en. \ in | ropit/alion. 99 



might obtain a solid basis for ^vnrrali/ing with regard 

 as a whole. 



It must, however, be admitted at the OUtSd that our m< 

 is not easy to apply, and that it lead many pitfalls, all of 



which \ve may not ha\< d Yet as ih :hat 



\ve have used all point to one conclusion it 'i.iblc to 



believe that that conclusion is correct. 



Three matters will be discussed : 



i. Evidence relating to the population of the manor in 1565. 



Kvidence showing a much larger population at an earlier date. 



3. Kvidence relating to changes in the numbers of the population 

 between 1400 and 1565. 



Our first argument is based upon the number of dwelling-houses, 

 not directly upon the population. Yet this argument is probably 

 valid, since it is unlikely that the dwellings of 1565 would have aver- 

 aged a greater number of inhabitants than the dwellings before 1350. 



Dwellings held by bond or copyhold tenure are first considered, 

 for the history of these can be traced with most certainty, since, 

 unlike the ' soiled ' dwellings, they were from the first conveyed 

 through the manor court ; and their history can be traced with 

 especial ease, since bond-dwellings are usually designated by the 

 name of the ' tenement ' of which they formed a part. 



It is first necessary to examine the different terms used to denote 

 dwellings or sites of dwellings. 



I. Messuagium. This is commonly defined as a dwelling-house 

 with the land belonging to it. But this does not appear to be 

 the invariable significance of the term in these rolls. It seems 

 sometimes to mean merely the vacant site. The distinction seems 

 not always to be made between mcssuagium and messnagium vacuum. 

 Thus in several instances the messuage of one conveyance is con- 

 veyed a few years later as messnagium vacuum ; yet an examina- 

 tion of the rolls fails to disclose any evidence of the waste or decay of 

 the messuage during the interval between the two conveyances. 

 Again, in a court roll of 1564, 'three rods of land with the messuage 

 of Selegrome tenement ' were conveyed to M. N. But, according to 

 the Survey of 1565, the messuage belonging to Selegrome tenement 

 and held by M. N. was vacant. 



The rolls give the impression that in the later period it was 

 more usual than before to discriminate between messuagia on the 

 one hand and messuagia vacua and messuagia acdificata on the other 

 hand. Thus from 1499 to 1504 seven messuages were conveyed 

 as vacua and seven as aedificata^ all of which in the conveyances 



72 



