A HISTORY OF DERBYSHIRE 



ness of the local bodies, the hundred or wapentake, thrown up into relief. 

 The latter is the case in Derbyshire, at Radbourne, which is entered on 

 the fief of Henry de Ferrers, a note, however, being added to the entry 

 that ' Ralf fitz Hubert claims the third part of Radbourne and the wapen- 

 take bears witness in his favour.' l Nothing more is stated about the 

 matter, but Ralf's claim may not have been entirely unconnected with his 

 possession of the neighbouring manor of Kirk Langley. The Domesday 

 use of the word ' intercapere ' as denoting unjust seizure is illustrated at 

 Breaston. Here two Englishmen, Ligulf and ' Lewin cilt,' had held a 



* manor before the Conquest, and in addition Ligulf had possessed half a 

 carucate of sokeland in the same place, which we are told 'Fulk de Lusoris 

 has intercepted in despite of Gilbert de Gand.' The latter was at this time 

 possessed of two carucates of sokeland in Breaston belonging, it would 

 seem, to his manor of Ilkeston which he had derived from his regular 

 ' predecessor ' Ulf ' fenisc.' Evidently the opinion of the jurors supported 

 Gilbert's right to the sokeland held by Fulk de Lusoris. Possibly Ligulf 

 may have been the 'man' of Ulf fenisc with reference to the sokeland which 

 he held in Breaston, in which case the law represented in Domesday 

 would assign the latter to Gilbert as the recognised successor of Ulf, the 

 former lord of the land. This, however, is only a guess. Of Ligulf 

 nothing more is known, but in ' Lewin cilt,' his partner at Breaston, 

 strange as it may appear, we may quite possibly recognise Leofwine of Cad- 

 dington, Herts, whose position in Domesday and elsewhere has been 

 worked out by Mr. Round, in the Victoria History of the latter county, 8 

 where also he appears as ' Lewin cilt.' He held land in Herts, Bucks, and 

 Beds, but we should not certainly be prepared to meet with him so far 

 north as Derbyshire were it not for the coincidence of the designation 



* cilt,' meaning apparently a person of noble birth, which seems unlikely 

 to have been applied to two different persons of the same name. If the 

 two are identical, this Lewin cannot be the same as the ' Lewin, the son 

 of Alwin,' who is entered among the possessors of sac and soc before the 

 Conquest, as the father of the Hertfordshire Lewin cilt was called Edwine. 8 



It is unfortunate that none of these disputed or doubtful claims gave 

 rise in Derbyshire to duplicate entries of the land in question, as we some- 

 times draw from the latter very valuable information as to the employment 

 of equivalent terms in Domesday. One entry in our Survey, however, 

 although the land which it describes does not seem to have been contested, 

 bears every appearance of being duplicated at the end of the description 

 of the fief on which it stands. We may place the two entries side by side: 



I. II. 



Ibidem In Morleia (Morley) habuit In Morelai terciam partem (sic) duarum 

 Siward iiiciam partem duarum carucat- carucaratum terrae ad geldum. Seward 

 arum ad geldum. Ibi habet Henricus habuit. Nunc Henricus habet. 

 iiii villanos cum i carucam. Silva past- 

 (ilis) iiii quarentenae longtitudine et iii 

 latitudine. 



1 Probably Appletree Wapentake. a V. C. H. Herts, i. z8i. 



* Kemble, Codex. Dipt. iv. 259. 



322 



