ι∞ THE BURGESSES AND THEIR TENURE
messuage and tenement were older and more general in sense
than bourgage.
Having traced the survival, long after “ free burgage ”
became the recognized description of borough tenure every-
where, of features found in the Anglo-Saxon borough which
we are asked to regard as quite incompatible with that form
of tenure and in the case of heriot identified with a feudal
impost in some of the newest and freest boroughs, we will
reverse the process and inquire how far the essential char-
acters of burgage tenure were present in the pre-Conquest
boroughs. The inquiry has been in part anticipated in earlier
sections, but it will be convenient to give here a brief summary
of the evidence as a whole :—
(l) The typical tenement in an Anglo-Saxon borough was
that of the freeman burgess who rendered all local and general
“ custom(s) of burgesses.” The most fundamental of the local
customs was the money rent, that landgable or hawgable which
continued to be the central feature of “ burgage tenure ” and
can be proved in some cases to have remained at the same
figure after as before the Conquest. Tolls and judicial for-
feitures were the most important of the other local customs
and these too were permanent charges. Here and there
the burgess was subject to personal services, other than the
watch, which were gradually abolished or commuted in later
times, but none of these, in the important royal boroughs
at any rate, carried any stigma of unfreedom at the time and
in the place where they were customary. Professor Stephenson
himself is willing to admit that exemption from such services
may have been already obtained in certain boroughs before
the Conquest. The cases he adduces 1 do not, however, prove
his point. The Winchester burgesses, as we have seen, were
not free from services of this kind under Henry I, their “ fee
farm rents ” under Edward the Confessor did not therefore
differ from the landgable and other customs of the boroughs
generally. For Southampton the only evidence adduced is
the mention in Domesday of three rates of landgable in
1066 and the backward Hereford had two.2
1E.H.R. xlv. (1930), 190. The inference seems to be withdrawn in his
book (p. 93).
, The Southampton entry in Domesday (ɪ. 52a, ι) is very brief, but
ɪt leaves no doubt that other customs than gable were exacted. The
statement that ninety-six new settlers since the Conquest, French and
English, rendered /4 os. 6d. “ de omnibus Consuetudinibus ” would imply
that, even if Professor Stephenson were right in translating “ in return for
CUSTOMARY TENURE AND BURGAGE
IOX
The burgess customs, so far as they were paid in money,
formed the bulk of that redditus of the borough which normally
before the Conquest and in certain cases after it was shared
between king and earl.
(2) The heritability of the burgess tenement is sufficiently
established by casual evidence in Domesday and elsewhere.
It is implied in the mention of heriots at Chester, Shrewsbury,
Hereford and Ipswich, and by the record of their absence at
York.1 For London it is distinctly stated in the Conqueror’s
brief charter.2 The rights of the kin are alluded to in
Domesday at Chester,3 and specifically affirmed at Lincoln
(see below).
(3) The right of the royal burgess to give or sell his tene-
ment with or without license, is attested by Domesday evi-
dence from widely separated regions. Whether the same
freedom was enjoyed by the burgesses of other lords than the
king, is usually uncertain, but we are told that Harold’s
burgesses at Norwich had it.4 The leave of the king or his
reeve was sometimes required, but at Norwich with its 1320
burgesses, it was only necessary in two cases, where the
tenements were perhaps official reveland, and at Thetford with
943 burgesses in thirty-six,5 if the right to do homage to other
lords here implies that of sale, while at Torksey the burgess
could sell his holding and leave the town without even the
knowledge of the royal reeve.6 At Hereford, on the other hand,
a frontier town where unusual personal services had to be
rendered, the reeve’s licence must be obtained and a buyer
found who was willing to perform these services. The reeve
was also entitled to take a third of the purchase price.7
The Domesday commissioners were less directly concerned
with the restrictions on sale or gift imposed by family law
which figure so largely in the later burgage tenure, but that
they already existed is accidentally revealed in an interesting
all customs.” whereas it can only mean " from all customs.” His version
would require “ pro ” instead of ” de.” King William gave to certain
barons "the custom(s) of their houses ” (consuetud, doɪnorum suarum).
ɪ D.B. i. 298a, i.
2 Stubbs, Select Charters, ed. Davis, p. 97 ; B.B.C. i. 74, incorrectly
placed under Intestate Succession. See Liebermann, Ges. ɪi. 391, § 12a,
ɪɪɪ. 276.
3D.B. i. 262b, i. Qui terram suam uel propinqui sui releuare uoɪebat
x solidos dabat.
, Itnd. ii. n6a. 6 Ibid, ft 118b, n9a.
' Ibid. i. 337a. i. Cf. the Newcastle privilege under Henry I, except
when the ownership was in dispute (Stubbs, Select Charters, ed. Davis, p. 134 ;