THE DOMESDAY SURVEY in the case of houses than in that of rural manors ; but the primitive simplicity of the former at the time has to be borne in mind. In the case of one holding we can make an interesting comparison. Domesday assigns to the abbot of Peterborough, in 1086, 15 houses, worth 14J. 8^. a year, besides two which were 'waste.' Forty years later (i 1 25-1 128), the Peterborough Liber Niger gives the details of this holding. The abbot, it says, has in Northampton fourteen tenants, besides two houses which are empty. Twelve of these tenants pay him sixteenpence yearly (a sum of frequent occurrence), one eightpence only, because he acts as ' beadle to the others,' and the remaining tenant, Warin Mansel, 32 pence.' The total rental then, therefore, was i ()s. d., an increase since Domesday. Professor Maitland attaches some importance to the fact that ' (the) burgesses of Northampton ' are entered as paying ^^o os. a year to the sheriff, which sum 'belonged to his ferm ' {Jirmam). For it bears on the question of collective liability, which implies some kind of com- munal action : — ' It certainly seems to tell us of a composition, not indeed between the burgesses and the king, but between the burgesses and the sheriflF. . . . We may believe that " the burgesses " who pay this sum have a chance of making a profit. If so " the burgesses" are already beginning to farm the borough.' . . . ' If the burgesses make profit out of tolls and fines, . . . they may divide the surplus every year, or we may suspect them of drinking the profits as soon as they are made.' * Northampton had to wait a century longer before it was allowed to ' farm ' the borough direct from the Crown, instead of through the sheriff; and it only obtained the privilege then (1185) by paying for it 200 marcs (>Ci33 6j. 8d'.), and by submitting to have its annual ren- der raised from >Ci°o to X^i20. Other boroughs had a similar experi- ence. The Domesday payment of ^31 10/. had been raised to >C^°*^ even in the days of Henry I. It is taken for granted by Professor Mait- land that the sheriff, in 1086, was already 'liable to the king for a round sum as the farm of the shire,' which was tht Jirma spoken of in the above Northampton entry. This, no doubt, is the natural inference, but the fact that counties were farmed as a whole even at the time of the survey must not be taken for granted, although it is is highly probable.' One of the most difficult questions raised by the Domesday Survey of the shire is the nature and locality of that ' Portland ' which is entered immediately after Casterton on fo. 219*^. It appears to have baffled previous students, although they assumed that the entry must refer to Northamptonshire.* It speaks of ' the other issues of the borough,' and ' See Chronicon Petroburgeme (Camden Soc.), p. 166.
- Domesday Book and Beyond, pp. 204, 2o8.
' See my Commune of London and other studies, pp. 72—3.
- Sir Henry Ellis placed * Portland in Northamptonshire ' {Introduction to Domesday, I.
263). Mr. Stuart Moore wrote : ' The king's demesne of Portland I can nowhere trace, but from the reference to the churches of St. Peter's and All Saints, it is possible that it had some connection with the town of Northampton, and was probably attached to the castle. This, however, is mere conjecture ' (p. vii.). In The Records of the Borough of Northampton (1898) 277
