Misplaced Pages

#760239

78-727: Guildable Manor is a Court Leet in Southwark under the authority of the City of London , along with the King's Manor, Southwark , and the Great Liberty. The name of 'Guildable', first recorded in 1377, refers to the collection of taxes there and was adopted to distinguish this from the other manors of the Southwark area. Its legal title, according to a royal charter granted to the City by King Edward III in 1327,

156-541: A jury , and punish, crimes committed within the jurisdiction; more serious crimes were committed to the king's justices. Despite the presence of a jury, it was not trial by jury as understood today. The court leet had developed while the jury system was still evolving; the jury indicted wrongdoers, stood witness, and helped decide on punishment. It also developed as a means of proactively ensuring that standards in such matters as sales of food and drink, and agriculture, were adhered to. The Alcester Court Leet contained

234-420: A 15-mile (24 km) radius of each town. They also provided secure regional market centres and from around 973 the coinage was reminted every six or seven years by moneyers in about sixty of the burhs. In early Anglo-Saxon England the hide was used as the basis for assessing the amount of food rent due from an area (known as feorm ). Initially the size of the hide varied according to value and resources of

312-604: A Constable, an Affeeror, a Flesh Taster and Ale Conners, who take their oaths. The Affeeror, 'a-fee-rs', i.e. prices the fines; the Ale Conners and the Flesh Taster are appointed to test the quality and measure of beers and meats, i.e. check weights and measures. The terminology is similar to the practice of livery companies : foreman = master ; sworn officers = wardens ; tithing = court of assistants; tithingmen = assistants who have served as foreman. The High Bailiff then reads

390-755: A detailed picture of the network of burhs that Alfred the Great designed to defend his kingdom from the predations of Viking invaders. After his victory over the Danes at the Battle of Edington (878) and the departure of another Viking army from Fulham in 880, Alfred the Great set about building a system of fortified towns or forts, known as burhs , in response to the Viking threat. These burhs included former Roman towns (where stone walls were repaired and perimeter ditches sometimes added), temporary forts and substantial new towns. In

468-688: A fire at Ashburnham House in 1731 but the body of the text survives in a transcript made by the antiquary Laurence Nowell in 1562. Version B survives as a composite part of seven further manuscripts, usually given the title De numero hydarum Anglie in Britannia . There are several discrepancies in the lists recorded in the two versions of the document: Version A includes references to Burpham, Wareham and Bridport but omits Shaftesbury and Barnstaple which are listed in Version B. Version B also names Worcester and Warwick in an appended list. The Burghal Hidage offers

546-400: A possible connection to the verb " let ". At a very early time in medieval England, the lord of the manor exercised or claimed certain feudal rights over his serfs and feudal tenants . The exercise of those rights was combined with manorial administrative concerns , in his court baron . However this court had no power to deal with criminal acts . Criminal jurisdiction was held by

624-399: A series calculations and multiples then continues: "If the circuit is greater, the additional amount can easily be deduced from this account, for 160 men are always required for 1 furlong, then every pole of wall is manned by 4 men”. Hill argues that this is back to front: the hidage assessment for a burh should provide a wall-length. He advances his argument to propose that the intention of

702-483: A set acreage and in the Domesday book the most common size in use was 120 acres (48.56  ha ; 0.19  sq mi ). However some areas such as Dorset and Wiltshire used units based on 40 acres (16.19  ha ; 0.06  sq mi ) to 48 acres (19.42  ha ; 0.08  sq mi ). In wartime, five hides were expected to provide one fully armed soldier in the king's service, and one man from every hide

780-527: A strategic offensive against the Viking presence in Mercia and London, are factors which argue strongly that the Burghal Hidage is a prescriptive list describing a system which was in process of being planned and implemented before late 879. It is therefore likely to have originated in a context in which the logistics of the system and the means for its implementation and support were being worked out in practice on

858-402: A total of hidage. This is important because it evidentially contradicts any proposal that the recensions had burh added or subtracted to reflect ‘new’ or ‘abandoned’ burh. The ‘B’ archetype is more likely to be closer to the ultimate source which would be an ‘exchequer/ treasury’ document. ‘A’/ Cotton-Otho would have been prepared from it to perform the function Hill proposes, the burh/ shiring of

SECTION 10

#1732851080761

936-455: A unit of fiscal assessment for the collection of a tax, known as Danegeld , for which the original purpose was to raise money to buy off raiding Vikings; however after that threat had retreated it was retained as a permanent land-tax. The document probably dates from after 914 during the reign of Alfred's son, Edward the Elder. This assumes that it was compiled as part of the preparations for Edward

1014-478: A way of promoting or celebrating their local area. Despite this, their legal jurisdiction over crime was only abolished in 1977, by section 23 of the Administration of Justice Act 1977 . However, one exception was allowed: the court leet for the manor of Laxton, Nottinghamshire , which had continued to operate judicially; Laxton retains the open-field system of farming, which had been replaced everywhere else by

1092-495: Is 'the ville of Southwark' ('ville' meaning 'town'); in the more substantive charter of Edward VI it is designated 'The Town and Borough of Southwark' as is stated on its seal. It is a preserved limited jurisdiction under the Administration of Justice Act 1977 . Although neither a guild nor a livery company , the Guildable Manor does have a permanent organization, consisting of officers and jurors . The Court of Aldermen of

1170-399: Is an Anglo-Saxon document providing a list of over thirty fortified places ( burhs ), the majority being in the ancient Kingdom of Wessex , and the taxes (recorded as numbers of hides ) assigned for their maintenance. The document, so named by Frederic William Maitland in 1897, survives in two versions of medieval and early modern date. Version A, Cotton Otho B.xi was badly damaged in

1248-475: Is considerably earlier in date. It has long been recognised that the system of burhs recorded in the Burghal Hidage was the creation of King Alfred, the received view being that they were in place by the time of the second Viking invasions in the 890s (based on the evidence in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle of the existence of garrisons in many of them by this time), and that most of them were constructed in

1326-466: Is in fact Mercian, that is not of “the West Saxons”, so is not included in the grand total. The adjusted total of 27,071 then concurs with the final ‘B’ sentence/statement. Therefore, ‘A’ and ‘B’ were copied from the same archetype/s as they agree on the grand total (less 1600 for Buckingham), yet differ only in their final sentence/statements as to what the figures demonstrate, a formula for manpower or

1404-466: Is in the short period between 877 and 879, when Mercia was partitioned between Ceolwulf and Guthrum . The creation of this system by King Alfred can therefore best be seen as both an in-depth defence of Wessex against possible invasion of Viking forces (such as indeed happened in the period 875-early 878), and as a strategic offensive against the Vikings who controlled Mercia and London at that time. Work on

1482-412: Is not likely therefore to have survived as a viable and effective system to be recorded as such in the Burghal Hidage after 914. There would, furthermore, have been no reason to add Buckingham to a system which by 914 was already redundant in the rapidly evolving political situation of the times. There are therefore good grounds for suggesting that the system (and therefore the document which describes it)

1560-547: Is supported by the issue at this time of the special celebratory London Monogram coinage from the London mint, now under the control of Alfred, and by the issue at the same time of coins from Oxford and Gloucester in southern Mercia. The fact that the Burghal Hidage does not include London, only taken in late 879; that many of the burhs recorded in the document were of a temporary nature and were only replaced by more permanent fortified sites later on; and that its organisation reflects

1638-416: Is that the freemen could express the truth in the knowledge of royal protection from the wrath of local magnates . In the sections of Domesday Book in regard to this manor, the 'Men of Southwark' are shown as doing this. In 1326 the City was allied to the cause of Queen Isabella and Mortimer to remove Edward II and replace him with his juvenile son as Edward III . In doing so the City was rewarded with

SECTION 20

#1732851080761

1716-438: Is that these fortified sites would have all been built at one occasion to serve a single strategic end, in that the functions of all the individual components of the system complemented the functions of each of the others. It follows that it cannot have originated, for instance, as a core number to which others were added at a later date. By the early 10th century this system was already long out of date and overtaken by events. It

1794-500: Is that this took place in the 920s or 930s during the reign of King Athelstan . More recently, arguments have been given which places these changes in the reign of Alfred, possibly in the 890s in response to the new Viking invasions. Examples of this process can be seen in the replacement of Pilton by Barnstaple , and Halwell by Totnes and Kingsbridge in Devon. This list shows the 33 burhs (with hidages) included in either or both of

1872-627: The Chamberlain 's Court of the City also attends to inform his superior that the rent for Southwark has indeed been paid and the city's obligations to the Crown fulfilled. Although largely now decorative, the ceremony underlies the fact that the City Bridge House Estate & Lands committee is the largest land-owner in the area. The estate pays the annual jurors' fee; the Chamberlain's office pays

1950-455: The Steward who was appointed by the lord), bringing matters to the attention of the court and deciding on them. The officers of courts leet could include some or all of the following: The introduction of magistrates gradually rebalanced power away from manorial lords. Magistrates were later given authority over view of frankpledge , which effectively negated the remaining significance of

2028-402: The hundred courts ; the country was divided into hundreds , and there was a hundred court for each of them. Each hundred comprised 100 hides , with each hide being an area of land of variable size that is enough to support one entire household. A tithing was an area of 10 hides, which therefore originally corresponded to about 10 households. The heads of each household were judicially bound to

2106-423: The shire court . Before feudalism, hundred courts had also dealt with administrative matters within their area, such as bridge repairs, road conditions, and so forth, but the courts baron had largely superseded that in practice, and some manorial lords began claiming authority over criminal matters as well. Eventually, the king formally granted certain trusted lords with the legal authority that had been held by

2184-404: The 'A' and the 'B' groups of manuscripts as discussed by David Hill, in the order that they appear in all of the documents. Burhs that were probably added to the document group 'B' after Alfred's time are shown in bold . The Burgal Hidage survives in two versions of medieval and early modern date. Version A, Cotton Otho B.xi was badly damaged in a fire at Ashburnham House in 1731 but the body of

2262-512: The 18th century (as a result of the process of enclosure ), and required the court in order to administer the field system. Although the Administration of Justice Act had abolished the legal jurisdiction of the other courts leet, it emphasised that "any such court may continue to sit and transact such other business, if any, as was customary for it". Schedule 4 to the Act specified the "business" which

2340-463: The 1977 act): By contrast, the statutory backing for the following courts leet was preserved by the 1977 Act, but it is not clear whether they are still operative: The following courts leet are also listed here for unclear reasons, despite not having been exempted from abolition by the 1977 act, and despite it not being clear whether they are still operative: Burghal Hidage The Burghal Hidage ( / ˈ b ɜːr ɡ əl ˈ h aɪ d ɪ dʒ / )

2418-458: The 880s. However, the fact that nearly half the number of hides in the system were allocated to burhs on the northern border of Wessex with Mercia suggests a context for the creation of this system in the period when Mercia was occupied and controlled by the Vikings. This was the situation in the period from 874, when the Vikings at Repton installed Ceolwulf (II) as king of Mercia to replace Burgred . The most probable context on strategic grounds

Guildable Manor - Misplaced Pages Continue

2496-533: The Anglo-Saxon word a completely different sound and meaning. Other issues included for example, the original scribes' use of an open Old English "a" which Nowell incorrectly copied as a "u" . The texts in the Version A and Cotton Otho B.xi are sufficiently similar to show that ultimately they do derive from one source. The historian David Hill shows how all of the recensions can be used to correct each other or at least help us understand how errors, especially in

2574-484: The Burghal Hidage is to provide a method of doing so not for Wessex but for the newly created burh in the reconquered ‘shires’ of Mercia. Perhaps this is what that formula means attached to ‘A’. Yet if we regard the archetype of ‘B’ as earlier than the end text of this says as follows: “That is all 27 and 70 which belong to it; and 30 to the West Saxons. And to Worcester 1200 hides. To Warwick four and 2400 hides”. One of

2652-606: The City appoints a High Steward . Since 1900 this has been the Recorder of London , sitting at the Old Bailey . The Aldermen also appoint a High Bailiff ; since 1750 this had been the current Under Sheriff and Secondary of London, but since 2017 this is the senior administrator of the Old Bailey. Once a year, usually on the second Wednesday in November, these two officials swear into office

2730-462: The City of London by Edward III to take control of the ancient borough and manor ('ville of Southwark' alias Guildable Manor) was specific in that an annual render of cash had to be made to the Crown's treasury, the Exchequer . In Domesday Book the value of Southwark to the king was noted as £16.00, and there is some evidence that the render was for £10 in the early period but it eventually settled at £11;

2808-518: The Elder took possession of London and Oxford in 910; Buckingham being situated between the two would have also been included. It is possible that the Burghal Hideage was created as a blue-print for the way that burhs were connected with hidation, originally worked out in Wessex, and applied to the situation in Mercia at that time. This received view has now been challenged from two directions – from

2886-559: The Elder's campaign against the Danes in 917. The list identifies 30 burhs in Wessex, two in Mercia and one in Hwicce . The view that the Burghal Hidage is of early 10th century date is based on the inclusion of Buckingham and Oxford , two settlements that were sited in Mercia not Wessex, and according to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle , Buckingham was created as a burh by Edward the Elder in 918. The Chronicle also reports that Edward

2964-459: The Guildable Manor, in their capacity as the representatives of the city in Southwark, to the court as jurors to make the payment. They then travel to Southwark to institute the court. The jurors attend and stand witness to their foreman and officers, presenting the rental by placing 44 crowns , i.e. five shilling (now 25 pence) pieces onto the Exchequer Cloth to represent the £11. The clerk to

3042-588: The High Steward of the said Manor, at a Court Leet and View of Frankpledge with the Court Baron of the Mayor and Commonality and Citizens of the City of London to be held at [a venue and date/time] then and there to serve as a Juror of the said Court. Hereof you are not to fail on pain of amerciament. High Bailiff ". On the appointed day, the court is assembled, the jurors are sworn in and they name their Foreman and he names

3120-572: The Jurors and their nominated officers. The area of the manor includes the south-side footing of London Bridge , Southwark Cathedral , Borough Market , Hays Galleria and The Shard . In 2012 a small connecting street was named 'Guildable Manor Street' to commemorate the institution, and was formally opened in 2018. A summons from the 'Old Bailey': "Juror of the Town and Borough of Southwark 'Guildable Manor': You are hereby summoned to appear personally before

3198-665: The Nowell transcription. However modern scholars have compared Nowell's transcription of other manuscripts, where the originals are still available, enabling a picture of the conventions Nowell used to be built. This model was then applied in the correction of his transcription of the Burghal Hidage Ortho manuscript. It seems that Nowell did not understand the subtlety of the phonetics of the Anglo-Saxon written language and would therefore substitute, using his knowledge of Elizabethan grammar, what he saw as an equivalent letter, thus giving

Guildable Manor - Misplaced Pages Continue

3276-548: The Riot Act (section 7 of the act required, before it was repealed, that the full act be read out at courts leet) and the High Steward then delivers his 'charge' to the Jury. After this the Foreman states any 'presentments', i.e. the cases he wishes to present. There have been none since the early Victorian period. The High Steward, being such an eminent jurist, then gives a talk (a 'charge' to

3354-585: The actual rent along with many others to the Crown. The event has been held in a number of dignified venues over the years, including the Cathedral Library , Glaziers Hall and Guy's Chapel , but most often in recent years at the church of St George the Martyr, Southwark . Court Leet The word "leet", as used in reference to special court proceedings, dates from the late 13th century, from Anglo-French lete and Anglo-Latin leta of unknown origin, with

3432-663: The ancient status of the Southwark free-tenants is their first written appearance; this is in Domesday Book compiled in 1086 for William the Conqueror . This was a national record of account to list what was owed to the king by his tenants in chief, his fellow Norman conquerors and the senior Prelates of the Church, whom were the greatest landholders. These in turn had sub-let to others, so that ownership and duties, either food-rents or military services, had become confused as to who owed them,

3510-431: The burhs, to act as garrisons behind their defences, and to serve in his new army. Based on the figures provided by the hideage the size of Alfred's conscript army can be deduced. One man per hide would be the equivalent of 27,000 men, whereas one man per 5 hides of land would give 5,500 men. Alfreds practice was to divide his field army into two or three, so with additional support from the royal household troops and those of

3588-470: The centuries; for those courts leet that still exist, the fine has effectively become merely nominal – 2p for example in the case of Laxton. Courts leet generally had a jury formed from the freehold tenants, as bondsmen could not give an oath ( jury means persons having taken an oath). The jury's role was similar to that of the doomsmen of the Anglo-Saxons and included electing the officers (other than

3666-566: The construction of the Burghal system. The ratification of a mutually agreed boundary to the east of London, in Alfred and Guthrum's Treaty, between Guthrum's new Viking kingdom of East Anglia and Alfred's newly won territory, can best be ascribed to this time. These developments gave Alfred control of London and its surrounding territory, which included a good length of the strategically important Watling Street as it approached London. This interpretation

3744-525: The court leet, and they gradually ceased to be held, largely dying out. Following the collapse of the feudal system, and subsequent rise of the Reformation , civil parishes had largely taken over the remaining authority of courts baron, and tithings were seen as a parish sub-division. Nevertheless, courts leet technically survived into the late 20th century, though almost all of the small number which still operated had become merely ceremonial, simply forming

3822-469: The court leet, exercising the powers formerly held by the hundred court, emphasising that the ability to hold court leet depended upon a royally granted franchise. However, in many areas it became customary for the court baron and court leet to meet together, as a single operation. The court leet was a court of record , and its duty was not only to view the pledges, which were the freemen's oaths of peacekeeping and good practice in trade, but also to try with

3900-632: The differences may have been related to fee or tax farming . Each year, usually near the charter date of 6 March, this Quit Rent is made at a ceremonial Court of Exchequer of the Kings Remembrancer . The Remembrancer instructs the Attorney to the City of London as Clerk of the Court (a post held by an officer of the City Remembrancer 's department at Guildhall ) to summons the free burgess tenants of

3978-438: The first half of the 10th century, Alfred's son Edward the Elder and his successors made this type of construction a key element in their campaigns against the Vikings, who had been in control of much of Danelaw . This culminated in the eventual creation of a unified Kingdom of England . In the event of Danish attacks, the provision of fortified towns was a place of refuge for the Anglo-Saxon rural population who lived within

SECTION 50

#1732851080761

4056-425: The following wording: To enquire regularly and periodically into the proper condition of watercourses, roads, paths, and ditches; to guard against all manner of encroachments upon the public rights, whether by unlawful enclosure or otherwise; to preserve landmarks, to keep watch and ward in the town, and overlook the common lands, adjust the rights over them, and restraining in any case their excessive exercise, as in

4134-415: The formation of burhs and shires in Mercia in the early 10th century – to which situation it has no relevance. In Wessex a number of the burhs which were part of the system recorded in the Burghal Hidage, and which were merely fortresses rather than fortified towns, were in many cases replaced at a later date by larger fortresses which were fortified towns. The received view of the date of this process

4212-403: The free tenants or burgesses of the 'Town and Borough of Southwark' which is the title given to it in the charter granted to the City by Edward VI in 1550. The original burh of Southwark (ſuðringa geƿeorce) was founded by Alfred the Great ca 879-886 as part of a system of 33 forts to defend the kingdom of Wessex and English Mercia from the Vikings (see Burghal Hidage ). These forts had become by

4290-538: The frið-borh. This was the ‘peace-oath’, which required all freemen to pledge by oath to uphold the peace of the realm . They did this by binding each other in mutual cogniscence, usually in an assembly of a tenth part, a ‘tything’, of a ‘hundred’ (a subdivision of a shire with a taxable value of a hundred hides). This procedure is prefigured in King Alfred’s law codes by an arrangement called the gegilden and references to tenth century ‘frith gilds’. The clearest proof of

4368-429: The ground. The fact that the construction of a burh at Buckingham by Alfred can be logically placed within this strategic scheme at this period (878-9), removes the necessity of having to place the creation of the original version of the Burghal Hidage after the first documentary mention of Buckingham in 914. Its composition can therefore be most appropriately placed in a West Saxon context, rather than one which relates to

4446-471: The hidage numbers, were mistranscribed in the copying process. Hill argues that these errors are not conflicts of facts or derive from differing lists, but simply errors in copying from a common source; it is possible to see that this was because lines of the text were being missed. However, as noted above, the ‘B’ recensions do not list Burpham, Wareham and Bridport, it is likely that their common archetype must have missed them also. Yet it too must have contained

4524-445: The hundred court over the tithings in the lord's manor, the most important of those being view of frankpledge . The group of tithings that were located within each manor had come to be called a leet , and hence, in the later Middle Ages these judicial powers came to be called court leet . The quo warranto proceedings of Edward I established a sharp distinction between the court baron, exercising strictly manorial rights , and

4602-412: The jury) on some historical matter or an issue of some current legal concern and controversy, and the court then adjourns to allow the jurors to continue in a convivial way, entertaining their guests and the Old Bailey officers to a festive meal. This arrangement of the city's law officers swearing the jurors ('freemen') and foreman with officers/tithing ('master and wardens') is unique in the city, unlike

4680-403: The land itself. Over time the hide became the unit on which all public obligation was assessed; as well as food rent, the manning and maintenance of the walls of a burh and the amount of geld payable was based on the hide. Tenants had a threefold obligation related to their landholding; the so-called ‘common burdens' of military service, fortress work, and bridge repair. Later the hide was given

4758-496: The late tenth century settlements and towns in which there where markets, tradesmen/ craftsmen and a mint. The denizens had certain rights within the feudal system which meant they were 'free' of manorial obligations, indeed they began to exercise within their settlements what were effectively manorial rights of a 'lord'. Apart from trade and administrative control the 'freemen' or burgesses (burh members) also dispensed local justice and this too grew from an early Anglo-Saxon procedure of

SECTION 60

#1732851080761

4836-481: The leading nobility would provide Alfred with enough manpower to deal with any Viking attacks. The retreat of Guthrum and his band to East Anglia in late 879 and the similar retreat of the Viking army stationed at Fulham , west of London, back to the Continent at the same time (both events recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle ), can be seen as a tactical response to the effectiveness of the strategic offensive posed by

4914-460: The likelihood that Alfred was able to regain control of this area which he had exercised before being deprived of it as a result of the Viking partition of 877, and their siting demonstrates that he was able to initiate a strategic offensive against the Vikings in Eastern Mercia and London. Alfred's standing enabled him to impose a level of conscription on the population of his kingdom to construct

4992-452: The liveries and guilds which swear their own freemen and courts of assistants. The city's authority in Southwark in relation to its manors there dates from 1327, considerably pre-dating most of the livery companies' foundations. However, it is the manor's officers who conduct all ceremonial in the borough and not (as in the city) the Guildhall officials. The members of the 'Guildable Manor' are

5070-600: The maintenance and extension of its privileges at the first Parliament of the new reign in March 1327 and granted associated charters to authorise some major livery companies and to grant the Crown's interest in Southwark to the City for the fee or tax farm , the City thereafter appointing the Bailiff who was now responsible to the City as ' Lord of the Manor '. The charter of 1327 is still extant and held at Guildhall . The charter granted to

5148-484: The minting patterns of the coinage of the period has shown that King Alfred was in control of London and the surrounding area until about 877, exactly the time when the Vikings are recorded as partitioning Mercia and taking control of its eastern extent. Thereafter the coins minted in London are only in the name of the Mercian king Ceolwulf. After his decisive defeat of the Vikings at the Battle of Edington in early 878, Alfred

5226-440: The mistranscriptions and supplying the missing burh figures from ‘A’ then the ‘restored’ total would be 28,671. Hill then turns to the second part of the final sentence “and 30 to the West Saxons”, this too is glossed as ‘30,000’ by the copyist ‘6’ so that it seems to refer to hides; but Hill proposes that it refers to the 30 burh; there are in fact 31 of these in the combined lists, but he then proposes that Buckingham (at 1600 hides)

5304-441: The others in their tithing by an arrangement called frankpledge , which created collective responsibility for behaviour within their tithing. The hundred court monitored this system, in a process called view of frankpledge , with the tithing reporting any wrongdoing in their area, and handing over the perpetrators among them. If the wrongdoing was minor, it would be dealt with by the hundred court, but serious crimes were passed up to

5382-433: The pasturage of cattle; to guard against the adulteration of food, to inspect weights and measures, to look in general to the morals of the people, and to find a remedy for each social ill and inconvenience. To take cognisance of grosser crimes of assault, arson, burglary, larceny, manslaughter, murder, treason, and every felony at common law. The court generally sat only a few times each year, sometimes just annually. A matter

5460-415: The perspectives of the strategies involved, and a new interpretation of the coinage of King Alfred. The order of citation of the individual burhs in the document, in a clockwise circuit around Wessex rather than on a shire by shire basis, indicates that at the time of the original composition of the document all the burhs were seen as being part of a single system. The defining characteristic of this system

5538-403: The tenant in chief or the under-tenant. The king therefore sent his commissioners across the nation to interrogate these to provide evidences, they also asked the king's local agent in the shires or counties to confirm these statements, the 'shire-reeves'. These sheriffs could not know everything, but they could ask the local freemen on oath to announce their opinion of this information. The point

5616-590: The text survives thanks to a transcript made by the Tudor historian Laurence Nowell in 1562. Version B survives as a part of seven further manuscripts, usually given the title De numero hydarum Anglie in Britannia . There are several discrepancies in the lists recorded in the two versions of the document: Version A includes references to Burpham, Wareham and Bridport but omits Shaftesbury and Barnstaple which are listed in Version B. Version B also names Worcester and Warwick in an appended list. There have been some problems with

5694-419: The ‘B’ variants (Hill ‘6’) has a copyist's gloss which proposes a meaning of ‘27,000 and 70 hides’ to make sense of the “27 and 70” reference: the “belong to it” refers to the entire list enumerated, a grand total. However, none of the ‘B’ lists can give us that total as they miss out between three and five burh. Therefore, the archetype of ‘B’ must have included these, as did that of ‘A’. However, by recalculating

5772-454: The ‘grand total’ sentence at the end which is flatly contradicted by the hidages enumerated. After listing all the burghs Version A of the Burghal Hidage includes a note: "For the maintenance and defence of an acre’s breadth of wall sixteen hides are required. If every hide is represented by one man, then every pole of wall can be manned by four men. Then for the maintenance of twenty poles of wall eighty hides are required ..." There follows

5850-425: Was introduced into the court by means of a "presentment", from a local man or from the jury itself. Penalties were in the form of fines or imprisonment. Attendance at the court leet was often compulsory for those under its jurisdiction, with fines being meted out for non-attendance. The ability of the court to levy a fine was always subject to limitations, but the limits were never updated to account for inflation over

5928-491: Was once again able to take the offensive. His victory must have earned him wide acclaim. It is this juncture which seems the most appropriate time for the start of the planning and construction of the system of burhs recorded in the Burghal Hidage. Throughout 878 Guthrum's Vikings were in control of Mercia and, arguably, London, with his base in Cirencester . The creation of burhs at Oxford and Buckingham at this time fits in with

6006-477: Was to be considered customary, which included the taking of presentments relating to matters of local concern and – in some cases – the management of common land . The following courts leet were exempted from abolition by the Administration of Justice Act 1977, and were known to be still functioning in 2010: In addition, the following courts leet are in operation, having been re-established, or continued, but without statutory authority (not having been preserved by

6084-401: Was to provide garrison duty for the burhs and to help in their initial construction and upkeep. The continued maintenance of the burhs, as well as ongoing garrison duty, was also probably supplied by those inhabitants of the new burhs which were planned by the king as new towns. In this way the economic and military functions of the larger burhs were closely interlinked. The hide also served as

#760239