succeeded to the estate, and if there was no son, the youngest daughter. If there were no children, the estate was similarly inherited by the youngest relative collaterally.
7. The customary tenants on both manors had to keep their houses and other customary tenements in repair.
8. The tenants on both manors were unable to let or farm their copyholds for a longer time than a year and a day without license from their lord’s court.
9. The customary tenants both at Lewes and Taunton were required to do their suit at the lord’s court held from three weeks to three weeks. There were also similar regulations by which defaulters were essoyned or fined.
10. A reeve was appointed in every manor of the barony of Lewes and in every hundred of the manor of Taunton Dean to collect the rents and to act as the lord’s immediate officer.
When we consider that junior inheritance and the other customs incidental thereto were not part of the common law of the country, but prevailed only in certain districts, having apparently come down from very ancient time, the similarity of these customs must be allowed to be very remarkable indeed.
The earliest historical references to Taunton connect it with Sussex. The conquest of the country around it was effected by Ine, King of Wessex, in alliance with his kinsman Nunna. This, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle tells us, took place in the year 710, when Ine and Nunna fought against Gerent, King of the Welsh. In a charter of a later date Nunna styles himself ‘King of the South Saxons.’
The Chronicle tells us also that in the year 722 Queen Æthelburh, wife of Ine, destroyed Taunton, which her husband had built. It was probably owing to disloyalty or rebellion by the colonists from Sussex that this destruction was necessary. This event agrees exactly in date with that of Ine’s war against his former allies the South Saxons. It is difficult to see why it became
