152
FIRMA BURGI AND COMMUNE
apparently as the result of Earl Ralph’s forfeiture, each
section being headed “ quod servat (custodit) Rogerus
(Godricus, etc.).” If so, servare (custodire) may have been used
in a special sense.
While the royal revenue from many boroughs was increased
after the Conquest by the confiscation of the earl’s third
penny, it was further augmented by a general raising of the
total renders. A comparison of the figures for 1066 and Iθ86
(where both are given by the Domesday compilers) in the
Table at p. 184 shows that in only two cases (Huntingdon and
Malmesbury) was the Edwardian assessment retained without
change (and at Huntingdon this was really an increase owing
to loss of revenue from houses and mint), that in about a
dozen instances the increment was slight or at least less than
100 per cent., but that double, treble and even higher figures
were equally common. The farmer of Rochester actually
paid eight times the value of the borough twenty years before,
but it was noted that this farm was double the real value in
1086. This is an extreme case, but Colchester’s assessment was
more than five times that of 1066, those of Lincoln and Hereford
over three times as much and that of Norwich only slightly
less. Nor does this comparison disclose the whole of the extra
burden borne by some boroughs. For it does not include the
heavy gersuma exacted by certain sheriffs nor the revenue
from the local mints which seems to be usually comprised in
the Edwardian figures. Mesne lords were not slow to follow
the royal example. The archbishop of Canterbury, for in-
stance, was receiving from the farmer of Sandwich more than
three times what it had paid to King Edward before he gave
it to Holy Trinity and in addition 40,000 herrings.1
These increases are the more impressive because of the great
destruction of houses in many boroughs by war, rebellion, and
castle-building. Probably the pre-Conquest assessments were
traditional and too low. A good deal must also be allowed for
the stimulation of trade and industry by the new masters of
the country. Indications are not wanting in Domcsday,
however, that protests were occasionally raised against the
sums exacted as excessive. At Wallingford,2 Chichester,3 and
Guildford,4 as well as at Rochester,5 the farms or renders are
stated to have been higher than the true value. The case of
Ipswich quoted above in a different connexion,6 where the
ɪ D.B. i. 3. 3 Ibid. ɪ. 56. 3 Ibid. f. 23.
4 Ibid. f. 30. 6 Ibid. f. 3. 6 P. 150.
FIRMA BURGI IN 1086
153
sheriff had to lower the amount he demanded for the farm,
because no one would give it, is significant. The fact that
the reduction was only £3 in £40 seems to show that the sheep
were being pretty closely shorn.
Stafford was the only borough which was rendering less
to the king in 1086 than in 1066, but it had evidently suffered
severely in the last rebellion of Earl Eadwine and many houses
were lying waste.1
The values of boroughs when first taken over by the
Normans arc too rarely given to generalize from, but it is
worth noting that only in one instance is the figure higher than
that of 1086. What led to the reduction of the render of
Maldon 2 by one-third to little more than the Edwardian
figure we do not know.
Of the borough renders T.R.E. the only two that are dis-
tinctly said to have been de firme as a whole are those of
Winchcombe and Chester,3 but the census mentioned at
Hereford and Wallingford may have been a farm and even
where the whole was not farmed the details of the Huntingdon
render have made it clear to us that the unfixed part of the
borough issues, the tolls and forfeitures, might be, and pro-
bably usually was, let to farm and known as the firme burgi.
It is not necessary to suppose, however, that when Domesday
speaks only of a “ render ” there was not an inclusive farm
behind it. The Norman administrative changes certainly
favoured such farms, yet in the Domesday statistics for
Xθ86 a farm is only definitely mentioned in some half a dozen
cases. “ Reddebat ” may sometimes, perhaps often, be short
for “ reddebat in firma.” Some confirmation of this con-
jecture is probably to be found in the disappearance of many
of the payments in kind of twenty years before. At Norwich,
for instance, no more is heard of the six sextaries of honey
and the bear and six dogs for the bear of 1066.4 Unless they
were exchanged for the hawk of Iθ86, their value must be
included in the largely increased money render. Gloucester
is an even better case, for here there was nothing but money
in 1086 to represent the honey and iron of King Edward’s
day.5
ɪ D.B. i. 246.
2 Ibid. ii. 6. The figures are 1066 £13 2s. ; quando Petrus (de
Valognes) recepit ^24 ; 1086, £if>.
. 8 Ibid. i. 162b. 262b. The king’s two-thirds at Malmesbury were
included in a farm (ibid. i. 64b, ι).
4 Ibid. ii. 117 f. * Ibid. i. 162.