— — •~— ^ — ..J.... .,-. — ^_.„rll I..i..„..l.. ,,1- .^. ,,
fyxmll Hmvetjsiitg pibat;g
BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME
FROM THE
SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND
THE GIFT OF
1891
f^.^H'.^S 2 jli^'-'f-.
97'4
CORNELL UNIVERSITY LIBHARY
3 1924 091 756 225^
The original of this book is in
the Cornell University Library.
There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.
http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924091756225
DOMESDAY STUDIES:
AN ANALYSIS AND DIGEST OF THE SOMERSET SURVEY
{ACCORBINQ TO THE EXON CODEX),
AND OP THE
SOMERSET GHELD INQUEST OF A.D. 1084,
AS COLLATED WITH, AND ILLUSTRATED BY, DOMESDAY.
THE REV. R. W. EYTON,
LATE EECTQR OF RYTON,
AUTHOE OF " ANTIQUITIES OP SHBO-PSHTRE ; " " KEY TO DOMESDAY, AN ANALYSIS AND DIGEST OP THE
DORSET SURVEY ;" " COURT, HOUSEHOLD, AND ITINERARY OF KING HENRY H.," ETC.
IN TWO VOLUMES.
VOL. I.
LONDON:
REEVES & TUENER, 196, STRAND, & 100, CHANCERY LANE.
BRISTOL: T. KERSLAKE & CO.
1880.
A,-2-8H-4-B3
LONt)0N : BOWDENj HUDSON AND CO,, PRlNTJiUS,
-2S, RED LION STREETj HOLBORN.
TABLE OF CONTENTtS.
VOL. r.
Preface
Introductory Essay ....
Area of Somerset ....
Domesday Hidation. The Hide of Somerset
Carucates and Plough-lands
Lineal measures of Domesday .
Areal, or superficial, measures of Domesday
The Territory surveyed in Domesday .
Eoyal and other Forests of Somerset
" Pascua " of the Somerset Survey .
" Pratum " of the Somerset Survey
" Terra Vasta" of the Somerset Survey
The Somerset Moorlands
Vineyards, MiUs, Churches, Church-lands
Domesday Population of Somerset
"Ancillae," " Gabulatores," "VUlani"
"Bordarii," "Cotarii," "Servi"
" Piscatores," " Pabri," " Burgenses "
Farming Stock of the Somerset Survey
Values, Valuations, and Eents .
Chapter I. The Royal Burghs of Somerset
Chapter II. Domesday Schedule of Somerset
Landholders ....
Notices of Individual Landholders
Chapter III. " Terra Regis " of Somerset
" Vetus Dominicum Coronse "
Lands of the escheated Earldom
Lands of the late Queen Edith .
Lands of WuJfward White, deceased .
34^36
36—37
37
37—38
38—40
40—42
42—43
43
44
Pages
1—14
14—48
14—20
20—28
28—31
31
31—34
34—42
42—44
44—45
45—48
55—71
72—78
78—84
84—86
86—87
49—53
54—71
72—87
/i
F
4 i^ /
A--2-8H-4-B3
LONDON : EO\VDEN, HUDSON AND CO., pniNTEE-S,
23, RED LION STREET, HOLBORN.
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
VOL. r.
Preface ......
Introductory Essay ....
Area of Somerset ....
Domesday Hidation. The Hide of Somerset
Carucates and Plough-lands
Lineal measures of Domesday .
Areal, or superflcialj measures of Domesday
The Territory surveyed in Domesday .
Eoyal and other Forests of Somerset
" Pascua " of the Somerset Survey .
" Pratum " of the Somerset Survey
" Terra Vasta" of the Somerset Survey
The Somerset Moorlands
Vineyards, MOls, Churches, Church-lands
Domesday Population of Somerset
"AncUlse," " Gabulatores," "Villani"
"Bordarti," "Cotarii," "Servi"
" Piscatores," " Fabri," " Burgenses "
Farming Stock of the Somerset Survey
Values, Valuations, and Eents .
Chapter I. The Royal Burghs of Somerset
Chapter II. Domesday Schedule of Somerset
Landholders ....
Notices of Individual Landholders
Chapter III. " Terra Regis " of Somerset
"Vetus Dominicum Coronee"
Lands of the escheated Earldom
Lands of the late Queen Edith .
Lands of Wulfward White, deceased .
34:— 36
36—37
37
37—38
38—40
40—42
42—43
43
44
Pages
Pages
1—14
14—48
14—20
20—28
28—31
31
31—34
34—42
42—44
44—45
45—48
55—71
72—78
78—84
84—86
86—87
49—53
54—71
72—87
IV
TABLE OF CONfENTS.
Chapter IV. The Old Hundreds of Somerset
The Gheld-Inquest of a.d. 1084
Old Indices of Somerset Hundreds .
Hundreds assessed by the Gheld-Inquest of
A.D. 1084
Hundreds not assessed by the extant In-
quest of A.D. 1084 ....
Non-identified Manors of the Somerset
Survey ......
Chapter V. Non-hidated Liberties of Somerset
Estate of the Church of St. John at Frome
Abbatial Liberty of Muchelney .
Chapter VI. Appendix of Observations and
Statistics .....
Omissions of the Somerset Domesday
Post-Domesday Hundred of Whitley
Domesday Fiefs of Somerset
Statistics of Population
Annual Eevenues and Values of Somerset
Lands
The Farm Labourer at the Time of
Domesday .....
Domesday distribution of Somerset Lands
Pages
90—92
223—224
224
224
225
89—93
94—206
207—213
214—217
218
219
220—221
221
221—225
88—217
218—219
220—225
VOL. II.— TABLES.
" Terra Eegis in Somerseta" .....
" Vetus Dominicum Coronse." — Estates of the Crown .
" Mansiones de Comitatu." — Estates of the Earldom .
" Terree quas tenuit Editda Regina." — Estates of the
late Queen Edith ......
" Terra quee fuit Ulwardi Wite." — Estates of the late
Wulward White
The Hundreds and Liberties of Somerset. — Synoptical
Table of
Hundreds and Liberties assessed in the extant Gheld-
Inquests of A. D. 1084
Hundreds and Liberties not so assessed .
Hundreds and Liberties named in old Indices .
Hundreds and Liberties not so named
1—2
3—4
5—6
5—6
1—6
7— g
9
9
10
10
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Hundreds and Liberties of Somerset assessed in the ex-
tant Gheld-Inquests of a.d. 1084 ....
Hundreds of " Abedicche," " Bolestan," " Andretesfelt"
and "Betministra'* I
Hundred of "Bada,'' Burgh of Bath, Hundreds of
" Bimastane " and " Brunetone Vicecomitis"
Hundred of " Briwetone"
" Hundreds of " Cainesham," " Cantetone," and " Cun-
gresberia"
Hundreds of " Carentona," of " Condecorna and
Manehefve," and of Cetdre .....
Hundreds of "Cruche," "Ciwetona," and "Chiti,"
Manor of " Hama"
" Episcopi Gisonis Terra," — The Episcopal Fief of )
Somerset >
Hundreds of " Hareclive" and of " Hunspill " . )
Old Hundred of " Frome." Manor of" Monacheton" .
Hundreds of " Givela" and " Milvertone" . . . i
Manors of "Torlaberia" and "Torna" . . ./
Hundreds of "Locheslei," "Meleborne," "Porberia,"
and " Eingoltdeswea "
Hundreds of North Petherton and of South Petherton
Hundreds of "Tantotone" and " Pipeministra'' . ^
Hundred of "Witestane" J
Hundred of "Willitone" ....
Hundred of "Winestoc" ....
Hundreds and Liberties of Somerset, not assessed in
any extant Inquest of a.d. 1084 .
Hundreds of Somerton, Pitney " Liet," al. " Cochra"
Liberties of "Bruneton," "Cliva," "Crice," "Nortchori,"
and " Sudbrent," Hundred of Martock .
Liberty of Glastonbury, Edgerley, Meare, &c. .
Domesday Manors of Somerset not yet identified .
Prse-Domesday Franchise of the Church of St. John at
Frome ........
Prse-Domesday Liberty of Muchelney Abbey
The Somerset Domesday arranged according to Fiefs
Index of Places
Index of Persons
Corrigenda.
Pages
1—38
11—12
13—14
15—16
17—18
19—20
21—22
23—24
25—26
27—28
29—30
31—32
33—34
35—36
37—38
37—38
39—40
41—42
37—42
41—42
41—42
41—42
43
45—59
60—75
75
PREFACE.
After many months' study of the Somerset Domesday, the Author
finds nothing to disturb, but very much to support, those principles
of criticism and those methods of analysis which were adopted in
his "Key to Domesday", as "illustrated by the Dorset Survey."
Domesday thus examined, county after county, becomes a Science
more and more exact. The utilitarianism, or the indifferentism, of
the age will lead many to ignore such a Science. These are they
who will also despise History in any form.
Even though a Science, Domesday may become popular. There is
hardly a man or a youth of English birth and with an English
soul, who would not care to know something of the name and state,
eight centuries ago, of the place wherein he was born and wherein
he lives — something, too, of the relative condition of the class
most parallel with that to which he himself happens to belong,
To identify this or that locality with some place named in Domes-
day; to learn, if it be not so named, how and where it was
represented or concealed in Domesday : these, then, are matters of
popular interest. Most of these identities lie on the surface of
mere words. They are well known, we would rather say, widely
advertised, and largely believed. But many also are iU-ascertained,
many unworthily accredited, and, beyond these, there are many
identities which remain in needless obscurity, a few only which
belong to the region of insoluble doubt.
To minimize obscurity; — to sift to the dregs aU questions of
difficulty : — these are processes which can adequately be conducted
only by treating Domesday as a " Science."
Dorset and Somerset, though sister-counties in many respects of
Prse-Domesday and Post-Domesday circumstance, differed from
each other in far more : nay, one part of Somerset differed from
another part more widely, perhaps, than did most conterminous
B
2 PEEPACE.
counties. Along the whole seaboard of Somerset, and in West
Somerset, we are progressing in Domesday as in a map, to the rude
shores or inland wilds of Devon and of Cornwall. In East
Somerset, and in the vicinity of Bath and Bristol, we iind a
population and a culture akin to that of Gloucestershire. In
central Somerset, and in the ridges of Mendip, Polden, and Quan-
tock, we have mountain features, which, as marked in Domesday,
contrast with the more monotonous irregularities of the Downs
of Dorset. — Of goats there were many in Dorset, many also in
Somerset. — Of wild horses there were none save in Somerset.
In regard to documentary evidences we would preface all that
we have to say, about Somerset in particular, by something general
as to the five South-western Counties of England, and about those
other records which in some or aU of the five cases, serve to
illustrate or elucidate their Domesday circumstances and relations.
The Counties in question are Wiltshire, Somerset, Dorset, Devon,
and Cornwall.
Eor these five Counties, and for no other county in England, is
the Gheld-Inquest of a.d. 1084 (two years previous to Domesday)
in any sort preserved. This Inquest, which, above all other pre-
cious elements, gives us the names of the Hundreds into which
each county was divided, is redundantly fuU as regards Wiltshire
(for there are three editions thereof) : it is complete as regards
the Hundreds of Dorset ; about Devon and Cornwall we have not
ascertained as much ; as to Somerset the Inquests of some three or
four Hundreds, and (if ever taken) of several lesser Franchises, are
irrecoverably lost.
Many have been the misconceptions and mis-statements about
the Gheld-Inquest. Centuries ago, its relics came to be engrossed
on similar veUum, and bound up in the same folio, with the Exon
Domesday. Nay, in some parts of the Codex, pages of the Inquest
are absolutely interleaved with pages of the Survey. Hence the
Inquest came to be subsequently and ordinarily quoted as The
Exon Domesday. Hence one commentator decided that it was the
immediate cause and forerunner of the Great Survey ; another that
it followed as an immediate effect thereof.
Summarily, the Gheld-Inquest of A.D. 1084 and Domesday Book
had nothing whatever to do with each other, save that, perchance,
the Domesday Commissioners may have used these, and other
similar, EoUs as evidence in some regards of their enquiry.
The date and nature of the Gheld-Inquest may be told in a
PEEPACE. 3
very few words. Between the Conquest and the year of Domesday
(between 1066 and 1085-6) King William levied the tax, some-
times called " Danegeld," more than once. He levied it as a war
tax. One of the Chroniclers says precisely that after Christmas,
1083, King "William levied a tax of six shillings on every hide of
land. This was the Gheld-Levy of which we are now speaking ;
and the fragment thereof which remains to posterity is the Col-
lectors' account of this levy in the five South-western Counties.
The Eecord itself contains further and internal evidence of the
date and rate thus assigned. It was levied after the death of
Queen Matilda, which event took place November 3, 1083. It
was levied before Domesday, as we will presently shew, and
Domesday was completed before Easter (April 5), 1086. Its last
arrears were paid up after the Easter of some year when Easter
and Lady-day, being indifferently spoken of as the said "latest
term," will have nearly coincided. Such a year was 1084, when
Easter fell just six days later than Lady-day, viz., on March 31 ;
such a year the year 1085 was not, for then Easter fell on April 20.
Adding now the internal evidence of Domesday to that of
the Inquisicio we shall see that, between the completion of
the Inquest (Easter, 1084), and the completion of Domesday
(Easter, 1086), changes, neither more nor fewer, took place than
such as may reasonably and credibly be bespoken for an interval of
two years or less. Many tenancies and tenants, alluded to in the
Inquest, had lapsed, or disappeared, before Domesday. Many
estates, held in Demesne by the Barons of the Inquest, had been
subinfeuded before Domesday. Some Barons had increased their
Demesne at the expense of their Villeinage, and vice versa. Here
and there a Manor had been taken from one Barony and added,
presumably, to another.
The way in which the two Eecords, the Gheld-Inquest and
Domesday, explain and supplement one another may be almost ,
said to double the antiquarian value of the greater Eecord. The
Gheld-Inquest gives the names of Hundreds, which the Domesday
of the South-Western Counties, except by the merest accident,
omits. Vice versd, Domesday purports to give the names of all
Manors ; the Gheld-Inquest rarely mentions a Manor or ViU. Yet,
here and there, where Domesday, by accident, omits the name of
an estate, or omits altogether to survey or mention an estate, the
Gheld-Inquest has given a clue to the identity of the anonymous
estate, and a clue to the restoration of the omitted estate.
B 2
4 PJREFACE.
Again, Domesday, as a rule, gives the names of all Tenants-in-
capite and of tlieir sub-tenants. The Gheld-Inquest only gives
the names of the privileged class, or of non-privileged defaulters ;
but among the latter we occasionally come across the name of
some sub-sub-tenant, who is sure to be omitted in Domesday.
Also the Gheld-Inquest expresses the full names, and the alter-
native names of both barons and sub-tenants, oftener than the Exon
Domesday, and much oftener than the Exchequer Codex.
Inasmuch as we purpose to give abstracts of all the extant
Inquests of Somerset Hundreds, and inasmuch as those abstracts
win be furnished with copious notes, we will not here enlarge
further on the characteristics of the Gheld-Inquest of a.d. 1084.
And now as to the greater Eecord, which for convenience we call
" Domesday," by way of abbreviating its fuller and truer title of
" Domesday Book."
The original notes of King William's Commissioners were not
written in any manner of book, but on Eolls or Eotulets, which, if
they observed any sequence at all, observed a sequence of Hundreds
or localities.
No fragment of these original Eolls is known to exist. The best
copy of any of them, as regards sequence and method, the best hints
as to how the enquiry was to be conducted, what questions were
to be asked, and who were to answer them, are supplied in the
Inquisicio Eliensis. This Eecord, which seems to be either a copy
of the original notes, or a copy of a copy, is in a handwriting of the
twelfth century.
It may be said that the Inquisicio Eliensis only followed the
claims and possessions of Ely Abbey, so that following them by
sequence of Hundreds seem almost to have been a necessity of the
case. But then the Inquisicio does not follow the same sequence as
Domesday. It is surely a fair inference that it follows the sequence
of those original notes from which Domesday was taken, though
Domesday itself adopted a different sequence and arrangement.
There is no transcript of original notes like the Inquisicio Eliensis
for any part of the Domesday Circuit with which we are now
engaged. In Lieu thereof we have, for Somerset, two editions — we
call them paraphrases rather than copies, we call them one while
extracts, one while expansions — of the Commissioners' Notes.
These two editions are technically known as the Exon Domesday
and the Exchequer Domesday.
Internal evidence suggests that these two recasts of the original
PREFACE. 5
notes were utterly independent of one another. We cannot prove
a negative, but we may well believe that the clerks who drew
the Exeter Eecord never saw the work of the Exchequer Clerks ;
and, vice versa, that no single entry of the Exchequer Codex was
copied or abstracted from the Exeter edition. We put it as a con-
jecture rather than a theory, that the clerks who drew the Exeter
Domesday effected their work while yet the Commissioners' Notes
were in tlie Provinces, and before the said Notes were sent to
undergo a stronger process of filtration and digestion at the Eoyal
Exchequer.
It will have already been seen that we differ somewhat from a
great commentator (the late Sir Henry Ellis), and from his remarks
introductory of the "Third Volume of Domesday Documents."
His contrasts between the Exeter and the Exchequer Domesday, in
respect of phraseology, were well selected,^ only that he attributed
to the " Exon Survey " some few words which are to be found only
in the Gheld-Inquest of a.d. 1084.
As regards these contrasts one usual phenomenon is that the
Exon Clerks were much given to " airing their Latinity,'' while the
Exchequer Clerks, preferring brevity in all things, whether sen-
tences or words, usually chose the shortei', and therewithal the
more English forms of nomenclature. Where there is an opening
for such a proclivity, we find the Exchequer Clerk translating into
a Norman-French form, while the Exon Clerk abides by his favorite
Latin. Two prominent instances of this are quoted by Sir H.
EUis. The Exon Clerk styles the Abbot of Battle "Abbas de
Proelio": the Exchequer Clerk writes the same functionary as
"Abbas de la BataiLe." He whom the Exon Domesday styles
Willielmus Cwpra, stands in the Exchequer Codex as Williehnus
Chievre. Again, if the choice were between a Latin and a Saxon
form of word, the Exon Clerk preferred the former to the latter.
He writes the Abbot of Athelney as Abbas de Aliennia; the
Exchequer Clerk is more Anglican, and writes Abbas de Adelingi.
In another field of comparison, Sir Henry Ellis remarked that
the Exchequer Domesday gave to Walter de Douai a Manor of
" Middeltone," not registered in the Exon Eecord. This mistake
as to a particular may lead to misapprehension of universals.
1 By mere inadvertence, Sir H. EUis gives the word NemuscuVum, of the Exon
Domesday, as equivalent to the Silva of the Exchequer. The real equivalents were
Nanus (Exon) = Silva (Exchequer) ; Nerrmscuhim (Exon) — SUva modica and Silva
minuta (Exchequer).
6 PREFACE.
Douai's Manor of " Mildetuna " is in the Exon Domesday, but it is
not in the same sequence as in the Exchequer Eecord ; it is better
placed by the latter ; in fact, we could hardly conclude that the
manor was that which is now called Milton Clevedon but for the
superior arrangement of the Exchequer list. As a general rule,
indeed, sequence is better and more intelligibly observed in the
Exchequer Domesday ; but many things, tending to the right iden-
tification of Domesday Manors, are told in the Exeter Domesday,
and suppressed in the sister Eecord.
Each Eecord being all but perfect in its way, each has its few
imperfections. In the matters of error or omission, where an
imperfection is common to both, such imperfection is clearly
chargeable on the original, which both copied or paraphrased.
In matters of transcript the Exchequer Domesday makes the most
omissions, the Exeter makes the most errors. A few instances of
the latter will explain our meaning : more will appear in future
notes. —
The Exon (p. 265) gives the extraordinary value of £.3 per
annum as that of a mill at Sanfwda. The Exchequer Domesday
shows that no mill-value was given in the original notes, and that
£3 per annum was the value of the whole manor. The Exon
(pp. 151, 152) treats a member of the Abbot of Glastonbury's
Manor of Walton as though it was a distinct manor. The
context shows error ; the Exchequer Domesday corrects it.
The Exon (p. 455) gives two quantities of wood (nemoris) to
Bochelanda. The Exchequer correctly gives the second quantity
a:s pashora.
An ablatum, which stands as ix agri on one page of the Exon,
and as xx agri on another (pp. 83, 484), is d priori incorrect in the
latter measurement ; for so great a number of Gheld-acres would
be expressed in other terms. Accordingly the Exchequer Domes-
day, alluding to the measurement but once, puts it at ix acrce.
The Exon Domesday (p. 131) twice writes the figure " II" where
the context proves the figure V to have been proper. The Exche-
quer Domesday reads " V."
The Exon Domesday (p. 352) calls a Manor " Loduntuna," where
the Exchequer writes " Lochintone." The last is clearly most
correct, in that the place alluded to by both preserves the name
of Luckington.
The Exeter Domesday is replete with coeval corrections, and
interlineations, We see that it needed further revision. The
PREFACE. 7
Scribes who wrote it were less careful, or less skUled than they of
the Exchequer.
In contrasting the Exeter and the Exchequer Domesday-Books,
another feature now comes before us, relevant to the Survey in
general, and to that of Somerset and other Counties in particular.
The Domesday Commissioners came everywhere and necessarily
into collision with questions of title, — with questions, some
already decided (perhaps unjustly), some current, some prob-
lematical ; — of Title, if abnormal, if unsound ; — of Title, whether
established by force or by law.
In no case were the Domesday Commissioners directed, as such,
to try questions of Title. In one case they happened to try such
a question, but it was under a special writ of the King, and as
Justiciars that they tried it. As Commissioners they did not
import their decision into the Survey. The subject was not cognate
to the Survey.
This thing happened at Worcester, where the Commissioners-in-
Eyre were Eemigius, Bishop of Lincoln ; Walter Giffard, Henry de
Eerrieres, and Adam Fitz Hubert, a Baron of Kent.
To resume our subject. The Domesday Commissioners every-
where and necessarily came into collision with Questions of Title.
In several Counties, if not in all, the Commissioners made register,
of these collateral questions, — a distinct register, whose substance,
generally, though not always, nor altogether, was incorporated in
the ordinary notes of their Survey.
The corps of Domesday Commissioners which visited the East
Anglican Counties entitled these, their Side-Eegisters, Purpeestuk^.
The Corps of Commissioners, which visited Huntingdonshire,
Lincolnshire, and Yorkshire, called their Side-Eegisters Clamoees.
What concerns us most here is that the Commissioners of the South-
western Counties entitled their Side-Eegisters TEEKiE OccuPATiE.
The schedule of Teilrje OcgupatjE for Somersetis preserved, intact
and distinct, in the Exon Codex. But the Exchequer Codex, though
it gives us, thus intact and distinct, the Purpresturce of East
AngUa and the Clamores of Yorkshire, &c., does not similarly pre-
serve any schedule of " Terras Occupatse " for the South-Western
Counties. It is nevertheless true that the substance of such a
Eecord is sufficiently incorporated iu the text of the Exchequer
Domesday. And so it is in the text of the Exon Domesday ; but
in the Terrce Occupatce of the latter we shall find a few things
which are not incorporated in the text of either record. And, as a
8 PREFACE.
whole, this Side-Eegister of the Somerset Survey, thus distinctively
preserved, leads to an intelligence of the ratio and process of the
Domesday enquiry which were less full and less clear without it.
Besides the Side-Eegister of Terrce Occupatce, there is some statis-
tical matter appended to theExon Domesday, whichhas the character
of a special Inquest on the affairs and estates of Glastonbury Abbey.
Knowing that, at the date of Domesday, the Abbacy of Glastonbury
was in manu Regis, and the Ex-Abbot Turstin relegated to his
former cell in the ISTorman Abbey of St. Stephen at Caen,— that the
Crown was receiving an enormous income not only from the Abbey,
as vacant, but as a result of Turstin's financial genius, exercised while
he was yet in power, — we cannot doubt that this appendix was
drawn up under a special commission of the Crown. When
further we compare its style and phraseology and most of its
statistics with the body of the Exon Domesday, we cannot doubt
that it was drawn up either by, or by direction of, the Domesday
Commissioners.
The Appendix thus becomes more curious and more interesting.
We will give some account of it, and of its apparent connexion
with, and distinction from, the Survey. — The Exon Domesday, that
is the normal part of the Survey, does not include the Wiltshire, nor
yet the Dorset estates of Glastonbury Abbey; we should, perhaps, say,
does not preserve any list of the said estates. It preserves a list and
the very fullest details of a single Manor which the Abbey had in
Devon, and of the whole of its great Somerset possessions. At the
foot of this list, and with a,primd facie appearance of having been
a portion of the Commissioners' normal Eegister, is a sort of
r^sum^. It occupies about a dozen lines of the Exon Domesday
(pp. 160, 161). It omits the single Devon Manor, and digests the
Somerset Manors only. In its additions of the numbers
and hidage of the Somerset Manors it is arithmetically
faulty, in its enumeration of Villeins and other inhabitants thereof,
it is nearly corrrect. It introduces the word " Carucatse " twice,
in a way and in a sense which is not warranted by any precedent
in the text of the antecedent details of Survey. Its object is dis-
closed in its last two lines : — " Keec, terra emendata est in manu
Turstini Abbatis de c. et xxviii. Libris," that is, the Ex-Abbot
Turstin, had bettered the Abbatial income by £128 per annum.
Now this appendix is not introduced at aU into the Exchequer
Domesday. It was obviously no part of the routine work of the
Commissioners.
PREFACE. 9
That which we have further to say about this abnormal appendix
to the Somerset Survey of Glastonbury estates, inserted in the
Exon, but not in the Exchequer, Domesday, may well be
included in what we have now to say about a coeval document,
still more comprehensive and more extraordinary.
On pages 489 and 490 of the Exon Domesday, and following the
Somerset schedule of Terrce Occupatm (already alluded to) is a
fragment of the Gheld-Inquest of 1084, a very valuable fragment,
for it not only contains the assessment of the greatest of Somerset
Hundreds, that of (Old) Frome, but also contains an account of the
consignment of the whole Levy to the King's Treasury at Winchester.
This fragment occupies folio 526 (recto et dorso), and folio 527
(recto) of the Exeter collection of MSS.
On the dorse of folio 527 and on folio 528 (recto) of the same col-
lection, and on pp. 490 and 491 of the printed edition thereof, is
the document of which we are to speak. It has nothing to do with
the Gheld-Inquest ; it is much rather an appendix to the Domes-
day Survey of Glastonbury estates. It is a syllabus of the contents,
population, and value, of the Abbatial lands in four counties, viz.,
Wiltshire, Dorset, Devon, and Somerset.
Strange to say, the materials for this syllabus, are, as regards
Wiltshire and Dorset, nowhere preserved in the extant Exeter
collection. They are to be found only in the Exchequer Domesday.
But the syllabus for Devon and Somerset evidently contemplates,
and is an appendix to, the Exon Survey of Glastonbury Manors in
those two counties.
And then, as regards Somerset in particular. — This appendix is
only a neater and clearer form of the appendix which we have
already described as following the main schedule of Glastonbury
estates in the Exeter Domesday. The arithmetic, already de-
scribed by us as faulty, is not mended in this appendix ; the accurate
part of the arithmetic is repeated : for instance, as regards the
syllabus of the Abbot of Glastonbury's " twenty dominical manors
in Somerset," the number of teams employed is rightly summed as
75| ; so also is the number of teams (viz., 160) employed by the
Abbot's Villeinage. — The number of Villeins which, in some lost
original, stood correctly as cccxlvii, has been cut down to xlvii, by
mere error of transcript ; the number of Bordarii, viz., 325, quite
I'allies with the details of the Exon text, only it should have been
explained that this number of Bordarii was inclusive of 25 Cotarii,
named in the said text ; the number of Servi (viz., 108) and of
10 PREFACE.
Piscatores (viz., 10) are both true to the details of the text. But
the hidage (the most important item of all) is inexplicably wrong,
and the word Carrucata is again used in a sense unknown to the
text of the Exeter Domesday.
On the whole, then, the History of Somerset in the eleventh
century is, or may be illustrated by, an unusual number of coeval
Records. A Gheld-Inquest nearly perfect, the Exchequer Domes-
day, and the Exeter Domesday, both perfect, the appendices to the
latter, viz., a complete schedule of Terrce occwpatx, two syllabi of
the estates of Glastonbury Abbey, and finally a syllabus of Eobert
Fitz Gerold's Domesday estates in Dorset, Wiltshire, and Somerset,
are the Eecords alluded to. An index (Bxon Domesday, p. 493)
forming the last folio (recto and dorso) of the Exeter collection of
MSS., is hardly worth notice. It does not follow the arrange-
ment of the Codex, nor does it give one half of the contents
thereof. It is framed on no intelligible principle ; and it looks
as if the Scribe who attempted it, finding that he was editing
a medley rather than an index, had thrown up his work in
despair.
It would ill become us to proceed further in our enumeration of
authorities for the present work without acknowledging a great
obligation to the labours of Collinson, the Somerset Historian.
His discernment in the matter of Domesday nomenclature, and of
the principles which should guide those who would seek the
modern equivalents of Domesday forms, was as keen as that of the
great Anglo-Saxon scholar, Kemble. His topographical knowledge
was more than adequate to his work. His method of arrangement
was not like ours, by Prte-Domesday Hundreds and Domesday
Manors, but by modern Hundreds, modern parishes, and their
respective tythings and hamlets. Having adhered to his method
with the utmost precision and constancy, he has so much the
more enlightened us on the many questions where Domesday iden-
tities can only be established by Post-Domesday evidences, —
questions as to which the mere Domesday student is too apt to
dogmatize or to guess. Unfortunately for his own fame and for us,
Collinson never studied, and so never mastered, the Gheld-Inquest.
He knew of it ; he quoted it ; but seems to have remained blind to
its great import. Of his occasional paraphrases thereof, we cannot
say " nihil tetigit quod non ornavit." Better studied, the Gheld-
Inquest would have saved so competent a scholar and reasoner
from many an error ; it would have supplied him with light as to
PREFACE. 11
the primordia of many a Baronial House, which he, like Dugdale
before him, either misapprehended or missed.
Another deficiency of OoUinson's work was in regard of Domes-
day itself There are many Domesday Manors which, having
failed to identify at first sight, he omitted to notice as Domesday
Manors, save only in an index. And thus the promise implied by
a full Index was scarcely redeemed by the text of his three
volumes. This was, perhaps, a result almost necessary to his
method of investigation; but for us, we deem it our first duty
to find some sort of an equivalent, or apology, or explanation, for
every Domesday locality, whether found, or missing, or lost. In
Somerset we shall seek in vain for some names and some
sites long since obliterated ; but by confessing, — pointedly con-
fessing, — our doubts and darknesses, we shall leave a mark for
future investigators, more sldlled or more fortunate than
ourselves.
In his translation of Domesday entries, Collinson uniformly
adopted the error which confused the Garucata terra with the
Terra ad unam carucum. It is difficult to see how any one with
the Exon survey of any county before him, could remain in such an
error. Nevertheless there are Domesday scholars, of deserved
repute, still living, and still writing, who abide by this inveterate
misconception. Would they but study the original text more criti-
cally ; would they but accept the precise interpretation furnished by
the correlative expressions of the Exon Survey, — they might at
length learn that the Domesday Commissioners and Scribes did not
crowd nearly every sentence of their works with a vain tautology,
nor yet indite matter which, well and literally translated, could fail
to be significant in its every word.
One topic more before we turn to a minuter' analysis of the
Somerset Survey. The said Survey embodies an abnormalism of
great interest, a piece of Court history not to be met with in
any Chronicle — a piece of Domesday history such as is not to be
found on any other page of the great Eecord itself.
We have elsewhere told, though not in that case instructed by
Domesday itself, who were the four Commissioners who visited
Worcestershire in the matter of the Survey. Comparing the
method, or quality or manner of their work in Worcestershire, with
the Surveys of other Counties, we may judge what Counties were
in their circuit. We merely remark, in passing, that Eemigius,
Bishop of Lincoln, the leader of that Commission, had not an acre
12 PREFACE.
of land in "Worcestershire, nor yet in any other county of his
presumed circuit.
Again, there is some reason for supposing that the leader of the
Commission which visited Cheshire and other Counties was WuJfstan,
Bishop of Worcester. Osmund, Bishop of Sarum, perhaps headed
the Lincolnshire Commission. Walcheline, Bishop of Winchester,
was probably on some circuit where he had no personal interest,
but on what circuit we have no present ground for suggesting.
And now we propose to find from the ipsisdma verba of Domesday
the leader of the Commission which visited Somerset, and there-
with four other South- Western Counties. —
The great Somerset Manor of Taunton had been before the
Conquest, a possession of Stigand, sometime Bishop of Winchester,
sometime Archbishop of Canterbury, sometime occupant of both
Sees together.
After the Conquest, King William gave, or perhaps we should say,
confirmed, Taunton to Walcheline, the first Norman Bishop of
Winchester. The king conceded it, not as a personal and heritable
feud, but as an endowment of the See of Winchester.
There are many records of this gift : but we hardly appreciate
its munificence and its fulness till we turn to Domesday, and
find therein a lengthy and elaborate survey of the Manor of Taunton,
and therewith an enumeration, quite unusual to Domesday,
of all its rights, members, and appurtenances, Mdiether as a
manor, a parish, a seat of high justice, or the caput of a great
Hundred.
This Survey occupies four folio sides of the Exon Domesday.
The elaborate care bestowed upon the Eecord and its unusual com-
prehensiveness, are accounted for in a postscript, which runs as
foUows : —
"De his terris" (the adjuncts of Taunton) "semper jacuerunt
consuetudines et servitium in Tantone, et Eex Willelmus concessit
istas terras sancto Petro " (the church of Winchester) " et Walche-
lino Episcopo, sicut ipse" (Rex.) "recognovit apud Sarisberiam
audiente Episcopo Dunelmensi, cui precepit ut banc ipsam con-
cessionem suam in Brevibus scriberet."
If we venture to translate somewhat freely, and to expatiate
somewhat enthusiastically on this unwonted text, we trust at the
same time, to say no more than years of study, and an ever
growing tendency to prefer facts to views will warrant. —
In the autumn of 1085, King William having, as we know from
PREFACE. 13
other evidence, recently returned from Normandy, visited, as we
infer from this evidence only, the City of Salisbury.
The King now, or, perhaps we might say, immediately after his
return, despatched the Domesday Commissioners on their several
circuits, or as one simple annalist describes the fact, "Eex per
omnes Angliee provincias nuttit justiciaries qui loca et omnium bona
describant."
The King, we repeat, was at Salisbury. The Commissioners for
the South- Western Counties were there too ; nay, it is probable
that they were already in Eyre, and had commenced their Wilt-
shire work at Salisbury itself.
At their head was a Bishop, a Northern Bishop, whose personal
interests were less implicated in the affairs of South- Western
England than in those of Southern Scotland. But this Bishop was
a great scholar, an energetic administrator, a deep politician, a
trained diplomatist. Such was WiHiam de St. Carileph, sometime
a monk of the Abbey of St. Carileph, iu Maine, later stni Abbot of
St. Victor, at Le Mans, and now. in the fifth year of his Prelacy at
Durham. On him, then, did William, King of the English, being
at Salisbury, enjoia that he should take present and diligent note
of the Kiug's declared intentions touching the quality and extent of
his grant of Taunton to Bishop Walcheline ; and that, when he (the
Bishop of Durham), should, in the course of his circuit, be in
Somerset, he should enter a memorandum of such, the King's
" concession," on the Eolls of his Survey, — " in brevibus," as the
King named the elements of that, the then contemplated Eecord,
which men afterwards called Domesday Book.^
And the Northern prelate discharged his commission both in the
letter and in the substance.
It is remarkable that at Christmas, 1085, William, Bishop of
Durham, was attendant in the King's Court at Gloucester. Had he
accomplished his work westward to the Land's End, or did he
come off duty (for Gloucestershire was not in his circuit), being
summoned to the Council and the Feast, customarily held by the
King at that season of the year, and in the Western Metropolis ?
On any hypothesis as to the time taken by the different processes
which resulted in Domesday Book, the whole, that is, the Survey,
the transcription and the codification, were completed in less than
eight months ; and three of the eight were winter months. No such
^ Breve Regis was a nearly coeval name for the completed Domesday Codex. Brevia
Regis, as applied to the constituent parts, was probably the expression in which the
somewhat inept " Breve Regis," originated.
14 PREFACE.
miracle of clerkly and executive capacity has been worked in
England since.
Necessity rather than taste obliges the Writer here again to refer
to himself, not as an authority, but as an Author. He will often
have to do so in the ensuing pages. Such references wUl generally
be to " The Key to Domesday," which he compiled with " particular
illustrations from the Dorset Survey." The same principles, the
same rules, of Domesday mensuration and values, wiU derive added
strength from the Somerset Survey. For any rule, however hard
and fast, there are of course, differences of application, and there
are phsenomena which seem at first to result from two contrary and
incompatible rules, but which, after all, result from one and the
same rule, acting with a varied incidence.
Thus, when we say of a hide, as we often have said, that its
original essence was " a tenement," or " occupation " of uncertain
area, but originally calculated to bear a certain weight of taxation;
and when we prove that the hide and quasi-hide of Dorset and
some other counties averaged 240 acres, and the hide and quasi-
hide of Somerset, 249§ acres, we quote various phsenomena of one
and the same rule. What we discover is, merely, that Somerset, so
far as it was Mdated, was a somewhat poorer County than Dorset.
And there are other and still more discrepant phenomena with
relation to the hide. When we speak of the Domesday Hidation of
Dorset, we speak of an hidation, or quasi-hidation, which well-nigh
covered the whole County, but when we speak of the Domesday hida-
tion of Somerset, we speak of that which did not cover, and was
not intended to cover, so much as five-sixths of the manorial areas.
In other words, the whole, or nearly the whole, of Dorset was
settled, occupied, and appreciable, when its hidation was originally
prescribed ; and the Domesday Commissioners, finding such a state
of things, registered the hidation, but at the same time cast the
territory into their own more definite forms of mensuration. But
there were large tracts of Somerset (more than one-sixth of the
County), which had never been hidated, — never measured in any
form by thought or phraseology of man. Neither did the Domes-
day Commissioners measure these tracts : they did not say more
than a chance word about them.
Such theories and abstractions, fit rather for a peroration than a
Preface, will, we trust, be better appreciated when we shall have
said all that remains to be said in detail, and to be proved by
instance.
IJS[TEODUCTOEY ES^AY
ON THE
SOMERSET DOMESDAY.
AEEA OF SOMEESET.
Our authority (a County Topography published in 1875), states the
County of Somerset to " comprise an area of 1,642 square miles."
At that rate, its area wOl be 1,050,880 statute acres.
But the same authority gives an alternative measurement, viz.,
of 1,066,209 acres, for the same County.
Summing the details supplied by the same publication, and
correcting a few -which are accidentally erroneous, a third area
presents itself. On these last data the County of Somerset contains
1,046,554 statute acres of parochial and extra-parochial measure-
ment. The difference, viz., 19,655 acres, probably arises in the
former, or gross, measurement including estuaries and other water-
surfaces, such as would not be included in those parochial measure-
ments which realise the latter total. But the Somerset of the 11th
Century was not quite conterminous with that of the present day.
The County of the 11th Century contained HolweU (2,356 acres),
which is now annexed to Dorset, and a part of Bedminster, viz.
1,426 acres, which is now interned in the City of Bristol. This
will give 1,046,554 acres + 2,356 acres 4 1,426 acres ; — in all,
1,050,336 acres, as constituting the Somerset of the 11th Century.
And again, the precise territory which was surveyed in the
Somerset Domesday was not the whole County. About 1,256 acres
16 INTEODUCTORY ESSAY.
forming the estate of Gaspar and Bonham, were not surveyed by
Domesday as in Somerset ; but if surveyed anywhere, then it was
in Wiltshire.
Therefore, on the whole (1,050,336 acres - 1,256 acres =)
1,049,080 acres of modern ascertainment, were in some sort typified
in the Domesday Survey of Somerset.
A preliminary and general statement should here be made, as to
how far, and in what way, this computation of 1,049,080 statute
acres was really typified in the said Survey, and how far it was
excluded. —
In Dorset, where the existing area is 632,909 acres, we found (see
Dorset, pp. 146-148) that about 22,278 acres were pretermitted in
the Dorset Survey. It was less than a 28th part of the county, and
we gave what we held to be the ratio of that exclusion in the
Dorset volume.
But in Somerset, we hold that more than one-sixth of its assumed
acreage is not measured nor registered in any form in Domesday ;
is not the subject of any of the specific estimates and measures,
whether of hidage, or carucatage, or carucage, or acreage, which are
propounded in the Somerset Survey. In more precise terms, if
the statute acreage of Somerset be taken to have been then, as
now, 1,049,080 acres, then we believe that 177,970 of those acres
were omitted in the Somerset Domesday, and that 871,110 acres
were registered in the said Eecord.
The extent of these Somerset omissions is far greater than was
the case in Dorset, but their ratio is more presumable, because
in many instances it can be absolutely proved. Such proofs the
sequel will supply. Here it may be well to say a passing word
about those spacious tracts which, under the name of " Moors,"
pervaded and characterized the County of Somerset.^ Many of
them, though now under the plough, are still known as "Moors"
in local parlance. In the 11th Century they were, as a rule,
utterly waste and profitless; in some districts they were well-
nigh inaccessible ; in others, avoided rather than occupied by man.
There was an antecedent probability that the Domesday sur-
veyors would take no more note of these wildernesses than of
barren crags, or the sterile sands of the foreshore.
1 The word moor, in its original signification, as a marsh, or fen, has nearly passed
out of usage. It is preserved in the words "moor-hen'' and "morass." In Shrop-
shire, a region of fen-land, once undrained, but interspersed with patches of scrub-
wood, is still known as the "Weald-Moors."
AREA OF SOMERSET. 17
PROXIMATE IDENTITY OF THE ANCIENT AND MODERN BOUNDARIES
OF THE COUNTY.
With two proved, and with one or two possible, exceptions,
the real area of the Somerset of A.D, 1086 was that which exists
at the present moment. The two proved exceptions are in the
way of diminution. As already stated, HolweU, which was in
Somerset at the date of Domesday, has in the present century
been annexed to the County by which it is geographically sur-
rounded, viz., to Dorset. Of Bedminster parish, which was wholly
in Somerset at the date of Domesday, some portion has been since
interned in the County and City of Bristol.
Of two other estates already alluded to, viz. Gaspar {alias
Brooke) and Bonham, neither is mentioned in the Somerset
Domesday. At that period, both were probably involved in the
Manor and Parish of Stourton, Wiltshire, and in that parish
at least they still remain. However, both are reckoned to be in
the county of Somerset, and it is quite possible that such was
the case at the date of Domesday ;i for it sometimes happened
that a capital manor being in one County, its appurtenants might
be in another; nor would it have been within the scope of the
Domesday Commissioners to take note of such accidents, especially
when, as in this case, the two Counties in question were surveyed
by the same Commission.
Another case of seemingly altered boundary implies no real
change. The Somerset Manor of Yarnfield is, ecclesiastically, in
the Wiltshire parish of Maiden-Bradley. But, as now, so in
Domesday, Yarnfield is found under the name of Gernefelle, and
to have been in the County of Somerset.
Two hamlets. Shrubs and Iford, which are ecclesiastically in
the Somerset parish of Freshford, were said bythe County Historian
(see CoUinson i. 125) to be in Wiltshire. This was said, ap-
parently, because the Eiver Avon, which divides the said hamlets
from the said parish, was recognised as the boundary of the
two Counties in that district. There is nothing whatever in
Domesday to show or to suggest that, at that period, there was any
manorial or comitatual distinction between Freshford and its
hamlets. CoUinson, it is true, made Iford to have been distinctively
^ Whereas the Domesday areas of Gaapar and Bouham are reckoned, if anywhere,
under Wiltshire, so we do not in our tables add their parochial areas to those of
Somerset. If we did, it would mar the essence of our comparative measurements.
C
18 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
surveyed in the Somerset Domesday, tut this arose in the mere
mistake of identifying Iford with the Comte of Moretain's Manor
of " Eford," the latter being really represented by a place called
Ford, in the parish of Norton Fitz Warren.
All that we have further to say about Shrubs and Iford is
that, if they be now in Wiltshire, they were probably in Somerset
at the date of Domesday, and that their subsequent transfer
was perhaps suggested by the course of the Eiver Avon.
The next case of possibly changed boundaries is as between
the Counties of Somerset and Devon. Guided by Domesday in-
dicia only, we have stUl two distinct classes of indicia to deal
with, the one apprehensible at a glance, the other bearing its
testimony at the cost of many comparisons and much reasoning.
The problem is, whether a large portion of the forest and region
of Exmoor, which portion may have been annexed by a Post-
Domesday boundary-line to the County of Devon, may not equally
be deemed, at the date of Domesday, to have pertained to the
County of Somerset.
It is clear that Domesday attributes to the Eoyal Manors and
to the Hundreds of West Somerset, areas of forest and pasture
far greater than the said Manors and Hundreds can, at any time,
have geographically contained. The obvious and easy way of
accounting for this would be to say that some or other of these
Western Manors and Hundreds absorbed more of Exmoor Forest
than is now contained in the County of Somerset. But, on the
other hand, a further study of Domesday shows that to other Royal
Manors and Hundreds of Somerset, whether adjacent or not to these
Western Manors, the quantities of forest and pasture assigned by
the Eeeord were inadequate to the seeming geometrical require-
ments of each case, and in some instances to the known facts
of a case. Perhaps the most typical of these latter cases is that
of the Eoyal Manor and the Hundred of North Petherton.
Postponing any present examination of such details, we here sub-
mit the general theory, viz., that the assignment by Domesday, of
definite forest areas to certain specified manors, was by no means
tantamount to an allocation of the said areas. It was a con-
ventional or technical process, very possibly connected with the
administration of the forest laws by the appointed officers.
Summarily then, the concentration of these wide-spread areas on
certain Manors of West Somerset may have absorbed some parts of
the present County of Devon, but it certainly took, as it were, into
AEBA OF SOMERSET. 19
the Western Hundreds of Somerset considerable tracts of forest-
land which lay, topographically, in other Hundreds and districts
of the said County.
The last case of boundary change which calls for observation
here, was one which, for centuries before the Conquest, had been
beyond the control or adjustment of man. We aUude to the
physical change which, of old, wrought its wild work in Counties
of the seaboard by stress of the advance or retirement of the sea.
HypotheticaUy as regards Somerset, we assume that, since the
Conquest, the gains from the sea have been equal to the losses. It
is the tendency of science and of English spirit to control nature in
these respects. Ages gone by, the Severn sea was at BanweU, at
Churchill, and even in the precincts of holy Glastonbury. But a
subsidence had been directed by nature long before Domesday, and
what nature then worked, man has since been securing. Smaller
changes of the last eight centuries we have u either the means nor the
intention of balancing. For our present purpose, and with all seem-
ing probability, and with no material error possible in any direction,
we assume, that, in regard to its seaboard, the area of Somerset
is at the present day much what it was in the eleventh century.
As with the County, so with the Hundreds of Somerset, there
has been no revolutionary change for eight centuries. Some Prae-
Domesday Hundreds have changed their names without changing
their boundaries ; some have slightly changed their areas without
changing their names.
The Gheld-Inquest of A.D. 1084, in three instances, names
double Hundreds or Liberties, which, in the matter of assessment,
it treats as three single Hundreds ; consequently it gives the names
of 41 Hundreds or Liberties as assessed, but only gives 38 Inquests.
Vice versd, it masses under the name of a single Hundred a, series
of entries which were known at the time to have pertained to two
or even three Hundreds of name, and which in the Post-Domesday
sera were speedily resolved into their original singularity. The
only existent Hundred of Somerset which can properly be said, as
an individual Hundred, to have had no Domesday antecedent is
that of Whitley.—
Whitley Hundred was devised long after Domesday, and, as will
appear in the sequel, for the special object of concentrating various
Manors of Glastonbury Abbey, some of which had previously lain
scattered in several old Hundreds, while others were relics of two
Glastonbury Hundreds contemporaneously dissolved.
C 2
20 INTRODUCTORY BSSAY.
On the wliole, it appears that Somerset at the date of Domesday
contained 65 Hundreds or Liberties of special name and recognition
12 of which were Manors of the Vetus Dominicum Goronce. It,
further appears that several of these 65 Hundreds were duplicate
or triplicate Hundreds, and that their sub-divisions were occasionally
named and recognised as distinct Hundreds. To avoid details not
proper to this stage of our enquiry, we reckon on the whole, then,
that at the date of Domesday, Somerset contained upwards of 70
Hundreds, Liberties, or enfranchised Manors of name, and of more
or less special recognition. Nowadays these Hundreds, Liberties,
or Manors are so divided or so combined as to form 42 Hundreds
or Liberties. And this numerical reduction has been mainly
effected by annexing the 12 Manors of the Vetus Dominicum GoroTioe,
and some 20 other Manors or Liberties, each to its cognate or
seemingly appropriate Hundred.
ON DOMESDAY HIDATION AND THE HIDE OF SOMERSET.
On this subject, its general principles and aspects, it seems better
to refer to, rather than to repeat, many things which have already
been said in our former treatise on the Dorset Survey. Here we
will endeavour to point out seriatim the different developments
which followed on the same principles in the County of Somerset ;
and it may be that we shall have, here and there, to demonstrate the
operation of varied elements and antagonistic forces.
The Dorset Domesday nowhere recognises such a thing as a non-
geldahle, as distinct from a non-geldant, hide. Where such a thing
existed in essence, the Dorset Domesday called it a Oarucata
terrce. The Somerset Domesday had its carucates also, and they
were in the very essence of non-geldable hides. But there were
only twelve of these carucates in the whole County. Eight
of them were attached to the great Church of St. John at Frome ;
four constituted the precinct and home-estate of Muchelney
Abbey.
But Somerset, unlike Dorset, though like Devon, Cornwall,
Gloucestershire, and other Counties, had its non-geldable hides. The
most notable instance was that of Glastonbury Abbey, whose site,
precinct, and dominical adjuncts consisted of 12 hides, a circum-
stance which has procured for the Post-Domesday Hundred of
Glastonbury, though with a largely increased area, the abiding
denomination of " The Hundred of Glastonbury Twelve Hides." Of
the original estate, the Exon Domesday speaks as follows: —
HIDATION AND THE HIDE. 21
" ^cclesia Glastingeberiensis habet unam mansionem " {i. e. Manor)
" quae vocatur Glastingeberia, in qu§, sunt xii hidse terrae quje nun-
quatn gildum reddiderunt. Has possunt arare xxx Caracse."
So tbat according to our estimate of the " Ploughland " (viz., 120
statute acres), each of the privileged hides of Glastonbury contained,
as one of its elements, 300 acres of arable land. The other elements
of each such hide we find to have been 25 acres of dwarf wood
(nemuscuU), If acres of wood (nemoris), 5 acres of meadow, and
16| acres of pasture. Here, then, the ingeldable hide averaged
348^ acres of Domesday measurement and registration.
The above was a case of " privileged hidation," — privileged in two
distinct ways, one that the capacity of the hide was very large, the
other that each hide was absolutely non-geldable. But in Somerset,
as in Dorset, there were cases of highly privileged hidation, where
the privilege involved no absolute, though a nearly proximate,
Tuyn-geldahility. Abundant instances wUl appear in our Tables.
Here we would notice the late Queen Edith's Manor of Milverton.
It was geldable only as two fertines, that is as one eighth part of a
hide. Yet it contained, in Domesday measures, 1,920 acres of
arable land, 100 acres of dwarf-wood, 6 acres of meadow, and 100
acres of pasture. Obviously the hide which would result from such
elements would be a hide of (2,126 x 8 = ) 17,008 acres.
One of two manors in Kingston (now Kingston Seymour) con-
sisted of a single hide at the date of Domesday. That hide
measured 2,080 acres. In Saxon times this single hide had involved
the second manor. The latter is measured by Domesday as con-
taining 840 acres more, but this smaller manor had been re-hidated.
Its hidage in Domesday is 4| hides. Aldret was T. E. E. Lord of
this, as yet undivided, hide. The Manor of HuntspUl, held T. R. E.
by Ewerwacer, was a single hide, and remained so in a.d. 1086.
This hide measured 1,860 acres of Domesday registration.
In the matter of progressive hidation the cases which occurred
in Somerset immediately after the Conquest savour sometimes of
the curtailment or annihilation of prescriptive privilege, some-
times of the discovery of previously concealed hidage, but in no
case do we find hidation to have increased with reference to tem-
porary advantages or local prosperity, neither do we find any case
where the degree or quantity of hidation was lowered with re-
ference to any circumstance of poverty, disaster, or desolation.
In three of the Comital Manors (that is manors annexed to the
Saxon Earldom of Somerset), and in three of the late Queen Edith's
22 INTRODUCTOKY ESSAY.
Manors, the privileged hidations of King Edward's time had been
withdrawn before Domesday, and replaced by hidations more or
less than double in amount : and yet these manors had all de-
volved on the Conqueror himself. There were other like incre-
ments of hidation in many manors which had been annexed to
other Fiefs. The personal interest of neither King nor Baron
(whose demesnes were exempt from the Gheld-Tax) were affected
by these changes. The Coliberti and the Villani alone suffered by
this kind of rehidation.
Such changes, it should be observed, were not due to the Domes-
day Commissioners, for the Inquisicio-Gheldi, two years earlier than
Domesday, had already recognized the higher estimates.
But with respect to the 41 Hundreds or Liberties which were
assessed in the extant Gheld-Inquests of a.d. 1084, we further find
that the Domesday Commissioners added some 43J hides to the
previous estimates. Such increments resulted from no abolition of
prescriptive privilege, but from the detection of previous informa-
lities, or of previous concealments. The Commissioners had no
arbitrary power of the former kind ; the latter process was official,
and was clearly one of their special functions.
In the Cornish Survey (Domesday, fo. 121, b. 1) it is said of the
Comte of Moretain's Manor of Liscarret — " Marlesuaia tenebat
tempore Eegis Edwardi et geldabat, pro ii hidis. Ibi tamen sunt
xii hidte." Similar expressions are used in the Survey of other
manors of Devon and Cornwall ; and in one or two cases some-
thing of the kind is said about estates in Somerset. Our object,
in mentioning the matter here, is to point out what the expression,
wherever used, may have indicated. We take such expressions to
have been presentments by the Domesday Commissioners, not
judicial decisions, certainly not enactments. Such cases were left
by the Commissioners to the investigation of the Fiscal Officers of
the Crown and to their decision. Taking for the moment one view
of the term hide, such a passage would mean somewhat as foUows
— " Here is a manor which in King Edward's time stood at such a
Gheld-rate, as was proper to a manor containing two farms or
occupations. But as a matter of fact, we (the Domesday Jurors
or Surveyors^) find that the said manor embodies twelve farms or
^ We think it possible that the Domesday Commissioners may have used such
written Records as the Gheld-Rolls. We do not think that they used any written
forms of Terrier (the Gheld-Rolls were not Terriers), otherwise they would have
spelt local names iu a more Anglican fashion. They got their facts from Juries, —
HIDATION AND THE HIDE. 23
occupations ; and we (the Domesday Commissioners) register that
verdict." It was not a case of progressive hidation, nor of Domesday
Increment, but it was a case suggestive of the future propriety of
such a change.
In the mere matter of capacity, and as compared with Dorset, or
with Shropshire, or with the Province of Ketsteven, in Lincoln-
shire, the Domesday Hidation of Somerset may in one way be
shewn to have resulted from nearly the same principles. Collecting
everything that is called a hide, or virgate, or fertine, or gh eld-
acre, in the Somerset Survey, we find the amount (within some
2| virgates) to have been 2,952 hides. With these hidfes, Domesday
complicates 108 ungeldable plough-lands, which we take leave to
call Quasi-Hides, thus making the whole area which it is convenient
to call the Area of Hidation to have been 3,060 hides. Agaiust this
hidation Domesday registers other measures of a different descrip-
tion which realise to our computation (see Table, Vol. II, pp. 5, 6)
precisely 760,577 statute acres. At this rate, the Somerset Hide
co-ordinated with about 248| acres of exacter Domesday measure-
ment. But there is in Domesday a further quantity of Somerset
land which is not complicated with statements of hidation. It
consists of 417 ingeldable plough-lands and of 12 carucates of land.
All these may be taken as Quasi-Hides, so that in point of present
reckoning the Hidation of Somerset may be taken as (3,060 + 417 +
12 = ) 3,489 hides. Against this, technically computed, area of the
whole County, Domesday registers actual measures amounting to
871,110 statute acres. The result is nearly the same as iu the
former comparison. Instead of the Somerset Hide co-ordinating as
in the former experiment^ with 248| statute acres, it now co-ordinates
with a fraction less than 250 acres. As regards the principles on
which hidation was originally prescribed and assesse d, they are not to
be ascertained except by a series of experiments. Let us repeat some
which we ourselves have conducted. (See Dorset, p. 145, note.) —
In Dorset, about 239 statute acres are the typical equivalent of the
Domesday Hide. In Shropshire, the hide is represented by a little
over 240 acres. In Ketsteven, the Domesday Carucate (tanta-
mount to the hide of other Counties) seems to be represented
by 244 modern acres. In Somerset, as we have above ascertained,
the hide is represented by 248i^ Domesday acres, the hide and
from the oral testimony of Manorial Bailiffs or Juries. The Jurors of a Hundred were
sometimes called upon for evidence ; more rarely, the Grand Jury of the County was
consulted.
24 INTEODTJCTOEY ESSAY.
quasi-hide combined, by about 249| Domesday acres. So far, then,
all we can say is, that the original hidation of Somerset was
somewhat more favourable than that of Dorset, or Shropshire, or
Ketsteven.
But now we must enquire how it was that a principle, almost
unique, should become varied by the circumstances of its applica-
tion. In Dorset, Shropshire, and Ketsteven, our comparison was
between hidage and modern acreage ; in Somerset, it was between
hidage and Domesday acreage. And the Domesday acreage and
the modern acreage of Somerset are two widely different things.
This we will make evident in a few words. —
The County which composed the Somerset of the eleventh cen-
tury measures, by modern ascertainment, 1,049,080 statute acres :
that is, it measures 17*7,970 acres more than were registered in the
Domesday computations. And in that view, for it is little more
than a view, the co-ordinate of the Domesday hide may be said to
be something just over 300 statute acres. The solution of this
seeming puzzle has already been given. It is simply repeating it
to say that the Domesday Commission ignored something more
than a sixth of the County of Somerset, or at least excluded it from
their reckonings, and that, a fortiori, the antecedent scales of hida-
tion had been calculated with a like principle of excluding utterly
unoccupied and profitless territory.
When the Gheld-laws were first enacted, it became necessary for
the sake of equitable taxation that the whole kingdom should be
apportioned into hides. Where a County or district was less able
than the generality to bear taxation, the hides into which it was
cast became necessarily fewer in number and greater in area. This
can hardly be called 'privileged hidation. If we call it favourable
hidation, the term should be defined. We will say, then, that it
was a due consideration of the lesser competency of whole Counties
or whole districts.
And, as the hide of all hidated Somerset was made to contain
from five to ten acres more than the hide of Dorset, so in that ratio,
was Somerset a poorer County than Dorset.
And, as this variety of the hide obtained in whole Counties
according as they were generally richer or generally poorer, so did
it obtain to a much greater extent in different districts of the same
County. In Somerset, for instance, and in the Hundred of Cut-
comb and Minehead, the hide of the eleventh century co-ordinated
with 1,878 acres of coeval measurement, but in the Hundred of Bath
HIDATION AND THE HIDE. • 25
the hide co-ordinated with 139 J such acres, and in the Hundred of
Grivela (Yeovil) with 136|- such acres.
THE HIDATION OF MANORS ACCORDING TO ESTIMATES OF INTRINSIC
OR EXTRINSIC VALUE.
Quitting for the present those larger iields of observation to
which the Somerset Domesday has invited us, we wiU illustrate our
subject by references to Manors rather than Districts.
The chief, we may almost say the only, intrinsic faculty which
will have regulated the value of Somerset Manors, was fertility of
son. That this- faculty was the very first to be considered when
the hidation of any Somerset Manor was originally prescribed, is
evident on every page of Domesday ; and, as we trust, our Tables
will sufficiently reflect the general truth by innumerable examples.
The converse is also to be seen in the same Tables, where a low
value and a low scale of hidation surely indicate a fertility below
par.
Of the various kinds of land, the arable land will have been that
which most varied in intriusic value. In short, where hidation
and annual value are both low, or both high, in comparison with
the estimated number of available plough-lands, we may presume
the inherent sterility or fertility of the latter.
A specific case will show the force of this rule. Wniiam de
Moione's Manor of Langeham (E. D. p. 337) contained a single
hide, worth 30 shillings per annum, of which 3 shillings arose from
the Manorial Mill. It was a very low hidage and a very low
value for a manor which contained, — ^besides 100 acres of wood,
meadow, and pasture, — 6 plough-lands, that is, 720 acres of arable
land ; and on these 6| teams were actually at work. Of course,
this arable land was of very poor quality ; and the proof thereof is
so far iu the letter of Domesday. —
The Manor in question proves to be Langham, in Luxborough.
Its rateable value, at the present day, is, we believe, 12s. 8d. per
acre ; — truly a significant perpetuation of the poverty registered in
Domesday.
Take a more ordinary case, that of the Bishop of Coutance's
double Manor of Twerton (E. D. p. 136). It contained 10 hides;
its annual value was £13 less £3, the produce of four miUs. This
was more than an average value for an estate which, while it
comprised only 25 acres of wood and meadow, also comprised
12 J plough-lands (equal to 1,500 acres) on which 11 J teams were
26 INTEODUCTOEY ESSAY.
actnally going. We judge, then, from Domesday, that the arable
land of Twerton was of fully average quality. —
The present parish of Twerton does not represent the two
Domesday Manors ; but the rateable value of land in that district
is about £1 17s. per annum. —
We infer from this case of Twerton, among others, that mill -sites
and rights of multure were not taken into account in assessing
the original hidation of a manor, nor had the use of such faculties
operated to increase the hidation up to the date of Domesday.
These, then, were among those extrinsic advantages which, though
they added to the value of a manor, cannot be supposed to have
affected its hidation.
A very instructive case in this matter of inherent value is that
of the Manor of ISTorton-sub-Hamdon, in Givela (now Horethorne)
Hundred. It had been given before Domesday by the Comte of
Moretain to the ISTorman Abbey of St. Mary of Grestein. It
contained 5 hides, its arable land was adapted to 5 teams, but only
4 teams were at work.. Its mill realized £1 per annum. It con-
tained 645 acres of Domesday measurement, viz., 600 acres of
arable land, 20 acres of wood, and 25 acres of meadow. Here the
hidation was very high, for the hide only contained 129 acres, of
which 120 were arable. The annual returns were £5 per annum,
which, setting the mUL against the absent team, was an unusually
high value for any purely agricultural estate. Now look at the
present parish of Norton-sub-Hanidon. It is unquestionably
conterminous with the Domesday Manor, for it measures 642 acres.
It must be an exceedingly fertile spot, for its rateable value is
£3 Os. 6fd. per acre.
Of the hidation of certain Somerset Manors having been originally
determined with reference to extrinsic advantages, we have special
examples in the Hundred of Bath, where the said advantages will
have consisted in proximity to an opulent Burgh and much-
frequented centre. Thus, a manor at Weston, containing only
10 plough-lands, and territorially valued at £10 per annum, had
been originally assessed as 15 hides, and so remained at Domesday.
Lyncombe, with its 8 plough-lands, valued at £6 per annum,
T. E. E., and at £8, T. E W., had been originally, and still remained,
hidated as 10 hides. Monkton Combe was a case of the same
complexion ; but in many cases of manors proximate to Bath other
elements seem to have come into operation, and destroyed the
universality of such phsenomena. As to these same extrinsic
HIDATION AND THE HIDE. 27
accidents of situation and surroundings, and their influence in
lowering the hidation of manors, look at the wild Hundreds of
Cutcomb-Minehead, and Carhampton, where, in a plurality of
manors, the single hide contains two, three, four, five, yea, even six
plough-lands; where the single hide was of high annual value,
never less than £1, often £2 or £3, sometimes even £4 ; where (as
regards Carhampton Hundred at least) the average hide tallied
with a positively stated Domesday area of 973J acres, as regards
Cutcomb and Minehead Hundred, with a positive area of 1,878
acres. These were in some sort, we might say, cases of "privileged"
or of " favourable hidation"; but those are hardly the best terms to
apply to the manors of a whole region. No favour was intended
by the origiaal assessment of hidage, but much consideration was
shewn. " Here is an estate," the Assessors may be supposed to
have said : " it is of great extent ; it is of fair intrinsic value ; but,
however great or fair, it is but an oasis in the desert : it is remote
from all faculties of market or transport ; its capacity to endure
taxation we rate at a minimum : we reduce this estate of 900 acres,
and that estate of 1,800 acres to a unity in the scale of hidation.
That which in Eastern, or Middle, or Southern Somerset we
determine to be fifteen, or ten, or five, or three hides, we here
pronounce to be only one hide."
We have stated in our Dorset Treatise (p. 13) as a matter of
observation and of fact, but stiLL only as an incident, that the
individual hide of Dorset Manors generally appears in Domesday
in numerical conjunction with a single plough-land, or Terra ad
unam carrucam.
The case was far different in Somerset. Except in four abnormal
Hundreds or Liberties, the plough-lands were in no Somerset
Hundred so few as the hides, in many Hundreds and Liberties
two or three plough-lands co-ordinated with a single hide. In the
Hundreds of Carhampton, and Cutcomb-Minehead, taken together,
the plough-lands were as four to one of the hides.
THE SUBDIVISIONS OF THE DOMESDAY HIDE.
In this matter, precisely the same principles obtained in
Somerset, as in Dorset (see Dorset, p. 14), and as in all the South-
western Counties. But, as it was practically unnecessary to
introduce the ferndel oTfertine, or fourth part of a virgate, into the
Domesday of Dorset and Wiltshire, so it was practically imperative
to use it frequently in the Gheld- Assessments of Somerset.
28 INTEODUCTOBY ESSAY.
The ratio of this is obvious. — Where the Hide, as in Dorset,
co-ordinated with some 240 statute acres, the subdivisions of the
hide as a Gheld-figure, viz., the Virgate, usually, co-ordinating with
60 statute acres, or the Gheld-acre, usually co-ordinating with 5
statute acres, were expressions adequate to every case of sub-
division. But in Somerset, where the Gheld-hide sometimes
co-ordinated with 500, or 900, or even 1,800 acres, and where estates
were more frequently and more fractionally subdivided than in
Dorset, it became necessary to use an intermediate Gheld-measure.
This was the Fertine. It was one-fourth of the Virgate ; it con-
tained 3 Gheld-acres. When used it co-ordinated with a statute
acreage, such as might happen to form a sixteenth part of the
acreage, which co-ordinated with^ the hide of any Hundred or
manor. If a Somerset estate consisted, let us say of 960 statute
acres, and if, in any case, the said 960 acres be found to have
co-ordinated with a Somerset Gheld-hide, then, in that case the
co-ordinate of the Gheld-virgate was 240 acres, of the Gheld-
fertine was 60 acres, of the Gheld-acre was 20 acres.
Many curious illustrations of our theory as to the Gheld-
measures cited in Domesday will be found in future notes. ^
THE CAEUCATA TEER.ffl, AS DISTINCT FROM THE TERRA AD UNAM
CAEUCAM.
We have said that the Carucate (Carucata Terrse) is only twice
mentioned in the Somerset Domesday. This is literally the case ;
but in the Inquisicio-Gheldi, and, in the Schedule of Terrce Occu-
patm^ appended to the Exon Domesday, the word Carucata is
used twice at least, if not oftener. In these cases the word is used
^ Some years since, the Gheld-measures and the Statute-measures of Domesday,
having been quite inteUigibly, distinguished as " the Saxon and the Norman
measures," an attempt was made to draw a hard and fast rule as to the proportions of
the two ; a hard and fast rule forsooth, between two systems, one of which varied
according to the district which might be under notice, while the other was perfectly in-
elastic. The equation used for this purpose could have estabhshed nothing beyond the
proportions of a particular case. It failed even to do that, for though the equation
was correctly worked, it was founded on a passage in the Exon Domesday, which
happened to be textually corrupt.
^ Surveying the Royal Manor of Bedminster, the Exchequer Domesday says of the
Church-land there, — "Presbiter hujus Manerii tenet terram ad unam carrucam."
The Exon Domesday, in strict conformity of phrase, says, — " Presbiter habet terram
unius carrucsE." But the Schedule of Terrce Occwpatce, treating this Church-land as
an ablatwm from the Royal Manor, says, — " Quidam Presbiter tenet inde unam
ca/rucatam terrce." Here the word Carucata was improperly used. It was merely a
clerical error, the Clerk describing one thing in terms of another.
THE CARXJCATB AND THE PLOUGH-LAND. 29
as an equivalent for an " ingeldable plough-land " {terra ad unam
carucam ingeldabilis). This, a Carucate, might be per accidens ;
but in its essence it was not this. In essence the Carucate was
rather an ingeldable hide.
And, like the Hide, the Carucate was variable in extent. In
one instance, the Home-estate of Muchelney Abbey, the Carucate
co-ordinated with 154J acres of exacter Domesday measures. In
the other instance, that of the estate of St. John's Church at
Frome, the Carucate consisted with about 147 acres of the same
description.
Of the Plough-land, the Terra unius Carucm of the Exchequer
Domesday, the Terra quam potest arare mm caruca of the Exon
Domesday, we have little to add to what has been said at much
length in our Dorset Treatise. We repeat that the normal capacity
of the Plough-gang,i or One-team-land, was 120 statute acres ; and
we say that, as in Dorset, so in Somerset, when it was sought by
the Domesday Surveyors to subdivide the Plough-gang, instead of
using the term Bovate, they described the fractional quantity of
land, according to the number of oxen proper to its cidture. Thus
the Terra ad dimidiam carucam, or half-plough-gang, of 60 acres,
might stand in Domesday as Terra quatuor hovium ; and the
Quarter-plough-land, of 30 acres, might, and often does, stand, as
Terra duorum hovium.
In stating the number of teams in actual employ, if the number
appeared to be only half a team, the Exon Domesday usually
writes, — IM habet A or B, dimidiam carucam,. But in the case of
William de Moione's Manor of JEstrat, under-held by one Eoger,
it varies the expression by saying, " Inde habet Eogerus unam
hidam et unam virgatam in dominio et quatuor hoves; et Villani
habent unam virgam et quatuor hoves." The Exchequer Domesday,
more clear, but less accurate in details, is precise in reproducing
these eight oxen as wna/m carucam, though it gives the whole team
to the Villeins, and no fraction thereof to the Mesne-Lord. " Ibi
sunt tres Villani et unus Bordarius cum un§, carucS," is the
expression.
This matter of Teams-in-Stock is out of place here, where we
^ Plough-gang, perhaps a coined expression, is more convenient than such a term as
one-team-land, though the latter be a closer translation of the Domesday term — Terra
ad una/m ca/rrucam. Moreover, " plough-gang " harmonizes better with the cognate
" ox-gang.'' In Somerset, as there were eight oxen (boves) in one carruca (team), so
were there eight ox-gangs (bovatse) in what we venture to call a " plough-gang."
30 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY,
are speaking of the divisions of the arable territory, rather than of
the actual teams. However, the quotations, taken together, prove
that the Garuca, spoken of in Domesday as proper to a certain
breadth of tillage was, always a Team of eight.
In describing the estate of Meare as an adjunct (not an adjacent
estate, as Collinson puts it) of Glastonbury, the Exon Domesday
(p. 159) writes as follows, — "Huic (Glastingberise) adjacet queedam
Insula quae vocatur Mera, in qu^ sunt Ix agri terrse quos potest
arare una carruca qua ibi est." The Exchequer Domesday says, — •
" Ibi sunt Ix acrce terrce. Terra (est) unius Carrucee quae ibi est."
These expressions seem to militate against our theory that the
normal plough-land, the Terra unius carrucce, was 120 acres,
seeing that the whole estate, including such 120 acres, was but
60 acres.
But, if we examine the structure of Domesday clauses more
attentively, we observe that these 60 acres are introduced into that
part of the clause or clauses, which is usually devoted to statements
of hidage. These 60 acres belonged, therefore, to the system of
Mdation. They were Gheld-acres in fact, and to write Ix agri was
only a ready way of writing, " una hida et una virga terrae "
{i.e. 1\ hides).
In Dorset 1:^ hides would, on the County average, suggest a co-
ordinate of 300 statute acres. In Somerset, it would suggest about
375 statute acres. But, in the case before us, it is clear that the
Domesday Surveyors ignored more than 8,000 acres .of swamp,
which surrounded the oasis called " Mera " and registered only 1
plough-land, 6 acres of wood, 6 acres of meadow, 2 arpents of
vineyard, and 3 fisheries, as constituting the estates proper for their
notice. Our estimate of the plough-land, viz., as 120 acres, is not
touched by the case.
If the present parish of Farrington Gurney be nearly conter-
minous with the Domesday Manor of Ferintona (E. D. 139), the
case is one which strongly supports our theory as to the contents
of the Terra unius carrucce having been normally 120 acres,
Domesday surveys the manor as containing 7 plough-lands (or, as
we hold, 840 acres of arable land) and 100 acres of meadow; in all
then 940 acres. The present parish measures 923 acres. —
The difference of 17 acres between the two estimates is easUy ac-
counted for by the fact that Domesday never entertains any frac-
tion of a plough-land so small as 17 acres, or about one-seventh
thereof. The lowest denomination in this scale is the "two-ox~
THE LINEAL MEASURES. THE SUPBEFICIAL MEASURES. 31
land/' or (as we hold) 30 acres. Except in measuring meadow
land, Domesday estimates are prone to deal in something like
what are now called round numbers.
The Domesday measures of Hantona (now Hinton St. George)
are 12 plough-lands (1,440 acres), wood land 720 acres, meadow
60 acres Here the woodland being very probably in another
parish, the plough-land and meadow-land measure together 1,500
acres. And that is the precise measure of the present parish of
Hinton St. George.
Other cases, whether in support of, or in apparent antagonism to,
the theory that the normal plough-land of Somerset was 120 acres,
will have careful consideration in future notes.
THE LINEAL MEASURES OE THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY.
These were precisely the same as those used in. the Dorset Survey.
The Table given thereof (Dorset p. 25), wUl meet every case which
occurs in either County, as described in Domesday.
We quote two instances of the perch being used as a lineal
measure in the Somerset Survey. " Ibi habet Britellus v quad-
ragenas et x perticas nemoris in longitudine (Exon. D. p. 248).
The wood was five quarentines (or 1,100 yards) + 10 perches (or
55 yards) ; that is, 1,155 yards long. And again —
" Eogerius (Arundellus) habet xii quadragia nemoris in longitu-
dine et iv quadragia et xiii perticas in latitudine " (Exon. D. p.
4] 5). Here the width of wood was 4 quarentines ( = 880 yards)
+ 13 perches ( = 71^ yards), or 951| yards.
The straight Acre, being (as our Dorset Table shows), 22 yards,
is also mentioned in the Somerset Survey.
THE AEEAL OE SUPEREICIAL MEASURES OE THE SOMERSET
DOMESDAY.
These, again, were exactly as in Dorset (See Table, Dorset-
Volume, p. 30), and there were the same technical varieties of
expression when dealing with equal areas. For instance, when
describing any wood of 120 statute acres, the Somerset Surveyor,
or Clerk might do it in any of four ways. He might say simply
una leuga nemoris ; or he might say, una leuga nemoris, in longi-
tudine et latitudine ; or he might say, una leuga nemoris inter longi-
tudinum et latitudinem ; or he might say, una leuga nemoris in
longitudine et una quadragena in latitudine. All would imply the
32 INTRODUCTOKY ESSAY.
same thing. But if he wrote, una leuga nemoris in longitudine et
tantundem in latitudine, the wood, instead of being 120 acres,
would be (120 x 120 = ) 1,440 acres. The same would have
been his meaning had he written, / lenga nemoris in longitudine et
I in latitudine ; so that the mere omission of a single figure
(I) in such a sentence makes a difference of 1,320 acres. "We
cannot help remarking, that in one case, suspecting such an omis-
sion in a clause of the Exon Domesday, we turned to the Ex-
chequer Codex and found the figure duly inserted. (This will
appear in a future note.)
Banwell. — It wiU serve a present explanation, as well as
fortify a future argument, to note what Domesday says about the
measures of this great Episcopal Manor. —
" Episcopus habet unam Mansionem quae vocatur BanueUa et
reddit geldum pro xxx hidis. Has possunt arare xl carrucae. Inde
habet Episcopus duas et dimidiam leugas nemoris in longitudine
et in latitudine, et centum agros prati et unam leugam pascuse in
longitudine et in latitudine." According to our theories the
measures here registered amount to 5,320 acres, viz. : of arable land,
4,800 acres ; of wood, 300 acres ; of meadow, 100 acres ; of pasture,
120 acres. But were we to take the wood and pasture-measures
to indicate the several sides of oblong figures, then, 2| leagues x
2| leagues of wood would mean 9,000 acres and 1 league x 1
league of pasture would mean 1,440 acres. At that rate the whole
manor of BanweE. would have measured (4,800 + 9,000 + 100
+ 1,440 = ) 15,340 acres.
Now, it is held by Somerset Antiquaries that the Domesday
Manor of Banwell included a territory which forms no less than
four existing Parishes, viz.: Banwell, 4,829 acres; Puxton, 613
acres ; Churchill, 2,497 acres ; and Compton Bishop, 2,535 acres.^
Here, then, are but 10,474 acres. The computation shows, at a
glance, that the second, or experimental, mode of estimating
Domesday measures is extravagant and fallacious. And that is
what chiefly concerns us in this part of our inquiry.
But we are further apprised that the sounder method of con-
struing Domesday measures, the method which makes Banwell
1 Huish-juxta-Highbridge appears to have been an outlying appendage of Banwell •
but we have no means of ascertaining its acreage, and we doubt its having been
measured in with the Domesday Manor. It was and is in Burnham parish, and at
the date of Domesday, Walter de Douai, Lord of Burnham, rightfully or not, held
Huish.
AEBAL MEASURES OF THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. 33
Manor to have contained 5,320 Domesday acres, seems scarcely to
fit an occasion where 10,474 modern acres are, or seem to be, the
correlative. For, taking the whole Hundred ia which BanweU
lay,— the Hundred of Winterstoke,— together, we find that 29,381
acres of Domesday registration are, or seem to be, represented by
37,001 acres of modern ascertainment. At this rate (viz., an
addition of about 26 per cent.) we should expect the 5,320 Domes-
day acres of Banwell to be represented by about 6,700 acres of
modern parochial measurement. Instead of 6,700 acres we have
10,474 acres. There are several ways of meeting the difSculty
thus arising, and certainly any single way will not suffice. —
Possibly, though we do not ourselves entertain the view,
CoUinson was right in making Walter de Douai's double Manor
of Comtune to have been the antecedent of Compton Bishop.
If so, we must add 4 hides to the Domesday hidage, and 632
acres to the Domesday exact measures of Winterstoke Hundred,
and we must deduct 2,535 acres from the above-named paro-
chial correlatives of BanweU Manor. This would leave the Domes-
day Manor of Banwell (5,320 acres) to be represented by (10,474-
2,535 = ) 7,939 acres of modern measurement. It is manifest that
some other way should be found to elucidate the problem. The
addition of 50 per cent, to the exacter Domesday measures is more
than any theory whatever about Compton wiU account for. Pro-
bably, Banwell, Puxton, and Churchill, or whatever estates formed
the Domesday Manor of Banwell, involved a proportion of those
worthless wastes, whether barren hill or unreclaimed morass, of
which the Domesday Surveyors made neither mention nor measure.
Probably, too, as will be shown under Congresbury, much land
was registered by the same surveyors as appurtenant to Congres-
bury, which is now, parochially, in Churchill or Puxton.
In the Exon Domesday (p. 342) under William de Moione's
Manor of Brunfella (now Bromfield) the areal league (120 acres) is
expressed in the same sentence by two different formulae : " Ibi
habet WUlelmus unam leugam nemoris in longitudine et in lati-
tudine et unam leugam pascuae." The Exchequer Domesday hardly
varies the form of either expression of measure, though it names
the pasture first and the wood last, — " Ibi una leuua pastures et una
leuua silvse in longitudine et latitudine."
The Exon Domesday (pp. 135-6) under the Bishop of Coutance's
Manor of Stratona (Stratton-on-the-Eoss), specifies the following
quantities : " Ibi III quadragia nemoris in longitudine et II quad-
D
34 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
ragia in latitudine " (This means 60 acres) ; — " et IV quadragia
pascuee inter longitudinem et latitudinem" (This means 40 acres).
The Exchequer Domesday describes the same things as " Silva III,
quarentinas longa et II quarentinas lata ; Pasturse IV quarentinae
inter longitudinem et latitudinem." Also the Exchequer Domesday
transposes the items, giving the pasture first and the wood last.
Many further illustrations, of this section of our subject wiU
occur in future notes. Here we would remark, though digressively,
how contrasted passages of the two Domesdays are perpetualLy
showing that the two were grounded on — were paraphrases of —
the same original elements, — the non-extant notes of the Com-
missioners, — and that in no instance does any presumption arise
that one extant Domesday was used by the compilers of the other.
(See Preface, p. 5.)
EoYAL Forests. — The individual names of Eoyal Forests rarely
transpire in Domesday Book. The Dorset Survey names but one,
that of Wimborne, and it was by mere accident that it came to be
named. The Somerset Survey names no King's Forest at all, under
any specific name of such forest, but it gives the essence of such
forests in the large areas of wood and pasture which it annexes to
certain manors of the Vetus Dominicum Coronm.
The Eoyal Forests of Somerset, thus vaguely noticed by a tech-
nicality of Domesday, proved in the following century to be five
in number, viz., Exmoor, Neroche, Selwood, Mendip, and North-
Petherton.
Though, in a Domesday point of view, the Eoyal Forests may be
said to have been annexed to the Eoyal Manors, this must be
understood collectively of both. No particular forest can be
pointed out as having been appurtenant to a particular manor.
A mass of Eoyal Forest was annexed, for instance, to the three
Eoyal Manors of Carhampton, WiUiton, and Cannington. They
had among them 14,400 acres of wood and 21,600 acres of pasture,
in all, 36,000 acres; which, though not altogether forest, in a
physical sense, were afforested in a technical sense, that is, deemed
to pertain to the King's Forest.
Such a quantity of King's Forest as 36,000 acres is attributed to
no other three manors of the Eoyal Demesne of Somerset. The
average allotment here was 12,000 acres to each of three manors.
The proximate case was that of Bruton, to which manor Domesday
allots 7,200 acres of wood and 150 acres of pasture. To North
Petherton, another Eoyal Manor — though North Pethertou Forest
EOYAL, AND OTHER FORESTS OF SOMERSET. 35
was adjacent thereto — not a single acre of woodland is assigned by
Domesday, and only two leagues (240 acres) of pasture.
Altogether, the twelve manors constituting the Vetus Dominicum
of Somerset had forestal appurtenances of 58,020 acres, viz., 33,620
of wood and 24,400 acres of pasture. Thus Domesday broadly
represents the five Eoyal Forests above mentioned. Any partial
or special apportionment of this or that forest to this or that
manor we must reserve for future consideration.
With regard to Forests and Chaces, or rights of Forest and
Chace, granted by the Conqueror to certain great feudalists,
Domesday, nowhere expressing such grants in terms, may be taken
to indicate them in particular cases. One evidence on the subject
is this, viz., that many manors endowed by Domesday with large
areas of forest or pasture, can hardly, at any time, have contained
the said areas within their ordinarily cognizable limits.
Malger, the Comte of Moretaine's tenant at AiseUa (AshiU) is
said to have a wood measuring 40x20 quarantines, or 8,000 statute
acres. The arable land of the manor was 600 acres ; the meadow-
land 40 acres : — two items which would well satisfy the previous value
of the manor, 'when the Comte received it,' viz., £4 per annum, or
the Domesday value, which, in fact, was £1 less. We have often
remarked that forest areas did not teU much on Domesday valu-
ations ; but surely the Forest of Ashill was not really Malger's, but
his suzerain's. Surely it was an abutment of the Eoyal Forest of
Neroch, but given to the King's brother. In the same Hundred
(Abdick), Drogo de Montacute, the Comte's tenant at Donyatt,
had arable land, wood, and meadow, quite consonant with a manor
of five hides and of £5 annual value. But Domesday says that he
had also a " park." The park was not measured. Was it Drogo's
or the Comte's ?
In a more intelligible fashion, William de Moione's forest-rights,
in aU directions, seem to be concentrated by Domesday techni-
cality on his two demesne-manors of Cutcomb and Minehead,
which purport, in Domesday, to have embraced more than 15,000
acres of wood and pasture.
Edward of Salisbury's Manor of Hinton (Charter-House Hinton)
and Norton (Norton St. Philip) ; Emulf de Hesding's Manor of
Eodden; Eoger Arundel's Manor of Marston (now Marston Biggot);
and William Fitz Wido's Manor of South Cheriton, are all distin-
guished in Domesday by large forest areas.
The SiLVA and Silva minuta of the Dorset Domesday are repro-
D3
36 INTRODtrCTORY ESSAY.
duced in the Somerset Survey by the same words of the Exchequer
Codex, but in the Exon Codex by the words Nemus and Nemus-
CULUS. The SiLVA modica, or wood of medium growth, is peculiar
to the Dorset Survey. —
Methods of wood-husbandry perhaps varied in the two
Counties. Variations of local vocabulary will have obtained
co-ordinately.^
Both Nemus and Nemusculus are sometimes found in the same
Somerset manor. Thus " Claveham " (Claverham in Yatton) had n
quarantine (10 acres) of wood (" nemoris "), and half a league by half
a league (360 acres) of dwarf-wood (" nemusculi "). (Exon Domes-
day, p. 131). Again, Glastonbury, the Abbey Manor, comprised
" 300 agros nemusculi et 20 agros nemoris" (E. D., p. 159).
Spinetum. — Ten acres of thorn-copse (decern agri spinett) were
the woodland element in the Somerset Manor of Wica (now Bath-
wick). We take the growth to have been thorn, periodically
cropped for the purpose of making or mending dead-fencing
" Silva ad reficiendas sepes," — we have somewhere seen the expres-
sion used,^ — is probably intended by the Domesday Spinetum.
Perhaps the " Bruaria " of the Dorset Survey was analogous to the
Spinetum^ of the Somerset Survey.
Pascua. — Under this head, there is little to add to what has
been said, in oui- Dorset Treatise, of the synonymous pasfura.
^ If we leave the South-Western Circuit, and examine, for instance, the Hampshire
Survey, we find Domesday dividing the woodlands after a very different fashion.
(1) There is the silva ad pasnagium, — never measured, and never valued, except
by a specification of how many swine it was capable of maintaining.
(2) There is the sUva ad herhagium usually valued, but never measured. In some
cases the word pastura is used of such woods ; but of pastura, in the sense
adopted by the South-Western Commission, there is no mention whatever
in the Hampshire Survey. The " Hampshire Downs " seem in short to
have been as much ignored in Domesday as those Somerset Moors, of which
we shall speak presently.
(3) There is the silva ad clausuram, never measured, never valued.
(4) There is the silm parva, apparently indistinct from the Hlva ad clausuram,
but quite distinct from the sUva minuta of the Dorset and Somerset
Surveys. The former represents extent, the latter, growth,
Such differences in adjoining counties arose partly perhaps in the varieties of local
custom and phraseology, but partly also in the varieties of method adopted by the
Commissioners and their attendant Clerks in different circuits.
- In the Inqidsici^ Eliensis, we believe. — The sUva ad clausuram, so frequent in the
Hampshire Survey, is another expression of the same thing.
' The term Spinney, still used in some Midland Counties, has come to indicate
nothing but a small wood. Thorns are no longer the essence of a " Spinney," nor are
thorns now grown in masses for the object of fence-mending.
PASTURE-LAND. MEADOW-LANt). WASTE-LAND. 3?
The greater areas of pasture were forestal. They contributed
nothing appreciable to the money-values of manors with which
they were associated. The smaller areas of pasture, those attached
to ordinary manors, seem to have had some tangible value.
We read under the King's Manor of North Petherton of 100
acres of meadow, and two leagues (240 acres) of pasture, which
paid a rent of 20 shillings per annum.^ Here, if we cannot rate
the meadow-land at more than twopence per acre, we cannot rate
the pasture-land at less than one-sixth of a penny per acre.
Another hint that some pasture-lands had an appreciable value,
however small, consists in the fact of the Domesday Surveyors
having cared to name such very small quantities as two acres or
three acres as appurtenant to a manor.
It may be a question whether barren hUl-tops, when not impli-
cated iu forestal areas, were measured at all in the Somerset
Domesday. Analogy with the case of the " Moorlands " would
suggest that they were not.
Peatum. — Here again we refer to our Dorset Volume for aU that
needs to be said about the meadow-land in general of the two
Counties. Half an acre is the smallest quantity of meadow-land
that we find registered under any Domesday Manor of Somerset.
We conclude that if there were that quantity ia any manor, it was
sure to be noted ; and, if so, that it was of value.
Tekea Vasta — Teeka Devastata. — The last term explaias the
first. The real "wastes" (as we should now call them, meaning
" wildernesses ") of Somerset are not registered in the Somerset
Domesday.
The Terra Vasta, or Devastata, of the Eecords, is always signifi-
cant of cases, where land, otherwise profitable, was, or had been
in a temporary state, or a partial state, of non-cultivation. —
" Quando recepit (Eogerus de Corcella) erat penitus vastata," is
said of part of Exford. "Non valet nisi septem solidos quia
devastata est," is said of Treborough. These and similar cases
win be found noticed in the Table of Carhampton Hundred.
1 The Exon Domesday writes : — " Ibi habet Rex centum agros prati et duas leugas
pascuEe quae reddit (sic) per annum xx solidoe."
It must not be understood that the rent arose from the pasture only. It wa« the
wont of one of the Exon Scribes to use a singular number of his verbs after a plural
nominative or nominatives. Such idiosyncrasies of grammar disappear when, aa in
the Exchequer Domesday, abbreviations are more freely used, In this case the
Exchequer Scribe wrote "Ibi centum acrse prati et II leuuse pasturse reM,
XX sol. per annum."
38 INTEODXJCTOEY ESSAY.
MOE^. — The Moorlands of Somerset, being moors of the marsh
rather than of the mountain, and though much of them be now
under the plough, constitute a curious and also a very important
consideration, if we wish fully to appreciate the Domesday treat-
ment of the County : — not that the Morm are very often noticed in
the Survey ; but that one particular notice of such territory shows
the exact reason why in similar cases aU notice was suppressed.
We have remarked, and we hope to substantiate in the sequel, how
that more than 179,000 acres of Somerset territory were ignored in
all or any of the measurements of the Great Survey. The bulk
of this omission we now propound to have consisted of the Somer-
set moorlands, — of such of them as were deemed irreclaimable and
absolutely worthless in the eleventh century.
In surveying the Bishop of Wells's Manor of Wedmore, Domes-
day specifies the following features, and adjuncts, of greater or less
value, viz,, 36 plough-lands, 6 wild mares, 2 fisheries renting 10
shillings per annum, 50 acres of wood, 70 acres of meadow, and
one league {ie., 120 acres) of pasture. And then, the Exchequer
Domesday, being silent on the point, the Exon Domesday adds,
without giving either measure or valuation, — " Prseter hoc sunt ibi
morse quae nihil reddunt.'' Our conviction is that a vast and
unmeasured moorland, such as that which the Exon Survey per-
functorily hinted at in this single instance, that of Wedmore, and
which the Exchequer Domesday was uniformly silent about, was a
feature and attribute of many Somerset manors, whose position
and surroundings were analogous to those of Wedmore.
Now the Domesday Manor of Wedmore (10 hides) contained in
the first place, all the present parish of Wedmore, except Clewer
(y^ths of a hide), and perhaps a vUl of the Abbot of Glastonbury,
called Bodeslega (1 hide) whose present counterpart is uncertain,
and which counterpart may or may not be in Wedmore parish.
And the present parish of Wedmore contains 9,986 acres, from
which if, we deduct 1,426 acres as the outside consideration for the
li^ hides, which were not in the Bishop's Manor, there wiU remain
8,560 acres in contrast of the 10 hides of Bishop Giso's estate.
But Bishop Giso's estate of Wedmore further contained 8,068
acres, viz., 4,494 acres, which now are allocated to the Parish of
Mark,i + 3,000 acres, similarly allocated to the Parish of Theale,
^ Mark, before the Conquest, was an independent manor ; but when Queen Edith
gave it to the See of Wells it became a mere member of Wedmore. And so, Domes-
day, being silent about Mark, viewed it.
THE SOMERSET MOORLANDS. 39
+ 574 acres, which now form the Parish of Biddisham. On the
whole, then, Bishop Giso's Manor of 10 hides is now represented
by (8,560 + 8,060 =) ] 6,620 statute acres. Wherever we find the
Domesday Hide thus correlated by 1,662 modern acres, we are
bound to trace the cause of such a phenomenon.
There is another ascertaiaable fact which bears on this investi-
gation. — According to the more positive estimates given by
Domesday of what it measures and values in Wedmore, the manor
was 4,560 acres, viz., arable land, 4,320 acres, woodland 50 acres,
meadow 70 acres, and pasture 120 acres.
So then Domesday left (16,620 - 4,560 =) 12,060 acres of the
Manor of Wedmore, unmeasured, unexplored, and unvalued.
And this was the acreage of " the Moors, which paid nothing."
The moor-la,nd attached of old to the Manor of Wedmore was
merely an expression in Domesday ; in another sense it is little else
than an expression in the present day. The sons of the soil cannot
make out why their plough-fields should be called "moors."
However, if the moor-land once attached to Wedmore be not still
remembered as " Mark-moor," it was so called in the last century,
and " Mark's Causeway," and the " Abbot's Causeway," still remain
as memorials of the time when farms previously unapproachable,
save by boats, came to be visited by dry-shod pedestrians.
Another case of similar complexion with that of Wedmore is
the curt notice bestowed by Domesday on the Bishop of Cou-
tance's Manor of Kenn, — " Ipse Episcopus tenet unam terram
(not WMnsionem as usual) quae vocatur Chen. Ibi est dimidia
hida, et ibi habet (Episcopus) unum servum. Valet v sohdos." —
This half-hide was probably a settlement of a few acres, effected
or purposed in " Kenn Moor," where now the Church of Kenn is
encompassed by a parish of 1,018 acres.
We have but to enumerate by name the " Moors '' of Somerset,
to show, on the whole, how credible it becomes that Domesday
should have pretermitted in its measurements the greater part of
those 170,000 acres which it surely did pretermit. —
King's Sedgmoor (near Bridgewater) ; East Sedgmoor (between
Wells and Glastonbury) ; West Sedgmoor (between Taunton and
Langport) ; Stanmoor, Warmoor, WestwaU Moor, and North Moor
(aU near Isle AtheLaey) ; AUermoor (near Langport) ; Westmoor,
Currymoor, and Haymoor (near North Curry) ; Kingsmoor (on the
Yeo) ; Ilemoor (on the He) ; Burtlemoor and Heathmoor (near
Polden) ; Brent-marsh (of vast extent, between the Axe, the Brew,
40 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
the Parret, Mendip-hill, and the Bristol Channel) ; Kinnard Moor
and Godney Moor (near Glastonbury) ; Weston Moor (near Uphill) ;
Banwell Moor and Smeath Moor (near Churchill) ; Nailsea Moor
(north of Kenn) ; and Clapton Moor (near Clapton-in-Gordano).
Having duly noticed the Moors of Somerset, unmeasured in
Domesday, because of their absolute worthlessness, we have still to
instance certain moors which were so measured, apparently because
of their somewhat of value. —
These were not many, nor large. Possibly they were parcels of
moor-land reclaimed or half-reclaimed from the general swamp,
their value arising in summer-pasturage, coarse fodder, rushes, or
ozier growth.
In Newton, Huntworth, and Edgeborough, three manors all
included in the present parish of ISTorth-Petherton, Domesday
notices three parcels of moor. The first measured 20 acres, the
two last 10 acres each (E. D. pp. 442, 349, 334). Three leagues
of moorland were appurtenant to Bishop Giso's demesnes at Wells
(E. D. 145). The area was 360 acres. A league of moor (120
acres) was appurtenant to the same bishop's demesnes at Yatton
(E. D. 147). A league of moor (120 acres) is mentioned under
the King's Manor of Melebom (E. D. p. 84). SrK quarentines (60
acres) of moor were noted as in the Bishop of Coutance's Manor
of Weston (now Weston in Gordano). There were 41 acres of
moor in Eoger Arundel's Manor of Tuxwell, and 43 acres of moor
in his Manor of Fiddirigton, both in Cannington Hxmdred.
ViNEYAEDS are mentioned in Domesday as existing at Glaston-
bury, Pamborough, and Meare. All three were in the Abbot of
Glastonbury's demesne. Their collective measure was eight Arpenz,
or Agripennse, — less than 4 acres then. (See Dorset p. 39, note).
In the manor of North Curry (late Earl Harold's), King William
had a large vineyard. It measured seven statute acres. Its value
is not specified in Domesday.
Mills. — The numbers, sites, and annual values (ranging from
6 pence to 20 shiUings) of all Somerset Mills wOl be foimd in
future Tables. What has been said generally about Domesday
Mills in our Dorset volume need not be repeated here.
In the Somerset Hundred of Cannington we count 11 1 ^ Domes-
' We should expect to find a counterpart for the haK-mill of Godelega (Gautheney)
in some other manor of Cannington Hundred. Domesday fails to furnish such a
counterpart.
kiLLS. CHURCHES. CHTJECH- LANDS. 4l
day Mills. Five of these mills were each worth only 6 pence
per annum.
Domesday furnishes many instances of a Somerset Mill which
paid nothing at all in the way of rent or money-value. — Ihi Molinus
(the constant word for Molendinum) qui molit annonam suam.
This formula is always used as an alternative to the ordinary
statement of a mill's money-value. Annona probahly means the
corn-crop of the mill-owner or manor-lord.^
The Mills of Givela (Yeovil) Hundred were twenty-one in
number. Those of Mudford and Lymington each realised £1 per
annum. The King had a mill of similar value at South Petherton.
In the late Queen Edith's Manor of Martock, were two mills,
which, together, realised £1 15s. per annum.
There were four mills at Lex-worthy, in Andersfield Hundred,
which yielded a quantity of unwrought iron (unam plumbam
ferri, or duas plumbas ferri) in lieu of an annual money-rent.
They were probably forge-mills.^
The Hundred most abounding in Domesday Mills was the (old)
Hundred of Frome.
Paeish Chueches kETi Chusch-lands. — Little, indeed, does
the Somerset Domesday reveal to us under this head, — ^in proportion
to the areas of the two Counties, far less than the Dorset Survey.
The South-Western Commission disregarded all parish churches
which were not endowed with geldable territory. The Church of
St. John of Frome is only an exception, in that its territory was
ingeldable. Its lands will entitle it to future consideration in
our Tables. As measured by the carucate, they have already been
noticed. In our Tables will also be found all that the Domesday
Commissioners considered to be within their purview touching
Somerset churches and glebes.
^ The Comirusaioners who visited Hampshire and other Counties registered this
kind of Mill as " Molinus ser-viens aulae," — a mill which sufficed only for the needs of
the manor-house.
2 The Plwniba Ferri, in case of a Forge-Mill, would seem to be the' duty payable to
the Manor-Lord according to the amount of iron, wrought or sold. The Plumha
itself was a bowl or dish, made of lead or iron, or brass, or even wood. It was
adjusted to a certain capacity, and was used, in the first instance, to measure the ore
when raised from the mine. In that case too the object was to ascertain the amount
of due, or royalty, payable to the lord of the manor. At this very day, and in
certaia mine-districts, the term " dish " is technically applied, not merely to a certain
implement for measuring ore, but to the due arising to the manor-lord on each such
measurement.
42 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
Among the King's Tenants-in-Almoign are enumerated several
incumbents of Somerset churches. Had they not been beneficed
with land they had not been named in Domesday.
This is, perhaps, the fittest place to remark how much later
than Domesday will have been the settlement of the parochial
boundaries of Somerset. It is impossible to define, it is difficult
even to imagine, any precise limits of those parishes, vast and old,
which knew, or, it may be, did not know, to what mother-church,
they pertained. Churches, some affiliated, some necessarily inde-
pendent, because their right affiliation was unknown, supervened.
In such a process the manorial boundaries of a district were
seldom regarded. To find a modern parish co-extensive with a
Domesday-measured manor, is the exception, not the rule. Where,
as is generally the case, the parish exceeds the manor or manors,
which seem most cognate, we account for it by the intervention
of waste, or king's-forest, not registered at all in, or not in the
expected part of, Domesday. But where the Domesday -measured
manor exceeds the modern parish, as in the cases of Kingston
Seymour, High Littleton, Twerton, Ubley, Lovinton, and Castle
Cary, — there we must examine each case on its own phsenomena.
This we propose to do in future notes.
DOMESDAY POPULATION OF SOMERSET.
The agricultural population falls mainly under the same denomi-
nations as that of Dorset.
Ancill^e, female serfs, only once mentioned in the Dorset
Survey, have no notice whatever in that of Somerset.
The Censores of Dorset, being freemen, and paying fixed money-
rents, appear in the King's Somerset Manor of Cheddar, as
Gabulatokes, seven of whom paid rents amounting to seventeen
shilb'ngs per annum.
ViLLANl. — The villeins of Somerset, like those of Dorset, were
ascripti glebce, that is, villeins regardant. They were individually
assessable to the Gheld-tax, and no instance has occurred to us
of a Somerset feudalist discharging the Gheld-dues of his villeins.
In the Gheld-inquest of the year 1084, the viUeins of manors
which were in manu regis, and of estates added to the manors of
crown-demesne, are often stated to have been non-solvent of their
quotas of Gheld. It is more probable that this was by indulgence,
granted pro hdc vice by the crown, than that it was in the nature
of an arrear, to be thereafter collected.
DOMESDAY POPULATION OP SOMERSET. 4^
We subjoin instances of villeins holding their tenements by-
payment of a fixed annual rent. —
At Eppsa (supposed to have been in Carhampton Hundred)
Ealph de Limesey had half a hide. It contained one plough-land
and 16 acres of meadow. It had no team at work. A single
villein, tenant thereof, paid an annual rent of three shiUings
(E.D. p. 429).
At Ashwick, in Frome Hundred, a small manor, villeins held
the whole at a rent of 3s. 6d. We shall refer to the case again,
as a matter of values (infra p. 47).
BoKDAEii. CoTAnn. Seeaq. — As to these, and their agrarian
status, the remarks made in our Dorset Volume are supplied nei-
ther with correction, nor further illustration, by scrutiny of the
Somerset Survey.
Negatively, we observe that in the wild North- Western Hun-
dreds and manors of Somerset there were few Cotarii. — Isolated
dwellings were, we suppose, unsafe in those regions, and at that
period. We further observe, that in these same regions there was no
deficiency of Bordarii. It is a comment on the absurd dictum of
some interpreters of Domesday, who have said that the Bordarii
were " dwellers on the borders of an estate."
PoRCAEii. — Swineherds are registered in the Somerset, though
not in the Dorset, Domesday. In Somerset many of them paid
fixed rents for their use of the intra-manorial or detached woods.
To the ferm of the King's Manor of North Petherton, though the
manor itself contained no registered woodland, twenty Porcarii
contributed annual fees, amounting to £5. Obviously they had
the run of North Petherton Forest, which, though locally adjacent
to North Petherton, was technically deemed to pertain to a mass
of King's-Forest, registered under other Eoyal Manors.
A single Porcarius, in the King's Manor of Bruton, paid his rent
in kind. It was five hogs yearly.
These two cases, when compared, point to a surmise that five
shillings was the average annual fee charged on the Porcarius for
the exercise of his craft, and that, where the fee was commuted,
a fat hog counted for one shilling.
In William de Moione's forestal Manor of Cutcomb, six Porcarii
paid an annual rent of thirty-one hogs.
Industrial Population. — It is remarkable that no salt-workers
(Salinarii) are recorded by Domesday as operating in Somerset.
We presume that the water of the "Severn Sea" did not yield
such a per centage on evaporation as the water of the Dorset coast,
ii INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
WiCH, a name retained all over England, for a vill connected
■with salt-produce, was not unconamon in Somerset; but there it
seems to have been rather typical of mineral or medicated springs
than to have had any association with salt.
PISCATOEES. — There seems to have been no resort of sea-fishers
to the Somerset ' coast. The fishermen mentioned in Domesday
were inlanders, and servants, rather than craftsmen.
Fabri are mentioned only once in the Somerset Domesday.
The Abbot of Glastonbury, we marvel to relate, had eight smiths
on his home-manor of Glastonbury. Though iron was a product
of Somerset, ascertained before the Conquest, and though the
Glastonbury Fabri were, undoubtedly, metallurgists of some kind,
we cannot find any manor of Glastonbury Abbey, with Domesday
indications of producing iron. At Green-Oar, on Mendip, the
Abbot had lead-mines of undoubted antiquity ; and Green-Oar was
an outlying appendage or member of Glastonbury Manor. Perhaps
the miners, or, at all events, the artizans, who primarily dealt with
the raised ore, were the Fabri of Domesday.
BuRGENSES. — All Domesday notices relating to the Burgesses of
Somerset wiU be embodied in future Tables. To treat of the
subject here would needlessly anticipate much that we shall have
to say of boroughs as a specific class of Somerset estate.
The highest annual value of any burgage, or borough-house,
registered in Domesday, was two shillings. It was the value of a
house abstracted from the Borough of Bath by Hugolinus, the King's
Interpreter, or, as he is somewhere called, " Hugolinus Legatus."
FARMING STOCK.
CaruGjE and CaruCjE ibi. — The special remarks which have
been made in our Dorset Volume on this class of Farming Stock
(Dorset p. 53) need some modification when we are engaged with
Somerset. —
The general rule, or rather expectation, being that there should be
a team-in-stock (caruca ibi) for every registered plough-land, and
a single plough-land for each Gheld-hide, the practical variations
from this rule were more marked and more frequent in Somerset
than in Dorset. With three exceptions, and those of a contracted
scale and peculiar type, in every Hundred and Franchise of
Somerset the plough-lands were more in number than the original
hides ; in some cases they were double and even treble in number.
On the other hand, the numerical inadequacy of the teams-ia-
FARMING STOCK. 45
stock to the plough-lands, specified to be available, was more con-
stant in Somerset than in Dorset.
Both these phsenomena tell but one territorial tale ; — an anti-
quated and lenient rate of taxation, scant population, and therewith
imperfect occupation, an application of capital, insufficient, what-
ever the natural faculties of the soil.
The several classes of Somerset store-stock mentioned in the
Exon Domesday are worth notice. —
EQU.E SILVESTEES or Equ^ iNDOMiTiE. — ^Wild brood-mares ; yet
not so wild as to have ceased to be the property of specified owners,
and the stock of definite manors. The Bishop of Coutances, the
Comte of Moretain, and WiUiam de Moione were the chiefs, who
seem most to have encouraged this class of stock.
Animalia. — Cattle, store-cattle, feeding-cattle, — a whole class, well
defined by the expression animalia otiosa, which, however, is only
pronounced in one instance. Some cattle, however, there were
which worked as well as ate. Turgisius, a tenant of William de
Moione, had a working team composed of four animalia (Exon
Domesday, p. 341).
Oaballi. — Eiding horses. — Alured of Spain had such a stock.
RoNcmi. — Horses of draft; but oftener used, we imagine, for bur-
den. — Two generations since they were known as " Pack-horses."
YxccM. — Milch-cows. — Often noticed in the Somerset Domesday,
but not so often as to indicate that the County was to become
famous for its dairy-farms. The Eoyal Manor of Cheddar did not
boast of any kine whatever in the eleventh century. Eoger de
Corcelle had a small estate at Chefddar, whereon was a single cow.
OVES. — Ewe sheep. — Common to nearly all Somerset estates, and
generally the most numerous of any stock of individual manors.
CapRjE. — She-goats, more frequent in, but not peculiar to, the
hill-districts.
Beebices. — Wether sheep, occasionally noticed.
AsiNi. — ^Asses ; very rarely mentioned.
POECI. — Hogs ; — generally distributed, but the herds not large.
It is curious that in all the Domesday enumerations of Somerset
stock the purely male element is most rarely, if ever, introduced.
Young stock of all kinds is also excluded. This may have been a
corollary of the Survey having been taken in autumn and winter.
DOMESDAY VALUES, VALUATIONS, AND EENTS.
What we have said in our Dorset volume under this head, will,
46 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
together with a large collection of particulars embodied in future
tables, serve to illustrate most branches of this subject.
In single manors a low value per hide indicates " excessive
hidation," as in the case of Thorne (now Thorne Falcon), where the
hide was worth only 10 shillings per annum : also, a high value per
hide, indicates " favourable hidation " in single manors, as in the
case of Huntspill, where the hide was worth £8 per annum. In
cases of whole Hundreds we get truer averages. The poorest hides
of any Somerset Hundred were those of Chew Hundred ^ ; they
averaged 14s. 8d. each. The highest value of the hide of a Hundred,
viz., £2 5s. 2d. per hide, is found in Loxley Hundred, but this was
a forced value, due to the financial dexterity of Thurstan, Ex-
Abbot of Glastonbury. The hides of Cannington Hundred
averaged an annual value of £1 14s. l|d. each, but this is only
saying that the whole district was " favourably hidated."
The number of denominational hides in all Somerset was some-
what over 2,951 hides. Their collective annual value (which
however covered other items of profit) was £3,650 5s. 5d. At this
rate, the average annual value of the Somerset Hide was nearly
£1 4s. 9d. ; and if the average contents of the Somerset Hide were
300 statute acres, the average value of the statute acre was '99
decimals, of (or all but) one penny. Incidentally, Domesday supplies
us with special valuations per acre of different classes of land.
Forty-five acres of arable land at Weacombe, in WestQuantoxhead,
were actually rented by a Bordarius at 7s. 6d., or exactly 2d. per
acre. Other forty-five acres in the same manor were let at 2|d.
per acre. A plough-land (supposed 120 acres) at Bedminster was
valued at 20 shillings per annum. The rate is again 2d. per acre.
Nine acres of arable land and two acres of wood at Henstridge
were valued at 80 pence per annum. It was perhaps 3d. per acre
for the arable land and l|d. per acre, for the wood.
The Exon Domesday (p. 472) values a virgate in North Petherton,
at 5s. per annum ; which is of course £1 per hide ; but not being
definite as to the value or acreage of the land, we cannot infer the
rate per acre.
The same Eecord gives 12 pence per annum as the value of 1^
fertines of pasture at Exford (in Oarhampton Hundred). Here we
cannot suppose the fertine to have been less than 60 statute
1 The hide of Pitney Hundred was of a value as low as 12s. 5Jd. per annum, but
we do not know that this hundred had any distinct existence at the date of Domes-
day. That question wiU recur.
DOMESDAY VALUES, VALUATIONS, AND RENTS, 47
acres ; consequently the value per acre of pasture in this instance
was but little more than half a farthing.
At Escwica (Ashwick) 60 acres of arable land, 12 acres of
meadow, and 3 acres of dwarf-wood were let to two Villeins of
Bath Abbey at a rent of 3s. 6d. per annum. The rate was
something more than one halfpenny per acre, and clearly in the
nature of a beneficial lease.
Customary Dues, in the nature perhaps of Quit-Eents, are
occasionally mentioned in the Somerset Domesday. Those payable
T. E. E. to certain Eoyal Manors, by certain other manors, were
usually of so many sheep and lambs, and had been discontinued
before the date of Domesday.
A whole catalogue of dues returnable to the Bishop of
"Winchester's great Manor of Taunton was entered in the
Domesday Survey of that Franchise ; but such an entry was
abnormal, and the subject not within the ordinary purview of
Domesday Commissioners. Interesting though it be, we forbear
to enlarge upon it here.
An agricultural reni-in-kind, especially as it is a rare feature in
the Somerset Domesday, is worth noting here.' The rent was 10
bacon-hogs and 100 cheeses. It was apparently furnished, in part
by the demesne servants of Eobert Fitz Gerold, in part by the Coli-
berti Villani and Bordarii who occupied the non-dominical portion
of a manor of the said Baron in Meleborne (now Horthorne)
Hundred. The manor has no Domesday name, but we may
anticipate a future discussion as to its identity, by saying that
it was two-thirds of the Estate of Charlton-Horethorn in the said
Hundred. The manor was 10 hides. It contained 1,390 acres of
Domesday registration, viz., 1,200 acres of plough-land, 60 acres
of wood, 30 acres of meadow, and 100 acres of pasture. The
returns and rents, viz., the aforesaid hogs and cheeses, were in place
of a pecuniary value of £18 which the manor had yielded to one
Vitel, its owner in Saxon times. Here, assuming that the rents of
the Domesday aera were adjusted so as to be nearly equal to those
of the Saxon period, we get a hint as to the value of a cheese (also
assumed to have been of the largest size) in the year 1086. For,
we show elsewhere that the current value of 10 fed hogs was 10
shillings; and it follows that the hundred cheeses were worth
£17 10s., or 3s. 6d. each. Any way, the value of this latter article
appears to have multiplied less in eight centuries than that of any
other agrarian product with which we are acquainted. In
48 INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.
the Comte of Moretain's Manor of Stantuna (now White Stanton)
fifty acres of pasture are said to pay a rent of four blmnce ferri
(E. D., 245). Again, in Saxon times, every free-man residiug at
Seaborough, then tributary to Eddeva's Manor of Crewkerne, paid
an annual due of one hloma ferri to the said manor (E. D.
p. 143). In the year of Domesday a villein, holding land in
Alford, paid as his rent eight hlumm ferri. ^
Before "Turstin" was enfeoffed by the Comte ofMoretain in the
Manor of Cruca (now Cricket St. Thomas), the said Manor used
to pay an annual due of six ewes with their lambs to the King's
Manor of -South Petherton; also every freeman of Cruca used to
pay one hloma ferri to the same (E. D., pp. 82, 245). Further
instances of customary rents will be found in Tables (Vol. II.)
^ A Bloma ferri (says HaUiwell) was " a mass of iron which had gone a second time
through the furnace." Ray defines the word " Bloom " as " a four-square piece of
iron of about two foot long." We presume that some such quantity of unwrought
iron was the rent or royalty due to the Manor-Lord on the raising or conversion of a
much larger mass. For our ideas and knowledge as to the " Plumba ferri " and the
" Bluma ferri " we are wholly indebted to a kind friend and valued correspondent, the
Rev. Edward A. Dayman.
49
CHAPTEE I.
THE EOYAL BUEGHS OF SOMEESET.
In devoting our first chapter to this subject, we foUow indeed
the sequence prescribed by our Dorset Volume, but at the same
time we give a priority to the Burghs of Somerset, to which none
of them, except Bath, was entitled by its importance, and to which
none of them, not even Bath itself, was entitled by any overt notice
or advertisement of Domesday.
The Burghs of Dorset were, doubtless, Eoyal Burghs ; but they
were distinct, and they were kept distinct in Domesday, from the
estates of Ancient Crown-Demesne. In the case of Dorchester,
for instance, where the same locality was a Eoyal Burgh, was
the Caput of a wide-spread estate of Ancient Demesne, and was
withal the Caput of a Hundred; the threefold distinction was
carefully marked either by the Gheld-Inquest of A.D. 1084 or
by Domesday.
But in Somerset, where every Burgh, except Bath, was but a
mere appendage of some estate of Ancient Demesne, no such
distinction could be made, and certainly none was attempted by
the Domesday Commissioners.
Bath.— The Burgh of Bath we account to have been at the
date of the Conquest, the capital of Somerset. By " capital " we
mean the seat of the Summa Justicia, of the highest, though by
no means the only, Crown Court which existed in the County.
Bath, previous to its constitution as a Burgh, which was towards
the end of the 10th century, was but a member, however valuable,
of an estate of Eoyal Demesne. Where the bulk of that estate
was — how much or how little thereof was in the immediate vicinity
of Bath — these are questions, or rather tangled problems, which we
do not propose to investigate here. The Burgh, being in the first
instance a member of some such estate, seems ultimately to have
become the Caput of several sections of such an estate, and so
straitly were some of these sections interned in the manor and
Burgh of Bath that Domesday does not even mention them by
name. But we are anticipating a future discussion.
The Burgh of Bath, together with whatever pertained to it of
royal estate, came to the hands of King Edward, at his accession.
Whether by way of dotation, or by subsequent gifts, the King
E
50 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY.
seems to have bestowed the whole on his wife, Edith. The estate,
thus passing from the crown, became subject to hidation, and so
became geldable. On the other hand, it retained one great note
mark of royalty. It continued to be a seat of high justice. Queen
Edith herself exercised the function of a high justiciar. She paid
the Tertium Denarium of the crown-pleas of Bath to her brother
Harold, while Earl of Somerset. Queen Edith retained Bath, and
her office, as a high justiciar, after the Conquest. Surely, it was
in that capacity, that on February 28, 1072, she presided in the
church of Wilton, over that memorable contract, whereby the
Saxon Thane, Atsor, sold the Somerset Manor of Combe to Giso,
Bishop of Wells. Such a transaction could have had no validity,
save by warranty of the king, or of his vicegerent.
At Queen Edith's death the Burgh of Bath reverted to the crown.
King William seems to have dishidated the Burgh, and therewith,
perhaps, a part of its contingent estate. Any part given to a
subject, would, of course, remain hidated, and geldable. The
justiciarship of Bath seems to have been entrusted to Edward of
Salisbury, then Sheriff of Wiltshire. He was filling the said office
at the date of Domesday. At the same date, the Burgh, and the
adjacent manor of Bath-Easton, were being farmed of the King,
apparently by the burgesses as a body corporate.
Edward of Salisbury now paid the Tertium Denarium of the
crown-pleas of Bath to the king, as Comes.
So things remained, probably till William Eufus sold the burgh
to John of Tours — G-iso's successor in the see of Wells. The
sale purported to convey the borough, and its local privileges, and
all its appurtenances, as previously enjoyed, by the king's father :
but it is clear that neither the external territory, sometime attached
to the burgh, nor the justiciarship, passed by the grant of William
Eufus, or on this occasion.
The Tertius Denarius, of Bath, having been £11, indicates that
the crown-pleas of that jurisdiction realized £33 per annum. Such
a revenue betokens a jurisdiction over half a county, rather than
over a single borough or manor. At the date of Domesday, the
Tertius Denarius of aU the King's Courts in Wiltshire was only
£21. In King Henry I. 's time, the Tercius Denarius of Gloucester-
shire was only £60.
The remaining royal burghs of Somerset having been interned
in so many manors of ancient demense, and Domesday having
given no distinctive list thereof, we here enumerate them. —
THE EOYAL BURGHS OP SOMERSET. 61
The Eoyal Burgh of Langport, was, a.d. 1086, interned in the
Eoyal Manor of Somerton. There was a court competent to try
Placita Coronffi at Langport. WiUiam de Moione, Sheriff of
Somerset, held the court. Of the proceeds thereof he will have
paid £1 to the King, as King, and as Lord of Somerton. Of the
same proceeds, he paid the " third penny," viz., ten shillings, to
the king as Gomes.
The royal Burgh of Axbbidge was, A.D. 1086, interned in the
royal burgh of Cheddar. The profits and the administration
of the crown court of Axbridge were, in all respects, as those of
Langport.
We should suspect, from the small proceeds of these two curise,
that their jurisdictions extended no further than the Eoyal Manor
and Hundred of Somerton, in the first case, nor than the Eoyal
Manor and Hundred of Cheddar in the second case.
The Eoyal Burgh of Ilchestee, and the Eoyal Burgh of Mele-
BOENE, were, a.d. 1086, both accounted to be members of the royal
manor of Melebome. There was a crown court in each, and both
courts were administered or farmed by the aforesaid sheriff. For
the court of Ilchester he paid a Tertium Denarium of £6, which
indicates, we think, a very considerable jurisdiction. For the court
of Melebome he paid a Tercium Denarium of only ten shillings,
which indicates, perhaps, that the jurisdiction extended only to
the king's manor (now Milborne Port), and to Meleborne (now
called Horethorne) Hundred.
Coincidently, jurisdictions were attached to the royal manors of
Beuton and of Feome, the former realizing a Tercium Denarium
of ten shillings, the latter of five shillings ; — both accounted of by
the same sheriff. The jurisdiction of Bruton was, probably, over
the royal manor, and the extensive Hundred of Bruton. The juris-
diction of Frome was, probably, over the manor and smaller
Hundred of Frome. The Old Hundred of Frome, be it observed,
consisted of three sections, viz., Wellow, Kilmersdon, and Frome.
It is the last section which is preserved as the Hundred of Frome
at the present day ; and it was over this section only that the
jurisdiction of Frome, A.D. 1086, is presumed to have extended.
How far there was anything of a burghal institution co-ordinate
with the courts of judicature, established at Bruton and Frome,
at the date of Domesday, let Domesday itself say. It tells us that
the king had five burgesses at Briwetone, and that he had, at
Frome (as at Meleborne, and at Ilchester) a market.
E 2
52 THE someeset Domesday.
In the days of King Edward, when the comital manor of
Bkhneton, afterwards King's Brompton, was in the hands of Ghida,
the widow of Earl Godwin, there was due thereto, annually, the
Tercius Denarius arising from Queen Edith's Manor and judicature
of Milverton. In A.D. 1086 (The king then had both Brompton
and Milverton.) this due had been discontinued. Milverton was
always caput of its cognominate hundred, and, doubtless. Queen
Edith's judicature extended to both manor and hundred. How far
any burgh may, at any time, have co-ordinated with the said
judicature we have no other evidence than that Milverton Market
was established before Domesday.
Many of the above items of remark will acquire fuller illustra-
tion when we come to tabulate the Manors of the Vetus Domini-
cum Coronae, and of the Earldom of Somerset. But, whereas, the
King's Justice-Courts, if they did not originate in the burghs, yet
had a manifest tendency to hold session therein, we would here
say something more of the Placita CoeoNjE and the Tekcius
Denarius of the Earl.
It was a veteran, and perhaps a somewhat indefinite dogma,
that the Tercius Denarius of a County was due to its Earl.
The Tercius Denarius of the whole County of Dorset is said in
Domesday to have been due to the late Earl Harold's Manor of
Piretone (now Puddletown). Now, so far as we can learn, the Tercius
Denarius of a whole County, could only mean the third-penny arising
from the King's Courts and jurisdictions within the County, from
such as were specially deputed to try Placita Coronffi. And such
trials must ordinarily have been held by the King himself, or by his
special Deputies, usually styled Justiciars. We submit that in
Dorset and in aU Counties there were exceptional Jurisdictions,
competent indeed to try Placita Coronae, but to which the King
appointed no special Justiciar, and which were in nowise taxable
with the Tercius Denarius of the Earl.
The Somerset Domesday tells us nothing about the Tercius
Denarius of the "whole County," but only of the Tercius
Denarius of certain Eoyal Manors and Burghs as due to certain
Comital Manors or else to the King personally, as being, in A.D.
1086, Comes by Escheat. As to Lordships of Hundreds or of juris-
dictions other than the King's, the Somerset Domesday, except in
one remarkable instance, tells us nothing. The exception is where
it reveals that, for the Manor and Hundred of Taunton, the Bishop
of Winchester held certain pleas, three of which we know to have
THE BURGHS OF SOMERSET. 53
been Placita Goronce, while we cannot account for the non-mention
of a fourth, viz., "murder" (E. D., p. 162). The fact probably was
that neither King, nor Earl, nor Sheriff, nor Justiciar had any
ingress on this highly-privileged manor and hundred. We cannot
apprehend that for such a franchise the Bishop contributed aught
to the Tercius Denarius of the Earl.
What Domesday reveals, quite digressively, about Taunton, sug-
gests how much there may have been relative to other franchises,
which Domesday had no call to reveal. That the Bishop of Wells
did not try Placita Coronse at Wells and elsewhere, or the Abbot
of Glastonbury at Glastonbury and elsewhere, we shall be slow to
believe. That anything accrued to King or Comes from such
judicatures we may, leaning on the silence of Domesday, safely
deny.
But let us not detract from the superior dignity of Taunton and
its franchises. It was a Burgh to all intents and purposes ; it had
its right of market, recorded in Domesday. As much is not
said of any other manor or franchise of Somerset, whether Bishop,
or Abbot, or Comte, or Earl, or Baron, were its Lord. Domesday
Boroughs ordinarily appertained to the Crown only.
54 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY,
CHAPTEE II.
DOMESDAY SCHEDULE OF SOMEESET LANDHOLDEES,
A.D. 1086.
Such a scliedule is not given in the Exon Domesday at aU ; and
it was obviously a coeval, and a very detrimental omission ; for the
transcribers, working, as it seems, without an index, and intending
to add no separate Index of Counties, as the consummation of their
labours, have given many Schedules of Fiefs in a false sequence,
and have confused the later schedules one with another. The very
imperfect and ill-designed Index appended to the Exon Domesday
has been ah-eady noticed {swpra Preface p. 10).
The Exchequer Domesday is by no means free from the blemish
of mis-arrangement of Fiefs. It commences a survey of Humphrey
Chamberlain's estates with a proper title, viz., "Terra Hunfridi,"
therewith treating his fief as the last of Somerset Baronies,
yet still as a barony. It enters two manors proper to this cate-
gory, and then, without giving any fresh title or note of interrup-
tions, lapses into a list of the estates of King's-Serjeants. Then it
gives a chapter entitled Terrce Tainorum Regis, which proves, on
examination, to be of the lands of the Augli Taiai only, who are
thus placed in an unusual precedency.
Lastly, and out of all sequence or propriety, it gives a chapter
entitled " Item Hunfridi Terra et Quorundam aliorum." Here it
resumes its iuterrupted survey of Humphrey Chamberlain's
estates, and registers the particulars of three manors. Then again,
without any fresh title or note of interruption, it lapses into the
estates of the Franci Taini, as they are called in the Domesday of
other Counties.^
The true arrangement of the Exchequer text would have been to
have inserted this last chapter immediately after the two manors
^ This confusion possibly aros,e in the indeterminate and complex position of
Humphrey Chamberlain himself. If least of the Somerset Barons, he might easily and
properly pass with transcribing clerks as the chief of the Franci Taini of that County.
Furthermore, as his very name suggests, he was, or had been, a king's-serjeant,
and in that quaUty the clerks gave him a third post at the head of the Servientes
Regis.
On re-examination, we find that the transcribing clerks probably became aware of
their blunder when too late to rectify it. There are marginal signs in the Exchequer
Domesday, evidently intended to reconnect the several items of Humphrey
Chamberlain's Baroiir.
SCHEDULE OP SOMERSET LANDHOLDERS.
55
entitled Terrm Unifridi, and then, when Humphrey's Manors had
all five been registered, to have inserted a new title, such as 2'errce
Francorum Tainoncm.
Thus far we speak of the textual arrangement, not of the Index
of the Somerset Domesday. —
Except that the Index, or first Schedule, of the Somerset Domes-
day (Exchequer version) indicates no distinctive chapter of the
lands of the French Thanes, its sequence and method are fault-
less. But then this Index was not followed by the transcribing
clerks : neither, if it was made after the said clerks had finished
their work, did it truly represent what they had done ; it only
represented what they ought to have done. It is as follows : —
I.
Rex "Wniehnus.
XXVII.
wniehnus de Faleise.
II.
Episcopus Wintoniensis.
XXVIII.
Willelmus fihus Wi-
III.
Episcopus Sarisberiensis.
donis.
IV.
Episcopus Baiocensis.
XXIX.
Eadulfus de Mortemer.
V.
Episcopus Constantiensis.
XXX.
Eadulfus de Pomerei.
VI.
Episcopus Wellensis.
XXXI.
Eadulfus Pagenel.
VII.
^cclesia de Bada.
XXXII.
Eadulfus de Limesi.
VIII.
^cclesia Glastiugberien-
XXXIII.
Eobertus filius Geroldi
sis.
XXXIV.
Aluredus de Mer-
IX.
^cclesia Miceleniensis.
leberge.
X.
^cclesia Adelingiensis.
XXXV.
Aluredus de Ispania.
XI.
.^cclesia Eomana Sancti
XXXVI.
Turstinus fihus Eolf.
Petri.
XXXVII.
Serlo de Burci.
XII.
^cclesia de Cadom.
XXXVIII.
Odo filius Gamelin.
XIII.
^cclesia de Monteburg.
XXXIX.
Osbernus Gifard.
XIV.
^cclesia de Sceftesberie.
XL.
Edwardus de Saris-
XV.
Episcopus Mauricius.
beria.
XVI.
Clerici Tenentes de Eege.
XLI.
Ernulfus de Hesding.
XVII.
Comes Eustachius.
XLII.
Gislebertus filius Tur-
XVIII.
Comes Hugo.
old.
XIX.
Comes Moritoniensis.
XLIII.
Godebold.
XX.
Balduinus de Execestre.
XLIV.
Mathiu de Moretania.
XXI.
Eogerius de Corcelle.
XLV.
Hunfridus Camer-
XXII.
Eogerius Arundel.
arius.
XXIII.
Walterius Gifard.
XLVI.
Eobertus deOdburvile
XXIV.
Walterius de Dowai.
et alii Servientes
XXV.
Willelmus de Moion
Eegis.
XXVI.
Willelmus de Ow.
XLVII.
Taiui Eegis.
56 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY.
The foregoing Index contains the names or titles of 37 individuals,
and represents also eleven corporate or plural bodies. In our
Dorset Volume (pp. 75—77) we have said something about a few of
these individuals. What we have here to say about any of them
shall be that only which cannot conveniently be introduced in our
notices of the lands which they respectively held.
Waloheline, Bishop of "Wdstohestee, is mentioned once in the Somerset Survey, in terms which can
have had no relation whatever with his possessions in that County. This is where the South-Western
Commissioners, recording the returns of the late Queen Edith's (now the King's) Manor of Martock as
£70 per annum of ordinary currency, add that, the returns would be £5 more, if Bishop WalcheKne were
to give, or could give, evidence on the point. — Reddit per annum Ixx libras nwmero, et centum soUdosplus,
si WalceUnus Episcopus fuerit testatus.
Now, as a possession of his person or his See, Walchehne Bishop of Winchester had nothing to do with
Martock. It may be that he had sometime farmed the estate under the Crown. It is more probable
that he served King William in some high fiscal capacity at Winchester, the City of his See, and at
that period the domicile of the Royal Treasury, and the chief seat of the Court of Exchequer.
Possibly, again, Bishop Walcheline's knowledge of the rent or value of Martock arose in his having
recently served the Bang not merely as a Baron of the Exchequer, but as a Justice-in-Eyre in Somerset.
But the more interesting question here is,— What could have prevented his testimony being asked and
given on the above matter of fiscal detail ?
We hazard a conjecture that he himself was a Domesday Commissioner, presiding perhaps over the
Survey of distant Counties. As to which Domesday Circuit, out of perhaps nine, Bishop Walcheline may
have led and managed, we have neither hint nor tittle of direct evidence. We have only negative evidences
that it was not the South- Western Circuit, which included Somerset, nor the Western Cu-cuit, which
included Gloucestershire and Worcestershire, nor yet the Southern Circuit, which included Hampshire
and Surrey, wherein were the chief possessions of his own See.
Episoopus Coustantiensis, Geoffrey de Moubray, called Bishop of Coutances in Domesday, is frequently
called Bishop of St. Lo (de Sancto Laudo) in the Qheld-Iaquest of A.D. 1084, and in the testing-clauses of
coeval charters.
In Somerset, if we count as manors all additamenta, or supplementary additions to manors, this Bishop,
in A.D. 1086, held 77 manors of the Crown. These contained 359J hides. Many of these manors had
been taken from Glastonbury Abbey ; five had been T. R. E., possessed by Edric, and eight by Aluric, two
Tlianes, each of whom has the title of did appended to his name in one or more instances.
The Bishop's principal tenants in Somerset were William de Munceaux, Nigel de Gornai, and Ascelinus
(surnamed by CoUinson " Goellus "). Seven manors held under the Bishop by " Roger Witen," or
simply " Roger," were so held by a contemporary baron, for " Roger Witen " was only another name for
Roger de Corcelle.
Bishop Geoffrey died A.D. 1093. We are told, somewhat perfunctorily (CoUinson I., 121) that at the
Bishop's death, "many of his estates, being seized on by the Crown, were disposed of to different favourites."
Nothing is so obliterative of historical or topographical fact as these loose utterances. If they do not
contain specific errors, they leave room for a multitude. We cannot find, and we deem it highly impro-
bable, that there was any escheat, or seizure by the Crown, of Bishop Geoffrey's estates on his death in
1093. Robert de Moubray, Earl of Northumberland, was nephew, and next heir, to Bishop Geoffrey.
Presumably, and in absence of du-ect proof to the contrary. Earl Robert succeeded to all the Bishop's
English estates. It was on Earl Robert's rebellion and forfeiture in 1095, that the late Bishop's Fief
escheated to the Crown. Ultimately a successor to Earl Robert's estates in Central and Northern England
was found in the person of Nigel de Albini, his sister's son, and so great nephew of the late Bishop.
But there is no evidence, that we have seen, of the Somerset estates of the Bishop having, at any time,
reached the hands of Nigel de Albini. On the contrary, the prevailing indications are that King William II,
SCHEDULE OP SOMERSET LANDHOLDERS. 57
annexed the Seigneury over this^^Somerset Fief to the Honour of Gloucester, an Honour which first devolved
on a Norman Baron by disposition of the same King WilUam, the said Baron being Robert Fitz Hamon.
Such was the general destination of the Coutances Fief in Somerset. But the rule, though general, was
not universal There were Coutances— Manors in Somerset, which we have not been able to trace to the
subsequent Fief of Gloucester ; some of these we have actually traced to the Honour of Trowbridge.
Again, there was a Coutances Fief in Devon and another in Wiltshire. Portions of each devolved to
the Honour of Gloucester ; other portions did not so devolve.
To those who may be curious to know of the lineal descendants or eventual successors of the Bishop
of Coutances' Somerset Knights, we would recommend a reference to that list of feudal tenants in
the Honour of Gloucester, which was propounded by WilHam Earl of Gloucester, grandson of Robert
Fitz Hamon, in A.D. 1166, just eighty years after, Domesday. ^ (See Hearne's Liber Niger L, pp. 161-166.)
^CCLESIA DE Bada. — Terea Sancti Petri de Bada in Sumeeseta. — A literal construction of the Exon
Domesday would imply that in January, 1066, there had been tfro contemporary Abbots of Bath. The name
of one is written as Sewoldus, Seuoldus, or Seualdus ; the name of the other as Wlwardus or Wluoldus.
The Exchequer Domesday, its formula of date being T. R. E., not die qua Rex E. fuit vivus et mortuus,
would not have established the fact of a Co-Abbacy even had it named two Abbots ; for T. R. E. might
mean any two dates within the 23^ years of Edward's reign. But the Exchequer Domesday names only
one Abbot of Bath in the said sera, and him it names only once. He is written as Ulwardus Abhaa.
A mistake, and a very remarkable mistake has been made, either by the Rubricator of the Exchequer
Domesday, or by his transcriber (CoUinson L, p. 5). — The Schedule of Ulward White's Escheats is headed
with this title. — " Has infrascriptas terras tenuitUlwardus Ahbas.'' Of course the true reading is " Ulwardus
Albus," and this Schedule had nothing to do with Bath Abbey, or the question of a Dual Abbacy. With
the latter question we now proceed. —
There are conflicting statements (see them collected, Mouasticon ii. 256) about the succession of the
early Abbots of Bath. CoUinson (L, pp. hi, 55) gives them as follows : —
I. Elphege, promoted a.d. 984 to the See of Winchester.
IL Sewold, who presided T. R. E., and was succeeded by Stigand. .
III. Stigand, " who was Abbot in 1067, the second (dc) year of WiUiam the Conqueror, by whom he
was taken into Normandy, where he died."
rV. .^Elsig, who occurs in 1075, and who died in 1087.
Another writer (Stevens) places Stigand in immediate succession to Elphege.
Among the various statements, those which are backed by any coeval chronicle or document, seem to
tell nothing about the Abbacy from the death of Elphege, a.d. 984 till the year 1066. Then, according to
the letter of the Exon Domesday, Wulfwold and Sewold were both Abbots. We shall presently show
some probability that such was actually the case.
If we are to accept the Abbacy of Stigand, his going to Normandy with King William will have been
u. March 1067 (anno 1° Wflli. I.) and his immediate death will become probable enough. But, again, if
we are to accept this Abbacy of Stigand, we can only accept him as Co-Abbot with Wulfwold and in
succession to Sewold.
Surely that " Abbot Wulfwold " who in the summer of 1068 attested a Charter of King William to
Giso Bishop of Wells, was Wulfwold Abbot of Bath, the survivor of the two Abbots of a.d. 1066."
As to .^Isig, elsewhere called Alfscius or Elsius or Elsi, he doubtless occurs as Abbot of Bath in 1075 and
in 1082, and died in 1087 ; but then (as we hold) ^Isig was only Co-Abbot, in succession to Stigand, and
clearly for most part of iElsig's time Wulfwold remained as Senior Abbot.
' CoUinson's genealogical statements seem to us, as regards the earlier Norman period, unsatisfactory.
For ourselves we do not profess to have studied Somerset genealogies "any further than that, in some
doubtful cases of manorial identity, they have shewn us how this or that Domesday Manor is now repre-
sented, by showing us who held it, and of whom it was held at periods subsequent to Domesday.
^ There are probabilities of Wulfwold having been Abbot of Bath in 1061 and in 1065 (Codex Diplomaticus
iv., pp. 148, 150.)
58 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY.
In confirmation of this theory there is that undoubtedly genuine and most remarkable document, called
a " Convention,'' whereby WUUam Hosett accepts a fee-farm grant of the Manor of Ceorlecumb (now
Charlcombe) from " Wlfwold Abbot and Miiaig Abbot, and the whole Convent of Bath," the said William
undertaking to pay an annual rent of £2 and to be faithful and obedient to both Abbots (" utrique
Abbati ") and to all the brethren in all things (see Monast. ii. 265, Num. vi.).
Now, this agreement was clearly made before Domesday (a.d. 1086), which certifies, not only William
Hosee's possession of Charlcombe, but the improvements both in stock and value which he had effected
on the tenement. On the other hand, as we shall show when we come to examine the Gheld-Inquest
of Bath Hundred taken in A.D. 108<t, there is a strong probability that William Hosee's tenancy under
Bath Abbey had not then commenced.
So then, as regards this remarkable case of a Dual Abbacy, as it is proved to have existed towards the
close of the Conqueror's reign, so is it the more probable that the Exon Domesday is verbally and simply
truthful, when it indicates a similar institutio'h as existing at the time of King Edward's death.
Comes Hugo. — The Earl of Chester is accredited by Domesday with four manors in Somerset, four in
Devon, twelve in Dorset, and six in Wiltshire.
Of these twenty-six acquisitions of the Palatine Earl, twenty-one have a common ratio. The Earl had
had a general but not unexceptional grant from the Conqueror of the estates of a certain Saxon, whomi
being in one instance styled Ednod Dapifer, we presume to have held some Stewardship in the Court of
the Confessor. This Ednod is written it some passages of the Record as Aluod, in some as Elnod. His
real name was perhaps jEldnoth. His life-lease of two Dorset manors under the Bishop of Sherborne had
resulted to the See of Sherborne in the loss of both. Another Dorset manor he is said to have gained by
ejectment of a Saxon Thane. These three Dorset manors were among those above counted, as reverting after
the Conquest to the Earl of Chester.-'
It is observable that, except in Devon, the Earl's Feoifee in a majority of the manors above counted is
called in Domesday "Willelmus. " The Gheld-Inquest of Dorset, in one instance, identifies this
" Willelmus " with William Malbane. In another Dorset instance this " WiUelmus " left to the Domesday
tenement of Cliston (Clifton) the distinction of his own surname. The place is still known as Clifton
Maubank. The name, Malbane, also occurs somewhere in a Somerset connexion.
In all cases where Willelmus appears as Earl Hugh's Domesday tenant, in Somerset, Dorset, or
Wiltshire, we may be sure that the said " Willelmus " was William Malbedeng, one of the Earl's Cheshire
barons, the Caput of whose barony was Wich-Malbano.
1 Mr. Freeman in his fourth volume (p. 756) doubts whether this Thane's real name was not JSlfnoth
rather than Eadnoth. His collection of facts about Eadnoth is a great addition to our own, for un-
doubtedly it was the same person who was called both Dapifer, Constable, and Stallere under King
Edward, Stallere under Harold, and eke under King William. His occurrence in Berkshire, in the affairs
of Abingdon Abbey (Freeman, iv. 756, 756) is singularly apposite, for it exliibits him again as the
antecessor of Hugh, Earl of Chester.
In the summer of 1068 when the sous of Harold, sailing from Ireland, had failed in their attempt on
Bristol, they retired to plunder the sea-board of Somerset. There they were confronted by Eadnoth the
Stallere. A battle ensued. The victory seemed doubtful, for, on the one hand, the sons of Harold fled, on
the other Eadnoth fell.
Malmesbury suggests that both events suited King William's views ; and it is remarkable that Eadnoth's
son, Harding, was not allowed succession to any of his ancestral estates.
Harding appears to have thriven in other ways, — by forensic, rather than martial, genius, as Malmesbury
puts it.
But when it is hinted that Harding Fitz Eadnoth, the contemporary of William of Malmesbury, was the
same with Harding, Queen Edith's butler before the Conquest (Freeman, iv. 758), our ideas of chronology
refuse to acquiesce.
We shall have to speak of Harding Fitz Eadnoth again, as called " Harding de Meriot" in 1084, and as one
of the Anglo-Thanes of Somerset in 1086. Whether he was father of Bobert Fitz Harding of Bristol is a
SCHEDULE OV SOMERSET LANDHOLDERS. 59
Comes Moritoniensis. — Robert Comte of Moretain was the Conqueror's half-brother. His Somerset Fief,
if we reckon as manors all supplementary additions registered in the Domesday Schedule headed by his
name, consisted of just one hundred manors. These contained 342f hides. Besides these, the Comte had
wrested some parcels of estate, late the property of the Church of Glastonbury, which were less formally
registered in Domesday. To the Comte's organized Fief the same Church of Glastonbury had contributed
two manors, the Church of Athehiey one, the Church of St. Swythin of Winchester one. Two of the four
contributions had been purchased by exchange.
On the Manor of Bishopston, so purchased from the Abbot of Athelney, the Comte, within four years
after the Conquest, erected his Castle of Montacute.
Contemporary with the Yorkshire rebellion, which, aided by Danish auxiliaries, succeeded in storming
York Castle, there were demonstrations against William's power in the West and South- West. This was in
September, 1069, and the disaffected English of Dorset and Somerset contemporaneously invested the Castle
of Montacute. The Bishop of Coutances, with levies from London, Salisbury, and Winchester, supervened,
raised the siege, and signally punished the besiegers. It may have been on this account that that warlike
Prelate appears in Domesday with a Somerset Fief larger in point of hidage than even the Comte of
Moretain's. Another point of comparison between the Domesday Fiefs of these feudalists is that in
Hundreds where the ascendency of one was strongly marked the other scarcely appears, and that both alike
had shunned the Western and wilder districts of Somerset.
As a corollary perhaps of this, it does not appear that the Comte of Moretain, like other Somerset
feudalists, appropriated the whole estates of any special Saxon or Saxons. Earl Harold was his antecessor
in one instance, Robert Fitz Wimarch in one, Alestau de Boscumb in one, Godrio iu five, Algar in four,
Ordulf in one, and Edmeratorus in two. We introduce OrduU and Edmeratorus,^ those wealthy Thanes,
because their Devon estates were wholly assigned to the Comte.
In future notes we shall have to say much of the Comte of Moretain's Domesday tenants in Somerset.
We merely enumerate them here : —
(1) Robert Fitz Ivo, al. Robert the Constable. (2) Drogo de Montacute. (3) Ansger de Montacute, al.
Ansger Brito. (4) Alvered Pincerna. (5) Malger de Cartrai. (6) Bretel de St. Clair.
The following occur with one or at most two tenements each : —
(1) Turstin. (2) Gerard. (3) Hubert de St. Clare. (4) William de Corcelle. (5) William de Lestra. (6)
Reginald de VaUetort. (7) Dodeman. (8) Robert Fitz Walter. (9) Ricardus. (10) Hugh de Valletort.
(11) Hunfridus. (12) Garmundus. (13) Radulfus Presbyter. (14) Donecan. (15) Amundus. (16) The
Porters of Montacute.
Balduinus de Excestbe. — Usually called Baldwin Vicecomes in Domesday (see Dorset, p. 74). This was
Baldwin of Meules and of Sap, in Normandy, Baron of Oakhampton, Sheriif of Devon, and the chief of the
Domesday feudalists of that County. He was younger son of Gilbert Comte de Brionne, sometime guardian
of Duke William. He was of kin to the Conqueror, and married a cousin of the Conqueror,
His ulterior successors, through females, were the Barons Courtenay.
RoGEEina DE CoECELLE. — Counting all additamenta of manors, and all dupUcate manors, this feudalist held
in capite, A.D. 1086, no less than 108 Somerset estates. Most of them were small, some were only
recently acquired ; waste was a characteristic of a few, value of none. Only three of the whole
number gelded for more than 3^ hides. These were Shipham (4 hides), Limington (7 hides), and Curi,
now Curry Mallet (7 hides).
Besides these Tenures-in-Capite, Roger de Corcelle held many manors under Glastonbury Abbey,
genealogical question to which we do not here address ourselves. All we will venture to say is that, if
Harding Fitz Eadnoth, Lord of Merriott, was father of the first Robert Fitz Harding, then it is morally
certain that the said Robert was not the eldest son of the said Harding.
^ This name, Edmeratorus, seems of Norman coinage. The more Saxon form of the name seems to us to
be that which is written in Domesday as Edmer Atre. The identity of Edmer Atre with Edmeratorus is
further supported by the fact that the Comte of Moretain is similarly spoken of in Domesday as having
general succession to the estates of Edmer Atre and of Edmeratorus,
60 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY.
a position in which, as we learn from Domesday, he had been preceded by his father. Undoubtedly
his father was that " Willhelm de Curcello," whom we find in the summer of 1068 attesting the
Conqueror's restoration of Banwell to Giso, Bishop of Wells.
We surmise that one Roger, who held five Somerset manors under William de Moione, was Roger de
CorceDe ; we are sure that Roger Witen, alias Roger Wytent, who held certain manors under the Bishop
of Coutanees, was Roger de Corcelle ; and if, as a tenant of the same Bishop in other manors, he was
sometimes written simply as " Roger," we do not marvel.
There were not six Hundreds in Somerset of any capacity, in which this ubiquitous and omnivorous
Feudalist had not some interest.
Colliuson (i. 89) tells us that Roger de Corcelle was " eldest son of Wandril de Leon, of a noble family in
Normandy." Not knowing the authority for this statement, we will not venture to contradict it. We put
greater faith in CoUinson when (vol. iii. p. 680) he dissipates the fable which connected Roger de Corcelle
with the name and Manor of Churchill, neither of which had existence at the date of Domesday. At a
later period, when a church was built under the Mendip hill-range, on a part of the Bishop of Wells'
Manor of Banwell, the place and parish were quite intelUgibly called Churclull ; and from their residence
in this place many later families may have taken the name of De Churchill or Churchill. Roger de
Corcelle is occasionally and somewhat perversely called " Roger de Churchill " by CoDinson. The same
writer is, also, as we think, mistaken in identifying Roger de Corcelle's Domesday Manor of Blachamora
with Blackmore, a hamlet now in Churchill parish.^ It is true that Roger de Corcelle's Manor of Shipham
was at no great distance from Churchill ; it is probable also that his small Manor of Pantesheda was on the
very boundaries of Banwell. But Roger de Corcelle was nowhere the Bishop's tenant, neither in Banwell,
nor at Blackmore, nor at Shipham, nor yet at Pantesheda. These considerations alone suffice to dislodge
him from the particular territory which was the Bishop's, and was afterwards known as Churchill.
In his Domesday Index Collinson does not affect to identify Blacliamm'a. We concur in this abstinence,
for we quite beUeve that, wherever the manor was, there the name is now obsolete.
We find no satisfactory statement as to the destiny or succession of Roger de Corcelle. The Post-
Domesday history of some of his manors is suggestive of two theories, but determinative of none. Either
those scions of the House of Malet who eventually succeeded to many, if not most, of his estates, were his
right heirs by blood, or else, he, or his right heirs, suffering absolute forfeiture, the said and other estates
were regranted by the Crown to aliens from the blood of Roger de Corcelle. The leading phaenomena of
the case are as follows : —
Robert Malet, who lived in the time of King Henry I. (1100-1135), held no less than ten knights'-fees
under the Abbot of Glastonbury. There can be no doubt that these ten fees mainly co-ordinated with
the vast ■ estates which Roger de Corcelle had held under the said Abbey at the date of Domesday
(a.d. 1086). One] of them, perhaps the chief, was Shepton Mallet. We name it because its name is, so
far, its history.
In the " same Fee " (by which we understand the Fief originally held under the Abbey by De Corcelle)
and in the same reign (that of Henry I.) Hubert de St. Susanne held two knights'-fees of the same
Abbot.
In the year 1166 WiUiam Malet held sine medio of the Abbot of Glastonbury twelve knights'-fees — that
is, he held not only the ten fees theretofore held by Robert Malet, but the two fees theretofore held
by Hubert de St. Susanne.
Another phsenomenon as to the successorship of Roger de Corcelle connects itself with his Tenure-in-
capite of the Crown, — with his Domesday Barony in short. —
If we combine his two moieties (34 hides each) of Curi we get an estate of seven hides, all of wliich
Roger de Corcelle held in demesne at the date of Domesday. In this respect of being held in demesne,
and in respect of its size, Curi may well be accounted to have been the Caput of De Corcelle's Barony.
Blackmore was a common name. The Domesday indications about De Corcelle's Manor of Blachamora,
are that it was in West Somerset, and probably in Carhampton Hundred.
SCHEDULE OF SOMERSET LANDHOLDERS. 61
Ouri, like Shepton, came to Malet, and being 'held by Malet in demesne, was rejputed to be the Caput of
Malet's Somerset Barony. Thus, too, it obtained its still abiding name of Curry Malet.
It is further apparent that a considerable number of De Coroelle's Somerset Manors, constituting some
twenty knights'-fees, accrued to the House of Malet before the death of King Henry I. (a.d. 1135), and
were held in capite per Ba/ronicim by William Malet in 1166. And the same, or it may be others, of
De Coroelle's Manors are constantly cropping up in Somerset history, as having been held " by Malet," or
" of Malet," or of the " Honour of Curry Malet."
And yet we are far from saying or thinking that all De Corcelle's Domesday estates devolved upon
Malet ; nor can we affirm that Malet had nothing in Somerset but what had previously belonged to
De CorceUe.
So far, then, we ai-e short of sufficient proof that Robert Malet of Henry I.'s time, or WiUiam Malet,
the steward and favourite of Henry II., were lineal heirs and representatives of Roger de CorceUe.
The Somerset historian, CoUinson (i. 32), constructs with the above and with later particulars a very
plausible pedigree of the Somerset House of Malet tUl it merged with an heiress into the House of
Pointz.
CoUinson clearly intended to identify the Robert Malet who held under Glastonbury Abbey, and (as we
beUeve), under the Crown in the time of Henry I., with Robert Malet, who suffered forfeiture and
banishment early in that reign.
"We cannot accredit such an identity. There is no record of any restoration of Robert Malet, the
disinherited. Had there been any restoration, why should it have been in Somerset only, whUe Robert
Malet's vast heritages in Northern and Eastern England continued for ages an Escheat of the Crown ?
However, if Robert Malet of Somerset were indeed the man whom CoUinson took him to be, he was the
heir, yea, the sou of a much greater man than Roger de CorceUe. He was the son, by HesiUa Crispin, of
WUliam Malet of GraviUe, one of the two ablest of the Conqueror's Ueutenants, a hero of Senlac, iAe hero
of the Dane-stormed castle of York, of whose mysterious end much has been said, and perhaps too much
surmised.^
Wamekius de Douai, cd. Waiscinus de Duaco. Collinson's statement (vol. ii., p. 390) about the
descent of this baron's estates, through a female, to the House of PaganeU, is true enough as regards
the Devonshire honour of Bampton, and the Somerset estates of HuntspiU, Bridgewater, Pawlett, and
one or two others. CoUinson's account of the succession of the House of PaganeU, thus aggrandized,
is altogether inadequate and largely erroneous. This is of no present concern save that such loose
statements mar our chance of identifying Domesday manors by their subsequent history. A single
manor of Walter de Douai's Somerset Fief is traceable to the Courtenay Lords of Montgomery, but
by no channel as yet revealed to us by genealogists. The Manor of Worle thus descended. CoUinson
traces it to the Courtenay Lords of Oakhampton in the first instance, but without evidence or, as we
think, probabiUty.
The descent from Douai to Paganel is accounted for ; the descent from Douai to Courtenay is not. The
two combined do not touch so much as half the bulk of Walter de Douai's Somerset Barony.
How Castle-Cary and a number of Walter de Douai's other estates came to form the Barony of Castle-
Cary, CoUinson does not teU us. Probably he never enquired ; neither do we propose to enquire here.
But we must say something about the history of the House of Lovel, forced upon us as it is by our obUgation
to trace each manorial item to its Domesday type. ^
The Lord and Baron of Caatle-Cary, who, in the year 1138, figured as a partisan of the Empress Matilda,
is caUed by CoUinson (ii. 52), "WUliam Peroheval," or " WUliam Gouel de Percheval." CoUinson makes
this William to have been son of " AsceUn Gouel de Percheval," who " fought at Hastings," and who
appears in Domesday, not as » baron nor with any adjunctive name, but simply as " Ascelinus," a con-
siderable holder under the Bishop of Coutance. CoUinson further explains that as the father, Ascelinus, was
surnamed Lwpus, so the son, William, was surnamed Impellms, or Lovel. The chronology here involved
would of itself discredit the facts thus asserted.
■• See Freeman's Norman Conquest, vol. iv., pp. 471, 789.
G2 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY.
The Lord of Castle-Cary, the legitimatist baron of 1138, was, according to our reading of chronicles,
Ealph Lovel. (One chronicler curiously writes him as Ealph " Simelt"). Him Collinson allows only to have
been son of " William Gouel de Percheval, surnamed Lupellus." Hitherto it has been our fortune to have
found Ralph Level's father written only as "WilUam Luvel."
We leave genealogies, and descend to the year 1166, when we iind that the barony of Henry Lovel con-
sisted of 19 knights' -fees, whereof 6 J fees were furnished-forth by manors of the Comte of Moretain's
Domesday Fief. These are not involved in the present enquiry. The remaining 12J fees were aU, save one,
of old feoffment, that is they had been held in the time of King Henry I. by the fathers or other ancestors of
the existing tenants under some predecessor of Henry LoveL (Mag. Rot. Pip. 14, Henry II., Somerset.)
Look now at Henry Lovel and this list of tenants in a.d. 1166. He himseK is Lord of Castle-Cary
and of other manors held by him in demesne. They of course are not alluded to in this list. We learn
of them from other authority, and they were Walter de Douai's at the aera of Domesday. On the list are these
names, viz., Robert de Sturton, holding three knights'-fees ; William de Crukez, holding two knights'-fees ;
Eadulf de Sparkeford, holding one-knights' -fee, and Robert de Baketerpe with Robert Fitz Baldwin, hold-
ing one fee in coparcenery ; — all under Henry Lovel (Hearne's Lib., Mg. i. 100-101).
Turning back to Domesday we find Stourton (in Wiltshire) Cruca, Sparkeford, and Bagatrepa (all in
Somerset) to have been of the Domesday Fief of Walter de Douai.
We cannot but think that the descent from Douai to Lovel was an hereditary descent.
In the Somerset Domesday we find very frequent mention of a Saxon Thane, whose name is variously
vmtten as Alwacre, Elwacre, Eilwacre, Eurewacre, Ailwacrer, and Elwacrer.
Little but the memory of Elwacre remained at the date of Domesday. His son iElfric still held a small
estate at Brentmarsh under Glastonbury Abbey. In Somerset, Elwacre had been succeeded in two
instances by Roger Arundel, in four by Serlo de Burci, in seven by Walter de Douai.
Other Somerset antecessors of Walter de Douai were Saxons of still greater note than Elwacre. His
antecessor in four instances had been —
(1.) Marlesweyn, Sheriff of Lincolnshire at the Conquest, who lost all his wide-spread lands in Lincoln-
shire, Yorkshire, Somerset, Devon, Gloucestershire, and Northamptonshire, by joining the rebellion of 1069. —
(2) Bricsi, styled in the Dorset Domesday as " Miles Regis Edwardi," was maintaining his allegiance to
the Conqueror in 1068. But in 1086 his lands were dispersed. Burnham, a manor of privileged hidation,
had fallen to Walter de Douai.
(3) JEilsi, al. Elsi, al. Eilsi, had in five cases been the antecessor of Walter de Douai. This is probably he
whom an anonymous but most able commentator^ has identified with ^thelsige, the steward of Queen
Edith and the son-in-law of Wulfward White ; — both father-in-law and son-in-law, unharmed in estate, and
attending the Queen's Court at Wilton as late as 1072.
(4) One of Walter de Douai's Domesday tenants was Raimarus, a clerk. He was Walter's brother ;
Gerard, who held Broctun (now Bratton Seymour) under Walter de Douai, was his steward (Dapifer).
The same "Rademar " and Gerard occur as his tenants in Devon.
Walter de Douai, his wife, his brother, and his steward, appear in the Chartulary of Bath Abbey as
having made, or concurred in, several grants to that House. The localities concerned seem to have
been Bampton, Foxcume, Castle-Cary, Bratton {Broctuna), and Bridgewater (Brigga).
RoQEE Arundel. Some, not unaccountable, confusion led Collinson to identify this Domesday
baron with " Comte Roger the Poitevin," whose father, Roger de Montgomery, was Earl of Arundel.
Had Roger Arundel taken his name from any local association, whether in Sussex or Normandy, the
Norman Scribes of Domesday would surely have written him as Roger de Arundel. They never did
so. It is true that in the testing clause (a.d. 1068) of King William's Charter to Giso, Bishop of
Wells, this witness's name stands as " Rotgerus Derundel," an additional proof to those already
furnished by an able commentator on that Charter,^ that it was written by an Englishman.
^ In the Saturday Review of Dec. 2, 1876.
- See Saturday Review of Nov. 3, 1877.
SCHEDULE OF SOMERSET LANDHOLDERS. 63
We find the name " Arundel " corrupted into De ArunJel eighty years after Domesday. Then the elder
line and Barony were represented by Gerbert de Peroi; but a cadet of the House was called
"Walter de AruudeU" (Hearne's Lib. Nig., p. 82)). The truth is, that the name of the Domesday Baron
was a soubriquet — a Norman form of the French word which is now written Hirondelle. Many
Arundels claiming, we suppose, a descent from some collateral branch of the Norman baron, remember
to blazon their arms with Swallows or Martlets.
Domesday Indicia suggest that Roger Arundel was rapacious even unto sacrilege, and that his barony
was of slow aggregation. He had a plurahty of antecessors, of whom Ailward, al. Alvert, is the most
frequent in Somerset. In the Dorset Survey this same antecessor is written once as Alward, once as
Agelferd.
WiLLELMUS DE Ow (William of Ewe). Something has been said of his antecedents and destiny in our
Dorset volume (pp. 17, 68, 69, 76, 121), also of his Saxon antecessor, Aleatan de Boscumbe (Ibidem, p. 120).
His treason and execution in 1096 worked a full and definite forfeiture of his house and race.
We have said that the whole Fief o£ William of Ewe would seem ultimately to have accrued to the
honour of Strigoil.
There is some appearance of this annexation having taken place before the house of Marshall entered
upon that inheritance.
WiLLELMUS DE Faleisb. This baron had but three Somerset manors of any note— viz., Estocha
(afterwards known as Stoke Courci), Ottona (Wotton Courtenay), and Worspriuca (Woodspring). Bricsi
and Algar, his antecessors at Stoke and Wotton, were Thanes of high degree. Woodspring had been held
T. R. E. by Euroacre, and according to evident rule, had first been granted by the Conqueror to Serlo de
Burci. The latter, by the King's consent, transferred Woodspring to WilUam de Palaise, who had married
his (Serlo's) daughter.
CoUinson (i. 250) says that Wilham de Faleise, who, with Geva, his wife, gave Stoke Church to the
Norman Abbey of Lonlay, was a "descendant" of the Domesday baron. If so, William deFalaise will have
left male heirs, a fact of which we have no other assurance. On the other hand, the early succe.5sion of
De Courci to this one Domesday Manor of William de Falaise, suggests some genealogical fact which we
ha,ve in vain attempted to fix. The manor which was called Stoke- Gourcy in the twelfth century, by
reason of its said destination, is now known as Stogursey. Some generations after Domesday, persons or
families named De Faleise appeared in Dorset and other Counties. According to the wont of the older
genealogists, and against all evidence save that of a mere name, these persons and families have been
associated with the race of William de Faleise, the Domesday baron. It is perhaps within our province to
offer to genealogists of a later school at least the germ of a different theory. —
William de Faleise figures in Domesday with seventeen manors in Devon, four in Dorset, three in
Somerset (above identified), and one in Wiltshire.
We now turn to an old legend (we can call it no more) of the Welsh Marches. We have told
(Antiquities of ShApshire, xi. 120) how on the fall of Earl Robert de Belesme (a.d. 1102), King Henry I.,
having the Chatellany of Montgomery as an Escheat, augmented it largely with distant estates, and
granted it to Baldwin de Boilers, iu marriage with Sibil de Faleise, his (the King's) niece.
We cannot imagine how Henry I. could have such a niece as this Sibil ; nor can we say how SibU de
Faleise was related to William de Faleise, or why she or her descendants should have succeeded to any of
his estates. But the records of sundry old lawsuits enabled us, while studying the history of Montgomery,
to show among Sibil de Faleise's successive heirs or co-heirs, after the extinction of the male line of
De Boilers, some such persons as these following, viz., Reginald Fitz Urse, Robert de Courtenay, WUliam
de Courtenay, Richard Engaiue, and Wflliam de Cantilupe.
Avoiding to retrace the story of descent through its several stages, we may say at once that one or other
of the above descendants of Sibil de Falaise appear in the course of two centuries to have been interested
in one or other of the Domesday estates of WiUiam de Falaise.
For instance, Wotton Courtenay got its distinctive name from Robert or William de Courtenay ; — at
Woodspring, WiUiam de Courtenay founded a priory of Augustine monks, to the honour, among others, of
St. Thomas of Canterbury.
CoUinson tells how this foundation was afterwards strengthened by grants of Henry and John Engaine,
64 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY.
whom we know to have been descended from Richard Eugaine above mentioned. CoDinson's further
statement that William de Courtenay, the founder of Woodspring, was " descended from William de Traci,
one of Beoket's assassinators," we much doubt : but at the same time we have a strong impression that
William de Courtenay was the gi-andsbn of another of Becket's assassins, viz., of Reginald Fitz TJrse. (See
Antiquities of Shropshire, xi. 129.)
In William de Courtenay probably perished the last descendant of Reginald Fitz TJrse. After his death,
Cantilupe and Eugaine seem to have been the only remaining co-heirs of Sibil de Faleise.
The above hints being intended only as a basis for further investigation, it may be as well to give
another phase of the case. In Somerset and in Dorset, the eventual heu-s of Sibil de Faleise got ingress into
several manors which were not of the Domesday Fief of William de Faleise ; for instance, they or some
of them had Worle, which was Walter de Douai's at Domesday, and Kewstoke which was Gilbert Fitz
Turold's.
Again, in the 13th century, a small barony in Somerset seems to have been known as the " Barony of
Worlestone." The few particulars noted by ColHnson in respect of this barony would seem to promise to
further investigation additional light on subjects, some at least of which are germane to this episode, and to
any question about the eventual heirs of Sibil de Faleise.
Radulfus de Pomeeei. — This baron had but two manors in Somerset, but more than sixty in Devon.
WUHam Capra, or Chievre, who had upwards of forty manors in Devon, was Ralph de Pomeraye's brother.
These brothers had a sister, Beatrix by name. She holds in Domesday, two Devon Manors (Lega and Brade-
ford), under William Capra, and a Somerset Manor (Estaweia) and a Devon Manor (Chevetorna) under
Ralph de Pomeraye.
Radulfus Pagenel. This was Ralph PayneU of Drax, Yorkshire. He acquired his Devon and Somerset
estates in virtue of a general grant of the escheated estates of Marlesweyn, one of the rebels of 1069, and
up to that date Sheriff of Lincolnshire. A descendant of Ralph PayneU, marrying Juliana de Bahuutune,
acquired Bampton and other estates in Devon and Somerset, parcel of the Domesday Barony of Walter de
Douai, sometime called " Walter de Bahuntune." Thus, in the reign of Stephen, there were two Baronies
of PayneU — one seated at Drax, the other at Bamptone.
A very tangled story ensues. AU we can say here, and with confidence, is that the elder male line of
PayneU of Drax expired in the reign of Henry II. ; that many of the estates of the said line went to
collaterals, claiming through Alice PayneU, granddaughter of Ralph Paynel now under notice, daughter of
WilUam PayneU, and daughter and sole heir of a wife of the said WiUiam, viz., of Avicia le Meschin, al.
Avicia de RoumelK, who was daughter and co-heir of William le Meschin and Cecilia de Roumelli ; that
Drax itself, and many associated estates, went to other collaterals whose claim was in a male line, viz., as
descended from WiUiam Paynel of Bridgewater and Bampton, the husband of Juliana de Bahuntune.
The heirs of PayneU (of Drax, Bridgewater, &c.,) adhered to PhUip of France in the reign of John,
and so lost their English estates, though one of the family was reclaiming a part of them as late as a.d. 1261.
Meantime, another scion of the House of Paynel had made good a claim, or estabUshed a plea, which
gained some part of the forfeited estates. He, for aught we know, retained the same.
So far as our purpose is concerned, the gist of all this is, that wherever we find a Somerset or Devon
estate to have been held in the 13th century by Maurice de Gaut, or by Hugh de Nevile, or by any Luttrel,
or any PayneU, we shall do weU to look for the antecedents of such estate in the Domesday Fiefs of Ralph
PayneU and Walter de Douai.
Radulfus de Limesi. This baron was the second of his name after the Conquest. The elder Ralph was
dead before Domesday, at which date his main succession was in WiUiam of Ewe (See Dorset, pp. 17, 119 «.,
121 n.). WiUiam of Ewe's heirship appears to have arisen in his mother, whom we have hitherto supposed to
have been a Limesi by birth, and heiress of Ralph senior. There is another possibflity in the case. It is,
that WUUam of Ewe's mother being an heiress, had taken Ralph de Limesi senior, as a second husband,
and that he, while living, enjoyed her estates as weU as his own. The coUateral possibUity is, that Ralph
de Limesi senior, had, by a previous wife, a son, Ralph de Limesi (II), who of course was heir to all the
elder Ralph's hereditary or personal estates.
The question wants further evidence. We do not find that evidence in Domesday. Where else are we
to look for it ?
SCHEDULE OF SOMERSET LANDHOLDEES. 65
Alubed db Hispania. — SomeWiiug may well be added to what has been said in our Dorset Volume (p. 77)
about Alm-ed of Spain. In all Counties where Domesday records him to have held lands, his usual pre-
decessor was a Saxon Alwi, or Alwin, sometimes called " Alwi Eanneson," once called "Alwi Prsepositus,
Regis Edwardi," the latter title probably resulting from his having charge of the Royal Manor of North
Petherton. At Nether Stowey, ^ which became the caput of his barony, Alured succeeded to no less a per-
sonage than Harold, Earl of Wessex.
The male line of Alured de Hispania vanished in an heiress, perhaps his daughter. Her name was Isabellp.
Her husband was Robert de Candos, said to have conquered the territory of Caerleon. The pair certainly
founded Goldclive Priory in Monmouthshire, and richly endowed it with lands, churches, and tithes, in
Somerset and Devon. Robert de Candos is said to have died in 1120.
The male line of Candos merged again in an heiress, viz., Maude de Candos, wife, in 1166, of Philip de
Columbiers. In the said year, Philip de Columbiers made a return of the eleven knights' -fees which con-
stituted his barony (Heame's Liber Niger, i. 97). Some of these fees were in Devon, but most of them in
Somerset. A brief examination of the Record shows the barony to have been substantively the same as that
held by Alured de Hispania, eighty years before, when it was registered in Domesday. The male line cf
Columbiers endured in Somerset for many generations.
The history of the Domesday Manor of Hunlavintou (Woolavington) affords a neat parallel to the descent
of the Barony of Stowey. —
In King Edward's time, Hunlavinton was held by Alwi Eanneson, of the Abbey of Glastonbury. In 1086
it was held by Alured de Hispania, of the same Abbey. In the time of King Henry I. (1100 — 1135), Robert
de Candos - held one knights'-fee of the same Abbey (Heame's Lib. Nig., p. 88). In 1166, Walter
son of Robert de Candos was holding the same knights'-fee. So, then, though the husband of Maude de
Candos had succeeded to the barony, the heir-male was yet alive. Possibly he was in cloister.
Tdestin Fitz RoLr. — Who he was has been told in our Dorset Volume (p. 76). His antecessor in several
estates, viz., Alwold, is, in one instance, wi-itten as Alwold Calvus (the Bald).
One phenomenon about his succession is worth observing. Many of his Domesday estates vested ulti-
naately in the descendants of his Domesday tenant, Bernard Pauncevolt.
Seelo de Btjkci, whose two demesne-manors in Dorset were Whitcliff (in Swanage) and Pidere (postea
Puddle Walterston), had 15 manors, and supplements of manors, in Somerset. Domesday shows him also
as holding estates in Somerset and Wiltshire under Glastonbury Abbey.
.His Saxon predecessor, in four instances, was Euroacer, already noticed (supra, p. 62), and in other four
was ^Elmar, sometimes designated Almar Atter. His Dorset Manor of Pidere had been held T. JR. E. by
Earl Harold.
Serlo de Burci had a daughter, anun of Shaftesbury, mth whom he gave Chelmatona (liilmington) to
that monastery. Another daughter he gave in marriage to WiUiam de Faleise, with Woodspring as her
portion.
Serlo de Burci'e greatest Somerset manor wa.s Blachedona (ten liides), whereof he held nine in
demesne. In after times his barony was usually known as the Barony of Blagdou.
To this barony succeeded, in time of Henry I. (1100-1135), Robert Fitz Martin, son (says Collinson, ii.
131) of Martin de Tours, the conqueror of Kemeys-Land and founder of St. Dogmael's.
This Robert Fitz Martin will have been he who, in 31 Henry I. (1130) was acquitted of his quota of
Danegeld in respect of demesnes (constructively eight hides) in Dorset (Rot. Pip., 31 Hen. I., p. 15).
The Barons Fitz Martin, the descendants of Martin de Tours, held the Barony of Blagdon till the reign
of Edward II., when it went to co-heiresses married to Columbiers and to Audley.
' Estalieeia, in the Exon Domesday (p. 350). Collinson (iii. 550) fails, through not collating Domesday and
the Gheld-Inquest, to find the Domesday type of Alured de Hifjpanla's Manor o£ Nether Stowey. He fi.Kes
on Ralph de Pomerey's Manor of Stawd (which was indeed ■■• part of Nether Stowey) as the Manor of
Alvered.
2 Robert de Candos gave the tithes of Woolavington to Goldclive Prioiy. (See CoUinson, iii., 437.)
F
G6 THE SOMERSET DOMESDA"^.
There are other phajuomena connected with the Fitz Martin Barony, which we subjoin merely as an
index for future enquii-ers. —
There was no return of the barony to the Feodary of 1166 ; but the then baron ia twice alluded to
therein. As the son of Robert Fitz Martin, the said baron holds five knights'-fees under Glastonbury
Abbey. These fees, lying probably in PyUe, East Pennard, Hornblotton, and High Ham, had, if so lying,
been held under the Abbey by Serlo de Burci at Domesday.
At this same date (1166; Robert Fitz Martinis registered as holding three parts of a knights' -fee under
the Bishop of Bath, which teaches us merely that the son of " Robert Fitz Martin " mentioned in the
Glastonbury Return was a second Robert, sou of him who occurs in 1130.
But the Glastonbury Return evidently points to an earlier period of Henry I.'s reign than 1130, when it
makes WilHam Fitz Walter to have been tenant of the above five fees antecedently to the two
Roberts.
We cannot solve the genealogical difBoulty thus arising. We only increase it by suggesting that it was
Walter, fa,ther of William (each succeeding in turn to estates of Serlo de Burci), who left with the
Dorset Manor of Pidere or Puddle its distinctive name of WaZtentoji.
Again, in Devon, where Serlo de Burci had nothing at the date of Domesday, the Fitz Martins inherited
several of the Domesday estates of William de Faleise ; and these estates constituted, or went to constitute,
what was called in the thirteenth century the Barony of Dartington. Now Dertrintona stands in Domesday
as a demesne manor of the said Wilham de Faleise.
Eknulf de Hesdinh. We have said something in our Dorset volume (pp. 12in, 13Sn) about this baron,
and his frequent antecessor, Edric. Domesday registers him with estates in Dorset, Somerset, Wiltshire,
Gloucestershu-e, Hampshire, Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Huntingdonshire, and Bedfordshire. Many of these
estates passed to religious houses. The bulk went in partition between three co-heiresses, and are
subsequently found in the Hues of Salisbury (the old Earls), of Fitz Alan, and of Mont-Dubleau, alias
De Cadurcis.
QoDEBOLD. — He occurs more frequently in the Devon than in the Somerset Domesday. In the index of
the latter he ranks as a baron. His real status and tenure were those of a King's Serjeant. He was captain
of King William's cross-bow-men — that is, he is usually styled "Balistarius ;" but in one instance he is
styled " Archibahstarius."
HuxFKiDUS Camehahius was a King's Serjeant (Serviens Regis), but his Domesday position iu other
Counties than Somerset was as that of a minor baron. He and Aiulf Camerarius, Domesday Sheriff of
Dorset, were brethren. It would seem that Humphrey owed his advance and many of his estates to the
favour of the lafce Queen Matilda. In connexion with this phenomenon there is an interesting episode which
we cannot forbear relating, and though it pertains rather to Dorset than to Somerset, it shows how much
may be made by collating the Gheld-Inquest with Domesday. —
The Gheld-Inquest of 1084 has the following case of exemption, under the Dorset Hundred of Albretes-
berg : — " De unft hidfl quam tenet quajdam Vidua de Hunfrido Camerario ad firmam non habuit Rex Gildum
quia Aiulfus dicit Reginam perdonasse pro anim9, Ricardi filii sui." Domesday shows iis that the hide in
question was part of Medesham (now Edmondsham) ; that the late Queen Matilda had given it to Humphrey
Chamberlain ; that the widow, who held it at farm under Humphrey, was named Eddiva ; that King William
was continuing Humphrey's tenancy three years after the Queen's death.
The tragic fate of Richard, second son, and chief hope, of William and Matilda, leads us to the New Forest
whose outskirts determined the boundary of the Dorset Hundred of Albretesberg. Whether Humphrey
Chamberlain were in attendance on the youth in the fatal chase, — whether the widow, Eddiva, tended him
when smitten to the death, — we cannot explore. For the soul of her son, Richard, Queen Matilda enjoined on
Aiulf (Sheriff of Dorset) that the tenement held under (his brother) Humphrey, by the widow (Eddiva)
should be free from Gheld.
The succession of Humphrey Chamberlain we must leave to the future research of others. We offer a few
hints in addition to those given in our Dorset Volume (p. 137 n). —
His Dorset Manor of Sture (Stour Pain), and his Somerset Manor of Sanforda (which, though CoUinson
thought otherwise, we pronounce to have been the Domesday type of Sauford Orescuilz, now Sanford Orcasl
SCHEDULE OP SOMERSET LANDHOLDERS. G7
had some later affinities suggestive of the descent of their later owners from Humphrey Chamberlain. Each
manor was dominicaZ, that is, Humphrey had no tenant in either higher than his Villeins.
In 1166, William Fitz John held 10 knights'-fees, and Roger deVilliers one fee, in the Honour of Gloucester.
The Fief " which had been Robert de Gornai's, " also held of the same Honour, was a Fiof of ten fees. We
say nothing of the pertinence of this to the present subject, though possibly it may hereafter prove to be
not unconnected therewith.' William Fitz John, be it remembered, was Baron of Harptree.
In the beginning of King John's reign (says Collinson ii. 378), Richard de Orescuilz was Lord of Sanford
Orcas, and of Sturis (where Sturis was, Collinson did not know).
A.I>. 1212. The Manor of Stures (afterwards Stour Pain) was held in equal moieties of the Honour of
Gloucester, by William Fitz John and Roger de Vilers. (Testa de Ne%'ill, p. 163.)
Collinson says, or implies, that Maud and Alice, daughters and co-heirs of Richard de Orescuilz, had married,
one to William Fitz John of Harptree, and that she had Sanford-Orcas and Shamcot (in Wiltshire) ; the
other, Alice, having married . . . . de VOers, was mother of Roger de Vilers. And, accordingly, before
Michaelmas, 1210, he finds (Rot. Pip., 12, John) that Roger de Vilers paid 20 merks that he might inherit
the share of his mother Alice in the lands of Richard de Orescuilz.
However, we discover that Maud and Alice were not " daughters " but sisters of Richard de Orescuilz. —
By deed iWthout date " William Fitz John de Harptree, with assent of Matildis," (surely the aforesaid
Maude), " his wife, gives to Kington Nunnei-y (Wilts), certain tithes in his demesnes of Stures (Stour Pain)
and of Sanford (Orcas surely).
Also Roger de Vilers gives to the same, certain disputed tithes of his demesnes of Stures and of Sanford, as
settled by Papal deputies judging in the cause. The nuns are to hold these tithes of the Grantor and his
heirs " Hbere, prout Ricardus de Orescuil filius Helias Orescuil avunculus meus illis dedit."
Now we reascend to Domesday. There we find Humphrey Chamberlain holding of the King the Wilt-
shire Manor of Schemecote. There, too, we find him holding lands (it is irrelevant to identify the lands
here) of Glastonbury Abbey.
In the time of Henry I. (1100 — 1135), Henry Oresouill held a knight's-fee of the same Abbey, which fee,
in 1166, was held by HeUas, son of the said Hemy.
So than, HeUas de Orescuil, being the father of Richard de Orescuilz, who died s.p., and of Maude
Orescuilz, Lady of Shernecote, Sanford Orcas, and Stour (Pain), who married William Fitz John of Harp-
tree, also of Alice Orescuilz, who transmitted to her son, Roger de Vilers, a share in the manors of Sanford-
Orcas and Stour, — Helias de Orescuil was son of Henry de Orescuil, living in time of Henry I. Can we
doubt that Henry Orescuil was heir or co-heir of Humphi-ey Chamberlain ?
We should add, by way of illustration, that about the year 1240, Stour Pain was held, not immediately
of the Earl of Gloucester, but mediately of the Earl's feudal vassal, Robert de Gumay. This was no
nominal and artificial way of stating the tenm-e. Robert de Gumay was not " De Gumay," by descent
in the male Hue. In the male line he was the heir and representative of those Barons Fitz John of
Harptree, one of whom had married the co-heiress of Orescuilz.
Servientes Regis. The Schedule of the Exchequer Domesday, which is entitled Terra Hunfridi, is of
the lands held in Serjeantry not only by Humphrey Chamberlain, but by other officers of the Crown. In-
the Exon Domesday the lands are differently arranged, but the schedule is intelligibly headed Ten-m
Servientium Regis in Sumersetd. Subjoined is a list of these Royal Serjeants, and a few words
about each. —
* Our impi-ession is that the male line of this Robert de Gumay expired with him. We cannot say how
Hawise de Gumay, who appears within two generations of Robert, was related to him ; nor yet can we satisfy
ourselves of the maternal parentage of that Eva de Gumay whose intermarriage with Thomas Fitz William
of Harptree caused the male descendants of her husband to renounce their proper name of Fitz John and
assume that of De Gurnay. Some genealogists have supposed that the above Eva got her name " De Gurnay "
from having married secondly with Anselm de Gumay. We have never been able to verify such a theory.
The first Ansehn de Gurnay, known to us, was Eva's grandson by her husband,— Thomas Fitz William
Fitz John of Harptree.
F 2
68 THE SOMEESET DOMESDAY.
HUNFRIDUS Cajiekaiuus held two manors in his capacity o£ a Serviens Regis. Both were in Cari (of
Curi), a locality since known as Lytes-Cary. It is iu the parish of Charlton West, usually called Charlton-
Mackarel. On the East was Babcary, a manor which Humphrey held in capite, and, as we take it, per
Baroniam rather than per Serjantiam. On the West was the Royal Manor and residence of Somerton,
where Humphrey's office as a Chamberlain may have occasionally been in request.
ROTBERTUS DE Odburville. Robert de Auberville's Serjeanti-y was that of a King's Forester, and to
foresters of King Edward he succeeded iu some estates. His title was, or had been, in some instances
disputed. The Schedule of Serjeantries mentions five estates as, more or less absolutely, in Robert de
Odburville's tenure. Two of them had been recovered by him as his tenures in tlwmgio ; two had been
partially dismembered by the Comte of Moretaiu and Walter de Douai.
JOHAHNES OsTiARiua. John's Serjeantry was that of Usher to the King's Court. In this capacity he
had six estates. Their site and other circumstances suggest that John's functions were apropos to royal
visitations of North Petherton, South Petherton, or Somerton ; or, it may be of Cannington, if the King
ever lodged on his demesnes in that locality. John Hostiarius had also estates in Wiltshire.
Ansger Fooarius (or Le Power) had four estates. His Serjeantry was that of Hearth-keeper in the
Royal Hall. The site of his estates suggest that the King's Hall at North Petherton may have been the
sphere of his action.
Ansoer Coquus probably followed the Court. The only Somerset estate of his Serjeantiy was Lilstock,
equidistant from the King's demesnes of Williton and Cannington, and near to neither. He had also an
estate at Compton, in Martock, probably by recent gift of the King. He had also an estate in Devon (viz.,
Gatcumba, e.d., p. 441). Here he is called Ansgerus Serviens Regis. Lastly, he had an estate in Wiltshire,
— a part of Helprintoue (now Hilperton).
Anschitil ParoariUs had three estates for his Serjeantry. Two of them seem apropos to the King's
Manors of Cannington and North Petherton. A third, Mideltona (being, we suppose, Milton in Kewstoke),
seems apropos to nothing in the way of King's Park or Forest. Possibly it was this Anschitil who occurs so
often in the Somerset Domesday as a tenant of Roger de Corcelle.
GiRARDUS. The nature of his Serjeantry or service does not transpire. Perhaps he is the same with
one who in other relations is styled Girard Fosarius. The only estate of hi? Serjeantry was at Earnshill,
where his antecessor, Leving or Levino, would seem to have been identical with Humphrey Chamberlain's
antecessor at Cari (Lytes-Cary).
EDiiaNDUa WLius Paoani. The nature of his Serjeantry does not appear. He had three estates, viz.,
at Barton (David), at Pitcott (in Stratton-on-the-Foss), and at Walton (in KUmersdon). Jadulf had
preceded him T. R, E. in the two first, Ailmar in the last.
As a King's Thane, Edmund Alius Pagen appears in the Hampshire Domesday. His tenure is at
Derleie (in Rodbrige Hundred). Here Saulf had been his antecessor, and he had a tenant named Hugh.
Uxor Manessei Cocr. The widov/ of the deceased cook, Manasses, was allowed dower in two estates of
his Serjeantry. Both estates were iu Chewton Hundred, and in or near Stone-Easton.
It seems clear that Manasses, the cook, was deceased at the time of the Gheld-Inquest (March 25, 1084),
though the Dorset Inquest (Dorset, p. 117 ».) speaks of him asUving, and only non-solvent in respect of some
land of the monks of Sherborne which he had held.
It is curious that the Dorset Domesday treats the same land as if Manasses were living in 1 086, while
the Somerset Domesday clearly implies his death, The wrong by which he profited in Doi-set was done by
William, the King's son (Rufus) ; so perhaps Manasses belonged to the household of the latter.
Frakoi Teoni. — The perverse arrangements of both editions of the Somerset Domesday has led to the
suppression of this Title in both Records. Nevertheless, collating the two, we are enabled to make out a
Somerset list of those who in other Counties would have come under this category. The link which, iu
the Exchequer Domesday, one-while runs the list of Lesser Barons into that of King's Serjeants, is
Humphrey Chamberlain. One-while the said Humphrey, with three estates, heads the hst of the
" French Thanes.'' Those who were proper to such a list were as follows : —
I. Odo Flaudrensis, or Flaudrigena, with one estate.
II. Willelmus Hosatus (AVilliam Hosee), with one estate.
III. Radulf, brother of Roger de Berchelai, with one estate,
SCHEDULE OF SOMERSET LANDHOLDEES. 69
IV. HugoHuua luterpres, with three estates.
V. Drogo de Moiitacute, with one estate.
VI. Hugo de Valletort, with one estate.
VII. Ricardus Interpres, with one estate.
VIII. Soheliu, alias Esoheliuus, with one estate.
IX. Eldred, alias Aldretus, with two estates.
X. Ausger de Montacute, with two estates.
There is no greater evidence of the provincialisms which beset the Scribes of the Exon Domesday than
where they give the Manor of Coma, late Earl Leofwiu's, to Samson the Chaplain, and ijlace the said
Chaplain and his tenement between Humphrey Chamberlain and Ansger de Montacute.
The Exchequer Scribes knew better. They surveyed Come (now Templecombe) as the " Terra Episoopi
Baiocensis," and gave it precedence of the vast Fief of the Bishop of Coutances. Samson, it appears, was
merely Bishop Odo's tenant at Combe. —
True, the Exchequer Scribes said nothing about Bishop Odo's contemporary forfeiture and incarceration,
It was not Court-fajshion to speak of such a thing ; neither was it in the routine of Domesday Commis-
sioners. Sometimes they were obliged to allude to incidents coiTclative with the event. They did not
generalize thereon.
Tehr^e Anqlorhm Tegnoeum in SuiiEitsET/E Syr.\ (Exon). — -Terr^e Tainorum Regis (Exoh.), — The list
of English-born Thanes is clear enough in both Domesdays. We now reproduce it, saying what we have to
say about any of them. —
I. II. Bristrio (al. Brictric) and Ulward ; — joint tenants of Bochelaud (Buckland, St. Mary) ; had held of
King Edward in 1066 ; since then under Peter, Bishop of Lichfield, for his life ; now they hold under King
WUliam.
III. " Seward, aZ. Siward," " Siward Aecipitrarius,'' "SewardusHundrannus,"' whether one or three per-
sons, had thi-ee estates in 1036. In the first case, no preceding Thane of 1066 being declared, we assume that
Siward was then tenant ; in the second case, Edmar, al. Edmaratorius (usually antecessor of the Comte of
Moretain) wa.s Siward's predecessor ; in the thu'd case, Siward had been tenant T. R. E. The soubriquet of
"Hawker," or of " Hundred-man " might attach to any Siward employed casually in either, or both, capacities.
The Gheld- Collectors being sometimes called Ilundranni, suggests only that the duty of collection fell on
the ordinary ' Hundredmen.'
IV. ' Hardincus filius Elnodi' (Exon.), ' Harding' (Exch.), elsewhere called ' Hardinus de Meriet ' (from his
Manor of Merriott), was clearly the greatest of the Somerset Anglo-Thanes. He had, in 1086, six Somerset
manors, one of which (Capland) had been augmented since the Conquest by a parcel of wasted land taken
from the Royal Manor of Cm-i (now Curry Rivell).
We have ali-eady quoted ample grounds for identifying Harding's father with Eadnoth the Stalhere, and
with .^Eldnoth Dapiter, the antecessor of Earl Hugh in Somerset, Berkshire, Devon, Wilts, and Dorset.
On the other hand, Harding, though otherwise tolevated by King William, inherited nothing from his
father ; nor does he seem, like his father, to have become wealthy or eminent. In five of his six Somerset
manors, Harding succeeded to Tovi, or Toflg, who was Sheriff of Somerset at the Conquest, and who was
apparently in office in the summer of 1068, when, as Tovig " Minister," he attested King William's famous
Charter to Giso, Bishop of WeUs. In Harding's sixth manor (Meriet) his antecessor had been Godwin —
possibly that Godwin who preceded Tofig as Sheriff of Somerset, and who, if Harding's antecessor at Merriott,
was living in 1066.
In the testing clause of Kin^ William's Charter to Bishop Giso (dated in 1067, but proved by its editor
to have passed in 1068), one Harding appears with Wulfweard (the White), and Azor, and other Somerset
Thanes. That this witness was Harding Fitz Eadnoth we cannot believe, for, among other objections to
such a theory, we observe that the Charter clearly passed before the fall of Eadnoth, and that another wit-
ness was " Tofig Minister," — Harding Fitz Eadpoth's predecessor in Somerset estate. It was not an unusual
thing, nor does it militate against the genuineness of some Charters, if a witness's attestation were added
some years after the actual grant and the alleged date. But even if so added, in this case it only sug-
gests that Harding was at such later period recognized by the King. If the attestation were coeval (and
we doubt not that it was), then it is improbable that the witness, Harding, was the son of Eadnoth.
70 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY.
It 13 also observable that dariug all thg perioLl from 1066 to 1086 there was another Somjrset Hardinc.
Hardluc held Creuemella (East and West Craumore) ia 1066, under the Abbot of Glastonbury. In 1084
Craumore waa iu manu Regis so enth'ely as that the King held five of its twelve hides in demesne. In
1086, however, Craumore had been restored to the Glastonbury Fief, and to Hardinc, i.e., the same Hardino
as had held it in 1068 now held it of the Abbey.
Again, one Hardino was, on 28 February, 1072, attendant upon Queen Edith's Court at Wilton. Xeith3r
•was this the son of Eaduoth. Surely this was that Harding who, as "Herdingus Regina; Pincerna," had
attested the famous Waltham Charter of King Edward iu 1062 (Codex Diplomaticus, iv., 153), and whose
identity with the son of Eadnoth we have already pronounced to be ohronologicjally impossible. {Supra,
p. 58 n). It should be remembered that Queen Edith, thus holding her Curia in the Church of Wilton,
in February, 1072, so held it, as the King's Vicegerent, — as dispensing high justice in those parts.
The Harding then present was a chief in her Court, if not her household. He there took precedence of
Wulfward White, of Aelfwold, the Queen's Chamberlain, and of Aethelsige, her steward.^ Doubtless it was
Harding, sou of Eadnoth, who, being called simply Hardingus, had iu 1084 exemptions from Gheld in two
instances in Somerset Harding Fitz Alnod has a like exemption in the Somerset Hundred of Bolestane,
and 'Hardinus de Meriet' has a like exemption iu the Somerset Hundred of Crewkerne (wherein
Merriott lay).
Domesday (in 1086) not only shows that these entries all relate to one person, but that Harding Fitz
Eadnoth had other estates than those alluded to in the Inquest of 1034.
For the probability that Harding Fitz Eadnoth was father of Robert Fitz Harding, of Bristol, and so
ancestor of the second hue of the Lords of Berkeley, we refer elsewhere (See Freeman iv. 758). If so, as
we have said already, Robert Fitz Harding was not Harding's eldest son.
V. Brictrio, a Thegn, retained the poor estate of Tocheswelle (Tuxwell, in Spaxton). Godwin had held
it iu 1066. It was then ingeldable.
VI. Dodo, al. Dodo de Chori, stands, in 1086, as successor to Siwold (1066) at Stawe, "in Williton
Hundred."
VII. Ulf, the holder of a small estate at Hawkewell (Norton- Hawkfield) in 1066, still lived iu 1086, and
held the same ; but with WImar in paragio, as the Exon Domesday alone certifies.
VIII. Alward and his brethren held one estate in 1086, their predecessor T. R. E. having been their
father.
IX. Godwin Anglicus liad held, with his mother, a virgate in Draycott, iu 1066. Now Godwin holds it
alone. This was Godwin de Cicemetona, who iu 1086 had eleven manors (including Cioemeton) iu Devon.
Eight of these had been held T. R, E. by Adestan, or Alestan, three by Godwin himself.
X. Alden of 1066 was still in possession of IJ hides in Stocca (part of Chew-Stoke).
XI. Brismar Anghcua had held in 1066, and stiU retained, a good estate (10 hides) in Halberga (now
Hazlebury Plukenet).
XII. Alvered, or Alverd, had not been disturbed in his twenty years seizin of Wiche, or Wica (Bathwick).
It Ls not improbable that this Thane was identical with Alvered, who, having been steward (Dapifer) to
Queeu Edith, had in her Hfetime held an estate in Twerton.
XIII. Donno, alias Dunnus, still held, as iu 1066, an estate of twelve hides in Bochelande (uow
Buckland Dinham). As Domuus, or Donnus, be appears in Devon with two manors similarly held by
himself before and since the Conquest.
XIV. Ageh-ic holds the Manor of Cume (Combe Hawey, we believe) iu succession to Queen Edith. If
the Queeu herself had given the estate to Agelrie, it was between the years li)66 and 1074, in which last the
Queeu died. Since Agelric's seizin, the estate had increased fourfold in value, yh,., from £1 to £,i per
' If we must find a Domesday Harding likely to have been identical with the Harding of Queen Edith's
suite, we elect to refer to the Wiltshire Survey. There we find among the Anglo-Thanes of King William,
one Harding who held three considerable estates, whose collective value was £24 per annum. Now this
Harding, unlike the son of Eadnoth, but like the Lord of Cranmere, had enjoyed these self-same Wiltshire
estates in the days of King Edward.
SCHEDULE OF SOMERSET LANDHOLDBES. 71
annum. Though in 1086 Agelric held in demesne one of the two Gheld-hidea which constituted thia
estate, he had had no exemption on that account in the Gheld-Levy of 1084. This ia unu.sual, and per se
suggests that King William had given the estate to Agelric since 108-1. Its rapid increase in value is the
more remarkable.
XV. Alurio, Son op Brictrio, had succeeded his father since 1066 in the two Somerset Manors of
Lideford (9 hides) and Shepwurd, al Soepeworde (half a hide.) The first Manor is West Lydford, and
Alurio's demesnes therein had been duly exempted from Gheld iu 1084. The other manor we cannot
identify.
Brictrio, here spoken of, seems to us to have been a Thane, sometime of great wealth, but whose estates
were rarely secured to his natural successors. Probably he had a younger son of his own name ; for
Aluric and Brictric, two Anglo-Thanes of the Dorset List, held in 1086, a pai-t of Lodres, which manor
had in 1066, been held wholly by Brictric. But the Gheld-Inquest of 1084, instead of naming Aluric and
Brictrio, and styling them " Thanes," claims for two " Elemosynarii Regis," the gheld exemption evidently
proper to this, their estate. Here, then, is a second hint of the fallen fortunes of a Saxon House.
In Devon, Aluric, n, Thane, enjoying several estates iu 1086, had been seized in 1066, and was not,
therefore, the son of Brictrio. In Devon, Brictric, the father of Aluric and Brictric, seems to he he, who,
being written ' Bristric,' had held two manors in 1066, which two manors were in 1086 enjoyed by his
widow, Grodeva,
Parallel with this evidence of the Devon Survey are the following phenomena in Somerset. In 1066
BrUatric is recorded to have been a tenant of Glastonbury Abbey. His tenure was Wintret (Winterhead,
in Shipham) and was insignificant. But in another Glastonbury Manor, Mulla (now MeUs), the Abbot's
tenant of a single hide, being doubtless the same Britstric, and having been seized in 1066, is described
only as " Vir Godevse." And this was because, he being dead in 1086, his ■iridow Godeva remained the
Abbot's tenant (Exon Domesd., p. 156.)
XVI. Bbihtuabd, a Thane holding Writhlington (6 hides) in 1086, was really a priest. His antecessor, as
Thane of Writhlington, had in 1066, been Brictwold. —
Bristuard, the Priest, was, in 1086, Incumbent of the two Dorset Churches of Dorchester and Beer-
Regis. His being styled an " Elemosynarius Regis," merely means that he held those Churches by the
King's gift.
XVII. HuscABLO. — This Thane had in 1066 shared with Almar, the Manor of Estrat (Street). In 1086
Wmiam de Moione had it. What remained to Huscarlo in 1086 was a virgate iu Estropa (Eastrip). He
was of course a surviving House-Carle of the Saxon Dynasty. That he had served in that distinguished
force under Harold is improbable.
XVIII. OsMEK had since the Conquest succeeded his father in a virgate at Otterhampton. Two-thirds
of this virgate had in 1086 been wrested from him and thrown into the King's Manor of Cannington.
So ends the Domesday List of the Anglo-Thanes of Somerset.
72 THE SOMEKSET DOMESDAY. — TEEEA KEGIS.
CHAPTEE III.
TEKRA REGIS. — VETUS DOMlNICUM CORONiE.
The title given for this class of estate by the Exoii Domesday,
viz., " Dominicatus Eegis ad regniim pertinens in Sumerset^," is
quite as apt as the technical " Vetus Dominicum Coronee " of a
later date. The class consisted of such estates as the King pos-
sessed /iwe regni ovjure Coronce. King Edward had them in his
day, not as the heir, or alleged heir, of Edmund Ironsides, but
because he had been de facto crowned King of England. King
William had them, not as the real and lawful, nor jet as the con-
structive, heir of his cousin Edward, but in right of his own
coronation.
As to the reputed inalienability of these estates, it was a theory
somewhat abated in practice by King Edward, largely respected by
the Conqueror, disregarded, and, at length, subverted by his
descendants.
There are two Somerset estates which have much appearance in
Domesday of having been Ancient Demesne of the Crown till the
Confessor gave them in dotation of his Queen, Edith. These were
Milverton, Avitli its appurtenances, and the Burgh of Bath, with
its appurtenances. Estates thus given seem always, and as a
matter of course, to have been subjected to hidation and to the
geld-tax ; and their resumption at any time into the category of
Veius Doviinicum Coronce seems to have been impracticable. The
hidage set upon Milverton, though it was only one eighth of a hide,
was not quite a fiction ; the hidage set upon Bath, viz., 20 hides, was
more of a reality. The Queen, before the Conquest, alienated
Milverton to Giso, Bishop of Wells. Giso held the manor in 1066,
but its hidation (it was now one virgate) had been doubled. The
gift, after the Conquest, was revoked or disallowed by the Queen,
or by King William. The Queen, at her death (Dec, 1074), was
seized both of Milverton and Batli. They then reverted to the
Crown, not as Vetus Dominicum, but by lapse, or escheat. William
had both in 1086 ; — Milverton at the old hidage (one-eighth of a
hide) ; Bath, still nominally hidated, but clearly under process of
practical dishidation. Bath was eventually alienated from the
Crown by William Eufus ; Milverton also was alienated, perhaps
by ^ Henry I., perhaps by Stephen, The twelve estates, which at
VETUS DOMTNICUM COEON^. 73
the date of Domesday constituted the Vet us Bominicuvi of
Somerset, had invariable and precise features : they had all been
King Edward's, they had never been hidated ; none of them, so far
as memory went, had ever been given integrally to a subject.
But there were small portions of these estates, and there were
other whole estates, which having, previous to the Conquest, been
held by the Confessor, had since that event been granted by King
WUlLam to Feoffees. With regard to such whole estates, we cannot
determine whether they had been King Edward's in right of his
Crown, or by escheat; consequently, we cannot say whether
WiUiam, giving them to his vassals, alienated aught of the Vetus
Domimcicm Coronce. But he manifestly did so alienate portions of
the Vetus JDominicum when he granted to a subject any part of the
aforesaid twelve lioyal Manors. And, when he added to any of the
same twelve manors parcels of external territory, he invested so
much land with that character of Vetus Dominicum, to which it had
no antecedent and genuine title. However, the main feature of
Vetus Dominicum was retained in all such cases of reorganization ;
the annexed parcels fell out of hidation ; the alienated parcels at
once became geldable.
As to the kings who came after the Conqueror, they made whole-
sale alienations of Crown-Demesnes ; but we much question
whether such alienation created a sound and enduring title unless
it were confirmed by the alienator's successor.
Of the profuse alienations by William's grandson, Stephen, it is
recorded in general terms that Henry Eitz Empress revoked them.
We can specify no instance of this in regard to the Eoyal Demesnes
of Somerset. Some, indeed, thereof reached the hands of Henry II.
at his succession ; — none that we know of were afterwards
recovered by him.
But we must return to our proper thesis, the Somerset
Domesday, and must make direct reference to the tables wherein
we design a portraiture and syllabus of the more expanded
Record. —
In our Table (Vol. ii., pp. 1 & 2) op the Vetus Dominicum of Somerset we take no notice either of the
dblata or addita of Manors of Ancient Demesne. The former became hundredal ; the latter, though
severed from their hundreds, were well remembered to have been hundredal at the date of Domesday.
The Record marks their hidage, though it had become a fiction. We have thought the proper place for both
to be in our Tables of Hundreds,
It is worth note that in no instance of the Twelve Royal Manors of Somerset is a manor said by
Domesday to be in the ferm or custody of the Sheriff of the County.
Such manors were extra Comitatum always. In William's time they were extra Vice-cmnitattim, ako.
74 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — TERRA REGIS,
Their being simply ingeldable is saying nearly the same thing in different terms. It was only the ComitatUB
and the Vicc-cmnitatus that were geldable. The Royal Manors were fermed or managed by special Pricpositi,
not necessarily, nor always, resident, who were answerable to the Crown for fixed rents, whatever were the
profits or losses of management.
The Twelve Royal Manors of Somerset, though themselves extra-hundredal, had each its appropriate
hundred— that is, the King being lord of this or that manor, was thereby lord of a certain hundred ; and
the Curia of the said hundred was probably held within the precincts of the relative manor. In eleven
instances of the twelve, the attached hundred was cognominate with the manor which, as it were, ruled it.
This will be seen in the aforesaid Table, which will also show how the hundred attached to the Royal
Manor of Churi (now Curry Rivell) was never caUed the Hundred of CUuri, but always the Hundred of
Abdick.i
This, then, is the only case in which a Royal Manor had a hundred not cognominate with itself. The
Royal Manor of Meleborne is a seeming, but not a real, exception to the rule ; for at the date of Domesday
its attached hundred was known as Meleborne Hundred. It is now called Horethorne Hundred, but its area,
as a hundred, is undiminished, though not quite unchanged. Since Domesday, Meleborne, alias Horethorne
Hundred, has absorbed its ancient caput of Meleborne (now Milborn Port). But the Table wiU show that
Meleborne, when a Royal Manor, had three outlying appendages, viz., Holwell, Ilchester, and Northover.
Horethorne Hundred absorbed Holwell for ages. It is now in Dorset. But Horethorne Hundred is not
known ever to have absorbed Ilchester or Northover.
We now peoceed to give some account of the structure of the Table (Vol. ii., pp. 1 & 2) which embodies
the Vetus Domiuicum Coronso of Somerset. —
Column i. gives the Domesday name of each of the twelve Royal Estates. The Boroughs expressly added
to three of the twelve estates are also given in this column and under their Domesday names.
Column ii. gives the discoverable or presumed constituents or adjuncts of each Domesday Estate. None
of the localities inserted in this column are named as manors in Domesday.^ The names inserted were,
many of them, not recognised so early. These betoken territory, or portions of territoi-y, which were then
annexed in the shape of forest or pasture to the Eling's Manors. Neither can we siippose that this column
contains nearly all the names which now include, parochially, some portion or portions of then Royal terri-
tory. Far from it, we know that the King's Manors included the King's Forests and Pastures throughoiit
the whole County, — lands which were remote from any of the manors named in the first column, and from
the hundreds over which such manors had the jurisdiction.
In assigning these indefinite lands to definite manors, we dictate nothing as to Domesday fact or
probability. Our tabular principle is to assign each estate, now known by name, to that particular manor
which was Caput of the Hundred wherein the said estate was afterwards interned. "We gi'eatly doubt the
literal application of this principle to all cases. We think, for instance, that Exmoor and Hawkridge, or
rather the f orestal territories now occupied by those parishes, were much more likely to have originally
1 The reason why the King's Manor of CuiTy did not give a name to its Hundred w.as perhaps to avoid confmion. The Envl
had a Manor of Curry which did give its name to a Hundred. Tiie Manor and Hundred were both called Nort-Choii. Both
manor and hundred still exist under the same name, viz., Noi-th-Curry.
2 Hence thia column is largely supijlementative of Colliuson, who seems never to have apprehended why he could not find
the places which it contains ui Domesday. For instance, (iii. 93), he says of Chedzoy that " it is not set down in the
Conctueror's Siurvey," and yet he proceeds to show how Chedzoy was in the Crown till Edward I's. time, who " gave it
to Simon de Montaoute." A better way of putting it would have been that Chedzoy was at the date of Domesday involved
and implied in the Royal Manor of North Pethei-ton, and that Edward I.'s alienation thereof made it independent.
Again, Collinsou (iii. 113) seems to find from Domesday that Banington was a member of South Petherton. It was so,
doubtless ; but Domesday says nothing of the kind. All that Domesday says or records is that a small estate, once
appurtenant to Banington Regis, had been alienated therefrom to Roger de Corcelle.
Of Northover, as CoUinson (iii. 306) remarks, " we have no account in the Noiman Survey." This, presumably, was because
at the date of Domesday it was absorbed in Ilchester. William Briwere was Lord of Noi"thover in the reign of John, and that
is the earliest evidence ^ve can find of ite previous alienation by the Crown,
VEXQS DOMINIOUM CORONA. — THE TABLE, VOL. II, PP. 1-2. 75
partained to the Royal Mauoi- of Carliamptou than to the Royal Manor at Williton, iu whose correapoadlng
Hundred they are now interned.^
Column iii. gives the modern names and modern hundreds of the parishes which most nearly represent
the manors and places named in columns i. and ii.
Column iv. gives the existing acreage of each such parish.
Column V, combines such acreages in appropriate groups, that is, into the groups suggested by the
arrangement of Domesday.
Column vi. gives the number of plough-lands bespoken by Domesday for each Royal Manor or com-
bination of manors, — appurtenances being of course included.
Column vii. converts these plough-lands into statute acreage, reckoning 120 statute acres as the average
equivalent of the T&'i'a ad unam Ca'i^'ucum.
Column viii. gives to each group its Domesday quota of wood-land reduced to statute acreage.
Column ix. gives to each group its Domesday quota of meadow-land as expressed in acres by Domesday
■ itself.
Column X. renders the Domesday pasture in like form as Column viii. renders the wood-land.
Column xi. sums the gross Domesday measurements of each group in terms of statute acreage.
Columns xii., xiii., xiv., pYe the number of teams employed in each group at the date of Domesday,
—by the lord, — by the tenants, — by both together. These are the ' Caruc2e ibi ' of Domesday. Their sum
(317^ ox-teams), against 417 plough-lands, shows the inadequacy of the team-power to the requirements or
faculties of the Royal Demesne-lands. The same disparity is observable in Dorset, where the actual teams
on the Royal Demesnes were 156 in number against faculties for 200.
Columns xv., xvi. — Mills were few on all Royal Manors, save Bruton and Milborne. The Bruton
Mills, six in number, and of little value, were" presumably on the Brew. —
1 Here we append a short notice of each of the localities named in column ii, : —
St. Decumans. — Except one virgate in Watchet and thi-ee hides elsewhere, the whole of St, Decumau's parish was in the
King's Manor of WiUiton.
Upton, Hawkridge, Exmooh, and Bicknoller are, as vills or parishes, probably of Post-Doinesday foundation.
Their sites however, with the exception perhaps of 1% hides, were Royal territory, appurtenant to the King's Manoi-s of
WUliton, or Carhampton. Their eventual internment in WiUiton Hundred would, per se, suggest that they had previously
been members of Williton Manor rather than of Carhampton Manor.
Chedzoy, a member of the King's Manor of North-Pethei-ton, was not alienated from the Crown till the time of King
Edward I.
Thurloxton seems to have been alienated at a much earlier period. It was given to De Moione,
Barrington, except a small portion thereof, given before Domesday to Roger de Corcelle, is expressly said in Domesday
to be the King's. If so, it was surely a member of the Royal Manor of South-Petherton.
Chillington is also presumed to have been Royal territory and a member of South-Pethei-ton Manor, in that'tlie Hundred
of South-Petherton, in which Chillington was subsequently interned, contained no such estate at the date of Domesday.
Stocklinoh Ottersev, Stocklinch Magdalen, Hambridge,— About these vills also Domesday is silent, presumably because
they or their sites were weU known to be appurtenances of the King's Manor of Chux-i (now Curry Rivell.) The two Stock-
linches have followed their presumed Caput, Curry Rivell, into Abdick Hundred. Hambridge, as a vill or a manor,
haa no historical antecedents. Its site is the more likely to have sulreisted anciently as an anonymous tract of Crown-
land, Some parts of the recently foi-med parish belonged to others than the Kuig,
Four Towers, a parish of comparatively recent organization, and whose early obscurity consists best with its having been
absorbed in some Royal Manor, If so, we presume, in Bruton,
KiNGSDON is on similar grounds presumed to have been a member of the Royal Manor of Somerton. Its very name,
moreover, proclaims it to have been sometime held by the Crown.
Site of Charter-House on Mendip. — This estate is well known to have been originally a portion of the Royal Manor of
Cheddar, It was severed therefrom by King Henry II., who gave it to the Carthusians.
Holwell, not distinctively named in Domesday, is known for ages to have been in the Somerset Hundred of Melebonie,
postea Horethome, The inference is that it was at Domesday date, a member of the Royal Manor of Melbome, which it followed
when both were interned in Horethome Hundred.
Northover, not named in Domesday, was doubtless a member of Melbome. Though topogi'aphicaUy more associated
with Ilchester, Northover was on that ground still a member of Melborne, for Ilchester itself was nothing else. When
Ilchester, severed from Melbome, was armexed to Tintinhull Hundred, Northover naturally followed Ilchester.
'7Q THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — TERRA REGIS.
The Milborne Mills were also six in number, but of far higher value. —
CoUinson opines that this plurality of mills gave name to the place. The name, however, may have
arisen in a single mill. The Domesday plurality and high value suggest that most of these mills were not
in Melborne, but in its attached Burgh of Ilohester, where the Ivel presented better scope for such
structures.
The value of the King's Mills in Somerset ranged from 15 pence to one pound. The best was at South
Petherton, and of course on the Parret.
Column xvii. — The Items of Revenue enumerated in this column are not to be reckoned as additional
to the King's Ferms. They went rather to augment and fix the assessed value of a ferm, so as to make
it what it vyill appear to have been in a later column.
We have not noticed in this column an annual rent of £12 stated by Domesday to be paid by Bishop Giso
for Wedmore as if it were a member of Cheddar. " De hdo Mansione (Cedra) tenet Giso Episcopus iinum
memlrum quod vocatur Wetmora. Pro isto oomputat Willelmus Viceoomes xii. libras unoquoque anno in
firmfi Regis, sed Episcopus tenuit de Rege Edwardo longo tempore ante obitum Regis Edwardi (Exon. D.,
pp. 82, 479).—
Bishop Qiso's paymeiit of a rent for Wedmore was only a temporary incident. Elsewhere (p. 147, Exon.)
Domesday surveys the manor as the Bishop's in all integrity. It was worth £20 per annum when he
first acquired it ; he held it in 1066. He still held it in 1086, when it yielded him £17 per annum.
Wedmore was not then, in any strict sense of the term, a memier of Cheddar. It was] not Eoyal
Demesne ; it was intra Vicecomitatum, and intra Ilundredum, and geldable. All that we can suppose is,
that, owing to some claim of the Crown, Wedmore had been seized by the Sheriff, William de Moione ; but
Bishop Giao had been continued in formal possession, at a stipulated rent. The rent was received from him
by the said Sheriff, who was probably instructed to hand it over to the IGng's Provost at Cheddar.
The affair was quite ephemeral. Doubtless Giso had recovered full seizin even while the Domesday
Commissioners were in Somerset. When Domesday itself puts the whole firm of Cheddar as £21, it surely
does not include this item of £12.
Column xviii. — The Hundreds whose jurisdictional returns and profits are implied by this column to
have pertained to specific manors, are not modern Hundreds but Praj-Domesday hundreds. As will be seen
in due course the Domesday contents of such hundreds as Carhampton and Williton were far less than the
contents of the modern hundreds wliich still bear the same two names.
In other ways the column requires further explanation. The Prfo-Domesday Hundred of Frome
included, and was known at the time to include, three sectional Hundreds, viz., those of Frome, Wellow,
and Kilmersdon ; — just as it is now subdivided. Yet we doubt whether the Hundred-Court, attached to the
King's Manor of Frome, had cognizance of pleas in all these sections. We think that only the modern or
sectional Hundred of Frome pertained to the King's Manor. Of this elsewhere.
Similarly the Prte-Domesday Hundred of Bruton was a complex hundred. We have spoken already of
the jurisdiction annexed to the King's Manor of Bruton, specifying that which a Table would not admit
of {vide supra, p. 51). Enough too has been said of the hundredal jurisdictions attached to the Royal
Manors of Cheddar, Somerton, and Milborne.
Of hundredal jurisdictions attached to the King's Manors of Churi (now Curry Rivell), Bedminster and
South Petherton, Domesday tells nothing. Analogy suggests that each manor had jurisdiction over its
correlative hundred, as shewn in column xviii.
Columns xix. to xxvi. are devoted to statistics of Domesday population. The number of burgesses
denote the relative population of five different Boroughs, — from Ilchester, which had 107 burgesses, down to
Bruton, which had but five.
The more strictly agrarian population of the King's Demesnes is counted from Domesday as (976 -217
burgesses = ) 759 males, 628 of whom were villeins and boors, while 40 only were serfs. In our Dorset
Volume we pointed out that serfs were usually attendant on the demesne-teams of the manorial lord. It
is curious that King William, having 40^ teams on his Somerset Demesnes, had also 40 serfs. But the most
surprising result of these comparative reckonings is that a Domesday acreage of 108,741 acres, 50,040 of
which were arable land should co-ordinate with a labouring population so small as 759 males. It is but one
labourer to every 143 acres of registered land, — but one labourer to every 66 acres of arable land ; and of land
VKTTIS DOMMICUM CORONA. — THE TABLE, VOL. IT, PP. 1-2. 77
actually under team-tillage it may be computed that every 50 acres had but the proportion of a single
workman.
On the King's Demesnes of Dorset, we have found (see Dorset Volume, pp. 100, 101) but one working man
to every 174 acres of registered land, one man to every 33 acres of arable land, and one man to every 25
acres under actual plough-tillage.^
The first item in each scale, that which gives a single labourer to 143 acres or to 174 acres of mixed land,
indicates nothing more than the prevalence, greater or less, of forest and pasture, in certain Koyal estates,
over such land as required labour.
The other indications are mqre instructive. They are that for its arable land, Somerset had but one
labourer, where Dorset had two ; and that for land in actual tillage the proportion was precisely the same ;
that is, that where the Somerset labourer was one to every 50 acres, the Dorset labourer was one to every 25
acres.
Another meaning of the same phaanomeuon may be that the Somerset farmer devoted more of his
available strength to his grass and pastures than he did to his plough-tillage ; and that the Dorset farmer
reversed the policy.
Column xxvii. In this column we show the specific and gross revenues derived by King William from
his twelve Demesne Manors in Somerset. It is remarkable that while the gross revenue of such estates was
in Somerset £497 19s. 7d.-, in Dorset it was £484 5s.
In the Somerset category we have no less than four specific instances of the commutation of the Firnut
noctis of the Confessor's time for the iixed money-fei-m preferred by William. In one instance, that of the
combined Manors of Somerton and Cheddar, the Firma noctis stood commuted for £100 10s. 9^d. per
annum. In another instance, that of the three combined Manors of Carhampton, Williton, and Cannington,
the commutation stood at £105 I63. C^d. per annum. In another instance, that of the three combined
Manors of North Petherton, South Petherton, and CuiTy, the commutation stood at £106 Os. lOd. per
annum. Precisely the same commutation of the Firma noctis was affected in a fourth case, which com-
bined the two Manors of Frome and Bruton.
In the case of Bedminster, Domesday does not say what part of a Firma noctis it had contributed in the
Confessor's time ; but the standing ferm of £21 Os. 24d. looks veiy like a commutation for one-fifth of a
Firma noctis.
In the above five cases, covering eleven of the Twelve Royal Manors, the commutation was reckoned in
current coin ; for, as we show in a note,^ the process of counting money by 20 i^emiies to the ounce did not
affect the value of the sum thus counted by a single farthing.
The sixth and last instance of commutation, noticed in column xxvii. of the table, was exceptional in two
ways. — In the case of Melebome, which had stood at a Firma dimidice noctis in the Confessor's reign, a com-
1 In these calculations it seems ]ieces8ai-y to cotobiue all the mauonj of niuicnt demesne in any cue County. In Somerset the
excessive areas which Domesday registers under the group consistingf of Carhampton, WiUiton, aud Carmingtoii, or under the
group consistiug of Frome and Bruton, or under the single Manor of Bedminster or the single Manor of Milhorae, contrast
strikingly with the meagre allotments of area prescribed for North Petherton, or for Somerton, or for Cheddar-.
It is merely that the forest measures now seeming to be most appui*tenant to the latter localities were, according to some
technical r-ule or conventionality of forest-survey, ascribed to the former.
3 Money, computed by 20 pence to the ounce fde xx denariis in ordj, was merely money of account. The sum which made the
liouud was still 20 shilliugs ; the sum which made the nummary shilling was stiU 12 pence. No specific coin of a pound, ov
of an ounce, was in existence. The terms " pound " and " ounce " were merely tenns of aecount.
There were two kinds of orce, of account, so that Domesday, when it speaks of the greater kind— that which represented
20 pence, — is usually careful to say so.
The lesser ora represented only 16 pence. Of these orce it took 15 to make the pound of account. Of the greater one it
took 12 to make the same pound. The latter is the ora of the Somerset Domesday. The modei-u system preserves the
reckoning in effect, though it changes the middle term and inverts the grades of sub-division. For we say "12 pence to
the shilling, and 20 shillings to the pound." Were we to express our pound in Domesday fashion, we should say " Una libra
de xii denariis in solido."
Sometimes in Domesday the word ora is used simply as a sum of money, without any statement as to its contents in pennies,
e,g,, " Haliet Rex 100 solidos et 6 orae pro fmo." Here the ora was probably the ordinary ora of 16 iiencs ; consequently the
five orce were 80 pence, or what would usually be called lialf a merk of silver.
78 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — TERRA REGIS.
mutation to £79 10s. 7d. would, ^e)' se, suggest such a thing as aprevious Firmanoetis of the value, or at the
rate of, £159 Is. 2d. But this was not a mere commutation. It was doubtless a change which took into
consideration the extra means and enhanced value of Meleborue as combined with two thriving boroughs
(at Ilchester and at Meleborne itself), each of which was privileged by a right of market, and each of which
had its Court of Justice, the two Courts together realizing at least £21 per annum.^
Moreover, this enhanced ferm, of £79 10s. 7d., was to be paid in white money, which we may take aa about
five per cent, added to a ferm of current coin. At that rate the ferm of Meleborne, instead of being simply
£79 10s. 7d., was about £83 lOs.^^
Now i£ we deduct from this ferm of £83 10s. the profits of Judicature (£21), and the proceeds of Burgage
rents and markets (£14), we get a Dimidia firma noctis represented by £48 lOs., which is at a low, rather
than at a high, rate of commutation. The probability is, then, that what we have called the enhanced Ferm
was enhanced by something less than the gross profits which we have instanced ; — that is, that a part of
those profits, say the Burgage rents, or some of them, had contributed to the Dimidia firma noctis before
the commutation.
"MANSIONES DE COMITATU," SIYE " TEREiE KEGIS QUAS TENTJIT
GODWINUS COMES ET FILII EJUS IN SUMEESETA."
THE COMITAL MANORS OF SOMERSET.
The Exchequer Domesday classes the Comital Manors of
Somerset next after the Manors of Ancient Demesne, entitling all
as " Terra Eegis." The Kng had Harold's Earldom of Wessex, and
so of Somerset, in his hand, as an escheat, by forfeiture.
The Exon Domesday makes a distinct chapter or schedule of the
Comital Manors, which it heads with the title, " Terra Eegis quas
tenuit," &c. (as above), and which it continues for five folios, insert-
ing on the fourth folio, by way of a continuative title, the formula,
" Mansiones de Comitatu."
As will be seen in the sequel, these titles of the Exon Domesday
are of import — of import both verbal and constructive.
The Table (which we give. Vol. ii., pp. 3-4) of tee Comital Mahoes or Scmebset needs some little
explanation as to its structure. —
Page 3, column v.— Some of the parochial acreages given in this column include indefinite items of estate
which were not parts of the manors named in column i. On the other hand, some of these parochial
acreages exclude items of estate which were in the said manors, but are not in the said parishes. —
It is impossible to fix the proportions of the several discrepancies. We have attempted a guess in the
case of Capton only, to which, being in the parish of Stogumber, we have assigned an acreage, viz., 638
acres, that being the same proportion of 5,777 acres (the acreage of the whole parish of Stogumber) as the
Domesday acreage of Capton bore to the Domesday acreage of Stogumber and its other constituents.
1 The Tercius Denarius of the two Courts was £7. It follows that the gi-oss profits were £21.
2 So that the gross reveuue of the Veins Dominicum Coi-onas, when computed in current coin, will have been (£497 19s. 7d. +
6 per cent, on £79 10s. 7d., say £3 19s. 5d. =) £501 19s Od. But in the Table (vol. ii., p. 2) we have disregarded this somewhat
tlieoretical addition of £3 19s. 5d., and have reckoned the gross revenue as if the figures given in Domesday had all been in
terms of cun-ent coin.
THE COMItAL^MAKOES.— TABLE, VOL. 11, PP. 3-4. 79
Page i. Column xiv. — The bracketed items of this column are of rents or values of estates either
ablated from the Comital manors, or nominally remaining therein, while the respective occupants received
the profits. In neither case did these rents or A-alues go to augmeut the manor-lord's ferm of white money.
Consequently, at the foot of the column they are not included in the sum of Comital revenue. —
A revenue of £8 ISs. Od. is inserted in this column, that being the sum of the Tercii Denarii of
Ilohefeter, Melbome, Bruton, Langport, Axbridge, and Frome. This revenue was paid in ordinary coin ;
consequently we repeat this item of Comital due at the foot of the column and do not reckon it in the
total (£268 14s. Id.) of white money.
The said item of Tercii Denarii is given by the Exon Domesday at the foot of the Comital Manors and in
immediate sequence to the Manor of Henstridge. The Table therefore introduces it in conjunction with
Henstridge. But it is a question whether the due was actually returnable to the Manor of Henstridge ;
for the white-money ferm of Henstridge (£23) is intelligible enough without including a receipt,
extravagant as an addition and different in kind. Moreover, the Exchequer Domesday does not mention
this due in conjunction with Henstridge or any other Comital Manor. It introduces it at the foot of the
estates which the King had in succession to Queen Edith.
In this same column the ferm of the Comital Manor of Nettlecombe is put at £i (?) 10s Od. de albo argento.
The fact Is, that the number of the pounds is omitted in both Domesdays, the shillings (ten) only given.
We guess the pounds to have been /oar, but something might be said in favour of a higher figure.
Having said thus much on the structure of the Table (Vol. ii., iip. 3 and 4) we pa.ss to a more general scope
of the Fief which it represents, and to a further expansion of some of its allusions. —
We observe that, with the exception of Bruneton (the exception
probably being only an omitted statement), all the Comital Manors
and Comital Dues were under the custody and responsibility of
William de Moione, Domesday Sheriff of Somerset. Had the
Comes been in seizin of his Earldom, the Vicecomes would have
been his officer and answerable to him personally. But now, the
King being virtually Comes, the said ofiicer was responsible to the
King. Such is the ratio of that expression of Domesday, where
Somerset is not called a Comitatus but a Vice-Comitatus.
In the time of King Edward the tertius denarius of the Eoyal
jurisdictions of Carhampton, Williton, Cannington, and North
Petherton, had been a Comital perquisite, returnable at Earl Harold's
Manor of Old Cleeve. At the date of Domesday (a.d. 1086) this
due, unlike the cognate due arising from Ilchester, Melbourne, &c.,
had been discontinued. In each case the King, as Comes, was
entitled to the due. It seems superfluous that it should have been
still exacted in either case. It seems strange that it should have
been exacted in one, abandoned in the other.
The way in which the two Domesdays speak of this matter is as
foUows. The Exchequer Codex says : —
"HuicManerio (Clive) adjacuit tertius denarius de Burgherist
et " {sic, but read de) " Carentone et Willetone et Cantitone et Nord-
pereth." The Exon Codex says : —
" Huic Mansion! (Clivfe) jacuit tertius denarius de Burgherist
80 THE SOMBTtSET DOMESDAY. — TEREA REGIS.
de " sic, rede) " Carentona et de Willetona et de Cantetona et de
Nort-petretS,, ea die qua Eex Edwardus fuit vivus et mortuus."
Thus one Eecord corrects and explains the other. It is only
necessary to observe that Burgherist (Burglary) was one of those
Placita Coronas, the profits whereof (generally the culprit's goods)
were due, two parts to the Crown, one part to the Comes : and
further, that in this instance the word ' Burgherist ' was probably
vised as a part for the whole. There were usually four Placita
Corona;, viz., murder, breach of the peace, burglary, and larceny :
their profits were differently divided in different Counties ; but we
have not found any specific instance where a third of murder-pleas
was secured to the Comes. In the Bishop of Winchester's great and
exclusive franchise of Taunton, Domesday records that the Bishop
had (apparently the whole profits of) the Placita of Burgherist,
Latrones (larceny), Pacis Infractio, and Hainfare. Here were three
Placita Coronas, but the Bishop clearly had not the murder-pleas.
We now peooeed to say something op those Membeks of the House of Godwin who, at tlie time of King
Edward's death, were holding those fifteen Comital Manors of Somerset which King William, in the year
1086, had in hand aa his Escheat hy forfeiture. —
Comes Heealdus. — Six of Earl Harold's escheated Manors remained in the King's hand at the date of
Domesday. D omesday mentions three other manors as having been Earl Harold's, viz. —
(1 ) Eastalweia (Nether Stowey), which has the appearance of having been a Comital Manor T. JR. E. ; but
it is not in the Schedule of Comital Manors, seeing that King William had given it to Alured de Hispauia.
(2) Banwell, which Harold had wrested from the See of Wells. In the summer of 1068 Kmg WiUiam
restored Banwell to the Church of St. Andrew of Wells, by a charter of great interest,^ to which we often
refer. Of course Banwell was not a Comital Manor in any true sense of the term.
1 We are indebted to V. H. Dickenson, Esq., for a reprint of this Charter and of some able commentai-ies thereon. Tho
witnesses connected with Somerset and tlie South- Western Counties, were as follows : —
Queen Matilda ; Stigand, Archbishop of Canterbury ; Odo, Bishop of Bayeux ; Hugh, Bisliop of Lisieux ; Geoffrey, Bishop
of Coutances ; Hei-mann, Bishop of Sherbbme ; Leofric, Bishop of Exeter ; " iEthelnoth Abbot" (of Glaetonbuiy) ; ** Wulfwold
Abbot" (of Bath) ; ** WiUelmus Dax" (Williani Fitz Osbern, Eail of Hereford) ; "Widtheof Dux (Earl of Koi-thampton .and
Huntingdon); "Edwine Dux " (Edwin, Earl of Mercia) ;" Eobei-tue f rater Regis" (Robei-t, Gomte of Moretain) ; Eotgei-us
Princeps (Koger de Montgoraeiy) ; " Walterus Gef theard " (Walter Giifard) ; " WiUhelm de Curcello " ; " Serlo de Burca " (read
Burci) ; " Rotgerus iJcr^cnciet " (read Arundel) ; " Thurstan " (Thurstan Fitz Rolf ) ; "longfsicj Minister " (Tofig, Sherilfof
Somerset); " Dinui " ^sic, called in Domesday Donnus, Domnus, or Donna); " iElfge arde Thorne " (sic, but read ^Ifgear de
Tliome) ; " Willhelm de Walvile " (a Devon Baron) ; " Bundi StaUere" ; " Rotbei-t Stallere " (Robei-t Fitz Wymai-ch, Sheiifl
of Essex) ; " Rotbert de Ylie (Robei-t de OUli, Sheriff of Oxfordsliire) ; " Wulf weardus " ( Wulfweard White) ; Herding (a
Thane, distinct from Hai-ding Fitz Elnod, or de Meriet) ; " Adzor " (Lord of Combe, &o., Somerset); "Brixi" (Lord of
Blu-nham, &c., Somerset) ; " Brihtrio " (Lord of Cliva (Kilve), Curi (postea Curry Malet), Wintret (Winterhead), Bumetona
(postea Brompton Ralph), &c., &c. (Somerset). — In regard to the last witness we observe that—
There was a Brihtric who, with the several styles of Minister, or Consiliari%is, or PHncexi^, had attested Chai-ters of the
Confessor in or about the years 1061 and 1062. Him we take to have been the son of Algar and the ■well-known victim of
Matilda, the Conqueror's Queen. He is out of the question in the above testing clause. —
Besides him tliere were two or three Thjines of the South-West whom we cannot always distinguish pei-sonally nor yet
identity with tlie above witness, e.u., there were Brihtric Camcson ; Brilitric son of Doilda; Brihtric, father of Aluric and
Brihtric, whose widow Godiva was living in lOSG.
THE COMITAL MAls^OKS. — TABLE VOL. IL, VP. 3-4. 8l
(3) LullingtoD, which King William had bestowed on the Bishop of Coutances, who held it at Domesday.
Lullington, except its valuable mill, has no Domesday feature indicative of its having been a Comital Manor.
Possibly Harold had obtained it, like Banwell, by usurpation.
Gheda Cojutissa.— Gytha, widow of Earl Godwin, and mother of Harold, had held, in Januaiy, 1066,
three of the Comital Manors of Somerset. They were now (1086) in manu Regis, as Escheats.
One of Gytha's Manors was Bruneton, afterwards called King's Brompton, by reason of its seizure to
the Crown. To the Domesday notice of Bruneton is appended the following memorandum ; — " De hAc
mansioue ablatus est tertius denarius de Mdvertona qui per consuetudinem reddebatur in ei die qui
Rex Edwardus fuit vivus et mortuus " (Exon D., p. 95.)
Queen Edith's Quasi-Royal Manor of MUverton had, up to the day of King Edward's death, rendered
the third-penny of its Judicature of Crown Pleas to the Countess Gytha's Manor of Bruneton, where the
said third-penny had been customarily returnable. This third-penny, then, besides her three manors,
had been a Somerset property of Earl Godwin's widow.
The Countess Gytha, after her rueful embassy on the morrow of Senlac, appears to have taken
refuge in the South-West. She is accredited with having fomented the resistance offered by the men of
Exeter to the Conqueror. When William, about the month of February, 1068, approached Exeter in arms,
the Countess is said to have been within the City, but when it surrendered she had escaped. She is said to
have resorted to Flat-Holm, an island of the Bristol Channel, and thence, with her daughter Gunhild, to
have escaped to Flanders ; but the learned investigator of these events (see Freeman, iv. 159, 245),
seems doubtful whether Gytha's retirement to Flanders was not after the retreat of the sons of Harold
from their raid on Bristol and Somerset, that is, after June, 1068.
History tells nothing of the Countess Gytha after her arrival at St. Omer. Of her daughter Gunhild,
and of Gunhild's estates in Somerset, we proceed to speajs.
GtriWiLLA (as Domesday writes her name), the daughter of Earl Godwin and of Gytha, was old enough
in January, 1066, to have independent seizin of three of the Comital Manors of Somerset. Two of these
manors, since called Hardington-Mandeville and Creech St. Michael, were in the Ejng's hand at the date
of Domesday (1085-6). The third, Claverham (in Yatton) had cea,sed to be a Comital Manor, for King
William had bestowed it on the Bishop of Coutances. The estate was inconsiderable.
Gunhild, as her epitaph relates (see Freeman iv., 754, 755), while yet a damsel, resolved on a single life,
and rejected many noble suitors. She had anived at a marriageable age before the Conquest. After
her escape to Flanders, she spent some years at St. Omer, cheerful and gentle to her attendants, kind and
just to her neighbours, liberal to the poor, very denying of herself. Later in life she practised much
austerity. From St. Omer she went to reside at Bruges, where again she spent some years ; then she
visited Denmark. Returning to Bruges, she died there on August 24, 1087, a few weeks (observed Mr.
Freeman) before the death of the Conqueror at Rouen.^
TosTiN Comes. — Earl Tostig, son of Godwin and Gytha, had held only one of the Comital Manors of
Somerset. This was Winsford, far the largest of them all, for it contained 18,768 acres of Domesday
measurement. It is remarkable that the Exon Domesday, describing Earl Tostig's former tenure of
Winsford, says simply "quam tenuit Tostin Comes," without adding the usual formula, which fixes
the respective tenures of other Comital Manors to a precise day, January 5, 1066, the day of King
Edward's death. —
There are two stories about Tostig's exile. — One is that he was banished by King Edward, and that being
at St. Omer he there first heard of the King's death. The other story is that Harold drove him into
exile after his own coronation. We see that Mr. Freeman adopts the former story, and the Exon
Domesday seems to corroborate it. The truth, perhaps, is that Harold resentenced his brother. After
various wanderings and experiments against Harold, Tostig, associated with Harold Hardrada, sailed
up the Humber with a powerful fleet. On September the 20th (as we reckon the date) they were
engaged by the Earls Edwin and Morcar, whom they defeated at Fulford. Five days later, viz., on
1 Ihe bones of Gujihild, with a sepulchral ihscription Wiitten on lead, were found lu the Chureh of Saint Donatus, at Brages,
in 1786. (Freeman, iv., 109, note).
G
82 THE SOMEESET DOMESDAY. — TEBEA BEGIS.
Monday, September 25, Harold, reaching Yorkshire by forced marches, defeated and slew both the
invaders at the battle of Stamford Bridge. Nineteen days later Harold himself fell at Seulac.
Leuinus Comes. — Earl Leofwin had none of fifteen Comital Manors, wliich King 'William held by
escheat in 1086 ; but he had held T. S. E. the Comital Manor of Come, now Temple Combe. Earl Leofwine
fell with his brothers Harold and Gurth at Senlac. His Manors in Devon were in nianu Regis at
Domesday ; but William had given Combe to his own brother, Odo, Bishop of Bayeux.
There are five other Somerset Manoi-s which Domesday records to have been held by some " Lewinus "
in 1068 ; but there is no feature about three of them to suggest that Leofwine, son of Godwin, was the
person thus interested. In two cases " Lewinus," who had been succeeded by Comte Eustace of Boulogne,
may have been the Earl.
GoDDiNus FiLius H.4.E0LDI CoMiTB. The mention of Harold's son, Godwin, as holding two Somerset
estates in January, 1066, is one of those things which exhibits Domesday as the illustrator of personal and
historical matters of exceeding interest. The two estates were Nettlecomb and Langford (in Burrington),
neither of them of great value ; but the former was within five, the latter within ten miles of the Channel.
That Godwin was of full age in 1066, and that he was not one of the illegitimate sons of Harold, are
fair inferences from his position in this schedule of the Exou Domesday. It is quite consistent with what
Mr. Freeman has discovered about Harold's age, that he should have been lawfully married in early life, and
have had a son or sons by such marriage, of more than full age in 1066.
The date of Harold's later and better authenticated marriage with .<Eldgyth, the daughter of Earl Algar,
and widow of King Gruffydd, is not quite clear. No theory on the subject can possibly abate
Mr. Freeman's conclusion, that Godwin was not the son of iEldgyth.
The same great authority supplies us with the probable movements of three sons of Harold iu the years
1067, 1068, and 1069. Their names were " Godwiue, Eadmund, and Magnus." After Senlac they seem to
have retired to the South- West with their grandmother, Gytha. On the fall of Exeter {circa February, 1068)
they crossed the Channel and took refuge with King Diarmid, of Dublin. Later in the same year they
returned with a fleet of 52 ships, devastated the Somerset seaboard, sailed up the Avon, threatening Bristol,
and were repulsed by the Burgesses. Returning to their havoc of the Somerset coast, they were attacked
by Eadnoth the Stallere, commanding the men of Somerset. A drawn battle ensued. Eadnoth had fallen ;
but the sons of Harold sailed away, and after devastating the coasts of Devon and Cornwall, went back to
Ireland.
In June, 1069, two sons of Harold led an Irish expedition against Devon. They seem to have landed in
the Tavy, to have harried far and wide in the South and West of Devon, and threatened, if they did not
attack, Exeter. They were defeated in two battles by Wilham's lieutenants, described variously as two
earls, or comtes, ' William and Brien,' and as ' William Guald and Brieu, a Comte of Bretagne,' of whom we
forbear to discourse in this place. Suffice it, that these elder sons of Harold appear no more in English
history.
Eddeva. — This name, and its synonymes, however we list to write them, always seem to involve some
perplexing questions. —
Was the Eddova of many a Domesday l^age, — the " Eddeva Pulohra," " Faira," and " Dives," — iden-
tical with "Eadgyth of the Swan's-neck," alias " Edgyve Swanueshals," the concubine of Earl Harold,
and the discoverer of his dead body among the corpses of Senlac ?
Mr. Freeman (vol. iii., pp. 763 — 765) has arrayed with his usual diligence and precision the various
considerations bearing on this question, and has decided that, aa to the identity or the non-identity
" there is no sufficient evidence."
If they were identical, we have nothing more pertinent to say than that this manifold, famous, and
polyonymous, Edith, was in January, 1066, Lady of Crewkerne, in Somerset.
But if they were not identical, a further and more interesting question arises to the Somerset antiquary.
And this second question may possibly give us a clue to answering the first. We will put it in this form : —
Which Edith was it who enjoyed in her time the aforesaid Comital Manor of Crewkerne ? Was it Edith
the wealthy and the fair, or Edith the mistress of Harold ?
The late Lord Lytton, much investigating and somewhat inventing, wrote a romance entitled " Harold,"
in which he represented Edith the Fair to have been the discoverer of Harold's body at Senlac, and to
THE COMITAL MANOES. — TABLE VOL. II., PP. 8-4. 83
have been beloved of Harold ; but, of. course, the heroine was not allowed to have been Harold's mistress.
So far, then, and with an eye to the beautiful, rather than the true. Lord Lytton created a new Edith,
differing from the hypothetically one Edith, differing also from each of the hypothetioally two Ediths.
But where did Lord Lyttdn get his idea that his heroine was akin to her namesake the Queen, and so to
the house of Godwin and Gytha, and his other idea that she was in ward to King Edward ?
We cannot discover any historical authority for these ideas ; nor can we suppose that, if Mr. Freeman
knew of them, he considered them to rest on historic evidence ; otherwise the theory of identity must have
been suspected by him.
Now let us examine this Somerset story about Crewkerne, told as it is in the Exon Domesday. —
Here is a Comital Manor of Somerset held by Eddeva in 1066. Surely, if all the other Comital Manors
of Somerset were held, at or about that time, by members of the family of Earl Godwin, Eddeva, Lady of
Crewkerne, was of kiu to the House of Godwin, of kin to Queen Edith, and eke to Harold himself. Surely
this was not Edith of the Swan's-neck, Harold's concubine.
Look again at the Exon Survey of Crewkerne. It was far the most valuable of the Comital Manors of
Somerset. Its revenue was £46 per annum. Earl Harold's Manor of Congresbury, the next in value,
yielded but £28 16s. But Crewkerne also was an ingeldable manor ; it had never been hidated ; its
hidage was unknown as late as Domesday.'^ No other Comital Manor of Somerset was thus privileged.
Is it supposable that Harold ever had, or ever disposed of, such a manor, whether to kinswoman or mistress ?
Could Harold create or import such a franchise ? Could anyone, save King Edward himself, have confer-
red Crewkerne on Eddeva? Did Edward, the Saint and Celebite, give the estate to Harold's mistress ?
Let us take one more look at the Exon Survey of the Manor of Crewkerne. It ends with the valuation
aforesaid, and then adds supplementary matter. — "Reddit per annum xl et vi libras de albo argento.
De istA mansione ablata est una mansio qua; vocatur Esteham quam tenuit Godwinus Prsepositus Regis
in firma Cruchce, et non potuit a Cruch^ separari die Regis Edwardi et reddidit Gildum pro duabus hidis.
Has possunt arare, duse caruose. Modo tenet banc Turstinus de Comite (Moritonensi) et
valet per annum 50 solidos et quando Comes recepit tandundem.
So then Eastham, a looaHty still known as in the parish of Crewkerne, and still remembered to have once
been a parish of itself, was in the days of King Edward held by Godwin, the said King's Bailiff at
Crewkerne, which Godwin, though Eastham was a geldable estate, included its revenue in the general Ferm
of Crewkerne, whereof he was Provost and Fermor — under whom ? — not under Eddeva, but under King
Edward, It follows that King Edward, and not Earl Harold, was Lord of Crewkerne antecedently to
Eddeva. It also follows that Crewkerne, being a Royal Manor, King Edward gave it to Eddeva,' and that
Eddeva, being of the race of Godwin, Crewkerne, in her hands, became a Comital Manor and was after-
wards classed as such by Domesday.
Surely the King's grantee in this case was ' Edith the Fair, and rich.' Surely it was not " Edgyve
Swanneshals," Harold's mistress. The two women were clearly distinct.
The name Edith, or some of its synbnymes, occurs in Domesday very often ; and what wonder if
Saxon women of rank, bom in the era when a daughter of Godwin and a Queen of England was named
Edith, were often baptised by that name ?
The Somerset Domesday suppUes only three such ladies. There was 'Edeva,' Lady of Doverhay, a small
estate in the vicinity of Luckham. Her Norman successor was Roger de Coroelle. Then there was ' Aldeva
Fcemina' (as she is written). Lady of Horsington T, R, E., whose Norman successor was William fitz Widen.
There was also the Nun Edith (Eddida Monialis) ; but her Somerset estate is not specified, neither is it
said that, she, holding in 1086, had held it 1066. She was one of King William's Almonees.
There was also an Editda, whose tenure of Estoohet (probably a part of Chewstoke) passed to William
de Moione between the years 1066 and 1086.
1 Vfe have said that any Manor of Ancient Sememe grautod to a subject became therewith geldable, and was BUbjected to
Lidation, real or nomiual. Ab this rule arose with the Crown, bo it may have been, in this sole instance, dispensed with by
the Crown. —
But, at the same time, we do not at all care to urge this ca«e as an exception, for wo have as yet no proof, no indication, that
Crewkerne, though a Royal Manor, was also a Manor of Ancient Demesne.
g2
84
THE ^^OMERSET DOMESiDAY. — TERRA REGIS.
Our Table of the Comital Mauors of Somerset (see Vol. ii., pp. 3 and 4) affords statistical fa<;ts which
we now compare with those supplied by the Table of Royal Demesnes, on which latter we have already
commented (supra, pp. 76, 77).
Domesday
Estatts.
Arable
Acreage,
"Wood
Acreage.
Meadow
Acreage.
Pastuie
Acreage.
Gross
Acerages
Acreages
under
Plough.
Agrarian
Popula-
tion.
Mills.
Gro-s Revenue
in
Current Coin,
Parochial
Acreages appar-
ently correla-
tiTe.2
12 Royal \
Manors. |
15 Comital )
MaDoi-s. i
50,040
47; 640
33,620
5,412
681
936
24,400
20,365
108,741
74,353
38,100
32,160
759
958
xxii
xvii
£501 19s. Od.
£290 17s. 9d. l
110,756
71,413
In the Comital Manors, a gross Domesday area of 74,353 acres, 47,640 whereof were arable laud, and
82,160 acres whereof were actually under plough, co-ordinated with a labouring population of 958 males.
Here was one labourer to every 77i acres of registered laud, one to every 50 acres of arable land, one to
evei-y 34 acres of land actually tilled.
IT The acreages proportionate to the single labourer were in several iustances as follows : —
In Somerset, Royal Demesnes, 143 registered acres, 66 arable acres, 50 cultivated acres.
In Somerset, Comital Manors, 77i registered acres, 50 arable acres, 34 cultivated acres.
In Dorset, Royal Demesnes, 174 registered acres, 33 arable acres, 25 cultivated acres.
IT The annual profits of the fifteen Comital Manors of Somerset were as stated above— £290 17b. 9d.
This included some items of revenue which did not strictly arise from land, such as mill-returns, bm-gage-
rents, market-profits, and the Tercius denarius of six jurisdictions still, at the date of Domesday, payable
to the Comital estate. These the table (Vol. ii. pp. 3 & 4) wiU show to have been £5 5s. 4d + 3s. 2d. + £i +
£8 15s. =) in all £18 Ss. 6d. Further, as we should suppose, the Comital revenues were augmented by the
whole profits of some half-dozen j urisdictions appropriate to as many manors. It is almost a guess to value
these at £8 per annum. With that assumption the Comital revenues, arising from land only, will have been
(£290 17s. 9d, - £25 3s. 6d) = £264 14s. 3d. at the date of Domesday.—
This gives to each acre of gross Domesday measures (of which acres there were 74,353) an annual value
of little more than 2jths of a penny (viz., '8544 decimals of a penny).
Reckoning the arable land (of which the manors contained 47,640 acres) to have been the chief source of
agricultural profit, if not the root of all such profits, then the net revenue of £264 14s. 3d. charged wholly
on the arable land would shew a proportion of about 1,^ an acre, or 13s. 4d. per plough-land of 120 acres.
Or again, divide the same net revenue among the 268 ploughs actually at work on the fifteen Comital
Manors in a.d. 1086, and the result will be a profit of 19s. 9d. per annum on every plough so occupied.
"TEEEA EDITiE BEGINS. IN SUMEESETA.
This title is taken from the Exon Domesday. The Exchequer
Domesday heads the corresponding schedule with the words—" Has
subter-scriptas terras tenuit Eddid Eegina," but makes the schedule
to be only a section of the chapter entitled " Terra Eegis."
1 Comimted thus.— £208 lis. Id. white money + 5 per cent, thereon, or £13 8s. 8d. + £8 15s. current ooiix = £290 17s. 9d. of
ordinary cnrreucy.
2 Both entires in this column puiiwi-t little more than mere superficial phaenomena. All that we leam is that, generally
and collectively, the modem parishes which most nearly represent the Royal Manoi-s ijiclude some two thousand acres of
territory, which were not, or which Domesday did not register as being, in the Royal Manors.
And, vice versd, the collective parishes which most nearly represent tlie Comital Manors, do not include some three
thousand acres of territory wliich positively were in the Domesday Manoi-a.
THE LATE QUEEN EDITH's LANDS. — TABLE VOL. IL, PP. 5-6. 85
This section of Domesday included six estates, as tabulated else-
wliere (Vol. ii., pp. 5 & 6). These estates may have been a part of
the large endowment which King Edward bestowed on Edith,
daughter of Earl Godwin, on her marriage, or they may have been
bestowed xipon her later. In either case, the Queen held them all
six in January, 1066, when King Edward died, and retained them
till the day of her own death, in December, 1074. They became
" Terra Eegis " not by escheat of forfeiture, but by escheat of
lapse — that is, they reverted to the Crown and to King William.
The King had them still in hand in 1086, the date of Domesday.
In 1066 we have mention of three tenants of Queen Edith at
Keynsham, viz., Ulmar, Wulfward White, and Tofig the Sheriff.
In February, 1072, we have Wulfward White in attendance on
Queen Edith's Court at Wilton. In 1086 the tenants of King
William at Keynsham, are : — in lieu of Wulfward White, the
Bishop of Coutances, Eoger (probably De Corcelle) and WuKward
White's widow ; in lieu of Ulmar, a Thane named Aluric ; and in
lieu of Tofig the Sheriff, Eustace Comte of Boulogne, and his sub-
tenant, Alured.^
Other changes which had taken place in these six estates,
probably since their reversion to the Crown, were, that the hida-
tion and geldabOity of three had been doubled, or more than
doubled, that the revenues derived from all had been largely
increased. Further particulars we reserve to future notes on the
individual estates.
It is here observable that the revenues of these estates were
paid just as the revenues of the Vetus Dominicum Coronse, — in
ordinary coin, and not through the Sheriff. They were paid pro-
bably by Eermors or Prtepositi, and to this the revenue derived
from the Burgh of Bath is no exception, for it was paid by the
corporate Burgesses who farmed the said Burgh.
In some respects^ then, these reversionary estates of the late
Queen were rather analogous to the Manors of the Vetus Bomi-
iiicum Coronce ; in one respect, viz., that they had become hidated
and geldable on their first assignment to the Queen, they had
lost that character.
In dealing with the statistics of the Terra Regis, held by King William as Beversioner of Queen Edith
(see Table, Vol. ii., pp. 5 and 6), we must except the But-gh of Bath, and the Manor of Bath-Easton ; for
1 Alured, sometimes a Steward (Dapifer) of Queen Edith, may be the person thus
liolding under Comte Eustace. We have spoken of him before (sapra, p. 70),
86 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — TERRA REGIS.
Domesday nowhere gives the measurements nor the agrarian population which were correlative to the
" twenty hides of Bath" ; and fiscally, it treate Bath-Easton as a mere appendage of the Burgh. All which
things must in the sequel come under special review.
The statistics of the late Queen Edith's four Manors of Milverton, Martock, Keynsham, and Chewton,
were as follows ; —
The gross Domesday acreage was 30,-468 acres, of which 23,520 acres were arable, and 19,080 acres
actually under the plough. —
The working population numbered 404 males, which gives a single labourer in proportion to every 75^
acres of registered land, to every 58 acres of arable laud, and to every 47 acres of land actually under
tillage. —
The gross revenue of these four Manors at the date of Domesday was £253 per annum. But of this
£8 12s. Id. arose from mills, from burgage rents, and a market. Also the profits of four jurisdictions,
(amounting perhaps to £5 per annum) were not strictly agrarian. The net revenue from land may,
therefore, be put at (£253-£13 12s ld:=) £239 7s. lid.
This gives to each acre of Domesday Registration a, proportionate value of about Irod. per annum
(viz. 1'8860 penny and decimals of a penny). The same annual revenue of £239 7s. lid., if apportioned on
the 196 plough-lands of the territory, give an average return of £1 4s. 5d. per annum ; if apportioned on
the 159 ploughs actually at work, give an average of £1 10s. Id. per team.
The Somerset Estates of Queen Edith, which are scheduled under the Terra Regis, were those only
which the King retained in his hand at the date of Domesday. She had in her life-time possessed many
more. There was Puriton, which in A.D. 1086 was held by the Church of St. Peter at Rome, probably by
the Queen's own gift.
In Garhampton Hundred we have Luckham and Selworthy, both distinguished by a privileged hidation,
but both subinfeuded to Ralph (le Limesey, and so subinfeuded probably by the late Queen.
Another Garhampton estate, Doverhay, having been held T. R. E. by " Edeva," was in A.D. 1086 held by
Roger de Gorcelle. This Edeva, if not the Lady of Crewkerne, already spoken of {supi-a, p. 83), was
hardly the Queen.
Of Twerton and Gombe Hawey in (Old) Frome Hundred, both Queen Edith's in her day, and both
favourably hidated, we shall have much more to say under Frome Hundred. The first had been given
to the Bishop of Goutances, probably by King William, before Domesday, the last to Agelric, an Anglo-
Thane, probably by the King, and very shortly before Domesday.
"TERRA QJJM FUIT TJLWARDI WITE IN SUMERSETA."
The above title is taken from the Exon Domesday. The
Exchequer Domesday (if transcribed accurately by Collinson, Vol.
i, p. 5), gives as a title — " Has infrasoriptas terras tenuit Ulwardus
Abbas," where, of course, the reading should be Ulwardus Albus.
This sectional schedule of the " Terra Eegis " merely compre-
hended five estates of Wulfward White, which happened to remain
in his Pief as a tenant-in-capite at the time of his decease. His
death, happening shortly before Domesday, threw the said estates,
apparently as an Escheat, into the King's hand.
To what we have said elsewhere (See Dorset Volume, pp. Ill,
112% 129), about Wulfward White we may now add further particu-
lars. He was a Saxon Thane of large and ubiquitous estate, how
large and how scattered we cannot, beyond a certain point, ascer-
tain ; for his name, being variously written in Domesday, and often
WULFWARD white's ESCHEAT. — TABLE VOL. II., PP. 5-6. 87
M'ithout his cognomen, we cannot always identify him. Even witli
his cognomen he is variously written as Ulward, Ailward, Wlgar or
Wlward. How often an individual bearing either of those names,
without a cognomen, may have been identical with Wulfward
"White, must depend on the probabilities of each case where Domes-
day speaks of such a man or men. But there can be no doubt that
his estates a? a " Thane of King Edward " were far greater than
are given to Wulfward White in Domesday, and, accordingly, that
what he lost at the Conquest was considerable.
Howbeit we have him (supra, p. 69) as "Wulfweard" at the
Court of William in the summer of 1068, and we have him (supra,
p. 80 71.) attending Queen Edith in her Court at Wilton, in February,
1072. And this perhaps is the index to liis survival of the wreck
of Saxondom. He had lands by gift of Queen Edith ; his wife,
another Edith, was enriched by the Queen. His daughter, marrying
. a certain Alsi, was beneficed by the Queen. And this Alsi (as we
learn from an able commentator) was one of Queen Edith's Stewards,
and followed his father-in-law as witness of the curial transaction
above aUuded to, under date of February, 1072.^
' In the Exon Domesday we note that where Ulwardus Wite Ls said to have held
the Manor of Corfeton on the day of King Edward's death, the name Ulwardus Wite
is underlined for correction or cancellation, and the name AIti is ■(vritten over. There
was some confusion here about Alsi, we feel sure. Whether it was that Alsi had held
Corfton under his father-in-law or not, the manor was clearly confiscate in 1086, and
King William had it in demesne.
88 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS.
CHAPTEE IV.
THE OLD HUNDEEDS OF SOMEESET.
The greater part of that which has been said in our Dorset Volume
(chap. iv. pp. 109, 110), as to the Old Hundreds of that County, is
true in principle of the Old Hundreds of Somerset ; hut, in detail,
that is mutatis mutandis, the latter County presents a wide field of
special remark.
With those Domesday Commissioners, who visited the South-
western Counties, it was not a rule to say anything about division
by hundreds. Hence the text of Domesday only alludes thrice to
the name of any Dorset Himdred. In Somerset the text of Domes-
day has two such allusions. It names tjie Hundreds of Taunton
and of Williton, in each case by mere accident.
In Somerset, though we have not, as ih Dorset, the difficulty of
distinguishing whole numbers of manors, all called in Domesday by
a common Eiver-name, we have the counter-difficulty of finding the
situation of a number of Domesday Manors whose names are never
repeated in any later record, and which are at last forgotten even to
local tradition. Obviously then, if we can neither determine the
identity nor the situation of certain Domesday Manors, we cannot
determine their respective Hundreds ; neither can we say dogmati-
cally what certain of the Old Hundreds contained. In such cases,
then, instead of giving the modern representative of a Domesday
Manor, we must either Avrite the word " obsolete " in Ueu thereof,
or we must confess utter ignorance, or, worse than all, we must
make a guess. Such confessions and guesses must needs be more
frequent in dealing with Somerset than with Dorset.
And another point of comparison is against Somerset investigation.
The Dorset Gheld Inquests of a.d. 1084, pervade the whole hidage
of the county. There is not one of them missing. Their own
internal evidence proves them to be all extant.
In Somerset, on the contrary, there was one hidated Liberty
(Glastonbury Twelve-hides), of which it is extremely improbable
that any Inquest was taken at all. Others, such as Old Cleeve,
and Kings Brompton, very possibly escaped inquisition by incidental
and temporary circumstance. But there is a still outstanding group
of Hundreds and Liberties of which Inquests were, some actually,
some probably, taken ; and these Inquests, if so taken, are lost,
THE GHELD INQUEST OF A.D. 1084. — THE LOST INQUESTS, 89
Our proof of this, and our further comments on the subject, should
be accompanied by a Table of the Hundreds and Liberties of which
the Inquests are preserved. This Table we give elsewhere (Vol. ii,
pp. 7 and 8.) The proof we give here, making it the subject of a
distinct section. —
Interxal evidence of the Somerset Gheld-Ixqubsts of a.d. 1084, in proof that certain Inquests
were t.vkbn at the time more than abe preserved in the existing record.
Among the PostsoripU of the Somerset Gheld-Inquest (Exon Domesday, p. 489), the following memo-
randum occurs. — ■
" De Sumersetcl habet Rex de Gildo suo D." (500) " libras et ix libras in Thesauro suo Wiutoniaj ; et illi
qui portaveruut has Wintoniam habuerunt xl soUdos de conregio suo ; et inter Saginarios conduoendos et
Scriptorem, et forellos emendos, et ceram, dederunt ix solidos et viii denarios ; et de L(50) et i solidis et
iii deuariis quoa reoeperunt Portatores Geldi non habuit Rex denarium, et non potu'erunt compotum
reddere. Hos (denarios) vadiaverunt sese reddituros Legatis Regis." '
The account here purported may be thus paraphrased : —
Of the Gheld of Somerset, there had been safely lodged in the King's Treasury, at
Winchester, the sum of £509
Previous to such lodgment, and out of the collected monies, there had been allowed to
the Portatores, as their corrody, the sum of 2
The Portatores had further paid out of the collected monies, for expenses of conveyance and
clerical appliances, a sum of . . . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 098
And they gave security for repaying a further sum of which, though they had received it,
they could give no account ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 2 11 3
The gross sum, then, which had been collected in Somerset was £514 11
Now, the preserved Inquests (thirty-eight in number) account only for a collection of £487 2s. lljd. ;
but, apparently at the last moment of collection, Malger de Cartrai, a tenant of Robert Comte of Moretain,
had lodged £2 16s. 3d. with the County Receivers, that being the amount which, in several Hundreds, had
been collectively charged against his name as arrears. The full sum, then, which the preserved Inquests
and this Postscript show to have been collected was (£487 2s llj. + £2 16s. 3d. = ) £489 19s. 2|d.
There remains, then, a sum of (£514 Os. lid. - £489 19s. 2^d. = ) £24 Is. 8^d., which was reported of at
Winchester as part of the Gheld of Somerset, and which the Inquests, as preserved, fail to account for.
And this sum of £24 Is. S.^d. represents a hidage of 80 hides, 1 virgate, f fertines, which had stood, on
some or other Inquests of Somerset Hundreds, as so much hidage which had actually paid its Gheld.
Here, then, we have a primary indication, 'nay, a positive proof, from the internal evidence of what
remains of the Inquisieio Gheldi of Somerset, that a part thereof has been lost.
Further observations, still on the letter of the remaining Record, will serve to better this proof of
deficiency, and also to enlarge its scope. —
A Table (to be given in Vol ii., p. 7) will show that the collective hidage announced in the forty preserved
1 Legati Regis. — King's Officers, generally or specially charged with Royal Commissions. In this case the legatl would he
those persons, whether resident or itinerant, who had it in charge to receive the arrealB of the Somerset Gheld-Levy.
Justices itinerant are somewhere spoken of as Legati Regis, but it is not probahle that at this period (1084) any such Com-
mission was about to visit Somerset.
Hugolinus, the King's Interpreter, resident, it seems, at Bath, is also called Ilugotinm Zegaius, If one of his functions were
diplomatic, another may have been fiscal.
The Domesday Commissioners, who, within two years of this Gheld-Levy, visited SomeTOet, were, when in Eyre, styled legati
Regis. We do not insinuate that their future legation was settled or even meditated so early as Eaater, 10S4, nor is it likely
that, when they did set out, they had any instructions to receive taxes. We merely wish to point out that the term Legatus
l^^is implies little else than 'Commissioner Royal,'
90 THE SOMEESET DOMESDAY.' — THE HDNDBEDS.
Glield-Inquests of Somerset Hundreds, was 2666^ hides. Now, the sum of £489 19s. 24d,, also recorded, in
the various sections of the extant Inquisition, to have been actually received in Somerset, was the Gheld
proper to only 1,633 hides of solvent territory. But, besides this, the same receipts are found to have co-
ordinated with a further area of 1,033 hides of exempt and insolvent territories. A simple equation will at
once show how this was the case. Two thou.'iand six hundred and sixty-six hides of territory, whether
solvent, insolvent, or exempt, less sixteen hundred and thirty-three hides of solvent temtory, leave ten
hundred and thirty three liides of insolvent and exempt territory. Here then is good proof of the fact
that the area contemplated by the extant Inquests was much greater than the area which actually paid
gheld,
Or the whole question may be better investigated by a simple arithmetical problem : — If £490, collected
gheld, resulted from 2,666 hides of territory, whether solvent, insolvent, or exempt, what hidage will it have
taken to supply the £514 of revenue, accounted for, by those who carried the money to Winchester, as the
Gheld of Somerset 1
(As £490 ; 2666 hides : : £514 : 2796J liides, or thereabouts).
In other words (2,796^ hides -2,666 = ) 130^ hides, were absent from the Inquests which are preserved
and were assessed or exempted in Inquests which are lost.
Now, turning to Domesday, we find that the Somerset hidations given iu that Record wUl supply not only
this territory wliich is missing from the Gheld-EoU, but a further territoiy about which we can say nothing
determinate in connexion with the Gheld-Roll.
The Domesday Hidage of Hundreds and Liberties, which were certainly not assessed in the extant Gheld-
BoU, proves (as we shall show in a future Table, Vol. ii., p. 7) to have been (2,938 3 2Ji — 2,709 1 3H=)
229;^ hides. There is also a Domesday Hidage for certain manors which, not having been identi6ed nor
incorporated in any of our conceptional Hundreds, should go to this account of Domesday excess. This we
will put at 1 2 J liides (see same Table).
We may say then that (229^ hides -1- 124 hides^) 241^1- hides of Domesday represent 130J hides of
territory which were contemplated in the lost Gheld-Inquests, and some further lllA hides.
We may also presume that tliis residuary item of lUi^^ hides represents either extraordinary exemptions
and insolvencies established for certain estates in the lost Gheld-Inquests ; or else a total omission of some
hidated Liberties (such as Glastonbury Twelve Hides) from all Gheld-Inquest whatsoever.
We may not dismiss this question of ' lost Inquests ' without a further piece of internal evidence illustra-
tive of the subject.
The extant Inquest of Givela (Yeovil) Hundred mentions a Hundred of " Liet" in terms which indicate
not only that there was such a distinct Hundred, but that it was among those which were assessed by a
distinct Inquest in a.d. 1084.
But no such Inquest as that of Liet Hundred is to be found among the extant Inquests. Its Inquest
was taken and is lost. That is all that pertains to this ]phase of our subject.
We should next devote ouk attention to eight Hundreds or Liberties which were iu distinct existence
at the time of the Gheld-Inquest (a.d. 1084), but which were among those whereof no Inquisitional
assessment is extant.
The names of these eight Hundreds or Liberties are given in Table (Vol. ii., p. 9). The names are taken
from two lists of Somerset Hundreds contemporary with the Gheld-Iuquest of A.D. 1084, and apparently
written by the same scribes. It should be noted that all these eight Hundreds or Liberties were at the
said date in manu Regis, and evidently by reason of their respective capita being in that condition. It is
possible, as before hinted, that some of these Francluses escaped Inquest in a.d. 1084, by virtue of a
special mandate of the King. It is probable that most of them, like Liet Hundred, were subjected to
Inquest, and that such Inquest is lost. It would have been strangely abnormal that Somerton Hundred,
for instance, should have escaped Inquest ; for be it remembered that Somerton itself, though Caput of
Somerton Hundred, was a manor of Ancient-Crown-Demesne, and so was not at the time interned in its
Hundred. In other words the King was Lord of the Hundred, jurisdictionally, because such a seigneury
attached to his tenure of Somerton Manor. Somerton Manor was of course ingeldable, and could not be
visited or assessed by any Gheld-Inquest whatever. This, if we may take the analogy of eleven other Royal
Demesne Manors, with Hundreds annexed, worked no reason why the King should except Somerton
OLD INDICES OF HUNDREDS. 91
Hundred from Gheld or Inquest. That an Inquest was taken and is lost, is only less clear than in the case
of Liet Hundred.
Another section of our subject we devote to the consideration of eighteen names of manors or liberties
which have distinctive mention in one or both of the two old Indices aforesaid. These are enumerated in a
Table (Vol. ii,, p. 10), and some notice of each is given in parallel columns. In one or two cases further
remark than could be imported into a Table seems necessary. — ■
AxBRiDGE, though a Burgh at the date of Domesday, is treated in that Record as a mere appendage
of Cheddar, a Manor of the Vetus Dominicum Corona;. Tliis mention of Axbridge in a Praj-Domesday
Index of Liberties, constitutes, in our mind, a piece of history. The Burgh, being already ingeldable as a
member of Cheddar, had probably been invested by the King, Edward or William, with some further
franchise or distinction. A similar impression would result from the fact that Axbridge before Domesday,
perhaps before the Conquest, was the seat of «■ special juri.sdiction, whereof the Tercius Denarius was due
to the Comes, or Lord of the County.
AscLEi.L— There is some doubt as to where or how this Pra!-Domesday Hundred or Franchise existed.
Conjecturally we state that —
Asliill, called AiseUe in Domesday, was an estate of seven hides, five of which, having been held T. Ji. E.
by two Thanes, had owed a certain custom to the Royal Manor of Churi {now Curry Rivell), other two of
wliioh had been the Abbot of Athelney's. All seven hides had been taken from their Prie-Conquestual
owners and given to the Comte of Moretaia. The Comte, in turn, had enfeoffed Malger de Cartrai in the
five first-mentioned hides, but Domesday says not a word about any like bestowal of the Athelney estate.
The conclusion then is, that at the date of Domesday the Comte held the latter in demesne. If so, the
previous Inquest of A.D. 1084 all but proves that these two hides of Ashill were not then deemed to be in
Abdick Hundred, for the Comte's exempted Demesnes comprehended no such estate. The conjecture arises
that these two hides of Ashill were Extra- Hundredal and a distinct franchise, a reHc, perhaps, of some
ancient immunity of the Abbot "of Athelney. Furthermore, Domesday assigns to Aslull a most abnormal
extent of woodland, viz., 40 quarentines by 20 quarentines, or 8,000 acres ; and probably there is an
inaccuracy in the Record where it annexes this f ore.st area to Malger de Cartrai's estate, rather than to the
Comte's seigneury.
Another conjecture about the Prse-Domesday Hundred or Franchise of Ascleia connects it with an estate
called Achileium, in the Gheld-Inquest, A cheleia in the Exon Domesday, and AcJiclai in the Exchequer
Domesday. This estate is now known only as " Hurst." Before the Conquest it was in Givela (Yeovil)
Hundred, and held by Alwi Banneson, to whom, as in a plurality of instances, succeeded Alured of Spain.
The latter was dispossessed by the King's officers, and the estate was added to Martock, a manor which
came into the King's hands in the end of the year 1074, as part of the lapsed estates of the deceased
Queen Edith. Ten years later, and the assessors of Givela Hundred reported the two hides of Achileium
as paying no gheld.
These shifty predicaments may perhaps have given the estate some form or appearance of being a distinct
Franchise. It is possibly the Ascleia of the Old Index.
A Domesday estate of Roger de Corcelle, spelt Ascwei, is now represented by Ashway, in the parish of
Hawkridge. The similarity between Ascleia and Ascwei makes the case worth mentioning; but the
Domesday status of Ascwei presents no feature of probable independence.
CouEi. — The Hundred of Couri, mentioned in each Old Index, wiU, perhaps have been whatever of a
Hundred was appurtenant to the Royal Manor of Ohuri (now Curry Rivell), — such Hundred not including
the Royal Manor itself, which was, in fact, Extra-Hundredal. The said manor (as is shown in a Table,
Vol. ii. p. 1) also included the places now known as Stocklinch Ottersey, Stocklinch Magdalen, and
Hambridge.
As regards hidated territory, a Hundred of Couri will have been, so far as we know, merely nominal, or
confined to half a hide of Church-land. But, possibly, such a Hundred may have originally contained a
considerable tract of hidated territory. If so, such supposed Hundred had been abolished before
Domesday and it's contents, like the above half hide of Church land, had been annexed to Abdick
Hundred.
As an alternative theory, perhaps this antiquated Hundred of Couri was nothing but the double manor
92 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDBEDS.
since known as Curry Malet. Its distinction, as the caput of De Corcelle's Barony, may have been a relic
of some older pre-eminence. The question is immaterial. De Corcelle's Double Manor had also been
annexed to Abdick Hundred before Domesday.
CuMBE. — The manor thus suggested by one of the Old Indices to have sometime had a distinct Hundredal
status was probably the manor, called in Domesday Cuma or Cume, afterwards Combe Hawey, and now
(corruptly) Combe Hay. It was an estate geldable as only two hides ; but that was by manifest privilege.
Till 1074 it had been Queen Edith's. Domesday presents it as being held in 1085-6 by Agelric, an
Anglo-Thane. The King had appa,rently given it to Agelric since the Inquest of 1084 ; for the said
Inquest, under Frome Hundred, records no exemption in favour of Agelric. —
The corollary of this argument is obvious, viz., that the King, in 1084, was holding Combe as his
escheat. But neither on this account does the Inquest of Frome Hundred record any exemption for
Combe, or for any other estate then ' in Manu Regis.' —
Our theory thus becomes still more probable, for that theory is, that Combe was then an independent
Liberty. We looked for it under Frome Hundred, merely because, had it been in any Praj-Domesday
Hundred, it m^st have been in that section of Old Frome Hundred which is now represented by Wellow
Hundred (see Table of Old Frome Hundred in Vol. ii.).
It seems much more reasonable thus to identify the " Cumbe " of the Old Index than with the Bishop
of Bayeux's Domesday Manor of Come (now in Temple-Combe), or with Bishop Giso's purchased Manor of
Cumba (now Combe St. Nicholas). However, the Bayeux Manor had once been a Comital Manor, and
enjoyed by Earl Leofwiue, son of Earl Godwin.
DoNEHETVA (now Dowjihead). Though in our Table of the Prsc-Domesday Hundred of Frome we annex
Combe thereto, and though in our Table of the Prse-Domesday Hundred of Whitstone we annex Downhead
thereto, there is nothing in the Inquests of 1084 to show that either Combe or Downhead was not then an
independent Liberty. The Old Index, in each case, converts this negative testimony into something more
positive, viz., that they were independent Franchises. At, or about the time of Domesday, Downhead was
probably annexed to Whitstone Hundred, wherein it still remains.
Jatton (Yatton) was one of the acquia'ita of Giso, Bishop of Wells, made after the Conquest. For a
time, perhaps, it was allowed an independent status. The Inquest of 1084 manifestly contemplated the
manor as being in Cliewton Hundred, and did not include it in the composite Hundred, whose Inquest is
entitled " Terra Episcopi Gisonis.''
There is something equally abnormal in the subseciuent annexation of Yatton to the Hundred of
Winterstoke.
^ Other Episcopal and scattered manors, such a.s Kingsbury East, Bishops Lydeard, Wellington, and
Wyvelescombe, are found in one of the Old Indices, each as a sometime independent Hundred or Liberty.
As none of the four was recognised as such in the Inquests of a.d. 1084, and have never become so since,
we have here collateral proof that, though the Indices were drawn up coevally with the Inquests, they
embodied or referred to many facts and conditions wliich belonged to an sera then passing or passed away,
THE HUNDBEDS ASSESSED BY THE EXTANT GHELD INQUEST OF AD. 1084.
We now proceed to treat in detail those forty-one nominal Hundreds or Liberties of Somerset which,
singly or combined, formed the subject of thirty-eight extant Inquests of a.d. 1084.
The Inquests themselves will in each case be given in substance, and on a plan which will admit of
suggestions for the restoration or correction of ii defaced or a corrupt text. Notes illustrative or explan-
atory mil accompany each Inquest.
Tables of correlative Hundreds, intended to be studied in parallelism with each Inquest, will be found
in Volume ii.
Such further Notes as seem proper to the Table independently of the Inquest will in each case follow after
the Inquest-Notes in this volume. Thus the Tables of Volume ii, may still be kept in parallel view with
the Notes of all kinds which are printed in this volume,
^AfeLfiS 01* HtlSfDREDS IN VOL. It. 93
In Volume ii., pp. 7 and 9, will be found duplicate lists of forty-cue nominal Hundreds or Liberties, above
alluded to.
A further list is appended to the Table (Vol. ii., p. 7), containing the names of thirteen other Hundreds,
Franchises, and Liberties of Pra3-Domesday Somerset, none of which were touched by the Extant Inquests
of 1084, all of which were probably independent, some of which were iugeldable, some otherwise
exceptional. The object of this supplementary Table being here alluded to, is more because it gives a
synoptical view of all Somerset Franchises whatsoever, existent in the eleventh century, than that we
should now enter on matters which, in the sequel, must be subjected to distinct examination.
CONSTRUCTION OF THE TABLES OP HUNDREDS (Vol. ii., pp. 11, 12, et seqq.).
In framing detailed Tables of the Old Hundreds of Somerset, we uniformly devote two columns to the
Domesday Manors and to the Domesday hidages of such manors ; two other columns to such modern
parishes and acreages of parishes as we find to be most nearly parallel with the aforesaid manors and
hidages.
Taking whole Hundreds together, this method gives a fair average comparison between the old and the
new, between the secular and the ecclesiastical, divisions and measurements.
Were we to attempt a more minute and individual comparison, our labour would be vain, if not endless.
Some parishes comprehend manors which were in more than one Domesday Hundred or Franchise. In
such cases our Tables assign the whole acreage of the existing parish to such Hundred or Franchise as may
happen to have contained most of its manorial constituents.
Thus, for instance (Vol. ii., p. 1), we have measured the whole parish of St. Decumans into the King's
non-hidated Manor of 'WiUiton, but in our Table of Williton Hundred we assign no modern acreage
whatever to such Manors of St. Deouman's Pai-ish as we all the while know to have been in the
hidated Hundred.
Our eventual object (as may be seen in the said and other Tables of Vol. ii.) is to get the whole modem
acreage of Somerset into contrast with the whole ancient hidage and quasi-hidage. To effect that, we
must be careful to adopt a plan which will not lead to our measuring sundry parochial areas twice over.
The asterisk prefixed, in the first column of any Table, to the Domesday name of any manor indicates
that the Hundred of such Manor is fixed, and its identification more or less facilitated, by some previous
entry in the Gheld-Inquest of 1084.
In the same column, where an alternative reading of any manor-name is given, it is usually supplied
from the Exchequer Domesday.
IT Where any Hundred is partly composed of ingeldable plough-lands, they are not, in one sense, part of
the Hundred. However, they are reckoned in the Tables of Hundreds, and a distinct column preceding the
column of Hidages, is bestowed on their numbers. These distinct Columns we take leave occasionally to
call columns of Carucages, that term being distinct from Carucatage, as elsewhere explained.
In Somerset {see Vol. ii., p. 17) there were only twelve genuine Carucates, but there were 525 Carucages ;
103 of which were associated with Hundredal Hidages, while 417 formed the arable portions of the Vetus
Domdniaim Oororue.
94 THE SOMEESET DOMESDAY. THE HUNDEEDS OF S0MEESE¥.
THE INQDISICIO QHELDI (a.D. 1084) FOE ABDIOK HUNDEED, (iNQUIS. GHELDI, p. 73.)
In Hundreto AbediocliiB sunt vi. xx. hidee et x. et. viii. (read vii.) {i.e., 137 hides).
Inde habet Rex de Gildo suo xviii. lib. et v. sol. i. obolum et (l)fertinum (£18 5s. Ofd.) ) hid. v. f.
pro Ix. hides et iij. virg. et f ertino et dimidio j 60 3 IJ
Et Biu-ones sui habent in suo dominie xxxij hidaa et iij virg. et iii fert. (but
read, ex contextu, xxxiij hidas etiij fert. (33 hid. virg., 3 fert.)
H. V v..
De his habet Comes de Moritonio, vii liidas 7
Et Abbas de Adelingeres, iiij hidas 4
Et Abbas de Muceleneia, xiii hid. et dim et dim. virg 13 2 2
Et Roger de Corcella, dim. hid 2
Et Sauardus, ii hidas, et dim. et dim. virg 2 2 2
Et Roger Arundel, v hidas et i virg. et iij fert 5 1 3
33 3 33 3
Et non habet Rex gildum de x hidis quas tenet Osmundus nepos Episcopi Gisonis. .10
Nee de iii hidis quas tenet Willelmus de Lestria 3
Nee de iii hidis quas tenet Roger (" Malger " over, cecte) de Cartraio 3
Nee de dim. hid^ quam teuent Villani Comitis Moritonije 2
Nee de dim. hida quam tenet Godewinus de Cicemetona 2
Nee de dim. hid^ quam tenent Villani Rogeri Arundel 2
Nee de hida et dim. et dim. vn-gS, quas tenent Presbyter et Villani de Ileministre... 12 2
Necde i fertino et dimidio de quibus Fegadri non poterant reddere nobis rationem 14
19 3i 19 3i
De hoc Hundreto restant adhuc ad persolvendum de Gildo Regis c. sol. et xv. et
iii. den. et 1 obol. et 1 fertino (£5 15s. 3fd., which, at 6s. per hide, is the exact
Gheld-rate on 19 hides 34 fertins).
De hoc Hundreto reddiderunt Gildum xx hidffi in Hundreto G isonis Episcopi 20.
Et de iii hidis et ui virgis reddidit Abbas Micelinensis Gildum in alio Hundreto 3 3
137
NOTES ON THE INQUISICIO GHELDI FOE ABDICK HUNDEED.
The Comte of Moeetain's demesne of 7 hides was in Estapla (Staple Fitz-Paiu) (Exon D., 250).
The Abbot of Athelkey's demesne of i hides was in Atiltona (now Ilton or Hilton) (Exon D., 176).
The Abbot of Muchelney's demesnes, of 13h. 2 v. 2f. stood in liis several manors of Ilminster, Isle- Abbots,
and Cathanger. Domesday estimates the said demesnes collectively at 13 hides, 2 ^•irgates, 1 fertin.
Roger de Coecelle's demesne of half a hide was perhaps in Curi (now Curry Mallett). If so, it had
increased to two hides before Domesday.
Sawaed, called elsewhere " Acoipitrarius and Hundrannus," was a Saxon Thane. At the date of
Domesday, though he retained two estates in the neighbouring Hundred of South Petherton, he had lost
this in Abdiek Hundred. Probably it was from 3 to 4 liides, and was given between 1084 and 1086 to the
Comte of Moretain or to Roger de Corcelle. Consistently with the last supposition, Roger de Corcelle ap-
pears with estates and demesnes in Abdiek Hundred at the date of Domesday, some, at least, of which he
had not enjoyed in 1084.
RoGEB Aedndel's demesne was in 'Whitelackington, a manor of 10 hides. Domesday reduces the said
demesne to 5\ hides, or to three fertines less than the Inquest.
William de L'Estee's default was in respect of some part of an estate of 5 liides, which Domesday
shows him to have held under the Comte of Mortain in Bichehalda (now BickenhaU).
ABDlCK HUNDEED. 05
Malgeu de CAKTBAt held several estates m Abdiok Hundred under the same Conite, viz., at Ashill,
Hilton, and Broadway. Domesday gives him in Ashill alone 3 hides, 34 virgates of demesne ; so that his
default will have been only partial.
Godwin was a Saxou Thane. His default was in respect of half the estate of 1 hide, which half he
held in demefsue under Harding Fitz Elnod (another Thane), in Boohelanda (Buckland St. Mary). The
Inquest style.g him " God^vin de Cicemetona," because, in Devon, he held in capite the Manor of
Cicemetona, where were 30 plough-lands (Exou Domesday, US).
Roger Arundel's defaulting Villeins were they who occupied some 2 virgates of the i hides, 2 mgates,
1 firtin, which, in 1084, constituted liis Villeinage at White-Laokington.
" Osmund, Nephew of Bishop GIso," was his uncle's tenant at Wynesham, an estate of 10 hides which
the Bishop had acquired since the Conquest, and which had not as yet been formally and conclusively
severed from its old Hundred of Abdick. However, the Fegadri who assessed contemporarily the
" Bishops Hundred," included both Wynesham and Combe St. Nicholas (another Episcopal purchase in
Abdick Hundred) in their assessment. Any entry, therefore, relating to either estate as being in Abdick
Hundred is in the nature of a duplicate entry. In other words, the Abdick Hundred of 1084-6 did not
really contain 137 hides. It contained only 107 hides.
The Comte of Moretain's defaulting Villeins were occupants of a sixth part of the 3 hides which con-
stituted the ViUanagium of his Demesne-Manor of Esta^jla (now Staple Fitz Pain).
Domesdat tells us of » Priest and a Layman who together occupied 14 hides, and of Villeins who oc-
cupied 10 hides 24 virgates in the Abbot of Muchelney's Manor of Ilminster. The non-solvency of 1084
was in regard of the whole of the former tenement and of a half-virgate of the latter tenement. The
question had probably been rather one of Uability than of competency to pay.
The details of the Collector's accounts left IJ fertines of the alleged contents of Abdick Hundred
unassessed. Usually the collectors were held responsible for such deficits. In this case their liability
would be only 6Jd. The expression " De quibus Fegadri non poterant reddere nobis rationem " demands
some remark. It is probable that there was some local commission to which (nobis) the various bodies of
collectors had to exhibit their accounts and tender their cash-receipts. The Scrutineers (possibly the
Sheriff and his officers, possibly the Curia Comitates), annotated the accounts, took charge of the money ;
and, in due course, when all the Hundredal Schedules of the County had been thus audited, the Scrutineers
forwarded both documents and cash to the King's Treas ury at Winchester. The conveyancers (Portatores)
of the County-Gheld, were neither the Fegadri nor the Scrutineers. They were a corps which charged the
funds in question with their travelling expenses and their customary fees, and had to render their own
summary account to the Lords of the Treasury at Winchester. (Vide supra, p. 89.)
^ " De hoc Hundreto reddiderunt Gildum xx hida3 in Hundreto Gisonis Episcopi." —
This was UteraUy trae, as our analysis of the " Bishops Hundred " will more clearly show. The 20 liides
in question constituted the Manor of Combe St. Nicholas. It has never been re-united to Abdick Hundred.
On the dissolution of the Bishops Hundred into three sections (viz., Wells Forum, Kingsbury East, and
Kingsbury West), Kingsbury East became the caput of the new Hundred, which bears that name ; and
Combe St. Nicholas fell to the said New Himdred of Kingsbury East.
"The Abbot of Muohelnet accounted for 3| hides of Abdick Hundred in another Hundred." So
much was stated to clear the Abdick collectors of responsibility in the matter. But the sentence has for us
a far wider meaning. That " other Hundred " spoken of by the Abdick collectors appears nowhere in the
extant Gheld-Inquests of Somerset. In other words, some portion of the Gheld-Iuquest has been lost.
With this clue we are enabled to determine the precise Hundred or Hundreds whose Inquest is non-extant.
Among the extant Inquests there are none which touch on the territory which is comprised in the two
modern Hundreds of Pitney and Somerton. A Hundred of Somerton (though not surveyed in the extant
Inquests) is spoken of in indices coeval with the Inquest (see Vol ii., p. 9), as a Somerset Hundred, but the
Hundred of Pitney (adjoining to Somerton) is not so spoken of. The hypothesis (we have already stated
it) the hypothesis is that the PriB-Domesday Hundred, called Somerton, involved the Hundred now called
Pitney.
And now about the Abbot of Muchelney's Gheld accounts in 1084. His total estate in Abdiok Hundred
consisted of 28 hides in the several Manors of Ilminster, Isle Abbotts, and Cathanger. In respect of his
96 O^HE SOMERSET DOMESDlV. THE HUi^DREDS OF SOMERSET.
demesnes, estimated in the Inquest at 13 hides, 2 virgates, 2 fertines, he was exempt from Gheld. For the
Gheld on 3 hides and 3 virgates which were in Abdiok Hundred, he found it convenient to settle " in another
Hundred," [we suggest in Pitney (or rather Somerton) Hundred, where he will have had another Gheld-
account in respect of his Manor of Drayton.] For the residue, viz., for 10 hides, 2 virgates, 2 fertines, he or
his tenants, accounted, or ought to have accounted, to the Fegadri of Abdick Hundred. For 9 hides of the
■ said residue it is evident that Gheld was duly paid ; but, as we have already seen, the Fegadri surcharged
the " Priest and Villeins of Ilminster " for nonpayment (of the balance alleged to be due) on 1 hide, 2
virgates, and 2 fertines,
NOTES ON THE TABLE (VOL. II. pp. 11-12) OP ABDICK HUNDRED,
Chobi (now Curry Rivell), was an ingeldable and non-hidated Manor of ancient demesne. Its Church-
land however was hidated, and was therefore intra-hundredal. The Priest, holding it, is ranked in Domes-
day among the Eling's Ahtionees,
Ablata de Chobi. — A part of Curry that had been wont to pay 10s. 8d. in the King's Ferm of Curry.
The Comte of Moretam, obtaining it, the said custom was withdrawn. The Comte annexed the land to his
Tenant Britell's Manor of Swell.
EsTAPLA (now Staple Fitz Paine). The Comte's Manor, as measured in Domesday, was about 1400 acres.
The present and corresponding Parishes of Staple Fitz Pain and Curland are more than double in extent.
At Domesday, then, half the parish was in the King's adjacent Forest of Neroch.
" Unus ortus adjacet huic mansioni (Estapte) in Lanporda qui redditper annum 50 anguillas.'' A garden
(on the Parrot), at Langport, was an appurtenance of the Comte's Manor of Staple. It paid a rent of 50
eels. Langport itself was some 12 miles away. It was then an appurtenance of the Royal Manor of
Somerton.
Ilminstbe. The old valuation given, viz., £26 per annum, is not that at the time of seizin, but that at
the time of the late Abbot of Muchelney's decease {quando Abbas obiit). Abbot Liward seems to have died
between 1084 and 1086. The Abbey at the latter date was in manu Regis. Its estate of Ilminster had
fallen £6 in annual value.
Ila. Both portions of Isle- Abbotts, that is Godric's and Edwin's, had been held by those Thanes in 1066.
They were post-Conquestual acquisitions of Muchelney Abbey.
Cathanqke. This also was a post-Conquestual acquisition of Muchelney Abbey, held in 1066 by the
same two Thanes, and by Wadell. Domesday expresses the monks' demesne curiously, viz., as "half a hide
less 15 acres." Gheld acres are meant. The simpler expression of the whole would have been 3 fortius, or
else ' 9 acres.' Collinson (940), says that part of Cathanger lay in the Hundred of WilUton and Free-
Manors. The nearest point of that Hundred is 14 miles away. Such abnormalisms do sometimes occur,
but we venture to think that, if such a severance ever befel Cathanger, it was after Domesday.
BiCHEHALDA (Bickenhall), On the forfeiture of the Comtes of Moretain, AVilliara de L'Estra's descendants
held per Baroniam. of the Honour of Moretain and ultimately of the Crown. Bickenhall was the caput of
their Barony.
The customs due before the Conquest from Bickenhall to King Edward's Manor of Chori (now Curry
Rivell) are thus detailed in Domesday : — " Hsec mansio (Bichehalda) reddebat per consuetudinem tempore
Regis Edwardi in Chori, mansione Regis v. oves cum agnis ; et unusquisque liber homo unam blomam
ferri. Sed postquam Willelmus (de Lestra) terram accepit de Comite (MoritoniEc) non fuit reddita hsoc con-
suetude," {Vide swpi-a, p. 48.)
AissELLA. The custom due from Ashill to Chori Regis was a payment of 2s. 6d. per annum ; since Malger
de Cartrai's feoffment by the Comte of Moretain it had been discontinued. Of the Manor taken by the
Comte from the Abbot of Athelney, Domesday gives no particulars, save the extent, viz., 2 hides, (For
other remarks on Ashill, see j)p. 35, 91 supra.)
BocHELANDA. Peter Bishop of Chester, usually said to have been consecrated in 1067, was not conse-
crated before 1070. Probably it was while yet a Royal Chaplain that King William bestowed on him
certain churches and estates in Somerset and Dorset, among the rest 14 hides in Buckland St. Mary. The
Bishop retained, as tenants, the two Saxon Thanes who had held Buckland before the Conquest. They
paid him a fee-farm rent of 10s., though the estate was worth just double. The Bishop, whose death and
BULSTONE HUNDRED. 97
burial are ordinarily dated in 1085, was deceased before Easter, 1084. (See Key to Domesday ;— Dorset,
p. 122 n.), when the Gheld-Inquest was completed. His two Thaue-Teuants seem in that year to have
paid their quota of Gheld, for, had they not, then- default would have been recorded. However, from that
date tUl Domesday, their fee-favm rent, now accruing to the Crown, had not been paid.
Hachia (now Hatch Beauohamp). — It was the hide held T. R. E. that owed a custom, a ewe and lamb to
the King's Manor of Chori (now Curiy Rivell). It had been withdrawn since Robert the Constable's seizin.
Robert, here called Constable, was probably Constable of Montacute Castle. He is elsewhere called
Robert Fitz Ivo. He was ancestor of the Barons Beauchamp of Hatch. There are some cross-statements
about the hidage of Hatch. One passage of the Exon Domesday would make it SJ hides, another 6 hides,
another 5 hides (as in the Table). The Exchequer Domesday confirms the last reading.
DoNYATT, a triple Manor. — Its custom to Chori Regis, now disused, was 6 ewes with their lambs. The
park mentioned as an ai^purtenance, was a solecism in the Somerset Survey.
Ceioket Malheebe. — So called as being held by the family of De Malherbe under the Barons Montacute,
the lineal heirs of Drogo, the Domesday Tenant. (See Hearne's Liber Niger, i., 94).
Beadon. — The present parish is called South Bradon. It contains a hamlet called North Bradon, and an
adjoining parish, formerly known a^ Goviz Bradon, has now neither church, house, nor inhabitant. There
is no evidence whereby we may determine how the four Domesday Manors are severally represented by the
three later appeU'ations, but we suspect that the site of Goviz-Bradon corresponded with Harding Fitz
..Elnoth's Manor. The present parish of South and North Bradon contains only 390 acres, and of course
does not adequately represent the area of the four Domesday Manors. These four manors, we observe,
made a complement of 5 hides, and four of the said hides were held in 1086 by Feoffees of the Comte of
Moretain. It is further remarkable that each of the said four hides had been charged, in King Edward's
time, with a customary render of a ewe and lamb to Chori Regis (now Curry Rivell). No such render had
been made since the seizin of Drogo de Montacute and Malger de Cartrai.
Bbcvdway. — The present parochial acreage represents the Domesday Manor, of about 140 acres. The
remaining 1932 acres represent a part (perhaps 200 acres) of the tithing of Caplaud. The rest (say 1732 acres)
of the present parish wUl have been in the King's Forest of Neroche.
THE IKQUISICIO-GHEtDI (a.D. 1084) FOB BULSTOXE HUNDEED (iNQUIS.-OHELDI, fragment p. 489).
In Hundreto Bolestana; sunt x et viii hida et dun. virga ( 18 hides, 2 fertinea) . H. v. r.
Inde habet Rex de GUdo suo £4 2s. 6d. pro xiu hid. iii. virg 13 3
Et Baroues Regis habent in suo dominicatu ii hidas et dim, virg.
De his liabet Girardus i hidam 10
Et Harding filius Ahiodi i hidam et dim. virgam ■. 10 2
2 2 2 2
Non habet Rex gildum de i hida quam tenet Aiisger Brlto , 10
Nee de dimidia hidd quam tenet Britellus de Sancto Claro 2
Nee de dimidisi virg. quam tenet Ogissius 2
Nee de dim. hidS, de qu^ Fegadri receperunt denarios per consuetudinem quam clamant 2
2 2 2 2
""" 18
And the Inquest leaves 2 fertiues of land, and Od. in money unaccounted of in the ) 2
details though comprehended in the heading '
18 2
SOTES ON THE INQUEST OV BOLESTAN HUNDEED.
GiEAEDUS was a King's Serjeant. His exempt hide was the whole of his estate at Ernesel (now
Earnshill, in Hambridge).
HAEDiKa Fitz Alnod was the Saxou Thane of whom we have already spoken (jsupra, pp. 58 n. and eO).
H
98 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUKDREDS OP SOMERSET.
His estate iu Bolestan Hundi-ed was 1 hide at Capland (in Broadway and Beer Crooombe parishes). To this
had been added a half-Hde which had originally been an outlying dependency of the King's Manor of Ciiri
(now Curry Rivell). Harding's exemption in 1084 was for so much (1-^ hides) of the collective estate
(1| hides) as he held in demesne. Hence we evolve two canons. —
1. Any severance from a Royal Manor, though such Royal Manor were ancient demesne, and non-
hidated and ingeldable, became, upon severance, part of the adjoining Hundred. An hidation was
also set thereon. According to such hidation it became geldable, though, contingently, the whole or
a part thereof might be pro und vice nou-geldant.
2. If the occupant of an additanimtum held any part thereof in demesne, he being also a tenant in
capite, he was entitled pro tanto to exemption from Gheld.
Ansger Beito's insolvent hide was one of the six hides which he held at Isla (now Isle Brewers) of the
Comte of Moretain.
Bmtell de S.t Claee's insolvent half -hide was so much of the 3 hides which he held at Sewella (now
Swell) of the same Comte.
The insolvent half-vieoate op Oaissros was so much of 1 hide and half a virgate, which he held under
Roger de Corcelle. The whole estate (1 hide and half a virgate) is called in Domesday " Lamore." It was
a portion of the Abbot of Mulcheney's great Manor of Drayton. It had been wrested from the Abbey.
Another part of Drayton was, like Lamore, in Bolestan Hundred ; but the bulk of the Manor was in Pitney
Hundred, of which no Inquest is extant.
NOTES ON THE TABLE (VOL. IL, pp. 11-12) OP BOLESTAN HUNDKED.
CapilanDA. — The status of this manor was, and is, full of anomalies. It was iu Bolestan rather than in
Abdick Hundred, and yet it wa« surrounded by manors of Abdick Hundred. Parochially it lay in two
parishes, Beer Crocombe and Broadway, both of which, as manors, were in Abdick Hundred. It comprised
as an appendage an outlying member of Curry Regis, but other members or severances of Curry Regis were
in Abdick Hundred. However, one other, now to be mentioned, was in Bolestan Hundred.—
Sewella (now Swell). — The three hides of this manor were inclusive of a single virgate which T. JR. E.
had been an appurtenance of the Koyal Manor of Curry (now CuiTy Rivell). The Exon Domesday notes
the circumstance as follows : — " De h^o mansione (Sewella) jacebat i virga in Curi, mansione Regis, die
qui Rex Edwardus fuit vi^Tis et mortuus: et reddebat 10 sol. et 8 den. in firma Regis; sed postquam
EriteUus terram acoepit de Moritonensi Comite non fuit hjcc consuetude reddita mansioni Regis."
La Moea. — " Est de xx hidis de Draintuna," that is the Abbot of Muchehiey's great Manor of Drayton,
though reckoned in Domesday (fo. 174) to be 20 hides of Abbatial property, was less by 1 hid. ^^rg. 2 fert.,
which had been wrested from him by Roger de Corcelle.
In Deaitunna. — Another portion (supposed to be 3.^ hides) of Drayton, seems to have been in Bolestan
Hundred, and is to tins day in the Hundred of Abdick-cum-Bulstone. The bulk of Drayton was in Pitney
Hundred, under which -H-ill be found further details of tenure and occupation. To this share of Drayton
we conjecturally assign 1,785 acres of Domesday measurement, viz., plough-land, 360 acres ; wood, 710
acres ; meadow, 9 acres ; pasture, 706 acres. The proportionable di™ion of the present parish of Drayton
gives only 361 acres in comparison with the said 1,785 acres.
The Modeen Hundued of Abdick and Bulstone includes four vills, which had no diatiuctive notice in
Domesday. These are: — Curland, 749 acres ; West Dowlish, whose acreage is involved in the 1,282 acres
of Dowlish "Wake, iu South Petherton Hundred ; Stooklinoh Ottersey, 299 acres ; and Stocklinch St.
Magdalen, 199 acres. Of these, Curland was involved in the Domesday Manor of Estapla (Staple Fitz
Pain). Stocklinch Ottersey and Stocklinch St. Magdalen seem to occupy territory which at the date of
Domesday may have been (Hke Barrington adjoining) among the unvalued and unregistered appurtenances
of the Royal Manor of South Petherton. But a stricter analogy would suggest that the two Stocklinohes
were outlying appendages of the Royal Manor of Curry (now Curry Rivell). AVe have accordingly placed
them on the Table (Vol ii, p. 1) of Ancient Demesnes.
We have done the same with the modern and ecclesiastical parish of Hambridge, merely because its
acreage (3,833 acres) is largely supplied from the two Royal Manors of Barrington and Curry Rivell.
ABDICK AND BULSTONE HCNDBED. — ANDEBSFIELD HUNDRED. 99
However, it should not be forgotten that other parts of the said acreage were snppUed from the parishes
and manors of Isle Brewers (in Bulstone Hundred), and of Pucklington (in Abdick Hundred).
XOTES ON THE JOINT HUJTDEEDS OF ABWCK AND BULSTONE.
After taking from these Hundreds the 30 hides, which at the date of Domesday belonged properly to the
" Bishop's Hundred," and after adding thereto those parts {4| hides) of Drayton, which have ever been in
Bulstone Hundred, these joint Hundreds appear with a Domesday complement of 125| hides. The said
125^ hides of Domesday will appear to have represented not merely the local contents of all the manors
which nominally composed the two Hundreds, but a considerable territory which, topographically, was not
in the said Hundreds nor yet in any of those Royal and ingeldant manors which were dominant over or
adjacent to the Hundreds. Specifically there were attached to the component manors of these Hundreds
no less than 43,021 acres of Domesday calculation, while the now existing parishes of the said Hundreds
contain only 31,968 acres. The 43,021 acres, thus calculated from Domesday data, consisted of— plough-land,
16,860 acres; of wood-land, 24,225 acres; of meadow-land, 539 acres; and of pasture-land, 1,397 acres.
The excess is easily accounted for when we observe that the wood-land appurtenant to the Comte of
Moretain's Manor of AshiU was 8,000 acres, while the i^resent parish of Ashill is only 1,799 acres. Again,
to the Abbot of Muchelney's Manor of Ilminster were attached 6,480 acres of wood, and 2,400 acres of
plough-land, the present parish, being altogether, only 4,050 acres. And to the same Abbot's Manor of
Isle Abbots were attached 6,480 acres of wood and 780 acres of arable land, the present parish containing
only 1,935 acres. Lastly, the proportions of wood-land and pasture due to so much of the Abbot of
Muchelney's estate of Drayton a.s was in Bulstone Hundred were 710 acres of the former and 706 acres of
the latter ; while the correlative proportion of the acreage of Drayton parish is only 361 acres. And to
add still more to our conceptions of the Domesday contingents of the manors of these Hundreds, we have
Drogo de Montacute's unmeasured park annexed to his Manor of Donyatt. We say no more here than that
this is an instance where the excess of Domesday mea,sures, attributed to the Manors of this or that
Hundred, must be sought in other Hundreds, such as exhibit parallel deficiencies of Domesday measurement.
In this instance we observe that the territory correlative with the hide was about 344 acres of Domesday
measurement ; but that, compared with the parochial acreages of modern ascertainment, the hide is
represented by 255-J acres. And this is only saying what we have often said before, viz,, that the original
and normal hide was a conception which took small account of such elements as wood-land or pasture-land.
The rents and values of the Hundreds* of Abdick and Bolestan at the time of King Edward's death, or
at the existing tenant's entry, are not always specified in Domesday. Such as are specified iu that Record
afford therefore no adequate basis for a full comparison.
INQUISIOIO-OHELDI (a.D. 1084) VOVL ANDEESFIELD HtlNDEED (INQ.-BHELDT, p. 73),
In Hundreto de Andredesfelt sunt viiii hid. et 1 virga ( 9 hides, 1 virgate ) H. V. V,
Inde habet Rex de Gildo suo 42 sohdos pro vii hidis 7
Et Barones Regis habent in dominio ii hidas et 1 virg .
Inde habet "Willelmus" (de Moione) "Vicecomes " 1 hid. et 1 virg. (read iii virg.) 13
Et Ansger Focarius dimidiam hidam 2
9 10
William De MoIONE's demesne. — The text of the Inquest gives 1 hide, 1 virgate ; but the context
impUes 1 hide, S virgates. And this emendation is verified by Domesday, \\here it gives 1 hide, 3 virgates
as the extent of William de Moione's demesne in Brunfella (Bromfield).
Ansgeb Focaeius was a Bang's Serjeant. His estate in Andersfield Hundred was Durleigh (2j virgates).
Domesday instead of quoting his demesne, as the Inquest does, at 2 virgates, allows him but If virgates.
Ausger Focarius was also a tenant of Alured de Hispania in part of the Manor of Goathurst, adjoining to
Durleigh.
H 2
100
THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OP SOMERSET.
NOTES ON THE TABLE (vOL II, PP. 11-12) OP ANDEKSPIELD HUNDKED.
Beomeield seems to have passed from the Fief of De Moione to that of De Montaoute. We know of no
fact of genealogical descent to account for the transfer.
Enmoke and Lexworthy. — Four estates given by Domesday under the names of "Animera" and
" Leohesurda '' are now in Enmore parish. They contained collectively IJ hides. It is probable that
Blachesalla (now obsolete as to name) belonged to the category which thus attains the more likely comple-
ment of 2 hides.
Blachesalla is identified by CoUinson in his Domesday Index with Blackshill, a place as to which he is
otherwise silent. From the sequence of the Domesday Record we infer Blachesalla to have been certainly
in Andersfield Hundred, and from what has been said above, to have been in Enmore parish. If any such
name can now be traced in Enmore parish, our conviction that it is " obsolete " is, of course, unsound.
GoATHUKST. — In 1165-6 PhiUp de Columbiers stood in general succession to the Domesday Barony of
Alured de Hispania, viz., as heir of De Caudos, who was heir of De Hispania. In 1165-6 Hugh, son of
Malger de Gaherste, held 1 knight's-fee in the Barony of Philip de Columbiers (Liber Niger, i. 97).
Lege, alias Lengb. — This manor, very summarily described in Domesday, nearly corresponded with the
present parish of East Lyng. It contained the now hamlets of West Lyng, and Outwood. But it also con-
tained the famous " Isle of Athelney," and therein the site and precinct of Athelney Abbey. Domesday,
instead of styling Lenge the " Caput Abbatije " — instead of saying " Ibi sedet Abbatia Adeliniensis," says
only, " non reddidit gildum tempore Regis Edwardi." Moreover, the estate is mentioned last of all in the
Abbot of Atheluey's Domesday Schedule. Nor does the Exchequer Domesday, which sometimes avoids the
misarrangements of the Exon Codex, and which gives to East- Lyng its truer name of Lenge, enlighten us at
all as to the dignity of the locaUty. For all that is declared in either Domesday the manor was no longer
exempt from Gheld in 1086 ; and, indeed, there is the same conclusion from the Inquest of 1084, which
records no exemption for the Abbot of Athehiey's demesne in Andersfield Hundred.
Andersfield Hundred. — The rents and values of the manors of this Hundred, at periods antecedent to
Domesday, amount, so far as they are specified in that Record, toiE14 12s 6d. This includes the value of East
Lynge at the earlier period. The manors which show any positive increase in value since the Norman seizin
belonged to the Fiefs of De Moione, De Corcelle, and Arundel.
The trysting-place of Andersfield Hundred was never at Creech St. Michael, though there was its Caput.
It was at Auder.sfield, a hamlet in the parish of Goathurst.
The existing Hundred diff'ers only from the Prre-Domesday Huudred in that it contains Creech St. Michael.
The Domesday complement of manors, supposed to have formed the old Hundred, realizes 9 hides, 1 virgate,
3 f ertines. The previous Inquest had stated the area to be 3 f ertiues less. It is simply a case of Domesday
Increment.
We will now combine the Domesday measures of Andersfield Hundred with those of Creech St. Michael,
and see how the combination compares with modern ascertainments.
DOMESDAY MEASURES OP CREECH ST. MICHAEL AND ANDERSFIELD HUNDRED COMPARED WITH THE ACREAGES
OF MODERN PARISHES.
Domesday Xame.
Inquisition- ' Domesday
a] Hidage. , Hidage.
PlOHgh-
lands.
Arable.
Acres.
Wood,
Acres.
Meadow.
Acres.
Pasture,
Acres.
Total
Uomesday
Acreage.
Coguate
Parishes,
Parochial
Acreages,
Crice
( corded. )
;i 1 SI 1 3
1
8
38
960
JOC.O
10
438
S
30
1440
120
2418
5148
f Creech St, )
"( Michael /
('Broiufield ^
Durleigh 1
-{ Enmore \-
1 Goathiu-st 1
I^East LyDgj
2304
Eleven estates of A
Andretesfelt
Hundred,
enumerated
on Table, Vol
ii, p. 9. J
9119
19 3 3
40
5520
443
8S
1560
7566
11,423
The difference between the Domesday acreage of the above manors and the modei'n acreage of the above
parishes is 3,857 acres. It is the measure, perhaps, of some forest-rights of the Crown which, ' though they
intruded topographically in this Hundred, were registered by Domesday in connexion with the Forests of
BEDMIN8TER HUNDRED, 101
other Hundreds ; more certainly it embraces a quantity of profitless moorland lying in the vicinity of Dur-
leigh and Isle-Athelney, which the Domesday Commissioners rejected from their estimates.
THE IX<JUISIOIO-GHELDI (a.D. 1081) FOB BETMIMSTnA (BEDJIINSTEn) HUNDEED (sEE INQ.-OHELDI, P. 69).
" In Hundreto Betministrse sunt vi hideo et dimidia " ( 6 hides, 2 virgates) .
H. V. P.
" Inde habet Rex xxiiij solidos pro iiij hidis de Gildo suo '■ 4
" Et Osbertus Giffai'dns habet inde in dominio suo i hidam " 10
" Et Turstinua (habet) i hidam quam tenet in elemosinS, de Rege quietam " 1
" Et pro dimidia hida, de qufi Fegadri receperunt denarios et vadiaverunt foris ante Barones Regis 1
non habet Rex gildum suum " ) 2
" De hoc Hundreto debeutur Regi de Gildo suo iii. solidi" 6 2
NOTES ON THE INQUEST OF BEDMINSTER HtlNDEED.
OsBERT GiFPAKD was exempt from Gheld in respect of one hide, his demesne in the Manor of Knowle,
which, being altogether two hides, he held of the King in capite, per Baroniani.
TuESTlN was a Tenant-in-Almoigu. His estate was at Leigh (now Abbotts Leigh). It was only one hide.
It was wholly exempt from Gheld in virtue of the liing's special order in behalf of his Tenants-in-Almoigu,
and their acquittance of the impost.
Fegabei. The collectors had received all the money (denarios) due on 4^ hides, the geldable portion of
the Hundred. But they had neglected to pay over to the King's Barons the Gheld, viz., three shillings which
was proper to one half-hide. They had acknowledged their default, and given security for its future
emendation. Meantime, the said 3 shilhngswere entered on the Gheld-RoU as a debt to the Crown.
NOTES ON THE TABLE (VOL. H., PP. 11-12) OF BETMINISTEA HUNDRED.
BiSHOPWOETH. — Three of the four Saxons, who T. R. E. occupied this Hundred, were evidently persons
of distinction. CoUinson usually supposes Algar to have been the Earl of that name. This is against the
letter of the Exon Domesday, which makes Algar Lord of Bishopsworth, and other Somerset manors, to
have been living at the time of King Edward's death (January, 1066). Algar Earl of Mercia had deceased
long previously.
Herlewin, who held (in 1086) AJgar's estate in Bishopworth, under the Bishop of Coutances, held also
Clapton-in-Gordano in the same succession to Algar and under the same Bishop. The portion of Bishop-
worth thus held by Herlewin in 1086, was afterwards called Bishopworth-Arthur, being held, like Clapton,
by a family named Arthur, perhaps descended from Herlewin.
The portion of Bishopworth held in 1066 by Edric, and in 1086 by Asceline, under the aforesaid Bishop
of Coutances, was afterwards called Bishopworth-Lions. Collinson (ii. 284) has ignored one of the Domesday
manors altogether, and has told that of Azeline's manor, which was proper to Herlewin's.
Knowle and Bishopwoeth were included parochially in Bedminster, a manor of ancient Crovm
demesne, and caput of this Hundred. Manorially, they were not as yet interned therein, at the date of
Bedminsteh, the Royal Manor, or rather the parish which contained the said manor, is now represented
by 4,161 statute acres. Of these, 1,428 acres have been interned in Bristol City, and so are no longer in
Somerset.
Lega (now Abbotts Leigh) is, as a parish, 2,228 acres, and is in the Diocese of Gloucester and Bristol, not
in that of Bath and Wells.
The portion of this territory which, at the date of Domesday, was in the Hundred of Bedminster, was
very small; the bulk thereof was an element of the King's Manor. Both parts of Leigh devolving
eventually on Robert Fitz Hardinge, he gave both to the Augustines of Bristol. Hence the distinctive
name of Abbotts Leigh. At the Dissolution, Abbotts Leigh, which had meanwhile become a Liberty, was
annexed, not to its ancient Hundred and Liberty of Bedminster, but to the Hundred of Portbury. The
phienoiiienon was a comnjoij on? with confiscated church lands,
102 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OF SOMERSET.
The result of all these changes is that we cannot say what proportion of the present parish of Bedminster
(4,161 acres) originally belonged to the King's Manor, nor what to the Hundred. Similarly we have no
means of discerning the Uke proportions in the case of the parish of Abbotts Leigh (2,228 acres). For
Tabular purposes, then, and being compelled to assign a parochial antitype to each Domesday estate, we
assign the whole acreage of Bedminster pariah to the King's Manor, and the whole acreage of Abbotts Leigh
parish and Bishopsworth parish to Bedminster Hundred.
CoMr.iRATivE Measures of the Old Hundred of Beteministra. — The Inquisitional Hidage (a.d. 1084)
was 6J hides. In Domesday it seems to have been unaltered. The more positive measures of Domesday
amount, for the four manors, to 1,160 acres, viz., for 8 plough-lands, 960 acres ; of wood, 97 acres ; of
meadow, 38 acres ; of pasture, 65 acres. This gives 178^ Domesday acres as the equivalent of the Domes-
day Hide, an unusually low proportion ; but in proximity to the City of Bristol the hide would naturally
contract in estimated extent, as it would increase iu relative value. Accordingly, except in Turstin's im-
poverished estate, the Domesday value of each hide of Beteministra Hundred is £1 per annum. This is a
fau- value for any Somerset hide, but it is a high value for a hide of 178J acres.
For the sake of contrasting whole and definite manorial areas with apparently parallel parochial areas we give
a digest of the Domesday measures of Bedminster Hundred and Bedminster (Manor) combined : — •
Hides and
Quasi-Hides.
Plough-
lands.
Arable laud.
Acres.
Wood.
.'Vcvea,
Meadow.
Acres.
Pasture.
Acres.
Total Acres.
(Domesday.)
1100
0034
Parochial Acreages.
Bedminster Hundved
Bedminster Manor
6Jhi(ie3.
20 quasi-liides.
8
20
900
3120
40S0
07
2880
33
3-1
05
f Abbotts Leigh 2228
(Bishopsworth 1637
Bedminster . . . .4101
32} Hides, &c.
34
'.i077
72
03 i 7104 1 8020
Here the Domesday measures are seen to come within 8.32 acres of the measures of modern ascertainment
. — a phainomenon most satisfactory as shemng, where the causes of disagreement were only partial, how
nearly Domesday surveyorship corresponded with our own.
IN HUNDEETO B.VD.E SUNT IIII XS HIDiE ET XV HIDjE (95 HIDES). n. V. F.
Inde habet Rex de gildo suo £10 1 8s. 3d. pro 36 hid. et 1 virg. et dimid 86 1 2
Et Res et BarSnes sui habent in suo dominicatu 43 hidas et ^ virgam.
De his habet Rex 1 hidam in dominio 10
Et Abbas Badensis xxix hidas 29
Et Abbatissa Sti Edwardi iii (supply hidas) 3
Et Arnulf us de Hesdinc iiii (supply hidas) et dimid. vu-gam 4 2
Et Episcopus de Sancto Laudo iii (hidas) 3
Et WUlelmus Hosatus 1 hidam et virgam et dimid 112
Et Radulfus de Bereelaio dimid. hidam 2
Et Alured de Wica 1 hidam et dim. virgam 1 o 2
43 2 43 2
Et non habet Rex gUdum pro 1 hidA et 1 virga quam tenet Robs Greno 1 1
Nee pro 1 hidfi quam tenent VUlani Regis de Estona 1 o
Nee pro 1 virgft quam tenet Sawynus Prajpositua de ArnuU o de Hesdine 1
Nee pro xiii hidis quas tenet Hugoliuus Legatus 13
15 2 15 2
95
Non habuit Rex Gildum de Burgo Bada; quod reddebat geldum pro xx hidis tempore )
Regis Edwardi , , t 20
BATH HUNDRED AND BOROUGH. 103
De hoc. Hundreto etde Burgo Bade sunt adliuc retro Lib. 10 et IS solidi de quibus ("debuisset Kex
habere " corrected) " non habuit Rex Gildum suum."
(And note that £10 13s. at 6 shillings per hide, is the Gheld corresponding to [15^ hides + 20 hide3 = ]
354 hides of land).
NOTES ON THE INQUEST Or BATH HUNDKBD.
The King's estate in this Hundred was 2 hides in Estona (Bath Eiuston), which fell to him on the
death of Queen Edith. Half thereof was in demesne, half in villeinage. The former half (viz., 1 hide) was
exempt from Gheld ; the latter half (also 1 hide) was insolvent hac vice.
The Abbot of Bath's Demesnes in 108i were probably 8J hides in Weston, 5 hides in Bathford,
5| hides in Monkton Combe, 7 hides in Lyncombe, and 2| hides in Charlcombe (together equal to 29 hides).
All these quantities except the last are quoted as Abbatial demesnes in Domesday. The last is quoted as
the demesne of William Hosatus, now the Abbot's Tenant of Charlcombe. (Compare p. 53 supra).
The Abbess 0¥ St. Edwaed (Shaftesbury) appears in Domesday with no possible estate in Bath Hundred.
It is an omission of the great Record, a thing not lightly to be suspected, but nevertheless a fact.
AnsTLF DE Hesdinq's Manor in Bath Hundred was 5 hides in Weston. His demesnes are reduced to
3 hides, 3J virgates in Domesday, while the Provost, Sweyn, his tenant of 1 virg. in 1084, vanishes from the
Survey of 1086. The default and the disappearance were probably due to mortal sickness or death.
The Bishop of St. Lo (or Coutances) had 4 hides in Wica (Bathwiok). His demesne there, in Domesday,
is 3| firtius more than in 1084.
William Hosatus was, independently of his tenure under Bath Abbey, a tenant-in-capite (as a Francus
Tegnm) of 1^ hides inTatewica. His demesne is written in Domesday as only 1 hide 1 virgate, but the
context proves it to have been a half-virgate more, as in 1084 ; for liis ^'illeinage was only half a virgate.
Ralph, beothee of Rooer de Beekeley, stands in Domesday as tenant-in-capite of 2 virgates in Tata
Wica.
Aldred, a Saxon Thane, appears in Domesday as tenaut-iu-capite of 2 hides in Wica, one of which he
held in demesne. The name given to bim in 1084 was from this his estate at Wick (now Bathwick).
Eobeet Geeno's default was probably in respect of land held under Roger de Corcelle. There were at
least three Roberts tenants of Corcelle, viz. Robert Greno, Robert Hereoom, and Robert iitz Herbert.
Except in a few cases they are not mentioned by any name but ' Robertus' in Domesday. Robert Greno's
expressed name only occurs as tenant of Wittochesmeda, which, even if in Bath Hundred, was only a hide
altogether, aud therefore not all the estate to which the Inquest refers. That Wittoohs-meadow was in
Bath Hundred, its high value would suggest. We may further suggest that the Robertus who held a half-
hide in Freshford under De Corcelle was Robert Greno.
HuQOLlNUS Lbgatus appears as Hugolinus Interpres in Domesday. As a Francus Tegnus he held in capite
9 hides in WooUey, Bath-Easton, and Claverton. He also, as Hugo Interpres, holds 3 hides in Bathhampton
under the Abbot of Bath. It is clear that his tenures had diminished by one hide since 1084, and moreover
that his default at the earlier period arose in his rendering no Gheld- account at all, neither satisfying
liabihties nor claiming exemptions. To the latter he was certainly entitled in respect of 4^ hides held in
demesne.
The Burgh of Bath had been T. R, E. geldable as 20 hides. The Fegadri of the Hundred seem to have
been in doubt as to whether it was still assessable ; so they corrected their first statement, that the Gheld
was a due, by a statement that they had not received it. This assessment on the Burgh of Bath will be
more fully discussed in the sequel.
notes on the table (vol., n. pp. 13-14) of bath hundred and borough.
Babe Caput Abbatlb, that is, Caput of the Abbacy and site of the Abbey. Twenty-four burgages, the
Abbey MUl, and twelve acres of meadow, formed the whole estate. It had no hidage, neither nominal nor
actual, and was ingeldable. The annual value (£2) consisted entirely of the Burgage-rents (£1), and the
MiU (£1). The meadow therefore was appurtenant to the MiU.
Wica. — In the third estate the Bishop of Coutances's demesne is expressed as " ili. hid., xi. agri." These
were gheld acres, eleven whereof were equal to 3| fertines.
Bath. — The several parishes into which Bath is now divided are said to contain (3348 -^ 186 =) 3534
104 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OF SOMERSET.
acres of land. They i-epresent, in area, the estates of Lyneombe, Widcombe, three Eathwicks, and Walcot,
all given in the above Table. They further include the area of the old Burgh, and of 12 acres of the Abbot's
fee which were probably in the Burgh. The exaoter measures recorded in Domesday for the same territory
exclusive of the Burgh, amount to 2347 acres. The difference (1187 acres) should therefore go to the credit
of the Domesday Burgh, or its suburban Liberties. There were 17 Domesday hides in the Hundredal
territory, and these, if taken to be represented by 2347 statute acres, give about 138 acres as the correlative
of the hide in the vicinity of Bath.^
Tadwick. — The three Saxon Thanes anteceding William Hosee are said to hold pariier. Their collective
tenure is half a virgate short of the total held by Hosee. The demesne of the latter is given as 1 hide,
1 virgate, 1 fertin in Domesday. It should be 1, 1, 2, as in the Table. The acreage (845) given in the last
column to Tadwick is that of Tadwick and Swainswick combined. Swainswick is not in Domesday. Its
hidage was involved in that of some neighbouring manor.
FiHFOEDA. — Fesohefoeda. — Wdewica. — Here we note first the Domesday variety in expressing the same
name, Freshford ; next how Eoger de Corcelle, holding 2 parts of Freshford in capite, became the
Bishop of Coutances's tenant in h, third and greater part, where he is called Roger Witen ; lastly, how
Roger Witen's half-mill in Freshford balances Ralph Planbard's half -mill in Woodwiok, close to Freshford.
Woodwick as a vill and parish is now destroyed. Its site is in Freshford, where fields called " Woodward's "
preserve some trace of the name.
However, the present parish of Freshford, though including "Woodward, does not include one half of the
area of the four Domesday Manors. Unquestionably the said manors were inclusive of South-Stoke, now
a parish of 860 acres which has no representation in Domesday unless so included. Of this the Table
takes due account.
Iford (says Collinson), though in Freshford Parish, is in the County of Wilts. This question we have
ah-eady discussed {supj-a p. 17). It is of no relevance to our ]present calculations.
Kelston, alias Kelweston, is a manor which we pronounce, with good waiTant, to have been omitted in the
Somerset Domesday. — Domesday gives to the Abbess of Shaftesbury but one Somerset Manor, viz., "Come."-
"Come" is incontestably Combe Abbas, formerly in Milborne, now in Horethorn Hundred ; and the Inqui-
.sioio-Gheldi alludes to this estate of the Abbess in its proper place, viz., in the Milborne Inquest. But the
Inquisicio also alludes to a manor in Bath Hundred wherein the Abbess had " three hides of demesne.''
No such manor is registered in Dcmusday I It was omitted in error. This omitted manor was Kelston.
If there is no other evidence, save this of the Gheld Inquest, that the Abbess held Kelston before Domes-
day, that evidence is sufficient, especially when we find ample testimony that she continued to hold it till
the Dissolution.
The hidage which, in the Table, is assigned to Kelston is five hides. It is arbitrarily assigned ; but the
present acreage of the parish, the extent of the demesne in 1084, and the necessity of finding five hides to
complete the Hundred of 95 hides, as announced by the Inquest of 1084, all favour such an assumption.
Noeth-Stoke, South-Stoke, St. Catherines, and Walcot, are none of them mentioned by name in
Domesday. But, as we have said, Walcote was, as to its area, implied in one or other of the Domesday
Manors which are now involved with Bath ; and South-Stoke, as to its area, went to augment the Domesday
areas of Freshford ; so we say, of North Stoke and St. Catherines, that their hidage was implied in some of
the Domesday Manors which figure in the first column of the Table. On these accounts and to balance any
such quantities of exceptional hidage we insert in the last column of the Table 2683 acres of parochial
measurement in addition to the quantities otherwise assigned to parishes of a known Domesday type. By
no other device can we bring the gross hidage of a given Hundred into fair comparison with the gross
modern acreage of the same ten-itory.
1 This calculation as to the equivalent of the liide in a small and definite district is quite exceptional. The equivalent
expands the moment that the calculation embraces a laa-ger area of exijeriment. Such calculations are useless therefore for the
more general investigations which we shall presently have to pursue.
But the exception is, in its way, most remarkable. It is an instance of what (Doraet, i>p. 11-12) we have called Supcrh Idation^
viz., that estates situate in .luy favouied locality were hidated fl6 antltjuo according to an extrinsic value, not according to
their specific extent or fertility.
BATH HUNDKED AND BOROUGH. 105
EsTONA. This estate of the late Queen Edith, though geldable as to two hides, in 1084 and 1086, had
T. R. E. been geldable as one hide. Domesday gives no value, for this estate, but says " Hse ii hidje fuerunt
de dominica firmi Burgi Badte die quS, Rex Edwardus fuit vivus et mortuus, et nunc sunt." This has
nothing to do with liability to gheld. It means that Queen Edith having in her day had the Burgh of
Bath, had received a fee-farm rent for the same, and that the fee-farm rent of her estate of Bath-Easton had
been included therein, and that this ari'angement -continued under King William's possessorship of both
estates.
Hamtona (Bathhampton). — Here we have a Domesday Manor and a modern parish in apparent coincidence.
The Domesday Manor measures 908 acres (viz., 720 acres of plough-land, 100 acres of wood-land, 28 acres of
meadow, and 60 acres of pasture). Add to this as a supposed proportion of waste, ii acres, and we have
the modern parish of 932 acres. The proportions of Domesday-value average £1. 2s. for each hide, 18s. 4d.
for each plough-land, and the same for each team in employ.
WiTOCHESMEDA (White-ox-mcadow or Wittooks meadow). — This estate, topographically in the Parish of
Wellow and the Domesday Hundred of Frome, will nevertheless have been, at Domesday, a member of Bath
Hundred. We place it therefore in the Table of Bath Hundred ; and this will satisfy what has been already
said about Robert Greno, and the certainty that he held at least 1^ hides, and probably 1^ hides, in Bath
Hundred, vvhile his tenement in Freshford was only half a hide. Robert Greno, it will be observed, was in
each ease (Freshford and White-ox-mead) the Tenant of Roger de CorceUe ; but in that Baron's Domesday
Schedule no less than seven pages of the Exon Codex separate the notices of the two estates. In the same
Codex, and opposite the notice of WUochesmeda is a marginal mark, like a reversed note of interrogation.
Perhaps this mark indicated the Rubrioator's consciousness that in placing this estate among Roger de
Corcelle's manors of Prome Hundred, he was adopting a geographical rather than a Hundredal arrangement.
Bath Foetjm Hundred. — Liberty op Hampton onM Claveeton. — These two modern Divisions ostensibly
contain all that the old Hundred of Bada contained, except the Vill of White-ox-mead, now annexed by
parochial attraction to Wellow and the Hundred of WeUow, which Hundred is merely a subdivision of the
old Hundred of Frome.
These same modern divisions contain, what the old Hundred of Bada did not contain, viz.. Queen Edith's,
afterwards King WiUiam's, Burgh of Bada.
The area of the same modern divisions, measured parish by parish, is 19,665 statute acres. Domesday
gives what we call positive measures of all corresponding manors, but not of the Burgh. These manorial
measurements of Domesday imply 15,341 statute acres, to which we venture to add 1095 acres, as the
proximate measures of Kelston (omitted in error by Domesday). Thus we get 16,436 acres as the measure
of the aforesaid manors, prescribed, if not by Domesday, yet by Domesday supplemented and corrected.
The difference then between the two measurements, ancient and modern, is (19665 - 16,436 =) 3,229 acres.
This difference of 3,229 acres we are obHged by our theories to conclude to have been about the measure
of lands attached to the King's Burgh of Bath, of which lands Domesday gives no details whatever, neither
plough-laud, wood, meadow, nor pasture. It is conceived (see p. 104) that some 1187 acres of this Burghal
land may have been adjacent to the Borough and of valuable consideration. The rest may have consisted
of wood-land, or pasturage, in any part of the modern Hundred of Bath Forum or the modern Liberty of
Hampton cum Claverton.
In part anticipation of a future question we may here state that the Burgh of Bath may possibly have
had appendages, other than those above alluded to. If any probability of that kind should hereafter arise,
we shall have to bear in mind that those'possible appendages must have been external, must have been in
other Hundreds, and can. have constituted no part of the 3229 acres which we have found to have been
locally within the same limits as the modem Hundred and City.
HiDATiON OP Bath, and Bath Hundred. — On this matter the Inquisicio and Domesday, correcting or
confirming one another, give us more precise information than in the matter of positive measurements.
They tell us that the Burgh was geldable at 20 hides ; that the Hundred contained 95 hides.
If the Burghal lands be taken, as above, at 3229 modem acres, then the co-ordinate of the Burghal hide
is 161 J acres. If the Hundredal lands be taken at (19,665 - 3229 =) 16,438 modern acres, then the
correlative of the Hundredal hide is 173 acres. If both Burgh and Hundred together are represented by
19,665 modem acres, then the coiTclative of each hide is 171 acres. Now the highest of these acreages
106 THE SOMEESET DOMESDAY. — THE HUKDREDS OP SOMERSET.
(173 acres) is but a low co-ordinate for the hide of any extensive district of Somerset. However, the
district in question was rich, with comparatively little of brushwood or pasturage, except such as has been
oonjeoturally assigned to the Burgh of Bath. It was a district, in short, of 19,665 Domesday acres, whereof
12,840 acres, or perhaps 14,027 acres, were arable land, and 364 acres were certainly meadow.
But the acreage (16H acres) co-ordinate with the Burghal hide was most extraordinarily low, especially
when we reflect that it results from a supposition of involving much wood and pasture. And, more than
that, the hidage prescribed for any estate of Queen Edith would be ordinarily presumed to have been
a privileged hidage, that is, to have involved a very large instead of a very small acreage.
So that, at length and at best, we are but in a dilemma. Either the Domesday hidage of the Burgh of
Bath was a fiction as to land, and represented local wealth and trade, rather than territory ; or else, if
genuine as to land, it was also large as to proportionate acreage and must have contemplated some territory
which lay in other Hundreds. The probability of the latter wUl appear in future remarks on Frome
Hundred and on the Manors of Wellow and Kilmersdon.
The tabular form in which (Vol. ii, pp. 13-14) we still further abbreviate the few particulars given in
Domesday about the Borough of Bath will be best supplemented by the full Domesday entry and some an-
notations thereon. The entry in question runs as follows : —
" Ten'a Editdce Rerjince in Sumeraetd. — Rex hdbet unum Burgum quod vacatur Bade quod tenuit Eaditda
Regina die qua Rex Edwardus fuU vivus et mortuus j et reddidit gddum pro xx hidis quando Vicecomitatus
gildabat. Ihi liabet Rex Ixiv Burgenses qui reddunt per annum iv Libras. Et Barones Regis hahent C.
Burgenses, x minus ; qui reddunt per annum huic Burgo Ix solidos. Ibi habet rex vi domus vastatas. Cum
prosdictd Estond reddit per annum Burgum istud Ix libras ad numerum et unam marcam auri ; et Edwardus
Vicecomes reddit de teraio denario hujus Burgi xi Libras de xx in ord. Exceptis his Ix Libi'is et MarcA Auri
quas supradiximus, reddunt Burgenses 0. solidos de Monetd, De prcedicto Burgo est ablat(i una domus quam
tenet Hugo Intei'pres, et valet, per annum ii solidos. (Exon Domesday, p. 106/
Reddidit geldum pro xx hidis quando Vicecomitatus geldabat. The reputed hidage of King Edward's time
still obtained in 1084, when the Gheld-coUectors of the Hundred treated the Gheld which they supposed to
be due on the Burgh as an arrear. The fact probably was that the Hidage-gheld had already been com-
muted for the fee-farm rent recorded in Domesday, viz., £60 (by tale) and one merk of gold (equal to
£6 13s. 4d.) The word Vicecomitatus in this passage means the County of Somerset exclusive of the Vetus
Dominicum Ooronce. The Exchequer Domesday substitutes the word Scira for Vicecomitatus,
Ibi habet Rex Ixio Burgenses, d)C. The King had 64 Burgesses in Bath ; his Barons had 90. The Burgage
rents quoted in the Text were payable, in the first instance, to the Borough-Reeve. They were not trans-
mitted by him to the Grown except as part and parcel of the Firma Burgi, viz., £63 6s. 8d.
The Terdus Denarius of Bath, here spoken of, had been due in Queen Edith's time to some Comital Manor
not specified in Domesday. It indicates that Bath still retained, while in Queen Edith's hands, that high
jurisdiction, that right to try Crovm-Pleas, which can only have accrued to the Burgh while in the hands of
a King. It was the third of the Crown-Pleas of both the Borough and Hundred of Bath, and if we guess
aright, of other Hundreds also. It was now (a.d. 1086) payable by a great Officer of State to the King, the
King being Comes by Escheat of Earl Harold.
Edwardus Vioeoomes, the Officer in question, was Edward de Sahsbury, Sheriff of Wiltshire at the date
of Domesday. It by no means follows from his payment of the third-penny of Bath that Edward de Salis-
bury was farming the Burgh at the date of Domesday. . More probably his function was the administration
of High Justice in several great local Courts. In Wiltshire he was responsible to the King, as to the Earl,
for the tercius denarius arising from such great Coutts, at Salisbury, at Marlborough, at Cricklade, and at
Malmesbury, none of which places were under Ms jurisdiction as Fermor, nor yet as Sheriff. And
curiously enough, his responsibility as regarded the Tercius Denarius of Bath (Bade) is entered in duplicate,
as £11, and promiscuously with his Wiltshire liabilities ; nay, this Tercius Denarius of Bath was nearly
double that arising from Salisbury or from M almesbury, the two most productive of the Wiltshire Courts.
Reddunt Burgenses centum solidos de Monetd. — This was extra to the Firma Burgi. The Burgesses paid
the King £5 per annum for the privilege of coining money. There was, at the date of Domesday, no other
licensed mint in Somerset save that at Bath.
Hugo Interpres, elsewhere called Hugolinus Interprea and Ilugolimis Legatus, — evidently a diplomatic
BEMPSTONE HUNDRED. 107
officer of the Crowu. He had withdrawn one Borough-house or Burgage from contribution to the civic
assessments. It was a valuable House, worth more than any other Burgage instanced in the Somerset Domes-
day. The withdrawal was a wrong to the community, not a pourpi-esture on the__Crowu.
THK IMQUISIOIO-GUELDI (a.D. 1084) POIl BEMPSTONE HUNDRED. (iNQ.-QHBLDI, PP. 69-70).
In Hundreto Bimastans sunt xUij hidaj at iij fertini (43 hid. 3 fert).
lude Rex (habet) de Gildosno £9 ISs. (read 14s.) 3d. pro
Et Barones Regis habent in domiuio suo x hid. et dim. (10 hid. 2 vir g.)
Dehishabet Episcopus Giso v hidas et iii vu-gas in domiuio 5
Et Walscinus de Duaco ii hid. et iii vu-g 2
Et Letaoldus ii hidas quas tenet de Abbate Glastingberiensi quM nunquam gildaverunt
II.
V.
1'.
32
1
2
5
3
2
3
2
10
2
1
10
2
U
1
2
1
43
Pj
Non habet Rex geldum pro virg. et dim. (should be, consistently, 1 virg. et 1 fert.) quas
tenet Rogerusde Corscella
De Hoc Hundreto sunt adhue retro "18 denarii" de Gildo Regis quae debent esse redditi. (But, if we
take the text of the Inquest, the true arrear was 2s. 3d. ; and if we change the textual IJ virgates to the
constructive LJ virgates, which are necessary to tally with the premises, still the correlative arrear would
be Is. lO^d., or 4id. more than is alleged).
There is a Supplementary Inquest to the above, taken apparently on 8 hides, 1 virgate of laud, which the
Thanes of Walscinus de Douai alleged to pertain to Bimastane Hundred. This secondary Inquest, when cast
into form, will warrant the following Table : —
Praiter supradictas £9 14s. (sic) 3d. persolverunt adhuc homines Walscini de Duaco in i
hoc Hundreto xxvii (read xxxvii) soUdos et 6 denarios pro vi hidis et i virga j 6 1
Et Walterus (i. e. Walscinus) habet, praeter has, hidam et dimidiam in domiuio 12 12
Et nou habet Rex gildum pro dimidia hidft de etldem terrtl quam tenet Rainewalo de ■
Waltero (de Duaco) jO 2 2
1
To this should have been added some such words as the following, but they are omitted.
" Ideo de hjlc terrfl sunt adhuc retro 3 solidi de Gildo Regis." The actual Inquest concludes with the
following misarranged, but intelligible, sentence ;—
" Hanc terram qui tenent Walscini dicunt Tagni pertinere in Hundreto Bimestanre." (The Thanes of
Walscinus who hold this land aver it to belong to Bempstone Hundred).
NOTES ON THE INQDISICIO-OHELDI OP BEMPSTONE HUNDRED.
Bishop Giso's estate in Bimastane Hundred was Wedmore (10 hides). Though its value at the date of
Domesday was £17 per annum, he sometime paid a yearly rent of £12 to the Royal Manor of Cheddar.
But the Bishop had held it (free) under King Edward (Exon Domesday, p. 82). Domesday lowers the
Bishop's demesnes in Wedmore from 6| hides to 4^ hides.
Walter DE Douai's 2| hides of demesne were in Weare (6 hides). Domesday gives him 3i hides of
demesne in that manor.
The specialities op the Glastonbury estate of 2 hides had all vanished before Domesday. The
Abbot had no such tenant as Letaoldus. Edingworth was in 1086 held by Walter de Douai under the
Abbot. The non-liability to Gheld is no longer predicated for its 2 hides in Domesday.
The estate, intelligibly written lodena Wirda in the text of the Exon Domesday, is misoorrected into
Lodena in the margin. The same mistake of reading the Domesday I as L has been enacted by the printers
of the Exchequer Domesday. They spell the name as Lodenwrde. (For other instances of this error see
Antiq. Shropsh. vii. 50 n., x, 207).
108 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OF SOMERSET.
ROGEE DE ConOELLE's demesne at Bodeslega is actually measured in Domesday as 14 virgates, held under
Glastonbury Abbey. So the Inquest was right in stating the same measure of his liability, but wi'ong in
lowering the said measure in its constructive account, and still more wrong in lowering his arrear to 18d.
Walter de Douai's IJ hides of demesne were 1 hide in Brean and half a hide in Burnham. What con-
stituted the 6i hides of his Vassals' estate in this supplementary Hundred does not appear. We should sug-
gest, — in Burneham, 3 hides ; in Brean, 1 hide ; in East Huntspil, 3 virgates ; in Huish, 2 virgates, and in
Alston Maris, 1 liide ;— togethei", ej hides. All these estates, except East Huntspil and Alston Maris, have,
since Domesday, been -retained in the Hundred of Bempstone. At some time or other, East Huntspil and
Alston Maris have gone, seemingly by parochial attraction, into the Hundred of Huntspil and Puriton. (Conf.
Collinson, ii, 393).
Rainewalo's arrear was in respect of a half -hide, which he held in demesne out of 2 hides, which he held
collectively, in Walter de Douai's Manor of Burneham.
IT Instead of the collective hidages of the Inquest (viz., 51 hides, 1 virgate, 3 fertines), we can only find
Domesday elements to reaUse 50 hides, 3 virgates, 3 fertines, and 2 gheld-acres, for Bimastane Hundred.
NOTES ON THE TABLE (VOL. II, Pr. 13-14) OF -BIMASTANE HUNDRED.
Op Wedmoee, as held by Bishop Giso in fee-farm, and as a member of the Royal Manor of Cheddar, there
is (Exon Domesday, p. 82) this alternative statement : — " De li9,c mansione (viz., Cedra) tenet Giso Episcopus
unum membrum quod vocatur Wetmora. Pro isto computat Willelmus Vicecomes (William de Moione) xii
libras in quoque anno, in firma Regis (de Cedra). Sed Episcopus tenuit de Rege Edwardo longo tempore
ante obitum Regis Edwardi."
The Bishop's holding Wedmore by a rent of £12 per annum was, of course, a very different thing to his
holding the Manor in ca/pite, per Baroniam. The Domesday Commissioners merely state the two sides of the
question ; — the precedent, a« against the actual practice. They pronounce no decision. " Preeter hoc " (that
is, besides the measured areas of plough-land, wood-land, meadow, and pasture), " sunt ibi morse qua; nihil
reddunt." Here is a fine illustration of one phfcnomenon of the Somerset Domesday, viz., that where a manor
contained vast areas of utterly profitless territory, such areas are in no wise included in the exacter mea,sures
registered in the Survey. Of that we have said much already {supra, pp. 38-39), and shall say more anon
{infra, pp, 109, 110).
Clive-Waea. — Long before the Conquest, the Abbot of Glastonbury had both Wedmore and Clewer by gift
of St. Wilfrid, Archbishop of York. The Abbey lost these estates soon after, and Wedmore was for some time
in the Crown. The Abbey, though it never recovered Clewer nor Wedmore, got a grant from King Edwy of
the Manor of Panborough, then a member of Wedmore, and containing 2 hides. Such a manor will have
comprised not only Panborough itself, but North Load (also in Wedmore parish), and, unless North- Load re-
present the",Domesday Bodeslega, some additional territory in Wedmore parish, which Domesday calls ' Bodes-
lega,' When Panborough-Isle (only a few acres) was, on account of its vineyards, annexed to the Abbatial
demesne of Glastonbury, it passed perforce into the Hundred of Glastonbury Twelve-hides, where it still
remains ; but " Bodeslega " and whatever, besides Long-Load, may be represented in the name " Bodeslega,''
was still in Bimastane Hundred at the date of Domesday. Collinson (Vol. i, p. 40) wiU have Bodeslega to be
Butleigh, but the Domesday name of Butleigh is Boduccheleia, as we shall see in the sequel. One might
perhaps accept Bagley, in Wedmore parish, as the representative of the Domesday " Bodeslega ;" but one can-
not find that Bagley was a Glastonbury fee at any post-Domesday period. CoHinson, by the way, bestows (Vol
i, p. 187) upon Bagley in Wedmore the Domesday note which was , proper to Bagley in Exford. It is better
v?orth notice that the Exchequer Domesday gives to " Bodeslega " only 3 virgates ; but the Exon Domesday,
by coeval correction, says iiii virgates. The latter is, of course, the more correct ; only, had the scribe earlier
discovered the true state of the case, he would have written " i hide " rather than " iiii virgates."
Maek, at the date of Domesday, constituted an unnamed portion of Bishop Giso's Manor of Wedmore, by
which it had been previously absorbed. This estate of Mark, probably little less than moor-land {i. e., marsh-
land), had, nevertheless, been named and defined long before Domesday. The connexion, or rather distinc-
tion, between Wedmore and Mark, is curiously shown in two ancient Deeds (see Monasticon ii, 287, Numm,
vi & vii). —
aiiiMPSTONJE HUNDltED. 105
Circa 1060-1065, "King Edward greets Harold, Earl ; Ailnod, Abbot(of Glastonbury); and Tovid, Sheriff" (of
Somerset), apprising them that he, the King, has given to Bishop Giso for behoof of the Church and Clergy
of St. Andrew at Wells, the land of Wedmore, " adeo plene et libere siout unquam plenius mihi manu stetit."
In A.D. 1066, the Lady Edith, widow of King Edward, greets the" Hundred of Wedmore,'' and certifies
that she has given to Bishop Giso, in support of the canons of the same church, the land of " Merke," "ita
plene et libere sicut mihi plenius manu stetit " — for the soul of King Edward and her own soul.
Tliat Wedmore, passing from the Crown to Bishop Giso should become a Hundred before the Conquest is
not remarkable ; — that, as such a Hundred, it should have included an estate of Queen Editli, is curious ; that
Queen Edith, " on the day of King Edward's death," held such an estate as Mark is a fact which Domesday,
unwontedly, omits.
Alwabditona (Chapel Allerton). — This was a case of excessive hidation. The measured contents of the
tlu-ee manor's here combined were only 1300 acres (viz., 960 acre.s of plough-land, 40 acres of meadow, and
300 acres of pasture). This leaves only 118 acres of profitable land to the gheld-hide. What extent of
moor and waste may liave attached to the three manors does not appear. Nor does the present extent of the
parish (^^z., 1169 acres) say mucli more than that the ancient manor-land was considerably, and perhaps
indefinitely, greater.
HECunviOOA, ahas Eoewiche. — The Gheld measure of this manor is expressed in Domesday as " 1 virga
et dimidia et \m. agri ;" a curious form of saying " 2 virga; et 2 agri."
The place is obsolete as to name and site. Its inclusion in Bempstoue Hundred is suggested by its
preceding Alesistune (Alston Maris) in Domesday.
HuNESi'iL. — Walter "de Douai's two virgates of demesne in (East) Huntspil seem to have been geldant in
1084. We infer the intermediate assumption of so much land by the Lord, and the surrender of a previous
tenant. Converaely, in Huntspil proper, Walter de Douai paid gheld on a whole hide in 1084, but U
accredited with half thereof, as demesne, in Domesday.
BiMASTANE Hundred. — The annual rents and values of estates in this Hundred had amounted to £68 16s.
at pericjds antecedent to Domesday, when they had fallen to £58 5s.
IT It would seem that the old Hundred of Bimastane was foi-med chiefly with the object of concentrating
the tenures of Walter de Douai, both those which he held in capite of the Crown, and those which he held,
contiguously, under Glastonbury Abbey. The Seigneuiy of the Hundred appeal's to have accrued rather to
the Episcopal Lords of Wedmore than to have remained with any of the successors of Walter de Douai.
However, the old and long-continued tiysting-place of the Hundred was a, monolith in Chapel-AJlerton
Parish ; and Chapel- Allei-ton was, at the date of Domesday, a member of De Douai's Baronial Fief.
Bempstone Hbudbed, besides the Parishes whose names associate them with certain Domesday Manois,
involves the Parishes of Theale (3000 acres), of Biddisham (574 acres), and of Mark (4494 acres). None of
these places have any distinctive notice in Domesday, and it may be doubted whether, as Vills or Manors,
Theale and Biddisham had any so early recognition. Manorially and territorially all were implied in
Bishop Giso's Manor of Wedmore, whicli Manor, at that rate, is now represented by 18,054 statute acres,
less some fourteen or fifteen hundred acres, which, though in Wedmore Parish, formed the independent
Manors of Clewer and North-Load (perhaps the Bodeslega of Domesday).
To coiTespond mth this Manor of Wedmore, containing, let us say, 16,600 statute acres, Domesday states
measured areas of no more than 4560 acres, viz., plough-laud 4320 acres (for 36 plough-lands) ; wood 50
acres ; meadow 70 acres ; pasture 120 acres. But Domesday adds to this statement the striking clause —
'■ Prseter hoc sunt ibi moras quae nihil redduut."
So then Domesday is practically silent about the extent of some twelve thousand acres of marshes (then
and still called Moors), which environed the looaKties now known as Wedmore, Biddisham, and Mark, and
wliich, though utterly worthless, belonged to the Episcopal Manor of Wedmore. The whole or great part
of this marsh-land is still known as Mark-moor.
IT The comparative measures of the whole Hundred of Bimastane (now Bempstone) will supply a parallel
illustration of the rule thus supphed for investigating certain very remarkable phscnomena of the Somerset
Domesday. The said measures are as follows ; —
The Inquisitional Hidage of the Hundred was (a.d. 1084) 51 hides, 1| vii-gates. The Domesday Hidage
(a.d. 1086) was 50 hides, 3J virgates, and 2 gheld acres. The Domesday measures of the constituent
ilO THE SOMEESET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OF SOMERSET.
manors amount to 14,676 acres, viz., for 1074 plough-lands, 12,900 acres ; of -vvood-lancl, 74 acres ; of
meadow-land, 562 acres ; and of pasture-land, 1140 acres.
The recently measured areas of the Parishes constituting nearly the same Hundred are 32,972 acres.
The discrepancy between the Domesday and modern measures of this Hundred is 18,296 acres, or
considerably more than half the Hundred. We may be sure that it was, as in the special case of Wedmore,
marsh-land or other profitless area.
The Domesday Hide will be found, in this instance, to coincide with about 288 acres of Domesday
measurement, and with 646^ acres of modem ascertainment.
IT The annual value of Bempstone Hundred had fallen from £68 16s. to £58 5s. within the twenty years
preceding Domesday. At the latter period it was at the rate of about £1 2s. lOd. per hide and of '9625
decimals of one penny per Domesday acre : also at the rate of 10s. lOd. each, when calculated on the
plough-lands of the Hundred.
IKQUiaiOIO OHBLDI (a.D, 1084) FOR BRUNBTONB HUNDRED, OTHERWISE CALLED THE HUNDRED OF BRUNETONE
VICBCOiUTIS, AND LATER STILL THE HUNDRED OR MANOR OF BROMPTON RALPH.
In Hundreto Brunetona3 sunt 5 hideo. (Inq. Gheldi, p. 69). H. v. F.
Inde habuit Rex de Gildo suo 24 sohdos pro 4 hides 4
Pro dimidiil hida. quam tenet Ogisus ignorans quod debet Gildum reddere nou habct i
Rex Gildum suum jO 2
Pro dimidiil hida, de qua, f egadri reoeperunt denarios non habuit Rex gildum suum 2
10 10
"^""''^'^ 5 " ~0
De hoc Hundreto sunt retro adhnc 6 solidi de Gildo Regis (which, at 6 shillings per hide, is the charge ou
the insolvent items).
NOTES ON THE GHELD INQUEST OF SHERIFf'.S-BROMPTON HUNDRED.
In this instance, better perhaps than many, we are enabled, with the aid of Domesday, to show the
precise incidence of the gheld-tax on a limited area.
The whole hundred was 5 hides, and, whereas none of it was held by any Baron in demesne, evei-y hide
and part of a hide was geldable in a.d. 1084. Of the 5 hides, 4 J hides paid their gheld, that is Turgisus, and
his Villeins paid £1 Is. for the gheld due ou 3J hides in Brompton ; and Ogisus and his Villeins paid 6s.
due on 1 virgate of demesne, and 3 virgates of Villeinage (together one hide), in Clatworthy. And the
remaining half -hide, though geldable, did not pay gheld, for Ogisus, part of whose demesne it was, was
not aware of the liability. Probably it was part of his estate, which, while in the Abbot of Glastonbury's
hands, had been ingeldable by prescription. AVhen church-lands were usurped by laymen, at the Norman
Conquest, it frequently happened that prescriptive privilege ceased to enhance the value of the spoil.
As to the Gheld on a half-hide, retained by the Fegadri, though received, it was part of the pay^ment by
Turgisus and his Villeins. It was probably retained by the Fegadri as their own fee for collecting the
Gheld in this and some other Hundred.
NOTES ON THE TABLE (VOL. II, PP. 13-14) OF SHERIFF's-BROHPTON HUNDRED.
The Hundred of Bkunetone had as its Lord, in 1084 and 1086, William de Moione, then Sheriff of
Somerset. Hence it was called, in a coeval Index of Somerset Hundreds, the Hundred of Brunetone A'icc-
comitis. And this was further to distinguish it from the then recognized Hundred of Bruneton Regis, now
represented chiefly by the Manor of King's-Brompton.
The Hundred of Brunetone Vicecomitis came subsequently to be called the Hundred of Brompton Raljih.
This was from Ralph de Moione, a descendant of the Domesday Lord. Both these Hundreds, Brompton
Regis, and Brompton Ralph, have long been absorbed by the Hundred of Wilhfon and Free-Manors. One
principal featux'e in the two manors of this Hundred is that, since the seizin of AVilliaui de Moione, their
value had doubled.
The Comparative Measures of this Hundred were as follows ; — Domesday seems to concur with the
Inquest of 1084 in a liidage of 5 hides. The exacter measures of Domesday give a total of 2696 acres, viz,
SHUTOiSr HUJfDRED. 11 L
for 19 plough-lauds, 2280 acres ; of wood, 45 acres ; of meadow, 11 acres ; of pasture, 360 acres. Here
then, the hide concurs with 539 acres of Domesday measurement, — a proof merely of beneficial hidation.
The actual area of the two modern parishes which we next compare with the two Domesday Manors is 5538
acres, i. c, more than double the Domesday measures. This discrepancy arises, in part, from the parish of
Clatworthy containing two estates, Syudercombe and Middleton, which were by no means in Sheriffs-Bromp-
ton Hundred, but iu the Domesday Hundred of Williton. And the Domesday measures of these two
estates were llSi acres more.
Yet still, and besides all this, there can be no doubt that tlie.'se parishes contain some sixteen or seven-
teen hundred acres, which at the date of Domesday were counted into the King's Forests of West Somerset.
In our Tables we take small account of these exceptional oases ; that is, whereas we measure the whole
parochial areas as iu Sheriff's-Brompton Hundred, so we measure the exceptional hidage and acreage of Syn-
dercombe and Middleton as in the Domesday Hundred of Williton.
INQUISrOIO-QHELDI (a.D. 1084) FOE BHUTON HUNDBED, (iNQ. -OHELM, p. 74.)
In Hundreto Briwetonse sunt cc hida: et xxxij (232 hides). hid. v. f.
Inde Bex habet de Gildo suo £50 2 solidos pro 167
Bai'oues Regis habeut iu dominio suo xxx hid. et x-ii liid. et dim. hid. et dim. virgam 37 2 2
De his habet Willelmus (de Moione) Vicecomes 6 3
Drogo (habet) dim. i-jr^r. (read 7tM.) et iii f ertinos 2 3
Turstin, filius RoUe (habet) iv hidas 4
Serlo de Burceio (habet) ni hidas 3
Hunfridus Camerarius (habet) i hidam 1
Edmundus (flhus Pagaai, Francus Tegnus) habet 2 hid. 1 virg. et dim 2 1 2
EsceUnus (Francus Tegnus) habet 1 hid. 1 virg. et dim 112
Walterus da Badentona " {alibi Walscinus de Doai) " habet vii hid. iii virg. et dim 7 3 2
Hugo de Valtort (habet) 1 hid. iii virg 1 3
'"'Comitissa Bolonise" (habet) " ii hid. iii wg." 2 3
Alurious (Alurio f. Brictric, Anglus Tegnus) 5 hid. et dim. hid. et dim. virg 5 2 2
Hardinc (Harding fil, Elnod, Anglus Tegnus) 1 virg. et iii fert 1 3
37 2 2
Et Lanbertus de Watilela adquietavit 1 hidam teuementum Fegadrorum 1
Et non habet Rex GUdum suum de i hida quam tenet Raunewal 1
De ii hidis quas tenet Turstinus filius Rolfi 2
De iv Hdis quas Radulfus " hastent " (RaduUus Has tenet ?) 4
De iv hidis quas tenet Britellus 4
-Dei hida quam tenet Willelmus de Radio (Willelmus de Radulf o ?) 1
De i hida quam tenet Gonsel (Gonsehnus de la Riviere) 10
De virgli et dimidiil quam tenet Drogo de Monte Acuto 12
De dimidia liida " q etona " (qua; est in Cillemetonft ?) 2
De i hida et iii virg. et i fert. quas tenet Isaac 13 1
De i hida .... et dimid. (i hid. et i virg. et dimidia ?) quas tenet Hugo de Valtort 112
De dim. virgft quam tenet Eiiieis 2
De i hid. et dimid. quam tenet Willelmus de DurvUl
De iii hidis quas tenet Algarus de Haltona non reddidit gildum in hoc Hundreto . , .
Et de v hidis quas tenet Malgerus non reddit gildum in hoc Hundreto
Et de i virga et iii fertinis de quibua Fegadri nescierunt reddere rationem non habot
Rex Gildum
27 2 27 2
IS
2
3
8
5
1
3
232 3
De hoc Hundreto debentur Regl de Gildo suo £8 2s. 9d. Note.-This arrear of £8 2s, 9d. is, at the rate of
112 THE SOMEESET DOMESDAY. — THE HUI^DEEDS OF SOMERSET.
6 shilliugs per hide, exactly proportionate to 27 hides 2 fertines, the sum of the nonsolvent items.. Note
also, that though the Fegadri, at the head of the account, announced the Hundred of Bruton to consist
of 232 hides, the details of their account show that it contained 232-| hides.
NOTES ON THE GHELD INQUEST OF BRUTON HUNDRED.
William de Moionb's exemption is for 6 hides of demesne in Bnweham, and for 3 virgates also ; the
latter being an additamentum to Brewham, all of which he occupied as demesne.
Drogo de Montacute's exemption on 2f virgates was for his demesne at Knowle (in Shepton Montague).
Domesday shows this demesne increased to Z\ virgates.
Tuestan Fitz Rolf's exemption was for 4 hides held in demesne, in his estate at Pitcombe.
Serlo de Bukci's exemption is for 3 hides of demesne at Lovington. Domesday lowers the said
demesne by If fertines (that is by 5 gheld-aores). According to Domesday he. also held 2 hides in demesne
at "Watehella (Wheathill), but probably his Tenure in Wheathill was under Glastonbury Abbey.
Humphrey Chamberlain's exemption was for 1 hide, his demesne at Babcary, as reasserted in Domesday.
Edmund fitz Pagan's exemption is for 2 hides, 14 wgates, — his demesne at Barton St. Davids. Domes-
day reckons his demesnes at Barton to be 3^ hides. The change was perhaps due to some rearrangement
of his estate, effected between 1084 and 1086.
EaoHELiNUs's exemption for 1 hid. 1^ virgates, was in respect of an estate which he held wholly in
demesne at Fodington, in Babcary.
Walscinus de Douai's demesnes at Castle Gary, put in the Inquest at 7 hides 3J- virgates, ai-e rated in
Domesday as 8 hides. The addition is of 6 gbeld-acres.
Hugh de Valletort's exemption is for 1| hides of demesne at Fodington. Domesday repeats the
estimate.
The Comtesse Ida op Boulogne's exemption was for 2f hides, held by her in demesne at King Weston.
Domesday reiterates the measure of demesne.
Alurio fitz Brictrio's exemption for 5 hides 2^ •\irgates is illustrated by Domesday according him
just that extent of demesne in his Manor of Lideford (West Lydford).
Harding Fitz Elnod's exemption for If virgates is modified by Domesday according him \\ yirgates
of demesne in his estate at Discove.
Lambert de Whatlev's exemption was in this wise. He was serving as one of the Fegadri for Bruton
Hundred. Instead of taking the official fee of 6s. out 'of the money received, he got exemption for just
that sum, otherwise due on a hide of land which Domesday shows him to have held in Lovington, under
Serlo de Burci. Lambert took his name from Whatley, a Glastonbury estate in Frome Hundred, rather
than from Watehella (Wheathill), an estate of Serlo de Burci in Bruton Hundred.
Rannewalo. — The arrear charged on him was in respect of an estate held by him under Serlo de Burci
at Wincanton. It was 4 hides, but he had paid gheld on only 3 hides. Domesday, in due course, certifies
that the latter had been in King Edward's time the gheld-rate of Wincanton.
TURSTIN Fitz Rolf's arrear was perhaps in respect of land (2 hides) on which one or some of his tenants
at North Cadbury, South Cadbury, Weston, Clapton or Compton had failed to pay, or perhaps he himself
wa« holding so much land in demesne under some superior Lord and had neglected payment. In • the
former case, the particular tenement is undistinguishable in Domesday. In the latter case such tenure of
Turstin had been cancelled before Domesday.
Eadulfus Has tenet is probably the reading for Hadulftis Hastent. Radulf Has was perhaps that
Radulf whom Domesday shows to be holding 5 hides in Berua (now North Barrow) under Walter de Doai.
His demesne in 1086 was only 3 hides, 24 virgates.
The Surcharge on Bbitel de St. Clare may have been as to any four hides of the many hides which
he held under the Comte of Moretain in this Hundred. The Fegadri found him to be holding, in 1084, the
whole of one manor in Redlynch under the Comte. The said manor was exactly 4 hides.
William de Radio reappears nowhere in Domesday. One Willehnus was Corcelle's tenant at Witeham ;
another was Walter Giffard's tenant at Yarnfield. If the reading of the text be altered to Willelmus de
Radulfo, then such a William, being sub-tenant of a sub-tenant, would not appear in Domesday. His Lord
would be Ralph Ruf us or Ralph Treucart, neither of them a tenant in capite.
feilUTON hundeMd. 113
GONSELINE DE Rivibrb's aiTear was in resi^ect of » hide which he held under Robert Fitz Gerold in
Bruton, and which had been severed from the King's Manor.
A NoN-SoLVE>T Half-hide is Cillemeton (Kilmingtou) was a similar severance from Bruton. In 1086
Serlo de Burci had it.
Deogo de Montaoutb's arrear on IJ virgates was due to some insufficient reckoning as to so much of
his demesnes, held under the Comte of Moretain, or so much of his estate at Kaowle, above mentioned. In
the latter case his Villeins wUl have been the failing accountants.
Isaac, like William de Radio, appears as a tenant nowhere in Domesday. The contemporary Dean of
Wells was named Isaac.
HuQH DE Valtort's non-payment on 1 hide, IJ virgates, was commensurate with the whole of an estate
which Domesday shows him to be holding in Fodington under the Comte of Moretain.
Erneis's non-payment on a halE-virgate was an arrear on his estate of 1^ hides in Bruton, held under
Roger de Corcelle.
William de Durvill is perhaps represented in Domesday by "William Geral," tenant under Roger
Arundel of 3 hides in Penselwood, two of which were then in demesne.
Algar de Haltox's three hides in Bruton Hundred, whereof he accounted not to the Fegadri of that
Hundred, do not re-appear in Domesday ; nor does his account appear in any of the preserved Inquests of
other Hundreds, nor yet in any Postscript of the Inquisition, as a whole. It is probable that he was hable
to Gheld as sub-tenant of some tenant in capite. Domesday gives a Manor of Halton. It is now represented
by Holton in Whitley Hundred, which was, undoubtedly, at the date of Domesday, in Bruton Hundred,
just as its site, between Blackford and Wincanton, would suggest. But this Halton was only a manor of
two hides ; and it was held by Albric, not Algar, under Humphrey Chamberlain.
As TO Malger (de Caktbai's) insolvent 5 hides in Bruton Hundred, they lay in Chintun (now Keinton
Mandeville), or in Cloppeton (Clapton in Maperton), or in Bertona (Barton St. David), and were held by him
under the Comte of Moretain. The Inquest of Abdick Hundred similarly charged Malger de Cartrai vdth a
default on 3 hides, and the Inquest of Wiliton Hundred with a default on 2 hides. The last-named In-
quest adds that " he paid the due in another Hundred."
This was not exactly the case. No other Inquest contains such an item of account ; but, apparently after
all the Inquests were complete, Malger de Cartrai settled with the King's Officers by a lump payment of
£2 16s. 3d., in Heu, we presume, of all his HabiUties. The affair is expressed in a sort of rider to the
Inquisicio (Inq.-Gheldi, as preserved in Exon Domesday, p. 489). The words are as follows : — " Malgerus
de Cartraio dedit Regi de Gildo sua; terra: pro ix hidis et (1) virgil et dimidia Ivi solidos et iij denarios." We
note that the money paid was exactly proportionate (at 6s. per hide) to the land defined ; but that the
latter was something short of the 10 hides on which the Inquests had declared Malger de Cartrai to be
chargeable.
notes on the table (vol. II, pp. 15-16) op bruton hundred.
Bruton Hundred (Old). — In respect of hidage this was, next to Frome, the largest of the Prse-Domes-
day Hundreds of Somerset. Bruton itself, though it gave name to the Hundred, and was doubtless Caput
of the Hundred, was not, at that period, interned in the Hundred. Bruton was a Manor of the Vetus
Daminicuni Coronw, non-hidated and consequently in no Hundred whatever. How or when the Old Hun-
dred of Bruton came to be dissevered and to constitute the three Hundreds of Bruton, Catsash, and Norton
(Ferris), we cannot declare. The severance probably took place within fifty years of Domesday, that is
before the accession of Stephen. But the Somerset Historian (see CoUinson i, 211), was surely endorsing a
monkish fable when he told how WilUam the Conqueror gave the Hundred of Brewton " to one of the
family of Cantilupe whose descendant, Alexander de Cantilupe, bestowed it with the Market of Brewton
and the land of Cumbe, on the Priory of Brewton, &c., &c. In which said Monastery the Hundred remained
till the dissolution," &c. Had the Somerset Historian better studied the Inquisicio-Gkddi he would have
seen that the Hundred of Bruton, wliich remained with Bruton Priory till the dissolution, was a very dif-
ferent Franchise to the Hundred of Bruton as it stood in the Conqueror's time. The story was, of course,
got up by some Monk of Bruton for the sake of investing the House of Cantilupe with an undue antiquity.
But of the grant by Alexander de Cantilupe in the time of Stephen we will say no more than that it can only
I
Il4 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDKEDS OP SOMERSET.
have been of the dismembered Hundred of Bruton, and that on that we found our faith that the Old Hun-
dred was severed before the time of Stephen.
Of the disseverance of Old Bruton Hundred before the 4th year of Henry II. (a.d. 1158) we have sure
proof ; for in that year the King gave to Nicholas de StuteviUe 40 solidates of Crown-land, which are ex-
pressed to have been in Korton Hundred (Rot. Pip. 4 Hen. II.).
Bhuton, as a parish, is by no means conterminous with the Royal Manor. As a parioh it embraces
several items of estate which were rather in the Hundred than in the Manor of Bruton at the date of Domes-
day. Their collective hidage was 7 hides, 1| virgates.
DiscovE and Redltnoh, though they have been sometime extra-parochial, are situate in Bruton parish)
which parish itself has been sometime added to Bruton Hundred. Nor can we find that Discove and Red-
lynch, as a Chapelry, have any recognised parish, distinct from that of Bruton.
Ablata Briweto^ia. — The ahlatum in Reliz (Redlynch) stands as ix agri in one passage of the Exon
Domesday, and as xx agri in another. Being Gheld-acres, of which 12 went to the virgate, the former is
the mostHkely reading. Moreover, it is supported by the Exchequer Codex. The quantity (9 Gheld-acres)
appears rightly in our Table as 3 f ertines.
Briweham. — South and North Brewham, the components of 12f Domesday hides, measure (according to
our theories) 2020 acres in that Record ; that is about 299 acres to the hide, — a mere case of privileged liida-
tion. But the two parishes together cover an area of 4697 acres, of which we may reckon that 2677 acres
were at the date of Domesday in the King's Forest of Selwood.
WlTEHAM. — Though Roger de Corcelle's allatum from Brewham was called Witham in Domesday, and is
probably now within the parish of Witham Friary and in Frome Hundred, our Table supposes that at the
date of Domesday it was, like Brewham, still reputed to be in Bruton Hundred. —
This manor is the subject of several Domesday entries. The Exon Codex (p. 407) calls the Tenant of
King Edward's time " Erlebold," and adds " Hkc Mansio jacebat in Breweham, Mansione Willelmi de
Moione die Regis Edwardi, et non potuit ille Tangnus qui earn tenebat separari a Mansione Breweham."
The same record (p. 343) giving account of William de Mohun's Manor of Briweham, says " De htio Man-
sione sunt ablataj ii hidse quas tenebat Herleboldus de Roberto Alio WimarcfE, et non potuit de man-
sione (de Briweham) separari die qua Rex Edwardus fuit vivus et mortuus. Modo tenet eas Rogerus de
Corcella." The Schedule of Terrce Occwpatw (Exon Domesday, p. 484) repeats the latter story and gives
the annual value of the ahlatum as in the former entry (p. 407). Now Brewham was and is in Bruton
Hundred. We include, therefore, this old_ member of Brewham in our Table of Bruton Hundred. But
the acreage, whatever it was, of Corcelle's Manor, we are obliged to estimate as part of the acreage of the
parish of Witham, the whole of which is now in Frome Hundred.
PiDECOMA (Pitcomb). — Five hides to 627 acres (Domesday measures) is but 125J acres to the hide. The
present parish (2330 acres) includes some 1700 acres of the appurtenances of the Royal Manor of Bruton.
The hidation was of the manor only, and was excessive.
MiDDELTONE (Exchequer Domesday), Mildeltuna (Exon Domesday). — One and a half hides to 240 acres
(Domesday measures) is 160 acres to the hide. The present parish (1221 acres) includes some 981 acres,
either of King's Forest or of the appurtenances of Bruton.
The Exon Domesday introduces Mildeltuna between Manors of the remote Hundreds of Winterstoke and
Bimastane, a circumstance tending to discredit its identity with MUton-Clevedon. The Exchequer Domes-
day is far moi-e precise and intelligible, naming Middleton between Bratton and Wincanton, two undoubted
Manors of Old Bruton Hundred. That Milton Clevedon was afterwards a member of the Barony of Castle-
Cary, is further evidence that it was the same Milton as had figured in Walter de Douai's Domesday
Schedule.
Opetone (Upton Noble). — Three hides to 605 acres (Domesday mea.sures) is c 202 acres to the hide. The
parish, of 677 acres, is a mere assignment of such an area to Upton, as a Chapelry of the Abbot of Glaston-
bury's Church of Batcombe. It seems, indeed, that the Abbot \i»A a post-Domesday Seigneury over the
Manor of Upton. If so, we may be sure that it was one of the seizures of Abbatial estates, effected by the
Bishop of Coutances, and that, though the Bishop's title seems absolute in Domesday, it did not so remain.
At that rate we should suppose Letmer, the Bishop's antecessor at Opetoue, to have held it T. E. E. under
Glastonbury Abbey. —
feilUTOir HUNDRJSt). Ii5
There are many similar cases, where a Glastonbury title, suppressed at the Domesday epoch, ajipears
to have been afterwards revived. Possibly this had to do with the restoration by Wilham Rufus, of
the exiled Abbot Turstin, a great financial genius, and much devoted to the mundane interests of his
Church.
Camel (now Queen's Camel). — This manor was in the King's hands at the date of Domesday by reason
of the Escheat of the Earldom of Somerset. It seems strange that the Assessors of Bruton Hundred should,
in 1084, have recorded no exemption in favour of the King's demesnes in that Hundred. Of the 15 hides
of Camel the King held 5 hides in demesne. It is presumed that the Assessors in this instance, knowing
the said 5 hides to be ingeldable hdc rice, did not care to include them in their Hundred, but that they
included the 10 hides of Villeinage which formed the rest of the manor. Hence the Assessors, measuring
the Hundred as 232 hides, wiU have excluded five hides of its proper area. The Table of this Hundred,
restoring these 5 hides, consequently makes it a Hundred of over 237 hides. This, though it be called a
Domesday increment on the liidage of 1084, was not an increment of the ordinary kind. The Ferm of £23,
payable in white money, would be equal to about £24 3s. of ordinary currency.
The Domesday measures of the manor amount to 2,100 acres, of which only 200 were wood and pasture.
The existing pai-ish is 2,491 acres. The latter involves, then, some 391 acres, which were probably
appurtenant to the King's Forest, or to the widely ramified Manor of Bruton.
Lo\'lNTOXA. — Six hides to 1,212 acres (Domesday measures) gives'c. 202 acres to the hide. The parish, of
822 acres, is less than the Domesday Manor by 388 acres.
Cari (Castle Cary). — The Caput of Douai's Barony, and of his successors of the House of Lovel. Fifteen
hides to 3,220 acres (Domesday measures) gives 214-| acres to the hide. The parish contains only 2,625
acres of the old manor.
Chintona et Beetona. — Domesday omits something in speaking of the alterations which had been made
in regard to the two Manors of Kinton and Barton.
It would seem that the Comte of Moretain, to increase his tenant, Malger's, estate at Kinton, had
abstracted one hide from Barton, from the estate held there by Roger de Corcelle, and 1 hide from Edmund
Fitz Pagan's estate in Bai-ton. Neither of these abstractions are noted in the Schedule of Moretain
Manors ; but it is plain that the hidage (2 hides) was independent of what is entered as remaining with De
OorceUe and Fitz Pain. (Confer pp. 91, 96, sup^-a Ashill).
Babecari. — Of Humphrey Chamberlain's Manor in Babcari, Domesday says : — " Ha:c est addita terris
Bristitii." Humphrey Chamberlain had many Domesday manors, which, having fallen to the late Queen
Matilda, among the Escheats of Brilitric Algarson, Lord of the Honour of Gloucester, had been confeiTed
by the Queen on the said Humphrey. Wherever, as in the present instance, an estate had accrued to
Humphrey under other antecedents, the estate is said to be " added to the lands of Brihtric.'' All that is
meant is that Brihtric Algarson was not Humphrey's antecessor in such cases, but some one else. In this
in,9tance his antecessor was Bruno.
Fodes'DONA. — "Quando Eschelinus accepit ad firmam de Eege." Eschelinus had probably in the first
instance, only had the ferm of his estate at Fodingtou. Now he has the fee. Esohehnus occurs in the Dorset
Survey with similar marks of increasing Royal favour. (See Dorset, pp. 112 n., 131 n., 132 n.). His name
is stiU embodied in .the Dorset Manor of ShiUingstone, formerly Schelin's Ockford.
EsTURT. — Duo Poriitores de Monte Acuta. The two persons thus enfeoffed by the Comte of Moretain
in Stert were, we presume, the Gatekeepers of liis somewhat distant Castle of Montacute.
Baboary, Fodixoton, and Stert, are divided into six Domesday Manors, which contained in all 12
hides. The exactor Domesday measures are 2,004 acres, which gives 167 acres per hide. The parochial
area of Babcary is 2,393 acres.
Westona. — Of Ailin's (or rather Ahvyn's) tenure in Weston (now Weston Eanipfield) Domesday says,
" Quam tenuit Aihn die qui Rex Edwardus fuit vivus et mortuus et poterat sibi eligere dominum secun-
dum voluntatem suam, cum terrd sul" The curter and more obscure expressions of the same thing, used
in the Exchequer Domesday are, " Potuit ire quo volebat cum terri suS," or " Potuit reoedere cum ten-ft."
The Franchise alluded to was the " power of advowiy " inherent in a class of Saxon Thegns, and frequently
Continued to them after the Conquest. The franchise is Ulustrated in this very case of Ailwyu, but
not the Norman clemency. Ailwyn, having two estates in Weston, T. R. E., had, it seems, soupht the
I 2
ll6 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — fllE HUNDREDS OF SOMERSET.
advo-OT-y of Turstin Fitz Rou le Blanc. This hero of Hastings had ousted the Saxon from the larger estate,
but had allowed him to remain tenant of the smaller (only 2 virgates). Ailwyn still {adhuc) holds it in
1086.
Weston Mill. — The Domesday particulars of this Mill are noteworthy. It was divided into what the
Record calls halves. The half attached to Turstin Fitz Rolf's larger manor was worth 3s. 9d. per annum.
The half attached to the Comte of Moretain's lesser manor was worth 23. 6d. per annum. We here learn
what Domesday means, or may mean, by " half a mill," and how it wai3 that the two halves were not
necessarily coequal in value.
Blackford. — The two Domesday manors measure 1,035 acres ; the present parish is only 578 acres. It
was originally a Chapelry of Maperton, so that the assignation of its parish was arbitrary. Blackford, at
the date of Domesday, was undoubtedly in Bruton Hundred, and would now be in Oatsash, but the
anomaly of a Glastonbury manor being in Bruton Hundred, procured the assignment of the larger estate
to the territorial collection called Whitley Hundred. The smaller manor (Turstin Fitz Rolf's) followed the
larger into Whitley Hundred, so far as the name went. This was by parochial attraction and common
repute ; but we must remember that the Blackford of Domesday was much larger than the present parish,
and so a part at least of the difference is sure to be remaining under some other name in Catsash Hundred.
Halton. — The Domesday measures are 252 acres. The present Parish is 491 acres. It is clear that the
Manors and Parishes of Blackford and Holton should be viewed for a moment in combination. Blackford
was a Glastonbury Manor, and so in due course it was taken from Catsash Hundred, and annexed to the
Abbot of Glastonbury's improvised Hundred of Whitley. But Blackford being, ecclesiastically, only a
Chapelry of Maperton, included within its Chapelry or sub-parish, the Manor of Holton. Thus, Holton,
not being recorded as a Glastonbury Manor, will have perhaps been drawn by parochial attraction, as we
term it, into Whitley Hundred. Holton having since become a distinct parish, it was the more necessary
thus to have traced and explained the growing difficulty of its position in Whitley Hundred. But there is
another curious feature in this case. —
The Domesday measures of the three Manors of ElacliafoH, Blackaford, and Ilaltona, amount to 1297
acres, but the parochial areas which have gone to Whitley Hundred, under the names of Blackford and
Holton, ai-e only 1069 acres. It is obvious, then, that at least 228 acres of the Domesday Manors still
remain in Catsash Hundred. Tliis, too, can be reasonably accounted for. We take it that the acreage so
remaining corre,sponds with Turstin fitz Rou's hide of Blachafort, that it never was in Blackford Chapelry,
and that it now remains, under some other name than Blackford, in Catsash Hundred. Guessing, we
should guess that it now is absorbed in South Cadbury.
We recur for a moment to the former subject, viz., Holton. It was Humphrey Chamberlain's at
Domesday. He is stated to have held it in capite of the Crown. Nothing that has been said above should
disguise our own conviction that Alnod, Humphrey Chamberlain's antecessor, had held Holton as he had
T. R. E. held Blackford, under Glastonbury Abbey. Domesday, declaring the latter tenure, suppresses the
former. Its recognition will render the anomaly of Holton going to Whitley Hundred more explicable than
we, adhering to the mere letter of Domesday, had made it.
Wheathill. — Here agam is a manor which having, before the Conquest, owned the Seigneury of
Glastonbury Abbey, and wliich appearing in Domesday under no such subjection, was yet ultimately
annexed to Whitley Hundred ; — a sure token that the Abbatial interest therein was again, and in some
sort, recognized.
Its Domesday measures are 480 acres. Its parish, allotted to it as a Chapel later than the 13th century,
is only 312 acres.
Chilmatoua (Kilmington). — Of the Abbess of Shaftesbury'.-, tenure of this Manor in 1086, the Exon
Domesday says — " Hanc dedit Serlo de Burceio Abbatiic Sancti Edwardi cum filid sua." The Exchequer
Domesday says — " Ecclesia Sti Edwardi tenet de Serlone Chelmitone pro filia ejus quic ibi est."
Both Domesdays concur in representing Kilmington as still u member of Serlo de Burci's Fief, and the
Abbess as only his tenant. The previous Gheld-Inquest had accordingly given the Abbess no exemption in
respect of her demesnes at Kilmington. She did not as yet hold it in capite. Ultimately it became a part
of her Barony, that is, she held it of the King, sine medio.
Stoke TeisteR. — Originally, as we suppose. Stoke D'Estre, and so called from Richard del Estre, who
BRUTON HUNDRED. 117
appears (Liber Niger, p. 98) in 1166 as holding the "Villa del Estre," i by service of a third part of a Fee of
Moretain.
This Richard del Estre was probably descended from William de Estra, who appears twice in the
Somerset and four times in the Dorset Domesday as a Feoffee of the Comte of Moretain. In the present
instance, however, that is in the cases of Stoke Trister and CuckUngton, the Comte's Domesday tenant was
BriteU de St. Clare. As a general rule, Domesday estates of Britel de St. Clair seem to have descended to
the house of De Esselegh, quite a different family to that of Del'Estre. But, whereas in the case of Stoke
Trister and Cucldington we can find no symptom of u, descent to De Esselegh, it becomes the more
probable that they passed to some other family, such as that of Del Estre.
Bbuton Hundred. — The annual rents and values of the Manors of this Hundred, at periods antecedent
to Domesday, are, nearly all, recorded in the Survey. Their amount was £265 5s. They had fallen to
£227 8s. 6d. in a.d. 1086.
Beuton Manor and Hundred. — We here insert a Table showing the Quasi-hidage and Hidage of the
Royal Manor of Bruton, and of the Old Hundred ; showing also the Domesday measures of each, and in
parallelism therewith the modern acreage of the same aggregate territory. The modern acreage of that
part of Witham which was originally taken from Brewham cannot be ascertained. It is now in Witham
Parish and in another Hundred. This modern acreage then has been suppressed in the following Table,
though the Domesday measures of the same territory are retained. So far then the exact parallelism
between the Domesday and modern measures is not maintained. (See Table on page 118).
The Hidage and Quasi-Hidage of the Hundred of Bruton and of the Capital Manor are together equal to
287iV hides. (See p. 118) The average hide of the same combined territories was therefore represented by
192 acres of Domesday measurement ; and is now represented by about 205 acres of modern ascertainment.
It seems desii-able to give the comparative measures of the Hundred of Bruton as distinct from those of
Bruton itself, — the King's Manor. The former will be found to be nearly as follows. — •
The Inquisitional Hidage of the Hundred (a.d. 1084) was taken as 232 hides. The Domesday Hidage
(a.d. 1086) seems to have been 237tV hides. The Domesday measures of the manors constituting the Old
Hundred amount to 41,756 acres, viz., for 289 plough-lands, 34,680 acres ; of wood-land, 5,062 acres ; of
meadow-land, 1,269 acres ; of pasture-land, 745 acres. (See p. 118).
The recently measured areas of the constituent parishes of the Hundred are (all Bruton and part of
Witham excepted) 54,753 acres. (Seep. 118). Therefore the modern acreage exceeds the correlative Domes-
day measures by more than 13,000 acres.
The Domesday Hide of Bruton Hundred corresponds with 176 acres of other Domesday measurement,
and with about 231 acres of modern ascertainment.
The Hide of Bruton Hundred averaged an annual value of 19s. 2d. in 1086. Ten or twenty years
previously it had averaged at least £1 2s. 4d. per annum. The Domesday acre was worth about 1-fad. per
annum in the year of the Survey.
Connected with the limits of Bruton HnNDRED,or rather of that section of Bruton Hundred which is now
known as Norton-Ferris Hundred, there is an exceptional question, which, inasmuch as it also touches on
the question of the boundary between Somerset and Wilts, should be fully stated. —
Caspar, alias Brook, and Bonham are two hamlets, measuring together 1,256 acres, and standing on the
very confines of the two counties. Neither of these estates is mentioned by name in the Domesday Survey,
whether of Somerset or Wilts. There can be little doubt that they were then absorbed in the Survey of
the Wiltshire Manor of Stourton, " manor held by AValsceline de Douai, and under him by Radulfus ; —
doubtless tliat same Radulfus who held North Barrow, in Somerset, under the same Baron.
Consistently with their Domesday amalgamation ■v\ith Stourton we have the existing fact that these two
hamlets still remaiu in the Parish of Stourton. Ecclesiastically, then, they are and have been in Wiltshire
rather than Somerset. Collinson, neither in his History, nor in his Map of Somerset, took any notice of
I Heame's reading of this paaeage might he euspected, for it seems extraordinary that a vill called ' Stoca ' (Stoke) in
Domesday, passing to the possession of Richard de L' Estre should be styled " Villa del Estre " at so early a pe iod as A.D. 1166.
However the subsequent appellation of " Stoke del Estre " (now corrupted into Stoke Trister) makes the process of change
niore intelligible and more credible,
118
THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HDKDREDS OF SOMEESET.
these two hamlets. He took eeolesiaetical boundaries for his guide, and i^ossibly did not advert, even in
thought, to the civil question which we now discuss. There is not enough in any of the above considerations
to prove that these two hamlets have not, from time immemorial, been civilly and manorially in
Somerset. But whether it is by tradition, or by some comparatively recent arrangement, that they are
placed in the Somerset Hundred of Norton-Ferris, we cannot determine. In our Tables of Bruton
Hundred we exclude them altogether ; for whereas their hidage was not registered by Domesday as in any
supposable part of that Hundred, .so we should lose the leading principle of our comparisons were we to
reckon thair actual area in parallelism with any complement of Somerset hidage.
Bnitou Manor and Old Hundred.
Bbuton Seotjon.
Bruton, — Vetus Dominicum ....
Bruton, Members of (in parish) .
Brewham, N. & S
Ablata de Brewham ( Witham) .
Pitcombe
Yarlington
Milton Clevedon
Upton Noble
Catsash Section.
Queen's Camel
Lovington
Castle Gary
Sparkf ord
Almsford
North-BaiTow
South-Barrow
Sutton Montis
Alford
Kinton Mandeville
Barton St. David
Babcary
West Lydford
Maperton
South Cadbury
North Cadbury
King Weston
Weston Bampfield
Oompton Pauncef ord
Whitlet Section.
Blackford
Holton
Wheathill
Quasi hides,
n. V. F.
Plough-lands.
NoKTON Ferbis Section. '
Wincauton
Bratton Seymour
Shipton Montague
Kilmington
Yamfield
Stoke Trister
Cuoklington
Charlton Musgrove
Pen Selwood
50
7
12
2
5
7
1
3
10
3
16
i
6
4
4
10
15
e
15
5 10
5
5
5
6
6
12
9
5
2
3
7 2
6000
1680
1860
360
000
840
240
360
1800
1080
2400
600
720
600
600
600
600
600
960
1920
960
1440
360
1860
960
480
720
840
240
480
1440
960
1440
960
600
720
1440
360
■Wood
acres.
7200
200
5
5
180
240
100
80
720
20
20
30
40
8
120
250
53
3
24
40
47
6
150
60
522
420
120
720
300
519
Meadow
acres.
38
23
60
20
22
100
52
100
40
20
25
8
16
50
30
74
68
60
15
54
25
32
15
115
6
110
4
50
20
16
22
12
Pasture
'Gross Domes-
,day Measures.
Acre.ige.
150
30
30
100
100
20
20
84
16
30
10
70
22
43
30
120
20
1338S
1733
2120
415
627
1020
240
605
2100
1212
3220
760
780
655
668
624
650
630
1118
2004
1170
1715
360
2037
1010
536
775
1045
252
480
1730
1024
2012
1400
736
1462
1920
911
Parochial
Acreage.
3631
4697
(alibi)
2330
li07
1221
677
2491
822
2625
950
844
751
752
494
698
770
945
2393
1750
1534
800
2676
631
672
578
491
312
4130
1093
2425
2746
1256
1090
2865
2275
1101
Deducting the mea,?ure.s of the i
Capital Manor j
287 ].
50
237 1
40,680
6,000
12,202
7,200
1,307
895
150
5,5144
1,
58,389
3,631
34,680
5,062
1,269
745
41,756
54,758
KEYNSHAM HUNDRED. 119
IXQUISIOIO-CIHELDI (a.D. 1084) OV KEYNSHAM HUXDEED (rXQ.-aHELDI, P. 67).
In Camesham Hunclret sunt c et iiij liicUo (104 hides). H. v. p.
Iiide habuit Rex de Gildo suo £15 pro L. hidis 50
EtRsx et Barones aui habent iu domiuicatu suo xxx hid. et dim. (30.^ hide.%).
" De (his) " habet Rex in Buo dominio XV hidas 15
Et Episcopus Constautieusis iii hid. et iii virgas 3 3
Et Abbas Glastingeberiensis iiij hid. et dimidiam 4 2
Et Abbas de Bada V hid. et i virgam 5 10
Et Presbyter de Cainesham i hidam 10
Et Alaricusde Caiuesham i hidam 10
30 2 30 2
Et noil habuit Rex GtUdum proix et vii et dim. (but read x et vii et dim., ?. c.) xvii i
hid. et dim. liid. quas tenent Villaui Regis de Cainesham \ ' ~ "
Willelmus.
Neo pro dim. hida quam tenet Hubt-rtus [sic) de Episcopi Constantieusi 2
Nee pro i hidil et dim. quam tenet Heroldus de Alveredo 1 2
Nee j)ro i hidji quam tenet Nicholavis de Alveredo 10
Nee pro iii hidis quas tenet Rogerus de Stantona 3
23 2 23 2
104
"De hoc Hundreto debentur adlmo Regi de Gildo suo vii Libra; et xii dim. (£7 1. 0.) (And this is, at 6s.
per hide, the exact gheld on 23.^ hides ; whereas the letter of the Inquest, unamended, vs'ould have led to an
arrear of £6 15s. on 22^ hides, a result which would have destroyed the symmetry of the whole Inquest).
NOTES ON THE INQUISIOIO GHBLM FOR KEYNSHAM HUNDRED.
The King's 15 hides of demesne were iu Keynsham Manor. Domesday puts them at 15^ hides. It also
states William Hosatus to have been then Fermor of the Manor.
The Bishop of Coutances' demesnes (3f hides) are exactly reproduced in the Domesday notice of hia
Manor of Contune (now Compton Dando).
The Abbot of Glastonbury's demesnes, 44 hides, are exactly reproduced in the Domesday notice of the
Abbot's Manor of Mercesberia (Marksbury).
The Abbot of Bath's demesnes (5J hides in 1084) are reduced to 2^ hides in Domesday, viz., 2 hides in
Pristou and 4 liide in Stantone (Stanton Prior). It is presumable that Walter Hosatus, holding in
Domesday Wemmadona (Wilmington in Priston) 3 hides, of the Abbey, had been enfeoffed since 1084, and
that his feoffment embodied 2J hides erst held by the Abbey in demesne. At that rate the demesne of
Wilmington, 3f hides in 1084, appear in Domesday as 2\ hides only ;— a mere incident of the supposed
feofiinent. Compare the case of Charlcombe, supi'a, p. 68).
The Keynsham Priest's exemption for one hide of demesne is not reproduced in any statement ot
Domesday. But Domesday, giWng the whole Manor of Cainesham (Keynsham) as 60 hides, mentions details
which imply only 49 hides. The omitted hide was of course the glebe in question.
Aluric de Keynsham appears in Domesday as holding 1 hide of Tainland in Keynsham, of the King ia
capite, sine medio. Hence the right of exemption.
The Villanagium of Caynesham appears in Domesday as 17 hides. What the King's demesne had
gained, viz., half a hide, the Villanagium had lost, since 1084.
The Bishop of Coutanoes' tenant, Hubert, reappears nowhere in Domesday. It is clear that about the
time of the Inquest (1084) Hubert had been succeeded by WiUelmus. "Willelmus" accordingly appears
in Domesday as holding 5 hides in Ferenberga (Parmborough) under the Bishop. The insolvent half -hide
of 1084 was then part of this estate. Willelmus appears thirteen times in Domesday, as the Bishop's tenant,
Sometiines be i§ called WilleJtnus de Moncellis,
120 THE SOMEHSET DOMESDAY. — THK HUNDKEDS OF SOMERSET.
After the words ' Heroldus de Alverbdo,' we venture to add ' et Alveredus de Comite Eustaohio.'
Alured, who holds 3 hides in Celeworda (Chelwood) under Comte Eustace of Boulogne, was probably Alured
de Merleberge. It is suggested that Alured had a sub-tenant, Harold, the defaulter of 1084. No such sub-
tenant appears in Domesday, and, even had the sub-tenancy still existed, it would not be likely to be stated
in that Survey.
Alured, again mentioned, is, unquestionably in this instance, Alured de Merleberge, tenant in eapite of
other 5 hides in Chelwood (E.\;on D., p. 416). Moreover Domesday repeats Nicholas as Alured's tenant in the
said estate. Nicholas's default in 1084 was on 1 liide, i. e. one third of his demesne, and one fifth of his Fee.
Roger de Stanton reappears in Domesday as " Rogerius," holding in eapite 10 hides in Estantona
(Stanton Drew), a member of Caynesham. His non-exemption in 1084, for some 5i hides of demesne, is as
difficult to understand as his surcharge on 3 hides. Possibly his tenure was not deemed to be sine medio in
1084, but rather of the estate of Ulward Wyte, his Saxon antecessor, not then deceased. However, Uhvard
Wyte, though living at the date of the Inquest (a.d. 1084), will have been under some forfeiture or disability
as to his estates in Keynsham Hundred ; for he has no exemption for any demesne, neither in Stanton nor
Burnett, nor in another member of Keynsham (unnamed). Say that his lands were in manu Regis. That
would account for his non-exemption, and be consistent with his successor at Stanton (viz., Roger), and at
Burnett (viz., his own widow) appearing in Domesday with definite demesnes in each place.
KOTES on the tfABLB (VOL. IL, PP. 17-18) OF KBYNSHASI HUNDRED.
Caimessam. — The King's Dominical Manor seems to have involved the six manors named as parishes in
the last column of the Table. As usual, none of these except Cainessam are named in Domesday, simply
because they were involved members of Keynsham, and none of them as yet subinfeuded. The hidation of
the whole was 32J hides ; or, if we add the glebe of Keynsham Church (omitted among the Domesday
details), then 33J hides. This, the Dominical Manor, with its non-subinfeuded members, was worth £103
per annum at the date of Domesday. It was farmed under the King by William Hosee, having yielded
only £80 per annum when that ofBcer undertook the function. (" Reddit per annum o Libras et viii
numero ; et quando Willelmus Hosatus recepit ad firmam reddebat iiii xx Libras.") The subinfeuded
members of Cainessam constituted 16^ hides of the 50 hides which repi'esented the whole estate. Of these
five members, two are undistinguished by name in Domesday, while three which are named prove to be
represented in the two later parishes of Stanton-Drew and Burnett.
CoMTUNA (now Compton-Dando). — The Domesday notice proper to this manor has been erroneously
assigned by CoUinson to the Bishop of Salisbury's manor of Chilcompton. Under Comptou Dando, CoUinson
has misapplied the Domesday description of Comte Eustace's Manor of Contitone. We do not affect to
know where Comte Eustace's Manor of Contitone was. It was not in Keynsham Hundred.
Febenbehga. — The Exon Domesday eiToneously writes ' 2 hidsQ ' and, ' 2 carucse ' in the description of the
principal manor of Ferenberga. The context disproves the first error ; the Exchequer Domesday corrects
both. They merely result from a Scribe twice misreading the figure V for the figure II.
Sanfobt (now Saltford). — The apparent change of name should be accounted for. The marginal cross •}■
placed in the Exon Domesday opposite " Sanfort " seems to indicate a nearly coeval discovery of error.
The non-mention of an estate, held T. Jl. E., by four thegns, among the " Terrte Ocoupatso," is also sug-
gestive of suspicion. There are four Sandfords in Somerset, viz., Sanford Arundell, Sanford Brett,
Sandford Orcas, and Sanford-in-Winscombe. The above manor is none of them. For the above Sanfort
we venture to read Salford, or Saltford. The latter manor has no other mention in Domesday. Another
argument for the supposed identity is this. There is some Domesday analogies between "Sanfort" and
a part of Wiuford (in Hartcliffe Hundred). Each was in the list of the Bishop of Coutances, each was held
under the Bishop by Roger Witen, elsewhere called Roger de Corcelle ; each was of the liigh relative value
of 30s. per hide. Similar analogies held afterwards in respect of Saltford and Winford. Each was subjected
in Seigneury to the Honour of Glouce,ster, in succession to the Bishop of Coutances : each appears to have
been held of the said Honour by the family of Baieux. (See CoUinson, ii. 306, 431).
Stantona (Stanton Prior). — The Domesday details are deficient by 2 virgates. Such deficits of detail
are not uncommon in Domesday. Kemble, the great Anglo-Saxon scholar, happening by misfortune to
light iipon a manor thus defectively described in Domesday, took it for an exemplar, and by a series of
CANNINCTON HUNDRED. 121
equations constructed a Table of Gheld-measurea wliich represented the Gheld-virgate to be equal to 10
Gheld-acres. We need not repeat that the Yirrjata-ad-Ghelduni was 12 Gheld acres.
Kbtnsham Hundred. — The hidage, which we have collected from Domesday, squares exactly with the
hidage predicated by the Gheld-CoUectors of 1084.
This Hundred was one of unusual fertility and wealth. The plough-lands of the wealthier parts of
Somerset were seldom more than one to the hide. Here there are 161 plough-lands to 104 hides. The
annual value of the Somerset hide was seldom more than 20 shilUngs. In Keynsham Hundred it was
£1 7s. i\&. at the date of Domesday. It is quite in accordance, with such phajnomeua that the Domesday
hide should.be found to be now represented by a number of acres less than the average of 250. In this
instance 223^ acres suffice to equalise the hide.
According to our computation of the exacter measures supplied by Domesday for the collective manors of
this Hundred, its gross acreage was 21,679 acres. The more scientific method of modern laud-surveying
establishes an area of 23,253 acres. But it should be observed that the Domesday measures of this Hun-
dred only allow 550 acres for the item of Paseua. Probably pasturage, in small quantities or of scanty
growth, was occasionally ignored by the Survey. For instance, according to Domesday the two Manors of
Chelwood were destitute of pasturage, yet, together, they fed 30 she-goats and 180 sheep.
INQCISICIO GHELDI (a.D. 1084) FOE CANMNGTON HUNDUED (iNQ. GHELDI, P. 72).
In Hundreto Cantetona: sunt 45 liida;, 1 virga et 3 fertini.
H. v. p.
Inde habet Bex de GUdo suo £9 18s. pro 33
Et Barones Regis habent in Dominio x hid. et dim. et ii fertinos (10 2 2) h. v. f.
De isto dominio habet Wills (de Moione) Viceeomes 4 hid. 1 virg. 2 f ert 4 1 2
Et Wills de Falesia 2 hidas 2
Et Roger de Coroella, 1 hid. 3 virg. 1 fert 13 1
Et i virg. et dimid. (Read Johannes Hostiarius 1 virg. et dimid.) 12
Et AnscetiUus Parcarius 1 hidam 10
EtLeno, 1 virgat 10
Et Osmer, 1 virgat 10
Et Eccleaia de Cantelona (read Cantetona) dimid. hidam ..". 2
Et i Sancti-Monialis, 1 fert 1
10 2 2 10 2 2
Et non habet Rex geldum de dim. hida quam tenet Fulcerus de Stochelanda 2
Nee de dimidia hida quam tenet Rotbertus de Spaohestona 2
Nee de dimidia virgft quam tenet WiUelmus Alius Roberti 2
Nee de dimidid virga quam tenet Bristrius 2
Nee de dimidiil hida, quam tenet Hugo de Hispania 2
Nee de i fert ino quam tenet Hugo de Tenera 1
13 1 13 1
45 1 3
De hoc Hundreto sunt adhuc retro de Geldo Regis lOs. lOJd. (which, at 6 shillings per hide, is the exact
charge, on 1 hide, 3 virgate and 1 fertin).
NOTES ON THE INQUEST OP CANNINGTON HUNDRED.
Domesday makes William de Moione's demesnes to be 4 hides 2 virgates, viz., 3 hides 3 virgates in
Stockland (Bristol), and 3 virgates in Sedtammetona.
William de Falaise's demesne of 2 hides reappears in Domesday as 2 hides in Estocha (Stogursey).
Roger de Coroblle's demesnes (Ih. 3v. If. in 1084) are reduced to 1 hide in Cerdeslinc (Charlinch)
and half a hide in Currypool, by Domesday. This probably was by intermediate feoffment of one or other
of his numerous tenants,
122 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OF SOMERSET.
JoHM Usher's demesne iu 1084 was IJ virgates, evidently in Cannington. Domesday shows his newly
enfeoffed tenant, Robertus, with the same proportion of demesne in Cannington.
AuscHETiL Pakker appears in Domesday with an estate written Hederneberia. It was 1 hide, all held
iu demesne apparently. "We cannot identify Jledernehcria alias I/erdeneberie (as the Exchequer Domesday
writes it) with any modern locality. Nevertheless, it Wiis clearly in Cannington Hundred.
Lend of the Inquest appears as Lioius, the King's Almonee, in Domesday. His estate was at Beer, in
Cannington. It was one virgate, of which he then held only three-fourths in demesne.
OsMER was a Saxon Thane who succeeded his father. His estate was 1 virgate iti Otterhampton. Before
Domesday came to be written, two-thirds of this virgate had been annexed by some merciless official to the
King's Manor of Cannington. One-third of his heritage remained in Osmer's demesne.
The exemption of Caunington Church for 2 virgates was for so much of its glebe as was held by the
Incumbent in demesne. The whole glebe was 2^ virgates. Domesday names the Incumbent as "Erehenger,
a Priest and Almonee of the King." His demesne was still 2 virgates. From these entries we evolve the
following prmciple : — ThouffJi a Manor of Ancient Crown-Demesne loas Extra Ilundredal, non-hidated, and
ingddable, its church and glebe loere usuaUy Intra-Bundredal, hidated, and gdddble ; for an estate was not
the less gdddble because a 2Mrt thereof was, pro hac vice, non-gddant.
To this Canon there is a remarkable exception in the case of the Ghwch of St. John, at Frame. It had in all
respects the franchises of Ancient Demesne.
The Nun exempted by the Inquest was named Edith. The locality of her estate is not given in Domes ■
day, where she appears among the King's Almouees as "Eddida Monialis.'' Her exemption was for only
one fertine. Of that we shall say more anon.
FuLOHER de Stocklakd does not reappear in Domesday. His default in 1084 was probably due to death.
He was probably Corcelle's tenant in 1^ hides in Stocldand. If so, his successor in such tenancy was
Anschetill Parker above mentioned. In Domesday, however, Ansohetill, instead of 2 virgates of demesne at
Stockland, holds SJ virgates.
Robert db Sp^iXTON also vanishes from Domesday, and perhaps for the same reason, — death. His estate
was probably a hide in Spaxton, held under Alured de Hispania, and held, half thereof, in demesne. If so,
then in Domesday Alured himself appears mth an estate, so held half and half, but held in capite. The
whole theory becomes more probable in that Alured had no such estate in hand in 1084, otherwise his demesne
of a half -hide had been exempt.
William fitz Robert's default in respect of the gheld of a halt vu-gate is perhaps accounted for by the
tenancy of one " Willelmus " in Domesday. His whole estate was IJ virgates in Strmgstone, held of Roger
de Corcelle. William fitz Robert will appear with his full name iu Taunton Hundred, where he was clearly
a tenant of Roger de Corcelle.
The default or Bristrius in respept of half a virgate is illustrated in Domesday by mention of an estate
of half a %'irgate, held by Bristric, an Enghsh Thegn. It had paid no gheld in King Edward's time, says the
Record, " sed tamen ibi est dimidia virgata teri'SJ." The Assessors of 1084 had earlier made the same
discovery. They merely meant to detail a certain half virgate as belonging to their -Hundred and necessary
to be entered in a balanced account like theirs. They did not decide it to be geldable. According to
ordinary rules it was not, for Bristric held it wholly in demesne.
Hugo de Hispania, insolvent as to half a hide in 1084, was probably Alured de Hispania's brother. He
reappears in Domesday as one " Hugh " holding a hide in Planesfield, under that Baron.
Similarly, Hugo de Teneba, insolvent iis to 1 fertin in 1084, may have been a second Hugh, -i-iz, he who
appears in Domesday as holding 1 hide in Mulsella under Alured de Hispania. Roger Arundel's tenant at
Fiddington and Tuxwell was also named " Hugh," but his concern in the former was too great to be
a probable antithesis of the entry of 1084.
notes on the table (vol. II, pp. 17-18) OP cannington hundred.
This Hundred is distinguished in Domesday by its abundance of she-goats, by the low value of its mills,
and by containing two estates (at Tuxwell and Fiddington), wherein were 41 acres and 43 acres of moor
which the Surveyors thought proper to specify. Whereiis none of the great marsh-moors of Sopierset
CAJiXIXaTO]^ HUNDRED. 123
intruded on this district, it is possible that ths maors in Tuxwell and Fiddington were of some profit to the
owner, — not marshes at all then.
That which Domesday says about the Nun Edith's estate is worth noting.—" Eddida monialis habet xii
agros terrae quas tenet in elemosynd de Rege. Ibi habet Eddida i auimalia et 4 porcos et 11 oves et quater-
viginti agros nemoris et pascua! ; et valet per annum 5 solidos.'' (Exon Domesday, p. 179).—
The twelve acres, here spoken of, were gheld-acres ; the eighty acres were statute acres. Therefore in this
ca.se the gheld-aore was equal to 6| statute acres. Now, as the hide contained 48 gheld-acres, the hide, in
such an instance as this, wUl have been co-ordinate with 320 statute acres. We have shown in another page
that if all the hides and quasi-hides of Somerset be taken together the average correlative of each hide is
about 250 acres. Again, it is worth observing, that whereas the Fegadri of 1084 had treated tbe Nun's
estate as a single fertine, Domesday treats it as four fertines, the equivalent of 12 gheld-acres, or of one
virgate. The contrast is merely one between privileged, or prescriptive, or nominal hidation, and ascertained
fact. Such is the principle, however, which results in what we call " Domesday Increments." This is the
way in which it came to pass that the Hundreds of a.d. 1084 were often outmeasured by their Domesday
antitypes.
The value of the Nun's estate, 5 shillings per annum, was at the rate of £1 per liide, or five-pence per
gheld-aore, or three-farthings per statute acre. They are all inexplicably high for an estate which ostensibly
consisted of nothing but wood and pasture.
Oanndjgton Hundked.— Accepting the Domesday hidage of this Hundred to have been 46} hides, and
the corresponding measures, deducible from the text of Domesday, to have been 15,003 statute acres, the
hide in this instance is paralleled by 320 Domesday acres. But the acreage of modern ascertainment is, for
nearly the same territoi-y, 19,756 acres. This gives 422.^ statute acres in parallelism with the hide. The
discrepancy between the two calculations is at once adjusted by stating a fact which will become more
evident in the sequel, viz., that about 4,750 acres of the existing parishes of the Hundred were in the King's
Forest at the date of Domesday. As to the Domesday values of land in Cannington Hundred, they were
about £1 14s. Ifd. per hide, and rather more than Ijd. per acre of Domesday recognition.
Rachedewobde (written Raohefvuorda in the Exon Domesday) is translated into "Rakesworth" by
Collinson (L 43). The etymological change is undeniably specious, but no such locality as Rakesworth is
discovered by Collinson in the body of his work ; nor has the author of these Notes been more successful.
Domesday sequence indicates that Rachedeworde was in Cannington Hundred, and suggests that it was
like the next preceding manor (Cilleton, now Chilton) in Cannington parish. Radway (afterwards Radway
fitz Pain) seems the most Ukely representative of Rachedeworde ; not that Rachedaoai and Rachedeworde are
identical names, but that the two names may have been formed from different features of one locahty.
EsTCOHELANDA (Stockland Bristol). — The mill-value, expressed as " x nummi " in the Exon Domesday, is
registered under the equivalent expression of " x denarii" in the Exchequer Codex.
The modem parish of Stockland (1,150 acres) represents but a section of its Domesday manorial
elements (94 hides). The old parish wag, accordingly, larger than that of Cannington.
EsTOCHA (postea Stoke-Courci). — The identity of this manor with the modern "Stogursey " is unmistakable.
The two virgates " added thereto " before Domesday, we venture to place in —
Over Stowet, which as Collinson (L 259) intimates, ha.s no distinct Domesday notice. From the same
writer we infer that Wilham de Faleise's successors in Estocha had a considerable interest in Over Stowey.
This interest we presume to have represented the additamentum of Domesday. But the bulk of Over
Stowey, we hesitate not to say, was typified or implied in that share of Stockland which Domesday
assigns to Ralph Paganell. Paganell's share of Stockland (Bristol) eventually went to St. Mark's Hospita
at Bristol. So also went the Manor and advowson of Over Stowey (See Collinson, i. 247, 248).
As to DoDiNGTON, about two miles N.W. of Over Stowey, it now constitutes a parish of Cannington
Hundred, and is said to measure 543 acres. It is not named in Domesday. Very possibly, like the
adjoining Manor of Holford, it was not then in Cannington Hundred. Dodington is one of those localities
whose Domesday status seems too uncertain, even for conjecture. However, we should guess that it was
dependent on some manor of Alured de Hispania's fief, seeing that its Post-Domesday tenants had lands
also in Alfoxton and Ditch.
Sedtammetona, an addition of Moione's Manor of Estocheland, is translated (in Collinson's Index, Vol. i,
124 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HCJJSTDREDS OF SOMERSET.
p. 43) as " Stanton.'' A place, called Sedernmede in the time of Henry V. (See Collinson, iii. 90), seems to
indicate the preservation, at that date, of a much more apposite etymology ; but we can find neither
Sedernmede nor Sedernton, in present existence. In such cases the presumption is that the thing added was
near to the thing augmented.
GoDELEGA, identified with Gautheuey in Charlinch. The sequence of Domesday supports the idea that
Godelega was in Cauuington Hundred. The half-mill of Godelega has no Domesday counterpart, neither
in Canuington nor in any other Hundred ; so this, sometimes ef&cient guide to a right identification, fails
us here. The mention of five " Coceti " in the Domesday Manor of Godelega is abnormal in any of the
Western Hundreds.
Terka Colgrini. — The manor so described, comes in Domesday between Godelega and Otterhampton.
The name originated with Colgrin, Lord of the Manor in 106'3. Names of that period, thus recently
improvised, have seldom endured. Of course the spot now representing " Colgrin's land" is not dis-
coverable except by conjecture. That the estate was in Cannington Hundred is not a mere guess.
EsPAOHESTONA (Spaxton). — Alured de Hispania seems to have taken one estate in Spaxton into his o\^■u
hand between 1084 and 1086 (See note above, p. 122. ' Robert de Spaxton ').
TOOHESWILLA (Bristric's half-virgate in Tuxwell). The Fegadri of 1084 had evidently looked upon this
estate as ingeldable, non-hidated, and indeed, Extra-Hundredal. The note of the Domesday Surveyors —
Hed tamen ibi est dim idia rirgata terrce purports a suspicion of error as regarded non-hidation.
Strikgestona (Stringston). — The text of both Domesdays gives the additum of Stringston as two fertines.
The Schedule of Tei'rce Occupatce, appended to the Exon Survey says, " two fertines and two parts of two
fertines,'' that is 31 fertines, or 3 fertines 1 gheld-acre, in all.
AcsHOLT or AsHOLT (1,252 acres), on the Quantock HUls, and now in Cannington Hundi-ed, is not in
Domesday says Collinson (i, 237). He traces it to Richard del Estre in time of Henry II., then to 'WilUam
de Reigni, and, in 1282, to John de Nevill holding it in capite per 1 f. m. —
It seems strange that a manor of such a type and of such antiquity should not have had its germ in
Domesday. Del Estre's tenure thereof would induce one to look for the prototype of Asholt among the
Fees of the Comte of Moretain. But it is not there ; neither had the Comte any fees in Cannington Hundred.
Possibly then the Domesday original of Asholt may have been that manor of Roger de Corcelle's fief, which
was one virgate, and was written as —
Terra Olta in the Survey. " Terra Olta," on the other hand seems to have no other subsequent
representative than this possible one of Asholt.
THE INQUISICIO-GHELDI (a.D. 1084) FOR OONGEESBUEY HUNDRED (SEE INQUIS.-GHELDI, p. 70).
" In Hundreto Cungresberiaj sunt X et viiii hida3 " (that is xix hides). H. v. F. H. v. r.
" Inde habet Rex de Gildo Buo xiii sol. et vi den. pro ii hidis et i virga " 2 10
" Et Rex et Barones sui habent in suo dominicatu v hidas et i virgam" (5 hides, 1 virg )
" De " (his) habet Rex iii hidas et dimidiam in dominio 320
" Et Ordricus " (habet) " iii virgas " (in dominio) 3
" Et Ordulfus " (habet) " dimidiam hidam " (in dominio) 2
" Et Alwardus " (habet) " dimidiam hidam " 2
5 10 5 10
"Et pro xi hidis quas tenent Villani Regis de Cungresberiil non habet Rex Gildum" 110
" Et pro dimidifi hida quam tenent Villani de Ecclesiil Cungresberiensi non habet )
Rex Gildum" j 2
11 2 11 2
19
" Restant de hoc Hundreto Ixbc sohdi ad persolvendum " (And 69 shillings at the rate of 6 shillings per
hide will be found to be the exact gheld on 11^ insolvent hides),
CONailESBURY HUNDRED. 125
NOTES ON THE INQUEST OP CONORESBURY HUNDRED.
The reputed hidage of Congresbmy Hundred was, in 1084, nineteen hides ; and the details supplied in
the Inquest square exactly with that assumption. However the Hundred of Cougresbury really contained
20 hides; only the Fegadri of 1084 failed to detect or to assess one out of two hides, which being severances
of the Manor of Congi-esbury, were still portions of the Hundred. Accordingly, Domesday found in- the
Manor and its severances, 20 hides.
Furthermore, the Domesday Commissioners recorded the King's demesne to be 5 hides, and his Villeinage
only 94 hides ; they added a half-virgate to the Thegn Ordulf's demesne, and a whole virgate to the Thegn
Alward's : they showed that the ViUeius who, in 1084, held the Church-land of Congi-esbury, held, in 1086
under Maurice, Bishop of London, as Incumbent of the said Church : — ^iu indicating a severance of one hide
from the Manor of Congresbury as having fallen to the tenure of Giso, Bishop of Wells, they probably
instanced the very hide which had escaped the cognizance of the Fegadri of 1084.
NOTES ON THE TABLE (vOL. H, PP. 17-18) OP CONGRESBURY HUNDRED.
Mansio vocata. CONGRESBERIA. — The King's sha.re in the Manor of Congresbury, yiz., that which he held
in demesne or allowed to his Villeins was 14^ hides. It was in custody of WiUiam de Moione, then Sheriff of
Somerset. The annual value (£28 15s.) quando WiUdmus Ticecmnes recepit, still obtained at the date of
Domesday. It was in White Money, supposed to be of more value, by 6 per cent., than money of the
ordinary denominations.
Three hides of the Manor are called in Domesday, "Tegnland," that is, the King's Ferm was not increased
by any money payment of the three Thegns in possession. Had they paid any money-rent to the King,
to the Sheriff, or to any Fermor, their land would have thereby become " Reeve-land."
The Church-Fee of Congresbury was two virgates. Incumbents of such Churches are usually called in
Domesday Elemosynarii Regis : — Tenants in Almoign, that is.
The Ablata, otherwise called the Terrce occupatw, of Congresbury Manor were two hides and a pasture.
These hides had not been ablated in any sense implying force or fraud. They were held by a Bishop and
by two Barons with fuU Royal sanction. They were geldable, and by no ilieans ailated from the Hundred.
Pascua de Weijiorham. — This Ablatum from Congresbury is noticed by Domesday under Bishop Giso's
Manor of Yatton. The Exon Domesday, after surveying the 20 hides of Yatton, says, — "De hisdem pra3diotis
hidis tenet Hildebertus iv hidas de Episcopo, &c., &o. De liis iv hidis quas Hildebertus tenet, habuit una
fajmina, Ailrun, unam hidam pariter, die quS, Rex Edwardus fuit vivus et mortuus. Cum istA hida quam
tenuit Ailrun jacet " (there is involved) " una pascua quae vocatur Weimorham quEO jacebat in mansioue
Regis de Congresberia die quS, Rex Edwardus fuit vivus et mortuus."
Yatton, be it observed, about IJ miles North of Congresbury, was, at the date of Domesday in the
Hundred of Chewton.
Conoebsbukt and Wick St. Laurence. — The Domesday Manor of Cungresberia (20 hides) contained aU
that is now in the parishes of Congi-esbury and Wick St. Laurence, viz., 5,973 acres (as in the Table). So
far the Domesday Hide may be said to coordinate with 298J statute acres.
But the more positive measures of Domesday establish for Congresbury a much larger area than is reached
by 20 hides, if the hide be thus measured or defined. — The items of precise Domesday measurement are,
according to our estimate of such measures, as follows.— Arable land, 6,000 acres + Wood-laud, 1,830 acres +
Meadow-land, 270 acres + Pasture, 1,440 acres = 9,540 acres. This now is 3,567 acres in excess of the
aforesaid parochial measurements. It follows from these data that Earl Harold's Manor of Congresbury had
attached to it a quantity of arable land, wood-land, and pasturage, which has never been brought within
the parochial boundaries of Congresbury and Wick St Laurence. —
Some of these old manoiial adjuncts may have lain at a distance, but near at hand, and from adjacent
parishes, we can collect the following areas which were not in the Domesday Manors cognate -nith the said
Parishes. — The Bishop of Wells' Manor of BanweU, for instance, contained 5154 acres less than are now to
be found in its four cognate Parishes of BanweU, Puxton, Churchill, and Compton Bishop. The same
Bishop's Manor of Yatton contained 2342 acres less than the present Parish of Yatton contains. The col-
lective Manors of Kewstokej Woodspriug, and Middleton, sometime held by Serlo de Burci, Gilbert Fitz
12^ THE SOMEESET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS Ol* SOMEKSM.
Turolcl, and others, contained 358 Domesday acres less than are contained in the correlative parishes of Kew-
stoke and Locking.
Such were the surroundings of Congi-esbury, We need not to inquire further how it came to pass that,
in its Domesday aspect, the Manor was invested with undue proportions.
The Hide of Congi-esbury Hundred was parallel with 477 acres of contemporary measurement. The
nidation was 'privileged' ab antiquo.
The Domesday value of this Hundred (viz. £38 15s. + £1 Ss. 9d., — per centage on white money) £40 3s. 9d,,
was at the rate of more than £2 per hide, and of 1^ pence per acre ; also at the rate of 16s. Id. per plough-
land and of 17s. 5|d. per team in actual employ.
The number of Villeins, Boors, and Serfs, abiding in Congresbury Hundred in a.d, 1086, was 107. This
gives a single labourer to every 89 acres of Domesday general measures ; to every 56 acres of plough-land,
aud to every 52 acres of land actually ploughed.
THE INQOTSIOIO GHELDI (a.D. 1084) i'OTl OAUHAMPTOX HUNDKED (iNQ. GHELDI, P. 69).
n. V. 1'.
In Hundreto Carentonsc sunt xl hida; et i virga et iii fertin et dim. (40 1 3^).
Inde habet Rex de Gildo suo £10 lis. 6d. pro XXXV hid et i vu-ga 35 1
Et Barones Regis habent in dominicatu suo v hidas i fertin minus (4 3 3).
De his habet Radulfus de Limiseio hidam et dimid 12
Et Radulfus de Pomeria dimidiam hidam 2
Et Willelmus de Falesia i hid. et virgam et dimidiam 112
Et ii Sancti-Moniales et dim. (read "ii virgaset dimid.") 2 2
Et Wills (de Moione ) Vicecomes, iii virgas et f ertinum (unum) 3 1
(Et) Rogerus (de) Corcella dimidiam virgam 2
4 3 3 4 3 3
"^^^^ 40 3
The Inquest is incomplete. An-ears of Is. S^d. should have been added, that being )
the gheld-rate on i virgate and J fertin of seemingly insolvent land j 1 OJ
40 1 3i
KOTES ON THE INQUEST OP CAEHAMrTON HUNDEED.
Ralph de Ltmeset's demesnes in 1084 were 1 hide in Luckham and half a liide in Selworthy. Domesday
registers these quantities, but gives him further demesnes of 1 hide IJ virgates at Bossington, Allerford,
and Treborough. These estates were all favourably hidated in comparison with their extent, and had
clearly paid full gheld in 1084. Ralph de Limesey's changed position probably means nothing more than
that he was ousting certain tenants and taking their tenements in hand.
Ralph de Pomeeate's demesne reappears in Domesday as 2 virgates in Ar (now Oare).
William de Faleise's demesne is reduced in Domesday to 1 hide 1 virgate in Ottona (now Wootton
Courtenay).
Dv/n Sa>'ctimoniales of the Inquest are called "DuEc Nonnse" in Domesday. Their estate was at
Honecota (Holuccote, near Luckham). King William had given them the Uand of two Thanes in Almoigu.
It was 2i virgates, as in the Inquest, Domesday says nothing about its geldability.
AViLLiAM DB Moiohb's demesne of 3i virgates is reduced to 2-J virgates in Domesday. His said demesne
was in Exford and at Bradeuda, a locality now lost. Since 1084 he had probably enfeoffed certain tenants.
Roger de Cohoelle's demesnes appear to increase ia Domesday. Those which exemplify the Inquest
were perhaps in Exford and at Stoke Pero,^ — one fertine in each. But there may be a doubt whether some
of his non-identified estates, though inserted in our Table of Carhampton Hundred, were really in that
district. Yet, unless we include these non-identified estates in Carhampton Hundred, Domesday will
hardly supply manors sufficient to fulfil the Inquisitional type of the said Hundi-ed. When once we enter
on the field of conjecture, all sorts of possibilities present themselves, \^hatif this wild district were
CAilHAMPTON itUNDRED. 127
imperfectly surveyed iu the Record of A.D. 1086 ? What if it were ill-defined, aad if estates which now
appear in the far-stretching Hundred of Willitou-and-Free-Manora, were in the 11th century parts of
Carhamptou Hundred ?
NOTES ON THE TABLE (vOL. 11, PP. 19-20) OF OARHAMPTOX HUXDRED.
DoNESCUMBA. — CoMBA. — These two untraceable looalitiea are named in Domesdiy iu sequence with other
manors of Roger de Coroelle, which other manors were umiuestionably in Carhampton Hundred. That is
our reason for placing them in the Table of that Hundred. The same reason operates iu the cases of Alka
and EsTANA, also manors of Roger de Coroelle.
DuDESHAir, PiLLOc, SuiNDUN'E, Tbrba Tbdbioi, Widieta, Blachamora. — These six estates of Roger de
Coroelle are mentioned consecutively with estates which were rather iu Cannington or North Petherton
Hundred than in Carhampton. However, in these cases the sequence of Domesday is no guide ; for the
estates are grouped rather with reference to the undertenanoy of Anschetill (Parker) or of William (de
Almareio) than to any geogi-aphical affinities.
Collinson (i, pp. 39-45) has identified four of them with " Doddisham," " Pileigh," " Windiates," and
" Blackmore in Churchill " ; but two of these identifications are clearly wrong, while the other two convey
no impression to our ignorance. The Terra Tedrici got its name from its owner (Teodorio), of the Con-
fessor's time. Names, improvised at that date, have rarely endured.
PiLLOC. — Though this estate be not PUeigh, its survey in Domesday is curious. The Surveyors first
quote an old and nominal hidation of the manor, and then divide it according to its real contents : —
" Godricus tenuit {T. R. E.) et reddidit gildum pro dimidio fertino " (equal to 1 J gheld-acres). " Hano
potest arare dimidia carruca. Hanc tenet Anchetellus (Parcarius) de Rogei'o (de Corcella) et est totum in
dominio pneter x agros (Gheld-acres ?) et habet ibi unam camicam et duos Bordarios qui tenent praedictos
X agros, et (habet) 3 agros prati, et 7 agros PascuKi: et valet 6 solidos." (Exon Domesday, pp. 396-397). — •
There may be a doubt whether the " ten acres " were gheld-acres or statute-acres. The former would
be iu better keeping with the usual Domesday an-angement, which generally subdivides hidational terms
into hidational quantities. At that rate the statute acreage of the estate will have been at least 120 acres,
viz., plough-land, 60 acres, -hl(10 gheld-acres, or at least), 50 statute acres, + meadow, 3 acres, -1- pasture
7 acres. But it may be that in this instance the " x agri " were statute acres. In that case the measure
of the whole estate will have been 80 acres.
For such an estate, an hidation of " half a fertin " was of course either highly favourable or largely
fraudulent. For a half-fertine paralleled by 80 acres means a hide of 2,560 acres. The hides of Car-
hampton Hundred were more comprehensive than those of any great Hundred in Somerset, but their
average was less than 1,000 aci-es per hide.
Eppsa. — This manor is placed by us in Carhampton Hundred merely as following iu Domesday after five
other manors of Ralph de Limesey, which undoubtedly were so. Collinson's identification of the place with
" Episbury " we do not appi-eciate. " Eppsa " is probably obsolete as to name.
Cibewbda, Comba, Sobdemannefobd. — These three Manors of William de Moione are mentioned in
Domesday consecutively with his Manors of WUliton Hundred. Collinson identifies Comba with " Combe
Flory " (which was never a Moione fee), and Sordemanneford with " Shoremansford." The latter place we
cannot find. However, there was an estate written " Stortmanforde," some time given by one of the House
of Moione to Cleeve Abbey (see Collinson, iii. 611).
Lega is quite impalpable. Mainfred, who was De Moione's Domesday Tenant at " Coarma " (Quarum, in
Winsford) and Cibewrde (supposed to have been in Carhampton Hundred), was his tenant also at Lega.
Collinson does not identify this Lega, nor yet Cibewrde.
MaNEUKDA, another Moione estate, was perhaps in Milverton Hundred. However, its Domesday name
associates it with Maneheva (now Minehead) ; but they were distinct Manors.
EsTAWElT, Alvbboneoota, Mena. — These also were Manors of De Moione. Though we do not venture to
identify them, the sequence of Domesday strongly suggests that they were in Carhampton Hundred (Old).
The probability that they were also in the parish, or vicinity of Cutcomb rather aids than opposes that sug-
gestion, for Woohetreu (Oaktrow), which divides them iu the Record, was certainly in Cutcomb parish and
almost certainly in Carhampton Himdi-ed,
128 TiiE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE StJNDREbS OF SOMERSET.
OAEENTONA, OR OLD CARHAMPTON HUNDBBD.
The Inqaisitional Hidatiou (a.d. 1084) of this Hundred seems to have been iO hides, 1 virgate, 3 fertines,
11 gheld-aores. The Domesday Hidation (a.d. 1086) of its supposed constituents, is 40 hides, 1 virgate, 3
fertines.
The more positive Domesday measures of the said constituent manors indicate 39,368 statute acres, viz.,
20,670 acres of plough-land, 3,132 acres of woodland, 124 acres of meadow and 15,442 acres of pasture. By
a curious accident (for it is only an accident) the modern parochial measurements which seem most nearly
to pertain to the same area as the Old Hundred, realize 39,100 acres. So then the hide of Carhampton
Hundred co-ordinates with 973^ Domesday acres, and seems to co-ordinate with nearly 967 acres of modern
ascertainment.
This last coincidence is quite fortuitous. It arises in the simple fact that the Domesday Manors of the
Table intruded somewhere into other parishes than those measured in the Table.
The real and very remarkable conclusion which still remains intact, is that the hides of a whole Somerset
Hundred did each of them, on an average, co-ordinate with 973 V Domesday acres. This was liidation,
privileged and lenient both ; privileged in respect of a few exceptional manors, held before the Conquest by
Queen Edith, or the Abbot of Athelney, or Edric, or Algar, or Osmund Estramin, or other great Thegns ;
lenient throughout a whole region. In point of annual .value the lauds of this hundred had rather im-
proved in the 19 years which had followed the Norman occupation. The values had risen from £48 3s. 9d.
(which were the values when each Norman took possession) to £54 5s. Id., the aggregate values when
Domesday was written. —
This latter valuation was at the rate of £1 63. 9d. for each Domesday Hide, and of .3307 (decimal) pence
for each Domesday (statute) acre. But if the said revenue be calculated to have arisen solely from the
arable land of the Hundred (viz., from 20,670 acres) then the return per acre of such land will have been
(decimally) 1.587 pence.
It should be further nested that though the arable land of Carhampton Hundred was 20,670 Domesday
acres, — that is, enough to employ 172J teams — there were only (so we have counted them) 112J teams in
actual stock. This, again, would tend to make the value of land in this Hundred, at the Domesday epoch,
low in comparison with the value of land in other Hundreds.
Lastly, in the matter of labouring population, viz., Villeins, Boors, and Serfs. — Domesday probably omits
a few heads, but the number of those given for the whole of the Manors enumerated in the Table (Vol. ii,
p. 19) is, proximately, 385. So then, with a gross Domesday acreage of 39,368 acres, whereof 20,670 acres
were accessible to the plough, and whereon 112| teams were at work, there was a labouring population of
little more than 385. —
The proportions to each registered male will have been 102 acres of registered land, or 534 acres of
arable land, or (nearly) 35 acres of land actually under cultivation.
The population, or rather, the depopulation was not so great as in the Royal Demesnes of Somerset, nor
so great as in De Moione's ChateUany of Dunster, nor quite so great as in the Praj-Domesday Hundred of
Williton, but it was gi-eater than in any other district of Somerset, these excepted.
IT The Modekn Hundred of Carhampton includes estates which the Domesday Hundred did not con-
tain, viz., Carhampton, a Crown estate, and non-hundredal at the date of Domesday. Cutcomb, Dunster,
and Minehead, which, at the same period, went to form the Hundred of Cutcomb and Minehead.
With the Pra;-Domesday Inquest of the latter Hundred we now proceed. —
THE INIJUISICIO GHELDI FOR THE TWO SEVERAL HUNDREDS OP OUTCOME AND MINEHEAD ; ONE ASSESSMENT
SUFFIOINO KOB BOTH (iNQ.-QHELDI, F. 68).
In Hundreto de Condecoma et in Hundreto ManehefvEC sunt 10 hid. 1 virga. h. v. v.
Inde habuit Rex de Gildo suo (xxxii) solidos et iii denarios pro v hid. et virgfl, et dimidia 5 1 2
Et AVillelmus de Moione hahet in dominio suo V hid. dim. virga minus 4 3 2
10 1
THE HUNDREDS OF CUTCOMB AND MINBHEAD, 129
NOTES ON THE INQUEST OF THE HUNDHEDS OP CUTOOMB AND MINEHEAD.
The whole of this dual Hundred seems to have been made up of the home estates of William de Moione,
then Sheriff of Somerset. They were, in fact, the Chatellany of his Castle of Duuster, written in Domes-
day as " Torra " or " Torre."
We gather from Domesday with tolerable certainty the manors composing those 10^ hides of which the
previous Inquest had spoken summarily. According to Domesday, 3 Knights have 1 J hides of
Cutcomb 10 2
The Villeins and Borderers of De Moione's dominical estates have 44 hides 4 2
He himself holds in demesne 4 hides, 3 v., 2 fert., if we take half of Dunster as demesne 4 3 2
Total 10 2
Between the years 1084 and 1086, it thus appears that De Moione had not altered his nominal demesne.
But the Domesday Commissioners had found another virgate in the Hundred. Probably it was the
virgate which they entered as an additamentum to Stanton. If so, it wiU have been in Carhampton Hun-
dred at the time of the Inquest, and have been added to De Moione's Chatellany between 1084 and 1086.
Whether it had been added to his demesne or not, Domesday does not say, but the usual construction of
such a text would suggest that it had.
NOTES ON THE TABLE (vOL H, PP. 19, 20) OP CTJTCOMB AND MINEHEAD HUNDHBDS.
The comparative measures are as follows. — The Inquest of A.D. 1084 gives lOJ hides to the Liberty.
Domesday seems to give lOJ hides to the same.
The more positive measures of Domesday indicate 19,726 acres for the same, viz., of arable land (corre-
sponding to 34 plough-lands) 4,080 acres ; of wood, 758 acres ; of meadow, 38 acres ; of pasture, 14,850 acres.
The only known correlatives of these Domesday Manors are in the three parishes of Minehead, Cutcomb,
and Dunster. These parishes measure 14,677 statute acres. It follows that among the Appendicice of the
Chatellany of Dunster there were at least (19,726 14, 677 = ) 5,049 acres which lay in other parishes than
those aforesaid, and topographically in other Hundreds, — ^possibly adjacent, possibly remote. However this
may have been, the Domesday hide of De Mohun's Chatellany coordinated vrith 1,878 acres of coeval
me2isurement.
The privileged hidations of Aluric, prse-Conquestual Lord of Dunster, of Algar, Lord of Minehead, and of
Aimer, Lord of Cutcomb, remained unabated for William de Moione, the first Norman Sheriff of Somerset.
Under De Moione's rule, the lands of this Franchise had risen in value from £11 lis. to £16 18s. 6d. per
annum. This latter valuation was at the rate of £1 12s. 2fd. for each Domesday hide, and of Jth of a penny
per Domesday acre.
But if this revenue be calculated as having arisen wholly from the arable land (viz., 4,080 acres) of the
Franchise, the annual value of each such acre will be something very near to one penny. And again on the
arable land actually tilled by 29 teams, viz., on 3,480 acres, the proportion of value per acre would be 1^.
The number of Swineherds, Villeins, Boors, and Serfs employed on this territory was 139. That calcula-
tion gives only one Labourer to every 142 acres of registered land, to every 29 acres of arable land, and to
every 25 acres of land actually ploughed. The two last items show no marks of comparative poverty or
neglect ; but the gross population in comparison with the whole of the registered land was as scanty as the
population of the King's demesnes.
The ratio of these phsenomena was probably the same. As, at the date of Domesday, the King's Forests
throughout Middle and West Somerset were constructively held to be appendages of the Royal Manors of
the West, so perhaps were De Moione's woods and pastures, far remote, deemed to be appurtenant to his
Chatellany.
If The anomalies resulting from measuring and comparing, as we have, so many separate districts, suggest
that we should now take a wider area and deal with the collective phsonomena of the region which we
will venture to call North-Westeru Somerset. —
K
130 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OP SOMERSET.
THE THREE MODEBN HUNDREDS OF CARHAMPTON, WILLITON-AND-FRBB-MANORS, AND CANNINOTON, GROUPED
ACOOBDINQ TO THEIR EXISTING CONTENTS, BOTH Of PARISHES AND THE ACREAGE OF PARISHES.
Cahhampton Hundred contains 16 parishes, viz., — acres.
One parish, Carhampton, not in the Old Hundred 5,199
Twelve parishes of the old Hundred of Carhampton 39,100
Three parishes of the Old Hundred of Cutcomb and Minehead 14,677
58,976 58,976
WiLLiTON Hundred contains 31 parishes, viz.,' —
One parish, St. Deoumaus, including Williton, not in the Old Hundred 3,758
Twenty-one parishes of the Old Hundred of Williton 60,408
Two parishes which were Non-Hundredal at Domesday, viz., Bromptou Regis (8,810 acres) \
and Old Cleeve (6,579 acres) ) ^^'^^^
Two parishes which formed the Hundred of Sheriff's Brompton at Domesday, viz., Brompton >
Ralph (2,690 acres), and Glatworthy (2,848 acres) \ ^'^^®
Four parishes not created nor named at the date of Domesday, but whose area belonged to
some Royal Manor of this quarter, or to one or other of the three first mentioned Hun-
dreds, and were represented in the Old manorial constituents of the same, viz., BicknoUer V 29,659
(1,390 acres), Hawkridge (3,725 acres), Upton (3,779 acres), and Exmore_' (so far as it is
in Somerset, 20,765 acres)
114,752 114,752
(One parish (Halse) is not reckoned here, as to its acreage, because it was in the Domesday
Hundred of Taunton, and has been added to Williton at a comparatively late period. —
Cannington Hundred contains 10 parishes, viz., —
One parish, Cannington, not in the Old Hundred 4,635
Nine parishes of the Old Hundred of Cannington 19,756
24,391 24,391
198,119
(A tenth parish, Dodington, is not reckoned here, for, though now in Cannington Hundred,
we know not where it was at Domesday).
The Inquisitional Hidage, so far as it is given for parts of the above t«rritory, was —
For Carhampton Hundred 40 hides, 1 virg., 3 J fert. ; for Cutcomb and Minehead
Hundreds, 10 hid., 1 virg j 50 2 3^
For Williton Hundred 92 hid., 2 virg. ; for Sheriff's Brompton Hundred, 5 hides 97 2
For Cannington Hundred 45 hides, 1 virgate, 3 fertines 45 1 3
The Domesday, but non-Inquisitional hidage given for other parts of the above
territory was —
For Brompton Regis Manor 10 hides ; for Old Cleeve Manor 4J hides 14 1 14 1
The Quasi-Hidage of the three Manors of Ancient Crown demesne, -viz., Car-
hampton, Williton, and Cannington, of which there was never Inquisition nor
hidation, is here computed at 100 quasi-hides ° ) 100 100
193
2 2J
14
1
100
193 2 2i
307 3 2J
1 Wo have already (supra, pp. 74, 76, 75, n.) intimated doubts about the actual st.itns of these four parishes at the date of
Domesday, Whatever we may conclude on the point, it does not affect the present calculation. We are measuring a whole
district, a district which, at any rate, included the sites of all four parishes.
2 There were 100 plough-lands in these three Royal Manors, The plough-land with its co-ordinates of wood, meadow, and
pasture, is what we call a quasi-hide.
MEASURES OF THE NORTH-WESTERN DISTRICT.
131
The normal hide or quaai-hide of North- Western Somerset is therefore represented by about 643 parochial
acres, but, as we shall presently show, by a still greater Domesday acreage.
Many extravagant forms of the hide have been already noted and accounted for (supra, p. 21). They were
apparent, not real, because deduced from exceptional cases.
But here, where a large area of Domesday hidage and a supposedly correlative area of modem acreage are
brought into comparison, we might expect a result nearer to the general average of the County, which as we
have said before, was about 300 acres per hide. We have no such result, and, if we had, it would be
accidental and fallacious. The hidage spoken of included, indeed, aU the parochial areas spoken of ; but it
included much more elsewhere. And again, much of the hidated land, whether near or distant, was of
a nature which did not count for much in the numerical computation of hidage.
We will now calculate from Domesday data, and from the, problematically, exact measures of the Survey,
what we will, for a few moments, assume to have been the same North- Western district as we have measured
by hidage and modern acreage. —
Acres.
20,670
40,620
12,990
7,200
3,960
4,080
2,280
172^ plough-lands of Carhampton Hundred are taken to indicate an arable area of ...
338i plough-lands of WUliton Hundred, to indicate an arable area of
108^ plough-lauds of Cannington Hundred, to indicate an arable area of
60 plough-lands of King's Brompton Manor, to indicate an arable area of
33 plough-lands of Old-Cleeve Manor to, indicate an arable area of
34 plough-lands of Cutcomb and Minehead Hundred, to indicate an arable area of
19 plough-lands of Sheriff's-Brompton Hundred, to indicate an arable area of
, QQ ) plough-lands of the three Boyal Manors of Cai-hampton, Williton, and Cannington, are here
1 taken to indicate an arable area of
865 plough-lands at 120 acres each indicate an arable area of ,.
Other acreages, given by Domesday for the same territory purport to be :-
In Carhampton Hundred
In Williton Hundred
In Carmington Hundred
In King's Brompton Manor
In Old Cleeve Manor
In Cutcomb and Minehead Hundred
In Sheriff's Brompton Hundred
In the three Royal Manors of Carhampton, Willi-
ton, and Cannington, collectively
Woodland.
Meadow.
Pasture.
Moor.
3132
124
15,442
3760
268
24,436
625
563
741
84
4320
60
4,320
720
24
758
38
14,850
45
11
360
14,400
104
21,600
27,760
1192
81,749
84
Totals.
18,698
28,464
2,013
8,700
744
15,646
416
36,104
12,000
103,800
110,785 110,785
Total.. I 214,585
On the whole, then, the Domesday measurements of the above territory exceed the measures of the cor-
responding parishes by (214, 585 -198,119) 16,466 acres. And the Domesday Hide of this district was
apparently co-ordinate with 697 acres of land coevally measured.
There can be but one construction of all this. It is that much of the woodland and pasture, attributed
by Domesday to the King's Manors and to other Manors, of this region, really comprehended forests and
uplands pervading districts which were geographically external. When we come to North Petherton
Manor and Hundred, for instance, we shall see that none of the King's Forest of North Petherton was
deemed by Domesday to be appurtenant there. And there are other like instances.
And again, there is some reason for thinking that a portion of the woodland areas attributed by Domes-
day to certain Manors of North- Western Somerset are now deemed to be in Devonshire.
As to the hide and its co-ordinates, the hide was too elastic to be called a measure of anything but values
or advantages. A hide in a wilderness might be co-ordinate with 2000 acres ; close to Bath or Bristol a
hide of far less than 200 acres was not uncommon.
k2
132 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OE SOMERSET.
INQUISIOIO GHBLDI (a.D. 1084) FOE CHEDDAE HUNDEED (iNQ. GHELDI, P. 68).
In Huudreto Cetdre sunt vii Mdse et iii virgse. H. v. F.
Inde habet Rex de Gildo suo XXX solidos pro V. hidis 5
De his (7f hides) habet Godwynus 1 virgam in dominio 10 10
"Son habet Rex Gildum pro 1 hidil et 1 virgS, quam tenet Rogerus Wytent de Episcopo
de Sanoto Laudo \^ 10
Nee pro 1 hidil et 1 virga quam tenet Rotbertus filius Herbert! de Rogero de Corcella 110
2 2 2 2
7 3
De hoc Hundreto debentur adhuc Regi xv solidos de Gildo auo (and 15 shillings is the sum apposite to 2
bides 2 virgates).
NOTES OU THE IXQDEST OF CHEDDAR HUNDEED.
GoDWYN was a Saxon Thane (Anglicus Tegnus), who yet enjoyed that small estate (1 vii'gate) in Drayoott,
which he and his mother had held T. R, E. It was all exempt from the gheld-tax.
Draycott was a vill lying between Cheddar and Stocea (now Stoke Rodney). It was, manorially, sepa-
rate from both. Parochially, it w;is divided between the two ; but, in later years, it ha.s been formed into
a parish, whose 1,800 acres include not only the ancient Manor of Draycott, and some further portions of
the two parishes of Cheddar and Rodney-Stoke, but also the district, formerly extra-parocliial, of " Nyland
with Batcombe."
RoGEE Wttent, — In this short Inquest, the person called, as a tenant, Roger Wytent, was the same with
him who, as a Baron, is called Roger de Corcella. (See Notes on the Inquest of Locheslei Hundred.)
The Bishop of St. Lo is Geoffrey de Moubray, usually styled, in Domesday, Bishop of Coutances (de
Constautiis). The arrear stated against Roger Wytent was on 1^ hides. His Manor of Stocea (now Stoke
Rodney) had gelded T. E. E. for i hides, whereas both the Exon and Exchequer Domesday state it to
contain really 5J hides. The surcharge of 1084 was on the difference.
RoBEET FiTZ Heebeet will have been he who, called simply " Robertus," holds iiuder Roger de Corcelle
the Manor of Ceder, which, though part of Cheddar parish, was clearly external to the great Manor of
Royal Demesne, also called Cheddar. Robert Fitz Herbert's manor appears (Exon. Domesday, p. 405) to
have been 2^ hides, but the proportions of demesne and villeinage are not stated in Domesday. The
Inquisicio almost decides the former to have been \\ hides.
notes on the table (vol. II, pp. 19-20) OF CHEDDAR HDNDRBD.
Stocca (postea Stoke Giffard, now Stoke Rodney). Domesday divides Stocea between Roger Witeu and
his "Villeins, as 2 J hides to the former, \\ hides to the latter. That is, it divides the manor according to the
old hidation (4 hides) of King Edward's time, not according to the new hidation (54 hides) which seems to
have been detected by the Assessors of 1084, and which Domesday itself recognises (by an interlineation) as
the true hidation. —
" Ibi tantum pascuaj quod reddit 2 soUdos per annum." This item is superadded to an estimate of
the Pascua of Stoke, which measures it as two square leagues, that is, as 2^80 acres. The two quantities
probably lay in different directions. What the acreage of the smaller item may have been we can only
guess. Supposing the value per acre to have been -f-aih of a penny, the acreage will have been 384 acres.
(See Table below).
The recently depreciated value (from £6 to £4) of this Manor is inexplicable. The available plough-land
was adapted to 5 teams. There were 6|- teams on the estate. The other stock and the staff of labourers
(15 males) were both above the average. We suspect that the two values were accidentally transposed in
the Record. If so, the error being common to both Domesdays, will have been the error of the scribes who
took the original notes.
Deayoott. — The acreage (1210 acres) assigned in the last column of the Table to Draycott, requires
explanation. The ecclesiastical parish of Draycott, embodied A.D. 1862, contains 1800 acres. It included
CHEDDAR HUNDRED.
133
the once extra-parochial places of Nyloud (alias Andresey) and Batcomb,— together 590 acres. These places
were in the Old Hundred of Glastonbury-Twelve-Hides. In a future Table of that Hundred they and their
acreage will therefore be found. It follows that (1800—590 = ) 1210 acres of the present parish of Draycott
remain to be placed ; and it is clear that they must be placed in parallelism with the Domesday Manors of
Cheddar, Draycott, and Stoke.
The small Manor called "Draicotta'" in Domesday, though it has left a name for the modem parish,
cannot have absorbed more than a hundred of these acres. The remaining 1110 acres of the present parish
were supplied partly by the once Royal Manor and parish of Cheddar, partly out of the Domesday Manor
and parish of Stocca. Our Table, then, is so far inaccurate that it gives to Cheddar Hundred the whole of
1210 acres, some part of which was not in the Domesday Hundred, but in the Royal Manor. To adjust
this, we discharge from the above Table the acreages of two estates which, though in the Domesday Hun-
dred of Cheddar, were within the parish of the Royal Manor.
Ablata de Ceddka, Mansions Regis. — The Inquisition of a.d. 1084 clearly did not reckon on this small
dblatum from the Royal Manor of Cheddar as tlien interned in, or added to, the Hundred. It seems pro-
bable that it was given to Robert de Auberville after the Inquest and before Domesday. His estates else-
where had changed somewhat during the same interval, and he had been involved in litigation. He was
the King's Forester, and a grant out of a Royal estate might have been in the" nature of compensation.
An hidation of 2 fertines was coincidently set on the estate, and such, we conceive, was the essence of the
" increment " which Domesday seems to add to the Hidation of the Inquest.
The Royal Manor of Cheddar (including Axbbidqe, and an estate on Mendip, afterwards given to the
Carthusians of Witham). The Domesday Hundred of Cheddar. —
The subjoined Table purports a comparison between the Domesday Manorial measures and the modern
parochial measures of one and the same district. The difference (4374 acres) between the two merely sug-
gests that so much of the district was deemed unworthy of registration by the Domesday Surveyors.
Cheddar Moor and Cheddar Cliffs may well have supplied such a wilderness.
Plough-
lands.
Arable
Acres.
SUva.
Prat-
um.
Pascua.
Total
Domes-
day
Acres.
20 Quasi Hides
7Jhides
Modem Parishes.
Acreage
of
Parishes
Cheddar Regis ■)
Alsebrige l
Site of Charter House )
Ceder
20 car.
4 car.
^ car.
= 2400
= 480
= 60
- r.nn
720
120
IS
15
15
1440
f 2880 1
I 384 f
4575
496^
60 -
8999
t Cheddar
< Axbridge
( Charter House . .
(In Cheddar
( In Cheddar )
< ■{ Draycott, & -
( BodneyStoke j
1 Rodney Stoke . .
640 ■
2410 j
Supra
29^ I = 8540
120
45
4704 1 9129
27J
13,503
The measurements of the Hundred, as distinct from those of the Royal Manor, will be (including all
Draycott in the Hundred) as follows — Arable land, 1140 acres + wood, 120 acres -^ meadow, 30 acres + pas-
ture, 3264 acres = 4554 acres, represented by 7| hides and 3555 modern acres.
The hidage and Quasi-Hidage (say 27| hides), divided among 9,129 Domesday acres, gives 326 acres to the
hide. The same hidages divided among 13,603 parochial acres gives 486 statute acres to the hide.
In the Hundred, taken by itself, the hidage (75 hides) divided among 4,554 Domesday acres, gives 578
acres per hide. The same hidage divided among 3,555 parochial acres, gives 450 acres per hide. The
extravagant proportion of 578 acres to a Domesday hide is easily accounted for. The Bishop of Coutances'
Domesday Manor of Stocca was probably the extent of the parish of Stoke Rodney. More than that,— its
hidation as 5i hides was favourable. On the very face of Domesday each liide of the five meant 760 acres of
appreciable land.
The Domesday value, whether £4 or £6, presents no anomaly. Value was, a,9 we have often said, mainly
calculated on the extent of the arable land, and on the ratio of its culture. This land was only 600 acres
of the vast Manor, and, its five plough-lands being ploughed by 6^ teams, an annual value of £6 for the
whole Manor would be intelligible, while, as we said before, a value of £4 would seem too little.
134 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY.— THE HUNDREDS OF SOMEESEIT.
INQUISIOIO-GHBLDI (a.D. 1084) FOR OUEWKEBNE HUNDKED, (1NQ.-GHELDI, p. 71.)
In Hundreto Cruoha3 sunt xxxix hida3 (39 hides)
Inde habet Rex de Gildo suo je6. 10s. 6d, pro xxi hid. et iii virgia 21 3
Et Barones Regis habeut in Dominio xiiii hidas.
De his habet Sauctus Stephanus Cadomensis vii hid. qua: nunquam gildaverunt ... 7
Et Willelmus de Ou V hidaa 5
Et Hardinus ii hidas 2
14 14
Et non habet Rex gildum pro ii hidis et i virgd quas teneut Villani Willelrai de Ou 2 10
Neo de i hidA quam tenant ViUani Hardini de Meriet 10
3 10 3 10
39
" De hoc Hundreto debentur Regi 19s. 6d. de Gildo suo." (And note that 19s. 6d. is the exact sum proper
to 3J hides at 6 shillings per hide).
NOTES ON THE INQUEST OF CEEWKEBNE HUNDEED.
Ceewkeene Chueoh, and its Fee of ten hides, had been given by the Conqueror to his Abbey of St.
Stephen at Caen. Domesday does not record the ingeldancy of seven hides thereof as asserted in the
Inquest, but it is clear that these ingeldant hides were those held by the Abbot iu demesne or by his
Villeins ; while three hides, held by a certain knight under the Abbot, were clearly geldant. By a mere
error, the details given by Domesday deal only with 9J hides of the estate. The Exchequer Domesday
supplies no correction. It is not an uncommon omission (See above, p. ).
William de Ou's exempt demesne (5 hides) vfos part of his estate of Hantone (Hinton St. George).
Domesday repeats the measure of demesne. Of the thirteen hides which constituted the whole estate ;
eight liides were held by William de Ou's Villein-tenants. The latter in a.d. 1084 were in default as
regarded the gheld due on 2^ hides.
"Hardinus," called in the same Inquest "Hardinus de Meriet," and elsewhere called " Hardinc filius
Elnodi," holds in Domesday 5 hides in Meriet (now Merriott). Domesday increases his demesne to 24 hides.
His Villeins, defaulters as to the gheld of one hide in 1084, will at that period have held 3 hides. In
Domesday they appear holding 24 hides.
NOTES ON THE TABLE (VOL II, VV. 21, 22) OF CREWKERNE HUNDRED.
Cheuca. — Of Eddeva, Lady of Crewkerne before the Conquest, we have spoken ah-eady. It may be
doubted whether we rightly insert the Manor of Crewkerne in our Table of that Domesday Himdred. Being
wholly and ab antiquo ingeldable and non-hidated, it was, technically Extra-Hundredal ; and that was the
reason why the Inquisitors of a.d. 1084 had made no allusion to the estate. However, the addition of
Crewkerne to the Old Hundred makes the old and new Hundreds precisely identical, and thus facilitates
some important calculations.
EsTEHAM (now Easthams iu Crewkerne). — "De ista mansione (Chi-uca) ablata est una mansio quEc vocatur
Esteham quam tenuit Godwinus Priepositus Regis iu firma Cruchso et non potuit a Crucha sepai-ari die
Regis Edwardi et reddidit gildum pro duabus hidis. Has possunt arare duse carruca;. Mode tenet hano
Turstinus de Comite (Moritoniensi) et habet ibi duas carrucas in dominio, &c." (Exon D., pp. 97, 98). Iu
the Comte of Moretain's Domesday Schedule the above entry is partly explained, partly varied. — " Comes
habet unam mansionem qua: vocatur Esteham quam tenuit Goduinus Prajpositus Regis de Cruca cum firmit
Mansionis, et non potuit recedere de Cruc^ cum istfi terrtt, et reddidit gildum pro duobus hidis, &c.,"
(Exon D., p. 252).
Godwin's tenure of Easthams had been simply as a member of the Manor of Crewkerne, also farmed by
Godwin T. B. E. The ablation, spoken of, took place on the Comte of Moretain's seizin. So much is clear ;
CREWKERNE HUNDREU.
135
but it is not clear how Godwin, King Edward's Provost, and Fermor of Crewkerne under King Edward,
could have stood in that position, Eddeva being at the same time Lady of Crewkerne. We have endeavoured
to explain this enigma already. (Supra, p. 83).
Seaborouqh. — Of the Bishop of Salisbury's two tenements in Seaborough, Domesday says as follows,
" Istas duse terra! jacuerunt in Crucoa (Crewkerne) ita quod Tegni qui tenuerunt non poterant separari et
reddebaut mansioni Regis Crucca; xii oves cum agnis et de unoquoque homine libero unam blomam ferri."
{ Vide supra, p. 18).
Godwin, Provost and Fermor of Crewkerne T. R. E., was possibly identical with Godwin, Sheriff of
Somerset circa 1060-1, who within the last five years of the Confessor's reign ceded the Shrivalty to
Tofig, and who was still living at the Conquest (1066). Godwin Anglicus, alias Godwin de Cicemeton,
seems to have been a different person. He, though with a much reduced estate in Somerset, Dorset, and
Devon, still held rank among the Anglo-thanes of King William at the date of Domesday.
HONDRBD OP ORrCHB (a.D. 1084) MEA3UEED AND COMPABED WITH THE MODERN HDNDEED OP CREWKERNE.
Domesday Names ot Domeai^y
Manors. Pl™g'i
lauds.
Equivalent
acres of
arable land.
Acres of
wood.
Acres of
Meadow.
Acres of
Pasture.
Domesday
acreage in
gross.
Modern names of places, re-
presentative of Domesday
Manors.
Modern
Acreages
Chi-uca
Bsteham
Ecclesiado Chruca..
40
2
1.3
4 SOD
240
15(i0
80
20
60
12
20
240
120
5180 ■)
272 \
1700 )
( Crewkerne and Eastliam
\ Misterton
(Wayford
6331
1417
1618
55
12
6
7
61)00
1440
720
840
ISO
240
100
720
io
10
92
60
10
25
9
9
360
30 )
60 r
80 )
SO ;
7152
2220
1685
618
Hinton St. George
Merriott
Seaborough
8366
1500
Ifll
1693
SSI
S3i
10,020
840
205
510
11,576
Six Parishes.
12,140
The Domesday Hidage being taken at 80 hides, that is at 40 quasi-hides for Crewkerne (which was not
hidated) and 40 real hides specified by the Record, we have in comparison 11,575 acres of Domesday
measurement, and 12,140 acres of modern ascertainment. The hide then here corresponds with 144^ acres
of Domesday measurement, and with 151| acres of modern survey.
We reckon that 565 acres only of this, generally fruitful, district were ignored in the Domesday Survey as
waste or profitless. The other proportions are those of the richer portions of the County. The gross value
(a.d. 1086) was £88 10s. Od., which is at the rate of £1 2s. l^d. per hide ; but then we must recollect that
the hides so valued were very small hides ; so that the rate of value per Domesday acre is more than l|d.,
which is almost the exact rate per modern acre.
Deducting from the full value of £88 10s. some items of revenue not strictly agricultural, the
single plough-land of Crewkerne is paralleled by nearly £1 of remaining revenue. Though th-.'re were 83^
plough-lands in the Hundred there were only 68 ploughs going. The revenue proportioned to each would
be £1 3s. 4d.
H The number of Coliberti, Villeins, Boors, and Serfs employed in this Hundred was 272. This gives a
single labourer to every 43 acres of land as registered in Domesday ; to every 37 acres of arable land, and
to every 30 acres of land actually ploughed. So, the soU being fruitful, the appliances both of team power
and manual labour were unusually good for Somerset. Compare the case with that of the wild Hundred of
Cutcomb and Minehead. The actually cultivated area was so little in that Hundred that the labour which
might be brought to bear thereon was greater than in Crewkerne Hundred, but, in point of gross area and
gross population, there were more than three men iu Crewkerne Hundred on a space which in Cutcomb and
Minehead Hundred held but one.
136 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OE SOMERSET.
INQTJISIOIO-GHELDl (a,D 1084) FOE CHBWTON HUNDRED (INQ.-GHELDI, P. 70).
In Hundreto CumetonEe sunt vi xx hidje et vii et dim. (127 hides, 2 virgates). H. v. f .
Inde habet Rex de Gildo suo £21 5s. 3d. pro Ixx hid. et iii virg. et dim 70 3 2
De his (127i hides) lidbet Rex et Barones sui in suo dominioatu xxxiij hidas et dim.
virgam (33 hid. 2 fert) .
Inde habet Rex X et viii hidas in doininio 18
Et Episoopus Qiso vi hidas 6
Et Episoopus de Sanoto L. (Laudo) iiii hidas et iii virgaa ' 4 3
Et Aldret hidam et dimidiam 12
Et Serlo de Burceio iii hidas dim. virgA minus 2 3 2
33 2 33 2
Et nott habet Rex Gildum suum pro xi hidis quas tenent Homines Regis de :
Cumetona (read Ciwetona) '
Nee pro iiij hid. et iii virgis quas tenet Serlo de Episoopo de S'to L(audo) 4 3
Keo de i virgd quam tenet Hugo Malus-Transitus (Maltravers) 1
Nee de iiij hidis et i yirg4 quam tenet Walterus Cenomannensis (of Le Mans) de 1
Gilberto fiUo Turoldi ) 4 10
Neo pro iii hidis et dim, (marked for cancellation) i virgSde terr^ Manose (cancelled i i „ ^
o 1
and " Manase " i.e. Manassse substituted)
I
23 2 23 2
127 2
De hots Hundreto sUnt adhuc retro de GUdo Regis £7 Is. Od. (i. e., exactly the sum proper to 23J defaulting
hides, at 6s. per hide.)
NOTES ON THE INQUEST FOR CHBWTON HUNDRED.
An Index of Somerset Hundreds, coeval with the Inquisioio, names this Hundred ' Ciwetona' : — a more
accurate spelling than Cumetona. (See Vol. ii, p. 9).
The King's exempt demesne of 18 hides was in Chewton itself. So was the defaulting Villeinage of 11
hides. Domesday, surveying ' Ciwetona,' mai-ks exactly the same proportions of Demesne and Villeinage.
Bishop Giso's exempt demesne, of 6 hides, was in Yatton. Domesday repeats it.
The Bishop of St. Lo's (Coutances') exempt demesne was in Cameley. Domesday repeats it.
Aldret's exempt demesne was in Brockley. Domesday increases it to 2 hides.
Seelo de BuEOl'a exempt demesne was in Comtou (now Compton Martin). Domesday reduces it to 2
hides 3 virgates.
" Serlo " (probably Serlo de Burci) had before Domesday ceased to hold anything of the Bishop of Cou-
tances. His previous tenure we should guess to have been either in West Harptree or High Littleton. If
the former, Serlo will have been superseded by Ascelinus, if the latter, then by Ralph Rufus.
Hugh Maltravers was in this case, as in many, the Tenant of WilHam de Owe. His tenure in Chewton
Hundred was 2 vu-gates at Hanton (now Hiutou Blewitt). His default in the Inquest was, accordingly, on
one half the estate.
Walter op Le Mans reappears in Domesday as Tenant of Gilbert fitz Turald. He held 6i hides in
Tumbeh (Ubley) and Estona (Ston Easton). His default on i\ hides was for the portions of the said estates
which he held in demesne.
The "land " op Manassee Coous, a deceased Royal Serjeant, was in Estona (Ston Easton) 1^ hides, and
in Haia (now obsolete) 2 hides. Domesday, giving.those quantities, corresponds exactly with the Inquest
(as above corrected). At the date of Domesday both estates had passed to the tenure of the deceased
Serjeant's widow.
CHEWTON HUNDRED. 137
NOTES ON THE TABLE (VOL 11, TP. 21-22) OF CHEWTON HUNDRED,
The Mange op Ohbwton was, in the Inquest of 1084, assessed as part of the Hundred of which it was
the Caput. This was never done in the case of Royal Manors of Ancient Demesne : but Chewton, when
given to Queen Edith, had ceased, technically, to he a manor of that type. Whether it were given as dower
or by King Edward's favour, it thereupon became hidated and geldable. It was also necessarily interned iu
its appropriate Hundred ; to that Rule there was only one exception, viz., the Manor of Milverton.
The four parishes given in the Table as representing the Domesday Manor and Church-fee of Chewton
(Mendip) measure 12,197 statute acres. But the same Domesday Manor and Church-fee (unless there be
some scribal error common to both Domesdays) measured but 8,340 acres of specific territory. The balance
(viz., 3,857 acres) was probably in the Forest of Mendip, a, Royal Forest of the Vetus Dominicum, iu
which Queen Edith's Manor can have had no participation .
It is true that there were attached to the late Queen's Manor 120 acres of Wood and 2,880 acres of
Pasture ; but these were in the Hundred ; they were no part of the Royal Forest. That was not in the
Hundred.
EccLESiA DE CiwETDNA. — The Abbot of Jumieges (in Normandy) held Chewton Church.
Jatuna, Yatton, taken after Domesday into Winterstoke Hundred, in order to associate it with the
Bishop of Wells' Manor of BanweU iu that Hundred.
Weimorham pasture, though annexed to Yatton at the time of Domesday, was an ablatum from the King's
Manor and Hundred of Congresbury. The whole of Yatton parish is 6,476 acres. It represents 22 Domes-
day hides, which gives about 294 acres as representing the hide. The exact measures given by Domesday
for Yatton and Claverham, specify only 3,769 acres. But, of the 20 hides of Yatton, Domesday only gives
details of eighteen,
Brocheleia. — Though Domesday clearly intends to class Aldret among the Franci Tegni, he held
Brockley before the Conquest. He occurs in [the Wiltshire Domesday in a hke position. He was, we
presume, a Normanizing Saxon, If he lost some estates after the Conquest, he gained others,
Chingestona (now Kingston Seymour). One manor in Kingston, that which Domesday describes as
containing a single hide, affords an instance of highly favourable hidation. This single hide represented
2,086 acres of Domesday measurement. Fulcherann's single plough-land, only ^jth. of the whole, is not
allowed in Domesday to quaUfy the general statement that the whole of the hide was held by William de
Monceaux and his VUleins, viz., one virgate by the first, 3 virgates by the Villeins. —
The hidation of the other Manor of Kingston (4i hides) was not at all favourable. It contained simply
seven plough-lands, or (as we reckon) 840 acres. The hide then was in one case represented by 2,080 acres,
in the other by 187 acres. A Domesday Postscript certifies that the two Manors of Kingston (in all 5 J
hides) had been geldable T. R. E, as only one hide. It seems probable that the extra-hidation of 4i hides
had been set entirely on the smaller Manor, and from what will appear in the sequel, that it was a
Domesday Increment, i. e., set after the Inquest of a.d. 1084.
The present parish of Kingston measures less than the Domesday Manors. The Ecclesiastical divisions
were probably settled long after Domesday, in fact there were no churches either at Brockley or at Kenn in
the 11th century,
Yatton, Beockley, and Kingston Seymour together formed an isolated portion of the Old Hundred of
Chewton,
CosiTONA. Mokthona, (Compton Martin and Moreton). — The 10 hides of Domesday are hai-dly
represented by the 2,308 acres which constitute the parish of Compton Martin, and its member, Moreton ;
though, per se, 231 acres are more than a parallel for the hide of this district. The exacter measures of
Domesday coordinate the said 10 hides with 2,520 acres : so that, by this infallible test, the two Domesday
Manors will have contained some wood or pasture more than is in the present parish.
Hantone (now Hinton Blewitt), — Both Domesdays sum this estate as 8 hides. It is clear that there were
but 7 hides, as the details show. Even thus the modern parish (1,102 acres) gives but 157i acres to represent the
hide. The exacter measures of Domesday indicate 780 acres of plough-land, 120 acres of wood, aud 60 acres
of meadow ; — in all 960 acres. It is the entry of the Inquest of 1084 and that of Domesday, relating to this
Manor, which prove William de Ou's Tenant " Hugo " to have been Hugh Maltravers, or, as the Inquest calls
him, " Hugo Malus-Transitus,"
138 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OE SOMERSET.
TuMBELi (now Ubley). — It was a propensity of the Norman Scribes of Domesday to prefix an arbitrary
letter where they found difficulty in the pronunciation of an English name. CoUiuBon (iii, 326) not
adverting to this propensity, states that Ubley is not named in Domesday, and misapplies the Domesday
notice of 'Tumbeli.' —
The parish of Ubley (1,800 acres) represents the Domesday hide by 360 acres. It was therefore a case
of favourable hidation. The exacter measures of the Domesday Manor are, as we reckon them, 600 acres of
arable land, 720 acres of wood, 720 acres of pasture, and 35 acres of meadow ; — in all 2,075 acres.
EsTONA (Stone Easton). — The parish, containing 1,374 acres, is somewhat in excess of the three Domesday
Manors. To these Domesday (by exact measurement) accords 1,174 acres. The hidation (7i hides) gives
about 190 acres to the hide.
Haia is now lost. It was certainly in Chewton Hundred, and in one of the parishes indicated by the
Table.
Ferentona. — The Domesday measures are 7 plough-lands, or, as we hold it, 840 acres + meadow, 100
acres ; in all 940 acres. The existing parish (viz. Farringtou Gurney) measures 923 acres. It is a valuable
illustration of our theory as to the average acreage of a ' plough-land.'
Amelberge (now Emborough). — The only manor surveyed in Domesday under this title was but a part of
the present pai-ish, the part to wit which was in Chewton Hundred. The part of Emborough, not in
Chewton Hundred, was in the Domesday Hundred of A^Tiitstone. It was called Whittenhall (Collinson, ii.
134, 157).
High Littleton and Hallatrow. — This seems a case of excessive hidation. But the present parish of
High Littleton (containing only 1,273 acres) cannot contain the whole of the two Domesday Manors. The
latter measure, according to our interpretation of Domesday, 1,478 acres.
Chiloompton. — The parish (1,233 acres) gives about 246^ acres as the ooiTelative of the Domesday hide.
When Domesday gives measures amounting to no more than 574 acres for the whole of this Manor we infer
that half of it was inappreciable. However, though there were only 3 ploughlands, there were 4 teams in
stock, which savours of improvement.
Chewton Hundred.— The Inquest of 1084 reckoned this Hundred to contain 1274 hides. If, in our
Table, we have rightly collected its Domesday elements, the Hundred then contained 7| hides more, that is
135J hides. —
We suggest that the Commissioners had found 44 more hides in Kingston (Seymour), 2 more hides in
Yatton, 1 more hide in Hinton (Blewitt) and a virgate more in some other manor, than had been conceived
by the Fegadri of 1084.
Of the seventeen parishes which corresponded with the Manors of the Pr£E-Domesday Hundi-ed of
Chewton, sixteen form the existing Hundred.
The migration of Yatton to Winterstoke Hundred has already been explained. The Old Hundred, allow-
ing about two-thirds of Emborough parish not to have been included therein, is now represented by some
37,741 acres. Taking the Domesday hidage to have been 135J hides, we have about 279 acres to represent
the hide of Chewton Hundx-ed.
But we should rather compare the Domesday hidage (135J hides) of this Hundred with the more positive
areas assigned by Domesday to the collective manors which compose such Hidage. —
These more positive measures amount to 29,208 acres, that is, of arable land (presumed to be an equiva-
lent of 170J plough-lands) 20,460 acres ; of registered wood-laud, 2809 acres ; of meadow-land, 787 acres ;
of pasturage and measured moor-land, 5152 acres.
This gives to everything that is called a hide in these Domesday Manors the vei-y intelligible proportion
of 2154 Domesday acres to each hide. But what are we to say about the (37741 -29208 = ) 8533 acres, by
which the acreage of modern ascertainment exceeds, as we see, the acreage of Domesday ? We say first
and most simply that these 8533 acres were not measured by Domesday as contingent on the manora which
surely composed the whole Hundred of Chewton, but possibly a part of them was measured into the
adjoining Hundred of Congresbury. We say next, that a part of these 8533 acres belonged to the King's
Forest of Mendip, and so was measured by Domesday elsewhere, that is in connexion with some extra-
Hundredal estate, or estates, of the Vetus Dominicum Coronce. We say, lastly, that the other part or
balance, whatever it may have been, of these 8533 acres, was not measured by Domesday at all, that it con-
CHEW HUNDRED. 139
Slated possibly of some ban-en portions of the Meudip Hills, more surely of a tract of marsh-land (moras) in
the vicmity of Yatton, of which Domesday measures only 120 acres ; and those 120 acres we presume to
have been so measured because they differed from the unequivocal swamp, and were pasturable. (See above,
p. 40).
The Domesday Value of Chewtou Hundred, viz., £137 Is. per annum, was at the rate of XI Os. 3d. per
hide, and of 1.1261 (penny and decimals of a penny) per Domesday acre ; also at the rate of 16 shillings per
ploughland, and of 17s. lid. per team in actual employ.
The number of Coliberti, Villaui, Bordarii, Cotirii, and Servi abiding in Chewton Hundred in a.d. 1086
was 462. This gives a single labourer to every 63 acres of Domesday measurement, to every 44 acres of
plough-land, and to every 40 acres of land actually ploughed.
INQUISICIO GHELDI (a.D. 1084) FOB CHEW HUNDEED (iNQ.-GHELDI, P. 73).
In hoc Hundreto sunt xxxv hida: (35 hides). H. v. f. h. v. k.
Inde habet Rex de GUdo &uo vi Ubras et x et viii denarios minus (i.e., £6 less 18d., )
or£5 18s. 6d.), proxetixhidisetiiivirgis j 19 3
Et Barones Regis habent in Dominio v hidas (5 hides).
De his habet Odo Flandrensis iii hid. et iii virg 3 3
Et Serlo de Burceio, i virgam 10
Et Alduinus i hidam 10
5 5
Et non habet Rex gildum de iiij hidis quas tenent Ulveva 4
Nee de vi hidis et i virga quas tenent Vniani Regis de Stocha 6 10
10 1 10 1
De hoc Hundreto debentur adhuc R«gi de GUdo suo 61 sol. et 6 den 35
(And note that £3 Is. 6d. at 6 shillings per hide, is the gheld on 10|^ hides).
KOTES ON THE INQUEST OF CHEW HUNDBED.
Odo Flandrigena reappears in Domesday with 3J hides in demesne, at Timesberua (now Timsbury).
Seelo de Bueci reappears in Domesday with an estate called Cilela (3 virgates), an estate called Stocca
(2 virgates) ' added to Cilela,' and another Stocca (2 virgates). Only in Cilela does the Record assign him a
special demesne. It is 2 virgates, and so double the demesne on which he had exemption in 1084.
Aldui reappears in Domesday as an Anglus Tegnus. His demesne in Stocca is put by the Exon Domes-
day at IJ hides. The context proves it to have been only 1 hide, as in the previous Inquest.
Olveva reappears in Domesday as the Bishop of Coutances' tenant at Norton (now Norton Malreward).
Her demesne was 4 hides.
Villani Regis de Stocha. — Chew-Stoke, we suggest, was before the Conquest, a Royal Manor, but held
T. R. E. by none but minor Thegns and Villeins. It is not named in Domesday as a manor of ancient
demesne, possibly because the King, at that period, retained no demesne whatever therein. Yet it appears
from this Inquest that two years previous to Domesday, King William, already divested of any demesne in
Chew-Stoke, had 6J hides in Villeinage (or in what the Inquest suggests to have been Villeinage) there.
No such estate continued in Domesday. In the interval (so we infer), the King had bestowed all this
Villeinage on some or other of the various Lords or Thegns who figure in Domesday as ownei-s of parcels of
land in Estoca or Stocca, or Estocket, and about whose said tenements we can find no other account.
kotes on the table (vol. il, pp. 21-22) of chew hundeed.
Hauekewblla (now Norton Hautville). Ulf and Wolmar, joint tenants of this small estate, are classed by
Domesday among the Angli Tegni, holding in capite of the King. The Fegadri of a.d. 1084 had accorded
them no exemption consistent mth such a position. In conformity with what has been suggested above,
we suggest here that the said Fegadri having been doubtful about the status of these Saxons, had ranked
140 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OP SOMERSET,
them among the " Villani Regis de Stoca," leaving their liability to Gheld an open question. The Domes-
day tenement of Alward and his Brethren in Estoca or Stoche had similarly teen non-exempted in 1084, and
yet they rank in Domesday among the Angli Tegni. Their case strengthens the suppositions above
expressed.
Norton Hautville, it should be observed, originally a Chapelry or affiliation of the Church of Chew
Magna, became, in course of time, a manorial adjunct of that same Episcopal Fee (see CoUinson ii, 107).
Estoca, al. Stoohe.— This estate is noticed in Domesday next after Hauekewella. The Exon Domesday
gives a confused account of its occupation. "Inde habet (Ahvardus) ii hidas, et dimidiam (hidam) et
diniidiam virgam et ii carrucas in dominio et villani aliam terram et dimidiam carrucam. Ibi habent fratres
i Villauum et xiii Bordarios et i servum et i roncinum," &c. : — as though the land belonged to Alward and
the bulk of the inhabitants, and the live stock belonged to his brethren. The Exchequer Domesday, if
simpler, is also clearer. It says, " Terra eat 2 carrucis quEC ibi sunt cum i Villano et i servo et 13
Bordariis."
EsTOOHET, al. Stochet. — The Exon Domesday, giving the second and third Thane only 2 vii-gates each in
this manor, is corrected by the context as well as by the list of Terrm occupatw (Exon Domesd. p. 476),
which says that their joint tenements were i hide, i virgate. This manor we suppose to be now represented
by a place called Bechenstoke or Birchenstoke. Collinson (ii. 319) mentions Bechenstoke under Nempnett
Thrubwell, but says it was on the confines of Chew-Stoke. Whatever its original parish, we incline to think
that it was manorially a part of Chew-Stoke, and so in the old Hundred of Chew.
Collinson explains that the name Bechen-Stoke was but a corruption of Beauchamp Stoke. It happens
too, that Beauchamp of Hatch, who held this manor in the 12th century, was lineally descended from Robert
Fitz Ivo, the Domesday possessor of Estochet. So much for the probable identity recognized in the Table.
On the other hand, it is observable that Beauchamp of Hatch, instead of continuing to hold Beauchamp-
Stoke as a Moretain Fee, and as part of his tenure in capite per Baroniam, came to hold it of the Honour of
Gloucester. This anomaly arose probably in Chewstoke coming to be annexed wholly to the said Honour of
Gloucester, and Beauchamp becoming Tenant of all. The distinctive name of Beauchamp-Stoke was thus a
sort of memorandum of Beauchamp's anterior feoffment in a part.
Stowet. — CoUinson (ii. 110) has found the Domesday type of this Manor in a place written Stawe, which
we venture to think was in Williton Hundred. Of that, hereafter. —
Stowey, in Chew Hundred, we cannot find in Domesday. Its subsequent history is very meagre, but is
not quite unsuggestive. Our idea is that, parochially, Stowey was a Chapelry or affiliation of the Bishop's
Manor of Chew Magna, but that, manorially, it never had any such relation. As a manor, or part of a
Manor, we suppose that Domesday either buries it in one of the Bishop of Coutances' Manors of Chew
Hundred, or else suppresses it among the manorial members of Chewstoke. In either case its probable
destination would be to the Seigueury of the Earls of Gloucester. And though we cannot find such a cir-
cumstance categorically stated, we find that "Hamo Fitz Richard" was sometime Lord of "Stowey in
Chew Hundred," and this Hamo we know to have been elsewhere a Tenant in the Honour of Gloucester.
Chew Hukdeed. — This Hundred (as tabulated, Vol. ii, pp. 21-22), purports to have contained in 1086
2 virgates, 3J fertines more than it was stated to contain in a.d. 1084. This is but an ordinary increment.
The six parishes, instanced in the Table an representing the Domesday Manors of Chew Himdred, measure
7377 acres, which gives about 205 acres as the correlative of each Domesday'^Hide. But it is probable that the
Domesday Manors contained something more than is measured by the six parishes ; that some of them —
Norton Malreward for instance' — had complements of land which are now to be found in the parishes o£
Chew Magna or Dundry, which latter, as Manors, belonged to another Hundred than Chew.
We shall get at the true acreage of the Domesday Hundred by summing the exacter measures of the
Record. These amount to 7514 acres, viz., of arable land (answering to 40 plough-lands), 4800 acres ; of wood,
1844 acres ; of meadow, 266 acres ; and of pasture, 604 acres.
The Domesday Hide of Chew Hundred was, at this rate, parallel with 210 acres of coeval reckoning.
The Domesday value of Chew Hundred, viz., £26 5s. per annum, was at the rate of 14s. 8d. per hide, and
of about .8285 (decimals) of a penny per acre ; also at the rate of 13s. l^d. per plough-land ; and of 16s. 8d,
per team in actual employ.
The number of Villeins, Boors, and Serfs working in Chew Hundred was 108. This giTes a single
HAM MANOR. 141
labourer to every 694 acres of the land registered in Domesday, to every 44^ acres of arable land, and to
every 35 acres of laud actually ploughed.
The Modern Hundred ov Chew contains the parishes of Chew Magna (5014 acreis) and Dundry (2799
acres). These parishes and most part of their united areas (of 7813 acres) formed at the date of Domesday
the one manor of Chew-Magua, which was then in the Bishop's Hundred. The exacter Domesday measures
of Chew Magna are 7590 acres.
Combine the Domesday measures of Chew Hundred and Chew Magna Manor and you have a total of
(7514 + 7590=) 15,104 acres.
Combine the parochial acreages of the modern Hundred of Chew, and you have a total of (7377 + (Chew
Magna and Dundry) 7813= 15,190 acres of modern ascertainment. The proximity of the two results, after
a lapse of nearly eight centuries, is marvellous.
INQUISIOIO GHELDI (a.D. 1084) FOB H-VM MANOIl (iNQ. GHELD., V. 75).
" In Mamione Hame sunt xvii hida:. H. v. p.
Inde habet Rex 42 solidos de gildo pro vii hidis 7
Et Abbas de Glastingesberia habet in dominio suo V hid et dim. et dim. virg 5 2 2
Non habuit Rex Gildum suum de xi hid. et dim. virgil quas tenet Serlo de Burceio de i
Abbate Glastingberiensi '
Nee de V ragis quas tenet Rotbertus de Otborvilla de predicto Abbate 1 1
Kec de i hida quam teuent Villani Abbatis 10
De hie rJiM debentur Regi xxvi sol. et iii den (corresponding to) 4 12 4 12
17
NOTES ON THE INQUEST OF HAII ILVNOB.
Domesday repeats the whole detail of the Inquest, but makes Serlo de Burci to have 2h. 2v. 2f. in
demesne, and adds another Abbatial tenant, viz., Girard Fosarius, who will have duly paid his Gheld in 1084.
Domesday, in the details of the Manor of Ham, omits all notice of one hide out of the seventeen which
it prescribes for the whole estate. The non-geldant hide, which the Inquest says was held by the Abbot's
Yillems, was probably the same. If so, it will have been unoccupied, both in 1084 and 1086.
NOTES ON THE TABLE (vOL. II., PP. 21-22) OF H.V1I MANOE.
The modern acreage of Ham Parish is 4,229 acres, as given in the Table. The Domesday exacter
measures of the Manor are 2,496 acres, viz., arable land, 2,400 acres ; wood, meadow, and pasture, 96 acres.
The Domesday hide is here paralleled by about 147 Domesday acres, 141 acres of which were arable laud.
IT The Domesday value of this manor, viz., £15 10s. per annum, was at the rate of 18s. 3d. per hide, and
nearly l^d. per acre of Domesday ; also at the rate of 153. 6d. per plough-land, and 173. 5d. per team in
actual employ.
The number of ViUeins, Boors, and Serfs abiding on this manor, A.D. 1086, was 68. This gives a single
labourer to every 37 acres of Domesday registration, to every 36 acres of plough-laud, and to every 30 acres
of land in actual tillage.
The probable reason why 1,733 acres of this manor were ignored in Domesday was, as usual, that they
were profitless.
142 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OF SOMERSET.
THE INQUISICIO-QHELDI POU THE " BISHOP's HUNDBED " (a.D. 1041), (iNQ.-QHBLDI, PP. 70-71).
De i pate (parte) terras Gisonis Episoopi, quae pertinet ad honorem Episoopii sui, sunt hio cc hid. et x et
viii hidso (218 hides).
Iiide habet Rex de Gildo auo £40 4 sol. pro vi.xx hid. et xiiii hid
De his (218 hides) habet Episoopus in dominio xlviii hidis (hidas)
Non habet Rex gildum suum. —
Pro iii hidis qiias tenet Osmundus nepos Episoopi (Gisonis) 3
Nee pro ii hidis quas tenuit Manasses 2
Neo pro i hid. et dim. quas tenet Alvered, homo Rogeri Arundelli 1
Nee pro ii hidis quas tenet Johannes Hostiarius 2
Nee pro i hida quam tenent Teodoricus et Egebertus 1
Nee de i hida quam tenet Ricardus de Sutuna 1
Nee de i hida quam tenet (tenent) Worno et Macarius 1
Nee de iiij hidis et dim. quas tenent vacuas Villani Episoopi 4
Neo de vii hidis quas tenet Isaac prjcpositus Canonioonim Sti Andrese 7
(Neo de) vi hidis (quas tenent) Canonici Sti Andresc 6
(Neo de) i hid. et dim. quas tenet Benselinus Arohidiaoonus 1
Neo de v hidis et dim. quas tenent vi presbyteri Parrochiani 5
134
48
2
2
2
2
36 36
218
" De ccxviii prediotis hidis sunt adhuo retro £10 16s. qui deberent esse redditi in thesauro Regis"' (and the
money will be found to be exaotly 6s. per hide on the 36 hides in arrear).
There is another clause in this Inquest which, being improperly placed after the words PaiToohiani, we
here annex as being really a Postscript, and as having nothing to do with the arithmetic of the Table : —
" Et de i hidS. de quS, Ansgerus et socii sui qui ooUigerunt gildum Regis dicunt se reoepisse denarios non habet
Rex gildum suum." It means that Ansger and his fellow collectors had taken six sliillings out of the £40 4s.
actually collected, and had consequently forwarded only £38 18s. to the King's Treasury. The deduction
was their due, as the Fegadri or Collectors for this large Hundred. Ansger is probably identical with Ansger
Cocus, a King's Serjeant, and landed proprietor. (See under Thurlbear Hundred, infra).
NOTES ON THE GHELD INQUEST OP THE " BISHOP'S HUNDRED."
" De una parte terra; Gisonis Epiacopi," that is, the Inquisicio did not deal with the whole of Bishop
Giso'a estates. Fovir manors, viz., Banwell, Yatton, Wedmore, and Wanstrow, were still reputed to be in
their proper Hundreds of Winterstoke, Chewton, Bimastan, and Frome. They have, none of them, at any
subsequent period, been collected into any Episcopal Hundred. They still remain in their pra;-Domesday
Hundred, except Yatton, which has been taken from Chewton Hundred and annexed to Winterstoke.
Bishop Giso's demesnes, 48 hides, as asserted in the Inquest, are exactly reproduced )
in Domesday, viz. — In Wells, 12 hides. In Evercreech, 3 hides. In Chew Magna, > Total 22 hides.
4 hides. In Westbury, 3 hides. )
In Kingsbury East, 6 hides. In Combe St. Nicholas, 8 hides. In Chard, 2 hides. 1
In Litelaneia, 1 hide. \ Total 17 hides.
In Wivelescombe, 3 hides. In Wellington, 3 hides ; and in Bishops Lydeard, 3 hides. Total 9 liides.
Grand Total, 48 hides.
Osmund Nepos Episoopi.— His default was for 3 hides in Winsham, where he held 10 hides (four of them
in demesne) under his uncle, — Bishop Giso.
Manasses. — Manasses Cocus was dead at the date of the Inquest. His land, 2 hides in Wells, was in
manu Regis; — improperly so, for he had held it under Bishop Giso. In Domesday Manasses's widow
appears holding the tenement of the King; but the injustice of this is noted in the Record.
Roger Arundel appears in Domesday as holding 2 hides (1 hide. If vii-gates in demesne, and 2^ virgates
THE EPISCOPAL HUNDRED. 143
in villeinage) in Aisxa (Ash). His tenant, Givoldus, holds 1 hide, 1 virgate "added to Ash." It was
Arundel's demesne probably (though reckoned as IJ hides) that was insolvent in 1084. And, if he held it
in capite of the ICing, it was, doubtless, insolvent because exempt. At that rate, Alvered, the alleged
defaulter of 1084, will have been Arundel's BaiUft, rather than his tenant. If, however, Alvered, the alleged
insolvent of 1084, were Arundel's tenant, the insolvency was probably due to Alvered's death. Accordingly
Alvered disappears from Domesday, and Givoldus takes his place, though with a tenement somewhat smaller
that which had been surcharged in Alvered's name two years previous. Giso, Bishop of Wells, was
a claimant of the Seigneury over Ash. It had been his T. R. E. This led to the estate being doubly
surveyed in Domesday, onoe as in the Bishop's Fief, once as in Roger Arundel's.
John Usher reappears in Domesday as holding two hides in WaUntona (Wellington) under Bishop Giso.
Teodobio and Egbert do not reappear by name in Domesday. They were probably two of the unnamed
Millies who figure in Domesday as tenants of Bishop Giso at Kingsbury (East), Wivelescome, and Birihnp's
Lydeard.
Richard de Sutton of the Inquest reappears in Domesday as ' Ricardus,' and as holding 5 hides in Wells
and 5 hides in Chew under the Bishop. Bishops-Suttou and Knighton-Sutton were then, and still are,
members of Chew Magna,
WoBNO belongs to the same category as Teodoric and Egbert, above mentioned.
Macarius reappears in Domesday as holding IJ hides in Evercreech under the Bishop.
Four and a half hides " quas tenent vacuas Villani Episcopi " are insolvent in 1084. They were
nominally appurtenant to the Villeinage of one or more of the Episcopal estates, but being unoccupied, or at
least, untilled, it is obvious that no gheld could arise therefrom. Such is probably the ratio of many
similar entries in the Inquest of 1084. The alleged tenants were perhaps deceased, perhaps only destitute.
Isaac, Pbovost op the Canons of St. Andrew, was Head of the Chapter of Wells ; — represented by the
'Dean' of later nomenclature. Neither Dean Isaac nor " Ai'ohdeacon Benseline" are expressly named in
Domesday as Landowners in the " Bishops Hundred ;" but Litton (8J hides) seems to have constituted their
joint estate. Domesday merely records Litton as held by " Canons of St. Andrew " under the Bishop. Its
area, SJ hides, corresponds exactly with the (7 hides + li hides =) SJ hides on which Isaac and Benseline
paid no gheld in 1084. They probably denied aU liability, whether of themselves or their Villeins.
The " Canons of St. Andrew " were further insolvent as to 6 hides in 1084. Here the "Canons" mean the
whole Chapter of Wells. The Capitular estate was 14 hides in Wells. The six hides, on which, apparently,
they refused to pay gheld, reappear in Domesday as the precise extent of their demesnes.
The "six Parish Priests," insolvent, or exempt, or claiming exemption as to 5 J hides of the Bishop's
Hundred, we can hardly expect to identify in Domesday. In that Record Bishop Giso has among his
tenants, a Priest at Evercreech, and a Clerk at Kingsbury (East). In WeUs itself " Fastradus and
Radulfus," holding 2 hides each, "de dominio Episcopi" were perhaps Parish Priests, and their liability as
to such tenements was perhaps problematical. Other names of tenants such as Emisius, Ailward Crocco,
Edric, Hildebert, possibly belonged to Parish Priests ;— and indeed of Ailward Crocco and Edric, holding
a hide each in Wells, Domesday, expressly records that they had "never paid gheld in King Edward's time."
notes on the table (vol. ii, pp. 23-24), op the bishop's hundbed.
The details of hidage suppUed by Domesday do not fulfil the hidage of Domesday Totals quoted in the
fifth column of page 23 of the Table. Two virgates omitted in the Domesday details and 1 virgate super-
added, give a Hundred (of 219i hides) just one virgate short of the more general estimate (of 219^ hides).
The Bishop's Hundbed contained according to the Inquest (of a.d. 1084) 218 hides. The Domesday
materials realize (as in the Table) 219^ hides. The difference of IJ hides may pass as an ordinary
Domesday Increment, without any attempt to account for it specifically.
The Table shows how the Inquisitional and Praj-Domesday aggregates which formed the Bishop's
Hundred, have since Domesday, been resolved into four distinct Franchises. Of the new Hundreds, that of
"Kingsbury East" got its name from containing the Manor of Kingsbury East. "Kingsbury West,"
another New Hundred, got its name, not as involving any Manor of Kingsbury West (for there was no such
Manor), but as invohing manors which lay Westward of the manors which formed the Hundred of
Kingsbury East,
144 THE SOMEESET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OF SOMERSET.
Wella. — The Domesday Manor of Wells involved the bulk of seven parishes specified in the Table.
Three were in Wells itself ; the other four have no nominal mention in Domesday, being involved, as
aforesaid. The Domesday Manor of Wells further included Woi-minster, then a manorial appendage of
Diuder. But Worminster, though still a Tithing of Wells, has been parochially annexed to North Wootton,
BO that its acreage, whatever it may be, will be found involved in that of North Wootton, whose acreage we
give in our Table of Whitstone Hundred.
Pkiddt. — The parish measured in the Table as 1,361 acres, is the Civil Parish. The Ecclesiastical Parish is
5,000 acres, but is merely a modern combination of heterogenous elements, bearing no analogy to ancient
divisions. Priddy, reckoned as 5,000 acres, consists not only of Priddy itself (1,361 acres), and of parts of
Wookey (3,420 acres), and of Westbury (2,968 acres), and of Wells St. Cuthbert, all in the Hundred of
Wells, but also of parts of Chewton Mendip, and of East and West Harptree, whose acreage, as given in
the Tables of other Hundreds, is none the less for having contributed to the formation of an ecclesiastical
district.
EvERCRiz. — The details of this Manor, given in Domesday, are less by one virgate than the alleged total.
When this is the case, the presumption is that the omitted parcel of land was untenanted at the moment.
When, as in the Table, the parish of Evercreech is entered as containing 4078 acres, it is not strictly cor-
rect to classify those 4078 acres as in the " Bishop's Hundred." Chesterblade, no doubt, was a manorial
appendage of Evercreech, and was, therefore, in the " Bishop's Hundred." But Stoney Stretton and Bag-
bury, though in Evercreech parish, were not the Bishop's, manorially. They were members of the Abbot of
Glastonbury's Manor of PUton, and so were, in fact, in Whitstone Hundred at Domesday.
Weils Fobuu Hundeed. — The present Hundred contains, which the Bishop's Hundred did not contain.
West Cranmore. At the date of Domesday West Cranmore was considered to be in Frome Hundred, and
the Bishop of Wells had as yet no concern therein. When, at length, a later Bishop wrested West Cran-
more from Glastonbury Abbey, he procured its annexation to his own Hundred of Wells.
Cmn (Chew Magna). — The details of this Manor, as given in Domesday, are one vix'gate less than the
alleged total of 30 hides. On such a circumstance we have spoken above. —
The Domesday Manor was clearly inclusive of Dundry, now parochially distinct. The exacter measures
given by Domesday for Chiu amount to 7598 acres. Chew Pai-ish measures 5014 acres, Dundry parish
measures 2799 acres. Together they are 7813 acres, — a very satisfactory indication of their being co-repre-
sentatives of the one Domesday Manor. —
It is worth notice that, among the Bishop's tenants at Chew, Domesday mentions one Aluric de Stawe.
It might be surmised from this that Stowey, unnamed in Domesday, was so unnamed as being a member
of Chew Magna. We have discussed the [question already. We think that, parochially, it was a member
of Chew Magna, but that, manorially, it was a member of some manor which was in the Domesday Hun-
dred of Chew. —
In after-times. Chew Magna itself became interned in Chew Hundred ; and probably that was its position
before the Conquest ; only, when Bishop Giso was forming his Episcopal Hundred, he contrived to annex
Chew Magna thereto.
Ceedbb (Chard). — The summary Hidage given by Domesday is 8 hides. The details, supplied by the
Exon Codex seem to realize 10 hides — probably _^by the mere error of giving the Villeinage as vi hides, when
it ought to have been iiii hides.
Littblaneia (Exon Domesday) Litelande (Exchequer Domesday). — CoUinson interprets Litelande as
Ldcfhland, which, being in Old Cleeve, is quite out of question here. The name, in either Domesday form,
is now obsolete. There are two peculiarities in the Domesday notice of Littelaneia. In general, when the
Kecord means to certify the Prse-Conquestual seizin of any manor by the Bishop, it says that Giso held
it " die qua Rex Edwardus fuit vivus et mortuus ;" but of Littelaneia it only says that Giso held it " tem-
pore Edwardi Regis." Again, in no case, where Bishop Giso is said to have held a manor on the day of
King Edward's death does Domesday declare the value of such manor " Qviando Episcopus recepit." But
in the case of Littelaneia, Domesday does declare such an older value (it was £2). The ground of the pre-
valent usage was, of course, that Bishop Giso, having sat before the Conquest, the older value " quando
recepit " could not be ascertained at the date of Domesday. The inference, then, as regards the peculiar
expressions about Littelaneia, would be, that Bishop Giso had held the estate sometime in King Edward's
THE EPISCOPAL HUNDRED. 145
reign, that he held it not in 1066, but that he had since recovered it. Thus its value, " quando recepit,"
would easily transpire at the date of Domesday. As to how Littelaneia may be now represented, that must
needs be matter of conjecture. —
HnisH Episoopi has, from time immemorial, been a, possession of the See of "Wells, King Edward's
Charter to Giso, Bishop of Wells, purports to have been dated at Windsor on May 20, 1065. Some of the
Villa (viculi) which the Charter gives as appurtenances of the Bishop's Manor of Cynegesbyrig (Kingsbury
East) were very distant from the latter manor. We may instance Cuma (Combe St. Nicholas), Cardren
(Chard), Winesham (Winsham), Cungareshbyrig (Congresbury), and BanaweUi (BanweU). Two other appur-
tenant viculi, not so distant, perhaps, from Kingsbury as the above, are vmtten consecutively in the Charter
as Lytleinge and Hivnse. The first is the Littelaneia, alias Litelande of Domesday ; the last is Huish
Episcopi, and was not mentioned in Domesday at all. Our conjecture is that, in Domesday, Littelaneia
stands for itself and for Huish, while, since Domesday, Huish Episcopi has been the only recognized name
for the same joint estates. We have imported this view into the Table.
CuMBA (Combe St. Nicholas), Winesham (Winsham). — We will say nothing more about King Edward's
alleged Charter of 1065 than that it is instructive on matters of topography, and that it shows, if not any
genuine grants of the King, yet still, what the Church of Wells claimed before the Conquest. At that rate
we may assume that the said Church had some ancient title to these estates. It is still more certain that in
January, 1066, the Bishop of Wells was not seized of either estate, and that when Domesday was written
he had obtained or recovered them both. Accordingly, in the case of Combe, Domesday gives the value of
the manor, quando Episcopus accepit, and, in the case of Winsham, it gives the value, quando Osmundut (the
Bishop's nephew and Feoffee) recepit.
Combe St. Nicholas and Winsham were near the ancient Episcopal estate of Chard, and, at the time
(between 1067 and 1084) when Bishop Giso obtained them, they were reputed to be in Abdick Hundred.
The Gheld-Inquest of a.d. 1084 makes indirect but clear allusion to both estates, in what it says under
Abdick Himdred {supra, pp. 94-95). No less clear is it that the Inquest of the " Bishop's Hundred " con-
cludes both estates as already in that Franchise. The period of transfer is thus apparent. Since Domes-
day, both estates have been removed from the " Bishop's Hundred " (which was, in fact, dissolved), and
have been annexed to that section of the Bishop's Hundred which is still known as the Hundred of Kings-
bury East. Their proximity to Chard suggested the arrangement.
It should be observed that at the date of the Conquest and of Domesday, the whole of the parish of
Winesham was not in Abdick Hundi-ed, nor is this part of the parish touched by the above remarks. The
portions of the parish (viz.. Street, and Leigh, and Whatley) which were thus unimpUcated, were at the
date of Domesday in South Pethertou Hundred. And so they continued till the mere force of parochial
attraction drew them into the Hundred of Ifingsbury East.
Hundred of Kingsbury West. — This section of the dissolved " Bishop's Hundred " was made to include
the four Domesday Manors of Wivelescome, Wellington, Bishop's Lydeard, and Aisxa (now Priors Ash).
The Domesday Wivelescombe was inclusive of Fitzhead. King Edward's previous Charter is good proof
of that theory. The Charter names, among the VUlulce, appurtenant to Wifdescombe, " Fifehyda et other
Fifehyda " — i. e., two Five-hides — now compounded into one Fitzhead.
So, too, must the Domesday Walintona be taken to have included West Buckland. The first of the
ViUulx which King Edward's alleged Charter of 1065 annexes to Bishop Giso'a Manor of Wellington is
written Bocland.
LiDEGAB (Bishops Lydeard). — The details given by Domesday amount to one virgate more than the alleged
total hidage. Probably the Villeinage should have been stated as " 4 hida; vtA virgatil minus.''
AISSA (Priors Ash). — This was T. R, E. a member of Bishops Lydeard, held by two Thegns, ^Irio and
Sweyn, under Giso, Bishop of Wells. Harold, first Earl and then King, wrested the two Thegnages from
the Church. At the Conquest they -fell to the Crown, by escheat of Harold, King WilUam gave them to
Roger Arundel, ColUnson (ii. 497), after erroneously identifying Roger Arundel ^vith Comte Roger the
Poitevin, tells truly how Roger Arundel eventually confen'ed Ash on Taunton Priory. Hence its name of
Ash Priors. We need not add that it was never recovered by the See of Wells.
146 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OP SOMERSET.
THE bishop's hundred. ITS OOMPABATIVB MBASUEES, ANCIENT AND MODEEN.
We append, in ■-■ Tabular form, a list of the manors which foi-med the " Bishop's Hundred" of A.D. 1084,
and which constituted the 219i hides found in Domesday, and collected in the Table (Vol ii, p. 23).
The exacter Domesday measures of each manor are then supplied ; and the whole is compared with the
acreage of the corresponding, or nearly corresponding, modem parishes. ^^^ ^
WeUa .
Evercriz . , .
Westburia .
littuia . . .
Chin
Kingsbury East
Cedre
liteland
Cumba
"Winsham
Wivelflcome ....
TValinton
Lidegar ,
i^lssa. . .
219J Hides 321
60
Acreage
of
Plougli-
lands.
7200
2400
060
840
6000
2880
2400
960
1920
1920
4320
3960
1920
840
38,620
Acres of
Nemus.
460
120
240
30
20
120
90
SO
240
10
3990
Acres of
Pratum
60
30
60
100
100
15
12
12
6
34
lio
30
Acres of
Pascua.
200
1000
60
360
960
100
60
200
,360
20
Acres
of
Mora.
Total
Acreage
of
Manors.
03 .Q.-J
g 3 §■3
12,640
27S0
1230
1930
7590
3340
4335
1092
2113
2016
4634
4970
25.50
S7S
o p m rt a
Vl8,6S0
7590
I
;-12,895
I
K3,032
62,097
Wells
Forum
30,204-<
Cliew. .
7813 1
Kings-
bury, E.
18,757
Kings-
bury W.
21,379
78,153
Wells, 3 Parishes . .
Bisegar
Dinder
Wookey
Priddy
Evercreech, &c
Westbury
Litton
Chew Magna
Dundry
Kingsbury East . . . ,
jChai-d
I Tatworth
Huish Episcopi ...
Combe St. Nicholas
Winsham (Part of)
Wivelescome
Fitzhead
Wellington
West Buckland . . . ,
Bishops Lydeard . .
Ash Prioi-s
1,4918
1216
1072
3420
1361
4078
2968
1171
5014
2799
3646
6162
1552
2314
4203
1880
6984
1208
5195
3671
4686
635
II The difference between the Domesday registration and the modem measurement is 26,056 acres for the
whole "Bishops Hundred." It indicates some portions perhaps of Royal Forest, registered by Domesday
elsewhere, that is under some or other of tlie Royal Manors. It indicates, more certainly, large extents of
Moors and Uplands, which, though within the Bishop's territory, the Domesday Surveyors ignored as
worthless, and did not register at all.
The Domesday value of the "Bishop's Hundred," viz., £267 10s., was at the rate of £1 43. it^. per hide ;
and of 1"232 (penny and decimals of a, penny) per registered acre ; also at the rate of 16s. 8d. per plough-
land. On the 321 plough-lands of the " Bishop's Hundred " there were working 262J teams in a.d. 1086. The
whole value of the Hundred, if assessed on the working teams, would give £1 -Os. 44d. per team.
The number of Swineherds, Villeins, Boors, and Serfs abiding in the Bishop's Hundred a.d. 1086 was
614. This gives a single Labourer to each 85 acres of Domesday registration ; to every 63 acres of plough-
land ; and to every 62 acres of land actually ploughed.
THE INQUISIOIO OHELDI (A.D. 1084) FOE HAEECLn'E HUNDRED (iNQ. GHELDI, P. 68).
In Huudreto Hareclivss sunt 80 hidfo et 1 virga.
Inde habuit Rex de Gildo Suo £18 63. pro Ix et i hidis
Et Barones Regis habent in suo dominicatu xvi hidas et iii virgas.
De his habet Episcopus de Sauoto Laudo v hid. et iii virg. in dominio 5 3
Et Abbas de Glastingeberia xi hidas 11
61
16 3 16 3
Et non habet Rex Gildum suum pro i hid:\ et dimid. quam tenet Fulcherarius de i
Episcopo de Sto Lando \
Nee pro dim. hida quam tenet Nigellus de Gomaio 2
Nee pro dim. liida quam tenet Godwynus AngUcus 2
" De hoc Hundreto debentur adhuc Regi de Gildo suo 15 solidi." 2 2 2 2
(Note 15 shillings, at 6s. per hide, is the correct assessment on 2^ hides.) ^~~~" 80 1
HAKTCLIFFE HUNDRED, 147
NOTES ON THE INQUEST OF HARTCLIFPE HUNDRED.
The Bishop op St. Lo, otherwise Geoffrey Bishop of Coutancea, held Eshtuna, where he had 5^ hides
of demesne at the date of Domesday. Consistently with both Records, Long Ashton, still in the Hundred
of HartcKffe-cum-Bedminster, is identified with Eshtuna.
The Abbot of Glastonbury's demesne of 11 hides reappeared in Domesday as his demesne in Weritona
(now Wrington). Since then, the manor has been abstracted from Hartcliffe Hundred, and annexed to the
more Abbatial Hundred of " Brent-cum-Wrington."
Fulcean's default was rather in respect of some part of the five hides which he held singly in Winford
under the Bishop of Coutanoes, than of any part of the 3 hides which he held in Butoombe, or of any part
of the 10 hides which he held conjunctively with Nigel, in Backwell, of the same Bishop.
Nigel de Gornai was not only joint Lord of Baokwell in this Hundred, but he also held Berua (10
hides), of the same Bishop. With Berua he left the name of his race. It is still Barrow- Gumay. His
default on a half-hide was probably the result of some uncertainty as to the extent of his demesne.
Godwin Anglious will reappear in Domesday as a King's Almonee, and as holding two virgates in capite
at Ragiol (now Ridge Hill). One would have expected an exemption rather than a default to have been
recorded against his name.
notes on the table (vol. II., pp. 2-3-24) op hartcliffe hundred.
Alduica. Ragiol. Ragiol. — Domesday describes one of Serlo de Burci's estates at Ridge Hill as an
additamcntum of his estate at Aldwick, and then describes his second estate at Ridge Hill as an addita-
mentum of the first estate at Ridge Hill. The Schedule of TerrcE occupatce (Exon. Domesday, p. 483) says
of the three estates collectively: — " Heeo terra nunquam pertinuit ad Euerwacre." The meaning of this
is that, whereas Serlo de Burci's ordinary title was as successor to the estates of the Saxon Euerwacre {alias
Alwacre, or Euroaere, or Euerwacher, or Euroacro), he derived these three estates from no such antecessor.
GoDEWiN Anglicus is described in Domesday as " ille idem qui prius habuit totam mansionem ea die
quS, Rex Edwardus fuit vivus et mortuus." Godwin, we conclude, was the unnamed Thane who, T. R. E.,
had held one of Serlo de Burci's estates at Ridgehill. But he can only have been one of the four unnamed
Thanes who had held Serlo de Burci's other estate there.
Roger Witen, occasionally so called when only tenant of some other chief, was himself of Baronial
degree. His usual style, in Domesday, is "Roger de Corcelle."
Caluica. — The ablatum from Chelvey, of 1 virgate, is not to be understood as in diminution of Matthew
de Moretain's hide there, but as -svrested by the Bishop of Coutances from the pra3-Conquestual estate of
TurchiU, probably before Matthew's seizin. The Bishop's title to one hide in MidgehiU, and his succession
to TurchiU in the whole of Baokwell, probably suggested this further appropriation, or " occupation," as
the process was called.
Megela (MidgehUl) is noticed low down in the Bishop of Coutances' Domesday Schedule, and far apart
from his other manor in this Hundred. The entry is clearly postscriptive.
Haetclifp Hundred. — The Domesday scrutiny seems to have added If hides to the hidage recorded for
this Hundred in 1084.
The eighty-two Domesday hides, compared with a parochial acreage of 21,102 acres, give the very specious
proportion of 257 J acres per hide.
The exacter Domesday measures of the several manors of this Hundred amount to 24,409 acres. This is
just 4,444 acres in excess of the modem parochial measurements, which amount to 19,965 acres.
Nearly all this difference is accounted for in the single instance of Wrington, whose parish (5749 acres) is
4095 acres less than its Domesday Manor of 9844 acres.
The present Hundred of Habtcliffe-cum-Bedminster includes all that was in the Prto-Domesday Hun-
dreds of Hareclive and Bedmihster, except Wrington, which has been transferred to the Abbatial Hundred
of Brent-cum-Wrington, and except a small part of Abbots-Leigh, which has been transferred to Portbury
Hundred by a process hereafter to be shown. The present Hundred of Hartcliffe-cum-Bedminster includes
that which neither of the two Prse-Domesday Hundreds aforesaid included, viz., the mass of the Manor of
Bedminster, which, at the date of Domesday, was a Royal Manor and external to any Hundred whatever.
LutSGATE, alias " St. Katherine's, Felton HUl," is now, and in some sort, a parish of this Hundred ; but
L 2
148 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OF SOMERSET.
it is quite a recent formation, taken out of the several parishes of Winford, Backwell, and Wrington, whose
areas are given in the above Table on the pre-existing basis.
Nempkett Thbubwell, with its tything of Regilbury, and its adjunct of Birchin Stoke (formerly Beau-
champ-Stoke) constitutes a parish of 1772 acres ; which parish Collinson (ii. 318) placed in the Hundred of
Hartcliffe-cum-Bedminater. Other authorities place the parish in the remoter Hundred of Keynsham.
Manorially, we suggest, the whole parish consisted of parcels taken from diverse Domesday Manors, and
these parcels became parochially consolidated by most of them having been granted, sooner or later, to
Flaxley Abbey. Thus, also, the previous manorial and hundredal distmctions of such parcels may have
been swept away. Still theorizing, and with very inadequate data to guide us, we should guess that if a
small portion of Nempnett parish was once in Butcome Manor and so in Hartcliffe Hundred, other portions
may have been appendant to Blagdou, in Winterstoke Hundred, to Moreton, or Compton Martin, or Ubley,
or West Harptree in Chewton Hundred, while part, viz., Birchin- Stoke seems to have been in Chew
Hundred.
As it is necessary to our plan to give the acreage of every modern parish under some Hundred or other,
we have preferred to follow Collinson in placing Nempnett in Hartcliffe Hundred. This increases the
parochial acreage of that Hundred to 21,102 acres.
The Comparative Measures of Hartcliffe Hundred (Old).— Here each of 82 hides was parallel with
about 297 acres of Domesday Registration. The Domesday value of the Hundred, viz., £96 18s. Od. per
annum, was at the rate of £1 3s. 7|d. per hide ; and of about f^ths of a penny per registered acre ; also at
the rate of 14s. 8d. per plough-laud.
The indications are those of a poor territory ; for though the Revenue per hide was normal, each bide
consisted of so large a complement of acres, that the revenue per acre becomes depressed. The revenue
also, if assessed only on the arable land, is below the average of Somerset Hundreds.
THE IXQUISICIO GHELDI FOB HUNE3PILL HUNDRED (a.D. 1084).
In Hundreto Hunespillic quod tenet Walscinus de Duaco est tantum i hida.
De hfto (hidfl) habet Rex, de Gildo suo, vi solidos.
Et cum hoc Hundreto fuerunt recepti 18 solidi pro iii hidis qu£E erant de Hundreto Locheslega3.
NOTES ON THE INQUEST OF HDNESPILL HUNDRED.
Walsceline de Douai's Manor of Huntspill was a Hundred in itself. Its constitution as a single hide
was an ancient privilege. Its contents, certified in Domesday, were 1860 acres. Though Walsceline de
Douai jjays gheld on this whole hide in 1084, he appears in Domesday as holding half thereof in demesne.
The three hides of Lochesley Hundred which, in 1084, rendered gheld to the Collectors of Hunespill
Hundred, were three hides held by Alured de Hispania in demesne, and in Woolaviugton, a member of the
Abbot of Glastonbury's Manor of Shapwick. The Collectors of the Gheld for Lochesley Hundred enter
Alured de Hispania as in arrear for such a proportion of the tax.
NOTES ON THE TABLE (vOL. 11, PP. 23-24), OF HUNESPILL HUNDRED.
The single hide which by ancient privilege measured the geldability of this Manor and Hundred is
represented in Domesday by 1,860 acres of contemjiorary measurement, viz., plough-land, 1,560 acres ;
meadow, 100 acres ; pasture, 200 acres. The area of the existing Parish of Huntspill is 5,94-t acres, but the
excess over the Domesday Manor is not quite so great as, at first sight, it may appear : for the Parish
includes Alston-Mareis, which at the date of Domesday was a distinct Manor of Bimastane Hundred,
represented by one hide, or, oorrelatively, by 400 acres of more exact measurement. On the whole then,
we hare (1,860 -I- 400 =) 2,260 acres of Domesday measurement, contrasting with 6,944 acres of modern
ascertainment. In other words, there were in Huntspill Parish (5,944- 2,260 =) 3,684 acres, which
were either Extra-Manorial and appurtenant to the King's Forests of Somerset, or else so utterly waste as
to have been ignored by the Domesday Surveyors.
The Domesday Value of Huntspill Manor, viz., £8, was at the rate of £8 per liide, and of iT^d. per acre
of Domesday estimate ; also at the rate of 12s. Sjd. per plough-land, and per team, actually employed.
The number of Villeins, Boors, Cottars, and Serfs abiding in Huntspill Hundred, in a.d. 1086, was 38.
This gives a single Labourer to eveiy 49 acres of Domesday registration ; to every 41 acres of plough-land
and to e-\^ery 41 acres of land actually ploughed,
FROME HUNDRED. 149
INQTJISICIO OHELDI (1084) FOB FBOME HUNDRED (iNQniS.-QHELDI, PP. 489-490).
lu Huudreto Fromaj sunt coc hiclfo ii luiuus (i. e., 298 hides).
De his habet Rex de Gildo suo £50 18s. 6d. pro olx et ix hid. et iii. virgLs 169 3
H. V. F.
Et Barones Regis habent ia dominio c hidas et xv ; dim. virg. minus (114 3 2).
De his habet Episoopus de Sto Laudo xiii hid. et dim. virg 13 2
Et Hardinus de Vntona ix hidas in dominio 9
Et Rogerus ArundeUus vii hidas et virgam et dimid 7 12
Et Abbas de Montebor ii liid. et dim 2 2
Et Abbas Glastiugeberieusis XX hid. et dim 20 2
Et Osbernus Giffardus V hid. et i virgam 5 10
Et Balduinus Vioecomes xiiij hid. et dim 14 2
Et Du (Dunus, aZ. Dunno) ix hidas 9
Et Alveredus iiij hid. et iii vu-g 4 3
Et Edmundus ii hid. et iii virg 2 3
Et Bristuardus Presbyter V hidas 5
Et Edwardus X hid. et dim. virg 10 2
Et Abbas de Bada vi hidas 6
Et Crenemere habet Rex, V hidas in dominio 5
114 3 2 114 3 2
Non habet Rex gildum de dim. hida quam tenet Alveredus Pincerna 2
Nee de 2 hidis et dim. quas tenet Hunfridus Camerarius 2 2
Nee de 1 hida quam tenet Rioardus 1
Nee de dim. hidd quam tenet Herbertus 2
Nee de 1 virga quam tenet Vitalis 10
Nee de dimid. virg4 quam tenet Pancevoldus 2
Nee de dimid. hidil de elemosin^ de Cenemerresduua 2
Nee de iii virgis quas tenet Rotbertus fihus Herberti 3
Nee de hidd et dimidia q'r (quarum) Fegadri retinuerunt Gildum per consuetudinem 12
Et de V hidis et iii virgis de quibus Fegadri receperunt Gildum 34 sol. et 6 den. non I e o n
habet Rex Gildum ,
13 1 2 13 1 2
298
N.B. — Here is a clear indication of the mode by which the Gheld-CoUeotors secured their fee or stipend
They retained the Gheld colleoted from a fixed and customary quantity of hidage. In tlie case of a large
Hundred like Frome, the fee would be 9 shillings, that is the Gheld paid on 1^ hides. For an ordinary
Hundred, say of 100 hides, the proportionate fee will have been 3 shillings ; and there can be no doubt that
the Frome Hundred of the Inquest, though taxed en masse, was well understood at the time to be com-
posed of three ordinary hundreds. The further retention by the Fegadri or Collectors of £1 14s. 6d. of the
colleoted money had nothing to do with their perquisites. This money was still due to the Crown.
NOTES ON THE INQUEST OP FBOME HUNDRED.
The Bishop of Coutances' demesnes of 13h. Ov. 2f. are traceable with precision in Domesday, viz., in
Lullington 4 hides, in Orchardleigh 3 hides, in Newton St. Loe 61i. Ov. 2f., = 13h. Ov. 2f.
Habdinus de Viltona habet ix hidas in dominio. No such person as Hardinus de Wilton is to be found
in the Somerset Domesday. No Tenure in capite such as would consist with this entry of the Gheld
Inquest of 1084 (under Frome Hundred) is reproduced in Domesday. Here then we must resort to
conjecture, or abandon all hope of resolving a serious difficulty.
Hardinus de Viltona, let us suppose, was the person whose name is in all other cases written as Herveiu.s
or Herveus. The Dorset Gheld-Inquest calls him ffei-veius Camerarius ; the Dorset Domesday enrolls him
150 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OF SOMERSET.
among the King's Serjeants as Herveius CaUcularlus. The Wiltshire Gheld-Inquest records three
exemptions in his favour as a Tenant in capite, under the name of Hermius, three more under the name of
Herveius de Wilton. In the Wiltshire Domesday he appears as " Herveus de Wiltune, Serviens Regis."
In short, Hervey de Wilton was one of the Conqueror's Chamberlains, and held estates in capite in the
two Counties of Dorset and Wilts. The name, Hervey, was, we will assume, unfamiliar with the Fegadri of
Frome Hundred in 1084, so they changed it into Hardin (meaning Hardinc or Harding), a name which they
knew well. If such an hypothesis be admitted, a fact at once follows, viz., that a.d. 1084 Hervey de Wilton,
a Royal Chamberlain, held of the King an estate or estates in Frome Hundred (Somerset), an estate or
estates of such capacity as that his demesnes therein were nine hides. There is no such estate registered in
the Somerset Domesday ; there is nothing in Domesday compatible with the conditions of Hervey (or
Hardin) de Wilton's tenement in 1084.
Here then there arises the presumption of a Domesday omission. We show elsewhere that the two
Manors of Wellow and KHmersdon were omitted in Domesday, and that they were probably included among
the twenty hides which had nominally been attached to the Burgh of Bath, when in the hands of Queen
Edith. At her death (a.d. 1074) these estates, including Bath itself, passed to the Crown.
Our further conjecture is that before the year 1084 the King had entrusted or given to his Chamberlain,
Hervey, one or both of the Manors of Wellow and Kilmersdon ; and that the reason why Hai-vey's tenure
in capite does not appear in the Somerset Domesday, is, that the estates which he held were excluded from
that Record.
Against these ideas there is a grave objection. If the Fegadri of 1084 included WeUow and Kilmersdon
in Frome Hundred, it is difficult to imagine how they could assign so few as 298 hides as the contents of the
said Hundred.
Where there is so little to go upon, and so much suspected error, theories of solution are apt to abound,
one, perhaps, as unsound as the rest. For instance, suppose we identify Harding, Lord of Cranmere, and
of several Wiltshire estates in 1066 and 1086, with Harding, Butler to Queen Edith, in 1062 and (probably)
in 1072, it is easy to imagine that such a person might chance to be called " Hardin de Wilton.'' But then
the Lord of Cranmere in 1066 and 1086 was only a Tenant of Glastonbury Abbey — not entitled, therefore,
to any remission of Gheld-tax. Moreover, in 1084, Harding was not Lord of Cranmere in any sense. Cran-
mere was in rnanu Regis ; it was under temporary escheat. The King himself had the gheld-exemption to
which the demesnes of Cranmere were entitled. The last and simplest conjecture is, that in 1084 Hardin de
Wilton, whoever he may have been, held, not one, but several estates in Frome Hundred, and that in 1086
they had been' taken from him and given to another. If so, we should guess the chief, if not the sole,
Reversioner to have been the Bishop of Coutances, and that he at once enfeoffed his knights in the whole
acquisition.
ROQEB Aeundel's demesnes in this Hundred appear to be reduced by Domesday to 7 hides, 1 virgate,
viz., 5f hides in Beckington and \\ hides in Mersitona (now Marston Biggott).
The Abbot of Montebouro's estate in this Hundred is surveyed without a name in Domesday (Exon D.,
180-1). The demesne, 1\ hides, is the same. Collinson altogether ignores any Somerset estate of this
Norman Abbey. We will deal with the difficulty, here implied, in a subsequent note.
The Abbot op Glastonbury has, apparently, in Domesday, more than 21 hides of demesne in his Manors
of Frome Hundred, viz., 10 hides in Mells, 7 hides in Camerton, and 4 hides, 2 fertines, and 1 acre in
Milton (Puddimore). The latter, probably, was the seat of the increase, which was due to some arrangement
intermediate between the Gheld-Inquest and Domesday.
GsBERN Gipfabd's Domesday demesnes were 4^ hides in Tehna {alias Telwe) and 3i virgates in VcKlivga,
by which names we understand Elm and Woodborough. Collinson, reading in the Exchequer Domesday
as Telwe, a word which was probably meant to be written Telme, takes the said word to indicate Wellow. A
similar inadvertence led him to miss Ubley as the true representative of the Domesday Tumheli. Of these
etymologies we speak elsewhere. Wellow, both the Manor and the Hundred, were ultimately annexed to
the Honour of Gloucester, — ia. itself an assurance that they had at no previous time been Osbern
Giffards.
The Sheriff Baldwin's estate was Hemington (21 hides), Domesday reduces his demesnes therein to
8 hides. He was Sheriff of Devon.
FEOME HUNDRED, 151
DrjK was a Saxon Thane. His estate, Boohelanda (now Buckland Dinham) was 12 hides. Domesday
gives him therein 8| hides of demesne.
" Alvered " of the Inquest, is Alured de Hispania. His demesne of 4| hides is fixed by Domesday as in
Loduntuna or Lochintone (Exohr. Domesday). This is probably Luokington, in Kilmersdon parish.
Edmund Fitz Pagan was a Norman Thane (Fraucus Tegnus). His demesne of 2J hides is fixed by
Domesday as in Walton," i.e., Walton-in-Kiknersdon. Collinson's omission to study the In^uisicio Ghddi
has here led him into error. He makes Walton-iu-Kilmersdon to have been Ralph de Mortimer's Manor .of
Walton. The latter was "Walton in Gordano," in Portbury Hundred.
Bristuahd Peesbttbk was a Saxon Than* (Anglus Tegnus). His estate was Writhlington (6 hides), five
of which re-appear as his demesne in Domesday.
Edwaedus of the Inquest is Edward Viceoomes (of Wilts), alias Edward de Salisbury. Domesday repro-
duces his demesnes precisely, viz., as 5 hides in Hantona, and 5 hides, 2 fertines in Nortuna. The two places
are Charter-House-Hinton, and Norton St. Philip, both in Wellow Hundred.
The Abbot of Bath's demesnes of 6 hides were 5 hides in Corston, and 1 hide in an estate which he held
whoUy in demesne, and which Domesday writes as Evestia or Eeestie. We conjecture this to have been
that part of Iford which was not in the parish of Freshford and Hundred of Bath, but which was in the
parish of Hinton (now Charter-House-Hinton), and Hundred of Frome, and which is accordingly in the
present Hundred of Wellow, a subdivision of Frome. We consider the specific name Evestie to be obsolete ;
we do not suggest any etymological connexion between Evestie and Iford.
The entry about Crbnemere indicates that at the date of the Inquisition the King had in hand the
whole of East and West Craumere (in all 12 hides), and that he held 5 hides thereof in demesne, while 7
hides win have been held by Gheld-paying Villeins. However, within the next two years, that is before
Domesday was written, the whole estate was restored to Glastonbury Abbey, and to Harding, the Abbot's
tenant. We say restored, because such had been the status and tenure of Cranmere before the Conquest.
Domesday, as visual, speaks only of two Epochs, that which ended in January, 1066, and that which
begun and ended with the Survey of 1085-1086. It takes no note of the intervening seizure of Cranmere
by the Crown.
Alvered Piscerna's estates appear in Domesday as Cloford (10 hides), and in Ecchewica (Eastwick) 1
virgate. He held both of the Comte of Moretain.
Humphrey Chamberlain does not occur in Domesday with any tenure which we can suppose to have
been in (Old) Frome Hundred. His tenure of 1084 was probably lapsing at that date. Probably also it
had been under Glastonbury Abbey.
RiCARDUS, non-geldant for one hide, was Ricardus Interpres. His tenures were in Road. They are
made the subject of two entries in Domesday. He held one hide of the King, another of the Bishop of
Coutances. It was the former, probably, for which he was surcharged, the Fegadri doubting his privilege
as a tenant-in-capite. In due course, the Domesday Commissioners certify that he purchased the first-
named hide, per Licmtiam Jtegis.
Herbert appears in Domesday as WUliam de Owe's tenant at Laverton (10 hides).
ViTALls does not appear in Domesday with any tenement Hkely to have been in Frome Hundred. Else-
where, that is in Carhampton Hundred, he held under Odo Fitz Gamehne, and in Givela (Yeovil) Hundred
under Roger de CorceUe.
Pancevolt of the Inquest was Bernard Pancevolt. His tenure was at Dunkerton, under Turstin Fitz Rolf.
The Elemosina de Cenemeresduna was a half-hide of land, appurtenant to Kilmersdon Church. It
was in the King's hand at the date of the Inquest (March, 1084) by reason of the death of Peter, Bishop of
Chester, the late Incumbent. The Fegadri, not knowing whom to tax for the tenement, reported it as a
Tenure in Almoign and as non-geldant.
RoGBERTUS, who appears in Domesday as Roger de Coroelle's tenant at Estalrewicca (Stander\viok), was
doubtless the Robert Fitz Herbert of the Inquest.
notes on the table (vol. 11., pp. 26, 26) op FROME HUNDRED.
Udeberga (Woodborough in WeUow). — The division between Osbern Gifard and his subordinates i?
ill-expressed in Domesday. His demesne is measured by carrucar/e, his tenants' portion by hidage. It is
152 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OF SOMERSET.
clear that, in 108i, the Inquisitors exempted the whole of Woodborough as demesne. Osbern Gifard
succeeded to estates of the Saxon Donnus both in Somerset and Wiltshire.
LiTELTONA (Stoney Littleton in Wellow). — CoUinson (iii. 327) ignores the Coutances' fee in LiteUon,
supplied by Domesday ; but when he speaks elsewhere of a part of Littleton, held subsequent to Domesday,
of the Honour of Gloucester, he is probably speaking of the Coutances' fee.
Wellow. — No such place is named in the Somerset Domesday. Six hides situate in Woodborough and
Stoney Littleton, and 1 hide called ' Wittochesmede,' are to be gathered from Domesday, and these were
undoubtedly in Wellow parish. These 7 hides co-ordinate in Domesday with 1329 acres of exacter
measurement. The whole of Wellow parish is 5292 acres. The difference (viz., 3963 acres) therefore
represents the Manor of Wellow proper, at the date of Domesday, caput of one of the subdivisions of
Frome Hundred. Of this apparent omission of Domesday we shall discourse elsewhere.
Ferlega (Farley Hungerford) was first called Farley Montfort, says CoUinsou (iii. 351), because, on
Roger de Corcelle's death, William Rufus gave it to Hugh de Montfort. This small Manor became
eventually caput of the Honour of Farleigh Castle, to which some other Coroelle estates are found in
ultimate subjection. —
Of course the present parish of Farleigh (904 acres) includes much more than the Domesday Manor.
Farleigh having been originally a ohapelry, its parish will have been arbitrarily assigned, and with small
reference to the manorial boundary of the estate.
Camerton. — The Abbot of Glastonbury had held, and had lost, Camerton before the Conquest. King
William, giving the estate to the Comte of Moretain, had disseized, not the Abbot, but Edmeratorius and
his tenant Ailwin. The Abbot in turn recovered the estate for his Church, but only by giving, in exchange
to the Comte, TintinhuU, a manor of 7^ liides in Givela (Yeovil) Hundred. "Roger," holding one of the
10 nides of Camerton under the Abbot in 1086, was probably Roger de Corcelle.
Credelincote (Carnicot) was long recognized as a " Fee of Moretain." It was one of those Fees which
Level came to hold in capik of the Crown.
EcoHEWiOA (Wick, aX. Eastvrick, in Camerton). — It is unusual to iind the Comte of Moretain succeeding
to an estate of Alestan de Boscome. Alestan de Boscombe, one of King Edward's Thep'ns, had estates in
Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Hertfordshire, Hants, Gloucestershire, Dorset, Wilts, and Somerset. In most of
these he had been succeeded, in the first instance, by the elder Ralph de Limesey (deceased in 1084). In all
but one or two cases Domesday finds William de Owe to have succeeded both Alestan de Boscombe and
Ralph de Limesey, senior. For the identity of Ecchewica and Eastwick, see CoUinson, vol. iii. p. 331.
Fdscota (Forscott). — Alditda, holding Forsoott in January, 1066, was possibly the daughter of Earl
Algar ; and, if so, then the wife of Earl Harold.
Inobhsouma (Englishcombe). — The Domesday details of tenure amount to a hide more than the ten
hides announced as the gross contents of the manor. The error, if such, is counterbalanced by an inverse
error under the next manor — Twerton.
TWERTONA (Tiverton, al. Twerton).— The four Thegns said by Domesday to have collectively, and in
paragio, held the two manors of Twerton— held, it would seem, under Queen Edith. The two estates, it
win be. observed, were 10 hides. The smaller manor (2i hides) was held by an individual Thegn. Who
tliis Thegn was is explained by a Domesday postscript—" Hanc ten-am tenuit Alveredus Dapifer de Editit
Regin.l Modo dicit Episoopu.s (Constantiensis) quod ipse eam tenet de Rege." —
Queen Edith's seigneury over Twerton will have commenced before the Conquest, and have continued
till her death in 1074. It was probably an appendage or annexation meet for her as Lady of the
neighbouring Burgh of Bath. She sometime enfeoffed her steward, Alvered, in this part of Twerton.
He remained her steward after the Conquest. At the Queen's death, or soon afterwards. King William
gave all Twerton to the Bishop of Coutances. Alvered Dapifer vanished from the story, and the Bishop
put Geoffrey Malruard as feoffee in Alvered's place. We shall recur to this incidental revelation of
Domesday when we come to speak of Wellow and its pras-Domesday status.
Hantona. Nobttjna.— Hinton and Norton having both been given in the 13th century to the
Carthusians of Witham, the two parishes hardly represent the two Domesday Manors in severalty, though
they nearly do so jointly. The present parishes together contain 4417 acres ; the exact measures given in"
PROME HUNDRED. 153
Domesday make the Manor of Hauton 1932 acres, and Norton 2680 acres ; together 4612 acres. The
Domesday Manors involved 2160 acres of wood. Part of this wood clearly lay in other parishes.
CoHSTUNA (Corston). — A parish of 1190 acres, seems at first inadequate to a manor of 10 hides, but if we
look at the exacter Domesday measures we find the manor was only 1086 acres. Here then was a case of
what we have called " excessive hidation."
EvESTiA. — Domesday mentions the place between Corstuna (Corston) and Esewica (Ashwick) ; n
corroboration of the inference from the Inquisicio that Evestia was in Frome Hundred (Old). That it
was also in the Wellow portion of Old Frome Hundred is assumed in the Table. —
It is remarkable that, under Corstuna, Domesday makes Seuold to have been Abbot of Bath on the day
of King Edward's death, and that under Evestia (the very next entry), Wluold is made to have been Abbot
on the same day. It is a fact, though a very extraordinary one, that there were two contemporary Abbots
of Bath at that epoch. The proof we have given elsewhere {supra pp. 57, 58).
CnMA (Combe Hawey). — The Domesday aspect of this Manor is not striking, otherwise than that it had
once been Queen Edith's, and that its hidation (2 hides) when compared with a parallel acreage of 628 acres,
was a privileged hidation. Agelric, the Anglo-Thegn who held Cume in capite in 1086, will have been very
recently introduced ; for the Inquisition of 1084 nowhere accredits Agelric with any Gheld exemption ; yet
in 1086 he held half of Cuma in demesne. Its increased value, from £1 to £i, within so short a period, is
perhaps explained on the supposition that Agelric found it in a wasted state, and by the fact that all the
five teams for which the Manor was adapted were at work thereon. Passing from Domesday to a pra;-
Domesday Index of Somerset Hundreds, we find that one of the said Hundreds was Cumbe. Nothing can
be more likely than that a privileged manor of Queen Edith's, in Old Frome Hundred, and in the WeUow
Division of that Hundred, should at one time have had the dignity of a Liberty or Franchise.
Collinson (iii. 334), as we think most erroneously, has identified Combe Hawey with the Bishop of
Bayeux's Domesday Manor of Cume. The Bishop's Manor was in the Hundred of Melebome. It is now
represented in Temple Comb.
Wellow Hundeed. Wellow Manor. Wellow Pamsh. — The Inquisicio of a.d. 1084, under Frome
Hundred, alludes indiscriminately to tenements which are now classed in the several Hundreds of Wellowj
Kihuersdou, and Frome. Domesday also, in an-anging the Bishop of Coutauces' manors, adopts a sequence
which shows that the Surveyors took no cognizance of any such ordered subdivision of Frome Hundred as
we have attempted in our Table. Yet these subdivisions were kno^vn locally, both at the date of the
Inquisicio and of Domesday, for an Index of Somerset Hundreds, contemporary with the Inquisicio, names
three distinct Hundreds of " Welewe," of " Chiuesmoredona,'' and of " Frome." (See Vol. ii, pp. 9-10).
We will speak first of Wellow Manor. — Here we have one of those difficulties, the investigation of which
leads the student to observe a great deal, and haply to learn something, though he may fail at last to solve
the enigma.
The Manor of Wellow is not named anywhere in Domesday. ColKnson's discovery of Wellow in Telwe
{al. Telma, al. Tehne), was no discovery at all. Neither the Exchequer nor the Exon Codex meant
anything but " Elm " in those forms of expression. (This prefix of the letter T to the true initial letter
(E) of a word was merely a clerkly device to relieve the subsequent combination of consonants,
a combination which was either offensive to the ear, or unpronounceable by the tongue, or incomprehensible
to the mind, of a Norman Scribe. Thus De Moione's Manor of ' Edgeborough ' became Tetesberga or
' Tegesberia ' in Domesday ; thus Ubley became ' Tumbeh ' ; and thus Elm became Telme.
WeUow, we repeat, is not named, nor represented by any formal name in Domesday. It is imperative
that we should at least inquire how this happened. We will first state, or repeat, all that we know about
Wellow, apropos to the question. —
As a Manor it was, before Domesday, known as Welewe, and was Caput of one subdivision of the Old
Hundred of Frome. After Domesday, WeUow was again and more fully recognized as Caput of the same
Subdivisional Hundred, but the subdivision had meanwhile been converted into a distinct Hundred, not in
any way alhed to Frome Hundred.
Wellow, both Manor and Hundred, was, after Domesday, annexed by the King (probably William Rufus)
to the " Honour of Gloucester." As we have already argued, the formal suppression of Wellow Manor in
Domesday, consists with a suppression of some 3,963 statute acres. The next point of enquiry, it Wellow
154 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OE SOMERSET.
be not itself named in Domesday, is, whether this area of 3,963 acres can be found in that Record under
some other name ; or was Wellow (like Kelstou in Bath Hundred) omitted by the Domesday Commissioners
in error ? The last is a possibility, but a very bare one, so bare that it were uncritical and idle to entertain
it till we shall have examined all other possibilities of the case.
Was Wellow then that unnamed manor of Old Frome Hundred which in 108i and 1086 was held in
capite by the Norman Abbey of Montebourg ? We think not. The anonymous manor was 5 hides, and
measured 760 Domesday acres. In area, then, it can hardly have been a fifth of Wellow. Moreover there
is nothing in the Domesday account of the Montebourg Manor to tally with the idea that it had been
and was to be (hke Wellow) Caput of a Hundred. Again, was Wellow, as a Manor, and as Caput of
a sectional Hundred, buried by Domesday in its notice of the Royal and Dominical Manor of Frome ? The
Domesday measures of the King's Manor of Frome were 7,520 acres, of the Church-fee of Frome 1,175
acres, of Caivert (in Frome) 199 acres ; — together 8,89i Domesday acres. The present parish of Frome is
only 7,092 acres. The difference (circa 1,800 acres) may mean simply that the King's Manor extended
beyond the bounds of the present parish ; it cannot mean that the extension included any such Manor as
Wellow, which (as we have calculated) would have contributed nearly 4,000 acres to the combination.
Moreover, had the Lordship of Wellow Hundred been an inherent attribute of the King's Manor and Hundred
of Frome ; the grant thereof to the Honour of Gloucester, supposedly by William Rufus, would have been
a dismemberment of an estate of Ancient Crown Demesne. Such a thing, so defined, is incredible at that
period of history. When kings did begin to alienate the Manors of Crown Demesne, they parted with
them piecemeal ; they did not dissever them. One more enquiry remains. — Was Wellow, as a Manor and as
Capiit of a Hundred, buried by Domesday in the liidage and in the fiscal value, which the Record bespeaks
for the late Queen Edith's Burgh of Bath ? When we reflect that those twenty hides, assigned by
Domesday to the Burgh of Bath, were, on independent grounds, supposed by us {supra, pp. 105-106) to
have included a territory beyond the limits of Bath and Bath Hundred, as those limits present themselves
to modern eyes ; — when we reflect, too, that Queen Edith's Hundredal jurisdiction, annexed to her Burgh
of Bath, was simply enormous ; when we look at the Queen's sometime possession of Twerton and Combe
(Hawey), both in Wellow Hundred ; — when we know that, King William, being Lord of Wellow Hundred
in A.D. 1084, the Gheld-CoUectors of Frome Hundred, had no reason to prevent their assessing the two
Hundreds together ; — then, perhaps, we may agree that there is no necessity for our further enquiring, if
and why Wellow, as a name, is omitted in Domesday. The name is not in Domesday ; but the substance,
the hidage of the manor and the Hundredal jurisdiction, possibly is. The manor and its area are possibly
implied in the 20 hides of the Burgh of Bath ; the Lordship of the Hundred was a jurisdiction pos,sibIy
then vesting in the King, not as King, but as Queen Edith's successor ia the Lordship of Bath. And thus
it was no severance of the Vetus Dominicum Coronse, if William Rufus added the Manor and Hundi-ed of
Wellow to the Honour of Gloucester, no more than it was such a severance when the same King sold the
Burgh of Bath to the Bishop of Wells.
There is one objection to our theory. When Rufus sold Bath to John of Tours, the King's certificate of
the grant embodies these words : — " Sciatis me dedisse, &c., Johanni Bpiscopo totam civitatem Bathonite
&c. ; dedi inquam ei ita libere et honorifice cum omnibus appmditiis, quicquid ego ibi habui vd pater mens
dum melius habuimus cum omnibus consuetudinibus extra, et infra, &c., cum monet^ cum Theloneo tarn
in campis quam in silvis tarn in foro quam in pratis et in terris, &c." Henry I.'s confirmation of his
brother's grant uses these words following — "Ipsam urbem et omnia pertinentia ad firmam ejusdem
civitatis dono et confirmo, &c., Johanni Episeopo, &c. Done etiam hidagium quod exigebatur de viginti
hidis ad eandem uriem pertinentibus et omnia placita et leges, justitias et omnes oonsuetudines omnino et
adjutoria, et si qua3 aha sunt quse pater mens, vel frater, vel ego ipse habuimus in el"
Now, how was it, if our theory be correct, that WeUow and its Hundred-Court did not pass by these
grants to the Bishop ? The Certificate of Rufus is not dated ; but there are good reasons for supposing it
to have been written some years after his grant of Bath Abbey to the same Bishop, and the date of the
latter proves to have been January 27, 1091. It is quite supposable, nay, it is even probable, that the
King's augmentations of the Honour of Gloucester were previous to either of the grants to Bishop John of
Tours, both of which, be it noted, were attested by Robert Fitz Hamon, then Lord of that same Honour of
Gloucester,
FROMB HUNDRED. 155
We suggest, in short, that Kmg William's grant of the Oltij of Bath passed later than the year 1094, and
that, at that date, Wellow and its Hundred were no longer appendages of the City of Bath, nor was it
intended by the terms, general or speci&o, of WUliam II. 's or Henry I.'s Charters, that anything should
pass further than was on the face of those Charters, nor that the phraseology of the Charters would justify
any research or claim of what had been, or might have been, appurtenances of Bath in the time of Queen
Edith or of William the Conqueror.
Waltuha (Walton in Kilmersdon). — For the proper identification of this manor, and Collinson's mistake
in the matter, we refer to a note given under the Inquest of Frome Hundred {supi'a, p. 151).
LocHiNTONE. — So this name is written in the Exchequer Domesday. The Exon Codex, writing " Lodun-
tuna," is in serious fault. The place is Luckington. It is in ICilmersdon parish.
CoLEFOED is not in Domesday. It is a modern severance of Kilmersdon parish.
Kilmersdon. — The Manor is not in Domesday. The Church, called the Church of CIdnemeresdone in
Domesday, has already been spoken of in a note on the Inquest of Frome Hundred (supra, p. 151).
All of Kilmersdon parish that is memorialized in Domesday, is Walton, Luckington, and Kilmersdon
Church-fee. These amount to 8J hides. The parallel Domesday measures amount to 1328 acres. The
present parish of Kilmersdon is 3460 acres. The parish of the last century included Coleford (1157 acres).
The parish intact was therefore 4617 acres.
In our table we have given the whole acreage of Kilmersdon parish in parallelism with Domesday ele-
ments, which, as not embracing Elilmersdon Manor, are short by (4617-1328 = ) 3289 acres of the area
proper to such comparisons. These 3289 acres must be taken for the present, then, to represent the Manor
of Kilmersdon, which, like Wellow, was, at the date of Domesday, Caput of one of the subdivisions of
Frome Hundred. Of the apparent omission by Domesday we wUl speak elsewhere. All we will add here
is, that as the Church of KHmersdon was m manu Regis at the date of Domesday, so, in all probability, was
the manor.
EswiCA (Ashwick). — Here is a good instance of Villeins holding absolutely at a fixed rent : for their rent
(3s. 6d.) was the whole value of the manor. It was at the low rate of 7s. per hide and ^d. per Domesday
acre.
The parochial area of Ashwick (1528 acres) has little to do with the extent (75 acres) of the Domesday
Manor. Ashwick was originally but a Chapelry of Kilmersdon. The parochial area assigned to it wUl have
been quite arbitrary.
Ashwick remained with Bath Abbey long after Domesday. (See CoUinson, ii. 449).
§ The Charter whereby King Edward granted ' Jiscwica ' to ' WUwold Abbot ' for life found its
way into Mr. Kemble's Codex (Vol. iv., p. 150, No. Doooxi) ; but neither the Editor, nor, so far as
we are aware, any other Author, has apprehended the relevance and importance of this document.
But when we find that the Grantee was Wulfwold, Abbot of Bath, and that the estate so granted
was Ashwick, a whole throng of further relevances surround us.
This charter is dated a.d. 1061. Indiotion xiv., Epact vi., Concurrent i. The two first elements of
date are consistent ; the two last have probably been vitiated by careless transcription.
The witnesses' names are the most striking feature in this Charter. We cannot forbear giving as
many of them as serve to illustrate the Domesday of Somerset. —
Giso Enscopus (Giso Bishop of Wells, consecrated at Rome, Sunday, April 15, 1061).
Heebmannus Episcopus (Hermann Bishop of Sherborne, 1058-1075).
Leofeictds Episoopus (Leofric Bishop of Exeter, sitting in 1061).
WlLLBLMUS Episoopus (William Bishop of London, sitting in 1061).
iEGELNOTHUS Abbas (.Sgelnoth, al. JSthelnoth Abbot of Glasstonbury, succeeded in 1053).
jEoblwin AB:pAS (probably .^gelwin, al. .ffithelwig. Abbot of Evesham. He is called in Domesday
Elwi and Alwin. He was a man of great diplomatic genius. His aora was from 1058 to 1077).
Haeoldus Dux (Harold Earl of Wessex, which included Somerset and Dorset).
TosTiG Dux (Earl Tostig. He held many estates in Wessex).
156 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OF SOMERSET.
^LFGAR Dux (Algar Earl of Meroia, hereby proved to have been living in 1161. His death haa often
been placed earlier. So far this charter is corrective of a false chronology. The inference from
Freeman (vol. ii. p. 469), is that Earl Algar died in 1062.
Brihteio CoNsiLiARius (Brilitric Algarsson, Lord of the Honour of Gloucester ; — had large estates in
Devon and Dorset).
jElfgar CossiLlARros (one of the greater Thanes of the West ; — the Algar, so often named in the
Somerset Domesday as living in 1066 ;— the iElfgear de Thorne, of 1068, styled " ^Ifgar Princeps "
in a Charter of King Edward, a.d. 1062).
^GELUIN Minister (probably the Alwi Banneson spoken of in the Domesday Surveys of Somerset,
Wilts, and Dorset, as living in 1066).
EuEEWACEE Minister (of like position and sera with Alwi Banneson).
EsEGAE Minister (^sgar Lord of Worle, Somerset ; and of Kalestoc, Cornwall, in 1066 ; attested the
famous Waltham Charter of 1062, as " Esgar, Regia3 Procurator Aulse)."
RoTBEED Minister (Robert fitz Wymarch, Sheriff of Esses in 1061 ; had, in 1066, several estates in
Somerset and Wilts).
EosDi Minister (a frequent witness of King Edward's Charters ; had estates in Somerset, Dorset,
Wilts, Berks, Oxfordshire, &c. ; recognized as " Bundi Stallere '' by King William in 1067-8).
^ILFERTH Minister (probably the Western Thane of 1066, who appears in Domesday as Aielvert,
AgeUerdus, Ailvert, Alward, Elward, and Olward. When addressed by King Edward as Sheriff of
Dorset, his name was wi-itten MMved. In relation to his Dorset Shrievalty and estates, the Scribes
of Domesday sometimes wrote his name as " Alured," the Norman form of Alfred. The Cornish
Survey also speaks of " Alveredus Maresealcus " as an antecessor of the Comte of Moretain in that
county.
Eadmer Minister (identical, dovibtless, with the Edmar Atre, or Edmeratorus, of Domesday nomen-
clature).
j^GELSiE Minister (written variously in Domesday as iElsi, AUsi, Alsi, or Elsi. — His estates in
Somerset, Dorset, .and Devon were numerous. Many of them devolved after the Conquest on
Walscin de Douai ; others on the Bishop of Coutances, the Comte of Moretain, the Bishop of Wells,
and Serlo de Burci). iElsi, steward of Queen Edith in 1072, was perhaps the son-in-law of Ulward
White ; and, if so a yoxmger man than the witness of tliis charter.
JElfg-bt Minister.— (This Thane, if a laud-holder in the South-Western Counties, probably died
before the Conquest. Domesday, among the greater Thanes of 1066, instances none in Somerset or
Dorset whose name could be taken as a form of JEMgei.)
EsTOOA (Radstock). — The Domesday acreage (1,092 acres) is represented mainly in the modern parish,
of 1,005 acres,
Stratona. — Stratton-on-the-Foss, and two estates called in Domesday Picota, measure together 8 hides,
and, parallel therewith, 1,187 acres of Domesday registration. In the Table we take these estates to co-
ordinate with the parishes of Stratton-on-the-Foss (1,148 acres), and Holcombe (780 acres), together 1,928
acres. Holcombe, as a manor, is not in Domesday. Its area is probably impUed in Picota, rather than
in Stratton. It came eventually to be held of the Honour of Gloucester.
Picota (Pitcott). — It would seem that Edmund Fitz Pagan had very recently acquired this manor
(3| hides). His exemption in 1084 has been already shewn to have been for his demesne at Walton. His
demesne at Picota was 24 hides. Not having been accredited with any exemption for the same in 1084, it
may be^at it had not then come into his possession. Or it may be that the Domesday entry of this estate
was in the nature of an 'increment' or new ascertainment, supplementary of the Inquest of 1084, and
adding (virtually) 34 hides to the Inquisitional area of Frome Hundred.
Haedinqtona (Hardington).— a hide of laud which belonged to the Sheriff Baldwm's Manor of Heming-
ton is mentioned under the Bishop of Coutances's Manor of Hardington, not as adding to the four hides of
Hardington, but because it was locally situate in Hardington, and had pasture-rights in common with Har-
PEOME HUNDRED. 157
dington, — " et habet pascuam communem huic mansione " (soilz Hardingtonoc). Under Hemiiigton the
Exon Domesday says conversely, " De his sx et i hidis habet una hida communem pascuam in Hardintond,
mausione episcopi Oonstantiensis a tempore Regis Edwardi." The Exchequer Domesday says, under Ilar-
dintone, — " In hoc manerio est una hida pertinens ad Hamiutone : Balduinus tenet, et habet communem
pasturam huic Manerio " (soilz Hardintone). Under Hamitone, the same Record says, " De hao terrA
(xxi hides) una hida est in communi pasturft in Hardintone, manerio Episcopi Oonstantiensis.''
This is all intelligible, though curious. It is less intelligible and more curious that Domesday gives no
pasture at aU among the constituents of Hardington, and only gives (half a league by half a league, or) 360
acres to Hemington.
Weregeava (Wydergrave, in Hardington). Domesday notices this estate of the Bishop of Coutances,
last but one of his Fief, and out of all topographical sequence. Such entries are not uncommon. They
must be looked upon as postsoriptive ; and, where both Domesdays give them thus out of sequence, it may
be inferred that they were found, written postscriptively, on the Commissioners' original notes.
Babbingiona (Babington). — Its area of 5 hides is paralleled by Domesday measurements of 627 acres.
The present parish (607 acres) was originally a Chapehy, taken out of the mother-parish of Kilmersdon
later than the 12th century.
MiLLBSCOTA (Middlecote). — This manor (5^ hides) was, in point of fact, a severance of the Abbot of
Glastonbury's ancient Manor of Mells (originally 20 hides). The usurpant was the Bishop of Coutances.
The Domesday Scribes, not perceiving this, have entered aU particulars of MiUescote in dupHcate as it
were, once in the Bishop's Fief, once under MuUa, in the Abbot's Fief. In the Schedule of " Terrse Occu-
patse " the mistake is renewed. The severance from MuUa was, of course, a " Terra Occupata," but the
Scribes, copying both the duplicate entries of the Survey, have created two severances and two manors
where there was but one of each (Exon Domesday, pp. 483-484).
In three of the four entries about this estate the old value " quando Episcopus reoepit " is given as £2 ;
and the existing value (when Domesday was written) is given as £4. But in the fourth and last entry
(Exon Domesday, p. 484) a uniform value of 25 shillings is bespoken for each period. This is a mere
blunder, wholly unauthorised by anything in the more genuine text of the Survey.
Middlecote, iu the time of Edward I., was held by the same Manor-Lords as Babington and the advow-
son of Babington Chapel. Iu CoUinson's time Middlecote was depopulated, but its site was apparently
known. (See Collinson, ii. 450).
■Wkithlington. — Brictuold, or Brihtuard, the Domesday Lord of Writhlington, is classed among the
Angli Taini of Somerset. He was a priest, and in much favour with the Conqueror.
MULLA (Mells and Leigh-on-Mendip). This estate has long since been taken from Kilmersdon Hundred
and formed into a distinct Liberty. This can be said only of the 14 J hides which remained to MuUa after
the abstraction of Middlecote.
The 20 hides of MuUa and Middlecote together were paralleled by 2830 acres of Domesday registration.
CoUating with this the parochial areas of Mells (3611 acres), Leigh-on-Mendip (1425 acres), and Vobster
(689 acres), we have a total of 5725 acres against 2830 Domesday acres. There are, probably, then, in the
said parishes some (5725 — 2830 = ) 2895 acres, which, at the date of Domesday, were either uumeet for
registration, or appui-tenant to the Royal Forest of Mendip.
KiLMEESDON Manoe AND HUNDRED.— It is abundantly clear, amidst all our doubts, that the Manor and
Hundred of KUmersdon stood, at the dates of the Inquest and of Domesday, in precisely the same predica-
ments as the Manor and Hundred of Wellow.
Kilmersdon was (tem. WOUam I.) Caput of a Hundred, — Caput of one of the subdivisions of Old Frome
Hundred. Kilmersdon is not named in Domesday, nor is its hidage given, unless we conceive that hidage
to have been buried in the twenty hides bespoken for the Burgh of Bath. The Church of Kilmersdon was
in manu Regis at the date of Domesday ; the manor was therefore in manu Regis ; and, again, the Hun-
dred was in manu Regis. And in regard to this precise evidence about Kilmersdon Church, our theory,
about Kilmersdon and Wallow both, is by so much the better supported than it was in the separate case of
Wellow,
158 THE SOMEBSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OF SOMERSET.
Whether Domesday omits Kilmersdoii Manor in error, or computes its hidage as involved in that of
Bath, the esaoter measures of the manor are equally ignored in that Record. In our Table (Vol. ii, p. 26,
last column) we give the whole parochial acreage of Kilmersdon (3460 acres), and of its former member
Coleford (1187 acres) ; but, against these 4647 acres, Domesday alleges nothing of contemporary measure-
ment except some 1328 acres in Walton and Luckington. So far our design of balancing in all eases the
acreages of the eleventh and nineteenth centuries is impeded. In short, we cannot muster Domesday
measurements which are nowhere to be found.
The destination of Kilmersdon, both Manor and Hundred, was different to that of Wellow. In King
John's time (1199-1216) the Manor and Hundred of Kilmersdon were held in capite of the Crown by John
de Subligney (see Colhnson ii, 445-6). This points to nothing but that at some earKer period the said
Manor and Hundred, having been in the Crown, had been given to the said John de Subhgney or to his
lineal ancestor. We cannot, in short, trace SubUgney's title so far back as the 11th century ; nor do we
know of his descent from any individual Norman of those who figured in Somerset at the date of Domesday_
Catford is the only place in the present parish of Frome which was a member of the Old Hundred of
Frome. All the rest of Frome parish M'as Extra-Hundredal at the date of Domesday.
RODA (Road). — Here the Bishop of Coutances's tenants divided between them the profits of two
manorial mills. But the Domesday arithmetic is wrong, the parts given realizing in all 2tV mills. Instead
of the tenant, Roger, holding frds of two mills (as in the Domesday text) he held one-third of one mill
and one-fourth of another. The Domesday values, however, are rightly reckoned, and they accord with
this amendment of the statement of shares. Explicitly, one mill was worth 15 shillings per annum, and
the shares were — Sirewold's half, worth 7s. 6d. ; Roger's third, worth 5s. ; Rotbert's sixth, worth 2s. 6d.
The other mill was worth 12 shilhngs per annum, and the shares were — Robert's half, worth 6s. ; Roger's
quarter, worth 3s. ; and Moses' quarter, worth 3s.
Rainbald, the Priest, who had sold part of Road to Richard the Interpreter, had been Chancellor to
King Edward. He was living at the date of Domesday, and holding large Church preferment under the
Conqueror. He survived till the reign of Henry I., and took the chief part in the foundation of Cirencester
Abbey. (See Key to Domesday ; — Dorset, 116 n.)
WoLVEETON. — The Domesday Manor of Roda included Wolverton, without any distinction of name.
The whole was 10 hides, paralleled by 1,231 Domesday acres. The parochial measurements are 1,664 acres,
viz., Road, 928 acres ; Wolverton, 736 acres.
Mersitona (Marston Biggot). — The Domesday measures were 2,166 acres ; the present parish is 2, 207
acres.
Bekchelee (Berkeley). — The Domesday measures, viz., 436 acres, consist well with a hidage of 2J liides.
The present parish, of 1,927 acres, includes, of course, far more than the Domesday manor. Berkeley was
only a Chapelry at its foundation.
Tblma, al. Tel WE, potius Telmb (Elm). — The Domesday manor contained (in correlation with its 5
hides) 524 acres. The modern parish is 893 acres. Elm was originally a Chapel. [Colhnson (ii. 206) was
much mistaken when he said that Elm was not in Domesday.]
Clafoeda (Cloford). — The Domesday Manor contained (correlatively with its 10 hides) 1,560 acres. The
modern parish is 2,443 acres. Cloford also was originally a Chapel.
We reckon that some 1,425 acres, now in the parishes of Elm and Cloford, were not in the Old Hundred
of Frome at the date of Domesday, but in the King's Manor of Frome. These two members of the King's
Manor, though far apart, were eventually combined with other parcels of land, and the whole was called
" HiU House Liberty." All were held by De Gorges, under direct grant from the CroW'n.
NuNNET. — Much has to be said about this locahty ; — much in- regard of its superficial Domesday aspect
as Nonin ; more in what may be learned about it by looking deeper into Domesday meaning.?.
What Domesday (Exon Codex, p. 343) says about Nunney may be epitomized as follows. " Willelmus
(de Moione) habet unam mansionem qucc vocatur Nonin quam tenuit Colo (T. E. E.) et reddidit geldum
pro V hidis. Has possunt ai-are iii carrucro. Hanc tenet Turgisus de Willelmo ct habet inde iv hidas et
i virgam et i carrucam in dominio ; et Villani (habent) iii virgas et i carrucam. Ibi habet Turgisus iiii
VillanoB et viii Bordarios et iiii servos, &c., et dimidium Molinum qui reddit 30 denarios, et 100 agros
J?EOME HUNDRED. 159
nemoris, et 20 agroa prati, et 20 acros pasouas ; et valet 60 solidos, et quando Willelmus reoepit 40
solidos."
Here then, corresponding with 5 hides, are 500 acres of land deemed worthy of Domesday note, viz,
360 acres of arable laud (corresponding, as we hold, with 3 plough-lands) + 100 acres of wood + 20 acres
of meadow + 20 acres of pasture. The older value (£2) was, for such an estate, quite normal ; the
Domesday value (£3) was decidedly good. AVherever Turgisus held under WilHam de Mohun improved
values marked his tenure.
The existing parish of Nunuey contains 2,421 statute acres. De Mohun's Manor of Nonin, whether we
look at its hidage or its Domesday measures, will not, in this part of Somerset, have supplied more than half
such a parish. Look at the adjoining parish of Cloford. Its present measure is Httle more than Nunuey ;
it is 2,443 statute acres. But the Domesday hidage of Cloford was 10 hides ; its exacter Domesday
measures were 1,560 acres. Its older value of £7 had jumped to £10 when Domesday was written.
In such cases the usual resource for the student is to search Domesday for some other manor, likely to
have been in Frome Hundred, equal to or greater than De Moione's manor, with a name reconcileable with
Nunuey, or with some existent or remembered hamlet in Nunuey. Finding such an estate, the student will
probably also have found the Domesday type of one half of the present parish of Nunuey. We ourselves
made this search, made it exhaustively ; and it was vain. The required name and site were nowhere to be
found. At the same period we were searching Domesday for Wellow and Kilmersdon, both in Old Frome
Hundred. Our failure in that search has also been shown. But let the mind be once awakened by
curiosity, and by a sense of difficulty, let it subside again into ever so long repose, or let it wrestle with
other enigmas, and haply at last, some accidental touch, some ray of new light, may cause the old interest
to re-awake, and may Ulumiuate the old darkness.
Frome Hundred, the pra;-Domesday Hundred, the Hundred of the Inquisicio, was full of difficulties.
The said Inquisition (supra, pp. 149, 150) tells of an estate in Frome Hundred, in respect of which, or
rather of his demesne therein, viz., 2^ hides, the Abbot of Moutebourg was exempt from Gheld.
The Exon Domesday (pp. 180, 181) surveys this estate without giving its name. The text may be
epitomized as follows. —
" Abbas Sanctso Maria; de Monteburgo habet unam Mansiouem quam tenuit Spiritus Presbiter die qua
Hex Edwardus fuit vivus et mortuus. Et reddidit gUdum pro v hidis. Has possuut arare iii carruca;.
Hauc dedit NigeUus Medicus per concessiouem Regis Willelmi Abbatias de Monteburgo. Ibi habet Abbas
ii hidas et dimidiam et ii carrucas in dominio et Villani habent aliam terram (2^ hides) et ii carrucas. Ibi
habet Abbas v ViUauos et xii Bordarios et ii Servos, &o., et dimidium molendiuum qui reddit per annum
30 deuarios, et dimidiam leugam nemoris in longitudine et tantundem in latitudine et xx agros pascuic
(read prati ex contextu) et xx agros pascuse ; et reddit per annum iiii libras et quando NigeUus reoepit
valebat tantundem."
For the curious story of the well and widely endowed Priest, Spiritus, or Spirtes, and how in some half
dozen counties he was succeeded by the Physician Nigel, we refer elsewhere (Domesday pluries. Antiq.
Shropshire, v. 208, 209).
In collating the manors of Old Frome Hundred we sought long to identify this Montebourg estate. The
process, of course, was to find what possession the said Abbey afterwards had in the said Hundred.
The search, if vain, was conclusive. We looked to the Records of Montebourg Abbey, rather meagre
Records certainly ; we looked to the confirmation of King Henry II. to that House ; and we looked to Pope
Nicholas's Taxation, taken A.D. 1291. It was clear that the Abbey, at the latter dats, retained nothing
which could by any ingenuity be made to represent its Domesday estate.
It was the Domesday " half mill rendering 30 pence per annum," which enabled us at length to find the
Montebourg estate. There was no counter half mill in Frome Hundred except that of William de Moione,
at Nunuey. So, on this ground only, we ventured at first to suppose that this Montebourg estate was that
other portion of Nunney which we had already judged to be necessary to complete a Domesday equivalent
for the modern parish. Following the comparison thus set on foot, we saw that the two estates were
probable moieties of an original manor of 10 hides. Each estate was geldable as 5 hides ; each estate was
adapted for 3 teams ; each estate had 20 acres of meadow, and 20 acres of pasture. —
The differences of the two moieties were that the Montebourg Fee having 260 acres of wood more than
160 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDEEDS OF SOMERSET.
De Moione's, its Domesday measures were 760 acres as against 500. It had also one more team at work
than De Moione's tenant had, and than was actually necessary. There were 19 labourers on the Abbot's
estate, only 16 on De Moione's. These incidental advantages, chiefly that of the extra team, caused the
Abbot's estate to be worth, in 1086, £1 more than De Moione's.
After thus identifying the Abbot of Montebourg's Domesday estate, it becomes a pardonable digression
to see if we can trace the Abbot's interest in any previous or subsequent divisions of the parish.
" King Edred, brother of King Edmund " (says CoUiuson, ii. 217), " granted to the monks of Glastonbury
part of, viz., 2 hides in, this vill."
Glastonbury Abbey had no such estate in Domesday. It had passed into other hands then. De
Moione's Nuuuey has no' feature in Domesday likely to have distinguished a confiscated estate of
Glastonbury Abbey. The Abbot of Montebom-g's share of Nunney may have been a Glastonbury estate
antecedently to the seizin of Spirtes the priest.
In point of time, the next general Record of Church estates, after Domesday, is Pope Nicholas's Taxation
(a.d. 1291). At that period neither the Abbot of Glastonbury, nor the Abbot of Montebourg, had any
temporal estate in Nunney. The Prior of Longleat had. It produced 6 shillings per annum. At the
same period the Church of Nuuney in the Deanery of Frome was worth £10 6s. 8d., over and above a
pension of £1 per annum, payable out of the same, to " Master Alexander de Montfort." We -will not
pretend to analyse this pension ; we will only say of the Church that the advowson was then in the Lord of
the Manor, — De Moione's Manor, we presume, — then held by Sir Nicholas de la Mere.
CoUinson tells of a second manor in Nunney, which was, as belonging to Glastonbury Abbey, called
' Nunney Glaston,' in distinction from De la Mere's manor, called ' Nunney Delamere.' Collinson does not
give us any proof of the Abbot's seizin at any particular period. The " very ancient possession " of which
he speaks may refer to the ;cra of King Edred. However, after the Dissolution, it does appear that lands
in Nunney and Trudoxhill were gi'anted by Queen Elizabeth, among a batch of estates late belonging to
Glastonbury Abbey. —
Perhaps here we I'ecover the lost clue. Perhaps this long obscured tenement of Glastonbury Abbey was
that which, in the times of King Edward and King Wilham, had been diverted into the successive hands
of the Priest Spirtes, the Physician Nigel, and the Norman Abbot. If so, Glastonbury Abbey will, at some
unascertainable period, have merely re-established a claim of the highest antiquity.
It is remarkable that Sudtone (now Fenny Sutton) and three other Wiltshire manors held by Nigel the
Physician, at the date of Domesday, had, T. R. K, been held by Sjiirtes the Priest ; and that Sudtone in
particular had been given before Domesday to the Abbey of St. Mary de Montebourg, which Abbey held it
under Nigel in 1086. —
We have been unsuccessful iu our efibrt to trace to any later date than Domesday, the interest thvis
acquired by Montebourg Abbey iu Fenny Stitton.
Lavertoh. — The manor, of 10 hides, was represented by 1,332 acres of Domesday registration. Here
was one of the older Churches of Frome Deanery. The modern parish is reduced to one of 1,034 acres.
Reddena (Rodden). — The manor, a single hide, erst held by Edric, a favoured Saxon, was represented
by 1,850 acres of Domesday registration, 1,440 acres of which were woodland. This woodland evidently
lay elsewhere. The present parish of Rodden, originally a Chapelry, contains only 990 acres.
As at Rodden, so in two Wiltshire manors, Etchilhampton and Calston, Edric was succeeded by Ernulf
de Hesding ; and these Wiltshire manors were held in 1086 under Ermilf by the widow of Edric. The
widow's name seems from the Gheld-Inquest of 1084 to have been Estrilda. Domesday gives many
instances of the humanity of Ernulf de Hesdiug. Monastic Chartularies bear parallel testimony as to his
piety. He was succeeded by three coheiresses, from whom descended lineally the older Earls of Salisburj',
and the Houses of Fitz Alan, and Chaworth.
Whatley and Egfobd. — These two manors, being conjunctively 6 hides, contained 1,216 acres of
Domesday registration. The present parish of Whatley contains both manors, and the very appropriate
acreage of 1,259 acres. The Church is one of the older foundations.
WiTHAM. — The acreage here given for Turstin Fitz Rolf's two small estates is the modern acreage of all
the parish of Witham Friary. , But this parish had increased largely mthin a century of Domesday. Be-
sides more scattered elements, it involved an estate of 2 hides, also called AVitham, but which estate was iu
FKOME HUNDEED, 161
the Domesday Hundred of Bruton. In the Table of Bruton Hundred we have included the estate and its
Domesday measures ; but, perforce, we include its modern acreage in the 5,497 acres which compose the
parish of Witham Friary, and are in Frome Hundred.
Of Wlftuna, al. Wltuna, oZ. Ufetona, added to Turstin Fitz Eolf's Manor of Witham, all trace is lost.
When King Hemy II. endowed the Carthusians with his lands at Witham, a place written Waletone is
mentioned as adjoining. —
Domesday says of Turstin Fitz Rolf's manor — " Hccc Wlftuna est addita ad Honorem Adelwoldi quam
tenet modo Turstinus." It is meant that, whereas Turstin Fitz Rolf had had a general grant of the lands
of the Saxon Adelwold (usually written Alwold, and once styled ' Calvus', in Domesday), in this instance
of Witham-cum-Wlftuu, Ketel (usually wi-itten Chetel), was his Antecessor.
Eastbip has become a parish at quite a recent date. It is formed of several parcels of land, formerly
extra-parochial, and lying on the boundaries of Witham, Brewham, and Bruton. The parish of Eastrip
exceeds the two Domesday manors by about 639 acres.
Wandestreu (Wanstrow, East and West). — The two manors, being 9 hides, and measuring 1,938 acres
of Domesday registration, are now aptly represented by a parish of 2,054 acres.
Ceenemella. — This estate, as held in a.d. 1066 and 1086 by Harding, under Glastonbury Abbey, cannot
now be accurately defined. It probably consisted of both the parishes now distinguished as East and West
Cranmere. The Abbatial Manor of 12 hides is paralleled by Domesday measures amounting to no more
than 1,410 acres, whereas the two parishes, together, include 2,868 acres. Here then are (2,868 — 1,410 =)
1,458 acres, of which, as being utterly worthless, the Domesday Commissioners took no cognizance; or else
the parishes include some portion of the King's Forest of Mendip, which portion was not of course in the
Abbot's Manor. The low value of the Manor, as quoted in Domesday, £4 per annum for 12 hides, does not
decide the question, for at any rate the case was one of excessive hidation.
In 1084, as we have already seen, the Abbot of Glastonbury and his tenant Harding, being ousted from
Cranmere, the estate was in the King's hand. In 1086 the Abbot had recovered it. Subsequent evidences
suggest that Wilham Eufus deprived the Abbey of the whole Manor, and that Henry I. restored it under
the name of East and West Cranmere, creating it at the same time a "Liberty," that is taking it away from
any other Hundred or Franchise. When, in the time of King John, Savario, Bishop of Bath and Wells,
possessed himself of so many Glastonbury estates, Cranmere, without any distinction between East and
West, is said to have passed to the See : and we hear no more of any Glastonbury interest in either place.
But we hold that West Cranmere only passed by this transfer ; for it was only West Cranmere that was
consequentially annexed to the Bishop's Hundred of Wells Forum.
Meantime, East Cranmore, having perhaps been alienated in some other direction by Glastonbury Abbey,
had no distinctive history or notice save that which \s negatively suppKed by the fact that it did not pass to
the Bishop's Hundred of Wells. It had reverted or did then revert to its original and prse-Domesday
Hundred of Frome.
Colhnson, who has somewhat confused the few extant features of this case, shows that the Churches of
both East and West Cranmere were originally Chapelries of Doulting, and that West Cranmere, having the
mortuary rights of both Chapelries, was the greater, and, we may add, older foundation.
MiDDELTOS.i. (now Podimore Milton), though 21 miles from Frome, seems to have been annexed to Old
Frome Hundred before the Conquest, probably because the Abbot of Glastonbury had other estates in that
Franchise. Its subsequent annexation to the post-Domesday Hundred of Whitley arose merely in that
Hundred having been ci-eated as a general receptacle for Glastonbury manors of abnormal position.
Frome Hundred (Modern.) — The existing Hundred of Frome is but a section, — a nominal third of the
Old Hundred of Frome. The Old Hundred is taken in the Inquest of a.d. 1084, as containing the three
sub-Hundreds of Wellow, KUmersdon, and Frome.
The Caput of this last sub-Hundred was Frome-Selwood, a Manor of the Veins Domlnicum Coronic.
Frome-Selwood is now interned in the Hundred of which it was, in the lltli century, the external Caput.
It was probably for the Royal Manor and the Sectional Hundred of Frome, and for the Crown-pleas tried
therein, that the Sheriff of Somerset j)aid the Tercius Denarius, in 1086. The amount was 5s. These Tercii
Denarii, as far as they are recorded in the Somerset Domesday, arose only from purely Royal Franchises
or from Franchises of the late Queen Edith. As Frome was a purely Royal Franchise, so Wellow and
M
162 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY.— THE HUNDREDS Q-J? SOMERSET.
Kilmersdon were Franchises, in all probability, of the deceased Queen. Their tertii denarii are there-
fore buried in the large sum which the late Queen had paid to the Comes, in respect of her high jurisdic-
tion centred at Bath.
"When the Exon Domesday annexes an account of Tercii Denarii to the list of Comital Manors, it treats them
properly as dues to the Comital Fief. When the Exchequer Domesday annexes the same account to the Fief
of the late Queen Edith, it is a mistake, but perhaps an intelHgible one. No Tertii Denarii were due to the
Queen's Fief, but certain Tertii Denarii (not those specified) were due from her Fief to the Fief of the Comes.
Old Fkome Hundebd. — In a.d. 1084 the Gheld Assessors found this Hundred to contain 298 hides. Its
elements, culled from Domesday, seem to establish 8 hides, 3 vh-gates, and 2 gheld-acres more than the
estimate of 1084. Were it worth while, the " Increments " might be plausibly accounted for and allocated.
We now give in a Tabular form the hidages and Domesday measures of all the manors of the triple Hun-
dred, and annex to the same a column of modern acreages, viz., the acreages of the various parishes which,
aa a whole, and substantively, if not singly and exactly, co-ordinate with the Domesday Manors.
OLD FROMB HUNDRED. WBLLOW SECTION.
Domesday Manors.
Domesday
Hldage.
H. V. F,
II
II
Gross
Domesday
Acreages.
Modem Parishes.
10
12
1 2
2
2
10
3 2
10
2 0|
6
10
7 2
2 2
2
8
S
7
10
10
10
10
3
1
2
2
2
2
2
1
10
3
1
1
4
■ 10
10
2i
3
4
4
8
10
10
9
1
S
6
240
240
240
240
120
1200
860
120
120
480
1200
1200
300
360
480
480
960
1200
1200
1080
120
960
600
'20
20
"e
46
'20
100
"3
2
4
40
720
1440
'20
s
20
20
2
3
90
10
19
12
15
7
7
23
12
20
6
6
8
6
26
'e
io
30
26
so
248 N
280 f "5^
24Sj
129 .. 129
1366 ^
B™ 1960
120)
625 .. 526
1312 ..1312
1-^4 1525
^25 I 1512
983 f ^^'^^
1932 ..1932
2680 ..26S0
1086 ..10S6
120 .. 120
1»«} 1046
628 . 628
"Wellow
Litteltona
6292
Farleigh Hungerford . .
Liteltona
Ferlega
904
Credelincota
1748
Foacott
680
Englishcombe ^
1862
Twei-tona
971
(Tablesforda
(Added
767
Ne-ffton St. Loe
Charter House Hinton
Norton St. Philip . . . .
Corston
1678
2890
1 Added to Newetona . .
1537
1190
Duncretun
1233
Added to Duncretun
Combe Hawey
1011
97 Oj
112i
13,600
2441
SOS
172
16,421 16,421
21,533
OLD FROMB HUNDEBD. KILMERSDON SECTION.
i Ec'lia ChinemeveBdonaa
< Waltuna
( Lochintone
Esewioa
Estocha
( Stratona
■I Picotta
( Picota
f Hardingtona
t Weregrava
Babbingtoua
Hamintona
Bochelanda
Writelinctona
Mulla
Millescota
12
6
2
94 3 87i 10,500 86 2
480
600
60
1080
860
120
4S0
480
120
480
2400
840
600
1800
600
10
180
3
'eo
10
60
12
5
120
50
30
12
240
80
6
12
12
12
20
7
8
86
3
12
12
40
12
16
3
210
40
20
12
16
860
90
24
12
80
86 V
92)
1328
686
792
75 . . 76
1092 ..1092
480 •)
167 [ 1187
660 J
628 ) .-a
12Sf «S<'
627 .. 627
2822 ..2822
1000 ..1000
648 .. 648
^^1} 2830
693 12,265 12,265
I* EUmei'sdon
(Coleford
Ashwic k
Radstock
f Strattou ontlie Foss
\ Holcombe
Hardington
Babiugton
Hemington
Buckland DinUam
Wrlthiington
( Malls
t Leigh on Mendip . .
Vobster
3460
1187
1626
1006
11481
780)
831
607
3406
1399
772
sen
1425
689
21,845
FKOME HUNDRED.
163
OLD FROME HUNDRED.— FROME SECTION.
Domesday Manors.
Kaiverfc
Cavel
liOUgtona
Hordcerleia
Roda
In Eoda
Beclientona
Meraitona
Berchelee
Telma
Estalrewicca
Claforda
Nonin
(Anonymous Manor)
Lauretona
Beddena .-. . .
J Wateleia
I Hecferdintona
J Witeham
I Wlftuna
i Estropa
1 Estropa
J Wand^reu
\ Wandratreu
Crenemella
Middeltona
Domesday
Hidage.
1
120
600
480
1080
60
1200
600
360
480
360
1080
360
360
1200
360
600
480
240
120
120
60
480
600
1200
720
lllj 13,380
8<1
120
120
S3
ioo
fl440
I 10
70
16
4
160
100
360
60
1440
14
60
ID
60
720
100
4
6
20
24
33
12
IS
6
14
6
20
20
20
12
20
6
6
2
12
36
50
50
4987 395
300
20
20
60
30
50
30
60
100
826
Gross
Domesday
Acreages.
131} l""
740 . 740
624 .. 624
117U 1231
60) ^"^^^
1320 ..1320
2166 ..2166
19598.. 19598
Modern Parishes.
f Cayford in |
\ Frome J
Lullington
Orchardleigh
(Road
{ Wolverton
Beckington
Maraton Biggot
Berkley
Elm
Standerwick
Cloford
Nunuey )
Nunney, Part of . . J
Laverton
Rodden
Whatley
Witham Friary
Eaatrip
f Wanstrow East . . \
\ Wanstrow West . . j"
j East Cranmore ....
I West Cranmore ....
Podimore Milton
li
P4«1
alibi.
687
715
736
1830
2207
1927
893
303
2443
2421
1034
1259
5497
829
2054
1054
1814
990
30611
Wellow Section
Kilmeiwlou Sectiou
97 0|
94 3
115
112J
87i
mi
13,500
10,600
13,380
2441
862
4997
308
210
395
172
693
826
16,421
12,265
19,598
21,633
21,845
30,611
306 3 OJ
311J
37,380
8300
913
1691
48,284
73,«S'.I
Here, experimentalking on a large scale, we have the Somerset liide represented by 241^ statute acres of
modern ascertainment. For as 306 Jf hides : 73,989 acres : : 1 hide : circa 241^ acres.
Again we have the same Somerset Hide represented by about 157f acres of Domesday Registration. For
as 306^^ hides : 48,284 acres : : 1 hide : circa 157f acres.
That is, at the date of Domesday, the average Hide of Old Frome Hundred included some (241 - 157 = )
94 acres, which were either waate and worthless, and so were not registered in Domesday, or else were in
the King's Forest, and so not reckoned in Frome Hundred.
IT The Domesday value of Old Frome Hundred was £266 8s. 4d. per annum. This was at the rate of
about 17s, 4d. per hide, and of 1'3242 penny, and decimals of a penny, per Domesday acre ; also at the rate
of about 17s. IJd. per plough-land,
INQUISICIO-OHELDI (a.D. 1084) FOR THE HUNDBED OF MONKTON (WEST) (iNQ.-OHELDI, V. 75).
In Hundreto Monaohetonae sunt xv hida3.
Inde habet Rex de Gildo suo 55 sol. et 6 den. pro k hid, et i virga ., 9
Goffridua Constabilariua et Edret debent Regi gildum (xxxiiii sol. et 6 d.) pro v hid. et iii virg. 5
15
NOTES ON THE INQUEST OP WEST MONKTON MANOE.
GeoppebY Constable and EdeEt were doubtless sub-tenants of Walcheline, Bishop of Winchester, who
appears in Domesday as holding 7 J hides in the Abbot of Glastonbury's Manor of Monacheton. It was not
the wont ot Domesday to name such sub-tenants. It may be, however, that these were surcharged by the
CoUeotors of 1084 as officers or bailiffs, rather than tenants of the Bishop ; for Domesday declares the
Bishop to be then holding in demesne 5| hides of thi^ tenement. Even thus, the tenement was liable to
gheld, for the Bishop held it, not in ca^pite of the King, but of the Abbot. Geoffrey was probably Constable
of Tavmton Ca.stle.
M 2
164 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OF SOMEESET.
BOTES ON THE TABLE (VOL II, PR 25-26) OF WEST MOKKTON MANOE.
The 15 hides of Domesday were represented by 2,603 acres of coutemporary measurement, viz., plough-
land, 2,400 acres ; wood, 2i acres ; meadow, 39 acres ; pasture, 140 acres. The modern parish of West
Montton is 3,079 acres. The difference of the two measurements (viz., 476 acres), was probably King's
Forest, and accredited in Domesday, like North Petherton Forest, to the Royal Manors of North-Western
Somerset.
The Domesday Value of West Monkton Manor (viz., £11 10s. per annum) was at the rate of 15s. 4d. per
hide, and of 1.06 penny, and decimals of a penny, per Domesday acre ; also at the rate of lis. 6d. per plough-
land, and of 13s. 9id. per team in employ.
The number of Villeins, Boors, and Serfs attached to West Monkton in A.D. 1086 was 56. This gives
a. single Labourer to every 64 acres of Domesday registration ; to every 43 acres of plough-land, and to
every 35^ acres of land actually ploughed.
INQUISIOIO-QHELDI (a.D. 1084) FOR THE HUNDEED OP GIVBLA (YEOVXL). (iNQ.-QHBLDI, P. 71).
" In Hundreto Givela; sunt cl et vii hida3 et dimid." (157 hides, 2 virgates)^
Inde habet Rex de Gildo suo £30 7.5. 6d. pro c hidis et i hid. et i virga 101 1
Et Barones Regis habent in dominio xxxi hidas. —
De his habet Comes de Moretonio X et viii hid. et dim 18 2
Et Roger de CorceUa iiij hid. et i virgam 4 1
Et Brismarus V hidas 5
Et Garmundus ii hidas 2
Et Ansger Brito i hidam et i virgam 110
31 31
Et non habet Rex Gildum de i hidd quam tenet Sawardus Accipitrarius 1
Neo de v liidis quas Monachi de Egresten tenent 5
Nee de vi hidis quas tenent Britellus et Drogo et Alvered et Villani Comitis (de
Moretonio) in Monte-Acuto . '
Nee de iij hidis et i virgft quas tenet Britellus 3 10
Nee de iij vii'gis quas tenet Ansger 3
" Neo de ij hidis " [quas tenet Alvered Pino]'' erna " 2
Nee de ij hidis de Achileio 2
[Nee de i hidfl] "quam tenet Rogerus de CorceUa'' 10
Neo de i hida quam tenet **** * 100
Nee de i -rirgd quam tenet Drogo 1
Neo de i virgft quam tenet Roger Calvus 1
" De hoc Hundreto restant de Gildo Regis £6 ISs." (the sum corresponding to) ... 22 2 22 2
" Et de hoc Hundreto tenet Osbernus de Episcopo de Sancto Laudo ii hidas et )
iii virgas de quibus reddit Gildum in Hundi-eto Liet.'' (
157 2
NOTES ON THE INQUEST OP GIVBLA (yEOVIL) HUNDRED.
Domesday gives to the Comte of Moretain the following demesnes, in manors which were probably in
Givela Hundred. —
H. V. F.
2 2 in Bisobestona, i. e. Montacute, now in TintinhuU Hundred.
1 in Givela, i. e. Yeovil, now in Stone Hundred.
4 in TintinhuU, i. e. TintinhuUe, now in TintinhuU Hundred.
4 2 in Cinioc, i. e. East Chinnock, now in Houndsborough, Barwick and Coker Hundred.
4 in Clouesworda, i, e. Closworth, now in Houndsborough, Barwick and Cokcr Hundred.
16
HUNDREDS OF GIVELA (yEOVIL). 165
The total (ouly 16 liides) shows a diminution of 2^ hides in the Comte's demesnes between 1084 and
1086. It was probably caused by intermediate feoffments in some manors.
RoGEK DE ConcELLE's demesne of 4^ hides is fixed by Domesday as in Lymington, now in Stone Hundred.
Bbismak was a Saxon Thane (Anglus Tegnus). His demesne of 5 hides was the exact half of his estate at
Halberga (now Hazlebury Plucknett, in Houndsborough Hundred).
Gabmuxdus' 2 hides of demesne were part of Mudford (5 hides), an estate which he had held, as mortgagee,
under Ulward AVyte. He held it in capite in Domesday, the mortgagor being defunct. Mudford is now in
Stone Hundred.
Ansger BniTO of the Inquest, was a notable tenant of the Comte of Moretain. He also appears in
Domesday among the Fraud Tegni who held in capite of the King. His estate at Prestetona was 2 hides.
It would seem likely that the Inquest exempts him from IJ hides, held by liim in demesne, while it
surcharges him for the balance of such estate, viz., f hide, not held in demesne. Prestetona seems to be
the place now called Preston Plucknett. It is in Stone Hundred. Ansger Brito of the Inquest is called in
Domesday, Ansger de Montacute (E. D., 433). These names were inserted to distinguish their bearer from
Ansger Cocus, a Bang's Serjeant. Ansger Brito was progenitor of the Barons of Odcombe.
Sawaed AociprrKAKros of the Inquest is in this case called " Seward Hundrannus " by Domesday. The
estate was 1 hide in Eattebera, half of which he held in demesne. Eattebera is probably part of Adber, in
the parish of Trent. It is now, as Trent is, in Horethorn Hundred. At Domesday tliis part of Adber was
in Givela Hundred. Saward's non-i3olvency was perhaps only a way of claiming his fee for acting on
the occasion of the Inquest as a "Fegadrus," or "Hundred-man."
The Abbot op St. Maby of Gkestein appears in Domesday as holding Nortona (5 hides) of the Comte of
Moretain. It is Norton-sub-Hamdon in Houndsborough Barwiok and Coker Hundred.
Bisobeston stands in Domesday as a manor of 9 hides. It contained Castle Montacute (" ibi Castrum
Montagut "). Domesday accounts for the occupation of only 8 hides. Tlie tenants named as defaulters in
the Inquisicio, hold in Domesday only 4| bides, viz., Britell, 1 hide ; Drogo, 1 hide ; Alvered Pincerna
1\ hides ; viUani, 1 hide. A new tenant, Duncan, holds 1 hide, and the Comte of Moretain 2Jj hides in
demesne.
Bkitell's insolvency on Z\ hides was for so much of his Manor of Peredt (North Perriott). It was 10
hides, six whereof are recognized as his demesne in Domesday.
Ansger's insolvency on | hide has been explained above.
Altered Pikoeena's default on 2 hides was for so much of his estates of 19 hides in Chilthorne Dormer
Chiselborough, West Chinnock, and Pendomer. The first of these is now in Stone Hundred ; the three
others in Houndsborough Barwiok and Coker Hundred. Alvered was Butler to the Comte, and, holding all
these estates under the Comte, wa.s liable to pay gheld on his demesnes.
Achileia (2 hides) had in Saxon times belonged to Aluin Banneson, whose normal successor) Alured de
Hispania, got it at the Conquest. It was wrested from Alured by the King's Officers and added to the
Royal Manor of Martock. The statement of its insolvency merely meant that when the Fegadri of 1084
reckoned Achileia as part of the 157^ hides composing Givela Hundred, they were not responsible for the
gheld thereon. The Achileia of the Inquest is now called Hurst.
Roger de Cokoellb's default on one hide, was perhaps for so much of his Manor of Lymington as he
had failed to prove exempt, and his "Villeins had failed to pay gheld on.
Drogo (de Montacute's) insolvency was for a single virgate which he held in the Comte of Moretaiu's
Demesne Manor of Tintinhull (Exon D., p. 246).
Roger Calvtts may be identical with Roger Boisell, who was Roger Arundel's tenant in Sutton (now
Sutton Bingham). If not, Roger Calvus does not reappear in Domesday.
OsRERN. — In Domesday the Bishop of Coutances has no Somerset tenant named Osbern. His Dorset
tenant, so named, was probably Osbern Giffard. Neither had the Bishop any Somerset Manor wliioh we can
plausibly assign to Givela Hundred. It seems probable that the Bishop, between the years 1084 and 1086,
conveyed his Manor in Givela Hundred to some other Feudalist. It is impossible to fix the manor in ques-
tion, for Osbern's tenancy does not reappear in Domesday.
As TO THE HUKDRBD OP " LlET," in which Osbern is said to have accounted for his Gheld-due on 2f hides,
there is mention of a Hundred of " Liet " in an Index of Hundreds of the same date as the Inquisicio, and
166 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OF SOMERSET.
this word " Liefc " is written over a cancelled word, coeli {sic). In another old Index (Inq.-Gheld., pp. 57-58),
he name of this Hundred is given as " Lieget." But among the Inquests of 1084, no such Inquest as that,
of Liet, or Lieget, or Oochra, Hundred is preserved. Nor is the Inquest of such a Hundred involved and
buried in any extant Inquest of any other Hundred, for none of the extant Inquests take any notice of
Osberu's alleged transfer of Gheld from Givela Hundred.
The Inquest of Liet Hundred is therefore one of the lost Inquests, of which we have discoursed in due
place {supra, pp. 89-90).
As a guess, or rather as an hypothesis, we should say that the Old Hundred of ' Liet ' contained the Manor
of East and West Goker, and also the Manor of Hardington {poste% Hardington Mandeville). Both were
Comital Manors, and are certainly not alluded to in any extant Inquest of a.d. 1084.
NOTES ON THE TABLE (vOL. H., PP. 25-26) OF GIVELA (yEOVIL) HUNDRED.
BiaOBESTONA, postea Montaotjte. — The former and older name of this manor suggests that it was at one
time annexed to some Episcopate. At the Conquest it was held by the Abbot of Athelney. The Comte
of Moretain, choosing it as a fit site for his Somerset Castle, got it from the Abbot, giving in exchange the
Dorset Manor of Candel (now Purse Candel). — " Propter istam mansionem (Bisobestonam) dedit Comes
imam mansiouem quae vocatur Candel Abbati de Aliennitl. (See Dorset Domesday, pp. 117, 118, 128 ».).
Ere Domesday was written, the Comte's stronghold of Montacute was built. From that day to this the
estate of Bishopstou has been knoivn only as the ' Chatellany, or Manor of Montacute.' The Domesday
status of the manor is well worth observation. Among his tenants were three of his chief retainers, pro-
genitors of as many Baronial Houses, two at least of which were afterwards known by the name of ' De
Montacute.' Though the arable land of the manor was adapted for seven ox-teams, there were eight teams
on the estate. No wood, no pasture, only 15 acres of meadow, are registered for the estate by Domesday :
but among the live stock are 180 sheep, viz., one hundred on the Comte's demesnes, eighty on the tenement
of his chief Butler, Alvered.
Tintehella (TintinhuU). — This manor had been in Saxon times a possession of Glastonbury Abbey.
The Comte of Moretain had obtaiued it by exchange, he giving Gamerton (in Frome Hundred) to the Abbey
{supra, pp. 150, 152). TintinhuU had been Caput of a Hundred, of one of the three Hundreds which, in a.d.
1084, went to compose the Hundred of Givela (or Yeovil). This probably was the Comte's inducement to
acquire TintinhuU. The Exon Domesday (p. 476) says of TintinhuU — " Heo praidictte vii hidse reddiderunt
geldum pro v hidis.'' The immunity was of King Edward's time. Its aboUtion was in the nature of a
' Domesday Increment ' on the hidage of the Hundred of Givela, as contrasted with the hidage of 1084.
It often happened that when an Ecclesiastical Fee changed hands after the Conquest, its hidation, if
privileged, was readjusted.
EsTOOHA (Stoke-under-Hamdon). — Out of the 5f hides of this manor, one virgate had, T. R. E., been
exempt from Gheld. CoUinson says that the five Saxons who had the manor in King Edward's time, held
it under Glastonbury Abbey. This is probable enough, but it is not told in Domesday.
TxNTiNHULL HUNDRED. — This Was one of the three Hundreds which, existing long before the Inquisition
of A.D. 1084, were yet combined in that assessment to form the Hundred of Givela (or Yeovil). The old
Indices of Hundreds (so often quoted above) say nothing about such a Hundred as Givela, but they
enumerate the three Hundreds of TintinhuU, Stane, and Houndsborough. Givela Hundred, formed probably
for behoof of the Comte of Moretain, was of short endurance. It was resolved (probably in time of King
Henry I) into its original elements. And thus it is, all but exactly, represented at the present day.
Stanb Hundred, another of the constituents of " Givela Hundred," was (according to CoUinson, iii. 203)
sometime called the " Hundred of Stone and Yeovil." Again, the same author says that Yeovil was not
" united with Stone Hundred tUl late years." He ought probably to have said re-united.
In one place CoUinson says that Stone Hundred "takes Us name from a milage in the neigBourhood of
Yeovil, where the Hund/red-Oourts were formerly held." In another place he identifies Stone, "which
antiently gave name to the Hundred," with Stone, added to Serlo de Burci's Manor of Mudford, and again
with " Stane," a Manor of the Comte of Moretain. Of the latter vill he adds that " it is now a depopulated
place between Mudford and YeovU." This confusion led CoUinson into further confusions of detaU, which we
cannot enlarge upon here.
HTJNDEED OF GIVELA (yEOVIL). 167
Our notion.is that it was a monolith which gave its oldest name, viz., " Ad Stana " to Stone Hundred,
and that a vill afterwards built near the said monolith was therefore called Stone, and that this vill was in
the parish of Mudford, and was the estate of 2 hides, which Domesday declares to have been added to Serlo
de Buroi's Manor of Mudford. (As to the Comte of Moretain's Manor of Stane, which had been wrested
from Glastonbury Abbey, it is probably now represented by Stone in East Pennard, and in Whitstone
Hundred).
LiMiGTONA (Lymington).— The father of Roger de Corcelle had preceded him in estate. HLs father hold-
ing some manor of five hides under the Abbot of Glastonbury, had surrendered his tenancy, receiving
in exchange from the Abbot the Manor of Lymington (seven hides). Roger holds the latter in capite of
the King, at the date of Domesday. The Abbot lost all the profits of both estates. " De his " (the five
surrendered hides apparently) " perdit iEcclesia omne servitium " (Exon Domesday, p. 160). The affair
is also entered on the Schedule of Terras Occupatee (E. D., p. 488), " Rogerus de Corcella habet unam man-
siouem quae vocatur Limintona pro qut dedit pater ejus in exoambio v hidas quas non poterant ab iEoclesia
Glastingberiensi separari die qua Rex Edwardus fuit vivus et mortuus."
We do not quite understand why the Abbot should lose all benefit of his exchange ; but his house was
visited with many deprivations after the expulsion of Abbot Turstin.
AoHELEiA (now Hurst). — The withdrawal of Acheleia from Alured de Hispania's Fief, and its annexation
to the King's Manor of Martook, have been noticed above. It resulted ultimately in a decurtation of Givela
Hundred, in their measure of which the Fegadri of 1084 had included Acheleia. The notice of this annexa-
tion to Martock is followed (Exon. D., p. 105) by a further and apparently similar transfer, in these words : —
" Huie mausioni {viz., Martock) sunt additae alise duse hidse quas tenuerunt pariter duo Tegni tempore Regis
Edwardi, sed tamen reddebant xl denarios in Martocha, et modo reddit (villa or terra) 40 sohdos in Mar-
tocha Mansione Regis." This statement was, we presume, to show that at no time had the estate had the
iiomunity of Tegnland. In our Table, we include it in Givela Hundred, because, Kke Acheleia, it was no
actual part of the Manor of Martock, though, like Acheleia, it may have been adjacent thereto, .and in the
same parish. The estate has no secondary notice in Domesday such as Acheleia has (E. D., p. 352), but
both estates are mentioned in the Schedule of " Ten-a; Occupata) " (E. D., pp. 480, 481). This was merely
the result of the dupHcate entries of Acheleia in the Register (E. D., pp. 105, 352). The above two estates
were in the techuicallanguage af Domesday, "Addita Martocha;." There were other two estates which
came under the category of " Ablata de MartochS." These were decurtations of the territory of the manor,
but they were not therefore annexed to Givela Hundred. They remained m the Hundred of Martock, and
win be found in our Table of that Hundred.
HonuDSBOEOUGH HuKDRED. — This was-the third and last of the three ancient Hundreds which the Inquisicio
of A.D. 1084 compounds into the one Hundred of Givela,
In the eighth century there was >■ vill of Houndsborough, or rather of Hunesberge, which ColUnson,
(ii. 323) says was then given to Glastonbury Abbey by Kenulph, King of the West Saxons. Its site was
marked in Collinson's time by a spot called ' Houndsborough Cross,' probably the ancient ti-yst of the
Hundred. As a vill, Houndsborough, under that name, no longer exists ; and we ourselves are sceptical as to
the existence at any time of a viU of Houndsborough, as distinct from the viU of Houndston. The vill which
in King Kenulph's time was called Hunesberga is called in Domesday (so we believe) " Hundeston." Again
in time of Henry I., when WUham Comte of Moretain founded the Priory of Montacute, he gave (or
rather confirmed) thereto the Church and Manor of this viU under the name of Hunesberge. The real
donor was Ansger Brito, the Domesday Lord of Hundestona, who, as was usual, appears in the Comte's
Charter only in the guise of a witness. Now again the vill is known as Houndstone. It is in the parish of
Odecumbe.
Ceosblbeegon (Chiselborough). — This manor, held by Alured Pincerna under the Comte of Moretain,
became the Caput of the barony of Alured's descendants. They took the name of De Montacute. The
male line expired in the 13th century. We have stated (Dorset, p. 128 n.) that John de Montacute was last
in the male line of the Barons of Chiselborough. Collinson (ii. 330) gives WiUiam de Montacute as the last
of the male hue. The matter needs further investigation.
CiaiLTON Cantbio is not foreshadowed by any Domesday Manor of like name to Chilton. We conclude it
to have been involved in some Domesday Manor of another name. Its history in the 13th century
168 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OF SOMERSET,
(Golliuson ii. 339) strongly suggests that it was then a member of the Honour of Montgomery. At that
rate we should look for its Domesday type in some manor of William de Falaise, or of his father-in-law,
Serb de Buroi. We conjecture that Chilton was one of the Mudifords of Domesday,— that one which,
consisting of 3 hides, was held together, with its adjunct of Stana, by Rainaldus, under Serlo de Burci
Of the Cantilupe Barons, as coheirs of the Honour of Montgomery, we have spoken elsewhere (Antiq.
Shropshire, xi. 129). Our present conjecture places Chilton, perforce, in the pras-Domesday Hundred of
Stane. While in possession of Cantilupe it was annexed to a new Hundred, that of Berwick or Barwick.
Now again this temporary Hundred merges, not into the Hundred of Stone, but into the composite
Hundred of Houndsborough Barwick and Coker.
Barwiok, al. Berwick. — Neither is this manor typified in any Domesday Manor of cognate' name. Its
history in the 13th century has the same peculiarities as led us to look for Chilton in the Domesday Fiefs
of Falaise or De Burci. Barwick was sometime held by the Courtenay Lords of the Honour of Montgomery,
from whom it descended to Cantilupe as Courtenay's coheir. But we cannot find Barwiok in either of the
expected Domesday Fiefs ; nay, as far as Domesday is its own interpreter, we are sure that Barwick was in
neither Fief.
Our conjecture here is that Barwick was omitted in Domesday by mere error. The next question arising
Vi this — Is there anything in the Inquest of Givela Hundred, talcen a.d. 1084, to convict the greater and
later Record of such an error ? Certainly there is : the manor held by Osbern, under the Bishop of
Coutauces, and which paid its gheld in Liet Hundred, is not in Domesday. We have already concluded
that it changed hands about that period, and that it may have appeared in Domesday under some other
tenure. We adhere to the supposed change of possession — we abandon the conjecture about •* Domesday
reappearance. What if, the manor being Barwick, it was then passing from the Bishop of Coutances — say
to Serlo de Burci or to William de Falaise— and if this unsettled state of matters was the very cause of
non-registration in Domesday ? We dismiss the question, having bestowed upon it all the attention due to
a difiiculty, and well aware that a very atom of fresh evidence on the post-Domesday history of Chilton
Cantiloe and Barwick might disturb the weight and balance of present reasonings. Our Table (vol. ii.,
pp. 27, 28) assumes Barwick to have been in the prEC-Domesday Hundred of Givela. It was, topographically,
nearer to Yeovil than to Sutton (Bingham), and so, perhaps, rather ia the Stane than in the Houndsborough
department of Givela Hundred. Under Cantilupe's influence Barwick and Chilton, though wide apart, were
fonned into a Hundi-ed or Liberty, called Barwiok Hundred. Now again, both are fused into the composite
Hundred of Houndsborough Barrow and Coker.
Givela Hundred. — As our Table (vol. ii., pp. 27, 28) implies, the prsc-Domesday Hundred of Givela
contained nothing (except 1 hide in Adber and 4 hides in Martook) which is not now contained in the
three Hundreds of TintmhuU, of Stone, of Houndsborough Barwiok and Coker. On the other hand, two of
the three last-named Hundreds contain some estates which Givela Hundred did not contain. In detail —
(1) Tintiuhull Hundred contains Ilchester and Northover, which, at the date of Domesday, were Vetus
Dominicum CoronEe, — members of the royal manor of Meleborna {postea Melborne Port).
(2) Houndsborough, Barrow, and Coker Hundred contains. East and West Coker and Hardington, which
seem to have been in the prse-Domesday Hundred of Liet, alias Coker. And, whereas CoUinson says
that, while Coker was a distinct Hundred, it also contained the Manors of Ctos worth, Pcndomer, and
Sutton Bingham, we think it possible that one, but certainly not more than one of those three manors
may have been in the prje-Domesday Hundred of Liet, and not in the pra3-Domesday Hundred of Givela.
It is true that such a concession would reduce the hidage of Givela Hundred to less than its complement,
a.s advertized in the Inquest of 1084 ; but, according to oiir already-stated hypothesis, such a reduction may
theoretically be replaced by adding to Givela Hundred a theoretical hidage of the Manor of Barwick. —
In figures, 159h. Ov. 2f. (of the Table) - 5 hides (for, say, Sutton) + 3h. Iv. 2f. (for Barwick) =
157h. 2v. Of. (of the Inquest).
Our work wUl hardly be complete with regard to Givela Hundred unless we add a Table of comparative
measures, similar to those which have already been given for Frome and other Hundreds. —
HUNDRED OF GIVELA (yBOVIl).
169
TABLE OP THE COMPARATIVE MEASURES OF QIVBLA (yEOVIL) HUNDRED.
Domesday Manors.
BlBobeBtona
Tintehella
Chingestana
( Sstocha
(Estochet
Looutuna
J Toma
1 Toma
j Soccil, al. Soche . . . .
"X Soca, aL Soche
J CiiTela
1 Jula
{Citema
Ciltema
Cilterna
{Mundif orda
Modiforda
Stana
Mudif ord
( Hmigtoaa
\ Sraccota
Esaentona
Bmuetona
Frestetoua
Eattebera
Acheleia
(Anonymous)
Ginioc
Peredt
Odecoma
HundeatoDa
Ceselbergon
Cinioc
Cinloc
Nortona
Peana
Clouesurda
Halberga
Sutoua
(Manor omitted)
Domesday
Hidage.
CO (!)
5
8
(?)
"2 I
840
1200
060
950
360
120
240
:)60
600
240
240
720
120
.S6D
360
480
600
180
360
960
.360
360
480
120
ISO
840
960
600
120
600
360
480
600
600
720
960
600
|l
11
67
ISO
3
20
180
10
210
80
60
60
(?)
160 I 19,200 i 928
41
25
10
10
10
14
70
10
l.-|
30
lo
12
60
26}
43
13
10
6
60
18
20
3}
33
36
40
25
10
12
13i
12
(?)
816}
(S 0} .
£ d o
200
20
15
'so
40
12
240
31
20
20
i2
40
lio
(V)
Gr03s
Domesday
Acreages.
1008 )
370 ;
260 )
374 )■
670 )
265 I
240 I
783 r
120
395
865
1517
1181
1378
130
024
935
624 \
130 )
1260 )
448})
123 i
905
1339
360
1708}
423
497
130
196
9J0
1158
705}
641
396
522
646
860
812
1093
672
(?)
Modem Parishes.
Moatacute
TintinhuU
Kiugstone
Stolce-siib-IIamdon .
Luf ton
Thorne Coffin
Sock Dennis
Yeovil
Chiltliorne Domar
Mu If ord
Chilton Cautilos ? . . .
Lymington
Ashington
Brympton d'Evercay .
Preston Pluclcnett . , .
Adbcr in Trent
Hurst in Mai-toclc . . .
In Mai-toclc
East Chiunoclc
North Periott
Od:ombe
Chiselborough
Middle Chinnock . . .
West Chinnock
Norton sub Hamdon.
Pendoraer
Closworth
Hazlebury Plucknett
Sutton Bingham , . .
Bai-wick
li
1485
1828
959
1330
202
410
4056
1393
2035
631
1602
654
465
795
alibi
alibi
alibi
1320
1248
1276
i90
471
042
642
1090
1071
2069
549
784
Here we have a Hundred where 21,686 acres of Domesday Registration seem to compare with 30,661
acres of modern measurement. The deficiency of the Domesday estimate is 8975 acres. But when we
count among the Domesday measures only 928 acres of wood-land, and only 742 acres of pasture-land, we
are assured that Yeovil Hundred was pervaded by Forestal jurisdictions, registered, it may be, under the
Royal Manors of Bruton or of Milborne, or, it may be, attached to yet more distant manors of the King or
his Barons. Or it may be that the Comte of Moretain or William of Ewe had tracts of land in Yeovil
Hundred, appropriated, indeed, to the Chace, but so worthless for any other purpose that the Domesday
Surveyors registered only that which was of some better account.
Be that as it may, in YeovU Hundred we have the Somerset Hide represented by 192f statute acres and
by 136 J acres of Domesday registration, each some proof that the hidated and measured lands were of
good quality.
The Domesday value of Yeo\'il Hundred was £161 3s. 4d. per annum. This was at the rate of £1 Os. 9^d.
per hide ; and of 1.7834 penny, and decimals of a penny, per Domesday acre ; also at the rate of £1 Os l.|d.
per plough-land.
These were good rates, but should be somewhat modified by the circumstance that about 6 per cent, of
the gross revenue arose from the twenty and one Mills of the Hundred.
170 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OP SOMERSET.
THE INQUISICIO-QHBLDI (a.D. 1081) FOR MILVERTON HUNDRED (INQ.-GHELDI, P. 67).
H. V. F.
In Hundreto MilvertonSB sunt XDiij hid. et dim. (24 2 0) .
H, V. p.
Inde habet Rex de Gildo £6 7s. 6d. pro xxi hidis et i virgfi, 21 1
Robertus de Oburgivilla habet iii virgas quas tenet liberas de Rege 3
Pro ii hidis et dim. quas tenet Britellus non habet Rex gildum suum 2 2
3 10 3 1
24 2
Robert de Otborvill was a King's Serjeant. He held Welesford (now Wellisford) in cwpite and in suc-
cession to two Saxon Thanes, Edric audBruninc. His estate was originally 1 hide, but here, as elsewhere
(supra, 68) he seems to have had some loss. In 1084 and 1086 his estate remains as 3 virgates, whilst
BreteU, the Comte of Moretaine's Tenant at Ash-Brittle, had obtained the 4th virgate in WeUesford, and
held it of the Comte.
IT Bretell's Tenure of 24 hides left in arrear in 1084, was his demesne in Aissa (Ash) a manor of 54
hides which Bretel held of the Comte. It is in regard of him, its Domesday lord, that the place is now
called Ash-Brittle.
NOTES ON THE TABLE (VOL IL, PP. 27-28) OF MILVERTON HUNDRED.
MiLVERTON. — This Manor of the late Queen Edith, though it was both Caput and part of Milverton
Hundred, was evidently not considered to be intra- Hundredal nor geldable by the Gheld Assessors of 1084.
Otherwise they would have recorded some exemption not only for the 2 fertines at which the manor had
been nominally geldable in the time of King Edward, but also for the Church-fee of IJ virgates which was
a tenure in almoign, and so had never been geldable.
The Text of Domesday suggests that the King had reduced the manor, at least, to the non-hidated form ;
that is, it was divided between himself and his Villeins, not according to their proportional shares in two
fertines of nominal assessment, but according to their respective interests in the oari-ucage or plough-lands
of the estate.
That an estate, containing, at least, 2126 acres of Domesday mensuration, should, at any time, have stood
geldable as 2 fertines, is, of course, only another instance of that excessively favourable hidation which was
set upon this class of manors. When King Edward appointed this once Royal Manor as part of the dota-
tion of hi« Queen Edith, he appointed that it should be geldable at the nominal figure of 2 fertines, that is,
should any current gheld-rate be at 6 shillings per hide, Milverton would have been assessed, as exempt
from, or solvent of, two sums, together amounting to nine-pence.
That the Domesday Manor of Milverton virtually included the manor now called Langford Budville is
suggested by the circumstances that we can find no other Domesday representative of the latter estate,
and that the Prse-Domesday contents of Milverton Hundred tally in all ascertainable respects with the
contents of the existing Hundred, one of whose nine parishes is Langford Budville.
Preston Bowter. — (Collinson, iii. 15) says that " Preston Bowyer and Torrels Preston were at the Con-
quest parts of the Manor of Brumpton " (Brompton Regis is meant) "and are still part of the Hundred of
Williton Freemanors." This is, perhaps, strictly true of Torrels Preston, which, if a member of Brompton
Regis, would naturally pass into Williton Hundred, together with its Caput. But, surely, Preston Bowyer
was at no time part of Brompton Regis. If it got at length into WilUton Hundi-ed, that will have been an
accidental result of its having been for a time extra-hundred al, in virtue of the special franchises of Goldclyve
Priory, to which House it was given by one of Alured de Hispania's descendants and heirs.
The name " Bowyer," says Collinson, is a corruption of " Bures." If so, the family of Bures will have
held Preston previously to the grant to Goldclyve ; and Hugo, the Domesday tenant, may have been Hugh
de Bures. Hugo held altogether five manors under Alured de Hispania. Plainsfield was one of them.
Richard fitz Ralph, who held Plainsfield in 1166 under Philip de Columbieres, was very probably descended
from Hugo.
MILVERTON HUNDRED. 171
Badehbmona (Bathealton). — When two or more thegna are said in Domesday to have held a manor
paritei; or in paragio, it may transpu-e that they had held equoil poHions ; but this is not implied by the
words pariter or in paragio. In the present instance, as we see, one thegn, Alurio, had held three parts of
Bathealton ; Algar, the other thegn, only one part. The word pariter merely impUes that the status, or
degree, or quality of tenure, of the alleged co-tenants was equal. There were several classes of thegns.
Alurio and Algai-, we happen to know, were of the highest class. They were, as we should now express
it. Peers. And that is all that Domesday intends by the word pariter. The Duke of Welhngton now
holds Strathfieldsaye by Grand Serjeantry : the Duke of Marlborough holds Blenheim by a like tenure
The two magnates are doubly peers then, as dukes and as grand Serjeants : but no one infers that Blenheim
and Strathfieldsaye are equal in point of value or extent.
Maneubd.s. should be Manneword or Manworth ; but no such name, we are told, is traceable in Milverton
Hundred. From its place in the Record (between Bathealton and Runnington), and from other
characteristics, we are persuaded that Maueurda was in Milverton Hundred. It is but our guess that it was
in Bathealton parish.
Staweia, al. Stawei. — Our identification of this manor with Stawley is not according to CoUinson, who
makes Stawei to imply both Over and Nether Stowey. That theory is unquestionably wrong.
Orthography indeed would suggest that Alured de Hispania's Manor of Staweia would now be
represented by Stowey (Nether Stowey in WilUton Hundred) ; and that his double Manor of Estalweia or
Stalweia finds as fit a counterpart in Stawley. And so OoUinsou conceived the question. The Gheld
Inquest, however, proves that Estalweia, being a dominical manor of Alured de Hispania, was in WilUton
Hundred, and so must be the type of Nether Stowey, the Caput of his descendants' Barony. As to Staweia
being Stawley and so in Milverton Hundred, the fact is but faintly indicated by the sequence of the Record .
The negative proof is in such cases most to be relied on. If Staweia be not Stawley, where is Stawley in
Domesday ? If Stawley be not Staweia, what has become of the latter ?
Welespoeda. — Bretel, the Comte of Moretain's tenant, had appropriated one virgate of Robert de
Auberville's tenement of Wellisford. Robert de Auberville was a King's Serjeant (Serviens Regis). His
services ware probably in connection with the King's Forest. His Saxon antecessors were in one instance
Foresters, in other instances Tovi, Sheriff of Somerset, before, and for some little time after, the Conquest.
Domesday gives evidence other than this spoliation of Wellisford, of De Auberville's title having been
questioned or disturbed. What remained to his heirs seems to have escheated to the Crown in the time
of Richard 1. It was a Knight's-fee, says CoUinson (ui. 19), and King Richard gave it to Wm. de Wrotham,
his Forester for Somerset and Dorset.
ToBNA. — Roger de CorceUe's Manor of Toma can hardly be represented by any other manor than that of
Thorn St. Margaret. The sequence in which Domesday registers Toma is immaterial to the question, for
Torna is the only CorceUe manor which can possibly have been in MUverton Hundred. Whereas the
voracious territorialist who owned Toma procured himself a foothold in nearly every Somerset Hundred,
there is less improbabiUty that he got ingress into this of Milverton.
Milverton Hundred. — This Hundred is, so far as we know, precisely the same as it was in a.d. 1084,
and at the date of Domesday.
Our Table however does not perfectly represent this identity, for it gives the whole parochial acreage of
Milverton (5,475 acres) to this Hundred, whereas >■. part of that acreage (499 acres of Domesday measure-
ment) is necessarily included in our Table of King's Brompton Hundred, in which Hundred, though in
Milverton parish, Torrels Preston was.
In other words our Tables give the whole manorial measures of Torrels Preston as in King's Brompton
Hundred, the whole parochial measures in Milverton Hundred. It is only by combining the two Hundreds
into one Table that the true totals of correlative acreage could be placed in juxtaposition. Such a Tabular
arrangement would produce more confusion than it would obviate.
The Domesday estimate gives to the presumed constituents of this Hundred IJ hides more than were
announced in the Inquest of 1084. We can say no more than that such a Domesday Increment is not
without precedent.
The Domesday measurements of this Hundred are as follows : — (70 plough-lands =) 8400 acres + wood-
land 273 acres + meadow-land 79 acres + pasture 258 acres ; in aU 9010 acres, or (adding the Domesday
172 THE SOMEESET DOMESDAY. — THURLBEAR HUNDRED. -
acreage of Torrels Preston, viz., 499 acres) 9509 acres. The measures of modern ascertainment realise 14,812
acres in the nine parishes of Milverton Hundred.
The average hide of Milverton Hundred was therefore represented by about 360J acres of Domesday
registration, and by about 661J acres of actual territory. The difference between the Domesday measui-es
(9509 acres) and the real measures (14,812 acres) leaves 5303 acres unaccounted of by the former.
We presume that this difference was forest, measured by Domesday into and with the great Forest areas
attributed to the Royal Manors of Carhampton, Williton, and Cannington, and to other Liberties of North-
western Somerset.
These, it will be remembered (See p. 131) exceeded the real areas of those Manors and Liberties by
16,466 acres. By taking Milverton Hundred into calculation the discrepancy is reduced to (16,466 —
5303 —) 11,163 acres : of which still remaining discrepancy we give full account elsewhere.
The value of Milverton Hundred had increased from £34 17s. 6d. (the value at the dates of Norman
seizin) to £53 7s. 6d. (the value at the date of Domesday). The chief increase was in Milverton itself,
whose value had more than doubled since it passed from the hands of Queen Edith to those of King
William. The only estate which had decreased in value was Alured de Hispania's Manor of Staweia,
which, by the way, seems to have been inadequately stocked.
IT The aforesaid Domesday value, viz., £53 7s. 6d. per annum, was at the rate of about £2 Os. 6d. per
hide, and of 1.3471 penny, 'etnA decimals of a penny, per Domesday acre ; also at the rate of 15s. 3d. per
plough-laud.
INQUISIOIO-GHELDI (a.D. 1084) FOR THJ! MANOR OP TEUELBEAB (iKQ.-QHELDi) P. 489).
In Manerio Torleberga! sunt iii hida. Inde habet Rex de Gildo sue s et viii solidos \
(18s.), the full gheld on 3 liides \
NOTES ON THE INQUEST OF THUELBBAE MANOR OR HUNDRED.
There is a duplicate Inquest on this Manor (See Inq.-Gheldi, p. 71). It perhaps explains the reason why
the Manor came to be separately assessed. It runs as follows : — " In Hundreto TierlebergD3 sunt iii Mda;.
De his habuit Rex de Gildo suo xviii solidos, et istos non reddideruut Homines Comitis nisi in LTltimo
Gildo."
The Comte of Moretain's men, viz., Drogo and his villeins, had defei-red their reckoning till the latest
term of the Gheld-levy {viz., tiU Easter, A D. 1084).
NOTES ON THE TABLE (vOL. II. IT. 27, 28) OF THUELBEAE MANOE.
The 3 hides of Domesday were represented by 1115 acres of contemporary measurement, viz.. plough-
land, 1080 acres ; wood, 20 acres ; meadow, 15 acres.
The case was one of privileged hidation. The present parish (949 acres) is less extensive than the
Domesday Manor.
Here the Domesday Hide is represented by 31CJ acres of parochial measurement, but, more intelligibly
by 371a acres of Domesday registration.
The Domesday value of £6 per annum is at the rate of £2 per hide, and of one penny .2914 decimal parts
of a penny per Domesday acre : also at the rate of ISs. 4d. per plough-land, and per team in employ.
The number of villeins and serfs abiding in Thurlbear, in a.d. 1086, was 26. This gives a single
labourer to every 43 acres of Domesday measurement, and to every 411 acres of laud arable' and land
ploughed.
INQUISICIO GIiELDT (a.D. 1084) FOR THE MANOR OP THORN F.iiCON (iNQ.-G., p. 489).
In Manerio Toma; sunt vii hidsc.
Inde habet Rex de Gildo suo XXX solidos pro V hidis 6
Et de ii hidis retinuit Robertus Gildum Regis 2
7
NOTES ON THE INQUEST OF THORN MANOR.
Thorn Falcon, though topographicaUy in North Curry Hundred, was independently a,ssessed in A.D. 1084
Indeed, the Hundred of North Curry consisted, at that time, of nothing save the Comital Manor of North
MANOR OR LIBERTY OF THORN (nOW THORN PALCOn), 173
Curry, which, with ita appurtenances of Stoke Gregory and West Hatch, was then in the hands of WiUiam
de Moione, Sheriff of Somerset, as Gustos for the King. And— whereas there is no extant Inquest of
North Curry Hundred, and no appearance that any Inquest was taken in a.d. 1084, — on both grounds, or on
either ground, it is probable that Thorn, which had its Inquest, was an independent Liberty.
On looking at the Indices of Somerset Hundreds, coeval with the Inquisicio of a.d. 1084, we find a
Hundred of Blacheterna, or Blichethorne, mentioned. We cannot help taking Blackthorn as the ancient
name of Toma (now Thorn Falcon). This idea further settles the Manor to have been an ancient Liberty,
detached from any other Hundred. It also accounts for its being distinctively assessed in the Inquisicio of
A.D. 1084.
From its place in the Record we judge the Inquest on Thorn Manor to have been a late and supple-
mentary Inquest. The reason, probably, was that there was a dispute about its liidage and consequent
gheld-liability. Domesday reproduces the Manor as one of 6 hides, which looks like a compromise between
the demand of the Collectors of 1084 and the recusancy of the tenant, Robertus. It is further remarkable
that the tenant of 1084, Robertus, is exchanged for Ansger in Domesday.
NOTES ON THE TABLE (vOL □., PP. 27-28) OP THE MANOR OP THOKN PALCON.
The 6 hides of Domesday were represented by 730 acres of contemporary measurement, viz., arable land,
720 acres ; wood, 2 acres ; meadow, 8 acres. <
The present paiish is 814 acres, and probably includes some wood or pasture which pertained at the date
of Domesday to the King's Forest. Here the Domesday Hide, though parallel with about 136 acres of
parochial measurement is better represented by (730 -r- 6) = 121|- acres of Domesday registration. It was
a case of excessive hidation.
The Domesday value, £3 per annum, is at the rate of 10 slullhigs per hide, and of nearly one penny per
Domesday acre ; also at the rate of 10 shillings per plough-land and of 15s. per team employed.
The number of Villeins, Boors, and Serfs, abiding at Thorn in a.d. 1086, was 12. This gives a single
labourer to every 61 acres of Domesday measurement ; to every 60 acres of arable land ; and to every 40
acres of land actually ploughed.
It is recorded in the year 1166 how "Gilbert de Torna, if he could have his whole fee, would be omng the
service of 2 Knights to Walter Brito." (Lib. Nig., i. 99).
Now Walter Brito (Baron of Odcumbe) was hneally descended from Ansger Brito, aHas Ansger de
Montacute, who held both Odcombe and Thorn eighty years earlier of the Comte of Moretain. Gilbert de
Torna was moreover in 1166 actual or presumptive or rightful Tenant of Thorn and other estates under
Walter Brito. The idea of deprivation seemingly asserted in the above return of Walter Brito, is perhaps
connected with the fact that in after times ' Thom-Fagon,' as it had come to be called, was no longer in any
connexion with the Barony of Odcumbe, but was held of the Honour of Dunster. In 14 Edward I. (1286)
WiUiam de Thorn was certified to hold 2 small fees (that is Moretain fees) in Thorn Fagon of John de
Mohun, Lord of Dunster (Collinson, ii. 182). —
It is probable that this tenure extended to more estates than Thorn Fagon, but it seems undeniable that
these two fees of Moretain, wherever they were, were the same as Walter Brito had spoken of in his return
of 1166. But how De Mohun had made a title to these Fees of Odcumbe, or indeed to any Moretain fees
at all, we inquire in vain.
We have devoted unusual space to the investigation of all particulars which seem to touch on the early
history and present representation of the Comtc of Moretain's Manor of Thorne. A question, personal
rather than local, and a further phEeuomenon have yet to be discussed.^
Among the Thegns of Somerset, Algar, who held Torna on the day of King Edward's death, was among
the chiefest. This Algar was not dispossessed by the Conquest. In the summer of 1068 King William's
charter restoring Banwell to Giso, Bishop of Wells, has among its witnesses no less than ten Saxons, all of
them still holding considerable Fiefs in Somerset. Third in position comes MUgear de Thorne, whose
attestation, however, has been disguised by some Scribe who copied the King's charter into the Ziber Alius
of Wells, and wrote the witness's name as JSlfge arde Thorne. (For this charter we refer to Somerset
Archseological Proceedings, vol. xxiii.) Now we will enquire further about the Somerset estates of .^Elfgear
de Thorne, the ' Algar ' of Domesday. —
174 THE SOMEESET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OF SOMERSET.
At the time of his forfeiture or death (between 1068 and 1084) he was Lord of Scepton (postm Shipton
Beauchamp), of Bera {postea Beer Crooombe), of Torna {postm Thorn Falcon), and of Peredt (North
Periott). These estates, containing 27 hides in all, devolved to the Seigneury of Robert Comte of Moretain.
Algar was also Lord of Bischeurda (Bishopworth), of Weston (in Gordano), and part-Lord of Clotuna
(Clapton in Gordano), all which devolved to the Seigneury of the Bishop of Coutances. At Estochelande
(Stockland, Bristol), at Ailgi (postm Aylly), at Maueheva (Minehead), and at Aucoma (Alcomb in Dunster),
Algar was succeeded by Wflliam de Moione, at Ottona (postm "Wootton Courtenay), by WiUiam de Falaise,
at Porlock, by Baldwin of Exeter, at Doneham (DunbaU ?) by Walter de Douai, at Hatewara (?) and at
Auimera (Enmore) by Roger de Corcelle. The latter Baron also succeeded Algar at Dondeina (Dundon),
which Algar had held of Glastonbury Abbey.
In Devon, Cornwall, WUtshire, and Dorset, Algar's manors were exceeding many, and had various
destinations. We can learn no more of this wealthy Thane. It is quite a conjecture that Leveva, who
seems to have been holding Scepton (Shipton) in 1084, was his widow, and that she vacated that tenure by
death or otherwise before 1086, when the Comte of Moretain had taken Scepton into his own demesne.
THE INQUISIOIO-GHELDI I'OR LOOHESLEI HUNDRED (a.D. 1084), (iNQ.-GHELDI, p. 74.)
In Hundreto Lochesleise sunt xlvii hidie . H. v. P.
Inde habet Rex de gildo suo £7 16s. pro xxvi hidis 26
Et Sotus Petrus de Romil et Abbas de Glastingesberiil habent in dominio suo 11
De his habet Sanctus Petrus vi hidas 6
Et Abbas (de Glastingesberia) V hidas 5
11
Et non habuit Rex gildum suum.
Pro iii hidis quas tenet Aluredus de Hispania de Abbate Glastingberiensi 3
Nee pro iii hidis et iii virg. quas tenet Roger Witene de Honore prajdicti Abbatis ... 3 3
Nee pro i virga quam tenet Anschetillus Parcarius 1
De hoc Hundreto debentur Regi 42 solidi (i. c, the gheld on 7 hides) 7 7
44
jjote. So the Fegadri of Locksley Hundred only accounted for 44 of the 47 hides which \
they had announced as the contents of their Hundred. In other words, they omitted to mention f o r, n
in detail three further hides which,, though absolutely in Locksley Hundred, had paid Gheld to C
the Fegadri of HuntepiU Hundred. '
47
The Inquest of Huntspill Hundred says accordingly, — " In Hundreto Hunespillaj quod tenet Walsciuus
de Duaco est tantum una hida. De hdc habet Rex vi soHdos de gUdo suo : et cum hoc Hundreto fuerunt
recepti 18 soUdi pro iii hidis quEC erant de Hundreto Locheslegse " (Inq.-Gheldi, p. 70).
KOTES ON THE INQUEST OF LOOHESLEI HTTNDRED.
The ESTATE HELD BY St. Peter's OF RoME stands in Domesday as Peritona, and as containing 6 hides,
though its geldabihty T. R. E. had only been for 5 hides.
The favourable hidation of the Confessor's time did not in this, among many instances, influence the
Assessors of 1084 in computing the area of a specific manor or of the Hundred which contained it.
The estate is now called Puriton. It has been withdrawn from Whitley Hundred, the ordinary
representative of Locksley Hundred, and being added to Huntspill Hundred forms the modern and
composite Hundred of " Huntspill and Puriton."
The Abbot of Glastonbury's demesne, said to be five hides in 1084, was in Sowi (now Middlezoy,
Weston Zoyland, and Othery).
Alured de Hispania's insolvency for 3 hides, was for 3 out of 5 hides in Woolavington, a member of
Shapwick which Alured held of Glastonbury Abbey. Domesday actually specifies 3 hides as the proportion
of Alured' s demesne in Hunlavmton,
LOCKSLEY HUNDRED. 175
"RoOER Witene" of the Inquest is the Roger de Corcella of Domesday. His surcharge on 3 hides,
3 virgates in 1084, is for so much of his demesnes, in estates held of the same Abbey, as he had neglected to
account for. His tenures in this Hundred under the Abbey were 22 hides, of which he occupied in demesne
16 hides, IJ virgates.
Anscetillus Paboaeius was ■■ tenant in capite per serjantiam in other quarters. In this case he is
probably surcharged as an under-tenant of Roger de Corcella, in which, not unfrequent, relation Domesday
calls him simply " AnschetiUus." His sub-tenure in Locheslei Hundred was probably in that portion
(5 hides) of Shapwick of which Domesday fails to give any detaQed account.
The theeb hides of Locheslei Hundred which paid gheld to Hunespill Hundred were probably Alured
de Hispania's demesne in Woolavington, which Manor he held under Glastonbury Abbey.
NOTES ON the TABLE (vOL. II, PP. 29-30) OF LOCHESLEI HUNDRED.
Peeiton (now Puriton).— The Domesday Survey of this Manor indicates 6 hides as coordinate with 1,740
measured acres, and an annual value of £12. The hidation was therefore still privileged, though the
privilege had somewhat abated by raising Queen Edith's 5 hides to the Papal 6 hides. Its ordinary
hidation would have been at least 12 hides.
The present parish, measuring only 1,577 acres, is not so extensive as the Manor erst held by the Holy
See. The Manor is said to have passed in time of King Henry I. to De Candos, Baron of Stowey, but there
is no presumption that he was more than tenant thereof, holding of the Church of St. Peter at Rome.
SAPiESWiOA. — The Domesday Survey of Shapwick is incomplete. Of the thirty geldable hides which the
Manor contained, Domesday only gives the tenancy and details of twenty-five. The omitted five hides were
perhaps in Moorlinch proper (1,122 acres) and in StaweU (973 acres). If so, the subsequent survey of
Stawell (EstaweUa) as containing 24 hides is redundant, and these 2J hides were only part of the 30 hides
of Shapwick.
The half-hide, held by Garmundus in Shapwick, was no part of the aforesaid 30 geldable hides"; it was
merely a part of the Abbot's 20 ingeldable plough-lands. Though called a half -hide it was not geldable.
There were in Somerset a, few other instances where estates, though falling under a hidal denomination,
were ingeldable by prescription.
The parochial acreage of Shapwick, Woolavington, Sutton Mallet, Eddington, Chilton-Polden, Catcott,
Moorlinch, and Stawell, is found to be 14,755 acres. The lands recognized in Domesday as constituting
those manors meaisured 7,847 acres. The difiference, viz., 6,908 acres, was either King's Forest or utterly
profitless waste. In this instance the hides and quasi-hides of Domesday are, on an average, coordinate
with 246 acres of modern ascertainment.
Sowi. — ^Middlezoy was probably the Caput. of the Glastonbury estate called Soioi in Domesday ; and Sowi
included not only Middlezoy (2,520 acres), but Weston-Zoyland (2,729 acres), and Othery (1,820 acres).
These parochial measurements amount to 7,069 acres. The lands registered in Domesday as appurtenant
to the 12 hides of Sowi measure (according to the system of computation avowed in this treatise) 2,442
acres, viz., arable land, 2,400 acres ; wood, 12 acres ; meadow, 30 acres. It may be reckoned then that
some (7,069 - 2,442 =) 4,627 acres of this territory were not represented at all in Domesday. The ratio of
the pheenomenon is at once apparent. This was the very land of moors and swamps.
LoxLET Hundred. — This is one of the pra3-Domesday Hundreds which have been extinct for ages. At
the dissolution of Loxley Hundred, its Manor of Puriton was added to Huntspill Himdred. All its other
Manors were of the Glastonbury Fief, and went into the post-Domesday Hundred of Whitley. The total
area of Lochslei Hundred, as given in our Table, is 50^ hides against 47 hides, the asserted area of the
Inquest of 1084. The Fegadii of 1084 had probably understated the Hundred by one hide ; the gheld on
such hide being their own fee or perquisite. The 24 hides of remaining difference possibly arose in
the duplicate estimate of Stawell, which Domesday is above supposed to have admitted. However, these
conjectural emendations of Domesday do not matei-ially affect the statistics of the case. So let Loxley
Hundred stand as 504 hides. —
Here we have the Domesday hide represented by 463 acres of modern ascertainment.
The acreage registered by Domesday for the same district is 12,029 acres, which gives rather more than
238 acres as the correlative of the hide. It all amounts to this, viz., that each hide of Domesday instance.
176 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY, — THE HUNDREDS OF SOMERSET.
aud every 238 acres of Domesday registration, co-ordinated with a, further quota of about 225 acres ot
swampy wilderness, which had never been contemplated by any process of hidation, aud which Domesday
utterly ignored.
The Domesday value of Looheslei Hundred, viz., £72 per annum, was at the rate of £2 5s. 2d. per hide,
and of 1,4364 penny, and decimals of a penny per Domesday acre ; also at the rate of 153. 3d. per plough-
land, and of £1 Is. for each of 68i teams in actual employ.
The number of Coliberti, ViUani, Bordarii, and Servi abiding in Loxley Hundred at the date of Domesday
was 203. This gives a single labourer to every 59J acres of Domesday registration, — to every 56 acres of
plough-land, — and to every 40^ acres of land actually ploughed.
INQUISICIO GHELDI (a.D. 1084) FOB MILBOURN HnN0BED (iNQ. OHELDI, P. 72).
In Hundreto Meleborne sunt o et xv hidfe et 1 virga (115} hides).
Inde habet Rex de Gildo suo £18 18s. 44d. pro Ixiii hid. et i fertino
Et Baronas Regis habent in dnio xxxiiii hid. et dim. et iii fert. (Read 35 hides 3 fertin) .
De his habet Willelmus filii (fihus) Guidonis viii hid. et i virg. et i fert 8
Et Hunfridus Camerarius iii hid. i virg. iii fert. 3
Et Abbatissa S'ti Edwardi ii hid. et dim 2
Et Monaohi Sancti Severini iii hid. et dim 3
Et Rotbertus fihus Geraldi iiij hidas 4
Et Ulwardus Wyta vii hid. et i virg. et i fert 7
Et Comes de Moritonio ii hid. et iii virg 2
Et Episcopus "Waloelinus ii hid. et i virg. et dim 2
Et Ecclesia Meleburna; i hid. qua) nunquam reddit Gildum 1
n.
V. r.
63
1
1
1
1
3
2
2
1
1
3
1
2
35 3 35
Et Fegadri retinuerunt sibi iii solidos de dimidia hidS, 2
Et non habet Rex geldiim de X hidis quas tenent ViUani Regis de Hasteriga 10
Nee de v hid. et iij virg. quas tenet Sanson de Episcopo Baiooensi 5 3
Nee de dim. hidtl quam tenet Willelmus de Lestra 2
Nee de i virga quam tenet RaduKus de Contivilla 10
16 2 16 2
115 1
De hoc Hundreto sunt adhuc retro de Gildo Regis o sol. xxiii den. minus (but read c sol. xii denar. minus,
i. e., £i 19s,, for that is the true correspondent, at 6 shillings per hide, to 16^ hides in arrear).
KOTES ON THE INQUEST OP MILBOURN HUNDBED.
William pitz AYido had Horsington (11 hides) and South Cheriton (6 hides) in this Hundred. His
demesne in Domesday is reduced to 4 hides, i virg. 2^ fertins in Horsington. Meantime, therefore, he had
enfeoffed Bemardus in South Cheriton, and the latter, holding in demesne 3 hides 34 virgates, had become
geldable for the same.
HuMPHBEY Chamberlain's demesne (3 hides 1| virgates) is repeated in Domesday. His estate was
Sanforda (6 hides), now Saudford Orcas (a corruption of Sandford Orescuilz).
The Abbess op Shaptesburt's demesne was in Combe Abbas. It reappears as 2J liides in Domesday.
The Abbot op St. Seveeb was grantee and tenant of Hugh Earl of Chester, in 4 hides of Henstridge.
The Abbot's demesne, 3^ hides, is again expressed in Domesday.
Robert Fitz Gebold's demesnes of 4 hides reappears in Domesday as his demesne in a manor of 10
hides, to which Domesday gives no name. Subsequent evidences show the said manor to have been
Charlton Horethorne, sometimes called Charlton Camvill.
Ulwabd Wyte's desmesnes reappear in Domesday as 3h. 2v. If. in Corfeton (Corton Denham), and
MILBOURN, NOW HORETHOENE HUNDRED. 177
3. 3. 0. in Witeoumb (Witcombe). But thia survivor of the Saxon Thanes of the West was deceased before
Domesday, if not at the date of the Inquest, and his lands, saving his widow's dower, were in manu Regis.
The Comte op Moeetain's demesne of 2h. 3v. was in Merstona (Marston Magna). It is repeated in
Domesday.
Walcheune, Bishop of Wixohesteb, had Rimptou, in this Hundred. Domesday gives his demesne as
the Inquest, viz., 2h. Iv. 2f. Rimpton has since passed into Taunton Hundred, which pertained almost
wholly to the See of Winchester.
The Chorch-land op Milborne appears as 1 hide in Domesday. The Incumbent, called " Reinbald,
Presbyter," had been Chancellor to Kmg Edward.
Henstritoe, the whole of the King's Villanagium, viz., 10 hides, was ingeldant, hdc vice. The reason
why his demesnes there were not specially exempted, was because they consisted of 8 plough-lands which
had never paid gheld. " Habet Rex terram ad viii carucas qua! nunquam reddidit geldum," says Domes-
day. These plough-lands were, in fact, extra-Hundredal.
Samson held Come (now Temple Combe) under Odo, the imprisoned Bishop of Bayeux. Domesday
gives Samson's demesne there as reduced to 5 hides^
William de L'Estee is probably he who, being called merely ' Willelmus ' in Domesday, held Pondi-
tona (Poiutington) of the Comte of Moretain. Domesday gives his demesne as 1 hide, 1 fertine, 2 acres.
He was geldable for the whole, but, as would appear, left half a hide in arrear in 1084.
Ralph de Conttvill is named in Domesday as Walcheline de Douai's tenant at Ateberia (now Adber
in Trent parish). His demesne there was 1 hide ; his Villeinage, 1 virgate.
The Collectors (Feoadei) had appropriated to themselves 3 shilKugs, being the gheld proper to half a
hide under the existing assessment. It was, in fact, their fee for assessing the tax.
notes on the table (vol. II., pp. 29, 30) op melebokne hundred.
Meleborse Hundred. — In this instance, and it is a rare one, the manors and hidages selected from
Domesday are found to coincide precisely with the hidage of the Hundred, as advertised by the Inquisicio
of A.D. 1084.
Since Domesday, and with the exception of its change of name, Milborne Hundred has undergone none
but the most intelligible of alterations. Its name was written Ilaretona or Ilareturna in Indices quite as old
as the Inquest, so that the modern name of ' Horethorne ' is rather a revival than a change.
Its Caput, Melebome, anciently an estate of the Vctua Dominicum Corona', havmg passed to subjects, has
long since been interned in the Hundred of Horethorne ; but Ilchester, u, distant member of Meleborne
(Regis), has not followed Meleborne into Horethorne Hundred, but has gone, Church and all, into its
adjoining Hundred of Tintinhull. To this we shall recur presently, and more fully.
Rimpton, and the ratio of its transfer to Taunton Hundred, have already been spoken of.
Adbee in Trent. — -There was a third portion of Adber in Trent, which was anomalously in the pra;-
Domesday Hundred of Givela (Yeovil). Trent being always in Horethorne Hundred, this section of Adber
has now been drawn by 'parochial attraction ' into Horethorne Hundred.
Hbstbeige. — Appended to the survey of Earl Harold's Manor is the follumng notice ; — " In isfcl
mausione tenuit quidam Hber homo ix agros terra; et ii agros nemoris sed non potuit de mansione separari
die qua Rex Edwardus fuit vivus et mortuus, et valent 30 denarios per annum." This is merely a.
memorandum as to a former freehold, at Henstridge, obliterated at the date of Domesday, and absorbed in
the King's Manor. They are statute acres that are si^oken of, and the whole eleven were just short of an
ordinary fertine by one acre. The value given, 30 pence, was probably calculated on the 9 acres of plough
land, which would thus appear to have been worth about 3^d. per acre.
It is further said of this Manor — " Htcc (Mausio) reddit xxiij hbrus de albo argento et quando W. ^'i^:c-
comes recepit tantundem." The Sheriff of Somerset, William de Moione, of Dunster, was Gustos of the
King's Manor of Henstridge at the date of Domesday. The sum of £23, in white money, was equal to
about £24 33. of ordinary currency.
Charlton Horethorn. — The Table gives Robert fitz Ceroid as holding two-thirds of this Manor ; for it
^s established by post-Domesday evidence that his anonymous estate of 10 hides can have been none other
N
178 THE SOMERSET DOMfiSDAY.^THE HUNDREDS OE SOMERSEI'.
than this. The rent of ten bacon-pigs and 100 cheeses, in lieu of £18, is instructive a.3 regards market- values
at the date of Domesday.
It is a much nicer point to establish that the Comte of Moretaine's estate of Ceorlatona, or Cerletone,
constituted the other third of Charlton Horethorn. Both Domesdays mention the estate in o, sequence
which would, per se, place it either in Taunton or in Givela Hundred. But the Schedule of " Ten-:e
Occupatfe," placing it nest to Mersitona (Marston Magna), cori-ects the fallacy suggested by the Domesday
arrangement, and points to some estate in Milborne Hundred. And then we find that the Domesday
measures of Fitz Gerold's estate are only 1390 acres, to which, if we add 830 acres (the Domesday measures
of the Comte's estate), the total of 2220 acres is very proximate to the 236-3 acres which now constitute
the pari,9h of Charlton Horethorn.
Ilchestee Chuboh. — The triple entries in the Exon Domesday relating to this Church are instructive.
First (Exon D., p. 159), it is noticed in the Schedule of Glastonbury estates : — " Mauricius EpLsoopus
Liiudoniensis tenet ^colesiam Sancti Andrea; in Givelcestre et iii hidas ten'se, de Rege, quas tenuit
Brihtricius de .^cclesift Gla;stinugeberiensi et non poterat ab iEcclesitl (Glsestingeberieusi) separari die quft
Rex Edwardus fuit vivus et mortmis. Hseo iEoclesia (de Givelcestre) valet per annum centum solidos, et
quando Mauricius earn recepit valebat tantundem."
The abstraction of the estate from the Abbey necessitated a further entry (Exon D., p. 486) in the
Schedule of " Terne Occupatce," viz., "Mauritius Episcopus tenet jEcclesiam Sancti Andrea; in Givelcestra
et iii hidas ten-a; de Rege quas tenuit Brihtricius de iEcclesiil Glastingberiensi qui non j)oterat ab jEcclesift
separari die quit Rex E. f. v. et m. et valet per annum c. solidos et quando Mauritius recepit valebat
tantundem."
The remaining entiy (Exon D., p. 180) is in the Schedule of Tenauts-in-Almoigne {Terrce qua dates sunt
Sanctis in Elemosind in Sumersetd) ; but the Exchequer Domesday surveys the estate in a distinct Schedule
entitled " Quod Mauricius Episcopus tenet," The said entry is, in either Codex, a full survey of the estate,
with all particulars as to plough-lands, subtenants, team-power, and stock, usual to each survey. The only
peculiarity is that the Exon Domesday treats of and speaks of the estate as a Manor (Mansio). The entry
commences with these words : —
" Episcopus Mauritius habet i mansionem qua; vocatur Sanctus Andra;as, quam tenuit Bristritius die qua
Rex Edwardus fuit vivus et mortuus."
There was good ground for such a treatment of the estate ; for, though the Borovyh of Ilchester belonged
to the King as an outlj-ing appurtenance of his Manor of Meleburne, the Church of St. Andrew had the
greater part of the suburban lands, and indeed had the Manor, so far as there was any Manor. A further
difference between the two estates (the Borough and the Manor) was that the Borough, as a member of an
extra-lumdredal and ingeldable estate, was in no Hundred whatever ; but the Manor, being hidated, fell
within the Hundred of Meleborne. In process of time, when Milborn Port, being severed from the Crown,
was annexed to the Hundred (call it Meleburne or Horethorne) of which it had been Caput, Ilchester
(the Burgh) did not follow Milborn Port into Horethorne Hundred, nor yet did Ilchester (the Manor or
Church-fee) remain in Horethorne Hundred. Both were annexed, as topography would suggest, and as has
been before explained, to TintinhuU Hundred.
MiLBOKKE {alias Hobthokne) Hundred. — Supi)lementary of the above notes on this Hundred, we subjoin
a Table of comparative measures, similar to those which have already been given for Frome, Givela, and other
l^rEC-Domesday Hundreds.
If, in addition to the hidages quoted m this Table, we reckon the eight ingeldable plough-lands of Hens-
tridge as so many hides, we shall have in Meleburne Hundred 123} hides. The Somerset Hide is there-
fore here represented by about 174 acres of modern ascertainment, and by 165 acres of Domesday
registration.
About 1095 acres, or nearly 9 acres per hide, will have been lloyal Forest, not accounted of as iutra-
hundredal, but as Velus Dominicum Corona:.
The Domesday value of Meleburne Hundred was £132 9b. pel- annum. This waa at the rate of nearly
£1 Is. 6d. per hide ; and of 1.5627 penny, and decimals of a penny, per Domesday acre ; also at the rate of
about £1 Os. lOd. per plough-land,
POUTBUbY HUNDRfiD.
179
COMPABATTVE MEASURES OP MELEBURNB, NOW HOBETHOHKB HUNDRED.
Dom&sday Mauoi-a.
Domesday
Hidage.
H. V. F.
33S
c
III
5
Gi-o 8
Domesday
Acreages.
Modern Pdriahea.
&4
Ecclesia de Melbume
In Meleburn
1
1
11
6
6
5
8
3
7
5
10
4
10
5
6
2
7
3
1 1
2 2
1
5
3
2
3
3
1
1
10
6
5
8
i
7
4
24
lij
5
6
i
1
3
2
5
3
2
4
3
120
120
1200
720
720
600
91)0
GO
840
480
2880
360
1200
720
600
240
600
60
120
360
240
600
360
240
480
360
420
1330
40
60
60
'20
40
720
SO
60
20
80
'so
10
20
25
40
12
10
6
30
ii
100
125
8
SO
40
"6
6
160
.'0
30
50
40
24
30
6
10
15*
10
10
6
16
■|i0
150
20
20
40
720
30
100
40
'oo
'20
io
"5
120
131
^} «05
788
760)
1100 } 1920
60 J
526} 1'^'=
'III] 2220
264 f '3*
720)
70 } 946
150 j
380
230
650
507
390
Milbome Cliiuch
alibi.
j Horsstenetona
Horaington
3591
Sandford Orcaa
Temple Combe
Corton Denham
1091
( Comba
1842
Tumietta
Witecumba . .
1329
Heetrige, t'ra ad 8 car.
Hengesterich
(Anonymous)
4^5J
Charlton Horetiiorne
Marston Magna
Trent
2.0c:!
{ Merstona
IOCS
Trenta
Etesberia
1590
1020
Gatelma
Goatbill
300
Rintona
999
fCiretona,. .
North Cheriton
Stowell
( Ciretuua
Estanwella
903
Ecclesia de Givelecestra . .
Ilchester Church
alibi.
* T'ra ad 8 carr. ingeld.
115 1
127
15,240
3013
813
1275
20,341
21,436
INQUISICIO-GHELDI FOR PORTBUEY HUNDRED (a.D. 108i) ((INQ.-GHBLDI, PP. 67-68).
In Himdreto Porberiee sunt iiii, xx hidse et vi et dim. hida ( 86^ liides). H. v. r.
Inde habet Rex de Gildo suo x et ix lib., vi den. minus (£18 19s. 6d.) pro
Et Barones Regis liabent in dominicatu suo 13 hidos, 2 virgas, 3 fort.
De his habet_Epi50opus Constautiensis viii hid. et iii virg. in dominio 8 3
Et Willelmus de Ou V ludaa i fertin. minus 4 3 3
13 2 3
Et non habet Rex Gildum suum pro i hida quam tenet Osbernus de Episcopo )
Constantiensi ^10
Nee pro ij hidis quas tenet Ori de Episcopo Constantiensi 2
Nee pro i hid. et i virg. quas tenet Engelerus de Arnulf o de Hesdinc 1 1
Nee pro v. hidis et i virga et i fertiuo de quibus cognoscitur (Cognoseuntur) Fegadri 1
se reoepisse denarios ^511
9 2 1
H.
C3
1
13 2
De hoe Hundreto sunt adhuc retro £2 17.s. 4Jd. qua; debentur Regi de Gildo suo. (And the
the rate of 6 shillings per liide on the defaulting hidage, viz., on 9 hides, 21 virgates.
9 2 1
86 2
arrear is at
NOTES ON THE GHELD-INQUEST OP PORTBCRY HUNDRED.
The Bishop op Coutances' demesnes are reproduced in Domesday as 74 hides in Wraxall and 1 j hides
in Portbury, together equal to 8f hides.
William de Ou's demesne are in Domesday 4 hid., 3 virg., 3 fertins in Tiokenham.
" OsBERN " as a Tenant of the Bishop of Coutances, vanishes frotn Dotaesday. In 1084 he held under
N 2
180 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OP SOMERSET.
the Bishop both in Givela (Yeovil) Hundred, and in Portbury Hundred (Inq.-Gheldi, pp. 68-71). Who
succeeded to Osbern's specific tenancy in Portbury Hundred it is impossible to determine. It was either
William de Monoeaux, or Roger Fitz Ralph, or Herluin, or Ascelinus ; unless, indeed, some Manor of the
Bishop of Coutances' Fee and of Portbury Hundred were omitted in the Domesday Survey.
There can be no suspicion of the death or forfeiture of Osbern between the dates of the Inquest and of
Domesday, for, at the latter period, Osbern held estates under the same Bishop both in Devon and Dorset.
He was probably no other than Osbern Giffard.
Oki's tenancy under the same Bishop also vanishes from Domesday, unless Ori were the unnamed
knight (unus miles) who divided with his Villeins and Boors the occupancy of i^ hides in Wraxall, under
the Bishop. But to us the suspicion again recurs that some part of the Bishop of Coutances' Fee in Port-
bury Hundred was omitted in the Somerset Domesday. We refer to a like suspicion in the case of one of
the Bishop's Manors in Givela Hundred {supra, p. 168).
" Hengelerus " appears in Domesday as holding part (If hides) of Tickenham under Arnulf de Hesdiug
(E. D., 417). Appositely enough he has IJ hides thereof in demesne. His default in 1084 was for just
that quantity.
NOTES ON THE TABLE (vOL U., PP. 29-30) OP PORTBUKT HUNDRED.
WoROOOSALA (Wraxhall).— For this Manor of the Bishop of Coutances', geldable as 20 hides, Domesday
bespeaks details which amount to 204 tides.
Our Table represents WraxhaU as embodying manorially the three parishes of Wraxhall, NaUsea, and
Flax Bourton ; and it is probable that some part or rather most part of the two latter parishes went to
form the Manor of Wraxhall, just as the churches or chapels of both were, whenever founded, only affilia-
tions of the Church of Wraxhall. Little seems to be known of the early history of Nailsea or Bourton save
that the latter acquired its distinctive name of Flax Bourton by falling into the possession of Flaxley Abbey.
The three parishes of Wraxhall, Nailsea, and Flax Bourton enclose a territory of 7165 acres, which, com-
pared with the 21 hides of Domesday, gives the unusual proportion of 341 acres per hide. On this, and on
another ground, we should say that these three parishes enclose something more than the Domesday Survey
declares. The manor, in its given areas of plough-land, wood, meadow, and pasture, measured only 6220
acres of Domesday recognition, that is in the very usual proportion of 241 acres per hide. Here then are
(7165 - 5220 — ) 1945 acres, not registered in Domesday. There was a vast marsh adjoining to Nailsea. Its
remains are still known as Nailsea Moor. This was the kind of area, we will not say territory, which the
Domesday Surveyors omitted to register.
PoRBERiA (Portbury). — The civil parish of Portbury includes Ham Green (say 100 acres), and so mea-
sures about 3819 statute acres. Here the large proportion of parochial acreage to the Domesday hide is
chiefly the result of " favourable hidation ;'' and the Domesday measures, being 3250 acres, still give a high
representation (viz., 406 acres) to each Domesday hide. What we hold in this case (if we are to account for
any remaining anomaly) is, not that Portbury contained any land unmeet for Domesday registration, but
that the present jiarish of Portbury contains some (3319 - 3250 = ) 569 acres, which were not in the Domes-
day Manor. And whereas Portbury Church was one of the older churches of the district, it was a priori
probable that its pariah would extend into other manors.
Now, what, if among the many Tythings of Portbury parish, one (we do not suggest which) was at the
date of Domesday an independent manor. And what if that manor, containing, say 2f hides, and about
569 acres, were omitted by error in Domesday ? We will recur to that question.
TiCHEHAM (Tickenham). — Here ive have a case of " excessive hidation," for 1627 acres give but 160 acres
per hide to 10^ hides. But the parish and the two Domesday Manors nearly coincide, the exacter Domes-
day measuras of the manors being 1676 acres against the 1627 acres of the parish. The Seigneury over
William de Ewe's Manor, following a usual destination, came to be vested in the " Honour of Strigoil."
The Seigneury over Hesding's Manor did not remain with any of his co-heirs, but seems ultimately to have
been annexed to the Honour of Gloucester.
Walton in Goudano. — The parish is 515 acres in excess of the territory registered in Domesday. This
was the only Somerset Manor of Ralph de Mortimer. His antecessor Ounni, the Dane, is elsewhere called
Johannes Daous ard Johannes Danus. His manors, aptly for one of his race, were all on the coast.
PORTBUKY HUNDEED. 181
Clevedon. — The Domesday manorial measures are 1029 acres in excess of the ijresent parish. To the
manor were attached 3240 acres of pasture, of which there were only 7420 acres in the whole Hundred.
PoKTESHEVE (Portishead). — The present parish contains 653 acres more than the manor, as measured in
Easton in Gordano. — The civil parish including Pill (say 100 acres) contains 1696 acres, which is 450
acres more than the Domesday Manor. Twelve hides co-ordinating with 1246 Domesday acres gives hardly
104 acres per hide. Such hidation may well be called excessive. This was the only manor in Portbury
Hundred which had receded in annual value since the seizin of its Domesday occupant, Roger Fitz Ralph.
Collinson's remarks seem to imply that the Church of St. George at Easton was originally the Mother
Church of a lai'ge district, and that the term " In Gordano," suffixed to so many neighbouring localities,
merely purported that they were once in this vast parish of St. George. If this were so, it is easy to sup-
pose that, on the sub-division of the said parish into many parishes, manorial boundaries were disregarded.
Thi.s may be in some degree a solution of the question as to how it could have happened that the parishes
of Portbury Hundred were so seldom conterminous with the cognominate manors.
However, the question is far older and probably much larger than investigation will suffice to solve. Of
the four paiishes, yclept " In Gordano," Clapton was the only one which, at the end of the 13th oentuiy,
had the dignity and appearance of a Mother Church, and Clapton Church is dedicated not to St. George
but to another warrior-saint — St. Michael. At the same period Easton, Walton, and Weston had no status
even as chapelries ; and if the first of the said three churches has since been dedicated to St. George, the
two last claimed the tutelage of St. Paul.
Westona. — The two Domesday manors of Weston contained together lOi hides. This hidage co-ordinates
with 2612 acres of Domesday Registration, giving the very intelligible proportion of 252 acres per hide.
The present parish of Weston in Gordano is only 693 acres.
The smaller manor of Weston, that held by WilUam de Monceaux of the Bishop of Coutances, is regis-
tered in Domesday as having among its appurtenances six quarantines of moorland {vi quadragia morarum).
The quantity was only 60 statute acres, and was registered probably as having some quality of pasture. The
bulk of such moors is seldom registered in Domesday. In this case the said bulk lay between Weston and
Clapton. It is now called Clapton Moor. In this smaller manor of Weston the Domesday total is given as
3i hides. The details of tenancy supply (2| -1- f =) 34 hides.
CLOiasA (Clapton in Gordano). — The Domesday Manor is 5J hides, co-ordinating with 1260 acres of
exacter measurement, which gives the rational proportion of 229 acres per hide. The modern parish con-
tains only 1066 acres ; that is, it involves 194 acres less than the Domesday Manor.
Against the 54 hides attributed in gross to Clotuna, Domesday gives details of tenancy amounting only to
(3i + If =) 5j hides. Thus the two inaccuracies, that given under Weston and this under Clapton, are
compensatory of each other.
POBTBURT Hundred. — Of the twelve Domesday estates which we assume to have been in this Hundred,
eight owned the Seigneury of GeofBrey, Bishop of Coutances. Portbury itself was Caput of the Hundred,
and the Bishop was presumably Lord of the Hundred.
The Inquisitional Hidage of Portbury Hundred was given A.D. 1084 as 864 hides. We have been able to
collect from Domesday only 84^ hides of the required area. It is possible that some manor of about 2^
hides was omitted by error in Domesday ; the manor, to wit, which, in 1084, was held by Osbern under
the Bishop of Coutances.
After what has been said above as to the non-representation of the old manorial divisions of this Hun-
dred by present parochial boundarie.i, it will be satisfactory to shew how nearly the parishes in gross
equalize in measure the Dom&sday manors in gross. —
The exacter measures of the latter amount to 21,370 acres ; the actual measure of the parishes to 22,311
acres.
Here, then, is a difference of 941 acres, part of which may possibly represent the estate supposed to have
been omitted in Domesday, and the whole of which may, in another view, represent such portions of the
moors about Nailsea and Clapton as were unregistered in Domesday.
182 THE SOMEESET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OP SOMERSET.
The modem Hundred of Portbury contains only one manor, Abbots Leigh (2,228 acres), which the pr£8-
Domesday Hundred did not contain.
At the date of Domesday Leigh was partly in Bedminster Hundred, but mainly in the Royal Manor of
Bedminster. When given to the Abbey of St. Augustine, at Bristol, Leigh became exempt from all sub-
jection to Hundred or Liberty. After the Dissolution, Abbots Leigh, contrary to its true antecedents, was
interned, for convenience sake, in Portbury Hundred.
IT Supplementary of the above notes, and prefatory of some further remarks on the phsenomena of this
Hundred, we offer a Table of its comparative measures. We exclude from the said Table all conjectural
matter, such as that which would arise from our idea that some manor of this Hundred was omitted in
Domesday.
COMPARATIVE MEASURES OF POKTBUET HUNDRED.
Domesday Manors.
Domesday
Hidage.
U. V. F.
111
1
"3 «> CD
w
II
-C O to
III
Domesday
Acreage
in Gross.
Modern Parishes.
-1
II
20
10
8
8 2
13
3 2
6 2 2
8
12
7
8 10
6 2
26
1
IS
9
3
4
a
8
9
6
S
5
3120
120
2160
1080
300
480
720
960
lOSO
720
360
600
160
600
no
30
60
10
300
30
210
12
70
150
150
30
6
20
46
20
36
S3
17
60
1080
340
60
ioo
3240
100
100
960)
300)
540
5100 1 „,„
j2o|6220
8250 3620
^i^i^To
660 050
4016 4010
1440 1440
1246 1246
"231.2612
689 ) ^'"■■'
1200 1200
C Wraxhall
3773
Worocosala
2771
1 Flax Burton
f Portbury \
\ Ham Green J
7165
3019
Ticheham
1627
Walton in Gordauo . .
Walton
1105
2987
Portishead
2093
Estona
J Easton in Gordano )
ipiu..; i
Weston in Gordano , .
Clapton in Gordano . .
1696
Westona
Westona
1066
84 2
98
11,700
1032
668
T420
21,370
22,311
Each of Sil hides is represented by 265 acres of modern ascertainment, and by 254 acres of Domesday
registration, both marks of a poor district.
The Domesday value of Portbury Hundred, viz., £70 10s. per annum, was at the rate of 16s. 9d. per
hide, and of .7915 decimals of a penny, per Domesday acre, also at the rate of 14s. 4^d. per plough-land.
THE lUtJUISICIO-GHELDI FOR EINGOLTDESWEA HUNDRED (A.D. 1034), (iNQ.-QHBLDI, P. 75.)
In Hundreto Ringoltdeswejo sunt lix hidse (59 hides). H. v. p
lude habet Rex de Gildo suo £8 8s. 9d. pro 28 hidis et dimidia virgS, 28 2
Abbas de Glastingesberia habet in domiuio suo xvii hidas 17
Non habuit Rex Gildum suum pro vii hidis et i virga et dimidia quas tenet Roger de i
Corcella de Abbate de Glaatingesheria j ' ^ ^
Nee pro ij hidis quas tenet Hunfridus Camerarius 2
Neo pro iiij hidis et dimidia quas tenent ViUani Abbatis 4 2
13 3 2 13 3 2
De hoc Hundreto debentur Regi £4 33. 3d,
to 13 hides, 3 virgates and 2 ferdines.
59
-and £4 Ss. 3d., at 63. per hide, is the exact gheld apposite
NOTES ON THE INQUEST OP HINQOLDTDESWEA HUNDRED.
The Abbot of Glastonbury's exempt demesnes reappear in Domesday, viz., as 10 hides in Walton
5 hides in Boducheleia (now Butleigh), and 2 hides in Lega (now called " Street") : altogether 17 hides.
Roger db Coroelle's insolvent land is put by the Inquest at 7 hides. 1 J virgates. That was the then
RINGOLDSWEA HUNDRED. 183
extent of his demesnes in estates held under Glastonbury Abbey. In Domesday his demesnes had
inoreaised to 8 hides, IJ vu-gates. This was probably by his recent assumption of 1 hide of the VUlanagium
of this or that estate.
Humphrey Chamberlain's estate of 2 hides was at Lodreford, sometime a member of the Abbot of
Glastonbury's Manor of Butleigh. The Fegadri reported him as insolvent ; not knowing, perhaps, that he,
in 1084, now held, not of the Abbot, but of the King. Such a position made him non-liable.
The Abbot op Glastonbuhy's insolvent Villeins were surely those of "Walton. The V iUanaijium of
Walton remained exactly 4 4 liides at the date of Domesday.
NOTES ox THE TABLE (VOL. IL, PP. 29, 30). RINOOiDTDESWEA HDNDRED.
AlSEOOTA (Ashcott). — The clerk who transcribed this part (pp. 151, 152) of the Exon Domesday has left
it scarcely intelligible that Roger de Coroelle's share of Ashcott was only a part of the great abbatial estate
of 10 hides, whose Caput was Walton. The primary misarrangement, which thus separated the two parts
of Ashcott, was perhaps in the original notes of the Domesday Commissioners ; if so, the clerk who
transcribed the Exchequer Domesday saw the misan'angement, and knew what was the real purport of the
original. His transcript, though much more compressed, makes the case perfectly clear. Both Domesdays
concur in specifying the number of plough-lands (three, and two and a half) proper to Roger de Corcelle's
Manor of Ashcott and Girard Fosarius' Manor of Greinton. Such details are foreign to the usual method of
Domesday, when dealing with the constituents of a great manor like Walton, and in this case they are
redundant. Forty plough-lands were the complement proper to the 30 hides which are bespoken for
Walton and all its appurtenances. But if we also accept the detailed plough-lands assigned by Domesday
to Ashcott and to Greinton, the gross arable proportion becomes 45J plough-lands.
Lega. — CoUinson identifies this Manor with 'Legh upon Mendip.' The latter however is not named in
Domesday, being then a mere member of the Abbot of Glastonbury's Manor of MeUs ; and both Mells and
Leigh-upon-Mendip were in Frome Hundred.
Collinson, conversely, denies that Street is named in Domesday, which is verbally true. It is called
Lega ; and even in CoUinson 's time Street contained three hamlets which were known as Middle, Upper,
and Lower Leigh.
Street was of course a Roman name. It is more remarkable than explicable how often Roman names,
now restored to topographical nomenclature, were veiled or suppressed in the pages of Domesday. On the
other hand, a Vill called Scetre in the Dorset Survey, was probably of Roman origin. Though Domesday
preserved the name, it is now obsolete. The site of Scetre is a mere problem.
BoDUCCHELEiA (Butleigh). — The Exon Domesday, telling (p. 160) of various deprivations suffered by the
Church of Gla,stonbury, says : — " Comes de Moritonio habet duo quadragia nemusculi in longitudine et
unum quadragium in latitudine de mansione qua) vocatur Bodecaleia, quod {sic) fuit de jEcclesid Glastinga-
beriensi die qu^ Rex Edwardus fuit vivus et mortuus." It is difificult to see how 20 acres of dwarf wood
in Butleigh should have been an object to the Comte of Moretaiu. His nearest estate was at Chiaton (now
Kinton Mandeville), and he also had made appropriation of a part of the Abbot's estate of Ditcheat, but his
tenants, and not he, were in possession of these and all other lands of his fee that were in this vicinity.
LoDEBFOEDA. — This sometime member of Butleigh cannot now be traced. Humphrey Chamberlain, who
held it under the King, not under the Abbot, was seated at Babcary, some 4 miles away from Butleigh.
Both Domesdays give the then existing value of Lodreforda to be 20 shilhngs. In the Schedule of " Terrte
Occupatse," however (E. D., p. 486), the past and present values are each 30 shUHngs.
Values on Seizin, and in a.d. 1086. The annual value of the whole Hundred of Ringoldswea, at the
time when the several Domesday occupants took possession, was £37 15s. At the date of Domesday it had
risen to £61 IDs. This improvement in the yield of Glastonbury estates was mainly due to the exiled
Abbot Turstin, of whom it is recorded (Exon Domesday, p. 161), that, while the Somerset estates of the
House had been in his hand, they had improved in annual profits by £128.
The following are the comparative measures of this Hundred : — ■
It contained, according to the Inquest of A.D. 1084, 59 hides. From Domesday we select, with every
confidence, specific manors which again shew the Hundi-ed to have contained 59 hides. Corresponding
with these 59 hides, Domesday gives positive measures amounting, in all, to 10,120 acres, that is, for 76
184 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OF SOMERSET.
plough-lauds (of 120 acres each), we reckon arable land, 9,120 acres ; and we count from Domesday figures
— wood-land, 511 acres ; meadow-land, 239 acres ; pasture-land, 250 acres.
The sis parishes which correspond collectively with the above Domesday Hidage measure 15,572 acres,
shewing precisely that (15,572 - 10,120 = ) 5,452 acres, or more than one-third of the Hundred, was either
Royal Forest or Baronial Chase, or else was omitted altogether from Domesday reckoning, as being utterly
waste and profitless. In this case the Domesday hide is represented by 264 acr:'S of modern ascertainment,
and by 171 J acres of Domesday registration.
The Domesday value of Ringoldswea Hundred, viz., £61 10s. per annum, was at the rate o£ £1 Os. lO^d.
per hide ; and of 2.1699 pence and decimals of a penny per Domesday acre ; also at the rate of £1 4s. Id.
per plough-land, and of £1 6s. 5d. for each of 69^ teams actually employed.
The number of Coliberti, Villani, Bordarii, and Servi, abiding in Ringoldswea Hundred in a.d. 1086,
■was 177. This gives a single labourer to every 58 acres of Domesday registration, to every 52 acres of
plough-land, and to every 47 acres of land actually ploughed.
INQTJISIOIO-QHELDI (a.D. 1084) FOE NORTH PETHEETON HUNDRED (iNQ. GHBLDI, P. 73).
" In Huudreto Nort-Pedret sunt xxxviii hidas et iii virg. et dim. fert." ( 38 hid. 3 virgates 1^ acres) .
Inde habet Rex de Gildo suo £9 10s. 8Jd. pro 81 hidis 3 virg. et dun. fert 31 3 OJ
H. V. F.
Et Barones Regis habent in suo dominicatu v hid. et dim. et dim. virg. ( 5. 2. 2.) .
De his habet Walscinus de Duaco ii hidas 2
Et Johannes Hostiarius virgam et dim 12
Et Ansgerus Focarius V virgas 110
Et Rotbertus de Otburgi- villa hidam et dimidiam 12
Et Ecolesia de eadem Mansione (meaning North Petherton) dim. hid 2
5 2 2 5 2 2
Et non habet Rex Gildum de dim. hida et dim. virg. quas tenet Johannes 2 2
Nee de i virga quam tenet Ansgerus de Waltero 10
Nee de i virgft quam tenet Rotbertus filius Guillelmi 10
Neo de hominibus Rotberti de Otburgivilla, de dim. virgi quam tenent 2
Nee de dim. virga quam tenet Walterus de Hispania 2
112 112
38 3 04
" De hoc Hundreto debentur Regi viii sol et iii den. de gildo suo " (and note that gs. 3d. in money is, at
shillings per hide, the exact assessment of 1 hide, 1 virgate, 2 fertiues).
NOTES ON THE INQUEST OP NOETH PETHBETON HUNDRED.
The original expression of receipts is " ix Libr. et x sol. et viii den. et i fertinum pro xxxi hidis et iii vkgis
et dimidio fertino." Here, then, we have the fertinum, or fourth-ing, expressing in one sentence the fourth
of a penny, and the fourth of a virgate. The money, at 6s. per hide, is the exact correlative of the territory.
Instead of saying half a f ertine of land, it is sometimes convenient to say 1 ^ acres, — gheld-acres of course.
In 1084 the gheld on a hide being 6 shilUnge, the gheld on a virgate was Is. 6d., on a fertine was i^d., on a
gheld-aore was IJd,
Waltee de Douai's exempt demesne is shewn in Domesday to have been two hides out of the five hides
which constituted his manor of ' Brugia,' now Bridgewater, a corruption of Brur/- WalUn.
John Ushbe is exempted by the Inquest for IJ virgates of demesne, but charged on 2^ virgates. This
suggests an estate of one hide at least ; and, if his estate were more than one hide, then it follows that the
gheld on such excess was duly paid.
Domesday (Exon, p. 441) virites this estate as Peghenes, In all it was IJ hides ; of this, John Usher
holds 2 virgates in demesne ; the Parish Priest holds (under him) 2 virgates ; his Villeins hold half a
virgate ; and haK a virgate is left unaccounted of. John Usher has also 1 virgate in Hunstill, of which he
holds half in demesne (see note on Hunstil, infra), Peghenes, subsequently falling into the hands of De
Horsey, Lord of Horsey in this vicinity, was called Horsey Pegnes (ColUnson, iii. 86). It is now, parochially
NORTH PETHEETON HUNDRED, 185
in Bridgewater, but tradition points to it as the original site of the Mother Church of Chilton St. Trinity.
This satisfactorily tallies with the Domesday mention of a Parish Priest in Pegheues.
Ansgbr FocAEiua (Fouver) is exempt for 1 hide 1 virgate of demesne. Domesday gives his oolleotive
estates, traceable to this Hundred, as only 1 hide, viz;., 1 virgate in Cildetona (Chilton St. Trinity), 2
virgates in Micheleseroa (St. Michael Church), and 1 virgate in Siwoldestona (Sheerston). It is obvious
that some change took place between 1084 and 1086, but whether of tenure or assessment we cannot say.
It may have been that, in the interval, Ansger lost a virgate of estate, or it may have been that the
Inquisitional 5 virgates were found to be really i virgates. His demesne in 1086 is only 3 J virgates. His
demesne in Audersfield Hundred is found similarly reduced.
Robert db Acbebville. — His exemption for demesne in 1084 is on 1^ hides in this Hundred. His
tenants were in arrear on 2 fertines. Total, 1 hide, 2 virgates, 2 fertines.
Domesday gives Melecoma, Robert de Auberville's only estate, traceable to this Hundred, as geldable for
1 J virgates. Here, then, was a change still more puzzling than that in the case of Ansger Focarius.
But, next after Robert de Auberville's estate of Melecome, Domesday surveys Newentona, an estate of
IJ hides, which, if we mistake not, was in North Petherton Hundred, but which Domesday gives to
AnschetiU Parcarius. —
Now, as it is clear that AnschetiU Parker had had nothing in tliis Hundred in 1084, so it seems obvious
that between 1084 and 1086 he had supplanted Robert de Aubervill in Newentona.
The two estates, Melecome and Newentou, are gheld- measured in Domesday aa (!§ virg. + IJ hides =)
1 hide, 2 virgates, 2 fertines, exactly the complement of Robert de Auberville's tenements in 1084.
Domesday has other evidences of unsettled title in the case of the King's Serjeantries, and specially of
that held by D'Auberville.
North Petherton Churoh was, in a.d. 1084, held by Peter Bishop of Chester. Its glebe was 3 virgates.
He seems to have held 2 virgates (exempt) in demesne, and 1 virgate (solvent) in villeinage. The Bishop
died in 1084-5. His nephew, Ralph, seized the returns of this estate, and was deprived by the King, who,
in 1086, appears as having " in hand " the whole 3 virgates.
Walter, under whom Ansger holds one virgate, was doubtless Walter, alias Walsciuus, de Douai. No
Ansger appears in Domesday wi+h any tenure under that Baron.
Robert pitz William reappears in Domesday either as Robert Herecome, or, simply, as Rohertus, In 1086
Robert Herecom held one estate, ' Robertus' held two estates, in this Hundred under Roger de Corcelle.
'Rohertus' also held one estate under Joha Usher. The first estate, that held by Robert Herecom, was in
Siredeston (Sheerston). His demesne there was one virgate.
Walter de Hispania is put down as a Debtor in regard of two fertines. His tenancy was in Ulmereston
(now Wolmersdou), under his brother, Alured of Spain.
NOTES ON the TABLE (vOL. II., PP. 31, 32) OP NORTH PETHERTON HUNDRED.
North Petherton Church and Parish. — The last column of the Table presents no parallel acreage to
9 hides 2^ virgates, which were in the Hundred of North Petherton, but not in any parish of North
Petherton Hundred. The parish of North Petherton, as a whole, was rather associated with the Royal
Manor than with the Hundred. Its whole acreage is therefore given in the Table of the Vetus Dominicum
Coronae. (See Vol. ii., pp. 1 and 2).
Ulmerestona (Ulmersdon). — Of one of the addita to Ulmersdon, the Exon Domesday (p. 349) says : —
" Jsta virga fuit de Petret mansione Regis ed die qua Rex Sdwardus fuit idvis et mortuus ;" and adds,
correctively, " Hanc virgam prmstaerat (praistiterat) Prcepositm Regis Alwiin die Regis Edwardi." The same
Record (p. 472), in the Schedule of " Terra; Oocupatfe," says : — " Aluredus de Hispania haiet unam
Mansionem quce vacatur Ulmerestona. Huic addita est 'virga terrce. Virga autem erat de dominicd
mansione Regis quce vocatur Pedret die qud Rex Edtoardi," &c. ; and, correctively, " et fuit accommodata
cuidam Tegno, et valet per annum v solidos.'' The simple story is this, then. A virgate of land, part of
King Edward's Manor of North Petherton, had been entrusted to a certain Thegn by Alwi Banneson, then
acting as King Edward's Provost at the said Royal Manor. Alured de Hispania, having from the Conqueror
a general reversion of Alwi Bauneson's estates, appropriated this virgate as though it had been Alwi's
property, npt a trust. Alured de Hispania further annexed the virgate to Wolmersdon, an estate in North
186 THE SOMEESET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OF SOMERSET.
Petherton parish, which had been Alwi's by a sound title, and so had properly descended to Alured. This
irregularity it was which caused the affair to be reported in the Domesday Schedule of " Terras Occupatso."
Nbwbntona (Newton in North Petherton Parish). — Five small estates, named Newenton or Niweton in
Domesday, collectively measure four hides. It is difficult to identify these five estates from CoUinson's
data, still more to trace them. One of them he calls North Newton, and says that it is now in Williton
Hundred. Another, since called Newton Comitis, was of course the estate held by Comte Eustace in
Domesday.
Teqesbbma, being Edgborough, is an instance of the Norman Scribe's propensity to prefix T. The
reason why it (Tegesberia), stands alone, as it were, and is followed by no other manor of North Petherton
Hundred, is simply that Da Moione's Schedule commences with North Petherton Hundred, and that he
had only one manor therein.
In the more general list of Terrco Oocupatfc (Exon D., 472), "Tegesberia" stands between two North
Petherton manors, viz., Alured de Hispania's Burh (West Bower), and Walter de Douai's Bur (East Bower).
Probably Ead. Dacus (Dennis), who, in 1165 (L. N. 92), held Jf. under Moione, held Edgborough. Osbert
Dacus, who held the manor tem. Henry II., and William Dacus, son of Osbern, who held it tern. Richard I.,
were tenants of Moione, we suppose, though CoUinson (iii. 74) does not say that Moione was interested here.
Bub, al. BuHE (West Bower in Eridgewater). — It is singular that Alured de Hispania should have had
no exemption in 1084 for the virgate in Bur, which Domesday says he had in demesne. Possibly he had
taken the estate in hand since the Inquest. Domesday seems to record an objection to Alured's addition
of one virgate to Bur. In King Edward's time, Alured's antecessor, Samai-us, had held this virgate as a
member of the Royal Manor of North Petherton — tenuit Saniarus in firniiX Beffis, in mansione quw vocatiiv
Petret (E. D., jjp. 349, 472).
BUE, prius in Mdcome (East Bower in Bridgewater). — There seems to have been an objection to Walter
de Douai's title. Domesday says of Bur : — Hcec inansio pertinuit ad mansionem Jlotberti de OtborvUld quce
vacatur Melecoma ea die qua Hex JEdwardus fuit lii-us et mortuus. Consistently with this, Sarieius, registered
as Walter de Douai's antecessor in Bur, is also registered as D'Auberville's antecessor in Melecome (E. D.,
329, 442). We have already spoken of Robert de Auberville and the disturbances of his tenure.
Haume, cd., Hame (Ham, in Bridgewater). — Here the Abbot of Athelney has half a hide in demesne at
Domesday ; and at —
Geenbdona (Crandon in Bawdrip), Aldrct, a, King's thegn, has the whole estate (2 virgates) in demesne.
Yet to neither of these tenants in capite had any exemption been accorded in the Inquest of 1084. If
Aldret had acquired his estate since 1084, the Abbot had held his before the Conquest. However there are
other instances where the Abbot of Athelney's demesnes were ignored in the Inquisicio.
HUSTILLA (Hunstill in Chilton Trinity). — John Usher's estate here was only 1 virgate, and Domesday says
in effect that, in K. Edward's time, three-fourths of the estate had belonged to the Royal Manor of
Somerton. — De hdc tirr/d pcrtinebat dimidia lirr/a et unum ferdinum ad mansionem Regis qua; vocatur
Sumertona die qua rex Edwardus fuit vivus et mortuus et valet per aimum (the whole virgate) 5 solidos
(E. D., 443, 480).
The curiosity is not that King William should have bestowed on one of his Serjeants an outlying
member of his Manor of Somerton, but that Somerton should have had so distant an appendage.
Ulveeeontona (obsolete). — CoUinson makes this place to be represented by " Wolverton " ; but there is no
Wolverton where Ulveroneton was. Its site is unmistakeable from the sequence of Domesday, which names
it after one, and before another. Peri, and among a series of Coroelle Manors, all of which, so far as we can
identify them, were clearly in North Petherton Hundred.
Hatewaea and Rima are in the same series. We can identify neither, but we venture to say that
they probably were in North Petherton Hundred.
Ceuca. — We infer the .site of this Manor of Walter de Douai merely from the sequence of Domesday.
The Record introduces it between Wallepille (Walpole) and Bur (East Bower), both in N. Petherton
Hundred. The perambulation of North Petherton Forest {tern. Edw. I.) mentions a Manor of Crich, then
held by the Prior of Moutacute.
DoNEHAM.— CoUinson interprets this name by one equally strange, to us at least, viz., Bowncnd, The
site of " Sonehmn '' remains an open, though a curious question,^
NORTH PETHERTON HUNDRED. 1S7
The Exon Domesday surveys 'Doneham,' marginally, in juxtaposition with Estragella, the first-named of
Walter de Douai's Somerset Fief, and which we are sure is rejiresented by Stretchill, in the parish of
Pawlett and Hundred of North Petherton,
The Exchequer Domesday introduces Doneham into the text-column, and names it in the following
sequence, viz., Stragdle (Stretchill in Pawlett), Stragdla (part of Stretchill), WallepiUe (VValpole in
Pawlett). Doneham {de quA qua-itur), Cruce (obsolete), and Bure (East Bower in Bridgewater). —
On all hands, then, we may safely assume Doneham to have been in North Petherton Hundred. The
marginal entry of the Exon Domesday is as follows : — " Walterus" (VValscinus de Duaco) "habet unam
virgam quaj vocatur Doneham quam tenuit Algarus die qua Rex Edwardus fuit vivus et mortuus, et est de
ila" (qy. Ha) " terrS quam Rex (Willelmus) dedit ei" (seilz Waltero) " inter duas aquas et valet per annum
xii nummos.'" (Exon D., p. 328).
The Exchequer Domesday (Colhnson, i. 26) is transcribed as follows : — " Walterius tenet unam virgatam
terra! qua} vocatur Doneham. Algar tenuit T. R. E. Heoo est de illd. [sic) ten-il quam Rex dedit ei inter
2 aquas. Valet xii denaiios." —
Collinson somewhere interprets the ' duaj aqua; ' of Domesday to be the rivers Axe and Parret. We
forget in what connection he says this, and, indeed, where he says it ; he, too, seems to have forgotten all
about Doneham and his identification thereof with Downend. —
To find a, manor, of small extent and of obsolete name, between the Axe and the Parret, leaves ». wide
field open to the imagination ; any definite apprehension of the spot must remain unsatisfied.
In a narrower field than that selected by Colhnson, viz., in the mid-stream of the Parret itself, we find '
DunbaU Island. We do not suggest that Doneham and Dunball are two forms of the same word, but half
of each word may well have arisen from the same etymological source. —
Dunball Island occupies a site particularly consonant with that which Domesday arrangement suggests
for Doneham. Dunball Isle is a real island now. It lies, as we have said, in the Parret, and between
Bridgewater and Pawlett, — just the vicinity in which we suppose Doneham to have been. DunbaU Isle,
Collinson (iii. 75) says, was artificially produced, in the beginning of the eighteenth century, by certain
persons cutting a trench, of 40 yards' width, across a previous isthmus. Whether Dunball, at the date of
Domesday, were an island or a peninsula, and whether we prefer the reading, ' De lid terra,' or ' De illit terra,'
matters little. Domesday uses the word ' Ila ' for many spots which were not strictly surrounded with
water. Here we dismiss the subject.
COMPARATIVE JIEASURE3 OF NOETH TETHEETOH HUNDRED.
The Inquisitional Hidage (a.d, 1084) was 38 hides, 3 virgates, and J one fertine. Domesday seems to
supply in the component estates, 39 hides, 3 virgates, 2.^ fertines. The more positive measures of Domesday
for the same estates realize 13,454 acres, viz., of arable land (reckoning 120 acres to each of 102^ plough-
lauds), 12,330 acres ; of wood-land, 423 acres ; of meadow-land, 333 acres ; of pasture-land, 328 acres ;
of moor-land, 40 acres.
The seven parishes, whose Churches are within the Umits of the Domesday Hundred of North Petherton,
measure by modern ascertainment 13,628 acres.
But this apparent approximation between old and new measurements is delusive. The two things
measured are not the same. About one fourth of the hidage given in the Table (viz., 9J hides) was in the
Hundred, but the parish in which this hidage lay, viz.. North Petherton parish, was not in the Hundred.
So these hides are measured as hides into the tabulated Hundred, but their correlative modem acreage is
measured elsewhere. Of this presently. — What the Table does show is this, viz., that 39 hides, 3 vii-gates,
and 2J fertines of Domesday are paralleled by 13,454 acres of exacter Domesday measures. And this gives
the Domesday hide of North Petherton Hundred to coordinate with a fraction more than 337 acres of
Domesday registration.
The larger and more complete comparison with modern acreage and with the modern Hundred should be
on other data, viz. —
Seven parishes common to both the Old and New Hundred of North Petherton '
measure collectively, as in the Table— f ^^'®^^ '"^'■^^'
18 8 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THURLBEAR HUNDRED.
Three parishes of Auoient Demesne, which constituted the King's Manor of North >
Petherton and which were partly in the old Hundred and are altogether in the New /
Hundred, viz., North Petherton itself (10,174 acres), Chedzoy (1,655 acres), and ( '
Thurloxton (551 acres) measure collectively '
And 13,628 acres + 12,380 acres gives as a total of modern acreage 26,008 acres
Against this total we place the —
Domesday acreage of the Hundred of North Petherton 13,454 acres
Domesday acreage of the Royal Manor of North Petherton, ■with all its understood )
. ,„ IT 1 ■- 1 J nv > 3,940 acres
appurtenances (bee Vol n., pp. 1 and 2) j '
Total of Domesday computation 17,394 acres
So that (26,008 —17,394 =) 8,614 acres of modern ascertainment, stand unexpressed in the positive
Domesday measures which we have collected above. Probably a part of this balance of 8,614 acres, having
been marsh or moor, was not expressed any where in Domesday. But the bulk of it, we venture to think,
went to satisfy that extraordinary excess over real area which Domesday attributes to the extreme North-
Western districts. The whole of such excess it will be remembered {supra, p. 131) was 16,466 acres.
In other words Domesday attributed to the Manors of Carhampton, Cannington, WUHton, Cutcomb,
Minehead, &c., the woods and pasturage which lay topographically in other Hundreds, in North Petherton
for one. Therein was the Royal Forest of North Petherton. We should expect naturally to find its area repre-
sented among the Domesday attributes of the Royal Manor of North Petherton. Instead of that, Domesday
does not give a, single acre of wood, and only two leagues or 240 acres of pasture, to the said Manor.
The Domesday value of North Petherton Hundred at the date of the Conquest is not fully given.
Allowing something for omissions of the Record we gather it to have been about £59 per annum. In the
year 1086 it is fully recorded. It was £67 7s. per annum. This ■was at the rate of £1 16s. 9d. per hide, and
of 1.2021 penny and decimals of »■ penny per Domesday acre ; also at the rate of 13s. l^d. per plough-land.
THE INQUISICIO-GHELDI FOR SOUTH PETHERTON HUNDRED (a.D. 1084), (iNQ.-GHELDI, P. 73).
In Hundreto Sutperetonso sunt Ix^vi hida; et dimidia ( 66 hides, 2 vugates) . H. v. p.
Inde habet Rex de Gildo suo £12 9s. pro xl et i hidis et dimidia 41 2
Rex et Barones sui habent in dominio xi hidas.
De his habet Rex ii hidas 2
Et Clericus de viM Sutperetonse, 1 hid 10
Et Siwardus iiij hidas et iii virgas 4 3
Et Johannes Hostiarius hid. et dim. et i fert 12 1
Et Hardingus hid. et dim. it iij fert 12 3
11 "o 11
Et non habet Rex Gildum de vi hidis quas tenet Leveva 6
Nee de i hid4 quam tenent viUani Abbatis de Adelingeia 10
Nee de ii hidis quas tenet Turstanus 2
Neo de i hidS, quam tenet Stephanus de Willelmo de Ou 10
Nee de dimid. hidfi, quam tenet WiUelmus de Dalmereie 2
Nee de i virga quam tenet Willelmus de ilfoBJicMi 10
Neo de dim. hidil quam tenet Rogerus de Luxo-vio 2
Nee de i hid. et i virgS, quas tenet Radulf us Ruf us 110
Nee de dimid. hida quam tenet Odo de Fornelt 2
Neo de ii hidis quas tenet Rotbertus filius Gilberti de Willelmo de Moione 2
15 14
66 2
SOUTH PETHEHTON HUNDRED. 189
There is one hide too much stated somewhere in the foregoing list of arrears ; and though the list amounts
to 15 hides, only 14 hides should be reckoned in the composition of the whole Hundred. The Collectors
themselves acknowledge their error, inasmuch as they add to their statement these words, viz. -. " De hoc
Huudreto debentur Regi de GUdo sue iiij lib. et iiij sol." Now £i 4s. is the gheld, not on 15 hides, but on
14 hides.
NOTES ON THE INQUEST OF SOUTH PBTHERTON HUNDRED.
The King's exempt dempsne was two hides in Over-Stratton, which having been held by Marleswayn,
T. R. E., the King had, on Marleswayn's forfeiture, annexed to the Royal and Ingeldable Manor of South
Petherton.
The Clbek of South Petherton, called in Domesday " Aluiet Saoerdos, Elemosynarius Regis," was
exempt of gheld for the hide of land which was the Fee of his Church.
SiWARDUS, Anglus Tegnus," al. Siwardus Aceipitrarius " appears in Domesday as holding 2J hides of
demesne in Seuenametona (Seavington S. Michael), and 2 hides of demesne in Dunintona (now Dinnington),
both in this Hundred.
John Usher reappears in Domesday as holding in demesne 1 hide, 2 virgates, and 1 fertin in Winchin-
beria (Wigborough in S. Petherton).
Hardinq Fitz Elnod, Anglus Tegnus, reappears in Domesday with 1 hide, 2 virgates, and 3 fertins of
demesne in Lopen.
Leveva's insolvent manor was Sceptona (now Shipton Beauchamp). Before the Conquest and perhaps
for some time after that epoch, Shipton had been held by Algar. — ■
On Algar's death, Leveva, perhaps his widow, succeeded to Shipton. She is said to be holding 6 hides
(the known contents of Shipton) in 1084 ; but probably she was then surrendering her tenure by death or
otherwise. In Domesday (1086) the Comte of Moretain holds the manor. Neither Leveva nor any other
Tenant-iu-fee holds it under the Comte. On the contrary, he holds it himself, most part in demesne, some
part in Villeinage. It is only by ascertaining this immediate change that we can account for the Comte not
having had any demesne whatever in this Hundred in 1084.
Turstan's default was in respect of some part of his tenure under the Comte of Moretain in Cruca
(Cricket St. Thomas).
Athelnet Abbey appears in Domesday with two hides in Seavington (Abbas) one of which was held in
Villeinage, and was hable to gheld. The reason why the Abbot's demesne, also 1 hide, was not e.Niempted,
does not appear, neither in this nor in other cases where he was similarly passed over. (See above, p. 100).
WiLUAJi de Ou's Tenant, Stephen, had vanished before Domesday. At that date William de Ou held
Watelega (It is Whatley in Winsham parish) in demesne.
William de Almereio was Roger de Corcelle's Tenant of 2 hides in Chenolla (Knowle St. Giles) and
lUega (annexed to Bjiowle St. GUes, but now obsolete). William de Almereio seems, in 1084, to have been
in arrear on one-fourth of his tenure.
William de Montacute here represents, probably by a mere error, Wilham de MonceUis, the Bishop of
Coutances' Tenant at Dovelis (now Dowlish Wake). The virgate, as to which he was in arrear, was probably
subject of a question whether his estates at Dowlish were 9 hides, or 9 hides and 1 virgate. Domesday
says the latter.
" RoGEB," here called "De Luxovio," is perhaps the Baron usually called Roger de Corcelle, and some-
times called Roger Witen. If so, his outstanding charge for gheld will have been in respect of 2 virgates
which Domesday says had been taken out of the King's Manor of Bareutona (Barrington).
But perhaps "Roger," tenant of WiUiam de Moione in li hides at Estrat (Street) was Roger de Lisieux.
Even at that rate, it is by no means certain that De Moione's tenant Roger de Lisieux was not Roger de
Corcelle. The latter, though a Baron himself, was undertenant to many Barons.
Ralph Rufus appears in Domesday as the Bishop of Coutances' tenant of 5 hides, 1 virgate, in Caffecoina
(Chaffcombe).
" Odo," here called " De Fornelt," was Roger Arundel's tenant of 3i hides in Cudeworda (now Cudworth).
" ROTBEETUS," here called " Fitz Gilbert," appears in Domesday as William de Moione's Tenant of 3
hides in Lega, which the sequence of the Record incUnes us to tliink was Leigh in Winsham.
190 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THS HUNDREDS 01* SOMERSEf.
HOTES ON THE TABLE (vOL. II. PP. 31-32) OP SOUTH PETHEETON HUNDEED.
Cruca (now Cricket St. Thomas). — Domesday says of ' Cruoa,' " Hseo mansio reddebat per consuetudinem
ill Sut-Petret, 'mansione' Regis, vi oves cum agnis suis et iinusquisque liber homo (reddebat) i blomam
ferri, T. R. E. ; sed postquam Turstiuus accepit ten-am de Comite non fuit reddita hasc consuetudo in
' manerio' Regis.''
Collinson has erroneously applied the Domesday notice of Cruca (Cricket St. Thomas) to Crewkerne.
Seuenehamto^i (now Seavington St. Mary). — The Schedule of "TeiTEc Ocoupatae" (Exon. Domes., 476)
says, " De h9o mansione sunt ablati xxv agri mora; et prati et x agri nemusculi, et sunt additi in Sut-Pen-et
mansione Regis." The moor-land being measured with the meadow-land, or, indeed, being measured at all,
indicates some special value of a particular marsh.
Stantuna (White Stanton). — This Manor is isolated from the rest of South Petherton Hundred, and lies
westward, on the borders of Devon. There are several features in Domesday indicative of a wild and
exceptional status, such as the absence of meadow-land, a considerable area of wood-land, and 50 acres of
pasture, consisting well with a stock of 13 .she-goats. The hidation was favourable, inasmuch as each hide
impHes 423 acres of Domesday measure. Nevertheless, the land (1270 acres) implied by the Domesday
measure was short of the present parochial area (1937 acres) by 667 acres, which we take to have been
either King's Forest or else waste, not contemplated in the Domesday estimate.
Whatley. Leigh. Street. — These tliree villa, aU in Winsham parish, were not like Winsham itself,
in the Bishop's Hundred, at the date of Domesday, simply because they did not belong to the Bishop. The
acreage attributed to them in the last column is the result of calculation rather than ascertainment. It
leaves 1880 statute acres as the quota due to Winsham proper (See Table, Vol. ii. p 24).
Street is written Strate in the Exchequer Domesday, Estrat in the Exon Codex. This propensity of the
Norman scribes to add an initial E to English and Latin words beginning with double consonants is worth
notice. Escalade, Escuage, Escutcheon, Esperance, Esquire, Estate, are all words which took their forms
from the Norman die. Our Anglican propensity is the reverse. We abide by Scale, Scutage, Scutcheon,
De-sperate, Squire, and State ; nay, we rob words, properly commencing with E, of that prefix. Thus
the Greek Episcopus becomes with us Bishop, the Norman Etouteville becomes in England Stuteville ; the
Latin Extraneus and the Norman Etrange becomes with us Stranger ; and the Easterling becomes Sterling.
We have elsewhere remarked that the Exon Domesday savours more of Norman clerkship than does the
Exchequer Codex. In the Exon Domesday we have, for instance, such names as Espachestona, Estalrewica,
Estalweia, Estana, Estantona, Estanwella, Estapla, Estaweia, Estaweit, Estoca, Estochelanda, Estochet,
Estragella, Estrat, and Esturt, in all of which the initial E having been superadded by a Norman scribe,
must be removed before we can identify the names with English-spelt locaUties. But the Exchequer
Codex prefixes the Norman E to none of the above names, except the last. It spells Sturt as Esturt ; and,
under Somerset at least, it encumbers no other name with this specific Norman disguise.
Sut-Petret Hundred. — The Hidage, collected in the Table from Domesday, is 68 J hides, or 2 hides more
than that prescribed by the Inquest of a.d. 1084, This is no more than an ordinary " Domesday Increment."
The Old Hundred purports to be represented in the Table. The modem Hundred is mainly conterminous ;
but it has lost parts of the parish of Winsham, which have followed Winsham itself into the Hundred of
Kingsbiiry East, by parochial attraction, as we term it. The Modern Hundred further includes the Royal
Manor of South Petherton, which, though Caput of the Old Hundred, was external thereto. It also in-
cludes BaiTington and Chillington, members of the Manor of South Petherton at the date of Domesday,
and so, not in the Old Hundred.
The existing Hundred of South Petherton represents 68 ^ hides given in the Table -t- 28 quasi-hides of
South Petherton and its appurtenant viUs ; in all 96^ hides. It further represents (10,681 -I- 4510 = ) 15,191,
acres of Domesday registration, co-ordinating with the said hidage and quasi-hidage.
The measurement by modem parishes is 10,906 statute acres (given in the Table) + 5788 acres (the joint
contents of the three parishes of South Petherton, Barrington, and Chillington ; — in all 16,694 statute acres.
Here, then, the Hide or Quasi- Hide of Domesday was co-ordinate with (-|gr =) 156 J Domesday acres,
and with (--n- = ) 173 acres of modern ascertainment.
The difference between the modern and the Domesday acreage is (16,694 — 15,191 =) 1503 acres. That
HllNDREDS OP TAUNTON AND PITMINSTER.
191
difference represents some part, perhaps, of the Royal Forest of Nerooh, but, also, perhaps, some other laud
which being absolutely waste and profitless was nowhere registered in Domesday.
Subjoined is a Table of the contents and compai-ative measures of the Old Hundi-ed alone.
Domesday Estates.
Domesday
Hidage.
n. V-! F.
III
f'
II
II
111
11^
Gross
Domesday
Acreages.
Modem Parishes.
3d
11
Six items of estate in)
South Petlierton and }■
Bai-riugtoa J
Lopen (3 items)
9
4
6
6
3
3
7
2
3
2
9 10
5 10
3 2
5 2
H
4
4
5
3
3
7
2
8
4
n
f)
4
7
600
480
480
000
360
360
840
240
960
480
900
600
480
840
iio
'oo
260
SO
260
640
260
16
40
15
8
8
40
6
4:j
4
91
60
.W
140
160
100
676
520
496
( In South Pethorton ).
\ and Barrington . . )
oUbi.
489
8:!ii
Cruca
741.^1 ni-ifikofc S Thomas ....
875
363
488
880 1 ,,„„
1270
660
1343
1240
644
1209J
SeavingtonS. Micliael
280
514
f Seueaehamtun
( Seoueoameton
Stantuua
Seavingtoii S. Maiy . .
White Stanton
Knowie S. GUes
Dowlish "Wake
988
1937
ChenoUa(2itemB)
DoTelis (3 items)
Caffeooma (2 items)
Cadworda
5.12
12S2
969
1074
In Winsham (3 items) . .
Winsham, Part of
1130
j 68 2
69
S2S0
1700
191
610
10,681
10,906
Here the Domesday Hide co-ordinates with (10,681 H- 68.^ =) about 156 Domesday acres ; but
a comparison between the .same hide and modern acreage cannot be drawn here, simply because 9 hides of
Domesday are unrepresented in the column of modern acreages.
IT The Domecday value of South Petherton Hundred, viz., £53 Us. per annum, was at the rate of 15s. 8id.
per hide ; and of lid. per Domesday acre ; also at the rate of 15s. 6|d. per plough-land.
THE INQTJISIOIO-GHELDl (a.D. 1084) TOE THE HUNDREDS OP TAUNTON AND HTMINSTER (INQ.-GHBLDI, 1'. 67).
In Hundreto Tantitonso et in Hundreto Pipeministrx 120 hidfe et iii virgce et i fertinus.
H. v. 1'. n. v. F.
Inde habet Rex de Gildo suo £30 3s. pro c hid. et dimid 100 2
Et Barones Regis habent in suo Dominicatu xx hid. et dimid. et i f ertinum 20 2 1
121 1
De his (20h. 2v. If.) habet Episcopus Walchelinus 11 1 3
Et Wills (de Moione) Vicecomes 2 2
Et Roger Arundell 3 3
Et Johannes Hostiarius 1 1 2
Et Presbyteri de Tantoua 2 10
20 3
NOTES ON THE ABOVE INQUEST.
Arithmetic. — -Here the arithmetic is careless. The Feyadri announced the contents of the Hundred to
be 120 hides, 3 virgates, 1 fertine. They then proved by their details that it was 121h. Ov. If., i. e., one
virgate more. They further proved that one of the details stated broadly as 20h. 2v. If. contained
20h. 3v. Of., or 3 fertines more. The mistakes probably passed notice, as nearly balancing each other ; for
though the Fegadri exempted 3 fertines too much of the Barons' demesnes, they accounted for gheld on
1 virgate (or i fertines) more than their primary estimate would wan-ant. The money difference was the
gheld of a fertine, viz , 44d., and it was against the collectors. The Inquest concludes as follows. — ■
" Procter supradictas hidas habet adhuc Episcopus Walchelinus in Tontona xx oaruoatas terra: qua! nunquam
reddiderunt Gildum." The estate was not only ingeldable, but extra-Hundredal. In no other case did the
Somerset Fegadri allude to any such estate. It was no business of theirs. The word Carucata is here used
192 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OF SOMERSET.
in its truest sense, viz., as a, quantity of .non-hidated land, containing at least one plough-land and,
therewith, the usual accessories of a single plough-land.
The Domesday description of these 20 carucates includes full details (Exon D,, 161-2) — "Exceptishis
predictis hidis habet ibi Episcopus terram ad xx oarucas quas nunquam reddit gildum .... Ibi habet
Episcopus i leugam nemoris in longitudine et aUam (leugam) in latitudine et xl agros prati et
ii leugas pascuse in longitudine et i (leugam) in latitudine." Thus, to make the 20 plough-lands into true
carucates, it required (1,440 + 40 -H 2,880 =) 4,360 acres of other land.
At the time of the Inquest, the Bishop of Winchester had apparently in his demesne llh. Iv. 3f. of
geldable and hidated land in Pitminster and in Taunton. In 1086 he only retained in deme,sne 5 hides of
hidated land in Pitminster. He had therefore, in the interval, discharged 6h. Iv. 3f. from his demesnes at
Taunton, granting them either in fee or in villeinage to persons who thereupon became geldable for the
same.
William de Moione appears in the Inquest with 2 hides 2 virgates of demesne. In Domesday he has
2 hides 1 virgate 2 fertines only.
Roger Arundell, exempted by the Inquest for 3 hides 3 fertines of demesne, stands exempt in Domes-
day (3 -f 1 H- 0) 4_hides of demesne.
John Usher's exemption for 1 hide 1 vu'gate 2 fertines of demesne is repeated precisely in Domesday.
It was for land iu Taunton, which having been held of Archbishop Stigand T. B. E., was now'held of the
King sine medio, which fact also exempted it from gheld.
The Priests of Taunton, exempted for demesnes of 2.} hides in 1084, are probably Aluric and Edmer,
two brothers, whose demesnes appear in Domesday as 2^ hides. They held of the Bishop, uot of the King.
Their exemption was probably prescriptive and by way of almoign.
NOTES ON THE TABLE (vOL. 11., PP. 33, 34) OP TAUNTON AND PITMINSTER HUNDREDS.
The relative proportions of Tainland and Villeinage, viz., 17h. 2v. 2f. + 37 hides, bespoken by Domesday
for the hidage of Taunton, are together equal to the 64h. 2 v. 2f. asserted as the gross hidation of the manor.
But to make all the detaila concur, we must suppose Leveva's two hides to be reckoned in the ViUanagium
of 37 hides. It was probably part of the 6h. Iv. 3f. of land which had been taken from Bishop Walcheline's
demesne between 1084 and 1086 ; and Leveva perhaps represented a Thane who, T. R. E., had enjoyed the
estate, to which the Bishop now restored her.
GOPFRID, elsewhere called ' Goffrid Constable,' holds i\ hides of Tainland under the Bishop. His occurrence
in this position favours the idea that, before Domesday, Bishop Walchehne had rebuilt Taunton Castle.
The WHOLE of what is called ' Tanton' (we will explain the term presently) in Domesday, contained,
inter alia, (20 -I- 80 =) 100 plough-lands. (The teams actually in employ were 109). Reckoning the
plough-land of Somerset to contain, like that of Dorset, about 120 statute acres, it is easy to approximate
to the total of statute acres impUed or named in the Domesday Survey of Taunton.
Thus, 100 Terrse ad unum camcam = 12,000 statute acres )
The Episcopal woods, meadows, and pastures were = 4,360 do. } 16 659
The Tenants had, of woods, meadow, and pasture 299 do. )
But, be it observed, that this word, Taunton, and these measurements apply to an area wliich now contains
more than 15 parishes, the actual acreage of the said parishes being 22,925 acres.
Adopting the same land of Domesday mensuration to the Episcopal Manor of Pitmmster, we find it to
have contained (20 plough-lands =) 2400 acres of arable land, 400 acres of wood, 6 acres of meadow, and
400 acres of pasture ; in all, 3206 acres. But the present parish of Pitminster contains 5120 acres.
Throughout all Somerset the Domesday Manor, taken individually, seldom co-ordinates with the modern
parish. But if we take the whole of a' Hundred, or the whole of a great Fief in a given Hundred
massing the Domesday manors on the one hand, and the modern parishes on the other we obtain
uot indeed an equality of areas, but the true proportion of the whole territory to that part of it which
was occuiiied, or cultivated, or afforested eight centuries ago.
We have already stated that, under the name of the superior manor, Taunton, Domesday cloaks a
number of subjective manors, of which there is no mention in the Record. The parochial areas of
Pitminster and Taunton, and of all the locahties suppressed, or rather involved in those two Domesday
denominations, are here annexed. —
Hundreds of taunton and pitminster.
193
TAUNTON, PITMINSTBE, AND THE VILLS IMPLIED IN THE DOMESDAY SURVEY OF TAUNTON.
Parishes.
DiBtances from
Taunton.
Acreage.
Parishes.
Distances from
Taunton.
Acreage.
Taunton and Wilton ...
j 3 parishes to- )
1 ' gether (
3,455
6,120
3,477
1,369
1,448
2,485
1,127
635
1,003
1,059
Brought forward
12 parishes ...
Trull ■
21,178
2 mUes S.W.
7 „ N.W.
14 ,, w.
6 to 11 miles S.
1 5 miles N.W.
2,233
906
Kingst-on
13i miles N.
6A ,. isr.w.
Combe Flory
Bishop's Hull
1,341
7*
16
H
2
li
, s.
, N.W.
, s.
, s.
, E.
■NT W
Otterford and Bishop's
Wood ....
Withiel Floiy
2,387
Corfe
Bishop's Lydeard, — (a
partiuTauntonHun-
dred)
Orchard Portmaa
Huishton
aZibi
28,045
■21,178
It would seem that all or nearly all other manors of Taunton Hundred, though not held of the
Bishop's Fee, yet owed various suits and customs to the Episcopal Hundred or Manor. Subjoined is a list
of these manors with the various speUings, — ■
(I.) Of the Exon Domesday, both when spoken of as Suitors to Taunton, and as Members of Baronial
Fiefs otherwise independent. (II.) Of the Exchequer Domesday in the like relations.
Exon Domesday.
P. 162,
sub Tantona.
Talanda ..
Acca
Holeforda
Ubcedena
Succedena
Maidenobraoca
Jafort
Lediart
Lega
BiUa (sic) ■ . .
Bela (sic)
Denichebede
Scobiualre
Stooa
Nortona
Bradeforda
Halsa
HafeUa
HUla (rectius) . .
Hela {rectius) . .
Alibi in Exon
Domesday.
Talam (p. 405)
Acha (p. 405)
Holefort (p. 405)
Holeforda(p.406)
Opecedra(p. 414)
Cedra (p. 414)
Alford (p. 253)
Hilla,
Hela
(p. 352)
(p. 253)
Bageberga(342-3)
Aba (p. 264)
Estoca (p. 343)
Nortona (p. 253)
Bradeford(p.253)
Halsa (p. 412)
Herfelt (p. 343)
Hilla (p. 352)
Hela (p. 253)
Exchequer Domesday.
Fo. SI, h. 1.
Talanda .
Acha
Holeforde
Ubcedene
Succedene
Maidenobroche
Laford
Lidiard
Lega
HiUa
Hela
Nichehede ..
Baweberga .
Scobindare.
Stocha
Nortone
Bradeforde.,
Halsa
Hafella
Hilla
Hela
Alibi in Exchequer
Domesday.
Talham (fo.94.a.2)
Ache (fo.94.a.2)
Holeford(fo.94.a.2)
Holeforde{f.94a2)
Opecedre (94. b. 2)
Cedre (94. b. 2)
Eford (92.b.l)
6. a. 2)
Ahe
Stoohe (96. a. 2)
Nortone (92.b.l)
Bradeforde (92. a. 2)
Halse (94.b.l)
Herfeld (96. a. 2)
Hille (97.b.l)
Hele (92.b.l)
Modem name or situation.
ToDand.
Cake.
HoUord, now in Whitley Hundred.
Holf ord in Lydeard St. Lawrence ?
Cheddon Fitz Pain or Over Cheddon
Do. , part of, called Nether Cheddon.
Maidenbrookin Cheddon Fitz Pain.
I Ford (ColHnson, iii. 230) in
I Norton Fitz Warren.
i Lydeard Punchardon in Bishop's
( Lydeard.
Angersleigh.
Hill Farrance.
Heal in Bradford parish.
Nynehead Flory.
West Bagborough.
j Obsolete, or query AUerford in
( Hal Farrance ?
Stoke St. Mary.
Norton Fitz Warren.
Bradford.
Halse.
Heathfield.
Hni Farrance.
Heal in Bradford parish.
Lydbaed Puhohakdon was, parochially, in Bishop'fi Lydeard ; and the bulk of Bishop's Lydeaid was,
manoriaUy, in the Bishop of Wells's Hundred, and is now in the Hundred of Kingsbury West. But there
194 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OP SOMERSET.
were parts of Bishop's Lydeard which were not manorially under the Bishop of Wells's Seigneury or Fee.
Some of these parts were members of the Manor of Taunton, and were held under the Bishop of Winchester,
and were withal in Taunton Hundred, where they stiU remain (See CoUinson, ii. 493). And nearly the
same of Lydeard Punchardon : it was, and is in the parish of Bishop's Lydeard, but William de Moione
was its feudal lord ; it was in the Hundred of Taunton, and owed certain services to the Bishop of
Winchester's Manor of Taunton.
HoLFORD is situated, topographically, in Cannington Hundred, but, as owing services to the Bishop of
Winchester's Manor of Taunton, it was reckoned, in the eleventh century, to pertain to Taunton Hundred.
In process of time these anomalies were swept away ; but Holford was not, therefore, annexed to Can-
nington Hundred, but to Whitley Hundred.
Now Whitley was a post-Domesday and very scattered Hundred. It was, in fact, an assemblage of
Somerset estates, which were found in some such anomalous status as Holford.
Halse was in Taunton Hundred, in the eleventh century, both topographically and as owing suit and
service to Taunton Manor. On being given to the Knights Hospitallers it became, in virtue of the
privileges of that order, extra-Hundredal and a Liberty in itself. Why, on the confiscation of the
Hospitallers' estates, Halse should have been annexed to the Hundred of Williton, we cannot divine.
(See Collinson, iii. 527).
It is remarkable that the Exeter Domesday — noticing Halse after a manor (Timbracumb), which was in
Carhampton Hundred, and before a manor (Hiwys), which was in Williton Hundred — adds in the margin,
opposite Halse, " Hsec terra est de Tantone Hundred." The note is coeval, and shows that the scribe was
aware that he had taken Halse away from its fitter juxtaposition with Opecedra and Cedra, Roger Arundel's
other Manors in Taunton Hundred. The clerk who transcribed the Exchequer Domesday makes a still greater
misarrangement in placing Halse at the head of all Roger Arundel's Manors, and in placing Hiwys next.
But the Exchequer clerk added no note indicative of any sense of the error. Here is one illustration of our
theory that the Exon scribes had more local knowledge than their brethren of the Exchequer ; and, if so
(see Preface, p. 5), that the Exon Domesday was written in the country before the Commissioners' Notes
were despatched to the Exchequer.
Helb. — The grant of 4i hides in Taunton and its suburbs, made by King William to the Comte of
Moretain, Alured of Spain, and John Usher, were in the Fee of the late Archbishop Stigand. They were,
therefore, in quaUfioation, or perhaps in non-anticipation, of the King's more general grant of Taunton and
its appurtenances to the Bishop of Winchester. Heal comes under the same category. It was given to the
Comte of Moretain though it had been a member of Archbishop Stigand' s Manor of Taunton. Domesday
says of Hele, " Haec terra T. R. E. non poterat separari a Tantone, manerio WalcheKni Episoopi."
Tedintohe. — Collinson, in his Domesday Index, interprets Tedintone as 'Tatton'; but, in the place
proper to Tatton, says nothing about such an estate. Probably he knew nothing ; for Earl Hugh's Manors
in the South-west of England seldom have any post-Domesday history. The way by which Earl Hugh
probably came by these manors in succession to Eaduoth the Stallere (slain in 1068), and Earl Hugh's
feoffment of Wilham Malbank, in most of his South-western acquisitions, are matters already discussed
(supra p. 58).
Sanforda.— Sampford Arundel was in Milverton Hundred, but as a parish, a great part of Sampford
came close upon Trull, in Taunton Hundred (see Collinson). This latter part we conceive to have been
Earl Hugh's Manor of ' Sanforda.' The whole parish of Sampford Arundel contains 1144 statute acres.
Such an area is in great excess of Roger Arundel's manor, of 1^ hides, in Milvei-ton Hundred ; but the
parochial area is no more than normal if it be taken to have included Earl Hugh's Manor of two hides in
Taunton Hundred.
Alke, also a Manor of Eai-1 Hugh, was perhaps identical with ScoUncdre, a manor which Domesday (Exon.
Codex, p. 162) names among those otherwise independent manors which owed certain suits and services to
Bishop Walcheline's Manor of Taunton. Still, the site of Ah-e, alias Scobinalre, must remain conjectural.
There is a locality now known as " Allerford." It is in the parish of Hill-Farrance. If not itself identical
with Aire or Scobinalre, its name possibly indicates the whereabout of Earl Hugh's estate.
Taunton and Pitminster Hundreds.— According to the Inquest of a.d. 1084 these joint Hundreds
contained 120 hides, Sk virgates. Domesday, if we rightly collect the constituents of the said Hundreds,
WHITESTONE HUNDRED. 195
makes them to contain 122 hides, 34 virgates, and also 20 ingeldable plough-lands, computatively excluded
from the previous Inquest.
The exacter measures of Domesday for the same territory realize 33,814 statute acres, viz.
For Taunton with its 16 involved manors or parishes or parts of parishes 16,659 acres
For Pitminster (as before stated, supra, p. 192) 3,206 acres
For other manors of Taunton Hundred, specifically measured in Domesday, 102^ )
plough-lands (reckoned equal to) 12,300 acres ; wood-land, 445 acres ; meadow-land, [ 13,949 acres
228 acres ; pasture-laud, 976 acres ; in all )
Gross Domesday acreage of Taunton and Pitminster Hundreds so far as it was i
registered in the Survey \ 33,814 acres
The manors, and estates which composed the two Domesday Hundreds of Taunton and Pitminster
being measured parochially, are found by modern ascertainment to contain 42,486 statute acres.
The difference between the two measurements, that of the 11th and that of the 19th centuries, is
(42,486 - 33,814 =) 8,672 acres.
Now it is improbable that the King's Forest interfered materially, or at all, in a Franchise where the very
' Pleas of the Crown ' belonged to the Bishop of Winchester as Lord of the Hundred.
We opine, then, that in this district or province the Domesday Surveyors found some 8,672 acres of moor
or waste of which they took no notice, and so excluded the same from the Domesday Register.
H In this case the 20 ingeldable plough-lands of Domesday, being taken to represent so many hides, we
have each of 142| hides represented by about 297J acres of modern ascertainment, and by about 236^ acres
of Domesday registration.
IT The Domesday value of the Hundreds of Taunton and Pitminster, viz., £296 14s. 7d. per annum was at
the rate of £2 Is. 6d. per hide, and of 2.106 pence and decimals of a penny per Domesday acre ; also at
the rate of £1 10s. per plough-land.
INQUISIOIO GHELDI (a.D. 1084) OP WHITSTONE HUNDRED (iNQ.-OHELDI, P. 67).
In Hundreto Witestane sunt c et xv hidse (115 hides). H. v. P.
Inde habet Rex de Gildo suo £15 pro 1 hidis 50
Et Abbas (Glastingberiensis) habet in dominio suo xl hidas 40
Et Rex non habet gildum de i hid. et iii virgis quas Serlo de Burgeio (sic) habet ... 1 3
Nee de iiii hid. iii virg et dim. quas Roger de Coroella (habet) 4 3 2
Nee de v hidis et virga, et dimid. quas tenent VUlani Abbatis 5 1 2
12 12
De iatis debentur Regi de Gildo suo £3 12s. (that is 6s. per hide on the lands in ]
default).
Et de vii hidis quas tenet Drogo de Abbate Glastingeberiensi non reddit Gildum i 7
in hoc Hundreto )
Et Nigellus Medicus non reddit Gildum in hoc Hundreto de v hidis 5
Et Aluricus et Ewrardus non reddunt Gildum de i hida in hoc Hundreto 10
115
NOTES ON THE INQUEST OP WITESTANE HUNDKED.
Domesday, whether we rightly or wrongly collect the elements of this Hundred, is contradictory of itself
as to the hidage. Its details of hidage amount to 120 hides for twenty-one items of estate, but when
Domesday masses these twenty-one items into groups, it supplies a total of only 118 hides. And that sum
is still three hides in excess of the previous computation of the Inquest.
The Abbot of Glastonbury's demesnes in East Pennard, Ealtonsborough, Doulting, Batoomb, and
Ditcheat, instead of being 40 hides, a& in the Inquest, are 41 hides in Domesday.
The WHOLE Hundred op Whitstonb seems to have been in a somewhat indefinite status, both at the
time of the Inquest (1084) and at the date of Domesday (1086). The Fegadri of 1084 were evidently not
2
196 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OP SOMERSET.
aware of the full contents of the Hundred ; and though the Domesday Commissioners added three hides to
the estimate of the Fegadri, they gave indications of a suspicion that some of the estates surveyed, con-
tained stiU more than the totals of hidage which they were content to set down ; they named one estate
(in Ditcheat) of which they knew no more than the hidage and the value ; they named three estates,
apparently in Draycott. in Stone, and in Stoke-Lane, of which they knew only the value, but not the
hidage. All these four estates had recently come into the possession of the Comte of Moretain by depriva-
tion of the Abbot of Glastonbury ; — we say recently, because the Comte's possession thereof was not
sufficiently verified to cause them to be enrolled in that Schedule of Domesday which gives full particulars
of the better recognised manors of his Fief.
We have alluded elsewhere (Dorset Domesday, pp. 21, 22) to the dislocations and dismemberments which
befel the Glastonbury estates, either during the time of Abbot Turstin, or on his relegation to Normandy
in 1083. Nevertheless, during his Abbacy, the generality of the Abbatial estates are proved by the
Somerset Domesday to have increased enormously in value. The King had them in hand both at the date
of the Inquest and of Domesday ; yet it is very remarkable that neither Record alludes in terms to the
eidsting relegation of Abbot Turstin, nor to the stewardship of King Wilham's Escheators.
Seelo db Bueoi's default would seem from Domesday to be in respect of If hides which he held in
demesne at PyUe, under the Abbot of Glastonbury.
Roger de Coroelle appears in Domesday as holding 17 J hides in the Abbot of Glastonbury's manors,
supposed to have constituted this Hundred. His default was probably in regard to his demesnes in
Doulting and Batcombe.
The Abbot of Glastonbury's Villeins appear in Domesday as holding some 12^ geldable hides in this
Hundred. The Defaulters in 1084 would seem to have been the Villeins of Baltonsborough, Doulting,
Batcombe, and Ditcheat.
The estate which in 1084 was held by Drogo (de Montacute) under Glastonbury Abbey was 7 hides in
the Abbot's great manor of Ditcheat. It is supposable that the Comte of Moretain was at this time
mediate between Drogo and the Abbey. This and other parts of Ditcheat were, soon afterwards, confiscated
by the Crown. Hence, in Domesday, the Comte of Moretain holds 7 hides (the same, doubtless) of the
King ; and Drogo is not mentioned. (E. D., 158, 483.)
Nigel Mediotjs. — The five hides held in 1084 by Nigel were in Lamyatt, then a member of Ditcheat.
Domesday makes Nigel to hold this estate of the King, shewing its recent confiscation. Domesday makes
Nigel's occupation to be 5 J hides, —by error, probably, — for such an estimate causes the details of the whole
estate of Ditcheat to exceed its given area (30 hides) by half a hide.
Alfrio and Everard, sometime joint tenants of Glastonbury Abbey, in a hide in Ditcheat, hold it
under the King in Domesday, and probably two years earlier. Their default was, hke that of Nigel
Medicus, perhaps only a claim on all sides to exemption as tenants m capite, or as tenants of Royal
Almoign.
No extant Inquest speaks of payment in any other Hundred of the Gheld pretermitted in this. Now it
is clear that Drogo's tenement, as well as part of Nigel's, will have been liable to a quota of gheld ; and in
the ordinary course they should appear in some other Hundred, either as paying such a quota or as
substantiating their objections. The absence of such memoranda is another indication that the Somerset
Gheld- Inquests are not all extant. {Vide supra, pp. 89, 90.)
notes on the table (vol. n., pp. 33-34) of whitstone hundred.
PiLTONA (Pilton). — The portion of land allowed to the Monk, Alnod, in the Abbot's non-hidated and
ingeldable demesne, though it was called "a hide," remained ingeldable, and was not calculable as a hide
of the Hundred. The case was unusual ; and Domesday shows its exceptional character by adding that it
was per concessum RegU.
Domesday gives the total contents of Pilton-cum-Membris as 20 geldable hides, but enumerates details
amounting to 21^ hides. Besides this, it omits the hidage of Draycott, and says nothing about Stoney
Stretton and Bagbury, which, though in the parish of Evercreech, were doubtless members of POton. The
Domesday measures of all this area amount to 73484 acres, while the acreage of the parishes, which
yet did not contain quite all these manorial elements, is no less than 13,328 acres. The inference ia the
WHITSTONE HUNDRED. 197
usual one, viz., that neither hidation nor Domesday measurements contemplated the settled occupation or
valuation of large areas of the territory of Somersetshire.
Baltonsborough is now in the Hundred of Glastonbury Twelve-Hides. That it was originally in
Whitstoue Hundred is suggested by the fact that without its annexation to the latter Hundred we can
neither make out the complement of the Hundred (115 hides) nor of the Abbot of Glastonbury's demesnes
(40 hides), prescribed by the Inquest of 1084. The sequence of Domesday manors, which (as in the Table)
names Baltunesberga next after Pennarmiuistra, and next before Doltin, points to the same conclusion, that
Baltonsborough was then in Whitstone Hundred.
DiOESQET (Ditcheat-cum-Membris). — Domesday gives the gross hidage as 30 hides. The details, also
suppHed in that Record, amount to 304 hides.
DoNEHEFDE (Downhead). — We have added Downhead to the Table of the Domesday Hundred of
Witestane, chiefly because it is now in Whitstone Hundred. The addition is on another ground objection-
able, for it increases the Domesday area of Witestane Hundred by three hides over the area (115 hides),
pronounced in the Inquest of a.d. 1084 ; — and three hides were the precise contents of Downhead.
Our suggestions are that at the date of the Inquisicio and of Domesday, Downhead was a distinct
Liberty, perhaps a tenure in pure Almoign, or that, if it was subjected to any Inquest, that Inquest is lost.
Its isolated position, its unquaUfied tenure by Arnisius, probably a Monk, consist with either idea ; but the
mention of ' Duuehefde,' in one of the old Indices of Somerset Hundreds, strongly favours the notion of
its having been a distinct Liberty. The arrangement of the Table, then, is rather suggested by convenience
than by any conviction that Downhead was in the prse-Domesday Hundred of Whitstone.
Oakhill is a modern ecclesiastical district, embodying part of the older parishes of Shepton Mallet and
Stoke Lane. So far its area is rightly assigned in the Table to Whitstone Hundred. But another part of
the district was taken from the parish of Ashwick, now in Kilmersdon Hundred. Strictly speaking, then,
some part of Oakhill, it is immaterial how much, belonged rather to the Domesday Hundred of Frome.
Whitstone Hundred. — Besides the abstraction of Stoney Stretton and Bagbury (two ancient members
of Piltou) and of Baltonsborough, from Whitstone Hundred and beyond, the addition of a part of Oakhill
(the part which was in Ashwick parish and Frome Hundred at Domesday) to Whitstone Hundred, there
have been no other material changes in its area since Domesday. — Blackford, a Glastonbury Manor, in
Bruton Hundred at the date of Domesday, was at one time annexed to Whitstone Hundred and caused the
latter to be called for a time the Hundred of Whitstone and Blackford. Later still, Blackford was annexed
to Whitley Hundred, and Whitstone lost its dual designation.
Upton-Noble in Bruton Hundred was, parochially, an affiliation of Batcombe (Collinson, i. 227). But this
at no time affected the distinction between the two manors and their respective Hundreds. When its parish
was first assigned to Upton-Noble, the said parish would seem to have been commensurate with the Manor.
West Bradley was formerly a Chapelry of East Pennard, which last was a Manor of Whitstone Hundred,
but there is no evidence that the Manor of West Bradley was ever in Whitstone Hundred. It is now, and
probably was always, in the Hundred of Glastonbury Twelve-Hides.
Whitstone Hundred was, like Whitstone Hill, so named from a mouohth which formerly stood on the
said HiU, and which was the Trysting-place of the Hundred. This trysting-place was " near Cannard's
Grave, and about a mile southward from Shepton MaUet," says Collinson (iii, 459). The Hundred Courts
are now removed to the town of Shepton itself.
Until the Dissolution the successive Abbots of Glastonbury were Lords of Whitstone Hundred, they pay-
ing forty shillings per annum to the Crown, in acknowledgment of the Franchise.
COMPARATIVE MEASURES OP WHITSTONE HUNDRED.
The measurements applicable to the several Manors of Whitstone Hundred are not all given in Domesday.
This was because of the insufficient survey of the Comte of Moretain's occupancies of Dregcota, of Stane,
of " Stoca et Stoca." The measures which are given may be summed as follows.— Reckoning the plough-
land, or Terra adunam carrucam, to contain 120 acres— 139 of such plough-lands measure 16,680 acres ; the
wood-land {inlva of the Exchequer, nemus of the Exon Domesday) was 3,882 acres ; the meadow-land (pratum
in both Records) was 397i acres ; the pasture-land (pastura or pascua in the several Records) was 468 acres.
Total 21,427 acres.
198 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDKEDS OP SOMERSET.
In comparison with a Domesday hidage and quasi-hidage of (118 + 20 = ) 138 hides, and with Domes-
day exact measures of 21,427 acres, we have modern estimates of the nearly co-ordinate parishes amounting
to 36,074 acres.
This gives about 1814 acres of Domesday measure to the Prse-Domesday Hide, and about 261 acres of
modern measure to the same hide.
If our theory as to the acreage of the plough-laud be definitively adopted, it vrill further follow that
Domesday, in measuring the manors of Whitstone Hundred, omitted all notice of some 14,647 acres (that
is, more than a third of the actual and geometrical area).
That some part of the territory thus ignored was Royal Forest we cannot say. If it were, it is buried in
the Domesday measures of some manor or other of the Vetus Dominicum Coronm. —
But as to the bulk of the ignored territory, we repeat once more our settled conviction that the Domes-
day Survey of Somerset often omits to measure or to notice in any way, vast areas of unsettled, unoccupied,
and utterly worthless waste. In Whitstone Hundred we are in a land of moors and marshes, alternating
with rocks and barren downs. East Sedgemoor, Godney Moor, and large portions of the Mendip range
bounded, or intruded upon, the lands of Domesday registration.
The Domesday value of Witestane Hundred, viz., £140 per annum was at the rate of £1 Os. S^d. per
hide or quasi-hide ; and of 1.5681 penny and decimals of a penny per acre of Domesday Registration ; also
at the rate of £1 Os. l|d. per plough-land, and of £1 6s. OJd. for each of 1074 teams actually employed.
The number of ViUani, Bordarii, Cotarii, and Servi abiding in Witestane Hundred, a.d. 1086 was 410.
This gives a single labourer to every 52J acres of Domesday Registration ; to every 41 acres of arable land ;
and to every 31J acres of land actually ploughed.
INQUISIOIO GHBLDI (a.D. 1084) FOR WILLITON HUNDRED (iNQ. QHBLDI, PP. 71, 72).
In Hundreto Willetona; sunt iiii.xx hid. et xii et dim. hida (92 hides, 2 virgates). H. v. F.
Inde habet Rex de Gildo suo £16 lis. 6d. pro 55 1
Et Rex et Barones sui habent in suo dominio 23 hidas, 3 virg. 3 fert.
De his habet Rex in Dominio i hidam et i virgatam 110
Et Abbas de Muoeleneia i hidam 1
Et Dodo de Cori dimid. hidam 2
Et Wills (de Moione) Vieecomes xii hid. et dim. et iii fertines 12 2 3
Et et Ricerus de Stochas ii hid. quas «e»e< de elemosind Ecclesise 2
Et Roger de Corcella iiij hidas et dimid 4 2
Et Alured de Hispania ii hidas 2
23 3 3 23 3 3
1 1
Et non habet Rex Gildum de vi hid. i. virg. i. fert. quas tenent ViUani de Netelcoma ]
et de Uinnesforda et de Delvertona
Nee de ui hidis quas tenet Ansger Cocus de Comite Roberto 3
Nee de i hida de Imela et Oda et Waietstou 10
Nee de i virgl quam tenet Rotbertus filius Rotselini 10
Nee de i virgd. quam tenet Rannulf us de Strangestona 1
Nee de i virga de Letfort 10
Nee de i virgS, de Pirtochesworda quam tenet Dodeman et Ricardus 1
11 1 1 11 1 1
De hoc Hundreto sunt adhue retro de GUdo Regis £3 7s. lO^d. (which, at 6
shilUngs per hide, is the exact charge on 11 hides 1 virg. 1 fertin).
Et de ii hidis quas tenet Malgerus de Kartrai habet Rex Gildum suum, sed in alio i
Hundreto persolvit ]
2
92 2
HUNDREDS OP WILLITON AND WINSFOED. 199
INQUISIOIO GHELM (a.D. 1084) FOR WINESFOBT HDNDEBD (iNQ. GHELDI, P. 72).
In Winesfort Huudret sunt ii iddai et i fertiiium.
De hoc habet Rex dimidiam hidam in dominio 2
Et de i hida et dimidia (hidd) et i fertino nou habet Rex gildum 12 1
2 1
De hoc Hundreto debentur Regi 9s. 4Jd. (which, at 6s. per hide, is exactly the Gheld due to 1 hide, 2
virgates, and 1 fertine).
NOTES ON THE ABOVE INQUESTS OP WILLITON AND WINSFOED HUNDBEDS.
The King's concern in WUliton Hundred arose in his holding by Escheat the four Comital Manors of
Dulverton, Nettlecombe, Winsford, and Capton. However, it was only a part of Winsford which was, at
the date of the Inquests, interned in WlUitou Hundred. The King's demesne in Winsford, and part of the
Villeinage, as yet remained a distinct Franchise, and was assessed in a distinct Inquest. The two Inquests,
thus arising, may be considered as one.
The Inquests speak of If hides in the two Hundreds as being in the King's demesne, and of (6h. Iv. If.
+ Ih. 2v. If. = ) 7 hid. 3 virg. 2 f ert. (of villanage, evidently) being in arrear. The Inquests, therefore, sur-
vey (I h. 3v. Of. + 7h. 3v. 2f. =) 9h. 2v. 2f. of the King's territory. H. v. P.
Domesday, on the other hand, specifies Royal demesnes, in the above four manors, amounting to 2 1 2
It specifies 4 items of Villeinage in the same (Ih. 2v. + Ih. 2v. 2f. + 3h. + 2 virg.) amounting to 6 2 2
And it gives, as additamenta of Dulverton and Winsford (1. 3. 3i + 0. 2. 0. =) 2 1 34
Total 11 1 3i
The increase of the King's demesnes by 2^ virgates means, or may mean, nothing more than that the
King's Officers had taken so much away from the villeinage of the said manors.
The seeming net increase of the whole territory by 1 hide, 3 virgates, H fertines, may be a mere
' Domesday Increment,' or may mean that the Gheld, proper to so much laud, had been duly paid in A.D.
1084.
The Abbot op Muohelnet's estate was Chipstable (2^ hides). Domesday gives him only a half-hide of
demesne therein.
Dodo de Com is named in Domesday among the English Thanes. He is called simply Dodo. His estate
was at Stowe (now Nether Stowey), and was 3 virgates, only one of which he seems to retain in demesne.
Domesday expressly says that this estate was " in Hundreto de WeUintuna.'' WiUiton is meant ; but
instances of Domesday mentioning any Hundred of the South- Western circuit are rare.
William de Moione's Dominical Manors in this Hundred are most easily gathered from Domesday,
though, of the five, we can only assign to three their modem representatives. His demesnes, in 1084, stand
at 12 hides, 2| virgates ; also, in 1086, at 12 hides, 2| virgates.
Whether the obliteration preceding the name of Richer de Stokes conceals the name of a colleague
or co-partner is not determinable by the verb (in a singular number) which follows. Such an error occurs
below in this very Inquest. Richer de Stokes was a Norman, an almonee of the King. He appears in
Domesday as Richer de Andeli, and as holding the Church of St. Mary of Warverdiuestoc, with its 2 hides
of land. Hence we learn that he got his English name from his benefice being in one of the Stokes. How
the Church of Waverdine-Stoke is now represented is an ulterior question.
Roger de Corcella's demesnes in this Hundred stand at 44 hides. In Domesday he appears vrith
several estates in this quarter, but in only one, Cliva (now Kilve), does he retain any specific demesne.
The said demesne was 2 hides, 3 fertines. The change was due to the recent feoffments of his tenants,
Alric, or Norman, or William.
Alured de Hispania's 2 hides of demesne seem to reoccur in Domesday as in his Manor of Estalweia ;
which we take to be Nether Stowey.
The VrLLANAQiUM specifically given by Domesday to Dulverton, Winsford, and Nettlecombe is only
6 hides, 2 fertines. It is possible that the Fegadri of 1084 had found a larger villeinage in those three
manors than continued in 1086. It is possible that their calculations embraced a part at least of the
Villeinage of Capton.
200 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OP SOMERSET.
Ansoer Coons.— His only estate in this Hundred was Lulestoc (Lilstock). It was 5 hides. In Domesday-
he holds it, not of the Comte of Moretain, but of the King. That Ansger who appears so often in
Domesday as tenant of the Comte of Moretain, was Ansger de Montacute. Whether Ansger Coous was
distinct or identical, there is no suspicion of inaoouraoy in the Inquest, for had Ansger Cocus been a tenant
in capUe in 1084, his default on 3 hides would be inexplicable, as would also his non-appearance
among the exemptions for this Hundred. Domesday gives him 2^ hides as held in demesne, but is
incoherent about the other part of his estate. It is clear that between 1084 and 1086 Ansger Cocus
changed his Suzerain at Lulstock. His neglect to pay Danegeld may have been a symptom of the change.
Imela, Odo, and Waistoit were three vills, probably in St. Decuman's parish, occupied by Villeins only
who paid their rents to the King's Manor of WiUiton. Their non-payment of gheld in 1084 was probably
due to non-liabihty. Domesday puts their collective tenements at IJ hides, — an undoubted and clear case
of the ' increment ' which the Commissioners set upon the estates of certain Hundreds, and which results
in the Domesday estimate of such Hundreds appearing so often to exceed the estimate propounded by the
Gheld-CoUeotors of 1084.
Robert fitz Rosoeline was Ralph Paganell's tenant of an estate written in Domesday as Wiahalla.
It was only 1 virgate, and held by Robert entirely in demesne. His default in 1084 was accordingly for the
whole estate.
Rannulf de Strangeston's default on one vii'gate was probably for some item of estate held under
Alured de Hispania in 1084, bvit which did not remain with Rannulf in 1086. Domesday gives him as
Alured's tenant at Stringston in 1086, but Stringston was in Cannington Hundred.
Letfoet appears in Domesday (p. 473, Exon D.) as 'Ledforda,' a virgate of land annexed to the King's
Manor of Wilhton. Its insolvency in 1084 means non-Kabiiity.
The non-solvekt virgate in Pirtochesworda was of the same character. It was a virgate taken out of
William de Moione's Manor of Elwrda (now Elworthy), and annexed to the King's Manor of Williton
(Exon D., 340). Though Dodeman and Richard are said to hold this virgate in the Inquest of 1084,
Domesday exhibits Dodeman only, and him as Moione's tenant in the bulk of his Manor of Elworthy.
For Malger de Cartrai's complex Gheld account we refer elsewhere {Supra, p. 113). His estate in
WiUiton Hundred was Brushford (2 hides) held under the Comte of Moretain.
BOTES ON THE INQUEST OF WINSFORD HDNDRED.
This Inquest may be looked upon as merely supplementary to that of Williton Hundred. It does not
assess the whole of Winsford, which was, with its additamentum, four hides. We take it to be adjustive of
some omissions which had been made in the Inquest of Williton Hundred. It almost follows that the
Censors (Fegadri) of WiUiton Hundred, estimating its contents as 924 hides, omitted 2^ hides of the
contents of Winsford. Our Table of the two Hundreds should therefore aim at realizing from Domesday
an area of 94,^ hides. We shall find Domesday increments yet more than would satisfy such a calculation
(See Vol. ii, p. 35).
NOTES ON THE TABLE (VOL. n., PP. 35-36) OP WILLITON AND WINSFORD HUNDREDS.
DuLVERTON. — Nettleoombe. — WiNSPORD. — Capton. — The hidation of these Comital Manors was privileged.
They were all in the custody of William de Moione, then Sheriff of Somerset. Their ferms were payable in
' White Money,' which would add about 5 per cent, to the values recorded in the Table, or £1 14s. SJd. to
the gross values of the Hundred.
DuLVERTON. — Under this Manor, Domesday says — " De hftc mansione sunt ablataj xxiv oves quas reddebat
Brigefort, mansio Comitis de Moritonio, die qua Rex Edwardus fuit vivus et mortuus per consuetudinem,
Bed postquam Malgerus recepit terram de Comite non fuit reddita hsec consuetude."
Nettlecombb was held T. R. E. by " Godwin sou of Harold," — of Emi Harold obviously, seeing that it
was a Comital Manor. Earl Harold's son, Godwin, probably legitimate and of age in 1066, is not new to
history. Harold's own age, eis ascertained by Mr. Freeman, quite consists with his having a son, of fuU age
in 1066. In the valuation of this Manor both Doraesdays omit the Pounds. The Table supplies the
omission with all moral probabiUty.
Winsford and Congeesburt are the only two Comital Manors of Somerset which are treated as distinct
Hundreds by any extant Inquests of 1084. It seems doubtful whether such Inquests were imperative.
HUNDREDS OF WTLLITON AND WINSFORD. 201
If they were, then Inquests of King's Brompton, Old Oleeve, Creech St. Michael, and North Curry were
taken, and are lost.
Of the half -hide held by three Thegns T. R. E. and since added to Winsford, the Exon Domesdiy says,
" Ha3c reddit in firmft Regis (de Winesf orda) xx solidos, ■ et quando Willelmus de Moione reoepit tantundem."
And of the Thegns it says "Isti Tanni debebant ire in servitium Prcopositi hujus manerii per consuetudiuem
absque omni firmii donanie." The change of tenure was precisely that by which 'Theguland' became
' Reeveland.'
In the Schedule of " Terra; Occupatas " (Exon D., p. 479) the name Winsford is erroneously written. The
Record says " Rex habet unam mansionem qute vooatur Winescuma quam tenuit Tostinus Comes. Huic
addita est dimidia hida terrae quam tenuerunt iii Tanni pariter die qua Rex E. fuit vivus et mortuus : et
reddit per annum xx solidos in firmfl Regis."
Cabma (Quarum in Winsford). — Godebold, a Serviens'Regis, an Arbalister in fact, had a number of estates
in Devon, but only this one in Somerset. Being a tenant in capUe per Serjantiam it is strange that his
demesne in Quarum should have had no exemption in the Inquest of 1084.
EooLESiA SANOTiE Maem) IN Wakverdinestoo. — Stogumber proper, called Waverdines-Stoke in Domesday,
seems to have consisted entirely of this Church-estate of two hides. The tutelage of St. Mary is still
bespoken for the Church of Stogumber. It is called in Pope Nicholas' Taxation the Church of
''Stokgummer." As to the name Waverdinestoc, a place called Wardeston in time of Edward III., though
not identical, seems to have preserved a cognate etymology.
CoLEFOKD. — CoUinson (iii. 546) omits de Corcelle's, and notices only De Moione's, share of Coleford.
Hewis (Lud Huish). — ColUnson (iii. 541) notices Lud Huish as distinct from Hewis (Begarn Huish), but
does not give the Domesday type of the former.
EsTALWEiA (Nether Stowey). — Caput of the Barony of Alured de Hispania's descendants. Colliuson
(iiL 550) traces the origin of this important Manor in Ralph de Pomeroy's Manor ot.Estaweia, which we take
to have been a small manor of the same district.
The Mother Church of this district was at Over Stowey in Canuington Hundred. When Nether Stowey
became a parish of itself, a great portion of its old manorial constituents remained in the parish of the
Mother Church, and so continue at this day.
Domesday says of Alured de Hispania's second Manor of Estalweia, " Ffa3c est addita terris Alwi quas
Alveredus tenet." It means that whereas Alwi Banneson was elsewhere the antecessor of Alured of Spain,
here his antecessors were two other Thegns named Osward and Alfred.
Waiecoma (Weacombe in West Quantoxhead). — Here is a case of a Bordarius holding land at a fixed
rent : viz., one virgate at an annual rent of 7s. 6d. Three other virgates in the same Manor realized rents
of 8s. 4d. each. These virgates seem to have each contained 45 acres of arable land. The rent of the first
virgate was therefore 2d. per acre.
Chilvetun (Kilton). — The Knight-tenant is written in the Exon Domesday (p. 339) as Radulfums. We
presume Radulf Rufus to have been intended. He held largely under the Bishop of Ooutances. In the
Schedule of Terra Occupata the name Chili'etwrm is changed to Duietmm ; — by mere error probably.
Cliva (Kilve). — Collinson (iii. 532) makes Corcelle's two Manors of Selve, cd. Selua, to be tyjiical of Kilve.
We prefer Cliva; and take both Selves to have been parts of Silver (postea Moriksilver).
Perlestoua. — probably near Kilve, but the name is lost. It originated with Perlo, a Thegn of the
Confessor's time. Very seldom did a Saxon of so late a, date give name to any locality. More seldom
still did a name, so given, abide.
Elwrda ( Elworthy). — An estate of privileged hidation. One of William de Moione's four virgates had
been wrested to the Royal Manor of Williton.
Mildetuxa, Sindebooma (Mill Town and Syndercombe). — These places though now in Clatworthy parish,
were at the date of Domesday in Williton Hundred, when also Clatworthy was in Sheriff's Brompton
Hundred {Vide supra, p. 111). Sheriffs Brompton having since been annexed to the Hundred of Williton
and Free Manors, all the previous anomaly has vanished.
Croweooma (Croweoombe'. — This place, said by Domesday to have been held T. R. K by Sanctus
Suitunus Wintonice, had been given to the Cathedral Church of St. Swythin by Gytha, wife of Earl Godwin,
in expiation of sundry sacrileges committed by her husband. The Comte of Moretain seized it at the
202 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OF SOMERSET.
Conquest. His tenant, called 'Robert Constable' in Domesday, was ancestor of Beauchamp of Hatch.
CoUinsou is in gi-eat error as to this estate.
WiDEPOLLA (Withypoole).— Of Robert de Otburville'a tenancy here, Domesday says.—" De ista (terrJl)
Bolebat Rotbertus reddere xx solidos de firma Prteposito Regis de Winesforda, et mode est deraciooinata ad
Teglandam." — A lawsuit had recently determined Withypoole to be Tegnland, that is, Robert de AubervUle
was to pay no more rent, but to hold in capiteper serjantiam. His Saxon antecessors at Withypoole, viz..
Dodo, Almar, and Godrio, had evidently been Royal Foresters, and their land had been Tegnland as
opposed to Reeveland, or land on which a rent was payable to some Reeve or Officer of the Crown. There
are many similar appearances in Domesday of recent question and settlement of De Auberville's estates and
pasition ; we say recent because in this as in other causes no exemption, such as that to which a tenant by
Serjeantry was entitled, had been recorded in D' Auberville's favour in the Inquests of 1084.
An anonymous Manoe, following WidepoUa in the Table, is thus described in Domesday. — " Rodbertus
de Odburvilla hahuit i virgam terra; quam tenuit Dodo pariter die qua Rex E. fuit vivus et mortuus. Hsec
addita fuit mansioni Regis qufe vocatur Dolvertona. Modo iterum dijudioata est esse Teglanda et valet per
annum 10 sohdos." Both Dodo and Robert de Auberville were in their day King's Foresters.
D'Auberville had not lost his estate, he had rescued it by suit-at-law from all liability as a member of
Dulverton. It had been Tegnland under Dodo ; now it was analogously part of a Serjeantry, that is held by
/ service other than rent. The specific estate was perhaps in Hawkridge, a vill not formed so early as
Domesday, and which (See CoUinsou, iii..529) was afterwards held in Serjeantry.
EssATUNA (Exton). — Three virgates of laud annexed (a.d. 1086) to this Manor of the Bishop of Coutances,
had before the Conquest belonged to Godwin, Haroldsson's Manor of Nettlecombe, now (a.d. 1086) a
Royal Escheat (Exton and Nettlecombe are ten miles apart).
WiAHALLA, al. Neuhalle. — Newhall is a hamlet in Holford pariah (Collinson iii. 457). We may presume
that ' parochial attraction ' has now drawn Newhall from the Hundred of Williton to that of Whitley.
HiwTS (Huish Champflower). — Roger Arundel probably obtained this valuable and privileged estate
within the two years preoeeding the Domesday Survey. There had been no exemption recorded in his
favour on the Inquest of WiUiton Hundred in a.d. 1084 Privileged hidation marks many estates of his
Saxon antecessor, Alric. This Alric is perhaps he who, in other relations, is called Aluric Gild.
AsowEi (Ashway in Hawkridge). — Among the live stock, Domesday enumerates xii porcos et xxvi inter
oves et capras, i. e., "twelve swine, and what with sheep and she-goats, twenty-six head."
WiLLiTONE AND WiSESPORD HUNDREDS — The Inquisitional hidage of these two Hundreds in a.d. 1084,
was (92| hides -f 2^ hides =) 94 hides, 2 virgates, 1 fertine. The hidage apparently furnished by
Domesday particulars for the same two Hundreds is collectively 97 hides, 1 virgate, 3J fertines. The excess
of the latter iviz., 2 hides, 3 virgates, 2J fertines) is so reasonable a ' Domesday Increment ' as to require no
further remark.
Parochial acreages amounting to 60,408 acres, are the nearest counterpart which the nature of the case
allows us to tabulate as against the above Domesday hidage.
In this case then the Domesday hide is represented by about 620 acres of modern ascertainment.
Included in the above manorial hidage, though not in the above parochial acreage, are certain parts of
BicknoUer, 1390 acres ; Exmoor, 20,765 acres ; Hawkridge, 3,725 acres ; Upton, 3,779 acres. But a part
also of these parishes and acreages undoubtedly belonged to the Vetus Dominicum Coronce of Domesday,
and was extra-Hundredal. The whole parochial acreages are at all events tabulated with the Royal Manor
of WUhton. (See Table ii, pp. 1 and 2).
In the present Hundred of Williton and Free-Manors, though not in the Domesday Hundred of Williton,
are Brompton-Regis, 8810 acres ; Old Cleeve, 4793 acres ; St. Decumaus (including Williton itself), 3,758
acres. These places, too, were extra- Hundredal at the date of Domesday, and were in the hands of the
King, either as Oomes, or Jure Ooronce.
Included in the modern Hundred of WiUiton and Free-Manors, but not in the Old Hundred of Williton,
neither in the above hidage nor parochial acreage, were Brompton Ralph and Clatworthy, which at the date
of Domesday formed the independent Hundred of Sheriff's Brompton ; — and Halse, which was in the
Domesday Hundred of Taunton. The removal of Halse to the Hundred of WilUtou and Free Manors has
been already discussed. [Supra, p. 194).
HUNDREDS OF WILLITON AND WINSFORD. 203
It has been necessary to state all these particulars about the Old Hundred of Williton. In order that
there might be no misapprehension about the very remai-kable Domesday phaenomenon which yet remains
to be dealt with. Parallel with the 97 hides, 1 virgate, 3J fertines, instanced in the Table and extracted
from Domesday, there is, also in Domesday, a registered acreage of arable land, wood-land, meadow, and
pasture, amounting to 69,084 acres. This gives the astonishing proportion of nearly 710 measured acres to
each Domesday hide ; moreover, the exact acreage of the Hundred exceeds the instanced parochial acreage
by (69,084 — 60,408 = ) 8676 acres. This, however, can be explained without departing from our princi-
ples of Domesday mensuration and comparison. Take Earl Tostig's Manor of Winsford, for instance. It is
geldable as 3| hides. It contained 18,568 acres of registered land (viz., 7200 acres of arable land, 40 aci-es
of wood, 8 acres of meadow, and 11,320 acres of pasture). But the modem parish, which we are obliged to
enter on our Table against all this acreage and against three other manors containing 1| hides, or 1634 acres
of Domesday registration, — the modem parish, thus set against (18,568 + 1634) 20,202 Domesday acres,
measures only 8656 acres. —
The solution is that the pasture (11,320 acres) which Domesday attributed to the Manor of Winsford lay
mostly in the districts which are now parochialized under the names of Exmoor and Hawkridge, whose
whole acreage, merely for the sake of convenience, we have tabularly assigned to the Vetus Dominicum
Coronce. (See Table, Vol. ii, pp. 1 and 2). This instance showing how the comparative measures of a single
manor affect the measures of a whole Hundred, does not affect calculations on a still broader scale ; nor
does it even touch the larger conclusion that the Manors and Hundreds of North Western Somerset are
made by Domesday technicality to include Forests and Chaces which actually and topographically lay in
other districts.
Another and more easily verified feature about the Domesday Hundred of WOiton was its extremely
favourable hidation. Each hide of the Hundred was on an average co-ordinate with some 416 acres of
arable land, to say nothing of meadows, nor of woods and pastures, not here reckoned of.
The Domesday value of Williton Hundred, viz., £151 4s. 8d. per annum, was at the rate of £1 lis. OJd.
per hide ; and at the rate (of course insignificant) of .5253 decimals of a penny per Domesday acre ; also at
the rate of 8s. ll^d. per plough-land, and of 143. 5d. for each of 209f teams actually employed.
The number of Villeins, Boors, and Serfs abiding in Williton Hundred, a.d. 1086, was 665. This gives a
single labourer to each 104 acres of Domesday registration ; to each 62 acres of plough-land ; and to each
39 acres of land actually ploughed.
Wilhton Hundred was, in point of area, far the largest of any in Somerset ; more than a third of its
plough-land was not in cultivation' at the date of Domesday. Next to the Hundreds of Cutcomb and Mine-
head, it had the scantiest population of any Hundred, not excepting even that of Carhampton.
204 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OF SOMERSET.
INQUISICIO-GHELDI (a.D. 1084) FOE WINTBESTOKE HUNDRED (INQ.-SHBLDI, P. 69).
(This Inquest is amended and reatm-ed by its own constructive evidence.)
" In Hundreto Winest . . . vi.xx hid. . virgse."
(In Hundreto WiuestocoE sunt vi. xx et ix. hidce et dimidia virg. (129 hid. 2 fertiu.) H. v. F.
lude habet Rex de gildo suo xiii (read xxiii) libras et iii sol. et Ix (read i) denar. ) 77 n 5
et i obolum isro Ixx. vii hid. . ... (supply et iii fertinis) )
et i obolum pm Ixx. vii hid. . ... (supply et i
. . . . (supply Et Sar)ones Regis habent inde in dominio suo xl (supply hidas)
et i virgam. (40h. Iv. Of.) H. v. F.
{De his lutbet, supplied) " WalcheUnus Episcopus x hidas in domiQio " 10
"Et Giso Episoopus vi" (supply /lidds) 6
(Supply i'S jl66as ffiasim<75«') "i^nsis iiij hidas et iii virgas" 4 3
" Et Comes Eustaehius iii hidas et i fertinum" 3 1
" Et Serlo de Burceio V hidas et virgam et dimidiam " 5 12
"Et Willelmus de Falesia vii hidas et dimid. et iii fertinos'' 7 2 3
'Et Walscinus de Duaco iii hidas et virgam et dimidiam" 3 12
40 1 40 1
'Non habet Rex Gildum pro iiij hidas quas tenet RaduHus Tortemanus deGisone )
Episoopo" )
Nee de mansione quse vocatur Tia.Tp{etreu supplied) quam tenet Robertus filius i c ^ n
Walteri pro v hidas
{Nee pro dimidid supplied) "hidjl quam tenet Osbernus de Gilberto fil. Turoldi" 2
"Nee pro dimid. hidil quam tenet Aluuard de Anscetillo Parcario " 2
"Nee pro dimidia hida quam tenet Aselinus de Episoopo de S'to. {Laudo supplied) ... 2
"Nee pro ivirgS, et iii fert. quas tenet Willelmus de Falesia" 1 3
"Nee pro i fertino de terrd Serlonis de Burceio" 1
"Neo pro dimidift hida et iii fertinis de quibus Fegadri reddere non potuerunt )
rationem" )
2 3
11 2 3 11 2
129 2
"De hoe Hundreto sunt adhuc retro de Gildo Regis Ixx solidi et iii oboli (£3 10s. IJd.) et quos deberet
(read debehat) Rex habuisse et isti sunt vadiati in misericorditi Regis."
(N.B. The sum of £3 10s. IJd , at 6 shillings per liide, is the exact assessment on 11 hides 2| virgates,
vi'hich were in default or arrear.)
Security had to be given that these arrears should be accounted for to the King's satisfaction.
NOTES ON THE INQUEST OP WINTERSTOKE HUNDRED.
Bishop Walcheline's demesne of 10 hides was so much of his Manor of Bleadon.
Bishop Giso's 6 hides of demesne were so much of his Manor of Banwell.
The Abbot op Glastonbury's demesne (4| hides) are repeated literatim, in Domesday, as liis demesne in
his Manor of Winscombe (in all containing 1 5 hides).
COMTE Eustace's demesne of 3-f^ hides reappears in Domesday as a demesne of 4 hides in Loohestona
(now Loxton).
Serlo DE BuBOi'a demesne (5 hides IJ virgates) appears in Domesday as a demesne of 74 hides in Blagdon.
William de Falaise's demesne of 7 hides 2f virgates is reduced in Domesday to a demesne of 7 hides
1 virgate in Worsprinca (now Woodspring in Kewstoke parish).
Walter de Douai's demesne of 3 hides, 1 virgate, 2 fertins are precisely reproduced in Domesday as so
much demesne in his Manor of Worle.
Ralph Toktemain's arrear was 4 out of 5J hides which he held under Bishop Giso in Banwell.
Robert fitz Walter's default was in respect of the whole of his Manor in East Hai-ptree, held undei
the Comte of Moretain.
WINTERSTOKE HUNDRED. 205
Osbbrn's default was in respect of 2 virgates out of six which he held in Chiwestoo (Kewstoke) under
Gilbert fitz Turold (Exon Domes., p. 415).
Alwaed's default was in respect of two virgates out of four which he held in Mideltona (Milton near '
Kewstoke) under Anachetil Parker (Exon Domes., 443).
Asobline's tenures in this Hundred under the Bishop of St. Lo (Coutanoes) were so various that it is
impossible to detect the particular haK-hide which was left in arrear of gheld.
William de Falaise. — The arrear on If virgates charged against William de Falaise was on the exact
difference between 7h. 2v. 3f. (his alleged demesne in 1084) and 7 hides, 1 virgate (his demesne recognized
in Domesday). So much land, therefore (If virgates), is, in different shapes, quoted twice over in the
Inquisicio, and went by so much to add a fictitious area to the Hundred. In other words, the Fegadri,
having allowed 7h. 2v. 3f. of demesne to stand as exempt in the upper portion of their account, should not,
in the lower portion, have surcharged a part of that demesne as liable. This, and some similar mistake as
to a single virgate, probably caused the deficiency of gheld on 2f virgates, for which they were unable to
account. They had, in fact, made estimate of the Hundred as containing 129 hides, 3 fertins. It probably
contained only 128 hides, 1 virgate, and 3 fertins.
Seelo de Bukoi's default of gheld on 1 fertin was probably on so much of his viUanagium in Blagdon.
He was, perhaps, taking portions of his Villeinage into hand ; but had operated too late on this specific
portion to entitle it to exemption. The Fegadri looked upon it as stiU villeinage, and assessable ; but, as
there was no ViUeiu in occupation, they must needs surcharge the owner.
NOTES ON THE TABLE (vOL. n., PP. 37-38) OF WINTEESTOKE HUNDEED.
Bledona. — Est de idctu monachorum, says Domesday ; that is the Bishop held Bleadon, not as a posses-
sion of his See, but on behalf of the Monks of his Cathedral Monastery at Winchester.
The acreage of Bleadon parish is 2795 acres. This gives 186^ acres as representing the Domesday hide.
The measures of Domesday which we call exact, make the Manor to contain 2827 acres.
WiNESCOJiA. — The total of 15 hides given as the hidage of Winscombe includes one virgate, which is not
mentioned in the Domesday details. The details include and specify as one of the said 15 hides, a hide
held by the Bishop of Coutances under the King, and by Herlewin under the Bishop. This hide is sur-
veyed in duplicate, in the Bishop of Coutances' and in the Abbot of Glastonbury's Schediiles (Exon Domes-
day, 129-130 ; 479 and 148). In the Bishop's Schedule it is called Wintret. Therefore Winterhead, which
is now in Shipham parish, was T. R. E. a member, manoriaUy, of Winscombe.
Banuella. — The Banuella of Domesday included Banwell (4829 acres), Puxton (613 acres), Churchill
(2497 acres), and Compton Bishop (2535 acres ; in all 10,474 acres. The Domesday measures amounted to
only 5320 acres. This has been explained on former pages [mpra, pp. 32, 33, 125).
Kewstoke and WoODSPEiNa. — The six Domesday estates which pass under the names of Worsprinca
(3 estates), Chiwestoc (1 estate), and Mideltona or Mildetuna (2 estates), are nearly represented in the
modem parishes of Kewstoke (2428 acres), and Locking (1016 acres). A hidage of 13J hides given for the
6 estates, when compared with an acreage of 3444 acres for the two parishes, gives » proportion of 260
acres to the hide. The exact measures of Domesday realize only 3086 acres for the six estates. Locking is
not verbally mentioned in Domesday, but that it belonged to this group of estates is proved by its subse-
quent history.
Blacchedona (Blagdon) was the Caput of Serlo de Burci's Barony. Blagdon and Uphill with other of
his estates went to his descendants the Barons Fitz Martin.
ASHCOMBE, now a Township of Weston-super-Mare, is the sole Domesday representative of both places.
The first item of estate (2| hides) is made the subject of duplicate entries in the Domesday Text, and
again of dupHcate entries in the Schedule of Terrse Occupatse.
Chbnt, now Kenn, was evidently a postcriptive entry on the Bishop of Coutances' Domesday Schedule.
It had, perhaps recently, and in almost a desert state, been allotted to the Bishop. Its hidage (half a hide)
had at this rate, not been reckoned in the estimate of 1084.
Comtdka, — Walter de Douai's double Manor is understood by CoUinson to have been the estate which,
afterwards devolving on the See of Wells, was therefore called Compton Bishop. And truly De Douai or
his descendants did make large benefactions in other quarters to the See of Wells.
206
THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — THE HUNDREDS OF SOMERSET.
It should be noted that the Domesday measures of Walter de Douai's double manor amount to 762 acres,
whereas the present parish of —
CoMPTON Bishop comprises 2535 acres. This possibly may mean no more than that the Manor, being
Episcopal, had a parish annexed to it out of one or more circumjacent manors.
It is in deference to authorities most entitled to respect that we make Compton an original member of
BanweU. By so doing we fail to find an antitype to Comte Eustace's Manor of Contitone (see Table of
unidentified Manors, Vol ii, pp., 41-42).
WiNTEHSTOKE HuNDEBD. — If our collection of the Domesday materials of the Old Hundred be correct, we
see that the Domesday hidage (1284 hides), falls short of that of the previous Inquest (129| hides) by
2J virgates. We have probably given some small manor of this Hundred to another Hundred.
The modem Hundred of Winterstoke includes 27 parishes. Eighteen of these parishes represent manors
which, in 1084-6, seem to have constituted the Old Hundred of Winterstoke. Of the parishes added to
the Hundred, one parish, Rodney Stoke, represents a Manor of Old Cheddar Hundred ; three parishes, viz.
Axbridge, Charterhouse-on-Mendip, and Cheddar represent Crown estates not appurtenant to any Domes-
day Hundred ; two parishes, viz., Congresbury and Wick St. Lawrence, formed a, distinct prse-Domesday
Hundred ; one parish, Badgeworth, was in the prae-Domesday Hundred of Bimastau {vide vol. ii, pp. 13-14) ;
one parish, Yatton, was in the prsc-Domesday Hundred of Chewton ; and one parish, Rowberrow, was
probably in the prse-Domesday Hundred of Sudbrent (which will be described in the sequel).
TABLE OF THE
COMPARATIVE
MEASURES OT
(old)
WINTERSTOKE HUNDEBD.
Domesday Manors.
Domesday
Hidage.
H. V. F.
III
1
II
111
III
Modem Farishes.
If
Bledona
15
30
15
6 10
3
12
10
4
5
10
6 2
6 2
2 3
3 2
5
3
5
5
2
2
17
40
30
12
8
2
1
6
7
10
10
15
3
6
5
4
5
5
"i
2040
4800
3600
1440
960
240
120
720
840
1200
1200
1800
360
600
600
480
600
600
'60
1
300
2880
10
10
2
10
6
200
10
3
15
100
60
50
16
100
60
6
3
50
10
70
50
31
40
30
20
40
40
■■*
720|
120
120
10 ■)
8
20 '
20 J
200
60
120
100
260
01
100
200 \
40 f
400 1
400 r
2827
5320
6660
2846
933
966
1530
1370
2110
1144
1385
2240
'eo
2795
4829
/'Banwell
Churchill
616
BamiBlla
2535
Winescoma
Vl0,474 acres in all
4140
J Kewstoke
J Added thereto
24281
1016;
) Chiwestoo
[ Mideltona
Sipeham
765
Lacheatona
Blachedona
juphiu ;,'.■;;;
1077)
671 S
1810
1690
1 Christon
Worla
f Ha^eccomba
"WeBton-siiper-Mare
Hutton '
1877
East Hai-ptree
2779
Ghent '.'...
1018
alibi.
129
185i
22,260
3607
616
2898
29,381
37,001
The modern parochial acreage (37,001 acres), less the acreage (29,381 acres) registered in Domesday, leaves
7620 acres not registered in that Record. Such an acreage of moorland or marsh, utterly valueless, is
quite consistent with the state of the district eight centuries since.
The Domesday Hide of Winterstoke Hundred is represented by about 287 acres of modern ascertainment
and, most plausibly, by 227f acres of Domesday recognition.
The Domesday value of Winterstoke Hundred, viz., £113 5s. per annum, was at the rate of 17s. 6Jd. per
hide ; and of .925 decimals of a penny per Domesday acre ; also at the rate of 12s. 2id. per plough-land.
The evidences indicate a poor country and a favourable hidation.
SOMERTON HUNDRED. 207
NON-INQUISITIONAL HUNDREDS, LIBERTIES, AND MANORS OF SOMERSET.
We now proceed with notices of those ten Hundreds, Liberties, or Manors, which are not touched by any
extant Inquest of a.d. 1084.
A Table of each such Franchise will be found in Vol. II., pp. 37-38, 39-40, 41-42. The evidences which
supply or suggest the older name, and the contents, of each Hundred or Liberty, will be given in the
notes here following. —
NOTES ON THE TABLE (VOL. U, PP. 37-38) OF SOMEETON HUNDRED.
The Caput of this Hundred was the Royal Manor of Somerton, a manor of the Vetus Domini/yam Coronm,
ingeldable and never hidated. The Manor of Somerton belongs therefore to another section of our enquiiy
(vide Vol ii, pp. 1-2). It could not with any consistency be placed on a Table of the Hundred of which it
was the Caput, though all its accessories and decurtations, at whatever time we can find them to have been
hidated, properly belonged at that time to the Hundred.
No Gheld-Inquest of Somerton Hundred is preserved, but the Hundred is named as such in contemporai-y
Indices. The said Inquest is one which, having been necessarily made, has been obviously lost.
Mansiones ADDlTiE SoJiEKTON^E. — These were three Tegnlands, probably adjacent to the Royal Manor.
Whereas, before the Conquest, some Saxon king had granted them in thenagio, so now the Conqueror,
adding them to Somerton, had abolished the tenure-in-thenage, committing one estate to Villeins, granting
another to Ogisius, a Norman, and continuing a third Thane, Sauinus, in possession of the smaller estate —
no longer to be held in tJienagio, but as a fee-farm tenure in the Manor of Somerton.
Dbnesmodesuella. — This name seems to be undiscoverable in any modern locahty. The place, being an
old and perhaps distant member of the Manor of Somerton, had been given by King William to Alured of
Spain, it may be in compensation of an estate in Martock, which had been taken from the said Alured
{vide supra p. 91).
Addita CERLETONiE.— The Exchequer Domesday takes no notice of this item of estate. The text of the
Exon Domesday is similarly silent about it. But in the Schedule of Terrce occupatce there is the following
entry : " Ad mansionem Rogeri, ArundeUi quae vooatur Ceorlatoua fuit addita dimidia hida terrse quam
tenuit I. Tannus pariter die qu^ Rex Edwardus fuit vivus et mortuus. Hauc teuuit Warmundus de
Rogero et adhuc invocat eum ad guarantiam Bed Rogerus inde omnino deficit ab illo die quo Rex Willelmus
hunc Waimundum de ips3, terrfi resaisire fecit. " The reason why the Domesday Commissioners did not
admit this estate into the text of their Survey is obvious. They did not know, they had no power of
deciding, whether Warmundus held it lawfully, or who was his lawful Seigneur. We learn of a case in
after times, and another county, where a tenant in capite unreasonably refusing livery to a sub-tenant,
the latter appealed to the Crown, obtained livery and seizin, and became thenceforth a tenant in capite
sine medio. In other terms, the mesne-Lordship escheated to the Crown.
Cari (Lytes Gary). — Humphrey Chamberlain's two estates in Cari are said " to be joined with the
Honour of Bristric " ; that is, when the Conqueror bestowed the estates of Brictric Algarsson (constituting,
in other terms, the Honour of Gloucester) on Queen Matilda, he added thereto a Seigneury over numberless
small Thegns. This is known to have been the case in many instances, both in Dorset and Somerset.
Another probable phase of the story is, that many Thegns (Ordric and Lovinc, for instance) having power to
choose their own Suzerain, had either accepted the Advowry of Brictric before the Conquest, or of Queen
Matilda after the Conquest. Humphrey Chamberlain, in turn, had been a favourite officer of the late
Queen, who had given him estates and Lordships in many counties, and therewith a mediate ascendancy
over such Thegns or Tenants as might happen to be in possession of the respective lands. That Humphrey
got rid of his Thegn-tenants before Domesday is probable, but not proven. There are cases where smaller
Thegns of the Saxon era, having ' attorned ' to a Norman ' Avoue,' reappear in Domesday as his tenants iu
VUleinage.
Somerton Hundred. — Corresponding with the 58 hides, 3^ virgates, which the Table concludes to have
been the hidage of Somerton Hundred, we have Domesday exact measures amounting to (9745 + 490 =)
10,235 acres ; of which 9360 acres were arable land ; 176 acres were wood-land ; 259 acres were meadow ;
and 440 acres were pasture.
208 THE SOMEESET DOMESDAY.
HUNDREDS AND LIBERTIES ABSENT FROM THE INQUEST OF A.D. 1084.
NOTES ON THE TABLE (vOL. II, PP. 37-38) OP PITNEY HUNDRED.
Pitney Hundred is perhaps only a post-Domesday severance from the prse-Domesday Hundred of
Somerton.
The Inquests or Inquest of a.d. 1084, whether they assessed two or only one district, are lost. The
coeval Indices of Somerset Hundreds, though they mention a Hundred of Somerton, say nothing of any
Hundred of Pitney. The inference is that the former, at that time, included the latter.
Another reason for assuming such ancient combination is that the modern acreage of Somerton Hundred
is greatly in excess of the Domesday areas of its manors, while, in Pitney Hundred, the excess is the other
way. In short, with respect to this matter, we must combine the two Hundreds before we can reaUze
a consistent and intelligible whole.
A third reason for the same presumption is that Langport, which has been annexed to Pitney Hundi-ed,
was at the date of Domesday, a member of the King's Manor of Somerton. On being detached from the
Royal Manor, Langport would more naturally have fallen into Somerton Hundred than into Pitney
Hundred ; but if, as we suppose, the two Hundreds were indistinct at the time, the anomaly vanishes.
A fourth reason for supposing the original unity of the above two Hundreds would seem to date their
severance as later than the 13th Century, for then the Manors of Pitney and Pitney-Weame were held to
be parcel of the King's Manor of Somerton, and Somerton was, ere then, interned in its cognominate
Hundred.
Draituna (Part of Drayton). — This great Manor of 20 hides was in two several Hundreds at the date of
Domesday. A part of it (1-^ hides), called La More, having been given to Roger de Corcelle, had been
withdrawn from the Abbot of Muchelney's jurisdiction, and was in Bulstone Hundred. Another part
{3\ hides), also in Bulstone Hundred, was nevertheless in the Abbot of Muchelney's fee. And this is that
part of Drayton parish which remains in Bulstone Hundred to this day. This part, with its presumed
proportions of plough-land, wood, meadow, pasture, and annual value, is distinctly entered in the Table
bearing on the subject {Vol. II., pp. 11, 12). The bulk of Drayton (viz., 15| hides) was in the Hundred
of Pitney (or, perhaps Somerton) at the date of Domesday, and is duly included and described in the
Table (Vol. II., pp. 37, 38), which we are now annotating.
The Domesday measures proper to this estate of Muchelney Abbey seem to be more than 7200 acres
The indication is that the Abbot had rights of wood, and pasture, and probably of chace, over a large area
external to the parish of Drayton.
Peteneia. Petenie. Wahne (Two Pitneys and Pitney-Wearne). — The Exon Domesday is incomplete and
unsatisfactory as to these three entries. The Table is compiled from more accurate particulars, supphed by
the Exchequer Codex.
Wulward White, tenant in capite, of the two Pitney estates from 1866 to 1084, was deceased at the date
(1085-6) of Domesday, and his estates were then in nianu Regis.
Warna (Pitney Warne). — This small estate was perhaps part of some compensation, made shortly before
Domesday to Robert de AuberviUe for his losses elsewhere. Possibly it was one of Wulward White's
newly escheated estates. Its non-geldabUity, T. R. E., and its recently-wasted condition, thus become
more intelligible. — That the land of the once-favoured Saxon should, at his death, be exposed to depredation,
is not more unlikely than that King William should seize it and give it to a Norman.
The Modern Hundred of Pitnbt, besides the elements set forth in the Table (Vol. ii, pp. 37-38), has
been made to include the whole of the home estate of Muchelney Abbey, with its adjuncts of Thorney and
Middleney, — estates which so far from having been in any Domesday Hundred, were constituted an Extra-
Huudredal, non-hidated, and ingeldable Liberty. Of that Libei-ty we shall have more to say in another
chapter.
Here we venture to suggest that Pitney Hundred, at whatever time it was created, was improvised
to consolidate, as far as might be, various estates of Muchelney Abbey, and that this arrangement, though it
took something from the older Hundred of Somerton, was not allowed to interfere with the boundaries
of Bulstone Hundred.
SOMEETON HUNDRED. PITNEY HUNDRED. LIET HUNDRED.
209
ThefollQwing Table, combining and also distinguishing the various measures of each section of a whole
district, will strengthen the oft-repeated axiom, that the Domesday Surveyors of Somerset did not
register the whole territory under the correlative Manorial designations : —
Domesday Manors.
Domesday
Hidage.
II
111
n
m
Modem FariBheB.
S 3
Somerton. VetusDomi-l
nicum Ooronse J
In Somerton. — Kstates, 1
not in the Crown, but >
in the Hundred }
Nine Villa, indudlDgS
15 Manors, or paiis of (
Manors, all in Somer- C
ton Hundred .?
Quasi hides.
60
Hides.
6
52 3 1
144
480
100
74
720
430
9746
(" Someiix)n Parish
< Eingsdou Do
( Langport Do
I" 7 Parishes of Somerton )
i Hundred (as in Table, >
( Vol. ii. p. 38) )
6926
2064
171
15,512
108 3 1 128 15,360 320
1160
17,190
24,672
(Three Villa, including '\
4 Man OX'S, or parts of f
Manors, in the Hun- f
dxed of Pitiaey, — )
Leas the measures pro- "j
portionate to 3^ hides f
of Drayton, which were C
in BulBtone Hundred )
20
17 1
17
2040
4323
56
2880
9299^1
3
360
720
9
706
1796J
14
1680
3603
47
2174
7504
■ 2 Parishes of Pitney Hun-
' (aa in Table, Vol.
{2 Parish
dred I
ii.p. i
:}
Muchelney ibbey (a )
Liberty) f
Quasi hides.
4
4
480
12
26
100 617
( Muchelney Parish, — in 1
\ Pitney Hundred /
1666
Three Totals combined . .
130 3 1
151i
18,180
3941
482
3640
26,093
Thirteen Parishes
29 542
BOTES ON THE TABLE (VOL. H., PP. 39, 40) OF THE PE-ffi-DOMESDAT HUNDRED OF LIET, alias LIBGET, alias COCHEA.
This, like Brompton, North Curry, and other Liberties presently to be reviewed, was one of the Comital
Hundreds of Somerset. An Inquest, taken thereof in a.d. 1084, is lost ; but, that such an Inquest was
taken, is proved by the extant Inquest of Givela (Yeovil) Hundred, which says that a certain item of
Gheld, properly payable to the Collectors of Givela Hundred, had been accounted of in " Liet Hundred."
Moreover, the contemporary Indices of Somerset Hundreds make mention of a Hundred variously written
' Liet,' or ' Lieget,' and the former name is written over, and in substitution of, a Hundred of Cochr' (being,
we presume, a cancellation of some form of the word Coker, which was an alternative name of Liet
Hundred.)
Liet Hundred seems to have contained only two Manors, and those Comital. One was the Manor of
Coker, then combining East and West-Coker. The other was the Manor of Hardington, since known as
Hardington Mandeville. The Domesday status of each Manor is set forth in the Table.
Both Manors were in custody of "WiUiam de Moione, who, as Sheriff of the county, was also Gustos of the
King's Escheats. Cochra, which at the date of Domesday was geldable as 15 hides, and Hardington, which
was geldable as 10 hides, had paid gheld respectively, aa 7 hides and 5 hides in the time of K. Edward.
Similar abridgments of the Franchises of Comital estates have been previously instanced and discussed.
Had the Inquest of Liet Hundred been preserved, it would probably have shown King Wilham as
exempt from the gheld of eleven hides in the said Hundred, and his Villeins, or other Tenants, as paying
or owing the gheld of 14 hides.
P
210 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY.
HUNDREDS AND LIBERTIES ABSENT FROM THE INQUEST OF A.D. 1084.
LIBERTY OF BRUNBTONA — KING'S BROMPTON.
NOTES ON THE TABLE (VOL U, PP. 39-40) OP THE LIBBETY OF BEUNETONA REGIS (kING'S BHOMPTON).
There is no assessment of this Liberty or Hundred among the Gheld Inquests of 1084. Neither is it
assessed or contemplated in the extant Inquest of Wilhton Hundred to which it is now annexed. It was
the progressive annexation of this and several other similar Franeliises to Williton Hundred which caused
the latter to be eventually styled the Hundred of Williton and Free Manors. (Collinson's idea (Vol. iii,
p. 485) on this change of name, seems to us unsatisfactory).
Beunetoka (Brompton Regis). — Gueda, or Guida, the pree-Conquestual possessor of this Manor, was the
Countess Gytha, the widow of Earl Godwin, and the mother of Earl Harold. Among its ancient privileges
disused before Domesday, was the receipt of the Tercius Denarius of Milverton — " De h^o mansione ablatus
est tercius denarius de Milvertona qui per consuetudinem reddebatur in eft, die qua Rex Edwardvs fuit
vivus et mortuus."
Milverton was a quasi Royal Manor and the Caput of a Hundred, and at the time specified (a.d. 1066)
it was part of the dotation of Edith, Queen of King Edward. All Royal Manors may be supposed to have
paid the Tertius denarius arising from the Crown-pleas of their respective jurisdictions to some Comital
Manor. At the date of Domesday, King William was seized both of the Royal and of most of the Comital
Manors of Somerset. It was so in the,se cases of Milverton and of King's Brompton. The seemingly
unimportant transfer of the third-penny which was discontinued in this instance, was discontinued, as we
shaU see, in others. When Domesday (pp. 94-95) declares the Manor of Brunetona to be 10 hides, the very
text of the Survey shows that of these 10 hides, one was held by the local priest, another by Hugh de
Valletort under the Comte of Moretain. The last was an dblatum of Brompton. It lay in Preston,
a distant vUl, situate topographically in the Parish and Manor of Milverton aforesaid.
But Domesday (pp. 252, 474) reveals to us another old member of Brompton, a third hide, also in Preston
and held, in 1086, by Robert fitz Ivo, under the Comte of Moretain. It is possible that this hide also had
been originally one of the 10 hides of Brompton ; but that its abstraction having been at a more remote
period, the Surveyors, reporting the status of the Capital Manor, failed to detect the exact particulars, and
in another part of their Record reported this third hide in such a way as to lead to the inference that the
Capital Manor had been primarily one of eleven rather than of ten hides. And this mistake, if such it was,
becomes more supposable from the circumstance that they reported Earl Harold to have been the ancient
Lord of this member of Brompton ; whereas if a member of Brompton, it cannot have passed to Harold's
hands from the hands of his mother, Gytha, for she sur^^ved him.
The Manor of Brompton was, perhaps, at the eai-ly period of Earl Godwin's possession, styled ' Brompton
Comitis,' to distinguish it from that other Brompton which was afterwards known as 'Brompton
Vicecomitis,' and is now called Brompton Ralph.
' Brompton Comitis ' of course became ' Brompton Regis ' when it escheated from the Comital famUy of
Godwin to King William.
Beompton Regis contained, at the date of Domesday, some 15,903 acres of the exacter measures of that
Record — viz., 7200 acres (corresponding to 60 plough-gangs) of arable land ; 4320 acres of wood ; 63 acres
of meadow, and 4320 acres of pasture.
The area of Robert fitz Ivo's estate, — whether exceptional to, or included in the said computation, we care
not to decide, — was 499 acres.
Against the above manorial area of 15,903 acres, we have for Brompton Regis a parochial area of only
8810 acres.
The excess of the Manor, with its appendages, over the Parish without any appendages, was thus 7093
acres.
Most part of this excess lay probably in the forests and pastures of Milverton Hundred. The rest
contributed to that far greater excess which we have already shewn to have obtained in the North
Western Hundreds of Somerset in respect of Domesday technicalities when compared with ascertainable
realities.
LIBERTIES OF CLEEVE AND CREECH. — HUNDRED OF NORTH-CURRY. 211
NOTES ON THE TABLE (vOL. 11. pp. 39, 40) OF THE LIBERTY OP OLITA (OLD CLEEVE).
This was one of the Oomital Manors which, at the date of Domesday, were an Escheat in King William's
hands, together with the Earldom of Wessex, which included Somerset.
Before the Conquest, and while Harold was yet Earl, this Manor wa.s entitled to the Tercim Dena/rius of
Crown Pleas in the several Royal Manors and jurisdictions of Carhampton, Cannington, WiUiton, and
North Petherton. " Huic Mansion! jaouit Tercius Denarius," &c. The use of the word jacuit imphes a
reference to the past only ; and the Domesday value of the money (£23 of White money, or about
£24 38. of ordinary currency) is an independent proof that these Tercii Denarii were no longer exacted.
William de Moioue, then Sheriff of Somerset, had custody of the Manor on behalf of the Crown. " Reddit
xxiij libras de albo argenta et quando Willelmus de Moione recepit earn, reddebat tantundem."
The Manor of Old Cleeve was not the subject of any extant Inquest of a.d. 1084, neither was it then
included in that "Hundred of WilUton to which it has since been annexed.^
The hidage and Domesday measures of the Manor of Old Cleeve, as well as its modern acreage as a
parish, are included in the general oaloulfftiou as to the Hundreds, Manors, and Parishes of North-western
Somerset {vide supra pp. 130, 131).
NOTES ON THE TABLE (vOL. 11., PP. 37, 38) OF CKIOB (OREECH ST. MIOHJ«l).
Creech St. Michael was, at the date of Domesday, the Caput of Andersfield Hundred, but it was not,
therefore, a part of the said Hundred. Some Capita of Somerset Hundreds were interned in their respective
Hundreds ; some, not being so interned, were distinct Liberties.
Creech St. Michael was one of those Comital Manors of Somerset which came at the Conquest into the
King's hand by escheat of the House of Earl Godwin, whose daughter, Gunnilda, had been its latest
Soon after Domesday, Creech St. Michael was given to the Comte of Moretain. Hence the erroneous
identification (CoUinson, i., p. 75) of the same Comte's Domesday Manor of ' Cruche ' with part of Creech
St. Michael. ' Cruche ', held under the Comte by Turstin in 1086, was probably Cricket St. Thomas in
South Petherton Hundred.
Of Gunnilda, daughter of Earl Godwin, we have already discoursed {supra, p. 81) ; also of the custody
of the King's Escheats, and of the revenues derived therefrom at the date of Domesday {supra p. 84).
Creech St. Michael and its manorial territory have also been surveyed in combination with its subject
Hundred of Andersfield {supra p. 100). But the Inquest of Andersfield Hundred, duly taken in a.d. 1084,
certainly excludes Creech St. Michael. Whether any distinct Inquest of the Manor was taken or foregone
may be a question. None such is extant.
NOTES ON THE TABLE (VOL. U,, PP. 39, 40) OF NORTH-CnHRY HUNDRED AND MANOR.
North-Curry, at the date of Domesday, was an Escheat as part of Harold's Earldom. Whether the
Hundred involved the Manor, or the Manor involved the Hundred, is a question of mere words. If, in
A.D. 1084, any Inquest was taken of either, or both, none such is extant.
Domesday gives the details of the Manor and Church of Nort-Chori as epitomized in the Table. The
Manor was held by William de Moione, then sheriff, and held on behaK of the Crown.
The Domesday Manor must be understood as involving Stoke Gregory (3790 parochial acres), and West
Hatch (1681 acres). (See CoUinson, ii 180.)
The modem Hundred of North-Curry aptly represents the old Liberty in that it contains all these. It
further contains the Manors of Thurlbear and Thorn-Falcon, which, in a.d. 1084 were independent Manors
or Franchises, and were duly assessed in two several Inquests of that date. {Vide supra, pp. 172, 173.)
The 20 hides of North-Curry seem to co-ordinate with the following Domesday measures, viz., arable-
land, 4800 acres ; wood-land, 62 acres ; meadow, 78 acres ; pasture, 2885 acres ; vineyards, 7 acres ; — in all
7,832 acres. The acreage of the corresponding parishes appears to be 11,027 acres, viz., North-Curry,
5556 acres; Stoke Gregory, 3790 acres ; and West Hatch, 1681 acres.
1 By this, and other like annexationfl, the Hxmdred of Williton became the Hundred of Williton-and- Free-Manors.
P 2
212 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY.
HUNDREDS AND LIBERTIES ABSENT FROM THE INQUEST OF 1084.
SOUTH-BRENT HUNDRED. — MARTOCK HUNDRED.
NOTES ON THE TABLE (VOL. H., PP. 39-iO) 0¥ SUDBEBNT HUNDKED.
There is no Gheld- Inquest of a.d. 1084 extant for this Hundred. Its name, " Sudbrent Hundred," is
borrowed from one of the old Indices, apparently contemporary with that Record. The Hundred seems to
have consisted of three manors, one of which was, at that date, in the Crown, by escheat of Godwin, son of
Earl Harold, another belonged to Glastonbury Abbey, a third to the Bishop of Coutances.
The King's escheated manor, consisting of Langford, Burrington, and Berrow, was given to Glastonbury
Abbey by WiUiam Rufus, the grant being nominally of Burrington and Berrow ; but Langford, thus
ignored in terms, had unquestionably stood as the Caput of all three estates at the date, and on the
pages of Domesday. The reason of this various description of a complex manor was of an ecclesiastical
character ; for, though Langford was the Manorial Caput, it was, t parochially , only a hamlet of Burrington.
At Burrington, probably, was the mother Church not only of Langford and Berrow, but also of Eowberrow.
The addition of Rowberrow (as in the Table) to the contents of Sudbrent Hundred is largely presumptive.
Like Berrow, Rowberrow has no Domesday mention. Being perhaps unoccupied and unfounded at the
date of Domesday, its territory may have been an annex of the Royal Manor of Langford, or may have been
included in the Bishop of Coutances's estate, called " Attigetta."
Rowberrow passed eventually to the Abbey of St. Augustine at Bristol, at what date or by whose, gift
we do not enquire. Such grants usually obliterated all trace of previous Hundredal affinities. The annexa-
tion of Rowberrow, after the Dissolution, to Winterstoke Hundred, was a mere arbitrament of the moment,
suggested by no precedent, — the result rather of that same ignorance of precedents which now besets
ourselves.
Sudbrent Hundred, as defined in the Table, embodied 264 hides. The exacter measures of the same
territory, as supplied by Domesday, amount to 6119 acres, viz., arable land, 4920 acres ; wood-land, 56 acres ;
meadow, 43 acres ; and pasture, 100 acres.
The existing parishes, which seem to represent the cognate territory, measure, collectively, 13,558 acres.
So we have (13,568 - 6119 = ) 8439 acres, to represent those moors and marshes of the district which the
Domesday Surveyors altogether ignored.
NOTES ON the TABLE (vOL. H. PP. 39-40) OP MARTOCK MANOR AND HUNDRED.
Martook was one of Queen Edith's Dower-estates. No Gheld-Inquest is preserved, certifying its assess-
ment in A.D. 1084, but it is registered in coeval Indices as one of the Hundreds of Somerset. (See Vol. ii.,
p. 9).
Domesday, valuing the manor as annually worth £70 nwnero, adds " et centum soHdos plus, si Walcehnus
Episcopus fuerit testatus." As we have said before, the Bishop of Winchester's concern in the question
was probably ofiicial other than personal.
Since King William's seizin of Martock (a.d. 1074), two estates, of 2 hides each, had been added to the
manor. Probably they were both in process of abstraction from Givela (TeovO) Hundred, at the time of
the Inquest of a.d. 1084. One of them, written " Achelai," had been given to Alured de Hispania in the
first instance, but was afterwards (1074-1084) taken from him. " Achelai " is at this day represented by
Hurst, a member, both manorial and parochial, of Martock.
The other additum to Martock has no Domesday name. It has been spoken of in our Notes on Givela
Hundred (supra, p. 167).
Martock, the Royal Manor, was given, after Domesday, to Comte Eustace of Boulogne. It then involved
Coat, Bower-Henton, Hurst (aforesaid), Newton, part of Stapletou, Witcomb, and Ash (see CoUinson, iii, 4).
In identifying Ash (afterwards called Ash-BuUeyn from the Comte of Boulogne's possession thereof) with
Aisse, a Manor of the Comte of Moretain, the Somerset Historian contradicts himseU (see CoUinson iii. 6).
As will be seen by the Table (Vol. ii, pp. 39-40), two estates had been taken from the King's Manor of
Martock before Domesday, and given in fee to subjects. They had been taken from the manor we under-
stand ; they still remained in the Hundred. One of them is called —
HUNDRED OP GLASTONBURY TWELVE-HIDES. 213
CONTONA. — We cannot find any Compton near to Martock ; but Domesday, making it an ahlatum of
Martock, does not absolutely conclude anything about the situation of this Compton. What Domesday
says or implies is, that Contona no longer contributed anything to the King's Ferm of Martock, having been
given to Ansger Coous. It is just supposable that Contona, having become the site of a chapel may have,
lost its Domesday name and been called Stapleton. If so, then a supposed part of Stapleton, not passing to
Comte Eustace, may have been the estate of Ansger Cocus. Now Ansger Coous vpas a King's Serjeant, and
half of Stapleton is found to have been afterwards held in Serjeantry of the Crown (ColUnson, iii. 7). There
is a further possibility that Contomi, wherever it was, was also the site of an independent manor of Comte
Eustace, written in Domesday as Contitona. However, such a supposition, if adopted, would not necessarily
place Comte Eustace's Manor in Martock Hundred. We prefer to class it (as will appear in the sequel),
among the " non-identified Manors of the Somerset Domesday.
Second Ablatum of Maetock. — It is almost a guess that this ablatum of I4 hides from Martock, is
represented in Longload. The acreage which has in latter times been assigned to Longload, as an ecclesias-
tical district, does not affect the question. Such an acreage (1390 acres) is far too large to represent the
IJ hides of " Aluric Parvus " of Hampshire. ^
All that is suggested or intended by the Table (Vol. ii, pp., 39-40) is, that the three Domesday estates
which we have arranged under Martock Hundred are wholly represented in more or less of those 10,566
acres which constitute the three ecclesiastical districts of Martock, Ash, and Longload.
Maetock Hundred.— In parallelism with the 40J hides which our Table bespeaks for the praj-Domesday
Hundred, Domesday registers exact measures amounting to 6770 acres, viz., arable land (enough to
employ 42 teams, that is) 5040 acres ; wood-land, 240 acres ; meadow, 50 acres ; and pasture, 1440 acres.
NOTES ON THE TABLE (vOL. II., PP. 41-42) OF THE MANOR, LIBERTY, AND HUNDRED OF GLASTONBURY
TWELVE-HIDES.
The Table above referred to is constructed so as to embody all possible particulars — both those which
Domesday reveals and those which it only suggests — touching this extraordinary Franchise. Whatever is
curious or abnormal in the Domesday text, as quoted in the Table, has been already examined on former
pages. It remains to observe of —
Nyland (alias Andresey), Batoombe, and Green Oar, that we account them to have been outlying
members of Glastonbury itself, and that such is the ratio of their non-appearance in Domesday. Their
subsequent extra-parochial status is in favour of the same presumption.
The Hundred op Glastonbdry-Twelve-Hides. — It was Glastonbury alone which constituted the
traditional ' Twelve Hides ' wherefrom the Hundred took half its name. The material Hundred, at the
date of Domesday, comprised 15| hides, none of which seem to have been geldable.
Correlatively with these 15-| hides Domesday gives exacter measures, amounting to 4439 statute acres,
viz., arable-land, 3840 acres ; wood-land, 327 acres ; meadow, 68 acres ; pasture, 200 acres ; and vineyards
(say) 4 acres.
To match with these 4439 acres of Domesday registration, we have an area of 20,016 statute acres
ascertained by modem parochial measurement.
So then (20,016 - 4439=) 15,577 acres may stand as the proximate measure of wide-spread marshes
and moor-lands, of many a barren upland, to none of which did the Domesday Surveyoi'S devote a line or a
thought.
The list of Somerset Moors, given on a former page (supra p. 39), and our frequent mention of the hill-
ranges of Polden and Mendip, will supply ample illustration of the circumstance that Glastonbury, its
Hundred and its adjuncts, counted, in Domesday, as less than one-third of a now-ascertained superficies.
1 This Aluric appears twice, if not oftener, among King William's Tbanes, holding lands in Hsmpshiie, In cue instance,
Domesday writes his name expressly ae " Aluric Petit," in another as "Aluric Pai-vus."
214 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — NON-IDENTIEIED MANORS.
NOTES ON THE TABLE (vOL. II., PP. 41-42) OF THE NON-IDBNTIPIED MANORS OP THE SOMEEBET DOMESDAY.
It seems better to devote a distinct Table and a separate section of remark to that residue of subjects to
■which, while we ourselves regard them with extreme doubt, we would wish to draw the attention of future
enquirers. —
Domesday tells of four Somerset estates, which were, undoubtedly, intra-hundredal ; but to which
Hundred or Hundreds of those already reviewed, these estates belonged, there is great uncertainty.
What else is known about these estates we proceed to state. — ■
CoNTiTONA, cdias CoNTiTONE. — Last of Comte Eustace's Somerset Manors, and apparently as a post-
scriptive entry, Domesday gives the following (we transcribe from the Exon Codex) : —
" Comes habet unam mansionem quae vooatur Contitona quam tenuit AVlnodus die qua Rex Edwardus
fuit vivus et mortuus et reddidit Gildum pro v hidis. Has possunt arare v Carrucae. Modo tenet banc
Mathildis de Comite Eustachio. De his habet Mathildis iii hidas in dominio et ii carrucas et ViUani aliam
ten-am et iii carruca-s. Ibi habet Mathildis v vUlanos et x bordarios et iiii servos et ii vaccas et cxl oves et
i Mohnum (qui reddit per annum v soKdos, et iui denarios) et v agros prati et iiii quadragia pascure m
longitudine et ii (quadragia) in latitudiue ; et reddit (mansio) per annum centum solidos et quando Comes
Mansionem reoepit valebat iiij hbras." (Exon Domesday, p. 263.)
CoUinson, in his Domesday Index, identifies Contitone with ' Comptou ' — a very safe assumption ; but
when, in his test (Vol. ii., 121) Colliuson converts Comte Eustace's Manor of Contitone into the Manor
which is now called Compton-Dando, we resign such guidance. The Domesday antecedent of Compton-
Daudo was unquestionably the Bishop of Coutanoes' Manor of Comtuna.
One of the tythings of the present parish of Pilton is called the tything of " East and West Compton."
But this and other tythings of Pilton parish were apparently involved in Pilton itself at the date of
Domesday. Pilton was a Manor of the Abbot of Glastonbury. It had several members ; but they were all
more distant from the Capital Manor than were the aforesaid tythings. So the tythings, being suppressed
in Domesday, the members of Pilton are declared, and, of course, Compton (East and West) is not among
them. Neither have we seen any later mention of " East and West Compton " suggestive that it was at any
time manorially distinct from, or a manorial ofi'-shoot of Pilton. Always inJierent, indistinctivdy inherent,
seems to have been the manorial relation of East and West Compton to Pilton.
Again, to suppose Comte Eustace's Manor of Contitone to have been identical with East and West
Compton, would be to suppose the former to have been in Winterstoke Hundred ; but the priE-Domesday
Hundred of Winterstoke (see above, p. 206) will bear no such conceptional addition as a manor of five hides.
IT A more plausible, but far from conclusive theory as to the whereabout of Comte Eustace's Manor
arises in this way following : —
The Exon Domesday (pp. 105, 480) speaks of a locahty called Ctmtona, or Cumiona. It was an estate of
IJ hides. In King Edward's time it had been an appurtenance of Queen Edith's Manor of Martock. Now
(1086) it was an ablatum from Martock. Ansger Cocus held it of the King, probably by serjeautry.
No such ancient appendage of Martock is now traceable ; — none, at least, now bearing such a name as
Compton.
Comte Eustace's estate may have been in the same quarter. If so, it possibly remains at this day in the
parish and Hundred of Martock, though under some other name than Compton. There are no less than
seven places in Martock parish, some two or more of which may possibly represent some two Domesday
Comptons. The seven are Ash, Longload, Milton, Stapleton, Witcombe, Coat, and Bower-Heuton. An
eighth, viz.. Hurst, we know to represent an estate which was called in Domesday Achileia.
Again, it is absolutely certain that Comte Eustace's Manor of Contitone was in some Hundred or other,
and it is all but clear that it was in no Hundred surveyed by the extant Inquests of 1084. Now the
Inquest of Martock Hundred is one of the lost Inquests. Lastly, it came to pass that, soon after
Domesday, the Manor of Martock itself was given by the Crown to Comte Eustace. If Compton, his
previous estate, were Compton-juxta-Martock, we see at once the ratio and appropriateness of the later
grant ; but we prove no identity. *
IT In such cases as the above, the difficulty always arises in the want of positive evidence. Negative
evidence becomes so much the more valuable. There is a place in the parish of South Petherton, now
coMTE Eustace's compton. — waltee de dodai's compton. 215
called Compton Durville. This was a Domesday Manor no doubt, but it was not Comte Eustace's Manor.
ColHnsou does not identify it with any Domesday type. The sequence of Domesday tells us that the
antecedent of Compton Durvill was Comtuna, a manor held, in 1086, by Malger de Cartrai, in the Fief of
Robert Comte of Moretaip.
IT Compton, part of Comptou-Dundon, was held by Roger de Coroelle at Domesday — ^held under
Glastonbury Abbey (see Table, Vol. ii., pp. 29-30). It cannot have been Comte Eustace's Compton.
IT Compton, in Midsomer Norton, is a viU noticed by Colhnson (ii. 151). Surely, like Midsomer
Norton itself, this Compton was a mere adjunct of the King's Manor of Chewton.
IT Compton Paunceford was Turstin fitz Rolf's at the date of Domesday (see Table, vol. ii., pp. 15-16,
and CoUinson, ii., 76).
IT Compton Martin was Serlo de Burci's at the same date (see Table, Vol. ii., pp. 21-22, and CoUinson,
ii., p. 131).
IT Chil-Compton, called in Domesday ' Contona,' was a Manor of the Bishop of Salisbury (see Table,
Vol. ii pp. 21, 22). CoUinson has appropriated the Domesday notice of Compton (Dando) to the Bishop of
Salisbui-y's Manor of ' Contona.' Accordingly, CoUinson failed to find the true Domesday antecedent
of ChUcompton. AU we ^vish to show here is, that Chilcompton was not Comte Eustace's Manor of
Contitona.
H Though we may not say that we have, either positively or negatively, identified Comte Eustace's
Manor of Compton, we may be permitted to speculate on its Domesday peculiarities. In two Somerset
Manors the Comte's antecessor had been Lewinus — possibly Earl Leofwine, son of Godwin. The Comte's
antecessor at Contitone had been Wlnod — possibly Wulfnoth, another son of Earl Godwin (confer
Freeman iv. 75 2).
Mathildis, Comte Eustace's tenant at Contitone, provokes curiosity. Was she his sister, or other
kinswoman ? It was the name which he gave to his daughter, bom long after Domesday, to Mathildis,
the eventual heiress of Boulogne, the Queen of Stephen of Blois.
To conclude with the Domesday complexion of Contitone. It was clearly in the richer part of Somerset.
Its hidage — each hide correlative with 137 Domesday acres — its kine, though there were but two of them,
teU the same story.
There is yet another Manor, a double Manor, oaUed Comtuna, or Contune, in Domesday, concerning
whose doubtful identity we next proceed to speak : —
Comtuna, aZias Contune. — After Walter de Douai's Manor of Brien (Brean in Bempstone Hundred), and
before his Manor of Harpetreu (West Harptree, in Chewton Hundred) the Exon Domesday surveys his
Manor of Compton. " Walterus habet unam mansionem qua; vocatur Comtuna quam tenuit Elwaorer et
reddidit geldum pro iiii hidis. Has possunt arare iii carrucae. Hanc tenet Radulfus de Waltero et habet
iii hidas et dimidiam et dimidiam virgam et ii carrucas et habet unum VUlanum qui habet virgam et
dimidiam et dimidiam carrucam : et habet ibi Eadulfus iiii Bordarios et vii Cotarios et ii animalia et ii
porcos et cxx oves et Ixx capras et unum molendinum qui reddit vi denaiios et iii quadragia nemoris in
longitudine et ii (quadragia) in latitudine et xii agros prati et x quadragia pasouEO in longitudine et ii
(quadragia) in latitudine ; et valet per annum 50 soUdos, et tantum quando reoepit."
" Huic Mansioni addita est una mansio quae vocatur Comtuna quam tenuit Ailricus pariter die qui Rex
Edwardus fuit vivus et mortuus et reddidit gildum pro unft hida. Hanc potest arare, una carruca. Hanc
tenet Radulfus de Waltero et habet iii virgas uno fertino minus ; et ViUani habent unam virgam et unum,
fertinum et dimidiam carrucam. Ibi habet Radulfus unum ViUanum et ii Bordarios et iiii agros nemusouli
et ii agros prati et iiii agros pascuse ; et valet per annum x solidos et tantundum quando recepit." (Exon
Domesday, p. 833).
In the Schedule of Terrse Occupatse is the entry usual to such compound manors as the above.
" Walsoinus Duaco {do) habet unam mansionem quEe vocatur Cumtona, quam tenuit Euerwacre. Huic
addita est aha mansio quae vocatur Cumtona quam tenuit Ailricus paiiter die qua Rex Edwardus fuit
vivus et mortuus, et reddidit gildum pro Tint hid.1. Hanc tenet Radulfus de Waltero (sic) ; et valet per
annum x solidos et quando Walterus accepit valebat tantundum (Exon Domesday, p. 486).
Here, again, we have a Compton of five hides. CoUinson (iii, 582) identifies it with Compton-Bishop ;
and indeed the sequence of Domesday does not controvert such a preposition. However, this wiU be
216 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — NON-IDENTIPIED MANORS.
adding five hides to Winterstoke Hundred, which wiU not bear the addition. Moreover, a communication
from a learned Somerset Antiquary clearly proves to us that Compton Bishop had no distinct mention m
Domesday ; for that, both before and after Domesday, it was buried in Bishop Giso's great Manor Banwell.
The alternative supposition of our Somerset commentator is, that Douai's Compton may be represented
by Compton Martin, or by Ubley. Certainly, both Compton Martin and Ubley were in Chewton Hundred,
and so either of them, followed by Douai's Manor of West Harptree, would fall into the best of Domesdaj
sequences. Moreover,- Compton Martin, under its Domesday name of Comtona, and as being a Manor of
five hides, and as having been held T. R. E. by Euroaoo, and as held in 1086 by Serlo.de Burci, looks
strikingly like a moiety of some vast Compton, the, other moiety of which was Walter de Douai's. But
this vision, however symmetrical, is delusive. The Domesday representative of Ubley was Tunnbdi, and
it had no association whatever with any Compton ; and Compton Martin wiU not suffice to represent more
than Serlo de Burci's Compton, combined with Serlo de Burci's Manor of Morthona, another five hides
now represented by Moreton in Corapton-Martin parish.
In other points, save equal hidage and identical tenure T. R. E , De Burci's Compton, and De Douai's
Compton want features of analogy. De Burci's Manor was worth £5 153. per annum at the date of
Domesday ; De Douai's was worth only £3. De Burci's Manor had fluctuated in value since his seizin ;
De Douai's was stationary in that respect. De Burci's Estate had seven teams at work thereon ; De
Douai's had but three. De Burci's five hides included 1850 acres of Domesday measurement, whereof 600
were arable, and 990 were wood-land ; De Douai's "five hides included but 762 acres of Domesday
measurement, whereof 480 were arable, and 60 were wood-land. In short, Walter de Douai's Manor of
Compton was neither identical nor conterminous with Serlo de Bvirci's Compton ; it was in a much poorer
district than Chewton Hundred.
IT It will only be adding further negatives as to the whereabout of Walter de Douai's Compton to say
that it was not in the same region as Comte Eustace's Manor, nor yet is there any probability that it was
in any Hundred assessed by the extant Inquests of a.d. 1084.
Here we stop. We ourselves have no idea where it was.
EsLiDA, alias Eslide. — At the end of the Schedule of Roger Arundel's estates, and following the survey of
his Manor of Penna (now Pen-Selwood, in Norton Ferris Hundred, formerly in Braton Hundred), the Exon
Domesday gives the following : —
" Rogerus habet unam mansionem quae vocatur Eslida quam tenuerunt ii Tanni Godwinus et Siricus
pariter die qua Rex Edwardus fuit vivus et mortuus et reddidit gildum pro ii hidis (et unus Tannus habuit
unam hidam et aUus aliam). Has possunt arare ii oarrucse. Hanc (mansionem), tenet Ascelinus de Rogero.
Inde habet AsceUnus i hidam et iii virgas, et dimidiam, et ii carrucas in dominio et Villani dimidiam virgam.
Ibi habet Ascelinus, i Bordarium, iiii servos et iiii porcos et liij oves et ii agros nemasouli et iiij agros patri.
Et valet per annum xl solidos et quaudo ipse reoepit valebat tantundem."
CoUinaon in his Domesday Index (Vol. i, p. 41), identified " Eslide " with Gurney-Slade ; but in his text
(Vol. iii, p. 412) he refrained from repeating the idea, shewing, if anything, that Gumey-Slade was a part of
Binegar, and so, from old time, a possession of the Church of Wells, and in the Hundred of Wells-Forum.
It appears, however, that Gurney Slade was a part of Binegar only parochially, and not even that
altogether, for a part of Gurney Slade is in the parish of Ashwiok. Now Ashvrick was manorially a posses-
sion of Bath Abbey, and it was in the Kilmersdon division of Old Frome Hundred. Again, it appears that
the parochial boundaries of Ashvrick were improvised at a period much later than Domesday, at which date
Ashwiok was merely a part of the more ancient parish of Kilmersdon.
Notwithstanding all these complicities the undoubted fact remains that Gurney-Slade has been of old
parochially divided ; and the presumption is that, where a distinct locality hke Gurney-Slade has so been
divided parochially, it was itself originally a manorial integer.
We have no evidence to show that Gurney-Slade was, as a manor, ever in the possession of the See of
Wells or the Abbey of Bath. It is more supposable that, if an independent manor, it was in Kilmers-
don Hundred than in Wells Hundred.
The question still remains as to " Eslida " being represented by Gurney Slade. Roger Arundel had other
manors in Old Frome Hundred, viz., Beckington, Marston (Biggott, and Berkley. Domesday ranges them
in sequence, but his manor of Penna (in Bruton Hundred) separates the group from Eslida,
EOGBR AKUNDELS ' ESLIDB. — ALUEIC S ' SCEPEWORDE. 217
However, if Roger Arundel's teoant at Eslida, viz., Ascelinus, were the same with Ascelinus who held so
largely under the Bishop of Coutancea, and if Ascelinus, the Coutanees tenant, was progenitor of a house
of Gumay (as Collinson says that he was), then, indeed, it was better than a guess for Collinson to suggest
that the Eslida of Domesday passed into Gumay Slade. But about the descent of De Gurnay from
Ascelinus we hesitate. The Domesday ancestor of Gurnay was named ' Nigel.'
Another guess is that Eslida may possibly be represented by Long- Load, one of those localities in Martock
of which we have made recent mention. This guess is backed by the merely negative circumstance that
Eslida, not appearing to have been in any Hundred of which there is an extant Inquest of 1084, may have
been in Martock Hundred, of which the Inquest is lost.
Neither in Gurnay-Slade nor in Long-Load can we trace any seigneury of Roger Arundel's descendants,
nor yet any tenancy of any supposable representative of Ascelinus in the Barony of Roger Arundel's heirs.
We dismiss the case of Eslida and its present representation as one wanting adequate evidence.
Shepbwohda, oZios Sobpewordb. — If the sequence of Domesday suggests anything as to the situation of
an estate of an Anglo-Thane who had but two, then this estate (it may be worth while to say) is placed
between two estates which were respectively in the Hundreds of Bruton and Frome.
The Exon Domesday surveys it as follows : —
Aluric habet unam mansionem quEe (' vocatur' omitted) Shepbwurda, quam tenuit Britricus (he was Aluric's
father) die qua Rex Edwardus fuit vivus et mortuus, et reddidit gildum pro dimidid hida. Hanc potest
arare dimidia carruca. Hanc tenet Rahirius de Alurico et habet ibi x oves ; et valet (mansio) v solidos
(Exon Domesd., p. 456).
Collinson, in his Domesday Index, translates Scepeworde as Shipway.
We cannot find Shipway, nor did Collinson find it in his detailed history. Scepeworde should rather
resolve itself into ' Shipworth' or ' Skipworth,' than into ' Shipway.'
The Domesday estate has an impoverished but not an irreclaimable aspect.
On the borders of Exmoor Forest there was (see Collinson, iii, p. 58), a place written Schepecumbeheved
(Sheep-comb-head) in the time of Edward I. The name, though it cannot have represented " Scepeworde,"
may have belonged to the same vicinage ; and nothing can be more possible than that a Shepherd's station
such as Rahir's, should have been in Carhampton Hundred.
Aluric Fitz Brictric's other Somerset estate was West Lydford. It was in Bruton Hundred, it was of
considerable extent and proportionate value. In this manor Aluric had his demesnes. He had enfeoffed no
tenant. The contrast with Scepeworde tells us nothing but that the latter was not in Bruton Hundred.
The foue kon-idektified Manors of Somerset contained 124 hides and llj plough-lands. Their
exacter Domesday measurements indicate 1753 statute acres, whereof 1380 acres were arable, 23 acres were
meadow, 66 acres were wood-land, and 284 acres were pasture.
The fact of each hide including, on an average, only 140i acres would, ^er se, suggest that these manors
were in the better parts of the county.
218
CHAPTER V.
THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY.— NON-HIDATED LIBERTIES.
ESTATE OF THE CHURCH OF ST. JOHN, AT FROME.
We now pass from the Hundredal and hidated system of Manors
to that small residue of Somerset estate which, like the Vetus
Dominicum Coronse, was Extra-Hundredal, but which, unlike the
Vetus Dominicum, was measured by the carrucate.
NOTES ON THE TABLE (vOL. H., PP. 41, 42) OP THE ESTATE PERTAINING TO THE CHnRCH OF ST. JOHN AT FEOMB.
The Exchequer Domesday, after reviewing Frome as a Manor of "Ancient Demesne of the Crown," adds
as follows ; —
" De hoc Manerio tenet iEoclesia Sancti Johannis de Froma 8 Carucatas terrse, et similiter tenuit
tempore Regis Edwardi. Reinbald ibi est Presbyter."
The Exon Domesday uses language of similar import in its notice of Frome — viz., " De hdc Mansione
habet .lEcclesia Sancti Johannis de Froma viii Carucatas terrjie, quas tenebat ipsa jEcolesia de Rege
Edwardo in elemosyna, ea die quS. ipse fuit vivus et mortuus. Modo tenet hauc Rainbaldus et tenuit
tempore (Regis) Edwardi."
In their Schedules of ' Tenures in Almoign,' both Domesdays give detailed account of the Church-Fee
of Frome. The Exon Domesday (p. 180) speaks most at length, saying, " Ecclesia Sancti Johannis de
Froma habet viii Carrucatas terrae. Ibi habet Rainbaldus, qui earn tenet, ii carrucas et dimidiam in
dominio et ViUani sui habent vi cai-rucas. Ibi habet Rainbaldus viii Villanos et xii Bordarios et iv Servos
et i Roncinum et iii animalia et xxx porcos et ocxxviii oves et I Molendinum qui reddit per annum v
aolidos, et vi quadragia nemoris in longitudine, et ii (quadragia) in latitudine et xxxv agros prati. Et
reddit per annum vi libras."
This ia one out of two only instances wherein the Somerset Domesday makes use of the word
" Carrucate." The mere use of the word implies non-geldability, a Franchise which equally attached to
the King's Manor of Frome, though in the latter case the said Franchise is implied by other language —
viz. : " Nescitur quot hidse sunt in ed quia nunquam reddidit Gildum."
It is further remarkable that the measures of the King's Manor are not expressed by the term
" Carruoates," but in terms of the Plough-gang. " Terram hujus mansionis possunt arare 50 Carucse,'' says
the Exchequer Record.
The Carrucate, as we have often said, was, on the South-Western circuit, Kttle else than an ungeldable
hide. Like the hide, it was of variable dimensions. Like the hide, its ordinary contents were a single
plough-land with more or less of complemented territory. The Carrucate of Fi-ome Church-fee would seem
to have implied something more than a single plough-land, for eight Carruoates seem to have contained
eight and a-haU plough-lands. The whole estate contained, we should say, about 1175 acres — viz., 1020
acres of arable land, 120 acres of wood-land and 35 acres of meadow. This gives 146| acres to the Carrucate
of Frome Church. And, in the richer districts of Somerset, the Domesday Hide is often found to
co-ordinate with as nan-ow dimensions.
THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — NON-HIDATED LIBERTIES. 219
ABBATIAL LtBEKTY OP MUCHELNEY.
NOTES ON THE TABLE (VOL. U. PP. 41, 42) OP THE DOMESDAY LIBBBTY OP MUCHELNEY, NOW FORMING PAET
OP PITNEY HUNDRED.
MuoHELNBY, Thorlby, and MiDDLENEY, three islands, as Domesday calls them, formed the site and
Abbatial estate of the Monastery of Muchelney. The Exon Domesday, adverting to this strange
combination, uses words somewhat ill-arranged.
" In Abbatia ad Micheleueiam et Mideleneiam (et) Torleiam ; in his tribus insulis sunt iii {sic) carrucatse
de terra quae nunquam reddiderunt gildum. Ibi habet Sanotus Petrus iiii carruoas. De his habet Sanctus
ii carrucas et unum agripennum vinese in dominio et alias ii (carruoas) habent Villani. Ibi habet Sanctus
iii Villanos et xviii Bordarios et iiii servos et ii Piscarias (qua3 reddunt per annum vi miHia anguillarum) et
i Roncinum et vi porcos et xxx capras et xii agros nemoris et xxv agros prati, et centum agros paaouas. Et
valet inter totum per annum Ix solidos et quando Abbas obiit ■^ valebat tantundem (Exon Domesday,
p. 174).
The above entry is not only verbally obscure, but it is placed low down in the Schedule of Muchelney
estates, as though the Exon Rubricator were ignorant that he was describing the Caput of an Abbacy.
The Exchequer Domesday not only places the entry in question in its true position, at the head of the
Muchelney Schedule, but uses language more inteUigible as a whole, and more correct as to the item of
Oarrwcatage : —
Ecclesia Sancti Petri de Micelenye habet iiii oarucatas terrje, quae nunquam geldaverunt, in his insulis
Michelenie, Midelenie et Torleie. Ibi sunt in dominio ii Carucse et una arpent vinese. Ibi iiii servi et iii
Villani et xviii Bordarii cum ii carucis. Ibi ii Piscarise reddentes vi milUa anguillarum et xxv acrse prati et
xii acras silvse et centum acrse pasturse. Valuit et valet iii Ubras.
This estate, or rather these estates, we have tabulated with full particulars (See Vol. ii, pp. 41-42).
At the date of the Gheld-Inquest (a.D. 1084), these estates formed an independent Liberty, a member of
no Hundred whatever. No Inquest thereof can properly be said to be missing or to have been lost, inas-
much as none was ever taken. The annexation of the Liberty of Muchelney with its Domesday members
intact, to Pitney Hundred, took place after the Dissolution.
IT Of the use of the word " Carrucata " in the Somerset Domesday the above is the last of only two
instances. The Carrucate we repeat, the Carrucate of South Western England, was, in intention, an
ingeldable hide. Like the hide it might contain more than one plough-land, for it was an expansive deno-
mination. Like the hide, as in the above instance, the single carrucate was usually co-ordinate with a single
plough-land ; and, like the hide, the carrucate usually involved other elements besides its single plough-
land.
In the present instance each carrucate implies one plough-land (or 120 acres) and about 34J acres of
wood, meadow and pasture-laud ; — in all 154J acres of Domesday measurement. And some such a comple-
ment is in the Somerset Domesday often found to have constituted a Hide.
IT While the Domesday measures of Muchelney, Thomey, and Middleney, combined, only amount to 617
acres, the modem parochial measurement, of Mulchehiey and Thomey only, is 1566 acres. It is another proof
that extensive moorlands and marshes were totally ignored in Domesday mensuration.
Domesday, describing the three estates as " islands," and telling of their Piscaria; and eel-products, gives a
picture of the region which it does not measure.
1 Liward, Abbot of Muchelney in 10i36, or an unrecorded successor of Liward, seems to have died shortly before Domesday.
220 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — APPENDIX.
CHAPTER VI.
APPENDIX OF OBSERVATIONS AND STATISTICS.
After devoting Five Chapters to the work of systematizing the
Domesday Survey of Somerset, we find that an arrear of matter,
both incidental and reflective, has accumulated on our hands,
which, so far as it belongs to no definite place in the aforesaid
Five Chapters, is better reserved for an Appendix, so far as it is
statistical or synoptical, may well have a like destination.
We will deal with such details without attempting a symmetrical
arrangement of heterogeneous subjects. —
OMISSIONS OF THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY.
Omissions have often been charged against the Great Survey in cases where the deficit has subsequently
ajipeared to have been rather in the competency of the critic than in the text of the Record. Domesday
omissions should neither be alleged hghtly nor dogmatically. Nevertheless such laches were possible and,
more than that, actual. We have said something already to justify such an assertion. We trust that, in
enlarging on the subject now, we shall say nothing unnecessarily or presumptuously.
IT The Somerset Manor of Kelston, or Kelweston, was omitted, by Domesday, in error, an error half
revealed to us by the Gheld RoU of a.d. 1084. Nevertheless, we are so sure about the name of the Manor,
about its hidage, and about its existing acreage, so proximately sure about its Domesday acreage, that we
have ventured to include all four points in our Tables and calculations.
11 Two other Manors, Wellow and Kilmersdon, are not specifically named in Domesday. If their hidage is
included in Domesday it is among the 20 hides which were attributed to the Burgh of Bath. The
correlative Domesday acreage of these two Manors, as well as that of the Burgh of Bath, is certainly omitted
in the Sun-ey ; and we have not ventured to speculate upon it or to define it, so far as to include it in any
Table. But the modem acreages of both WeUow and Kilmersdon are included in our Tables, for we could
not distinguish these acreages from the acreages of all those lesser manors which are massed in the parishes
of Wellow and Kilmersdon.
lu this instance, then, that omission of Domesday, which cannot be supplied, is of the areal quantities
which were correlative, at the date of Domesday, with the " 20 hides of Bath," and of the areal quantities
which should have represented the two Manors of Wellow and Kilmersdon, whether included in the said
" 20 Hides " or not.
So far then, those 871,110 acres of exacter Domesday measure, represented in the Table (Vol ii, pp. 5-6)
are not the full and appropriate antecedent of these 1,049,080 acres of modern ascertainment, which are
given in the same Table.
II The names of two Manors, now called Barwick and Chilton-Cantiloe are certainly omitted in Domesday.
Consequently their hidages and Domesday acreages are nowhere specifically entered on the Record.
It is possible that Chilton may, as to its essence, lie buried in some Domesday Maaor of another name : —
we have conjectured Mudford {supra, p. 168). We will say no more on a subject possibly leading to nothing
but further conjecture.
As to Barwick the case is diBferent. The Gheld-Inquest of Givela Hundred gives note of some Manor
1 Collinson aboiU)ds in the non-discovery of identities, and, therewith, in en'oneous BtatementB of Domesday omission.
In om- Doiset Treatise (pp. 113, 114) we presumed a ' Domesday omiasion,' because an estate in Badbury Hundred, alluded
to in the Gheld-Inquest of 1084, could not be found in the Dorset Domesday. This estate proves to have been Gussage
St. Michael. It was omitted in the Dorset Domesday, but it was in Domesday nevertheless. It was surveyed under Earl
Alberic's lands in Wiltshii'e.
Here, by the way, is another phase or symptom strengthetiing our conviction that the Domesday Commissioners who visited
Dorset and Wiltshire were identical.
OMISSIONS OF DOMESDAY. — WHITLEY HUNDRED. 221
which does not reappear in Domesday, and it is probable that this Manor was Barwick. If so, not having
any data for assigning a hidage or a Domesday acreage to Barwick, it is only represented in our Tables by
its modern parochial acreage. Again, as in the ease of Bath Burgh, Wellow and Kilmersdon, the true and
full acreage, ordinarily a part of the Domesday statements, is wanting in our calculations, and mars the
arithmetical integrity of the comparison between the extent of land surveyable in the eleventh century and
the extent substantiated by modern science. Added to this, in the case of Barwick, the hidage of the
eleventh century is wanting, and cannot be supplied by conjecture.
IT There is some probability that a Manor of Portbury Hundred was omitted in Domesday. If so, it
is, perhaps, now typified by one or other of the Tythiugs of Portbury parish (Vide supra, pp. 180, 181).
IT Again, there is another case of possible Domesday omission; — the case of Dodington. The name we
cannot find in Domesday, but the hidage and exacter measures may be incorporated, for aught we know, in
those of some other Domesday Manor. We, not knowing what Manor this may have been, nor in what
Hundred it may have lain, have neglected to enter the parochial acreage (543 acres) of Dodington under
any Domesday Hundred whatever.
IT After all, and putting at the outside the statistical disarrangements created, or supposed to be created,
by, at most, six Domesday omissions, the result of any conjectural supplement to the letter of Domesday
would be almost fractional in the general estimate which we have embodied in, and founded upon, the
Synoptical Table (Vol. ii., pp. 7, 8).
POST-DOMESDAT HUNDRED OF WHITLEY.
This subject, if extraneous, is also curious. — Alone of the Somerset Hundreds, that of Whitley can
certainly and simply be characterized as of post-Domesday formation.
It was clearly improvised with the object of grouping under one Franchise a plui'ality of estates which
owned the Seigneury of the Abbot of Glastonbury. Hence the Abbots of Glastonbury, tiU the Dissolution,
were always Lords of Whitley Hundred.
Whitley Hundred was constituted as follows. — It took, from the dissolved Hundred of Loxley, the
Manors of Chitton-Polden, Catcott, Eddington, Middlezoy, Moor-Unch, Othery, Shapwick, StaweH, Sutton-
MaUett, Weston-Zoyland and Woolavington ; — ^in all 11 manors.
It took from the dissolved Hundred of Ringoldswey the Manors of Ashoott, Butleigh, Compton and
Dundon (both in Compton-Dundon), Greintou, Street, and Walton ; — in all 7 Manors.
It absorbed the previously-independent Liberties or Hundreds of High- Ham and West Monkton.
It took from the old Hundred of Bruton the Manors of Blackford, Holton, and WheathilL It took
Holford from the old Himdred of Taunton, Podemore-Milton from the Old Hundred of Frome, and
Cossington from the old Hundred of Bempstone.
Such arrangements, being jurisdictional and in some sort expedient, were ia defiance of topographical
considerations. Hence the twenty-six Manors which stiU constitute the Hundred of Whitley are, many of
them, detached from any apparent centre. (See Vol. ii., p. 10, for a Tabular representation of the same
particulars.)
THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY, ARRANGED ACCORDING TO FIEFS.
NOTES ON THE TABLE (vOL. II., P. 43) BEINQ A SCHEDULE OP SOMERSET FIEPS.
The object of the said Table is chiefly to show how the gross hidage and quaai-hidage, established by the
Synoptical Table (Vol. ii., pp. 7, 8), was apportioned on the several Fiefs of Somerset, so that the total
hidage and quasi-hidage of the Fiefs correspond to a fraction with the total hidages and quasi-hidages of
Hundreds and Franchises.
The last items in Columns 2 and 4 of the Table, now under notice, require explanation. The ' Addita '
of Manors have been already tabulated under their appropriate Hundreds and Franchises ; but a few
are not correspondently allotted to their respective owners in the Table of Fiefs. For iastance, the
Vetus Dominicum Coronae is represented in the Table thereof (Vol. ii., pp. 1, 2) as constituted of
417 Plough-lands or Quasi-hides. But it contained more — viz., in the shape of ' addita,' some ten hides
which are dispersed in different Tables of hidated Hundreds. And so these ten hides are not in the
222 THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — SCHEDULE OF FIEFS (vOL. II. P. 43).
present Table added to the King's tenure Jun Cm-once, but go to constitute a part of those 30 hides 2J
virgates which are entered in mass at the foot of column 4, simply as not having been combined with any
of the forty-seven Fiefs numbered in the upper part of the said Table.
With regard to columns 6 and 7 of the Table, it should be stated that Domesday seldom gives the
specific population of an ' additum.' Of the above ten hides it only specifies the population of 4J hides.
The said population is 22 males. The annual value of all the ten hides is, however, registered in Domesday,
and amounts to £14 7s.
There were ' addita ' also to certain Comital Manors. Some of these are not reckoned in the previous
entry of the King's tenure Jwe Comitat&s. We put the excluded items at 6 hides 1 virgate 34 fertines,
with a Domesday stated population of 34 males and an annual value of £9 Is. 2d,
In the late Queen Edith's Liberty of Chewton, though not in her manor, was Chewton Church, whose
land (2 virgates) was held by the Abbot of Jumieges. We have reckoned these 2 virgates in our Table of
Chewton Hundred. We must equally reckon them here as constituting a kind of Fief. The population of
the estate was 20 males ; its annual value £2 3s. 4d.
Of the ' Ablata ' of Royal and other Manors it is impossible to say with precision which are tacitly
merged by Domesday in the Fiefs of those who obtained the said ' ablata,' and which are not. There are
cases also where the ' ablatum ' worked no evident or declared diminution in the extent and accessories of
the manor from which it was ' ablated.' ^ Therefore, were we to reckon a decurted manor as still integral,
and were we further to reckon the extent of the ' ablatum ' into this item of miscellaneous Fiefs, we
should be reckoning so much land twice over. In such a case it is hardly well to aim at an exactness which
is not bequeathed to us by Domesday. We prefer to strike a rough balance and to reckon as ' ablata,' not
included in any of the 47 enumerated Fiefs of the Table, just that proportion of territory which, being
added to the Fiefs will make the whole of the Fiefs ooiTespond with the whole of the Land-measures, viz.,
with 3,488t%V hides or quasi-hides ascertained in the Table (Vol ii. p. 7).
This addition will be of 13 hides, 2 virgates, IJ fertines.' The population is only specified in one
' ablatum ' out of many, and is there i males. The annual value of all such ' ablata ' is about £6 17s. lid.
IT So far we have shown, as fully as was practicable, how the same Domesday hidage, already apportioned
on a multitude of districts (by Table, Vol. ii., pp. 7 and 8), may be also apportioned on a multitude of Fiefs
(by Table, Vol. ii., p. 43). It remains to say that there were several small parcels of estate, to which, as
being in some stage of severance, the Somerset Domesday makes but slight allusion. Individually, of these
severances, it is doubtful whether in respect of population and value, they were included in the manors
which were losing them, or in those which were gaining them. That they were included in one or other,
we may be sure. On that account, and because Domesday gives them no distinct population or value, we
cannot introduce them in a Table like that under notice.
Another supplementary matter is in regard to annual values. — In our Table of the Comital Fief (Vol. ii.,
p. 4) we give, at the foot, as items of Comital revenue £268 14s. Id., white money, and £8 15s. ordinary
currency. The first item being converted into terms of the second (by the addition of about 5 per cent.)
resolves itself into £282 2s. 8d. And thus (£282 2s. 8d. + £8 15s. =) £290 l7s. 8d. becomes the repre-
sentative of the said two items of Comital Revenue.
But it will be seen that, in the Table (Vol. ii., p. 43) now under notice, we introduce the annual value of
the Comital Fief as £307 17s. 8d. ; that is, we add £17 to the estimate of the previous Table. This we
proceed to explain. —
There were persons hving in and under the Comital Fief who were in receipt of £17 per annum
more than that which, at the precise date of Domesday, reached the King. These £17, therefore, though
they were part of the gross value of the Comital Fief, and so of the King's estates, were no part of the
King's income at the moment. —
1 An instance of this is the Manor of Knowle (now in the parish of Shepton Mallet), Domesday gives it as IJ hides, held in
capUe of the King by Drogo de Montaoute, as a Franco-Thegn. The Becord then speaks of one liide ' ablated ' from the
original Saxon Manor, and held by Turstin fitz Rolf ; but it does not enter this * ablatum ' in Turstin fitz Rolfs schedule of
estates, neither does it give its population or stock, but only its value, viz., £1 per annum.
This item of one hide is therefore reckoned in our Table among the ' Ablata ' of 13 hides, 2 virgates, 1 J fertines spoken ot
above.
STATISTICS OJP POPULATION. 223
Similarly, as to all the remaining entries in this column. They indicate the annual values of whole Fiefs
or Tenements. In respect of income, they indicate, not merely the annual income of the superior Lords
(named in column 2), but the annual income of each superior Lord and his Free Tenants, combined.
IT The fifth column of the Table (Vol. ii., p. 43) now under notice affects to number the Free-Tenants in
each Fief of Somerset. It is impossible to do this with absolute certainty, for such Tenants as William de
Monceaux or Nigel de Gornai, or Drogo de Montacute, were probably, but not demonstrably, identical with
' Willielmus,' or ' NigeUus,' or ' Drogo,' each mentioned in a, pluraUty of other entries in the same Fief.
In such cases we can only estimate probabilities, and count names accordingly.
In the case of the Free-Tenants of Glastonbury, numbered as 56 in the same column, we have gone
further, and counted tenements rather than tenants. Thus in point of fact we have counted such a tenant
as Roger de CorceUe ten times over. Something of the same kind results in 37 tenants in the Fief of the
Bishop of Wells. —
Altogether, we are free to confess that the total of Free-Tenants numbered in this column exceeds the
number of Free-Tenants actually named in Domesday.
But, on the other hand, a plurality of tenures like Roger de Corcelle's, involved also a plurality of
sub-tenures ; and the names of sub-tenants, though Free, rarely appear in the Somerset Domesday.
We have no other means of approximating to the numbers of the sub-tenants than this of presuming some
plurality of sub-tenures where one immediate tenant was a tenant in pluraUty.
IT The second, fifth, and sixth columns of the Table (Vol ii. p. 43) when combined, show or suggest how
the adult male population of Somerset, deducible or supposable from Domesday, was in number about
13,670.
In other words, — among the tenants in chief, instanced in column 2, the number of permanent residents
was perhaps 60. Of Knights, Free-Tenants, and Sub-Tenants, the number of residents, adumbrated in
column 5, and consisting with Domesday data and Domesday reticences, was about 303. The Burgesses,
Coliberti, and Gabulatores, — the tenants in ViUeinage and all other adults, less than free and annexed to the
land, are enumerated from Domesday data and appear in column 6 to have been about 13,307 in number.
Arithmetically, 60 -|- 303 + 13,307 - 13,670.
But, besides this complement of 13,670, there will have been several classes of adult male population in
every County which were necessarily omitted in Domesday. These classes are suggestively instanced in our
Dorset Volume (page 151, note 3). They were supposed to have amounted to 488 in that County. Let us
put them at about 630 in Somerset.
The total adult male population inhabiting Somerset in A.D. 1086 will thus seem to have been about
(13,670 + 630 =) 14,300. Now if we take the hidage and quasi-hidage of Dorset (2,650 hides) and the
hidage and quasi-hidage of Somerset (3,488 hides) ; and if we have found the relative population of Dorset to
have been 9,000 at the time of Domesday, we might expect to find a relative population in Somerset of
11,846. Instead of that, we find, as above, 14,300 ; and this is an illustration in fuU of what we have often
instanced and suggested in detail, that Somerset, so far as its registered hidage can be taken as an index of
its area, was a more populous County than Dorset.
Again, the existing parochial acreage of what constituted the Dorset of Domesday has been ascertained
(Dorset Volume pp. 144, 145) to be 632,909 acres ; and the existing parochial acreage of what constituted
the Somerset of Domesday has been ascertained (VoU ii. p. 7) to be 1,049,080 acres. So, if we have in
A.D. 1086 a population for Dorset of 9,000, we might expect to find a proportionate population of 14,918
for Somerset. But we find only a population of 1 4,300.
So then Somerset,— settled, occupied, and hidated Somerset, — was in the eleventh century ". more
populous land than Dorset ; but ' Lacustrine Somerset,' or Somerset, reckoned as including its vast areas
of swamp and vrilderness, was on the whole less populous, per square mile, than Dorset.
IT At the Census of 1871 the males of all ages counted in Somerset were 228,027. Supposing that
128,027 of these were infants or youths under age, the remaining 108,000 adult males are more than
sevenfold of the Domesday population ; in other words, the Census of 1871 presents 7^^ adult males to the
unit of the eleventh century. In Dorset the same Census presented 5 adult males to the unit of the
eleventh century. So then, in Somerset, the population has increased in the proportion of 3 : 2 when
compared with its increase in Dorset.
224
THE SOMERSET DOMESDAY. — STATISTICS OF POPULATION.
The annual betenues and values,, from all sources and of all descriptions, instanced in the Somerset
Domesday, amount, according to the 7th column of the Table (Vol. ii., p. 43) of Fiefs, to £4168 Os. 3d.,
but, according to another Table (Vol. ii , p. 7, of Hundreds and Liberties), to £4161 4s. 7d. The reason of
the discrepancy we hardly care to ascertain. It is, perhaps, in some small errors of computation, such as
that in the latter Table, certain blanche ferms have not been expanded into ordinary currency.
We win take the said revenues and values at the higher figure, viz., £4168 Os. 3d per annum.
This gives £1 3s. lOd. as the value proportioned to each Domesday Hide; — 1.1481 penny and decimals
of a penny, as the value proportioned to each acre of Domesday specification ; — and .9630 decimal parts of a
penny as the proportion to each acre of modern ascertainment.
The contrast between these Domesday values and modern rents is probably greater in Somerset than in
Dorset, inasmuch as any one, conversant with the modern statistics of Somerset, will probably put the
existing rent-value of the whole County at a higher average than £1 Is. per acre (See Dorset Volume,
p. 162).
THE PAEM-LABOUEEE OP SOMERSET AT THE TIME OF DOMESDAY.
Co-ordinating with the single agricultural labourer of every district there was a certain quantity of land
— of mixed land ; — of the arable portions of such mixed land, and of such parts of the said arable land as
were actually under tillage. These co-ordinates varied to an extent greater, perhaps, in Somerset than in
any other county of the Survey.
We select certain Fiefs and districts, well calculated to show the degrees and the extremes of such
variation.
FIEF, HUNDKED, OR MANOR IN WHICH THE ACREAGE CO-ORDINATING WITH A SINGLE AGBICULTURAL
LABOURER, IS PROPOSED TO BE SHOWN.
All estates of the Vetus Dominicum Corona; (twelve in number)
Hundred of Cutcomb and Minehead
Hundred of WiUiton
Hundred of Carhampton
Hundred of Congresbury
Episcopal Hundred
Manors of the Earldom
4 Manors of the late Queen Edith
Hundred of Chew
Hundred of Chewton
Manor of Thome (now Thorn Falcon)
Hundred of Loxley (now part of Whitley Hundred)
Hundred of Ringoldsway (now part of Whitley Hundred)
Hundred of Whitstone
Hundred of Huntspill
Manor of West Monkton
Manor of Thurlbear
Hundred of Crewkeme
Manor of Ham
Acres per Labourer.
Arable.
143
66
60
142
29
25
104
62
39
102
53i
35
89
56
52
85
63
52
77*
50
34
75*
58
47
69i
444
36
63
44
40
61
60
40
59i
56
40i
58
62
47
52i
41
3U
49
41
41
46i
43
36J
43
4H
41*
43
37
30
37
36
30
With regard to the application of manual labour to the soil the extreme rates per acre, whether high or
low, shown in the above Table to have obtained at the sera of Domesday, seem practically to obtain now.
The mesne rates of the same two periods are, perhaps, nearly identical. If popvilation has increased in the
interval of eight centuries, so have the breadths of cultivation. If more science and more capital have been
brought to bear on agriculture, this has not been so much by increasing the relative numbers of agrarian
operatives as by the use of maohinery.
DOMESDAY APPORTIONMENT OP PIEFS. 225
DOMESDAY DISTEIBUTION OF SOMERSET LANDS.
The Table (Vol. ii., p. 43) may be used to establish yet further statistical results. Supposing the whole
Domesday territory of Somerset (being upwards of 3480 hides or quasi-hides) were divided into 348 parts.
Then, there will have belonged —
To the King, in demesne, or by lapse, or escheat more than 75 such parts;
and so more than one-fifth of the whole County.
To the Abbot of Glastonbury more than 44J suchparts;
or nearly one-eighth of the whole county.
To Geoffi-ey de Moubrai, Bishop of Coutances more than 36 J suchparts;
or more than one-tenth of the county.
To Robert, Comte of Moretain nearly 34J suchparts;
or nearly one-tenth of the whole County.
To the Bishop of Wells more than 28 suchparts.
To the Bishop and Monks of Winchester nearly 12| suchparts.
To the Abbeys of Bath, Muohelney, and Athelney, and to other Religious
Bodies and Personages nearly 22 suchparts.
To Walter de Dowai nearly 10| suchparts.
To Roger de CorceUe nearly 10^ suchparts.
To WiUiam de Moione, Sheriff of Somerset nearly 8 such parts.
To Roger Arundel nearly 7i suchparts.
To William de Owe nearly 5f suchparts.
To Turstin Fitz Rolf nearly 5^ suchparts.
To Serlo de Burci nearly 5 i such parts.
To Alured de Hispania nearly 4 suchparts.
To Odo, Bishop ef Baieux ; Osmund, Bishop of Salisbury ; Eustace, Comte of
Boulogne ; Ida, Comtesse of Boulogne ; Hugh, Earl of Chester ; Baldwin de
Exeter ; Edward de Salisbury ; Robert Fitz Gerold, and fourteen other
Barons nearly 22| suchparts.
To Godebold (ArchibaUstarius) ; Robert de Aubervflle and seven other King's-
Sergeants more than 3J suchparts.
To the Franco-Thanes, ten in number more than 2| such jiarts.
To the Anglo- Thanes, eighteen in number more than 6J suchparts.
To diverse persons, holding the ' addita' and ' ablata' of large Manors more than 3 such parts.
Total 348
Dividing the same 348 parts after another fashion, we find —
In the Crovra • 75 suchparts.
In the Church and Religious Institutions 107 suchparts.
In Lay-Fiefs, including the Military Fiefs of the Bishops of Bayeux, Coutances, and
Salisbury 166 suchparts.
348
Hence it will be seen that the Church which, with its vassals and dependents, enjoyed more than a third
of Dorset, enjoyed less than a third of Somerset ; — less by exactly nine parts out of three hundred and forty-
eight.
Howbeit, Bishop Qiso's Fief in Somerset was larger than Bishop Osmund's Fief in Dorset, and the Abbot
of Glastonbury had, in Dorset and Somerset, a greater territory than was held by the Abbeys of Shaftes-
bury, Cerne, Milton, Abbotsbury, and Athelney, combined.
END OF VOL. L
LONDON : BOWDEN, HUDSON AND CO., PRINTERS,
23, RED LION STREET, HOLBORN,
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11