1 English Commonwealth, II, ccccxliv.
2 Ibid.
3 Domesday Book, p. 42.
4 Athenæum, 1885, I, 472, 566-7; Domesday Book, 1887, p. 44.
5 Domesday Studies (1891), II, 488.
6 Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis Cura N. E. S. A. Hamilton, 1876.
7 Notes on Domesday (1877), reprinted 1880, p. 15.
8 The italics are his own, Domesday Book, p. 42. Cf. Domesday Studies, II, 486-7.
9 It is not even proved that the I.C.C. is copied from the original returns themselves. There is the possibility of a MS. between the two. See Addenda.
10 These extracts are extended and punctuated to facilitate the comparison. Important extensions are placed within square brackets.
11 Curiously enough, the cases in which the I.C.C. does really supplement the Domesday version, that is, in the names of the holders T.R.E. and of the under-tenants T.R.W., were left unnoticed by Mr Hamilton.
12 The references to pages are to those of Mr Hamilton's edition. The portions within the square brackets are the passages omitted.
13 In this instance the omission is so gross that it attracted Mr Hamilton's notice. He admits in a footnoteid that his MS. 'confounds two separate entries'. It would, however, be more correct to say that the MS. here omits a portion of each. It is easy to see how the scribe erroneously 'ran on' from the first portion of one entry to the second portion of another. This entry has a further value, for while D.B. convicts the I.C.C. of omitting the words 'de Widone', it is itself convicted, by collation, of omitting the entry, 'Terra est i. bovi'.
14 The I.C.C. here wholly omits one of the three holdings T.R.E. 'The three hides and a virgate', at which the estate was assessed, were thus composed: (1) three virgates held by Huscarl, (2) a hide and a virgate held by Eadgyth, (3) a hide and a virgate held by Wulfwine, her man. It is this last holding which is omitted. Note here that the Domesday 'hide' is composed as ever (pace Mr Pell) of four virgates.
15 'i. caruce [ibi terra] et est caruca.'
16 'Ita quod [non potuit] dare vel vendere' (p. 50).
17 'Potuerunt [recedere] qua parte voluerunt'—p. 62 (Mr Hamilton noticed this omission).
18 'Sed [soca] eius remansit ædiue' (p. 61).
19 'Tenet [Odo] de comite Alano' (p. 15).
20 'Soca tantum hominis abbatis de Ely remansit æcclesiæ' (D.B.); 'sine socha' (I.E.).
21 The latter is the reading of D.B., and is the right one because confirmed by I.E.
22 This, like the similar cases where D.B. is given as the authority for the second reading, is proved arithmetically (vide infra).
23 The I.C.C. enumerates only three, which is the number given in D.B.
24 The words 'quendam ortum' had occurred just before, and are here wrongly repeated.
25 'Inter totum valent et valuerunt xii. den.' This was exclusive of the value of the Manor, which by the way the I.C.C. gives as sixteen pounds and D.B. at six pounds, one of those cases of discrepancy which have to be left in doubt, though D.B. is probably right.
26 Mr Eyton, in his Notes on Domesday (p. 16), called attention to this. 'The result,' he wrote (of the Lincolnshire Domesday), 'as to arrangement, is in certain instances just what might have been expected from some haste of process.... The hurried clerks were perpetually overlooking entries which they ought to have seen.'
27 Mr Eyton (Ibid., pp. 17, 18), while ignoring this valuable and most important feature, notes the employment of a similar device in Domesday Book itself in the case of Yorkshire. 'Against such errors and redundancies a very simple but effective precaution seems to have been adopted by some clerk or clerks employed on the Yorkshire notes. Before transcription was commenced an index was made of the loose notes of that county. This index gave the contents of each Wapentac or Liberty in abstract under the appropriate title; then the measure in carucates and bovates of each item of estate; and lastly (interlined) some hint or indication to whose Honour or fief each item belonged. This most clerkly device will have saved the subsequent transcribers much trouble of roll-searching and a world of confusion in their actual work.'
28 'Warra jacet in trompintona, et terra in grantebrigga.'
29 To say that the sokeman 'non potuerunt recedere sed soca remanebat abbati', is nonsense, because if they were not able 'recedere', the question of 'soca' could not arise. The formula 'sed soca', etc., is only used in cases where there was a right 'recedere'.
30 In this case the 'n[on]' has been added by interlineation.
31 The meaning, I think, is clear, though badly expressed, 'alias' being, seemingly, put for 'illas'.
32 This error arose thus: The original return (see I.C.C.) ran: 'De his v. hidis' (i.e. in 'Campes') tenet Normannus de Alberico dimidiam hidam.' The Domesday scribe read this hurriedly as implying that Norman's half hide was part of Aubrey's estate here (two and a half hides), whereas it was reckoned and entered as a separate estate.
33 Proved by collation with I.C.C. and I.E., which agree with each other.
34 Notes on Domesday, p. 16.
35 Domesday Studies, pp. 227-363, 561-619.
36 'Domesday Measures of Land' (Archæological Review, September 1889; iv, 130).
37 Domesday Studies, 188, 354.
38 'vi. carucis ibi est terra'. See Addenda.
39 Compare the equivalent tenure recognized in William of Poitier's charter to Bayonne: 'Le voisin qui voulait abandonner la cité sans esprit de retour avait le droit de vendre librement tout ce qu'il possédait maisons, prairies, vergers, moulins.'
40 We have three separate statements (of which more anon) of the aggressions of these three men on the Abbey's lands. Taking the one printed on pp. 175-7 of Mr Hamilton's book, we find that of the twelve estates grasped by Hardwin, all but one or two can be identified as the subject of duplicate entries in Domesday. (A disputed hide and a half in 'Melrede', though not mentioned in this list, is also entered in duplicate.) But neither of the estates seized by Guy de Raimbercurt is so entered in Domesday. The first two of those which Picot is accused of abstracting are entered in duplicate, but not the following ones. There is one instance of a duplicate entry of another character, relating to half a virgate (D.B., i, 199, b, 2, gives it erroneously as half a hide, but D.B., i, 190, a, 1, rightly as half a virgate), which Picot, as sheriff had regained for the king against the 'invading' Aubrey.
41 The I.E. adds 'sub abbate ely' in each case, but is, from its nature, here open to suspicion.
42 This is not always the case. At Whaddon, for instance, the entry under Hardwin's land is the fuller. It is noteworthy also that in this case the later entry (i. 198, b, 1) is referred to ('Hæc terra appreciata est cum terra Hardwini') in the earlier one (i. 191, a, 2).
43 This same change of phrase is repeated four times on two pages (pp. 4, 5).
44 So, for instance:
'de appulatione navis' (I.C.C.) = 'de theloneo retis' (D.B.).
'ferarum siluaticarum' (I.C.C.) = 'bestiarum siluaticarum' (D.B.).
'silua ad sepes refici.' (I.C.C.) = 'nemus ad claud. sepes' (D.B.).
45 Compare the I.C.C. version on p. 100, infra.
46 Inq. Com. Cant., pp. xviii, xix.
47 'Et dimidiam' [hidam] is omitted in B, and (oddly enough) in Domesday itself.
48 All three MSS. err here, as the reading should clearly be 'dim. virg.'
49 b. 65. This distinction between the one and the nine, but not the size of the holding, is preserved in D.B.; while the I.E., though preserving it, gives the numbers as two and eight.
50 This is the I.E. and D.B. version. For 'extra ecclesiam', the I.C.C. substitutes 'sine ejus [abbatis] licentia'.
51 'Soca remansit abbati' is the D.B. and I.E. version. It should be noted that the I.E. and Breve Abbatis give 'herchenger pistor' as the despoiler, while the I.C.C. and D.B. record him only as a 'miles' of Picot the sheriff. This is a case which certainly suggests special local knowledge in the compiler of the former documents, who also gives the sokeman's name—Siward.
52 Thus 'In Branmmeswelle ... lxx. liberi homines unde abbas habuit sacam et socam et commendatio et omnes consuetudines ... In eadem villa iiii. liberi homines* unde abbas habuit sacam et socam et commendationem' (p. 161).
* 'Commend' abbati' (D.B., ii 387 b).
53 Inq. Com. Cant., 192-5. see paper on it, infra.
54 'In soca et commendatione abbatis de eli' (D.B., ii. 441).
55 'Soca et commendatione tantum' (D.B.).
56 'iiii. liberi homines soca et commendatione tantum' (D.B.).
57 'T.R.E. ad socham' (D.B.).
58 'Recep'' (D.B., ii. 238).
59 The Breve Abbatis records 34.
60 Ibid., 7.
61 I.C.C., fo. 110 (b) 1. Cf. D.B., I. 199 (a) 2, and I.E., p. 110.
62 'Socam comes Algarus habuit' = 'soca remansit comiti Algaro'. See, for instance, the similar case in which a 'man' of Earl Waltheof 'terram suam dare vel vendere potuit, sed abbas de Rameseia socam habuit' (I.C.C., fo. 122, b, 2), where D.B. has: 'dare potuit, sed soca remansit abbati de Ramesy' (i. 202, b, 1).
63 'Et in eadem villa iii. liberi homines ... de quibus abbas non habebat nisi commendationem: soca in kanincghala regis.'
64 'Hanc terram tenuit godmundus homo comitis Waltevi; soca vero remansit abbati ely' (p. 115).
65 'Unum liberum hominem unde abbas habet sacam et socam tantum' (p. 140).
66 Domesday Studies, p. 556.
67 Inq. El., pp. 140, 141.
68 Domesday Studies, p. 209.
69 Domesday Studies, p. 187.
70 It is essential to bear in mind that the Domesday scribes had nothing to guide them but the bare words of the return, so that if they thus equated these expressions, they can only have done so because the rule was of universal application.
71 Archæological Review, vol. i, p. 286.
72 Compare also the Exon. Domesday, where 'Stoches', which is entered 'pro. ii. virgatis et dim.' appears in D.B. as 'dim. hida et dim. virga'.
73 See below, and ante, p. 17, note.
74 Key to Domesday, p. 14.
75 It is to this evidence that I made allusion in Domesday Studies (p. 225). Similar evidence as to the Domesday carucate is found in the Inq. El. (Ed. Hamilton, pp. 156, 178) where 'lx. acre' equate 'dim. c[arucata]'.
76 D.B. erroneously reads 'xxx.' (30) by the insertion of an 'x' too many. The I.C.C. correctly reads 'xx.' (20), its accuracy here being proved by the above arithmetic. Thus the I.C.C. corrects a reading which (1) would, but for it, appear fatal to the belief that 30 acres = a virgate; (2) would upset the above arithmetic. This ought to be clearly grasped, because it well illustrates the element of clerical error, and shows how apparent discrepancies in our rule may be due to a faulty text alone.
77 Here, as in the preceding instance, Domesday is in error, reading 'one virgate' ('i virgata') where the I.C.C. correctly gives us half a virgate ('dimidiam virgam'). The remarks in the preceding note apply equally here.
78 Here, again, Domesday is in error, reading two and a half virgates, where the I.C.C. has one and a half.
79 These two entries are by a blunder in the I.C.C. (see above, p. 23) erroneously rolled into one (of ⅓ virgate). In this case it is Domesday Book which corrects the I.C.C., and preserves for us the right version.
80 The I.C.C., which is very corrupt in its account of this township, gives us a deficiency of 1 hide 0½ virgates.
81 The apparent exception was caused by the Inq. Com. Cant. reading 'pro iiii. hidis', and omitting the words 'xl. acras minus', the true assessment of the Manor, when the king's estate was excluded, being 'three hides less forty acres'.
82 The blunder consists in treating 6½ (geld) acres as part of the Countess Judith's estate, whereas they had been reckoned separately; the discrepancy is due to D.B. reading 'ii. acras', where the I.C.C. has 'xxii. acras'.
83 Eyton's Notes on Domesday, p. 12.
84 Ibid., p. 13.
85 Dr Stubbs' remarks 'on the vexed question of the extent of the hide' will be found in a note to his Const. Hist., vol. i (1874), p. 74. Mr Eyton (Key to Domesday, p. 14) asserted that the Domesday hide contained 48 geld-acres. Prof Earle in his Land Charters and Saxonic Documents (1888) reviews the question of the hide, but leaves it undetermined (pp. lii-liii, 457-461).
87 Antiquary, June 1882, p. 242. See also Domesday Studies, vol. i, p. 119.
88 The I.C.C. omits the king's Manor (7¼ hides, 8 ploughlands).
89 I do not here discuss the cause of the reduction. Indeed, this would be hard to discover; for the original assessment was distinctly low, whether we compare it with the aggregate of ploughlands or of valuation. It is true that the total of valets which had been £235 0s 4d T.R.E., and was £203 8s 4d at the time of the survey, had fallen so low as £161 18s 4d, when the grantees received their lands, but, even at the lowest figure, the assessment was still moderate.
90 'Burgum de Grentebrige pro uno Hundredo se defendebat.'—D.B., i. 189.
91 This figure is arrived at by adding to the 'hida et dimidia et xx. acræ' of Domesday, and the Inq. Com. Cant. the 'viii. hidæ et xl. acræ', which the latter omits, but which Domesday records. The sum is exactly ten hides.
92 Domesday reads 'iii.', and Inq. Com. Cant. 'iiii.'
93 I.C.C. reads 'x.'
94 'Per concessionem ejusdem regis' (Domesday). Compare also the five hides knocked off the assessment of Alveston by Henry I, and another ten hides off that of Hampton (Domesday Studies, pp. 99, 103).
95 Const. Hist., i, 105.
97 See also Domesday Studies, i, 117.
98 Domesday Studies, i, 122-30.
99 The fragments of the Hundred of Papworth and North Stow, which it contains, are too small to enable us to speak with certainty.
100 Correcting the Inq. Com. Cant. by adding from Domesday the royal Manors in Isleham and Fordham.
101 Bedford, 1881.
102 'Huntedun Burg defendebat se ad geldum regis pro quarta parte de Hyrstingestan hundred pro L. hidis.'—Domesday, i, 203.
103 Adjoining Manors held by the Abbot of Ely.
104 I have not attempted to group these six Manors, as we have not sufficient information to warrant it. They would, however, form two groups of twenty hides each, or one of twenty-five and another of fifteen.
105 There are five entries relating to Catworth (fos. 205b, 206, 206b, 217b), which, by the addition of 11 hides (1 + 1 + 3 + 2 + 3 + 1), would bring up its assessment to 15; but as they are all credited in Domesday to other Hundreds, and as there are two Catworths surveyed, I have adhered to the above figure.
106 Introduction to Domesday, i, 134. The italics are his own.
107 Const. Hist., i, 99.
108 This point brings further into line the towns and the rural Hundreds, through the 100-hide and the 50-hide assessments of the former. (See my 'Danegeld' Essay in Domesday Studies.)
109 Edgar spoke of it as three Hundreds.
110 'Unum hundret quod vocatur Oswaldeslaw in quo jacent ccc. hidæ.'—D.B., i., 172b.
111 It also contained one 23-hide and two 24-hide Manors, which were once perhaps, of 25 hides. The Church of Worcester, also possessed, outside this Hundred, Manors (inter alia) of 20, 15, 10, and 5 hides. (See below, p. 143.)
112 D.B., i. 175b.
113 I make the aggregate 118½ hides.
114 'Quæ hic [Dodintret hundred] placitant et geldant et ad Hereford reddunt firmam suam.' It would have been said in Cambridgeshire that their 'wara' was in Doddentree Hundred.
115 Eyton's Somerset Survey, ii, 25.
116 Eyton's Dorset Domesday, p. 14.
117 I drew attention in the Archæological Review (vol. 1) to a Cornish survey of 21 Ed. I. (Testa de Nevill, p. 204), in which every Cornish acre contains a Cornish carucate.
118 Domesday Studies, p. 172.
119 'A New View of the Geldable Unit of Assessment of Domesday.' Ibid., pp. 227-363, 561-619.
120 Archæological Review, i, 285-95; iv, 130-40, 391.
121 Ibid., iv, 325.
122 A curious hint of the grouping of Vills is afforded in Oxfordshire by Adderbury and Bloxham. Domesday first gives us an assessment of 34½ hides in the two, and then 15½ hides in Adderbury, making in all, for the two, 50 hides, the same as Banbury.] (Return to p. 72)
123 This evidence is rendered available by the useful Notes on the Oxfordshire Domesday, published by the Clarendon Press in 1892.
124 40 + 5 + 5.
125 'Unam hidam et iiies. virgatas et iiiciam. partem de i. virgata.'
126 'Dimidiam hidam et iiiciam. partem dimidiæ hidæ.'
127 Lysons. So also Domesday: 'soco vero jacebat in Stains'.
128 Domesday Studies, i. 120. See also supra, p. 45, and the case of Northampton, infra.
129 Domesday, i. 64b.
130 English Historical Review, 1889, iv. 729.
131 English Historical Review, 1889, iv. 728-9.
132 Archæological Review, iv. 313-27.
133 Mr Stevenson, perhaps, is rather too severe on Canon Taylor's 'Carucate' remarks in the New English Dictionary. Strictly, no doubt, the Canon was mistaken, with Mr Pell, in reckoning 120 as 144 'by the English number'; but the evidence in his paper on 'the plough and the ploughland' seems to establish a practice of counting by twelve instead of ten.
134 Genealogist, N.S., vi. 160-1.
135 Archæological Review, iv. 322.
136 On this point one may compare with profit 'the making of the Danelaw' (858-78), by the late Mr Green (Conquest of England, pp. 114-29), who had devoted to this subject much attention. He discusses the limits of Eastern Mercia, the district of the Five Boroughs, in the light of local nomenclature (Ibid., pp. 121-2), and includes within it, on this ground, Northamptonshire, while observing that the country about Buckingham, which formed the southern border of the 'Five Boroughs', has no 'byes'. My own evidence is wholly distinct from that of local nomenclature, and defines more sharply the district settled and reorganized by the Danes. The hidation of Northamptonshire is peculiar, a unit of four (reminding one of the Mercian shilling) coming into prominence. Still, it was not carucated, but retained its assessment in hides.
137 Stamford is assigned to Lincolnshire by Domesday, but is now in Rutland. The 'Rutland' of Domesday (the northern portion of the county as at present constituted) was included, we shall find, in the carucated district by which it was surrounded on the north.
138 Reg. Mag. Alb. at York, pars. ii. 1. Quoted by Canon Raine, in his edition of John of Hexham (who applies these formulæ to Hexham itself), p. 61.
139 vide infra, p. 149, et seq.
140 'Suma iii. hundr' et vi. car. et vi. bov.'
141 'Suma iiii. hundr' et x. car.' (a wrong total).
142 'Summa iii. hundr' et v. car. et iiii. bov.'
143 See also on these Hundreds Mr Stevenson's remarks in English Historical Review, v. 96, which have appeared since I made these researches.
144 This appears to be a clerical error. The actual figures represent 'Hundreds'.
145 The Northern division by threes and sixes is responsible, of course, for the six 'sheaddings' of the Isle of Man. On their connection with the 'scypfylleth' of three Hundreds see Vigfusson in English Historical Review, ii. 500.
146 The aggregate of these areal measures does not bear out the statement of Domesday regarding them, the former Wapentake containing eighty-four ploughlands, where Domesday allows it only forty-eight.
147 The entry is far more suggestive of the 'Hundreds' (vide infra) in Leicestershire, on the border of which Sawley stood. This remark applies also to the entry (i. 291b) that Leake (Notts) 'jacet in Pluntree Hund'.
148 See D.B., i. fos. 298, 298b, and fo. 379.
149 As Mr Pell did in the case of Clifton.
151 'There is no trace of any,' writes Canon Taylor (Domesday Studies, i. 74).
152 As with maenols and trevs in North and South Wales.
153 Mr Pell tried to explain it by assuming that the Leicestershire carucates were really small virgates of the hida in question!
154 This at once shows the absurdity of taking these eighteen carucates to be eighteen 'virgates' of a normal hide, and of all the reasoning based thereupon.
155 See more below on this point.
156 English Historical Review, v. 95.
157 Mr Stevenson, moreover, should surely, to obtain the meaning he wants, have extended car as 'car[ucatarum]'.
158 I also hold the formula 'T.R.E. erant ibi x car[ucæ]' to refer to ploughs, not ploughlands.
159 Note that the assessment of 2⅝ carucates represented 2½ ploughlands, and that of 9⅜ carucates only 7 ploughlands. No relation, therefore, can be traced here.
160 Conquest of England, p. 121 note.
161 Ibid., p. 276.
162 Chester Archæological Journal, vol. v.
163 'De harieta Lagemanorum habuit isdem picot viii. lib,' etc. (i. 189).
164 Domesday Studies, i. 143-86.
165 Ibid., 157.
166 According to Canon Taylor's ingenious theory, the ratio should be 1 to 1 (for two-field Manors), or 2 to 1 for three-field Manors. But in Leicestershire there is a remarkable prevalence of the 3 to 2 ratio, which his theory can, at best, only explain as exceptional.
168 The figures are taken from the 'Index' to the Hundreds at the close of the first volume of Domesday Book, and the names are arranged in the same order as they are there found.
169 There is plenty of similar evidence elsewhere in the shire. Thus we find the Craven Manors assessed at 6, 6, 6, 3, 3, 4, 6, 10, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 2, 3, 3, 3 carucates. These assessments would give us 24 (6 + 6 + 6 + 3 + 3) + 24 (4 + 6 + 10 + 2 + 2) + 18 (3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3) + 11 (2 + 3 + 3 + 3).
171 Compare the 'Reparto de la contribucion', found in the Spanish village communities, the members of which apportioned the assessment among themselves.
172 Key to Domesday: Dorset, p. 14.
173 The anomalous position of Rutland also was, of course, a disturbing element.
174 This low assessment is equally obvious in that of the several Manors.
175 Probably 1⁄27, as against about 1⁄6 for Somerset and Dorset jointly.
176 See Mr Green's maps in his work, The Making of England, and Mr Freeman's map of 'Britain in 597', in vol. i. of his Norman Conquest. The figures for Hampshire, unfortunately, are wanting in the roll of 1156, as in that of 1130.
177 Even if such assessment were not required, at first, for financial reasons, it might be necessary for such obligations as eventually formed the 'trinoda necessitas'.
178 See Stubbs, Select Charters, pp. 67-9, and Const. Hist., i. 96-9.
179 Select Charters, p. 67.
180 Vol. i., pp. 98, 99. Cf. Select Charters, p. 67: 'It is sometimes stated that the Hundred is a primitive subdivision consisting of a hundred hides of land, or apportioned to a hundred families, the great objection to which theory is the impossibility of reconciling the historical Hundreds with any such computation.'
181 Select Charters, p. 6.
182 Thus, the first entry for East Anglia (ii. 109b) has 'de xx. solidis reddit xvi. d. in gelto.'
183 Compare also the very curious system of 'purses' adopted by the Cinque Ports. The 'purse' was £4 7s, and to every 'purse' Sandwich, for instance, paid twenty shillings, while, whenever it paid twenty such shillings, its four 'members' were assessed to pay three and fourpence apiece towards it.
184 'In hundredo de Tinghowe sunt xx. villæ ex quibus constituuntur ix. lete, quas sic distinguimus.' Gage's Suffolk, p. xii.
185 Select Pleas in Manorial Courts (Selden Society), I., lxiii.—lxxvi.
186 Ibid., p. lxxvi.
187 'De gelto v. sol'' (D.B., ii. 286b). Sudbury was an outlying portion of the Hundred of Thingoe, in which is situated Bury St Edmunds, of which we read (D.B., ii. 372): 'quando in hundredo solvitur ad geldum i. libra, tunc inde exeunt lx. d. ad victum monachorum.' This substitution, apparently, of Sudbury (as three leets) for Bury St Edmunds (of which the monks received the geld) deserves investigation.
189 'Wisbeche, quæ est quarta pars centuriatus insulæ' (Liber Eliensis p. 192).
190 'In Sparle et in Pagrave, xviii. d. quando hundret scotabat xx. solidos et in Acra vi. d. et in pichensam xii. d. quicunque ibi teneat' (ii. 119b). See also note 182.
191 See Domesday Studies, p. 117.
192 Reprinted from the English Historical Review, October 1892.
193 Ninth Report on Historical MSS., App. I, 38.
194 Domesday of St. Paul's, p. iv.
195 This is a slip. Drayton was in Middlesex, and the words (which Mr Seebohm quotes) are 'cum una hida de solande'.
196 I know of no authority for this form.
197 The 'Lathes' of Kent of course point in the same direction.
198 Professor Vinogradoff states, on the contrary, that 'all are irregular in their formation'.
199 English Village Community, pp. 54, 139, 396.
200 The phrase 'quot hidæ sint ibi' is of importance because such formulae as 'T.R.E. geldabat pro ii. hidis, sed tamen sunt ibi xii. hidæ', have sometimes been understood to imply two geldable, but twelve arable hides, whereas both figures refer to assessment only.
201 English Village Community, 212 note.
202 We might also compare the droit de gîte on the other side of the Channel.
203 I am indebted for these identifications to Mr Eyton's work.
204 It is a further and fundamental error that Mr Eyton speaks of the firma unius noctis as 'borough taxation', whereas it was essentially of the nature of rent, not taxes.
205 I am indebted for these identifications to Mr Eyton's work.
206 We should perhaps read this as explaining the composition of the centuriatus, viz.: 'the priests, the reeves, and six villeins from each Vill'.
207 Of this conflict there is a good instance, almost at the outset of the Cambridgeshire survey (p. 3): 'Hanc terram posuit Orgarus in vadimonio ... ut homines Goisfridi dicunt. Sed homines de hundredo neque breve aliquid neque legat' R.E. inde viderunt, neque testimonium perhibent.'
208 Whittlesford omitted, because in this Hundred no lands were held or claimed by the Abbey.
209 Compare Wilkins, 125 (quoted by Palgrave, English Commonwealth, i. 464) on English and 'Welsh' in Devon: 'Disputes arising between the plaintiffs and defendants of the two nations were to be decided by a court of twelve "lawmen"—six English and six Welsh—the representatives of the respective communities. And it may be observed that the principle which suggested this dimidiated tribunal was generally adopted in our border law.'
210 Wharton's Anglia Sacra, i. 339.
211 Palgrave's Commonwealth, ii. 183.
212 This seems of great importance as a very early instance of the quatuor villatæ system, on which see Gross's 'The Early History and Influence of the Office of Coroner' (Political Science Quarterly, vol. vii, No. 4), where the researches of Prof Maitland and others are summarized.
213 Only four, however, of the fourteen actually swore: 'reliquos vero decem quietavit Willelmus abbas, qui parati erant jurare'.
214 The number eight perhaps, is unusual for the jury of a Hundred but we have an instance in 1222, of a 'jurata per octo legales cives Lincolniæ et præterea per octo legales homines de visneto Lincolnie' (Bracton's Note-book, ii. 121); and see Addenda.
215 His surname is there omitted, but his identity is proved by Humphrey 'de Anslevilla' occurring elsewhere as an under-tenant of Eudo.
216 So I conclude from his Introduction to Domesday, i. 22, note 2.
217 Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensi, pp. 97 et seq.
218 Ed. Hamilton, pp. 184-9.
219 Ibid., pp. 97, 101.
220 C omits 'et'.
221 Here the scribe of C, puzzled by the evident corruption of the text from which he copied, read 'inv[enit]'.
222 'Toft' (rightly) in C.
223 Chauelæi, C.
224 Stanhard[us], B, C.
225 Frauuis, C.