Feudal England: Historical Studies on the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries

Chapter IX: Part I: Territorial Studies (6)

Text size

Now, although written in old English, it is well subsequent to the Conquest, for it mentions _inter alia_ 'Rodbertes wif heorles', who, we shall find, was Maud, wife of the Count of Mortain. It also mentions William and Richard Engaine, Northamptonshire tenants in Domesday. On the other hand, it cannot be later than 1075, for it speaks of lands held by 'the lady, the King's wife'; and this was Edith, Edward's widow, whose Northamptonshire lands passed to King William at her death in 1075. Of the very few names mentioned, one may surprise and the other puzzle us. The former is that of 'the Scot King', holding land even then in a shire where his successors were to hold it so largely: the other is 'Osmund, the King's writer', in whom one is grievously tempted to detect the future Chancellor, Saint and Bishop. But, apart from his identity, his peculiar style, exactly equating, as it does, the Latin 'clericus regis', emboldens me to make the hazardous suggestion that we possibly have in this document an English rendering of a Latin original, executed in the Peterborough _scriptorium_.

For what was the purpose of the document? It may be pronounced without hesitation to be no other than a geld-roll, recording, it would seem, a levy of Danegeld hitherto unknown.[2] There are three features which it has in common with the rolls of 1084: it is drawn up hundred by hundred; it records the exemption of demesne; and it specifies those lands that had failed to pay their quota.[3]

Its salient feature is one that, at first sight, might seem to impugn its authenticity. This is the almost incredible amount of land lying 'waste'. If we confine our attention to the land liable to geld represented by the first and fourth columns in my analysis below, we see that by far the larger proportion of it is entered as 'waste': yet this witness to a terrible devastation is the best proof of its authenticity; for it sets before us the fruits of those ravages in the autumn of 1065, which are thus described by Mr Freeman, paraphrasing the English chronicle:

Morkere's Northern followers dealt with the country about
Northampton as if it had been the country of an enemy. They
slew men, burned corn and houses, carried off cattle, and
at last led captive several hundred prisoners, seemingly as
slaves. The blow was so severe that it was remembered even
when one would have thought that that and all other lesser
wrongs would have been forgotten in the general overthrow of
England. Northamptonshire and the shires near to it were for
many winters the worse.

Mr Freeman, had he read it, would have eagerly welcomed our record's striking testimony to the truth of the Chronicle's words.

The devastation that our roll records had been well repaired at the time of Domesday; but we obtain a glimpse of it in the Rockingham entry: 'Wasta erat quando rex W. jussit ibi castellum fieri. Modo valet xxvi. sol.' (i. 220).

But it is not only that the entries of 'waste' on our roll are thus explained: they further prove it to be, as I have urged, a 'Danegeld' roll. For, when we compare it with the Pipe-Roll of 2 Henry II (1156), we find the latter similarly allowing for the non-receipt of geld from land 'in waste'; and it is specially noteworthy that the portion thus 'waste' is in every case, as on our roll, entered after the others. The fact that the geld was remitted on land that had been made 'waste' is now established by collation of these two records.

Incidentally, it may be pointed out that as our document bears witness to the devastation of Northamptonshire in 1065, so the first surviving roll of Henry II illustrates the local range of devastation under Stephen. In Kent, which had been throughout under the royal rule, the waste was infinitesimal; in Yorkshire it was slight; but in the Midlands, which had long been the battle-ground of rival feudal magnates, it was so extensive that, as here in Northamptonshire after the Conquest, there was more land exempted as 'waste' than there was capable of paying.

Before leaving this subject I briefly compare the cases of Northamptonshire and of East Sussex. In the former, we have seen, it is only our document that preserves for us evidence of the ravages in 1065; Domesday does not record them, because they had then (1086) been repaired. But in East Sussex, the entries are fuller; and as was observed by Mr Hayley, an intelligent local antiquary:

It is the method of Domesday Book, after reciting the
particulars relating to each Manor, to set down the valuation
thereof, at three several periods, to wit, the time of King
Edward the Confessor, afterwards _when the new tenant entered
upon it_, and again at the time when the survey was made. Now
it is to be observed in perusing the account of the Rape of
Hastings in that book, that in several of the Manors therein
_at the second of these periods_, it is recorded of them that
they were waste, and from this circumstance it may upon good
ground be concluded what parts of that Rape were marched over
by, and suffered from the ravages of the two armies of the
Conqueror and King Harold; and indeed, the situations of those
Manors is such as evidently shows their _then_ devastated
state to be owing to that cause.[4]

Mr Freeman's treatment of this theory was highly characteristic. In the Appendix he devoted to the subject[5] he first contemptuously observed of the allusion to Harold's army:

This notion would hardly have needed any answer except from
the sort of sanction given to it by the two writers who quote
Mr Hayley. I do not believe that any army of any age ever
passed through a district without doing some damage, but to
suppose that Harold systematically harried his own kingdom
does seem to me the height of absurdity.

And he, further, indignantly denied that such a King as Harold was 'likely to mark his course by systematic harrying'. Now, Mr Hayley had never charged him with 'systematic harrying'; he had merely traced with much ingenuity, the approach of his army to Senlac by the damage, Mr Freeman admits, its passage, when assembled, must have caused.

The fact is that Mr Hayley had, and Mr Freeman had not, read his Domesday 'with common care'.[6] The latter started from the hasty assertion that:

the lasting nature of the destruction wrought at this time is
shown by the large number of places round about Hastings which
_are returned in Domesday_ as 'waste'.

Hence he argued, Harold, even had he been 'Swegen himself'--

could not have done the sort of lasting damage which is
implied in the lands being returned as 'waste' _twenty years
after_. The ravaging must have been something thorough and
systematic, like the ravaging of Northumberland a few years
later.

The whole argument rests on a careless reading of Domesday. It was on passages such as these that Mr Hayley had relied:

Totum manerium T.R.E. valebat xx. lib. Et _post vasta fuit_.
Modo xviii. lib. et x. sol.

Totum manerium T.R.E. valebat xiiii. lib. _Postea vastatum
fuit._ Modo xxii. lib.

Totum manerium T.R.E. valebat cxiiii. sol. Modo vii. lib.
_Vastatum fuit._[7]

Thus, so far from being returned in 1086 as 'waste', these Manors, we see, had already recovered from their devastation at the Conquest, and had even, in some cases, increased their value. And so Mr Freeman's argument falls to the ground.

But as he was eager to vindicate Harold from a quite imaginary charge, I will try to clear William from Mr Freeman's very real one. Having wrongly concluded that the ravages were 'lasting', and must therefore have been 'systematic', Mr Freeman wrote:

There can be little doubt but that William's ravages were
not only done systematically, but were done with a fixed and
politic purpose (p. 413) ... there can be little doubt that
they were systematic ravages done with the settled object of
bringing Harold to a battle (p. 741).

Possibly the writer had in his mind the harrying of the lands of the Athenians, as described in the pages of Thucydides: but how can it have been politic for William, not only to provoke Harold, but to outrage the English people? It was Harold with whom his quarrel lay; and as to those he hoped to make his future subjects, to ravage their lands wilfully and wantonly was scarcely the way to commend himself to their favour: it would rather impel them, in dread of his ways, to resist his dominion to the death.

But if William's policy be matter of question, Domesday at least is matter of fact; and Mr Freeman's followers cannot be surprised at the opposition he provoked, when we find him thus ridiculing a student for a charge he never made, and proved to have himself erred from his careless reading of Domesday.

I now append an analysis of the roll, showing the proportion of land 'gewered',[8] of 'inland', of _terra regis_, of land which had not paid (in square brackets), and of 'waste'. The totals in square brackets are those given in the document; the others are those actually accounted for.

Inland Terra Waste Total
Regis

Sutton 21-2/3 40 10 28-1/3 100 [100]
Warden 17-3/4 40 41-1/4 99 [100]
Cleyley 18 40 42 100 [100]
Gravesend 18-1/2 35 5 41-1/2 100 [100]
'Eadbolds Stow' 23-1/2 45 5 26-1/2 100 [100]
'Ailwardsley' 16-1/2 40 [6-1/2] 37 100 [100]
Foxley 16 30 21 33 100 [100]
Wyceste 19[9] 40 20 21 100 [100]
Huxlow 8 15 39 62 [62]
Willybrook 7 11 31 13 62 [62]
Upton Green 50 27 [3-1/2]29-1/2[10] 110 [109]
Neuesland [80-1/2][11] 59 [8] 12-1/2 [160]
Navisford 15 14 33 62 [62]
Polebrook 10 20 32 62 [62]
Newbottlegrove 44-7/8 72 33-1/8 150 [150]
Gilsborough 16 68 66 150 [150]
Spelho 20-1/2 [Borough 25] [16] 28-1/2 90 [90]
Wiceslea W. 10 40 30 80 [80]
Wiceslea E. 15 34 31 80 [80]
'Stotfald' 9-1/8 40 50-1/8 99-1/4 [100]
Stoke 18 [10] 12 [40]
Higham 49-1/2 44 56 149-1/2 [150]
'Malesley' 12 30 8 30 80 [80]
Corby 8-1/2 12-1/4 12-1/4 [?4] 10-3/4 47-3/4 [47]
Rothwell 10 20 7-1/2 [7-1/2] 45[12] [60]
'Andwertheshoe' [?26][13] 25 39 [90]
Ordlingbury 29-1/2 24-1/2 21 80 [80]
'Wimersley' 41 60 49 150 [150]

The persons mentioned as not having paid can in most cases be identified. Thus 'Robert the Earl's wife' is one of those in Rothwell Hundred, whose land was 'unwered'. This was clearly Maud, wife of Count Robert of Mortain, who had been given lands by her father, Roger of Montgomery, at Harrington in this Hundred. Domesday, it is true, where it figures as 'Arintone', knows it only as 'Terra æcclesiæ de Grestain' (222 _b_); but a charter of Richard I (_per Inspeximus_) confirms to the Abbey 'ex dono Matildis Comitisse Moreton ... xxxii. hidas terre quas dederat ei pater suus Rogerus de Montegomerico, scilicet apud Haxintonam [_sic_] viii. hidas, etc.'[14] As the lands had first been given to Roger, then by him to his daughter, and, finally, by her to the Abbey, I cannot think our document earlier, at any rate, than 1068. Edith, whose name proves it not to be later than 1075, is entered as 'the lady, the King's wife', holding eight hides in Neuesland Hundred, and again as a holder in Rothwell Hundred, under the name of 'the King's wife'. Both entries, doubtless, refer to her wide-spreading Manor of 'Tingdene' (I. 222), parts of which lay in both the above Hundreds. Of the other holders we may notice 'Urs' (? Urse d'Abetot), and 'Witeget the priest'; but these are quite eclipsed by Richard and William Engaine, of whom the former occurs twice and the latter thrice on the roll. In Spelho Hundred 'Richard' seems to be credited with ten hides at 'Habintune' on which 'nan peni' had been paid. In Domesday his holding at Abintone is given as _four_ hides (i. 229). In the same Hundred, William's land at 'Multune' is in default. Moulton is not entered under his fief in Domesday, but under that of Robert de Buci we find a 'William' holding of him a hide and a virgate and a half in Moulton. This was William Engaine, as was the 'William' of our roll; and in the Hen. I-Hen. II survey,[15] we find land in Moulton entered as of Engaine's fee. Still more interesting is it to note that so late as 25 Ed. I. more than two centuries after Domesday, John Engayne is found holding half a fee in Moulton of Ralf Basset, and Basset of the King _in capite_. For, as our Leicestershire survey shows,[16] the Domesday fief of Robert de Buci had passed to Basset, of whose heir, therefore, Engayne held, as his ancestor had held of Robert de Buci, in the days of William the Conqueror.

It is particularly instructive to follow out the Northamptonshire fief of William Engaine. In Domesday (i. 229) he is entered only as 'Willelmus' holding 3-1/2 hides in Pytchley (_Piteslea_), and Laxton (_Lastone_), worth at that time, £3 10s. 'Vitalis' Engaine was his heir in 1130, for the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I (p. 82) records his discharge of a debt to the crown 'ut rehabeat terram suam de Laxetona'. And this is confirmed by the survey of 1125 in the _Liber Niger_ of Peterborough, where we read under 'Pihtesle' (p. 162): 'Et Vitalis reddit iii. solidos pro i. virga', this being the 'i. virga' assigned to him in the list of Peterborough knights (_ibid._, p. 169). The 'Rotulus de Dominabus' (1185) shows us the 'Piteslea' estate in the hands of Margaret Engaine, makes it worth £6, and mentions that her heir was Richard Engaine (p. 14). The 'Testa de Nevill' (p. 37) enters Richard 'de Angayne' as holding five carucates of land in 'Pettesle' and 'Laxeton' worth £6 a year. It tells us, further, that he held them by serjeanty--'et est venator leporum, et facit servitium'. From the nature of this return I assign it to the inquest of 1198, in which case it is of some value, as identifying five carucates under the new assessment with the 3-1/2 hides recorded in Domesday.[17] Fulc de Lisures, on the other hand--the heir of the Richard Engaine of Domesday--returned himself in 1166, as the King's forester in fee and attending the King's person, with his horn hanging from his neck.[18]

The association of Pytchley with hunting is carried back even further still. For Richard and William Engaine had for their predecessor in title, Ælfwine the huntsman ('venator'), who owned their lands when King Edward sat upon the throne.

Among the lands deducted we observe in Spelho Hundred 'fif and xx. hida byrigland'. This represents the assessment in hides of the Borough of Northampton, and, so far as I know, is the only mention of that assessment to be found. In my paper on 'Danegeld and the Finance of Domesday', I pointed out that Bridport and Malmesbury were assessed at five hides each, Dorchester, Wareham, and Hertford at ten hides, Worcester at fifteen, Bath and Shaftesbury at twenty, etc.[19] Northampton (we now see) was assessed in the same manner, and Chester and Huntingdon at no less than fifty hides each. Thus they admirably illustrate assessment in terms of the five-hide unit. We find this primitive system obsolete in 1130, when a borough gave an 'auxilium' where its county paid Danegeld. But our roll implies that, here at least, it was already obsolete in the early days of the Conquest; for the twenty-five hides of 'byrigland' are, for the payment of 'geld', deducted from the Hundred.

From the date I have assigned to this document (_ante_-1075), it may fairly claim to represent our earliest financial record. Its illustrative value for Danegeld and the Hundred, and consequently for Domesday Book, will be obvious to every student.

[Footnote 1: I have found, since this was written, that it was
printed by Mr T. O. Cockayne in his little-known _Shrine_ (pp.
205-8), and pronounced by him (in error) to be 'evidently' of
the date 1109-18.]

[Footnote 2: I opposed in 1886 (_Domesday Studies_, pp. 86,
87) the accepted view that no Danegeld was levied by the
Conqueror till the winter of 1083-4 and discussed (_ibid._,
88-92) the _Inquisitio Geldi_, which, as Mr Eyton showed (_Key
to Domesday_), belongs to that date. It has been persistently
confused with the Exon Domesday (being bound up with it), as
by Mr Jones, in his Wiltshire Domesday (pp. xxxvii., 153 _et
seq._), and Professor Freeman (_Quart. Review_, July 1892, p.
22).]

[Footnote 3: It was connected, I find, by Mr Cockayne with
military service, not with _Danegeld_.]

[Footnote 4: Quoted in Ellis's _Introduction to Domesday_, i.
315-6.]

[Footnote 5: _Norm. Conq._, iii, 741-2.]

[Footnote 6: The phrase employed by Mr Freeman in criticizing
Professor Pearson.]

[Footnote 7: See Ellis, _ut supra_.]

[Footnote 8: 'Wered', like 'Wara' (_supra_, p. 100), refers
to assessment and corresponds with the 'defendit se' phrase
in Domesday. It seems here to represent the land which had
actually paid.]

[Footnote 9: Wrongly given by Ellis and Cockayne as 'xviii'.]

[Footnote 10: Wrongly given by Ellis as 'viii. and xx'.]

[Footnote 11: The MS. reads, 'thus micel is gewered ... viiii.
and xx. hida and i. hida and viiii. and fifti hida inland'.
The text is clearly corrupt.]

[Footnote 12: There is no entry for 'waste' in this hundred,
so that possibly the words 'xv. hida westa' are omitted.]

[Footnote 13: There are clearly some words omitted here in
the Peterborough transcript. We must read: 'and thereof is
"gewered" [? 26 hide and] five and twenty hides inland'.]

[Footnote 14: _Monasticon_, vi. 1090.]

[Footnote 15: _Infra_, p. 175.]

[Footnote 16: _Infra_, p. 173.]

[Footnote 17: See my paper on 'The great carucage of 1198'
(_English Historical Review_, iii, 501 _et seq._).]

[Footnote 18: 'Et ego ipse custodio forestagium Regis de feodo
meo; et debeo ire cum corpore Regis in servitio suo paratus
equis et armis, cornu meo in collo meo pendente.'--_Lib.
Rub._, i, 333.]

[Footnote 19: _Domesday Studies_, pp. 117-9.]

THE KNIGHTS OF PETERBOROUGH

(_Temp._ HENRY I)

The interesting 'Descriptio militum de Abbatia de Burgo' is found in the same MS. as the Northamptonshire Geld-roll.[1] It was printed by Stapleton in the appendix to his _Chronicon Petroburgense_ (pp. 168-75),[2] but no attempt was made to date it. The name of Eudo Dapifer proves that it cannot have been compiled later than 1120. On the other hand, it cannot well be earlier than 1100, for some of the Domesday tenants had been succeeded by their sons--Robert (?) Marmion, for instance, by Roger, and Coleswegen by Picot--while the mention of 'Gislebertus filius Ricardi', possibly the son of Richard of 'Wodeford' (i. 224_b_), points in the same direction. As the majority of names, however, seem to be those of Domesday tenants, it is probable that the list is not later than the Lindsey survey itself, if, indeed, it is not earlier. The first entry it contains is a good specimen of its value:

Asketillus de Sancto Medardo tenet de abbatia de Burch
in Hamtonascira x. hidas et iii. partes i. virgæ, et in
Lincolnescira iii. carrucatas et inde servit se vi. milite.
Et de feudo hujus militis dedit rex Willelmus senior Eudoni
Dapifero in Estona hidam et dimidiam et mandavit de Normannia
in Angliam Episcopo Constantiarum et R. de Oilli per breves
suos ut inde darent ei excambium ad valens in quocumque vellet
de iii. vicinis comitatibus; sed abbas noluit.

We duly find 'Anschitillus' in Domesday, holding 'Witheringham', Northants and 'Osgodeby', Linc., of the Abbot (i. 221_b_, 345_b_). In the same way we are enabled to identify the 'Rogerius Infans' of our list with 'Rogerius' who held 'Pilchetone', according to Domesday (i. 221_b_), of the Abbot, 'Ascelinus de Waltervilla' with the 'Azelinus' of Domesday (_ibid._), 'Gosfridus nepos Abbatis', with 'Goisfridus' who held in 'Sudtorp' (_ibid._), and 'Rogerius Malfed' with that 'Rogerius' who held of the Abbot at Woodford (i. 222). 'Rogerus', on the other hand, who held in Domesday two hides at Milton, Northants (i. 221_b_), and seven bovates at Cleatham, Linc. (i. 346), is represented in our list by the entry:

Turoldus de Meletona ii. hidas in Hamtonascira, et in
Lindeseia vi. bovatas, et inde servit se altero milite (p.
171).

The chief lesson taught us here is the rashness of assuming the identity of tenants happening to bear the same name. For even among the few who are named as holding of the Abbot of Peterborough, we have found three Rogers quite distinct from one another.

The entries which follow are of value as absolute proofs of succession:

DOMESDAY DESCRIPTIO MILITUM

In Dailintone tenet Ricardus de Rodbertus filius Ricardi iiii.
abbate iiii^{or.} hidas (i. 222). hidas in Hamtonascira, et inde
servit se altero milite (p. 175).

In Risun habuit Elnod iiii. Picotus filius Colsuaini habet
bovatas terre ad geldum ... Nunc dimidiam carrucatam in Rison,
habet Colsuan de abbate Turoldo quam abbas dedit patri suo tali
(i. 345_b_). servicio quod esset ad placita
abbatis et manuteneret res suas
et homines suos in scira et in
aliis locis (p. 175).

This second entry not only records a peculiarly interesting enfeoffment, but identifies 'Colsuan', the Abbot's under-tenant at Riseholme, with no less a person than the conqueror's 'English favourite Coleswegen, ... an Englishman who, by whatever means, contrived to hold up his head among the conquerors of England'.[3]

As sons, in such cases as these, have succeeded their fathers, it need not surprise us that our list comprises some names that are found in the _Liber Niger_ survey of 1125.[4] Vivian, whom, it tells us, Abbot Turold had enfeoffed at Oundle (p. 175) occurs there in that survey (p. 158), as does Robert d'Oilli at Cottingham (pp. 159-73).[5] Vitalis ('Viel') Engaine had succeeded William (Engaine) at Pytchley both in our list and in the survey of 1125 (cf. _ante_, p. 129).

One of the most interesting and important points in this list of knights is the gleam of new light it throws on Hereward 'the Wake'. In it we read:

Hugo de Euremou iii. hidas in dominio et vii. bovatas in
Lincolneshira, et servit pro ii. militibus.

Ansford iii. carucatas et servit pro dimidia hida [_sic_].

Now Hugh de Euremou is the name of the man who, according to the pseudo-Ingulf, married Hereward's daughter. Here we have proof of his real existence, and are enabled moreover to detect him, I claim, in that Hugh who, as a 'miles' of the Abbot, held three hides at 'Edintone' [Etton, Northants] in Domesday (i. 222). Mr Freeman speaking of the vacancy at Bayeux in 1908, wrote:

William at once bestowed the staff on Turold, the brother of
Hugh of Evermont [_sic_], seemingly the same Hugh who figures
in the legend of Hereward as his son-in-law and successor.[6]

But the French editors of Ordericus, in a note to the passage from which this statement was taken (iv. 18), speak of our man as 'Hugue d'Envermeu, donateur du prieuré de St. Laurent d'Envermeu à l'Abbaye de Bec'.[7]

Turning for a moment from Hugh to Ansford, we read in the Lincolnshire 'Clamores':

Terram Asford in Bercham hund' dicit Wapentac non habuisse
Herewardum die quo aufugiit (D.B., i. 376_b_).

About this entry, as Mr Freeman observed, 'there can be no doubt'. But as the result of his careful inquiry,[8] he limited 'our positive knowledge', from Domesday, to this entry and to two in the text of the Lincolnshire survey (364_b_-377). It is strange that he did not follow up the clue the 'Clamores' gave him. The relevant entry in the text of the Survey is duly found under the Peterborough fief:

In Witham et Mannetorp et Toftlund habuit _Hereward_ xii.
bovatas terræ ad geldum.... Ibi Asuert [_sic_] homo abbatis
Turoldi habet, etc....

Berew[ita] hujus M. in Bercaham et Estou i. carucata terræ ad
geldum. ... Ibi Asford habet, etc....

In Estov Soca in Witham iiii. bovatæ terræ et dimidia ad
geldum.... Ibi Asfort de abbate habet, etc.... (i. 346).

This is the 'terra Asford' referred to in the 'Clamores', and, as amounting to 3-1/16 carucates, it is clearly the 'iii. carucatas' assigned in our list to 'Ansford'. Thus, through his successor Ansford, we have at last run down our man; Hereward was, exactly as is stated by Hugh 'Candidus', a 'man' of the Abbot of Peterborough; and his holding was situated at Witham on the Hill,[9] not far from Bourne, and, at Barholme-with-Stow a few miles off, all in the extreme south-west of the county. This is the fact for which Mr Freeman sought in vain, and which has eluded Professor Tout, in his careful life of the outlaw for the _Dictionary of National Biography_.

We are now in a position to examine the gloss of Hugh 'Candidus', showing how 'Baldwin Wake' possessed the holdings both of Hugh and of Ansford:[10]

Primus Hugo de Euremu. Baldwinus Wake tenet in Depinge,
Plumtre, et Stove feoda duorum militum.... Et præterea dictus
Baldewinus tenet feodum unius militis in Wytham et Bergham
de terra Affordi. Et prædictus Baldewinus de predictis feodis
abbati de Burgo debet plenarie respondere de omni forensi
[servitio].

Here we see how the legendary name and legendary position of Hereward were evolved. The Wakes, Lords of Bourne, held among their lands some, not far from Bourne, which had once been held by Hereward. Thus arose the story that Hereward had been Lord of Bourne; and it was but a step further to connect him directly with the Wakes, by giving him a daughter and heir married to Hugh de Evermou, whose lands had similarly passed to the Lords of Bourne. The pedigree-maker's crowning stroke was to make Hereward himself a Wake,[11] just as Baldwin fitz Gilbert (de Clare) is in one place transformed into a Wake.[12] The climax was reached when the modern Wakes revived the name of Hereward, just as 'Sir Brian Newcome of Newcome' set the seal to his family legend by giving his children 'names out of the Saxon calendar'.

Returning to Hereward himself, we find Mr Freeman writing (of the spring of 1070):

At this moment we hear for the first time of one whose
mythical fame outshines all the names of his generation, and
of whom the few historical notices make us wish that details
could be filled in from some other source than legend.... Both
the voice of legend and the witness of the great Survey agree
in connecting Hereward with Lincolnshire, but they differ
as to the particular spot in the shire in which he is to be
quartered. Legend also has forgotten a fact which the document
has preserved, namely, that the hero of the fenland did
not belong wholly to Lincolnshire, but that he was also a
landholder in the distant shire of Warwick. But the Survey has
preserved another fact with which the legendary versions of
his life have been specially busy. Hereward, at some time it
would seem, before the period of his exploits, had fled from
his country.[13]

Let us first dismiss from our minds the alleged fact as to Warwickshire. There is absolutely nothing to connect the Count of Meulan's tenant there with the Lincolnshire hero; indeed Mr Freeman admits in his appendix 'that the Hereward of these entries may be some other person' (p. 805). Legend had an excellent reason for ignoring this alleged 'fact' as had 'romances' for having 'perversely forgotten' to mention the deeds or the fate of William Malet in the Isle (_ibid._, p. 473). We must also dismiss the 'fact'--'undoubted history' though it be (_ibid._, p. 805)--of Hereward's 'banishment' at some time between 1062 and 1070. For the Survey gives no date; it merely speaks of 'die quâ aufugiit' (i. 376_b_), which phrase, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, must be referred to his escape from the 'Isle',[14] when (1071) in the words of Florence, 'cum paucis evasit'. This at once explains the Domesday entry (_ante_, p. 160), for he would, of course, have forfeited his holding before that date.

'But leaving fables and guesses aside,' in Mr Freeman's words, 'we know enough of Hereward to make us earnestly long to know more' (p. 456). My proof that the English hero was a 'man' of the Abbot of Peterborough explains why 'Hereward and his gang', as they are termed in the Peterborough Chronicle, 'seem', Mr Freeman is forced to admit, 'to be specially the rebellious tenants of the Abbey', as distinct from the Danes and the outlaws (p. 459). And the vindication, on this point, of Hugh Candidus' accuracy makes one regret that Mr Freeman, though eager for information as to Hereward, ignored so completely that writer's narrative. It is in absolute agreement with the Peterborough Chronicle, Mr Freeman's own authority, but records some interesting details which the Chronicle omits.[15] These place Hereward's conduct in a somewhat different light, and suggest that he may really have been loyal to the Abbey whose 'man' he was. His plea for bringing the Danes to Peterborough was that he honestly believed that they would overthrow the Normans, and that the treasures of the church would, therefore, be safer in their hands. He may perfectly well have been hostile to the Normans, and yet faithful to the Abbey so long as Brand held it; but the news that Turold and his knights were coming to make the Abbey a centre of Norman rule against him[16] would drive him to extreme courses. Professor Tout has made some use of Hugh, but says, strangely, that 'the stern rule of the new Abbot Turold drove into revolt the tenants', when his rule had not yet begun.

Again, there is now no doubt where Hereward ought 'to be quartered'. Two other places with which the Domesday survey connects him are Rippingale and, possibly, Laughton to the north of Bourne. Living thus on the edge of the fenland, he may well have been a leader among 'that English folk of the fenlands' who rose, says the Peterborough Chronicle, in the spring of 1070, to join the Danish fleet and throw off the Norman yoke. And the prospect of being ousted from his Peterborough lands by a follower of the new French abbot would have added a personal zest to his patriotic zeal.

Mr Freeman, followed by Professor Tout,[17] holds that the story in the false Ingulf is not to be wholly cast aside, as it may contain some genuine Crowland tradition;[18] but he has not accurately given that story. It might hastily be gathered, as it was by him, that it was Hereward's mother-in-law who 'very considerately takes the veil at the hands of Abbot Ulfcytel', whereas it was, according to the _Gesta_, his wife who did this. The _Gesta_ version, he writes, 'of Turfrida going into a monastery to make way for Ælfthryth is plainly another form of the story in Ingulf, which makes not herself but her mother do so'. But if the _Historia Ingulphi_ (pp. 67-8) be read with care, it will be seen that 'mater Turfrid_æ_' should clearly be 'mater Turfrid_a_', the reading that the sense requires. So there is here no opposition, and Ingulf merely follows the _Gesta_ version.

As for the honour of Bourne, it can be shown from the _carta_ of Hugh Wac in 1166, from our list of knights, and from the Pipe-Roll of 1130, to have been formed from separate holdings and to have descended as follows:

The Psuedo-Ingulf's version runs:

It will be seen how skilfully the author of this famous forgery brings in the names of real people while confusing their connection and their dates. Richard de Rullos, for instance, was living shortly before 1130, yet is here described as living under the Conqueror, though represented as marrying the great granddaughter of a man who was himself in the prime of life in 1062. The whole account of him as an ardent agriculturist, devoted to the improvement of live-stock and the reclamation of waste, is quaintly anachronistic; but the fact of his being a friend and benefactor to Crowland is one for which the writer had probably some ground. For my part, I attach most importance to his incidental statement that the daring deeds of Hereward the outlaw, 'adhuc in triviis canuntur', an allusion, perhaps unnoticed, to a ballad history surviving, it may be, so late as the days when the forgery was compiled.

But, leaving Hereward, no entries in this list are more deserving of notice than those which bring before us the famous name of Nevile:

Gislebertus de Nevila [tenet] ii. carrucatas in Lincolnescira,
et servit Abbatiæ pro ii. hidis et inde inventi i. militem (p.
171).

Radulfus de Nevila [tenet] x. carrucatas in Lincolnescira
et i. hidam et dimidiam in Hamtonascira et servit se tercio
milite (p. 175).

Hugh Candidus wrote of the former:

Heres Galfridi de Nevile tenet in Lincolnescire, scilicet in
Waletone [_sic_] justa Folkingham, et Yoltorpe duas carrucatas
terra et inde facit plenum servitium unius militis (p. 59).

With this clue we are enabled to detect Gilbert de Nevile in that 'Gislebertus homo Abbatis', who held of the Abbot (D.B., i. 345_b_) at 'Walecote' (Walcot near Folkingham). So also Hugh 'Candidus' writes of the other Nevile fee:

Heres Radulfi de Nevile tenet decem carrucatas terræ
in Lincolnshire, scilicet in Scottone Malmetone; et in
Norhamtonscire unam hidam et dimidiam, scilicet in Holme,
Rayniltorp, et inde facit plenum servitium trium militum (p.
55).

It is, then, Ralf de Nevile that we have in that 'Radulfus homo Abbatis', who held of him at 'Mameltune', and 'Rageneltorp' with 'Holm' in Domesday (i. 345_b_, 346)--Manton, with Raventhorpe and Holme (near Bottesford, co. Linc.)--for Hugh, of course, has blundered in placing the two latter places in Northamptonshire.[20] The _Testa_, more exact, enables us to add Ashby to Holme and Raventhorpe as part of one estate, held as a single knight's fee. Scotton, in the same neighbourhood, was held by 'Ricardus' in Domesday, but, in the hands of Nevile's heirs, represented a fee and a third.

Between Ralf and Gilbert de Nevile on fo. 346 we find 'Gislebertus homo Abbatis' holding ten bovates at Hibaldstow. This was the 'Gislebertus Falvel' of our return, not Gilbert de Nevile.

The last Domesday name I shall identify is that of the Abbot's under-tenant 'Eustacius', who held of him at Polebrook, Clapton (Northants), and Catworth (Hunts). He was, I believe, the same as that Eustace who held land, as a tenant-in-chief, at Polebrook, Northants, and with that Eustace the sheriff ('Vice-comes') who held (at Catworth, Hunts) also _in capite_. Indeed the abbot's tenant is identified with the latter in the story of the foundation of Huntingdon Priory (_Mon. Ang._, vi. 78), where, as in our list, we find that his two knights' fees soon passed to Lovetot.[21]

We may learn from this identification that two different tenants-in-chief and at least one under-tenant may prove to be all one man, just as, on the other hand, we found three distinct Rogers among the Domesday under-tenants of the Abbot. An additional conclusion is suggested by the name 'Eustachius de Huntendune', given to this sheriff in the _Inquisitio Eliensis_.[22] For we find Picot, the Sheriff of Cambridgeshire, similarly styled in Domesday (i. 200), 'Picot de Grentebrige'. 'Ilbert de Hertford', I think, was the Sheriff of Hertfordshire,[23] and Hamo, a contemporary sheriff of Kent, attests a charter as 'Hamo de Cantuaria'. Turold, sheriff of Lincolnshire, is found as Turold 'of Lincoln' (see p. 255), and Hugh, sheriff of Dorset, as Hugh of 'Wareham', while Walter and Miles 'of Gloucester', Edward and Walter 'of Salisbury', are also cases in point. Hugh 'of Leicester' was sheriff of Leicestershire _temp._ Henry I, while Turchil 'de Warwic' (D.B., i. 240_b_) may possibly have owed that appellation to the fact that his father Ælfwine was sheriff of Warwickshire. Enough, in any case, has been said to show that it was a regular practice for sheriffs to derive, as often did earls, their styles from the capital town of their shire.

[Footnote 1: Society of Antiquaries' MS. 60.]

[Footnote 2: Ed. Camden Society.]

[Footnote 3: _Norman Conquest_, iv. 219. We know _aliunde_
that 'Picot filius Colsuani' was the son of Colswegen of
Lincoln. It would seem to be of this estate that we read in
the 'Clamores': 'Abbas de Burg clamat iiii. bov. terræ in
Risun terra Colsuani, et Wap' testatur quod T.R.E. jacuerunt
in æcclesia Omnium Sanctorum in Lincolia.']

[Footnote 4: Society of Antiquaries' MS. 60. Printed by
Stapleton _ut supra_.]

[Footnote 5: But possibly the Robert d'Oilli of our list may
be the _first_ Robert (who, as 'Robertus' in Domesday, held
Cranford of the Abbot), while the tenant of that name in 1125
may be the _second_ Robert, entered in the Pipe-Roll of 1130,
and living _temp._ Stephen.]

[Footnote 6: _William Rufus_, i. 571. He makes it 'Evermouth'
in the _Norman Conquest_.]

[Footnote 7: Envermeu lay on the coast some 19 miles to the
east of Dieppe.]

[Footnote 8: 'The legend of Hereward' (_Norman Conquest_, iv.
[1st Ed.], 805).]

[Footnote 9: With its hamlet of Manthorpe and Toft with
Lound.]

[Footnote 10: Ed. Sparke _Historiæ Anglicanæ Scriptores_
[1723].]

[Footnote 11: Professor Tout throws out the unlucky
suggestion: 'the _Wake_, i.e. apparently the watchful one'.]

[Footnote 12: See the new _Monasticon_ on Deeping Priory, and
the rubric to Baldwin's charter. The true parentage of Baldwin
fitz Gilbert will be shown _infra_ in the paper on 'Walter
Tirel and his wife'.]

[Footnote 13: _Norman Conquest_ (1st Ed.), iv. 455-6.]

[Footnote 14: _Norman Conquest_ (1st Ed.), iv. 484. Professor
Tout, however, follows Mr Freeman, and accepts an earlier
'flight from England' as a fact. One must therefore insist
that 'the whole story has no historical basis'.]

[Footnote 15: I am tempted, indeed, to suggest that Hugh may
have had before him that lost local 'account of Hereward's
doings', which was inserted (but, according to my own view, in
an abbreviated form) into the earlier chronicle, according
to Professor Earle (see _Norm. Conq._, iv. 461, note 3). This
solution would explain everything, and would, if accepted,
greatly increase the importance of Hugh's chronicle.]

[Footnote 16: Cf. William of Malmesbury _in loco_.]

[Footnote 17: _Dictionary of National Biography_.]

[Footnote 18: Appendix on 'the Legend of Hereward', _ut
supra_.]

[Footnote 19: The names of the churches he bestowed on the
Priory illustrate the constituents of the Honour of Bourne.]

[Footnote 20: The name of Ralf de Nevilla occurs in full in
the Lincolnshire 'Clamores' (i. 376_b_), annihilating the
old assertion that this famous surname is nowhere found in
Domesday. (See my letter in _Academy_, xxxvii. 373.)]

[Footnote 21: It is specially interesting to trace his holding
at Winwick, Hunts, which then lay partly in Northants. As
'Eustachius' he held _in capite_ at 'Winewincle' (i. 228),
as 'Eustachius Vicecomes' at 'Winewiche' (i. 206), and as
'Eustacius', a tenant of the Abbot, at 'Winewiche' (i.
221). In the first two cases his under-tenants are given as
'Widelard[us]' and 'Oilard[us]', doubtless the same man. For
'Winewincle' we should probably read 'Winewicke'. See also p.
222, _infra_.]

[Footnote 22: _Inq. Com. Cant._, Ed. Hamilton, p. 111.]

[Footnote 23: _Ibid._, 56, 192.]

THE WORCESTERSHIRE SURVEY

(_Temp._ HENRY I)

We have, in the case of the see of Worcester, the means of testing some of the changes which took place among its tenants within a generation of Domesday. This is a survey of that portion of its lands which lay within the county of Worcester. Although printed by Hearne in his edition of Heming's Cartulary (fos. 141, 141_d_), it escaped notice, I believe, till I identified it myself in _Domesday Studies_ (p. 546). As it follows immediately on the transcript of the Domesday Survey of the fief, the fact that it represents a later and distinct record might, at first sight, be overlooked.

In spite of the importance of Heming's Cartulary in its bearing on the Domesday Survey, the documents of which it contains the transcripts have been hopelessly confused and misunderstood. Professor Freeman, dealing with them, came to utter grief,[1] and as for Mr De Gray Birch, he not only took this Survey _temp._ Henry I to be a portion of Domesday itself, which 'should be collated with the original MS. at the Record Office',[2] but even repeated Ellis's blunder,[3] that the names in a document _temp._ Bishop John [1151-7][4] represent 'the list of jurors for the Hundred of Oswaldeslaw' at the Domesday Survey.[5]

From a writ entered on fo. 136 we may infer that there had been some dispute between the Sheriff and the Church of Worcester as to the number of hides in the county for which the latter should be rated.[6] This Inquest or Survey was the consequence of that dispute, and resulted in the issue of the writ. Its date is roughly determined by the facts that Urse d'Abetot was dead when it was made, while the Count of Meulan is entered as a tenant, so that we may probably date it as later (at the earliest) than 1108, and previous to the death of the Count of Meulan in July 1118.[7]

Let us now compare, Manor by Manor, the earlier with the later Survey:

DOMESDAY SURVEY _temp._ HENRY I

_Chemesege_ _Kemesige_

Bishop [13] Bishop 13
Urso 7 Walter de Beauchamp 9
Roger de Laci 2
Walter Ponther 2 Hugh Puiher 2
---- ----
24 24

_Wiche_ _Wike_

Bishop 3-3/4 Bishop 3
Urso 9-3/4 Walter de Beauchamp 10-1/2
Robert Despenser 1/2 Nicholas (de Beauchamp?) 1/2
Osbern fitz Richard 1 Hugh fitz Osbern 1
------ ------
15 15

_Fledebirie_ _Fledebyri_

Bishop 7 Bishop 3
Bishop of Hereford 5 Bishop of Hereford 5
Urso 12
Robert Despenser 5 Walter de Beauchamp 22
Alricus archid[iaconus] 1
Roger de Laci 10 Hugh de Laci 10
---- ----
40 40

_Breodun_ _Bredune_

Bishop 10 Bishop 13
Monks 4 Monks 4
Ælricus Archd. 2
Urso 16 Walter de Beauchamp 16
Durand 2 Gile (? bertus) 1
Brictric fil' Algar King 1
(in king's hands) 1
---- ----
35 35

_Rippel et Uptun_ _Rippel et Uptun_

Bishop 13 Bishop 14
Ordric 1
Siward 5
Roger de Laci 3 Hugh de Laci 3
Urso 1
Ralph de Bernai
(in king's hands) 1 Walter de Beauchamp 6
Brictric fil' Algar
(in king's hands) 1 King 2
---- ----
25 25

_Blochelei_ _Bloccelea_

Bishop 25-1/2 Bishop 22
Richard 2 Bishop 2
Ansgot 1-1/2 Walter de Beauchamp 5
Stephen fil' Fulcred 3 'Dæilesford' 3
Hereward 5 'Eunilade' 5
Monks 1 Monks 1
------ ----
38 38

_Tredingtun_ _Tredintun_

[Bishop 17] Bishop 17
Monks 2 Monks 2
Gilbert fil' Thorold 4 'Langedun' 4
--- ---
23 23

_Norwiche_ _Northewike_

Bishop 3-1/2 Bishop 6-1/2
Urso 7-3/4 Walter de Beauchamp 10
Ordric 4-1/4
Alric Arch' 1
Walter Ponther 7-1/2 Hugh Puiher 7-1/2
Herlebaldus 1 King 1
--- ---
25 25

_Ovreberie cum Penedoc_ _Werebyri et Penedoc_

The Church of Worcester 6 6

_Seggesbarne_ _Segesberewe_

The Church of Worcester 3 3

_Scepwestun_ _Scepwestune_

The Church of Worcester 2 2

_Herferthun cum Wiburgestoke_ _Herfortune cum Wiburga Stoke_

The Church of Worcester 3 3

_Grimanleh_ _Grimeleage_

The Church of Worcester 2 2
Robert Despencer 1 Walter de Beauchamp 1
--- ---
3 3

_Halhegan cum Bradewesham_ _Hallhagan cum Bradewasse_

The Church of Worcester 1 [The Church of Worcester 1]
Duo Radmanni 2 Walter de Beauchamp 1-1/2
Roger de Laci 3-1/2 Roger de Laci 3-1/2
Walter de Burh 1/2 Count of Meulan 1
Hugh de Grentmesnil 1/2
------- -------
7-1/2 7

_Cropetorn cum Neothetune_ _Croppethorne_

Church of Worcester 14 Monks 15
Robert Despencer 11 Walter de Beauchamp 9
Urso 6 Robert Marmion 7
Abbot of Evesham 9 Abbot of Evesham 9
[_Ibid._ 10] _Ibid._ 'quiete a geldo' 10
--- ---
50 50

_Total for Oswaldslaw Hundred_

HIDES TENANTS HEMING'S TOTAL

(_ut supra_) (_ut supra_) 'He sunt ccc. hide ad
24 Bishop 93-1/2 Osuualdes lauues hundret.'
15
40 Monks 39
35 Walter de Beauchamp 90 'Episcopus habet in
25 King 4 dominio' xciiii.
38 Hugh Puher 9-1/2 'Monachi' xl.
23 Hugh de Laci 13 } 'Walterus de Bealcamp' xx.[8]
25 Roger de Laci 3-1/2 }
24 Robert Marmion 7 } 'Alii barones' lxiii.
50 Bishop of Hereford 5 } 'Rex' iii.
-- Abbot of Evesham 19 }
299 Hugh fitz Osbern 1 } 72-1/2
Count of Meulan 1 }
Gile (?bertus) 1 }
Alii 12 }
Nicholas (? de } 'Quiete apud Hamtun
Beauchamp) 1/2 a geldo' x.
------- ----
299 230

_Huerteberie_ _Heortlabyri_

Church of Worcester 20 Bishop 15
Walter de Beauchamp 5
---
20

_Vlwardelei_ _Wlfwardile_

Church of Worcester 5 Monks 5

_Stoche_ _Stoka_

Church of Worcester 10 Monks 10

_Alvievecherche_ _Ælfithe cyrce_

Church of Worcester 13 Bishop 13

_Clive cum Lenc_ _Clive cum Leng_

Church of Worcester 10-1/2 Monks 10

_Fepsetenatun_ _Fepsintune_

Church of Worcester 5 Monks 1
Walter Ponther 1[9] Hugh Puiher 1[9]
Roger de Laci 5 Hugh de Laci 5
--- ---
11 7

_Hambyrie_ _Heanbyri_

Church of Worcester 14 Bishop 13-1/2
Walter de Beauchamp 1/2
------
14

_Ardolvestone et Cnistetone_ _Eardulfestun et Cnihtetun_

Church of Worcester ('de Monks 15
victu monachorum') 15

_Total_ _'Summa in Kinefolka'_

Bishop 41-1/2 'Episcopus in dominio xli.'
Monks 41 'Monachi xli.'
Walter de Beauchamp 5-1/2 'Walterus de Bealcamp vi.'
Hugh de Laci 5 'Hugo de Laci v.'
Hugh Puiher 1 'Hugo Puiher i.'
------- -----
94 94

In Oswaldeslaw 299
Outside ditto 94
---
393

Summa hidarum, quas episcopus habet in toto vicecomitatu est
ccc. et quater xx. et xvii. cum his quas Abbas de Evesham
tenet de OSWALDES LAUUE.[10]

It will be seen that of these 397 hides only 393 are accounted for above. The explanation is this. Of the five hides held in 'Fepsintune' by the Church of Worcester in Domesday, only one is entered in the above list, the other four being wholly omitted, both in the list itself and in the total. These four omitted hides bring up the 393 to 397, the exact sum that we have to account for.

If the Manors in the above Survey are examined with care _seriatim_, it will be found that they bear manifest witness to the aggressions of Urse d'Abetot, who, we may gather from this Cartulary, was the _bête noire_ of the Church of Worcester. The various extensions of his Domesday holdings, as at 'Fledebyrie', where twelve hides had been increased to twenty-two, were partly due to the accession of the lands he inherited from his brother, but partly also to his absorption of the lands of other tenants and of portions of the episcopal demesne. All the benefit of these accessions passed to his son-in-law and successor, Walter de Beauchamp.

But perhaps the most important information that this Survey gives us is to be found in the light it throws on the succession to Robert 'Dispensator'. That he was brother to Urse d'Abetot is, of course, generally known. His relationship to the Marmions is the _crux_. I deal with it under the Lindsey Survey,[11] which shows us his Lincolnshire fief in the hands of Roger Marmion. In the present Survey we find that of the seventeen hides and a half which Robert Dispensator had held, at the time of Domesday, from the Bishop, only seven were held by Robert (not Roger) Marmion when this document was compiled, the rest being held by Walter de Beauchamp. We thus learn that here, as in Leicestershire, the fief had been divided between the two.[12]

But this Survey further tells us--if we may trust the text--that, in this succession, Roger Marmion had been preceded by Robert. One may throw it out as a possible suggestion that, in addition to the wife of Walter de Beauchamp, Urse d'Abetot may have had a daughter who married Robert Marmion.[13] On the forfeiture of his son Roger, such a daughter would have pressed her claim, and, though the inheritance of Urse himself may, by special favour, have been regranted to Walter, she may have obtained a share of the fief of her uncle, Robert 'Dispensator'. But this can only be conjecture.

Of the other points of family history on which this Survey throws light, one may mention that Hugh 'Puher' had succeeded Walter 'Ponther', that Osbern fitz Richard (of Richard's Castle) had been succeeded by his son, Hugh fitz Osbern; and that though, as in 1095,[14] the name of Hugh de Laci supplants that of his brother Roger, yet that, if we can trust the text, Roger had in one Manor been allowed to retain his holding, in accordance with a policy which is believed to have been practised, namely, that of keeping a hold, however small, on the forfeited. The name of the Count of Meulan also, the supplanter of Grentmesnil, will be noticed, and that of a 'Nicholas', whom, as the successor in a small holding of Robert Despencer, one might perhaps be tempted to identify with the mysterious Sheriff of Staffordshire, Nicolas de Beauchamp.

There are fragments of two other early surveys relating to Worcestershire, which, as they contain the names of Walter and of William de Beauchamp respectively, may be roughly assigned to the reigns of Henry I and of Stephen. The first, which is found in an Evesham Cartulary,[15] is mainly an abstract of Domesday, but contains a later and valuable analysis of Droitwich, with an important reference to the Exchequer. The other[16] begins in the middle of a survey of what seems to be the Church of Worcester's fief, records the lands held, as under-tenant, by William de Beauchamp, and shows us the Domesday fief of Ralf de 'Todeni' in the hands of his heir, Roger de 'Toeni'.

DROITWICH

Hee sunt x. hidæ in Wich'. De Witton' petri corbezun ii.
hidas. De feodo sancti Dionysii Ricardus corvus et Willelmus
filius Oueclini tenent i. hidam. De sancto Guthlaco Willelmus
filius Ricardi tenet i. hidam. De Johanne de Suthlega
Ricardus filius Roberti tenet i. hidam. De Pagano filio
Johannis Godwi tenet dimidiam hidam. De Waltero de bello campo
Theobaldus et petrus tenent dimidiam hidam. De la Berton' de
Gloucestra [see Glouc. Cartu.] Randulf filius Ringulfi tenet
dimidiam hidam. De monachis Gloucestrie Baldwinus et Lithulfus
dimidiam hidam. De Comite Warewice Randulfus et Essulf filii
Ringulf tenent iii. virgatas. De Waltero del Burc Randulf
et Essulf dimidiam hidam. De Westmonasterio Theobaldus et
Walterus fil' Thorald i. hidam. De Almega fil' Aiulfi et mater
ejus i. hidam. De Battona Aiulfus presbyter i. virgatam. De
Wichebold Rogerus de Bolles i. virgatam. De monachis fil' Grim
tenet i. virgatam. De Kinefare et Douerdale i. virgatam. Alewi
caure et socii ejus dimidiam virgatam.[15]

H[oc] debet computari ad Scacarium Regis vicecomiti
Wirecestrie. Habes x. hidas ad Danegeld et Wasto forestæ ii.
hidas.

Et in Ederesfeld vi hid[æ]. Et in happeworda i. hid[a]. Et in
Biselega i. hid[a]. Et in Burlega i. hyda.

FRAGMENT OF A SURVEY SUBSEQUENT TO 1130 AND PERHAPS
_circa_ 1150

(_Cott. MS. Vesp._, B. xxiv. fo. 8.)

... manerio de hambyry. Estona Ric' dimidiam hidam. In hundredo de
Camele. In Waresleia v. hidæ de manerio de hertlebery. Summa
quater xx. et xiii. hidæ.

In hundredo de persora habet ecclesia de Westmustier has
terras quas tenet Willelmus de bello campo. Hekintona iii.
hidæ et iii. virgatæ. Chaddesleia ii. hidæ. Langeduna Osmundi
i. hida et dimidia. Colleduma iii. hidæ et iii. virgatæ.
Graftona Ebrandi i. hida et iii. virgatæ. Flavel et pidelet
v. hidæ. Newentona x. hidæ. Broctona Inardi iii. hidæ. Pidelet
radulfi iii. hidæ. Berford v. hidæ. Branefford i. hida.
Wicha Inardi iii. hidæ. Burlingeham ii. hidæ et i. virgata.
Cumbrintona ii. hidæ. Poiwica Willelmi de bello campo i. hida.
Newebolt i. hida. Medeleffeld i. hida de poiwica. Ad bergam i.
hida. Olendene i. hida. Arleia i. virgata. Poiwica Inardi i.
hida. Summa lx. hidæ et dimidia.

In predicto hundredo de persora feudum Abbatis persore. Belega
xxi. hidæ. Branefford i. hida. Wadberga iii. hidæ et dimidia.
Cumbrintona i. hida et dimidia. Lega Ricardi dimidia hida.
Walecote et torendune i. hida et dimidia.

In hundredo de Leisse tenet idem Willelmus Chirchlench iiii.
hidas de abbatia de Evesham. Croulega v. hidas de feudo
Osberti filii hugonis.

In hundredo de Clent. Belua viii. hidæ de feudo folwi
paganelli. Salawarpa v. hidæ de feudo Rogeri Comitis. Item
Salawarpa i. hida de feudo episcopi Cestrie. Chaluestona i.
hida de feudo Roberti filii Archembaldi. Apud Wich dimidiam
hidam Gunfrei. Item apud Wich i. hidam de terra Sancti
Guthlaci quam Rodbertus filius Willelmi tenet. Item ibidem
dimidiam hidam de Cormell' quam Gilebertus tenet. Cokehulla
ii. hidæ et dimidiam de feudo regis. Hactona iii. hidæ de
feudo episcopi baiocensis. Escreueleia i. hida. Summa tocius
cclxiiii. hidæ et dimidia et dimidia virgata.

Terra rogeri de toeney. Esla iii. hidæ. Bertona iii. hidæ et
iii. virgatæ. Alcrintona ii. hidæ. Linda ii. hidæ et ad halac
i. hida. Mora hugonis i. hida et dimidia. Werueslega ii. hidæ
et dimidia. Alboldeslega ii. hidæ et dimidia. Rudmerlega i.
hida et dimidia. Estlega i. hida Geldans et una hida quieta.
Sceldeslega i. hida. Almelega Ricardi de portes xi. hidæ.

Previous Next

Comments

Feudal England: Historical Studies on the Eleventh and Twelfth CenturiesChapter IX: Part I: Territorial Studies (6)

0%35 min left in chapter