the use of the grantor and his heirs for the accommodation of horses when he should come to keep ward in the King's castle.1

(iv) A grant by Robert de Carew to the burgesses of the town of his land in Newcastle, on condition that he should have accommodation for his horses whenever he should do ward in the King's castle.2

It is clear that these stable lands were held as integral parts of fiefs owing military service of castle-ward at Newcastle. One other instance of such a holding is found in grants made in the reign of Henry II by Richard de Canvill and Walter fitz William to Robert de Insula, of the manor of Gosforth (which was held by service of fifteen days castle-ward) together with the land of the stable in Newcastle.3

SERJEANTY AND THEGNAGE LANDS.

There is evidence also of lands in the town which formed part of estates in the county not held by Knight service. Land on the Sandhill was part of the holding of Matfen and Nafferton to which the service of coroner for South Northumberland was attached. This land, though subject to a burgage rent, was held by serjeanty, and was subject to the conditions of that tenure, for it was arrented in 1248 with the rest of the serjeanty.4

One other instance may be cited from another source, in connection with the three-vill thegnage holding of Seaton, Whitley and Seghill, the conditions of tenure of which bear manifest evidence of pre-conquest origin. Between the years 1106 and 1116 King Henry I granted or confirmed Graffard's lands and services to Richard de Albini, abbot of S. Albans, "that is to say Seaton, Whitley and Seghill, and a toft in Newcastle."5

1
1 No. 53.

2 No. 60.

Lansdowne MS, vol. 326, fos. 102, 103; Hodgson II, ii, p. 127, and see N.C.H., ix, p. 44. The land in Newcastle was held with the manor as late as 1279 (Cal. Ing., ii, p. 194). The late Mr. Ballard in an article on "Castle Guard and Barons Houses " (25 E.H.R. p, 712) assumed that the stable here referred to was within the castle, but the earliest evidence which we have of houses in the castle which were repairable by castle-ward tenants dates from the fourteenth century. (Arch. Ael., 2 ser., iv, p. 46). At that time lands held by castle-ward were said to be charged with the repair of houses in the castle (Cal. Close, 1330-33, p. 567; 1333-37, pp. 602, 646), and to be held as of the castle (ibid, 1337-39, p. 100).

4 Nos. 396-402, and note.

5 Henricus rex Anglie Ranulfo Dunelmensi episcopo et Alurico et Ligulfo vicecomitibus et omnibus baronibus suis Francis et Anglis de Northumbreland salutem. Sciatis me dedisse Deo et Sancto Albano et Sancto Oswino et Ricardo abbati totam terram et servicium Graffardi videlicet Setonam et Wyteleyam et Seyhalam et unum toftum in Novo Castello Testibus Roberto episcopo Lincolniensi et Ranulpho cancellario et Nigello de Alben'. Apud Brantonam. St. Alban's Register, fos. 115b, 117; N.C.H., ix, p. 54, and see ibid, viii, p. 55.

A few years later Abbot Richard's successor, Geoffrey de Gorham, confirmed Seghill to Walter Graffard as his father had held it in the time of the abbot's predecessors, by a charter which sets out the services due, among which are riding services of an earlier age. 6

Graffard's toft and the Coroner's houses in the borough seem to have been contributed' burgages of pre-Conquest origin, carrying with them in the eleventh century a liability to contribute to the defence of the town, though after the Conquest Graffard's land, in common with other lands of Tynemouth monastery, would share in the exemption from castle-work at Newcastle which was granted by William II and Henry 1.7

With regard to the stables of the castle-ward tenants the position is not so clear. These lands either represented contributed burgages of an earlier borough constitution, or they were the subject of new royal grants at the time of the institution of castle-ward in the new castle. The latter supposition seems the more probable. The position of the Gosforth stable cannot be located, but the other three of which we have evidence (Grenville, Bertram and Carew) appear all to have been situated near the western side of the castle enclosure. This circumstance suggests the probability that land for stabling was provided for all the castle-ward tenants in a situation conveniently adjacent to the castle, at the time when the service of castle-ward was instituted.8

A consideration of such evidences as are available points to the conclusion that although the building of the new Castle and the establishment of castle-ward may have occasioned considerable changes in the organization of the borough, the Norman military system was superimposed upon an older borough constitution which was not wholly abolished.9

6 Omnibus has litteras visuris Galfridus abbas sancti Albani salutem. [Sciatis nos] concessisse et presenti carta confirmasse Graffard' et heredibus [suis villam] de Scithal tenendum de nobis tam libere et quiete sicut pater suus eam unquam melius et liberius tenuit in temporibus pr[edecessorum] nostrorum. Pro servicio autem debet ire in exercitu et equitatu et esse velut homines tales et placitis debet interesse et pro posse suo manutenere itaque quod in pace teneat et pacem ubique habeat salvo homagio quod pro eadem villa facere debet nobis et ecclesie nostre. Teste &c. St. Alban's Register, fo. 83b; N.C.H., ix, p. 54.

On the subject of the law of riding' see Maitland, Domesday Book and Beyond, pp. 305-309.

'Henricus Rex Anglie Alurico et Ligulfo salutem. Precipio ut elemosinam meam de Tynemutha manuteneatis et custodiatis et de operacione de Novo Castello ita sit quietum sicut erat tempore fratris mei. St. Alban's Register, fo. 118; N.C.H., viii, p. 55.

The stables were possibly on land theretofore left waste, comprising the site of the Roman camp of Pons Aelii and its surroundings. On the subject of the avoidances of sites of Roman towns see Ballard, The English Borough, p. 61.

9

cp. Maitland, Collected Papers, ii,

p. 109.

B

CUSTOMS.

The deeds in this volume illustrate several of the customs of the town. The customs of Newcastle, as they existed in the reign. of Henry I., are set out in a record of the time of Henry II., and are said to have been applied by King David of Scotland to Edinburgh, Stirling, Roxburgh and Berwick.1 In England the Newcastle customs were granted in the twelfth century by Adam de Brus to the borough of Hartlepool,2 and by Bishop Puiset to Wearmouth3 and Gateshead.4

After the custumal of the twelfth century was made other customs were granted to the town by charter, as, for example, the grant by King John in 1216 of certain of the customs of Winchester, 5 while others gained recognition and became customs by prescription, but no later collection of customs of the town is known, nor, probably, was any such collection ever made.

YEAR AND DAY.

It was a custom of Newcastle that whosoever should hold land in the borough for a year and a day lawfully (juste) without claim, the claimant being within the Kingdom, should not be liable to answer the claimant; but if the claimant were a child not being of age to plead, the holder of the land should be bound to answer him.6

With regard to this and other analogous year and day' customs Professor F. W. Maitland says the Newcastle custom requires that the possessor shall possess 'juste,' the Lincoln, Nottingham and Derby customs suppose that he has come to his possession by purchase; the Scottish custom supposes that he has come to his possession by purchase duly perfected in the presence of twelve of his neighbours. Having regard to the common law and to the practice prevalent in the boroughs of conveying tene

Acts of Parliament of Scotland, i, p. 39; Brand, ii, p. 130; Percy chartulary, 117 Sur. Soc. p. 335; Stubbs, Select Charters, 4th ed. p. 110; Bateson, Borough Customs, i, Introduction, pp. 1, li; Scottish Historical Review, xxi, p. 193.

2 Cal. Chart. v, p. 370. In this grant mention is made of the Earl (of Northumberland) which seems to indicate a date near the middle of the twelfth century.

* See hereon Gross, Gild Merchant, ii, pp. 244-253, 256, and note to deed no. 193, post.

6

Quicunque in burgo terram tenuerit uno anno et una die juste et sine calumpnia et calumpniator infra regnum fuerit, non debet calumpnianti respondere. Si vero calumpniator puer sit, non habens etatem placitandi, ei respondet. (Brand, ii, p. 130).

ments in the borough courts, we should not, I think, be unwarranted in believing that a conveyance so perfected was or had been a condition requisite to start the term of limitation the lapse of which would bar all claims adverse to the possessor. In that case the conveyance before the borough court would be the counterpart of the fine levied in the King's court."7

This interpretation appears to be borne out by the Newcastle evidence, for by far the greater number of early deeds known to us, conveying land in the town, were executed in the Town Court.

DEEDS EXECUTED IN THE TOWN COURT.

In some cases deeds are expressed to be made in the court, or in the full court, of the town, or in full gild,8 though where the fact is not stated in the deed, the witnessing thereof by the mayor and bailiffs is evidence that one or other of these formalities was observed. Prior to the establishment of the mayoralty the evidence as to execution in Court is not so clear; but it may safely be inferred in many cases, from the recurrence of the names of witnesses, that they were members of the governing body of the town assembled in Court. For example, of five twelfth century deeds, nos. 13, 45, 48, 52 and 58, four are witnessed by the reeve, four by Nicholas son of Hutred, who was in all probability the father of Daniel son of Nicholas, the first mayor of Newcastle, and four by Hugh the clerk, who may be identified as the clerk of the Town Court.9

The formalities of the assurance were carried out in full court, the poverty of the grantor or other special circumstance compelling or justifying a sale was there proved or alleged in cases where such a course was necessary or desirable, and, being recited in the deed, became a matter of record which could be proved in subsequent proceedings by mere production of the deed,10 the parties affixed their seals between the four benches of the court,11

9

'Maitland, Collected Papers, ii, p. 77.

8 No. 24.

The succession of the earlier clerks of the Town Court, from about the year 1180, appears to have been :

Hugh, c. 1180.

Mauger or Malgerus, c. 1200-1216.
Adam de Novo Castro, c. 1216-1259.

Bartholomew, son in law of Adam, 1259-c.1279.

Adam, son of Bartholomew, c. 1279-1300.

Thomas de Frismarisco, otherwise Thomas clericus, c. 1300-1328. 10 For references to sale in extremo vite' see no. 65, to sale in infirmity, see no. 227, to sale in consideration of ministering the necessities of life to the grantor, see no. 160.

11 No. 223. On the subject of four benches' see Bateson, Borough Customs, ii, p. cxlvii.

the solemnity of laying hands on the Holy Gospels was observed, 12 title deeds were delivered up in court to the grantee, 13 the deed was witnessed by the mayor, bailiffs and other burgesses present in court, and the common seal of the town was in many cases affixed to the deed, though not always expressed so to be.14

The method of transfer varied. In some cases it was effected by fine in proceedings begun by the King's writ of right patent.15 The earliest example which we have of this is in the year 1233.16 The burgesses claimed the right to hold pleas of land in the town without the king's writ,17 and the grant confirmed by deed No. 251 seems to be an example of a transfer effected by fine in the Town Court in proceedings begun without such writ. The most usual method of transfer, however, was a conveyance in court without writ, and such a conveyance was deemed to be in the nature of a fine.

12 Nos 4, 38, 39.

13 No. 115; Brinkburn Chart. p. 175.

14 No. 358.

15 Nos 201, 250.

16

Madox, Formulare Anglicanum, p. 375.

17 sine brevi Regis placita de libero tenemento ibidem placitare ' (Placita de Quo Warranto, p. 601; see also Coram Rege Roll, 67, m. 16 d). There is no list extant, such as that contained in the customs of Winchester (Furley, Records of Winchester, p. 176) of the writs which were pleadable in Newcastle. The writ of right was no doubt in general use, though the grand assize could not be claimed thereunder, and an inquest by a jury of the borough was substituted ("ponit se in juratam burgi Novi Castri super Tynam loco magne assise domini Regis.' Northumberland Ass. R. p. 294). The assize of mort d'ancestor did not lie, as to inherited lands by the custom of the town (ibid. p. 300; no. 193 note); as to land of purchase, which was devisable, the law did not permit its use. For a deed passed in the Town Court, concluding an action by writ of cessavit per biennium brought in the King's Bench, see Brinkburn Chart. p. 177. In 1328 proceedings by writ of cessavit were for a time suspended in Northumberland by the following war emergency ordinance :

"Edwardus Dei gracia Rex Anglie dominus Hibernie et Dux Aquitanie Justiciariis de Banco Salutem Quia per nos et consilium nostrum in parliamento nostro apud Novam Saresbiriam convocato concordatum fuit et ordinatum pro eo quod omnia terre et tenementa in comitatu nostro Northumbrie per guerram vastata extiterunt et destructa ita quod tenentes eorundem terrarum et tenementorum nullum proficuum dicto tempore guerre perceperunt quod nullus habeat accionem per breve quod dicitur cessavit per biennium de terris et tenementis in eodem comitatu existentibus a principio guerre usque ad festum Natalis Domini proxime futurum Vobis mandamus quod placita coram vobis in Banco predicto per hujusmodi brevia de terris et tenementis in eodem comitatu de prelicto tempore guerre pendencia supersedeatis omnino aliquem tenentem de terris et tenementis in eodem comitatu contra tenorem concordie et ordinacionis predictarum coram vobis placitari aut molestari decetero nullatenus permittentes Teste meipso apud Wyntoniam tercio die Novembris anno regni nostri secundo (1328) Per peticionem de consilio (De Banco Roll 275, m. 314 d).