DOMESDAY SURVEY of Worcester, Westbury on Trym, was assessed at 50 hides, and had, we read, for ' members,' Henbury, Redwick, Stoke Bishop, and Yate. Moreover, the fact that Norman knights held lands of the manor enables us to discover that portions of it lay in Austreclive, Compton Greenfield, and Itchington. Of the crown manor of Westbury on Severn, assessed at 30 hides, I have already spoken, and have shown that portions of it lay, remote enough, in Herefordshire and Worcestershire. Such instances as these illustrate the nature of the great manor of Leominster. Like most of its fellows, it had 'mem- bers,' sixteen in number, all of which were included in its 80-hide assessment. They were scattered about the north of the county, extending north-west to Leinthall, north to Brimfield, and south to Brockhampton.^ The manor was reckoned, in King William's time, at only 60 hides as against 80 hides, but of the missing 20 hides, iSj are accounted for as in the hands of Norman barons, whose holdings are grouped together in irregular fashion. We may further illustrate the nature of this great manor, with its 80- hide assessment and sixteen members, by comparing it with two crown manors in the adjoining county of Worcester. Of these, Bromsgrove, with its eighteen ' berewites ' (named), was assessed at 30 hides,^'° and Kidder- minster, with sixteen (also named) at 20.^'^ Moreover, just as Marcle and Stanford had 'belonged to' Leominster, it is stated, T.R.E.,^^^ so there had belonged to Bromsgrove the 5-hide manor of Suckley,"' which is surveyed under Herefordshire because William Fitz Osbern had placed it ' in firma de Hereford.' Lastly, Bromsgrove, like Leominster, has a separate section, con- cerning 1 1 1 hides in four places (named) which ■• belonged and belong to this manor.' ^'* With regard to this, however, the most valuable comparison is afforded by Westminster Abbey's great manor of Pershore in the same county, which was given to it by King Edward as 200 hides. We read at the end of over three columns, ' Omnes hae supradictae terrae jacuerunt et jacent ad Persore.' Treated as distinct from Leominster manor are the lands which belonged to Leominster T.R.E.,^'^ of which the special feature is that they had all been held (evidently under the abbey) by English tenants, whom Norman barons had succeeded. We can sometimes trace the actual succession : thus, Hugh,
- the Ass,' had succeeded ' Lctflede ' in her tenancy, as in several of the manors
on his fief ; Roger de Laci had succeeded to Eadwig, William de Scohies to Elmer, and so on. In later days these estates were treated as part of their holders' fiefs, but in Domesday they are still entered apart under the Leo- minster heading. Their total assessment is given as 32 hides, and it is care- fully recorded that they used to pay their geld T.R.E. and render their customary dues to Leominster. From the barons and ecclesiastical bodies who held of the crown ' in chief ' we pass to those who held under them, down, through gradations of "' Farlow, one of these members, actually lay in Shropshire, north-west of Cleobury Mortimer, and is surveyed under that county in Domesday, though it subsequently became, till quite recently, part of He're- fordshire. "° ' Inter omnes simul cum Manerio sunt xxx hidae.' '" ' In his Terris simul cum Manerio sunt xx hidae.' "' ' Ad hoc Manerium pertinebant . . . T.R.E.' '" ' Ad hoc Manerium pertinuit Suchelei manerium de v hidis, T.R.E.' '" One of the results of comparing Leominster with Bromsgrove is that it strengthens the view (expressed below) that the ' symmetry ' of the former's figures was in fact fortuitous. '" ' Hae terra infrascriptae jacebant ad Leofminstre, T.R.E.' 285
