A HISTORY OF BERKSHIRE 



sideration of rearing his hounds. Henry, however, held it at the time 

 of the survey, and, on turning to his fief, we duly find it there with a 

 note that it had been ' de firma regis,' and that this was the hide of 

 which JElfric spoke. At Sutton Courtenay, in the same Hundred, Henry 

 was holding 1 20 acres, with their meadow, ' because Godric, his prede- 

 cessor, when he was sheriff, ploughed that land with his own ploughs ; 

 but, according to the Hundred, it rightly belongs to the King's manor 

 (curiam regis) for Godric occupied it wrongfully.' At Kintbury again, 

 according to the county, 43 acres which were formerly included ' in 

 firma regis ' were held by Henry, because Godric had laid hands on 

 them as a paddock for his horses. Henry de Ferrers was also holding a 

 portion of the King's manor of Sparsholt, but this, said the county, was 

 still in ' firma regis ' when Godric ' lost the shrievalty.' On the other 

 hand we read, under Henry's land, that a portion of his own manor of 

 Sparsholt .was claimed by him as having been held by Godric his pre- 

 decessor; but the Hundred bore witness that Godric had laid hands on it 

 after the battle of Hastings and had not held it in King Edward's days. 



This last is a difficult passage. 1 Mr. Freeman, in addition to notices 

 in his text/ devoted a whole appendix to ' the lands and family of 

 Godric, "and there is practically nothing to add to his copious account. 



Another Berkshire thegn was specially named by Mr. Freeman as 

 amongst the slain on the battlefield of Hastings. This was Thurkill, of 

 whom it is recorded in the Abingdon Chronicle that by Earl Harold's 

 advice he had done homage to abbot Ordric (1052-1066) for his estate 

 at Kingston, and that, after his death in the great battle, his land was 

 wrongfully seized by Henry de Ferrers. This would make the estate 

 to be that Kingston (Bagpuize) which was part of Henry's fief ; but 

 Domesday names ' Stanchil ' as his predecessor there. Mr. Freeman 

 cut the knot by assuming, with Ellis, that ' Stanchil ' was an error for 

 ' Turchil.' But one cannot treat Domesday so lightly as this, especially 

 as a Turchil actually occurs as William Fitz Anscult's predecessor in 

 another Kingston estate. It would seem possible, at least, that the monks 

 made a mistake. 



The case of Azor, King Edward's steward (dispensator), is remark- 

 able as an illustration of how an English tenant could suffer injury 

 by the Conquest even though retaining his land. The men of the 

 Hundred bore witness before the Domesday Commissioners that Azor 

 ought to be holding his small estate of the King, as King William had 

 ' restored ' it to him at Windsor, and given him his writ in proof 

 thereof. At the time of the survey he was found holding it of Robert 

 d'Ouilly, but, wrongfully, they said, for no one had seen the King's 

 writ (giving Robert this right) or an officer of the King giving Robert 

 seisin of the land. It should be observed that Azor had not com- 

 mended his land to any lord (cum ea ire potuit quo uo/uif). The fate of a 



1 Because, if this Godric is the same, it contradicts the statement that he was slain in the battle. 



2 Norman Conquest, vol. iii. (2nd ed.), pp. 428, 500, 743 ; iv. 33, 35-7. 

 a Ibid., vol. iv. pp. 728-31. 



294 



