SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC HISTORY 



and socmen in Domesday. In five cases only an absolute decrease occurs ; 18 

 and even here it may be accounted for by the suggestion that the estates 

 surveyed do not cover the whole area of the vill or parish in question. In 

 the remaining cases no information is given as to the number of the tenants ; 

 but from the amount of their rents it may be inferred that it is in excess of 

 that of the Domesday socmen. 



In regard to the unfree tenants, the same fifty-two surveys are our main 

 source of information. On the whole the increase in their numbers is 

 smaller than among the free tenants. Out of seventeen surveys in which the 

 actual number of unfree tenants is given, eight only show an increase in the 

 number of villeins and cottars, and nine a decrease when compared with the 

 population of the same places in Domesday. 19 In one case only are villeins 

 mentioned in an extent where none appear in Domesday ; and in several 

 cases villeins are enumerated in Domesday and not in the extents ; but as 

 in the case of the free tenants this may simply result from the surveys not 

 covering the whole area in question. In the main, however, the balance 

 of evidence points to a greater increase of free than unfree tenants during the 

 250 years following Domesday. As regards the various classes of tenants, 

 the socmen, as has been seen, tend to disappear. In two or three cases, 

 ' sokemen ' or ' socagers ' as well as free tenants are mentioned, 20 marking the 

 distinction of class. Otherwise, there is no specified gradation among the 

 free tenants. 



The unfree holders are very variously described : ' bondar ' is perhaps 

 the commonest term ; nativus is also frequently used ; ' villein ' or custumarius 

 more rarely. All four classes appear to correspond roughly to the ' villeins ' 

 of Domesday. The ' bordars ' of that record appear only once in later years 

 in the survey of Fiskerton in the reign of Henry I. 21 In the same survey 

 are mentioned villeins, half-villeins (holding and paying half of what was 

 held and paid by the villeins), and the cotarelli. The half-villeins appear 

 nowhere else, but possibly both they and the bordars were merged in that 

 numerous class, the cottars. 



The land held and services rendered by the free tenants and socmen of 

 course varied greatly. In the early surveys of Collingham and Fiskerton, 

 already quoted, the holdings of the socmen appear to be very small. At 

 Collingham 50 socmen hold altogether 2% carucates, and 20 villeins hold 

 ij carucates, 29 the average holding of the free tenants being thus decidedly 

 below that of the villeins. Generally, however, the free tenants seem to 

 have had somewhat larger holdings than the villeins possessed. 



The rents of the free tenants seem to have been very arbitrary. Thus, 

 in 1279, Walter Prat held in Gringley about eighty-one and a half acres of 

 arable, and half an acre of meadow of ten landlords, by services which varied 

 in value from less than \d. to ^\d. an acre. Tenure by a rose or a clove 

 gillyflower was not uncommon. The same Walter Prat held 2 acres of 

 land in Hodsock by service of a peppercorn, and a rent of izd. by a clove 



18 Inq. p.m. Cal. and MSS. See App. I for list ; Notts. Inq. and Extents : also MSS. of Blyth, 

 Harl. MSS. 3759, and the Hund. R. for Notts. 3 Edw. I ; Godfrey, Hist, of Lemon, 125, &c. ; Chron. Petn- 

 burgense ; Rent, and Surv. R. 534 and 546. 



19 App. I. and note 1 8. 



10 E.g. Houghton, Inq. p.m. 15 Edw. II, no. 47 ; Wheatley, Rent, and Surv. R. 546, 14 Edw. II. 



11 Chron. Petroburgense (Camd. Soc.), 166 "Ibid. 163-4. 



267 



