A HISTORY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE 



entitled to a share in the meadows, or closes. But the last two privileges, at 

 any rate, were not accorded to the mere cottager. 1 



It is also probable that the main share in the open-field organization was 

 accorded to those tenants (the whole or half-yerdlings) whose holdings 

 properly belonged to it. Nor was this a trivial distinction; for in the manage- 

 ment of the village fields the villagers preserved the main vestiges of primi- 

 tive independence. Beneath the manorial framework, imposed from above 

 for governmental and fiscal purposes, was always preserved the older com- 

 munal organization which had grown up to meet economic needs. The 

 government of the manor was, after all, controlled not by the lord, or the 

 steward, alone, but by the lord sitting in his manorial court. Reading, in 

 the records of these courts, the multitudinous details as to the cultivation of the 

 common fields, one feels that it is to the voice of a village community that one 

 is really listening. As long as he gets the fines of the court in acknowledge- 

 ment of his superior rights, the lord is willing enough to allow the village to 

 manage its agriculture in its own way ; to present offenders against the open- 

 field system, and even to pass by-laws for its regulation. Innumerable instances 

 of such by-laws can be quoted. At Hawkesbury (13945) various tenants 

 were fined for putting their beasts into the lord's stubble in August, ' con- 

 trary to the order of the lord and tenants.' 8 Rights of pasture were continually 

 demanding legislation. The Hawkesbury court had again (1435) to issue an 

 order ' by the assent of all the tenants there,' ' that henceforth no one shall 

 pasture his cattle or pigs in the cornfields from after Martinmas till the last 

 sheaf has been cleared, unless he guard them in his own pasture.' 8 At the 

 same court * an order was issued for the tenants to ' pleach ' a hedge which 

 had ' bracks ' (or gaps) in it, and make a gate. And yet again (1460) ' it is 

 ordered by the assent of all the tenants ' that a yerdling may have only two 

 beasts feeding in Upton-combe during the summer ; that a new ' hanging- 

 gate ' be erected by the Gloucester Weye ; that the whole homage of 

 Upton shall put ' meerstones ' (stones marking boundaries of strips) in West- 

 mede field ; and that the tenants of one tithing shall not put their beasts 

 into the ' several ' field of another. 6 By-laws of this kind continued to be 

 made as long as open fields existed. At Cheltenham, in the reign of 

 Henry VIII, frequent orders were passed for the regulation of the common 

 pasture ; ' and continual agreements had to be made as to the dates of 

 enclosing hay and corn, and of taking down the same enclosures after the 

 crops had been gathered. The Hawkesbury tenants (14512) forbid the 

 men of Badmynton Tithing to enter the common stubble to pasture their 

 sheep before the day appointed ' by their unanimous assent.' 7 At Bisley 

 (1445) the 'free customary tenants present that John Benet has not en- 

 closed his hedges at the times due by the ancient customs of the manor. 

 He is fined the customary penalty, a sheep and a lamb, worth is. 6</.' 8 

 'It is agreed (1598) that Litteridge (one of the Bisley fields) shall be 

 opened on Trinity Day, and the corn carried within thirteen days ; no one 

 is to put beasts in the field till the last stack is carried.' ' Unconsciously 

 perhaps the lord himself fostered this corporate feeling by imposing 



1 Vinogradoff, op. cit. 353. * Ct. R. portf. 175, No. 46, m. 2. ' Ibid. No. 52, m. 4. 



4 Ibid. s Ibid. No. 54, m. 6. 6 Ibid. No. 27. 



' Ibid. No. 53, m. 5. ' Ibid. No. 10, m. 8. ' Ibid. No 13, m. n. 



134 



