THE WORCESTERSHIRE SURVEY
(Temp. Henry I)
We have, in the case of the see of Worcester, the means of testing some of the changes which took place among its tenants within a generation of Domesday. This is a survey of that portion of its lands which lay within the county of Worcester. Although printed by Hearne in his edition of Heming's Cartulary (fos. 141, 141d), it escaped notice, I believe, till I identified it myself in Domesday Studies (p. 546). As it follows immediately on the transcript of the Domesday Survey of the fief, the fact that it represents a later and distinct record might, at first sight, be overlooked.
In spite of the importance of Heming's Cartulary in its bearing on the Domesday Survey, the documents of which it contains the transcripts have been hopelessly confused and misunderstood. Professor Freeman, dealing with them, came to utter grief,[1]
and as for Mr De Gray Birch, he not only took this Survey temp. Henry I to be a portion of Domesday itself, which 'should be collated with the original MS. at the Record Office',[2] but even repeated Ellis's blunder,[3] that the names in a document temp. Bishop John [1151-7][4] represent 'the list of jurors for the Hundred of Oswaldeslaw' at the Domesday Survey.[5]
From a writ entered on fo. 136 we may infer that there had been some dispute between the Sheriff and the Church of Worcester as to the number of hides in the county for which the latter should be rated.[6] This Inquest or Survey was the consequence of that dispute, and resulted in the issue of the writ. Its date is roughly determined by the facts that Urse d'Abetot was dead when it was made, while the Count of Meulan is entered as a tenant, so that we may probably date it as later (at the earliest) than 1108, and previous to the death of the Count of Meulan in July 1118.[7]
Let us now compare, Manor by Manor, the earlier with the later Survey:
| Domesday | Survey temp. Henry i | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Chemesege | Kemesige | ||
| Bishop | [13] | Bishop | 13 |
| Urso | 7 | Walter de Beauchamp | 9 |
| Roger de Laci | 2 | ||
| Walter Ponther | 2 | Hugh Puiher | 2 |
| —— | —— | ||
| 24 | 24 | ||
| Wiche | Wike | ||
| Bishop | 3¾ | Bishop | 3 |
| Urso | 9¾ | Walter de Beauchamp | 10½ |
| Robert Despenser | ½ | Nicholas (de Beauchamp?) | ½ |
| Osbern fitz Richard | 1 | Hugh fitz Osbern | 1 |
| —— | —— | ||
| 15 | 15 | ||
| Fledebirie | Fledebyri | ||
| Bishop | 7 | Bishop | 3 |
| Bishop of Hereford | 5 | Bishop of Hereford | 5 |
| Urso | 12 | ||
| Robert Despenser | 5 | Walter de Beauchamp | 22 |
| Alricus archid[iaconus] | 1 | ||
| Roger de Laci | 10 | Hugh de Laci | 10 |
| —— | —— | ||
| 40 | 40 | ||
| Breodun | Bredune | ||
| Bishop | 10 | Bishop | 13 |
| Monks | 4 | Monks | 4 |
| Ælricus Archd. | 2 | ||
| Urso | 16 | Walter de Beauchamp | 16 |
| Durand | 2 | Gile (? bertus) | 1 |
| Brictric fil' Algar (in king's hands) | 1 | King | 1 |
| —— | —— | ||
| 35 | 35 | ||
| Rippel et Uptun | Rippel et Uptun | ||
| Bishop | 13 | Bishop | 14 |
| Ordric | 1 | ||
| Siward | 5 | ||
| Roger de Laci | 3 | Hugh de Laci | 3 |
| Urso | 1 | ||
| Ralph de Bernai (in king's hands) | 1 | Walter de Beauchamp | 6 |
| Brictric fil' Algar (in king's hands) | 1 | King | 2 |
| —— | —— | ||
| 25 | 25 | ||
| Blochelei | Bloccelea | ||
| Bishop | 25½ | Bishop | 22 |
| Richard | 2 | Bishop | 2 |
| Ansgot | 1½ | Walter de Beauchamp | 5 |
| Stephen fil' Fulcred | 3 | 'Dæilesford' | 3 |
| Hereward | 5 | 'Eunilade' | 5 |
| Monks | 1 | Monks | 1 |
| —— | —— | ||
| 38 | 38 | ||
| Tredingtun | Tredintun | ||
| [Bishop | 17] | Bishop | 17 |
| Monks | 2 | Monks | 2 |
| Gilbert fil' Thorold | 4 | 'Langedun' | 4 |
| —— | —— | ||
| 23 | 23 | ||
| Norwiche | Northewike | ||
| Bishop | 3½ | Bishop | 6½ |
| Urso | 7¾ | Walter de Beauchamp | 10 |
| Ordric | 4¼ | ||
| Alric Arch' | 1 | ||
| Walter Ponther | 7½ | Hugh Puiher | 7½ |
| Herlebaldus | 1 | King | 1 |
| —— | —— | ||
| 25 | 25 | ||
| Ovreberie cum Penedoc | Werebyri et Penedoc | ||
| The Church of Worcester | 6 | 6 | |
| Seggesbarne | Segesberewe | ||
| The Church of Worcester | 3 | 3 | |
| Scepwestun | Scepwestune | ||
| The Church of Worcester | 2 | 2 | |
| Herferthun cum Wiburgestoke | Herfortune cum Wiburga Stoke | ||
| The Church of Worcester | 3 | 3 | |
| Grimanleh | Grimeleage | ||
| The Church of Worcester | 2 | 2 | |
| Robert Despencer | 1 | Walter de Beauchamp | 1 |
| —— | —— | ||
| 3 | 3 | ||
| Halhegan cum Bradewesham | Hallhagan cum Bradewasse | ||
| The Church of Worcester | 1 | [The Church of Worcester | 1] |
| Duo Radmanni | 2 | Walter de Beauchamp | 1½ |
| Roger de Laci | 3½ | Roger de Laci | 3½ |
| Walter de Burh | ½ | Count of Meulan | 1 |
| Hugh de Grentmesnil | ½ | ||
| —— | —— | ||
| 7½ | 7 | ||
| Cropetorn cum Neothetune | Croppethorne | ||
| Church of Worcester | 14 | Monks | 15 |
| Robert Despencer | 11 | Walter de Beauchamp | 9 |
| Urso | 6 | Robert Marmion | 7 |
| Abbot of Evesham | 9 | Abbot of Evesham | 9 |
| [Ibid. | 10] | Ibid. 'quiete a geldo' | 10 |
| —— | —— | ||
| 50 | 50 | ||
Total for Oswaldslaw Hundred
| Hides | Tenants | Heming's Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (ut supra) | (ut supra) | 'He sunt ccc. hide ad | ||||
| 24 | Bishop | 93½ | Osuualdes lauues hundret.' | |||
| 15 | ||||||
| 40 | Monks | 39 | ||||
| 35 | Walter de Beauchamp | 90 | 'Episcopus habet in | |||
| 25 | King | 4 | dominio' | xciiii. | ||
| 38 | Hugh Puher | 9½ |  | 'Monachi' | xl. | |
| 23 | Hugh de Laci | 13 | 'Walterus de Bealcamp' | xx.[8] | ||
| 25 | Roger de Laci | 3½ | ||||
| 24 | Robert Marmion | 7 | 'Alii barones' | lxiii. | ||
| 50 | Bishop of Hereford | 5 | 'Rex' | iii. | ||
| — | Abbot of Evesham | 19 | ||||
| 299 | Hugh fitz Osbern | 1 | 72½ | |||
| Count of Meulan | 1 | |||||
| Gile (?bertus) | 1 | |||||
| Alii | 12 | |||||
| Nicholas (? de Beauchamp) | ½ | 'Quiete apud Hamtun a geldo' | x. | |||
| ———— | —— | |||||
| 299 | 230 | |||||
| Huerteberie | Heortlabyri | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Church of Worcester | 20 | Bishop | 15 |
| Walter de Beauchamp | 5 | ||
| —— | |||
| 20 | |||
| Vlwardelei | Wlfwardile | ||
| Church of Worcester | 5 | Monks | 5 |
| Stoche | Stoka | ||
| Church of Worcester | 10 | Monks | 10 |
| Alvievecherche | Ælfithe cyrce | ||
| Church of Worcester | 13 | Bishop | 13 |
| Clive cum Lenc | Clive cum Leng | ||
| Church of Worcester | 10½ | Monks | 10 |
| Fepsetenatun | Fepsintune | ||
| Church of Worcester | 5 | Monks | 1 |
| Walter Ponther | 1[9] | Hugh Puiher | 1[9] |
| Roger de Laci | 5 | Hugh de Laci | 5 |
| —— | —— | ||
| 11 | 7 | ||
| Hambyrie | Heanbyri | ||
| Church of Worcester | 14 | Bishop | 13½ |
| Walter de Beauchamp | ½ | ||
| —— | —— | ||
| 14 | |||
| Ardolvestone et Cnistetone | Eardulfestun et Cnihtetun | ||
| Church of Worcester ('de victu monachorum') | 15 | Monks | 15 |
| Total | 'Summa in Kinefolka' | ||
| Bishop | 41½ | 'Episcopus in dominio | xli.' |
| Monks | 41 | 'Monachi | xli.' |
| Walter de Beauchamp | 5½ | 'Walterus de Bealcamp | vi.' |
| Hugh de Laci | 5 | 'Hugo de Laci | v.' |
| Hugh Puiher | 1 | 'Hugo Puiher | i.' |
| —— | —— | ||
| 94 | 94 | ||
| In Oswaldeslaw | 299 |
| Outside ditto | 94 |
| —— | |
| 393 |
Summa hidarum, quas episcopus habet in toto vicecomitatu est ccc. et quater xx. et xvii. cum his quas Abbas de Evesham tenet de Oswaldes Lauue.[10]
It will be seen that of these 397 hides only 393 are accounted for above. The explanation is this. Of the five hides held in 'Fepsintune' by the Church of Worcester in Domesday, only one is entered in the above list, the other four being wholly omitted, both in the list itself and in the total. These four omitted hides bring up the 393 to 397, the exact sum that we have to account for.
If the Manors in the above Survey are examined with care seriatim, it will be found that they bear manifest witness to the aggressions of Urse d'Abetot, who, we may gather from this Cartulary, was the bête noire of the Church of Worcester. The various extensions of his Domesday holdings, as at 'Fledebyrie', where twelve hides had been increased to twenty-two, were partly due to the accession of the lands he inherited from his brother, but partly also to his absorption of the lands of other tenants and of portions of the episcopal demesne. All the benefit of these accessions passed to his son-in-law and successor, Walter de Beauchamp.
But perhaps the most important information that this Survey gives us is to be found in the light it throws on the succession to Robert 'Dispensator'. That he was brother to Urse d'Abetot is, of course, generally known. His relationship to the Marmions is the crux. I deal with it under the Lindsey Survey,[11] which shows us his Lincolnshire fief in the hands of Roger Marmion. In the present Survey we find that of the seventeen hides and a half which Robert Dispensator had held, at the time of Domesday, from the Bishop, only seven were held by Robert (not Roger) Marmion when this document was compiled, the rest being held by Walter de Beauchamp. We thus learn that here, as in Leicestershire, the fief had been divided between the two.[12]
But this Survey further tells us—if we may trust the text—that, in this succession, Roger Marmion had been preceded by Robert. One may throw it out as a possible suggestion that, in addition to the wife of Walter de Beauchamp, Urse d'Abetot may have had a daughter who married Robert Marmion.[13] On the forfeiture of his son Roger, such a daughter would have pressed her claim, and, though the inheritance of Urse himself may, by special favour, have been regranted to Walter, she may have obtained a share of the fief of her uncle, Robert 'Dispensator'. But this can only be conjecture.
Of the other points of family history on which this Survey throws light, one may mention that Hugh 'Puher' had succeeded Walter 'Ponther', that Osbern fitz Richard (of Richard's Castle) had been succeeded by his son, Hugh fitz Osbern; and that though, as in 1095,[14] the name of Hugh de Laci supplants that of his brother Roger, yet that, if we can trust the text, Roger had in one Manor been allowed to retain his holding, in accordance with a policy which is believed to have been practised, namely, that of keeping a hold, however small, on the forfeited. The name of the Count of Meulan also, the supplanter of Grentmesnil, will be noticed, and that of a 'Nicholas', whom, as the successor in a small holding of Robert Despencer, one might perhaps be tempted to identify with the mysterious Sheriff of Staffordshire, Nicolas de Beauchamp.
There are fragments of two other early surveys relating to Worcestershire, which, as they contain the names of Walter and of William de Beauchamp respectively, may be roughly assigned to the reigns of Henry I and of Stephen. The first, which is found in an Evesham Cartulary,[15] is mainly an abstract of Domesday, but contains a later and valuable analysis of Droitwich, with an important reference to the Exchequer. The other[16] begins in the middle of a survey of what seems to be the Church of Worcester's fief, records the lands held, as under-tenant, by William de Beauchamp, and shows us the Domesday fief of Ralf de 'Todeni' in the hands of his heir, Roger de 'Toeni'.
Droitwich
Hee sunt x. hidæ in Wich'. De Witton' petri corbezun ii. hidas. De feodo sancti Dionysii Ricardus corvus et Willelmus filius Oueclini tenent i. hidam. De sancto Guthlaco Willelmus filius Ricardi tenet i. hidam. De Johanne de Suthlega Ricardus filius Roberti tenet i. hidam. De Pagano filio Johannis Godwi tenet dimidiam hidam. De Waltero de bello campo Theobaldus et petrus tenent dimidiam hidam. De la Berton' de Gloucestra [see Glouc. Cartu.] Randulf filius Ringulfi tenet dimidiam hidam. De monachis Gloucestrie Baldwinus et Lithulfus dimidiam hidam. De Comite Warewice Randulfus et Essulf filii Ringulf tenent iii. virgatas. De Waltero del Burc Randulf et Essulf dimidiam hidam. De Westmonasterio Theobaldus et Walterus fil' Thorald i. hidam. De Almega fil' Aiulfi et mater ejus i. hidam. De Battona Aiulfus presbyter i. virgatam. De Wichebold Rogerus de Bolles i. virgatam. De monachis fil' Grim tenet i. virgatam. De Kinefare et Douerdale i. virgatam. Alewi caure et socii ejus dimidiam virgatam.[15a]
H[oc] debet computari ad Scacarium Regis vicecomiti Wirecestrie. Habes x. hidas ad Danegeld et Wasto forestæ ii. hidas.
Et in Ederesfeld vi hid[æ]. Et in happeworda i. hid[a]. Et in Biselega i. hid[a]. Et in Burlega i. hyda.
Fragment of a Survey subsequent to 1130 and perhaps circa 1150
(Cott. MS. Vesp., B. xxiv. fo. 8.)
... manerio de hambyry. Estona Ric' dimidiam hidam. In hundredo de Camele. In Waresleia v. hidæ de manerio de hertlebery. Summa quater xx. et xiii. hidæ.
In hundredo de persora habet ecclesia de Westmustier has terras quas tenet Willelmus de bello campo. Hekintona iii. hidæ et iii. virgatæ. Chaddesleia ii. hidæ. Langeduna Osmundi i. hida et dimidia. Colleduma iii. hidæ et iii. virgatæ. Graftona Ebrandi i. hida et iii. virgatæ. Flavel et pidelet v. hidæ. Newentona x. hidæ. Broctona Inardi iii. hidæ. Pidelet radulfi iii. hidæ. Berford v. hidæ. Branefford i. hida. Wicha Inardi iii. hidæ. Burlingeham ii. hidæ et i. virgata. Cumbrintona ii. hidæ. Poiwica Willelmi de bello campo i. hida. Newebolt i. hida. Medeleffeld i. hida de poiwica. Ad bergam i. hida. Olendene i. hida. Arleia i. virgata. Poiwica Inardi i. hida. Summa lx. hidæ et dimidia.
In predicto hundredo de persora feudum Abbatis persore. Belega xxi. hidæ. Branefford i. hida. Wadberga iii. hidæ et dimidia. Cumbrintona i. hida et dimidia. Lega Ricardi dimidia hida. Walecote et torendune i. hida et dimidia.
In hundredo de Leisse tenet idem Willelmus Chirchlench iiii. hidas de abbatia de Evesham. Croulega v. hidas de feudo Osberti filii hugonis.
In hundredo de Clent. Belua viii. hidæ de feudo folwi paganelli. Salawarpa v. hidæ de feudo Rogeri Comitis. Item Salawarpa i. hida de feudo episcopi Cestrie. Chaluestona i. hida de feudo Roberti filii Archembaldi. Apud Wich dimidiam hidam Gunfrei. Item apud Wich i. hidam de terra Sancti Guthlaci quam Rodbertus filius Willelmi tenet. Item ibidem dimidiam hidam de Cormell' quam Gilebertus tenet. Cokehulla ii. hidæ et dimidiam de feudo regis. Hactona iii. hidæ de feudo episcopi baiocensis. Escreueleia i. hida. Summa tocius cclxiiii. hidæ et dimidia et dimidia virgata.
Terra rogeri de toeney. Esla iii. hidæ. Bertona iii. hidæ et iii. virgatæ. Alcrintona ii. hidæ. Linda ii. hidæ et ad halac i. hida. Mora hugonis i. hida et dimidia. Werueslega ii. hidæ et dimidia. Alboldeslega ii. hidæ et dimidia. Rudmerlega i. hida et dimidia. Estlega i. hida Geldans et una hida quieta. Sceldeslega i. hida. Almelega Ricardi de portes xi. hidæ.
In the former of these two fragments we recognize in John of Sudeley the younger son of Harold, son of Earl Ralf. It would be of interest if we might identify his tenant, Richard fitz Robert, with the younger son of his brother, Robert. The succession in the tenancy of the Crowland hide (St Guthlac's) needs explanation. In Domesday (176) Urse held Dunclent of Nigel the physician, who held both here and at Droitwich under Crowland Abbey. It must have been through him at Droitwich also that William fitz Richard became tenant, for Robert fitz William (who was clearly the latter's son) held here of Walter de Beauchamp in the second fragment.
It is in tracing William de Beauchamp's succession, as under-tenant to his grandfather Urse, that we find the chief interest of the second fragment. He has succeeded him, for instance, as tenant to the Abbeys of Westminster, Pershore, and Coventry (the fief of the last having now become that of 'the Bishop of Chester'). At Wadborough, however, it was Robert 'Dispensator' whom he had succeeded as tenant of Pershore. In one case we find him holding of Robert fitz Erchembald, whose Domesday predecessor we thus learn was William Goizenboded (177b). We may also note his tenure of Madresfield (now Lord Beauchamp's seat)—the earliest mention, I think, of the place—as a limb of Powick. Fulk Paynell, of whom William held at Beoley, had now succeeded to the Domesday fief of William fitz Ansculf, whose tenant 'Robert' may have been Robert 'Dispensator'. Osbern fitz Hugh had similarly succeeded to the Richard's Castle fief held, in Domesday, by his grandfather.
I append a partial comparison of Domesday with the Henry I survey so far as concerns Droitwich, where property, owing to its value, was divided among many owners.
DROITWICH
| Domesday | Temp. Henry I | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| H. | H. | ||||
| Willelmus filius Corbucion (Witone) | 2 | Petrus Corbezun (de Witton) | 2 | ||
| Church of St Denis | 1 | 'De feodo sancti Dionysii Ricardus corvus et Willelmus filius Oueclini' | 1 | ||
| De Sancto Guthlaco Nigellus Medicus | 1 | De Sancto Guthlaco Willelmus filius Ricardi | 1 | ||
| Heraldus filius Radulfi Comitis | 1 | De Johanne de Suthlega Ricardus filius Roberti | 1 | ||
| De Pagano filio Johannis Godwi | ½ | ||||
| Urso tenet Witune in Wich et Gunfrid de eo | ½ |  |  | De Waltero de Bello Campo Theobaldus et Petrus | ½ |
| Æcclesia sancti Petri de Glou. | ½ | De la Berton de Gloucestra Randulf filius Ringulfi | ½ | ||
| In Wich est dimidia hida quæ pertinet ad aulam de Glou. | ½ | De monachis Gloucestrie Baldwinus et Lithulfus | ½ | ||
| De Comite Warewice Randulfus et Essulfus filii Ringulf | ¾ | ||||
| De Waltero del Burc Randulf et Essulf | ½ | ||||
| Ibi duo presbyteri [de Westmonasterio] tenet i. hidam que nunquam geldavit | 1 | De Westmonasterio Theobaldus et Walterus fil' Thorald | 1 | ||
| Isdem [Radulfus] tenent in Wich i. hidam de x. hidis[geldantibus] | 1 | De Almelega fil' Aiulfi et mater ejus | 1 | ||
[1] See my paper 'An early reference to Domesday' (Domesday Studies, pp. 542-4).
[2] Domesday Studies, p. 513; Domesday Book (S.P.C.K.), p. 305.
[3] Introduction to Domesday, i. 19.
[4] Domesday Studies, p. 547.
[5] Domesday Book (S.P.C.K.), pp. 78, 305.
[6] There was a similar dispute about the same time in the case of Abingdon Abbey and its possessions in Berkshire (Abingdon Cart., ii. 1600).
[7] This, however, as I have elsewhere shown must remain a presumption, as it is possible that, owing to the youth of his heir, he may have been entered as nominal tenant for some time after his death (see p. [155]).
[8] MS. now destroyed here.
[9] 'Non geldat.'
[10] p. 116.
[11] Infra, pp. 149 et seq.
[12] We are enabled by this Survey, and by the division it records, to carry up the history of Elmley, the original seat of the Beauchamps, to Domesday itself. The great Manor of Cropthorne, by Evesham, was held by the Church of Worcester. In Bengeworth, one of its 'members', Urse d'Abetot, had seized an estate of five hides (Heming's Cartulary fo. 125b). His brother, Robert Despencer, had seized two other 'members', Charlton ('Ceorlatuna') and Elmley (Ibid.). In Domesday we are merely told that Robert held eleven hides in Cropthorne. But the present Survey fortunately mentions that the portion which fell to Marmion's share was seven hides in 'Charlton'. This leaves four hides for Elmley, which, added to the five hides of Urse d'Abetot in Bengeworth, makes exactly the nine hides here entered to Walter de Beauchamp. We thus learn how the Beauchamps became possessed of Elmley. And this calculation is confirmed by the entry in the Testa (p. 41): 'Willelmus de Bello Campo ... in Elmeleg in dominico iiij. hidas.'
[13] It is worth noting that we find, in Domesday, both a Robert and a Walter holding of Urse in Worcestershire.
[15] Harl. MS., 3,763, fo. 80.
[15a] Harl. MS., 3,763, fo. 80.
[16] Cott. MS. Vesp., B. xxiv. fo. 8.