A HISTORY OF SUSSEX 



and end of the return of that hundred, never paid geld (fo. 19) ; and 

 also the mention — unique in Domesday — of ' herdigelt,' which is said to 

 be paid by all the estate of Beeding (fo. 28). 



Turning from the problem of the geld assessment to that of 

 monetary values, we are met by the much debated question of the exact 

 significance of the Domesday ' valet.' Here again the whole difficulty 

 arises from the endeavour to restrict the scribe to a definite and unvary- 

 ing use of the term, and yet it is sufficiently obvious that no article of 

 the survey would be less likely to be consistent than this of the ' valet.' 

 The ' value ' of an estate as declared by its landlord, its tenant, a land 

 valuer, and the local oracle will be found to vary considerably and may 

 even fluctuate in the opinion of its owner according as he is appealing 

 against an assessment or for compensation. Where we are told that an 

 estate 'has always been worth 100 shillings,' or that it 'was worth 

 15 shilHngs and now 30 shillings,' we suspect a rough estimate by the 

 jurors of the hundred, but when the value is given as being £6 lis. 8^., 

 or we are told that the manor ' was worth i 3 shillings and is now worth 

 63 pence,' it is clear that the reference is to the actual rents and other 

 issues received. The identity of the ' valet ' and issues is also evident 

 in cases where, besides the value in money we hear of rents in kind — so 

 many eels from the mills, so many thousand herrings, or so much 

 honey — while in a number of cases on the other hand the two are 

 carefully contrasted. Thus the value of Steyning is_^ioo, but ' it is on 

 lease {ad Jirmam) for jTiaa ' ; in Bosham the bishop's share was worth 

 ^\b loj. ' et tamen habet de firma 20 solidos plus,' and Mauger whose 

 share was worth ^b js. had 5 ox. more. In the case of Earl 

 Roger's manor of Singleton we are told that ' it is now valued {apprecia- 

 tur) at £()7, and i mark of gold, and yet it pays £120 and i mark of 

 gold.' In all these instances it is clear that the hundred court considered 

 that the sums obtained from the manors by the chief or mesne lords 

 could only be wrung from the peasantry by extortion and grinding 

 oppression, excessive even to the unsentimental mind of men used to the 

 hard servile tenures of the time. And indeed in several instances we 

 find that the grasping landlord had overreached himself and had been 

 obliged to reduce his demands ; thus Shoreham, which was worth at 

 most £1^, had been leased at £$0, 'but that could not be borne,' and 

 the same words are used of Patching, a manor of the Archbishop of 

 Canterbury, who was a great off^ender in this respect, as the jurors noted 

 that his manor of Pagham which was worth ^60 was paying jTSo — 

 ' sed nimis grave est,' and his manor of Wooton which was worth only 

 £j\. had for a while paid £6, ' sed non potuit perdurare ' ; the Bishop of 

 Chichester also had tried to make £2^ out of his manor of Preston ' but 

 it could not pay so much.' 



The valuation of a manor is given for three periods — the time of 

 King Edward, the time when it passed into the hands of its present 

 possessor, and the time of the survey. Speaking generally the most 

 noticeable feature of these three valuations is a fall during the second 



