\e
Cornell University Library
DA 190.D7T23

Anal

MT i
3 1924 027 903 461

olin
Bristol and Gloucestershire Archeological
Society.

 

 

AN ANALYSIS

OF THE

Domesday Survey

oucestershire

 

 

By CHARLES S. TAYLOR,
—

VICAR OF ST. THOMAS THE MARTYR, BRISTOL.

 

 

‘He surveyed the kingdom so thorougly that there was not a single hide
of land throughout the whole, of which he knew not the possessor, and how
much it was worth, and this he afterwards entered in his register.

A. 8. Chronicle, 1087.

1839.
BRISTOL: C. T. JEFFERIES & SONS.
qareface.

Wuar follows is not put forward as in any way a general Commentary on
Domesday, but chiefly as an application to the record for Gloucestershire of
the methods of interpretation used by the Rev. R. W. Eyton with regard to
Dorset in his ‘‘ Key to Domesday,” and to Somerset in his ‘‘ Domesday
Studies ;” with only so much of explanation as seemed to be necessary to
make the meaning of the record clear.

The time for a Commentary on the Survey has not yet come, for the
Science of Domesday has not yet passed beyond the stage of experiment ;
and knowledge of the subject will be best promoted by patient work on the
text of the record of each shire, by those who have learned to be prepared
for very wide differences of treatment in the various parts of England. Not
till this has been done for a sufficient number of shires in each of the Com-
missioners’ districts, will the materials have been collected for complete
knowledge of the methods employed in the compilation of the record, and
the signification of the terms used in it.

I must acknowledge a special obligation to Mr. Freeman’s ‘‘ History of
the Norman Conquest,” to Mr. Seebohim’s ‘‘ English Village Community,”
and to the book on ‘‘The Domesday of Wilts,” by the late Canon Jones,
of Bradford-on-Avon, Also to the Rev. G. Butterworth, for information con-
cerning the ancient Church at Deerhurst, and to the Rev. E. A. Fuller for
much valuable help with regard to the neighbourhood of Cirencester, and
for kind encouragement, without which this task would not have been
undertaken.

The text used has been that of the Photo- EEE Jac-simile
published by the Ordnance Survey.

Attention is needed to the ‘‘Corrigenda,” especially those relating to
pages 44 and 8}.

The work has occupied a large part of my leisure time for five years,
but it has been a labour thoroughly enjoyed ; for, with the exception of the
extreme north of the Shire, very few villages are mentioned which I have
not seen, and those are few indeed whose names are not connected in
memory with some pleasant incidents of intercourse with the children in
the village schools, who are the truest representatives of the Domesday
families of Gloucestershire, and with their Pastors and Teachers.

Cc. 8. T,

St, THomas THE Martyr, BrisTou,
November 11th, 1889.
CORRIGENDA.

 

Page 9, line 34) The Siward mentioned was not Earl Siward, but Siward
9) See p. 160. [Bar.

17, for ‘lands of Edgar,” read ‘‘ laws of Edgar.”

18, Lawrence Weston belonged to the Church of Worcester, and
lay in the Hundred of Bernintrev.
for Coates, see pp. 164, 165; for the Ampneys, pp. 170-172 ;
for the Brightwell’s Barrow manors, 159, 160; for the
Duntesbournes, Daglingworth, and Pinbury, 167-169.

26, Miserden should not have been included with Painswick.

12,
36,
42,

44,

64,
81,

18, We may perhaps more correctly apportion the 28503 tenants
teams of the record in the following fashion :—

16 Milites at 2 teams each=32 teams.
11 Francigene 1] ag De spy
15 Liberi Homines 2s ios OT a5
136 Radchenistri 12 35 925 ys
92 Coliberti oe $5 ST ny
3807 Villain 4 sf 1903 ,,
1896 Bordarii 4 wn 474,

 

2739

A deficiency of 111 teams : probably the number of oxen belonging to the
miscellaneous tenants, is under-estimated, certainly an allowance of six or
even five oxen to each villein would give a total which would be consider-
ably too large.
to each Gloucestershire villein, and it may very well be true that in this
shire the villeins ploughed with small four-oxen ploughs, which, however,
were reckoned in the Survey in terms of the normal eight-oxen plough.

Page 103, line 18.

125, line 6.
136, 33.
173, 12.
194, 13.
221,

M.

It would appear, therefore, that about four oxen pertained

The Church of ‘‘ Ampney, which belonged to Winebald de
Baalun,” would have been that of Ampney Crucis.
Berkeley was not granted to the Honour of Gloucester.
For Hugh of Belmont, read Roger of Belmont.

For Charyield, read Tortworth ; see p. 64.

Omit, ‘‘and the lands which were held as of the Manor
of Haresfield here.”

Add,—I cannot tind that the name Gloucestershire is used
by a contemporary writer before 1016, when it occurs in
an entry in the Chronicle—‘‘ Then, after this battle,
went King Cnut up with his army into Gloucestershire.”
«Ethelward, who wrote at the end of the tenth century,
seems to be unacquainted with the name, for in dealing
with Ethelmund’s attack on the Wiltshire men in $00, he
says he passed ‘‘ per quoddam predium quod Huiccum

nuncupatur,” as though the Hwiccian territory was still
known by its old name.

. Celflede Hundred. Hidcote Bartram. Insert value, £2

T.R.E. and T.R.W.

3 ” Weston-sub-Edge. Insert 18 Villeins,
1 Bordar, 12 Serfs,
a ad Bickmarsh, for 1 serf read 4 serfs,

Bradelege Hundred, Hazleton, Insert 6 serfs,
CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER—
Causes of the Survey -  -
Method of the Survey - «
Form of the Record . .
BounDARIES OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE -

AREA OF 33 :

TERRITORIAL Divisions oF DoMESDAY GLOUCESTERSHIRE—
The Hundreds - : -
The Manor - - - -

The Hide and its divisions —-
Carucata and Caruca - -

LIneAL AND AREAL MEASURES OF DoMESDAY

TuE TERRITORY SURVEYED IN DoMEsDAy

Terra or arable - « is
Silva or woodland - Z
Pratum or meadow - - :

Pastura or pasture - :
Vinea or vineyard - -
METHOD oF CULTIVATION : .
CuassEs OF THE PopULATION—
Milites  - - : - -
Francigenz and Liberi homines
Radchenistri - - -
Coliberti and Homines - -
Figuli- - - - -
Fabri, Villani and Bordarii -
Servi and Ancille - - -
AFRI, beasts of burden - - -
THE TENANTS AND THEIR LAND-SERVICES
Socrau REstLts OF THE ConquEsT- = -
THE CuuURCH—

Religious houses - : 7
Manorial or Parish Churches -
MILLS . : - : - :
FISHERIES - - - : - :

SALT

93
100
106
108
ill
Monry .- 5 i z . 7 : : :
Kine’s Lanp~- = : : 2 - 2 e
Otp Estates of THE CROWN” - - : - é
Tue Borovucus - = Re Ne : =
Gloucester - 4 = * 3 3 2
Winchcombe - = : : : 5
Tewkesbury and Bristol - - - -
THE Mint - = 7 . > e % 2
DeraILeD Account or THE HUNDREDS AND Manors
TaBLES RELATING TO THE HUNDREDS AND Manors -
SUMMARIES OF THESE TABLES DAs TEus, * < -
INDEX OF Places -. - . gs ee. .
InvEx or Persons -. - - -. te
CORRIGENDA - - oe - - lof - =

114
118
121
125
126
130
131
133
135-231
232-327
328-339
340
344
34 9
AN ANALYSIS OF THE DOMESDAY SURVEY OF
GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

By CHARLES 8, TAYLOR, Vicar of St. Thomas the Martyr, Bristol.

 

INTRODUCTORY CHAPTER.

 

OAUSES OF TIIE SURVEY.

GLovcusteR was the birthplace of the Domesday Survey. We
are told that at Christmas, 1085, King William wore his crown
in that city, and held deep counsel with his Witan. And, indeed,
there was need of deep and wise counsel at that time, for the
country seems to have fallen into an utterly wretched condition ;
the later years of King Edward’s reign had been a time of feeble
government with all its attendant miseries, and the reign of King
William had been a period of war, and of oppression and plunder,
which were none the less hard to bear because they were frequently
veiled under the form of law.

And in the previous year these evils had been intensified by
the fear of invasion. For Canute, King of Denmark, had sought
the aid of his father-in-law, the Earl of Flanders, and had fitted
out an expedition to conquer the country; it is true that the
dissensions which broke out in the attacking force caused the
failure of the attempt, but England suffered almost as much as it
would have done from an invasion, whether it were successful or
not ; for the Conqueror, who had been in Normandy when the
news of the projected invasion reached him, not only wasted the
sea-board of England, but also brought over with him such an
army as had never been seen before in this land, so that men
wondered how the country could ever support them. He Lilleted
his soldiers upon his subjects throughout the nation, and, to crown
all, he levied a gheld-tax of six shillings on every hide of land P

and as the average value of the hide in Gloucestershire was about
B
2 Domespay SuRVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

£1 2s. 6d., the impost was equal to a property tax of 5s. 4d. in
the pound, more than a quarter of a man’s annual income from his
land.

Now the incidence of this tax was in many ways oppressive in
practice and offensive in form. The King’s lands did not pay
gheld at all, though it is true that they paid regularly more than
the heaviest gheld impost would have laid upon them. Land in
the lord’s cultivation did not pay it either, though it was liable to
very heavy dues of service ; neither was gheld collected from un-
cultivated land; the tax fell entirely on the land which was
cultivated by the tenants, that is on the poor, and an impost of
six shillings a hide on poor man’s land was an unheard-of thing
in England. Moreover the bitterness engendered by the weight
of the impost was aggravated by the number of exemptions which
had been granted by successive Kings, especially to religious
houses ; of 935 Gloucestershire Hides held by religious houses,
no fewer than 99 were altogether exempt from payment, while
of the 1013, which were held by laymen other than the King,
only 17 went scot free. Exemption from gheld was a cost-
less gift to the King, and was very valuable to a subject, and it
seems to have been somewhat freely granted, at any rate to
Religious Houses.

But of course every exemption added something, however little,
to the burden on the rest of the land; something in a pecuniary
sense, more from a feeling of the injustice of the system. More-
over as the tax was not paid on uncultivated land, there was a
temptation if land once fell out of cultivation, not to spend money
which was so hard to obtain and so difficult to keep, in restocking
land, which, after much toil and anxiety, might do little more
than pay the King’s taxes. Copies of the gheld rolls of the tax
of 1084, for the South Western Counties, are still in existence,
and testify at once to the completeness of the collection, and the
rigour of the impost.

Bearing all this in mind we can realise the pathos of the entry
in the Chronicle relating to 1087, when the burden of oppression
was intensified by the misery of pestilence and famine,
CAUSES OF THE Sunyry. 3

“Oh! how disastrous, how rueful were those times, when the
wretched people were brought to the point of death by the fever,
then the cruel famine came on and finished them! Who would
not deplore such times, or who is so hard hearted that he will not
weep for somuch misery? But such things are on accountof the sins
of the people, and because they will not love God and righteousness.
Even so it was in those days; there was little righteousness in
this land amongst any, excepting the monks alone, who fared well.
The King and the chief men loved much, and overmuch, to amass
gold and silver, and cared not how sinfully it was gotten, so that
it came into their hands. The King sold out his lands as dearest
he might, and then some other man came and bid more than the
first had given, and the King granted them to him who offered
the larger sum ; then came a third and bid yet more, and the King
made over the lands to him who offered most of all; and he cared
not how iniquitously his sheriffs extorted money from the miser-
able people, nor how many unlawful things they did. And the
more men spake of rightful laws the more lawlessly did they act.
' They raised oppressive taxes, and so many were their unjust deeds
it were hard to number them.”

No doubt the Conqueror was a sufficiently good statesman to
comprehend the meaning of the truth which is now summed up in
the statement that the keystone of good government is sound
finance, and must have felt that a tax which was unequal in its
incidence, and oppressive in the manner of its collection, must be
an unsuitable piece of machinery with which to carry on the King’s
Government.

And though probably he did not see his way clear to replacing
it by any better method at the moment, it may very well be that
he wished to lessen the evils of the system as far as possible, and
one of the most effective methods of accomplishing that end would
be to discover exactly how many hides there were in England, and to
examine rigorously into the grounds of the alleged exemptions.
And it would, of course, be all the better if he could at the same
time discover what were really the actual resources of the kingdom
in men and money. What was really wanted was a census of the

population, a return of income, and the sources from which it was
B 2
4 Domespay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

derived, and a rate book on which a more just and complete
system of taxation could’be based.

But before we consider how the Conqueror strove to meet the
want which he felt must be supplied, it will be well to consider,
very shortly, the condition of Gloucestershire at the date of Domes-
day. In many ways, no doubt, it was better off than a large part
of England, the desolating tide of war had not swept over it, and
very little cultivated land had been added to the King’s forest.
The county seems to have submitted to the Conqueror with little
or no resistance. The sons of Harold had indeed besieged Bristol
in 1067, but they had been unsuccessful, and passing to the south
of that city they had ravaged the coasts of Somerset. The army
of Roger Fitzosbern had passed in 1075 from Herefordshire into
Worcestershire, to court defeat at the hands of the Bishop, but
Gloucestershire remained untouched and uninjured till after the
date of Domesday, when, in the Norman rising against Rufus,
Bristol Castle, under the Bishop of Coutances, became one of the
chief centres of rebellion, and the south of the county was
plundered without mercy. No doubt also the fact that so large
a proportion of the land in the county, especially in the northern
and central portions, belonged to the Church, tended to secure
prosperity, for their estates had not changed hands, and had indeed
increased very considerably in value under the Conqueror’s rule.

But there must have been much deep and wide-spread misery
both in hill and vale. All the properties in lay hands, with
insignificant exceptions, had changed owners since the conquest ;
in most cases the places which had known the ancient landowners,
knew them no more ; in a few instances a small proprietor retains
his holding, in a few more he keeps a miserable remnant of what
had once been his; but as it had been with the magnificent
domain of Brictric, son of Algar, so it was with the estates of
almost all the ancient gentry, their owners had passed away, and
the sons of the alien dwelt in their room. And yet the misery
among the poor must have been at least as severe as it was among
the wealthier classes ; the fact that the value of laymen’s property
had diminished from £1,286 to £1,040 during King William’s
Causes oF THE SURVEY, 5

reign, speaks more clearly than many words could do of the
depreciation of property, and consequent unsettlement and un-
happiness that must have been felt. None can know now, how
deep and bitter must have been the misery of the wretched
villeins and bordars and serfs, who were attached to the estates
of such landlords as William Goizenboded, or William FitzBaderon,
or Walter Balistarius, whose lands were barely worth half what
they were in King Edward’s time; we can only dimly guess at
the details of their pitiable state of starving and hopeless servitude.

No doubt all this was carefully considered at that Christmas-
tide gathering at Gloucester exactly eight centuries ago; there
were giants in the art of government in this land in those days,
and it is difficult to know which we ought to admire most in the
scheme which they devised, whether the grandeur of its conception,
or the magnificent powers of organization which were displayed
in its fulfilment; for the idea of the survey was an entirely
original one, there had been nothing like it before, at least in any
land of which the Conqueror’s counsellors could have heard.
Englishmen need not be ashamed that their forefathers were con-
quered by men who could devise and carry through in less than

six months the work whose results are collected into a focus in
Domesday Book.

They would collect and digest into an easily accessible form a
census, not only of the number of males in the country, but of
the males of each class of the community ; and not only would
they have the number of men, but of the very cattle, and sheep,
and swine that drew nourishment from the soil of England, and
ministered to its wealth. They would learn not only the actual
income of each estate, but what it had been worth before the
troubles of the Conqueror’s reign began, and the rate at which it
was hidated, or rated to the King’s tax for the defence of the
realm. So also with the soil of the country they would learn the
extent of the profitable land, whether arable or meadow, or wood;
what mills there were, and how much they were worth; and what
unusual sources of wealth there might be pertaining to each
Manor, or Hundred, or County,
6 Domrspay Survey or GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

Thus the King would know what he really possessed in men
and money, and how much he might with confidence count upon
in a national emergency ; and moreover each subject of the King
might be assured that he would be no longer overcharged or
treated unjustly in the payment of his gheld. And this assurance
would ultimately tend to the advantage of the King, for a people
living in the assurance that they would not be unfairly treated
would be far more profitable to the exchequer than one in which
men lived in a constant dread that they would be plundered.

With the Conqueror and his companions to will was to accom-
plish ; in six months certainly, some have even thought in three
months, and those winter months, the returns were complete
through almost the whole length and breadth of the land, the
multitudinous mass of information had been collected, digested,
and codified. From Land’s End to the Tees, and from the North
Sea to beyond Offa’s Dyke, the King could see at once with
regard to every estate, great or small,—to whom it belonged, by
what tenure it was held, what it was worth, and what aid he
ought to receive from it in men and money. He could then do
what Queen Victoria cannot do now.

It is interesting to compare the time that was occupied in
collecting the Domesday information with that occupied in pre-
paring the return of owners, acreage, and rental issued ten years
ago. This return was made in consequence of a discussion in the
House of Lords on February 19th, 1872; instructions were sent
to the Clerks of the various Boards of Guardians in September of
that year, but upwards of two years elapsed before the last return
was received, and the preface to the completed work is dated July
22nd, 1875. Yet this return contains only a small part of the
information that is collected in Domesday ; to a suggestion that the
nature of the land, whether arable or wood, or pasture, should
be stated, Lord Halifax replied on the part of the government
that an attempt to do this would lead to inextricable confusion.
The Queen’s ministers, with all the resources of nineteenth century
civilization at their command, occupied over their lesser work
seven times as long as did the ministers of the Conqueror.
Meruop or THE Survey. 7

METHOD OF THE SURVEY.

The method adopted to obtain the required information was
this,—that the King should send small companies of his leading
statesmen into the various parts of the country, who should obtain
the facts on oath from the officials of every County and Hundred,
and representatives of the inhabitants of every Manor in the king-
dom. Mr. Eyton thought that the country was divided into
perhaps nine districts for the purpose ; he states that William of
St. Carileph, Bishop of Durham, was at the head of the Com-
missioners for the south-western district, and that there is some
reason for thinking that Wulfstan, Bishop of Worcester, presided
over the Cheshire commission ; but the district which included
our own county is the only one the names of whose Commiss-

ioners are exactly known.

They were Remigius, Bishop of Lincoln, Walter Giffard, Henry
de Ferrieres, and Adam fitz Hubert ; and the fact that only one
of them owned land in the county seems to shew that the Com-
missioners were appointed to districts in which they were not
personally interested.

Remigius had been Almoner of the great Abbey of Fecamp, a
house which enjoyed the special protection of the Dukes of
Normandy ; he had contributed one ship and twenty Knights to
the Conqueror’s expedition, and had been present at Senlac,
where, however, he rendered assistance rather by spiritual than
by material means. On the death of Wulfwig, Bishop of the
Oxfordshire Dorchester in 1067, he was appointed to rule over a
diocese, the greater part of whose area had not yet been brought
under Norman rule, and he was thus the first of that series of
foreign-born prelates who for a long time excluded Englishmen
from the sees of their native land.

He scems to have been a man of singular energy, for we are
told that he began great works at Dorchester, which, however,
can hardly have been completed when in 1085 he removed his see
to the Church of St. Mary at Lincoln ; feeling that such a small
and remote place as Dorchester was not so fitting a seat for the
8 Domespay Survey oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

Bishop of that great diocese as the flourishing city of Lincoln.
There he built another cathedral, to whose magnificence the three
great Norman arches in the west front still bear witness; nearly
all the prelates of the realm had assembled to be present at the
consecration which was fixed for May 9th, 1092, when the death
of Remigius himself two days previously compelled a postpone-
ment of the service. His enemies said that this misfortune fell
upon him in consequence of an agreement that the Conqueror
should give him the first English see that fell vacant, in return
for the aid which he rendered to the invading force.

It is remarkable that the Domesday work of Remigius and
William of 8. Carileph, the founders of our two noblest minsters,
met at the Bristol Avon; and perhaps Domesday Book is a
grander monument of human skill, and will prove to be a more
lasting one even than the noble arches which overhang the vale
of the Trent, or that mighty choir which looks down upon the
Wear.

It is a striking testimony to the power of Remigius that even
the record of his personal appearance has been preserved to us.
His small stature, and dark southern complexion, for he is said to
have been of Italian origin, formed a remarkable contrast in the
eyes of the English to the vigour of his mind, and the grandeur
of the works he was able to accomplish ; so that men said, “one
might have thought that nature herself had created him for the
purpose of shewing how the very highest talents might find a
home in a most wretched body.” Such was the leader of the com-
mission for the Survey of our county, and his three companions
were hardly less distinguished than himself.

Walter Giffard, Lord of Longueville, according to Mr. Planché,
(who, however, does not give his authority) had taken part in an
invasion of England as a companion of the Atheling Alfred as far
back as 1036 ; however this may be, he certainly assisted Duke
William at the attack on the Castle of Arques in 1053, and he
was one of the Norman leaders who defeated the French at
Mortemer in 1054. Between this year and the date of the
Conquest he seems to have visited Spain. He was one of the
METHOD OF THE SURVEY. 9

select council to whom the Duke first confided his plan of invasion,
and he contributed thirty ships with one hundred Knights to the
attacking force. When the great day of Senlac came it was he
who brought to the Duke the war-horse on which he rode into
battle, a gift from King Alfonso of Spain, which bore him into
the very presence of the King of England, and there met its
death from the spear of Gyrth, the King’s brother.

When Ralph of Toesny, to whom it belonged of hereditary
right to bear the Duke’s banner into battle, declined the honour
on the ground that he would not encumber his hands with any-
thing that would hinder him from smiting the enemies of his lord,
it was to Walter Giffard that the Conqueror turned. But he too
excused himself saying that he was old, and grey-headed, and short
of breath, that he would gladly render what service he could at
the head of his fighting men, but that he was unequal to the
unremitting labour of bearing the banner into the thick of the
battle throughout the day. Right manfully no doubt the veteran
bore himself that day, we hear that he was struck down, but we
may judge that he was not seriously injured, for when the Con-
queror declared his intention of resting for the night where the
slaughter had been fiercest round the English standard, it was
Walter Giffard who warned him against the danger of so doing.
Though the plea of his feebleness and grey hairs had been allowed
on the field of Senlac, the stout old soldier saw the Conqueror
and two of his sons on the throne of England, for he did not die
till 1102.

Henry of Ferrers fought at Senlac, and was among the first
to reap the spoils of victory, for to him were granted the lands of
Godric, Sheriff of Berkshire, a county that specially distinguished
itself by loyalty to Harold’s cause. He also obtained an enormous
amount of property in the midland counties, holding 35 manors
in Leicestershire, and no fewer than 114 in Derbyshire. In
Gloucestcrshire he held Lechlade, which had belonged to Earl
Siward, who died in 1055, but the Survey is silent as to any
subsequent ownership. He also claimed a part of Alliston, in
Lydney, but prima facie the evidence recorded is against him
10 Domespay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

there, and he seems to have been open to the charge of making
doubtful and unfounded claims. The date of his death is unknown,
but in 1081 he and his wife Berta founded a priory at Tutbury,
in honour of St. Mary, for Cluniac monks, as a cell of St. Pierre
sur Dives. Its revenues at the Reformation amounted to £199,
and its Norman nave is still standing.

While King William had been hunting at Valognes in 1047
he was roused at midnight by his court jester with the announce-
ment that if he did not at once rise and flee for his life he would
never leave that place a living man. He did not delay, but rode
off half clad, and fording the river Vire reached the Church and
Castle of Rye just at sunrise; there Hubert, the owner of the
place, recognised him, and when he enquired the cause of his
lord’s sorry plight, William, after ascertaining his fidelity, told
him all. Hubert gave him a fresh horse, and sent three of his
sons to guide him to Falaise, while he waited on his drawbridge
till the pursuers came up; and then on pretence of leading them
after their Duke, he took them by a circuitous route so as to give
the fugitive time to reach his native town. Hubert had four sons,
of whom Adam was one of the three elder, and so probably one
of those who saved the Conqueror’s life.

Father and sons are found in England soon after the battle
of Senlac, but it is not known whether they fought there. Of
the sons it is said that Ralph was made a Castellan of Nottingham,
Hubert, Governor of the Castle at Norwich, while to Adam, the
Domesday Commissioner, the King gave great possessions in Kent,
and Eudo was appointed Dapifer, or Steward of the Royal House-
hold, in the place of William Fitzosbern.

These four Commissioners made their circuit, holding their
court in various places of importance within their district, but
there is nothing in the Survey to shew what centres were actually
selected, though the grouping of the hundreds in the lists of pro-
perties under the names of the various owners might suggest that
Winchcombe, Cirencester, and Gloucester, were such centres, with
another such as Bristol for the gout h of the county, and perhaps
one west of the Severn. There they received evidence from repre-
sentatives of the neighbourhood, such information being tendered
Meruop or THE SURVEY. 11

‘on the oath of the Sheriff of the Shire, and all the Barons and
freemen, and of the whole Hundred, the Priests, the Bailiffs, and
six villeins of each Vill.”

The evidence seems to have been given by word of mouth, at
least so we should gather from some curious mis-spellings of the
names of places, the names of persons being more familiar to the
foreign scribes fared better.

A few names are actually Normanised in form, thus the Leigh
and Leadon (Upleadon and High Leadon) appear as Lalege and
Ledene, the latter form proving a stumbling block even in recent
times. Caneberton and Madmintune for Kemerton and Badminton
testify to a confusion between B and M, while Udecestre for Wood-
chester shews that a wood on the Cotswolds was an ’ood eight
centuries ago, aud the variation Ederedstane for Hederedstane
marks a difficulty with the aspirate even in the presence of the
Domesday Commissioners. The foreign scribes found a difficulty
with words that began with a vowel, thus Adlestrop, Yanworth,
and Harridge, appear on the page of Domesday as Tedestrop,
Teneurde, and Tereige, though we have no such grotesque form as
the Somerset Tumbeli for Ubley. Other variations arising from
oral communications were Clifort for Clifford, Tantesborne for
Dantesborne, and Willecote for Hilcot. Of course, however, much
of the information given, such as the names of the owners, and
the values of the estates, in King Edward’s time, must have been
derived in the first place from written records.

The subjects of enquiries are stated to be, ‘What is the
Estate named? Who held it in the time of King Edward? Who
holds it now? How many hides are there? How many teams in
demesne? How many belonging to the tenants? How many
villani are there? How many cotarii? How many servi? How
many freemen? How many sochmanni? How much meadow?
How much pasture? What mills are there? What fisheries 1 How
much has been added or taken away? How much was it worth
altogether, and how much now? How much each freeman or
sochman has or had there? And all this in a threefold form, that
is to say, in the time of King Edward, and when King William
12 DomEspay ScRVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

gave it; and what it is now; and if a higher value can be obtained
than is obtained ?”

A few points in these very exhaustive enquiries need to be
noticed. The standard date ‘‘in the time of King Edward,” is
generally the day of his death, January 5th, 1066, to use the
striking expression of the Survey,—“ ea dies qua Rex Edwardus
fuit vivus et mortuus ;” but the expression itself is a very wide
one, and it would not be safe to press it too closely to a definite
day in all cases; for example, we have already seen that Siward,
who died in 1055, is mentioned as the owner of Lechlade in King
Edward’s time, the owner, or owners, during the last eleven years
of the reign being passed over.

The form of enquiry given above was that appointed for the
lands of the Abbey of Ely in the Danish district; the tenants
who are there called “cotarii,” are called “bordarii” in the
Gloucestershire Survey, freemen were rare in our county, and the
class of freemen known as Sochmanni were peculiar to the Danish
districts. The agricultural population in central and southern
England was mainly divided into the three great groups of villeins,
bordars, and serfs, and it would almost seem that the last two titles,
freemen and sochmen, were added to the articles of enquiry to
suit the special needs of an eastern district.

“When King William gave it.” This item of value is very
rarely stated exactly, though it may be arrived at fairly well by
comparing the Domesday condition of a property with its con-
dition in the time of King Edward. By the time ‘“ when King
William gave it” may perhaps be intended in the first instance
the general redemption of lands by all owners, except the eccle-
siastical corporations, which took place early in the Conqueror’s
reign ; or it may mean the time when the properties passed into
the hands of their Domesday owners, under the King’s authority,
and this, of course, would be at many different periods. For
example, the Church of Deerhurst was granted to the Abbey of
8. Denys by Royal charter in 1069; Minchinhampton was granted
by the King and Queen to the Church of the Holy Trinity at
Caen in 1082; and Emmeline, widow of Walter de Laci, gave
METHOD OF THE SURVEY. 13

five hides of land in Duntesbourne Abbots to Gloucester Abbey.
with the leave of the King, for the soul of her husband who died
March 27th, 1084. But from a Domesday point of view the
matter is of little importance because the Survey rarely mentions
the value of a property when it came into the possession of the
Domesday owner.

We do, however, find that the Commissioners sometimes asked
for the King’s writ as evidence of ownership. Thus Henry de
Ferieres produced the King’s charter of exemption from gheld for
six hides of his Manor of Lechlade; and ina case where Earl
William Fitzosbern had given land to Ansfrid of Cormeilles, and
land and tithes to his Abbey of Cormeilles, from the Manors of
Beckford and Ashton-under-Hill, “the men of the County being
questioned said that they had never seena King’s writ which said
that this land had been given to Earl William.”

Form oF THE RECORD.

With regard to the form in which the record of the Survey is
preserved, Domesday Book is in two volumes ; the first, in which
the report on Gloucestershire is contained, is a thick folio, written
on 382 double pages of vellum, in a small but plain character,
which has been thought to be of an Italian type ; each page has a
double column containing about sixty lines of writing, and each
column is about one foot long and four inches across. The names
of owners are in red ink, and the names of places have a red line
run through them ; the language is Latin, abounding in contrac-
tions, which, however, are of a very simple character.

The account of Gloucestershire covers seventeen sides, and one
column of the eighteenth. First comes an account of the city of
Gloucester, and of the region between the Wye and the Usk;
then a short account of the borough of Winchcombe, and an index
to seventy-seven owners in capite, with a single heading for the
King’s tenants.

In the list of owners the King comes first, but his lands are
not divided as in some other counties, into ¢erra regis, that of the
queen, of the earl, and escheats, but all are ranged together, and
14 DomeEspAY SuRVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

to some extent are intermingled. Then come the great ecclesias-
tical owners, bishops first, then abbeys. Under the name of
Thomas, Archbishop of York, are ranged Oddington, Standish,
and Northleach, which Eldred, who had been Abbot of Gloucester
and Bishop of Worcester, retained when he became Archbishop
of York in 1060, in consideration of the great expense to which
he had been put in rebuilding the Abbey; the Archbishop did
not restore these lands till 1095.

Furthermore Archbishop Thomas held in succession to Stigand
Archbishop of Canterbury, lands at Churchdown, Hucclecote,
Compton Abdale, Swindon, Widford now in Oxfordshire, and
North Cerney, which really pertained to the house of the Canons
of St. Oswald at Gloucester. This house had been founded by
Earl Ethelred in 909, and, perhaps, in consequence of the old
connection between the underkings of the Wiccii and the reigning
family of Northumbria, it was placed under the patronage of the
Archbishop of York, and exempted from the jurisdiction even of
the Archbishop of Canterbury. The result was disastrous, for
though the Abbey of 8. Peter recovered all its property at last,
the patrons of 8. Oswald’s used their position for the advantage
of their See, and the Canons of that house lost a portion of
their estates. It does not appear that the See of York possessed
any property in the county in its own right.

Osbern, Bishop of Exeter, a brother of William Fitzosbern,
Earl of Hereford, and Geoffrey, Bishop of Coutances, or St. Lo,
held the estates which stand under their names in their own right,
and not in virtue of their office.

Of the Abbeys, those which possessed their property before
the Conquest are placed first, and last of all the ecclesiastical
owners comes Reinbald, Dean of the College of Canons at Ciren-

cester.

The list of lay owners is headed by the three great earls :—
Hugh d’Avranches, Earl of Chester ; Roger de Montgomeri, Earl
of Shrewsbury ; and Robert, Earl of Moretain, half brother of the
Conqueror. Next comes Gilbert Maminoth, Bishop of Lisieux,
a skilful physician, who attended the Conqueror on his death-bed,
Form or THE RECORD, 15

and then follows the great body of owners, ranged according to
their names, first the Williams, then the Rogers, Ralphs, and
Roberts, and lastly the less common names, with one woman, the
relict of Geri, who is placed last but one, as the nuns of Caen
come at the end of the Religious Houses.

The list of the King’s thanes at the end contains the names of
some persons who held Jands under the King, which in most cases
had been theirs in King Edward’s time, or had been inherited.
Two women, Cuenild, a nun, and Edith, are found in the list.
The land which Elsi of Faringdon held was in dispute between the
King and the Abbey of Winchcombe.

There are some curious mistakes in the numbering of the
owners ; the numbers are correct as faras “xxiv. Terra Eccte de
Troarz,” and after the entry of the property of that house comes
“xxvii. Terra Rogerii Comitis. Comes Rogerius tei Hantone ”—
here the scribe found he had made a mistake, and the remainder
of the entry is continued in a smaller character in the rest of that
line, and at the foot of the page. He entered the property of the
other two Earls “xxviii, Terra Hugonis Comitis,” “xxix. Terra
Comitis Moriton ”: and then comes ‘‘xxv. Terra Eccte de Cireces-
tre,” “xxvi. Terra Renbaldi prbi.” Evidently he accidentally
omitted to make these two entries in their proper place, the error
was discovered before the whole of the first wrong line was written,
but instead of erasing the false entry, it was continued, and the
property of the Church of Cirencester and its Dean was entered
after that of the three Earls, instead of before it as it should have
been. The numbers were evidently entered after the record of
owners and property was complete, for the numbers of the church
property precede those of the laymen’s lands.

But the scribe who numbered the entries of owners made
another remarkable blunder ; he worked correctly to the foot of
the fifteenth page, Ixiiii Terra Hugonis Lasne, but at the
top of page sixteen comes Ixi. Terra Milonis Crispin, and the
false numbering continues through the next four entries so that
lxv. Terra Ansfridi de Cormeliis is followed by lxix. Terra Hunfridi
Camerarii, and finally Ixxvii. is repeated,

&
16 DomeEspay Survey or GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

In the index the Cirencester Church names precede those of
the Earls, and the numbers run consecutively, so that the owners
between Hugo Lasne and Hunfrid Camerarius are numbered as
they ought to be, and not as they actually are in the body of the
Survey.

We may learn from this that a mistake was soon corrected, for
no doubt the scribes were carefully supervised ; also that the
index was drawn up, and the numbering done after the record
was complete. With regard to the aykward manner in which the
mistake concerning the Cirencester lands was corrected, it would
seem that those who presided over the work of transcribing the
Survey, did not like erasures ; there is only one in all that relates
to this county, where in the lands of St. Peter of Westminster,
a correct entry that Abbot Baldwin held half a hide at Kemerton
is cancelled, and a little lower down in the lists the entry is
repeated, giving the name of the tenant in King Edward’s time.
In one case, Girard’s Manor of Kemerton, a number has been
altered, the number of Villeins’ teams being changed from iiii. to
y., the latter number being written over the former.

There are, however, several instances of additional information
being entered in the margin, and interlineations, mostly referring
to personal matters, are not infrequent.

We shall best understand the final form in which the results of
the Survey in our own county are entered if we consider the entry
of one manor as an example of the rest ; and the report on Roger
de Laci’s Manor of Edgeworth is a fairly typical one.

xxxix. Terra Rogerii de Laci. In Biselege Hund. Isd. Rog
tei Egesworde. Ibi i. hida & dim geld Eluuin’ tenuit. In diio
sunt. iiii. caf & iii. vilti & iii. bord cti ii. ca% =Ibi ii, bi hdes ct
ii, caf. Ibi xv. servi & molif de xxx det & ii. aé pti. Silva i. leuua
1g & dimid lat. Vat & valuit vi. lib.

The land of Roger de Laci. In Bisley Hundred,

The same Roger holds Edgeworth. The estate is geldable at a
hide and-a-half. Eluuin held it. In demesne are four teams; and
four villeins, and three bordars with two teams. There are two
freemen with two teams. There are fifteen serfs, and a mill of
ForM OF THE RECORD. lj

thirty pence, and two acres of meadow. Wood one league long
and half a league wide. It is and was worth six pounds.

It will be seen that the return is framed exactly on the model
of the questions asked in the case of the Abbey of Ely already
quoted, omitting to answer some questions that are usually left
unanswered ; thus it is not stated whether anything had been
added or taken away, or what it was worth when Roger received
it, or whether its value could be improved.

There is also a note under the name of Earl Hugh, that he
held half a hide at Troham worth ten shillings, which Roger de
Laci claimed as belonging to Edgeworth.

As will be presently shewn the amount of land recorded by the
Commissioners in Roger de Laci’s Manor, was 960 acres of arable
land, 720 acres of wood, and two acres of meadow, in all 1682
acres ; as the existing parish of Edgeworth only contains 1538
acres, we know that a portion of the Domesday Manor (probably
part of the woodland) lay outside the present parochial limits. It
is unusual for the area of a Domesday Manor to exceed that of
the existing parish, it generally falls considerably short of it. The
half hide held by Earl Hugh is no doubt now included in Bisley.
Edgeworth Mill is still in existence, indeed most of the existing
mill sites are mentioned in Domesday, and a few mills that have

ceased to exist.

If, now, we consider the account of the Survey given in the
Chronicle, we shall see that it mentions more information than is
given in the Gloucestershire returns, for the writer tell us that
the King ‘sent his men over all England, into every shire, and
caused them to ascertain how many hundred hides of land it con-
tained, and what lands the King possessed therein, what cattle
there were in the several counties, and how much revenue he
ought to receive yearly from each. He also caused them to write
down how much land belonged to his Archbishops, to his Bishops,
his Abbots, and his Earls, and, that I may be brief, what property
every inhabitant of all England possessed in land or in cattle, and
how much money this was worth. So very narrowly did he cause

the survey to be made, that there was not a single hide nor a
c
18 Domespay Survey oF GLOUCETERSHIRE.

rood of land, nor—it is shameful to relate what he thought no
shame to do—was there an ox, or a cow, or pig passed by, and
that was not set down in the accounts, and then all these writings
were brought to him.”

It will be noticed, however, that the survey of our county
says nothing about cattle, except possibly in an entry concerning
the Bishop of Worcester’s Manor of Clive, and in this it resembles
the rest of the Exchequer Domesday ; another copy of Domesday
Book, containing an independent record for the South Western
Counties, and called the Exon Domesday, because it was preserved
at Exeter Cathedral, does record the number of cattle on each
estate. So it has been thought that the Exon Domesday records
the fuller returns as they were first made, and that the returns of
cattle were omitted from the final record as entered in the
Exchequer Book, as being matters only of passing importance. Or
it may be that different forms of questions were used in different
districts.

Even in our own county we seem to be able to trace differences
of treatment in the various Hundreds ; thus the jurors of Baches-
tanes Hundred used a different measure of Woodland from that
usual in the county, and in several of the largest Hundreds of the
county there is no mention of wood at all, though it is impossible
that it could have been absent, and it seems to be regularly
recorded in the neighbouring districts ; there appears to be also a
similar difference of treatment with regard to the ancille or
female serfs, and to the Churches, they appear to be omitted or
recorded apart from any definite principle. The object of the
Survey was in the first instance financial, and perhaps some loose-
ness of return was permitted with regard to points that did not
bear directly on money values.

Itis interesting to compare the materials available for throwing
light on the condition of our own county at the date of Domesday
with those that illustrate the neighbouring county of Somerset.
In the latter county there exist a nearly perfect roll of the
payments of gheld in 1084, the Exchequer Domesday and the
Exon Domesday both perfect, with the appendices to the latter,
Form or THE REcorD. 19

viz.. a complete list of lands whose title was in dispute, two
schedules of the estates of Glastonbury Abbey, and finally a
syllabus of the lands of Robert Fitzgerald.

Against this wealth of sources of information we have only to
set the Exchequer Copy of Domesday, which, however, is more
helpful than the Somerset copy, inasmuch as in our county the
Hundred in which each manor lay is recorded, while in Somerset
this information is withheld, and has to be supplied from the other
documents. It is very fortunate that the Hundreds are given for
our county, for if they were not many manors could only be
identified by the merest conjecture.

The Commentator on the Gloucestershire Domesday must
perforce, therefore, be a man of one book, which is within the area
which it covers its own interpreter, and from which there is no
appeal ; he may illustrate its statements by reference to Abbey
Chartularies and similar documents, and he may obtain help in the
identification of properties by tracing their subsequent descent,
but all such sources of information must be subordinated duly to
the authority of the Great Inquest ; they are servants, and cannot
be allowed to correct, much less to contradict, the master work.

I believe the text of the County Domesday to be almost fault-

__ less. It is, perhaps, more likely than not that Humfrey the

Cook’s Manor of Lecheton in Salemanesburie Hundred, refers to a
part of Lechampton in Cheltenham Hundred, and that a mistake
was made in giving the name of the Hundred; and after Roger
de Laci’s Manor of Egesworde in Bislege Hundred, two Manors
Modiete and Tedeham follow immediately without any new Hun-
dred being mentioned, these are obviously Madget and Tidenham
on the Wye, and the name of their Hundred Tviferde has been
omitted. As Domesday Book was a work of man, there are also
no doubt other mistakes and omissions, but to acknowledge this
is not to acknowledge that the man is living who can point them out
and correct them; emendations of the text of Domesday, and
alterations of its statements are, I believe, unjustifiable except in
the rarest instances.

c 2
20 DomEspay SURVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

It will have been seen from the entry concerning Edgeworth
that Domesday Book is the driest possible reading, but there are
not wanting flashes of life and human feeling to enliven even that
hard record of hides and acres and pounds, The Commissioners,
‘in two instances, shew their hostility to the memory of the family
of Godwin ; we are told of Hersefel, Athelai, Sanher, Hersecome,
and Brostorp, ‘‘ has v. terras abstulit Comes Heraldus post mortem
Regis E.” The sting is in the word ‘“ Abstulit,” he stole away ;
we cannot help thinking that in the case of one who was not of the
the family of Godwin, a softer expression might have been
used. It is worth while to notice also how the Commissioners
dealt with those inconvenient ten months which elapsed between
the death of the Confessor and that of Harold; we see that they
ignored the Kingship of the latter altogether, and treated his
dealings with a royal estate as unlawful. Again, of Woodchester :
we are told that Earl Godwin bought it from Azor, and gave it
to his wife that she might be maintained by it while she lived at
Berkeley, for she was unwilling to eat anything from that Manor
on account of the destruction of the Abbey. Here there is clearly
a revival of, and an attempt to leave on record, the ugly story of
the way in which Godwin was said to have procured the destruc-
tion of the ancient house of Nuns at Berkeley, by first setting a
handsome nephew to seduce them, and then complaining of their
misconduct to the King, who thereupon granted their property to
the Earl. The story is regarded as a doubtful one, but the entry
goes far to confirm its truth, for the Commissioners could hardly
have referred in so pointed a way to an occurrence which never
happened.

Quite an interesting little piece of family history is recorded
in connection with Lower Guiting to shew how it passed from the
Sheriff, Alwin, who held it in King Edward’s time, to William
Goizenboded, its Domesday owner. We are told that “ King
Edward held it and committed it (accomodavit) to Alwin the
Sheriff that he might have it in his lifetime. Yet as the county
testifies he did not bestow it by gift. But when Alwin was dead
King William gave his wife and land to a certain young man
Form or THe Recorp. 91

named Richard, Neither does William the successor of Richard
so hold this land.” The intention, I suppose, being to shew that
all interest in the land had not passed from the King. William
Goizenboded seems to have been the son of Richard, very probably
by the widow of Alwin. Ansfrid of Cormeilles had married a
niece of Walter de Laci, and so it is duly mentioned that lands
which Ansfrid held at Winstone, Duntesbourne, Pauntley, Ketford
and other places near Newent, were portions of his wife’s dowry ;
this recognition of the way in which the property came into his
possession must have strengthened his title very much.

We are told how King Ethelred granted that the hide of land
which belonged to the Church of St. Edward at Stow should be
free from payment of gheld, no doubt as an act of reparation for
the foul murder of his half-brother Edward the Martyr, in whose
place he sat as King; and how Earl Roger gave the Manor of
Newent to his father’s Abbey of Cormeilles for the good of his
father’s soul; and how Emmeline, widow of Walter de Laci,
bestowed five hides of land at Duntesborne Abbots on the Abbey
of Gloucester for the good of her husband’s soul. Perhaps we may
trace even in the dry monotony of Domesday a mark of respect by
the compilers in these two entries, for the memory of their com-
panions in conquest who had gone before them, as we may also
trace a tinge of irony in the entry of the assertion of Roger of
Berkeley, himself provost, that Earl William Fitzosbern had
committed (commendavit) the estates of two brothers at Cromhall
to the Provost of Berkeley that he might have their service, “sic
dicit Rogerius ”—‘ so Roger says.”

The Commissioners were careful also about small things, so we
hear of the five potters who made their wares at Haresfield, of the
widows of four vitleins who had lately died, who owned one team
between them on the land of the Church of Evesham at Hidcote
Boyce, of the twelve serfs whom William Leuric had set free at
Hayles, and of the poor tenants pertaining to the Manor of Old
Sodbury who had paid twenty-five measures of salt to Brictric son
of Algar, but whom Urso d’Abitot, (called in this entry with
singular fitness Ursus) Sheriff of Worcestershire, had so wasted
that they could no longer pay salt,
22 DomEspay ScurvEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

The Commissioners were no respecters of persons; it is distinctly
said of the great Earl Hugh that he held a hide of land unjustly
at Standish, and of William fitz Baderon that he held land at
Newent “per vim” or illegally. In a case where Henry de
Ferrers, himself a Commissioner for the county, claimed Jand at
Alliston, in Lydney, which was held by William de Ow, because
Bondi had held it, the survey notes,—‘‘ Ralph de Limesi held it
as antecessor of William;” a note which went against Henry’s
claim because William de Ow was connected, through his mother,
with the house of Limesi.

The verdict of the jurors was final, “sic dicunt homines de
comitatu,” “ut scira dicit,” such statements formed an authority
from which there was no appeal ; the Norman Commissioners might
despise the English peasantry, of whose local knowledge they were
compelled to avail themselves, and the Englishmen might hate
their conquerors, but both alike were servants of the King, whose
will none could withstand, and in that work they stood on the
same footing.

Nothing is more striking than the colourless impartiality of
the survey ; no doubt it was unpopular, income tax assessors,
however just they may be, are not the most popular of mankind
now; and Englishmen did not like foreigners prying into the
amount and extent of the services that were due from them to
their masters. But the method pursued was the fairest possible,
everything was done in open court, the English taxed themselves,
each man would take care that his own dues were not overstated,
and his own neighbours would see that he did not underrate them,
and thus substantial justice was no doubt done all round. So far
from being intended as an instrument of extortion, the great survey
bears marks on every page of being absolutely fair, of being in
fact what the Conqueror had proposed that it should be, a full,
exact, and complete statement of the landed wealth of himself and
his subjects, and an exhaustive statement of the dues and services
whether in money or kind, that were owed to him by the soil, or
by those who drew their maintenance from it.
BounpDaRies OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE. 23

BOUNDARIES OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

Tue Boundaries of Domesday Gloucestershire seem to have been
almost exactly the same with those of the county at the beginning
of the present century, except in the neighbourhood of the Forest
of Dean.

The Shire, however, at that time included the 582 Gloucester.
shire acres, which were separated in 1375 to form a part of the
County of Bristol. Bath, which had been Mercian, probably from
the time when Cynegils and Cuichelm had fought against Penda
at Cirencester in 628, and had made a treaty; and which was
certainly Mercian in 676, when Osric founded a house of Nuns
there, andin 864 when Burhred, the last Mercian King, held a
Witenagemot there, had been restored to the West Saxon County of
Somerset before the Conquest, and with it no doubt had gone the
district north of the Avon, now reckoned in Somerset, for the
county boundary to-day seems to be just what it was eight
centuries ago.

The case of Minety, near Cirencester, next needs to be con-
sidered, and it is a very remarkable one. An old map will shew
the parish, which contains about 3,700 acres, as a Gloucestershire
island surrounded by Wiltshire territory, and in the middle of this
island there was a small district containing the church and vicarage,
and a few houses, which was still reckoned to be in the Hundred
of Malmesbury, in the County of Wilts; the whole is now in
Wiltshire.

The Chartulary of Malmesbury Abbey states that King
Ethelwulf in 880 gave “aliquantulam terram, id est, v. mansiun-
culas, in loco, qui dicitur Minty ”—a little piece of land, that is
to say five small properties in the place called Minety. No doubt
this is the same property as that mentioned in a deed quoted by
Haddan and Stubbs (Ecclesiastical Documents iii, 631), and
noted by them as questionable under the date 844, in which
Ethelwulf is stated to have given five hides at Minty to the Abbey.
The Chartulary also shews that in 1248 the abbey possessed the
24 Domerspay Survry oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

right of patronage to the Church of Minety, and, moreover, that
in 1270 the Abbot and Convent surrendered their right in the
Church of Minety to the Church of Salisbury for the use of the
Archdeacon of Wilts, “in recompensationem dampnorum.” The
Rectorial Estates remained as a part of the endowment of the
Archdeaconry till they passed into the possession of the Ecclesias-
tical Commissioners.

All this, of course, refers to the small portion of the parish
surrounding the church which was always in Wilts.

The name of Minety does not occur in Domesday, but in 1189
Richard I. sold to the Abbey of Cirencester ‘totum Manerium
Nostrum de Cyrencestre cum omnibus Pertinentiis suis, et cum
villa de Mynthy, que est membrum ejusdem manerii :
exceptis tantummodo placitis corone nostre, et foresta nostra de
Mynthy, que nobis retinuimus.”

We should gather from this that the Gloucestershire portion
of Minety had been an adjunct of the Royal Manor of Cirencester,
being a portion of the Forest of Braden retained for purposes of
the chase, just as the Forest of Dean was connected with the
Manor of Gloucester, and Kingswood Forest with that of Bristol.

It would be interesting to trace the date at which Minety thus
became connected with Cirencester. Such a connection could
hardly have been set up while Cirencester was in Mercia and
Minety was surrounded by Wessex. Had it been effected in the
early days, when Cirencester was in Wessex it would no doubt
have been broken off ; we must, therefore, conclude that it was an
arrangement made by King Eadgar or one of his successors. If
in the area of Gloucestershire Minety is mentioned in Domesday at
all, no doubt it is included in one of the “due silve,” pertaining
to the Manor of Cirencester, the other being Oakley Wood.

Widford, near Burford, was reckoned to be in Bernitone
(Barrington) Hundred, in Gloucestershire, and so it remained till
recently. It is now in Oxfordshire.

Bearing in mind the strange mauner in which portions of the
four counties of Worcestershire, Warwickshire, Oxfordshire, and
BounbaRies OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE. 25

Gloucestershire are intermingled near the north eastern corner of
our county, it is a very remarkable thing that the Domesday
boundaries of our county seem to have remained unaltered until
the present century.

The Deerhurst Manors of Little Compton and Sutton under
Brailes have been removed from Gloucestershire for civil purposes,
though they remain in the Diocese of Gloucester ; and the Tewkes-
bury Manor of Shenington, near Banbury, has been placed in the
County and Diocese of Oxford.

The Tewkesbury Manor of Hanley, no doubt Hanley Castle,
where Brictric, son of Algar, is said to have been arrested, is now
in Worcestershire,

The question of the boundary between the inhabited portion
of the county and the Forest of Dean deserves a careful and
detailed examination.

The Rev. H. G. Nicholls in his book on the Forest of Dean, gives
a map which marks the limits of the Forest as extending, in the
reizn of Henry II., from the Severn and the Wye to Newent and
Gloucester ; I believe, however, that the eastern and southern
Loundaries of the Forest were, at the time of the Conquest, very
much what they are now. All the existing villages in the Hundred
of Botloe are mentioned in Domesday, and two thirds of the
acreage is noticed as being already under cultivation ; very likely
the inhabitants of this district had rights of various kinds within
the Forest, certainly the manors had more woodland attached to
them than could possibly have lain within the area of the existing
parishes.

The manors mentioned which lay nearest to the Forest are
these :—Hope; Dene, which in King Edward’s time had been
owned by three thanes, and which probably included Micheldean,
Littledean, and Abenhall, not Ruerdean, which is mentioned in
the Herefordshire Domesday, as it was till recently a Chapelry
of Walford in that county; Nuneham, with Staure or Stears
adjoining ; Avre, Bliteslau, Eteslau ; Aluredestone, or Alliston in
Lydney ; Bindenee or Lydney ; Hiwoldestone or Hewelstield ;
Ledenei, Ledeneia Parva, or St. Briavels ; Wigheiete or Wyegate,
26 DomEspay SunvEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

now in Newland. But of these Hiwoldestone and Wigheiete had
been thrown into the forest by the command of the Conqueror.
Tidenham, Madget, and Woolastone are also mentioned, but it
will be noticed that there is no trace of any cultivated land
between the neighbourhood of St. Briavels and Ruerdean. The
north western extremity of the Forest would seem to have had no
boundary, unless indeed the Wye were such a limit, between itself
and the half-conquered Welsh district, which is faintly described
in the portions of Domesday which refer to the two Counties of
Gloucester and Hereford. Newland, Staunton, and English Bick-
nor would have been settlements of later date, founded on assarts
or clearances of the Forest, unless we suppose that English Bicknor
is represented by Bicanofre in Wesberie Hundred. The Survey
records that the lands of the Manor of Dene were free from
payment of gheld, on condition of guarding the King’s Forest, by
grant of King Edward, the King’s dues from the tenants’ land
being rendered by personal service instead of money payment.

The area now included in Flaxley Parish would seem to have
been included in the Forest at the date of Domesday ; the portion
of the parish of the Lea near Micheldean, which was formerly in
Gloucestershire, is now included in Herefordshire. I do not think
that any entry in the Gloucestershire part of the Survey can be
taken to refer to Gloucestershire Lea, I snould suspect that it was
a subsequent clearance from the forest, certainly it is not to be
identified with the Manor of Lega in Letberge Hundred.

A few small areas which were in other counties at the date of
Domesday, have been recently added to our county as being
completely surrounded by it.

Such are Alstone and Little Washbourne, which were hamlets
of Overbury in Worcestershire ; and Church Icomb, formerly a
possession of the Monastery of Worcester. The case of Kings.
wood, near Berkeley, is a more difficult one; it was till recently
in Wiltshire, and it has been identified with a hide of land less
half a virgate, which Roger of Berkeley held of the King’s ferm
of Chippenham. It is noticed in the Wiltshire Domesday that
this was an encroachment by the Sheriff Edric on the King’s land,
BounDARIES OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE. 27

and so far it might agree with the circumstances of Kingswood,
which is just on the edge of the Royal Estate of Berkeley ; Kings-
wood was also a possession of the earlier family of Berkeley, and
formed a part of the endowment of the Abbey of Kingswood, but
there is no positive proof that Edric’s encroachment can be identi-
fied with Kingswood, though it is likely enough that such an
encroachment might have been made, and when it was made that
the land should have been carried into another county, to hide the
theft if possible, much as Edward ‘of Salisbury at the time of
Domesday was using the rents of the’Gloucestershire Manor of
Woodchester to eke out his payment as Sheriff for his County of
Wilts.

Mr. Freeman (Norman Conquest, v. 812) says that nothing
more is known of this encroaching Sheriff Edric.

AREA OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

My authority for the modern condition of the county, Kelly’s
Post Office Directory, 1879, gives as the total area of Gloucester-
shire 804,977 acres, but this requires correction in various ways
before we can compare the area of the county now with the area
as known to the Domesday Commissioners. In the first place we
must deduct 17,688 acres of water —the estuary of the Severn, &c.,
of which the Commissioners would certainly have taken no cog-
nisance, and also the areas which have already been noticed as
being outside the boundary of the county eight centuries ago, as
shewn in the following table :—

 

Acres, Acres.

Water 17,688 Staunton 1,517

East Dean 20,393 Newland '8,797

West Dean 10,035 Ruerdean 1,590

Flaxley 2,000 Alstone, &e. 1,060
English Bicknor 2,377

Total 65,457

But on the other hand, inasmuch as the Deerhurst Manors of
Little Compton and Sutton under Brailes are entered in the
Survey in such a manner that it is not possible to separate their
acreage from the acreages of other manors that are still included
28 Domrspay Survey or GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

in the county, it will be necessary to bring their modern acreage
back into the computation in order that the comparison between
the acreage as shewn by the survey, and the modern statute
acreage may be a fair one, thus :—

 

Sutton under Brailes. : ‘ 1,135 acres.

Little Compton : 5 ‘ . 1,800 ,,
Total ‘ ‘ 2,935

Deduct F 7 3 65,457 acres

Add ‘ . . » 2,935 ,,

Net deduct ; . 62,522

Giving a total area of 742,455 acres to be accounted for in the
district included in Domesday Gloucestershire, excluding, with the
exceptions named above, parishes that have since been added to
other counties. The sum of the acreage of all the parishes within
this district amounts to 749,818 acres, an approximation quite
sufficiently near when the uncertainty of the modern measure-
ments is borne in mind. The variations in the acreage attributed
to the parishes are surprising. Though I have scarcely ever
deviated from the number of acres given in Kelly’s Directory, I
am much more satisfied that the Domesday acreages are correct
according to the intentions of the Commissioners, than I am that
the number of statute acres given actually represents the true
area of the modern parishes.

Corresponding to this total of about 750,000 acres, the sum
of the Domesday measurements amounts only to 551,564 acres,
leaving a deficiency of about 200,000 acres, or about two-sevenths
of the whole county.

This is a larger relative deficiency than is found in either Dorset
or Somerset. In Dorset, where the existing area is 632,909 acres,
only 22,278 acres, or about one twenty-eighth part of the county,
are unaccounted for, while in Somerset the Domesday Com-
missioners mention 871,110 acres in an area computed to contain
1,049,080 statute acres, a deficiency of more than one-sixth part
of the whole county. Mr, Eyton accounts for this to some extent
by pointing out that the great area of Moorland in central Somerset
AREA OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE, 29

would then have been profitless marsh, and was therefore
designedly disregarded by the Commissioners.

In Staffordshire, however, only 468,004 acres are registered
by the Commissioners in an area containing 713,848 statute
acres; a very great deficiency. This county, however, contained
a very large proportion of forest land, and seems to have been
severely handled by the Conqueror.

It will be necessary first to consider how this large deficiency
in our county is to be accounted for. I do not think the Severn
is responsible for very much of it, the waterside parishes are all
either named or their existence may be fairly presumed from
entries in Domesday, and the deficiency in the acreage is not
relatively larger than in other parts of the county. Of course,
however, the foreshore itself, and flat land near the water flooded
at high tides, and very likely uncleared and unenclosed, would
naturally be omitted.

Again, it has been thought that the Survey is designedly
incomplete, the portions that were free from payment of gheld
being of set purpose omitted ; or that the Surveyors were pur-
posely cheated, as it is well known that the Monks of Croyland
boasted that their lands were undervalued in it; but whatever
may have been the case in other counties I think the Gloucester-
shire record shews that the Commissioners were not so cheated,
and that the deficiency in the Domesday acreage arose from the
fact that they purposely omitted to notice certain kinds of land.
For we must remember that the chief question in the minds of the
Commissioners, was not “ What is the acreage of this estate?” but
“What is its value?” The matter of acreage, which is the most
important one to us, was to them only subordinate.

First then, with regard to arable land, the survey of our
county only notes the number of ploughs actually at work on the
land, while the survey of the south western counties notes first the
number of ploughs for which the arable land would suftice, and
then the number actually there, in most cases a smaller number.
Here, of course, there is a source of deficiency running to an
30 DomeEspAayY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

unknown and undiscoverable extent throughout the whole culti-
vated area of the county. We have already seen how much the
value of land in lay hands had fallen since King Edward’s time,
and none of the acreage of the land which had thus passed out of
cultivation is registered in the survey of our county, though it is
registered in Somerset and Dorset.

With regard to wood, it is certain that all the wood on the
old estates of the Crown is systematically omitted, though in the
south western counties it is duly entered; and thus there is a
very large deficiency of acreage in every Hundred in which these
estates are found. But apart from this it is certain that large
areas of woodland in private hands are unnoticed, thus the Abbot
of Glastonbury had a forest at Pucklechurch, yet he is only
credited with 360 acres of wood, and in several of the largest
Hundreds in the county no wood at all is mentioned. It may be
that the Gloucestershire Commissioners only intended to notice
profitable woodland, but they do not seem to be consistent in their
treatment of the matter.

Finally there are but slight notices of the existence of pasture,
though in Dorsetshire 206,494 acres are thus described. It seems
difficult to believe that there was not, at any rate on the Cotswolds,
a great deal of land that would in that county have been entered
and duly measured as pasture ; the Commissioners for our county

seem asa rule to have passed over it without formal notice.

With regard to the question whether any estates are omitted
that ought to have been entered, I do not think it is possible to
mention any such omission for which a fair case could be made
out ; where the name of a village is not to be found in Domesday,
it was usually part of some large manor, and it is not usually difficult
to discover what that manor was. For example, Hardwick, Saul,
and Randwick are not mentioned by name in Domesday, but no
doubt the area now included in those parishes is measured and
accounted for in the great Manor of Standish, as St. Georges,
Mangotsfield, and Stapleton are included in the Royal Manor of
Barton near Bristol, or, as Abson, Wick and Westerleigh, were
included in the Glastonbury estate of Pucklechurch.
Tur Hownprens,

TERRITORIAL DIVISIONS OF DOMESDAY GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

THE HUNDREDS.

 

 

Nn

STATUTE| @
DOMESDAY HUNDRED. |" opis. = Vv F
Cheftesihat 8
Celflede 20,013 | 121 | 2
Wideles . 20,484 | 95 | 2
Gretestanes . j 21,479 60
Sudeley & Todington 4,479 | 20
Holeforde . e 18,188 60
Salemanesberie 32,427 | 178
Bernitone 5,618 23 | 2
Bradelege 20,042 | 109
Wacrescumbe . 18,814 99 | 3
Becheberie 11,835 51
Brictwoldesburg 25,405 | 107
Respigete 25,854 | 80 | 3
Cirecestre ; 22,120 85 | 3
Gersdone . 13,225 712 | 33> 2
Biselege 24,640 7 28
Langetrev 30,189 | 102 Sac.
Teodechesberie 24,439 | 172] 1
Derheste . ‘ 32,377 | 112 | 2
Tetboldestane . 14,629 92
Chintineham & 13,016 30
Dudestan & Bertune 40,557 91 | 2
Witestan . , 11,437 35
Blacelawes 13,208 46
Berchelai. 66,989 | 149 | 3 | 2
Grimboldestou 25,263 66
Edredestane 14,729 37
Bachestane 10,307 18
Pulerecerce 14,582 36
Letberge B217 6
Suineshovede . 13,690 49 | 3
Langelei . 24,828 | 50
Bernintrev ‘ A 18,825 76 | 2
Barton apud Bristou 8,693 10
Tolangebrige 3,382 | 12
Botelav 29,488 | 63
Wesberie 21,041 54/1
Bliteslav 14,363 41/3 /2
Ledenei 6,293 20
Tviferde . 4,376 513 2
Tedeneham 6,217 30 |

 

 

 

 

 

 

MODERN HUNDRED.
)
|
|
c
!

} Slaughter
} Bradley

Kiftsgate

Brightwells Barrow

Rapsgate

Cirencester and
Crowthorne

Bisley

Longtree

Tewkesbury

Deerhurst & Westminster

Tibaldstone & Cleeve

Cheltenham

Dudstone& King’s Barton

Whitstone
Berkeley

Grumbald’s Ash

Pucklechurch

Barton Regis

Langley & Swineshead,

and ‘Thornbury

Henbury

Barton Regis

Dudstone & King’s Barton
toe Westbury, and

Duchy of Lancaster

Blidsloe

8. Briavels

} Westbury

 

Cheftesihat Hundred, with its member, Mene, seems to have
consisted of a part of Longborough, and to this, in the Conqueror’s
time, the sheriff had added the lordship of two hundreds, no
32 DomEsDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

doubt Celflede and Wideles. To Winchcombe, at the time of
Domesday, had been added three hundreds, the hundred of the
town itself, Holeford and Gretestanes ; and this group being in
later times added to the Cheftesihat Hundreds, the one great
Hundred of Kiftsgate was formed containing one-tenth of the
whole county. The meeting place for the Hundred of Kiftsgate
was at a gate above Weston-sub-Edge. This would have been
near the boundary between Celflede and Wideles Hundreds, and
it may have been the meeting place of one of them before they
were united, at any rate it would be as convenient a place as any
other for the men of both those hundreds, and also for those of
all the hundreds which afterwards took their name from Kiftsgate.

The hundred in which Sudeley and Todington were situated
is not mentioned in the record, therefore I have entered them
separately. Very probably they were connected with Winch-
combe itself, and were in the hundred of the borough, but it is
to be noticed that several areas which are now reckoned to be
in the Parish of Winchcombe, are entered in the Survey as in
Gretstanes Hundred, and it is possible that Sudeley and Tod-
ington were also in that hundred.

The little hundred of Letberge, contained only two manors,
Stoche and Lega ; the former which belonged to Osbern Giffard is
obviously part of Stoke Gifford, what the latter may be T cannot
tell ; the name is a very common one, only 360 acres are mentioned
as belonging to the manor, and I do not think it can now be
identified.

The Hundred of Tviferde contained Woolastone, and Madget
now in Tidenham, also a part of Tidenham itself, perhaps Lancaut.
The manor of Tidenham formed a separate hundred.

It will be noticed that the chief difference between the
arrangement of the hundreds now and that found in Domesday, is
that in several cases two or more of the old hundreds are con-
solidated, and called by one of the old names. The hundreds of
Westminster, Cleeve, Thornbury, and the Duchy of Lancaster,
are however of more recent date; and Slaughter, Crowthorn,
Henbury, and 8. Briavel’s, are new names for old jurisdictions,
Tut Hunprebs. 33

No doubt the hundred, and its constituent tithings, derived
their names originally from some arrangement founded on the
number ten ; buta glance at the list of the hundreds will shew that
by the date of Domesday, the original idea of the hundred had
been quite lost sight of.

Several of the Hundreds contained only the estates of some
great landowner, thus Berkeley, and Barton by Bristol hundreds
contained only portions of the ancient estates of the Crown ;
Tewkesbury hundred only those of Brictric son of Algar, Deer-
hurst hundred only those which had belonged to the great priory
there, Bernintrey now Henbury hundred only those of the
Church of Worcester. In these cases it is clear that the hundred
depended not on any idea of number at all, but merely on the
extent of the possessions of the owner, and that it might very
naturally increase by the addition of fresh estates, which the lor
of the hundred might acquire in the neighbourhood, or which
lesser owners who put themselves under the protection of the lord
might bring with them.

The newer hundreds of Cleeve, Westminster, and the Duchy
of Lancaster were of this sort ; Cleeve being separated by the See
of Worcester from Tibaldstone hundred, and Westminster hundred
containing the estates of the old Priory of Deerhurst which had
been given to the abbey.

Though no doubt the names of many of the hundreds were very
ancient, and point to considerable antiquity even at the time of
Domesday, it would seem that it was by no means difficult to alter
their boundaries and to remove manors from one hundred into
another, several instances of the kind can be traced in the survey
for Gloucestershire.

‘Thus an estate in Windrush whose ownership was in dispute
between the king and the abbey of Winchcombe, had been unjustly
placed in Salemonesberie hundred, but before the time of the
survey it had been brought into the hundred of Barrington to
which, by the judgment of the men of that hundred, it belonged hy
right. Here there seems to be a connection between the disputed

ownership and the change of hundred.
D
34 DomEsDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

So we are told that Girard the Chamberlain held eight hides
in Kemerton and three in Bodington which had paid geld, and
rendered other services in Deerhurst hundred, but after Girard had
them they paid neither geld nor service ; these eleven hides are duly
entered in Tewkesbury hundred, no doubt because Queen Matilda
was the lady of that hundred ; she was a great benefactress to
Girard, and he had brought the lands which had been under the
jurisdiction of Deerhurst, into the Tewkesbury hundred, that he
might be under the Queen’s protection, and no doubt also that he
might increase the dues and services that would be owed to her as
lady of the hundred.

The case of the seven hides in Stoke Orchard which rendered
no services to the Church of Worcester since Bernard and Raynald
held them, would seem to be a similar one, though only a part
of the land can be distinctly identified in Tewkesbury hundred ;
Bernard and Raynald were royal chaplains, and would be likely
to bring their land into Tewkesbury hundred for the same reason
which moved Girard to do so,

A more remarkable case is that of the lands which were
separated from the Royal Manor of Westbury. The entry runs
thus,—‘ This manor paid one night’s ferm in the time of King
Edward, and the same for four years in King William’s time.
Afterwards there were taken from this manor six hides in Chire,
and in Clifton ten hides, in Noent and Chingestune eight hides,
in Ladeuent one hide. These lands the Abbey of Cormeilles, and
Osbern, and William the son of Richard now hold.’ Seven hides
belonged to the abbey of Cormeilles, at Newent, in Botloe hundred,
the rest of the entry is very difficult to understand ; Chire is I think
Shirehampton, and the land is I believe that which is entered as
five hides in the manor of Huesberie, held by Osbern Gifard in
Bernintrev Hundred, which paid no service to the church of
Worcester ; the ten hides in Clifton are, I believe, partly accounted
for by the entries under Clifton in Suineshovede hundred, and
partly by the four hides which the Survey notes had recently been
added to Bristol. Chingestune is probably Kingsweston. William
the son of Richard, or William Goizenboded, held in Westbury
Tue HUNDREDS. 35

hundred half a hide which is noted as having belonged to the king’s
term. Where Ladeuent is to be found I cannot tell.

Whether these identifications are right or wrong, and they
certainly do not account for all the hidage removed from the king’s
ferm, it is clear that we have a very considerable diminution of
the area of the ancient hundred of Westbury. Indeed, judging
from the number of alterations that we find were made in the
hundreds about the time of the conquest, it is perhaps remarkable
that comparatively so few alterations have been made in the course
of eight centuries.

With regard to the names of the Domesday Hundreds, it is
remarkable that Gloucester and Bristol did not give their names
directly to any large area of surrounding country, though several
of the hundreds were called after the largest towns within them,
such as Cirencester, Tewkesbury, Cheltenham, Berkeley, Bern-
inton, Westbury, Pucklechurch, and Tidenham ; Grimboldestow is
now represented by Grumbold’s Ash.

Bernintrev and Langetrev seem to have been chosen as the
trysting places of their hundreds, not on account of their impor-
tance, but because they were on ancient ways, and therefore
would be convenient of access.

Other hundreds took their names from means of communication,
as Kiftsgate and Rapsgate, Holeford, Tviferd, and Langebrige or
Tolangebrige, the long bridge over the Severn which connected
Gloucester with the Forest.

Four hundreds took their names from Barrows, Letberg,
Salemansberie, Brictwoldesberg, and Becheberie or Begeberie,
commemorating no doubt the burial places of heroes, as also do
Botloe and Blidsloe; Blacelawes however would seem to be
Blacklow, and a trace of the name appears to be preserved in Dark
Wood above Woodchester.

Well known stones gave names to six hundreds, Gretestane,
Witestane, Bachestane, Tetboldestane, Dudstane, Edredestane ;
the first two deriving their names from peculiarities of the stones

themselves, the last three apparently from those who set them up.
D2
36 DoMESDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

It is remarkable that though Bachestane hundred has long
ceased to exist, the name is still preserved in Bagstone Farm, in
Wickwar.

The names Witelai, Biselege, Bradelege, Langelei, Wacres-
cumbe, Gersdone, Celfledethorn, Derheste, Svineshovede now
Swineford, refer to some natural object or peculiarity of the
country, though of course Deerhurst and Bisley were places of
considerable importance at the date of Domesday.

The fact that so many of the hundreds take their names from
natural objects, would seem to shew that the names were given at
avery early time when the district contained few settlements of
any importance; when in fact the natural features of the
country,—the long, the broad, or white meadow, the hollow way,
or the ford over the brook, the white, or big stone, the graves of
heroes,—formed more convenient meeting places than did the
abodes of living men.

Hundreds are first mentioned in the lands of Edgar, and tithings
in those of Canute, but they are mentioned as institutions which
are already in working order, and we cannot doubt that the
Gloucestershire Hundreds date back from a much earlier period.
At any rate, whatever was the original basis of the hundred,
whether it contained a hundred hides, or a hundred villages, or a
hundred families, it is certain that by the date of Domesday all
relation to any such pristine device had passed away.

We may indeed note that some hundreds contained about 100
hides, as did those of Wideles, Bradelege, Wacrescumbe, and
Langetrev, others such as Becheberie and Langelei contained about
50 hides ; and it is remarkable that several of the northern hundreds
such as Celflede, Wideles, Gretestanes, Bradelege, and Wacres-
cumbe, included about 20,000 statute acres, while the two hundreds
of Salemanesberie and Bernitone contained together about 200
hides and 38,000 statute acres ; but on the whole it would require
a great deal of forcing to bring the Gloucestershire Hundreds under
the range of any numerical relation.
Tur Manor, on

THE MANOR.

The unit of Domesday Survey is the ‘Manerium’ or ‘ Manor’ ;
now whatever may have been the origin of this name the thing to
which it is applied had existed before the time of the Conquest,
under the name of a ‘ham’ or ‘tun,’ and continued to exist
unchanged in all essential points till a much later date. Indeed
the survey implies on every page that the estates which are named
and measured and valued are the same estates held under the same
conditions which existed in the time of the Confessor. A comparison
of the value of the estate in the time of the Confessor and at the date
of Domesday would have been simply misleading if there had been
any great change in the conditions of tenure during the interval.
The Conqueror seems to have granted the estates of the vanquished
English to his companions, just as Henry VIII. granted the church
lands to his courtiers, to be held with the same privileges and
responsibilities that had belonged to the former owner ; the Norman
held just what his English antecessor had held, and on the same
terms. There is no ground for thinking that the Conqueror in-
troduced any new method of tenure of land into England, and
Domesday all through implies that he left the old conditions

unaltered.

Although in the Exchequer Domesday the word used for the
estate enumerated is ‘Manerium’ which as the equivalent of the
Norman ‘Manoir’ has a foreign air about it ; the Exeter Domesday
calls the whole manor ‘ villa,’ and applies the title ‘mansio’ to the
Manor House ; and we have seen that the same terms ‘villa’ and
‘mansio’ were used in the questions asked with regard to the
estates of the Church of Ely.

The manor of Tidenham was granted by King Edwy to the
Church of Bath in A.D. 956, and a comparison between its
condition at that period and at the date of Domesday will shew
how little alteration had taker place in those 130 years under the
rule of so many sovereigns of different races, after conquest and
38 Domespay Survey or GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

re-conquest, while Englishman and Dane, and Norman, had

governed the country.

After enumerating the boundaries of the estate, the charter
proceeds to declare that at Dyddanhamme are xxx. hides, ix. of
inland, or land under the cultivation of the lord, and xxi. of gesettes
land, or land put out to cultivation by the tenants.

Next are stated the contents of each hamlet on the Manor:

At Street are xii. hides, xxvii. gyrda gafollandes, and on the
Severn xxx. cytweras.

At Middeltune are v. hides, xiiij. gyrda gafollandes, xiiij.
cytweras on the Severn, and ij. heecweras on the Wye.

At the Cingestune are v. hides, xiii. gyrda gafollandes, and
i. hide above the Dyke, which is now also gafolland ; and that out-
side the hamme is still part inland, and part gesett to gafol to
scipwealan, At the Cingestune on the Severn are xxi. cytweras,

and on the Wye xii.
At the Bishopstune are iii. hides, and xv. cytweras on the Wye.

At Landcawet are iii. hides, and ii. heecweras on the Wye, and
ix. cytweras.

Now bearing in mind that ‘ gyrda gafollandes’ are yardlands
let out for cultivation by the tenants, and that the cytweras and
hecweras were some kind of weir for fishing, let us compare the
entry regarding Tidenham in Domesday Book.

‘In Tidenham hundred the Abbot of Bath held one manor by
name Tidenham, there were thirty hides of which ten were in
demense, there were thirty-eight villeins having thirty-eight teams,
and ten bordars. In the Severn eleven fisheries in demense, and
forty-two belonging to the villeins ; in the Wye one fishery, and
two-and-a-half of the villeins. Earl Roger added two fisheries in
the Wye. There is wood two leagues long, and half.a-league
wide, and twelve more bordars.’

The number of hides is the same in each case, only one hide of
land which had been under tenant cultivation had been taken back
at some time into the demesne, The villeins and bordars of the
THE MANOR. 39

survey would still be ploughing the yardlands mentioned by
King Edwy, only there would not be quite so many tenant ploughs
as in the former case, unless indeed the whole estate was being
farmed by the tenants. As we do not know exactly what is implied
by cytweras and hecweras, or what the Domesday Commissioners
called a fishery, we cannot compare the numbers of these with each
other, but it is easy to see that the property in land is described
in the same terms in each case, there has been no great change in
the tenure of the estate as a whole, or in its method of management.
King Edwy’s clerks and the Domesday Commissioners would have
needed no interpreter to explain their descriptions to each other,
for they each described the same condition of things in slightly
different words ; with only such differences of detail, as one hundred
and thirty years might fairly be supposed to bring about.

Nowadays the divisions of the parish are much what they
were nine hundred and thirty years ago in King Edwy’s time ; the
hamlets of Stroat, Mideltune now called Tidenham, Cingestune
now known as Sedbury, Bishopstune or Bishton, still stretch across
it in order from the Severn to the Wye, the course of Offa’s Dike
may still be traced, and Lancaut nestles as of old under the bank
of wood from which it derives its name ; but hides and yardlands
and villeins and bordars are forgotten terms, for the system of
cultivation of which they were characteristic has passed away.
It was the universal system in England before the Conquest, the
Conqueror made no alteration in it, and it survived his time for
three hundred years.

We have next to consider what sort of estate this was which
might be called indifferently “ Ham,” or “ Villa,” or “ Manerium.”

In its essence it was an estate of a lord or thane with tenants
generally in serfdom upon it. The arable land of the estate was
divided into two portions ; the demesne, or that cultivated by the
serfs attached to the mansion or lords home, and the gesettes land
or land let out to cultivation by the tenants, coliberti, or villani,
or bordarii, or men holding by some other servile or semi-servile
tenure. But the lord’s land and the tenants’ lands were not in
40 DomEsDAaY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

separate portions of the estate, on the contrary they were inter-
mixed in strips usually measuring an acre apiece, about thirty of
these scattered acre strips forming one of the yardlands of which
we heard at Tidenham, and which was the ordinary amount held
by a villein. Nor again had the tenants the right to any par-
ticular strips, but the strips were held in rotation, so that though
each tenant always had the area to which he was entitled, that
area consisted from time to time of different strips of land.

In Gloucestershire there were at work at the date of Domesday
10583 teams belonging to the lords, and 2850} teams belonging
to the tenants of the various manors; so that rather more than
one quarter of the arable land was in demesne, and rather less
than three-quarters was under tenant cultivation. As we shall
see presently, all the buildings, stock and tools needful for the
cultivation of the tenants’ land were supplied by the lords.

Before the introduction of artificial grasses and winter roots,
natural meadow was, of course, very valuable, and was usually
retained by the lords till long after the Conquest.

Manors usually contained some wood especially on the boun-
daries, indeed it is worthy of remark how often even now the
divisions between parishes are marked by strips of wood. This
wood belonged to the lord, though the tenants generally had a
right to its use for the repair of their tenements, for their imple-
ments, and for firing. Eight hundred years ago woodland was
chiefly valuable on account of the grass in the spring, and the
pannage in the autumn ; this belonged to the lord and not to the
tenants, and they could only avail themselves of it by his leave.

If there were pasture on the manor it was usually common
land, and lord and tenants alike could put on as many beasts as
they pleased.

Probably there was a church on the manor, if so it usually
stood near the lord’s house; his predecessors had built and
endowed it, and he would appoint the parish priest whose endow-
ment in land might be anything between the five hides at Berkeley,
and nothing at all as at Shipton, but no doubt, by the date of
Domesday, most of the land in the county paid tithe for the
support of the clergy.
Tue Maynor, 41

Every manor possessed a mill if by any possibility water could
be found to turn it; this belonged to the lord, and was a most
valuable possession ; the miller was one of the most important
tenants, and was not generally too popular, because inasmuch as
his co-tenants were obliged to use the mill of their own manor
and no other, he had a monopoly which could very easily be abused

to his own advantage.

So far the manor was an estate in land, like that of any
country gentlemen now, only cultivated under other conditions ;
and it was also a territorial area like our existing parishes ; but
it was much more than either of these, the lord was not only a
landowner, but a prince on a small scale, his was a lesser empire
in the great empire of England ; his courts were not only courts
of law but frequently of criminal justice, his subjects could not
lawfully leave his service, or if they did within a limited time he
could reclaim them ; his rights were intertwined in the closest
way with the domestic incidents of the lives of his tenants, they
could not marry without his consent, if a daughter of the village
lost her chastity a fine was due to the lord, as was also the case
if any one sold an ox without his licence. The lord was entitled
to receive certain chattels on the occasion of the tenant’s death,
and a son who succeeded to his father’s holding must make his
entry in the manor court, and must also undertake there to pro-
vide for his widowed mother. No stranger might be harboured
within the limits of the manor, and the officers of the lord looked
after the purity of the provisions sold, and the justice of the

weights and measures.

And yet the lord’s dominion, though it could be made very
galling, was no unbridled tyranny, his tenants had their rights as
well as he had. So long as they rendered their dues, which at
any rate in later times might be in money or in service at their
option, they could not be driven from their land or tenements,
and the custom of the manor regulated these things for him as
well as for them. His was a limited and constitutional monarchy,
and the manorial system so long as the lords were content with
their legal rights does not seem to have worked badly. A landless
42 DoumEsDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

man was an outlaw, and one who was not registered in any manor a
thief, the lords protected their tenants, and the life of the manor
where every man had his rights as well as his duties must have
formed a very good school for training Englishmen in the art of
self-government.

These manorial estates were, of course, of various sizes ; probably
the largest single manor in the county at the time of Domesday
was Wiche, now Painswick, which had belonged to Ernesi, a very
large landowner before the Conquest, but which had passed into
the possession of Roger de Laci; it contained 20,760 acres, of
which, however, 14,400 were wood, of course the greater part of
this lay outside the present parish of Painswick, which only
includes 3,614 acres.

The largest and most valuable estate was, however, the Royal
Manor and Hundred of Berkeley, for the two were conterminous ;
no fewer than twenty subordinate manors or berewicks were
dependent upon Berkeley, including Ashelworth, and Kingsweston
and Lawrence Weston, in Henbury, and Beverstone and Arling-
ham ; the area of the Hundred of Berkeley, which seems to have
undergone little if any alteration, is 70,583 acres, and the Domes-
day rental, £187 10s.

The smallest was one which a certain Walter held in Suines-
hovede Hundred, apparently at Clifton; it consisted of one
virgate of land, and its value had increased from twenty pence in
the time of the Confessor to two shillings at the date of Domes-
day ; no mention is made of the existence of any tenants, and
indeed its area would appear to have been only about 53 acres.
This Estate is distinctly called a Manor in the Record, but its
Manorial rights must have been little enough.

We have seen that it sometimes happened, as in the case of
Berkeley, that a manor might be so dependent on another that it
could not be separated from it; but after mentioning the twenty
subordinate manors which were so connected with the capital
Manor of Berkeley, the survey goes on to speak of an estate at
THE Manor. 43

Cromhall which had belonged to two brothers, who, we are told,—
“cum terra sua se poterant vertere quo volebant,’—were able to
go where they liked with their land, that is to say, they could
transfer their allegiance to any chief lord whom they choose, as we
have seen Girard transferred his land at Kemerton and Bodington
from the Hundred of Deerhurst to that of Tewkesbury, from the
lordship of the Church of Deerhurst to that of Queen Matilda.
We find other instances where the owners of these dependent
manors could choose another lord if they pleased for themselves
but could not take their land with them. Of course the tenants
on the manors had no power of transferring their holdings, and
were unable to leave them without the lord’s consent.

Considerable care is required in the identification of the
Domesday manors with existing parishes; it is by no means
sufficient to find a similar name in the proper Hundred, for the
manor may be more extensive than the parish, or the parish may
consist of several manors, or again the name of the parish may
not exist in Domesday though the manors which included its area
may be identified, or, lastly, although we may be sure that certain
manors included areas now interned in certain parishes, it is by no
means easy to point out exactly how the manors and parishes are
to be apportioned.

Sometimes, as in the cases of Hampnett, Salperton, Winson,
Hasleton and Yanworth, near Northleach, we may be fairly sure
that the Domesday manor was conterminous with the modern

parish, but this is the exception rather than the rule.

We have seen already that the Domesday Manors of Standish
and Barton by bristol included several parishes; other instances
are Cheltenham, which would have included Charlton Kings ; and
Badgworth, which included Shurdington.

Of parishes which are made up of several manors, in some
cases the manors are called by the name of the parish, for example,
Turkdean is made up of two such manors, Compton Abdale of
three, Shipton Moyne of four ; in other cases the names of the
manors are different from the parishes, as the modern Tetbury
44 DoMESLAY SURVEY OP GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

contains the Domesday Manors of Teteberie and Uptone, and the
modern Rodmarton contains two manors called Rodmarton, three
Culkerton, one Haselton, and one Tarlton, seven Domesday Manors

in all in the area of the modern parish.

Sometimes the modern name does not appear at all in Domes-
day, though the area seems to be accounted for under what is now
a less important title; thus Eastington, near Stonehouse, is not
named, though it now contains 2,042 acres, but Alcrintone, which
is credited with 1,810 acres, a very fair equivalent, no doubt
answers to Alkerton, a hamlet in Eastington. Again, the name
of Coates, near Cirencester, is not found in the record, but
Hunlafesed, Tursberie, Tornentone, and Torentune, no doubt
answer to Hallasey, Trewsbury, and Tarlton; the Domesday
entries only account for 1,440 of the 2,423 acres now reckoned
to be in Coates ; it is likely that the parish contains a part of what
was then Oakley Wood, forest that is which was attached to the
Royal Manor of Cirencester, and which, though it seems to be
incidentally mentioned under the head of Cirencester, is nowhere
measured. The name Cranham is not found in the record, but
the area of the parish is to be sought for in Brimpsfield, and in
that part of the Manor of Painswick which is said to have belonged
to the Church of Cirencester. It is very difficult, if not impossible,
to apportion the several manors named Omenie and Omenel among
the modern Ampneys; or Etherope, Hetrope, and the three
Manors of Lece, among Hatherop, Eastleach Turville, Eastleach
Martin, and Southrop ; or the different Duntesbournes and Tantes-
bourne in Cirencester Hundred, between Duntesbourne Abbots
and Duntesbourne Rouse, ; and lastly there are afew manors such
as Penneberie in Cirencester Hundred, whose modern equivalent
is not apparent ; and a few parishes such as Clapton, near Bourton-
on-the-Water, and Daglingworth, with regard to which it is not
easy to say where their area is accounted for in the Survey.

It is very necessary, in comparing modern areas with those
mentioned in the Survey, to be sure that they are not simply
called by the same name, but are, in fact, as nearly as may le
Tur Manor, 45

conterminous ; many errors have arisen from neglect of this
simple precaution, or, perhaps, in some instances, from lack of the

requisite local knowledge.

On what principles, or at what time, the manors were grouped
into parishes we cannot tell, but the ecclesiastical arrangements
of the county were very much what they are now in 1290, the date
of the taxation of Pope Nicholas. It is a truth of very general
application that the parochial boundaries as marked on the
Ordnance Map, will agree with the boundaries of manors as
described in Charters, whether these date before or after the
Conquest ; when a parish contains two or more manors, the
manorial boundaries will frequently agree with those of the
tithings or townships.

Generally the manor passed as a whole, with all its benefits and
responsibilities, from the old to the new owner, but frequently
two or three old manors were united under the Norman owner ;
thus Harehill, which formed but one manor under Radulf de
Todeni, had, under the Confessor, been divided into three manors,
and the same Lord had rolled four manors at Omenie and Cernei
into one. At Lindenee, or Lydney, Earl William Fitzosbern had
created a manor out of four estates, which he had received from
their lords. From the demesne of the Bishop of Hereford he had
received three hides, from the estates of the Monks of Pershore
six hides, from two thanes three hides and a half, with a mill and
720 acres of wood. This would have been the land to the west
of the Lyd ; the thanes’ Jand, with its mill aiid wood, would have
lain near the forest boundary, and the estate of the Bishop of
Hereford might have contained the church which has been long
connected with Hereford Cathedral.

Tue Hive.

The first question asked by the Domesday Commissioners with
regard to any manor was this, “How many hides are there?”
Now whatever meaning the word may have borne in 1086 it is
clear that originally the hide was the amount of land sufticient
for the support of one free family; it is a very ancient term, and
46 DomeEsDAyY SURVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

is often mentioned in the laws of King Ina promulgated about
690; its Latin equivalents, as given in the Charters, are these :—
Familia, cassatus, mansus, mansio, manens. For example, we have
already seen that the land which King Ethelwulf gave to Malmes-
bury Abbey at Minety, was described as, “ Aliquantulam terram,
id est v Mansiunculas,” and also as five hides. Again we are told
that at a Council at Cloveshoo in 793, “terram et Austan v
manentes,” which had belonged to the church at Worcester, but
which had been stolen by Bynna, King Offa’s Earl, was restored.
In Domesday we find that the church of Worcester owned five
hides in Austreclive. In both these instances it is clear that the
hide of land was the amount held by one household, and that the
land at Aust was still reckoned as five hides three hundred years
after it was restored to the church.

More frequently, however, we find that the number of hides
mentioned in the Survey does not agree with the number of house-
holds whose land was in the first instance given. Thus in 804
Ethelric determined to give “terram xlili. Manentium” to his
mother Ciolburge for her life, and at her death to the church of
Worcester ; this land was situated “et Westmynster et et Stoce,”
now Westbury-on-Trym and Stoke Bishop ; but in the Survey
fifty hides of land are accounted for at Westbury alone, and Stoke
is mentioned as a dependent Manor of Westbury,

Of course the term hide did not originally signify any definite
quantity of land, because the amount of land requisite for the
support of a household or family would vary with the nature of
the soil, and according to many other incidents of position and
climate ; the question of area did not enter at all into the idea of
the hide, either in the early application of the term or in later
time ; but inasmuch of course as the amount of land necessary for
the maintenance of a family would generally be about the same,
it was said by various writers that the hide contained about one
hundred or one hundred and twenty acres. And no doubt these
writers were, as regards many cases, correct, but it would not be
correct to say that any definite number of acres went to a hide,
THE Hive. 47

But it is easy to see that the hide of the Survey was a measure
not of area but of value—of money rather than of land. In the
Exon Domesday the geld is calculated all through at the rate of
six shillings to each hide: and the expression so many hides
“ geldantes” or “paying geld” is frequent in the survey of our

country.

Now geld or Dane geld was a tax which had been originally
levied by Ethelred, the Unready, about the beginning of the
eleventh century, to buy off the Danes, and had been continued
by subsequent Kings as an army tax or here-geld. It was levied
on the tenants’ land only of the manor, for the thane or lord was
before all things a soldier, he rendered personal service in the
wars, and it was just therefore that his land should be free from
any further payment in money. It would seem that in the time
of King Ethelred the land of the kingdom was so parcelled out
into hides that each hide should be of fairly equal value; that a
geld payment of so many pence from each hide should fall with
fairly equal pressure on the tenantsall over the kingdom. In this
way of course few acres of good land and many acres of poor land
would go to the hide.

We may notice that the area of Gloucestershire is hidated
throughout. With regard to each estate, whether it belonged to
the King, or to clerical or lay subjects, we are told how many
hides it contained. The ancient estates of the crown did not pay
geld, so in the south western counties we are told with respect to
each of them that it never paid geld, nor is it known how many
hides it contains. No doubt, however, it was convenient to
know how many hides a royal estate might fairly be rated at, for
the hidation would give an index of the rental which would
naturally arise from it.

To say that an estate contained so many hides was the same
thing as saying that it was rated at such an amount, or supposing
that the hidage was fairly assessed, that it contained so many equal
units of value ; the rental of an estate assessed at ten hides ought
to have been twice as great as that of one which was rated at
48 DomEsvpAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

five hides. Gloucestershire contained about 2,600 hides, the
rental of the county in 1874 was £2,556,242, if, then, the same
system of taxation had continued till now, a hide would have been
an area which produced a rental of about £983. But it is clear
that such areas near Gloucester or Bristol, or in good land such
as that near Tewkesbury would be small; while at a distance
from Markets, as on the Cotswolds, or in regions of poor land,
they would be large. And this is exactly the condition of things
that we find set forth in the Survey.

But we must remember that hidation, as an index of value,
refers to the condition of things, not at the date of Domesday,
but about eighty years before; so that the Survey really gives
us information with regard to the relative value of the estates
mentioned at three periods, first, in the reign of Ethelred, when
the Danegeld was first imposed, then atthe death of the Confessor
in 1066, and finally at the date of Domesday in 1086.

It would appear that from the time of King Ethelred till that
of the Survey, the Hidation of estates had not been altered ;
whether an estate had improved in value, or whether its value
had been depreciated, it was rated at the old amount, nor does
it appear that any allowance was made for accident or misfor-

tune.

Some anomalies seem to have marked the incidence of Hidation
from the beginning, arising from two causes, first some estates
are evidently rated at an amount far below what their possible -
value can have warranted, and other estates were excused from
the payment of a part, or the whole of their geld. The most
striking instance of insufficient hidation in the county is
that of Wiche or Painswick, its total area was 20,760 acres, of
which 6,360 were under cultivation, its value had increased from
£20 at the Confessor’s death to £24 at the time of the Survey, and
yet it was only rated at one hide. Again the manor and hundred
of Barton by Bristol, which contained 5,490 acres under cul-
tivation was only rated at ten hides. It is probable indeed that
Tue Hive, 49

Bristol had increased rapidly in wealth and importance during the
century before the Conquest, its name is first found on coins in the
reign of Ethelred, and it is first mentioned in history in 1051, when
Harold and Leofwine set sail from Bristol to escape to Ireland,
but after making all allowances, a rating of only ten hides for
more than five housand acres of cultivated land.seems very low.

Some exemptions from payment of geld seem to have existed
from the beginning. Thus we are told that Ethelred himself
granted that the hide of land which belonged to the Church of
8. Edward at Stow should be free from payment of geld ; and his
example was imitated by his successors, thus the Church of Bath
held the Manors of Alvestone and Cold Ashton, each of which
was properly rated at five hides, but in each case two hides were
exempt from payment by grant of Kings Edward and William.
At Dene the payment of geld was remitted in consideration of
the service of guarding the King’s forest.

It is not always easy to tell when it is said that so many hides
of a manor do not pay geld, whether they are non-geldant in
virtue of a grant of exemption, or simply because they represent
the demesne. An instance of the latter cause of exemption is given
in the account of the great Manor of Tewkesbury, where it is said
that there were in King Edward’s time 95 hides, of which 45
were in the demesne and were free from all royal service, and
from the payment of geld, on account of the service (to the King)
of the lord to whom the manor belonged. Attention to this
point is necessary, for it would be easy to exaggerate the number
and value of the grants of exemption.

Just as some manors seem to be assessed at a lower hidation
than their acreage would warrant, so also there are others
that seem to be rated highly in proportion to their area; in
almost all such cases, however, it will be found that there are
special causes to which such differences of treatment may be fairly
assigned, without considering that the hidation was designedly
made lighter or more heavy than the land would equitably bear.
The following table shows the number of Statute acres and

E
50 DomEsDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

Domesday acres contained in a hide in different districts, the
figures which do not refer to Gloucestershire are given by Mr.
Eyton.

 

County of Dorset. : .| 289 Statute Acres | 230 Domesday Acres
3 Somerset . : .| 300 ,, aig 250 ” ”
i Salop . : | 240 ,, 35
»” Stafford . . .| 1457 ” ” 955 ” ”
95 Lincoln, Kesteven .| 244  ,, i
” ” Lindsay -| 500 ” ”
+ », Hoyland .| 1000 _,, 55
3 Gloucester 3 | 28% | 85 a 211 5 53
Hundred of Biselege , .| 880 ,, a 1153 ee a
3 Barton by Bristol .| 869 ,, - 540 53 a
53 Bachestane . i) DTS Sy 35 275 +5 5
a5 Berchelai ‘ | 446 4, ee 235 as a3
3 Langelei , -| 496 ,, a 313 93 5
55 Holeforde . -| 303 ,, +5 162 a 33
a5 Cirecestre . ‘| 257 5s 55 182 oy 9
33 Celflede ‘ «| 165  ;; 5 131 i 55
a Gersdone 3 «| I8l 5; 55 138 a9 59
33 Teodechesberie .| 142 ,, 35 116 - 5

 

 

 

The acre of Domesday was the same area with the modern
statute acre, but on account of causes already mentioned the
Survey does not record the full acreage of the territory considered,
and therefore the number of acres mentioned in Domesday is less
than the number of acres which actually existed. Probably the
difference between the numbers gives a fair index of the state of
cultivation in the district, a large acreage to the hide with few
acres mentioned in the Survey, showing an unproductive region,
while hides with few acres and a large proportion under cultivation
mark a district which had been brought well under the hand of
man, for Domesday Gloucestershire was only a partially settled
district.

The table shews at once that no definite acreage could be
assigned to the hide ; it would appear that the average area would
be from 250 to 300 acres, but in the forest county of Stafford or
the fen district of Lincolnshire the hide contained more than 1000
acres. The large number of acres to the hide in the neighbour-
hood of Bisley and Bristol is owing to the fact that the land was
lightly rated, and the Domesday acreage of the hide exceeds the
statute acreage at Bisley because the Manor of Wiche contained
Tur Hrpr. 51

a mass of wood that lay in other parts of the county. The forest
hundreds of Bagstone, Berkeley, and Langley, testify to their
uncultivated state by the large area of their hides, the Cotswold
hnndreds of Holeforde and Cirencester have a normal area, and
the hundreds of Gelflede, in the extreme north, Gersdone, watered
by the Churn and Ampney Brook, and Tewkesbury, near the
Severn and Avon, were among the most highly cultivated portions
of the county.
Divisions of the Hide.
The hide was thus divided—
1 hide =4 virgates =16 ferndels = 48 geld acres.
1 virgate = 4 ferndels=12 geld acres.
1 ferndel = 3 geld acres,

As the hide was an unit of value and not of area, so its component
parts were also units of value, the geld acre was quite a different
thing from the areal acre. The term jferndel does not occur in
the Survey of our county, where the reckoning is by virgates and
acres, and sometimes by fractions of the hide or virgate, the
fractions being of the most uncouth kind. Thus the estate of
the Bishop of Coutances, at Dodington, is described as containing
a hide and a half, and the third part of half a hide, while Roger
de Berkelaiis described as holding there three hides and two parts
of half a hide, each part, or third of half a hide, containing, of
course, eight geld acres. William de Ow held an estate at
Culcortorne, in Rodmarton, containing three virgates and five
acres ; these, of course, were geld acres and not areal acres. The
area of the virgate and geld acre varied with the area of the hide
to which they belonged, the former being one fourth part, and the
latter one forty-eighth part of the hide, and, of course, the same
proportions would hold with regard to the geld required from each
hide. When the Conqueror raised his geld tax of six shillings
from each hide, the charge would have been at the rate of three-
half-pence on every geld acre, and a geld acre in the Hundred of
Berkeley would have contained on an average nearly ten areal
acres, while in the Hundred of Celflede it would have corresponded
only to about three acres of area, The term acre, which with us

E 2
52 DomeEspay SuRVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

is in a measure only of area, is used in the Survey in connection
with the perch and furlong as a measure of length, in relation to
the areal furlong and areal league as a measure of area, and as a
division of the hide as a measure of value, but it is not usually
difficult to determine the sense in which it occurs in any particular
passage.

The hide is still found among the place-names of the shire, as

at Hyde Farm, near Newnham-on-Severn, and Hide Mill, near
Stow-on-the-Wold.

CARUCATA AND CARUCA.

In the description of the manors, next after the hidage, the
Survey states how many “car” there are, first on the demesne,
and then on the tenants’ land. This “ car
breviation, and it is questioned whether the full form should be

” is evidently an ab-

Carucata or Caruca, and then what meaning should be attached to
these words. Carucata is clearly derived from Caruca, and where
it occurs is used as denoting a certain quantity of land. The
word ‘ Caruca,” which had originally denoted a four-horse chariot,
was afterwards applied to the plough-team because the oxen were
yoked in two ranks, four abreast.

The carucata was clearly the same thing with the hide;
Ordericus Vitalis, in describing Flambard’s new division of the
Kingdom for Hidage, says that with the king’s consent he
measured with a line ‘‘omnes carucatas quas Angli hidas vocant.”
And in Lincolnshire the name carucata was given to that which
in other parts of the country was called a hide; Mr. Eyton
thinks that where it occurs in the Survey of the South Western
Counties it signifies an ingeldable hide, such as were found on the
ancient estates of the crown, and also on such privileged estates
as some which belonged to the church. But it is sufficiently
clear that the abbreviation ‘ca*” does not stand for the same
thing as a hide, there were about 2600 hides in Gloucestershire,
but the Survey enumerates nearly 4000 “ca¥”; again it is a
very rare thing for the number of hides at which an estate was

me 3,

rated to agree with the number of “cai” existing upon it, there
Carveata AND Caruca. 53

is generally a larger number of the latter; where this is not so,
a comparison of the values will generally shew that the estate
had diminished in value since the death of the Confessor. Seeing
then that the “caf” was a different thing from the hide, and
therefore that it does not stand for carucata the next question
is,—what does it stand for? In answering this question we are
helped to some extent by two entries under the head of certain
Estates in Dudstane Hundred. With regard to Hersefel, Athelai,
and Sanher, we are told, “In dominio erant viii caf et iiii vilt et iii
bord et xxx servi cum v. ca¥. Ibi pratum sufficiens carucis.” So in
Hersecome it is recorded that Wislet had “ii caf. et ii bord et v.
servos et pratum carucis.” Surely we cannot doubt that in these
cases “cai” is an abbreviation of caruca—a plough, the Surveyors
first noting the number of ploughs on the land, and then stating
that the estate included sufficient meadow for their maintenance.
These are, I believe, the only instances in the Survey for our
county where caruca is written at length, the term Carucata does

not occur in it at all.

Fortunately, however, before the survey of our county there is
placed a short description of the land between the Wye and the
Usk, which had been brought under the power of the English
crown, partly in the time of King Edward, but chiefly in that of
the Conqueror ; and in this we find the terms Carucata and Caruca,
and also their abbreviations, used in close connection one with
another in such a way as to make it clear that a carucata, or
carucata terre, was a different thing from a caruca, or a “ caf,”
and also to make it highly probable that the two latter terms
meant the same thing. The passages are these :

Walter Balistai tei de Rege ii carucat terre et ibi habet iii caf
et iii servos et iii ancillas. Vat xx sot.

Girard habet ii carué terre et ibi ii caf. Vat xx sot.

Ouus propositus regis li carué terre et ibi iv caf. Vat xx sot.

Ibi est in dominio regis i carué terre quam tenuit Dagobert.

Gozelin Brito tei v carué terre in Caroen et ibi sunt ii cai’ cum
li Walensibus, Vat xx sol.
54 Domespay SurvrEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

Eps Constantiensis tei de rege v carué terre, et de eo unus homo
ejus. Ibi sunt ii caf in dominio et iii villanorum. Vat xl sot.
Roger de Berchelai tefi ii ca¥ terre ad Strigoielg et ibi habet vi

bord cum i caf. Vat xx sot.

In Wales habet isdem Wit de Ow in feudo iii piscarias in Waie
reddentes Ixx solid et in eodem feudo dedit Witt Comes
Radulpho de Limesi 1 carucatas terre sic fit in Normannia.

Turstin filius Rolf habet inter Huscham et Waiam xvii carucas.

De his sunt in dominio iiii et dimidium, aliz sunt hominum, Ibi
xi bord sunt, et molin de vii solid. Wat ix lib tot.

De hac terra v carué et dimid calumniantur propositi regis

dicentes quod eas Turstii sine dono assumpsit.

Here in the earlier entries we have carucates co-ordinated
sometimes with the same number of “ cars.” or with more or less,
just_ as hides are related to “caf” in the body of the Survey ;
and finally in the entry concerning Turstin fitz Rolf we have
“ carucas” written at length, and then we are told that ‘“de his
(carucis) ” four-and-a-half are in demesne, and the rest belong to
the tenants, exactly as in the body of the Survey it is said that
so many “cai” are in demesne, and there are so many villeins,
bordars, &c., with so many “caf.” However, it seems that the
king’s bailiffs claimed the amount of land that was cultivated by
five-and-a-half of the teams on the ground that Turstin had taken
possession of it without any grant from the king.

The key to the use of the carucate instead of the hide seems
to be this, that as the country beyond the Wye was chiefly con-
quered by William Fitzosbern between 1066 and 1070, it was
never hidated, and the Normans divided it out into carucates after
their own fashion (ut fit in Normannia); the matter, however,
seems to be merely a difference of names, for the carucate and
hide were essentially the same thing.

We shall consider then that “caf” is a contraction for caruca,
and that the surveyors in enumerating the “cai” tell us how
many caruce, or plough teains, there were, first of all on the
demesne and then on the tenants’ land of each estate.
CaRuUcATA AND CARUCA, 55

The caruca, or plough team, consisted of eight oxen, yoked four
abreast, as the horses were harnesed in the Roman quadriga; in
the south of Scotland the driver walked backwards before them
leading them by their halters, as it was found that in this way the
work could be most nearly equalised, and each peast could best
be trained to do his fair share of the work. On the arable of the
demesne the teams were worked by the serfs, and it will generally
be found that there were two or three times as many serfs as there
were teams. On the tenants’ land the team was made up by the
oxen of the tenants, each, no doubt, contributing in proportion to
the extent of his holding ; the tenants’ ploughs also assisted in the
cultivation of the demesne.

There are many instances in the Gloucestershire Survey where
we find mention of half-a-team ; as for example in the two manors
of Iron Acton, in one of which, belonging to the Bishop of Coutances,
four villeins and five borders possessed a team-and-a-half, and on
the other, of which Humphrey the Chamberlain was lord, was
half-a-team belonging to three villeins and three borders ; while at
Mangotsfield were six boves, or three-quarters of a team, these
were on the demesne.

But though caruca means, in the first instance, the team of
oxen which cultivated the land, yet expressions are found in the
Survey which imply that the number of teams on an estate was
a fair measure of the extent of its arable land; in other words
that the average area tilled by a plough was a fairly constant
quantity. The Survey of the South Western Counties mentions
first that there is arable enough for a certain number of ploughs,
and then states the number actually at work; the men of the
manor expressing the area of their arable in terms of ploughlands,
saying in effect, we have arable enough here to employ so many
ploughs, but only such a number are actually at work. And this
method of measurement clearly implies that the area which a team
might be expected to cultivate was so well known that any one
acquainted with practical agriculture would attach much the
same meaning to it; it might vary to some extent according to
the nature of the soil, but on the whole no doubt it would be
56 DomeEsDAY SURVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

much the same all over the country. Indeed in a system of
partnership ploughing, and in which though a man always held
the same area of land, yet held it in rotation in different strips,
it would be very necessary that the area assigned to a team should
be the same ; that the unit of material and the unit of working
power should bear a constant relation to each other, that in other
words the same number of acres should be assigned to the same

number of oxen.

That this was so in reality we know from the fact that the
strips for ploughing in the common fields are all nearly of the
same size, that is to say—one acre apiece; the question to be
answered is how many acres could a team of oxen keep in cul-
tivation? Mr. Eyton’s answer is that 120 acres was that number,
and there can be very little doubt that he is correct. A strong
proof is that calculations based on the assumption that a plough-
land contained 120 acres give satisfactory results. The areal acre
now is the same size as it was eight centuries ago, if then we
compare the Domesday acreage with the modern acreage in dis-
tricts of sufficient size to reduce variations in boundary to a small
proportion of the whole extent, we shall obtain trustworthy results.

Among the best cultivated hundreds in the county were those
of Celflede and Wideles in the extreme north, and Tetboldestane,
now Tibaldstone, which also included the modern Hundred of
Cleeve ; moreover no wood or pasture is registered, the only land
whose existence is noted “other than arable being ten acres of
meadow at Buckland in Wideles Hundred.

The following table gives the relation between the arable land
and the total acreage in these hundreds, allowing 120 acres to
each plough :—

HUNDRED. TEAMS, LORDS’, TENANTS’. TOTAL. ARABLE. ACREAGE.
Celflede 52 803 1324 15,900 20,013
Wideles 47 95 142 17,040 20,484
Tetboldestane 24 86 110 13,200 14,629

 

123 2614 =. 3844 46,140 55,126
Shewing that about 84 per cent. of the acreage was under plough
tillage. In 1871, 733,640 acres of 804,977 in the county or 91
CarucaTA AND CARUCA, 57

per cent. were rated, shewing that they produced profit in some
way ; allowing for other sources of profitable cultivation besides
ploughing we could hardly use a higher number of acres toa
plough than 120 without producing a very improbable result in
these hundreds, and in many manors throughout the county ; for
example, to take 130 acres as the area of a ploughland would give
49,920 acres under plough cultivation, or 91 per cent. of the
acreage, just the same percentage as that of rated land in the
county at the present day; and it is unlikely that even in these
hundreds cultivation had been carried to such an extent as that.

On the other hand to take less than 120 acres would be to
magnify deficiencies in many districts which are already sufficiently
striking. We may fairly take it then that 120 acres is a satisfac-
tory equivalent for the ploughland, or land cultivated by a team
of oxen. Halfa ploughland would be 60 acres, and the land of so
many oxen would be so many areas of 15 acres, which is the eighth
part of 120 acres; thus the arable land corresponding to the six
oxen at Mangotsfield would be 90 acres. The bovate, however,
in the districts where carucates were used in the place of hides
was a sub-division of the geld measure, and contained six geld
acres, or one eighth of the 48 geld acres contained in the carucate
or hide.

The yardland, or “ virgata terre,” of which we found mention
in the “gyrda gafollandes” at Tidenham was the normal hold-
ing of a tenant contributing two oxen to the team which worked
the common plough ; it usually contained about 30 acres of arable
land scattered about in acre strips in the common fields, and
generally also, at any rate in later times, some pasture and wood-
land as well. Frequent mention is found of these yardlands until
the seventeenth century, and sometimes even in later periods.
Indeed, of course, the system of holding by yardlands remained
until the common fields were enclosed, whether the name survived
or not. .

So we see that we have on the one hand the caruca or plough
translated into area the ploughland, the yardland, and the acre
strip in the field, representing the system of agriculture actually
58 Domrspay Survey oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

in use at the date of Domesday ; and we have also the hide or
carucate, the virgate, and the geld acre, the same series under
another form, but financial and not agricultural. It should be
mentioned that in later times the knight’s fee was usually made
up of four hides.

LingesaL MEAsures oF DoMEsDAY.

163 feet= 5} yards=1 virga or pertica.

66 ‘5 22 =, «==4 pertice= 1 acra.

660 , 220 ,, 40 = ,, 10 ,, = 1 quaratina.

7920 ,, 2640 ,, 480 , 120,, =12 » =1 leuga

The virga is now called a rod, pole, or perch; the acra is a
chain ; the quarantina is a furlong; the leuga measures a mile-
and-a-half ; and the typical acre is an area a furlong or 220 yards
in length, and a lineal acre or 22 yards in breadth; it was
reckoned that in order to plough an acre thirty-six journeys must
be made, and that the whole distance travelled would be two

leagues.
AREAL Measures or DomesDay.
304 square yards = 1 pertica or square perch.
4,840 53 = 160 pertice= 1 areal acre.
48,400 es = 1600 , = 10 ,, acres =
1 square quarantine.
580,800 4 =19200 , = 120 areal acres=12

square quarantines = | areal leugue.

Two of these measures, the perch and the quarantine, were
square in form, the other two, the acre and league were parallelo-
grams ; each side of the square perch and the square quarantine
was formed by a linear perch and a linear quarantine, while the
areal acre had, as we have seen, two sides a quarantine in length
and two ofa linear acre, while two of the sides of the areal league
were one league in length and the other two sides measured but
one quarantine. But though the typical figures were conceived
to be formed in this way, in practice any figure which contained
the same area with one of these measures was called by its name
whatever its form might be ; for example, when the Survey tells
us that there was at Ledene wood two leagues long and two
AREAL Measures or DomeEspay. 59

quarantines wide, we need not suppose that it was three miles in
length, and a quarter-of-a-mile across ; that may or may not have
been so, what the jurors of the manor wished to express was
merely the fact that the wood measured about 480 acres in area,
and they chose what seemed to them the most convenient method
of stating the truth.

In the case of the wood at Ledene the expression of the Survey
is, ‘‘Silva ii leuge longa et ii quarantine lata,” here, although
an area of wood is expressed, the league and quarantine men-
tioned are linear measures representing the length of the sides of
a parallelogram that would contain such an extent of wood ; but
area is sometimes expressed by another formula used in our
county by the jurors of Bachestane Hundred, as at Tidrentune,
“Silva dimidium leuue in longitudine et latitudine,” this does
not mean an extent of wood six quarantines long and six wide,
or 860 acres, but merely half an areal league or 60 acres. Again,
when it is said that at Wichen were six “ quarantine de silva”
this does not mean a space six furlongs long and six wide, but six
areal furlongs or 60 acres, and the expression is only another
method of stating the same extent of wood as existed at Tyther-
ington. So when we are told that at Actune there was ‘una
quarantina silvee,” this signifies one areal furlong, or only ten
acres.

Wood, and pasture, and occasionally meadow, were measured
by the league and furlong, and it is necessary to be careful in
observing where these measures are mentioned, whether they are
areal or linear.

It is assumed that the Domesday measures of length were the
same with our own, because as a matter of fact calculations based
on this assumption, and applied on a sufficiently large scale, give
satisfactory results.

All the measures depend at last on the length of the ‘ pertica”
or perch, and a very slight alteration in its length would produce
a great alteration in the extent of the areal measures ; for example,
Mr. Eyton shews that if 20 feet were taken as the length of the
perch instead of 164 feet, au acre would result whose area would
60 Domuspay Survey oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

be 1:47 of the acre now in use, or an equivalent to about an
acre-and-a-half.

It will be well to give a few examples to shew how the
descriptions in Domesday are expanded into acreage :—

Eccta S. Marie de Persore tenet Kulege. Ibi v. Hide geld. |
In dominio sunt ii caruce et xiiii villani et unus bordarius cum
vii carucis. Ibi v servi et Molinus de 1 denariis et vi acre prati
et silva iii quarantine longa et una quaratina lata. Valet ¢ solid.

This is Cowley, in Rapsgate Hundred, and the acreage may he
thus expressed :—

Two Ploughlands in demesne 7 ‘ : 240
Seven 5 of the tenants . ‘ i 840
Meadow ‘ ‘i Fi , , : ; 6
Wood ‘ ‘ . - ; ; , 30

1116

The present acreage of the parish is 1834 acres. We may
notice that the extent of wood might have been expressed equally
as well by the formula—iii quarantine de silva,” using areal

quarantines instead of linear ones.

Isdem Wit tenet Culcortorne, et Herbert de eo, Scireuold
tenuit T.R.E. Ibi iii virgate et v acre. In dominio est una
caruca et iii servi. Valet et valuit xxxv solidis.

Here it is to be noted that the acres mentioned are geld acres,
measures that is not of area, but of value ; the estate was rated at
41 geld acres, or at +4 of a hide.

Eccta 8. Dyonisii tenet has villas in Derherste H*. Hochinton
v Hid, Staruenton iii Hid, Colne et Caldicot v Hid, Contone xii
Hid, Preston x Hid, Welleford xv Hid. In his terris sunt in
dominio xv caruce et lxxv villani et xii bordarii cum xxxix
carucis. Ibi xxxviii servi et iv molini de x1 solidis et xxxvi acre
prati. Silva ii leuue et dimidium longa et una leuua et ii quaren-
tine lata.

These are Uckington, Staverton, Colne 8. Denis and Caldicot,
Little Compton, Preston-on-Stour, and Welford, which contain
Tur TERRITORY SURVEYED IN DomeEspDaAy, 61

altogether 11,408 acres; the Domesday measures may be thus

expressed :— ACRES
15 Ploughlands in demesne - - - 1,800

39 5 of the tenants - - - 4,680
Meadow - - - = - - 36
‘Wood - - - - - - - 4,200
10,716

A very fair equivalent to the statute acreage. It will be seen
by reference to the position of the manors that they are far distant
from each other, and that the result expresses the sum of the
amounts of each kind of soil in the different manors. It is better
in reducing fractions of leagues to acres to reduce them first to
quarantines and to multiply by ten, because an areal quarantine
contained ten areal acres; thus the above-mentioned amount would
be reduced in this way,—30 quarantines x 14 quarantines x 10=
4,200 acres. This example shews clearly that the Commissioners
did not intend by the method in which their measures are expressed
to imply anything with regard to the shape of the areas of the
woodland registered, but only that the woodland in the various
S. Denys estates would, if combined, extend over a space three
miles and three-quarters long, and one mile and three-quarters
wide. It will be remarked that though the method of measuring
the arable by ploughlands gives a result which may be incorrect
to the extent of nearly half a ploughland, or 60 acres, the method
of measuring woodland by quarantines, whether areal or linear,
was capable of a far greater degree of accuracy.

Tue Territory SurvEYED IN Domespay.
Terra or arable land,

Whether or not the Cotswold country was a sheep-farming
district at the date of Domesday, the Survey passes by pastoral
pursuits and pastoral sources of wealth almost without notice, and
deals with the county as though the population were supported
entirely by agriculture ; of course the land under plough tillage
would require manuring, and no doubt it was manured by turning
such flocks and herds as the lord or tenants possessed on to it after
62 DoMESDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

!

the harvest was reaped, but so far as we can gather from the
Survey, the plough and not the sheep was the mainstay of the
support of the people on the hills as well as in the vale; land
was valued either for its worth under tillage, or for its capability
for producing food for the plough-teams ; the plough was at work
wherever the land was cleared of wood, and there was any
possibility of growing a crop.

The following table shews the value of an acre of arable land
in different parts of the county, the instances being taken from
manors where there is no mention of meadow or wood, and the
values of the mills having been deducted :—

PENNY. PENNY,
Celflede Hundred - 1:20 Snowshill - - - - I-11
Wideles ss - 1:26 Winstone - - - - Il
Tetboldestane Hun. - 1:19 Coln 8. Aldwyn - ‘78
Culkerton - - - - 1:94 Boxwell - - - - ‘67
Kemerton - - - - 1:32 Kempley - - - - ‘66
Bourton-on-the-Water 1:16 Oxenhall - - - - ‘57

The values of the iills, and the small portions of meadows
mentioned as existing in the three hundreds, have been deducted.

It would seem then that a fair value for an acre of good land
in the county was about 1:2 penny ; but that in extreme cases the
value of an acre might vary from one halfpenny to two pence ;
possibly the land at Kempley and Oxenhall was but partially
cleared of wood, the Culkerton land was in three small holdings,
and so was favourably conditioned for producing large crops, and
it may be that Boxwell and Ooln 8. Aldwyn, which were estates
of Gloucester Abbey, were not very effectively cultivated.

With regard to the number of stock upon the land, it will be
shewn presently that on some manors it was the custom for the
lord to provide a tenant who contributed two oxen to the common
plough, with two oxen, one cow, and six sheep. Thus every
tenant’s team would represent eight oxen, and about four cows,
and two dozen sheep; and bearing this in mind it will not be
dificult to form an approximate idea of the probable quantity
Sitva oR WoopLanD, 63.

of stock held by the tenants on any estate. Of course there
would be besides these, any cattle that the lord might have on the
demesne.

The term “planum,” which occurs in the account of the
Manors of Hamme et Mortune and Cedeorde, signifies land under
cultivation as opposed to woodland ; and at Cedeorde it is distin-
guished not only from woodland, but from meadow as well.

Sirva oR WooDLAND.

Woodland, as we have seen, was chiefly valuable on account
of the grass in the spring and the pannage in autumn ; timber,
we may suppose, was too common to be regarded as any very
great source of profit, though the best timber, oak and ash, was
withheld from the tenants, who yet had the right of cutting
wood for the repair of their homesteads and their implements.

For this reason no doubt we find few intimations in the
Survey of our county of the nature of the woodland registered.
We only learn that a ‘“Sapina,” or firwood, lay in the King’s
ferm at Westbury-on-Severn ; no doubt this was maintained for
the sake of the timber, perhaps for building the ships, for whose
fastenings the hundred bundles of iron bars for nails were annually
furnished by the City of Gloucester: probably this Gloucester
iron was obtained from forges in the Forest of Dean, and it is
very interesting to be able to trace a connection between that
forest and the Royal Navy even in the pages of Domesday. Again
we find under the head of (Elmstone) Hardwick, Bourton-on-the-
Hill, Todenham, and Sutton Brailes, mention of 30 acres of
Broce, or brushwood ; it is difficult to see in what way this could
have been profitable, or why the Commissioners, who omit to
mention large areas of woodland which certainly existed, should
have mentioned it if it were unprofitable.

It is sometimes said that in old times the Cotswold country was
covered with a low growth of wood; this may have been so, but
as far as the Survey gives any evidence on the subject, it would
seem to shew that if such a condition of things had ever existed
it had ceased by the date of the Conquest ; we do, however, find
64 DomESDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIKE.

in the place names of the county marks of the tree growth which
once flourished there. Acton Turville and Iron Acton deriving
their names from the oak, the alder giving its name to Alderley
and Alderton ; the adjoining parishes of Haselton and Notgrove
telling of the existence of the hazel, Saul of the willows, and
Boxwell of the box-woods and well which remain to this day.
Buckholt wood took its name from the beeches which still find
congenial soil there, and Berkeley perhaps from the birches which
have passed away.

In one instance, at Turstin f. Rolf’s Manor of Tortworth, we
find woodland valued as well as measured, “Silva 1 leuua longa et
dimidium lata reddens v solidos,” 720 acres of wood rented at five
shillings, or at the rate of 12 acres for one penny.

In several cases it is obvious that the woodland registered
under the names of manors must have lain outside the limits of
the existing parishes which answer most nearly to the Domesday
areas, and very likely at a considerable distance from them where
it cannot now be traced.

ARABLE. MEADOW. WOOD, ‘TOTAL. MODERN.
Dymock- - - 5652 4320 9972 6743
Bromesberrow - 1800 2880 4680 1803
Tibberton - - 1320 4320 5640 1400
Huntley- - - 480 2880 3360 1409
Horton - - - 1320 20 2880 4220 3540
Badgworth- - 3600 2880 6480 3927
Painswick - - 6360 14400 20760 3614
Miserden - - 2434
Sudeley - - - 2040 8640 10680 2622

The modern Dymock includes the Manor of Chitiford as well
as that of Dimoch, allowing for this except at Huntley and
Horton, the arable land would account fairly well for the modern
parish, though at Sudeley some of the wood also, no doubt, lay
within it. The first four manors lay in Botloe Hundred, some of
the excess wood doubtless lay near May Hill, for there is a
deficiency of more than 4000 acres in the entries under the head
of Newent, but much of it must have lain beyond the limits of the
Sitva on Woop.anb. 65

Hundred altogether ; for the Survey registers 34,582 acres, of which
14,880 acres are wood-land, in an area measuring only 29,488
acres, but there is "nothing to show where the excess is to be
found. The wood in Horton probably lay towards the Lower
Woods, and has left its mark in the name Horwood; as the
acreage registered under Hawkesbury is deficient, it is possible
that the wood-land in that neighbourhood, now reckoned to be in
Hawkesbury parish, was in old time included in the Manor of
Horton.

It is interesting to notice how the western and southern
boundaries of the county were marked by masses of King’s
Forest. Between Tewkesbury and Malvern lay Malvern Chase,
reckoned to be in Worcestershire ; behind the line of Offa’s dyke
lay the Forest of Dene; while the boundary between Gloucester-
shire and Somerset was marked by the Royal Forest of Bedminster,
where Leigh Woods are now on the south of the river, and by
Kingswood Forest between Bristol and Bitton on the north.
The Forest of Braden lay to the south of our county in North
Wilts, and Wychwood Forest to the south-east in Oxfordshire.
The lines of wood which so often divide our parishes, have only
succeeded to the masses of uncleared wood-land between the marks,
and in the same way these masses of forest formed the lines of
demarcation between kingdoms and counties, as the Forest of
Selwood had beforetime formed a natural division in the Kingdom
of Wessex, and the Andredesweald had separated the Kingdom
of Sussex from its neighbour on the north. But the Survey tells
us little about the Royal forests in Gloucestershire, not one of
them is mentioned by name, the existence even of the Forest of
Dene is only indirectly intimated; we gather that ships going to
the wood paid toll at the new castle at Chepstow ; we hear of
tenants at Dene who held their land free from geld, and rendered
an equivalent service by guarding the King’s forest, we are told
that by command of the King six hides at Wigheiete and three
hides at Hiwoldestone had been added to the forest, and there are
a few other casual intimations of its existence, but the name of the
forest never occurs. We are told that two woods, probably those

F
66 DuMESDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

of Oakley and Minety pertained to the Royal Manor of Cirences-
ter, and at Minety there is still aroad called Silver Street ; but no
acreage of wood is registered on any of the ancient estates of the
crown, nor indeed on any of the King’s lands at all, except at
Dymock, which was probably an escheat from Roger Fitzosbern.
This omission is natural enough, as the King’s forests were exempt
from ordinary jurisdiction, being governed by a code of their own,
and were not subject to any assessment; though in some other
counties the area of the Royal forests was duly registered. There
can be no doubt, however, that there was much wood-land on the
Royal estates, whose existence is indeed attested at Berkeley and
Bristol by the name Kingswood, and the great deficiency in the
acreage of the Royal manors is probably mainly to be accounted
for by the existence of this unregistered forest. It does not
appear that, with the exception of the nine hides at Wigheiete
and Hiwoldestone the King made any additions to his forests in
this county ; on the other hand there are several estates mostly
of small extent near the Forest of Dean, and in Westbury Hun-
dred, which appear to have been filched from the Royal property.

It would seem that, with one exception, the districts which
were most densely wooded eight centuries ago, are still those where
the largest extent of wood is found, though, of course, the woods
are much smaller now than they were then. The one exception
is the region between Berkeley and Bristol, which seems to have
been a forest region ; Berkeley would have contained much wood-
land for the purposes of the chase ; it is said that great clearances
of wood were effected in later times to supply the forges at Iron
Acton ; the Abbot of Glastonbury possessed a forest at Puckle-
church, and in the south lay the King’s forest of Kingswood ; it
is also a district in which the Domesday acreage is very deficient,
no doubt on account of the existence of this unprofitable wood-
land.

In 1227, we are told in Smyth’s Lives of the Berkeleys, King
Henry IIL, at the general petition of the men of those parts,
and especially those of the Forest of Horwood, did disafforest all
the towns, lands, and woods, between Huntingford (where Berkeley
Hundred and Hugh Gurney’s lands parted), and the wood of

*
Pratum ok MEApow, 67

furzes now called Kingswood, within four miles of Bristol, and so
from Severn side to the brow of the hills by Sodbury, excepting
only Allestone Park. And for more assurance, the Bishop of
Bath and Wells, and some other lords, took particular patents for
for the disafforestation of their proper manors.

Allestone is clearly Alveston, which appears asa Royal manor
in the pages of Domesday; Huntingford mill is situated on the
little Avon, in the parish of Berkeley, between that town and
Wotton-under-Edge. It is evident that the intention is to record
that in 1227 the district that lay between the hills and the Severn,
from near Berkeley on the north to the northern boundary
of Kingswood Forest ou the south, was exempted from the
dominion of the forest laws. The name Horwood still exists in
the title of a farm in Horton parish, and the same root can be
traced in Horfield; Horton and Horfield thus lying almost at
opposite extremities of the Forest of Horwood.

The manor for which the Bishop of Bath and Wells took his
patent of disafforestation would have been Pucklechurch.

In several instances we find mention of ‘‘haiz,” these were
enclosures in the woods fenced round with strong hedges into
which the beasts of the chase were driven, the entrance being
then closed by hurdles. The building and repair of the lord’s
deer-hedge was one of the ordinary incidents of tenants’ service ;
the word deer being used for all kinds of game. The Abbot of
Gloucester had three such enclosures on his Manor of Hamme
and Mortune, now Churcham and Highnam, for there the Survey
tells us the church had its hunting.

The park on Brictric Algarson’s estate at Old Sodbury was an
enclosure made in all probability not for pleasure, but for the
safe custody of animals, wild or tame: the name “ Parks Farm”
still testifies to its existence ; and on property at Avening that
had belonged to the same owner was a hawks’ eyry.

Pratum or MeEapow.

Mr. Eyton states that the “ Pratum” was lowland grass of
the best quality, accessible to the scythe, and most profitable when
F 2
68 Domespay ScRVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

thus farmed; which was probably tended by all the culture of
which such land was susceptible. It was irrigated if possible, it
was kept clear from thickets and other injurious growths ; and
was fenced sometimes by hedges, sometimes by open drains. That
it was reckoned of great value is shewn by the care taken to
register very small quantities ; thus we find mention of only two
acres at Charlton Abbots, Clifford Chambers, North Cerney,
Duntisbourne, and Edgeworth, of three acres at Twining, Coles-
borne, and Rendcombe, of “aliquantum” at Clive, and we may
suppose that if such small qnantities had existed in other places
they would have been also registered. It is difficult to discover
from our Survey the value of an acre of meadow, for the only
case in which it is measured and valued separately was in the
land of the Church of Cirencester, which, we are told, possessed an
estate which was rated at two hides, and was valued at forty
shillings ; here the hidation and value fit each other very well,
but the only property whose existence is mentioned consisted of
six acres of meadow ; it is difficult, however, to believe that an
acre of meadow by itself could be worth 6s. 8d. even in a Royal
borough ; certainly such a value would be far beyond that of any
other meadow land registered in the county ; it is likely, therefore,
that the estate included other elements of profit that are not
mentioned, perhaps sufficient land to be rated at two hides, in
that case about 500 acres. In other cases where meadow is
mentioned its area is so small in proportion to that of other kinds
of land that no trustworthy calculation can be based upon them.
Mr. Eyton suggests a fraction less than two pence an acre asa
possible value for meadow land. Naturally the largest areas of
meadow are found in the valleys of the smaller streams, and in
the vale of the Severn above Gloucester, for the tide-water would
overflow the low-lying land below that city, and saltmarsh very
likely overgrown with thorns would bring little profit. The manor
which possessed the largest acreage of meadow was South Cerney
where 100 acres are registered, though Tewkesbury, with some
dependent manors, included 120 acres. The hundreds which
included most meadow, were Gersdone, watered by the Churn and
PastuRA oR PASTURE, 69

Ampney brook, with 198 acres, Tewkesbury with 191, Grimbol-
destow with 114, Dudstane and Bertune with 120, and Deerhurst
with 174. The total area of meadow registered in the county was
1757 acres, and it is not probable that any large amount escaped
the notice of the surveyors; it should be noted, however, that we
find a few instances in which it was valued rather than measured,
as at Lechlade, where meadow was worth £7 7s., and at Kemps-
ford there was meadow land worth £9, “ pro pasturé boum,” these
values of course represent large tracts of meadow ; at Sclostre the
sum of 10s. arose from meadow land. It is not likely, however,
that the county contained more than 2000 acres of meadow.

PastuRA OR PASTURE.

Mr. Eyton states that the term “ Pastura” was used in a
double sense in Dorset and Somerset, first for large tracts of waste
land which were neither pasture nor wood in any sense of agricul-
tural profit, and secondly for grass land capable of yielding a profit
to the farmer in the shape of nutriment both for his working and
grazing cattle. In the few cases in which it is mentioned as
existing in our county the term no doubt implies pasture of the
latter kind, the former was of set purpose omitted ; its area is
never registered, but only its value, thus there was pasture at
Tetbury worth 10s., and two of the manors which now make up
Shipton Moyne contained each pasture worth 2s., while forty hens
were paid as arent in kind from wood and pasture at Temple
Guiting. We cannot suppose that there was no other land which
would have come under the description of pasture, but most likely
it was regarded as quite subordinate to the arable, and as chiefly
valuable as providing food for the oxen which drew the plough ;
in this way any value it possessed would naturally be entered
with that of the arable land, and not separately.

In only two instances does the Survey intimate the existence
of sheep in Gloucestershire ; the Queen was entitled to the fleece
of the sheep on the Royal Manor of Cirencester, no donbt an
analogous payment to the mark of gold which she was entitled to
receive, as at Bristol, from Royal manors whose annual value
70 DomMEsDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

exceeded one hundred pounds; and at Kempsford the sheep-fold
produced one hundred and twenty pounds (pensas) of cheese.

The sheep does not occur in any of the rents in kind, cows
and pigs and honey and hens occur, but the sheep is not mentioned,
except in the two cases noticed.

VINEA OR VINEYARD.

The vine is only once mentioned in the Gloucestershire Survey,
‘ii arpenz vinee”” are registered at Stonehouse on land which had
belonged to Tovi, a large landowner before the Conquest, and
which was held in 1086 by William de Ow. There can be no
doubt that a vineyard is intended and not an orchard ; whether
or not it be true that the culture of the vine was introduced into
Britain by the Romans it is certain it was cultivated in England
before the Conquest, for the vineyard is mentioned in the laws of
King Alfred, and after the Conquest vineyards were by no means
uncommon, especially on the estates of ecclesiastics. It is really
more surprising that mention is made of only one vineyard than
that that vineyard is found ; at any rate it is interesting to note
that it was situated near to the Roman settlements of Frocester
and Woodchester, and there could be few warmer spots in the
county than the south-western slope of the hill above Stonehouse.
The arpent was certainly less than half-an-acre in extent, so that
William de Ow’s vineyard covered less than an acre. About a
mile-and-a-half north of Stonehouse is a farm which bears the
name of Vinegar Hill Farm ; it is now, and probably always has
been, in the Parish of Standish, but the name is interesting as a
testimony to the cultivation of the vine in the immediate neigh-
bourhood of the spot where the Domesday Commissioners found it.

MeEtTHop oF CULTIVATION.

It will next be necessary to consider in what manner and by
what classes of population the land was cultivated.

Mr. Thorold Rogers gives a good description of a typical
manor at pp. 88 and 89 of his “Six Centuries of Work and
Wages ;” he says, “The arable land of the manor was generally
communal, ¢.e. each of the tenants possessed a certain number
METHOD OF CULTIVATION. 7

of furrows in a common field, the several divisions being separated
by balks of unploughed ground, on which the grass was suffered
to grow. This system, which was all but universal in the
thirteenth century, has survived in certain districts up to living
memory, though generally it gave way to enclosures, effected at a
more or less remote period. The system has been traced back to
remote antiquity. The ownership of these several strips was
limited to certain months in the year, generally from Lady Day
to Michaelmas, and for the remaining six months the land was
common pasture. The communal cultivation had its advantages
for the poorer tenants, since the area of their pasture was increased.
But at the latter end of the seventeenth century it was denounced
as a wasteful and barbarous system, and wholly unsuited to any
improved system of agriculture.

In Fitzherbert’s treatise on Surveying, a work of the early
part of the sixteenth century, a description is given of these
communal districts. There is, he says, a field, which he calls Dale
Furlong, in which the several inhabitants have “lands.” In this
field the parson has two strips, the lord three, a tenant one,
another two, a third one, the lord four, the prior two, the parson
one, a fourth tenant two, a fifth one, a sixth one, a seventh two,
the prior three, the lord two and one headland, the parson having
the other. The rest of the fields, of which he gives four names,
are similarly divided.

He then treats of a long meadow containing 122 acres, which
is similarly staked and bounded, This appears to be devoted to
hay, and the several tenants mow and stack their portions. In
this typical manor there are also closes of various dimensions.
Every husbandman, in addition to his share in the communal field,
has six of these closes,—three for corn, and the others for pasture
and hay.”

Besides this, Fitzherbert says the husbandman had access to
three kinds of common of pasture. Sometimes there is a common
close ; there is the plain champaign country, where the cattle go
daily before the herdsman, this lying near the common fields ; and
lastly there are the lord’s outwoods, moors, and heaths, which have
never been under the plough.
a1
bo

DoMEsDAY SuRVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

This account was written more than three centuries after
Domesday Book was compiled ; in very few manors in our county
would there have been enough meadow to divide out at the earlier
date, and most of the pasture would probably have been as yet unen-
closed ; on the other hand Fitzherbert’s account of the division of
the arable land was as true at the earlier as at the later date.
The system of agriculture had remained unchanged, only the
country had become more thickly inhabited, and the land was
more completely brought under cultivation. The names of the
common fields can very often be traced at the present day. The
headlands were the strips of land at right angles to the furrows
on which the plough was turned, of course they could not be
ploughed over till all the rest of the land was ploughed. It will
be seen that the lord held nine lands and a headland, the parson
three and a headland, the prior five, three tenants held two lands
each, and four held each a single land; no doubt each holder
would have owned a proportionate number of lands in the other
three fields) By “lands” Fitzherbert intended “ yardlands” or
“virgates,” each one-fourth of the teamland, and the Domesday
Surveyors would have described the typical manor somewhat in
these terms : ‘‘ Here are in demesne nine teams, and three villeins
and four bordars with ten teams, and a priest with three teams.
Of the land of this manor the Prior of holds Hides
and has there five teams.” In reality the number of villeins and

 

 

bordars working ten teams would have been much more than
seven, the number of serfs on the demesne, probably about —
twenty-four, would have been mentioned, and very likely the
priest and prior would have had tenants on their land.

The officers over the manors, were the steward and bailiff on
the part of the lord, and the propositus on behalf of the tenants.
The steward was set over several manors, and in Domesday Glou-
cestershire, where few of the tenants i capite resided, he would
have possessed very great influence and power. The bailiff and
propositus under him were responsible for the practical working
of the manor over which they were set, the latter was a tenant
elected by his fellows, so that the lord’s rights and the tenants’
DomEspDAY PoroLaTION, 73

interests were both provided for ; the propositus is several times
mentioned in our Survey.
Domespay PoPpuLATIon.
The following table gives the number of male tenants regis-
tered in the Survey for our county.

Milites - - - 16 Fabri . - 2
Francigene - - - 11 Villani et Propositi 3807
Liberi homines” - - 15 Bordarii - - 1896
Radchenistri - - 186 Servi - - 2148
Coliberti —- - - 92 Afri (beasts of burden) 4
Homines~ - - - 57 Presbyteri - - 50
Figuli - - - 5 =

8239

This enumeration is not, however, and was not intended to
be, an exhaustive census of the population ; for example, we are
told that the Radchenistri at Berkeley, and the Milites at North
Cerney, and the Priest at Bibury, cultivated their land “suis
hominibus”; Domesday book clearly implying the existence of
tenants whose number is not given. Moreover there must certainly
have been more than fifty priests and two smiths outside the
boroughs when the Survey was made. And as regards the servi
the number is not, and could not be, accurately given, because in
many cases the total number of servi and ancille,—male and
female serfs,—is stated ; in such cases I have divided the total
equally between the two sexes. Still the total of 8239 may be
considered a fair approximation to the number of heads of agri-
cultural families, erring, however, very decidedly on the side of
defect.

It will be well to consider first the amount of land held by
the members of these various classes of the community, and then

the nature of the tenure, and the conditions, under which they
held it.

MILItEs.
Tedestrop 1 held 2 teams.
Cernei 4 , 7 ,,  , anda mill, “cum suis hominibus.”
Colesborne 1 ,, 14 ,, , and a mill, with 2 villeins and 2
bordars.
33 1 , 5. ,,  , with 5 villeins and 2 bordars.
7

152
74 DomeEspay SuRVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

Each Miles holding with his sub-tenants on an average more
than enough land for two teams to cultivate. The ownership of
roills, and the lordship over villeins and bordars, also marking
these milites as tenants of some wealth and importance. It does
not appear that the term “ miles” had acquired a definite meaning
at the date of the Survey, though it seems to imply obligation to
render services to a feudal lord ; thus the tenants of this class at
Cernei are called “ Milites Gisleberti” £ Turold, and one of those °
at Colesborne “ Miles de Ansfrido” de Cormeliis, Gislebert and
Ansfrid being Lords of the Manors of Cernei and Colesborne.

FRANCIGENSE.

Rindecombe | held land of 2 villeins.
Wenitone 1 ,, 1} hide with one team.
Lecelade 1 ,, land of 1 villein.
Aldeberie 1 ,, 1 team.

The word ‘‘ Francus ” is used in the Survey either as a mark
of nationality, ‘‘ Frenchman or Foreigner,” or else as a mark of
political status, ‘‘a Freeman.” In these cases it cannot be doubted
that Francigena ought to be translated ‘“ Foreigner,” and that it
does not designate any special class of tenants, but merely marks
the nationality of men who might have belonged to almost any
class, but who in these particular cases would have ranked with
the wealthier villeins.

Dr. Freeman in Note £. Vol. v. of the ‘Norman Conquest ”
has treated of the use of the terms “ Franci” and “ Angli” in

the Survey.
Lisert Homrnes.
Sevenhatone 3 held 7 teams.
Egesworde De De ts,
Bertuneap.Glow.2 ,, 9 ,, and 2 hides.
7 18

Each Freeman owning on an average about 2} teams. It is
remarkable that in Gloucestershire the terms “ Freeman ” and
‘“‘Colibertus” seem to be mutually exclusive; there are no freemen
in the south or west, and except at Tewkesbury and Dymock all
RADCHENISTRI. 75

the coliberts are found either at Berkeley or to the south of that
place. It is probable, however, that most of the tenants who are
called in our Survey “ Radchenistri,” would in other counties
have been registered as ‘“‘Freemen.” There were degrees of free-
dom, all freemen were free as to their persons, they could go
where they pleased, and put themselves under whatever lord they
chose. Some freemen could also transfer their land, thus we hear
of two brothers at Cromhall who could go where they pleased with
their land, and the same thing is asserted of Bolle, who had given
land at Windrush to Winchcombe Abbey, which land was claimed
for the King, the dispute turning probably on the nature of Bolle’s
tenure, whether he possessed such an interest in the property as
to be able to bestow it. Some freemen, however, could not so
transfer their land, thus there were six Radchenistri (a class of
freemen bound to perform certain services) at Westbury-on-Trym,
who held land that could not be separated from the manor. They
could enter the service of another lord if they pleased, but if
they did so, they would have to leave the land at Westbury ;
and such a limited right as that would have possessed but little
value.

RADCHENISTRI.
Aldritone 1 held 1 team.
Becheberie 3 ,, 4 ,, and 4 hides.
Widindune 4 ,, 2 ,, and2 ,, and 3 virgates,
Quenintone 2 ,, 1 ,,
Stanedis Eng LE os
Berchelai 10 ,, 7 ,, and 7 hides.
ss 19 ,, 48 cum suis hominibus.

Hluesberie 6 ,, 8 ,, and 8 hides.
Bristou e| et se) ge, « Saad le! 5
Dimoch 4, 4

57 93

Each Radchenist thus owning on an average about one team
and two-thirds of a team; they are found in all parts of the
county except between the Severn and Wye, where the four at
Dymock were the only representatives of the class, this fact would
76 DoMESDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

seem to negative the idea that they formed a sort of constabulary
for guarding the Welsh frontier. They occur chiefly on the
estates of large proprietors, mainly on royal and ecclesiastical
property.

The nature of their services is twice described in detail in the
Survey, as if the Commissioners recognised that they were dealing
with an uncommon designation, and that some explanation was
necessary. In the account of the estates of Westminster Abbey
it is said that some properties were held by Radchenistri,
“id est liberi homines 1.R.E. qui tamen omnes ad opus domini
arabant et herciabant faleabant et metebant.” ‘That is to say
freemen in King Edward’s time, who yet all used to plough and
harrow, mow and reap at the Lord’s need.” So also we are told
that at Tewkesbury “ Hi Radchenistri arabant et herciabant ad
curiam domini.” ‘These Radchenists used to plough and harrow
on the Lord’s land.” They were, therefore, apparently freemen who
held land of a lord on the condition of rendering specified services
of an ordinary agricultural kind. The name Radchenist is appar-
ently confined to Gloucestershire, and the neighbouring counties of
Herefordshire, Worcestershire, and Berkshire, though the cognate
form ‘Radman” is common enough in the north of England.
Ducange explains the equivalent form “ Rodknight,” thus— A
form of Serjeantry among the English with which he, who was in-
vested, owed the service of riding with his Lord or Lady from manor
to manor,” and he quotes Bracton and Fleta as authorities. In the
time of King John the land of Robert de Pyrie, at Cirencester,
was held on the tenure of escorting the King’s treasurer through
the county at his own cost, and outside it at the King’s cost;
other land was held by Robert Erkenbald on a hunting tenure:
these two tenancies probably represent the holdings of the two
“liberi homines ” noted in Domesday Book, and unless the nature
of the services had been changed in the interval between the
reign of the Conqueror and that of John, one of the freemen noted
in the Survey might with equal truth have been described as a
Radchenist. For it would seem that that uncommon term was
merely a local designation for freemen who rendered a very
common form of service ; it must be remenibered too that the old
RADCHENISTRI. 7

English word “cniht” signified simply a servant, and had not of
necessity any military signification.

The Rev. John Earle, in an article in Vol. x1x of the Tran-
sactions of the Archeological Institute, traces the derivation of
the form ‘“chenistres” from “cnihtas; he regards the insertion
of ‘s’ before the ‘t’ in place of the guttural ‘h,’ and the ‘r’ in
the plural, as probably features of the Anglian dialect ; the latter
form being derived from the Danish, which forms its plurals in
‘er,’ as Kong Konger,—King Kings. We still sometimes hear
childer used in the plural for child. It is likely that there is a
considerable infusion of Danish blood in South-East Gloucester-
shire, for the Chronicle records that in 880 the Danish army came
from Chippenham to Cirencester, and sat there one year ; almost
one-third of the population of Sherston, in North Wilts, bear the
surname of Neal to this day. So that possibly the Danish form
of this plural may be a direct consequence of a Danish settlement
and not an indirect result of the influence of Dane on Angle
before the latter left his continental home, as Mr. Earle suggested.

We may take it then that the Radchenistri were free tenants
who held their land by service on horse-back, not necessarily of a
military character, but rather as a kind of guard of honour to
their superior, though no doubt they would have been required
to render protection if it were needed.

Sir Henry Spelman, in chapter xxvi of his Treatise on Tenures
by Knight Service, gives a charter granted by Oswald Bishop of
Worcester, in the time of King Edgar, between the years 960 and
975, in which the bishop granted land for the term of three lives
to certain tenants who are called “ Equites.”. Besides the ordinary
services the special ones required as ‘lex equitandi,” would seem
to be,—that as often as the need of the bishop shall require, they
shall present themselves in readiness for it; that they shall both
provide horses, and themselves ride forth with him ; that they be
ready to repair the fence of the bishop’s park, and to furnish him
with weapons when he goes hunting.

It would seem that these “ Equites ” of Bishop Oswald, would
78 Domespay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

correspond to the “ Radknights” of Bracton, and the “ Radchen-
istri” of our Survey, some of whom are found on all the estates
of the Church of Worcester in our county except at Colesborne.

CoLIBERTI.
Fitentone - - - - 2 hold 2 teams.
Huesberie - - - = 20 10 4;
Bristou - - - - 18,14 ~~,

40 26
Each colibert owning about five out of the eight oxen in a
team. Out of the 92 coliberts in the county, 60 were on the three
great Manors of Berchelai, Huesberie, and Bristou, and 11 of the
remainder were at Dimoch, and 7 at Havochesberie.

Ducange states that those are called coliberti in the Civil Law
who had been presented with their freedom by the lord whose
serfs they had been ; but it is to be noted that the serfs at Heile
whom William Leuric had liberated are still called serfs in the
Survey. A mark of their servile origin is to be seen in the fact
that frequently they are mentioned with the serfs and ancille, as
at Berchelai, Huesberie, and Bristou ; though at Dimoch they are
enumerated with the villeins and bordars, whom no doubt they
resembled in the nature of the tenure of their land. Perhaps
they continued to work on the demesne rather than on the gesette
land; and probably they associated rather with the serfs from
whose ranks they had risen, than with the villeins into whose
condition they had been admitted. The extent of their holdings
would seem to have been about the same with that of the villeins.
Two coliberts at Pucklechurch paid a rent of 34 pence; but there
is nothing to shew how the rent arose.

Homings.
Brewere 3 hold 3 virgates.
Optune 4 ,, 1 hide.
Berchelai 17 manent in foro, et reddunt censum in firma.
Didintone 2 de v solidis.
Pulcrecerce 6 reddunt c massas ferri x minus.
Ficurt 79

Biselege 23 reddunt xliv solidos, et ii sextaria mellis.
Beceshore 1 » vi sochs.

Ducange gives as the signification of ‘‘homo,”—one who is
in any way subject to a lord, whether his condition be servile or
free ; but in our Survey, it seems to signify any tenant who paid
for his holding in money or kind, rather than by service.

A virgate of land at Estbroc, now Ampney 8. Mary, in the
occupation of one villein, was worth two shillings; which fact
may give an index of the rents paid by the tenants at Brewere
and Optune, and the extent of the holding of those at Biselege
and Didintone. It is interesting to find iron-working on a manor
of Dunstan’s Abbey of Glastonbury ; the iron was smelted with
timber from the woods on the manor, which was not disafforested
till 1227. I cannot find that the term ‘‘ massa ferri” denoted
any exact quantity of the metal, though no doubt the abbot’s
steward knew well enough how much his ninety pigs of iron
ought to weigh. The two forges belonging to Flaxley Abbey
consumed more than two large oaks every week, so that in lieu of
the right of cutting timber for their forges Henry III. gave the
monks 870 acres of wood, still known as the abbot’s woods ; we
may suppose, therefore, that by 1227 fuel fit for smelting was
becoming scarce above ground at Pucklechurch, though the Bishop
of Wells could have got much better fuel by digging for it, if he
had only known of the existence of that hidden wealth.

The six “soccos” paid by the tenant at Beceshore were iron
tips for the plough-share ; the plough itself being little more than
a wooden frame with an iron point to the share. A burgess of
Gloucester pertaining to the Manor of Quenintone also paid a
rent of 4 ‘‘ soccos.”

These homines would seem to correspond to the censores and
gabulatores of other counties.

FIGuui.
Five “ figuli” or “ poters” paid 44 pence on Sheriff Durandus’
estate at Hersefeld. There are still pottery works at Cranham,
where the same series of oolite beds occur as at Haresfield.
80 DomeEspay SctRVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

Fart.

Smiths are twice mentioned, there was one on the estate of
the nuns of Caen, at Penneberie, where eight villeins and a smith
held three teams, and one at Quenintone, who paid a rent of two
shillings. No doubt most of the smiths lived in the towns, but it
seems incredible that there should be only two in the country
districts ; perhaps as they no doubt ranked with the villeins, and
as the case of the Pinbury smith shews, held land with the villeins,
they are usually reckoned among the villein tenants. It would
seem that the smith’s holding was usually free from the ordinary
services in respect of his office ; the village carpenter also fre-
quently possessing a similar privilege.

VILLANI.
Tedeneham 38 held 38 teams. Heniberge 15 held 5 teams.
Nortune 15 , 15) ,, Edelmintone 13 ,, 6 ,,
Stanwelle Dea “Bis ys Odelaveston 5 ,, 5 ,,
Tormentone 25 ,, 12 ,, Tideham Le cgg> Se. 5
Bernesleis 12 ,, 6 ,, Hagenepene 6 ,, 3 ,,
Duntesborne 8 , 5 ,, Fernecote 4, 4 ,
Aldritone Risse, Gk Culeortone 6 ,, 3 ,,
Stantone ay FF ys Weston Brigg Be 53
Etherope 23 ,, 10 ,, a
197 = 129

VILLANI ET BoRDARIUL.
Brunemeberge 11 villeins and 8 bordars held 14 teams.

Risendone 23 ‘3 6 9 y¢ 10 5
Rodele 2 = 4 Shoe By gs
Capedene 50 ‘i 8 7 » 21. ,,
Horedone 11 a 8 5 ay 28M 435
Didintone 14 os 8 3 ie TAOS Ka55
Aldelande 1 ‘ Cae! ga AL. gs
Huesberie 8 ‘i 5 ” a (Bs
Henberie, &c. 27 “ 22 3 5 26 <,
Todintune 20 ‘i 12 i » 20. ,,
Betune 41 5 29 ei » 45,
Alwestan 23 re 5 22

231 121 185
BorDARIl. 81

BorpDaril.
Prestetune 3 held 1] team. Dene 38 held 73 teams.
Norcote De ag Bs Tatinton 6. 3; 2 a
Sudinton 2 , 4 , Dedmertone 8 ,, 1 6%
Bristou Begg Te ay Troham 4 , I oe
67 134

As 197 villeins held between them 129 teams, we should gather
that the average holding of a villein was about two-thirds of a
team, or six of the eight oxen which composed it; and as 13}
teams were held by 67 bordars, it would seem that each held on
an average about one-fifth of a team, of course an impossible
amount; in the cases where the two classes are mentioned together
one-fourth of a team seems to have been a bordar’s share, thus-—

(231 x 2) + (121 x 4) = 4374737 sees = 184}.

A very close approximation to the 185 teams belonging to the
231 villeins and 121 bordars ; we shall not be far wrong, therefore,
if we conclude that the average contribution of a Gloucestershire
villein fo the common team was six oxen, and of a bordar two
oxen.

The villeins usually worked on the gesette land of the manor,
but in one case, Bishop Osbern’s Manor of Tidrentune, we are told
there were two teams in demesne, and one villein, five bordars and
two serfs; it was an impoverished estate, whose value had fallen
from 100 shillings to 40 shillings ; the gesette land would seem to
have been allowed to fall out of cultivation, and so the villein and
bordars worked upon the demesne. At Tidenham, where we are
told that ten of the thirty hides were in demesne, yet no mention
is made of any teams in demesne, but only of 38 teams belonging
to 38 villeins, it is prokable that these villeins farmed the whole
manor for the fixed rent of £25. If so the arrangement in this
case was a very successful one, for the manor was in an excellent
state of cultivation.

In several cases, as on Roger de Ivri’s Manor of Hasedene,
and Turstin f. Rolf’s Manor of Hildeslei, we find mention made
of “ dimidii villani,” or half-villeins these were probably tenants

G
82 DomEsDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

who held only half the usual villein’s portion of land, rendering,
of course, only a proportionate amount of service.

Though the bordars usually worked with the villeins on the
gesette land, they are not infrequently found on the demesne,
either alone, or mentioned in connection with the serfs ; this, of
course, is a mark of inferiority to the villeins, not only with
regard to the extent of their holding, but also to their social
status.

Tantesborne 2 bordars held 1 team in demesne.
Morcote Qi ss sn re ”

Bicanofre 6, Ait ” ”

Sciptone 2 bordars and 8 serfs held 2 teams in demesne.
Pebeworde 1 4 1 3 1 er ”
Esbroc 1 - 1 33 1 sf $4
Sclostre 4 ‘i 8 5 4 e ”

In soine cases the bordars seem to have occupied the position
of servants in a large establishment ; such, apparently, were the
16 bordars who abode around the Hall at Tewkesbury, while the
38 bordars who held their land at Dene quit of gheld on condition
of guarding the King’s forest, would no doubt have been game-
keepers and verderers. At Sciptone and Sclostre the 8 serfs
mentioned would have been amply sufiicient for the teams, so it
is likely that the office of the bordars on the demesne of those
manors was domestic rather than agricultural.

SERVI.

The number of serfs and teams in demesne in each of the
divisions of the county was as follows :—

LORD’S TEAMS. SERFS, SERFS TO EACH TEAM.
Kiftsgate & Slaughter 263 473 18
Cotswold 317 732 2°3
Gloucester & Tewkesbury 220} 426 1:9
South 2014 459 2.3
West - 564 58 1

10584 2148 ‘ 2°
SERVI. 83

So that there were on an average two serfs to each of the
teams in demesne, a very ordinary proportion. The proportion of
serfs to the whole population was larger in Gloucestershire than
in any other county, the neighbouring counties with Devon and
Cornwall coming nearest to it; this fact has been attributed to
the proximity of our county to the Welsh border, it being sup-
posed that the serfs were the descendants of subjugated Britons.
The explanation seems rather far-fetched, and the smallness of the
number of serfs, both absolute and relative, in the district west
of the Severn is a strong argument against its truth. Serfs were
most numerous in the south-west of England, their number
gradually diminished as the Danish districts were approached,
and they were very rare in the north-east, being altogether absent
from Lincolnshire and Yorkshire. Serfdom would seem to have
been a distinctive mark of English and Saxon land-tenure, but
not so with the Danes in this country ; and the large number of
serfs in our county is probably nothing more than an indication -
that it had been but little affected by the Danish invasions.

s
AFRI.

There were four afri (singular afrus) on the manor of the
Church of Worcester at Cleeve ; they are mentioned in each case
after the serfs. I could not find that the term “afrus” was
applied to any class of tenants, and I did not like to translate
it with reference to the draught cattle on the farms without
sufficient authority ; 1 therefore applied for information to the
Bishop of Chester, who kindly sent a reply, which, as the matter
is one of some importance, is given in full :—

Curstrek, Feb. 6th, 1886.
My Dear Sir,

Ihave looked at the passage in Domesday touching the Manor of Clive,
and I really see no difficulty in explaining Afrus in the usual way—as a
beast of burden. I see it comes between the Servi and the Molendinum in
one place. It could not refer to a tenant but only to the stock or ‘ plant.’

Yours faithfully,
W. CEstR.

This being so, the entry becomes a very interesting one ; for it

would seem to shew that a return of the stock on the land was made
G2
84 Domrspay SuRVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

in the first instance for our county as well as for those contained
in the Exon Domesday, that it was intended to omit the returns
relating to that point, probably because they were only of tem-
porary interest, but that by a fortunate accident this entry of the
beasts of burden at Clive was left standing, as a testimony that
the return of the cattle in Gloucestershire was really made ; though
it was not thought necessary to preserve it in a permanent form.
ft is much to be regretted that a few more slips of the same kind
were not made with regard to the sheep on the Cotswold manors,
for they would have thrown a great deal of light on the vexed
question of the date of the introduction of the special cultivation
of wool on the hills. It seemed best to leave the ‘‘ Afri” in the
list of tenants, with a note explaining their nature; and thus to
mark the singular nature of the entry.

It will be interesting to compare the proportion which the
various classes of tenants bore to each other in our own county
with their relative" distribution in other parts of England; the
numbers represent percentage of the population.

BORDARS
FREEMEN. VILLEINS. AND COTTARS. SERFS.
England 12 38 32 9
Gloucestershire 2 48 23 26
Cornwall 32 43 21
Shropshire "25 35 23 17
Bucks a) . 54 25 15
Leicestershire 28 40 20 6
Norfolk 32 17 37 4
Suffolk 40 14 30 4
Lincolnshire 45 30 16 0

The figures, with the exception of those referring to Glouces-
tershire, are taken from the map at p. 86 of Seebohm’s “ English
Village Community ” ; it will be noticed that in most cases the
total is less than one hnndred, no doubt because some classes of
the community are omitted. The servile population was most
numerous in Cornwall where two-thirds of the population were
either bordars or serfs ; the free population was most numerous
in Lincolusuire, where there were no serfs, and only 16 per cent.
THANR’S Law. 85

of the people belonged to the class of bordars. In the eastern
counties I have reckoned the sochmen with the freemen, and
in Gloucestershire I have combined freemen and radchenistri
together.

The tenure on which these various classes held their land, and
the return which they made for it will be best understood by
reference to a document called “ Rectitudines Singularum Per-
sonarum” or “services due from various persons,” whose Saxon
version probably dates from the 10th century. It treats first of
the services of the thanes, then of the “‘geneat,” and afterwards
of the different classes of tenants who were comprehended under

the latter head.
Tuane’s Law.

“The thane’s law is that he be worthy of his boc-rights, and
that he do these things for his land, fyrd fereld, burh-bot, and
brig-bot. Also from many lands more land-services are due at
the King’s bann, as deer-hedging at the King’s ‘ham,” and ap-
parel for the guard, and sea-ward, and head-ward, and fyrd-ward,
and alms fee and kirk shot, and many other various things.”

The thane’s “ boc-rights” were his title to the land which
had been booked or granted to him or his predecessors in title ;
and on all thanes’ land lay the ‘‘ trinoda necessitas,” or three-fold
service of joining the fyrd or armed force of the nation, of the
building and repair of fortifications, and of bridges ; but besides
these three essential matters, the other services mentioned were
usually required from thanes’ land, and in addition, special services
were frequently attached to particular manors, for example, the
special services mentioned above were all required from Bishop
Oswald’s Radchenistri, and in addition, those which pertained
to the “lex equitandi.”

The classes in Domesday who held their land on this tenure
would have been the tenants in cate, and their sub-tenants, and
in addition, the milites, and many of the liberi homines and

radchenistri.
GENEAT’S SERVICES.

“The Geneat’s services are various, according to what is ap-
pointed on the land. On some he shall pay land-gafol, and grass-
86 DomespDAy ScRvEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

swine yearly, and ride, and carry, and lead loads; work, and
support his lord, reap and mow, cut deerhedge, and keep it up,
build and hedge the burh, make new roads for the tun, pay kirk-
shot and almsfee, keep headward and horseward, go errands far
or near wherever he is directed.”

Such were the services due from the various classes of tenants
on the gesette-land of the manor ; they were not the same every-
where, but they varied with the custom of the manors, and formed
the return, paid partly in money or kind, but chiefly in service,
which the tenants rendered for the use of the lord’s land. None
of these tenants could leave the manor against the lord’s will, but
neither could he turn them off so long as they rendered the
customary services ; thus in later times they are known as ‘‘cus-
tumarii,” or “ tenants by custom,” and they were the predecessors
of the copyholders.

Land-gafol was tribute in money or kind, such as,—
At Michaelmas x gafol-pence,
At Martinmas xxiii measures of barley and ii hens. Kirkshot
At Easter a young sheep or ii pence. Almsfee.
The hearth penny on Holy Thursday.
With another tenant to feed a hound.
Six loaves to the swine-herd of the manor, when he takes the
flock to pasture.
Honey gafol, meat-gafol, ale-gafol.
In Gloucestershire tenants at Bisley paid Honey, and others
at Guiting paid hens.

Kirkshot seems to have been a sort of commutation for first-
fruits, and consisted of a certain quantity of corn paid to the
priest at the feast of S. Martin, November 11th; it was quite
distinct from tithe, and was a very ancient payment, dating back
possibly to British times.

Alms fee was one penny, or the value of one penny, from each
plough, paid a fortnight after Easter for the benefit of the poor ;
the charge is said to have been imposed by King Ethelred.
CoTsETLE’s SERVICES, 87

Head-ward would seem to be the duty of keeping watch at
the direction of the lord ; horseward may have been simply the
duty of guarding the lord’s horses, more probably it implies keep-
ing horses ready on an emergency, or going on errands when
required to do so.

Next follow the services due from the various classes of

tenants.
CoTsETLE’s SERVICES.

“The Cotsetle’s services are what are appointed on the land.
On some he ought to work every Monday in the year for his lord,
and three days a week in harvest. He ought not to pay land-
gafol. He ought to have five acres in his holding, more if it be
the custom of the land; it is too little if it be less, because his
service is often required He pays hearth-penny on Holy Thurs-
day, as pertains to every freeman, and defends his lord’s inland
if he is required from sea-ward, and from King’s deer-hedge, and
from such things as befit his degree. And he pays his kirkshot
at Martinmas.”

The term Coscet is found in Domesday in the south-western
counties, being most common in Wilts ; in our county the tenants
of this class are calted bordars, in some other parts of the country
cottars.

In after time tenants called ‘ Lundinarii,” are found who no
doubt corresponded with the “Bordarii” of Domesday, working for
their lord each Monday in the year. The five acres of the bordar’s
holding refeyred to his cottage and its surroundings, not to the
acre strips in the common fields. He would acquit his lord’s
demesne, or inland, from the services named by performing them
himself if he were called upon to do so. He was too poor to be
charged with land gafol, and as he had no oxen he was not called
upon to do ploughing service.

GeEBUR’s SERVICES.

“The gebur’s services are various, in some places heavy, in
others moderate. On some lands he must work at week-work two
‘days at such work as he is required through the year, every week,
and at harvest three days for week-work, and from Candlemas to
88 DomeEspDAY SURVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

Easter three. If he do carrying, he has not to work while his
horse is out. He shall pay on Michaelmas day x gafol-pence,
and on Martinmas day xxiii measures of barley and ii hens, at
Easter a young sheep or two pence ; and he shall lie from Mar-
tinmas to Easter at his lord’s fold as often as he is told. And
from the time that they first plough until Martinmas he shall
each week plough one acre, and prepare the seed in the lord’s
barn. Also iii acres bene work, and ii to grassyrth ; if he needs
more grass then he ploughs for it as he is allowed. For his
gafol-yrth he ploughs iii acres, and sows it from his own barn.
And he pays his hearth penny. Two and two feed one hound,
and each gebur gives vi loaves to the swineherd when he drives
his herd to mast.

On that land where this custom holds it pertains to the gebur
that he shall have given him for his outfit ii oxen, and one cow,
and vi sheep, and vii acres sown on his yardland. Wherefore
after that year, he must perform all services which pertain to
him. And he must have given to him tools for his work, and
utensils for his house. Then when he dies his lord takes back
what he leaves.

This land law holds on some lands, but here and there, as I
have said, it is heavier or lighter, for all land services are not
alike. On some land the gebur shall pay honey-gafol, on some
meat-gafol, on some ale-gafol ; let him who is over the district
take care that he knows what the old land customs are, and

what are the customs of the people.”

It is not to be supposed that every gebur was expected to
render all these services, but merely that the services required
from the geburs were of these kinds, varying with the customs of
the manors. They fell chiefly under three heads ; the gafol-pay-
ments in money or kind; the regular week-work, so many days
in each week for the lord, with extra days in the lambing season,
and at seed time and harvest; and finally the precarie or bene
work, special work at the request of the lord.

His whole outfit of stock and tools was provided by the lord,
_ and so, of course, reverted to him on the death of the tenant. AS
GEBUR’S SERVICES. 89

the typical gebur had two oxen provided for him, he would hold
a quarter of a ploughland, or a yardlard, containing about thirty
of the scattered acre strips in the common fields, and the lord
must start him with seven acres ready sown before the winter.

We have seen that in our county, a quarter of a team or two
oxen, was the ordinary holding of a bordar ; the villeins also held
by the tenure of similar services, so that we should conclude that
the villeins and the superior class of bordars would come under
the head of geburs, and that the inferior bordars, those who seem
to have been rather servants attached to the manor house than
agriculturists, and who are therefore sometimes ranked with the
serfs, would have corresponded to the “ cotsetle” of the “ Recti-

tudines.”

A very valuable paper in Vol II of the Transactions of this
Society by the Rev. E. A. Fuller, on the “Tenures of Land
in Cirencester,” traces the services of the customary tenants
on that manor, and as instances of the nature of their services
can easily be found in such works as Abbey Chartularies it did
not seem necessary to reproduce them here. It will be sufficient
to say that they follow very closely the scheme set forth in the
“ Rectitudines.”

SERFS.

Considering only the bare letter of the law, the condition of the
serf was a very hard one, he was not permitted to give evidence
in a court of justice against a freeman, nor could he marry with-
out the consent of the lord; he was absolutely the property of his
lord, though he might not legally be sold into heathendom, or
without some fault of his own; he was, however, entitled to rest
on Sundays and high festivals, and could hold property that was
given to him, or which he had earned for himself, he also pos-
sessed the right of bequest. Of course he was fed and housed by
his lord, and his portion of food certainly seems to have been
sufficient, for he was entitled to receive two loaves a day, besides
morning meals, and noon meals ; indeed it would be to the lord’s
interest that his slaves should be in good health. Practically
indeed the lot of the serf does not seem to have been so hard as
90 DomeEspay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

it would appear at first sight; we never hear in Anglo-Saxon
history of a rebellion among the serfs (and the opportunities for
such risings were numerous enough), or even of discontent among
them. Even serfs had their rights as well as their obligations,
and in Domesday England, where the population was not suf-
ficient for the complete cultivation of the land, the serfs on the
estate would be too valuable to be badly treated. Of course they
passed with the land if it were sold or transferred, but manu-
mission, either by will or during the life of the lord, was not in-
frequent, thus we find that William Leuric had freed twelve
slaves on his estate at Hayles; they might also purchase their
own freedom if they could earn enough money for the purpose.

The most cruel incident of serfdom lay in the sale of serfs to
places far distant from their homes, and the merchants of Bristol
were pre-eminent in this horrible traffic. ‘The people of this
town,” we are told by the author of the life of 8. Wulfstan, ‘had
a most odious and inveterate custom, which they derived from
their ancestors, of buying men and women in all parts of England,
and exporting them to Ireland for the sake of gain. The young
women they commonly got with child, and carried them to market
in their pregnancy that they might bring a better price. You
might have seen with sorrow long ranks of young persons of
both sexes, and of the greatest beauty, tied with ropes, and
daily exposed to sale.” Of course this foreign slave-traffic was
unlawful before the Conquest, and it was strictly forbidden by
the Conqueror; but what laws and penalties could not do, §.
Wulfstan, Bishop of Worcester, at last effected. Knowing that
the stiffnecks of the slave-traders would not easily be bent, he
used frequently to stay at Bristol for two months, or even three |
months together, and preach every Sunday against the besetting
sin of the place ; till at last the burghers not only forsook their
evil ways, and became examples in that respect to men of other
towns, but they drove one of their number who refused to be
persuaded by the bishop from their town with the loss of his eyes.

\This would seem to have come to pass a few years before the
date of the Survey, but the city was still tainted with the evil

—
SERFS. 91

traffic in the days of Judge Jefferies and Clarkson, six and even
seven centuries after Bishop Wulfstan’s reformation.

The condition of the ancillw, or female slaves, in the eye of
the law, would seem to have been the same with that of the
servi; their chastity was protected by law from violence, but the
penalty was paid to their owners, and not to themselves. They
would no doubt in most cases have occupied the position of house-
hold servants, and it is to be feared they often suffered severely
from the ill-treatment of their mistresses ; for Anglo-Saxon ladies
were very cruel to their maids.

The number of ancille registered was 241, but it seems likely
that the enumeration was by no means complete ; a return of the
ancille does not seem to have been asked for by the Commissioners,
and in several Hundreds they are not mentioned at all, probably
they were only noticed in cases where the jurors of the manors
happened to have brought information regarding them. It is
remarkable that in the district between the Severn and the Wye,
where, as we have seen, the number of serfs was far below that
usual in the county, not a single ancilla is registered.

Soctan REsuLtTs oF THE Conquest.

The chief social result of the Conquest on the condition of the
servile and semi-servile tenants was to reduce them, more or less,
to an equality one with another, to level down the villeins and
bordars, and to level up-the serfs. The lesser distinctions of the
nature of tenure and of social rank were merged in the great
feudal distinction of lord and man, and we may suppose that this
process went on most rapidly in such evil times as the reigns of
William Rufus and Stephen. Till at length by the reign of
Henry II., within a century of the date of the Conquest, the
successors of the villeins and bordars had been degraded into a
far worse condition of personal servitude than those classes had
been entitled to in the old English community, while on the other
hand the idea of personal property on the part of the lord in his
servant had passed away, and with it the essence of slavery. For
the root idea of the feudal system was service and not property,
92 DomeEspAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

the lord had a right to his man’s appointed service, but he had no
property in the man himself.

Perhaps it is to S. Anselm that the credit is due of finally
bringing to an end that evil custom by which Englishmen were
sold to Englishmen by their fellow countrymen on their native
soil. We have seen thatthe laws of the old English Kings, and
also of the Conqueror forbade the sale of slaves into foreign
lands, but at a Synod held at Westminster by 5. Anselm in 1102,
and attended, at the Archbishop’s request, by the chief laymen of
the land as well as by ecclesiastics, it was enacted, “That no one
presume to carry on that abominable traffic by which men were
still used to be sold in England like brute beasts.” The practice
was not in accordance with the prevailing idea concerning the
relation between lord and man, it was condemned at this Synod
by the judgment of the chief clergy and laymen of the land, and
it would seem to have died out quietly within no very long period
of time. Indeed so completely did the very idea of slavery in
this country pass away from the minds of Englishmen that seven
centuries after the time when 8. Wulfstan preached at Bristol, the
judges of England proceeded on the principle that any man who
trod the soil of this land, or breathed the air of its heaven, became
thereby free. We may well be thankful that they knew so little
of the early history of their ancestors, but it is worth remembering
that the statements with regard to the condition of the servile
tenantry which are found in law books, or in histories which have
used such compilations as authorities, refer to the post-Norman
state of things when the condition of the various subject classes
had become comparatively equalised; and that any reader who
applied the statements of those works to the period before the
Conquest would be very seriously misled.

The following extract from the article on “Slavery” in the
eighth edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica (vol. xx. p. 320)
would seem to shew that the last traces of serfdom or villeinage
did not vanish from our county till after the Reformation. “This
appears from a Commission issued by Queen Elizabeth in 1574,
for enquiring into the lands and goods of all her bondmen_and
THE CHURCH, 93

bondwomen in the counties of Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, and
Gloucester, in order to compound with them for manumission, in
order that they might enjoy their lands and goods as freemen.”

It is very remarkable that the four counties named are among
those in which serfdom was most prevalent at the time of the
Survey, and in which the condition of the agricultural labourer

was even in recent times most depressed.

THE CHURCH.

RELIGIOUS HOUSES.

 

 

 

 

a le FREE. VALUE.
eo [SIS] 6 le . R. EB . RW.
NAMES. RIFLE Siz. alee a
Archieps Eboracensis - - {117 10 83 8 0/104 8 0
Eps. de Wirecestre - - - [231 | 1 3 125 0 0]121 4 6
Eps. de Hereforde se 30 12 0 0]16 0 O
Eps. de Execestre - - - - 7 1 9 0 0; 3 0 0
Eps. deS. Laudo - - - - 17 | 2) 8) 1 2310 0|20 6 0
Ecclade Bade - - - - - 10 4 9 0 0/ 8 0 0
Abbatia de Glastingbie - - 20 20 0 0/30 0 0
Abbatia de Malmesbie - - 5 2/2 30 0/ 5 0 0
Abbatia de Glowecestre - - 96 | 3 36 | 3 4311 5]9112 0
Abbatia de Winceleumbe - 78 14 66 10 0/60 0 0
Abbatia de Evesham - - - 56 2 37 0 0/51 0 0
Abbatia de Abendone- - - 7 | 2 12 0 0] 9 0 0
Abbatia de Persore - - - 22 21 0 0/15 0 0
Abbatia de Coventrev - - 10 8 0 0; 5 00
Abbatia de Cormelies - - - 7 7 4 0 0] 512 0
Abbatia de Lire - - - - 1/1 100; 100
Abbatia de Eglesham - - - 14 10 0 0/10 0 0
Abbatia de Westmonast. —- 59 41 0 0/40 0 0
Eccl. S. Dionisii Parisii - - 64 | 2 2610 0|30 0 0
Eccla de Lanheig - - - - 4 5 0 0) 4 0 0
Eecla 8. Ebrulfi - - - - 10 10 10 0 0/10 0 0
Eccla 8. Trinitat. Cadom.  - 11 32 0 0/34 0 0
Eccla de Troarz - - - - 10 12 0 0/14 0 0
Eccla de Cirecestre - - - 2 2 200; 20 0
Reinbald Presb. coe ee 2071 23 0 0723 0 0
Eccla de Teodechesberie - - 24) 2 6/2 25 0 0/20 0 0
935 | 2} 8} 99 | 3, [664 9 5 1731 2 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

But though this list shews the actual holders of the Church-
lands at the date of Domesday, it does not shew the rightful
94 DomrEspay SURVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

owners, for all the land held by the Archbishop of York belonged
by right to the houses of 8.8. Peter and Oswald at Gloucester,
whose property was really that which is shewn in the following

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

lists :—
FREE. TRE. | TR W.
NAMES. HID.|VIR.| AC. |HID.|vir.) Ac.| £ 8s. d. | £8. dy
S. Peter at Gloucester | 96 | 3 36] 3 43 11 5} 9112 0
Otintune - - - - 10 10 6 0 0/10 0 0
Lece - - - - - 37 18 0 0; 42 0 0
Stanedis - - - - 20 1460 0;12 00
163) 3 46] 3 8311 5155 12 0

S. Oswald at Gloucester—
FREE.

T. RL E T RW.
NAMES, HID.|VIR.| AC. |HID.|VIR| AC.| ¢° 3" g. | gg”
Circesdune - 15 | 2 13 0 0/12 0 0
Hochilcote - 4 400; 400
Nortune - a| 2 40 0] 4 0 0
Suindone 3 3.0 0] 4 00
Sciptune- 1 0 8 0} 0 8 0
Hagepine - 1 1 0 0! 010 0
Cuntune - 12 9 0 0/ 7 00
Widiforde - Z 20 0 3.0 0
Cernei - 4 5 0 0/ 4 0 0
Lessedune 2 2 0 0 110 0
50 | 43 8 0/40 8 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As we have seen Ealdred, the Archbishop of York, who
crowned the Conqueror, had rebuilt 8. Peter’s Abbey while he
was Bishop of Worcester, and on his translation to York in
1060 had attempted to hold the See of Worcester with York, as
indeed several of his predecessors had done. The Pope, however,
forbade this, so partly on account of the poverty of his new See,
partly as a recompense for the expense to which the building had
put him, but chiefly, as it was thought, as a consequence of his
lavish hospitality, Ealdred retained twelve manors belonging to
the Church of Worcester, and also the estates of 8. Peter’s Abbey,
and appropriated them to the Church of York; Archbishop
Thomas, the successor of Ealdred, kept them till Palm Sunday,
1095, when he restored them to the abbey.
THE CHURCH. 95

It was no new thing, however, for 8. Peter’s Abbey to lose part
of its possessions ; it is said that Eadric, abbot from 1022 to 1058,
had sold the Manors of Badgeworth and Hatherley to enable the
abbey to pay a heregeld, possibly the heavy danegeld of 1018,
whose payment may have been spread over several years, It is
certain too, that to whatever causes the decline was due, the
abbey had fallen very low about the date of the Conquest ; its
estates were barely worth ten shillings a hide, and it is said that
when Serlo succeeded Wulfstan in 1072, he found in the monas-
tery only two monks of full age, and eight young novices. It
must have been owing to the practical genius of Serlo that the
abbey property was worth at the date of the Survey about twice
as much as it had been twenty years before, as it was to his
Norman influence that the restoration of the alienated property
was due, and as it was to his skill in architecture that we owe
the noble Norman work in the choir of the minster. The first
stone of Serlo’s church was laid on 8. Peter’s day, 1089, and it
was consecrated July 15th, 1100 ; Serlo himself survived till 1104.

That gigantic pluralist, Stigand, appears to have obtained
possession of the lands of the Canons of 8. Oswald, and on his
disgrace in 1070 they would seem to have passed into the hands
of Archbishop Thomas, who, as patron of the house, would natur-
ally have been the guardian of its property during a vacancy.
He, however, used his position for the benefit of his See rather
than that of the abbey, and though in time the canons recovered
a good deal of their property, they never recovered the whole.

I believe that the property mentioned as belonging to the
Abbeys of Westminster, and 8. Denys, had belonged to the
ancient church at Deerhurst, and that these estates had been
divided between the two abbeys at some time in the reign of the
Confessor, most probably while Odda was Earl of the Wiccas,
1052 to 1056. If this were so, then indeed the Deerhurst
property was a goodly heritage, and the house would have ranked.
next to the cathedral at Worcester, and 8. Peter’s at Gloucester,
with regard to its possessious within the county.
96 Domespay SuRVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

 

 

 

 

 

T R E T RW.

NAME, HIDES, £5. d £s. d

Westminster . . . . 59 | 41 0 0/40 0 0
8. Denys . , 7 . 3 644 2610 0/30 0 0
| 1233 | 6710 |70 0 0

 

That the Westminster property had diminished in value was
no doubt owing to the fact that Girard the Chamberlain had
obtained possession of eleven out of the fifty-nine hides which the
Survey states belonged to that church, and had even transferred
them into another Hundred, that of Tewkesbury. In any case,
however, the value of the old Deerhurst property at the time
of the Conquest, scarcely ten shillings a hide, was very low, and
seems to point to neglect or misfortune of some kind.

The Hundred of Deerhurst contained all the estates that
belonged to Westminster and 8. Denys, and nothing else. They
were widely scattered over the north of the county, and I do not
see what bond except that of common ownership could have
united them into a single Hundred. It would seem that the
Church of Deerhurst had been sufficiently powerful to withdraw
its possessions out of the Hundreds to which they naturally
belonged, as the Church of Worcester owned nearly all Bernintrev
Hundred, or as Glastonbury afterwards formed the Hundred of
Whitley to contain its estates in Somerset, and that of North
Damerham, consisting of those in Wilts. Moreover Todenham,
which is entered in Deerhurst Hundred as pertaining to West-
minster, had been left to the Church of Deerhurst early in the
ninth century by Ethelric the son of Ethelmund.

The partition, if indeed there was one, would seem to have
been into two nearly equal shares, whether we look at the hidage,
the acreage, statute or Domesday, or the value, though both
with regard to hidage and acreage, 8. Denys had the better half ;_
that the value of its land appears to have been less. may simply
have arisen from the difficulty a French abbey would experience
in cultivating Gloucestershire land to the best advantage. It is
certain that the Confessor took a good deal of property from the
Tue CHURCH. 97

Abbey of Pershore for the endowment of his new abbey at
Westminster, and it would seem that he had acted in the same
way with regard to Deerhurst.

The position of the Church of Bath in the Record, and the
fact that it is called ‘“ Ecclesia,” and not “ Abbatia,” shew that
the Survey did not acquire the form in which we have it till after
Bishop John, of Tours, had attached that church to the Bishopric
of Somerset in 1088. In 956 King Edwy had bestowed Tidenham
upon the Church of Bath, shortly before the Conquest it was
leased to Stigand, and on his fall it passed to Earl William Fitz-
osbern. Of course when his son Roger rebelled in 1075 the manor
fell to the Conqueror, in whose hands it was when the Survey
was made. The Church of Bath never recovered it.

The depreciation in the value of the estates of the Church of
Winchcombe, was very likely due in part to the misfortunes of its
Abbot Godric. He was imprisoned by the Conqueror at Glouces-
ter, and was afterwards entrusted to the care of his neighbour
Aithelwig, Abbot of Evesham. It would seem that he had taken
part in resistance to the Conqueror, and was punished not only
by deprivation but by personal restraint ; the care of the abbey
was entrusted for three years to Althelwig before a new Abbot
Galand, a Norman, was appointed. It does not appear, however,
that the church lost any of its property, for the dispute with
regard to Windrush would seem to turn rather on Bolle’s right to
give it to the church.

The Church of Abingdon laid claim to South Cerney, and in
the Abingdon Chartulary is a grant of North Cerney and Calms-
den to that church by King Beortulf, a.p. 852, both these estates
had fallen into the hands of the rapacious Stigand. South Cerney,
like Tidenham, passed from Stigand to William Fitzosbern, North
Cerney appears in the Survey among the possessions of 8. Oswald ;
Abingdon never regained either of them, and indeed it is possible
that the charter purporting to convey North Cerney and Calmsden
is spurious, the boundaries, however, are very accurately given.

The gifts to the Churches of Cormeilles, Lire, 8. Ebrulf at

Ouch, Caen, and Troarn, mark the attachment of the Normans
u
98 DomEspaAY SORVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

to their native land; before long, however, they devoted their
bounty to the churches of the land of their adoption, especially. in
cases where English abbots had been succeeded by Normans ; and
new foundations were erected in England and not in Normandy.

It seems difticult to believe that the only property belonging to
the ancient house of secular canons at Cirencester was six acres
of meadow, and perhaps land rated at two hides, worth altogether
forty shillings; yet no more is mentioned, the lands held by
Reinbald seem all to have belonged to lay owners in the time of King
Edward, and there seems to be no reason for thinking that any
of the other estates which afterwards belonged to the regular
canons had belonged to their predecessors before the Conquest.

Hantone, near Northleach (Hamptonet, Hampnet, or Little
hampton), had belonged to Archbishop Ealdred, when he was
Bishop of Worcester ; but Mr. Ellis, in his paper on the Domesday
tenants of Gloucestershire, states that Roger de Ivri had usurped
it while Bishop Wulfstan was engaged on the King’s affairs at
Chester,— possibly as Domesday Commissioner for that district.

Jt will be seen that the religious houses held 936 of the 2611
hides at which the shire was rated, and that the whole value of
property in the county being about £3100, their income was
£731; it is probable that the hidage was a more true index of
the real value of their estates than the income, for it is very
curious to notice how almost all the larger houses had suffered in
one way or another shortly before the date of the Survey. There
can he little doubt that they owned fully one third of the profit-
able land in the shire, and that if their estates had been as well
cultivated as those of the lay owners (in spite of change of tenure)
had been, they would have possessed one-third of the income
arising from it, instead of only one-fourth. Ecclesiastical property
produced an income of only 15s, 8d. a hide, as against 19s. 5d.
from each hide in lay ownership ; it is likely enough, however,
that as in later days the monks and canons were easy landlords,
and were not so desirous as lay owners might have been, to draw

the largest possible income from their properties.
THE CHURCH. 599

 

 

NAMES, ACKEAGE. Hey sc. ba a
Bishop of Worcester. . ‘ 49,500 231 1 0 {121 4 6
Roger de Laci : . 7 3 41,100 | 71 2 01118 14 0
Ernulf de Hesding . . . : 12,800 | 46 2 O/j111 6 8
Archbishop of York : - : 117 0 0/104 8 0
S. Peter of Gloucester . ‘i : 96 3 0/9112 0
Abbot of Winchcombe . , - 25,300 | 78 0 0|60 0 0
Abbot of Evesham . ‘ 3 ‘ 12,700 | 56 0 0] 51 0 0
Earl Hugh é 3 ‘ : a 19,200 | 31 2 0}; 4910 0
S. Peter of Gloucester, after 1095 . 47,000 |163 3 0 1155 12 0
Ansfrid of Cormeilles % - : 10,700 | 46 3 0] 52 4 0
Abbot of Westminster. ‘ J 16,300 | 48 0 0/40 0 0
Abbot of 8. Denys . . a : 16,100 | 64 2 0] 30 0 0

 

 

 

 

 

These were the largest land owners in the county, but the
great lay owners were all non-resident, and thus the Abbot of
Gloucester (especially after 1095), and the Abbot of Winchcomhe
were by far the wealthiest resident owners of land. The dis-
proportion between the income of land in lay hands and that held
by the great ecclesiastics is very striking, no churchman received
as much as one pound for a hide, no layman received so little.

The first column gives the approximate statute acreage of land
held by each owner ; in 1872 Lord Fitzhardinge, the largest land-
owner in the county, held 18,264 acres, eight centuries ago three
ecclesiastics and two laymen owned each a larger area; and
indeed the estates of the Church of Worcester almost equalled in
extent the combined estates of the Duke of Beaufort, and Lords
Sherborne and Fitzharding at the present day. The Bishop of
Worcester and the Abbot of 8. Peter’s held between them one-
eighth of the land within the Domesday shire ; and bearing in
mind that at that time landed property was almost the only source
of income, so wide an acreage would imply far greater relative
wealth even than it would at the present day.

There is no instance in Gloucestershire of distinct robbery of
the Church by the Conqueror, though Tidenham, which Stigand
had rented from the Abbey of Bath was granted on his fall to
William Fitzoshern, and never returned to the abbey ; but we do
tind a few instances of robbery by lesser men,

2
100 DomEspay SURVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

The great Earl Hugh held one hide unjustly of the land of 8.
Peter at Standish; and inasmuch as the three hides which
Durandus held, and which had been derived from Earl William
Fitzosbern, were claimed by Archbishop Ealdred, it is likely
enough that each Earl had gathered a little plunder from that
manor, as William fitz Baderon held unlawfully one virgate of
the estate of the Church of Cormeilles at Newent.

The Conqueror confirmed his predecessor’s grants to the Abbey
of Westminster, and there can be no doubt that at the date of the
Survey the amount of land held by religious houses in the county
was considerably larger than it had been twenty years previously.
In a few instances laymen had benefited monasteries by the cheap
expedient of alienating glebe and tithe from parish churches, as
Earl William Fitzosbern had given the land and tithe of the
Church of Tidenham to his Abbey of Lire, and those of the
Churches of Beckford and Ashton-under-Hill to that of Cormeilles.

PARISH CHURCHES.
(On the King’s land).

CHELTENHAM. A hide-and-half belonged to the church, and
the priest possessed two teams.

Awre. A church with one virgate of land.

BerkeLey. The priest’s land was five hides, on which were
three teams in demesne, and five of the tenants, worth sixty
shillings.

MARSHFIELD. <A priest with one hide.

Bristou. The churches own three hides with one team.

Coty Rocurs.? A priest.

Stanway. A “ Monasterium.”

CrirrorD Cuampers. A church and priest with one team.

FarrrorD. A priest with one virgate of the demesne.

Dymock. <A priest owning twelve acres.

TipenHAM. Earl William Fitzosbern gave to the Abbey of
Lire half-a-hide of land, and the church of the manor with the
tithe.

AsuTon uNDER-Hint & Beckrorp. The same Earl gave the
tithe, and the churches, with two villeins, and three virgates of
land, to the Abbey of Corweilles.
Tir Crore. 101
Ampnry. <A. priest.

On land belonginy to Religious Houses.
Bisury. <A priest with three hides and four teams.
Wituineton. <A priest with half-a-hide and one team.
CieEve. A priest with one hide and two teams.
PrestBury. A priest.
O.veston. A priest.
Lirtteton-on-SEVerN. A church and priest.
Strow-on-tHE-Woup. <A church and priest with one hide.
Bourtron-oy-tHe-Water. A priest with half-a-team.
Broapwe.u, A priest.
Upper SWELL. A priest.
WILLERSEY. <A priest.
Weston-suB-EpGe. A priest.
MINCHINHAMTON. A priest.

On land belonging to Laymen.

Bistey. Two priests.

Ampney. A priest.

DrirFietp. <A priest.

Ropmarton. A priest, a villein, and two bordars, with one
team.

Lasporoucn. A priest.

Lower Guitine. A priest.

Snipton Ovirre. A priest, a villein, aud four serfs, with no
team.

TEMPLE GuitinG.—A priest.
Patnswick. A priest.
QuENINGTON. A priest.
Stratton. A priest.
SippineTon. A priest.
OaxLey. A priest.
Hampnetr. A priest.
Tetsury. <A priest.
Tormarton. A priest.
Stoxe Girrorp. A priest,
Briupsrietp. A priest.
102 DomEspDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

Souturop? A priest (Leche).

Barrineton. <A priest.

Soutu Cerney. A priest.

Frampton CorTERELL. Ecclesia que non fuit.
Bapminton. A priest.

BrockwortH. A priest.

SALPERTON. A priest.

Sippineton. A priest.

GREENHAMPSTEAD. A priest.

Ampney. <A priest. To the church belong half-a-hide and
four acres of meadow.

Sipe. A priest.

Hasteron. A priest.

Bitton. One hide belonged to the church.
WHITMINSTER. A priest.

In the Monmouthshire Appendix mention is made of a village
where, by grant of the King for the good of his soul, a payment
is made to the church at the Feast of S. Martin, of two pigs, one
hundred loaves, and ale. It is also recorded that at S. Michael was
one carucate of land, and at 8. Dewi another carucate, which
rendered no service except to the saints. The places referred to
would seem to be Lanmartin, Lanfihangel near Rogiet, and
Landavad (the church now in ruins), near Lanmartin.

In most of the cases where a priest is mentioned, it is stated
that, together with other tenants, he held a certain number of
teams, but inasmuch as there is nothing to shew what his exact
portion was, it seemed better to omit the whole of these entries,
merely stating the fact of the existence of the priest.

The first question that naturally arises with regard to this list
is—how far can it be regarded as an exhaustive summary of the
churches and clergy of the county eight centuries ago? We know
that there were churches at Deerhurst and Westlury-on-Trym of
which no notice is taken, and such names as Pucklechurch and
Churchdown bespeak the existence of a place of worship there ;
no mention is made of any church at Gloucester except the two
abbeys, yet we can hardly doubt that 8, Mary de lode at any rate
Tire Chenen, 103

was in existemce, and the dedication to 8. Aldate, if not to S.
Owen, would seem to be older than the Conquest. It is incredible
that after six centuries of Christianity there should be no church or
priest west of the Severn except at Tidenham, Awre, and Dymock,
or in the King’s Barton Hundred except at Brockworth, or that
such places as Campden and Northleach should be without such
provision for worship or spiritual instruction as was found at
Willersey or Hampnett.

In several cases, moreover, it is possible to shew that churches
were in existence within a short time after the date of the Survey
. which are not mentioned in it.

Thus in a deed of confirmation by Simon, Bishop of Worcester,
between 1138 and 1150, of various grants by Robert Fitzhamon
and others to the Abbey of Tewkesbury, mention is made of
church property in the following places in this county, those where
a church or priest, is mentioned in the Survey being marked
thus—*, Churches of Tewkesbury, *S. Peter at Bristol, Thornbury,
Old Sodbury, * Marshfield, Leche, Ampney which belonged to
Winebald de Baalun, * Stanway.

Chapels of Forthampton, *Bisley, Ashchurch, Oxenton, Wash-
bourne, Lemington, Stanley.

Tithes of the demesne of Kemerton and Lower Swell; the
tithes of Bickmarsh in Welford, and Dudcot in X Beckford ; two-
thirds of the tithes of X Greenhampstead, Saintbury, Alderton and
Dixton.

The deed is in the possession of the Bristol Library, and is
printed in the Journal of the British Archzological Association
for 1875, p. 289. It is impossible to say whether the churches
called by the name of Ampney and Leche in the Survey are
those referred to by the same names in the deed. The deed
also mentions tithes paid by various persons, but as it would
be impossible to say exactly from what places they arose I have
omitted them.

The Church of Alveston was given to the Abbey of Gloucester
in 1107, that of Norton before 1126, that of Taynton before 1134,
104 DomeEspay Sunvey oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

Roger de Berkeley, who died in 1131, gave to his Priory of Stan-
ley 8S. Leonard’s the Churches of Ozleworth, Coaley, Arlingham,
Uley, and Slimbridge. In none of these cases is either a church
or priest mentioned in the Survey, yet it seems very improbable
either that these places were totally without them before the
Conquest, or that the new owners or their successors provided
them.

The truth seems to be that it was no part of the duties of the
Domesday Commissioners to compile a list either of churches or
clergy, though they appear to have recorded such information on
the subject as was offered to them. Mr. Eyton thought that they
noticed them only where geldable land was in question, but it will
be seen that the priest at Shipton, a villein and four serfs, owned
no team between them. Therefore any calculation based on the
Survey with regard to the provision for the spiritual needs of the
people will not only be inaccurate, but also very misleading, as
using the information given for a purpose which it was not
intended to fulfil, and which therefore it only fulfils, in a very
partial and incomplete fashion. No doubt the larger places were
well supplied with churches, and as they already existed in such
small villages as Lashorough, Stoke Gifford, Side, and Salperton,
it would seem likely that a church already existed in most of the
places where we find one now, though perhaps there were not so
many resident clergy. It would seem that the church at
Frampton Ootterell had been founded in the twenty years
which had elapsed between the Conquest and the Survey.

So far as the Survey guides us the endowments might be as
much as three hides at Bibury, a hide-and-a-half at Cheltenham, or
a hide as at Marshfield and Stow-on-the Wold, in such cases no
doubt the priest was a great man, and cultivated his land with his
own teams. More often, however, he is mentioned with the
villeins and bordars, and then he would have contributed his share
of the oxen to the common teams side by side with those of his
parishioners. The Survey, however, takes no notice of tithe,
except incidentally in a few cases; and as, of course, tithe
was already generally paid, any conclusions drawn from it with
Tir Crvret. 105

regard to the’ income of the clergy would very considerably under-
rate the amount of their income.

It is not quite clear whether the five hides which had belonged
to Bernard the Priest at Berkeley, were the ancient endowment
of the parish priest, or a part, or even the whole of the endow-
ment of the ancient house of nuns at that place.

The pages of the record shed but little light on the question
of the social position of the clergy; rarely they are enumer-
ated with the thanes, sometimes with the Radchenistri or
freemen, usually with the villeins and bordars, once at any rate
with the serfs. It would, perhaps, be true to say that then, as
now, their professional income would be about equal to that of
the farmers, and that considerations of other kinds did not come
under the notice of the Domesday Commissioners. They are,
however, particularly mentioned as among those from whom
information would specially be required, no doubt as “ Persone ”
parsons or representative men of their manors ; and at any rate
it is pleasant to think of the pastors standing before the men of
their flocks to render that great account whose record is as fresh
to-day as when it was written.

Still less does the record tell us anything about the efficiency
of the church as an organization for the spiritual good of the
people ; if on the one side we have mention of the new church at
Frampton Cotterell, on the other we have the pluralities held by
such men as Reinbald, or on a larger scale even by men in the
highest position, as Archbishop Ealdred, and Archbishop Stigand.
The purchase of church appointments seems to have been a
common practice, and there can be little doubt that the pure and
vigorous rule of such foreign prelates as Lanfranc and 8. Anselm,
was as urgently needed, and proved to be as truly beneficial in the
Church of England, as was the government of the Conqueror
and his son Henry I. in secular matters. Certainly the century
after the Conquest has left an abiding mark on the Cotswold
churches, so many of which have at least fragments of the work
of that period; it may be that the hill churches were till that

time generally built of wood, and that even now we have in many
106 DoMESDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSIIIRE,

places portions of the earliest stone chureh that existed in the

village.
MILLS.

The most important lay tenant on a Domesday manor, and in
many places the most important lay resident would be the miller,
though he is never mentioned in our shire, because he was entered
among the villeins. No doubt his office was honoured for the
uses men might have of him, but he was not generally
popular, because he had not only the reputation of being keen
after his lawful gains, but the manor courts frequently heard
complaints concerning the inexactness of his measures, and the
dishonesty of his charges.

There were in Gloucestershire 251 mills, of the aggregate
value of £77 15s. 3d., giving an average value of 6s. 2d. or the
rent of rather more than 60 acres of good land. In the smaller
but better cultivated shire of Dorset there were 272 mills, while
in desolated and forest Staffordshire the Commissioners could only
enumerate 64 ills.

The Gloucestershire mill, whose value was least, was one at
Saintbury, worth only 6d. annually, while at the other extreme
was a will at Etherope worth 15s., two mills at Bristol worth
27s., and two at King’s Stanley worth 35s. The highest and
lowest value of mills in Dorset were 25s. and 3d., and in Stafford-
shire 13s. 4d. and 8d. At Rudeforde was a mill “reddens an-
nonam quam potest lucrari,” paying that is as much as it could
earn; the jurors representing that its value was uncertain, but
that it paid according to its profits.

There are some instances of half inills in our shire, for example,
in one of the manors of Iron Acton, Humphrey the Chamberlain
held a mil-and-a-half worth 64d., while in the other manor, now
Acton Ilger, the Bishop of Coutances held half a mill worth Ls.4d.;
here it is clear that the two mills were both in Acton, and were
worth 4s., and 2s. 8d. respectively. But sometimes, as at Hase-
dene, now Hasleton, in Rodmarton, when half a mill is mentioned,
it is not at all clear where the other half is entered. There is no
mill now at Hasleton, and it is unlikely there ever was one there,
MILs, 107

at any rate in the 12th century the Cistercian monks, who after-
wards found a home at Kingswood, left Hasleton because it was
waterless. In this case, as in the comparatively few other cases
in which the Survey mentions a mill where none is now to be
found, it may be that the mill has been disused, and no doubt
the process of bringing the land under cultivation would interfere
seriously with a constant supply of water; or more probably,
perhaps, these were cases where the manor mill was at a distance
from the estate, and where the connection in the lapse of eight
centuries has been severed and forgotten.

It is likely that in many places the mill-plot is the oldest site
in the parish. A water-mill, with its necessary appurtenances,
would be a very costly building to erect, and when erected it
would under hardly any circumstances be moved as the manor
house might be, and if, as might very well happen, it was an
inheritance from heathen times, it would be older than the church.

Probably the heavy cost of erecting and maintaining a mill
was the original reason why the tenants were compelled to use
the mill of their own manor and no other. No doubt the lord’s
monopoly was a grievance, and very likely the miller sometimes
used it oppressively, but the existence of a mill close to their doors
was a great convenience to the tenants, aud their payment for the
compulsory use of the mill assured the lord of a certain return for
the capital expended upon it ; the benetit was by no means all on
one side. The miller kept a certain proportion of the meal as his
fee, and rendered a fixed payment(in our shire usually in money, but
sometimes in kind) to the lord for the privilege. Canon Isaac
Taylor says that north country mills still grind on these terms ;

the miller keeps the hran, and makes no charge for grinding.

Though it might have been thought that the erection of a new
mill would have been resisted as an encroachment on vested
interests, we find mention made of new mills set up since the
Conquest at Tockington, Old Sodbury, and Avening, and both
of the latter places were already provided with a mill, Avening
had no fewer than four.
108 DoMESDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

There is no reason to think that any other motive power than
water was used in the Gloucestershire mills, in the Cotswold district
at any rate, “a land of brooks of water, of fountains and depths
that spring out of valleys and hills,” the little streams with their
rapid fall were availalle for driving mills almost from their source.
If any other force were used, it is more likely that such mills were
driven by cattle than by the wind ; it is improbable that wind-
mills had been introduced into our shire at the date of the Survey.
With regard to the use of the mills there is nothing to shew thatthey
were adapted for any other purpose than grinding grain; in
Somerset there were at Lexworthy, in Enmore, mills,—probably
forge mills,—which paid as rent a quantity of unwrought iron ;
we might, perhaps, have expected to find such mills near the
Forest of Dean or Pucklechurch, but none such are mentioned.

Though of course the distribution of mills depended, to a
considerable extent, on the natural facilities for working them,
they form, nevertheless, a fair index of the density of population,
and of the wealth of a district. The Hundreds in which they
were relatively most numerous were on the eastern slope of the
hills, Rapsgate, Brightwell’s Barrow, and Gersdone, and in the
western valleys, Langtree, Bisley, and Blacklow. It is very
interesting to find so many mills eight centuries ago in the
Stroud valleys; there were eight in Minchinhampton, five in
Bisley and in Avening, four in Painswick, and two in Sapperton,
Stonehouse and King’s Stanley,—these last being some of the
most valuable in the shire. In the poorly cultivated district west
of the Severn there were only eleven mills, and they were worth
on an average less than three shillings each.

FISHERIES.

Lecelade Piscaria de 175 anguillis.

Teodechesberic 2 he

Bruurne 7 ”

Glowecestre + 5 16 salmon due to 8, Peter’s Abbey.
Hechanestede 4} 35

Stanedis 3 2;

Langenei 1 ”
FISHERIES. 109

Turneberie 1 33 de Glowecestre, val. 58d.
Wesberie 4 sy
Avre 1 ss
Nest 1 3
Ledenei 4 35 in Waia.
Aluredestone 1 a de 12 den.
Wigheiete 1 35 de 10 sol.
Odelaweston a 4 in Saverna de 5 sol.
Modiete 2 o in Waid. Rex. at
‘ 1 3 6 Abb. de Malimesberi £4,
3 1 is io Roger de Laci )

Tedeneham Li 5 in Saverna, in diminio.

5 42 4 in ‘a villanorwn.

. 1 3 in Waia, in dominio.

5 2k oy in. ,,  villanorum.

‘i 2 4 in ,, Roger Comes crevit.

Fe 2 33 in ,,  Willielmus de Ow.

y 4h, Roger de Laci.

Willielmus Comes dedit
9 Be a sans

‘ 7 m ie ie \ Waltero de Laci.

5 4 5 in Waia

‘i a + in ,, , Radulfo de Limesi.

It seems strange that there should have been no fishery on the
east bank of the Severn, below Longney, or Saul, if the half fishery
pertaining to the Manor of Standish were situated at that place ;
for though there are now productive fisheries at Oldbury-on-
Severn and Littleton, the Thornbury fishery appears to have been
situated at Gloucester. The fishery at Westbury-on-Severn had
been separated from the Royal ferm of that manor by Alwi the
Sheriff in the Confessor’s time. Ledenei and Wigheiete are now,
represented by S. Briavel’s and Wyegate, their fisheries were, of
course, in the Wye. There is nothing to shew whether the fishery
of Aluredestone or Alliston was in the Severn or in the Wye;
on the one hand Alliston is now in Lydney on the Severn, on
the other it was then in the Hundred of Ledenei on the Wye.
In either case the fishery nust have been at some distance from the
110 Domesvay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIKE.

estate of the manor. Modiete, or Madget, is now a detached portion
of Woolaston, surrounded by Tidenham, it does not touch the
Wye, but probably the fisheries which were called by its name
were situated at Brockwear not far off.

The four Modiete fisheries had belonged to Brictric, son of
Algar, and they were claimed by William de Ow, no doubt as
appendages of his Manor of Odelaweston which had belonged to
Brictric. The King, however, held two of these fisheries, and the
Abbey of Malmesbury and Roger de Laci each held one, by gift
from the King as they said. Roger’s fishery is also entered under
his name in the Survey, but there is no further mention of the
abbot’s fishery. The Commissioners simply recorded the fact of
the disputed ownership, as it was their duty to do, without

expressing any opinion upon it.

At Tidenham were 53 fisheries in the Severn, and 7} in the
Wye, it is not clear in which river Roger de Laci’s +4 fisheries
were situated; the total of 65 fisheries was more than three times
as great as the aggregate of all the other fisheries recorded as
existing in the shire. Indeed the number is so large as almost
to raise the question whether some of. them must not have
been situated outside the territorial limits of the manor. Thus
the boundaries of Tidenham are now just what they were at the
date of the Survey, and the Severn shore from the watch-house at
Beachley to the Broad Stone does not exceed five miles in
length, giving rather less than an average of 170 yards of
shore to each fishery, which would certainly seem to be an
inadequate amount of space. I cannot, however, find any record
that fisheries locally situated elsewhere, pertained to the Manor
of Tidenham.

The 2h fisheries which Earl William Fitzosbern gave to Walter
de Laci would have belonged at the time of the Survey to his son
Roger, and the two which were lLestowed upon Ralph de Limesi
are those which were held by William de Ow. Earl Roger Fitz-
osbern must have created his two fisheries between 1071 the year
of his father’s death, and 1075 when he rebelled.
SALt. Vl

It is interesting to note that the fisheries were divided into
those in the demesne, and those belonging to the tenants, exactly
as was usually the case with the land of the manors. The Survey
throws no light on the method of capture of the fish, but there
can be little doubt that the “hecweras” and cytweras” of
King Edwy’s manor (page 38) survived in some form, as they
probably do now in the ‘‘cribs ” and “ putchers.”

The only fish which are actually mentioned in the Survey are
the sixteen salmon, which we are told ‘“‘S. Peter in Gloucester
used to have from his burgesses,” and no doubt the salmon was
the chief fish sought for in the Severn then as now. But it is
a very remarkable thing that about the time of the Conquest the
Manor of Tidenham was let by the Abbey of Bath to Stigand,
Archbishop of Canterbury, a part of the rent being 6 porpoises
and 30,000 herrings. Mr, Seebohm thinks that these herrings
were not caught at Tidenham, but were sent to Bath from fisher-
ies on the east coast ; there is, however, still a place in the tithing
of Sedbury called “ Herringbridge,” so that the tradition of the
connection of the herring with Tidenham survives to this day. It
will be remembered that the part of the Cingestune (now Sedbury)
outside Offa’s dyke was in King Edwy’s time let out to foreign
sailors; Tidenham was at that time the furthest point of England
on the west of the Severn, and it does not seem at all
improbable that there was then a herring fishery sufficiently near
to Tidenham to make it worth while to land the fish there, for the
herring is a very inconstant fish with regard to its haunts. I have
not, however, been able to find any actual record or tradition of
herring fishing in the Severn sea.

SALT.
Avre, Salina de 30 sumis salis.

Teodechesherie 1 salina apud Wicham pertinet ad manerium.

fs. 1 ” ” ”
Stanwege Tt is ae i <fi
Turneberie ad Wiche 40 sextaria salis, vel 20d.
Sopeberie 1 virgata in Wiche que reddebat 25 sextaria

salis,
Muceltude. 24 mensurex salis de Wiche,
112 DomeEsvay SuRVEY oP GLOUCESTERSIIRE.

Getinge 5 saline reddentes 20 sumas salis.
Getinge Salina de 20 sol. et 12 sumas salis.
Rochemtune Salina ad Wich de 4 sumis salis.
Todintune De una salina 50 mittas salis.

A “suma” was a load of salt such as a beast of burden could
carry. A “mitta” is supposed by some writers to have contained
10 bushels. The “sextarium” and “mensura” would probably
have contained a quantity regulated by the custom of the manor.
Thus the City of Gloucester paid 12 sextaries of honey according
to the measure of the borough, while Kemerton paid 8 sextaries
according to the King’s measure, clearly implying that the sex-
tary was an uncertain quantity.

The salt at Awre was no doubt made by evaporation from the
Severn, though its muddy and brackish water can have given but
very poor salt; still wood for heating the furnaces would have
been plentiful, and that was a great advantage. If, moreover,
as is probable, the Awre salt was chiefly used for curing fish, the
impurities would not be so obvious as if it had been used for
domestic purposes. In all the other cases I suspect the salt came
from pans at the Worcestershire brine springs which were con-
sidered to pertain to different manors in our shire. Indeed Wiche,
probably Droitwich, is named in each case, except in those of the
two Guitings aud Todington. It is recorded that at Wich, in Clent
Hundred, in Worcestershire, half a hide pertained to the King’s
court (aula) at Gloucester, and also that 8. Peter, of Gloucester,
held half a hide under the same custom as the King’s half hide.

Tewkesbury, Thornbury, and Old Sodbury, had belonged to
Brictric, son of Algar, and Stanway was one of the estates of the
Church of Tewkesbury ; and no doubt so great a lord would have
owned salt pans at Droitwich. It is even possible that the King’s
half hide was an escheat from Brictric. It is recorded that the
Sodbury tenants had been so wasted by Urso d’Abitot, Sheriff of
Worcestershire, that they were no longer able to pay their salt.

The Salt-way, by which salt used to be conveyed from Droit-
wich to Lechlade for shipment on the Thames, can still be
distinctly traced in its course from Lechlade to Hayles, whence it
SALT. 113

must have passed through Todington, leaving our shire finally at
Saltway Barn, near Hinton-on-the-Green. South of Hayles it
skirted Farmcote, a manor which belonged to William Goizen-
boded, the owner of Lower Guiting, passing within three miles of
the Manor House of Upper Guiting. Herald fitz Ralph, the
owner of Todington, held at Wich one hide, and had there seven
salt pits (salinas) which rendered fifty “mittas” of salt; it is
worth noticing that this is the exact quantity which is credited to
the Manor of Todington; while Roger de Laci, owner of Upper
Guiting, held at “Scelves ” in Esch Hundred, in Worcestershire,
four salt-pits rendering sixty “mittas.” I could not find any
mention of salt-pits in Worcestershire belonging to William
Goizenboded.

From time to time small salt springs have been discovered in
different parts of our shire, Rudder mentions them at Sandhurst
and Aston Somerville ; but they do not seem to have ever been
sufficient to afford a permanent supply ; and I do not doubt that,
with the exception of the supply from the salt-pans at Awre, all
the salt which is mentioned in our Survey came from Worcester-
shire.

In Domesday England salt was an article of necessity to an
extent which we cannot understand. During Lent the whole popu-
ation had to live on salt fish, and for at least half the year the only
meat that the great majority of the people could obtain would be
salt meat ; the proximity therefore of the Worcestershire supplies
of salt must have been a great boon to the men of Gloucestershire.

Still, although the salt was not produced in our shire, it is by
no means improbable that it was further refined on its arrival
there. The most costly item in the manufacture of salt is the
fuel for evaporation ; it was stated before a Parliamentary Com-
mission in 1881 that the expense of preparing a ton of refined
salt was 5s. 4d., of which 3s. was the cost of fuel, and the frequent
mention of parcels of wood in the Survey in connection with the
Worcestershire salt-pits shews the need of fuel eight centuries
ago. It is remarkable that the neighbourhood of Todington and

I
114 DomeEspAy SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

of Thornbury where most “saline” are mentioned in Gloucester-
shire, were both districts where much wood was to be found, and
where, in consequence, the process of refining could be completed
more cheaply than near the brine-springs where the demand for
fuel was so great.

Apart from the manufacture of salt it is stated that a portion
of the profits of the Manor of Chedworth were derived from the
toll of the salt which came to the hall; the Salt-way passes very

near to Chedworth.
MONEY.

The denominations of money mentioned in the record for our

shire are the penny, the shilling of twelve pence, and the pound
of twenty shillings ; also the mark of two-thirds of a pound, the
mark of silver, of course, being worth thirteen shillings and four
pence, while the mark of gold was valued at six pounds, giving
the relative value of gold to silver as nine to one. In 1879,
chiefly owing to the recent heavy depreciation of value in the
price of silver, the ratio of the value of gold to silver was 18-39
to one. :
The only coin that was minted in England eight centuries ago
was the silver penny, the other denominations mentioned were
merely money of account; the penny, however, was struck in
such a manner that it could be divided into four quarters or
farthings.

The coinage was equal in weight and tale, being based on the
multiples of troy weight, thus :—

24 grains = one pennyweight.
20 pennyweights = one ounce.
12 ounces = one pound.

The pennyweight being literally the weight of one penny, or
ziy of the pound of sterling silver, which was the standard of the
coinage. The fineness of the metal seems to have been exactly
the same with that in use in Great Britain at the present day,
11 oz. 2 dwt. of silver to 18 dwt. of alloy in a pound. The pound,
however, was not the Troy pound of 5760 grains, but the Tower
pound of only 5,400 grs., so that the penny weighed only 224 grs.
of Troy, apothecaries, or avoirdupois weight. This difference should
Money, 115

be borne in mind in all exact comparisons between Domesday
values and those of the present day ; sixty-six shillings are now
coined from the Troy pound of standard silver, but the Tower
pound would only afford metal enough for sixty-one shillings and
about ten of the silver pennies which are now minted as Maundy
money.

This Tower pound was identical with a pound which was in
use in Germany, and which in later times was known as the
Cologne pound ; it remained in use in England till 1527, when it
was replaced by the Troy pound. Very probably it represented
the weight of the pound of silver on which Charles the Great
attempted to base a general system of currency, and which may
have been introduced into England by Offa, King of Mercia.

The Domesday penny, as we have seen, weighed 22.5 Troy
grains, and was thus slightly heavier and more valuable than our
threepenny-piece, which weighs 21°81 grains, and more than three
times as valuable as the Maundy penny, which weighs 7:27 grains.
And if it had been accurately minted it would have been equally
useful as a measure of value and of weight ; twenty pennies would
have given Lhe weight of an ounce, and twelve such ounce weights
would have been equivalent to the Standard pound. Or five
shillings and four pence in money would have been equivalent to
a quarter of a Troy pound in weight.

But the standard weight of the coins was very far indeed from
being accurately adhered to; pennies are found whose weights
vary from 20 to 27 grains Troy, or a difference of about one-third
of the true weight of the coin. Even in 1335, two hundred and
fifty years after the date of the Survey, the monk who received
the rents of 8. Augustine’s Abbey at Canterbury, by choosing the
heaviest coins he could find and weighing against them the money
which was brought in payment of the abbey rents and dues, made
an unfair profit which was never less than three shillings and four-
pence, and sometimes even amounted to five shillings in the pound.
It is satisfactory to know that the convent was severely fined for
the fraud of this degenerate son of the Apostle of the English.

The permitted variation in weight for silver coin is now 4.17 per
[2
116 Domerspay SuRVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

1000 parts, or about 5}, part, so that an equal variation on the
Domesday penny would have been only about -094 grains above or
below the standard weight.

As the coins were theoretically equal in weight and tale, it is
likely that in small payments they were reckoned by number,
and in those of larger amount by weight ; the latter seems to have
been the usual method until the great debasement of the currency
in the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI.

There were considerable differences, however, in the method
of reckoning the amounts due from the estates in the possession
of the King.

£
Glowecestre 36 numeratas. T.R.E.
Sclostre 27 ad numerum.
Turneberie 50 ,, +
Alwestan 12 ,, pensum.

Glowecestre 60 de xx in ora. T.R.W.
Wincelcumbe 28 ,, i

Tedeneham QD 55 3 et albas.

Cedeorde et

Wiced abaue \ 0 4; ss alborum nummorumn.
Tochintune 24 ,, 9 candidorum nummorum.
Berchelai 170 arsas et pensatas.

The amounts due from Gloucester in the Confessor’s days, and
from the Manor and Hundred of Sclostre and Salemanesberie,
and from the Manor of Turneberie, at the date of the Survey,
were reckoned by tale. The payments due to the Conqueror from
the Boroughs of Gloucester and Winchcombe, and from the Manor
of Alwestan were reckoned by weight, it was not sufficient to
present two hundred and forty pence in payment for each pound
due, the King was entitled to 5400 grains of standard silver,
and any deficiency in weight was made up by the payment of
additional pence.

The money due from the other manors mentioned, must not
only be true in weight, but must have been tested by assaying,
and it was therefore called “white money’; ferms paid under
this condition were known as blanche-ferms. One pound by
Money. 117

weight of the money tendered was subjected to the assay, a
sufficient number of pence was added to the metal which had
stood the test to compensate for the loss of weight under the fire,
and a proportion sum gave the amount at which the money tendered
would be reckoned in the treasury accounts. If, for example, a
Sheriff tendered one hundred pounds of money by tale, and the
pound tested, after assaying, fell short of the true weight by
twelve pennyweights, his money would only be reckoned at
ninety-five pounds of blanche-ferm. Sometimes the Sheriff com-
pounded for the increased payment of the blanche-ferm by an
addition of one-twentieth part of the amount due by tale; thus
he would pay £178 10s. by tale as an equivalent for the £170 of
white money due from the manor of Berchelai.

There were two kinds of ounce in use at the date of the
Survey,—a lesser one of which 15 went to the pound, and which
of course contained 16 pennyweights, and a greater one containing
20 pennyweights, of which twelve went to the pound. The latter
is the ounce which is invariably found in the Survey in relation
to the money payments ; the lesser ounce seems to have been used
in commercial transactions.
118 Domespay Survey oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

KING'S LAND,

The land which the Conqueror held in the shire at the date of
the Survey was derived from several sources, which are shewn in

the following table :—

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- ; STATUTE
OLD ESTATES OF THE CROWN. |HIDES.| V. | Ac. £s. d. RoHS:
Glowecestre, Civitas ds etn | ee 80 0 0
Wincelcumbe, Burgus . ae ne | sts 28 0 0
Chintineham A 10 0; 0 20 0 0 7,373
Bertune ap Glow. 13 2/ 0 20 0 0 6,000.
Betune, &c. 36 0| 0] 1 Night’s Ferm | 8,973
Sclostre 7 0; 0 27 60 6 1,390
Wesberie 30 0) 0}; 1 Night’s Ferm 8,025
Langeberge 8 0} 0 15 0 0 1,200
Ayre. 12 0} O| 2Night’s Ferm | 5,087
Berchelai ‘ 123 3] 2 170 0 0 55,549
Bertune ap Bristou 10 0; 0 101 6 8 8,693
250 1}; 2 461 6 8 102,290
2} Nights’ Ferms . i ie ere 253 6 8
= 71413 4
Quzry’s Lap, mM | o| o| a oa 5,845
Meresfelde . :
Earv’s Lanp.
Alwestan . . 2 10 0}; 0 12 0 0 2,518
EscHEATS.
Ovo, Br. or BAYEUX
Coln Rogers? 10 0} 0 6 00 1,508
Hunlafesed 3 2) 0 210 0 900
Omenel . 15 0} 0 26 0 0 1,700
28 2) 0 3410 0 4,108
Earzt Roger.
Cirecestre . “ 5 oO; 0 20 5 0 1,500
Dimoch . 20 0; 0 21 0 0 6,743
Nest . 5 0! 0 11 00 6,723
Lindenee 12 | 2] 0 700 a
Tedeneham 30 0; 0 25 0 0 6,217
Cedeorde 15 0} 0 \ 40 0 0 4,689
Aluredintune 5 0] 0 1,500
Beceford ll 0; 0 30 0 0 2,641
Estone . 8 0}; 0 1,640
Tochintune 8 0} 0 24 0 0 3,200
Hechanestede 5 Oo; 0 3.0 0 814
124 2) 0 181 5 0 35, 667

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Kine’s Lanp. 119

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

- STATUTE
HIDES.| V. | AC. £8. d. OHES.
Various THANES. /
Dudestan H4, é 4 ‘ 3 2) 0 4613 4 5,000
Modiete . F 4 ‘ 3 0) 0
Bernitone. 3 : : 4 0; 0 7 0 0 1,000
Bernitone . : 5 j 4 0} 0 3.0 «0 1,000
14 2 0 56.13 4 7,000
Brictric, SON oF ALGAR
THROUGH QUEEN MATILDA,
Teodechesberie % ; 147 3) 0 9115 0 18,763
Turneberie . 2 ‘ é Il Oo; 0 50 0 0 13,222
Sopeberie . : : F 10 0; 0 16 10 0 8,797
Aveninge . . ‘ ‘ 10 0 0 27 0 8 4,510
Fareforde . ‘ . ‘ 25 0; 0 38 10 0 3,879
‘203 | 3] 3| 22315 0 | 44,131
GUEDA MOTHER oF EARL HaRoLy
Udecestre.
Old Estates of the Crown . | 250 L | 2 71413 4 102,290
Queen’s Land. , ‘ 14 0 0 47 0 0 5,845
Earl’s Land . - i ‘ 10 0) 6 12 @ 0 2,018
EscurEats.
Odo, BP of Bayeux A F 25 Z 0 3410 0 4,108
Earl Roger . A ‘ ¥ 124 2 0 181 5 0 35,667
Various Thanes . A 14 2/ 0 5613 4 7,000
Brictric, son of Algar . . | 203 3] 0 22315 0 44,131
‘| 645 2 2 1269 16 8 201,559

 

 

 

 

Queen Edith’s estate of Marshfield had reverted to the Con-
queror on her death in 1074; it does not seem to have ever
belonged to Queen Matilda. It was the only property that
Queen Edith possessed in our shire, and it may have been con-
nected in some way with her borough of Bath.

The Earl’s estates in Gloucestershire passed as an escheat by
forfeiture into the Conqueror’s hands on the death of Harold,who
had been Earl in the Confessor’s days, and who does not seem to
have divested himself of his Earldom on his accession to the
throne. It is impossible to say whether these Comital estates
120 Domespay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

were granted to William Fitzosbern on his appointment to the
Earldom of Hereford, it is certain that at the date of the Survey
they were widely scattered. There is nothing to shew that
Alveston had ever passed out of the king’s hands. Nass in
Lydney had evidently been in the possession of William Fitz-
osbern, but Campden, Brimpsfield, Kempsford, Didmarton, and
Bromesberrow, which had all belonged to Earl Harold, were in
1086 in the hands of different owners.

Odo, Bishop of Bayeux. and afterwards Earl of Kent, the
Conqueror’s brother, had been imprisoned in the castle of Rouen
in 1082, and there he remained till William, on his death bed,
reluctantly released him, protesting that he would be the cause of
ruin to many. His property in our shire was comparatively
small, and was entirely composed of Thane-land.

William Fitzosbern had been appointed to the Earldom of
Hereford apparently in 1067, and held his position till his death
at Cassel, probably in 1071; at any rate he must have survived
the fall of Stigand in April, 1070, for we find him giving the church
and tithe of Tidenham to his Abbey of Lire, and Tidenham, as
we have seen, was leased by Stigand from the Abbey of Bath.
William was succeeded in the Earldom by his younger son, Roger,
who held it till his revolt against King William in the autumn of:
1075.

Of the lands which had belonged to Earls William and Roger
Cirencester and Dymock were ancient estates of the crown, Nass
in Lydney had apparently pertained to the Earldom, Tidenham
had been ecclesiastical property, the rest were mostly estates
which had belonged to thanes of King Edward and Earl Harold.
Lydney, however, was a manor which Earl William had formed
by the union of members derived from different sources.

The legend of Queen Matilda and Brictric is well known;
what is certain is that most of his estates in Gloucestershire
passed into the possession of the Queen, and on her death in 1083
they reverted to the Conqueror. His manor of Woolaston, how-
ever, was at the date of the Survey in the possession of William
de Ow, and there is nothing to shew that it had ever belonged to
the Queen.
Kine’s Lanp. 121

Of the Thanes’ lands mentioned as belonging to the King,
Madget had been very probably an appendage of Wooiastone, as
indeed it is now ; the rest would have been forfeited to the King
on the ground of resistance, real or pretended, to his supremacy.
The Housecarls formed a body-guard to the King, and were in
fact a form of standing army; they had been originally em-
bodied by Cnut, and were maintained by his successors on the
throne, till they were finally cut to pieces on the field of Senlac,
whence none of those who went returned alive. And as we know
that our shire was one of those which sent men to fight for King
Harold, we may well suppose that Rotlesc, of Beckford, and
Tovi Widenesci, of Barrington, were among the number of the
heroes whose bodies lay strewn around the spot where the
standard of England had been set up.

It is not certain that the estates of Gueda or Gytha were
forfeited to the Conqueror immediately on his accession, but she
would certainly not have been allowed to retain them after her
resistance to him at Exeter in the spring of 1068.

OLD ESTATES OF THE CROWN.

The Conqueror held these properties as his predecessors had
done, purely in virtue of his Kingship ; they were a portion of the
estates which maintained the dignity of the Crown of England.
And so they enjoyed in many ways a peculiar jurisdiction, in
ordinary matters subject neither to the Earl nor to the Sheriff,
forming no part of the Hundred in which they locally lay, but
rather as it were forming hundreds of themselves, paying no gheld,
but being managed by propositi or bailiffs of the King, who paid
a fixed rent, as the Sheriff paid a fixed sum for the whole shire.
Thus we know that the propositus of Berchelai was named
Roger.

But though these estates were themselves extra-hundredal,
each of them had a Hundred dependent upon it ; the King being
lord of the ancient royal manor was therefore lord of the adjacent
Hundred, and the Court of the Hundred was usually held within
the precincts of the manor.
122 Domespay SuRVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

Gloucester and Winchcombe would have been hundreds of
themselves, as the town of Cirencester is now; Cheltenham,
Cirencester, Westbury-on-Severn, and Berkeley were the capital
manors of the Hundreds to which they gave their names. To
Winchcombe were appendant the Hundreds of Gretestane and
Holeford, to Longborough those of Cheftesihat, Celflede, and
Wideles, to Slaughter that of Salemanesberie, to Awre that of
Bliteslau, to Bristol that of Barton, to Dymock probably that of
Botelau..

When in 1189 Richard I. sold the town and manor of Ciren-
cester to the Abbot, he sold also the lordship of the Seven Hun-
dreds as pertaining to the manor ; and in 1403 on a petition to
Henry IV. from the townsmen for incorporation the jurors made
a return that—‘the said Seven Hundreds are but as One Hundred,
and time out of man’s memory have been used as One Hundred
before the making the aforesaid deed ’—of sale. It is likely there-
fore that the district of the Seven Hundreds was already .
dependent on Cirencester at the date of the Survey, and if so the
Domesday Hundreds which were so dependent would have been
these: Bradelege and Wacrescumbe, Brictwoldesburg and Beche-
berie, Respigete, Biselege, Langetrev, Cirecestre and Gersdone.
It is an interesting question, for the solution of which, however,
materials do not seem to exist, whether the lordship of these
Hundreds was merely annexed to Cirencester as a matter of con-
venience, or whether their attachment to the manor in the time of
Richard I. was the last relic of a former state of things when
Cirencester was the head of a shire or district of its own, as
Winchcombe is said to have been until the reign of Cnut.

It will be noticed that the estates of Betune and Wesberie are
said to have paid a ferm of one night, while that of Avre paid
a ferm of half a night, instead of rendering a fixed money
payment. The term signifies that the estate was required to pay
as much produce as would provide for the maintenance of the royal
court for one night, and its origin was as follows :—

In very early times it seems to have been the custom for the
King to make a progress from one royal estate to another,
Oxvp Esrares or THE CROWN. 123

consuming the produce of each on the spot, and the custom was
no doubt a very useful one, as the Sovereign would thus become
personally acquainted with the different districts of his realm.
When the practice had fallen into disuse, the various estates were
required to send to the King’s Court an amount of produce pro-
portioned to their extent and value, the share of each estate being
expressed in terms of the quantity supposed to be necessary for
one night’s lodging of the royal household. ‘The smaller estates
were arranged in groups for this purpose; thus in our shire,
Bitton, Winterbourne, and Wapley paid a ferm of one night
between them.

While the country estates of the King thus paid in kind, the
towns paid their dues in money ; and it was from the money thus
rendered by the towns, and from the profits of the courts, that
money was obtained for the payment of the army, or for the
discharge of other debts for which coin was required. Sometimes
there was a mixed payment, partly in money, partly in kind ;
thus the manors of Cheltenham, Barton by Gloucester, and
Cirencester, paid at the date of the Survey about £20 each in
money, and in addition, cows, and pigs, and honey. In each case
also a charge of providing three thousand loaves for the hounds
was commuted for a money payment of sixteen shillings.

In Somerset the principle of commuting the night-ferms for
money payments had been carried out completely ; the Survey
states in the case of each manor, or group of manors (except
Bedminster), to what proportion of a night’s ferm it had been
liable in the Confessor’s time, and how much it was required
to pay by the Conqueror. The rate of commutation for a night’s
ferm varied from £100 10s. 94d. in the case of the combined
manors of Somerton and Cheddar to £106 0s. 10d. due from
Bruton and Frome.

It is not possible to trace the commutation in all cases in our
shire, but the standing ferm of £101 6s. 8d, due from Bristol and
Barton, looks like the payment for one night’s ferm ; while the
£170 blanche-ferm required from Berkeley and its berewicks
might imply a payment of one night’s ferm, and a half, and a fifth,
124 DomrsvAy SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

much as Milburn in Somerset is described as rendering in King
Edward’s time half a night’s ferm and a quarter. I have used the
payment from Bristol and Barton as the unit for calculating the
approximate value of the 24 nights’ ferms still rendered in
Gloucestershire at the date of the Survey.

These manors of ancient crown demesne seem to have been the
last remnants of the old folkland, or common land of the nation,
which had been left over after the partition of the conquered
territory among the original settlers. This land formed as it were
a treasury or common stock, out of which rewards for public
services were granted, and from which very frequently an endow-
ment was provided for religious houses. Indeed, so lavish were
the grants for this latter purpose that Bede complained that
already in his time they engrossed too large a share of the public
land, and that it was becoming difficult to provide for the sons of
the nobles, or for warriors who had earned their rest. It may
very likely be that it was owing to the grants of royal land to the
great Abbeys at Gloucester, Evesham, and Winchcomibe, that
hardly any estates of ancient demesne remained in the King’s
hands in the north of Gloucestershire at the date of the Survey.

The fact that the folkland belonged to the nation and not to
the King, is shewn by the fact that grants of it were signed not
only by the King but by his nobles as well. Thus in 794 Offa
granted the land of four Cassates at Westbury-on-Trym to Ethel-
mund, but the charter is signed, not only by himself, but also by
his son, Ecgferth, and by several bishops and abbots. The gift was
rather by an Act of Parliament as it were than by a personal act
of the King. But gradually the witan sank to the position of
mere witnesses to the King’s gift, the idea of national property in
the remnant of the folkland died out, and it came to be regarded
as King’s land.

This change of feeling, with regard to the old folkland, would
seem to have been accomplished before the Conquest ; but,
however that may have been, it is certain that William dealt
with the ancient demesne lands as he pleased, and made grants of
them at his will. Thus in Gloucestershire he had granted Ciren-
cester and Dymock to Earl William ; and, as Newent, which Earl
Oxp Estates OF THE Crown, 125

Roger gave to the Abbey of Cormeilles for the good of his fathor’s
soul by the grant of King William, had belonged to King Edward,
and had not paid gheld, it is probable that it also was a manor of
ancient crown demesne.

After the Conqueror’s time the alienation of these estates went
on apace; Rufus, for example, granted Berkeley and Bristol the
two most profitable manors in the shire to Robert Fitzhamon as
part of the endowment of the honour of Gloucester. And though
we hear of the resumption of some of these lavish grants, Henry
IL. especially it is said resumed grants of crown lands which had
been made by Stephen, there can be no doubt that the loss of so
many of the old crown estates was the cause of much of the
financial difficulty that crippled the Kings of England in the
twelfth century.

THE BOROUGHS.

In no point is the narrowly financial character of the Survey
of our shire shewn more clearly than in its treatment of the
boroughs. We look in vain for any account of the local customs
of the capital city, or of the shire, such as we find recorded under
the heads of Chester, Hereford, or Shrewsbury, or in the cases of
Oxfordshire and Berkshire ; the boroughs are treated simply as
sources of revenue ; all that we are told about them relates either
to the amounts which the King or other chief lords receive from
them, or of invasions of the rights of the lords by which loss has
accrued. We learn no more about the burgesses, as living
working men with privileges and duties of their own, than we do

about the oxen on the Cotswold manors.

Four places in our shire seem to have possessed some form of
corporate life of their own, as distinct from that of the manors
around them: Gloucester is called a “ Civitas,” Winchcombe a
‘‘ Burgus,” and we hear of burgesses at Bristol and Tewkesbury ,
but of these, Gloucester and Winchcombe were the only ones
which were entirely independent ; Bristol appears as an append-
age of the royal manor of Barton by Bristol, and Tewkesbury as
an appendage of the great Manor and Hundred of which it was
itself the head.
126 Domespay Survey oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

GLOUCESTER.

Whether or no it be true that in the earlier days of Kenulf,
Winchcombe was the chief town in the district now known as
Gloucestershire, it is certain that by the date of the Survey the
ancient Roman city of Gloucester had quite recovered its
supremacy. Indeed Gloucester was not simply the chief place in the
shire, it was also the great royal city where the King of England
wore his crown in state at Christmas, as he wore it at Easter
in Winchester, the ancient capital of the West Saxon realm, and
so in some sort the capital of all England, and as he wore it
at Pentecost in Westminster, the seat of the Confessor’s noble
foundation. As we have seen it was in Gloucester at the solemn
state-gathering of Christmas, 1085, that the plan of the great
Survey was devised.

It is not easy to discover what constituted the difference
between a “ Civitas” and a “ Burgus” at the date of the Survey.
Certainly the line of differentiation was not ecclesiastical, for
while Shrewsbury, Leicester and Oxford were entitled “ Civitates”
no such distinction was bestowed upon Wells, or even upon the
the ancient borough of Bath, though the record of the Survey did
not acquire its present form till after the episcopal seat of
Somerset had been fixed in Bath Abbey. Nor is it easy to see
why the title “city” should have been given to the places men-
tioned above, while such places as Warwick, Northampton, and
Nottingham were called simply boroughs.

In the Confessor’s time Gloucester had paid annually £36 by
tale, and in kind twelve sextaries of honey according to the
measure of the borough, thirty six “dacras” of iron, and one
hundred bars of iron fit for the manufacture of nails for the royal
navy, besides other small customary payments. The ‘“xxxvi
dacras ferri” probably consisted of horse shoes, a “ dacrum,”
numbering twenty of them, the whole quantity being sufficient to
provide for a troop of 180 horse.

The iron no doubt came from forges in the Forest of Dean.
At the time of the Survey the city paid £60 in pence reckoned
-

GLOUCESTER, 127

by the rate of the nummary ounce of 20 pennyweights,—a pay-
ment by weight and no longer by tale, a rather more onerous
method. We have here an instance of the tendency which we
have already noticed with regard to the night-ferms paid from the
old royal demesnes, to do away with the old system of payments
in kind, and to substitute for it a system of fixed money payments.
We shall find several more cases where the same process had been
carried out.

It will be better to consider the payment for minting in
connection with Bristol.

The record next mentions several cases of invasion on the
King’s demesne in the borough.

Roger of Berchelai holds one house and one fishery, which
Baldwin held in King Edward’s time.

Bishop Osbern holds the land and houses which Edmar held,
paying 10 shillings and other customs.

ie

Gaufrid de Manneuile
William Baderon -
William Scriba - -
Roger de Laci - :
Eps Osbern - -
Berner - - :

William Calvus -

Durandus Vicecomes”~ -

6 houses paying T.R.E. -

a ee
wre Wp fF WD
FON TD Wao &

Hadewin, Gosbert, Dunning, Widard, and Arnulf the priest,
each held a house which rendered rent to the King but not the
customary payments in kind.

All these houses we are told were in the King’s ferm in King
Edward’s time, but have now been taken out of it; then they
rendered the customary payments, but now neither the King, nor
his servant, Robert, receives them. This Robert is no doubt the
Robert Dispensator of the Survey, who held land at Child’s
Wickham, and who seems to have been a brother of Urso d’Abitot.

The castle occupied the site of sixteen houses, and fourtcen
houses were destroyed.
128 Domespay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

Wecan gather also from the body of the Survey the names of
several landowners to whom burgesses pertained in Gloucester.

BURGESSES.
8
4
1
4
30
1

ra
_

aS S| Te SH we bb

OWNER.
The King
BP? of Worcester
Abbey of Glastonbury
Abbey of Evesham
Abbey of 8. Denys
Abbey of Troarz
Earl Hugh
Roger de Laci

Robert de Todeni
Walter Balistarius
Henry de Ferrers
Ernulf de Hesding
Drogo F. Ponz
Brictric

ESTATE.
Tewkesbury
Withington
Pucklechurch
Broadwell
Deerhurst
Horseley
Bisley
Temple Guiting
Quenington
Oxenhall
Great Rissington
Bulley
Lechlade
Kempsford
Frampton-on-Severn
Wheatenhurst

Thus, reckoning a single house to each burgess, the total

number of houses mentioned by the Survey in Gloucester would

be 130, thus :

Invasions on the Royal ferm -
Site of the Castle - -

Waste -

Manorial Burgesses - -

- - 23
- - 16
2 - 14
- - 77

130

But these are not nearly all the houses in the city; there is

no mention of the property of either of the great churches of
S. Peter and 8. Oswald, or of the houses which still remained in
the King’s ferm.

Mr. Ellis, in his paper on the Domesday Tenants of Glouces-
tershire, quotes from Sir Henry Ellis’ “Introduction to Domes-
day,” (Vol. II. p. 446), a return of the holders of houses in
Gloucester and Winchcombe, which seems to have been compiled
GLOUCESTER, 129

about 1100. From this it would appear that there were, in King
Edward’s time, 300 burgesses in the royal demesne in Gloucester ;
and also that at the date of the compilation of the Return, the
Archbishop of York (on account of 8. Oswald’s), had 60 bur-
gesses, and the Abbot of S. Peter’s 52 burgesses. Adding these
numbers to the former total we have in all 542 burgesses.

 

Royal demesne, T.R.E. - - 300 burgesses.
Archbishop of York (c. 1100) - 60 4
Abbot of S. Peter’s (c. 1100) - 52 <3
Former total - - 2 os 130 36

542

 

Of course this number is only a very rough approximation to
an accurate emuneration, if only because the figures refer to
different dates; but it would probably be true to say that the
city of Gloucester contained, at the date of the Survey, not fewer
than 2000, nor more than 3000 souls, and that the population
approached more nearly to the latter figure than to the former.

The return quoted by Mr. Ellis mentions ten churches as
existing in Gloucester ; the Survey mentions none at all, a mark
that the Commissioners for our shire did not consider it a part of
their duties to place on record the number of churches in
existence.

In a few cases perhaps it is possible to identify the locality in
Gloucester, where properties mentioned in the Survey lay. Thus
we may well believe that the thirty burgesses who pertained to
the church of 8. Denys lived in what is now 8. Aldate’s parish,
a small area, certainly less than two acres in extent, just within
the north line of the old city wall; for in the taxation of Pope
Nicholas, 8, Aldate’s appears as belonging to the church of
Deerhurst which was a cell of 8. Denys.

Again, with less certainty, we may suppose that the churches
of All Saints’ and S. Mary de Crypt, which were granted by
Robert, Bishop of Exeter, to Llanthony Priory in 1137, and the
church of 8. Michael, which was sold by Bishop Peter, of Exeter,
to 8. Peter's Abbey in 1285, were connected with the possessions

K
130 . Domespay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

of Bishop Osbern at the date of the Survey. I do not know that
any further identification is possible.

W1NCHCOMBE.

All that we are told directly about the borough of Winch-
combe refers to the amount of money paid by it at different
periods ; there is no more human interest in the entry than there
would be in the record of the gradually increasing produce of
a silver mine.

The borough paid in King Edward’s time a ferm of £6 ; of that
Earl Harold had the third penny, or forty shillings. Afterwards
with the Hundred of the town it paid £20; to this amount Sheriff
Durandus added 100 shillings, and Roger de Ivri 60 shillings.
So that at the date of the Survey, together with three Hundreds,
it paid £28 of twenty pennyweights to the ounce.

The three Hundreds were the Hundred of the town itself, and
those of Gretestane and Holeford. Durandus was sheriff at the
date of the Survey, and Roger de Ivri had probably held the
same office at some time since the Conquest.

The following is a List of Burgesses in Winchcombe mentioned
in the Survey :—

BURGESSES. Lorp. Estate.
3 The King. Oxenton.
1 BP of Worcester. Withington.
1 Bb? of Hereford. Prestbury.
1 Abbey of Evesham. Broadwell.
2 Abbey of 8. Denys. Deerhurst.
1 William Goizenboded Cloptune
2 3 55 Lower Guiting.
3 Roger de Laci. Temple Guiting.
10 Roger de Ivri Hampnett.
1 Robert Dispensator Childs Wickham.
9 Henry de Ferrers Lechlade.
1 Hunfrid de Rege. Alderton.
1 Alwold 4 Pinnock.
WINCHCOMBE, 131

The document referred to with regard to the City of Glouces-
ter, mentions that there were in King Edward’s time sixty
burgesses in the Royal demesne, and that at the date of the
return 15 burgesses pertained to Winchcombe Abbey. The sum,
reckoned in the same way as in the case of Gloucester, amounted
to 104 burgesses, equivalent to a population of about 520 souls ;
of course an under-estimate, as excluding the inmates of the
monastery, and probably its dependents also, and perhaps other
classes of the population.

The burgesses of Gloucester and Winchcombe, who are men-
tioned as attached to various country manors, may have been
tenants of those manors who had been permitted by the lords to
reside in the boroughs, still rendering certain services or an
equivalent in money. Or they may have been simply the occu-
pants of tenements in the boroughs which had passed to the lords
or their predecessors by purchase or in some other way, and which
were regarded as appendages of the country manors for purposes
of convenience in requiring the regular payment of the services

owed,
TEWKESBURY.

We are told that there were at Tewkesbury 13 burgesses
paying 20 shillings ; but there is nothing to shew whether these
were only a portion of a larger number who on account of some
peculiarity of tenure are mentioned, or whether the 13 formed the
whole of the body, perhaps in that impoverished estate a mere
remnant of a much larger company of burgesses, which had
existed in happier times. The insertion of the word “ modo ”—
“now” would seem to point to the truth of the latter supposition.

BRISTOL.

We have seen that Bristol was at the date of the Survey a
place of considerable importance ; but all that we learn from the
pages of the record is this, that two houses pertained to the
Bishop of Worcester’s estate of Westbury-on-Trym, and that ten
others were attached to the Bishop of Coutances’ Manor of Bish-
opswor thin Somerset; the borough was in fact nothing more
than a member of the Hundred of Barton by Bristol, and the

K 2
132 DomEspay SuRVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

burgesses had not yet won the first step in the path of indepen-
dence by securing that they should not be compelled to pay more
than a stipulated sum towards the ferm of the manor.

The payment of the ferm was thus apportioned :—

£ sd.

Bristol and Barton, 110 marks of silver - - 73 6 8
Bishop G. received 33 - - - - - - - - 22 0 0
” ” 1 ” gold - - 6 0 0
£101 6 8

The Bishop was Bishop Geoffrey of Coutances who was no
doubt in command of Bristol Castle, which he used as one of the
chief centres of the Norman revolt against Rufus in 1088. It
has been suggested that the payment to him was of the nature of
a third penny rendered to him as constable. The mark of gold
was a tribute afterwards known as “Queen’s gold,” which was
paid to the Queen for every hundred marks of silver that were
owed to the King. Of course as Queen Matilda was dead her
mark of gold was paid into the King’s ferm.

Domesday Bristol would have consisted of a town containing
about 19 acres, bounded on the north and west by the Frome,
on the south by the Avon, and on the east by the castle which
guarded the only approach by land. The Survey mentions the
existence of churches, of these S. Peter’s was the oldest and the
chief, 8. Mary le Port was also no doubt already in existence ;
indeed it is very remarkable thing that in the four Wiccian
boroughs of Worcester, Gloucester, Bath, and Bristol, two churches
of 8. Peter and $8. Mary stood side by side. The original Bishop-
stool of Worcester stood in 8S. Peter’s Church, and a Monastery
of 8. Mary was situated close by, till in 964 8. Mary’s swallowed
up S. Peter's. In Gloucester the Parish Church of 8, Mary de
Lode lies almost under the very shadow of 8. Peter’s Abbey. At
Bath the Abbey is dedicated to S. Peter, and the Parish Church
of Bathwick to 8. Mary. It is more than probable that at least
Christ Church, All Saints, and 8. Werburgh’s Churches had also
been founded in Bristol before the date of the Survey.
Tue Mint, 133

The two mills which are mentioned as pertaining to the Manor
of Barton were among the most profitable in the shire, and there-
fore, in all probability they were situated at Bristol. There can
can be little doubt that one would have been the Castle mill on
the Frome, near the fortress ; the other may have been what was
in after days known as Baldwin’s mill, which had been erected at
the point where the Frome ran into the Avon, and which was,
of course, destroyed when the channel of the Frome was diverted.

THE MINT.

Under the head of the Borough of Gloucester it is recorded
that the King received twenty pounds from the mint; in some
entries it is said that the King received a certain annual payment
and an additional sum when the coinage was changed. Probably,
however, the twenty pounds was an annual charge at Gloucester ;
if so, it was a comparatively large payment, there were eight
moneyers in the four Dorsetshire boroughs whose agregate pay-
ments only amounted to £2 13s. 4d; the only mention of a mint
in the Wiltshire record is at Malmesbury, the payment noted is
five pounds, but coins of the Confessor are extant bearing the
name of Wilton, and there are coins of the Conqueror minted
at Marlborough, Wilton and Salisbury.

There is a most useful paper on the Mint of Gloucester by
Mr. J. Drummond Robertson in Vol. X. of the Transactions of
this Society, from which it appears that the earliest coin extant
that was minted at Gloucester is one of Alfred the Great, and the
last one coined in the reign of Henry III. in 1248. It also appears
that the whole number of mints in England at the date of the
Survey being about sixty, Gloucester holds the twentieth place
with regard to the number of coins minted there.

There was also a flourishing mint at Bristol, whose productions
are described by Mr. Henry W. Henfrey, in the “Journal of the
British Archeological Association” for 1875; the earliest coin
extant is one of Ethelred the Unready, and coins were minted
there at longer or shorter intervals till the reign of William III.
In the list of mints in Mr. Robertson’s paper Bristol holds the
seventeenth place, but excluding one “find” of coins of the reigns
134 Domespay SuRVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

of the Conqueror and Rufus, the coins marked as minted at
Bristol and Gloucester from the time of Onut to that of the
Confessor are almost exactly equal in number.

A comparison of the names of the moneyers would seem to
shew that the two mints were independent of each other; Mr.
Robertson mentions the names of forty moneyers at Gloucester
between the accession of Ethelred and the death of Rufus, and
the only names which occur on contemporary coins at Bristol are
those of Godwin and Leofwin in the reign of the Confessor,
and Leofwin and Lifwin after the Conquest. Coins bearing the
name of Wulfwin were minted at Bristol in the time of Cnut
and Harold I., and at Gloucester under the Confessor ; and others
bearing the name of Wulnoth were minted at Gloucester under
Cnut and Harthacnut, and at Bristol under Harold I. These
names are, however, for the most part very common ones, and
possibly may have been borne by different persons. Both at
Bristol and Gloucester the Confessor’s moneyers continued to hold
their office under the Conqueror.

There is nothing in the record to shew whether the King’s
profit from the Bristol mint formed a portion of the ferm of the
Manor of Barton by Bristol, or whether it was accounted for in
the payment of twenty pounds mentioned under the head of
Gloucester.

The mints at Gloucester and Bristol were the only ones in
operation in the shire at the date of the Survey.
CELFLEDE HunpRepb. 135

THE DOMESDAY HUNDREDS OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

The following notes are intended to be explanatory of the
‘detailed tables of Hundreds which will succeed them. Their
purpose is to point out any matter worth special mention with
regard to the condition of the manors ; but they do not profess
to give their history to any greater extent than is helpful in
tracing their subseqnent descent, and in bridging over, if possible,
the gap which is so often caused in local history by the century
after the Conquest. In cases where the history of the manors
was obvious, and in a very few cases where it was so obscure that
no helpful comment could be made, it seemed better to pass them
without remark.

At the end of each Hundred is a short summary of its state
in 1086 ; with regard to which it will be helpful to say that taking
the average of the whole shire, there were in a hide 287 statute
acres, and 211 acres registered in the Survey ; the average value
of a hide was £1 3s. 2d., of a ploughland 15s. 5d., of a statute
acre .964, and of each registered acre 1.294. There were like-
wise 91 statute acres, and 56 acres of arable, to each male men-
tioned in the record.

CELFLEDE HUNDRED.

HeniBerGe.—Cow Honeybourne ; Church Honeybourne, then

as now, in Worcestershire, pertained to Evesham Abbey.

The 10 hides in Marston which belonged to the Church of
Coventry are now represented by Long Marston, though it is not
easy to account for the excess of Domesday acreage. Hugh de
Grentmaisnil’s two hides lay in Broad Marston in Pebworth.

Mucettupe.-—The monks of Eynsham found Mickleton a
convenient point at which to obtain their necessary supply of salt
from Worcestershire.
136 Domesvay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

The two hides at Hipcore Bartram were free from gheld.

Estunr.—From several deeds relating to the matter in Dug-
dale’s ‘‘Monasticon,” it would appear that Countess Goda gave
Aston-sub-Edge and the Church of Lambeth to the Church of
Rochester, which gift was confirmed by the Conqueror. William
Rufus seems to have robbed the church of the property, and
subsequently to have sold it to Bishop Gundulph for £15, and a
mule worth £5.

The several manors of Peswortu are thus entered in the

Survey: IV.
Wenitone - 6:2: William Goizenboded.
Pebeworde~ - 6-1: i $5
5 : oe Hugo de Grentmaisnil.
Merestune = - 2:0- 35 BS
17:0:

As the average area of a hide in Celflede Hundred was:165
acres, the 17 hides would imply an area of 2805 acres, a fair
equivalent to the 3050 acres now reckoned to be in Pebworth.

Wenitone, now Ullington, had been placed in Pebworth by
Earl Algar between 1057 and 1062. William Goizenboded’s
manors were worth less than half their value in the Confessor’s
time.

The four and a half hides which Ralph Butler held under
Robert Earl of Leicester, and gave to his new priory of Alcester
in 1140, would have represented Hugh de Grentmaisnil’s manors
of Pebeworde and Merestune ; William Goizenboded’s manors
descended with Ebrington.

Dorsinaton.—The rating of 10 hides is very high, whether we
regard the area or the value of the manor, it seems to point to
some unexpressed source of wealth, which, perhaps, had slipped
from the aged owner. The sub-tenant was probably no less a person
than Robert Count of Meulan, son of Hugh of Belmont, the
trusted counseller of Henry I., who was created by him Earl of
Leicester.

Quinton.—The value assigned to Hugh de Grentmaisnil’s
manor of two hides includes the revenue derived from his other
manors of Broad Marston and Pebworth.
CELFLEDE HUNDRED. 137

The county histories say that the Conqueror gave the Manor
of Quinton, which had belonged to the nuns of Polesworth, to
William or Robert Marmion ; but the record does not mention
the nuns, and names a lay owner, T.R.E. in each case. Robert
Marmion held land in Quinton in 1178, but how it came to him

is not apparent.

The tithing of Admington now contains 957 acres, at the
date of the Survey it was already cultivated to its full extent.

Weston-on-Avon.—Hugh de Grentmaisnil’s manor would, I
suspect, have been that afterwards known as Weston Manduit.

Wixcote.—The clerk who held this manor was named Hugh.
Mr. Ellis states that the estate had been granted by Hugh de
Grentmaisnil to his Abbey of 8. Ebrulf, and confirmed to it by
a charter of the Conqueror dated at Winchester in 1081; the
Abbot held 8 virgates here in 1216.

There is also a Manor of Weston-on-Avon belonging to Eve-
sham Abbey in Wideles Hundred ; the two Weston manors and
Wilcote, containing in all 1440 acres of Domesday measurement ;
it is possible, therefore, that the 480 acres of Weston, which are
now reckoned to be in Warwickshire, were at the date of the
Survey in our shire, giving the very probable proportion of 1440
acres in the Survey to 1540 acres of modern ascertainment.

Weston-sus-EpcE and Norron.—The Domesday and modern
areas agree very well; a comparison will shew that it would be
impossible to include Hugh de Grentmaisnil’s manor of Westone
in Weston-sub- Edge.

Bickmarsu.—Edith had owned her little property before the
Conquest, in the Survey she holds it only as a tenant of the
Conqueror.

It is difficult to account for the descent of Hugh de Grent-
maisnil’s manors. The smell number of acres to a hide testifies
to the fertility of the land in this Hundred, the low value of the
hide and ploughland is due to the depreciation in rental, which
had diminished by one-sixth since the Conquest. No wood is
registered, and only one mill.
138 DomMEsDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

WIDELES HUNDRED.

BuckLanp.— Under the care of Abbot Serlo the value of the
manor had trebled since the Confessor’s time. There is an account
of the services due from the tenants of this manor in Vol IX.,
pp. 109-112 of the Transactions of this Society.

It is recorded that there was a Priest or Church on six of the
nine manors that belonged to Evesham Abbey ; no doubt only
because the abbey jurors mentioned their existence, while other
jurors did not do so. -

One of the WiLLersgy hides lay at Childs’ Wickham.

Camppen.—The deficiency of acreage was to a great extent
owing to diminution of the area under cultivation ; the value of
the manor was only two-thirds of what it had been in the Con-
fessor’s time. As Earl Hugh gave the tithes of Campden to S.
Werburgh’s Abbey at Chester in 1093, the existence of a church
at the date of the Survey may fairly be presumed.

Esrineton became the head of the great property which
belonged at the date of the Survey to William Goizenboded ; it
had passed in 1147 to Ernald de Bosco, and descended in his
family for several generations.

Ralph of Todeni, owner of Charingworth, was the hereditary
standard bearer of Normandy, who had declined his office at
Senlac that he might fight more freely. The lands which formed
the reward of his services lay for the most part in the east of
England, Flamstead, in Hertfordshire, being his chief place of
residence in this country.

Both the value and extent of arable at H1pcoTr Boyce seem
small for an assessment of three hides, perhaps owing to the death
of the four villeins. It may have been with a view to improve-
ment that the Abbot of Evesham had committed this estate and
Lark Stoke to two knights of his,

The principal portion of Conpicore went with Oddington ;
the estate which passed in 1275 from the Earl of Hereford hold-
ing of the Church of Worcester to John de Stonor would, no
doubt have been the two hides possessed by that church in 1086,
WIvELES HUNDRED. 139

while the half knight’s fee held under Margaret de Bohun by
Hugh de Condicote in 1166 might well have included Durandus’
property, for his estates passed to his nephew Walter, Constable
of Gloucester, ancestor of the Earls of Hereford.

Of the five manors in which the little parish of SrzincoTE was
held in 1086 that of Urso d’Abitot passed with his daughter
Emmeline to the Beauchamp family, and the manor in Celflede
Hundred owned by Durandus would have been a part of the
fee held under H. de Bohun, Earl of Essex in 1372. Humphrey
de Medehall’s estate had fallen entirely out of cultivation, its only
value arising from its natural meadow.

SAINTBURY remained with the Musards, of Miserden, till the
reign of Edward I, when it was sold to Evesham Abbey.

The number of serfs, 16, at BatsForD is excessive, probably
they were the household servants of a large establishment.

The hides in this Hundred were of small area, but the values
of the hide, and ploughland, and acre, were normal ; shewing that
the land was not worked to its full exent, indeed the value of the
Hundred was only three-fourths of what it had been twenty years
before. No wood is registered, and but an insignificant quantity
of meadow.

CHEFTESIHAT HUNDRED.

The sole manor in this Hundred was Loneporovcn with its
member “Mene.” What is implied by Mene I cannot tell; at
any rate neither that name nor Kiftsgate can now be traced in
the parish of Longborough. The present area of the parish,
2770 acres, agrees fairly well with the 2280 acres recorded in the
Survey, and applying the average area of the hide in Wideles
Hundred, 193 acres, to the 14 hides at which the Longborough
manors were assessed, we obtain an extent of 2702 acres, very
closely accordant to the measure of the existing parish. The
value, £16, attributed T.R.E. to the manors held in 1086 by
Hunfrid seems altogether excessive ; the obvious explanation
that it included the profits of the Hundreds that were afterwards
Joined to the King’s manor, seems, however, improbable.
140 DomEsDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

The whole subject of the entries concerning Longborough, in
Cheftesihat and Wideles Hundreds requires further elucidation ;
the subsequent history of the Domesday manors is very obscure.

GRETESTANES HUNDRED.

The value, only £7, attributed to Twinrnc, and also the
rating of three hides, seem very low for more than 3,500 acres of
profitable land, of which 40 were meadow.

The larger part of Anperton lay in Tewkesbury Hundred ;
this abbey manor was that afterwards held by the Tracys, of
Todington. The record notes that though only one tenant’s team
was at work, there was enough land for three such teams ; and a
similar note with regard to Naunton points out that on land there
sufficient for six teams only one was found.

Dumsteton.— William Goizenboded gave his hide to the Abbey
of Abingdon in 1108, which church thus possessed the whole
parish till the Reformation.

Hay.ies.—All the lands held by William Leuric in the shire
had belonged T.R.E. to Osgot. William had freed his 12 serfs
here ; the number was excessive in comparison with the size of
the manor, half would have been amply sufficient.

Wormineton was divided, part descending through heiresses
of the de Lacis, part passing through the Templars to the College
of Westbury-on-Trym.

Cuitps Wickiam.—Robert Dispensator dying childless, the
manor passed to Emmeline, daughter of his brother Urso d’Abitot,
who married Walter de Beauchamp ; their descendants held it till
the reign of James I.

AsTon was retained by the Musards till 1302, when it was
sold to Evesham Abbey ; but John de Aston had held it in 1272,
and it was held of the abbey by his descendants.

WincucomBe.—The 5,700 acres now reckoned to be in this
parish are thus partially accounted for :—

Frampton - - - - - 480 acres.
Naunton - < - - - 1080 ,,
Postlip - - - - - 1920 ,,
Littleworth - - - - 360

3840 ,,
SUDELEY AND TODINGTON, 141

In addition, the area interned in the hundred of the borough,
and also the abbey precincts, would be of set purpose omitted.

Postiip belonged to Margaret, daughter of Walter, grandson
or great-grandson of Ansfrid de Cormeilles, and as Cotes belonged
to her sister Albreda, it is likely that Cotes was included in Post-
lip at the date of the Survey. The Postlip mills formed a valuable
element in the Domesday manor.

The mill on William Froisselew’s manor of Litentune is likely
enough Greet mill; and Cockbury, which was held in 1246 under
the Earl of Hereford, may represent Durandus’ manor of Litetune.

The large area of the hide, aud the low value of the ploughland
and acre, indicate a region where the land was poor, or at any
rate ill-cultivated, while the normal value of the hide shews that
it was fairly rated.

The Manors of Sudeley and Toddington are altogether abnormal,
both in their excess of wood, and also with regard to their great
value which must include some external sources of profit.

SUDELEY AND TODINGTON.

The Survey does not state in what Hundred these manors lay,
I have therefore placed them apart by themselves.

SupELEy.—The six mills and more than 8,000 acres of wood
which pertained to this manor, mark an extent far greater than
that of the present parish, but there is nothing to shew where
the excess lay.

Topinctoy.—This manor is the only one in the shire which
has always been held by lineal descendants of the owner before
the Conquest. John fitz Harold, grandson of Earl Ralph married
Grace de Traci, and the estate has never passed from the descen-
dants of their younger son William de Traci. Countess Goda,
mother of the Domesday owner, was a sister of the Confessor.

TETBOLDESTANE HUNDRED.
The estates of the See of Worcester were subsequently formed
into the separate Hundred of Cleeve.
Beckrorp.—Though the area of the parish is but 2,640 acres,
the Survey gives 4,560 acres of arable as pertaining to the manor,
142 DomMEsDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

an excess which is now inexplicable. William Fitzosbern, the
lord of Cormeilles, had endowed Ansfrid of that place with three
hides of land here, and had also bestowed on the abbey that he
had founded at Cormeilles, three virgates of land and the tithes
of the Churches of Beckford and Ashton-under-Hill; thus leaving
a permanent mark of his ownership, for the churches are united
to this day. The commissioners have left on record the fact that
the jurors being questioned on the subject said that they had never
seen any writ of the Conqueror which gave these estates to Fitz
osbern.

ASHTON-UNDER-HiLu.—In addition to the 8 hides in this
Hundred there were 4 in Tewkesbury held by Girard, giving the
low rate of 137 acres only to the hide ;—a mark of the goodness
of the land.

HInTON-ON-THE-GREEN.—The value of the manor had been
more than trebled since the Conquest,—thanks to Abbot Serlo.

CirEve.—The ‘“ Afri” on this manor have been dealt with
on pages 83 and 84. The lands which are recorded as held by
tenants of the bishop were all eventually lost to the church. The
Radulf who held 4 hides in Sapletone is, I suspect, the same person
‘with the tenant of Durandus in Duntisbourne, Shipton, and
Littleton ; and I imagine that his land descended with that of
Durandus, in Southam, to the Earls of Hereford. Sapletone
would have been a lost name of a place in the parish of Cleeve ;
at any rate there is no room for Ralph’s land in Cold Salperton,
and in Salperton, near Bisley, where the acreage (probably on
account of wood) is deficient, there is no trace of any ownership
which can be attributed to him.

The half knight’s fee mentioned in the “ Testa de Nevill” as
pertaining to James de Newmarch would represent Turstin fitz
Rolf’s land in Gotherington.

Stoke Arcuer, at the date of the Survey, lay partly in the
Hundred of Cleeve, partly in that of Tewkesbury, Bernard hold-
ing land in both Hundreds. The land in Cleeve Hundred was
afterwards held on the service of supplying for forty days an
archer equipped with bow and arrows, which service gave a name
both to the holders and to the manors.
CHINTINEHAM HUNDRED. 143

The value of the Bishop’s manor had been seriously diminished
by these invasions on his property, and especially by the total loss
of the 7 hides in Stoke.

The value of the registered acre is normal, and that of the
statute acre is high, testifying to good cultivation, while the low
value of the hide and ploughland results from the falling off in
the rental of the Hundred. It was a well peopled district.

CHINTINEHAM HUNDRED.

CHELTENHAM included the area now known as Charlton Kings.
Reinbald, the Rector, was Dean of the College of Canons at
Cirencester, and the rectory, with the rest of his possessions,
remained as a part of the endowment of Cirencester Abbey till
the Reformation. The propositus was a moving man, and had
increased the number of tenants, he had also added two mills on
the demesne, and one on his own account; but like most royal
manors much of the land was waste. The Survey only accounts
for 2,880 of the 7,373 acres which lie in Cheltenham and Charlton
Kings.

Swinpon.—Although Stigand had held this manor, and Arch-
bishop Thomas held it in 1086, the Survey notes that it really
belonged to 8. Oswald’s.

Prestpury.—The rating of 10 hides is a low one, having regard
to the area of the manor, and the number of tenants.

Leckuampron.—Of the 4 hides which Brictric held in 1086,
he had owned two before the Conquest, the other two, which had
belonged to a certain Ordric, had been bestowed on Brictric by
the Conqueror when he was going into Normandy. It is not
unlikely that this Brictric was in happier days the lord of Tewkes-
bury. It may be that Humfrid Cocus’ Manor of Lechetone,
which is described in the Survey as lying in Salemanesberie
Hundred, was a part of Leckhampton, it had belonged T.R.E.
to Ordric.

The very large area of the hide marks an uncultivated region,
and the scanty population points in the same direction. The
values are vitiated by the inclusion of the rental of Sevenhampton
in Wacrescumbe Hundred here.
144 Domrspay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE

HOLEFORD HUNDRED.

SnowsHILL.—The value of the manor seems low for a rating of
7 hides. ;

Rowetu.—The Survey states that the Church of 8. Ebrulf
held this manor of the King, in fact it had been bestowed by him
on the abbey in 1081. Jt had never paid gheld, though it had
been held by a subject before the Conquest.

Lower Guitinc.—King Edward granted this manor to Alwin
(probably the Sheriff) for his life, he seems to have survived the
Conquest, and on his death King William gave his wife and land
to a certain young man named Richard; if William, the son of
Richard, who is mentioned as holding part of the land which had
been separated from the royal ferm of Westbury-on-Severn, be
William Goizenboded who held half a hide which really belonged
to that ferm, but which Alwin the Sheriff held and gave to his
wife, then William Goizenboded cannot have attained his majority
in 1086; a condition of things which would account for the
impoverished state of his property. He was still alive in 1108.

Tempte Guirinc.—The number of Radchenistri, seven, is a
large one. We have here an instance of a rent in kind, 40 hens
being paid for wood and pasture ; this entry implies the existence
of tracts of wood and pasture as pertaining to this manor whose
area is not registered in the Survey, where indeed less than half
the acreage of the existing parish is accounted for.

Gunhilda, widow of Geri de Loges, gave two of her four hides
to Gloucester Abbey for the good of her husband’s soul, at some
time before the death of Serlo in 1104 ; I cannot trace the descent
of the other two hides. The county histories assign her estate
to Lower Guiting.

Hawiinc.—There is a curious blunder in the entry in the
record, which reads,—“ In dmo sunt iii car & xx vilti & v bord ci
ix bord,”—the latter “bord” should, of course, be “car” ; that
such mistakes should be so few in the countless repetitions of the
same formule shows the extreme care that was taken in the com-
pilation of the great Survey. Only 1440 of the 1867 acres now
found in Hawling are accounted for, but mention is made of the
existence of wood on the manor
TKODECHESBERIE HUNDRED, 145

Alwold had owned Pinnock in King Euward’s time, and con-
tinued to hold it of the Conqueror. The exact modern equivalent
of “ Pignoscire ” is uncertain ; it would, I suspect, have included,
at any rate, Pinnock and Didbrook.

The hides are large, and the population scanty ; the miserable
condition of William Goizenboded’s property prevents any com-
parison of values. Barely half the acreage is registered, the rent
paid for wood and pasture at Temple Guiting gives an intimation
of the nature of the remainder.

TEODECHESBERIE HUNDRED,

Brictric’s noble estate of TEWKESBURY was rated at 95 hides,
but of these 45 were in demesne, and so were quit of gheld and of
all service to the King; these duties being discharged by the
remaining 50 hides. In his days it had been worth £100 annually,
when Ralph received it the value was only £12, ‘‘quia destructa
et confusa erat,” in 1086 Ralph paid for the manor £50, but the
jurors valued it only at £40; he would have recouped himself as
best he could. I suspect that Ralph was the one of that name
who held several manors under Durandus, and that he took
charge of Tewkesbury on the death of Queen Matilda in Nov.
1083; at any rate he had been there long enough to absorb 3
hides in Walton Cardiff.

The 50 serfs and ancillee who pertained to the capital manor,
and the 16 bordars who abode arourid the hall, testify to the
dignity of their lord ; as does also the fact that 9 Radchenistri
owed him service.

It is remarkable that the name ‘“‘ Ashchurch” is not found in
the record, the area now interned in that parish is entered under
the names of its hamlets, Pamington, Ashton on Carant, Fidding-
ton, and Natton.

OxentTon, where Brictric had maintained a residence. was
hidated with Tewkesbury, as were also the two following estates.

Two Tewkesbury manors, Hanuey and Forruampron, had
belonged to Earl William, the former was probably the place
where Brictric was taken, a retreat in Malvern Chase would be a
natural place of retirement on the approach of danger. In neither

case is any mention made of tenant’s teas, though several villeins
L
146 DoMESDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

and bordars are entered in each manor. Hanley was in 1086

accounted for in the King’s ferm at Hereford, a mark of Fitz . .

osbern’s ownership, and there was there woodland with an “ haia.”
Both estates had considerably diminished in value. A detailed
account of Hanley and Forthampton is given with the King’s
lands in Herefordshire ; and also of the Worcestershire Manors of
Biselie, Lapule, Chonhelme, Edresfelle, and Suchelie. 8. Mary
(of Lyre?) had the tithe of Forthampton.

SHENINGTON, like other Tewkesbury estates, was favourably
hidated, its 10 hides paying gheld only for 7; the value likewise
had diminished from £20 to £8. It lies near Banbury, and
Robert d’Oyly, Sheriff of Oxfordshire, farmed it for the King.

CLIFFORD CHAMBERS had been given by Queen Matilda to
Roger de Busli, and in 1099 he gave it to Gloucester Abbey.
Its 7 hides paid gheld for only 4. The Queen had given the 3
hides of a thane who had commended himself to Brictric to the
Chaplain Rainald; these hides lay in Wenecote, a hamlet of
Clifford Chambers.

After the estates which had belonged to Brictric himself, are
placed those which had been the property of smaller owners who
had commended themselves to his protection, as the Wenecote
thane had done.

Among these are placed 8 hides in Kemerton held T.R.E.
by Let, and 3 in Bopineron, which, we are told, under the head
of S. Peter of Westminster, always paid gheld and rendered other
services in Deerhurst Hundred till Girard the Chamberlain had
them, after which time they did so no more. Girard seems to
have robbed the church and carried his stolen goods into the
Hundred of his patroness the Queen. Girard held another half
hide in Kemerton, in Deerhurst Hundred, as did also Baldwin,
Abbot of 8. Edmund’s. Girard’s share of Kemerton passed to his
descendants. :

Hunfrids lands in Alderton were afterwards held of the
Honour of Gloucester. John the Chamberlain’s Manor of Twininc
would have been Gopishull, or Gubshill, south of Tewkesbury.

Land in Stoke would naturally have been held of the Church
of Worcester. Hermer and Alwin had no doubt commended
Derueste HuNnpDRED. 147

themselves to Brictric as better able to afford protection than
the Bishop. ;
THE CHURCH OF TEWKESBURY.

The lands of the church are entered among those of the lord
of Tewkesbury, but separately, and with a red cross opposite to
each manor.

Whatever the early history of the Church of Tewkesbury may
have been, it was at the date of the Survey a cell of Cranborne,
in Dorset, and it was also a parish church, its ‘ Parochia” is
mentioned in the foundation charter of the abbey in 1102; but
its endowment of 243 hides, including more than 5,600 acres,
and worth T.R.E. £24 10s. gave it a rank among the churches
of the shire far above the ordinary manorial churches, and indeed
approaching that of the great abbeys. It had, however, shared
in the misfortunes of the manor, for its income had diminished
by one-fifth at the date of the Survey.

Sranway.—Here was a ‘‘ Monasterium,” the term does not of
necessity imply anything more than an ordinary church ; the little
church of Kirkdale, in Yorkshire, which was restored by Gamal,
the son of Orm, a few years before the Conquest, is called in
a contemporary inscription on its walls a ‘“ Minster,” though no
religious body was connected with it. The form Atone for Natton
shews that the ‘N’ frequently disappeared before a vowel on the
Cotswolds eight centuries ago, as nettles are often ’ettles now.

The 243 church hides only paid gheld for 20.

The hides were the smallest in the shire, testifying to the
excellence of the soil, but misfortune had grievously reduced their
value; yet even in its impoverished condition, the ploughlands
and acres of the manor were of more than average worth. Of
course the large extent of natural meadow served to maintain the
value of the estate.

DERHESTE HUNDRED.
Terra 8. Petrr WEsTMonast :

Derruurst.—Though the manor belonged to 8S. Peter the

ancient church had been assigned to 8. Denys, which foreign

church also possessed the hamlet of Deerhurst Walton. The
L 2
148 DomMEsDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

Domesday acreage exceeds that of the modern parish, no doubt
some of the land, probably woodland, lay elsewhere. __

Exmstonr.—Reinbald’s hide passed with the rest of his possess-
ions to the Abbey of Cirencester.

Girard’s two hides at Bopineron were confirmed to Westmin-
ster Abbey by Adrian IV., but his land at Bourtoy-on-THE-HILn
was reckoned to be in Tewkesbury Hundred, and passed from
the possession of the church.

Turstin fitz Rolf’s manor in HasriELp was lost to the church,
and was held in 1166 under Henry de Newmarch by Humphrey
and Eustace Pancevot. The Newmarch and Pancevot families
were frequent successors of Turstin in this shire as in Dorset and
Somerset. The greater part of CorsE was waste till long after
the Survey, in which the name is not found; Harridge, a hamlet
in the parish, represents it.

TirLEy.—The land which was held in 1409 under the Duchy
of Lancaster, may possibly represent William fitz Baderon’s manor
of Trinleie, for much of his land vested ultimately in that Duchy.

Terra 8. Dyonisit Parisii.

?

What is implied by the land ‘‘ultra Savernam” can only be
a matter of conjecture ; it would no doubt have included the Haw
in Tirley, and I suspect it included part of Corse, for the church

there was dependent on Deerhurst as was that of Tirley.

The half-hide in Kemerton seems to have been lost to the
church.

The area of the hide, and the population, were normal ; but
the values were low. Inasmuch, however, as there had been an
increase in value since the Conquest, the cause of the comparative
poverty of the Deerhurst estates must be sought in the Confessor’s
time, or it may be even earlier. Note, as a significant fact, that
all the estates in the shire pertaining to the Churches of West-
minster and 8. Denys lay in one Hundred,—Deerhurst Hundred ;
also that all the land in that Hundred had belonged to one or
other of those two churches. Note also that the owner T.R.E. of
these lands is not stated, though we know that the Confessor had
bestowed them on the two abbeys. Two questions suggest
SALEMANESBERIE HoNDRED. 149

themselves,—(1) To whom had these lands belonged in the earlier
years of the Confessor’s reign? (2) Why was the Hundred in
which they all lay called by the name of “ Deerhurst,” though
the manors were scattered over different parts of North Glou-

cestershire ?
SALEMANESBERIE HUNDRED.

Lower StavcuterR.—This manor, which now gives its name
to the Hundred, was given by Henry III. to the Abbey of
Fecamp, on the suppression of the alien houses it formed part of
the endowment of the nunnery of Sion, and at the dissolution of
the monasteries it was granted to George Whitmore, whose repre-
sentative now holds it. It was the caput of the Hundred, and
the large value, £27, included the profits of the Hundred Courts,

Upper SLauGuter.—The mother of Roger de Laci was named
Emmeline. She held this manor probably as part of her dower,
Possibly she resided here, certainly the teams were all in demesne.
The boundaries of the two Slaughter parishes are obviously not
the same with those of the Domesday manors, though the total
modern acreage agrees fairly well with the area recorded in the
Survey. Something must have been taken from the King’s manor
and added to de Laci’s.

Oppixeton and Coypicore. Though Archbishop Thomas
restored the manor to 8. Peter’s Abbey on Palm Sunday, 1097,
succeeding Prelates revived the claim, till at length after an
appeal to the Roman Court in 1157, Abbot Hameline gave it with
land at Shurdington to the Archiepiscopal See in satisfaction of
all claims. Its value had increased since the Conquest, though
not so much as in the case of the manors which remained to the
abbey. The estate was a privileged one which had never paid
gheld.

SuerBorne.—Ten of the hides were free from gheld as being
demesne land. The mills formed a valuable element, and the
population was relatively large.

Matearspury at Epwarp’s Stows.—There were T.R.E. 8
hides, and a ninth hide belongs to 8. Edward’s Church. “ Rex
Adeldredus quietam dedit ibi.” This does not mean that King
Ethelred gave the hide to the church, for the manor belonged to
150 Domerspay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIKE,

Evesham Abbey long before his time, but that he granted exem-
tion from the payment of gheld to the glebe-land. The Survey
only mentions 1,200 of the 3,130 acres now reckoned to be in
Stowe, while Broadwell is credited with 2,160 acres, though the
parish now contains only 1,600 acres; perhaps Donington was
then considered to be appendant to Broadwell.

ADLESTROP.—The ‘‘parum prati” shews the care with which
even small patches of meadow were registered.

Bourton-on-THE-WaTER —The hidage, and registered acreage,
would seem to refer only to Bourton exclusive of Clapton, the
‘two places are, however, united in a grant of free-warren to
Evesham Abbey in 1330. If, however, Clapton is not registered
in the Survey under Bourton, I do not know where it is to be
found.

Westcote, or Combe Baskerville.—This place contains the
manors registered in the Survey as belonging to Roger de Laci
and Ralph de Todeni; note the Danish name Halfdene of the
tenant T.R.E, and that of his neighbour Ulf at Great Rissington,
there seems to have been a considerable Danish population in
the south-east of the shire.

Icompz Puacr.—The sub-tenant was, no doubt, Durandus’
nephew Walter fitz Roger, who succeeded Durandus as sheriff.

Cuurcn Icomp.—I have placed the Domesday particulars of
this manor at the foot of the Hundred for the sake of complete-
ness, but it was in 1086, and indeed until recently, in Worcester-
shire.

Lirtte Rissincron.—The four manors of the owners T.R.E.
had been consolidated into one.

Great Rissincron.—This manor passed with that of Sapper-
ton, which also belonged to Robert de Todeni, from the time of
King John.

Lower Sweit.—William de Ow’s manor seems to have passed
almost out of cultivation ; no tenants are mentioned, and it was
only worth one-fourth of its value before the Conquest. Ralph
de Todeni’s manor descended from his tenant Drogo (fitz Pons) to
Richard Poyntz, by whom it was sold to Richard, father of
Edmund, Earl of Cornwall.
Bernitone Hunprep. 151

Naunton.—Richard, the father of that Osbern from whom
Robert d’Oyly held his 5 hides, was a Norman favourite of the
Confessor who had not been driven from England in 1052; he
gave his name to Richard’s castle in Herefordshire, and the half
fee which was held of the King in 1408 as of the manor of
Richard’s castle by Elizabeth, wife of Warin the Archdeacon,
would represent his estate.

No fewer than 5 of Cuenild’s 9 hides were free from gheld ; it
would have been from her manor that the property of the churches
of Lisieux and Little Malvern arose.

Aytwortu.—Gilbert’s tenant Walter was his son-in-law : the
manor passed to the Earls of Gloucester. The parish of Naunton
contains 3,106 acres, and the Survey registers 3,060 acres of
arable in that area, which was thus already cultivated to its full
extent ; about 40 males are enumerated in the record, denoting a
population of about 200, in 1881 there were 530 souls in Naunton,
so that the population has been less than trebled in the course of 8
centuries. Probably the country traversed by the railway between
Bourton and Notgrove would give a fair idea of the better cul-
tivated portions of Domesday Gloucestershire, supposing the walls
to be levelled, and the balks which divided the common fields to
be replaced.

CaLpicors, now Westfield, has followed Willian Goizenboded’s
ownership into the parish of Lower Guiting.

Eyrorp remained with the Musards of Miserdine till the reign
of Edward I.; though it belonged afterwards to Evesham Abbey
it seems to be a singular instance of a place where no provision
was made for the spiritual needs of the people.

The value of the ploughland and acre were good ; that of the
hide, however, was low, and as its average area was small, it may
be that the district was somewhat heavily rated. This was a well-
populated Hundred.

BERNITONE HUNDRED.

It is by no means clear that the parochial boundaries of the
two Barrington parishes are conterminous with those of the
Domesday manors. Probably, however, the manors held by Elsi de
152 Domerspay SURVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

Ferendone and Walter fitz Roger would mostly lie in Great
Barrington, and those held by Godwin de Stantone and William
Goizenboded in Little Barrington.

Elsi de Ferendone’s manor would include that part of Great
Barrington which was reputed to be in Berkshire, and Walter
fitz Roger’s manor was given to Llanthony Priory. King John’s
Charter of Confirmation to the Priory states that besides eight
“librates” of land in the manor of Bernington, one moiety of
Bernington, with the church and all its appurtenances, was the
gift of Walter the Constable, confirmed by Earl Milo ; and that
Earl Roger (son of Milo, who died in 1154) gave the other moiety
to provide for thirteen lepers. Some of this land lay in Little
Barrington.

Winprvusu.—The particulars of one manor which had been
accidentally omitted are placed at the foot of the Hundred. There
is a singular instance of the double entry of one manor, first with
the lands of the Church of Winchcombe, then with those of the
King’s thanes. The Winchcombe entry says that Elsi held it of
the abbey, and that Bolle, who could go where he would with that
land, held it, and gave it to the abbey ; the other entry says that
Elsi held it of the King, and that Ulric, Tovi, and Leuuin held it
T.R.E., and could go where they would. The abbey entry simply
mentions these tenants with the portions they held, and goes on
to say that the land which Elsi holds lay unjustly in Salemanes-
berie Hundred after Bolle’s death, but now by the judgment of
the jurors of Bernitone Hundred it lies in that Hundred. The
dispute seems to have turned on the nature of Bolle’s interest, and
in the end the abbey held its own. The benefice which pertained
to Lanthony Priory was no doubt attached to one of Roger de
Laci’s manors. .

The sum of the rating of the manors bearing the name of
Wenric in Bernitone Hundred is 6 hides and 3 virgates ; and as the
average area of a hide in Bernitone Hundred is 244 acres, this
would imply an area of about 1,644 acres, fairly accordant with
the 1,710 acres now reckoned to lie in Windrush. Yet fair space
would be left for the 5 virgates at which the Manor of Wenric in
BecHeBerRtc HuNDRED. 153

Gersdone Hundred is rated, if indeed that land really lay here.
It is difficult to trace the descent of the manors which were in lay

hands in 1086.

Widford is now in Oxfordshire.

The hide was relatively small, and its value was high, as were
also the values of the acre and ploughland ; moreover, excepting
the little Hundred of Tolangebrige, near Gloucester, this Hundred
was the most densely populated Hundred in the shire, there were
fewer than 60 acres to each registered male, the average for the
shire being 91 acres. Bernitone Hundred was a very prosperous
one, it maintained a population of about 500 eight centuries ago ;
while in 1881 the relative parishes only contained 835 souls, and
their population was diminishing rather rapidly.

BECHEBERIE HUNDRED.

ARLINGTON, with many of the forfeited estates of Earl Roger,
formed part of the endowment of the Honour of Gloucester.

Brsury.—The Bishop’s manor remained with the See till the
reign of Edward VI.; Ablington was also held of the Bishop, it
may represent a part or the whole of the land assigned to the
three Radchenistri in the Survey.

The Priest’s land was afterwards known as Bibury Oseney, as
it passed into the possession of that abbey by grant of Bishop
John before 1320. Probably this was John de Constantiis, Bishop
of Worcester, 1196-1198, who had been Archdeacon of Oxford,
1186-1196.

Barnstey.—Durandus’ manor passed with the rest of his
property to Milo fitz Walter, and Eudo’s 7 virgates must, I think,
have been merged in it.

Apsworti.—Elward’s estate was afterwards known as
Walle, and with the rest of his father’s possessions formed part
of the endowment of Cirencester Abbey. Although the chief
manor here belonged to Gloucester Abbey the church went with
that of Bibury to Oseney Abbey.

The hides were small, telling of comparatively good land, but
the values throughout were low, and the population was scanty.
154 Domrspay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

There had been no diminution in value since the Conquest, but
the Bishop of Worcester’s 33 hides were only worth £18, a very
poor return ; a similar condition of things presents itself at West-
bury-on-Trym, possibly the episcopal estate was too large to be
properly stocked and worked with the means at the Bishop's
command

BRADELEGE HUNDRED.

The nameless estate which had belonged to Odo, Bishop of
Bayeux, was, I believe, Coln Rogers, which is not accounted for
elsewhere in the Hundred, and which was given to Gloucester
Abbey by Roger in 1105. The decline in value shews that the
manor was in an impoverished state at the date of the Survey,
but the hidage would agree fairly well with the area of the present
parish.

NorTHLEACH was restored to the abbey by Archbishop Thomas
in 1097, its value T.R.E. only ten shillings a hide was pitiably -
small, and is an index of misfortune or mismanagement at 8.
Peter’s ; by the date of the Survey however, it had been brought
into excellent condition, for 6,600 acres of arable are registered in
an area now computed at 6,753 acres, and its value had increased
to 22s. 9d. a hide.

Farmineton was lost to the church, and passed in after times
as did Southrop, which appears in the Survey as “ Lece,” held of
the King, also by Walter fitz Ponz ; the: commissioners note that
it is claimed by the Archbishop, but express no opinion on the
rights of the case. Stowell went with Farmington, of which
manor it was reckoned to be a member.

The hide in Coprrty lay at Pinswell and Upper Coberly.

 

Compton ABpALE.—This manor had belonged to 8. Oswald’s
Abbey, but the Archbishops of York kept it till the reign of
Edward VI., leaving only the rectory to the original possessors ;
the three hides held by Roger de Ivri’s tenant reverted to the -
Archbishops.

TurKprEan.— William Leuric’s estate had passed almost out of
cultivation ; the demesne was waste, and the wretched tive tenants

had but one team between them, the value also had fallen from
WacrescumBs Hunprep. 155

£4 +o 10s. The relation between the Domesday manors and the
existing manors of Upper and Lower Dean cannot now be traced.

Hampxetr.—tTwo of the 10 hides were free from payment of
gheld by special grant of King Edward to Archbishop Eldred, as
was alleged. Roger’s possession seems to have been an invasion
of the rights of the See of Worcester, but the commissioners record
it without remark.

SALPERTON was already cultivated to its full extent.

Wiyson.—It appears from “ Kirby’s Quest” that the manor
was still held in 1285 of the Barony of Cormeilles ; how or when
it was joined to Bibury is not apparent. Its early history seems
to have been the same with that of Winstone in Bisley Hundred,
and it may be there is some confusion in the records.

Hazieton and Yanwortu.—The Conqueror had granted that
3 hides in each manor should be quit of gheld. Both manors
eventually passed into the possession of Winchcombe Abbey.

A well-peopled Hundred with a good value per acre; the hide
was small and its value low, perhaps the rating was rather severe.

WACRESCUMBE HUNDRED.

Wiruineton..—The 1,080 acres of glebe which now pertain
to the rectory do not represent the half-hide of the Domesday
priest, but an allotment of land in lieu of tithe when the common
fields were enclosed; this commutation was very frequent on
the Cotswolds.

Foxcore belonged to Humphrey de Bohun about a century
after the Survey ; possibly Morinus was connected in some way
with Walter fitz Roger who held Colesbourn under the Bishop of
Worcester in 1086.

Anschitel, holder of Little Colesbourne and Wilcote, is no
doubt the same person who held Didmarton under Durandus.

The jurors concluded their report with the remark that—
“there were in some places meadow and wood, but not much ;”
we might have thought that the valley of the Coln would have
afforded meadow enough to deserve special mention.
156 DomeEspay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

I can find nothing about Robert who held Dowdeswell, but
the fact that the Earls of Hereford had an interest in the manor
in after times may serve to connect him with Walter fitz Roger.

Surpton.—It is not easy to apportion the five manors between
Shipton Sollars and Shipton Olliff To Shipton Sollars belongs
certainly the manor held by Ansfrid of Cormeilles, and the mill
on Hugh Lasne’s manor is no doubt Frogmill in the same parish,
while the manor held by Archbishop Thomas represents the
estate of 8. Oswald’s in Shipton Ollif; but the lands of the two
parishes are even now much intermingled, and probably the
Domesday boundaries have been long ago obliterated. Durandus’
land was held in 1285 of the Earl of Hereford by Robert Pulye.

Upper Hampen.—This hamlet contains the land of 8. Oswald’s
which Archbishop Thomas held in 1086; the land which was
held in 1285 of the Bishop of Hereford would have been that
portion of Hampen which pertains to Sevenhampton

SEVENHAMPTON.—Possibly the 3 hides held by Durandus may
represent the Llanthony manor in Prestbury, of which place
Sevenhampton was a member ; Durandus seems generally to have
kept what he had, and Sevenhampton does not seem to bear the
mark of his hand.

The value of Sevenhampton is entered with that of Prestbury,
in Cheltenham Hundred, so that no comparison of values is
possible ; but the area of the hide was small, and the district
possessed an average population.

RESPIGETE HUNDRED.

CuEpwortu.—The “ Earl Roger” who had held this manor
was certainly Roger son of William Fitzosbern who succeeded
his father in the Earldom of Hereford, and not Roger of Belmont,
the owner of Dorsington ; the latter would not have been called
“Earl.” Further proof is found in the fact that William Fitz-
osbern had given the advowson of Chedworth to his Abbey of
Lire. However, the manor belonged to Henry de Newburgh,
Earl of Warwick, younger son of Roger of Belmont, and passed
to his descendauts; it seems to have been granted to him by
William Rufus.
ResPIGETE HUNDRED. 157

It was ina very poor condition, less than half the area was
under cultivation, and it may be that the entry of 7 teams in
demesne referred to Ulward’s time, for there were no serfs in
1086 ; the sheriff, however, had done his best to improve matters,
and had set 8 villeins and 6 bordars to work with 4 teams.

Note that there is no mention of church or priest in the
Survey, though the advowson had been previously given to the
Abbey of Lire. The value £40 includes the profit of Arlington,
in Bibury, a well cultivated manor.

Nortu Crerney.—What Fosbroke relates concerning Stigand
and Abingdon Abbey refers to South Cerney. Whether or no
the deed referred to on p. 97 be genuine, the Survey states that
T.R.E. 8. Oswald’s had held a manor in North Cerney, which, in
1086, was held by Archbishop Thomas, and which was retained
by his successors in the See till its surrender to Henry VIII.

 

This manor lay in Calmsdean. By far the larger portion of
Cerney, however, belonged in 1086 to Gislebert fitz Turold, who
joined in the Norman revolt against Rufus, and was deprived of
his lands, of which Cerney and Rendcombe were granted to
Robert fitz Hamon and passed with the Honour of Gloucester.
Woodmancote and a part of Calmsden pertained to this manor,
as did also the advowson.

CoLEsBourN.—Milo, Constable of Gloucester, son of the
Domesday tenant gave land here to Lanthony Priory in 1137 ;
but two knights’ fees were held here in 1285 of Reginald fitz
Peter heir of Milo.

Eycor.—‘‘In Begeberie jacet.” Inthe aid of 1346 Thomas
de Berton held in Brightwellsbarrow Hundred one-third of a
knight’s fee in Eycote, and in 1376 he died seized of the Manor
of Eycote, held of the Bishop of Worcester’s Manor of Bibury.
Locally Eycote was situated in Colesborne. The 6 virgates, which
were held by a knight of Ansfrid de Cormeilles, lay, I suppose,
in that part of Combend which is in Colesbourne ; with this
agrees the name “ Power’s wood,” Margaret, great-grand-daughter
of Ansfrid, married Hugh de Poer. The manor belonging to
Walter fitz Roger, perhaps in consequence of his minority, had
grievously declined in value. ,
158 DomeEspay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

Exxstone.—Half of this manor was held of Ansfrid by a
knight of his, but the whole descended to his heirs.

The acreage registered in the Survey at CowLzy and CoBEriy
is strikingly deficient, yet excepting Pinswell, the area would
seem to be the same as at present; unless indeed some of the
excessive acreage registered under Badgworth may be placed here.

BriMpsFIELD.—This, like all Osbern’s manors in Gloucester-
shire, except Aldeberie, and many elsewhere, had belonged T.R.E.
to Dunne or Duns; the two mills will have lain in what is now
Cranham.

S1pz.—Turstin, tenant of Ansfrid, is no doubt he who in 1101
had two tenants in Winchcombe ; he seems to have been but a
poor manager, for the manor only possessed half its former value.

RenpcomBe.—Both Gilbert’s manors passed to the Earls of
Gloucester ; Walter, the tenant of the smaller one, was his son-
in-law. A portion of Eycote lay in Rendcombe, but this is not
distinguished by name in the Survey.

DuwntisBourRNE Lyre. Roger de Laci had given this land
to the Church of 8. Mary of Lire quite recently, for his father
Walter died on 27th March, 1085.

DuntTisBpouRNE ABBoTs.—Roger de Laci’s tenant Gilbert, with
his wife and son, gave his land here in 1100 to Gloucester Abbey,
for the good of the soul of his lord Walter de Laci.

Ansfrid’s land here and in Cirencester Hundred he received
when he married the niece of Walter de Laci ; it was still held in
1285 of John le Brun who had married Albreda, coheiress of
Walter de Cormeilles.

CranHam was formed subsequently to the Survey, and consists
in part of land given to Gloucester Abbey from their Manor
of Brimpsfield by members of the Giffard family, and in part
of a portion of the Manor of Wiche (now Painswick) consisting
of woodland worth ten shillings, which the Conqueror had given
to the Church of Cirencester.

A relatively large hide, a sparse population, and but fair
value, indicate a poorly cultivated region ; the many mills, how-
ever, would have been a source of wealth,
BRIcTWOLDESBERG HUNDRED. 159

BRICTWOLDESBERG HUNDRED.

FarrrorD.—The portion farmed by Humphrey represents the
present parish, which passed with the Honour of Gloucester.
The portion which Queen Matilda gave to John the Chamberlain
was, I believe, that part of the manor of Eastleach Turville which
was held at different times between the reign of Edward I. and
Henry VL. by the heirs of William Chamberlain of the Honour
of Gloucester ; locally it lay, I suspect, in what is now the parish
of Coln 8. Aldwyn.

Coin S. Atpwyn.—The abbey manor formed but a part of
the existing parish, which includes also Williamstrip ; this latter
manor is represented in the Survey by Hetrope, which was held
of Roger de Laci by William, who seems to have given his name
to it. Williamstrip appears in early records as a member of
Eastleach Turville, which had also belonged to Roger de Laci.
The present acreage of Coln 8. Aldwyn’s is 3,420 acres, the
Survey shows,—

Culne - - 1800 acres.

Fareforde  - - TAOS 55

Hetrope - - 360,
2880 _,,

A very fair equivalent ; the reasons given for the arrangement
seem to be satisfactory, at any rate it relieves Fairford of the

excessive acreage given in the Survey, though at the expense of
Eastleach Turville.

QuenIneton.—This manor, which evidently included a larger
area than the parish, was given to the Knights Templars. Hugh
de Laci, brother of Roger, gave the church to Gloucester Abbey
before 1104.

Eastieacn Turvittr.—The removal of Hetrope into Coln
leaves a very deficient acreage,—a difficulty which must be faced
somewhere.

Easttrach Marrin.—Walter de Clifford, nephew of Drogo
fitz Ponz, gave this manor to Gloucester Abbey in 1144 in
exchange for their manor of Glasebury.
160 DomeEsDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

SourHrop.—This manor descended as did Walter’s manor at
Farmington ; it was larger than the present parish. The church
is said to have been given by Alice de Clermont to the Knights’
Hospitallers.

Hatuerop.—The manor seems to be co-extensive with the
parish. The estates, which stand in the name of Ernulf de
Hesding in the Survey passed to his daughters ; Hatherop des-
cended to his daughter Sybil, wife of Walter of Salisbury, whose
descendant, Ela Countess of Salisbury, endowed the Nunnery of
Lacock which she founded with the manor and advowson of
Hatherop.

Though no church is mentioned in the Survey, Ernulf de
Hesding is said to have given the Church of Hatherop to Glou-
cester Abbey ; it may be the manor belonged not to him, but to
his wife, and the gift was invalid.

The mill was one of the most valuable in the shire, it is now
extinct.

Lecutapr.—Henry de Ferrers was one of the Domesday
commissioners for the shire ; the manor had paid gheld for 15
hides T.R.E., but the King had granted that 6 should be quit of
gheld, to which fact the jurors of the shire testified, and also ‘he
who bore the King’s seal. It is interesting to note that even the
commissioners had to give sufficient proof of their statements.
The manor remained with his descendants till the reign of
Henry ITI.

Note the great value of the meadow-land, £7 7s ; and the eel
fishery, the only one registered in our Survey. The Siward who
T.R.E. held Lechlade and Tetbury was Siward Barn, great
nephew of King Edward, who had submitted to the Conqueror
immediately after his coronation, at Barking, but who had joined
the rebellion in the fen-land in 1071, and was only released from
the imprisonment consequent on its failure by the Conqueror on
his death-bed. This corrects pp. 9 and 12.

Kempsrorp.—This manor passed from Ernulf de Hesding to
his daughter Matilda, wife of Patrick de Cahors ; its value had
been more than doubled since the Conquest, and included £9 from
meadow-land, and the worth of 120 pounds (pensas) of cheese
from the sheep fold. No church is noticed in the Survey, but
LANGETREY HUNDRED, 161

Ernulf de Hesding gave to Gloucester Abbey the Church of Kemps-
ford with the glebe. Three of the four mills were given by
Patrick de Cahors to the same abbey in the reign of William
Rufus, and Horcot mill was also bestowed upon it by his son
Patrick in the reign of Henry I.

This was one of the most prosperous Hundreds in the shire ;
no manor had diminished in value since the Conquest, several
were much more valuable than they had been, and the worth of
the hide, ploughland, and acre was far above the average. Much
of the fertility of the soil was due to the abundant water supply
afforded by the Coln, the Leach, and the Isis. There was also a

comparatively large population.

LANGETREV HUNDRED.

AvENING.—It is singular that though the Conqueror is said to
have given this manor to the nuns of the Holy Trinity at Caen,
it stands in the Survey in his name ; certainly Avening, Aston,
and Losemore belonged to that House in 1193. The mills and
wood imply that the Golden Valley was then as now one of the
most beautiful spots in the shire; the manor was well cultivated,
and maintained a large population.

W oopcHESTER.—-This manor, we are told, Edward of Salisbury
held in the ferm of Wilts (where he was sheriff) unjustly as the
jurors say, because it belongs to no ferm. It does not, however,
appear in the Wilts Survey ; no doubt Edward kept it to recoup him-
self for any losses which might befall him as sheriff, for when the
profits of the manors failed the sheriff had to make up the sum
due to the King from his own property. No one gave a return
to the King’s commissioners from this manor, nor did anyone
even appear before them to represent it. The subsequent history
of the manor is obscure, as, however, it was afterwards held of
the Earldom of Sarum, it is not unlikely that it descended to
Edward’s son Walter, ancestor of the Earls of Salisbury.

Mincuinuampron included Rodborough. The rating of 8
hides for 5,000 acres of land is very light ; the Domesday acreage
seems to be excessive, probably it included that part of Nails-

worth which lies in Horsley, for Nailsworth also belonged to the
M
162 DomMESDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

nuns. The streams which surrounded the manor on three sides
drove no fewer than 8 mills which pertained to it. The advowson

has never been separated from the manor.

Horsury had been given by the Conqueror to Roger de Mont-
gomeri, Earl of Shrewsbury, who before 1086 had bestowed it
upon the Benedictine monks of Troarn ; the Survey, however,
credits the Conqueror with the gift. Less than one-third of the
area of the parish is registered, and Nailsworth hardly seems to
account for the whole deficiency ; very probably, however, the
manor of Widecestre, (q. v.) in Blacelaw Hundred, lay in the area
now included in this parish.

Weston Birt.—No one appeared to answer for Earl Hugh’s
two manors, but the jurors valued them at £8 ; a portion at any
rate of this land was held of the Honour of the Earl of Chester
by the Abbey of Cirencester in 1285.

Lasporoucyu.—Hugh Maminot, tenant of this manor, seems
to have been a nephew of Gilbert, Bishop of Lisieux, the physician
who attended the Conqueror on his death bed ; his daughter Alice
married Ralph de Cahanges, and the manor descended to their
heirs.

Both the rating of 5 hides, and the value T.R.E. £10 seem to
point to some lost source of profit, it is difficult to surmise, how-
ever, what it can have been.

Ropmarton.—The early history of the two manors known as
Rodmarton is obsure.

CuLKkerton.—Roger de Iveri’s manor seems to have passed as
did Tetbury, while that of Durandus descended as usual to his
nephew Walter, and the tithes were given by Milo fitz Walter to
Lanthony Priory.

HaseEtton passed as did Tetbury till it became a part of the
endowment of the Cistercian monks, who finally settled at Kings-
wood. The half villeins were no doubt tenants who each rendered
half a villein’s service, the number of serfs, 17, was excessive ; it
is difficult to find to what manor the other half of the mill per-
tained. There is a note which seems to imply that Roger formerly
LANGETREV HunpRep, 163

held the manor as tenant of the Bishop of Bayeux for £16, but that
afterwards the Bishop gave it to him. The whole entry is not
easy to understand.

Lirrte Tariton had been held of Ralph Pagenel by Roger de
Iveri, but they had both relinquished it; this was no doubt
connected with Ralph’s manor of Tarlton in Cirencester Hundred,
which he had received with the forfeited lands of Merlesweyn,
Sheriff of Lincolnshire.

Surptron Moynz.—Mathew’s manors were much depreciated in
value; two of them each contained pasture worth 2s., which
cannot have been a large area considering that some arable had
probably fallen out of cultivation, and that the Domesday acreage
is not strikingly deficient. Pasture is hardly ever noted, and
never measured, in the Gloucestershire Survey.

TersurRy.—The owner T.R.E. would have been Siward Bar,
who also owned Lechlade. Here again we find mention of
pasture, a portion worth 10s. being noticed as existing; the
value of the estate had nearly doubled since the Conquest.

CHERRINGTON was afterwards held of the Honour of Walling-
ford like most of Milo Crispin’s manors.

The area of the hide, and the population, were normal, but
the values of the land were high, a fact which points to careful
cultivation: the mills also contributed largely to the wealth of
the Hundred.

CIRECESTRE HUNDRED.

CIRENCESTER.—This manor of ancient Royal demesne had
been granted by the Conqueror to Karl William Fitzosbern, bnt
had reverted to the crown on the rebellion of Earl Roger in 1075 ;
its payment in money had more than doubled since the Confessor’s
time, the rent in grain had been changed into one of cattle, and a
sum of 16s. was paid in lieu of 3,000 loaves for the hounds.

Eart William had separated two hides from the manor, and
had given them to a tenant of his, this estate was afterwards
known as Wigwold; two other freemen also held two teams,
their estates were those afterwards known as the manors of

M 2
164 DoMEsvAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

Erchenbald and de Pyrie; William f. Baderon’s manor is repre-
sented by the tithing of Chesterton. §. Mary’s Church held two
hides of land, and six acres of meadow, and to it pertained also
the third penny of the profits of the new market that had been
set up. The Queen had been entitled to the fleece of the sheep
on the Royal manor, the only reference to wool in the Survey for
our shire. The meadow land and two woods which pertained to

_the Royal manor were worth 50s.; the woods would probably

have been Oakley and Minety, the former of which was granted
to Cirencester Abbey by Henry I., and the latter was sold to the
same church by Richard I.

The acreage accounted for in Cirencester is as follows :—

Rex - - - - 1,800 acres,
ii liberi homines - - 240 ,,
William f. Baderon - - 240 ,,
Eccl. 8. Marie = - 6 ,,
2,286

”

But to this must added the area of two hides that belonged to
the Wigwold freeman, and of two other hides that pertained to
the church; as the average hide in Cirencester Hundred con-
tained 257 acres, these four hides would imply an area of about
1,028 acres, giving a total of about 3,314 acres registered or
implied in the Survey. The deficiency of 1,200 acres is partly
accounted for by the unregistered woodland of Oakley given by
Henry I. to Cirencester Abbey. Whether or no the Lordship of
the Seven Hundreds was vested in Cirencester in 1086, the
Rev. E. A. Fuller thinks the amount paid as “ ferm” was large
enough to include the profits of the Hundred Courts.

Coatres.—The three manors of ‘‘ Achelie” are now included in
Coates ; they are accounted for in Kirby’s Quest, 1285, thus,—
“ Cotes,”

(1) One knight’s fee held under Theobald de Verdun, this
included Roger de Laci’s hide and a half ; Margaret, daughter of

' Gilbert de Laci had married John de Verdun, father (or grand-

father) of Theobald. The priest of this manor would have served
the church now known as Coates.
CrrecestRE HuNpRED. 165

2.—Half a knight’s fee held by Elias Cokerel under the
Russels of Dyrham ; this was Turstin f. Rolf’s manor, and would
have come to the Russels in the same way as did his manor of
Hillesley, and the estate which he held in Aust under the See of

Worcester.

(3) One hide, or 3 of a knight’s fee, held under the Earl of
Gloucester ; this would have been Gislebert f. Turold’s hide, for
most of his manors in the shire, including also Trewsbury, were
annexed to the Honour of Gloucester.

TARLTON.—Wlliam de Ow’s manor would have passed on his
disgrace to Edward of Salisbury, for it was given by Walter son
of Edward to the Church of Sarum, in recompense for injuries
done to it by William son of Walter. It formed the endowment
of the Prebend of Torleton, which was held by Bishop Frampton,
of Gloucester.

Hatiasry.—The Benedictine nuns of Romsey possessed at
the Dissolution a manor worth £6 13s. 4d. in ‘‘Hunlacy cum
Torleton juxta Cotes.” How they acquired it does not appear,
but Edith or Maud, Queen of Henry I. had lived at Romsey with
her aunt the Abbess Christina, and Mary, daughter of King
Stephen was nun and abbess there ; it is quite possible, therefore,
that a part of the Royal manor of Hunlafesed had been bestowed
on the abbey by one of those sovereigns.

The greater part of Ralph Pagenel’s manor of Tarlton lies, I
suspect, in Rodmarton, where the Domesday acreage is very
deficient, only 2,295 acres being registered in an area, now com-
puted to contain 3,877 acres; the inclusion of the 720 acres of
Ralph’s manor would bring the registered acreage up to 3,015
acres, a better equivalent, though still a low one.

The acreage of the manors thus assigned to Coates was as

follows :—
Achelie R. de Laci - - - 540 acres.

»  G.f Turold - - - 240 ,,

» T.f Rolf - - - 484 ,,
Hallasey - : - - 480 ,,
Trewsbury - - - - 120 =z,
Tarlton, W. de Ow - - - 120 ~~,

 

1984 ,,
166 DomeEsDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

As against 2,423 acres of modern ascertainment ; but probably
the Parochial boundary between Coates and Rodmarton is not
the same as the boundary between the Domesday manors.

Preston.—tThe eight hides in Preston and the one in Norcott
which belonged to Rainbald, became part of the endowment of
Cirencester Abbey ; the hide in each hamlet, which belonged to
Humphrey the Chamberlain, went with the manor of Fairford,
which he had farmed to the Honour of Gloucester. Though no
church or priest is recorded in the Survey, the church of Preston
is mentioned among the possessions of Rainbald in the charter of
Henry I.

Sippineton.—William f. Baderon’s manor certainly lay in
Siddington S. Peter, for the vicar paid a charge for tithe to the
priory of Monmouth, as also did the manor which Roger de Laci
held, and which was dower-land belonging to his mother Emmeline.
Humfrey the Chamberlain’s manor lay in Siddington S. Mary, and
so did that of Hascot Musard, which passed, like Miserden, to
the Earl of Kent; but since the reign of Edward IV. both
Siddingtous have belonged to the same owners. There were two
priests, and so, probably, two churches in the Siddington manors
at the date of the Survey.

Strratron.—The priest, no doubt, marked the existence of a
church ; at any rate, Walter de Laci, father of Roger, had given
two-thirds of the tithes of his demesne to the priory of Hereford,
which he had founded, which priory his son Hugh gave to
Gloucester Abbéy.

Bauntoy.—Henry I. granted to Walter f. Roger the land of
Edric, son of Ketel, in Baunton ; this land was afterwards held of
the de Bohuns, it was but poorly cultivated. The other manor
held of the King by Goisfrid Orleteile, which I had omitted, but
have entered at the foot of the Hundred, was, I suspect, merged
in the de Bohun manor. Baunton appears in Kirby’s Quest as
one knight’s fee held under the Earl of Gloucester, who was then
at strife with the Earl of Hereford, and may have obtained
possession of the manor, but in 1373 Humphrey de Bohun, Earl
of Essex, died seized of Baunton. The combined rating of six
hides agrees well with the area of the existing parish.
Cirecestre Hunprep. 167

Bacenpon.—The estates of Hugh Lasne were scattered ; this
manor of Benwedene passed to the family of de Chandos, like
Hugh’s other manors of Brockworth and Shipton.

DuntisBouRNE.—It is not easy to assign the manors which
appear under this name to their appropriate parochial areas.
Certainly the five hides which Emmeline, widow of Walter de
Laci, had given to Gloucester Abbey for the good of her husband’s
soul lay in Duntisbourne Abbots, as did also, I suspect, the hide
held by Ansfrid de Cormeilles. With equal certainty the two
hides owned by Durandus represent the half fee held of Reginald
f, Peter in 1285 by Roger le Rus, and so in Duntsbourne Rouse ;
the three hides at Penneberie belonging to the nuns of Caen must
also be placed in the same parish.

Dacuinewortu.—It is commonly said that the area of this
parish was waste in the manor of Stratton at the date of the
Survey ; a very little of it may have lain there, certainly the great
bulk could not possibly have done so; for though the Domesday
area of Stratton is slightly excessive, the 1339 acres of Stratton
and the 1884 acres of Daglingworth cannot be all included in the
rating of five hides under the former name, such an area in this
neighbourhood would imply a rating of twelve or thirteen hides.
Furthermore, the history of the places is entirely different ; Strat-
ton appears in Kirby’s Quest, 1285, as one knight’s fee held under
Theobald de Verdun, a fair rating for the five hides of the Survey,
Daglingworth is rated at two knights’ fees held ultimately from the
Earl Marshal ; two knights’ fees should equal about eight or ten
hides, and, I believe, that the five hides and a half held by William
de Ow in Duntesborne, and the three hides and a half held by
William f. Baderon, under the same name, represent the area now
known as Daglingworth. Much of Willian de Ow’s property ulti-
mately vested in the Marshals, passing through Gilbert Strongbow
to his grand-daughter Isabella, who by her marriage with William
Marshal brought him the Earldom of Pembroke ; and William f.
Baderon’s estate is identified with Daglingworth by the fact that
the prior of Monmouth had a portion from the rectory.

Moreover, the 1884 acres of Daglingworth divided among the
nine hides, at which the two manors are rated, gives an average
168 DomeEspAy SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

area, of 209 acres to a hide, as against an average of 257 acres for
the whole Hundred, an approximation quite sufficiently near. I
suspect, however, that the old boundaries have been obliterated, at
any rate as between the manors assigned to Daglingworth and
Duntisbourne Rous.

The Earl Marshal in 1285 was Roger Bigod, Earl of Norfolk,
son of Hugh Bigod, who had married Maud, eldest daughter of °
William, Earl of Pembroke, hereditary Marshal. In 1302 he sur-
rendered his earldom and estates into the King’s hands, receiving
them back for life only, and dying in 1307 Daglingworth is found
to have been held in 1316 under Aymer de Valence, Earl of
Pembroke.

Since I wrote the above account Sir Henry Barkly has examined
the Godstow Chartulary at the Record Office, and has very kindly
furnished me with the following particulars concerning Dagling-
worth :-—

“In the Godstow Chartulary at the Record Office the first
charter under the marginal rubric of Daglingworth is that of
Ralph Bloet giving ‘ecclesiam meam de Daglingworthe cum
omnibus suis pertinentiis,’ &c. His testibus Mathzo Archd.
Gloucest. et capitulo Cyrencestrie in quorum presentia hee
donatio facta fuit, et Roberto de Meiso, Rob. de Overe, et

Giffardo fratre ejus, et Ricardo Capellano, et Rainbaldo clerico,
&e.”

The second charter, fol. 27, is headed ‘“‘ Carta Radulphi Bloet
de Duntesborne, and is a copy verbatim et literatim of the first,
except that ‘ Duntesborne” stands in the place of “ Dagling-
worth,” the testing clauses being precisely the same, and the names
of all the witnesses identical. As though Ralph had given a
church of ‘ Duntesborne,” and then some doubt having been
expressed whether the description was sufficiently precise, had
regranted it under the name “ Daglingworth.”

The fifth charter is headed “Ecclesia de Daglingworth.”
“ Johanni dei gratid Wygornie Episcopo, et Archidiaconis suis et
decanis, Radulphus Bluet, et mater ejus, et fratres sui, salutem et
filialem dilectionem, Notum facimus nos concessisse monasterium
CIRECESTRE HUNDRED, 169

de Duntesborne Deo et Sanctee Marie et Sancto Johanni et Con-
ventui Godstowie in Elymosin4, quod Monasterium de meo
patrimonio et de meo feodo est, &c.”

These charters shew conclusively that the manor which Ralph
Bluet held was known indifferently by the names of‘ Dagling-
worth” and “ Duntisbourne” ; Daglingworth appears in Kirby's
Quest as held by Ralph Bluet under the Earl Marshal, and the
Rectory of Daglingworth paid a pension of 2s. to the Abbey of
Godstow, to which house also the advowson pertained. And thus
the Daglingworth of to-day is distinctly identified in part with
William de Ow’s manor of Duntisborne ; but it seemed better to
leave the remarks on hidage, as an instance of the method in which
the entries in the Survey can be used, and used correctly, for the

‘identification of manors whose modern equivalents are otherwise

unknown.

Mathew, Archdeacon of Gloucester, died in 1177, and John
de Pagham held the See of Worcester, 1151-1157, so that the
date of the deeds can be fixed with very fair accuracy ; at any
rate they shew that Daglingworth church existed before 1177,
and so far their testimony agrees with that of parts of the build-
ing.

Though the total value of the Hundred had fallen slightly
since the Conquest, and many of the manors shewed a diminished
rental, yet the general indications are those of a well-peopled and
thriving district. The hide was smaller than the average, and
the value of the acre, both statute and registered, was high ; the
value of the ploughland was also above the average, but not
relatively so good as that of the hide and acre, a result, no doubt,
of the general depreciation in rental, except on the Royal manor.
The Hundred seems to be one where a high standard of culti-
vation had been perceptibly lowered by the disturbance which
followed the Conquest.

GERSDONE HUNDRED.

In considering the proper assignment of this manors which
appear under the name of Ampney, it will be well to deal first
170 Domespay Scrvey or GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

with those whose ‘locality is fairly certain, and then with the
probable parochial equivalents of the remainder.

Down Ampney.—There is no doubt that this parish is repre-
sented in the Survey by the manor of fifteen hides, which T.R.E,
had belonged to Ednod, but which in 1086 was in the King’s
hands. The church was given to the Hospitallers, from whom it
passed to Cirencester Abbey.

Ampyrey 8. Prerer.—The two hides which the brother of
Reinbald held of the land of S. Peter’s Abbey would have lain
here ; the value scarcely 20s., of which 5s. arose from the mill, is
very small for more than 600 acres of cultivated land, and pro-
bably represents rather the rent paid to the abbey by the holder
than the real worth of the manor, which was in excellent con-
dition. The name of Reinbald’s brother is not recorded.

Ampney 8. Mary, or Asuproox.—Durandus’ manor represents
the land afterwards held of Humphrey de Bohun, the ,j, of a
knight’s fee held of him in 1373 by John at Halle, being the
probable equivalent of Humphrey the Chamberlain’s virgate,
The church is that which belonged to Reinbald on his estate of
four hides and one virgate, but almost all the land must have
lain in what is now Ampney Crucis.

Ampngey Crucis.—Henry de Newmarch confirmed to the
Abbey of Tewkesbury the manor which had belonged to Wine-
bald de Baladun, and as he possessed much of the land which in
the Survey stands in the name of Turstin f. Rolf, we know that
this is the manor which in the Survey is rated at seven hides, and
of which Tovi held under Turstin the land of two villeins, and a
certain knight the land of four villeins. Tovi is probably the
same person who had owned the whole manor in the Confessor’s
time ; a significant hint in the dry technicalities of the record of
the degradation of a Royal thane. The church with its glebe
belonged to Tewkesbury Abbey from its foundation in 1102,

Henry I. confirmed to the same abbey the hide which had
belonged to Humphrey the Cook, no doubt the hide which is
assigned in the Survey to the Chamberlain of that name.
Gersponk HUNDRED. 171

The land which was held in 1285 of Stephen le Bret under
the Earl of Sarum, would have lain in the manor of Ernulf de
Hesding, and would have formed an element in the portion of his
daughter Sybil, who married Walter of Salisbury, son of Edward
of Salisbury, the Sheriff of Wilts in 1068; as would also the
estate of the Priory of Bradenstoke, which was founded by Walter
of Salisbury. The hide which Patrick de Chaworth gave to
Gloucester Abbey would have also lain in Ernulf’s manor, but
must have passed with his daughter Matilda, who married Patrick.

Finally there are the three virgates held by Baldwin of the
King, which I cannot localise. Turstiu’s hide, which had been held

T.R.E. by Ulwi, would have lain in Ampney Crucis.

SovtH Crerney.—The Commissioners note that the Abbey of
Abingdon claimed this manor, but that the jurors testified that
Archbishop Stigand had held it for ten years during King Edward’s
reign, and that Earl William had given it to Roger de Pistres,
Sheriff of Gloucester, the father of Walter, the Domesday owner.
Stigand had leased it from the monks of Abingdon, it passed into
the hands of Earl William just as the Manor of Tidenham leased
from the Abbey of Bath had done, and both manors were lost to the
churches to which they belonged. The deficient acreage and the
diminished value are probably consequences of Walter’s minority.
This manor contained not only the manor which belonged to the
family of St. Amand, but also those of the Abbey of Bristol and
the Priory of Lanthony ; its meadows and mills were elements of

great value. The church was given by Walter to the Abbey of
Gloucester.

Ampney and Crerney.—This manor seems to be included in
Kirby’s Quest, 1285, with Ralph de Todeni’s other manor of
Harnhill, under the name of “ Harnhull and Hameneye” ; the
rating of two knights’ fees would agree well with the nine hides
attributed to the manors in the Suryey. It was then held by
Robert de Harniell, of Roger de Toweneye, of Hugh de Sarinis, of
the Earl of Hereford ; we seem to have here the representative of

the Domesday owner, and Harnhill descended to the heirs of
Robert of Harnhill,
172 DomEsDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

HarnuILu is rated in the Survey at five hides, but no details
are given concerning the tenants or teams on the manor, or with
regard to its value; the rating is high for the 689 acres now
included in the parish, but not higher than the rating of Tewkes-
bury Hundred, and the Ampney valley was one of the most fertile
districts in the shire. We must therefore seek for the area of the
Manor of ‘“‘ Ampney and Cerney ” outside Harnhill. The average
area of an hide in Gersdone Hundred was 181 acres, at this rate
the 14} hides of South Cerney, and the four hides of ‘“ Ampney
and Cerney ” would contain about 3280 acres, as against 3100
now reckoned to lie in South Cerney ; a very fair equivalent, for
the hide in the fertile valley of the Churn would probably be

’ smaller than in the rest of the Hundred.

I believe, then, that the great bulk of the Manor of ‘“ Ampney
and Cerney ” now lies in South Cerney, and with this the over-
lordship of the Earl of Hereford in both manors would agree ; in
this case it would have been merged at some time after 1285 in
the manor which the family of 8. Amand held in South Cerney.

Merysry Hampron.—This was the only manor possessed by
the great Earl Roger de Montgomerie in Gloucestershire ; his son
Hugh was banished, and his estates seized by Henry I, this
manor then passed with the Honour of Gloucester. It derives its
name from a family by whom it was possessed in the thirteenth
century. The advowson was not separated from the manor till
the seventeenth century.

DriFFiELp.—The hidage and registered acreage agree well
with the area of the existing parish ; like the rest of the property
of Reinbald it belonged to the Abbey of Cirencester since its
foundation.

Wennric.—The name seems to point to Windrush in Bernitone
Hundred, but I cannot trace the land either there or here.

The small area of the hide in this Hundred, and the high
value of the ploughland and acre testify to the goodness of the.
land, and the excellence of its cultivation ; though the compara-
tively low value of the hide may point to rather severe rating,
BISELEGE HUNDRED. 173

and the large exent of meadow formed an extraordinary element
of profit. It was a well-peopled district.
BISELEGE HUNDRED.

Bistry.—Mr. Ellis states that Robert the tenant who held the
manor under Earl Hugh was his cousin Robert of Tilleul. The
manor would, I suppose, have included the existing parishes of
Bisley and Stroud, except Througham, which is separately ac-
counted for. In this case the area registered in the Survey,
including Througham, only 4204 acres of cultivated land, is
strikingly deficient ; to this, however, must be added woodland to
the value of 20s., and supposing this wood to be of the same value
with the Charfield wood, that value implies an area of 2880 acres.
So that in all we may say that the record accounts for about 7084
of the 11,658 acres now computed to lie in Bisley and Stroud.
Part of the deficiency may be due to unregistered land which had
fallen out of cultivation, for the manor had decreased in value
since the Conquest.

The number of mills was large, and their value small.

Biselege was the only manor in the shire where there were
two priests ; it was also one of the most populous manors, and it
is quite possible that a chapel at Stroud was already in existence.

Note the large number of tenants, 23, who paid for their
holdings in money rather than by service ; also the rent in kind,—
two measures of honey. The rent paid, £2 4s., was of consider-
able value; it may be that these tenants were handicrafts-men
rather than agriculturists, possibly we have here a settlement of
workers in woollen stuffs.

THROUGHAM passed with Bisley, and is still a part of the
parish.

MisrrDEN.—The ownership of the Musards seems to identify
this place with the Manor of Grenhamstede, though the latter
name is most akin to Hanstead farm, in Stroud, which, however,
does not seem ever to have been a place of importance. The
registered area of the manor also agrees well with Miserden.
Two-thirds of the tithes of Greenhampstead belonged to Tewkes-
bury Abbey before 1150, and a pension was paid to the Abbey
from the benefice of Miserden ; another mark of identification,
~ Ah - DoMEsDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

Painswick.—The excess of acreage both of arable and wood-
land attributed to the Manor of Wiche is enormous, the Survey
registers 6,360 acres of arable, and 14,400 acres of wood, while
the area of the existing parish is only 3,614 acres ; moreover it is
not easy to say where the excess lay.

Much of it must certainly have lain outside the Hundred
altogether, for the commissioners registered 32,294 acres, of which
15,960 were woodland, in an area now computed at 24,460 acres ;
the difficulty of assigning some of the excess arable to Bisley and
Stroud is that it is not easy to find any land there which bears
the mark of the Painswick tenures.

The church was given by Hugh de Laci, brother and successor
of Roger, to the Priory of Lanthony, which he founded, but it
bears the mark of the ownership of Walter de Laci, father of them
both, in the shape of a pension to his Priory of Hereford.

Though the acreage of the manor was so enormous, and its
value, £24, so great, it was only rated at one hide.

The Conqueror had given to the canons of Cirencester a villein
and a portion of wood, which afterwards formed part of the
endowment of the abbey ; it Jay in what is now Oranham.

EpcrewortH passed in after times with Painswick. Half a
hide here was in dispute between Earl Hugh and Roger de Laci ;
in this battle of giants the latter, who seems to ‘have had the
testimony of the jurors on his side, was, I suspect, victorious, for
there seems to have been no manor in Edgeworth except that of
the de Lacis.

WInsTONE.—This was one of the manors which Ansfrid de
Cormeilles received when he married the niece of Roger de Laci,
and it descended to his heirs.

SapPeRTon and Frampron.—The manors are rated separately,
each at five hides, in all other repects they are dealt with together ;
both had belonged T.R.E. to Ulf. The area is deficient, probably
owing to the existence of unregistered woodland. In 1285 they
were held by different owners; Sapperton in moieties by the .
families of Hussey and Lisle, Frampton by John Mansell, a
member of the family which gave its name to the hamlet.
BeRTUNE AND DeprEstane’s HUNDRED. 175

The abnormally low rating of Wiche, and the excessive area
of woodland attributed to that manor, preclude any fair com-
parison of values. Though the value of the ploughland and acre
was low, the population was equal to the average of the shire.

BERTUNE AND DUDESTANE’S HUNDRED.

Kine’s Barron.—One mill was clearly inadequate to the needs
of so large a manor, and the propositus had added two more ; the
rent had been more than doubled since the Confessor’s time, a
money payment had been substituded for the supply of loaves for
the hounds, and there was still a small payment in kind.

BrueERNe.—The mention of Archbishop Eldred would seem to
mark these three virgates as part of the possessions of 8. Peter’s
Abbey; they represent the estate in Sandhurst, which, with
Milo’s other three virgates here, afterwards passed with the
Honour of Wallingford.

Upron-St.-Lzonarp’s.—The hide which Humphrey held may
possibly represent Grove Court, which was long distinct from the
great Manor of Upton, which in 1086 lay in King’s Barton.

Maisemore.—Nigel the physician held three virgates in
“Merwen”; no doubt this is the land in Paygrave, which
Richard, the son of Nigel, gave to the abbey in the time of Robert
Consul. Henry I. also gave ‘‘the grove of Barton called Pay-
grave ;” and the same King in 1101 bestowed upon the abbey the
Manor of Maisemore.

Assor’s Barton.—This manor was always free from gheld,
and from all royal services.

The church of 8S. Mary de Lode was very closely connected
with the abbey, and, I suspect, that besides Tuffley, Barnwood,
and Merewent or Hartpury, which are specially named in the
record, those portions of Gloucester which are distinguished by
the title of “8. Mary,” as Barton 8. Mary, Kingsholme 8. Mary,
and Wootton 8. Mary, formed part of Abbot’s Barton ; though it
is likely enough that since the Manor of King’s Barton passed
into the possession of the abbey in the reign of Edward III. the
ancient boundaries have been confused. There is nothing in
176 DomEsvay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

Domesday to shew that the Manor of Abbot’s Barton was in the
hands of Archbishop Thomas, and the great increase in value
seems to mark the presence of the hand of Serlo. The monks
received £2 10s. and sixteen salmon from their burgesses in Glou-

°

cester.

HaRESFIELD, Down HatHer.ey, and SanpHurst.—These had
belonged T.R.E. to Edmar, whose land and houses in Gloucester
had passed to Bishop Osbern, and “they defended themselves
for,” or were rated at, two hides.

HarescomBe. T.R.E. Wislet had held three virgates. In these
four manors the meadow-land is neither measured nor valued, but
we are told there is sufficient for the teams.

Brooxtuorp. T.R.E. Aluric had held three virgates.

The commissioners take an opportunity of ignoring Harold’s
Kingship, by observing that—“ these five estates Earl Harold stole
away after the death of King Edward.” Roger de Ivrei had let
them for £46 13s. 4d., a sum which must surely include the
profits of the Hundred Courts.

The descent of these manors is not easily traced. The estate
in Sandhurst was, perhaps, that afterwards held by the Willing-
tons, that in Haresfield must have been merged in the large
manor held by Durandus, and as the de Bohuns held property
in Harescombe and Brookthorpe, I suspect that those lands
represent the Manors of Wislet and Aluric. Roger de Iveri had,
however, evidently some interest in the manors, for his widow
Adelisa gave Brookthorpe and the church to Gloucester Abbey in
1104; the property of the abbey in Harescombe and Pitchcombe
may have come from the same source, or it may perhaps have been
part of the Manor of Abbot’s Barton.

It is not possible to identify Ulward’s half-hide, which after
he was outlawed was given by the Conqueror to his cook.

Hempstead was given by Milo the Constable to Lanthony
Priory in 1141; both the hidation and Domesday acreage seem
to shew that the manor was larger than the present parish.
-BertuNe AND DupgsTANr’s HUNDRED. Li7

Cuurcupown, Hucciecorz, and Norton.—lt is not easy to
account for the excessive acreage recorded under the head of
each of these 8. Oswald manors, for after including the 918 acres
of Great Witcombe the Survey registers 8,340 acres, of which
900 were woodland, as corresponding to an area, which is now
computed to contain only 6,804 acres ; and there do not seem to
be any outlying members not mentioned by name in the Survey
which would make up the acreage. Nearly the whole of these
estates were eventually retained by the Archbishops of York,
though the Church of 8. Oswald's retained the Rectories

Bapawortu.—We have already seen that this manor, which
had belonged to 8. Peter’s Abbey had been alienated by Abbot
Edric, who, according to a document printed by Rudder (p. 132),
leased it to a certain Starmacotto for his life for the sum of £15,
in order that he might raise funds to pay the here-gheld levied on
the abbey lands.

It had belonged T.R E. to Alestan, and, as usual with his
lands, it had passed to William de Ow, no doubt through Ralph
de Limesi. The area of the arable agrees fairly well with the
acreage of the parish, the great mass of the woodland must have
lain outside it. The ancient connection with the fief of Strigoil
left its mark on the benefice in the form of a pension to the
Priory of Chepstow.

Uxerone.—The name suggests ‘ Wootton,” but that seems to
Le represented by Humfrid de Medehal’s Manor of ‘“‘ Utone ;” it
seemed better therefore to leave it without special identification.

Wuappon.—Tive brothers had held it T.R.E. as five manors
“et pares erant,” this means that they stood on an equal footing
as regards their interest in the manors, not of necessity that their
mahors were equal in size.

Brockworta.—Brocowardinge in the Survey ; note the ter-
mination “ wardine” as equivalent to “worth.” Here, as at
Badgworth, the bulk of the woodland must have lain outside the
limits of the present parish; in 1260 the Abbot of S. Peter’s
purchased from Sir Lawrence de Chandos all his wood in Buckholt
amounting to 300-acres, also otherdand represented now by Droys-

court. The church and lands here had Leen given to Lanthony

n2
178 Domesvay SuRvEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

Priory by Roger de Chandos before 1200. The family of de
Chandos also held Hugh Lasne’s other Manors of Bagendon and
Shipton.

Matson appears in the reign of Edward I. as a possession of
Peter Fitzherbert, who was descended from Lucy, daughter of
Milo Fitzwalter ; probably at the date of the Survey it was part
of the Manor of King’s Barton.

Prinkyasn was closely connected with Upton 8. Leonard’s,
and with it no doubt lay in the King’s Barton Manor.

QUEDGELEY is composed of two portions, Wolstrop, which is
one of the south hamlets of Gloucester, and which in 1086 was in
King’s Barton, and Quedgeley in Whitstone Hundred, which
represents, I have no doubt, part of the three hides of 8. Peter’s
Abbey at Standish, which, we are told, Durandus hoids, but which
Earl William had given to his brother Roger (de Pistres). The
Commissioners note that Archbishop Thomas claimed these three
hides ; his claim, however, wes evidently fruitless, for Milo Fitz-
walter gave the Chapel of ‘‘ Quadresse’ with the tithes to Lanthony
Priory, and his daughter Margaret, wife of Humphrey de Bohun,
gave “two parts of Quedgeley, which remained to her after she
had made a partition with her sister Lucy,” to the same church.

Exmorz.—Milo Fitzwalter gave the Chapel of Elmore with
the tithes to Lanthony Priory in 1137, a mark that it had
passed into the possession of the Constables ; no doubt in 1086 it
had lain in the Manor of King’s Barton.

Great SHuRpING Ton, no doubt, lay in Badgworth in 1086 ; it
would seem not to have been alienated by Edric’s lease, for it was
given by the monks of 8. Peter’s to Archbishop Thomas when he
surrendered Standish and Northleach in 1097.

The large area of the hide, and its high value, would seem to
point either to lenient rating or to a great advance in the culti-
vation of the district since the hidation had been set out. The
value of the ploughland and acre was low, and the population was
sparse, so that the neighbourhood of the Capital City of the shire
was but poorly cultivated.
WirtestaNX HonbRED, 179

WITESTAN HUNDRED.
SranpisH.—This manor, with its dependencies, was in the
hands of Archbishop Thomas in 1086 ; but the Abbey seems to
have recovered the whole of Standish, Randwick, and Saul.

Harpwicx.—The Abbot held the Manor of Rudge and Farley ;
that of Park-court was held in 1312 of Mathew Fitzherbert, and
so probably represents a portion of Durandus’ invasion ; that of
Field Court was in the possession of the Templars, how they
obtained it is not apparent, possibly it may represent the hide
which Earl Hugh held, unjustly as the commissioners are careful
to note. The acreage is deficient ; as the value of the manor had
diminished, no doubt some of the arable had fallen out of cul-
tivation.

Edward the Confessor had given his fisheries at Framilode to
be equally divided between the Abbeys of Gloucester and Winch-
combe ; and so half a fishery is recorded as belonging to the
Manor of Standish. In 1321 the monks of Gloucester purchased
the other half for rents worth £5 annually. The Winchcombe
moiety is nowhere mentioned in the record.

Ha4RESFIELD.—This manor was the chief of the possessions of
Walter f. Roger, and was held by the service of Constable of
England by the heirs of Walter till the execution of the Duke of
Buckingham in 1522. Five potters paid a rent of 3s. 8d.

Moreton.—The parish seems to include a larger area than
either the hidage or value of the manor would imply.

Loneney.—The manor and church were given to the Priory of
Great Malvern by Osbert f. Pons in 1131; he was, apparently, a
brother of the Drogo and Walter of the Survey. King Edgar
confirmed the possessions of the Abbey of Pershore here, and that
church held land here in 1281; but the commissioners do not
mention any Pershore land at Longney,—a similar omission is to
be noted at Didmarton.

A large hide, a thin population, and a low value of land,
point to an impoverished district; there had been a general
decline in values since the Conquest, and it was to this rather
than to natural barrenness that the poor condition of the Hun-
dred was due,

nN 2
180 DomeEspay SURVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
BLACELAW HUNDRED.

_ Frocrester.—Though the value of the manor had nearly
trebled since the Conquest the acreage registered is still deficient.

StoneHousE.—Both William de Ow and Turstin f. Rolf were
deprived of their estates on account of rebellion against Rufus,
and Tovi’s two Manors of Stonehouse and King’s Stanley were
granted by Henry II. to Walter le Despencer, and remained under
the same owners till the reign of Queen Elizabeth. Though
Stonehouse is the only manor where the Commissioners record the
existence of a vineyard, William of Malmesbury writing about
the midddle of the next century, speaks in glowing terms of the
fertility of the vale of the Severn, and especially mentions the
vineyards and grapes.

Srantey §. Leonarp’s.—There is no evidence to shew whether
Lorridge pertained to this manor in 1086; its locality would
suggest that it was part of the property given by Roger of Berkeley
to his Priory of Leonard Stanley ; on the other hand if it is con-
ceived not to have lain in Stanley at the Survey, the excess of
acreage will be still more striking than it is in comparison with the
existing parish.

Kine’s StanLey.—This place appears in the Survey as “ Stan-
tone,” but in Kirby’s Quest as “Staull reg.” and in the Aid of 1346
as “ Stanleghe Regis” ; no doubt it derives its title of “King’s”
from the fact that it belonged to the Crown from the time of
Rufus to that of Henry TI. Tovi, the owner in the Confessor’s
.time, was still holding as a gift from the King two of the five
hides which had once been his, just as he held the land of two
villiens also under Turstin on his old manor at Ampney Crucis.
The two mills were the most valuable in the shire.

FRAMPTON-ON-SEVERN.—This manor descended to Walter,
nephew of Drogo, and father of fair Rosamund, ancestor of the
family of Clifford, whose descendants have held an estate in
the parish until now. He gave the mill to the nuns at Godstow
for the good of his own soul, and that of his wife Margaret, and
his daughter. Godstow nunnery was, until the Reformation, one
of the chief places of education for girls of high birth. It is noted
BLACELAW HUNDRED. 181

that Roger de Laci held one hide unjustly ; probably Drogo
recovered it, for the whole manor seems to have descended to his
heirs.

FRETHERNE.—Like much of Turstin’s property this manor was
in 1165 in the possession of Henry de Newmarch ; the estate was
an impoverished one, and the hidage implies a larger area than
that included in the present parish, the excess, no doubt, lies in
Eastington.

WuHEATENHURST.—Brictric had mortgaged this manor to Hard-
ing, and it was worth less than one-third of its former value.
It next appears as a possession of Geffrey Fitzpeter, who died in
1218, who had given it to his daughter Maud on her marriage
with Henry Bohun, Earl of Hereford. The hidage agrees fairly
well with the acreage of the present parish The church belonged
to the Priory of Troarn, in Normandy, but like Horsley was
exchanged with the Priory of Bruton, and belonged to that church
till the Reformation.

The Manor of ‘‘ WipEcEstTRE,” which had belonged to Brictric,
lay, I suspect, close to Woodchester, and is now in the parish of
Horsley ; this would give to Horsley 3,121 acres of Domesday
registration as against 3,887 acres of modern ascertainment. This
is, of course, only a conjecture, given for what it may be worth ;
still it is impossible to fit “‘ Widecestre ” anywhere into Blacelawe
Hundred, it causes an excessive acreage there, while it fits exactly
into Horsley, close to which place in Avening Lrictric was a large
landowner. Moreover, the fact that both the churches of Horsley
and Whitminster were connected with Troarn might, perhaps,
account for the misplacement.

The poverty of Brictric is shewn by the fact that there were
no teams in the demesne.

Eastincton.—Winebald de Baladun succeeded Turstin f. Rolf
here as at Ampney Crucis, and his descendants held the manor
till the reign of Edward II. ; he gave the tithes of Eastington
to the Priory of Bermondsey in 1092, and a watermill at Frami-
lode to 8. Peter’s Abbey in £126. Eastington was, apparently,
originally a member of Turstin f. Rolf’s Manor of Fretherne, which
182 DomersDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

circumstance will account for the fact that Framilode lies in the
parish.

ALKERTON is a tithing in the parish of Eastington. Henry I.
granted to Walter f. Roger, Constable of Gloucester, the land of
Edric, son of Chetel, in Alkerton, and it passed with the Manor
of Haresfield to his heirs.

The manors were united by the marriage of Margaret, daughter
of Hugh de Audley and Isolda, widow of Walter Balun, with
Ralph Lord Stafford, who died in 1373.

Though the population was above the average, and the mills
were very profitable, the land-values were extremely low. It is
not easy to account for this, as the rental was the same as in King
Edward’s time ; nor is it easy to see why Stonehouse with twenty-
two teams and two mills worth 17s. 6d. only rendered £8 annually,
or why King’s Stanley with twelve teams and mills worth £1 15s.
was only valued at £5. The inclusion of Widecestre with 1,920
registered acres rated only at one hide vitiates any comparison of
hidage.

BERCHELAI HUNDRED.

This noble estate, which included nearly one tenth of the area
of the Domesday shire, and was rated at about one-seventeenth of
its hidage, and represented about one-sixteenth of its value, has
stamped itself so deeply into the arrangements of the shire that
the boundaries of Berkeley Hundred are almost, if not quite,
exactly what they were eight centuries ago. The idea that
Berkeley was a member of the Hundred of Langley is a mistake
arising from the fact that in the record it follows immediately
after Alwestan, in the Hundred of Langley, and it was unnecessary
for the Commissioners to state that a manor of ancient Crown
demesne was to all intents and purposes a Hundred of itself.
Wesberie is entered in exactly the same way, but no one ever
supposed that it was a member of Salemanesberie Hundred, because
that Hundred is named as containing Sclostre, the preceding manor.
Nobody came between the provost of Berkeley and its lord the
King. It is a suggestive mark of the continuity of English history
that in 1872 the Berkeley estate was still the largest in the shire.
BercHELAL HunprRep. 183

BERKELEY was not a borough in 1086, but merely the head of
the great manor to which it gave a name ; though like Cirences-
ter, which was in the same condition, it possessed a market. Two
of the present tithings, Alkington and Hinton, are mentioned in
the Survey ; the former under the form “ Almintune,” which has
been supposed to refer to “ Elmington,” in Henbury,—a manifest
error, for the latter manor belonged to the See of Worcester,
though Maurice Lord Berkeley obtained it by purchase in the
reign of Henry VIII.

The area of 14,070 acres now included in the parishes of
Berkeley and Stone is thus registered in the Survey—

Berchelai - : - 5 hides.
Almintune - - - 4 ys
Hintune - - - 4,
Nesse - - : D 4
x Radchenistri - -  &

25 hides.
As the average area of a hide in Berkeley was 146 acres, these
25 hides account for about 11,150 acres; no doubt much of the
land denoted by the five hides of Bernard the Priest also lay in
this area.

Hit now contains 1966 acres, a fair equivalent for the rating
of four hides.

Cam.—Here were six hides, and another eleven hides, besides
which Clinger was separately rated at one hide. Under Cam were
certainly included the present parishes of Cam and Stinchcombe ;
possibly also Lorridge, though the excessive area assigned to
Stanley 8. Leonard’s in the record would be still more striking if
Lorridge were withdrawn from it. The average hide only con-
tained 250 acres, a comparatively heavy rating.

Durstey was assessed at an average hidage, but the rating of
Coaley and Uley was light.

NympsFietp..—A fairly rated manor. The silence of the
Commissioners with regard to any claim to this manor on the
part of 8. Peter’s Abbey would seem to shew that if any were
184 DoMEsDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

made it was in their opinion unfounded. They branded Earl
Hugh as holding a hide of the Abbey Manor of Standish unjustly,
and supported Serlo in his claim to one hide there, and there is no
reason to doubt that they would have acted with equal fairness
with regard to Nympsfield.

Worton-unDER-EpcE.—Included in this parish is the hamlet
of Simondshall, rated separately at half a hide; and under the
rating of Wotton would also be included the acreage of Nibley,
whose church was formerly a chapel to that of Wotton. The
average hide contained more than 500 acres ; doubtless there was
a large area of woodland, possibly also the manor contained part
of what is now Ozleworth, which, with a present area of 1114
acres, is rated at only half a hide.

Kinescore.—The rating of four hides and a half agrees fairly
well with the 1,810 acres of the present parish.

Brverstone.—The rating of ten hides on the 2,360 acres of the .
present parish is a high one for this Hundred, but it is not easy
to see how any land which now lies elsewhere could be brought
into the reckoning for the Domesday manor.

ALMoNDsBURY.—The only part of this extensive parish which
lies in Berkeley Hundred is the tithing of Almondsbury ; and it
is to this tithing that the rating of two hides applies.

Horrietp.—The rating of eight hides includes Filton, giving
about 264 acres to the hide; the smallness of the area being due
to the proximity of Bristol.

Kinesweston.—Only this tithing lay in Berkeley Hundred ;
Lawrence Weston belonged to the See of Worcester.

ASHELWORTH lay near to the waste district of Corse, its hides
included more than 500 acres.

CROMHALL was divided; two hides pertained to the Royal
manor, five hides had been held by two brothers, who could go
where they would with their land. Earl William, by an act of
doubtful legality, had committed these brothers to the Provost that
he might have their service. So at any rate Roger the Provost
said. The Royal manor was given to Bristol Abbey at its fonn-
dation ; the larger manor was afterwards known as Cromhall

Lygon.
BERCHELAI HUNDRED. 185

SLIMBRIDGE was rated at two hides, Gossington at four hides,
and ‘“ Hirslege,” or Hurst, at one hide ; seven hides in all corres-
ponding to 3,660 acres of modern ascertainment, and giving a hide
of 523 acres. Large even for Berkeley ; it may be that the Severn
has added considerably to the area of Slimbridge since the Survey.

It is said that Gossington was part of the endowment of the
old nunnery of Berkeley ; if so, it was secularised, and became
part of the Royal manor before 1086.

Newineton Bacratu.—I have joined Owlpen to this manor,
following its ecclesiastical rather than its secular relationship.
Owlpen was a chapel of Newington, and lands which pertain to
Newington are geographically in Owlpen. On the other hand the
Manor of Owlpen was related to that of Wotton. Newington and
Owlpen combined give the satisfactory measure of 407 acres to a
hide.

Nessz.—Here we are told Earl William had put without the
ferm, five hides which pertained to Berkeley, for the purpose of
building a castle. Five hides in Berkeley would mean more than
2,000 acres, and this ‘ Nesse” can hardly be Sharpness, for that
lies in the tithing of Hinton, which is mentioned in the Survey,
and rated at four hides. Roger claimed these five hides; the
Commissioners note his claim, but make no comment on it. It is
quite possible that the ‘‘castellulum” occupied the site of the
existing castle.

It will be noticed that the record makes no mention of any
kind of land except arable, though we might have expected that
the valley of the Little Avon would have afforded some meadow.
The woodland was, of course, purposely omitted, as being part of
the Royal forest. But though more than half the area of the
Hundred was under the plough, the indications are those of a poor
territory. The area of the hide was abnormally large, there were
but eleven mills in all the Hundred, the values of the ploughland
and of an acre of land were low, and the number of acres to each
registered male was high. The finest estate in the shire was but
poorly cultivated.
186 Domespay SuRVFY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

Kineswoop.—I have included the acreage of this parish at the
foot of the Hundred, because though its existence is not noted under
Berchelai, neither is it noticed by name in the Wiltshire record,
Roger de Berchelai held one hide less half a virgate of the King’s
ferm of Chippenham, and it has been thought that this, which is
noted as an encroachment on a Royal manor, signifies Kingswood.
Very little can be said for or against this guess, except that on
the one hand less than a hide would be an improbably low rating
for the 2,350 acres of Kingswood, and on the other that Kingswood
certainly did at some time or other get into Wilts, and was soon
after the Survey in the possession of the Berkeleys. If it was
filched from Berkeley, I should suppose that Wotton was the
despoiled manor, the rating of fifteen hides and half a virgate is
an awkward one, which the addition of the Chippenham encroach-
ment would raise to an even sixteen hides.

The land of Bernarp the Prizst.

Whatever the origin of this estate may have been it appears
in the Survey as a part of the property of Roger of Berkeley, and
it was given by the second Roger to his Priory of Leonard Stanley.
Archbishop Theobald confirmed to that priory “ unam prebendam
que fuit Bernardi Capellani in Berchelai, et omnes elymosinas
quas habuit idem Bernardus in Berchelai Hernesse.”

The ancient religious house at Berkeley, which is mentioned in
the Survey in connection with the Manor of Woodchester seems to
have been one of those mixed communities of men and women which
were not uncommon in the early English church. At any rate
Florence of Worcester states that Tilhere, who became Bishop of
Worcester in 778, and Aithelhun, who followed him in 915, had
been Abbots of Berkeley ; and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle records
the death of Ceolburga, Abbess of Berkeley, in 805. She was the
widow of Ethelmund Earldorman of the Wiccians, who had been
killed in a foray over the West-Saxon frontier at Kempsford on the
day of Egbert’s succession. Her son Ethelric, by a disposition of his
property in 804, had assigned to her a large estate at Westbury-
on-Trym and Stoke Bishop, to revert on her death to the Church
of Worcester, particularly stating that the “ Beorclingas” should
BERCHELAI HUNDRED, 187

not have it; after his death, a Synod, held at Cloveshoe in 824,
settled a dispute between the Bishop of Worcester and the
“familia” at Berkeley by assigning Ethelric’s inheritance to the
Church of Worcester. In spite of this, however, the ‘“ family ”
at Berkeley seem to have retained Stoke, for in King Alfred’s time
“ Abbas et tota familia monasterii quod Beorclea vocatur” gave
to Ethelred, under-King of the Mercians, Stoke, near Westbury,
and Ethelred restored it to the Church of Worcester in 883.

The traditional method of the destruction of the house is
referred to on p. 20, but there are traces of the existence of nuns
at Berkeley in times later than the Survey ; the Pipe Roll of 31st
Henry I. contains an entry “in vestitura iii monialium Ixs,” and
Adeliza, Queen of Henry I., gave to Reading Abbey where he was
buried—‘‘the Churches of Berkeley Hernesse, the Church of
Berkeley with the Prebends pertaining to it, the prebends of two
nuns, and the Church of Cam.”

Finally Robert Fitzharding gave all his Churches in Berkeley
to his new Abbey of 8. Augustine ; and it is not now possible so
to disentangle the confusion caused by these conflicting grants as
to say what pertained eight centuries ago to the manorial churches,
what survival there may have been of the ancient endowment of
the ‘‘family,” or what was then implied by the estate of Bernard
the Priest.

GRIMBOLDESTOU HUNDRED.

BoxweEti.—Leighterton, which is now annexed to Boxwell,
was, I suspect, in 1086, a part of Durandus’ Manor of Dedmer-
tone, for in aftertimes it was held by Gloucester Abbey from the
Earls of Hereford ; the Domesday Manor of Boxwelle would have
included only the part of the parish known by that name which
properly belonged to the abbey.

Hawkessury.—This was the last remnant of very large estates
which formerly belonged to Pershore Abbey in the neighbourhood,
and which are enumerated in a confirmation charter of King Edgar ;
though in a few cases small portions seem to have been left in
other parishes which are not noticed in the Survey. The acreage
is very deficient, no doubt partly because some of the arable had
188 Domespay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

fallen out of cultivation, the value of the manor having fallen from
£16 to £10 since the Conquest ; on the other hand it is likely that
much of the excessive woodland which is attributed to Horton lay
in what is now Hawkesbury.

HI.Estey, now a tithing of Hawkesbury, belonged in 1086 to
Turstin f. Rolf, and was held in 1316 by William Russell ; having
probably passed, like Dyrham, through James de Newmarch, and
then by marriage to the family of Russell.

LirttE Sopsury.—Like the other estates of the Bishop of
Lisieux, this manor had much diminished in value; its hidage
and value T.R.E. testify to an excellent state of cultivation in
happier days.

Dyruam.—Wido is a form of the name Guido or Guy. It is
possible that an error has been made in entering the number of
tenants’ teams ; two seems a very inadequate number for thirteen
villeins and thirteen bordurs, and though the value had diminished
since the Conquest, £8 seems a large total for a manor which is
credited with but three teams and 15s. from mills. Note that
Bernard (Pancevolt) held South Cheriton in Somerset, of William
f, Wido, as he held Hillesley in this Hundred from Turstin f. Rolf;
and Dyrham passed to the family of Newmarch, as did so much
of the property which in the Survey is credited to Turstin.
William f. Wido had held three other hides in Dyrham, which
Earl William had given with this manor, to Turstin f. Rolf (another
mark of connection between this William and Turstin), but Duran-
dus the Sheriff had endowed S. Mary of Pershore with them by
command of the King. Very probably this was simply an act of
restitution ; but there is no subsequent record that the abbey
possessed land in Dyrham.

Horrton.—The large extent of woodland was due to the neigh-
bourhood of the Forest of Horwood. The manor was given by
Agnes, daughter of the Domesday owner, and wife of Hubert de
Rye, brother of Adam, one of the Commissioners for the shire, to
Salisbury Cathedral. It formed the endowment of one of the
most valuable prebends there, and was therefore annexed to the
See in 1219; but as it was found inconvenient that the bishop
GRIMBoLDEsTOU HUNDRED. 189

should hold a prebend whose endowment lay outside his diocese,
the Prebend of Potterne, in Wilts, was taken in its stead by
Bishop William of York in 1254. It was afterwards held by
Cardinal Beaufort.

Dipmarton.—The present acreage is small for a rating of three
hides ; no doubt Leighterton, held afterwards by Gloucester Abbey
under 'the Earls of Hereford, lay in the Domesday manor. <A
jury found in 1263 that land here belonged to the Abbey of
Pershore, and lands pertaining to that Abbey here were granted
away at the Reformation; probably they are included in the
Survey under the seventeen hides of Hawkesbury.

Oxpsury.—Nicholas Bordun died seized of this manor held
of H. de Lacy in 1272, and soon after another Nicholas also held
it of the Earl of Lincoln. Henry de Lacy, Earl of Lincoln, held
also the Earldom of Salisbury in right of his wife ; the manor,
therefore, would have descended through Sybil, daughter of Ernulf
de Hesding, who married Walter, ancestor of the Earls of Salis-
bury.

Bapminton.—The Manor of “Madmintune” included more
than Great Badminton, possibly Little Badminton, now in Hawkes-
bury ; for the. Badmintons as well as Hawkesbury had belonged
to Pershore Abbey.

Acton TurvitLe.—Richard de Turberville died in 1284 seized
of this manor held of Richard, son of Alan, of the fee of Keevil,
in Wilts, another manor of Ernulf de Hesding’s, which passed to
the Fitz Alans, Earls of Arundel. William Fitzalan, ancestor of
the Earls of Arundel, was the son of Aveline, daughter of Ernulf
de Hesding.

ApeRLEY.—Like the rest of Milo Crispin’s manors this one
passed with the Honour of Wallingford ; the manor was consider-
ably larger than the parish, and was lightly rated at one hide.

A large hide, a thin population, and a low value for the hide,
and ploughland, and acre, indicate a district which was not only
naturally unproductive, but was also but poorly cultivated ; the
low values were, however, partly owing to depreciation in value
190 DomEspay SuRVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE

of several manors since the Conquest. The area of the Hundred
lay partly in in the forest of Horwood.

EDREDESTANE HUNDRED.
MarsHFIELD.—This was, I suspect, an appendage of Queen
Edith’s Borough of Bath; it afterwards passed to the Earls of
Gloucester. Gilbert de Clare gave a Manor and the Hundred to
Keynsham Abbey, but John of Sodbury held a quarter of a
Knight’s fee in Westmarshfield in 1346. The church belonged to
the Abbey of Tewkesbury before 1150.

Oxp Soppury.—The site of the park mentioned in the Survey
is still marked by the name “ Park’s Farm,” as “ Horwood Gate
Farm ” testifies to the neighbourhood of the forest of Horwood ;
less than one-third of the area of the manor was under cultivation,
but the provost was mending matters and had added a mill. This
manor, out of which Chipping Sodbury was taken, passed with the
Honour of Gloucester.

Dopincton.—The fractional parts of the hides are worth
noting ; the Bishop of Coutances held a hide and a half, and the
third part of half a hide, while Roger of Berkeley is credited with
three hides, and two parts of half a hide ; in all, of course, amount-
ing to exactly five hides. No doubt the Roger who held under the
bishop was Roger of Berkeley. Roger's own manor passed as
did Dursley ; the bishop’s manor, I have no doubt, included the
lands which were afterwards held of the Honour of Gloucester.

TormaRrton.—Who or what “ Ricardus Legatus,” the Domes-
day owner was, I cannot tell ; but the manor, including Littleton,
was held in 1315, like Acton Turville, by John de la Rivere, under
the Earl of Arundel, which might point back to a connection with
Ernulf de Hesding’s daughter Aveline. The Domesday com-
missioners were entitled “legati,” but the term was a very general
one, and there is nothing to connect Richard with the Survey.

The large area of the hide, and its very high value, may point
to lenient rating in the first instance, but great progress had been
made since the Conquest. The population was normal, but the
land values were high, indicating an industrious and prosperous

community.
BacHestaN® HuNpRED. 191

BACHESTANE HUNDRED.

TyTHERINGTON.—This impoverished manor was afterwards
held of the Honour of Gloucester ; Itchington has been connected
with it at least from 1220.

Iron Acton.—The Bishop’s manor is called by the name of
the Domesday tenant Acton Ilgar, and is now in Grumbald’s Ash
Hundred. It is described in the Aid of 1346 as a quarter of a
Knight’s fee held by John de Acton, which Henry de Mareys
formerly held ; the same John de Acton at that time held Hum-
phrey’s Manor of Iron Acton as half a fee“of the Honour of Glou-
cester. An earlier John de Acton had held Iron Acton by the
name of “ Labrug,” or Ladenbridge, under the Earl of Gloucester
in 1285; this manor is in Thornbury Hundred, a consequence of
its connection with the Honour of Gloucester. The two manors
in 1086 can have been little more than a clearing in the forest of
Horwood.

TortwortH —This manor seems to have passed, like Turstin’s
other Manor of Fretherne, to Nicholas de Moeles by marriage with
a daughter of James de Newmarch. The 720 acres of wood are
valued at the rate of twelve acres for a penny, they would only
have been useful for pannage, and at this rate ten acres of fair
land would have been worth as much as about 144 acres of wood-
land, The area of the manor is larger than that of the parish,
perhaps from excess of woodland now included elsewhere.

Wickwar.—Queen Matilda had given this manor and Iron
Acton to Humfrey the Chamberlain, and probably it passed to
the Honour of Gloucester ; but Rudder relates that King John,
when Earl of Gloucester, gave it to John Ja Warre and confirmed
it to him when King. The comparatively large value of the
manor compared with its hidage and area includes the profits of
the Hundred of which it was the head, and a farm in the parish
still retains the name “ Bagstone.”

Cuarrizip.—Joscelin the Breton who held this manor in
1086, held also five carucates or hides at Caerwent, and had there
two teams with two Welsh tenants ; it was an impoverished estate
worth only half its value in the Confessor’s time. It next appears
192 Domerspay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

asa possession of Robert Veel in the reign of Edward I., but how
it came to him is not apparent.

This Hundred lay in the heart of Horwood, and less than half
its acreage is registered. The large area of the hide points to the
waste condition of the district when the hidation was imposed, and
its high value shews that cultivation had advanced considerably
by the date of the Survey. The sparse population, and low value
of the ploughland and statute acre, indicate a barren and ill-
cultivated region ; every manor, however, enjoyed the advantage
of a portion of meadow, and most of them possessed a mill.

PULCRECERCE HUNDRED.

Doynton.—Robert, tenant of the Bishop of Coutances, here
and at “ Lega” and Gaunt’s Earthcott, may have been his nephew
and heir Robert de Moubray, Earl of Northumberland, whose
estates were forfeited to Rufus on his rebellion in 1095 ; however
that may be, Doynton and Earthcott at least were annexed to the
Honour of Gloucester.

Corp Asuton.—The hidage agrees well with the acreage of
the parish, but the manor was poorly cultivated. The Conqueror
had confirmed his predecessor’s exemption of two of the five hides
from gheld.

SisTun passed with the estates of the Berkeleys of Dursley.

Wap ey.—It is not easy to disentangle the descent of the two
little Manors of Wapley in this Hundred, and that of the larger
portion of Wapley which lay in the Royal ferm of Bitton. It is
certain that Codrington was given to the Priory of Stanley in Wilts,
by Ralph Fitz Stephen, on whom it was bestowed by Henry IL,
it is equally certain that the Church of Wapley, and lands there,
belonged to Bristol Abbey before 1188; but it is by no means
clear in which of the Domesday manors these estates lay.

PuckLecuurcu.—The hidage shews that Westerleigh and
Wick and Abson were included under this manor in the Survey,
as they were included with it in the graut of the estate, which was
made in 1218 by the Convent of Glastonbury to Joscelin, Bishop
of Bath, that the monks might purchase their freedom from
annexation to that See. Mr. Eyton calls attention to the fact
PuicrecercE HunpReED. 193

that though the Abbot of Glastonbury had eight “fabri” on his
home manor, no source of iron is mentioned on any of the Somer-
set estates; doubtless Pucklechurch supplied some of the iron
used in the house of 8. Dunstan. The manor lay in the district
of the forest of Horwood, and less than half the area is registered.

This Hundred was in much in the same condition with the last,
and both would have resembled such forest areas in the Colonies
as are now being brought under the hand of man. The population
was scanty, but the high value of the ploughland and registered
acre is an indication of well-directed industry ; moreover, no
manor had diminished in value since the Conquest. People were
doing their best under adverse circumstances.

LETBERGE HUNDRED.

Lrca.—I cannot identify this little manor, but it is safe to say
that as it belonged to the Bishop of Coutances it will afterwards
have been annexed to the Honour of Gloucester, and that it lay
not far from Stoke Gifford, probably within its bounds.

Stoke Girrorp.—The Manor of “Stoche” is identified by the
name of its owner; the advowson was given to the Priory of
Little Malvern by John Gifford in 1292.

Harry Stoxe.—This manor, now in Stoke Gifford parish, was
annexed to the Honour of Gloucester, and therefore has been
transferred from Swineshead Hundred to that of Barton Regis.

These three manors contained 2,045 acres of Domesday regis-
tration, a fair equivalent to the 2277 acres of modern ascertainment
in Stoke Gifford, with which also their eight hides reckoned at
the average rate of Suineshovede Hundred, 284 acres, are striking-
ly coincident. The Hundred was so small, and its constituents
so uncertain, that nothing of any value can be said about it.

SUINESHOVEDE HUNDRED,

Birron, with its members WapLey and WINTERBOURNE, ren-
dered one night’s ferm, which, unlike ‘the rents of the Royal
demesnes of Somerset, had not been commuted for a money pay-
ment ; the manor seems to have remained in the King’s hands till
the reign of Henry II.

0
194 Domrspay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

Dons, otherwise Duns or Dunne, had retained a manor of two
hides, which had been his in the Confessor’s time, one hide, how-
ever, belonged to the church. Bitton Church passed into the
possession of Salisbury Cathedral apparently between 1160 and
1226, for it is not mentioned in the Confirmation Charter of
Henry II. about the earlier date, and Richard de Bramshaw had
succeeded John de Kanvill as prebendary before the later one.

OLDLAND was annexed, like Bishop Osbern’s other Manor of
Tytherington, to the Honour of Gloucester, and like Tytherington
it was neglected and ill-cultivated. One of its two hides was quit
of gheld.

Hanuam.—The area was lightly rated at half a hide, probably
most of it was woodland. The property of the Priory of Monkton
Farley, and the lands which were held as of the Manor of Hares-
field here, would seem to shew that this manor descended through
Sybil, daughter of Ernulf de Hesding and wife of Walter of
Salisbury.

Hamproox is a hamlet in Winterbourne, which, though it
belonged to the Bishop of Coutances, does not seem to have been
annexed to the Honour of Gloucester. It is noted that there was
arable for five teams, four only, however, were at work, and the
value of the manor had diminished accordingly.

The Bishop held another manor of one hide, apparently here,
in which, when it was ploughed, there were but 64 acres of arable ;
still there was a team there, and a tenant Goismer by name.
Hempton and Patchway are in the Manor of Winterbourne though
in the parish of Almondsbury.

STATUTE ACRES. REGISTERED ACRES.

Bitton - - - 3355 Betune, Wapelei, and
Winterbourne . - 3170 Wintreborne’ - - 6000
Oldiand - - - 2595 Aldeland - e » 360*
Hanham_ - - - 1212 Hanun  - - : 240
Wapley - - - 2448  Wapelei(iiman.) - 240
Betone - Ss - 850*
Hanbroe - = - 486*
z - 3 63*

”

 

12,780 8239
SUINESHOVEDE HUNDRED. 195

The manors marked (*) had diminished in value, and pre-
sumably, therefore, in area under cultivation. A great part of
Kingswood forest, which in 1652 included 3,432 acres, lay within
this area, and the forest of Horwood extended to its northern
limits.

Curton.—Sewin, Provost of Bristol, had held this manor
T.B.E., he could go whither he would with possession of the land,
and it rendered no ferm; this last sentence might shew that it
was an “ablatum” from some Royal ferm, perhaps Bristol. It
emerges in the reign of Henry II. as held under the Honour of
Gloucester by a family called by its own name ‘de Clifton ” ; the
overlordship of the Earls of Gloucester would so far tell against
the idea that Roger f. Ralph, the Domesday owner, was a member
of the same family with Roger of Berkeley. The manor would
seem to be co-extensive with the present parish. The same Roger
held a nameless manor of one hide in this Hundred, for which no
one appeared before the Commissioners, it is impossible to say
where it lay ; the same remark applies to a manor of one virgate
held by a certain Walter in Suineshovede Hundred, as the average
area of a hide in this Hundred was 284 acres, his diminutive
Lordship might have contained 71 acres, however, it was worth
fourpence more than it had been at the time of the Conquest.

The area of the hide and the population were normal ; the
high values of the hide, ploughland, and acre were due to the
payment of the night’s ferm from Bitton and its members; the
other manors had considerably diminished in value. The indi-
cations are those of a declining neighbourhood, whose best districts
were impoverished by the weight of a crushing payment.

LANGELEI HUNDRED.

THorNBURY.—This manor passed like Brictric’s other Manors
of Old Sodbury and Fairford to the Honour of Gloucester. The
rating of only eleven hides seems light in relation either to the
value of the manor, or the present area of the parish. The bordars
are mentioned with the serfs, and not in connection with the teams ;
they were, I suspect, as at Tewkesbury, servants in the household.

Two mills were quite inadequate to the needs of so large a manor,
02
196 DomeEspay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

and the provost had added a third, which, however, as yet, was
only worth eight pence. The forty shillings arising from meadow-
land mark the existence of a considerable tract of it. There is
no reason to doubt that the manor was co-extensive with the
present parishes of Thornbury and Rangeworthy, yet barely
one-third of the acreage was registered ; very possibly, as at
Tewkesbury, the value of the estate was miserably diminished,
certainly it lay within the limits of the forest of Horwood.

Tockxineton.— Upper Tockington now lies in the parish of
Olveston, Lower Tockington in that of Almondsbury ; the latter
part probably representing the portion of Tockington which was
acquired by the Canons of 8. Augustine’s, at Bristol, of Nicholas
Poyntz, and annexed to their Manor of Almondsbury. Earl
William Fitzosbern had held this manor, and made a grant of
tithes to his Abbey of Cormeilles; andthe charge on the
Chapel of Tockington for the Priory of Newent, and the lands
which belonged at the Reformation to the College of Fotheringay,
to which college the estates of the Priory of Newent had been
assigned, were, no doubt, also bestowed by him.

EartucoTt.—There are now two adjoining places called
Earthcott, the hamlet of Earthcott in Alveston, and the tithing
of Gaunt’s Earthcott in Almondsbury ; the latter, which was
annexed to the Honour of Gloucester, certainly represents a part
or the whole of the Domesday manor, and it is possible that the
former also may be a portion of it.

Atveston.—Both the hidage and registered acreage shew that
the manor was much larger than the present parish. It was in
fact a very important estate, being in after times, and probably
in 1086, the capital manor of its Hundred ; here also was situated
the Royal hunting seat for the forest of Horwood, and the park
was reserved when Horwood was disafforested by Henry IL.
It remained in the crown till the reign of that King.

O1vestoy.—This manor and the advowson remained with
Bath Abbey till its dissolution. The meadow and wood were
neither measured nor valued, but it is merely said that there was
enough for the needs of the manor. The parish includes the ~
larger part of the Manor of Tockington,
LANGELEL Honpry . 197

LIrTLEeTon-on-SEVERN.—Both the hidage and registered acreage
seem to point to a larger area than the existing parish ; but it is
not easy to point out where the excess, if any, lay. Possibly it
was in Tidenham.

Frampton Correrett.—The manor had pertained to Alestan

_ de Boscombe, and therefore we should have expected to find it in
the hands of William de Ow. It was an impoverished estate,
but—“ Ibi et ecclesia que non fuit ”—, the church would seem to
have been founded between the Conquest and the Survey.

OxtpBuRY.—Where Osbern Giffard’s Manor of Aldeberie lay
I cannot tell, there seems to be no trace of the Giffards’ tenure
in Oldbury-on-the-Hill, or in Oldbury-on-Severn, It may repre-
sent Oldbury Court in Stapleton, which was formerly held by the
Berkeleys of Stoke Gifford.

ALMONDSBURY.—Round the two hides called by this name
there has gathered a number of elements drawn from different
sources; Lower Tockington from Tockington, Hempton and
Patchway from Winterbourne, Gaunt’s Earthcott and the Lea,
and finally Over; where the tithing of Over lay in 1086 I
cannot tell, now it is in the Hundred of Langley and Swineshead.

The area of the hide is very large, telling of a want of culti-
vation in earlier times, its value is very high, indicating material
progress ; the population was normal, but the values were rather
above the average, a condition of things which points to energy
and industry. Though it lay on the edge of Horwood, this was
evidently an improving district. The Domesday boundaries near
Tockington, Earthcott, Alveston, and Olveston, were unusually
different from those of the existing parishes.

BERNINTREV HUNDRED.
The name Bernintrev has been shortened into Brentry.

Westpury-on-TRyM.—It would be strange that no mention is
made of the ancient church here if it had been any part of the
duty of the Commissioners to register churches or priests. The
manor was no doubt co-extensive with the tithing of Westbury.

Heyzury Manor would have consisted of the present parish,
excepting King’s Weston and the members named in the record.
198 DomeEsDAy SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

Stocue is represented by the tithing of Stoke Bishop, so
called because it belonged for seven hundred years to the See of
Worcester. It never belonged to the Bishop of Coutances,

Yate was included in the Episcopal Hundred because it
belonged to the See.

It is strange that there should be but one mill worth only
twenty pence in so large a manor. The two houses in Bristol
belonging to the See are the only ones mentioned in the survey
of our shire.

Aust Cuirr.—Turstin f. Rolf’s estate here was, no doubt,
represented, at any rate in part, by the moiety possessed in 1297
by Robert Russel, which would have passed to him as did Dyrham.

Compton GREENFIELD was held under the Bishop by one
Richard de Grenevill in 1285, and by another in 1346, hence its
name. I cannot connect the family with Gilbert f. Turold.

Ircuincton.—Constantine’s interest seems to have vested in
the Earls of Hereford, for in 1285 Roger Corbet held the manor
of the Earl of Hereford, and he of the Bishop.

Osbern Giffard is said to have held five hides of the manor,
for which he rendered no service ; these, I suspect, lay at Charl-
ton, for in 1295 John Gyffard held a Knight’s fee in Stoke
Gyffard of the Bishop of Worcester, and in 1346 Margeria de
Werbeleye (Berkeleye ?) is said to have held the same amount
under the same prelate. It does not appear that any land in
Stoke Gifford proper, or Harry Stoke, was held under the See of
Worcester. This corrects page 34, which was written before the
publication of Kirby’s Quest, or the Aid of 1346.

Suirenampron.—If “Chire,” which was separated from the
ferm of Wesberie is Shirehampton, then it had become part of
the Episcopal estate before 1285, when it was held by Anselin de
Gurney and others under the Bishop.

The hide was small, but the population was scanty, and
though the rental had risen from £24 to £38 14s. 6d., all the
land-values were miserably low; inasmuch, however, as the 26}
hides held by the tenants only paid £9, it is possible that this
BERTUNE APUD BRISTOU, 199

sum represents the rents paid, and not the real value of the
property. In any case, however, 80 teams were but an inadequate
number for the cultivation of 763 hides of land, according to the
average of the shire there should have been at least 110 teams ;
the Episcopal estate seems to have been but imperfectly stocked
and worked.

The large number of hides at which this estate was rated, and
also the rating of five hides for Aust-cliff, which would, I suppose,
have included Aust and Northwick, and would imply an area of
about 1,250 acres, would seem to shew that the coast-line was
much what it is now, or at any rate that there has not been any
very great alteration in its position in the course of eight cen-
turies,

BERTUNE APUD BRISTOU.

The Survey records the condition of this manor at two periods,
“when Roger received it,” and in 1086. Who this Roger was is
uncertain ; I suspect he was Roger de Pistres, sheriff in the time of
Ear] William, and therefore probably the first Norman sheriff, and
that the entry describes the state of the manor, not indeed in the
time of the Confessor, but as soon as possible after his days, it
may be even before the sons of Harold attacked Bristol in 1068.

When Roger received the manor there were two hides, two
teams in demesne, and twenty-four of the tenants, accounting in
all for about 3,120 acres of arable ; in 1086 there were six hides,
three teams in demesne, and thirty-nine of the tenants, giving,
therefore, about 5040 acres of arable. Besides these, three hides
pertained to the churches of Bristol, no doubt at the earlier as
well as the later date; and in 1086 a Radchenist and his tenants
owned two teams.

The Domesday manor would have contained that part of
Bristol which lies north of the Avon, excluding Clifton and
Westbury ; and also the parishes of Mangotsfield, Stapleton, and
S. George. The area is computed to include about 8693 acres ;
but two districts would have been of set purpose excluded from
the enquiries of the Commissioners, one, the Royal borough of
Bristol, the other, the Royal forest of Kingswood. It would
200 DomEspay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

seem that four hides had been added to the manor since Roger
received it, but where they lay, and whence they were derived,
cannot, I think, be discovered ; if any one were to say that they
represent part of the ten hides which had been separated in Clifton
from the Royal ferm of Wesberie, very little could be advanced
either for or against the proposition.

The most striking point with regard to the manor is the low
rating of ten hides for 5,490 acres of arable and two valuable mills
close to a flourishing borough, while the adjoining ferm of Bitton
with 6,000 acres of arable and a mill was rated at 36 hides. Of
course, from one point of view the hidage of Royal manors was
merely nominal, for they paid no gheld ; but in our shire the rating,
except at Bristol, bears a fair relation to the value. In Somerset
the Royal] manors were not hidated, and if we could suppose that
Bristol was financially connected with Somerset the difficulty
would be solved, but so far as I know there is no evidence at all
to support such an idea. It may, perhaps, be that the growth of
Bristol between the time of the settlement of hidation and the
date of the Survey had been extremely rapid, and that a rating,
which had, in the first instance, been a fair one, had become by
the growth of prosperity in Bristol, and its influence on the
neighbourhood, quite inadequate.

The site of the manor Barton is still preserved in the name
Barton Hill, near S. Philip’s Station; and from thence, at the
date of the Survey, the broad street used afterwards, as no doubt
then, for the weekly market, stretched up to the walls of the
newly-erected Castle ; but it no longer continued, as doubtless of
old, in a direct course to the borough, the traveller must turn
aside to the right by a road which the Constable of the Castle
could flood when he willed.) The English hated the Norman
Castles, and they dislike the changing of old ways still; the
descent by the Castle ditch must have been to many of them a
bitter mark of their servitude.

The three hides of land which pertained to the churches would
seem to imply a considerable area; but it is difficult to trace its
subsequent history; the religious houses to which the city
BoreLav HUNDRED. 201

churches were assigned do not seem to have held much land in
the immediate neighbourhood, excepting the Priory of 8S. James,
which we know was largely endowed with land by the founder
from his own possessions. 8. Philip’s would seem to be the church
of the manor outside the borough, as 8. Peter’s was the principal
church within it. The church land was but poorly cultivated.

If the six oxen in demesne at Mangotstield were the only
cattle at work there, the place can have been a simple clearing in
the forest ; perhaps the provost was just breaking new ground
there.

The most remarkable point with regard to this Hundred is
the low hidation already noticed; the inclusion of the revenue
from the borough in the ferm prevents any comparison of values,
but there was a fair population.

BOTELAV HUNDRED.
Boretav is, I suspect, now represented by Castle Tump, in
Dymock, the ancient name is preserved at Botloe’s Green hard by.

Dymocx.—Besides the Manor of Dimoch the parish also
includes Ansfrid’s Manor of Chitiford, now Ketford. Dimoch
had been an estate of ancient demesne till the fifth year of the
Conqueror’s reign, when Earl William obtained it, and his son
Roger also held it, but the jurors could not tell the Commissioners
by what title ; it reverted to the crown on the rebellion of Roger.
The church belonged to the Abbey of Cormeilles, by grant, no
doubt, of Earl William. The excessive amount of woodland must
have lain outside the limits of the parish.

BromesBeRRow.—Here was also an excess of woodland ; the
family of the Domesday owner has left its mark in the name
Toney’s farm.

Upreapon.-—Ledene contained both Up-and High-Leadon,
the latter is now in Rudford; it had been given to Gloucester
Abbey by Walter de Lacy in 1080.

Newent.—This would seem to have been originally a manor
of ancient demesne, for King Edward held it, and it never paid
gheld, Earl William had founded the Abbey of Cormeilles, and
202 DomeEspay SuRVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

his son Roger gave this manor to the abbey for the good of his
father’s soul. Though the only mention of woodland in the
Survey is a rent of xxx? derived from it, Henry II. and Pope
Alexander ITI. confirmed to the abbey the woods of Yarcledon
and Tedeswood, Compton, Lind, Oakley, Melswick, Ongley, with
the assarts that belonged to Newent; yet it is strange if these
woods belonged to the abbey in 1086 that they are not registered
in a Hundred, where several manors shewed a large excess of
wood.

Durandus’ hide was no doubt represented by Jand in Boulsdon,
which was held under the Earl of Hereford by Richard Heyward,
in 1373.

CaRLSWALL belonged to Walter de Lacy in the reigh of Edw. I.

TIBBERTON.—The 1,320 acres of arable fairly represent the
area of the parish, but no fewer than 4,320 acres of woodland
pertained to the manor; where they lay can be only a matter -
of conjecture.

Hountiry.—Here was a little plot of 480 acres of arable, with
2,880 acres of wood ; the parish contains 1,409 acres.

Taynton.—This was William Goizenboded’s impoverished manor
of Tetinton ; while Little Taynton and Little Oakley represent
William f. Norman’s Manor of Tatinton. Norman’s farm, and
Norman’s wood preserve the name of the Domesday owner. A
virgate of land which lay in the forest pertained to this manor,
its rent was twelve pence, and the whole of William f. Norman’s
manor was quit of gheld probably in return for some unexpressed
service in relation to the forest.

Kempiey and OxenHaLt were held by Walter de Lacy in the
reign of Edward I. Pauntiey and the other lands in this district
which Ansfrid of Cormeilles held had been received by him from
Walter de Laci when he married his niece. The Chapel of
Pauntley belonged to the Abbey of Cormeilles.

Ruprorp did not then include Highleadon. Note the Welsh
name of the tenant who T.R.E. had been owner.

The most striking feature is the enormous area of woodland
attrjbuted to some of the manors, which could not possibly have
WESBERIE HUNDRED, 203

lain within the limits of the present relative parishes, or even in
the Hundred. The land values were very low, and the population

was scanty.
WESBERIE HUNDRED,

WeEsTBURY-ON-SEVERN.—In 1086 the manor was rated at
thirty hides; but in the fifth year of the Conqueror’s reign six
hides in Chire, ten in Clifton, eight in Noent and Chingestone,
and one in Ladeuent had been removed from the ferm. Yet
although nearly half the taxable value of the manor had been
removed the wretched tenants were still compelled to pay the full
night’s ferm at which the undiminished area had been rated ; the
Sheriff either had to get it from them, or to pay the deficiency out
of his own pocket. The case illustrates the complaint in the
Chronicle concerning the iniquities of the reeves ; who were, how-
ever, only the instruments of a vicious system.

Unless the separated lands lay in Newent to the west of the
Severn, and in Shirehampton and Clifton on the east, I do not
know where they are to be sought; Ladeuent cannot now be
identified.

The Sapina, or fir-wood, lay, perhaps, in some part of Dean
forest, but wherever it was situated it pertained to the Manor of
Westbury ; its value would serve to eke out the payment of the
crushing night’s ferm, therefore it is especially mentioned.

Ropiey.—There does not seem to be sufficient evidence to
connect the Manor of Rodele with the Rodley in Newnham or
that in Westbury, though doubtless it is represented by one of
them.

Cuurcuam.—No doubt the Manor of Hamme and Mortune is
represented by the Parish of Churcham with its hamlets ; the low
hidage and value, and the sparse population, would mark it as
containing much uncultivated land even if there were no mention
of wood and of enclosures for the Abbot’s hunting. Perhaps the

1440 acres of wood were in some way a source of profit, the total
acreage of wood must have been much larger.

LoncHorz.—The Manor of Hope included Blaisdon. The
acreage is deficient, partly, perhaps, from some arable having
204 DomESDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

fallen out of cultivation, certainly on account of the existence
of unregistered woodland.

Newnuam.—The parish contains not only William f. Baderon’s
Manor of Newnham, but also his Manor of ‘‘Staure,” or Stears,
which was quit of gheld, and, probably, two virgates and a half
which he had inherited from his uncle Wihanoc, but which the
jurors declared really pertained to the Royal ferm of Wesberie.

William Goizenboded held half a hide and half a fishery some-
where in the Hundred, which he had given to his wife, the lady
whom the Conqueror gave to a young man Richard with her lands ;
this estate also is said to have belonged to the Royal ferm.

BicaNnorre.—The modern equivalent of this manor is hard to
find. English Bicknor, which naturally suggests itself, descended
like William Goizenboded’s Manor of Taynton, and may con-
ceivably be the nameless manor mentioned in the previous para-
graph, but hardly this one. In any case Bicanofre was a very
small matter, rated at only two virgates, and containing only sixty
registered acres,

The Manor of Dene included, I suspect, Micheldean, Littledean,
and Abenhall, now computed to contain 1,941 acres, for which
the 1,260 acres of arable registered in the Survey might in this
forest Hundred be a fair equivalent; certainly it contained more
than Micheldean and Littledean, and Ruardean is accounted for
in the Herefordshire Survey.

Durandus held a nameless manor in this Hundred, which was
rated at three hides, and in which were registered 600 acres of
arable. Its modern equivalent is not obvious; Roger, son of
Milo, Earl of Hereford, held Minsterworth, which is nowhere
accounted for by name in the Survey, but I have followed Rudder
in identifying the Abbey Manor of Hamme, in Tolangebrige
Hundred with Minsterworth. Certainly the area of Minster-
worth accords better with Hamme than with Durandus’ manor.

Bu.iEey.—The area of the manor accords fairly well with that
of the parish.

The hides were large, and the population, compared with
the statute acreage, was scanty ; that the land values were high
LANGEBRIGE HunpRED. 205

is only the result of the crushing weight of the impost of one
night’s ferm on the diminished area of the Manor of Wesberie.
Most of the manors in this partially settled neighbourhood had

declined in value.
LANGEBRIGE HUNDRED.

This little Hundred no doubt derived its name from a bridge,
or series of bridges, extending from Gloucester to the forest shore
of the Severn.

LassIncTon.—This was one of the 8. Oswald’s manors which
were retained by the See of York.

MinsterwortH.—I have followed Rudder in identifying
“ Hamme” with Minsterworth, with which the hidage agrees
very well, and the registered acreage fairly ; moreover the value
of the manor had doubled since the Conquest, a condition usual with
S.Peter’s manors, not so with those held by Durandus. If, however,
Durandus’ nameless manor in Wesberie Hundred is to be identi-
fied with Minsterworth, then ‘‘Hamme” must be supposed to lie
with “Hamme and Mortune,” in Churcham and its hamlets. If
“ Hamme” is Minsterworth, then it must have passed into the
possession of the family of Walter the Constable before 1154, the
date of the death of Roger, son of Milo, who owned Minsterworth.

Preston, near Ledbury.—The excessive acreage of arable may,
perhaps, be owing to land at a distance, now included in other
parishes, being then considered to pertain to this manor.

Morcorr lies in Minsterworth parish, but the manor passed
through quite different hands.

The hide was of average size, but the population was com-
paratively large, and the value of the Hundred had been nearly
doubled since the Confessor’s time. Still the land values were
very low. It was a rapidly improving district, with plenty of
room for improvement still left.

BLITESLAV HUNDRED.
The ancient name of the Hundred is still preserved in Blids-
loe farm.
Awre —The church passed by exchange to the Priory of
Lanthony in 1352, and was appropriated by that house. The
206 DomeEspay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

manor had rendered half a night’s ferm in the Confessor’s time,.
and though half a hide had been wasted, and the annual value
was not more than £12, yet the Sheriff still paid the old ferm
undiminished,

Alwi, the Sheriff, had put three members, ‘ Peritone ” or
Purton, Etloe, and Blidsloe, out of the Royal ferm, but the jurors
testified that they still by right pertained to it.

Purton lay in the fee of Earl William, that is in Lydney
where it is now; and in dealing with “Nass” in Lydney the
Commissioners note that it is claimed for the King’s ferm. Pos-
sibly, however, this ‘“ Peritone” may represent the portion of
of Purton which Fosbrooke states pertained to Awre.

Roger de Berchelai held Etloe in 1086; it next appears in
1283 as part of the possessions of Patrick de Chaworth.

William f, Baderon held Blidsloe, and folk of the same name
held property in the neighbourhood, if not what is now known as
Blidsloe farm, for many generations.

Nass, in Lydney.—Earl Harold had held Nest, then it had... .

belonged to Earl William, and had, no doubt, reverted to the
Conqueror on the rebellion of Earl Roger ; it was not a manor of
ancient demesne. Earl William had joined it to two other manors,
Pontune and Pertaine ; Pertaine is no doubt Purton, the modern
equivalent of Pontune is uncertain.

William f. Norman’s nameless estate cannot now be identified ;
but Walter Balistarius’ manor of half a hide is, I have no doubt,
now represented by Poulton Court, in Awre, which was held by
members of the Willington family and their descendants, together
with Walter's other Manor of Frampton Cotterell, from the reign
of Edw. III. to that of Henry VIJ. The mill gives an additional
mark of identification. Possibly the manor derives its name from
Palli, the owner, T.R.E.

Linpener.—This composite manor was made up of four estates
which, the Commissioners tell us, Earl William received (accepit)
from their owners. Three hides came from the demesne of the
Bishop of Hereford, six hides from the estates of the Monks
BurresLhAv Hunpreb. 207

of Pershore, and three and a half from two thanes. This land
would have lain to the west of the Lyd, and would have
included, no doubt, not only the portion of Lydney near the
church, but also Aylburton and Alvington, which were given to
Lanthony Priory by Walter of Hereford, son of Milo f. Walter.

What Rudder relates concerning Aylburton and the Gour-
nays, &c., really refers to Elberton. The 124 hides of Lindenee
would at the average rate of the Hundred imply an area of about
4,200 acres, yet only 1,560 acres are registered.

Though Lydney Church is not mentioned in the Survey it had
been granted by Earl William to his Abbey of Lire; it passed
into the possession of the Dean and Chapter of Hereford in the
time of Robert, ‘Abbot of Lire, and Canon of Hereford, who died
in 1272.

ALLIsTon.—This place, though represented in the Survey by
Aluredestone, in Ledenie Hundred, is now included in Lydney.
There were two Manors of Aluredestone, one of which had been
held T.R.E. by Bondi, the other by Ulnod, William de Ow was
lord of both in 1086. Henry de Ferrers claimed the former
because it had been held by Bondi, but the Commissioners (of
whom Henry was one) note that it had belonged to Ralph de
Limesi as antecessor of William, and they insert it among his
manors. The Domesday Manors of Alurdestone would include
Alliston, Soilwell and Hurst.

It would seem then that the Domesday Manors of <Aure,
Peritone, Eteslau, Bliteslau, and Walter Balistarius’ nameless
manor, containing thirteen hides and one virgate, should be
assigned to the Parish of Awre, computed at 5,087 acres, giving
an average of 384 acres to a hide; and that the Manors of
Lindenee, Nass, and Aluredestone, rated at twenty-two hides
and two virgates should be assigned to the 9,276 acres now
reckoned to lie in Lydney and Alvington, giving a hide of 412
acres. The locality of William f. Norman’s nameless manor is
quite uncertain ; and it is not easy to tell where the nine hides
at Pontune and Pertaine lay, the latter name suggests the neigh-
bourhood of Purton, the former seems to have no modern equiva-
lent. Possibly we may conclude that they are partly in Lydney,
208 DomesDay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

and partly in Awre, for nine hides introduced into the area of
either parish would seriously alter the satisfactory relative areas
of the hides shewn above. In considering the acreage of Lydney
it must be remembered that it is by no means certain that the
line of the Severn shore was to the west of Nass Cliff, the
same as it is now; a large area of “New Grounds” has been
added in recent times, at the date of the Survey the action of the
river may have been different.

Under the head of ‘“ Terra Regis,” in Herefordshire, it is said
that Roger de Pistres, Sheriff of Gloucestershire, had diverted into
his own shire two hides and a half at ‘‘ Niware,” which formerly
pertained to Bremesese Hundred in Herefordshire. It is possible
that this ‘““Niware” may now be represented by Newerne, in
Lydney, but I do not know that there is anything beyond the
similarity of name to point to the relation.

The area of the hide is, as usual on the west of the Severn,
large; but the values are all good, even apart from the half
night’s ferm paid from Awre. The population, however, was
relatively small, and the Hundred seems to be one where much
of the land had not yet been brought into cultivation.

LEDENEI HUNDRED.

Levent, afterwards known as Ledeneia Parva, now as 8,
Briavel’s ; it was not in 1086 in the Forest of Dean, and it never
has been there, though for a long period the Constable of 8.
Briavel’s Castle was also Warden of the Forest. It would seem
that this manor and Hiwoldestone had belonged to Earl William,
for tithes here together with the advowson of Lydney were given
by him to the Abbey of Lire; probably after the rebellion of
Earl Roger these two manors were granted to Wihanoc of Mon-
mouth, and passed to his nephew, William f. Baderon, the
Domesday owner. Wihanoc, or one of his successors, bestowed
an interest in 8. Briavel’s on the Abbey of 8. Florent, in Saumur,
of which Abbey the Priory of Monmouth, founded by Wihanoc,
was a cell; it may be that both castle and church at 8. Briavel’s
were founded by Wihanoc, as those of Monmouth certainly were,
Lepener HunpRrep, 209

It was an impoverished manor, only worth half its value in
the Confessor’s time, and less than one-tenth of the area of the
present parish was under cultivation.

Hiwowpestons.—Mr. Ellis thinks that William f. Baderon had
only recently come into possession of his uncle’s property ; if so,
this manor had been thrown into the forest not long before the
Survey, for it is recorded that William held (tenuit) it. Hewels-
field emerges at the end of the reign of Henry III. as a possession
of John of Monmouth, a descendant of William f. Baderon. The
three hides of Hiwoldestone are very fairly represented by the
1,189 acres of Hewelsfield.

Wicuerere.—The name survives in Wyegate on the boundary
between 8. Briavel’s and Newland, but the area of the manor
seems to have been merged in the forest, and no trace of its
existence is to be found in later times. Newland was a fresh
creation.

Probably these two manors were thrown into the forest for pur-
poses of defence against the Welsh, their area would have formed
quite an insignificant addition for purposes of the chase. After their
afforestation the whole frontier of the shire from Brockwear round
to Ruerdean would have been forest land guarded by the castle at
Monmouth, except the high ground at 8. Briavel’s, which was very
likely, even then, crowned by a fortress. Tidenham was protected
by Chepstow Castle, which commanded the road from Gwent. I
believe that the portion of Wales entered as an appendix to the
Survey for our shire is the district now known as Netherwent,
which lies between Wentwood and the sea, and which would have
been bounded on the north-west by a line drawn from Tintern to
Caerleon. A similar appendix to Herefordshire includes Archen-
feld, the district between the Wye and the Monnow. Thus the
only point at which the hostile Welsh territory actually touched
Gloucestershire in 1086 would have been along the course of the
Wye between Brockwear and Monmouth, exactly the point at
which the Conqueror brought his forest down to the water’s edge.
An opening in the wood at 8S. Briavel’s, guarded by a fortress,
would make an excellent point from which to organise expeditions

P
210 DomeEspDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

into Wales. 8. Briavel’s Castle was certainly in existence in 1431.

RverpEAN is entered under the King’s land in Herefordshire
as Ruedene; it had been held T.R.E. by Grim, Grimchetel held
it in 1086. It was rated at one hide, and there were there a
bordar and an oxherd with one team. Ruerdean has been in
Gloucestershire for civil purposes, at least since the reign of Henry
TIL., but it was a Chapelry of Walford, in Herefordshire, till the
present century.

Staunton, and New.anp with its tithings, are clearances in
in the forest made subsequently to the Survey ; and very probably
the same remark would apply to English Bicknor.

The Alliston manors were fairly well cultivated, but the
Manor of Ledenei was only worth halfits value in the Confessor’s
time, and the rest of the Hundred had been thrown into the
forest.

TvIFERDE HUNDRED

The name of the Hundred survives in Wyeford pond, on the

ancient road from Gloucester to Caerwent.

Wootastone.—There is nothing to shew that this manor, which
had belonged to Brictric f. Algar, had ever passed to Queen
Matilda or Ralph de Limesi; the registered acreage represents
but a small portion of the present parish.

Mapezt.—Though this place is locally surrounded by Tiden-
ham, it is still part of the Parish of Woolastone ; it had belonged,
like Woolastone, to Brictric, but in the Survey it is entered under
the King’s lands, though the Conqueror retained nothing but two
fisheries. It was rated at three hides, of these two were held by
William de Ow, half a hide belonged to Roger de Laci, and is
duly entered with his lands, and half a hide belonged to the Abbot
of Malmesbury, this is nowhere entered by name, but it may
represent the excess of area which appears under the name of
Littleton-on-Severn. The Abbot and Roger each possessed a
fishery, both, however, were claimed by William de Ow.

These Madget fisheries, lay, I suspect, at Brockwear ; which
hamlet seems to be portioned out among the parishes near,
TVIFERDE HuNDRED. 211

probably because it was the seat of the fisheries pertaining to the
different manors.

TipenHsamM.—The two little manors belonging to William de
Ow, and Roger de Laci, entered under this name, perhaps repre-
sent Lancaut, which, as we have seen, was, in King Edwy’s
time, a part of Tidenham ; for Lancaut is still reckoned to be a
Chapelry of Woolaston. Earl William Fitzosbern had given to
Walter de Laci, father of Roger, the land of one villein, and
William de Ow had, no doubt, inherited the land of one villein
which the same Earl had given to Ralph de Limesi.

The enormous area of the hide, the small population, and
the poor value for each statute acre, shew clearly that the area
included in the manors had been only slightly brought under
cultivation ; on the other hand the good values of the hide,
ploughland, and registered acre, testify to careful attention to the
land which had been cleared. The value was just what it had

been in the Confessor’s time.

TEDENEHAM HUNDRED.

TipENHAM.—An account of this manor in King Edwy’s time
has already been given on pp. 37-39. No doubt this was the
place called “‘Dymedham,” which was burned by the Welsh
King Griffin and a band of Irish pirates in 1049. (Norman
Conquest, 11., 613). It had, however, quite recovered its pros-
perity by the date of the Survey, for the whole area of the manor
is registered, and the values are satisfactory. As there were no
serfs or teams in demesne, it is not improbable that it was let ata
fixed rent to the sixty villeins and bordars who were resident on
the manor. The fisheries were, as we have seen, a great source
of wealth. The wood registered would represent Tidenham Chase.

WALES.

After the account of the City of Gloucester, and before that of
the borough of Winchcombe, the record describes a tract of land
lying between the Wye and the Usk ; the following table contains
an account of the owners and their possessions.

p 2
 

 

 

212 DomeEspAay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
eat ane
PLacr. Houver. VILL&|CaRucaT&|Caruca| £ s. d
Estrighoiel diel WOE!” cake cde ede 1200
Carleion .. eel 95 de8— eye Seth 1 710 0
Lamecare : |
Poteschuiet ... 14 5 00
Dinan
Waswic PrOP. a8 13
Elmui ... 14
Bleius ... 13 910 4
Idhel 14
4
Walter Balist.
Berdic joculator... 3 5
Morinus 1
Chenesis Pe 1
Waswice fil. ... 1 6
Sessibert 1
Abraham Pr. 2
ROK te tee ose 1
S. Michael .. .. 1
S. Dewin ster, Sou 1
Caruen 1 Beluard ... ... 4
40 12 8
Walter Balist. 2 3 100
Girard ... ... 2° 2 100
Ovus prop. eee 2 4 100
Dagobert de R. 1
Caroen ... .| Gozelin Brito 5 2 100
Eps. Constant. de R. 5 5 200
Strigoielg ..| Roger de Berchelai 2 1 100
Caldecote ...| Durandus Vic. ... 15 600
Strigoielg .| William de Ow ... 900
Wales . ss ¥e ne 310 0
i ah es eee < 32 - 24 |1210 0
Strigoielg ...| Roger de Laci 116 0
eee at Turstin f. Rolf ... 17 | 900
Ultra Huscham ... 5 se Re 6 4 214 6
Alured Hispaniz 2 2
Wales . 93 Sy wae 7 010 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is related that Earl William built the castle at Estrighoiel,
but in his time the only payment was 40s., the tolls on ships
passing up to the forest. In the time of his son Earl Roger the
vill paid £16, of which Ralph de Limesi had half; in 1086 the
King received £12. Ralph’s moiety had, no doubt, descended to
William de Ow, and is represented by the sum of £9, which he
claimed as a customary payment from Strigoielg ; with regard to
WALES. 213

which, however, it is noted that Girard and the other tenants said
that he ought not by right to have more than £5 of the £10 of
the customary payment of Strigoielg, if his share were properly
valued.

The four groups of vills, each under its provost, would seem
to be a relic of the land system of South Wales; and as the
names of the two last mentioned provosts are undoubtedly Welsh,
it is possible that the district had been acquired so recently that
the same officers had borne rule under the old and new order of
things.

The early Welsh land system is described in Mr. Seebohm’s
“English Village Community,” pp. 18J-213. It would appear
that in South Wales 12 tyddyns, or homesteads, were grouped into
one trev for the purpose of paying the ‘‘ Gwestva,” or food-rent,
whose money value was one pound of silver; and again into
groups of thirteen called ‘‘maenols,” each undera “maer,” the
“ propositus” of the Survey, for the purpose of civil jurisdiction.
Mr. Seebohm, relying on a Latin translation of the Welsh laws
made early in the 13th century, takes the trev to be the equiva-
lent of the “villa” of the Survey, but it would certainly seem
that the word ‘‘villa” is used at least in the Gloucestershire
record for the tyddyn, or homestead ; to each tyddyn were appen-
dant 100 acres in the arable, pasture, and waste. But the Welsh
were a pastoral rather than an agricultural people, and their food-
rent was paid in cattle and honey, the latter being a characteristic
Welsh tribute. The value of the elements of the ferm may,

perhaps, be thus apportioned :— £s. da.

47 Sextaries of honey at 33d. - - : 012 8

40 Pigs at 8d. - - - = 3 3 168

41 Cows at 3s. - - 2 Hs : 3 6 3 0

For the Hawks - - - . 2 18 0
£9 10

 

 

The only uncertain elements are the value of the cows and
honey, for the payment for the hawks is distinctly stated, and it
is said lower down that 66 pigs which went out to pannage

were worth 44s, The sextary was a measure of variable capacity.
214 DomeEspAy SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSBIRE.

It is noted that there were under these Provosts 4 vills which
had been wasted by King Caradoc, no doubt on the occasion
when he had destroyed Harold’s hunting seat at Portskewet in
August, 1065.

The land of Walter Balistarius was waste, but he received
from it a sextary of honey, and a pig.

With regard to the lands of Morinus and his companions, it is
said,—‘ Hos misit W. Comes ad consuetudinem Grifin regis;
licentia regis W.” There was no King Griffin in the time of Earl
William, but ‘Griffin filius Mariadoc” appears in the Survey of
Herefordshire, and it is also said—‘‘ Rex W. condonavit geldum
Regi Mariadoc et postea filio ejus” Mr. Freeman supposes
(Norman Conquest IV., 675n) that this Mariadoc was Meredydd,
son of Bleddyn, King of North Wales; in this way the attri-
bution of the Royal title to Meredydd and his son would be
explained, though it does not appear that either of them was a
reigning Sovereign. Meredydd evidently enjoyed the confidence
of the Conqueror and of Earl William, it is likely enough, there-
fore, that these lands had been granted to him, though the Com-
missioners note only the tenure of his son. Mr. Freeman thinks
that Meredydd was living in 1086, but that having given some
offence his lands were in the possession of his son. At any rate
the King received nothing from these estates.

Then follow certain church estates ; from one vill, by grant of
the King for the good of his soul, 2 pigs, 100 loaves and an un-
determined quantity of beer, are rendered to the Church at the
Feast of S. Martin; at S. Michael was 1 carucate, and at 8.
Dewin was another carucate, which rendered no service except to
the saints. The places mentioned are probably Lanmartin, Lan-
fihangel by Rogiett, and Landavad, and the land in the last two
places would be glebe.

The Royal estate had diminised in value; Durandus the
Sheriff had let it to William de Ow for £55, in 1086 it was worth
only £40 12s, 8d.

It will be noticed that there is no mention of carucates on the
King’s land, there the old condition of things remained ; it was
WALES. 215

only on the land which had been portioned out among his sub-
jects, or on glebe land (possibly granted by him) on his demesne,
that the new system is found.

The Church on Durandus’ estate of Caldicot was afterwards a
possession of Lanthony Priory, as the castle was a seat of the de
Bohuns.

A passage concerning the grant to Ralph de Limesi deserves
to be quoted at length—‘In eodem feudo (Strigoielg) dedit
Willielmus Comes Radulpho de Limesi 50 carucatas terre, sic fit
in Normania.—Hoc testantur Hugo et alii liberatores quod ita
Radulpho concessit. “ In the same fee of Strigoielg Earl William
granted to Ralph de Limesi 50 carucates of land ‘according to
that estimate of the carucate which prevails in Normandy,’ (so
Mr. Eyton explains the passage). Hugh and the other delegates
testify that he did make such a grant to Ralph.”

Here we seem to have an original grant of the conquered terri-
tory to one of those who assisted in the Conquest ; Norman, in his
grant to Norman, using neither the English term “hide,” for the
land had never been hidated after the English fashion, nor yet
following the Welsh arrangements, which, as we have seen,
remained unaltered on the King’s land, but portioning out the
district afresh according to the system which was most familiar
to the Norman Conquerors. William de Ow, however, the suc-
cessor of Ralph, complained that he did not possess more than
32 carucates of that land.

If the word ‘‘ liberatores ” is rightly rendered “ delegates,” the
entry is of interest as containing the name of one of those who
were actually engaged in the work of the Survey: and it is of no
less interest if we translate it ‘“ deliverers,” and refer it to those
Normans who were engaged in the work, in which they have
found many imitators since, of delivering a native race into
bondage to a foreign people stronger than themselves.

“Roger de Laci tenet in feudo de Strigoielg tantum terre
hospitatee cum uno molino quod valet xxxvi solidis.” Ducange
explains hospitatus thus,—‘‘ servitutes mansioni addictas que ah
hospite ratione domicilii sui quotannis domino prastantur.” When
216 Domerspay Survey oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

the Burgundians crossed into Roman Gaul in the beginning of the
5th century the Romans not only permitted them to settle within
the limits of the empire, but caused the inhabitants of the district
to yield up to them one half of their houses, two-thirds of the
cultivated land, and one-third of their slaves; the natives were
called by the Burgundian settlers ‘“ hospites,” because they were
received by them as their hosts. No doubt Roger’s land was
settled on some such principle as this.

Turstin fitz Rolf had borne the Conqueror’s banner at Senlac,
it is interesting to note that he was the only invader who had
penetrated beyond the Usk.

Alured’s 7 vills had pertained to the demesne of Earl William
and his son ; they still paid a food rent of six measures of honey,
and 6 pigs, as well as 10s. in money.

The modern names of the places mentioned in the record would
seem to be these :—

Strigoielg - - - Chepstow.

Carleion - - Ce Caerleon.

Lamecare - - - Lanvair Discoed.
Poteschuiet - - - Portskewet,

Dinan - - - Dinham.

8. Dewin - - - Landavad.

S. Michael - - - Lanfihangel by Roggiett.
Caruen - - - Caerwent.

Caldecote  - - - Caldicot.

Thus, with the exception of Caerleon, all the places named lie
between the Wye and the Usk, and between Wentwood and the
Severn. Ecclesiastical arrangements are often an useful guide in
tracing early secular history, and it is a very remarkable thing
that the Deanery of Netherwent, or Chepstow, contains exactly
the district marked out by these natural boundaries with Caerleon
and three other parishes to the west of the Usk, Lanthewyvach,
Lanvrechfa, and Lanhennock, which may be either appendages of
the King’s estate of Caerleon, or of Turstin fitz Rolf’s 6 carucates
beyond the Usk. Probably, however, Caldicot Level had not yet
been brought under cultivation, at any rate there are no Celtic
WALES. 217

names in the district ; Goldcliff Priory was, however, founded in
1113.

With regard to the date at which this portion of Welsh ter-
ritory passed into the possession of the King of the English, and
the manner of its acquisition, the record seems to imply that its
acquisition had been both recent and peaceful.

The district had never been hidated, the Welsh land-system still
remained unaltered on the King’s land, and the partition of, at any
rate, a portion of the rest had taken place under a man who had
died only 15 years before the date of the Survey. Again there are
but slight traces of the ravages of war, the harrassing of the only
waste land recorded is distinctly mentioned, the value of the land
was apparently good, and, in some cases, the values of the mills
were high, while, at any rate, in the case of Roger de Laci’s land,
we seem to see the natives and the invaders dwelling peacefully
side by side.

The historical notices of the district about the time of the
Conquest are these.—In July, 1049, some pirates acting in con-
cert with Gruffydd, King of South Wales, after ravaging the
coasts of the Bristol Channel, crossed the Wye and burned
Dymedham (no doubt Tidenham, which is called Dyddenham in
King Edwy’s charter to Bath Abbey), they then repulsed a force
which Bishop Ealdred brought against them, and disappeared.
This would seem to shew that at that time the Wye was the
dividing line between England and Wales.

In May, 1063, Harold invaded Wales with a fleet from Bristol,
while Tostig marched in from the north ; as a result of the cam-
paign the Welsh King, Gruffydd, was slain by his own people,
and his realm was given to his kinsmen Bleddyn and Rhiwallon to
hold it as under-kings of the Confessor. In the summer of 1065
Harold proceeded to assert the sovereignty of the English King
by building a hunting seat at Portskewet, which lay conveniently
near to Wentwood, on the road from Gloucester; but on 8.
Bartholomew’s day, Caradoc, son of Gruffydd, King of South
Wales, slew the builders, destroyed their work, and carried off
the materials that had been collected. The English King would
218 Domesvay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIKE,

appear to have acquired a right, though a precarious one, to the
territory.

But the Survey seems to represent Earl William Fitzosbern
as the man by whom the possession of the district was assured.
He it was who founded the castle at Chepstow, and it was from
his hand that Ralph de Limesi received the lordly grant of 50
carucates of land “sic fit in Normannia,” as the record states
with, perhaps, a touch of pride. Both Earl Willian and Caradoc
son of Gruffydd were enemies of Harold, and we find them acting
in alliance against Meredydd, King of South Wales, whom they
defeated and slew on the banks of the Rumney in 1070 ; Caradoc
evidently did not interfere with the Earl’s tenure of Netherwent.
We may conclude then that the district was brought under the
power of the English crown by Harold in 1063, and that the
English dominion was peacefully assured by Earl William, pro-
bably in the last year of his sojourn in England. From March
to December, 1067, with Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, he was one of the
Conqueror’s vicegerents during his absence in Normandy, and to
him was committed the special charge of the North of England ;
in January, 1069, he was at York, and he remained there till after
Easter, though he had left before August; while, as we have
seen, he was engaged in war with the South Welsh in 1070. At
Christmas, 1070, he left England never to return. The small rent
received by him from the vill of Chepstow, compared with the
much larger one received during the short tenure of his son, would
seem to shew that his settlement was very recent at the time of
his death, and the grants to him of Dymock and Newent are
distinctly placed by the record in the fourth year of the Con-
queror’s reign. Mr. Freeman states (Vol. 1V., 72,2) “that
from the language of Orderic (521 p) one might suppose that he
did not receive the Earldom till 1070 ;” at any rate it seems to
he in that year that he was most closely connected with this part
of the country.

THE ‘ QUARTER” OF WINCHCOMBE.

The record of the estates of the Church of Evesham closes
with this entry—‘‘In ferdingo de Wicelcombe habuit S. Maria
Tae “Qoarter” oF WINCHCOMBE. 219

de Evesham tvthidas. 1.r.z.” A similar entry at the end of the
manors of the Abbey of Winchcombe running thus,—‘“T.R.E. de-
fendebat se hee ecclesia in Glowecestrescyre pro Lx hidis.” The
‘quarter ” of Winchcombe then would seem to be of the same
nature with the shire of Gloucester, i.e. a territorial area. It will
be noticed that the Evesham manors lay in two groups, one inclu-
ding Maugersbury, Adlestrop, Bourton-on-the- Water, Broadwell,
and Upper Swell, near Stow-on-the-Wold, the other comprising
Willersey, Weston-on-Avon, Larkstoke, and Hidcote, to the north
of Campden.

The word “ferdingus,” with its diminutive ‘ferendellus,” is
of frequent occurrence in the Survey,*—and always in the sense of a
quarter of a something ; often, in our sense, the fourth of a penny,
but at Dolvertune, in Somerset, and Sudtone, in Sussex, it is the
quarter of a hide, at Cantortone and Heldelie, in Hants, and
Berkeham, in Sussex, it means one quarter of a virgate, at Eps-
stone, Notts, one quarter of a bovate.

The lowest in rank of the Gothic law courts was the fierding
court, so called because there were four of them in every superior
district or hundred.

The fourthings of Norway and Iceland were territorial dis-
tricts, the ‘ quarters” of some larger area. In Norway they were
quarters of the ‘“fylke,” which answer to the “folks” of our
Norfolk and Suffolk. In Iceland the farthings correspond more
nearly to our parishes, each having its farthing kirk or parish
church, its farthing thing or parish vestry, and its farthing doom
or court leet.

The last three paragraphs from the *—onwards is a summary of
a reply by Canon Isaac Taylor in “ Notes and Queries,” of May
28th, 1887; but it is to be noted that Mr. Eyton takes the
“ferdingus” at Dolvertune to be the fourth of a virgate, and
he says that there are instances in the northern shires where the
virgate itself is called a ferndel, as being one fourth of the hide
or carucate. The four quarters of the town of Huntingdon are
called in the Survey ferlings.
220 Domespay SuRVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

We may take it then that the fourthing, or quarter of Winch-
combe was a district attached to that town, and called by its
name. Camden (Britannia, Gough, I., p. 263) writes concerning
Winchcombe,—“ The adjacent territory was once reckoned a county
or Sheriffdom of itself, for I find in an old MS. belonging to the
Church of Worcester—‘ Edric surnamed Streon or the Acquirer,
who first under King Ethelred, and afterwards for some time
under Cnut or Canute, governed the realm of England, and
ruled like a petty prince, united the Sheriffdom of Winchcombe
then distinct to the County of Gloucester.’”

Mr. W. de Gray Birch (Cartularium Saxonicum, Vol. I, 429)
gives an agreement between Denebert, Bishop of Worcester, and
Wulfheard, Bishop of Hereford, concerning disputed rights at
Cheltenham and Beckford, dated October 12th, 803, and headed
“Into Wincelcumbescire ;” the heading is taken from Heming’s
Chartulary, Vol. I, p. 50. It will be noticed that the agreement
was made at a council at Cloveshoe, at which King Kenulf was
present, and Winchcombe was a favourite place of his, he founded
the abbey there eight years later; this may account for the
prominence given to Winchcombe, but, at any rate, the heading
shews there really was a district known as Winchcombeshire. Edric
Streon, who had been the evil genius of Ethelred the Unready
and of Edmund Ironside, was appointed by Cnut to his old Earl-
dom of Mercia early in 1017, but was executed at the Christmas
Gemot (perhaps held then as afterwards at Gloucester) of the
same year. As he had been made Earldorman of the Mercians in
1007, it would seem that the separate jurisdiction of Winchcombe
was suppressed at some date between 1007 and 1017. Gheld
was not exacted by the Confessor after 1051.

Probably, therefore, the farthing, or quarter, of Winchcombe
mentioned in the Survey was the old shire attached to that town,
whose separate existence had indeed ceased 70 or 80 years before,
but whose memory was kept alive in the accounts of Evesham
Abbey, where the manors near Stow and Campden stood for pay-
ment of gheld under the name of the shire where they had been
when it was first imposed, and not under the name of the shire in
which they lay in 1087.
Tue “QUARTER” OF WINCHCOMBE. 221

It is impossible to state the exact limits of Winchcombeshire ;
perhaps a statement that it included the present Hundreds of
Kiftsgate, Slaughter, Cheltenham, Cleeve, and Tibaldstone, would
not be very incorrect. Jf we suppose that the districts of the
Seven Hundreds of Cirencester, and of Berchelai-hernesse, also
represent ancient independent jurisdictions, and assume that the
neighbourhood of Gloucester was dependent on that city, perhaps
we may form a fair idea of the elements of which the existing
shire was made up, though the history of the making of Glouces-
tershire yet remains to be written. It may be also that the south
of the shire was originally dependent on Bath, which borough did
not cease to be Mercian till after the accession of King Alfred.
222 DomrspAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

SCHEDULE OF LAY-OWNERS.

 

Comes Rogerius ..
Comes Hugo ,
Comes Moretoniensis

Gislebertus Eps Lisiacensis

Willielmus de Ow
Wills filius Baderon
Wills Camerarius
Wills Goizenboded
Wills filius Widon
Wills Froisselew
Wills filius Norman
Wills Leuric

Rogerius de Laci...
Rogerius de Belmont
Rogerius de Ivri ..
Rogerius de Berchelai
Radulfus frater ejus
Radulfus Pagenel
Radulfus de Todeni
Robertus de Todeni
Robertus Dispensator
Robertus de Oilgi
Ricardus Legatus
Osbernus Gifard ...
Goisfridus Orleteile
Gislebertus filius Turold
Durandus Vicecomes
Drogo tilius Ponz
Walterius filius Ponz
Walterius filius Rogerii
Walterius Diaconus
Walterius Balistarius
Henricus de Ferieres
Ernulfus de Hesding
Heraldus tilius Radulfi
Hugo de Grentemaism.
Hugo Lasne

Milo Crispin

Urso de Abetot
Hascolt Musard ...
Turstinus filius Rolf
Ausfridus de Cormeliis
Humfridus Camerarius

Humfridus de Medehalle : : f

Humfridus Coquns
Sigar de Cioches ...
Maci de Mauritanie
Gozelinus Brito ..
Rogerius filius Radulfi
Uxor Geri ‘i
Balduinus

Elsi & alii taini Regis

 

 

 

 

VALUE.
T. RB. EL T, BR. W.
H. V. AcP£ s. dad] £ 8 d.
5 8 3
31 2 63 49 10
2 4 2
12 22 9 10
|. 40 2 11746 15 38 «5
4 33 6] 45 17 26 2
8 9 7
59 3 72 6 35 «(15
10 12 8
3 2 4 10 4 13
5 8 4 2 5 15
| 25 6 | 25 14 10
7l 2 111 14 118 14
10 8 5
140 2 58 73 10
1 1 4715 16
5 62 6 6
4 2 10 5
41 40 30
33 38 33
10 12 16
20 2 6719 16
8 12 15
18 24 10 26 10
y ot Z 2
23 3 35 «(10 31 O56
39 2 64 38 a2
20 13 16
10 12 15
[22 <I 4 20
4 2 3 3
10 2 13° 19 6 9
4 15 20 20
146 2 71 lll 6 8
20 40 40
124 3 23 17 (10
| 23 23 19
J, 3 3 11 10 10
fool 2 10
4 33 37 10 35 «10
119 29 10 25 0
46 3 6]55 4 2 «4
1b 8 36 17 25 47
2 4 1).
at 15 15
| 25 22 21
| 21 31 16 14
3 4 2
4 1 5 1 8| 3 12
4 2 1
3 10 10
54 BOG C5 46 15
1014 2 3 }1286 8 11040 2 8

 
Owners oF LAND. 223

It would seem then that the shire was portioned out among the
King, and ecclesiastical and lay-owners, in the proportions shown
by the following table :—

 

 

 

VALUE.
TR. RE TR. W.
H. V. Ac} £€ 8s. dad] £€ 8 da
The King (p. 119)... [645 2 2 1269 16 8
Ecclesiastical owners (p. 93) .f 985 2 81664 9 51|731 2 6
Lay owners ie . 1014 2 3 [1286 8 1040 2 8
2595 3 1 3041 1 10

 

 

‘It will be seen in the sequel that these figures shew about 15
hides less, and £18 14s. more than the sum of the amounts shewn
in the tables of Hundreds ; a discrepancy which amounts to about
‘54 per cent. on the total hidage, and to about ‘62 per cent. on the
value. Considering the mass of figures to be dealt with, this is,
perhaps, a very fair approach to exactness.

Supposing the whole Domesday territory of Gloucestershire
were divided into 260 parts, then there would have belonged to
the King, under different titles, about 64 such parts; various
churches would have held about 94 such parts, the richest eccle-
siastics being the Bishop of Worcester with 23 parts, and the
Archbishop of York with 12 parts, this, however, was stolen
from his brethren, the Abbot of Gloucester had retained ahout
10 parts, and next to him came the Abbot of Winchcombe
with 7 such parts, and the Abbots of 8. Denys, Westminster,
and Evesham, with about 6 parts each.

Various lay-owners would have held together about 102 such
parts, but the individual shares were smaller than those of the
churchmen. Roger de Laci held 7 parts, and William Goizen-
hoded about 6 parts, while William de Ow, Roger de Ivri, Ralph
de Todeni, Durandus the Sheriff, Ernulf de Hesding, and Ansfrid
de Cormeliis held about 4 parts each.

Reduced to the same proportion in Somerset the King held 56
parts, various churchmen 80 parts, and laymen 124 parts, of the
property of the shire ; the Abbot of Glastonbury, the wealthiest
churchman, held 33 parts, and the Bishop of Coutances held in
224 DoMESDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

his own right 27 parts. While in Dorset the King held about 35
parts, churchmen about 100 parts, and laymen about 125 parts;
the Bishop of Salisbury held 25 parts, and the Earl of Mortain,
brother of the Conqueror, held 19 parts.

It would thus appear that the King held about one-fifth, and
the church more than one-third of the hidage in these three coun-
ties ; but if regard be had to the income received the King’s share
was considerably larger. This will appear from the following
table which gives the Royal revenue and the Domesday valuation
for each shire, and also its gross rental in 1886.

 

 

REVENUE, 1086. Gross Rentat,
Roya. ToTaL. 1886.
£ s. d. £ 8s. d £
Dorset... an 4 1100 2 10] 3359 12 9 1,131,529
Somerset ics wf 1141 13 5 | 4164 3 3,328,651
Gloucester ‘an ... 1269 16 8] 3022 7 10 3,291,843
3511 12 1110546 O 10 7,752,023

 

 

 

 

If then we take the gross rental as the nearest equivalent of
the Domesday valuation it would seem that the Conqueror drew
from these three counties a sum comparable to about £2,580,000
at the present day ; but of this not more than four-sevenths arose
from the old estates of the crown, the remainder came from lands
which had passed by a variety of causes into the King’s hands.
Especially in Gloucestershire he had profited very largely by the
escheat of the estates of Brictric and Earl Roger, and in Somerset
and Dorset by the acquisition of the estates of Earl Harold. But
after making all allowances the Royal revenue bore a very large
proportion to the valuation of the shires, and we cannot wonder
at the strength of the feeling in those early days that the King
ought to live of his own, and at the impatience with which direct
taxation was regarded. The Conqueror’s great estates were, how-
ever scattered by his sons and grandson, and Henry II. succeeded
to an impoverished inheritance.

DOMESDAY VALUES.

The gross rental, as given above, is that stated in ‘* Whitaker's
Almanack” for 1888 to be the amount settled by the assessment
committees in 1886; and the following table gives the average
Owners oF LAND. 225

value of a hide, and of each acre registered in Domesday, as well
as that of a statute acre in 1086 and 1886, in each of the three

shires mentioned :—

 

DomEspay ACRE. 1886.
HIDE REGISTERED. | STATUTE, | STATUTE ACKE,
£s. d. d. d. £8.
Dorset 5 i 154 1°30 1:27 115 9
Somerset . 1 310 115 “96 33 5
Gloucester I 3 2 1:29 “96 4 4

 

It must be remembered that the mineral wealth of the Forest
of Dean and Kingswood has been developed in Gloucestershire,
and that of the Radstock district in Somerset, since the Conquest,
and that the great growth of Bristol has added relatively very
much to the value of the Gloucestershire acres. It must also be
borne in mind that the Domesday figures take no account of the
money value of the services rendered by the tenants ; this, how-
ever, would not affect the relative value of the shires as compared
with each other.

Dorset was evidently the most fully developed shire of the
three ; its acres were worth one fifth more than those of the other
two shires, and the average value of the hide was higher. That
the value of each registered acre was higher in Gloucestershire
than in Somerset may only be a consequence of the fact that much
wood and pasture which would have been registered in Somersct
was omitted from the Gloucestershire record.

It will be seen that in Dorset, whose condition is less altered
than that of the other two districts, as there are no manufactures
and no large towns, the money value of the acre has increased
more than 330 fold. But as has been pointed out the services of
the Domesday tenants represented a real, though unexpressed,
money value; so that the actual increase in relative value is not
so great as these figures would seem to shew. It is impossible to
state the exact amount of the increase, because it is impossible to
estimate precisely the money worth of the services due to the lord

by his tenants.
POPULATION.

The record for Gloucestershire registers 102 tenants in chief,
under 78 heads, 166 under-tenants, and 8,235 villeins, bordars,

Q
226 DomeEspay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

serfs, &c.; but as we have seen (p. 73) the enumeration of the
latter classes was not exhaustive. Of the tenants in chief, perhaps
40 were resident in the shire, and the list of sub-tenants obviously
contains many repetitions of the same names ; perhaps if we take
three-fourths of the total as representing the number of individual
holders the estimate would be a fair one. But the record takes
no account of the population of the boroughs; we have seen, how-
ever, that there is fair reason for estimating the population of
Gloucester at about 2,800, Bristol was evidently a flourishing
borough, judging from the production of its mint it would have
been little inferior in importance to Gloucester, and Winchcombe
was also a centre of population. If we assume that Bristol and
Winchcombe together contained a population equal to that of
Gloucester the estimate may not be a very faulty one.

We obtain then this approximation to the population of the
shire eight centuries ago :—

 

Tenants in chief - - - - 40x5 = 200
Under-tenants : - - - 123x5 615
Villeins, &c. - - a - 8235x5 41,175
Burgesses - - - - - - - 5,600

47,590

But there must have been many more than 50 priests in the
shire ; moreover on the King’s lands and on the estates of the
non-resident owners there must have been many officials whose
existence is not recorded because they held neither burgages nor
lands ; and the record also itself intimates in several places the
existence of tenants whose holdings it does not register. These
unregistered classes outside the boroughs Mr. Eyton supposes to
have numbered about 488 families in Dorset, and about 630
families in Somerset ; if we suppose them to have included 480
families in our shire, we should have a total population in Glouces-
shire of about 50,000 souls. Mr. Eyton’s figures would give a
population in Dorset of about 45,000, and in Somerset of about
71,500 ; results which would agree fairly well with the estimate of
50,000 for our shire, for Domesday Somerset was about half as
large again as Domesday Gloucestershire, and though the area of
POPULATION. 227

Dorset was considerably smaller than that of our shire it was
better cultivated, and would support a larger relative population ;
these figures would give about 12 statute acres to each person in
Dorset, about 14:7 in Somerset, and about 15 in Gloucestershire ;
an agreement in proportion which would seem to shew that they
cannot be very far wrong, and which also accords well with the
value of the hide, and of the statute acre, in the three shires.

AGRICULTURE.
The following table shews the acreage under each kind of
crop, in Gloucestershire in 1878.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ACRES. ACRES,

Permanent Pasture ... dibs ‘i sid ihe — 307,026
Corn and Cereals ‘i we 172,515
Roots, Artificial Grasses, Cabbage an and Rape a 62,679
Clover and Grasses... ve 94,279
Bare Fallow ... ie ee ie waa ih 12,263

341,736
Orchards a wah oad de Sie ae 12,290
Market Gardens nee see na ans Ae 1,086
Nursery Grounds... ae nae cr ve 216
Hops... we ave oe a tee a 32

— 13,624

Woods and Plantations wea oie ous se 41,295

703,681

 

 

 

In 1874 the total acreage of rated lands was 733,640 acres,
and of common and waste lands 7,429 acres, out of a total area of
804,977 acres, as against 749,818 acres in the Domesday shire.
The Survey accounts eight centuries ago for 551,564 acres, thus :—

Arable - - - - - 469,035 acres

Meadow - - - - - 1,769 ,,

Wood : - - - - 80,760 ,,
551,564

”

 

But this is not nearly the whole area which would have been
measured in some other shires ; as we have seen our record takes
no account of pasture, though in Dorset 206,494 acres were regis-
tered under this head, and in Somerset there were 49,379 such
acres on the King’s lands alone. It is true that we have no such

Q 2

 
228 DoMEsDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

bare treeless tracts as the chalk downs in Dorset, or the Mendips
in Somerset, but it cannot be doubted that much of the Cotswold
country would have been registered by the Commissioners of the
South Western shires as pasture. The Staffordshire Commis-
sioners also ignored the pasture-land. Moreover large tracts of
wood, at any rate on Manors of ancient Demesne were designedly
omitted in Gloucestershire ; and the registered woodland, so far
as it possessed any money worth at all, was only valuable on
account of the grass in the spring, and the pannage in the autumn, ~
which were available for the maintainance of the flocks and herds.

Of course the most striking point in the Domesday figures is
the enormous extent of arable ; but all this was not under crops
at the same time. Manors were cultivated either on the two-field
or the three-field system. In the former case, half the land lay
fallow each year, and the cattle of the community grazed over it,
in the latter case, one-third only was fallow, one-third was for
winter tillage, and the remaining third for spring tillage.

At the present day of course the land which is not under grain
does not commonly lie fallow, but is planted with root crops or
grasses; but eight centuries ago, such alternative crops were
unknown, and the land was either under grain or keeping Sabbath,
and while it was fallow it afforded a certain amount of rough
pasturage for cattle.

Again, on a Domesday Manor there was no such thing as
breeding stock for profit; the oxen drew the plough or hauled
the wains, the cows and sheep gave milk and wool, but only
enough were kept for the needs of the Manor, and they were
much too valuable to be used as a common article ef food. Thus
except near the streams there was no such thing as permanent
pasture ; and much of what is now the best pasture in the shire
would eight centuries ago have been under the plough, as the ridges
and furrows testify to this day. Land was then valued chiefly for
its capacity under tillage, and the best land would soonest be
brought under the plough.

Thus the 469,000 acres of arable which the Survey registers
must be compared not only with the 172,000 acres which in 1878
Foop Suprty oF FHE PoPpuLaTION. 229

were under grain, but also with the 169,000 acres which were
fallow, or under grasses or roots, this latter area representing the
fallow of the Domesday plough-lands ; and a certain amount of the
permanent pasture would likewise have to be brought into the
computation in order to make the comparison quite a fair one.
The 13,600 acres assigned to Orchards, Market Gardens, &c.,
represent forms of cultivation which had not been developed to
any appreciable extent at the date of the Survey, though of course
the curtilages adjoining the houses of the tenants would to a great
extent consist of this kind of ground.

FOOD SUPPLY OF THE POPULATION,

Mr. Thorold Rogers states (Work and Wages, p. 119) that
‘there were generally as many people existing in this country as
there have been on an average, quarters of wheat to feed them
with ;” and writing of the 13th and 14th centuries he estimates
that an acre of average land produced about a quarter of wheat.
This, however, would seem to be an over-estimate of its productive-
ness, for (p. 215) he relates that Walter de Henley writing before
the middle of the 13th century, says that 4/- per quarter for wheat
was an unremunerative price unless the crops exceeded six bushels
per acre. As the average price for the 280 years 1261—1540 is
5s. 11}d., the rate varying in ordinary years from 4s. 6d.—6s. 6d.,
we may probably take it that six bushels was a yield decidedly
better than the average, and that perhaps about five bushels to
an acre would have been a fair ordinary crop.

We have seen that land was cultivated either on the two-field
or the three-field system ; in the former case, half the arable was
under grain each year, in the latter, two-thirds was productive, the
remainder being in each case fallow. There is nothing to shew
which system was the more usual in Gloucestershire, if we suppose
them to have been equally distributed, then about 273,583 of the
469,035 arable acres would have been under grain each year. Of
course, however, all would not have been under wheat, but Mr,
Rogers shews (p. 59) that early in the 14th century about one-
third of certain estates belonging to Merton College, (which he
treats as typical ones) were under wheat each year ; if now we
230 DomrsLAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

apply this proportion to our Domesday acreage, we shall have
about 91,200 acres under wheat, which with a yield of five bushels
per acre would give about 57,000 quarters of wheat for the support
of an estimated population of 50,000, no very striking deviation
from the relation between supply and demand stated by Mr. Rogers.

The same proportions applied to the 577,530 arable acres of
Somerset shew about 70,250 quarters for an estimated population
of 71,500 ; while the 279,945 arable acres of Dorset would yield
about 34,000 quarters for a population estimated at 45,000 souls.
It is moreover a very striking coincidence that the 1,326,510 arable
acres in the three shires would afford about 161,180 quarters of
wheat for an estimated population of 166,500 souls, almost exactly
the proportion stated by Mr. Rogers to be the usual one. Dorset
was the most densely populated of the three shires, and its
resources had been more fully developed, it is possible therefore
that its acres would have produced a better average crop than those
of the other shires, and that the deficiency was not really so great
as it seems to be.

These figures are given of course only as a rough approximation
to the truth, and no doubt opinions will vary with regard to the
amount of confidence that should be placed in them; but they
accord so well with the indications of the record that they certainly
cannot be dismissed as altogether without foundation, the point
that will perhaps seem most open to objection is the very low
rate of yield allowed per acre, only 5 bushels as against perhaps
28 or 30 bushels at the present day. But it must be remembered
that neither artificial manures nor indeed any systematic manuring
at all had been then introduced, that no system of rotation of
crops was known, that the land was cropped with grain either
every alternate year or for two years out of three, that grain was
frequently sown on soil where no one would attempt to grow
cereals now, that the ground was probably foul with weeds whose
seeds were derived from the balks and fallow to an extent that
no decent farmer could imagine now-a-days, and above all that the
seed used eight centuries ago must have been immeasurably inferior
to our own ; and when due weight is given to each and all of these
Foop SuppLy or THE PoPpuLATION. 231

considerations it will not perhaps seem surprising that the yield is
reckoned at only one-fifth or one-sixth of what might be expected
now-a-days, or that a calculation based upon so low a yield should
bring out results which seem to accord so well with the condition
of things indicated by the entries in the Domesday Survey.

It appears from a series of experiments carried on at Rotham-
stead through more than forty years, that an acre of heavy loam
carefully tilled, but without the use of any manure, and sown with
wheat every year, produced an average crop of about 15 bushels
per acre. This, however, was with modern seed, on an excellently
ordered farm, from land whence weeds were carefully extirpated ;
the experiment therefore was carried on under very different
conditions to those of Domesday Agriculture. It seems by no
means improbable that with the inferior seed, and rough and
imperfect tillage, of eight centuries ago, the yield should only have
been one-third of that which is now obtained from un-manured
soil on the model farm at Rothamstead.
 

 

 

 

 

232 Domespay SuRVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
CELFLEDE HUNDRED.

MANOR OWNER T.R.E. DOMESDAY LORD
A | Heniberge Eccl. de Wincelciibe Eccl. de Wincelciibe
B | Merestone Eccl. de Coventrev Eccl. de Coventrev
c | Merestune Hugo de Grentemaisnil
D | Muceltude Eccl. de Eglesha Eccl. de Eglesha
E | Hidicote Eccl. de Wincelciibe Eccl. de Wincelcttbe
F | Cloptune Huscarle Will. Goizenboded
G | Estune Goda Comitissa Eccl. de Lanheie
H | Pebeworde Uluiet et Uluuard Rex
I i Duo teini Hugo de Grentemaisnil
J | Dorsintune Saxi Roger de Belmont
K | Quenintune UOnus teinus Hugo de Grentemaisnil
L 5 Balduin Do. do.
M |Edelmintone | Eccl. de Wincelciibe Eccl. de Wincelciibe
n | Westone Balduin Hugo de Grentemaisnil
0 | Wilcote Leuric Do. do.
P | Wenitone Unus tainus Will, Goizenboded
Q | Westone ae ee Ansfrid de Cormeliis
k | Nortune Duo taini Do. do.
s |Bichemerse Eddiet Rex
tT | Chiesnecote Leuuin et Leuui Durandus

WIDELES HUNDRED.
A | Bochelande 8. Petrus de Glow. S. Petrus de Glow.
B |Svvelle Eccl. de Evesham Eccl. de Evesham
c | Willersei vf % a 35
D | Westune ” ” ” i
E |Stoch 8 % $5 5
F |Capedene Heraldus Comes Hugo Comes
G | Langeberge Tovi Comes Moriton.
H 83 Elstan and Blacheman &| Humfrid Camer.
Edric and Alric. 4 Man.

1 | Bristentune Brismar Will. Goizenboded
3 |Chevringaurde 3 Radulph de Todeni
K | Hedecote Eccl. de Evesham Eccl. de Evesham
L |Condicote Eccl. de Wirecestre Eccl. de Wirecestre
M 3 Durandus
N |Connicote Brictric Will. Froisselew

 

 

 

 
Domespay SuRVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

KIFTSGATE HUNDRED.

233

 

 

 

 

 

 

TENANT. MODERN HUNDRED AND PARISH
Cow Honeybourne 1360) a
Marston Long 1680; B
» Broad, in Pebworth c
Mickleton D
Hidcote Bartram 3766) x
Clopton F
Ashton-sub Edge 755| @
Will. Goizenboded Pebworth 3050)
’ I
Robert Dorsington 910) gz
Quinton i K
Roger 7 4800) 1
Admington J M
Roger Weston-on-Avon \ 1060,
Clericus ejus Willicote J 0
Pebworth, Ullington Pp
Weston-sub-Edge Q
Norton House }26s2 R
Eddiet Bickmarsh in Welford s
Walter Seizencote T
20,013
KIFTSGATE HUNDRED,
Buckland 22701 a
Upper Swell 1460] B
Willersey 1344] c
Weston-on-Avon D
Lark Stoke 449] x
Campden 4660] F
Longborough \ 2770| &
” J it
Ebrington I
Roger Charingworth Boe0 J
Hidcote Boyce K
Osbern Condicote L
” ” 890 M
” N

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

234 DomespAyY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
CELFLEDE HUNDRED.
TEAMS
HIDAGE. aa : 5 : | van
HR OV.) OF BO a a{|o 8
8 a # |2@ 1/2 |rom. | 2/258 a
A 10 5 5 | 1200 1200
B 10 3 | 12 | 1800 | 10s. 1800
Cc 2
D 14 5 | 10 | 1800
E 2 1 120 3360
F 10 3 9 1 1440
G 4 3 34] 780 780
H 6 1 1 120 120
I 2 1 3]. 360 360
J 10 3 5 960 960
K 2 2 3 600
L 12 3 9 | 1440 3000
M 3 2 2 6 960
N 4 2 3 600 1}010 0
o| 2 2 2} 1] 360 \ nee
P 6 2 2 1 360 360
g | 10 a| 9 | 1560
nl] 6 4| 4] 960 2520
ei) 4 2 240 240
T 2 22, 2 240 240
121 2 52 | 804]15,900 | 15,900 1/010 0
WIDELES HUNDRED.
A 10 3 112 411800 | 10 1810
B 3 3 4 840 840 38)/1 0 0
Cc 8 3 6 | 1080 1080
D 4 2 480 480
E 2 1 2 360 360
F 15 6 | 21 | 3240 3240 910 6 2
e | 2 2] 1] 360 1
u| 4 4] 31 840 yp ee
I 10 4 | 14 | 2160 21015 0
x | 10 3| 6 | 1080 3480
K 3 1 1 240
L 2
M L 2
N 2 1 120 120

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
235

Domespay SURVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

CELFLEDE HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANOAAHUOMM HMA ZOMAOHR DE M9 0ARHOM 4H HHAER
HW 2
aA S
ga HH DHROMNMHOMKROKM HH OWA WOMORODOKR OD ON a
Bs AA oo me aaAe 4 A oA Seo Oe
om aoe
ae cy a
~~ oD o fas
HTTIONV | o a on ma NOR a 16
KR P| eas ca Ata oluaa ~H
TAUGS | mw OH ON ROH OHHH oon b a
- re
IALSI a 4
-NaHOd Va = fa
KR ON NOM
Ildvauor Oo Me HH ne AN x A wast [| N a
— IA
wd Aud oO NO m4 Oud bk at £9 20 oD cw
invita [232 QA BSCS ROCNIEN) ORS A B ure eee ee
mS
goa S09 02 8090 SOSOoOSooOCOO CoOojo e SOSDDO0SDDD oO oooCO
@ w|Ce SC SSS SSES99990 Solo SCSODOODOD Oo ooo OM
ut
BH Rl OO SD wx wWetoMmoNARO HM S POW ANON mM OANA
Ce SOSDDDD0DSD G0 CooSoO
bd y lee 2 eeSo Soo990909000 colo SCSoOSCoODCOD OC CoooO
BH Qlen 0 Mink OERRYKRADMOwW FA /]eo OHHHMNOTO NA DANN
re . oe oD re mw

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

236 Domerspay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
WIDELES HUNDRED.—Continued.

MANOR. OWNER T.R.E. DOMESDAY LORD.
o | Chesnecote Goduin Walter Diaconus
P | Cheisnecote Eluuin Urso de Wirecestre
Q 3 Uluuin Hascott Musard
R | Cheisnecot Aluui Humfrid de Medehal
s | Svineberie Chenuicelle Rex
T | Beceshore Brismer Ansfrid de Cormeliis
u | Wenecote Wenric Will. Camer.

CHEFTESIHAT HUNDRED.
a | Langeberge, | Rex. Rex.
cum uno mem-
bro Mene
GRETESTANES HUNDRED.

A | Tueninge Eccl: de Wincelctibe Eccl. de Wincelciibe
B | Freolintune 5 a4 is 3
c | Aldritone 5 zm 3 3
D | Niwetone “ a 5 9
E | Stantone 5 - i ‘
F | Cerletone ss 5 = 5
G | Dubentone Eccl. de Abendone Eccl. de Abendone
H | Dunbentune | Sauuin Will. Goizenboded
1 | Heile Osgot Will. Leuric
x | Wermetun Eduui Roger de Laci
K | Wicuene Balduin Robert Dispensator
L | Estune Ernesi Hascott Musard
M | Poteslepe Godric Ansfrid de Cormeliis
n | Litentune Godric Will. Froisselew
o | Litetune Leuenot Durandus

 

 

 

 
DomeEsDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE. 237

KIFTSGATE HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TENANT. MODERN HUNDRED AND PARISH.

Sezincot o
” 1413 | *
” Q
” R
Hascott Musard Saintbury 1336 | 5
Batsford 932 | op
Wincote in Quinton U

20,484

KIFTSGATE HUNDRED.
Longborough
KIFTSGATE HUNDRED.

Twining 3155] a
Frampton (in Winchcombe) B
Quidam Miles Alderton 1750| c
Duo Milites Naunton (in Winchcombe) D
Stanton 1650| &
Charlton Abbots 2190) F
Dumbleton 2139) &
? H
Hayles 1520) 1
Walter f. Ercold Wormington 560] 3
Childs Wickham 1822/ k
Aston Somerville 993} L
Postlip (in Winchcombe) M
Littleworth _,, 4 N
Radulf ” ” ” °

Winchcombe 5700

21,479

 

 

 
235 Domespay SuRVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

WIDELES HUNDRED.—Continued.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TEAMS.
HIDAGE. aes a z , | VALUE
wv of 2/2788 | 9] 8 | tom | 8
S| 818.8 | S| & |acrzace] § [£8 d
ep + 2 2 | 6 | 960
pP| 1 1 120
ol 4 1 | 120 1440
rR | 1 2 240
s | 10 3| 9 11440 1440 | 1/0 0 6
t| 8 3| 6 }1080 1080
u| 3 3| 1] 480 480
| 98 2 47 | 95 117,040] 10 17,050 | 8/2 1 8
CHEFTESIHAT HUNDRED.
al 8 3 | 6 {1080 1,080 | 10 5 0
GRETESTANES HUNDRED.
4 | 3 2 | 27} 3480 | 40 | 20 | 3540
ei) 4 4 480 480
ae| 2 8 2| 3] 600 600
mo) 3 2 3| 6 | 1080 1080
ei 8 2] 711080] 6 |720| 1806
ry | 2 1| 4] 600] 2 602 | 1$0 1
a| % 2 4] 8 | 1440 1440 | 1/0 6 0
H 1
| ll 3] 8 | 1320 720| 2040 | 10 10 0
z| 8 2] 2] 480 | 10 490 | 1]o 8 0
x | 10 3 | 12 | 1800 | 10 1810 | 2|010 0
fo | 8 3 | 4] 840] 20 860 | 1/0 8 0
am || 2) 21 480 1440] 1920 | 2|0 15 0
x} 1 2 240 240 | 1lo 4 0
o 2 1 120 120
60 34 | 83 ]14,040| 88 |2900| 17,028] 10 |3 2 8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
339

Domespay SuRVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

WIDELES HUNDRED.—Continued

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ooneog ne Dp 4 Mo0oA ARS mos P=] Aaa
<
438 a
aa Otee one | a ° ODwmMmMotby GAO DW MEOW a
od a aan or) at ~ AQnaN of or) a4 om
aS s
Lsalyd of Bea 4
=| & :
I uw so an —H ao
WTIIONY (i a a} roe}
— S Qa
Onn oo wd co sH =H wo mwt ooo ow an ce wom oD
IAUgs | = | cast Oo 5 a m4 | al
—
TaLst a 4 o
LNaHOGVY = a 3
= mad on oO oO H co co AN re Oo
iravauoa 3 = a ia = Maen S
R a
oO non |x i ° RQ +H ANHHM AO A A
INVTTIA ie o} ale of] a aS oa =
mo a = aa)
= Plosccood OSOC]oO fx °o a COooOoOOoOoCooo OG eooSo )
. Oo
ss n Soon ooo | Oo S CoODCOCOONDSDG OG COCO nN
re re HF Pe gt nm
~~ Rimoso oot] a
7 = os bs KARAM DOO SS otH oe as
i ge }oosce ooo }]}o oeecesconoo os occ So =)
. nw | eres eeo le ecocooocoscooo oO eoooSo o
ia] ae “ ce
5 aOaond NO = Oca Ao AN fo} AN
Fs Q a |x Tar GA oy O19 NO Ree

 
240 DomeEspay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

 

 

MANOR OWNER 1.R.E. DOMESDAY LORD
Sudlege Radulf Comes Rex
Todintun Radulf Comes Herald f. Radulf.

 

 

 

TEDBOLDSTANE HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

A | Beceford Roflesc Huscarle Rex
Cc | Pistons Turbertus tein. Com. Rex.
Herald.

D : Hinetune 8. Petrus de Glow. S. Petrus de Glow.
E | Clive Eccl. de Wirecestre Eccl. de Wirecestre
F | ” ” ” ”
G ” ” ” ”
H ” ;, Surham ” ” ” ”
I | », Sapletone ay a 5 55
Jy os Godrinton ee 3 . 4
K | bed Stoches ” ” 2 ”

C1ILTEHA HUNDRED.
A | Chinteneha Rex. Rex.
B ) bi ”
Cc a ” ”
p | Svindone Stigand Archiep. 8. Oswald, Glow.
E | Presteberie Eccl. de Hereford Eccl. de Hereford
F | Lechantone | Osgot Will. Leuric
eG | Lechametone| 2 Hid. Brictric, 2 Hid. Rex.

Ordric.

 

 
DomrEspAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

241

 

TENANT.

MODERN HUNDRED AND PARISH.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Herald f, Rad. Comitis.) Sudeley 2622 | a
Toddington 1857 | B
4479
TIBALDSTONE & CLEEVE HUNDREDS.

Beckford 2641 | a
Ansfrid de Cormeliis 5 B
Ashton-under-Hill 1640 | c
Hinton-on-the-Green 2198 | p
Bishop’s Cleeve ] 5
Presbyter ¥s 44 F
Radchen. $3 | G
Durandus Vicecomes | Southam 18150] a
Radulf. I
Turstin f. Rolf Gotherington | BI
Bernard et Raynald Stoke Archer J K

14,629

CHELTENHAM HUNDRED.

Cheltenham | A
Ecclesia + j 4203] B
” c
Thomas Archiep. Swindon 721) D
Prestbury 3022) &
Leckhampton F
Brictric 5 } net G

Charlton Kings 3170

13,016

 

 

 
242

DomrspAay SURVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TEAMS a
HIDAGE. a | im ale VALUE
S |B 1&5 | & | = jacrgrace] & '£ 8s. d
a} lo 4 | 13 ] 2040 8640] 10,680 | 6 |2 12 0
B | 10 3} 8 | 1320 1320 | 2{1 00
20 7/21] 3360; (8640) 12,000 | 8 3 12 0
TEDBOLDESTANE HUNDRED.
i 3) 30 1 3960
p | 3 5 | 600 4560
c | 8 4} 6 | 1200 1200
p | 15 2| 16 | 2160 2160
z | 30 3 | 16 | 2280 al
rl] l 2 240 >
«| 1 2 240 é
u | 6 5280
1 | 4 8 | 13 | 2520 | alig. | ilo i 9
J 6
K 7 J
92 24 | 86 [13,200 13,200 | 1/0 1 0
CILTEHA HUNDRED.
a a) 3718 | 2520 )
pn | 1 2 2 240 2880 | 2/0 11 8
c 1 120 3 |
| 21 7 | 1080 | 1080
x | 10 3] 11 | 1680 | 20 | 720] 2420
r | 3 2} 1]| 360 TOL ge,
« | 4 1} 3] 480 40 \
30 14 | 40 | 6480 | 20 | 770] 7270: | 5 0 11 8

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
DoMESDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

243

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

m Bee s TOTAL
T R E T R. W a 4 q a a 3
a|8 |a#| 8/5 MALES
£8. al& sale] 8 ils a | 4
18 7/17 (lib. 33 A
_ hom.
400 0146 © OIF) *F 515 | 2 31 B
40 0 0/40 0 0|35| 15 12/12] 2 64
TEDBOLDESTANE HUNDRED
| 32, 17 I] 4 63 A
30 0 0| 12 12 B
| 10 | 4 g| 4 29 c
FR.
3p Olid O ol30| 7 11 1 49 D
afrus
16 | 19 8 1 44 E
F
G
36 0 0126 0 0 ane H
92 | 7 20 3 5a I
J
K
39 0 0166 0 0O| 124] 54 | 59 s| 5| 242
CILTEHA HUNDRED.
20 10 | 7 PR. 37 A
9 5 0/20 0 0 1 i be
> 4 6 Cc
30 0] 410 0| 7] 2 4 13. |b
_ PR. | BW.
1 © 6136 GO elie! 6) a) else 1 1) 1s is
200| 2 0 0!] 2] 8 4 14 |F
110 0 9 91 4 ti le
2% 5 0/44 0 0| 49/38] 1/23] 6} 2] 1{ 114

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

R 2

 
244

DoMESDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

HOLEFORDE HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MANOR OWNER T.R.E. DOMESDAY LORD
A |Snawesille Eccl. de Wincelciibe Eccl. de Wincelciibe
B |Rawelle Uuluuard Eccl. 8. Ebrulf
c |Fernecote Aluuin Will. Goizenboded
D |Getinge Rex e 3
E |Cateslat Aluuin ee
F |Getinge Brictric tein. R.E. Roger de Laci
G |Getinge Guluert, Tovi, et Tur- | Uxor Geri de Loges
bern pro 3 M.
H | Hallinge Goda Comitissa Sigar de Cioches
1 |Pignocsire Alwold Rex
TEODECHESBERIE HUNDRED.
A |Teodechesberie| Brictric, son of Algar Rex
B|,, Sudwicha
c |,, Trotintune
p|,, Waltone
E|,, Fitentone
F |,, Pamintonie
G|,, Natone
u|,, Estone
I
J |,, Estone 1 Radchen. 5
K|,, Waltone ” ” ”
L|,, Fitentone ‘5 ” ”
m},, Oxendone
n|,, Fortemeltone
o|,, Hanlege
P| ,, Senendone
Q},, Clifort

 

 

 
KIFTSGATE HUNDRED.

Domespay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

 

MODERN HUNDRED AND PARISH.

 

 

 

 

 

 

TENANT
Snowshill 2294) a
Roel 1640] B
Goisfrid Farmcote C
Lower Guiting 3629] p
Castlett E
Temple Guiting 6180] F
G
Hawling 1867| a
Alwold Didbrook and Pinnock 2578) 1
. 18,188
TEWKESBURY HUNDRED.
Tewkesbury \ 2619) a
» Southwick J B
»  Tredington 101ljc
» Walton Cardiff 632) D
»  Fiddington in Ashchurch E
»  Pamington ,, Pe F
»  Natton 53 $3 4944 @
»  AstononCarant ,, H
I
Girard » Aston on Carant J
Radulf, » Walton Cardiff K
Bernard »  Fiddington L
»  Oxenton 1050)
»  Forthampton 2440) x
5 Hanley 0
Robert de Olgi »  Shenington P
Roger de Busli », Clifford Chambers 2500] q

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

246 DomEsDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
HOLEFORDE HUNDRED.
TEAMS >
HIDAGE. a |g 48 3 a roan | 3 VALUE
ie % a

H Vv. OF. S A) ee |e S ACREAGE 5 oe ae
A|7 3 6 | 1080 1080
B10 4 6 | 1200 1200
c| 3 2| 4} 720
p {10 4 5 | 1080 2040 2!014 0
E| 2 2 240 1/0 5 0
F {10 5 | 18 | 2760 silval 2760 3/1 4 0
G| 4 1 3 180 180
H {10 3 9 | 1440 silva} 1440
1| 4 4 4 960 60 1020 1/0 2 6
60 28 | 523 9660 60 | 9720 | 71/2 5 6

TEODECHESBERIE HUNDRED.

A \45 12 1440 1440 2/1 0 0
B/| 3
c| 6
D| 3
E| 6
F| 8
«!3 2 31 | 3720 |120 13240) 7080
H| 6
I 1 120 120
3/6
K| 3 10 1 | 1320 | 18 1338
L| 2
M| 5 5 7 | 1440 } 24 1464
n/ 9 2 240 silva 240
o| 4 2 240 silva 240 1/0 1 4
P {10 4 8 | 1440 1440 1/0 3 0
Q!7 3 6 | 1080 2 1082 1/012 0

 

 

 

 
247

DomESDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

HOLEFORDE HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<9 ° aw fu ma SMO0ARHOMT RMA = zm oN e
‘s
BTV Siri gs OR Ot OOK | a Oo mw Oo OO HAN
tyvior | AN 4 H oa AN | ~H Oo mS a) GR. OSH GAGS
ri
Ea uN =H
4 =)
eo Bo Fade Go bo
Feu i] fo) ‘ i) mc
—— 8 :
oe ea N Yen) Eon oa
AY ay e 5 a al
Z
®TTIONV a
a oD OV wD
fo fio  f D|(a CS eee 1
e 1 = aa
tagag | © o9 (ie. fer aa lo o 01a cs L& LS ms Leo Len Law bn
a —
TaLsI “ R a a a Xo
-NEHOCVY fe a
AQ
luvasog | AS 1p 1 | R © 4 4 a
a <3) = (= (os
5
fe io} sH —H Ld ra oO
INVTTA | SS 1S Se a a =i lo loco ~
—] A
ze glee Sf eS S59 5 olo 3 ° ° o Oo ooo
r : aH
G ul[Ce © SS So cS o 2 o ° o oOo oso
2O 7) ODO On wo win
H SR o pe oe = S o mo SMS
ag twlerc Sf so So 3 S756 So ro) So oOo SsSco
o
gf uwlee © SS SOD Oo ofo ° oO So oOo ooo
S
3 12S Oo om a on 7
BOS ae. ce ae gee ne — OP eS Se

 
248 DoMmEsDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

TEODECHESBERIE HUNDRED.—Continued.

 

MANOR OWNER T.R.E. DOMESDAY LORD

 

Hoc Manerium tenuit Brictric filius Algar T.R.E. et has subscriptas

 

R |Essetone Unus teimus

s |Chenemertone | Let

tT |Botintone

vu |Wenecote Unus teinus

v |Aldritone Duning

w |Drieledone Duning

x |Hundeuuic Unus teinus

y |Tuninge 4 villeini

z |Stoches Hermer et Aluuin

 

 

 

|

 

Hee subscripta terra pertinet Ecclesia de Teodekesberie.

 

Stanwege
Tatintone
Limentone
Waseborne
Fitentone
Atone
Stanlege

Qa tvaAaw Pp

 

 
DomEspaY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE, 249

TEWKESBURY HUNDRED.—Continued.

 

TENANT.

MODERN HUNDRED AND PARISH

 

terras aliorum teinorum ipso tempore in sua potestate habuit.

 

Girard Ashton-under Hill R
Girard Kemerton 1630 | s
Girard Boddington 2155 |v
Rainaldus Capellanus | Wenecote, in Clifford Chambers U
Hunfrid Alderton (Prescott) 482 |v
Hunfrid ‘a (Dixton) Ww
Hunfrid x
Johan. Camerar. Twining Y
Bernard Stoke Archer Z
18,763

 

Less Hanley and Shenington| a

 

 

 

Stanway \ 3390 | a
Taddington B
Lower Lemington 856 !c
Great Washbourne 470 |p
Fiddington E
Natton F
Stanley Pontlarge 960)
5676

 

 
250

DomMESDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

TEODECHESBERIE HUNDRED.—Continued.

 

TEAMS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HIDAGE. oy als VALUE
a aie} se8]2) 8 | ror | 4
S| 8 |&P | 2 | & lacrzace| 3 l£ s a

R| 4 1) 1) 240 240
s| 8 3) 5 | 960 960 | 3/015 0
| 3 2| 3]600 | 8 608 |} 1/0 8 0
vl} 3 2} 60 60
vi 6 2
wl 4 2 4| 4] 960 | 12 972
x 1
y| 2 2 4 480 | 3 483
z| 2 3 1 120 | 4 124

161 3 53 | 673/14,460| 191/3240]17,891 | 9/219 4
al 14 6| 8| 1,680,  |silval 1680 | 2/0 4 4
iS 47 | 593/ 12,780, 191/3240]16,211 | 7/215 0
“19 2] 8/1200} 8] 30] 1238
Bi 4 2| 21 480 480
c| 3 2} 4{ 720 720
| 3 2} 3] 600 600
ar 2 2] 240 240
el fe 1 120 120
a| 4 2 1/ 2| 360 360

24 2 10 | 21 | 3720 | 8 | 30] 3758

 

 

 

 

 

 
251

TOTAL
MALES

BAH pr EK HN

 

HROAAES

 

280
73

 

 

TTIONV

IAWUaS

TaLst

Ilavauor

-NEHOGVa

 

TEODECHESBERIE HUNDRED.

Domespay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

INVITIA

Eo Od
a
a

s.

. R.
Ss

 

09 Hd 6O 6D Oo
OD ro

 

6

 

2

 

 

‘1 | cou.

[88

 

 

lmawe

5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

aad HK
Yen}
Oo Ow
Qn
be 19
mH
ont Ne)
ON oO
GN SH SH OD me rc
r on wo
mo
ooo Oo oo oo Oo
ooo o lao IQ oO as
Lal mo mt
aon oO mo Dew —
on a
o
ooco o oo oo oO
ooco°o Oo Ia Oo IQ ad
me el rr
NwWoao rc mo o1w wo
me Co ie}
a eo

AOD eid nN
Daowor oD
mo

oooococ°o°o
oooooo°o
are

rl nANoon

 

 

 

 

 

oooc°o °
ooo°oco Oo
mo

DODO H

81

 

 

2410 0 19 0 0] 37 JE 32| 3| 2
252 DomEsDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

DERHESTE HONDRED.

 

MANOR,

OWNER T.R.E.

DOMESDAY LORD.

 

Derheste

», Herdeuuic
», Bortune

», Leodeha

», Sudtune

 

Boome

S. Petrus Westmonast.

”

”

”

”

 

S. Petrus Westmonast.

De terra hujus Manerii tenebant Radchenistri, id est liberi homines

 

», Almundestan
», Telinge

5, Wicfeld

;, Loteham

;, Bortune

», Chinemertune
», Giuingtune

», Lereige

», Lrinleie

», Lrinelei

», Chinemertune
», Hasfelde

», Leminingtune
;, Mortune

,, Chenemertune
,, Botingtune

<qdRanMBOvoOwewrRY4ePay

 

», Botingtune }

Brictric -
Godric
Eduui
Eduui

Uluui

Leuuin
Eluui
Leuuin
Edric
Edric
Eluuin
Brictric
Ava
Elfrid

 

 

 
DomeEsDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

253

WESTMINSTER HUNDRED.

 

TENANT.

MODERN HUNDRED AND PARISH.

 

 

Deerhurst 2930 |a
Hardwick in Elmstone 2613) | B
Bourton-on-the-Hill 2960| | c
Todenham 2477 | pd
Sutton Brailes 1135

 

T.R.E. qui tamen om

nes ad opus domini arabant, et herciabant,

 

Reinbald

Walter Pontherius
Girard

Will. £. Baderon

|

| patauin Abbas
Turstin f. Rolf
Gislebert f. Turold
Elfrid

\eirard Camerar.

Elmstone | F
Elings in Tirley |G
Wightfield Court | H
Todenham jl
Boddington J
Bourton-on-the-Hill lk
Kemerton iL
Evington M
Harridge in Corse 'N
Tirley ‘ 1840 0
Tirley /P
Kemerton Q
Hasfield 1417 |
Upper Lemington 1s
Moreton-in-the-Marsh 900 |
Kemerton }

in Tewkesbury Hundred te

Boddington f

16,272 |

 

 
254 DomEsDAY SURVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

DERHESTE HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HIDAGE. TEAMS a z
2) 2 3 2 ToTAL | wm | VALUE
H Ov. 6K] 2 | e a.) 8 3
: ‘| @ | & < g | S |ACREAGE] 4
SS S an s [£5 d.
Al 5 3 | 10 | 1560 | 60 1440 3060
B| 5 7}
c| 8 13 | 21 | 4080 | 20 | 750) 4850 4} 1
p| 7
E| 5
falcabant et metebant.
F {1 )
G|2
H{l
1 {1 (
gz 2
K |2
L 2
Mil 1 Ljl14 | 7 | 2220 | 20 2240
N 2
oO 2 2
P 2 2
Q 2
R {1 2
s |3
T 2
a omit
v here
273] 38 | 7860 eee 10,150 4/1 00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Domxespay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

DERHESTE HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

es a |e a
TTR E |1 BR W.| 2] Sle a |e TOTAL
S/e/eel E/E] @ MALES
a a |QA4| gw 5 a
esa/enale|slsisl2le
10 0 O 10 0 0] 20 8 6 34 A
B
45 | 27 37 109 c
D
E
F
G
H
41 0 0 40 0 0 I
J
K
L
14 | 27 14 55 M
N
0
P
Q
R
8
T
U
iy
41 0 0 40 0 0] 79 | 62 57 198

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

256 DomMESDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIKE,
DERHESTE HUNDRED.

MANOR OWNER T.R.E. DOMESDAY LORD

A | Hochinton 8. Dionysius Parisii 8. Dionysius Parisii

B | Staruenton re 5 re 53

c | Colne & Caldecot 3 55 53 ‘5

p | Contone ¥j ‘3 5 Hs

u | Preston 5 53 5 33

F | Welleford . 5 3 35

«| De hac terra ” ” ” ”

supradicta

nH | Ultra Savernam 5 5 9 ”

I Olsendone 5 = ig on

J Lalege » ” ” ”

K | Valton ” ” » ”

L | Caneberton ” ” ” ”

SALMANESBERIE HUNDRED.
A| Sclostre Rex Rex
B| Sclostre Offa et Leuuin Roger de Laci et mater
ejus
c | Otintune and S. Petrus de Glow. Thomas Archieps
Condicote

pD| Scireburne Eccl. de Winceletbe | Eccl. de Wincelcibe

E| Bladintun +5 : 35 + 3)

F | Malgeresberie & | Eccl. de Evesha Eccl. de Evesha
Eduuardestou ” ”

G | Tedestrop 3) 53 ” ”

H| Bortune ” ” » ,

1 | Bradewelle i 33 » ”

3 | Icctibe Haldene Roger de Laci

K| Icibe Radulf de Todeni

L| Iccibe Turstan Durandus de Glow.

M| Risedune Aluuard, Aschil, Roger de Laci

 

 

Aluuard, et Uluui,p.
iv. Man.

 

 
DoMESDAY SUKVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE. 257

DEERHURST HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

TENANT. MODERN HUNDRED AND PARISH.

Uckington 880 ja

Staverton 758 |B

Coln 8. Denys 2430 | c

Little Compton 1800 |p

Preston-on-Stour 1990 |&8

Welford 8550 | F

G

Oorse ? (and the Haw) 2190 |u

Wolston 787 I

The Leigh 1720 |3

Deerhurst Walton K

Kemerton L

16,105
SLAUGHTER HUNDRED.

Slaughter Lower 1140 /|a

Slaughter Upper 1390 |B

Oddington and Condicote 1660 jc

Sherborne 4560 |p

Bledington 1110 |x

Maugersbury by Stow 3130 |r

Adlestrop 1285 |e

Bourton-on-the-Water 2280 Ju

Broadwell 1600 I

Radulf Combe Baskerville } 1503 | 2
Roger or Westcote j K
Walter Icomb Place 440 [4
Hugo Rissington Little 1300 |u

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

258 Domerspay SuRvEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
DERHESTE HUNDRED.
TEAMS =
HIDAGE. e a a 5 TOTAL VALUE.
al|/® | <H}]a}]a 4.
aCe cee & | S |ACREAGE| 3
H. Vv. Cc. S a ao S = Ss £s d
Al 5 ]
B| 3
c| 5 ( 15 | 39 | 6480 | 36 [4200) 10,716 4 0 0
p| 12 {
E| 10 |
F/ 15 J |
G| 4 2 f
H| 2 2
I 5
J 1 5 9 | 1680 | 38 | 120) 1838
K| 1
L 2 J
64 2 20 | 48 | 8160 | 74 /43820) 12,554 4 0 0
SALMANESBERIE HUNDRED.
A| 7 4 9 | 1560 | 10s. 1560 210 138 4
B| 3 4 480 480 1|0 12 0
c| 10 2 | 14 | 1920 1920
pj} 30 5 | 22 | 3240 | 30 3270 4;2 0 0
eE| 7 2 5 840 | 30 870 1/0 5 0
F| 9 3 7 | 1200 1200 1};0 8 0
c| 7 2 5 840 | papum. 840
H| 10 6 74, 1620 1620
1| 10 6 | 12 | 2160 2160
J 2 2 1 360
x| 10 3| 7 | 1200 }1560
L| 2 2 1 360 360
m| 8 7 2 | 1080 1080 1}010 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
259

Domrspay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

DERHESTE HUNDRED.

TOTAL
MALES.

qAMAOUARHUmMr HMA

 

125
2

154

 

 

WITIONV

2

 

 

IAS

 

IULSI
-NaHOGdVa

38
30

5

lib.h.| B.G. | B.W.
1

lib.h.

38

6

 

Iayauor

12
18

 

INVITIA

75
5

 

eE so
a

ae ®

30 0 0

 

 

 

26 10 O

 

26 10 0 | 30 0 0] 80 | 30

 

SALMANESBERIE HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<2 0 ARH GD Bw HRM vs
AN NN OOO FY © MON KHRO
On NN DOAN HN DMD AN =
zy
a
oH
[--}
gn =n
ZH 84 EN 4
S = Er
oa on}
fcore
~~ co eco oH tH oO Leo oa
= ec
a
on + Rh A DO DAN A
—e
a Co ODN OD O© 0NN NYS
toe oH rt ae mt nN vt
oo Oo ooo oO oO ooo oo
oo oO ooo oO oO ooo oD
eo OC +MF 10 N AND AR
N re cm se fem
Oo oO ooo oO oO ooo oo
o oO ooo oO oO ooo oo
_
eo Sis t+ OO WONDO HO

s 2

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

260 DomeEspay SURVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
SALMANESBERIE HUNDRED.—Continued.
MANOR. OWNER T.R.E. DOMESDAY LORD
nj Risendone Ulf Robert de Todeni
o| Risendune Siuuard Robert de Oilgi
P| Svelle Ernesi Will. de Ow
Q| Svelle Ernesi Radulf de Todeni
R | Niwetone Turstan Osbern f. Ricardi
s | Niwetone Eilmer Rex
Tt | Ailewrde Aluuin Will. Goizenboded
u| Eleurde Aluuia Gislebert f. Turold
v| Hurford Alser Gislebert f. Turold
w| Callicote Aluuin Will. Goizenboded
x | Aiforde Ernesi Hascott Musard
y | Lechetone Ordric Humfrid Cocus
z| Iactibe Eccl. de Wirecestre Eccl. de Wirecestre
BERNITONE HUNDRED.
A| Bernitone Tovi Widensci, Hus- | Rex
carle Com. Heraldi
B| Bernitone Eilmer Rex
c}| Bernitone Aluuin ‘Will. Goizenboded
D| Bernitone Turstan et Eduui Rex
E| Wenric Wluric Roger de Laci
F Wenric Bolle tenuit et Ab- | Eccl. de Wincelcibe
batie dedit
G| | Wenric Wluric, Tovi, et Leuuin| Rex
Widiforde S. Oswald de Glow. S. Oswald de Glow.
H|*Wenric Godric Roger de Laci

 

 

 

 
Domrspay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE. 261

SLAUGHTER HUNDRED.—Continued.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TENANT MODERN HUNDRED AND PARISH

Rissington Great 2420 |[N
Rissington Wick 1140 |o
Swell Lower } P
Drogo Swell Lower 1670 |Q
Roger de Olgi Naunton R
Cuenild Monialis Naunton s
Aylworth 3106 |r
Walter Aylworth U
Harford v
Rannulf Westfield in Lower Guiting w
Eyeford 1380 |x
Osbern deKeresburg ten. Y

Clapton 783
De victu Monachorum | Church Icomb 530 | 2

32,427

SLAUGHTER HUNDRED.

Elsi de Ferendone, | Barrington Great 2983 {a

7 | Little 925
Godwin de Stantone | Barrington r B
Radulf Barrington | c
Walter f. Roger Barrington D
Radulf Windrush . 1710 | &
Elsi de Ferendone [ Windrush F
Elsi de Ferendone | winarish G

5618

Rannulf Widford (in Oxfordshire) 564

Hugo Windrush H

 

 

 
262 DomESDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

SALMANESBERIE HUNDRED.—Continued.

 

 

 

 

TEAMS. =

HIDAGE, s a A } : TOTAL a VALUE,

ale )s88 | 2 | 8 |acrmace| 4

i Yow PS | 8 Se ale &|£ sd
n 13 3 | 10] 1560 1560 1/010 0
o 10 4} 5] 1080 1080 10 0
ep 3
q@ 7 4] 6, 1200 |1200 1|/0 7 6
R 5 2) 43} 780 )
s 9 4} 6 | 1200 | 1/0 5 0
t 1 1 120 L| 3060
vu 4 2! 2| 480 |
vol 2| 2| 480 J 1/0 5 0
w 3 3 360 360
x 5 2} 5) 840 840
y 1 1 120 120
z 1 2} 2) 480) 12 492

178 78 135 |25,560) 72 25,632 16 | 5 15 10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BERNITONE HUNDRED.

 

 

1
4| 4 a| 51 840 ) 110 5 0
|
| 2% 1| 41 600 r| 3146 | y/o 5 9
cl 2 1 1200] 6| | Tho 3-4
p| 8 4| 9] 1560| 20] | I]010 0
a 1| ¥| 240! to eo) Elo e
v| 3 2 5| 11 790 12/0 12 6
al Ss: 2 5) 1] 720 13,012 6
93 9 14 | 20 | 4080 | 36 4116 | 631% 1 4
2 2| 2| 480] 8 4s8 | 1/010 0
=|) 4 1 120 | 8 128 | 1/0 3 0

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
263

Domespay SURVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

SALMANESBERIE HUNDRED.— Continued.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ZOnom 2H Der F HH N < BONE AR. -& a
38
<
eA
< an CHO HH Oe HH RH DO] a Onto © 1d St eD
Ss ON et Ll mm A ae a pa om a om
ase alm
nN :
cr co
3 oo Au
crs .
@ TION oo a
[= [< (s ‘ {os oD oa
ee
IAMS Lessee tees lediea lai (a sH eo Z, sH ©o ee a g sre
= >
TULSI a“ an
-NHHOCVa ra
r
luvayod oN cl aH oN 9 A ww on) Aam MLO mn
cf
Invi1a|] SSN Ge? & co xH a 1m m Ss Mer A [ig ms
na a
~ wl eeeco oo 90 OS ° eS So eoS9000 colooso
3
=
. -| ©FC9000 oF CGO SC oo ~H ° So So000 oloox
& n rt mc
3 Q omMNOorn In Oo aN nN —sH © ~~ oo NO HO wo Qo eS
a — 1D on
ret
e 7 coooo oD SFSO oO ° ° ooco a. |o oo
= os
& of cOoo°o oMp CO 6 © ° ooco ol]oox
eq RQ ANON moO aN oD ty e ID NAO on) oO Ne
ee ol oD

 
DoMEspDAY SctRVE£Y OF GLOUCYSTERSHIRE.

BECHEBERIE HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

MANOR OWNER T.R.E. DOMESDAY LORD
A| Aluredintune Chenvichelle tein. R.E.| Rex
B | Becheberie Eccl. de Wirecester Eccl. de Wirecestre
c ” ” ” ” ”
D ” ” ” ” ”
E | Bernesleis 53 33 9 -
F ae Eb ” ted a”
G | Aldesorde S. Petrus de Glow. 8. Petrus de Glow.
H| Aldeswrde Balchi Rex
BRADELEGE HUNDRED.
A Balduin f. Herluuin | Rex
B| Lecce Eldred Archieps ten. | 8. Petrus de Glow.
cum Abbatia
c| ,, Tormentone | Jacuitin Lecce T.R.E.
D| ,, Stanuelle
E| ,, Culberlege
F | Cuntune Stigand Archieps Thomas Archieps.
G ”
H| Turghedene Osgot Will. Leuric
1 | Turchedene Siuuard Robert de Oilgi
3 | Hantone Eldred Archieps Roger de Iveri
K| Salpretune Uuluuard Hugo Lasne
L | Winestune Edric, Leuric, Elric Ansfrid de Cormeliis
mu | Hasedene Goda Sigar de Cioches
nw} Teneurde Goda Sigar de Cioches

 

 

 

 
DoMESDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

BRIGHTWELLS BARROW HUNDRED.

265

 

TENANT.

MODERN HUNDRED AND PARISH.

 

 

 

 

 

Roger Comes tenuit Arlington A
Bibury 6300 |B
Tres Radchenistri 53 c
Presbyter 5 D
Durandus Barnsley 2075 |B
Eudo 3 F
Aldsworth 3460 |G
Elward f. Reinbald 5 H

11,835

BRADLEY HUNDRED.
Eps Baioésis tenuit A
Northleach 3460 |B
Walter f. Pontii 3 Farmington 2470 |c
ce Stowell 823 |p
+ Coberly E
Compton Abdale 2215 |F
Homo Roger de Ivrei 55 G
Goiffrid Turkdean 1890 jn
Turkdean

Hampnett 1406
Salperton 1210 |x
Winson 1190 iL
Hazleton 2530 ju
-Yanworth 1340 [wn

Coln Rogers 1508

20,042

 

 

 
266

DomeEspaY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

BECHBERIE HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HIDAGE. eas a e vere
a ta! cet TOTAL
wo ov. BL Be < < S ACREAGE 3
aie) a | ele BJfs a
8 4} 6 {| 1200 720 |} 211 00
| .
p| 21 11 | 1800 | 10 . 4690
o| 4 4] 480
p| 3 4] 480 J
r| 3 1 5 | 61 1320 1320
F 1 3
e| 11 3 | 15 | 2160 2520
H| 2 1| 2] 360 }
51 V7 | 48 7,800 | 10 | 720 8530 | 2/1 0 0
BRADELEGE HUNDRED.
al] 10 2] 6| 960 960 | 2]1 0 0
p| 24 4 | 30 | 4080 210 7 4
al 12 2 | 12 | 1680 peep
D 2/ 5] 840 ilo 3 4
E
r| 9 2/11/1560) 5 1565 | 1/0 5 0
c| 3
ne] 5 1 2 1] 120
1320
1| 5 2 2| 4] 6 | 1200
x| 10 31 5] 960 960
x| 10 3/ 71] 1200] 5 1205
L| 5 4| 5 | 1080 "15 1095 |1 ]o 7 6
uw! 10 3110] 1560 silval 1560
nl] 5 31 7 {| 1200 6o| 1260 |1 |o 3 4
109 32 1105 |16,440| 25 | 6o |16,525 | 812 6 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
267

DomEsvAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

BECHEBERIE HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“ MoUARHRUEA
Hn
ae Se ROARK HR TR
Oo < nN nN N oD me
Bs a
or Sa on
LSalad me 3
=
W TION (eps eS
IAUTS| L ao L © a Ore SS
IULSI 5 a
LNT HOaVa
luvaaogd| 7 EY |S
INvITIA, SN & oye
2 os ° coo lo
‘ a Oo oo};o
m& eo pa
« aR ao Oro ~
a rt N
So Sos TS
-
e ° colo
: ou
a ce wa bo
* re
a fc ae
peered

 

BRADELEGE HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

49 OAR HEGMH “Hh Bw ABD
OD Om NA MW OM Fe WOM a
rm ud AN oD mao re mam N lw
ol
=O a
ae 7
rm me on o ~~
" ee 5
=
wet OHH OD [ties Leo lis ~ New
ri 3.
1D co iG 4 _ + ON ©
aa oF
eo 19109 A N ND OO AHH of
eo 3 an aos a a ©
ees =
oo oO oo o oo Oo oo > Oo
oo Oo oo Oo oo So ooo oO
re rt
or HH Ae OC 1900 &- BRR oF
A a
oO Oo oC oO oom oO ooo oO
oO oO oO oO oo oO ooo Oo
oO it a +H OD DP WOKE for
4 oO

eo

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

263 Domespay SuRVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,
WACRESCUBE HUNDRED.

MANOR OWNER T.R.E. DOMESDAY LORD
A} Widendune Eccl. de Wirecestre Eccl. de Wirecestre
B
c
v| ,, Fuscote
E|,, Colesborne and

Willicote
F | ,, Dodesuuelle and
Peclesurde
G|,, Nategrave
H| ,, Estone F
1 | ,, Contone
3 | Witetune Osgot Will. Leuric
K| Scipetune Gundulf Thomas Archieps.
L as Osgot Will. Leuric
mM! Sciptune Eduui Durandus de Glow.
N 3 Uuluard Hugo Lasne
0 4 Bil Ansfrid de Cormeliis
P| Hagepine Pin Thomas Archieps
Q| Hagenepene Eduui Will. f. Baderon
R| Sevenhatone Eps. de Hereford Ep. de Hereford
RESPIGETE HUNDRED.
A | Cedeorde Wlward Rex
B| Cernei 8. Oswald de Glow. S. Oswald de Glow.
Cc 5 Filaf et frater ejus. Gislebert f. Turold
D | Colesborne Eccl. de Wirecestre Eccl. de Wirecestre
Suein ten.
£ | Aicote Eccl. de Wirecestre Sy 5
Ailric ten.

F | Colesborne Eluuin Ansfrid de Cormeliis
a| Elchestane Duo Leuuini . Pe
H ” ” ”
1 | Kulege Eccl. de Persore Eccl. de Persore
a | Coberleie Dena tein. R.E. Roger de Berchelai

 

 

 

 
DomEsDAY SURVEY oF GLOUCKSTESHIRE.

BRADLEY HUNDRED.

269

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TENANT. MODERN HUNDRED AND PARISH
Withington 5830 |a
iv. Radchenistri “ B
Presbyter ” c
Morinus 5 Foxcote D
Anschitil * Colesborne and Hilcote E
Robert Dowdeswell and Pegglesworth 2247 |F
Schelin Notgrove 1530 |G
Drogo Aston Blank 2250 |H
Cassey Compton I
Whittington 1422 | 3
Gundulf Shipton Sollars and Oliff K
Goiffrid Shipton L
Radulf. 5 2210 |M
” N
” oO
Ansger Hampen P
Goiffrid 5 Q
Durandus ten. iii hid. | Sevenhampton 3325 |R
18,814
RAPSGATE HUNDRED.
Chedworth 4689 |a
Cerney North B
Cerney North }4041 c
Walter f. Roger Colesborne 2200 |p
Ordric Eycot E
Miles Colesborne F
Elkstone 2058 |G
Miles a H
: Cowley 1834 | 1
Coberly 3421 |3

 

 

 
270 DomEsDAy SuRVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

WACRESCUBE HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

| TEAMS e
HIDAGE. Z g 2% 3 4 er 4 VALUE
| E
H OV. | S a BB a g ACREAGE Blige d
A| 30 2 7 | 1¢80 | 10 |720 ) }
B| 2 8 2 240 2170
c Z 1{ 120 J
D| 3 7
E 2 |
Fi 4 2 ‘| 16 | 28 | 5280 ' 5280 3 0 13 4
a| 5 |
H| 10 J
I 1 1 240 240 1/0 50]
z| 3 2 4 720 720) 1440 1/0 100
K| 1 1 120 }
L| 2 38 2 240 |
M| 3 2 2 2 480 | 10 1450
N| 5 2 2 480 1 (0 10 0
oO 3 1 120 J
P| jl 1 120
Q| 5 2 3 600 3120
R| 20 + 2] 18 | 2400
; 99 3 34 | 68 | 12,240) 20 [1440 13,700 6 j1 18 4
RESPIGETE HUNDRED.
|
A| 15 7 | 10 | 2040 2040 3 10 18 2
B|; 4 2 5 840 2 2788 10 7 0
c| 7 4; 12) 1920 6 | 20 2/016 0
p{| 8 1 5 720 3 ] 2 0 7 6
E} 1 2 2 480 8 | 1301 10 5 4
|
F{/ 1 2 $ 1 ae ity iJ 10 4 2
G 4 2 2 3h 0 20
- 2| 3] 600 1390
I 5 io 7 | 1080 6 | 30 1116 110 4 2
10 2 5 840 5 | 60 905
271

DomespAy SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

WACRESCUBE HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AN90AR & CHrHhHHyHAeEBZoUAoe
wm
28
eA ote for) on oro ow ln
og ol o a eo mae be
Bs nN
PS f)
ee a =e [19
= s
Iauas| © = “oO HHA H 2
IULSI ~H a ‘o
-NGHOGVa
uavauoa| © > ON XH 4 a
Invitia) & a AO eo onls
rei
Zod ° ooo CoOoCoCSO °
7 ° IWHOSCOSoSCOO oO
ma 2 rr
oD MDMOMNMDOONM ©
Be QR oD 2
< og oC eco0o0Cc00o °
mR
3 °o So ocooooSo °
a un 3 =
4 aw N rd Oo
eR a 2 HHO S

 

RESPIGETE HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

¢No0A A HORNY
Oana wo aHeror
oD aa a AN
cmH
=
mito Fl oO al ad oH
WONON a ANANTH
Horo AN WI 1919 HD
aq a ied
oooo Oo oO oo
oo°o°o Oo Oo oo
ca ce
onns +o re 1900
a a Neri a
ooo ° o o
ooo Oo o o
a 00 ~

WwW HD
ce

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

272 Domespay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
RESPIGETE HUNDRED.—Continued,
MANOR OWNER T.R.E. DOMESDAY LORD
k| Brimesfelde Heraldus Comes, Duns | Osbern Gifard
ten.
L| Side Leuuin de Rege E. Ansfrid de Cormeliis
M| Rindecome Aluric Gislebert f. Turold.
n| Rindecttbe 5 7
o | Tantesborne Edmer S. Maria de Lire
P i Kenuuard, tein R.E. | Roger de Laci
Q| Dantesborne Elmer Ansfrid de Cormeliis
R sis Chetel Chetel
BRICTUUOLDESBERG HUNDRED.
A| Fareforde Brictric f. Algar Rex
B 0
c| Culne 8. Petrus de Glow. 8. Petrus de Glow.
b| Quenintone Dodo and Dodo and | Roger de Laci
Alwold pro. 3 M.
E | Lecce Alduin 4 3
F| Lece Cola Drogo f. Pons.
Gill is Tosti Comes Walter f. Pons.
H| Hetrope Duning Roger de Laci
1 | Etherope Uluuard Vicecomes Ernnlf de Hesding
J | Lecelade Siuuard Bar Henricus de Ferreres
K| Chenemeresforde | Herald. Com. Osgod | Ernulf de Hesding
: ten.
L| Fareforde

 
DomEsDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE, 273

RAPSGATE HUNDRED.—Continued.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TENANT MODERN HUNDRED AND PARISH.

Brimpsfield 2611 |x
Turstin Syde 609 | L
Rendcombe \ M
Walter 35 J ore N
Duntisbourne Lyre 0
Gislebert Duntisbourne P
Bernard 9 Abbots | Q
R

Cranham 1859

25,854

BRIGHTWELL'S BARROW HUNDRED.

Hunfrid Fairford 3879 Ja
Johan. Camerar. 45 B
Coln 8. Aldwyn 3420 [eo
Quenington 1631 |b
Willelm. Eastleach Turville 2670 |
Eastleach Martin 1960 |F
Southrop 1453 |a@
Willelm Williamstrip H
Hatherop 2060 | 1
Lechlade 3542 | 35
Kempsford 4790 |k

25,405

Baldwin Fairford L

 

 

 
274

DomeEspay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

RESPIGETE HUNDRED.—Continued.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TEAMS >
HIDAGE. eo) 8 alo VALUE
QA | = <1 Qa a a
q 2)6 ] vroran | 4
Se S a = B & | € | acrzace 5 £ os. d.’
9 3 | 12 | 1800 1800 | 2/0 5 4|\x
3 2} 1] 360] 4 364 L
5 1] 3] 480] 4 1/0 8 Om
3 2| 2| 4801 3| ft] 287 1/0 5 O|n
14 1] |) 190 0
2 1] 13! 300 P
ea 540 :
a2 Ia 120 R
80 3 353 | 73 | 13,020] 51 [230 | 13,301 | 15 | 3 15 8
BRICTUUOLDESBERG HUNDRED.
21 30 | 3600 3/112 6a
4 2} 4| 720 \ an B
4 3 | 12 | 1800 1800 | 2/1 5 de
8 3 | 13 | 1920 | 10 1930 | 2/1 0 Op
5 2| 5| sso] 8 848 r
10 4| 9 | 1560 | 10 1570 | 1/010 OF
10 4| 8 | 1440 | 20 1460 | 1/010 Oc
2 2} 1] 360 360 tr
7 6 | 10 | 1920 1920 | 1/015 O1
15 4| 16 | 2400 2400 | 3/110 Os
2] 6 | 18 | 2880 9gs0 | 4/2 3 4Ix
107 36 | 126| 19,440] 48 19,488 117] 9 5 10
3 3 2} 1] 360 360 1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
275

DomeEspAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

RESPIGETE HUNDRED.—Continwed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mw AE ZOMOR
‘SHTIVIN
eR
IVLOL| Stl Sos g
AN
gas BR
ay =
&
wTHONY, ee ~
IAUGS mo Neo ON ce) 2
IWLSI
-NEHOAVE
Tuvauog ood roan so
On OH A 2
INvITIA| %& 2
ra,
= rd oo ooooco°o Oo
: oD COOCOFND a
a a a ae
. AA wo NOS
aH o =
mi.
i rc oo ocooocjo°o So
‘ i)
és a oo oooo S x
. ON sH rROnRNOSO uw
a Rl} mem ~

 

BRICTUUOLDESBERG HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

«ADA Be omrr sy 4
Oman MDOiONw ON a wn
ONAN HH mA oO eo md 2
oa San | a
Pa Fis [a
SN a
3
gc a7 nN
Se: ira
ac = me of mo
Ay
+s IDM AO AN OD H nm ww
co ao mo aM o
—
AN re ine)
Oty rast 0 OD on oO a
re oo
ODHoO Dw CO OD OD > CD ql
wd aan ae AA oD oD
a
ooo°o ooooooe co Oo
oo°o°o ooooooe oOo Oo
re oH
DDD woowmimonorwo o> H
oD rm ae mNe a
pl.
oo oooo°o°oo Oo
oo ooooo°coe o
OD OOMNID DOO S
4

 
 

 

276 Domespay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

LANGETREV HUNDRED.
MANOR, OWNER T.R.E. . DOMESDAY LORD.

A| Aveninge Brictric f. Algar Rex

B| Udecestre Gueda mat. Com. Heraldi] Rex

c | Hantone Goda Comitissa Eccl. de Cadomo

D| Horselei Goda soror R.E. Eccl. 8S Martin de Troarz

E| Westone Elnod et Leuuin Hugo Comes

F 45 Bricsi Will. f. Baderon

G| Lesseberge Leuuin Gislebert Ep. Lisieux

H| Redmertone | Leuuin de Rege E, ss » de Rege

I 45 Osward de Rege Rex

3 | Culcortorne | Scireuold Will. de Ow

K 5 Alline, Anschitel de eo | Roger de Iveri

L| Culcortone Grim Durandus de Glow.

M| Hasedene Elnoc Roger de Iveri

n| Torentune Roger de Ivrei tenebat.

0 | Sciptone Uuluui Will. de Ow

P| Scipetone Strang Danus Maci de Mauritania de

Rege

Q aj Johannes is en

R 53 Aluuin ‘i 55

s | Teteberie Siuuard Roger de Iveri

T| Uptone Aluricus de Rege E. 5 3

| Cerintone Hamine de Rege E. Milo Crispin

 

 

 

 
Domuspay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

LONGTREE HUNDRED.

277

 

TENANT.

MODERN HUNDRED AND PARISH.

 

Roger Com. tenuit.
Edward de Wiltescire

Duo homines
Hugo Maminot
” 2
Osward
Terbert
Roger Ivri

Hugo

5

Rumnbald

”

Goiffrid

Avening
Woodchester
Minchin-Hampton
Horsley

Weston Birt

Tachoven gh

Rodmar en
Culkerten
Hasleton
Little Tarleton

Shipton ae

”

”

Tetbury
Upton House
Cherrington

Rodborou gh

 

4510
1188
4791
3887

1904

3877

4582

1880
1272

 

30,189

Qe Vane

ee i)

wroZez

GHuunwo

 

 
 

 

 

 

278 Domespay SuRvEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
LANGETREV HUNDRED.
TEAMS.
See n | a A e TOTAL | | | VALUE
Bey 2 Pe | ee) 8 ACREAGE] 4
SLBISBIElE zIl£ 5s a.
a| 10 8 | 16 | 2880 1440} 4320 5}1 2 6
B
c] 8 5 | 24 | 3480 | 20 {1440} 4940 8/2 5 0
p| 10 4] 6 | 1200 1200 1/0 4 2
E| 4
ri 3 2) 2| 480} 6 | 846
c| 5 1] 2] 360 J
n} 2 2 1 360
I 3 1 120
J 3 5acl 1 120
x| 1 2 2 240
Lr} 2 2 2 | 2] 31 600 r| 2206
m| 3 3 4] 3] 840] 15 4/0 2 6
N 1 2
o| 2 2 240 }
p! 10 2{ 4]{ 720 1/010 0
‘) 1980
q| 10 3| 4] 840 1}012 0
md 1 | go) 186 J
s | 23 8 | 14 | 2640 | 10 ¢ 1/}0 1 8
a oO 4 2} 3] 600 } enon) ‘
ul 2 3 | 32 780 4 784 11/0 2 6
102 5 ac.| 52 | 87 |16,680] 55 /2880} 19,615 184 |} 4 19 11

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
279

DomrspAy SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

LANGETREV HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

; €4NQv0AAHORFr Hw A s Oo m& CrmnHDP
wR
1-3)
A
<
=
ro] a ON aoc oD sH YD uw ow ODO OO OD Oo
< Ven) LD a Sl NA a4 rH wd NA Q
eB oD
2°
=
ou re
faa)
LSalad | led rs a
N
te OT oO <H ~~ Oh sH aaom oD
aad) S & = ep aes tl eee
IYLSI 4 nA oD
LNA HOA Va
llqvauog uw SS oD a tl ae Dra oo © e
=}
INVITTIA a ae QUAD oO sé H SIGN AG Ie a
7 =
S 3 oooocoocococadno oo So BS Oo
: “| OS9O00DSD90000nN0C0 oo oH oS 6 | o
fon] n rm aoe a co
7 Pre OHDNMNAMONM SH
ei eA a lc Aw no 2 sH eo
rs
aod Oo eo000000 eso Seo 600/06
rn oO oooowuce oS Soa. & @& aD
a wn eo 4
o OOtn aH H G1id LD rat ay sH oO
a & qo — a S
on m4

 
 

 

 

 

280 Domespay SuRvEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

CIRECESTRE HUNDRED.
MANOR. OWNER T.R.E. DOMESDAY LORD.

A| Cirecestre Rex Rex

B ”

c ”

D 3 Eccl. de Cirecestre Eccl. de Cirecestre

E i Aluui Will. £. Baderon

F , Achelie Leuuin Roger de Laci

G 3 Keneuuard Gislebert fitz Turold de

Rege

1 Ps Brictric de R.E. Turstin f. Rolf

1 | Hunlafesed Elmar Rex

J | Tursberie Aluuard Gislebert f. Turold

«| Tornentone Leuric Will. de Ow

L | Torentune Merlesuen Radulf Pagenel

mM| Nortcote Godric Rainbald

n| Norcote Eluuard Humfrid Camerar.

0; Prestitune Aluuin 3

P| Prestetune Elaf Rainbald

q! Suditone Osuid Will. £ Baderon

R | Sudintone Ernesi Hascot Musard

s 5 Aluuard Humfrid Camerar.

T| Suintone Godric & Leuuin pro. 2M| Roger de Laci

u| Stratone Edmund 5 er

v *Baudintone Ketel Rex

w| Benwedene Uuluuard Hugo Lasne

x| Duntesborne S. Petrus de Glow.

Y . Alestan Will. de Ow

Z 35 Chetel and Aluric Will. £. Baderon.

A 3 Uuluuard de R.E. Durandus de Glow.

B| Tantesborne | Elmer Ansfrid de Cormeliis

c| Penneberie Eccl. de Cadomo

pD|}*Baudintune | Bolli Goisfrid Orleteile de rege

 

 

 
DomEsvAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

CIRENCESTER & CROWTHORNE HUNDREDS.

281

 

 

TENANT. MODERN HUNDRED AND PARISH.
Cirencester | A
2 lib. hom. ay | B
1 lib. hom. i +4523 |c
” | D
Hugo ” E
Girard Coates F
Osulf ” | .
Girnius 4 2423 |H
Hallasey, Coates I
Osuuard Trewsbury ,, J
Herbert Tarlton ‘i J K
Radulf Rodmarton L
Norcott, Preston M
Willelm. 4 ; N
Willelm. Preston ee 0
” P
Siddington j Q
» ! R
Anschitel 3 ( 2123 8
Mater ejus de sua dote 3 J T
Stratton 1339 Ju
Edric f. Ketel Baunton 1340 |v
Gislebert Bagendon 1106 |w
Duntesbourne, Abbots 3217 |x
1 Francig. ten. } hid. Rad.| Daglingworth Y
Bo 1884 -
”
Radulf Duntesbourne Rous 2210 |a
ef , Abbots ? B
Pinbury in Duntesbourne Rous Cc
22,120

 

Baunton

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

282 Domespay SuRVEY or GLOUCESTERSHIRE,
CIRECESTRE HUNDRED.
TEAMS. es
HIDAGE. n | 2 8 2 ee TOTAL | |, | VALUE
a | 4
: ; a % | as | 4 © | ACREAGE] 4 £ d
ee ee gi *
A! 5 5 10 | 1800 3/110 0
B 2 240
c| 2 t| 2286
D| 2 6 j
E| 2 1 1 240
Fi/1l 2 2 24; 540
g/l 2 240 |
H| 1 1 3 480 4 Li 1984
t/| 3 2 1 3 480
J 2 1 120 |
K}| 1 1 120 J
ui4 2 3 3 720
mu} 1 1 2 360
n| 1 2 4/ 300
of 1 1 | i| 240 alte
ep, 8 4 6 ; 1200 | 12
all 1 120
R |10 3 54) 1020 | 20
3 | 2 1 3/180 2540 | 1/0 5 0
T| 6 3 7 | 1200 1;010 0
u| 5 3 9 | 1440 1440 211 00
vi3 3 2 1 360 | 15 375
w] 3 3 3 720 8 728 1;010 0
x] 5 3 5 960 960 1/0 2 0
y1/5 2 2 63} 1020 1 : 1}/0 8 0
Ze. 9 14| 1°} 300 ji
a| 2 2 1 360 2 362
Bj} 1 1 120 120
c| 3 3 3 720 720 1/0 3 4
8 3 53% | 763/15,600) 67 15,667} 11;4 8 4
pj 2 1 3 360 8 368

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
283

DomEspAy SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

CIRECESTRE HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AROARESG AHR YAR ZROMCHRHNMEHDE EKANAMD A
A wn
<8 HAH DARD re HHOMNDMAHONDARAHHHDMD | Ho
Oe Yen} xo for) an a A AN ANS oa
as
a! rH ae Sa Yen)
Lsaldd =
1D 1D
WITTIONV
ON a ~ a Oo ba o> a
thangs © ae 6 woe He VAD sH DO s
poet
IULSI
-NTHOAGVa
q ar Do
luvauog o sH of oD rot ¢1 6d © Sees = AN eo
re Ae oO <H OO rm ac
INVITIA| % 2 ON Bei, OS oa eee ORE a
re
= ro oO eeooeo) S0o0 COO COoOCeCCOCOOCOCcCCOCOO loo
f a mw COSCFSO SOH DODO COHOOCCOOCOCCCOCOSCSC Ho
fae] re o ae pal rm
3 RQ 2 FAINT AND WANHDADABDBOMAHONARH | ON
re
tor Beate =
. S Sooo S°Cco SS Seecooscooo cooos | oo
i<]
‘ en} SOo00 C80 SO GOoOoOHooCoooSo cea GgS lao
ire} n re = ct mal
2 a Ao HO AHO So NAADHAOND Oo H oOOoNnas wna
a R ce re a cel
oo, re

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

284 Domespay SuRVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE
GERSDONE HUNDRED.
MANOR OWNER T.R.E. DOMESDAY LORD
A| Omenel Ednod Rex
B | Omenie Frater Reinbaldi
Cc is Godric Reinbald
D 5 Elric et Godr. pro 2 M.| Ernulf de Hesding
E|* ,, Tovi de R.E. Turstin f. Rolf.
F 49 3 is Ecclesia
G 3 Aluui de R.E Hunfrid Camerar.
bck $3 Aluuin Rex
1 | Esbroc Durandus de Glow.
J | Estbroce Aluuine Hunfrid Camerar.
K| Omenie et Cernei | Quatuor teini pro 4 M.| Radulf de Todeni
L | Cernei Stigand Archieps. Walter f. Roger
m| Hantone Leuenoc Roger Comes
n| Drifelle Elaf de Com. Tosti Reinbald
o | Harehille Elric et Aluuin, et | Radulf de Todeni
Uluric p. 3 M.
p| Wenric Chetel Rex
Q |*Omenie Uluui Turstin f. Rolf
BISELEGE HUNDRED.
A| Biselege Hugo Comes
B| Troha Leuenod de rege E. . 4
c | Grenhastede Ernesi Hascott Musard
p| Wiche 7 Roger de Laci
E ‘i Eccl. de Cirecestre
F| Egesworde Eluuin Roger de Laci
c| Egeiswurde Hugo Comes
u| Winestane Uluuard Ansfrid de Cormeliis
1 | Sapletorne and Ulg Robert de Todeni
Frantone

 

 

 

 
DomrspAay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

CROWTHORNE HUNDRED (part of).

285

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TENANT MODERN HUNDRED AND PARISH
Ampney, Down 2500 A
id 8. Peter 541 B
‘i Crucis } c
” ” | D
Tovi et quidam Miles i 3 + 3015 E
” ” | F
” ” J G
Balduin a5 II
Miles quidam Ashbrook 236 I
Willelm. Ampney 8. Mary _ J
Roger Ampney and Cerney K
South Cerney 3100 L
Turold nepos Wigot Meysey Hampton 1920 M
Drittield 1224 N
Roger Harnhill 689 0
P
Chetel
13,225
BISLEY HUNDRED.
Robert Bisley and Stroud Ai
Througham 11,658 B
Miserden 2434 c
Painswick 3614 D
i Cranham ? E
Edgeworth 1538 F
G
Winstone 1488 H
Sapperton and Frampton 3908 I
24,640

 

 

 
286

DoMESDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

GERSDONE HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TEAMS. :
HIDAGE, a | a A E 4 | TOTAL | ys VALUE,
Alec | a8 | 2 | & |acrzacn] 43

Hw. V Sic a ee oe 3 j£ 8d.
A} 15 4! 10 | 1680 1680
Bi 2 2) 3] 600 | 24 624 1;0 5 0
cj} 4 1 2) 6} 960 | 20 } 2;010 0
pi 4 2 3); 2); 600 |
E| 7 3] 8 | 1320 | 3144
F 2 4 |
q| 1 2 240 J 1/0 5 0
H 3 1} 120 120
1{ 1 1 120 120
J 1
K| 4 10 1200 | 30 1230 1};0 5 0
L| 14 1 2) 10 | 1440 {100 1540 3/110 0
m| 5 1 | 23) 420 420
w{| 7 4 | 5 | 1080 | 20 1100 1/0 5 0
o| 5
P| 1 1 1 120 120

72 3 35 | 473} 9900 |198 10,098 9;3 0 0
Q| 1 2 240 240

BISELEGE HUNDRED.

Al 8 4 | 30 | 4080 20/- 5/016 0
pd tL) ool } 4204
c) 1 3) 9] 1440] 8] 720 | 2168
bp} 1 | 52 | 6360 14,400/20760 | 4;1 4 0
E partem
FH 1 2 4) 4} 960] 2 720 | 1682} 1/0 2 6
G 2
nH) 5 3} 8 | 1320 1320} 1)0 1 8
1| 10 7 | 10 | 2040 120 | 2160; 2])/0 6 0

28 22 |114 | 16,320) 14 | 15,960) 32,2941 13 | 2 10 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
287

“ANDAR HEOrHF KE eH BAO M

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6

 

8

 

GERSDONE HUNDRED.

DomrEspAy SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

 

16

 

20 | 28

 

«|
9

Orn
—

10

 

BISELEGE HUNDRED.

 

 

 

wn
a8 MWODMr~ WANHMAMS 2
a4 Oo mame Aan =
os N
ae
N N
isaiad | "tT a ©
WITIONV
TAUTS Gol Ht OO cSGO a aE SO 16 o
+ IMLSI
-NEHOACVa
Ilavauod oO eo mrAne rm OnNo
Ikvriia,| Geese TAG Hi
5 ; SSOS90D SGODCCCOCS
Ee co
; | SDOSDSOD WOONDO CO
[a=] nm a
: CO rH 19 6 60 oo >
ao © SOOO NM OH
5 C2e2090 SSOD0D0C0CC0
a os
a oy SOSS BOONDODO
By AwWwod HoODDONWDN
=e

ooooooooo
oqoooooo°0°o
mo rm

One HOUOr-sS
N ol 4

 

 

 

 

oo Oo oo

Oo oo oO oo

a
=

268

23111

7

 

4

63

 

0 0 82 0 0] 95 | 68 12

 

 
 

 

288 DomEspAyY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
BERTUNE & DUDSTANE HUNDREDS.
MANOR OWNER T.R.E. DOMESDAY LORD
A| Bertune Rex Rex
B ¥}
c ”
D »  Brewere
E »  Optune
F »  Merwen
c| Bertune S. Petrus de Glow. S. Petrus de Glow.
H| ,, Berneuude
1| ,, Tuffelege
| 4, Mereuuent
«| Hersefel Edmar Rex
L| Athelai 5 55
m| Sanher 3 3
n| Hersecome . Wislet
o| Brostorp Aluric
p| Juxta Civitatem|] Uluuard
q| Hechanestede Edric lang, tein. Com. | Rex
Herald.
R| Circesdune Stigand Archieps. Thomas Archieps
s | Hochilicote 5 PA 5 ‘
t| Nortune ” ” ” ”
u | Beiewrde Alestan Will. de Ow
v! Uletone Godric Will. Froisselew
w| Wadune Quinque fratres Durandus de Glow.
x| Brocowardinge | Turchil de R.E. Rex
y | Bruurne Wigot Milo Crispin
z | Utone Pagen Hunfrid de Medehal
A

 

 

 

Rex

 
DomMESDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

DUDSTONE & KING’S BARTON HUNDREDS.

289 -

 

TENANT.

MODERN HUNDRED AND PARISH.

 

 

Duo liberi homines
Propositus R.W. accrevit
Milo Crispin

Hunfrid

Nigel Medicus

Coquus R.W.

Walchelin nep. Ep. Winton.

Hugo Lasne

Edward

 

King’s Barton

5 Brewerne in Sandhurst
5 Upton 8. Leonards 2833

- Maisemore 1930
Abbot’s Barton

45 Barnwood 1471

+5 Tuffley 765

is Hartpury 3500
Haresfield
Hatherley 1740
Sandhurst 2227
Harescombe 478
Brookthorpe 2229
Hempstead 814
Churchdown 2596
Hucclecote 1420
Norton 1870
Badgworth 3927
Whaddon 1050
Brockworth 2300
Brewerne in Sandhurst
Wootton 260
Matson 463
Pitchcombe 278
Prinknash 227
Quedgeley 1540
Elmore 1486
Shurdington 500
Great Witcombe 918

Gloucester and Suburbs 3735

40,557

Ovo4zBr Aun Gate dvawp

PNK KH ZEA GAH

 

 
200

Domerspay SURVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BERTUNE & DUDSTANE HUNDREDS.
HIDAGE. TEAMS = | 2 saane
2 n “ 7 TOTAL n
Hv. FB) oie | as 3 8 ACREAGE| 3
S{|B8|28)8/& = |£s d
al 9 3 2) | 1440
B| 2 9 | 1080 2640 1;0 4 0
c 1 120 2
D 3
BE} 1
F 3
GG} 21 3 9 | 45 | 6480 | 120} 150} 6750 1|/0 5 0
H
I
J
x
L be 8} 5 | 1560 1560
M 240 \
N 3 2 240 240 |
° 3 2 240 240 J
P 2 2 240 240
Q| 5 3} 6, 1080 1080
R| 15 2 2} 30 | 3840 180) 4020
s! 4 2] 11 | 1560 720| 2280 1|0 2 8
tT) 5 2 2] 15 | 2040 2040 1/2 8 0
u| 8 6 | 24 | 3600 2880} 6480 1;0 1 0
vi 2 2 240 240
w| 5 5 | 5, 1200 1200
x; 5 2] 15 | 2040 720) 2760 1/0 2 0
Y 3 1 2 360 360
z| 1 1 2} 360 360
A 2 1 2} 360 360
91 2 53 |181 | 28,080} 1204650) 32,850 8/017 4

 
291

Domrspay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

BERTUNE & DUDSTANE HUNDREDS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AMORA R HORA RM ae ZOD ARaAD Pee AN
an
=a O00 H
qo + 10 OC FOHO CORR DONKRKE
os oF n oD an Mss a od
s oD
go am
=
En S00 =n —
Se s rr
_ — —
=
a So wHtso HEH OH OM S
IAugS oN 2 25 =]
IULSI bb a
-NIHOGVY
uuvauod] 2 x + ND OD WHO HHROR+HO a
pa -—
xt a ~ © Demo HHO z
INVTTIA) 4 x = aaa =
eo ee ° oS =H So eoocooCoOCCO a
; 3 < °
ao Le = 68 oc eosososcfoos a>
: ° ae HOI 69 1910
a RQ a a = oD es a ws aoe 3
ee
4 3 ° ° ccoOocooscoCO o
1» ° coopcocoscSo 10
2 n pat mt
1 a oO co HH in HOON a
eg eq rH KB

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

292 DomESDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
WITESTAN HUNDRED.
MANOR. OWNER T.R.E, DOMESDAY LORD
A | Stanedis Eldred Archieps Thomas Archieps
B 45 Abbas de Glow. jure
Cc _ Hugo Comes injuste
D 5 Durandus Vicecom.
E| Hersefeld Godric and Edric 5 ,
F | Mortune Ava fi :
«| Langenei Elsi Rex
BLACELAW HUNDRED.
A| Frowecestre | S. Petrus de Glow. S. Petrus de Glow.
B! Stanhus Tovi Will. de Ow.
c| Stanlege | Godric and Wisnod Radulf de Berchelai
p| Stantone | Tovi de Rege E. Turstin f. Rolf,
E| Frantone ' Ernesi Drogo f. Ponz.
F 7
G Fridorne Ava Turstin f, Rolf.
H| Widecestre | Brictric Rex
1 | Witenhert | a Brictric de Rege
g | Alcrintone | Chetel Rex
J
BERCHELAI HUNDRED.
A | Berchelai Rex Rex
B ”
c| Almintune
p| Hinetune
E| Hilla
F |} Camma

 

 

 
DomEspaY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTESHIRE,

WHITSTONE HUNDRED.

203

 

TENANT,

MODERN HUNDRED AND PARISH

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Standish 3022 A
5 Hardwick 2378 B
"Baul saa [9888 |
‘i Randwick 604 D
Haresfield wl75 1980 | &
Morton Valence w33 1399 | F
Elsi Longney 1490 Ja
11,437
WHITSTONE HUNDRED (part of).
Frocester 1833 A
Stonehouse 1786 B
Stanley S. Leonard 1089 G
Tovi ii Hid. elymos | King’s Stanley 2402 D
RW.

Frampton-on-Severn w360 2254 E
Roger de Laci injuste 5 5 F
Fretherne w365 565 G
Brictric H
Hardinc in vadimonio | Wheatenhurst 1237 I
Edric f. Chetel Alkerton (in Eastington) 2042 J

13,208

BERKELEY HUNDRED.
Ww

Berkeley 2320 13420 A
10 Radchenistri Stone 650 B
Alkington c
Hinton Ww | D
Hill 510 1966 E
Cam 3042 F

Stinchcombe 1464

 

 
294 Domrspay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

WITESTAN HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TEAMS 2

HIDAGE. @ ae | TOTAL a VALUE.

a |” | 8H |] gS | S |AcREAGE| 3

m vor | | 8 | Be] 3 | 2 a/£s8 d
A| 15 3 | 33 | 4320 60 | 4380
B} 1
cc] 1
D| 3
E| 7 3 9 | 1440 180 1620
F| 3 1 34, 540 | 20 560
G| 5 2 9 | 1320 | 10 1330

35 9 | 544) 7620 | 30 | 240) 7890

BLACELAW HUNDRED.

Al 5 4 7 | 1820 | 10 | 60 1390
B| 7 2 | 20 | 2640 | *1 2641 2 017 6
c| 4 2 2 | 12) 1680 |} 10 1690
p| 5 2 | 10 | 1440 | 10 |720 2170 2/°115 0
E| 10 3 6 | 1080 | 10 |360 1450 1 010 0
F/ 1
a| 3 1 2 360 360
H| 1 16 | 1920 1920 1 010 O
I 5 5 720 | 10 730 1 010 0
zg} 4 2 1 8 | 1080 | 10 |720 1810 1 010 0

46 16 | 86 /12,240) 60 |1860} 14,160 8 412 6

*Vineyard
BERCHELAI HUNDRED.

Al 5 5 | 11 | 1920 2 012 0
B| 7 7| 840 \ 2760
c| 4
p| 4
E| 4
F| 6

11

 

 

 
295

Domerspay SURVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

WITESTAN HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4M DAHEHDS
a
Q
4
<
=
a ~ Qua 10
= oF AnraA1S
S cel
a
So 19
Ss
re
IAuGs,) © ASS! 1S
IMLS me a
-NTHOAVY
H on
wuvaaod) = ees ileal
oa Om ee co
rvs 2
= Wl °o See |s6
Fe 4| 2 ooo lo
a ome |
a RQ ce N N
Gg dl oO ooo !o
G8 ° ooo |'O
eo) Co HID oo
a KR re oD

 

BLACELAW HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a AOA Be & oS

@ sH 1 CO y ~rmeaonn Ol
AON NAN Nae a
—

: a 4
ore Om . rt

a a &
oD sHLS H a mo on 99 ol
of
Ratko oD MNO lo
Cl al |e
Oroo oO on Oo NSO oO
“N aa 4 D
ooco Oo ooco Oo
ooocoo o ooco °o

ce a
DMD M1910 ‘aD mid ro nN
oH
oocoo°o So oocooo Oo
coco Oo oooco So
oD 1D 10 uw oD 1D Id OD OV

 

BERCHELAI HUNDRED.

<MQo0AR &

 

34
24

9 Jin ror
17

7

 

 

 

 
296

Domerspay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

BERCHELAI HUNDRED.—Continued.

 

MANOR

OWNER T.R.E.

DOMESDAY LORD

 

DPOvVOor Be AS | me

DENK K Ad adew

ya

 

Gosintune
Dersilege
Couelege
Euuelege
Nimdesfelle
Utune

Simondeshale .-

Chingescote
Beurestane
Olleuuorde
Almodesberie
Horefelle

‘Westone
Eldbertone
Erlingeha
Esceleuuorde
Cromale
Crowhal
Heslinbruge
Claenhangare
Hirslege
Neueton

Nesse

 

Duo
Rex

fratres

Rex

(Bernard Presbyter)

 

 
Domespay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

BERKELEY HUNDRED.— Continued.

297

 

TENANT,

MODERN HUNDRED AND PARISH.

 

Propositus de Berchelai

Roger

Roger
Roger calumniatur

—Ht

 

 

Gossington (in Slimbridge)

Dursley 1360
Coaley 2463
Uley , 1492
Nympsfield 1472
Wotton-under-Edge 4880
{ Symondshall
Nibley 3245
Kingscote 1810
Beverstone 2360
Ozleworth 1114
Almondsbury 6927
Horfield 1287
Filton 1 o30}
Kingsweston (in Henbury)
Elberton wl50 1523
Arlingham w835 2390
Ashelworth 1654
Cromhall 3
Cromhall } 2579
 Slimbridge w770 3660

Clinger in Cam

Hurst (in Slimbridge)

Newington Bagpath 2131
Owlpen 720

Ad castellulum faciendum
Kingswood 2350

 

66,989

 

H

DP Owvog Bow age

DenNt Hh Sd dun

Sa

 
298 DomesDAy SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

BERCHELAI HUNDRED.—Continued.

 

 

 

 

TEAMS >

HIDAGE, a | # af 8 3 roman | VALUE

a | & a :

My Ve | Be eo |e |e ASRMAGE) 2 pg. a
G| 4
H] 3
I 4
J 2
K| 3
L| 15 2 ;
M 2 494/174 |26,820 26,820 8/217 6
ni 4 2
o| 10
P 2
q| 2
red a
s| 7 1
Tl 5
u| 9
vi 3
wl 2
x| 5 2 6 960 960
Y 2
Z 1
ai l 10 | 22 | 3840 3840 1/0 5 0
Bl 7 |

J

c| 5 3 5 960 960
pd; 5

1149 32 693/225 |35,340 35,340 | 11 | 3 14 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
DomEsDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

BERCHELAI HUNDRED.—Continued.

299

 

 

 

 

rR EE | ta R Ww. | OB |e 5
ee ee le | BiG 28
se h/S ae &/ 8 ele 12) 8 es
G
H
I
J
K
coLis. L
170 0 O|} 242/142 | 19 |127 | 15 | 22 552 M
N
0
P
Q
R
s
T
U
v
Ww
4 0 3 0 0 6 5 11 x
Y
Zz
9 0/11 10. 0} 13] 21 16 50 A
B
3 0 3.0 0 2 6 8 c
D
16 0 O {187 10 O {283 {179 | 2 152) 15 | 39 679

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

300 DomeEspay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
GRIMBOLDESTOW HUNDRED.
MANOR. OWNER T.R.E. DOMESDAY LORD.
A| Boxewelle S. Petrus de Glow. S. Petrus de Glow.
B| Havochesberie] Eccl. de Persore Eccl. de Persore
c| Hildeslei Aluric Turstin f. Rolf
D| Sopeberie’ Aluuard Gislebert Eps. Lisiacsis
E| Dirham Aluric Will. f. Wido de R.W.
F 3 Eccl. de Persore
@| Horedone Ulf Robert de Todeni
H! Dedmertone | Leuuin de Her. Com. Durandus de Glow.
1, Aldeberie Edric Ernulf de Hesding.
3 | Madmintune ss 55 9
K | Achetone ” ” ”
L| Alrelie Wigot Milo Crispin
EDREDESTANE HUNDRED.
A| Meresfelde Eddid regina Rex
B| Sopeberie Brictric f. Algar Rex
Cc ”
p| Dodintone Ulnod Eps. Constantiensis
E 3 Aluuin Roger de Berchelai
F | Tormentone Alric de R.E. Ricard Legatus

 
Domespay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

GRUMBALD’S ASH HUNDRED.

301

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TENANT MODERN HUNDRED AND PARISH
Boxwell and Leighterton 2266 | A
Hawkesbury B
9770
Bernard Hillesley Cc
Hugo Maminot Little Sodbury 1071 |b
Dyrham 3005 | i
F
Horton 3540 |G
Anschitel Didmarton 719 | H
Oldbury-on-the- Hill 1342 I
Badminton Great 1643 | 3
Acton Turville 1009 | k
Alderley 898 | L
25,263
GRUMBOLD’S ASH HUNDRED (part of).

Presbyter habet i Hid.) Marshfield 5845 A
Old Sodbury 3637 B
Chipping Sodbury 120 c
Roger Dodington \i 473 :
a Hy
Tormarton 2645 F

West Littleton 1009

14,729

 

 
302 DomEspay SuRvEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

GRIMBOLDESTOW HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TEAMS S
HIDAGE. 2 g Z e g a ne 2 VALUE
Hv & |S LET Bee leis 3
9} 8!&8 | & | = |acruace| 5 £ 8
al 5 2| 12 | 1680 1680 | 1] 0 5-0
Bl 17 5 | 15 | 2400 | 10 lasso 3]/ O19 2
5778
c| 1 2| 2] 480] 8 3| 018
p| 5 2} 2] 480] 20 Jalig/ 500 | -
Bl 7 1/-3|] 360] 6 366 | 3| 015
Fi 3
@| 10 3} 8 | 1320 | 20 jassol 4220 | 1] 0 6
ul 3 3| 1] 480] 6 486.
1! 5 3| 5} 960| 6 966
s| 4 2/13/|1800| 8 1808
«| 5 3| 4| 840 | 15 855
L| 1 2| 7 | 1080) 15 1095 | 1] 010
66 28 | 71 [11,880 '114 |5760! 17,754 | 12] 313 2
EDREDSTANE HUNDRED.
al 14 5 | 30 | s200| | 4200 |
5 io 4} 5 | 1080 1440) 2520 2 | 0 8
Cc acs.
pn) 1 2 8| 1] 1| 240
x) 3 016; 1/ 4| 600| 10 } aoe
rl 8 0 0{ 6] 12] 2160 2160 |
37 0 0| 17 | 52 | 8280 | 10 [l44o) 9730 | 2] 0 8

 

 

 

 

 

 
DomEsDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

GRIMBOLDESTOW HUNDRED.

303

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

~{#(e.| | 8
T. R. EW T RW. ¢ a i o ee a TOTAL
a 2 ie ele) oS MALES
Pad. || ee ee | eg
|
310 0| 5 0 0] 12 11°38 sie 21 A
16 0 0]10 0 0| 18] 25 2 7 52 B
DIMID-
200/300] 5| 7 8 20 c
8 0 0] 40 0| 41 2 4 10 D
12 0 0] 8 0 0/13/13 4|4 30 E
a F
iz 0 0] 7 0 ©) 11} 8 7 26 G
1 10 0 2 0 0 8 4 FRANG- 12 H
ie 0 0]/10 6% 0) 4 9 1 14 I
PRIEST
10 0 0/10 0 0] 6! 8 9 1 24 3
5 0 0| 5 0 o| 4/| 3 i K
5 Oo 0) 6 0 BL 7] S 4 16 L
8 0 0/69 0 0/84!}79! 1/59] 4] 9 232
EDRDESTANE HUNDRED.
1 P :
35 0 0/47 0 01 36/ 13 18 “Ti Sea. hx
16 100/12) 4 18 34 -
110 09/ 110 oOo] 4] 1 3 8 D
20013 00) 2) «4 4 15 E
12 0 0/15 0 0] 20] 4] 1] 19 1 38 P
5110 0/83 0 0] 79] 96} 1/| 55 2 163

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

304 Domesray SuRVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

BACHESTANE HUNDRED.
MANOR. OWNER T.R.E. DOMESDAY LORD.

A| Tidrentune | Aluui Eps. de Execestre

B| Actune Ebbi homo Brictric f. Algar| Eps. Constantiensis

c 35 Herold homo Eluui hiles Hunfrid Camerar,

p| Torteword | Aluuold Turstin f. Rolf

E | Wichen 3 homines Brictric f. Algar} Hunfrid Camerar.

F | Cirvelde Elfelt de R.E. Gozelin Brito
PULCRECERCE HUNDRED.

A | Didintone Aluuard teinus R.E. Eps. Constantiensis

B | Escetone Eccl. de Bade Eccl. de Bade

c | Sistone Anne Roger de Berchelai

D |* Wapelie Godric Radulf de Berchelai

E| Pulcrecerce | Eccl. de Glastingber. Eccl. de Glastingber.

F |* Wapelie Aldred Eps. Constantiensis

LETBERGE HUNDRED.
A| Lega Algar Eps. Constantiensis
B| Stoche Dunne Osbern Giffard

 

 

 
Domesvay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

GRUMBALD’S ASH HUNDRED (chiefly).

 

TENANT.

MODERN HUNDRED AND PARISH.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tytherington 2218 | a
liger Iron Acton. Hamlet Act. Ilgar|5gg. | 8
” 2 iG c
Tortworth 1551 D
Wickwar 2307 E
Charfield 1369 F

10,307

PUCKLECHURCH HUNDRED.
Robert Doynton 1703 | a
Cold Ashton 2300 B
Siston ; 1827 Cc
Wapley D
Pucklechurch 2428
Wick and Abson 2315-8752 E
Westerleigh 4009

14,582

Aldred F
BARTON REGIS HUNDRED.

Robert A
Stoke Gifford 2277 B

2277

 
306

DomeEspAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

BACHESTANE HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TEAMS. e
HIDAGE, a | & alo . | TOTAL | |. | VALUE,
are | g8 || 8 Jacrmcz! 3
io vy | 2 he ee Bae a |f£ 8. da.
Al 5 2 240 | 20 | 60 320
B} 2 2 1 14; 300 | 10 | 10 505 3}/0 1 4
c| 2 2 1 4; 180) 5 13,0 5 4
p| 1 2} 7 | 1080 | 10 720 1810 3/015 0
E| 4 3} 9 | 1440 | 20 | 60 1520
Fi} 3 2] 4] 720] 8 60 788 1}010 0
18 11 | 22 | 3960 | 73 ‘910 4943 6/111 8
PULCRECERCE HUNDRED.
Al 5 3] 8 | 1820] 12 |360 1692 210 10 10
B| 5 1 3 | 480 6 486 1)/0 4 2
c| 5 2) 4{ 720) 8 728
p| 1 1 120 120
E\ 20 6 | 18 | 2880 | 60 |360 | 3300 2/0 8 4
36 13 | 33 | 5520 | 86 |720 | 6326 5}/1 3 4
1 1 120 120
LETBERGE HUNDRED.
Al 1 2 1 360 860
B| 5 4] 8 | 1440 1440
6 6] 9 | 1800 1800

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
307

DomusDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIKE,

BACHESTANE HUNDRED.

MALES.

“A ROAR E

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 DODRDION 10
< re maNANe c~
HB
2°
=
W1TIONY om s
A ret O16 2 SH oO
IAYUS a
IQLSI
LNA HOG Va
119 OD He
lldvauog = =
core HOD OO OO oH LY
INVTIIA , aS
Ee dl coccooo]o
yy] Ceococoo|o
ANAIDA GA ww
& AQ ca ol
Aa os Soce ss |S
yy) Ccocooco;o
nD AAmR AH | A
a Ey on

 

PULCRECERCK HUNDRED.

ava

 

Bas
a“

52

au

 

FRAN.

3

 

Nn

CoLiB-

B.G.

1

 

HOM.

 

10

st ost

10

a

 

coL.

3

 

8

29

 

14

23

 

8 0 0

ooo

ooo

SHO

 

 

0

0

ooo

ooo

Hu

20 0 0/30 0 0

 

38 0 0); 48 0 0| 48

 

 

LETBERGE HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

| <A
ono) eo
me N
ch rm
io
Ol |
oD O89 oO
io a) aD
oo oS
oo o
ro oa
oo °o
oo o
rc Lad

 

 

 

w 2
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

al

Aldeberie

 

Eilric

308 Domespay SurvEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
SUINHOVEDE HUNDRED.
MANOR OWNER '.R.E. DOMESDAY LORD
A | Betune Rex Rex
B| ,, Wapelei
c| ,, Wintreborne
Dp! ,, Betone Dons Rex
zu | Aldelande Aluuih. Com. Heraldi | Eps. Execestre
F| Hanun Edric Ernulf de Hesding
G | Hanbroe Algar de R.E. Eps. Constantiensis
I ” ”
1 | Estoch Eldred deCom. Heraldo ‘ “5
J | Cliftone Seuuin propos. de Roger f. Radulf.
: Bristou de R.E.
K ” ” ”
L 5 Walter
LANGELEI HUNDRED.
A | Turneberie Brictric f. Algar Rex
B| Tochintune Uulgar de R.E. Rex
c| Herdicote Cuulf. Eps. Contantiens.
p| Alwestan Heraldus Comes Rex
E| Alvestone Eccl. de Bada Eccl. de Bada
F | Liteltone Eccl. de Malmesberie | Eccl. de Malmesberie
Gc} Rochemtune Dunne Osbern Gifard de Rege
u| Frantone Alestan de Boscibe Walter Balistar.

Osbern Gifard

 
DomeEsDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE, 309

LANGLEY & SWINESHEAD HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

TENANT MODERN HUNDRED AND PARISI.

Bitton 3355 A

Wapley 2448 B

Winterbourne 3170 Cc

Dons Bitton D
Oldland 2595 E

Humbald Hanham 1212 F
Osulf Hambrook G
Goismer H
Tetbald Stoke Gifford I
Clifton 910 J

” K

” L

13,690

 

 

 

LANGLEY & SWINESHEAD & THORNBURY HUNDREDS.

 

 

Thornbury w 2510 - 13,222 A

*Tockington B

Robert Earthcott c
Alveston 2518 D

Olveston 4787 E

Littleton-on-Severn w 690 975 F

Rockhampton 1206 G

Frampton Cotterell 2120 H

Oldbury I

24,828

?

 

* The Manor of Tockington now contains about 3927 acres.
310

DomEsDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

SUINHOVEDE HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TEAMS.

es ao | 2 A S TOTAL VALUE

HV. Qa}& | 4% | 8 | & |acreace| 4

a 2, Sa <q o i)
Sel ee) el as1£s8 d.

‘).
B hes 5 | 45 | 6000 6000 1
c
p| 2 2 5 840 | 10 850
E| 2 2 1 360 360
F 2 2 240 240
a| 2 2 2 480 6 486
un; 1 1 63 63
I 2 1 1 240 5 245
J 3 3 2 600 8 608
K| 1
L 1

49 3 16 | 58 | 8823 | 29 8,852 1

LANGELEI HUNDRED.

al/ ll 4 | 21 | 3000 1440} 4440 31/0 7 0
B| 8 5 | 21 | 3120 3120 1/0 0 8
Cc 2 2 240 10 SILVA 250
p| 10 1 | 24 | 3000 3000
g| 5 2110} 1440 + - 1440
F| 5 2 8 | 1200 | 30 1230
c| 3 2 3 600 | 20 | 720' 1340
H| 5 1 5 720 720 2/0 5 0
I 1 1 120 120

50 20 | 92 | 13,440) 60 |2160} 15,660 6|/012 8

 

* Ad Manerium sustinendum.
3ll

DomeEspay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

SUINHOVEDE HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A¢NOARROEHIH MwA
23
S43 DBD AANH O19 A °o
o <a wo eo me rel wo
i eo
LSalud
eee
OD HAHN OM A co
IAUgS| oe ~ a
IULst
-NEHOAVa
oOo acd a) oO
Wavyauog a a
a 1H A NS
INVITTIA ar bs
zs 2 S2SSS99900 oco]fo
So
: a = coo0coD COO oN el
3 2 4 =
. R EE MAHNMONMD Co |] a
B ao mo
- » eocccecescs ola
A =
a a es oo00000 oa |} aw
=
SS oFAWHAW
eB OR = 2S jie.

 

LANGELEI HUNDRED.

<NOAHHSERY

 

274

 

 

18
1

 

HANIQONYE

cr
Ar re

QO HOD

onwoo
HO a re re

 

 

oooooooeo°o
SPAS O S92 2

ld NN rm

 

 

oO oo oo
oO oo oo

mt
NA 190 DO

 

18 10 0 (105 10 0 {127 | 69 19 | 53

 
312

Domespay Scrvey oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

BERNINTREV HUNDRED.

 

MANOR

OWNER T.R.E.

DOMESDAY LORD

 

Se Powter ev aw Pe

 

ILuesberie
», Henberie
» Redewiche
» Stoche
5, Giete

», Austreclive
», Contone
» Icetune

Eccl. de Wirecestre

 

 

Eccl. de Wirecestre

 

BARTON APUD BRISTOU HUNDRED.

 

 

Barton apud
Bristou

Manegodesfelle

 

 

Rex

Eccl. de Bristou

 
Domespay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

HENBURY HUNDRED.

313

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TENANT. MODERN HUNDRED AND PARISII.
Westbury-on-Trym w 220 5236 A
Henbury w 6820 9589 B
Redwick C
Stoke Bishop D
Yate 3350 E
6 Radchen. F
Turstin f. Rolf Austcliff G
Gislebert f. Turold Compton Greenfield 650 UL
Constanstin Itchington I
Osbern Gifard J
18,825
BARTON REGIS HUNDRED.
Barton Regis and Bristol
Quando Roger recepit
In 1086 —
Bristol 1717
Mangotsfield 2591 Cc
D
Stapleton 9554
St. George 1831
8893

 

 

 

 
314

Domespay SURVEY OF GLOUCKSTERSHIKE,

BERNINTREV HUNDRED.

 

TEAMS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HIDAGE. a 2 4 aR Es A TOTAL we VALUE
Qa & 4
me Sees ce ale | as | g | o |ACREAGE) Fie ,
s|HEL2B/ Ele See
a| 50 2} 8 | 1200 1200
B
: 9 | 36 | 5400 5400 ie ae as
E
r| 8 8 | 960 960
a| 5
u| 3 2 5 | 12 | 2040 2040
I 5
J 5
76 2 16 | 64 | 9600 9600 | 1/0 1 8
BARTON APUD BRISTOU HUNDRED.
2 2 | 21 | 2760 :
Bl oe \ 3120
6 3 | 25 | 3360 5566 | 811 & o
14 | 1680 1680
Cc 6 Bov. 90 90
el 8 1 120 120
w| 1 1]| 14} 240 240
10 5 | 40 | 5490 ( soo | 11 70
|

 
Domespay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

315

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BERNINTREV HUNDRED.
x | ee.) | 8
Be ps Mee | Mae Bic Os 4 4 Be 3 TOTAL MALES
ro} —_
£s al£s a] F | 8 ls a | 2
} 8} 5 4| 1 Me |e
B
| 00. is
27 | 22 20 2 | 20 89 ‘e
E
I 24 0 03814 6 3 ge Ue
G
; 16 | 12 11 39 H
I
J J
294 0 O}| 38 14 6] 51 | 39 8 | 35 3 | 20 153

 

 

BARTON APUD BRISTOU HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

17 | 24 4 sii 45
13 13
73 6 8 | 22 | 95 10 al 288
22 0 0 18 ist
| 6 0 0
| 5
101 6 8/22] 29] 1] 10 18 80

 

 

OP

Sawer

&

 

* Bishop G.

+ Queen’s Mark of Gold.
 

 

 

 

316 Domespay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,
BOTELAV HUNDRED.

MANOR OWNER T.R.E. DOMESDAY LORD
A | Dimoch Rex Rex
B | Brunmeberge Heraldus Comes Radulf de Todeni
c | Ledene Eccl. de Glow.
D| Noent Rex Eccl. de Cormeliis
E 29
F | Crasowel Ulfel Roger de Laci
G]| Tebriston Ulfelm de R.E. Will. f. Baderon.
H| Huntelei Aluuin de Aldred ij ‘i

: Archieps.
1 | Tetinton Aluuin Will. Goizenboded
J | Tatinton Ulgar de R.E. Will. f. Norman
K ”
Lt | Chenepelei Edric and Leuric Roger de Laci
m| Horsenehal Turchil de Her’d Com. 33 9%
n| Pantelie Ulfel, Eluuard et Ansfrid de Cormeliis
0 | Chilecot Wiga, pro 4 55 53
P| Chitiford Maner. 35 i
q| Hege -5 ”
rR) Rudeford Madoch Rex
WESBERIE HUNDRED.

A | Wesberie Rex Rex
B| Rodele Tovi Walter Balistar.
c| Hame et Mortune | S. Petrus de Glow. S. Petrus de Glow.
pD| Hope Forne & Ulfeg de R.E.| Will. f. Baderon
E| Staure Ulfeg i FF
F Wihanoc és Fi
a| Nuneham sf Fe
H Will. Goizenboded
1 | Bicanofre Morganau Will. £. Norman
| Dene Godrie, Elric & Ernui i a

 

Bulelege

Aluuold
Tovi de R.E.

 

 

Durandus de Glow.
Walter Balistar de R.

 
Domespay SURVEY or GLOUCESTERSHIRE 317

BOTLOE HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

TENANT MODERN HUNDRED AND PARISH.
°
Dymock 6743 | A
Bromesberrow 1803 | B
Upleadon and Highleadon 1207 | ©
Newent D
Durandus ‘5 7803 | &
Odo Carlswall F
Tibberton 1400 | a
Huntley 1409 |
Taynton | I
a 2501 | s
” K
Kempley 1564 | L
Oxenhall 1887 |
Pauntley 1967 | n
Kilcot (in Newent) Oo
Ketford (in Dymock) P
Hayes (in Newent) Q
Madoch Rudford 1204 | x
29,488
WESTBURY HUNDRED.
Westbury-on-Severn ; A
Rodley \wero soz | 4
Churcham, Linton, &e. 4264 | ©
Longhope 3070 | p
Stears E
F
Newnham-on-Severn w215 1890 | a@
H
Micheld 680 :
icheldean J
Littledean 510 1190
K
Bulley 951 |
Blaisdon 900
Abenhall 751
21,041

 

 

 
318

DoMESDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

BOTELAV HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TEAMS. =
HIDAGE. 2 | a 8 a TOTAL | ,, | VALUE.
ies Sith. ae z % as 2 S | ACREAGE. 3 £ud
q a ad = = a
A| 20 2) 45 | 5652 4320 9972
B| 5 1 | 14 | 1800 2880 4680
c| 4 2 8 | 1200 | 10 | 480 1690 1]/0 4 0
D| 6 3 | 20 | 2760 3/0 8 4
E| 1 1 2 360 3600
Fi; 1 1 1 3 480
G| 5 3 8 | 1320 4320 5640
H| 2 1 3 480 2880 3360
I 6 1 9 | 1200
J 1 120 1320
K 1
L]| 3 3 | 12 | 1800 1800
M| 3 2 5 840 840
nj} 1 2 ;
o| 1
p14 2 7 | 1080 1080 1/0 7 6
Q| 1
R/| 2 2 3 600 600 1
63 24 |140 | 19,692; 10 [14880) 34,582 6 | 0 19 10
WESBERIE HUNDRED.
A| 30 5 | 28 | 3960 3960
B; 1 1 2 360 360
c| 5 2 6 960 1440 2400
p| 5 2 12 |] 1680 1680 1/0 1 5
E| 1
F 2 2
«| 1 20 20
H 2
I 2 4 60 60
gj 2 2 2 3 734, 1260 1260
K| 3 1 4 600 600
L| 4 2 4 720 | 10 730
54 1 163} 632) 9600 | 10 |1460 | 11,070 a 0 1 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
319

DomespAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

BOTELAV HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 <4<mvanAROA "rw AE ZOkROR AMvAARUOATRH wa
a
<
=
A DOMKRHNH ODO HO a ~ fe DORO NO OD OF 119
< ONAN Aa co Aa ct =H x me on} mae 1a
& a ci
°
a
ai “a
SH Le!
, od ns : :
a4 oo a om
= io] e a
ehaae BHAA ea a g B qa oD ant |o
IaLSI =H <H Bi
-NaHOadVa 5
ade Hy
ayasogd] QVPAIM ere So HO NM oF + 1S a ator 89 om HO S
= Fa
ADO MO >
INVITIA, cA =i ei > ee) ~ oF oo wD SLE A rt oD HO 16
I <>) —
gE dp ecooooooo ScooscSO Oo ole = 20 OOOO o oco!lo
=
5
4 s| SoEeoonoos oOo =
go Sol 8 = eono°o ° o | ss ZOO OWN + COI]N
=
} HOH MOHMH MHOON ~H abn Zonwoo a an lx
H aR nN 1D z= —
Bod CoO Soo SSO Soo °O olo 2D OOO o oolo
=
5
d , oOo coo oO S090 oO olo 2o000 ao oo|ln
wn ct cl — co = rr re
g Ont HOM OF KN oD a | ENH DO Hq MOTH
ge a H z a

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

320 Domrspay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
LANGEBRIGE HUNDRED.
MANOR OWNER T.R.E. DOMESDAY LORD.
A | Lessedune Ulchetel Thomas Archieps
B| Hamme S. Petrus de Glow. | 8. Petrus de Glow.
c| Prestetune 65 a 3
p| Morcote Ulfeg Will. f. Norman
BLITESLAV HUNDRED.
A| Avre ] )
8) a oa | |
C “ astata
D » Peritone + Hex t Bee
E », Eteslau | |
F » Bliteslau | | J
G | Nest Heraldus Comes “i
u| Pontune sy
1 | Pertaine 4
J Winstan & Siuuard | Will. f. Baderon
K Palli Walter Balistar.
L| Lindenee Eps. de Hereford Rex
M “5 Eccl. de Persore 5
N . Duo teini e
LEDENEI HUNDRED.
A | Ledenei Alfer Will. £. Baderon
B | Hiwoldestone Ulfeg ” ”
c | Wigheiéte Alestan Will. de Ow
p| Aluredestone Bondi 3 3
E Ulnod

 

”

” ”

 
Domuspay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

DUDSTONE & KING’S BARTON HUNDRED.

321

 

TENANT

MODERN HUNDRED AND PARISH.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roger Lassington 560 A
Minsterworth 1938 B
Preston 884 c
Murcott D
3882
BLIDSLOE HUNDRED.
Awre 1231 A
Ecclesia 43 B
” Cc
in feudo Will. comitis Purton D
Roger de Berchelai Etloe Blakeney 3856 E
Will. f. Baderon Bletsloe F
Nass G
H
Purton I
J
Poulton in Awre K
Lydney 6723 tL L
Alvington 2553 M
Aylburton | N
14,363
8. BRIAVEL’S HUNDRED.
S. Briavel’s 5104 A
Hewelsfield 1189 B
Wyegate c
Alliston in Lydney D
” ” E
6293

 
Domespay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

LANGEBRIGE HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TEAMS &

HIDAGE. n | w also VALUE

ale} <b} a] a 4
Ee 216 | tora,

pe eee 6 8 zB # | S |acrsace| 2] £ 8. d
Al 2 1 3 480 | 20 500
B} 7 3 7 | 1200 | 30 | suff! 1230
Cc 2 2 8 | 1200 1200
pd} 1 1 120 120

12 7 | 18 | 3000 | 50 3050

BLITESLAVY HUNDRED.

Al 5 1 | 14 | 1800 1800 1 0 2 6
B 1
c 2
aN
E | 7 1 | 13 | 1680 1680
F
G| 5 1 9 | 1200 1200
ry} 9 2] 10 | 1440 1440
J 1 2 2 5 840 840
K 2 1
L]} 3
M| 6 4 480 1560
x| 3 2 3 360 720 1 0 3 4

40 3 2 7 | 58 | 7800 720 8520 | 3 0 5 10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

LEDENEI HUNDRED.

 

Ey aw Pp
Ww awa

2) 2} 480 } 20 |720 | 1220 1} 0 5 0

360 | 10 [360 | )
240 J

bo os

 

20

 

bo

7 | 1080 | 30 1080 2190 | 1] 0 5 0

 

 

 

 

 

 
Domespay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE

LANGEBRIGE HUNDRED.

323

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nr lz
Z om {Re
Bee BS De Be We ee TOTAL MALES
a | 2 jaa! &
£3 A, |e a 2 Sle a
2 0 0 110 0 5 2 3 10 A
2 0 0 4 0 0} 22 4 8 34 B
110 0 4 0 0 8 4 4 16 Cc
0 8 0 010 0 2 2 D
518 0|10 0 0} 35) 12 15 62
BLITESLAV HUNDRED.
FIRMA SNocTIS | FIRMA2NocTIS | 12 8 1 21 A
B
c
D
20 3 2 25 E
F
10 3 12 G
11 0 0 H
15] 2 | 3 19 I
015 0 110 0 17 | 17 J
019 +O /K
L
}? 0 0 6 6 M
8 8 N
015 0} 20 9 Oj 63 | 40 5 108
LEDENEI HUNDRED.
4 0 0 2 0 0 3 5 3 ll A
110 O B
3 0 0 010 0 c
1 0 0 110 O 5 3 8 D
010 O 010 0 2 2 E
10 0 0| 410 o|10| 8 3 21

 

 

 

 

ko
324

Domzspay SuRVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

TVIFERDE HUNDRED,

 

 

MANOR OWNER T.R.E. DOMESDAY LORD
A | Odelaweston Brictric f. Algar Will. de Ow,
B| Modiete Brictric Rex.
Cc ”
D ”
E ”
F os Brictric Roger de Laci
G| Tedeha Stigand Arch. $5 $4
H| Tideha Will. de Ow.

” ”

 

 

 

TEDENEHA HUNDRED.

 

A | Tedeneha

 

Abb. de Bade

 

 

Rex

 
DomespaYy SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.

WESTBURY HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

TENANT. MODERN HUNDRED AND PARISH

Woolaston w 1040 4376 | a

Modesgate B

Abb.de Malmesberia 5 c
Roger de Laci 5 D
Will. de Ow a3 E
F ie F
Tidenham G

Tidenbarn } nes ~

4376
WESTBURY HUNDRED.
Tidenham w 3310 6034 A

 

 

Lancaut 183

 
326 DoMESDAY STRVEY OF GLOVCESTERSHTRE,

TVIFERDE HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TEAMS. =
HIDAGE. n 2 a 2 a TOTAL 4 VALUE
A |: 47 :
a: eee 8 |e eS 1 2 |e se a,
a a <0 = EB =
al 2 5 | 600 600 vlo s-4
BI 3
c 2
b 2
E| 2
rl 2 1] 120 120
«| 2 1} 120
nu] 1 2 1| 120 } nee
5 3 2 8 | 960 960 1/8 8 4
TEDENEHA HUNDRED.
a | 30 | 38 | 4560 1440| 6000 |

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
DomesDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

TVIFERDE HUNDRED.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

TR E | T vy. | & # B 4
ey eae a < A of 4 TOTAL MALES.

a i 5

£sal£aa 2/8 la'| 2] 2
100/100 5 5 A
B
c
400 ;4 0 0 D
E
100 ;1 0 0 1 1 F
1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 G
010 0 010 0 1 1 ab

710 0 1710 0 8 8

TEDENEHA HUNDRED.

25 0 O | 38} 22 60 A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

328 DomEspDay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,
KIFTISGATE & SLAUGHTER.

g

HUNDRED. HIDES v. F.| @ a

x a

3 3

a a

A | Cheftesihat 8 3 6
B | Celflede 20,013 121 2 52 804

c | Wideles 20,484 | 98 2 47 95

D | Gretestanes 21,479 | 60 34 83
E | Sudeley and Toddington 4,479 | 20 7 21°
F | Holeforde 18,188 | 60 28 523
G | Salemanesberie 32,427 |178 78 135
H | Bernitone 5,618 | 23) 2 14 20
122,688 [569 2 263 493

COTSWOLD.
|

A | Bradelege 20,042 )109 32 | 105

B | Wacrescumbe 18,814 | 99 3 34 68

c| Becheberie , 11,835 | 51 17 48

D | Brictuuoldesberg 25,405 |107 36 | 126

E | Respigete 25,854 | 80 3 354 | 73
F | Cirecestre 22,120 | 85 3 534 | 764
G | Gersdone 13,225 | 72 3 2 35 474

H| Biselege 24,640 | 28 22 | 114

1 | Langetrev 30,189 |102 5ac 52 87

192,124 |736 317 | 745

GLOUCESTER & TEWKESBOURY.

A | Teodechesberie 24,439 | 172 1 57 803

B | Derheste 32,377 | 112 2 473 | 86

c | Tetboldestane 14,629 92 24 86

Chintineham 13,016 | 30 14 40

E | Dudestan and Bertune 40,557 91 2 53 181
F | Witestan 11,437 35 9 544

Ga | Blacelawes 13,208 | 46 16 86

149,663 | 579 1 2203 | 614

 

 

 
Domespay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSIIRE,

KIFTSGATE & SLAUGHTER.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:
i z ag MILLS.
a a 8 SB No £s.d
1,080 1,080 1 0 5 0 Ja
15,900 15,900 1 010 0 |x
17,040 10 17,050 8 Be se
14,040 88 2900 17,028 | 10 S38 lo
3,360 8.640 | 12,000 8 312 0 |e
9,660 60 9,720 7 25 6 |r
25,560 72 25,632 .| 16 51510 {e¢
4,080 36 4,116 64 2 2 4 In
90,720 206 | 11,600 | 102,526 | 573] 1914 0
COTSWOLD.
16,440 25 60 | 16,525 8 26 6 |x
12,240 20 1,440} 13,700 6 118 4 |p
7,800 10 720 8,530 2 i eo le
19,440 48 19,488 | 17 9 510 |p
13,020 51 230! 13,301 | 15 315 8 |x
15,600 67 15,667 | 11 48 4 |F
9,900 | 198 10,098 9 3 0G le
16,320 14 | 15,960] 32994 | 13 210 2 In
16,680 55 2,880 | 19,615 | 182 £1911 | 14
127,440 | 488 | 21,290] 149,218 | 993! 33 4 9
GLOUCESTER & TEWKESBURY.
16,500 | 199 3270 19,969 7 215 0 cs
16,020 | 174 | 6510 | 2270 | 8] 3 00 |p
13,200 13,200 Cl Geekg ike
6,480 20 770 7,270 g| @€11 8 |e
28,080 | 130 4650 32,850 8| @17 2 E
7,620 30 240 7,890 | F
12,240 60 1860 14,160 s| 412 6 |e
100,140 | 603 | 17,300 118,043 | 37] 1117 6 |

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

330 DomeEspay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

‘KIFTSGATE & SLAUGHTER.
HUNDRED. ae ee: a
£s a £ s. d.
A | Cheftesihat 15 0 0
B | Celflede 96 0 0 80 10 0
ce | Wideles 121 0 0 91 4 0
D | Gretestanes 73 0 0 66 12 0
E | Sudeley and Toddington 40 0 0 40 0 0
F | Holeforde 66 0 O 47 10 0
G@ | Salesmanesberie 127 16 O 156 14 0
m | Bernitone 380 0 0 32 0 0
553 16 0 529 10 0

COTSWOLD.
A | Bradelege 89 9g 0 93 10 0
B | Wacrescumbe 59 10 O 46 8 0
c | Becheberie 25 0 0 27 10 0
D | Brictuuoldesberg 103 0 0 199 16 8
E | Respigete 75 14 0 110 19 0
F | Cirecestre 115 19 0 110 4 0
Gc | Gersdone 67 7 O 76 7 0
H | Biselege 75 0 0 82 0 0
1 | Langetrev 109 15 0 172 19 0
720 5 0 919 13 8
GLOUCESTER & TEWKESBOURY.

A | Teodechesberie 190 5 0 110 15 0
B | Derheste 67 10 0O 70 0 0
c | Tetboldestane 39 0 0 66 O 0
pv | Chintineham 26 5 0 44. 0 0
zr | Dudestane & Bertune 72 5 O 143 9 4
F | Witestane 31 0 0 23 0 0
G | Blacelawes 42 0 0 42 0 0
468 5 0 499 4 4

 

 

 
Domespay SURVEY OF GLOTCESTERSTIIRE, Bal

KIFTSGATE & SLAUGHTER.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

a 4 Ba S a TOTAL MALES,
3 § a | Z
5 a a R < est
10 4 6 20 1a
132 27 1 17 7 2 939 |B
184 39 2 104 16 3 332 |
110 49 73 8 932 |p
35 15 12 12 2 64 | &
93 16 9 49 23 5 172 |p
239 75 2 112 31 [ 435 |g
35 19 40 1 95 |
834 242 14 469 107 20 1589
COTSWOLD.
163 36 55 16 4 258 | a
110 22 5 70 5 212 |B
68 10 3 33 13 3 ie lea
232 60 3 101 5 401 |p
128 BT 55 4 a 247 |B
129 68 132 5 5 334 | F
86 94 91 8 209 | «
95 68 12 63S 4 30 268 | 4
132 58 3 132 4 329 | 4
1143 403 26 732 42 | 71 9375
GLOUCESTER & TEWKESBURY.
118 45 13 | 104 | 54 8 O88 tg
159 92 95 6 352 ly
124 54 59 | 8 h | 42 fe
49 38 8 13 8 a Lig tp
140 114 7 100 | 13 874 4g
28 43 7 20 5 103 |p
80 69 32 | 1 182 G
698 455 35 496 | 68 40 | 1654

 

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

332 Domespay SouRVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,
SOUTH.

g

HUNDRED. HIDES. v. F.| a

fa z

3 a

4 a

A | Berchelai 66,989 | 149 3 2 694 | 225

B | Grimboldestow 25,263 | 66 28 71

c | Edredestane 14,729 | 37 17 52

p | Bachestane 10,307 18 11 22

E | Pulcrecerce 14,582 36 13 33

F | Letberge \ 2,277 6 6 9

@ | Svineshovede J 13,690 | 49 3 16 58

nH | Langelei 24,828 | 50 20 92

1 | -_Bernintrev 18,825 76 2 16 64

3 | Barton apud Bristou 8,693 | 10 5 40

200,183 | 499 0 2 | 20123 | 666

WEST.

A | Tolangebrige 3,382 12 7 18

B | Botelaw 29,488 63 24 | 140
c | Wesberie 21,041 54 1 164} 633

D | Bliteslau 14,363 41 3°23 7 58

E | Ledenei 6,293 20 2 7

F | Tuiferde 4,376 5 3 2 8

G | Tedencham 6,217 30 38
85,160 | 227 564 | 3324

SUMMARY.

a | Kiftsgate and Slaughter 122,688 569 2 5 | 263 | 493

B | Cotswold 192,124 | 736 2 ac.| 317 | 745

c | Gloucester & Tewkesbury 149,663 | 579 1 2204 | 614

D | South 200,103 | 499 2 | 2014 | 666
E | West 85,160 | 227 56% | 3324
749,818 |2611 5ac.}10584 28504

 

 

 

 
DomESDAY SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

333

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOUTH.

| z . TOTAL NO. MILLS.

e - 3 AVERAGE.

S 2 $ £s a.
35,340 35,340 11 314 6/4
11,880 114 5760 17,754 Te 313 2]|B
8,280 10 1440 9,730 2 0 8 4)c¢
3,960 73 910 4,943 6 111 8 ]pD
5,520 86 720 6,326 5 1 3 4/8
1,800 1,800 F
8,823 29 8,852 1 G
13,440 60 2160 15,660 6 012 8 u
9,600 9,600 1 0 1 8j1
5,400 5,400 2 0 1 7) 35
104,043 | 372 | 10,999 | 115,405 46 eo

WEST.

3,000 50 3,050 A
19,692 10 | 14,880] 34,582 6 019 10/8
9,600 10 1,460 11,070 1 0 1 5jc
7,800 720 8,520 3 0 5 10\pD
1,080 30 1,080 2,190 1 0 5 Olxz

960 960 F
4,560 1,440 6,000 (
46,692 100 19,580 66,372 11 112 1

SUMMARY.
!
90,720 206 11,600 102,526 | 573 19 lf O ja
127,440 488 21,290 149,218 994 33 4 9 |B
100,140 603 17,300 118,043 | 377| 1117 6 |e
104,043 372 10,990 115,405 46 11 611 |p
46,692 | 100 | 19,580 66,372 | 11 112 1 |x
469,035 1769 | 80,760 551,564 251 77:15 3

 

 
334 Domesvay SURVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOUTH.
; i mn Rk zB T R OW
HUNDRED

| £ s. d. £ sd

A | Berchelai 16 0 0 187 10 0
B | Grimboldestow 85 0 0 69 0 0
c | Edredestane 51 10 O 83 0 0
pv | Bachestane 32 0 0 25 0 0
E | Pulcrecerce 38 0 0 48 0 0
¥ | Letberge 7 0 0 9 0 0
G | Svineshovede 25 1 8 14 8 0
H | Langelei 18 10 0 105 10 0
1 | Bernintrev 24 0 0 38 l4 6
g | Barton apud Bristou 101 6 8
297 1 8 681 9 2

WEST.
A | Tolangebrige 518 0 10 0 0
B ! Botelaw 41 10 0 57 13 0
c | Wesberie 19 3 0 14 2 0
D | Bliteslaw 015 0 20 9 0
« | Ledenie 10 0 0 410 0
F | Tuiferde 710 0 710 0
G | Tedeneham 25 0 0
8416 0 139 4 0
j
SUMMARY.

Kiftsgate and Slaughter 553 16 0 529 10 0
Cotswold 720 5 0 919 13 8
Gloucester and Tewkesbury 468 5 0 499 4 4
South 297 1 8 681 9 2
West 84 16 0 139 4 0
2124 3 8 2769 1 2

24 Nights’ Ferms 253 6 8
3022 7 10*

 

 

 

* Ferm of Gloucester, £60 ; from the Mint, £20; Ferm of Winchcombe, £28
Total, £108. In all, £3180 7s, 10d.
Domesbsy SURVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE, :

Ww
os
oT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SOUTH.
Ss = e
z 4 oS Z 3 TOTAL.
4 a 2 & e a MALES
F a | a 2 a
283 179 26 152 15 39 679 | A
84 79 1 59 9 232 | B
79 26 1 5D 2 163. cc
27 41 20 2 88 Ip
48 29 i 28 lt 120 ‘fs
8 6 6 l ane
57 52 41 150 ) &
127 69 19 53 6 O74 rT
51 39 8 35 3 20 153 ly
99 29 1 10 18 80 ja
786 549 57 459 24 | 109 | 1960 |
WEST.
35 12 15 62 A
123 83 4 25 12 247 B
65 80 10 155 c
63 40 5 108 D
10 8 3 2] E
38 22 60 G
342 245 4 58 | 12 | 661
SUMMARY.
838 O14 14 | 47g 107 20 1589
1143 403 26 732 42 71 2375
698 455 35 4.26 68 | 40 1654
786 549 57 459 24 | 109 1960
342 45 | 4 58 0 12 661
3807 1896 | 136 | 2148 | 241 | 252 8239

 

 

 

 
 

 

 

336 Domespay SurvEY or GLOUCESTERSHIRE,
AC’S. TO A HIDE
HIDE. PLOUGH

& LAND.

& a

& = £s d}]& sd

a °

n a
A | Cheftesihat
B| Celflede 165 131 013 4 012 2
c | Wideles 193 171 1 00 014 0
p| Gretestanes 358 283 1 2 2 011 5
nr | Sudeley and Toddington 223 | 600 2 0 0/ 1 8 7
F | Holeforde 303 162 015 10 0 11 10
c | Salemanesberie 183 142 017 8 015 0
u| Bernitone 244 179 1 710 018 9
1 | Bradelege 184 | 151 017 10} 013 8
J | Wacrescumbe 188 137 0 9 4 09 1
K| Becheberie 228 168 010 9 0 8 6
L| Brictuuoldesberg 237 | 182 117 4/ 1 4 8
m| Respigete 319 | 164 O17 6; 013 2
nx | Cirecestre 257 182 1 SF 016 11
o | Gersdone 181 138 1 O11 018 7
P| Biselege 880 1153 218 7 012 1
Q | Langetrev 296 192 113 11 1 4 10
R | Teodechesberie 136 129 0 13 10 015 1
s| Derheste 282 203 012 6 010 6
T | Tetboldestane 159 144 O14 4 012 0
u| Chintineham 434 249 1 9 7 016 4
v| Dudestane and Bertune 445 361 111 6 012 3
w]| Witestane 327 218 013 2 0 7 2
x | Blacelawes 287 308 018 8 0 8 9
A| Berchelai 446 235 15 0 012 4
B| Grimboldestow 383 269 1 010 013 11
c | Edredestane 398 263 2 4 9 141
p| Bachestane 573 275 17 9 015 2
E| Pulcrecerce 405 176 1 6 8 1 0 10
F | Letberge
«| Svineshovede ; coe linen BS hee
u| Langelei 496 313 22-2. 2 017 11
1 | Bernintrev 249 126 010 2 0 9 8
J | Barton apud Bristou 869 | 540 | 10 2 8] 2 5 O

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Domespay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE,

337

 

ACRES TO EACH LABOURER.

 

 

VALUE OF VALUE OF
DOMESDAY ACRE. STATUTE AORE, es A
i F > B
é :
A 1-21 0:96 84 66
B 1-45 1:24 62 51
Cc 0-94 0:74 92 60
D 0-80 2-14 70 53
x 1:17 0-62 105 56
F 1-41 1-16 74 58
G 1:87 1:37 59 41
H 1:35 1:12 78 63
I 0-81 0:59 89 58
J 0:77 0°55 101 66
K 2°45 1:89 63 48
L 1:27 0-64 105 53
M 1:68 1:19 66 44
N 1:80 1:38 66 4T
P 2:12 1:37 92 51
Q 1-28 1:22 84 57
R 0-74 0.53 92 45
s 1:20 1-08 60 54
v 1-45 0:81 115 57
U 1-06 0-84 108 75
Vv 0:72 0°48 111 74
Ww 071 0:76 73 67
B 0-93 0:66 108 51
c 2:04 1°35 90 5]
x 1-21 0:58 117 45
E 1°82 0-72 199 46
a es 1-89 93 ‘ai
H 1-62 1.02 91 49
a Doe 0-49 123 63
a 4:50 278 109 67

 

 

 

 

 

Pm
 

 

 

 

 

 

338 Domespay SURVEY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE.
ACS. TO A HIDE
fate HIDE. PLOUGH

S > LAND.

B 2

g 18a) £ 8 a

o S
ems a (=)
K| Tolangebrige 282 254 016 8] 0 8 0
L |" Botelav 468 549 018 4/] 0 7 O
m| Wesberie 389 205 2 3 0 19 0
n| Bliteslav 342 203 114 0 1 2 0
o | Ledenei 314 109 0 4 6 010 0
P| Tuiferde 729 160 1 5 O|] O18 9
Q| Tedeneham 207 | 200 016 8| O18 2
R | The Shire 287 211 1 3 2] 015 5
s | Kiftsgate and Slaughter 215 | 179 018 7] 014 0
tT | Cotswold 260 203 15 0 017 3
u | Gloucester & Tewkesbury | 258 | 203 015 6] 012 0
o | South 400 231 1 7 3 015 8
w) West 374 292 012 8 0 7 2

 

 

 

 

 

 
Domespay SURVEY oF GLOUCESTERSHIRE. 339

 

 

ACRES TO EACH LABOURER.
VALUE OF VALUE OF
DOMESDAY ACRE. STATUTE ACRE. wa 4
&

e g
D. D. & B
5 be
K 0-78 0-71 55 49
L 0°40 0-47 119 80
M 2.52 1.32 135 62
N 2.01 1:18 133 72
0 0-49 0:16 299 51
P 1:88 0-41 547 120
Q 1:00 0:96 104 76
R 1:29 0-96 91 56
s 114 1:04 77 57
T 1:48 114 81 53
Vv 1-42 0:82 102 53
w 0-50 0°39 129 71

 

 

 

 

 

The purpose of the tables on pages 232-335 is not only to shew as far as
possible the particulars recorded in the Survey concerning each manor, in such
a form that they can be easily understood and readily utilised by any one who
wishes to consult the record ; but also to identify as exactly as may be the
modern equivalent of each manor. The figures of the Survey have been ex-
tended into area] measures according to principles already explained, but the
number of teams both on the demesne and on the tenants’ land has been given, in
order that the Survey may speak for itself, and that its statements may not be
veiled under a system of interpretation. Bearing in mind that the Gloucester-
shire Commissioners never register the area of pasture land, and frequently
pass over woodland, it is easy from these tables to form a very fair idea of the
condition of most of the parishes in the shire eight hundred years ago.

The tables on pages 336-339 contain a summary of the particulars shewn in
the former table. They shew the average acreage corresponding to each hide
mentioned ; first the number of statute acres, and then the number of acres
registered in the Survey. They then shew the average value corrresponding
to each hide and ploughland, to each statute acre, and to each acre registered ;
and finally they shew the number of statute acres, and of arable acres corres-
ponding to each male tenant. These figures will be found useful in estimating
the condition of the various parts of the shire.
340

Index

Abenhall, 25, 204, 317

Abson, 192, 305

Acton Turville, 64, 189, 301

Adlestrop, 11, 73, 150, 219, 257
Admington, 80, 137, 233

Alderley, 64, 189, 301

Alderton, - 75, 80, 103, 130, 140, 146,

37,

Aldsworth, 153, 265
Alkerton, 44, 182, 293
Alliston, 9, 22, 25, 109, 207, 321
Almondsbury, 184, 194, 197, 297
Alstone, 26, 27
Alveston, 49, 67, 80, 103, 116, 118, 120,

196, 309
Alvington, 207, 321
Ampney and Cerney, 45, 171, 172, 285
ad Crucis, 102, 103, 170, 171, 181

Ampney Down, 101, 118, 170, 285

Ampney St. Mary, 79, 82, 101, 170,285

Ampney St. Peter, 170, 285

Archenfeld, 209

Atlingham, 42, 104, 297

Arlington, 116, 118, 153, 157, 265

Ashchureh, 103, 145

Ashleworth, 42, 184, 297

Ashton on Garant, 144, 245

Ashton, Cold, 49, 192, 305

a na, 13, 100, 118, 142, 241,

Aston Blank, 269

Aston Somerville, 113, 140, 227

Aston-sub-Edge, 136, 233

Aust, 46, 198, 313

Avening 67, 107, 119, 161, 277

ae 25, 100, 109, 111, 113, 118, 122, 205,
1

Aylworth, 151, 261
Aylburton, 207, 321

Bachestane Hundred, 31, 35, 36,50,59,191,
804, 332, 336

Badgworth, 43, 64, 95, 177, 289

Badminton, 11, 102, 189, 301

Bagendon 167, 281

Barnsley, 80, 153, 265

Barnwood, 289

Barrington, Great, 102, 119, 121, 152, 261

Barrington, Little, 119, 152, 261

Batstord, 78, 189, 237

Bath, 23, 119, 221

Launton, 166, 281

Beckford, 13, 100, 118, 121, 141, 220, 241

Berkeley, 42, 64, 66, 78, 75, 78, 100, 104,
116; 118, 123, 183, 293

Hundred, 31, 33, 35, 42, 50, 51,

ie, 182, 221, 293, 332, 336

Bernintrev Hundred, 31, 35, 36, 96, 197,
312, 332, 236

ee Hundred, 81, 38, 35 151, 380,

INDEX.

of laces.

 

Beverstone, 42, 184, 297

Bicanofre, 26, 82, 204

Bibury, 73, 75, 101, 104, 158, 157, 265
Hundred, 31, 35, 36, 122, 153,

264, 330, 336

Bicknor, English, 26, 27, 204, 210

Bickmarsh, 103, 137, 233

ea ae Cleeve, 1%, 68, 83, 101, 142, 241

. Hundred, 31, 39, 83, 141

relay Ge "36, 101, 103, 108, 128, 173, 285
és Hundred, 31, 16, 60, 108, "12,
173, 285, 330, 336

Bitton, 80, 102, 118, 122, 123, 193, 309

Blacelawes Hundred, 31, 35, 108, 162, 180,
292, 330, 336

Blaisdon, 203, 317

Blakeney, 321

Bledington, 257 :

Blidsloe and Hundred, 31, 25, 35, 122,205,
206, 321, 332, 337

Boddington, 34, 46, 148, 249, 253

Botloe Hundred, 31, 25, 35, 64, 122, 201,
317, 332, 337

Bourton-on-the- Hill, 148, 253

Bourton-on-the-Water, 62, 101, 150, 219,
257

Boxwell, 62, 64, 187, 301

Bradley Hundred, 31, 36, 122, 154, 264,
330, 336

Brewerne, 108, 175, 289

Bringele, St., 26, 31, 32, 208, 210, 321, 332,

33
Brightwell’s Barrow Bees 31, 35, 108,
122, 159, 273, 330 3:
Brimpstield, 44, 101, 120, “153, 273
Bristol, 4, 35, 48, 66, 69, 75, 78, 81, 90, 106,
122, 124, 131, 199, 29 6, 31.
Castle at, 4. 132, 200
Churches, 100, 103, 132, 200
Mint at, 133
Barton by Bristol Hundred, 30, 31, 33, 50,
118, 122, 123, 131, 193, 199, 313, 382,
336

Braden Forest, 24, 65

Broadwell], 101, 128, 130, 219, 257
Brockwear, 209, 210

Brockworth, 102, 167, 177, 289
Bromsberrow, 6+, 80, 120, 201, 317
Brookthorpe, 20, 176, 289
Buckland, 56, 138, 233

Bulley, 123, 204, 317

Caerleon, 216

Caerwent, 58, 191, 216
Caen, Abhey of, 12, 15, 161
Caldicot, 216

Calmsdean, 97, 157

Cam, 183, 294, 297
Carlswall, 202, 817 .

Cassey Compton, 269
Celflede Hundred, 31, 32, 86, 50, 51, 62,
122, 135, 232, 330, 336

Cerney, North, 14, 68, 73, 97, 157, 269

Cerney, South, 68, 97, 102, 171, 286

Charfield, 191, 305

Charingworth, 138, 233

Charlton Abbots, 68, 237

Charlton Kings, 43, 143, 241

Chedworth, 63, 114, 116, 118, 156, 269

Cheftesihat Hundred, 31, 32, 122, 139,236,

330, 336

Cheltenham, 43, 100, 104, 118, 122, 123,
148, 220, 241

Hundred, 31, 35, 143, 221,

241, 330, 336

Chepstow, 54, 65, 177, 216, 218

Cherrington, 163, 277

Child’s Wickham, 130, 138, 140, 237

Chippenham, 26, 186

Chipping Campden, 80, 120, 138, 233

Churcham, 63, 67, 203

Churchdown, 14, 102, 177, 289, 317

Cirencester, 69, 76, 77, 89, 118, 120, 122,
128, 124, 163, 281

Cirencester Hundred, 31, 35, 50, 122, 163,
221, 281, 330, 336

Clapton, 44, 261

Cleeve—Sce Bishop's Cleeve.

Clifford Chambers, 11, 68, 100, 146, 245,
249

Clifton, 34, 42, 195, 199, 309

Cloptune, 130, 232

Coaley, 104, 183, 297

Coates, 44, 164, 281

Coberly, 154, 158, 265, 269

Codrington, 192

Colesborne, 68, 73, 155, 157, 269

Coln 8. Aldwyn, 62, 159, 273

Coln 8. Denys, 60, 257

Coln Rogers, 100, 118, 154, 265

Compton Abdale, 14, 43, 154, 265

Compton Greenfield, 198, 313

Compton, Little, 25, 28, 60, 257

Condicote, 138, 149, 233, 257

Cornwall, 84, 93

Corse, 148, 253, 257

Cow Hone) bourne, 80, 135, 233

Cowley, 60, 158, 269

Cranham, 44, 158, 174, 273, 285

Cromhall, 21, 43, 75, 134, 297

Crowthorne Hundred, 31, 32, 285

Culkerton, 60, 62, 80, 162, 277

Daglingworth, 167, 281
Dean Forest, 25, 2i, 65, 66, 203, 208
Iron, 63, 108, 126

Dene Manor, 25, 26, 49, 65, 81, 82, 204

Deerhurst, 198, 130, 14, 253, 257
Hs Hundred, 31, 33, ‘34, 60, 69, 96,
146, 147, 252, 330, 336

Didbrook, 145, 245

Didmarton, 81, 120, 155, 179, 189, 301

Dinham, 216

Dixton, 103, 249

Dodington, ‘sl, 190, 301

Dorset, 28, 30, 50, 106, 224, 226, 227

Dorsington, 136, 233

Dowdeswell, 156, 269

Doynton, 78, 80, 192, 305

Droitwich, 312

Driffield, tol, 172, 285

Dudstane & King's Barton Hundred, 31,
35, 69, 118, 119, 175, 289, 321, 330, '336,

Dumbieton, 140, 237

. Dudcot, 103

INDEX.

 

341

Duntsbourne Abbots, 11, 13, 20, 21, 80,82,
158, 167, 273, 281

Duntsbourne Rouse, 142, 167, 168, 281

Dursley, 183, 297

Dymock, 64, 66, o fe 100, 118, 120, 122,
124, 201, 218, 3

Dyrham, 165, 188, 198, 301

Earthcott, 192, 196, 309

Eastington, 44, 181, 293

Eastleach Martin, 159, 273

Eastleach Turville, 159, 273

Ebrington, 138, 233

Edgeworth, 16, 68, 74, 174, 285

Edredestane Hundred, 11, 31, 35, 190,300,
332, 336

Elberton, 207, 297

Elkstone, 158, 269

Elmore, 178, 289

Elmstone, 148, 253

Etloe, 25, 206, 321

Evington, 253

Eycote, 157, 269

Eyford, 151, 261

Fairford, 100, 119, 159, 166, 195, 273
Farmcote, 113, 245

Farmington, 80, 154, 265
Fiddington, 73, 145, 245, 249
Filton, 184, 297

Flaxley, 26, 27

Forthampton, 108, 145, 245
Foxcote, 155, 269

Framilode, 179

Frampton Cotterell, 102, 104, 197, 206,309
Frampton Mansell, 174, ‘285
Frampton-on- Severn, 128, 180, 293
Fretherne, 181, 191, 2 293

Frocester, 70, 180, 293

George, St., 30, 199, 313

Gersdone Hundred, 31, 50, 68, 108, 122,153
169, 285, 330, 336

Gloucester, 4 35, 74, 108, 116, 118, 122,
128, 126, 175, ‘921, 226, 289

Gloucester, Councils ‘at, l, 126
“5 Mint at, 133
a Churches, 102, 129

Gotherington, 142, 241

Gretestanes Hundred, 81, 32, 35, 36, 122,
140, 236, 330, 336

Grumbald’s Ash (Grimboldestou) Hund.,
31, 35, 69, 187, 301, 332, 336

Guiting, Lower, 20, 101, 112, 130, 144,245,

Gu.ting, Taree. 69, 86, 101, 112, 113, 128,
130, 144, 245

Hailes, 21, 78, 90, 112, 140, 237
Hallasey, 44, 118, 165, 281
Hampnett, 43, 98, 201, 130, 155, 265
Hampen, 80, 156, 2 69

Hambrook, 194, 309

Hanham, jo4, 309

Hanley, 25, 145, 245, 249
Hardwick (Elmstone), 148, 253
Hardwick (Standish), ou 179, 293
Harescombe, 20, 176, 2

Haresfield, 20, 21, 53, 7 176, 179 289,293
Harnhill, 45, i71, 172, 2 286
Harridge, it, 148, 253

Hartpury, 1765, 289
342

Haselton, 43, 64, 102, 155, 265
Haselton (Rodmarton), 81, 106, 162, 277
Hasfield, 148, 253
Hatherley, Down, 20, 53, 176, 239
Hatherley, Up, 95
Hatherop, 80, 106, 160, 273
Hawkesbury, 65, 78, 187, 801
Hawling, 144, 245
Hempsted, 108, 118, pe 289
Henbury, 80, 197, 313
Hundred, 31, 32, 33, 313

Hewelsfield, 25, 26, 65, "209, 321
Hidcote Bar tram, 136, 933
Hidcote Boyce, 21, 138, 233 :
Highnam, 67
Highleadon, 11, 317
Hilcote, 11, 155, 269
Hill, 183, 293
Hillesley, 81, 188, 301
Hinton-on-the-Green, 113, 142, 241
Holeforde Hundred, 31, 32, 35, 50, 122,

144, 244, 330, 336
Horfield, 67, 184, 297
Horsley, 128, 162, 181, 277
Horton, 64, 80, 188
Horwood, 65, 66, 190, 191, 192, 193, 195,

Hucclecote, 14, 177, 289
Huntley, 64, 202, 317

Icomb Church, 26, 150, 261

Icomb Place, 150, 257

Iron Acton, 55, 59, 64, 106, 191, 305
Itchington, 191, 198, 313

Kemerton, 11, 16, 34, 62, 103, 146, 148,
249, 253, 257

Kempley, 62, 202, 317

Kempsford, 69, 70, 120, 128, 160, 273

Ketford, 21, 64, 201, 317

Kingscote, 184, 297

Kingsweston, 34, 42, 184, 297

Kiftsgate Hundred, 32, 35, 221, 233-237,

idlagavoad (Berkeley), 26, 66, 186, 297
Kingswood (Bristol), 65, 66, 199

Ladeuent. 34, 35, 203

Lancaster, Duchy of, 32, 33

Lancaut, 82, 211, 325

Landavad, 102

Lanfihangel by Rogiett, 102, 214

Langley, Hundred, 31, 86, 50, 195, 309,
332, 336

Lanmartin, 102, 214

Lanvair Discoed, 216

Lasborough, 101, 162, 277

Lassington, 205, 321

Lawrence Weston, 184

Lea, 26

Lechlade. 9, 13, 69, 74, 108, 112, 128, 130,
160, 273

Leckhampton, 19, 143, 241

Ledenei and Hundred, 31, 25, 109, 208

Leigh, The, 11, 257

Lega, 26, 193

Leighterton, 187, 301

Lemington, 103, 249, 253

Letberge, Hundred, 26, 31, 32, 35, 193,
304, 332, 336

Lincolnshire, 50, 52, 83, 84, 163

Littledean, 25, 204, 317

Littleton-on-Severn, 101, 197, 210, 309

Littletcn, West, 190, 301

INDEX

 

se ola 31, 118, 122, 139, 233, 237,
31

Longhope, 25, 203

Longney, 108, 179, 293

Longtree Hundred, 31, 35, 36, 108, 122.
161, 273, 330, 336

Lydney, 25, 45, 118, 120, 206, 321

Madget, 19, 26, 32, 109, 119, 121, 210, 325
Maisemore, 175, 289
Malmesbury, 28, 133
Malvern Chase, 65, 145
Mangotsfield, 30, 55, 57, 199, 201, 213
Marshfield, 100, 103, 104, 118, 119, 190, 301
Marstcn, Broad, 135, 233

Long, ‘135, "233
Matson, 178, 289
Mene, 31, 139
Meysey Hampton, 172, 285
Mickleton, 111, 135, 233
Minchinhampton, 101, 108, 161, 277
Minety, 23, 4@, 66, 164
Minstersworth, 204, 205, 321
Miserdine, 102, 103, 173, 285
Micheldean, 25, 204, 317
Monmouth, 208, 209
Moreton-in-the-Marsh, 253
Moreton Valence, 179, 293
Murcott, 82, 205, 321

Nailsworth, 162

Nass (Lydney), 109, 118, 120, 206, 321
Natton, 145, 147, 245, 249

Naunton, 151, 261

Nesse, (Berkeley) 185

Netherwent, 209, 216

Newent, 21, 22, 34, 64, 100, 124, 196, 201,

Newerne, 208

Newington Bagpath, 185, 297
Newland, 26, 27, 209, 210
Newnham, 25, 52, 204, 317
Nibley, North, 104, 297
Norcott, 81, 166, 281
Northleach, 14, 154, 265
Northwick, 199

Norton, 80, 103, 177, 289
Notgrove, 64, 269
Nympsfield, 183, 297

Oakley, 24, 66, 101, 164
Oddington; 14, 149, 257
Oldbury-on- -the- Hill, 74, 189, 301
Oldbury-on-Severn, iy
Oldbury (?) 197, 309 !
Oldland, 80, 194, 309
Olveston, 101, 196
Owlpen, 185, 297
Oxenhall, 62, 128, 202, 317
Oxenton, 103, 130, 145, 245
Ozleworth, 104, 184, 297

Painswick, 42, 44, 48, 64, 101, 108, 158, 174
2

85
Pamington, 145, 245
Pauntley, 21, 202, 317
Pegglesworth. 269
Pebworth, 82, 136, 233
Pinbury, 80, 167, 281
Pinnock, 180, 145, 245
Pitchcombe, 289
Pontune, 207
Portskewett, 214, 217
Postlip, 141
Prestbury, 101, 180, 143, 156, 241
Preston (Cirencester), al, bb, 281
Preston (Ledbury), 205, 3:
Preston- Rasa oe Hie
Prinknash, 178, 28:
Pucklechureh, 30, ” 67, 78, 102, 108, 128,

192, 305
Pucklechurch Hundred, 31, 35, 192, 305,

332, 336
Purton, 206, 321

Quedgeley, Ae uot
Quinton, 136, 2:
Quenington, 5 79, 80, 101, 128, 159, 273

Randwick, 30, 293
Rangeworthy, 196
Rapsgate ee 81, 35, 108, 122, 156,
273, 330, 336
Rendcombe, 68, 74, 158, 273
Rissington, Great, ’20, 728, 150, 261
<3 Little, 150, 257
Wick, 261
Rockhampton, 112, 309
Rodborough, 161, 277
Rodley, 80, 303, 31 17
Rodmarton, 44, 51, 60, 101, 162, 165, 277,

281
Rowell, 144, 245
Ruerdean, 25, 26, 27, 204, 210
Rudford, 106, 202, 317

Saintbury, 108, 106, 139, 237

Salemanesberie Hundred, 31, 33, 35, 36,
122, 143, 149, 256, 330, 336

Salisbury, 24, 133, 163, 188

Salperton, 43, 102, 155, 265

Sandhurst, 20, 53, 113, 176, 289

Sapperton, 108,174, 285

Saul, 30, 64, 293

Senlac, Battle of, 7, 9, 121

Sezincote, 139, 233, 237

Sevenhampton, 74, 143, 156, 269

Shenington, 25, 146, 245, 249

Sherborne, 149, 257

Shipton, Oliffe, 101, 104, 156, 269

Shipton Sollars, 156, 167, 269

Shipton Moyne, 43, 69, 82, 163, 277

Shirehampton, 34, 198°

Shropshire, 50, sd

Shurdington, 43, 178, 289

Siddington S. Mary, 80, 102, 166, 281

Siddington S. Peter, 101, 166, 281

Simondshall, 184, 297

Siston, 192, 305

Side, 102, 158, 273

Slaughter, Lower, 69, 116, 118, 122, 149,

257
Slang ater, Lower, Hundred, 31, 32, 221,
257

Slaughter, Upper, 82, 149, 257

Slimbridge, 104, 185, 297

Snowshill, 62, 144, 244

Sodbury, Chipping, 190, 301

Sodbury, Little, 188, 301

Sodbury, Old, ‘2, 67, 108, 107, 111, 119,
190, 195, 301

Southam, 142, 241

Somerset, 28, 30, 50, 98, 223, 224, 226, 227

Southrop, 102, 154, 160, 273

Staffordshire, "og, 50, 106, 228

Seance 14, 22, 30, 70, "5, 100, 108, 179,

INDEX.

 

343

Stanley, Kings, 106, 108, 180, 293
Stanley St. Leonard’s, To4, 180, 183, 186,

293
Stanley Pontlarge, 103, 249
Stanton, 80, 237
Staunton, 26, 27, 210
Stapleton, 30, 199, 313
Stanway, 100, 103, 111, 147, 249
Staverton, 60, 257
Stears, 25, 204. 317
Stinchcombe, 183, 293
Stoke Archer, 34, 142, 146, 241, 249
Stoke Bishop, 46, 186, 198, 813
Stoke Gifford, 32, 101, 193, 198, 305, 309
Stone, 183, 293,
Stonehouse, 70, 108, 180, 293
Stow-on-the-Wold, 52, 149, 219, 257
Stowell, 80, 154, 265
Stratton, 101, 166, 281
Stroud, 173, 285
Sudeley, 31, 32, 64, 141, 241, 330, 236
Sutton Brailes, 25, 28, 253
Swell, Lower, 103, 150, 261
Swell, Upper, 101, 219, 233
Swindon, 14, 143, "241
Swineshead ‘Hund., 31, 198, 309, 332, 336

Tarlton, 44, 163, 165, 277, 281

Taynton, 81, 103, 202, 317

Tetbury, 43, 69, iol, 163, 2 277

Tewkesbury, 49, 68, 76, 82, 108, 111, 119,
128, 131, 145, 195, 245

Tewkesbury Hundred, 81, 33, 34, 35, 50,
69, 96, 145, 245, 330, 336

Througham, 81, 173, 285

Thornbury, 103, 109, 111, 114, 116, 119

Hundred, 32, 19 1

‘Tibaldstone Hundred, 31, 35, 56, 62, 141,
221, 241, 330, 336

Tibberton, 64, 202, 317

Tidenham and Hundred, 19, 26, 31, 32, 35,
37, 80, 81, 97, 100, 116, 118, 197, 210,
211, 217, 309, 324, 325, 332, 337

Tidenham Fisheries, 37, 109

Tirley, 148, 253

Tockington, 107, 116, 118, 196, 309

Toddington, 31, 32, 80, 112, 113, 141, 241

Todenham, 96, 253

Tolangebrige Hundred, 81, 35, 153, 205,
320, 332, 337

Tormarton, ‘101, 190, 3C1

Tortworth, 64, 191, 305

Tredington, 245

Trewsbury, 44, 165, 281

Turkdean, 43, 154, 265

Tutbury, 10

Tviferde Hundred, 19, 31, 32, 35, 210, 324,
332, 337

Twining, 68, 140, 146, 237, 249

Tytherington, 59, 81, 191, "194, 305

Uckington, 60, 257

Ullington, 74, 136, 233

Uley, 104, 183 297

Uletone, 177

Upleadon, 11, 201, 317

Upton st. Leonard's, 78, 175, 289
Upton (Tetbury), 44, 277

Wacrescumbe Hundred, 81, 36, 122, 155
330, 336 ,
Walton Cardiff, 145 , 245

Walton (Deerhurst), 147
Wapley, 123, 192, 193, 305, 309
344

Washbourne, Great, 103, 249
* Little, 26
Welford, 60, 257

Wenecote, 146, 249

Went-wood, 209

Wenric, 152, 172

Westbury-on-Severn, 63, 109, 118, 122, 144
317

Westbury-on-Severn Hundred, 31, 35, 66,
122, 203, 317, 325, 332, 337

Westbury Ablatum, 34, 198, 200, 203

Westbury-on-Trym, 46, 75, 78, 80, 102,
124, 131, 154, 186, 197, 199, 313

Westerleigh, 192, 305

Westfield, 151, 261

Westcote, 150, 257

Westminster Hundred, 31, 32, 33

Weston Birt, 162, 277

Weston-on-Avon, 80, 137, 219, 233

Weston-sub-Edge, 101, 137, 233

Whaddon, 177, 289

Whitminster, 102, 128, 181, 2!

WATipoS Hundred, 31, 35, m0, 293, 330,

Whittington, 269

Wick, 192, 305
Wickwar, 59, 191, 305
Widecestre, 162, 181
Widford, 14, 24, 153, 261

Srdey

Abingdon, es of, 93, 140, 157, 171, 236

Abraham Pr.,

Adam, f. Hubert, 1 10, 188

‘Aldred, 304, 305

Ailric, t., Church of Worcester, 268

Aldwin, 272

Alestan, 177, 280, 288, 320

Alestan de Boscombe, 197, 308

Alfer, 320

Algar, 304

Algar, t R.E., 308

Alline, 276

Alric; 232

Alric t., R.E., 300

Alser, 260

Alured Hispanic, 212, 216

Aluric, et 288, #

Aluric, t. zz K., 6, 272, 276

Alward, t, R.E., 304

Alward, 236, 230, 300

Alwi Vicecomes, 20, 109, 144, 206

Alwi, 236, 280, 304

Alwi, t., Com. Heraldi, 308

Alwi t. R.E., 284

Alwin, 146, 244, 248, 260, 276, 280, 284,
300, 316

Alwin t. Aldred Archieps. 316

Alwine, 284

Alwold, 130, 145, 244, 245, 272, 316

Anne, 304

‘Ansfrid de Cormeliis, 13, 21, 74, 99, 141,
156, 157, 158, 167, 174, 201, 202, 222°
223, 232, 236, 241, 264, 268, 272, 280,
284, 316

Anselm, 8., 92, 105

INDEX,

 

 

Wideles Hundred, 31, 86, 56, 62, 122, 188,
233, 330, 336

Willersey, 101, 188, 219, 233

Wilcote, 173, 383

Williamstrip, 159, 273

Winchcombe, 116, 118, 122, 120, 140, 218,
226, 237

Winchcombe Hundred, 32, 130

Wincote in Quinton, 237

Windrush, 33, 75, 97, 152, 261

Winson, 43, 155, 26 5

Winstone, 21, 62, 155, 174, 285

Winterbourne, 133, 193, 309

Witcombe, Great, 177, 289

Withington, 75, ar 128, 130, 155, 269

Mrcea Dette, 11, 20, 27, 35, 40, 119, 161,

277
Woolstone, 257
Woolastone, 2s at 80, 109, 120, 210, 325
Wootton, 177, 2
Wormington, tit, 237
Wotton-under- “Edge, 184, 185, 297
Wychwood Forest, 65
Wyegate, 25, 26, 65, 109, 209, 321

Yanworth, 11, 43, 155, 265
Yate, 198, 313
Yorkshire,83

of Persons.

Ansger, 269

Anschitel, 155, 269, 276

Anschitel, t., Durandi, 155, 301

Anschitel, t., Hunfrid Camerar., 281

Arnulf Presbyter, 127

Aschil, 256

Ava, 252, 292

Awre, Church of, 321

Balchi, 264

Balduin, 232, 286

Balduin Abbas, 16, 146, 253

Balduin f. Herluin, 264

Balduin, t., R.W., 171, 273, 285

Bath, Abbey of, 23, 37, 49, 93, 97, 99, 171,
304, 808, 324

Berdic joculator, 212

Bernard Presbyter, 105, 183, 186

Bernard, 34, 241

Bernard, t., R. W., 142, 245, 249

Bernard, t., Ansfrid de Cormeliis, 273

Bernard t. Turstin f. Rolf, 1+8, 301

Bernard, t., Ch. of Worcester, 241

Berner, 127

Berkeley, nuns of, 20, 185, 186

Blacheman, 232

Bleius, 212

Bolle, 75, 152, 260

Bolli, 280

Bondi, 207, $20

Bricsi, 276

Brame 128, 143, 181, 282, 240, 252, 292,

Brictric f. Algar, 4, 25, 67, 110, 112, 120,
145, 195, 210, 224, ‘244 248, 272, 276,
300, 308, 324
rictric, t., R.B. 244, 280

rictric, t., R.W, 241, 292, 298
rismar, 232

rismer, 236

ristol, Abbey of, 171, 184, 192, 196
ruton, Priory of, 181

nen, Abbey of, 12, 80, 93, 161, 167, 276,
0

2!

aradoc Rex, 214, 217, 218

henesis, 212

henuicelle, 236, 264

hester, Bishop of, 83

hetel, 272, 280, 284, 285, 292

irencester, Canons of, 14, 68, 93, 98, 148,
158, 174, 280, 284

lericus Hugo de Grentemaisnil, 137

ola, 272

onstantin t. Church of Worcester, 198,

313
foquus, R. W., 176, 289
‘ormeilles, Abbey ‘of, 34, 98, 97, 196, 201,

316
‘oventry, Church of, 93, 135, 232
fuenild Monialis, 15, 161, 261
yuulf, 308

Dagobert, 53, 212

Jeerhurst, Church of, 12, 38, 95, 102, 147
3. Denys, ‘of Paris, 12, 60, 93, 95, 99, 129,

130, 147, 223, 256

Jena, t R.E., 268

Jodo, 272

Jons, 194, 308, 309

drogo, f. Pons, 128, 150, 159, 180, 222, 261,

Drogo, b, Church of Worcester, 269

brogo, t., Radulf. de Todeni, 150

Durandus Vicecomes, 100, 127, 130, 139,
141, 142, 150, 153, 156, 162, 167, 170,
176, 178, 179, 157, 188, 202, 204, 212,
214, 222, 223, 232, 236, 241, 256, 265,
268, 269, 276, 280, 284, 288, 292, 300,
316, 317

Duning, 127, 248, 272

Dunne, 158, 194, 304, 308

Duns, 158, 194, 272

Ebbi h. Brictric f. Algar, 3

Ebrulf, 8., of Ouch, 93, 97, aS, 144, 244

Eddid Regina, 119, 190, 300

Eddiet, 15, 137, 232, 233

Edmar, 176, 288

Ediner, 272

Edmund, 280

Ednod, 170, 284

Edric, 232, 252, 264 292, 300, 308, 316

Edric, Vicecomes, 26

Edric f. Ketel, 166, 182, 281, 293

Edric lang t., Com. Heraldi, 288

Edric Streon, 220

Edwardus Rex, 26, 49, 95, 144, 155, 170,
179, 201, 236, 240, 244, 256, 280, 238,
308,316, 320.

Edward, t. ,R. W., 289

Edward de Wilteseire 161, 277

Edwi, 236, 252, 21 0, 268

Edwy Rex, 37, 97, i

Eilric, 308

Eilmer, 260

Filaf, 268

Elaf, t., Com. Tosti, 284

Elaf, 280

INDEX,

 

345

Eldred Archleps, Ebor., 14, 94, 98, 100,
105, 166, 175, 217, 264, 292

Eldred, t., Com. Herald, 308

Elfelt, t., BR. E., 304

Elfrid, 252, 258

Elmar, 280

Elmer, 272, 280

Elmui, 212

Elnoc, 276

Elnod, 276

Elric, ‘264, 284, 316

Elsi, 292, 293

Elsi de Ferendone, 15, 151, 152, 222, 261

Elstan, 282

Elward, 280, 316

Elward ¢. eiabalal, 153, 265

Elwi, 252

Elwin, 236, 252, 268, 284

Ernesi, 42, 236, 260, 280, 284, 292

Ernulf de Hesding, 99, 128, 160, 171, 189,
190, 194, 222, 223, 272, 284, 300, 208

Ernui, 316

Eth: Ired, Rex, aby aa 48, 49, 86, 149

Ethelric, 46, 96, 1

Eudo, t., Church of Worcester, 153, 265

Evesham, Abbey of, 93, 99, 128, 130, 135,
138, 140, 150, 218, 923, 232, 256

Eynsham, ‘Abbey of, 93, 135, 232

Eyton, Rev. R.W., 52, 56, 67, 69, 192, 215

Forne, 316

Fratres duo, 184

Fratres auinanes 177

Freeman, Mr. E. A., 27, 74, 218
Fuller, Rev. E, ie 89, 164.

Gaufrid, de Manneuile, 127
Girard, t., R,W., 16, 53, 142, 212, 213, 245
249

Girard Camerar., 34, 96, 146, 253

Girard, t., Roger de Laci, 281

Girard, t., S. Peter Westmonast., 148, 253

Girnius. t,, Turstin fitz Rolf, 281

Gislebert f. Turold, 74, 151, 157, 158, 165,
198, 222, 253, 260, 268, 272, 280, 313

Gislebert, t., Roger de Laci, 158, 273

Gislebert, Eps. Lisieux,162, a 222,276,300

Gislebert, t., Hugo Lasne, 281

Glastonbury, Abbey of, 93, 96, 128, 192,
223, 304

Gloucester, St. Oswald of, 14, 93, 94, 129,
148, 153, 157, 177, 240, 260, 268

Gloucester, S. Peter of, 14, 93, 94, 99, 112
124, 129, 144, 153, 160, 166, 175, 183,
223, 232, 2410, 256, 264, 272, 280, 288,
292, 300, 316, 320

Goda, 264

Goda soror R.E., 141, 276

Goda Comitissa, 136, 141, 282, 244, 276

Godric, 236, 252, 260, 280, 284, 283, 292,
304, 316

Godwin Monetarius, 134

Godwin Comes, 20

Godwin, 236

Godwin de Stantone, 152, 261

Godstow, Abbey of, 168, 180

Goiffrid, t., William Leuric, 265, 269

Goiffrid, t., William f. Baderon, 269

Goiffrid, t., Milo Crispin, 277

Goisfrid, Eps. Constantiensis, 4, 51, 54,55,
106, 131, 132, 190, 191, 193, 194, 198;
212, 223, 300, 304, 308°

Goisfrid, t., will Goizenboded, 245

Goisfrid’ Orleteile, t., R.W., 166, 222, 280

Goismer, 194, 309
346

Gosbert, 127
Gozelin Brito, 53, 191, 212, 222, 304
Griffin Rex (Gruffydd), 214, 217
Grim, 276
Gueda, Mater, Com. Herald, 121, 276
Guluert, 244
Gundulf, 268, 269

a

Hadewin, 127

Halfdene, 150, 256

Haminc, t., RE, 276

Hardine, 293

Hascott Musard, 139, 140, 151, 166, 173,
222, 236, 260, 280, 284

Henricus de Ferreres, 7, 9, 18, 22, 128,130,
160, 207, 222, 272

Heraldus Rex, 20, 49, 119, 176, 206, 218,
232, 272, 308, 316, 320

Herald, f. Radulphi, 113, 141, 222, 240,
241

Herbert, t., Will. de Ow, 60, 277, 281

Hereford, Church of, 45, 93, 240, 268, 320

Hermer, 146, 248

Herold h. Eluui Hiles, 304

Homo Com. Heraldi, 232

Homo Le. rici, 232

Homo Roger de Iveri, 154

Hugo Comes, 17, 22, 99, 100, 128, 138, 162,
174, 179, 184, 222, 232, 276, 284, 292

Hugo Lasne, 156, 167, 178, 222, 264, 268,
280, 289

Hugo Maminot, 162, 277, 301

Hugo de Grentemaisnil, 135, 136, 187, 222,
232

Hugo de Laci, 159, 166, 174

Hugo, t., Roger de Laci, 257, 261

Hugo, t., Will. f. Baderon, 261

Hugo, t., Will. de Gw, 277

Hunbald, t., Ernulf de Hesding, 309

Hunfrid de *Medehal, 189, 177, 222, 236
288

Hunfrid Camerarius, 55 106, 139, 166,170
191, 222, 232, 280, 284, 304

Hunfrid Cocus, 19, 148, 170, 222, 260

Hunfrid, t., R.W., 180, 146, 159, 175, 249,

273, 289

Huscarle, 232

Idhel, 212
liger, t., Eps. Constant. 305

Johannes, 276
Johannes Camer., 146, 159, 249, 273
John of Monmouth, 209

Keneward, t., R.E., 272
Keneward, 280
Ketel, 280

Lambeth, Church of, 136, 232

Lanfranc, Archieps. Cantuar., 105

Lanthony, Priory of, 152, 156, 157, 162,
171, 174, 176, 177, 178

Leofwin Monetarius, 134

Let, 146, 248

Leuenoc, 284

Leuenod, t., R.E., 284

Leuenot, 236

Leuin, t., R.E. 272, 276

Lewin, t., Herald Gom., 300

Leuric, 232, 264, 280, 316

Lewi, 232

INDEX,

 

Lewin, 152, 232, 252, 256, 260, 268, 276, 280

Lifwin Monetarius, 134

Lire, Abbey of, 93, 97, 146, 156, 158, 207,
272

Maci de Mauritania, 163, 222, 276
Madoch, 202, 316, 317
Malmesbury, Abbey of, 93, 109, 210, 308,

325
a Regina, 34, 69, 120, 132, 145, 164,

naceres held, 163, 2

Milo Crispin, ‘63, 76, 189, 222, 276, 288,
289, 300

Morganau, 316

Morinus, 155, 212, 214, 269

Nicholls, Rev. H. G.. 25

Nigel Medicus, 175, 289

Odo Eps. Baiocensis, 120, 154, 168, 218,265

Odo, t., Roger de Laci, 317

Offa, 256

Omenie, Church of, 284

Ovus propositus, 53, 212

Ordric, 143, 240, 260

Ordric, t., Ch. of Worcester, 269

Osbern Eps. Execestre, 14, 81, 127, 130,
176, 194, 304, 308

Osbern Gifard, 32, 34, 158, 197, 198, 222,
272, 304, 308, 313

Csbern f. Ricardi, 151, 260

Osbern de Keresburg, 261

Osbern, t., Ch. of Worcester, 233

Osbern, t , Durandi, 233

Osbert f. Pons, 179

Oseney, Abbey of, 153

Osgod, t., Heraldi Com., 272

Osgot, 140, 236, 240, 264, 268

Osulf, t., Eps. Constant. 309

Osulf, t, ne ae Turold, 281

Osward, hey R.E., 276

Osward) t., Gislebert Eps. Lisieux, 277

Osward, t., Gislebert f. Turold, 281

Oswid, 280

Pagen, 288

Palli, 206, 320

Pershore, Abbey of, 45, 93, 179, 187, 188,
189, . 07, 268, 300, 320

Pin, 268

Potters V. +» 21, 79, 179

Radulph Comes, 141, 240

Radulph de Todeni, 9, 45, 188, 150, 171,
201, 222, 223, 232, 056, 260, 284, 316

Radulph de "Berchelai, 223, 292, 304

Radulph de Limesi, 22, 54, 109, 177, 207,
212, 215, 218

Radulph Pagenel, 163, 165, 222, 280

Radulph. t., R. W., 145, 245

Radulph, t., Ch. of Worcester, 241

aoe t., Durandi, 142, 145, 237, 269,

Radulph, t., Radulph Pagenel, 261

Radulph, t , Roger de Laci, 257, 261

Radulph, t , Will. Goizenboded; 261

Rainaldus Capellanus, 146, 249

Rainbald, 14, 105, 143, 148, 166, 170, 172,
253, 380, "284

Rainbaldi frater, 170, 284

Rannulf, t., S. Oswald de Glow., 261

Rannulf, t., Will. Goizenboded, 261

Raynald, 34, 241
Remigius Eps. Lincoln., 7

Ricardus Legatus, 190, 222, 300

Richard, 21, 204

Robert Comes Moriton, 15, 222, 224, 232

Robert Dispensator, 127, 130, 140, 222, 226

Robert de Todeni, 128, 150, 222, 260, 284,
300

Robert Marmion, 137

Robert de Olgi, 146, 222, 245, 260, 264

Robert, t., Hugo Comes, 173, 2:5

Robert, t., Ch. of Worcester, 156, 269

Robert, t., Eps. Constant., 192, 305, 309

Robert, t., Roger de Belmont, 136, 233

Roger Comes de Glowcestre, 4, 21, 66,109,
120, 125, 153, 156, 163, 201, 202, 206,
208, 212, 224, 265, 277

Roger Comes de Montgomeri, 162, 172,
222, 284

Roger de Berchelai, 21, 26, 51, 54, 104,
121, 127, 180, 184, 185, 186, 190, 195,
206, 212, 222, 268, 297, 300, 304, 321

Roger de Belmont, 136, 156, 222, 232

Roger de Bush, 146, 24F

Roger de Iveri, 81, 98, 130, 155, 162, 163,
176, 222, 223, 264, 276

Roger de Laci, 16, 19, 42, 99, 109, 113, 127,
128, 130, 149, 150, 152, 158, 159, 164,
166, 174, 181, 210, 211, 215, 222, 223,
236, 244, 256, 260, 272, 280, 284, 293,
316, 324, 325

Roger de Olgi, 261

Roger de Pistres, 171, 178, 199, 208

Roger f. Radulphi, 195, 222, 308

Roger, t., Eps. Constant., 190, 301

Koger, t., Hugo de Grentemaisnil, 233

Roger, t., Radulph de Todeni, 233, 257,
285

Roger, t., Thomas Archieps, 321
Rotlese Huscarle, 121, 240
Rumbald, t., Maci de Maur., 277

Sawin, 236

Saxi, 232

Seuin propos. de Bristou, 195, 308

Seuin, t., Ch. of Worcester, 268

Schelin, 269

Scireuold, 60, 276

Serlo, Abbot of S. Peter’s, 95, 138, 142,
144, 176, 184

Sessibert, 212

Sigar de Cioches, 222, 244, 264

Siward Bar, 160, 163, 272

Siward, 260, 264, 276, 320

Stephen Rex, 91, 125, 165

Stigand Archieps. Cantuar., 14, 95, 97,
105, 111, 143, 157, 172, 240, 264, 284,

288, 324

Stow-on-the-Wold, Church of, 21, 49, 101,
104, 149

Strang Danus, 276

Taylor, Canon Isaac, 107, 219

Tetbald, 309

Tewkesbury Church of, 93, 103, 147, 248

Thomas Archieps. Ebor., 14, 9+, 143, 149,
154, 156, 157, 176, 178, 179, 228, 241,
256, 264, 268, 288, 292, 320

Tosti Comes, 272

Tovi, 70, 152, 170, 180, 232, 244, 260, 292,
326

Tovi Widenesci, 121, 260

Tovi, t., R.E., 284, 285, 292, 293, 316

Troarn, Church of, 93, 97, 128, 162, 181,

276
Turbern, 244

INDEX.

 

347

Turbert, t., Com. Heraldi, 240

Turchil, t., R.E., 288

Turchil, t., Com. Heraldi, 316

Turold nepos Wigot, 285

Turstan, 256, 260

Turstin f. Rolf, 54, 64, 81, 142, 148, 165,
170, 171, 180, 181, 188, 191, 198, 212,
216, 222, 241, 253, 280, 284, 292, 300,
304, 313

Turstin, t., Ansfrid de Cormeliis, 158, 273

Ulchetel, 320

Ulf, 150, 174, 260, 284, 800

Ulfeg, 316, 320

Ulfel, 316

Ulfelm, t., R.E., 316

Ulgar, t., R.E., 308, 316

Ulnod, 207, 300, 320

Uluric, 152, 260, 284

Ulward Vicecomes, 272

Ulward, 157, 176, 232, 244, 264, 268, 280,

284,
Ulward, t., R.E., 280
Ulwi, 171, 252, 256, 276, 284
Ulwiet, 232
Ulwin, 236
Urso d@’Abitot, 21, 112, 127, 189, 140, 222
Urso de Wirecestre, 236
Uxor Geri, 15, 144, 222, 244

Walchelin nepos Eps. Winton., 289

Walter Gifard, 7, 8

Walter Balistarius, 5, 58, 128, 206, 207,212,
214, 222, 308, 316

Walter Diaconus, 222, 236

Walter de Laci, 12, 21, 109, 158, 166, 167,
174, 201, 202

Walter f. Ercald, 237

Walter f. Pons, 154, 160, 222, 265, 272

Walter f. Roger, 150, 152, 155, 156, 157,
166, 171, 179, 182, 222, 261, 269, 284

Walter Pontherius, 253

Walter, 42, 195, 308

Walter, t., Durandi, 233, 257

Walter, t., Gislebert, f. Turold, 261, 273

Waswic, 212

Waswic, fil., 212

Wenric, 236

Westminster, Abbey of, 16, 76, 93, 95, 99,
100, 146, 147, 228, 252

Widard, 127

Wiga, 316

Wigot, 288, 300

Wihanoc, 204, 208, 316

Willielmus Rex i., 1, 49, 102, 109, 128, 136,
155, 158, 232, 236, 240, 244, 256, 260,
264, 272, 276, 280, 284, 288, 300, 30x,
312, 316, 320, 324

Willielmus Rex ii., 4, 91, 186, 180

Willielmus Comes, 13, 45, 54, 97, 100, 109,
113, 120, 124, 142, 145, 163, 171, 178,
184, 185, 196, 201, 206, 207, 208, 212,
218, 321

Williemus Goizenboded, 5, 20, 34, 130,136,
188, 140, 144, 145, 151, 152, 202, 204,

| 222, 223, 232, 236, 244, 260, 316

Willielmus de Ow, 22, 54, 60, 70, 1U9, 150,
165, 167, 177, 180, 197, 207, 210, 211,
212, 214, 215, 222, 223, 260, 276, 280
288, 292, 320, 324, 325

Willielmus Camerar., 222, 236

Willielmus Leuric, 21, 78, 90, 140, 154,
222, 236, 240, 264, 268
348

Willielmus f. Baderon, 5, 22, 100, 127, 148
164, 166, 167, 204, 206, 208, 209, 222,
253, 268, 276, 280, 316, 320, 321

Willielmus f. Norman, 202, 206, 207, 222,

, 320
Willielmus f. Wido, 188, 222, 300
Willielmus Froisselew, 141, 222, 232, 236,

288
Willielmus, t., Hunfrid Camer., 281, 285
Willielmus, t., Roger de Laci, 159, 278
Willielmus Calvus, 127
Willielmus Scriba, 127
Winchcombe, Church of, 15, 38, 93, 97, 99
gan 131, 155, 228, 282, 236, 244, 256,
2

INDEX.

Wislet, 176, 288

Wisnod, 292

Winstan, 320

Worcester, Church of, 33, 34, 78, 83, 93,
99, 128, 130 ,131, 141, 153, 154, 155, 157
198, 223, 232, 240, 260, 264, 268, 312

Worcester, Monks of, 261

Wulnoth Monetarius, 134

Wulfwin, Monetarius, 134

Wulfstan, S., 4, 90, 92, 98