Onemorepointremainstobenoticed。Inordertomakeitclearwemustbywayofexceptionstartfromthearrangementsofalaterepochthanthatwhichwehavebeendiscussing。ThemanorofAstonandCote，whichmayhavebeencarvedoutwithseveralothersfromthemanorofBampton，presentsaverygoodinstanceofavillagemeetingwhichdoesnotcoincidewiththemanorialdivisions，andappearsconstructedonthelinesofavillagecommunitywhichhaspreserveditsunity，althoughseveralmanorshavegrownoutofit。ItwasstatedbythelordofthemanorofAstonandCotein1657，that’therehathbeenacustomtimeoutofmindthatacertainnumberofpersonscalledtheSixteen，orthegreaterpartofthem，haveusedtomakeorders，setpenalties，chooseofficers，andlotmeadows，anddoallsuchthingsasareusuallyperformedordoneinthecourtsbaronofothermanors。’Allthedetailsofthiscaseareinteresting，butweneednotgointothem，becausetheyhavebeensetoutwithsufficientcareintheexistingliterature，andsummedupbyMrGommeinhisbookontheVillageCommunity。84*Itisthemainpointwhichwemustconsider。Hereisanassemblymeetingtotransactlegalandeconomicbusiness，whichactsonthepatternofmanorialcourts。Andifnotamanorialcourt，whatisit？I
thinkitisdifficulttoescapetheconclusionthatitisameetingofthevillagecommunityoutsidethelinesofmanorialdivision。ThesuppositionthatitrepresentstheoldmanorofBampton，towhichAston，Cote，BamptonPogeys，BamptonPrioryaresubordinated，isentirelyinsufficienttoexplainthecase，becausethenweshouldnothavehadtorecognisenewmanorsinthefractionswhichweredetachedfromBampton，andtherewouldhavebeennocalltospeakofapeculiarassemblyassumingthecompetenceofacourtbaron——weshouldhavehadthemanorialcourtandthelordofBampton，andnottheSixteentospeakof。
Thefactispatentandsignificant。Itshowsbyitselfthattheremayhavebeencaseswherethevillagecommunityandthemanordidnotcoincide，andthevillagecommunityhadthebestofit。
Thefirstpropositiondoesnotadmitofdoubt。Itwasofquitecommonoccurrencethatthelandofonevillageshouldbebrokenupbetweenseveralmanors，althoughitsopenfieldsystemandallitshusbandryarrangementsremainedundivided。Thequestionarises，howwasthatsystemtowork？Therecouldbeexpressagreementbetweentheowners；85*ancientcustomandtheinterferenceofmanorialofficerschosenfromthedifferentpartscouldhelponmanyoccasions。Butitisimpossibletosuppose，inthelightoftheBamptoninstance，thatmeetingsmightnotsometimesexistinsuchdividedvillageswhichtookintotheirhandsthemanagementofthemanyeconomicquestionsarisingoutofcommonhusbandry：questionsabouthedges，rotationofcrops，commonableanimals，usageastowood，moor，pasture，andsoforth。Adiligentsearchinthecustomsofmanorsatalaterperiod，sayinthesixteenthandseventeenthcenturies，mustcertainlydiscloseanumberofsimilarinstances。Ourownmaterialdoesnothelpus，becauseitpassesoverquestionsofhusbandry，andtouchesmerelyjurisdiction，ownership，andtenant-right。Andsowemustrestrictourselftonoticetheopeningforaninquiryinthatdirection。
Suchaninquirymustalsodealwiththeconversepossibility，namely，thecasesinwhichthemanorissolargethatseveralvillageunitsfitintoit。Wemayfindveryfrequentlyinsomepartsofthecountrylargemanorswhicharecomposedofseveralindependentvillagesandhamlets。86*Onlargetractsoflandthesevillageswouldformseparateopenfieldgroups。Althoughtheeconomicevidenceisnotwithinourreachinearlytimes，wehaveindicationsofseparatevillagemeetingsunderthemanorialcourtevenfromthelegalpointofviewtakenbythecourt-rolls。