The Customs of Old England

by F. J. Snell

Predial services, on the other hand, might be rendered as well by free tenants as by villeins. This is shown by an entry in Domesday:

"De hac terra [Longedune] tempore Regis Edwardi tenebant ix liberi homines xviii hidas et secabant uno die in pratis domini sui et faciebant servitium sicut eis precipiebatur."

Much would depend on the capital possessed by the free tenant, who might elect to make good any deficiency by corporal labour. The villein had no capital, and was simply an instrument, like the cattle of which he had charge, in the working of the estate. He was bound to the soil with which all his interests were linked; and he was regarded in the light of an investment, in which the lord had a perpetual stake. It was the lord who furnished him with the means of gaining a livelihood, and, in return for this accommodation, the lord demanded from him, and his children after him, lifelong service.

From the "Rectitudines Singularum Personarum," an eleventh-century document, we learn that the cotsetle, for his holding of about five acres, was required to labour for his lord on one day a week all through the year,[17] and this was known as week-work. He had also to give what was called boon-work—namely, three days a week in harvest. Another type of unfree tenant was the gebur, who held a yardland of some thirty or forty acres, which, upon his entrance, was stocked with two oxen, one cow, six sheep, tools and household utensils. His week-work amounted to two or three days a week, as the season required; in winter, he had "to lie at his lord's fold," when bidden; and he had to contribute his quota of boon-work. Certain payments also had to be made.

The first attempt to regulate wages was made in the statute of 12 Richard II., cc. 3-7, the preamble of which affirms that "the servants and labourers will not, nor by a long season would, serve and labour without outrageous and excessive hire, and much more hath been given to such servants and labourers than in any time past, so that for scarcity of the said servants and labourers the husbands and land tenants may not pay their rents nor unnethes live upon their lands, to the great damage and loss as well of their lords as of all the commons; also the hires of the said servants in husbandry have not been put in certainty before this time."

The "hires" were now defined, and this act penalized masters who paid labourers at a higher rate than was allowed under it. The scale of wages varied in different reigns. Here we may confine ourselves to the provisions of the statute of 11 Henry VII., which not only determined the maximum payments, but sanctioned reductions on legitimate grounds. Thus regard was had to the current wages in the locality, which the employer was under no obligation to exceed. Less was to be paid at holiday than at other times; and if a man were lazy in the morning or lingered over his meals, he might be mulcted at his master's discretion.

Premising that the purchasing power of a penny in the fifteenth century was about twelve times as much as it is now, we are able to form some idea of the economic position of the different classes which were the subjects of this legislation. The bailiff, it appears, might have a salary of 26s. 8d.; the common servant in husbandry cost 16s. 8d. and 4s. for clothes; and the artisan received per day 5d. in the summer and 6d. in the winter. This brings us to the hours of labour, which depended on the season, and were also regulated by statute. These were from 5 a.m. till between 7 and 8 p.m. from the middle of March to the middle of September, half an hour being allowed for breakfast, and an hour and a half for dinner and a siesta—an indulgence countenanced from May to August. During the winter, the rule was that work was to be carried on whilst there was daylight.

Mention has been made of holidays. These, though inevitable, were evidently regarded as seasons of danger, since the favourite recreations of labourers, if left to their own devices, were poaching and politics. Against these twin evils the King's counsellors took precautions in an act (13 Rich. II., st. I., c. 13), of which the preamble ran:

"Forasmuch as divers artificers, labourers, servants, and grooms, keep greyhounds and other dogs, and on the holy days, when Christian people be at church hearing Divine service, they go a-hunting in parks, warrens, and coningries of lords and others to the very great destruction of the same, and sometimes under such colour they make their assemblies, conferences, and conspiracies for to rise and disobey their allegiance, &c."

Hence none but laymen with 40s. and clerks with £10 were suffered to keep dogs or use ferrets, nets, harepipes, cords, or other engines to destroy deer. Instead of engaging in such perilous diversions, servants and labourers were ordered to "have bows and arrows and to use the same on Sundays and holy days, and leave all playing at tennis or football and other games called quoits, dice, casting of the stone, kailes (skittles) and other importune games." Swords and daggers were prohibited "but in time of war for the defence of the realm of England"—a wise measure when the country was infested with vagrants and there were so many liveried retainers prompt to resent a real or imaginary affront.