Notes and Replies: —Ravensden and Chainhalle: G. H. F.—Toddington Place Names, 1453 : F. A. P-T.— Luton Names in the xiith Century : G. FI. F.—Duties on Bricks : H. S. Holt

Summary

In a very interesting note on Eels and Eel-catching in Bedfordshire, Mr. Steele Elliott has criticised my suggested identification of these two manors, on the ground that the mill at Chainhalle paid as part rent in Domesday Book thirty shillings and a hundred eels:

“judging from its comparatively high rental [this mill] must have been one of the most important in the county. Therefore we can reasonably presume the position of this Manor was adjoining the Ouse, and not remote from any important stream.” The actual money rent is no doubt high, but we cannot now gauge the factors which produced that (accessibility, water-power, population, area under grain, etc.). As regards the eels, I venture to think that the criticism is not destructive. In the first place, a hundred eels was not an exceptional number, but about the average paid by eel-rented mills in Beds. (2610 eels ÷ 25 mills); nine out of the twenty-five mills paid less, six paid more. Again, Mr. Elliott does not seem to have made sufficient allowance for the general lowering of the water level all over the county due to the ‘ drayning and imbanking ‘ of the fens. What is now the inconsiderable stream on which presumably the Ravensden Mill stood, would be larger, and the area of which it can be said today “the ground is swampy and often covered by water from the overflow of the streams,” would then offer harbourage enough for eels.

That there was a mill at Ravensden in early times is shown by the inquisition post mortem of William de Beauchamp (II B) in 1262. To clinch the matter, the manor of Putenehou (Putnoe in Goldington), the position of which is not disputed, lay just on the other side of the stream from Ravensden, and similarly paid a rent of a hundred eels. The probable position of these mills is less than three miles from the Ouse.