Page:VCH Sussex 1.djvu/441

 DOMESDAY SURVEY another 4 hides which passed with it into the hands of the Abhot of Battle, but it is not safe to assert that he is the ' Alnod ' to whom another 37 hides are assigned, as the name was not uncommon. Ulmar ' cild ' occurs at ' Sidenore,' and Brixi, who held at Itford, Stoke and Thakeham, was probably the Kentish noble Brixi ' cild ' who also held at Stoke in Surrey/ To argue from similarity of names is dangerous, but as Mr. Round has shown that Carle who held Send in Surrey held also in Hampshire, Wiltshire and Somerset, it is allowable to suggest his identity with the Carle who appears at Hartfield, Fletching and Wappingthorn. Norman, who had held Frankwell, Dallington, Wannock and Annington, and was possibly the Norman who held Camberwell and two manors in Kent,^ was allowed to retain, as undertenant, half a hide of his manor of Frankwell ; the same quantity of land at Cortesley was granted to Golduin the pre-Conquest lord of that manor. Other Englishmen were more fortunate ; three nameless men were left in un- disturbed possession of ' Glesham,' Bricmaer retained his land in ' Weles- mere,' Alward at Heene, and Turchil in Stopham ; Levenot lost several estates but kept Peathorne ; Osward managed to save Portslade and Perching, and Alwin Wickham and ' Stoechestone.' Most fortunate of all, however, was Haiminc, who must have rendered active help to the invaders to have saved undiminished his manors of Sherrington, Exceat, Frog-Firle and Cholington, leaving them at his death to his son with the Norman name of Richard, who appears as a benefactor of Lewes Priory, and seems to have taken the name of ' de Essete ' from his chief manor.^ But all these now held under the Norman lords of their respective rapes instead of directly of the king. Of the natives who held lands after the Conquest other than they had held of King Edward the most notable were Ode of Winchester and Eldred his brother, who held of the king in chief at Woolbeding and Iping. Of these two brothers and their possessions in Hampshire and elsewhere Mr. Round has given an account in his introduction to the Hampshire survey.* Amongst the subtenants occur such names as Alward, Alwin, Ednod, Alvric, Osward, Godwin, Siward and Wine- man, but with one exception they are but names and merely serve to indicate that some few English were less unfortunate than the majority of their brethren. The exception referred to is Chetel, who held by the gift of King William in Stockbridge Hundred a ploughland which had never been assessed in hides (fo. 24), To the fortunate circumstance that this land subsequently passed into the. hands of the Bishop of Chichester we are indebted for the preservation of two early charters of much interest. In 1254 the king laid claim to certain land in the suburbs of Chichester which was then held by the bishop, who claimed that it and three messuages in the city had been granted to the see by • V.C.H. Surr. i. 283. " Ibid. p. 281. The name, however, was not sufficiently uncommon to make this identification sure. 3 See Mr. Round's paper in Suss. Arch. Coll. xl. 77. * V.C.H. Hants, i. 427. 371