A HISTORY OF SURREY 



of enfeoffment had begun. Two of Walter Fitz Other's manors, Peper- 

 harow and Hurtmore (in Godalming), were already 'held of him by 

 tenants in 1086. Eighty years later we find his heir, in his carta, return- 

 ing Ranulf de Broc as holding of him at Peperharow a knight's fee of 

 ' the old feoffment,' and Philip ' de Hertmere ' as holding another. 1 On 

 the Chertsey Abbey fief William de Wateville and Hamo the sheriff (of 

 Kent) were already holding lands of the Abbey in 1086. Eighty years 

 later Roger de Wateville held of it a knight's fee. 2 For it must not be 

 forgotten that, under the Normans, even a religious house would hold 

 by knight- service .; three knights was the quota due from Chertsey 

 Abbey. 



The system of tenure by knight-service introduced at the Norman 

 Conquest was quite distinct from that ill-defined and somewhat obscure 

 ' commendation,' in which have been detected the germs of feudalism 

 even before the Conquest. 3 The Surrey Survey is somewhat rich in ex- 

 amples of this practice. The jurors of Wallington Hundred testify that 

 ' a certain free man,' holding two hides and able to betake himself (i.e. 

 to choose a lord) where he would, * placed (summisit) himself in the hand(s) 

 of Walter' de Douai for his protection (fo. 36). A woman who held 

 land at Combe is entered as having, in king William's time, placed 

 herself and it in the Queen's hand(s) obviously for the same purpose (fo. 

 36^). The land was thenceforth treated as 'of the Queen's fee' (feuo). 

 There were those who betook themselves to the church, instead of to 

 strangers, for protection ; at Esher there are two cases of ' submission ' 

 to Chertsey Abbey ; in the one a man and two women ' submitted them- 

 selves with their land to the abbey for protection,' in the other a woman 

 who held a hide ' placed herself under the Abbey (sub abbatia se misif) 

 for protection' (fo. 32). This is probably the explanation of an English- 

 man, Seman, having ' rendered service ' in the form of twenty pence a 

 year to his more powerful neighbour, Oswold, since the coming of king 

 William, for a little land which, under Edward, he had held direct of 

 the Crown (fo. 36^). It is also, I suspect the explanation of estates at 

 Byfleet, Effingham, and Weybridge, which had been held respectively 

 by Wulfwine, by Oswold, and by another Englishman, under Edward, 

 in their own right, being held by each of them ' of the Abbey in 1086 * 

 (fo. 32^). It is doubtful whether this device was in all cases successful 

 in averting the confiscation of lands held by an Englishman ; for cases 

 are found on the Chertsey fief of Normans holding of the Abbey lands 

 which Englishmen had held in their own right under Edward the Con- 

 fessor. 



To ' commendation ' we may also, it seems probable, assign the 

 strange tenure of Ditton under Edward the Confessor. We read that 

 ' Leofgar held (it) of Harold and used to do service to him for it, but 

 could have betaken himself (that is, have chosen a lord) where he 



1 Liber Rubeus, p. 315. 8 Hid. p. 198. 



8 For this ' commendation ' see Maitland's Domesday Book and Beyond, pp. 69-75. 



4 Compare p. 279 above. 



288 



