SOME EARLY SURVEYS 



hands one-third of Oswaldslow (loo hides), his interest in which alone 

 would have made him of importance in the county ; but we shall see 

 below how largely he was holding elsewhere also. 



Walter, as I have observed above, had not succeeded his wife's 

 uncle Robert the Despencer at Charlton, which the Survey assigns to 

 Robert Marmion. Thus, of the 17I hides which Robert had held, in 

 Domesday, of the Bishop, seven had passed to Marmion, and ten and a 

 half to Beauchamp. I have elsewhere shown that in Leicestershire, 

 as in Worcestershire, the Despencer lands were divided between 

 Beauchamp and Marmion,' while Scrivelsby and other lands of Robert 

 the Despencer in Lincolnshire fell to the share of Marmion, from whom 

 they passed by female descent to the well-known hereditary champions.* 

 A remarkable charter of William Rufus proves that Urse de Abetot 

 had succeeded his brother Robert in at least one Lincolnshire manor,' 

 which suggests that Robert himself had died without issue and that the 

 Marmions derived their claim, whatever it was, through Urse.* 



Further points to be noted in this early survey are that the Walter 

 ' Ponther ' of Domesday, the Walter ' Punher ' of the Worcester Relief 

 (1095),^ had been succeeded, as a tenant of the see, by Hugh ' Puher,' 

 and that Roger de Laci had also been succeeded, as in the 1095 list,* by 

 Hugh de Laci, except in two cases, in one of which he himself is still 

 named as the tenant, although he had been forfeited and banished in 

 1088, after being one of the rebel leaders defeated at the battle of 

 Worcester. Hugh de Laci, who remained loyal and who received his 

 lands, was his brother. 



We will now pass to the interesting fragment of a Survey rather 

 later in date, which is found in an Evesham cartulary.® This fragment 

 begins abruptly at the top of a page, and has no connection with the 

 page preceding it, the text of which it appears to continue.' It is, 

 moreover, written in a different hand. Stranger still, it is unconnected 

 with the dorse of its own folio. From internal evidence alone can its 

 date and character be determined. 



. . . [in the ?] manor of Hambyry In the Hundred of Pershore the church 



[Hanbury], ' Eston Ric[ardi] ' half a hide. In of Westminster [Westminster Abbey] has 



the Hundred of Camele : in Waresleia these lands, which William de Beauchamp 



[Waresley] 5 hides of the manor of Hertle- holds : — Hekintona [Eckington] 3 hides and 



bery [Hartlebury].* Total 93 hides. 3 virgates ; ^ Chaddesleia [Chaseley] ^° 2 



^ Feudal England, p. 214. seems to have possessed some additional in- 



* Ibid. pp. 193-195. formation. 



3 See my Ancient Charters (Pipe Roll * These were the two estates held by 



Society), p. i. Walter de Beauchamp of the see, outside 



* See Feudal England, p. 176. Oswaldslaw (see above). 



^ Ibid. pp. 309, 312. ' Held by Urse in io86 as 4 hides less i 



« Cott. MS. Vesp. B. XXIV. fo. 8. virgate. 



'' The pages preceding it contain a curious " In Longdon. Chaddesley Corbett must 



abstract of Domesday, arranged in Hundreds, have been so named to distinguish it from 



which deserves attention, as its compiler this Chaseley, formerly Chadesley. 



