DOMESDAY SURVEY 



held in right of the ownership of a particular manor, and forming one of 

 the sources of revenue appurtenant to that manor. 



The best example of this distinction is seen, I think, in the houses 

 held by the King himself. Domesday begins its account with what by 

 comparison with other towns we may term the King's demesne, which 

 comprised in King Edward's time 276 houses. 1 But it also makes sub- 

 sequent mention of certain houses held by the King in right, probably, of 

 his rural manors. Indeed this is in one case expressly said to be so, for 

 he is entered as holding two houses, worth fivepence a year, in (right of) 

 Aldermaston (in flLldremane stone) . Moreover, under the royal Manor of 

 Sutton (Courtenay) we read that it included one house in Wallingford 

 worth eighteenpence a year. Returning, however, to the houses on the 

 King's demesne in the borough, I read the passage myself as asserting 

 that of the 276 houses held by King Edward, the Crown, at the time 

 of the survey, had lost the dues on fourteen in all, of which eight had 

 been destroyed to make room for the castle (pro castello) ; but on the 

 other hand there had risen twenty-two additional houses inhabited by 

 Frenchmen, and bringing in six shillings and fivepence a year to the 

 Crown. 3 This phrase, which has perhaps escaped notice, appears to 

 me to suggest some such foreign settlement as Domesday shows us 

 springing up in the wake of the Conquest at Norwich. 



No fewer than twenty-seven houses worth twenty-five shillings 

 were held by the bishop of Winchester (in right of his manor of Bright- 

 well), with which, says Domesday, they are valued. 3 This is a some- 

 what difficult passage, for Domesday means by this formula that the 

 value is included in the total value given as that of the manor, and yet 

 under Brightwell the sum of twenty-five shillings is recorded as arising, 

 not from the rents of these houses, but from the profits of jurisdiction 

 over them (de placitis terre que in Walingeford huic manerio pertinet xxv sol.} .* 

 It is well pointed out by Mr. Ballard that there is a charter of A.D. 945 

 granting 30 hides at Brightwell with land in Wallingford, 8 proving the 

 antiquity of the connexion. Under Brightwalton, Battle Abbey's only 

 Berkshire manor, are entered ' in Walengeford v hagae,' and these, I think, 

 must be the ones spoken of under Wallingford : ' v masuras in Berchesire 

 habet abbas de Labatailge de xx denariis.' If so, we have here evidence 

 that hagtz and masurce were identical, and we have a case of a holder 

 being ' entered on both lists for the same property.' ' Domesday is, in 

 this matter, most unsystematic, entering, as it does, these appurtenant 

 houses sometimes under the town in which they were situate and some- 

 times under the manor to which they belong. 



1 I use this word for convenience. Haga, etymologically, meant an enclosed place, the ' haw ' of 

 ' Bassishaw ' in London. J ' De superplus sunt xxii masuras francigenz.' 



3 ' Et sunt appreciate in Bricstewelle manerio ejus.' 



4 Mr. Ballard quotes the two passages (p. 48) and takes them thus, holding the latter to refer to 

 the ' profits of justice.' And the Brightwell phrase is quite distinct from the normal one, which occurs 

 in the preceding entry (for the episcopal manor of Harwell) : ' in Walengeford iii hagz de xv denar.' 

 But he also quotes them on p. 31 as a case of a holder being ' entered on both lists for the same pro- 

 perty.' In spite of the identity of the sum, its sources seem to me to be given as distinct. 



5 Op. cit. p. 107. * See note 4 above. 



3" 



