Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T08:34:12.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Custody of Children in English Manor Courts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 October 2011

Elaine Clark
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Very little is known about the young and the orphaned in the villages of medieval England. The span of years constituting childhood as well as the social experiences peculiar to youth must be deduced from either literary sources, including the comments of chroniclers and priests, or legal records generated by coroners, jurors and feudal lords. The variety and scope of this evidence notwithstanding, certain questions about the care of children in the rural world remain unresolved. Did peasants view childhood as a period of protected dependency, and at what age did childhood cease? How did the change in status from child to adult take place? There was, it seems, no public proclamation, no elaborate ceremony or ritual. Instead it appears that children quietly entered the adult world as soon as they no longer were dependent on their mothers and nurses. Indeed the dependency of medieval children now has the semblance of brevity, neither prolonged by families nor subject to broader constraint. But does this appearance fully account for the passage of childhood in peasant society?

Type
Articles
Information
Law and History Review , Volume 3 , Issue 2 , Fall 1985 , pp. 333 - 348
Copyright
Copyright © the American Society for Legal History, Inc. 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Goodrich, Michael, ‘Bartholomaeus Anglicus on Child-Rearing’, History of Childhood Quarterly 3 (1975–1976) 75–84Google Scholar; Hanawalt, Barbara A., ‘Childrearing Among the Lower Classes of Late Medieval England’, Journal of Interdisciplinary History 8 (1977) 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pinchbek, I. and Hewitt, M., Children in English Society (London, 1969)Google Scholar; Walker, Sue Sheridan, ‘Proof of Age of Feudal Heirs in Medieval England’, Medieval Studies, 35 (1973) 306–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2. Aries, Philippe, Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life, trans. Baldick, Robert (New York, 1962)Google Scholar.

3. For a discussion of the king's court, see Walker, Sue Sheridan, ‘Widow and Ward: The Feudal Law of Child Custody in Medieval England’, in Stuard, S.M., ed., Women in Medieval Society (Philadelphia, 1976) 159–72Google Scholar. For church courts, see Helmholz, R. H., ‘The Roman Law of Guardianship in England, 1300–1600’, 52 Tulane Law Review 223–57 (1978)Google Scholar.

4. Braulant, Micheline, ‘The Scattered Family: Another Aspect of Seventeenth-Century Demography’, trans, by Ranum, R.M., in Foster, R. and Ranum, O., eds., Family and Society: Selections from the Annales Economies, Societies, Civilisations, (Baltimore, 1976) 104–16Google Scholar; Carr, L.G. and Walsh, L.S., ‘The Planter's Wife: The Experience of White Women in Seventeenth-Century Maryland’, in Gordon, M., ed., The American Family in Social-Historical Perspective, (New York, 1983) 321–46Google Scholar; Laslett, P., ‘Parental Deprivation in the Past: A Note on Orphans and Stepparenthood in English History’, in his Family Life and Illicit Love in Earlier Generations,(Cambridge, 1977) 160–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Plakans, Andrejs, ‘Parentless Children in Soul Revisions: A Study in Methodology and Social Fact’, in Ransel, D. L., ed., The Family in Imperial Russia, (Urbana, 1978) 77–102Google Scholar.

5. See Appendix 2 for archival references.

6. See Appendix 1.

7. See, for example, Horsham St. Faith 18 October 1268.

8. Sir Pollock, F. and Maitland, F.W., The History of English Law, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1968) i, 321Google Scholar.

9. Homans, G.C., English Villagers of the Thirteenth Century, (New York, 1970) 191–93Google Scholar.

10. Barnet 2 November 1337; Wells 1 August 1349.

11. Iselworth 2 February 1348.

12. Salle 18 March 1331.

13. This seems to be at variance with common law but similar to French custom; see, M. Braulant, ‘The Scattered Family’, 107. It should be noted, however, that on the Middlesex manor of Iselworth the selection of guardians closely paralled common law procedure.

14. Iselworth 21 September 1283 and 16 November 1334; Park 16 November 1328; Cashio 18 October 1336.

15. Lakenheath 11 June 1310; Iselworth 3 June 1318; Langley 6 May 1329.

16. Heacham 29 June 1277; Brightwalton 13 December 1332.

17. Iselworth 18 October 1321 and 5 September 1328; Winslow 24 May 1333 and 4 April 1347; Codicote 27 March 1334; Salle 21 December 1336; Wells 25 April 1349; Langley 2 November 1352.

18. Brightwalton 13 December 1332; Iselworth 25 April 1401.

19. For a fuller discussion of servants and apprentices, see Clark, Elaine, ‘Medieval Labor Law and English Local Courts’, The American Journal of Legal History, 27 (1983) 330–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an example of foster care, see Wells 1 August 1349: Symon Wymund et Agnes uxor ejus sursum reddit in manu domini unum messuagium cum una acra terre ad opus Ricardi Hokere. Ita videlicet quod sustentabit Ricardum filium dictorum Simonis et Agnetis modo rationabile quousque dictus Ricardus pervenerit ad plenam etatem. Et cum dictus Ricardus ad suam plenam etatem pervenit dictus Ricardus Hokere sursum reddebit predicta tenementa dicto Ricardo filio Simonis et Agnetis tenenda sibi et heredibus suis ad voluntatem domini per servicia et consuetudines.

20. Iselworth 21 September 1283 and 10 August 1332.

21. Sedgeford 12 March 1383; Heacham 10 August 1408; Barnet 24 May 1361, 24 June 1393, 22 June 1413, 18 May 1425.

22. Wymondham 2 November 1417.

23. Harlow Bury 21 September 1440.

24. North Elmham 2 March 1426.

25. Wells 25 November 1350; Winslow 1 May 1328: Ricardus filius Walteri Menge venit et cepit de domino Johannem filium et heredem Agnetis que fuit uxor Johannis Clerici una cum terris et tenementis dicti heredis tenendis usque ad etatem dicti heredis. Dat pro custodia dicti heredis et pro gersuma terre ejusdem ad opus dicti heredis et pro licencia se maritandi cum Anabilia filia Atheline j marcam.

26. Horsham St. Faith 23 November 1265: Adam Payn dat domino priori iiij s. pro licencia habenda ducere in uxorem Aliciam Squet et pro gersuma dicte Alicie. Et idem Adam devenit hominem domini prioris tamdiu quam habeat wardem dicte Alicie … et devenerit plegios quod hereditatem dicte Alicie salve custodiet in necessariis usque ad perfectionem etatis heredis predicte. For cases of guardians arranging for their daughters to marry wards, see Langley 22 July 1248; Winslow 1 May 1328.

27. Hindolveston 6 October 1315; Langley 16 May 1348; Cashio 6 May 1349; Barnet 29 September 1361 and 18 May 1425; Heacham 10 August 1408.

28. Wells 29 September 1352; Winslow 1 January 1375; Barnet 31 May 1395.

29. Wells 18 May 1361.

30. Winslow 28 October 1334.

31. Hindolveston 6 October 1315; Iselworth 18 October 1321 and 16 November 1334.

32. Winslow 4 April 1347.

33. Winslow 14 May 1448.

34. Park 25 April 1274; Winslow 11 May 1429.

35. Wells 18 May 1361; Winslow 14 May 1448.

36. For cases detailing the cost of infant care, see Clark, Elaine, ‘Debt Litigation in a Late Medieval Essex Village’, in Raftis, J. A., ed., Pathways to the Medieval Peasant, (Toronto, 1982) 270Google Scholar. For reference to a wet nurse, see Toynton 25 November 1424: Thomas Bocklande queritur quod ubi ipse Thomas dimisit predicto Johanni (Hancoke) et uxori sue quemdam puerum juvenilem ipsius Thome bene et honeste custodiendis cum lacte de uberibus uxoris predicti Johannis cum hac quod si uxor sua fuerit pregnans predictium Thomam premonuisset tempore congruo ut ipse potuerit pro dicto puero disponere et ordinare sec ipsum Thomam non premonuit quousque sua uxor fuit vivo infante ad dampna ipsius Thome etc. xl d. etc..

37. Iselworth 10 August 1332.

38. In the event of the widow's death, stepfathers could and did become legal guardians. See Hindolveston 29 September 1263; Barnet 11 June 1421; Codicote 24 May 1249: Lucia relicta Maurici dat iiij s. ut habeat custodiam terre et heredis pro xj anms. Ista conventio facta fuit domino per Henricum postea virum suum et si Lucia obiit dictus Henricus habebit custodiam usque ad finem dicti termini. For instances of stepfathers becoming legal guardians during the widow's lifetime, see Iselworth 5 February 1282; Park 18 October 1336.

39. Salle 25 March 1349, 23 November 1349, 8 July 1349.

40. Barnet 18 May 1349.

41. Winslow 10 November 1342, 4 April 1347, 25 April 1349, 12 May 1350, 6 May 1350.

42. Codicote 27 March 1334; Barnet 25 July 1350; Langley 2 November 1352; Winslow 4 April 1347.

43. Wells (date faded) 1350.

44. Wells 29 September 1352.

45. Wells 18 May 1362.

46. Hindolveston 6 October 1315; Codicote 29 September 1363.

47. Winslow 25 April 1349, 9 October 1349, 7 July 1370; Barnet 29 September 1361, 30 May 1395, 13 June 1413; Langley 18 October 1361, 18 December 1375; Cashio 10 November 1413.

48. Dunmow 11 November 1284; Winslow 3 June 1329, 6 November 1330; Iselworth 2 April 1414.

49. Winslow 25 April 1361; Iselworth 13 January 1336; Barnet 29 September 1361, 22 February 1368, 21 March 1385, 25 August 1385, 14 April 1388; Langley 18 October 1361; Park 23 April 1370.

50. Winslow 29 June 1332, 11 November 1359; Barnet 19 May 1340, 24 February 1359.

51. Winslow 9 October 1349: Geoffrey Terry died holding one messuage, one virgate and 4 acres of land. His son and heir was two years old. ‘Et ratione minoris etatis comissa est custodia terre et heredis omnibus nativis de Horwode ad sustentationem dictum heredem et faciendis servicia et consuetudines.’

52. See, also, Braulant, M., ‘The Scattered Family’, 114–16.Google Scholar

53. Codicote 24 May 1249; Winslow 25 November 1363. For further discussion of the interests and concerns shared by lords and tenants, see Smith, R. M., ‘Some Thoughts on “Hereditary” and “Proprietary” Rights in Land Under Customary Law in Thirteenth and Early Fourteenth Century England’, I Law and History Review 95–128 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; for comparative material, see Witold Kula, ‘The Seigneury and the Peasant Family in Eighteenth-Century Poland’, in R. Foster and O. Ranum, eds., Family and Society, 192–203.