DORSET GELD ROLLS 



given by the Geld Rolls with that given by Domesday makes it difficult to accept the 

 contention that both are based on the same enquiry. The view has recently been ad- 

 vanced that the discrepancies between the demesnes of the Geld Rolls and those of 

 Domesday arise because each document deals with a different kind of demesne, the 

 latter with the manorial demesne or home farm (which could easily be changed from 

 time to time by the addition or subtraction of land held by zillani or by grants to tenants), 

 and the former with fiscal demesne, the amount of the manor exempt for taxation 

 purposes, which was 'fixed, traditional and very difficult to alter' .^^ This view also is 

 hypothetical, having no evidence to support it, and does not explain why Domesday, 

 which is careful to record all that pertains to geld, should count only the fluctuating 

 manorial demesne and not the fixed fiscal demesne. 



In some cases it is possible to put forward a reason for the difference in the size of 

 the demesne. In Canendone hundred the abbey of Horton had 4 hides in demesne. 

 Horton Abbey had only one manor in Dorset, Horton itself (no. 1 17), but according to 

 Domesday there were only 2 hides in demesne. Domesday also records that the two 

 best hides were held by the king in his forest of Wimborne. If this was also the case at 

 the time of the Geld Rolls, there is no reason why they should not say so, since they 

 record a similar afforestation in Wiltshire. 3° It seems at least possible that between 1084 

 and 1086 the king took 2 hides of the demesne at Horton into the forest of Wimborne. 

 In Badbury hundred Schelin held i hide and 3 virgates in demesne and | hide from 

 which nunquam habtiit rex geldiim. The manor concerned must be Witchampton 

 (nos. 20 and xxvi), which, according to Exon. Domesday, was held by Schelin of Queen 

 Maud. There was | hide which nunquam reddebat gilduni, but both the Exchequer text 

 and Exon. Domesday give the demesne as 2 hides and i| virgate, not i hide and 3 

 virgates. In fact the 5 hide which never paid geld had been added to the demesne. The 

 case of Schelin has been used as evidence that the Geld Rolls and Exon. Domesday 

 are based on the same materials but if this is so it is odd that they should give different 

 amounts of demesne for the same manor. Further, there is no need to assume, as Eyton 

 did, that Schelin's tenure of this manor and Edmondsham (nos. 18 and xxiv), which he 

 also held of the queen, had ceased before the time of the Domesday survey, or that he 

 necessarily held of her in fee. He may have held of her at farm, in which case the 

 Exchequer text might omit his tenure just as it omitted other men who held land at 

 farm. Schelin in the Geld Rolls accounted for the geld on these two manors just as 

 Fulcred accounted for the geld of Fleet in Uggescombe hundred. In Badbury hundred 

 also the king had \ hide in demesne. His manor must have been Wimborne Minster 

 (nos. 21 and xxvii), assessed at \ hide, but the Exchequer text and Exon. Domesday 

 give the demesne as i virgate, adding that, although the | hide never belonged to the 

 night's farm at Wimborne, it never paid geld. Here land regarded as demesne in the 

 Geld Rolls is entered as an exemption in the Domesday records. In Aileveswode hundred 

 Count Eustace is credited with i hide and 3- virgate in demesne. This is the hidage of 

 Swanage (nos. 515 and xxxviii), which was held by the Countess of Boulogne. According 

 to Exon. Domesday she had no demesne in the manor and rex Willelmus nunquam habuit 

 geldum de hac mansione. It seems as if in this instance the Geld Rolls recorded as exempt 

 demesne land which should in fact have paid geld, and that the Domesday commissioners 

 discovered and recorded the fact. 



The Domesday survey appears to have uncovered certain other facts not known to 

 the geld collectors. In Beaminster hundred William Malbank held of Earl Hugh a 

 virgate from which nunquam habuit rex geldum. This land was at Catsley (no. 229) 



" R. Welldon Finn, 'The Geld Abstracts in the Liber 3o y.C.H. Wills, ii. 208 (Downton hundred). 



Exoniensis', Bull. John Rylands Libr. xlv. 370-89. 



"9 



