ιo8 THE BURGESSES AND THEIR TENURE
speaking of the free burgage, the free laws and customs, of
such boroughs.
The ancient English boroughs, then, exhibit no very neat
system of “ burgage tenure ” in the Norman period. It
is possible, however, to assume too strong a contrast in this
respect with the new foundations of French type. Unluckily,
owing to lack of evidence, a direct comparison with these is
precluded, but fuller information from Normandy itself does
not reveal so acute a contrast or a burghal system of the
advanced type which Dr. Stephenson regards as alone entitled
to be called burgage tenure.
4. Burgage Tenure in Northern France in the Eleventh
Century
There was no Domesday Book on the other side of the
Channel, but contemporary charters contain material which,
interpreted in the light of later evidence, discloses the general
features of the eleventh-century bourg. This, whether a
trading appendage to an ancient civitas or founded on a rural
villa to encourage similar settlement, was a newer development
than the English borough and allowed of much greater uni-
formity from the outset. As feudalism was already highly
developed in the open country, the line between bourg and
ville was drawn far more firmly than in England. This appears
very clearly in M. Henri Legras’s valuable study 1 of burgage
tenure in the ducal bourg of Caen, first mentioned in 1026,
and the two ecclesiastical bourgs of St. Stephen’s and the
Trinity founded by the Conqueror himself with the same
constitution. There is no class corresponding to the sokemen
of some English boroughs and in the ducal bourg no terra
baronum, though the bishop of Bayeux takes the census and
custom of certain houses, doubtless by some unrecorded grant.2
There are manentes paying rent {merces) who are not burgesses,
but, M. Legras supposes, traders belonging to other towns.3
The burgesses of Caen, like their English contemporaries,
had to perform personal services which were incidental to
their tenements, watch and ward, cleansing and repair of the
ditches of the castle and upkeep of public roads,4 but there is
no word of carrying service or of the provision of guards for
1 Le Bourgage de Caen (Paris, 1911).
’ Ibid. pp. 44 ff.
2 Ibid. pp. 52 ft.
4 Ibid. pp. 59 fif.
BURGAGE TENURE IN NORMANDY 109
the duke and his officers, still less of the hunting services of
Shrewsbury or the boon reapings of Hereford. This is the
difference between a system which has been created at a com-
paratively late date and one which has grown irregularly from
diverse beginnings. On the other hand, the Caen burgesses
were not wholly free from feudal burdens. The duke had oven-
right, for which there is no evidence in the old English borough,
and M. Legras is of opinion that the later transfer due paid when
houses changed hands implies an original relief and thinks it
probable that the burgesses were subject to the three feudal
aids. However this may be, there is no question here of
that burgage tenure by payment of a rent “ pro omni servitio,
Consuetudine et demanda,” which becomes common in England
by the thirteenth century. For contemporary charters speak
of “ gablum (censum) et Consuetudinem,'' 1 and this custom is
once defined as “ omnis Consuetudo omnium domorum.” 2
As in England, there were houses that were subject to custom
(Consuetudinariae) and houses that were exempt. M. Legras
takes this custom to have been limited to dues on trade and
industry. There is early mention of a constιetudo culcitrarum,,
a custom on coverlets, and of Consuetudines in foro.3 In the
fifteenth century when customary houses had come to be
exceptional, traders avoided them. If this was the only kind
of ‘ custom ’ in Caen, the term was used in a much narrower
sense than it has in Domesday. The Consuetudines of an
English borough included the gable and not only tolls and
baker’s custom,4 but heriots, local money dues such as the
two marks a year rendered after Easter by the royal burgesses
of Colchester and their 6d. yearly for the military needs of the
crown,5 even personal services like carrying duty and feeding
prisoners.® Indeed the danegeld itself could be brought
under this comprehensive term. It will be seen that duties
such as work on the castle ditches and payment of relief,
which M. Legras distinguishes from Consuetudines as falling
ɪ Legras, op. cit. p. 52. This distinction is made exceptionally in the
Domesday account of Cambridge (above p. 90).
t Ibid. Cf. the “ consuetud' domorum ” at Southampton (above,
p. 100, n. 2). 3 Legras, op. cit. pp. 52, 74 ff.
4 The " (consuetudo) panificis ” of Stamford {D.B. i. 336b, 2), and the
later attested “ bacgavel,” "baggabul ” of Exeter (Schopp, Anglo-Norman
Custumal of Exetsr, pp. 21, 30) and " backstergeld " oi Lincoln {Reg.
Anttquiss. iii. 303, a. 1263).
5 D.B. ii. 107a. The f>d, though described as annual, was taken only
ɪf the king had hired troops or made an expedition, and only from houses
that could pay it. It was therefore not included in the king’s farm.
β See above, p. 97.