Part 17

[524] D. B. i. 4 b: 'De terra huius manerii ten[uit] unus homo archiepiscopi dimid. solin et cum his 6 solins geldabat T. R. E. quamvis non pertineret manerio nisi de scoto quia libera terra erat.' The _scotum_ in this context seems to be or to include the geld. Compare D. B. i. 61 b: 'Haec terra iacet et appreciata est in Gratentun quod est in Oxenefordscire et tamen dat scotum in Berchescire.' D. B. ii. 11: 'In Colecestra habet episcopus 14 domos et 4 acras non reddentes consuetudinem praeter scotum nisi episcopo.'

[525] See above, p. 85.

[526] Hamilton, Inquisitio, 60.

[527] Above, p. 110.

[528] D. B. i. 35 b.

[529] Northumbrian Priests' Law, 58, 59, (Schmid, p. 369.)

[530] An Act of 1869 (32-3 Vic. c. 41) allowed the owners of certain small houses to agree to pay the rates which under the ordinary law would become due from the occupiers, and authorized the vestries to allow such owners a commission of 25 per cent. See also the instructive recital in 59 Geo. III. c. 12, sec. 19:--The small occupiers are evading the poors' rate, and the owners exact higher rents than they would otherwise get, on the ground that the occupiers can not be effectually assessed.

[531] See above, p. 24.

[532] E.g. D. B. ii. 389 b, 'Clarum tenuit Aluricus pro manerio 24 car. terrae T. R. E. Tunc 40 villani.... Tunc 12 carucae in dominio.... Tunc 36 carucae hominum.... Huic manerio semper adiacent 5 sochemani cum omni consuetudine 1 car. terrae et dim. Semper 1 caruca et dimidia.'

[533] E.g. D. B. ii. 339: 'In eadem villa 14 liberi homines commendati, Godricus faber et Edricus et Ulnotus et Osulfus et Uluricus et Stanmarus et Leuietus et Wihtricus et Blachemanus et Mansuna et Leuinus et Ulmarus et Ulfah et alter Ulfah et Leofstanus de 40 acris et habent 2 carucas et valent 10 solidos.'

[534] Above, p. 115.

[535] Rolls of the King's Court, Ric. I. (Pipe Roll. Soc.), p. xxiv. But apparently there had been considerable rearrangements in some of the counties.

[536] Hoveden, iv. 46. The important words are these: 'Statutum etiam fuit quod quilibet baro cum vicecomite faceret districtiones super homines suos; et si per defectum baronum districtiones factae non fuissent, caperetur de dominico baronum quod super homines suos restaret reddendum, et ipsi barones ad homines suos inde caperent.' The baron's _homines_ we take to be freeholders; he would be absolutely liable for the tax cast upon his villeinage. As to the tax of 1198 see Eng. Hist. Rev. iii. 501, 701; iv. 105, 108.

[537] In Dial. de Scac. ii. 14, the author tells us that until recently if a baron who owed money to the crown was insolvent, the goods of his knights could be seized. The idea of subsidiary liability is not too subtle for the time.

[538] Above, p. 108.

[539] D. B. ii. 9: 'set Comes Eustachius 1 ex illis [hidis] tenet que non est de suis c. [100] mansionibus.'

[540] D. B. ii. 233 b.

[541] D. B. ii. 242 b.

[542] D. B. ii. 258.

[543] D. B. ii. 258.

[544] D. B. ii. 447.

[545] D. B. i. 45 b.

[546] Two objections to our theory may be met by a note. (1) Some manors are free of geld, and therefore to make our definition correct we ought to say that a manor is a tenement which either pays its geld at a single place or which would do so were it not freed from the tax by some special privilege. A _manerium_ does not cease to be a _manerium_ by being freed from geld. (2) In later days we may well find a manor holden of another manor, so that a plot of land may be within two manors. If this usage of the term can be traced back into Domesday Book as a common phenomenon, then our doctrine is in great jeopardy. But we have noticed no passage which clearly and unambiguously says that a tract of land was _at one and the same time_ both a _manerium_ and also a part of another _manerium_. To this we must add that of the distribution of _maneria_ T. R. E. we only obtain casual and very imperfect tidings. If T. R. W. a free man has been 'added to' a _manerium_, the commissioners have no deep interest in the inquiry whether T. R. E. his tenement was itself an independent _manerium_. A great simplification has been effected and the number of _maneria_ has been largely reduced.

§ 7. _Manor and Vill._

[Manorial and non-manorial vills.]

After what has now been said, it is needless to repeat that in Domesday Book the _manerium_ and the _villa_ are utterly different things[547]. In a given case the two may coincide, and throughout a great tract of England such cases were common and we may even say that they were normal. But in the east this was not so. We may easily find a village which taken as a whole has been utterly free from seignorial domination. Orwell in Cambridgeshire will be a good example[548].

[The vill of Orwell.]

In King Edward's day this vill of Orwell was rated at 4 hides: probably it was somewhat underrated for at the date of the survey it was deemed capable of finding land for nearly 6 teams. The following table will show who held the four hides before the Conquest:--

H. V. A.

Two sokemen, men of Edith the Fair 2/3 A sokeman, man of Abp Stigand 1-1/3 A sokeman, man of Robert Wimarc's son 1-1/3 A sokeman, man of the King 2/3 A sokeman, man of Earl Ælfgar 1-1/3 A sokeman, man of Earl Waltheof 3 A sokeman, man of the King 1/3 Sigar a man of Æsgar the Staller 1-1/3 Turbert a man of Edith the Fair 3-1/4 5 Achil a man of Earl Harold 1 A sokeman of the King 1 St. Mary of Chatteris 1/3 St. Mary of Chatteris 1/4 ---------------- 4 0 0[549]

It will be seen that eight of the most exalted persons in the land, the king, the archbishop, three earls, two royal marshals or stallers, and that mysterious lady known as Edith the Fair, to say nothing of the church of Chatteris, had a certain interest in this little Cambridgeshire village. But then how slight an interest it was! Every one of the tenants was free to 'withdraw himself,' 'to give or sell his land.' Now we can not say that all of them were peasants. Achil the man of Harold seems to have had other lands in the neighbouring villages of Harlton and Barrington[550]. It is probable that Turbert, Edith's man, had another virgate at Kingston[551]: he was one of the jurors of the hundred in which Orwell lay[552]. Sigar the man of Æsgar was another juror, and held land at Thriplow, Foxton, Haslingfield and Shepreth; he seems to have been his lord's steward[553]. But we may be fairly certain that the unnamed sokemen tilled their own soil, though perhaps they had help from a few cottagers. And they can not have been constantly employed in cultivating the demesne lands of their lords. They must go some distance to find any such demesne lands. The Wetherley hundred, in which Orwell lies, is full of the sokemen of these great folk: Waltheof, for example, has 3 men in Comberton, 4 in Barton, 3 in Grantchester, 1 in Wratworth: but he has no demesne land, and if he had it, he could not get it tilled by these scattered tenants. The Fair Edith has half a hide in Haslingfield and we are told that this belongs to the manor of Swavesey. Now at Swavesey Edith has a considerable manor[554], but it can not have got much in the way of labour out of a tenant who lived at Haslingfield, for the two villages are a long ten miles apart. As to the king's sokemen, their only recorded services are the _avera_ and the _inward_. The former seems to be a carrying service done at the sheriff's bidding and to be only exigible when the king comes into the shire, while _inward_ seems to be the duty of forming a body guard for the king while he is in the shire:--if in any year the king did not come, a small sum of money was taken instead[555].

[A Cambridgeshire hundred.]

Lest it should be thought that in picking out the village of Orwell we have studiously sought a rare case, we will here set out in a tabular form what we can learn of the state of the hundred in which Orwell lies. The Wetherley hundred contained twelve vills: it was a land of true villages which until very lately had wide open fields[556]. In the Confessor's day the lands in it were allotted thus:--

CAMBRIDGESHIRE. WETHERLEY HUNDRED[557].

I. COMBERTON. A vill of 6 hides. H. V. A. C. B. 1. Seven sokemen of the King 1 1 0} A sokeman, man of Earl Waltheof} 3 0} 4 0 A sokeman, man of Abp Stigand } } 2. A man of Earl Waltheof 1 15 1 0 3. A sokeman, man of the King 1 0} A sokeman, man of Abp Stigand 1 15} 2 0 A sokeman, man of Earl Waltheof 1 15} 4. The King 2 2 0 5 0 --------- ------ 5 3 15[558] 12 0

II. BARTON. A vill of 7 hides. 1. Two sokemen, men of Earl Waltheof 1 1 15 } A sokeman, man of Earl Waltheof 3 15[559]} 5 0 A sokeman, man of Earl Waltheof 1 0 } 2. Juhael the King's hunter 1 0 0 1 0 3. A sokeman, man of Edith the Fair 2 0} 6 0 4. Twenty-three sokemen of the King 3 0 0} --------- ------ 7 0 0 12 0

III. GRANTCHESTER. A vill of 7 hides[560]. H. V. A. C. B. 1. Five sokemen, men of the King 3 0 1 0 2. Two sokemen, men of the King 2 1 0} 6 0 A sokeman, man of Æsgar the Staller 2 0} 3. A sokeman, man of Earl Ælfgar 3 0} Three sokemen, men of Earl Waltheof 2 0 0} 4 0 4. Godman a man of Edith the Fair 1 15 1 0 5. Juhael the King's hunter 1 0 4 6. Wulfric, the King's man 15 3 --------- ------ 7 0 0 12 7

IV. HASLINGFIELD. A vill of 20 hides. 1. The King 7 1 0 8 0 2. Five sokemen, men of the King 3 0 0} A sokeman, man of Æsgar the Staller 1 3 0} 4 0 3. Ealdred a man of Edith the Fair 1 0 15 1 4 4. Edith the Fair, belonging to Swavesey 2 0 4 5. Sigar a man of Æsgar the Staller 5 0 0 6 0 6. Two sokemen of the King 1 1 3 2 0 7. Merewin, a man of Edith the Fair 12 0 0 ---------- ------ 20 0 0 22 0

V. HARLTON. A vill of 5 hides.

1. Achil, a King's thegn and under him five sokemen of whom four were his men while the fifth was the man of Ernulf 4 0 0 6 0 2. Godman a man of Æsgar the Staller 1 0 0 1 0 --------- ----- 5 0 0 7 0

VI. BARRINGTON. A vill of 10 hides.

1. Eadric Púr a King's thegn 3 0} Fifteen sokemen, men of the King 4 1 15} Four sokemen, men of Earl Ælfgar 2 0 15} Three sokemen, men of Æsgar the } 11 0 Staller 1 0 0} Eadric Púr, holding of the Church } of Chatteris 15} 2. The Church of Chatteris 2 0 0 4 0 3. Ethsi, holding of Robert Wimarc's son 20 3 4. Achil the Dane, a man of Earl Harold 40 6 5. A sokeman, man of the King 15 2 ---------- ------ 11 0 0[561] 17 3

VII. SHEPRETH. A vill of 5 hides. H. V. A. C. B. 1. Four sokemen, men of the King} 2 0 15 2 2 A sokeman, man of Earl Ælfgar} 2. The Church of Chatteris 1 1 15 1 4 3. Sigar a man of Æsgar the Staller 1 0 0 1 0 4. Heming a man of the King 1 15 4 5. The Church of Ely 15 2 --------- ----- 5 0 0 5 4

VIII. ORWELL. A vill of 4 hides. 1. Two sokemen, men of Edith the Fair 20} A sokeman, man of Abp Stigand 1 10} A sokeman, man of Robert Wimarc's son 1 10} 1 4 A sokeman, man of the King 20} A sokeman, man of Earl Ælfgar 1 10} 2. A sokeman, man of Earl Waltheof 3 0} 1 0 A sokeman, man of the King 10} 3. Sigar, a man of Æsgar the Staller 1 10 4 4. Turbert, a man of Edith the Fair 3 12-1/2 1 4 5. Achil, a man of Earl Harold 1 0 2 6. A sokeman, man of the King 1 0 3 7. The Church of Chatteris 10 1 8. The Church of Chatteris 7-1/2 1/2 --------- --------- 4 0 0 5 2-1/2

IX. WRATWORTH. A vill of 4 hides. 1. A sokeman, man of Edith the Fair 3 10} A sokeman, man of Abp Stigand 3 0} A sokeman, man of Earl Ælfgar 1 10} 3 0 A sokeman, man of Robert Wimarc's son 10} A sokeman, man of the King 20} 2. A sokeman, man of Earl Waltheof 2 20} 1 0 A sokeman, man of Robert Wimarc's son 10} 3. A sokeman, man of Edith the Fair 1 10 4 4. A sokeman, man of the King 1 0 3 5. Two sokemen, men of the King 2 0 4 ---------- ----- 4 0 0 5 3

X. WHITWELL. A vill of 4 hides. 1. A sokeman, man of Earl Ælfgar 1 20} A sokeman, man of Robert Wimarc's son 1 0} 1 4 A sokeman, man of the King 2 0} 2. A sokeman, man of Abp Stigand 15} A sokeman, man of Edith the Fair 10} 4 [A sokeman] 15} 3. Six sokemen, men of the King 1 1 0} A sokeman, man of Robert Wimarc's son 2 0} 2 0 A sokeman, man of Earl Ælfgar 1 0} 4. Godwin a man of Edith the Fair 2 0 1 0 --------- ----- 4 0 0 5 0

XI. WIMPOLE. A vill of 4 hides. H. V. A. C. B. 1. Edith the Fair 2 2 15 3 0 2. Earl Gyrth 1 1 15 2 0 --------- ----- 4 0 0 5 0

XII. ARRINGTON. A vill of 4 hides. 1. Ælfric, a King's thegn 1 1 10} A sokeman, man of Earl Waltheof 1 0 0} A sokeman, man of the Abbot of Ely 1 0 0} 8 0 A sokeman, man of Robert Wimarc's son 20} 2. A man of Edith the Fair 2 0 4 --------- ----- 4 0 0[562] 8 4

[The Wetherley sokemen.]

Now if by a 'manor' we mean what our historical economists usually mean when they use that term, we must protest that before the Norman Conquest there were very few manors in the Wetherley hundred. In no one case was the whole of a village coincident with a manor, with a lord's estate. The king had considerable manors in Comberton and Haslingfield. Sigar had a manor at Haslingfield; the church of Chatteris had a manor at Barrington besides some land at Shepreth; Wimpole was divided between Edith and Earl Gyrth; Harlton between Achil and Godman. But in Barton, Grantchester, Shepreth, Orwell, Wratworth, Whitwell and Arrington we see nothing manorial, unless we hold ourselves free to use that term of a little tenement which to all appearance might easily be cultivated by the labour of one household, at all events with occasional help supplied by a few cottagers. Indeed it is difficult to say what profit some of the great people whose names we have mentioned were deriving from those of their men who dwelt in the Wetherley hundred. We take the Mercian earl for example[563]. One of the sokemen of Grantchester, four of the sokemen of Barrington, one of the sokemen of Shepreth, one of the sokemen of Orwell, one of the sokemen of Wratworth, two of the sokemen of Whitwell were Ælfgar's men. That Ælfgar got a little money or a little provender out of them is probable, that they did some carrying service for him is possible and perhaps they aided him at harvest time on some manor of his in another part of the county; but that they were not the tillers of his land seems clear[564].

[The sokeman and seignorial justice.]

What is more, our analysis of this Wetherley hundred enables us to drive home the remark that very often a sokeman was not the sokeman of his lord or, in other words, that he was not under seignorial justice[565]. Ælfgar had ten sokemen scattered about in six villages. Did he hold a court for them? We think not. Did they go to the court of some distant manor? We think not. The court they attended was the Wetherley hundred-moot. One of the sokemen in Arrington was in a somewhat exceptional position--exceptional, that is, in this hundred. Not only was he the man of the Abbot of Ely, but his soke belonged to the Abbot; and if he sold his tenement, and this he could do without the Abbot's consent, the soke over his land would 'remain' to the Abbot[566]. He was not only his lord's man but his lord's justiciable and probably attended some court outside the hundred. But for the more part these men of Wetherley were not the justiciables of their lords. It was a very free hundred when the Normans came there: much too free for the nation's welfare we may think, for these sokemen could go with their land to what lord they pleased. Also be it noted in passing that the churches have little in Wetherley.

[Changes in the Wetherley hundred.]

In 1086 there had been a change. The sokemen had disappeared. The Norman lords had made demesne land where their English _antecessores_ possessed none. Count Roger had instituted a seignorial court at Orwell. He had borrowed three sokemen 'to hold his pleas' from Picot the sheriff and had refused to give them up again[567]. Apparently they had sunk to the level of _villani_. Two centuries afterwards we see the hundred of Wetherley once more. There is villeinage enough in it. The villein at Orwell, for example, holds only 10 acres but works for his lord on 152 days in the year, besides boon-days[568]. And yet we should go far astray if we imposed upon these Cambridgeshire villages that neat manorial system which we see at its neatest and strongest in the abbatial cartularies. The villages do not become manors. The manors are small. The manors are intermixed in the open fields. There are often freeholders in the village who are not the tenants of any lord who has a manor there. A villein will hold two tenements of two lords. The villein of one lord will be the freeholder of another. The 'manorial system' has been forced upon the villages, but it fits them badly[569].

[Manorialism in Cambridgeshire.]

In the thirteenth century the common field of a Cambridgeshire village was often a very maze of proprietary rights, and yet the village was an agrarian whole. Let us take, for example, Duxford as it stood in the reign of Edward I.[570] We see 39 villein tenements each of which has fourteen acres in the fields. These tenements are divided between five different manors. Four of our typical 'townsmen' hold of Henry de Lacy, who holds of Simon de Furneaux, who holds of the Count of Britanny, who holds of the king. Two hold of Ralph of Duxford, who holds of Basilia wife of Baldwyn of St George, who holds of William Mortimer, who holds of Simon de Furneaux, who holds of the Count of Britanny, who holds of the king. Eight hold of the Templars, who hold of Roger de Colville, who holds of the Earl of Albemarle, who holds of the king. Nine hold of William le Goyz, who holds of Henry of Boxworth, who holds of Richard de Freville, who holds of the king. Sixteen hold of John d'Abernon, who holds of the Earl Marshal, who holds of the king. Three of the greatest 'honours' in England are represented. Three monasteries and two parochial churches have strips in the fields. And yet there are normal tenements cut according to one pattern, tenements of fourteen acres the holders of which, though their other services may differ, pay for the more part an equal rent[571]. The village seems to say that it must be one, though the lords would make it many. And then we look back to the Confessor's day and we see that a good part of Duxford was held by sokemen[572].

[The sokemen and the manors.]

Perhaps we shall be guilty of needless repetition; but what is written in Domesday Book about _maneria_ is admirably designed for the deception of modern readers whose heads are full of 'the manorial system.' Therefore let us look at two Hertfordshire villages. In one of them there is a _manerium_ which Ralph Basset holds of Robert of Ouilly[573]. It has been rated at 4, but is now rated at 2 hides. There is land for 4 teams. In demesne are 2 teams; and 3-1/2 _villani_ with 2 sokemen of 1 hide and 5 _bordarii_ have 2 teams. There are 1 cottager and 1 serf and a mill of 10 shillings and meadow for 3 teams. It is now worth £3; in King Edward's day it was worth £5. Now here, we say, is a pretty little manor of the common kind. Let us then explore its past history. 'Five sokemen held this manor.' Yes, we say, before the Conquest this manor was held in physically undivided shares by five lords. Their shares were small and they were humble people; but still they had a manor. But let us read further. 'Two of them were the men of Brihtric and held 1-1/2 hides; other two were the men of Osulf the son of Frane and held 1-1/2 hides; and the fifth was the man of Eadmer Atule and held a hide.' We will at once finish the story and see how Robert of Ouilly came by this manor. 'No one of these five sokemen belonged to his _antecessor_ Wigot; every one of them might sell his land. One of them bought (i.e. redeemed) his land for nine ounces of gold from King William, so the men of the hundred say, and afterwards turned for protection to Wigot.' So Robert's title to this manor is none of the best. But are we sure that before the Conquest there was anything that we should call a manor? These five sokemen who have unequal shares, who have three different lords, who hold in all but 4 team-lands, whose land is worth but £5, do not look like a set of coparceners to whom a 'manor' has descended. When Robert of Ouilly has got his manor there are upon it 2 sokemen, 3 villeins, 5 _bordarii_, a cottager and a serf. It was not a splendid manor for five lords.

[Hertfordshire sokemen.]