bailiff duties

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
Gjest

bailiff duties

Legg inn av Gjest » 08 sep 2005 15:42:12

If I understand a medieval bailiff's job correctly, he was basically
the man who took care of the day-to-day running of a manor, interacting
with the tenants, collecting rents and the like. If that was his
social level, it seems unlikely that he could be a man who owned much
other manorial property for himself. I guess he'd be a landless
younger son.

My question is as follows: how strongly can I rely upon this principle
of social level? That is to say, if I see that name of someone
appointed bailiff at a manor, can I rely on an assumption that his
namesakes who had manorial property of their own can be eliminated as
possible identification with him?

Chris Dickinson

Re: bailiff duties

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 09 sep 2005 21:23:01

geraldrm@earthlink.net wrote:


If I understand a medieval bailiff's job correctly, he was basically
the man who took care of the day-to-day running of a manor, interacting
with the tenants, collecting rents and the like. If that was his
social level, it seems unlikely that he could be a man who owned much
other manorial property for himself. I guess he'd be a landless
younger son.

My question is as follows: how strongly can I rely upon this principle
of social level? That is to say, if I see that name of someone
appointed bailiff at a manor, can I rely on an assumption that his
namesakes who had manorial property of their own can be eliminated as
possible identification with him?


An interesting question. I can only provide a partial answer based on a
later period, but this may throw some light.

D.R. Hainsworth in his 'Stewards, Lord and People : The Estate Steward and
his World in Later Stuart England' [ISBN 0 521 36489 2] makes four comments
that seem to be relevant.

The first is that the jobs of steward and bailiff weren't clearly defined at
that period (and I assume the same applies earlier). So quite what your job
description of 'bailiff' entails, and the sort of person who would do the
job, would depend on circumstance.

The second is that, in confirmation of your understanding, he defined a
bailiff as 'a minor estate official who was responsible for collecting rents
and other payments and for ensuring that persons who ought to appear at the
manorial courts actually did so'.

The third is that he described this as 'essentially a part-time job'. In
other words, it isn't going to provide an income for your landless younger
son.

The fourth is that he quoted an example in which Lowther instructed his
steward to appoint 'a fit and convenient person to be bailiff'. He
continues: "By 'convenient' Lowther probably meant a man who either lived on
or close to the manor, and by 'fit' a man of good reputation and sufficient
substance to be entrusted with the collection of his master's rents, and
perhaps possessed of the ability to keep a primitive account."

That suggests to me one of the top yeomen, not someone who was landless.

That's reflected in the parish registers that I have in front of me. This
was a rural area where the register consistently distinguishes between
yeomen with customary tenements, and anyone else, by using a place label or
not. So ... 'John Smith of Hillbrow' was a yeoman but 'John Smith' probably
wasn't. The parish register twice records the burial of someone as
'Bailiff', in 1582 and 1613 (no later examples - perhaps because the Lord of
the Manor employed a Steward after that), and on both occasions there is a
place label. What is more, on both occasions the individual was top-of-the
range yeomanry - the oligarchs who controlled the manor and court.

Chris

Gjest

Re: bailiff duties

Legg inn av Gjest » 09 sep 2005 22:16:01

Thanks, Chris, that was very helpful indeed. A yeoman who lived very
close to the manor, and who did not need the job full-time. So
basically he goes about farming his own lands, but checks in at the
manor regularly to see that rents are paid, disputes are settled,
manorial court meets, etc.

I was investigating two Mortons who were appointed baliff at two manors
owned by the Archbishop of Canterbury near Croydon (i.e., by the office
not by the person holding the office). The only Tom Morton related to
Archbishop Morton (a nephew) was owner of lots of manorial property in
Dorset and Gloucestershire and lived primarily at Lechlade; by the
bailiff Tom was appointed, this Tom was stinking rich, having married
two heiresses, done well in the legal business, and inheriting estates
from his forebears and brother (the late Bishop of Worcester). The
only John Morton related to Archbishop Morton (also a nephew) lived at
the estate in Dorset owned by his wife, from one of the county's best
gentry families. He was also quite busy running errands for his uncle
at manors all over the country, and pursuing litigation in court on the
family's behalf. Doesn't sound like either would have made a good
bailiff for a manor in Surrey, does it? So I guess the surname is
purely coincidence, the Archbishop appointed bailiffs from a Morton
family totally unrelated to his own. Sound logical?

Chris Dickinson

Re: bailiff duties

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 10 sep 2005 10:20:02

geraldrm@earthlink.net wrote:

<snip>
I was investigating two Mortons who were appointed baliff
snip


So, if I understand you correctly, you have a Tom Morton and a John Morton
who were appointed bailiffs in Surrey, and a Tom Morton and Jon Morton in
Dorset who were nephews of Archbishop Morton. It does seem from your
description of the nephews that they were unlikely to be bailiffs in Surrey.

Was Archbishop Morton from a Surrey family? If so, the appointees could have
been close cousins rather than a completely unrelated family.

Chris

Gjest

Re: bailiff duties

Legg inn av Gjest » 10 sep 2005 16:44:19

Chris Dickinson wrote:
geraldrm@earthlink.net wrote "> Was Archbishop Morton from a Surrey family? If so, the appointees could have > been close cousins rather than a completely unrelated family."

The Archbishop's family was from Dorset, with an older line in London.
Absolutely none of them lived in Surrey at this point. Dr. Morton
would leave Croydon property to them and some would move there, but
that was later. No, there's absolutely no chance that any related
branch of his family was living in Surrey at the time he made the
bailiff appointments.

Chris Dickinson

Re: bailiff duties

Legg inn av Chris Dickinson » 12 sep 2005 08:22:02

geraldrm@earthlink.net wrote:

The Archbishop's family was from Dorset, with an older line in London.
Absolutely none of them lived in Surrey at this point. Dr. Morton
would leave Croydon property to them and some would move there, but
that was later. No, there's absolutely no chance that any related
branch of his family was living in Surrey at the time he made the
bailiff appointments.


Guess you've got a coincidence then. Isn't that annoying! :-)


Chris

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»