A HISTORY OF DURHAM 



these four wards the arrangement of the vills corresponds to that of the 

 halmote rolls, and as we shall see presently to that of Boldon Book as well. 

 The term 'manor,' however, occurs in Hatfield's Survey, where it is applied 

 to single vills held by free tenants, and seems to be equated with 'villa'. Thus 

 at Easington under the rubric ' Liberi Tenentes ' we read ' Walterus de 

 Edirdacres tenet manerium de Edirdacres per certa servitia.' ^ On turning to 

 Hutton we find under the same rubric the following entry : ' Henricus de 

 Essh tenet villam de Huton . . . per servitium forinsecum.' * The next 

 document in chronological order is the great receipt roll of Bishop Beck, the 

 earliest account roll of the palatinate that has survived to us.* This records 

 the issues of the bishop's manors and accounts for receipts from manorial 

 bailiffs and for the expenses incident to holding the ' turnus halmotorum.' 

 Then there is the long series of the prior's halmote rolls, beginning in 

 1296,* and these again avoid the term ' manor,' although they show a judicial 

 organization practically identical with that of the bishop's vills. Then quite 

 early in the thirteenth century we get in the record of the testiniony taken 

 in a great law-suit a mention of a manor belonging to Bishop Philip 

 (1197—1208).^ And it is recorded that on the resignation of Bishop 

 Nicholas de Farnham in 1249 the manors of Stockton and Easington were 

 assigned to him for his support ' cum omnibus eorundem maneriorum 

 membris, pertinenciis et libertatibus.' ® This is particularly interesting 

 because Stockton and Easington were the heads respectively of two of those 

 halmote groups which we shall have presently to examine. Finally, if we 

 turn to the national records we shall see that the king's officers had no 

 difficulty in finding manors in Durham. After the death of Bishop Pudsey 

 in 1 195 the keepers of the temporalities accounted for the tallage of the 

 manors of the bishopric, but, as appears from the detailed list which follows, 

 the money was raised from the vills individually and not in manorial groups.'' 

 Again, in the earliest extant pipe roll the keepers in like manner are account- 

 ing for the cost of stocking the bishop's manors and for certain manorial 

 profits which seem to have been the result of a tallage,^ 



Yet in spite of all this the word ' manor ' docs not occur in Boldon Book ;° 

 the vill was the unit of the survey, and in like fashion the division of St. 

 Cuthbert's patrimony between the second Norman bishop and the monks 

 was made on a basis of vills, and not manors.'" 



What then shall we say ? That the manor did not exist in Durham in 

 the twelfth century ? But there was something that the king's officers 

 treated as a manor, and the manor was not unknown in the next century. 

 We cannot on the other hand suppose that the manor, as the term was 

 understood throughout the kingdom, was to be found in the bishopric. For 



> Hatfield's Surv. (Surtccs Soc), 127. ' Ibid. 153. 



• Printed in BoUon Book (Surtccs Soc), App. pp. xxv-xx.xix. 



* Dur. Halmote R. (Surtccs S<3c.), 1889. ' AttcsLicioncs Tcslium, etc., in FeoJ. 224. 



' From .1 document issued by a p.ip.il commission coniposo:d of three English prcl.itcs, in fliitoritr Dunel- 

 meniii Scriptorei Tres. (Surtccs Soc), 1839, App. No. lix. The local chronicler in recording this tr.msaction 

 mentions the ' mancria cpiscop.ilia ' ; Graystancs, vi. in ibid. p. 42. 



7 Pipe R. 8 Ric. I. in Boldon Book (Surtccs Soc), App. pp. vi. vii. 



* Ibid. 31 lien. I. in. ibid. App. pp. i-iii. 



• The single instance of the use of the term in the Whickham entry is almost certainly no part of the 

 original record, vid. inf .App. No. ii. 



"' Sec Canon Grccnwcll's instructive account of this transaction in Feod. prcf. xvi (}'. 



2G2 



( 



