126
THE BOROUGH COMMUNITY
Trinity and St. Augustine’s transcripts of the Domesday
returns : “ homines illius ville antequam rex [Edwardus] eis
dedisset suas Consuetudines reddebant xv lib.”1 But the
form in which the concession to Dover is stated can hardly be
interpreted so widely. It is true that sake and soke, though
generally quite clearly distinguished from поп-judicial custom,2
occasionally appears to include other custom, but this may be
due to over-condensation.3 As a matter of fact the full de-
scription of the borough in Domesday makes it clear that the
king was still drawing custom from most of its Cenements.
Perhaps the judicial revenue of Dover was in itself sufficient
compensation for its share in the naval service (servitium
maris) which the ports were called upon to render : “ Burgenses
dederunt xx naues regi una uice in anno ad xv dies et in
una quaque naui erant homines xx et unus.” 4 Except that it
was one ship less, this is exactly Dover’s contingent in later
times,5 clear evidence that, though formal confederation was
still in the future, its essential basis was already in existence
before the Conquest.6 The only other light on this early phase
is concealed by over-abbreviation in Domesday Book, but
clearly given in the St. Augustine’s version : “ Ibique [Fordwich]
habet archiepiscopus vii mansuras terre qui in mari debent
seruire cum aliis burgensibus sed a modo eis aufert inde
seruicium.”7
The ship service of the south-eastern ports did not stand
absolutely alone. Maldon, in Essex, had to provide one ship,8
and this obligation was still in force as late as 1171.9 The
period of service was then longer than in Kent, forty days, in
which feudal influence is apparent. They were, however,
excused all other “ foreign ” service.
1 Inq. St. August., ed. Ballard (Brit. Acad., Rec. IV), p. 20.
4 E.g. “ socam et sacam et Consuetudinem ” at Norwich (D.B. ii. 116a) ;
in burgo de Gepewiz [Ipswich] habuit Stigandus ii burgenses T.R.E. cum
soca et saca et rex habebat Consuetudinem (ibid. f. 289a).
3 E.g. " cum saca et soca prêter geklum regis " at Huntingdon (ibid.
i. 203a, ι) ; inde . . . sacam et socam nisi commune geldum in villa
uenerit unde nullus euadat (ibid. f. 30a, ι). 4 Ibid. f. ɪa, ι.
5 Black Book of St. Augustine's, ed. Turner and Salter (Brit. Acad.),
i. 144.
β For its origins see K.M.E. Murray, Constitutional History of the Cinque
Ports, (1935). PP∙ 9 ff∙
7 Inq. St. August., p. 18. Comparison with the thirteenth-century
list quoted in note 5 shows a subsequent change of assessment, for the
members of Sandwich (including Fordwich) and Dover are said to be
charged “ non de solo sed de catallis.”
’ D.B. i. 48a. For naval services other than the provision of ships, see
Ballard, Domesday Boroughs, p. 80. β B.B.C. i. 90.
REVENUE-RENDERING AND ADMINISTRATIVE 127
Another and more welcome privilege which Dover owed
to Edward the Confessor, more welcome because not appar-
ently a quid pro quo—there is no sign that it was part of the
ship-service bargain—was that of exemption from toll through-
out England.1 As far as the Domesday evidence goes, it was
only granted to Dover, but it was certainly enjoyed by all
the Cinque Ports as early as the reign of Henry I,2 and they
do not seem to have had any Norman charter for it.3 In-
cidentally, the Domesday account of the exemption at Dover
confirms the view expressed in the last chapter4 that the
payment of royal custom was the test of burgessship, for it
was confined to the permanent resident who rendered the
king’s custom.5 Domesday supplies further evidence of the
communal activities of the burgesses of Dover in recording
their responsibility for providing the king’s messengers cross-
ing the channel with a steersman and helper.
It is obvious of course that at Dover and more or less simi-
larly in the other Kentish ports, the borough community was
of an advanced type for the period. The grant of sake and
soke and of general exemption from toll, indeed, anticipate
two of the most important clauses of the borough charters
of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.3 But, leaving out
of account probable privileges of London and Winchester,
on which we have no information, they do not stand quite
alone. By some lost or more probably unwritten grant,
Exeter had the privilege of gelding only when those two cities
and York gelded, and then only the nominal sum of half
a mark.7 The city, it may be suggested, perhaps owed this
highly favourable assessment to its being a dower town of
Queen Edith and possibly of her predecessors. It is this ex-
ceptional status probably, and not any such plans for setting
up an aristocratic republic as Freeman imagined, that contains
the true explanation of Orderic’s statement that the majores
of the city in 1068 refused to take an oath to the Conqueror
or to admit him within the walls, though they were willing
1D.B. i. ɪa. 2 B.B.C. ɪ. 184.
3 Their " members " were in a different position. Folkestone first received
the privilege from Henry I or Stephen. (Murray, op. cit., pp. 15, 45.)
Lydd and Dengemarsh had it under Henry I, but their charter has
not survived. 4 See above, p. 87.
s “ Quicunque manens in villa assiduus reddebat regi Consuetudinem."
β B.B.C. i. 113, 180; ii. 147, 254.
’ D.B. i. ɪooa, i. Palgrave drew the strange conclusion that no
taxation could be levied upon them, unless they jointly assented to the
grant (Normandy and England (1921), iii. 195).