A HISTORY OF BEDFORDSHIRE who were holding it of William de Warenne in 1086. One of them could not ' give or sell ' his land without his lord's permission ; ' but the other two could do so ' (fo. 211b). In Tillbrook, the next parish, the sokemen who had held it ' were so (ita) of the king's soke that they could give and sell their land to whom they would and withdraw them- selves to another lord without the leave of him under whom they were ' (fo. 21 ib). At Tempsford again three sokemen, men of Wulfmar of Eaton (Socon) had held 4! hides; 'one of them could not assign his land without his lord's permission; the other two could do as they would' (fo. 212). There are other entries resembling these. Of a holding at Warden we read that he who had held it ' could neither sell or assign it without the permission of him who held Biggleswade' (fo. 217). Lastly we have the singular entry that Cainhoe had been held by ./Elfric, ' a thegn of King Edward,' who had power ' to assign and sell ' (the land) 'without his leave' (fo. 214). Here the king appears in the position of a private lord. There is one entry indeed which seems to give us light ; at Stan- ford, we read, 1^ hides had been held by 'four sokemen,' of whom three were free, but the fourth . . . could neither assign nor sell (his land). 1 The antithesis here seems to be clear, and yet Domesday elsewhere speaks of men who, although free, ' could not sell ' their land. 2 At Easton (now in Hunts) three entries afford us instances of a man having power to sell his land, but not the piofits of jurisdiction over it, which ' remained ' the property of his lord. Two ' men ' of Anschil of Ware held there half a hide apiece, and in each case the profits of jurisdiction would remain annexed to Anschil's manor of Colmworth. 3 T^lfwine, a man of the Bishop of Lincoln, could do what he would with his land, ' but the soke remained the bishop's.' Kempston, similarly, had over lands at Elstow, and at Willshamstead near it, inalienable rights of jurisdiction. 4 The Elstow case helps to illustrate the complication of the problem, for the sokemen there were ' men ' of King Edward, and yet their ' soke ' belonged to Kempston, which was a manor of Earl Gyrth. A tenant might have the power to ' withdraw ' himself (recedere) and become, by the act of ' commenda- tion,' the ' man ' of another lord without thereby conferring on that lord the right of jurisdiction over his land. On the practice of ' commendation,' which seems to have played a considerable part in the eleventh century, the practice which placed the weak beneath the strong for safety, we may learn something from 1 ' tenuerunt 4 sochemanni, quorum 3 liberi fuerunt, quartus vero unara hidam habuit, sed ncc dare nee vendere potuit ' (212b). 3 Feudal England, p. 34. 3 ' potuit vendere cui voluit, sed socam ipse Anschil retinuit in Colmeborde, manerio suo' (211b); 'dare et vendere potuit, sed soca semper jacuit in Culmeworde manerio Aschil ' (213); 'quod voluit de ea facere potuit ; soca tamen semper episcopi fuit ' (210). The loose variation of formula should be noted.
- ' Hoc manerium tenuerunt iiii sochemanni ; homines regis Edwardi fuerunt ; terram suam dare
et vendere potuerunt, sed in Camestone jacuit semper soca eorum.' ' Hoc manerium tenuerunt viii sochemanni et dare et vendere potuerunt ... sed soca jacuit semper in Camestone' (2 1 7). 208
