FOLCLAND (Sax.). Land of the people. Spelman, Gloss.
The subject of land-tenure among the Anglo-Sax ons ie very obscure. Doubtless all land was orig inally held in common by the tribe or kingdom, and out of this after a time portions of it were dis posed of to individuals. Individual ownership was generally designated by the term alod, which com prised original allotments which had the name ethel, and those which were carved out of the com mon lands by grant or charter. The tenure of the latter was designated by the term bocland, which is described as ;land which is held under a book, un der a privilegium, modelled on Roman precedents, expressed in Latin words, armed with ecclesiastical sanctions, and making for alienation and individ ualism." 8 Eng. Hist. Rev. 1-17. The folcland which was not granted as bocland could be let out for temporary occupation as laenland. A late the ory maintained, in the review quoted, by Dr.• Vin ogradoff is that folcland indicated an estate, not belonging to the folk, but held by folk-right or cus tomary law, and not subject to disposition of the holder. id.; Medley, Eng. Conet. Hist. 16. On this theory the modern copy-holders are termed the his torical successors of the owners of folcland; id. 36; Pollock, Land Laws 48. Nothing is certain except that the terms referred to were used, but their precise scope is the merest speculation, and succes sive writers invent new theories with the freedom which is invited by the lack of definite historical or documentary information. The subject affords am ple scope for theorizing, as most of what Is writ ten upon the subject is of this character, and it is said that the word folkland is only found technical ly used three times in Anglo-Saxon documents. The theory of Vinogradoff above stated is ear nestly supported' by Maitland (Domesday Book and Beyond). He says, referring to the author cited: "His argument has convinced us: but as it Is still new we will take leave to repeat it with some few additions of our own." The subject of book-land
and folk-land is elaborately discussed and the three documents in which the latter word occurs, as above stated, are fully described. The conclusion is thus stated: "Land, it would seem, is either book-land or folk-land. Book-land is land held by book, by a royal and ecclesiaetical privilegium. 'Folk-land Is land held without book, by unwritten title, by the folk-law. 'Folk-land,' is the term which modern historians have rejected in favour of the outlandish alod. The holder of folk-land is a free land owner, though at an early date the king discovers that over him and his land there exists an alienable su periority. Partly by alienations of this superiority, partly perhaps by gifts of land of which the king is himself the owner, book-land is created. Ed ;ward's law speaks as though it were dealing with two different kinds of land. But really it is dealing with two different kinds of title . . . the same land might be both book-land and folk-land, the hook-land of the minster, the folk-land of the free men who were holding, not indeed 'of' but still 'under' the minster. They or their ancestors had held under the king, but the king had booked their I land (which also in a certain sense was hie land) to a church. . . . 'Bookland' le a briefer term than 'land held by book-right' ; 'folk-land' is a briefer term than 'land held by folk-right.' The same piece of land may be held by book-right and by folk-right ; it may be book-land and folk-land too." See Stubbs, Conet. Hist. 36 ; 1 Poll. and Maitl. 38 ; Kemble, Sax. in Eng. 306 ; Lodge, Essays in Anglo Saxon Law 68; Maitland, Domesday Book 226-258 ; 1 Sel. Essays In Anglo-Amer. Leg. Hist. 105.