( XV ) 



It will be seen from the Table of Contents that the manors included The Episco- 

 in this Account are thirty-seven in number, reckoning the manors of 

 Fawley and Ower, the manor and church of East Meon, and the Ministry 

 of Winchester itself, as fiscal units. As this list obviously does not repre- 

 sent the full rent roll of the bishopric, it appeared to the Editors that 

 some explanation of the discrepancy should be attempted. To present a 

 complete list of the possessions of the See in the year 1 208 vrould scarcely 

 come within the scope of the present edition, although the task of tracing 

 these possessions from the ninth century to the thirteenth has been essayed 

 for the purpose of a preliminary investigation of the subject. But even 

 when the full extent and position of the episcopal holdings have been ascer- 

 tained, we are by no means justified in assuming that the accounts of certain 

 manors should have appeared in the rent roll for a given year. In the first 

 place it must be remembered that the distinction between the possessions of 

 the Bishop himself and those of the Prior and Convent is, as in so many 

 other cases, exceedingly obscure. Again, it will be found from a careful 

 examination of the rent rolls for a subsequent period that the classification 

 of the several manors is somewhat artificial, and that a hamlet which appears 

 elsewhere as an independent estate may be included here in the account of 

 the capital manor. Thus, in the present account no distinction is made, 

 as in subsequent rolls, between Old and New Alresford, or between High 

 Clere and Burgh Olere, whilst Waltham St. Lawrence and North Waltham 

 are probably included in the accounts for the manors of Wargrave and 

 Overton respectively. Other hamlets which held an independent position in 

 the rolls of a later period cannot be distinguished under the principal 

 manors, and in more than one case are certainly not included therein. 

 Finally, we must bear in mind the possibility of the loss of one or more 

 membranes of the existing record, a mutilation which can clearly be 

 proved to have taken place in the case of more than one of the following 

 year rolls. 



Therefore after every allowance has been made, it will be evident that 

 certain recognised manors which duly appear in subsequent accounts are 

 omitted from this roU.^ It can also be shown that other manors which 

 were, presumably, at this time in the Bishop's possession, are not represented 

 in any of the accounts for the period. 



These omissions do not, on the whole, amount to very much, but an 

 explanation of their existence is still to be found. Possibly the manors in 

 question were temporarily alienated from the possessions of the See, or were 

 let to farm under conditions that precluded the necessity or possibility of 

 their inclusion in the present series of accounts. 



It is true that even in the case of a farmed manor the seignorial dues 

 would have to be accounted for, and three such manors are, in fact, brought 

 to account in this very roll. It may be suggested, however, that the 

 " Perquisites " of a manor that was not actually in the lord's hand were not 

 infrequently collected and rendered in the account of the tenant as farmer,* 

 and that this account would have been included in the general account of the 



1 Amongst the Doticeable omissions under this head are the manors of Calborne in the Isle of 

 Wight, Bentley in Hampshire, and Ivinghoe in Bucks. A possible explanation of these omissions 

 which might be found in the compilation of the accounts at irregular intervals does not seem 

 applicable to the present case. 



» Cf. Cnrt. Rames. (Rolls) II. 244. 



C 



