186 FIRMA BURGI AND ELECTED REEVES
sheriff or other royal nominee, but they were not the begin-
ning of burgess farming. Already in 1086 the burgesses of
Northampton were farming their town from the sheriff and,
though this is the only record of the kind, we may, Dr.
Stephenson suggests, feel pretty sure that such sub-farming
was not uncommon in the twelfth century. Farming of this
kind, of course, would not entail election of the royal town
reeves, even where they and not the sheriffs were the Crown
farmers. It seems to be further suggested that when burgesses
became Crown farmers themselves, on receiving a grant of
their borough in capite of the king or in manu sua, there
would be no need of any change in this respect. This, how-
ever, seems very doubtful. The burgesses in their court
might have arranged a sub-farm with the sheriff or other
farmer, but as Crown farmers they must be represented at
the exchequer of account by responsible persons. The reeve
or reeves, as the king’s financial representatives in the town,
were the natural persons, but their position had been changed
by the grant to the burgesses. They were now subordinate
in finance to the farming burgesses. The grant to Dublin
expressed this change with all clearness when it enfeoffed the
citizens with the office of reeve (prepositura').1 They needed
no separate grant for election of their bailiffs, as it was then
becoming the practice to call the old reeves, nor did they ever
get one. Election was a natural consequence of the trans-
ference of the farm to the citizens. No other explanation of
its introduction is offered by Dr. Stephenson.
(2) It is, however, not so much upon general considera-
tions as upon the evidence of charters and Pipe Rolls that he
rejects the idea of any necessary connexion between farming
by the burgesses and the election of their reeves. There is
no proof, it is claimed, of such connexion. Neither of the
two extant charters of Henry II2 conferring farming leases
on burgesses gives the right of election, nor is election men-
tioned in the case of any of the leases which are only known
from the Pipe Rolls. Formal grants of election first appear in
1189 when perpetual leases of farms, fee farms, begin, charters
are freely granted and are carefully preserved. Yet even now
less than half of the fee farms granted down to 1216 are accom-
panied by an election clause, and the proportion falls even
l B.B.C. i. 231.
2To Lincoln and Cambridge (ibid. i. 221). That similar charters to
other boroughs have been lost appears from P.R. 24 Hen. II, p. 99.
FIRMA BURGI AND ELECTED REEVES 187
lower in the rest of the thirteenth century. It is not contended
that election of reeves did not exist where it is not recorded,
but merely that its existence was independent of farming.
Evidence of such election, even under Henry II, is recognized
in the frequent changes of the reeves whose names are recorded
on their accounting at certain periods for the farms of boroughs,
Lincoln and Northampton for instance, though the commoner
practice was to record the ciυes, burgenses or homines themselves
as the accountants. It is claimed, however, that in individual
cases election is found before the grant of the farm and that
in others the right is not obtained for some time after the date
of the lease. The choice of Northampton as an example of
the former kind seems due to overlooking a Pipe Roll record.
Dr. Stephenson points out that from 1185 the farm of that
town was being accounted for by men who were evidently
elected reeves, whereas the borough’s first charter for both
farm and election was granted by Richard I in 1189. But,
though no earlier charter survives, the Pipe Roll of 1185 shows
that the burgesses had bought the farm, doubtless a revocable
one, for 200 marks and that the elected reeves began at once
to account at the exchequer.1 So far as it goes, the case
favours Ballard’s view rather than Professor Stephenson’s.
Richard’s charter made the revocable farm perpetual and it
was surely natural to include a formal authorization of the
liberty, to elect their reeves which had been exercised for four
years on a less permanent basis. Dr. Stephenson, indeed,
does not always keep in mind the vital difference between
farms granted to burgesses during good behaviour (quamdiu
bene serυierint} and fee farms such as Northampton obtained
in 1189. He describes Richard’s confirmation (1189) of the
revocable farm which Shrewsbury had bought from Henry II
as a grant of fee farm (p. 168), though that was first obtained
in 1205.
The Shrewsbury case has an important bearing on the
question before us. Richard merely confirmed the ter-
minable farm in a single clause, but John in 1200 added to
a brief general confirmation of the Shrewsbury liberties the
clause allowing election of reeves which he was including in
a number of other charters during this year. The repetition
of this clause in his long charter of 1205 seems a warning
that the clause of 1200 may also be a confirmation by regrant
1P.R. 31 Hen. II, p. 46.