Page:VCH Norfolk 2.djvu/64

 A HISTORY OF NORFOLK had the soke of the fold-soke tenants/ while that of the free-tenants was divided between the king and the earl. In Happing hundred Edric of Laxfield had half the soke over some twenty of his men,* just as St. Edmund had in Diss half-hundred. We shall get a clearer idea of the nature of ' soke ' if we can find out what were its limitations. So far it seems to shape itself as a jurisdiction exercised by the hundred court, or the equivalent court of a ' liberty,' the profits of which were in private hands. But these profits did not normally include what we may call the 'pleas of the crown.' Thus at Horsford in Taverham hundred Edric [of Laxfield] had 22 sokemen. Two of these were sokemen of the hundred; the king and the earl had their soke, and over the others they had ' the six forfeitures.' * We find the same thing in North Erpingham* and Wayland hundreds.^ In Guiltcross hundred we learn that the ' soca de sex forisfacturis ' was at Kenninghall, and that the sokemen paid 4^. each per year for 'summagium,' a com- position for the duty of finding beasts for the king's service exactly parallel to the ' averae ' ^ of which we read elsewhere.' Two exceptions to this rule are noted ; thus the bishop had the ' six forfeitures ' of his sokemen in Blofield,^ and St. Benet of Holme the ' three forfeitures ' of his sokemen in Tunstead.^ These were exceptional cases, since we are told that the ' three forfeitures ' were in the king's demesne throughout England.^" The numerous instances of disputed claims in the Norfolk Survey throw a little light on current judicial procedure. Besides the inquiry of the bishop of Coutances mentioned above, we have two references to a commission for settling boundaries to Ivo Talboys and his fellows ;^^ they seem to have made the ' divisio terrarum inter Regem et Comitem.' The litigants, who appeared before the Domesday commissioners, seem to have had to give security for the prosecution of their claims ^* or for the restitution of what they wrongfully held." Trial was either by battle or by ordeal. In all the cases where the former is named the champion is equally willing to submit to the ordeal.^* The only ordeal of which we hear is that of the hot iron, the phrase used being portare " ov ferre judicium. ^^ We may therefore probably assume that the participants in the ordeal were freemen, though one is described as famulus}^ We also hear of two women offering the ordeal.*^ In another case the person offering the ordeal is specified as an Englishman,^' and we shall probably conclude that a Frenchman would settle his differences with another ' Dom. Bk. fF. 129^, 216, and cf. f. nib. ' Ibid. f. 1 80. ' Ibid. f. 155^. Prof. Maitland {Dom. Bk. and Beyond, 88) reckons these as ' gridbrke, hamskn,fihtwite ^miJyrdzcUe, with outlaw's work and the receipt of outlaws.' ° Cf. F. C.H. Herts, i, 269 ; Maitland, Dom. Bk. and Beyond, 138, quoting Dom. Bk. vol. i, f. ij-i^. z averae are worth d. ' Dom. Bk. fF. 178, 223. Mbid. f. 19;. Mbid. f. 24.4.. '" Ibid. vol. i, f. 2 52(2, I. These 'three forfeitures' were peace-breach, heinfare, and forestcl. I have followed Mr. Ballard's interpretation of the Shrewsbury custom {Domesday Boroughs, 85), though I am inclined to think that ' throughout England' is more than can be inferred from the passage. " Dom. Bk. ff. 149, 150. " e.g. Dom. Bk. f. 2733. " Ibid. f. 133. " Ibid. ff. 1463, 176, 177, 190, 213, 2773. " Ibid, ff no*, 162. x' Ibid, ff 137, 166. " Ibid, f I lob. He is ' famulus regis.' On f 258 a 'serviens regis ' similarly offers proofs 'quocumque judicio judicatur ' (J. H. R.). 'Mbid. ff 137, 277. "Ibid, f 190. 34
 * At Hanworth, Ibid. f. 179^. ' Merton, Ibid. f. 252.