A HISTORY OF BEDFORDSHIRE 
who were holding it of William de Warenne in 1086. One of them 
could not ‘give or sell’ his land without his lord’s permission ; ‘ but 
the other two could do so’ (fo. 211b). In Tillbrook, the next parish, 
the sokemen who had held it ‘ were so (#2) of the king’s soke that they 
could give and sell their land to whom they would and withdraw them- 
selves to another lord without the leave of him under whom they were’ 
(fo. 211b). At Tempsford again three sokemen, men of Wulfmar of 
Eaton (Socon) had held 44 hides; ‘one of them could not assign his land 
without his lord’s permission; the other two could do as they would’ 
(fo. 212). There are other entries resembling these. Of a holding at 
Warden we read that he who had held it ‘ could neither sell or assign it 
without the permission of him who held Biggleswade’ (fo. 217). Lastly 
we have the singular entry that Cainhoe had been held by lfric, ‘a 
thegn of King Edward,’ who had power ‘to assign and sell’ (the land) 
‘without his leave’ (fo. 214). Here the king appears in the position of 
a private lord. 
There is one entry indeed which seems to give us light ; at Stan- 
ford, we read, 14 hides had been held by ‘ four sokemen,’ of whom three 
were free, but the fourth . . . could neither assign nor sell (his land).’ 
The antithesis here seems to be clear, and yet Domesday elsewhere speaks 
of men who, although free, ‘ could not sell’ their land.’ 
At Easton (now in Hunts) three entries afford us instances of a 
man having power to sell his land, but not the profits of jurisdiction over 
it, which ‘remained’ the property of his lord. Two ‘men’ of Anschil 
of Ware held there half a hide apiece, and in each case the profits of 
jurisdiction would remain annexed to Anschil’s manor of Colmworth.’ 
/Elfwine, a man of the Bishop of Lincoln, could do what he would with 
his land, ‘ but the soke remained the bishop’s.’ 
Kempston, similarly, had over lands at Elstow, and at Willshamstead 
near it, inalienable rights of jurisdiction." The Elstow case helps to 
illustrate the complication of the problem, for the sokemen there were 
‘men’ of King Edward, and yet their ‘soke’ belonged to Kempston, 
which was a manor of Earl Gyrth. A tenant might have the power 
to ‘ withdraw ’ himself (recedere) and become, by the act of ‘ commenda- 
tion,’ the ‘man’ of another lord without thereby conferring on that 
lord the right of jurisdiction over his land. 
On the practice of ‘commendation,’ which seems to have played 
a considerable part in the eleventh century, the practice which placed 
the weak beneath the strong for safety, we may learn something from 
1 “tenuerunt 4 sochemanni, quorum 3 liberi fuerunt, quartus vero unam hidam habuit, sed nec 
dare nec vendere potuit’ (212b). 
2 Feudal England, p. 34. 
3 «potuit vendere cui voluit, sed socam ipse Anschil retinuit in Colmeborde, manerio suo’ (21 1b); 
«dare et vendere potuit, sed soca semper jacuit in Culmeworde manerio Aschil’ (213); ‘quod voluit de 
ea facere potuit ; soca tamen semper episcopi fuit’ (210). The loose variation of formula should be 
noted. 
4 «Hoc manerium tenuerunt iiii sochemanni ; homines regis Edwardi fuerunt ; terram suam dare 
et vendere potuerunt, sed in Camestone jacuit semper soca eorum.’ ‘Hoc manerium tenuerunt viii 
sochemanni et dare et vendere potuerunt . . . sed soca jacuit semper in Camestone’ (217). 
208 
