DOMESDAY SURVEY 



recent period have been an island. The place-names of Flegg seem to 

 point to an early settlement of Scandinavians, since nearly all of them end in 

 ' by,' and a purely 'Danish' community could be most simply established in a 

 district with definite boundaries, from which the earlier inhabitants could be 

 easily excluded. The large proportion of small freeholders in Flegg is thus 

 in all probability not accidental, but due to its specifically ' Danish ' char- 

 acter. Again, the division between East and West Flegg is a natural one, 

 and other hundreds will be found to have rivers and marshes for their 

 boundaries. We shall, however, find in Domesday equally strong traces of a 

 highly artificial arrangement. Thus the northern hundreds, Smethden, 

 Docking, Brothercross, Gallow, and North Greenhoe, show signs of having 

 been laid out so as to give each hundred a proportion of salt-marsh for its 

 sheep. We do not know precisely how the boundary ran between Brother- 

 cross and Gallow, but the remarks on the measurements and geld of 

 Burnham indicate some kind of artificial arrangement.^ The same cause 

 may have led to the transfer of Saxlingham from Holt hundred to the 

 comparatively distant hundred of Gallow, where it seems to be required 

 to make up the geld. The transfer of Snettisham to Freebridge 

 hundred,^ which seems to upset the fiscal arrangements of Smethden hundred, 

 is probably due to the influence of Stigand ; and Salthouse is doubtless in 

 North Erpingham, owing to its being a berewick to Siward's manor of Sherring- 

 ham. The most noticeable changes in the map of Norfolk since Domesday 

 are the inclusion of Emneth in Freebridge hundred, the abolition of the 

 hundred of Docking, which was thrown into Smethden hundred, and the 

 rearrangement of the hundreds of Brothercross and Gallow in such a manner 

 that the former has all the coast and the latter the inland villages, the old 

 boundary, the River Wensum, being disregarded. 



The former unity of East Anglia,' typified by Norfolk and Sufi'olk 

 having not only a common earl, but also a common bishop, the seat of whose 

 see at one time was at Thetford on their border, prepares us for certain cases 

 of inter-relation. Diss, for instance, though in Norfolk and giving name 

 to a Norfolk hundred, is surveyed under Suffolk as a royal manor in the 

 hundred of Hartesmere.* But Burston, its outlyer to the north, is surveyed 

 under Norfolk, though valued under Diss in Suffolk.' The ' half hundred of 

 Diss ' also is surveyed under Norfolk. Thetford, on the other hand, as Domes- 

 day admits, lay partly in the one and partly in the other county, and yet is 

 surveyed wholly under Norfolk. Gillingham in Norfolk, opposite Beccles, 

 appears to be only mentioned under Gorleston, Suffolk, to which was 

 appurtenant a small estate there. 



The two counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, as they appear in Domesday 

 Book, are marked off from the other counties of England by the peculiarity 

 of their system of assessment. This has been well explained by Mr. J. H. 

 Round,* but it will not be amiss to repeat the conclusions to which his 

 researches lead. The counties were divided for purposes of assessment into 

 hundreds, and the hundreds into leets, which were areas of equal, or 

 approximately equal, assessment. Unhappily, the traces of these leets are 



■ Dom. Bk. f. 237^. • Ibid. f. 142. 



' This paragraph is by Mr. Round. * Dom. Bk. f. 282. 



' ' Hoc appendet ad Dice in Sutfulc et ibi appretiatur' (f. 1 14). ° Feuii. Engl. pp. 98-103. 



