2°<»S.VII. May 7. '59.] 



NOTES AND QUERIES. 



379 



•which an uninterrupted exercise of the privileges 

 of" Terra Regis" can be alleged ; and the opinions 

 of legal authorities are so various, and the printed 

 notices on the subject so wanting in precision, 

 that it may with great propriety be deemed 

 worthy of ventilation. To use the words of Ma- 

 dox {Firma Burgi, p. 229.) ; — 



" . . . . the lawyers speak divers ingenious things. 

 But in the main, their opinions are so uncertain and dis- 

 cordant, that one cannot readilj' deduce clear truth from 

 them. In short, if the counsel in the cause had been 

 clearly apprized of the precedents which the Kecords of 

 former ages do afford, there is reason to believe that sun- 

 dry things in those debates would not have been said." 



I have satisfied myself, at any rate, on the fol- 

 lowing points : that the tenures of such manors 

 and towns as are mentioned in Domesday Book 

 under the head of " Terra Regis," are in ancient 

 demesne ; that, as such, the men and tenants of 

 them are entitled to certain defined privileges"; 

 and that on Coke's authority, these privileges con- 

 tinue still. Moreover, though the feefarms (i. e. 

 the rent yearly paid to the crown or its representa- 

 tives, *^ pro omni servitio consuetudive et demanda") 

 may have been granted away by the crown, or 

 vested in trustees by the Act of Car. II., such 

 manors and towns do continue vested in the crown 

 at the present day. 



I would now ask : — 



1. Who are the persons individually entitled to 

 these privileges in the case of a manor or non- 

 corporate town ? Are they confined to the free- 

 holders, and the yearly tenants of freeholders 

 excluded ? In corporate towns they appear to be 

 such as have a settled dwelling in the town, mer- 

 chandise there, are in scot and lot, &c. According 

 to Madox, towns not corporate might be communi- 

 ties having perpetual succession as well as towns 

 corporate, and are in all respects on the same 

 footing in this respect with them, and, therefore, 

 the same identity would seem to apply to their 

 inhabitants. In a letter patent connected with 

 the town of Stretton, in Rutlandshire — a place at 

 the present day with less than 300 inhabitants, 

 and therefore hardly likely to be corporate — the 

 immunities are thus comprehensively stated to 

 belong " quibuscunque residentibus et inhabitan- 

 tibus nunc ibidem, ac communitati ejusdem villsa, 

 de catero in eddem villa pro tempore existentibus 

 sive commorantibus, heredibus, et successoribus 

 ejus." 



2. As to the exemption from tolls " for all 

 things concerning husbandry and sustenance." 

 Is this confined to produce grown exclusively 

 within the limits of the manor? oris it to be con- 

 strued as applying to agricultural produce, as 

 corn, meat, animals, &c., bonajide the property^ of 

 the " Homines Regis" ? Are butchers, for in- 

 stance, otherwise entitled to the privileges of 

 tenants in ancient demesne, exempt from tolls on 



meat manufactured within the limits of the manor, 

 from animals purchased elsewhere ? Considering 

 the ground and rise of the privileges, I am in- 

 clined to suppose so. There is a case in Leonardos 

 Reports, which I have been told bears on this 

 point ; I have no means, however, of referring to 

 it ; but I think it was laid down that articles of 

 merchandise, not being agricultural produce, are 

 liable. And perhaps it contains some information 

 as to the class of articles which are not. 



3. Let me now put a case : — A corporate town 

 A., itself " Terra Regis," the inherent privileges of 

 which are by charter amplified in succeeding 

 reigns — as, for instance, by a grant of their own 

 issues, assised rents, stallages, &c., " ad emenda- 

 cionem predicti burgi," and that they may be 

 better able to pay their fee-farm to the crown — 

 now refuses the inhabitants of a noncorporate 

 town B., also in ancient demesne, exemption from 

 stallage dues in their market ; although B. pays 

 annually its fee-farm equally with A., has its pri- 

 vileges defined and confirmed by a letter patent 

 of Charles II., and has moreover from time im- 

 memorial exercised those privileges. Is not the 

 grant to A. " salvo jure Regis " in his other ma- 

 nors ? and may not B., on the ground of paying 

 fee-farm, claim from the Exchequer Court an in- 

 junction preventing their rights being assailed? 

 I have notes of such actions brought by the in- 

 habitants of towns in B.'s position, under the name 

 of " homines Regis coram baronibus Seaccarii." In 

 one case cited by Madox, the course of proceed- 

 ing was "joer parvum breve de recto," or, "petit 

 brief de droit," which apparently recites the let- 

 ter patent, by which the privileges were con- 

 firmed. Cf. Lincoln v. Barton, Firma Burgi, 

 p. 138. In the Roll of 34 Edw. I. is a writ of 

 " Essendi quietum de Tolonio," directing restitu- 

 tion to be uiade to the'monks of Croyland for tolls 

 unjustly taken, the said monks being by charter 

 exempt from paying toll and custom throughout 

 England. The same to the abbot of Thorney, on 

 the same ground, in the Roll of 20 Edw. I., and 

 many others. 



The practice of the modern courts, being in 

 some respects altered, I am anxious to know if 

 these ancient forms of procedure are still practi- 

 cable in the case of invasion of the privileges of 

 ancient demesne ? and if not, what method was 

 substituted ? E. S. Tatlob. 



HEARING WITH THE TEETH, — " PHOTOGEAPHING 

 SOUND," — AND A NEW HEARING-TRUMPET SUG- 

 GESTED. 



(2"'' S. vii. 258. 324.) 

 The terms "hearing with the teeth" and "hear- 

 ing with the throat" are mere fallacies — as will 

 be shown in the sequel: — but Mb. Septimus 

 Piesse's experiments — quoted, as he states, from 



