Chapter X: Part I: Territorial Studies (7)

In the former of these two fragments we recognize in John of Sudeley the younger son of Harold, son of Earl Ralf. It would be of interest if we might identify his tenant, Richard fitz Robert, with the younger son of his brother, Robert. The succession in the tenancy of the Crowland hide (St Guthlac's) needs explanation. In Domesday (176) Urse held Dunclent of Nigel the physician, who held both here and at Droitwich under Crowland Abbey. It must have been through him at Droitwich also that William fitz Richard became tenant, for Robert fitz William (who was clearly the latter's son) held here of Walter de Beauchamp in the second fragment.

It is in tracing William de Beauchamp's succession, as under-tenant to his grandfather Urse, that we find the chief interest of the second fragment. He has succeeded him, for instance, as tenant to the Abbeys of Westminster, Pershore, and Coventry (the fief of the last having now become that of 'the Bishop of Chester'). At Wadborough, however, it was Robert 'Dispensator' whom he had succeeded as tenant of Pershore. In one case we find him holding of Robert fitz Erchembald, whose Domesday predecessor we thus learn was William Goizenboded (177_b_). We may also note his tenure of Madresfield (now Lord Beauchamp's seat)--the earliest mention, I think, of the place--as a limb of Powick. Fulk Paynell, of whom William held at Beoley, had now succeeded to the Domesday fief of William fitz Ansculf, whose tenant 'Robert' may have been Robert 'Dispensator'. Osbern fitz Hugh had similarly succeeded to the Richard's Castle fief held, in Domesday, by his grandfather.

I append a partial comparison of Domesday with the Henry I survey so far as concerns Droitwich, where property, owing to its value, was divided among many owners.

DROITWICH

DOMESDAY _Temp._ Henry I

H. H.

Willelmus filius Corbucion Petrus Corbezun (de Witton) 2
(Witone) 2
Church of St Denis 1 'De feodo sancti Dionysii
Ricardus corvus et
Willelmus filius Oueclini' 1
De Sancto Guthlaco Nigellus De Sancto Guthlaco Willelmus
Medicus 1 filius Ricardi 1
Heraldus filius Radulfi De Johanne de Suthlega
Comitis 1 Ricardus filius Roberti 1
De Pagano filio Johannis
Godwi 1/2
Urso tenet Witune in Wich et } De Waltero de Bello Campo
Gunfrid de eo 1/2} Theobaldus et Petrus 1/2
Æcclesia sancti Petri de } De la Berton de Gloucestra
Glou. 1/2} Randulf filius Ringulfi 1/2
In Wich est dimidia hida De monachis Gloucestrie
quæ pertinet ad aulam de Baldwinus et Lithulfus 1/2
Glou. 1/2
De Comite Warewice
Randulfus et Essulfus
filii Ringulf 3/4
De Waltero del Burc
Randulf et Essulf 1/2
Ibi duo presbyteri [de De Westmonasterio
Westmonasterio] tenet i. Theobaldus et Walterus
hidam que nunquam geldavit 1 fil' Thorald 1
Isdem [Radulfus] tenent in De Almelega fil' Aiulfi
Wich i. hidam de x. hidis et mater ejus 1
[geldantibus] 1

[Footnote 1: See my paper 'An early reference to Domesday'
(_Domesday Studies_, pp. 542-4).]

[Footnote 2: _Domesday Studies_, p. 513; _Domesday Book_
(S.P.C.K.), p. 305.]

[Footnote 3: _Introduction to Domesday_, i. 19.]

[Footnote 4: _Domesday Studies_, p. 547.]

[Footnote 5: _Domesday Book_ (S.P.C.K.), pp. 78, 305.]

[Footnote 6: There was a similar dispute about the same time
in the case of Abingdon Abbey and its possessions in Berkshire
(_Abingdon Cart._, ii. 1600).]

[Footnote 7: This, however, as I have elsewhere shown must
remain a presumption, as it is possible that, owing to the
youth of his heir, he may have been entered as nominal tenant
for some time after his death (see p. 155).]

[Footnote 8: MS. now destroyed here.]

[Footnote 9: 'Non geldat.']

[Footnote 10: p. 116.]

[Footnote 11: _Infra_, pp. 149 _et seq._]

[Footnote 12: We are enabled by this Survey, and by the
division it records, to carry up the history of Elmley, the
original seat of the Beauchamps, to Domesday itself. The great
Manor of Cropthorne, by Evesham, was held by the Church of
Worcester. In Bengeworth, one of its 'members', Urse d'Abetot,
had seized an estate of five hides (_Heming's Cartulary_ fo.
125_b_). His brother, Robert Despencer, had seized two other
'members', Charlton ('Ceorlatuna') and Elmley (_ibid._). In
Domesday we are merely told that Robert held eleven hides in
Cropthorne. But the present Survey fortunately mentions that
the portion which fell to Marmion's share was seven hides in
'Charlton'. This leaves four hides for Elmley, which, added to
the five hides of Urse d'Abetot in Bengeworth, makes exactly
the nine hides here entered to Walter de Beauchamp. We thus
learn how the Beauchamps became possessed of Elmley. And this
calculation is confirmed by the entry in the _Testa_ (p. 41):
'Willelmus de Bello Campo ... in Elmeleg in dominico iiij.
hidas.']

[Footnote 13: It is worth noting that we find, in Domesday,
both a Robert and a Walter holding of Urse in Worcestershire.]

[Footnote 14: See p. 244 _infra_.]

[Footnote 15: _Harl. MS._, 3,763, fo. 80.]

[Footnote 16: _Cott. MS. Vesp._, B. xxiv. fo. 8.]

THE LINDSEY SURVEY

(1115-18)

This 'invaluable Survey', as Mr Stevenson has termed it,[1] might be described as a miniature Domesday for each of the Wapentakes in the three trithings into which Lindsey was divided. For although drawn up, Wapentake by Wapentake, as is the Leicestershire Survey, Hundred by Hundred, the lands within each Wapentake described are grouped under the names of the holders of fiefs, instead of being entered Vill by Vill. It was doubtless compiled, like other surveys, in connection with the assessment of the 'geld'.[2]

Remarkable from a palaeographic standpoint, as well as from the nature of its contents, the record, which is found in a Cottonian MS. (Claud. C. 5), has been singularly unfortunate in its editors. As Mr Greenstreet truly observed:

The indefatigable Hearne, seeing that the manuscript related
to a very ancient period of our history, and recognizing its
great importance, printed it in the Appendix to his 'Liber
Niger', but he does not appear to have properly examined
either the question of the date of the writing, or the
internal evidence.... As a natural consequence of his
superficial examination, he associates it wrongly with the
reign of Henry II.

Stapleton, of course, knew better than this, and assigned the survey at one time to _circ._ 1108,[3] but in his _Rotuli Scaccarii Normanniæ_[4] to 1106-20. It was subsequently investigated and analysed with great care by Mr Eyton, whose note-books, now in the British Museum, show that he adopted the sound method of comparing it in detail with Domesday Book. After his death Mr Chester Waters issued (1883) an annotated translation of the text, with an introduction, analysis, etc., in which the place-names were carefully identified, and the same system of comparison with Domesday adopted.[5]

It is, unfortunately, necessary to explain that Mr Waters in the table of contents described his translation as 'from the Cotton MS., Claudius C. 5', and wrote on the opposite page:

This MS. engaged the attention of Thomas Hearne, the
antiquary, who has printed it amongst the additaments to his
edition of the _Liber Niger Scaccarii_; but Hearne was one
of those industrious but uncritical antiquaries who had no
conception of the duties of an editor of the importance of
accuracy.

Knowing the high opinion entertained of Mr Waters' works,[6] I accepted his translation in all good faith as 'from the Cotton MS.' and was, I confess, not a little startled to discover from Mr Greenstreet's facsimiles that it was made not from the Cotton MS., but from that inaccurate edition by Hearne, which Mr Waters had mentioned only to denounce. On fo. 4_b_ a whole line, containing three entries, was accidentally omitted by Hearne, and is, consequently, absent also from Mr Waters' version. On collating the two, however, I found, to my great surprise, that matters were even worse than this, and that Hearne's text was far less inaccurate than Mr Waters' own, the erroneous figures found in the latter being almost always correctly given by the 'uncritical' Hearne. As for the version given by Mr Waters, even in the very first Wapentake, there are three serious errors, five carucates being given as three, nine as seven, and eleven as two! And for Bradley Wapentake (p. 27), his figures are so erroneous that, according to him, 'Radulf Meschin alone had 42 cars. 6 bovs. in this Wapentake', though his real holding was only fifteen cars. three bovs. With another class of resultant errors I shall have to deal below.

To the enterprise of Mr Greenstreet scholars were indebted for an _édition de luxe_ of the record in facsimile, which made its appearance shortly after the treatise of Mr Waters. Unfortunately, no attempt was made in the appended literal translation to identify the names of places or persons, while such a word as '[ap]pendiciis', which occasionally appears in the survey, is mistaken for a place-name 'Pendicus'. The book enjoys, however, the great advantage of an index.

The identification of places and of persons in Mr Waters' treatise shows extraordinary knowledge; but both Mr Eyton and Mr Waters had the provoking habit of making important assertions without giving their authority. I expressed a wish in the _Academy_, at the time, that Mr Waters would give us some clue as to his sources of information, but as he did not think fit to do so, we have to test his statements as best we can for ourselves. Now we learn from him on p. 36 that 'Walter fitz William', a tenant at South Willingham, was 'brother of Simon mentioned above', namely of 'Simon fitz William (ancestor to the Lords Kyme)'. This is impressive until we discover that the actual words in the survey (as indeed in Hearne's text) are 'Walt[erius] fil[ius] Walt[eri]i' (fo. 11 _b_).[7] To an expert such a test as this will prove significant enough. But to turn from an actual misreading of the text to cases in which are incorporated interlineations, not part of the original text, but written in later times, we find Mr Waters--like other antiquaries who had followed Hearne's text--stating that 'Ranulf [Meschin] is twice styled in the Roll Earl of Lincoln, but there is no record of his creation, and no other authority for possession of the earldom' (p. 8). The difficulty vanishes when we discover that this supposed style was a mere interlineation made by a much later hand.[8] So again we read on p. 30:

Richard, Earl [of Chester], has 6 cars. in Barnetby-le-Wold,
where [William], the constable of Chester, is his tenant [as
his father was Earl Hugh's in Domesday].

But on turning to Mr Greenstreet's facsimiles, we find that the survey had nothing about 'the constable of Chester', the words 'constabularia [_sic_] Cestrie' being only a faint interlineation by a later hand.

And even where a reference to the true text does not at once dispose of the matter, these statements of Mr Waters are, on other grounds, open at times to question. He assumes, for instance, that Hugh fitz Ranulf, who occurs as a landowner in the survey, was a younger son of Ranulf Meschin, afterwards Earl of Chester (p. 12). No such son would seem to be known; and this assumption, moreover, does violence to chronology. For the pedigree it involves is this:

Roger (1) Lucy (2) Ranulf
fitzGerold = = Meschin
| |-------.....
| | .
William Ranulf, Hugh
de Roumare, Earl of fitz Ranulf
Earl of Lincoln Chester

Now William de Roumare was not old enough to claim his inheritance from the King till 1122, and his half-brother, Ranulf, was some years younger than he was, as the words of Orderic imply in 1140. Consequently Hugh, the youngest brother, can have been only a boy in 1122. How then could he, as Mr Waters alleges, have held a fief in right of his wife so early as 1115 or thereabouts?

In this assumption, however, he only follows Stapleton, to whom he here refers, and who relied on an abstract in the cartulary of Spalding (fol. 416 _a_, _b_). This abstract which cannot, from its form, preserve the wording of the original charter, runs:

Sciant tam presentes quam futuri quod Hugo frater Rannulfi
comitis Cestrie et Matild' uxor ejus, fil' filia [_sic_]
Lucie comitisse concesserunt, etc., etc.

Stapleton boldly rendered the obviously corrupt words as 'son and daughter-in-law of the countess Lucia',[9] and hence pronounced this Hugh to be 'a married brother of the whole blood' to the _second_ Randulf, Earl of Chester.[10] As he only knew their gift to Spalding to be 'prior to 1141', no chronological difficulty was caused by this view; but the occurrence of Hugh's name in the Lindsey Survey, as already in possession of his small fief, at once raises the difficulty I have explained. The solution that occurs to me is that the Hugh fitz Ranulf of our survey, and the 'Hugo frater Ranulfi Comitis Cestrie' of the Spalding charter, was a brother, not of the second but of the _first_ Earl Ranulf, and that the words 'fil' filia Comitisse Lucie' were introduced in error by the compiler, whose head was full of the Countess Lucy, and who had here confused the two Earls Randulf.

Stapleton, Mr Waters has justly observed, was '_facile princeps_ of Anglo-Norman genealogists'.[11] Yet I venture to think that, as he here mistook a brother of the first Earl Ranulf for a son, so he confused William Meschin, another and better known brother, with William de Roumare, the Earl's stepson, afterwards Earl of Lincoln. William Meschin was not merely a considerable landowner in Lindsey, but had also estates in Northamptonshire and Leicestershire, as our survey of those counties show.[12] Stephen, according to Stapleton, created him Earl of Cambridge.

Remembering the _dictum_ of Dr Stubbs that 'Stephen's earldoms are a matter of great constitutional importance', it is worth while to examine this earldom of Cambridge.

In one of Stapleton's greatest essays, that on Holy Trinity Priory, York,[13] he writes of this William Meschin, that

By King Stephen he was made Earl of Cambridge, as we learn
from the following extract from a charter of Alexander, Bishop
of Lincoln, in 1139, founding the nunnery of Haverholm, in
the parish of Ruskington, of the order of St. Gilbert of
Sempringham. 'But this donation ... we have confirmed ... by
the testimony of Rannulph, Earl of Chester, and of William,
Earl of Cambridge, his brother' (p. 34).

The words in the original are:

Testimonio Rannulfi comitis Cestriæ et Willelmi comitis
Cantebrigiæ fratris ejus (_Mon. Ang._, v. 949).

Now, though Stapleton is positive on the point, speaking again of 'William Meschin, Earl of Cambridge' (p. 35), and though this learned paper well sustains his reputation, yet he has here beyond question gone astray. Earl Randulf, first of his name, appears as deceased in the Pipe Roll of 1130. He could not therefore have been the Earl Randulf of 1139, who was his son and namesake. Therefore the latter's 'brother', the Earl of Cambridge, could not have been William Meschin, who was his father's brother.[14] A short chart pedigree will make the matter clear:

Randulf,
_Vicomte_ of the Bessin
____________|______________
| |
Roger (1) Lucy (2) Randulf William
fitzGerold = = Earl of Chester, Meschin
| dead 1130
| |
William Randulf
de Roumare, 'de Gernon',
Earl of Lincoln Earl of Chester
('Earl of Cambridge') living 1139

The pedigree shows my solution of the mystery. The two brother-earls of 1139 are those who are found so constantly together, and who were jointly concerned, next year, in the surprise of Lincoln, but who were really only _half_-brothers, though they spoke of one another as 'frater'.

The identity of the 'Earl of Cambridge' is thus clearly established; but there of course remains the question why he is not here styled 'Earl of Lincoln'. Every mention of him as Earl of Lincoln is later, if this charter be rightly dated, so that he may possibly have changed his style. It is really strange that precisely as William, Earl of Lincoln, is here once styled Earl of Cambridge, so William, Earl of Arundel, is twice styled Earl of Lincoln, as I have shown in my _Geoffrey de Mandeville_ (p. 324), though in that case also the fact had never been suspected. It is most tempting, if rash, to suggest that the reason why the Earl of Lincoln was at first Earl of Cambridge is that the Earl of Arundel (Sussex) was at first Earl of Lincoln, and thus kept him out of that title.

In any case an error has now been corrected, and one of Stephen's alleged earls disposed of.

The question of the date of this interesting survey is no less puzzling than important. Mr Greenstreet held that 'there is hardly any room for doubting' that it was previous to 1109. This conclusion was based on a misapprehension, and Mr Waters claimed to have 'established' the date as 'between March 1114 and April 1116' (pp. 2-4). In this conclusion he would seem to have been anticipated by Mr Eyton, as is shown by that writer's note-books,[15] but I cannot accept the identical and somewhat far-fetched argument on which they relied. They obtained their limit on the one hand from a passage in 'Peter of Blois', and on the other from the fact that Robert, the King's son, is entered in the roll as 'filius Regis', and 'was therefore not yet Earl of Gloucester', whereas he was certainly Earl, they say, 'before Easter, 1116', when he witnessed as Earl, a charter they both assign to that date.

Of the latter date I disposed in my paper 'The Creation of the Earldom of Gloucester',[16] in which I showed that Robert did not become Earl till several years later. The other evidence, if it cannot be disproved, cannot at least, be relied on. For, without asserting that the chronicle assigned to 'Peter of Blois' is so daring a forgery as the 'Historia Ingulphi', of which it is a 'continuatio', it must be plainly described as absolutely untrustworthy. Apart from the passage on Cambridge University,[17] we have a description 'Inclyti Comitis Leycestriæ Roberti tunc validissimi adolescentis, burgensiumque suæ dictæ civitatis' in 1113, and of his presence, with his knights, at the laying of the Abbey foundation stones next year.[18] Now the future Earl of Leicester was some nine years old at the time, and his father, the Count of Meulan, lived till 1118. So also, about the year 1114 we meet with 'Milonis Comitis Herfordensis', who did not become Earl of Hereford till 1141, and whose father, Walter of Gloucester, was living long after 1114; while on the next page we find the notoriously false Countess Lucy legend, with the additional blunder of converting her son, the Earl of Lincoln, into her husband's brother![19] It is in the midst of all this that we have the vital passage on which Mr Waters relies:

We know from the _Continuator_ [_sic_] _of Peter of Blois_
(p. 121) that Stephen and his elder brother Theobald were on a
visit to Henry I, at Oxford, at some period between March 7th
and August 1st, 1114, when Theobald is described as Count of
Blois, and Stephen as 'pulcherrimus adolescens dominus postea
rex Anglorum'. It is manifest that at this date Stephen was
not yet Count of Moreton, so the Roll must be later than March
7th, 1114 (p. 3).

The fact that this alleged visit is connected by 'Peter' with intervention in favour of the Abbot of Crowland, will not lessen the suspicion under which the evidence must lie. Crowland was guilty of 'hiring', Dr Stubbs has severely observed, 'Peter of Blois, or some pretended Peter who borrows an illustrious name, to fabricate for her an apocryphal chronicle'.[20]

The actual proof of the survey's date is minute, no doubt, but conclusive. In the Lindsey Survey, 'the sons of Ragemer' (himself the Domesday under-tenant) are found holding of Walter de Gant; therefore their father, at the time of the survey, had been succeeded by them in this holding. But, as 'Rachmar, son of Gilbert', he is found attesting a charter of Maud, Walter de Gant's wife, to Bridlington Priory, which is addressed to Thurstan, Archbishop of York, and which therefore must be later at the very least than his election, August 15, 1114. Therefore Ragemer was alive after that date, and the survey, at the time of which he was dead, can consequently scarcely be earlier than 1115. On the other hand, we can scarcely place it later than the death of the great Count of Meulan in the summer of 1118,[21] though, as I have urged in the _Genealogist_, the lands he had held might still be assigned to 'the Count of Meulan', till his fiefs were divided among his sons, who were boys at the time of his death. On the whole we may safely assign the survey to 1115-1118, and in any case it cannot possibly be later than the close of 1120.

As, according to Stapleton, the best authority, it is in this survey that the name of Marmion first appears in England, it may not be inopportune to examine here the accepted pedigree of that house. In the Roger Marmion of our survey we have its undoubted ancestor, but of Robert Marmion, who appears on its opening folio as a tenant of Walter de Gant at Winteringham, one cannot speak so positively. In Domesday Winteringham, as 12 carucates, was held of Gilbert de Gant by 'Robertus homo Gilberti' (354_b_): in our Survey eleven[22] of these carucates were held of Gilbert's son Walter by Robert Marmion, and the twelfth _in capite_ by Roger Marmion. Mr Waters (p. 17) identifies the former with the Domesday under-tenant, which is a tempting solution, were not the Domesday Robert also under-tenant at Risby (which was held in our survey not by Marmion, but by Walter de St Paul). It seems to me more probable that Robert, the under-tenant in our survey, was, as Mr Waters, contradicting himself, elsewhere observes (p. 14), the son and heir of Roger. Yet of Roger Marmion's estate at Fulstow, Mr Waters writes (p. 27): 'Roger's father, Robert Marmion, was tenant there in Domesday of Robert Dispenser.' This would give us an interesting clue. But on turning to Domesday (363_b_), we find that it is only one more mistake of Mr Waters, its 'Robertus' being no other than Robert Dispenser himself.[23]

Stapleton, who worked out the descent, held that Roger's son Robert, who had succeeded by 1130, and who was slain in 1143, was father of the Robert who died in 1218. I would rather interpolate another Robert between the two:

Roger
Marmion,
of the Lindsey Survey
|
|
Robert = Millicent
Marmion, |
in possession 1130, |
slain 1143 |
|____________________________|
|
[Robert
Marmion],
living 1155
|
|
Maud = Robert = Philippa
de Beauchamp, | Marmion |
living 1181 | d. 1218 |
(Stapleton) | |
| |
___________| |________________
| | |
Robert Robert William
Marmion, Marmion, Marmion,
'senior,' junior clerk
d. _circ._ 1242
|________________
|
Philip
Marmion,
died _circ._ 1292,
last of his line

The pedigree really turns on the charter of Henry III in 1249, to Philip Marmion, confirming the royal charters to his ancestor. Mr Stapleton declares that Henry inspected and confirmed

The charter which King Henry, his great-great-grandfather, had
made to Robert Marmyon, great-grandfather of Philip Marmyon,
of having warren in all his land in the county of Warwick, and
especially at Tamworth; and likewise of the charter of
King Henry, his uncle ['Avunculus noster' is the reading
transcribed on the rolls, obviously in error of 'atavus
noster'], which he had made to the said Robert of having
warren in all his land of Lindesay (_Rot. Scacc. Norm._, II.
cvi.).

This abstract is strangely inaccurate, considering that Stapleton had, clearly, examined the Inspeximus[24] for himself. Henry VI inspected and confirmed:

(1) The charter of Henry I, granting Robert Marmion freewarren
in Warwickshire (specially at Tamworth) as his father had.

(2) The charter of Henry II (confirming the above charter),
'T. Tom. Canc. apud Brugiam', and therefore granted in 1155.

(3) The charter of Henry III, who had inspected--

(_a_) 'Cartam quam Henr' rex avus [_sic_] noster [_i.e._ Henry II]
fecit Roberto Marmyon proavo Philippi Marmyun';

(_b_) 'Cartam Henrici regis avunculi nostri quam fecit Roberto';
and confirmed them as the charters, 'H. Regis avi nostri et H. regis
avunculi nostri', to Philip Marmion.

It is clear then that Henry III inspected the charter of his grandfather ('avus') Henry II (not, as Mr Stapleton wrote, his great-great-grandfather'), in 1155, to Robert Marmion, '_proavus_' of Philip. This, it will be seen, could only be the Robert whom I have inserted in the pedigree. Nor can Mr Stapleton's 'atavus' assumption be accepted in view of the facts. The 'avunculus' and namesake of Henry III would duly have been the 'young king' Henry (crowned 1170). If 'avunculus' is a clerical error, the word to substitute is 'avus'; but the careful way in which the charter distinguishes the King's two predecessors is quite opposed to the idea that they were in both cases his grandfather.

As against the evidence afforded us by the charter of Henry III, we have the statements and documents relating to Barbery Abbey, a daughter of Savigny. It is alleged that the house was first founded in 1140[25] by that Robert Marmion who was slain at Coventry in 1143.[26] Stapleton accepted this without question. Yet, so far as documents are concerned, we have only the charter of Robert Marmion (1181), in which he speaks of his father Robert as beginning the foundation.[27] If that father were indeed the Robert who was slain in 1143, Stapleton's pedigree is duly proved as against that which I derive from Henry the Third's charter. But for this identification we have only, it would seem, the _obiter dictum_ of the 'Gallia Christiana' editors, while the fact that the first Abbot was appointed about 1177,[28] combined with the fact that Robert Marmion, in 1181, was avowedly completing that foundation which his father's death had arrested, certainly seems to point to his father's benefaction being then recent, and little previous to the said appointment of the first Abbot. In that case his father would be not the Robert who died in 1143, but a Robert who, as I suggest, came between the two.[29]

Leaving now this question of pedigree, there is a theory as to the name of Marmion which one cannot pass over in silence, because it has received the sanction even of Stapleton. Writing on the date of the Lindsey Survey, that eminent authority observes:

Robert Le Despenser [_Dispensator_] was brother of Urso de
Abbetot, whose other surname, Marmion, is equivalent in Norman
French to the Latin word Dispensator; and as Robert Marmion
died in 1107, it was probably in the following year that this
catalogue was written.[30]

His meaning, though clumsily expressed, as was sometimes the case, is that the Latin 'Dispensator' represented the name 'Marmion'. This theory would seem to be derived from the word 'Marmiton' (not 'Marmion') which means not a 'Dispensator', but a scullion, the most despised of the menials employed in the kitchen. There was indeed in old French a rare word 'Marmion', but according to Godefroy, it was equivalent to 'Marmot', the name of the Marmoset. In any case, therefore, this illustrious surname, immortalized by Scott

They hailed him Lord of Fontenaye,
Of Lutterworth and Scrivelbaye,
Of Tamworth tower and town

had nothing to do with 'Dispensator', but meant either a scullion or a monkey, and was one of those nicknames that the Normans loved to inexorably bestow on one another.

What was the actual relation of the Marmions to Robert 'Dispensator' is a problem as yet unsolved. Mr Waters wrote:

It is generally believed that Scrivelsby and the rest of the
Honour of Dispenser came to the Marmions through the marriage
of Roger Marmion's grandson,[31] Robert Marmion, who was the
husband of Matilda de Beauchamp, the grand-daughter of Urso
de Abitot, and grand-niece of Robert Dispenser. But the Roll
proves that Roger Marmion was the immediate heir of Robert
Dispenser (p. 14).

I know of no such general belief. Stapleton, to whom one would naturally turn, had pointed out long before, in his 'Rolls of the Norman Exchequer', that this survey proves Roger Marmion to have held the Lincolnshire fief of Robert 'Dispensator',[32] while those who have identified the latter magnate with Robert 'Marmion' have traced the descent of Scrivelsby in the Marmions even from the Conquest.[33]

In any case, as I wrote in my _Ancient Charters_ (1888) of a document there published:

The succession of Urse [de Abetot] to this [Lincolnshire] fief
is a genealogical discovery which throws a wholly new light
on the very difficult problem of the relation of Marmion to
Despenser, and is fatal to the assertion of Mr Chester
Waters that 'Roger Marmion was the immediate heir of Robert
Dispenser'.

Moreover, in the Leicestershire Survey,[34] and still more in that of Worcestershire,[35] we have evidence that Robert's inheritance was shared between Beauchamp and Marmion which points there also to descent through Urse de Abetot. In my _Geoffrey de Mandeville_ (pp. 313-5) I have suggested that in their rivalry for Tamworth,[36] the Marmions embraced the cause of Stephen, and the Beauchamps that of Maud, their variance being terminated under Henry II by a matrimonial alliance. Such a compromise was common enough. It was agreed on in the case of Grantmesnil; it was carried out at this very period in that of Fitzharding and Berkeley; it was again resorted to at a later stage in the history of the house of Berkeley; it was arranged in the case of Hastings; and it was repeated in that of Boleyn, where the Butler inheritance was at stake.[37]

[Footnote 1: _English Historical Review_, v. 96.]

[Footnote 2: I have discussed above (pp. 69-72) the bearing
of its evidence on the problem of Domesday assessment, so need
not recur to the subject here.]

[Footnote 3: See note 31 below.]

[Footnote 4: Vol. II. p. xcvi.]

[Footnote 5: _A Roll of the Owners of Land in the parts
of Lindsey_ ('Reprinted from the Associated Architectural
Societies Reports and Papers').]

[Footnote 6: In consideration of which he received a pension
on the Civil List.]

[Footnote 7: There is a similar error on fo. 13, where the
'William fitz Aubrey' of Mr Waters proves to be 'filius
_Albrede_' (not _Alberici_).]

[Footnote 8: Hearne duly prints it as an interlineation.]

[Footnote 9: _Rolls of the Norman Exchequer_, II. clvi.]

[Footnote 10: He further hazarded the erroneous conjecture
that Roheis, Countess of Lincoln, was his daughter.]

[Footnote 11: _Gundrada de Warrenne_, p. 9.]

[Footnote 12: See pp. 171, 179, _infra_.]

[Footnote 13: pp. 1-237. Bound up in the York volume of the
Royal Archæological Institute.]

[Footnote 14: Stapleton indeed exposed himself unconsciously
by stating on the very same page that William Meschin's lands
had passed to his heirs 'prior to 1138', so that he could not
be the Earl of 1139.]

[Footnote 15: See on this point the important letters of Mr
Greenstreet and Mr J. A. C. Vincent to the _Athenæum_, May 9
and June 27, 1885.]

[Footnote 16: _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, p. 420 _et seq._]

[Footnote 17: Ed. Gale, pp. 114, 115.]

[Footnote 18: _Ibid._, pp. 118, 119.]

[Footnote 19: _Ibid._, pp. 124, 125.]

[Footnote 20: _Lectures on Mediæval and Modern History_, p.
148.]

[Footnote 21: _Survey of Lindsey_, p. 2.]

[Footnote 22: Mr Waters, in error, states _two_.]

[Footnote 23: It is an illustration of the ignorance prevalent
on early genealogy that even Mr Freeman could write of
'Mr Chester Waters, than whom no man better deserves to be
listened to on any point of genealogy, especially of the
Norman genealogy of the eleventh and twelfth centuries'
(_English Historical Review_, iii. 690).]

[Footnote 24: Rot. Pat. 27 Hen. VI, part I, _m_ 30.]

[Footnote 25: _Neustria Pia_, 683.]

[Footnote 26: _Gallia Christiana_ (1874), xi. 452.]

[Footnote 27: _Neustria Pia_, 881; _Gall. Christ._, xi.,
Instr. 86.]

[Footnote 28: _Gall. Christ._, xi. 452.]

[Footnote 29: Since this was written I have found that Mr C.
F. R. Palmer, in his admirable little treatise on the Marmion
family (1875), duly inserts this intermediate Robert. Mr
Palmer has shown himself by far the best authority on the
subject, and has printed a valuable charter of Stephen to
Robert Marmion.]

[Footnote 30: Paper on 'Holy Trinity Priory, York', p. 208
note. This identification is accepted by no less an authority
than Mr A. S. Ellis (_Domesday Tenants of Gloucestershire_, p.
69).]

[Footnote 31: i.e. according to Stapleton's pedigree.]

[Footnote 32; And Mr Palmer independently had done the same in
his _History of the Marmions_ (1865).]

[Footnote 33: Lodge's _Scrivelsby: the Home of the
Champions_.]

[Footnote 34: See p. 174.]

[Footnote 35: See p. 174.]

[Footnote 36: It is certain that Tamworth originally belonged
to Robert 'Dispensator', and equally certain that it was held
successively by Roger and Robert Marmion under Henry I.]

[Footnote 37: See my _Early Life of Anne Boleyn_, pp. 25-7.]

THE LEICESTERSHIRE SURVEY

(1124-29).

Asserting the importance of the Lindsey Survey, Mr Chester Waters observed that 'this is the sole record of its kind which deals with the interval between the completion of Domesday in 1086, and the compilation of the Pipe-Roll of 1129-30, and that no similar return of the landowners of any other county is known to exist' (p. 2). And, indeed, it would seem that the survey to which I now address myself has hitherto remained unknown. It is found in the form of a late transcript on an unidentified roll in the Public Record Office.[1]

Comprising the whole of Gosecote Wapentake, and in part those of Framland and Gartree, it retains for these divisions the Domesday name of Wapentake--they are now 'Hundreds'--while subdividing them into small 'Hundreds', of which the existence seems to have been hitherto unsuspected. Proceeding, like the I.C.C., 'Hundred' by 'Hundred', and Vill by Vill, it enables us, like that document, to reconstitute the aggregate assessments, and thus affords priceless evidence on 'the six-carucate unit'.[2] But apart from this, it is invested with no small importance from that 'great want of documentary evidence' for the reign of Henry I which Mr Hunter rightly lamented in his elaborate introduction to the first great roll of the Pipe (p. ii). It affords us new and trustworthy evidence on the many vicissitudes of the great fiefs, and enables us, while tracing the fortunes of their owners, to see how the first Henry provided for his _novi homines_, showering escheats and royal demesne on the trusty officials he had raised 'from the dust', as well as on his favourite nephew, Stephen, Count of Mortain.

The date of this survey is thus determined. The frequent mention of 'Rex D[avid]' places it subsequent to his accession to the throne in April 1124. On the other hand, the name of Ralf Basset (the justiciar) shows it to be anterior to his death; and he was dead before Mich., 1130 (_Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I). Moreover, it speaks more than once of Hugh de Leicester as 'Vicecomes', and Hugh's shrievalty seems from the Pipe-Roll to have terminated at Mich., 1129. We may therefore place this survey between the spring of 1124 and the autumn of 1129, with a likelihood of its having been compiled nearer the latter date.

TEXT OF THE SURVEY

... 'Comes Lerc[estri]æ vj. car.

_H[undredum] de[3] Langeton'_.--In eadem villa Comes
Lerc[estriæ] xj. car. et j. virg. Ibidem Ric[ardus] Basset
iii. car. et. j. virg. In thorp Eustaci[us] iij. car. et.
iij. virg. In alia Langeton' Abbas de Burg' iiij. car. et iii.
virg. Ibidem Henricus de pport j. car. In thurlington idem
Henricus xij. car. In sscanketon' Comes Lerc[estriæ] x. car.
Ansch' ij. car.[4]

_H[undredum] de Chiburd'_.--In eadem villa xii. car. de feodo
Ansch'. In alia chiburd' Walt[erus] de Bell' campo xj. car.,
Ricardus Basset j. car. In bocton Comes Leicestriæ xij. car.
In carleton' idem Comes x. car. Et Monachi Sancti Arnulphi v.
virg. Et de ssoch' Regis iij. virg.[5]

_H[undredum] de Knossinton_.--In eadem villa ij. car. de
Honore de Blida. Et Henricus de ferr' iij. car. et. iij.
virg. In Osolinstona Rex D[avid] vij. car. In Picwell et in
Lucerthorp de feudo Rogeri de Moubray xv. car. In Neubotel
Robertus de ferr' j. car. et dim. In Burg' Marm' iij. car.
In Balbegrave vj. car. iij. bov. minus de Soch[a] Regis. In
Mardefeud iij. car. de eadem Soch[a]. In alia Mardefeud iij.
car.[6]

GOSECOTE WAP'

_H[undredum] de Lodinton[e]_, in Sceftinton[e] Norm[annus] de
Verdun viij. car. et dim. Ricardus Bass[et] iij. car. et dim.
In Gokebia Normannus de Verdun vj. car. In Adelacston[e] v.
car. et j. virg. de feodo Regis David. Et de Soch[a] Regis
iij. virg. In Ludinton[e] Ricardus Basset xii. car. In Thorp
et in Twyford Ricardus de Roll[os] ix. car. j. bov. minus.
Ibidem Henricus de ferr[ariis] ix. car. j. bov. minus. Et de
Soch[a] Regis v. car. Ex hiis Grimbaldus tenet dim. car. et
Rex D[avid] j. car. In Norton[e] x. bov. Walter de Bello campo
vj. car. Et Roger de Moubray iiij. car. et iij. virg.[7]

_H[undredum] de[8] Tilton_.--In eadem villa ij. car. j. bov.
minus de Soch[a] Regis. Ibidem Walt[erus] de Bello campo iij.
car. Archiepiscopus[9] j. car. In Neuton[e] Walter de Bello
campo iiij. car. Roger de Moubray viii. car. In Lousebia Rex
David xij. car. In Watebergia Dominicum Regis iiij. car. In
Hallested Normannus de Verdun iij. car. j. virg. minus.[10]

_H[undredum] de bebia_.--In eadem villa Abbas de Croyland xij.
car. In Cahiham iiij. car. de Soch[a] Regis. Comes Lercestrie
ij. car. In Hung'ton ix. car. In Siglebia ix. car. et. vj.
bov. et dim. de[11] Comite Lercestriæ. Ibidem Comes Cestrie
iij. car. Ibidem Ricardus Basset ij. car. Robertus de
ferrer[iis] v. bov.[12]

_H[undredum] de Barkbia_.--In eadem villa v. car. de feodo de
Belvar[o]. In Hamelton' et in thorp vi. car. de eodem feudo,
et de feodo Comitis Lercestriæ j. car. et dim. In Thormedeston
Canonici iij. car. In Crocheston[e] ij. car. et j. bov. et
dim. de Soch[a] Regis. In Neubold[e] Robertus de ferer[iis]
j. car. et dim. In Barnesby Rex iij. car. et dim. bov. Ibidem
Comes Lercestriæ xiij. bov. In Gadesby [t]erra[13] Reg[is]
viij. car. et dim. et dim. et dim. [_sic_] bov. Ibidem
Episcopus Lincolniensis viij. bov. Comes Lercestriæ j. car. et
dim. bov. Ricardus Basset dim. car. Rex D[avid] ij. car.[14]

_H[undredum] de Essebia_.--In eadem villa Rex David v. car.
Ibidem Hugo de Lerc[estria] j. car. In Humberstay Roger de
Ram[is] viij. car. Ibidem Walter de Mustere j. car. Rad[ulfus]
de Martinwast iij. car. In Mardegrave Comes Lercestriæ xij.
car. In thurmedeston idem Comes car. [_sic._] Idem in Burstall
ix. car. Idem in Anlepia vij. car. Idem in Anesting[e] vj.
car.[15]

_H[undredum] de Resebia_.--In eadem villa Ricardus Basset v.
car. Ibidem Comes Cestrie ij. car. et dim. Rex David iiij car.
et dim. In Quenburg[o] xij. car. de feodo de Belvar[o]. In
Siefton[e] Comes Lercestriæ xij. car. In Brokesbya Comes
[_sic_] Cestrie v. car. Rex David j. car. quam Pip[er]d
tenet. In Quenebia vj. car. de feodo de Belvar[o]. In
thurketleston[e] de feodo Comitis viij. car. In Cropeston[e]
iiij. car. In Rodeleia terra Regis v. car.[16]

_H[undredum] de Magna Dalbia_.--In eadem villa Episcopus
Lincolniensis ix. car. et dim. Radulfus Basset j. car. et iij.
bov. Ibidem Wil[elmus] Gam[erarius] j. car. In frisebia Comes
Cestrie iij. car., et de Soch[a] Regis viij. car. In Rederbia
Comes cestrie vi. car. In Asfordebia Comes Lercestriæ xiij.
car. In Wartnadeby de Soch[a] Regis vi. car.[17]

_Hundredum de Dalbia super Wald'_.--In eadem villa ix. car. de
feodo Edwardi de sar[esbiria], Comes Lercestrie iij. car. In
Grimestona de Soch[a] Regis iij. car. j. bov. et dim. minus.
Ricardus Basset iij. car. In Saxebia Comes Lercestrie v. car.
et de Soch[a] Regis j. car. In Siwaldebia Comes Lercestrie
vj. car. In Cosinton[e] Comes Cestrie vj. car. In Horton[e]
Robertus de Jor' ij. car.[18]

_H[undredum] de Turstanestona_.--In eadem villa Thomas x. car.
et iij. virg. Ibidem Roger de Moubray xiiij. bov. In Wileges
ij. car. de eodem feudo. In Rachedal[e] vj. car. de eodem
feudo. In Houbia vij. car. et j. virg. de feodo Thome. Ibidem
de feodo Albemarl' iiij. car. et iij. virg.[19]

_H[undredum] de tunga_.--In eadem villa cum appendiciis xij.
car. de feodo Roberti de ferr[ariis]. In Caggworth Comes
Cestrie xv. car. In Wrdintona iij. car. secundum cartam Regis
et s[uper] dictum[20] hominum hundredi xij. car.[21]

_H[undredum] de[22] Luaeb'_.--In eadem villa j. H[ida] et
xiij. car. cum appendiciis. In cherlega vj. car. et dim. In
Dixeleia et in Geroldon et in Thorp ix. car. In Hantirna est
dim. H[ida].[23]

_H[undredum] de Beltona_.--In eadem villa Normannus de
Verdon vj. car. In Overton[e] Ricardus Basset iiij. car. In
Wrdinton[e] j. car. In alia Overton[e] Robertus de ferr[ariis]
ij. car., ibidem Comes Cestrie j. car. In Stanton Robertus de
ferr[ariis] ij. car. Ibidem Normannus de Verdon iij. car. In
Dailescroft Philippus de Bello Campo Maresc[allus] j. car. In
Doninton Comes Cestrie cum appendiciis xxij. car. et dim. In
Witewic Comes Lercestrie j. car. et dim. Ibidem Robertus de
ferr[ariis] j. car. et dim.[24]

_H[undredum] de Dichesword_.--In eadem villa Robertus de
ferr[ariis] vj. car. et j. virg. Comes cestrie vj. car. Ibidem
Comes iij. car. et dim. Normannus de Verdon j. car. et ij.
bov. In Hanthirn[e] ix. car. In Widesers iij. car. Willelmi
de Gresel[e]. Idem in Lintona j. car. In blakefordeb[ia] Comes
Lercestriæ iij. car. In Culverteb[ia] ij. car. et Robertus de
ferr[ariis] j. car. In Wodete Robertus de ferr[ariis] j. car.
et dim. In Alton[e] Comes Lercestriæ j. car. et dim. Idem in
Raveneston[e] j. virg. et dim. Ibidem Comes Cestrie iij. virg.
et dim. Et Comes War' ij. car. In Suipestona Hugo vic[ecomes]
ij. car.[25]

_H[undredum] de Seyla_.--In eadem villa Robertus de
ferr[ariis] vij. car. In alia Seyla idem vj. car. Idem in
Bocthorp j. car. Idem in appelbia j. car. et j. bov. Idem in
Strecton j. car. et dim. Idem in Durantestorp ij. car. quas
Walkelinus tenet. Idem in Swepeston[e] vj. car. In Neuton ij.
car. In Actorp dim. car. In Chilteston Comes cestrie j. car.
Idem in Alpelbia dim. car. In Assebia Comes Lercestriæ iij.
car. In Pakinton Hugo Vicecomes v. car. Idem in Osgodesthorp
dim. car. In scegla Henricus de Alben[eio] ij. car. que
pertinent ad defencionem de Swepeston[e].[26]

_H[undredum] de Shepesheved_.--In eadem villa Comes [ ][27]
et in wacthon[e] et in Lokinton et in Aminton ij. h[idas] et
dim. et iiij. car. In Wacton[e] Normannus de Verdon ij. car. et
ij. bov.[28]

FRAMELAUND WAP'

_H[undredum] de caleverton[e]_.--In eadem villa xij. car.
de feodo Willelmi de Alben[eio]. In Someredebia Robertus de
ferr[ariis] v. car. Ibidem Roger de Moubray vj. car. Ibidem
Robertus Marm[ion] iij. car. et in Burg[o] iij. car. In Dalbia
Robertus de ferr[ariis] v. car. et j. bov. de feodo tessun.
Ibidem Roger de Moubray xv. bov. In Wittok Walt[erus] de bello
campo j. car. et dim. In Gillethorp Roger de Moubray iij. car.
Idem in Burg[o] j. car. In Neubold Robertus de ferr[ariis] j.
car. et dim.[29]

_H[undredum] de Estwell_.--In eadem villa Robertus de
ferr[ariis] ij. car. Ibidem Roger de Moubray vj. car. Robertus
de insula iiij. car. In aitona idem Robertus iij. car. et ij.
bov. Et de Belvero dim. car. et dim. bov. Ibidem Robertus
de insula viij. car. et iij. bov. et dim. In Branteston[e]
Episcopus Lincolniensis vij. car. et dim. Robertus de Insula
iiij. car. et dim.[30]

_H[undredum] de Melton[e]_.--In eadem villa Roger de Moubray
xv. car. Idem in Burton[e] xj. car. et vij. bov. Et de Honore
blide iij. car. Robertus de ferr[ariis] ix. bov. In Fredebia
ix. car. et ij. bov. et dim.[31]

_H[undredum] de Chirchebia_.--In eadem villa Roger de Moubray
xxiiij. car. Idem in chetlebia viiij. car. In Sixtenebia iiij.
car. et dim. de eodem feudo. Ibidem Rex D[avid] iiij. car. et
dim. In alebia ix. car. de feudo Rogeri. Ibidem Rex David iij.
car.[32]

_H[undredum] de Droctona_.--In eadem villa Comes de Moretonio
xij. car. In thorp Comes Lercestriæ xij. car. In brantingbia
vj. car. de eodem feodo. In Ringolfestorp ij. car. et ij. bov.
de eodem feodo. Robertus de ferrer[iis] j. car. et vj. bov.
In Wyfordebia iiij. car. et dim. de blide. Roger de Moubray
j. car. et dim. In chetelby et Holewell[e] ix. car. de feodo
Basset. Episcopus Lincolniensis j. car.[33]

_H[undredum] de Scaldeford_.--In eadem villa Rex David xj.
car. et dim. Ricardus Basset dim. car. In Goutebia Roger de
Moubray vj. car. In Knipton Comes de Moriton[io] viij. car. et
vi. bov., et Willelmus de Alben[eio] iij. car. et ij. bov.[34]

_H[undredum] de[35] Waltham_.--In eadem villa Comes Lercestriæ
xvj. car. et dim. Alanus de creon ij. car. et dim. In
Stonesbia idem Alanus viij. car. In Caston Robertus de
ferr[ariis] ix. car.[36]

_H[undredum] de Barcheston_.--In eadem villa Willelmus de
Alben[eio] xxiij. car. G. Camerarius j. car. In Saltebia
et berthaldebia xx. car. de feodo Peuerelli. In Garthorp
Willelmus Mesch[in] vij. car.[37]

_H[undredum] de Sproxcheston[e]_.--In eadem villa Rex David
viij. car. Alanus de Creon ij. car. Ibidem filius Gilberti ij.
car. In Bucheminest[re] et in Seustern[e] ix. car. et dim. de
feodo Episcopi Lincolniensis. Ibidem Robertus de ferer[iis]
dim. car. Willelmus Mesch[in] v. car. In Sessebia Rex David
iij. car. Robertus de ferrer[iis] iij. car.[38]

_H[undredum] de Claxton[e]_.--In eadem villa xvi. car. et dim.
et dim. bov. Ibidem Henricus Tuchet xj. car. j. bov. minus. In
Houwes de feodo de Beluer vij. car. et dim.[39]

_H[undredum] de Stapelford_.--In eadem villa x. car. de feodo
Roberti de ferrer[iis]. In Wymundeham et in thorp xxvij. car.
et dim. de eodem feodo. Ricardus Basset iij. car. et dim.[40]

_H[undredum] de Herdebia_.--In eadem villa et in plungar xvij.
car. de feodo Willelmi de Alben[eio]. Ibidem Ricardus Basset
j. car. In Stacthirn Willelmus de Alben[eio] viij. car. et
dim. Ibidem Roger de Moubray viij. car. Robertus de Insula j.
car. et dim.[41]

_H[undredum] de Botlesford_.--In eadem villa et Moston et
Normanton[e] Willelmus de Alben[eio] xxxij. car. Ibidem Agnes
de Gaunt ij. car. In Moston[e] Robertus de Insula j. car. et
dim.[42]

_[H]undredum de crocstona_.--In eadem villa Comes Maur[itonii]
xxiiij. car. In Harestan idem Comes xij. car.'[43] ...

[FINIS.]

The work of identifying the places named in this survey is difficult, not only from the corruption of the text, but also from the fact that many of them are only obscure names, needing, for their perfect ascertainment, local knowledge. A careful study of the map will show that these Leicestershire 'Hundreds', unlike those to which we are accustomed in the hidated districts, were strangely intermingled among themselves. Another of their peculiarities is that just as we find the reconquered 'shires' named each after its capital town, so these 'Hundreds' were each named after one of their Vills instead of after some natural object--probably the meeting-place of the primitive moot[44]--as so often in the south of England.

It is important to observe that, except for this survey, we should not even have known of the existence of these 'Hundreds' in Leicestershire. And when we compare the entry on our roll--'Framelaund Wap'. Hundredum de Calevertone. In eadem villa xii. car.'--with that in the Derbyshire Domesday: 'Morelestan Wepentac. Salle Hundred. In Salle et Draicot et Opewelle ... xii. car.' (i. 273), it is scarcely possible to resist the conclusion that, in this passage relating to Sawley, divided only by a river from Leicestershire, we have a glimpse of the same system existing in Derbyshire also. That is to say, that Sawley was not a 'Hundred' of twelve carucates,[45] as has been suggested,[46] but was the _caput_ of a 'Hundred' similar to those of Leicestershire. I believe, indeed, that in our survey we see the system on which these counties were surveyed in 1086. The original returns will have been drawn up Wapentake by Wapentake, and 'Hundred' by 'Hundred'. But when transcribed into Domesday Book the entries were arranged under Wapentakes alone, and the headings of the 'Hundreds' omitted. In the case of Sawley alone the heading slipped in, immediately preceding the entry of the Manor, as it must have done on the original return. It is thus that I account for the mention of 'leets' slipping into the Norfolk Domesday, in two cases, from the original return;[47] just as, in Cambridgeshire, the total assessments of Impington and Chatteris have slipped, from the original returns, into the _Inq. Eliensis_,[48] though duly omitted in Domesday Book.

One more point should be noticed. The somewhat mysterious entry of land belonging 'ad defensionem de Swepestone' is at once made clear when we compare it with that 'Defensio x. acrarum', to which I have appealed[49] in discussing 'Wara', and which, like the 'wered' of the Northamptonshire geld-roll,[50] refers to assessment for Danegeld.

We will now collate some of our 'Hundreds' with the relative entries in Domesday.

LODINGTON HUNDRED

(1086) (1124-29)

_Skeffington_

Rex 12 Norman de Verdon 8-1/2
Richard Basset 3-1/2

_Tugby_

Rex 6 Norman de Verdon 6

_Allexton_

Countess Judith 6 King David's fee 5-1/4
Rex 3/4

_Lodington_

Robert de Buci 12 Richard Basset 12

_Twyford_

Rex 4-1/2 Richard de Rullos 8-3/4

_Thorpe Sackville_

Henry de Ferrers 8-3/4

_East Norton_

[?Rex 3] [Richard Basset] 1-1/4
Robert dispensator 4-1/2 Walter de Beauchamp 6
Geoffrey de la Guerche 4-1/2 Roger de Mowbray 4-3/4
------- ------
12 12

TILTON HUNDRED

_Tilton_

Rex 2 Rex 1-3/4
Robert Despencer 3 Walter de Beauchamp 3
Archbishop of York 1 Archbishop 1
--------- --------
6 5-3/4

_Newton Burdet_

Geoffrey de la Guerche 6 Walter de Beauchamp 4
Hubert _serviens_ 1/2 Roger de Mowbray 8

_Loseby_

Countess Judith 9 King David 12

_Whadborough_

Rex 3 Rex 4

_Halsted_

Rex 2-3/4 Norman de Verdon 2-3/4

BEBY HUNDRED

_Beby_

Crowland Abbey 10-1/2 Crowland Abbey 12

_Keyham_

Rex 4 Rex 4

_Hungerton_ 9

_Sileby_

Hugh de Grantmesnil 8-1/2 Earl of Leicester 9-13/16
Earl of Chester 3
Rex 3-1/4 Richard Basset 2
Robert de Ferrers 1-1/4

BARKBY HUNDRED

_Barkby_[51]

Robert de Todeni 18 'Belvoir' 5

_Hambleton_

'Belvoir' 6

_Barkby Thorpe_

Adeliza de Grentmesnil 1-1/2 Earl of Leicester 1-1/2

_Thurmaston_

Hugh de Grentmesnil 10
{Canons [of St Mary de
Hugh de Grentmesnil 3-1/2 {Castro, Leicester][52] 3

_Croxton_

Rex 2-3/16

_Newbold Folvile_

Henry de Ferrers 1 Robert de Ferrers 1-1/2

_Barnesby_

Rex 4-5/8 Rex 3-1/16
Earl of Leicester 1-5/8

_Gaddesby_

Rex 8-3/8 Rex 8-9/16
Rex 1 Bishop of Lincoln 1
Countess Judith 2 Earl of Leicester 1-1/16
Richard Basset 1/2
King David 2

HUNDRED OF ASHBY

_Ashby Folvile_

Countess Judith 4[53] King David 5
Countess Judith 1-1/2 Hugh of Leicester 1
Humfrey _camerarius_ 1[54]

_Humberston_

Hugh de Grentmesnil? Roger de Ramis 8
Walter de Mustere 1
Ralf de Martinwast 3

_Belgrave_

Hugh de Grentmesnil 7 Earl of Leicester 12
Adeliza de Grentmesnil 1

_Thurmaston_

Earl of Leicester [10]

_Burstall_

Hugh de Grentmesnil 6 Earl of Leicester 9

_Wanlip_

'In manu Regis' 4 Earl of Leicester 7
Hugh de Grentmesnil 2 Earl of Leicester 6[55]

REARSBY HUNDRED

_Reresby_

Robert de Buci 1-3/4 Richard Basset 5
Rex 1-7/8 Earl of Chester 2-1/2
Countess Judith 2-1/2 King David 4-1/2

_Queneborough_

Geoffrey de la Guerche 9 'Belvoir' 12

_Syston_

Hugh de Grentmesnil 9 Earl of Leicester 12

_Brooksby_

Earl of Chester 2 Earl of Chester 5
Countess Judith 3/4 King David 1

_Quenby_

Robert de Todeni 2 'Belvoir' 6
Robert de Todeni (in
South Croxton) 4

_Thurcaston_

Hugh de Grentmesnil 9 Earls [of Leicester] 8

_Cropston_

_Rothley_

Rex 5 Rex 5

DALBY HUNDRED

_Great Dalby_

Bishop of Lincoln 8 Bishop of Lincoln 9-1/2
Robert de Buci 1 Ralf Basset 1-3/8
Humfrey Cam. 1 William 'Gam' 1

_Frisby_

Rex (Barrow) 1 Earl of Chester 4
Rex 8 Rex 8

_Retherby_

Rex (Barrow) 2-3/4 Earl of Chester 6

_Ashfordby_

Rex (Rothley) 12 Earl of Leicester 13
Radulfus Framen 3-1/2

_Wartnaby_

Rex 6 Rex 6

HUNDRED OF DALBY ON THE WOLDS

_Dalby on the Wolds_

Ralf fitz Hubert 9 Edward of Salisbury 9
Earl of Leicester 3

_Grimston_

Rex 2-13/16 Rex 2-13/16
Robert de Buci 3 Richard Basset 3

_Saxelby_

Rex 1 Rex 1
Earl of Leicester 5

_Sileby_

Hugh de Grentmesnil 8-1/2 Earl of Leicester 6

_Cossington_

Earl of Chester 6 Earl of Chester 6

_Hoton_

Robert de Lorz 4 Robert de Jor' 2

_Thrussington_

Guy de Raimbercurt 12 Thomas 10-1/4?
Guy de Raimbercurt [18] Roger de Mowbray 1-3/4?

'_Wilges_'

Robert de Buci 2 Roger de Mowbray 2

_Ragdale_

Robert de Buci 6 Roger de Mowbray 6

_Hoby_

Thomas 7-1/4
Dru de Bevrere 4-1/4 'Albemarle' 4-3/4

HUNDRED OF TONG

_Tong_

Henry de Ferrers 21-1/2 Robert de Ferrers 12

_Kegworth_

Earl of Chester 15 Earl of Chester 15

_Worthington_

Henry de Ferrers 4 3 or 12

In the case of this last Hundred our survey records a conflict of testimony and, in so doing, mentions incidentally (as would Domesday) the witness of the Hundred-court. Henry de Ferrers in the Domesday Survey, is credited with 21-1/2 car. in 'Tunge cum omnibus appendiciis', and with four in 'Werditone' (i. 233). But here Tong, 'cum appendiciis', is reckoned at twelve car. only. There remained, therefore, to be accounted for a large balance of car., and these the men of the Hundred assigned to his Manor of Worthington. It is desirable to analyse some of the fiefs in our survey, and, by comparison with Domesday, to trace their descent or origin.

_Roger de Mowbray's fief_

(1124-29) (1086)

car [Geoffrey de la Guerche]
Picwell and Lucerthorp 15 Pichewelle and Luvestorp 14
East Norton 4-3/4 East Norton 4-1/2
Newton Burdet 8 Newton Burdet 6
Thrussington 1-3/4
[Robert de Buci]
Wileges 2 Wilges 2
Rachedale 6 Ragendele 6
[Geoffrey de la Guerche]
Somerby 6 Dalby 4
Dalby 1-7/8 Dalby 2-1/2
Gillethorp 3 Godtorp 3-1/2
Burg 1 Burg 1
Eastwell 6 Eastwell 6
Melton 15 Melton
Burton 11-7/8 Burton 11-7/8
[Fredebie 9-5/16 Fredebie 10]
Chirchebia 24 Cherchebi (17 + 7) 24
Kettleby 9(?) Chettlebi 8
Sixtenebia 4-1/2 Sistenebi (2-1/2 + 2) 4-1/2
Alebia 9 Alebia 7-3/4
Wyfordebia 1-1/2 Wordebia 1-1/2
Goutebi 6 Goutebi 6
Stacthirn 8 Stachetone 8-1/4

_Anschitel's fief_