A HISTORY OF BEDFORDSHIRE 
of Northumberland, passed to Earl Waltheof on the fall of Harold’s 
brother Tostig in 1065. In Huntingdonshire, he wrote, Domesday 
‘implies the succession of Siward, Tostig, and Waltheof by speaking of 
“‘men ” and of rights which belonged first to Tostig and afterwards to 
Waltheof.”" But, he added, ‘ of Bedfordshire I cannot speak with any 
certainty.’’ So far as actual possessions go, there is little to choose in 
Bedfordshire between Harold’s brothers, Earl Gyrth and Earl Tostig ; as 
for Harold himself he had but one ‘man’ in the county. Gyrth had 
held Kempston in its western, Tostig Potton in its eastern half, both of 
them important manors with satellites, which were held alike by Countess 
Judith in 1086.* In the case of Potton, however, there is a peculiarity ; 
we read not only of Potton itself, but also its ‘ berewick ’ Charlton : 
‘Hoc M[anerium] tenuit rex Edwardus et fuit comitis Tosti.’ This is an 
ambiguous phrase which I interpret as meaning that King Edward had 
held the manor after Tostig’s forfeiture, but it might conceivably mean 
that the king had given it to Tostig. A further complication is intro- 
duced by the fact that lands at Cardington and Harrowden which had 
been held by a ‘man’ of Tostig could not be sold without the leave of 
the lord of Kempston. 
The ‘sphere of influence,’ as shown by their ‘men,’ of the two 
earls was but small in the county. Of Tostig’s man ‘Stori,’ I have al- 
ready spoken. Four other ‘men’ of his are mentioned, and one of 
Gyrth’s, but no succession of earls is indicated, nor are we shown how 
Countess Judith came by so much land in the county. Her husband, 
Waltheof, had but few ‘men’ within its borders, while in Cambridge- 
shire he had a good number. 
From the lands of Countess Judith, the Conqueror’s relative, to 
those of Bedford burgesses is a sharp change. Four of these bur- 
gesses who had been holding land in Biddenham before the Conquest 
continued to do so at the time of the survey, and their manors are 
followed by those of five other ‘ survivals,’ who, in spite of the heading, 
had nothing, I take it, to do with the burgesses. Edward had been 
allowed by the king’s writ to hold ‘in almoin’ half a hide which had 
belonged to his father, and Almar similarly half a virgate. Godmund 
retained three virgates and Alric one virgate, which they had held respec- 
tively before the Conquest. The arrangement of Domesday here is bad ; 
on the next page (218b) we find, after the king’s reeves, the names of 
more Englishmen who had been allowed to retain small holdings of land. 
These vary from three or four virgates to a quarter of a virgate. Holders 
of this class were usually grouped together, at the end of the survey of 
a county, as ‘king’s thegns,’ and this was actually done with Alwin and 
his holding at Keysoe, under Huntingdonshire (fo. 207b) ; but Domes- 
1 Norman Conquest (1870), ii. 559. 
2 Ibid p. 567. In the section dealing with ‘Religious Houses’ there will be found a curious 
claim, in 1327, by the abbess of Elstow to the (earl’s) ‘third penny’ of Bedford under a charter of 
Malcolm IV. (Earl of Huntingdon under Henry II.). Although unsuccessful, the claim connects Bedford 
with the earldom of Huntingdon and Northampton. 
2 Compare pp. 257, 258 below. 
204 
¢ 
