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
