THE DOMESDAY SURVEY 



places being all in Worcestershire. Now the Beauchamps were the 

 heirs of the sheriff Urse, and the exceptionally large number of their 

 fees is accounted for at once, on turning to Domesday, by the numerous 

 cases in which the sheriff had obtained, as under-tenant, the Bishop's 

 lands.^ 



The important conclusion to be drawn from this is that the church 

 of Worcester obtained a quid pro quo from Urse. If it had to give him, 

 as under-tenant, the beneficial occupation of much of its land, he had, 

 in return, to discharge a quarter of the knight-service exacted from it 

 by the Norman kings. The Henry I. survey of the lands of the church 

 of Worcester shows us Walter de Beauchamp holding loo hides in 

 Oswaldslow and 5 or 6 outside it.* A quota of fifteen knights towards 

 the ' service ' for which the church was liable was a fairly substantial 

 return for such tenure. 



The second point that calls for notice is the curious appearance of 

 the King himself as owing knight-service to the church of Worcester. 

 The list of the Bishop's knights in 1166 opens with the words ' (Our) 

 lord the king owes 3 knights.' Here again we find the explanation in 

 the evidence of Domesday Book combined with that of the survey taken 

 under John. The latter return explains that the knights' (fees) in the 

 King's hands ^ are in ' Burleg, Queinhull, et in Broc,' and Domesday 

 shows us ' Burgelege ' and ' Cunhille ' as then (1086) ' in manu regis ' 

 (fo. 173).* The very important inference which I draw from this 

 evidence is that the amount of ' knight-service ' due from the see must 

 have been fixed before Domesday, and these lands already reckoned as 

 three knights' fees before they came into the King's hands. The in- 

 ference is subtle, but it seems to be sound. 



The other religious houses holding land in Worcestershire do not 

 call for such elaborate discussion as the Bishop's own monastery. Ac- 

 cording to Domesday (fos. 1741^, 175), the great estate which Edward 

 the Confessor had bestowed on his new abbey at Westminster, and 

 which was counted as 200 hides (one-sixth of the county), was all 

 appurtenant to the manor of Pershore then in his own hands. Pershore 

 Abbey, however, had certain rights over all of it,^ and Domesday, having 

 told us, under Westminster Abbey, that the manor of Pershore had been 

 held by Edward, enters next the Pershore fief, and heads it by the 

 statement that Pershore Abbey ' held and holds the manor of Pershore.' 

 Here, therefore, there must have been friction, as there was, we have seen, 

 between Worcester and Evesham. It is singular that Westminster should 

 have been given so great an estate in the West of England as these 200 

 hides in Worcestershire and the 59 hides of the great manor of Deerhurst 



* His brother, Robert the Despencer, had acquired a few, but those inherited from him 

 by the Beauchamps were comparatively insignificant. 



^ Feudal England, pp. 173-4, and p. 325 below. 



^ The Testa de Nevill erroneously gives them as ' vii.,' but the Pipe Rolls prove that they 

 were three. 



* The third manor entered in Domesday as then ' in manu regis ' is not ' Broc,' but 

 * Biselie' (Bushley). * See p. 251 above. 



I 257 S 



