CHAPTER VI.

_THE TRIBAL SYSTEM (IN WALES)._

I. EVIDENCE OF THE DOMESDAY SURVEY.

The Saxon land system has now been examined. No feature has been found to be more marked and general than its universally manorial character; that is to say, the Saxon 'ham' or 'tun' was an estate or manor with a village community in villenage upon it. And the services of the villein tenants were of a uniform and clearly defined type; they consisted of the combination of two distinct things--fixed _gafol_ payments in money, in kind, or in labour, and the more servile _week-work_.

It is needful now to examine the land system beyond the border of Saxon conquest.

A good opportunity of doing this occurs in the Domesday Survey.

The Tidenham manor has already been examined. It afforded a singularly useful example of the Saxon system. Its geographical position, at the extreme south-west corner of England, on the side of Wales, enabled us to trace its history from its probable conquest in 577, or soon after, and to conclude that it remained Saxon from that time to the date of [p182] the Survey; and distinctly manorial was found to be the character of its holdings and services.

«West side of the Wye.»

Now, the neighbouring land, on the west side of the Wye, was equally remarkable in its geographical position. For as long as Tidenham had been the extreme south-west corner of England, so long had the neighbouring land between the Wye and the Usk been the extreme south-east corner of unconquered Wales.

«Gwent.»

«Remained Welsh till conquered by Harold.»

It was part of the district of _Gwent_, and it seems to have remained in the hands of the Welsh till Harold conquered it from the Welsh king Gruffydd, a few years only before the Norman Conquest.

Harold seems to have annexed whatever he conquered between the Wye and the Usk--_i.e._ in Gwent--to his earldom of Hereford; and after the Norman Conquest it fell into the hands of William FitzOsborn, created by William the Conqueror Earl of Hereford and Lord of Gwent.[203]

It was he[204] who built at Chepstow the Castle of _Estrighoiel_, the ruins of which still stand on the west bank of the Wye, opposite Tidenham. His son, Roger FitzOsbern, succeeded to the earldom of Hereford and the lordship of Gwent; and, upon his rebellion [p183] and imprisonment, this region of Wales became _terra regis_, and as such is described in the Domesday Survey, mostly as a sort of annexe to Gloucestershire,[205] but partly as belonging to the county of Hereford.[206]

«So also the district of Archenfield.»

Nor is _Gwent_ the only district very near to Tidenham whose Welsh history can be traced down to the time of the Domesday Survey. There was another part of ancient Wales, the district of _Ergyng_, or _Archenfield_,--which included the 'Golden Valley' of the _Dour_. It lay, like Gwent--but further north--between the unmistakable boundaries of the Wye and the Usk, and it remained Welsh till conquered by Harold; and this is confirmed by the fact that the district of '_Arcenefelde_' is brought within the limits of the Domesday Survey[207] as an irregular addition to Herefordshire, just as Gwent was an annexe to Gloucestershire.

«Both districts described in the Domesday Survey.»

Here, then, we have two districts, one to the west and the other to the north of Tidenham, both of which clearly remained Welsh till conquered by Harold a few years before the Norman Conquest, and both of them are described in the Domesday Survey. Further, it so happens that because they had been but recently conquered, and had not yet been added to any English county, and because also their customs differed from those of the neighbouring English manors, the services of their tenants, quite out of ordinary course, are described.

So that, by a convenient chance, we are able to bring together upon the evidence of the Domesday [p184] Survey the _land systems_ of a district which for five hundred years before the Norman Conquest had been the extreme south-east edge of Wales, and of a district which for the same five hundred years had been the extreme south-west corner of Saxon England, beyond the Severn.

We have seen what was the Saxon land system on one side of the Wye, which divided the two districts; let us now see what was the Welsh land system on the other side of the river, so far as it is disclosed in the Survey.

«Gwent.»

Part of the Welsh district of Gwent is thus described in the Domesday annexe to Gloucestershire:--

'Under Waswic, the præpositus, are xiii. villæ; under [another præpositus] xiiii. villæ, under [another præpositus] xiii., under [another præpositus] xiiii. (_i.e._ 54 in all). These render xlvii. sextars of honey, and xl. pigs, and xli. cows, and xxviii. shillings for hawks.[208] . . .

'Under the same præpositi are four villæ wasted by King Caraduech.'[209]

Again, a little further on, this entry occurs:--

'The same A. has in Wales _vii. villæ_ which were in the demesne of Count William and Roger his son (_i.e._ Fitz-Osbern, Earl of Hereford and Lord of Gwent). These render _vi. sextars of honey_, vi. pigs, and x. shillings.'[210]

Passing to the Domesday description of the district of _Archenfield_, we find a similar record.

«Archenfield.»

The heading of the survey for Herefordshire[211] is as follows: 'Hic annotantur terras tenentes in [p185] Herefordscire et in Arcenefelde et in Walis.' And further on[212] we learn that--

'In _Arcenefelde_ the king has 100 men less 4, who with their men have 73 teams, and give of custom 41 sextars of honey and 20s. instead of the sheep which they used to give, and 10s. for _fumagium_; nor do they give _geld_ or other custom, except that they march in the king's army if it is so ordered to them. If a _liber homo_ dies there, the king has his horse, with arms. From a _villanus_ when he dies the king has one ox. King Grifin and Blein devastated this land in the time of King Edward, and so what it was then is not known.' _Lagademar_ pertained to Arcenefelde in the time of King Edward, &c. There is a manor [at Arcenefelde] in which 4 _liberi homines_ with 4 teams render 4 sextars of honey and 16d. of custom. Also a villa with its men and 6 teams, and a forest, rendering a half sextar of honey and 6d.

There are other instances of similar honey rents, _e.g._--

In _Chipeete_ 57 men with xix. teams render xv. sextars of honey and x. shillings.

In _Cape_ v. Welshmen having v. teams render v. sextars of honey, and v. sheep with lambs, and xd.

In _Mainaure_ one under-tenant having iv. teams renders vi. sextars of honey and x.s.

In _Penebecdoc_ one under-tenant having iv. teams render vi. sextars of honey and x.s.

In _Hulla_ xii. villani and xii. bordarii with xi. teams render xviii. sextars of honey.

«Food rents and clusters of villas under a præpositus.»

The distinctive points in these descriptions of the recently Welsh districts west and north of Tidenham are obviously (1) the prevalence of produce or food rents--honey, cows, sheep, pigs, &c.--_honey_ being the most prominent item; (2) the absence of the word 'manor,' used everywhere else in the survey of Gloucestershire and Herefordshire; (3) the remarkable grouping in the district of _Gwent_ of the 'villas' _in batches of thirteen or fourteen_, each batch under a separate _præpositus_. [p186]

It is clear that on the Welsh side of the Wye Welsh instead of Saxon customs prevailed, and that these were some of them.[213] So much we learn from these irregular additions of newly conquered Welsh ground to the area of the Domesday Survey.

The meaning of the peculiarities thus indicated will become apparent when the Welsh system has been examined upon its own independent evidence.

II. THE WELSH LAND SYSTEM IN THE TWELFTH CENTURY.

There is no reason why, in trying to learn the nature of the Welsh land system, the method followed throughout, of proceeding backwards from the known to the unknown, should not be followed.

«Open-field system in Wales.»

It has already been shown that such arable fields as there are in Wales, like the Saxon arable fields, were _open_ fields. They were shown to be divided by turf balks, two furrows wide,[214] into strips called erws--representing a day's work in ploughing. The Welsh laws were also found to supply the simplest and clearest solution given anywhere of the reason of the scattering of the strips in the holdings, as well as of the relations of the grades of holdings to the number of oxen contributed by the holders to the common plough team of eight oxen.

In fact, the Welsh codes clearly prove that, as regards arable husbandry, the open field system was the system prevalent throughout all the three districts of Wales. [p187]

«The Welsh mainly pastoral.»

But partly from the mountainous nature of the country, and partly from the peculiar stage of economic development through which the Welsh were passing, long after the Norman Conquest they were still a _pastoral_ people. Cattle rather than corn claimed the first consideration, and ruled their habits; and hence the Welsh land system, even in later times, was very different from that of the Saxons.

In fact, the two land systems, though both using an open-field husbandry, were in their main features radically distinct. In those parts of Wales which were unconquered, and therefore uncivilised, till the conquest of Edward I., we look in vain in the early surveys for the manor or estate with the village community in villenage upon it.

«No manors or villages.»

The Welsh system was not manorial. Its unit was not a village community on a lord's estate.

«Scattered green timber houses.»

As late as the twelfth century _Giraldus Cambrensis_[215] described the houses of the Welsh as not built either in towns or even in villages, but as scattered along the edges of the woods. To his eye they seemed mere huts made of boughs of trees twisted together, easily constructed, and lasting scarcely more than a season. They consisted of one room, and the whole family, guests and all, slept on rushes laid along the wall, with their feet to the fire, the smoke of which found its way through a hole in the roof.[216] The Welsh, in fact, being a _pastoral_ people, had two sets of homesteads. In summer their herds fed on the higher ranges of the hills, and in winter in the valleys. So they themselves, following their cattle, had separate [p188] huts for summer and for winter use, as was also the custom in the Highlands of Scotland, and is still the case in the higher Alpine valleys. Giraldus Cambrensis describes the greater part of the land as in pasture and very little as arable; and accordingly the food of the Welsh he describes, just as Cæsar had described it eleven centuries earlier, as being chiefly the produce of their herds--milk, cheese and butter, and flesh in larger proportions than bread.[217] The latter was mostly of oats.

«Welsh ploughing.»

The Welsh ploughed for their oats in March and April, and for wheat in summer and winter, yoking to their ploughs seldom fewer than four oxen; and he mentions as a peculiarity that the driver walked backward in front of the oxen, as we found was the custom in Scotland.[218]

«Love of war.»

«Genealogies.»

Another marked peculiarity of the Welsh was their hereditary liking and universal training for warlike enterprise. They were soldiers as well as herdsmen; even husbandmen eagerly rushed to arms from the plough.[219] Long settlement and the law of division of labour had not yet brought about the separation of the military from the agricultural population of Wales even so late as the twelfth century. And here we come upon traces of their old tribal economy. For the facts that they had not yet attained to settled villages and townships, that they had not yet passed from the pastoral to the agricultural stage, that they were still craving after warfare and wild enterprise--all [p189] these are traces of tribal habits still remaining. And a still clearer mark of the same thing was the stress they laid upon their genealogy. Even the common people (he says) keep their genealogies, and can not only readily recount the names of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers, but even refer back to the _sixth_ or _seventh_ generation, or beyond them, in this manner: _Rhys_, son of _Gruffydh_, son of _Rhys_, son of _Theodor_, son of _Eineon_, son of _Owen_, son of _Howel_, son of _Cadelh_, son of _Roderic Mawr_, and so on.[220]

«Survivals of the tribal system.»

Thus in the twelfth century there were in Wales distinct survivals of a tribal economy. Instead of a system like the Saxons, of village communities and townships, the Welsh system was evidently a tribal system in the later stages of gradual disintegration, tenaciously preserving within it arrangements and customs pointing back to a period when its rules had been in full force.

But the Welsh codes must be further examined before the significance of the Domesday entries can be fully appreciated.

III. THE WELSH LAND SYSTEM ACCORDING TO THE WELSH LAWS.

«Laws of Howel in the tenth century.»

The Welsh version of the ancient laws of Wales contains three several codes: The Venedotian of North Wales, the Dimetian and Gwentian of South Wales. They profess to date substantially from _Howel dda_, who codified the local customs about the middle of the tenth century. They contain, however, later [p190] additions, and the MSS. are not earlier than the end of the thirteenth century. There is a Latin version of the Dimetian code in MS. of the early part of the thirteenth century, which is especially valuable as giving the received Latin equivalent of the Welsh terms used in the laws. And there are also, apart from these codes, triads of doubtful date, but professing to preserve traditional customs and laws of the Welsh nation before the time of the Saxon conquest of Britain.[221]

For the present purpose the actual date of a law or custom is not so important as its own intrinsic character. We seek to gain a true notion of the tribal system, and an economically early trait may well be preserved in a document of later date.

«Saxon and Welsh systems contemporary.»

There is no reason why we should be even tempted to exaggerate the antiquity of the evidence. The later the survival of the system the more valuable for our purpose. The Saxon and Welsh systems were contemporary systems, and it is best to compare them as such.

It would appear that under this tribal system a district was occupied by a tribe (_cenedl_) under a petty king (_brenhin_) or chief.

«Free tribesmen of tribal blood.»

The tribe was composed of households of free Welshmen, all blood relations; and the homesteads of these households were scattered about on the country side, as they were found to be in the time of Giraldus Cambrensis. They seem to have been grouped into artificial clusters mainly, as we shall see, for purposes of tribute or legal jurisdiction. [p191]

«Taeogs without tribal blood.»

But all the inhabitants of Wales were not members of the tribes. Besides the households of tribesmen of blood relations and pure descent, there were hanging on to the tribes or their chiefs, and under the overlordship of the latter, or sometimes of tribesmen, strangers in blood who were not free Welshmen; also Welshmen illegitimately born, or degraded for crime. And these classes, being without tribal or family rights, were placed in groups of households and homesteads by themselves. If there were any approach to the Saxon village community in villenage upon a lord's estate under Welsh arrangements, it was to be found in this subordinate class, who were not Welshmen, and had no rights of kindred, and were known as _aillts_ and _taeogs_ of the chief on whose land they were settled. Further, as there was this marked distinction between tribesmen and non-tribesmen, so also there was a marked and essential distinction between the free tribe land occupied by the families of free Welsh tribesmen, called '_tir gwelyawg_,' or _family land_, and the '_caeth land_' or _bond land_ of the taeogs and aillts, which latter was also called '_tir-cyfrif_' or _register land_, and sometimes '_tir-kyllydus_' or _geldable land_ (gafol-land?).[222]

The main significance of the Welsh system, both as regards individual rights and land usages, turns [p192] on this distinction between the two different classes of persons and the two different kinds of land occupied by them. They will require separate examination.

* * * * *

Let us first take the free tribesmen ('Uchelwyrs' or 'Breyrs') and their 'family land.'

«The free tribesmen.»

If the professed triads of _Dyvnwal Moelmud_ may be taken to represent, as they claim to do, the condition of things in earlier centuries, the essential to membership in the _cenedl_, or tribe, was _birth_ within it of Welsh parents.

Free-born Welshmen were 'tied' together in a 'social state' by the three ties of--

(1) Common defence (cyvnawdd). (2) Common tillage (cyvar). (3) Common law (chyvraith).[223]

Every free Welshman was entitled to three things:--

(1) Five free _erws_ (or acre strips). (2) Co-tillage of the waste (cyvar gobaith). (3) Hunting.[224]

«The homestead or _tyddyn_.»

The free tribesman's homestead, or _tyddyn_, consisted of three things:--

(1) His house (ty). (2) His cattle-yard (bu-arth). (3) His corn-yard (yd-arth).[225]

And the five free strips, afterwards apparently [p193] reduced to four, of each head of a house--free, possibly, in the sense of their having been freed from the common rights of others over them, as well as being free from charges or tribute--we may probably regard as contained in the _tyddyn_, or as lying in croft near the homesteads.

«The holding that of a household or family.»

The _Gwentian_, _Dimetian_, and _Venedotian_ codes all represent the homestead or tyddyn and land of the free Welshman as a _family holding_. So long as the head of the family lived, all his descendants lived with him, apparently in the same homestead, unless new ones had already been built for them on the family land. In any case, they still formed part of the joint household of which he was the head.[226]

When a free tribesman, the head of a household, died, his holding was not broken up. It was held by his heirs for three generations as one joint holding; it was known as the holding of 'the heirs of So-and-so.'[227] But within the holding there was equality of division between his sons; the younger son, however, retaining the original _tyddyn_ or homestead, and others having tyddyns found for them on the family land. All the sons had equal rights in the scattered strips and pasture belonging to the holding.[228]

«Equality within the family»

Thus, in the first generation there was equality between brothers; they were co-tenants in equal [p194] shares of the family holding of which they were co-heirs.

When all the brothers were dead there was, if desired, a re-division, so as to make equality between the co-heirs, who were now first cousins.

When all the first cousins were dead there might be still another re-division, to make equality between the co-heirs, who were now second cousins.

«to second cousins.»

But no one beyond second cousins could claim equality; and if a man died without heirs of his body, and there were no kindred within the degree of second cousins, the land reverted to the chief who represented the tribe.[229]

«Great-grandfather the common ancestor.»

The great-grandfather was thus always looked back to as the common ancestor, whose name was still given to the family holding of his co-heirs. The family tie reached from him to his great-grandchildren, and then ceased to bind together further generations.[230]

«The Gwely or family couch.»

We have seen that even in the twelfth century the household all used one couch, extending round the wall of the single room of the house; this couch was called the 'gwely.' The 'tir gwelyawg' was thus the land of the family using the same couch; and the descendants of one ancestor living together were a 'gweli-gordd.'[231] As late as the fourteenth century, in the _Record of Carnarvon_, the holdings [p195] are still called 'Weles' and 'Gavells.' They are essentially 'family' or tribal holdings.[232]

And now as to the tenure upon which these holdings of the free tribesmen were held.

«The Gwestva or food rent.»

It was a free tenure, subject to the obligation to pay _Gwestva_, or 'food rent,' to the chief, and to some incidents which marked an almost feudal relationship to the chief, viz.:--

(1) The _Amobr_, or marriage fee of a female.

(2) The _Ebediw_,[233] or death payment (heriot).

(3) Aid in building the king's castles.

(4) Joining his host in his enterprises _in_ the country whenever required, _out_ of the country six weeks only in the year.[234]

These were the usual accompaniments of free tenure everywhere, and are no special marks of serfdom.

«The _tunc pound_ in lieu of it.»

Several homesteads were grouped together in '_maenols_' or '_trevs_' for the purpose of the payment of the _Gwestva_, as we shall see by-and-by. This consisted in _Gwent_, of a horse-load of wheat-flour, an ox, seven threaves of oats, a vat of honey, and 24 pence of silver.[235] And as the money value of the _Gwestva_ was always one pound, so that its money equivalent was known as 'the tunc pound,' holdings of family land were spoken of, as late as the fourteenth century, as 'paying tunc'[236]--the _gwestva_, or _tunc pound_ in lieu [p196] of it, being the distinctive tribute of the free tribesmen.

Such was the tenure of the family land, and these were the services of the free tribesmen.

«A free tribal tenure.»

There is no trace here of villenage, or of the servile _week-work_ of the Saxon serf. The tribesmen had no manorial lord over them but their chief, and he was their natural and elected tribal head. So, when Wales was finally conquered, the _tunc_ was paid to the Prince of Wales, and no mesne lord was interposed between the tribesman and the Prince.

Thus the freedom of the free tribesman was guarded at every point.

* * * * *

«The _aillts_ or _taeogs_.»

«Their tyddyns and ploughs.»

Turning now to the other class, the _aillts_ or _taeogs_--who in the Latin translations of the laws are called _villani_--the key to their position was their non-possession of tribal blood, and therefore of the rights of kindred. They were not free-born Welshmen; though, on the other hand, by no means to be confounded with _caeths_, or slaves. They must be sworn men of some chieftain or lord, on whose land they were placed, and at whose will and pleasure they were deemed to remain.[237] Each of these taeogs had his _tyddyn_--his homestead, with corn and cattle yard. In his tyddyn he had cattle of his own. In South Wales several of these taeogs' homesteads were grouped together into what was called a _taeog-trev_. Further, the arable fields of the 'taeog-trev' were ploughed on the open-field system by the taeogs' [p197] common plough team, to which each contributed oxen.

«Equality in the taeog-trev.»

But the distinctive feature of the taeog-trev was that an _absolute equality_ ruled, not between brothers or cousins of one household, as in the case of the family land of the free tribesmen, but _throughout the whole trev_. Family relationships were ignored. All adults in the trev--fathers and sons, and strangers in blood--took equal shares, with the single exception of _youngest sons_, who lived with their fathers, and had no tyddyn of their own till the parent's death. This principle of equality ruled everything.[238] The common ploughing must not begin till every taeog in the trev had his place appointed in the co-tillage.[239] Nor could there be any escheat of land in the taeog-trev to the lord on failure of heirs; for there was nothing hereditary about the holdings. Succession always fell (except in the case of the youngest son, who took his father's tyddyn) to the whole trev.[240] When there was a death there was a re-division of the whole land, care, however, being taken to disturb the occupation of the actual tyddyns only when absolutely needful.[241]

«_Per capita_ no account of blood relationship.»

The principle upon which the taeog's rights rested was simply this: where there was no true Welsh blood no family rights were recognised. In the absence of these, equality ruled between individuals; they shared 'per capita,' and not 'per stirpes.'

«Their register land.»

The land of a taeog-trev was, as already said called 'register land'[242]--_tir cyfrif_. [p198]

There were other incidents marking off the taeog from the free Welshman. He might not bear arms;[243] he might not, without his lord's consent, become a scholar, a smith, or a bard, nor sell his swine, honey, or horse.[244] Even if he were to marry a free Welsh woman, his descendants till the fourth, and in some cases the ninth degree, remained taeogs. But the fourth or ninth descendant of the free Welsh woman, as the case might be, might at last claim his five free strips, and become the head of a new kindred.[245]

«Incidents to their tenures.»

Even the taeog was, however, under these laws, hardly a serf. With the exception of his duty to assist the lord in the erection of buildings, and to submit to _kylch_, _i.e._ to the lord's followers, being quartered upon him when making a 'progress,' and to _dovraith_, or maintenance of the chief's dogs and servants, there seems to have been no exaction of menial personal services.[246]

«Food-rents.»

The taeogs' dues, like those of free Welshmen, consisted of fixed summer and winter contributions of food for the chief's table. In _Gwent_ they had to provide in winter a sow, a salted flitch, threescore loaves of wheat bread, a tub of ale, twenty sheaves of oats, and pence for the servants. In summer, a tub of butter and twelve cheeses and bread.[247]

These tributes of food were called 'dawnbwyds,' gifts of food, or 'board-gifts,' and from these the taeog or register land is in one place in the Welsh laws called _tir bwrdd_, or 'board-land' (_terra mensalia_, [p199] or 'mensal land'[248]), a term which we shall find again when we come to examine the Irish tribal system.

* * * * *

«The caeth or slave.»

Lastly, it must not be forgotten that beneath the taeogs, as beneath the Saxon _geneat_ and _gebur_, were the 'caeths,' or bondmen, the property of their owners,[249] without tyddyn and without land, unless such were assigned to them by their lord. These caeths were, therefore, not settled in separate trevs, but scattered about as household slaves in the tyddyns of their masters.

IV. LAND DIVISIONS UNDER THE WELSH CODES.

There were, then, these two kinds of holdings--those of the free tribesmen, of 'family land,' and those of the taeogs, of 'register land.' There remains to be considered the system on which the holdings were clustered together.

«The holdings grouped for payment of the food-rent or tunc pound.»

The principle of this it is not very easy at first to understand, and the difficulty is increased by a confusion of terms between the codes. But there is one fact, by keeping hold of which the system becomes intelligible, viz., that the grouping seems to have been based upon the collective amount of the _food-rent_. The homesteads, or tyddyns, each containing its four free erws, were scattered over the country side. But they were artificially grouped together for the purpose of the payment of the food-rent, or _tunc pound_ in lieu of it. And by following the group which pays the [p200] 'tunc pound' as the unit of comparison, the at first conflicting evidence falls into its proper place.

In the Venedotian Code the _maenol_ is this unit. In the Dimetian and Gwentian Codes this unit is the _trev_.

«In North Wales the _maenol_ the unit for food-rent.»

According to the Venedotian Code of North Wales,[250]

4 erws = 1 tyddyn. 4 tyddyns = 1 randir. 4 randirs = 1 gavael. 4 gavaels = 1 trev. 4 trevs = 1 maenol. 12 maenols and 2 supernumerary trevs = 1 cymwd (or comote). 2 cymwds = 1 cantrev (100 trevs).

«The _cymwd_ or half-hundred of twelve maenols.»

The _cymwd_ was thus a half-hundred, and each cymwd had its court, and so was the unit of legal jurisdiction. At its head was a _maer_ and a _canghellor_, the two officers of the chief who had jurisdiction over it.

The twelve maenols in the cymwd were thus disposed:--

1 free maenol for the support of the office of maer. 1 free maenol for the support of the office of canghellor. 6 occupied by '_uchelwrs_,' or tribesmen. ── Making 8 free maenols of 'family land,' from each of which a gwestva or _tunc pound_ was paid.

The other 4 maenols were 'register land' occupied by aillts or taeogs, paying 'dawn bwyds.' ── 12 in the 'cymwd.'[251]

Now, it must be admitted that all this singular system, arranged according to strict arithmetical rules, _looks_ very much like a merely theoretical arrangement, plausible on paper but impossible in practice.

It will be found, however, that there is more [p201] probability, as well as reason and meaning in it, than at first sight appears.

«Threescore pence of the tunc pound to each trev.»

In the first place, as regards the twelve maenols making up the _cymwd_, there is no difficulty; four of them were taeog maenols and eight were free maenols. But there is an obvious difficulty in the description of the contents of each maenol. Taken literally, the description in the Venedotian Code seems to imply that every maenol was composed of four trevs, each of which contained four gavaels composed of four randirs, each of which contained four tyddyns composed of four erws. But in this case the maenol would contain nothing but tyddyns--nothing but homesteads!--there would be no arable and no pasture. This cannot be the true reading. A clue to the real meaning is found in a clause which, after repeating that from each of the eight free maenols in the cymwd the chief has a _gwestva_ yearly, 'that is a pound yearly from each of them,' goes on to say, 'Threescore pence is charged on each trev of the four that are in a maenol, and so subdivided into quarters in succession until each erw of the tyddyn be assessed.'[252]

«Four gavaels or holdings in each trev.»

Now, from this statement it may be assumed that there must be some correspondence between the number of pence in the tunc pound and the number of erws in the maenol, otherwise why speak of each erw being assessed? But, according to the foregoing figures, there would be 1,024 erws in the maenol.[253] [p202] Each trev, which thus contains 256 erws, is to pay threescore pence. How can 256 erws be divided into quarters till each erw is assessed? Dividing the trev by four we get the gavael of sixty-four erws, and threescore pence divided by four is sixty farthings. It is evident that sixty farthings cannot be divided between sixty-four erws. But if we suppose each trev to contain four homesteads or tyddyns, then the _gavael_[254] of sixty-four erws would be the single holding belonging to a tyddyn or homestead, and the four erws in the actual tyddyn (which are to be _free_ erws) being deducted, then the sixty farthings exactly correspond with the remaining sixty erws forming the holding of land appendant to the tyddyn, and each erw would pay one farthing. We may take it then as possible that each Venedotian maenol contained four trevs, paying sixty pence each, and that each trev was a cluster of four holdings of sixty erws each, in respect of which the holders paid sixty farthings each to the _gwestva_, holding their actual tyddyns free.

«A group of sixteen homesteads paid the tunc pound.»

In other words, each of the eight free maenols contained sixteen homesteads, which sixteen homesteads were first classified in groups of four called trevs. Or, to put the case the other way, the eight free maenols, were divided into quarters or trevs, and these trevs again each contained four homesteads.

It is evidently a tribal arrangement, clustering the homesteads numerically for purposes of the payment of gwestva, and probably the discharge of other [p203] public duties, and not a natural territorial arrangement on the basis of the village or township.

«In South Wales the _trev_ is the unit for gwestva.»

Turning now to the Dimetian and Gwentian Codes, according to which the free _trev_ instead of the maenol is the gwestva-paying unit:[255] there is first the group of twelve trevs (instead of twelve maenols) under a single maer, and under the name of _maenol_ instead of _cymwd_; but apparently all the trevs in the group of twelve[256] are free trevs. There are other groups of seven taeog-trevs making a taeog-maenol, and the maenol (instead of the cymwd) has its court, and becomes the unit of legal jurisdiction.[257]

Confining attention to the free maenol, the first thing to notice is that each of the twelve free trevs of which it was composed paid its gwestva, or tunc pound in lieu of it. The trev, therefore, was the gwestva-paying unit.

And as to the interior of the trev we read,--

'There are to be four randirs in the trev, from which the king's gwestva shall be paid.'

'312 erws are to be in the randir between clear and brake, wood and field, and wet and dry, except a supernumerary trev [the upland has in addition].'[258]

In this case the 'tunc pound' of 240d. was paid by each trev of 4 randirs, each randir containing 312 erws, and the trev 1,248 erws in all. The _trev_ in South Wales is, therefore, slightly larger than the [p204] Venedotian _maenol_. Here we are bound by no law that the pence in the gwestva should exactly correspond with the number of erws. But in the other versions the 12 odd erws in the randir are stated to be for 'domicilia,'[259] or buildings, and 12 erws would allow of 3 tyddyns of the requisite 4 erws each.

This fixes for us the number of homesteads or tyddyns in the trev. There were 3 tyddyns to each randir, and 4 randirs to the trev, and so there were 12 tyddyns in each trev, and to each tyddyn there were appendant 100 erws in the arable, pasture, and waste.

«The trev a cluster of twelve holdings, each paying an ounce or score of silver, so between them the tunc pound.»

The trev which paid its tunc pound of 240d. was thus made up of 12 holdings, each paying a score pence. And as in the Latin version of the Dimetian Laws (p. 825) a score pence is translated _uncia argenti_, the connexion is at once made clear between the system of grouping the holdings so as to pay the tunc pound, and the monetary system which prevailed in Wales, viz., that according to which 20d. made an ounce, and 12 ounces one pound. The 12 holdings each paying a score of pence, or ounce of silver, made up between them the tunc pound of the trev.

«The tribal households shifted among the holdings.»

This curious geometrical arrangement or classification of tyddyns and trevs, with an equal area of land to each, is at first sight entirely inconsistent with the division of the family land among the heirs of the holder, inasmuch as the great grandchildren when they divided the original family holding must, one would suppose, have held smaller shares than their great [p205] grandfather. And there is only one answer to this. It would have been so if the tribe, and the families composing it, were permanently fixed and settled on the same land, and pursuing a regular agriculture, with an increasing population within certain boundaries. But the Welsh were still a _pastoral_ people, and, as we shall see when we come to examine the Irish tribal system, while the homesteads and land divisions were fixed, the occupants were shifted about by the chiefs from time to time, each sept, or clan, or family receiving at each rearrangement a certain number of tyddyns or homesteads, according to certain tribal rules of blood relationship of a very intricate character.

This permanence of the geographical divisions and homesteads, and shifting of the tribal households whenever occasion required it, was only possible with a pastoral and scanty population. Long before the fourteenth century the households were settled in their homesteads, geometrical regularity had ceased, and the land was divided and subdivided into irregular fractions. This is the state of things disclosed in the _Record of Carnarvon_. But in the tenth century, according to the Welsh laws, the old tribal rules were apparently still in force.

«The clustering of households the distinctive mark of the tribal system.»

Without pretending to have mastered all the details of these obscure tribal arrangements, the point to be noted is that the scattering of the tyddyns all over the country side, and the clustering of them by fours and sixteens, or twelves, into the group which was the unit paying the gwestva or tunc pound, and again into clusters of twelve or thirteen[260] under a [p206] maer, as the unit of civil jurisdiction, were obviously distinctive features arising from the tribal holding of land, and that the system was adopted apparently to facilitate the division of the land among the families in the tribe somewhat in the same way as in the open field system the division of the arable land by turf balks into actual erws facilitated the division of the ploughed land among the contributors to the plough team.

* * * * *

Bearing this in mind we may now turn back to the Domesday Survey, and compare its description of the land system of _Gwent_ and _Archenfield_ with the results obtained from the Welsh laws.

In order, however, to make this comparison the Welsh terms must be translated into Latin, otherwise it will be difficult to recognise the trev, and maer, and maenol, and gwestva in the Domesday description.

«Latin equivalent of tribal words in the Domesday Survey.»

The before-mentioned Latin version of the Dimetian Code, the MS. of which dates from the early thirteenth century, will do this for us.[261]

It translates _trev_, the unit of the tunc pound, by _villa_. It takes the Welsh word 'maenol' as equivalent to _manor_, and indeed it did resemble the Saxon and Norman manor in this, that it was the unit of the jurisdiction of each single steward or _villicus_ of the chief. This officer was called in Welsh the _maer_, which was translated into the Latin _præpositus_. He did to some extent resemble the English præpositus, but he differed in this--that instead of being set over the 'trev' or 'villata' of a single manor, [p207] the Welsh maer was, as we have seen, set over a number of 'villas' or trevs--thirteen free trevs or seven taeog-trevs, in Gwent--each free trev of which rendered its 'tunc pound' or 'gwestva,' and each taeog or villein-trev its 'dawn-bwyd' of food.

Now, this is precisely what is described in the Domesday Survey of Gwent.

«The clusters of _villas_ under a _præpositus_ paying food-rent.»

There are four groups of thirteen or fourteen 'villas' or trevs, each group under a 'præpositus' or maer; and these four groups, which were in fact Gwentian 'maenols,' rendered as gwestva a food-rent amounting to 47 sextars of honey, 40 pigs, 41 cows, and 28 shillings for hawks.

In the district of _Archenfield_ the clusters of trevs do not appear, but the food-rents were similar--_honey_ being a marked item throughout.

«Honey rents.»

In the Welsh gwestva, also, _honey_ was an important element. It is mentioned as such in the Welsh codes, and it is conspicuous also in the Domesday Survey both of Gwent and Archenfield.

«Importance of honey.»

Its importance is shown by the fact that in the Gwentian Code a separate section was devoted to 'The Law of Bees.' It begins as follows:--'The origin of bees is from Paradise, and on account of the sin of man they came from thence, and they were blessed by God, and, therefore, the mass cannot be without the wax.'[262]

The price of a swarm of bees in August was equal to the price of an ox ready for the yoke, _i.e._ ten or fifteen times its present value, in proportion to the ox.

Honey had, in fact, two uses, besides its being the [p208] substitute for the modern sugar--one for the making of mead, which was three times the price of beer; the other for the wax for candles used in the chief's household, and on the altar of the mass.[263] The lord of a taeog had the right of buying up all his honey;[264] and in North Wales, according to the Venedotian Code, _all_ the honey of the king's aillts or taeogs was reserved for the court.[265] The mead brewer was also an important royal officer in all the three divisions of Wales.

It is not surprising, then, that the tribute of honey, which formed so important a part of the Welsh gwestva, should be retained as an item in the tribute of the trevs of Gwent after their conquest by Harold.

V. EARLIER EVIDENCE OF THE PAYMENT OF WELSH GWESTVA, OR FOOD-RENT.

From the combined evidence of the Domesday Survey and the 'Ancient Laws of Wales,' the fact has now been learned that in the eleventh century, as it had done previously probably for 400 years, the river Wye separated by a sharp line the Saxon land, on which the manorial land system prevailed, from the Welsh land, on which the Welsh tribal land system prevailed. On the one side of the river, at the date of the Survey, clusters of scattered homesteads of free Welshmen contributed food-rents in the form of gwestva to the conqueror of their chief, and taeogs their dawn-bwyds. On the other side the _villata_ of geneats and geburs, besides paying gafol, performed servile week-work upon the demesne lands of the lord of the [p209] village or manor. It may be well, however, to seek for some earlier evidence of the payment of gwestva on the Welsh side of the river.

Documentary evidence of the manorial system on the Saxon side was forthcoming as early as the seventh century, in the laws of King Ine. How far back can documentary evidence be traced of the Welsh system?

«The Book of St. Chad. Charters of the eighth century mention food-rent.»

In the possession of the church of Llandaff there was long preserved an ancient MS. of the Gospels in Latin, called the Book of St. Chad.[266] This MS. appears to date back to the eighth century. And it was for long the custom to enter on its margin a record of solemn compacts sworn upon it, as in the similar case of the Book of Deer. It thus happens to contain (_inter alia_) two short records of grants to the church of St. Teilo (or Llandaff). One of these gifts is as follows:[267]--

'This writing showeth that Ris and the family of Grethi gave to God and St. Teilo, _Treb guidauc_. . . and this is its census: 40 loaves and a wether sheep in summer; and in winter, 40 loaves, a hog, and 40 dishes of butter. . . .'

Another is in these words:--

'This writing showeth that Ris and Hirv . . . gave Bracma as far as _Hirmain Guidauc_, from the desert of Gelli Irlath as far as Camdubr, its "hichet" [food-rent?], 3 score loaves and a wether sheep, [p210] and a vessel of butter. And then follow the witnesses.'[268]

«Evidently of Taeog-trevs.»

Rhys ap Ithael, the donor in these two cases, was king of the district of Glewyssig in the middle of the ninth century, about the time of Alfred the Great. Now, a king or chief would hardly be likely to transfer to the church of Llandaff a free trev and the gwestva paid therefrom. This would have involved the severance of free members of the tribe from the tribe, to put them under an ecclesiastical lordship. We should expect then to find that the Trev 'Guidauc' was a _taeog-trev_ on the chief's own land, and according to the description given in the grants, the census corresponds not with the gwestva of a free trev under the Welsh laws, but with the 'dawn-bwyd' of the taeog-trev.

The food tribute in these grants was divided into summer and winter payments, and so, as we have seen, were the dawn-bwyds of the taeogs in the Welsh laws; the scores of loaves, the sow, the wether sheep, and the tubs of butter, correspond also with the food-gifts from the taeog-trevs, as described in the laws, though with varying quantities.[269]

These grants in the margin of the Book of St. Chad may, therefore be taken as evidence that the system of food-rents was prevalent in Wales in the middle of the ninth century.

«Survival of Welsh customs in Wessex.»

There is still earlier evidence of the prevalence of the system of food-rents where we should little expect to find it, viz., in the laws of King Ine. Ine being King of Wessex, and Wessex shading off as it [p211] were into the old British districts both south and east of the Severn, it was but natural that some old Welsh or British customs should have survived in certain places; as _Walisc_ men here and there survived amongst the conquering English. These Welshmen were allowed under Ine's laws to hold half-hides and hides of land. We have only to examine the Domesday Survey for Gloucestershire and Herefordshire to find traces even at that date of survivals of Welsh and Saxon customs in exceptional cases, even outside those districts which had only just been conquered.

In some places where Saxon customs had long prevailed a little community of Welshmen remained under Welsh customs. In other places the customs were partly Welsh and partly English.[270] [p212]

«Food-rents mentioned in the laws of Ine in the seventh century.»

In precisely the same way survivals such as these must have existed in King Ine's time. There must have been then, as 400 years afterwards, at the date of the Survey, places in Wessex where Welshmen predominated and Welsh customs survived. There must have been, in other words, manors which paid Welsh gwestva instead of Saxon services. There is a remarkable passage in King Ine's laws which can only be thus explained. On the same page, and in the next paragraph but two to the law about the yard-land set _to 'gafol'_ and _to 'weorc,'_[271] there is a clause apparently out of place, which begins abruptly with this heading: '_Æt x. hidum to fostre_.'[272] In the Latin version this is rendered 'De x. hides ad corredium.'[273] Now, there is a passage in a charter of Louis VII. of France, anno 1157, given by Du Cange under the word '_Corredium_,' in which certain 'villas' are freed from the exaction of 'quædam convivia, quæ vulgo Coreede vel _Giste_ vocantur.' This definition of corredium and of 'giste,' as a contribution of food exacted from tenants, corresponds exactly to the Welsh 'gwestva.' And the Saxon word _fostre_ also means food. So that this heading to the passage in question may be translated--'from x. hides paying gwestva.' And so interpreted the following list [p213] becomes perfectly intelligible, for it describes what the gwestva consisted of.

_From 10 hides_--

x. dolia of honey. ccc. loaves. xii. amphora of Welsh ale. xxx. of clear [do.] ii. oxen or x. wethers, x. geese. xx. hens. x. cheeses. A full amphora of butter. v. salmons of xx. pounds weight. c. eels.

Now, if the system of gwestva payment or food-rent described in this passage of the laws of King Ine be evidence of the survival of the Welsh custom after the Saxon conquest, it is at the same time equally clear documentary evidence of the seventh century that the system of gwestva or food-rents was prevalent outside Wales in the west of Britain before the Saxon conquest.[274]

FOOTNOTES:

[203] _Liber Landavensis_, p. 545. _Ordericus Vitalis_, ii. 190. It may have been conquered in 1049, after Gruffydd and Irish pirates had, according to Florence, crossed the Wye and burned 'Dymedham' (see Freeman's _Norman Conquest_, ii. App. P); but most likely shortly before A.D. 1065, under which date is the following entry in the Saxon Chronicle:--

'A. 1065. In this year before Lammas, Harold the Eorl ordered a building to be erected in Wales at Portskewith _after he had subdued it_, and there he gathered much goods and thought to have King Edward there for the purpose of hunting; but when it was all ready, then went Cradock, Griffin's son, with the whole force which he could procure, and slew almost all the people who there had been building.'

[204] _Domesday_, i. 162 _a_.

[205] _Ibid._ 162 _a_ _et seq._

[206] 185_b_. See also Freeman's _Norman Conquest_, ii. App. SS, p. 685.

[207] _Domesday_, i. 179 _a_.

[208] See _Leges Wallice_, p. 812. 'De qualibet villa rusticana debet habere ovem fetam vel 4 denarios in cibos accipitrum.' The 54 villæ at 4d. each would make xviii s. (? whether xxviii. by an extra x. in error).

[209] _Domesday_, i. 162 _a_.

[210] _Domesday_, i. 162 _a_ (last entry).

[211] F. 179 _a_.

[212] F. 181 _a_.

[213] So f. 185_b_: 'In Castellaria de _Carlion_ . . . iii. Walenses _lege Walensi viventes_ cum iii. car. et ii. bord. cum dim. car. et reddunt iiii. sextar. mellis.'

[214] _Ancient Laws of Wales_, p. 373.

[215] _Description of Wales_, chap. cxvii.

[216] C. x.

[217] C. viii. The district of Snowdon afforded the best pasturage and Anglesey the best corn-growing land.

[218] C. viii. and xvii. In the Isle of Man four oxen were yoked abreast to the plough, Train's _Isle of Man_, ii. p. 241.

[219] C. viii.

[220] C. xvii.

[221] _Ancient Laws and Institutes of Wales._ Record Commission, 1841. See preface by _Aneurin Owen_.

[222] _Venedotian Code. Ancient Laws of Wales_, pp. 81–2, and see pp. 644–6 (_Welsh Laws_). Mr. Skene, in his chapter on _The Tribe in Wales_ in his _Celtic Scotland_, iii. pp. 200, 201, does not seem to have grasped fully the distinction between the _free tribesmen_ and their _family land_ on the one hand and the Aillts and Taeogs with their _geldable_ or _register_ land on the other. Everything, however, turns upon this. Compare _Welsh Laws_, xiv. s. 31 and s. 32 (pp. 739–741), where the distinction is again clearly stated.

[223] _Ancient Laws of Wales_, p. 638 (s. 45).

[224] _Id._ 651 (s. 83).

[225] P. 639 (s. 51).

[226] Pp. 81–2.

[227] See the surveys in the _Record of Carnarvon_ (14th century), where the holdings are sometimes called '_Weles_,' thus:--'In eadem villa sunt tria _Wele_ libera, viz. _Wele_ Yarthur ap Ruwon Wele Joz. ap Ruwon and _Wele_ Keneth ap Ruwon. Et sunt heredes predicte Wele de Yarthur ap Ruwon, Eign. ap Griffiri and Hoell. ap Griffri et alii coheredes sui;' and so on of the other Weles (p. 11). This is the common form of the survey _passim_.

[228] _Ancient Laws, &c., of Wales_, p. 741.

[229] _Id._ pp. 82 and 740.

[230] The fullest description of the rules of '_family land_' are those in the _Venedotian Code_, c. xii., _The Law of Brothers for Land_, pp. 81 _et seq._ See also _Welsh Laws_, Book IX. xxxi. p. 536; also Book XIV. xxxi. pp. 739 _et seq._

[231] _Ancient Laws, &c., of Wales_, Glossary, p. 1001.

[232] The _Record of Carnarvon_, _passim_. Thus 'the _Wele_ of So-and-so, the son of So-and-so, and the heirs of this Wele are So-and-so.'

[233] This was not payable if an investiture fee had been paid by the person dying.

[234] _Ancient Laws, &c._, p. 92 and 93.

[235] _Id._ p. 375.

[236] _Book of Carnarvon_, _passim_.

[237] Sometimes an '_uchelwr_' or tribesman had taeogs under him. _Ancient Laws, &c._, pp. 88, 339, and 573. See also _Id._ p. 646. _Welsh Laws._

[238] _Id._ pp. 82 and 536. _Welsh Laws_, s. xxxii.

[239] _Id._ p. 376.

[240] _Id._ p. 82.

[241] _Id._ p. 82.

[242] It was sometimes called 'tir kyllidin,' or geldable land, as before stated.

[243] _Ancient Laws, &c._, p. 673.

[244] Pp. 36–7 and 212–13.

[245] _Id._ pp. 88 and 646.

[246] Pp. 93 and 376.

[247] P. 375–6. _Gwentian Code_, 11, xxxv.

[248] _Ancient Laws, &c._, p. 697.

[249] P. 294 (Dimetian Code). 'The _caeth_--there is no _galanas_ (death-fine) for him, only payment of his "werth" to his master _like the "werth" of a beast_.'

[250] _Ancient Laws, &c._, pp. 90–1.

[251] _Id._ p. 91, s. 14.

[252] _Id._ p 91, s. 15. In _Leges Wallice_, p. 825, 'score pence' or 'score of silver' is translated 'uncia argenti;' ∴ 3 _uncie agri_ should equal a '_trev_.' See _Liber Landavensis_, pp. 70 and 317.

[253]

4 erw = tyddyn. 16 erw = randir. 64 erw = gavael. 256 erw = trev. 1024 erw = maenol.

[254] The word _Gabail_ still in Scotch Gaelic retains its meaning of _a farm_. The word is pronounced '_gāv´-ul_.'

[255] _Ancient Laws_, pp. 261. 'Four randirs are to be in the trev from which the king's gwestva is to be paid' (s. 5).

[256] In upland districts there were 13 trevs in the maenol, p. 375.

[257] There were seven taeog-trevs in taeog-maenols, and each contained three randirs, in two of which there were three taeog-tyddyns to each, the third being pasture for the other two. There were therefore six taeog holdings in each taeog-trev. _Ancient Laws, &c._, pp. 375 and 829.

[258] Pp. 374–5.

[259] P. 829. 'In randir continentur ccc. et xii. acre: ut in ccc. acris, araturam, et pascua et focalia possessor habeat; inde xii. domicilia.' See also p. 790. 'Id est xii. domicilia.' The Dimetian Code has it 'space for buildings on the 12 erws' (p. 263).

[260] 'There are to be thirteen trevs in every maenol, and the thirteenth of these is the supernumerary trev.' _Gwentian Code_, p. 375.

[261] _Leges Wallice, Ancient Laws, &c._, p. 771 _et seq._

[262] _Ancient Laws, &c._, p. 360.

[263] _Ancient Laws, &c._, p. 325.

[264] _Id._ p. 213.

[265] _Id._ p. 92 (s. 5).

[266] _Liber Landavensis_, p. 271, App., and p. 615.

[267] For the translation see p. 616. For the original, p. 272, as follows: 'Ostendit ista scriptio quod dederunt Ris et luith Grethi _Treb guidauc_ i malitiduck Cimarguich, et hic est census ejus, douceint torth hamaharuin in irham, haduceint torth in irgaem, ha huch, ha douceint mannudenn deo et sancto elindo. . . .'

[268] For the translation see p. 617; for the original, p. 272.

[269] See _Leges Wallice_, ii. 14, '_De Daunbwyt_' [Dono Cibi]. _Ancient Laws, &c., of Wales_, p. 790.

[270] Fol. 162 _b_. 'In _Cirencester_ hundred King Edward had five hides of land. In demesne v. ploughs and xxxi. villani with x. ploughs, xiii. servi and x. bordarii, &c. The Queen has the wool of the sheep. T. R. E.: this manor rendered iii.½ modii of corn, and of barley iii. modii, and of honey vi.½ sextars, and ix.l. and v.s., and 3,000 loaves for dogs.'

This is very much like a survival of the Welsh food-rents at one of the cities conquered by the Saxons in 577.

In some other places out of Archenfield there was a mixture of Welsh and English customs.

The manor of _Westwode_ (f. 181) was held by St. Peter of Gloucester. It contained vi. hides, 'one of which had Welsh custom, the others English.' A Welshman in this manor had half a carucate, and rendered i. sextar of honey.

And at _Clive_ (f. 179 _b_), 8 Welshmen had 8 teams, and rendered x.½ sextars of honey and vi.s. v.d., and in the forest of the king was land of this manor, which T. R. E. had rendered vi. sextars of honey, and vi. sheep with lambs.

These instances are sufficient to show that in Herefordshire, as in Gloucestershire, in the newly conquered districts, the old Welsh dues of honey, sheep, &c., remained undisturbed; while in the districts which had long been under Saxon rule, in some few cases there was a mixture of services, and in others the Saxon services of ploughing on the lord's demesne had become general.

It may be assumed that when the services were thus described contrary to the usual routine of the Domesday surveyors, it was because there was something unusual about them; and that in the majority of instances where Saxon customs prevailed, no description was deemed needful. Compare the Domesday survey of Dorsetshire--a portion of the 'West Wales'--where the manors in the royal demesne are grouped so that each group renders a 'firma unius noctis,' or a 'firma dimidiæ noctis.'

[271] _Laws of Ine_, No. 67. Thorpe, p. 63.

[272] _Id._ No. 70. Thorpe, p. 63.

[273] _Id._ p. 504.

[274] For much curious information respecting the Welsh system of tenures, see Taylor's _History of Gavel-kind_. London, 1663.

[p214]