A HISTORY OF ESSEX 



in PEBENERS [Pebmarsh *] the wife of Aubrey 

 (alberici) de Ver seized (invasit) 5 free men 

 with (de) i^ acres, 8 which (quod) Tidbald' 

 held (tenuit) under her, and (this) is worth 3 

 shillings. 8 



Ralf Baignard seized (invasit) in HENHAM* 

 half a hide and 10 acres, which were held by 



2 free men in King Edward's time. Then 

 as now (semper) I plough. It is worth 12 

 shillings. And in CELVESTUNA [ B ] 

 (are) i hide and 43 acres, which were held 

 by 6 free men in King Edward's time ; then 

 and afterwards 4 ploughs (were there) ; now 



3 ; (there are) 1 5 acres of meadow ; it is 

 worth 40 shillings. 



In BOLINTUNA [Bollington 6 ] I free man 

 held 20 acres in King Edward's time, and 

 holds (them) still, but has concealed (the fact), 7 

 and therefore he has given pledge (dedit vadem).* 

 And it is worth 3 9 shillings. 



In PHERNEHAM [Farnham] a free man held 

 30 acres. Now Ralf Latimer (Latimarius 10 ) 

 holds (them), but has concealed (the fact), 11 

 and, therefore, he has given pledge (dedit 

 vadem). 1 * And it is worth 10 shillings. 



In LIFFILDEWELLA [ ls ] I free man 



held (and) holds still (tenet semper) 30 acres, and 

 it is worth 6 shillings and 8 pence. 



1 The mention of Pebmarsh enables us to say 

 that ' Mappesteda ' must be Little Maplestead, 

 which adjoins Pebmarsh. Morant overlooked the 

 entry under both these parishes. He suggested 

 however that 'Nepsteda' (p. 457 above) might be in 

 one of the Maplesteads (ii. 282), and, as it was 

 held by the wife of Aubrey (de Vere), the entry in 

 the text enables us to say that it was identical with 

 ' Mappesteda,' i.e. Little Maplestead. 



2 ' i acra et quarta parte alterius." The assess- 

 ment is strangely low. 



3 The words ' 5 free men ... 3 shillings ' are 

 interlined. 



4 He held the manor of Henham Hall. 



5 See p. 479, note 5, above. 



6 A manor in Ugley. 



7 Perhaps this means that he had not sought 

 recognition of his tide from King William. 

 Clearly his small holding had in some way escaped 

 detection. 



8 See Introduction, p. 412. 



9 ' iii.' is written above ' x.,' apparently as a 

 correction. 



10 The word means an interpreter. 



11 See note 7 above. 



18 See Introduction, p. 412. 



13 This place has not been identified. 



ENCROACHMENT OF TUROLD u 



In HANIES [Henny] 4 free men held 18 

 acres in King Edward's time and hold still. 

 (They had) then as now (semper) half a 

 plough between them. And it is worth 3 

 shillings. 



fo. xoib 



In LAMERS [Lammarsh] Turold seized 

 (invasit) 47 acres, which were held, in King 

 Edward's time, by 8 free men ; and they 

 have (them) still. (They had) then as now 

 (semper) half a plough. And it is worth 5 

 shillings. 



ENCROACHMENT OF WALERAM 15 



In HENI [Henny] (are) half a hide and io 

 acres, which were held by 7 free men in King 

 Edward's time ; and they have now as then 

 (semper) I plough ; and (there are) 4 acres of 

 meadow ; and it is worth 10 shillings. This 

 is held of John (Fitz Waleram) by Roger. 16 

 In HALSTEDA [Halstead] Ulwin* held 10 

 acres, which Waler[am] seized ; then as now 

 i plough (was there) ; then i bordar ; now 

 40." Then 3 serfs ; now none ; (there is) 

 wood(land) for 16 swine, (and) 5 acres of 

 meadow. It was then worth 20 shillings ; 

 now 30 



18 



In BRANCHETREU [Braintree 19 ] 30 acres 

 of land were held by 3 free men in King 

 Edward's time, and (they) are worth 3 shil- 

 lings. This land was seized by Ledmar' of 

 Hamesteda [Hempstead] and held as part of 

 (ad) the fief of Richard (Fitz Gilbert) ; and 

 Richard does not warrant it to him (nun est 

 sibi tutor *. 



14 Ranulf Peverel's under-tenant at Lammarsh 

 and Henny. 



15 Father of John Fitz Waleran, the Domesday 

 tenant-in-chief (see p. 544 above). 



16 The under-tenant of his manor at Henny. 



17 This ' xl.' must, it seems, be a scribal error. 



18 Morant identified this holding as Slow House 

 in Halstead ; but, as he gave ' Waler[am] ' as 

 ' Walter,' and states that the holding was given by 

 the Conqueror to ' Albrey de Vere,' his account is 

 unreliable. 



19 Very possibly Sandpit Leet, as suggested by 

 Morant (ii. 397). 



* See the other version of this encroachment 

 on p. 573 below ; also Introduction (p. 411). The 

 double entry is due perhaps to the scribe's doubt 

 whether to assign the holding to Richard or to his 



570 



