THE DOMESDAY SURVEY 



Hamo ' dapifer ' had 6 acres, St. Peter's Church 1 2 acres, and the 

 Bishop of London 6\ acres. Thus, with the king's ' to acres,' there 

 were 85^ acres, to which must be added, it seems, 48 acres at Green- 

 stead. Under Stanway, also, Lexden is credited with 1 8 acres. 



The king's demesne included ' 240 acres' of pasture and scrub (inter 

 pasturam e t fructe fam), but we find no definite mention of ' the King's 

 Wood ' to the north of the town, now known as ' the high woods.' 

 This wood is subsequently found included in the ' ferm ' of the 

 borough, which was reduced accordingly by forty shillings when the 

 king took the wood into his own hands. 1 At the close of the entry on 

 the king's demesne we are given the important information that it is 

 all included among the sources of the king's ferm, 2 which at once proves 

 that a firma burgi was already paid to the Crown for Colchester in the 

 days of the Conqueror. When we look at the entries which follow we 

 see how clearly the survey distinguishes the payments which are com- 

 pounded for in the firma from those which are not. 3 



The tenure of this ' firma ' is as obscure as it is important. From 

 the earliest pipe roll (1130) Colchester appears as farmed separately 

 from the rest of the county ; and I gather from the incidental reference 

 in the Domesday Survey to Waleran that he had been the * fermor ' at 

 some period during the Conqueror's reign. Another incidental refer- 

 ence leads me to think that he had at one time ' farmed ' Norwich with 

 disastrous results to its burgesses. 4 At the time of the Survey he had 

 been succeeded in Essex, Cambridgeshire and Suffolk by his son ; but 

 during his tenure of the fief he had given to the Abbey of St. Stephen 

 of Caen his * little manor ' of Panfield and the church of Bures St. 

 Mary. 5 He was charged with depriving the monks of St. Ouen of 

 their house in Colchester and with certain encroachments at Aveley, 

 Henny, Halstead and Lawford ; but in this respect he was no worse 

 than other Normans, if so bad. 



I have come to the conclusion that the 'fermor' in 1086 was 

 Walchelin Bishop of Winchester. The words 'ten' Walchelin' ep'c ' 

 are no doubt obscure, but that Bishop Walchelin was the person meant 

 seems beyond dispute. There is evidence, as I have elsewhere shown, 

 that he exacted extortionate rents from the tenants of his see in Hamp- 

 shire ; 8 and in Berks, Wilts and Somerset there are traces of his similar 

 action. 7 I believe therefore that at Colchester also he was trying to 



1 This was shortly before 1 169, when we read : ' Et in defalta bosci de Kingeswuda, qui solebat 

 essc in firma burgi, vi li. de tribus annis ' (Pipe Roll, 1 5 Hen. II. p. 48). So also when Stephen 

 made over to the hospital of St. Magdalen 1 8 acres of the Crown demesne here, he reduced the firma 

 burp by 3/. ^d. in consideration thereof. This firma was the sum for which the king's dues were 

 ' farmed ' out. 



' Hoc totum jacet ad firmam regis.' 



' Et hoc pertinet ad firmam regis . . . et hoc non est ad firmam.' 



' Vastati . . . partim per Walerannum ' (fo. 1 1 ~jb). 



See my Calendar of Documents preserved in France, and compare p. 342 above. 



Victoria History of Hampshire, i. 414-5. 



* One of his Berkshire manors is entered in Domesday as rented above its value ; in Wilts there is, 

 at Downton, a suspicious rise from 60 to 103, and equally significant, in Somerset, is the rise on his 

 great manor of Taunton from 50 to 154. 



419 



