of Worcestershire,[35] we have evidence that Robert's inheritance
was shared between Beauchamp and Marmion which points there also to
descent through Urse de Abetot. In my _Geoffrey de Mandeville_ (pp.
313-5) I have suggested that in their rivalry for Tamworth,[36] the
Marmions embraced the cause of Stephen, and the Beauchamps that of
Maud, their variance being terminated under Henry II by a matrimonial
alliance. Such a compromise was common enough. It was agreed on in the
case of Grantmesnil; it was carried out at this very period in that of
Fitzharding and Berkeley; it was again resorted to at a later stage in
the history of the house of Berkeley; it was arranged in the case
of Hastings; and it was repeated in that of Boleyn, where the Butler
inheritance was at stake.[37]
[Footnote 1: _English Historical Review_, v. 96.]
[Footnote 2: I have discussed above (pp. 69-72) the bearing
of its evidence on the problem of Domesday assessment, so need
not recur to the subject here.]
[Footnote 3: See note 31 below.]
[Footnote 4: Vol. II. p. xcvi.]
[Footnote 5: _A Roll of the Owners of Land in the parts
of Lindsey_ ('Reprinted from the Associated Architectural
Societies Reports and Papers').]
[Footnote 6: In consideration of which he received a pension
on the Civil List.]
[Footnote 7: There is a similar error on fo. 13, where the
'William fitz Aubrey' of Mr Waters proves to be 'filius
_Albrede_' (not _Alberici_).]
[Footnote 8: Hearne duly prints it as an interlineation.]
[Footnote 9: _Rolls of the Norman Exchequer_, II. clvi.]
[Footnote 10: He further hazarded the erroneous conjecture
that Roheis, Countess of Lincoln, was his daughter.]
[Footnote 11: _Gundrada de Warrenne_, p. 9.]
[Footnote 12: See pp. 171, 179, _infra_.]
[Footnote 13: pp. 1-237. Bound up in the York volume of the
Royal Archæological Institute.]
[Footnote 14: Stapleton indeed exposed himself unconsciously
by stating on the very same page that William Meschin's lands
had passed to his heirs 'prior to 1138', so that he could not
be the Earl of 1139.]
[Footnote 15: See on this point the important letters of Mr
Greenstreet and Mr J. A. C. Vincent to the _Athenæum_, May 9
and June 27, 1885.]
[Footnote 16: _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, p. 420 _et seq._]
[Footnote 17: Ed. Gale, pp. 114, 115.]
[Footnote 18: _Ibid._, pp. 118, 119.]
[Footnote 19: _Ibid._, pp. 124, 125.]
[Footnote 20: _Lectures on Mediæval and Modern History_, p.
148.]
[Footnote 21: _Survey of Lindsey_, p. 2.]
[Footnote 22: Mr Waters, in error, states _two_.]
[Footnote 23: It is an illustration of the ignorance prevalent
on early genealogy that even Mr Freeman could write of
'Mr Chester Waters, than whom no man better deserves to be
listened to on any point of genealogy, especially of the
Norman genealogy of the eleventh and twelfth centuries'
(_English Historical Review_, iii. 690).]
[Footnote 24: Rot. Pat. 27 Hen. VI, part I, _m_ 30.]
[Footnote 25: _Neustria Pia_, 683.]
[Footnote 26: _Gallia Christiana_ (1874), xi. 452.]
[Footnote 27: _Neustria Pia_, 881; _Gall. Christ._, xi.,
Instr. 86.]
[Footnote 28: _Gall. Christ._, xi. 452.]
[Footnote 29: Since this was written I have found that Mr C.
F. R. Palmer, in his admirable little treatise on the Marmion
family (1875), duly inserts this intermediate Robert. Mr
Palmer has shown himself by far the best authority on the
subject, and has printed a valuable charter of Stephen to
Robert Marmion.]
[Footnote 30: Paper on 'Holy Trinity Priory, York', p. 208
note. This identification is accepted by no less an authority
than Mr A. S. Ellis (_Domesday Tenants of Gloucestershire_, p.
69).]
[Footnote 31: i.e. according to Stapleton's pedigree.]
[Footnote 32; And Mr Palmer independently had done the same in
his _History of the Marmions_ (1865).]
[Footnote 33: Lodge's _Scrivelsby: the Home of the
Champions_.]
[Footnote 34: See p. 174.]
[Footnote 35: See p. 174.]
[Footnote 36: It is certain that Tamworth originally belonged
to Robert 'Dispensator', and equally certain that it was held
successively by Roger and Robert Marmion under Henry I.]
[Footnote 37: See my _Early Life of Anne Boleyn_, pp. 25-7.]
THE LEICESTERSHIRE SURVEY
(1124-29).
Asserting the importance of the Lindsey Survey, Mr Chester Waters
observed that 'this is the sole record of its kind which deals with
the interval between the completion of Domesday in 1086, and the
compilation of the Pipe-Roll of 1129-30, and that no similar return
of the landowners of any other county is known to exist' (p. 2). And,
indeed, it would seem that the survey to which I now address myself
has hitherto remained unknown. It is found in the form of a late
transcript on an unidentified roll in the Public Record Office.[1]
Comprising the whole of Gosecote Wapentake, and in part those of
Framland and Gartree, it retains for these divisions the Domesday name
of Wapentake--they are now 'Hundreds'--while subdividing them into
small 'Hundreds', of which the existence seems to have been hitherto
unsuspected. Proceeding, like the I.C.C., 'Hundred' by 'Hundred', and
Vill by Vill, it enables us, like that document, to reconstitute the
aggregate assessments, and thus affords priceless evidence on 'the
six-carucate unit'.[2] But apart from this, it is invested with no
small importance from that 'great want of documentary evidence' for
the reign of Henry I which Mr Hunter rightly lamented in his elaborate
introduction to the first great roll of the Pipe (p. ii). It affords
us new and trustworthy evidence on the many vicissitudes of the great
fiefs, and enables us, while tracing the fortunes of their owners,
to see how the first Henry provided for his _novi homines_, showering
escheats and royal demesne on the trusty officials he had raised
'from the dust', as well as on his favourite nephew, Stephen, Count of
Mortain.
The date of this survey is thus determined. The frequent mention of
'Rex D[avid]' places it subsequent to his accession to the throne in
April 1124. On the other hand, the name of Ralf Basset (the justiciar)
shows it to be anterior to his death; and he was dead before Mich.,
1130 (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I). Moreover, it speaks more than once of
Hugh de Leicester as 'Vicecomes', and Hugh's shrievalty seems from the
Pipe-Roll to have terminated at Mich., 1129. We may therefore place
this survey between the spring of 1124 and the autumn of 1129, with a
likelihood of its having been compiled nearer the latter date.
TEXT OF THE SURVEY
... 'Comes Lerc[estri]æ vj. car.
_H[undredum] de[3] Langeton'_.--In eadem villa Comes
Lerc[estriæ] xj. car. et j. virg. Ibidem Ric[ardus] Basset
iii. car. et. j. virg. In thorp Eustaci[us] iij. car. et.
iij. virg. In alia Langeton' Abbas de Burg' iiij. car. et iii.
virg. Ibidem Henricus de pport j. car. In thurlington idem
Henricus xij. car. In sscanketon' Comes Lerc[estriæ] x. car.
Ansch' ij. car.[4]
_H[undredum] de Chiburd'_.--In eadem villa xii. car. de feodo
Ansch'. In alia chiburd' Walt[erus] de Bell' campo xj. car.,
Ricardus Basset j. car. In bocton Comes Leicestriæ xij. car.
In carleton' idem Comes x. car. Et Monachi Sancti Arnulphi v.
virg. Et de ssoch' Regis iij. virg.[5]
_H[undredum] de Knossinton_.--In eadem villa ij. car. de
Honore de Blida. Et Henricus de ferr' iij. car. et. iij.
virg. In Osolinstona Rex D[avid] vij. car. In Picwell et in
Lucerthorp de feudo Rogeri de Moubray xv. car. In Neubotel
Robertus de ferr' j. car. et dim. In Burg' Marm' iij. car.
In Balbegrave vj. car. iij. bov. minus de Soch[a] Regis. In
Mardefeud iij. car. de eadem Soch[a]. In alia Mardefeud iij.
car.[6]
GOSECOTE WAP'
_H[undredum] de Lodinton[e]_, in Sceftinton[e] Norm[annus] de
Verdun viij. car. et dim. Ricardus Bass[et] iij. car. et dim.
In Gokebia Normannus de Verdun vj. car. In Adelacston[e] v.
car. et j. virg. de feodo Regis David. Et de Soch[a] Regis
iij. virg. In Ludinton[e] Ricardus Basset xii. car. In Thorp
et in Twyford Ricardus de Roll[os] ix. car. j. bov. minus.
Ibidem Henricus de ferr[ariis] ix. car. j. bov. minus. Et de
Soch[a] Regis v. car. Ex hiis Grimbaldus tenet dim. car. et
Rex D[avid] j. car. In Norton[e] x. bov. Walter de Bello campo
vj. car. Et Roger de Moubray iiij. car. et iij. virg.[7]
_H[undredum] de[8] Tilton_.--In eadem villa ij. car. j. bov.
minus de Soch[a] Regis. Ibidem Walt[erus] de Bello campo iij.
car. Archiepiscopus[9] j. car. In Neuton[e] Walter de Bello
campo iiij. car. Roger de Moubray viii. car. In Lousebia Rex
David xij. car. In Watebergia Dominicum Regis iiij. car. In
Hallested Normannus de Verdun iij. car. j. virg. minus.[10]
_H[undredum] de bebia_.--In eadem villa Abbas de Croyland xij.
car. In Cahiham iiij. car. de Soch[a] Regis. Comes Lercestrie
ij. car. In Hung'ton ix. car. In Siglebia ix. car. et. vj.
bov. et dim. de[11] Comite Lercestriæ. Ibidem Comes Cestrie
iij. car. Ibidem Ricardus Basset ij. car. Robertus de
ferrer[iis] v. bov.[12]
_H[undredum] de Barkbia_.--In eadem villa v. car. de feodo de
Belvar[o]. In Hamelton' et in thorp vi. car. de eodem feudo,
et de feodo Comitis Lercestriæ j. car. et dim. In Thormedeston
Canonici iij. car. In Crocheston[e] ij. car. et j. bov. et
dim. de Soch[a] Regis. In Neubold[e] Robertus de ferer[iis]
j. car. et dim. In Barnesby Rex iij. car. et dim. bov. Ibidem
Comes Lercestriæ xiij. bov. In Gadesby [t]erra[13] Reg[is]
viij. car. et dim. et dim. et dim. [_sic_] bov. Ibidem
Episcopus Lincolniensis viij. bov. Comes Lercestriæ j. car. et
dim. bov. Ricardus Basset dim. car. Rex D[avid] ij. car.[14]
_H[undredum] de Essebia_.--In eadem villa Rex David v. car.
Ibidem Hugo de Lerc[estria] j. car. In Humberstay Roger de
Ram[is] viij. car. Ibidem Walter de Mustere j. car. Rad[ulfus]
de Martinwast iij. car. In Mardegrave Comes Lercestriæ xij.
car. In thurmedeston idem Comes car. [_sic._] Idem in Burstall
ix. car. Idem in Anlepia vij. car. Idem in Anesting[e] vj.
car.[15]
_H[undredum] de Resebia_.--In eadem villa Ricardus Basset v.
car. Ibidem Comes Cestrie ij. car. et dim. Rex David iiij car.
et dim. In Quenburg[o] xij. car. de feodo de Belvar[o]. In
Siefton[e] Comes Lercestriæ xij. car. In Brokesbya Comes
[_sic_] Cestrie v. car. Rex David j. car. quam Pip[er]d
tenet. In Quenebia vj. car. de feodo de Belvar[o]. In
thurketleston[e] de feodo Comitis viij. car. In Cropeston[e]
iiij. car. In Rodeleia terra Regis v. car.[16]
_H[undredum] de Magna Dalbia_.--In eadem villa Episcopus
Lincolniensis ix. car. et dim. Radulfus Basset j. car. et iij.
bov. Ibidem Wil[elmus] Gam[erarius] j. car. In frisebia Comes
Cestrie iij. car., et de Soch[a] Regis viij. car. In Rederbia
Comes cestrie vi. car. In Asfordebia Comes Lercestriæ xiij.
car. In Wartnadeby de Soch[a] Regis vi. car.[17]
_Hundredum de Dalbia super Wald'_.--In eadem villa ix. car. de
feodo Edwardi de sar[esbiria], Comes Lercestrie iij. car. In
Grimestona de Soch[a] Regis iij. car. j. bov. et dim. minus.
Ricardus Basset iij. car. In Saxebia Comes Lercestrie v. car.
et de Soch[a] Regis j. car. In Siwaldebia Comes Lercestrie
vj. car. In Cosinton[e] Comes Cestrie vj. car. In Horton[e]
Robertus de Jor' ij. car.[18]
_H[undredum] de Turstanestona_.--In eadem villa Thomas x. car.
et iij. virg. Ibidem Roger de Moubray xiiij. bov. In Wileges
ij. car. de eodem feudo. In Rachedal[e] vj. car. de eodem
feudo. In Houbia vij. car. et j. virg. de feodo Thome. Ibidem
de feodo Albemarl' iiij. car. et iij. virg.[19]
_H[undredum] de tunga_.--In eadem villa cum appendiciis xij.
car. de feodo Roberti de ferr[ariis]. In Caggworth Comes
Cestrie xv. car. In Wrdintona iij. car. secundum cartam Regis
et s[uper] dictum[20] hominum hundredi xij. car.[21]
_H[undredum] de[22] Luaeb'_.--In eadem villa j. H[ida] et
xiij. car. cum appendiciis. In cherlega vj. car. et dim. In
Dixeleia et in Geroldon et in Thorp ix. car. In Hantirna est
dim. H[ida].[23]
_H[undredum] de Beltona_.--In eadem villa Normannus de
Verdon vj. car. In Overton[e] Ricardus Basset iiij. car. In
Wrdinton[e] j. car. In alia Overton[e] Robertus de ferr[ariis]
ij. car., ibidem Comes Cestrie j. car. In Stanton Robertus de
ferr[ariis] ij. car. Ibidem Normannus de Verdon iij. car. In
Dailescroft Philippus de Bello Campo Maresc[allus] j. car. In
Doninton Comes Cestrie cum appendiciis xxij. car. et dim. In
Witewic Comes Lercestrie j. car. et dim. Ibidem Robertus de
ferr[ariis] j. car. et dim.[24]
_H[undredum] de Dichesword_.--In eadem villa Robertus de
ferr[ariis] vj. car. et j. virg. Comes cestrie vj. car. Ibidem
Comes iij. car. et dim. Normannus de Verdon j. car. et ij.
bov. In Hanthirn[e] ix. car. In Widesers iij. car. Willelmi
de Gresel[e]. Idem in Lintona j. car. In blakefordeb[ia] Comes
Lercestriæ iij. car. In Culverteb[ia] ij. car. et Robertus de
ferr[ariis] j. car. In Wodete Robertus de ferr[ariis] j. car.
et dim. In Alton[e] Comes Lercestriæ j. car. et dim. Idem in
Raveneston[e] j. virg. et dim. Ibidem Comes Cestrie iij. virg.
et dim. Et Comes War' ij. car. In Suipestona Hugo vic[ecomes]
ij. car.[25]
_H[undredum] de Seyla_.--In eadem villa Robertus de
ferr[ariis] vij. car. In alia Seyla idem vj. car. Idem in
Bocthorp j. car. Idem in appelbia j. car. et j. bov. Idem in
Strecton j. car. et dim. Idem in Durantestorp ij. car. quas
Walkelinus tenet. Idem in Swepeston[e] vj. car. In Neuton ij.
car. In Actorp dim. car. In Chilteston Comes cestrie j. car.
Idem in Alpelbia dim. car. In Assebia Comes Lercestriæ iij.
car. In Pakinton Hugo Vicecomes v. car. Idem in Osgodesthorp
dim. car. In scegla Henricus de Alben[eio] ij. car. que
pertinent ad defencionem de Swepeston[e].[26]
_H[undredum] de Shepesheved_.--In eadem villa Comes [ ][27]
et in wacthon[e] et in Lokinton et in Aminton ij. h[idas] et
dim. et iiij. car. In Wacton[e] Normannus de Verdon ij. car. et
ij. bov.[28]
FRAMELAUND WAP'
_H[undredum] de caleverton[e]_.--In eadem villa xij. car.
de feodo Willelmi de Alben[eio]. In Someredebia Robertus de
ferr[ariis] v. car. Ibidem Roger de Moubray vj. car. Ibidem
Robertus Marm[ion] iij. car. et in Burg[o] iij. car. In Dalbia
Robertus de ferr[ariis] v. car. et j. bov. de feodo tessun.
Ibidem Roger de Moubray xv. bov. In Wittok Walt[erus] de bello
campo j. car. et dim. In Gillethorp Roger de Moubray iij. car.
Idem in Burg[o] j. car. In Neubold Robertus de ferr[ariis] j.
car. et dim.[29]
_H[undredum] de Estwell_.--In eadem villa Robertus de
ferr[ariis] ij. car. Ibidem Roger de Moubray vj. car. Robertus
de insula iiij. car. In aitona idem Robertus iij. car. et ij.
bov. Et de Belvero dim. car. et dim. bov. Ibidem Robertus
de insula viij. car. et iij. bov. et dim. In Branteston[e]
Episcopus Lincolniensis vij. car. et dim. Robertus de Insula
iiij. car. et dim.[30]
_H[undredum] de Melton[e]_.--In eadem villa Roger de Moubray
xv. car. Idem in Burton[e] xj. car. et vij. bov. Et de Honore
blide iij. car. Robertus de ferr[ariis] ix. bov. In Fredebia
ix. car. et ij. bov. et dim.[31]
_H[undredum] de Chirchebia_.--In eadem villa Roger de Moubray
xxiiij. car. Idem in chetlebia viiij. car. In Sixtenebia iiij.
car. et dim. de eodem feudo. Ibidem Rex D[avid] iiij. car. et
dim. In alebia ix. car. de feudo Rogeri. Ibidem Rex David iij.
car.[32]
_H[undredum] de Droctona_.--In eadem villa Comes de Moretonio
xij. car. In thorp Comes Lercestriæ xij. car. In brantingbia
vj. car. de eodem feodo. In Ringolfestorp ij. car. et ij. bov.
de eodem feodo. Robertus de ferrer[iis] j. car. et vj. bov.
In Wyfordebia iiij. car. et dim. de blide. Roger de Moubray
j. car. et dim. In chetelby et Holewell[e] ix. car. de feodo
Basset. Episcopus Lincolniensis j. car.[33]
_H[undredum] de Scaldeford_.--In eadem villa Rex David xj.
car. et dim. Ricardus Basset dim. car. In Goutebia Roger de
Moubray vj. car. In Knipton Comes de Moriton[io] viij. car. et
vi. bov., et Willelmus de Alben[eio] iij. car. et ij. bov.[34]
_H[undredum] de[35] Waltham_.--In eadem villa Comes Lercestriæ
xvj. car. et dim. Alanus de creon ij. car. et dim. In
Stonesbia idem Alanus viij. car. In Caston Robertus de
ferr[ariis] ix. car.[36]
_H[undredum] de Barcheston_.--In eadem villa Willelmus de
Alben[eio] xxiij. car. G. Camerarius j. car. In Saltebia
et berthaldebia xx. car. de feodo Peuerelli. In Garthorp
Willelmus Mesch[in] vij. car.[37]
_H[undredum] de Sproxcheston[e]_.--In eadem villa Rex David
viij. car. Alanus de Creon ij. car. Ibidem filius Gilberti ij.
car. In Bucheminest[re] et in Seustern[e] ix. car. et dim. de
feodo Episcopi Lincolniensis. Ibidem Robertus de ferer[iis]
dim. car. Willelmus Mesch[in] v. car. In Sessebia Rex David
iij. car. Robertus de ferrer[iis] iij. car.[38]
_H[undredum] de Claxton[e]_.--In eadem villa xvi. car. et dim.
et dim. bov. Ibidem Henricus Tuchet xj. car. j. bov. minus. In
Houwes de feodo de Beluer vij. car. et dim.[39]
_H[undredum] de Stapelford_.--In eadem villa x. car. de feodo
Roberti de ferrer[iis]. In Wymundeham et in thorp xxvij. car.
et dim. de eodem feodo. Ricardus Basset iij. car. et dim.[40]
_H[undredum] de Herdebia_.--In eadem villa et in plungar xvij.
car. de feodo Willelmi de Alben[eio]. Ibidem Ricardus Basset
j. car. In Stacthirn Willelmus de Alben[eio] viij. car. et
dim. Ibidem Roger de Moubray viij. car. Robertus de Insula j.
car. et dim.[41]
_H[undredum] de Botlesford_.--In eadem villa et Moston et
Normanton[e] Willelmus de Alben[eio] xxxij. car. Ibidem Agnes
de Gaunt ij. car. In Moston[e] Robertus de Insula j. car. et
dim.[42]
_[H]undredum de crocstona_.--In eadem villa Comes Maur[itonii]
xxiiij. car. In Harestan idem Comes xij. car.'[43] ...
[FINIS.]
The work of identifying the places named in this survey is difficult,
not only from the corruption of the text, but also from the fact
that many of them are only obscure names, needing, for their perfect
ascertainment, local knowledge. A careful study of the map will show
that these Leicestershire 'Hundreds', unlike those to which we are
accustomed in the hidated districts, were strangely intermingled among
themselves. Another of their peculiarities is that just as we find
the reconquered 'shires' named each after its capital town, so these
'Hundreds' were each named after one of their Vills instead of after
some natural object--probably the meeting-place of the primitive
moot[44]--as so often in the south of England.
It is important to observe that, except for this survey, we should
not even have known of the existence of these 'Hundreds' in
Leicestershire. And when we compare the entry on our roll--'Framelaund
Wap'. Hundredum de Calevertone. In eadem villa xii. car.'--with that
in the Derbyshire Domesday: 'Morelestan Wepentac. Salle Hundred. In
Salle et Draicot et Opewelle ... xii. car.' (i. 273), it is scarcely
possible to resist the conclusion that, in this passage relating to
Sawley, divided only by a river from Leicestershire, we have a glimpse
of the same system existing in Derbyshire also. That is to say,
that Sawley was not a 'Hundred' of twelve carucates,[45] as has been
suggested,[46] but was the _caput_ of a 'Hundred' similar to those
of Leicestershire. I believe, indeed, that in our survey we see the
system on which these counties were surveyed in 1086. The original
returns will have been drawn up Wapentake by Wapentake, and 'Hundred'
by 'Hundred'. But when transcribed into Domesday Book the entries were
arranged under Wapentakes alone, and the headings of the 'Hundreds'
omitted. In the case of Sawley alone the heading slipped in,
immediately preceding the entry of the Manor, as it must have done
on the original return. It is thus that I account for the mention of
'leets' slipping into the Norfolk Domesday, in two cases, from the
original return;[47] just as, in Cambridgeshire, the total assessments
of Impington and Chatteris have slipped, from the original returns,
into the _Inq. Eliensis_,[48] though duly omitted in Domesday Book.
One more point should be noticed. The somewhat mysterious entry of
land belonging 'ad defensionem de Swepestone' is at once made clear
when we compare it with that 'Defensio x. acrarum', to which I have
appealed[49] in discussing 'Wara', and which, like the 'wered' of the
Northamptonshire geld-roll,[50] refers to assessment for Danegeld.
We will now collate some of our 'Hundreds' with the relative entries
in Domesday.
LODINGTON HUNDRED
(1086) (1124-29)
_Skeffington_
Rex 12 Norman de Verdon 8-1/2
Richard Basset 3-1/2
_Tugby_
Rex 6 Norman de Verdon 6
_Allexton_
Countess Judith 6 King David's fee 5-1/4
Rex 3/4
_Lodington_
Robert de Buci 12 Richard Basset 12
_Twyford_
Rex 4-1/2 Richard de Rullos 8-3/4
_Thorpe Sackville_
Henry de Ferrers 8-3/4
_East Norton_
[?Rex 3] [Richard Basset] 1-1/4
Robert dispensator 4-1/2 Walter de Beauchamp 6
Geoffrey de la Guerche 4-1/2 Roger de Mowbray 4-3/4
------- ------
12 12
TILTON HUNDRED
_Tilton_
Rex 2 Rex 1-3/4
Robert Despencer 3 Walter de Beauchamp 3
Archbishop of York 1 Archbishop 1
--------- --------
6 5-3/4
_Newton Burdet_
Geoffrey de la Guerche 6 Walter de Beauchamp 4
Hubert _serviens_ 1/2 Roger de Mowbray 8
_Loseby_
Countess Judith 9 King David 12
_Whadborough_
Rex 3 Rex 4
_Halsted_
Rex 2-3/4 Norman de Verdon 2-3/4
BEBY HUNDRED
_Beby_
Crowland Abbey 10-1/2 Crowland Abbey 12
_Keyham_
Rex 4 Rex 4
_Hungerton_ 9
_Sileby_
Hugh de Grantmesnil 8-1/2 Earl of Leicester 9-13/16
Earl of Chester 3
Rex 3-1/4 Richard Basset 2
Robert de Ferrers 1-1/4
BARKBY HUNDRED
_Barkby_[51]
Robert de Todeni 18 'Belvoir' 5
_Hambleton_
'Belvoir' 6
_Barkby Thorpe_
Adeliza de Grentmesnil 1-1/2 Earl of Leicester 1-1/2
_Thurmaston_
Hugh de Grentmesnil 10
{Canons [of St Mary de
Hugh de Grentmesnil 3-1/2 {Castro, Leicester][52] 3
_Croxton_
Rex 2-3/16
_Newbold Folvile_
Henry de Ferrers 1 Robert de Ferrers 1-1/2
_Barnesby_
Rex 4-5/8 Rex 3-1/16
Earl of Leicester 1-5/8
_Gaddesby_
Rex 8-3/8 Rex 8-9/16
Rex 1 Bishop of Lincoln 1
Countess Judith 2 Earl of Leicester 1-1/16
Richard Basset 1/2
King David 2
HUNDRED OF ASHBY
_Ashby Folvile_
Countess Judith 4[53] King David 5
Countess Judith 1-1/2 Hugh of Leicester 1
Humfrey _camerarius_ 1[54]
_Humberston_
Hugh de Grentmesnil? Roger de Ramis 8
Walter de Mustere 1
Ralf de Martinwast 3
_Belgrave_
Hugh de Grentmesnil 7 Earl of Leicester 12
Adeliza de Grentmesnil 1
_Thurmaston_
Earl of Leicester [10]
_Burstall_
Hugh de Grentmesnil 6 Earl of Leicester 9
_Wanlip_
'In manu Regis' 4 Earl of Leicester 7
Hugh de Grentmesnil 2 Earl of Leicester 6[55]
REARSBY HUNDRED
_Reresby_
Robert de Buci 1-3/4 Richard Basset 5
Rex 1-7/8 Earl of Chester 2-1/2
Countess Judith 2-1/2 King David 4-1/2
_Queneborough_
Geoffrey de la Guerche 9 'Belvoir' 12
_Syston_
Hugh de Grentmesnil 9 Earl of Leicester 12
_Brooksby_
Earl of Chester 2 Earl of Chester 5
Countess Judith 3/4 King David 1
_Quenby_
Robert de Todeni 2 'Belvoir' 6
Robert de Todeni (in
South Croxton) 4
_Thurcaston_
Hugh de Grentmesnil 9 Earls [of Leicester] 8
_Cropston_
_Rothley_
Rex 5 Rex 5
DALBY HUNDRED
_Great Dalby_
Bishop of Lincoln 8 Bishop of Lincoln 9-1/2
Robert de Buci 1 Ralf Basset 1-3/8
Humfrey Cam. 1 William 'Gam' 1
_Frisby_
Rex (Barrow) 1 Earl of Chester 4
Rex 8 Rex 8
_Retherby_
Rex (Barrow) 2-3/4 Earl of Chester 6
_Ashfordby_
Rex (Rothley) 12 Earl of Leicester 13
Radulfus Framen 3-1/2
_Wartnaby_
Rex 6 Rex 6
HUNDRED OF DALBY ON THE WOLDS
_Dalby on the Wolds_
Ralf fitz Hubert 9 Edward of Salisbury 9
Earl of Leicester 3
_Grimston_
Rex 2-13/16 Rex 2-13/16
Robert de Buci 3 Richard Basset 3
_Saxelby_
Rex 1 Rex 1
Earl of Leicester 5
_Sileby_
Hugh de Grentmesnil 8-1/2 Earl of Leicester 6
_Cossington_
Earl of Chester 6 Earl of Chester 6
_Hoton_
Robert de Lorz 4 Robert de Jor' 2
_Thrussington_
Guy de Raimbercurt 12 Thomas 10-1/4?
Guy de Raimbercurt [18] Roger de Mowbray 1-3/4?
'_Wilges_'
Robert de Buci 2 Roger de Mowbray 2
_Ragdale_
Robert de Buci 6 Roger de Mowbray 6
_Hoby_
Thomas 7-1/4
Dru de Bevrere 4-1/4 'Albemarle' 4-3/4
HUNDRED OF TONG
_Tong_
Henry de Ferrers 21-1/2 Robert de Ferrers 12
_Kegworth_
Earl of Chester 15 Earl of Chester 15
_Worthington_
Henry de Ferrers 4 3 or 12
In the case of this last Hundred our survey records a conflict of
testimony and, in so doing, mentions incidentally (as would Domesday)
the witness of the Hundred-court. Henry de Ferrers in the Domesday
Survey, is credited with 21-1/2 car. in 'Tunge cum omnibus
appendiciis', and with four in 'Werditone' (i. 233). But here Tong,
'cum appendiciis', is reckoned at twelve car. only. There remained,
therefore, to be accounted for a large balance of car., and these
the men of the Hundred assigned to his Manor of Worthington. It
is desirable to analyse some of the fiefs in our survey, and, by
comparison with Domesday, to trace their descent or origin.
_Roger de Mowbray's fief_
(1124-29) (1086)
car [Geoffrey de la Guerche]
Picwell and Lucerthorp 15 Pichewelle and Luvestorp 14
East Norton 4-3/4 East Norton 4-1/2
Newton Burdet 8 Newton Burdet 6
Thrussington 1-3/4
[Robert de Buci]
Wileges 2 Wilges 2
Rachedale 6 Ragendele 6
[Geoffrey de la Guerche]
Somerby 6 Dalby 4
Dalby 1-7/8 Dalby 2-1/2
Gillethorp 3 Godtorp 3-1/2
Burg 1 Burg 1
Eastwell 6 Eastwell 6
Melton 15 Melton
Burton 11-7/8 Burton 11-7/8
[Fredebie 9-5/16 Fredebie 10]
Chirchebia 24 Cherchebi (17 + 7) 24
Kettleby 9(?) Chettlebi 8
Sixtenebia 4-1/2 Sistenebi (2-1/2 + 2) 4-1/2
Alebia 9 Alebia 7-3/4
Wyfordebia 1-1/2 Wordebia 1-1/2
Goutebi 6 Goutebi 6
Stacthirn 8 Stachetone 8-1/4
_Anschitel's fief_
car car
Scanketon' 2 Scantone 2 Robert de Veci.
Chiburd 12 Chiborne 12 Robert de Veci.
_Edward of Salisbury's fief_
Dalby on the }
Wolds } 9 Dalbi 9 Ralf fitz Hubert.
_William Meschin's fief_
Seustern 5 Seustern 5 William Lovet.
_Henry de Albini's fief_
Scegla 2 Sela 2 Nigel de Albini.
_Gilbert's son's fief_
Sproxcheston 2 Sprotone 2 Godfrey de Cambrai.
_William Chamberlain's fief_
Great Dalby 1 Dalby 1 {Hunfridus Camerarius.
_Thomas's fief_
car car
Thrussington 10-3/4}
Hoby 7-1/4} 18 Thrussington 18 Guy de Raimbercurt.
_Count of Mortain's fief_
Broctone 12 Broctone 12 Rex.
Knipton 8-3/4 Cnipeton 8-3/4 Rex.
Croxton 24 Croxton 24 Rex.
Harestan 12 Horstan 12 Rex.
_Alan de Craon's fief_
Stoneby 8 Stoneby 8 Guy de Craon.
Waltham 2-1/2 Waltham 2-1/2 Guy de Craon.
Sproxton 3 Sproxton 2 Guy de Craon.
_William de Albini's fief_
Cold Overton 12 Cold Overton 12 Dru de Bevrere.
Knipton 3-1/4 Knipton 3-1/4 Robert de Todeni.
Herdebi and
Plungar 17 Herdeby 17 Robert de Todeni.
Stacthirn 8-1/2 Stacthirn 9-3/4 Robert de Todeni.
Bottlesford 32 Bottlesford 24(?) Robert de Todeni.
_Henry Tuchet's fief_
Claxton 10-7/8 Claxton 6 } Robert Hostiarius.
}10-1/2
Howes 4-1/2} Robert Hostiarius
_Richard Basset's fief_
Langton 3-1/4
Chiburd 1
Skeffington 3-1/2 Skeffington 3-1/2 Rex.
Lodington 12 Lodington 12 Robert de Buci.
Sileby 2 Sileby 2-1/4 Rex.
Gaddesby 1/2
Reresby 5 Reresby 1-3/4 Robert de Buci.
Grimstone 3 Grimstone 3 Robert de Buci.
Overton 4 Overton 4 Robert de Buci.
Kettleby and } Holwell 5 }
Holwell } 9 Kettleby 6 } Robert de Buci.
Goatby 6 Goatby 6 Robert de Buci.
Scaldeford Scaldeford 1/2 Robert de Buci.
Wymondham }
and Thorpe } 3-1/2 Wymondham 3-1/2 Robert de Buci.
Hardebi 1 Hertebi 1 Robert de Buci.
The fief of Richard Basset is that of a typical man, of one of those
trusted officials who flourished under Henry I. We know not the fate
of Robert de Buci, a Domesday baron in Leicestershire and Northants;
but as two, at least, of his Leicestershire estates passed, we have
seen, to Mowbray, it was, we may infer, forfeiture or escheat that
brought his fief into the king's hands, and enabled him to divide it
among his own favourites. We learn from the evidence to which I am
coming that the eight carucates in Swinford and Walcote, and the two
in little Ashby which Robert de Buci had held in 1086, were in the
hands of Geoffrey Ridel ninety years later. We may then infer, though
they are not included in the sphere of our survey, that they had been
obtained, like the rest, by Basset _temp._ Hen. I.[56]
The elaborate fine made at Leicester, June 31, 1176,[57] has an
important bearing on the Bassets' Leicestershire possessions. Not only
does it specify the lands they held at Swinford (with Walcote), Ashby,
and Fleckney, but it mentions their fee of Madeley, Staffordshire. Now
the descent of this Staffordshire fee can be traced by charters on the
same roll.[58] One of these (No. 12) is a confirmation, by Robert
de Stafford, of Madeley to Geoffrey Ridel, to be held as his
'antecessores' had held it. This was Geoffrey, son of Richard Basset,
by Maud Ridel, as is shown by the fact that the first witness to the
charter is Hervey de Stretton, who held two knights' fees of Stafford
in 1166,[59] and that another is Robert Bagot, who held a quarter of
a fee,[60] while Geoffrey Ridel himself then held one, namely,
Madeley.[61] But the enrolling scribe confused him with his (maternal)
grandfather and namesake (d. 1120), and thus wrongly assigned this
charter to the reign of Henry I, and threw the whole descent into
utter confusion. The right clue is found in a charter of Robert 'de
Toni' (_i.e._ de Stafford), 'conceding' Madeley to Robert 'de Busa'
(_alias_ 'de Busci'), 'per servitium unius militis'.[62] This fee,
therefore, must have come to the Bassets with the rest of the Buci
estates; and we thus learn that this must have been late in the reign
of Henry I, for the names of the witnesses to this charter prove that
it must be subsequent to 1122.[63]
As Robert de Buci was then in possession, it cannot have been, here at
least, till later that Basset succeeded him.
Among the points to be observed in the descent of the above fiefs are
Edward of Salisbury's succession to that of Ralf fitz Hubert,[64]
the appearance of Henry de Albini, founder of the Cainho line, as
successor to Nigel, and the portions of the great Belvoir fief, held
in Domesday by Robert de Todeni, now owned by Robert de L'Isle and
William de Albini 'Brito'. In the midst of great but vanished names,
it is pleasant to meet with one, at least, still surviving in the male
line: William de Gresley, holder of Linton (a Derbyshire hamlet close
to Gresley), had succeeded, there and at 'Widesers', Nigel, a tenant
of Henry de Ferrers in 1086 (D.B., i. 233_b_).[65] In this 'Nigel',
therefore, it would seem, we have Nigel de Stafford, Lord of Drakelow
(D.B., i. 278).
I will close with the names of those who had succeeded the Domesday
tenants-in-chief.
HEIRS
Count of Meulan Earl of Leicester
Earl Aubrey (Escheat)
'Countess' Godgifu
'Countess' Ælfgifu Earl of Chester (Donnington)
Earl of Chester Earl of Chester
Hugh de Grentmesnil Earl of Leicester
Henry de Ferrers Robert de Ferrers
Robert de Todeni William de Albini
Robert de Veci [Anschitil]
Roger de Busli [Honour of Blyth]
{ Walter de Beauchamp
Robert Dispensator { Robert Marmion
{ Henry Tuchet (10-7/8)
Robertus Hostiarius, (10-1/2)
Ralf Mortimer
Ralf fitz Hubert Edward of Salisbury
Guy de Raimbercurt [Thomas]
Guy de Craon Alan de Craon
William Peverel Honour of Peverel
William Buenvaslet Comes War'?
William Loveth Will. Meschin
Geoffrey Alselin
Geoffrey de 'Wirce' [Escheat]
Godfrey de Cambrai the son of Gilbert
Gunfrid de Cioches
Humfrey Camerarius Willelmus Camerarius
Drogo de Bevrere Albemarle
Nigel de Albini Henry de Albini
'Countess' Judith King David
[Footnote 1: Q.R., Misc. Bdle. 558, I.P.R., 8113; Knight's
Fees, Com. Leic.]
[Footnote 2: See pp. 75-6.]
[Footnote 3: MS. 'in'.]
[Footnote 4: Langton, Thorpe Langton, Tur Langton, Shangton.]
[Footnote 5: Kibworth, Burton Overy, Carlton Curlieu.]
[Footnote 6: Knossington, Owston, Picwell and Leesthorpe,
Newbold, Burrow, Baggrave, Marefield.]
[Footnote 7: Skeffington, Allexton, Thorpe and Twyford, East
Norton.]
[Footnote 8: MS. 'in'.]
[Footnote 9: MS. 'Archid'.]
[Footnote 10: Tilton, Loseby, Whadborough, Halstead.]
[Footnote 11: Interlined.]
[Footnote 12: Beeby, Keyham, Hungerton, [? Sileby].]
[Footnote 13: MS. injured here.]
[Footnote 14: Barkby, Hambleton, Thorpe, Thurmaston, South
Croxton, Barsby, Gaddesby.]
[Footnote 15: Ashby, Humberstone, Belgrave, Thurmaston,
Birstall, Wanlip, Ansty.]
[Footnote 16: Rearsby, Queensborough, Syston, Brooksby,
Rothley, Thurcaston, Cropston.]
[Footnote 17: Great Dalby, Frisby, Rotherby, Asfordby,
Wartnaby.]
[Footnote 18: Dalby on the Wolds, Grimston, Saxelby, Sileby,
Cossington, Hoton.]
[Footnote 19: Thrussington, Ragdale, Hoby.]
[Footnote 20: MS. illegible.]
[Footnote 21: Tong, Kegworth, Worthington.]
[Footnote 22: MS. 'in'.]
[Footnote 23: Loughborough, Charley, Dishley, Garendon,
Thorpe, Hathern.]
[Footnote 24: Belton, [? Coleorton], Worthington, Staunton
Harold, Castle Donington, Whitwick.]
[Footnote 25: Diseworth, Hathern, Linton (Derby), Blackfordby,
Ravenstone, Snibston.]
[Footnote 26: Seal (Nether and Over), Bogthorpe, Appleby,
Stretton on le Field, Donisthorpe, Swepston, Oakthorpe, Ashby,
Pakington, Osgathorpe.]
[Footnote 27: Blank in MS.]
[Footnote 28: Sheepshed, Whatton, Lockington.]
[Footnote 29: Cold Overton, Somerby, Burrow, Dalby, Withcote,
Newbold.]
[Footnote 30: Eastwell, Eaton, Branston.]
[Footnote 31: Melton Mowbray, Burton Lazars, Freeby.]
[Footnote 32: Kirby Bellars, Abkettleby, Sysonby.]
[Footnote 33: Nether Broughton, Thorpe, Brentingby, Wyfordby,
Abkettleby, Holwell.]
[Footnote 34: Scalford, Goadby, Knipton.]
[Footnote 35: MS. 'in'.]
[Footnote 36: Waltham, Stonesby, Coston.]
[Footnote 37: Barkstone, Saltby, [? Bescoby], Garthorpe.]
[Footnote 38: Sproxton, Seustern, Buckminster, Saxby.]
[Footnote 39: Clawson, Hose.]
[Footnote 40: Stapleford, Wymondham, Edmondthorpe.]
[Footnote 41: Harby, Plungar, Stathern.]
[Footnote 42: Bottesford, Muston, Normanton.]
[Footnote 43: Croxton, Harston.]
[Footnote 44: See the valuable list, for Dorset, in Mr Eyton's
_Key to Domesday_, p. 143.]
[Footnote 45: The Lincolnshire 'Hundred'.]
[Footnote 46: Waters' _Survey of Lindsey_, p. 5; _Eng. Hist.
Rev._, v. 100; _supra_, p. 73.]
[Footnote 47: _Supra_, p. 90.]
[Footnote 48: Ed. Hamilton, pp. 113, 116.]
[Footnote 49: _Supra_, p. 101.]
[Footnote 50: _Supra_, p. 127.]
[Footnote 51: Including Hambleton and Hungerton (6) in
Domesday.]
[Footnote 52: By grant of Robert, Count of Meulan.]
[Footnote 53: In Newbold.]
[Footnote 54: In Barnsby.]
[Footnote 55: Given (as 24 virgates) to Leicester Abbey.]
[Footnote 56: See also _supra_, p. 130.]
[Footnote 57: _Infra_, p. 388.] (See T.N. at end)
[Footnote 58: _Sloane Cart._, xxxi. 4.]
[Footnote 59: _Liber Rubeus_, Ed. Hall, p. 266.]
[Footnote 60: _Ibid._, p. 268.]
[Footnote 61: _Ibid._]
[Footnote 62: _Sloane_, xxxi. 4, No. 10.]
[Footnote 63: They are 'Nigellus de Aubeni, Ran[ulfus] Comes
Cestrie, Galfridus Cancellarius, Simon decanus Lincolnie,
Willelmus fil' Reg', Thomas de Sancto Johanne, Willelmus
de Aubeny Brito, Unfridus de Bohun et alii.' The Dean's
occurrence so late is worth noting.]
[Footnote 64: Compare 'The Barons of Criche' (_Academy_, June
1885).]
[Footnote 65: That William was his son is proved by the
Ferrers _Carta_ (1166), which enters 'Willelmus filius
Nigelli' as the tenant of four fees under Henry I, and as
succeeded, in 1166, by his son Robert.]
THE NORTHAMPTONSHIRE SURVEY
(HEN. I-HEN. II)
This 'Hydarium' of Northamptonshire is found in a Peterborough
Cartulary (Cott. MS. Vesp. E. 22, fo. 94 _et seq._). It is drawn up
Hundred by Hundred, like the surveys of Leicestershire and of Lindsey,
and is, therefore, probably connected with the assessment of Danegeld.
Although it is of special value for reconstituting the Domesday Vills,
the assessment it records so often varies from that which is found in
Domesday that we cannot institute a close comparison. The introduction
of a 'parva virgata' further complicates the reckoning. That the
original document was written on a roll is shown by the use of the
phrase 'per alium rotulum'. The statement on fo. 97_b_ that
there ought, at one place, to be half a hide more 'per rotulos
Wyncestr[ie]', would seem to refer to Domesday; but on the next page
we read:
In Pytesle Abbas de Burgo v. hid. [et] dim. set tamen in
Rotulis Wyncestr[ie] vi. hid. et iii. parvas virgatas.
Since Domesday records this holding as 'v. hid. et una virgata terræ',
the reference (if the text of the survey is right) must clearly be to
some other record preserved in the national treasury.
I append about a fifth of the Survey as a specimen of the whole.
HOKESLAWE
Twywell. Albr[icus] camerar[ius] ii. hidas de feudo Abbatis
de Thorneya. Ibidem de feudo Comitis David. Ibidem de feudo
Abbatis Burgi i. magnam virgatam.
In Slipton i. hidam et unam virgatam de feudo Will'i de Corcy.
Ibidem Ricardus filius Hugonis ii. partes unius hidæ de feudo
Burgi. Ibidem Rogerus nepos Abbatis tertiam partem unius hidæ
de eodem feudo.
In Suburc [Sudboro'] ii. hidas [et] dim. de feudo
Westmonaster'.
In Lofwyc [Luffwick] Th----[1] i. hidam et unam virgatam de
feudo de Deneford. Ibidem Radulfus Fleming i. virgatam et
dim. de feudo Comitis David. Ibidem Wydo frater ejus i. magnam
virgatam de feudo de Thorneya.
In Drayton Albr[icus] camerar[ius] dimidiam hidam de feudo
R[egis].
In Yslep [Islip] idem Albri[cus] de feudo Regis. Ibidem
iiii^{or.} sokemanni Regis i. hidam de feudo Westmonaster'.
In Audewyncle [Aldwinkle] Abbas de Burgo iiii. hidas [et]
dimidiam quas Ascelinus de Waterville tenet. Ibidem Galfridus
de Glynton i. magnam virgatam de feudo Glovernie pertinens ad
Barton. Ibidem Ricardus filius Wydonis iii. hidas dim. virg.
minus de feudo Regine [_sic_].
Item in Benifeld [Benefield] Willelmus le Lisurs iii. magnas
virg. de feudo Regis.
In Bernewelle [Barnwell] Robertus de ferariis vi. hidas et i.
magnam virg. de feudo Regis. Ibidem Reginaldus le Moyne vi.
hidas de feudo de Rammeseye.
In Lilleford Willelmus Olyfart v. hidas de feudo Regis Scotie.
NAUEFORD
In Tytheni [? Tichmarsh] Robertus de Ferr[ers] x. hid. Ibidem
Ascelinus de Waterville iii. hid. et i. virg. et tres partes
dim. hid. de Burgo.
In Thrapston Radulfus fil. Oger ii. hid. et i. virg. de feudo
de Brunne. Ibidem Robertus filius Edelinæ i. hid. et i. virg.
de feudo de Clare.
In Torpe et Achirche Ascelinus de Waterville vi. hid. [et]
dim. de feudo Burgi.
In Clopton Walterus i. hid. et i. virg. de feudo Regis. Ibidem
iii. hid. [et] dim. de feudo Burgi. Ibidem Ascelinus dim. hid.
de feudo Burgi.
Wadenhowe [Wadenhoe]. Albricus de Ver ii. hid. et i. virg. de
feudo Regis David. Ibidem Wymunt de Stok[e] i. virg. de feudo
Burgi. Ibidem Rogerus Infans ii. parvas virg. de eodem feudo.
Ibidem Wivienus de Chirchefelde dim. hid. de eodem feudo.
Ibidem Galfridus de Gonthorp ii. hid. de eodem feudo. In
Catteworthe i. hid. [et] dim. de feudo Burgi.
POKEBROC
In Pokebroc Robertus de Cauz i. hid. et. i. virg. de feudo
Regis. Ibidem Walterus de Clopton ii. hid. et dim. de feudo
Burgi. Ibidem Rogerus Marmium i. hid. et i. virg. de eodem
feudo.
In Armeston [Armston] de Burgelay ii. hid. [et] dim. de eodem
feudo. Ibidem Turkil i. hid. de eodem feudo. Ibidem Wydo
Maufee i. hid. de eodem feudo. Ibidem Galfridus de Gunthorp
ii. partes dim. hid. de eodem feudo. Ibidem Tedrik' iii.
partes de dim. hid. de eodem feudo.
In Pappele [Papley] i. hid.
In Lillington [Lutton] i. hid.
In Hennington Berengerus le Moyne ii. hid. [et] dim. de feudo
de Rammes[eye]. Ibidem Ricardus filius Gilberti i. hid. et i.
virg. et dim. de feodo Burgi. Ibidem Wydo Maufe dim. hid. et
dim. virg. de eodem feodo. Ibidem Reginaldus le Moyne dim.
hid. et dim. virg. de eodem feodo.
In Kynesthorp [Kingsthorp] Walterus de Lodington i. hid. et i.
virg. de feodo Burgi. Ibidem Willelmus de Chirchetot dim. hid.
de feodo Regis.
In Therninge [Thurning] Rogerus Marmioun iii. parvas virg. de
feodo Burgi.
In Ayston [Ashton] Abbas de Burgo iiii. hid. in dominico.
Ibidem Papilun dim. hid. de eodem feodo. Ibidem Leuenoth dim.
hid. de eodem feodo.
In Undele [Oundle] Abbas in dominico vi. hid. Ibidem Vivien i.
parvam virg.[2]
DUO HUNDRED DE NASSO
In Stinton Willelmus de Lisurs ii. hid.
In Bernak Fulco paynel iii. hid.[3]
In Wirthorpe Abbas Croylaund ii. hid. Ibidem de feodo Eudonis
Dapiferi i. virg.
In Eston [Easton] Simon i. hid. [et] dim.
In Peychirche [Peakirk]. In Etton. In Northburgo dim. virg.
In dominico Abbatis de Burgo sancti Petri lxx. hid. et iii.
virg. et dim.
HUNDRED DE SUTTON
In eadem villa [King's Sutton] Dominus Rex habit in dominico
iiii. hid.
In eadem villa Willelmus de Quency i. hid. [et] dim. et parvam
virg. terre de Comitat[u] Leycestr[ie]. Ibidem Alfredus viii.
parvas virg. de Gilberto de Pinkeny. Ibidem Paganus i. hid.
et dim. et i. parvam virg. de feodo Comit[is] Leycestri[ie],
Robertus filius Osberti tenuit.
In Evenle i. hid. et i. parvam virg. de feodo Comit[is]
Leyc[estrie].
In Preston dim. hid. de feodo Comit[is] Leyc[estrie].
In Croulton [Croughton] iiii{^or.} parvas virg. de feodo
Comit[is] Leyc[estrie]. Ibidem Sewar' i. hid. et ii. parvas
virg. de feodo Leyc[estrie]. Ibidem Brien filius Comitis i.
hid. [et] dim. et ii. parvas virg. de feodo de Walinford.
In Neubottle Regis [_sic_] de Reynes vi. hid. et i. parvam
virg. de feodo Comitis Leyc[estrie], Willelmus de Lepyn
tenuit.
In furningho [Farningho] iiii. hid. de feodo Comitis
Leyc[estrie].
In Cherlington [Charlton] Maynardus i. hid. [et] dim. et i.
parvam virg. Ibidem Simon Chendut i. hid. [et] dim. de feodo
de Berkamstede et i. parvam virg. Ibidem Odo dapifer viii.
parvas virg. de feodo de Colescestra.
In Gremesbir' [Grimsbury] Aunsel' de Chokes ii. hid. et iiii.
parvas virg. scil. quarta pars ii. hid.
In Middleton Willelmus Me[s]chin i. hid. et dim. et i. parvam
virg. de feodo Willelmi de Curcy.
In alia Middleton [Middleton Chenduit] Simon Chendut ii. hid.
de feodo de Berkamstede.
In Thayniford [Thenford] Mainfenn de Walrentone i. hid. Ibidem
Robertus Basset i. hid. de feodo de Walingford.
In Ayno [Aynho] Willelmus de Mandeville iii. hid.
In Middelton monachi de sancto Eu'ald[4] ii. hid.
In Walton i. hid. cum ii. virg. in Sutton quas Suouild tenuit.
In Gildeby i. hid. et vii. parvas virg. de feodo de Mortal'
[_sic_].
HUNDRED DE ALBODESTOWE
In Chacombe iiii. hid. de feodo Episc. Lincoln.
In Evenle ii. hid. et [_sic_] i. parvam virg. minus quas Alouf
de Merke tenuit.
In Thorpe [Thorpe-Mandeville] ii. hid.
In Stanes [Stene] Gilbertus de Pinkeny ii. hid.
In Colewyth [Culworth] Willelmus ii. hid. et iiii. parvas
virg. Ibidem Otuer i. hid.
In Stotebyr[e] [Stotesbery] ii. hid. quas monachi Norht'[5]
tenent.
In Rodestone [Radston] ii. hid. de feodo Comitis Cestr[ie].
In Wytefeld [Whitfield] Gilbertus de Monte ii. hid. et ii.
virg. in dominico.
In Merston [Merston St Lawrence] Radulfus Murdac iiii. hid. de
feodo Comitis Leyc[estrie].
In Siresham Thomas Sorel i. hid. [et] dim. Ibidem Comes
Leyc[estrie] i. parvam virg. Ibidem Gilo dim. hid. Ibidem
Willelmus filius Alui' [? Alan] iiii. parvas virg.
In Helmendene [Helmedon] Willelmus de Torewelle iiii. hid. de
feodo Comitis Leyc[estrie].
In Chelverdescote dim. hid. Idem. Comes Leyc[estrie].
In Brackle et Hausho [Hawes] idem Comes vii. hid. [et] dim.
HUNDRED DE WARDON
In Wardon Ricardus foliot[6] ii. hid. [et] dim. et i. magnam
virg., scilicet quarta pars i. militis de feodo Regis in
capite.
In Estone [Aston] et Apeltreya [Apeltre] Willelmus de Bolonia
vii. hid. de feodo Comitis de Mandeville.
In Bottolendon [Boddington] Fulco Paynel[7] ii. hid. una ex
illis de feodo Cestr[ie]. Ibidem Willelmus Meschin i. hid.
Ibidem i. hid. de feodo Episcopi Lincoln.
The only writer, it would seem, who has used this important survey is
Bridges, who refers to it throughout in his _Northamptonshire_ as of
the time of 'Henry II'. A good instance of the confusion caused by
this assumption is seen in the remarks of Bridges as to Barnack (ii.
491), where he is puzzled by our record, giving as its lord, not
Gervase Paynell, but Fulc Paynell (who was really his grandfather).
To refute his conclusion, it is sufficient to refer to the first name
entered--that of 'Albricus Camerarius'. This was no other than Aubrey
de Vere, a trusted minister of Henry I, who was made by him
Great Chamberlain in 1133, and who was slain in May 1141.[8] His
Northamptonshire estate descended to his younger son, Robert, who,
as 'Robertus filius Albrici Camerarii', made his return as a
Northamptonshire 'baron' in 1166.[9] There can, therefore, be no
confusion between Aubrey the Chamberlain (d. 1141) and his eldest son
and namesake. Yet if, from the occurrence of his name, we pronounced
the date of this survey to be 1133-41, we should be in error. There
are names belonging to an earlier, as to a later, date than this.
Among the earliest are 'Ricardus filius Wydonis', the son and
successor of Guy de Raimbercurt, a great Domesday tenant-in-chief;
Walter fitz Winemar, whose father was both a tenant _in capite_ and
under-tenant in Domesday; and Ralf fitz Oger, whose name illustrates
the value of these early surveys; for the entry proves that Oger, the
Northamptonshire tenant-in-chief (D.B., i. 228), was identical with
Oger 'Brito', the Lord of Bourne, Linc. (i. 364_b_), and that the son
and successor of this Oger was Ralf. We also recognize Roger Marmion,
who was succeeded, under Henry I, by Robert; Nigel de Albini, the
founder of the house of Mowbray; Michael de Hanslape, who died under
Henry I; and 'Robertus filius Regis', who became Earl of Gloucester
_circ._ 1122. Other tenants, living _temp._ Hen. I, are William
de Mandeville,[10] William Meschin, Richard Basset, Viel (Vitalis)
Engaine, Baldwin fitz Gilbert, and Brian fitz Count. As for Ascelin
de Waterville and Alouf de Merke, they are found as under-tenants in
Domesday itself. On the other hand, such a name as 'Comes Warenn de
Morteyn' points to the latter years of Stephen's reign, or to the
early days of that of Henry II; while the mention of the earldoms of
Arundel, Ferrers (Derby) and Essex preclude, of course, an earlier
date than 1140.
After careful examination, I propound the solution that this survey
was originally made under Henry I, and was subsequently corrected here
and there, to bring the entries up to date, down to the days of Henry
II. The late transcriber, to whom we owe the survey in its present
form, has incorporated these additions and corrections in a single
text with the most bewildering result. We trace exactly the same
process in the Red Book of the Exchequer. In the Black Book the
later additions that were made to the barons' _cartae_ of 1166 are
distinguished by the difference in handwriting. But in the Red Book
these interpolations are found transcribed in the same hand as the
genuine original returns. To the uninitiated this has been the cause
of no small confusion. So, too, in the above list of Peterborough
knights (p. 157), the very first entry, made _temp._ Hen. I, has
been carried on by a later hand to the time of Henry III. But there
Stapleton, who transcribed the list, carefully discriminated between
the two.[11] It is probable that the lists of Abingdon knights,
published in the Abingdon cartulary, are rendered untrustworthy in
places from the same cause of error.
The transcriber's ignorance is clearly shown by such a name as 'Comes
Mauricius', which is evidently his erroneous extension of an original
'Comes Maur'', _i.e._ Count of Mortain! So also we are enabled to
detect proof of the theory I advance in such an entry as 'Willelmus
Meschin de feodo Wellelmi de Curcy'; for William de Curcy held,
_temp._ Henry II, the barony held by William Meschin (his maternal
grandfather, according to Stapleton[12]) _temp._ Henry I. Thus, the
original entry will have run 'William Meschin', while a later hand,
in his grandson's days, will have added, by way of substitution, 'De
feodo William de Curcy'.[13] Our transcriber, combining the two, has,
of course, made nonsense of the whole. The same explanation applies to
the entry, 'Robertus filius Regis de feodo Glovernie', where the first
three words represent the original entry, while the others were added,
probably under Henry II, to connect the holding with the fief of [the
Earl of] Gloucester. 'Brien filius Comitis de feodo de Wallin[g]ford'
is another instance in point, and so, I suspect, is 'Odo [_sic_]
dapifer de feodo de Colcestra'; for I take it that the entry was
originally made in the lifetime of Eudo Dapifer (d. 1120) and that, as
his 'honour' passed into the King's hands, the 'de feodo de Colcestra'
was added at a later time.[14]
I have given sufficient of the survey to prove that, in spite of
confusion and corruption, it possesses a real value. If we take, for
instance, Polebrook ('Pochebroc'), a township of five hides, we find
that in Domesday (221_b_, 228) Eustace ('the Sheriff') held a hide and
a quarter _in capite_ and three hides and three quarters as a tenant
of Peterborough Abbey (see p. 138). Now our survey shows us the former
holding in the hands of Robert de Cauz, while the other has been
broken up, two-thirds of it passing to Walter 'de Clopton' and
one-third to Roger Marmion.
Just below, in the case of Hemington, also a Vill of five hides, which
was equally divided between the Abbeys of Peterborough and Ramsey,
we read in Domesday that 'iii. milites' held the Peterborough
half (221_b_). Our survey enables us to distinguish their
tenancies--Richard fitz Gilbert holding a hide and three-eighths; Guy
Maufe, five-eighths of a hide, and Reginald le Moyne the same.[15] But
we can go further and identify the first, from his holding, as the son
of Gilbert Fauvel, the Domesday tenant (see p. 138); while the second
was the heir, and probably the son of Roger Malfed (see p. 132).
One more instance may be given. Our survey reckons Clapton
('Cloptone') as five and a quarter hides, of which 'Walter' held one
and a quarter _in capite_. Here again he had succeeded Eustace, whose
Domesday estate at 'Dotone' (228) ought, as Bridges conjectured, to
have been entered 'Clotone'.[16] On the other hand, his tenancy of the
Abbot at 'Clotone' had been broken up, half a hide of it passing to
Ascelin de Waterville. All this goes to show that the fief of Eustace
the Sheriff did not, as has been alleged, descend to his heirs.
Such an entry as 'In Lilleford, Willelmus Olyfart v. hidas de feudo
Regis Scotiæ' is peculiarly suggestive. It reminds us that David
Holyfard, godson of King David of Scotland, and his protector in
1141, was the founder of the house of Oliphant; and in the family's
possession of Lilford (which was held of the Countess Judith in 1086)
we see the origin of their Scottish connection. William 'Olifard'
was of Northamptonshire, and Hugh 'Olifard' of Huntingdonshire in
1130;[17] while Hugh 'Olifart' (of Stoke) was a knight of the Abbot of
Peterborough in rather earlier days. The earliest member of the house,
however, it would seem, on record is Roger Olifard, who witnessed
(doubtless as his tenant) Earl Simon's charter to St. Andrew's,
Northampton, granted, probably, not later than 1108. This, of course,
is but one of the cases in which the son of a Norman house settled in
Scotland through its King's connection with the earldoms of Huntingdon
and Northampton.
At the close of the survey I have here discussed there is a list
of the knights of Peterborough (fos. 99_b_, 100) holding in
Northamptonshire. It ought to be carefully compared with the one
I have examined above (p. 131), being, it seems probable, about a
generation later. Such entries as these, at least, are conclusive for
the holding to which they refer:
Paganus de Helpestun terciam Roger fil[ius] Pagan[i] in
partem unius militis Helpestun terciam partem i.
(_Chronicon Petroburgense_, militis (Vesp. E. xxii.,
p. 171). fo. 100).
In the same way, Roger Marmion had been succeeded by Robert. This
second list is of special value from the fact that the Peterborough
_carta_ of 1166 gives no particulars of the knights or of their fees.
[Footnote 1: Or Sh----.]
[Footnote 2: See _Chronicon Petroburgense_, p. 158.]
[Footnote 3: See Bridges' _Northamptonshire_, ii. 491.]
[Footnote 4: St. Evroul, Grantmesnil's in Domesday.]
[Footnote 5: St Andrew's Priory, Northampton.]
[Footnote 6: The heir of Guy de Raimbercurt.]
[Footnote 7: Clearly Fulk Paynel the first, Founder of Tykford
Priory.]
[Footnote 8: _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, p. 81.]
[Footnote 9: See also as to Twywell itself. _Mon. Ang._, ii.
603:
'Ego Albericus, regis camerarius terram de Twiwell quamdiu vixero
de domino abbate Guntero et monachis de Thorneya per talem
conventionem teneo adfirmam.'
'Ego Robertus filius Albrici camerarii regis terram de Twiwelle
quamdiu vixero de domino abbate Roberto et monachis de Thorneia
per eandem conventionem in feodi firmam teneo per quam
conventionem pater meus ante me tenuit.'
The Great Chamberlain occurs again on fo. 97_b_, where we
read:
'In alia Adington Albric[us] Camerar[ius], ii. hid. de feodo
Regis.']
[Footnote 10: If, as probable, the son of the Domesday Baron.]
[Footnote 11: _Chronicon Petroburgense_, pp. 168-9.]
[Footnote 12: _Holy Trinity Priory, York_, p. 35.]
[Footnote 13: Since this was written I have come across
a curious confirmation of the hypothesis advanced. In the
Lindsey Survey (Ed. Greenstreet), an entry on fo. 20, in the
original ran: 'Comes Odo [tenet] in Aldobi', above which a
later hand has interlined, 'De feodo Comitis Albemerle'. It
is curious that in the same survey another later
interlineation--'Comes Lincoln'--was, though distinguished by
Hearne, incorporated with the text by Mr Waters (see p. 151).]
[Footnote 14: Eudo was identified with Colchester.]
[Footnote 15: Giving a total of 2-5/8, instead of 2-1/2--a
trivial discrepancy.]
[Footnote 16: It is singular that in Sussex the 'Cloninctune'
of Domesday is, conversely, an error for 'Doninctune'. The
source of the error in both cases must have been the likeness
of 'cl' to 'd' in the original returns, on which these names
cannot have begun with a capital letter.]
[Footnote 17: _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I.]
THE INTRODUCTION OF KNIGHT SERVICE INTO ENGLAND[1]
'The growth of knighthood is a subject on which the greatest
obscurity prevails; and the most probable explanation of its
existence in England, the theory that it is a translation into
Norman forms of the thegnage of the Anglo-Saxon law, can only
be stated as probable.'--STUBBS, _Const. Hist._, i. 260.
In approaching the consideration of the institutional changes and
modifications of polity resulting from the Norman Conquest, the
most conspicuous phenomenon to attract attention is undoubtedly the
introduction of what it is convenient to term the feudal system.
In the present paper I propose to discuss one branch only of that
process, namely, the introduction of that military tenure which
Dr Stubbs has termed 'the most prominent feature of historical
feudalism'.
In accordance with the anticataclysmic tendencies of modern thought,
the most recent students of this obscure problem have agreed to adopt
the theory of gradual development and growth. The old views on
the subject are discredited as crude and unhistorical:[2] they are
replaced by confident enunciation of the theory to which I have
referred.[3] But when we examine the matter closely, when we ask for
details of the process by which the Anglo-Saxon thegn developed into
the Norman knight, we are met at once by the frank confession that
'between the picture drawn in Domesday and the state of affairs which
the charter of Henry I was designed to remedy, there is a difference
which the short interval of time will not account for'.[4] To meet
this difficulty, to account for this flaw in the unbroken continuity
of the series, a _Deus ex machinâ_ has been found in the person of
Ranulf Flambard.
Now this solution of the difficulty will scarcely, I venture to think,
bear the test of investigation. It appears to have originated in Dr
Stubbs' suggestion that there must have been, between the days of
Henry I and of William I, 'some skilful organizing hand working with
neither justice nor mercy'[5]--a suggestion subsequently amplified
into the statement that it is to Ranulf Flambard 'without doubt that
the systematic organization of the exactions' under William Rufus
'is to be attributed',[6] and that by him 'the royal claims were
unrelentingly pressed', his policy being 'to tighten as much as
possible the hold which the feudal law gave to the king on all
feudatories temporal and spiritual'.[7] There is nothing here that can
be called in question, but there is also nothing, be it observed, to
prove that either 'feudal law' or 'military tenure' was introduced by
Ranulf Flambard. Indeed, with his usual caution and unfailing sound
judgment, our great historian is careful to admit that 'it is not
quite so clear' in the case of the lay as of the church fiefs 'that
all the evil customs owed their origin to the reign of William
Rufus'.[8] And, even if they did, they were, it must be remembered,
distinctly abuses--'evil customs', as Henry I himself terms them in
his charter--namely (in the matter we are considering), '_excessive_
exactions in the way of reliefs, marriages and wardships, debts to
the crown, and forfeiture. In the place,' we are told, 'of _unlimited_
demands on these heads, the charter promises, not indeed fixed
amercements, but a return to ancient equitable custom'.[9] All this
refers, it will be seen, to the abuse of an existing institution,
not to the introduction of a new one. The fact is that Ranulf's
proceedings have been assigned a quite exceptional and undue
importance. Broadly speaking, his actions fall under a law too often
lost sight of, namely, that when the crown was strong it pressed,
through the official bureaucracy, its claims to the uttermost;
and when it found itself weak, it renounced them so far as it was
compelled. Take, for instance, this very charter issued by Henry I,
when he was 'playing to the gallery', and seeking general support:
what was the value of its promises? They were broken, says Mr Freeman,
to the Church;[10] they were probably broken, says Dr Stubbs, to
the knights;[11] and they were certainly broken, I may add, to the
unfortunate tenants-in-chief, whom the Pipe-Roll of 1130 shows us
suffering from those same excessive exactions, of which the monopoly
is assigned to Ranulf Flambard, and which 'the Lion of Justice' had so
virtuously renounced. I might similarly adduce the exactions from the
Church by that excellent king, Henry II (1159), 'contra antiquum morem
et debitam libertatem'; but it is needless to multiply examples of
the struggle between the interests of the crown and those of its
tenants-in-chief, which was as fierce as ever when, in later days, it
led to the provisions of the Great Charter. What the barons, lay and
spiritual, complained of from first to last, was not the feudal system
that accompanied their military tenure, but the abuse of that system
in the excessive demands of the crown.
Mr Freeman, however, who had an equal horror of Ranulf Flambard and of
the 'feudal system', did not hesitate to connect the two more closely
even than Dr Stubbs, though invoking the authority of the latter in
support of his extreme views. The passages to which I would invite
attention, as expressing most concisely Mr Freeman's conclusions, are
these:
The system of military tenures, and the oppressive
consequences which were held to flow from them, were a work of
the days of William Rufus.
If then there was any time when 'the Feudal System' could be
said to be introduced into England, it was assuredly not in
the days of William the Conqueror, but in the days of William
the Red. It would be more accurate to say that all that we
are really concerned with, that is, not an imaginary 'Feudal
System', but a system of feudal land-tenures, was not
introduced into England at all, but was devised on English
ground by the malignant genius of the minister of Rufus.[12]
As the writer's line of argument is avowedly that of Dr Stubbs, it is
only necessary to consider the point of difference between them. Where
his predecessor saw in Henry's charter the proof that Ranulf Flambard
had abused the existing feudal system by 'excessive' and 'unlimited'
demands, Mr Freeman held, and endeavoured to convince us, that he
had introduced not merely abuses of the system, but the actual system
itself.[13] The question virtually turns on the first clause of the
charter;[14] and it will not, I think, be doubted that Dr Stubbs
is right in adopting its natural meaning, namely, that the novelty
introduced by Ranulf was not the _relevatio_ itself, but its abuse in
'excessive exactions'. Indeed, even Mr Freeman had virtually to admit
the point.[15] If, then, the argument breaks down, if Ranulf cannot be
shown to have 'devised' military tenure, how are we to bridge over the
alleged chasm between the date of Domesday (1086) and that of Henry's
charter (1100)? The answer is simply that the difficulty is created
by the very theory I am discussing: it is based on the assumption that
William I did not introduce military tenure,[16] combined with the
fact that 'within thirteen years after the Conqueror's death, not only
the military tenures, but the worst abuses of the military tenures,
were in full force in England'.[17] But, here again, when we examine
the evidence, we find that this assumption is based on the silence,
or alleged silence, of Domesday Book.[18] Now no one was better aware
than Mr Freeman, as an ardent student of 'the great Record', that to
argue from the silence of Domesday is an error as dangerous as it is
common. Speaking from a rather wide acquaintance with topographical
works, I know of no pitfall into which the local antiquary is more
liable to fall. Wonderful are the things that people look for in the
pages of the great survey; I am always reminded of Mr Secretary Pepys'
writing for information as to what it contained 'concerning the sea
and the dominion thereof'.[19] Like other inquests, the Domesday
Survey--'the great inquest of all', as Dr Stubbs terms it--was
intended for a special purpose; special questions were asked, and
these questions were answered in the returns. So with the 'Inquest of
Sheriffs' in 1170; so also with the Inquest of Knights, if I may so
term it, in 1166. In each case the questions asked are, practically,
known to us, and in each they are entirely different. Therefore, when
Mr Freeman writes:
The survey nowhere employs the feudal language which became
familiar in the twelfth century. Compare, for instance,
the records in the first volume of Hearn's _Liber Niger
Scaccarii_. In this last we find something about knights' fees
in every page. In Domesday there is not a word--[20]
it is in no spirit of captious criticism, but from the necessity of
demolishing the argument, that I liken it to basing conclusions on the
fact that in the census returns we find something about population
in every page, while in the returns of owners of land there is not a
word. As the inquest of 1166 sought solely for information on knights
and their fees, the returns to it naturally contain 'something about
knights' fees in every page'; on the other hand, 'the payment or
nonpayment of the _geld_ is a matter which appears in every page of
the survey' [of 1086] because 'the formal immediate cause of taking
the survey was to secure its full and fair assessment'.[21] Nor is
this all. When the writer asserts that 'in Domesday there is not a
word' about knights' fees, he greatly overstates his case, as indeed
is shown by the passages he proceeds to quote. I shall be able to
prove, further on, that knights' fees existed in cases where Domesday
does not mention them, but even the incidental notices found in the
Great Survey are quite sufficient to disprove its alleged silence on
the subject. As Mr Freeman has well observed:
Its most incidental notices are sometimes the most precious.
We have seen that it is to an incidental, an almost accidental
notice in the Survey that we owe our knowledge of the great
fact of the general redemption of lands.[22]
Here then the writer does not hesitate to base on a single accidental
notice the existence of an event quite as widespread and important as
the introduction of knight service.[23]
I have now endeavoured to make plain one of the chief flaws in the
view at present accepted, namely, that it is mainly grounded on
the negative evidence of Domesday, which evidence will not bear the
construction that has been placed upon it--and further that, even if
it did, we should be landed in a fresh difficulty, the gulf between
Domesday and Henry's charter being only to be bridged by the
assumption that Ranulf Flambard 'devised' and introduced military
tenure, with its results--an assumption, we have seen, which the facts
of the case not only fail to support, but even discountenance wholly.
Let us pass to a second difficulty. When we ask the advocates of the
view I am discussing what determined the number of knights due to
the crown from a tenant-in-chief, we obtain, I venture to assert, no
definite answer. At times we are told that it was the number of his
hides; at times that it was the value of his estate. Gneist, who has
discussed the matter in detail, and on several occasions, has held
throughout, broadly speaking, the same view: he maintains that 'since
Alfred's time the general rule had been observed that a fully equipped
man should be furnished for every five _hidæ_, but it had never been
established as a rule of law as in the Carlovingian legislation':[24]
consequently, he urges, 'a fixed standard for the apportionment of the
soldiery was wanting' at the time of the Conquest, and this want was
a serious flaw in the Anglo-Saxon polity. William resolved to make the
system uniform, and
the object that the royal administration now pursued for
a century was to impose upon the whole mass of old and new
possessors an equal obligation to do service for reward. The
standard adopted in carrying out this system was approximately
that of the five hides possession of the Anglo-Saxon period;
yet with a stricter rating according to the value of the
produce.[25]
The difficulty encountered in ascertaining this value was a main cause
of the Domesday Survey being undertaken. This is Gneist's special
point on which he invariably insists: 'Domesday book laid the basis
of a roll of the crown vassals';[26] upon it, 'in later times, the
fee-rolls were framed'.[27] By its evidence, 'according to the extent
and the nature of the productive property, could be computed how
many shields were to be furnished by each estate, according to the
gradually fixed proportion of a £20 ground rent'.[28] For 'the _feuda
militum_ thus computed are no knights' fees of a limited area',[29]
but 'units of possession', the unit being £20 in annual value.
Dr Stubbs, on the other hand, while rejecting the view that military
service, since the days of Alfred, had been practically fixed at one
warrior for every five hides,[30] leans nevertheless to the belief
that the knight's fee was developed out of the five-hide unit, and
that the military 'service' of a tenant-in-chief was determined by the
number of such units which he possessed. But, as he also recognizes
the £20 unit, there will be less danger of misrepresenting his views
if I append _verbatim_ the relevant passages:
The customary service of one The value of the knight's fee
fully armed man for each five hides must already have been fixed
was probably the rate at which the --twenty pounds a year.[32]
newly endowed follower of the king
would be expected to discharge his
duty ... and the number of knights
to be furnished by a particular
feudatory would be ascertained by
inquiring the number of hides that
he held.[31]
The number of hides which the It cannot even be granted that
knight's fee contained being known, a definite area of land was
the number of knights' fees in any necessary to constitute a
particular holding could be easily knight's fee; ... It is
discovered.[33] impossible to avoid the
conclusion that the extent of a
All the imposts of the ... Norman knight's fee was determined by
reigns, were, so far as we know, rent and valuation rather than
raised on the land, and according acreage, and that the common
to computation by the hide: ... the quantity was really expressed
feudal exactions by way of aid ... in the twenty librates, etc.
were levied on the hide.[34] [35]
The variation in the number of
hides contained in the knight's
fee.[36]
Mr Freeman's views need not detain us, for he unhesitatingly accepts
Dr Stubbs' arguments as proving that the Norman military tenure was
based on 'the old service of a man from each five hides of land'.[37]
We find then, I submit, that the recognized leaders of existing
opinion on the subject cannot agree among themselves in giving us a
clear answer, when we ask them what determined the amount of 'service'
due from a Norman tenant-in-chief, or, in other words, how that
'service' was developed in unbroken continuity from Anglo-Saxon
obligations.
The third point that I would raise is this. Even assuming that the
amount of 'service' bore a fixed proportion--whether in pecuniary or
territorial units--to the extent of possession, we are, surely, at
once confronted by the difficulty that the owner of _x_ units of
possession would be compelled, for the discharge of his military
obligations, to enfeoff _x_ knights, assigning a 'unit' to each. A
tenant-in-chief, to take a concrete instance, whose fief was worth
£100 a year, would have to provide _ex hypothesi_ five knights; if, as
was quite usual, he enfeoffed the full number, he would have to assign
to each knight twenty librates of land (which I may at once, though
anticipating, admit was the normal value of a knight's fee), that
is to say, the crown would have forestalled Henry George, and the
luckless _baro_ would see the entire value of his estate swallowed up
in the discharge of its obligations.[38] What his position would be
in cases where, as often, he enfeoffed more knights than he required,
arithmetic is unable to determine. I cannot understand how this
obvious difficulty has been so strangely overlooked.
The fourth and last criticism which I propose to offer on the subject
is this. If we find that under Henry II--when we meet with definite
information--a fief contained, as we might expect, more 'units of
possession' than it was bound to furnish knights (thus leaving a
balance over for the _baro_ after sub-infeudation), we must draw one
of two conclusions: either this excess had existed from the first; or,
if the fief (as we are asked to believe) was originally assessed up to
the hilt for military service, that assessment must, in the interval,
have been reduced. In other words, Henry I--if, as Dr Stubbs in one
place suggests,[39] he was the first to take a 'regular account of the
knights' fees'--must have found the land with a settled liability of
providing one knight for every five hides, and must, yet, have reduced
that liability of his own accord, on the most sweeping scale, thus,
contrary to all his principles, ultroneously deprived himself of the
'service' he was entitled to claim.
Having completed my criticisms of the accepted view, and set forth its
chief difficulties, I shall now propound the theory to which my own
researches have led me, following the same method of proof as that
adopted by Mr Seebohm in his _English Village Community_, namely
working back from the known to the relatively unknown, till the light
thrown upwards by the records of the twelfth century illumines
the language of Domesday and renders the allusions of monks and
chroniclers pregnant with meaning.
1. THE 'CARTAE' OF 1166
In the formal returns (_cartae_) made to the exchequer in 1166 by
the tenants-in-chief (_barones_) of England, of which the official
transcripts are preserved in the _Liber Niger_ and the _Liber Rubeus_,
we have our earliest glimpse of the organization of that purely feudal
host among whom our lands had been parcelled out to be held, as I
shall show, by military service. We have, therefore, in them our best
starting-point for an inquiry into the origin and growth of military
tenure in England.
It may be well perhaps, at the very outset, to contrast these _cartae_
of 1166 with those of the Domesday Inquest eighty years before.[40]
For the essentially feudal character of the former is at once, by the
comparison, thrown into relief. The original returns of the Domesday
Inquest were made Hundred by Hundred; those of 1166 were made fief
by fief. The former were made by the jurors of the Hundred-court; the
latter by the lord of the fief. Thus, while the one took for its
unit the oldest and most familiar of native organizations, the other,
ignoring not only the Hundred, but even the shire itself, took for its
unit the alien organization of the fief.[41] The one inquest strictly
continued, the other wholly repudiated, the Anglo-Saxon system.
It is consequently worse than lost labour to examine these two
inquests, based as they are on opposite systems, and giving us as they
do a cross-division as if they were but successive editions of the
national register or rate-book.
The first point to be considered is this: What was the information
which the tenants-in-chief were called upon to supply in these
returns? It was _not_, as Dr Stubbs and others have supposed,
the amount of 'service' due from each fief to the crown.[42] The
information asked for was _the number of 'milites' actually enfeoffed_
by each 'baron' and his predecessors in title, with the number
of 'servitia' due from each such 'miles' to the 'baron'. In this
distinction, missed by Dr Stubbs, we find the key to the problem. The
crown, we shall see, must previously have known the total amount of
'service' due from each fief; but what it did not know, and what it
wished to know, was the number of knights' fees which, up to 1166, had
been created on each fief.
Although there is great diversity in the form of return adopted--a
diversity which imparts to the _cartae_ a pleasant flavour of
character--it may fairly be assumed that, as in similar cases, they
were called for throughout the realm by one uniform writ. If we may
deduce the purport of that writ from the collation of those returns
which refer to it most explicitly, we must infer that the information
asked for was to be given under four heads:
(1) How many knights had been enfeoffed before the death of
Henry I?
(2) How many have been enfeoffed since?
(3) How many (if any) remain to be enfeoffed to complete the
'service' due from the fief. Or, in other words, what is
the balance of your 'service' remaining chargeable to your
'demesne'?
(4) What are the names of your knights?
In support of these statements I append the whole of the relevant
returns.
BISHOP OF EXETER ARCHBISHOP OF YORK BISHOP OF DURHAM
Praecepistis mihi Praecipit dignitas Praecepit nobis,
quod mandarem vobis vestra omnibus domine, vestra
per breve meum fidelibus vestris sublimitas, quod
sigillatum et apertum, clericis et laicis, literis nostris
non quot servitia qui de vobis sigillatis, extra
militum vobis debeam, tenent de capite sigillum
sed (1) quot habeam in Eboracsira, ut pendentibus, vobis
milites feffatos de mandent vobis per mandaremus (1) quot
tempore Regis Henrici literas suas, extra milites feffatos
avi vestri, et (2) sigillum pendentes haberemus de veteri
quot post mortem (1) quot milites feffamento et
ipsius, et (3) quot quisquis habeat de (2) de novo,
sint super dominium veteri feffamento scilicet, anno et
meum.[43] de tempore Regis die quo Rex Henricus
Henrici avi vestri, fuit vivus et
scilicet de die et mortuus et de [_sic_]
anno quo ipse fuit post mortem ejus ...
vivus et mortuus, (3) super dominium
et (2) quot habeat vero nostrum, de quo
de novo feodamento similiter mandare
feffatos post mortem præcepistis, etc.
bonae memoriae avi (pp. 416, 418).
vestri ejusdem, et
(3) quot feoda
militum sint super
dominium
uniuscujusque, et
(4) omnium illorum
nomina, tam de novo
feffamento quam de
veteri feffatorum
quae sint in illo
brevi scripta, quia
vultis quod si
aliqui ibi sunt qui
vobis nondum
fecerunt ligantiam,
et quorum nomina
non sunt scripta in
rotulo vestro, quod
infra dominicam
primam xl^{ae}
ligantiam vobis
faciant (p. 412).
HERBERT DE ENGELARD DE ROBERT DE
CASTELLO STRATTONE BRINTONE
Michi et comparibus Michi et ceteris Michi et aliis
meis mandastis ut comparibus meis comparibus meis per
vobis per breve qui de vobis litteras vestras
nostrum pendens tenemus in capite innotuistis ut per
extra sigillum, per litteras fidem et ligantiam
mandaremus (1) quot vestras mandastis quam vobis debemus
milites antiquitus ut vobis per breve per breve nostrum
feodatos de tempore nostrum pendens pendens extra
Regis Henrici avi extra sigillum sigillum mandaremus
vestri habeamus et mandaremus (1) quot milites
(2) quot de novo (1) quot milites haberemus de veteri
feodamento.... Et habeamus de veteri feodamento de tempore
hii omnes ligantiam feodamento de Henrici Regis avi
et homagium vobis tempore Henrici vestri, et (2) quot
fecerunt (pp. 275-6). Regis avi vestri, milites haberemus de
et (2) quot novo feodamento post
habeamus de novo tempus Regis Henrici
feodamento (p. 276). avi vestri, et (3)
quot milites habeamus
super dominium
nostrum....
Et vobis quidem et
filio vestro
ligantiam et
homagium fecerunt
(p. 277).[44]
Let me here break off for a moment to consider one of the most
important points suggested by this great inquest, namely, the issue of
the writs under which it was held. It has been generally assumed that
each tenant received his writ direct from the crown; and a casual
reading of the _cartae_ might, perhaps, favour such a view. I have,
however, been led to the conclusion that a general writ was issued to
the sheriff of each county, and that its terms were communicated by
him to the several tenants-in-chief, whose _capita baroniæ_ lay within
his jurisdiction.
Baderun of Monmouth has heard the writ read out in the county
court;[45] Earl Patrick also has heard the writ read out.[46] William
fitz Siward derives from the sheriff, he tells us, his knowledge of
the writ:[47] even the bishop of Chester has received his instructions
from the sheriff.[48] But more especially do I rely upon the return
of the Archbishop of York because he recites the tenor of the writ
in terms which can leave no doubt that it was addressed, through the
sheriff, to the whole shire collectively.[49] If the Archbishop of
York did not receive a special writ, we may fairly infer that no other
tenant can have done so.
Further, I believe that as the 'barons' received their instructions
from the sheriffs, so they also sent in their returns through those
officers. The memorandum, for instance, on the missing _carta_ of
Osbert fitz Hugh informs us that it was brought to the exchequer by
William de Beauchamp. Now, William de Beauchamp was sheriff of
the shire. This would account for the grouping of the returns 'per
singulos comitatus', as Swereford expresses it, and indeed this
arrangement would but follow the existing practice of collecting the
scutage shire by shire.
Returning now to the terms of the inquiry, it is obvious that the
tenant (_baro_) to whom such queries were addressed must of necessity
have belonged to one of these three classes--
(_a_) Those who had created _the exact number_ of knights'
fees sufficient to discharge their 'service'.
(_b_) Those who had created _more_ than sufficient.
(_c_) Those who had created _less_ than sufficient.
This last class requires some explanation. When the number of knights'
fees created was not sufficient to discharge the baron's 'service',
the balance of that service remained charged on the non-infeudated
portion of his fief, that is, on the 'demesne', and was technically
said to be 'super dominium'. It is all-important that this should
be grasped, for it might otherwise be supposed that such a phrase as
'quot milites super dominium' implied the existence of actual knights
enfeoffed on the demesne, which, to those who realize the working of
the system of knight-service, is an absolute contradiction in terms.
This, it will be found, beautifully explains the first article of the
Assize of Arms (1181)--that every tenant is to keep in stock harness
for as many knights 'quot habuerit feoda militum in dominio suo'.[50]
That is to say, that if, after deducting the knights actually
enfeoffed, there remained due from his fief a balance of
knight-service, he must keep in readiness harness sufficient for
those knights whom he would have to provide himself to discharge that
balance.[51]
Having made this point clear, I now pass to the immediate object
of the inquest of 1166. What that object was, no one has as yet
discovered. Dr Stubbs, for instance, in his preface to the Pipe-Roll
of 1166, writes: 'On the immediate purpose for which the inquiry was
made--and it can scarcely be doubted that it was for the collection of
a scutage--we shall look for further information in the rolls of the
succeeding years.' My own researches enable me to assert that this
inquest formed part of a financial revolution hitherto ignored, which
deserves to be compared with those other innovations in administration
and finance that characterized the latter half of the twelfth century
in England.
When we come to place side by side the returns of 1166 and the
payments made upon those returns in 1168, we find (at least, on the
lay fiefs) the same distinction in both between 'the old feoffment'
and 'the new'. But while the _returns_, as we saw, were made under
three heads,[52] the _payments_ were made under two, namely, under
the two feoffments. The reason of this difference can be established
beyond dispute: the exchequer clerks had, in every instance, added the
returns under the _third_ head to those under the _first_, and classed
them together as 'old feoffment'. This is one of the points which, I
think, have never been hitherto explained.
Plenty of examples might be given, but these two will suffice. Walter
de Aincurt returns 24 fees _de veteri_, 5 _de novo_, and 11 _super
dominium_. The exchequer, in 1168, records him as paying on 35 fees
_de veteri_, and on 5 _de novo_.[53] Richard de Haie returns 11
fees _de veteri_, 4 _de novo_, and 5 _super dominium_. The exchequer
records him as paying on 16 _de veteri_, and 4 _de novo_.
The main point, however, on which I propose to insist, is that these
returns were intended to provide, and, as a matter of fact, did
provide a new feudal assessment, wholly superseding the old one, in no
case to the advantage of the tenant, but in many to the advantage
of the crown. The _modus operandi_ was as follows. Instead of either
adhering to the old assessment (_servitium debitum_), or uniformly
substituting a new one based on the fees actually created, the crown
selected in every case whichever of these two systems told in its own
favour and against the tenant of the fief. If he had enfeoffed fewer
knights than his _servitium debitum_ required, the crown retained that
_servitium_ as the irreducible minimum of his assessment; but if he
had created an excess of fees, the crown added that excess to his
pre-existing assessment and increased the 'service' due from him
_pro tanto_. This discovery is no conjecture, but is capable of
arithmetical demonstration.
It should be noticed how skilfully the queries were framed in the
inquest of 1166, to entrap the unwary tenant, and make him commit
himself to the facts. If his enfeoffed knights were short of the
required number, he was caught under the third query; if, on the other
hand, he had an excess, he was caught under the others. Now, did the
'barons', when they made their returns, anticipate this sweeping and
unwelcome reform? Presumably not. They appear to have drawn up their
_cartae_ carefully and willingly, few of those who had an excess of
knights taking even the precaution of mentioning their _servitium
debitum_.[54] The church, moreover, from the terms in which her
payments are thenceforth entered (_vide infra_), must have uniformly
and systematically adopted an attitude of protest. Yet there is no
trace of such protest in her returns. May we then infer that the crown
sought to deliberately entrap its tenants? Two circumstances might
favour that view. In the first place the tenants had to make their
returns _extra sigillum pendentes_, thereby solemnly committing
themselves;[55] in the second, the tenants would, of course, have been
tempted to conceal or understate their excess of knights, had they
foreseen the use that the crown would make of their returns.
The question may very fairly be asked, 'What check had the crown upon
a tenant in the event of the latter omitting some of his "excess"
fees?' The answer is supplied, I think, by a clause in the invaluable
return of the northern primate. He there requests that his return may
be accepted 'without prejudice', as a lawyer would say, in case of his
omitting some small fees. That is to say, these formal returns might
be brought up as evidence against tenants-in-chief who had omitted
some of their fees, proving that they had thereby themselves disowned
their right to the fees in question.[56]
Two points strike one strongly in the preparation of these returns.
The first of these is the difficulty experienced in compiling a
correct list of under-tenants and their holdings; the second is
the employment of the 'Inquest' as a means of ascertaining the
particulars.
Taking the former of these, we find Hugh Wac writing, 'si amplius
inquirere possim, notificabo vobis'; and Guarine 'de Aula', 'si plus
possim inquirere, faciam vobis scire'; so too the Bishop of Ely, 'de
hiis vero certi sumus, et si amplius inquirere poterimus libenter
vobis significabimus'; and the Bishop of Bath, 'si certiorem inquirere
poterimus veritatem, nos illam vobis significabimus'; and Alfred of
Lincoln, 'si plus inquiri potest, inquirere faciemus'. The Bishop of
Exeter makes his return, 'sicut eam diligentius inquirere potui';
the Abbot of Tavistock, 'quantum inde sollicitius inquirendo scire
potuit'. Hugh de Lacy, in a postscript to his return, adds a fee 'quod
oblitus sum'; while the Earl of Clare has to send in a subsequent
rider, containing an entry, 'quod ego postquam misi cartam ...
recordatus sum'.
From this difficulty it is a short step to the inquests which it seems
in some cases to have necessitated. The Abbot of Ramsey heads
his return, 'Haec est inquisitio'; the Earl of Warwick similarly
commences, 'Hoc est quod inquisivi per homines'. Earl Patrick makes
his return, 'secundum quod de probis et antiquis hominibus meis
inquirere potui'. 'Fecimus inquirere,' writes the Bishop of Bath, 'per
legales homines meos.... Haec autem per eos inquisivimus.'
This brings us directly to the very important inquest referred to in
the _carta_ of the Earl of Arundel:
Dominus noster Rex Henricus quadam contentione quae surrexit
inter milites de honore de Arundel de exercitu quodam de
Walliis, elegit iiij. milites de honore, de melioribus et
legalioribus, et antiquioribus ... et fecit eos recognoscere
servitia militum de honore, et super legalitatem et sacramenta
eorum inde neminem audire voluit.
Mr Eyton argued elaborately on genealogical grounds that this inquest
must have taken place under Henry I, but indeed it is quite obvious
from the language of the _carta_ itself that this was so. It is,
consequently, worthy of notice for its bearing on 'the sworn inquest'.
While on this subject, attention may be called to the unique entry
in the Pipe-Roll of 12 Henry II (1166): 'Alanus de Munbi debet xl.
s. quia non interfuit Jurat' feodorum militum' (p. 8). Investigation
proves (through what is known as the Lindsey Survey) that Alan was an
under-tenant of the honour of Brittany, the successor of that Eudo who
held in Mumby _temp._ Domesday. This fact throws light on the entry,
by suggesting that the inquest referred to concerned the honour
of Brittany, the number of fees in which was then and subsequently
doubtful.
But to return. It is infinitely easier to trace the change brought
about by the inquest of 1166 in the case of the church fiefs than of
the lay ones. For on the former it was uniform and glaring. Previously
to 1166 the church tenants had paid on their _servitium debitum_
alone; after 1166 they paid, as a rule, on all the fees actually
created upon the fief. Thus the assessment of the Bishop of Durham was
raised at a blow from ten fees to more than seventy.[57] There were
several equally striking cases among the prelates. Now, whether or not
the church tenants feared something of the kind, they had generally
been careful in their returns to set forth their _servitium debitum_,
and when, in 1168, they were uniformly assessed on their total of
fees, their uniform protest is expressed in the formula 'quos non
recognoscit' applied to the payment on their excess knights. Such is
the meaning of this puzzling formula which is peculiar to the church
fiefs.[58] In these cases it wholly replaces the _de veteri_ and _de
novo_ assessment which, from 1166, was applied to the lay fiefs.
II. THE SERVITIUM DEBITUM
The essential feature we have to keep in view when examining the
growth of knight service is the _servitium debitum_, or quota of
knight service due to the crown from each fief.
This has, I venture to think, been obscured and lost sight of in
the generalizations and vague writing about the 'gradual process'
of development. It is difficult for me to traverse the arguments of
Gneist, Stubbs and Freeman, because we consider the subject from such
wholly different standpoints. For them the introduction of knight
service means the process of sub-infeudation on the several fiefs;
for me it means the grant of fiefs to be held from the crown by knight
service. Thus the process which absorbs the attention of the school
whose views I am opposing is for me a matter of mere secondary
importance. The whole question turns upon the point whether or not the
tenants-in-chief received their fiefs to hold of the crown by a quota
of military service, or not. If they did, it would depend simply on
their individual inclinations, whether, or how far, they had recourse
to sub-infeudation. It was not a matter of principle at all; it was,
as Dr Stubbs himself put it, 'a matter of convenience',[59] a mere
detail. What we have to consider is not the relation between the
tenant-in-chief and his under-tenants, but that between the king
and his tenants-in-chief: for this was the primary relation that
determined all below it.
The assumption that the Conqueror cannot have introduced any new
principle in the tenure of land lies at the root of the matter.
Assuming this, one must of course seek elsewhere for the introduction
of knight service. Have not the difficulties of the accepted view
arisen from its exponents approaching the problem from the wrong point
of view? The tendency to exalt the English and depreciate the Norman
element in our constitutional development has led them I think,
and especially Mr Freeman, to seek in Anglo-Saxon institutions an
explanation of feudal phenomena. This tendency is manifest in their
conclusions on the great council:[60] it colours no less strongly
their views on knight service. In neither case can they bring
themselves to adopt the feudal standpoint or to enter into the feudal
spirit. It is to this that I attribute their disposition to bring the
crown face to face with the under-tenant--or 'landowner' as they would
prefer to term him--and so to ignore, or at least to minimize the
importance of the tenant-in-chief, the 'middleman' of the feudal
system. Making every allowance for the policy of the Conqueror in
insisting on the direct allegiance of the under-tenant to the crown,
and thereby checking the disintegrating influence of a perfect feudal
system, the fact remains what we may term the 'military service'
bargain was a bargain between the crown and the tenant-in-chief, not
between the crown and his under-tenants. It follows from this that so
long as the 'baron' (or 'tenant-in-chief') discharged his _servitium
debitum_ to the crown, the king had no right to look beyond the
'baron', who was himself and alone responsible for the discharge of
this service. It is, indeed, in this responsibility that lies the
key to the situation. If the under-tenant of a knight's fee failed to
discharge his service, it was not to him, but to his lord, that the
crown betook itself. 'I know nothing of your tenant,' was in effect
the king's position; 'you owe me, for the tenure of your fief, the
service of so many knights, and that service must be performed,
whether your under-tenants repudiate their obligations to yourself or
not'. In other words the 'baron' discharged his service to the king,
whereas the baron's under-tenants discharged theirs to their lord.[61]
So the _Dialogus_ speaks of the under-tenant's 'numerum militum quos
domino debuerat'.
Let us then apply ourselves directly to the quotas of military service
due from the 'barons' to the crown, and see if, when ascertained, they
throw any fresh light on the real problem.
No attempt, so far as I know, has ever been made to determine these
quotas, and indeed it was the utter want of trustworthy information
on the subject that led Swereford to undertake his researches in
the thirteenth century. Those researches, unfortunately, leave us
no wiser, partly from his defective method and want of the requisite
accuracy; partly from the fact that what he sought was not abstract
historical truth, but practical information bearing on the existing
rights of the crown. We must turn therefore to the original
authorities: (1) the _cartae baronum_, (2) the annual rolls. These were
the two main sources of Swereford's information, as they must also be
of ours. In the next part of this paper I shall deal with the evidence
of the rolls, as checking and supplementing the _cartae baronum_.
I shall analyse the church fiefs first, because we can ascertain,
virtually with exactitude, the _servitium debitum_ of every prelate
and of every head of a religious house who held by knight service.
The importance of these figures, together with the fact that they have
never, so far as I know, been set forth till now, has induced me to
append them here in full detail.
SEE SERVICE DUE SEE SERVICE DUE
knights knights
Canterbury 60 Bath 20
Winchester 60 London 20
Lincoln 60 Exeter 17-1/2[62]
Worcester 50 [60] 'Chester' 15
Norwich 40 Hereford 15
Ely 40 Durham 10
Salisbury 32 Chichester 4 [2]
York 20 [7]
Every English See then in existence is thus accounted for with the
solitary and significant exceptions of Carlisle and Rochester. The
latter See, we know, had enfeoffed knights for their names (_temp._
Henry I, I think, from internal evidence) are recorded in the _Textus
Roffensis_ (p. 223);[63] the former had been created after the date
when, as I shall argue, the Conqueror fixed the knight service due
from the fees.
In the above list the figures in brackets refer to the assessments
previous to 1166. Three changes were made at, or about, that date. The
Bishop of Worcester, in accordance with the protest he had made from
the beginning of the reign, obtained a reduction of his quota from
sixty knights to fifty; while the Archbishop of York's _servitium_
was raised from seven knights to twenty, and that of the Bishop of
Chichester from two knights to four. These changes are known to us
only from the details of the prelate's scutages; there is nothing to
account for them in the relevant _cartae_, and we can only infer from
the formula _quos recognoscit_ that the two bishops whose _servitia_
were increased acquiesced in the justice of the crown's claim.
Proceeding to the 'service' of the religious houses:
HOUSE SERVICE DUE HOUSE SERVICE DUE
knights knights
Peterborough 60 Wilton 5
Glastonbury 40 [60] Ramsey 4
St Edmundsbury 40 Chertsey 3
Abingdon 30 St Bene't of Hulme 3
Hyde 20 Cerne[64] 2 [3]
St Augustine's 15 Pershore 2 [3]
Westminster 15(?) Malmesbury 3
Tavistock 15(?) Winchcombe 2
Coventry 10 Middleton 2
Shaftesbury 7 [10] Sherburne 2
St Alban's 6 Michelney 1
Evesham 5 Abbotsbury 1
The changes of assessment on religious houses were few, and are thus
accounted for. Glastonbury, which paid on sixty knights in the first
two scutages of the reign, paid on forty in the third and in
those which followed. Pershore paid on three in the first scutage,
protesting that it was only liable to two, and from 1168 it was only
rated at two. Shaftesbury, which had paid on ten knights in the first
scutage, was assessed at only seven in the third scutage and those
which followed. Cerne also succeeded in getting its assessment reduced
from three knights to two. With these changes should be compared the
letter of Bishop Nigel of Ely to Ramsey Abbey certifying that it was
only liable to an assessment of four knights. Two cases remain which
require special treatment--Tavistock and Westminster.
Although Tavistock, in the first scutage, appears to have paid on the
anomalous assessment of ten and a half knights its payment on fifteen
in the two succeeding ones may fairly be taken as evidence that this
was its _servitium debitum_.[65] Its abbot, however, made no reference
to that _servitium_ in his return, and--by an exception to the regular
practice in the case of church fiefs--we find him charged, not on the
fees, (1) 'quos recognoscit', (2) 'quos non recognoscit', but on those
which were enfeoffed 'de veteri', and 'de novo' just as if he were a
lay tenant. As his fees 'de veteri' were sixteen, this figure recurs
in successive scutages, until in 3 John we find him contesting as
to one knight ('unde est contentio') who, doubtless, represented the
difference between fifteen and sixteen.
The case of Westminster presents considerable difficulty, the entries
relating to its payments of scutage being very puzzling. The abbey's
fees lay chiefly in Worcestershire and Gloucestershire--especially
Worcestershire--and it is under this county that we find it ultimately
(_i.e._ from 1168 onwards) assessed at fifteen fees, an assessment
which the abbot himself seems to have claimed, in the first scutage,
as the right one.
Taking then the _servitium debitum_ of all the church fiefs, at their
earliest ascertainable assessment, we obtain this result:
Bishops 458-1/2
Heads of religious houses 318
Capellaria de Bosham 7-1/2
-------
Grand total 784[66]
Far more difficult is the calculation of the _servitium debitum_ from
the lay fiefs. The list which follows is constructed from the evidence
of the _cartae_ and the rolls, and, though substantially correct, is
liable to emendation in details. It only comprises those fiefs the
_servitium_ of which I have been able to ascertain with certainty or
probability.
Robert 'filius Regis' 100[67]
Earl Ferrers 80 (? 60)[68]
Honour of Totness 75
Honour of Tickhill 60 (?)[69]
Robert de Stafford 60
Count of Eu 60 (?)[70]
Earl Warrenne 60 (?)[71]
Lacy of Pontefract 60
Roger de Mowbray 60[72]
Earl of Essex 60
Walter fitz Robert (of Essex) 50
Honour of Richmond 50[73]
Gervase Paynell 50
Reginald de St Valery 50 (?)[74]
Patrick, Earl of Salisbury 40
Walter de Aincurt 40
William de Montfichet 40
Payn de Montdoubleau 40[75]
William de Roumare 40 (?)[76]
Hubert de Rye 35
Hubert fitz Ralf (Derbyshire) 30
Walter de Wahulle 30
William fitz Robert (Devon) 30
William de Traci 30[77]
Robert de Valoines 30[77]
Maurice de Craon 30[77]
William de Albini (of Belvoir) 30[77]
Bernard Balliol 30[78]
Roger de Arundel 30[79]
Walter de Mayenne 30 (?)[80]
Robert de Albini (Bucks) 25
Robert fitz Hugh 25
Alfred of Lincoln 25
Ralf Hanselin 25
William de Braose 25[81]
Oliver de Traci 25[81]
Gerard de Limesi 25 (?)[82]
Walter Waleran 20
Richard de Hay 20
Honour of Holderness 20
William de Windsor 20
Hugh de Bayeux 20
William de Vesci 20 (?)[83]
Daniel de Crevec[oe]ur 20 (?)[84]
Thomas de Arcy 20 (?)[85]
Hugh de Dover 15
Walter Bret 15
Baderon de Monmouth 15
Earl Richard de Redvers 15[86]
Adam de Brus 15
Hamo fitz Meinfelin 15
Osbert fitz Hugh 15 (?)[87]
? Hugh de Scalers 15[88]
? Stephen de Scalers 15
Gilbert de Pinkeni 15
Geoffrey Ridel 15
Robert Foliot 15
Robert de Choques 15
Robert de Caux 15
William Paynell 15 (?)
Richard de Reimes 10
Roger de Buron 10
Richard fitz William 10
William fitz Alan 10
Richard de Cormeilles 10
Roger de Kentswell 10
William Trussebut 10
Nigel de Lovetot 10
Manasser Arsic 10
Richard de Montacute 10
Wandrille de Courcelles 10
Walter de Bolebec (Bucks) 10
Robert de Hastings 10
Lambert de Scotenni 10
Drogo de Montacute 10 (?)[89]
William de Reimes 10 (?)[90]
William de Helion 10 (?)[91]
Graeland de Thani of Essex owed seven and a half knights (the half of
fifteen), and Roger de Berkeley probably the same. Those who owed a
_servitium_ of five knights were Robert fitz Harding, Baldwin Buelot,
Simon de Cancy, Nigel de Lovetot (of the honour of Tickhill), Amfry de
Cancy, Hugh de Dover (of the honour of Brunne),[92] Walter de Bolebec
(Northumberland), Robert de Brus, Roger Bertram, and probably Stephen
de Bulmer,[93] and Herbert 'de Castello'.
The cases in which the _servitium_ can be shown not to have been a
multiple of five are comparatively few. That of Simon de Beauchamp of
Bedford was 54, of William Fossard 33-1/2, of Humphrey de Bohun 30-1/2,
of William Malet 20-1/6, of Robert de Beauchamp (of Somerset) 17, of
William fitz John (of Harptree) 13-3/4, of William Blund 12, of Hugh
Wac 10-1/8, of William de Ros, William fitz John (of Weston) and
William de Beauchamp (of Worcestershire) 7, of John de Bidun and
Jocelin de Lovaine 5-1/2.[94] But these, it will be seen, are quite
insufficient to overthrow the accumulated array of evidence on the
other side, and some of them are, doubtless, capable of explanation.
The Bohun fief, for instance, in 1162 paid on exactly 30 fees.
It is impossible to resist the inference, from such evidence as we
have, that the amount of the _servitium debitum_ was a matter of
custom and tradition, and could not usually be determined by reference
to written grants or charters. On this point the returns of three
Essex tenants are most instructive, while their similarity is so
striking, that, as in the case of the Shropshire _formulæ_, it can
scarcely be due to accident. The Earl of Essex closes with the words:
'et homines mei dicunt mihi quod debeo Domino Regi lx. milites'.
Walter fitz Robert, who follows him, writes: 'et hoc mihi homines mei
intelligere faciunt, quod debeo inde Regi servitium de l. militibus'.
William de Montfichet ends thus: 'et hoc faciunt homines mei mihi
intelligere--quod pater meus deserviebat per xl. milites'. With these
expressions we may compare those of William fitz Alan's tenants, who
assert that his Norfolk fief 'non debet domino Regi nisi i. militem
... ut antiqui testantur'; that his Shropshire fief 'non debet Regi
nisi x. milites in exercitu ... sicut antiqui testantur'; and that, as
to his Wiltshire fief, 'non sumus certi quod servitium debeat Regi
de hoc tenemento'. The Abbot of Chertsey, also, states his _servitium
debitum_ with the proviso 'secundum quod scire possumus'. These
expressions explain the uncertainty as to the _servitium debitum_ in
such cases as the See of Worcester and Ramsey Abbey.[95]
The same principle applies to the relation between the tenant-in-chief
and his under-tenant. Thus the very first entry in the _cartae_ runs as
follows:
Willelmus de Wokindone iiij. milites et dimidium; et praeter
hoc, ex testimonio curiae meae, dimidium exigo, quem ipse se
non debere defendit.
Of another tenant on the same fief we read: 'praeter hoc, _ex
testimonio curiae meae_, adhuc j. militem exigo'. Here, we see, appeal
is made not to record evidence, but to oral testimony. So, too, the
Bishop of Exeter adds this clause to his return:
Et praeter hos omnes, sicut _a multis audivi_, comes
Gloucestriæ, et comes Hugo, et comes de Clare debent tenere
de Exoniensi Episcopo; sed nullum ei servitium faciunt vel
recognoscunt.
Surely in all such cases as these the obvious inference is that the
tenant had been enfeoffed _sine carta_, or in the very words of
the Provisions of the Barons (1259) 'feofatus sine carta a tempore
conquestus vel alio antiquo feofamento' (§ 1).
And now for my theory. No one can have even glanced at the lists I
have compiled without being instantly struck by the fact that the
'service' is reckoned in round numbers, and is almost invariably
_a multiple of 5, if not of 10_.[96] This discovery, of course, is
absolutely destructive of the view that it always represented the
number of five-hide (or £20) units contained in the fief. Further, the
number of differing fiefs assessed at precisely the same figure proves
that the assessment was wholly arbitrary and cannot have been even the
round sum which approximated most nearly the number of such units.[97]
What then was the true determinant in the light of these conclusions?
I reply--_the unit of the feudal host_.
'On the continent,' writes Gneist, 'fifty _milites_, or at least
twenty-five, were reckoned to one banneret; in England, in proportion
to the smaller scale of enfeoffments, a smaller number appears to have
formed the unit of the _constabularia_.'[98] He is right: the English
_constabularia_, where I find it referred to, consists of _ten_
knights.[99] It is interesting to trace this unit and its multiples
recurring in the narratives of Irish warfare, under Henry II, and in
other struggles.[100] We meet with it also in the grant by the Empress
to Geoffrey de Mandeville, in 1141, of 'feodum et servicium xx.
militum' and in Stephen's grant to him of 'lx milites feudatos'.[101]
The next step is to show that the Normans were familiar with
_servitium debitum_ in terms of the ten-knight unit when they landed
in England. For this we have only to refer to Wace. For in the 'Roman
de Rou', as quoted by Mr Freeman himself, we find William fitz Osbern
assuring the duke as to his barons:
Vostre servise dobleront:
Ki solt mener vint chevaliers
Quarante en merra volontiers,
E ki de trente servir deit
De sesante servir vos velt,
E cil ki solt servir de cent
Dous cent en merra bonement.[102]
The _servitium debitum_, therefore, was a standing institution in
Normandy, and 'to the mass of his (William's) followers', as Mr
Freeman frankly admits,[103] a 'feudal tenure, a military tenure, must
have seemed the natural and universal way of holding land'. When we
find them and their descendants holding their fiefs in England, as
they had been held in Normandy, by the service of a round number of
knights, what is the simple and obvious inference but that, just as
Henry II granted out the provinces of Ireland to be held as fiefs
by the familiar service of a round number of knights,[104] so Duke
William granted out the fiefs he formed in England?
If to escape from this conclusion the suggestion be made that
these _servitia debita_ were compositions effected by English
_antecessores_, it need only be answered that the fiefs acquired were
wholly new creations, constructed from the scattered fragments of
Anglo-Saxon estates. And though in the case of the church fiefs this
objection might not apply, yet we have evidence, as I shall show, to
prove that their _servitia_ also were determined by the conqueror's
will, as indeed might be inferred from their close correspondence with
those of the lay barons.
But if the lands of the conquered realm were so granted to be held by
a _servitium debitum_ of knights, the key of the position is won, and
the defenders of the existing view must retire along the whole line;
for, as Mr Freeman himself observed, 'Let it be once established that
land is held as a fief from the crown on condition of yielding certain
services to the crown, and the whole of the feudal incidents follow
naturally.'[105]
I am anxious to make absolutely clear the point that between the
accepted view and the view which I advance, no compromise is possible.
The two are radically opposed. As against the theory that the military
obligation of the Anglo-Norman tenant-in-chief was determined by the
assessment of his holding, whether in hidage or in value, I maintain
that the extent of that obligation was not determined by his
holding, but was fixed in relation to, and expressed in terms of, the
_constabularia_ of ten knights, the unit of the feudal host. And I,
consequently, hold that his military service was in no way derived or
developed from that of the Anglo-Saxons, but was arbitrarily fixed by
the king, from whom he received his fief, irrespectively both of
its size and of all pre-existent arrangements. Such propositions, of
course, utterly and directly traverse the view which these passages
best summarize:
The belief that William I divided the English landed property
into military fees is erroneous.... According to the extent
and the nature of the productive property it could be
computed how many shields were to be furnished by each
estate, according to the gradually fixed proportion of a £20
ground-rent.[106]
There is no ground for thinking that William directly or
systematically introduced any new kind of tenure into the
holding of English lands. There is nothing to suggest any such
belief, either in the chronicles of his reign, in the Survey,
which is his greatest monument, in the genuine or even in the
spurious remains of his legislation.... As I have had to point
out over and over again, the grantee of William, whether the
old owner or a new one, held his land as it had been held in
the days of King Edward.[107]
There can be no doubt that the military tenure ... was itself
introduced by the same gradual process which we have assumed
in the case of the feudal usages in general. We have no light
on the point from any original grant made by the Conqueror
to a lay follower; but ... we cannot suppose it probable that
such gifts were made on any expressed condition, or accepted
with a distinct pledge to provide a certain contingent of
knights for the king's service.[108]
If my own conclusions be accepted, they will not only prove
destructive of this view, but will restore, in its simplicity, a
theory which removes all difficulties, and which paves the way to a
reconsideration of other kindred problems, and to the study of that
aspect of Anglo-Norman institutions in which they represent the feudal
spirit developed on feudal lines.
III. SCUTAGE, AID, AND 'DONUM'