nothing of all England, is out of the question. No doubt as a whole
Yorkshire was (in the terms that we have used) an 'over-rated' county:
that is to say, as a general rule, _a_, if not equal to, was greater
than _b_. But it can not be said that when _a_ was not equal to _b_ it
normally was, or even tended to be equal to 2_b_. We take by chance a
page describing the possessions of Count Alan[1608]; it contains 20
entries; in one of these _a = b_, in one _a = 2b_, in one _b_ is greater
than _a_; in ten cases the proportion which _a_ bears to _b_ is 3:2, in
two it is 4:3, in two it is 5:3, in one 6:5, in one 7:5, in one it is
17:12. In the counties of Lincoln, Nottingham and Derby an application
of this doctrine would be ludicrous, for very commonly _b_ is greater
than _a_. What is more, the method of taxation that it presupposes is so
unjust that we are loath to attribute it to any one. To tax a man in
proportion to the area of the land that he treats as arable, that is a
plausibly equitable method; to tax him in proportion to the area that he
has ploughed in a given year, that also is a plausibly equitable method;
but the present proposal could only be explained as a deliberate effort
to tax the three-field system out of existence[1609]. To take the
figures that have been suggested to us by the author of this theory, we
suppose that _X_ is using a team of oxen in 'a two-course manor'; he has
160 acres of arable land and ploughs 80 of them in every year. Then in
another village _Y_ is using a team of oxen according to the
three-course system; he has, we are told, 180 acres of arable and
ploughs 120 acres in every year. This unfortunate _Y_ is to pay double
the amount of geld that is paid by _X_. We could understand a demand
that _Y_ should pay nine shillings when _X_ pays eight, for _Y_ has in
all 180 acres of arable and _X_ has 160. We could understand a demand
that _Y_ should pay three shillings when _X_ pays two, for _Y_ sows 120
acres a year and _X_ sows 80. But nothing short of a settled desire to
extirpate the three-field system will prompt us to exact two shillings
from _Y_ for every one that is paid by _X_. Lastly, we must repeat in
passing our protest[1610] against the introduction into this context of
those figures which express the aspirations of that enthusiast of the
plough, Walter of Henley. That the 'land for one team' of Domesday Book
points normally or commonly to an area of arable land containing 160 or
180 acres we can not believe. If we give it on an average 120 acres we
may perhaps find room for the recorded team lands, though probably we
shall often have to make our acres small; but county after county will
refuse to make room for teamlands with 160 or 180 acres[1611]. No doubt
the regularity of the Yorkshire figures is remarkable. There are other
districts in northern England where we may see some one relation
between _A_ and _B_ steadily prevailing. We will call to mind, by way of
example, the symmetrical arrangement that we have seen in one of the
Rutland wapentakes, where _A_ = 4_B_. This we can not explain, nor will
it be explained until Domesday Book has been rearranged by hundreds and
vills; we have, however, hazarded a guess as to the quarter in which the
explanation may be found[1612]. As to the Yorkshire figures, we think
that of all the figures in the record they are the least likely to be
telling us the simple truth about the amount of cultivated land.
[Sidenote: The fiscal hide of 120 acres.]
We may now briefly recapitulate the evidence which leads us to the
old-fashioned belief that King William's Exchequer reckons 120 acres to
the hide. There are at the least twenty sums set before us which involve
the equation: 1H. = 120A. or 1V. = 30A. We doubt whether there are two
sums which involve any one other equation. That there are sums which
involve or seem to involve other equations we fully admit; but when a
fair allowance has been made for mistranscription, miscalculation, the
loss of acres due to partitionary arrangements[1613], and, above all, to
a transition from the rateable to the real, from the hidage on the roll
to the strips in the fields, we can not think that these cases are
sufficiently numerous to shake our faith. We have further seen that in
Essex and East Anglia the acres of the fiscal system lie in batches of
just those sizes which would be produced if an unit of 120 acres was
being broken into halfs, thirds, quarters and fifths. Lastly, 'the
rustics' of the twelfth century 'tell us that the hide according to its
original constitution consists of a hundred acres[1614]' and probably
these rustics reckon by the long hundred.
[Antiquity of the large hide.]
If now we are satisfied about this matter, we seem to be entitled to
some inferences about remoter history. The fiscal practice of reckoning
120 acres to the hide can hardly be new. Owing to many causes, among
which we recall the partitionary system of taxation, the influence of an
equity which would consider value as well as area, and the disturbing
forces of privilege and favouritism, the fiscal hide of the Confessor's
day has strayed far away from the fields and is no measure of
land[1615]. At its worst it is jobbery; at its best a lame compromise
between an unit of area and an unit of value. And yet, for all this, it
is composed of acres, of 120 acres. The theory that is involved in this
mode of calculation is so little in harmony with the existing facts that
we can not but believe that it is ancient. It seems to point to a time
long gone by when the typical tenement which was to serve as an unit of
taxation generally had six score arable acres, little more or less.
FOOTNOTES:
[1340] D. B. i. 307 b, 308.
[1341] It will be convenient for us to adopt this term a 'teamland'
as an equivalent for the _Terra ad unam carucam_ of our
record, so that '_b_ teamlands' shall translate _Terra ad b
carucas_. The reader is asked to accept this note as an
'interpretation clause.'
[1342] D. B. i. 353.
[1343] D. B. i. 308, Trectone.
[1344] D. B. i. 275 b, Burnulfestune.
[1345] D. B. i 337 b.
[1346] See pp. 400-403.
[1347] We shall not complain of our tools; but Domesday Book is
certainly not impeccable. As to its omissions see Eyton,
Notes on Domesday (1880); also Round, Feudal England, 43.
[1348] Agricultural Returns, 1895 (Board of Agriculture) p. 34.
Tidal water is excluded.
[1349] The received figures are: Middlesex, 149,046, London, 75,442.
From older sources we give Middlesex, 180,480: Population
Abstract, 1833, vol. i. p. 376.
[1350] For some good remarks on these matters see Eyton, Notes on
Domesday. Lincoln, Nottingham and Northampton would require
correction because of the treatment that Rutland has
received. The boundary of Shropshire has undergone changes.
The inclusion of stretches of Welsh ground increases the
population without adding to the hidage of some western
counties.
[1351] See above, p. 7.
[1352] Thus Leicester is charged with £100. 0_s._ 0_d._, with £99.
19_s._ 11_d._ and with £99. 19_s._ 4_d._
[1353] In 8 Hen. II. several of the counties answer for about £10
less than had formerly been demanded from them.
[1354] The inclusion of the boroughs would have led to many
difficulties. London, for example, though no account is taken
of it in D. B., seems to have gelded for 1200 hides. (Brit.
Mus. MS. Add. 14,252, f. 126.)
[1355] We omit the 'ingeldable carucates' which occur in some
hidated counties. This may introduce a little caprice. If the
jurors in one of these counties ascribe twelve carucates to a
manor, we do not count them. If they had spoken of hides
which never gelded, we should have counted them; and yet we
may agree with Eyton that the two phrases would mean much the
same thing. But this source of error or caprice is not very
important in our present context. Thus we take Dorset. Eyton
gives it 2321 hides and then by adding 'quasi-hides' brings
up the number to 2650. The difference between these two
figures is not large when regarded from the point that we are
occupying. I have thought that the difficulty would be better
met by the warning that Wiltshire, Dorset, Somerset and Devon
contain considerable stretches of unhidated royal demesne,
than by my reckoning as hides what Eyton called
'quasi-hides.' In the case of Dorset, Somerset and Stafford I
have placed Eyton's figures below my own and signed them with
the letter _E_. I know full well that his are much more
accurate than mine. He probably gave to each county that he
examined more months than I have given weeks to the whole of
England. In comparing our results, it should be remembered
that, at least in Staffordshire, he dealt with the county
boundary in a manner which, in my ignorance, I dare not
adopt.
[1356] My calculations about Leicestershire are more than usually
rough, owing to the appearance of the curious 'hide' or
'hundred' or whatever it is. See on the one hand Stevenson,
E. H. R. v. 95, and on the other Round, Feudal England, 82.
Whether this unit contained 12 or 18 carucates is not of very
great importance to us at the moment. But there are other
difficulties in Leicestershire. In Cornwall I was compelled
to make an assumption as to the peculiar _ager_ or _acra_ of
that county; but no reasonable theory about this matter would
seriously affect the number of Cornwall's hides.
[1357] The usual formula is: 'Tunc se defendit pro _a_ hidis, modo
pro _a´_.' We place _a_ in Col. IV., _a´_ in Col. V.
[1358] The usual formula is: 'T. R. E. geldabat pro _a_ hidis; ibi
tamen sunt _a´_ hidae.' We place _a_ in Col. IV. and _a´_ in
Col. V.; and we shall argue hereafter, with some hesitation,
that the taxation of this county has been increased under
William.
[1359] The words _Terra est_ are written and are followed by a blank
space. Many instances in Kent and Sussex.
[1360] On the other hand, when I find a statement about _B_ and none
about _C_, I do not assume that _C_ = _B_; on the contrary, I
read the entry to mean that _C_ = 0. In other words, it is
very possible that there should be teamlands without teams;
but I do not think that for Domesday's purposes there can be
teams (i.e. teams at work) without land that is being
ploughed, though it is true that often, and in some counties
habitually, _C_ will be slightly greater than _B_.
[1361] One of the chief difficulties in the way of accurate
computation is occasioned by what we may call the complex
entries. We start with some such statement as this: 'The
Bishop holds Norton. It defends itself for _a_ hides. There
is land for _b_ teams. There are _d_ teams on the demesne and
the villeins have _e_ teams.' But then we read: 'Of this land
[_or_ of these _a_ hides] Roger holds _m_ hides; there are
_n_ teams on the demesne and the villeins have _o_ teams.'
Here the total number of hides is _a_, and not _a_ + _m_; and
I think that the total number of teamlands is _b_, and not
_b_ + some unstated number held by Roger; but the total
number of teams is _d_ + _e_ + _n_ + _o_. Entries in this
form are not very uncommon, and therefore this explanation
seemed to be required.
[1362] Pearson, History of England, ii. 665.
[1363] Col. IX. gives I. divided by II. Col. X. gives I. divided by
VI. Col. XI. gives I. divided by VII. Col. XII. gives II.
divided by VI. Col. XIII. gives II. divided by VII. Col. XIV.
gives VI. divided by VII. Col. XV. gives VIII. divided by VI.
[or if there is no VI. for this county, then by VII.].
[1364] In Gloucester, Worcester, Hereford and Shropshire I was
compelled to adopt as the divisor the number of teams instead
of the number of teamlands. As it is fairly certain that
these counties were 'underteamed' (_B_ > _C_), the resulting
quotient (annual value of land actually tilled by a team)
should be diminished before it is compared with the figures
given for other counties.
[1365] C. S. Taylor, Analysis of Gloucestershire Domesday (Bristol
and Gloucestershire Archaeol. Soc. 1887-9).
[1366] But this is intended to include males only: the _ancillae_
are left out.
[1367] Mr Taylor says in his preface: 'The work has occupied a large
part of my leisure time for five years.' There is therefore
some audacity in my printing my figures beside his. It is
clear that we have put different constructions upon some of
the composite entries concerning large manors. See below, p.
457. Mr Taylor, like Eyton, computes only 48 'geld acres' to
the hide; I reckon 120 acres to the hide; that, however, is
in this context a trifling matter.
[1368] Mr Taylor has brought out 15_s._ 5_d._ as the average _valet_
of land tilled by a team. By taking Pearson's _valet_ and my
teams I have brought out 15_s._ 0_d._
[1369] For Dorset and Somerset my figures can be checked by Eyton's.
For Wiltshire, Devon, Cornwall, by the Geld Inquests. These
give for Wiltshire (see W. H. Jones, Domesday for Wiltshire,
158 ff.) 3955 H. 3 V.; for Devon (see Devonshire Domesday,
ed. Devonsh. Assoc. p. xlix.) 1029 H. 1 V. 3 F.; for Cornwall
401 H. 3 V. 1 F. I give for Wiltshire 4050 H., for Devon 1119
H., for Cornwall 399 H.
[1370] Lincoln, 5·0; Nottingham, 4·4; Derby, 3·9; Surrey, 3·7;
Hampshire, 3·6; Middlesex, 3·4; Dorset, 3·3; Cambridge, 3·1;
Berkshire, 3·0; Wiltshire, 2·9; Hertford, Northampton,
Warwick, Somerset, 2·8; Huntingdon, 2·6; Oxford, 2·5; Bedford
and Buckingham, 2·4; Cornwall and Stafford, 2·2; Devon, 2·1.
For Kent the figure would be near 3·9, for Sussex near 3·3,
for apparently in these counties there was approximate
equality between the number of teams and the number of
teamlands.
[1371] One word about the meaning of the _valets_. I think it very
clear from thousands of examples that an estate is valued 'as
a going concern.' The question that the jurors put to
themselves is: 'What will this estate bring in, peopled as it
is and stocked as it is?' In other words, they do not
endeavour to make abstraction of the villeins, oxen, etc. and
to assign to the land what would be its annual value if it
were stocked or peopled according to some standard of average
culture. Consequently in a few years the value of an estate
may leap from one pound to three pounds or to five shillings
or even to zero. Eyton, Dorset, 56, has good remarks on this
matter.
[1372] Seebohm, Village Community, 85-6. To the contrary Round, in
Domesday Studies, i. 209, and Feudal England, 35.
[1373] Round, Feudal England, 35.
[1374] See e.g. D. B. i. 222: 'Terra est 2 car. _Has_ habent ibi 3
sochemanni et 12 bordarii.' ... 'Terra est 3 car. Ibi sunt
ipsae cum 9 sochemannis et 9 bordariis.' Ibid. i. 223: 'Terra
est 1 car. _quam_ habent ibi 4 bordarii.' Ibid. i. 107 b:
'Terra est 7 car. et _tot_ ibi sunt.'
[1375] D. B. i. 222. Codestoche, Lidintone.
[1376] D. B. i. 289; 339 b, Bechelinge.
[1377] D. B. i. 342 b, Toresbi.
[1378] D. B. i. 339, Agetorne.
[1379] D. B. i. 174, Lappewrte.
[1380] D. B. i. 163, Berchelai.
[1381] D. B. i. 218 b, Stanford. Or let us take this case (D. B. i.
148): 'Terra est 3 car. In dominio est una et 4 villani
habent aliam et tercia potest fieri.' Is this third team to
be a team of four or a team of eight?
[1382] Seebohm, Village Community, 85.
[1383] As a specimen we take 10 consecutive entries from the royal
demesne in Surrey in which it is said that _x_ villeins and
_y_ bordiers have _z_ teams. We add half of _y_ to _x_ and
divide the result by _z_. The quotients are 10·3, 4·0, 3·7,
3·5, 3·4, 2·7, 2·2, 1·9, 1·8, 1·4. If we massed the ten cases
together, the quotient would be 2·8. We can easily find
averages; but, even if we omit cases in which there is an
exceptional dearth of oxen, the variations are so
considerable that we must not speak of a type or norm.
[1384] Glastonbury Rentalia, 51-2: 'S. tenet 1 virgatam terre ... et
si habet 8 boves debet warectare ... 7 acras. Si autem
pauciores habet, warectabit pro unoquoque bove octavam partem
7 acrarum.' Ibid. 61: 'R. C. tenet unam virgatam ... et
habebit 4 boves cum bobus domini.' Ibid. 68: 'G. tenet
dimidiam hidam ... et si habuerit 8 boves...' Ibid. 78: 'L.
tenet 5 acras ... et bis debet venire cum 1 bove et cum
pluribus si habuerit...' Ibid. 98-9: 'M. tenet 1 virgatam ...
si habuerit quatuor boves...' Ibid. 129: 'S. tenet 1 virgatam
... et debet invenire domino 1 carrum et 6 boves ad cariandum
fenum.' Ibid. 130: 'M. tenet dimidiam virgatam ... et debet
invenire 2 boves.' Ibid. 189: Three cases in which a virgater
comes to the boon days with eight oxen. Larking, Domesday of
Kent, App. 33: Customs of Hedenham: '...habebit unam virgatam
terrae ... item habebit quatuor boves in pasturam domini.'
[1385] D. B. i. 211: 'Terra est dim. car. et unus bos ibi arat.'
[1386] D. B. i. 342 b, Toresbi.
[1387] Pollock, E. H. R. xi. 813. I venture to think that Sir F.
Pollock has not answered his own argument (p. 220) for a
constant _caruca_.
[1388] Inq. Com. Cant. 70.
[1389] Another example from a Northamptonshire column (D. B. i. 226)
will show what we mean. Let H stand for hides and T for
teamlands, and let the virgate be a quarter of a hide, then
we have this series: 2 H (5 T), 2-1/2 H (4 T), 4 H (8 T),
1-1/4 H (3 T), 1-7/12 H (4 T), 3/8 H (1/2 T), 1/2 H (1 T),
2-1/2 H (6 T), 1-1/4 H (3 T), 2 H (4 T), 7/8 H (3 T). We see
that T is integral where H is fractional.
[1390] Exceptionally we read in Kent (i. 9): 'Terra est dim. car. et
ibidem sunt adhuc 30 acrae terrae.' And is not this a
rule-proving exception? The jurors can not say simply 'land
for half a team and thirty acres.' They say 'land for half a
team and there are thirty acres in addition.'
[1391] D. B. iv. 497; Inq. Com. Cant. 97.
[1392] There can be little doubt that this is the right reading. See
Round. Feudal England, 134.
[1393] Thus, D. B. ii. 39: 'Tunc 4 carucae in dominio, post et modo
2 ... et 2 carucae possunt restaurari.' To use our symbols,
in Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk we obtain statements about _A_
and about _C_, but learn nothing about _B_, unless this is to
be inferred from the increase or decrease that has taken
place in _C_. We shall hereafter argue that, in spite of some
appearances to the contrary, the carucates of East Anglia
belong to the order _A_ and not to the order _B_.
[1394] Thus, D. B. i. 231: 'Rad. tenet de episcopo 4 car. terrae in
Partenei. Terra est 4 car. In dominio sunt 2 et ... villani
habent 2 car.' Just before this we have the other common
formula: 'Rad. tenet ... 2 car. terrae in Toniscote. Duae
car. possunt esse et ibi sunt.'
[1395] Thus, D. B. i. 231 b: 'Ipsa Comitissa tenuit Dunitone. Ibi 22
car. et dimid. T. R. E. erant ibi 12 car. Modo in dominio
sunt 3 et ... villani ... habent 12 car.'
[1396] To me it looks as if the variations were due to a clerk's
caprice. The Leicestershire survey fills 30 columns. Not
until the top of col. 5 has the compiler, except as a rare
exception, the requisite information. Then, after hesitating
as to whether he shall adopt the '_x_ car. possunt esse'
formula, he decides in favour of 'Terra est _x_ car.' This we
will call Formula I. It reigns throughout cols. 5-13, though
broken on three or four occasions by what we will call
Formula II, namely 'T. R. E. erant ibi _x_ car.' At the top
of col. 14 Formula II. takes possession and keeps it into
col. 16. Then I. has a short turn. Then (col. 17) II. is back
again. Then follow many alternations. At the top of col. 24,
however, a simplified version of II. appears; the express
reference to the T. R. E. vanishes, and we have merely 'ibi
fuerunt _x_ car.' In the course of col. 26 this is changed to
'ibi _x_ car. fuerunt.' These two versions of II. prevail
throughout the last six columns, though there is one short
relapse to I. (col. 28).
[1397] The proof of this lies in the Inq. Com. Cant. and the Exon
Domesday.
[1398] This appears on a collation of D. B. with the two records
mentioned in our last note. See Round, Feudal England, 26.
[1399] D. B. i. 174: 'In omnibus his maneriis non possunt esse plus
carucae quam dictum est.'
[1400] When _C_ varies from _B_, the statement about _C_ will
sometimes be introduced by a _sed_ or a _tamen_ which tells
us that things are not what they might be expected to be. D.
B. i. 77 b: 'Terra est dimid. car. et tamen est ibi 1 car.'
D. B. i. 222: 'Terra est dim. car. tamen 2 villani habent 1
car.'
[1401] As a wheat-grower Devon stands in our own day at the very
bottom of the English counties. Its average yield per acre in
1885-95 was 21 bushels, while Cambridge's was 32. Next above
Devon stands Monmouth and then comes Cornwall.
[1402] Marshall, Review of Reports to Board of Agriculture from
Southern Departments, 524: 'The management of the land is
uniform; here and there an exception will be found. The whole
is convertible, sometimes into arable, and sometimes pasture.
Arable is sown with wheat, barley, or oats, as long as it
will bear any; and then grass for eight or ten years, until
the land is recovered, and capable again of bearing corn.'
See also p. 531: the lands go back to the waste 'in tenfold
worse condition than [that wherein] they were in a state of
nature.' It is just in the country which is not a country of
village communities that we find this 'aration of the waste.'
[1403] Some parts of Worcestershire, for example, show a marked
deficiency in oxen. On the lands of Osbern Fitz Richard (14
entries) there are about 102 teams, and there 'could be' 32
more. See D. B. i. 176 b. In some parts of Cheshire also
there is a great deficiency.
[1404] D. B. i. 122 b: 'Luduham ... Terra 15 car. vel 30 car.' In
the Exeter book (D. B. iv. 240) two conflicting estimates are
recorded: 'Luduam ... In ea sunt 3 hidae terrae et reddidit
gildum pro 1 hida. hanc possunt arare 15 carrucae. hanc tenet
Ricardus de Comite. in ea sunt 3 hidae terrae et reddidit
gildum pro 1 hida. hanc possunt arare 30 carrucae. hanc tenet
Ricardus de Comite.'
[1405] D. B. i. 246 b.
[1406] Often a Yorkshire entry touching a waste vill gives no _B_.
Therefore in my Tables I have omitted the number of the
Yorkshire teamlands, lest hasty inferences should be drawn
from it. I believe it falls between 5000 and 6000. It is much
smaller than _A_, much greater than _C_.
[1407] Be it remembered that these waste vills can not send
deputations to meet the justices, and that the
representatives of the wapentakes may never have seen some of
those deserts of which they have to speak. 'All of these
vills,' they say on one occasion (i. 301), 'belong to
Preston. In sixteen of them there are a few inhabitants; but
how many we do not know. The rest are waste.'
[1408] See below, p. 471.
[1409] Devon, 2·1; Cornwall, 2·2; Derby, 3·9; Nottingham, 4·4;
Lincoln, 5·0. The figure for Stafford is about as low as that
for Cornwall; but Stafford has been devastated. See Eyton,
Staffordshire, 30. Kent and Surrey would stand high. Kent
would perhaps stand as high as Derby. But Lincoln has no
peer, unless it be Norfolk, Suffolk, or Essex. Our reason for
not speaking of these last three counties will appear by and
by.
[1410] An essay by Mr W. J. Corbett which I had the advantage of
seeing some time ago, and which will I hope soon be in print,
will throw much new light on this matter.
[1411] I have roughly added up the carucates and teams of Norfolk, a
laborious task, and have seen reason to believe that the
figures for Suffolk would be of the same kind.
[1412] In dealing with Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk an equation
connecting the hide or (as the case may be) carucate with the
acre becomes of vast importance. I have throughout assumed
that 120 acres make the hide or carucate. If this assumption,
about which something will be said hereafter, is unjustified,
my whole computation breaks down. Then in Norfolk there are
(especially I think in certain particular hundreds) a good
many estates for which no extent (real or rateable) is given.
I have made no allowance for this. On the other hand, I
believe that I have carried to an extreme in Norfolk the
principle of including everything. I doubt, for example,
whether some of the acres held by the parish churches have
not been reckoned twice over. Also both in Essex and Norfolk
I reckoned in the lands that are mentioned among the
_Invasiones_, and in so doing ran the danger of counting them
for a second time.
[1413] Also we may remark that in many respects the survey of Essex
is closely akin to the survey of East Anglia; but in Essex
nothing is said about the geldability of vills and therefore,
unless the Essex hides and acres belong to the order of
geldable units (_A_), our record tells us nothing as to the
geld of Essex: an unacceptable conclusion.
[1414] Dorset, 15, 23-24.
[1415] In Dorset 22,000 acres are 'designedly omitted'; in Somerset
nearly 178,000; in Staffordshire nearly 246,000. Mr C. S.
Taylor puts the deficiency in Gloucestershire at 200,000 or
thereabouts.
[1416] See above, p. 370.
[1417] D. B. ii. 160 b: A certain vill is 1 league 10 perches long,
and 1 league 4-1/2 feet wide. Surely such a statement would
never come from men who could use and were intending to use a
system of superficial measurement.
[1418] D. B. ii. 170. Or take Westbruge (ii. 206): Two carucates;
two teams and a half; 'this vill is 5 furlongs in length by 3
in breadth.' If every inch of the vill is ploughed, the
carucate can only have 75 acres, and each team tills but 60.
I have noted many cases in which this method will not leave
120 acres for the team.
[1419] D. B. i. 310.
[1420] D. B. i. 307 b.
[1421] D. B. i. 310. In these Yorkshire cases it is needless for us
to raise the question whether the _totum_ that is being
measured is the manor or the vill.
[1422] D. B. ii. 118 b.
[1423] D. B. i. 303 b (Yorkshire, Oleslec).
[1424] D. B. i. 303 b (Othelai).
[1425] D. B. i. 346 b (Bastune); 4 carucates for geld; land for 4
teams; arable land 8 quar. by 8.
[1426] D. B. i. 346 b (Langetof); 6 carucates for geld; land for 6
teams; arable land 15 quar. long and 9 wide.