and villani, and seem to be those of a less servile condition, who had a board or cottage with a small parcel of land allowed to them, on condition they should supply the lord with poultry and eggs and other small provisions for his board and entertainment." (Gloss. Paroch. Antiq.) Such also is the interpretation given by Bloomfield in his History of Norfolk.' Brady affirms "they were drudges, and performed vile services, which were reserved by the lord upon a poor little house and a small parcel of land, and might perhaps be domestic works, such as grinding, threshing, drawing water, cutting wood, &c." (Pref. p. 56.) Bord, as Bishop Kennett has already noticed, was a cottage. Bordarii, it should seem, were cottagers merely. In one of the Ely Registers we find Bordarii, where the breviate of the same entry in Domesday itself reads cotarii. Their condition was probably different on different manors. In some entries in the Domesday Survey, the expression "bordarii arantes" occurs.. At Evesham, on the abbey demesne, 27 bordarii are described as "servientes-curiæ."(Domesd. tom. i. fol. 175 b.) On the demesue appertaining to the castle of Ewias there were 12 bordarii, who are described as performing personal labour on one day in every week. (Ibid. fol. 186.) At St. Edmondsbury in Suffolk, the abbot had 118 homagers, and under them 52 bordarii. The total number of bordarii noticed in the different counties of England in Domesday Book is 82,634. (Ellis's General Introd. to Domesday Book, edit. 1833, vol. i. p. 82; ii. p. 511; Haywood's Dissert. upon the Ranks of the People under the Anglo-Saxon Governments, pp. 303, 305.) BOROUGH-ENGLISH is a peculiar custom by which lands and tenements held in ancient burgage descend to the youngest. son instead of to the eldest, wherever such custom obtains. It still exists in many cities and ancient boroughs, and in the adjoining districts. The land is held in socage, but descends to the youngest son in exclusion of all the other children. In some places this peculiar rule of descent is confined to the case of children; in others the custom extends to brothers and other male collateral relations. The same custom also governs the descent of copyhold land in various manors. The custom is alluded to by Glanville and by Littleton, of whom the latter thus explains it:-"Also for the greater part such boroughes have divers customes and usages, which be not had in other towns. For some boroughes have such a custome, that if a man have issue many sonnes and dyeth, the youngest son shall inherit all the tenements which were his father's within the same borough, as heire unto his father by force of the custome; the which is called Borough-English" (s. 165). The origin of this custom is referred to the time of the Anglo-Saxons; and it does not appear to have been known by its present name until some time after the Conquest; for the Normans, having no experience of any such custom in their own country, distinguished it as "the custom of the Saxon towns." In the reign of Edward III. the term boroughEnglish was used in contrast with the Norman law: thus it was said that in Nottingham there were two tenuresburgh-Engloyes" and "burgh-Fraunçoyes," the usages of which tenures are such that all the tenements whereof the ancestor dies seised in "burgh-Engloyes" ought to descend to the youngest son, and all the tenements in "burgh-Fraunçoyes" to the eldest son, as at common law. (1 Edward III. 12 a.) 66 Primogeniture was the rule of descent in England at common law; but in the case of socage lands all the sons inherited equally until long after the Conquest, wherever it appeared that such lands had, by custom, been anciently divisible. But this general rule of descent was often governed by peculiar customs, and in some places the eldest son succeeded his father by special custom, while in others (viz. those subject to borough-English) the youngest son alone inherited. (Glanville, lib. vii. c. 3, and notes by Beames.) "This custome" (of borough-English), says Littleton, "also stands with some certaine reason, because that the younger son (if he lacke father and mother), be Littleton. It has been said that by the custom of certain manors the lord had a right to lie with the bride of his tenant holding in villenage, on the first night of her marriage; and that, for this reason, the youngest son was preferred to the eldest, as being more certainly the true son of the tenant. But this supposition is, on many grounds, less satisfactory than the other. Admitting the alleged reason, perhaps, for passing over the eldest son, but why should the second and other sons have been also superseded in favour of their youngest brother? The legitimacy of the eldest son alone could have been doubted, and upon this hypothesis, either the second son would have been his father's heir, or all the sons except the eldest would have shared the inheritance. But the existence of this barbarous usage in England is altogether denied by many (1 Stephen, Comm. 199; 3 Rep. Real Prop. Commrs. p. 8); and even if the customary fine payable to the lord in certain manors (especially in the north of England) on the marriage of the son or daughter of his villein, be admitted to have been a composition of the lord's right of concubinage (see Du Cange, tit. "Marcheta;" Co. Lit. 117 b, 140 a; Bract. lib. 2, § 26), it does not appear that such fines are more prevalent in those places where the custom of borough-English obtains, than in other parts of the country where there are different rules of descent. (Robinson On Gavelkind, p. 387.) cause of his younger age, may least of all his brethren helpe himself" (§ 211). When the state of society in the ancient English boroughs is considered, the reason assigned by Littleton will appear sufficient. The inhabitants supported themselves by trade; their property consisted chiefly of moveables; and their real estate was ordinarily confined to the houses in which they carried on their business, with, perhaps, a little land at-right of the lord, it would have been a tached. Such persons were rarely able to offer an independence to their children, but were satisfied to leave each son, as he grew up, to provide for himself by his own industry. To endow a son with a portion of his goods, and send him forth to seek his own fortunes, was all that a burgess thought necessary; and so constant was this practice, that the law considered the son of a burgess to be of age "so soon as he knew how to count money truly, to measure cloths, and to carry on other business of his father's of the like nature" (Glanv. lib. 7, s. 9; Bracton, lib. 2, s. 37). In this condition of life, the youngest son would have the least chance of being provided for at his father's death, and it was, therefore, a rational custom to make provision for him out of the real estate. But as it might happen that the youngest son had been provided for, like his brothers, before the father's death, by the custom of most boroughs the father had a power of de. vising his tenements by will. Such a power was unknown to the common law; for without the consent of his heir no man could leave any portion of his inheritance to a younger son, "because," says Glanville, "if this were permitted, it would frequently happen that the elder son would be disinherited, owing to the greater affection which parents often feel towards their younger children." And the freedom of testamentary devise, enjoyed under the custom of boroughEnglish, to the prejudice of heirs, was not fully conceded by the laws of England until the latter part of the seventeenth century. (12 Čar. II. c. 24.) The origin of the custom of boroughEnglish has, in later times (3 Modern Reports, Preface) been referred to another cause, instead of that assigned by But whatever may have been the origin of the custom, it is no longer to be supported by any arguments in its favour. If land is to be inherited by one son alone, the eldest is undoubtedly the fittest heir: he grows up the first, and in case of his father's death succeeds at once to his estate, fulfils the duties of a landowner, and stands in loco parentis to his father's younger children, while the succession of the youngest son would always be liable to a long minority, during which the rest of the family would derive little benefit from the estate. It is also an unquestionable objection to the custom that each son in succession may conceive himself to be the heir, until he is deprived of his inheritance by the birth of another brother. In addition to these general objections to the custom, there are legal difficulties connected with its peculiarity of descent. In making out titles, for instance, it is much more difficult to prove that there was no younger son than that there was no elder son; and obscure questions must arise concerning the boundaries of the land subject to the custom, and respecting the limits of the custom itself in each particular place where it prevails. For these reasons the Commissioners of Real Property, in 1832, recommended the universal abolition of the custom (3rd Rep. p. 8), which, however, is still recognised by the law as an ancient rule of descent wherever it can be shown to prevail. (Glanville, lib. 7, c. 3; Co. Litt. § 165; 1st Inst. 110 b; Robinson On Gavelkind, Appendix; 7 Bacon's Abridgment, 560, tit." Descent;" Cowell's Law Dict. tit. 'Borow-English;" Du Cange, Glossarium, tit. "Marcheta" Regiam Magistatem, lib. 4, cap. 31; 2 Black. Comm. 83; 1 Stephen, Comm. 198; 3 Cruise, Digest, 388; 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 106; 3rd Report of Real Property Commissioners.) 66 BOROUGH, MUNICIPAL. [MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.] BOROUGH, PARLIAMENTARY. [PARLIAMENT.] BOTTOMRY, BOTTOMREE,' or BUMMAREE, is a term derived into the English maritime law from the Dutch or Low German. In Dutch the term is Bomerie or Bodemery, and in German Bodmerei. It is said to be originally derived from Boden or Bodem, which in Low German and Dutch formerly signified the bottom or keel of a ship; and according to a common process in language, the part being applied to the whole, also denoted the ship itself. The same word, differently written, has been used in a similar manner in the English language; the expression bottom having been commonly used to signify a ship, previously to the seventeenth century, and being at the present day well known in that sense as a mercantile phrase. Thus it is a familiar mode of expression among merchants to speak of "shipping goods in foreign bottoms." The contract of bottomry in maritime law is a pledge of the ship as a security for the repayment of money advanced to an owner for the purpose of enabling him to carry on the voyage. It is understood in this contract, which is usually expressed in the form of a bond, called a Bottomry Bond, that if the ship be lost on the voyage, the lender loses the whole of his money; but if the ship and tackle reach the destined port, they become immediately liable, as well as the person of the borrower, for the money lent, and also the premium or interest stipulated to be paid upon the loan. No objection can be made on the ground of. usury, though the stipulated premium exceeds the legal rate of interest, because the lender is liable to the casualties of the voyage, and is not to receive his money again at all events. In France the contract of bottomry is called Contrat à la grosse, and in Italy Cambio maritimo, and is subject to different regulations by the respective maritime laws of those countries. But money is generally raised in this way by the master of the ship when he is abroad and requires money to repair the vessel or to procure other things that are necessary to enable him to complete his voyage. If several bottomry bonds are given by the master for the same ship at different times, that which is later in point of time must be satisfied first, according to a rule derived from the Roman law (Dig. 20,.tit. 4, s. 5, 6): the reason of this rule is, that a subsequent lender by his loan preserves the security of a prior lender. It is a rule of English law that there must be a real necessity to justify the master in borrowing on the security of his ship. In taking up money upon Bottomry, the loan is made upon the security of the ship alone; but when the advance is made upon the lading, then the borrower is said to take up money at respondentia. In this distinction as to the subject matter of the security consists the only difference between Bottomry and Respondentia ; the rules of English maritime law being equally applicable to both. The practice of lending money on ships or their cargo, and sometimes 'on the freight was common in Athens, and in The interest of money lent on seaadventures was called Usuræ Maritimæ. (Dig. 22, tit. 2, "De Nautico Fonere;" Molloy, De Jure Maritimo, lib. ii. c. 11; Parke On Insurance, chap. xxi.; Benecke's System des Assecuranz und Bodmereiwesens, bd. 4.) other Greek commercial towns. Money | sea. thus lent was sometimes called (vavrikà Xphuara) ship-money. Demosthenes (I. Against Aphobus), in making a statement of the property left him by his father, enumerates seventy minæ lent on bottomry. If the ship and cargo were lost, the lender could not recover his principal or interest; which stipulation was often expressly made in the (σvyypaph) bond. (Demosthenes against Phormion, and against Dionysodorus, c. 6, 10.) The nature of the bottomry contract is shown in the Oration of Demosthenes against Dionysodorus: -3000 drachmæ were lent on a ship, on condition of her sailing to Egypt and returning to Athens; the money was lent on the double voyage, and the borrower contracted in writing to return direct to Athens, and not dispose of his cargo of Egyptian grain at any other place. He violated his contract by selling his cargo at Rhodes, having been advised by his partner at Athens that the price of grain had fallen in that city since the departure of the vessel. The plaintiff sought to recover principal and interest, of which the borrower attempted to defraud him: damages also were claimed, conformably to the terms of the bond. As neither principal nor interest could be demanded if the vessel were lost, it was a common plea on the part of the borrower that the ship was The terms bottomry and respondentia wrecked. The rate of interest for money are also applied to contracts for the repaythus lent was of course higher than the ment of money lent merely on the hazard usual rate. The speech of Demosthenes of a voyage-for instance, a sum of money Against Lacritus contains a complete Bot-lent to a merchant to be employed in trade, tomry contract, which clearly shows the nature of these loans at Athens. It has been already stated that Bottomry, in its general sense, is the pledge of a ship as a security for money borrowed for the purpose of a voyage. It has been conjectured that the power of a master to pledge a ship in a foreign country led to the practice of an owner borrowing money at home upon the like security. But Abbott, in his treatise on Shipping, expresses a doubt on this matter, and adds that the Roman law says nothing of contracts of bottomry made by the master of a ship in that character, according to the practice which has since universally prevailed. Yet there are passages in the Digest' (20, tit. 4, s. 5, 6) which seem to imply that a master might make such a contract, for, as already observed, the ground for giving the preference to a subsequent over a prior lender is stated to be that the subsequent loan saves the prior lender's security; and we must accordingly suppose that money could be borrowed by the master when he found it necessary for the preservation of the ship or cargo. and to be repaid with extraordinary interest if the voyage is safely performed. Money was also lent, under the name This is in fact the Usuræ Maritimæ of the of pecunia trajectitia, on ships and their Romans. But the stat. 7 Geo. I. c. 21, cargo among the Romans, and regulated § 2, made null and void all contracts by by various legal provisions. But it ap-any of his Majesty's subjects, or any perpears that the money was merely lent on condition of being repaid if the ship made her voyage safe within a certain time, and that the creditor had no claim on the ship unless it was specifically pledged. The rate of interest was not limited by law, as in the case of other loans, for the lender ran the risk of losing all if the ship was wrecked; but this extraordinary rate of interest was only due while the vessel was actually at son in trust for them, for or upon the loan of money by way of bottomry on any ships in the service of foreigners, and bound or designed to trade in the East Indies or places beyond the Cape of Good Hope. Another statute, 19 Geo. II. c. 37, enacted that all moneys lent on bottomry or respondentia on vessels bound to or from the East Indies shall be expressly lent only on the ship or on the merchandise; that the lender shall have the benefit of salvage; and that if the borrower has not an interest in the ship. or in the effects on board, to the value of the sum borrowed, he shall be responsible to the lender for so much of the principal as has not been laid out, with legal interest and all other charges, though the ship and merchandise be totally lost. With the exception of the cases provided for by these two statutes, money may still be lent on the hazard of a voyage. Bottomry is sometimes treated as a part of the law of insurance, whereas it is quite a different thing. For further information, see Abbott, On Shipping; Parke, System of the Law of Marine Insurance. merous." After the publication of Adam Smith's work bounties began to be regarded with less favour, and have at length sunk into complete discredit. They are now no longer relied upon as a means of furthering the true interests of commerce. The policy of bounties was very materially connected with the opinions of a former day respecting the balance of trade. [BALANCE OF TRADE.] It was thought that they operated in turning the balance in our favour. Adam Smith remarks: "By means of bounties our merchants and manufacturers, it is pretended, will be enabled to sell their goods as cheap or cheaper than their rivals in the foreign markets. We cannot (he adds) force foreigners to buy their goods, as we have done our own countrymen. The next best expedient, it has been thought, therefore, is to pay them for buying." Bounties in truth effect nothing more than this. The propositions maintained by Adam Smith are, that every trade is in a natural state when goods are sold for a price which replaces the whole capital employed in preparing and sending them to the market with something in addition in the shape of profit. Such a trade needs no bounties. Individual interest is sufficient to prompt men to engage in carrying it on. On the other hand, when goods are sold at a price which does not replace the cost of the raw material, the wages of labour and all the incidental expenses which have been incurred in bringing them into a state fit for the market, together with the manufacturer's profits; that is, when they are sold at a loss, the manufacturer will cease to produce an unprofitable article, and this particular branch of industry will soon become extinct. It perhaps happens that the general interests of the country are thought to be peculiarly connected with The question of bounties and their im- the species of industry in question, and policy is discussed by Adam Smith in his that it therefore behoves government to Wealth of Nations,' book iv. chap. 5; take means for preventing its falling into and the subject has also been treated in a decay. At this point commences the very complete manner by the late Mr. operation of bounties, which are devised Ricardo in his Principles of Political for the purpose of producing an equiliEconomy and Taxation.' When Postle- brium between the cost of production, the thwaite published his 'Dictionary of Com-market-price, and a remunerating price, merce,' in 1774, bounties were "very nu- the last of which alone promotes the con It is observed in the Staats-Lexicon of Rotteck and Welcker, art." Bodmerei," that Bodmerei "is a loan for a seavoyage, in which the ship becomes pledged. In this simplest form, at least, it is possible that this kind of transaction may have originated among the German nations. And so it is still viewed in the English law, even where the ship is not expressly pledged." This, however, is a misstatement of the English law. The same article, after some general remarks on Bottomry, which it is to be presumed apply to the German states, adds-" that, in fact, Bottomry now generally occurs only in cases when the master of a ship, during the voyage, requires money, and obtains a loan for the purpose of prosecuting it, for which he has no better security to offer than the ship itself. This transaction also differs from the usual contract of pledge in this: that the owner himself does not pledge the ship; but the captain is considered as the agent of the owner, and as doing what is necessary for his interest under the circumstances." BOUNTY, a sum of money paid by government to the persons engaged in certain branches of commerce, manufactures, or other branch of industry. |