Page:VCH Bedfordshire 1.djvu/261

 THE DOMESDAY SURVEY Norman lord. And even the exceptions, there is reason to believe, were further reduced after Domesday. 1 But it is probable that, with his usual policy, William did not, all at once, go so far as this. Bedfordshire sup- plies us with one of Domesday's hints to that effect in the case of Radwell, where the Norman lord alleged, of some land, that his pre- decessor who had held it in King Edward's time, had lost it under King William through non-payment of a due. Ralf Tallebosc is alleged to have obtained it by paying the due in his place. 2 This predecessor would seem to have been Tofig the huscarl of King Edward, who held land at Sharnbrook and Radwell, in which case his tenure after the Conquest is remarkable enough. The problems raised by the tenure of land in England on the eve of the Conquest are among the most difficult of those with which the Domesday student has to deal. And this difficulty is greatly increased by the singular laxity of the scribes in their use of formulas. As I have observed in Feudal England (pp. 24-6) : — Dare, vendere, and recedere are all interchangeably used, and even any two of them (whether they have the conjunctive ' et ' or the disjunctive 'vel' between them) are identical with any one. It would be possible to collect almost any number of instances in point. Further, the insertion or omission of the phrase 'sine' (or 'absque') ' ejus licentia ' is immaterial, it being understood where not expressed. So too with the words ' cui voluit.' In short, like the translators to whom we owe the Authorized Version, the Domesday scribes appear to have revelled in the use of synonym and paraphrase. My illustrations were drawn from Cambridgeshire, but Bedfordshire is rich in examples. We read of the former English holders that they had power ' dare et vendere ' or ' dare vel vendere,' with the addition, at times, of ' cui vellet ' or ' quo voluit,' or ' ubi voluit,' or in other cases of ' sine ' (or ' absque ') ' licentia.' Or again we have such a vague formula as ' quod voluit de terra sua ' (or ' de ea ') ' facere potuit.' It is no matter, therefore, for surprise that even the genius of Professor Maitland has not enabled him to solve the difficulties presented by the complication of tenures, jurisdiction and personal relations which the Normans found in existence. We may select, however, from the county survey a few instances which appear to bear specially on questions of tenure. A four- hide estate at Dean had been held by six sokemen, who were the 'men' of Borred, but were (as I read it) of the king's soke. They had power to sell 3I hides of this land and to 'withdraw' themselves to another lord without Borred's permission ; but half a hide they could neither give nor sell without his leave. Of a two-hide estate at the same place we read that it had been held by the same three sokemen 1 The most striking instance of this, perhaps, is the fief of Turchil of Warwick, which passed from his heirs before long into the hands of the Earls of Warwick. 8 ' postquam rex W. in Angliam venit ille gablum de hac terra dare noluit, et Radulfus Taillgebosc gablum dedit, et pro forisfacto ipsam terram sumpsit.' This appears to bear on the curious statement in Heming's Cartulary (i. 278) that, under Cnut, an order was made that any one four days in arrear with his payment of taxes forfeited if so facto his land, which then passed to the first person who came forward and paid the tax. 207