most recently by Professor Du Boulay.5
This was in Archbishop Dunstan's time, when the possessions of
the chapter were not fully distinguished from those of the
archbishop and his familia. Subsequently, it was
stolen, and then recovered by Archbishop Lanfranc,6 who
kept the territorial lordship for himself and left the
advowson to the monks. It is more germane to the Castle to ask
when and from whom it was recovered. It was not by the famous
plea at Penenden in 1075,7 nor by a similar action
three or four years later.8 Nevertheless, the
culprit was probably Odo, whose tenures are still very thick
in this part of Kent in the time of Domesday, with his tenants
and those of the see closely interlocked in what looks like a
compromise order. Lanfranc persisted and his latest
opportunity to make Odo disgorge, and the most likely one for
the recovery of Eynsford, is his arrest and temporary eclipse
in 1082. In Domesday, Eynsford seems already to have the
extent that marked it out as the caput of a barony that
was to last until the Reformation held not in chief but of the
archbishop. Nevertheless, the knighthood of the see had not
then been fully organized, as it had by 1093-1096,9
and not improbably before Lanfranc died in 1089. The barony
then appears in final form, the largest lay tenure, assessed
at 7½ knight's fees.
There is no mention of a castle in Domesday. When
the material for this was collected, c. 1085, the
archbishop's tenant was Half, son of Unspac, or Hospac,
ancestor of the line which took its name from Eynsford and
held it in unbroken male succession, through five generations,
all called William, until 1231. Brief accounts of the family
have been given by the late Professor Douglas,10 by
Mr. Colvin,11 by Professor Du Boulay12
and by Dr. Urry.13 All these contain, or repeat,
minor errors, and Professor Du Boulay introduces a new
confusion by a too literal reading of a deposition made in
1261,14 which ascribes, wrongly but understandably
after more than a century, the surname 'Goram' or 'Gurham',
properly of William II, to William I: all other evidence
indicates that by 'William, the first lord', called
5 F. B. H.
Du Boulay, The Lordship of Canterbury, London, 1966,
6 Ibid., 42.
7 'Ibid., 37.
8 Ibid., 38.
9 Domesday Monachorum, ed.
D. C. Douglas (1944), 106.
10 Ibid., 44-7.
11 H. M. Colvin, 'The Archbishop of
Canterbury's Tenants by Knight-service', Medieval Kentish
Society, Kent Records, xviii (1964), 16, etc., does not
enlarge on the genealogy but discusses the extent of the
barony. There is no trouble about its member in Topsfleld,
Essex, which was attached to an archiepiscopal holding in
Hadleigh, and not the part of Topsfleld which was of the Honor
12 Op. cit. in note 6, 108-10.
13 W. Urry, Canterbury under the
Angevin Kings, London., 1967, esp. 54r-5. The main concern
is with urban tenures in Canterbury, not connected with the
barony of Eynsford.
14 Lambeth MS. 1212, 417; see note 12.