56 THE DOMESDAY INQUEST 



drawn in Suffolk between tenements which were and were not 

 styled manors, is most definite ; and, although with much 

 hesitation, I would suggest that the presence of demesne and 

 villans was essential to the pre-Conquest tenement, to which 

 the Commissioners applied the term of " manor." In passing, 

 let us remember that the term "manor" does not appear in 

 English pre-Conquest documents. 



But what of the constitution of the post-Conquest manors ? 



The marginal notation of the pre-Conquest manors in the 

 northern ounties leads us to hesitate before deciding whether 

 the marginal " M " in the Eastern Midland counties Middle- 

 sex, Bucks, Cambridge, Hunts, and Beds denotes pre- or 

 post-Conquest manors ; but, in the absence of the surmounting 

 figures, I am inclined to think that in these counties the 

 marginal " M " denotes a post-Conquest manor. 



The majority of the post-Conquest tenements which are 

 distinctly called manors, certainly do contain both demesne 

 and villans, but there are not a few variations from this type. 



(1) Some manors contained demesne, but no villans, e.g. 

 Gayton, 1 Fornham ; 2 but in each place there were bordars, 

 who at Fornham possessed teams, and who may therefore be 

 regarded as belonging to the villan class. 



(2) The marginal "M" is prefixed to two Bedfordshire 

 estates, Dena 3 and Tilbrook, 4 which contained no demesne, 

 and were inhabited only by sokemen and bordars. Each of 

 these had been inhabited by the same sokemen before the 

 Conquest. 



(3) In Bucks there are many entries of which the following 

 is the type : 



" Ralph holds of Walter (Gifard) in Pitstone 5 hides for a manor : 

 there is land for 2 teams, and there they are with 3 villans and 

 3 bordars and i slave. . . . Tori, a man of Earl Leofwin's, held this 

 manor." 6 



1 D. B., I. 338 b. 2. /</., ii. 357. 3 Idt) i 209 b 2 



4 Id., I. 211 b 2. * Id., I. 147 a 2. 



