THE DOMESDAY SURVEY 



of Dover Castle.' ' Anschitil de Ros was similarly a tenant of bishop 

 Odo in both counties. These instances may serve to illustrate the feudal 

 connection between the two counties. It is noteworthy also that the 

 sheriff of Kent, Hamon (Fitz Hamon, the dapifer)^ held lands in both 

 counties, and that * Norman ' his predecessor at Camberwell must have 

 been the ' Norman ' who had similarly preceded him in two Kentish 

 manors. 



Of the other Norman tenants-in-chief none had large estates or was 

 specially connected with Surrey. Count Eustace of Boulogne, who had 

 obtained in Kent two of the manors of earl Godwine, secured in Surrey 

 the manor of Oxted, which had been held by the earl's widow. Earl 

 Roger of Montgomery, the count of Mortain, and William de ' Braiose,' 

 all had castles and vast estates down in Sussex to the south. Alvred de 

 Merleberge's Surrey manor descended with his Herefordshire castle of 

 Ewias ; the stronghold of William Fitz Ansculf was at Dudley, and that 

 of Robert Malet in Suffolk ; Edward of Salisbury was sheriff of Wilt- 

 shire ; and the great fief of Walter de Douai lay in the west country. 

 Walter Fitz Other was connected with Windsor ; Geoffrey de Mande- 

 ville had his seat in Essex ; Humfrey the chamberlain held estates in no 

 fewer than nine counties, many of which, like his Surrey manor, he owed 

 to the favour of William's queen. A name of special interest is that of 

 'Albert the clerk,' who held half Addington in 1086, for I have traced 

 him under various disguises, such as Albert the Lotharingian and Albert 

 the chaplain, as a holder of land and of churches in sundry counties, who 

 had enjoyed the favour of king Edward as of his successor William. 2 

 Another churchman of foreign birth who had settled in England before 

 the Conquest was Osbern bishop of Exeter, whose manor of Woking, 

 like his Bosham estate, had been originally bestowed on him as a 

 Norman chaplain of the Confessor. 3 



Of the English landowners on the eve of the Conquest, we can learn, 

 perhaps, more in Surrey than we can in most of the counties. Foremost, 

 as we might expect, we find Harold and his house. It was in the earl- 

 dom, extending over five or six counties, of Leofwine, a younger brother 

 of Harold, that Surrey, Mr. Freeman tells us, was included when that 

 earldom was given him in 1057.* But only Gatton and Cuddington, 

 which then were assessed respectively at 10 and at 30 hides, are assigned 

 to him by Domesday in the county. His mother ' Gida ' had Oxted (20 

 hides) and his father Godwine Witley (20 hides) in addition to his rights 

 at Southwark. But it is when we come to Harold himself that we are 

 struck by the size of his possessions. Bermondsey, Battersea, Gomshall, 

 Merton, Wotton, Pirford and Limpsfield, reckoned at 183 hides between 

 them, were all in his own hands. He had bestowed on his Waltham 

 foundation 6\ hides at Lambeth, and a hide and half at Streatham ; and 



1 See Liber Rubeut, Ed. Hall, pp. 617, 710, 720, where (p. 1 120) Bredhurst in Kent is erroneously 

 suggested to be the place. 



* See The Commune of London and other Studies, pp. 368. 



3 feudal England, p. 320. * History of the Norman Conquest (1870), II. 419, 568. 



281 



