Gloucester, 1183-12631
Paul LatimerLong ago, in an ambitious and valuable study, Sidney Painter sought to trace the progress of incomes from the estates of lay baronies between 1086 and 1350.2 While Painter suggested that some of the nominal growth in baronial incomes he found represented a real increase, especially before 1250, he was astute enough to realise that at least most of the nominal growth had probably arisen from price increases.3 Since Painter wrote, opinions about the success or otherwise of estate management in outpacing or at least matching rises in prices during the period of the "long thirteenth century" have differed erably, from the decidedly optimistic to the somewhat pessimistic.4
This is certainly an important question. If the fortunes of landlords cannot tell us directly about the fortunes of peasants, they can, in conjunction with a view of the progress of the economy as a whole, throw some light on the relationship between the two groups. Dealing largely with the aggregates of the incomes of entire honours, as Painter did, is a pragmatic and useful approach. However, it does have the disadvantage of conflating two questions: the success or failure of a family or institution in preserving or increasing its estates, and
IAn earlier version of this paper was delivered at the Haskins Society Conference in November
1998.
2Sidney Painter, Studies in the History of the English Feudal Barony (Baltimore, 1943), pp. 157-79. There is still no comprehensive and consistent survey of the incomes of ecclesiastical estates, though much work has been done on the estates of individual institutions for various periods. For a small sample, see Christopher Dyer, Standards of living in the later Middle Ages: Social change in England c.1200-1250 (Cambridge, 1989), p. 36.
3Painter, Studies, pp. 161-62.
4From the most optimistic to the least: J. L. Bolton, The Medieval English Economy 1150-1500 (London, 1980), p. 95; M. M. Postan, The Medieval Economy and Society (London, 1972), pp. 167-68; Edward Miller and John Hatcher, Medieval England: Rural Society and Economic Change, 1086-1348 (London, 1978), pp. 227-29; A. R. Bridbury, "Introduction," in The English Economy from Bede to the Reformation (Woodbridge, 1992), p. 28. For a recent example of the difficulties
a monastic institution could experience in making real profits in the inflationary circumstances of the early fourteenth century, see Mavis Mate, "Coping with inflation: a fourteenth-century example," Journal of Medieval History 4 (1978): 95-105.
5Two of the few examples Painter did give at a lower level-Tewkesbury and Thombury-wer in fact from the Honor of Gloucester (Studies, p. 167).
their success or otherwise in preserving or increasing the real profits of vidual holdings.5
Painter had no very clear idea of the price changes that had taken place, but it is now generally acknowledged that the late twelfth and early thirteenth tury witnessed a significant change in price levels in England. More recently, it has been argued that most of this change occurred during the first few years of the thirteenth century. Also, the characterisation of the change as a general inflation rather than simply a change in relative prices has received
6
tion. It will perhaps be helpful here to give just two examples from the prices most important to agriculture. Wheat prices, after surging to peaks approaching three times the levels prevailing before 1200, receded to a fluctuating level still mostly double twelfth-century prices or more. Oxen prices, doubling in the early 1200s, continued then to rise slowly up to a level approaching three times twelfth-century prices by the 1260s.7 This knowledge of the timing, scale, and speed of price changes obviously raises fresh questions about their relationship to the changes in the nominal incomes of estates.
The connection between estate management and inflation has not been made solely with regard to the question of the real incomes of the holders of large estates. Inflation has also been linked to a change in the prevalent methods of estate management: namely, the adoption of the direct management of demesnes, as opposed to the leasing or farming of demesnes. If neither this shift itself nor the sole agency of price changes in the process seems now as definite as they have at times, the connection remains worthy of examination.8
6p. D. A. Harvey, "The English Inflation of 1180-1220," Past and Present 61 (1973): 3-4, 15-19;
P. Latimer, "Early Thirteenth Century Prices," in King John: New Interpretations, ed. S. D. Church (Woodbridge, 1999), pp. 41-73; P. Latimer, "Wages in Late Twelfth- and Early Thirteenth-Century England," Haskins Society Journal 9 (1997): 204-05.
7For these prices, and those of other grains and livestock, see D. L. Farmer, "Prices and Wages" in The Agrarian History of England and Wales, Vol 2, 1042-1348, ed. H. E. Hallam (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 787-89, 799-803. For other prices, see Ibid., pp. 807-08 and Latimer, "Early Thirteenth Century Prices," pp. 63-68, 70-73.
8There has been extensive comment on this topic. See particularly: Edward Miller, "England in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries: An Economic Contrast?," Economic History Review, 2nd ser., 24 (1971): 1-14; Postan, The Medieval Economy and Society, pp. 96-99; C. G. Reed and T. L. Anderson, "An Economic Explanation of English Agricultural Organization in the Twelfth and teenth Centuries," EcHR 26 (1973): 134-37; Edward Miller, "Farming of Manors and Direct agement," EcHR 26 (1973): 138-40; Harvey, "The English Inflation of 1180-1220," pp. 3-9; Idem,"The Pipe Rolls and the Adoption of Demesne Farming in England," EcHR 27 (1974): 345-59; A. R. Bridbury, "The Farming Out of Manors," EcHR 31 (1978): 514-19; Mavis Mate, "The farming out of manors: a new look at the evidence from Canterbury Cathedral Priory," Journal of Medieval History 9 (1983): 331-32; Kathleen Biddick, The Other Economy: Pastoral Husbandry on a Medieval Estate (Berkeley, 1989), pp. 50-51; Idem, "People and Things: Power in Early English ment," Comparative Studies of Society and History 32 (1990): 8-12; Bridbury, "Introduction," pp. 21-27; Christopher Dyer, "Lords, Peasants, and the Development of the Manor: England, 900-1200,"
This article examines estate management on the honour of Gloucester, largely through the window offered by certain accounts on the Exchequer Pipe Rolls. These accounts appeared when the honour, or substantial parts of it, was in royal hands and was accounting at the exchequer-between 1183 and 1189, in 1194, and from 1199 to 1208. There are additional such accounts available for Bristol, which was kept in royal hands from 1194 to 1199, and which also, unlike the other parts of the honour that remained in royal hands, continued to
account at the exchequer after 1208.9 The period of accounts between 1199 and 1208 is particularly interesting, both because it coincides with the inflationary surge of the first few years of King John's reign, and because these accounts are, at least in terms of income, given manor by manor. This evidence on dividual manors will be supplemented in particular from the inquisition cerning the lands of the earl of Gloucester and Hertford recorded on the Close
Rolls for 1263.10
Painter and others have used the Exchequer Pipe Roll accounts for the honour of Gloucester and for many other honours to trace the income generated by lay and ecclesiastical honors. P. D. A. Harvey used them to investigate the adoption of the direct management of the demesne land of honours in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries.1' Nevertheless, such accounts have remained an under-used source. Harvey's call for further research on these accounts and the
estates they refer to has largely gone unanswered. 2 The accounts certainly have more to tell us than the total receipts of an estate, or than when or whether the
estates they represent took to direct management, the matter that was Harvey's prime concern. Difficult and inadequate as they often are, they are still nearest, as a source for economic history, to that fruitful series of accounts for the bishopric of Winchester's lands that begin in 1208.
in England and Germany in the High Middle Ages, eds. A. Haverkamp and Hanna Volirath (Oxfor 1996), p. 312; J. L. Bolton, "The English Economy in the Early Thirteenth Century," in King John: New Interpretations, pp. 27-30. For a recent argument against inflation as the primary cause of shift to direct management, see P. Latimer, "The English Inflation of 1180-1220 Reconsidered
Past and Present 171 (2000): 5-6.
9It is not clear what happened to the manors of the earldom of Gloucester that were still in hands after Easter 1208-apart from Bristol and Barton (Glos.), which do continue to appear on
the Pipe Rolls. A possible solution is suggested by a reference to the manor of Cheltenham being put under the control of Gerard d'Athee in the summer of 1208. The baillia that he obtained did not subsequently account at the exchequer (P.R.. 10 John, p. 114).
10Close Rolls of the Reign of Henry III Preserved in the Public Record Office: 1261-64 (London,
1936), pp. 284-93.
11P. D. A. Harvey, "The Pipe Rolls and the Adoption of Demesne Farming in England," pp. 345 12Ibid., p. 354. Bridbury's perhaps over-skeptical re-reading of Harvey's evidence might, one hop provoke such work rather than discourage it ("Introduction," p. 23).
The accounts for the Honour of Gloucester, between 1183 and 1189, up to the time of John count of Mortain's long anticipated marriage to Isabel, daughter of William earl of Gloucester, are not very revealing about individual manors. They do however show clearly the way in which the king's accountants for the honour and the royal justices sought to reorganise its management in what
sumably they felt was an acceptable way."3 When the honour first appeared on the Pipe Rolls the main income of the honour was divided among four
ings.14 The first of these headings was itself a mixture of three sorts of incom the fixed render of the manors that were at farm; the issues of Bristol, and the
fixed renders in cash of the manors that were in custody. Bristol too was stated to be in custody, that is, not at farm. The second heading was that of perquisites throughout the manors, a heading that probably included the profits of manorial courts, but may well have included miscellaneous other sources of income as well. The third heading was sales of produce and other sales. The fourth, minor, heading concerned the Third Penny of the Pleas of Gloucestershire, which the earl had been accustomed to receive from the sheriff s farm of the county. Thus, as Harvey noted, the regime that the king's accountants took over was a mixed one, some manors being held at farm, some under direct management, with
Bristol too in custody."5 Whether this represented an established policy of the earl's, or was the result of some event that had led to the end of a set of farms,
we cannot tell. If, however, a trend towards direct management could already be discerned at this time, as Harvey suggested, it was not one that yet influenced those who decided on the management of the Honour of Gloucester for the king. The following year's accounts, 1 184-85, referred to a visit of royal justices that would result in all, or virtually all, the manors being put at farm by the
exchequer year 1185-86, though Bristol would still be kept in custody.16 In the accounts for the year 1184-85, we also get a better idea of the portions of the different elements of the honour's income. The fixed renders of the manors in custody, together with the proceeds of their produce sales and their perquisites, outweighed the income from the farms of the manors leased out and their perquisites, which were recorded separately from the perquisites
13For the history of the descent of the honor of Gloucester see Earldom of Gloucester Charters: The Charters and Scribes of the Earls an d Countesses of Gloucester to A.D. 1217, ed. R. B.
Patterson (Oxford, 1973), pp. 5-9.
14P.R. 30 Henry II, pp. 108-12. The account for the year 1183-84 is broken into two half-y accounts, with a change of accountants from Robert de Witefeld and Helias de Clivelay to Hugh
Bardulf.
'5Harvey, "The Pipe Rolls and the Adoption of Demesne Farming in England," p. 356. 16Ibid, p.353; P.R. 31 Henry II, pp. 154-55; P.R.. 32 Henry II, pp. 200-01.
of the manors in custody. It is noteworthy that manors at farm might or might not still have perquisites in addition to the farm.'7
The putting at farm of all the manors, except in the special case of Bristol, following the justices' visit in 1184-85, does not at first sight seem to have been very ambitious as to revenue. The returns from the farms and from the issues of Bristol totalled somewhat less in terms of gross revenue than the hybrid system that had preceded it-?685 as opposed to ?784 (excluding the Third
Penny) in 1183-84 and ?723 in 1184-85." When Bristol was subsequently
at farm by 1187-88, the combined farms of Bristol and the rest of the honour totalled more than ?707. This looks adequate for the late 1180s in view of the evidence that the king's administrators and justices had received on the potential profits of direct management.'9 Under the new system they could expect goings to be reduced. It is difficult to compare outgoings connected with the management of the estate before and after the reorganisation, partly because some outgoings, such as the buying of stock before the manors were put at farm, were largely occasioned by the reorganisation itself. However, although not all outgoings connected with the ordinary running of the estate ceased, there are clear indications of a reduction that amounted to ?30 or more.20 Another mitigating factor in the justices' apparently modest demands was that grain prices, in 1184-85 at least, seem to have been high by the standards of the twelfth century. If such prices could not be expected to continue-and in terms of the twelfth century such a judgement would have been justified-to set a farm that assumed the continuance of what might be regarded as exceptional
21
profits would have been unwise.
17What was or was not included in leases seems to have been capable of considerable variation.
Certainly the manor court could be excluded, but also other sources of income: Bridbury, duction," p. 22; Reginald Lennard, Rural England 1086-1135: A Study of Social and Agrarian Conditions (Oxford, 1959), pp. 199-202.
18The figures are made up as: 1183-84: fixed renders of manors at farm + issues of Bristol + fixed renders in cash of manors in custody ?567 19s. lOd.; Perquisites ?71 15s. lOd.; Produce sales etc ?144 1 Is. 5d.; Third Penny ?20 Os. Od. = total of ?804 7s. Id.. 1184-85: farms of the manors at farm in Earl William's time ?251 12s. Od.; Perquisites of those manors ?13 Is. 5d.; Fixed renders of manors in custody before the justices' arrival ?166 Os. 8d.; Perquisites of those manors ?59 5s. 5d.; Produce sales ?114 14s. 3d., Issues of Bristol ?119 7s. 5d. = total of ?723 14s. 2d. 1185-86: farm of the honor ?550 7s. 2d. + Issues of Bristol ?134 4s. 9d. = total of ?684 1 is. lId.. 19P.R. 34 Henry II, p. 14.
20Expenses in 1183-84 such as the purchase of seed (?11 13s. 3d.), the repairs to houses, manorial servants' wages and harvesting cost (?11 5s. 8d.) and the victuals of servants living on the manors (?10 15s. Od.), and in 1184-85 such as purchase of seed (?7 4s. 9d.), money for servants on the manors and costs of carrying agriculture (?16 9s. 2d.) and payments to those supervising agriculture (?10 Os. Od.), would seem to be largely avoidable under a leasing regime.
The accounts are uninformative about the identity of the lessees of the manors put at farm or about the conditions of their leases, except that there is evidence that the initial stock was purchased or provided by the managers of the estate as a whole.22 In other words, they seem to have been stock and land leases as made familiar to us by Reginald Lennard.23 It is also clear, as noted above, that some manors could have perquisites excluded from their leases and that the
24
lessor did not avoid all expenses. The length of the lease, or rather the period over which the payment on the leased manor remained the same, can only be deduced from the outcome. The extent to which direct management of manors in 1199 had replaced the farms of 1189 and 1194 would suggest that the lessees had only a limited security of tenure on their leases in practice.
The first indication we have of the individual farms of demesne manors comes in the account, from Easter to Michaelmas 1194, of parts of the honour that had been taken into royal hands as a result of John's rebellion against Richard.25 This is an isolated account; the honour, apart from Bristol, was quickly restored to John. However, from Easter 1199, as a consequence of John's accession to the throne, large parts of the honor accounted at the exchequer for the next nine
years.2' These later accounts are not very useful in respect of the income of the
honour as a whole. Some manors passed in and out of royal hands, and at least one major demesne manor was never included in the accounts of John's reign.27 The interest of these accounts lies elsewhere. The manor-by-manor style of accounts offers a unique view of the progress, often over a succession of years, of individual manors. The high proportion of "custody" accounts makes them particularly informative and reflects the wider experimentation of King John's government with accounting by custodians instead of farmers. This extended to the sheriffs' accounts from 1204 onwards, a general move which was probably not unconnected with the unprecedented surge in prices of the first few years
22See the stock purchases made in the presence of the justices who were to put the manors out to farm (P.R. 31 Henry II, p. 155).
23Lennard, Rural England, pp. 189-92.
24For example, it seems that the forests and parks of the honor were excluded from the leases and that payment of foresters and park-keepers was the lessor's responsibility (P.R. 32 Henry II, p. 200).
25P.R. 6 Richard I, pp. 240-41.
26P.R. 1 John, pp. 27-28, 35-37; P.R. 2 John, pp. 126-28; P.R. 3 John, pp. 53-57; P.R. 4 Joh pp. 180-81, 279-83; P.R. 5 John, pp. 40-41, 64; P.R. 6 John, pp. 159, 230-31; P.R. 7 John, pp.
92, 101-05; P.R. 8 John, pp. 16-19; P.R. 9 John, pp. 216-21; P.R. 10 John, pp. 20-21, 114-15.
27Great Marlow (Bucks.), valued at over ?90 in 1263, was in the hands of Amaury count of Evreux probably even before his recognition as earl of Gloucester, and even when his lands were confiscated, was treated separately and not on the Pipe Rolls (Close Rolls 1261-64, p. 286; Earldom of Gloucester Charters, p. 7).
of the thirteenth century.28
Coupled with the information from 1194 and from the inquisition of 1263, the accounts from 1199 to 1208 form the basis for the tables in the appendix to this article. The appendix does not attempt to include every piece of land included in any of the honour's accounts, but to deal with those manors that illustrate the workings, progress, and limitations of the operation of estate agement on the honour.
The accounts are by no means full accounts of the individual manors. though expenses are accounted for-such as seed or stock purchases, or the payment of servants on the manors-these are only occasionally made specific to a particular manor. Sources of income, on the other hand, do tend to be attributed to individual manors. One very important omission, almost inevitable in what were financial accounts, is any account of produce consumed directly by the lord, in this case temporarily the king or his agents.
Of the sources of income reflected in the accounts, the direct management of demesne lands with a view to selling corn seemed, on the face of it, to offer the best opportunity of increased income in the period of abruptly higher prices that arrived with the new century. Although other crops-hay, rye and were sold, they were generally a minor source of income, only hay sometimes achieving a modest significance as at Fairford and Tewkesbury. The sales of other products-fruit, meat, cheese, wool, hides, skins, salt, or wood-were generally of little importance. There is no sign of livestock being raised and sold as a commercial product.
One can certainly find evidence in the accounts that the estate managers sponded to this opportunity and challenge of growing corn for sale. Fairford demonstrates just what a dose of successful direct demesne management in propitious years could achieve for an estate. From a manor selling a modest amount of hay in 1198-99 to one on which forty per cent or more of its siderable income was coming from corn sales in 1200-01 and 1201-02, this transformation clearly demonstrated the manor's potential income when corn prices were high. On the Tewkesbury "forensic" lands the proceeds of corn sales were again what made a substantial difference in income over time. In the first two years, substantial quantities of hay were sold, but hay was a value product. From 1201 to 1208, every year, corn sales boosted the income considerably, except in one half-year account that probably excluded the harvest. In 1201-02 corn sales accounted for over two-thirds of the income from the manor.
On other manors though, the picture as regards the exploitation of demesne agriculture is mixed. At Cranbourne there are signs of a fairly consistent increase in the income from corn sales, but these never dominated the income of the
28B. E. Harris, "King John and the Sheriffs' Farms," English Historical Review 79 (1964): 532-42. See also, N. Barratt, "The Revenue of King John," English Historical Review 111 (1996): 848-49.
manor. At Bushley, although product sales, the most lucrative being corn, were large in relation to income, there is no evident upward trend in the value of those sales. At Burford the contributions from product sales, first of hay and then of corn, were small. One account for Mapledurham, in 1199-1200, seems to offer the possibility of a proportionately large increase in income from corn sales on the manor, but it was a possibility that had apparently been forgone by the time the manor returned to royal hands in 1204-05. At Thornbury product sales were small until a good sale of corn in the last account, and even then were modest in relation to total income. At Hanley product sales were generally insignificant. It is not exactly clear what the very large sale of "assart corn" in the second half of the year 1199-1200 represents. This greatly increased income, though unrepeated, suggests that the arable potential of the manor considerably exceeded the status quo. Perhaps preservation of the attached forest of Malvern had priority, though the income had increased considerably by 1263. On the other manors, product sales were insignificant or absent altogether.
While the costs of direct management are often not allocated in the accounts to specific manors, they cannot be ignored. The few examples in the accounts specific to individual manors seem to show that direct management was not invariably a route to increased profit. The proceeds of the sale of corn from Cranbourne in 1202-03, part of the growing receipts from corn sales on the manor, were just exceeded by the cost of seed bought in the previous year, hardly an advertisement for direct management.29 On the other hand, a purchase of seed costing ?1 10s. 9d at Cranbourne in 1202-03 was followed by corn
sales of ?5 6s. Id. in 1203-04.3o While it might be possible to see the purchas
of livestock as an investment aimed at increasing returns, it was also a significant cost and it is possible that some at least of the purchases represent necessary
replacements and therefore part of the running costs of the manors.3' Houses, granges, ploughs, and servants also needed money spent on them from time to
time.32 As we saw from the accounts concerning the whole honor in the 1180s, receipts from direct management were not pure profit.
The stereotypical choice for estate managers in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries has been that between leasing and the direct management of demesnes for the profit to be obtained from product sales. Yet on many of the honor of Gloucester's manors, fixed rents that seem to have been difficult 29P.R. 4 John, p. 281.
30P.R. 5 John, p. 41. The possibility of using seed from the previous year's crop instead of or in
addition to purchased seed complicates the picture.
31See, the stock costing over ?87 bought in 1198-99, over ?17 in 1202-03, over ?8 in 1204-05, and over ?14 in 1206-07 as well as other smaller purchases (P.R. 1 John, p. 36; P.R. 5 John, p.
41; P.R. 7 John, p. 103; P.R. 9 John, p. 219).
32P.R. 1 John, p. 36; P.R. 2 John, p. 128; P.R. 3 John, p. 55; P.R. 4 John, p. 281; P.R. 5 John, p. 41; P.R. 6 John, p. 230; P.R. 7 John, p. 103; P.R. 8 John, p. 18; P.R. 9 John, p. 219.
to alter formed a significant part of manorial receipts. The variations that do
occasionally occur in their totals seem more likely to arise from the problems
of annualizing part-year accounts than from genuine significant changes in either
the amount of land let at fixed rent or in the rents themselves. At Barton, Brasted, Mapledurham, and Thornbury, at Burford before the borough made an
independent impact, and at Hanley, discounting the attached income from the forest of Malvern, fixed rents formed the largest source of regular income. The
manor of Brislington seems to have consisted of little else. The greater the
proportion of these rents to the total receipts of the manor, the more direct management approximated to leasing the manor, except that the lease was in effect distributed among those who paid the rents. Also, it seems to have been more difficult to change these rental arrangements than it was to end a farm of
the manor. Where any substantial part of the manor consisted of these rents,
the opportunities for making a significant positive impact on the manor's income
by means of direct management were correspondingly limited.
In addition to the high proportion of lands held at fixed rent, the significance and growth of income from urban or commercial elements of the honor forces the conclusion that the honor of Gloucester was far from a stereotypical manorial estate. R. H. Britnell has made us familiar with the fact that the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries saw an explosion of markets, fairs, oughs, and commercial activity in general.33 Choices and opportunities open to the managers of large estates were not limited to decisions concerning the
agement of arable demesne land.
Bristol was the most valuable single resource of the honor. Though kept in custody even after the justices' visit during 1184-85, it too had been farmed, by 1187/8, for ?145. In 1184-85, it had yielded issues of ?119, including profits from its mills and fairs. In 1185-86 it had yielded ?134 and in 1186-87 ?142.34 The farm remained the same when the honor of Gloucester was taken into the king's hands in 1194, as a result of John's revolt against Richard I. Though the rest of the honor was soon returned to John, Bristol was kept in royal hands
and in fact was never reunited with the rest of the honor. A temporary problem
from 1195 to 1198 with the regular tithes and alms paid to the Templars and Tewkesbury Abbey seems to have led to some confusion, those tithes and alms being for a while excluded from the farm. However, by the beginning of the exchequer year 1198-99 everything seems to have been resolved and the farm was re-established at ?145. It continued at that level in the rest of the Pipe
Rolls of John's reign.
33R. H. Britnell, The Commercialisation of English Society 1000-1500, pp. 79-85.
34P.R. 31 Henry II, p. 154; P.R. 32 Henry II, p. 201; P.R. 33 Henry II, p. 15; P.R. 34 Henry II,
Clearly, the farm arrived at in 1187-88 was a reasonable bargain at the time for the crown. However, it would perhaps not be unreasonable to expect that an expanding port like Bristol in this period had not only become more able, but would also go on doing so; fixing a farm might therefore appear to have been unwise. As we shall see though, there were other ways, apart from direct management, to increase the profits of the king from Bristol.
While by far the largest and most important urban element of the honour, Bristol was far from being the only one. Of the manors considered here, Burford, Fairford, Petersfield, Tewkesbury and Warham had boroughs, or at least had burgesses, before the end of the twelfth century. In respect of Tewkesbury and Warham this situation stretched back at least to the time of Domesday Book. Burford, before 1107, had a merchant guild and the same privileges possessed by the burgesses of Oxford; Petersfield had burgesses probably before 1189. In respect of Fairford, the Pipe Roll account of 1198-99 seems to be the earliest evidence of a borough. Cranbourne's Pipe Roll account shows an explicitly new borough in 1205-06. By 1227 Brasted and by 1262 Thornbury would have boroughs.35 Not all of the boroughs apparently in existence by 1198 are noted on the Pipe Roll accounts. No borough is mentioned at Petersfield or at Warham, though the latter is shown to have a fair. At Burford, the borough is shown, farmed separately, only from 1204-05.
It is difficult, where the boroughs were not accounted for separately, to gauge the value of this urban, commercial element precisely. At Petersfield, the high proportion of customs, tolls, and perquisites compared to the level of fixed rents, the manor's only other sort of income, suggests that the manor's commercial activity was of some relative importance. Likewise, at Warham, the fluctuating
36
value of the manor seems to have depended on its commercial activities. At Fairford, on the other hand, where borough receipts were combined with fixed rents, even the apparently increasing total was modest in relation to other come. At Burford, the separate farm of the borough had a more significant impact on the value of the manor to the honour than anything else and formed about half the manor's income in 1204-05. At Tewkesbury however, regular receipts from the borough were small, though not insignificant, compared to what was being generated by the agricultural part of the manor. At Cranbourne,
35M. W. Beresford and H. P. R. Finberg, English Medieval Boroughs: a Hand-list (Newton Abbot, 1973), pp. 104, 113, 116, 119, 128, 147; Earldom of Gloucester Charters, nos. 42-43, 160-61. Rodney Hilton discusses the role of small towns and boroughs in relation to the economy and society as a whole, with special reference to Thornbury (Class Conflict and the Crisis of Feudalism [London, 1985], pp. 102-04).
36There was a decline in the income from tolls and customs at Warham from 1203-04 o perhaps an effect of the loss of Normandy.
the "new borough" started contributing only a small rent from 1205-06, and one must admit that this "urban" development was modest indeed in these years.
Overall, the income from boroughs and commerce deserves to be treated as an important part of the mix of incomes that could be exploited by the lord of a large honor such as the honor of Gloucester. The foundation of new boroughs shows that the lords and their managers were conscious of the opportunity to increase their income by encouraging and exploiting such possibilities.
While many sources of manorial receipts produced variable, even erratic amounts, on some manors in particular years significant though perhaps peatable income was received from irregular sources, or from sources exploited in an irregular manner. The manor of Barton offers an example of this. Small sales of growing trees (boscum) are common in many of the manor accounts. They can normally be regarded as a small part of regular income, but the sale of boscum in 1199-1200 at Barton is so large and exceptional that it would seem better to regard it as a sale of assets, which could not apparently be repeated. The sale of "assart corn" at Hanley is another example of a significant, but exceptional receipt.
The sale of assets that were part of the main productive capital of a manor, or the failure to make necessary expenditures, were obviously not viable ways of maintaining or increasing the income of a manor. Generally, the king's agers of the honor of Gloucester do not seem guilty of this kind of predatory short-term exploitation, but the accounts for the manor of Brasted do seem to offer one example. Let at an annual farm of ?37 from Easter 1199 and in the first half of 1199-1200, it was handed to Amaury count of Evreux around Easter 1200. The account for the first half of the year 1199-1200 shows sales of stock and money claimed back from the farmer for seed unbought. It would seem that Amaury received an unplanted demesne. When the manor accounted again, briefly, for a quarter of a year in 1204 during the confiscation of Amaury's lands, the manor was under direct management, but apparently to little effect, with income from all sources scarcely more than half the old farm.37
The accounts shine an interesting light on the relationship between the choice of direct management of demesnes and the choice of putting them at farm. The royal justices adopted a general policy of farming manors on the honour of Gloucester after 1185, a policy that seems to have been continued by Count John in the early 1190s, judging by the limited evidence we have for 1193-94. By 1200, however, although direct management was again much in evidence, there is little sign in the following years that this shift towards direct
ment was seen as a necessarily permanent shift in policy, or indeed that direct
management and leasing were seen as opposed, doctrinaire choices. Instead, the 37Complaints about such behavior on estates in wardship are reflected in clauses four and five of Magna Carta in 1215 (J. C. Holt, Magna Carta, [2nd ed.; Cambridge, 1992], pp. 450-53).
accounts show that, in a period of rapid changes, particularly in prices, an sode of direct management could be useful within a system that did not reject leasing. It could allow an appropriate farm to be assessed and a new farm to be set at a higher level, sometimes even if the period of direct management had shown no particular increase in income.
At Barton this seems to have been the case. The new farm of ?32 in 1205 compared with a farm of ?24 in 1193-94, in spite of a generally undistinguished period of direct management. At Burford, its second period of direct ment allowed the farming of the borough at an apparently considerable profit. At Bushley, the farm contract agreed in 1205 appears to have been fixed with regard to the better of the years of direct management and at Fairford, the farm contract agreed in 1205 at ?50 per annum exceeded all but the best of the
successful previous years of direct management. Hanley's farm for 1200-01 appears to have been modestly above its normal income under the direct agement of the previous one-and-half years. At Petersfield the farm in 1199-1200 compared well with the periods of direct management either side. The farm for Tewkesbury borough agreed in 1200 appears to have been fixed with close regard to the preceding period of direct management. The behavior of the king's managers of the honor of Gloucester offers some support to recent views of the change in management methods in this period-a less pronounced,
38
more conservative, more pragmatic, case-by-case change.
The rights that accompanied lordship offered more to the lord than just the sources of income dealt with above. What might be called seigneurial revenues could be quite various. They included not only the pleas and perquisites that might arise from the manorial court, but also the profits of mills, the tation of unneeded peasant labor services, small rents from parcels of demesne or meadow let out, pannage, herbage, stallage, various specified or unspecified customs, woodpenny, churchscot, St. Peter's Pence, tithing payments, toll,
teloneum, the profits of fairs, and census from forest land. Above all, and worthy of separate treatment, is tallage.
With the exception of tallage, these seigneurial incomes are revealed most clearly when manors were under direct management. Although manors at farm could yield additional perquisites, there is little sign of this in the accounts for the honour of Gloucester in the early thirteenth century, and presumably the possibility of such income was included in the assessment of the lease. However, we should bear in mind the possibility of extra income unaccounted for on the rolls.
Sometimes individual types of seigneurial revenue, and more often the total of various kinds, could be of considerable significance in relation to a manor's
38Dyer, "Lords, Peasants, and the Development of the Manor," pp. 312-13; Bridbury, "Introduction," pp. 21-23.
income. Seigneurial receipts have already been noted at Warham and Petersfield
in connection with commercial activity. At Bushley, although corn sales came
to overtake seigneurial revenues, in some years the latter were the largest tributor and were always proportionately important. At Cranbourne and Fairford,
they were often at least a significant part of the total receipts, and at Barton,
Tewkesbury, and Thornbury they were far from negligible.
Although the accounts deal with the honor of Gloucester while it was in the king's hands, the right to tallage demesnes and boroughs, whether farmed or
directly managed, was not something exclusive to the king.39 At Brasted, the auxilium assisum of five marks in 1198-99 might seem a modest addition, but
some of the amounts levied in tallage on Gloucester manors were substantial. At Brislington in 1201-02, tallage amounted to about a quarter of other income for that year. At Bushley in 1203-04, it amounted to a little less than half of other income, while in 1206/7 it was three-eighths of the farm of the manor.
In 1198-89 the tallage of eleven marks on Mapledurham was over half the annual income.40
Tallages on the boroughs of the honor were perhaps generally even more significant. The tallage of four marks on Petersfield in 1198-99 represented
over a quarter of the manor's income. In 1202-03, the tallage on Tewkesbury borough was a full three quarters of the amount of the farm of the borough, and in 1205-06 another tallage represented a third of the farm. At Warham in 1201-02 the tallage was a massive eighty per cent of the reasonably high income
of that year for the manor.4'
The tallages on Bristol, however, were by far the largest. In 1194-95, a mark (?133 6s. 8d.) tallage was imposed, with an extra ten marks on the fair of Bristol. In 1197-98, a massive 500-mark (?333 6s. 8d.) tallage was imposed
42
on the town. In John's reign the pressure was kept up and even increased. In
a tallage account for 1202-03, ?64 of a ?76 6s. 8d. debt for tallage was paid. In 1204-05, Bristol found itself paying most of two tallage debts, one of ?146 Os. 8d., and another of ?469 6s. 8d.. What appears to have been a fresh tallage of ?100 was imposed in 1205-06, of which ?43 6s. 8d. was paid immediately.43
It is clear, even from what is admittedly a partial survey of tallages on Bristol,
that the town was not only able to pay much more than its farm of ?145, but 39For an early example of a non-royal tallage, note the financial exactions made by the earl of Arundel on his non-military tenants in the 1170 Inquest of Sheriffs (The Red Book of the Exchequer, ed. H. Hall, 3 vols. [London, 1896], 2: Appendix A, pp. cclxvii-cclxix).
40P.R. I John, p. 35; P.R. 4 John, p. 280; P.R. 6 John, p. 230; P.R. 9 John, p. 219. 41P.R I John, p. 35; P.R. 4 John, p. 280; P.R. 5 John, p. 41; P.R. 8 John, p. 18. 42P.R. 7 Richard I, p. 182; P.R .10 Richard I, p. 7.
was being made to pay much more. It goes a long way to explain the trend towards largely fixed and perhaps modest farms on boroughs, when they could be complemented with large tallages. It is a familiar feature of the royal ploitation of urban wealth in this period, and it would certainly be interesting to find out if it was paralleled in other boroughs that remained in seigneurial hands.44
Tallage was only an occasional, if not an infrequent charge. However, as the amount of cash in the economy increased, the opportunity, through tallage with its apparently arbitrary amounts, to extract that cash from peasants and larly from the presumably more monetized urban properties was enhanced.45 Tallage and the exploitation of seigneurial rights in general have sometimes been seen as a way in which lords could maintain and increase their incomes without engaging in investment on their properties, thereby helping to explain the persistent backwardness and vulnerability of the medieval economy.46 Yet, if the exploitation of seigneurial rights retained a certain flexibility, and even though tallage was an arbitrary impost, both could become limited by custom. Tallage was also, as a cash impost, limited by the amount of coin in the hands of the payers. Only in particular economic circumstances, and only to a limited extent, could the payers be forced into the market to acquire the coin to pay it. On the honor of Gloucester at least, only the urban tallages seem to have done more than mitigate the difficulties of increasing income to match prices.
A final source of income from the honor remains to be considered. It is a point worth stressing that large honors like that of Gloucester, with lordship over many knights' fees, had other sources of income apart from demesne lands and the rights attached to them. While Hugh Thomas may be correct in arguing that excessive subinfeudation could lead to the later financial weakness of an honor, numerous enfeoffed tenants, reliefs, wardships, escheats, and judicial profits could provide an irregular, but rarely absent source of income.47 While this was generally overshadowed by demesne income, it was important enough 44Harvey, "The English Inflation of 1180-1220," p. 13.
450n the monetisation of the economy, see P. Latimer, "The Quantity of Money in England 1180-1247: a Model" (forthcoming in Journal of European Economic History). Bridbury has ready commented on the possibility of landlords substituting tallage as a means of increasing revenue in place of more active management of demesnes ("Introduction," p. 28).
46These issues were highlighted by Robert Brenner, "Agrarian Class Structure and Economic velopment in Pre-industrial Europe," in The Brenner Debate: Agrarian Class Structure and
nomic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe, ed. T. H. Aston and C. H. E. Philpin (Cambridge, 1985), pp. 22, 32-34. For a contrary view, replying to Brenner and stressing the limitations to the exploitation of seigneurial rights, see M. M. Postan and John Hatcher, "Population and Class relations in Feudal Society," in ibid., pp. 73-75.
47Hugh M. Thomas, "Subinfeudation and Alienation of land, Economic Development, and the Wealth of Nobles on the Honor of Richmond, 1066 to c. 1300," Albion 26 (1994): 415-16.
not to be ignored.48 We can see this in the Pipe Roll accounts. Between 1183-84 and 1187-88, such income averaged over ?58 a year and in one fortunate year totaled over ?120.49 Keeping a close eye on the exploitation of such rights might
sometimes be more important than whether a demesne manor could be made to yield an extra few pounds.
On the whole, the advances in income on the honor of Gloucester's manors
from the beginning of the thirteenth century to 1263 look quite impressive in
nominal terms. However, the manors of the honor of Gloucester had not on
average done much better than catch up with inflation, if that-something they certainly had not yet done by 1208. Even including the evident possibilities of
tallage to generate extra income, A. R. Bridbury's pessimism about the successes
of the estate management of the high farming era looks quite justified for this honor.50 In terms of the relationship between the lords and the peasants, the lords were doing no more than holding their own. It does however appear that, one way or another, the problem of the inertia that fixed rents were causing in
the early thirteenth century had been overcome by 1263, at least in some cases.
On the question of the direct management of demesnes as opposed to leasing them, one sees the royal managers in the 1180s coming to a reasonable decision
in favor of farms at levels that can certainly be justified in contemporary terms.
The reorganization carried out by the justices has the appearance of an intended long-term, overall solution. In the 1200s, however, at a time of fast changing prices, there was not so much a decision in favor of direct management across the board as a series of decisions based on the individual manors-sometimes quite short-term decisions. Where there was a decision to set a farm, it was often based on the experience of direct management, enabling the managers to set what seemed a proper level. What held revenue back does not seem to have been the system of management, whether farming or direct management, so
much as the stickiness of fixed rents.
One can see that, where possible, an attempt seems to have been made to profit from high grain prices by increasing grain production for sale. It might
seem obvious that this should be the case, but it is nice to have that presumption
confirmed to some extent. This seems to hold true in 1183-84 and 1184-85, when we also have evidence of high returns from grain sales, from the manors in custody-roughly ?145 and ?115 respectively-at a time when grain prices
were, for the period, relatively high.
A final conclusion. It seems to me that the individual characteristics of the manors are interesting in themselves. Clearly what was possible on one manor was not always possible on another. There was considerable variety both in the 48Painter was well aware of this (Studies, p. 170).
49P.R. 30 Henry lI, pp. 110-11; P.R. 31 Henry II, p. 155; P.R. 32 Henry II, p. 201; P.R. 33 Henry II, pp. 15-16; P.R. 34 Henry II, p. 15.
sources of income and their relative weights. The profits to be gained from boroughs were not to be gained everywhere; the profits of seigneurial tion of one kind or another varied significantly in their importance. While grain was certainly produced for sale in some places, this was only one element in the complex business of the honour's estate management.
Paul Latimer is Assistant Professor of History at Bilkent University, Ankara, Turkey
Appendix
Selected Manors of the Honor of Gloucester 1198/99-1207/08
The following tables show either farms (leases) or receipts, where manors were under direct management. It is not possible to match offsetting tures mentioned in the accounts to these receipts, because expenditures are only rarely given with regard to an individual manor. Expenditures in general made by custodians are however discussed in the article.
Barton (Barton extra Bristol; Barton Hill, Glos.) In 1193/1194 at farm for a half-year at ?12 (i.e. ?24 p.a.).
Date Fixed Rent Product Sales Pleas & Pannage etc. Wood- Total
Perquisites + penny, etc. toll, custom
_____________ ~~ ~~etc.
1198/99 ?9 12s 9d ?3 8s lId ?0 8s Od ?13 14s Od (1/2 yr) (persquisites woodp. ?0 4s (1/2 yr)
only) 4d St Peter's
pence
1199/00 ?18 14s Ild ?17 Is ld ?l 3s Od ?O 7s Od ?0 lOs Od ?42 4s 6d
wood sold custom of pannage, tithinngs,
(boscum) carts / ?0 2s ?0 Is 2d ?0 4s 6d
Od teloneum herbage churchscot
?O 2s Od ?O 8s Od
custome of woodp.
quarry ?3 6s ?0 4s 6d St 4d pleas & Peter's pence
perquisites
1200/01 ?5 12s 7d ?5 12s 7d (1/4 yr) (1/4 yr) 1204/5 ?13 17s 9d ?0 Is lid ?0 Is 6d toll ?0 6s Od ?0 4s 4d St ?15 16s lOd
(3/4 yr) hides ?1 5s 4d pannage Peter's Pence (3/4 yr) pleas & perquisites Date Farm 1204/5 ?8 Os Od (1/4 ?8 Os Od (1/4 yr) yr) 1205/6 ?32 Os Od ?32 Os Od 1206/7 ?32 Os Od ?32 Os Od 1207/8 ?32 Os Od ?32 Os Gd
From 1207/1208 to 1213/1214 at farm for ?32. In 1263 valued at ?40 19s 5d per annum.
Brasted (Kent)
Date Farm Sales Money for Total seed 1198/9 ?18 lOs Od ?3 18s Od ?22 8s Od
(1/2 yr) wood (1/2 yr) (boscum)
1199/0 ?18 lOs Od ?9 2s 6d ?11 lOs 3d ?39 2s 9d (1/2 yr) stock (1/2 yr) Date Fixed Rent Toll Pannage Sales Perquisites Total 1204/5 ?3 8s 2d (1/4 ?0 8s Od ?0 lOs 4d ?0 12s Od ?1 Os Od ?5 18s 6d
yr) teloneum dead wood (1/4 yr)
Brislington (Som.)
In 1193/1194 at farm for a half-year at ?7 i5s (ie ?15 lOs p.a.). Date Fixed Rent Herbage Pleas & Perquisites Total
1198/9 ?3 12s 7d (1/4 yr) ?3 12s 7d (1/4 yr) 1199/00 ?14 12s 2d ?0 8s 6d ?15 Os 8d 1200/1 ?14 14s 1ld ?0 lOs Od ?0 4s Od ?15 8s lOd 1201/2 ?14 14s lOd ?2 2s 3d ?16 17s Id 1202/3 ?14 14s 1ld ?0 8s Sd ?15 3s 3d (perquisites) 1203/4 ?14 14s lOd ?0 9s 3d ?15 4s Id (perquisites) 1204/5 ?14 14s lOd ?0 1 1s 2d ?15 6s Od (perquisites) 1205/6 ?14 14s lOd ?0 14s 6d ?15 9s 4d (perquisites) 1206/7 ?3 8s 8d (1/4 yr) I ?3 8s 8d (1/4 yr) In the 1260s John La Warre's manor of Brislington, held of the earl of Gloucester, valued at ?29 per annum.
Burford (Oxon.)
In 193/l1194 at farm for a Lfat 17 4s 7d (ie ? d na Date Fixed Rent Pannage etc Product Sales Pleas & Total
Perquisites 1198/9 ?8 5s lOd (1/4 ?1 5s Od hay ?0 14s 8d (per- ?10 5s 6d (1/4
yr) quisites only) yr) Date Farm Total
1199/0 ?16 Os 3d (1/2 ?16 Os 3d (1/2 yr) yr) Date Fixed Rent Pannage etc Product Sales Pleas & Total
Perquisites
1204/5 ?14 lOs 7d de ?0 Is 2d ?2 13s Od ?2 Is Od ?39 1Os 3d forensica terra pannage ?0 ls com? 0 3s 6d (perquisites only)
?20 Os Od de Od herbage hides
firma burgi
In 1263, Burford and its borough valued at ?63 1 Is Id per annum. Ru I hlIy (Wor
Date Fixed Rent Works Pannage Product Sales Pleas & Total
Perquisites
1198/9 ?0 4s 2d (1/2 ?1 8s 3d ?1 12s 5d
yr) (perquisites (1/2 yr)
only)
1199/00 ?O 8s ld ?2 ls lld ?O 3s ld ?2 14s 6d ?5 7s 7d
1200/1 ?0 8s lId ?1 Is lid ?0 3s 8d ?0 Is Od fruit ?1 3s lOd ?6 3s 4d
?3 4s Od com 1201/2 ?0 8s 6d ?0 19s 3d ?0 4s 9d ?0 3s 4d fruit ?1 2s 7d ?7 7s 8d ?4 9s 3d corn 1202/3 ?0 8s 6d ?1 ls 2d ?0 3s 4d ?O Is lOd ?O 8s Od ?8 5s 4d fruit (perquisites) ?6 2s 6d corn 1203/4 ?0 8s 6d ?1 6s 5d ?0 3s 9d ?0 3s Od fruit ?0 lOs 8d ?8 12s 3d ?5 17s lid perquisites corn ?0 2s Od hide 1204/5 ?0 6s 4d (3/4 ?0 9s Od ?0 4s 3d ?0 ls 2d ?0 14s 2d ?5 7s lOd yr) hides perquisites (3/4 yr)
?3 12s lId corn Date Farm 1204/5 ?2 Os Od (1/4 ?2 Os Od (1/4 yr) yr) 1205/6 ?8 Os Od ?8 Os Od 1206/7 ?8 Os Od ?8 Os Od 1207/8 ?4 Os Od (1/2 ?4 Os Od (1/2 yr) yr)
Cranbourne (Dorset)
Date Fixed Rent Product Sales Pleas & Pannage etc Total Perquisites
1198/9 ?5 2s 4d (1/2 ?0 13s 2d wool ?2 6s 6d ?8 2s 9d (1/2 yr) & cheese (perquisites only) yr)
?0 Os 9d wood
1199/00 ?10 3s 6d ?1 8s Sd small ?9 18s 2d ?21 10s Id sales
1200/1 ?10 3s 6d ?4 5s 7d corn ?1 Os Od ?16 17s lId
?1 8s lOd small pannage sales
1201/2 ?10 3s 6d ?4 5s 6d corn ?5 8s Od ?0 18s 6d ?21 19s 7d ?1 4s Id small pannage
sales & issues
1202/3 ?10 3s 6d ?3 7s Od corn ?6 5s 6d ?0 19s 2d ?22 lSs lOd
?0 19s 8d wool pannage & cheese ?0 5s 6d stallage ?O 5s 4d mare ?O 10s 2d & 2 horses sold herbage
1203/4 ?10 3s 6d ?5 6s Id corn ?5 12s 4d ?0 lSs Od ?24 lOs Id ?1 6s 2d wool pannage
& cheese ?0 6s 6d stallage
?O 9s 3d hides ?0Olls 3d herbage
1204/5 ?10 3s 6d ?8 Os Od corn ?1 19s 9d ?0 lOs 2d ?22 lOs 7d
?0 19s 2d pannage wool, cheese & ?0 8s Od stallage
hides ?0 lOs Od
herbage 1205/6 ?10 3s 6d + ?0 ?10 13s 8d ?4 6s 7d ?0 9s Od ?28 Is 3d
4s Od rent of corn ?1 Is Od pannage new borough wool, cheese & ?0 1Is 6d
hides stallage
?0 12s Od
herbage
1206/7 ?10 3s 6d + ?0 ?9 18s Od corn ?2 Os 2d ?0 7s 6d ?25 3s lld
6s Od rent of ?1 3s 3d skins pannage
new borough & cheese ?0 12s Od
stallage & toll b0 13s 6d
FaiO1rdL S.
Date Fixed Rent Product Sales Pleas & Toll and Works Total w. borough Perquisites Customs
1198/9 ?5 4s Od (1/2 ?3 lOs 2d hay ?8 6s 6d ?17 Os 8d
yr) (perquisites (1/2 yr)
only)
1199/00 ?10 8s 2d ?9 7s 8d corn ?3 iSs 4d ?1 13s lOd ?12 2s 6d ?37 7s 6d
1200/1 ?10 Ils 9d ?0 18s Sd rye ?6 3s 2d ?2 2s 7d ?10 9s 4d ?50 19s 4d ?20 14s Id corn 1201/2 ?7 17s lOd ?22 6s Id ?6 3s 6d ?1 13s 4d ?8 5s 2d ?47 2s 6d (3/4 yr) corn 16s 7d hides 1202/3 ?5 5s 3d (1/2 ?0 2s 2d ?3 2s lOd ?1 6s 8d ?5 6s Od ?15 2s lId yr) hides (perquisites (1/2 yr)
only)
1204/5 ?9 7s lid ?10 Is 3d ?2 7s Od ?5 Ils Id ?27 Os Od (1/2 yr) corn (perquisites (1/2 yr) ____________ ~~~~~~~only) Date Farm 1204/5 ?25 Os Od ?25 Os Od (1/2 yr) (1/2 yr) 1205/6 ?50 Os Od ?50 Os Od 1206/7 ?50 Os Od ?50 Os Od 1207/8 ?50 Os Od ?50 Os Od In 1263 valued at ?92 3s Od per annum.
Ha nley A
Date Fixed Rent Forest of Rented Product Sales Pleas & Total Malvern Demesne & Perquisites
___________ ~~~~Works
1198/9 ?7 7s Od (1/2 ?0 2s Id hay ?1 6s Od ?33 6s 9d yr) with mill ?24 1ls 8d (perquisites (1/2 yr)
assart corn only) (Malvern)
1199/0 ?12 12s Od ?3 Os Od ?0 7s 3d ?1 18s 8d ?22 13s Sd
without mill census rented ?0 18s 4d ?3 4s 4d demesne from mill pannage ?0 1 2s 1 Od after repair works
Date Farm Forest of Total
Malvern 1200/1 ?22 14s Id ?3 Os Od ?25 14s Id census 1201/2 ?22 14s Id ?3 Os Od ?25 14s Id census 102/3 e22 14s Id ?3 Os Od e25 14s Id census
Mapledurham (Hants.)
Date Fixed Rent Product Sales Mill Pannage & Pleas & Total
Works Perquisites
1198/9 ?8 17s IId ?0 6s lOd ?9 4s 9d (1/2
(1/2 yr) (perquisites yr) only) 1199/0 ?8 17s lId ?0 7s 2d ?2 2s lId ?0 2s 6d ?0 lOs lId ?17 Is 8d
(1/2 yr) meat ?5 Os pannage
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 3 d c o r nm_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1204/5 ?8 5s Od (1/2 ?0 15s Od ?1 Os Od ?10 Os Od yr) works (perquisites (1/2 yr)
I only) In 1263 valued at ?12 5s 2d per annum.
Petersfield (Hants.)
Date Fixed Rent Customs Toll & Perquisites Total
(consuetudines)
1198/9 ?2 6s Id (1/2 yr) ?3 6s 8d ?5 12s 9d (1/2 yr)
Date Farm Total 1199/0 ?12 Os Od (1/2 yr) ?12 Os Od (1/2 yr)
Date Fixed Rent Customs Toll & Perquisites Total
(consuetudines)
1204/5 ?3 17s 4d (1/2 yr) ?5 Os 10d ?2 Os Od ?10 18s 2d (1/2 yr) I__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ______(perquisites only)
Tewkesbury (Glos.)
In 1193/1194 at fann for half-year at ?20 5s 9d (ie ?40 lls 6d). Stock from the manor to the value ?7 17s 5d was sold.
Tewkesbury Borough
Date Fixed Rent Fair & Toll Pleas & Perquisites Total 1198/9 ?3 9s 5d (1/2 yr) ?1 Ils 9d ?1 Os 3d ?6 Is 5d (1/2 yr)
(perquisites only)
1199/00 ?6 19s ld ?1 13s 9d ?1 11s 9d ?10 4s 7d Date Farm Total 1200/1 ?12 Os Od ?12 Os Od 1201/2 ?9 Os Od (3/4 yr) ?9 Os Od (3/4 yr) 1202/3 ?6 Os Od (1/2 yr) ?6 Os Od (1/2 yr) 1204/5 ?1 1 Os Od ?1 1 Os Od 1205/6 ?12 Os Od ?12 Os Od 1206/7 ?12 Os Od ?12 Os Od 1207/8 ?6 Os Od (1/2 yr) ?6 Os Od (1/2 yr)
Tewkesbury 'Forensic' Lands
Date Fixed Rent Product Sales Pannage Works Pleas & Total Perquisites
1198/9 ?4 Is Sd (1/2 ?5 9s lId ?3 16s 3d ?13 7s 7d yr) hay & grass (perquisites (1/2 yr)
only)
1199/00 ?7 Os 2d ?5 6s 7d hay ?1 Os lOd ?1 4s 4d ?5 lls Od ?21 16s 3d
inc. rent of meadow + ?1 13s 4d salt and fruits
1200/1 ?6 18s 2d ?1 Os lId ?1 I14s Od ?0 lOs 3d ?8 16s lId ?39 lls Id
hay inc. rent of meadow
?O i3s 7d salt & hides ?19 17s 3d
coI
1201/2 ?5 3s 7d (3/4 ?1 lSs Od ?0 18s 8d ?0 7s 7d ?7 8s 6d ?59 6s Od yr) salt & hides (3/4 yr)
?43 12s 8d cor
1202/3 ?3 9s Id (1/2 ?0 5s 6d ?0 lSs 6d ?4 iSs 4d ?9 5s 5d (1/2
yr) hides yr) 1204/5 ?6 18s 2d ?22 3s Sd ?0 8s 4d ?0 12s 4d ?3 12s 6d ?34 16s 8d corn pannage ?0 8s 6d ?0 13s 5d hides herbage 1205/6 ?6 18s 2d ?10 3s Od ?0 3s 8d ?1 5s 6d ?3 18s 9d ?25 2s 4d corn pannage ?1 17s 7d ?0 15s 8d hides herbage 1206/7 ?6 18s 2d ?2 Ils Od ?1 2s 8d ?5 8s 4d ?28 6s 8d hides ?12 6s 6d corn 1207/8 ?3 9s Is (1/2 ?1 9s 8d ?0 8s 7d ?1 2s Od ?19 3s
yr) hides 4d(1/2 yr) ?12 14s Od
corn
In 1263, Tewkesbury, including the borough, valued at ?169 2s 9 1/2d per annum.
Thornbury (Glos.)
In 1193/1194 at farm for a half-year at ?1 lOs Od (ie ?3 p.a.).
Date Fixed Rent Product Sales Pleas & Pannage etc Works Total
Perquisites
1198/9 ?16 13s 3d ?0 17s 2d ?3 5s 2d ?20 15s 7d (1/2 yr) wood (perquisites (1/2 yr)
(boscum) only)
1199/00 ?24 6s 6d ?1 2s 6d salt ?5 19s ld ?1 17s 6d ?1 Is ld ?34 13s ld
(3/4 yr) pannage (3/4 yr)
?0 6s Sd St Peter's Pence
1204/5 ?38 6s 7d ?0 5s 6d ?4 13s 2d ?0 16s Od ?1 16s 4d ?46 7s Od with mill hides pannage
?0 6s 5d St
Peter's Pence ?0 19s Od
teloneum
1205/6 ?17 13s 3d ?5 13s Od ?1 16s lOd ?0 15s Od ?0 lOs 6d ?27 Os ld (1/2 yr) corn pannage (1/2 yr)
?0 Ils 6d teloneum
In 1263, Thornbury, now described as with borough, valued at ?131 9s 4d per annum.
Warham (Dorset)
Date Fixed Rent Product Sale Pleas & Toll & Fair Total Perquisites Customs 1198/9 ?0 16s 9d ?0 6s 8d hay ?0 17s Od ?5 13s 7d ?1 lOs 4d ?9 4s 4d (1/2 (1/2 yr (perquisites yr) only) 1199/00 ?7 5s 1d + ?5 Os lOd ?16 16s Od ?2 Os 6d ?31 9s Id ?0 6s 8d rent of meadow 1200/1 ?7 6s 6d ?1 6s 8d hay ?1 18s Od ?18 7s 4d ?1 8s 6d ?30 7s Od 1201/2 ?7 13s 4d ?0 19s Od hay ?2 2s 3d ?13 13s Od ?1 Os Od ?25 7s 7d 1202/3 ?7 13s 4d ?1 Os Od hay ?2 6s Sd ?10 14s Id ?1 Os Od ?22 13s lOd (perquisites only 1203/4 ?5 12s 4d ?1 2s 6d ?6 Os Od ?1 Os Od ?13 14s lOd
(3/4 yr) (perquisites (3/4 yr)
only)
1204/5 ?7 13s 4d ?1 4s Od hay ?2 14s 4d ?6 17s 2d ?0 12s Od ?19 Os lOd 1205/6 ?7 Is Sd ?0 16s Od hay ?1 17s 6d ?7 Is Id ?1 Is Od ?18 7s Od 1206/7 ?7 Ils Sd ?0 16s Od hay ?9 6s 6d ?1 Os Od ?18 13s lIld 1207/8 ?6 9s 7d (1/2 ?2 12s Od ?9 is 7d (1/2
yr) toll & other yr) perquisites 1207/8 ?8 13s 4d ?8 13s 4d
