A HISTORY OF SURREY single under-tenant. In the same way the ' Carlo ' who had held the 20 hide manor of Send was the ' Carle ' who had held Eastrop and Shipton Bellenger in Hampshire, about a dozen manors in Wiltshire, and one in Somerset ; for all these, like his Surrey manor, had passed from him to Alvred de ' Merleberge.' Two other Norman tenants-in- chief, Geoffrey de Mandeville and Miles Crispin, had succeeded respect- ively to the wide estates of Ansgar the staller and Wigot of Wallingford ; but in Surrey we are only reminded of the fact by the jurors' protest that the lands they held had not belonged to their English predecessors. Before leaving the subject of the personal element in the Survey, we may note that Domesday, as is sometimes the case, throws but little light on that important personage the sheriff. We learn, indeed, from a chance reference under William Fitz Ansculf that his father Ansculf (de Picquigny) had at one time held the shrievalty ; but of the sheriff at the time of the Domesday Survey we know only that his name was Rannulf. At Guildford, we find that he had been holding a close (bagatri) under the bishop of Bayeux (fo. 30), while the South wark entry (fo. 32) shows him contesting, on the part of the King, the right of that very bishop to the dues received there from the shipping. His famous namesake Rannulf Flambard had already secured two churches, with a large endowment, at Godalming, together with a small estate at Tewsley hard by (fo. 30^) ; and I strongly suspect that ' Rannulf the clerk,' who had secured some house property at Guildford, which archbishop Stigand had held, was the same grasping man. Osbern de Eu (' Ow '), who is entered as holding the church of Letherhead, ' with 40 acres of land,' appurtenant to the royal manor of Ewell, was probably the ' Osbern ' who held the church of the royal manor of Woking, and he also held, as Osbern ' de Ow,' the richly endowed church of Farnham (fo. 31), of which Domesday says that it was worth six pounds ' with i hide which he has in Hampshire.' I have no doubt that the reference is to Bentley, the Hampshire manor which adjoined Farnham, and was held, like it, by the bishop of Winchester. For Domesday shows us (fo. 40$), ' i hide and i virgate ' in Bentley worth 50 shillings and held by ' Osbern ' of the Bishop. In the Domesday Survey the treatment of towns is erratic and often disappointing. Of the cities of Winchester and of London, for instance, there is no survey at all, while the notices of other towns vary greatly in character. This is the more to be regretted as the subject is of much importance in institutional history. In the learned works of Professor Maitland it has, in recent years, received special attention, and to these works I must refer in discussing the Surrey boroughs. 1 We have seen above (p. 276) that in the document which he terms the Burghal Hidage Surrey seems to have two ' burghs,' and that in the Pipe Roll of 1 1 30 its two ' boroughs ' are Guildford and Southwark. In Domesday Book these two places similarly receive distinct treatment. We do not 1 Professor Maitland's conclusions will be found in The History of EngKsh Law [1895], I. pp. 625- 678 ; Domesday Book and Beyond [1897], pp. 172-219 ; and Township and Borough [1898]. 284
