s

v:.W-- • !.H
¦¦:¦,'¦,.
JMWVMSIfS
ji'^MiiiiaH
toy?* SL

J

S'cfjtfl'

©OtttftfWJ) ^U&tttf

VOLUME II,

51=

J J

^mr^~

&^7

u

D

R

E

"'.ii, ' A. :"' Brqriberta. j -^ \£P*?

,,«, -Silk ,,.;. .*<..j.,*«-.<«^"~'

3& ¦" -:u*l"
/ . "; ;„ . ,« / ikj«« £* -¦¦¦I ' " - .; . " - *k

H

'*;¦<,

. .May

V,

a, UL.

- L„

*

^¦> .

Tiiefc

«U

5!4s

Pctejppj^ Mopehc.
... ¦ "¦'- am q
. Ml'«,7f»™v/<.
'lohnione - Lordijtfret _-,. „. Idene-
¦WfcJte^afiae ^r^mk\y4; ^SS5i,i;™^% ^tii^^8^
Beiife/
^Berli'edttme !
Lofen:tr>7ie
* UAKlTNDELCAS
^SBcli.
Cetelingei. -Bu. '
lVfta»I-btB;-.-d«ili.l.l *SM,.™*\J,),|"h^S """.Vh..n,.m-. *TO.oW  ...^IXtVlJS /ffi,,,„„. ,;,./,;,*,„,, , ¦ nS,.,  ") n .. ..7. .,,„„'«<«. ^"'^'U
+Ess<Jborae +Cecl<'sfeld;
^sham / BocJtehanim iVHtinqham
aopdumt ' ' Sorfct&aA*
¦pk\ pbnJJ^TtfWK I Wa.bT.rfef ftj l*^„v- * S^'T JTo^^^^^^K^.n, /(.,,*?>, . -_?7U.J->1-lI.h'-bnos,on]
h,/,.."^-^ / =' r^^ ~ -^ " " ^'¦-^?r*y ^ "^ ?¦ ^ ¦!<"J1 fc ¦<$•¦ ^\-K2*ni<?<-< /cur \ -lonnqe.* ffi'i-'ifh,,,,
Berlin tone
yone Sen eeham - ^
Tflbra/itt? Pamocn
{[or.tfltji
7i<mi
% %
PEKEVESEL
DOMESDAY SUSSEX
F. E. Sawyer, F. S.A. del!
Scale of English Stat.Miles
1 . 5  10  15  20
PiindpaJ towns or castle of each Rapeihus LEWES+
Villages with Churches Selmestoue*
J/ano/v Sc. Orde .
V AVest of Greenwich.
Sta7ifo7tLs Geoq?£Ftab?
©omeeoag Commemoration
1086 A.D. — 1886 A.D.
DOMESDAY STUDIES
BEING THE PAPERS READ AT THE MEETINGS OF
THE DOMESDAY COMMEMORATION 1886
WITH A BIBLIOGRAPHY OF DOMESDAY BOOK AND ACCOUNTS
OF THE MSS AND PRINTED BOOKS EXHIBITED AT
THE PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE AND AT
THE BRITISH MUSEUM

EDITED BY
P. EDWARD DOVE
of Lincoln's inn, barrister-at-law
honorary secretary of the domesday commemoration committee
THE BIBLIOGRAPHY OF DOMESDAY BOOK
EDITED BY HENRY B. WHEATLEY, F.S.A.
VOLUME II.

SPOTTISWOODE & CO., NEW- STREET SQUARE, LONDON
1891
A 11 rights reserved

CONTENTS OF
VOLUME II.

NOTE ON THE ORDER OF DOMESDAY BOOK. By Hyde
Clarke, V.P.R.Hist.S  387
THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY. With Especial Reference to
Episcopal Endowments. By James Parker, M.A. . . . 399
PARISH CHURCHES OMITTED IN THE SURVEY. THE
PRESBYTER. By Herbert J. Reid, F.S.A.. . . . . 433
THE SCOPE OF LOCAL ELUCIDATION OF THE DOMESDAY
SURVEY. By Frederick E. Sawyer, F.S.A  447
THE DOMESDAY SURVEY OF SURREY. By H. E. Malden,
M.A., F.R.Hist.S. .  459
ON AN ALLEGED INSTANCE OF THE FALLIBILITY OF
DOMESDAY IN REGARD TO 'ANCIENT DEMESNE.'
By Sir Henry Barkly, K.C.B  471
THE MATERIALS FOR THE RE-EDITING OF THE DOMES
DAY BOOK. And Suggestions for the Formation of a
Domesday Book Society. By W. de G. Birch, F.S.A. . . 485
THE OFFICIAL CUSTODY OF DOMESDAY BOOK. By Hubert
Hall, F.S.A., F.R.Hist.S  517
AN EARLY REFERENCE TO DOMESDAY. By J. Horace
Round, M.A  539

vi CONTENTS PAGE
SUMMARY OF A 'NEW VIEW OF THE GELDABLE UNIT
OF ASSESSMENT OF DOMESDAY.' By O. C. Pell . . 561
DOMESDAY COMMEMORATION 1886. Notes on the Manu
scripts &c. Exhibited at H.M. Public Record Office . . 621
DOMESDAY COMMEMORATION 1886. Notes on the Manu
scripts and Printed Books Exhibited at the British
Museum  649
DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY .... ... 663
INDEX. . . ... . . 697

DOMESDAY MAP OF SUSSEX  Fn

'ontispiecc

>

J

Qtofc on t$t ©tber of ©omeeoag Q^ooih
By HYDE CLARKE, V.P.R.Hist.S.
In the preoccupation of the Conference, the time of which
was fully occupied, there was no occasion for the considera
tion of the order of Domesday, and many other topics.
The order in which the entries are made differs in the
counties, and in some respects appears casual, but there are
resemblances to be noted.
The King has his place.
The Bishops and Abbots appear together.
The Comes constitutes a class.
At the end small tenants are grouped.
With respect to those regarded as Barons no general
principle is at once to be recognised.
Among the Norman Rolls ' is one headed, ' Hie incipit
Registrum Domini Illustrissimi Regis Philippi de Feodis.'
It is a registry of the holdings in capite in Normandy, without
the details of Domesday. It contains a proportionately
greater number of names than in Domesday, showing that
the landowners were in direct relation with the Duke. It
may be inferred that the participants in English lands had
been mostly of the status of tenentes in capite in Normandy,
1 Lechaude' d'Anisy, Magn. Rot. Scaccar. Norman., Soci&edes Antiquaires de
Caen, 2nd series, vol. lvi. &c. 1840.
VOL. II. B

388 NOTE ON THE ORDER OF DOMESDAY BOOK
and that their relations with the king in England were regu
lated on that footing.
The first entry is ' Robertus Bertrand l tenet Baroniam de
Briquebec per servicium quinque militum.'
Then come ' Ric9 de Harcort,' with the barony of Saint
Sauveur ; 2 ' Ric8 de Vernone,' with barony ; ' Gul8 de Hom-
meto,' with barony of Hommet, and a number of other single
fiefs. Next come ' Feoda Ricardi de Harcort,' with his holdings ;
' Feoda Ricardi de Vernone/ with his holdings ; ' Feoda Gul1
de Hommeto,' with his holdings ; &c.
Afterwards come a series of headings in this form : ' Feoda
de Ballia Rothomagensi,' with the enumeration of a number
of small holdings.
Then the large baronies commence, and so with the series
of balliages. Thus the general order of the Registrum of Philip is by
balliages, and the general order of Domesday is by shires
and counties. The sheriff was taken as the equivalent of
the bailiff, and the accountability of each appears to have
been placed on the same footing.
The magnates who are barons come first in the Norman
balliages ; and the magnates who are Counts come first in
the English shires.
Instead of Domesday Book having been modelled on
some anterior English formula of Edward the Confessor or
his predecessors, as assumed, the appearance is that Domes
day may have been arranged on some Norman model. The
Norman balliages as divisions existed T.R.E., and so did
their administrative system. The English shires were assimi-
1 These Bertrands, according to the ' Historical Memoirs of the House of
Russell,' by J. H. Wiffen, are the main stock of the latter house, and belong to
the family of Rollo.
2 The well-known house of Harcourt was of the like descent with the
Bertrands.

NOTE ON THE ORDER OF DOMESDAY BOOK 389
lated to the balliages, but the conditions did not correspond.
The Normans in Normandy took possession of territories
which had been administered by the Romans, and provided
with men competent to write Latin, and this foreign language
was adopted by the Normans as their administrative language.
T.R.E. the population of England spoke and wrote English.
When the Normans came here, English was foreign to them,
and for their administration they continued to use Latin,
working by means of continental monks and scribes. This
state of affairs favours a foreign origin for Domesday. An
antecedent record would have been written in English.
With regard to the order in which the body of tenentes in
capite are entered, they appear to be casually arranged. The
late Earl of Crawford and Balcarres, when engaged in inves
tigations for the genealogy of his own family in the ' Lives of
the Lindsays,' conceived he had discovered one element of
order in an arrangement of some names according to descent
or alliance of their members.
In the case of Radulphus de Limesi a careful examination
of his possessions in each shire of Domesday shows me that
Lord Crawford is correct in his main proposition. He was a
man of singular industry and scholarship, and of that philo
sophical judgment which gave him the qualities of a true
historian. His proposition well deserves to be carefully ex
amined and worked out by the students of- Domesday.
In reference to this paper the opportunity occurs of
correcting Lord Crawford as to one point in the position of
Radulphus de Limesi, ' nepos regis,' and it may apply to other
Domesday cases. He supposes on later evidence that Radul
phus was a subtenant in Normandy under the Count of
Tancatville, but from this Norman roll, the Registrum, it
appears that Limesi in the balliage of Rouen was held
direct as much as the county of Tancarville. Under the
enumeration of the possessions of the Count of Tancarville no
B 3

390 NOTE ON THE ORDER OF DOMESDAY BOOK
part of Limesi is included, though the church of Limesi
appears to have been then divided into moieties as far back
as 1 131 (p. 615).
When Limesi was included in the county of Tancarville it
was under a new administrative arrangement, whereby the
lordships were grouped into baronies, and the baronies were
grouped into counties. In this way Limesi came to be
included in the county of Tancarville.
There is no proof that at any time Limesi rendered
homage to Tancarville, or was a true fief of it, but only an
administrative member in the later ages. Thus in ' Descrip
tion Historique et Geographique de la Haute Normandie,'
Paris, 1740, vol. ii., which is an ecclesiastical register, it is
stated at pp. 614 and 615 that the bourg of Limesi is in the
Government of Normandy, Parliament &c. of Rouen, Balliage
of Rouen. At p. 616 it also says that Limesi was a fief de Haubert,
formerly called the king's fief, and having its manoir at
Brunville. It was supposed to be the first moiety, but its
rights in the church were contested by the Lord of Fronte-
bose. The second fief was that of Frontebose, held of the barony
of Moreville, or Montville, a member dependent of the county
of Tancarville. Thus it is clear that only half of the original fief of Limesi
was ever included in the county of Tancarville, which appears
to have had superiority in 1297 (p. 616), but perhaps only in
relation to the Church.
Lord Crawford stated that not only were Limesi and
Toeny lands found in the same shire and registered in
Domesday together, but that in some places lands were
intermixed. The value of Lord Crawford's doctrine, as supported by
historical facts largely accumulated by him, shows that such

NOTE ON THE ORDER OF DOMESDAY BOOK 391
examination as in the case of the Limesi and Toeny, effici
ently illustrates the motives of Domesday. It does more, it
affords criteria for the decision of the obscure questions of
political and social position in the determination of historical
points, as well as their bearing on the genealogies of the in
dividual tenants and subtenants.
In the way in which Lord Crawford laboriously worked
out his portion of the subject, he showed what is of more
importance even than the connections of the tenentes in
capite, the relations to them and each other of the subtenants.
The material so provided increases the area of Domesday
studies largely, for beyond the shires therein enumerated
materials are found for Scotch history.
The subtenants in England and in Scotland who in time
replaced the great Norman barons and provided a new aris
tocracy for the island are to be defined by Lord Crawford's
methods. In the case of the Toeni and Limesi, he showed that they
brought with them as neighbours in England their neighbours
in Normandy. By these the arms of the chiefs were assumed,
and in Normandy, in England, and in Scotland, these names
are found in common as witnesses of charters. When the
house of Limesi was established in Scotland, the same inci
dents and the same connections are observable. As these con
ditions extend to other families, so are the materials enlarged
for dealing with an obscure epoch of the history of Scotland.
It may be said that this applies also to that most obscure
part of the history of England, the constitution of the English
people. How far this was purely Norman or purely English
in the higher or middle classes is debatable, as also how far
the main body of the population partakes of Norman descent.
A careful perusal of Domesday shows that the Norman
immigration was limited, as, indeed, it must have been greatly
limited by circumstances. The Normans, largely of Germanic

392 NOTE ON THE ORDER OF DOMESDAY BOOK
descent, were intermingled with Germanic allies from the
north coasts of France and the Low Countries. Some of the
Norman barons coopted for Normandy. Many of their fol
lowers returned, as they could not practically settle here.
In fact, the Normans were never recruited, and in the Danelage
they must have been absorbed by the Danish element.
Thus the main population of England, after Domesday,
remained as English. With these the Norman cadets had to
intermarry. Some intermarried with Anglo-Norman heiresses,
but the English alliances preponderated. The English thanes
fell in the social scale, and their descendants became sub
tenants : but what brought them relief was their share in the
Norman wars in Wales, Scotland, Ireland, France, and the
Crusades. In this way warlike relations restored the social
position of the thanes and their children.
The effective influence of the Normans on the population
of England was the displacement of the English thanes and
the Norman barons, and their substitution by a new race of
Anglo-Norman men and of English women. In time some
subtenants became yeomen, the offspring of these farmers, and
so in descent to labourers, so that the whole population has
been brought to unity, and Norman names may be found
distributed among the peasantry.
It is by the various incidents of association in Domesday
and otherwise that Lord Crawford is enabled to explain the
relation between Radulphus de Limesi, as a Toeny, with
Robertus de Stadfold, ' nepos domini,' whom he defines also
as a Toeny in support of Dugdale (Stadfold).
This also illustrates the connection of the house with that
of Rollo. In the obscure history of Limesi, one point in Domesday
left unexplained is the possession of half the barony of Strigul
by Radulphus. Clutterbuck (' Hertfordshire,' vol. ii. p. 505)
states that Ralph de Limesi held half by having married a

NOTE ON THE ORDER OF DOMESDAY BOOK 393
sister of Roger Fitzosberne, Earl of Hereford, and that William
de Ow married the other sister. Certain it is that in Domes
day Radulphus is recorded under Gloucestershire as holding
half Strigul.
My own suggestion is founded on the circumstance that
the Strigul moiety was not conveyed with his other possessions
to the descendants of Radulphus. There is this further to be
noticed, that lands of the Princess Christina, in Warwickshire,
are recorded as held by her in Domesday, but after 1086 are
found to be in possession of Radulphus and to have passed to
his heirs. Indeed, it was to Ulverley, as stated, one of her
estates, that he transferred the head of his barony, which is
a post-Domesday transaction, say 1090.
Strigul disappears, and the lands of Christina disappear,
and a possible solution is that the king, a patron of William
Fitzosberne and his house, favoured that line by giving to
Radulphus the possessions of the Princess, for half Strigul, in
cession to William de Ow.
It is to be observed that William de Ow and Radulphus
both held lands in Herts, Somerset, and Devon.
In the early settlement of Hertfordshire also de Limesi
had the first seat of his barony at Pirton, and that established
by Roger de Todeni, or Poeni, at Flamstead remained the
head of the latter barony.
Each of these Barons had a small share in Hertfordshire,.
but Roger de Todeni held nineteen lordships in Norfolk.
Radulphus was well endowed there and in Suffolk.
The fact of the relationship of the Toeny or Limesi group
in Domesday discovered by Lord Crawford does not neces
sarily decide the whole question of association.
The way in which lands in a shire are divided up is capri
cious to a certain extent, and the case of Radulphus de Limesi
will serve to show this. Although a person of the highest
class, and endowed with more than forty lordships in many

394 NOTE ON THE ORDER OF DOMESDAY BOOK
southern shires, his whole holding was small in comparison
with that of others, and in some instances his portion in a
county was very small. Thus, large as his barony has been
considered, it is nothing to that of his nephew Robert (de
Toeny) de Stadford or Stafford, who held 150 manors, and of
course bears no comparison with the possessions of the uterine
brothers of the king, naturally most largely provided for.
The whole holding of Radulphus de Limesi is evidently
the accumulation of successive grants, as in the case of his
associates, and other tenentes registered. His early grants
must have been in Hertfordshire, together with those of
Rayner de Limesi, the father of Bishop Robertus de Limesi
of Chester or Lichfield and Coventry. In Hertfordshire
Radulphus founded the Priory of Hertford as a cell of St.
Albans, but his castle in Hertfordshire is found to be at
Pirton, which appears to have been a later possession than
Amwell in the south. The Hertfordshire grants may have
been in two lots.
The opportunity is afforded by the example of Radulphus
de Limesi to show what the castles of the tenentes were.
On obtaining greater possessions northwards, Radulphus, who
had one centre for his East Anglian manors at Oxburgh, set
up his main seat at Ulverley or Wolverley near Birmingham
in Warwickshire, which became afterwards the head of his
barony, and he is hence as stated denominated Baron of
Ulverley. Neither at Pirton nor at Ulverley are there any remains
of what is understood as a Norman castle, but at each place
is a round mound, and this must have been so originally at
Oxburgh, which now represents the site of the castle. That
at Ulverley is called Dood Hill.
These castles must therefore have been ramparts of
earth, perhaps with a ditch. It would have been difficult
for the newly arrived tenentes to erect everywhere stone

NOTE ON THE ORDER OF DOMESDAY BOOK 395
castles, an idea founded on the stone castles built by the
king and earls. Quarrymen and masons could not have
been found, and they would have had to be paid in money
wages. Earthworks could be set up with the labour and
tools of the local inhabitants. In such an earthwork
the cattle would be secure against raids. The house and out
houses would be of wood. Such earthworks would be ample
to enable a tenant to hold out against any common attacks,
and against those of more danger he would take refuge in
the castle of the burgh. It is possible that Amwell was first
obtained by Radulphus as being under the shelter of Hertford
Castle, and that Pirton was his next stage. No licence
appears to have been necessary for the earthen strongholds.
One conclusion to be drawn is that the Normans soon
became on good terms with their tenants. The lord was
greatly dependent on his tenants, and his resident represen
tative would have a mutual interest in money matters, and
would become Englished.
On the barony of Ulverley passing to co-heiresses the
castles of Maxstoke and Oxburgh were built in stone
and were the work of that generation. By such time the
country had become more settled, and resources were available
for stone castles as well as stone churches.
Instead of simple consanguinity constituting the sole tie
between a group of sharers, it is possible there were other
causes of association. Indeed if consanguinity were the only
basis, then the apportionment of the members of a family
should be regulated by it.
The cause of the formation of groups and their interdis-
tribution is to be attributed to the constitution of a common
expedition for the invasion of England. As there were
individual Normans who contributed so many ships, so must
others of smaller means have associated themselves. Sharing
in the equipment of a ship was a tradition of the Norsemen,

396 NOTE ON THE ORDER OF DOMESDAY BOOK
and kept in full vigour in Normandy in their later expeditions
to Spain, Sicily, &c.
In fact the inland resident would be dependent on the
owner of a ship. The ships and fishing barques would be
secured by the residents on the coast, and they could bring
in inland sharers to supply men, arms, and provisions. Those
of a family would be among the first to become partners, and
the prospective profits of the venture would be apportioned.
Radulphus de Limesi for instance held a small inland lordship
in the Roumois. Thus his share would be inferior to that of
some other partners.
With him, however, were associated those neighbours
designated by Lord Crawford, and whom he would represent
as a chief.
After the invasion the company would still keep together.
They received successive allotments, and one member must
have been left near the person of the king, and who enjoyed
his favour, to look out for portions of lands falling into the
king's power. Such representative would have his separate
reward, and his share would be enlarged.
The manors so acquired were scattered, and it was for the
interest and safety of the lords to keep together for manage
ment and protection. There are lands of Radulphus de
Limesi in Devonshire and Somerset so inconsiderable that it
is difficult to conceive what profit they could have given.
An evidence of the breaking up of the Norman grants is
shown by the early disposal of some of the outlying Limesi
lands. In such cases subinfeudation to a subtenant became
a common process.
After all had been got that was to be got by pressing
claims on the king, about 1086, before or after, the tie between
each group of adventurers would be dissolved, and their
several elements would be no longer in cohesion. Both con
ditions have to be considered in describing the history of the

NOTE ON THE ORDER OF DOMESDAY BOOK 397
Norman settlement. Those who were not related in a shire
would stand apart, and those related having no longer any
thing to seek in common would be left under ordinary
influences. With regard to the connection of the Norman barons with
Normandy general features are known. In the example of
the Limesi there was only a small lordship in Normandy, not
to be weighed against the barony of Ulverley. Many of the
Limesi settled in England (see ' Lives of the Lindsays ' for
some). The lordship of Limesi was not held by the direct
line of Radulphus, as the descent of his barony of Ulverley in
Dugdale and other authorities shows. Who succeeded to the
lordship of Limesi is not clear, but either by division or other
wise the name of Limesi dropped out in Normandy at length.
To these remarks may be appended a note as to the use
of acre and virgate in Normandy. In the charter of founda
tion of Ardena in the ' Gallia Christiana,' vol. ii., Instrument
79, a.d. 1 138, is recited ' unam acram,' and there is also to be
found a'virgata.'
In Instrument 89, between 1181 and 1190, is to be found
enumerated ' duas acras.'

t,%t <C0uirc0 in ©omesbay,
WITH ESPECIAL REFERENCE TO EPISCOPAL ENDOWMENTS.
By JAMES PARKER, M.A.
No ONE can well turn over ' the leaves of the Domesday
Survey without being struck by the vast quantity of land,
which in one way or another was held by the Church.
On examination it will be seen that the great bulk con
sists of the endowments of the ancient English Church, which
the Conqueror respected. Some of this is represented by
manors or portions of manors under the control of the two
Archbishops and the Bishops of the several dioceses, and in
most cases the names of the manors are entered beneath
the names of the Bishops as Tenentes in Capite. A still larger
proportion is represented by manors belonging to the several
Monasteries, such being entered beneath the names of these
bodies also as Tenentes in Capite.
To the former, which may be said to represent mainly the
endowment of the Cathedral establishments of England, I
reckon over nine hundred manors or portions of manors. To
the latter, which may be said to represent all other Ecclesiasti
cal Communities, I reckon somewhat over seventeen hundred.1
1 I have thought it best to take the ' manor ' as the basis of comparison
between one Bishopric and another, in respect of its wealth and importance in
preference -to the ' hide ' or any special measure. At the same time, although as

400 THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY
Besides this, there are the endowments of the numerous
manorial churches and priests, now parish churches and parish
priests, of which no estimate can be made ; for their value is
very rarely separated from the total value of the manor, and
the special land of which the endowment consists is generally
included in the general description of the manor to which it
belongs, or in which it lies. Besides which, many churches
then existing are from one reason or another without any
mention whatever.
Nor is this quite all. If the Church as a whole is taken
into account, there must be added the manors granted to the
four Bishops of Norman dioceses (which, including Bishop
Odo's manors, come to a total nearly as high as that of the
English Bishoprics), as well as * a fair sprinkling granted to
monasteries and ecclesiastical foundations situated in Nor
mandy. So far as the English Bishoprics and the English monastic
foundations are concerned, a very large proportion of the
manors, as I propose to show, had already been appropriated
to the endowment in King Edward's time, and it must be
remembered that the Record does not profess to go back
beyond that date. In some few cases additional endowments
seem to have been added for various reasons.
Some of these reasons no doubt were political, and had
nothing to do with honour done to the Church. And if we
take into consideration the endowments of the Norman
a rule the manor is very clearly defined in Domesday, it is not always so. In
the north, too, the Berewics and Sokes are sometimes scarcely to be distinguished
from the manors, and, as regards extent of land, might often well be reckoned as
such. It will be seen that in one or two cases I have explained in the note the
system of computation adopted. But I would say generally that the figures here
given must not be taken to imply that the whole number of manors given were
subject to the Bishop. In several cases he had only certain portions of them ;
and, on the other hand, in a few cases divisions of land are counted which are not
strictly manors. For the purpose of comparison, however, the calculation will be
found, it is hoped, to be fairly accurate.

THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY 401
Bishops, we are forced to see in them almost entirely con
siderations of policy, William of Normandy using them as a
means for securing and strengthening his power in the
country. It will be well, perhaps, to deal with the latter first
of all, since they stand on a different footing from the English
dioceses, and other considerations than those connected only
with the Church come in.
Taking t"he full total of the number of manors in the
hands of the four Bishops presiding over DIOCESES in NOR
MANDY, I reckon according to my own counting some 800.
But it must be remembered that the great bulk of them are
entered beneath the name of Odo, King William's half-
brother, the celebrated Bishop of BAYEUX. And, further, it
must be remembered that a very large number came to him
as Earl of Kent, through his succession to Godwin's property,
and these cannot be reckoned as in any way connected with
the Church. Odo in fact appears in a double character,
and perhaps therefore it would be, to begin with, only
right to deduct a very large number of the manors, especially
amongst those in Kent, which appear under his name in the
Domesday record. It is difficult to say how many he re
ceived qud Earl of Kent and as successor to Godwin, since
in some cases the tenure T.R.E. is given obscurely in the
Survey, and in others not at all.
Still, if we make allowance for this, out of some 200 manors
in Kent, and some 300 held by him distributed through seven
teen different counties ranging from Dorset and Somerset on
the west, Worcester, Nottingham, and Northampton on the
north, and Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex on the east, as well as
through nearly all the counties included within that area, we
have still remaining a tenure which represents an enormous
power for the Bishop of a foreign diocese to wield : and this is
made clear when it is remembered that the total of the manors

402 THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY
in the king's hands throughout the country was only just
over 1,400. In a large number of the cases, where it is given,
the owner of Odo's lands T.R.E. appears as a free man,
but his holding frequently is described as ' de rege.' Taken
as a whole, the lands appear to have been bestowed upon
him largely from crown property, partly from property belong
ing to the Earldom of Kent, and partly from property the
holders of which had borne arms against the king, and so
had been confiscated.
Next, the Norman Bishop of COUTANCES, Geoffrey of
Mowbray, whose name appears in the history of the Conquest
as playing a prominent part in aiding William during the
battle near Hastings, is returned in Domesday as holding
some 260 manors distributed through twelve counties, most
of them in the south. In Devonshire he seems to have been
mostly favoured, nearly 1 00 manors falling to his lot, and
next in Somersetshire, where nearly seventy manors seem
to have fallen beneath his control. In Dorset two; in
Wilts seven ; in Gloucestershire nine ; in Berkshire only one.
Going northward he had in Buckinghamshire twenty given to
him, and in Northants about forty. In Leicester, Warwick,
and Huntingdon he had only one in each county.
But in the cases of these two Norman Bishops it is
obvious that political considerations were paramount. Odo
and Geoffrey were men whom the Conqueror thought he
could trust. It was accidental their holding the Bishoprics
of Bayeux and Coutances, or rather these important positions
had already been conferred upon them on grounds of policy
in their own country by Duke William, and the same confi
dence was placed in them in another land by King William.
The distribution of the manors as shown in Domesday
touches the keynote of the policy. Kent with the 200, and
the adjoining county of Surrey with 32 more, were practically
in the hands of his brother Odo, so as to keep open the way

THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY 403
from Normandy to the Metropolis. In these parts Geoffrey
of Coutances had no manors whatever. In the west the
influence of the Bishop of Coutances was rendered paramount
by 90 manors in Devonshire and 70 in Somerset. In these
counties, except in the solitary manor of Combe in Somerset,
which he may well have acquired by purchase or by some
accidental circumstance, Odo of Bayeux had no influence
whatever ; hence, if one failed him, the Conqueror could fall
back upon the other as regards a large extent of seaboard
of the country accessible from Normandy. In the other
counties included within the area, marked out by their joint
possessions, in six counties Odo alone had manors, in five
Geoffrey alone had manors, and in six they each had manors.
All this, which Domesday brings out so clearly, betokens a
definite policy based upon state reasons, and not out of
respect or honour done to the Church.
Of course, too, the same policy of distributing throughout
the country men on whom the Conqueror could rely, is shown
by the appointment and the distribution of the manors of his
lay nobles, but with that I have not in this paper to deal.
What, however, I wish here to point out is that the manors
above referred to were probably granted personally to the
men themselves, not to their official position as Bishops of
those sees.
The Bishops of two smaller Norman dioceses were also
represented by manors held by them in this country, and
possibly these also may have been given for political reasons ;
perhaps, however, only out of friendship. The Bishop of
LlSlEUX seems to have had sixteen manors allotted to him,
distributed through six counties. In Oxfordshire and Dorset
shire four each, in Gloucestershire three, in Wilts and Bucks
two each, and in Hertfordshire one, and in Herefordshire one.
I do not think it at all probable that any of the manors were
granted to Hugh of Eu, who was Bishop of Lisieux at the
vol. 11. c

404 THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY
time of the Conquest, and who died in 1077, and that they
passed on to his successor in that see, but I think that they
represent a personal grant to Gilbert Maminot, who had com
bined the double office of physician and chaplain to the
Conqueror before he was appointed to the Bishopric. But
the Survey does not distinctly say this.
The other Norman prelate holding land in England at
the time of the Survey was the Bishop of EVREUX, and in
this case there is no question, as the Survey gives his name,
Gilbert. He was not consecrated till 1070. However, two
manors in Suffolk appear to be all which were granted to
him. I have not observed that any lands were granted to
Maurice, Archbishop of Rouen, nor yet to his successor
John of Avranches, who succeeded to the Archbishopric in
1069, nor to William Bonne- Ame, who succeeded the latter
in 1079. It is perhaps somewhat strange that the Arch
bishopric should not be represented in the newly acquired
country. Perhaps it was that William did not put much
faith in Maurice.
Neither have I observed that the Bishopric of Avranches
is represented either by John of Bayeux, or by Michael, who
succeeded him in the Bishopric in 1079. Nor yet that the
remaining diocese of Seez was represented here either by
the ' learned, wise, and witty ' Ivo of Belesme, as Orderic
Vital calls him, or by Robert of Ry who succeeded about
A.D. 1070 to that Bishopric. Hence the seven dioceses into
which the great province of Normandy was divided were
very imperfectly represented in England, and this fact points
also to the men being selected rather than the Bishops.
Apart, however, from the advantage of having the per
sonal influence of the Bishops whom he favoured, it was un
doubtedly an important element in William's policy to weld as
far as possible the Church of the two countries together, know-

THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY 405
Ing that this would aid more than anything else in welding
together the State. It was Archbishop Theodore's policy of
uniting in one common bond the several dioceses of England,
and so making one Church, which four hundred years pre
viously had not only led the way, but had aided materially in
the work of federation, which in time welded the several
provinces into which England was at his time divided, into
one country and one^state.
.We now come to the Bishops of the ENGLISH DIOCESES,
and here considerations of a different kind come in. As a
preliminary observation I would say that the lands belonging *
to the Bishops, as well as those appropriated to certain
ecclesiastical purposes connected with the See, were for by far
the most part the lands with which the Bishopric had been
endowed from time to time. Some of the endowments had
been lost, but such as remained in the time of Edward the
Confessor were in no case confiscated, or their title even called
in question. As the historian of the Norman Conquest puts
it, ' In the case of Ecclesiastical property, the will and seal of
Eadward was as good as William's.'
The lands of the English Archbishop Stigand, so far as
they belonged to the Archbishopric, passed as a matter of
routine to the Norman Lanfranc simply because Lanfranc
succeeded to the Archbishopric of CANTERBURY. Still, in
the confusion of the time, and the difficulties of administering
justice and distinguishing true records from false, some of the
property may have been lost to a few of the dioceses, just as
it was lost to several of the monasteries and other religious
foundations, but it was not of William's set purpose that such
should be the case.
Lanfranc, who had been called from his abbacy of St.
Stephen at Caen to succeed to the Archbishopric of Canter
bury on the deposition of Stigand in 1070, is returned as

406 THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY
holding land in above a hundred manors,1 of which some
sixty are in Kent, the remainder being distributed through
seven counties ; and it is not without importance to ob
serve that, in the Exchequer Domesday, in. the eight counties
in which the manors lie, viz. Kent, Sussex, Essex, Surrey,
Middlesex, Hertford, Bucks, and Oxon, the lands of the
Archbishop of Canterbury are always entered after the king's
in every case, and marked as Number II. in the list which
is given at the beginning of each county, showing the status
of the Archbishop of Canterbury in relation to the other
nobles of the kingdom.
In the Suffolk Domesday, however, the four manors are
entered, not as under the Archbishopric of Canterbury, but for
some reason under ' Lanfrancus Archiepiscopus,' and so appear
towards the end of the list amongst the minor tenants.
It will be at once observed that, while under most of the
manors held by laymen the name of some English Thane,
with the words ' tenuit tempore Regis Edwardi,' is as a rule
given, throughout nearly all the entries of the Archbishop's
lands this formula is absent. The T.R.E. occurs, but only as
regards the change of value, not as regards the change of tenure.
If any incidents are mentioned they only bring out the fact
of continued tenure more forcibly. Almost the first entry
with respect to the Archbishop's lands, i.e. on folio 3 of the
Survey, illustrates this. It runs :
Sandwich lies in its own hundred. The Archbishop holds this
borough, and it is appropriated to the cost of the monks' clothes, and
renders similar service to the king as Dover does. And this the men
1 Of these, twenty-four are entered under the heading of ' Terra Archiepiscopi
Cantuariensis' ; 17 under ' Terra militum ejus ' ; and the remainder under ' Terra
Monachorum archiepiscopi.' But in the last case the text always runs ' Ipse
ArchiepIScopus tenet,' and the knights all hold ' de Archiepiscopo. ' I have there-
fore counted the whole under the archiepiscopal manors. In the Essex Domesday,
however, the lands are entered under ' Terra Sanct* Trinitatis,' and they seem to
be all 'ad victum monachorum.'

THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY 407
of that borough testify, namely, that King Edward gave it to the
church of the Holy Trinity.1
This does not necessarily mean that it was then first of all given,
but the fact that it was confirmed by Edward simply affords
a sufficient title for Lanfranc to hold it, and indeed is the title
by which he did hold it.
In the first entry in the Sussex Manors, again, we find that
Archbishop Lanfranc holds the manor of Mallinges. In the
time of King Edward it was assessed at 80 hides, but now the Arch
bishop only has 75 hides because the Earl of Mortain has 5 hides
without the hundred.2
We are not concerned here with the question of the varia
tion of the assessment by 5 hides : the only point is that
Archbishop Lanfranc holds them, because they were — as
Domesday duly records — held by the English Archbishop
in the time of King Edward.
In the case of the solitary manor of Newton, held by the
Archbishop in Oxfordshire, the clerk to the Commissioners
has thought it well to insert ' It was and is of the Church '
(' De ecclesia fuit et est ') 3 ; but such an entry as regards the
Archbishop's lands is not common, the fact being always
taken for granted.
Turning to YORK, we find that Thomas was called from
his canonry of Bayeux to the Archbishopric after the death
of Ealdred, the last English Archbishop, and this took place
towards the end of 1069. He is represented in fewer counties
than Lanfranc, but with a larger number of manors, in which
he held land. His name appears in six counties only, but with
1 Domesday, folio 3, col. I In the summary of ' Donationes Maneriorum,'
printed by Dugdale from a Cottonian MS., the gift first appears under a.d. 979 —
' Efhelredus Rex dedit ecclesisein Dorobernia Sandwich ad vestitum monachorum.'
* Dom. folio 16, col. I. It may be noted that in Gervase's Chronicle of Canter.
bury under the year 838, Mallinges is recorded as being then given to Christ
Church, Canterbury.
* Domesday, folio 155, col. 1.

408 THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY
1 30 manors, and of these manors 77 were in the county of
York itself. Still, as the quantity of land held in several
seems to have been extremely small, the total would not, per
haps, be greater than that held by Canterbury.1 Curiously
enough, some are in southern counties ; i.e. in Gloucestershire
he holds thirteen manors, and in Hampshire one. In the
latter case the words ' antecessor ejus similiter tenuit de Rege '
are added, and imply that the single manor of Mottisfont in
Hampshire had already belonged to the Archbishop of York.2
In the case of Gloucestershire, we learn in the Survey from
whom the thirteen manors passed ; and the circumstances are
somewhat singular. Two only of the number are entered as
having been held by Archbishop Ealdred, the preceding
Archbishop of York, who had died in 1069. Five had been
held by Stigand, the Archbishop of Canterbury ; St. Peter's,
Gloucester, had held two ; St. Oswald's had held two ; and
three apparently belonged to laymen, unless the name
Gundulph refers to the Bishop of Rochester. It is possible
that the Archbishop had acquired these latter personally
on his own account from some influence he had through
friends in the neighbourhood, or by purchase, or through the
special friendship of William ; still, the fact that he should
have so many manors, and derived from so many different
sources, in a county so far distant from his own diocese, and
indeed Province, rather points to the conclusion that William
had some definite design in giving him influence in the south,
and not leaving his interests as well as influence to be confined
wholly to the north.
That the Archbishop of York should hold land in nine
manors in Nottingham and five in Leicester and twenty-five
1 Several of the places enumerated are perhaps only 'Berewics,' but twenty-
three which are distinctly so called have been omitted from the enumeration.
2 A Charter of King William [? Rufus] granted ante 1096 recites, ' Notum
vobis facio quod ego reddidi Thomae Eborum Archiepiscopo unam hidam terra? qua;
pertinet ecclesia? de Motesfunda, sicuti melius habuit Aldredus Archiepiscopus
tempore Regis Eadwardi. ' Ex Registro penes Dec. et Cap. Ebor.

THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY 409
in Lincoln is less surprising ; for though they are distinctly
in the Southern Province, as afterwards settled, it must be
remembered that there was some question as to the extent
of the relative jurisdiction of the two Archbishops, as well
as to the supremacy of one over the other.
In Yorkshire the estates seem to have belonged to the
Archbishopric, as the clerk often inserts the words 'Hoc
maneriumfuit et est Archiepiscopi Eboracensis,' and incidentally,
in denoting the change of valuation, we find such statements
as, ' Eldred the Archbishop held this as one manor, now under
Thomas ; the Canons of St. Peter,' &c. His manors in Leices
tershire and Nottinghamshire give no names of tenants 'tem
pore Regis Edwardi,' and we may presume by their absence
that the manors previously belonged to the Archbishopric, as
in the case of the entries under Canterbury.
In respect of Lincolnshire, however, there would appear to
have been some reason for Archbishop Thomas to have had
manors assigned to him which had not previously belonged
to the see. The words to some three or four of the manors
are 'Habuit Elmer ;' ' habuit Alwin,' ' habuit Turchil', &c. ;
names which could scarcely refer to the under-tenants. Some
few other names occur also as holding single manors, but
throughout the twenty-five manors there is no evidence that
any previously belonged to the Archbishopric of York, or
indeed to any ecclesiastical person or body ; and it would
appear that, like the manors in Hampshire, they had been con
ferred on the Archbishop for some special reason or that he
had obtained them through purchase.
All the thirteen Bishops of English dioceses are entered in
Domesday as holding manors qua. Tenentes in Capite. Tra
versing the country from the north, southward, the dioceses
were — Durham ; Chester, Worcester, and Hereford ; Lincoln
and Thetford ; Exeter and Wells ; Salisbury, Winchester,
and Chichester ; Rochester and London. These with the

410 THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY
two Archbishoprics made up the fifteen dioceses into which
England at the time of the Survey was divided.
They held manors in different proportion. Two only held
over one hundred manors at the time of the Survey, namely,
Lincoln and Thetford (the predecessor of Norwich). Worces
ter had just under the hundred. London and Cnester follow
with about seventy-five. Four dioceses had about fifty
manors each, namely, Hereford, Durham (and this, of course,
only so far as recorded), Winchester, and Exeter. Salisbury,
Rochester, and Wells held each about twenty manors, while
at the bottom of the list stands Chichester with ten. For the
most part the lands lie in or near to the diocese to which they
belonged, but still there are some anomalies, as will be seen.
Beginning with Lincoln ; of the hundred manors and
more in which the Bishop held lands, about thirty ' are in the
county of Lincoln. So far as has been observed, they seem
throughout to be the lands which had belonged to various lay
tenants T.R.E., but conferred on Remigius, in all probability,
as endowments of the new see. The same applies to the
fourteen manors in Nottinghamshire and the same number
in Leicestershire, and also to most of the remaining forty
manors distributed through the counties of Northampton
shire, Bedfordshire, Huntingdonshire, Cambridgeshire, Oxon,
and Bucks.2
It must be remembered, however, that in speaking of the
see of Lincoln several historical circumstances have to be
taken into account. It was not a see founded like Canterbury
or Rochester, nor did it grow simply like Winchester. It was
in one sense a new see, appearing first of all in the pages of
Domesday, in another sense a restoration of an old one, and
an amalgamation with other sees. As a new see it is worthy
1 Several of these manors have large Sokes and Berewics. They may well
be reckoned as equivalent to forty manors.
2 To the manor of Histon in Cambridgeshire there is this note : * Hoc manerium
est unum de duodecim maneriis dominicis Episcopatus Lincolniensis.'

THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY 411
of remark that throughout the Survey Remigius is styled
always ' Episcopus Lincolniensis,' yet so far as has been ob
served no document exists in which he styles himself so.
The removal of the see from Dorchester was, no doubt,
decided upon soon after 1070. Indeed, a charter professes
to have been preserved by inspeximus, though perhaps it may
be said to be somewhat suspicious, in which King William
says he transfers the see by the consent of Pope Alexander,
and this Pope died in 1073. But Remigius had not completed
his new Cathedral at Lincoln till just before his own death,
which did not take place till 1092. There is, however, under
the account of the city of Lincoln in the Domesday Survey,
an entry relating to the Church of St. Mary of Lincoln, and
under this the Commissioners' clerk has thought it well to
insert the words ' in qua nunc est episcopatus! So that the
change may be said to have been authoritatively recognised
by the Commissioners in 1086, and this perhaps is of greater
interest since Bishop Remigius was one of the four Commis
sioners of the Survey concerning that part of the country, I
believe, which included Lincoln.
But the Dorchester diocese was already joined to or
rather had incorporated Leicester, and had absorbed within it
seemingly the still more ancient diocese of Lindsey. Hence
if the list of manors could be examined in connection with a
sufficient number of pra^-Norman Charters we should possibly
find traces of the earlier endowments of three several dioceses,
though the bulk appears to be those obtained by Remigius
himself. And here, as the Domesday Survey so definitely records
the transfer of the seat of the Bishopric, that is, of the
' Bishop's Stool,' to Lincoln, it is perhaps the place to refer to
that point in William's policy which was exhibited so directly
and clearly at the council held in London in 1075, namely,
the removal of the episcopal residences to the chief towns.

412 THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY
This was equivalent to making the chief towns the centres
of the several dioceses. Already, from what his experience in
the west had shown to be needed, the seat of the Devonshire
diocese at Crediton had been removed to the walled town of
Exeter, and quite early in the century the ancient see of
Cornwall had been united to it, so that now, since 1073 or
thereabouts, the episcopal sway over the whole of Devon and
Cornwall could be wielded at Exeter. At this council, there
fore, held two years later, the see of Sherborne, to which the
ancient see of Ramsbury had been united, was removed to
the strong British fortress known as Old Sarum, then occu
pied by a flourishing town overlooked by a strong castle on
its summit; there to remain till 1220, when the seat was
again removed to the level ground on which the present
famous Cathedral of Salisbury was then in course of erection.
The old seat at Selsea — on the island, as the name
implies — was at the same council ordered to be removed to the
better position of Chichester. And Lichfield also, then of
no account, was removed, temporarily it seems, to St. John's,
Chester, but again removed shortly afterwards by Robert of
Limesy to Coventry, from which in after years the seat was
again removed, and restored to the old site of all, associated as
this was with the venerable name of St. Chad.
As a consequence too of the acts of this council, very
shortly afterwards Herfast removed the seat of the East
Anglian diocese from Elmham to Thetford, where we find
it at the time of the Survey ; to be again removed shortly
after to Norwich : and before the close of the century, John of
Tours had removed the seat of the Somersetshire diocese
from Wells (as it appears in the Survey) to the ancient
Roman city of Bath ; but this again in time, like Lichfield,
was restored to its pristine site.
Although then it was not directly ordered by this council
that the see of Dorchester should be removed to Lincoln, the

THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY 413
change must have been decided upon and the removal must
have already been going on, though Remigius probably de
layed the transfer of his chapter till his new Cathedral was
completed, and meanwhile did not himself adopt the new
title, though others gave it to him. Lincoln perhaps was the
most important of the removals, and one involving the longest
distance ; for while the see of Dorchester, representing the
greater part of the old Mercian province, was perhaps the
largest in the kingdom, the seat was removed from the very
southern extremity to the very northern. The flat lands on
the north bank of the Thames valley at Dorchester, about
fifteen miles below Oxford, may perhaps have been thought
to be not so suitable for the seat of the Bishop as the steep
hill of Lincoln crowned with the remains of the old Roman
occupation, but there must have been further considerations
which decided the Conqueror on so sweeping a change.
Other towns might have been found further south, and
still very suitable for a Bishop's seat, but what probably
weighed most with the Conqueror was his having a man like
Remigius, on whom he could depend to exert his influence
in the north ; to put down rebellion if need be, and gradually
to unite closer the interest of Normandy with England in
those parts. The story of the bribe of Remigius to the Con
queror to give him the Bishopric probably has its origin in
the circumstance that Remigius, just as many other wealthy
persons did, subscribed a ship to the fleet which set out from
St. Valery on the eve of the Conquest ; but it was made to
assume its more developed form by some one probably who
had suffered from the stern rule of the Bishop. William,
however, depend on it, was too astute to trust a man with
so important a position who had obtained the appointment
by a bribe.
The removal then of Dorchester to Lincoln referred to in
Domesday must be attributed to the policy which guided the

414 THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY
Council of 1075 ; and this policy explains how it is that in
the Survey we find a different list of Bishoprics forming the
Province of Canterbury from that which we should have
found if the Survey had been taken a few years earlier.
And now to speak of some of the other dioceses.
The hundred manors of the see of THETFORD, which had
only just been removed from Elmham, were confined to the
two counties of Norfolk and Suffolk. The Tenens in Capite
appears under the name of William, Bishop, in both the
counties, not Herfast who was consecrated to Elmham in
1075. This shows that these counties at least were not
surveyed till after the commencement of 1086, for in that
year only Bishop William of Beaufeu was consecrated. I
do not think there are means of ascertaining the exact month
when the consecration of William took place ; otherwise this
might limit more closely the date of the compilation of the
Domesday of these parts.
In the first entry in the Norfolk Domesday the title runs,
' Terra Episcopi Tedfordensis. Ad episcopatum pertinens ' ; so
that the manors belonged to the see, and all passed at once to
William on his entering upon the Bishopric ; the clerk, how
ever, frequently inserts ' tenuit A ilmarus.' l Ethelm ar had been
Bishop of Elmham T.R.E. and up to 1070, when he was
deposed and Herfast succeeded, during whose tenure the see
was removed.
1 In some few cases the Norfolk Domesday adds notes how the property was
acquired. The following are characteristic instances : —
'In Gunetune quam emit Almarus T.R.E. ad episcopatum tenuit die qua fuit
mortuus. . . .
In Bigetune tenuit episcopus Almarus per emptionem T.R.E. de Comite
Algaro. In Blafelde tenuit Almarus . . . Hoc manerium accepit Almarus cum uxore
sua antequam esset episcopus et postea tenuit in episcopatum. Modo tenet Willelmus
episcopus. Hemeslei tenuit Algarus comes T.R.E. et Alwius emit. Stigandus abstulit et
dedit Almaro fratri suo ; sed hundredus nescit quomodo ex illo fuit in episcopatum
in dominio.

THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY 415
The Bishopric of WORCESTER was presided over by the
English Bishop, the celebrated Wulfstan, who had been con
secrated in 1062, and was allowed still to retain his see.
He did not die till 1095. There are nearly eighty manors in
Worcester belonging to this church, but they are entered
under the title of ' Terra ecclesice de Wirecestre' ; the eight
manors in Gloucestershire the same ; but in the body of the
entry it frequently runs ' Tenet Episcopus,' and the lands in War
wickshire are all entered under the title of ' Terra Episcopi de
Wirecester' In the first entry under Worcestershire the refer
ence to the Hundred of Oswaldiston is very explicit as to the
antiquity of the Bishop's rights. The entry begins, ' De qnibus
episcopus ipsius ecclesice a constitutione antiquorum temporum
habet omnes redditio?tes socharum et omnes consuetudines] &c.
Throughout the whole ninety and odd manors or portions of
manors there seems no reason to believe but that they all
belonged to the ancient endowments of the see. We find that
Wulfstan, who was in favour with the Conqueror, having as
sisted at his coronation, was very active in restoring property
which had been from one cause or another alienated from his
church,1 and this, perhaps, helps to account for the long list
recorded in Domesday.
The Bishop of LONDON in one or two cases is mentioned
by name, viz. Maurice, and he was not consecrated till April
5, 1086. The date is valuable, because it shows that it must
have been after the first quarter in the year that the Survey
returns were corrected. It does not appear that William of
Beaufeu above referred to was consecrated to Thetford at the
same time ; and if afterwards, it makes it all the more annoy
ing that we cannot determine the exact date. Bishop Maurice
is returned as holding land in seventy or eighty manors,
1 See Brompton in Decern Scriptores, col. 976 ; also Hemming's Chartulary.
Several charters relating to Wulfstan's activity in this respect are printed in
Dugdale, vol. i. p. 599, etc.

4I6 THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY
and mainly in counties adjoining his see, i.e. in Essex 32, in
Middlesex 20,1 in Hertfordshire 21, and one solitary manor in
Dorsetshire. In Essex and Middlesex and Hertfordshire, there is every
reason to suppose that nearly all the manors belonged to
the Bishopric and were not personally acquired by Maurice.2
Here and there confirmatory notes are introduced by the
clerk, such, as' Semper in Episcopatu fuit,' or ' Tenuit Willelmus
Episcopus', &c. — i.e. the Bishop in King Edward's time. As
regards the thirty hides at Southminster in Essex, which the
Bishop is said to hold in demesne, there is a very interesting
note, and it is to this effect. 'This land Cnut the King
seized, but William the Bishop recovered it in the time of
King William.' (' Hanc terram tulit Gnut Rex, sed Willelmus
Episcopus recuperavit tempore regis Willelmi.') This was a
point which the Commissioners were of course glad to record.
The fifty manors of the Lichfield Bishopric, which had
been temporarily removed to CHESTER, and appear under that
Bishopric in Domesday, are distributed through six counties.
1 In reckoning the manors I am met with the difficulty that the vill of
' Stibenhede ' (Stepney) is divided into eleven separate portions. In the first
portion there are thirty-two hides, in the second five hides, in the third five hides,
and so on. Some of the later portions are very small, and are merely referred to
briefly, but the earlier portions have full statistics, and under one of them occur
the words ' De hoc manerio tenuit Sired,' etc. Some appear to be held
with the chief manor, others not. On the one hand, it seems unreasonable to
reckon all the entries as only one manor, and, on the other, equally so to count
the whole eleven ; so I have reckoned them at six. Fulham, again, is divided
into three, and I have reckoned them as such, since to each are given full statistics,
and they are assessed at eleven, five, and five hides respectively.
2 There is an entry in the Domesday for Somersetshire which is puzzling (fol.
91 a). It has the heading (in the place of the ' Tenens in capite') 'Quod
Mauricius episcopus tenet. ' This must refer to Maurice, Bishop of London. It
is only a brief entry, and it begins as follows : ' Episcopus Mauricius tenet de rege
ecclesiam S. Andreas. Brictric tenuit T.R.E.' This, standing by itself, would
mean the cathedral church of Wells. But we know from Bishop Giso himself
how far the property was confiscated in Edward's reign ; and this Bishop was still
living at the time of the Survey. It is almost impossible to believe that his
church had been in lay hands, and was now in those of another Bishop. I can
not explain it myself, and I cannot find that it has been explained.

THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY 417
In Staffordshire there are twenty, leaving the remaining thirty
divided among Warwick, Shropshire, Cheshire, Derbyshire,
and Hertford.
To one manor in Warwickshire, and to several in Staf
fordshire, the scribe has added ' Hcec tei-ra est de Ecclesia
Sancti Cedde' and in one Cheshire manor also we find the
phrase * Sanctus Cedde tenuit', directly pointing to the fact that
they belonged to the ancient Bishopric. To one or two the
expression ' Ecclesia tenuit TMJi.' is added. In glancing
through the several manors held by the Bishop, I have not
observed any but what may well have belonged to the ancient
Bishopric except those in Hertfordshire.
With regard to one of these manors, we learn that ' three
thanes, " men " of Queen Edith, held this manor, and they
could sell it. This manor is not of the Bishopric, but be
longed to Rayner the father of Bishop Robert.'
Now without this note we might well have supposed that
the land had been confiscated and given to Robert de Limesy ;
but we find he practically had it by inheritance, and this
should lead us to exercise caution in coming to conclusions
respecting other changes of property in which the Commis
sioners' clerk had not been so considerate towards our want
of knowledge of the events which were passing and were well
known when he was recording the business of the court.
Incidentally, too, the mention here of Robert the Bishop gives
us additional confirmation of the fact of this part of the
Domesday Survey being compiled not earlier than 1086, be
cause Robert of Limesy was consecrated Bishop of Lichfield
(or Chester, as it appears here) in 10S6, at the same time
that William de Beaufeu was consecrated Bishop of Thetford
as already referred to.
Amongst the Hertfordshire manors also there is a reference
to half a carucate which lay in a manor belonging to the Bishop,
' Stigandus Arcliicpiscopus earn tenuit} and the note is added.

418 THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY
Probably on his being deposed it was lost, but it may possibly
have been personal property, and not belonging to the Arch
bishopric. In two other manors entered in the same series,
the land now belonging to Robert Bishop of Chester is re
turned as having belonged to a ' homo ' of Stigand, but in
both cases it is added that the man * vendere potuit! In all
probability it belonged to the personal and not the official
holding of Stigand, which had been dispersed and had been
bought by Robert's father with the rest, and this is the reason
why in the Survey the manors in Hertfordshire occur as belong
ing to Robert Bishop of Chester.
But before leaving the Bishop of Chester I would note
that, in the city of Chester, Domesday records that he has
certain ' customs.' These, no doubt, were the ancient customs,
and they breathe the spirit of the dooms of King Ine, or of
those ' which King Alfred and Guthrum chose,' and so point
to great antiquity in their holding. The first runs : ' If any
free man do work on a feast day, the Bishop has from him
eight shillings. But from a serf or maid servant (' de servo
autem vel ancilla'') who breaks a feast day (our northern
friends would describe this as breaking the 'sauboth') the
Bishop has four shillings.' I cannot help wishing, for the
sake of the most learned historian that Chester has ever seen
sitting on its episcopal throne, that the old Domesday custom
was revived, especially if the fines were paid according to the
relative money value of those days as represented by our own.
The fifty manors belonging to the see of HEREFORD are
entered, as regards Herefordshire and Gloucestershire, under
the title ' Terra ecclesia de Hereford', but, as in the case of
Worcester, the Bishop's name is mentioned in the text, and
at the end of the Herefordshire entries there is this note :
Amongst the whole there are in the Episcopate three hundred
hides, although concerning thirty-three hides the Bishop's Men have
not proved their claim \rationem non dederint].

THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY 419
Besides these manors the Bishop had three in his neigh
bour's county of Worcester, two in Shropshire, and one far off
in Essex. They seem to have always belonged to the Church,
and we find amongst the entries some seven or eight instances
of those incidental paragraphs which the Commissioners, no
doubt, delighted in recording.1
[Earl] Harold held it unjustly, but King William restored it to
Walter the Bishop, because it was of the Bishopric.
This was Walter, by the way, the last of the English
Bishops, who was consecrated in 1061 and died in 1079. At
the time of the Survey the Norman Robert de Losinga was
Bishop. As to the solitary and small manor in Essex, there
is a peculiarity in the tenure. A part is recorded to have
been ' in the church,' and part * in the fee of Harold.'
Next as to DURHAM. It will have been observed that
I had to qualify the number of manors which the see of
Durham possessed with the expression ' so far as recorded.'
I used these words because the whole of the county of
Durham, as well as of Northumberland, is omitted from the
Domesday Survey, and probably portions of the adjoining
counties. This is not the place to discuss the causes of such
omission, but it may reasonably be allowed that the Bishopric
of Durham possessed probably as many manors in the
county bearing its own name as elsewhere, and if so that
would bring it up to the same level as that of the others, if
not to a higher one, as regards its manorial holdings.
The entries of lands belonging to the Bishop of Durham
under Lincolnshire seem to imply that the thirty manors -
ascribed to the Bishop did not anciently belong to the
Bishopric. We find the expressions * Habuit Stcpiot,' ' Habuit
1 The title is always written over the name, and always Earl— never King.
' Belonging to these thirly manors are some ilo/.en Sokes and llercwics etc.
They may fairly be reckoned as equivalent to thirty-five manors.
VOL. II. D

420 THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY
Siward,' etc., ' Nunc Episcopus Dunelmensis'. In all probability
these manors were bestowed by the Conqueror upon William
of St. Carileph personally as a matter of policy — the same
policy which suggested the transference of Remigius to this
large seaboard county, with associations of the occupations
by the Danish strangers and the continued attempts at inde
pendence made by the inhabitants of the district.
Of the fourteen manors in which the Bishop held land
in Yorkshire, some appear to have already belonged to the
see, for we find in one ' Episcopus Dunelmensis habuit et habet,'
and several without any name attached to them T.R.E. On
the other hand, in the first two manors recorded, we are told
'Hoc manerium tenuit Morcar ; nunc habet Episcopus Dunel
mensis ' ; so that we may be sure it belonged to the forfeited
lands of the Northumbrian earl. We can scarcely suppose
that the earl had unjustly possessed himself of it to the
detriment of the Church, and that it was now restored, for in
that case there would have been something in the formula
to imply it, if indeed it would not have been vauntingly
stated in full. Of the third manor we learn this history :
that ' King Edward himself held it. Now the Bishop of
Durham holds it,' This looks like a grant from King William
to the Bishop for services rendered, and throws a light perhaps
upon the two forfeited manors of Morcar. As no name is
given, we do not know whether the grant was made first of
all to Walcher, who died May 14, 1080, or to his successor,
William of St. Carileph, who was consecrated on January 3,
108 1, but most probably to the latter.
With respect to the two manors in Bedfordshire and the
one in Berkshire, held by the Bishop of Durham, the entries
are curious. As regards those in Bedfordshire we are told
the men of the hundred testify that King Edward gave one
of them to the Church of the Holy Cross at Waltham, and
as to the other it is recorded that the Canons of the Holy

THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY 421
Cross held it 'in alms' T.R.E. In Berkshire the Bishop
holds the manor of Waltham, and the historical note to this
is, ' Ulwin the Canon (presumably of Waltham Abbey) held
it from [Earl] Harold (the word ' comite' being, as is usual,
interlineated), and it belonged to the church of Waltham.'
Now in one of the Chronicles of Waltham, William is accused
of robbing the Abbey of certain possessions, but it is a ques
tion whether he would have been bold enough to take away
on any plea whatever, lands with which Harold had endowed
his own foundation. It is quite possible that it was the result
of an exchange or bargain of some kind, perhaps made when
the king visited the Abbey in 1077, as he is recorded to have
done. Still the fact remains that the Bishop of Durham for
the first time became Tenens in capite of these three manors
which the Abbey of Waltham had once held. That it was
a case of their selection of the Bishop of Durham as an
overlord, is improbable from the fact that the Abbey appears
itself amongst the Tenentes in capite in Domesday, and there
fore, as they held two manors in Hertfordshire, they might
reasonably be supposed to be capable of holding two in
(Bedfordshire and one in Berkshire.
The Bishop of WINCHESTER, who is generally referred to
by name as well as title, i.e. Walkelin, and who succeeded to
the see on the deposition of Stigand in 1070, is returned as
holding manors in nine different counties.1 More than half
the manors, which I reckon at fifty-five in all, are situated in
1 In addition to the manors entered under the Bishop's name as Tenens in
Capite, there are several which are entered under the name of the Abbatia S
Petri, and the Abbas is the Tenens in Capite. To obtain an idea of the whoie
endowment of the church of Winchester these should be added.
In Hampshire, five are entered under the heading of Abbatia, and twelve
under Abbas. In Wilts, five under Abbatia ; in Dorset and Surrey, each one. In
Sussex, three under Abbas. The exact distinctions between the several endow
ments are not kept very clear in the Survey, since Manors entered beneath the
Bishop as Tenens in Capite are, as already noted, applied sometimes ad victum
Monachorum &c. v 2

422 THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY
Hampshire itself, namely twenty-nine, and so, near the seat
of the Bishopric ; nine are in the adjoining county of Wilts,
and the remaining seventeen manors are distributed in seven
counties, two of which have four manors, one has three manors,
two have two manors, and two have one manor each.
Under the manors in Hampshire we find frequently the
phrase ' De episcopatu est et fuit', or ' Semper jacuit in Epi-
scopatu', or 'Ipse Episcopus tenet; semper tenuit', or again
' Godwinus tenuit de Episcopo ; non potuit ire aliubi.' These
phrases are constantly employed by the clerk to show that the
manors were of old the property of the Church. When no note
is given and when no other owner is named T.R.E., we may
take it for granted words such as the above are understood.
In Surrey the clerk informs us that St. Peter (i.e. the Church
of Winchester) always held the one manor then held by the
Bishop. In Berkshire, against two of the manors we find the
note, ' Bishop Stigand held it T.R.E.,' but as he was Bishop
of Winchester, this is only another method of saying that the
manor belonged to the Bishopric.
In Wiltshire we find in respect of the first manor specified,
that two of the hides did not belong to the Bishop because
they were, with three others, taken away from the Church and
from the hands of the Bishop in the time of King Cnut. As
the Bishop now seems to hold them, it would look as if they
had been somehow restored. I observe, too, in Wiltshire
another phrase to occur several times implying the ownership
of a manor by the Church. ' Godric, who held it T.R.E.,
could not separate it from the Church.' (' Godricus qui tenuit
non potuit ab ecclesia. separare '), and again ' Qui tenuerunt
T.R.E. non poterant ab ecclesia separare!
In Somersetshire, the passage relating to the Bishop of
Winchester's tenure is mainly taken up with the customs
which he holds in the vill of Taunton, and at the beginning
of the passage we find that Stigand held Taunton (no doubt

THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY 425
qua Bishop of Winchester), so that at once we are practically
carried back to Edward's time.1 But further in the course of
the account with respect to certain lands the clerk notes, ' Those
who held them in the time of King Edward could not alienate
them from the Church,' and again at the end, with regard
to certain lands lying to Taunton, there is the note ' that of
these lands the customs and service always lay to Taunton, and
King William granted this land to be held by St. Peter and
Walchelin the Bishop.' The probable reason of the appear
ance of the note is that the question of tenure having been
raised, the clerk has entered the ifsissi»:a verba of the Court.
While certain customs and services had continued to be
paid to the Church of St. Peter at Winchester, the Bishop had
lost his right over the land by the same kind of alienation as
we have seen to take place elsewhere, and which was so con
tinually the case through neglect on the part of the responsible
officers of the several ecclesiastical institutions or communities
in looking after their interest Consequently it had been
proved that the lands once belonged and in law actually did
belong to those to whom the customs and sen-ices were paid
and done, and this decision of William's court became then
the title to the land. Not that King William made the grant
de nevo, but that he confirmed the Bishop in the enjoyment
of what already by right belonged to him, which right had
been disputed.
In Hertfordshire, again, the solitary manor so far away
1 • In King Edward's Tinte was sufficient for the purposes of the S-rvey. tut
we know from other sources that the vill of Taunton was given to tie Church of
Winchester early in the eighth century: • Ai:iw pccvti Ethdandus Rex If est
Sj.x?mtm. Hnius conjux FH:ksz;-;:::j Kegina dzdii i'lnic-nunsi E..:'ss:j: Tzn-
Ur:j~i de suJ parrimoitio. Et irs< Ri.x E:^ tardus jV sua pjrr- iu:j::dit ^j rre-
dictum <*;ajuriur: aJ spas ru.dem tc.-^sir :-:pUm njnszs.' Aiikj^s de lll'-.h'-.ij..
sub anno. Rolls Series lS6>. It is perhaps difficul: :o identify exactly the seven
nisfijs here referred to amongst the property held in Somersetshire by the Church,
but on the other hand there is every reason to believe that at the rime of the
Survey thev continued still as psn ot the endowment of the Bishopric.

42+ THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY
from the Bishop's seat appears to have been, curiously, an
ancient tenure of the Bishopric, the note of the Commis
sioners' clerk running, ' This manor lay and lies in the demesne
of St. Peter's, Winchester.' In Buckinghamshire, again, to one
of the two manors we find the note, ' This manor was and is
for the food of the monks of the church of Winchester [' de
victu monachorum '] : Stigand held it.' To the other we find
the same note as in the Hertfordshire case, ' This manor lay
and lies in the demesne of the church of Winchester.' The
two Oxfordshire manors in the same way are noted- as belong
ing to the Church originally ; to one we have the expression,
' Stigand held it ; ' to the other, ' It was and is of the Church.'
Again, to each of the four manors in Cambridgeshire, still
further away from the Bishop's seat, notes are added, in the
words of one or other of the above formulae, showing that
they belonged to the Church of St. Peter of Winchester
originally, and were not granted by the Conqueror.
Turning next to EXETER, we find that thirty-five out
of the fifty manors are in Cornwall and Devon, the two
counties representing the two ancient dioceses of Cornwall
and Crediton. The manors appear without exception to have
belonged to the old sees. The Exon Domesday, though it
gives the statistics more fully, does not appear to give any
historical details touching the question at issue beyond those
which have been copied off into the Exchequer copy of
Domesday. It would only be tedious to recount the various
formulae used to show the ancient right of the Church in the
several manors, but there is one note respecting the manor of
Newton which is interesting from its explicit character. It
runs : ' Concerning the manor, Bishop Osbern exhibits his
charters which show that the Church of St. Peter was seised of
the said manor before King Edward reigned. Furthermore, in
the time of King William he proved his claim to it before the
King's Barons, (' Insuper T. R. Willelmi diratiocinavit coram

THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY 425
baronibus Regis esse suam ' ). These little details give here
and there an insight into the working of the Commissioners'
court, and bring before our view the venerable Bishop pointing
to his charters which he had produced in court. It is a mis
fortune that such details are given so sparingly.
The single manor of Bentone (i.e. Bampton) in Oxfordshire,
although so far away, had evidently belonged anciently to
the Bishopric of Exeter also, as the words ' Leuric [or rather
Levric\ Episcopus tenuit' are added. This must be the well-
known Leofric whose missal is preserved, and who was conse
crated Bishop of Crediton in 1046, soon after the two sees were
united, and who died in 1072. It was therefore held by the
Bishop in King Edward's days, and that was sufficient for the
Commissioners. With respect, however, to the four or five
manors in Norfolk, there is no reason to suppose they had
belonged originally to the Bishopric of Exeter. The name
of the Tenetis in capite is not Episcopus de Execestrid, but
simply Osbernus Episcopus. Exeter is not mentioned ; and
this perhaps was of set purpose, just as in the case of the
Suffolk tenures of Lanfranc, already referred to, where he
does not appear as Archbishop of Canterbury, but low down
in the list simply as Lanfrancus Archiepiscopus.1 In other
words, the manor belonged to the man — not to the dignitary.
Osbern'sland seems to have belonged T.R.E. to free men,
but I observe that against two of them is the designation ' homo
Stigandi! These entries are to be compared with other
examples, and notably with the case of Lanfranc above
mentioned, where Stigand's name occurs in the holding T.R.E.
of land now alienated to other ecclesiastical persons : and
there seems good reason to suppose that together with his
disgrace and deposition, his lands of all kinds were trans
ferred to others.- Without going minutely into the cases seve
rally and comparing them with such charters as may happen
1 See ante, p. 406.

426 THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY
to exist respecting the lands in question, it is dangerous to
come to any definite conclusion. But the probabilities are
that none of the ancient tenures of the see, and of which
Stigand became possessed qud Archbishop of Canterbury,
were alienated : yet those which Stigand may have obtained
personally for himself were confiscated. Still the line, perhaps,
was drawn somewhat loosely, and according to the principle
' la raison du plus fort c'est toujours la meilleure ' the law
might easily have been made to comprehend lands amongst
Stigand's personal property which were in the original gift
intended for the Church of Canterbury, and which were
thereby lost to it ; especially in those cases where exchanges
had taken place. The circumstances themselves attending
the deposition of Stigand suggest the kind of law which was
administered. The three charges which seem to have been
formulated would probably not by themselves have in
volved deposition ; but there was practically a fourth charge
which did not appear on the Record, but which gave a cogency
to the other charges, namely, that he was an Englishman, and
one whose influence stood in the way of the Norman influence,
and might at any moment prove dangerous.
We come next to the Bishop of SALISBURY, the
celebrated St. Osmond, presiding over a see bringing with it
memories of Sherborne and Ramsbury.
It is strange how poor it was in manorial property, holding
only twenty manors in all. In the three counties where we
should have expected it would have held largely, namely Berk
shire, Wiltshire, and Dorset, the Domesday Record gives only
three, five, and six manors respectively : so far as it appears,
they all originally belonged to the Bishopric.
The precise time, or the special reasons which had caused
this havoc made with the Church property, is beside the
present point at issue. All that is certain is that it was not

THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY 427
lost by reason of the Norman Conquest. Of the two manors
the Bishop held in Somersetshire, one, composed of two parts,
seems to have been some personal acquisition, as the Record
goes out of its way to say ' These two pieces of land are not
of the Bishopric of Salisbury : Osmund the Bishop holds them
for one manor.'
In Lincolnshire the entry is simply ' Terra Osmunai
Episcopi,' and the land consists of three very small portions,
scarcely to be called manors, and in all three cases belonging
to the church of Grantham. We possess, I believe, no docu
ments belonging to the older church of Grantham, and therefore
I cannot speak with any confidence, but my view would be
that, as perhaps in some other cases, the community there pre
ferred to trust their lands in the keeping of a Southern Bishop
rather than that of the Bishop of the Diocese whose court
might be biassed against them in case of encroachment.
Virtually, in this instance as in the others, Osmund became
what we might call a trustee. The solitary manor in Oxford
shire is described as having originally belonged to the Church,
presumably the church of Salisbury.
The Bishop of ROCHESTER holds eighteen manors in Kent
out of his total of twenty, and from the numerous charters &c.
which are preserved, it is easy to ascertain the date at which
most were assigned to the Bishopric.1
There is an explanation, however, respecting Stoke
which again well illustrates the point insisted on, namely that
alienation of ecclesiastical property was very far indeed from
William's policy. The record runs—
This manor was and is of the Bishopric of Rochester. But Earl
Godwin in the time of King Edward bought it of two men who held
1 For instance, Estoche was granted as early as A.D. 730 or thereabouts;
Frindlesham about 750 ; Bronlei and Hallinges both about 775 ; Tottesclewe,
780 ; Esnocland in 830 ; and others later still. One or two of the early grants
seem to have been lost either by sale or exchange.

428 THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY
it of the Bishop, and without his knowledge the sale was effected (' eo
ignorante facta estvenditio '). But afterwards, when King William was
reigning, Archbishop Lanfranc proved his claim to the same against
the Bishop of Bayeux, and hence it is now in seisin of the Church of
Rochester (' diratiocinavit illud Lanfrancus Episcopus contra Baio-
censem Episcopum et inde est modo saisita Rofensis ecclesia ').
The reason of the Bishop of Bayeux being defendant in
the suit, is that qua Earl of Kent, he became lord over all
the confiscated lands of Earl Godwin, and so had to do battle
for the lands of which Earl Godwin had wrongfully possessed
himself. The insertion of the passage, besides being useful, is inte
resting. It was not probably prompted so much by the
desire to give information to future generations as to show to
the Church of England that a wrong done by Earl Godwin
was afterwards undone, and right done regnante Willelmo Rege.
Besides the eighteen manors in Kent, one manor is
entered under the Bishop's name in Cambridgeshire. It does
not seem to have belonged to the church of Rochester, nor
yet does it seem to be a personal grant to Gundulf, for it is
added, he holds it ' sub Archiepiscopo Lanfranco! Possibly it
was some land to which Lanfranc had made good claim in
the courts qua Archbishop, and which of old belonged to the
Church, yet with its title obscure it was now settled to belong
to the church of Rochester, but with homage done and cer
tain service rendered to the Archbishop of Canterbury.
The suits which Lanfranc successfully sustained for his
own diocese and the neighbouring diocese of Rochester,
were determined at Pinenden (Pinenden Heath, as it is gene
rally called), the old meeting-place of the shire, which is
referred to on the first folio of Domesday, thus :
And if they shall be summoned to meet together at the Shire [mote]
they will go to Pennenden— not further (' Si fuerint prcemoniti ut con-
veniant ad sciram, ibunt ad Pennendene — non longius ').

THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY 429
It may be added by way of illustration that over one
important Gemot held here in 1076-7, in which the Arch
bishop and Earl Odo were respectively plaintiff and defendant,
it was necessary to have an independent president, and Geoffrey
of Coutances was chosen ; in this case, it would appear that
the Church got justice done, though it was to the detriment
of the king's brother.1
The Bishop of WELLS, to whom we next come, was at the
time of the Survey still the Lotharingian Bishop Giso, who
had been consecrated in 1061. Not having given any offence,
and not being dangerous (for, if we may judge by the few
lines of autobiography he has left us, he was anything but
an admirer of Harold),2 he was allowed to continue on in
the Bishopric. Probably, as regards the individual churches
throughout the diocese, the change from a Saxon king to a
Norman one was not felt at all, everything going on as before.
The seventeen manors (all in Somerset) which he held T.R.W.
he seems to have held T.R.E., though, as we gather from his
story, some had been lost, but afterwards were recovered.
We have now arrived at the one diocese which stands
at the bottom of the list as the poorest of all in respect of
manorial holding, namely, Chichester.
The ten manors held by the Bishop of Chichester, all
in Sussex, seem to consist of what was left of the endowments
of the ancient Bishopric of Selsea, after the troubles of the
tenth and the early part of the eleventh century. No further
grants seem to have been made to Stigand, who had been
appointed to the Bishopric by William in 1070. He had
been the Conqueror's chaplain, and is not to be confused with
the deposed Archbishop of Canterbury of the same name.
1 See Thorpe's Registrum Rofense, 1769, p. 27. I believe the original of the
passage occurs in the Textus Rofensis, but the facts are referred to by Gervase
and other chroniclers.
2 See Ecclesiastical Documents, Camden Society, 1840, p. 16.

430 THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY
I have thus completed a summary of the endowments of
the fifteeen ecclesiastical divisions of the country enjoyed by
their ecclesiastical rulers, or devoted to ecclesiastical purposes
over which they had more or less control. As has been observed,
we occasionally find notices of certain lands appropriated to the
victus or the vestitus of the canons attached to the cathedral.
In some cases, lands are found, by reference to the charters,
to have been left for repair of the fabric of the church ; at
others, evidently for the Bishop's personal use. But whatever
their object, the lands were vested in the Bishop, and the
Domesday Survey seldom takes note of anything beyond this
one fact.
The eight hundred and odd manors thus accounted for,
it must be remembered, were totally distinct from the seven
teen hundred manors with which, at the time of the Conquest,
we find that the several religious houses situated within those
several divisions or dioceses were endowed.
To go through these would take as long as the survey of
the Bishops' properties has taken, and indeed longer, because
we have more records relating to the monastic foundations
than to the Bishoprics, and therefore one is tempted more
frequently to go out of one's way to explain the circum
stances connected with the details of the results Domesday
so very briefly records.
Suffice it here to say, that of the sixty-two English religious
Foundations returned as Tenentes in Capite, I find only one
holding above 300 manors, and that is Bury St. Edmund.
Next to that is the Church of Ely (the Bishopric had not
yet been formed), with a roll of exactly 200 manors as I
count them.
These two stand alone far at the head of the list. With
a roll varying from between 50 and 100 manors, we find
Worcester (distinct from the Bishopric), Westminster, Peter
borough, Glastonbury, Ramsey, Hereford, and Abingdon.

THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY 431
Varying from thirty to fifty are, Mont S. Michael (Corn
wall), Croyland, Coventry, St. Augustine's Canterbury, Eves
ham, and the monks of Canterbury and Worcester, both the
latter being independent of the episcopal foundation.
This gives us a total of sixteen, and distributed amongst
them a roll of about 1,250 manors.
Of those holding from ten to thirty manors, I reckon
thirty-five, and those holding under ten manors, twenty-one.
In other words, these 56 Religious Houses possessed between
them under 500 manors. This shows the unequal disposal of
the manors, not arising always from poverty of original endow
ments, but mainly from the inability to preserve them during
the Danish and other troubles of the kingdom, from the
beginning of the tenth century to the time of the Conquest.
If I had had an opportunity of treating of these monastic
possessions as exhibited in Domesday, I should also have
had to speak of the endowments which several Norman
monasteries had obtained in England between the Conquest
and the time of the Survey. This roll, however, is not a long
one. I reckon in all only twenty-six foundations, with a total
roll of eighty-one manors.
Rheims stands at the head with ten manors in three
counties ; St. Valery next ; Caen with its two foundations, the
Abbayeaux Hommes and Abbaye aux Dames (i.e. St. Stephen's
and Holy Trinity) — the one the foundation of William, the
other of Matilda — only appears on the roll with six manors to
each, and those distributed in each case in four counties.
Of parish churches I have said nothing, partly from the
extent to which the paper has extended, partly from under
standing that they would be treated of by another contributor
to the proceedings of the Domesday celebration.
One of my objects has been to illustrate, by the notes
here brought together, how distinctly the endowments exist
ing T.R.E. were respected T.R.W. ; and more than that,

¦-.2 THE CHURCH IN DOMESDAY
how their very existence at that time, proved either by
charter or by oral testimony, was sufficient for them to be
enrolled upon the great Survey of the kingdom, which was in
effect one great ' title-deed.'
We see in the diminished number of the manors held by
some of the most ancient and once important sees, that mnch
robbery had taken place, but there is no reason t : suppose
that the robbery took place after the Conquest, or that it had
been William's policy to allow It ; and though, as I have
pointed out, there were cases in which perhaps some loss had
occurred, more especially in Stigand'' s case, there were to be
set against them those cases where lost lands had been
recovered and fresh grants acquired.
Between 1066 and 10S0 personal gifts to the Church, no
doubt, had been as frequent as ever, if not more so — some
to the dioceses, some to the monasteries, some to the village
churches. It is clear too that William encouraged these
gifts, and made many himself.
Details we glean from other sources, but the evidence of
the great respect shown by William towards the Church of
England, whether actuated by mere policy, or more bv
admiration of her work, or consciousness of her value towards
ensuring the peace of the nation — the evidence of this fact is
most clearly to be drawn from the pages of the Domesday
Survev.

<pMi*§ t§ux$w &Mitt& in t$t
By HERBERT J. REID, F.S.A.
' THE Church in Domesday,' together with its higher digni
taries, formed the subject of a highly interesting paper read
by Mr. James Parker in this Hall last Thursday. Its careful
preparation, and the profound research it exhibited, was so
generally noticed, that I have considerable hesitation in offer
ing my remarks, bearing a somewhat similar title, although in
effect differing entirely, both in treatment and subject. My
observations are upon ' Parish Churches omitted in the Sur
vey,' and upon the term ' Presbyter,' by implication held to
denote a church. Although by no means disregarding other
counties, I have, in deference to a suggestion offered by Lord
Aberdare, selected the majority of my examples from that
county with which I am most familiar — viz. Berkshire.
The small number of churches mentioned in Domesday
Book, and the apparently irregular manner of their distribu
tion, invariably arrest our attention when submitting the
Returns to careful scrutiny. By some it has been inferred
from their being unmentioned that they cannot have existed ;
others reasoning that the term presbyter frequently encoun
tered where no mention of a church is made, should be taken
to imply the existence of one : while the absence of the words

434 PARISH CHURCHES OMITTED IN THE SURVEY
ecclesia and presbyter is ofttimes accepted as sufficient or
conclusive proof that the sacred edifice was non-existent.
After all, this is but a hypothetical and negative reasoning
from which definite conclusions should not be arrived at ; and
although it has met with qualified acceptance from, among
others, Dr. Nash, in his ' History of Worcestershire,' even
he would seem to have rather accepted the hypothesis than
to have based his remarks upon actual investigation.
References are found in early Cartularies to churches, and
also to tithes, before or soon after the advent of King
William, yet to which, in the account of the manors, no refer
ence is made in Domesday. To this the Rev. Samuel Denne
refers in a letter to the Society of Antiquaries, which is
printed in vol. viii. of the ' Archaeologia,' and dated June i,
1786. At this date the first volume of the printed edition of
the Domesday Survey containing all the counties to which he
refers had been published three years ; and it is singular he
should have almost invariably taken imperfect extracts from
County Histories as the authorities upon which to base his
arguments, with the original references so easily accessible.
The facts he pointed out are indubitable, but unfortunately his
letter for critical purposes becomes of comparatively little value
from this oversight. I am, however, enabled to select a few
references from this letter in partial illustration of my subject.
The laws of Canute support the presumption that in his
reign there were many churches. These were divided into
four classes : the Heafod-mynster, or head minster, the Me-
demra-mynster, or mediocris ecclesia, the minor ecclesia, where
there was a little service and a cemetery, and the Feld-cirice,
ecclesia campestris, or field church, without a burial ground.
It can scarcely be doubted these greatly increased under so
religious a King as the Confessor, and this view is favoured
by Kemble, who expresses his opinion that their number in
Anglo-Saxon times was very large. To their great numerical

THE PRESBYTER 435
increase under the Confessor his own laws bear direct testi
mony, for in a paragraph at the foot of an enactment with
reference to the payment of tithe is the following conclusive
statement : — ' in multis locis sunt modo iv vel iii ecclesiae,
ubi tunc temporis non erat nisi una.'
King William, ' who loved the tall stags as though he was
their father,' has been reproached for laying waste a large
portion of Hampshire to form the New Forest. Some
churches unquestionably were destroyed for this purpose.
The fact is attested by no less a person than the King's own
chaplain, William of Jumieges, who, after speaking of the
deaths of William Rufus and his brother Richard, says :
' quoniam multas villas et Ecclesias propter eandem Forestam
amplificandam, in circuitu ipsius destruxerat.'
Thirty-six churches are estimated to have been destroyed ,
the calculation being based upon those remaining, as recorded
in the Hampshire Survey. There are entered as belonging
to this county some three hundred manors, sharing among
them one hundred and thirty-two churches, so that the pro
portion of thirty-six churches to sixty villages destroyed will
not be deemed an unreasonable number. All the churches
in this county are found either holding land, or pertaining tc
some manor.
The Survey mentions but thirty churches in Wiltshire,
and these belonging principally to royal manors. The num
ber recorded in Dorsetshire is marvellously small, only ten
churches being assigned to some two hundred and fifty
parishes in that county, while in Berkshire the number ex
ceeds that of the above-mentioned two ; this is the more
remarkable when we notice that the ecclesiastical bodies in
Wiltshire held fully two-thirds of the land in that county
under their dominion.
Berkshire, comprising in round numbers some two hundred
and forty parishes, is credited with over fifty churches.
VOL. 11. E

436 PARISH CHURCHES OMITTED IN THE SURVEY
Seventeen are upon royal manors, of which there were forty-
five, while the Church, possessing fifty-five manors, had but
sixteen, the remainder belonging to laymen. The Bishop
and monasteries of Winchester, with six manors, owned one
church, and the Bishops of Durham and Chichester, as also
the Abbey of Amesbury, were seemingly without, although
this last is elsewhere said to have held the church of the
king's manor of Ledcombe, now Letcombe Regis.
According to the estimation of Sir Henry Ellis, no fewer
than eight hundred and twenty-nine churches are recorded in
the three counties of Norfolk, Lincoln, and Suffolk, one half
the number chronicled in the entire Survey, while in Corn
wall, Lancashire (between the Ribble and the Mersey), and
Middlesex they are unnoticed, and in the Cambridgeshire
returns but one is mentioned.
It would be an almost hopeless task to ascertain with
exactitude the number of churches existing at the time the
Survey was made, yet diligent search in early records might
obtain an approximate estimate. Here references should be
found to payments made by William Rufus in pursuance
of his father's will. Ingulphus, a contemporary writer, says,
sub anno 1087, that William Rufus gave ten marks to all the
principal churches, five marks to the lesser, and five shillings
to every country church throughout England. Simeon of
Durham mentions the circumstance, differing from Ingulphus
only in the amount, and in this he has been followed by such
later writers as Ralph de Diceto, Brampton, and Hoveden,
who appear to have all copied from him.
Selden has suggested the number of churches to have
been 4,511, a far more reasonable number than is given in
Sprott, where it is written, 'fecit (Rex Willielmus) totam
Angliam describi, quantum terrae quis baronum possedit . . .
quotque Ecclesiarum dignitates. Et repertum fuit in primo
de summa Ecclesiarum XLV M' XL'

THE PRESBYTER 437
This chronicle, attributed — on far from sufficient grounds
— to Sprott, an Augustin monk of Canterbury, is by no means
always to be relied on, and it is certainly a remarkable cir
cumstance that Sir Henry Spelman should receive and adopt
without question in his 'Glossary' the outrageous and impos
sible statement, that when the Survey was made, there were
in England no less than 45,000 parish churches. Then, as
now, the sole authority for any such calculation must have
been Domesday Book, and this grave error can only be attri
buted to the faulty arithmetic of the monkish writer; but
it is to be regretted his error should have been perpetuated
by so generally accurate a writer as Spelman.
A glance at any county map will show enormous tracts
of country seemingly, at the time of the Survey, unprovided
with a church, yet, by evidence of the returns, well populated.
At the present time it is nearly everywhere possible to recog
nise, at places mentioned in Domesday Book, churches of
undoubted pre-Norman times, of which the Survey has taken
no account. In Berkshire, Upton and Aston-Upthorpe, ad
mittedly Saxon churches, are not mentioned. At Burcombe
and Bremhill, Wilts, it is the same, and the Anglo-Saxon
Charter of King Edgar, A.D. 972, may be cited for the men
tion of the Cyric-Stede, i.e. Church-stead, at West Overton,
although Domesday is silent as to the existence of a church.
Some valuable evidence is offered by Mr. Denne in his
' Doubts &c.,' with respect to these omissions. He says : —
' Faversham in Kent, the church to which I allude, the first
William gave in 1070 to the Abbey of St. Augustin, with all
the tenths and products accruing from that manor. There is
also in Sprott's Fragments a reference to a Bull of Urban III.
dated in 1085, which restrains the monks of that Abbey from
granting to any secular the church of Faversham and four
other churches. And if Mr. Bridges' transcripts are to be
depended on, Domesday is silent as to several churches

438 PARISH CHURCHES OMITTED IN THE SURVEY
which are said by him to have been appropriated or given to
religious houses very early after the Conquest, viz. Charwel-
ton, Eydon, Newbottle, Grafton, Hardingstone, Moulton, By-
field, and Merton St. Lawrence. The last two were given to
the Abbey of St. Ebrulf, and the grants confirmed by the
Conqueror, A.D. 1081, between which time and the Survey it
is barely probable these churches should have been destroyed.'
Sarisberie, or Old Sarum, and Dorchester in Oxfordshire,
furnish other instances. It is possible they may have been
included under the possessions of the cathedrals to which
they belonged, but under their several headings in the Survey
they are not mentioned as having churches. Yet it must
have been so ; Dorchester had long been an episcopal see,
removed to Lincoln probably only the year prior to the
Survey ; and Domesday speaks of Remigius Bishop of Lin
coln, and records the translation ' . . . habet Sancta Maria de
Lincolia in qua nunc est episcopatus.'
In Berkshire, Reading, Windsor, Hungerford, and Wal-
lingford — this last, even at that period, an important borough
— were, according to Domesday Book, without churches ; but
this is incredible. Under Wallingford are recorded no less
than ten Archbishops, Bishops, and Monastic Houses having
lands and other possessions there ; three presbyters had gable
of their houses, viz. Elmer, ^Elmer, and Lanbertus ; and a
fourth, Rainbaldus, probably the chancellor of that name, held
one haga. But the mention of these is plainly to record their
private belongings, irrespective of the Church ; for in the
paragraph relating to Sonninges, a manor of the Bishop of
Salisbury (which seems also to have been without a church),
there is incidental mention of a church at Wallingford, by
right belonging to Sonninges, but held by Rogerius the pres
byter — proving not only the existence of one there, but also
that it did not concern any of the priests whose names were
entered as holding other property in that borough. The de-

THE PRESBYTER 439
duction is clear. The four presbyters were registered, not in
respect of any church, but purely as private individuals ; the
casual reference to the church under Sonninges may have been
a mild protest against alienations, while Rogerius having no
property in Wallingford liable to taxation, his name was in
tentionally omitted. Mr. Parker, in his ' Early History of
Oxford,' explains that most of the houses in county towns
held by tenants in capite were connected more or less with
manors in other counties, so that for the purpose of attending
courts which were held in towns, it was necessary to have
residences set apart for the lords of the manors ; there is
little doubt, he adds, that many of those houses were specially
entered upon the geld rolls as appropriated to certain manors,
and the expression ' jacet ' or 'jacuit ' so frequently met with
evidently implies this.
Another incidental notice under Bristoldestone, where
there was both a church and a priest, indicates also a church
at Reading, with land pertaining thereto, which the Abbess
Leuueua had held of King Edward, belonging, at the Survey,
to Battle Abbey.
One reason for the omissions may have been, and in all
probability was, many of these edifices, especially the lesser
ecclesia, capelltz, and ecclesiolce, were maintained by the parent
church, and without other endowment, so that it was needless
to enumerate them, not being liable to taxation ; occasion
ally some few may have been, with or without reason, admitted
into the Returns, but so rarely as to scarcely need remark.
The Capella finds mention but once in Berkshire, at Har-
uuelle, the manor of Rogerius de Iveri, and but once in the
same county, at Wautham, is noticed an ecclesiola, having
nine acres of meadow, but as the entire manor belonged to
Chertsey Abbey, and was valued at 61., it is probable the
ecclesiola had no maintenance of its own, but was supported
by the Abbey.

440 PARISH CHURCHES OMITTED IN THE SURVEY
The ministers of the smaller churches or chapels are
rarely mentioned, and in Berkshire they are encountered but
twice, viz. Thatcham, where two clerici held a church and
lands, and Windsor, where Albertus clericus held one hide
and the third part of a dene. Sir Henry Ellis was of opinion
that clerici and capellani were frequently domestic priests, the
term being also used at times synonymously with presbyter,
while ecclesiola has been held to have the same signification
with capella. Of these, three are mentioned at Dartford,
Kent, and the Abbey of Hortune had one ecclesiola at Wim-
borne, Dorset. At Westbury, Wilts, was a church held by a
' certain clericolus,' which Canon Rich-Jones inclined to be
lieve meant sub-deacon, a title not encountered in Berkshire,
although there is mention of one William the Deacon at
Wantage in that county.
Sir Henry Ellis has remarked that the circumstance of
' presbyteri ' occurring most frequently in counties where
scarcely any ecclesice are noticed, gives strength to the pre
sumption that the officers of the Exchequer who made the
abridgments of the inquisitions deemed the entry of the one
as in most cases implying the existence of the other, citing
Leicestershire as an example, where no less than forty-one
presbyters are enumerated, while the word ecclesia occurs in
the town of Leicester only. Here Hugh de Grentemaisnell
is stated to have held four churches, and the Bishop of Lincoln
two, but in Norfolk, in contradistinction, ecclesice are numerous,
and presbyteri few.
The term Presbyter is that commonly employed in most
counties to denote the Minister, Diaconus and Capellanus
being used for the same purpose in some portions of the
Survey. It is not unfrequently met with in Wiltshire, where
two presbyteri held in capite, but at Bromham in the same
county the presbyter held de terra villanorum. They have
been classed with the bordarii villani and servi, and ' England

THE PRESBYTER 441
under the Normans ' has been cited, for the conjecture that
the tenement of the parish priest or presbyter about equalled
that of the villan, with Mr. Morgan's reminder that Chaucer's
' Good Parson ' was the ploughman's brother. Some portions
of the Survey may be taken to imply they were farmers of
land and stock holders.
While the mention of a church is direct proof of its
existence, the question arises, does the mention of the
presbyter offer equally decisive evidence that a church existed
also ? Most certainly not always : nor often, if it ever does.
In Berkshire the presbyter is not unfrequently encountered,
not, as suggested by Sir Henry Ellis, implying the existence
of the sacred edifice, but almost invariably in conjunction
therewith. The intent with which both were entered upon
the returns appears to have been that the presbyteri were not
only priests pertaining in some instances (although not
always) to a church, but that they possessed geldable pro
perty as well. For the most part they are found upon king's
manors, and with the exception of Reinbaldus, the Chancellor,
who held the church of Cookham, with land in eleemosynary,
and Edred, who held the church of Sparsholt, with a small
portion of land, were liable to pay geld. As Edred held
his possessions tempore regis Edwardi, it is not unlikely he
held in Frankalmoigne ; at all events, his holding was of such
trifling importance, it may have been deemed injudicious to
disturb him.
At Bastedene, it is written, two presbyteri held two
churches which they had held tempore regis Edwardi worth
XL. s. At Nachededorne, in the hundred of that name, of
which all trace is at the present day wanting, Radulphus
presbyter held the church, with one hide and half a virgate
worth XL. s., while Reimbaldus, also a priest, had two hides
and half a virgate, worth only XXX. s. In the manor of
Shrivenham was a church with five hides where the share of

442 PARISH CHURCHES OMITTED IN THE SURVEY
the presbyter was valued at HI. pounds, and at Ferendone it
is said Bishop Osbern held one hide of this manor with a
church, the valuation of the portion belonging to the church,
and the presbyter, being XL. s.
The coupling of the presbyter with the ecclesia is perhaps
nowhere more marked than in the Wapentake of Skyrack, in
the East Riding of Yorkshire ; here are mentioned thirty dis
tinct places having churches, and no less than twenty-five of
these are said to have a presbyter also. Returning again to
Berkshire, the Royal manor of Celsei (Cholsey) will afford a
final instance. Here the Abbey of Mount St. Michel (i.e. St.
Michel in Periculo Maris, Normandy) held of the king one
church, with arable and meadow land. It is debateable
whether this expression ' unam ecclesiam ' should be taken to
imply that there was another church ; it is hardly probable,
although the paragraph which follows might be read as
supporting such a contention ; it is further remarkable as
containing the only direct reference to tithe in the Berkshire
Survey. ' Duo etia pfcre in ead villa ten de rege in decima
7 eccta q3 vat mi. life.' It will be seen in all the examples
taken from Berkshire, the presbyter when entered, is in con
junction with his church (excepting for reasons already given
at Wallingford), and the sole instance of a presbyter in this
county being mentioned without a church is upon the Royal
manor of Windsor, where the presbyter villa had one hide
and a half.
Instances of the subtenancy of churches and church lands
are not of unfrequent occurrence, and it is evident such
churches as were so held had been leased or turned to pro
fitable account by the actual possessor, while the presbyter
would be not improbably a tenant at will. On rare occasions
he might be independent of the tenant in capite, as in the
manor of Hamstede, Berks, held by Teodric the goldsmith,
the presbyter is said to have the church in eleemosynary.

THE PRESBYTER 443
But at Hanlie, one Turoldus, a presbyter, held the church
from Walterius Gifard, with one hide which always paid geld,
and at Estralei (Streatley) Wibertus held the church from
Goisfridus de Mannavilla. At another Hanlie, belonging to
the Abbey of Abingdon, one Nicholaus held one hide of the
Abbey which Eduuin the presbyter had formerly held, and
was not able to remove from it ; Willielmus belfou held the
church of the king's manor of Blitberie, with five virgates
which Aluric had held of King Edward, and at Stradfeld, one
of the manors of Radulfus de Mortemer, a ' Miles ' held land
and a church with Hi bordarii worth in all X pounds x
shillings. Monks are occasionally found holding land, not only that
pertaining to their own religious house, but independently.
They may have been persons who, having taken religious
vows, were for various reasons indisposed to submit to the
control of their Superior, or to surrender their liberty or
property. The practice was not uncommon, but two instances
selected from Berkshire will suffice. We read that one Edric
had given, during the Confessor's reign, ten hides of land at
Spersold (Sparsholt) to his son Auschil, a monk of Abingdon.
Dying previous to the Survey being made, the inquisitors
demanded to be shown by what title the Abbey continued to
hold the land. It seems the land of Edric's gift had descended
to him from his ancestor ^Ethelie, who had it granted to him
by King Edgar, to whom he had been chamberlain, but in
whatever manner obtained the fact remains that it had been
the private possession of a monk and for his own use ; as such
it was of course liable to taxation. The second instance is at
Bedretone (Betterton), one of the manors of Milo Crispin,
which Leuric, a monk, held 'Tempore regis Edwardi, et
potuit ire quo voluit.' This example is equally conclusive.
Leuric was a free man, and might dispose of his property as
he pleased, notwithstanding he was a monk.

444 PARISH CHURCHES OMITTED IN THE SURVEY
Before proceeding to analyse the foregoing extracts, it will
be well to recall the actual instructions given to the inquisi
tors, according to the celebrated Ely MS. in the Cotton
Collection, Tib. A. vi. It has so frequently been quoted at
length that repetition is needless, but its importance in show
ing the minute instructions given, as also the purpose of the
Survey, cannot be overrated. This last would seem briefly
to have been to ascertain the quantity of each man's fee to
fix his homage, to discover the revenues which should accrue
to the king, and to determine what land paid or should pay
tax, or, as Mr. Moore prefers to describe it, to estimate the
resources of the country.
But not one word is said respecting churches ; no direc
tions were issued for their enumeration or of the officers
belonging. The very writer of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
deeply prejudiced though he was, and by no means disposed
to conceal his disapproval of the proceedings, while entering
into minute detail as to the manner in which they were
carried out, and from whom, if from anyone, such complaint
might be anticipated, is silent as to any inquiries respecting
churches. The inference is plain. There being no instructions issued
to the inquisitors respecting the church or churchmen, they
did not enumerate them unless it became necessary, as for
instance : when either held taxable property as a portion of
the maintenance of the church, or as a private possession, it
became needful to enter this in the Returns, and it was
invariably done, but it was unquestionably done for the sole
purpose of taxation, and without any intent to enumerate
either churches or priests.
Where a presbyter is mentioned, either in conjunction
with a church or without, he is almost invariably found to
have land liable to taxation, and it was for this purpose alone
that he obtained mention, viz. to distinguish the proportion of

THE PRESBYTER 445
land allotted for his subsistence, not only that his own share
might bear its due proportion of tax, but also that the con
tribution of the manorial lord might be duly assessed. An
entry under Wantage, Berks, clearly implies this. Bishop
Peter formerly held two parts of the church of this manor
with four hides belonging, and it is added, ' they are now in
the king's hands, because they did not belong to the
Bishopric ; they never paid geld. The third part of the
aforesaid church William the Deacon holds of the king with
one hide ' — it does not add he paid or did not pay geld, but it
is evidently implied that he did, and the entry was made to
show that although he held one third part of the church, he
was responsible only for the tax upon one hide, the Bishop
having the larger proportion of land attached to his two
thirds. »
We have found ecclesiastics of all ranks holding churches
with land, land alone, and houses. We have also found that
laymen held both churches and lands, which they sublet to
priests, but only in the most isolated cases are churches found
to be held by priest or layman without land more or less
belonging ; almost invariably the land is liable to taxation,
and where not it is distinctly stated. It is very evident,
therefore, the inquiry was directed to the land, and what it
might contribute ; this was the primary consideration, not
the sacred edifice or the priest ; and the sole reason that so
many churches fail to find mention in the Survey, is not that
they did not exist, but that it was unnecessary to mention
them unless contributing to the revenue. The inquisitors
followed the instructions in the Ely MS. to the very letter, but
they did not exceed them. It is less easy to account for the
large number of churches mentioned in Norfolk, Suffolk, and
Lincoln, unless we assume excess of zeal on the part of the
inquisitors; two of these counties are found in the smaller
volume, and different inquisitors may have been employed,

446 PARISH CHURCHES OMITTED IN THE SURVEY
or they may have been admitted by oversight when that
volume was methodised. This is not improbable, as it shows
less care throughout than had been bestowed upon the larger
volume. The presbyter, it has been seen, was not only a priest, but
a stock owner, a cultivator of the soil, a holder of private
property : as such he finds mention frequently, as do other
private individuals, so that it may be said he appears in
Domesday Book in a twofold character. We may then safely
conclude that while the Church required a priest to conduct
the services, if not mentioned he is implied, but the bare
mention of the presbyter without a church should not be held
to imply the existence of one, for it has been sufficiently shown
that the presbyter, when he appears in Domesday Book, does
%so as frequently in his personal as in his official capacity, and
unquestionably there must have been both many more
churches and many more priests at the time the Survey was
made than are recorded in Domesday Book.

Z%t £cope of £ocaf (Efucibafton of i%t
©om^bap £?ur5fyn
BY FREDERICK E. SAWYER, F.S.A.
THE present celebration has been described by one local
newspaper as the climax of absurdity in the way of centenary
observances, but it is strange how little light has yet been
thrown on local history by most writers by their quotations
from the Domesday Survey, as they have generally contented
themselves with bald, and often inaccurate, translations of
fragments of the Survey, which appear in isolated positions in
their histories, and without any apparent connection with
previous or subsequent matters. The public may there
fore well ask us in a paraphrase of the words addressed
to the Hebrew prophet, ' Antiquaries ! can these dry bones
live ? '
It is accordingly for us to breathe some life into this
ancient Record, and make it teach more of the past. There is
little doubt that as regards the greater part of England we
have not as yet obtained a tithe of the information which
Domesday Book might yield us.
During nearly all my spare time in the two years before
March 1886 I was engaged in investigating the Sussex por
tion of the Survey, with special reference to the volume
recently published by the Sussex Archaeological Society on

448 THE SCOPE OF LOCAL ELUCIDATION OF
' Domesday Sussex,' and to which I contributed the table of
' Identifications of Place-names ' and a map.1
I propose, therefore, briefly to sketch out, as the result of
my researches, the lines on which it seems to me further in
vestigations can be successfully made.
Preliminary Study.
In the first place it is very desirable to have at least a
general knowledge of English real property law, or so much
as may be gathered from Williams' ' Principles of the Law of
Real Property,' whilst the works of Watkins and Scriven on
' Copyholds ' should be carefully perused. Mr. Elton's
' Tenures in Kent ' and ' Origins of English History ' should
be studied, and also Sir Henry S. Maine's ' Early Law and
Custom ' and ' Village Communities in the East and West ' ;
whilst Mr. Seebohm's valuable book on ' The English Village
Community ' must be thoroughly mastered, as it is one of the
most important of recent works in its bearing on early records
such as the Domesday Survey. It is needless to say that a
thorough knowledge of local history and topography is in
dispensable, as it is by cross references and comparison that
much of the Survey is elucidated.
Preliminary Work.
Before discussing the portion of the Survey relating to
any county or part of the country, it is essential to make
(i) * A List of Extinct and Existing Manors,' and (2) 'A Dic
tionary (or Index) of Local Place-Names and Toponymical
Features.' There is not (so far as I know) a complete list of
the extinct or existing manors in any English county, but
such lists could be readily compiled, and would alone form
1 By the kind permission of Mr. Sawyer this map is reproduced as the frontis
piece to this volume. — Ed.

\ \ \

THE DOMESDAY SURVEY 449
invaluable contributions to county history ; and I have often
wished that the Index Society would publish such an index
for some county as a specimen of what may be done. The
names of present manors, with their lords and stewards, can
be often gathered from post-office and local directories, and
the facts thus obtained should be verified and supplemented
by special inquiry of the lords and their stewards, including
(as solicitors are mostly stewards) all the solicitors in the
district or county under investigation. The annual reports
presented to Parliament by the Copyhold (now Land) Com
missioners will yield many names of local manors in which
compulsory enfranchisements of copyhold property have been
effected. Local and county histories afford names of extinct
and existing manors. The list, when completed, will be
ready for comparison with the Index of Domesday Manors,
and as it has been impossible since the statute of Quia emp-
tores (18 Edw. I. cap. 1) to create a new manor, it follows
that all existing manors not mentioned in the Domesday
Survey must have been formed by subinfeudation from the
manors there recorded. It will therefore be necessary to search
so as to discover the chief manor of which these sub-manors
are held, or out of which they were carved. I have fully ex
plained in 'The Antiquary' for July 1884 how to make
' Field-Name and Toponymical Collections,' and I will there
fore only briefly refer to the subject here. All names of
hundreds, manors, towns, parishes, hamlets, physical features,
fields, &c. are entered in an index (or dictionary) with the
varied spellings of the names as given in the Nonarum In
quisition, the Taxation of Pope Nicholas, Valor Ecclesi-
asticus, Hundred Rolls, and other documents published by
the Record Commissioners, and in fact every spelling of each
name should be indexed, with date and authority. Although
this work may appear somewhat troublesome, it will amply
repay the labour it may involve, and it will be found that

4So THE SCOPE OF LOCAL ELUCIDATION OF
many of the early supposed mis-spellings are attempts at
phonetic spelling, and some of the most puzzling of the
Domesday place and manor names are identified in this way.
Thus we find a modern hamlet (or manor farm) near Ringmer
in Sussex named Goat Farm. Now in the Sussex dialect
the word goat has two syllables, thus, go-tit or gaw-tit, and in
the Survey it is Gorde, clearly showing the effort of the
Norman scribe to represent phonetically the broad Sussex
dialect. Again, there was a Domesday Manor, near Hastings,
called Fodilant, and by applying the dialectal rules this was
resolved into Footland, a Farm in Seddlescombe parish, the
word ' foot ' being in the Sussex dialect a dissyllable and pro
nounced foo-tit or faw-iit, which was therefore rendered by
the foreign scribe Fodilant. These singular discoveries proved
two points : firstly, the antiquity of the dialectal forms ; and
secondly, that dialect was a key to identifying obscure
Domesday place-names. Attention has of late been directed
to Dialectal Place-nomenclature, and a glossary of dialectal
forms of place-names may well be added to supplement
the dictionary or index I have suggested. I have accord
ingly compiled such a glossary for Sussex, and this well
illustrates the importance of such a collection. We find the
following amongst the most striking specimens : —

Domesday.

Modern dialectal. Modern spelling.

Harrundel.

Harndel.

Arundel.

Hertevel.

Hartful.

Hartfield.

Peteorde.

Pettuth.

Petworth.

Bercheham.1

Barkum.

Barcombe.

Salescome.

Selzcum.

Seddlescombe.

Montifelle.

Muntful.

Mountfield.

Framelle.

Framful.

Framfield.

[n one case a

singular change in
1 The ch is hard.

pronunciation is show

THE DOMESDAY SURVEY 451
for the large Wealden parish now called Keymer (pronounced
Ky-mur) appears in the Survey as Chemere (the ch being
hard), and was evidently then pronounced Kee-mur. If
Professor Skeat (or some other eminent philologist) would
draw up some brief rules, having regard to the probable
nationality of the Domesday scribes, the Domesday student
would then know, when comparing his ' Index of Domesday
Manors and Place-names ' with his ' Dictionary of Place and
Field-names and Toponymical Features,' what variations in
spellings to look for or expect, and his identification of names
would be greatly facilitated. The intimate connection be
tween place- and manor-names and surnames must not be
overlooked ; and great assistance in this may be obtained
from Mr. Ferguson's two works, ' Surnames as a Science,'
and ' The Teutonic Name-system.' Thus we have a Domes
day manor in Sussex named Holintun, now Hollington (near
Hastings), and in the rear of Brighton is a hill-fortress known
as Hollingbury, whilst on the lower slope of the hill in the
adjoining parish of Preston is a tract of land named Holling-
dean, and Hollingham and Hollingdale are not infrequent
Sussex surnames. We shall, therefore, probably not be far
wrong in deriving all these names from a Saxon tribe of
Hollingas. Special attention should be directed to the
Saxon charters given in Kemble's ' Codex Diplomaticus ^Evi
Saxonici,' or better in Mr. Walter De Gray Birch's more
recent edition of the Anglo-Saxon Charters. The place-
names mentioned in these require to be indexed for local
reference, and it is needless to say that in many points
the charters themselves will afford means of comparing and
elucidating the Domesday Record on other points. Norman
influence before the Conquest deserves to be carefully studied,
for it is not only of importance from an historical point of
view in showing how the way for the Conquest was gradually
paved, but by tabulating all grants to Norman abbeys and
VOL. II. F

452 THE SCOPE OF LOCAL ELUCIDATION OF
ecclesiastical institutions mentioned in the Saxon charters
before the Norman landing, we can check over the list of
Norman landholders in the Domesday Survey. During a
hasty visit to Normandy at Easter 1886, I was much struck
on perusing the map, on seeing the number of names of
places which the Survey connected in some way with Sussex,
and I also observed that the origin of some of the names of
Domesday owners could still be traced ; thus, the holders of
one Brighton (Bristelmestune) manor mentioned in the Survey
was William de Watevile. Now on the south (or left) bank of
the Seine, near Caudebec, I found in the map a hamlet named
Vatteville la Rue, evidently the home of this early Brighton lord.
Heads for Discussion.
Sir Henry Ellis, in his ' General Introduction to Domesday
Book,' has summarised most of the principal facts under various
headings, but it is well to peruse several of the separate county
volumes in order to see the various modes in which the re
corded facts may be grouped and compared. An account can
then be opened in a note-book under the varied heads, and
entries posted into it as in a ledger. Mr. Eyton, in his Dorset
volume,1 tabulates all the figures under Fiefs, giving in various
columns (1) the names of the tenants in capite, (2) Tenure,
(3) Hidage, (4) Free tenants, (5) Adult male population, and
(6) Revenue. This is a somewhat laborious task, but may well
be undertaken. The chief heads seem to be :

1. Legal

( TenuresManors (tabulated)
^ Land Measures
1 P- 43-

/¦Allodial Ancient Demesne
Leases for Lives
Disputed titles

THE DOMESDAY SURVEY

453

2. Civil

3. Commercial
4. Military
5. Ecclesiastical

t

6. Natural History <

Population
Boroughs and their Privileges
rj, .,...„... \(a) Hundreds
territorial Divisions . 1,,% r^.,,.
({/>) Tithings
Parks
Villenage
^ Slavery
Trades Fisheries . . . Fish stews
Mills MarketsAgriculture
Saltworks Castles
/ List of Churches
Progress of Religion since Christianity intro
duced
Clergy
v Tithes Physical geography
Geology AnimalsBirdsFishInsects (Bees)
Forests

7. Historical .
8. Place Names

•I

Devastations by Conquest
General allusions

I purpose now briefly to consider some of these heads, and
to point out how they may be dealt with.

Physical Geography.
The hundred in which Bristelmestune (now Brighton) is
situated is called in the Domesday Survey Welesmere, but in
the Hundred Roll it is named Walesbon (evidently short form

454 THE SCOPE OF LOCAL ELUCIDATION OF
of Walesbourne or Wellsboume). Now can we learn any
thing from the change in the Hundred name ? I think we can,
for it seems that in 1086 the central valley of the town of
Brighton was occupied by a lake caused by a stream due to
the overflowing of Patcham well (unde nomen Wells-mere).
This mere must have diminished to a bourne or stream before
the date of the Hundred Roll. The Wellsboume could still be
traced until about twelve to fourteen years ago, when main
drainage caused it to vanish. It doubtless flowed into the sea at
Pool Valley. Mere and river alike are now lost. The existence
of a stream is further shown in a singular manner by the
Survey, for, under Pi-estetone (now Preston) manor (the parish
adjoining to Brighton on the north), mention is made of a mill,
and (windmills being then unknown) this mill musthave been a
water-mill and required a stream to supply it with water. Again,
we have between Brighton and Lewes, Domesday manors of
Falemere, Stanmere, and Burgemere, the names evidently de
rived from meres or lakes which occupied valleys in the
Downs, and another manor, Wintreburne, points to a stream
(still visible) which doubtless drained one or more of these
lakes. The Domesday Record thus shows that this district
must have much resembled the Upper Engadine, with its
small lakes.
Population.
Early records on this subject are very difficult to obtain,
but with care some figures may be deduced from the Domes
day Survey. Thus, the total number of tenants in capite,
undertenants, cottagers, villeins, &c, in Sussex as enumerated
by Sir Henry Ellis, was 10,410. These being males may
probably be taken each to represent a family of ten (perhaps
not an exaggerated number at that date to a household) and
the total population would be 104,100. There is one earlier
statement on the subject, namely that of Bede ' Eccles. Hist.'

THE DOMESDAY SURVEY 455
Bk. iv. cap. xiii.) in reference to the conversion of Sussex to
Christianity in 681, that the county contained land of 7,000
families. Allowing ten to a family, as before, the total is 70,000.
So that in four centuries the population became half as much
again. As it was customary for manors to have refuge houses
in walled cities and boroughs, we can compute the number of
houses some of them contained. Thus we find 122 houses in
Chichester annexed to 33 manors, whilst Earl Roger (de
Montgomeri), the lord of the rape, had 157^, making the
total 279J. Two manors had also nine burgesses in the city,
and if we take ten to a house and burgess, as before, the popula
tion will be 2,885. -A-n increase of sixty houses since the time
of King Edward (i.e. in twenty years) is recorded. This
might at first appear strange, but we have a good illustration
how the Domesday Survey may be elucidated by other records,
for in 1075 a council decided on the removal of the Cathedral
from Selsea to Chichester. Probably, therefore, this increase
all occurred after 1075, and accordingly in ten or eleven years.
Applying similar calculations to Lewes, we find 203 houses
held by twenty-seven manors, also thirty-nine houses in
Pevensey Rape (probably those in the Cliffe, a suburban part
separated by. the river Ouse from the rest of the town) and
twenty then uninhabited, making a total of 262 houses. Six
manors held fifty-three burgesses also in the borough, King
Edward had 127 burgesses, and although it is not expressly
stated that the Conqueror had any, yet it may reasonably be
inferred this was the case, and this would make a grand total
of 442 households, or 4,420 inhabitants, which is a large
number for that period. PLACE-NAMES.
I have already explained the desirability of making a
Dictionary or Index of place-names &c, and this will prove
of service in many ways. It will be well to prepare a map

456 THE SCOPE OF LOCAL ELUCIDATION OF
showing the approximate situation of the Domesday manors.
I say approximate, because when the fact of the division of
lands in the Village Community is firmly grasped, it will be
seen that it is impossible to assign an exact spot for each
manor. Thus we find in Sussex most of the Coast and
South Down manors had lands appurtenant in the Weald,
and it will be of great value when we can trace (as I hope
some day to be able to do) how these appurtenant lands,
after the date of the Domesday Survey, became separate
manors and parishes. In the task of identifying the Domes
day manor and place-names for the recent Sussex volume, tie
plan adopted was to make a complete index of Domesday
names, this being made by Mr. Basevi Sanders. I then in
each case added the identification, or such clues as could be
given, and the draft list was printed and a copy sent to the
clergyman of every parish in the county, to many stewards
of manors, antiquaries, and others, with a request for correc
tions and suggestions. Many such were received, and though
they were not all directly to the point, still they all tended in
directly to elucidating the work, and they will be of service in
connection with a special volume of the Sussex Archaeological
Collections which the Society intends to publish shortly for
the discussion of the Sussex portion of the Survey. In con
sidering the Sussex place-names I obtained two striking
illustrations of what we can learn from Domesday Book, and
by a curious coincidence they both occur near Eastbourne,
viz. at Beachy Head. It has long been a subject of debate
why this well-known cape had a French name, being assumed
to be Beau cluf (Fine Head), but when we find from the map
and index a Domesday manor of Becliingetone (now Becking toti)
in Friston and West Dean parishes), and close to the Head, we
may without much fear of contradiction relegate this French
derivation to the region of myth. Again, there were formerly
at Beachy Head seven large masses of rock called tJte CImrls,

THE DOMESDAY SURVEY 457
and said to be so named from their churli.sh, inho.spitable
aspect; but when we find a Domesday manor of Ccrlctone
or Corlocestonc (now Charlston Manor) in West Dean, near
Scaford, Lillington, and other parishes, also near Beachy
I lead, we can have little doubt as to whence ' the Churls '
derived their name.
Hundreds.
It is very desirable to prepare lists showing what manors
each hundred contained at the date of the Survey, and the
changes effected before the Hundred Rolls were compiled, and
also since. The modern parishes comprised in any hundreds
can be ascertained correctly by applying to the Clerk of the
Peace for the County in question. The place where the
Hundred Court met should be carefully ascertained and
noted, for as Mr. G. L. ' Gomme, F.S.A., has shown in his
valuable work on ' Primitive Folk-Moots,' the Hundred Courts
often met on the site of ancient folk-moots, barrows, &c.
Want of time compels me to stop, or I might have given
brief notes on some other heads.

£0e ©otwsbag ^utrSep of ^umg+
By H. E. MALDEN, M.A., F.R.Hist.S.
The Domesday Survey for the county of Surrey offers no
very important or curious features, and reveals, I believe, no
customs or tenures peculiar to Surrey. A detailed examina
tion, however, of the Survey, county by county, and a com
parison of the facts, may yield some information. I have
examined the matter rather in the hope of such results occur
ring, than with the idea of presenting any points extremely
important in themselves when regarded alone.
Manning and Bray, in their ' History of Surrey,' have in
cluded a transcript of the Domesday record, accompanied
with a map. I have found, however, that it was necessary to
draw up a map of my own to gain any idea of the topography
of the county, and I have been obliged to differ here or
there from the map by Manning and Bray. To begin with ;
the borders of the county of Surrey, surveyed in 1086, answer
generally to those of the county now, so far as in 1086 the
county had any definite boundaries at all, and it had, I think,
no definite southern boundary towards Sussex. Similarly an
examination of the Sussex Survey will show that Sussex had
no northern boundary towards Surrey. In some other par
ticulars the county in 1086 was not quite the same as at
present. Certain houses in London are rated in certain
Surrey hundreds, and certain houses in Southwark in Surrey

460 THE DOMESDAY SURVEY OF SURREY
are rated in hundreds in different parts of the count}-. One
house in Windsor is rated in Brixton hundred, and so are
two ss/ins in Kent, laid to the manor of Merton. and one hide
at Compton in Sussex is rated in Wotton hundred. The
most important deviations, however, from the present county
boundaries are as follows : ' In Cherchefelle hundred Si ward
holds of Richard of Tonebridge Ord<: Oswol held it of King
Edward. It was and is assessed for half a hide. There is
one villein with half a plough.' This Ordc is generally
identified with Worth in Sussex. The name is no doubt
identical. Worth is not included in the Sussex Survey, but
there is a very old church there, part of which has been con
fidently dated as before 10S6 A.D. Worth is near the present
border of Surrey and Sussex, and is one of the very few
places in the Weald named in the Survey of either county.
If there was a church there, its not being mentioned, probably
as having nothing to do with Richard of Tonebridge, is
noticeable. It would seem that in another instance a place
now in Sussex was then in Surrey. For when we find that
Chetel the huntsman holds of the king Lcdcsorde, we may be
tempted to identify it with Lodsworth, now in Sussex. There
is no such place in Surrey now. Lodsworth is not named
in the Sussex Domesday, and it lies in the forest, to the
north of the then inhabited part of Sussex, five miles and a
half south of the present boundary of the counties'of Sussex
and Surrey. It was a suitable holding for a huntsman. The
boundaries of Surrey and Sussex must have been extremely
vague when the Weald was still filled with the great forest,
the Andredesleah or the Andredesweald. Indeed, though a
nominal boundary of Surrey may have been fixed further
south, the actual boundary of the inhabited count)- in
a.d. 10S6 ran along the edge of the lower green sand forma
tion and of the Wealden clay. Similarly in Sussex, though
not with quite such marked regularity, the northern boundary

THE DOMESDAY SURVEY OF SURREY 461
of the inhabited county stopped at the Wealden clay, except
in East Sussex where there is a sprinkling of places named
standing on the Hastings beds beyond the clay. In Surrey
there ¦ are two places only named in Domesday upon the
Wealden clay. These are Ockley and Eversheds, both upon
the line of a Roman road still in use, the Stone Street cause
way, which pierced right through the Weald and served to
keep these places in communication with dry and cleared
ground to the north.1 When the country was thinly inhabited
the better and drier soil was, unconsciously perhaps, preferred
by the people. Is this the case elsewhere ? Worth is on the
Hastings beds, not on the clay. There are local names in
the Weald no doubt older than 1086, such as Itchingfield,
Polinghurst, Friday Street (two). Were they insignificant
and inaccessible, extra-manorial then, and so neglected ? If
they were, "it appears, as is the case of Worth Church, that
the Survey was not absolutely complete. Of the generally
uninhabited character of the Weald there is further evidence
besides the omissions of Domesday. In the ' Codex Diplo
matics ' of Kemble's collection, among several places named
in Surrey and not named in Domesday, two only seem to be
possibly in the Weald. Pedanbrycg may be Petridge, and
Leangefeld may be Limpsfield. A Dunresfeld is also named
which may be Thundersfield in the Weald, but may be some
lost place on the sand in the neighbourhood of Eashing, with
which it is classed in Alfred's will. The names of heathen
gods, Thunor, Frea, Tiw, Woden, are common all about there.
On the west also the boundaries of the inhabited county
were narrower in 1086 than at present, though here the
places named in Berkshire come up to near the present
1 Arscste is probably Eversheds, an old manor, now only a farm in Ockley,
near which it is mentioned in Domesday ; but Evershed or Eversheds is a not un
common local name. There is another Evershed farm, and there is Eversheds
Rough, where the late Bishop of Winchester was killed.

462 THE DOMESDAY SURVEY OF SURREY
Surrey boundary. But in a rectangular patch of country in
north-west Surrey, thirteen miles from north-east to south
west from Chertsey to Aldershot, and seven from north-west
to south-east from Virginia W'ater to Woking, there is one
manor only named in Domesday, Cebeham, that is Chobham.
Egham, Thorpe, and Chertsey are on one boundary of this
uninhabited district, Woking, Wick, and Worplesdon on
another. This was probably not forest in the modern sense,
but it was all afforested by Henry II., and even in Charles I.'s
reign was included in Windsor forest. It is a succession of
barren moors of Bagshot sand, a very poor soil. Only
towards Chertsey there was wood coming down into the
Thames and Wey valleys, and here there are many names
preserved in the Codex, though not in Domesday, of places
belonging to Chertsey Abbey or bounding its possessions.
The village of Chobham, the sole manor of Domesday, is on
gravel in the valley of a stream. The Bagshot sand was not
quite bare of inhabitants, however, near its edges. On all
the other soils of Surrey, on the London clay, on gravel,
chalk, gault, and upper and lower green sand, there are villages
in 1086, except actually on the alluvium of the Wey and the
Mole. Turning to the local divisions within the county we find
that the hundreds of Domesday and of the present time do
not quite correspond. There are now fourteen hundreds.
Chertsey or Godley, Elmbridge or Emleybridge, Kingston,
Brixton, Woking, Effingham, sometimes reckoned with the
following and called the half-hundred of Effingham, Copthorne,
Wellington, Farnham, Godalming, Blackheath, W^otton,
Reigate, Tandridge. In Domesday twelve of these exist with
the same names. Reigate is called Cherchefelle ; and Farnham
does not exist The extensive manor of Farnham is reckoned
in Woking hundred ; it was the property of the Bishop of
Winchester, and about corresponded to the present Farnham

THE DOMESDAY SURVEY OF SURREY 463
hundred. The boundaries, however, of these hundreds were
not recorded as being exactly as they are now. But some of
the differences I suspect arise from the mistakes of foreign
clerks, who mixed up the hundreds of Wodetone and Wochinges.
For instance, the manor of Ockley has been in Wotton time
out of mind, and is completely isolated from Woking. Im
mediately after the entry of Ockley, come two places in
Wotton hundred, and I cannot help suspecting that a careless
scribe wrote In Wodetone hundredo after instead of before
Ockley. A confusion of the names Wodetone and Wochinges
is also possible, especially when we find three or four places
now in Woking put into Wotton. These arc Worplesdon,
Week, Burgham and Littlefield. The first three are all together
and held by Earl Roger. There can be no reasonable doubt
of their identity ; they are now in Woking hundred, but in
Domesday form an isolated patch of Wotton — unless, as I
say above, a scribe wrote Wodetone for Wochinges. Are
similar mistakes made elsewhere? Littlefield, identified with
a farm in Worplesdon, is put into Wotton, but it is quite
possible that it may be another place now lost. The mention
of it stands between Anstie and Abinger, both in Wotton
hundred. Chessington, now in Copthorne hundred, was then
in Kingston ; it is on the borders of the two. Banstcad
is generally now assigned to Copthorne hundred ; the manors
of Borough and North and South Tadworth in Banstead
parish now are and were in Copthorne in 1086, but Banstead
was then in Wallington hundred. As we shall sec, it had a
local usage connecting it with Wallington, and in Speed's
map, done in the year 1610, it is marked in Wallington.
There are now and were then two manors of Betcltworth,
the changes concerning which arc rather complicated. At
present East Betchworth, where is a church said to contain
Norman work, is in Reigate hundred. West Betchworth,
where there is, so far as I can gather, no record of a church, is

464 THE DOMESDAY SURVEY OF SURREY
in Wotton hundred. In 1086 Richard de Tonebridge held a
Betchworth with a church in Wotton hundred, and another
Betchworth in Copthorne hundred. This latter Betchworth
was made over to him with tJu manor of a !¦-:>¦>:¦: reft in
Ccpthcrne. I therefore believe it to be West Betchworth,
now in Wotton, the boundary of which reaches up on to
Boxhiil in the direction of Thorncroft, while the Betchworth
¦with a church then in Wrotton hundred I take to be the East
Betchworth with a partly Norman church, now in Reigate
hundred. Anyhow, there has been some alteration of
boundaries, and I believe that this is the best explanation.
On a variety of other manors there is land rated in different
hundreds. Sometimes, as in the case of Sutton, which is
partly in Wotton and partly in Blackheath, this division still
exists. Sometimes, as in the case or" Bramley and Streatham,
it is impossible to tell which parts of a manor were then
counted in different hundreds.
Very few places mentioned in Domesday are sites not now
recoverable. Drite'iam, Peckingeorde, and Bramselle are such.
Minckin is said to be represented by a farm in Leatherhead,
but my local Information has failed to find it. Driteham and
Pcchingccrde are traceable within certain limits. Both are
in the small Effingham hundred. Driieha;?'. is named in a
charter of A.D. 9S7 as apparently not far from Byfleet, and if
so must have been in the north part of Emngharn hundred.
Pechingccrde is named in charters of A.D. 812 and 1062 in
connection with Bookham and Effingham as belonging to
Chertsey. It was held by Oswold, and its former possessor
was his brother the abbot. Perhaps he was an Abbot of
Chertsey, by whom the land may have been alienated.
Colonel Sir H. James, R.E.. supposes the manor to have been
on the chalk downs, towards the south of Effingham hundred,
and it may have been so. There is a nameless manor in
Tandridge hundred, mentioned between Tillingdon and

THE DOMESDAY SURVEY OF SURREY 465
Chelsham, which may probably be Caterham. Other places,
such as Witford and Whattingdon, not now existent, are
historically recoverable.
Of the places named, none except Guildford and South
ward have any pretension to rank as towns. No castles are
named. Guildford, Farnham, and Reigate castles must have
been built not long afterwards. The Abbey of Chertsey,1
and a monastery, now the minster church of St. Mary Overie,
at Southwark, are the only religious houses mentioned.
There are churches named at fifty-nine places. At Bramley
there were three churches, perhaps Bramley, Wonersh, and
Chilworth. At Epsom there were two ; one was probably
Stamford chapel, now long demolished ; there were two at
Sutton in Wallington, one, perhaps Watendene chapel, now
lost ; and there were a church and chapel at Chobham. The
latter has disappeared.2
The population was scattered fairly generally over the
whole county with the exceptions given above. The whole male
population enumerated is 4,370, with four women, excluding
the tenants-in-chicf (36) who were not, generally speaking,
inhabitants of the county. Besides the women and children,
however, we must add to the population the inmates of the
monasteries at Chertsey and Southwark, the clergy of the 64
churches and chapels, and the inhabitants of 52 3 houses
mentioned in Southwark. In Guildford, in 75 houses,4 there
dwelt 175 homagers, so that about 120 probably dwelt in
Southwark, where 16 villeins, bordars, and serfs are also

1 With the exception of the Abbey of Westminster, which held Pirford C Peliforde),
(he Abbey of Chertsey is the sole landholder in (iodclei hundred.
2 On an avcr:ij.;<: about one church is named to every 70 men enumerated, or
at least one- church for every 350 of the population all told.
4 Of these 52 there are 15 described as in ' London and Southwark,' some
in one, some in the other.
4 //a/;"', that is Enclosures, probably surrounding a block of semi-detached
cotl.-iges. There ;ire evidently more families than haga.

466 THE DOMESDAY SURVEY OF SURREY
enumerated. These were the most populous places mentioned,
but there are 120 people mentioned at Kingston, no at
Mortlake, 140 in the large manor of Bramley, 79 at Godalm-
ing, 78 at Clierchcfelle (or Reigate), 69 at Battersea, 50 at
Shalford. The whole population, including women and children,
may have been about 20,000, if we multiply the men by-
five, and deduct a few for clergy without wives, and for the
waste of a probably not increasing population.
Analysing the character of this population brings us to
some of the most interesting points which I have been
able to notice. There are few English tenants-in-chief, and
the most considerable of these, along with most of the men
who held land in T.R.E., appear as worse off in one way or
another. Oswold, a thane, is the most considerable. He still
holds lands near the borders of cultivation at Fetcham,
Pcchingeorde, Wotton, and Wisley which he held T.R.E.
The holder of one virgate in Copthorne hundred put himself
under Oswold's protection with his land ' from the time King
William came into England.' Joining this with the entry
that Oswold became a tenant of Richard de Tonebridge for
land at Effingham in King William's time, we may conjecture
that he made his peace early with the king and loyally
supported him. At Mitcham,1 however, he had become the
tenant of Richard de Tonebridge for land which he had
himself held of King Edward. Another Englishman, of the
name of Azor, who was dead at the time of the Survey, was
not dispossessed of all his land when King William came.
He held land at Effingham in the time of King Edward, and
bought more land there of a freeman in the time of King
William. He held Henley-in-Ash till he died, and made it
over to the Abbey of Chertsey for the good of his soul. Still
he had other estates which at his death or before it passed
into foreign hands. Teodric the goldsmith, perhaps a
1 Or Mickleham.

THE DOMESDAY SURVEY OF SURREY 467
naturalised foreigner, held land in the time of King Edward
and at the date of the Survey held the same land of King
William. Ansgot the interpreter held land of King William
which another man had held in the time of King Edward, but
the same or another Ansgot had held other land under King
Edward, and was still an undertenant upon it at the time of
the Survey. Chetel the huntsman holds land which his father
held, and Wulwi the huntsman holds land which he himself held
of King Edward. The huntsmen, goldsmith, and interpreter
were too useful to be disturbed. A certain number of free
Englishmen remained as subtenants in the occupation of land
sometimes since King Edward's time. Thus an Englishman
held two hides at Chertsey, Edric half a hide at Chertsey since
T.R.E., Godric one hide at Week, Siward at Worth. But
there are two small tenants at Mideham holding land directly
of King William which they held of King Edward, Seman and
Godwin by name. At Wandsworth there were T.R.E. six
sokemen of whom four remained, Ansfrid with a holding as
sessed formerly for five hides now for one, Heldred assessed
for three now for none, Ulward then and now assessed for
three, Walter the vineyard keeper, no doubt one of King
Edward's foreigners, then and now assessed for one. There
seem to have been four men in Thorncroft and Betchworth
who remained degraded from owners to subtenants. A ' free
man ' remained on his land in Wallington hundred, but now
under the protection of Walter de Dowai. At Carshalton there
was one freeman, Wesman, remaining out of five T.R.E., hold
ing six hides of Geoffrey Fitz Eustace At the same place
one of the king's smiths held T.R.E. and holds half a hide.
A certain widow holds and held T.R.E. a hide at Bramley
under Bishop Odo. ' One Englishman ' holds as a subtenant
one hide at West Horsley. All other Englishmen or tenants
of King Edward mentioned are simply stated 'to have held
land ; ' what had become of them is not added. It is notice-
VOL. 11. G

468 THE DOMESDAY SURVEY OF SURREY
able that these Englishmen who still hold land live mostly in
the outlying parts of the county, where either land was
less valuable or they were less easy to dispossess. The only
considerable English tenant-in-chief, Oswold, has most of his
land on the outskirts of cultivation.
There are a few notices of wrongful, or at least unwarranted
possession. The king in several cases is said to be deprived
of his rights, as at Ewell, over two hides and a virgate, by
the action of dishonest reeves. However, Odo, Bishop of
Bayeux, the Conqueror's half-brother, who was, we may re
member, in disgrace before 1086, is the chief offender. He is
charged with withdrawing the customary payments of a house
in Guildford from the king, of having deprived one of the king's
reeves of the manor of Farncomb, of taking land in Weybridge
with no livery officer nor writ to put him in possession. In
Southwark he is accused of having usurped the King's share of
wharfage dues, and apparently of having bullied the Sheriff into
withdrawing from a suit for its recovery. He also is said to
have wrongfully laid to his own manor of Bramley two hides
in Clandon belonging to the Abbey of Chertsey. From the
church at Lambeth he has stolen a parcel of arable land.
At Battersea the church of Westminster was seised of two hides
in the time of King William, and afterwards the Bishop of
Bayeux disseised it. In the same manor the Earl of More-
taine holds a hide and a half which, apparently, the church of
Westminster held in the time of King Edward and for some
time afterwards {qua ibi erat T.R.E. et post aliquandiu).
Again in the same manor the Abbey of Chertsey is accused
of having wrongfully acquired one hide from Westminster by
the action of a reeve of the town. Chertsey itself however
claims the lordship of two and a half hides which Richard
Sturmid holds directly of the king at Chertsey. Geoffrey de
Mandeville is said to be wrongfully holding Clapham, on the
plea apparently that he had received a grant of Asgar's land,

THE DOMESDAY SURVEY OF SURREY 469
while this was never Asgar's. Either one Wigot, or the suc
cessor to Wigot, was in like manner wrongfully claiming Ches-
sington. At Wallington it is said of Richard de Tonebridge
that abstulit rusticum qui ibi manebat. Probably not personal
abduction is meant, but that he deprived him of his rights in
the land. In other cases doubt is thrown upon the right of the
occupier of land, but the question is between foreigners, not
between foreigners and natives.
The distribution of the servile and semi-free population is
very remarkable. There are 2,382 villani, 922 bordarii, 276
cotarii, and 503 servi enumerated.1 What is at once remark
able is the smaller proportion of servi on monastic and chapter
lands. Putting aside the estates of the bishops, on the church
lands strictly speaking, belonging to Westminster, Winchester,
Chertsey, St. Wendrille's and St. Leutfred's in Normandy,
Battle, Barking, St. Paul's, and Lambeth, land which except
in the case of the Norman churches and Battle had been held
almost entirely from King Edward's time onward, the number
of servi is 42 only to 751 semi-servile, or semi-free, cultiva
tors. That is to say, on church lands the proportion of absolute
serfs is about 5| per cent, of the population, on the bishops'
and lay lands it is more than 16 per cent. Twenty-three of
the forty-two serfs on the church lands are on the small estates
which had come to them since King Edward, but the newly
endowed Norman churches have no serfs. Either the
monastic houses had been manumitting their serfs, or they
were less hard in the first instance on those who bowed them
selves to them for need.
Another curious point is the distribution of the bordarii
and cotarii. One tenure or the other would seem to prevail
according to local custom, for they only occur once together
on the same manor, and very seldom in the same hundred,
1 These figures are not quite the same as those given by Sir H. Ellis. I can only
say that they are the result of a five times repeated verification by myself and another. G 2

470 THE DOMESDAY SURVEY OF SURREY
They both occur with villani and with servi. There are three
hundreds, Godalming, Wallington, and Elmbridge, where the
cotarii are nearly universal, to the exclusion of bordarii. In
the others the bordarii are nearly or quite universal, to the
exclusion of the cotarii. In Godalming hundred there are
cotarii, and no bordarii except at Godalming itself, where
there are bordarii on the part of the manor which is in royal
demesne, an exception which may be compared with the state
of things at Wallington. In Wallington hundred there are
many cotarii, and bordarii at only two places, at Wallington
on King William's land and at Croydon on the Archbishop's.
In Elmbridge hundred there are cotarii, and no bordarii except
one bordarius at Weybridge and some at East Moulsey. In
Blackheath hundred there are cotarii at Bramley, along the
borders of Godalming hundred where cotarii abound, and in
Brixton hundred there are cotarii at Tooting on the borders
of Wallington hundred. In the rest of these and in the other
hundreds there are bordarii and no cotarii. The three
1 cotarian ' hundreds are not adjacent, they are not on some
peculiar soil which might imply some peculiar form of
industry or tenure, they are not in the possession of the same
people. Indeed they represent all the soils of Surrey. Godal
ming, the sand bordering the Weald and the chalk ; Elm
bridge, the Bagshot sand, London clay and alluvium ; Walling
ton, the chalk and London clay. Besides the local distribution
of the two tenures, the only rule for their occurrence seems to
be that there are no cotarii on royal demesne. All the land
in the king's own hand had been held by King Edward, Queen
Edith, Earl Harold, or Archbishop Stigand. It would be
interesting to know whether similar local distributions of the
two tenures are to be found in other counties. It is indeed
chiefly with a view to starting inquiries into such analogies
that I have thought it worth while to submit these purely
local notes to a General Domesday Committee.

On an affegeb imtanu of i%t
§<ffliW\ty of ©onuebap in regavb to
+ ($Lncunt ©eme0ne/
By Sir HENRY BARKLY, K.C.B.
IN the Introduction to the ' History and Cartulary of the
Monastery of St. Peter's, Gloucester,' published under authority
of the Master of the Rolls, the learned editor, after adverting to
a charge brought therein against the first Roger de Berkeley,
of having caused Nympsfield, in that county, to be wrongly
described in the Survey of 1086 as 'among the king's lands,'
' unknown to Abbot Serlo,' proceeds, on the strength of this
alleged inaccuracy, to argue that the doctrine, that there can
be no appeal from Domesday Book, requires qualification,
and that, although a valuable record, it is not infallible.1
I venture to suggest that if Mr. Hart had looked more
closely into the matter, he would, instead of arriving at such
a conclusion, have satisfied himself that the charge referred to
is not merely unsupported by, but inconsistent with, the
evidence presented.
The following are the entries in the Calendar of Donations
appended to the History, viz.,
1. 'Nimdesfelde datur, aufertur, et hinc 2 revocatur.' 'A. D.
millesimo octagesimo septimo, Rogerus, Senior, de Berkelee, in
1 See Appendix A for passage at full length.
2 Mr. Hart has ' huic,' but I follow the Monasticon version as preferable.

472 AN ALLEGED INSTANCE OF THE FALLIBILITY OF
descriptione totius Anglias, fecit Nymdesfeld describi ad mensam
regis,1 Abbate Serlone nesciente.' De eodem.
2. 'A. D. millesimo nonagesimo tertio, Eustachius de Berkelee
reddidit Deo et Sancto Petro Glouc. Nymdesfeld, tempore Serlonis
Abbatis.' De eodem.
3. ' Rex Willielmus primus concessit terram de Nymdesfeld,
ecclesie S'1 Petr. Glouc. et Ab11 Wlstano, ad habendam tam plene et
tarn perfecte sicut fuit in primordio, et in diebus Edwardi regis
cognati sui, cum saca et soca in omnibus rebus, et noluit ut aliquis
faciat illi injuriam.'
A fourth entry, having an important bearing on the
others, occurs at another place under the heading
De Clehangra.
'Rogerus de Berkeleye, Junior, A. D. millesimo nonagesimo
quarto, dedit Deo et Sto Petr. Glouc. quandam terrulam Clehangra
nomine, consensu et confirmatione regis Willielmi junioris. Abstulit
vero Nymdesfeld, tempore Serlonis Abbatis.'
The twofold question arises, at what period was the register
containing the History and Calendar of Donations compiled,
and on what authority do the statements in them rest ?
Their compilation is generally ascribed to the latest Abbot
they mention, WTalter Froucester, who ruled from 1 381 to 141 2,
and who is indeed expressly named therein as having ' made
the Register anew.' 2 Mr. Hart however is of opinion that he
1 Mr. A. J. Ellis 'Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeo
logical Society, vol. iv.j considers these words to mean 'bound to supply
provisions for the king's table,' an explanation which would reduce the charge
against Roger to one of having ignored the exemption of abbey lands from the
usual corrody. Mr. Hart's translation however is more in accord with the
accepted signification of the phrase (see Ducange : Mensa regalis), and Domesday
besides shows clearly that Nymdesfeld was actually included as a portion of the fee
which Roger de Berkeley held from the crown.
1 ' Ut patet in registris de novo factis tempore domini Walteri Froucestre
Abbatis. ' — Historia, vol. i. p. 50.

DOMESDAY IN REGARD TO 'ANCIENT DEMESNE' 473
merely re-arranged what had been previously recorded from
time to time by successive inmates of the monastery, and
cites one passage — as to Abbot Walter de Lacy — which
could only have been written by a contemporary, and there
fore in the twelfth century.
As a rule, nevertheless, whatever original materials existed
would seem to have been entirely recast in the composition
of the 1 listory. This is well exemplified in the case of the
passage recounting Abbot Serlo's acquisitions (Nympsfield
included), which winds up by referring for fuller information
to the Calendar of Donations annexed,1 arranged under the
letters of the alphabet.
That this alphabetical Calendar, which includes all dona
tions up to the beginning of the fifteenth century, was the
work of Walter Frouccster himself, is rendered highly probable
by the doggrel Latin rhymes interspersed throughout the
manuscript,8 for the abbot was so proud of his skill in this
respect, that he took care to affix his name as composer to a
poetical history of the Abbey which he caused to be inscribed
in the cloisters.'1
It may perhaps be urged, as before, that he did little more
than furbish up the old records of the Monastery, but any one
who will take the trouble to go through the Calendar will find
so many blunders in it both as regards dates and names, as
1 ' Domnus Abbas Serin . . . terras multasel pecunias acquisicrat, . . . Sotte-
shore, Nymdcsfelde, Cleyngre, . . . et alia multa qu;e continentur in Kalenclario
donationum juxta litlcras Alphabcli indc confectn ut infra patebit.' lb. vol. i. p. 12.
¦ The distich as to Nympsfield has been already quoted, p. I. A few other
examples are given to show the identity of style.
' Ilic Sottcshora, grata largitur In hora,'
'Ilic templum clari Martini Lundoniarum datur cum tcrraque, vehtt inforlui
memoratur' (p. 94).
'Terra potest cernl, templum datur benign! Paterni ' (p. 106),
' II concludes -
'Walterus studuil Froucestrc, ct hajc memoranda
In scriptis posuit claustralibus, enucleanda.'

474 AN ALLEGED INSTANCE OF THE FALLIBILITY OF
to preclude the idea that the entries were made at or near the
periods to which they relate. Some of these blunders are
pointed out in a footnote as specimens.1
No doubt, in spite of such minor inaccuracies, the substance
of the entries was in most cases derived from documents which
had either been copied into the Cartulary — a finely written
manuscript of the thirteenth century, ascribed to Abbot John
de Gamages (1284 to 1306) — or which were preserved in
original ; but where such corroboration is wanting, it is plain
that allegations in conflict with other evidence ought to be
received with the utmost caution.
Now this is the case with the entry as to the gift of
Nympsfield to the Abbey by King William the First, which is
not only unvouched for by any deed, but is indirectly impugned
by the silence of a general charter of confirmation from that
monarch, dated in the last year of his reign, copy of which is
entered in the Cartulary.2 ~-
Moreover the story is so told as to excite grave suspicion.
The gift is said to have been made to Abbot Wlstan, thus
placing its date between the beginning of 1068, when William
visited Gloucestershire after its subjugation, and the beginning
of 1072, when Wlstan died on his road to Jerusalem.
It is hard to believe, in the first place, that the Saxon
1 To take the Berkeley family only ; the first Roger's restoration of Shotover,
A.D. 109 1, is stated to have been confirmed by the Conqueror (Rege Willelmo
Seniore confirmante), whilst the gift of the church of Cam by his grandson, A.D.
1 156, is said to have been confirmed by Henry the third. Similarly as to names,
Roger, son of Maurice de Berkeley, appears as donor of the mill of Berkeley, in
stead of Robert, the third Baron, a blunder not likely to be committed till long
after his decease. A far graver mis-statement is made in an entry about Mays-
more, which concludes— Willelmus Comes Gloucestrije confirmat, tempore Serlo
nis Abbatis, Serlo having died in 1 104, up to which date the Earldom had been
held by no one save Robert Fitz Hamon, whose grandson William did not succeed
to it until 1 148.
2 The way in which this important charter is inserted is very strange. It is
headed ' cccxvi De hyda de Aspertone,' a title which, as remarked by the Editor
in a footnote, is quite inapplicable. That place is not even mentioned in it, al
though the hide there is confirmed under the name of its donor.'

DOMESDAY IN REGARD TO 'ANCIENT DEMESNE' 475
Abbot of Gloucester stood so high in the favour of the Con
queror as to obtain the retrocession of lands seized since the
Conquest, and harder still that, being able to exercise such
great influence, he immediately afterwards deserted his post
to set out on a pilgrimage, leaving the affairs of the Monastery
in such confusion that, as William of Malmesbury reports,
there were only three monks remaining when his successor
was appointed. Conscious apparently that the alleged gift
to Wlstan could not hold water, the acquisition of Nymps
field is credited in general terms in the History to Abbot
Serlo, his successor, who, having accompanied the Conqueror
from Normandy as chaplain, was of course far more likely to
have obtained the boon.
That one of Serlo's earliest acts was to use his influence
with the king towards securing the recovery of manors of
which the Abbey had been deprived, would be clear if we
could admit the authenticity of another charter,1 purporting
to be from that king, restoring certain manors alienated in
Saxon times for the endowment of the Archiepiscopal See of
York ; but this it seems impossible to do in consequence of
its being addressed to Bishop Wulstan of Worcester, and
William FitzOsborne, the latter of whom was slain in
Flanders in February 107 1, whereas Serlo, in whose favour
it is granted, was not installed as abbot till September
1072 !
This, however — except in so far as it shakes confidence in
the Cartulary — has nothing to do with Nympsfield. It is the
absence of any mention of that manor in the charter pre
viously alluded to, which conclusively proves that it was never
given nor confirmed to the Abbey by the Conqueror.
That charter2 is dated in 1086, and as we know from
history that William held his Court at Christmas in that year,
1 See Appendix B. Q See Appendix C.

476 AN ALLEGED INSTANCE OF THE FALLIBILITY OF
the last of his life, within the precincts of Gloucester Monas
tery, it was presumably executed on that solemn occasion.
The execution was certainly subsequent to the comple
tion of the Survey in the previous October, for the first
clause is devoted to confirming to St. Peter's the lands that
Archbishop Thomas of York had held, which (despite the
alleged restoration of 1072) stand in his name in Domesday
Book. The preamble recites that this was done on the petition
of Serlo himself and certain of the chief nobility, a sufficient
proof that the astute and energetic abbot was well aware of
the contents of the volume, and lost no time in endeavouring
to get whatever was contrary to the interests of his house
rectified. Yet, although this post-Domesday charter of the
first William goes on to confirm the donations, not only of
himself, but of more than a dozen of his Barons — including
that of Clehanger (another portion of the Berkeley lordship),1
by Roger de Berkeley — it says not a word of Nympsfield,
which apparently remained unchallenged as described in the
Survey. Nor, in spite of the attempt made by the abbot some
years after the Conqueror's death, as chronicled in the
Calendar, did the monks ever succeed in establishing a valid
claim to that manor. It is not named among the possessions
of the Abbey in the long list confirmed by King Stephen in
1 138, and it must have been retained by the Berkeley family
down to the forfeiture of the third Roger in 1152, since it was
then settled by Robert FitzHarding on his second son,
Nicholas,2 whose descendant is recorded as having exhibited
the confirmatory charter of Henry the Second at the quo
warranto inquiry at Gloucester in 1287 ; and whose issue male
1 Shoteshore is not mentioned, thus confirming the statement that it was not
restored by Roger until he entered the Monastery in 1091.
2 See copy of grant in Smyth's ' Hundred of Berkeley,' under « Hill.'

DOMESDAY IN REGARD TO 'ANCIENT DEMESNE' 477
continued to hold it from the crown until the death of Sir
Thomas FitzNichol in sixth Henry the Fifth.1
In face of these facts, it seems not unfair to assume that
the entries giving a contrary version were made in the fifteenth
century manuscript, with a view of accounting for and justi
fying the attempt of Abbot Serlo already referred to, which
had given rise to much litigation. The allegations in them
as to the gift of Nympsfield by the Conqueror, and the con
sequent misdescription of it in Domesday, have already been
sufficiently refuted ; but as those concerning its subsequent
cession to the Abbey by Eustace de Berkeley are more spe
cific and appear to give some colour to the claim, it may be
well before concluding to trace the story to its origin.
It is not to be denied that from an early date the Church
of St. Peter's had an interest of some sort in Nympsfield.
The very name testifies that Nuns (Nymphs or Brides of the
Church, in Saxon phrase) were once the principal landholders
in the parish, and we are informed in the History that
not long after the foundation of the Monastery, Aldred, sub-
regulus of the Wiccii, gave, among other endowments, to
St. Peter's, Gloucester, and the Nuns of the place, three tene
ments 2 in Nymdesfeld.
This was during the time of the Abbess Eva (735 to 767),
but as we are told by the same authority that on her death
the Nuns left the Monastery, which remained desolate for
1 Cab Inquisition, post mortem, 6 Hen. V. Thomas Fitz Nicholl, Chivaler.
Nymdesfeld Manor /\ p,
Kynlege Advoc Cantuar. J
2 ' Tres manentes. ' So translated by Mr. Hart, and doubtless correctly, for
although Du Cange defines as ' Manentes ' — ' qui in solo alieno, in villis : quibusnec
liberis suis, invito domino, licet recedere,' the word here evidently refers to their
place of abode, for the sentence ends ' has terras dedit Aldredus. ' Moreover King
Burgred confirms more than a century afterwards these ' tres manentes,' so that
they cannot have been three serfs, but the tenements in which they dwelt. It has
been suggested that the three ' manentes ' were represented by the three hides of
Domesday, but if the entire manor was given, why describe these three tenements
as in Nympsfield ?

478 AN ALLEGED INSTANCE OF THE FALLIBILITY OF
more than half a century, this grant must have lapsed. In
823 Bernulph, King of the Mercians, appropriated part of its
possessions towards the maintenance of married Secular
priests, and one of his successors, Burgred, in 862, when con
firming these priests in their lands, refers to the three tene
ments in Nympsfield, which appear to have developed into a
Priory or College called (though not in the Cartulary) Kinline
or Kinley.1 What was the fate of that establishment when
King Canute in 1022 turned the Seculars out of the Monastery
at Gloucester to make room for Benedictine monks, is not
recorded. A few families may have been suffered to linger
on in so remote a locality, but these had apparently died out
long before the Conquest, as Nympsfield had, according to
the evidence of Domesday, fallen into the hands of Edward
the Confessor, together with the rest of Berkeley Hernesse.
It was therefore a bold stroke of Abbot Serlo's to lay
claim to that and other manors on behalf of the Benedictines,
as heirs general of the despised Secular priests, whom they
had ousted from their headquarters at Gloucester half a
century earlier. He apparently took the opportunity of
doing so very soon after he had induced the first Roger de
Berkeley to assume the cowl in 109 1, and the design was no
doubt facilitated by the dangerous illness of William Rufus
two years later at Gloucester, when that king made a vow
to surrender all Church lands if he recovered.
It can hardly be questioned that the restoration of the
lands of the ancient Priory of Kinley to the monks in 1093,
by Rufus, of which Bishop Tanner speaks, was the same
transaction as the restoration of Nympsfield in that very year
attributed in the Cartulary to Eustace de Berkeley, nor could
the revocation of the latter grant in the following year by the
second Roger de Berkeley have taken place except with the
1 See Tanner's Notitia Monastica, edit. 17S7. He refers to Prynne's Records,
vol. iii. p. 247.

DOMESDAY IN REGARD TO 'ANCIENT DEMESNE' 479
King's sanction, which is indeed implied in the announcement
preceding the notice of it, that Roger's confirmation of his
father's gift of Clehanger was made with the consent of King
William Junior.
It seems not improbable that the act of repudiation was
occasioned by an attempt on the part of the monks, availing
themselves of the looseness of phraseology as to manors then
prevalent, to contend that the whole of Nympsfield had been
restored to them, instead of Kinley only. The latter, com
prising the ancient chapel, together with a virgate of land in
Nympsfield, must have been again relinquished by Roger de
Berkeley (II.) before the death of Abbot Serlo, probably
through the intervention of their diocesan, for by a charter
dated in 1 100, Sampson, Bishop of Worcester, was able to
secure to the Abbey of Gloucester an annual stipend of two
marks in the Chapelry of Nimesfeld? whilst we find it recorded
in an agreement dated in 1185, between Abbot Thomas and
Nicholas, son of Robert (Fitz Harding) as to the endowment
by the latter of a Chantry within this Chapel, that he en
gaged to restore ' a certain virgate of land which it possessed
of old time from the gift of his predecessors,' 2 who were, of
course, of the earlier house of Berkeley.
Notwithstanding this agreement, constant disputes regard
ing the right of presentation, visitation, &c, occurred between
the monks and the Fitz Nichol family, the only noteworthy
point being that the former's tenure of property in the parish
was invariably declared to be of a subordinate character ; or,
to use the words of Smyth, 'the old and rich Chantry of
Kinley, often written as the manor of Kinley,' was holden of
the manor of Berkeley Hernesse by fealty only for all service.3
1 Cartulary of St. Peter's, vol. ii. p. 41.
2 lb. p. 42.
3 Smyth's Hundred of Berkeley, p. 301 : ' Prsefatus vero Nicolaus quandam
virgatam terrse quam antiquitus capella ex donatione antecessorum suorum pos
sedit eidem in elemosinam perpetuam restituet.'

480 AN ALLEGED INSTANCE OF THE FALLIBILITY OF
To conclude, it has been shown that the Cartulary of St.
Peter's, Gloucester, furnishes no proof that Nympsfield was
granted by King Canute to the Benedictine monks whom he
established in that Monastery in 1022 ; nor that they held it
in the time of Edward the Confessor ; whilst the fact of its
not being mentioned in the general charter of confirmation
from William the Conqueror in the last year of his reign,
affords the strongest possible presumptive evidence that that
king never gave nor confirmed the manor to the Abbey.
It has been further shown that the account of its alleged
restoration to Abbot Wlstan cannot be traced further back
than the Calendar of Donations compiled under Walter
Froucester, who was abbot from 1381 to 1406; and also,
that the small portion of land in Nympsfield conceded to
Abbot Serlo in the reign of William Rufus was held by the
monks as soccage tenants of the lords of Berkeley.
There is no reason, therefore, for doubting that the three
hides in the berewick of Nympsfield were rightly described
in the Survey of 1086 under the head of 'Terra Regis; ' nor
for discrediting, in this instance at all events, the authority of
Domesday in the determination of ' ancient demesne.'

APPENDIX A.
Extract from the Introduction to the Cartulary of the
Monastery of St. Peter's Glouc vol. iii. pp. xx, xxi.
' The method in which Domesday was compiled receives a curious
illustration from the Gloucester Cartulary ; in fact, one of the returns
in that grand and memorable record is alleged to be incorrect, and
this in no unimportant degree. We are told that William I. granted
to .St. Peter's and to Abbot Wilstan, Nympsfield (Nymdesfeld)
in Gloucestershire, with sac and soc ; but in 1087 Roger de
Berkeley the elder caused it to be described in Domesday as among

DOMESDAY IN REGARD TO 'ANCIENT DEMESNE' 481
the king's lands, "ad mensam regis " unknown to Abbot Serlo ; how
ever, in the year 1093 it was restored to the monastery by Eustace
de Berkeley, " tempore Serlonis abbatis ; " thus showing evidently
that whether the false return was made wittingly or not, at all
events Serlo did not allow it to remain unnoticed or unremedied.
' To many persons this misstatement in Domesday and its subse
quent correction may seem of little moment ; but it really involves an
important legal point, as I shall endeavour to show. It is some
times necessary in a court of law to adduce evidence in support of
land being of that peculiar tenure called " ancient demesne," and the
only way in which it can be established is by an appeal to Domesday.
" The tenure of ancient demesne," says Scriven in his work on Copy
holds, " is confined to such lands as were held in socage of manors
belonging to the crown in the reign of Edward the Confessor and
in the reign of William the Conqueror ; and whenever a question
arises as to the particular lands being ancient demesne, it is to be
decided by the production of Domesday Book ; wherein the lands
which were in the possession of King Edward are called terra regis
Edwardi, and those which were in the possession of William the
Conqueror are called term regis!"
' Now, supposing a dispute arose at the present day as to whether
Nympsfield were ancient demesne or not, it is a matter for con
sideration how far our courts would allow the statements in this
monastic chronicle to influence their decision. I am quite aware of
the doctrine that there can be no appeal from Domesday Book, and
no averment made against it, but is this rule never to admit of
qualification or relaxation ?
' If the averment be supported strongly by collateral evidence,
I see no reason why Domesday may not receive correction ; it is a
valuable record, but it is not infallible.'

APPENDIX B.
DXCVIII. De eodem (Stanedis).
Willelmus, rex Anglorum, Wlstano episcopo Wygorniae, et
W\illelmd\ filio Osberni, et omnibus baronibus et ministris suis de
Gloucestria et de Wyrecestresyra, Salutem, Sciatis me concessisse et
reddidisse, atque confirmasse, Deo, et Sancto Petro de Gloucestria,

482 AN ALLEGED INSTANCE OF THE FALLIBILITY OF
et Serloni abbati, et monachis ejusdem ecclesiae, omnes terras quas
Thomas Archiepiscopus Eboracensis injuste tenebat,1 sciliceti
Leecha, Ottintone, Stanedis, &c.
Testibus Lanfranco Archiepiscopo, Galfrido episcopo de Con-
stantia, et Roberto Comite de Moretane.

APPENDIX C.
Confirmation of William the Conqueror. Cartularium
S. Petr. Glouc f. 8sb, vol. i. p. 334.
Anno Incarnationis Domini millesimo octogesimo sexto, ego
Willelmus rex Anglorum, petitione Serlonis Abbatis de Gloucestria
et quorundam optimatum meorum, concessi Deo et ecclesiae Sancti
Petri in Gloucestria, possidere terras quas Thomas Archiepiscopus
tenuerat de eadem ecclesia, scilicet, Leeche ; Otindona ; Stanedisse ;
ecclesiam Sancti Cadoci cum terra quam Robertus Alius Hamonis
dedit eidem Abbatiae ; scilicet et in Hamptesyra unam terrain quam
Hugo de Porth in suo obitu monachus eftectus ipsi ecclesiae dedit et
vocatur Luttletone ; similiter et terram Plumtreu in Devensyre
quam Odo filius Hamelini pro anima sua ibi traddidit ; terram
etiam quae vocatur Clehangra in Gloucestresyra de dono Rogeri de
Berkeley pro anima. sua et parentum suorum ; et in Herefordsira
unam hidam de Roberto Curto ; et aliam de Willelmo de Ebroycis ;
et in eadem syra in Erchenfelde unam terram Westwode vocatam
quam dederat Walterius de Gloucestria ipsi ecclesiae pro anima
patris sui ; et item in Gloucestresyra quandam terrulam quam Geri
de Loges cum sua uxore dedit Sancto Petro in Getinges ; scilicet et
molendinum de Framilade quern reddidit Abbati Wynebald de
Baledon ; et item in Gloucestresyra Clifforde de dono Rogerii de
Buseleye ; et item terram quas vocatur Rudeforde ex dono meo, item
Rudelai de dono Radulfi Bloyet ; ecclesiam quoque de Hadrop
cum decima et terra presbiteri et ibi unum molendinum cum terra
pertinente : alteram etiam ecclesiam Kynemereforde cum decima et
terra sacerdotis, has [quas?] dederat ipsi [ecclesiae] Emulfus de
1 As Thomas only became Archbishop of York in 1070, the statement that ' he
used to hold ' these lands, is almost enough to show that this charter, if authori •
tative, was not granted till a considerably later period. Lanfranc was made Arch
bishop of Canterbury in the same year 1070.

DOMESDAY IN REGARD TO 'ANCIENT DEMESNE' 483
Hesding ; scilicet et dimidiam hydam in Omenay quam Thovi de
me tenebat in elemosinam ; decimam etiam de Cestertone de dono
Nigelli de Oilly ; et quandam partem silvae cum tribus bordariis de
dono Elyae Giffardi. Hiis testibus.

DISCUSSION.

Mr. J. Horace Round, having expressed his entire agree
ment with Sir Henry Barkly's vindication of the Survey, laid
stress on the fatal contradiction between the story as told on
p. 72 and on p. 101, the alleged culprit being Roger de Berkeley
'junior' in this former version, but his predecessor Roger de
Berkeley 'senior' in the latter. Observing that William's
alleged charter purported to confirm the estate to the Abbey,
as it had been held before the Conquest, he contended that the
' III manentes ' which Sir Henry had rendered 'tenements'
were certainly intended to represent the ' III hidae ' of Domes
day, ' manens ' being found in such charters for ' hidse.' As
to the view that the whole story was a concoction of the
fifteenth century, rather than derived from some earlier docu
ments, he thought there was internal evidence to the contrary
in the use of the remarkable phrase, ' descriptio totius Angliae,'
which would seem to have been only applied to Domesday at
the time of its compilation and for a short while afterwards.
This certainly looked to him as if the story was based on
some much earlier document. In that case the expression
' abbate Serlone nesciente ' might become of some interest, as
bearing on the manner in which the Survey was, or was
believed to have been made.

VOL. II. H

t$t (Wlaferfofe for tfy (Re^bi^tng
of t%t ©omeebap Qgfoofc
AND SUGGESTIONS FOR THE FORMATION OF A
DOMESDAY BOOK SOCIETY.
By W. de G. BIRCH, F.S.A.
THE extensive popular interest in the Domesday Book, of
which we are now engaged in commemorating the eight
hundredth anniversary, will, I trust, long survive the present
series of meetings and exhibitions, highly instructive as they
have been. Among the benefits which commemorations such
as this confer upon the community, I think the two greatest
are, first, that we are enabled by the kindness of custodians
and public authorities to inspect valuable historical relics
which have been arranged with special intention of educating
us, and of which we should know little — -and that little could
only be learned with the cost of great pains and trouble —
were it not for reunions such as these ; secondly, our ideas
are attracted towards subjects of which we never rightly
estimate the interest until they are forced upon our attention,
and we increase in ardour and admiration for them in pro
portion as their charms are unfolded to us. It will perhaps
be a matter of surprise to some among us that the papers and
discussions which have hitherto been heard, have been con
fined almost entirely to the statistical contents and the arith-

486 MATERIALS FOR RE-EDITING DOMESDAY BOOK
metical calculations of the Domesday Book, and but very little
has been brought forward relating to the national, historical,
and biographical aspects which it presents. This is to be
regretted, because after all it is, to my mind, unprofitable to
enquire the exact dimensions which conflicting critics would
assign to a hide, an acre, or carucate, to the neglect of entries
which strike down deeply into the history of our country,
such as the causes which blended the British or Celtic, the
Danish or Saxon, and the Norman elements into the one
homogeneous Englishman of the present day. These influ
ences are written in Domesday plainly, but between the lines,
and have yet to be defined and illustrated before they can be
fully understood.
In the spring of last year I had the honour of suggesting
in the columns of the Athenceum the formation of a Domes
day Book Society, the members of which would be enabled to
possess by degrees, as published, a handy and uniform series
of Domesday literature, both texts and essays, and I propose
on this occasion to show, with your permission and as briefly
as may be, of what kind and quality the materials are that are
ready to hand for the work of the proposed Society, if my
suggestion should find favour with a number of adherents
sufficient to warrant its establishment.
I. First among MSS. of value for collation must be taken
into consideration the pre-Domesday manuscripts, and here we
must take cognisance of the Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabri-
giensis, the 'Inquest of Cambridgeshire,' published in 1876 by
Mr. N. E. S. A. Hamilton, then of the British Museum, under
the auspices of the Royal Society of Literature. This is the
original return made by the juratores of the county of Cam
bridge in obedience to the king's mandate, from which the
Exchequer Domesday for that county was afterwards com
piled by the royal secretaries. ' It is much,' says Hamilton,
¦to be regretted that the only MS.' (British Museum, MS.

MATERIALS FOR RE-EDITING DOMESDAY BOOK 487
Cotton., Tiberius A. vi., which we were enabled by the kindness
of the authorities of the British Museum to inspect) 'in
which this important document is known to exist, has been
injured by time and neglect, and above all, has lost several of
its leaves. The Return is consequently defective at the end.'
The greater part, however, has come down to us, and the text,
printed by the above-mentioned editor for the first time, and
side by side with the corresponding entries extracted from the
Exchequer Domesday (to which I shall direct your attention
presently), contains abundant evidence that we have in this
Cottonian MS. the original source from which the Exchequer
Domesday for that county was derived. ' It is singular,' con
tinues Hamilton, ' that so important a document should have
been extant only in a solitary MS., unpublished, and exposed in
consequence to many risks of being lost or destroyed. Doubt
less, numerous historical and literary treasures still exist among
our ancient MSS. which are unknown to students and anti
quaries. But in regard to this particular MS. the strange part is
that from the days of Selden to those of Ellis — that is for a
period of about 250 years — its existence had been known and
its importance as elucidating Domesday history understood,
and, in part at least, acknowledged.' Even the indefatigable
Sir Thomas Duffus Hardy, late Deputy Keeper of the Public
Records, has omitted all notice of this MS. in his account of
the Exchequer Domesday Book, the Inquisitio Eliensis, and
the Exon Domesday, in his ' Catalogue of British History,'
vol. ii. Thus Hamilton, though not pretending to have dis
covered this important fragment, was the first to bring its
importance to light, and to give it to the learned world. It is
doubtful if any previous student of Domesday had distin
guished the essential difference between the Inquisitio
Comitatis Caniabrigiensis, or ' Inquest of Cambridgeshire,' and
the comparatively far less important Inquisitio Eliensis, or
' Inquest of the Lands of the. Monastery at Ely,' a mere record

488 MATERIALS FOR RE-EDITING DOMESDAY ICCK
of the landed property belonging to the monks of Ely, de
scribed therein as the lands of St. JE'SeVSryS, the founder of the
nunnery of Ely in the seventh century, which latter had been
quoted over and over again, and printed in the folio Commis
sion edition of 1816, vol. iii. ; while the still more valuable
portion containing the description of the lay as well as the
ecclesiastical lands, in the shape of a copy of the original
Domesday return as made by thejuratores on the Conqueror's
order, had been overlooked by everyone, although it occupies
the folios adjacent to the 'Inquisitio Eliensis' in the Cotton
MS. already mentioned. Selden in 1596, Gale in 1722, Philip
Carteret Webb, 1756, and R. Kelham, 1788, all well known
and conscientious writers on the Domesday, appear to have
been strangely ignorant of the true nature of this MS. ; and
the illustrious author and antiquary, Sir Henry Ellis, whose
indispensable Introduction to Domesday Book} and folio edition
of the Indices to the Exchequer Domesday for the Record
Commission, and Additamenta, forming vols. iii. and iv.
of the Record edition, and published in 18 16, connect his name
for ever with the great work of William the Conqueror, incre
dible as it may seem, merely prints that portion of the MS.
which relates to the monastic lands of Ely, and omits, without
even reference or mention, the most valuable portion Mr.
Hamilton gave to the world.2
Even Mr. S. Moore, a writer on the Domesday, criticising
in the Athenmum of April 25, 1885, my proposed Society and
remarks previously made by me on Domesday MSS., failed to
distinguish these differences.
The manuscript from which Hamilton's text is taken, and
which, so far as is still known, is the only remaining
1 In 2 vols., 1833, 8vo (now ripe for revision and republication, notwith
standing the inability of Canon Taylor to accept some portions of it).
2 Ellis knew of the MS. (see his own copy of Webb, with annotations on inter
leaved pages, in possession of his grandson, Mr. H. J. Ellis, of the British Museum).

MATERIALS FOR RE-EDITING DOMESDAY BOOK 489
exemplar, is numbered Tiberius A. vi. among the Cottonian
MSS. in the British Museum. Its contents are : 1. A copy
of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, to the year 977. 2. A memo
randum entitled ' De portione crucis reperta a Sergio Papa,'
etc. 3. 'Nomina Paparum qui miserunt pallium archiepis-
copis Cantuariensibus ab Augustino ad Anselmum.' 4. ' The
Inquisitio Eliensis.' 5. The Inquisition of Cambridgeshire.
6. A collection of charters and early documents relating to
the monastery at Ely ; and 7. A chronicle of England from
Hardacnut to the 20th year of Edward III. in French.
The Inquisition of Cambridgeshire is contained between
folios 76 and 113, one folio being lost between in and 112.
It is written on vellum in double columns, thirty-one lines to
a page, and in a fine bold hand of the concluding years of the
twelfth century, perhaps about a.d. i i 80. It is ornamented
with capital letters in blue and red colours, and had occasion
ally floriated initials. The facsimile of the first folio, here
exhibited, containing the Inquisition (f. 76), is a faithful repro
duction of the manuscript page. The Ely Inquisition is in
the same manuscript and in the same handwriting, but has
been placed out of its order (by those who arranged the MS.
for binding), before the Cambridge Inquisition. It will be
found in folios 38-70.
This work should form an integral part of the publications
of the new Society if copyright were not thereby infringed. It
would form a portion, naturally, of the volume containing the
Cambridgeshire Domesday, and I feel sure that Mr. Hamilton
would cooperate with the Society in the work on this county.
This contribution made by Hamilton to Domesday literature
constitutes, as he truly says, a real contribution to historical
knowledge, and he proceeds to give numerous examples show
ing how the facts recorded in the Domesday Book have been
therein abridged or extended, sometimes imperfectly, from the
original return.

490 MATERIALS FOR RE-EDITING DOMESDAY BOOK
II. The Exon Domesday, the second member of the Domes
day trilogy, is so called because it belongs to the Cathe
dral Library of Exeter. The Dean and Chapter have with
great kindness lent the MS. to the British Museum authori
ties, and we all had the opportunity of examining it when that
institution was visited. The MS.1 resembles the Cambridge
shire Inquest inasmuch as it contains an exact transcript of
the original returns made by the Royal Commissioners of
William the Conqueror, and from which the Exchequer
Domesday, or Liber Censualis, was compiled or abridged.
One important fact with regard to the MS. is the near
approach which it makes to Domesday Book in its general
form and palaeography. There are (in like manner as has been
described in the account of the Cambridgeshire Inquest) many
variations between the Exeter and the Exchequer MSS., the
chief of which, according to Hardy, are as follows : —
I. The Exeter MS. furnishes more detailed information
than the Exchequer volume, which is especially apparent in
the enumeration of the live stock on the several estates.
2. There is a marked difference in the diction of the two
MSS., even where they agree in sense.
3. The variation in the spelling of proper names is re
markable. In the Exeter MS. the names of places have
almost invariably a Latin termination, which is not usual
in the Exchequer Book ; and the names of persons frequently
differ, though not to the same extent as those of places.
4. The names of the tenants in the time of Edward the
Confessor are more numerously preserved in the Exeter than
in the Exchequer Domesday.
This Exon Domesday is unfortunately confined to a de
scription of the south-western parts of the kingdom, compris
ing the five counties of Wilts, Dorset, Somerset, Devon, and
Cornwall (one of the. groups of counties into which the Domesday
' There are some useful notices of this MS. in MS. Lansd. 320.

MATERIALS FOR RE-EDITING DOMESDAY BOOK 491
Return seems to have fallen). It is a small folio MS. of the
eleventh century, consisting of 532 folios, and appears to have
been the work of at least three, probably more, different scribes,
and at various times, — a fact made evident by the variation in
the mode of making the marks of abbreviations, and more
particularly in the contraction of the word et. It was printed
for the Commissioners on Public Records, under the editor
ship of Sir Henry Ellis, in 18 16. But nevertheless the text of
this MS. furnishes abundant material for future editors of the
counties over which it extends, and the mere publication in
parallel columns of the Domesday Book and the Exon Domes
day would enable readers to glean a great deal of education and
enlightenment in the prosecution of their Domesday studies.
III. The Domesday Book itself, that is, the Exchequer
Domesday Book, now preserved in the Public Record Office
at Fetter Lane, where it was inspected (side by side with
numerous other MSS. which illustrate its many aspects) on
the opening day of the Commemoration by the kindness of the
authorities of the Record Office, is the central light of the sub
ject. It is a vellum folio of the eleventh century, the first volume
being larger than the second. The whole of the MS. was
printed, in the last century, in consequence of an address by
the House of Lords to the King in 1767. This great and ex
pensive work was commenced in 1772, and the two volumes
folio of which it consists were completed in 1783. It is now
scarce, and fetches a considerable price. Sir Henry Ellis, as I
have already stated, printed two more volumes (iii. and iv.)
containing indices and supplementary pieces. Portions of the
Domesday Book have been printed, as I shall presently show,
in almost every county history ; and a complete facsimile
has been made by means of photo-zincography, — a process
eminently and notoriously ill adapted to the faithful repro
duction of ancient MSS. (because of the artificial manipula
tion required to complete the work), — under the direction of

492 MATERIALS FOR RE-EDITING DOMESDAY BOOK
Colonel Sir Henry James, F.R.S., of the Ordnance Survey at
Southampton A.D. 1 861-3. The price of this production is
18/. The work of Domesday was commenced about A.D. 1084
(the exact time being unknown, and variously stated). It was
finished in 1086. As soon as each 'Inquisition' was com
pleted it was forwarded to Winchester, where, after being ab
stracted, all ' Inquisitions ' were digested into one body ; and
thus was formed the existing transcript. That this is fuller
in some places than others is no doubt owing- to the fact that
this same difference characterised the original returns, and
also to the fact that some of the scribes who drew up the final '
state of the work were more strongly actuated by the desire
of brevity than others. The very character of the handwriting,
technically called ' set minuscules,' has been said to bear but
little resemblance to either the book -hand or the Chancery
charter-hand of the period, and with great probability may
have been introduced by some of the foreign ecclesiastics of
the Conqueror's court. The writing has been thought by
some to resemble an Italian hand ; and if the conjecture be
correct, that the scribes were indeed of that country, it is
possible that Lanfranc, the Lombard Archbishop of Canter
bury, whom William of Malmesbury calls ' litteratura per-
insignis', had supervision of the work.
We learn from the copy of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
preserved among Archbishop Laud's MSS. in the Bodleian
Library at Oxford (which contains later historical notices
than the other copies in the British Museum), under the
year 1085, the following particulars of the manner in which
Domesday originated : — A.D. 1085. ' Then, at midwinter,
the King was at Gloucester with his witan, and there held
his court five days, and afterwards the Archbishop and
clergy had a synod three days. After this, the King had
a great council, and very deep speech with his witan about

MATERIALS FOR RE-EDITING DOMESDAY BOOK 493
this land, how it was peopled, or by what men. Then sent
he his men over all England, into every shire, and caused to
be ascertained how many hundred hides were in the shire,
or what land the King himself had, and cattle within the
land, or what dues he ought to have in twelve months from
the shire. Also he caused to be written how much land his
archbishops had, and his suffragan bishops, and his abbots,
and his earls ; and — though I may narrate somewhat prolixly —
what or how much each man had, who was a holder of land
in England, — in land or in cattle, and how much money it
might be worth. So very narrowly he caused it to be traced
out that there was not one single hide, nor one ' yard ' (virgate)
of land, nor even — it is shame to tell, though it seemed to
him no shame to do — an ox, nor a cow, nor a swine, was left
that was not set down in his writ. And all the writings were
brought to him afterwards.' ¦
And again, under A.D. 1087, the same Chronicle relates :
' He (William) reigned over England, and by his sagacity so
thoroughly surveyed it that there was not a hide of land
within England that he knew not who had it, or what it was
worth, and afterwards set it in his writ.' 2
Its compilation then, as we gather,3 was determined on at
Gloucester by the King in council, in order that he might
know what was due to him in the shape of taxes from every
subject, and that they, in their turn, might know what each
had to pay. Thus it was calculated to be as much for the
protection of the subject as for the benefit of the sovereign.
The nobles and the people had been, as we know, grievously
distressed by the immigration, under royal auspices, of large
numbers of French and Bretons, who were, so to speak, billeted
on the natives according to the extent of their land, ostensibly
for the purpose of resisting the apprehended Danish invasion.
1 Thorpe's Translation for the Master of the Rolls.
2 Ibid. This is not strictly correct. 8 Hardy, Cat. ii. 34.

494 MATERIALS FOR RE-EDITING DOMESDAY BOOK
The commissioners appointed to take the survey were to
inquire into the numerous points which I had intended to
read, but they were detailed by Mr. Moore in his paper the
other evening : — i, the name of the place ; 2, who held it in
the time of King Edward the Confessor ; 3, the present pos
sessor ; 4, of how many hides the manor consisted ; 5, how
many ploughs there were in the demesne ; 6, how many
homagers ; 7, how many villeins ; 8, how many cottars ; 9,
how many serving-men ; 10, how many free tenants ; 1 1, how
many tenants in socage ; 12, how much wood, meadow, and
pasture there was ; 13, the number of mills and fish-ponds ;
14, what had been added to or taken away from the place ;
1 5, the gross value in the time of King Edward (returned as
'T.R.E.,' or ' quando rex Edwardus fuit vivus et mortuus') ;
16, the present value ; 17, how much each freeman or socman
had or has, and whether any advance can be made in the value.
Thus it could be ascertained who held any specified estate
in the time of King Edward the Confessor, who then held it,
what was the value in the time of the late King, and the value
at the moment of taking the particulars. To the minuteness
of this survey the concluding portion of the translated extracts
given above bears sadly graphic testimony.
It has not yet been satisfactorily explained why many
districts were left unnoticed in the great survey which was
manifestly intended to embrace the whole territory of Eng
land. The four important and extensive northern English
counties of Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmoreland,
and Durham, are not described in the survey. Possibly these
counties were not in a satisfactorily settled condition to en
able the emissaries of the King to visit the ground they
were to report upon.1 We know that in 1080, only a few
1 I am also reminded by a correspondent that : ' As to the English counties of
Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmoreland, and Durham, the fact is, that
the undescribed district comprised the Earldoms of Northumberland and Cumber-

MATERIALS FOR RE-EDITING DOMESDAY BOOK 491,
years before the commencement was made, the King had
desolated the province of Durham, which was just begin
ning to recover from the baneful and destructive effects of a
foreign invasion. The murder of Walkere, Bishop of Dur
ham, in May of that year, it is related, ' occasionem dedit
regi ut provintiae illius reliquias, quae aliquantulum respirave-
rant, funditus exterminaret.' ' Lancashire does not appear
under its proper name ; but Furness and the northern parts
of the county, as well as the south of Westmoreland, with a
part of Cumberland, are included within the West Riding of
Yorkshire. That portion of Lancashire which lies between the
Ribble and the Mersey, and which at the time of the surveys
comprehended 688 manors, is subjoined to Cheshire ; and
part of the county of Rutland is described in the account of
the counties of Northampton and Lincoln.
Sir Thomas D. Hardy does not speak very enthusiastically
of the historical value of Domesday Book. He says, ' Very
few historical occurrences or illustrations of ancient manners
are noticed in the Survey. Those which occur have been
collected by Sir Henry Ellis in his " General Introduction to
Domesday Book." ' 2 This copy is in two volumes. Vol. 1 con
tains the survey of thirty shires : that is to say of all that
were surveyed except Essex, Norfolk, and Suffolk, the fuller
reports of which are contained in a second volume. This
consists of 382 leaves, vellum, measuring 14I by 9^ inches.
It is written in double columns. The arrangement is in
quires, generally of eight leaves ruled on one side, with
double vertical lines bounding the columns. The writing is
in ' set minuscules,' with frequent changes of hand. Running
titles and headings are in red.
land, both dependencies of the English Crown, but neither of them merged in the
general polity of England, whose kings did not interfere with the internal con
cerns of either province. ' The Pipe Rolls of Cumberland, Westmoreland, and
Durham. Newcastle, 1847. Introduction, p. iv.
1 Will. Malm. Gesta Pontificum, p. 271. 2 Cat. Brit. Hist. ii. 35.

496 MATERIALS FOR RE-EDITING DOMESDAY BOOK
Vol. 2 contains the full reports for the counties of Essex,
Norfolk, and Suffolk. This contains 450 leaves, vellum,
measuring iof by 7§ ins. At the end is the following
memorandum, ' Anno Millesimo Octogesimo sexto ab in-
carnatione domini, vigesimo vero regni Willelmi facta est ista
descriptio non solum per hos tres comitatus, sed etiam per
alios.' The arrangement is in quires, generally of eight
leaves ruled on one side ; some of the sheets being remnants
without corners, or otherwise defective. The writing is in ' set
minuscules,' with frequent change of hand. Running titles
are in red, and the initial letters are filled with patches of red.
IV. There is a nicely written fragment containing part of
the Domesday Survey for the county of Kent in the British
Museum, Cotton. MS. Vitellius, C. viii. ff. 143-156. It was
exhibited to us the other day in the King's Library of the
British Museum. This was probably at first carried about
in a pocket, for it is worn in places, and has a few deficiencies.
It was a roll, and is now cut up and inlaid into fourteen leaves.
It is in a handwriting of the twelfth century, and written,
as rolls should be, only on one side of the page. The text
agrees pretty closely with that of the Exchequer Domesday,
but is deserving of a careful collation by the editors of a Kent
Domesday Book for the Society.
Of the late paper copies and manuscript extracts of
Domesday Book in the British Museum and other places
of deposit, I do not propose to say anything in this paper,
but there are several unpublished documents of the highest
importance, contemporary with the period of the Domesday
Book, among the British Museum Manuscripts. This is clear
from the fact that only just recently an original record of the
plea, or suit tried at Penenden Heath about the year 1070,
whereat Archbishop Lanfranc recovered (by process of the
ancient popular court of the Anglo-Saxon Witenagemot, with

MATERIALS FOR RE-EDITING DOMESDAY BOOK 497
special permission of the King then held pro hdc vice) nume
rous lands in Kent which had been unjustly detained by Odo,
the powerful Bishop of Bayeux, from the Cathedral Church
of Canterbury. I think the reader of the previous paper
had no knowledge of this document, but I should be happy
to show it to him at any time. The Chronicler Eadmer of
Canterbury, and others, have given notices of this great suit, and
William of Malmesbury points out its beneficial result on the
condition of the Church in England. The document is still
unpublished, but I hope to print it in the course of a few days,
and with others that will come to light to reward patient
searchers, now that public attention has been directed to the
Domesday Book, and interest stimulated, it will form valuable
illustrations of the Domesday in the hands of commentators
and editors. Similar in many respects to the foregoing is the
Worcester lawsuit between Bishop Wlstan and the Abbot of
Evesham, of which a record exists in the Chartulary com
piled by the monk Heming for the Bishop, British Museum,
Cottonian Library, Tiberius, A. xiii. It has been printed in
the old days by the indefatigable antiquary Hearne, but,
as Mr. Round recently showed, has escaped the notice of
a modern professor. These are two examples out of many
to indicate the need of annotating Domesday Book more
fully than it has been treated heretofore.
A very fertile class of documents which have been hitherto
much neglected by Domesday students is that of the Anglo-
Saxon Charters. These charters, or grants of land, are in a
large proportion of instances accompanied by a perambulation
or description of the boundaries of the land conveyed by the
grantor, generally the king in his public capacity as head of the
state, to a lay or ecclesiastical corporation or to an individual.
The paragraphs containing the boundaries are written in Anglo-
Saxon, notwithstanding that the body of the deed is written in
Latin. They form a species of survey, although inexact and not

498 MATERIALS FOR RE-EDITING DOMESDAY BOOK
so precise perhaps in point of plotting as a modern surveyor
would desire, yet suited to the remote antiquity of the time
when land was not valued for its extent so much as for the
capabilities it possessed for sustentation of a family, naturally
a variable number of persons, and equally naturally varying
in proportion to the excellence of its position and the fer
tility of its soil. These boundaries I recommend to future
Domesday Book editors as affording material of considerable
value in connection with the Domesday Record of many
estates. In most instances the notices of places which are
given in the Anglo-Saxon Charters are the oldest strictly
topographical notices which we are able to obtain, hence the
need of comparing the evidence they present with the com
paratively more recent Domesday Book evidence of from three
hundred and fifty years less remoteness.
The value of the Anglo-Saxon Charters, of which there are
about two thousand extant, and more than half this number
with boundaries and topographical notices, has hitherto been
underrated by those who have studied the statistical and geo-
desical aspects of the Domesday Book. These boundaries afford
evidence of such a character as to compel us to modify very
materially the pleasant theories of Canon Taylor, who would
have it that agriculture was in rectangular plots, with slightly
S-shaped bounding lines, whereas it is far more natural to
assume that the area cultivated was of irregular dimensions,
regulated by convenience, proximity to dwellings, the natural
course of streams and rivers and other obstacles, the cropping
up of sterile strata, and the stubbornness of forests to jield
to the first efforts of the pioneer. The extensive number of
points along which the boundaries ran is clear proof against
the rectilinear and right-angle theory. I would also say here
that the Charters possess extremely little evidence in favour
of ' common-field ' co-operative system, two-shift, three-shift,
or any other kind of agriculture except that of absolute

MATERIALS FOR RE-EDITING DOMESDAY BOOK 499
possession by way of three-lived, four-lived, or of freehold,
possession, and it is impossible to concede that the Norman
occupation of the land suddenly changed the universal
method current in Saxon time, which must have been inde
pendent of the rule Canon Taylor lays down, and rather
governed by the local exigencies and peculiarities bound to be
taken into account. Some of the Anglo-Saxon Wills con
tain notices of rent in kind which cannot fail to be of inte
rest. The recent discovery 1 of a Saxon Survey taken of the
districts or territories of England in the days before Alfred,
or the 8th century at latest, indicates that even in that re
mote date, 400 years before Domesday Book, the arability of
the land had been estimated in round numbers, but whether
with a view to taxation, or as a comparative tabulation of
military strength, we cannot yet determine. Probably both
objects were served by the taking of the Survey. This MS.,
which was exhibited at the British Museum, shows that the
Domesday Survey was no new thing to which the inhabitants
of England were then subjected for the first time.
Contemporary drawings and illuminations must not be over
looked, for the explanation they afford of Domesday manners
and customs is great. At the British Museum, for example,
we saw four Anglo-Saxon MSS. with the operation of plough
ing depicted in such a manner as to compel us to receive
with considerable hesitation Canon Taylor's theory of eight
oxen yoked to a very large plough worked on the co-operative
system, for contemporary pictures in MSS. tell us there were
two, or at most four oxen, to a diminutive plough. Most ancient
tools, indeed, were puerile ; the granite colossi of Egypt were
worked, as is known, with copper or bronze tools as weak, and
apparently as inefficient, as the contents of a schoolboy's tool
box would be, to a modern cabinet-maker. We may see an
1 See the List of MSS. exhibited at the British Museum to the Commemora
tion, No. 1 (post p. 651).
VOL. II. I

500 MATERIALS FOR RE-EDITING DOMESDAY BOOK
Egyptian carpenter's tool-bag figured in Wilkinson's Egypt,
and their seeming uselessness strikes us at once. Hence, and
from the few extant implements of the Domesday period, we
may assume that agricultural implements in Domesday Book
period were small and comparatively weak. Human muscle
in the old days everywhere did the greater part of the work.
Abridged Domesday.
There are three abridged copies of the Exchequer
Domesday Book : —
i. Record Office, formerly in Chapter House, for the use
of the Chamberlains of the Exchequer.
2. Record Office, formerly in the Office of the King's
Remembrancer, for the use of the Treasurers, and afterwards
in the custody of the Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer.
3. British Museum, Arundel MS. 153.
1. This is a folio volume, well written, and of beautiful
appearance, with some spirited initial letters and illuminations.
It is reputed to be of the time of Edward I., and agrees com
pletely in respect of arrangement, and almost verbatim et
literatim with the second MS. (of which I have been fortunately
able to obtain a very detailed account), and from which this
was most probably compiled. The two MSS. are evidently
not of coeval creation, although the v/riting of both is some
what homogeneous. In the fly-leaf of this MS. is an absurd
memorandum of Peter le Neve, Norroy King of Arms, and
one of the Vice-Chamberlains of Queen Anne's Exchequer,
stating his opinion that the MS. was written and illuminated
in the time of Henry VII. Sir- Henry Ellis appears to have
been unaware of the existence of this MS.
2. The Breviate, a copy of the Domesday Book in the
Office of the Remembrancer of the Exchequer. The following
is mainly derived from an account in a Catalogue of Records

MATERIALS FOR RE-EDITING DOMESDAY BOOK 501
remaining in the office of the King's Remembrancer of the Ex
chequer by an official hand : —
Domesday Book.
The earliest Record as regards subject-matter, though
perhaps not compilation, removed from the King's Remem
brancer Office to the Record Office, is that which forms the
greater portion of a volume passing under the denomination
of DOMESDAY Book. It is a small folio volume, in the ori
ginal oak binding with bosses. By comparison with the
printed copy of the Domesday Book in the Public Record
Office, and the Exon Domesday; the Record in question ap
pears to be a very partial abridgment. In this abstract the
villani, bordarii, and stock are omitted. The object for
which it was compiled for the use of the Treasurer of the
Exchequer is not apparent, and it cannot be stated with cer
tainty to what extent the abridgment is carried until a precise
investigation has been made between the several Records, yet
some idea of the variations may be gained from the following
extracts. The incipient sentences of each volume are taken,
and the corresponding portions of the Exchequer Domesday
underlined. Domesday of the Remembrancer's Office.
Kent. — Terra Regis. Tempore Regis Edwardi Burgenses
Dovere invenerut . xx". naves Regi una vice in anno ad . xv.
dies 7 1 unaqaq, navi erant homines . xx41. 7 un9. Hoc facie-
bant n eo qd eis pdonaverat sacam 7 socam. Qando Missatici
Regis veniebant ibi i dabat n Caballo tansducendo . in . den
in hieme 7 duos in estate. Burgenses v° inveniebat Stiremannu
7 unu aliu adjutorem. Et si plus op9 eet r de peccunia ej9
conducebat1". In dimidio lest de Sudona in Athestani hundred. Rex
Wilis ten Tarentefort . g uno solino 7 dimidio se defendit.
De hoc manio tenet Hugo de Port dimict solin in Hagelei.

502 MATERIALS FOR RE-EDITING DOMESDAY BOOK
In lest de Flesford* in Laverochesfeld hund" . Elefford d uno
solifi. In dim lest de Mideltune in Middeltune hund . Middeltune
p qater - XX*1. solin se defend. Extra hos J. sunt I dominio .
mi . solin. Dehoc "CO . ten Hugo de Port . VIH sot 7 . I. jugu.
In lest de Wiwarlet in Faveresham hund! t Favereshant .
p . vil. sol se defendit.' Exchequer Domesday.
Chenth. — Dovere Tepore regis Edwardi reddebat . xviii.
libras . de quibus denariis habebat rex . E. duas partes 7 comes
Goduin9 tercia. Contra hoc habebant canonici de sco Martino
regi
medietate aliam. Burgenses deder . XX*1. naues | una uice in
anno ad . xv. dies . 7 in una quaq,, naui erant hoes . XXB 7 un9.
Hoc faciebant pro eo qd eis pdonauerat sacca 7 soca. Quando
missatici regis ueniebant ibi :' dabant pro caballo transducendo .
llles. denarios in hieme . 7 II03. in estate. Burgenses u° in-
uenieban stiremannu 7 unu aliu adjutore . 7 si plus opus . ee J.
de pecunia ej9 conducebatr . jf A festiuitate S' Michaelis usq,
ad festu Sci Andreas r' . . . . [Five columns omitted before
the relative portions appear in the copy of the Remembrancer's
Office.] Terra Regis. In Dimidio Lest de Svdtone. In Achestan
H(t. — . I. Rex Willelmvs ten Tarentefort . p uno solino 7
dimidio se defd. T'ra . e .XL. caruc. In dnio sunt . II. car .
7 cxlh. uirfi cu . X. bord hfit . Lin. car. Ibi sunt . III. serui .
7 I. mold . pati . XX.II. acrae . pasturae . XL. ac. De silua . VIII.
denae paruse . 7 III. magnae. Ibi . II. hedae. . id est . II0. port9,
uicec'
T. R. E : ualuit . LX. life . 7 tntd qdo haimo recepit. Modo
appciatr ab anglis . LX. lib. P'posit9 u° francig qui ten ad
firma . dicit q!a ual qat. XXt! . life . 7 X. life. Ipse tain reddit
de isto MS . lxx. life pensatas . 7 CXI. solid de den . xx". in
ora . 7 VII. life 7 xxvi. defi ad numer. Sup haec reddit uice~ .
c. sol. Homines de Hund testificanf . qd de isto £3 regis
ablatu . e unu patu . 7 un alnetu . 7 un mold . 7 xxti . acrae

MATERIALS FOR RE-EDITING DOMESDAY BOOK 503
Irae . 7 adhuc tan? pati quantu gtifi ad . x. acas irae . quae orha
erafi in firma regis . E. du uiueret . h uat . XXti- sot. Dicunt
aut. qd Osuuard tc uicecoih praestitit ea Alestan pposito Lundofi .
7 m° ten helt9 dapifer 7 nepos. Testanf quoq, qd Hagelei
de isto 55 ablata . e . quae se defd g dim solin. Hanc tra.
tenebat uicecoin . 7 qdo uicecomitatu amittebat i in firma
regis remanefe. Ita pmansit 7 post morte R. E. Modo tefl
Hugo de port, cu . L.IIII. acris irae plus . Totu hoc uat . XV.
lib. || De eod 55 regis adhuc sunt ablatae . vi. acrae irae . 7
uicec'
quaeda silua qua. isd Osuuard9 posuit exta 53 . p qdda uadimon .
XL. solidog. J[ ^Ecctam hup 55 ten eps de Rouecestre . 7
uat LX. sot. Extra hanc sun adhuc ibi . III. aecclesiolae.
In Lest de Elesford. In Lavrochesfel Hvnd. — Rex W.
ten Elesford . g uno solin se defd. T'ra e . XV. car. In dnio
sunt . III. caf . 7 XL. uitri cu . v. bord hnt . XV. caf . Ibi . VIII.
serui .7 1. mold . XL. den . 7 . XLIII. ac pati . Silua . LXX.
uicec'
pore . Ini tot ualefe . T. R. E. XV. life . 7 tntd qdo haimo
recep . m° uat . xx. lib . Tarn redd . XXXI. lib . 7 uicec inde
hi III. life. De hoc 55 ten Ansgot9 juxta rouecestre tantu
irae . qd appciaf. VII. lib . Ejjs etia. de Rouecesi g excabio ire
in qua castellu sedet . tantu de hac tra ten . qd . xvilte\ sot 7
IIIIor. den uat. dimidio
In Lest de Middeltvne. In Middeltvn Hund.— Rex . W.
ten Middeltvne . g quat XX*1. solins se defd. Extra hos " sunt
in dnio IHI. solins . 7 ibi . III. car in dnio. In hoc 53 . CCCW.
7 IX. uirh' cu . lxxihi. bord . hilt . CLX. vil. caf . Ibi sunt . vi.
mold de . xxx. solid . 7 xvilit0. ac pati . Ibi . xxvn. salinae
de . XXVII. solidis . Ibi . XXXII. piscariae de . xxii. sot 7 vin.
den . De theloneo XL. sot. De pastura . xiii. sot 7 nil. den .
Silua . CC.XX. pore . 7 hoes de Walt reddunt . L. sot pro
Ineuuard 7 Aueris. In hoc 55 sunt . X. serui . Ini totu . T. R. E.
uicecom'
nalefe cc. life ad numeru . 7 tfitd qdo Haimo recep . 7 m°
similiter. j[ De hoc 53 ten hugo de port . vill. solins 7 unu
jugti . qui T. R. E. erant cu alijs solins in csuetudine. Ibi.

504 MATERIALS FOR RE-EDITING DOMESDAY BOOK
hi . III. car in dnio. H' ?ra qua ten Hugo de port . uat .. XX.
life qffi coputantr in . cct,s. life toti9 55 Middeltvn . qui ten reddit .
CXL. life ad igne et ad pensa . 7 insup . xv. life 7 VI. sot . II.
uicec'
denaf min9 ad numeru . Haimoni dat pposit9. XII. life, ff De
silua regis hi Wadard9 tani qd redd XVI. den p ann . 7 dimidia
dena tenet qua T. R. E. q'da uillan9 tenuit . 7 Alnod cild duas
partes cuida uitro p uim abstulit. JT ^Ecctas 7 decimas huj9 53
tefi afefe S' Augustini . 7 XL, sot de . nil. solins regis exeunt ei.
In Lest de Wiwarlet. In Favreshant Hvnd. — Rex W. ten
Favreshant . g VII. solins se defd . T'ra . e XVII. car . In dnio
sunt . II83- Ibi . xxx. uiffi cu . XL. bord . hnt . XXIIII. caf. Ibi .
v. serui .71. molifi de . xx. sot . 7 ii33. ac pati . Silua . c.
pore . 7 de pastura siluse . XXXI. sot . 7 II. den. Mercatu .
de . nil. life . 7 II86. salinse de . III. solid 7 II. den . 7 in cantuaf
de xx. denar'
ciuitate . Illes hagae | ad hoc 55 ptifi. In totis ualeni T. R. E.
ualefe . LX. life . V. solid min9. 7 post •! LX. life . Modo uat qater .
xx" , life.

Domesday of the Remembrancer 's Office.
MlDDELSEX. — Terr S' Pet' Westmofi. In Josulvestane
hd . I villa ubi sedet eccta Sci Pet1 ten Afefe ej9dem loci . xin.
hid 7 dim. In eadem villa tefi Bernard9. III. hid de Afefee .
Hamstede ten Afefe Sci Petri . p nil hid. In eade villa ten
Rannulf9 Pevrel de Afefee . 1. hid. In Speletone hd. Stanes
ten Abfe g . xix. hid. Suneberie g . VII. hid. Scepertone g .
VIII. hid. In Helertone hd. Greneforde g . XI. hid 7 dim.
Hanewelle g . VIII. hid. Covelie g . II. hid. In hund de
Gare . tenet Wilts Camerari9 sb Afefee . n. hid 7 dim in
Chingesberie . Handone ten Afefe p. XX. hid. Hermodeswrde .
ten afefe S' T'nitatis Rotomag de Rege . p xxx. hid. In
Speletorne hd . 1. hid. Exchequer Domesday.
MlDELSEXE. — Terra Sci Petri Westmofi. In Osvlvestane
hd . 55 In Villa ubi sedet seccta S' Petri . tenet afefe ej9de

MATERIALS FOR RE-EDITING DOMESDAY BOOK 505
loci . XIII. hid 7 dim . T'ra e ad XI. caf . Ad dfiium ptin . ix,
hidae 7 I. uirg . 7 ibi sun . nil. caf . Villi hnt . VI. caf . 7 I. caf
plus pot fieri . Ibi . IX. uifti q'sq, de . I. uirg .71. uiHs de . I.
hida . 7 IX. uitli q'sq, de dim uirg . 7 1. cot de . V. ac . 7 XL.I.
coi q1 reddt g ann . XL. sot g ortis suis. Patu xi. caf . Pasfa
ad pecufi. uillae . Silua . C. pore . 7 xxv. dom9 militu abfcis 7
aliog houm . qui reddt VIII. sot p annu . In totis ualeni uat . x.
.life . Q'do recep . similii . T. R. E.r" xil. life . Hoc 55 fuit 7 est
in dnio aecctae S' Petri . Westmonasterij . In ead uilla ten
Bainiard9. III. hid de abfee . T'ra e . ad . II. caf . 7 ibi sun in
dnio . 7 1. coi . Silua . c. pore. Pasfa ad pecufi . Ibi . nil.
arpenni uineae . nouii plani. In totis ualeni uat . LX. sot .
Q'do recep r" XX. sot T. R. E. VI. life . H' tra jacuit 7 jacet in
aeccta S' Petri. 55 Hamestede ten afefe S' Petri . nil. hid .
T'ra . III. caf . Ad dfiiu ptin . III. hid 7 dim . 7 ibi . e . l»-caf .
Virli hnt . I. caf . 7 alia pot fieri . Ibi . I. uift de . I. uirg . 7 v.
bord de . I. uirg . 7 1. seru9. Silua . c. pore . Ini totu uat . L.
sot . Q'do recep . simit . T. R. E. J. c. sot. In ead uilla ten
Rann peurel sub afefee . I. hida de tra uifloi . T'ra dim car . 7
ibi est . H' tra ualuit 7 uat v. solid . Hoc 55 totu simul jacuit
.7 jacet in dnio aecclae S' Petri.
In Speletorne Hvnd. 55 Stanes ten afefe S' Petri g . XIX.
hid . T'ra est ad XXII1I. caf . Ad dniu ptin . XI. hidae . 7 ibi
sunt XIII. car . ViHi hnt XI. caf . Ibi . III. uiffi . q'sq, dim ft. .
7 . IIII. uiH de . I. ft . 7 VIIIt0. uiit q'sq, de dim uirg . 7 XXXVI.
bord de . in. ft . 7 1. uift . de . I. uirg . 7 IIII. bord de . XL. ac .
7 x. bord . q'sq, . v. ac . 7 v. cot . q'sq, . de . IIII. ac . 7 VIII. bord
de . 1. uirg . 7 in. cot de . ix. ac . 7 xn. serui . 7 xlvi. burg
q1 reddt p annu . XL. sot. Ibi . VI. molini de . LXiiI. sot . 7 1
guort de . VI. sot . 7 vin. den . 7 I. guort qd nil redd . Pasfa
ad pecufi uillae . Patu . xxnn. caf . 7 xx. sot de sup plus .
Silua xxx. pore . 7 . II. arpenn uineae . Ad hoc 55 ptinen nil.
bereuii . 7 ibi fuef . T. R. E. In totis ualentijs uat xxxv. life .
Q'do recep . simit . T. R. E. i XL. life . Hoc 55 jacuit 7 jacet
in dnio aecctae S' Petri. 55 Svheberie ten afefe S' Petri . g vn.
hid . T'ra . VI. caf . e ibi . Ad dniu ptih . nil. ft . 7 I. caf ibi .

506 MATERIALS FOR RE-EDITING DOMESDAY BOOK
e . Vim' hnt . nil. caf . Ibi pfcr hi dim uirg . 7 VIII. uifii . q'sq, .
1. uirg . 7 n. uiffi de . I. uirg . 7 V. bord de . I. uirg ,7 v. cot .
7 1. seru9. patu . VI. caf . Pasfa ad pecufi uillae . In totis
ualentijs ualet . VI. life . Q'do recep t similii . T. R. E.r VII.
life . Hoc 53 fuit 7 est in dfiio secclae S' Petri. 55 Scepertone
ten afefe S' Petri g . VIII. hid . T'ra e ad . vn. caf - Ad dfiiu
ptin . III. ft 7 dim . 7 ibi est . I. caf . uihi hnt . VI. caf . Ibi .
xvn. uiffi qisq, . de. I. uirg . Pfcr . xv. acas . 7 III. coi . de . ix.
ac . 7 II. coi 7 II. serui . patu . VII. c . Pasfa ad pecufi uille .
7 1. guort . de . VI . sot 7 vin. defi . Int tot uat . vi. life. J]" Q'do
recep . simit . T. R. E : VII. life . Hoc 53 fuit 7 . e in dfiio
secclae S' Petri.
In Heletorne hvndret. 55 Greneforde ten abfe S' Petri .
g XI. hid 7 dim . T'ra . e . VII. car . Ad dfiiu ^tifi . v. hid . 7 1.
caf . ibi . e . 7 alia potest fieri . Villi hnt . V. caf . Ibi . iTuiits
hi I. hid . 7 I. uirg . 7 . IIII. uitti q'sq, de dim hid . 7 nil. uiffi
de . I. hid . 7 VII. bord de . I. hid . Q'da. franc . 1. hida 7 I.
uirg . 7 III. coi 7 vi. serui . Silua . ccc. pore . Pasfa ad pecufi
uillae . In totis ualeni . uat VII. life . Q'do recep . similii .
T. R. E J. X. life . Hoc 53 jacuit 7 jacet in dnio secctae S' Petri.
55 Hanewelle ten afefe S' Petri . g vni. hid . se defend . T'ra V.
caf . Ad dfiiu ptin . IIII. 67.1. uirg . 7 1. caf .ibi e . Vifti
hnt . IIII. caf . Ibi I. uirls de . 11. hid . 7 nn. uiffi . de . I. hid
7 VI. bord de . III. uirg 7 nil. cot . 7 n, serui . Ibi . 1. molin
de . h. sot 7 II. defi . Patu I. car . Silua . L. pore . In totis
ualeni uat . c. 7 x. sot . Q'do recep . simit . T. R. E i vn. life .
Hoc 55 fuit 7 . e in dfiio S' Petri. 55 Covelie . ten abfe S' Petri .
g n. hid se defend. T'ra . e . I. caf . Ad dfiiu ptifi . 1. hida 7
dim . 7 ibi . e . I. caf . Ibi . II. uiffi de dim ft . 7 1. coi . Patu
dim car . Pasfa ad pec uiite . Silua . XL. pore 7 molin . de V.
sot. H' tra uat . xxx. sot . Q'do recep . similii . T. R. E r XL.
sot. Hanc ira tenuit 7 tenet in dfiio S' Petr9 Westmofi. In
Hvnd de Gare . ten Witts camerari9 sub afefe S' Petri . n. hid
7 dim in Chingesberie . T'ra . II. caf In dnio . I. caf . 7 uiffi
I. caf . Ibi V. uiffi q'sq, de . I. uirg . 7 1. coi . Silua . CC. pore .
H' tra uat . xxx. sot . Q'do recep . similii . T. R. E r lx. sol .

MATERIALS FOR RE-EDITING DOMESDAY BOOK 507
Hanc ira tenuit Aluuiu9 home teign9 regis . E. in uadimonio
de q°da hoe S' Petri. 55 Handone . tefi afefe S' Petri . g XX.
hid se defend . T'ra . XVI. caf . Ad dfiiu ptifi . X. hide 7 ibi
sufi . III. caf . Vitti hfit . VIII. caf 7 vQ; adhuc poss fieri . Ibi
pfcr hi . I. uirg . 7 III. uiffi qtsq, dim ft 7 VII. uiffi q'sq, I. uirg .
7 XVI. uiffi q'sq dim uirg . 7 XII. bor q1 tenefi dim hid . 7 vi.
cot 7 I. seru9. Patu . II. bou . Silua . mille pore . 7 X. sot . In
totis ualeni uat . VIII. life . Q'do recep similii . T. R. E r' XII.
lib . Hoc 55 jacuit 7 jacet in dfiio eccte S' Petri.
Teira Scae Trinitatis De Monte Rotoui. 55 Hermodes-
Rotomag'
worde . tenet afefe S' Trinitatis de rege . g XXX. hid se defend .
T'ra . e XX. car . Ad dfiiu ptifi . vni. hidae . 7 ibi sun . III. caf .
Int franc 7 uiftos sufi X. caf . 7 vn. adhuc poss . ee . Ibi q'da.
miles ht . 11. hid . 7 n. uiffi q'sq, . I. ft 7 II. uiffi de . I. ft . 7
XII1I. uiffi q'sq de . I. uirg . 7 VI. uiffi q'sq, de dim uirg . 7 VI.
bord q'sq, . V. ac . 7 vn. cot 7 VI. serui . Ibi . in. molini . de
LX. sot . 7 q'ngeni anguitt . 7 de piscinis . mille Anguillse .
Patu . XX. caf . Pasfa ad pecufi uillae . Silua q'ngent pore 7 I.
arpefi uineae . In totis ualeni. uat . xx. life . Q'do recep . xn.
life . T. R. E t XXV. life . Hoc 55 tenuit com Herald9 . 7 in hoc
55 fuit qda socfts tefi II. hid de his . xxx. ft . fi potuit dare t
uende exta hermodesworde . T. R. E. In Speletorne hvnd
S' Trinitatis
tefi Hertald9 m° de rege I. hid . T'ra dim caf . Ibi . e . un9
uitls q' tenet ea . P"tu dim caf . H' tra uat x. sot . Q'do recep .
similii . T. R. E. similii . Hanc Ira tenuit Goldin9 ho comitis
Heraldi . fi potuit uende t dare sine ej9 licentia.
The variations between the three Domesdays may be
readily perceived in the following arrangement : —
(1.) Remembrancer's Domesday. (2.) Exchequer Domesday
(p. 117.)
DEVENESCHIRE. TERRA NICOLAI BALISTARIJ.
Nicholaus Balistari9 ten de Nicolavs tefi de rege
Rege Wiberic p dim hid. Wiberie. Ordrictenefc T.R.E.
7 geldfe g dim hida . T'ra . e .

508 MATERIALS FOR RE-EDITING DOMESDAY BOOK

Grennelize g in. v1.

Stoches g II. v1 1 dim.

III. caf . Ibi . iiii. bord hfit . I
caf . 7 nil. ac siluae . 7 XX. ac
pasturae . Olim . xil. defi .
Modo uat XV. sot. ten'
Ipse . Ni. Grennelize .
Quattuor taini teneb T. R. E.
in parag'
| 7 geldb . g . III. uirg irae .
T'ra . e . III. caf . q ibi si cu I.
seruo 7 mi. uiffi 7 III. bord . 7
n. ac pati . Oil . x. solid .
Modo uat XX. solid.
Ipse N. ten Stoches . Ord-
ric tenefe T. R. E. 7 geldfc g .
II. uirg . 7 dimid . T'ra . e V.
caf . Ibi . si . IIII. car . 7 VI.
uiffi 7 VII. bord . 7 v. serui 7
in. ac . pati . 7 XX. ac pasturae .
Oil 7 m° uat xxx. solid.

(3.) Exon Domesday (p. 434, etc.)
TERRA NICOLAI ARBALESTARII IN DEVENESIRA.
archibalistarius
|[ Nicholaus hi . I. mansione quae uocaf Wibeberia. qua
tenuit Odriti9. ea die qa rex E. f. u. 7 . m. 7 reddidit Gildu g
m° ten& reger' aculeus de Nicholao R
dim hid, hanc posst arare III. carf. Inde hi Nicholaus. I. uirga
7 dim in dnio 7. I. carf. Ibi hi. N. IIII. bordarios. 7 XXX. oues.
7 nil. agros nemoris. 7 . xx. agros pascuae. 7 ual& g annu XV.
sol. 7 qudo N. recep ualebat XII. defi.
fj Nicolaus hi I. q uocaf Grenneliza q ten IIII. tagni parit.
ea die qa E. rex f '. ii. & fo. & redd gild g. II. uirg. has poss
arare III. car?. Inde hi. Nicolaus in dnio. I. uirga. & I. carr.
& uirl II. uirgas &. II. carf. Ibi hi N. IIIlor . uirl & III. bord.
&. 1 seruii & n. ag pati. & uat xx. sot. p ann. & qdo recep.
uat. X. sot. Ista mans ht nicolaus g escanbiis.
f Nicolaus ht. 1. mansione que uocaf Stoches. qua tenuit

MATERIALS FOR RE-EDITING DOMESDAY BOOK 509
Ordritius ea die qua rex E. f u 7 . m. 7 reddidit Gildu g dim
hida. 7 dirh uirga. hanc posst arare v. carruce. Inde ht
Nicholaus in dnio. I. uirga. 7 11. carf. & uillani. hnt II. caf.
Ibi ht Nicholaus vi. uillanos. 7 vn. bord. 7 v. seruos. 7 II.
animalia. 7 lx. oues. 7 III- agros prati. 7 xx. agros pascuae. 7
ual& p annu XXX. sot. 7 quando Nicholaus recepit ualebat
tantude. The MS. of the King's Remembrancer's Office appears,
from the character of the writing, to have been made about
the twelfth century ; but there is not sufficient evidence to
determine the actual period. It does not appear that either
of these MSS. is noticed in the published Dissertation on
Domesday hy Sir Henry Ellis. But Ellis most certainly knew
of both these MSS. from his notes in Webb's tract. This
volume probably, at some period, formed one of the muniments
of a Welsh religious establishment, or was possessed by the
family of Breuse; and there are no reasons which satis
factorily account for its appearance in its present repository.
3. The Arundel Domesday, which is the third abridged
text, is a folio volume of the twelfth century, consisting of 85
vellum leaves. It contains the returns for only twenty-four
counties, and is otherwise imperfect by the omission of notices
of payments due to the king. But it has a great value as an
ancient text, and should be collated with the Exchequer
Domesday, in any new edition of the Domesday Book for the
projected Society.
The counties are taken in the same order as in the pre
ceding volume, but the following are wanting : — Kent, Sussex,
Surrey, Hampshire, Berkshire, Derbyshire ; and after Rut
landshire follows only the civitas et comitatus Eboraci. A
leaf is wanting between f. 47 and f. 48, and another between
f. 77 and 78. The illustrious author Gale has written some
Domesday notes at the beginning of the volume, and con
siders the MS. to be a copy of the abbreviatio or abridged

5io MATERIALS FOR RE-EDITING DOMESDAY BOOK
Exchequer Domesday Book No. I of my present class. This
MS. formerly belonged to the abbey of Margam in Glamorgan
shire, a monastery which has also contributed other valuable
MSS. to our native collections. It is curious that No. 2, the
Breviate, comes apparently from S. Wales,
Among the many comprehensive works on subjects con
nected with Domesday which demand the consideration of
the future editor, with a view to their republication either
wholly or in part, is the Dom-Boc, a translation into " English
by the Rev. Wm. Bawdwen, Vicar of Hooton-Pagnell. The
MSS. of Mr. Bawdwen are preserved in the British Museum
MS. Department. In i8oy the portion relating to Yorkshire
was printed, and in 1812 a second volume containing the
counties of Middlesex, Hertford, Buckingham, Oxford, and
Gloucester, was published. The whole of the Bawdwen MSS.
ought to be edited by a Society such as that which I desire to
see established.
Separate counties have attracted individual students, and
in the promised bibliography in preparation by Mr. Wheatley
which is to form one of the literary features of this Com
memoration, we shall no doubt find a very complete list of
Domesday publications. The Library of the British Museum
is very rich in them, and a selection of the finest has been
already exhibited to us by the Keeper of the Printed Books.
Among those which demand a passing notice are : — For
Cambridgeshire, the Inquisitio Cantabrigiensis of Hamilton,
edited in relation to the Ely Domesday, as I have already
stated. There is also a treatise by the Rev. Bryan Walker on
the ' Measurements and Valuations ' in the ' Cambridge Anti
quarian Society,' 1881, vol. v. p. 95, and a supplement in 1884.
Cheshire attracted an early antiquary, Sir Peter Leycester,
who published in 1673 a folio transcript in his 'Historical
Antiquities.' Ormerod also in 1851-6 gives in his ' Miscel
lanea Palatina' a memoir of the Cheshire Domesday.

MATERIALS FOR RE-EDITING DOMESDAY BOOK 511
These works are fairly within the scope of the Domesday
Book Society's work for examination, and possibly for re
printing. Beaumont's recent labour on Lancashire and Cheshire
Domesday Book is a work worthy of highest commendation.
Cornwall has no separate and distinctly local edition of
Domesday Book. Derbyshire has however two exponents of
her Domesday. J. P. Yeatman published an octavo, and the
late well-known archaeologist, Mr. Llewellyn Jewitt, in 1871, a
folio Domesday of that county.
For Dorsetshire reference must be made to the important
collections of the late Rev. R. Eyton in the British Museum,
and also to that author's s Key to Domesday,' written with
especial reference to the Dorset Survey. Hutchins' ' History
of Dorsetshire,' and J. R. Planches ' Family of Robert Fitz-
Gerald,' the Domesday tenant of Corfe, a paper in the Journal
of the ' British Archaeological Society ' (vol. xxviii.), may also
be consulted with advantage by the student of Dorsetshire
Domesday. In Essex, we have the work of Chissenhale ; for Gloucester
that of Alfred S. Ellis and Rudder's History ; for Hampshire
the names of R. Warner, 1789, and Henry Moody, a folio
published in 1862.
J. Duncumb's Herefordshire collections will be found to
contain useful notices of Herefordshire Domesday Book.
For Hertfordshire the county histories of Clutterbuck and
others must be examined, there being, as far as my research
extends, no separate work on the Domesday Book for this
county. Huntingdonshire Domesday has been illustrated by
Robert Ellis in 1 864, and for Kent there is the fine large folio
work of the Rev. L. B. Larking, with notes of high value, and
Mr. Elton, a well-known writer on antiquarian manners and
customs, has given in his Tenures of Kent, vi., the Domesday
Survey of Kent.
The work of Henshall and Wilkinson in 1799, in 410, con-

512 MATERIALS FOR RE-EDITING DOMESDAY BOOK
taining the Domesday of the counties of Kent, Sussex, and
Surrey, is worthy of consideration and research. It is not,
however, very often to be met with.
The Lancashire Domesday Book of Beaumont is already
mentioned. Leicestershire Domesday must be studied in the pages of
Nichols' ' History of Leicestershire.' Lincolnshire and Rut
land have formed the theme of a work by C. G. Smith in 1870.
Middlesex, strange to say, still lacks a commentator.
About 1876 Gen. PI. Harrison published a poorly executed
facsimile. Norfolk Domesday has been made the subject of an
analysis by the Rev. G. Mumford, in 1858, 8vo. For North
ampton there is the folio ' Natural History of Northampton
shire,' by J. Morton, in the early years of the eighteenth
century. Of another class is the work of Mr. S. A. Moore,
published in 1863 in folio. ¦
Somerset and Stafford Domesday attracted the attention
of Eyton, whose exhaustive works upon them leave nothing to
be desired. It should be a source of regret to us all assembled
here to-day that that gifted author was not spared to carry on
to its completion his great work of scientific analysis and in
vestigation of Domesday, county by county.
Surrey Domesday was treated by the Rev. Owen Man
ning, Vicar of Godalming (an intelligent antiquary of his
day, as shown by his edition of King Alfred's will), as well as
in Manning and Bray's ' History of Surrey,' 1773.
Sussex has, perhaps latest of all the English counties, been
illustrated as to its Domesday by the excellent work of Rev.
W. D. Parish, Vicar of Selmeston, an antiquary of reputation.
This work, published in 1886, corresponds to that of Larking
for Kent, and that of Beaumont for Lancashire and Cheshire.
Warwickshire has had its Domesday Survey discussed by W.
Reader in 1835, with a second edition in 1879, and by Chas.

MATERIALS FOR RE-EDITING DOMESDAY BOOK 513
Twamley in the 21st vol. of the ' Archaeological Journal ' for
1 864. Wiltshire had a critical editor for its Domesday Survey
apart from the work on the subject by H. Penruddocke
Wyndham, in 8vo, 1788. The late Rev. W. H. Jones, Vicar
of Bradford-on-Avon, and Canon of Salisbury (to whom
archaeologists owe a large debt for the discovery of the early
Saxon Church of St. Lawrence, near his parish church), care
fully edited the Wiltshire Domesday Book in 1865.
Worcestershire still wants an editor for the Domesday of
the county. In the Cottonian MS. of Heming in the British
Museum, Tiberius, A. xiii., is a portion which should be collated
with the original MS. at the Record Office. It has been
printed by Hearne in Heming's Chartulary of Worcester, 1722,
pp. 481-512. Nash also, in his 'County History,' 1782, has
printed parts of the Surveys.
The Domesday Book for the extensive county of York
shire is still inadequately represented, notwithstanding the
labour of A. S. Ellis in 'Yorkshire Archaeological Journal,'
1878, and the earlier dissertation of Whitaker in his ' Rich-
mondshire.' In addition to these detailed works on portions of the
Domesday, there are the essays and brochures of Carteret
Wells in 1756; Kelham, 1788; Nichols, 1795; Hutchins,
1 81 5 ; Grose, 1773 ; Ellis, Introduction ; J. Burtt, 1861 ; J. F.
Morgan, 1858; Toulmin Smith, 1861-3 ; Brady, Maseres,
Sir Thomas Phillipps, T. Gale, G. Hickes, Paine, and many
others, the titles of which Mr. Wheatley has carefully.gathered
up in his Bibliography recently distributed among us. Many
of these require and deserve re-issue for the sterling worth
of their contents.
' No other country in the western world,' says Beaumont in
his ' Domesday Book of Cheshire and Lancashire,' 1882, ' can
produce such a book as Domesday, a register containing the
names of its landed proprietors, with their properties, tenures,

514 MATERIALS FOR RE-EDITING DOMESDAY BOOK
laws, and customs eight hundred years ago (for the year
1886 is the eight hundredth anniversary of its compilation), and
which, remaining in perfect preservation, still forms the great
mine to which the topographer, the legal antiquary, and the
historian must repair for light in their various inquiries. A
document so old and so venerable, and compiled in an age so
unlike our own, might be expected to present many diffi
culties. Since it appeared, society has undergone vast
changes, and very many of the terms of Domesday, having
either obtained new and different meanings, or become obso
lete, have given rise to controversies which are not yet
ended. Notwithstanding this drawback, however, it has an
interest for the general reader, either in the notices which it
contains of familiar places, or of events and persons known
to him by history, and in its occasional glimpses of the
manners, laws, and customs prevailing among our ancestors
which time and distance have now rendered quaint and
picturesque. When the Conqueror, to whom the idea of this
great national rent-roll is due, saw the achievement of his work,
he regarded it as a beacon tower from which he could survey
at one view, as it were in all their length and breadth, the
resources of his new kingdom, and doubtless his heart swelled
with pride when he thought of their extent and of the ready
means it afforded him to avail himself of them at his pleasure.
But to us, to-day, the Domesday Book presents itself in
another and nobler light, for we have learned to look upon
that Book not as a badge of bondage, but as our proudest
national monument, which shows how, one by one, feudal
fetters have yielded to the swelling germ of freedom innate in
the English breast ; and as a landmark pointing to the place
whence our ancestors started on that long and steady march
which has led to the constitutional liberty that our country
now so pre-eminently enjoys.'
Much might be said here as to the necessity for a new

MATERIALS FOR RE-EDITING DOMESDAY BOOK 515
edition of the texts. Grand and comprehensive as it is, the
Record edition is to most a sealed book of insurmountable
mystery. I fear that it, indeed, has many weak points, viz.
the unhandy size of this edition, its great price, its rarity, and
its want of collation. Its indexes require much revision if it
is to be brought up to the standard which Eyton has erected
in the case of the Domesday for Dorset and Somerset and
Stafford, of which his so-called Studies (really exhaustive dis
section and tabulation) are examples beyond praise. In these
days of the rapid multiplication of new societies for specialised
scientific work, there is no subject that one can conceive more
thoroughly national and universally attractive and interesting
than the Domesday Book ; and if the Society could be formed
(as I have every encouragement to hope that it will be, a. propos
of this eight hundredth anniversary of the completion of the
original Domesday,) not only of workers who would undertake
to edit and collate the texts, and prepare tabulations, dissections,
indexes, glossaries, and even maps, but also of helpers and
annual subscribers who would be pleased to derive instruction
from these works when published, and to foster the systematic
efforts of their associates, I feel convinced that in a few years
we should have a uniform series of authoritative Domesday
publications, each complete in itself, which would be a credit
to the literary reputation of our country and a perennial
monument to those who have in any part aided in its produc
tion. I will say in conclusion that a preliminarj- meeting of
the friends and supporters of the Society will be duly
announced, and I shall be glad if any of those here present
who desire to join will favour me with their names or com
municate with me at the British Museum.

vol. ii.

©fficiaf Cuetfoop of ©omesoay (#oofi.
By HUBERT HALL, F.S.A., F.R.Hist.S.
The Domesday Survey as a record is to be regarded as a
return made to a Commission of Inquiry, both into the tenures
and customs of Norman England, and into the resources of
the crown and the value of land throughout the kingdom.
The mode of procedure prescribed to the Commissioners
may be further regarded as a schedule to the Commission
itself; as 'forma inquisitionis, quomodo justiciarii regis
inquirent.' For though it would be difficult to prove that
this or any other inquest of the period depended upon aught
save an informal precept of the crown, issued perhaps verbally
to the Commissioners before the Witan or Curia, the official
nature of the transaction cannot be disguised. Here we have
only an actual expression of the royal wishes upon a certain
occasion instead of the legal fiction of a more elaborate stage
of official development, in which the king salutes his faithful
minister, and requires such and such a return to be forthwith
made for his official information.
The result of this Commission, then, however authorised,
was Domesday Book, compiled from evidence collected by the
Royal Commissioners and their subordinates. As Domesday
Book was of official origin, so it was thenceforth preserved in

518 THE OFFICIAL CUSTODY OF DOMESDAY BOOK
official custody, being probably at once deposited in the
Royal Treasury. And this is supported by an ancient MS.1
quoted by Madox which states that ' Quand ceste chose fust
enquis, fust mis en escrit et porte au Roy, et sont encore
gardez cum en Tresor! Therefore from 1086 till the reign
of Henry I. we may suppose that Domesday Book lay in
the King's Treasury. We next find it as a Record of the
Exchequer. The subject of the earliest resting-place of Domesday
Book has been one of continued interest to several generations
of antiquaries, and the uncertainty which has always prevailed
thereon is an excellent example of the almost insuperable
difficulties encountered in the pursuit of an apparently simple
piece of information connected with the practice of antiquity.
Ayloffe and Palgrave, and before them. ' the' elaborate Mr.
Madox,' who perhaps investigated the matter more deeply
than others, were unable to arrive at any definite conclusion,
and the evidence which they collected has been merely re
peated by later writers to still less purpose.
Three theories may be mentioned as chiefly entertained
by modern scholars upon this subject : — (1) The ' Winchester '
theory, or that in favour of the preservation of Domesday
in the Winchester Treasury from 1 086 to an indefinite date
not earlier than the close of the twelfth century, or even later.
(2) The ' Westminster ' theory, depending on the statements
of pseudo-Ingulphus and other chroniclers. This theory is
in effect that the book was preserved continuously at West
minster. (3) The 'Winch ester- Westminster' theory, which
insists on its removal from the former to the latter place at a
comparatively early date, probably about the commencement
of the reign of Henry II.
These three theories, which have in fact a common origin,
may be briefly detailed as follows.
' Ex MSS. Trin. Coll. Cambr.

THE OFFICIAL CUSTODY OF DOMESDAY BOOK 519
' Exchequer ' is a word loosely used to denote a place of
Receipt or custody of Treasure or Records, or for the transac
tion of business touching the king's revenue. There were
several such Exchequers during the early period, but two only
of importance, those at Westminster and Winchester. At
first the regular Exchequer seems to have been held at Win
chester, probably because the royal Treasure was deposited
there with the Regalia, &c. It was here doubtless that Domes
day Book was first kept as the nucleus of a collection of official
records following the organisation of the Curia in the reign of
Henry I. Here it would be joined by the Great Pipe Rolls of
that reign (of which one only survives) and such official com
pilations or deposited charters as we find in greater abundance
in the reign of Henry II.
As late as the thirty-first year of Henry I. it is believed
that the Exchequer, together with the Treasure and Records,
was still at Winchester. It does not of course follow that
the Exchequer of the Barons was permanently located at
Winchester, but it seems most probable that the Receipt of
the Exchequer, id est Treasury, Records, and clerical staff was
usually to be found there.
Early in the reign of Henry II. the Exchequer of the
Barons was apparently removed to Westminster, which con
tinued to be its headquarters until the permanent location of
the Law Courts. It is probable, however, that the treasure
and ancient records were not removed to the capital for many
years after the reorganisation of the Exchequer under Bishop
Nigel. It even appears that the business of the Exchequer
was still occasionally transacted at Winchester. An Exchange
was made there ' ad scaccarium ' before the King and Barons
in the lifetime of the younger King Henry, and therefore
later than 1 1 70. The evidence of the Pipe Rolls tends to
show the presence of a Treasury at Winchester as late as the
twenty-third year at least. It would seem that treasure was

520 THE OFFICIAL CUSTODY OF DOMESDAY BOOK
constantly conveyed thence to different parts of the kingdom,
or to follow the Court, or by land-carriage to Southampton,
whence it was shipped for the king's use when he was abroad.
In the seventh year we have a notice of the removal of an
area or chest such as was chiefly used for the custody of
Records.1 The entry reads thus : ' Et ad conducendam arcam
de Wintonia ad Lundoniam.' Now some have thought it
possible that this area was the same one that is known to
have contained Domesday Book together with the King's Seal
in the twenty-third year of the reign. It is true, indeed, that an
area was a Record-chest, and not, as is generally supposed,
a Treasure-chest ; for, although we sometimes have notices of
the removal of treasure or of its custody in chests called
' huchiae,' which seem to have been also used for the con
veyance of Records, area is never used except in the above
sense. So the area thesauri frequently mentioned in the
Pipe Rolls was of this nature, for had it not been so it would
have been described as ' area cum thesauro.' Again, we have
the repeated definition of the nature and use of such area by
a contemporary Treasurer of the Exchequer, who also gives us
quite another account of the method of preserving the bullion
in sacks or cases. We may consider, too, the parallel case of
the 'area judasorum,' which was exclusively used for the
preservation of the Records of the Judaism. So, too, in the
very next year after the removal of the Winton area we read
in the Pipe Roll 2 ' et pro conducenda area cum rotulis de
Hurdfordia ad Lundoniam.' These might have been the rolls
of the Justices Itinerant. We sometimes, too, find area used
for the custody of Tallies, which were a species of Records,
and even of the dies of the king's moneyers. Therefore it
appears fairly certain 3 that when the scribe (who may have
1 Pipe Roll, 7 Hen. II. Hants. * Pipe Roll, 8 Hen. II. Hants.
H Pipe Roll, Hen. II., showing the despatch of the area thesauri from Win
chester for use at both the Easter and Michaelmas Exchequers. This evidence is
especially relied on by the advocates of the Winchester theory.

THE OFFICIAL CUSTODY OF DOMESDAY BOOK 521
been writing under the eye of the author of ' Dialogus ' himself,
for he was about that time filling the place of Bishop Nigel
the Treasurer, then disabled by illness, and we know that the
Great Roll was penned by the scribe from the Treasurer's
dictation) entered in the Roll the removal of an area from
Winchester to London he meant a Record-chest and not
a Treasure-chest, for he enters the latter throughout in a
totally different form, as ' ad conducendum thesaurum,' or
' pro huchia ad thesaurum portandum,' l although this is
not evidence as to the transfer of Domesday Book from
Winchester to Westminster in the seventh year of the
reign. .This Winton area would have been quite capable of
containing the ancient Records of that period, which would
comprise only Domesday Book itself and the few early Pipe
Rolls which had escaped the havoc of Stephen's reign, and
which Swerefcird very little later speaks of as being few in
number. On the other hand it may be contended by some

9-
10.

1 Illustrations of the distinction between Area and Hugia.
(A) Area.
Area cum talliis from Winchester to London
Area cum rotulis from Hertford to London .
Area conveyed from Winchester to London .
Area thesauri from Winchester to London
Area thesauri from Winchester to North'
Area monetariorum cum cuneis from and to Winchester

(B) Hugia.
preserve the Barons'

charters when the

For I hugia to
Exchequer was in Wilts
For carrying the king's harness ....
Treasure and the hugise of the Treasury (abroad) .
The hugia of the Treasury to London from Wycombe
The hugia of the Treasury from London to Winchester
For 2 great hugise and repairing strong door of Treasury
at Winton ........
For 1 hugia to put treasure in at North'
For I hugia to carry treasure in to North'
For 2 hugia; and 2 vats for treasure from London to Windsor
For 1 hugia and 2 vats for treasure at Salisbury

115S1162
1161 1 164
1 164
1 180

1 166
1 168
1 169
1170 1 171
1179"7911791185

522 THE OFFICIAL CUSTODY OF DOMESDAY BOOK
that Domesday Book was never preserved at all at Winchester,
but at London. It has been thought possible, too, that there
were two Domesday Books, in common parlance, in use at
either centre ; and that the great Register itself was preserved
at Westminster, whilst the Winton Book, or the originals of
the Survey, were equally consulted at Winchester for local
evidence. Nevertheless, in the face of the evidence from
Records as to the existence of the main Treasury at Win
chester, and the subsequent practice of preserving Domesday
Book with the Seal and other Records in an area similar to
that which appears to have been used for the conveyance of
Records from Winchester to London and other places, as well
as the evidence of Swereford,1 who styles it ' Rotulus Wintoniae
sive Domusdey vel liber hidarum,' and lastly that of the book
itself, in which it is described as ' Liber Wintoniensis,' not to
mention the local tradition, as old as the seventeenth century,
of the existence of a ' Domesday vault ' in the church 2 of
Winchester : it is more probable that it was not removed to
London till late in the reign of Henry II. In the twenty-
third year of that reign, or perhaps somewhat later, since the
' Dialogus ' seems to have been antedated by its author, we
find the Exchequer firmly settled at Westminster with the
Treasure and Records, including Domesday Book.3
Having given the substance of the above kindred theories
as being those hitherto entertained by Madox and other
authorities, I will venture now to advance a fourth theory,
which, while it differs from all the above, will be found, I
believe, to reconcile the conflicting evidence of each.
The city of Winchester was both the natural capital of
the West-Saxon kingdom and the place of coronation and
1 Liber Rubeus Scaccarii, fo. XLVII.
1 Or more probably Castle of Winchester.
* Dialogus de Scaccario, i. 14.

THE OFFICIAL CUSTODY OF DOMESDAY BOOK 523
burial of West-Saxon kings as well as the official seat of their
court and treasury. Here we may suppose the king's ' hoard '
was deposited, together with the regalia and plate, and such
official records as existed for the period. These would pro
bably include the standard work of Alfred, known as the
Domboc, and those counterparts of charters which served the
purpose of a primitive enrolment. William I. made at least
such use of Saxon laws and regal customs as to justify the
belief that the royal Treasury and official importance of Win
chester continued through the early Norman period, and that
the record of Domesday Survey was naturally deposited in
the Treasury there.
Perhaps even in Norman times the transfer of the
coronation ceremony to Westminster has a greater signifi
cance than we have imagined, that is to say, as indicating the
displacement of Winchester as the financial centre in favour
of a new official organisation at Westminster twenty years
before the accepted date.
At this earliest period of its existence, however, we must
not suppose that the Domesday register formed any part of
an Exchequer system at Westminster. There is every reason
for believing that the audit machinery of the ancient Treasury
at Winchester was sufficient for the purpose, and that Domes
day was merely consulted on these occasional translations for
the king's personal information in his curia or council. It is
true, indeed, that the earliest germ of the Exchequer is per
ceptible in these accounts, which were, however, audited not
"ad scaccarium,' but 'ad taleas,' i.e. in the Treasury or Receipt
at Winchester. The Exchequer proper, consisting of two
chambers — Exchequer of the Barons (in two compartments,
' Thalamus ' and ' Solium ') and Exchequer of Receipt (in two
divisions also, ' Scriptorium ' and 'Thesaurus') — was elabo
rated in its full perfection in the reign of Henry I. at West
minster, which became henceforth its headquarters. At the

524 THE OFFICIAL CUSTODY OF DOMESDAY BOOK
same time we find in the Pipe Rolls the old Treasury at
Winchester used as a permanent storehouse for the reserve of
treasure, regalia, and records, and we even find Exchequer
business transacted there by way of audit of accounts, which
formed a special office or ' ministerium ' as late as 1 1 30.1 It
might even be supposed that early in the reign of Henry I. the
Seal and Records, including Domesday Book, were removed
from Winchester to the Treasury of the new Exchequer at
Westminster. This depends partly on our knowledge of the
conservative character of Exchequer procedure and partly on
the authority of the " Dialogus de Scaccario," a nearly con
temporary official record. In the reign of Henry II., having
been suspended probably during the whole reign of Stephen,
certainly since 1139, the Exchequer was revived at West
minster under the auspices of Bishop Nigel, the ex-Treasurer
of Henry I., and at Westminster we find the Seal, Domesday
Book, and other working records still deposited, on the same
authority. There is, of course, the alternative theory that
Domesday Book was still preserved at Winchester, at least
during the reigns of Henry I. and Stephen, partly because
what is considered as an Exchequer existed there and partly
because of the common opinion that the Exchequer was not
established until late in the reign of Henry I., while the
official importance of the Bishop of Winchester and the unrest
of Stephen's reign may have rendered the further detention of
these invaluable records in the stronghold of Winchester
Castle desirable. Against this we have the evidence (which
is here most explicit) of the ' Dialogus,' as well as that of the
chroniclers, that the Exchequer was established quite early in
the reign of Henry I., and that there were numerous annual
Pipe Rolls is a necessary consequence of this early existence.
Now it is a fact of the greatest importance that the bulk
of these rolls had been destroyed before the reign of Henry
1 Pipe Roll, 31 Hen. I.

THE OFFICIAL CUSTODY OF DOMESDAY BOOK 525
II., during the civil wars of Stephen's reign. The author of
the ' Dialogus ' alludes to the surviving rolls as a rarity, and
he describes a scene at the Exchequer early in the reign of
Henry II.,1 in which one of these venerable rolls is produced
with startling effect. Besides this we have the explicit words
of Swereford,2 very little later, that he had seen ' some few '
rolls of that reign, and it is hardly possible that they could
have been destroyed between the date at which he wrote and
that of the ' Dialogus ' during the best days of the Exchequer.
If those rolls were destroyed, how is it then that any survived,
and that Domesday Book did not share their fate ? Because,
it may be answered, these surviving rolls and Domesday Book
were preserved in the Treasury of the Exchequer at West
minster, being required for constant reference ; and strength
is given to this supposition by the date of the surviving roll
which we still possess, viz., that of the thirty-first year. It is
possible, then, that the last few year rolls (being required, as
we know, for the compilation of the current roll) and Domes
day Book (in constant use for estimating the ferms of counties,
&c), being still at Westminster when the Exchequer came to
a standstill at the beginning of Stephen's reign, escaped and
were preserved until the re-establishment of the Exchequer
under Henry II. ; whilst the earlier records, together probably
with the original rolls of Domesday, were destroyed at Win
chester when the town was occupied and fired (and the
Treasury doubtless sacked) by the rebels in 1 141. One fact
at least can be adduced which renders any such conjectures
as the above highly plausible, namely, that in the second year
of llenry II. there were Exchequer Houses at Westminster
so old as to be in need of repair.3
This theory does unfortunately dispose of the supposed
removal of Domesday Book from Winchester to London,
1 Dial. i. 11. '' Liber Rubens Sutiiarii, fo. XLVII.
" Pipe Roll, 2 Henry II. London and Middlesex.

526 THE OFFICIAL CUSTODY OF DOMESDAY BOOK
either in 1161, or 1 164, or 11 70, in an Area such as was
employed for the conveyance of records from Winchester to
London on those and other occasions during the reign of
Henry II. On the other hand, it is far more satisfactory to
be able to submit a definite date (say 11 38 or thereabouts)
for the removal of this and other needful records to the
Westminster Exchequer. Once established there, we need
trouble ourselves little about its future position. The ' Dia
logus ' (which asserts the existence of an ancient Exchequer
at Westminster, and distinguishes between it and the mere
Treasury at Winchester in two remarkable passages) tells us
further that it was an established usage of the Exchequer
that the Seal, Domesday Book, the great year rolls, and other
records, ' quae, consedente scaccario, quotidianis usibus neces-
saria sunt,' should never quit the Exchequer of Receipt Of
course this does not prevent Domesday from having to take
casual journeys 'post regem,' that is, when the Exchequer
followed the king. It may even have crossed the Channel
under these circumstances, when the Exchequer staff, with a
shipload of treasure and records, was summoned abroad on
financial business more than once. But it is far more likely
that the great book dragged on an uneventful career between
the Thesaurus and Scriptorium at Westminster from the reign
of Henry II. at least down to the times of Madox, the great
historian of the Exchequer of the kings of England.
In conclusion, it will be evident from the above statement
that the origin of the mystery is to be found in the existence
of a double Treasury at Winchester and Westminster, while
its solution depends on the identification of Domesday, from
Henry I. onwards, with one of these, the Westminster.
We may therefore summarise this new theory in the
four following propositions. (1) That the working Records
(with the Seal and Domesday) were preserved in the Exche-

THE OFFICIAL CUSTODY OF DOMESDAY BOOK 527
n
quer. (2) That this Treasury^was situate in the Exchequer
of Receipt. (3) That this Exchequer of Receipt was annexed
to the Exchequer proper. (4) That this Exchequer was at
Westminster from early times. The evidence that I have
collected in support of this view may be condensed as
follows. A. Notices in the Pipe Rolls of a Treasury at Westminster
and Winchester in connection with the Exchequer.
Winchester — Geoffrey de Clinton pays 310 marks for the
ministery of the Treasury of Winchester in the 31st year of Henry I.
Westminster Treasure conveyed to Shoreham. For the repair of the
houses of the Exchequer j6s. 8d. in the 2nd year of Henry II.
For the livery of Roger Usher of the Treasury, in the same year.
Winchester — Treasure conveyed to Cricklade in the same year.
Remitted to Gervase of the Treasury in the same year. Winchester
— The king's crown conveyed to St. Edmunds in the 4th year and to
Worcester in the 5 th year. The Regalia to London in the 16th
year. Westminster — Roger Usher of the Treasury receives 2
marks to go .to Normandy in the 8th year. Winchester — The
king's plate conveyed to Berkhamstead against Christmas in the 9th
year. The 'area' of the Treasury conveyed to London against
Easter, and to Northampton against Michaelmas in the 10th year.
A treasure chest conveyed to Southampton in the 15th year.
Treasure and Regalia and Rolls and Tallies of the Treasury con
veyed to London in the 16th year. Westminster — Treasure'
conveyed in carts to Winchester and elsewhere in the 19th and 20th
years. Winchester — Treasure conveyed to the seaports for trans
port abroad in the 19th and. 20th years under the charge of
' servientes de thesauro.' Westminster — Treasure conveyed to
Gloucester 'post regem' in the 21st year. Winchester — 25th
year, the King's plate conveyed to Woodstock ; Treasure many times
conveyed to London and elsewhere by the ' servientes thesauri ' ;
for repairing the ' Ostium ' of the ' Treasury of Winchester!
Westminster — 25th year, Treasure many times conveyed to
Winchester and elsewhere ; for treasure chests and sacks. Win
chester — Treasure conveyed in carts to London (Tower) to be
recoined in the 26th year. The moneyers' chest with the dies

5e8 THE OFFICIAL CUSTODY OF DOMESDAY BOOK
conveyed to Oxford and Northampton and returned to Winchester
in the same year. Westminster — Treasure conveyed in carts to
Winchester and elsewhere in the 27th year, and throughout
England in the 31st year. Winchester — For the charge of count
ing and weighing the Treasure at Winchester, and for new boxes to
lay up the same treasure in and for conveying treasure from Win
chester throughout England in the 32nd year. Westminster —
Treasure conveyed to Winchester and elsewhere in the 34th year.
Winchester — Treasure conveyed to the seaports for transport
abroad in the 34th year.
B. Notices in the ' Dialogus de Scaccario ' of a Treasury at
Westminster in connection with the Exchequer.
' Anno xxiij. . . cum sederem ad fenestram speculae quas est
juxta fluvium Tamensem! (' Dialogus,' Proem.) ' Est enim inferius
scaccarium, quod et recepta dicitur, ubi pecunia numeranda traditur
ut de eisdem postmodum in superiori compotus reddatur! ('Dial.'
i. 2.) l Illic est miles . . . argentarius . . . fusor . . . quatuor computa-
tores . . . ostiarius thesauri et vigil.' (Ibid. i. 3.) ' Clericus the-
saurarii cum fuerit numerata pecunia . . . pecunice saccis et archis et
forulis in quibus rotuli vel tallise collocantur . . . apponit sigillum.'
(Ibid.) ' Commune est eis [camerariis] cum clerico thesaurarii ut per
brevia regis vel precepto baronum thesaurum susceptum experidant.'
(Ibid.) 'Hii tres ... cum thesauro mittuntur cum oportuerit.'
(Ibid.) ' Licet [thesaurum expendere] . . . de liberationibus servientum
inferioris scaccarii et de minutis necessariis scaccarii emendis.'
(Ibid.) ' Qui vero breve regis . . . detulerit pro pecunia . . . antequam
exeat susceptam pecuniam numeret quod si quid defuerit redeat
ad scaccarium . . . et hoc facto solvatur ei . . . numerata prius eadem . . .
a constitutis computatoribus. Si vero . . . ostium thesauri egressus
fuerit . . . non ei respondeatur.' (Ibid.) Quatuor computatorum
officium hoc est, cum in scaccarium numeranda pecunia mittitur.'
(Ibid!) 'Ad ostiarii curam spectat ut . . . diligens sit in custodia
omnium quae ostio concluduntur.' (Ibid.) ' In termino eodem pro
incausto totius anni ad utrumque scaccarium ij solidi debentur,
quos sibi de antiquo jure vindicat sacrista majoris Ecclesiae West-
monasterii! (Ibid!) ' Quatuor computatores quisque iij denarios, si
Londonia fuerint ; si Wintonice, quia inde solent assumi, duos
quisque habet.' (Ibid!) 'Ad ipsum [cancellarium] pertinet custodia

THE OFFICIAL CUSTODY OF DOMESDAY BOOK 529
sigilli regii quod est in thesauro, sed inde non recedit nisi cum . . .
ab inferiore ad superius scaccarium . . . defertur.' (Ibid. i. 5.) ' Verum
plura sunt in repositoriis archis Thesauri, quae circumferuntur et
includuntur et custodiuntur a thesaurario et camerariis, sicut supra
plenius ostensum est : qualia sunt sigillum regis . . . liber judiciarius. . .
magni annales . . . et pleraque alia quas, consedente scaccario,
quotidianis usibus necessaria sunt! (Ibid. i. 14.) 'Porro liber ille
[Domesday] sigilli regii comes est individuus in thesauro! (Ibid. i. 15.)
' Numerata pecunia ... in tuto loco reposta non efferuntur nisi
cum ex Regis mandato in necessariis usibus distribuenda sibi
mittantur.' (Ibid.) 'Cum regis thesaurus de loco in locum ma jorum
consideratione deferendus, vehiculis et hujusmodi minoribus indi-
guerit.' (Ibid. ii. 7.)
In the Exchequer of Receipt at Westminster, according to
the description given by the author of the ' Dialogus,' the
money was placed in rouleaux in binns or sacks, and was de
posited with the royal plate, &c, in a strong chamber or
other place of safety. The Tallies were laid up in binns for
the divers counties, and the Records were deposited in area
or chests. The appearance of such an area as has been
before alluded to is minutely described in the ' Dialogus.' It
was secured with two dissimilar locks, the keys of which
were kept by the two Chamberlains' knights, and it was also
girded with a riveted band which was sealed for additional
security with the Treasurer's seal. Receptacles of this kind
are still further particularised by the author of ' Dialogus ' as
' repositoriae arcae ' ; and it is noticeable that the very building
in which the book is now kept is commonly called the ' Re
pository,' to wit, of Records, and that the word archive to
this day has a similar signification,
Of course, by this date the list of Exchequer Records
would be greatly swelled, both by a score more of Great
Rolls and many other subsidiary documents (spoken of in the
'Dialogus' as 'numerosa multitudo'),soas to justify the use of
the plural area by the author of that treatise. The latter,

530 THE OFFICIAL CUSTODY OF DOMESDAY BOOK
indeed, not only gives us a description of these area, but a
list of their contents. In one were preserved the King's Seal
and Domesday Book, which is described as its inseparable
companion, 'sigilli regii comes est individuus in Thesauro,'
together probably with the more ancient and precious Records,
such as the Great Pipe Roll of the 31st year of Henry I. and
its fellows of that reign. In the other area would be stored
the remaining and more recent Pipe Rolls, together with
the invaluable compilation called Rotulus Exactorius, now
unhappily lost to us, and other subsidiary Records. Such
was the environment, as I have figured it to myself, of
Domesday Book in the oldest days of the Exchequer.
We may fairly take the practice and description of the
Exchequer and its contents which is recorded by the author
of ' Dialogus ' as holding good during the official career of his
younger contemporary and disciple, Swereford. We may
even go further, and speak of this early period on the authority
of Madox as extending down to the reign of Edward II.
By this date the business of the Exchequer had become con
siderably diversified, and the official staff was modified
accordingly. We have at least one notice of Domesday
Book at this date,1 namely the entry in the Issue Roll for the
new binding of the quarto volume at a cost of is. ^d.
In the second year of Henry VI. the Regalia appear to
have been formally placed in a leather case, which was then
deposited together with the Crown in a chest with three locks
in the great Treasury at Westminster.2 Now it seems highly
probable that the Seal and Domesday Book, with other
selected Records, were transferred at the same time to this
new area: for at a somewhat later date we find the Book
preserved by official tradition in just such a chest as this,
which was secured with three locks, the keys of which were in
the keeping of the Auditor and Chamberlains or Deputy
' Mich., 14 Ed. II. Dec. 5. 2 Notes on the MSS.

THE OFFICIAL CUSTODY OF DOMESDAY BOOK 531
Chamberlains of the Exchequer, and we find in the year 161 8
a notice by one of the Deputy Chamberlains of such a chest,
called the ' Chamberlain's chest,' in the Treasury, in which the
Black Book of the Exchequer was preserved, and doubtless
Domesday Book also. At a still later date this chest seems to
have been placed in the Tally Court in the Exchequer, and
in it were then preserved Domesday Book and the Great Seal'
Now it is considered by several authorities highly probable
that the great iron chest still preserved in the Public Record
Office is this very area of 1424, and that the small pocket at
one end was intended to receive the Crown or the Great
Seal. If this be so, we may consider that from 1424 to 1696
Domesday Book was preserved in a chest then known as the
' Chamberlain's chest/ but now more appropriately called the
' Domesday chest' The ' Abbreviatio ' of Domesday was pre
served in a room adjoining to the Tally Court. Here, then,
Domesday Book is supposed to have remained until the year
1696, when it was removed to the Chapter House, and thence
to the Public Record Office in (I think) the year 1859.
The subject of the removal of Domesday from place to
place at different times is in itself an interesting one, though
there is very little evidence in point. We know at least that
in the reigns of John, Edward I., and Edward II. it travelled
with the Exchequer Records through the eastern counties to
York, where it remained on one occasion for seven years. In
the reign of Charles II. the whole of the Treasure, together
with the Records of the Treasury of Receipt, was removed
from Westminster to Nonsuch, ' at the time of the late dread-
full Fire of London.' This removal was authorised by a Sign
Manual dated September 1666. There is an interesting
account preserved in the Audit Office Records,1 by which it
appears that the Guards were sent out to impress barges and
labourers for the occasion. The Treasure was removed in
1 Audit Office Declared Accounts, Bundle 865,
VOL. II. L

532 THE OFFICIAL CUSTODY OF DOMESDAY BOOK
corded boxes, the Records being simply secured in bundles
with ropes. They remained at Nonsuch under guard from
Monday to Friday. The last removal of Domesday was to
Southampton in 1859, for the purpose of being photo
graphed. Domesday Book as a record may be classified as one of
those official compilations which had absolutely the force of
Records ; and it is the only specimen of that class which is
known to us. It owed this honourable position both to its
practical value, and also to its official compilation, preserva
tion, and production before the Barons, or by exemplification
before the King's Justices. The Red and Black Books of the
Exchequer are examples of similar official compilations, which,
however, are to be regarded rather as Precedent books than
as legal Records. And this distinction is confirmed by the
practice of the court in receiving these books ' pro evidentia sed
non pro recordo.' Both these classes are somewhat sharply
defined from monastic or other registers merely acquired by
the Crown with the spoil of the monasteries, or as legal
exhibits ; though we know that the authority of some of these
local 'Domesdays,' such as the lost Chester Roll, was very
highly esteemed.
As a Record the authority of Domesday Book was
unbounded. The author of ' Dialogus ' tells us that it received
its name by a happy metaphor, for that the judgment of the
Last Day would not be more inevitable than the finding of
this Record upon a matter in dispute. That this estimate is
exaggerated might possibly be proved by cases in which its
authority was reversed by a court of law.
There is a curious case reported in the Year Book (M. 34
Ed. III.), in which the Abbot of Tintern's villeins of the
manor of Acle sought relief from certain unusual and oppres
sive services on the ground that the manor was in Ancient
Demesne of the Crown.

THE OFFICIAL CUSTODY OF DOMESDAY BOOK 533
• Are we of the Ancient Demesne or not ? '
'That is no business of mine ; certify the court, if you can, that
you are,'
' We will send to the Exchequer to find out in Domesday.'
'And when this was done, it was found by the Domesday that
they were not of the Ancient Demesne.'
It would appear, in fact, that this manor fell into the
king's hands at a later date, and that this had been loosely
regarded as equivalent to tenure in Ancient Demesne by those
who had not taken the trouble to look up their position before
coming into court.
On the other hand it was sometimes sought to prove that
certain lands were not in Ancient Demesne ; the object being
here to escape the Tallage which always fell more heavily on
such lands than on others. There is a case in the ninth year of
Edward II. in which the tenants of Oswardkirk, in the county
of Notts, which was a soke formerly in Ancient Demesne,
but had been granted by Henry III. in exchange, claimed to
be exempt from Tallage as of Demesne, to which they had
still been subject since the date of the exchange. Instead of
this they claimed to be tallaged with the community of the
county, which on inquiry was conceded to them.
In another case in the same year, certain townsmen of
Rutlandshire complained that, though not in Ancient Demesne,
they were tallaged as of such, and not with the community of
the county. Whereupon the Barons were commanded, * scru-
tato libro Regis qui vocatur Domus dei,' to discover the facts
and give relief accordingly.
Thus it would appear both that there was a tendency
to treat lands which had fallen in manu regis later than
Domesday as though they were properly in Ancient Demesne,
and also that the authority of Domesday was sufficient, upon
challenge, to dispose of any such innovation, whether attempted
by the Crown or the subjects. Moreover, the whole question of
L 2

534 THE OFFICIAL CUSTODY OF DOMESDAY BOOK
the position of towns which were or were not in Ancient Demesne
towards the Tallage was greatly agitated at this time, as in the
great case of the town of St. Albans. Therefore it is interest
ing to notice in the Issue Roll E., 6 Ed. III., an increase of
salary to a clerk of the Exchequer for extracting from Domes
day all the towns in Demesne for evidence in assessing the
new Tallage.
Domesday Book, indeed, must have been in constant
requisition in the Courts. A long list of its appearances,
either bodily or by an office copy or exemplar, might be com
piled from the county Placita and other sources ; and it
has been suggested that, just as we have a Shakespeare
' Century of Praise,' or a collection of every notice of our
greatest poet for a hundred years after his death, so by
' Eight Centuries of Praise ' of our greatest Record in the
shape of a similar collection of historical criticism, including
a tabulated statement of all the cases in which its evidence
has been resorted to, our archaeological literature should be
enriched by a Domesday collection that could not fail to be
serviceable to the cause of original research. It may be of
interest to notice here, as a partial attempt to carry out such
a compilation at a very early date, a collection of every refer
ence to Domesday contained in the ' Dialogus de Scaccario.'
This was the work of one John Bradshaw, a vice-chamberlain
of the Exchequer in the year 1618 ; and two copies of it
have curiously enough been preserved amongst the state
papers of James I. This industrious official fells us that he
used for the purpose the text of the Black Book, and he
divides his matter into three heads, as follows : (1) The famous
description of Liber Judiciarius which has been reproduced in
the Handbook ; (2) Definitions of archaic words which occur
in Domesday; (3) Law cases in which Domesday has been
certified. Such an attempt as this should have a high place
in the sixth century of Domesday praise.

THE OFFICIAL CUSTODY OF DOMESDAY BOOK 535
As a Record, then, Domesday has been certified in almost
every conceivable case of dispute through the whole course
of its official existence. Its mere dictum has decided the
rights of the Crown, the franchises of Lords, the emoluments
of the Church, the services of Tenants, the prosperity of
Towns, and the social condition of Villeins. In the present
day we may meet with many original examples amongst the
buried wealth of the Chancery Miscellanea, and it is curious
to note how, in some cases at least, care has to be taken to
imitate as nearly as possible the calligraphy of the original.
Perhaps this practice will account for several imitations which
may be seen on the outside leaves of the book itself.
In view of this wealth of instances available, it will suffice
to mention one case which is certainly remarkable by reason
of the great constitutional, social, and even national interests
which depended thereon.
< It will be remembered that amongst the encroachments of
the equitable jurisdiction of the Crown in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, none was more keenly resented by the
common lawyers and the Puritan opposition than the abnormal
jurisdiction of the Council of the West, as it was called, which
withdrew Wales proper and the Marcher shires from the
protection of the common law. Volumes of constitutional
learning were penned by the champions of the prerogative
and of the Common Law in the attempt to prove that the four
border counties, or ' English shires ' as they were called, were
or were not partly within the Marches.
Now, amongst all the precedents which were cited on
either side there was none which carried with it such con
viction as a certain case in the reign of Edward III.,1 in which
the Barons of the Exchequer certified Montgomery and
Cherbury to be within the county of Shropshire on the sole
authority of Domesday Book. This case is an interesting
1 Placita coram Rege, Mich. T. 9 Edw. III.

536 THE OFFICIAL CUSTODY OF DOMESDAY BOOK
one in other respects. A foul murder and robbery had been
committed within the church of St. Nicholas/in Montgomery,
and the murdered man's widow in vain appealed the mur
derers before the bailiffs and coroners of the Liberty. Indeed
the names of the offenders would indicate their kinship with
some of the great men of the district. In view of these facts,
the king's writ was directed to the Sheriff of Shropshire,
enjoining him to remove the case before the King's Justices,
since being ' adhuc indiscussum ' in the Court of the Fran
chise, ' non potest terminari ' except in the King's Court.
This was in Michaelmas term of the ninth year. The
Sheriff, however, returned that the said town was not within
his bailiwick, and that the local officers refused to acknow
ledge any jurisdiction other than that of the lord of the
Castle. For fourteen more terms the case dragged on,
collecting round it analogous cases of disputed jurisdiction in
the Marcher districts. In vain the Sheriff was enjoined to
distrain the bailiff's goods — there were none such within his
bailiwick, or their bodies — they were * non inventi ' within
the same theoretical limits. It was apparently at this junc
ture that Domesday Book, as certified by the Barons, inter
vened to put matters right.
At least we know that in Domesday Book the position of
the Shropshire and Gloucestershire marches is defined in this
way, following the traditional line of Offa's dyke. Therefore,
in Domesday Montgomery and Cherbury are in Shropshire,
and Caerleon on Usk, the furthermost part of Monmouth, is
in Gloucestershire. This is all the more remarkable as by
many later grants and charters, as well as by the authority
of Edward IV.'s Council of the West, and of Henry VIII.'s
Act of Union itself, the western parts of the English Marcher
counties were still regarded as private franchises, while in the
present day Montgomery is certainly in Wales. Thus we
have the curious spectacle of an obsolete and illogical Survey

THE OFFICIAL CUSTODY OF DOMESDAY BOOK 537
overriding established privileges, national pre'udices, and
political controversies by the mere force of its indisputable
authority. With this supreme instance of official authority it is
perhaps time to bring this subject to a close. Interesting
indeed would it be to describe the various receptions which
the mighty volume has held in the past. What sovereigns
of old turned its pages lovingly, what Barons of the Exchequer
referred dexterously to cited passages of its contents, how
Swereford or Agard, or Le Neve or Madox, consulted it, and
to which of its custodians we are indebted for that scribbled
learning on the fly-leaves, or even what in modern times (until
this Commemoration-day) has been the preponderance of
American or Teutonic visitors over native antiquaries. These
passages in its life-history, however, like most other merely
sensational details in the history of any subject, could only be
conjectured at the expense of historical accuracy, and would
perhaps be deemed of very little value even could they be
revealed to us.
NOTE.
Since this paper was read a great deal has been written on the
subject in various quarters. Indeed, this paper has proved, as it
were, an introduction to a new and interesting subject of archaeology,
and one that is by no means yet exhausted. The following books
and articles contain further and fuller information : —
'Athenaeum,' Nov. 27, 1886; 'Antiquary,' Sept. 1887; 'Archaeo
logical Review,' Feb. 1889 ; ' Court Life under the- Plantagenets,' ch. vii.
Appt. ; these being by the author of the present paper, by whom also the
subject will be still further discussed in a work, now in the press, entitled
' Antiquities and Curiosities of the Exchequer ' (vol. i. of the Camden
Library). See also the several important articles on the same subject by Mr.
Horace Round, especially those in the ' Antiquary' for June and July 1887.

Qjtn firarfy (Refmnce to ©omeetojn
By J. HORACE ROUND, M.A.
THE record to which I am about to call your attention
attracted my notice as one of the earliest documents in which
reference is made to the great Survey. It is, from internal
evidence, certainly subsequent to that Survey, but from the
fact that those of whom it speaks as living are known to
have been Domesday tenants, it must have been compiled
not long afterwards.
It is printed in the excellent and valuable report on the
MSS. of the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's, for which we are
indebted to the Deputy-Keeper, and will be found in the
Appendix to the Ninth Report of the Commission on His
torical MSS. (i. 65 b.) I should describe it as a list of
invasiones on the estates of the Dean and Chapter. The
passage to which I invite your special attention is this : —
Tetrus Valoniis aufert canonicis 1 hydam terras et pratum cum
ncmore qua exauctores terra eis juraverunt in descriptione Anglia pro
qua scotum et consuetudinem regi reddunt.
Here, then, we have the Survey itself referred to as the
' descriptio Angliae,' and the Commissioners, if we are so to
understand it, as the ' exauctores terrae.'
Now we can fortunately identify the very passage in
Domesday to which this appeal refers. We read in the entry
of the Dean and Chapter's manor of Chingford (Essex) :

540 AN EARLY REFERENCE TO DOMESDAY
De hoc manerio abstulit petrus de valoniis i hidam et vm acras
prati que pertinebant manerio tempore regis eduardi et silvam ad
l porcos. Valet x solidos. (ii. 12 b.)
This Peter is, of course, a well-known man. He occurs
as a tenant in capite in all three of the Eastern counties, and
he was Sheriff of Essex at the time of the Survey. He may
have taken advantage of his official position to commit this
aggression. There are several points suggested by these entries. In
the first place they raise the question of the Commissioners'
judicial action. Did they merely register conflicting claims,
or did they sometimes adjudicate upon them ? Mr. Freeman
seems to take the former view, though he does not specially
discuss the point. Mr. Eyton took the latter view, but sub
sequently modified, if he did not abandon it.1 Much depends
on the right rendering of the passage in the Chapter record.
It would seem impossible that the ' exauctores terras ' can
have been, not the Commissioners, but the ' Hundred,' that is
to say the jurors. Even if we read ' exactores,' such a term
was somewhat obsolete, by this time, for 'reeves,' and the
reeves only formed a small portion of the jurors. Yet it
is difficult to see how the term ' juraverunt ' can apply to a
1 ' The Legati,' he observes, ' held, and in most cases determined Placita, that is,
settled many coeval questions of title, registered doubts and evidence where they
did not decide, and in one or two seeming instances left the decision to the
king.' (Notes on Domesday [Shropshire Arch. Soc. 1877]). But he added a
footnote : ' This was written, either under a misconstruction of particular
passages in Domesday, or else after an insufficient examination of the Record as
a whole. My present conviction is that the Legati never tried questions of
title unless specially directed by the Crown to do so. Their function in cases of
doubtful title was to state all sides of a question, not to decide. On this ground
the title of Liber Judicialis, sometimes applied to Domesday, seems inappro
priate. (See Domesday Studies, Somerset, p. 7. ') This latter remark, we may note,
rests on a misapprehension. Mr. Chester Waters writes that ' each Commission had
authority within its own circuit to examine witnesses on oath, and to adjudicate
on questions of disputed title ' (Survey of Lindsey, p. 4), but, as usual, no authority
is given for this statement, which probably represents a confused echo of the
views of Mr Eyton.

AN EARLY REFERENCE TO DOMESDAY 541
decision of the Commissioners. As bearing on this question,
it might, perhaps, be suggested that we have an instructive
contrast between such a phrase as ' abstulit petrus de valoniis,'
&c. (ii. 12 b), and that which, facing it on the opposite page,
refers to another of the Chapter's manors, ' Radulfus baignard
tenet dimidiam hidam et hundret nescit quomodo earn
habuerit ' (ii. 13 b). The latter appears to leave the question
open, and the former to record a virtual decision of the
Commissioners in favour of the Chapter and against Peter.
One phrase, it must at least be admitted, is positive, while
the other is negative. While on this point, attention may be
called to a very remarkable entry in Domesday : ' Haec terra
fuit tainland T.R.E. sed postea conversa est in reueland, et
ideo dicunt legati regis quod ipsa terra et census qui inde
exit furtim aufertur regi' (i. 181). Here we have a record of
a decision (or shall we say an assertion ?) of the Commis
sioners, consequent on the statements made before them
(' ideo '), and recorded for the information of the central
authority. But the peculiarity of the entry is that it cannot
be a transcript of an original return, for the words ' dicunt
legati regis quod ' must obviously have been inserted at the
time when Domesday Book itself was compiled. They
ought to be compared with a passage in the Eastern Counties
volume, where the Commissioners (though the fact may have
escaped notice) appear to speak for themselves : ' Postea
recuperat/z'#z«.r dimidiam hidam ' (ii. 2 b).
The question of the judicial power vested in the Domes
day Commissioners is one, it must be admitted, of great
nicety and importance. I would venture, therefore, to ask
your patience for a slight excursus on the subject. I do so
the more confidently because there is a record bearing directly
on the question, which possesses for students of Domesday
a quite unique interest, and which yet appears to have
met with scarcely the attention it deserves. I refer to the

541 AN EARLY REFERENCE TO DOMESDAY
Worcestershire document printed in Heming's Cartulary,
which reveals to us the four Domesday Commissioners to
whom that circuit was entrusted actually in session, attended
by their clerks. When we consider the scarcity, one might
almost say the absence, of contemporary record evidence
connected with the Domesday Survey, we must pronounce
this document to be of extraordinary importance. It is
headed ' Conventio inter Wulstanum episcopum ac Walterium
Abbatem,' and describes itself as effected ' in the presence of
Bishop Remigius, Henry de Ferrars, Walter Giffard, and
Adam [i.e. Fitz Hubert] regis principibus, qui venerant ad
inquirendas terras comitatus! Further on in the document
these Domesday Commissioners are referred to as ' barones
regis,' and they with their clerks attest the 'conventio.' It is
probably because Ellis does not describe this record that Mr,
Freeman so strangely neglected it in his volume on the
Conqueror's reign, though it is printed twice in Hearne's
volume, which has been in the hands of antiquaries more
than 1 60 years. Mr. Freeman made little or no use of the
mine of information on his special period which this Cartu
lary affords. The oversight was, at the time, somewhat
amazing, but fortunately Mr. Freeman must have noted these
documents before the publication of his fifth volume a few
years later.
Now let me explain the right sequence of these exceed
ingly precious documents as bearing on the Domesday
Survey. We have first the actual writ of the Conqueror
bidding Geoffrey, Bishop of Coutances, hold a placitum as
his representative to determine a territorial question at issue
between the Bishop of Worcester and the Abbot of Evesham,
relative to the manors of Bengeworth and Hampton. Then
we have, secondly, the Commemoratio placiti, or report of
the placitum held accordingly (and a wonderful record it is).
Thirdly, we have the writ of the Conqueror consequent on

AN EARLY REFERENCE TO DOMESDAY 543
the decision of this placitum, commanding that that decision
should take effect. This last we may note is, curiously enough,
entered twice over. We can date these proceedings as
having taken place between 1077 (or rather 1079, though
Mr. Freeman has failed to detect the fact) and 1082 (?), for
they were subsequent to Walter becoming Abbot of Eves
ham, and previous to the Conqueror's return to England in
1082 (?) ; a fact which I prove from the Commemoratio Placiti,
where it is specially mentioned that William was in Nor
mandy when he issued the writ commanding the placitum,
and despatching Geoffrey to hold it.
Lastly, passing to the date of Domesday, we have the
formal document directed by Bishop Geoffrey himself to the
four Domesday Commissioners in Eyre, bearing his ' testi
monium ' to the fact (presumably in answer to their inquiries)
that he had duly held the shove placitum, and informing them
of the decision arrived at on that occasion.
It was after the receipt of this communication that the
Bishop and the Abbot, in the presence of the Commissioners,
came to an agreement on the point at issue.
Now remember that all this has nothing to do with the
Domesday Commissioners' own inquest as to the privileges
of the Liberty of Oswaldslawe, to which I shall refer below.
Yet what do we find ? Mr. Freeman, evidently misled by
the sequence of the documents in print, jumbles up in hopeless
confusion these two distinct transactions, the Commissioners'
inquest on the Liberty of Oswaldslawe and Geoffrey's placitum
in these two manors which was held years before. He first
tells us (p. 763) that ' the court, the placitum, the scirgemot
was held by Geoffrey, Bishop of Coutances,' and that it ' was
doubtless held during the taking of the Survey,' which, as we
have seen, was absolutely impossible, from the fact that it
was held at a time when William was absent in Normandy,
a fact which Mr. Freeman has carelessly overlooked. I must

544 AN EARLY REFERENCE TO DOMESDAY
protest against this incorrigible habit of using such a word as
' doubtless,' a habit which Mr. Freeman has severely repri
manded in one of the editors of the Rolls Series, and which,
as he himself points out, is a fruitful parent of error. For
my part, when I meet with the word ' doubtless ' in any of
Mr. Freeman's writings, my doubts are at once aroused. And
observe the usual development. Before we have reached the
bottom of the page hypothesis is converted into fact, and we
are told that the ' Gemot ' in which the placitum was held
' was actually a part of the Survey,' and again two pages
further on (p. 765) that it was 'held during the progress of
the Survey,' We are next informed that Geoffrey's commu
nication ' was sent to the Commissioners for the very purpose
of fixing the entry to be made in Domesday,' and that ' we
see the result in p. 172 b of Domesday.' We see there nothing
of the kind. What we see there is something entirely different,
namely, the record of the Oswaldslawe inquest held by the
Commissioners themselves. Last of all is placed by Mr.
Freeman the Conqueror's writ consequent on the placitum,
which was issued, as a matter of fact, years before the
Survey. I have felt it needful to go thus fully into these really
important records in order to establish their right sequence,
and to prove that Mr. Freeman may himself be wanting in
that critical acumen, the absence of which in his prede
cessors he deplores at the outset of his book. That Dr. Stubbs
should have passed over in his great work these precious and
most instructive records is the more singular as he rightly
dwells on the importance of that great placitum on Pennenden
Heath, over which Bishop Geoffrey similarly presided, and
to which this Worcestershire placitum presents so close a
parallel. But keeping to our point, it would seem from these records
that the Commissioners in this contested case confined them-

AN EARLY REFERENCE TO DOMESDAY 545
selves to appealing to the Bishop's moderation and to patching
up a compromise {pactum) by which the Bishop {rogatu
ipsorum) was induced to abandon his claim. The question
having been thus settled, the entries were made accordingly
in the Survey.1 It is curious, however, that the Survey con
tains no reference to this suit, though it does for one of the
manors in dispute refer to another great Worcestershire
placitum held also, like the well-known one in Cambridgeshire,
not by Geoffrey of Coutances, but by Odo of Bayeux.
Before leaving, for this evening, Heming's"Cartulary, I
would call your attention to the fact that it contains besides
an abbreviation of the Domesday Survey of the possessions
of the church of Worcester, which abbreviation, by the way,
might suggest the inquiry whether the existing ' Breviate '
was the first of its kind, two distinct early Surveys which
ought to be carefully noted. The first of these is a detailed
Survey of three churches and some forty houses in Worcester
(pp. 289-291). To this I assign a very early date. My
ground for so doing is that the church of St. Helen is there
entered as held by ' Fridericus,' and that ' Fridericus clericus '
is one of the witnesses to the conventio discussed above, which
was attested by the Domesday Commissioners. But as
Frederic did not obtain St. Helen's till the death of Bishop
Wulstan,2 this Survey must, in any case, be ten years later
than Domesday. We may date it as circiter 1 100 A.D. The
essentially English character of its nomenclature should be
1 The two estates concerned were at Hampton and Bengeworth, members of
the manor of Cropthorne (co. Worcester). As a result of this compromise, which
settled the long controversy, we find them entered, it should be noticed, under the
names of both the parties (i. 1 74, 175 b). Another peculiarity of the entry
(i. 174) is this. Cropthorne is entered at 50 hides, of which only 40 are
accounted for. This is explained in Heming's Cartulary by the fact that ten hides
(in Hampton) of the 50 were free from geld. This is a somewhat suggestive
circumstance as to the system here at least adopted in the compilation of the
Survey. 2 Whose chaplain he was (pp. 420, 425, 427).

546 AN EARLY REFERENCE TO DOMESDAY
carefully noticed. The other Survey is that of the episcopal
Liberty of Oswaldslawe (pp. 313-316). This we may
assign, from internal evidence, to the reign of Henry the
First. Lastly, I have a novel theory to advance on the most
important"' Indiculum Libertatis de Oswaldeslawes Hundred
que a toto vicecomitatu Uuireceastre sacramento jurisjurandi
firmata est Willelmo seniore regnante.' ' This document, as
is well known, is entered in Heming's Cartulary, and has
been printed both by Hearne and Ellis. In it we read that
when the shiremoot had deposed to the privileges of the
Bishop in the Liberty, the Commissioners ' in autentica regis
cartula hoc testimonium scribi fecerunt,' and again that ' ad
hujus rei confirmationem, exemplar ejus in autentica regis
cartula, ut predixi, scriptum est, que in thesaurfo] regali cum
totius Anglie descriptionibus conservatur.' The language of
this exceedingly early document is, it will be seen, precise,
and it is difficult no doubt, at first sight, to understand how
it can mean anything but that an actual record {cartula) was
separately preserved with Domesday Book. Yet observe that
Domesday is here spoken of not by the usual term ' descriptio,'
but as ' description^.' If we are to understand by this plural
form, not the two existing volumes, not even those once
separate portions which related to the several counties, but
the actual original returns themselves, then it becomes possible
to explain this passage by taking the cartula to have been
the record of a separate inquest in the shiremoot (' super hac
re facta ab ipsis inquisitione '), which was first submitted to the
king's approval, and then, its insertion having been sanctioned
by him (if we may so render the words ' rege annuente ' of
1 This ' Indiculum ' is, by inadvertence, described in the Catalogue of Domes
day MSS. exhibited in the British Museum (at the Commemoration) as ' the
Domesday Survey of the monastic lands in that hundred.' It is essential to
remember that it is not this, but a. separate inquest on the privileges of the
Liberty.

AN EARLY REFERENCE TO DOMESDAY 547
the record), was inserted as we see it in Domesday Book in
a quasi-separate form.1
The view that in the ' descriptiones Angliae ' preserved
' in thesauro regali ' we have the original returns themselves
is confirmed by a very valuable passage in Henry of Hunting
don, who, after describing the Domesday Inquest (' Inquirere
fecit,' etc.), adds : ' Haec omnia in cartis scripta delata sunt
ad regem et, inter thesauros reposita, usque hodie servantur.'
Here we have direct contemporary witness to the preserva
tion of the original returns (as distinct from Domesday
Book) in the Treasury, that is, in Winchester Castle.2 The
'cartula,' therefore, above referred to, would be preserved
with these ' cartse,' the same word, we may notice, which is
used for the returns of knights' fees under Henry II.
If this explanation be correct, and I venture to think it is,
it should surely prove of considerable importance, not only
in this particular case, but also as applying to the similar
cases of what I may term records of special inquests, as we
see them embodied in the Survey.3 Good types of such a
Record are those on the Customs of Berkshire (i. 56 b) and of
Archonfield (i. 179),
The conventio attested by the Domesday Commissioners
which has led me into this discussion should be compared

1 On collating the version in the Cartulary with that contained in Domesday,
they are found to be virtually identical, save that the clause ' nee aliquis regalis
servitii exactor,' which is added as a marginal note in the Cartulary (though
printed byHearne in the body of the text), is not found in the Domesday version,
and that the final clause, ' nee jura .... fecerat,' is also omitted. But the
omission is of little, if any, importance.
2 The question of the exact date implied by ' usque hodie ' is complicated by
the succession of editions of Henry of Huntingdon's work. If the words were true
at the time of the latest, and had not been merely retained by inadvertence, their
importance is all the greater.
3 By a singular error, Ellis prints (i. 19), as ' the list of Jurors for the Hundred
of Oswaldeslaw' on this occasion, a. list of names of the time of Bishop John,
i e. 1 151-7). This is but one instance more of the way in which these documents
in Heming's Cartulary have been misdated and misunderstood.
VOL. II. M

548 AN EARLY REFERENCE TO DOMESDAY
with the early and noteworthy conventio qua facta est coram
multis testibus et divitibus hominibus which we find recorded
in the Burton Cartulary (p. 49) for which we are indebted
to General Wrottesley, a member of our own committee. It
is assigned by the learned editor to about 1 1 15, that is within
thirty years of Domesday, and if I had time I could show
you how in this case the king's barons or missi, namely the
Bishop of Chester and William Peverell, discharged much the
same functions as the Domesday Commissioners in the above
conventio! I cannot leave this subject without alluding to another
Kentish placitum mentioned eo nomine in Domesday (i. 2) as
held by barones regis or pointing out that it is difficult in
practice — I say advisedly in practice — to distinguish between
sworn inquests and formal placita. The machinery was the
same in both cases, namely the oath of the jurors.
On the whole the function of the Domesday Commis
sioners is, I take it, exactly described in the famous passage on
the Liberty of Oswaldslawe (Ellis, i. 20) — 'ad inquirendas
et describendas possessiones et consuetudines.' I would ask
you to observe how in the next century the justices itinerant
continued to discharge this same function. Take for instance
the ' leges ' of Chester as set forth in the Domesday Survey, and
compare them with the ' leges et consuetudines ' of Newcastle
on Tyne under Henry I. as set forth under Henry II. (' Select
Charters,' 107). Then pass on to the charter granted by
Richard I. to Colchester, and notice the remarkable closing
clause (for I have never seen it noticed anywhere) : — ' sint fora
et consuetudines in tali statu quali fuerunt confirmate juramento
Buigensium nostrorum Colcestrie coram justiciis errantibus
1 We must remember that the functions of ' missi,' ' legati, ' and justices in eyre
would resemble each other in so far as each of these classes represented the special
emissary of the king. ' Legatus,' however, is applied by Domesday to others besides
the Commissioners for the Survey. ' Legati Regis,' indeed, are referred to under
the Confessoi (i. 377), and as officials strangely resembling justices in eyre.

AN EARLY REFERENCE TO DOMESDAY 549
domini regis patris nostri.' Whence we learn that at Col
chester, as at Newcastle on Tyne, the local consuetudines must,
under Henry II., have been thus established and set forth.
At the same time if the ' Invasiones ' recorded in the
Eastern Counties volume are admitted to have formed part
of the Survey, then formal ' pleas ' {placita) must have done so
too. This I gather from such expressions as 'tamen erant in
manu regis prius quam hec placita fierent ' (ii. 99 b), ' non potuit
venire in placitum ' (ii. 449), of which the latter should be com
pared with ' nee aliquis eorum venit ad hanc descriptionem '
(i. 164) for the contrast of 'placitum' and 'descriptio.' It
should also be noticed that in this latter case the offender is
pronounced to be ' in misericordia regis,' a technical phrase
implying a trial of the case (' placitum ').
But we must now return to the Chapter record. Notwith
standing that Peter's wrongful seizure of a portion of the manor
was thus recorded in the Survey, this subsequent complaint of
the Canons shows that he continued to withhold it. Now, the
entry recording his aggression continues : — ' De eodem manerio
tulit Goisfridus de magna villa X acras prati.' As the deten
tion of this meadow is not among the Chapter's complaints,
we may assume that Geoffrey, unlike Peter, had either restored
it since the Survey or had made some compromise such as we
shall find was effected in a similar case. I was fortunate
enough to come across the copy of a very curious record bear
ing on this ' invasio.' It is printed (from the ' Liber Pilosus,'
fo. 5 a, among the St Paul's Muniments) in the ' Gentleman's
Magazine,'1 and is as follows :
H. Episcopus R. de Valonio salutem. Testimonium porto2
Canonicis de Sancto Paulo quod Petrus pater tuus moriens reddidit
eis quandam hidam de terra quam injuste tenuerat quietam et sine
1 N. S. xxxvii. 372.
5 Compare the expression of the Bishop of Coutances (supra).

550 AN EARLY REFERENCE TO DOMESDAY
omni calumnia apud Cingfort et egit inde penitenciam et quesivit
absolucionem, presentibus Willelmo de Albineio et Willelmo filio suo
et multis aliis instantibus et servientibus in morte sua.1
I believe, however, that Roger de Valoynes refused to
recognise his father's act in this death-bed restitution, and that
the land seized by Peter was never recovered by the Chapter,
though here again his heirs may have arranged to give some
compensation.2 My reason for that belief is this. The manor
of Chingford, in the Survey, is assessed at six hides. The
Canons in their complaint urge that they have not only been
robbed by Peter, but that they have still to pay ' scotum et
consuetudinem regis ' on that portion of the estate which he
has seized. Now, on turning to the Inquisitio Maneriorum of
1181 we learn that the manor, both then and in the time of
Henry the First, was assessed at five hides.3 It follows that
the Chapter had procured a re-assessment, in which the hide
seized by Peter was deducted, so that they had no longer to pay
' scotum et consuetudinem ' upon it. But indeed we have posi
tive evidence on the point. For we find this same Inquisitio
nearly a century after Domesday still complaining of the deten
tion of this very hide : — ' ruthehidam quam occupatam detinet
Robertus de Valoniis,' Robert being the grandson, says Arch
deacon Hale, of the original culprit Peter. We may infer the
same in the case of Tilwolditun, another of the Chapter's Essex
manors. In was here that Ralph Baynard was entered as
holding half a hide, whether rightly or wrongly the Hundred
knew not. This aggression, it may be worth noting, is not
1 The contributor of this document assigned it to Bishop Hugh, and conse
quently to 1075-1085. But the Bishop's initial must be wrongly given, for Peter
did not die till the days of Henry I.
2 It would seem that an interesting field of inquiry is presented by those manors
which were said, in Domesday, to be held.by a wrong or doubtful title, Clapham,
for instance, which Geoffrey de Mandeville was alleged to hold ' injuste ' but which
he succeeded in retaining. An inquiry as to the fate of such manors might lead
to valuable results.
3 Hale's Domesday of Si. Paul's, p. 144.

AN .EARLY REFERENCE TO DOMESDAY 551
mentioned in the Chapter's complaint, which would almost sug
gest that if the question had been tried, it had been decided
against them. In any case they must here also have lost the
land for good, since we find their assessment for the manor re
duced under Henry the First by the amount of this half-hide.1
Though Archdeacon Hale, in his valuable work, alludes to these
reductions of assessment, he seems to have missed the point and
failed to detect their explanation.2 That the explanation I have
given is correct, and that the same process was in full operation
at, and probably before, the Survey, is clear from such a passage
in Domesday itself as ' Tunc se defendebat pro in hidis, modo
pro II hidis et dimidia, quia in parco Rogerii Comitis est dimidia
hida ' (i. 48 £-49). So too with the great Warenne manor of
Niwerde : — ' T.R.E. se defendebat pro LXXVil hidis et dimidia.
Quando W. recepit nisi lviii hidis, quia alie fuerunt intra rap'
comitis Morit'
A very interesting record of a decision effecting a similar
reduction of assessment is fortunately preserved, but is pro
bably little if at all known. I therefore here quote it from
some Battle Abbey Charters printed in a paper of Sir George
Duckett (' Sussex Arch. Coll.' xxxi. 158) checked by Mr. Birch's
transcript of the original.3 Here we have a writ from Henry
the First to the Bishop of Chichester and the Reeves of Sussex,
bidding them reduce the assessment of Alciston from 50 hides
to 43 :
Sciatis quod sicut Abbas de Bello et monachi dirationaverunt
coram me quod non habent illas terras quas dicebatis eos habere,
scilicet, Ovingdene, etc. . . que antiquitus pertinebant ad Alsis-
tonam, et que faciunt septem hidas de quinquaginta hidis que jacent
in Alsistona et in suis pertinentiis ; sic praecipio quod a modo inde
liberi sint et quieti, nee aliquis eis in amplius molestus sit, sed sint
ab his terris et his hidis liberi et quieti, sicut de illis quas nee habent
nee inde seisiti sunt.
1 Ibid. p. 142. 2 Ibid. pp. xii-xiii.
3 fount. Brit. Arch. Ass. xxix. 257.

552 AN EARLY REFERENCE TO^ DOMESDAY
This should be compared with the Domesday entry, that,
in the Confessor's day, —
Defendebat se pro l hidis et modo pro xliiii hidis et dimidia. . .
De his hidis jacent in hidae et dimidia in Rapo de Hastinges, et n
hidae in Rapo de Lewes (i. 17 ^ [2].
The passage is obscure, but one is tempted to believe
that the 5^ hides here enumerated must have been those
which constituted the difference between the 50 hides and
the 44i.
Another point which will doubtless be noticed is that in
both the above cases the aggressions are spoken of in terms
of the hide. This is a more difficult point than might at first
sight appear, for if the hidage of a manor, as Mr. Eyton held,
represented not area but its assessment, it is hard to see
what area, if any, would be denoted by a hide or fraction of a
hide, unless the area in question happened to be separately
assessed at that amount. As I shall discuss this point in
another Paper, I will merely observe that the hide here in
question had not only a separate existence but a distinct name
of its own.
Lastly we should notice the name here given to the
Survey, viz. 'Descriptio Angliae,' observing that 'Descriptio'
is also the name by which it speaks of itself in its own colo
phon as well as in other places, that Ordericus Vitalis speaks
of it as 'totius Angliae descriptio,' that in the Gloucester
Cartulary we similarly read ' in descriptione totius Anglie,'
and that in the 'Dialogus' (i. 16) it is similarly styled 'totius
terrae descriptio.' Moreover, a notable charter of the Con
queror is dated ' Post descriptionem totius Anglie ' (Madox's
' Formularium,' cccxcvi). I would take this opportunity of
pointing out that though Ellis speaks of this charter as
' sufficient evidence of the importance which William himself
attached to the completion of the Survey ' (i. 349), in which

AN EARLY REFERENCE TO DOMESDAY 553
he probably follows Webbe who urges that it implies an inten
tion of the Conqueror ' to have made the completing of it the
commencement of a new era' (p. 6), yet I doubt if anything
more was intended than to date the grant as subsequent to
Domesday, and so to explain its non-appearance in the
Survey. The three other aggressors enumerated in the Canons'
complaint, Ralph de Marcey, Otho the goldsmith, and Her
bert the chamberlain, are all Domesday tenants, though, in
their case, the aggression complained of cannot be identified
in the Survey. Their doings, however, are worth glancing at,
as they may cast some instructive side light on the language
of the great Record.
Ralph de Marcey is the first offender. In the Survey he
appears only as an under-tenant in Essex and Suffolk, and is
not mentioned in connection with the holdings of the Dean
and Chapter. But here we read as follows :
Radulfus de Marceio [1] comparavit j hydam terrae de uno
villano nomine Liveri de Nasestocha Sancti Pauli manerio contra -
dicente conventu canonicorum, et [2] cum ista invasit dimidiam
hydam, quae fuit Sevul cujusdam villani ejusdem manerii, [3] simi
liter fecit de terra Edwini, Winimi, et [4] terrulas circa manerium
mordendo ille avidus occupavit. Adhuc autem [5] dimidium
nemus eis abstulit.
This charge is composed, it will be seen, of five distinct
clauses. We may note, moreover, the varying terms ' com
paravit,' abstulit, ' occupavit,' which should be compared with
the Domesday formula for cases of contested possession.
Though the entry in the Survey relating to Nastock is
peculiarly long and complicated, owing to the number of
holdings into which it had previously been divided, there is
no mention of Ralph de Marcey. It would seem then that
his aggressions were subsequent to Domesday, and represent
a continuance of that grasping policy of which the traces are

554 AN EARLY REFERENCE TO DOMESDAY
so conspicuous throughout the Survey. But the peculiar
interest of Ralph's aggressions lies not so much in their later
date as in the compromise by which they were eventually
settled. The record of that compromise is fortunately pre
served, and (possibly from inadvertence i is printed twice, once
in English (p. 31 b), and once in Latin (p. 66 a), in the
Deputy-Keeper's valuable report on the Historical MSS. of
the Chapter. In the first of these passages it is assigned the
date of 'about 1127.' This date is demonstrably wrong, for
among the witnesses is Otuel fitz Coun, who was drowned
in the White Ship ( 1 1 20). As he appears to have been in
Normandy for some time previous, its date must be earlier
still. In any case, it was William the son of our Ralph who
made this compromise with the Canons, and its gist was that
he should be allowed to hold all the lands at Navestock
which his father had held at his death, on payment of an
annual sum of sixteen shillings.
There must have been, however, a further arrangement
which is not mentioned here, relative to the share of the
hidage at which the manor was assessed, for which the De
Marceys should be responsible. Now this is an interesting
point. We have already glanced at two instances in which
the hidage of the Chapter's manors was reduced by the
crown pro rata in consequence of their extent being diminished ;
we have now an instance of the same process being effected
by private arrangement. The De Marceys, we shall find,
undertook to be responsible for one of the eight hides at
which the manor was assessed. That is to say, the Canons,
or rather their firmarii, continued to pay to the crown on
an assessment of eight hides, but the De Marceys undertook
to be responsible for one eighth of the amount.1 Hence the
1 By a similar arrangement in a different matter, on King Stephen transferring
to St. Mary Magdalen's Hospital, Colchester, 18 acres of the crown demesne, which
had previously been farmed by the burgesses, the Hospital took upon itself a
liability of 3s. $d. towards the annual firma.

AN EARLY REFERENCE TO DOMESDAY 555
firmarii who leased Navestock in 1152 specially stipulated
with the Dean and Chapter that Ralph de Marcey, the then
holder, should be made to pay not only his quitrent, but also
his share of the crown dues.1 Hence also we read in the
survey of 1222 :
Willelmus de breaute cum herede et filia Radulfi de marci tenet
j hidam terre pro xvi solidis per annum et consuevit defendere earn
versus regem.2
It may perhaps be inferred from this entry that the
original Ralph retained possession of the hide which he is
described as 'acquiring' {compararit), but had eventually to
make restitution to the Chapter of the lands which they charge
him with seizing. His comparatio was probably an offence
similar to that recorded in Domesday where Earl Godwine is
charged with buying a manor belonging to the Bishop of
Rochester from two of his tenants, ' eo ignorante.'
As to the hidage of this manor, Archdeacon Hale asserts
that ' there was an increase of seven to eight hides ' between
the compilation of Domesday and the surveys contained in
his work.3 This, however, is not so. A careful analysis of
the Domesday entry reveals a total hidage of 8f hides (44 +
i^-r-2 + f =8|). But of this, two-thirds of a hide was then
in the king's hands. If then the Chapter failed to regain it,
their total hidage would have been only 8^ hides, which brings
us very close to the 8 hides at which we find it assessed under
Henry I. and subsequently.
The next offender is Otho the goldsmith, a Domesday
tenant of some note. He it was, it may be remembered, who
was subsequently appointed to construct the shrine over the
Conqueror's grave. His descendants appear to have succeeded
him as hereditary keepers of the dies, and there are charters
1 Domesday of St. Paul's, p. 133. 2 Ibid. p. 75.
3 Ibid, p xii.

556 AN EARLY REFERENCE TO DOMESDAY
among the Cartas Antiquae in favour, it would seem, of himself
and his son. The passage relating to him runs thus :
Otto aurifaber terras infra civitatem canonicis aufert et ij hydas
cum nemore extra civitatem de quibus pater ejus canonicis per
annum de soluto censu x solidos reddebat, et has terras dederat
Eadwardus de hac urbe civis super altare Sancti Pauli tempore
Regis Eadwardi et Regis Willelmi, cum quo finem de possessione
sua fecerat, et uxor ejus quamdiu vixit quoque anno x solidos
reddidit. Et mortua ilia Sanctus Paulus hereditare debuit, sed quia
Otto senex earn uxorem duxit Sanctus Paulus amisit.
Praeter istas aufert eis aliam terram quam Dirmannus dedit pro
filio suo facto canonico.
This is in many ways a most interesting entry. In the
first place, it introduces us to a form of tenure which existed
at the time of the Survey, but of which no mention, I think,
is made by Mr. Freeman or the other writers who have dealt
specially with these subjects. Mr. Freeman, in an elaborate
Appendix on Leases and Sales in Domesday, specially refers to
the leases for three lives given by ecclesiastical corporations.
But this is quite distinct. It springs from the surrender of
lands to an ecclesiastical corporation, subject to the life in
terest of the grantor and his widow, during the continuance
of which, however, the Church is to receive an annual rent.
It will be found that Mr. Seebohm, in his great work on the
' Village Community in England,' assigns to this practice a high
antiquity and a very considerable importance. He traces it
through the laws of the Alamanni (622) from the Roman
system itself (pp. 3 15-3 1 7), and describes those who had to
surrender their lands as ' usufructuary tenants.' Though he does
not, I think, allude to the working of this practice in England,
we have cases of it at least as early as the reign (apparently)
of yEthelstan, where Alfred the Thegn grants his estate at
Stoneham to the new minster of Winchester, subject to the
life-interests of himself and his wife. The Deputy-Keeper's

AN EARLY REFERENCE TO DOMESDAY 557
report on the Muniments of the Dean and Chapter teems with
cases in point. I need only instance one which will be found
in the same MS. (fos. 40, 40 b). where I cannot but think,
though the fact is not recognised in the report, that the three
charters there printed, one of which is in Anglo-Saxon, all
refer to the same property, namely half a hide of land in the
Chapter's manor of Sandon which ^Ethelward (' licheberd ')
surrendered to the Chapter (probably about the close of the
eleventh century) subject to the life-interest of himself and
his wife Leofgifu, who was a daughter of Colswegen and
sister of ,/Ethelmar, they paying for it in the meanwhile an
annual tribute in money.
But there is something specially welcome in the glimpse
which we are here given, not only of a piece of family history
(Otho's father being previously unknown), but also of one
of the ways in which the immigrant foreigners were provided
for, and of those in which they transgressed. Here is an
English citizen living under Edward the Confessor, evidently
a man of considerable substance, who leaves land within the
city and two hides without its walls to the Canons, on condi
tion that his wife shall enjoy it for her life, subject to her pay
ing them a tribute of ten shillings a year. She survives him,
and, as a widow, is married to Otho the elder, who holds the
property in her right, paying the Canons his yearly tribute.
But his son and successor, Otho the goldsmith, refuses to give
up the land when the life-interest has expired. His offence
was aggravated by the fact that, from the dates, he must, if
his father did not come into England till after the Conquest,
have been his son by a previous wife.
This case ought to be compared with that of another
Domesday tenant, William Goizenboded, as recorded in the
Survey (i. 167). ^Elfwine, a prae-Conquest sheriff of Glou
cestershire, had been granted by the Confessor a life-estate in
a certain property in Lower Guiting in that county. On his

558 AN EARLY REFERENCE TO DOMESDAY
death, the Conqueror ' dedit Ricardo cuidam juveni uxorem
ejus et terram,' this follower being thus provided for in the
same way as the elder Otho. Richard again was in turn
' succeeded ' by William Goizenboded, who retained pos
session of the property at the time of Domesday, and con
tinued indeed to do so after, to judge from the Gloucester
fragment, though it had originally been only a life-estate,
and though, like the younger Otho, he cannot even have been
a son of the Englishwoman.
His detention of the lands which Deorman had given them
' when his son was made a Canon,' is a very suggestive entry,
bringing him, as it does, into connection with a noteworthy
Domesday tenant. It was formerly supposed that Derman
of London, as he is termed in the Survey of Middlesex, was so
styled to distinguish him from the Derman who occurs in the
Survey of Hertfordshire among the king's English thegns.
But the late Mr. Coote ingeniously argued from an Anglo-
Saxon charter remaining at the Guildhall, and granted by
the Conqueror to Derman as his ' man,' that the two tenants
were one and the same. In any case the Derman of this
record must have been identical with the Domesday Der
man of London, whose descendants were clearly traced from
the Clerkenwell Cartulary by Mr. Tomlin in the last genera
tion, the same writer pointing out that ^Elfgar, son of Derman,
became a member of the Capitular body of St. Paul's, which
^Elfgar, therefore, was the very Canon referred to in the record
I am discussing.
The remaining offender is thus dismissed :
Herbertus camerarius fecit eis injuriam de una terra quam vicini
testificantur esse Sancti Pauli.1

' Compare the complaints of the monks of Abingdon against this Herbert :
1 quanta vir ille contra ecclesiam ac abbatem machinatus est ' (Abingdon Cartu
lary, ii. 134-5).

AN EARLY REFERENCE TO DOMESDAY 559
Here again the actual ' terra ' cannot, I fear, be identified
in the Survey, to which the aggression therefore may be sub
sequent, but the terms in which the witness of the district is
appealed to are in close accordance with those of Domesday,
as, for instance, in the case of Nastock — ' hundret fert testi
monium quod est Sancti Pauli' (ii. 13).

^utwnarp of a +QteS3 Q?tt® of t$t
<Beft>a6fe QOrit of (Qeeteemtnt of
©ontteoajy
(^4«A;, vol. i. pp. 227-385.)
By O. C. PELL.
By desire I write a summary of the last paper in Vol. I.
The letter P means the paper ; the word ' Hultsch ' means his
' Griechische und Romische Metrologie ' (Berlin, 1882), and
' Cambist ' means the ' Universal Cambist ' by Kelly (2nd
ed., London, 183 1). The paper shows that the real 'virgae '
by which the original allotments of land were made in these
islands are divided either decimally, duodecimally, or sex-
decimally into divisions of different cubits, feet, or spithamse
without fractions, and that they often coincide with like divi
sions of the pounds, marks, or solidi of silver (P, pp. 297-316);
that these feet of the virgae often also coincide with the foot
of the cloth ells (P, 328 et seq!), and sometimes the divisions
of the land with the numbers, weights, and measures of the
articles sown or rendered (see Swedish Tunna and Tunneland,
' Cambist,' pp. 330-1) ; that in some one of such divisions lies a
clue as to who the ancient occupiers might be (pp. 229-250,
297-298). Thus the Battle Abbey pole of 16 feet statute is
really a Norman measure of 15 pieds du roi of -325 m., and
the acre of 60 x 600 and hide of 240 acres fit in with the
Norman pound (pp. 271-5), and solve the difficulty there
Note. — This Summary is printed at the author's expense. — Ed.

562 SUMMARY OF A 'NEW VIEW OF THE GELDABLE
expressed. The only instance of the amount of a jugerum to
be found in the United Kingdom is the short acre of Sussex
of ioo stat. poles (see Table of acres, post), though the Lin
colnshire customary acre (5 roods) is exactly a double jugerum.
Again (Hultsch, pp. 349 et seq.), there have been dug up in
Egypt from tombs of 2000 years before Christ measure-sticks
on which are depicted — on the same stick — two different ells,
the royal (of 7 palms), and a smaller (of 6 palms), which stood
to the royal as 6 to 7. The Egyptian royal ell was "525 m.,
its lesser ell '450 m., which, treated (Hultsch, p. 94) as a
sesquipedalis cubit, would give the foot of -300 m. (P, 289,
Middelburg, Neuchatel, Zurich, Prague). The Romans, how
ever (Hultsch, p. 355), fixed or ascertained the existence of
another Asiatic royal ell of '532-3 m., the lesser ell of which
(six-sevenths) is our cubit of 456-7 m. ; both ells treated as
sesquipedales cubits give respectively feet of '3 5 5 6 m. and "3048
m., the former being twelve-tenths of a pre-Roman foot (Swe
dish and East Friesland) used by the Romans ("2963 m.), and
the latter our foot of "3048 m. Not only the Irish, Welsh, and
English acres of 7840 square statute yards (P, 255, 262-3), but
also the Irish Tircumhail and the Russian Dessetina (P, 265
383) are founded on these measures. But the Asiatics (Hero
dotus, ii. 106) did not (as the Greeks did) treat ells as sesqui
pedales, but divided them, as Dyvnmal and his Welsh
(Cimmerii) divided this lesser ell or statute cubit, into halves or
spithamas of 3 palms = -2286 m. (P, 290) ' before the Saxons
came to England' (P, 279, 378-79). The statute cubit or ell,
therefore, owes its presence in these islands, not to the Saxons,
but to a people preceding both them and probably the Romans
also. At P, p. 378, it is shown that the words ' feet,' ' spans ' &c.
are merely mathematical expressions, and need not necessarily
coincide with actual feet &c. of a human body &c. ; in the
Ninth Report on Hist. MSS., p. 375, our cubit of a foot and a
half {i.e. 18 inches) -457 m., is called a foot, and the Grecian

UNIT OF ASSESSMENT OF DOMESDAY' 563
foot of 315 m. (the length of a Babylonian brick) is nine-
tenths of the Egyptian foot of -350 m. ; and so on. There
is shown at p. 229 the Roman unit or ' as' : at p. 240 the
Irish Celtic weight: and at pp. 230, 237, 239-241 the Anglo-
Saxon, all duodecimally divided ; at 230-32 the Frank, Norman
and Danish (?) decimally divided unit; and, lastly, at pp. 233-34,
236-38, and 241-49, the sexdecimal division, and its compo
nent parts, of the Mercian. In the table on p. 248, and re
peated/^, will be seen in the manors of Latune and Herletune
one half-hide taxed at 10s. 8d. Mercian, i. e. 128 denarii of
30 wheat grains = 120 Norman denarii of 32 grains. So too
in the Appendix to ninth Report of the Commission on His
torical MSS. (1883, p. 65), will be found (W. D. 2, f. 40) an
isolated half-hide near London recorded in a Saxon grant as
held by Ailward for VIII ' horen ; ' his wife succeeds him in
r 103 at 'X solidos et vin denarios,' and finally one Gallio takes
it for 120 Norman denarii, and 24 more acres for 24 like
denarii, being in all xn Norman solidi. (Note the Tower pound
if of 5400 troy grains is to the troy pound as 15 to 16, as also
are 120 to 128.)
The probability of a primary division of the land by
chains and poles into blocks of stadia or quarantenes, and
of the latter (pp. 258-59, 262, 264, 265, 269, 270-75, 286,
295-97) into acres, is shown with examples and reasons (P,
250-54). There is shown the decimal, duodecimal, and sex-
decimal or binary nature of these blocks and poles and acres
irrespective of stiffness of soil or the capacity of the oxen,
with diagrams and explanations at pp. 254-60: at p. 260, the
division of the acre by statute ; at pp. 255, 258-59, 262 et
seq., 270-75, 286-88, 372-73, the nature of the real rod of
whole numbers without fractions : and at pp. 286, 370-77, the
size of acres, and the fallacy of supposing that the capacity of
oxen or the stiffness of soil has anything to do with the shape
or size. At page 371 the possible meaning of the Cornish
VOL. n. N

564 SUMMARY OF A 'NEW VIEW OF THE GELDABLE
' acra ' and ' ager ' in D. B. is alluded to, and at page 278 that
of the Cornish ' ferthing,' 9 of which made a Cornish ' ager *
of 270 real acres (see Carew's 'Cornwall,' p. no). Tables
for assisting calculations are given at pp. 365, 375.
The part played by the adoption of an old or new foot in
the division of the quarantene into acres is shown at pp. 259,
262-65, 269, 290-91, 292, and the resulting acres, and more
particularly as to the Dyvnmal (or Cimmerian ?) rods and
spans or half-cubits, at 275-280, 287, 388-89, 290-94, 297-99,
300-3, 305. From P, 261 to 286, the divisions of the bigger
units into acres are shown, and the following is a summary of
all the known acres in these isles. Compare this with Tables
of Virgates at p. 308, showing that the number of acres in
the virgate followed the division into feet &c. in the pole or
virga pp. 31 1-3 16. The statute foot is "3048 m. and sesqui-
pedalis cubit '4572 m., the half of which is the span of "2286 m,
or old British ' foot ' on which the pre-Saxon measures are
founded. A square stat pole is 25^2909 square metres.
A square stat. yard is "83612736 of a square metre.
A square stat. pole is 30*25 square yards.
The Continental ' Arpents ' &c. have not long furrows like
the above measure, but are built up on the lines of the
'plethra,' 'jugera,' and 'haeredia.'
Six x 60 poles of feet in number ^ less than the numbers
in column P, = 4 x 40 of that column pp. 254-55 : thus the stat.
acre of 4 x 40 x \6\ = 6 x 60 x n ; but they sometimes
treated a rod as ' bipedalis : ' thus 3 x 30 x 22=6 x 60 x 1 1 : the
statute acre in Jersey is so measured (Appendix Gov. Rep. of
1820, p. 26) and is in fact 3 x 30 x 24 of the foot of -2794 m.
This might prove a fertile source of error to those who sup
pose that an acre is necessarily built up of 4 x 40 of any
named rod. So, too. the Devonshire acre is 90 square perches
20 statute feet long (i.e. 3 x 30 x 20) and the West Somerset

Name of Acre

Stat, yards

Poles

Feet

Foot*

VoL L page

Battle Abbey 
Do. Norman Measure (pied du roi)

455i£455'b
4x404x40
1615
•3048•325
271-5271-5
1 This solves the diffi-
1 culty stated at p. 273
1 This is the Jersey
foot.
Statute (201168m. x 20l'l68m.)
4840974o!
4x404x40
18
22
'•2794 •325
257. 382
383
9740J
4x40
20
¦357
383
Irish Plantation, Welsh, Westmoreland, Cumberland,]
Guernsey, Lancashire, Northumberland, Yorkshire, I
7840
4x40
18
•3SS6
262, 282
Derbyshire, (Hunts ?)  j
11776
4x48
20
•357
268
Cheshire, Staffordshire, Yorkshire, Leicestershire, Wales, )
Ireland  )
10240
8x80
16
•2286
274, 285-6, 382
Merionethshire 
2430
3x40
18
•2286
Anglesey, Somerset, Hants, Oxfordshire, Hereford, Car-i
digan, Montgomery, Brecknock, Radnor, Sussex A 1
18
¦2286
3240
4 x 40
292, 277, 255
Irish (4 times A) 
12960
4x40
36
¦2286
285
In stat. cubits 
12960
4x40
18
•4572
285
North Wales 
4320
9x30
16
•2286
294 or 300
Cornwall, Wilts, Devon, Lancashire, Wales
5760
6 x 60
16
•2286
279»297.3°4>379
Royal Forest (Sherwood)
25000
10 x 100
20
¦2286
Devon arable, add ? once all over England
4000
4x 40
20
¦2286
379. 381
West Somerset .....
4800
4 x 48
20
¦2286
Lancashire ......
9000
4 x 40
30
•2286
276, 278, 382
Dumbarton .....
6084
4x40
18
•3132
,
Scotch ......
6104
4x40
18
•3138
Scotch ......
6i5o|
4 x 40
18
•3148
383, 269, 371
Lincolnshire .....
6050
4x40
18
¦3123
= Ila'redium or 2 jugera .
6050
20 x 20
12
•2963
Cunningham .....
6250
4 x 40
18
3i7S
286, 279, 383 •
Ireland ...
14951!
6 x6o
20
2942
285, 372, 383
Wales 
9384
4x40
20
"350
266
Wales 
1 1 264
4 X48
20
'350
267
Leicestershire . ...
2308J
2 x 40
16
¦307
Sussex (Osnaburg) ....
3327i
4x40
IS
¦279
366
no poles
Dorsetshire (Amsterdam)
4053o
4x40
15
•3067
384
134 poles
Sussex (Bremen, iS:c.) . .
6412
4x40
20
•289
384
212 poles
Sussex and Hampshire
5445
6 x 60
12
•2963
180 poles
Jugerum 100 poles
120 poles
Sussex and Hampshire, {; of it short acre
3025
10 x 20
12
¦2963
Sussex and Wiltshire, JJ short acre
3630
12 x 20
12
•2963
Sussex ......
Irish forrach measure and Russian dessetina
3932^
1 30665
13066*
4 x 40
I2X 72
10 X 60
'S12
12
•3026•2963'3553
265, 383
265, 383
1 30 poles
,, ...
13066I
10x60
14
•3048
265, 383
o >
coen W
w00 £•zH
O **i
O
o w
co O>
Foot in decimals of a metre.
566 SUMMARY OF A 'NEW VIEW OF THE GELDABLE
is 1 08 (90 Anglico numero) of the like square perches {i.e,
3 x 36 x 20). The decimal, duodecimal, and-sexdecimal allot
ments called Virgates are dealt with (P, pp. 297-319). The
ever-varying area! ' hida ' or ' carucata ' is discussed at pp.
319-326. The fixed geldable unit of assessment of Domes
day is considered with examples at pp. 326-345, and at pp.
260, 346-350, are shown the principles on which the taxation
proceeded. At pp. 350-360 is shown how the difficulty
caused by the ' Anglicus Numerus ' was met, with instances.
And at pp. 360-363, under the head of ' Villanus,' are given
reasons for supposing the population at Domesday to have
been very much understated.
At pp. 321-23 are stated obvious reasons why the word
' car.' and ' carucata ' as used in D.B. cannot always in every
manor or even in the same manor mean the same thing.
This cannot be otherwise in face of direct statements in
D.B. in every county : such as that at Chenebalton in
Huntingdonshire (D.B. fol. 205$), where there is said to be
land for XX ' car.,' and at the same time and in the same
paragraph the lord is stated to have V ' car.' and the tenants
xxv ' car.'
In the counties of Devon and Cornwall we can test this
to some extent by the ' Exon Domesday ' (which appears to
be the original return of the juries from which the Exchequer
D.B. was compiled). In some cases the Exon D. gives the
number of the lord's and the tenants' ' car.' and oxen which
make up the amalgamated ploughs as stated in D.B., which
latter car. of course in every case are therefore less in number
than that of unamalgamated ploughs previously stated in
D.B. The following is a list of some of them ; —

UNIT OF ASSESSMENT OF DOMESDAY'

567

Single

Such ' Car ' as re

Joint
' Car.' as
stated in

Name

D.B.

ExonD.

' Car.' for
which
there is

turned in

Exon D.

terra D.B.
Lord
Tenants
D.B.
Aissetona
122a
238
2
*
*
i
if
Woderon
122*
227
3
I
3 bov
Bentewoin .
124*
233
3
12
1 + 2 bov
2
Chilgoret
122a
2l6
1
2bov
O
—
Treualla
124*
225
2
0
2 bov
—
Trewent .
124*
203
6
12
1 + 2 boy
2
Pengalle .
124*
225
1
2bov
0
—
Trenant
124*
203
6
7 ..
1
2
Cariorgol .
123*
203
3
7 ,.
6 bov
2
Trescan
124*
204
3
1
1 „
I
Llanauuernec
124/'
210
2
2 bov
2 „
1
1 2
Drainos
124*
210
1
1 ,,
4 ..
Treluga
124a
224
2
1 2
3 ..
I
Tome .
123a
212
1
0
2 „

Penquan
122*
212
1
3 bov
0

Trewiniel . .
124a
224
2
6 „
2 bov
I
Trelamar
124*
213
1
1 »
0

Linestoch
122*
228
5
1
6 bov
2
Avalde
I24«
213
3
3 bov
3 ..
I
Trewallen .
123a
214
2
12
2 „
I
Treloen
123a
214
2
4 bov
0
i
Trethae
123a
214
2
1
3 bov
If
Douenot
123a
214
1
4 bov
0
?2
Brethei
122*
227
4
1
4 bov
Roshervet .
123*
217
6
1
3 ..
Heia .
124*
223
2
0
3 ..
Sanguilant .
122*
218
3
2 bov
2 „
Horniecota .
123*
219
4
1
3 ..
i|
Wertcote
123*
219
1 3
0
2 „

Roslet .
123*
220
I
0
3 ..
1
*3
Lantmanuel .
123*
220
4
1
3 .,
Lantcharet .
123*
221
2
1
7 ..
2
Disart .
124*
223
1
1
? 3
1 .,
1 2
Lisnewin
124*
222
2
3 ..
I
Argaulis
I23a
229
3
3 bov
0
1 2
Odenol
124*
23S
2
5 ..
1
I*
Tremor
I22a
237
2
4 »
2 bov
I
Landelech .
122*
240
5
5 ..
1 2
I
Tregril ,
124*
243
7
2 „
2
2
Harestana .
104*
201
2
1 2
4 bov
I
Widefella .
I05a
191
2
1
1 + 2 bov
2
* ' 3 boves inter eum et bordarios sites ' {Exon DS).
o means no car.
But ' seeing is believing,' and Mr. W. de Grey Birch in his
' Popular Account of Domesday Book ' (published since my
paper was written) at p. 219 et seq. directs his readers to
MSS. where the sight can be obtained. I have thankfully veri-
568 SUMMARY OF A 'NEW VIEW OF THE GELDABLE
fied his statements in regard to the different number of heads
of draught cattle as shown actually at work at and not long
after the time of the Norman Conquest. In the Bayeux
Tapestry (see Mr. Fowke's work on it) there is shown the
plough drawn by one head. In Cott. MS. Julius A VI. f. 3,
the plough is shown as drawn by tzvo heads. In Cottonian
MS. Tiberius B V. part 1, f. 3, hy four heads. In the Utrecht
Psalter by tzvo heads. In the Harleian MS. 603, 5 1 b, 54 b, of
the date of the Norman Conquest, by tzvo heads. In the
Royal MS. 12 F XIII. f. 7,7, by two heads. In the Chronicon
Roffense, Cott. MSS. Nero D II. 1 1 b by tzuo heads. The above
do not exhaust the list of MSS. where the like evidence can
be obtained. For fuller and faithful description of the above
carucas see Mr. Birch's admirable book. Of course these
heads of draught cattle when joined together would and did
no doubt make at times bigger teams which would drag bigger
ploughs either for the lord or an association of virgatarii.
Before I proceed to my additional matter I take the
opportunity of correcting an error at page 230 of vol. i. The
sentence commencing ' The Anglo-Saxons also in matters of
account ' should run thus : ' The Anglo-Saxons also in matters
of account had originally a shilling of 72 grains, but after (not
before) the advent of the Danes and the treaty between
Alfred and Guthrum (referred to below) they appear to have
divided the Treaty pound, which was one-fifteenth larger than
the Tower pound, into shillings of six peninga, each penig
being 20 grains Troy ' &c. Six of these peninga would there
fore equal the schilling of 5 peninga of 24 Troy grains of the
treaty. (See Tables below.)

UNIT OF ASSESSMENT OF DOMESDAY' 569

THE IDENTIFICATION OF ANCIENT AND
MODERN WEIGHTS, AND THE ORIGIN
OF 'GRAINS.'1
In the last paper in Vol. I. of ' Domesday Studies,' being
the paper written by me, I have shown how the same ancient
square Stadium (answering to our modern quarantene)
divided by different rods containing different numbers of feet,
would give differently-sized acres, the sum total of which.
however, would of course amount to the total area contained
in the square Stadium, and I suggested that if known posi
tive weights of metal, &c, were divided in the same way, the
result would be that the divisions of the weights would in
many cases correspond with the divisions of the Stadia into
acres, &c. At pages 241 et seq. of that volume, and more
particularly at p. 248, I show how an entry in Domesday
Book itself at fol. 269^, in regard to the lands ' inter Ripam '
being the locus in quo of the Cheshire acre of 6 x 60 sex-
decimal rods of 16 feet, bears evidence of that fact. In it the
Stadia or quarantenes are divided with a sexdecimal rod of
16 feet, and the pound itself is shown as divided sexdecimally
into 16 solidi of 16 denarii, as well as into 12 solidi or ounces
of 20 denarii, giving, however, in their totals exactly the same
results (see post)„ I propose now to go somewhat deeper into
the matter with regard to the weights ; but as I go further
back than the introduction of money, i.e. stamped metal, I do
not intend to go into the relative value of gold and silver in
different countries, but I have confined myself to weight,
and merely remark that in some countries they have one
weight for gold or silver and another weight for merchan-
1 A Troy grain, or half chalcus, is '064,792 gramme. A gramme is. 15 '4340
Troy grains.

570 SUMMARY OF A 'NEW VIEW OF THE GELDABLE
dise, and in other countries the same weight does duty for
all three, It is well known that in classical times in Asia, measure
ments were made by original Stadia of six hundred feet {i.e.
400 sesquipedales cubits), whatever the foot might be, this
representing 60 decempedal rods. The whole Eastern system
was founded on the basis of six into ten, but in after times
(and it may be even at the same time) an original square
Stadium of 600 x 600 was divided (without altering the total
positive measurements, and instead of 60 x 600 ten times re
peated) into 64 x 640 or 72 x 720 or 80 x 800 or 84 x 840 or
96 x 960, that is, into duodecimal or sexdecimal divisions
(4 x 16, 5 x 16, 6 x 16, &c, or 5 x 12, 6 x 12, 8 x t2, &c.) with
out increasing the actual area measured, the alteration being
really in the size of the foot, the 4 of 1 5 in the sixty equal
ling and answering to the 4 of 16 feet of one-sixteenth less
than the original foot, or, in other words, the rod of 1 5 feet of
the one answering to the respective rods of the others, as
shown at p. 255 of my paper referred to.
The chief weight among the Asiatics was the 'Talent' or
' total,' and as they divided the Stadium, whatever the length
of it might be, thus 40 x 10 cubits, 60 x 10 feet, so did they
divide the talent, whatever its positive weight might be (and
there were many talents), into 60 minse of 100 drachmae each,
of 6 obols of 8 chalci, and the following arrangement will
show the divisions so made :
I Talent = 480,000 chalci or 10,000 drachmae, each of 48 chalci
= 60 mina? each of 100 (larger, but called by me ' original ') drachmae
= 6,000 drachma? of 48 chalci
= 36,000 obols of 8 chalci to obol
¦= 18,000 aioboli of 16 chalci
= 288,000 chalci.
Such was the original division of a talent in ancient times
in certain parts of Asia. But perhaps at the same time, and
certainly in after (but still ancient) times, these origina

UNIT OF ASSESSMENT OF DOMESDAY' 571
talents were divided just as the Stadia were divided (instead
of into 60) into 64, 75, 80, 84 and 96 minae, and each of such
minae, if multiplied by sixty, would then be the foundation of
another talent smaller than the original talent ; thus, as we
shall see, the Troy talent of 37,320 grammes, or 576,000 Troy
grains, divided by 64 and the quotient multiplied by 60 gives
the Tower talent of 34,987 grammes, or 540,000 Troy, so the
Tower talent of 34,987 grammes divided by 64 gives the
Asiatic talent of 32,744 grammes, or 505,300 Troy, the
hundredth part of which is the Roman pound. So the
Eginetan talent of 37,320 grammes, or 576,000 Troy, i.e. 100
Troy pounds divided by 75, gives the Babylonish of 497"6,
thirty of which give 14,928 grammes, or the weight of one of
the Babylonish stone ducks, or 480 ounces of the Troy pound,
and so on.
We have distinct evidence of this in the statement of
Plutarch ( 1 5), that Solon by adoption lowered the ancient weight
by one-fourth. This he would have done by taking the new
talent at 75 of the original drachma ; in other words, as the
original talent consisted of 60 x 100, or 6,000 original drachmas,
it would consist of 80 (^yo-0) of the new minae {seepost, forms
Nos. 4, 5, 11, and 12, and notes thereto) ; but as we have seen
above that a mina was 100 drachmae, the original talent
would consist also of (as well as of 288,000 original chalci)
80 x 100 x 48, or 384,000 chalci, each, however, reduced one-
fourth in size. Carrying on this investigation a step further,
it will be observed that every one of these ancient talents was
a centum-pondium or a hundredweight, consisting of 60 minae
of one hundred drachmae, as well as 10,000 (1 00x100
drachmae) (before divided into minae).
If then an original talent was divided by 100, it would give
a weight or pond us or pound of 100 drachmae of 48 chalci,
that is, 4800 chalci, or of 60 x 1 x 48, that is, 2880 original
chalci, or 80 x 1 x 48 or 3840 reduced chalci, the sixty of the

573 SUMMARY OF A 'NEW VIEW OF THE GELDABLE
one equalling the 80 reduced of the other, and so on with 64,
72, 84, g6. It is thus, and (it seems) thus only, that the
number and weight of grains in any given pound (as I shall
show) are to be accounted for, whether they be Roman siliquae
of 6 to the scripulum, Troy grains of 24 to the penny, or
' wheat ' grains of 32 or 30 to the same : the siliqua being the
double chalcus, and the Troy grain and the English wheat
being the half chalcus, each, however, of different divisions of
the same pound.
In the course of my searches I have become thoroughly
convinced that to suppose that any known positive weight is
to be arrived at by the multiplication of any number of a
particular grain, say wheat, is a fallacy. A practical farmer
well knows that the variation in a sack of wheat may be ten
pounds, that is, five pounds either way, occasioned by the
variation in seasons, let alone other causes of variation — so
with the African carouba, the Roman siliqua and the lentes.
Kelly says, p. 87 : ' The weights and measures of India are
extremely curious in the minuteness of their subdivisions.
Thus the Ta is divided into a great number of twinklings of
an eye, and the barleycorn into small seeds down to an atom
of the sunbeam.' People have chosen to speak of ' grains ' (as
in 1266 in the Stat. 3 Ed. 51) as a measure of weight, and in
our own country that statute declares the Norman penny to
be 32 wheat-corns in weight ' medio spicae,' but in Fleta, Book
2, c. 12, the Tower pound penny is said to be 32 grains of wheat
' mediocria,' the fact being that 30 of the former equal 32 of the
latter in estimation. But these wheat-corns, on examination, as
will be seen post, are really 32 half chalci of a determinate
weight, and the absurdity of it more fully appears in the abso
lute exactness in the same weight in different countries thou
sands of miles apart ; thus the Tripoli weight is absolutely the
same as our Troy (see post, No. 50), and it is stated to be
founded on the weight of a bean, ours, however, on 32 wheat-

UNIT OF ASSESSMENT OF DOMESDAY' 573
grains I It certainly is wonderful how the two weights should
have been preserved absolutely accurate, and the remark applies
to the Swedish and Madras weight, each of 3401 grammes,
and other cases. Further on in this paper will be found the
examination of known positive weights. These positive weights
I have got from the Reports of the British Consuls abroad,
made early in this century, by order of our Government in
regard to Foreign Standards duly verified. The results of
these reports are collected in Kelly's ' Universal Cambist,'
London, 1831, being a most valuable book. The British
Consuls in many cases report the number of ' grains ' in the
positive weight they are speaking of. When they do so, I
place the number so reported immediately below the name of
the place using the weight, and it will be seen that in every
case they are deduced from the old Asiatic form of 48 chalci
to the drachma, and not at all from the vegetable grains, which
at best can only afford a rough and ready method of calcula
tion. Sec particularly Nos. 22, 23, 31, 51, 82, and the note
after No. 80, post.
As it will be most convenient to show these divisions of
the talent into 60, 64, 72, 80, 84, 96 minas.so that they can be
referred to as forms, the following tables represent them, and
to them I shall constantly refer.
But I must remark that the ancient Egyptians divided
their weights in a different way ; it was a binary or joint sex-
decimal and decimal system, i.e. :

2 x 10 x 10 etc.
4x10x10 etc.
8 x 10 x 10 etc.
16 x 10 x 10 etc.
24 x 10 x 10 etc.

32 x 10 x 10 etc.
40 x 10 x 10 etc.
48 etc.
64 etc.
72 etc,

and so on.

574 SUMMARY OF A 'NEW VIEW OF THE GELDABLE

Talent =1200 ounces, or 10,000 of its own drachma of
48 chalci.

No. 1

No. 2

No. 3

No. 4

No. 5

(24,000 dioboli
of 12 chalci =
18,000 dioboli
of 16 chalci.)

T
"6^
(25,600 dioboli
of 12 chalci =
1,920 of 16
chalci). T
(28,800 dioboli
of 12 chalci
or 6 siliquee =
21,600 dioboli
of 16 chalci).
T
TS
(24,000 dioboli
of 30 half
chalci = 24,000
of 32 of No. 5).

T
STS
(24,000 dioboli
of 32 half
chalci = 256
dioboli of 30
half chalci).

= 60 original (see ante) minae of 20 original
ounces.
6,000 original drachmae of 48 chalci.
36,000 original obols of 8 chalci.
48,000 obols of 6 chalci instead of 8 chalci.
18,000 original dioboli of 16 chalci.
24,000 dioboli of 12 chalci, instead of 16 chalci.
288,000 original chalci, 144,000 double chalci,
576,000 half chalci, and I J minae =
864,000 half chalci.
= 64 reduced minae of l8| original ounces = 60
original minae.1
6,400 reduced drachmae of 48 reduced chalci.
38,400 reduced obols of 8 reduced chalci.
19,200 reduced dioboli of 16 reduced chalci.
307,200 reduced chalci, 153,600 double chalci,
614,400 half chalci.
= 72 reduced minae of i6§ original ounces = 60
original minae.
7,200 reduced drachmae of 48 reduced chalci.
43,200 reduced obols of 8 reduced chalci.
2 1 , 600 reduced dioboli of 1 6 reduced chalci (siliquae).
345,600 reduced chalci, 172,800 double chalci,
691,200 half chalci.
= 75 reduced minae of 16 original ounces = 6o
original minae. 2
7,500 reduced drachmae of 48 reduced chalci.
45,000 reduced obols of 8 reduced chalci.
36,000 reduced oboli of 10 reduced chalci.
22,500 reduced dioboli of 16 reduced chalci.
18,000 reduced dioboli of 20 reduced chalci.
360,000 reduced chalci, 180,000 double, 720,000 half
chalci.
= 80 reduced minae of 15 original ounces = 60
original minae.3
8,000 reduced drachmae of 48 reduced chalci.
48,000 reduced obols of 8 reduced chalci.
24,000 reduced dioboli of 16 reduced chalci.
384,000 reduced chalci, 192,000 double chalci,
768,000 half chalci.

1 A mina and a half =921,600 half chalci. Twenty ounces = 10,240 half
chalci. 2 As all these several divisions equal 60 original minae, therefore No. 4 divided
into 15 ounces or units each of 5 of these reduced drachmae = 16 ounces or units of
5 of the reduced drachmae of the next division, No. 5, because 75 is to 80 as 1 5
is to 16.
3 See 2 above.

UNIT OF ASSESSMENT OF DOMESDAY'

57S

No. 6

No. 7

No. 8

No. 9

T
(288,000 dioboli
of 14 chalci =
25,200 dioboli
of 16 chalci).

T
(288,000 dioboli
of 16 chalci).

T
rtnr
Divided as
follows, i.e.
(240 dioboli of
12 chalci or 24
half chalci, or
180 dioboli of
32 half chalci).

No. 10

_ P
(256 dioboli of
24 half chalci
or 192 dioboli
of 32 half
chalci).

T P
TUT5" = TJ
(288 of 12 chalci
or 24 half or
216 dioboli of
16 chalci).

= 84 reduced minae of 14 original ounces = 60
original minae.
8,400 reduced drachmae of 48 reduced chalci.
50,400 reduced obols of 8 reduced chalci.
57,600 reduced obols of 7 reduced chalci.
25,200 reduced dioboli of 16 reduced chalci.
28,800 reduced dioboli of 14 reduced chalci.
403,200 reduced chalci, 201,600 double chalci,
806,400 half chalci.
= 96 reduced minae = 60 original minae.
9,600 reduced drachmae of 48 reduced chalci.
57,600 reduced obols of 8 reduced chalci.
28,800 reduced dioboli of 16 reduced chalci.
460,800 reduced chalci, 230,400 double chalci,
921,600 half chalci.
= 1 pound of 12 ounces.
100 drachmae of 48 chalci.
60 original drachmae of 48 chalci.
360 original obols of 8 chalci.
480 obols of 6 chalci instead of 8 chalci.
180 original dioboli of 16 chalci.
240 dioboli of 12 chalci, instead of 16 chalci.
2,880 original chalci, 1,440 double chalci, 5,760
half chalci.
A pound and a half =8,640 half chalci ; a
pound and a third, or sixteen ounces =
7,680 half chalci ; a pound and a fourth,
or fifteen ounces = 7,200 half chalci;
three-quarters of a pound = 4,320 half
chalci.
Pound of 12 ounces.
64 reduced drachmae of 48 reduced chalci.
384 reduced obols of 8 reduced chalci.
512 reduced obols of 6 reduced chalci.
192 reduced dioboli of 16 reduced chalci.
256 reduced obols of 1 2 reduced chalci.
3,072 reduced chalci, 1,536 double chalci, 6,144
half chalci.
16 ounces would be 8,192 of these half
chalci, and impound of 9, 216 half chalci,
eight ounces of 4,096 half chalci, and
twenty ounces of 10,240 half chalci.
Pound of 12 ounces.
72 reduced drachmae of 48 reduced chalci.
432 reduced obols of 8 reduced chalci.
216 reduced dioboli of 16 reduced chalci.
3,456 reduced chalci, 1,728 double chalci, siliquae
6,912 half chalci.
A pound and a half = 10,368 half chalci, and
16 ounces 9,216 half chalci, and 8 ounces
4,608, and 15 ounces 8,640 half chalci ;
20 ounces are 2,880 siliquae or double
chalci, or 11,520 half chalci.

576 SUMMARY OF A 'NEW VIEW OF THE GELDABLE

No. n

No. 12

No. 13

No. 14

T P
To~o~ = T5
(240 dioboli of
30 half chalci
or 240 dioboli
of 32 of No.
12). * Note,
75 is to 80 as
30 is to 32.

T
Torr=

p
"ST

(240 dioboli of
32 half chalci
or 256 of 30
half chalci.
See Note *
above. )

of

T _ P
"nnr-tf¥
(288 dioboli
14 chalci or
252 dioboli of
16 chalci.)

T _ P
Ttrrr snr
(288 dioboli of
32 reduced
half chalci. )

Pound of 12 ounces.
75 reduced drachmae of 48 reduced chalci.
450 reduced obols of 8 reduced chalci.
480 reduced obols of 75 reduced chalci.
225 reduced dioboli of 16 reduced chalci.
240 reduced dioboli of 15 reduced chalci.
3,600 reduced chalci, 1,800 double chalci, 7,200
half chalci = 7,680 of No. 1 2 (see note I ),
15 ounces are 9,000 half chalci, 16 ounces
9,600 half chalci, 8 ounces 4,800 half
chalci, and a pound and a half 10,800
half chalci.

Pound of 12 ounces.
80 reduced drachmae of 48 reduced chalci.
480 reduced obols of 8 reduced chalci.
512 reduced obols of 7j reduced chalci.
240 reduced dioboli of 16 reduced chalci.
256 reduced dioboli of 15 reduced chalci.
3,840 reduced chalci, 1,920 double chalci, 7,680
half chalci.
8 ounces of this would be 5, 120 half chalci,
and 16 ounces 10,240 half chalci, 18
ounces 11,520 half chalci.
See Note * above in No. 1 1.

Pound of 12 ounces.
84 reduced drachmae of 48 reduced chalci.
504 reduced obols of 8 reduced chalci.
576 reduced obols of 7 reduced chalci.
252 reduced dioboli of 16 reduced chalci.
288 reduced dioboli of 14 reduced chalci.
4,032 reduced chalci, 2,016 double chalci, 8,064
half chalci.
A pound and a half= 12,096 half chalci, 15
ounces 10,080 half chalci, 16 ounces
10,752, 18 ounces 12,096 half chalci.

Pound of 12 ounces.
96 reduced drachmae of 48 reduced chalci.
576 reduced obols of 8 reduced chalci.
288 reduced dioboli of 16 reduced chalci.
4,608 reduced chalci, 2,304 double chalci, 9,216
half chalci.

1 Note. — As all these divisions equal a pound, therefore 15 units of 5 of these
reduced drachmae of 48 reduced chalci of form 11 = 16 units of the next (No. 12)
division of 5 reduced drachmae of 48 reduced chalci of that division, and it is
owiug to this consideration that the entry in Domesday ' inter Ripam ' is capable
of explanation, and is as I have explained by the entries in Domesday Book inter
Ripam. I reproduce the explanation at the end of these forms, showing how 240
(7,200 of division 11 divided by 30) of 32 half chalci of division 12 must therefore
equal 256 (7,680 of division 12 divided by 30) of 30 of that division.

UNIT OF ASSESSMENT OF DOMESDAY'

577

A pound and a half = 13,824 half chalci.

15 ounces = 11,520 half chalci.
16 ounces = 12,288 half chalci, 6,144 chalci.
8 ounces = 6, 144 half chalci.
No. 1 5
T
Pound of 10 original ounces or 100 drams.
T2T7
100 drachmae of 48 chalci = 4,800 chalci.
600 obols of 8 chalci.
300 dioboli of 16 chalci.
\\ pound would be 7,200 chalci.
Of course this pound might be divided as
the hundredth part of a smaller talent
(consisting of 1,000 ounces instead of
1,200), just as in any one of the above
pounds (see Nice, post, 29, and Barce
lona, No. 81). Priscianus has a passage
in his Liber de figuris numerorum as
follows : ' Idem Livius in xxxviii ab
urbe condita ostendit magnum talentum
Atticum octoginta habere libras et paulo
plus cum supra dictorum computatio
manifestet octoginta tres libras et qua
tuor uncias habere talentum quod est sex
milia denariorum.' 12x83 + 4=1,000
ounces.
N0.16
T _
Pound of 100 drachmae or 4,800 chalci.
TOT?
(Egyptian.)
4,800 = pound.
6,000= \\ pound.
6,400= 1^ pound.
7,200= ii pound.
8,000= if pound.
9,600 = 2 pounds.
1 2, 800 = 2f pounds. •
And so on ; but it is to be observed that
any one of the above divisions might be
taken as the foundation of a new weight
as with the former forms.
Explanation of the Entry ' inter Ripam ' in Domesday, referred
to Forms 1 1 and 1 2, ante.
We have in Domesday Book itself, relating to the Survey
of that part of Mercia lying between the Ribble and the
Mersey, the returns showing the number of carucae that there
went to a hide and their ' valets ' at the time of Edward the
578 SUMMARY OF A 'NEW VIEW OF THE GELDABLE
Confessor, as sent in by the respective officers of 30 different
manors. These ' valets ' are there sometimes stated in Norman
currency of 12 ounces or orae of 20 denarii to the pound, and
in others in the Mercian currency, tallying exactly with the
foregoing forms, i.e. that which gives 240 pence of 32 half
chalci of Form 12, and also 256 denarii, i.e. 16 orae or solidi
of 16 pence of 30 half chalci of Form 12 to the pound or
mark ; but there is a general statement made by the Domes
day Exchequer scribe applying to all these manors carucas
and the thains who owned them to be found at the head of
the second column of fol. 269^, Domesday Book, running
thus : ' Omnes istitaiui habuerunt consuetudinem reddere iioras
denariorum de unaquaque caruca,' being the summing up of
the whole in one uniforn money.
I have extracted from Domesday Book and placed in the
next table below the manors to which the recital refers, their
carucae and their valets as stated in Domesday Book, placing
in adjoining columns such valets in Norman and Mercian
currency, the figures in brackets being mine. As the valet
for one car. is stated to be 32 denarii or 2 ores, it follows that
each Mercian ora or solidus contained 16 denarii, as at
Pampesuuorde in Cambridgeshire (Hamilton's ' Inq. Com.
Cant.' p. 38). We learn also from the valets of Latune and
Hirleton, where half a hide is put at IO sol. and viii. denarii
(128 pence), that there must have been four car. in half a hide
(4x32) or eight in a whole one; the valet therefore for a
whole hide was 256 Mercian pence or one mark, equalling,
as shown in the subjoined table in Other entries, one Norman
pound of 240 pence. This recital of Domesday Book refers
to manors, lands, and carucae as they were in the time of
Edward the Confessor when held by Roger Pictavensis : the
statement of the same lands and the re-arranged carucae
working thereon, when held by the grantees of Roger at the

UNIT OF ASSESSMENT OF DOMESDAY'

579

I hide

= 256 acres, i.e. 8 virgates of 32 acres = 16 bovates of 16 acres.

Single car. = 32 „ 1 „
•Double car. = 64 „ 2 „
Norman, 240 den. to pound, 20 soL to pound, \2d. to sol., 32 grains to den.
Mercian, 256 ,, 16 ,, i6<r*. ,, 30 ,,

Troy

1 ower

Form iz.
Form 12.
! 'Valet'
Norman
Mercian
N moc of Manor
No.
No. of T. R. E. as
Value in
Value in
No. of
The ' Valet '
of Hides
'Car' I stated in
D. Bk.
Denarii
(32 wheat
grains to
den.) 240
Denarii
(30 wheat
grains to
den.)
Grains
stated in
Hitune .
1
4* 20 sol.
256
7,680 Xorrnan money
Stochestede .
(nr) i|™g.
(4) 4 „
45
48
1,440
Mercian ,,
Sextone
1
(8) 16 „
240
256
7,680
31 »!
Chirchedele .
\
'
(4) IO ..
I20
128
3.840
Norman ,,
Liderlant
'¦
'
(4) 8 „
120
128
3.840
Mercian ,,
Hinne .
1 :
'
(4) 8 „
120
128
3.840
jj )»
Torentum
(4) 8 „
120
128
3.840
»» t»
Mele .
;
(A) 8 „
120
128
3.840
j* »»
Uluentune
(¦.
-)
2 64 den.
60
64
1,920
»> »»
Esmedune
a
)
1 32 ,,
30
32
960
»» >»
Alretune
.
1
141 8 sol.
120
128
3.840
>i >>
Spec
(:
)
2 , 64 den.
60
64
1,920
it > 1
Cilderunelle .
(
1)
(4) . 8 sol.
120
128
3.840
j* J»
Wilbaldeslei .
(l
)
2 64 den.
60
64
1,920
»» »>
Vuetone
(i
)
1 3° ..
3°
32
960
Norman ,,
Wauretreu
(<
1)
2 : 64 „
60
64
1,920
Mercian ,,
Boltelai.
h
)
2 ,64 „
60
64
1,920
it it
Achetun
(j
4
1 I 32 „
3°
32
960
)» it
Fomebei
(-
)
4 10 soL
120
128
3,840
Norman ,,
Emuluesldel .
(:
)
2
64 den.
60
64
1,920
Mercian ,,
Hoiland
(•
)
2
64 ,.
60
64
1,920
>i it
Daltone
(•
))
1
32 „
3°
32
960
»» )»
Schelmeresdele
(
1
32 .„
3°
32
960
>> 11
Erengermeles
i 12
(4) 2*
8 sol.
120
128
3,840
a a
Otegrimele .
(4)
10 „
120
128
3,840 Xorrnan ,,
Latune .
(4) 1 iosol.8a\
120
128
1 3,840 Mercian ,,
Herletnne
(4) 10 sol. &d.
120
128
3.840
>* a
Melinge
(J)
(4) 2* 10 sol.
| 120
128
3,840
Norman u
Bartune.
(|)
1 32 den.
3°
' 32
960 1 Mercian ,,
Heleshall .
(1)
(4) 2* 8 soL
120
128
3.840 „
j
.
!
1 | 2,992 ac =
[
I
93J car. of
Total .
"ft
93J pence .
2,805
2,992
"
32 acres to
car. = 1
i
i
1
11 •
grains .
89,760
89,760
89,760
1 nl| hides of
1 256 to hide
VOL. II.
580 SUMMARY OF A 'NEW VIEW OF THE GELDABLE
time of Domesday Book, is placed later on in the same folio,
and shows different carucae and uniform valets in Norman
money. It has been seen that by the valets one hide by
custom would pay 256 pence (8 x 32) ; supposing then that
32 Mercian pence represented the payment for a virgate (and
we know that it did from the entry in regard to Stochestede,
where a virgate and a half is valued at 4 sol., i.e. 3 Mercian
solidi of 16 pence each, or 4 solidi of 12, i.e. in all 48 pence),
it follows that there were 8 virgates in a hide each valued at
32 Mercian pence per virgate ; this at one penny per acre
would give 16 acres to the bovate, 32 to the virgate, and 256
to the hide or pound paying unit. I call the half chalci ' wheat
grains ' because they are so called in the stat. of Edward and
by Fleta. The antiquity of the division of the pound, or 100th part of
the talent, into 256 denarii, according to Form 12, is shown by
the ancient laws of Wales (' Record Commission,' 1841^.90;
' Venedetian Code,' Book II. c. xvii.), being a MS. written
long before 1080, but containing the ancient laws of Wales,
said to have been collected and compiled by Howel-dda in
or about the year 743, and in it we find that Dyvnmal, son
of Clydno, measured the whole of Great Britain 'before the
crown of London and supremacy of this Island was seized by
the Saxons! In it the pound paying unit of land was the
'masnol' (see Ancient Laws, &c, p. 90), consisting of 1,024
erws. As the ' maenol ' was the pound paying unit, each erw
would pay one farthing if the pound consisted of 256 pence,
i.e. the very number the pound would contain according to
Form 12. Taking the divisions of the land as stated in the
Ancient Laws, the following represents it :
I erw = 1 farthing.
4 erws= 1 tydden= id.
16 erws= 1 rander = 4«'.
64 erws = I gavael = 1 6d. or one ' ora denariorum.

UNIT OF ASSESSMENT OF DOMESDAY' 581
256 erws = 1 trev =64^. or threescore Norman pence of 32 wheat-grains
or 24 Troy (see Forms II and 12).
1,024 erws= 1 maenol = 256^. = 1 pound of silver.
The Gavael, therefore, answers to the ora denariorum, as
at Pampesuuorde and the 30 Manors inter Ripam.
At page 91 of the Ancient Laws, &c, sec. 15, written in
the thirteenth century, we read (in language suited to the
money of that day), ' Three score pence is charged on each
trew of the four that are in a maenol, and so subdivided into
quarters in succession until each erw of the tydden be assessed!
therefore there is no erw in the maenol free from taxation, an
expression which is only consistent with a pound of 256
pence, equalling as they did 240 pence each, -^ heavier, 60 of
the one equalling 64 of the other, as in the inter Ripam
Manors (see above) ; so also in the Laws of William the
Conqueror, I. c. ii. forty sol {i.e. 40 x 16 or 640 denarii) in
Merchenlahe = fifty sol {i.e. 50 x 12 or 600 denarii) in West-
saxenelahe, as the foris factum vice comitis. In the same way
the treaty and the money in the treaty between Alfred and
Gufhrum are to be explained. I have explained it at p. 242
et seq. of Vol. I.^>f Domesday Studies, as the explanation is
too long to put here, see No. 45<? and No. 45/ 'post.
I will now proceed to apply the above principles to known
talents and existing pounds, merely remarking that it is mar
vellous how well preserved weights have been — no thanks,
however, to vegetable grains — so closely have they been pre
served that in some cases they are absolutely alike ; for in
stance, the Barbary rottol and the Troy pound, the Swedish
and the Madras drachms, &c. ; and I shall call everything
' exact ' which does not vary more than the fraction of a Troy
grain in an ounce.
I will take Solon's Attic weight first as a standard to
which Xenophon and others refer, and because it happens to
be the best known. The weights of existing drachmas (of
o 2

582 SUMMARY OF A 'NEW VIEW OF THE GELDABLE
which there are hundreds still in existence) show it to be be
tween 4'3735 grammes, 67-5 Troy, and that at which Hultsch
places it, viz. 4-3665 grammes — practically this is the same
thing, as a pound founded on the one makes 5,400 Troy
grains, and founded on the other 5,390, which is exactly the
same within my heretofore expressed meaning of the word
' exact.' Taking 8,000 of these, Solon's drachmae, to find the
original talent, it resolves itself into this :
Original Asiatic Talent, 34,987 grammes, or 540,000 Troy grains.
Talent -=-60 minae of 583-11 grammes, or 9,000 Troy grains.
Talent -7-80 minae of 437*335 grammes, or 6,750 Troy grains."
Talent -j- 100 minae of 349-87 grammes, or 5,400 Troy grains.
* This is the libra mercatoria of Fleta.
We have therefore here as a standard, firstly, a drachma of
34987 grammes; secondly, a drachma of 5*8311 grammes,
when the original talent is divided normally (Form 1) into 60
minae each of 100 drachmae ; and thirdly, a drachma of
4'3733S grammes, when Solon adopted the division of the
original talent into 80 minae each of 100 of such drachmae. So
the talent, reckoned according to Form 1, would be 288,000
chalci, and according to Form 5, would be 384,000 chalci. The
Troy grain, of course, is not derived from it, but from a very
different talent, hereinafter shown.
The Asiatic Talent of 34,987 grammes (540,000 Troy grains).
The identity of this talent is proved thus : under the head
of an Asiatic ' Siclos ' Photius describes it as equal to 8 Attic
obols— taking 4-37335 grammes as the Attic drachma (see
ante), or 67 •$ Troy ; and dividing it by six to get the obol,
we have 72888 grammes as the Attic obol ; this multiplied by
8 gives 5-83104 as the ' Siclos ; ' this multiplied by 100 gives
the mina (100 drachmae), or 583-104 ; and this multiplied by
60 gives the talent of 34986-24 (540,000 Troy) ; it is also the
contents of 8000 Attic drachmae of 4-37335 grammes or 7500
Eubcean drachmae of 4-665.

UNIT OF ASSESSMENT OF DOMESDAY'

583

Error

Place

Weight

Talent of 34,987 grammes

17

Exact

Exact

England

Pound

England

Libra

Tower (Talent divided by loo) :
349 '87 grammes (or 5400 Troy),
divided into 12 ounces of 3456
chalci or 6912 half chalci, Form
10, the half chalcos or grain would
therefore be '05062 grammes.
This is the Tower Pound of 24
solidi of 12 peninga = 288, if the
peninga were of 24 half chalci of
Form 10. If the pound was divi
ded according to Form 8 into 240
peninga, Of course there would be
5760 half chalci of '0607 grammes,
and the pound would divide into
240 denarii of 24 half chalci of
Form 8 to the denarius ; but I ima
gine that the Anglo-Saxons, using
the duodecimal aggregation into a
unit, divided their pound into 288
peninga like the Romans. This
pound I have no doubt the Saxons
found here when they came ; it is,
as we have seen, formed on the
same talent as Solon's Attic
drachmae which have been dug
up in England. See also Shortt's
Sylva Antiqua Iscana, p. 81, quot
ing Mr. C. R. Smith. An engrav
ing of Mr. Roach Smith's (pro
bably a tetradrachm) Greek coin
and an account of its finding are to
be found in the History and Anti
quities of Rochester, 1 772, at p.
274.
Mercatoria of Fleta, 437 '335
grammes, or 8640 half chalci of
Form 10 (6750 Troy), i.e. fifteen
ounces or solidi of 24 peninga of 24
half chalci. This is the pound of 1 5
ounces, marked 1 5, in pre-Norman
times ; it is Solon's Attic mina,
60 of which made his reduced
talent of 26,232 grammes, and
eighty the original talent, or 34,987
grammes. The identity of it is
confirmed by the following extract
to be found at page 33 of the Ap
pendix to the Government Reports
on Weights and Measures, 1820,
under the word ' Stone ' of lead :
' 15 pounds each, 25 shillings in
weight, 3 1 Ed. I . : that is, each of
6750 grains.' This of course is
the Norman arrangement ; the

584 SUMMARY OF A ' NEW VIEW OF THE GELDABLE

Error

Place

Weight

Talent of 34,987 grammes

Exact

Exact

Sayde
(Syria).
Kelly, p. 227

Arragon, 6144.
Kelly, p. 23

Rottolo

Pound

19

Exact

Exact

Exact

1 Troy
grain in
ounce out

Brunswick, 8192.
Kelly, p. 54

Leipsic, 7680.
Kelly, p. 205

Frankfort, 8192.
Kelly, p. 148

Cologne, 8192.
Kelly, p. 71

Pound

Pound

Pound

Pound

Saxon would be 30 shillings of 288
half chalci of Form 10 (see the
division of No. 83) ; Pollux calls
it the Italian mina (see also No.
86). The following are all derived
from the same talent (see note after
No. 80 and No. 83).
Of Acre, 2186 -o82grammesor43, 200
half chalci (33,740 Troy). This
is 5 of Fleta's librae mercatoriae,
see above ; within two Troy grains
in the pound, i.e. 6748 (Troy, in
stead of 6750 Troy). There was
another rottolo of 60 Troy ounces
of 10 drams to ounce.
Pensil (talent divided by 100) : 349-8
grammes of 6144 grains (half
chalci, Form 9), (5398 Troy). This
is within 2 grains of the Tower
pound of 5400 Troy. This is
divided into 12 ounces of 192 ari-
enses each, of 32 grains of -05694
grammes. The mark of 8 ounces
is 50 Troy grains light, and is that
of Spain.
Commercial (talent divided by 75) :
466-891 or 8192 grains or half
chalci of -057 grammes, Form 9
(7206 Troy). This is divided into
1024 hellars or 16 ounces of 32
pfenings of 16 half chalci each.
Commercial, 466-8 grammes (talent
divided by 75), or 7680 half chalci
of -06079 grammes, Form 8 (7206
Troy). Note that 512 of 15 = 256
of 30 ; there are 16 ounces of 512
pfenings.
Commercial (talent divided by 75) :
467-15 grammes or 8192 half
chalci, -0571 grammes, Form 9
(7210 Troy), divided into 1024
hellars and 512 pfenings.
Commercial (talent divided by 75) :
467-538 grammes or 8192 grains
or half chalci of "0571 grammes,
Form 9 (7216 Troy). Divided
into 16 ounces of 512 pfenings.
The mark of 8 ounces is half this.
Each of the half chalci is sub
divided into 16 parts, and each 16
half chalci equal 17 eschen. So
here we have the weight of the
half chalcos, and the weight of the
vegetable grain as supposed.

UNIT OF ASSESSMENT OF DOMESDAY'

585

ErTor

Place

Weight

Talent of 34,987 grammes

23

Ditto

Hamburg, 8192.
Kelly, p. 170

Pound

Gold and silver (talent divided by
75): 467-538 or 8192 half chalci
of '0571 grammes, Form 9 as
above ; but note this is accommo
dated to the Dutch esch, which is
i lighter, so that there would be
544 eschen instead of 512 grains
to an ounce. 512 + a sixteenth =
544 : there are therefore 8704
eschen, or 8192 half chalci of
Form 9, called at Hamburg Richt
pfenings. See Cologne above, and
see Zurich post, No. 31.

24

111 Troy

Berlin,

Pound

Commercial (talent divided by 75),

out

7680.
Kelly, p. 34

i.e. 468-50 grammes, or 7680 half
chalci of Form 8 (7231 Troy),
divided into 512 pfenings or 16
ounces.

25

' ift Troy

Stettin.

Pound

Commercial talent divided by 75) :

grain out in
Kelly, p. 324
467-7 grammes of 16 ounces (7219
ounce
Troy). Divided as at Cologne.
26
Ij Troy
WlRTEM-
Pound
Commercial (talent divided by 75) :
grain out in
BERG.
467-8 grammes of 16 ounces (7220
ounce
Kelly, p. 369
Troy). Divided as at Cologne.
27
2 Troy
K6NIGSBERG,
Pound
Commercial (talent divided by 75) :
grains out
7680.
468-5 grammes, 7680 grains or
in ounce
Kelly, p. 198
half chalci, Form 8 (7231 Troy),
^chalcos= -061 gramme, reckoned
as at Berlin by an' edict of 1714.
28
1 i Troy
AlX LA Cha-
Pound
Commercial (talent divided by 75) :
grain out
PELLE.
468-705 grammes (7234 Troy), 512
in ounce
Kelly, p. 2
pfenings in 16 ounces.
29
Exact
St. Gall.
Kelly, p. 350.
Pound
(Heavy) (talent divided by 60) or the
mina of 584-164 grammes (9016
Troy), pound of 20 ounces. This
is the original mina of the talent ;
34,987 grammes -*- 60 = 583-1
grammes.
30
I& Troy
grain out in
ounce
Ditto.
Pound
(Light) (talent divided by 75) :
464*822 grammes (7175 Troy) in
16 ounces.
31
Exact
Zurich, 8192.
Kelly, p. 375
Pound
Light (talent divided by 75) : 468-6
grammes, 8192 grains or half
chalci of Form 9 (7233 Troy).
This pound is 16 ounces, but this
is accommodated to the Zurich
grain, which is ^ lighter, so there
are 8704 Zurich grains (see Ham
burg, ante, No. 23 of Form 9),
and 17 of such grains in 16 of the
8192 and in the 512 pfenings.
32
Ditto, 9216
Pound
Heavy. This is 18 ounces instead
of 16, and note that in both 16
grains (17) are put into the penny,
586 SUMMARY OF A 'NEW VIEW OF THE GELDABLE

Error

Place

Weight

Talent of 34,987 grammes

and in the pound there are 9216
33
i| Tr°y
Candia.
Rottello
of Form 9, 8138 Troy grains.
grain out in
Kelly, p. 62
527-25 grammes, 18 ounces of the
ounce
Tower pound (8143 Troy).
34
Exact
Ul.M.
Kelly, p. 352
Pound
Commercial (talent divided by 75) :
468 -7 grammes (7234 Troy). This
is 16 ounces or two marks.
35
2| Troy
Rotterdam.
Pound
Light (talent divided by 75) : 469-38
grains out
Kelly, p. 297
grammes, or 7243 Troy grains, or
in ounce
7680 ha'f chalci of Form 8, of
¦06 1 1 grammes.
36
l& Troy
Genoa,
Peso
Grosso (talent divided by 100) :
grain out in
6912.
348-6 grammes, 6912 grains or
ounce
Kelly, p. 159
half chalci, Form 10, of "05043
grammes (5381 Troy). This is
divided into 12 ounces of 24 de
narii of 20 grains, like the Anglo-
Saxon, or 288 in all. The talent
of 34,860 grammes was also divi
ded into iooRottoliof 18 ounces,
or 1 50 pounds of 1 2 ounces. There
was a Peso Sotile of 316-963, of
which the peso grosso is ten per
cent, heavier.
37
3f Troy
Mecca.
Rottolo
Talent (divided by 75): '462-874
grains out
Kelly, p. 226
grammes in 15 ounces (7144 Troy
in ounce
grains). Note, divided into 15
instead of 16.
38
2| Troy
Betelfagui.
Rattlo
Talent (divided by 75) : 462-198 in
grains out
Kelly, p. 40
16 ounces Vakias (7136 Troy),
in ounce
7680 half chalci (Form 3), of
•06019 grammes.
39
4 Troy
Strasburg.
Livre
470778 (7266 Troy) or 7680 half
grains out
Kelly, p. 327
chalci of Form 8, of "0613 gram
in ounce
mes.
40
Exact
Oviedo.
Keily, p. 226,
vol. ii
Talent
Or 6990-996 grammes, or 20 pounds
of 349-549. In 12 ounces like the
Anglo-Saxons, 5395 Troy grains
or 6912 half chalci of Form 10.
41
5 Troy
Galicia.
Pound
Commercial (talent divided by 60) :
grains out
Kelly, p. 150
576-0 grammes of 20 ounces.
in ounce
Sixty of this is the Tower talent,
viz., 60 x 5760 grammes = 34,560
grammes, less 5 Troy grains in
ounce. Twelve hundred ounces
in talent. See No. 44.
42
5 Troy
Constance.
Pound
Commercial (talent divided by 75) :
grains out
Kelly, vol. ii.
472 grammes (7285 Troy grains).
in ounce
p. 224
43
5 Troy
Erfurt.
Mark
Exactly the same.
grains out
Augsburg.
Eight ounces of the talent (or talent
in ounce
Kelly, p. 25
divided by 150): 236-036 grammes
or 3840 half chalci of -0614
grammes, Form 8. Divided into
UNIT OF ASSESSMENT OF DOMESDAY'

587

Error

Place

Weight

Talent 0^34,987 grammes

44 45

5 Troy
grains out
in ounce
2| Troy
grains out
in ounce

Japan.
Kelly, p. 197
Alexandria Kelly, p. 4,
and vol. ii. p.
224

The
Catty
Rottolo

256 pfenings of 15 half chalci and
8 ounces. There are 3643 Troy
grains.
Talent (divided by 60): 589-607
grammes of 20 ounces of 29-48
grammes to ounce. 9100 Troy
grains or 455 to ounce. See No.
4i-
Zauro, double (talent divided by
75) : 938*5121 grammes, 2 pounds
each of 16 ounces of 469-256
grammes. Total, 14,485. Troy
grains, 15,360 chalci, Form 8, of
¦061 1 grammes.

It is to be observed that (in all the above cases, when the
original talent of 34,987 grammes is divided by 75) the same
result would be attained by dividing the original Troy talent
of 37,320 grammes by 80 ; both divisions produce 100 of the
drachma of 4*665, which is the Eubcean drachma, so it is quite
possible that both weights were in England side by side.
The talent of 34,987, divided by 80, produces 100 of Solon's
Attic drachma of 43,665, or 4"373, as already stated, and the
talent of 32,744 {see post), divided by 75, would produce the
same result.

The JEginetan, Syro-Phoenician, Assyrian, and Chinese Talent
°f 37-32° grammes, or 576,000 Troy grains, or 10,000
drachma of 37320.
This talent is well identified by existing drachmae of ^Egina
of 6-22 grammes and 96 Troy grains, i.e. 60x622 grammes
(the mina) = 37,3 20 the talent (see Hussey, Weights and
Measures, p. 59), and also by the prevalence in old times on
the sea-coast of Asia Minor and the Islands of the little gold
piece of 40 Troy grains (Hussey, p. 72), or 2*59168 grammes,
144 of which make exactly 373'2 grammes, and 100 of these
latter the talent. See also Archaological Review, vol. iv. p. 55,
description of 433 small gold ringlets, each weighing 16 Troy

588 SUMMARY OF A 'NEW VIEW OF THE GELDABLE
grains, which would be the exact weight of an ^Eginetan obol,
the whole dug up at Petroasa in Wallachia, together with a
tube or bracelet weighing 96 Troy grains, i.e. the ^Eginetan
drachma. Moreover, there are in the British Museum some
large stone ducks dug up at Babylon, weighing 480 Troy
ounces, and therefore they would be 40 Troy pounds, or 14,928
grammes, i.e. 4 x 3 73 '2 (Troy pound). On the back of some
of these ducks there are certain inscriptions stating them to be
thirty mana or half &£¦ a Babylonian talent (see Discoveries in
the Ruins of Nineveh and Babylon, hy Layard, 1853, p. 600) ;
each one of these, therefore, would be, if Mr. Layard's weighing
is correct, 30 of 16 ounces (that is, 497-6 grammes, 16 x 31-1
grammes or Troy ounce), and therefore 75 of these minas,
according to Form 4, make the talent of 37,320 grammes, the
hundredth part of which is the Troy pound and the 75th part
the Babylonish maneh of 497-6 grammes, and it is also the
amount of 80 Eubcean drachmae of 4-665 grammes. Moreover,
there are two stone weights dug up at Herculaneum, numbered
190 and 191 by Bayardi (see Boeckh, p. 183), and they each
weigh 3731 grammes, that is, 10 Troy pounds each, or 800
Eubcean drachmae of 4-665. The Eubcean drachma of 4-665
grammes is 72 Troy grains, and the didrachma of 144 grains
is the Egyptian kat, several specimens of which have been
dug up by Mr. Flinders Petrie.

Error

Place

Weight

Talent of 37,320 grammes

45(a)

Exact

England, 5760

Troy

Pound (talent divided by 100) :
373'2 grammes or 5760 half
chalci, Form 8, i.e. 5760 Troy.
Divided into 12 ounces or 240

45

Exact

Anglo- Saxon, 5760

Troy

pennies of 24.
373'2 grammes or 5760 half chalci
of Form 10. Divided into 12
ounces or 288 pennies of 20 half
chalci.
373'2 grammes of 5760 half chalci
of Form 8. Divided into 12
ounces of 288 scruples of 20 half

45

Exact

Apothe caries 576o

Troy

UNIT OF ASSESSMENT OF DOMESDAY'

589

Error

Place

Weight

Talent of 37,320 grammes

45

45W

45
(/)

46

Exact

Exact

Exact

Exact

47

Exact

48

Exact

Babylon, Ancient

' Inter
Ripam '

' Inter
Ripam '

Bassora (Arabia), 72.
Kelly, p. 30

Mina

Pound

Pound

Miscal

Abyssinia, 4800.
Kelly, p. 2

Rottolo

Sayde,28,758.
Kelly, p. 227

Rottolo

chalci. Five of these half chalci
equal 8 of Form 14.
497 "6 grammes or 7680 half chalci
of Form 8, divided into 16 ounces.
This is one of the 30 mana de
scribed above. See also No. 50.
Talent (divided by 100) : 373.2
grammes or 7680 half chalci of
Form 12 (5760 Troy), i.e. 12
ounces of 240 pence of 32 of such
half chalci (see explanation of
' inter ripam ' ante, and also notes
to Forms II and 12 ante).
373'2 grammes or 7680 half chalci
of Form 12 (5760 Troy), 16 solidi
of 16 pence (256) of 30 of such
half chalci (see ante, explanation
of ' inter ripam ').
Talent (divided by 8000) : 4-665
grammes 72 grains (72 Troy). This
is the Eubcean drachma, and 80
of them make the Troy pound,
and the miscal is the exact weight
of the old Euboean drachma of
4-665 grammes. But 100 of these
drachmae go to the pound or
checki, making exactly 466-5
grammes, or 7200 Troy grains or
chalci, i.e. 15 ounces of 31-1, and
the arrangement would be accord
ing to Form 8. The half chalcos
is -064792 gramme or a Troy grain
(see No. 18 and paragraph after
No. 45).
Talent (divided by 120): 311
grammes 4800 Troy grains or half
chalci, is therefore exactly 10 Troy
ounces or ten-twelfths of the Troy
pound ; in other words, the talent
would be divided by 120 instead
of 100, thus producing 120 rottoli
instead of 100 pounds — so, instead
of 5760 half chalci to the pound,
there would be only 4800, accord
ing to Form 15. The half chalcos
is "064792 gramme or Troy
grains.
Of 60 ounces of 10 drachms to ounce
of 31-037, 1862-251 grammes or
28,758 half chalci or Troy grains,
giving 479*3 Troy grains to the
ounce, which is according to
Form 15. Talent divided by 120.

590 SUMMARY OF A 'NEW VIEW OF THE GELDABLE

Error

Place

Weight

Talent of 37,320 grammes

49

50

Exact

Exact

5i

Exact

52

53

Exact

3 grains

54

55

56

Exact

Exact

Exact

Nice.
Kelly, p. 269

Tripoli
(Barbary), 7680.
Kelly, p. 379

Trieste and
Vienna, 8192.
Kelly, p. 336

Pound

Rottolo

Verona.
Kelly, p. 348

China, 1000.
Kelly, p. 67

Embden.
Kelly, p. 126

Munich.
Kelly, p. 261

Fiume.
Kelly, p. 32

Pound

Peso

Catty

Pound

Pound

Funti

Commercial (talent divided by 120) :
31 1 "6 grammes, 4800 grains or
half chalci of Form 1 5 (4809 Troy),
10 ounces as above, but divided
however into ten ounces.
(Talent divided by 75) : 497-6
grammes, 7680 grains or half
chalci, Form 8 (7680 Troy), 16
ounces of 10 drams to ounce, 16
kharouba to dram — there would
then be 3 half chalci or Troy
grains to the kharouba.
Commercial 559-6. This is i£ pound
Troy, divided however into 16
ounces instead of 18 ; there are
512 pfenings in it, so the half chalci
would be 8192, Form 9, instead
of 8640 half chalci, Form 8, and
there would be 16 half chalci in
the pfening, or "06831 grammes
each. Each half chalcos is divided
into 16 parts, making 131,072
right pfenings in all.
Grosso (talent divided by 75) :
497'343 grammes (7676 Troy), or
half chalci 7680, Form 8. This
is 16 ounces of Troy pound.
Of 16 tales of 37-566 or 576 grains
or half chalci, so there are in the
tale 576 grains instead of 480,
i.e. 12x48, instead of 10x48,
which is our Troy ounce, but the
tale is divided decimally into 1000
cash. The tale is therefore the
tenth part of thejEginetan or Troy
pound, and as there are 1000
cash in it, there must be 1,000,000
cash in the ^Eginetan talent ; it is
evidently therefore divided in
Egyptian manner (see Form 16).
Commercial (talent divided by 75) :
496-8 grammes, 8192 grains or
half chalci, Form 9 (7668 Troy),
16 ounces.
Commercial, 560-839 grammes,
8640 half chalci grains, Form 8
(8656 Troy). This is 18 ounces
of Form 8.
Weight, 558-7 grammes, 9216 half
chalci or grains of Form 9 (8623
Troy), being a pound and a half
divided into 16 ounces of 576 half
chalci to the ounce.

UNIT OF ASSESSMENT OF DOMESDAY

59-

Error

Place

Weight

Talent of 37,320 grammes

57

2 Troy

Bergen.

Pound

Talent (divided by 75) : 499-61

grains out

Kelly, p. 32

grammes or 8192 half chalci

in ounce
grains, Form 9 (7716 Troy), 16
ounces.
58
2 Troy
Mocha,
Vakia
One ounce, 30*970 grammes, 480
grains out
480.
grains or half chalci of Form 16,
in ounce
Kelly, p. 257
but four into ten, i.e. 40 of these
ounces or vakia make a maund of
1238-8 grammes : half of this is
619-4 grammes, which is the iEgi-
netan or Troy mina of 622
grammes. The talent is divided
in the Egyptian way (see ante).
59
2j Troy
Copen
Pound
Commercial (talent divided by 75) "
grains out
hagen.
500*71 grammes, 8192 grains or
in ounce
Kelly, p. 76
half chalci of Form 9 (7720 Troy),
16 ounces or 512 of 16 or 256 of
32 (see China, No. 53).
Ditto
Bolsano.
Kelly, p. 45.
Pound
Commercial, 500*6 grammes, same
positive weight.
60
6 Troy
grains out
in ounce
Aleppo
Metical
Or drachma, 4729 (the Euboean is
4"665) grammes 72 grains (73
Troy).
61
Algiers
Metical
80 of these make the pound of
5760, Form 8.
62
Lucca,
Peso
Grosso (talent divided by 100) :
Exact
6912.
Kelly, vol. ii.
226
373-48, 345° chalci (5763 Troy).
Divided into 12 ounces of 288
denari and 6912 grani or half
chalci, Form 10, ix. 24 grains or
12 chalci to each denarius,
divided like the Anglo-Saxon
division. The half chalci would
be "054 gramme.
63
Bremen.
Pound
Commercial (talent divided by 75) :
Exact
Kelly, p. 49
498*25 grammes (7690 Troy),
7680 half chalci of Form 8.
Divided into 16 ounces and 512
' orts,' giving 15 half chalci to
« ort.'
The Ethiopian and Egyptian Talent of 34,016 grammes, or
52,500 Troy grains.
The identity of this is fully proved in two ways. First,
from the Farnesian Congius, or the brass vessel formerly in
the collection of Alexander Farnese, and which bears the old
Roman inscription —
592 SUMMARY OF A ' NEW VIEW OF THE GELDABLE
IMP. G-ESARE
VESPES VI
T. CAES. AUG. F IIIIC0S
MENSUR.-E
EXACTS IN
CAPITOLIO P. X
The weight of distilled water which this holds is exactly
3401 grammes. Secondly, from the inscription in the ' Stele '
of Barkal in the Museum of Bulaq, where it appears that
there was in Ethiopia a provincial weight-system of which
there was a unit, a very small weight named a Pek, weigh
ing 7 1 or -709 grammes. Now taking this unit to be or to
indicate 10 chalci of "0709 grammes, and reckoning 480,000
to the talent in the usual way, we get the talent as before,
34,032 grammes. This weight is of peculiar interest to us in
I ngland ; the Romans might have got it from Egypt, unless it
existed in Italy before their advent to power, which is possible
and probable, as it still exists there, as well as the Roman
pound of 327*44 grammes.

Error

Place

Weight

Talent = 54,016 grammes

64

65

Exact
The ounce
is 28-3463
grammes

Exact

England, 7680.
Jeakes

England.
Kelly, p. 220

Pound

Provin cial

Avoirdupois (talent divided by 75) :
453'544 grammes or 7680 chalci
of Form 8 (7000 Troy), 480 in
the ounce — 16 ounces. I have
taken this division from ' Jeakes'
Arithmetic, Surveyed and Re
viewed,' London (1596), thus:
' The avoirdupois pound was
parted in 16 ounces, every ounce
into 8 drachms, and every dram
into 3 scruples, and every scruple
into 20 grains.'' One of the
pounds dug up at Herculaneum,
described by Bayardi, weighed
exactly 452 grammes.
Pound, 510 grammes (18 ounces),
or 8640 chalci, Form 8. This is
to-be found in the counties of

UNIT OF ASSESSMENT OF DOMESDAY'

593

Error

Place

Weight!

Talent =- 34,016 grammes.

66

Exact

England.
Kelly, p. 220

67

68

Exact

Exact

Florence, 6912.
Kelly, p. 130

Leghorn, 6912
Madras.
Kelly, vol. ii
p. 223

69

70

71

6 Troy
grains out
in ounce

H Troy
grains out
in ounce

61 Troy
grains out
in ounce

Hundred

Libra

'Star

Portugal, 4608.
Kelly, p. 211

Rome, 6912.
Kelly, p. 293 .

Spain,

Kelly, p. 320

Marco

Libra

Marc

Cheshire, Cornwall, Devonshire,
Dorsetshire, Gloucestershire,
Herefordshire, Lancashire, Lin
colnshire, Staffordshire, North
and South Wales, and Westmore
land — see Government Report ;
butat Nuremberg, No. 73,the same
weight is divided into 16 ounces.
Weight that is 100 of the provincial
pound. Of course a hundred
weight could never be 1 12 pounds,
but it must mean one hundred of
some well-defined weight, and
51,000 grammes is almost 112
avoirdupois pounds. Moreover,
a stone duck of exactly 30 ' manehs '
each of this amount of Siogrammes
was dug up by Mr. Layard in the
ruins of Nineveh (see Norris, vol.
xvi. Asiatic Journal, p. 215).
Talent (divided by 100) : 339-5
grammes, 691 2 grains (half chalci),
Form 10 (or 5240 Troy), 12
ounces of 288 denari of 24 half
chalci.
Do.Pagoda weight, 3*401 grammes, 52*5
Troy. This is the drachma of the
talent divided by 10,000, and of
a pound divided by 100, and
equals the Roman pound of
327-48 divided by 96 almost — 8 of
them going to the ounce ; but34,oio
grammes existed as a separate talent
in Asia and Egypt, and in Egypt
would be divided as in Form 16.
Of 8 ounces, 229-46 grammes, as
divided at Florence into 192
escropulos or 4608 graos or half
chalci, Form 10 (3541 Troy),
192 + 96 = 288: 8 + 4 ounces =
12. See No. 71. Half chalcos
= -0498.
Talent (divided by 100): 339.121
grammes, 69i2grains or half chalci,
Form 10 (5234 Troy), 12 ounces
of 24 denari of 24 half chalci of
•04906.
Of eight ounces, 230-043 grammes,
4608 grains or half chalci, Form
10 (3550 Troy), divided into 64
orchatos and 384 tomines of 12
grains. Gold is weighed by 10
ounces (not 12) of Form 8 = 4800

594 SUMMARY OF A 'NEW VIEW OF THE GELDABLE

72

72

73

Error

5 Troy
grains out
in ounce

7.\ Troy
grains out
in ounce
Exact

Place

74

75

76

77

78

Exact

Exact

Geneva, 8640.
Kelly, p. 153

Lucca, 6912.
Kelly, p. 224
Nuremberg,
Kelly, p. 271

Weight

Poids

Exact

Exact

Exact

Padua, 6912.
Kelly, p. 275
Ratisbon,
Kelly, p. 286

Rostock.
Kelly, p. 296

Sweden.
Kelly, p. 329

Sweden.
Kelly, p. 329

Peso

Pound

Libra

Pound

Pound

Victualie

Pound

Talent = 34,016 grammes

half chalci (see No. 69). Half
chalcus = -04992.
Foible (talent divided by 75) :
458-831 grammes, 8640 grains or
half chalci, Form 8 (7081 Troy),
divided into 15 ounces of 24
deniers or 576 grains = 18 ounces
of 20 deniers or 480 grains.
There is another weight of 18
ounces of 24 deniers to ounce.
Sottile (talent divided by 100) :
337'77 grammes, 6912 grains or
half chalci of Form 10, 12 ounces
of 576 to ounce (5213 Troy).
Of two marks, 509*9 grammes,
12,288 half chalci or 6144 chalci
or grains, Form 14 (7870 Troy),
18 ounces, or a pound and a half
divided into sixteen ounces of 512
pfenings of 24 half chalci. This
weight of 510 grammes has been
dug up at Babylon (see Layard's
Nineveh and its Remains), and
is the pound one hundred of
which is our hundredweight,
approximately. See No. 65.
Sottile (talent divided by 100) :
340*158 grammes or 6912 grains or
half chalci, Form 10 (5250 Troy).
See Venice. Kelly, p. 346.
Commercial (talent divided by 60) :
568-6 grammes, 10,240 grains or
half chalci, Forms 2 and 9
(8777 Troy). This is the mina
of the talent, and sixty of it give
34,116 grammes as the talent.
Twenty ounces divided into 16
ounces or 512 pfenings of 20.
Town standard for commercial deal
ings with Russia, 508-7 grammes,
8640 grains or half chalci, Form
8 (7852 Troy), 18 ounces avoirdu
pois. The Babylcn weight. See
England, ante.
Weight 425 -2. Eighty of this make
the talent of 34,016, and there
was a weight dug up at Hercula-
neum (see Boeckh, p. 182) weigh
ing nearly 42,700, which evidently
represents one hundred of these
victualie weights.
Metal or exportation, weight 340-1.
One hundred of this make the
talent, or 34,010 grammes.

UNIT OF ASSESSMENT OF DOMESDAY'

595

Error Place

Weight

Talent = 34,016 grammes

79
80

Exact. Exact

Madras.
Kelly, vol. ii.
p. 223.
Alexandria
Kelly, p. 4, &
vol. ii. p. 224.

Star.
Rottoli.

Pagoda weight 3 "401 grammes.
Ten thousand of this is the talent.
Forfori (talent divided by 80), i.e.
423*869 grammes or 6542 Troy.

Note. — The drachma of the talent of 34,010 grammes (i.e. ten thousand of
3*4016) is not to be confused with the drachma of 3.41, which arises on the
division of the Roman pound of 327-44 when divided by 96. This last is
spoken of in Cleopatra's tables (C.X.) as one of the 128 drachmae, in the
following passage : ' The mina has 16 ounces, 128 drachmae, 384 grammata, 768
oboli, 1152 thermoi, 2304 ceratia, 6144 chalci' 128 drachmae of 3-41 grammes
give 436*6 grammes, which is the Attic mina, or Roman pound of 327 -44 + \,
or 16 ounces. The computation of the chalci in this passage completely
coincides with Form 14. The mina of 436-6 is Fleta's libra mercatoria (see
No. 18).

The Asiatic {Persian ?) Talent of 32,744 grammes, or 505,371
Troy grains. The hundredth part of this is 327*44
grammes, or 5,053 Troy, and this is the Roman pound.
This talent and pound, which still exists in Italy, is not to
be confused with another pound of 340-1, also existing in
Italy — they have often been so confused. The talent of
32,744 grammes, its Asiatic origin, and its hundredth part of
Roman pound, are identified in various ways. Xenophon, in
his Anabasis, 1, 5, 6, gives the ' siglus' as seven and a half
Attic obols. The Attic obol (see ante) was 72775 grammes
(taking 4'366$ grammes, Hultsch's estimate of the Attic
drachma and the sixth of it, the obol, in the usual way), and
seven and a half of the obol would give 5 4.5 8 1 2 grammes as the
corresponding Asiatic drachma of the minah, i.e. the siglos,
and 6000 of these (see Form ante) gives 32,744 as the talent
and 32744 as the pound. This weight is confirmed again
thus : Pliny (xxxiii. 46) states the ' aurei ' to be at the rate of
40 to the pound ; now several of these aurei are still in exist
ence — there is one in the Bodleian, of the time of Julius Caesar,
VOL. 11 P

596 SUMMARY OF A 'NEW VIEW OF THE GELDABLE
weighing 126" 5 Troy grains, i.e. a shekel as found by Mr.
Flinders Petrie, and one of Antony of 126 grains, and Raper
speaks of many more. Taking the mean of these 1 26^25
grains and multiplying that by 40 gives 5050 as the Roman
pound. This weight is also confirmed by the weight of the
scripular aurei, the weight of which (as the result of accurately
weighing them) M. Letronne {Sur V Evaluation des Monnaies
grecques et romaines) puts at 21-368 French grains, or I7"52
Troy grains ; this multiplied by 288, the number of scripula
in the pound, gives 5045 Troy grains in the pound. It is well
known that the Romans divided their pound into denarii, or
drachmae, at different times, in different ways : thus, before
Hannibal's time, by 72 ; after then to Nero's time by 84, then
by 96, and afterwards by 72 again, thus :

Error

Place

8l

82

83

Exact. Rome, Old.

Exact, Roman, Old.

Exact. Roman, Old.

Weight

Pound.

Talent = 32,744 grammes

(Talent divided by 100): 327-44
grammes of 1728 siliquae or double
chalci, or 6912 half chalci, Form
10 (5053 Troy grains). This is
the pound divided by 72 with 6
drachmae of 4-547 grammes to
the ounce — the talent consisting of
1200 ounces. Nos. 84, 86, 88, 90,
92, are existing examples of this
division of the pound, &c, in Italy.
(Talent divided by 100): 327-44
grammes, divided by 96 in 96
drachmae, or 12 ounces of 8
drachmae of 3-41 to the drachma.
A passage of Pollux states this to
be 8 drachmae to the ounce. As
every drachma is supposed to
contain 48 chalci, there would be
(12x8) 96 x 48 = 4608 chalci.
This is fully confirmed by the
same passage, which tells us that
1 8 ceratia go to the drachma, and
2§ chalci to the ceration, and
96xi8x2§ do. make 4608
chalci, which is well represented
thus, ff§|, Forms 8, 10, and 14,
and so fully confirms my state
ment as to the origin of grains.
327-44 grammes divided by 84 into
84 denarii of 3-898 grammes.

UNIT OF ASSESSMENT OF DOMESDAY'

597

Error

s4

85

Exact.

Place

Italian.

m. e, Old.

Weight

Talent of 32,744 grammes

Mina.

Mina.

This is clearly shown in the de
scription given by Pollux of the
Italian mina, or Fleta's libra
mercatoria of 15 ounces (talent
divided by 75, i.e. 436-6
grammes), which he, Pollux,
states to be 112 drachmae (112 x
3-898 grammes, i.e. 32.7-44+ A or
109-146, i.e. 436-586 grammes).
This is the Attic mina, i.e. a
pound and a third or 16 ounces
(84 + 28 = 12 + 4 ounces), or 4032
chalci + 1344 = 5376 chalci. He
states the ounce to be 7
drachmae. Taking the drachma to
contain 48 chalci, as it always did,
the number of the chalci in the
mina would be (84 x 48) 4032
chalci, and in the 4 ounces 1344,
Form 13. If the mina was divided
according to Form 10, it would
contain 3456+ 1 152 chalci, or
4608 of that Form 10, or 384
denarii of 12 chalci of that form,
instead of 288 of 14 of Form 13,
as suggested in the forms. It will
be seen how well this division of
the pound corresponds as sugges
ted at page 263 of my Domesday
paper with the rod of 14 feet.
See next case. See No. 86. See
note after No. 80 and Nos. 1 8, 85.
491 * 16 grammes being a pound and
a half of 5184 chalci or 2592 sili
quae, thus described in Discorides,
Kuhn's Collections, xiii. 775 :
' The mina, according to the Ita
lian authority, is 18 ounces, i.e. a
pound and a half, 144 drachmae ;
but the Alexandrian mina is 20
ounces, that is 160 drachmae,'
which is the mina I have described
immediately after this, viz. No.
85; so of course the drachma is the
same as in No. 82, viz. 3*41
grammes.
545 '73- This is the Roman mina,
being the sixtieth part of 32,744
grammes (talent) in the usual way,
or 8422 Troy, that is 20 ounces,
which is described as in Pollux,
Kuhn's Collections, xiii. 751. The
half of it still exists in the mark of
Barcelona of 272.6.54 grammes,
No. 88. p 2

598 SUMMARY OF A 'NEW VIEW OF THE GELDABLE

86

87

89

Error

Exact.

Place

Attica, Italia,
England, Egypt.

Exact.

Exact.

Weight

Mina.

Roman, Old,
and Alex
andrian.

Barcelona, 6912.
Kelly, p. 27.

France, 9216.
Kelly, p. 133,

Mina.

Marc.

Poids.

Talent of 32,744 grammes

Talent (divided by 75) : 436-6
grammes or 9216 half chalci of
Form 10. This is Fleta's libra
mercatoria, and is the same as the
mina of 16 ounces = talent of
32,744 grammes divided by 75 as
alluded to in No. 83, but it is also
the talent of 34,928 divided by 80.
In No. 83 it is shown by Pollux in
the way it was divided by the
Romans between Hannibal's time
and Nero's. In the present shape
I show it as I presume the Anglo-
Saxons divided it, and the 6750
Troy grains (see No. 18) repre
sents it as the Normans divided
it, taking it at 15 ounces instead
of 16 ; but all these are alike in
positive weights. See Forms 4
and 5 and note thereon, and Nos.
II and 12.
545 *7 grammes or talent of 32, 744
divided by 60, which is, as Pollux
says, 20 ounces (see No. 85).
Taking 3456 chalci or 1728 sili
quae or ceratia to the pound, Form
10, this will give 144 siliquae to
the ounce, and as 20 ounces make
the mina, then 2880 to the mina
gives 8 drachmae to the ounce ;
there would be therefore 160
drachmae in the mina, and divi
ding the 2880 siliquae by 160, it
gives 18 siliquae or ceratia to the
drachma, i.e. just what Pollux
makes it when he says, ' But the
weight or drachma holds 18 cera
tia, and others say three gramma-
ta. ' 6 siliquae therefore went to 1
gramma. Of course this is the
division of the pound into 96
drachmae, each of 3*416 grammes,
and 20 ounces would be 96 + 64,
i.e. 12 ounces + 8 ounces.
272-65 grammes, 6912 half chalci of
Form 10 (4207 Troy), 10 Roman
ounces divided into 8 ounces of
192 adarmes of 18 chalci, or 36
half grains each.
de Marc, 489*5, one and a half
Roman pounds, but divided sex-
decimally into 16 ounces, 9216
grains or half chalci, Form 9 (7565
Troy grains). The mark consisted

UNIT OF ASSESSMENT OF DOMESDAY'

599

90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97

98 99

Error

Exact. Exact. Exact.

4 Troy
grains out
in ounce.
Exact.

Exact.
21 Troy
grains out

Exact.

Place

Exact.

4 Troy
grains out
in ounce.
Exact.

I gram
out in

Weight

Talent of 32,744 grammes

Basle, 9216.
Kelly, p. 28.
Bergamo.
Kelly, p. 31.

Bilbo a.
Kelly, p. 41.
Bolsano-.

Corsica.
Kelly, p. 80.

Cremona.
Kelly, p. 81.
Luneberg.
Kelly, p. 245.

Milan, 6912.
Kelly, p. 255.

Neufchatel Kelly, p. 269,
Reggio.
Kelly, vol. ii.
p. 227.
Zell.
Kelly, p. 373.
Russia.
Kelly, p. 301.

Marseilles, Poids.
9216.

Poids. Peso.
Pound. Pound. Pound. Pound.Pound. Libra.
Poids. Libra. Pound.Pound.

of 128 gros of 72 half chalci, and
it was sometimes divided into 3
deniers of 24 half chalci. Half
chalcus = "05311 grammes.
Do.

Sottile, 326*227 grammes. (Talent
divided by 100.) Old Roman in
12 ounces. There is another
pound of 30 of the same ounces,
i.e. 3 pounds of Barcelona, No.
81.
' Light ' 489*5, the French poids de
marc (see ante), No. 82, i.e. a
pound and a half old Roman.
' Light ' (talent divided by 100) :
Zi°^Z3 (5103 Troy). The old
Roman is 327 -44.
Commercial old Roman pound and
a half, 490-19 grammes, 9216
grains or half chalci, Form 9
(7565 Troy), in 16 ounces.
327*6 or talent divided by 100. The
old Roman pound.
A pound and a half Roman, 488-59
grammes, 8192 grains or half
chalci, Form9(754oTroy),divided
into 16 ounces or 512 pfenings of
16 or 256. of 32 (see Hamburg,
No. 23).
Sottile (talent divided by 100) :
326*8 old Roman pound of Form
10, 1728 double chalci or 6912
grains or half chalci (5044 Troy),
divided into 12 ounces or 288
denarii of 24 half chalci.
Marc of 7555 Troy grains (see
France, No. 82).
Talent (divided by 100) : 329*921
Roman pound of 6912 (half chalci)
grains (5092 Troy). See Milan,
No. 90.
486-6 grammes, 9216 half chalci or
grains, Form 9 (751 1 Troy), one
and a half of the Roman pound.
(Talent divided by 80) : 409*3
grammes or 9216 half chalci,
Form 14, divided into 96 solot-
nicks. 80 of these pounds of
327-44 (6318 Troy) make the
talent.
The table (talent divided by 80) :
407*95 grammes or 9216 half

600 SUMMARY OF A 'NEW VIEW OF THE GELDABLE

Error

Place

Weight

Talent of 32,744 grammes

I°3

104

105

1 j grains
out.

Exact.

Exact.

Kelly, p. 252.

Scotland.
Kelly, p. 309.

Amsterdam, 5120.
Kelly, p. 9.

Old
Hebrew.

Found.

Mark.

Talent.

chalci, Form 10 (6296 Troy),
divided into 16 ounces of 128
gros.
Commercial, one and a half Roman
pounds, 492*419 grammes, 7680
half chalci, Form 8 (7600 Troy),
16 ounces of 16 drops = 256 of 30
grains.
or 9 ounces (Dutch Troy) of old Ro
man, 246*084, 5120 half chalci of
Form 12, divided into 8 ounces,
and the ounce into 20 engels or
esterlins, and the engel into 32
azen or aas. It will be seen that
the Scotch is virtually double this.
40,930 grammes. This is 100 of
the Russian pound, ante (No.
101). In the Latin version of
Epiphanius it is thus spoken of :
•' Talentum super omnia pondera
quibus aha appenduntur excellit.
Exsistil vero cxxv librarum ; hoc
autem ab Assyriis cepit : dicunt
enim quod Abraham in terram
Chanaan hanc advexerat formam ;
talenti autem centesima vicente-
sima quinta ,pars cxxv una libra
est.' If 40,930 grammes is divi
ded by 125, it produces the Roman
pound of 327-44 grammes. It is
to be found in Petavius 183, and
in Cleopatra's tables it is stated
thus : ' The talent holds 125
pounds of nomismata .9000. ' Now
if the pound is divided as it was
divided in the earliest times, and
again at Comstantine's time, into
72 nomismata, drachmae, or de
narii, then 125 x 72 will give the
9000 nomismata. In another
place in Cleopatra's tables this
mina is said to have 1 5 ounces and
90 drachmae; now 15x27-28
(Roman ounce) does make the
mina of 409-3, and this, if divided
by 90, gives the drachma of 4-54
grammes, which is, of course, the
drachma of the Roman pound -f-
72, for 15 ounces is to 12 ounces
as 90 is to 72. Again, if the
pound was divided into 96 nomis
mata, there would be 12,000 of
such nomismata of 3-41 grammes.
Now the Hebrew shekel or weight

UNIT OF ASSESSMENT OF DOMESDAY'

601

Error

Place

Weight

Talent of 32,744 grammes

was 4 drachmae, or half the ounce
when it contained 8 drachmae or
96 to the pound instead of 72,
there would be 24 shekels in the
Roman pound and 3000 in 125
pounds, which perfectly coincides
with Genesis xxiv. 22. That pas
sage states the kikkar or talent to
be 3000 shekels ; this was the
' profane ' talent, but the ' talent
of the sanctuary ' was just double
— see Ezekiel xlv. 2, where it is
said to consist of 6000 shekels,
i.e. 81,860 grammes. Taking
the calculations according to Form
16, the maneh would be 60 and
the talent 6000 shekels.
The Common Syrian Talent of 32,109 grammes.
The identity of this is proved by certain weights recently
found in Syria, and inscribed as ' Demosion Hemimnaion.'
They are of brass, and the half-part weighs 535-15 grammes ;
see Longperrier in Annals Instit. Arch., vol. xix. (1847), p.
340. Multiplying this mina to find the talent 60 x 535"i 5, it
gives 32,109 as the talent.
Error
Place
Weight
Talent of 32,109 grammes
106
Exact.
Constanti nople, 6400.
Kelly, p. 377.
Checquee
or Pound. (Talent divided by 100) :
320-75 grammes or 100 drams of
3-2075, 6400 chalci or 1600
kharouba of 4 chalci of Form 16
(4950 Troy), divided into 10
ounces.
107
Exact.
Smyrna, 6400.
Kelly, p. 315.
Checquee
The same. 321-2 grammes.
108
Exact.
Naples,
Libra.
(Talent divided by 100) : 320-75
7200. ;
grammes, 72°° acini or half
Kelly, p. 264. j
chalci (4950 Troy), divided into
12 ounces or 360 trapezi, 7200
acini, Form 16. This is evi
dently the Western division of the
same Egyptian weight that we
have above at Constantinople.
602 SUMMARY OF A 'NEW VIEW OF THE GELDABLE

Error

Place

Weight

Talent of 32,109 grammes

109

Exact.

Majorca.

Rottolo.

Commercial (talent divided by 80) :

Kelly, p. 247.

400*026 grammes or 9000 half
chalci, Form 16. This is 15 Nea
politan ounces, i.e. the eightieth
part of the talent of 32,075
grammes(or 495,000 Troy ),divided
into 12 ounces of 750 Neapolitan
acini to the ounce (instead of 600)
= 9000 of Form 10, as at Barce
lona, below.
no
IA Troy
Patras.
Pound.
Talent (divided by 80), that is
grain out
Kelly, p. 276.
399 '^37- Practically the same as
in ounce.
Majorca, and divided into 12
ounces of half chalci of Form 16 =
6168 Troy.
III
I Troy
Barcelona,
Pound.
Commercial (talent divided by 80) :
grain out
6912.
same as Majorca, 400-63 of 9000
in ounce.
Kelly, p. 27.
grains or half chalci, Form 16
(6174 Troy), divided into 12
ounces or 6912 half chalci, Form
112
ii Troy
Modena.
Pound.
10.
Commercial (talent-divided by 100) :
grain out
Kelly, p. 258.
319-5 grammes of 7200 grains or
in ounce.
half chalci, Form 16(4931 Troy),
divided into twelve ounces.
"3
Exact.
Galicia, Spain.
Kelly, p. 150.
Pound.
Commercial, 576*122 grammes or
1800 drams of 3-2005 or 115,200
half chalci, Form 16 (8892 Troy),
divided into 20 ounces.
"4
Exact.
Persia.
Kelly, p. 277.
Batman.
of cherray is 5751-22, being 1800
drams of 3-195. This is divided
into 6 rottols of 300 drams, so it
would consist of 115,200 half
chalci of Form 16 (or 88,771
Troy).
Commercial, 5l4-4grammes, 160 of
"5
' if Troy
Prague.
Pound.
grain out
Kelly, p. 281.
the dram of 3 *20 grammes, divided
in ounce.
into 16 ounces or 7680 half chalci
of Form 8 (or 7940 Troy).
In order to make the application of the tables and remarks
therein more easy to understand, it is necessary to observe
that though a drachma always consisted of 48 chalci, and was
usually divided by the Greeks into 6 oboli, each of 8 chalci,
yet sometimes a drachma was, according to Diodorus, Photius,
and others, divided into 8 oboli of 6 chalci, so that a weight
of 80 Attic drachmae or 3840 chalci, or 7680 half chalci,
Form 12, might be divided into 480 oboli of 8 chalci each,
UNIT OF ASSESSMENT OF DOMESDAY' 603
or into 640 oboli of 6 chalci each (that is, 960 hemioboli of 4
chalci each, or 1280 hemioboli of 3 chalci each); and the
same weight would thus contain 240 units of 4 hemioboli of 4
chalci each, or 256 units of 5 hemioboli of 3 chalci each, or
256 of 30 half chalci, i.e. the divisions of the 3840 and the
7680 would be made just as they are made at Leipsic, Berlin,
Konigsberg, Nos. 20, 24, 26, &c. These units are called
denarii in the entries in Domesday Book ' inter Ripam.' A
drachma also contains 3 scruples. The Tower pound is 80
Attic drachmae {see post), and the Troy pound is 80 drachmae^
each a fifteenth heavier than the Attic drachma. Such a
weight can be divided into 8 solidi of 10 drachmae, or into 10
solidi of 8 drachmae, or into 12 solidi of 8 smaller drachmae, i.e.
into 8 solidi of 120 hemioboli (mancus) with 8 chalci to the
obolus = 8 solidi of 1 60 hemioboli of 6 chalci to the obolus,
or into 10 ounces of 24 scruples, or into 12 ounces of 24 smaller
scruples. If we allow 2 small solidi to each large solidus and
to each ounce, we shall have in the 80 drachmae 16 solidi of 60
hemioboli (15 dioboli), or 80 hemioboli (16 x 5 hemioboli of
tkree chalci), 20 solidi of 12 scruples, or 24 solidi of 12 scru
ples of smaller grains : read denarii for scruples and dioboli,
and there is the solution of the entries in Domesday ' inter
Ripam ' and the puzzle contained in Guthrum's Treaty. If
the Troy pound was used in that Treaty and the 80 Attic
drachmae consequently raised by one fifteenth, this addition
could be carried out by adding ^ to the weight of each grain
in every unit composed of grains, or by adding -£% in numbers
to any one group of such units — viz. by raising the number of
wheat grains from 30 to 32, keeping the weight of grains the
same, or by raising the 16 solidi of 15 to 16 solidi of 16 (see
note to Form 12). In the entry in Domesday 'inter Ripam '
the Mercian solidi are 16 of 16 of 30 grains of '0486 gramme,
instead of 16 of 16 of 30 grains of "0455625 ; but in
Guthrum's Treaty the unit itself is raised from 30 wheat

604 SUMMARY OF A 'NEW VIEW OF THE GELDABLE
grains to 32 of the same grains "0486, and the 16 solidi of 15
of 30 such grains become 16 solidi of 15 of 32 grains — i.e.
48 sol. ex v. sci. denariis, each denarius being 32 wheat
grains {i.e. the Troy penny of 24 Troy grains). That the
words ' aureus ' and ' solidus ' were synonymous, see ' Leges
Agrarian,' p. 323. Attic Drachma 4*373 grammes.
Wo. 1. (Grammes 349*87.) Tower pound of 5400 Troy grains or 80 Atticdrachma
of 4-373-

No. of Troy

No. of gram.

grs.

•703125
•0455625 Wheat = | Chalcus of Form 12.
I "40625
¦091 125
2 Chalcus
4-21875
•273375
6 3
Hemiobolus.
8-4375
•54675
12 6
2 Obolus.
21-09375
1-366875
3° 15
5 2J Denarius.
84375
5-4675
120 60
20 10 4 Thrimsae.
337-5
21-87
480 240
80 40 16 4 Solidus or aureus.
675
43-74
960 480
160 80 32 8 2 Two aurei or
10 drachmae.
5400
349-92
7680 3840
1280 640 256 64 16 8 (Libra of
80 drachmae.
This is accc
irding to Forms
11 and 12.
Equals 60 thrimsae of 5 -832 grammes.
No. 2. (Gramtnes 349-87. Tower pound. Decimal division into 60 Thrimstz,
80 Attic drachma of 4*373 grammes).
No. of Troy
No. of
grs.
gram.
¦703125
•0455625
Wheat, or half Chalcus, Form 12.
I -40625
¦091 125
2 Chalci.
11-25
¦729
16 8 Obolus.
22-5
1-458
32 16
2 Denarius (3 = drachma).
90*
5-832*
128** 64
8 4 Thrimsae (**= 120 of 0486
gramme).
270
17-496
384 192
24 12 3 Solidus.
5400 349'92 7680 3840 480 240 60 20 Libra (60 rirnsae)
or
90* 5'832** 128 64 8 4 Thrimsae (**= 120 of 0486).
45° 29-16 640 320 40 20 5 Sclidus or uncia.
5400 349'87 7680 3840 480 240 60 1 2 Libra (60 Thrimsae).
This is according to Forms 11 and 12.
* See No. 5.
UNIT OF ASSESSMENT OF DOMESDAY' 605
No. 3. (Grammes 349-87.) Tower pound as above, Saxon division, 80 drachma
of 4'373 grammes.
No. of Troy No. of
grs. gram.
•781 -050625 Wheat 12 \ Chalcus.
3*124 *2025 4 Carat or Double Chalcus or Siliqua ; see Form 10.
9*372 -6075 12 3 Obolus.
i8| 1*215 24 6 2 Penig or scruple.
56J 3*645 72 18 6 3 Drachmae of 3*645.
75 4*86 96 24 8 4 i| Scilling or solidus.
450 29*16 576 144 48 24 8 6 Ounce of 24 peninga.
5400 349-87 6912 1728 576 288 96 72 12 Libra of 96 drachmae of
3-645 or 80 of 4-373.
This is according to Form 9. Equals 60 Thrimsae of 5 -832 grammes.
No. 4. (Grammes 373*2.) Troy pound So Eubcean drachma. Mercian sexdecimai
division into 64 Tltrimsce and into 8 oboli of 6 chalci each to t/ie drachma.
Troy grain = "0648 of a gramme.
No. of Troy No. of

4 Thrimsae. 4 Solidus or aureus (ora) denari-
orum.
8 2Mancus, *2oraedenariorum' or 10 drachmae.
64* 16 8 (Libra of 80 drachmae
of 4-6656).
This is according to Forms 12 and 11.
Troy Pound.
No. 5. (Grammes 373-248) 80 Eubcean drachmce of 6 oboli of % chalci to drachma.
Troy grain ¦= -0648 gramme. Treaty division between Alfred and Guthrum.
No. of Troy No. of
grs. ' gram.
¦75 -0486 Wheat grain or \ Chalcus of Form 12.
1-5 -0972 2 Chalcus.
12 "7776 16 S Obolus.
24 i'5552 32 16 2 Denarius or penny.
120 7'776 160 80 10 5 Solidus 'ex 5 scil. denariis ; ' . see Treaty
720 46656 960 480 60 30 6 Mancus or 10 drachmae.
5760 373-248 7680 3S40 480 240 48 8 (Libra of 80 drachmae of
4-6656).
Equals 64 Thrimsae of 5 -832 grammes ; so that in the Ceorls ' were ' of 4 pounds

grs. gram.
•75 -0486 Wheat
1-5 -0972 2 '
4-5 -2916 6
22-5 1-458 30
90 5*832 120
360 23-328 480

grains or § Chalcus.
Chalcus. 3 Hemiobolus.
15 5 Denar
60 20 4
240 80 16

720 46-656

960

4S0

160 32

5760 373-248

7680

3840

1280 256

606 SUMMARY OF A 'NEW VIEW OF THE GELDABLE
and 40 pence of this division there are 266| thrimsae. (See Guthrum's Treaty, set
in my paper in vol. i. ' Domesday Studies '), page 245.
No. 6. (Grammes 373-248) 80 Eubcean drachma, decimal division into 6 oboli of
8 chalci to the drachma. Troy grain = -0648 gramme.
No. of Troy No. of
grs. gram.
•75 -0486 Wheat grain or -| Chalcus of Form 12.
I -0648 I J Troy grain.
ii -0972 2 i| Chalcus.
12 "7776 16 12 8 Obolus.
24 1*5552 32 24 16 2 Diobolus or penny.
120 7'776 160 120 80 10 5 Solidus ' ex 5 scil. denariis ' ;
see Treaty
80 31-104 640 480 320 40 20 4 Aureus, solidus, or ' ora
de viginti in ora,' or ounce
720 46-656 960 720 480 60 30 6 i| Mancus or 10
drachmae.
576o 373-248 7680 5760 3840 480 240 48 12 8 Libra or 80
drachmae of 4-6656.
Equals 64 Thrimsae of 5-832 grammes.
No. 7. Roman, Anglo-Saxon, or Duodecimal divisions. (Grammes 373-248) 80
Eubcean drachma of 4-6656 = 96 drachma of '3-888, 6 oboli of 3 carats to drachma.
No. of Troy No. of
grs. gram.
| -054 Wheat | Chalci of Form 10.
3! *2l6 4 Carat.
10 '648 12 3 Obolus.
20 1 -296 24 6 2 Diobolus, scruple, penny.
60 3*888 72 18 6 3 Drachmae.
120 7-776* 144 36 12 6 2 *' Solidus or sicilicus ex 5 sch.
denariis ; ' see decimal division above.
480 31*104 576 144 48 24 8 4 Aureus, solidus, or 'ora de
viginti in ora ' = ounce.
720 46-656 864 216 72 36 12 6 l§ Mancus or 1 2 drachmae.
576o 373-248 6912 1728 576 288 36 48 12 8 Libra or 96 drachmae
A B of 3 -888 = 80 drachmae of 4 -6656.
Column A is the same as Apothecaries' weight, being the same as B but with
half chalcus or Troy grain of -648 instead of the half chalcus Form 10, -054, the
latter being ten-twelfths of the Troy.
It is thus absolutely necessary, as stated in my paper in vol.
i., to have a correct understanding of the difference in number
and weight of the primary units which lie at the base of any
given ounce or pound, whatever name such units may bear.

UNIT OF ASSESSMENT OF DOMESDAY' 607
In the East, at Constantinople, the Kharouba (carob, siliqua, or
carat) of "20108 gramme consisted of 4 wheat grains, or half
chalci, each of "05027 gramme, and at Tripoli and Bassora
the Kharouba of "1944 gramme consisted of 3 Troy grains or
half chalci of "0648 gramme each : supposing, however, the
Kharouba at Tripoli and Bassora to have equalled 4 wheat
grains as at Constantinople, then the Tripoli wheat grain or
half chalcus must have been "0486 gramme, being the identi
cal wheat grain (or \ chalcus of '0455625 + -rV of it : see be
low) of the Mercian pound or double mark of 7680 such
grains. (See vol. i. p. 233.) The wheat grains of the Troy
pound are said in the statute of Edward to be ' medio spice,'
those of the Tower pound are in Fleta, book ii. c. 12, said to
be ' mediocria.'
The Roman unit, siliqua, or carob, consisted of 4 half
chalci, and the half pinginn consisted also of 4 half chalci,
whatever their respective weights might have been.
We know as an absolute fact that the Tower pound is
5400 Troy grains, and that the Troy grain is "064792 of a
gramme ; the weight, therefore, of the Tower pound is 349*87
grammes ; the Troy pound we also know to be Troy 5760
grains (that is 373-248) : the difference between the two pounds,
therefore, is one fifteenth, the Tower pound being 349-87
grammes. Hultsch (p. 705), as I have said, gives the weight of the
Attic drachma at 4-366, which would therefore consist of 48
chalci of "091 each, or 96 halves of chalci of '0455 gramme.
Taking ten drachmae to an ounce, we shall have an ounce of
43 "66 grammes, consisting of 480 chalci or 960 halves of'
chalci. Taking again 8 of these ounces, we have 3840 chalci
or 7680 halves of chalci of "0455 gramme and an Attic ' mark '
of 349"28, being, with a difference of only 10 grains (Troy), an
amount so near to the Tower pound of 349'98 as to justify an
assumption that the Attic ' mark ' and the Tower pound are

608 SUMMARY OF A 'NEW VIEW OF THE GELDABLE
identical. This mark of 8 ounces of 43*66 each would
therefore equal 16 ounces of 21-83 of 480 halves of chalci
each, or 12 ounces of 640 halves of chalci each (= 29-16).
Assuming, then, that the ounce of the Tower pound of
5400 Troy grains (which equal a ' mark ' of 8 ounces of 10 Attic
drachmae each) was really the ounce of the Anglo-Saxon
pound, as it certainly is that of the Cologne and other Teutonic
weights mentioned below; and assuming also that the Saxons
had the same divisions as the Romans and the Irish, as
suggested in vol. i. pp. 239, 240, in the paragraph headed
' The Libra and Mercian Mark ; ' then the Saxon penig would
have contained before the treaty with Guthrum 24 half chalci,
Form 10, of "050625 gramme each or 20 of '06075 half chalci,
Form 8 — see entries marked D in Tower pound, table ante
(=i8| Troy of '0648 gramme, as stated at p. 237), and after
the treaty (and after this Tower pound for the purpose of the
treaty had been raised a fifteenth — that is, from 5400 Troy
grains to 5760 Troy grains) would have contained 20 Troy
grains (see E), six of which would amount to the five denarii
which made the treaty shilling, each denarius being 24 grains
Troy of "06492 gramme = 32 wheat grains of "0485 gramme,
and the treaty pound {i.e. the Troy pound) would thus be
divided duodecimally by the Anglo-Saxons as in Apothe
caries' weight, while the Normans would divide it decimally
as in Troy weight, and the Mercians sexdecimally as in the
valets of the land 'inter Ripam ' at page 248, vol. i. (see Tables
ante). As it is not reasonable to suppose that a weight would be
subdivided originally in such a way as to produce a fraction
of its primary unit, we may safely conclude that where a sub
division does so produce a fraction it is a subdivision brought
about by the adoption of another and different weight. The
marks of 8 ounces and 16 halves of ounces (or two thirds of 12
ounces) would represent in the duodecimal system 192 and 384

UNIT OF ASSESSMENT OF DOMESDAY' 609
pence or units, and in the decimal system 160 and 320 ; but
sometimes these marks were themselves divided duodecimally
and decimally : for instance, the Attic ' mark ' of 8 ounces
divides duodecimally up into the Tower pound, and the Mer
cian mark of 16 solidi divides decimally into the Troy pound
as well as duodecimally, as shown above.
As the Attic drachma of 4*3665 (see ante), the Tower
pound of 5400 Troy grains (equalling 80 of such drachmae), the
chalcus of "091 125, the \ chalcus of "0455625, the wheat grain
of -0486, the Troy grain of "064792, are all thoroughly identified,
there is very strong ground for thinking (as stated in my paper
in vol. i.) that there existed in England before the advent of
the Saxons a weight divided sexdecimally {i.e. 16 x 16x30,
or 7680 grains) ; that such grains were halves of chalci of
•091 125 ="0455625 ; that this weight was the Tower pound
divided afterwards by the Anglo-Saxons duodecimally in
stead of sexdecimally; and that, being 16x16x30 of
•0455625, it equalled fifteen ounces of 16 pence of 30 wheat
grains of "0486, and that this weight was at the treaty of
Guthrum raised -jV (that is from fifteen ounces to sixteen
ounces of such last-mentioned grains), and became what
I call the Mercian pound or mark of 16x16x30 halves
of chalci, or wheat grains of "0486 gramme =12 x 24 x 20 of
•0648 (Troy grains) =12x20x24 of the like grains. The
Troy grain is really "064792, but I have taken it as -0648.
The important question remains behind : Did the Saxons
when they came to England bring this Attic ' mark ' with
them, or did they find it here, treat it as an as or unit, and
divide it according to their system duodecimally ? For the
reason given in my paper in vol. i. I think they found it here,
and that binary or sexdecimai divisions as contained in the
Attic mark were in use among the British in accordance with the
like divisions of the land used by Dyvnmal before the Saxons
* obtained the crown of London and the supremacy in England.'

610 SUMMARY OF A 'NEW VIEW OF THE GELDABLE
The following are the grains or units in grammes : Troy,
chalcus, "129584, ditto "0972, the halves of v/hich are respec
tively -064792 and -0486 (this last being the wheat grain of
Edward's statute).
Since I wrote my paper in vol. i. I have found ample
confirmation of the meaning of the word wara and its con
sequent bearing on the calculation of areas at the time of
'Domesday Book.' Also that much land in a time anterior to
'Domesday Book ' had been allotted out by a people using
12 x 12 as well as 12 x 10, and that in order to get a uniform
assessment, one-sixth (or sex tula) of the area was put aside
extra hidam untaxed and unnoticed in ' Domesday Book.'
The same cardinal principle prevailed of old as now that
nothing (which valet nil) stat ad geldum : for instance, no
common land, arable or pasture, at the time of ' Domesday
Book ' or at the present day found or finds its way into an
income-tax schedule or a rate book ; none the less did and
does it exist and increase the area of a manor or a parish*
The words ' an acre of wara' meant an acre of land with a
part sown, and therefore taxed, and a part unsown, and
therefore untaxed, quia jacet in communi et valet nil {see vol. i.
p. 348). The word wara has no relation to defence or enclosure or
to the word war or wdrian (to defend), but the word wara
(without the accent) means of and belonging to the inhabitants ;
see Bosworth's ' Anglo-Saxon and English Dictionary,' edit.
1 88 1, p. 245, s. voc. ' Wara of inhabitants,' genitive plural of
waru, not defence, but ' a collective noun in the s. denoting
the city or town authority or corporation, the city, town, or
country, that is, the inhabitants of a town, city, or country, as
a body ' ; see Bosworth, same page. Wara, therefore, if Bos-
worth is right, means anything belonging to or held in com
mon by the inhabitants of a certain place or manor, and if
applied to land it would mean neither more nor less than the

UNIT OF ASSESSMENT OF DOMESDAY' 611
"common fields,' the fields jacentes in comtnuni of such a
manor. And this Is the simple solution : if (when the land was
originally set out) an acre of wara {i.e. of the common fields)
was given to a man in a two-course shift, at the time of the
allotment he would have an acre in each of two fields ; if the
three-course shift was in vogue, he would have three, i.e. one
in each of three fields. Such an allotment in area would
never change, though in case of an original allotment, say a
virgate or plena terra of twelve acres in each of two fields,
when the whole area was rearranged in three fields instead of
two, the same man who originally held twelve acres in each
of two fields would then hold eight acres in each of three
fields, though he would not thereby increase or change the
place of his holding, and though his manorial records might
still speak of his holding as twelve acres of wara.
The common fields of a township in the old charters are
spoken of therein as want and ut-zoant in several cases.
The shift from the two-course to the three-course without
altering the area of the separate holdings would be easy
enough when we remember that the land was held dis-
pcrsim in roods and acres interspersed among each other.
Luckily, since I wrote my paper, I have found an entry in the
Court Rolls of the manor of Winston, in Suffolk, which seems
to put the matter beyond doubt The roll is in the muni
ment-room of the Dean and Chapter of Ely, where anyone,
I have no doubt, would gladly be permitted to see it The
entry is as follows : —
Wynston. Curia ibidem tenta die Martis in crastino sanctas
Katherinae anno regni regis Edwardi (tertii) post conquestum quinto.
Rogerus Langhawe qui tenuit de domino unum messuagium et
quatuor acras wara terne quas se estendunt ad xii acras mensuras
per perticam xvi pedum et dimidia; in vfllenagio diem suum nuper
clausit extremum, etc
In regard to this roll I merely remark that at Winston
VOL. II. Q

612 SUMMARY OF A ' NEW VIEW OF THE GELDABLE
there were three ' common fields ' or wara fields, and that a
man holding four acres in each would hold twelve acres in
area, i.e. four acres of wara, of which eight would be taxed
and four untaxed, ' quia facent in communi et valent nil!
Also that I can conceive no expressiqn more like indicating
a lot of strips spread over three fields than the expression se
extendentes ad 12 acras. Among the numerous cases I have
met with, the following illustrates in a very compact form the
deduction of \ (fallow) in a three-course manor, viz. ' Ramsey
Chartulary,' vol. i. p. 398, Rypton Abbas, ' Tres hyda soke-
mannorum qua continent viginti duo virgatas et dimidiam.
Viginti quatuor acrafaciunt virgatam! There are 22J (not
20) by actual counting. Now 22^x24=540=3 hides of
120=360 with 180 fallow facentes in communi et valentes nil'
and therefore deducted. I have a strong suspicion that in
some cases in the thirteenth-century MSS. the fallow land is
not mentioned at all as in ' Domesday Book ' (see the cases of
Rypton Abbas, and Stivekel in the ' Ramsey Chartulary '), and
that 80 means taxed land with 40 of fallow 'jacentes in com
muni', and therefore unnoticed as in ' Domesday Book.'
The one geldable hide of 1 20 was reached by shrinking in
favour of the Angli 144 to 120 (see page 352, vol. L). The
king's officers took off the 144 a sixth or sextula. Certainly,
it is true, by expanding the 100 to 120 you get the same
result ; but it is not a question as between 100 and 120, but
as between 120 and 144. Nothing could show plainer that it
is so than the Shelford entry, where ' tenet' 7\ in the Hundred
Rolls for taxation represents the area of 9 in Norman
numeration in the contemporaneous survey, and 16 x 7\= 120
and 16 x 9=144 (see vol. i. pp. 357, 358). There are several
of the like cases in 'Domesday Book' (see vol. i. p. 350 and the
case of Ellingtune at p. 357). The ' Ramsey Chartulary ' says
that 6 areal virgates of 24 in the place made the area of one
hide. The Hundred Rolls, however, say 5 of 24, thus reducing

UNIT OF ASSESSMENT OF DOMESDAY' 613
6 to 5, and 144 to 120. This reduction of a sextula, i.e. 144
to 1 20, began long before ' Domesday,' and the surplusage of £
is in one place called super hidam. I call it, as does the
' Domesday ' of St. Paul, extra Jiidam. The passage I allude to
is at p. 129 of Stewart's ' Historia Eliensis.' There had been
a dispute about some land, so they took to a measuring thus
described : —
Mane itaque facto hinc et inde quam plures videlicit de homini
bus abbatis et de hominibus mulieris. Qui primum circumeuntes
mensi sunt terram quae absque calumpnia erat et non invenerunt de
terra quas mulieris jure fuisset nisi unam hydarn per sexies xx acras
et super hydam xxiiij acras.
So this 144 acres would only pass for one integra hyda, and
the 120 of the 144 would be the hid ma-l, and the 24 the oxer
mcsL Again, what ./Ethelwold bought shortly before (see
Stewart's 'Historia Eliensis,' p. 116) as xii. hydas is imme
diately after, in Edgar's contemporaneous charter, called one
partiaila ruris of x. cassatos, and to such charter is a terrier
in Anglo-Saxon, which speaks of it as lying hid malum and
ireer nnrJum, the acre portion being, no doubt, the 24 acres
extra hydam attached to the hid nuzL, i.e. to each hide of 1 20.
But there is another entry- in the ' Leges Regis Edwardi
Confessoris,' par. xxxiii. to be found in the ancient ' Laws and
Institutes of England,' London, 1S40, vol. i. pp. 456, 457, which
leaves the matter in no doubt and which runs thus : ' Erat
etiam Lex Danont-K Ncrthfclc Suthfcle Cantibrugescire que
habebat in cmendaaonem f oris factum ubi supradicti comitatus
habebant .11 Hi hundreda isti x et dimidium. Et h:c affinitate
Saxonum quia tunc temporis mafer ewendacio forts fadurce
Saxcnun: erat quater xx lib. et iiii! By Cap. iii. of Ethelred,
p. 293, we find the emendacio or ' bot ' was to be made with
xii hundred {i.e. a unit of xi:'. so xviii would be 1^ units, as

614 SUMMARY OF A ' NEW VIEW OF THE GELDABLE
also x et dimidium, i.e. 15), and in the note C is contained an
illustration from the.Laws of the Confessor thus : ' verbi gratia
in Danelaga per xviii hundreda qui numerus complet septies
viginti libras et quatuor quoniam foris facturam hundredi.
Dani Norwegienses viii lib habebant. Multiplicatis igitur octo
per octo decemfaciunt centum et quadraginta quatuor! Taking
eight pounds per hundred and the ' bot ' to be made with a
unit of xii hundred, it gives 8 into xii, i.e. one unit = 4 x 24
and 8 x 18, i.e. \\ units = 144 = 6x 24 ; but taking the
numeration indicated by the words isti x et dimidium these
numbers would become 8 into x, i.e. one unit = 4 x 20 and
8 x 15, i.e. \\ units = 120 = 6 x 20, and this too on the
threshold of 'Domesday Book.' Equally plain are the
statements contained in the Laws of Ina, c. 64, 65, 66, where
the halves of xx, x, and iii are shown to be xii,vi, and 1 J. See
p. 145 in the same volume, and also at p. 19, c. 61 of the
Laws of ^Ethelbirht (note b) the 24 solidi of the Lex
Alamannorum are rendered xx. Bearing this in mind, it will
be well to recall the fact, easily proved by the inspection of
' Domesday,' how many manors are therein marked {'signanlur')
as containing x, xx, xxx hides, especially in Cambridgeshire,
Huntingdonshire, and Yorkshire (see vol. i. pp. 252, 253).
I have compared so many MSS. now that I am driven to
the conclusion that you cannot trust MSS. that state areas in
decimals, i.e. decunces ; for instance, take the case of the
Stivekel ' Ramsey Chartulary,' vol. i. p. 392. The virgate is
put at 24, but in the Hundred Rolls, vol. ii. p. 299, it is stated
at 20 (i.e. a sextula less), which would be the taxed portion,
i.e. 6 x 20= 120, instead of 6 x 24. MSS. speaking in twelves,
or dimidiae sextulae, are not open to this distrust ; see ante,
vol. i. p. 132.
No better instances than the following can be given as to
the reduction from areas counted as 12x12 originally to that
of ' Domesday Book,' viz. a counting of 12 x 10, and also of the

UNIT OF ASSESSMENT OF DOMESDAY' 615
ignoring of the fallow 'jacens in communi' both working
together in the same area. I mean the case of Stretham,
before ' Domesday Book,' in Stewart's ' Historia Eliensis,'
pp. 1 19, 120. The abbot has 9 hidae, but in ' Domesday Book '
he is assessed only at 5. If \ is taken off for fallow, 'jacens
in communi,' in a three-course, the 9 is reduced to 6, and
taking off a sixth (12 to 10), we get 5 hides at which it is
assessed. At Wilburton, by a 'Liber Eliensis' of 1221
(Cott. MS. 'Tiberius,' book ii.), there is an area of 162 acres
(81 of wara), held by 9 libere tenentes or hundredarii ; 162
divided by 9 gives 18, and applying the above principles we
should get only 10 acres (in the 18) of taxed land. Thus, take
off £ for fallow 'jacens in communi,' it leaves 12, and off that
a sixth and 10 results, so that the 9 of 18 becomes for taxa
tion 9 of io, i.e. the ' 9 villani quisque de x. acris' as in the
' Inquisitio Eliensis ' and ' Domesday Book.' I am driven to
the conclusion that the area under the plough of the time of
' Domesday Book ' has been fearfully understated, as also the
population (see vol. i. pp. 360, 361). We are apt to forget that
between the withdrawal of the Romans and ' Domesday Book '
was a period of 600 years {i.e. as long as from now to
Edward I.), and to suppose that any very great portion of the
land that we find in cultivation by the MSS. of the middle of
the thirteenth century was brought into cultivation since
' Domesday Book ' is falsely to suppose— what is fresh is
generally marked ' de assarto!
It remains to state what can be gathered from Bede as to
the duodecimal system. At p. 1 1 1 of the Cologne edition of
161 2 of Bede, and the ' Glossa Bridferti Ramesiensis' there
appear the reasons why • unilas,' or oneness, when applied to
things that are capable of division or aggregation should have
different values in different systems — why, for instance, one, or
unitas, might mean an aggregation into one wliole of 1 2 things
or of 10 things, so that the tenth part of the one system should

616 SUMMARY OF A ' NEW VIEW OF THE GELDABLE
mean iA of the other, and thus ioo would mean 120, 10 would
mean 12, 5 mean 6, and 7\ mean 9. At pp. 114 to 122 are
given tables headed ' De Ratione Calculi ' illustrating the
method of multiplications up to 16 {se-decupli), but all starting,
not from 1, or unitas, but from -j^. At p. 1 1 1, Cologne edition,
1 61 2, Bede says : —
That oneness whence proceed all aggregations of numbers
which belongs properly to the exercise of arithmetic, since in reality
it is simple and does not consist at all in aggregation of parts, does
not admit of any division at all. But as to the rest, though there is
in things something of such a kind that on account of its wholeness
and solidity it deserves to be called by the name of oneness, yet
since it is a compound it will necessarily be liable to division. And
for this reason, because it is made up not of simplicity, but of com
pounds. On the scale of this division the ancients used such a sys
tem of calculation in measuring that by it every whole thing could be
divided by a rational division whether that which was put forward for
division were corporeal or an incorporeal thing. In this system the
As is called unitas, and its parts called by appropriate names, ad in
finitum according to their proportion.
Bede, at p. 1 1 1, under the head ' Modus Calculi', illustrates
this where he says, ' Incipiendum que a dimidia sextula per
duplicationem usque ad n, id est duo millia! The dimidia
sextula being in fact the twelfth part of the As or oneness, i.e.
of one pound, one hide, one manor, one hundred, one man's
holding, one virgate, one group of ploughs, acres or any other
things capable of aggregation, so the duo millia would really
be 24,000 dimidiae sextulae in the duodecimal system, and
20,000 in the decimal. In the ' Glossa Bridferti Ramesiensis,'
p. 143 of the above edition of Bede, it is thus stated : —
Quicquid in 10 partiri vis decern ejus partes simul decuncis
nomen accipiunt similiter ejus
10 fdecunx
pars -j 9 nuncupatur \ dodrans
8 Ibesse

UNIT OF ASSESSMENT OF DOMESDAY' 617
similiter quicquid in novem partiri vis omnes partes simul nomen
dodrantis tenent.

It follows, therefore, that a oneness, or unitas (one pound,
one hundred, &c), divided into 10 parts would be \% and
would be called a decunx, a name, however, properly applicable
to 10 only of 12 parts, instead of 12 things separated into 10.
This is fully borne out by Bede's statement at p. 142, under
the heading ' Divisioper Uncias ' : Libera as sive assis est unci-
arum duodecim et signatur ita X.,' just as the one particula
ruris of 1 2 hidae in ' Edgar's Charter ' above is called x.
cassati. So, too, the statement in ' Domesday Book ' that ' hie
numerus Anglice computatur, i.e. centum pro cxx.,' must mean
x. decunces, i.e. iox iox-^f ; so, too, the Shelford one man's
holding of 7-^ x -nr=9) 5 x-r8-=6, ano- au* ¦-ne other instances
that are to be found, and that I have referred to where there
has been found an opportunity of comparing contemporaneous
MSS. So also the real dodrans of the one cubit rod marked
A, B, C, vol. i. p. 255, would be 7\, 8L and 9 respectively in
regard to its respective cubits, and would be equally well
expressed by any of the three.
The same principle that governed the Saxons when they
refused to join the Lombards (see ante, vol. i. p. 260) evidently
prevailed in England when they took over the land there, and
it appears more than probable that the original Anglo-Saxon
dimidia sextula that formed their as or unit are in very many,
if not most, old MSS. stated in decunces, not only in regard
to one hundred, but also in other aggregations into a unit, so
that one man's holding at Shelford of 9 dimidia sextula is
written in the contemporaneous MS. as 7\ {decunces), and this
as late as 1279 (see vol. i. p. 357).
I have no doubt that by degrees the 72, the 36, the 1 8, the
9, &c. dimidia sextula were written and accepted as only 60, 30,
1 5. 7h &c- It mattered not when taxation &c. proceeded on the

618 SUMMARY OF A ' NEW VIEW OF THE GELDABLE
lines of unities, one hundred, one manor, one virgate, one plough-
land, one man's holding, whether these unities were treated as
aggregations of dimidia sextula or of decunces, though it does
matter a great deal to us of a later generation in calculating
areas ; the singular thing is that the reality and true meaning
of the long hundred in regard to one hundred has hitherto
been entirely overlooked as regards other unities, such as 7\
10, 15, 20, 30, &c. (see vol. i. p. 352). Notwithstanding there
are in the Cologne edition of Bede, as above stated, eight big
pages of calculations all starting, not from unity, but from its
twelfth part, i.e. the dimidia sextula, two ditto being marked
thus .j — three _f. — four .ss — five .ss. — six s — seven s. — eight
ss — nine ss. — ten sss — eleven sss. — twelve 1 ; so that itwill be
found in the column headed ' Nonecupli ' that nine into tea is
stated to be, not nine, but 7s, that is 7\, the inevitable conclu
sion being that where one manuscript, as at Shelford, voL i.
357, states one man's holding to be j\ acres, and a contem
poraneous MS. states the same to be 9, the first either reckons
in decunces, i.e. giving 192 poles to the acre, or, as I put it,
totally disregards (as extra hidam) the difference of \\ acres
and thus concedes apparently what the Lombards would not
concede : this concession, therefore, has to be reckoned with
in all Anglo-Saxon settlements in this country when a calcula
tion has to be made as to the size and manner of their allot
ments, and it must not be taken as gospel that when a MS.
states a virgate to be xxx. acres &c. it includes all the land
in the virgate, for it very likely is the case that it really is 36
dimidiaa sextulae, i.e. acres.
Errata to the last Paper in Vol. I.
Instead of the explanation of the cord of 29 feet at P. 2S2, read that of the
diagram p. 285-6 and p. 372.
P. 2S5> for '34°8 m. read 3048.
, , 256, for agris read agri.
,, 274. for 2SS m. read -22S6 m,

UNIT OF ASSESSMENT OF DOMESDAY' 619
P. 294, for 10-9 m, -read 109 m.
,, 311, for duodecimal read sexdecimai.
¦> 377> No. 64, for F read -307 m.
ii 377. No. 70, for Roman Stadium read Stadium of 720 of -296 foot
is 383- Russia, for 5 Roman Stadia read Stadia ,, ,,
,, 384, for *594 m. read -574 m. Dantzic.
„ 385, Hanover, for 160 rods read 120 rods.
The moggia of Naples (p. 382) needs revision. It seems to be (one-tenth of
an Attic Stadion) 18*48 x 184*8, i.e. 70 x 700 of "264 m. =60 x 600 of 308 m. or
34*15 Ares. If it really is 33*451 Ares ('Cambist,' p. 264) it is one-tenth of a
Devonshire quarantene of 18*28 x 182 m. But the Egyptian span of -264 m. is
to the Attic foot of -308 m. as 6 to 7.
P. 233, line 13, for 7680 Troy grains read 6750 Troy grains.

©omeetag Commemoration
1886

NOTES ON THE MANUSCRIPTS &c. EXHIBITED
AT H.M. PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE

©ottusto}) Ql£ooG+

THIS remarkable record, the oldest and most valuable survey
among the national archives, was formerly kept by the side
of the Tally Court, in the Receipt of the Exchequer, under
three locks and keys, in charge of the Auditor, the Chamber
lains, and Deputy-Chamberlains of the Exchequer, till, in
1 696, it was deposited with the other records in the Chapter
House at Westminster. In 1859 it was transferred to the
Public Record Office,
Domesday Book consists of two volumes, of different sizes
and appearance. The first, in folio, contains the counties of
Bedford, Berks, Bucks, Cambridge, Chester and Lancaster,
Cornwall, Derby, Devon, Dorset, Gloucester, Hants, Hereford-,
Herts, Huntingdon, Kent, Leicester and Rutland, Lincoln,
Middlesex, Northampton, Nottingham, Oxford, Salop,
Somerset, Stafford, Surrey, Sussex, Warwick, Wilts, Wor
cester, and York. The second volume, in quarto, contains
the counties of Essex, Norfolk, and Suffolk.
The larger volume contains 382 leaves of parchment,
with five old fly-leaves at the beginning and four at the end.
The leaves measure 14-^ in. by 9f in., and are mostly in
quaternions of eight leaves, though this is not invariable.
The rubbed and worn look of the first and last leaves of the
portion for each county appears to indicate that these portions
were kept separate for some time before being bound together

624 MANUSCRIPTS &c. EXHIBITED AT
in one volume. All the counties, however, do not begin a
separate sheet, Cheshire being an instance to the contrary.
There are three pages smaller than the rest (ff. 42, 76, 81).
These are pieces of parchment added to complete a portion
which could not be got into the space allotted for it. One is
a scrap cut off a page already ruled, and used with the lines
vertical. Another (f. 8 1) has been inserted in the wrong place,
and should be between ff. 82 and 83. Lines are ruled on the
pages with a dry point, and on the margin may be seen the
small holes made by the ' runner ' used as a guide for the
ruler. The number of lines varies from 50 to 59, but the
writing does not always keep to them, so that the lines of
writing sometimes exceed in number the lines ruled, no doubt
to rectify a miscalculation of the space allotted for the entries,
See ff. 72 b, 154.
The page is divided into two columns, and perpendicular
lines are ruled to mark the margins and central space, which
are not always accurately observed. Blank pages, such as
folio 126, distinctly show the method of ruling.
The writing is very clear, the letters being all distinctly
and separately formed ; and any difficulty which is experienced
in reading the book arises only from the abbreviations, the
same mark of contraction being often used to represent widely
different syllables.
There is no ornament, but the name of the county is written
at the head of each page, in red, and a dash of the same
colour is used to heighten capital letters.
The names of places are also emphasized by a red line
running through the middle of the letters.
In several places there are omissions and additions in the
side and bottom margins, the passages to which they refer
being indicated by marks (ff. 45 b, 60, 61, 61 b, 98 b, 102,
103, 106 b, 165 b, 166 b, 238 b, 282 b, 289, etc.) and there are
some erasures and alterations (ff. 63 b, 67, 91).

H.M. PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE 625
Some of the marginal notes — as at ff. 48, 48 b, 72 col. 2, 74,
102— appear to be subsequent additions.
The same scribe was not employed throughout, Derbyshire
and Yorkshire and the ' Feodum Rotberti de Bruis ' (f. 332 b)
being noticeably in a different handwriting. At the County
of Lincoln, however, the original hand recurs.
The fly-leaves contain memoranda of various kinds and
dates, made by officers of the Exchequer, and an extent of
lands and an inquisition, both original documents of the
thirteenth century, have been inlaid in one leaf.
Vol. II. is of a smaller size, the leaves being io-| in. by
6\ in. The parchment is mostly of a coarser character, and
the writing, which is by several hands and more cursive, is
generally larger than that of Vol. I. The lines are marked in
the same way, but are farther apart, the number in a page
varying from 20 to 28, except in the case of two leaves (229
and 230) inserted in the middle of ' Norfolk,' which have 40
lines. The point used for ruling has sometimes cut through
the parchment. There is no division into columns. The
varying quality of the parchment, and the frequent changes of
handwriting, suggest that the volume is composed by binding
together a quantity of separately prepared returns, rather than
by transcribing them. The red colour employed is of a dif
ferent kind from that in Vol. I., and is much more sparingly
used. There are one or two clumsy attempts at ornamental
capitals, but of no artistic value.
The survey was probably commenced late in 1085, and
completed in 1086, according to the colophon in the second
volume :
' Anno millesimo octogesimo sexto ab incarnatione Domini
vicesimo vero regni Willelmi facta est ista descriptio non
solum per hos tres comitatus sed etiam per alios.'
' On any hypothesis,' says Eyton, ' as to the time taken by
the different processes which resulted in Domesday Book, the

626 MANUSCRIPTS &C. EXHIBITED AT
whole, that is the survey, the transcription, and the codifica
tion, were completed in less than eight months, and three of
the eight were winter months. No such miracle of clerkly
and executive capacity has been worked in England since.'
The Commissioners appointed to make the survey were to
inquire the name of each place ; who held it in the time of
King Edward the Confessor ; the present possessor ; how
many hides were in the manor ; how many ploughs were in
the demesne ; how many homagers ; how many villeins ; how
many cottars ;. how many serving men ; how many free
tenants ; how many tenants in soccage ; how much wood,
meadow, and pasture ; the number of mills and fish ponds ;
what had been added to or taken away from the place, and
how much each free man or soc-man had. All this was to be
triply estimated : First, as the estate was held in the time of
the Confessor ; then, as it was bestowed by King William ;
thirdly, as its value stood at the formation of the survey ; and
it was to be stated whether any increase could be made in the
value. The inquisitions having been taken were sent to Win
chester, and were there methodized and enrolled in the form
we now see them.
For some reason left unexplained, many parts were not
surveyed. Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmoreland, and
Durham are not described in the survey ; nor does Lancashire
appear under its proper name ; but Furness, and the northern
part of Lancashire, as well as the south of Westmoreland,
with a part of Cumberland, are included within the West
Riding of Yorkshire. That part of Lancashire which lies
between the Ribble and the Mersey, and which at the time
of the survey comprehended six hundreds and one hundred
and eighty-eight manors, is joined to Cheshire. Part of Rut
land is described in the counties of Northampton and Lincoln.
The printed edition of 'Domesday' was commenced in

H.M. PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE 627
1773, and was completed early in 1783. {See The Biblio
graphy of Domesday Book, post, p. et seq!)
Z§t oft> +©ome0fcay CoSJet*.
These are the covers in which ' Domesday ' was bound
when it was deposited at the Chapter House, Westminster.
The foundation is of wood, apparently of considerable anti
quity ; but the metal work does not appear to be earlier than
the seventeenth century. In that depository russia leather
covers were substituted for these old ones. After their trans
fer to the Public Record Office the two volumes had to be
taken to pieces for the purposes of the facsimile reproduction
of the text by photo-zincography ; and on their return from
Southampton, they were placed in the present bindings. The
work was carried out by Riviere in 1869.
In Devon's ' Issues of the Exchequer,' under date Michael
mas, 14 Edward III. (A.D. 1320), appears the following entry
relating to the binding of the smaller book : ' To William, the
bookbinder, of London, for binding and newly repairing the
Book of Domesday, in which is contained the counties of
Essex, Norfolk, and Suffolk, and for his stipend, costs, and
labour ; received the money the 5 th day of December, by his
own hands — 3J. ^d! Possibly this entry refers to the wooden
cover of the smaller volume, which was, as already stated-
removed at the Chapter House.
Z§t +©ontf0toj>+ £§t&t.
Nothing is known with precision as to the date of this
curious specimen of early iron work. In Sir Francis Palgrave's
Introduction to the ' Kalendars and Inventories of the Ex.
chequer' (Vol. i. p. 118), a 'large chest' is described which
VOL. 11. R

628 MANUSCRIPTS &C. EXHIBITED AT
bears a strong resemblance to this particular coffer. The
passage runs: ' 16 January, 2 Henry VI., the Treasury re
ceived a case containing the Ampulla of consecrated oil with
which the King is anointed on the day of his coronation, two
pairs of bracelets, and a sceptre. And on the last day of
February, 5 Henry VI., the Ampulla and the " Rod of Aaron,"
as the sceptre appears to have been designated, were taken
out of their cases by the Duke of Bedford, in presence of the
Lords of the Council assembled in the Star Chamber, and
placed in a coffer of leather, bound with iron, secured by three
locks, and sealed with the Duke's signet ; which coffer itself
was placed in a large chest in the Great Treasury at West
minster, also locked with three locks. At the same time the
great crown, then lately in the custody of the Bishop of Win
chester, and previously deposited in the same coffer, was
delivered by the Duke of Bedford and others of the King's
Council, to Walter Hungerford, the Treasurer, and Chamber
lains of the Exchequer.'
The external measurements are : length, 3 ft. 21 in. ;
breadth, 2 ft. 1 in. ; height, 2 ft. 3 in. The massive lid is 3 ft.
7\ in. by 2 ft. 3 in. The chest was formerly secured by three
locks, and a small compartment in the interior has an addi
tional lock. This chest was brought from the Chapter House
with Domesday Book.

Z$t +($66t*Ektio+ of ©om^bap (0oo8.
In the Introduction to the ' Antient Kalendars and Inven
tories of the Exchequer,' Six Francis Palgrave gives the follow
ing description of this manuscript : ' Besides the original
" Domesday," the Treasury possesses an abridgment forming
a very beautiful volume, apparently compiled early in the
reign of Edward I. The handwriting is a fine specimen of

H.M. PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE 629
caligraphy ; the capitals are illuminated ; in the margins of
some of the pages are circles of gold, containing heads or half-
lengths, representing the chief tenants whose lands are therein
described. Prefixed are leaves of vellum, with six illumina
tions or pictures of incidents from the legend of Edward the
Confessor. These are in a rude and singular style of art,
possibly not later than the reign of Henry I. Peter le Neve
has written a note on the fly-leaf, in which he states his belief
that the volume was illuminated and transcribed in the reign of
Henry VII. ; a most singular error to haye been committed by
an antiquary of so much experience.' Le Neve's note runs :
' Memorandum quod ego Petrus le Neve, Norroy, et unus vice-
camerariorum Scaccarii Domine Anne, Magne Britannie, &c,
Regine, &c, suppono hunc librum scriptum fuisse in tempore regni
Regis Henrici septimi, quia illuminationes adeo nitidas, et exempli-
ficatio ultime voluntatis Henrici septimi Regis Anglias eadem quasi
manu exarata est — Quaere tamen. ' P. le Neve, Norroy.
'Vide etiam Guischardini descriptionem Belgie sub titulo
Civitatis Bruges de illuminatoribus in Angliam transportatis.'
The six illuminations refer to the following incidents in
the life of Edward the Confessor :
1. Edward the Confessor charges Earl Godwin with caus
ing the death of Alfred, the king's brother {see ' Lives of
Edward the Confessor,' Rolls Series, p. 271).
2. The Earl offers to prove his innocence by eating a
morsel of bread blessed by the king {ib. p. 272).
3. The Vision of the King of the Danes, drowned whilst
passing from a boat on board a ship {ib. p. 215).
4. The Vision of the Seven Sleepers of Ephesus, turning
from their right to their left sides (portending war, famine,
and pestilence) {ib. p. 273).
5. The Miracle of the Eucharist (ib. p. 250).

630 MANUSCRIPTS &C EXHIBITED AT
6. The Legend of the Ring given by Edward the Confessor
to St. John the Evangelist {ib. p. 276).
In the manuscript, marginal references are given to the
pages of the ' Decern Scriptores,' where some of the incidents
depicted are alluded to.
The ' Abbreviatio' was prepared for the use of the
Chamberlains of the Exchequer. It has never been printed.
t,%t +Q£re5forfe+ of ©onusoag qgfoofi.
This manuscript, which appears to be of the thirteenth
century, belongs to the Queen's Remembrancer's Department
of the Exchequer. It was compiled for the use of the Trea
surer. In this abstract of 'Domesday' the 'villani," bordarii,'
and stock are omitted. The volume contains, in addition,
curious verses and memoranda ; among these are some of the
prophecies of Merlin.
The ' Breviate ' has never been printed.
£0e $3oft>on (good
This celebrated survey of the Palatinate of Durham was
made in the year 11 83, by order of Bishop Hugh Pudsey,
kinsman to King Stephen. It probably took its name from
Boldon, a township and parish near Sunderland. The original
of the Boldon Book is not known to be extant. Three copies
of it, however, remain : 1. One preserved among the Auditor's
Records, Durham. 2. One in the Library of the Dean and
Chapter of Durham. 3. One among the MSS. of Archbishop
Laud at Oxford.
The first MS. here mentioned was transferred to the
Public Record Office with the other records of the Palatinate
in 1869. It is a manuscript of the fourteenth century, on

H.M. PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE 631
parchment, entitled on the cover, ' Supervisus tempore Thome
Hatfeld, Episcopi.' At leaf 103 commences the copy of
Bishop Pudsey's Survey. This was the manuscript used by
the Rev. Mr. Greenwell as the text of his edition of the
' Boldon Buke ' published for the Surtees Society.
The ' Boldon Book ' is also printed in Vol. IV. pp.
565-587 of the Record Commission Edition of Domesday.
(See Bibliography, sub Durham.)

Z%t (Reb (goo6 of t%t ^cSSecjuer.
After Domesday Book this is the most famous record of
the Exchequer. Its compilation was commenced early in the
reign of Henry III. Among the principal contents are :
1. The ' Dialogus de Scaccario,' or treatise on the ancient
constitution and practice of the Exchequer, in which it is
stated (Book I., chap, xv.) that ' Domesday' was always kept
with the Great Seal at the Exchequer—' Porro liber de quo
quaeris sigilli Regii comes est individuus in Thesauro.' This
further description of ' Domesday ' is also given in chapter
xvi. of the ' Dialogue ' : —
Cum insignis ille subactor Anglias Rex Willelmus, ejusdem
Pontificus sanguine propinquus, ulteriores Insulas fines suo subjugasset
imperio, et rebellium mentes terribilium perdomuisset exemplis ; ne
libera de castero daretur erroris facultas, decrevit subjectum sibi
populum juri scripto legibusque subicere. Propositis igitur
legibus Anglicanis secundum tripartitam earum distinctionem, hoc
est Merchenelage, Denelaga, Westsaxenelage, quasdam reprobavit,
quasdam autem approbans, illis transmarinas Neustrias leges, quas ad
Regni pacem tuendam efficacissimas videbantur, adjecit. Demum
ne quid deesse videretur ad omnem totius providentias summam,
communicato consilio, discretissimos a latere suo destinavit viros per
Regnum in circuitu. Ab hiis itaque totius terras descriptio diligens
facta est, tam in nemoribus, quam in pascuis et pratis, nee non et

632 MANUSCRIPTS &C EXHIBITED AT
agriculturis, et verbis communibus annotata in librum redacta est;
ut videlicet quilibet, jure suo contentus, alienum non usurpet impune.
Fit autem descriptio per Comitatus, per Centuriatas, et per Hidas,
prasnotato in ipso capite Regis nomine, ac deinde seriatim aliorum
procerum nominibus appositis secundum status sui dignitatem,
qui videlicet de Rege tenent in capite. Apponuntur autem
singulis numeri secundum ordinem sic dispositis, per quos inferius
in ipsa libri serie, quas ad eos pertinent, facilius occurrunt.
Hie liber ab indigenis Domesdei nuncupatur, id est, dies judicii
per Metaphoram ; sicut enim districti et terribilis examinis illius
novissimi sententia nulla tergiversationis arte valet eludi : sic cum
orta fuerit in regno contentio de his rebus quas illic annotantur, cum
ventum fuerit ad Librum, sententia ejus infatuari non potest vel
impune declinari. Ob hoc nos eundem Librum fudiciarium nomi-
navimus ; non quod in eo de propositis aliquis dubiis feratur
sententia; sed quod ab eo sicut a prsedicto judicio non licet ulla
ratione discedere.
The 'Dialogue' then proceeds to explain the nature of
the hide, the hundred, and the county ' secundum vulgarem
opinionem! 2. Copies of the ' Cartae ' of the tenants-in-chief returned
into the Exchequer A.D. ii 66, certifying what knights' fees
they held and were held of them. Two only of the original
' Cartae ' — out of more than two hundred and fifty sent into
the Treasury — are known to be extant.
3. The inquisitions returned into the Treasury of the
Exchequer in the 12th and 13th years of King John as to the
holders of knights' fees and their services.
4. A collection of Serjeanties in different counties.
5. The 'Constitutio Domus Regis,' or Book of the House
hold of Henry II.
6. A large collection (made by Alexander de Swereford,
an officer of the Exchequer), from the Pipe Rolls, of scutages
levied between 2 Henry II. and 13 John, compiled in order
to ascertain the knights' fees granted, so as to serve as a
guide in future levies

H.M. PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE 633
7. An abstract of the lost Pipe Roll of the first year of
Henry II.
8. Documents and memoranda relating to the Exchequer.
9. Diplomas, charters, royal letters, papal bulls, and
treaties. An edition of the Red Book is in progress for the series of
' Chronicles and Memorials ' (Record Publications).

tfc Q@>foc8 (goo& of 10* &?$tc\m
{Liber Niger Scaccarii).
This was part of the original stock or library of the
Treasury, and so termed from the colour of its binding.
The contents include : (1) A perpetual Kalendar for finding
the Dominical Letters, &c, from the year 11 84 (about which
time it was made) to the year 1688. (2) An Almanac for the
twelve months of the year, with coeval notices of remarkable
occurrences. The earliest of these passages relate to the
battles of Lewes (14 May A.D. 1264) and of Evesham (4 Aug.
A.D. 1265), and the latest incident is the battle of Branxton
Moor [Flodden Field] (9 Sept. 15 13). (3) Drawings in out
line, representing the Eagle, the emblem of St. John ; the
Bull, the emblem of St. Luke ; an Angel, the emblem of St.
Matthew ; and a winged Lion, the emblem of St. Mark,
accompanied by verses from the Gospels. These representa
tions may have been used for the purpose of administering an
oath as upon the Gospels. (4) Drawings in outline of the
Crucifixion, the Virgin and Child, St. Michael, &c. (5) The
tract known as the ' Dialogus de Scaccario,' according to
tradition in the original autograph of Gervase of Tilbury.
(6) Oaths of various officers of the Exchequer. (7) Memo
randa as to admissions of Chamberlains, Tellers and Clerks of

634 MANUSCRIPS &c. EXHIBITED AT
the Pells, extending from 19 Edward II. to 1715. Some
original instruments are also inserted or annexed to the leaves.
The second part of this ' Liber Niger' is a modern volume,
containing appointments of Treasurers and Chamberlains and
other officers, orders of Court concerning tallies, and other
notices relating to the Receipt of the Treasury.
The only portion of the ' Liber Niger ' which has been
printed is the ' Dialogus.'
tge IknxdUt (gfacR (gooG of l(e
d^cfleauer
{Liber Niger Parvus Scaccarii).
The second ' Liber Niger,' appertaining to the King's
Remembrancer of the Exchequer, sometimes called 'Liber
Niger Parvus,' contains, among other matter, the ' Constitutia
Domus Regis,' or an account of the royal household in the,
reign of Henry II. ; the last Will of Henry II. ; two conven
tions between Henry I. and Robert, Count of Flanders ;
conventions between Henry II. and Philip, Count of Flanders ;
another between Stephen and Henry, son of the Empress
Maud ; bulls of Pope Alexander III. ; and copies of the
charters of the King's tenants in capite, certifying the knights'
fees held by them or holden of them in the year 1166.
Hearne published two editions of this book, but from im
perfect transcripts.

«0e (pipe (goto.

This fine series of Exchequer Rolls dates from a period
about forty-five years earlier than any of the Chancery
enrolments. Madox in his ' History of the Exchequer', refers

H.M. PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE 635
to these Rolls as ' Recorda, omnium quae in archivis Regis
usquam vidisse me memini splendidissima ; post Rotulum
quern Librum Domesday vocant ; quin ei aequiparanda.'
They contain the accounts of the King's revenue, year by year,
as they were made up with' the King's officers appointed to
that service by the Sheriffs of the counties, who acted as
the King's bailiffs, and by other ministers and debtors of the
Crown. The earliest Roll extant has been ass'gned by Hunter,
who edited the manuscript for the Record Commission, to
the thirty-first year of Henry I. (A.D. n 30-1). Between the
date of ' Domesday ' and this Great Roll of the Exchequer
there is a chasm in the Public Records. T. he next Roll of
the series is that of the second year of Henry II. (a.d. i 155-6),
but from that early date the series is nearly perfect. A Roll
of the fourteenth year of King Charles II. shows how these
enrolments are increased in bulk in the seventeenth century
as compared with those of the twelfth century.
The Pipe Rolls of 31 Henry I. ; 2, 3, and 4 Henry II. ;
1 Richard I. ; and 3 John (the Chancellor's Antigraph) were
printed by the Record Commission. All the rolls prior to
A.D. 1200 are now in course of publication by the Pipe Roll
Society.
Z(xUm of *0e (B^equer*
The tallies in use at the Exchequer were narrow shafts
of box, willow, or other hard wood, on which notches were
cut to denote particular sums of money ; and by this primitive
method the amounts paid into the Exchequer were duly
checked. On the obverse surface of the shaft the principal
numeral of the sum was cut in one bold notch. Then, on the
reverse surface, were cut the subsidiary numerals of .the sum
required to be inscribed, with a suitable interval between each

636 MANUSCRIPTS &c. EXHIBITED AT
denomination. Thus, £1,000 was cut in one deep notch of the
width of a man's palm ; for ;£ioo the notch was no wider than
a thumb-mark ; -£20 was cut as broad as the little finger ; and
the £1 notch was only deep enough to contain a barleycorn ;
These shafts, so scored, were subsequently split longitudinally,
one half being handed to the King's debtor and the other half,
or counterfoil, retained at the Exchequer. On the accountant's
half being brought into the Exchequer for payment, the foil
and counter-foil were first joined to test their agreement, and,
if they tallied, the money was allowed. In the twelfth century
nine inches seems to have been the usual length of a tally,
but those of the present century are not unlike the wooden
swords of the South Sea Islanders. In attempting to get rid
of the tallies by burning them, the flues of the Houses of
Parliament became overheated, and the two Houses were
thus burnt down on the 16th of October, 1834.
Among the tallies selected for exhibition are some belong
ing to the reign of Henry III., which relate to the manor of
Ledcombe, in Berkshire ; they are the earliest and smallest
specimens preserved in the Public Record Office. Some
Court Rolls of this manor, of the same reign, are stated by
Sir Francis Palgrave (' Antient Kalendars and Inventories of
the Exchequer,' I. p. Ixvi) to be, in his belief, amongst the
earliest rolls of this class of record now extant.

Caxtat Qjtnftquae.
These consist of transcripts, made during the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries, of charters granted by various Sovereigns,
from jEthilberht, King of Kent, to the reign of Edward I.
The earliest document entered on these rolls (Roll I. No. 18)
is King ^Ethilberht's grant to St. Augustine's Monastery at
Canterbury of the vill called Sturigao, otherwise Cistelet ;

H.M. PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE 637
also a silver dish, a golden ' scapton,' a saddle with a bridle
ornamented with gold and gems, a silver mirror, silken
dalmatics, and an embroidered cloak, the gift of Pope Gregory.
The date of this charter is given by Kemble as 9th January,
605. This transcript is followed by King Cnut's grant to the
same monastery of the body of S. Mildred the Virgin, with
all the land both within and without the island of Thanet
belonging to the same church. The first document on Roll
CC. purports to be the foundation-charter of St. Peter's
Monastery at Westminster, granted by King Edwaid the
Confessor in 1066. The proem states : —
1 That the King, considering his peaceful accession to the throne of
this kingdom, after so many bitter wars in former reigns, had resolved
to perform a pilgrimage to the temple of .the apostles Saints Peter
and Paul, and there to render thanks for benefits bestowed, and to
pray that God would continue that peace to him and his successors
for ever. He therefore reckoned up the expenses necessary for the
journey, and the honourable gifts which he should make to the Holy
Apostles, but great anxiety befell the King's nobles lest during his
absence the kingdom should be again disturbed by any hostility and
lest any mischance or sickness should happen to him by the way,
especially because he had no son. They, therefore, after due
deliberation, besought him to desist from this purpose, promising
that they would themselves make satisfaction for his vow to God in
masses and prayers and a plentiful distribution of alms. But the
King opposed this with all his might, and at length it was decided
that two legates on behalf of either party, Bishops Ealdred and
Hereman, and Abbots Wulfric and ^Elfwin, should be sent to declare
to the Pope the King's desire, and also the desire of the others, and
the King promised to abide by his sentence in all things. The legates
therefore proceeded to Rome and found a synod assembled in the
city. When they had explained the King's desire before two
hundred and fifty bishops and a multitude of holy fathers, the Pope
then, on the advice of the synod, wrote a letter to the King
absolving him from his vow, and enjoining him to distribute to the
poor the expenses which he had set apart for his journey, and either
to construct anew, to the honour of S. Peter prince of the Apostles,

638 MANUSCRIPTS &C. EXHIBITED AT
a monastery, or to repair and enlarge the old one, and to provide its
inmates with sufficient sustenance. These and other commands the
legates related to the King, and in the meantime the blessed S. Peter
revealed to a certain monk of an honest life, by name Wlfsin, his
wish that the King should restore the place called Westminster
founded in the fime of S. Augustine, the first bishop in England, and
enriched by the munificence of the Kings of old, but which now
from age and from wars seems almost destroyed. And when this
vision was related to the King, and he received similar precepts
from the apostolical letter, he applied himself to the rebuilding of
that place. He, therefore, ordered to be tithed all his substance as
well in gold and silver as in flocks, and all kinds of possessions ;
and destroying the old building, he constructed an entirely new
church and caused it to be dedicated on the fifth kalends of January,
on which day he placed there the relics which Pope Martin and Leo
who consecrated him gave to King ^Elfred, and which he besought
Carloman, King of the French, should be given him, whose daughter,
his father, King ^Ethelwlf, married after the death of his first wife,
and which from him came to his successor yEthelstan, then to Eadgar,
and last to King Eadward ; namely, two pieces of the cross of our
Lord, a piece of a nail, a piece of his garment without seam, and a
piece of the garments of S. Mary, and relics of the apostles Peter
and Paul, Andrew, Bartholomew, Barnabas, and of many other saints,
and five coffers full of other relics of saints ; and he also granted
right of sanctuary for every fugitive. The King also renewed and
confirmed the privileges which his grandfather Eadgar, and his uncle
the glorious King and Martyr Eadward son of Eadgar, and Dunstan,
Archbishop of Canterbury, and King ^Ethelred his father gave to
that place ; he also ordained that it should be free from all secular
service, and that the election of abbots should be according to the
rule of S. Benedict. Neither the abbot nor any other person to have
liberty to sell or to give to strangers any of the possessions of the
monastery. The King also granted and confirmed the gifts made
by his predecessors,' &c. &c. [Appendix to the 29th Report of the
Deputy-Keeper of the Public Records, p. 24.]
The following extract from the same King's grant to
the abbey of Waltham Holy Cross, in Essex, in A.D. 1062
(Roll M., No. 1), may be given as an illustration of the

H.M. PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE 639
precise manner in which boundaries were defined in these
early charters : — ¦
'These are the land boundaries to Passefelde. That is, first from
the old hatch at Freotherne felde to Presta hlype ; to the brook at
Staundune ; and from Staundune to Scealdeforda, and from Scelde-
forda to Coleboge well ; from the well again to the old hatch, and
so again to Freothene field.
'These are the land boundaries to Welde. First from Dellen
north to the mouth, east to Hafegeaete ; from Hafegeaste east to the
wolf-pit ; from the pit south to the Purk, from the Purk south to
Freobearne's leap, and so to Manne's land, and thence again to Dellen.
' These are the land boundaries to Upmynstre. First at Tigel-
hyrste south to the boundary ditch ; from the ditch west to Ingce-
burne, and from the bourne north to Beccengare ; and from
Beccengare north along the road-weald to Stangare ; from Stangare
north into Mannes land ; from Mannes land again to Tigelhyrste.
' These are the land boundaries to Walhfare. First from the ash
to the old leap ¦ from the leap to the old wood hatch ; from the
hatch to the old road ; and from the road to Sandaecre ; and from
the acre to Beadewan river ; from the river to Winebrook ; from the
brook north again to the ash.
' These are the land boundaries to Tippedene. First to Tippa-
burne ; from the bourne -up to the heath ; from the heath to
Thetden's boundary opposite MffsJs hatch, and so to the river ; along
the river, then again to Tippeburne.
' These are the land boundaries to yEwartone. First at Werdhascce ;
from Wardhascce to Eacroft ; from Eacroft to Beollepool ; from the
pool to Leofsige's meadows ; from Leofsige's meadow to Omermad ;
from Omermad to Athene's leap ; from the leap to Wulf leap ; from
Wulf leap to Thesfalde ; from Thesfalde to Stanway hatch ; from
Stanway hatch to Sateres byrig.
' These are the land boundaries to Wudeford. First to Angric's
bourne to Alderman's hatch ; to the King's hatch ; from the King's
hatch again to Angric's bourne.
'These are the land boundaries to Lambe hythe. First at Brixges
stane, and so on through the grove to the boundary dyke, and so
to Bulke tree ; and from Bulke tree to Hyse ; and from Hyse to
^Elsyge's hatch ; and so east to the road ; and so along the road
again to Brixes stan.

640 MANUSCRIPTS &C. EXHIBITED AT
'These are the land boundaries to Nassingan. That is from
Cerlen hatch, along the mark to Scelden boundary ; and from
Scelden boundary to the brook ; and from the brook to Butterwyelle ¦
and from Buterwelle to Thurolde's boundary ; and from Thurolde's
boundary again along the mark to Cerlen hatch ; and the meadow
thereto belonging lies out by the Lea.' — [Appendix to the 29th Report
of the Deputy-Keeper of the Public Records, pp. 30-31.]
(pope Qtic(5oftt0+0 Zapdion.
In the year 1288, Pope Nicholas IV. granted the tenths of
all ecclesiastical benefices to King Edward I., for six years,
towards paying the expenses of an expedition to the Holy
Land ; and, that they might be collected to the full extent, a
taxation by the King's precept was begun in that year and
finished, as to the province of Canterbury, in 129 1, and as to
that of York, in the following year. This taxation, called
' Taxatio Ecclesiastica,' regulated the taxes of the clergy
as well to our . kings as to the popes, until the survey of
26 Henry VIII., called 'Valor Ecclesiasticus.'
This record has been printed.

Zttta be QteSiW.
These volumes contain an account of fees holden either
immediately of the King or of others in capite ; of fees holden
in frankalmoigne, and the values thereof; of serjeanties holden
of the King ; of widows and heiresses of tenants in capite,
whose marriages were in the gift of the King, and the values
of their lands ; of churches in the gift of the King, and in
whose hands ; of escheats, as well of the Normans as of others,
in whose hands they were and by what services they were
held ; and of the amount paid for scutage and aid by each

H,M. PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE 641
tenant. The chief use of the work is to ascertain the prin
cipal landholders throughout the kingdom in the reigns of
Henry III. and Edward I.
Sir Thomas Hardy, in his ' Descriptive Catalogue ' — a
work of extraordinary research —gives the following note : —
' The origin of the title of this record is a matter of doubt.
Dugdale suggests that it was named after Jollan de Neville,
one of the itinerant justices at that time ; but in all pro
bability it was called after Ralph de Nevill, a collector of
aids in the reign of Henry III. It has also been suggested,
though with more conceit than probability, that " Testa de
Nevill was a jocular appellation equivalent to Nevill 's
headpiece — Testa meaning the skull, and being the origin of
the French teste or tete — and was bestowed on the document,
as supplying information possessed by some experienced
officer of the Exchequer, who may have written it as a re
membrance to serve his successors in office ; or it may have
been completed after the death of such a person, to serve the
place of his skull, which in his lifetime had contained the
knowledge of the documents from which it had been made
up." '
This record has been printed by the Record Commission.

%\xfy% Oue0^

In 35 Edward I. (A.D. 1306-7), Adam Kirkeby or Kirby,
then Treasurer, and his fellows, made inquiry, according to
the ancient custom, by inquests or verdicts of juries, concern
ing the tenures in capite throughout several of the shires of
England, and the result of these verdicts or inquests was a
volume which, in some respects, is analogous to ' Domesday,'
inasmuch as it comprehends all the immediate military
tenants of the crown. Only a fragment of the original is

642 MANUSCRIPTS &C. EXHIBITED AT
now extant, preserved among the 'Subsidy Rolls' (f^),
containing portions of the counties of York, Devon, Dorset,
Salop, Kent, Oxon, and Lincoln. The remaining portions of
Kirby's Quest are preserved to us in a sixteenth-century
transcript — a volume belonging to the Queen's Remem
brancer's side of the Exchequer. There are two volumes
among the Chapter House Books {B^ and B fa), which con
tain portions of ' Kirby's Quest'

Zfy (gooR of (frits.
This volume contains the details of the assessment of the
Aid ('rationabile auxilium') granted in the 20th year of
King Edward III. for knighting the Black Prince. The
returns include the following counties : Bedford, Bucks,
Cambridge, Cumberland, Devon, Cornwall, York (East and
West Ridings), Essex, Hertford (under Essex), Gloucester,
Hereford, Kent, Lancaster, Lincoln (' in partibus de Holand '),
Middlesex, Nottingham, Derby, Norfolk, Suffolk, Northum
berland, Salop, Stafford, Somerset, Dorset, Southampton,
Worcester. Returns of the Aid for the marriage of Blanche,
the King's daughter, in the counties of Oxford, Berks, Wilts,
and Stafford are also included in this MS.
Portions of this book have been printed in the Transactions
of various Archaeological Societies.

(Regi0&um (Tftunimenfomm.
The very valuable and important registers so entitled are
designated in the Memoranda as the two books bound in
wood and covered with red leather (the present bindings are

H.M. PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE 643
modern), and called the Books of Remembrances, otherwise
the Registers. They formed part of the Treasury Library.
From the handwriting and the contents they appear to have
been framed in the earlier part of the reign of Edward I.
They were intended as the commencement of a regular and
continuous register of public documents, but principally of
those relating to foreign affairs and to the transactions of the
dependencies of the English Crown. The two folio volumes
are now distinguished as ' Liber A ' and ' Liber B.' The Will
of Edward I., made at Acres, will be found at p. 308 of Vol.
A. Some of the marginal drawings are curious.
Portions of Vols. A. and B. are printed in Rymer's
' Fcedera.'

Orator <£ccfe0ia0ftcue.
The ' Valor Ecclesiasticus ' or ' Liber Regis ' was formed
to give effect to the Statute 26 Henry VIII. cap. 3, which
gave the first-fruits and tenths of ecclesiastical benefices to
the King. To carry out the new assessment and valuation of
ecclesiastical property, a survey was appointed to be made
by Commissioners to be sent to every part of the kingdom.
The commission is dated 30th January, 26 Henry VIII.
(IS3S)- Part of the original records are lost. Some of the
returns were made in the form of books, some on rolls of
paper and on parchment. Fortunately there is a book pre
served, being a compilation made from these records for the
use of the office of First- Fruits when the record was entire.
In this book are entered the names of the dignities and bene
fices, with the value of each, but without the particulars. From
this MS., called the ' Liber Valorum,' the deficiencies were
supplied in printing the ' Valor Ecclesiasticus,' viz. the whole
diocese of Ely, a great part of the diocese of London, the
VOL. II. S

644 MANUSCRIPTS &C EXHIBITED AT
counties of Berks, Rutland, and Northumberland, much of
the diocese of York, including the whole deaneries of Rydal
and Craven. This assessment or survey superseded that
known under the name of the Taxation of Pope Nicholas
(temp. Edw. I.), which, however, is still of use in the interpre
tation of the statutes of some colleges founded before the
Reformation, which are exempted from the restriction in
Statute 21 Henry VIII. concerning pluralities. The 'Valor'
contains surveys of archbishoprics, bishoprics, abbeys, monas
teries, priories, colleges, hospitals, archdeaconries, deaneries,
provostships, prebends, parsonages, vicarages, chantries, free-
chapels, or other dignities, benefices, offices, or promotions
spiritual. This has been printed by the Record Commission in six
volumes.

QSe^fara ? CfyattuZaxitB ? £eib<jer ? <xni>
£oS5c0er (^0080.
These volumes, mostly monastic, contain transcripts of
the charters by which lands and hereditaments were granted
to the various religious houses. Many important surveys are
also set out in the pages of these manuscripts. The following
are selected from those now preserved among the Public
Records :
The great Cowchers or Cartae Regum of the Duchy of
Lancaster. The White Book of the Duchy of Cornwall.
Chartulary of the Monastery of Chertsey.
Chartulary of Oseney Priory.
Chartulary of the Monastery of St. Augustine at Canter
bury.

H.M. PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE 645
Cowcher of the Abbey of Selby.
Cowcher of the Monastery of Furness.
Cowcher of the Honor of Tutbury.
Custumals of Battle Abbey
Chartulary of Ramsey Abbey.
Cowcher of Kirkstall Abbey.
Register of St. Edmond's Bury.
Register of St. Nicholas Burscogh.
Chartulary of Malmesbury Abbey.
Chartulary of Torre Abbey.
Chartulary of the Monastery of Godstowe.
Chartulary of the College of Warwick.
Chartulary of the Monastery of Langdon.
Register of Lands of the Templars.
Chartulary of the Monastery of Newstead.
The Vetus Codex.
Register of Richard de Kellawe, Bishop of Durham.
As a specimen of the contents of these volumes, the fol
lowing abstract of King Eadgar's charter, granted to the
Abbey of Ramsey {Chartulary, f. 136), and dated 28th Decem
ber, A.D. 974, may be quoted : —
' The King notifies that a certain man very dear to him, and very
nearly related to him, by name Aylwyn the Alderman, with his
assent and licence, constructed in the island called by the inhabitants
Rameseya, in honour of the Blessed Virgin Mary and S. Benedict, a
monastery for holy virgins, and foreseeing the uncertainty of future
times, he determines to make known to posterity how a miracle was
performed there, as related by certain bishops and by Aylwin
himself, thus :
' The aforesaid illustrious man Aylwin having been afflicted many
years with gout in the feet, it happened one night that a certain
fisherman of his named Wlfget went to the water called Rammesmere
with his boat and attendants and line to catch fish for his master
according to his usual custom. But although he cast his net about
endeavouring to catch something, it was the will of God that his
labour should be in vain, and at length being overcome by fatigue,

646 MANUSCRIPTS &C EXHIBITED AT
he fell asleep in his boat ; and in his sleep the holy S. Benedict
appeared unto him, saying thus : " When Aurora scatters her beams
over the heavens, then cast thy net, and thou shalt meet with as
great a multitude of fishes as thou wishest ; and the larger one of
them which ye call Haked offer thou to thy master Aylwin on my
behalf, saying, that on receiving my gift he should without delay
apply himself to the building for the Holy Mother of Mercy, and for
myself, and for all holy virgins in this island, a fitting monastery, with
necessary offices ; and I beseech thee to make known to him all
these things in order, adding speech to speech that he may diligently
observe in what manner his animals there, when weary, lie down
upon the earth by night, and wherever he shall see the bull on
arising from sleep strike the ground with his right foot, that he
should know without doubt that he ought to erect on that spot the
altar of a monastery. And that he may the more readily and surely
give credence to my commands, this thy little finger, which I now
bend, he, immediately he is freed from his gout, shall restore for
thee.' ' Then the same master of the fisherman waking early, and seeing
a streak of daylight in the east, began to loose his net, as he was
ordered ; and, as the holy father had told him, he drew in a great
multitude of fishes, and, choosing the larger one of them on behalf
of S. Benedict, offered it to his master, and related to him all that
he had learned in his vision, and besought him that he would
use his utmost to straighten his finger, which was bent by the
saint. Aylwin, understanding all these things, straightened the
man's lame finger, and, taking the fish, gave innumerable
thanks with blessing to the Mother of our Lord Jesus Christ,
and to S. Benedict, and arising with haste, ordered his horse
to be prepared, and, travelling to the island, went to see, as
he was ordered, how his animals were lying. Wonderful ! and to
be wondered at ! immediately he entered the island he was at
God's command freed entirely from his intractable disease, and saw
his animals lying in the form of the cross, and the bull in the midst
of them. And as once upon a time a lamb with his right foot
revealed to S, Clement the place of a fountain, so the bull striking
the ground with his foot revealed, in a divine manner to this man,
the place of the altar of the future monastery. Whereupon Aylwin,
praising God, immediately ordered that a chapel should be built
there of wooden logs, in fine work, and then, as he was ordered,

H.M. PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE 647
constructed in a becoming form a monastery for a future congre
gation of regular monks. Then, after the lapse of five years and
eighteen days, on the petition of Dunstan, Archbishop of Canter
bury, and Oswald, Archbishop of York, the King on the sixth ides
of November, A.D. 974, second indiction, caused the same church to
be dedicated with becoming solemnity in honour of the Blessed
Virgin Mary and of the saints aforesaid. The same year also at
Christmastide the King confirmed all gifts of lands or possessions
made by the said Aylwin, or any other persons to the said church
for ever.' [Appendix to the 2gth Report of the Deputy- Keeper of the
Public Records, p. 18.]

©ome0baj> Commemoitafton 1886

NOTES ON THE MANUSCRIPTS AND PRINTED BOOKS
'EXHIBITED AT THE BRITISH MUSEUM

(mattwmpte <Mi6i*eb in *0e
(§titi&§ Qfftuttum.
Harley MS. 3271.
1. Statement of the numbers of hides in the different
divisions of England south of the Humber, written in Anglo-
Saxon about A.D. 1000, on a single page in a MS. containing
jElfric's Grammar and other tracts. Printed by W. de G.
Birch, in the fournal of the British Archaological Association
1884. Cotton MS. Vitellius C. viii.
2. Domesday Survey: Abridgment for the county of
Kent, written early in the 12th century. Originally in the
form of a roll, but now cut into sections and inlaid in a volume
containing historical and other tracts.
Cotton MS. Tiberius A. vi.
3. Inquisitio Cantabrigiensis : Domesday Survey of the
County of Cambridge in the original form as returned by
the Jurors, together with the Survey of the monastic land of
the Abbey of Ely. A transcript made at the end of the 1 2th
century. Copy of early charters relating to Ely are added.
Bound up with a copy of the Saxon Chronicle brought down
to the year 977, and with other tracts. See Inquisitio Comi
tatus Cantabrigiensis — subjicitur Inquisitio Eliensis, cura
N.E. S.A. Hamilton, London, 1876.

652 NOTES ON THE MANUSCRIPTS &C
Arundel MS. 153.
4. Domesday Survey : Abridgment omitting several of the
counties. Written about the year 1 200. Formerly belonged
to the Abbey of Margan, co. Glamorgan.
Cotton MS. Tiberius A. xiii.
5. Chartulary of the Abbey of Worcester, compiled by a
monk of the house, named Heming, by order of Bishop
Wulfstan [A,D. 1062-1095] ; to which are appended, in a
hand of the 1 2th century, a list of lands of which the Abbey
had been unjustly deprived, and ' Indiculum Libertatis de
Oswaldes Lawes Hundred que a toto vicecomitatu Wire-
ceastre sacramento iurisiurandi firmata est, Willelmo seniore
regnante,' being the Domesday Survey of the monastic lands
in that hundred. The MS. was injured in the fire of 173 1.
Edited by Thomas Hearne, Oxford, 1723.
Cotton MS. Claudius C. v.
6. Lincolnshire Survey, made in the reign of Henry the
First, apparently between the years 1101 and 11 09. Ori
ginally in the form of a roll, but now cut into sections and
bound as a volume. See the autotype reproduction : The
Lincolnshire Survey, temp. Henry I. edited by J. Greenstreet,
London, 1884. Stowe MS. 510.
7. The Boldon Book: Register of the Cathedral Priory
of Durham, including, in addition to Charters and copies of
the Statutes, the ' Boldon Book,' or survey of the see of
Durham, made by order of Bishop Hugh Pudsey in 1183*
papal and other letters, rentals, valuations of churches, pleas
at Durham, in 1305, etc. Written in various hands of the
1 3th- 1 5th centuries. The 'Boldon Book' was published

EXHIBITED AT THE BRITISH MUSEUM 653
from other and later copies by the Record Commission, as
an Appendix to 'Domesday,' in 18 16, and by the Surtees
Society, ed. W. Greenwell, in 1852.
Additional MS. 15350.
8. Chartulary of the Priory of St. Swithun, Winchester,
containing a large collection of royal and other charters in
Anglo-Saxon and Latin, with details of the boundaries
of the lands in Anglo-Saxon, from the reign of Cead-
walla of Wessex, A.D. 688, to that of Edward the Con
fessor, A.D. 1046, with the addition of a few others of later
date, granted by William I., Henry I., and Stephen. Com
piled, probably, in the time of Henry of Blois, Bishop of
Winchester, between the years 11 30 and n 50. In ancient
binding. Cotton MS. Vespasian B. xxiv.
9. Chartulary of the Abbey of Evesham, compiled in the
latter part of the 12th century, and embodying Domes
day memoranda relating to the counties of Worcester and
Gloucester. Cotton MS. Faustina A. iii.
10. Chartulary of the Abbey of St. Peter of Westminster, in
cluding transcripts of early English charters. Compiled late
in the 13th century. Harley MS. 436.
1 1. Chartulary of the Abbey of Wilton, containing copies
of early charters, with the details of the boundaries of lands
in Anglo-Saxon. Compiled in the latter part of the 12th
century. Cotton MS. Claudius C. ix.
12. Chartulary of the Abbey of Abingdon, compiled in
the 1 2th century. The measurements of lands expressed in

654 NOTES ON THE MANUSCRIPTS &C.
the titles at ff. 113, 114 as hides, are represented in the text
of the deeds as cassati, or mansa, the three terms being used
as equivalent. Cotton MS. Claudius B. vi.
13. Chronicle of the Abbey of Abingdon, embodying copies
of charters in which details of the boundaries of the lands are
expressed in Anglo-Saxon. Compiled about A.D. 1200.
Edited by Rev. J. Stevenson (Rolls Series), 1858.
Additional MS. 14847.
14. Registrant Album : a chartulary of the Abbey of Bury
St. Edmunds, containing copies of early charters, wills, etc.,
in Latin and Anglo-Saxon. Compiled late in the 1 3th century.
Written in an archaic style of writing.
Royal MS. 6 C. xi.
15. letter of William de Poterna to R [obert ?] Prior of Bath,
sending him an extract from the ' liber de domesdai ' relating
to Bath ; [circ. A.D. 1198 ?]. Transcribed on a fly-leaf.
Exeter, Chapter Library, No. 3500.
16. Exon Domesday: the survey for the counties of Wilts,
Dorset, Somerset, Devon, and Cornwall, being apparently an
exact transcript of the original returns from which the Ex
chequer Domesday was compiled. As compared with the
latter it gives fuller details, as e.g. in the enumeration of live
stock; it has variations of diction and in the spelling of
names ; and the tenants of the time of Edward the Confessor
are more generally noticed. Written in various hands at the
close of the nth century ; the book contains 258 leaves, being
made up of distinct sections or quires, written independently
by the several scribes, and probably at, or soon after, the date

EXHIBITED AT THE BRITISH MUSEUM 655
of the Survey. Printed in the Record Commission edition of
Domesday, 1816, vol. iv., p. 1.
Lent by the Dean and Chapter of Exeter.
Cambridge, Trinity College Library, O. 2, 41.
17. Inquisitio Eliensis: Domesday Survey of the monastic
lands of the Abbey of Ely, in the counties of Cambridge,
Norfolk, Suffolk, Hertford, Huntingdon and Essex. A tran
script made in the latter part of the 12th century. The MS.
also contains the History of the Abbey, with charters. See
description of Cotton MS. Tiberius A. vi. Printed in the
Record Commission edition of Domesday, 18 16, vol. iv., p. 497.
Lent by the Master and Fellows of Trinity College, Cam
bridge. Cambridge, Trinity College Library, O. 2, 1.
1 8. Inquisitio Eliensis : Domesday Survey of the monastic
lands of the Abbey of Ely. A transcript made at the end
of the 1 2th century. The MS. also contains the ' Historia
Eliensis Insule,' or History of the Abbey, with charters and a
list of lands of which the abbey had been unjustly deprived.
See description of MS. O. 2, 41.
Lent by the Master and Fellows of Trinity College, Cambridge.
Canterbury, Chapter Library, MS. E. 28.
•I 9. Domesday Monachorum: a collection of muniments,
customs, etc., of Christ Church, Canterbury, including particu
lars of holdings in Kent, copied from the Domesday Survey.
Written in the 12th century.
Lent by the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury.
Society of Antiquaries, MS. 154
20. Winton Domesday: being two separate surveys, the
first taken between 1107 and 1 128, by order of Henry the

656 NOTES ON THE MANUSCRIPTS &C.
First, to ascertain what King Edward the Confessor held in
Winchester, as of his own demesne ; the second, a general
survey of lands in Winchester, taken at the command of
Bishop Henry of Blois, in 1148. A transcript of the 12th
century. In ancient binding. Printed in the Record Com
mission edition of Domesday, 18 16, vol. iv. p. 531.
Lent by the Society of Antiquaries.
St. Paul's Cathedral Library, Liber L.
21. Domesday of St. Paul's: being the register of the
inquisition of the Manors belonging to the Cathedral Church
of St. Paul of London, taken by Ralph de Diceto, Dean, in
1 181. A transcript of the 13th century, bound up with a
chartulary, a visitation of churches, etc. See The Domesday
of St. Paul's, ed. W. H. Hale (Camden Soc), 1858, p. 140,
and R. de Diceto opera historica, ed. W. Stubbs (Rolls Series),
p. lvi. Lent by the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's.
Rochester Chapter Library.
22. Textus RofFensis : a collection compiled in the time of
Bishop Ernulph, who died in 1125, containing the ancient
laws of Kent and of the Anglo-Saxon Kings of England and
of William I., a chartulary of the lands of the church of
Rochester, lists of early kings and bishops, etc. Written in
the 1 2th century. See Textus Roffensis ed. T. Hearne, Oxford
1720 ; B. Thorpe, Ancient Laws (Record Commission), 1840.
Lent by the Dean and Chapter of Rochester.
Society of Antiquaries, MS. 60.
23. Liber Niger of Peterborough : a register of charters
and other documents relating to the Abbey, including a
chronicle from 1192 to 1294, and, at the beginning, a tran-

EXHIBITED AT THE BRITISH MUSEUM 657
script, of the 12th century, of a survey or ' Descriptio manerio
rum abbatie de Burhc, de sicut Walterius archidiaconus earn
receplt et saisivit in manum regis,' made on the property of the
monastery being taken into the king's hands on the death of
Abbot John de Sais, who died in Oct. 1125. See Dugdale's
Monastkon, vol. i. p. 372, and Chronicon Petroburgense, ed. T.
Stapleton (Camden Soc), 1849, appx.
Lent by the Society of Antiquaries,
Ely, Chapter Library,
24. Liber Eliensis : History of the Cathedral Church of
Ely, by Thomas the monk, and Richard the Prior ; in three
Books, including transcripts of charters. Written in the 1 2th
century. See Liber Eliensis, ed. D. J. Stewart (Anglia Chris
tiana Soc), 1848, Lent by the Dean and Chapter of Ely.
Castle Howard, co. York.
25. Registrum Honoris de Riohemunde : being a collection
of documents relating to the lands of the Honour of Richmond
and including the survey, transcribed from 'libro in thesauria
domini regis, vocato Domesday.' See another copy in Cotton
MS. Faustina B. vii. Written in the 15th century, and
illustrated with coloured drawings. Printed by R. Gale, 1722.
Lent by G, Howard, Esq,

(prmfeb $0060 %(Si6tfeb in ^e
Q^nfofl QUu0eum.
Domesday Book, seu Liber Censualis Willelmi Primi Regis
Anglia\ inter Archivos Regni in Domo Capitulari West-
monasterii asservatus ; jubente Rege . . . Georgio Tertio
pnelo mandatus typis. [Edited by A. Farley.] Two vols.
[London,] 1783, fol.
Published in 1 783, without title-pages. The title-pages as given
hero wore issued by the Record Commission in 1S16 with the
two additional volumes of ' Indices ' and ' Additamenta,' edited
by Sir H. Ellis.
Domesday Book, or, the Great Survey of England of William
the Conqueror, a.d. 1086 . . . Photo-zincographed, by Her
Majesty's command, at the Ordnance Survey Office, South
ampton, Colonel Sir H. James, Director. 35 pt. lS6i-6j,fol.
and 4to.
The part exhibited relates to Cornwall. The quarto parts, taken
from what is known as the 'little Domesday Book,' contain
the surveys of Norfolk, Suffolk, and Essex.
Facsimile of the original Domesday Book, or the Great Survcy
of England. A.D. 1080 [sic], in the reign of William the Con
queror. With translation by General PlanMgenet-llarrison.
[Containing the Part for Middlesex only.] Head and Meek :
London, 1876, fol.
VOL. u. ' T

660 PRINTED BOOKS
The Domesday Book of Kent [a Facsimile], with translation,
notes, and appendix, by the Rev. L. B. Larking. On vellum.
J. Toovey: London, 1869, fol.
Historical Antiquities. ... By Sir Peter Leycester.
Whereunto is annexed a transcript of Doomsday Book, so far
as it concerneth Cheshire, taken out of the Original Record.
[Latin only] London, 1673, fol.
The Natural History of Northamptonshire. ... To which is
annex'd a transcript of Doomsday Book, so far as it relates to
that county. By J. Morton. [Latin only.] London, 17 12,
fol. Wiltshire extracted from Domesday Book : to which is added
a translation of the original Latin into English. With an
Index. ... By H. P. Wyndham. Salisbury, 1788, 8°.
Hampshire extracted from Domesday Book : with an accurate
English translation, a preface, and an introduction. ... By
R. Warner. London, 1 789, 4°
Domesday Book for the County of Warwick, translated by W.
Reader ; to which is prefixed a brief dissertation on Domesday
Book, etc. Lat. & Eng. Coventry, 1835, 40.
A literal extension of the Latin Text and an English Transla
tion of Domesday Book, in relation to the County of Worcester,
by W. B. Sanders. . . To accompany the facsimile copy photo-
zincographed ... at the Ordnance Survey Office. Worcester,
1864, fol.
Similar extensions and translations have been made for Derby
shire (by L. Jewitt), Northamptonshire (by S. A. Moore),
Middlesex, Surrey, Hampshire (by H. Moody), Warwick (by
E. P. Shirley), Cornwall (extension only), Huntingdon (trans
lation only).

EXHIBITED AT THE BRITISH MUSEUM 661
Domesday for Wiltshire . . . accompanied with translations,
illustrative notes, analysis of contents, and general introduction,
by W. H. Jones. Bath, 1865, 40.
The Devonshire Domesday. [Published by the Devonshire
Association for the Advancement of Science, Literature, and
Art.] Lat. & Eng. Plymouth, 1884, etc. 8°.
Now in progress.
Domesday ; or an actual survey of South-Britain . . . com
pleted in . . . 1086 . . . faithfully translated, with an intro
duction, notes, and illustrations, by S. Henshall and J. Wilkin
son . . . This number comprehends the counties of Kent,
Sussex, and Surrey. London, 1799, 4°-
Dom Boc. A translation of the record called Domesday,
so far as relates to the County of York, including Amounder-
ness, Lonsdale, and Furness in Lancashire, and such parts of
Westmorland and Cumberland as are contained in the Survey.
Also the Counties of Derby, Nottingham, Rutland, and Lincoln.
With an introduction, glossary, and indexes, by W. Bawdwen.
Doncaster, 1809, 4°
Dom Boc. A translation of the record called Domesday,
so far as relates to the Counties of Middlesex, Hertford, Buck
ingham, Oxford, and Gloucester. By W. Bawdwen. Don-
caster, 1812, 4°
Domesday Book relating to Essex : translated by T. C. Chisen-
hale-Marsh. Chelmsford, 1864,4°
Uniform in size with the Ordnance Survey facsimile.
A translation of that portion of Domesday Book which relates
to Lincolnshire and Rutlandshire. By C. Gowen Smith.
London, [1871], 8°.

662 PRINTED BOOKS
A short account of some particulars concerning Domesday Book,
with a view to promote its being published. By a member
of the Society of Antiquaries of London [P. C. Webb]. Read
at a Meeting of the Society .... 1755. London, 1756, 4°.
Contains, among other things, a list of the parts of Domesday
already printed, and of the transcripts of parts of it in public
or private hands. Bound up with this book is 'A short
account of Danegeld, with some further particulars relating to
Will, the Conqueror's Survey,' by the same author, 1756.
Domesday Book illustrated : containing an account of that
antient record ; as also of the tenants in capite or serjanty
therein mentioned : and a translation of the difficult
passages, with occasional notes. ... By R. Kelham. London,
1788, 8°
A Key to Domesday, showing the method and exactitude
of its mensuration and the precise meaning of its more usual
formulae. The subject being specially exemplified by an
analysis and digest of the Dorset Survey. By R. W. Eyton.
Taylor & Co. : London, 1878, 40.
Domesday Studies : An analysis and digest of the Somerset
Survey (according to the Exon Codex) and of the Somerset
Gheld Inquest of A.D. 1084, as collated with, and illustrated
by, Domesday. By R. W. Eyton. 2 vols. Reeves & Turner :
London, 1 880, 4°
A digest of the Domesday of Bedfordshire, being an analysis
of that portion of the Domesday Survey which relates to
the County of Bedford, and a Key to the facsimile edition of
the same published by Government. By W. Airy . . . with
preliminary note by. . . . B. R. Airy. Bedford, 18S1, fol.

DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY.
Edited by HENRY B. WHEATLEY, F.S.A.
Libri Censualis vocati Domesday Book [Domesday Book,
seu Liber Censualis Willelmi Primi Regis Angliae, inter
Archivos Regni in Domo Capitulari Westmonasterii asser-
vatus : jubente Rege . . . Georgio Tertio praelo mandatus
typis.] [Edited by A. Farley]
Vol. I. (no title) [1783]. Chenth, Sudsexe, Sudrie, Hante-
scire, Berrochescire, Wiltescire, Dorsete, Sumersete,
Devenescire, Cornvalge, Midelsexe, Herfordscire,
Bochinghamscire, Oxenefordscire, Glowecestscire,
Wirecestrescire, PIerefordscire, Grentebrigescire,
Huntedunscire, Bedefordscire, Northantscire, Lede-
cestscire, Warwicscire, Statfordscire, Sciropescire,
Cestrescire, Derbyscire, Snotinghamscire, Eurvicscire,
LlNCOLESCIRE,
Vol. II. (no title) [1783]. Exsessa, Nordfolc, Sudfulc
Vol. III. (1816). General Introduction.
Indices : 1. Locorum, secundum ordinem comitatuum.
2. Locorum et possessionum, generalis. 3. Nominum tenen
dum in capite. 4. Rerum prsecipuarum.
Vol. IV. (1816). Additamenta ex Codic. Antiquiss. : Exon'
Domesday, Inquisitio Eliensis, Liber Winton', Boldon
Book.
Domesday Book, or the Great Survey of England of
William the Conqueror, 1086 ; facsimile of the Part relating to
each County, separately (with a few exceptions of double
counties). Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's command,

664 DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY
at the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton, Colonel Sir
Henry James, R.E., F.R.S., &c, Director. 35 Parts. Folio
and 4to. 1861-1863.
The original Domesday Survey deposited in the Record Office
is in two parts or volumes. The first, in folio, contains the
counties of Bedford, Berks, Bucks, Cambridge, Chester and
Lancaster, Cornwall, Derby, Devon, Dorset, Gloucester, Hants,
Hereford, Herts, Huntingdon, Kent, Leicester and Rutland,
Lincoln, Middlesex, Northampton, Nottingham, Oxford,
Salop, Somerset, Stafford, Surrey, Sussex, Warwick, Wilts,
Worcester, and York. The second volume, in quarto, con
tains the counties of Essex, Norfolk, and Suffolk. The work
remained imprinted until it was published by the Govern
ment in 1783 and completed by the Record Commission in
1816.
Domesday ; or an Actual Survey of South Britain, by the
Commissioners of William the Conqueror, completed in the
year 1086, on the evidence of the Jurors of Hundreds,
sanctioned by the authority of the County Jurors ; faithfully
translated, with Introduction, Notes, and Illustrations, by
Samuel Henshall and John Wilkinson. . . . This number
comprehends the counties of Kent, Sussex, and Surrey.
Number one, and ten similar numbers, will contain both
volumes of the original. London, 1799, 4to, pp. vi, 268.
No more published.
Dom Boc. A Translation of the Record called Domesday,
as far as relates to the county of York, including also
Amounderness, Lonsdale, and Furness, in Lancashire, and
such parts of Westmoreland and Cumberland as are con
tained in the Survey, also the Counties of Derby, Nottingham,
Rutland, and Lincoln. With an Introduction, Glossary, and
Indexes by the Rev. William Bawdwen, Vicar of Horton
Pagnall, Yorkshire. Doncaster, 1809. 410, title, dedication,
pp. iv, 628 ; glossary and indexes, pp. 61.

DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY 665
At the end is a prospectus : • Proposals for publishing by sub
scription in ten volumes, quarto, price twenty guineas, a
translation of the whole of the Record called Domesday ;
with an introduction and the modern names of places adapted'
as far as possible to those in the Record.'
Dom Boc. A Translation of the Record called Domesday,
as far as relates to the Counties of Middlesex, Hertford,
Buckingham, Oxford, and Gloucester. By the Rev. William
Bawdwen. Doncaster, 18 12. 410.
Title, dedication 1 leaf; Middlesex, pp. 26 ; Hertfoidshire, pp.
76 ; Buckinghamshire, pp. 82 ; Oxfordshire, pp. 62 ; Glouces
tershire, pp. 72. Indexes : Middlesex, 1 leaf; Hertfordshire,
pp. 4 ; Buckinghamshire, pp. 3 ; Oxfordshire, pp. 4 ¦
Gloucestershire, pp. 6.
A short account of some particulars concerning Domesday
Book, with a view to promote its being published. By a
Member of the Society of Antiquaries of London [Philip
Carteret Webb]. London, 1756. 410. pp. 21
Contains a valuable list of MSS. of parts of Domesday in public
or private hands.
A short account of Danegeld: with some further parti
culars relating to Will, the Conqueror's Survey. By a Member
of the Society of Antiquaries of London [Philip Carteret
Webb]. London, 1756. 4to, pp. 38.
Domesday Book illustrated : Containing an account of that
antient record ; as also of the Tenants in Capite or Serjanty
therein mentioned ; and a Translation of the difficult passages,
with occasional notes ; an Explanation of the terms, abbrevia
tions, and names of foreign abbies : and an Alphabetical
Table of the Tenants in Capite or Serjanty in the several
Counties contained in that Survey. By Robert Kelham of
Lincoln's Inn, Author of the Norman Dictionary. London,

666 DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY
Printed by John Nichols for Edward Brooke, 1788. 8vo, pp.
viii. 399.
A Dissertation on Domesday Book. In ' History and Antiqui
ties of the County of Leicester. By John Nichols,' 1795.
Vol. i. pt.l. pp. xxxiii-liv.
A Dissertation on Domesday Book. In ' History and Antiqui
ties of the County of Dorset. By John Hutchins.' Vol. iv.
1873. Appendix pp. i-xv. Exeter Domesday Book, pp.
xvi-xix. Preface to Domesday Book. Grose's ' Antiquities of Eng
land and Wales.' Vol. i. 1773, pp. 78-83.
A General Introduction to Domesday Book ; Accompanied
by Indexes of the Tenants in Chief and Under-Tenants in
the time of the Survey : as well as of the Holders of Lands
mentioned in Domesday anterior to the formation of that
record ; with an Abstract of the Population of England at the
close of the reign of William the Conqueror, as far as the
same is actually entered ; illustrated by numerous Notes and
Comments. By Sir Henry Ellis, K.H., F.R.S., Sec. S. A.,
Principal Librarian of the British Museum. [London], 1833.
2 vols. 8vo.
vol. i. pp. xix, 515. Introduction. Index of Tenants in Capite.
Vol. ii. pp. 543. Index of Persons, Monasteries, &c, entered
as holding lands in the time of Edward the Confessor, and
through later years anterior to the formation of the Survey ;
Index of the Under-tenants of Lands at the formation of the
Survey ; Abstract of the Population ; General Index.
History of the Norman Conquest, by E. A. Freeman. Chapter
xxii. is devoted to the consideration of Domesday Book.
(vol. v. (1876) pp. 1-52.) The Appendix to this volume also
contains several notes on Domesday.

DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY 667
Note A, pp. 733-740 ; note B, pp. 740-747, Notes 01 Time
in Domesday; note F, pp. 769-778, ' Antecessores ' of
Domesday; note G, pp. 778-785, Leases and Sales in
Domesday ; note H, pp. 785-786, The use of the word ' vis '
in Domesday ; note K, pp. 798-800, Notices of Outlawry in
Domesday; note L, pp. 801-804, Notices of Wives and
Daughters in Domesday ; note M, pp. 804-806, Grants of
Alms in Domesday ; note SS, pp. 885-887, Notices of Com
mendation in Domesday ; note UU, pp. 888-889, Classes in
Domesday.
England under the Norman Occupation. By James F. Mor
gan, M.A. London (Williams and Norgate), 1858. Sm. 8vo.
' This little work is an attempt to give the results of a careful
perusal of the record called Domesday.' — Preface.
Chap. 1. The Domesday Book and the Conqueror's Survey.
Chap. 2. The Measurement of Land. Chap. 3. Money, Rent,
and Agricultural Affairs. Chap. 4. The Hall, the Church,.
and the Peasantry. Chap. 5. The Freehold Tenantry. Chap.
6. Boroughs and Cities. Chap. 7. Hundreds, Wapentakes,
and Shires. Chap. 8. Titles, Offices, and Surnames. Chap. 9.
Extinction of Villenage.
A Catalogue of all the Tenants in Capite or Serjanty that
held all the Lands in every County of the King, as they are
to be found in Domesday Book, set before each County.
Appendix to An Introduction to the Old English History.
By Robert Brady. London, 1684. Folio.
Catalogus Nobilium, qui immediate praedia a Rege Con-
quaestore tenuerunt. Ex Censuali Angliae Libro, quem ipse
Conquaestor anno regni xx confici jussit. Pp. 374-380 of
Maseres' ' Historiae Anglicanae circa tempus Conquestus
Angliae a Gulielmo Notho, Normannorum Duce, Selecta
Monumenta.' London, 1807.
This list of tenants in capite is in alphabetical order and contains
the names of 447.

668 DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY
Recherches sur le Domesday, ou Liber Censualis d'Angleterre,
contenant, i° Une Introduction indiquant les Noms de ce
registre, sa date presumee, les motifs de sa confection, le mode
de son execution, sa description, son utilite, son usage et sa
publication ; 2° une Table generale du Domesday Book, du
Liber Wintoniae et du Boston-Book [sic] ; 30 un Glossaire,
40 une Statistique de I'Angleterre, par MM. Lechaudp d'Anisy
et de Sainte-Marie. Tome 1, Caen (C. M. Lesaulnier), 1842.
4to, pp. 282. No more published.
The ' Table gendrale des tenants en chef et des sous-tenants,'
which is very full, does not go farther than the letter A.
Index to the genealogies of the tenants in capite in Domesday
Book. By [Sir] T[homas] P[hillipps].
s. sh. [Middlehill], n.d. Folio.
 With the counties in which they had possessions, in
the year 1086, in Domesday Book. 1838. By T. P.
[Middlehill, 1838]. Folio.
 [As above], 1842, by T. P.
[Middlehill, 1842]. Folio.
Consuetudines et Jura Anglo-Saxonica, ex Libro Censuali dicto
Doomesday. In 'T. Gale, Historiae Britannicae, Saxonicae,
Anglo-Danicae Scriptores XV.' Oxoniae, 169 1, pp. 757-796.
(Rerum Anglicarum Scriptores, torn. 3, Folio.)
Doubts and Conjectures concerning the reason commonly
assigned for inserting or omitting the words ' Ecclesia ' and
' Presbyter ' in Domesday Book. By the Rev. Samuel Denne.
Archaologia, vol. viii. 1787, pp. 218-238.
Churches in the Domesday Survey. By J. H. Walker, M.D.
Gentleman's Magazine, N.S., vol. xix. 1843, pp. 485-489.
On a Reproduction of a Portion of the Domesday Book by the
Photo- zincographic Process. By Joseph Burtt, one of the

DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY 669
Assistant Keepers of Public Records. Archaological fournal,
vol. xviii. 1 86 1, pp. 128-133.
The Domesday Book [article by the late Mr. Toulmin Smith
on Sir Henry James's Photo-zincograph facsimile, in which
are given a notice of some of the Reproductions of the vari
ous Counties, and some valuable remarks on the origin of
Domesday Book.
In The Parliamentary Remembrancer, vol. v. 1862, pp.
186-190. See also vol. iv. (1861), p. 194, and vol. vi. (1863), pp. 178-180.
' Domesday Book is the story of the life of free England, written
by the hands of the free Englishmen themselves of every
separate county (except four) eight hundred years ago. It
tells how they lived, what they did, and how they kept
themselves free Englishmen.'
Ueber das franzbsische Sprachelement im Liber Censualis
Wilhelms I. von England (Exchequer und Exon Domesday Book).
Dissertatio inauguralis quam . . . scripsit Fredericus Hilde-
brand. Halis Saxonum, 1844. 8vo.
[Prospectus of] the Domesday Book Society . . . [Signed by
Walter de Gray Birch]. [Lond., Apr. 1885.] 4to.

Q|5ebforb0JHve«

Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to Bedford
shire. Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's command, at
the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Bedfordshire. See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. i. ff. 209-2 18£; Index
Locorum, vol, iii. pp. 56_ 57-

670 DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY
A Digest of the Domesday of Bedfordshire, being an Analysis
of that portion of the Domesday Survey which relates to the
County of Bedford, and a Key to the facsimile edition of the
same published by Government. By William Airy, M.A 
Bedford, 1881. Folio, pp. 108.
With a preliminary note by the editor's son, Basil
Reginald Airy, M.A.

QJ5et$0J5itre.

Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to Berkshire.
Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's command, at the
Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Berkshire. See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. i. ff. 56-63$ ; Index Locorum,
vol. iii. pp. 14-16.

Q|5ucRin<$(5am00ire*

Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to Buck
inghamshire. Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's com
mand, at the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Buckinghamshire. See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. i. ff. 143-153; Index Locorum,
vol. iii. pp. 38-40.
Translation : see Dom Boc by Bawdwen, 1812 (p. 665).

DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY 671

Cam6nbge0J5it:e*

Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to Cam
bridgeshire. Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's com
mand, at the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Cambridgeshire. See Domesday Book, Folio. vol. i. ff. 189-202/' ; Index
Locorum, vol. iii. pp. 52-54.
Inquisitio Eliensis.
See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. iv. pp. 497-528 ; Index
Locorum, vol. iv. pp. 615-617; Index Nominum, vol. iv.
pp. 61S-620.
On the Measurements and Valuations of the Domesday of
Cambridgeshire. Communicated by the Rev. Bryan Walker,
LL.D., Nov. 28, 1 88 1. Cambridge Antiquarian Society
Communications, vol. 5, pp. 95-129.
The various points dealt with by the author are arranged under
the following eight heads : — 1. On Hides and their size.
2. On Caruca and Terra ad Carucam. 3. On Domesday Acres.
4. On Bovates. 5. On Hidation. 6. On the Domesday
Valuation (Valet) of Manors and Holdings. 7. On the
Population of the County. S. On the Minor Incidents of
Value.
Supplement containing a Tabular Analysis of the Cam
bridgeshire Domesday. Cambridge, 1SS4 (Supplement to
vol. 5). Folio.

672 DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY

<C0e00ire.

Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to
Cheshire. Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's command,
at the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Cheshire. See Domesday Book, Folio. vol. i. ff. 262^-269 ; Index
Locorum, vol. iii. pp. 74-76.
Miscellanea Palatina ; consisting of Genealogical Essays,
illustrative of Cheshire and Lancashire Families, and a Memoir
of the Cheshire Domesday Roll (Ormerod). 1851-56, 8vo.
A Transcript of Cheshire at large, out of the Greater
Domesday Book, remaining on record in the Tally Office at
Westminster, belonging to the custody of the Treasurer and
the two Chamberlains of the Exchequer at London. Accord
ing as the same was transcribed by Mr. Squire from the Record
itself, A.D. 1649. London, 1672, pp. 393-436 of 'Historical
Antiquities, in two Books ... by Sir Peter Leycester.
London, 1673.' Folio.
CoxnftcxW.
Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to Cornwall.
Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's command, at the
Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Cornwall. See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. i. ff. 120-125 ; Index Locorum,
vol. iii. pp. 32-35.

DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY 673
Exon Domesday.
See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. iv. pp. 1-493 \ Index Nominum
Tenendum in Capite, vol. iv. pp. 589, 590 ; Index Locorum,
vol. iv. pp. 591-602 ; Index Nominum Personarum, vol. iv.
pp. 603-614.
A Literal Extension of the Text of Domesday Book in
relation to the County of Cornwall. To accompany the
facsimile copy photo-zincographed, under the direction of
Colonel Sir H. James, R.E., F.R.S., at the Ordnance Survey
Office, Southampton. London (Vacher & Sons), 1861. Folio,
title, preface one leaf, pp. 22.
(CumBerfanb*
Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to Cumber
land (Manors of Witingha, Bodele, and Santacherche only).
Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's command, at the
Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton, 1861.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Cumberland (Manors of Witingha, Bodele, and Santacherche
only). See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. i. p. 301$.
Translation of portion : see Dom Boc by Bawdwen, 1809
(p. 664.)

©erB^ive*

Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to Derby
shire. Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's command, at
the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Derbyshire.

674 DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY
See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. i. ff. 272-278$; Index
Locorum, vol. iii. pp. 78-80.
Translation : see Dom Boc by Bawdwen, 1809 (p. 664).
Domesday Book of Derbyshire ; Temp. William the Con
queror, 1068 ; extended Latin Text ; and Literal Translation.
Edited, with notes, glossary, indices, &c, &c, by Llewellyn
Jewitt, F.S.A. London : Bemrose & Sons, 1871. Folio, pp.
72. The Domesday Book for the County of Derby. By John Pym
Yeatman. London and Oxford. 8vo.
©eBon00iire.
Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to Devon
shire. Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's command, at
the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Devonshire. See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. i. ff. 100-118$; Index
Locorum, vol. iii. pp. 26-32.
Exon Domesday.
See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. iv. pp. 1 -493 ; Index Nominum
Tenendum in Capite, vol. iv. pp. 589-590 ; Index Locorum,
vol. iv. pp. 591-602 ; Index Nominum Personarum, vol. iv.
pp. 603-614.
The Devonshire Domesday. (Extensions and Translations
in course of publication by the Devonshire Association, to
form an Exeter volume of the Transactions. Part I., 1884,
PP- l~97 J part II., 1885, pp. 97-284; part III., 1886, pp.
285-488 ; part IV, 1887, pp. 489-561 ; part V, 1888, pp.
564-674; part VI., 1889, pp. 675-834; part VII., 1890,
pp. 835-986; part VIII., 1891, pp. 987-1 146.) Plymouth. 8vo.

DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY 675

©omfojjite.

Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to Dorset
shire. Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's command, at
the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Dorsetshire. See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. i. ff. 75-85 ; Index Locorum,
vol. iii. pp. 19-21.
Exon Domesday.
See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. iv. pp. 1-493 > Index Nominum
Tenentium in Capite, vol. iv. pp. 589-590 ; Index Locorum,
vol. iv. pp. 591-602 ; Index Nominum Personarum, vol. iv.
pp. 603-614.
Domesday Book for the County (with the contractions ex
tended in italics). In ' History and Antiquities of the County
of Dorset, by John Hutchins.' 3rd ed. vol. iv. 1873, pp.
xx-xlviii. Index to the Names of Places, pp. xlviii-1. Possessors of
Land in the time of Edward the Confessor, p. Ii.
Translation of the Record called Domesday, so far as it re
lates to the County of Dorset, by the Rev. Wm. Bawdwen,
in the second edition 1815, pp. 47-83.
A Key to Domesday, showing the method of exactitude of
its Mensuration and the precise meaning of its more usual
formulae : the Subject being specially exemplified by an
Analysis and Digest of the Dorset Survey. By the Rev.
R. W. Eyton. London and Dorchester, 1878, 4to, pp. iv, 176
VOL. II. U

676 DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY
Contents : Preface — Introductory Essay on Hidation and
the Domesday Hide ; Carucates and Ploughlands ; lineal
measures in Domesday ; areal or superficial measures of
Domesday ; the territory surveyed in Domesday (Royal
Forests, ' Silva ' of Domesday, ' Pastura ' of Domesday,
' Pratum ' of Domesday, Mills, Churches and Church
Lands) ; Population (Agricultural : viz. Censores, Coliberti,
Villani, Bordarii, Cotarii, Servi, Ancillse ; Industrial : viz.
Salinarii, Piscatores, Fabri, Burgesses) ; Farming Stock
(Plough Teams employed) ; Values, Valuations, and Rents
of Domesday ; Theories tested by examples. — Chapter i.
The four Dorset boroughs surveyed in Domesday — ii.
Domesday schedule of Dorset landholders ; notices of
individual landholders — iii. Terra Regis of the Dorset
Domesday : Vetus Dominium Coronas (Portland group of
Demesnes, Bridetone group, Wimborne group, Dorchester
group, Pimperne group, Winfrith group, Tables of, groups
of Demesnes), Terra Regis per Escaetam — iv. The pre-
Domesday hundreds of Dorset — v. Domesday hidage com
pared with modern acreage — vi. Domesday mensuration
and valuation, Dorset— vii. Statistics : table of Dorset fiefs,
their relative hidage and population ; adult male population
of Dorset, a.d. 1086 and a.d. 187 i ; values of land and of
produce, a.d. 1086 and a.d. 1878 ; agricultural population,
ploughlands, and teams, a.d. 1086 ; hides and statute acres
again compared ; Domesday distribution of Dorset lands —
Index of Places — Index of Persons.
On the Family and Connexions of Robert Fitzgerald, the
Domesday Tenant of Corfe. By J. R. Planche\ In Journal of
the British Archaeological Association, vol. xxviii. (1872), pp.
1 13- 122.
Boldon Book.
See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. iv. pp. 565-587 ; Index
Locorum, vol. iv. pp. 631-632 ; Index Nominum Personarum,
vol. iv. pp. 6.33-635,

DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY 677

&8MX.

Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to Essex.
Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's command, at the
Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Essex. See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. ii. ff. 1-107 ; Index Locorum,
vol. iii. pp. m-116.
Inquisitio Eliensis.
See Domesday Book, Folio, 'vol. iv. pp. 497-528; Index
Locorum, vol. iv. pp. 615-617 ; Index Nominum, vol. iv.
pp. 618-620.
Domesday Book relating to Essex ; Translated by T. C.
Chisenhale-Marsh. Chelmsford (W. D. Burrell), 1864. 4to.

<Gtfouce0fcr0(Kre«
Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to
Gloucestershire. Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's com
mand, at the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Gloucestershire. See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. i. ff. 162-170$; Index
Locorum, vol. iii. pp. 43-46-
Translation : see Dom Boc by Bawdwen, 1812 (p. 665),
Some Account of the Landowners of Gloucestershire named
in Domesday Book, A.D. 1086. By Alfred S. Ellis. Not published.
1880, 8vo. (Reprinted from the Transactions of the Bristol
and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, vol. iv.)

678 DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY

3E>amp00ire.

Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to Hamp
shire. Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's command, at
the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Hampshire. See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. i. ff. 37$-54 ; Index Locorum,
vol. iii. pp. 10-13.
Liber Winton.
See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. iv. pp. 531-562 ; Index
Locorum, vol. iv. p. 621 ; Index Nominum, vol. iv. pp. 622-
630.
Hampshire extracted from Domesday Book : with an accurate
English Translation ; a Preface and an Introduction, contain
ing an Account of this Curious Record, a View of the Anglo-
Saxon History, and Form of Government from the Reign of
Alfred, together with a Slight Sketch of the most Material
Alterations which the latter underwent at the period of the
Conquest, to which is added a Glossary, explanatory of the
Obscure and Obsolete Words. By Richard Warner, Junior,
of Sway, in the County of Southampton, and of Mary Hall,
Oxford. London, 1789. 4to, pp. xvii, xlvi, 319 ; Glossary,
pp. 8. Also forming vol. ii. of "Collections for the History
of Hampshire, and the Bishopric of Winchester by D. Y.,'
commonly, but erroneously, known as Warner's work.
Notes and Essays, archaeological, historical, and topo
graphical, relating to the counties of Hants and Wilts, by
Henry Moody. Winchester and London, 1851. 8vo.
[The second essay is on 'The Domesday book of Hants and Wilts,'
and occupies pp. 12-24. It deals with general matters only.]

DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY' 679

JE)evefovb0(Hve.

Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to Hereford
shire. Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's command, at
the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Herefordshire. See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. i. ff. 179-187-}; Index
Locorum, vol. iii. pp. 49-53.
Names of Plaoes and of Landed Proprietors in Domesday Book.
In ' Collections towards the History and Antiquities of the
county of Hereford, by John Duncumb.' Vol. I. 1804, pp.
SSH55-

ffytxtfoxtetyixt.

Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to 1 lertford-
shire. Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's command, at
the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Hertfordshire. See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. i. ff. 13*5 i4-»* ; Index
Locorum, vol. iii. pp. 36-38-
Translation : see Dom Boc by Bawdwen, 181 2 (p. 665).
Inquisitio Eliensis.
See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. iv. pp. 497-528 ; Index
Locorum, vol, iv. pp. 615-617 J Index Nominum, vol. iv.
pp. 618-620.
It is stated on the title-page of Chauncy's ' Historical Antiquities
of Hertfordshire,' 1700, that that book contains an Exact

680 DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY
Transcript of Domesday Book so far as concerns this Shire
and the Translation thereof in English ; but there are only
some notes on the Survey at p. 9.

JfyvmtincfionBfyixt.

Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to
Huntingdonshire. Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's
command, at the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book ; Type facsimile of the part relating to
Huntingdonshire. See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. i. ff. 203-208$ ; Index
Locorum, vol. iii. pp. 54-55.
Inquisitio Eliensis.
See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. iv. pp. 497-528 ; Index
Locorum, vol. iv. pp. 615-617 ; Index Nominum, vol. iv.
pp. 618-620.
Translation of Domesday Book, or the Great Survey of
England of William the Conqueror, A.D. mlxxxvi., with notes
and explanations so far as relates to Huntingdonshire.
Huntingdon (Robert Edis), 1864. Folio, pp. 28.

%tnt
Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to Kent.
Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's command, at the
Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Kent. See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. i. ff. 1-14 ; Index Locorum,
vol. iii. pp. 1-4.

DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY 68 1
Translation : see Domesday by Henshall and Wilkinson,
1799 (p. 664).
The Domesday Book of Kent. With Translations, Notes, and
Appendix. By the Rev. Lambert Blackwell Larking, M.A.,
late Vicar of Ryarsh, Kent. London: James Toovey, 1869.
Large folio, pp. x ; Facsimile, 28 plates, pp. 190 ; Appendix,
PP* 55* This magnificent book consists of twenty-eight plates of fac
simile of the original ; Extension ; Concordance ; Index of
Names and Titles ; Translation ; Notes ; Appendix, con
taining notes on special points ; Tabular View of Manors,
alphabetically arranged ; Names of Places, ancient and
modern ; Index to Hundreds, Manors, &c, with references
to Hasted. (The British Museum possesses a copy on vellum.)
The Domesday Survey ; Its importance in all questions
affecting lands in Kent — Ancient Dimensions of Land —
Gulings — Ploughlands, or Carucates — Dimensions of the
Kentish Ploughland — Gulings — Yokes — Oxgangs — Varieties
of Gavelkind — Copyholds in Kent — Villeinage— Military and
Spiritual Tenures.
In 'Tenures of Kent,' by C. I. Elton,' 1867, cap. vi. pp.
113-151.
Bancwtywt*
Domesday Book; Facsimile of the part relating to
Lancashire. Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's com
mand, at the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
See Facsimile of the parts relating to Cheshire and Lancashire.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Lancashire (' inter Ripam et Mersham ').

682 DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY
See Domesday Book, Folio. Southern portion (' terra inter
Ripam et Mersham ), vol. i. ff. t6gb-2"jo ; Index Locorum,
vol. iii. p. 77. Northern portion (returned as part of York
shire under the heading ' Agemundrenesse '), vol. i. ff. 301$,
302, and 332; Index Locorum, vol. iii. pp. 85-97.
Translation of portions of: see Dom Boc by Bawdwen, 1809
(p. 664).

£eice0&t0J5ire*

Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to
Leicestershire. Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's com
mand, at the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Leicestershire. See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. i. ff. 230-237; Index Locorum
vol. iii. pp. 62-64.
Leicestershire, extracted from Domesday Book, with an
English Translation. In ' History and Antiquities of the
County of Leicester. By John Nichols.' 1795. Vol. i. pt. 1

&incotn8§iu.

Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to Lincoln
shire. Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's command, at
the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Lincolnshire. See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. i. ff. 336-371 ; Clamores,
^ 375-377* > Index Locorum, vol. iii. pp. roo-no.

DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY 683
Translation : see Dom Boc by Bawdwen, 1809 (p. 664).
Lincolnshire and Rutlandshire. A Translation of that
portion of Domesday Book which relates to Lincolnshire and
Rutlandshire. By Charles Gowen Smith. London (Simpkin,
Marshall, & Co.) [1870]. 8vo, pp. xlviii, 276.
Contains an Introduction, Glossary, and Index to principal
entries.

(WLiootmx.

Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to Middle
sex. Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's command, at
the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Middlesex. See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. i. ff. i26$-i3o$; Index
Locorum, vol. iii. pp. 35-36.
Translation : see Dom Boc by Bawdwen, 1812 (p. 665).
A Literal Extension of the Latin text, and an English Trans
lation of Domesday Book in relation to the County of
Middlesex, to accompany the facsimile copy photo-zinco
graphed, under the direction of Col. Sir H. James, R.E.,
F.R.S., at the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
London (Vacher & Sons, Longmans), 1862. Folio, pp. vi,
33, indexes 2 leaves.
The publishers proposed to publish the whole of Domesday in
the same manner county by county.
Facsimile of the original Domesday Book, or the Great
Survey of England, A.D. 1080 (sic), in the reign of William the

684 DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY
Conqueror. With translation by General Plantagenet-
Harrison. London, 1876. Folio, pp. [22].

Qtorfo^-

Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to Norfolk.
Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's command, at the
Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Norfolk. See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. ii. ff. 109-280; Index Locorum,
vol. iii. pp. 1 16-126.
Inquisitio Eliensis.
See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. iv. pp. 497-528; Index
Locorum, vol. iv. pp. 615-617 ; Index Nominum, vol. iv.
pp. 618-620.
An Analysis of the Domesday Book of the County of Norfolk.
By the Rev. George Munford, Vicar of East Winch. London,
J. Russell Smith, 1858. 8vo, pp. xv, 142.
This volume is full of valuable references.

Qtort(Sampfon0J5iire*

Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to North
amptonshire. Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's com
mand, at the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Northamptonshire. See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. i. ff. 219-229; Index Locorum,
vol. iii. pp. 58-61.

DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY 685
A Transcript of Domesday Book, so far as it concerns North
amptonshire, pp. 46. Index of the Towns mentioned in the
Extract of Northamptonshire from Domesday Book, pp. ix-x.
At the end of ' The Natural History of Northamptonshire.
By John Morton. London, 17 12.' Folio.
Domesday Book. The portion relating to Northampton
shire, extended and translated by Stuart A. Moore. North
ampton, Mark Dolman, 1863. Folio, pp. xv 98.
This volume contains a valuable index of names.

Qtoft{ng0am0(Kte.

Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to Notting
hamshire. Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's command,
at the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Nottinghamshire. See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. i. ff. 280-293; Index Locorum,
vol. iii. pp. 81-84.
Translation : see Dom Boc by Bawdwen, 1809 (p. 664).

OjcfoxHfyixt.

Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to Oxford
shire. Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's command, at
the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Oxfordshire. See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. i. ff. 1 54-161; Index Locorum,
vol. iii. pp. 40-42.
Translation : see Dom Boc by Bawdwen, 1812 (p. 665).

686 DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY
The Early History of Oxford, 727-1 100. By James Parker.
[With Illustrations.] Oxford, for the Oxf. Hist. Soc, 1885,
8vo, pp. 32 + 420.
[Chap, xi., pp. 1221-304, contains an elaborate account of 'The
Description of Oxford in 1086 as given in the Domesday
Survey,' with a facsimile of part of the Survey.]

(gutfano.

Note. — Part of Rutland is described in the Counties of Northamp
ton and Lincoln.
Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to Rutland.
Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's command, at the Ord
nance Survey Office, Southampton.
See Facsimile of the parts relating to Leicestershire and Rutland.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Rutland. See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. i. ff. 293$-294 ; Index
Locorum, vol. iii. p. 84.
Translation : see Dom Boc by Bawdwen, 1809 (p. 664).
A Translation of that portion of Domesday Book which
relates to Rutlandshire. By Charles Gowen Smith. See
under Lincolnshire.

.SifropajHre.

Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to Shrop
shire. Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's command, at
the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Shropshire.

DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY 687
See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. L ff. 252-260*; Index
Locorum, vol. iii. pp. 70-73.

Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to Somer
set Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's command, at the
Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Somerset See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. i. ff. 86-99; Index Locorum,
vol. iii. pp. 22-26.
Exon Domesday.
See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. iv. pp. 1-493 > Index Nominum
Tenendum in Capite, voL iv. pp. 589—590 ; Index Locorum,
vol. iv. pp. 591-602 ; Index Nominum Personarum, voL iv.
pp. 603-614.
Domesday Studies ; an analysis and digest of the Somer
set Survey (according to the Exon Codex) and of the Somer
set Gheld Inquest of AJD. 1084, as collated with and illustrated
by Domesday. By the Rev. R. W. Eyton. London and
Bristol, iSSo. 2 vols. 4to, pp. v, 225 ; 75.
Contents : vol. i. : Preface — Introductory Essay : area of
Somerset ; Domesday Hidation : the Hide of Somerset :
Carucates and Ploughlands ; lineal measures of Domesday :
areal or superficial measures : the territory surveyed in
Domesday (Royal and other Forests of Somerset, ' Pascua '
of the Somerset Survey, ' Pratum ' of the Somerset Survey,
' Terra Vasta ' of the Somerset Surrey, the Somerset Moor
lands, Vineyards, Mills, Churches, Church Lands) ; Domes
day Population of Somerset (Ancilke, Gabulatores, Villani,
Bordarii, Cotarii, Servi, Piscatoies, Fabri, Burgenses);

688 DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY
Farming Stock of the Somerset Survey ; Values, Valuations,
and Rents. — Chapter i. The Royal Burghs of Somerset—
ii. Domesday schedule of Somerset landholders ; notice of
individual landholders — iii. Terra Regis of Somerset (Vetus
Dominium Coronas) ; lands of the escheated earldom ;
lands of the late Queen Edith ; lands of Wulfward White,
deceased— iv. The old hundreds of Somerset ; the Gheld,
inquest of, a.d. 1084 ; old indices of Somerset hundreds ;
hundreds assessed by the Gheld, inquest of a.d. 1084 ;
Hundreds not assessed by the extant Inquests of a.d
1084 ; non-identified manors of the Somerset Survey— v.
Non-hidated liberties of Somerset ; estate of the Church of
St. John at Frome ; abbatial liberty of Muchelney — vi-
Appendix of Observations and Statistics ; Omissions of the
Somerset Domesday ; post-Domesday Hundred of Whitley;
Domesday fiefs of Somerset, Statistics of Population, annual
revenues and values of Somerset lands, the farm labourer
at the time of Domesday, Domesday distribution of
Somerset lands.
vol. ii. : Tables ; Terra Regis in Somerseta ; vetus dominium
Corona?, estates of the Crown ; mansiones de comitatu,
estates of the earldom ; terrae quas tenuit Editha Regina,
estates of the late Queen Edith ; terra quae fuit Wlwardi
Wite, estates of the late Wulward White — -The hundreds
and liberties of Somerset, synoptical table ; Hundreds and
liberties assessed in the extant Gheld Inquests of a.d.
1084 ; Hundreds and liberties not so assessed ; Hundreds
and liberties named in old indices ; Hundreds and liberties
not so named — Domesday manors of Somerset not yet
identified — pre-Domesday franchise of the Church of St.
John at Frome — pre-Domesday Liberty of Muchelney
Abbey— the Somerset Domesday arranged according to
fiefs — Index of Places— Index of Persons — Corrigenda.

^iafforo0§ite»

Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to Stafford
shire. Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's command, at
the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.

DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY 689
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Staffordshire. See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. i. ff. 246-250$; Index Locorum,
vol. iii. pp. 67-70.
Domesday Studies ; An analysis and digest of the Stafford
shire survey, treating of the mensuration technicalities,
phraseology, and method of Domesday in its relation to
Staffordshire, and to other counties of the same circuit ; with
tables and notes reproducing the main features of the Domes
day Survey of the County, and comparing the same with ex
isting conditions. By the Rev. R. W. Eyton. London and
•Stafford, 1881. 8vo, pp. vii, 135.
< Contents : cap. i. Limits of the Domesday county ; post-
Domesday changes in the boundaries of Staffordshire ; cer
tain Staffordshire manors omitted in Domesday ; Stafford
shire estates apparently excluded from the survey virtually
included therein ; the Domesday county and the present
county compared— ii. Internal state of Staffordshire a.d.
1086 — iii. Domesday hundreds of Staffordshire ; sites
of manors often traceable when Domesday names are
obsolete ; enumeration of Staffordshire estates whose
Domesday names are obsolete — iv. The Domesday fiefs
of Staffordshire— v. Tables of the five Staffordshire hun
dreds — vi. The Staffordshire Domesday arranged according
to fiefs ; Staffordshire and Dorset contrasted— Index of
Places — Index of Persons— Errata and Addenda.

£uffo£6-

Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to Suffolk.
Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's command, at the
Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book ; Type- facsimile of the part relating to
Suffolk.

690 DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY
See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. ii. ff. 281-450; Index Locorum,
vol. iii. pp. 127-144.
Inquisitio Eliensis.
See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. iv. pp. 497-528 ; Index
Locorum, vol. iv. pp. 615-617 ; Index Nominum, vol. iv.
pp. 618-620.

^uweg-

Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to Surrey.
Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's command, at the
Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Surrey. See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. i. ff. 30-36; Index Locorum,
vol. iii. pp. 8-9.
Translation : see Domesday by Henshall and Wilkinson,
1799 (p. 664).
Sudrie comitatus descriptio, e Libro Censuali Gulielmi Con-
questoris, vulgo vocato Domesday Book, apographice desumpta.
Versione Anglicana donavit, commentario auxit, notis denique
illustravit Owen Manning, S.T.B., Vicarius de Godelming.
MDCCLXXHI. In ' History and Antiquities of the County of
Surrey, by Owen Manning and William Bray.' 1804. Vol. i.
The first facsimile of a whole county ever undertaken.
A Literal Extension of the Latin text, and an English Trans
lation of Domesday Book in relation to the County of Surrey. To
accompany the facsimile copy photo-zincographed, under the
direction of Colonel Sir H.James, R.E.,F.R.S.,at the Ordnance
Survey Office, Southampton. London (Vacher & Sons), 1 862.

DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY 691
Folio, pp. v, 52. Index of Hundreds ; General Index of
Places, with the tenants-in-chief at the time of Domesday
Survey ; General Index of Names of all persons appearing on
the Record, pp. viii.

^>u00e^»
Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to Sussex.
Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's command, at the Ord
nance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Sussex. See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. i. ff. 16-29 ; Index Locorum,
vol. iii. pp. 5-8.
Translation : see Domesday by Henshall and Wilkinson,
1799 (p. 664).
Extract from the Domesday Survey of the lands subject to the
Archbishop of Canterbury in Sussex. Journal of the British
Archaeological Association, vol. xxiii. 1867, pp. 334, 338.
Domesday Book in relation to the county of Sussex. Edited
for the Sussex Archaeological Society by W. D. Parish, Vicar
of Selmestqn, Sussex, Chancellor of Chichester Cathedral.
Sussex, H. Wolff, 64 High Street, Lewes. 1886. Folio, pp.
xiv-xxviii, 138.
Contents: Introduction, Facsimile, Extension and Translation
of the Latin Text, Index of Tenants, Index of Names of
Places mentioned in the Record, with Notes and suggested
Identifications, Explanation of Words and Phrases. With a
coloured map of Domesday Sussex. [By F. E. Sawyer,
F.S.A.]
VOL. II. X

692 DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY

T&irEicMire-

Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to Warwick
shire. Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's command, at
the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Warwickshire. See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. i. ff. 238-244^ ; Index
Locorum, vol. iii. pp. 65-67.
Domesday Book, for the County of Warwick, translated by
William Reader ; to which is prefixed a Brief Dissertation on
Domesday Book, and Biographical Notices of the Ancient
Possessors from the best Authorities. Coventry ( W. Reader),
1835, 4to, pp. xxx, 93 ; Second Edition, with a Brief Intro
duction, by Evelyn Philip Shirley. Warwick, H. T. Cooke
& Sons [1879], 4to, pp. viii, 38.
Notes on the Domesday of Warwickshire. By Charles
Twamley. In Archaological fournal, vol. xxi. (1864),
PP- 373-376.
Utitetmoxdano*
Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to West
moreland. (Manors of Castretune, Berebrune, Middeltun,
Manzserge, Cherchebi, Lupetun, Prestun, Holme, Bortun,
Hotune, Stercaland.Mimet, Cherchebi, Helsingetune, Steintun,
Bodelforde, Hotun, Bortun, and Patun). Photo-zincographed,
by Her Majesty's command, at the Ordnance Survey Office,
Southampton. See under Lancashire in Facsimile of the parts relating to
Cheshire and Lancashire.

DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY 693
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Westmoreland. (Manors of Castretune, Berebrune, Middeltun,
Manzserge, Cherchebi, Lupetun, Prestun, Holme, Bortun,
Hotune, Stercaland, Mimet, Cherchebi, Helsingetune, Stein-
tun, Bodelforde, Hotun, Bortun, and Patun.)
See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. i. ff. 3oi$-302 ; Index
Locorum, vol. iii. pp. 85-97.
Translation of portion : see Dom Boc by Bawdwen, 1809
(p. 664). TMtelfae-
Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to Wilt
shire. Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's command, at
the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Wiltshire. See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. i. ff. 64$-74$ ; Index Locorum,
vol. iii. pp. 16-19.
Exon Domesday.
See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. iv. pp. 1-493 > Index
Nominum Tenendum in Capite, vol. iv. pp. 589-59° > Index
Locorum, vol. iv.pp. 591-602 ; Index Nominum Personarum,
vol. iv. pp. 603-614.
Wiltshire extracted from Domesday Book; To which is
added a translation of the Original Latin into English.
With an Index in which are adapted the Modern Names
to the Ancient ; and with a preface, in which is included a
plan for a General History of the County. By Henry Pen
ruddocke Wyndham. Salisbury. Printed by E. Easton,
1788. 8vo, pp. xiii, 535

694 DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY
Domesday for Wiltshire. Extracted from Accurate Copies
of the Original Records, accompanied with Translations,
Illustrative Notes, Analysis of Contents, and General Intro
duction, by William Henry Jones, M.A., F.S.A., Rural Dean,
Vicar of Bradford-on-Avon. Bath (R. E.Peach), 1865. 410,
pp. lxxvii, 255.
Contents: 1. General Introduction. 2. The Exchequer
Domesday for Wiltshire. 3. The Exon Domesday for
Wiltshire. 4. Analysis of the Domesday for Wiltshire.
5. General Index.

Ttioxuehxetyixt.

Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to Wor
cestershire. Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's command,
at the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Worcestershire. See Domesday Book, Folio. vol. i. ff. 172-178; Index
Locorum, vol. iii. pp. 47-49.
Observations on Domesday for Worcestershire (with copper
plate facsimile of the original), [1775]. Appendix to
[Nash's] ' Collections for the History of Worcestershire,' 1782,
vol. ii.
Ea pars libri de Domesday, quae ad Ecclesiam pertinet Wigor-
niensem. Hemingi Chartularium (Hearne), 1723, pp. 481-
512. A Literal Extension of the Latin Text; and an English
Translation of Domesday Book in relation to the County
of Worcester. By W. B. Sanders. To accompany the facsimile
copy photo-zincographed, under the direction of Colonel Sir
H. James, R.E., F.R.S., at the Ordnance Surv?y Office, South-

DOMESDAY BIBLIOGRAPHY 695
ampton. Worcester (Deighton & Son), 1864. Folio, title,
preface 1 leaf, pp. 50.
Index of Hundreds, General Index of Places, with the Tenants-
in-chief at the time of Domesday Survey, General Index of
Names of all persons appearing on the Record, pp. ix.

fgot60?ire.
Domesday Book ; Facsimile of the part relating to York
shire. Photo-zincographed, by Her Majesty's command, at
the Ordnance Survey Office, Southampton.
Domesday Book ; Type-facsimile of the part relating to
Yorkshire. See Domesday Book, Folio, vol. i. ff. 298-333 ; Index
Locorum, vol. iii. pp. 85-99.
Clamores, ff. 373-382.
Translation : see Dom Boc by Bawdwen, 1809 (p. 664).
Some Account of the Landholders of Yorkshire named in
Domesday Book, A.D. 1086. By Alfred S. Ellis. Not published.
1878, 8vo. (Reprinted from the Yorkshire Archaeological
Journal, where the papers are entitled ' Biographical Notes on
the Yorkshire Tenants named in Domesday Book.')
Registrum Honoris de Richmond, exhibens Terrarum et
Villarum qua? quondam fuerunt Edwini comitis infra Richmond-
shire descriptionem, ex Libro Domesday. 1722. Folio.

MANUSCRIPTS.

Traotatus de usu et obsourioribus verbis Libri de Domesday.
By Arthur Agarde. Cotton. MS. Vitellius ix.
Abridgment omitting several of the Counties, written about
the year 1200. Arundel MS. 153.
Abridgment for the County of Kent, written in the 12th
century. Cotton. MS. Vitellius cviii.
Inquisitio Cantabrigiensis. Cotton. MS. Tiberius A vi.

INDEX

ABB
A»B&8VlATio,th«, of Domesday Book,
6a
Acre, a day's ploughing represented
by the, 60
— as applied to meadowJand, ai8
— as lineal measure, aao
— list of, in United Kingdom,
aoa*. Sn S«5
— the statute, 894, 373
— gheld, sa6
— •foreign, syo
— Wg. S7»
— foot based on the, 375*. S*->5
— Anglesea, 39a
— Cheshire, a"f4, aSj, 300*
— Cornish, ayo, 300, 371
— Devonshire, a$8, 563
— Irish, ate, aSa-a§6, 303
— — in Carew's MSS., a§» *t aty.
 Cunningham, a§6, 3? *
— Scotch, syj
— Welsh, 366 «t wy., ays ** -*#?>»
ao8,3?a
— Westmoreland^ a6o, ayo, 306
— Wiltshire, soo
Ager, ayS, syt
Agricuttxtre, two-field and three-field
systems of, 144, 61 I
Aids, the Book of, 643
Alfred and Gxuhrum's treaty, fines
under, for blood-shedding, 343

AS!
Allotment, method of, 311 *ts*$.
* Ancient Demesne, on an alleged in
stance of the Fallibility of Domesday
In regard to,' by Sir Henry Barkly,
K.C.B, 471-483
Ancient Demesne, appeal to Domes
day as to verification of, 53a
Andredesweald, Sussex and Surrey
vaguely divided by, 460
AHgiicm H«m*rtK, see « Numeration,
 its relation to the hide, 350-360
Anglo-Saxons, their dislike of Wil
liam's Survey, 8, .15, jo
— — their duodecimal counting, ao-
33. 3t7, SSi
 their 'long hundred,' 33, 317,
SSi
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle quoted as to
origin of tiie Survey. 8, 40a
Apothecaries' weight*, origin of, 241
Arable land, its division between lords
and tenants, 51
Jtva, description of, in the * Dia
logus,' 5a*)
Wow, their uses, %aa
• Arpent,5 the continental, 564
As, Bede on the subdivisions of the,
616
Ask, rights of pasturage in. 39
— value of land, and land remit* n, 40

698

INDEX

ASl
Asia, sexdecimai measurements in, 57°
Assessment of land, unit of, 205, 227
et seq.
 pound-paying unit of, 301, 326
etscq., 353, 612, 615

BALLIAGES, their imperfect corre
spondence with shires, 388
Bally-betagh, food-paying unit, 251,
283, 301
Barkly, Sir Henry, K.C.B., on -An
alleged instance of the Fallibility of
Domesday in regard to Ancient
Demesne,' 471-483
Battle Abbey Charters, as to acreage
of ' one plough,' 18
 as to meadow-land acres,
219
 as to reduction of assessment
at Alceston, 551
 measurement of lands of, 271
Bawdwen, the Rev. Win., his Domes
day MSS., 510
Beachy Head, Domesday elucidation
of name, 456
Bear-baiting, mention of, in Domes
day, 22
Bede, on the duodecimal system of
land measurement, 615
— on the subdivisions of the As, or
unit of aggregations, 616
Benedictines, establishment of, at
Nympsfield, 478, 480
Bengeworth and Hampton, Survey
decision of a question concerning,
542> S4S> note
Berkshire Survey, paucity of churches
in. 435. 438
— — mention of Presbyters in, 441
¦  list of facsimiles of, 670
Betchworth, changes in the manor of,
4"3
•Bibliography of Domesday Book,'
edited by II. B. Wheatlcy, F.S.A.,
663-695
Birch, W. dc G., F.S.A., on 'The
Materials for Hie re ciUling of Ihc

BUR
Domesday Book, and suggestions
for the formation of a Domesday
Book Society,' 485-515
Bishoprics, transfer of, 411
Bishops, English, land held by, 405
— Norman, English manors held by,
401
Boldon Book, payment in kind to
artificers shown by, 53
 size of carucate implied in, 161,
175
 history of, 630
Bordarii and Cotarii, distribution of,
in Surrey, 469
Boroughs, early assessment of, in
terms of hundreds, 118
Bovates, proportion of, to carucates,
159. 173. 2°3
Bradshaw, John, Dialogus de Scaccario
written by, 534
Brehon laws, Irish weights according
to, 240
 duodecimal land measurement
in, 264
— — Irish divisions of land and
money shown by, 327
Breviate, the, of Domesday Book,
630
 comparison of, with the Exche
quer Domesday, 501
British Museum, MSS. exhibited
(1886) at the, 651-657
 printed books exhibited (1886)
at the, 659-662
Buckinghamshire, hundreds and
wapentakes in, 75
— facsimiles of Survey of, 670
Buckland, Frank, as to the arithmetic
of the Cromer crab-fishers, 34
Burgages, assessment of, 122
Burton Agnes, glebe arrangements in,
54
 as example of a ' three-field '
manor, 58
 survival of the common-field
system in, 147
 proportion of ploughs to plough'
liinds in, 150

INDEX

699

BUR
Burton Agnes, site of carucata ad
geldum in, 180

Cambridgeshire, foosimiles of
Domesday Book relating to, 670
•Cambridgeshire, Inquest of,' Exche
quer Domesday for the county
founded on, 486
— MS. of, in the British Museum, 488
Canterbury, Archbishopric of, con
tinued tenure of lands of, 403
— status of the Archbishop of, 406
Canute, testimony of his laws as to
number of churches, 434
« Car,' proportion of to 'hide,' 579
Carew's MSS., 363, s8i, 373
Cwtm AntifiM* at H.M. Record
Office, 636
Caruca, a term of assessment, 15
— « terra ad,' 309 H a#y.
— different sises of, 566, 367
Carucae, tillage area calculated from
number of, 149
— site of, dependent on strength of
plough, saa
— adjutriees, 3aa
Cmmttto «W $*Mhm, signification of,
IS7. 3*>
— — — area 0$ 164
Carucate, ungeldable land measured
by the, 105
— the fiscal area, 149
— geldable and arable compared,
158-303
— area of, in two-field and three-field
shifts compared, 139, 166
 in the Boldon Book, »6i
 in monastic charters, 16a
— Danish introduction of the, 199
— Norman re-introduction of the,
aoo
— its relation to the Ftench divisions
of the pound, 33a
Cassel, aSa
Castles, Norman, earthworks serv-
ing as, 394
Chalcos, 370

COM
Chamberlain's chest, the, probable
identification of, 531
Charters, Anglo-Saxon, elucidation
of Domesday by, 497
Chaucer, status of presbyters shown
by, 441
Cheshire, Domesday works on, 510,
671
Chester, manors of the See of, 416
— « Customs ' of the Bishop of, 418
Chichester, manorial holdings of See
of, 439
Chingfbrd, early reference to Domes
day in record of, 539
'Church, the, in Domesday, with
especial reference to Episcopal En-
dowments,'by James Parker, M. A.,
399-43«
Church, the, its exemption from the
payment of Danegeld, 83, 9a
— — large amount of land held by,
399
Churches, scarcity of, in Domesday,
56> 433. 439
— classification of, in laws of Canute,
434
— Saxon, unmentioned in Domesday,
437
— sub-tenancy of, 44a
— held by laymen, 445
Clarke, Hyde, V.P.R. Hist, S„ Pre-
fiiee to • Domesday Studies,' vii.
 < on the Turkish Survey of Hun
gary and its relation to Domesday
Book,' 37-4*5
_ _ « Note on the Order of Domes
day Book,' 387-397
Clehanger, gift of manor of, 47a, 476
— confirmation of grant of, 48a
Code, Gwentian, 375
— Venedotian, 379
Colchester, collective liabilityas shown
at, W9
— acres of meadow-land at, ais
Commissioners, Domesday, their
judicial powers, 540, 548
Common fields, their exemption from
taxation, 61c 61a

700

INDEX

COM
Common-field tillage implied in
Domesday, 147
 proportion of plough-land to
ploughs in, 156
 small evidence of, in Anglo-
Saxon charters, 498
Cornwall, peculiar geld-measurement
in, 216
— facsimiles of Domesday books re
lating to, 672
Coronations held at Winchester, 522
' Corrody,' 54
Cottenham Common, 347
Council of the West, Puritan opposi
tion to the, 535
Counties, separate, Domesday works
on, 510-13
— facsimiles in Brit. Mus. of Surveys
of, 659-95
— Domesday as reference to bounda
ries of, 536
Counting, duodecimal, among the
Angli, 33, 317, 351
Coutances, Geoffrey, Bp. of, English
manors held by, 402
 presides over the Gemot at
Penenden Heath, 429
 placitum in Worcestershire held
by, 542
Crawford and Balcarres, Lord, on the
grouping of the Norman invaders
of England, 389
Cunningham acre, the, 286, 372
Cymwd, 279

' Danegeld and the Finance of
Domesday,' by J. Horace Round,
M.A., 77-142
Danegeld, its Saxon assessment-levy
per hide, 12
— tributary and stipendiary, 79
— the great levy of in 1083-4, 82
— exemption of the Church from, 83,
96
— amount of, in Pipe-Roll of 1 130,
S5
¦ — how raised, 89

DOM
Danegeld, special exemptions from,
98-104
— reduction of, in four southern
counties, no
Danes, the carucate introduced by
the, 199
' Days' maths,' meadow land measured
by, 219
Decnnx, 617
Denarius, 233, 236 et seq.
— the, varying weights of, 236, 578
Derman of London, identification of,
558
Dessatina, Russian, 562
Dialect, identification of place-names
by means of, 450
Dialogus de Scaccario, as to the mean
ing of ' Domesday,' 4
 as to the levy of Danegeld,
85
 evidence of, as to the West
minster Exchequer, 524, 526, 528
 authorship of, 534
 at H.M. Public Record
Office, 631
' Domesday Book, Bibliography of,'
edited by H. B. Wheatley, F.S.A.,
663-695
' Domesday Book, on the Study of,'
by Stuart Moore, F.S.A., 1-28
' Domesday Book, on the Turkish
Survey of Hungary and its relation
to,' by Hyde Clarke, V.P.R. Hist.
S-, 37-46
'Domesday Book, the materials for
the re-editing of, and suggestions for
the formation of a Domesday Book
Society,' by W. deG. Birch, F.S.A.,
485-515
' Domesday Book, the official custody
of,' by Hubert Hall, F.S.A., F.R.
Hist. S., 517-537
' Domesday, an early Reference to,'
by J. Horace Round, M.A., 539-
559
' Domesday Survivals,' by Canon
Isaac Taylor, M.A., IX.D., Litt.
D., 47-66 j

INDEX

701

DOM
Domesday, various interpretations of
name, 4
— known as Rotulus Wintonia in
time of John, 6
— its object assessment, not measure
ment, n
— considered as rate book, 19
— social life illustrated by, 21
— its practical uses, 24
— recognition of common pasturage
in, 39. 5P
— omission of certain counties, 48
— land tenure in, 52
— wapentakes and hundreds in, 68
— * inlands ' in, 107
— seigneurial and crown dues in,
132
— gablum, or gafol, in, 133
— two-field and three-field manors in,
145
— common-field tillage implied in,
147
— measures of land in, 189 et seq.
— geldable hide of, 319, 326, 346
— order of, 387
— language of, 389
— the Church in, 399 et seq.
— omission of churches in, 433, 437
— its evidence as to population, 454
— an alleged inaccuracy of, 471
— points inquired into for compilation
of, 494
— omission of four northern counties
from, 494
— its authority as a Record, 532,
535
— Commissioners, judicial powers of,
540, 548
— preservation of original returns for,
547
— * Descriptio Anglian,' 552
— inter ripam in, 246, 302, 577
Domesday Book, where kept, 491
 date of, 492
 where originally kept, 518
 kept with the King's seal, 530
 its removal to the Public Re
cord Office, 531

EVR
Domesday Book, description of, 623
¦  Abbreviatio of, 628
 Breviate of, 630
Domesday Book Society, proposed
formation of a, 486
Domesday chest, 627
— covers, the old, 627
Dominium, the King's, rent from,
136
Dorchester, removal of the See of,
411, 413, 438
Dorsetshire, Domesday works on, 5 1 1
 facsimiles of, 675
Drachma, Attic and Eubcean, 582,
587, 602-607
— varying divisions of the, 602
Drawings, contemporary, elucidation
of Domesday by, 499, 568
Duodecimal system among the Angli,
29. 33. 317*351
 Bede's evidence as to the, 615
Durham, manors belonging to the See
of, 419
— devastation of the province of, by
William, 495
Dynval, his land measurements, 275,
298, 373. 58o

Ecclesiola, mentions of, 439
Edward the Confessor, cessation of
'stipendiary Danegeld' under, 81
 increase of churches under,
434
Ell, land measurement by the 'old
English,' 276
— cloth ells, list of, 367 et seq.
 varying lengths of Royal,
Egyptian, statute, 562
Ely MS., its silence respecting
churches, 444
Erasure, method of, 325
Erw, or Welsh acre, 266, 276, 279,
294, 298, 301
— as unit of British measurement,
298
Evreux, English manors granted to
Bishop of, 404

702

INDEX

EXC
Exchequer, what denoted by, 519
— elaboration of, at Westminster, 523
— re-establishment of, by Henry II.,
525
— Red Book of the, 631
— Black Book of the, 633
— smaller Black Book of the, 634
— tallies of the, 635
Exeter, special privilege of, as to
Danegeld, 119
— manors belonging to the See of,
424
— Domesday, particulars of, 490
Eyton, Mr., on exemptions from
Danegeld, 92
 on the carucate, 105
 on the area of the hide, 194,
213
 on the judicial powers of the
Legati, 540 note .

Fallow-land, common, its exemp
tion from taxation, 348 et seq.,
612
Familia of Bede, 324
Farmer, origin of term, 52
Fen country, land holdings in the,
222
Fertach, 264
Ferthing, the Cornish, 278
' Fields,' village, in Domesday, 57
— survival of names of, 146
Fire of London, removal of records
during the, 531
Firmarius, a, monastic manors held
fcy> 135
Flambard, story of his proposed revi
sion of the Survey, 116
— his extortion from levied soldiers,
121
Fleta, proportion of acres to carucates
as given by, 17, 158, 162, 165,
349
Foot, Anglo-Saxon, 255, 257
— various measurements of the,
257. 275, 290, 364 et seq.
— Scotch, 259, 270

GWE
Foot, Babylonish, 270
— list of, and remarks, 289, 364
— Dynval's, 290, 303, 275
 ' pace,' 374-375
— table of multiples, 375
— not really a human, 378, 562
Forrack, 264
Francigenae, post-conquest exemption
of, from the Geld, 124
Freeman, Prof. E. A. , on the levy of
Danegeld, 86
 on the powers of the Domesday
Commissioners, 540
Fyrd, or military service, town liability
to, 120

Gablum, or gafol, signification of,
133
— payment of, 1 34
— fines for non-payment of, 139
— later forms of, 140
Gad, or goad, as measure, 276, 287,
288
Gavael, value of, 279, 580
Gavel-pennies, payment of, at Lei
cester, 140
Geld, diversion of, to ecclesiastical
quarters, 126
— and hide, numerical relation be
tween, 212
' Geldable Unit of Assessment of
Domesday, summary of a new view
of the,' by O. C. Pell, 561-619
Glebe as land tithe, 54
Gloucester, compilation of Domesday
determined on at, 493
Gloucestershire, list of facsimiles of
Survey of, 677
Goizenboded, William, his detention
of property in Gloucestershire, 557
Grain, the, varying weights of, 233,
235. 572
— not really vegetable, 573
Grazing ground, common, survival of,
57
Gwentian, or Venedotian, code, 298,
373

INDEX

7°3

HAL
Hall, Hubert, F.S.A., F.R. Hist.
S., on 'The Official Custody of
Domesday Book,' 517-537
Hamilton, Mr. N. E. S. A., the
' Inquest of Cambridgeshire ' pub
lished by, 486
Hampshire, destruction of churches
in. 435
Handwriting of Domesday, 492
Hardy, Sir Thomas Duffus, on Domes
day, 26
Headlands, origin of, 63
Heming's Cartulary, contemporary
evidence as to the Survey in, 542
— • — abbrevation in, of Worcester
Church possessions, 545
Henry of Huntingdon quoted as to
extent of hide, 193
Hereford, French burgesses of, their
exemption from Geld, 125
— manors of the See of, 418
— list of facsimiles of Survey of, 679
Hide, definition of, 12, 323
— a term of assessment, 13-15
— ' hid msel et secer mael,' 613
— ' extra hidam,' 346, 349, 613
— area of, 171, 211, 271, 274, 302,
313, 314, 326 et seq., 351 et seq.
— allotments into, 252, 323
— as pound-paying unit, 300
— the areal, or terra ad carucam, 319
— its equivalence to the carucate,
323-327
— the geldable, 320-326 et seq., 340,
346 et seq., 612
— as term of measurement, 552
— its relation to the hundred, 118
— military assessment with reference
to the, 120
Holderness, equal proportion of
ploughs to carucates in, 149, 166
— ¦ physical features of, 153
Hugia, or huchia, 521
Hundred, the, historical significance
of, 69
 fiscal unit for levy of Danegeld,
117
Hundred Rolls, 363

KEN
Hundreds, their gradual change to
wapentakes, 68
— of Surrey, past and present, 462
' Hungary, on the Turkish Survey of,
and its relation to Domesday Book,'
by Hyde Clarke, V.P.R. Hist. S.,
37-46
Huntingdon, Henry of, on the pre
servation of the original Survey
returns, 547
Huntingdonshire, list of facsimiles of
Survey of, 680

Ixa's ransom, 342
India, minuteness of weight divisions
in, 572
Ingulphus as to payments to churches
by William II., 436
' Inland,' signification of, 107, 109
Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis,
252, 486
Inquisitio Eliensis, 7
 ¦ acreage of hides in, 13
 its scope, 488
Inquisitions, separate, Domesday com
piled from, 492
Inter ripam, 'valets,' 246, 302
— explanation of, 577-9
— weights used, 603
Ireland, town lands in, 251
— length of perch in, 282

Japan, relation of Cunningham acre
to foot of, 286, 372
— relation of Cunningham acre to
ine of, 379
Jugerum, extent of, 562
Justices, itinerant, their functions, 548

Kemble, on the extent of the hide,
210
Kensington, Domesday entry of, 217
Kent, fragment of Survey for, in Brit.
Mus., 496
— list of facsimiles of Survey of, 6S0

704

INDEX

KIN
Kind, payments in, 234
King's seal kept with Domesday Book,
53°
Kinley, restoration of Priory of, to
the Benedictines, 478
Kirby's Quest, 641

' Land, Notes on Domesday Measures
of,' by J. Horace Round, M.A.,
189-225
— transfer of, 27
— in cultivation under-estimated, 615
— tenure of, in Asia, 40
 Domesday, 52
 unusual form of, 556
— divisions of the, 250 et seq., 561
— ecclesiastical,, large amount of, 399
 stability of possession of, 405
— occasional independent tenure of,
by monks, 443
— fallow, its exemption from taxation,
610
— divisions of, coincide with those of
pound, 297 et seq., 570, 580
— Anglo-Saxon, 259
Lanes, their course determined by
Domesday tillage, 63
Lanfranc, his accession to the Arch
bishopric of Canterbury, 405
— his recovery of Kentish lands from
Odo, 496
Latin, Norman use of, in administra
tion, 389
Leap, 275
Legati, Mr. Eyton on the judicial
powers of the, 540 note
' Leicester Inquests, the True Story of,'
140
Leicestershire, identity of hundreds
and wapentakes in, 74
— list of facsimiles of Survey of, 682
Leuga, acreage of the, 252
— Anglican, 253, 256, 271 errata
Liability, collective, Anglo-Saxon
principle of, 129
Liber niger of Hexham, acreage of
holdings in, 162

MAN
Liber niger of Peterborough, pay
ment in kind as shown by, 53
 different systems of land mea
surement in, 196
— Wintoniensis, 522
Libra, see ' Pound ' and ' Weight '
— modes of division of, 32, 33
— division of into shillings and pence,
229
— division corresponding to that of
land, 304 et seq., 311 et seq., 577
— Fleta's libra mercatoria, 582, 583
— Roman divisions of, 239
Lichfield, Bishop of, manors held by
the, 416
Limesi, connection of the house of,
with that of Rollo, 392
 connection with Tancarville,
389
Lincoln, Bishop of, land held by the,
410
— transfer of the Bishop's ' stool ' to,
411, 438
Lincolnshire, episcopal lands in, 427
¦ — list of facsimiles of Survey of, 682
Lisieux, English manors granted to
the Bishop of, 403
Llathen Gyvelin, 276, 288
' Local Elucidation of the Domesday
Survey, The Scope of,' by Frederick
E. Sawyer, F.S.A., 447-457
London, Bishop of, lands held by the,
415
Long hundred, Anglo-Saxon practice
of counting by, 34, 240, 317, 351

Maenol, Welsh pound-paying unit of
measurement, 276, 279, 280, 299,
301, 580
Maiden, H. E., M.A., F.R. Hist. S.,
on ' The Domesday Survey of
Surrey,' 459, 470
Manorial rights, Domesday evidence
decisive as to, 24
Manors in Cambridgeshire and York
shire, 250, 251
Mansio of the Angli and Franks, 312

INDEX

705

MAtf
Manuscripts &c. exhibited (1886) at
H.M. Public Record Office, notes
on, 621-647
— exhibited (1886) at the British
Museum, 651-657
Marcey, Ralph de, his aggressions on
the lands of the chapter of St. Paul's,
553
— William de, his compromise with
the canons, 554
Mark, Mercian, value of, 233, 239,
578
— Attic, weight of, 607
Market dues, payment of, 136
Meadow land, ' acre ' as applied to,
218, 219
Measurements, duodecimal, 240, 264,
563
— sexdecimai, 249, 570
— Dynval's, 275, 298, 373, 5^0
' Measures of Land, Notes on Domes-
day,' by J. Horace Round, M.A.,
189-225
Mercian marks, 233, 242-246
— pence, 245
— ora, or solidus, 247, 578, see ' Ora,'
post
Mile, Dynval's, 275
Military tenure as systematised by
Domesday, 24
Millers, how paid, 53
Mina, 570
— Italian, 597
— Roman, 597
Monasteries, land held by, 399
— Norman, English manors held by,
431
Monks, independent tenure of land
by, 443
Moore, Stuart, F.S.A., on ' The Study
of Domesday Book,' 1-28
Morgen, meaning of, 370
Names, tribal, reconstructed from
place names, 451
New Forest, destruction of churches
in forming the, 435

OPE
' New View, A, of the Geldable Unit
of Assessment of Domesday,' by
O. C. Pell, M.A., 227-363
Norfolk, list of facsimiles of Survey of,
684
Normandy, landowners of, their rela
tion to Domesday, 387
— English land held by Bishops of;
401, 403, 431
Normans, limitation of their immigra
tion, 391
— their influence on English popula
tion, 392
— grouping of the, in England, 395
Norwich, See of, removed from Thet-
ford, 412
Nottingham Records, ' the two
boroughs ' in the, 1 26
Nottinghamshire, identity of hundreds
and wapentakes in, 74
— list of facsimiles of Survey of, 685
Numeration, Anglo-Saxon, 259, 296,
3176/ seq., 350 et seq., 612-4
 x. means xii., 613, 617
 case of Shelford, 34, 357, 617
 practical working of, 360, 610,
612
 ready reckoner founded on, 360
 . cases of Wilburton and Stret-
ham, 614-615
 Bede's tables, 615 et seq.
Nummus, weight of the, 236
Nympsfield, examination as to gift of,
471
— retention of, by the Berkeley family ,
475
— Abbot Serlo's claim to, 476

Obolus, 570
Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, English
manors held by, 401
— his unwarranted possession of land
and dues, 468
Old Sarum, no church mentioned at,
in the Survey, 438
' Open field ' system, 147. 220, 222,
3"

706

INDEX

ORA
Ora of sixteen pence, 234, 239, 241,
238, 563, see ' Mercian,' ante
' Order of Domesday Book, Note on
the,' by Hyde Clarke, V. P. R.
Hist. S., 387-397
Oswaldslawe, survey of the Episco
pal Liberty of, 546
Otho the Goldsmith, his wrongful
detention of lands, 555
Ounce, see ' Ora,' 239
— proportion of, to talent, 374
Oxen, number of, to a plough, 51, 209
Ox gangs, curved divisions of, 60 et
seq., 270

Palmer, Mr., on meadow-land acres,
219
Pared, 276
' Parish Churches omitted in the Sur
vey — The Presbyter,' by Herbert
J. Reid, F.S.A., 433-446
Parker, James, M.A., on ' The Church
in Domesday, with especial reference
to Episcopal Endowments,' 399-432
Pasturage, common, antiquity of, 39
Pasture land, common, not taxed, 349
Payment in kind, 53
Pell, O. C, M.A., on various areal
measurements of virgates, 29
— on Canon Taylor's view of the
carucate, 186
— ' A New View of the Geldable Unit
of Assessment of Domesday,' 227-
363
— ' Summary of a New View of the
Geldable Unit of Assessment of
Domesday,' 561-619
Penenden Heath, Gemots held at,
428
 record of the suit concerning,
496
 placitum concerning, 544
Penny sterling, weight of, 233
:  various weights of, 237
 Mercian and Norman, 247, 572
Pevensey, instances of ' gablum ' in,
*36

PRE
Phear, Sir J. B., on the object of the
Domesday Survey, 35
Philip, King, his Registrum, 387
Pipe-Rolls, mention of Danegeld in
the, 85
 evidence of, as to Winchester
Treasury, 519, 524, 527
 destruction of, in Stephen's
reign, 524
 notice of, as to Treasury at
Westminster, 527
 exhibited (1886) at H.M. Pub
lic Record Office, 634
Place names, importance of, 448
 influence of physical features on,
453
Plough-lands, curved outline of, 60,
64, 294
 proportion of ploughs to, in
Yorkshire, 149
 acreage of, 192-208
'Plough-land, The, and the Plough,'
by Canon Isaac Taylor, M.A.,
LL.D., Litt. D., 143-188
Ploughing, Anglo-Saxon drawings of,
499
Population, local, past and present,
51
— deductions from Domesday as to,
361, 363, 454
— distribution of servile and semi-
free, in Surrey, 469
Pound, the, Anglo-Saxon division of,
230
— Norman, in weight of wheat grains,
233
— Troy, its relation to avoirdupois,
241
— division of, in relation to land,
249
— relation of, to the leuga, 259
 acre, 300
— land measurements as governed by,
301
— Roman, various divisions of, 596
— _ Troy and Tower, 602-607
Preaching crosses as substitutes for
churches, 56

INDEX

707

PRE
Presbyter, amplification of, in the Sur
vey, 433- 440
Priest, payment of, by land produce,
54
Quarantkna, or stadium, acreage
of, 252, 257. 25$, 201
— tables of, 3S1 et .«•/.
— its association with the lineal acre,
220
RAnriXHrs de Limesi, lane's held
by. 302
Ramsey Chartulary, variable acreage
of hides in, 13
— — variable acreage of virgates. 1 S
 land cxrrj H:\7m in, 1 7
 abstract of King Eadgar 's charter
to the Abbey of, 045
Randiv, 276. 270. 5S0
Ready reckoner, 360
Regalia, when deposited in the
Treasury at Westminster, 530
ficgistrum Mi, >:; ~ ":j-Kl-crnM in the
Record Office. 6+2
Reid. Herbert J., F.S.A., on 'Parish
churches omitted in the Survey.
The Presbyter,' 453^46
Religious foundations -returned as
tentxtes ix i-apile, 430
Remigius, Bishop of Lincoln, on the
Survey Commission, 41 1
Rents, Domesday payment of, 52
Ridge, 375
Rights of way, survival of, 63
Rochester, manors hdd by the Bishop
of, 427
Rod, or viiga. variations in length of,
210
— scale of. 25 it .-ft.-*., 2S6. 201. 303.
305-311, 375
— divisions of. 2S7
— Dynval's. 2~c-.
Romans, their divisions of the libra,
Round. T. Horace, M.A.. on -Dane
geld and the Finance of Domesday,'
77-U- VOL. II.

SOL
Round, J. Horace, ' Notes on Domes
day Measurements of Land,' 1S9-
--5
— ¦ An early Reference to Domesday.
53,:--559
— on the meaning of «.jww. 4S3
' Run-rig,' system of, still visible. 59
St. Paul's, reference to Domesday in
MSS. of the Dean and Chapter of,
53°
St. Peter's, Gloucester, History of the
Monastery of, quoted, 471
 connection of, with Nympsfield ,
477
Salisbury, manors belonging to the
See of, 426
Sawyer, Frederick E., F.S.A., on
' The Scope of Local Elucidation
of the Domesday Survey.' 447-457
S:.-..\-jr:p, Di-2.\iguj de, in the Record
Office, 631
Seebohm, Mr., his identification of
the hide with the plough-land, 193
— on the ox-team for a caruca, 209
— on land-holdings in the Fen coun
try. 222
Seisrichs. 2JI
Selden quoted as to number of
churches in Survey. 436
Serlo. Abbot, his claim to Nympsfield.
473 <* -<••"¦*•
Serrus, land tenable by the, 5P2
Sexacra. 5?^
Sextula. reduction by the. in land
measurements, 612. 616. 01 S
Shilling, or solidus, various forms of.
— Anclo- Savon. 5^
Ship-money levied on the wapentake,
76
Shrewsbury, exaction of full Geld from
diminished number of burgesses at,
122
Siliqua. Roman, 572
Smiths in Domesday England and
modem Turkey. 46
Solidus, 25S Y

7o8

INDEX

SOL
Solin, or sulung, Kentish unit of
Survey Assessment, 160, 195, 349
— how entered in Survey, 201
Solon, weight of talent of, 571, 581
Southampton, instances of ' gablum '
in, 136
Spans, table of, 289-90
Stadialis Ager, 371
Stadium, see ' Quarantena '
Stafford, division of the burgage rents
of, 214
Staffordshire, list of facsimiles of Sur
vey of, 688
Stangell, 290
Stiffness of soil no guide to size of
holding, 295
Stubbs, Dr., as to imposition of Dane
geld, 80, 86
Sub-tenants in England and Scotland,
definition of, 391
— English, continuance of, in Surrey
under William, 467
' Surrey, the Domesday Survey of,' by
H. E. Maiden, M.A., F.R. Hist. S.,
459-70
— deviation from the Survey of
boundaries of, 460
— present hundreds not coincident
with those of Survey, 462
— paucity of English tenants in chief
in, 466
— list of facsimiles of Survey of, 690
Survey of England, Saxon, of the
eighth century, 499
Sussex, place-names in, 450, 452
— list of facsimiles of Survey of, 691

Talent, various weights of the, 570-
602
Tallies of the Exchequer, 635
Tathes, Irish, acreage of, 283
Taxation, the Survey as guide to, 444
— Pope Nicholas's, 640
Taylor, Canon Isaac, M.A., LL.D.,
Litt. D., 'Domesday Survivals,'
47-66

VAL
Taylor, Canon Isaac, 'Wapentakes
and Hundreds,' 67-76
— ' The Plough-land and the Plough,'
143-188
-*=- on the carucates of two- and three-:
field manors, 204, 210
Team, the, taken as basis of assess
ment, 11, 14
Tenants in chief, order of entry of,
3»9
-.  Bishops holding manors as,
409
 religiousfoundationsreturned
as, 430
 English, in Surrey, 467
'Testa de Nevill,' 640
Terra unius carucce, as areal hide,
201, 319
Theloneum, or market dues, 137, 138
Thetford, episcopal manors of, 410,
414
Thraves, payment of the priest by, 54
Thrimsa, 245
Tircumhail, measurement of, in Bre-
hon laws, 264, 562
Tithes, Domesday disposal of, 43
Treasure, removals of, 531
Treasury, retention of the, at Win
chester, 519
Trees, proprietorship of, 39
Trev, 276, 279
Troy grain, weight of, 235
— weights, their Eastern connection,
236
— talent, 571
Two-field and three-field systems of
agriculture, 145, 61 1
Tydden, 279, 580

Unit of Assessment, Welsh pound-
paying, 301
 English pound-paying, 327
Unitas, what it means, 615

Vakuf property in Turkey, 44
Valor Ecclesiasticus, 643

INDEX

709

VAL
Valoynes, Peter de, his seizure of
chapter land, 539
 his death-bed restitution, 549
— Roger de, retains the land, 550
Vambery, Armin, on Turkish registers
in Hungary, 37
Venedotian Code, as to measurements
of the erw, 275
 division of the pound in, 580
Village community, land-divisions of,
221
Villanus and servus, meaning of, 360-
363
Virgates, proportion of, to hides, 13,
194
— variations of, 18, 258, 295, 308 et
seq., 315 et seq., 347
Virga, or rod, varying measurements
of, 287, 291, 303, 305, 311, 561
— Dynval's, 276

Wales, land measurements in, 266
— South, land measurement in, 275
— North, land measurement in, 279
 rod of, 312
Wallingford, gablum of estates in,
137
Waltham Abbey, quotation as to
Domesday from Register of, 5
' Wapentakes and Hundreds,' by
Canon Isaac Taylor, M.A., LL.D.,
Litt. D., 67-76
 — non-equivalence of, 67
 in the Danish shires, 70
Wara, extent of freedom of, from taxa
tion, 260, 348, 611
— taxation of appropriated pieces of,
346
— ready reckoner as to, 360
— signification of, 610
— Wynston Manor, 611
' Waste,' use of term in Survey, 124,
131
Waters, Mr., on the extent of a ' hide,'
192
Wealden clay, former uninhabited
condition of, 460

WOL
Webb, Mr. Carteret, on Danegeld,
77
Weights, Roman, 229, 591, 595
— Anglo-Saxon, 230, 583, 588
— Troy, 230, 588, 603, 606, 607
— Mercian, or inter ripavi, 233, 234,
237. 239 et seq., 247, 563, 577, 589,
603
— Ethelred's, 234, 241, 246 i-.-n
— Irish, 240 -V-'
— Avoirdupois, 241
— ancient and modern, identity of,
569 et seq.
— Solon's, 571
— Tower, 583, 603-7
— Apothecaries', 588
— the hundredweight, 591, 593
— Teake's division of, 592
Wells, episcopal manors of, 429
Weregilds, amounts of, 243
Westminster, removal of the Ex-
chequer to, 519, 526
— foundation charter of St. Peter's
Monastery at, 637
Wheat corns, weight of, 572
Wheatley, H. B., F.S.A., Editor of
' Bibliography of Domesday Book,'
663-695
William I. , his aims in the Domesday
Survey, 10
— reorganisation of government by,
25
— levy of Danegeld under, 80, 87
¦ — devastation under, 131
— his respect for Church endowments,
399, 432
William of Malmesbury as to the
raising of Danegeld, 84
Winchester, manors held by Bishop
of, 421
— Exchequer held at, 519, 527
— Treasury retained at, 519, 527
— Domesday probably kept at,
522
Winston, Court Rolls of, quoted as
to wara, 611
Wolds, Yorkshire, proportion of caru
cates to ploughs in, 149

7io

INDEX

WOL
Wolds, Yorkshire, three-field town
ships in, 171
Worcester, episcopal manors of, 415
— survey of Church possessions in,
545
Worcestershire, list of facsimiles of
Survey of, 694
Wrottesley, General, on a convention
recorded in the Burton cartulary,
548

YOR
Xenophon, weight of siglus according
to, 595
York, manors held by the Archbishop
of, 407
Yorkshire, relation of wapentakes and
hundreds in the Ridings of, 68, 71
— survival of archaic conditions in the
East Riding of, 143
— list of facsimiles of Survey of, 695

PRINTED BY
SPOTTISWOODE AND CO., NEW-STREET SQUARE
LONDON

aw"

!.mmm