———— 
THE BURTON CHARTULARY. 141 
the stocks, and were released. William gave to the Abbot half of all the corn 
growing on his land for his transgression, and for a fine to have two bovates of 
land. Richard also gave half his growing corn to the Abbot. Two other 
tenants submitted on this day, and Henry the Forester, a native of the Lord 
Edmund (the King’s brother), made fine of 20s. for his chattels and for per- 
mission to give up the land he held of the Abbot. 
FOLIOS 94 AND 95. 
Processus de francoplegio* de Huncyndon non inveniendo primo per 
petitionem in Parliamento preterea per inquisitionem et certifica- 
tionem ac demum per judicium omnium Justiciariorum et 
Baronum de Scaccario prout sequitur. 
This is a long and intricate account of the process respecting the view of 
frankpledge of Huncyndon, Thomas Earl of Lancaster having denied the 
Abbot’s right, and distrained his men to appear at the Earl’s Hundred Court 
of Wyrkesworth. 
The first instrument is a mandate of King Edward II., dated the 9th April, 
17th year of his reign, assigning Philip de Somerville, Henry de Hamburi, and 
Roger Hillary to make an inquisition upon oath into the matter in the presence 
of the ‘‘ custos” of his Wapentake of Wyrkesworth. The inquisition was to 
* The best account of Frankpledge I have met with is in Palgrave’s “ Eng- 
lish Commonwealth ;” but even that learned author makes the mistake of 
confounding the View of Frankpledge with the institution itself. The View of 
Frankpledge, as is shown by the suit in the text respecting Hanson or Hunse- 
don, was the presentment made by a member of the tything of those things 
which pertained to the frankpledge, or collective liability of the members of 
the tything, and this presentment was made bya single inhabitant of the 
township, who was also called its frankpledge, or “‘ francumplegium.” Writers 
on the subject have hitherto assumed that all presentments had to be made by 
the Reeve and four men of the township. This may have been the case in 
some localities, and, if so, it would account for the importance attached to 
retaining the view of frankpledge at the Manorial Court, for the obligation to 
send five of the tenants of a manor to every Hundred Court must have been 
intolerable. } 
Palgrave also shows that in the later phase of the institution the Decennary 
or Tything was synonymous with the township or manor; and his account 
also clears up a difficult point in the Plea Rolls, where the defendants in 
some criminal cases are stated not to be in frankpledge, because they were free- 
men. The words ‘‘ liberi homines” in these cases should have been translated 
freeholders, for it appears that persons were exempted from the frankpledge if 
their property was of sufficient amount to be considered as a permanent 
security for their good behaviour. Palgrave also states that for purposes of 
frankpledge villains were always considered freemen, and there are instances 
where they are styled freemen in the Anglo Saxon period. In the grant of the 
40th of all movable property made to the King, 16 H. III., the villains are 
stated to have concurred together with the earls, barons, knights, and freemen, 
z.e., freeholders of the kingdom.—G. W. 
