But if William's policy be matter of question, Domesday at least is matter of fact; and Mr Freeman's followers cannot be surprised at the opposition he provoked, when we find him thus ridiculing a student for a charge he never made, and proved to have himself erred from his careless reading of Domesday.
I now append an analysis of the roll, showing the proportion of land 'gewered',[8] of 'inland', of _terra regis_, of land which had not paid (in square brackets), and of 'waste'. The totals in square brackets are those given in the document; the others are those actually accounted for.
Sutton 21-2/3 40 10 28-1/3 100 [100] Warden 17-3/4 40 41-1/4 99 [100] Cleyley 18 40 42 100 [100] Gravesend 18-1/2 35 5 41-1/2 100 [100] 'Eadbolds Stow' 23-1/2 45 5 26-1/2 100 [100] 'Ailwardsley' 16-1/2 40 [6-1/2] 37 100 [100] Foxley 16 30 21 33 100 [100] Wyceste 19[9] 40 20 21 100 [100] Huxlow 8 15 39 62 [62] Willybrook 7 11 31 13 62 [62] Upton Green 50 27 [3-1/2]29-1/2[10] 110 [109] Neuesland [80-1/2][11] 59 [8] 12-1/2 [160] Navisford 15 14 33 62 [62] Polebrook 10 20 32 62 [62] Newbottlegrove 44-7/8 72 33-1/8 150 [150] Gilsborough 16 68 66 150 [150] Spelho 20-1/2 [Borough 25] [16] 28-1/2 90 [90] Wiceslea W. 10 40 30 80 [80] Wiceslea E. 15 34 31 80 [80] 'Stotfald' 9-1/8 40 50-1/8 99-1/4 [100] Stoke 18 [10] 12 [40] Higham 49-1/2 44 56 149-1/2 [150] 'Malesley' 12 30 8 30 80 [80] Corby 8-1/2 12-1/4 12-1/4 [?4] 10-3/4 47-3/4 [47] Rothwell 10 20 7-1/2 [7-1/2] 45[12] [60] 'Andwertheshoe' [?26][13] 25 39 [90] Ordlingbury 29-1/2 24-1/2 21 80 [80] 'Wimersley' 41 60 49 150 [150]
The persons mentioned as not having paid can in most cases be identified. Thus 'Robert the Earl's wife' is one of those in Rothwell Hundred, whose land was 'unwered'. This was clearly Maud, wife of Count Robert of Mortain, who had been given lands by her father, Roger of Montgomery, at Harrington in this Hundred. Domesday, it is true, where it figures as 'Arintone', knows it only as 'Terra æcclesiæ de Grestain' (222 _b_); but a charter of Richard I (_per Inspeximus_) confirms to the Abbey 'ex dono Matildis Comitisse Moreton ... xxxii. hidas terre quas dederat ei pater suus Rogerus de Montegomerico, scilicet apud Haxintonam [_sic_] viii. hidas, etc.'[14] As the lands had first been given to Roger, then by him to his daughter, and, finally, by her to the Abbey, I cannot think our document earlier, at any rate, than 1068. Edith, whose name proves it not to be later than 1075, is entered as 'the lady, the King's wife', holding eight hides in Neuesland Hundred, and again as a holder in Rothwell Hundred, under the name of 'the King's wife'. Both entries, doubtless, refer to her wide-spreading Manor of 'Tingdene' (I. 222), parts of which lay in both the above Hundreds. Of the other holders we may notice 'Urs' (? Urse d'Abetot), and 'Witeget the priest'; but these are quite eclipsed by Richard and William Engaine, of whom the former occurs twice and the latter thrice on the roll. In Spelho Hundred 'Richard' seems to be credited with ten hides at 'Habintune' on which 'nan peni' had been paid. In Domesday his holding at Abintone is given as _four_ hides (i. 229). In the same Hundred, William's land at 'Multune' is in default. Moulton is not entered under his fief in Domesday, but under that of Robert de Buci we find a 'William' holding of him a hide and a virgate and a half in Moulton. This was William Engaine, as was the 'William' of our roll; and in the Hen. I-Hen. II survey,[15] we find land in Moulton entered as of Engaine's fee. Still more interesting is it to note that so late as 25 Ed. I. more than two centuries after Domesday, John Engayne is found holding half a fee in Moulton of Ralf Basset, and Basset of the King _in capite_. For, as our Leicestershire survey shows,[16] the Domesday fief of Robert de Buci had passed to Basset, of whose heir, therefore, Engayne held, as his ancestor had held of Robert de Buci, in the days of William the Conqueror.