THE NORTHAMPTONSHIRE SURVEY 



pipe-roll of 1130, under Oxfordshire, owing the Crown the large sum 

 of 160 marcs for succeeding to his father's lands.' And this James, 

 better known as James de St. Hilary, was father of Maud, wife of earl 

 Roger de Clare. Thus it was, in my opinion, that Tansor came to form 

 part of the honour of Clare. With this clue we may turn to Rothwell, 

 another manor of Crown demesne, which is found, under Henry II., in 

 the hands of earl Roger de Clare. Our Survey assigns to ' Eudo de 

 HaschuU 'its gf hides, and Bridges, beheving the Survey to be temp. 

 Henry II., suggested that he was an under-tenant (ii. 57). I believe 

 that, on the contrary, ' Haschull ' was the same Hasculf de St. James, 

 and that the manor was brought by his grand-daughter Maud to her 

 husband, earl Roger.^ It is even possible that Towcester was originally 

 granted to St. Hilary, and that Maud de St. Hilary had brought it to 

 her second husband, the earl of Arundel, who is returned as its holder 

 in this Survey.' Here, then, we obtain a glimpse of the lands that 

 were bestowed by Henry I. on this family of St. James, of which 

 nothing had been known. It is significant that they came from the 

 extreme south-west of Normandy, for Henry I., as I have shown, had 

 made friends in this district before his accession to the Crown.* 



An entry at first sight unintelligible is found under Charlton : — 

 ' There also Odo " dapifer " 8 small virgates of the fee of Colchester.' 

 But Domesday tells us that 3^ virgates were held there by 'Adam' of 

 the fee of the bishop of Bayeux, and ' 8 small virgates ' were exactly 

 equal to 3^ Domesday ('large') virgates. And 'Adam' was a son of 

 Hubert de Ryes, who was succeeded in his holdings on the fief of the 

 bishop of Bayeux by his brother, Eudo the 'dapifer,'^ who was specially 

 connected with Colchester. On the death of Eudo without issue, all his 

 holdings escheated to the Crown" and became what is styled by our 

 Survey ' the fief of Colchester.' 



The many discrepancies between the Domesday figures and those 

 found in this Survey, together with the frequent variations in the arrange- 

 ment of vills and manors and the emergence of fresh names, render the 

 task of their comparison one of extreme difficulty. They suggest also that 

 the Survey must have been compiled de novo, and was not based on the 

 Domesday returns. It should be observed that, in Northamptonshire, 

 we find some vills divided between different Hundreds, which seems to 

 point to the artificial and arbitrary arrangement of the latter. This is 

 seen even in Domesday, but in the Survey below there is a striking 



* 'Jacobus filius Hasculfi de Sancto Jacobo reddit compotum de clx. m. arg. pro con- 

 cessione terra quam pater suus tenuit de rege.' Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. I., p. 4. 



* As this is only my own view, I have not asserted the identity of the two names 

 above (p. 359 line 42). Moreover 'Eudo* is difficult to explain, for though under Rothwell 

 in this Survey, he is ' Eudo de Haschull,' he is ' Eudo fil'iui Haschul ' under its dependent estate. 



' Compare Baker's Northamptonshire^ II. 312-3. 



* See Studies in Peerage and Family History^ p. 124, and p. 361 above, 

 of Kelmarsh. 



6 Ibid. p. 166. 



* Compare Rot. Pip. 31 Hen. I., p. 138. 



363 



