In this article, the main subject is an analysis of the social structure of a Norfolk manor and five East-Midland villages in the later 13 th century. The mobility of the working population in the manorial society has been unreasonably under-estimated until now. I suppose one of the greatest causes of this underestimation is attributed to the static image of the village structure in the manorial society. Such a static image of the manorial village structure, however, should be greatly modified, because we can find a great deal of the flexible mobility of the agricultural labouring population in the mediaeval court data. My starting point of this study is that it is considerably difficult to distinguish the mobility in the later 13 th century village from it after the beginning of the break-down of the manorial system. There are three essential problems on this subject. The first problem is to collect the data of the mobility. The second is to make a correct estimation of the mobility in the village structure. The third is to discern the mobility between in the later 13th century and in the later 14th century. From this point of view, I settled the East England villages as my object of analysis. They are Forncette Manor in Norfolk and five East-Midland villages within Ramsey estates in Huntingtonshire. In this article, I could obtain lots of the materials from the study of N. Neilson, F. G. Davenport, M. M. Postan, and the recent studies of J. A. Raftis. My conclusions are such as follows. The agricultural village in the later 13 th ceutury has three strata construction. The first stratum is constructed from the main families with a standard exploiment. The middle is constructed from small-holders, and the lowest is from famulus, serviens, or anlipimen. The mobility of the first stratum is relatively small, and the members of a village community are made of this stratum's population. The lowest is the most flexible and has a great deal of mobility. This third stratum supplies the 13 th ceutury society with the materials of the proto-type of the labour-market which is soing to reveal itself in the later 14th century.

View full abstract

In response to the Treasury Department Circular by Alexander Hamilton, dated June 22, 1791, the supervisors of revenue of each State reported. Those reports and the " enclosures " revealed that there were three types of manufactures in the United States of America in 1791 : the first type was the "incidental trades" depending wholly on the state of commerce such as boat-building, sailmaking and ropemaking, the second was the household manufactures and the "manufactories" which derived from them. The development of these manufactories was very effective in decreasing the imports from Europe. The third was the "S. U. M." type of manufactory as the Hartford Woolen Manufactory or the Beverly Cotton Manufactory. This type of manufacturing establishments were all failures without exception, in spite of their being granted with various privileges. Hamilton made his "Report on Manufactures" on the basis of the informations above. He considered "S. U. M." manufacture the "particular branch of extraordinary importance" and advocated the necessity of bounties, premiums and the exemption from taxation and military service. Concerning "a vast scene of household manufacturing", he considered it the "pleasing result of the investigation", but he values it less as compared with Tench Coxe or William Barton. The reason why Hamilton preferred the large-scale establishments in the most important branch of manufacture, as the object of the protective policy in competing with the English industry, shows the economic backwardness of the United States as compared with England. And the large-scale establishments were owned by the national capitalists ; they were also the Federalists. Hamilton's protective policy was a failure as he gave too little credit to the future of the household manufactures, and overemphasized the importance of the S. U. M. type of manufacturing establishments.

View full abstract