The Englishwoman's Review of Social and Industrial Questions

1903

Janet Murray, Myra Stark

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2017
• ISBN:
  9781315395524
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: World History
• Index: History

The Englishwoman's Review, which published from 1866 to 1910, participated in and recorded a great change in the range of possibilities open to women. The ideal of the magazine was the idea of the emerging emancipated middle-class woman: economic independence from men, choice of occupation, participation in the male enterprises of commerce and government, access to higher education, admittance to the male professions, particularly medicine, and, of course, the power of suffrage equal to that of men.

First published in 1984, this thirty-fifth volume contains issues from 1903. With an informative introduction by Janet Horowitz Murray and Myra Stark, and an index compiled by Anna Clark, this set is an invaluable resource to those studying nineteenth and early twentieth-century feminism and the women's movement in Britain.

THE
ENGLISHWOMAN’S REVIEW
(NEW SERIES.)

No. CCLVIII.—JULY 15TH, 1903.

ART. I.— A PEEP INTO THE PAST.

THE means of obtaining a fairly accurate idea of the condition of the peasantry in England in the fourteenth century is afforded by the translation and publication of the Court Rolls of Ingoldmells Manor.*

Ingoldmells Manor was a large property comprising the greater part of six parishes, and was situated on the east coast of Lincolnshire, and included the village of Skegness, now a considerable town and sea-side resort.

The Court met for the discharge of business very frequently—by law it was required to meet once a quarter, but it did meet nearly every month—the unusually large size of the Manor probably making such frequent meetings necessary.

The condition of the bond tenants on this Manor was in one respect different from what was ordinary, and was probably more than usually favourable, for the Lord of the Manor did not reside on his property, and had therefore no demesne land. Consequently, instead of paying their rent by their labour on the lord’s land, as was the custom where the lord resided, the villeins paid their rent in money. In fact there seems but little difference in the position of free and bond tenants, for the bondsman could and did sit on juries, just as the freeman did. The chief difference seems to have been that the free tenant could leave when he liked, and a bond tenant could not legally do so, though if he went away illegally there does not seem to have been any means of recapturing him.

The business done in this Court included some affairs which in the present day are generally carried on privately in the landlord’s library, such as the fixing of rents. When a farm was made vacant by death the next in kin to the deceased tenant was generally chosen to succeed him as tenant for life on his offering a sufficient heriot. The rent was publicly fixed, and the amount of the rent and of the heriot written on the margin of the Toil.

The rents appear to have been extremely moderate and the heriot very large; but before we can estimate the amounts we must calculate the difference in the value of money between those days and our own. If we reckon a shilling to represent a sovereign of present value, and a penny a shilling, we shall not be far wrong, though that is rather below the mark, since it appears from one of the entries that an average cow was worth 12s., and now a cow is ordinarily worth more than £12, their price ranging from £15 to £18, so that 1s. of those days was worth four or five and twenty shillings of the present time.

Besides the settlement of heriots and rents the Court tried all manner of offences, civil and criminal. Offences were tried by a jury. When the jury had found the prisoner guilty he was recommended to the “mercy of the lord,” who after consideration, gave the punishment. The punishment except for very heinous crimes was a fine. Some object of value belonging to the prisoner, such a cow, a sheep, or a weaving frame was distrained upon, i.e., taken possession of by the lord until payment, unless he could find responsible persons to pledge themselves as sureties for him. The lord not being resident, it is pretty evident that some one must have acted for him, and mention is made of “The Lord’s Council,” so probably the Council and the steward fixed the fines except in very difficult or important cases, when a visit from the lord was waited for, that he might decide for himself and affix the fine. The word “amercement” doubtless comes from “à-merci-ment.”

Some extracts from the trials and the business done, taken from the Rolls, will give an idea of the condition of affairs:—“Court of Ingoldmels on S. Barnabas Day (1292), William atte Owdayl of Ingoldmels is dead, who held of the lord earl in villeinage 21 acres of land, of which 15 acres are each at fourpence and six acres at twelve pence. John, son and heir of the said William, came and demanded the land, who gives to the lord for heriot 36s. 8d. Pledges to pay Ralph de Modeland and Ranulph the Grave.” In another case: “Peter Heylmer is dead, and he held of the lord four acres, value 4d. each acre, and the land is taken into the hand of the lord. Ranulph son of the said Peter came and demanded the land.” Probably Ranulph was not considered a desirable tenant, and so was refused; but in at least nine cases out of ten the next heir is accepted. Sometimes, though not very often, the daughter is accepted as the next heir. Provision appears to be made in a few instances for a daughter, by her receiving as a gift from her father of a small part of his farm, and if the lord consents she becomes the life tenant. “From Matilda and Agnes, daughters of Alan Bugge, to have one half acre of land with one cottage built thereupon for their whole life, or which of them shall live the longer and shall not be married, which Alan their father resigned to them in Court, and they give to the lord for entry, pledges Walter Bugge and Robert Bugge, eighteen pence.” These poor women would probably employ themselves in spinning wool, and with the help of what they could grow in their garden thus make a living.

Not unfrequently bond tenants make over their land to each other. “From William Fougher of Skegnesse to have to and hold for him and his boys for ever one cottage and twenty rodfalls of bond land in the same place which William, son of John Fougher, resigned to him in court. And he gives the lord for entry twelve pence.”

One point seems very hard on bond tenants. If a bond tenant buys free land beyond the Manor it becomes bond land, and is at once “arrented,” but no heriot is paid on it.

“From William Fougher a bond tenant of the lord who purchased four acres and the fourth part of one acre of free meadow land, which are rented to the lord at 6d.” The rent is excessively low, merely nominal, but it appears unjust that there should be any rent. As a general rule there does not seem to be any hardship in being a bond tenant, and in one case a woman claims to be bond, because if bond she is entitled to three acres of bond land, whereas if she is free she is entitled to nothing. She wins her suit, is accounted bond, and gets her acres. In the course of a hundred years the lord frequently changes, and sometimes the Manor becomes the property of a lady. This makes no difference except, I think, that during her time rather a larger proportion of women are accepted as heirs of their fathers’ farms.

“Court of Ingoldmels held on Wednesday next after the feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul, 20 Edward III. (5 July A.D. 1346). Margaret daughter of Walter Ackewra, did fealty to the lady for four acres of land.” A little later: “Agnes, daughter of Richard, son of Ranulph, a bond tenant of the lady, purchased of Robt., son of Philip de Albertoft, one place of pasture with appurtenances in Hoggistorp, containing four acres and one rood of free land. And the said land is arrented anew at 8d., and she did fealty to the lady.” “William, son of Robert Magotson, holds bond land and the houses of the said William are ruinous, therefore it is directed to seize them for waste until, &c.”; the etcetera probably means until they are repaired. But at a court held a month later the following entry appears: “It is ordered to seize all the land which William, son of Robert Magotson, holds for waste made,” so it may be supposed that he declined to make repairs.

The next entry is curious. “Wm., son of Henry Pullayn, of Burgh, was elected by the whole homage to the office of grave, and afterwards the said William came at Bolingbrok and made fine to the lady for being released from his office for the whole life of the lady Countess. Fine 40 shillings.” The grave had to look after dykes, ditches and roads, and William did not like the trouble.

It may be remarked that the lady Countess is married, yet the property is her own. How and when did it happen that the property of a married woman ceased to be her own and became the property of her husband? This legal defect was remedied in 1883, and the law was restored to what it had been in Edward III.’s reign.

Women of the common sort, however, were subject to some oppression from which they are now free. The Dean and Chapter of Lincoln looked after the moral behaviour of the county, and a young woman suspected of light behaviour was brought before them for trial, and if found guilty was “chastised.” Chastised probably means whipped. It does not appear that the Dean and Chapter interfered in any way with young men of light behaviour. However, when a man falsely accused a woman he was punished by the Manor Court. “Maria, daughter of Guy Gigge, complains of William Kuyche that he defamed her by citing her before the Dean and Chapter, and there she lawfully purged herself to her damage forty shillings, and therefore she produced suit and William came and defended himself and demanded that it be inquired, and the plaintiff likewise. It is found by inquisition that he defamed her to her damage, which is taxed at 10s., and the said William is in mercy 2s.” So the said William was compelled to pay a sum equal to about £15 of our day.

All kinds of offences were tried at the Manor Court. The using of false weights and measures, thefts, assaults, and slanders were generally punished by very small amercements. Doing damage was more severely dealt with. “William Elrikes is distrained by four cows because he mowed the brambles outside the sea bank which is the defence of the whole Vill of Skegnesse.” Ultimately Elrikes was fined 12s., the price of a cow.

The Manor Court sometimes assumed to be a Court of Chancery, and protected orphans, assigning guardians to look after them and their property; also when a husband ill-used his wife in one instance it interfered. “It is ordered the bailiff to retain in the hand of the lord the fruits of the land of Ralph Cook for a trespass made on Eleanor his wife, as is said, therefore the bailiff is ordered to cause a good inquisition to come to inquire the state bet...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Original Title Page
• Original Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• The Englishwoman’s Review No. CCLVI.—January 15th, 1903.
• The Englishwoman’s Review No. CCLVII.—April 15th, 1903.
• The Englishwoman’s Review No. CCLVIII.—July 15th, 1903.
• The Englishwoman’s Review No. CCLIX.—October 15th, 1903.