Villainage in England: Essays in English Mediaeval History. Paul Vinogradoff
to urge their grievances. We may take as an instance the notice of a trial consequent upon a complaint of the men of Bray against the Constable of Windsor. Bray was ancient demesne and the king's tenants complained that they were distrained to do other services than they were used to do. The judgment was in their favour190.
The chief point is that the writ of 'Monstraverunt' appears to be connected with petitions to the king against the exactions of his officers, and may be said in its origin to be applicable as much to the actual possessions of the crown as to those which had been granted away from it. This explains a very remarkable omission in our best authorities. Although the writ played such an important part in the law of ancient demesne, and was so peculiar in its form and substance, neither Bracton nor his followers mention it directly. They set down 'the little writ of right close' as the only writ available for the villain socmen. As the protection in point of services is nevertheless distinctly affirmed by those writers, and as the 'Monstraverunt' appears in full working order in the time of Henry III and even of John191, the obvious explanation seems to be that Bracton regarded the case as one not of writ but of petition, a matter, we might say, rather for royal equity than for strict law. Thus both the two modes of procedure which are distinctive of the ancient demesne, namely the 'parvum breve' and the 'Monstraverunt,' though they attain their full development on the manors that have been alienated, seem really to originate on manors which are in the actual possession of the crown.
Alienation of Royal Manors.
If we now examine the conditions under which the manors of the ancient demesne were alienated by the crown, we shall at once see that no very definite line could be drawn between those which had been given away and those which remained in the king's hand. The one class gradually shades off into the other. A very good example is afforded by the history of Stoneleigh Abbey. In 1154 King Henry II gave the Cistercian monks of Radmore in Staffordshire his manor of Stoneleigh in exchange for their possessions in Radmore. The charter as given in the Register of the Abbey seems to amount to a complete grant of the land and of the jurisdiction. Nevertheless, we find Henry II drawing all kinds of perquisites from the place all through his reign, and it is specially noticed that his writs were directed not to the Abbot or the Abbot's bailiffs, but to his own bailiffs in Stoneleigh192. In order to get rid of the inconveniences consequent upon such mixed ownership, Abbot William of Tyso bought a charter from King John, granting to the Abbey all the soke of Stoneleigh193. But all the same the royal rights did not yet disappear. There were tenants connected with the place who were immediately dependent on the king194, and his bailiff continued to exercise functions by the side of, and in conjunction with, the officers of the Abbot195. In the 50th year of Henry III a remarkable case occurred:—a certain Alexander of Canle was tried for usurping the rights of the Abbot as to the tenantry in the hamlet of Canle, and it came out that one of his ancestors had succeeded in improving his position of collector of the revenue into the position of an owner of the rents. Although the rights which were vindicated against him were the rights of the Abbot, still the king entered into possession and afterwards transferred the possession to the Abbot196. In one word, the king is always considered as 'the senior lord' of Stoneleigh; his lordship is something more direct than a mere feudal over-lordship197.
We find a similar state of things at King's Ripton. The manor had been let in fee farm to the Abbots of Ramsey. In case of a tenement lapsing into the lord's hands, it is seized sometimes by the bailiff of the king, sometimes by the bailiffs of the Abbot198. The royal writs again are directed not to the Abbot, but to his bailiff. The same was the case at Stoneleigh199, and indeed this seems to have been the regular course on ancient demesne manors200. This curious way of ignoring the lord himself and addressing the writ directly to his officers seems an outcome of the fundamental assumption that of these manors there was no real lord but the king, and that the private lord's officers were acting as the king's bailiffs.
According to current notions the demesnes of the crown ought not to have been alienated at all. Although alienated by one king they were considered as liable to be resumed by his successors201. And as a matter of fact such resumptions were by no means unusual. Edward I gave an adequate expression to this doctrine when he ordered an inquisition into the state of the tenantry at Stoneleigh:—he did not wish any encroachment made on the old constitution of the manor, for he had always in mind the possibility that his royal rights would be resumed by himself or by one of his successors202.
Services certain on Royal Manors.
If we turn to the court rolls of a manor which is actually in the king's hand and compare them with those of a manor which he has granted to some convent or some private lord, we see hardly any difference between them. The rolls of the manor of Havering at the Record Office, although comparatively late, afford a good insight into the constitution of a manor retained in the king's own hand. They contain a good many writs of right, and though, naturally enough, the tenants do not bring actions against the king, we find an instance in which the king brings an action against his tenant, and pleads before a court which is held in his own name203. This is good proof that the condition of the tenants was by no means dependent on the arbitrary action of the manorial officers. When King Henry II granted Stoneleigh to the Cistercians he displaced a number of 'rustics' from their holdings, and while doing this he recognised their right and enjoined the sheriff of Warwickshire to give them an equivalent for what they had lost in consequence of the grant204. The notion from which all inquiry consequent upon a 'Monstraverunt' starts is always this, that the tenants were holding by certain (i.e. by fixed) services at the time when the manor was in the king's own hand. The certainty is not created by the fact that the manor passes away from the king to some one else; it exists when the land is royal land and therefore cannot be destroyed on land that has been alienated. So true is this that Bracton and Britton give their often cited description of privileged villainage without alluding to the question whether or no the manor is still in the king's hand205; Britton even applies this description primarily to the king's own possessions by his way of stating the law as the direct utterance of the king's command. The well-known fact that the 'ferm' or rent of royal manors was not always fixed, that we constantly hear of an increased rental (incrementum) levied in addition to the old 'ferm' (assisa; redditus antiquitus assisus), can be easily reconciled with this doctrine206. The prosperity of the country was gradually rising; both in agricultural communities and in towns, new tenements and houses, new occupations and revenues were growing, and it was not the interest either of the communities or of the lord to compress this development within an unelastic bond. In principle the increased payments fell on this new growth on the demesne, although this may in some cases have been due to exactions against which the people could remonstrate only in the name of immemorial custom, and only by way of petition since nobody could judge the king. In principle, too, certainty of condition was admitted as to the privileged villains on the king's demesnes207.
Trial of services in 'Monstraverunt'.
This serves to explain the procedure followed by the court when a question of services was raised by a writ of 'Monstraverunt.' The first thing, of course, was to ascertain whether the manor was ancient demesne or not, and for this purpose nothing short of a direct mention in Domesday was held to be sufficient208. When this question had been solved in the affirmative, a jury had to decide what the customs and duties were, by which the ancestors of the plaintiffs held at the time when the crown was possessed
Placitorum Abbrev. 25: 'Consideratum est quod constabularius de Windesore de quo homines de Bray questi fuerunt quod ipse vexabat eos de serviciis et consuetudinibus indebitis et tallagia insueta ab eis exigebat accipiat ab eis tallagia consueta et ipsi homines alia servicia et consuetudines quas facere solent faciant.' (Pasch. et Trin., 1 John.)
Madox, Exch. i. 411, u: 'Homines de Branton reddunt compotum de x libris, ut Robertus de Sachoill eis non distringat ad faciendum ei alias consuetudines quam Regi facere consueverunt dum fuerunt in manu sua.' (Pipe Roll 13 Jo., 7, 10 b, Devenesc).
Dugdale, Monasticon. v. 443; Stonleigh Reg. f. 14 b. Cf. Court Rolls of Ledecumbe Regis (Chapter House, County Bags, Berks, A. 3): 'Anno domini MCCLXVIII, solverunt homines de Ledecumbe Regis C. sol. ad scaccarium domini Regis, pro redditu domini Regis et predicti homines habent residuum in custodia sua excepta porcione prioris Montis Acuti de tempore suo et porcione prioris de Bermundseye de tempore suo.' The manor had been let in fee farm to the monks of Cluny, who demised it to the Prior of Montacute, who in his turn let it to the Prior of Bermondsey.
Stoneleigh Reg. f. 15 a: 'Totam sokam de Stonleya et omnes redditus et consuetudines et rectitudines quas Henricus rex pater noster ibi habuit salua regali justicia nostra. Uigore quarum chartarum prefatus Abbas et conventus habent et possident totam sokam de Stonle que quondam pertinuit ad le Bury (
Stoneleigh Reg. f. 13 a: 'Isti duo tenent (burgagia in Warrwick) per seruicium sustinendi unum plumbum in manerio de Stonle competens monasterio Regis.'
Placita de Quo Warranto, 778: 'Item clamat quod Ballivus dom. Regis in manerio de Stonleye nullam faciet districtionem seu attachiamenta sine presencia Ballivi Abbatis.'
Stoneleigh Reg. 13 a: 'W.W. tenet unum burgagium per seruicium inveniendi domino regi seniori domino de Stonle quartam partem unius tripodis.'
King's Ripton Court Rolls, Augment. Off. Rolls, xxiii. 94, m. 10: 'Dicta Matildis optulit se versus Margaretam Greylaund de placito dotis, que non venit. Ideo preceptum est capere in manum domini Regis medietatem mesuagii etc.—pro defectu ipsius Margarete. Eadem Matildis optulit se uersus Willelmum vicarium—qui non uenit. Ideo preceptum est capere in manum domini Regis medietatem quinque acrarum terre etc. (Curia de Riptone Regis die Lune in festo sanctorum Protessi et Marciniani anno [r. r. E. xxiv. et J. abb. x]); m. 10, d.—Qui venit et quantum ad aliam acram dicit, quod non est tenens set quod Abbas seysiuit illam in manum suam. (Curia—in festo Assumpcionis—anno supra dicto).' In the first case the seizure corresponds to the 'cape in manum' of a freehold. As there could be no such thing in the case of villainage, and the procedural seizure was resumption by the lord, the point is worth notice and may be explained by the King's private right still lingering about the manor. The last case is one of escheat or forfeiture.
Stoneleigh Reg. 75 v: 'Item si aliquis deforciatur de tenemento suo et tulerit breve Regis clausum balliuis manerii versus deforciantes, dictum breve non debet frangi nisi in curia.'
Natura brevium, 13: 'Balliuis suis.'
Britton, i. 221: 'Rois aussi ne porrount rien aliener les dreits de lour coroune ne de lour reaute, qe ne soit repellable par lour successours.'
Stoneleigh Reg. 30: 'Nos attendentes, quod huiusmodi alienaciones et consuetudinum mutaciones eciam in nostri et heredum nostrorum preiudicium et exheredacionem cedere possent, si manerium illud in manus nostras aliquo casu deuenerit sustinere nolumus sicut nec debemus manerium illud aut ea que ad illud pertinent aliter immutari quam esse solebant temporibus predictis.'
The writs are directed sometimes to the bailiffs of the Archbishop of Canterbury and of the Duke of Albemarle, who had the manor in custody for King Richard II, but in the twenty-third year they are inscribed to the King's bailiffs. (Augmentation Court Rolls, xiv. 38). As to the trial mentioned in the text see App. IX.
Stoneleigh Reg. 11 a: 'Precipio tibi quod sine dilacione deliberes Abbati de Stonleia omnes terras et tenuras quas ego dedi et carta mea confirmaui. Et de terra quam rustici uersus calumpniantur et quam ego ei dedi et concessi, inquire si rectum in ea habuerunt et si rectum in ea habent, dona eis rusticis alibi in terra mea excambium ad valenciam.'
Bracton, f. 209: 'Ad quemcumque manerium peruenerit.'
Madox, Firma Burgi, 54; Pipe Rolls, passim. Cf. Rot. Cur. Regis Ric., p. 15: 'Homines de Kingestone—c. sol. … pro respectu tenendi villam suam ad eandem firmam quam reddere solebant tempore Henrici Regis.'
Madox, Exch. 1437, z: 'Homines de Lechton x marcas pro habenda inquisicione per proxima halimota et per legales milites et alios homines de visneto, quas consuetudines ipsi fecerunt tempore Henrici Regis Patris.' (Pipe Roll. 4 John.) Cf. 442, a: 'Homines de Stanleya reddunt compotum de uno palefrido, ut inquiratur per sacramentum legalium hominum, quas consuetudines et quae servitia homines de manerio de Stanleia facere consueverunt Regi Henrico patri Ricardi Regis dum essent in manu sua.' (Pipe Roll, 9 John.)
Y.B., Trin., 49 E. III, pl. 8 (Fitzherbert, Abr. Monstrav. 4): '