A HISTORY OF DERBYSHIRE ness of the local bodies, the hundred or wapentake, thrown up into relief. The latter is the case in Derbyshire, at Radbourne, which is entered on the fief of Henry de Ferrers, a note, however, being added to the entry that ' Ralf fitz Hubert claims the third part of Radbourne and the wapen- take bears witness in his favour.' l Nothing more is stated about the matter, but Ralf's claim may not have been entirely unconnected with his possession of the neighbouring manor of Kirk Langley. The Domesday use of the word ' intercapere ' as denoting unjust seizure is illustrated at Breaston. Here two Englishmen, Ligulf and ' Lewin cilt,' had held a
- manor before the Conquest, and in addition Ligulf had possessed half a
carucate of sokeland in the same place, which we are told 'Fulk de Lusoris has intercepted in despite of Gilbert de Gand.' The latter was at this time possessed of two carucates of sokeland in Breaston belonging, it would seem, to his manor of Ilkeston which he had derived from his regular ' predecessor ' Ulf ' fenisc.' Evidently the opinion of the jurors supported Gilbert's right to the sokeland held by Fulk de Lusoris. Possibly Ligulf may have been the 'man' of Ulf fenisc with reference to the sokeland which he held in Breaston, in which case the law represented in Domesday would assign the latter to Gilbert as the recognised successor of Ulf, the former lord of the land. This, however, is only a guess. Of Ligulf nothing more is known, but in ' Lewin cilt,' his partner at Breaston, strange as it may appear, we may quite possibly recognise Leofwine of Cad- dington, Herts, whose position in Domesday and elsewhere has been worked out by Mr. Round, in the Victoria History of the latter county, 8 where also he appears as ' Lewin cilt.' He held land in Herts, Bucks, and Beds, but we should not certainly be prepared to meet with him so far north as Derbyshire were it not for the coincidence of the designation
- cilt,' meaning apparently a person of noble birth, which seems unlikely
to have been applied to two different persons of the same name. If the two are identical, this Lewin cannot be the same as the ' Lewin, the son of Alwin,' who is entered among the possessors of sac and soc before the Conquest, as the father of the Hertfordshire Lewin cilt was called Edwine. 8 It is unfortunate that none of these disputed or doubtful claims gave rise in Derbyshire to duplicate entries of the land in question, as we some- times draw from the latter very valuable information as to the employment of equivalent terms in Domesday. One entry in our Survey, however, although the land which it describes does not seem to have been contested, bears every appearance of being duplicated at the end of the description of the fief on which it stands. We may place the two entries side by side: I. II. Ibidem In Morleia (Morley) habuit In Morelai terciam partem (sic) duarum Siward iiiciam partem duarum carucat- carucaratum terrae ad geldum. Seward arum ad geldum. Ibi habet Henricus habuit. Nunc Henricus habet. iiii villanos cum i carucam. Silva past- (ilis) iiii quarentenae longtitudine et iii latitudine. 1 Probably Appletree Wapentake. a V. C. H. Herts, i. z8i.
- Kemble, Codex. Dipt. iv. 259.
322
