THE DOMESDAY SURVEY property) of the see of London.' Bishops could buy, inherit, or receive lands, like other men, in their private as apart from their official capacity. In this county, for instance, the bishop of Chester held a manor at Mimms which he had inherited from his father, while the bishop of Bayeux had built up a fief for himself, not for his Church, from the lands of plundered Englishmen. In the same way William, a former bishop of London (1051-75), had personally acquired lands by purchase. This we learn from the Hertfordshire Survey, where the very first entry on the lands of his official successor tells us that ' this land was purchased by bishop William, according to the bishop's men, but the shire (court) does not confirm their testimony' (fo. 133^). On the next page we read of the manor of (Bishop) Stortford that ' it is (part) of the fief that bishop William purchased,' and at the end of the last entry there is appended the note : ' this land is of the fief of bishop William.' Again, under Geoffrey de Mandeville's manor of Thorley (fo. 140) we are told that ' William bishop of London purchased this manor from king William . . . and now the (present) bishop of London claims it.' If the lands held by the bishop in 1086 are carefully examined it will be found that they were held by laymen in almost every instance under Edward the Confessor. This is in striking contrast with the bishop's lands in Middlesex, which Domesday enters as having been at that time already held by his predecessor. In this connection may be mentioned the fact that the bishop, together with Ingelric, count Eustace's prede- cessor at Tring, was among the three commissioners who, in Mr. Free- man's opinion, had charge of the ' general redemption of lands by the English.' 1 His inference, however, is rather hazardous. Having now dealt with the lands that, before the Norman Conquest, were held by the great house of Godwine or were in the hands of the Church, we come to those of the landowners at large, the English lords and their men of whom I have spoken above. Their holdings were so largely broken up for division among the Normans that any definite succession is in this county rare. We find however that the Conqueror's brother, the warrior bishop of Bayeux, had succeeded Harold's brother Leofwine as in the adjoining county of Bucks, and indeed as in Kent and Surrey. But a study of his fief reveals the fact that he had many English predecessors. This variety of tenants was very effectually simpli- fied ; Domesday shows eight of his estates in this county as held of him by 'Adam,' and nine others by Osbern. The former was a man of some consequence, for he is found acting in Worcestershire as one of the Domesday commissioners ; he was a son of Hubert de Ryes, in the bishop's district of the ' Bessin,' and a brother of ' Eudo dapifer,' who had wide estates in Herts and Beds. It is worth noting that the bishop's tenant in a single hide at Thundridge was that great man Hugh de Grentmesnil, whom we shall find holding as a tenant-in-chief the adjoining manor of Ware. Although some of the land which had been held by the ' men ' of earl Leofwine had passed to the bishop of Bayeux, 1 Norman Conquest (ist ed.), iv. 25-6, 725-6. 279
