[791] D. B. i. 154.
[793] In modern York the freemen inhabiting the different wards had rights of pasture varying from ward to ward: Appendix to Report of Municipal Corporations’ Commissioners, 1835, p. 1745. York is one of the towns in which we may perhaps suppose that there has been a gradual union of several communities which were at one time agrarianly distinct. See D. B. i. 298. Dr Stubbs seems to regard this as a common case and speaks of ‘the townships which made up the burh’ (Const. Hist. i. 101). We can not think that the evidence usually points in this direction, and have grave doubts as to the existence within the walls of various communities that were called townships. Within borough walls we must not leap from parish to township.
[794] D. B. i. 203. As to the whole of this matter see Mr Round’s paper on Domesday Finance in Domesday Studies, vol. i.
[795] Hist. Eng. Law, i. 635.
[796] D. B. i. 219.
[797] The case of London is anomalous; but not so anomalous as it is often supposed to be. On this point see Round, Geoffrey de Mandeville, 347 ff. On the Pipe Roll of 2 Hen. II. (pp. 24, 28) the citizens of Lincoln are accounting for a farm of £180, while the sheriff in consequence of this arrangement is credited with £140 (blanch) when he accounts for the farm of the shire. This is as yet a rare phenomenon.
[798] As to the round sums cast on the boroughs, see Round in Domesday Studies, i. 117 ff.; also Round, Feudal England, 156.
[799] This may not have been the case in East Anglia.
[800] D. B. i. 252.