
§ 129. Then in Edward I.'s day we hear that they accused
the Prior of obstructing their drift-way. Some malicious folk
declared that the townsmen were wont, and of right ought, to
have a drift-way for their beasts through the middle of the court
at Barnwell between the bake-house of the Prior and Canons
and the river bank, to wit, from the pasture of Greencroft to the
pasture of Estenhale and back again : in other words, between
Midsummer Common and Sturbridge Common'.
§ 130. A century later, in the eventful year 1381, Cambridge
was for some days in the hands of a rebellious mob*. When the
insurrection had been suppressed, Hugh de la Zouche and other
justices were sent to punish the malefactors and there was some
drawing and hanging in Cambridgeshire. On the interesting
roll which records the doings of these justices, we see the Prior
of Barnwell presenting a bill of trespass against the Mayor of
Cambridge*. He ' and his commons ' with force and arms broke
the close of the Prior and Convent, to wit, walls, palings and
hays, and cut down and carried off the trees growing there to
the value of £iiflO, and broke the palings and gates of the
Watergate and carried off the gates thereof and other things, to
wit, fish, sedge, turf and other things, to the damage of the Prior
and Convent to the amount of .^2000".
§ 131. The Mayor's defence was that whatever wrong had
been done was done by a mob which had him in its power and
coerced him by threats of decapitation. Incidentally he con
fessed that 'the commons' had claimed a right to destroy the
Prior's fences. I will give this part of the plea as it stands on
the roll, for there are suggestive interlineations :...' quod notum
1 It is described as ' Horse Fair Close, Hog Yard, etc., 18 A. o R. 22 p. Abbey
Farm, house, garden, yard etc., 2 A. 2 R. 13 p.'
' Liber Memorandorum, f. 49 b.
" Powell, Rising in East Anglia, pp. 41 ff.
* Assize Rolls, No. 103, m. i,
" The vast sums at which damages are laid must not be taken seriously.

The Peasants Rebellion. 193
fuit eis pro auditis' antecessorum suorum de communitate
ville Cantebrigie quod ante tempus memorie et post tempus
memorie quod omnes burgenses ac communes residentes in villa
Cantebrigie [et tenentes Regis ville predicte'] habere deberent
communam [pasture] ad pascendum averia sua cuiuscunque
generis ac chaceam et rechasiam suam usque in pasturam suam
vocatam Estenhale ad eorum libitum in loco [illo nuper vocato
la Drove ut de iure ville Regis predicte] ubi predicti arbores,
palicia et haie existabant, et quod locus predictus Iniuste ab eis
[et tenentibus Regis] per Priorem de Bernewelle per clausturas
[et arbores] predictas [deforciatus et] impeditus existat, unde
post tempus memorie fuerunt seisiti, voluerunt uti et . . .' pasturam
et chaceam predictas in forma que supra.'
§ 132. I do not infer from this that the Prior had done
anything new. It is the old story. His court-yard with its
water-gate obstructs the drift-way from Midsummer Green to
Sturbridge Green. The assertion that the townsfolk had been
seised of this way ' within the time of memory ' was probably
untrue. Excited mobs are not careful about dates ; but I think
that if the Prior had been guilty of any recent inclosure, we
should have heard a much more specific allegation. I see here
an old grievance that has long been treasured, and this story
makes me unwilling to believe that the extent of the green
commons had been seriously curtailed by inclosures or assar-
tations. § 133. As regards the regulation of the commons I have
nothing to add to the documents which stand in Cooper's
Annals, and to which I refer in a note*. In the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries the arable still has heavy claims upon the
pasture and is for the more part in the hands of persons
(colleges) who stand outside and aloof from the corporation.
On the other hand, the community has an old claim upon the
idle field as well as upon the greens. Also the corporation has
difficulties with 'the poor inhabitants of the town' who are
1 Sic. They meant that they had heard from their ancestors.
¦' When medieval burgesses are in a scrape they always suggest that their alleged
rights are the king's rights.
^ Margin damaged.
' Cooper, Annals, L 91, 255, 257, 279, 344, 4^7; "• 3^. 38> 40, 46. 54. 55. 85,
88, 240, 269, 339, 369, 391. 392. 437. 444; "i- "o. '64, 214. 239-
M. ^3

194 Treatment of the Green Commons.
multiplying somewhat rapidly in 'the new erected cottages
and divided tenements.'
§ 134. After this came the evil days of the Rutland Club.
The corporation, it was said, shamefully neglected the commons ;
anybody and everybody seems to have turned out any beasts
that he had, unless indeed he feared having to haul them from
the mire'. In 1833 it was said that the mayor, who lived
opposite Butt Green, would have been dead of cholera long
since, had he not been of a strong constitution. One theory
seems to have been that all the inhabitants had the right to turn
out beasts ; but there was a tradition which would have confined
it to the freemen and 'the inhabitants having gable gates':
apparently a confused reminiscence of the ' broad-gates ' and the
'high-gable' (haw-gavel) rents'. The commissioners reported
as follows : ' Freemen, being butchers, have a right of common
for sheep on 19 acres of land, called the Sheeps' Green. This
land is open on three days in the week to the cows of all
the inhabitants of Cambridge. The commons belonging to
the borough consist of 310 acres. Some of it is lammas land.
The inhabitants at large enjoy the right of depasturing these
commons.' § 135- In 1841, after the Municipal Reformation, proposals
for the inclosure of certain parts of the greens were mooted.
On that occasion a committee of the Town Council reported
that 'the legitimate right to use these commons at all was
centred in comparatively a very few individuals and that such
rights were rendered absolutely valueless by other people
trespassing most unwarrantably upon that which does not in
any way belong to them'.' The proposed inclosure excited
' Petition to Pariiament of 24 May 1833 printed in Digested Report of Evidence
given before Mun. Corp. Commission, p. xviii.: 'The said Commons, if properly
regulated, would be exceedingly valuable... but the said Corporation shamefully neglect
the same, neither paying any attention to the drainage of them, nor taking any measures
to prevent persons not having a right of common from sending their cattle thereon, by
reason whereof the said Commons are frequently flooded, and the whole of them are
so much overstocked that the inhabitants of the said Town derive little or no advantage
therefrom.' ' Digested Report, p. 88: Mr Pryme stated that he had heard from Aldermen
Bond and White that 'the right of common is in the freemen, and the inhabitants
having gable gates. That in point of fact it is in all the inhabitants.'
' Cooper, Annals, iv. 634.

Parochialism.

195

opposition and came to nothing. A similar project met with
a hke fate in 1850'. I have purposely kept myself in complete
ignorance of the practice that has obtained in modern times
in order that I might not plead or seem to be pleading any
cause, and I have no reason to believe that there is any cause to
be pleaded. § 136. We have seen above how the commoners were
treated when the Eastern and Western Fields were inclosed and
the lammas right over St Thomas's Leys was extinguished'.
Those commoners who were not also strip-owners were regarded
as having rights that were bound up with houses. Without
hinting any doubt as to the justice of the Awards, I may say
once more that the parochialism which they display does not
look medieval. For a couple of centuries and more before the
year 1800 the parish had been, even in the boroughs, an im
portant unit for secular purposes. Even in the boroughs, the
parish maintained its own poor. As Gneist has remarked', the
council of the English borough had not, as the council of a
foreign town would have, all the powers of 'local self-govern
ment' in its hands. The parish was the unit of the Poor Law.
Then in the south of England the rural vill was generally a
parish, and the rural parish was generally a vill. So, when the
time came for Inclosure Acts, what usually wanted inclosing
was the land of some 'parish,' and it seemed an anomaly
that a house in one parish should confer rights of pasture
in another. The 'parish' has done a good deal of harm to
English law and English history. Might we not even now
give it back to its priest t We may envy the Americans their
' towns.' § 137. An important chapter in the history of our boroughs
should be devoted to rights of pasture. Dr Gierke has given a
deeply interesting account of the fate which befalls the old
'common land' {Almende) of a German community when that
community developes into a civic corporation*. The corporate
Town now owns this land. Different parts of it will be used in
different fashions, (i) Part of it will directly serve corporate
purposes ; for instance, there will be a town-hall, (ii) Part of it
' Cooper's Annals, v. 23-5. " See above, pp. 108, 115, "i.
-' Gneist, Self-government, 580. " Genossenschaftsrecht, ii. 6S2 ff.
13—2

196 Burgensic User of Common Land.
will indirectly serve similar purposes ; it is let and the rent
is paid into the town-chest, (iii) Part lies open to public use;
there are streets that are used alike by burghers and non-
burghers. But (iv) there is often a large tract from which the
burghers make profit by depasturing their cattle or the like ;
this land is the subject of the so-called biirgerliche Nutzungen.
This user by the burghers is, however, quite at the mercy of the
Town, of the corporation. It in no way impairs or incumbers
the Town's ownership of the land. The Town acting by its
proper organ might subtract the land from this use and devote
it to another. Further, the individual burgher now gets what
ever right he has merely by being burgher, or by virtue of his
rank in the civic community. He has a right to be treated
in this matter like all other burghers, or all other burghers of
the civic class to which he belongs ; he is not to be capriciously
excluded from what his peers enjoy; but there his right ends.
He is a corporator who is suffered to use the property of the
corporation. There is no longer any notion of his being one
of many joint proprietors, and on the other hand we must not
think of his right as ius in re aliena, a sort of servitude imposed
on land which the corporation owns.
§ 138. I should suppose that before the Municipal Refor
mation this stage of development had often been attained in the
great English boroughs, though, as our Cambridge case may
suggest, it was attained slowly, and perhaps most slowly where
there was much uninclosed arable land within the 'town.'
From the Report of 1835 I will give a few illustrations of what
I take to be pure 'burgensic user' of land owned by the
corporation'.

1 I must not imply that in all the cases here mentioned, the corporation had power
to withdraw the land from the use to which it was put by the freemen. In more than
one great town there has been quarrelling about this point in recent days, and the
costliness of a law-suit when it involves an ancient history has kept more than one
pretty case out of the courts. The most instructive decisions of modern times have
dealt with the liability to local rates of (1) the owning corporation and (2) the using
commoners. From a case concerning Lincoln (Law Reports, ^ Queen's Bench, 482)
the reader will be able to work back to cases concerning York, Nottingham, Sudbury
and Huntingdon. The Act of 1835 remodelled the corporations and at the same
time contained a salvo for the rights of the freemen. Whatever may now-a-days be the
nature of the freeman's right under this salvo, he is no longer a corporator suffered to
enjoy the property of the corporation.

Borough Pastures. 197

Oxford (L 102).
The privileges and emoluments of 'dxt. freemen at large are... a right of
common over Port Meadow, about 439 acres in extent^
Worcester (i. 155).
The privUeges of ih^ freemen are... a limited right of common over about
twenty acres of land.
Beverley (iii. i459)-
The burgesses residing within the town have the privilege of depasturing
cattle being their own property, on lands belonging to the corporation
containing about 4,217 acres. They are aUowed to depasture three cows
in Westwood Pasture ; one horse in Hum Pasture ; three beasts in Figham
Pasture and six beasts in Swinemoor Pasture, from the 14th of May to the
14th of February. This privilege, if enjoyed to its utmost extent, would be
worth £25 a year  Persons depasturing are subject to the payment of a
small sum on every head of cattle depastured. This sum varies from
5J-. bd. to i6s. 6d. a head.
Northampton (iii. 1969).
The freemen are entitled to common of pasture for six head of cattle on
about 200 acres of land on payment of a fee fixed by the corporation.
Haverfordwest (i. 241).
The common of Portfield is a large meadow situate within the borough,
and containing about 1,000 acres of land. Upon this meadow the burgesses
are entitled to right of common for all commonable cattle, without stint, at
all times of the year.
Pembroke (i. 367).
The burgesses are entitled to right of common for aU beasts at all times
of the year over about 15 acres of common land within the borough, called
'The Common '....It was some rime since proposed and agreed to by a
majority of the burgesses that this common should be inclosed and let and
that the proceeds should be applied towards the improvement of the town.
It was accordingly let... .[The rents were too high; the lots were abandoned,
and the common is now wholly unproducrive.]
Grimsby (iv. 2251 — 2).
Freemen paying scot and lot have the right of putting stock upon the
commons belonging to the corporation.... It appears to be understood that
persons would not now be aUowed to purchase their freedom, by reason
of such admissions lessening the value of the existing freemen's right of
common (!).
Hartlepool (iiL 1535).
The corporation are entitled to the Town Moor, over which \\,^ freemen
exercise the right of pasturage; beyond this no profit is made of it. This
1 For the sixteenth century see Records of Oxford, ed. Turner, passim.

198 Borough Pastures.
land adjoins the town, and lies betwixt it and the sea. Since the increased
demand for building land, it is estimated as being worth about ;^2o,ooo.
Lancaster (iii. 1605).
The free burgesses are entitled to a right of common on Lancaster Moor,
but in practice the common is used by almost every one who has property
adjoining it. The eighty senior burgesses ure entitled to an equal share in
the net income arising from some ground called Lancaster Marsh, the
property of the corporation. Lancaster Marsh was formerly a stinted
pasture ; and, by an old custom, of the commencement of which there is
no record in the corporation books, the senior eighty resident freemen were
alone entitled to the herbage.
Morpeth (iii. 1628).
[A constitution with trade companies.] The free brothers of companies
are entitled to two stints of common of pasture for two of their own beasts,
on a tract of land... containing 401 acres, subject to an annual payment of 5^-.
a year and a load of manure for each stint. The privilege is extended to
widows during their widowhood.
Newcastle upon Tyne (iii. 1647).
Under the provisions of a recent Act of Parliament the resident burgesses
and their widows are entitled to a common of pasture each for two cows,
being their own property, upon a tract of land belonging to the corporation,
containing about 1,100 acres caUed the Town Moor.. ..Under the same Act
of Parliament a portion of this moor is enclosed, and let by public auction.
It produces a rent of;^2oo. This is divided among such of the poor freemen
and their widows as do not enjoy the right of pasturage.
Shrewsbury (ii. 2018).
As regards the Quarry and Kingsland :— The burgesses had formerly what
were caUed turns— that is right of pasture by turns— on these lands. This
right of pasture has been converted into a money payment : that for the
Quarry is ^i. is. each to 24 burgesses; that for Kingsland 4J. dd. each to
30 burgesses. The order of payment to the burgesses is regulated by the
ancient rules which applied to the enjoyment of the pasturage. The pay
ment goes according to the streets in a certain rotation. The widows and
daughters of deceased burgesses are entitled to payment in their turn.
§ 139. These we might call instances of 'burgensic user in
common.' But there were also instances of ' burgensic user in
severalty': that is to say, cases in which a corporator merely
as corporator, or as member of a certain class of corporators,
was suffered to enjoy in severalty a certain piece of the land
of which the corporation was owner.
Nottingham (iii. 1985) an ancient borough with a gigantic territory was
the grand instance. The burgesses are entitled if resident to take in order

Burgensic User in Severalty. 199
of seniority what is caUed a 'burgess-part,' that is an allotment of land in the
fields or meadows at a small ground-rent payable to the corporation, or a
yearly sum in lieu of the allotment, at the discretion of the corporation.
These burgess-parts are 254 in number. They are unequal in value, and
form in fact a sort of lottery.... These aUotments are not considered as free
holds; but the common haU exercise the right of resuming them during the
life of the burgess. Resumptions of the burgess parts have been frequent of
late years....
Somewhat similar arrangements were to be found at Berwick
(iii. 1443) and at Stafford (iii. 2028) and perhaps in the Portfield
at Marlborough (i. 85). They should be carefully distinguished
from cases in which a corporation had contracted a habit of
making beneficial leases to corporators. The corporator with
a lease had a right such as an outsider might have. At least at
Nottingham there seems to have been a mere user by the
corporator of the land of the corporation. The corporation
' resumed ' a ' burgess-part ' when it pleased, and in the past had
even done this without compensation. This seems to bespeak
not a low but a high stage of municipal development, though
one that was only likely to occur in a town that had more waste
than was requisite for ' common ' pasturage.
Another instance may be taken from Bedford (iv. 2106).
Two bailiffs were annually elected. A pasture 25 acres in
extent and divided into 25 lots was formerly held by the bailiffs
rent-free during their own lives and afterwards by their widows.
'In 1 8 14 the corporation finding themselves in pecuniary
difficulties... abolished this privilege. Four lots are still held by
the widows who had acquired a vested interest ; the remaining
21 are now let for ^^41 a year.' Here, again, the corporation,
while showing respect for 'vested interests,' abolishes a 'bur
gensic user ' of its property.
§ 140. From what may be regarded as the normal type there
were some aberrations. It is possible that at York (iii. 1745).
where the freemen of the various wards had different pastures,
we have traces of coalesced communities ; but an arrangement
of this kind seems to have been very rare. It is only, I think,
in boroughs of a low order that the right of pasture is conceived
in recent days as bound up with particular houses'. In boroughs
1 See Godmanchester, iv. 2236; and Clitheroe, iii. i486; also Gateshead, iii. 1526.
But at Nottingham, iii. 2001, the occupiers of old toftsteads had special rights.

200 The Case of Lauder.
of the lowest order the waste was owned, not by the corporation,
but by a manorial lord, and sometimes in such a case any right
of pasture that there might be was quite unconnected with
corporatorship, but was claimed as ' appendant ' or ' appur
tenant' in a thoroughly individualistic and rural fashion.
Lastly, an undue contraction of the burgensic body has
sometimes led to the result that ' inhabitants ' who are not
corporators assert and perhaps acquire rights of common which
are not at the mercy of the corporation'. I do not think that
this should be regarded as other than the regrettable effect of a
regrettable cause. In order that substantial justice may be
done, it may be necessary at times to declare that a municipal
corporation is a ' trustee ' of land which the ' inhabitants ' have
an ' equitable ' right to use. But this can hardly be a desirable
arrangement'. § 141. I can not but think that Sir Henry Maine
went far astray when he made the borough of Lauder a
classic case of archaic rural arrangements ^ (i) The whole
amount of the land that was set apart to be ploughed was no
more than 130 acres or thereabouts. This was divided into
105 shares. A share therefore, if judged by a truly ancient
standard,, would be ridiculously small. We should have a
hundred men sharing what was hardly more than a single hide.
(2) I may observe that a charter of 1502, after reciting the
destruction of older documents, grants to the burgesses and
community of Lauder the said burgh for ever with all and
sundry lands and 'with power to the said burgesses and com
munity to break up and plough their common lands for their
greater convenience and profit*.' This suggests to me that the
practice of ploughing up a part of the common pasture is not more
ancient than the charter. In the later middle ages and thence
onwards an acre of arable would be a pleasant addition to
^ See e.g. what is said of Bodmin, i. 447.
' Goodman v. Mayor of Saltash, 7 Appeal Cases 633. The feat of finding a 'trust '
in a charter of Reginald de Vautort was a bold exploit of modern equity, which wiU
not, I hope, mislead any student of the middle ages, especiaUy as Lord Blackburn
shrank from it.
* Pari. Pap. 1870, Return of Boroughs and Cities possessing Commons. Maine,
ViUage Community, 97 : 'It may be doubted whether a more perfect example of the
primitive cultivating community is extant in England or Germany.'
* Return, p. 40.

The Missing Lordship. 201
the resources of a burgess. Lauder Common was large ; it
contained 1700 acres; if 130 acres were ploughed, enough
would be left for cattle. In the fact that sometimes one and
sometimes another part of the common was ploughed I can
see nothing that is decisively ancient. The practice of tilling
a piece of land until it will bear little and then allowing it to go
back for some years to the waste was the common practice in
some parts of Britain in yet recent times. I should guess that
we have in this famous case a ' burgensic usage ' of no vast
antiquity. In calling it by that name, however, I do not mean
to take a side in the extremely interesting controversy which
divided the men of Lauder in 1868. But to speak of these
130 acres as 'the arable mark' of a 'primitive cultivating
community' is surely an error.
§ 142. In 1870 a Return was made 'of all Boroughs and
Cities in the United Kingdom possessing Common or other
Lands, in respect of which the Freemen or other privileged
Inhabitants claim any exclusive Right of Property or Use.'
The inquiry was addressed to nearly three hundred places in
England and Wales. The answers seem to show that in modern
times the towns in which the corporation owned a considerable
tract of pasture land were for the more part just those old
shire-boroughs upon whose importance in early history I have
been dwelling. I may mention the case of Oxford (about
330 acres), Cambridge (about 285 acres), Gloucester (about
300 acres), Lincoln (about 500 acres), Northampton (about
200 acres), York (nearly 400 acres), Colchester, Derby, Durham,
Huntingdon, Leicester, Warwick. There were other boroughs,
such as Beveriey, Berwick and Sudbury with wide pastures ;
but north of the Thames the county towns were prominent in
this respect.
I 143. From a tract printed in 1802 for private circulation
and entitled A Narrative of the Proceedings on the St Giles's
Inclosure Bill (Univ. Libr. Z.23. S) I gather that the proposal
for the inclosure of the Western Fields at Cambridge came from
St John's College. A meeting of proprietors was held at the
Rose Tavern on the 23rd of November, 1801, and favoured the
project. The general opinion among the promoters seems to
have been that the lordship belonged to Merton College.

202 The Trial in 1803.
Mr Marsh, who was managing the bill on behalf of St John's
College, is reported to have said ' that he had always considered
the manor as belonging to Merton College in Oxford ; that at
least the only court baron in the parish of St Giles had been
holden by the said college from time immemorial; that he
had heard, indeed, of one attempt made by the [municipal]
corporation, some years ago, to exercise a sort of manorial
power within the said parish, but that St John's and Merton
College had united in resisting the attempt, and that the
corporation had submitted. ... He recollected that the said
corporation, about twenty years ago, merely under the pretence
of being owners of the soil, threatened to cut down all the trees
in Erasmus's walk.' The incorporate Town opposed the bill in
parliament, and to meet its objections, clauses were inserted
directing that the various claims to an ownership of the waste
should be tried by jury. The writer of the pamphlet (apparently
a Cambridge gownsman) is scornful of the Town's right, since
' the whole quantity of land belonging to the corporation in the
parish of St Giles amounts only to an acre and a half ; and even
that pittance is let upon a lease of nine hundred and ninety-nine
years.' He thinks it ' extremely rash ' of the corporation of
Cambridge to dispute the Merton title.
§ 144. The following is an account of the trial :
Guild-Hall, Jan. 20.
Sittitigs before Mr f ustice Laurence, and a Special fury of Merchants.
The Mayor of Cambridge v. Merton College.
This case occupied the whole day. It was conducted by Mr Erskine,
Mr Gibbs, Mr Wood, Mr WUson and Serjeant Bailey, for the plaintiffs, who
were the Mayor, Bailiffs, and Burgesses of the town of Cambridge, and by
Mr Garrow, Mr Dancey, Mr Warren, and Mr PuUer, for the defendants,
who were Fellows of Merton Hall, in Oxford, and Jesus CoUege, and
St John's, in the University of Cambridge.
Mr Erskine, who opened this case with great clearness and perspicuity,
observed, that this proceeding arose out of a private Act of Parliament,
which was lately passed, for dividing, aUotting, and inclosing the common
fields and meadows within the parish of St Giles's, in the town of Cambridge.
On the passing of that Act, which had for its object the inclosing of these
open fields within this parish, different claims were brought before Pariia
ment, with regard to the right of the soil of the lands that were to be
inclosed and improved; and they reserved in the Act a power for the

Cambridge Corporation v. Merton College. 203
different claimants to try this right. The learned Counsel proceeded to
state the nature of the evidence he meant to produce, and which he did
produce, in support of the plaintiffs' claim to the soil of the open fields and
waste lands in this parish. The town of Cambridge consisted of fourteen
parishes, and there was no doubt but the right to the soil of all the lands in
the different parishes, as described in the Act of Parliament, belonged to the
Corporation of Cambridge, except the lands in the parish of St Giles's, which
were claimed by the defendants.
Mr Garrow here observed, that he meant only to trouble the Court and
Jury in support of the claim of Merton Hall.
The first piece of evidence produced on the part of the plaintiffs was a
charter, or rather an instrument, admitting that a charter had been granted
by Henry II. of all these lands, &c. now claimed by the Corporation of
Cambridge. This was dated in the year 1160, and was confirmed by King
John in the eighth year of his reign, A.D. 1207; and there was then produced
a charter of Richard II. in the 5th year of his reign, and in the year 1382.
The Counsel for the plaintiffs then proceeded to shew a variety of acts of
ownership under this grant from the Crown. They shewed a number of
leases granted by the Corporation to different persons, of the waste lands
in the parish of St Peter's, St Bene't's, St Andrew's, &c. and then they gave
a variety of instances of such leases which they had granted, of lands of this
description, in the parish of St Giles's. These leases were of an ancient date,
and had been renewed from time to time, down to the present day. They
also shewed, from the books of the Corporation, a number of instances,
where they had granted, for a valuable consideration, a licence to plant
trees on different parts of these lands, and they had received a sum of
money from a Vice-Chancellor of the University, for permitting some trees
to stand as an ornament, and as a shade to the walks.
On the part of Merton College, the defendants, in order to answer the
evidences of the plaintiffs, began with producing an original deed, dated the
54th of Henry III. from which it appeared that Wm. De Manfield had
granted them a stone house and garden adjacent to it, in the parish of
St Giles's. They then produced a copy of a grant to the Warden and
Scholars of Merton Hall. This was a confirmation by Charles I. of the
Manor of Merton College, in Cambridge, which is called Pythagoras's
Farm. They then shewed, that from the 14th of Henry VIII. downwards,
a Court belonging to this Manor had been regularly held, at which pre
sentments had been made. They also shewed that the Corporation of
Cambridge paid 10s. per annum to Merton, for a miU which they leased
from the defendants.
It further appeared in evidence, that the farm of Merton CoUege, which
was situated in the parish of St Giles's, in the town of Cambridge, only
contained from 50 to 60 acres, to which they had an undoubted right, and
nobody was disputing it with them. But they contended they had a right
to aU the open fields and waste lands in the parish, which amounted to
1,200 acres. The tenant of Merton Farm had an extensive sheep-walk over
the whole parish when the corn was taken off He had a right of going on
the lands of those who did not hold of Merton College; St John's College

204 Income and Personality .
had a right equally extensive, and Sir Charles Cotton had also a right of this
sort, but limited.
After a short reply from Mr Erskine ;
Mr Justice Laurence summed up the evidence given on both sides with
great precision and correctness and pointed out to the Jury the most
important parts of it, as applied to the question they had to decide. He
was of opinion, the evidence for the plaintiffs greatly preponderated.
The Jury found a verdict for the Corporation of Cambridge, and that no
part of these lands belong to Merton College.
[Cambridge Chronicle, 29 January, 1803.]'
/ § 145. The evolution of a borough corporation is very
closely connected with what I may be allowed to call the
emergence of a freely disposable revenue which the burgesses
will treat as the income of the Town. By a freely disposable
revenue I mean one which will not be wholly or nearly ex
hausted in the payment of the fee-farm rent that is due to the
king. We may surmise that a steady income of this kind is by
no means primeval and perhaps would hardly be found before
the fourteenth century in any but the largest towns. To all
appearance the fee-farm rents were heavy, and I doubt whether
they could always be met out of the old revenue which the
sheriff had received. To get rid of his interference, the
burgesses were willing to promise the king as handsome an
equivalent for the ancient royal dues as any farmer would
have offered. It is only in course of time that the burgesses
find that the 'community' has an income which is at 'its'
disposal, and, unless I am mistaken, a considerable part in
this change is played by those leases of waste and 'common'
land which the community begins to grant in answer to an
increasing demand for building sites. We may easily exaggerate
the corporate wealth of a medieval borough. Owing to the
highly centralized government which prevailed in this country,
the English borough community had very little, if any, power
of habitually raising by way of direct rates or taxes a revenue
that was to be expended according to the votes of the communal
assembly or the ruling magistrates. The 'meaner sort' are off
to Westminster at once if the potentiores impose tallages, unless
indeed the money is wanted for the discharge of some debt that is
due to the king. This distinguishes the English from the foreign
1 Some phrases in this report are misleading. The dispute was about lordship
over the fields and ownership (tenancy in demesne) of the balks and other bits of ' waste.'

Borough Finance. 205
town : Westminster is so near, so accessible. But a ' corporate
personality ' is hardly required until there is a corporate income. -''
§ 146. The foregoing remarks are due in part to a perusal
of some of the accounts kept by the officers of the town of
Cambridge. Near the end of the last century Mr Bowtell, an
alderman of the borough, purchased a large quantity of these
valuable documents when they were being sold as waste paper.
He caused them to be bound and afterwards generously gave
them to Downing College. They go back as far as 1510 and
admirably illustrate the finance of an English town of the
sixteenth century. For the more part they are the audited
accounts of the annually elected treasurers, of whom there were
two at a time. The accountants first charge themselves with
receipts and then discharge themselves by stating what they
have expended. I will say a few words of the main heads of
income and outgo, choosing the year which ended at Michaelmas
1 5 19 as an example.
(i) First among the items of charge stand 'the rents and
farms of lands, tenements and grounds belonging to the said
Treasury specified in the rental.' These amount in all to about
;^54. "Their nature may be shown by a few examples: £. s. d.
Inprimis of the Master and Fellows of Benet College for
three buttresses built upon the common ground annexed to the
tenement at SmaU Bridges  3
Item of Mr John BeUe for a parcel of a void ground of
the common ground inclosed to his tenement in the which he
late dwelt in Cambridge  4
Item of the said John Belle for a common lane inclosed
to the said tenement  ^
Item of the same Hugh [Chapman] for a shop built upon
the corner of the tolbooth  '3 4
Item of the Master and Fellows of the CoUege pf St Michael
for two common lanes inclosed and a tenement set built upon
the common ground  5 °
Many of these rents are very small and the total amount is
largely due to three items. r s d
Item of Robert Sympson for the farm of the mill called
Newnham MiU and the land called Mortimer's Land ... 18 o o
Item of Hugh Chapman for the farm of the Bishops MiU 10 10 o
Item of [John] Lete of BarnweU for the farm of the land
called the Chapel Ground  220

2o6 Borough Finance.
These three entries represent speculations on the part of the
Town. It was renting the Newnham Mill and Mortimer's Land
at ;^I3. 6s. %d. from Gonville Hall. It was renting the Bishops
Mill at £g. los. from the Bishop of Ely. It was renting the
Chapel Ground from the same prelate. The ' out rents ' that
the town has to pay appear on the other side of the account.
On the whole, the treasurers seem to be charged with some ;^20
in respect of rents payable for pieces of the ' common ground,' or,
in other words, for what had once been pieces of the intramural
' waste ' of the town.
(2) Then there are the rents received for certain booths
belonging to the Town in Sturbridge Fair. There are booths
in the Chapel Ground, in Cheapside, the Duddery, and Birchin
Lane (these were the names of streets in the fair) and there are
Alebooths; also there are payments made for 'packs' in the
fair. Under this head the treasurers account for about ;^I2.
(3) There is a very variable sum derived from the fines of
newly admitted freemen. In 1 5 1 8-9 this amounts to ;£'i 8. 1 3J. ^.
In that year the total charged against the treasurers was
^^87. 15J. 4^. On the other hand they were allowed items of
discharge amounting to ;^i6i. os. 6\d., and so the Town re
mained in their debt for £7'^. ^s. 2\d.
Among the outgoings we may notice first a balance of
^74. 7s. I \d. paid to the treasurers of the last preceding year
The other main items are ' decay of rent ' (certain of the rents
which stand due to the Town in its rental can not be levied and
the treasurers are excused for not having levied them), 'pay
ments of out rent ' {i.e. rents due from the Town, in particular
for the mills that it holds by lease from Gonville Hall and the
Bishop of Ely), ' fees and rewards,' ' reparations ' and ' charge of
diriges.' Repairs must be done to the gildhall, the tolbooth, the
houses and fairbooths that belong to the Town, and sometimes
the ditches must be scoured. The Town having received legacies
(some of its booths in the fair were thus obtained) is bound to
make provision for the dirges of its benefactors. The mayor
receives £ 1 a year ' for his robe.' Considerable payments must
be made to ' the learned counsel ' of the Town by way of re
taining fees. If a parliament has been sitting, the representative
burgesses must have their wages. Generally a good deal of
money must be spent in litigation, or in maintaining the privi-

The Old Revenue. 207
leges of the borough; the leading burgesses are often riding to
London or elsewhere about the Town's affairs and their travelling
expenses must be defrayed. Lastly, there are numerous presents
to be made to all sorts of people, who whenever they come to
Cambridge expect a pike, a tench, a bream, a gallon of claret or
of malmsey or even hard cash.
As large sums were occasionally required for new charters
and the like, borough finance could not be very stable, and the
Town was often in debt to its treasurers. In 1538 Cambridge
had a balance of .^131 on the wrong side of its account. This
debt was reduced year by year until in Edward VI.'s day there
was a small balance on the right side.
§ 147. Now these accounts seem to take no notice of certain
sources of revenue, and of just those sources which are of the
greatest interest to students of a remoter past, to wit, the profits
of the courts, the tolls, and the 'high-gable rents.' With the
income thence derived the treasurers seem to have had nothing
to do. It went into the hands of the mayor and bailiffs. So
also we see nothing in the treasurers' accounts of that old charge,
the fee-farm rent due to the king. Of accounts kept by the
mayor and bailiffs I have seen but two fragment.s. The one
begins about Christmas in 2 Henry VIII. (15 10); the other
about Christmas in 15 Henry VIII. (1523).
From the second of these I take the following headings :
' The account of the computants within-written of the issues and profits
by them received from the Tuesday the 22nd day of December unto the
Tuesday next before the feast of the Annunciation of our Blessed Lady in
the 15th year of the reign of ...Henry VIII for 2 portes and 12 weeks.'
' The account of the accountants within-named of the issues and profits
by them received from the 3rd day of May in the i6th year of ...Henry
VIII unto Tuesday the 26th day bf July in the year abovesaid for 12 weeks
and two portes.'
The next account runs from 26 July to Michaelmas ' that is
to say for ten weeks porte.'
In the eariier fragment similar headings are given in Latin.
The first period runs from Sunday before Christmas to Sunday
before St Edward pro xij septimanis et ij'^''^ portibus. The next
from Sunday before St Edward to Sunday 8 June videlicet pro
xij septimanis et ij'^"= portibus. The next takes us to Sunday

2o8 Borough Finance.
22 July videlicet pro vj septimanis. The next to Michaelmas
pro x septimanis et ij*""^ portibus.
What these ' ports ' are does not clearly appear. Seemingly
a ' port ' occurs every six weeks, and I take it to be some session
of the borough court. At any rate at short intervals, six, ten,
twelve weeks, the mayor and bailiffs seem to strike an account
of all that they have received and paid. For instance, for
twelve weeks ending on the Sunday before St Edward 15 ii
the following receipts are recorded : £. s. d.
The bailiff of the Bridge for the said two ports  18 6
The bailiff of the Market for the same  1 19 i
The baUiff of the High Ward for the same  5 5
The baiUff of the [King's] Mill for money remaining in the
hand of Richard Eyton for wheat sold to him and unpaid at
the last port     15 2
The said bailiff for 3 coombs of meslin sold by him remain
ing from the last port  4 10
The said bailiff in clear money for wheat and meslin sold
by him ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... i 79
The mayor of the town for the said two ports  i 3 7i
Total 6 14 4^
Then besides this the bailiff of the Mill has in hand 61 coombs
of wheat and 3 of meslin. Then come the items of discharge,
amounting to £6. a,s. ^d. ' And so there remains in the bag in
clear money 10s.' Also there are some waifs and strays still to
be sold. So far as I can see, there come into this account (i) the
profits of the King's Mill, (2) all the profits of the court, fines,
forfeitures, waif and stray, (3) all the tolls, (4) the profits of two
fairs belonging to the Town, namely, Reech Fair and Midsummer
Fair, also certain of the profits derived from Sturbridge Fair,
(5) the 'high-gable rents' amounting now to £6.
At Michaelmas a balance was struck for the whole year.
The charge against the accountants was ;^74. 14J. 2d. The
items of discharge amounted to £S6. 3J. i\d. ' And so in decay
;£'ii. gs. 2d.' I understand this to mean that the mayor and
bailiffs have to find this deficiency out of their own pockets.
By far the largest item of discharge consists of ;^70 paid into
the Exchequer for the fee-farm of the borough. But there are
some other old rents to be paid : £4. to the Prior of Caldwell,

The Burhgeat. 209

;^i to the Prior of Kenilworth, ;^i to Merton College. The
mayor is allowed 2s. and the recorder \s. a week. The wages
of the Serjeants and tollers also appear, and some allowances are
made to the bailiff of the mill for repairs done upon it. But
apparently what we may call the old revenue of the Town is
barely sufficient to meet the king's fee-farm rent, and the bailiffs
make no profit, but a loss by their offices.
§ 148. Apparently a similar story might be told of the
finances of Oxford. In 1 549 the bailiffs have ' taken and enjoyed
towards the payment of the king's fee- farm ' ( i ) all perquisites
of courts, waif, stray and so forth, (2) certain tolls and customs,
and (3) the profits of that moiety of the Castle Mills which
belonged to the City. Then in 1549 it is ordained that these
molendinary profits are no longer to be received by the bailiffs,
but are to be taken ' by the mayor and commonalty of the said
city to the use of the whole body of the said city,' and instead
a sum of ;£'20 a year is to be paid to the bailiffs by the key-
keepers of the said city. Also the bailiffs are henceforth ex
onerated from the annuity of ;£^I9 payable to Oriel College, and
this annuity is henceforth to be paid by the mayor and com
monalty'. Rearrangements of this kind can be made from
time to time ; but there still are two distinct revenues.
Someday the accounts of many towns must be examined.
When that has been done, we shall begin to understand the
details of the process which gives to the town that personality
which the village lacks, and converts a community into a cor
poration. § 149. To turn for a moment to very early history, I have
elsewhere committed myself to the guess that the magnates of
the shire may have been bound, not only to repair the fortifica
tions of the borough, but also to keep houses and retainers in
it''. In support of this ' garrison theory,' if I may so call it, I
made use of an argument which must be abandoned. Mr Steven
son has shown that what is required of the ceorl who thrives to
thegn-right, is a burh-geat, not a burh-geat-setl^. To what he
has said I may add that I have lately noticed for the first time
that a charter granted to Robert Fitz Harding and printed in
1 Records of the City of Oxford, ed. Turner, 199.
2 Domesday Book and Beyond, 190. ' English Hist. Rev. xii. 489.
M. 14

2IO The Garrison Town.
John Smyth's Lives of the Berkeleys (i. 22) contains the following
clause : ' cum tol et them et zoch et sache et belle et burgiet et
infankenethef.' Certainly the burgiet seems to be some outward
and visible sign of jurisdiction or lordly power, and at any rate
I can no longer contend that the thriving ceorl is expected to
have a town house.
§ 150. In an admirable article Mr James Tait has mar
shalled the arguments which can be brought against this garrison
theory'. I still think that it explains some things that are not
easily explicable ; in particular the cnihts in the boroughs and
the distribution among divers rural manors of the burgages and
burgesses that belong to one and the same lord. Moreover I
have not supposed, or at least did not mean to suppose, that ' a
military class became mere bourgeois in two such stormy cen
turies as the tenth and eleventh,' for I suspect a good many of
the burgenses of the Confessor's day of being warlike folk : for
example, the equites of Nottingham. However, I ought to have
stated in express words that what can be read of certain im
portant towns (Norwich is one) would certainly not suggest the
garrison theory, and is scarcely compatible with the belief that
in those towns the magnates of the neighbourhood have been
compelled to keep houses. To my mind it seems so little
probable that a single history will serve for all the boroughs, or
even for all the county towns, that I may not have sufficiently
insisted on this improbability. The traits which originally
served to differentiate the borough from the mere village may
have been, and I think they were, very few : but by permuting
and combining them we may soon have on our hands a large
number of possible cases. As I can find no serious cause for
quarrelling with Mr Tait's summary of what I had written, I
feel bound to confess, not that I said too much of the borough
as a military centre or of the borough as the scene of a special
peace (for of that I am not yet convinced), but that I said too
little of the borough as a /z^« and as the market and moot-stow
of a shire. In the third of these lectures I have endeavoured to
redress the balance : not, I fear, very successfully.
§ 151. I have never meant to assert that there were no
exceptionally treated 'towns' before the days of Alfred and
' English Hist. Rev. xii. 768.

Towns of Roman Origin. 211

Edward the Elder, though I have said that 'at latest' in the
struggle between the Danish invaders and the West-Saxon
kmgs the establishment and maintenance of fortified towns was
seen to be a matter of importance. Mr Tait asks whether we
can 'safely sweep aside all possibihty of separate treatment
before the ninth century of those old Roman civitates which
either never ceased to be inhabited or were soon repeopled.' I
should be very sorry to do anything of the sort, and am sorry if
I have suggested, for I did not mean to suggest, that ' this^class
of towns first received a court in imitation of the new military
foundations of Edward.' Mr Tait takes Canterbury as an in
stance. It seems to me very possible, though proof is wanting,
that ' the burh of the men of Kent ' had a court of its own long
before Edward's day ; but it also seems to me very possible that
in times equally remote the walls of Dorovernia were being
maintained by the Kentish folk as a matter of national or tribal
importance. There is a curious charter dated in 804 by which
the kings of Mercia and Kent grant to the abbess of Lyminge
six acres in the civitas of Dorovernia ' ad necessitatis refugium '.'
What precisely this may mean I do not know, but it seems to
hint that the burh of the men of Kent is a place of refuge, to
which in case of need the abbess and her flock may betake
themselves. Also if, as Mr Tait says, Canterbury was a royal
residence early in the seventh century, I should not be surprised
to find a royal peace pervading it and extending perhaps for
'one league, three perches and three feet' along the roads
outside. I do not think that we have proof of the existence of
a legal class of exceptionally treated towns until the Danes are
upon us, but I should be the last to argue thence that no such
towns existed.
§ 152. The importance of Cainbridge as a place of assembly
during the age which preceded the Norman Conquest might
be fully illustrated by the stories that are told in the Liber
Eliensis. Bishop yEthelwold buys land at Lindon from Leofric:
haec itaque emptio et conventio in territorio quod dicitur Grante
brygge facta est coram, melioribus eiusdem provinciae (p. 117)-
He buys land at Streatham : the price is paid in oppido quod
dicitur Grantebrygge (p. 119). He buys more land at Streatham
1 Kemble, 188 (i. 230); Birch, 317 (i. 444).

212 The Republic of Cambridgeshire.
and pays for it coram omnibus apud civitatem quae dicitur
Grantebrigge (p. 120). Indeed Cambridge is put before us as
the usual place where payment is made if land in the shire is
sold (pp. 121, 126, 130, 13s). Then ./Ethelwine the ealdorman
holds a grand court at Cambridge, grande placitum civium et
hundretanorum coram, xxiiij. iudicibus subtus Thernigefeld prope
Maideneburge (p. 137). Transactions take place there, corain
tota civitate or coram coetu civium (p. 140) ; the totus coetus qui
tunc apud Grantebricge convenerat is witness (p. 151). The
abbot of Ely comes to Cambridge and buys land at Toft, cora'm
tota civitate; he then demands a wed of the vendor: in other
words, a pledge for the delivery of seisin. But all men answer
that Cambridge, Norwich, Thetford and Ipswich enjoy such
immunity and dignity that if anyone buys land there he has no
need of any wed (p. 140). Then some merchants of Ireland
arrived at Cambridge and one Leofstan a priest stole some of
their wares. He begged mercy of 'the citizens,' who granted
him his life and property (p. 148).
§ 153. In the Inquisitio Eliensis at the end of what is said
of the abbey of Ely's possessions in the borough of Cambridge,
there stands this sentence : ' In provincia Grentebrigge reclamat
abbas quartum nummum ut carte sue testantur et homines de
syra'.' Then in the great placitum of the Conqueror's reign we
read : ' Insuper et omnem quartum denarium rei publiee de
Grantebrice a tempore Edgari regis Sanctique ^thelwoldi
presulis possedit semper abbas monasterii Ely usque modo,
quem vero Picotus vicecomes nunc iniuste contra tenetV If we
put these two texts together we shall probably infer that what
the abbot claimed was the fourth penny of the county or of the
county-court. Then in the would-be charter granted by Edgar
the king is supposed to bestow in Latin 'omnem quartum
nummum reipublicae in provincia Grantaceaster,' or in English
'¦Sone feorSan pening on folclicre steore into GrantanbricgeV
Again, in the charter ascribed to Edward the Confessor : ' omnis-
que quartus nummus reipublicae in provincia Grantecestriae et
aliquae terrae in ipsa villa*.' Also in this last document the isle
of Ely is said to lie ' in comitatu Grantecestriae.' The mention
' D. B. iv. 508; Inq. Com. Cant. ed. Hamilton, 121.
» Inq. Com. Cant. 195. s Kemble, Cod. Dip. 563 (iii. 58, 61).
* Kemble, Cod. Dip. 907 (iv. 244).

Borough and Shire. 212,

of Grantchester rather than Grantbridge in certain of these
documents raises a difficult question which I must not touch ;
they all, however, seem to be aiming at the fourth penny, not of
one vill, but of a whole provincia. Domesday Book says nothing
about the matter, and suggests by its silence that the abbot's
claim was rejected.
§ 1 54. The following writ, whereby Henry I. bans the trade
of Cambridgeshire to the borough of Cambridge, I copy from a
book known as the Cross Book and preserved in the municipal
archives. I do not see sufficient reason for questioning its
authenticity. Henry II.'s Charter for Nottingham declares that
the men of Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire ought to come to
the borough of Nottingham on Fridays and Saturdays with their
wains and packhorses {cum quadrigis et summagiis suis), and
that no one for ten leagues round Nottingham may work dyed
cloth except in the borough'. Also the same king declares that
the citizens of Lincoln may have their gild merchant of the men
of the city ' and of the other merchants of the county^'
Henricus Rex Angl. Heru. Ehensi Episcopo' et omnibus
baronibus suis de Grentebrugescira salutem. Prohibeo ne aliqua
navis applicet ad aliquod litus de Cantebrugescira* nisi ad litus
de burgo meo de Cantebruge neque carece oijerentur nisi in
burgo de Cantebruge neque aliquis capiat alibi theolonium nisi
ibi. Et quicunque in ipso burgo forisfecerit ibidem faciat rectum.
Quod si quis' aliter fecerit precipio ut sit michi inde ad rectum
coram iusticia mea quando precepero inde placitare. T. Cancell.
et Milon de Gloc'.

^ Records of Nottingham, i. i. ^ Gross, Gild Merchant, ii. 146.
¦'' Hervey the Breton, first Bishop of Ely, 1109 — 1131.
* The change of spelling from Grent to the later form Cant seems an insufficient
cause for the rejection of this writ. We are dealing not with a would-be original, but
with a professed copy.
° The T. before Cancell stands, I take it, for Testibus and is not the ChanceUor's
initial. Miles of Gloucester, the constable, ob. 1143. See Mr Round's article in
Diet. Nat. Biog. Gloucester, Miles de. Another text, an Inspeximus of Edward VI,
gives : Teste Cancellario et Milone de Gloecestria et Ricardo Bass[et} apud Londoniam.
In Diet. Nat. Biog. Mr Round speaks of Richard Basset, inclining to place his death
a little before 1145. I can not find that the burgesses obtained a confirmation of this
writ before the reign of Edward VI.

INDEX.

Abbey Farm, 107, 192
Accounts, Borough, 205
Advowsons of borough churches, 1 74 ff.
Alderman, Hereditary, £0
Ancient demesne, 10, 11, 41, 49, 72
Approvement, Right of, 83, 187
Arable and pasture, 5, 26, 86, 89
Aratral twist, iii
Architectural History of Cambridge, 51
Armachanus, 31
Assartation, 159
Automatism of communities, 25, 79
Bacon, Sir F., 9
Baden-Powell, Mr B. H., 11, 28
Bailiffs, Liability of, 77, 208
Bailiffs of Cambridge, 78, 134-141, 159,
207
Balsham, Hugh of, 19
BarnweU, 104, 107, 148, 182, 192
Barnwell Priory, 2, 52, 55, 61, 71, 75,
86, 107, 148, 162,- 183, 191-3
Bedford, Town of, 8, 199
Bensington, 49
Bequest, Power of, 71
Beseler's Volksrecht u. Juristenrecht, 14
Beverley, Town of, 197
Binnebrok and Butebrook, 172
Bishop and borough, 42, 51, 91
Blancgernon family, 163, 168
Boase, Mr C. W., 8, 77, 191
Booths in Sturbridge Fair, 80, 206
Borough and fiefs, 49
Borough and hundred, 41
Borough and manor, 47, 73, 183
Borough and shire, 36 ff., 211
Borough as lord, 82, 85, 186
Borough council, 85

Borough court, 41, 74, 184-5
Borough pastures, 47, 190 ff.
Borough's personality, 74, 85
Borough, Wards of, 50
Bowtell, Alderman J., 133, 205
Bradmore Field, 57, 107, 129
Brett V. Beales, 188
Bridgeboot, 37
Bristol, 189
Britanny, Honour of, 67, 179
Broad gates. Houses with, 5, 67, 69, 194
Browning, Robert, 20
Bruce fief, 178
Buckingham, Town of, 45
BuU, Town, 88
Burdens, Communal, 27
Burgage tenure, 71
Biirgerliche Nutzungen, 196
Burgesses as landowners, 64, 133 ff.
Burgess-parts, 199, 200
Burh, 9, 37
Burh and township, 9
Burhgeat, 209
Burhgrith, loi
Caius, see Gonville
Canon law and corporations, 18
Cambridge, John of, 166
Cantaber, 51
Canterbury, Town of, 190, 211
Carme Field, 55, 121
Carmelite friars, 55, 122, 187
Caryl, Dr L., 109, 130
Castle and borough, 37, 119
Castle, Cambridge, 37, 94, 119
Castle-guard, 38
Cayley family, 177
Chesterton, 37, 49, 119

2X6

Index.

Cheveley, 39
Christ's Piece, 1 1 9
Churches in Cambridge, 174-7
City and bishop, 42, 91
City and borough, 42, 91
Clark, Mr J. W., loi
Clayhanger, 107
Clubs, Property of, 15
Coalescence of townships, 53, 106, 182,
199
Coe Fen Lane, 11 1
Coe Fen Leys, m
Coke, Sir Edward, 90
Colchester, Town of, 50, 190
Coldham's Green, 107
Cole, William, 134, 164
Collectivism, 20, 97
College Field, 121
Colle 6, Incorporation of, 19
Comi. J rights, 75
Commei iation, 67
Common and public, 32
Common chest, 81
' Common,' Meaning of, 32
Common room, 33
Communitas, Medieval, 12, 98
Conduit, The Franciscan, 129
Cooper, C. H., 51, 161
Copyholds, 121
Corporate income, 204
Corporate liability, 77
Corporations, Theory of, 12 ff.
Corpus Christi College, 6, 59, 166, 186
Cotton Hall, 90, 183
Cotton, Sir Charles, i, 56, 204
Council, Borough, 85
County court, 38-9
County families, 177
County rates, 29
Cromwell, Oliver, 94, 115
Cromwell, Thomas, 77
Coventry, Town of, 190
Cultivation, Methods of, 107, 142
Cultura, III
Dame Nichole's hythe, 178
Danegeld, 40, 54
David Earl of Huntingdon, 75
Decay of villages, 148
Demesne boroughs, 72

Demesne, Royal, 48-9, 72
Derby, Town of, 8
De Vere fief, 67
Devise, Power to, 71
Digest, The, 18, 31
Dinner, The bailiffs', 78
Dispersion of strips, 25, 27, 57, 58,
123, 172
Ditch, The King's, 100
Divided tenements, 103
Dominican friary, 118
Dominium, Medieval, 11, 31
Doomsman, Osbert the, 62, 159, 162
Doomsmen, 50, 62
Downing College, 54, 112 ff., 205
Dunning family, 63, 73, 164-6
Eastern Fields, 106, 129
Ecclesiastical patronage, 162, 174 ff.
Edith the Fair, 67, 179, 180
Edmund, St, see White Canons
Edward IV., 84
Eigenkirche, Die, 177
Eldcorn, Henry, 60, i6i
Eliensis, Liber, 172, 211
Ely, Church of, 41, 62, 161, 174, 205,
211-2
English and foreign towns, 195, 204
English Croft, in
Erasmus, 7
Erasmus's Walk, 202
Escheat, 71, 82, 85, 185
Escheator, 92
Estenhale, 107, 192
Etheldreda, St, 174
Evangelical poverty, 31
Families, Burgensic, 163
Family as corporation, 21
Farming the town, 77, 185
Fee-farm rent, 3, 54, 70, 75, 88, 185-9,
204 ff.
Fiefs in borough, 49, 178
Field names, 123
Fieschi, Sinibald, 18
Filth of boroughs, 68
Finance of boroughs, 204
Firma burgi, 77, 185-9
Firm of partners, 15
Fitz Eustace, Hervey, 65, 164-6

Index.

217

Fitz Ralph, Richard, 31
Fitz Stephen, WiUiam, 7
Ford Field, sSi io7i 108
Formula of incorporation, 18
Fourth penny, 212
Freeman, E. A., 36, 191
French influence in boroughs, 43
Frideswide, St, 63
Frost, Henry, 60, 161
Furlong, in
Gable gates, 194
Garrison towns, 44, 209 ff.
Geld, 40, 54
Geography, English legal, 7
German theories of the towns, 9, 51
Gierke, Dr O., 11, 13, 17, 32, 35, 47.
7». 195
Gilds of Cambridge, 59, 174
Girton, 121
Gloucester, Town of, 78
Gluttony, Municipal, 79
Gneist, Dr R. von, 195
GonviUe HaU, 20, 66, 85, 179
Grantchester, 212
Greenditch, Oxford, 9
Green, J. R., 43
Green, Mrs, 9
Green Street, 104
Grimsby, Town of, 197
Grithow Field, 55, 121, 129
Gross, Dr C, 18
Guildford, Town of, 39
Harleston, Roger, 63, 73, 128
Harrison, William, 122
Hartlepool, Town of, 197
Haverfordwest, Town of, 197
Hawgafol, 48, 70, 74, 84, 143, 180
Hemingford family, 162
Henry I., 40, 83, 191, 213
Henry IIL, 187
Henry VL, 18, 84, 189
Henry VIII., 7
Herd, The common, 88
Heterogeneous tenure, 43, 92
Hidage, 6, 37
Hide and yardland, 6, 57, 64
High gable rents, 70, 180
Hofrecht, 51
M.

Holywell, Oxford, 46
Hospital, see John, St
Hospitals, Burgensic, 61, 161
Houses and pasture rights, 195, 199
Houses, Sparsity of, 68, 100, 143
HuU, Charter for, 18
Hundred and borough, 41
Hundred Rolls, 57, 69, 142, 149
Huntingdon fief, 62, 75, 178
Huntingdon Priory, 59
Husband and boor, 7
Husbandry, Course of, 25, 107, 201
Hynde, Sir John, 56
Immunists, 51
Inclosure Acts, 2, 96, ic6, 202
Inclosures, 87, 88, 159, 194
Increase of population, 91
Individualism, Medieval, 77 ' J
Inhabitants, Trusts for, 200
Inherited public law, 76 '
Innocent IV., 18
Insurrection of 1381, 62-3, 192
Insurrection of 1549, 87
International right, 29
Inter-University mendacity, 51
Irish boroughs, 41, 190
Jacobus Almainus, 31
James I., 92
Jesus College, 1, 55, 56, 93, 108, 202
John, King, 3, 10, 12, 81, 91, 203
John XXII., Pope, 19
John, St, CoUege of, i, 6, 55, 63,
129, 171, 202
John, St, Hospital of, 6, 60, 74, 75.
161
Joint-stock companies, 17, 22
Jura singulorum in re universitatis, 80
Jurisdiction in vUlages, 25
Jurisdiction of borough court, 1S4
Kett's rebellion, 87
King and borough, 48, 72, 185, 192
King's CoUege, 19, 84, 101, 189
Lammas land, 115
Lancaster, Town of, 198
Landgafol, 48, 70, 74, 84, 180
Landgritheslane, loi IS

2X8

Index.

Landholders and officeholders, 141
Lauder, Community of, 200
Laugharne, Town of, 17
Lawmen, 50
Lawrence, Mr Justice, 1, 202
Leases of waste land, 83, 189, 204
Legal ideas, 27
Leicester fief, 66, 178
Lepers' Hospital, 60
Leys of pasture, in
Lincoln, Town of, 78, 196, 213
Lindley, Sir N., 15
Little Field, 55, 121
Loggan, David, 4
London, Fee-farm of, 82
London, Fields of, 7
Long Green, 122
Lordship and landlordship, 30
Lordship and ownership, 31
Madingley, 1, 56
Madox, Thomas, 77, 96
Magna Carta, Scheme of, 76
Maine, Sir H., 21-2, 200
Majority, Powers of, 32
Malcolm, King of Scots, 62, 178
Manorial geography, 67
Manors in boroughs, 48, 73, 183
Manors in Cambridge, 73, go, 183
Maps of viUages, 4
Market, 40, 213
Marktrecht, 51
Marlborough, Duke of, 39
Mason, Dr Charles, 133
Mayors of Cambridge, 64-5, 134-141,
159, 166
Mempricius, 51
Merton College, i, 46, 56, 59, 65, 74,
86, 90, 93, 96, 121, 164, 202 ff., 209
Merton, Walter of, 6, 19, 164
Middle Field, 55, 107, 129
Middlesex, Farm of, 83
MiUs at Cambridge, 78, 190, 205, 208
Mills, Burgensic, 78
Minerals, Right to, 27
Ministeriales, 51
Moot-stow, Borough as, 38
Moral corporateness, 15, 96
Morpeth, Town of, 198
Morris family, 63, 128-9

Mortain, Honour of, 67, 178
Mortimer family, 6, 66, 179
Mortimer manor, 66, 85-6, 179, 205
Morthiain licences, 85
Mowat, J. L. G., 4
Municipal Commission, 12, 16
Municipal Reform Act, 32
Murus, Meaning of, 54
Natural history of institutions, 24
Natural law, 21
Newcastle, Town of, 198
Newnham, 52, 73
Newnham Mill, 180, 190, 205
Nonancourt family, 148, 178, 184
Nonarum inquisitio, 141
Northampton, Town of, 8, 61, 197
North Gate Hundred, Oxford, 46
Nottingham, Town of, 8, 10, 61, 190,
198, 213
NuUe terre sans seigneur, 2
Nunnery, see Radegund, St
Office, Compulsory, 78
Oligarchy in borough, 85
Oriel College, 209
Oseney, 61
Ouilly, Robert of, 61, 191
Over-ownership, 28, 31
Owen, Dr George, 7
Ownership and lordship, 28 ff.
Oxford, Agrarian, 7, 45
Oxford, Bailiffs of, 77
Oxford, Borough finance at, 209
Oxford, Houses and rents in, 69
Oxford, John of, 46
Panton, Mr, 55, 115
Parishes and fields, 11 5-6, 195
Parker's Piece, 93, 117
Parochial system, 59, 115-6, 195
Pastures, 26, 31, 195
Pastures in boroughs, 33, 47, 86 ff.,
190 ff.
Patriarch as trustee, 21
Patriciate, Burgensic, 49, 66
Patronage of borough, 39
Patronage of churches, I74ff.
Patronage of hospitals, 61
Paving streets, 79

Index.

219

Peasants' rebeUion, 62-3, 192 ff.
Pembroke Leys, in
Pembroke, Town of, 197
Persona ficta, 18
Personahty, 12, 95
Peterhouse, Site of, in
Peverel, Pain, 61, 83, 191
Picot the sheriff, 61, 190
PoU taxes, 53
Pontage, 37
Poole, Mr R. L., 30
Poor, Increase of, 105
Poor, Relief of, 89, 195
Population of Cambridge, 101 ff.
Population of villages, 23
Port Bridge, 122
Port Field, 55
Port Meadow, 46, 191, 197
'Ports' at Cambridge, 208
Post, Dr A. H., 21
Prescription, Corporations by, 19, 23
Property, Origin of, 11, 30
Proprietas, Medieval, 31
PubUc and private law, 11, 30, 34, 76
Pythagoras, School of, 65, 164, 203
Queens' College, 84, 189
Quo warranto, 95
Radegund, Nunnery of St, 6, 61, 74,
90. 93. 132. 162, 191
RashdaU, Mr H., 6, 7, 20
Rates on borough pastures, 196
Regulation of commons, 89, 93
ReUefs, 71
Religious endowments, 63, 69, 161
Rent charges, 69, 148
Rents in boroughs, 69, 147, 160
Replevin actions, 75, 184
Respublica, 32, 41, 212
Richmond, see Britanny
Roman town, 53, 99, 211
Round, Mr J. H., 10, 40
Ruffus Maurice, 58, 172
Rutland Club, 95, 194
Rutland, Duke of, 39, 94
Sail Piece, 119
Saint Edmunds, Family of, 163
Saints as persons, 22

Scarlett, Sir James, 188
Seebohm, Mr F., j, 57
Selions, 56, 109
Sempringham, see White Canons
Sheepvvalk, 115
Sheriff and borough, 39, 76
Shire house, 38
Shire moot, 38, 39
Shrewsbury, Town of, 199
Smyth's Lives of the Berkeleys, 26, 210
Stamford, Town of, 47
Stevenson, Mr W. H., 9, 164, 209
Stint of common, 5, 86, 89, 93
Stubbs, Dr W., 9, 19, 25, 68
Sturbridge Fair, 53, 80, 206, 208
Sturbridge Field, 55, 107
Sturbridge Green, 107, 192
Sturbridge Hospital, 60
Stutz, Dr U., 177
Surnames of burgesses, 142, 166
Swinecroft, 58, 112, 129
Tait, Mr James, 210
TaUage, 73, 167, 169
Taxes at Cambridge, 141, 167, 169, 171
Tenterden, Lord, 188
Tenurial heterogeneity, 43
Terra Regis, 48
Terriers, 56, 108, 123
Third penny, 74-5
Thomas's, St, Leys, 112
Three-field husbandry, 55, 107
Tithe, Distribution of, 58, 115, 133, 183
Tolbooth, 90
Toll Cause, 188
Town and Gown, 83 ff.
Town and township, 9
Townhall, 39
Trinity CoUege, 93, 117
Trinity Hall, 183
TroubelviUe family, 177
Trust, Law of, 16
Tusser, Thomas, 4, 94
Ulpian, 18
Unanimity and majority, 35
Undervalue, Sales at, 16, 17, 189
Units, Legal, 20, 30
Universitas, 13
Universitas and singuli, 18

220

Index.

Universities, Incorporation of, 19
University College, Oxford, 20
Village community, i8ff.
Wallingford, Town of, 43, 100
Waltheof, Eari, 67, 178, 180
Walton Manor, Oxford, 45
Wards of borough, 50
Waste in boroughs, 68, 84, 185
Waste, Leases of, 81, 189

Waste, Manorial, 2
Western Fields, 120
White Canons, 59, 132, 163
Winchcombeshire, 45
Wolvercote, 45
Worcester, Town of, 197
York, Town of, 100, 199
Zamindari, 29
Zouche family, 180, 190

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

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 01532 8744