A Cambridgeshire hundred.
Lest it should be thought that in picking out the village of Orwell we have studiously sought a rare case, we will here set out in a tabular form what we can learn of the state of the hundred in which Orwell lies. The Wetherley hundred contained twelve vills: it was a land of true villages which until very lately had wide open fields[556]. In the Confessor’s day the lands in it were allotted thus:—
Cambridgeshire. Wetherley Hundred[557].
| I. Comberton. A vill of 6 hides. | |||||
| H. | V. | A. | C. | B. | |
| 1. Seven sokemen of the King A sokeman, man of Earl Waltheof A sokeman, man of Abp Stigand  | 1 | 1 3 | 0 0 | 4 | 0 |
| 2. A man of Earl Waltheof | 1 | 15 | 1 | 0 | |
| 3. A sokeman, man of the King A sokeman, man of Abp Stigand A sokeman, man of Earl Waltheof | 1 1 1 | 0 15 15  | 2 | 0 | |
| 4. The King | 2 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 0 |
| 5 | 3 | 15[558] | 12 | 0 | |
| II. Barton. A vill of 7 hides. | |||||
| 1. Two sokemen, men of Earl Waltheof A sokeman, man of Earl Waltheof A sokeman, man of Earl Waltheof | 1 | 1 3 1 | 15 15[559] 0 | 4 | 0 |
| 2. Juhael the King’s hunter | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 3. A sokeman, man of Edith the Fair 4. Twenty-three sokemen of the King | 3 | 2 0 | 0 0 | 6 | 0 |
| 7 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 0 | |
| III. Grantchester. A vill of 7 hides[560] | |||||
| 1. Five sokemen, men of the King | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| 2. Two sokemen, men of the King A sokeman, man of Æsgar the Staller | 2 | 1 2 | 0 0 | 6 | 0 |
| 3. A sokeman, man of Earl Ælfgar Three sokemen, men of Earl Waltheof | 2 | 3 0 | 0 0 | 4 | 0 |
| 4. Godman a man of Edith the Fair | 1 | 15 | 1 | 0 | |
| 5. Juhael the King’s hunter | 1 | 0 | 4 | ||
| 6. Wulfric, the King’s man | 15 | 3 | |||
| 7 | 0 | 0 | 12 | 7 | |
| IV. Haslingfield. A vill of 20 hides. | |||||
| H. | V. | A. | C. | B. | |
| 1. The King | 7 | 1 | 0 | 8 | 0 |
| 2. Five sokemen, men of the King A sokeman, man of Æsgar the Staller | 3 1 | 0 3 | 0 0 | 4 | 0 |
| 3. Ealdred a man of Edith the Fair | 1 | 0 | 15 | 1 | 4 |
| 4. Edith the Fair, belonging to Swavesey | 2 | 0 | 4 | ||
| 5. Sigar a man of Æsgar the Staller | 5 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 |
| 6. Two sokemen of the King | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 0 |
| 7. Merewin, a man of Edith the Fair | 12 | 0 | 0 | ||
| 20 | 0 | 0 | 22 | 0 | |
| V. Harlton. A vill of 5 hides. | |||||
| 1. Achil, a King’s thegn and under him five sokemen of whom four were his men while the fifth was the man of Ernulf | 4 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 0 |
| 2. Godman a man of Æsgar the Staller | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | |
| VI. Barrington. A vill of 10 hides. | |||||
| 1. Eadric Púr a King’s thegn Fifteen sokemen, men of the King Four sokemen, men of Earl Ælfgar Three sokemen, men of Æsgar the Staller Eadric Púr, holding of the Church of Chatteris | 4 2 1 | 3 1 0 0 | 0 15 15 0 15  | 11 | 0 |
| 2. The Church of Chatteris | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 |
| 3. Ethsi, holding of Robert Wimarc’s son | 20 | 3 | |||
| 4. Achil the Dane, a man of Earl Harold | 40 | 6 | |||
| 5. A sokeman, man of the King | 15 | 2 | |||
| 11 | 0 | 0[561] | 17 | 3 | |
| VII. Shepreth. A vill of 5 hides. | |||||
| H. | V. | A. | C. | B. | |
| 1. Four sokemen, men of the King A sokeman, man of Earl Ælfgar | 2 | 0 | 15 | 2 | 2 |
| 2. The Church of Chatteris | 1 | 1 | 15 | 1 | 4 |
| 3. Sigar a man of Æsgar the Staller | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| 4. Heming a man of the King | 1 | 15 | 4 | ||
| 5. The Church of Ely | 15 | 2 | |||
| 5 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 4 | |
| VIII. Orwell. A vill of 4 hides. | |||||
| 1. Two sokemen, men of Edith the Fair A sokeman, man of Abp Stigand A sokeman, man of Robert Wimarc’s son A sokeman, man of the King A sokeman, man of Earl Ælfgar | | 1 1 1 | 20 10 10 20 10 | 1 | 4 |
| 2. A sokeman, man of Earl Waltheof A sokeman, man of the King | | 3 | 0 10 | 1 | 0 |
| 3. Sigar, a man of Æsgar the Staller | 1 | 10 | 4 | ||
| 4. Turbert, a man of Edith the Fair | 3 | 121⁄2 | 1 | 4 | |
| 5. Achil, a man of Earl Harold | 1 | 0 | 2 | ||
| 6. A sokeman, man of the King | 1 | 0 | 3 | ||
| 7. The Church of Chatteris | 10 | 1 | |||
| 8. The Church of Chatteris | 71⁄2 | 1⁄2 | |||
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2 | |
| IX. Wratworth. A vill of 4 hides. | |||||
| 1. A sokeman, man of Edith the Fair A sokeman, man of Abp Stigand A sokeman, man of Earl Ælfgar A sokeman, man of Robert Wimarc’s son A sokeman, man of the King | | 3 3 1 | 10 0 10 10 20  | 3 | 0 |
| 2. A sokeman, man of Earl Waltheof A sokeman, man of Robert Wimarc’s son | | 2 | 20 10 | 1 | 0 |
| 3. A sokeman, man of Edith the Fair | 1 | 10 | 4 | ||
| 4. A sokeman, man of the King | 1 | 0 | 3 | ||
| 5. Two sokemen, men of the King | 2 | 0 | 4 | ||
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 3 | |
| X. Whitwell. A vill of 4 hides. | |||||
| 1. A sokeman, man of Earl Ælfgar A sokeman, man of Robert Wimarc’s son A sokeman, A sokeman, man of the King | | 1 1 2 | 20 0 0 | 1 | 4 |
| 2. A sokeman, man of Abp Stigand A sokeman, man of Edith the Fair [A sokeman] | | | 15 10 15 | 4 | |
| 3. Six sokemen, men of the King A sokeman, man of Robert Wimarc’s son A sokeman, man of Earl Ælfgar | 1 | 1 2 1 | 0 0 0 | 2 | 0 |
| 4. Godwin a man of Edith the Fair | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | |
| XI. Wimpole. A vill of 4 hides. | |||||
| 1. Edith the Fair | 2 | 2 | 15 | 3 | 0 |
| 2. Earl Gyrth | 1 | 1 | 15 | 2 | 0 |
| 4 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 0 | |
| XII. Arrington. A vill of 4 hides. | |||||
| 1. Ælfric, a King’s thegn A sokeman, man of Earl Waltheof A sokeman, man of the Abbot of Ely A sokeman, man of Robert Wimarc’s son | 1 1 1 | 1 0 0 | 10 0 0 20  | 8 | 0 |
| 2. A man of Edith the Fair | 2 | 0 | 4 | ||
| 4 | 0 | 0[562] | 8 | 4 | |
The Wetherley sokemen.
Now if by a ‘manor’ we mean what our historical economists usually mean when they use that term, we must protest that before the Norman Conquest there were very few manors in the Wetherley hundred. In no one case was the whole of a village coincident with a manor, with a lord’s estate. The king had considerable manors in Comberton and Haslingfield. Sigar had a manor at Haslingfield; the church of Chatteris had a manor at Barrington besides some land at Shepreth; Wimpole was divided between Edith and Earl Gyrth; Harlton between Achil and Godman. But in Barton, Grantchester, Shepreth, Orwell, Wratworth, Whitwell and Arrington we see nothing manorial, unless we hold ourselves free to use that term of a little tenement which to all appearance might easily be cultivated by the labour of one household, at all events with occasional help supplied by a few cottagers. Indeed it is difficult to say what profit some of the great people whose names we have mentioned were deriving from those of their men who dwelt in the Wetherley hundred. We take the Mercian earl for example[563]. One of the sokemen of Grantchester, four of the sokemen of Barrington, one of the sokemen of Shepreth, one of the sokemen of Orwell, one of the sokemen of Wratworth, two of the sokemen of Whitwell were Ælfgar’s men. That Ælfgar got a little money or a little provender out of them is probable, that they did some carrying service for him is possible and perhaps they aided him at harvest time on some manor of his in another part of the county; but that they were not the tillers of his land seems clear[564].
The sokeman and seignorial justice.
What is more, our analysis of this Wetherley hundred enables us to drive home the remark that very often a sokeman was not the sokeman of his lord or, in other words, that he was not under seignorial justice[565]. Ælfgar had ten sokemen scattered about in six villages. Did he hold a court for them? We think not. Did they go to the court of some distant manor? We think not. The court they attended was the Wetherley hundred-moot. One of the sokemen in Arrington was in a somewhat exceptional position—exceptional, that is, in this hundred. Not only was he the man of the Abbot of Ely, but his soke belonged to the Abbot; and if he sold his tenement, and this he could do without the Abbot’s consent, the soke over his land would ‘remain’ to the Abbot[566]. He was not only his lord’s man but his lord’s justiciable and probably attended some court outside the hundred. But for the more part these men of Wetherley were not the justiciables of their lords. It was a very free hundred when the Normans came there: much too free for the nation’s welfare we may think, for these sokemen could go with their land to what lord they pleased. Also be it noted in passing that the churches have little in Wetherley.
Changes in the Wetherley hundred.
In 1086 there had been a change. The sokemen had disappeared. The Norman lords had made demesne land where their English antecessores possessed none. Count Roger had instituted a seignorial court at Orwell. He had borrowed three sokemen ‘to hold his pleas’ from Picot the sheriff and had refused to give them up again[567]. Apparently they had sunk to the level of villani. Two centuries afterwards we see the hundred of Wetherley once more. There is villeinage enough in it. The villein at Orwell, for example, holds only 10 acres but works for his lord on 152 days in the year, besides boon-days[568]. And yet we should go far astray if we imposed upon these Cambridgeshire villages that neat manorial system which we see at its neatest and strongest in the abbatial cartularies. The villages do not become manors. The manors are small. The manors are intermixed in the open fields. There are often freeholders in the village who are not the tenants of any lord who has a manor there. A villein will hold two tenements of two lords. The villein of one lord will be the freeholder of another. The ‘manorial system’ has been forced upon the villages, but it fits them badly[569].