_THE TRIBAL SYSTEM (IN WALES)._
I. EVIDENCE OF THE DOMESDAY SURVEY.
The Saxon land system has now been examined. No feature has been
found to be more marked and general than its universally manorial
character; that is to say, the Saxon 'ham' or 'tun' was an estate or
manor with a village community in villenage upon it. And the services
of the villein tenants were of a uniform and clearly defined type;
they consisted of the combination of two distinct things--fixed
_gafol_ payments in money, in kind, or in labour, and the more
servile _week-work_.
It is needful now to examine the land system beyond the border of
Saxon conquest.
A good opportunity of doing this occurs in the Domesday Survey.
The Tidenham manor has already been examined. It afforded a
singularly useful example of the Saxon system. Its geographical
position, at the extreme south-west corner of England, on the side of
Wales, enabled us to trace its history from its probable conquest in
577, or soon after, and to conclude that it remained Saxon from that
time to the date of [p182] the Survey; and distinctly manorial was
found to be the character of its holdings and services.
«West side of the Wye.»
Now, the neighbouring land, on the west side of the Wye, was equally
remarkable in its geographical position. For as long as Tidenham
had been the extreme south-west corner of England, so long had the
neighbouring land between the Wye and the Usk been the extreme
south-east corner of unconquered Wales.
«Gwent.»
«Remained Welsh till conquered by Harold.»
It was part of the district of _Gwent_, and it seems to have remained
in the hands of the Welsh till Harold conquered it from the Welsh
king Gruffydd, a few years only before the Norman Conquest.
Harold seems to have annexed whatever he conquered between the Wye
and the Usk--_i.e._ in Gwent--to his earldom of Hereford; and after
the Norman Conquest it fell into the hands of William FitzOsborn,
created by William the Conqueror Earl of Hereford and Lord of
Gwent.[203]
It was he[204] who built at Chepstow the Castle of _Estrighoiel_,
the ruins of which still stand on the west bank of the Wye, opposite
Tidenham. His son, Roger FitzOsbern, succeeded to the earldom of
Hereford and the lordship of Gwent; and, upon his rebellion [p183]
and imprisonment, this region of Wales became _terra regis_, and as
such is described in the Domesday Survey, mostly as a sort of annexe
to Gloucestershire,[205] but partly as belonging to the county of
Hereford.[206]
«So also the district of Archenfield.»
Nor is _Gwent_ the only district very near to Tidenham whose Welsh
history can be traced down to the time of the Domesday Survey. There
was another part of ancient Wales, the district of _Ergyng_, or
_Archenfield_,--which included the 'Golden Valley' of the _Dour_.
It lay, like Gwent--but further north--between the unmistakable
boundaries of the Wye and the Usk, and it remained Welsh till
conquered by Harold; and this is confirmed by the fact that the
district of '_Arcenefelde_' is brought within the limits of the
Domesday Survey[207] as an irregular addition to Herefordshire, just
as Gwent was an annexe to Gloucestershire.
«Both districts described in the Domesday Survey.»
Here, then, we have two districts, one to the west and the other to
the north of Tidenham, both of which clearly remained Welsh till
conquered by Harold a few years before the Norman Conquest, and both
of them are described in the Domesday Survey. Further, it so happens
that because they had been but recently conquered, and had not yet
been added to any English county, and because also their customs
differed from those of the neighbouring English manors, the services
of their tenants, quite out of ordinary course, are described.
So that, by a convenient chance, we are able to bring together upon
the evidence of the Domesday [p184] Survey the _land systems_ of a
district which for five hundred years before the Norman Conquest had
been the extreme south-east edge of Wales, and of a district which
for the same five hundred years had been the extreme south-west
corner of Saxon England, beyond the Severn.
We have seen what was the Saxon land system on one side of the Wye,
which divided the two districts; let us now see what was the Welsh
land system on the other side of the river, so far as it is disclosed
in the Survey.
«Gwent.»
Part of the Welsh district of Gwent is thus described in the Domesday
annexe to Gloucestershire:--
'Under Waswic, the præpositus, are xiii. villæ; under [another
præpositus] xiiii. villæ, under [another præpositus] xiii.,
under [another præpositus] xiiii. (_i.e._ 54 in all). These
render xlvii. sextars of honey, and xl. pigs, and xli. cows,
and xxviii. shillings for hawks.[208] . . .
'Under the same præpositi are four villæ wasted by King
Caraduech.'[209]
Again, a little further on, this entry occurs:--
'The same A. has in Wales _vii. villæ_ which were in the
demesne of Count William and Roger his son (_i.e._ Fitz-Osbern,
Earl of Hereford and Lord of Gwent). These render _vi. sextars
of honey_, vi. pigs, and x. shillings.'[210]
Passing to the Domesday description of the district of _Archenfield_,
we find a similar record.
«Archenfield.»
The heading of the survey for Herefordshire[211] is as follows: 'Hic
annotantur terras tenentes in [p185] Herefordscire et in Arcenefelde
et in Walis.' And further on[212] we learn that--
'In _Arcenefelde_ the king has 100 men less 4, who with their
men have 73 teams, and give of custom 41 sextars of honey
and 20s. instead of the sheep which they used to give, and
10s. for _fumagium_; nor do they give _geld_ or other custom,
except that they march in the king's army if it is so ordered
to them. If a _liber homo_ dies there, the king has his horse,
with arms. From a _villanus_ when he dies the king has one ox.
King Grifin and Blein devastated this land in the time of King
Edward, and so what it was then is not known.' _Lagademar_
pertained to Arcenefelde in the time of King Edward, &c. There
is a manor [at Arcenefelde] in which 4 _liberi homines_ with
4 teams render 4 sextars of honey and 16d. of custom. Also a
villa with its men and 6 teams, and a forest, rendering a half
sextar of honey and 6d.
There are other instances of similar honey rents, _e.g._--
In _Chipeete_ 57 men with xix. teams render xv. sextars of
honey and x. shillings.
In _Cape_ v. Welshmen having v. teams render v. sextars of
honey, and v. sheep with lambs, and xd.
In _Mainaure_ one under-tenant having iv. teams renders vi.
sextars of honey and x.s.
In _Penebecdoc_ one under-tenant having iv. teams render vi.
sextars of honey and x.s.
In _Hulla_ xii. villani and xii. bordarii with xi. teams render
xviii. sextars of honey.
«Food rents and clusters of villas under a præpositus.»
The distinctive points in these descriptions of the recently Welsh
districts west and north of Tidenham are obviously (1) the prevalence
of produce or food rents--honey, cows, sheep, pigs, &c.--_honey_
being the most prominent item; (2) the absence of the word
'manor,' used everywhere else in the survey of Gloucestershire and
Herefordshire; (3) the remarkable grouping in the district of _Gwent_
of the 'villas' _in batches of thirteen or fourteen_, each batch
under a separate _præpositus_. [p186]
It is clear that on the Welsh side of the Wye Welsh instead of Saxon
customs prevailed, and that these were some of them.[213] So much we
learn from these irregular additions of newly conquered Welsh ground
to the area of the Domesday Survey.
The meaning of the peculiarities thus indicated will become apparent
when the Welsh system has been examined upon its own independent
evidence.
II. THE WELSH LAND SYSTEM IN THE TWELFTH CENTURY.
There is no reason why, in trying to learn the nature of the Welsh
land system, the method followed throughout, of proceeding backwards
from the known to the unknown, should not be followed.
«Open-field system in Wales.»
It has already been shown that such arable fields as there are in
Wales, like the Saxon arable fields, were _open_ fields. They were
shown to be divided by turf balks, two furrows wide,[214] into strips
called erws--representing a day's work in ploughing. The Welsh
laws were also found to supply the simplest and clearest solution
given anywhere of the reason of the scattering of the strips in the
holdings, as well as of the relations of the grades of holdings to
the number of oxen contributed by the holders to the common plough
team of eight oxen.
In fact, the Welsh codes clearly prove that, as regards arable
husbandry, the open field system was the system prevalent throughout
all the three districts of Wales. [p187]
«The Welsh mainly pastoral.»
But partly from the mountainous nature of the country, and partly
from the peculiar stage of economic development through which the
Welsh were passing, long after the Norman Conquest they were still
a _pastoral_ people. Cattle rather than corn claimed the first
consideration, and ruled their habits; and hence the Welsh land
system, even in later times, was very different from that of the
Saxons.
In fact, the two land systems, though both using an open-field
husbandry, were in their main features radically distinct. In those
parts of Wales which were unconquered, and therefore uncivilised,
till the conquest of Edward I., we look in vain in the early surveys
for the manor or estate with the village community in villenage upon
it.
«No manors or villages.»
The Welsh system was not manorial. Its unit was not a village
community on a lord's estate.
«Scattered green timber houses.»
As late as the twelfth century _Giraldus Cambrensis_[215] described
the houses of the Welsh as not built either in towns or even in
villages, but as scattered along the edges of the woods. To his eye
they seemed mere huts made of boughs of trees twisted together,
easily constructed, and lasting scarcely more than a season. They
consisted of one room, and the whole family, guests and all, slept on
rushes laid along the wall, with their feet to the fire, the smoke
of which found its way through a hole in the roof.[216] The Welsh,
in fact, being a _pastoral_ people, had two sets of homesteads. In
summer their herds fed on the higher ranges of the hills, and in
winter in the valleys. So they themselves, following their cattle,
had separate [p188] huts for summer and for winter use, as was also
the custom in the Highlands of Scotland, and is still the case in the
higher Alpine valleys. Giraldus Cambrensis describes the greater part
of the land as in pasture and very little as arable; and accordingly
the food of the Welsh he describes, just as Cæsar had described it
eleven centuries earlier, as being chiefly the produce of their
herds--milk, cheese and butter, and flesh in larger proportions than
bread.[217] The latter was mostly of oats.
«Welsh ploughing.»
The Welsh ploughed for their oats in March and April, and for
wheat in summer and winter, yoking to their ploughs seldom fewer
than four oxen; and he mentions as a peculiarity that the driver
walked backward in front of the oxen, as we found was the custom in
Scotland.[218]
«Love of war.»
«Genealogies.»
Another marked peculiarity of the Welsh was their hereditary liking
and universal training for warlike enterprise. They were soldiers
as well as herdsmen; even husbandmen eagerly rushed to arms from
the plough.[219] Long settlement and the law of division of labour
had not yet brought about the separation of the military from
the agricultural population of Wales even so late as the twelfth
century. And here we come upon traces of their old tribal economy.
For the facts that they had not yet attained to settled villages and
townships, that they had not yet passed from the pastoral to the
agricultural stage, that they were still craving after warfare and
wild enterprise--all [p189] these are traces of tribal habits still
remaining. And a still clearer mark of the same thing was the stress
they laid upon their genealogy. Even the common people (he says)
keep their genealogies, and can not only readily recount the names
of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers, but even refer back to
the _sixth_ or _seventh_ generation, or beyond them, in this manner:
_Rhys_, son of _Gruffydh_, son of _Rhys_, son of _Theodor_, son of
_Eineon_, son of _Owen_, son of _Howel_, son of _Cadelh_, son of
_Roderic Mawr_, and so on.[220]
«Survivals of the tribal system.»
Thus in the twelfth century there were in Wales distinct survivals
of a tribal economy. Instead of a system like the Saxons, of village
communities and townships, the Welsh system was evidently a tribal
system in the later stages of gradual disintegration, tenaciously
preserving within it arrangements and customs pointing back to a
period when its rules had been in full force.
But the Welsh codes must be further examined before the significance
of the Domesday entries can be fully appreciated.
III. THE WELSH LAND SYSTEM ACCORDING TO THE WELSH LAWS.
«Laws of Howel in the tenth century.»
The Welsh version of the ancient laws of Wales contains three several
codes: The Venedotian of North Wales, the Dimetian and Gwentian
of South Wales. They profess to date substantially from _Howel
dda_, who codified the local customs about the middle of the tenth
century. They contain, however, later [p190] additions, and the
MSS. are not earlier than the end of the thirteenth century. There
is a Latin version of the Dimetian code in MS. of the early part of
the thirteenth century, which is especially valuable as giving the
received Latin equivalent of the Welsh terms used in the laws. And
there are also, apart from these codes, triads of doubtful date, but
professing to preserve traditional customs and laws of the Welsh
nation before the time of the Saxon conquest of Britain.[221]
For the present purpose the actual date of a law or custom is not
so important as its own intrinsic character. We seek to gain a true
notion of the tribal system, and an economically early trait may well
be preserved in a document of later date.
«Saxon and Welsh systems contemporary.»
There is no reason why we should be even tempted to exaggerate the
antiquity of the evidence. The later the survival of the system the
more valuable for our purpose. The Saxon and Welsh systems were
contemporary systems, and it is best to compare them as such.
It would appear that under this tribal system a district was occupied
by a tribe (_cenedl_) under a petty king (_brenhin_) or chief.
«Free tribesmen of tribal blood.»
The tribe was composed of households of free Welshmen, all blood
relations; and the homesteads of these households were scattered
about on the country side, as they were found to be in the time of
Giraldus Cambrensis. They seem to have been grouped into artificial
clusters mainly, as we shall see, for purposes of tribute or legal
jurisdiction. [p191]
«Taeogs without tribal blood.»
But all the inhabitants of Wales were not members of the tribes.
Besides the households of tribesmen of blood relations and pure
descent, there were hanging on to the tribes or their chiefs, and
under the overlordship of the latter, or sometimes of tribesmen,
strangers in blood who were not free Welshmen; also Welshmen
illegitimately born, or degraded for crime. And these classes, being
without tribal or family rights, were placed in groups of households
and homesteads by themselves. If there were any approach to the Saxon
village community in villenage upon a lord's estate under Welsh
arrangements, it was to be found in this subordinate class, who
were not Welshmen, and had no rights of kindred, and were known as
_aillts_ and _taeogs_ of the chief on whose land they were settled.
Further, as there was this marked distinction between tribesmen and
non-tribesmen, so also there was a marked and essential distinction
between the free tribe land occupied by the families of free Welsh
tribesmen, called '_tir gwelyawg_,' or _family land_, and the
'_caeth land_' or _bond land_ of the taeogs and aillts, which latter
was also called '_tir-cyfrif_' or _register land_, and sometimes
'_tir-kyllydus_' or _geldable land_ (gafol-land?).[222]
The main significance of the Welsh system, both as regards individual
rights and land usages, turns [p192] on this distinction between the
two different classes of persons and the two different kinds of land
occupied by them. They will require separate examination.
* * * * *
Let us first take the free tribesmen ('Uchelwyrs' or 'Breyrs') and
their 'family land.'
«The free tribesmen.»
If the professed triads of _Dyvnwal Moelmud_ may be taken to
represent, as they claim to do, the condition of things in earlier
centuries, the essential to membership in the _cenedl_, or tribe, was
_birth_ within it of Welsh parents.
Free-born Welshmen were 'tied' together in a 'social state' by the
three ties of--
(1) Common defence (cyvnawdd).
(2) Common tillage (cyvar).
(3) Common law (chyvraith).[223]
Every free Welshman was entitled to three things:--
(1) Five free _erws_ (or acre strips).
(2) Co-tillage of the waste (cyvar gobaith).
(3) Hunting.[224]
«The homestead or _tyddyn_.»
The free tribesman's homestead, or _tyddyn_, consisted of three
things:--
(1) His house (ty).
(2) His cattle-yard (bu-arth).
(3) His corn-yard (yd-arth).[225]
And the five free strips, afterwards apparently [p193] reduced to
four, of each head of a house--free, possibly, in the sense of their
having been freed from the common rights of others over them, as well
as being free from charges or tribute--we may probably regard as
contained in the _tyddyn_, or as lying in croft near the homesteads.
«The holding that of a household or family.»
The _Gwentian_, _Dimetian_, and _Venedotian_ codes all represent
the homestead or tyddyn and land of the free Welshman as a _family
holding_. So long as the head of the family lived, all his
descendants lived with him, apparently in the same homestead, unless
new ones had already been built for them on the family land. In any
case, they still formed part of the joint household of which he was
the head.[226]
When a free tribesman, the head of a household, died, his holding
was not broken up. It was held by his heirs for three generations
as one joint holding; it was known as the holding of 'the heirs
of So-and-so.'[227] But within the holding there was equality of
division between his sons; the younger son, however, retaining the
original _tyddyn_ or homestead, and others having tyddyns found
for them on the family land. All the sons had equal rights in the
scattered strips and pasture belonging to the holding.[228]
«Equality within the family»
Thus, in the first generation there was equality between brothers;
they were co-tenants in equal [p194] shares of the family holding of
which they were co-heirs.
When all the brothers were dead there was, if desired, a re-division,
so as to make equality between the co-heirs, who were now first
cousins.
When all the first cousins were dead there might be still another
re-division, to make equality between the co-heirs, who were now
second cousins.
«to second cousins.»
But no one beyond second cousins could claim equality; and if a man
died without heirs of his body, and there were no kindred within
the degree of second cousins, the land reverted to the chief who
represented the tribe.[229]
«Great-grandfather the common ancestor.»
The great-grandfather was thus always looked back to as the common
ancestor, whose name was still given to the family holding of his
co-heirs. The family tie reached from him to his great-grandchildren,
and then ceased to bind together further generations.[230]
«The Gwely or family couch.»
We have seen that even in the twelfth century the household all used
one couch, extending round the wall of the single room of the house;
this couch was called the 'gwely.' The 'tir gwelyawg' was thus the
land of the family using the same couch; and the descendants of
one ancestor living together were a 'gweli-gordd.'[231] As late as
the fourteenth century, in the _Record of Carnarvon_, the holdings
[p195] are still called 'Weles' and 'Gavells.' They are essentially
'family' or tribal holdings.[232]
And now as to the tenure upon which these holdings of the free
tribesmen were held.
«The Gwestva or food rent.»
It was a free tenure, subject to the obligation to pay _Gwestva_,
or 'food rent,' to the chief, and to some incidents which marked an
almost feudal relationship to the chief, viz.:--
(1) The _Amobr_, or marriage fee of a female.
(2) The _Ebediw_,[233] or death payment (heriot).
(3) Aid in building the king's castles.
(4) Joining his host in his enterprises _in_ the country whenever
required, _out_ of the country six weeks only in the year.[234]
These were the usual accompaniments of free tenure everywhere, and
are no special marks of serfdom.
«The _tunc pound_ in lieu of it.»
Several homesteads were grouped together in '_maenols_' or '_trevs_'
for the purpose of the payment of the _Gwestva_, as we shall see
by-and-by. This consisted in _Gwent_, of a horse-load of wheat-flour,
an ox, seven threaves of oats, a vat of honey, and 24 pence of
silver.[235] And as the money value of the _Gwestva_ was always one
pound, so that its money equivalent was known as 'the tunc pound,'
holdings of family land were spoken of, as late as the fourteenth
century, as 'paying tunc'[236]--the _gwestva_, or _tunc pound_
in lieu [p196] of it, being the distinctive tribute of the free
tribesmen.
Such was the tenure of the family land, and these were the services
of the free tribesmen.
«A free tribal tenure.»
There is no trace here of villenage, or of the servile _week-work_
of the Saxon serf. The tribesmen had no manorial lord over them but
their chief, and he was their natural and elected tribal head. So,
when Wales was finally conquered, the _tunc_ was paid to the Prince
of Wales, and no mesne lord was interposed between the tribesman and
the Prince.
Thus the freedom of the free tribesman was guarded at every point.
* * * * *
«The _aillts_ or _taeogs_.»
«Their tyddyns and ploughs.»
Turning now to the other class, the _aillts_ or _taeogs_--who in the
Latin translations of the laws are called _villani_--the key to their
position was their non-possession of tribal blood, and therefore of
the rights of kindred. They were not free-born Welshmen; though,
on the other hand, by no means to be confounded with _caeths_, or
slaves. They must be sworn men of some chieftain or lord, on whose
land they were placed, and at whose will and pleasure they were
deemed to remain.[237] Each of these taeogs had his _tyddyn_--his
homestead, with corn and cattle yard. In his tyddyn he had cattle
of his own. In South Wales several of these taeogs' homesteads were
grouped together into what was called a _taeog-trev_. Further, the
arable fields of the 'taeog-trev' were ploughed on the open-field
system by the taeogs' [p197] common plough team, to which each
contributed oxen.
«Equality in the taeog-trev.»
But the distinctive feature of the taeog-trev was that an _absolute
equality_ ruled, not between brothers or cousins of one household, as
in the case of the family land of the free tribesmen, but _throughout
the whole trev_. Family relationships were ignored. All adults in the
trev--fathers and sons, and strangers in blood--took equal shares,
with the single exception of _youngest sons_, who lived with their
fathers, and had no tyddyn of their own till the parent's death. This
principle of equality ruled everything.[238] The common ploughing
must not begin till every taeog in the trev had his place appointed
in the co-tillage.[239] Nor could there be any escheat of land in the
taeog-trev to the lord on failure of heirs; for there was nothing
hereditary about the holdings. Succession always fell (except in the
case of the youngest son, who took his father's tyddyn) to the whole
trev.[240] When there was a death there was a re-division of the
whole land, care, however, being taken to disturb the occupation of
the actual tyddyns only when absolutely needful.[241]
«_Per capita_ no account of blood relationship.»
The principle upon which the taeog's rights rested was simply this:
where there was no true Welsh blood no family rights were recognised.
In the absence of these, equality ruled between individuals; they
shared 'per capita,' and not 'per stirpes.'
«Their register land.»
The land of a taeog-trev was, as already said called 'register
land'[242]--_tir cyfrif_. [p198]
There were other incidents marking off the taeog from the free
Welshman. He might not bear arms;[243] he might not, without his
lord's consent, become a scholar, a smith, or a bard, nor sell his
swine, honey, or horse.[244] Even if he were to marry a free Welsh
woman, his descendants till the fourth, and in some cases the ninth
degree, remained taeogs. But the fourth or ninth descendant of the
free Welsh woman, as the case might be, might at last claim his five
free strips, and become the head of a new kindred.[245]
«Incidents to their tenures.»
Even the taeog was, however, under these laws, hardly a serf. With
the exception of his duty to assist the lord in the erection of
buildings, and to submit to _kylch_, _i.e._ to the lord's followers,
being quartered upon him when making a 'progress,' and to _dovraith_,
or maintenance of the chief's dogs and servants, there seems to have
been no exaction of menial personal services.[246]
«Food-rents.»
The taeogs' dues, like those of free Welshmen, consisted of fixed
summer and winter contributions of food for the chief's table.
In _Gwent_ they had to provide in winter a sow, a salted flitch,
threescore loaves of wheat bread, a tub of ale, twenty sheaves of
oats, and pence for the servants. In summer, a tub of butter and
twelve cheeses and bread.[247]
These tributes of food were called 'dawnbwyds,' gifts of food, or
'board-gifts,' and from these the taeog or register land is in one
place in the Welsh laws called _tir bwrdd_, or 'board-land' (_terra
mensalia_, [p199] or 'mensal land'[248]), a term which we shall find
again when we come to examine the Irish tribal system.
* * * * *
«The caeth or slave.»
Lastly, it must not be forgotten that beneath the taeogs, as beneath
the Saxon _geneat_ and _gebur_, were the 'caeths,' or bondmen, the
property of their owners,[249] without tyddyn and without land,
unless such were assigned to them by their lord. These caeths were,
therefore, not settled in separate trevs, but scattered about as
household slaves in the tyddyns of their masters.
IV. LAND DIVISIONS UNDER THE WELSH CODES.
There were, then, these two kinds of holdings--those of the free
tribesmen, of 'family land,' and those of the taeogs, of 'register
land.' There remains to be considered the system on which the
holdings were clustered together.
«The holdings grouped for payment of the food-rent or tunc
pound.»
The principle of this it is not very easy at first to understand,
and the difficulty is increased by a confusion of terms between the
codes. But there is one fact, by keeping hold of which the system
becomes intelligible, viz., that the grouping seems to have been
based upon the collective amount of the _food-rent_. The homesteads,
or tyddyns, each containing its four free erws, were scattered over
the country side. But they were artificially grouped together for the
purpose of the payment of the food-rent, or _tunc pound_ in lieu of
it. And by following the group which pays the [p200] 'tunc pound' as
the unit of comparison, the at first conflicting evidence falls into
its proper place.
In the Venedotian Code the _maenol_ is this unit. In the Dimetian and
Gwentian Codes this unit is the _trev_.
«In North Wales the _maenol_ the unit for food-rent.»
According to the Venedotian Code of North Wales,[250]
4 erws = 1 tyddyn.
4 tyddyns = 1 randir.
4 randirs = 1 gavael.
4 gavaels = 1 trev.
4 trevs = 1 maenol.
12 maenols and 2 supernumerary trevs = 1 cymwd (or comote).
2 cymwds = 1 cantrev (100 trevs).
«The _cymwd_ or half-hundred of twelve maenols.»
The _cymwd_ was thus a half-hundred, and each cymwd had its court,
and so was the unit of legal jurisdiction. At its head was a
_maer_ and a _canghellor_, the two officers of the chief who had
jurisdiction over it.
The twelve maenols in the cymwd were thus disposed:--
1 free maenol for the support of the office of maer.
1 free maenol for the support of the office of canghellor.
6 occupied by '_uchelwrs_,' or tribesmen.
──
Making 8 free maenols of 'family land,' from each of which a
gwestva or _tunc pound_ was paid.
The other 4 maenols were 'register land' occupied by aillts or
taeogs, paying 'dawn bwyds.'
──
12 in the 'cymwd.'[251]
Now, it must be admitted that all this singular system, arranged
according to strict arithmetical rules, _looks_ very much like a
merely theoretical arrangement, plausible on paper but impossible in
practice.
It will be found, however, that there is more [p201] probability, as
well as reason and meaning in it, than at first sight appears.
«Threescore pence of the tunc pound to each trev.»
In the first place, as regards the twelve maenols making up the
_cymwd_, there is no difficulty; four of them were taeog maenols and
eight were free maenols. But there is an obvious difficulty in the
description of the contents of each maenol. Taken literally, the
description in the Venedotian Code seems to imply that every maenol
was composed of four trevs, each of which contained four gavaels
composed of four randirs, each of which contained four tyddyns
composed of four erws. But in this case the maenol would contain
nothing but tyddyns--nothing but homesteads!--there would be no
arable and no pasture. This cannot be the true reading. A clue to the
real meaning is found in a clause which, after repeating that from
each of the eight free maenols in the cymwd the chief has a _gwestva_
yearly, 'that is a pound yearly from each of them,' goes on to say,
'Threescore pence is charged on each trev of the four that are in a
maenol, and so subdivided into quarters in succession until each erw
of the tyddyn be assessed.'[252]
«Four gavaels or holdings in each trev.»
Now, from this statement it may be assumed that there must be some
correspondence between the number of pence in the tunc pound and the
number of erws in the maenol, otherwise why speak of each erw being
assessed? But, according to the foregoing figures, there would be
1,024 erws in the maenol.[253] [p202] Each trev, which thus contains
256 erws, is to pay threescore pence. How can 256 erws be divided
into quarters till each erw is assessed? Dividing the trev by four
we get the gavael of sixty-four erws, and threescore pence divided
by four is sixty farthings. It is evident that sixty farthings
cannot be divided between sixty-four erws. But if we suppose each
trev to contain four homesteads or tyddyns, then the _gavael_[254]
of sixty-four erws would be the single holding belonging to a tyddyn
or homestead, and the four erws in the actual tyddyn (which are to
be _free_ erws) being deducted, then the sixty farthings exactly
correspond with the remaining sixty erws forming the holding of land
appendant to the tyddyn, and each erw would pay one farthing. We may
take it then as possible that each Venedotian maenol contained four
trevs, paying sixty pence each, and that each trev was a cluster of
four holdings of sixty erws each, in respect of which the holders
paid sixty farthings each to the _gwestva_, holding their actual
tyddyns free.
«A group of sixteen homesteads paid the tunc pound.»
In other words, each of the eight free maenols contained sixteen
homesteads, which sixteen homesteads were first classified in groups
of four called trevs. Or, to put the case the other way, the eight
free maenols, were divided into quarters or trevs, and these trevs
again each contained four homesteads.
It is evidently a tribal arrangement, clustering the homesteads
numerically for purposes of the payment of gwestva, and probably
the discharge of other [p203] public duties, and not a natural
territorial arrangement on the basis of the village or township.
«In South Wales the _trev_ is the unit for gwestva.»
Turning now to the Dimetian and Gwentian Codes, according to
which the free _trev_ instead of the maenol is the gwestva-paying
unit:[255] there is first the group of twelve trevs (instead of
twelve maenols) under a single maer, and under the name of _maenol_
instead of _cymwd_; but apparently all the trevs in the group
of twelve[256] are free trevs. There are other groups of seven
taeog-trevs making a taeog-maenol, and the maenol (instead of the
cymwd) has its court, and becomes the unit of legal jurisdiction.[257]
Confining attention to the free maenol, the first thing to notice is
that each of the twelve free trevs of which it was composed paid its
gwestva, or tunc pound in lieu of it. The trev, therefore, was the
gwestva-paying unit.
And as to the interior of the trev we read,--
'There are to be four randirs in the trev, from which the
king's gwestva shall be paid.'
'312 erws are to be in the randir between clear and brake, wood
and field, and wet and dry, except a supernumerary trev [the
upland has in addition].'[258]
In this case the 'tunc pound' of 240d. was paid by each trev of 4
randirs, each randir containing 312 erws, and the trev 1,248 erws in
all. The _trev_ in South Wales is, therefore, slightly larger than
the [p204] Venedotian _maenol_. Here we are bound by no law that
the pence in the gwestva should exactly correspond with the number
of erws. But in the other versions the 12 odd erws in the randir are
stated to be for 'domicilia,'[259] or buildings, and 12 erws would
allow of 3 tyddyns of the requisite 4 erws each.
This fixes for us the number of homesteads or tyddyns in the trev.
There were 3 tyddyns to each randir, and 4 randirs to the trev, and
so there were 12 tyddyns in each trev, and to each tyddyn there were
appendant 100 erws in the arable, pasture, and waste.
«The trev a cluster of twelve holdings, each paying an
ounce or score of silver, so between them the tunc pound.»
The trev which paid its tunc pound of 240d. was thus made up of 12
holdings, each paying a score pence. And as in the Latin version
of the Dimetian Laws (p. 825) a score pence is translated _uncia
argenti_, the connexion is at once made clear between the system of
grouping the holdings so as to pay the tunc pound, and the monetary
system which prevailed in Wales, viz., that according to which 20d.
made an ounce, and 12 ounces one pound. The 12 holdings each paying
a score of pence, or ounce of silver, made up between them the tunc
pound of the trev.
«The tribal households shifted among the holdings.»
This curious geometrical arrangement or classification of tyddyns and
trevs, with an equal area of land to each, is at first sight entirely
inconsistent with the division of the family land among the heirs of
the holder, inasmuch as the great grandchildren when they divided the
original family holding must, one would suppose, have held smaller
shares than their great [p205] grandfather. And there is only one
answer to this. It would have been so if the tribe, and the families
composing it, were permanently fixed and settled on the same land,
and pursuing a regular agriculture, with an increasing population
within certain boundaries. But the Welsh were still a _pastoral_
people, and, as we shall see when we come to examine the Irish tribal
system, while the homesteads and land divisions were fixed, the
occupants were shifted about by the chiefs from time to time, each
sept, or clan, or family receiving at each rearrangement a certain
number of tyddyns or homesteads, according to certain tribal rules of
blood relationship of a very intricate character.
This permanence of the geographical divisions and homesteads, and
shifting of the tribal households whenever occasion required it, was
only possible with a pastoral and scanty population. Long before the
fourteenth century the households were settled in their homesteads,
geometrical regularity had ceased, and the land was divided and
subdivided into irregular fractions. This is the state of things
disclosed in the _Record of Carnarvon_. But in the tenth century,
according to the Welsh laws, the old tribal rules were apparently
still in force.
«The clustering of households the distinctive mark of the
tribal system.»
Without pretending to have mastered all the details of these obscure
tribal arrangements, the point to be noted is that the scattering of
the tyddyns all over the country side, and the clustering of them
by fours and sixteens, or twelves, into the group which was the
unit paying the gwestva or tunc pound, and again into clusters of
twelve or thirteen[260] under a [p206] maer, as the unit of civil
jurisdiction, were obviously distinctive features arising from the
tribal holding of land, and that the system was adopted apparently to
facilitate the division of the land among the families in the tribe
somewhat in the same way as in the open field system the division
of the arable land by turf balks into actual erws facilitated the
division of the ploughed land among the contributors to the plough
team.
* * * * *
Bearing this in mind we may now turn back to the Domesday Survey,
and compare its description of the land system of _Gwent_ and
_Archenfield_ with the results obtained from the Welsh laws.
In order, however, to make this comparison the Welsh terms must be
translated into Latin, otherwise it will be difficult to recognise
the trev, and maer, and maenol, and gwestva in the Domesday
description.
«Latin equivalent of tribal words in the Domesday Survey.»
The before-mentioned Latin version of the Dimetian Code, the MS.
of which dates from the early thirteenth century, will do this for
us.[261]
It translates _trev_, the unit of the tunc pound, by _villa_. It
takes the Welsh word 'maenol' as equivalent to _manor_, and indeed
it did resemble the Saxon and Norman manor in this, that it was
the unit of the jurisdiction of each single steward or _villicus_
of the chief. This officer was called in Welsh the _maer_, which
was translated into the Latin _præpositus_. He did to some extent
resemble the English præpositus, but he differed in this--that
instead of being set over the 'trev' or 'villata' of a single manor,
[p207] the Welsh maer was, as we have seen, set over a number
of 'villas' or trevs--thirteen free trevs or seven taeog-trevs,
in Gwent--each free trev of which rendered its 'tunc pound' or
'gwestva,' and each taeog or villein-trev its 'dawn-bwyd' of food.
Now, this is precisely what is described in the Domesday Survey of
Gwent.
«The clusters of _villas_ under a _præpositus_ paying
food-rent.»
There are four groups of thirteen or fourteen 'villas' or trevs, each
group under a 'præpositus' or maer; and these four groups, which were
in fact Gwentian 'maenols,' rendered as gwestva a food-rent amounting
to 47 sextars of honey, 40 pigs, 41 cows, and 28 shillings for hawks.
In the district of _Archenfield_ the clusters of trevs do not
appear, but the food-rents were similar--_honey_ being a marked item
throughout.
«Honey rents.»
In the Welsh gwestva, also, _honey_ was an important element. It is
mentioned as such in the Welsh codes, and it is conspicuous also in
the Domesday Survey both of Gwent and Archenfield.
«Importance of honey.»
Its importance is shown by the fact that in the Gwentian Code a
separate section was devoted to 'The Law of Bees.' It begins as
follows:--'The origin of bees is from Paradise, and on account of the
sin of man they came from thence, and they were blessed by God, and,
therefore, the mass cannot be without the wax.'[262]
The price of a swarm of bees in August was equal to the price of an
ox ready for the yoke, _i.e._ ten or fifteen times its present value,
in proportion to the ox.
Honey had, in fact, two uses, besides its being the [p208]
substitute for the modern sugar--one for the making of mead, which
was three times the price of beer; the other for the wax for candles
used in the chief's household, and on the altar of the mass.[263] The
lord of a taeog had the right of buying up all his honey;[264] and
in North Wales, according to the Venedotian Code, _all_ the honey of
the king's aillts or taeogs was reserved for the court.[265] The mead
brewer was also an important royal officer in all the three divisions
of Wales.
It is not surprising, then, that the tribute of honey, which formed
so important a part of the Welsh gwestva, should be retained as an
item in the tribute of the trevs of Gwent after their conquest by
Harold.
V. EARLIER EVIDENCE OF THE PAYMENT OF WELSH GWESTVA, OR FOOD-RENT.
From the combined evidence of the Domesday Survey and the 'Ancient
Laws of Wales,' the fact has now been learned that in the eleventh
century, as it had done previously probably for 400 years, the river
Wye separated by a sharp line the Saxon land, on which the manorial
land system prevailed, from the Welsh land, on which the Welsh tribal
land system prevailed. On the one side of the river, at the date
of the Survey, clusters of scattered homesteads of free Welshmen
contributed food-rents in the form of gwestva to the conqueror of
their chief, and taeogs their dawn-bwyds. On the other side the
_villata_ of geneats and geburs, besides paying gafol, performed
servile week-work upon the demesne lands of the lord of the [p209]
village or manor. It may be well, however, to seek for some earlier
evidence of the payment of gwestva on the Welsh side of the river.
Documentary evidence of the manorial system on the Saxon side was
forthcoming as early as the seventh century, in the laws of King Ine.
How far back can documentary evidence be traced of the Welsh system?
«The Book of St. Chad. Charters of the eighth century
mention food-rent.»
In the possession of the church of Llandaff there was long preserved
an ancient MS. of the Gospels in Latin, called the Book of St.
Chad.[266] This MS. appears to date back to the eighth century. And
it was for long the custom to enter on its margin a record of solemn
compacts sworn upon it, as in the similar case of the Book of Deer.
It thus happens to contain (_inter alia_) two short records of grants
to the church of St. Teilo (or Llandaff). One of these gifts is as
follows:[267]--
'This writing showeth that Ris and the family of Grethi gave to God
and St. Teilo, _Treb guidauc_. . . and this is its census: 40
loaves and a wether sheep in summer; and in winter, 40 loaves, a hog,
and 40 dishes of butter. . . .'
Another is in these words:--
'This writing showeth that Ris and Hirv . . . gave Bracma as far as
_Hirmain Guidauc_, from the desert of Gelli Irlath as far as Camdubr,
its "hichet" [food-rent?], 3 score loaves and a wether sheep, [p210]
and a vessel of butter. And then follow the witnesses.'[268]
«Evidently of Taeog-trevs.»
Rhys ap Ithael, the donor in these two cases, was king of the
district of Glewyssig in the middle of the ninth century, about
the time of Alfred the Great. Now, a king or chief would hardly
be likely to transfer to the church of Llandaff a free trev and
the gwestva paid therefrom. This would have involved the severance
of free members of the tribe from the tribe, to put them under an
ecclesiastical lordship. We should expect then to find that the Trev
'Guidauc' was a _taeog-trev_ on the chief's own land, and according
to the description given in the grants, the census corresponds not
with the gwestva of a free trev under the Welsh laws, but with the
'dawn-bwyd' of the taeog-trev.
The food tribute in these grants was divided into summer and winter
payments, and so, as we have seen, were the dawn-bwyds of the taeogs
in the Welsh laws; the scores of loaves, the sow, the wether sheep,
and the tubs of butter, correspond also with the food-gifts from
the taeog-trevs, as described in the laws, though with varying
quantities.[269]
These grants in the margin of the Book of St. Chad may, therefore
be taken as evidence that the system of food-rents was prevalent in
Wales in the middle of the ninth century.
«Survival of Welsh customs in Wessex.»
There is still earlier evidence of the prevalence of the system of
food-rents where we should little expect to find it, viz., in the
laws of King Ine. Ine being King of Wessex, and Wessex shading off as
it [p211] were into the old British districts both south and east
of the Severn, it was but natural that some old Welsh or British
customs should have survived in certain places; as _Walisc_ men here
and there survived amongst the conquering English. These Welshmen
were allowed under Ine's laws to hold half-hides and hides of land.
We have only to examine the Domesday Survey for Gloucestershire and
Herefordshire to find traces even at that date of survivals of Welsh
and Saxon customs in exceptional cases, even outside those districts
which had only just been conquered.
In some places where Saxon customs had long prevailed a little
community of Welshmen remained under Welsh customs. In other places
the customs were partly Welsh and partly English.[270] [p212]
«Food-rents mentioned in the laws of Ine in the seventh
century.»
In precisely the same way survivals such as these must have existed
in King Ine's time. There must have been then, as 400 years
afterwards, at the date of the Survey, places in Wessex where
Welshmen predominated and Welsh customs survived. There must have
been, in other words, manors which paid Welsh gwestva instead of
Saxon services. There is a remarkable passage in King Ine's laws
which can only be thus explained. On the same page, and in the
next paragraph but two to the law about the yard-land set _to
'gafol'_ and _to 'weorc,'_[271] there is a clause apparently out of
place, which begins abruptly with this heading: '_Æt x. hidum to
fostre_.'[272] In the Latin version this is rendered 'De x. hides ad
corredium.'[273] Now, there is a passage in a charter of Louis VII.
of France, anno 1157, given by Du Cange under the word '_Corredium_,'
in which certain 'villas' are freed from the exaction of 'quædam
convivia, quæ vulgo Coreede vel _Giste_ vocantur.' This definition
of corredium and of 'giste,' as a contribution of food exacted from
tenants, corresponds exactly to the Welsh 'gwestva.' And the Saxon
word _fostre_ also means food. So that this heading to the passage
in question may be translated--'from x. hides paying gwestva.'
And so interpreted the following list [p213] becomes perfectly
intelligible, for it describes what the gwestva consisted of.
_From 10 hides_--
x. dolia of honey.
ccc. loaves.
xii. amphora of Welsh ale.
xxx. of clear [do.]
ii. oxen or x. wethers,
x. geese.
xx. hens.
x. cheeses.
A full amphora of butter.
v. salmons of xx. pounds weight.
c. eels.
Now, if the system of gwestva payment or food-rent described in this
passage of the laws of King Ine be evidence of the survival of the
Welsh custom after the Saxon conquest, it is at the same time equally
clear documentary evidence of the seventh century that the system
of gwestva or food-rents was prevalent outside Wales in the west of
Britain before the Saxon conquest.[274]
FOOTNOTES:
[203] _Liber Landavensis_, p. 545. _Ordericus Vitalis_, ii. 190. It
may have been conquered in 1049, after Gruffydd and Irish pirates
had, according to Florence, crossed the Wye and burned 'Dymedham'
(see Freeman's _Norman Conquest_, ii. App. P); but most likely
shortly before A.D. 1065, under which date is the following entry in
the Saxon Chronicle:--
'A. 1065. In this year before Lammas, Harold the Eorl ordered a
building to be erected in Wales at Portskewith _after he had subdued
it_, and there he gathered much goods and thought to have King Edward
there for the purpose of hunting; but when it was all ready, then
went Cradock, Griffin's son, with the whole force which he could
procure, and slew almost all the people who there had been building.'
[204] _Domesday_, i. 162 _a_.
[205] _Ibid._ 162 _a_ _et seq._
[206] 185_b_. See also Freeman's _Norman Conquest_, ii. App. SS, p.
685.
[207] _Domesday_, i. 179 _a_.
[208] See _Leges Wallice_, p. 812. 'De qualibet villa rusticana debet
habere ovem fetam vel 4 denarios in cibos accipitrum.' The 54 villæ
at 4d. each would make xviii s. (? whether xxviii. by an extra x. in
error).
[209] _Domesday_, i. 162 _a_.
[210] _Domesday_, i. 162 _a_ (last entry).
[211] F. 179 _a_.
[212] F. 181 _a_.
[213] So f. 185_b_: 'In Castellaria de _Carlion_ . . . iii. Walenses
_lege Walensi viventes_ cum iii. car. et ii. bord. cum dim. car. et
reddunt iiii. sextar. mellis.'
[214] _Ancient Laws of Wales_, p. 373.
[215] _Description of Wales_, chap. cxvii.
[216] C. x.
[217] C. viii. The district of Snowdon afforded the best pasturage
and Anglesey the best corn-growing land.
[218] C. viii. and xvii. In the Isle of Man four oxen were yoked
abreast to the plough, Train's _Isle of Man_, ii. p. 241.
[219] C. viii.
[220] C. xvii.
[221] _Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales._ Record Commission,
1841. See preface by _Aneurin Owen_.
[222] _Venedotian Code. Ancient Laws of Wales_, pp. 81–2, and see
pp. 644–6 (_Welsh Laws_). Mr. Skene, in his chapter on _The Tribe in
Wales_ in his _Celtic Scotland_, iii. pp. 200, 201, does not seem
to have grasped fully the distinction between the _free tribesmen_
and their _family land_ on the one hand and the Aillts and Taeogs
with their _geldable_ or _register_ land on the other. Everything,
however, turns upon this. Compare _Welsh Laws_, xiv. s. 31 and s. 32
(pp. 739–741), where the distinction is again clearly stated.
[223] _Ancient Laws of Wales_, p. 638 (s. 45).
[224] _Id._ 651 (s. 83).
[225] P. 639 (s. 51).
[226] Pp. 81–2.
[227] See the surveys in the _Record of Carnarvon_ (14th century),
where the holdings are sometimes called '_Weles_,' thus:--'In eadem
villa sunt tria _Wele_ libera, viz. _Wele_ Yarthur ap Ruwon Wele Joz.
ap Ruwon and _Wele_ Keneth ap Ruwon. Et sunt heredes predicte Wele
de Yarthur ap Ruwon, Eign. ap Griffiri and Hoell. ap Griffri et alii
coheredes sui;' and so on of the other Weles (p. 11). This is the
common form of the survey _passim_.
[228] _Ancient Laws, &c., of Wales_, p. 741.
[229] _Id._ pp. 82 and 740.
[230] The fullest description of the rules of '_family land_' are
those in the _Venedotian Code_, c. xii., _The Law of Brothers for
Land_, pp. 81 _et seq._ See also _Welsh Laws_, Book IX. xxxi. p. 536;
also Book XIV. xxxi. pp. 739 _et seq._
[231] _Ancient Laws, &c., of Wales_, Glossary, p. 1001.
[232] The _Record of Carnarvon_, _passim_. Thus 'the _Wele_ of
So-and-so, the son of So-and-so, and the heirs of this Wele are
So-and-so.'
[233] This was not payable if an investiture fee had been paid by the
person dying.
[234] _Ancient Laws, &c._, p. 92 and 93.
[235] _Id._ p. 375.
[236] _Book of Carnarvon_, _passim_.
[237] Sometimes an '_uchelwr_' or tribesman had taeogs under him.
_Ancient Laws, &c._, pp. 88, 339, and 573. See also _Id._ p. 646.
_Welsh Laws._
[238] _Id._ pp. 82 and 536. _Welsh Laws_, s. xxxii.
[239] _Id._ p. 376.
[240] _Id._ p. 82.
[241] _Id._ p. 82.
[242] It was sometimes called 'tir kyllidin,' or geldable land, as
before stated.
[243] _Ancient Laws, &c._, p. 673.
[244] Pp. 36–7 and 212–13.
[245] _Id._ pp. 88 and 646.
[246] Pp. 93 and 376.
[247] P. 375–6. _Gwentian Code_, 11, xxxv.
[248] _Ancient Laws, &c._, p. 697.
[249] P. 294 (Dimetian Code). 'The _caeth_--there is no _galanas_
(death-fine) for him, only payment of his "werth" to his master _like
the "werth" of a beast_.'
[250] _Ancient Laws, &c._, pp. 90–1.
[251] _Id._ p. 91, s. 14.
[252] _Id._ p 91, s. 15. In _Leges Wallice_, p. 825, 'score pence'
or 'score of silver' is translated 'uncia argenti;' ∴ 3 _uncie agri_
should equal a '_trev_.' See _Liber Landavensis_, pp. 70 and 317.
[253]
4 erw = tyddyn.
16 erw = randir.
64 erw = gavael.
256 erw = trev.
1024 erw = maenol.
[254] The word _Gabail_ still in Scotch Gaelic retains its meaning of
_a farm_. The word is pronounced '_gāv´-ul_.'
[255] _Ancient Laws_, pp. 261. 'Four randirs are to be in the trev
from which the king's gwestva is to be paid' (s. 5).
[256] In upland districts there were 13 trevs in the maenol, p. 375.
[257] There were seven taeog-trevs in taeog-maenols, and each
contained three randirs, in two of which there were three
taeog-tyddyns to each, the third being pasture for the other two.
There were therefore six taeog holdings in each taeog-trev. _Ancient
Laws, &c._, pp. 375 and 829.
[258] Pp. 374–5.
[259] P. 829. 'In randir continentur ccc. et xii. acre: ut in ccc.
acris, araturam, et pascua et focalia possessor habeat; inde xii.
domicilia.' See also p. 790. 'Id est xii. domicilia.' The Dimetian
Code has it 'space for buildings on the 12 erws' (p. 263).
[260] 'There are to be thirteen trevs in every maenol, and the
thirteenth of these is the supernumerary trev.' _Gwentian Code_, p.
375.
[261] _Leges Wallice, Ancient Laws, &c._, p. 771 _et seq._
[262] _Ancient Laws, &c._, p. 360.
[263] _Ancient Laws, &c._, p. 325.
[264] _Id._ p. 213.
[265] _Id._ p. 92 (s. 5).
[266] _Liber Landavensis_, p. 271, App., and p. 615.
[267] For the translation see p. 616. For the original, p. 272, as
follows: 'Ostendit ista scriptio quod dederunt Ris et luith Grethi
_Treb guidauc_ i malitiduck Cimarguich, et hic est census ejus,
douceint torth hamaharuin in irham, haduceint torth in irgaem, ha
huch, ha douceint mannudenn deo et sancto elindo. . . .'
[268] For the translation see p. 617; for the original, p. 272.
[269] See _Leges Wallice_, ii. 14, '_De Daunbwyt_' [Dono Cibi].
_Ancient Laws, &c., of Wales_, p. 790.
[270] Fol. 162 _b_. 'In _Cirencester_ hundred King Edward had five
hides of land. In demesne v. ploughs and xxxi. villani with x.
ploughs, xiii. servi and x. bordarii, &c. The Queen has the wool of
the sheep. T. R. E.: this manor rendered iii.½ modii of corn, and of
barley iii. modii, and of honey vi.½ sextars, and ix.l. and v.s., and
3,000 loaves for dogs.'
This is very much like a survival of the Welsh food-rents at one of
the cities conquered by the Saxons in 577.
In some other places out of Archenfield there was a mixture of Welsh
and English customs.
The manor of _Westwode_ (f. 181) was held by St. Peter of Gloucester.
It contained vi. hides, 'one of which had Welsh custom, the others
English.' A Welshman in this manor had half a carucate, and rendered
i. sextar of honey.
And at _Clive_ (f. 179 _b_), 8 Welshmen had 8 teams, and rendered x.½
sextars of honey and vi.s. v.d., and in the forest of the king was
land of this manor, which T. R. E. had rendered vi. sextars of honey,
and vi. sheep with lambs.
These instances are sufficient to show that in Herefordshire, as in
Gloucestershire, in the newly conquered districts, the old Welsh dues
of honey, sheep, &c., remained undisturbed; while in the districts
which had long been under Saxon rule, in some few cases there was a
mixture of services, and in others the Saxon services of ploughing on
the lord's demesne had become general.
It may be assumed that when the services were thus described contrary
to the usual routine of the Domesday surveyors, it was because
there was something unusual about them; and that in the majority of
instances where Saxon customs prevailed, no description was deemed
needful. Compare the Domesday survey of Dorsetshire--a portion of the
'West Wales'--where the manors in the royal demesne are grouped so
that each group renders a 'firma unius noctis,' or a 'firma dimidiæ
noctis.'
[271] _Laws of Ine_, No. 67. Thorpe, p. 63.
[272] _Id._ No. 70. Thorpe, p. 63.
[273] _Id._ p. 504.
[274] For much curious information respecting the Welsh system of
tenures, see Taylor's _History of Gavel-kind_. London, 1663.
[p214]