Page:Origin of the Anglo-Saxon Race.djvu/326

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
312
Origin of the Anglo-Saxon Race.

inheritance which prevailed at Tynemouth. It was an old port to which ships of Angles, Goths, Frisians, and Northmen would all be likely to have come, and not improbably early merchants or others of these nations settled there. Those who were Frisians or Goths, having a custom of partible inheritance in their own lands, would naturally follow the same, and those who were Northmen, having some form of primogeniture and succession by the eldest daughter in their land, would naturally continue to follow this custom. In process of time these customs, which may be supposed to have prevailed at Tynemonth, apparently became blended, and that of the Goths and Frisians, who, perhaps, were the more numerous section of the inhabitants, became the more prominent. The custom of descent in Tynemouth is, or was, partible inheritance among sons only; in default of sons, the eldest daughter came into the inheritance for her life, and afterwards the next heir male who could derive his title through a male.[1] In considering this curious succession it is necessary also to remember that the custom of inheritance among the Angles was marked by a strong preference for the male line, such as that which has survived at Tynemouth shows.

In addition to those places in Yorkshire where the custom of partible inheritance has survived to modern times, as at Pickering, Domesday Book supplies us with information concerning the land in Holderness and other parts of the county which was held in parcenary at the time of the Survey. By the old general law of the country land could only be held in parcenary by females, but by the custom of gavelkind males might hold their lands collectively by descent to all the males equally.[2] Whether in Kent or elsewhere, the title of parceners accrued only by descent.[3] To hold land in parcenary was, therefore,

  1. Elton, C. I., ‘Law of Copyholds,’ pp. 128, 134.
  2. Reeve’s ‘History of English Law,’ edited by Finlason, ii., 587.
  3. Ibid., ii. 589.