THE DOMESDAY SURVEY 
day seems by its arrangement to have deemed them an anomalous 
class. 
The small English holder, when he retained his land, was usually 
doomed to pass sooner or later beneath the domination of a foreign lord. 
Even Norman, who held at Beeston no less than seven hides under Wil- 
liam as under Edward, held them only, at the time of the survey, as a 
tenant of Eudo dapifer. Smaller men were fortunate indeed if they 
could retain their own land as tenants of a Norman lord. At Astwick, 
‘ Ledmar,’ a man of Earl Tostig, had ‘ himself’ held the half-hide which 
he only held at the time of the survey under Hugh de Beauchamp ; at 
Thurleigh, Leofric, who held a virgate under Miles Crispin, had held it 
‘himself’ in King Edward’s time as a ‘man’ of Miles’ predecessor 
Brihtric, but he and ‘ Ledmar’ had power, we read, at that time to sell 
or assign their land. The change in their status is instructive. 
Of two Englishmen, each of whom held of Countess Judith, at the 
time of the survey, half a hide in Sutton, we read that they had been 
‘the king’s men and had power to sell.’ Here we seem to detect the 
same alteration of status. At Dean there is a change of tenure of an 
unusual character: ‘the very same’ eleven sokemen who had held an 
estate in King Edward’s time with power to assign their land held it, in 
1086, as ‘sokemen of King William’; but Ralf Tallebosc had assigned 
the land ‘in ministerio regis whatever that may mean. We must not 
think of these sokemen as holding the estate jointly, for the Domesday 
hundred rolls of Cambridgeshire show us that in such cases each of the 
sokemen had his own separate holding. There is, however, one entry 
unique for this county, if not for the whole country, in which tenure in 
common is actually asserted ; at Goldington we read of a hide which 
‘the men of the vill held in common and could sell.’* 
As contrasting with the instances given above of a change of status 
in those who had become under-tenants at the time of the survey, we 
may take the exceptional case of Leofwine, who continued to hold at 
Clifton, after as before the Conquest, a small estate (‘one hide’) under 
the abbot of Ramsey. For Leofwine ‘ could not alienate this land from 
the abbey’ ; he had not the power to sell. 
The last section of the county survey is of value for the light it 
throws on the doings of the king’s reeves. Entry after entry shows us 
the restless Ralf Tallebosc assigning, as sheriff, to the king’s service (i 
ministerio regis) lands which had not belonged to it in King Edward’s 
time. Ten small estates head the list, and others follow lower down at 
Beeston and Dean. It is exceedingly difficult to discover the precise 
effect of Ralf's action in connection with these estates. Sewelland Biscot 
he seems to have annexed, with King William’s consent, to the royal 
manor of Houghton (fo. 20gb), and seventeen hides to that of Leighton 
(Buzzard) ; but these estates (fo. 209) are found in the hands of royal 
bailiffs ( prefecti or prepositi)—‘ reeves,’ the English would have called 
' See for this ‘ notable case’ Domesday Book and Beyond, pp. 142-3. 
205 
