A HISTORY OF WORCESTERSHIRE 



The same Wulfwine bought this manor 

 from the bishop of Chester for three lives 

 [ad atatem trium hominum). When he was ill 

 and had come to the end of his life, he called 

 (to him) his son, bishop Li,^ and his wife and 

 several of his friends, and said : ' Hearken ye, 

 my friends. I desire [volo) that my wife hold 

 this land which I bought from the church so 

 long as she lives ; and after her death, let the 

 church from which I received it receive it 

 (back) ; and let him who takes it from the 

 church be excommunicate.' 



That this was so is testified by the chief 

 {meliores) men of the whole county. 



The same William holds Nordfeld [North- 

 field]. iElfwold {Alwoldus) held (it). There 

 are 6 hides. In (the) demesne is i plough, 

 and (there are) a priest and 7 villeins and 

 16 bordars and 6 cottars [cotmanni) with 13 

 ploughs, and 5 more ploughs could be (em- 

 ployed) there. There are 2 serfs, and I bond- 

 woman. The wood(land) is half a league 

 {lewa) long and 3 furlongs in width. It was 

 worth 8 pounds T.R.E. ; now 100 shillings. 



The same William holds Franchelie 

 [Frankley], and Baldwin holds (it) of him. 

 Wulfwine {Vlwinui) held (it). There is I 

 hide. In (the) demesne is one plough. 

 There are 9 bordars, with 5 ploughs, and 2 

 serfs. The wood(land) is I league [lewa) 

 long and half (a league) in width. It was 

 worth 40 shillings T.R.E. ; now 30 shil- 

 lings. 



The same William holds Welingewiche 

 [Willingwick] ^ and Baldwin (holds it) of 



* The words are 'vocato filio suo ep'o 

 Li.' This name has caused difficulty. It 

 would suggest Lyfing bishop of Worcester, 

 but chronology is against this. Mr. Freeman 

 was doubtless right in holding {Norm. Conq., 

 V. 779) that 'this must mean Leofwine,' 

 bishop of Lichfield (before the see was moved 

 to Chester). But as the Domesday equiva- 

 lent of Leofwine was ' Lewinus,' the ' Li ' 

 might conceivably represent ' Licefelle,' the 

 Domesday Lichfield. 



^ This is identified with (Chadwick and) 

 Willingwick in the royal manor of Broms- 

 grove by the entry above (p. 286), under that 

 manor, which shows us 3 virgates ' in Wil- 

 lingewic' held, as here, by Baldwin of 

 William Fitz Ansculf. The two entries 

 should be carefully compared, as it seems 

 impossible to say positively whether they refer 

 to the same holding or not. If they do, we 



him. There are 3 virgates of land. There 

 are one villein and i bordar with half a 

 plough. There could be (employed) 2^ 

 ploughs more. It was worth 5 shillings ; now 

 3 shillings. 



The same William holds Escelie [Selley F].^ 

 Tumi and ' Eleva ' held it as 2 manors. 

 Robert holds it of William. There is i hide. 

 In (the) demesne is I plough, and (there are) 

 3 villeins and 2 bordars and 2 oxmen (bovarii) 

 with 2 ploughs. There is i 'leuede' of 

 wood(land). It was worth 20 shillings ; now 

 15 shillings. 



The same William holds Werwelie 

 [Warley Wigorn], and ' Alelm ' (holds it) of 

 him. ^thelward {/Eilward) held (it). There 

 is half a hide. In (the) demesne is I plough, 

 and (there are) 2 villeins and 8 bordars with 

 4^ ploughs. There are 2 serfs. It was 

 worth 17 shillings T.R.E. ; now 10 shillings. 



The same William holds Cercehalle 

 [Churchill], and Walter (holds it) of him. 

 Wigar held (it). There are 2 hides. In 

 (the) demesne is i plough, and 5 ploughs 

 more can be (employed) there. It was 

 worth 60 shillings ; now 8 shillings. 



In Clent Hund[ret] 



The same William holds Bellem [Belne 

 in Belbroughton], Leofnoth (L«<OT«r), a thegn 

 of king Edward, held (it). There are 3 hides. 

 Robert holds it of William. In (the) de- 

 mesne is I plough, and (there are) 7 villeins 

 and 4 bordars with 4 ploughs. There are 

 2 serfs, and a saltpan worth {de) 2 ounces (of 

 silver). There could be (employed) 3 ploughs 

 more. It was worth 25 shillings; now 15 

 shillings. This manor was held by Ralf 

 Fitz Hubert for more than 5 years, but 

 William Fitz Osbern took it from him 

 wrongfully.* 



have a further instance of discrepancies in 

 Domesday Surveys. 



^ See note 9 on p. 315 above. 



* This is a difficult passage. Ralf Fitz 

 Hubert may possibly have been the tenant- 

 in-chief of that name, who held land in 

 several counties, but William Fitz Osbern 

 cannot be the celebrated Norman of that 

 name, who is spoken of in Domesday as 

 'earl William,' and who did not live long 

 enough for the entry to be applicable to him. 

 It looks as if ' William Fitz Osbern ' was 

 possibly an error for William Fitz Ansculf. 



316 



