io4 Population. [CH. 



information. For instance, this formula is sometimes used : ' M. N. 

 vastum fecit in tenemento suo.' From an entry of this sort neither 

 the degree of waste nor the kind of building wasted (dwelling or 

 barn) can be learned. Such an entry also fails to give the name of 

 the tenement, but this can often be supplied. Other entries give 

 more definite information. Thus, in 1431, it was presented that 

 ' W. B. fecit streppum in tenemento Cullyng in bondagio domini de 

 ii domibus decasis et adnichillatis et maeremium inde proveniens 

 abduxit et vendidit. Ideo in misericordia. Et praeceptum est 

 reaedificare sub poena. Item quod R. K. eodem modo fecit in tene- 

 mento Willelmi Lound de i. domo capitali. Ideo in misericordia. Et 

 praeceptum est reaedificare.' Many of the presentments fall some- 

 where between the examples cited as regards fulness of statement. 



Starting from 1565, and tracing backwards through the rolls the 

 history of each of the tenements that in 1565 was vacant, the 

 following results are obtained : During the period between 1422- 

 1565 from 6 to 10 tenements became vacant. The clearer cases of 

 waste are : 



i. 1426-31. The dwelling belonging to William Lound's tene- 

 ment was carried off (abduxit). 2. 1431. Two houses (one dwelling?) 

 pertaining to tenement Cullyng were ' annihilated ' and the timber 

 sold. In 1455 the * messuagium ' of this tenement was conveyed. 

 This is the last recorded conveyance of the * messuagium ' which was 

 'vacant' in 1565. 3. 1497. Robert Wrong 'altogether devastated' 

 the cottage pertaining to the tenement of Hugo Spires. From 1497- 

 1565 the messuage of this tenement is described in the conveyances 

 as vacant. 4. 1507-1527. Between these dates the messuage of 

 tenement Hillhouse (alias Ratches) appears to have fallen into final 

 decay. 5. 1524. The lord "granted a license to let fall a messuage, 

 formerly Pelet's. 6. 1548. License was granted not to rebuild the 

 houses of tenement Brettons ' decayed and devastated divers years 

 before.' 



A few more cases of the total decay of dwellings may possibly 

 be concealed among the more vaguely-worded presentments of waste. 

 But a careful examination of the evidence points to the conclusion 

 that at most not more than eight or ten dwellings, held by bond 

 tenure, were totally devastated during the period 1422-1565. As 

 three new buildings held by bond tenure were erected during this 

 period, the conclusion is also reached that within this period there 

 was no considerable diminution in the numbers of the population. 



The great diminution in the numbers of dwellings and of popu- 



