Page:Notes and Queries - Series 12 - Volume 9.djvu/88

66 NOTES AND QUERIES. [i 2 s.ix. JULY 23, 1021. take the same view ('The Domesday Inquest,' p. 134).

But it seems to me plain that as a matter of fact they claimed exemption from the geld. Whether the claim was based on the old comital status of the manors, or on the modern fact that they had been annexed to the Terra Regis, I do not find any clear indication. But the circumstance that manors of Godwin's family, when granted to William's subjects, seem to have paid geld like other lands rather supports the latter hypothesis.

I think we may gather that the villeins' claim to exemption was in dispute. The variations in the scribes' treatment of such cases in the Geld Inquests can hardly be explained except on the theory that they were uncertain about the ultimate decision.

Some of their statements are quite colourless. "From the King's villeins of the King has no geld." "The King's villeins retained the geld." In other cases the geld is "behind" (retro.). Again, in others the amount is included in the cash total that is stated to be still due from the Hundred.

A curious result of the uncertainty is preserved for us by the three different versions we have of the Geld Inquest for Wiltshire. We might naturally suppose that when the scribe begins his account with the statement that in the Hundred he is dealing with there are so many hides, we have a fixed and recognized assessment, probably of some duration; though the frequent absence of round figures shows that variations have at some time occurred.

But the case of Wiltshire indicates that in fact this preliminary statement is not a record of a standard, but merely a total of the figures of detail which follow: a total which in modern accounts would be found at the foot.

One of the three versions of the Inquest gives quite different totals for the Hundreds from those of the other two copies; and on examination it is found that the difference is caused by the entire omission from the statement of the manors formerly held by the family of Godwin. They are thus placed in the same position as the old royal endowments inherited by William from the Confessor, which, being mostly never hidated, have necessarily no effect on the figures. In this copy of the Inquest, neither the King's demesne is entered as exempt nor the villein lands as in arrear—the whole is simply ignored.

In another version of the Inquest for Wiltshire the villeins on the comital manors are stated in marginal additions to have rendered no geld.

In the third version, these marginal statements have been embodied in the text. '

In these versions, the second and third, the stated totals of hidage include the comital manors.

It has been inferred (Jones, 'Domesday for Wiltshire,' pp. 154, 162) that these variations show a difference of date, though it is clear that the three versions relate to the same levy of geld. But the evidence of date (chiefly lying in the notice that some arrears have lately been paid up) is conflicting. And, as regards the point I am at present discussing, I think the variations are sufficiently explained by the differences of opinion as to whether the villeins' claim would be ultimately allowed.

In Somerset and Dorset the method of the scribe who compiled the third version of the Inquest for Wiltshire was followed. The demesne lands are included in the King's exemption; the villein lands are accounted for among the defaults, with variations of phrasing which plainly show the uncertainty of the scribes whether their geld was recoverable.

In Devon, from various causes, there is great difficulty in explaining the treatment of the matter. But an examination of the entries has convinced me that the scribes simply treated the whole hidage of the comital manors as exempt. The manors were not omitted altogether, as was necessarily the case with the unhidated lands of King Edward; their entire hidage was included in the King's exemption for demesne. Thus no statement as to the villein holdings appears among the defaults.

This has caused Mr. Reichel, in the various papers he has contributed to the Transactions of the Devon Association, much perplexity, and he resorts to ingenious conjectures to account for the figures of royal exemption. But I believe that in many cases at least the above simple explanation will suffice.

In Cornwall yet another course was adopted. From royal lands in custody of Baldwin, Sheriff of Devon, Walter de Clavilla and Gotselm, "the King has not the geld." The totals due are noted at the end of the Geld Inquest (Exon Domesday, in vol. iv., Additamenta, p. 67). On comparison of figures it becomes plain that these statements of hidage and of geld