THE DOMESDAY SURVEY I pass to Hawkswell in Rochford Hundred : HECHWELLAM tenet Pirot de Eudone quod (HACWELLA tenet Efudo] in dominio) l tenuit Ulmer' T.R.E. pro Manerio et pro iii quod tenuit Ulmar' liber homo pro Manerio hidis et dimidia xv acras minus. Tune xi et (pro iii hidis et dimidia) ' xv acras minus, villani ; modo viii. Semper v bordarii. Tune T.R.E. Tune xi villani ; modo viii. Semper ii servi ; modo iii. Semper ii caruce in do- v bordarii. Tune ii servi ; modo iii. Semper minio. Tune vi caruce hominum ; modo v. ii caruce in dominio. Tune vi caruce homi- iiii acre prati. Silva x porcis. Tune ii run- num ; modo v. iiii acre prati. Silva x porcis. cini et v animalia, cii oves, xx porci ; modo Tune ii runcini ; modo vi. Tune v ani- xvi animalia, cvi oves, xx porci, ii vasa apum. malia ; modo xvi. Tune cii oves ; modo Tune et post valuit vi libras ; modo vii (fo. cvi. Semper xx porci. Modo ii vasa apum. 50). Tune valuit vi libras ; modo vii (fo. 5 1 6). The variation in the spelling of the name is again suggestive of dictation, while, as there was absolute contradiction in the last instance as to the name of the under-tenant, so here there is no less contradic- tion between the statement that Hawkswell is held by Eudo in demesne and the statement that, on the contrary, it is held of him by Pirot. In other respects there is close agreement here between the two versions, the live stock being merely arranged in a different manner. Below is the last example of a duplicate entry in the county, namely that which relates to Braintree. It occurs among the ' Inva- siones,' and the reader will observe that ' Ledmar ' is described as
- Ledmar ' of Hempstead in one version and as ' Letmar ' the reeve in
the other. Probably in the original return he was styled ' Ledmar of Hempstead the reeve.' In BRANCHETREU xxx acras terrae tenue- In BRANCHETREU iii liberi homines T.R.E. runt iii liberi homines T.R.E., et val[et] iii xxx ac[ras], quas Letmar' prepositus reclama- solidos. Hanc terrain invasit Ledmar' de vit ad feudum Ricardi, sed homines illius non Hamesteda, et tenuit ad feudum Ricardi, et testantur, et inde dedit vadem, et val[et] iii R. non est inde sibi tutor (fo. loib). solidos (fo. 103). Here there is very considerable difference between the two accounts of the reeve's failure to justify his action. In the one it is stated that R[ichard Fitz Gilbert] does not warrant (using that term in the techni- cal sense) his action ; according to the other, Richard's men do not testify in his favour, and he has given gage (or wed, i.e. security) to stand trial in the matter (inde). This phrase introduces us to an aspect of the Domesday Survey as important as it is obscure. It is only by incidental allusions that we are enabled to gather that ' pleas ' of some kind were held before the Domes- day Commissioners (Legati). Under * Invasiones super regem in Ex- sessa ' (fo. 99^) we read that certain land was already in the king's hands 'before these pleas took place' (antequam hcec placita fierent}. A somewhat tantalizing entry under Newport fails to make it certain that it was the commissioners themselves who pronounced an invading clerk at the king's mercy for his body and his goods. 1 On fo. 25^ we gather, of half a hide at Alresford, that as no one came forward 1 The words within the brackets have been deleted in the MS.
- See p. 436 below.
4U
