Page:VCH Norfolk 2.djvu/62

 A HISTORY OF NORFOLK the right of a freeman to sell his land. Here, again, we find a kind of scale of freedom. A man might be absolutely free to sell his land, in which case he might presumably take it to another lord. Thus Stigand had a freeman at Somerton who could sell his land without Stigand's leave. His soke was in the hundred.^ In a similar case at Garveston and at Whinburgh in Midford hundred, where the right was in dispute, Ely seems to have had the soke.' Again, a freeman might have to pay a fine of two shillings on alienation. Stigand had tenants of this kind in Clackclose hundred,' and Roger Bigod's men at Palling held on the same terms.* In some cases the lord had a right of pre-emption, as already mentioned in the discussion of fold-soke. Again, the free tenants of Ely in Feltwell and Northwold could sell their land, ' but the soke and commendation remained to Saint Audrey.' A more stringent restriction binds the holders by fold-soke at Bun well (Hadestund). They are not described as ' free,' yet they could sell their land subject to the consuetudo, so that the next tenant would be equally liable to fold-soke. The closest restrictions seem to be found on the church lands. Thus in Earsham hun- dred, the soke of which belonged to Stigand, there were many tenants who seem to have been in aula Sancti Edmundi,^ and unable to sell their land with- out the leave of the abbot of St. Edmund's and of Stigand. Their land is described as omnino inter eccksiam.^ They could not give it or sell it out of the church.^ Ely had some tenants in the same hundred holding on the same terms,* and there was one man who held of Stigand only, and thus only required his leave.' We find instances of the same restriction in other hun- dreds. The bishop's sokemen in Blofield,'" and St. Benet's at Barton Turf,^' held on the same terms. In the former case the bishop had the ' six for- feitures ' as well, as Ely had at Feltwell, Northwold, and Mattishall, and St. Benet at Winterton.^^ In these cases even the forfeiture of the land could not prejudice the abbot's rights, or break the connexion between it, the abbey, and the land. We get a hint of the origin of this stringent bond in another entry relating to land at Billockby, where the holder was commended to Bishop Aylmer, but ' tota terra fuit ita in monasterio Sancti Benedicti de Hulmo ad victum quod nee dare nee vendere potuit.' Comparing this with the Ely lands at Feltwell and Northwold, we may guess that these lands were origi- nally part of the demesne, the ' mensal ' or ' board ' land of a religious house, and that the tenants were what we should call at a later date ' freemen holding by villein services.' It must not be supposed, however, that only church lands were so held, since we find lay lords also whose tenants ' non possent recedere sine licencia.'^' The discussion of the various degrees of freedom with regard to the disposal of land has brought us very near to the consideration of the other bond between lord and man, namely ' soke.' We have been led to suspect that the loss of the power to transfer a man's own land to any lord he pleases is rather an incident of ' soke ' than of ' commendation.' But Domesday, not having been compiled expressly for our edification, is somewhat reticent on ' Dom. Bk. f. 138. » Ibid. f. 208. ' Ibid. f. 207. * Ibid. f. 187. ' Ibid. f. 2635. « Ibid. fF. 139, 263^. ' Ibid. ff. 1383, 139, 263/J. " Ibid. ff. 246, 259. 'Ibid. f. 259. '" Ibid. f. 19s. "Ibid. f. 248. '= Hamilton, Inj. Com. Cantab. 195 ; cf. Dom. Bk. fF. 228, 216^. '^ Dom. Bk. ff. 172^. 1843, 261. 32