Here there is probably a numeral (1) omitted in the DCCCCXLIII. With that correction, we find that, as before, the later number of burgesses, together with the number of vacant houses, makes up the former number of burgesses (720 +224= 944). It is material to observe, also, that only a few of the inhabitants are the king's tenants. By far the greater part of them, it is expressly stated, may hold of whatever landlord they please, so that burgess-right depended not on tenancy, but on inhabitancy. All the inhabitants, without distinction, pay the king's custom, except heriot, which was a landlord's charge. Similarly, in Norwich (fol. 116 b), among the burgesses are 32, of whom Harold had sac and soc at the time of the Confessor. It is added that, on the land of which Harold had the soc, there are now 15 burgesses and 17 empty houses. The sum of the two latter numbers (17+15) is equal to the number (32) of burgesses who held of Harold. In a remarkable record, the Cottonian Register of Evesham Abbey, cited in Sir Henry Ellis's 'Introduction to Domesday,' there is similar evidence. This Register contains returns, possibly those which were made to the Commissioners who formed the Domesday Survey, and were afterwards abridged.'* The returns state that, in the time of King Edward, there were in the city of Gloucester 300 burgesses in the demesne, paying eighteen pounds and ten shillings of gable by the year. Of these, 97 are resident in their own inheritance, and 97 dwelling in hired houses. . . . And within the castellum dwell 24 of these 300, and 82 mansiones are waste.' Here 97 +97+21 +82=300, or the number of householders added to that of vacant houses makes up the aggregate number of burgesses before the Conquest. Besides this arithmetical argument, there are various proofs to the like effect from expressions in Domesday connecting burgessship with inhabitancy. For example, at Shrewsbury, in the time of the Confessor, there are said to have been 252 houses, and as many burgesses in the same houses paying gable '† -a proof that all the householders there were burgesses. In Northampton it is stated that, 'in the time of King Edward there were in Northantone, in the king's demesne, LX burgesses having so many houses (totidem mansiones): of these, XIIII are wasted. There remain XLVII. Besides these, there are now, in the new town, XL burgesses in the demesne of King William.'‡ * Ellis, 'Introduction to Domesday,' vol. ii. p. 445. † Domesday, vol. i. fol. 252. Ibid, vol. i. fol. 219.-The numerals are here given as they appear The word geld (geldum), which occurs in some of the foregoing extracts, is used in Domesday for Danegeld, a tax which was, by law, imposed in the time of the Saxons. This tax was originally instituted to defray the expense of resisting the incursions of the Danes. By the laws of Edward the Confessor, it was enacted that Danegeld should be paid annually, at the rate of twelvepence for every hyde of land throughout the country. It was continued after the Conquest. Spelman says, he finds no mention of Danegeld after the reign of King Stephen, though it did not then cease, but was designated the tallage, in the language of the Normans, and the tax in English.* By the Domesday Survey the Conqueror was enabled to fix the proportion of the Danegeld on the property of each landholder. Danegeld occurs only in one place, by its own name, in the Survey; in all other places it is called Geld.† The payment of Gelt, or any any other payment to the crown, did not constitute burgess-ship. This is evident from the reference in Domesday to various burgesses, who paid nothing to the crown. Thus, in Buckingham, in an enumeration of burgesses who were the tenants of different landlords, mention is made of 'two burgesses who were men of Earl Leuvin; they pay sixteen pence, and to the king now nothing'(ii. burgenses qui fuerunt homines Leuvini Comitis; hi reddunt xvi. den. et Regi modo nichil). They are expressly called burgesses, and are stated to be exempt from all payments to the crown. In the same borough there are mentioned 'four burgesses who were men of Eddeva, the wife of Syred. They pay twenty-nine pence; to the king they owe nothing.' ‡ Neither was tenancy of land belonging to the crown a condition of burgess-ship, nor was the possession of any freehold necessary. In the extracts from Domesday already given, there are references to lessees and occupiers under private landlords who were burgesses. In Thetford, of 943 burgesses, only 36 were the king's tenants. In Gloucester there were, in the king's land, 97 persons living on their own inheritance, and 97 others in hired houses, for which they paid rent; besides a great number of tenants of various landlords, some of whom had 50 or 60 tenants, and some in the original record, which, I am assured, has no vestige of erasure. But it is clear that there is an error of a unit in the enumeration. * Spelman, 'Glossarium '-sub vocibus 'Danigeldum,' 'Geldum.' † Ellis, 'Introduction to Domesday,' vol. i. p. 351. Domesday, Buckingham, fol. 143. only one or two.* In almost every borough of the kingdom there were burgesses who were tenants of private persons. In Romenel 85 burgesses held under the archbishop. In Bath, besides burgesses holding under the king, 90 are enumerated who were tenants of other persons. In Hereford, after an enumeration of king's tenants, it is expressly stated that Earl Harold had 27 burgesses having the same privileges as others. At Buckingham and Colchester, and many other places, there are similar enumerations. Sometimes burgesses in towns were tenants of manors far distant from them. Thus, one manor at Beddington, in Surrey, had 15 houses in London belonging to it, and another had 13 houses there, besides 8 in Southwark. The Abbey of Romsey had 14 burgesses in Winchester: the Church of St. Denys, at Paris, had 30 burgesses in Gloucester.† It is not necessary to multiply instances of this kind. It is abundantly evident that, in the time of Edward the Confessor, and when Domesday was completed, the burgesses in boroughs were simply the inhabitant-householders. There is not the slightest reason for supposing that those who were king's tenants had any peculiar privileges. They are continually enumerated with other burgesses, and there is no mention or suggestion of any distinction between them. In Dr. Brady's treatise on Boroughs it is asserted that, at the period to which Domesday refers, the burgesses or tradesmen in great towns had their patrons, under whose protection they traded, and paid an acknowledgment therefor; or else were in a more servile condition, as being in dominio regis vel aliorum.'‡ But, certainly, the passages from Domesday which he cites do not warrant these inferences. There is not a word in them about burgesses being under anybody's patronage. Expressions frequently occur, to the effect that burgesses belong to particular manors, or are in the domain of particular persons; but these are merely concise modes of stating whose tenants the burgesses were. The instances in which burgesses are clearly identified, in Domesday, as all the inhabitant-householders of a town, are so numerous, and apply to so many different parts of the country, that they must be taken to show the general meaning of the word burgenses, as it is used in the Survey. It is true that in some of the returns, with respect to boroughs, other classes besides burgesses are mentioned. Thus, at Buckingham, it is * See Register of Evesham Abbey,' cited in Ellis's 'Introduction to Domesday,' vol. ii. p. 446. Ellis, 'Introduction to Domesday,' vol. i p. 207. stated that there were twenty-seven burgesses, eleven bordarii, and two serfs.' But it appears, by the context, that the assessment of the town included a large tract of land which was cultivated by some of these persons. For instance, with reference to a part of this land, it is said: 'Bishop Remigius holds the church of this borough, and four carucates of land, which belong to it. There are four ploughs, and three villans, and three bordars, and ten cotars, one mill of ten shillings, meadow two carucates, wood for fences.' So in other places, where bordars and other classes are mentioned in the same returns with burgesses, the context shows that they cultivated land outside the town. The general conclusion that the qualification of a burgess was, in the period to which Domesday refers, simply the occupation of a house in a borough, is of the utmost importance with reference to the later history of municipal franchises. Shortly after the Conquest, the grant of charters to the 'burgesses' or to the 'men' of boroughs became, as we have already seen, frequent. But no law was enacted, giving a new and more restricted meaning of the word 'burgess.' Nor is there the slightest evidence of any change in the customary signification of the word. The inference is irresistible, that in the charters granted from the time of the Conquest until long after the permanent establishment of parliamentary institutions, the whole body of householders was enfranchised. The language of the charters themselves tends to the same conclusion. A charter given by Henry III. to Bristol granted, among other privileges, that the burgessess and their heirs, burgesses of the same town, should be empowered from among themselves to choose and create a coroner. Since the coroner was necessarily a resident officer, and the burgesses were to choose him from among themselves, it seems plain that the burgesses were assumed to be resident.t Shrewsbury, at an earlier period, affords an instance of a reference to scot and lot, as an evidence of the right to enjoy municipal privileges. In 11 John (A.D. 1211), a charter was granted to the burgesses of Shrewsbury, which provided that no one should buy and sell certain commodities within the * Domesday, vol. i. fol. 143.-The 'carucate' varied in different times and places. Sir Henry Ellis has collected ('Introduction to Domesday,' vol. i. p. 151) several authorities which give different estimates of it; the lowest being 60, and the highest 180 acres. Merewether, 'History of Boroughs,' p. 459. borough, unless he were in lot, and in assizes, and talliages with the burgesses.* 'Assizes' here apparently means assessments. The criterion of the right to trade in Shrewsbury was liability to the public charges to which the burgesses contributed. To the same effect is a charter of 11 Henry III. to Gloucester, which, among other franchises, provided that if any villan by birth should continue for a year in the said borough, and should be in market gild and toll (gilda mercatoria et hansa),† and in scot and lot with the burgesses for a year and a day without claim, then he should not be recovered by his lord, but should remain free in the same borough. Clauses of this kind were frequently inserted in antient municipal charters.‡ A relevant passage in Glanville strongly confirms the opinion that, at the time when he wrote, residence was the test of burgess-ship. Speaking of the mode in which neifs or born slaves may be emancipated, he says: Also if any neif abide quietly for a year and a day in any privileged town, so that he is received into their common gyld as a citizen, he shall thereby be liberated from villenage.'§ Here the process of acquiring the right of citizenship is described as consisting in residence for more than a year within the borough, and being received into the common gyld. The word gelda (or gylda) is used in antient documents as the equivalent of lot, and therefore it seems clear that the latter of the conditions to which Glanville here refers imports liability to scot and lot. || A passage in the charter granted to Helston by King John, in the second year of his reign, expressly provides that none of the aforesaid burgesses, unless he be resident in the said town of Helleston, shall have these liberties.'¶ Residence was the qualification for burgess-ship, and payment of scot and lot its chief obligation. But it was not the only obligation. If a man used the franchises of a borough, he was required to take his share of all the other duties to which the Madox, 'Firma Burgi,' p. 270. † Hansa-Pensitatio pro mercibus exsolvi solita.-Du Cange, Glossarium': in voce. Madox, 'Firma Burgi,' p. 271. § Item si quis nativus quiete per unum annum et unum diem in aliqua villa privilegiata manserit, ita quod in eorum communem gyldam tanquam civis receptus fuerit, eo ipso a villenagio liberabitur.'-Glanville, lib. v. chap. 5. || This point seems to be established by reference to a charter of Edward I. to Hull (cited hereafter). The grant is in Latin, and is founded on a petition in Norman-French. The latter mentions 'lot et eschot.' The corresponding phrase in the charter is geldam et scottum, ¶ Brady, App. No. viii. |