THE DOMESDAY SURVEY 
at Easton (210), Eudo ‘dapifer ’ (apparently) at Sandy (212), and Nigel 
‘de Albini’ at Clophill (214). In this last case it is expressly recorded that 
Nigel was ‘ seised’ of the land after he had possession of the ‘ honour.”* 
Hugh de Beauchamp claims seven acres at Chawston of which his pre- 
decessor was ‘seised,’ though he himself is ‘ disseised’ (215). We 
advance a step further when, besides alleging the fact, the claimant further 
alleges that he has been wrongfully (énjuste) disseised ; Rannulf brother of 
Ilger alleges that he has been ‘ wrongfully disseised ’ of land at Pavenham 
(215). Alfred of Lincoln claims that Walter the Fleming has ‘ wrong- 
fully disseised him of land at Wymington, which his predecessor had 
been seised of in King Edward’s time, and he himself subsequently. 
And the men of the Hundred support this claim and further testify that 
the Bishop of Coutances has ‘ wrongfully disseised’ Alfred of woodland 
which his predecessor had in King Edward’s time (215b). The abbot 
of Ramsey claims that John de Roches had ‘ wrongfully disseised’ him 
of land at Barton ; and here again ‘the Hundred’ testifies that this is so 
(21ob). At times, with its usual love for variety, Domesday substitutes 
“occupavit’ for ‘desaisivit’ ; at Maulden, for instance, * the men of the 
Hundred’ allege that this John de Roches has ‘ wrongfully taken 
Possession (occupavit)’ of land, to the injury of those who hold the vill 
(214). In another place Ralf Tallebosc is charged with having 
‘wrongfully taken possession of land when he was sheriff’ (217b). At 
Totternhoe violence (vis) occurs as accompanying the spoliation.” The 
interest of all these phrases lies in their anticipation of that disseisin 
‘injuste et sine judicio’’ which formed the subject in the next century of 
the famous ‘ assize of novel disseisin.’ * 
Mortgage—the gage of land to give it its exact description ‘—re- 
ceives illustration at Biddenham, where Ordwi, a burgess of Bedford, held 
a virgate ‘in vadimonio’ (218). But its most interesting occurrence is 
in the case of a virgate of land at Southill which Leofwine, a wealthy 
thegn, had held as mortgagee in King Edward’s day. The mortgagee, 
as we should now say, had been paid off since the Conquest, but Walter 
the Fleming kept hold of this with the rest of Leofwine’s land. Oddly 
enough it is the king who is looked on as the injured party (235b).° 
The marriage portion (maritagium) as distinguished from dower 
meets us chiefly on the fief of Ralf Tallebosc’s widow, where it proves 
that she must have been the daughter of some considerable holder of 
land. It occurs, however, also, on the fief of Nigel ‘de Albini,’ one of 
whose tenants, Pirot, held 3 hides of his land at Streatley ‘de maritagio 
1 The use of the term ‘honour’ in Domesday i is always worth noting. 
2 ¢reclamat W. camerarius ii hidas quas ejus antecessor tenuit T.R.E. sicut Hundret testatur, sed 
episcopus baiocensis per vim ei abstulit’ (216). 
3 See History of English Law (1895), ii. 44-52, and especially p. 44: ‘The necessity of keeping 
the peace is often insisted on by those who are describing the great possessory action, the assize of novel 
disseisin. | Every disseisin is a breach of the peace ; a disseisin perpetrated with violence is a serious 
breach.’ 
4 Ibid. ii. 117-23. 
5 ¢ postquam rex wv. venit in Angliam ille ipse qui invadiavit hanc terram redemit, et Seiherus eam 
occupavit super regem.’ Walter had succeeded Seiher. 
2I1 
