Agricultural History Review, Volume 52 Part 2 (2004), p. 223

For those who think the manor and its associations are anachronisms that no longer have a function in twenty-first century Britain then this slim book is a reminder that the past not only lingers on in the imaginations of historians, but occasionally it comes alive in everyday living, even if only rarely or marginally.

In 1998 there appeared Jessel’s The law of the manor (reviewed earlier in the Review, 47 (1999), pp.107–8). The present volume is a sequel and brings the story into the twenty first century by showing how the legislation of the recent past has an impact on land, both on its ownership and public access to it. Not many weeks pass without newspaper reports of trespass, ransom strips, and disputes over access to so-called common places. Even if cases do not all refer to manorial laws, nevertheless we should be aware that the lord of the manor lives on, whether as an individual, corporation or local authority. Even where legislation has diminished their powers, there are still discussions and disputes over the 224 the agricultural interpretation of whatever powers still remain. The most wide-ranging law of recent times was the Commons Registration Act of 1965 and this had a direct bearing on manorial custom and ownership. In the present and last parliaments the interpretation of commons and commonality has arisen again through both official and unofficial debates and discussions, not least related to the actions of organisations like the Countryside Alliance and issues over the so-called ‘right to roam’. This book contextualizes some of these issues and in particular draws attention to the sequel of commons registration through the Countryside and Right of Way Act of 2000 and its granting of public rights over common land and open country. It also raises the very tricky question of who owns what through the Land Registration Act of 2002. It all adds up to a reminder of the past living on in the present. In particular perhaps it reminds us of the enduring influence of custom and practice. While legislation can abandon the anachronisms of the past by repealing old laws, the framing of new or replacement laws increasingly takes place through carefully considered reminders of the fairness of much of the past. Thus we learn that ‘there are now few opportunities for a lord to exclude the public from the right to roam over common land or waste’ (p.44). Perhaps the tricky question is over the definition of what is or is not common land or waste. In short there are many opportunities for lawyers and historians of property to collaborate; the surprising thing is the few occasions where obviously they do. Colleagues in BAHS might usefully consult this book and its predecessor just to see where such opportunities might still exist. The manor lives on; long live the manor.