A HISTORY OF HERTFORDSHIRE 



development of the great manor of Hitchin. Although it is not 

 mentioned by Professor Maitland among the typical enormous manors, 

 it was ' farmed ' as a whole, at the time of the Survey, for considerably 

 over >Cioo> a sum which certainly entitles it to rank with Leominster, 

 Berkeley, Tewkesbury, Taunton, Rothley and the others mentioned by 

 that learned writer. 1 The aggregate spoken of by Domesday as ' Hiz 

 with its appurtenances ' is not actually styled a manor, but other lands 

 and manors are spoken of as ' in ' it, which shows that it was recognized 

 as an integral whole. The early history of Hitchin is unfortunately 

 obscure. Mr. Seebohm, whose well-known researches have made its 

 name famous, states that ' from the time of Edward the Confessor and 

 probably from much earlier times with intervals of private ownership, 

 it has been a royal manor.' 2 But Domesday shows it in the hands of 

 Harold under Edward the Confessor and does not say anything of its 

 having belonged to the Crown. Hitchin itself, the nucleus of the group, 

 was assessed at only 5 hides, although it is credited with no fewer than 

 34 ploughlands, a most disproportionate number. Moreover Domesday 

 distinctly states that ' of these 5 hides ' 2 belonged to what was afterwards 

 the rectory manor, which had in 1086 4 ploughlands of its own. In 

 spite of the confused form of the entry it seems clear that the chief 

 manor had 34 ploughlands and was assessed at only 3 hides. Harold, 

 who held not only this, but also, suspiciously enough, the manor belong- 

 ing to ' the minster of the vill,' 3 is charged in the very first entry in the 

 survey of the shire with having despoiled the nuns of Chatteris of an 

 8-hide manor at Wymondley and placed it ' in his manor of Hitchin ' 

 (fo. 132) three years before the death of king Edward. This is one of a 

 class of entries that raise a curious question. Mr. Freeman, with his 

 well-known bias in favour of Harold, tried to minimize their weight ; * 

 but Professor Maitland holds that ' a great deal of simple rapacity is laid 

 to the charge of Harold by jurors whose testimony is not to be lightly 

 rejected.' 6 In this case it is distinctly stated that ' the whole shire ' 

 bears witness to the fact, and I would point out that it was not to the 

 interest of William, as Harold's heir, to encourage entries which impugned 

 the validity of Harold's rights, and which thereby stamped William 

 himself as holding lands stolen from the church. 



But it was not only or even chiefly the church that suffered wrong. 

 At Hexton, it is true, Harold is charged with placing ' in Hitchin by 

 force and wrongfully, as the shire witnesses,' land which had been held 

 by a ' man ' of St. Alban's Abbey (fo. 133) ; but the additions made by 

 him were much exceeded by those for which the Norman sheriffs were 

 responsible under the Conqueror. The fact, moreover, that William's 

 sheriffs were usually themselves barons led to occasional confusion between 



1 Domesday Book and Beyond, pp. 112-4. 3 English Village Community, p. I. 



8 It should be observed that it so belonged in 1086, and that its value is separately entered, unlike 

 that of the other constituents of the group. I infer from this that it had been taken out of that group 

 and restored to the church of Hitchin. It is not likely to have been given as a fresh endowment by 

 William, and if it had been, the fact would probably have been mentioned by Domesday. 



* Norman Conquest (1870), ii. 547-9- 6 Domesday Book and Beyond, p. 168. 



272 



