Now this distinction between 'thegnland' and 'sokeland' will be found to fit in exactly with the difference in tenure we have examined above. Here is an instance from the 'breve abbatis' in the record of Guy de Raimbercurt's aggressions: In melreda ii. hidas et dim. virg. In meldeburne ii. hidas et dim.[47] et dim. virg. Hoc est iiii. hidas et iii. virg. Ex his sunt i. virg. et dim. _thainlande_ et iiii. hidas et dim.[48] _de soca_. On reference to the two Manors in question, there is, at first sight, nothing in the I.C.C., the I.E., or Domesday to distinguish the 'thegnland' from the 'sokeland'. Of the first holding we read that it had been held T.R.E. by 10 _sochemanni_ 'de soca S. Edelride'; of the second, that it was held by 'viii. _sochemanni_ ... homines abbatis de Ely'. But closer examination of the I.C.C. reveals, in the former case, this distinction: De his ii. hidis et dimidia virga tenuit i. istorum _unam virgam et dimidiam_. Non potuit dare nec vendere absque licentia abbatis. Sed alii novem potuerunt recedere et vendere cui voluerunt.[49] Here then we identify the virgate and a half of 'theinland'--though held by a _sochemannus_--and this same distinction of tenure proves to be the key throughout. Thus, for instance, in the same document 'Herchenger pistor' is recorded to have seized 'in Hardwic i. hidam _thainlande_ et dim. hidam et vi. acras _de soca_' (p. 177). Reference to the I.C.C., D.B., and the I.E. reveals that the former holding had belonged to 'v. sochemanni homines abbatis de ely', and that 'isti non potuerunt dare neque vendere alicui extra ecclesiam S. Edeldride ely'.[50] But the latter holding had belonged to a _sochemannus_, of whom it is said--'homo abbatis de ely fuit: potuit recedere, sed socam ejus abbas habuit'.[51] This enables us to understand the distinctions found in the summaries appended to the Cambridgeshire portion of the I.E., and recorded in the _Breve Abbatis_. Indeed they confirm the above distinction, for the formula they apply to holders 'de soca abbatie ely' is: 'Illi qui hanc terram tenuerunt de soca T.R.E. vendere potuerunt, sed saca et soca et commendatio et servitium semper remanebat ecclesia de ely.' These terms are valuable for their definition of rights. Over the holder of land 'de soco' the lord had (1) 'saca et soca', (2) 'commendatio et (3) servitium'. If the land was thegnland then the Abbot received 'omnem consuetudinem' as well.[52] We will first deal with the latter class, those from whom the Abbot received 'consuetudo', and then those who held 'de soca'. For contemporary (indeed, slightly earlier) evidence, we must turn to the Ely _placitum_ of 1072-75.[53] The special value which this _placitum_ possesses is found in its record of the services due from _sochemanni_, and even from freemen. It thus helps to interpret the bald figures of Domesday, to which it is actually anterior. The first two instances it affords are these: