DOMESDAY SURVEY numerous in the hundreds of Samford, Bosmere, and Blything. Large manors of 5 carucates and more in area are also numerous in Babergh and Bishop's Hundreds, while in Risbridge Hundred they occur frequently, and are of exceptional size. Medium-sized manors, ranging from i to 5 carucates, are more evenly distributed throughout the county, but are specially common in the hundreds of Samford, Blything, and Babergh. TABLE IV— DISTRIBUTION OF LARGE AND SMALL MANORS Name of Hundred Lackford Blackboum Bradmere . Hartismere Bishop's Wangford . Lothing Lothingland Thingoc . Thedwastre Stow . . Bosmere Claydon Loes . . Carlford Ipswich Parham Plomesgate Blything . Risbridge . Babergh Samford Cosford Colneis . Wilford . Number of Manors in Hundred It 10 18 41 21 39 7 19 10 7 10 69 38 32 2 8 36 74 19 38 82 14 9 "9 659 Five Carucates and over 3 o I 3 7 3 o I 5 3 2 3 I I o I o I 4 9 1 1 S + I of 2 ' terrae ' 4 o I 70 One to Five Carucates 9 9 16 17 12 8 3 9 5 4 8 20 IS 9 16 I 4 7 33 10 26 34 10 4 6 295 Under One Carucate O I I 21 2 28 4 9 o o o 46 22 IS 16 o 4 28 37 o I 4* o S 12 294. We would gladly know what was the precise territorial, economic, and administrative unit to which the compilers of Domesday Book applied the Norman term manerium, but the most patient investigation has hitherto failed to induce the Survey to yield up its secret.^' One thing, at least, is certain. Pre-Conquest England appeared to its Norman conquerors to be full of maneria, which could be distinguished from vi7/ae and terrae, and non-manorial holdings. In Suffolk, King Edward and his queen, the sons of Godwin, Archbishop Stigand, the great religious houses, the king's thegns, and many simple freemen, figure as lords of manors before the Conquest. In reality, these seem to have been rather ' manors in the making ' than fully-developed manorial organizations, and we may conclude, with Professor Vinogradoff,^' that • the compilers of Domesday overstated their case when they currently " This paragraph and the next owe much to the suggestions and criticism of Prof. Vinogradoff. " Engl. Soc. in Eleventh Cent. 339, 340.
