Page:VCH Surrey 1.djvu/346

A HISTORY OF SURREY owners of rural manors possessing houses or ' haws,' as might be expected, in Guildford, we find, with some astonishment, that they held them in Southwark and in London. As this seems to have escaped notice, and as it has a very important bearing, I give the exact details. In South- wark there were 1 6 ' haws ' appurtenant to Merton, 4 to Mortlake, i to Banstead, and 3 to Chivington in Blechingley. Beddington also possessed there 8 messuages, and Oxted i, as did Ditton and Walton- on-the-Hill. In Southwark and London jointly there were appurtenant to Walkhampstead (Godstone) 15 messuages, and to Blechingley 7. In London itself Home Beddington possessed 1 5 messuages, Beddington (Huscarle) 13, Mortlake 17, and Chivington in Blechingley 2, while a ' demesne mansion ' in the city had belonged to the lord of Banstead. Of London burgesses, nineteen were subject to the owner of Lambeth, to whom they were worth yearly thirty-six shillings, while thirteen were appurtenant to Bermondsey. As against this long list we find nothing at Guildford except a single ' haw ' which is entered as appur- tenant to the adjoining manor of Shalford. It was Southwark therefore, not Guildford, where ' tenurial heterogeneity ' prevailed in the Surrey Domesday. We have seen that, in what Professor Maitland has termed the Burghal -Hidage, Southwark appears as ' Suthringa geweorc.' Remem- bering the ' work ' that Alfred wrought, in 878, at Athelney, we are certainly tempted to infer that there existed at Southwark a fortified tete de pont which was the above geweorc. But although this might be held to support Professor Maitland's theory that the ' haws ' we meet with in Domesday Book were originally due to the military defence that rural thegns had there to render, 1 the absence of any such a system at Guild- ford, which he deemed the other ' burgh ' of the shire, is distinctly opposed to his conclusions, while the ' haws ' and houses spoken of at Southwark can be easily accounted for on other grounds. From the biographer of Edward we learn that, at the crisis in 1052, Godwine, the greatest man in the kingdom after the King himself, went to Southwark ' where was his own house.' In Domesday we read that the count of Mortain, the greatest landowner in England after the King himself, had his town house (as we should say) at Bermondsey. From these two instances we may guess that there were already on the south of the river, as we know there were in later days, mansions of great people. 2 On Surrey thegns London and Southwark evidently exercised a greater influence than the King's vill of Guildford. One might even, as against Professor Maitland, suggest that this was due to the fact that they had, in those days, other things than ' county balls ' to think of. Sir Walter Besant, in his South London, a book which deals with a 1 This 'garrison theory,' as it is termed, which is maintained in Domesday Book and Beyond (pp. 183-192), has been subsequently, somewhat modified by the author in his Township and Borough (pp. 209-210) in consequence of the strictures of Mr. James Tait (English Historical Review, XII. 768). 8 In 1130 the Archbishop of Canterbury, the King's nephew count Stephen, and the King's son, the earl of Gloucester, were all holders of land in Southwark. 286