A HISTORY OF NORTHAMPTONSHIRE at Elton. For this he owed the abbey the service of four knights/ King William, to oblige his dapifer Eudes, son of Hubert de Ryes, sent over a writ from Normandy, commanding that Eudes should be given the Easton portion of this fief, and that the abbot should assign to Anschitil an equivalent estate somewhere else." This the abbot declined to do ; but Eudes secured the Easton property, which is entered in Domesday under his fief, though with the note that ' the land belongs to Peterborough Abbey ' (fo. 227). Another instance of arbitrary action, on king William's part, is afforded by the entry under Aldwincle St. Peter's, that ' this land in king Edward's time belonged to the suste- nance of the monks ; Perron holds it, by the king's command, against the will of the abbot' (fo. 222). In Wiltshire, similarly, a tenant on the episcopal manor of Potterne ' is a knight by the king's command ' (fo. 66) ; and in Cambridgeshire, Picot is found holding land of the abbot of Ely 'by the king's command' (fos. 191, 200). In North- amptonshire again, Pytchley, which under Edward had been assigned to the sustenance of the monks, was held of the abbot by Azo (fo. 222). Thirty years later, however, both manors were held once more by Peter- borough Abbey in demesne ; ' Pytchley had been regained on the death of Geoffrey Ridel (i 120),* but the early history of Aldwincle St. Peter's seems to be obscure, as the Watervilles, who held so much from the abbey, are found in possession of the manor.' The case of Isham is of another kind. It is the first manor entered (fo. 228) on the fief of Eustace (sheriff of Huntingdonshire) ; but the entry ends with the note that Eustace has seized it by force from Ramsey Abbey. Within nine years of Domesday we find a writ from William Rufus' directing William de Cahagnes — clearly as being the sheriff — to convene the county (court) of Northamptonshire and take its decision whether ' the land of Hisham ' had ' rendered ferm ' to Ramsey Abbey in the days of the Conqueror, in which case it was to be (again placed) in the abbot's demesne.' But if it was pronounced to have been then ' teinland,' its holder was to hold it of the abbot.® Should he decline to do so, the abbot was to have it in demesne. This writ should be compared with one of the Conqueror himself in favour of Ely Abbey,*" similarly directing that county courts should decide the question, — was it 'demesne or teinland ' in 1066 ? The effect of that decision was to be the same as in the Isham case above. ' Teinland ' was that portion of an abbey's possessions which was not in demesne, but was held of it by thegns, or, in Norman times, by knights.
- And two more for Osgodby, which he held of it in Lincolnshire.
2 Chronkon Petroburgeme, p. 1 68. ^ Ibid., pp. 1 6 1, 1 66.
- Bridges' Northamptonshire, II. 1 2 1-2. * Ibid., p. 209.
^ Ramsey Cartulary (Rolls Series), I. 223-4. ' As, we have seen, was Pytchley in that of Peterborough Abbey.
- Which he is not entered as doing in Domesday.
^ The editor has read ' voluerit ' in error for ' noluerit.'
- " Inquisitio comitatus Cantabrigiensis, p. xviii.
284 8
