A HISTORY OF WORCESTERSHIRE 



5 hides at W^reslege [Waresley].' To the 

 Bishop there remain in demesne 15. 



In the same hundret {sic) the monks have 

 at Wlfwardile [Wolverley] 5 hides. ^ 



In Kamel ^ hundret {sic) the monks have 

 Stokan [Stoke Prior] — 10 hides ; and the 

 Bishop has at jElfithe cyrce [Alvechurch] 

 13 hides.* 



In JEsc ^ hundret {sic) the monks have at 

 Clive [Cleeve Prior] with Leng [Lench] 10 

 hides ;* at Fepsintune [Fepton] the same 

 monks have i hide ;' Hugh de Laci, Croh- 

 LEA [Crowle] 5 hides.* 



In the same hundret {sic) the Bishop has at 



Heanbyri [Hanbury] 14 hides. Of these 

 Walter de Beauchamp has half a hide.^ 



In Dudintree *" hundret the monks have 

 15 hides at Eardulfestun [Eardiston] and 

 Cnihtetun [Knighton]. 



Total {summa) in Kinefolka. The Bishop 

 has in demesne 41 (hides), the monks 41, 

 Walter de Beauchamp 6, Hugh de Laci 5, 

 Hugh Puiher i, which does not pay geld.^^ 



The total {summa) of the hides which the 

 Bishop has in the whole county {vicecomitatu) 

 is 397, including {cum) those which the abbot 

 of Evesham holds of the Hundred of Oswaldes 

 Lawe. 



It will be observed that this document is, like the Domesday Survey 

 itself, largely, or rather exclusively concerned with the liability to geld. 

 Indeed, in Heming's Cartulary, it follows closely on a writ, by which 

 Henry I. directs Walter de Beauchamp and the (geld) ' collectors ' of 

 Worcestershire not to exact geld from the Bishop, for his Worcester- 

 shire land, thenceforth, on more than 397I hides. ^^ 



The totals work out almost exactly right, although we are dealing 

 only with a cartulary transcript. We have seen that the document's 

 own totals give us 300 hides for Oswaldslow, and when we add together 

 the manors, they give us 299 hides, as also do the holdings when added 

 together. That of the Bishop, however, was 93I, not ' 94,' and that of 

 the barons 62|, not ' 63 ' (reckoning the abbot of Evesham's holding as 

 9 'gelding' hides only). That of the monks also was 39, not '40,' 

 while the King, on the other hand, seems to have held 4, not 3 hides. 

 Outside Oswaldslow, the totals work out as 94, whether we take the 

 manors or the holdings. It is possible that the discrepancy between 

 the grand total and that which is found in the King's writ is connected 

 with the Fepton reduction. 



The survey of Oswaldslow in this document runs so closely 

 parallel with that in Domesday itself that we can incidentally learn 

 something of the changes of tenure in the interval. Walter de 

 Beauchamp had not only succeeded his wife's father (Urse) and uncle 

 (Robert) everywhere except at Charlton, but had actually got into his 



* This holding had been carved out of the 

 manor since Domesday. 



* This survey distinguishes here between 

 the Bishop's manor and that of the monks. 

 Domesday does not. 



' The ' Came ' of Domesday. 



* See p. 298 above. 



* The ' Esch ' of Domesday. 



* 10^ hides in Domesday. 



' In Domesday the monks are entered as 

 liable for geld on 5 hides at ' Fepsetena- 

 tun.* The discrepancy here is beautifully 

 accounted for by the writ of Henry I. 

 directed to Walter de Beauchamp and the 



other officers of Worcestershire, reducing the 

 assessment of ' Fepsintun ' by 4 hides (Hale's 

 Registrum, p. 58^, and compare p. 237 above). 



* Which had been held by Roger de Laci 

 in 1086. 



9 Which had been held by Urse in 1086. 



^^ The ' Dodintret ' of Domesday. 



'* This was the hide at Fepton entered in 

 Domesday as held by Walter ' Ponther ' and 

 as free from geld. 



** Vol. I. p. 298. Between this writ and 

 the above survey is extracted a transcript of 

 the relative portion of Domesday ' secundiun 

 cartam regis que est in thesauro reg*.' 



326 



