English Villages

by P. H. Ditchfield

TRANSLATION.

“In the hundred of Charlton.

“The king holds Barkham in demesne. AElmer held it of King Edward. Then, as now, it was rated for three hides. The land is three ploughlands. In demesne there is one ploughland. There are six villeins, four borderers with three ploughs. There are five acres of pasture. Wood for the pasturage of forty hogs. It was worth 4l. in the time of King Edward, afterwards, and now, 3l.”

King Edward here mentioned was Edward the Confessor. A hide, when it is used as a measure of land, may be taken at about one hundred and twenty acres. A ploughland was as much land as one plough with oxen could plough in a year. The villeins were men who tilled their lord’s land, and in return for certain services had holdings under him. The borderers were cottagers who also worked for their lord and held smaller holdings, from one to ten acres. In other entries we find the number of serfs recorded, and also mention of the hall of the lord of the manor, where the manorial courts were held, the church, the priest’s house, the names of landowners and tenants, the mill, and of the various officers and artisans who made up the village community.

Domesday tells us of the old Saxon families, many of whom lost their estates when the Conqueror came, and were supplanted by the favourites of the new king. Some of them contrived to weather the storm and retain their lands. Almer, or Almar, the lord of Barkham, who succeeded his brother Stigand as Bishop of Elmham in 1047, when the latter became archbishop, was among the number of the dispossessed, and probably found shelter with many of his compatriots in the cloister. Several of William’s Norman adventurers married the heiresses of the old Saxon gentry, and thus became possessed of great estates. Thus Robert D’Oili married the daughter of Wigod, lord of Wallingford, and soon gained possession of his father-in-law’s property.

However, the names of the fortunate Saxons who retained their estates are few in comparison with those who were dispossessed. We find Edgar Atheling, real heir to the throne, retaining a small estate; but he was a feeble prince, and therefore not to be feared by William. His sister Cristina had also land in Oxfordshire. Bishop Osbern, of Exeter, a kinsman of the late king, also held his estates; and amongst the list we find Seward the huntsman, of Oxfordshire; Theodric the goldsmith; Wlwi the huntsman, of Surrey; Uluric the huntsman, of Hampshire, who were not deprived of their lands, their occupations being useful to the king.

The list of despoiled landowners is a long one, and need not here be recorded. One Brictric was very unfortunate. When ambassador to Baldwin of Flanders he refused to marry the count’s daughter Maud. The slighted lady became the Conqueror’s consort, and in revenge for her despised love caused Brictric to be imprisoned and his estates confiscated, some of which were given to the queen. The luckless relations and connections of the late royal house were consistently despoiled, amongst them Editha, the beautiful queen of King Edward, and daughter of Earl Godwin, of whom it was written: “Sicut spina rosam genuit Godwynus Editham”; and Gida, the mother of Harold; Godric, his son; and Gwith, his brother. Harold himself—the earl, as he is called, and not the king, who fought and died at Senlac, if he did not, as the romance states, end his life as a holy hermit at Chester—had vast estates all over England, which went to enrich William’s hungry followers. Hereward the Wake, the English hero, also held in pre-Norman days many fat manors. Few of the Saxon landowners were spared, and it is unnecessary here to record the names of the Uchtreds, Turgots, Turchils, Siwards, Leurics, who held lands “in the time of King Edward,” but whose place after Domesday knows them no more.

Domesday tells us also the names of the officers and artisans who played important parts in the old village communities. The villani, or villeins, corresponding to the Saxon ceorls, were the most important class of tenants in villeinage, and each held about thirty acres in scattered acre or half-acre strips, each a furlong in length and a perch or two in breadth, separated by turf balks. The villein thus supported himself and his family, and in return was bound to render certain services to the lord of the manor, to work on the home farm, and provide two or more oxen for the manorial plough-team. He was not a free tenant, could acquire no property, and his lord’s consent was needed for the marriage of his daughters. But the law protected him from unjust usage; his holdings were usually regranted to his son. He could obtain freedom in several ways, and by degrees acquired the rights and privileges of a free tenant.

Next to the villeins were the bordarii, who lived in bords or cottages, i.e. boarded or wooden huts, and ranked as a lower grade of villeins. They held about five acres, but provided no oxen for the manorial plough-team. Below them were the cottarii, or cottiers, who were bound to do domestic work and supply the lord’s table. They corresponded to the modern labourer, but lacked his freedom. The lowest class of all were the servi, or serfs, who corresponded to the Saxon theows. In Norman times their condition was greatly improved; they mingled with the cottiers and household servants, and gradually were merged with them.

The sochemanni, or socmen, our yeomen, who abounded chiefly in the Danish district of England, were inferior landowners who had special privileges, and could not be turned out of their holdings, though they rendered certain services to the lord of the manor, and in this respect differed little from the villeins. Domesday Book also mentions a class of men called burs or geburs, who were the same as coliberti; also the commendati, who received privileges in return for services rendered to the lord of the manor.