Peter King's observations are, as ever, accurate and to the point. Perhaps
one issue remains and that is that normally copyhold land in a manor would,
I think, be distinct from leasehold land within that manor. So the two
sorts of lists which Frank Clements has can be treated as quite different
forms of landholding - and the same piece of land ought not to appear in
both. But, of course, one person might hold both copyhold land and
leasehold land in the same manor.
Whether or not a copyholder could create a lease of his copyhold land
would, I think, depend on the custom of the individual manor but I can
think of no reason why there should not be such a custom. But a copyholder
could certainly not turn his own holding into a leasehold by his own
unilateral action. If for some reason he got it into his head that he
would like to make such a conversion he could do it by surrendering it to
the lord of the manor, agreeing with the Lord of the Manor that he would
then be granted a lease.
(I say "he". That would be the usual case but I think there is no reason
why women should not hold copyhold land).
Frank Sharman
Wolverhampton
01902 763246
|