DOMESDAY SURVEY but now under William de Warenne ; and the fourth, which had belonged to Truleigh (in Bramber rape), was now severed therefrom, as being in Lewes rape, and given by William de VV^arenne to Tezelin, who also received from him the adjoining estate of Fulking, an outlyer of the distant Shipley in Bramber rape ' and therefore now severed. Domesday observes of these two estates : ' Hae dus terra Tezelini insimul sunt ; valent et valuerunt semper 1 solidos.' This implies that, though separately surveyed, Tezelin was making of them one manor. Thus were the old combinations broken up at the Conquest, and fresh ones formed. And this one has an interest of its own ; for we can trace the manor. Tezelin was a cook, and as a cook he held by a cooking service, among the king's Serjeants at Addington in Surrey." Consequently Addington and the estate in Edburton descended together, and the history of the latter (as ' Perching ') can be traced throughout.' When manors were thus dissolving and forming in the melting- pot of the new system, it is not surprising that Domesday's information on their pre-Conquest constituents is at times not only defective, but perhaps inexact. The 50-hide manor of Alciston, lying in Pevensey rape, had lost outlying members to the extent of 3I hides situate in Hastings rape and 2 hides in that of Lewes. But no indication of their whereabouts is given under these rapes, and we are left to discover their identity from a charter of Henry L So also we read of Ham(sey) that it had lost eleven of its twenty-five hides ' quia aliae sunt in rapo comitis Moritonii scilicet vii bids, et in rapo Rogerii comitis iiij hidas dimidia virga minus.' But in the two rapes named the only estate mentioned as having formed part of Ham(sey) is one of four hides in Horsted (Keynes) in Pevensey rape, which had been held like Hamsey, by Wulfgifu ('Ulveva'). As her name only occurs twice elsewhere, in Sussex, one is tempted to guess that her seven hides at (East) Preston in Earl Roger's rape had been a constituent of Ham(sey), and that the scribe had actually transposed the names of the rapes in the passage quoted above. Besides the instances already given, the most remarkable case of this association of scattered estates is to be found in a large group of manors in the rape of Pevensey, contained, roughly speaking, within a triangle whose points are at Eastbourne, Waldron and Beddingham. Almost every one of the manors in this group had one or more detached portions lying in Hastings rape in the hundreds of Hawksborough, Shoeswell, and Henhurst. As it has been assumed by several writers in the past that the group of holdings entered under the Count of Eu's lands in Hastings rape, but bearing the names of Pevensey manors, were actually situated within the bounds of Pevensey rape, but had been granted to the count in addition to his holdings in • 'In Sepelei jacuit, quod tenet Willelmus de Braose.' 2 V.C.H. Surrey, i. 328. 3 See preface to Stapleton's Liber de antiquis legibui (Cam. Soc), p. iv. where, however, that dis- tinguished antiquary makes the strange mistake of identifying the manor of Perching, which descended with Addington as that which ' was held of him (W. de Warenne) by William de Watteville.' This destroys the point of the Domesday evidence. 357
