DOMESDAY SURVEY 



Watchford from 20 to 10, Uffington from 40 to 14, and so on. Battle 

 Abbey was specially favoured, for its manor of Brightwalton was 

 relieved from all assessment, while that of its Reading estate was 

 reduced from 8 hides to 3. On the fiefs of the lay tenants the reduc- 

 tions are most erratic ; of Geoffrey de Mandeville's six estates, four 

 were unchanged in their assessment, while that of the other two was 

 reduced from 30 and 25 hides respectively to 10 apiece. On Richard 

 Puingiant's two estates we have reductions from 10 hides to 2 and from 

 3 to nothing, and on those of Earl Hugh of Chester from 2 to nothing 

 and from 40 to 6. 



The last mentioned of these remarkable reductions of assessment 

 was at Buscot, and it ought to be carefully observed that on this estate 

 were two sub-manors (if one may use that phrase) assessed at 8 and 4 

 hides respectively, which makes the reduced assessment the more 

 puzzling. Its sequel deserves noting. In the Pipe Roll of 1130 we 

 find two men (probably the predecessors in title of those who afterwards 

 held in that place two knight's fees of the Earl) paying 100 marcs 

 (66 13^. 4</.) between them, 'that the manor of Burwardescote may 

 henceforth only pay geld for 6 hides,' an entry which implies that 

 the Domesday reduction had not proved permanent, and that it had to 

 be obtained anew by this heavy payment. Nor did this case stand alone. 

 Domesday shows us the assessment of Eaton (Hastings) reduced from 20 

 hides to 6. But the above Roll records the payment of a large sum in 1130 

 to secure this low assessment, 1 a very significant fact. Two other cases 

 of the pre-Domesday assessment being again in force early in the 1 2th 

 century will be found below in this paper. Before leaving the question 

 of Berkshire assessment it should be observed that fractional assessments 

 are sometimes expressed in ' acres,' which is by no means usual. 



Domesday sometimes reminds us by a phrase at first obscure that 

 much had happened in the twenty years that had passed since William 

 landed in Pevensey Bay. Here, for instance, Basildon is the King's ; 

 but it is ' of the fee of Earl Roger ' ; and so is Charlton, a manor 

 of Ralf de Todeni. Harwell is held by Roger d'lvri ; but it is 

 * of the fee of Earl William.' Both these phrases refer to the 

 grant of great possessions by the Conqueror to Earl William Fitz- 

 Osbern and to their forfeiture by his son and successor Earl Roger. 

 Again Robert d'Ouilly and Roger d'lvry held land in Sheffbrd ' of the 

 fee of the bishop of Bayeux' (as does Roger also in Pusey, and Berner in 

 Appleton) the same phrase that Domesday applies to Rotherfield in 

 Sussex. The bishop, in disgrace, had forfeited his fief, but in Oxford- 

 shire, Bucks, and Surrey, his great estates are still entered under his own 

 name ; in Berks and Sussex his solitary manors were not deemed 

 deserving of this treatment, and Robert, therefore, who in Bucks and 

 Oxon still appears as his tenant, holds in Berkshire of the King. 



1 ' Johannes filius Walteri redd. comp. de 80 marc, argenti et ii. dextrariis ut Manerium de Etton 

 geldet amodo pro vj hidis' (p. 125). This entry suggests that Walter Fitz Ponz,the Domesday holder, 

 was succeeded by a son John, which was unknown. 



287 



