“1659. I was at Aldington Court, where I came before the Steward sate, yet were they then chusing for the 32 Denns, and Mr. Short brought me a note for chusing Mr. John Maynard, Sergt at Law ... he was not chosen after the ancient custom of the Court, that is, to present two to the Steward, and he to take one.... The tenants of the 12 Denns pretended if it were sometime a Custom it had been long interrupted, and refused to follow the example of the 32 ... after dinner, this grew a great dispute, Mr. Short complaining of partiality, that the choice of one man was received for the 12 and not for the 32 Dennes. This drew on the manner of chusing of the 32 Dennes, which was, that they usually met at 9 o’clock long before the Steward himself could reach the Court, made choice of one man before there was a Court.... This brought forth an excellent order, that the Denns should chuse and present the person by them chosen after the manner the other Culets did.... Coming away, the Bailiff told me he had a writ to distreyn me for the rent of the 32 Denns. I told him I had no land held of it that I knew.... Sir Edward Sydnam, Lord of the Manor, and who is to answer the rents to the Exchequer, told me I would be distreyned for it,—my answer was, I was not willing to make my land chargeable with a burthen more than my ancestors had paid—that there was a Court of Survey to be kept in the Spring,—that if I could not then discharge myself of having land, held of the 32 Denns, I would and must pay it.”
“Aldington Court. 1664. Sr John Maynard Sergt at Law was chosen to the Great Office though it were affirmed, he being Kings Sergt would procure a discharge. The order before mentioned of 6s. 8d. for such Culets as received from the Steward a transcript of what they were to collect, and 10s. for the Great Office was at this Court willingly assented to.”
This determined refusal of a Markgraviat in the Mark of Kent is amusing enough; the Alberts, Berchtholds and Luitpolts did not make quite so much difficulty about Brandenburg, Baden or Ancona. How the dispute ended I do not know, but the right was not in question: all that Sir Roger doubted was its applicability to himself. Still the nature of the jurisdiction seems clear enough, and the transition of an old Mark Court into a Lord’s Court, with a steward, is obvious from the custom of the Tenants chusing “before the Steward himself could reach the Court;” the abolition of which, Sir Roger naturally considered an excellent thing.
APPENDIX B.
THE HÍD.
From the tables in the above chapter, it appears that we cannot allow one hundred actual acres to the Híd, and still less one hundred and twenty. A similar result will be obtained if we examine the entries in Domesday. Thus
| Name | Hides | Acreage. | At 30 | At 40 | At 100 | At 120 | Excess | Excess |
| acres. | acres. | acres. | acres. | at 30. | at 40. | |||
| Keynsham, Somers. | 50 | 3330 | 1500 | 2000 | 5000 | 6000 | 1830 | 1330 |
| Dowlish, Somers. | 9 | 680 | 270 | 360 | 900 | 1080 | 410 | 320 |
| Easton in Gordano, Somers.[[838]] | 20 | 1440 | 600 | 800 | 2000 | 2400 | 840 | 640 |
| Babington, Somers.[[839]] | 5 | 600 | 150 | 200 | 500 | 600 | 450 | 400 |
| Lullington, Somers.[[840]] | 7 | 840 | 210 | 280 | 700 | 840 | 630 | 560 |
| Road, Somers.[[841]] | 9 | 1010 | 270 | 360 | 900 | 1080 | 740 | 650 |
| Pilton, Devon.[[842]] | 20 | 1210 | 600 | 800 | 2000 | 2400 | 610 | 410 |
| Taunton, Somers.[[843]] | 65 | 2730 | 1950 | 2600 | 6500 | 7800 | 780 | 130 |
| Portshead with Westbury,Somers.[[844]] | 11 | 1610 | 330 | 440 | 1100 | 1320 | 1280 | 1170 |
I have intentionally selected one or two examples where the whole acreage exactly makes up the sum of hides multiplied by 120, because it is probable that such instances may have led to that calculation: but it is necessary to bear in mind that the Híd is exclusively arable land, and that in the case where the number of hides equalled the whole acreage, there could have been neither forest, nor meadow nor pasture. The notes on some of the entries will show how erroneous any such calculation would necessarily be. And lest this assertion that the híd is exclusive of unbroken land should appear unsupported, I wish the following data to be considered. But first we must see how the híd is distributed into its component parts. In Domesday the híd consists of four yard-lands, virga or virgata: and the virga of four farthings or farlings, ferlingus, ferlinus, ferdinus, fertinus: thus
| 1 fertin. | ||
| 4 fertin. | = 1 virg. | |
| 16 fertin. | = 4 virg. | = 1 hide, |
whatever may have been the number of acres in the ferling. Again in Domesday, the amount of an estate held by any one is given, together with the amount of wood, meadow and pasture in his hands. If these be included in the amount of the híd, or its parts, which the tenant held, we shall arrive at the following results; which (even for a moment taking the híd at 120 acres) are a series of reductiones ad absurdum. In the Exeter Domesday, fol. 205b (vol. iii. 187) I find an estate valued at 11 acres: the pasture etc. mentioned as belonging to it is counted at 20 acres: these, it is clear, could not be comprised in the eleven. But let us take a few examples tabularly.
| Exon. Domesd. | Holding. | Pasture, etc. | At least. | ||
| f. 210. | vol. iii. | 191. | ½ hide. | 93 acres. | ∴ hide = 186 acres. |
| f. 211. | 191. | 1 virg. | 55 | ∴ hide = 220 | |
| f. 211, b. | 191. | ⅓ ferl. (1⁄48 h.) | 6 | ∴ hide = 288 | |
| f. 211, b. | 191. | 1 virg. | 40 | ∴ hide = 160 | |
| f. 212. | 191. | ⅓ ferl. | 4 | ∴ hide = 192 | |
| f. 212. | 192. | 3 ferl. | 40 | ∴ hide = 213⅓ | |
| f. 213. | 192. | 1 hide. | 164 | ∴ hide = 164 | |
| f. 214. | 193. | 1 virg. | 40 | ∴ hide = 160 | |
| f. 216. | 196. | 1 virg. | 37 | ∴ hide = 148 | |
| f. 217. | 197. | 1 virg. | 84 | ∴ hide = 336 | |
| f. 218. | 198. | 1 hide. | 310 | ∴ hide = 310 | |
| f. 224. | 203. | 1 hide. | 500 | ∴ hide = 500 | |
| f. 224, b. | 203. | 1 ferl. | 106 | ∴ hide = 1696 | |
| f. 325. | 204. | 1 ferl. | 103 | ∴ hide = 1648 | |