SOME EARLY SURVEYS [Eastham] 3 hides ; Bertona [Bayton] 3 hides and 3 virgates ; Alcrintona [Alton in Rock] 2 hides ; Linda [Lindridge] 2 hides ; and at Halac [ ] 1 hide ; Mora Hu- gonis [Moor in Rock] i^ hides ; Werveslega [Worsley farm]^ 2^ hides ; Albodeslega [Ab- berley] 2^ hides ; Rudmerlega [Redmarley in Witley] ji hides ; Estlega [Astley] i hide that pays geld [geldans) and I hide that is free ; ' Sceldeslega [Shelsley] i hide ; Alme- lega Ricardi de Fortes [Elmley Lovett] 11 hides.!" Fitz Archembald ; * at Wich [Droitwich] half a hide (held by) Gunfrei ; * also at Wich [Droitwich] i hide of St. Guthlac's ' land, which Robert Fitz William holds ; there also half a hide of Cormell', which Gilbert holds ; * (at) Cokehulla [Cookley ?] 2^ hides of the King's fief ; ^ (at) Hactona [Acton Beauchamp] 3 hides of the fief of the bishop of Bayeux ; ^ (at) Escreueleia [Shrawley] i hide. Total of the whole : 264^ hides and half a virgate. The land of Roger de Toeney : — Estha Roughly speaking, the date of the survey of which this is a fragment, is a generation later than that of the Hundred of Oswald- slow. For two great Worcestershire landowners, Walter de Beauchamp and Hugh Fitz Osbern, had been respectively succeeded by their sons, William de Beauchamp and Osbern Fitz Hugh. The name of Roger ' de Toeney ' also points to the reign of Stephen. Careful examination proves that all the earlier portion, all, that is, down to ' The land of Roger de Toeney,' is concerned with the holdings of William de Beau- champ in the Hundreds of (' Kerselau '), 'Came,' Pershore, ' Leisse,' Clent and Dodingtree. It is only here, I believe, that the 300 hides, of which the abbey of Westminster was supposed to hold 200, and the abbey of Pershore 100, are definitely termed the Hundred of Pershore, just as the Hundred of Oswaldslow consisted of 300 hides. And the prior rights of Pershore Abbey are thereby confirmed." The object of the Survey seems, as usual, to have been the ascertainment of the liability to ' geld.' But it is a singular feature of the document, that while Roger de Toeney's lands are all of them those which he held as a tenant-in-chief, those of William de Beauchamp are, almost exclusively, lands that he held as under-tenant. It is in the latter's succession to his maternal grand- father Urse (and, at Wadborough, to Urse's brother, Robert) that consists ! It lies between Salwarpe and Droitwich, and was held in capite by William Goizen- boded in 1086. Robert Fitz Archembald was a benefactor to St. Peter's, Gloucester, in 1 128 (see its Cartulary in Rolls Series).
- It was held of Urse by Gunfrei, as in
' Witone,' in 1086. 3 It had been held of St. Guthlac by Nigel the leech in 1086.
- This entry is obscure. No land at
Droitwich is assigned to the Abbey of Cormeilles in Domesday. The probable explanation is that the MS. itself is in fault — and ought, instead of ' also there,' to have read : ' In the hundred of Dodintre,' to which belong the four places which follow. The above half hide would then be that at Tenbury, which was held in 1086 by the abbey of Cormeilles. ^ Which Urse had held in capite, as at
- Cochehi,' in 1086.
" These are the 3 ' gelding ' hides so held there by Urse in 1086. ' This would seem to be the first mention of Shrawley, of which the early history is obscure. It was, however, afterwards held by Poher under Beauchamp, and by Beau- champ of ' the heirs of Tony.'
- Between Rock and Abberley.
^ These are the 2 hides that he retained there, after giving 4 to St. Taurin (see Domes- day). " The above holdings are identical with those composing the Domesday fief of Ralf de
- Todeni ' ; and the assessments are the same,
except that Bayton is i virgate more, Moor I virgate more, Worsley half a hide more. See pp. 251, 257 above. 329
