what it had been in King Edward's time, was not lessened, but very greatly increased, at the time the Survey was taken. For, in the great majority of cases, the estimate was much higher; and the gross rental of the 1392 manors, into which the county was divided when the record was taken, was nearly double what it had been in the Confessor's time. This prosperous state of things may perhaps be attributed, in a great measure, to the large number of liberi homines and socmanni that were found in Norfolk; who, being all freeholders, would seem to indicate a more widely diffused freedom, and consequent prosperity, than in other counties, with the exception perhaps of Suffolk, where the liberi homines were still more numerous.1 But yet, with respect to the gross rental of Norfolk, at the time of taking the Survey, it was not so high as that of some other counties; thus, for instance, while Wiltshire—not so large as Norfolk by 450 square miles-was estimated at something more than £4373,2 Norfolk was returned for £4154: of this sum the King absorbed nearly one-third; the other great of King Edward the Confessor; the second, the sums at which they were rated, at the time of the Survey, tempore Regis Willelmi : : T.R.W. £ 8. d. 157 19 6 112 5 0 . 100 14 0 . 190 11 10 0 0 0 114 0 25 10 1 121 13 56 0 120 0 204 0 0 Penny Cyclo., art. Domesday Book. 1 Sir H. Ellis estimates the number of liberi homines, mentioned in the Survey, to be 10,097 of these, 5344 were in Suffolk, 4277 in Norfolk, and 314 in Essex; leaving only 162 for all the other counties surveyed. : 2 See Moody's Notices on the Domesday Book for Wiltshire, in the Journal of the Archæological Institute, July, 1849. usurpers being the Bishop of Thetford, William de Warren, and Roger Bigot. Of the great proprietary usurpers, or tenants in capite, who were established in England by the Conqueror, it will have been seen that there were but few whose descendants, in the male line, held their estates for any great length of time; and, indeed, the English families that can, at this time, find their direct ancestors either among these great tenants, or among the under-tenants of land, whose names are recorded in the Domesday Book, are but very few; though, it is probable, that a diligent search into evidence may produce some which are at present unknown. Among these, the remarkable instance of the Berkeleys, of Berkeley Castle, in Gloucestershire, must not be forgotten: they have descended, in a direct line, from Roger de Berkeley, the Conqueror's fellow-adventurer, to the now existing family. But, as far as the descendants of the under-tenants are concerned, there is greater reason to suppose that many of them still exist in every part of the kingdom. Lysons remarks,1 that "it is not improbable that some of the ancient families, who, according to the custom of that period, took their names from the places of their residence, in the reign of King John, or that of Henry III., may have inherited their estates, in direct descent, from the Ralfs, Rogers, Walters, and Williams, who were sub-tenants in the reign of William the Conqueror." And the ancestors of several of our Norfolk families are assumed by Blomefield and Parkin to have been some of these Ralfs, Rogers, &c., who held lands under lords paramount at the time of the Survey; these families are for the most part noted in the Index at the end of this volume; but of course no great stress can be laid on the correctness of the line of descent. Another observation, which may arise from the consideration of this Index of Persons occurring in Domesday Book is, 1 Devonshire, p. lxxxii a. that the common opinion, that the Conqueror utterly dispossessed the Anglo-Saxon landholders, or made them tenants only of their previous estates, is not quite correctly founded. The scarce pamphlet, cited in the note,1 informs us that, according to Peter of Poictiers, the ousted were only those who had fought at the battle of Hastings, or had otherwise opposed William. We are sure that several Anglo-Saxon families were permitted to hold their estates, though subjected, as to military and feudal services, to Norman officers. A reference to the Norfolk list will afford many instances, without having recourse to the old and long-exploded story of Edwin of Shernborne. It may be sufficient to mention the name of Godwin Halden, a tenant in chief. 2 Abstract of the Population of Norfolk at the close of the Reign of William the Conqueror, as far as the same is actually recorded in the Domesday Survey. (From Sir Henry Ellis's Introduction to Domesday Book.) The Domesday Book gives but a very imperfect view of the total population of England in 1086. But for the owners and occupiers of land, and for the agricultural population, it may probably be considered as a fair record. Among its omissions, the state and population of Norwich and the larger towns cannot fail to be observed. Mills, fisheries, trade, and the manual arts, must have given occupation to thousands, who are not recorded in the Survey; to say nothing of those who tended flocks and herds, the returns of which so greatly engage the pages of the second volume. In short, the Domesday Survey is not intended to be a record of population farther than was required for ascertaining the geld. The selection of the under and agricultural tenantry at the time of the Survey, from the second volume of Domesday, is very difficult, for, 1 "Le Conqueror ne vient pas pour ouster eux, qui avoient droiturell possession, mes de ouster eux que de leur tort avoient occupie ascun terre en desheritance del Roy et son coronne.”—Argumentum Anti-Normanicum, p.63. Joh'es Shardelowe, unus Justic. de Banco, 16 Ed. III. 2 Blom. vol. x. p. 350. throughout the entries in Essex, Norfolk, and Suffolk, the words tenet and tenuit are expressed by one contraction; and even the word tenet is frequently used at length for tenuit. Bordarii in Norwic "qui propter pauperiem nullam reddunt conm Liberi homines 2 Liberi homines faldæ Liberi homines commendatione tantum 3 117 1 "The bordarii were distinct from the servi and villani, and seem to be those of a less servile condition, who had a boɲd, or cottage, with a small parcel of land allotted to them, on condition they should supply their lord with poultry and eggs, and other small provisions, for his board and entertainment. Hence, bordlode was the firm or quantity of food, which they paid by this tenure. Bordlands were small estates that were so held."-Bp. Kennett's Glossary. 2 This term was of considerable latitude; signifying not merely the freemen or freeholders of a manor, but all persons holding in military service were called liberi homines. 3 The liberi homines commendati were freemen under protection. They appear to have placed themselves, by voluntary homage, under this protection; their lord or patron undertook to secure their estates or persons; and for this protection and security they paid him an annual stipend, or performed some annual service. The liberi homines commendatione tantum, appear to have sought a patron or protector, for the sake of obtaining or establishing their freedom. The commendati dimidii were persons who depended on two several lords, and were to pay half their annual rent for their protection to the one, and half to the other. The liberi homines integri were those who were under Observations of Norwich, Yarmouth, and Thetford, T.R.W. (From Sir H. Ellis.) In the time of King Edward the Confessor there were 1320 burgesses in Norwich. The King had soc, sac, and customary rent of 1230; Stigand had soc, sac, and commendatio or patronage of 50; and Harold of 32. Stigand held the two the full protection of one lord, in contradistinction to the liberi homines dimidii, whose homage was divided. This commendatio appears most frequently in the second volume of Domesday Book, and principally in the descriptions of Norfolk and Suffolk. From numerous entries, it appears that it existed in the time of King Edward. But the word commendatio sometimes signifies the annual rent paid for the protection. 1 According to Nichols (Hist. Leicestershire, Introduc. p. xliv.), the sochemanni were those inferior landholders who had land in the soc or franchise of a great baron; privileged villans, who, though their tenures were absolutely copyhold, yet had an interest equal to a freehold. Their services were fixed and determinate. They could not be compelled to relinquish their tenements at the lord's will, or against their own: "et ideo," says Bracton, "denominantur liberi." Such men were actual freeholders, and a certain number of them were necessary in every manor, to hold the pleas of the manor court. Domesday Book, however, exhibits different conditions of socmen: sometimes enjoying the usufruct within the soke freely, and sometimes performing certain inferior services of husbandry. 2 The villani may in general be considered as having been downright bondmen. 3 The dimidii villani appear to have been persons who had moieties only of villenage tenements, or who were half liberi and half villani. |