^{page 34 note 1} See Introduction, p. xxx. ‘ Villes entiere ’ are mentioned in clause iv of the Statute as a unit for watch and ward, smaller than a borough, city or ‘ port ’ (W. Stubbs, Select Charters, p. 465, and Lees, Beatrice A. in Eng. Hist. Rev., xli. 101Google Scholar, who gives the correct reading of ‘ vile entiere ’).

^{page 35 note 1} There are indications, as the following footnotes will show, that this section of the survey is earlier than the survey of hidage payments for the same hundred.

^{page 35 note 2} In the list of those who pay hidage (infra, p. 37) there is no Richard Hahewlf; but there is a Thurstan Hahewlf.

^{page 35 note 3} In the list of those who pay hidage there is no Edric ; but there is ‘ Herodes filius Edrici ’.

^{page 35 note 4} Ailbald seems to be dead (infra, p. 38).

^{page 35 note 5} Ricardus filius Susanne (infra, p. 40).

^{page 35 note 6} He also had a house in Bury St. Edmunds. See Charter 8.

^{page 35 note 7} I.e. Valognes. See D.B., ii. 367b and 420b, and D.C.D., p. 23.

^{page 35 note 8} 40 acres (D.B., ii. 439b).

^{page 35 note 9} 30 acres held from the abbey (D.B., ii. 365b).

^{page 35 note 10} I carucate held from the abbey (D.B., ii. 366 and D.C.D., p. 23).

^{page 36 note 1} Robert Blund held 1½ carucates from the abbey (D.B., ii. 367b).

^{page 36 note 2} According to Domesday Book, Hugh de Montfort had no lands in Ixworth Thorpe, although the honor of Haughley was formed out of his lands.

^{page 37 note 1} Compare the survey from the Iter Salomonis Roffensis printed in E. Powell A Suffolk Hundred in the Year 1283, pp. 47–61. In that survey (1280) 232¼ acres were held de hundredo pertinente ad dictum abbatem and the hidage from them was paid to the hundred. Abbot Samson's Kalendar records a total of 234 ware acres in Stanton. In 1086 there were 60 sokemen with 2 carucates (i.e. 240 ware acres), who could not give or sell their land without the licence of the abbot; but there were also 7 freemen with 1 carucate and 30 acres who could give and sell their land so long as commendation and soke remained with the saint, together with the service (D.B., ii. 364).

^{page 37 note 2} This is part of the freer land, and owed a suit. See p. 38.

^{page 37 note 3} This land was freer. Robert owed a suit.

^{page 37 note 4} This land was freer. See also p. 35, n. 2 supra.

^{page 37 note 5} This land was freer. William owed a suit.

^{page 37 note 6} See p. 35, n. 3 supra.

^{page 38 note 1} This land was freer and owed a suit.

^{page 38 note 2} This land was freer. Robert owed a suit.

^{page 38 note 3} A total of 22 acres. See p. 37.

^{page 38 note 4} These two owed suit to the hundred and held a total of 31 acres.

^{page 39 note 1} ‘ excluding forfeitures of serjeanty ’. For the serjeanties of horn and club, see Jacob's Law Dictionary (Cornage and Clavia). Horn serjeanty was common only in N. England and on the Welsh marches, where there was need for men to sound the alarm for invasion by blowing a horn. Cases of serjeanty of the club or mace are found in Essex and Herts.

^{page 40 note 1} There is no trace of a charter recording this transaction. For a similar case, see Introduction, p. xl. The socage land involved must originally have belonged to Stanton and Bardwell, since its hidage is recorded here, although Barningham is in the 14th lete. Barningham is adjacent to Stanton and Bardwell. See also infra, pp. 52, 54.

^{page 40 note 2} D.C.D., no. 119.

^{page 40 note 3} Subsequent passages in the survey suggest that the meaning of this confused paragraph is that out of 180 ware acres, William Word well holds 20, Robert the Knight 40 and Gilbert Peche 22½. In the following paragraphs the individual holdings are enumerated and are measured in ‘ acres ’ which are different from the normal ware acres. It is probable that when the survey refers to a hundred ‘ acres ’ it refers to a long hundred of 120 ‘ acres ’, because 60 ‘ acres ’ pay half the amount due from a (long) hundred. Six of these local ‘ acres ’ seem to have been the equivalent of one ware acre, for William Wordwell's 20 ware acres are subsequently described as a (long) hundred of local acres. But it is impossible to reconcile all the conflicting statements about the total acreage. In 1086 there were 21 freemen with 2 carucates and 15 freemen with 1 carucate (D.B., ii. 364, 365).

^{page 41 note 1} So also in 1086 the sokemen of West Stow owed their services at Lackford (which is in another hundred), D.B., ii. 364. There was then no mention of Risby sharing the services, although Risby and Lackford did share the services from another vill, Flempton.

^{page 41 note 2} For Aubrey of Dammartin, see J. H. Round, Studies in the Peerage and Family History, p. 177.

^{page 41 note 3} In 1086 there were eleven freemen holding 2 carucates and owing service at Culford (D.B., ii. 366b).

^{page 42 note 1} He died before Michaelmas 1188 and was succeeded by his brother Gilbert. Presumably the survey of Word well was made slightly earlier than that of the others in this hundred. Elsewhere in the survey we read of Gilbert Peche who was the younger brother and heir of Geoffrey.

^{page 42 note 2} So also in 1086 there was one carucate in demesne, ½ carucate of socage land and one carucate which Peter the steward held, and which Gilbert Peche now holds (D.B., ii. 364).

^{page 42 note 3} This land was referred to supra, p. 35, as socagium domini abbatis because the abbey was not the chief tenant in the vill. In 1086 the abbey had 3 freemen with one carucate here (D.B., ii. 366b) ; contrast Abbot Baldwin's ‘ Feudal Book ’ (D.C.D., p. 17). See also D.B., ii. 299, 330b, 398b, 405b.

^{page 43 note 1} The state of afiairs in 1086 was very different (D.B., ii. 366, 421, 436b, 439b).

^{page 43 note 2} In 1086 it was held by Peter de Valognes, mainly in chief, but partly from the abbot (D.B., ii. 420b, 367b).

^{page 43 note 3} The demesne and socage land were both the same in 1086 (D.B., ii. 364).

^{page 43 note 4} Although this land is not stated to belong to the Honor of Lancaster, it must, by the process of elimination, be the carucate which Roger or Poitou held in 1086. It had previously been held by Lewin, King Edward's thegn (D.B., ii. 348). The term nova terra is the equivalent of ‘ uncarucated land ’, having been brought into cultivation after the assessment by carucates had been drawn up.

^{page 43 note 5} This sentence is obscure, but the meaning seems to be that the Kalendar surveys only five out of the nine equal lands called ‘ sifts ’ in Troston, because only five of them belong to the abbot, since these five ‘ sifts ’ form a carucate of socage land. It would follow that every ‘ sift ’ consists of 24 ware acres, which would agree well with the payment of 26d. as hidage. Five ‘ acres ’ by the local measure would be counted as two ware acres. The survey of socage tenements in Abbot Baldwin's ‘ Feudal Book ’ shows a total of 113 ware acres (D.C.D., p. 37). In D.B., ii. 366b, we read of 24 freemen with 2½ carucates.

^{page 44 note 1} These 60 ‘ acres ’ would represent 24 ware acres.

^{page 44 note 2} This surely shows the formation of a court leet, or court which exercises a share of the hundred's jurisdiction in some particular neighbourhood. Courts leet eventually became indistinguishable from manor courts, and the freemen of Troston are clearly on the road to villeinage, of their own volition.

^{page 45 note 1} In 1086 there were 20 freemen with 2 carucates, but 150 ware acres had been alienated (D.B., ii. 365b). In abbot Baldwin's ‘ Feudal Book’, 47¾ acres are listed and they paid 65d. (D.C.D., p. 40). A later extent of the manor (but not the socage) of Hepworth is printed in Pinchbeck, i. 471.

^{page 45 note 2} In 1086 it apparently belonged to Fulcher (D.B., ii. 365b ; D.C.D., p. 17).

^{page 45 note 3} E.g. the barony of Valognes; supra, p. 35.

^{page 45 note 4} The sokemen did in fact hold two carucates in 1086 (D.B., ii. 366).

^{page 46 note 1} So also in 1086 (D.B., ii. 367b, 438b, 439b, 440, 447).

^{page 46 note 2} So also in 1086 there were 5 sokemen with 40 acres (D.B., ii. 364b).

^{page 46 note 3} See Charter 85.

^{page 46 note 4} As in 1086 (D.B., ii. 364b).

^{page 46 note 5} In D.B., ii. 364b, besides the 22 sokemen with ½ carucate, there were 2 freemen with ½ carucate.

^{page 47 note 1} The statement is necessary because the manor shared with the reeves the similar dues which it received from Wattisfield (infra, p. 48).

^{page 47 note 2} The socage land consisted of only 40 acres in D.B., ii. 364b, but 59 are listed in Abbot Baldwin's ‘Feudal Book’ (D.C.D., p. 40).

^{page 47 note 3} See Charter 89 for another (?) tenement of 24 acres that he held for 17d. a year and stated services.

^{page 47 note 4} D.B., ii. 365b records 20 freemen with 1 ½ carucates, and Abbot Baldwin's ‘ Feudal Book ’ records 58½ acres in 28 holdings (D.C.D., p. 39).

^{page 47 note 5} In Abbot Baldwin's ‘ Feudal Book ’ (part iii) there is an ‘ Oschetel’ who holds 6 acres for 8d. (D.C.D., p. 39).

^{page 47 note 6} In Abbot Baldwin's ‘ Feudal’ Book (part iii) there is a Suarche who holds 3 acres for 4d. ; ibid.

^{page 48 note 1} Service was due to Rickinghall from Wattisfield in 1086 (D.B., ii. 365b).

^{page 48 note 2} In 1086 the abbey held 7 freemen with 1 carucate in Langham and 3 sokemen with ½ carucate in Hunston (excluding those held by Bucard) (D.B., ii. 367). Abbot Baldwin's ‘ Feudal Book ’ (part iii), however, agrees more or less with the Kalendar in giving 8 holdings with 48 ware acres in Langham and 2 holdings with 30 ware acres in Hunston (D.C.D., p. 38).

^{page 49 note 1} Stowe clearly belonged to Robert of Langetot (supra, p. 36). In 1086 four out of fourand-a-half carucates in Stowe were sublet by the abbot to Durandus.

^{page 49 note 2} In 1086 there were five sokemen with 40 acres in Elms well who could not give or sell their land without the abbot's licence. (D.B., ii. 364b). In Abbot Baldwin's ‘ Feudal Book ’ (part iii) there were ten holdings with 41½ ware acres (D.C.D., p. 38). This has now been reduced to 20 ware acres. In Walsham there were in 1086 30 freemen who could give and sell their land, with 3 carucates ; but of these Robert Blund already held ten men with 2 carucates, and the Kalendar reports that the abbot had subsequently given him six more men. It would seem that this last gift was made to him before the composition of part iii of Abbot Baldwin's ‘ Feudal Book ’ (before 1119), since we there find only 48 instead of 120 ware acres listed (D.C.D., p. 39). See D.B., ii. 367.

^{page 50 note 1} This may well refer to the union of Bradmere and Blackbourn Hundreds. See Introduction, p. xxix.

^{page 50 note 2} Apparently the abbey held 90 ware acres of socage land in its own hand in 1086, but of these 90 acres, 60 were held by one sokeman (D.B., ii. 367).

^{page 50 note 3} Presumably the 17 freemen with one carucate and 30 acres which Odarus held from the abbey in 1086 (D.B., ii. 367).

^{page 50 note 4} In 1086 Fulcher held 8 freemen with 1 carucate from the abbot (D.B., ii. 366b).

^{page 50 note 5} The 2 carucates and 40 acres which Frodo had held in chief (D.B., ii. 354b).

^{page 50 note 6} See The Red Book of the Exchequer, ed. H. Hall (R.S., 1896), i. 404.

^{page 50 note 7} In 1086 the freemen held 1 ½ carucates (D.B., ii. 365b). In part iii of Abbot Baldwin's ‘ Feudal Book ’ they held 101½ ware acres (D.C.D., p. 41).

^{page 51 note 1} Cf. Abbot Baldwin's ‘ Feudal Book ’ (part iii) : ‘ Fulcher vi acras et vii denarios ’ (D.C.D., p. 41).

^{page 51 note 2} Ibid., p. 42 : ‘ Leuric de Smidere x acras et xii denarios ’.

^{page 52 note 1} The obligation is on the house (and the land that goes with it), not on the man.

^{page 52 note 2} This passage illustrates excellently the difficulty of distinguishing between villeins and sokemen in practice.

^{page 52 note 3} See also supra, p. 39.

^{page 53 note 1} Humphrey de Bohun died on 6 April 1187. This part of the survey must therefore be earlier than that date.

^{page 53 note 2} In 1086 also there was ¾ carucate of socage land (D.B., ii. 365). There were then 12 sokemen. In part iii of Abbot Baldwin's ‘ Feudal Book ’ there are 15 holdings totalling 59 ware acres (D.C.D., p. 41).

^{page 53 note 3} Rushford straddled the boundary of Norfolk and Suffolk. The Little Ouse forms the boundary and flows through the village. The church and greater part of the village are on the north bank and are therefore in Norfolk. The abbey was concerned only with that portion of it that was within the Suffolk hundred of Blackbourn.

^{page 54 note 1} They ranked as villeins, because only freemen attended the hundred court and freemen were not in frankpledge (A. L. Poole, From Domesday Book to Magna Carta, p. 394).

^{page 54 note 2} Yet it is one Burcardus who owes a suit (supra, p. 36).

^{page 54 note 3} In 1086 Norton was Terra Regis (formerly Earl Ralf) ; hence any socage land that there might have been would not have been likely to pay hidage to the abbot, but only the sheriff's aid.

^{page 56 note 1} See p. 54, n. 1, above. Freemen were exempt from frankpledge, and these sums must have been derived from villeins, as in the cases of Rushford and Knettishall. The Kalendar does not enumerate villeins or their lands, but payments for frankpledge were a royal right and are therefore included.