A HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE 



at Elton. For this he owed the abbey the service of four knights/ 

 King William, to oblige his dapifer Eudes, son of Hubert de Ryes, sent 

 over a writ from Normandy, commanding that Eudes should be given 

 the Easton portion of this fief, and that the abbot should assign to 

 Anschitil an equivalent estate somewhere else." This the abbot declined 

 to do ; but Eudes secured the Easton property, which is entered in 

 Domesday under his fief, though with the note that ' the land belongs 

 to Peterborough Abbey ' (fo. 227). Another instance of arbitrary action, 

 on king William's part, is afforded by the entry under Aldwincle St. 

 Peter's, that ' this land in king Edward's time belonged to the suste- 

 nance of the monks ; Perron holds it, by the king's command, against 

 the will of the abbot' (fo. 222). In Wiltshire, similarly, a tenant on 

 the episcopal manor of Potterne ' is a knight by the king's command ' 

 (fo. 66) ; and in Cambridgeshire, Picot is found holding land of the 

 abbot of Ely 'by the king's command' (fos. 191, 200). In North- 

 amptonshire again, Pytchley, which under Edward had been assigned 

 to the sustenance of the monks, was held of the abbot by Azo (fo. 222). 

 Thirty years later, however, both manors were held once more by Peter- 

 borough Abbey in demesne ; ' Pytchley had been regained on the death 

 of Geoffrey Ridel (i 120),* but the early history of Aldwincle St. Peter's 

 seems to be obscure, as the Watervilles, who held so much from the 

 abbey, are found in possession of the manor.' 



The case of Isham is of another kind. It is the first manor entered 

 (fo. 228) on the fief of Eustace (sheriff of Huntingdonshire) ; but the 

 entry ends with the note that Eustace has seized it by force from Ramsey 

 Abbey. Within nine years of Domesday we find a writ from William 

 Rufus' directing William de Cahagnes — clearly as being the sheriff — to 

 convene the county (court) of Northamptonshire and take its decision 

 whether ' the land of Hisham ' had ' rendered ferm ' to Ramsey Abbey 

 in the days of the Conqueror, in which case it was to be (again placed) 

 in the abbot's demesne.' But if it was pronounced to have been then 

 ' teinland,' its holder was to hold it of the abbot.® Should he decline 

 to do so, the abbot was to have it in demesne. This writ should be 

 compared with one of the Conqueror himself in favour of Ely Abbey,*" 

 similarly directing that county courts should decide the question, — was 

 it 'demesne or teinland ' in 1066 ? The effect of that decision was to 

 be the same as in the Isham case above. ' Teinland ' was that portion of 

 an abbey's possessions which was not in demesne, but was held of it by 

 thegns, or, in Norman times, by knights. 



* And two more for Osgodby, which he held of it in Lincolnshire. 



2 Chronkon Petroburgeme, p. 1 68. ^ Ibid., pp. 1 6 1, 1 66. 



* Bridges' Northamptonshire, II. 1 2 1-2. * Ibid., p. 209. 

 ^ Ramsey Cartulary (Rolls Series), I. 223-4. 



' As, we have seen, was Pytchley in that of Peterborough Abbey. 



* Which he is not entered as doing in Domesday. 



^ The editor has read ' voluerit ' in error for ' noluerit.' 

 *" Inquisitio comitatus Cantabrigiensis, p. xviii. 



284 



8 



