These grants were clearly surrenders by freemen like those described by Salvian, which carried with them whatever coloni or servi there were upon the land. Thus, under date 771,[482] a priest gives to the monks all his property _in villa Ailingas_ and another place, except two servi and five yokes of land; and in another place he gives '_servum unum cum hoba sua et filiis suis et cum uxore sua_.' The _hoba_ was clearly the 'hub' or yard-land of the serf, and it, he and his wife and children were all granted over by their lord to the abbey. In the same year 771[483] a man named _Chunibertus_ and his wife surrendered an estate called _Chuniberteswilari_, and it is described as including just what a Roman villa would include, _i.e._ the _villa_ itself (_casa_), surrounded by its court (_curte circumclausa_), together with buildings, slaves, arable land, meadows, fields, &c., &c. And yet in this case also he retains possession '_sub usu fructuario_' during his life, paying the same kind of census as in the other cases--xx. siclas of beer, a maldra of bread, and a _frisking_. «Likeness of the census and services to the Saxon 'gafol' and 'gafolyrth.'» Now, it will at once be seen how like is the census described in these charters to the Saxon gafol of the 'Rectitudines,' and of the manors of Tidenham or Hysseburne. There is distinctly the _gafol_, and in many cases the _gafolyrth_ also, but no mention of the _week-work_. Add this, and there would be an almost exact likeness to Saxon serfdom. But it will be remembered that even under the [p321] laws of Ine the _week-work_ was not added to the _gafol_ unless the lord provided not only the yard-land, but also the homestead. These surrenders were surrenders by freemen of their own land and homesteads. It was hardly likely that the more servile week-work should be added to their census. How it would fare with their children when they sought to succeed their parents in the now servile holding is quite another thing. «New serf created and 'week work' added.»