i62 THE DOMESDAY INQUEST 



Marlborough in 1267, which provided that for the future no 

 socager should be obliged to attend his lord's court unless 

 it was so stipulated in his charter, or his predecessors in title 

 had attended the court before I23O. 1 



Again, it must be remembered that Lyttleton, in speaking 

 of socage tenants, tells how they had to lend their ploughs 

 to their lords several times during the year, and even derives 

 their name from soc, a ploughshare, but says not a word about 

 suit of court. 2 In giving this false etymology, Lyttleton 

 follows Bracton ; 3 and the language of both writers shows 

 how little connection there was in their minds between soke 

 and suit of court. The Burton Chartulary 4 quotes many leases 

 for two lives or more, some of them dating within a gene- 

 ration of Domesday Book, granted by the abbey. Money 

 rent and occasional services are the consideration for such 

 services, and suit of court is, in some cases, expressly reserved : 

 this express reservation is reason for doubting whether suit 

 of court was obligatory on the sokemen of the previous 

 century without express reservation. 



Apart, however, from the question of suit of court, the 

 services required from socagers were fixed and determinate. 

 Tenure in socage is frequently mentioned in Bracton's Note- 

 Book, and in all cases emphasis is laid on the nature of these 

 services, and suit of court is not mentioned. Thus it was 

 proved that certain land was held in socage at a rent of 

 200 herrings a year (No. 1076), and that a mill was held in 

 socage of the King on payment of 2s. a year and a golden 

 spur (No. 1 109). But for our purpose the case of Agnes of 

 Dagenham v. the Abbess of Barking (No. 758) is most 

 valuable. The defendant alleged that she held certain land 

 of the abbess in socage at a money rent and by the service 



1 Select Pleas in Manorial Courts, II. xlix. I have to thank Dr. Holdsworth 

 for calling my attention to this reference. 



2 Lyttleton, 119. 



3 Pollock and Maitland, Hist. Eng. Law, i. 274. 



4 JS. H. R., 1905, 281, 282. 



