No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 25 January 2012
I fear I must begin my communication to you, on the subject of an early phase in the history of English municipal institutions, with an apology; and an apology withal that has reference rather to my mode of treating the subject than to the subject itself. It is in this wise. The facts to which I beg leave to draw your attention cannot so well be considered new to the antiquary, as can the view I have taken of their value and relationship to each other. The result is, therefore, that the following pages may be thought a little more argumentative than they should in strictness be for an antiquarian subject. But this defect, if defect it be, will, I trust, be compensated by the value of the general subject I have ventured to treat upon, and by the fresh light which I may perhaps have thrown upon a class of English institutions, not the least important of those which uphold our great national fabric.
page 403 note a Pearson's, Early and Middle Ages of England, i. 264Google Scholar; Wright, Thomas in Archæologia, vol. XXXII 298Google Scholar; Coote's, Romans of Britain, 359–382Google Scholar.
page 404 note a Hallam, , Europe during the Middle Ages, p. 571, n.Google Scholar(Murray), says that he is unable to discover any trace of internal self-government before the granting of charters. Robertson, , Charles V. vol. i. p. 316Google Scholar says that corporations were introduced from France after the Conquest.
page 405 note a Const. Hist. i. 62Google Scholar.
page 405 note b Vide Thompson's Eng. Mun. Hist. pp. 91, 110.
page 405 note c Cirencester is mentioned as a borough in 1399, but disappears again after that time.
page 405 note d The dates are as follows: Ludlow 1300, Marlborough 1200, Doncaster 1194, Carlisle, Henry III., Farnham 1310. See Tables affixed to Merewether and Stephens's, Hist. of Mun. Corp. vol. iiiGoogle Scholar.
page 407 note a I may mention one other institution which connects the English municipalities with primitive institutions, namely, the open-air court or assembly. I am treating of this subject in a separate work, Primitive Folkmoots, but I would note that open-air assemblies are to be found in High Wycombe, Lostwithiel, Bishop's Castle, Hastings, Lichfield, Southampton, Seaford, Dover, Folkestone, and London.
page 408 note a The amount of corporation property sold during 1877 was £173, 895. This illustrates how quickly the old state of things is now passing away. See Abstract of Mun, Borough Accounts (Commons' Papers, 1878, No. 196)Google Scholar.
page 408 note b Coote's, Romans of Britain, p. 361Google Scholar.
page 408 note c Ibid. 358.
page 408 note d Ortolan, , Hist. of Roman Law (Eng. Trans.), p. 606Google Scholar.
page 408 note e Blackstone's, Commentaries, by Stephen, , book iv. pt. iii. cap. iGoogle Scholar.
page 408 note f The number of charters granted before the reign of Henry IV. amounts to 606. See a Tabular Statement in Journal of Statistical Society, vol. v. p. 101Google Scholar.
page 408 note g Merewether, and Stephens's, History of Boroughs and Municipal Corporations, vol. i. p. v.Google Scholar The charters granted prior to the reign of Henry VI. simply grant certain privileges. London was freed by Henry I. from the immediate jurisdiction of any tribunal except of their own appointment, from several universal imposts, from the obligation to accept trial by battle, from liability to misericordia or entire forfeiture, and from tolls and local customs. (Stubbs's, Select Charters, p. 103.)Google Scholar In the reign of Henry II. York, Bedford, Shrewsbury, Bridgnorth, Andover, Preston, and Cambridge pay certain sums for charters of liberties. (Ibid. p. 157.)
page 409 note a Reports of the Municipal Corporation Commissioners, vol. i. pp. 280, 378Google Scholar. Also the “urbana prata” and “burgwara maedum” of Canterbury arc mentioned in the Codex Diplomaticus (ii. pp. 26 and 66), and the common wood (i. p. 216; ii. p. 1); Rochester, had “communionem marisci quae ad illam villam cum recto pertinebat” (ii. p. 57), alsoGoogle Scholar “caestrwarowald” (i. p. 115); Grantabryc and Colchester had “communem pasturam” (Ellis's Int. to Domes.); see Coote's, Romans of Britain, p. 361,Google Scholar note 3; but in these boroughs there is no trace of any of these communal rights now, though there is of actual ownership.
page 410 note a See Nasse, p. 17, and Essay on the Land Tenure of Germany, by Morier, R. B. D.:Google ScholarCobden Club Essays, first series.
page 410 note b See the facts summarised by Nasse, in his Agricultural Community, pp. 1–13Google Scholar.
page 410 note c Laveleye's, Primitive Property, passimGoogle Scholar.
page 410 note d Mun. Corp. Commission Reports, iii. 1993Google Scholar.
page 411 note a Mun. Corp. Commission Reports, i. 77–8Google Scholar.
page 411 note b Ibid. iii. 1443.
page 411 note c Ibid. i. 287-9.
page 411 note d Ibid. i. 166.
page 411 note e Ibid. i. 85. The Portfield of Haverfordwest is still a commonable meadow, i. 241.
page 411 note f Ibid. ii. 674. See also Tierney's, Hist. of Arundel, pp. 705–8Google Scholar.
page 412 note a Mun. Corp. Commission Reports, ii. 1248Google Scholar.
page 412 note b Ibid. i. 269-70.
page 412 note c Ibid. iv. 2644. If the last clause “one year after another” in any way alludes to one field being ploughed at a time while the others were open, this passage is peculiarly significant.
page 412 note d Archælogia, vol. XXXIII. 269Google Scholar.
page 412 note e Sussex Archæological Collections, iv. 305–308Google Scholar.
page 412 note f Bengal As. Soc. Journal, No. iii. 1862Google Scholar.
page 412 note g Indian Antiquary, iv. p. 65Google Scholar.
page 413 note a In order to illustrate that the foregoing customs of allotment for life by seniority, and of the representatives of a deceased holder of an allotment holding it until his successor is appointed, are not impossible developments of the primitive system, it is only necessary to refer to what has been going on in Switzerland, where the primitive commune is undoubtedly in existence. M. Laveleye describes how in some districts the allmend is divided into a large number of small parcels, five or six of which are united to form a lot, or else it is divided into as many lots as there are commoners. The occupier holds them for ten, fifteen, or twenty years; or sometimes for life. On the death of a commoner, if his son or widow has a right of common, either of them may retain the parcel until the new allotment. See Primitive Property (Eng. Trans.), p. 93.
page 413 note b Lancaster, , Mun. Corp. Com. Report, iii. 1609Google Scholar; Newcastle, ibid. iii. 1652. A large part of the property of the city of London is let on leases of a similar nature, viz. for terms of forty years, renewable every fourteen years at a fine certain.
page 413 note c Nasse points out that private property first came into vogue with arable land, on which private use, in relation to common use, had a longer duration. See Agric. Com. p. 11.
page 414 note a Mun. Corp. Com. iv. 2139Google Scholar.
page 414 note b Ibid. iv. 2254.
page 414 note c Ibid. iii. 1443-4.
page 414 note d Ibid. i. p. 77–8.
page 414 note e Ibid. iv. 2137.
page 415 note a Mun. Corp. Repts, iii. 2001Google Scholar. It is noticeable also in this case that the commonable land extends round the town and approaches to the very outskirts.
page 415 note b Ibid. ii. 1248.
page 416 note a Mun. Corp. Repts. iii. 1605.Google Scholar See also Berwick-upon-Tweed, iii. 1443-4. Here at the annual meeting of the stint guild, some of the allotments to burgesses are made out of fields which were open pasturage up to 1794.
page 416 note b The commonable houses were declared to be so by resolution of the corporation in 1607, and must have been erected before September the 28th, 1601, or since that time, on the site of those ancient houses.
page 416 note c Mun. Corp. Repts. iv. 2236Google Scholar.
page 416 note d Ibid. iv. 2530.
page 416 note e Ibid. iii. 1801.
page 416 note f Ibid. iii. 1972.
page 416 note g Ibid. iii. 1459.
page 416 note h Ibid. iii. 1504.
page 416 note i Ibid. ii. 1106.
page 417 note a Return of Boroughs and Cities in the United Kingdom possessing Common Lands. (House of Commons Papers, 1870. No. 448.)Google Scholar The date of the Municipal Corporation Commission was 1835,Google Scholar and during this interval great alterations took place.
page 417 note b There is no more ancient institution in the country, says Sir Henry Maine, than the village pound: it is far older than the King's Bench, and probably older than the kingdom. Early Hist. of Inst. p. 263.
page 417 note c See Halliwell's Nares' Glossary, sub voce “Green Yard.” The Green Yard is situate in Whitecross Street, and the duty of the keeper is to receive all fines, dues, and costs incidental to the straying of animals in the city. We have evidence here that the municipal history of London is not to be sought exclusively from Roman history, or from a developed political system. The Green Yard carries us further back than either of these, and associates a portion at all events of the early history of London with the early history of other municipal boroughs.
page 418 note a I must be permitted to refer to the Introduction to my Index of Municipal Offices (Index Society, 1878) for further information on this head, see pp. 26–32.Google Scholar I, however, append here a full list of the agricultural officers, as it may be useful for easy reference: the information is taken from the Reports of Municipal Corporation Commission (1835).Google Scholar The town names printed in small capitals indicate that office was there obsolete in 1835:—
page 419 note a Mun. Corp. Com. iii. 1991Google Scholar.
page 419 note b Ibid. i. 80.
page 419 note c Ibid. iii. 1442.
page 419 note d Ibid. iv. 2237.
page 419 note e Ibid. iii. 1967.
page 419 note f Ibid. ii. 1094.
page 419 note g Ibid. ii. 831.
page 419 note h Ibid. iii. 1500.
page 420 note a See Mr. Hogg's Protest, p. 9.
page 420 note b It will not do to multiply instances of want of information in the Reports I have mainly relied upon for evidence of the existence of primitive agricultural institutions in English municipal towns, but I must advert to this question slightly. The Inclosure Commissioners were quite aware of the existence of such institutions, for one of the class of rights spoken of as difficult to deal with under a general Inclosure Act as proposed in 1844 was that of the freemen of boroughs. (See Evidence taken before the Committee on Commons Inclosure, Questions 42, 44, et seq.) But so late as this year (1878) the lands of the Corporation of Oxford have been dealt with under the Inclosure Act, and some very curious information is contained in the evidence given before the House of Commons Committee as to the nature and tenure of these lands,, information which is entirely wanting in the Report of the Municipal Corporations Commissioners.
page 421 note a Page 103.
page 421 note b Tumor's Hist. of Hertford, pp. 62, 63.
page 421 note c Eden's, State of the Poor, vol. iii. p. 749Google Scholar.
page 422 note a Const. Hist. of England, i. 93Google Scholar.