_THE DOMESDAY SURVEY_ (A.D. 1086).
I. THERE WERE MANORS EVERYWHERE.
«The manor.»
In the Domesday Survey, as might be expected from the evidence of
the foregoing chapter, the unit of inquiry is everywhere the manor,
and the manor was a landowner's estate, with a township or village
community in villenage upon it, under the jurisdiction of the lord of
the manor.
But the same person was often the lord of many manors.
«Manors of the king,»
1,422 manors were in the ancient demesne of the Crown at the date of
the Survey,[107] and most of them had also been Crown manors in the
time of Edward the Confessor. Thus, for centuries after the Conquest,
the Domesday book was constantly appealed to as evidence that this
manor or that was of 'ancient demesne,' _i.e._ that it was a royal
manor in the time of Edward the Confessor; because the tenants of
these manors claimed certain privileges and immunities which other
tenants did not enjoy. [p083]
«of the monastic houses,»
The monasteries also at the time of Edward the Confessor were holders
of many manors, often in various counties, and the Survey shows that
they were generally permitted to retain them after the Conquest.
«and of thanes.»
Earls and powerful thanes were also at the time of Edward the
Confessor possessors of many manors, and so were their Norman
successors at the date of the Survey. The resident lord of a manor
was often the mesne tenant of one of these greater lords. However
this might be, every manor had its lord, resident, or represented by
a steward or reeve (_villicus_).
«Divided manors.»
Sometimes the Survey shows that a village or township, once probably
under a single lord, had become divided between two or more manors;
and sometimes again, by what was called subinfeudation, lesser and
dependent manors, as in the Hitchin example, had been carved out of
the original manor, once embracing directly the whole village or
township.
But these variations do not interfere with the general fact that
there were manors everywhere, and that the typical manor was a
manorial lord's estate, with a village or township upon it, under his
jurisdiction, and in villenage.
Further, this was clearly the case both after the Conquest at the
date of the Survey, and also before the Conquest in the time of
Edward the Confessor.
«Terra regis.»
What land was extra-manorial or belonged to no township was probably
royal forest or waste. At the date of the Survey this unappropriated
forest, as well as the numerous royal manors already alluded to, was
included in the royal demesne. Whatever belonged to the latter was
excluded from the jurisdiction [p084] of the courts of the hundreds.
It acknowledged no lordship but that of the king, and was described
in the Survey as _terra regis_.
II. THE DIVISION OF THE MANOR INTO LORD'S DEMESNE AND LAND IN
VILLENAGE.
Not only were there manors everywhere, but throughout the Domesday
Survey the division of the land of the manor into lord's demesne and
land in villenage was all but universal, both in the time of Edward
the Confessor and at the later date. It was so equally in the case of
manors both in royal and in private hands.
«Hides _ad geldum_.»
The record generally begins with the number of hides or carucates
at which the whole manor was rated according to ancient assessment.
Generally, except in the Danish district of England (where the
_carucate_ only is used), the word _hide_ (though often originally
meaning, as already mentioned, the same thing as a carucate, viz.
the land of one plough) was used in the Survey exclusively as the
ancient unit of assessment, while the actual extent of the manor was
described in _carucates_, and thus the number of hides often fell far
short of the number of carucates.
«Actual _carucæ_ or plough teams.»
In the _Inquisitio Eliensis_ the Huntingdonshire manors of the abbey
are described as containing so many _hides_ '_ad geldum_,' and so
many _carucates_ '_ad arandum_,' thus exactly explaining the use of
the terms.
[Illustration: Domesday Surveys: Sochmanni and Liberi
Homines; Servi; Boroarii and Cotarii; and Villani.]
In Kent the ancient assessment was, consistently with later records,
given by the number of [p085] solins--_sulung_ being an old word
used both long before and afterwards, as we have seen, in the
south-east of England for 'plough land.'
Generally, whatever the terms made use of, the basis of the
assessment seems to have been the number of plough teams at the
time it was made, and (except in the west of England) this probably
had been the case also as regards the ancient one quoted in the
Survey. The actual circumstances of the manors had at the date of
the Survey wandered far away from those at the date of the ancient
assessment, and therefore it was needful to state the present actual
number of carucates (_carucatæ_) or plough teams (_carucæ_).[108]
The devastations of the Norman Conquest had not been wholly repaired
at the date of the Survey, and therefore after the number of actual
plough teams in demesne and in villenage it is often stated that so
many more might be added.
«In demesne and in villenage.»
The total number of plough teams being given, information is almost
always added how many of them were _in demesne_ and how many belonged
to the villeins. And it is to be noticed that the plough teams of
the villeins were smaller than the typical manorial plough team of 8
oxen, just as was the case on the Peterborough manors, according to
the Liber Niger.
There were on an average in most counties about half as many ploughs
in villenage as there were villeins; so that, roughly speaking, two
villeins, as in [p086] the Peterborough manors, seem to have joined
at each villein plough, which thus can hardly have possessed more
than 4 oxen in its team.
III. THE FREE TENANTS ON THE LORD'S DEMESNE.
In the Domesday Survey for the greater part of England there is no
mention of free tenants, whether '_liberi homines_' or '_libere
tenentes_.'
«_Liberi homines_ and _sochmanni_ in Danish district only.»
Nor, considering the extreme completeness of the Survey, is it easy
to explain their absence on any other hypothesis than that of their
non-existence.[109] A glance at the map will show that throughout
those [p087] counties of England most completely under Danish
influence there were plenty of _liberi homines_ and of the allied
class of _sochmanni_, but nowhere else. And that these two classes
were distinctly and exceptionally Danish there is evidence in a
passage in the laws of Edward the Confessor, in which the 'Manbote
in Danelaga' is given separately and as different from that of the
rest of England, viz. 'de vilano et _socheman_ xii. oras: de _liberis
hominibus_ iii. marcas.'[110]
That the existence of these classes in a manor was local and quite
exceptional is also confirmed by the place in which they are
mentioned in the list of classes of tenants, the numbers of whom were
to be recorded. They are placed last of all, even after the 'servi.'
Inquiry was to be made, 'quot villani, quot cottarii, quot servi,
_quot liberi homines, quot sochemanni_.' These were the words used in
the statement of the inquiry to be made in the manors of the monks
of Ely, [p088] which manors lay in the Danish district; and the two
last-mentioned classes were added out of order at the end of a common
form, to meet its special needs.[111]
It is remarkable, however, that by common law (which generally
represents very ancient custom) the existence of free tenants was
essential to the Court Baron of a manor. Without some freemen,
according to the old law books, it could not be held.[112] And there
is a curious instance, in the Survey, of three sochmanni being lent
by one lord to another, so that he might hold his court.[113]
«Norman dependants of the lord of the manor and men of the
hundred.»
This being so, it is curious and important to notice that the survey
of the manors of the monks of Ely was to be taken upon the oaths of
the sheriff of the county, and of all the barons and of their Norman
associates (_eorum Francigenarum_), and of the whole hundred (_tocius
centuriatus_), the priests, præpositi, and six villani of each manor
(_villa_).[114]
The sochmanni and liberi homines must here be included either among
the 'Norman associates' or the 'whole hundred.'
It may be concluded, therefore, that the liberi homines and sochmanni
were of Danish or Norman origin, as also probably was the Court Baron
itself; whilst in those districts of England not so much under Danish
or Norman influence, the demesne lands were not let out until a later
period to permanent freeholding tenants. Upon the lord's demesne, and
perhaps [p089] in the manorial hall, may have been the '_Francigenæ
eorum_' belonging to the 'Comitatus,' not necessarily holders of
land, but more or less dependants of the lord of the manor. Out of
the Danish district nearly all the population on the manor seems
clearly to have been tenants in villenage or slaves.
IV. THE CLASSES OF TENANTS IN VILLENAGE.
We turn now to the tenants in villenage, who formed the bulk of the
population, and with whom this inquiry has most to do.
The terms of the writ ordering the survey to be made on the Ely
manors show clearly what classes of tenants in villenage were
expected to be found on the manors. The jury were to inquire--
(1) Quot villani.
(2) Quot cotarii.
(3) Quot servi.
The three classes of tenants in villenage actually mentioned in the
Survey are almost universally the--
(1) Villani.
(2) Bordarii [or cottarii].
(3) Servi.
«The servi»
As regards the servi, the map will show that whilst only embracing
nine per cent. of the whole population of England, they were most
numerous towards the south-west of England, less and less numerous as
the Danish districts were approached, and absent [p090] altogether
from Yorkshire, Lincolnshire, and bordering districts.
Even when most numerous they were hardly tenants in villenage. They
seem to have held no land, and often to have been rather household
thralls of the lord of the manor than _tenants_ in any ordinary sense
of the word.[115]
Thus the real tenants in villenage were confined mainly to the two
classes of villani and bordarii, or cottiers.
«The cottiers.»
Taking the _bordarii_ or cottage tenants first, the map will show
how evenly they were scattered over the whole country. They embraced
32 per cent.--roughly one-third--of the whole population in their
number, and in no county were there less than 12 per cent. of them.
«The villani.»
But the _villani_ were evidently at the date of the Survey, and at
the earlier date of Edward the Confessor, as they were afterwards, by
far the most important and typical tenants in villenage.
«Same classes of tenants as afterwards.»
They were at the date of the Survey even more numerous than the
cottier class below them. They embraced 38 per cent. of the whole
population, and, except where partially displaced by the sochmanni of
the Danish district, were pretty evenly dispersed all over England.
Except in Norfolk and Suffolk, they were seldom less than one-third
of the population. And if at the time of the Survey they were holders
of virgates and half-virgates, as their successors were afterwards,
then it follows that they held by far the largest proportion of the
land of England [p091] in their holdings. But before we assume this,
some proof may fairly be required that it was so. In the meantime
it is clear that the classes of tenants in villenage _bore the
same names_ at the time of the Survey as they did afterwards. The
presumption evidently is that they held similar holdings.
V. THE VILLANI WERE HOLDERS OF VIRGATES, ETC.
The compilers of the Survey were not in the habit of describing in
detail the character of the holdings of the villani. Whilst recording
how many villani there were in a manor, the Domesday Survey does not,
like the Hundred Rolls, usually go on to state how many of them held
a virgate and how many a half-virgate each.
«The holdings of the villani hides, virgates, and
half-virgates.»
Still, notwithstanding this general silence of the Survey on this
point, treating the matter manor by manor, and taking for example the
Peterborough manors, it might be inferred almost with certainty that
as the villani of the _Liber Niger_ in 1125 were holders of virgates
and half-virgates, so their fathers and grandfathers before them must
also have held virgates and half-virgates at the time of the Domesday
Survey and of Edward the Confessor. And such an inference would
be strengthened by the occasional use in the Survey of the terms
_integri villani_[116] and _villani dimidii_,[117] answering no doubt
to the same terms, and to the _pleni virgarii_ and _semi-virgarii_ of
the _Liber Niger_ and the Battle Abbey records. [p092]
That the land was really held at the date of the Survey in hides and
virgates may also be gathered from the well-known statement of the
Saxon Chronicle that '_næs an ælpig hide ne an gyrde landes_' was
omitted from the Survey--a statement which does not mean that not a
hide nor a yard of land was omitted, but not a hide or a yard-land,
_i.e._ a _virgate_.[118] So that it might fairly be inferred from
this passage that the virgate was the normal or typical holding of
the villanus, and this inference might well cover the whole area of
the Survey.
But there is more direct evidence than these general inferences.
It so happens that there are a few local exceptions to the general
silence of the Survey as regards the holdings of the villani.
«Examples in survey of Middlesex.»
The most remarkable exception to the general reticence occurs in the
survey for Middlesex, the compilers of which go out of their way
fortunately to give precisely the desired information. And wherever
they do so the holdings are found to be in the now familiar grades of
hides, half-hides, virgates, and half-virgates.
The following are a few examples:--
(F. 127 _a._)--_Hesa._
The priest holds 1 hide.
3 milites hold 6½ hides.
2 villani hold 2 hides. [_i.e._ a hide each].
12 villani hold 6 hides. [_i.e._ ½ hide each].
20 villani hold 5 hides. [_i.e._ ¼ hide each, or virgate].
40 villani hold 5 hides. [_i.e._ ⅛ hide each, or ½ virgate].
16 villani hold 2 hides. [_i.e._ ⅛ hide each, or ½ virgate]. [p093]
(F. 128 _a._)--_In Villa ubi sedet Æcclesia Sti. Petri_
(_Westminster_).
9 villani each of a virgate.
1 villanus of 1 hide.
9 villani each of ½ virgate.
1 cotarius of 5 acres.
41 cotarii with gardens.
(F. 128 _b._)--_Hermodesworde._
1 miles holds 2 hides.
2 villani hold 1 hide each.
2 villani of 1 hide (_i.e._ ½ hide each).
14 villani each of 1 virgate.
6 villani each of ½ "
6 bordarii each of 5 acres.
7 cotarii.
6 servi.
And so on throughout the survey for the county.
As might be expected, most of the villani held virgates and
half-virgates, but there are a sufficient number of cases of hides
and half-hides to show conclusively the relation to each other of the
four grades in the regular hierarchy of villenage.
«Examples in Herts.»
Another local and solitary exception occurs in the record for
_Sawbridgeworth_, in Hertfordshire. The holdings in this case were as
follows:--
(F. 139 _b._)--_Sabrixteworde._
The præpositus holds a ½ hide.
The priest holds 1 hide.
14 villani hold each 1½ virgate.
35 villani hold each ½ virgate, and among them
1½ virgate with 9 acres, paying 17s. 4½d.
46 bordarii hold each 8 acres.
2 bordarii hold 10 acres (_i.e._ 5 acres each).
20 cotarii hold 26 acres (_i.e._ among them).
A few other exceptional cases occur in the [p094] _Liber Eliensis_.
The abbey had three manors in Hertfordshire, and in these the
holdings were as follows:
(P. 509–10.)--IN OEDWINESTREU HUNDRED.
_Hadam._ 1 'villanus' of 1 virgate.
18 'villani,' each of ½ virgate.
7 'cotarii' of ½ virgate (_i.e._ together).
IN THE TWO HUNDREDS OF BRADEUTRE.
_Hatfield._ 18 'villani' each of 1 virgate.
The priest of ½ hide.
4 'homines' of 4 hides (_i.e._ a hide each).
IN ODESEIE HUNDRED.
_Chyllessella._ 2 villani of ½ hide (_i.e._ 1 virgate each).
10 villani of 5 virgates (_i.e._ ½ virgate each).
9 bordarii of 1 virgate (_i.e._ together).
7 servi.
«In the Fen Country.»
The monks of Ely also had several manors in the Fen country, but
the holdings in this district seem to have been peculiar. Instead
of being 'each of a virgate,' or 'each of a half-virgate,' they are
'each of so many acres,' as was also found to be the case in some
districts of Cambridgeshire in the Hundred Rolls. The Fen district
seems to have had its own local peculiarities, both in the eleventh
and in the fourteenth centuries, just as Kent also had. But here was
no exception to the rule that the villani were classed in grades,
each grade with equal holdings.
«The yard-land the normal holding of the villanus.»
These accidental instances in the Domesday Survey in which the
required information is given are numerous enough to make it clear
that at the date of the Survey the holdings of the villani were
generally hides, half-hides, virgates, and half-virgates. The
virgate or yard-land was the normal holding, as it was afterwards.
And this being so, it may reasonably be [p095] concluded also
that the virgates and half-virgates were themselves what they were
afterwards--bundles of strips scattered over the open fields, and
having some connexion not yet fully explained, but clearly indicated,
with the number of oxen allotted to their holders or contributed by
them to the manorial plough team of eight oxen.
VI. THE HOLDINGS OF THE BORDARII OR COTTIERS.
It has already been noticed that in the _Inquisitio Eliensis_ the
particulars to be recorded as regards the tenants were--
1. Quot villani.
2. Quot _cottarii_.
3. Quot servi, &c.
And that with few exceptions throughout the Survey the three classes
actually found in the Survey were--
1. Villani.
2. _Bordarii_.
3. Servi.
From this fact alone it would not be wrong to conclude that to a
great extent the words _bordarii_ and _cottarii_ were interchangeable.
This inference gains much weight from the fact that a great many
bordarii as well as cottarii are found even in the _Inquisitio
Eliensis_ itself. The facts, however, when collected together are
somewhat [p096] curious, as a reference to the note below will
show.[119]
«Cottiers and bordarii very much alike.»
In a few cases there are both bordarii and cottarii mentioned, which
would lead to the conclusion that they were distinct classes. But
in most cases there are either one or the other of the two classes
mentioned, but not both. Examining their holdings there seems to be
no difference between them.
There are bordarii holding so many acres each, generally _five_, but
varying sometimes from one to ten. There are cottarii with all these
variations of holdings. There are 'bordarii with their gardens,' and
there are likewise 'cottarii with their gardens.' There are both
bordarii and cottarii who, as their holdings are not described at
all, may, for anything we know, have held cottages only, and no land
or gardens.
Comparing these Cambridgeshire examples with those in Hertfordshire,
and others in the Domesday Survey for Middlesex, we may conclude
that for all [p097] practical purposes the _bordarius_ was a
_cottier_--sometimes with no land, sometimes with a garden, sometimes
with one solitary acre strip in the open fields, sometimes with more,
even up to 10 acres, but that the typical bordarius was a cottager
who held, in addition to his cottage, 5 acres in the open fields. His
was, therefore, a subordinate position to that of the villanus proper
in the village hierarchy, and he differed from the villanus probably
most clearly in this, that he put no oxen into the village plough
teams, and took no part in the common ploughing.
His services were no less servile than those of the villanus, but of
a more trivial kind. He was above the _servus_, or slave, but his
was the class which most easily would slide into that of the modern
labourer, and in which the _servus_ himself in his turn might most
easily merge. The word 'bordarius' was noticed in the _Liber Niger_
of Peterborough, but though so universal in the Domesday Survey it
soon slipped out of use; and as 'bord' gave place to 'cottage' in the
common speech, so the whole class below the villani came to be known
as cottagers.
VII. THE DOMESDAY SURVEY OF THE VILLA OF WESTMINSTER.
It may be worth while to test the value of the key which the results
of this inquiry have put into our hand by applying it to the Domesday
description of a particular manor.
«Survey of Westminster.»
For this purpose the survey of the manor of [p098] Westminster may
be chosen as one of great national and historical interest. It is as
follows:[120]--
In the villa where is situated the church of St. Peter [_i.e._
the abbey] the abbot of the same place holds 13½ hides [_i.e._
land rated at so much]. There is land for 11 plough teams.
To the _demesne_ belong 9 hides and 1 virgate, and there are 4
plough teams.
The _villeins_ have 6 plough teams, and one more might be made.
There are 9 villani with a virgate each.
1 villanus with a hide.
9 villani with a half-virgate each.
1 cottier with 5 acres.
41 cottiers rendering a shilling each yearly for their gardens.
There is meadow for 11 plough teams,
Pasture for the cattle of the village,
Wood for 100 pigs.
There are 25 houses of the abbot's soldiers and of other men,
who render 8s. per annum or 10l. in all; when he received them,
the same; in the time of King Edward, 12l.
This manor was and is in the demesne of the Church of St. Peter
of Westminster.
In the same villa _Bainiardus_ holds 3 hides of the abbot.
There is land for 2 plough teams, and they are there, in
demesne, and one cottier. Wood for 100 pigs. Pasture for
cattle. Four arpents of vineyard newly planted. All these are
worth 60s.; when he received them, 20s.; in the time of King
Edward, 6l. This land belonged, and belongs, to the Church of
St. Peter.
«The abbot's manor.»
«The open fields.»
It is clear from this description that the village which nestled
round the new minster just completed by Edward the Confessor, was
on a manor of the abbot. It consisted of 25 houses of the abbot's
immediate followers, 19 homesteads of villani, 42 cottages with their
little gardens, and one of them with 5 acres of land. There was also
the larger homestead of the sub-manor of the abbot's under-tenant,
with a single cottage and a vineyard of 4 half-acres newly planted.
There was meadow enough by the river side to make hay for the herd
of oxen [p099] belonging to the dozen plough teams of the village,
and pasture for them and other cattle. Further round the village in
open fields were about 1,000 acres of arable land mostly in the acre
strips, lying no doubt in their shots or furlongs, and divided by
green turf balks and field-ways. Lastly, surrounding the whole on the
land side were the woods where the swineherd found mast for the 200
pigs of the place. On every one of these points we have the certain
evidence of sworn eye-witnesses.
«Incidental evidence.»
And so with little variation must have been the condition of things
in all material points twenty years earlier,[121] when King Edward
lay on his death-bed and wandered in his mind, and saw in his
delirium two holy monks whom he remembered in Normandy, who foretold
to him the coming disasters to the realm, which should only be ended
when 'the green tree, after severance from its trunk and removal for
the space of three acres (_trium jugerum spatio_), should return to
its parent stem, and again bear leaf and fruit and flower.' It may be
that the delirious king as 'he sat up in bed' dreamily gazed through
the window of his chamber upon the open fields, and the turf balks
dividing the acres. The green tree may have been suggested to his
mind by an actual tree growing out of one of the balks. The uneven
glass of his window-panes would be just as likely as not as he rose
in his bed to sever the stem from the root to his eye, moving it
apparently three acres' breadth higher up the open field, restoring
it again to its root as he sank back on his pillow. The very delirium
of [p100] the dying king thus becomes the most natural thing in the
world when we know that all round were the open fields, and balks,
and acres. Without this knowledge even the learned and graphic
historian of the Norman Conquest can make nothing of the 'trium
jugerum spatio,' and casts about for other renderings instead of the
perfectly intelligible right one.[122]
«Further incidental evidence.»
Once more; the contemporary biographer of Edward the Confessor, with
the accuracy of one to whom Westminster was no doubt familiar, tells
us that 'the devout king destined to God that place, both for that
it was near unto the famous and wealthy city of London, and also had
a pleasant situation _amongst fruitful fields lying round about it_,
with the principal river running hard by, bringing in from all parts
of the world great variety of wares and merchandise of all sorts to
the city adjoining; but chiefly for the love of the apostle, whom
he reverenced with a special and singular affection.'[123] Even the
delicate historical insight of the late historian of the abbey, to
whom all its picturesque surroundings were so dear, failed to catch
the full meaning of this passage. Whilst referred to in a note
it becomes paraphrased thus in the text:--'By this time also the
wilderness of Thorney was cleared; and the crowded river with _its
green meadows_, and the sunny aspect of the island, may have had
a charm for the king whose choice had hitherto lain in the rustic
fields of Islip and Windsor.'[124] Yes, 'meadows of Thorney' there
were, [p101] on which the oxen of a dozen plough teams were grazing,
but the contemporary writer's '_fruitful fields lying round about
the place_' were the 1,000 acres of corn land of which Dean Stanley
was unconscious. No blame to him, for what economic student had
sufficiently understood the Domesday Survey to tell him that every
virgate of the villani of the '_villa ubi sedet Æcclesia Sancti
Petri_' was a bundle of strips of arable land scattered all over the
three great fields stretching away from the village, and the river,
and the 'meadows of Thorney' for a mile or two round?
VIII. THE EXTENT OF THE CULTIVATED LAND OF ENGLAND, AND HOW MUCH WAS
INCLUDED IN THE YARD-LANDS OF THE VILLANI.
Knowing now that the virgate or yard-land was the normal holding of
the villanus, though some villani held hides and half-hides, _i.e._
more virgates than one, and others half-virgates; and knowing that
the normal holding of the villanus, whether called a yard-land or a
husband-land, or by any other name, was a bundle of scattered strips,
containing normally thirty acres; and knowing also the number of
villani in the several counties embraced in the Survey, it becomes
perfectly possible to estimate, roughly no doubt, but with remarkable
certainty, the total area contained in their holdings.
«Area in yard-lands of villani.»
The total number of villani in these counties was 108,407.[125] If
each villanus held a yard-land or virgate of 30 acres, then about
3,250,000 acres were [p102] contained in their holdings. The number
of villani holding half-virgates was, however, probably greater than
the number holding half-hides and hides; so that the average holding
would perhaps hardly be equal in acreage to the normal holding of
30 acres. Taking the average holding at 20 acres instead of 30, we
should probably under-estimate the acreage. It would even then amount
to 2,168,000. We shall be safe if we say that the villani held in
their bundles of strips 2¼ millions of acres.[126]
«Area in the holdings of cottiers,»
We must add the holdings of the 82,000 bordarii and of the 6,000 or
7,000 cottier tenants.[127] If these lesser holdings averaged three
acres each, we must add another quarter of a million acres for them.
The total of two and a half millions of acres can thus hardly be an
over-estimate of the acreage of the arable strips in the open fields
held by the villani and bordarii in villenage. What proportion did
this bear to the whole cultivated area of these counties?
«and of free tenants.»
To include the total acreage under the plough, the holdings of the
_sochmanni_ and _liberi homines_ of the Danish district must be
added, and also the arable land (ploughed mainly by the villani) on
the lord's demesne. The 23,000 _sochmanni_[128] can hardly have held
as little as a similar number of villani--say half a million acres.
The 12,000 _liberi homines_ may have held another half-million. And
one or two million acres can hardly be an excessive estimate for the
arable portion of the lord's demesne.
«Total about five million acres, nearly one-half of what is
now arable.»
Putting all these figures together, the evidence of the Domesday
Survey seems therefore to show that [p103] at its date about
five million acres were under the plough, _i.e._ from one-third
to one-half of the acreage now in arable cultivation in the same
counties of England.[129]
This is not mere conjecture. It rests upon facts recorded in detail
in the Survey for each manor upon the oath of the villani themselves;
with no chance of exaggeration, because upon the result was to be
founded a tax; with little chance of omission, because the men of the
hundred, who also were sworn, would take care in their own interests
that one place was not assessed more lightly than others. The general
opinion was that 'not a single hide or yard-land was omitted.'
The acreage under arable cultivation at the time of the Survey, and
twenty years earlier in the time of Edward the Confessor, was thus
really very large. And the villani in their yard-lands held nearly
half of it, and together with the bordarii fully half of it, in
villenage. It must be borne in mind also that by their services they
tilled the greater part of the rest.
«Tilled by serf labour.»
This was the economic condition in which England was left by the
Saxons as the result of the 500 years of their rule. The agriculture
of England, _as they left it_, was carried on under the open field
system by village communities in villenage. It was under the system
of Saxon serfdom, with some little help from the actual slaves on
the lord's demesne, that the land was tilled throughout all those
counties which the Saxons had thoroughly conquered, with some
partial exception [p104] as regards the Danish districts, where the
_sochmanni_ and _liberi homines_ were settled.
This is the solid foundation of fact firmly vouched for by the
Domesday Survey, read in the light of the evidence leading up to it.
From this firm basis the inquiry must proceed, carefully following
the same lines as before--working still from the known to the
unknown--tracing the open field system, its villani, and their
yard-lands still farther back into the earlier periods of Saxon rule.
The question to be answered is, how far back into the earlier Saxon
times the open field system and its yard-lands can be followed, and
whether the serfdom connected with them was more or was less complete
and servile in its character in the earlier than in the later period.
FOOTNOTES:
[107] Ellis's _Introduction_, i. p. 225.
[108] Unfortunately the same contracted form serves in the Survey for
both _carucata_ and _caruca_.
[109] An elaborate argument was raised by Archdeacon Hale in the
valuable introduction to the Camden Society's edition of the
_Domesday of St. Paul's_, to show that the values given at the end
of the entry for each manor in the Domesday Survey consisted of the
rents of free tenants. He based his view on the fact that in two
cases quoted by him the amount of the value so given was exceeded by
the amount for which the manor, in these cases, was let 'ad firmam;'
and, further, upon a comparison of the Domesday values of the
manors of St. Paul's with the recorded 'Summæ denariorum' in 1181,
and 'Tenants' rents' in 1222. But the figures given are probably
a sufficient refutation of the view taken, inasmuch as though the
latter have a certain general correspondence with the Domesday values
in almost every case, if the view were correct, there must have been
a falling off in the number and value of the tenants' rents between
the two periods. The falling off for the whole of the 18 manors must
have been in this case from 155l. 10s. T.R.E., and 157l. 13s. 4d.
T.R.W., of Domesday amounts, to 112l. 16s. 4d. in 1181, and 126l.
10s. 3d. in 1222. The true reading of these figures, there can hardly
be a doubt, is that the amount of _tenants' rents alone_ at the later
date had become in the interval nearly as great as the _whole value_
of the manors (including the land both in demesne and in villenage)
at the time of the Domesday Survey. There is abundant evidence of
the rapid growth of population, and especially of the class of free
tenants, between the eleventh and the thirteenth century. The value
of manors is given in many cases in the Hundred Rolls for Oxfordshire
(including demesne land rents and services), and the figures in the
following six cases in which the comparison is complete show a large
rise in value, as might be expected:
DOMESDAY SURVEY
Name Value
£ £
P. 156_b._ Lineham (T.R.E.) 12 modo 10
P. 157_a._ Henestan (T.R.E.) 20 modo 18
P. 158_b._ Esthcote (T.R.E.) 5 modo 8
P. 158_b._ Fulebroc (T.R.E.) 16 modo 16
P. 159_a._ Ideberie (T.R.E.) 12 modo 12
P. 159_b._ Caningeham (T.R.E.) 12 modo 15
── ──
£77 modo £79
HUNDRED ROLLS
Name Value
£ s. d.
P. 743. Lynham 27 8 4
P. 739. Ennestan 38 19 2
P. 730. Estcot 32 3 4
P. 744. Folebrok 28 7 7
P. 734. Iddebir 31 12 10½
P. 733. Keyngham 37 4 2
────────────
£195 15 5½
It is thus almost certain that both surveys were taken on the same
plan, and embrace the value of the whole manor in each case.
[110] _Ancient Laws, &c., of England_, Thorpe, 192.
[111] _Inquisitio Eliensis_, f. 497 _a._
[112] _Ellis_, i. 237.
[113] _Ibid._ i. 237, note. _Domesday_, i. 193 _b._ _Orduuelle_.
[114] Ellis, i. 22. See, as to _Francigenæ, Laws of W. Conq._
iii. Nos. III. and IV. Thorpe, p. 211. As to the 'centuriatus,'
see _Capitulare de Villis Caroli Magni_, s. 62--'Quid de liberis
hominibus et centenis.' _Monumenta Germaniæ Historica_, Hanover,
1881, p. 89.
[115] The servi are mentioned sometimes as on the lord's demesne, and
sometimes at the end of the tenants in villenage.
[116] _Survey_, i. f. 252.
[117] _Ibid._ i. ff. 162, 168, 169 _b_, 252.
[118] Sub anno MLXXXV. Rolls Edition, by Thorpe, i. p. 353.
[119] In the _Inquisitio Eliensis_ the instances of bordarii and
cottarii in Cambridgeshire are as follows:--
iii. cot.
iii. bor.
ii. bor.
iiii. bor.
vi. bor.
ii. bor.
xiiii. bor. de suis ortis.
ii. bor.
v. bor.
v. bor. de v. acris.
v. bor. de v. ac.
vii. bor.
iii. bor. de iii. ac.
iiii. bor.
xii. bor. de x. ac. quisque.
v. bor.
iiii. bor.
viii. bor.
iv. bor.
iiii. bor.
xv. bor. cum suis ortis.
xv. bor. et iii. cot.
x. bor. et iii. cot.
ix. bor. et iii. cot.
xviii. bor. et x. cot.
iii. bor. de xv. ac. (_i.e._ 5 a. each).
viii. cot.
iii. cot. de ortis.
iv. quisq. de v. ac.
ii. bor. et iv. cot. quisq. de x. a.
xii. bor. et ix. cot.
ix. cot. de ortis suis.
viii. cot.
i.
iiii. cot.
viii. cot.
ii. cot.
viii. cot. de i. a.
v. cot.
iiii. cot.
x. cot. quisq. de i. a.
x. cot.
ix. cot.
iiii. cot.
vi. cot. et iiii. bor. quisq. de v. a.
[120] F. 128 _a._
[121] The value of the rentals had decreased since T.R.E., so that
the village had not increased in the interval.
[122] Freeman's _Norman Conquest_, iii. 12.
[123] Contemporary Life of Edward the Confessor in the Harleian MSS.,
pp. 980, 985.
[124] _Memorials of Westminster Abbey_, p. 15.
[125] See Ellis's _Introduction_, vol. ii. p. 514.
[126] Ellis, ii. p. 511.
[127] _Id._
[128] _Ibid._ p. 514.
[129] The arable acreage in these counties in 1879 was about twelve
million acres.
[p105]