THE DOMESDAY SURVEY 
Norman lord. And even the exceptions, there is reason to believe, were 
further reduced after Domesday.’ But it is probable that, with his usual 
policy, William did not, all at once, go so far as this. Bedfordshire sup- 
plies us with one of Domesday’s hints to that effect in the case of 
Radwell, where the Norman lord alleged, of some land, that his pre- 
decessor who had held it in King Edward’s time, had lost it under King 
William through non-payment of a due. Ralf Tallebosc is alleged to 
have obtained it by paying the due in his place.’ This predecessor would 
seem to have been Tofig the huscarl of King Edward, who held land at 
Sharnbrook and Radwell, in which case his tenure after the Conquest is 
remarkable enough. 
The problems raised by the tenure of land in England on the eve 
of the Conquest are among the most difficult of those with which the 
Domesday student has to deal. And this difficulty is greatly increased 
by the singular laxity of the scribes in their use of formulas. As I have 
observed in Feudal England (pp. 24-6) :— 
Dare, vendere, and recedere are all interchangeably used, and even any two of 
them (whether they have the conjunctive ‘et’ or the disjunctive ‘vel’ between them) 
are identical with any one. It would be possible to collect almost any number of 
instances in point. Further, the insertion or omission of the phrase ‘sine’ (or 
‘absque’) ‘ejus licentia’ is immaterial, it being understood where not expressed. So 
too with the words ‘cui voluit.’ In short, like the translators to whom we owe the 
Authorized Version, the Domesday scribes appear to have revelled in the use of 
synonym and paraphrase. 
My illustrations were drawn from Cambridgeshire, but Bedfordshire 
is rich in examples. We read of the former English holders that they 
had power ‘ dare et vendere’ or ‘ dare vel vendere, with the addition, at 
times, of ‘ cui vellet’ or ‘ quo voluit,’ or ‘ ubi voluit,’ or in other cases 
of ‘sine’ (or ‘absque’) ‘licentia.” Or again we have such a vague 
formula as ‘quod voluit de terra sua’ (or ‘de ea’) ‘facere potuit.’ 
It is no matter, therefore, for surprise that even the genius of Professor 
Maitland has not enabled him to solve the difficulties presented by the 
complication of tenures, jurisdiction and personal relations which the 
Normans found in existence. 
We may select, however, from the county survey a few instances 
which appear to bear specially on questions of tenure. A four- 
hide estate at Dean had been held by six sokemen, who were the ‘men’ 
of Borred, but were (as I read it) of the king’s soke. They had 
power to sell 34 hides of this land and to ‘ withdraw’ themselves to 
another lord without Borred’s permission ; but half a hide they could 
neither give nor sell without his leave. Of a two-hide estate at the 
same place we read that it had been held by the same three sokemen 
1 The most striking instance of this, perhaps, is the fief of Turchil of Warwick, which passed from 
his heirs before long into the hands of the Earls of Warwick. 
2 *postquam rex W. in Angliam venit ille gablum de hac terra dare noluit, et Radulfus Taillgebosc 
gablum dedit, et pro forisfacto ipsam terram sumpsit.’ This appears to bear on the curious statement 
in Heming’s Cartulary (i. 278) that, under Cnut, an order was made that any one four days in arrear 
with his payment of taxes forfeited ipso facto his land, which then passed to the first person who came 
forward and paid the tax. 
207 
