Page:English Historical Review Volume 35.djvu/91

 I 1920 THE FIRMA UNIUS NOCTIS 83 Isdem Willelmus tenet Gatecome. Tres fratres tenuerunt in paragio de rege Edwardo. Tunc se defendit pro ii hidis, modo pro una hida.^ The hidage of land, therefore, indicates its ' defence ', its assess- ment to Danegeld. Even the inverse working of this rule appears in certain estates. They were not assessed to Danegeld, and hence had not been hided. This holds true especially of royal demesne. Rex tenet Pinpre et Cerletona. Rex Edwardus tenuit in dominio. Nescitur quot hidae sint ibi quia non geldabant tempore regis Edwardi.^ Rex tenet Guerminstre. Rex Edwardus tenuit. Non geldavit nee hidata fuit.3 When such a general rule as this prevails in Domesday, certain peculiar and repeated exceptions must be noticed. These excep- tions seemed to be explained by an assessment of the ferm entailing a ' defence ' or hidation of its own. In Berkshire the king's demesne was hided throughout, though it had never gelded. Rex [Willelmus] tenet Taceham in dominio. Rex Edwardus tenuit. Tunc se defendit pro ii hidis et nunquam geldavit. . . . Rex tenet Cocheham in dominio. Rex Edwardus tenuit. Tunc xx hide sed nunquam geldavit.* Rex tenet in dominio Wanetinz, Rex Edwardus tenuit. Tunc et modo mi hidae. Nunquam geldavit.^ Similarly in Surrey, the Woking and Stoke estates of King Edward * defended ' themselves for 15i and 17 hides, though they had never gelded. Rex Willelmus tenet in dominio Wochinges. De firma regis Edwardi fuit. Tunc se defendit pro xv hidis et dimidia. Nunquam geldaverunt. . . Rex tenet in dominio Stochae. De firma regis Edwardi fuit. Tunc se defendit pro xvii hidis. Nichil geldaverunt.^ Why were these estates hided if they never gelded ? Is it as Canon C. S. Taylor says in remarking on a similar phenomenon in Gloucestershire, merely a uniform hidation, regardless of actual payment of geld ? ' Or did their ' defence ' consist in something other than Danegeld ? The answer seems to be given in other Surrey records. Two manors, Ewell and * Cherchefelle ', which defended themselves in the time of King Edward for a given number of hides and continued their ' defence ' in the time of King William, though at a lesser number of hides, acquitted themselves by paying the royal ferm. » D. B. 52 b. « D. B. 75. ' D. B. 64b ; cf. D. B. 86, 100. * D. B. 56 b. ' D. B. 57. Gloucestershire also gives the hides in royal demesne : 162 b. G 2
 * D. B. 30. ' Victoria County History, Gloticestershire, p. 47.