A HISTORY OF WORCESTERSHIRE The same Wulfwine bought this manor from the bishop of Chester for three lives [ad atatem trium hominum). When he was ill and had come to the end of his life, he called (to him) his son, bishop Li,^ and his wife and several of his friends, and said : ' Hearken ye, my friends. I desire [volo) that my wife hold this land which I bought from the church so long as she lives ; and after her death, let the church from which I received it receive it (back) ; and let him who takes it from the church be excommunicate.' That this was so is testified by the chief {meliores) men of the whole county. The same William holds Nordfeld [North- field]. iElfwold {Alwoldus) held (it). There are 6 hides. In (the) demesne is i plough, and (there are) a priest and 7 villeins and 16 bordars and 6 cottars [cotmanni) with 13 ploughs, and 5 more ploughs could be (em- ployed) there. There are 2 serfs, and I bond- woman. The wood(land) is half a league {lewa) long and 3 furlongs in width. It was worth 8 pounds T.R.E. ; now 100 shillings. The same William holds Franchelie [Frankley], and Baldwin holds (it) of him. Wulfwine {Vlwinui) held (it). There is I hide. In (the) demesne is one plough. There are 9 bordars, with 5 ploughs, and 2 serfs. The wood(land) is I league [lewa) long and half (a league) in width. It was worth 40 shillings T.R.E. ; now 30 shil- lings. The same William holds Welingewiche [Willingwick] ^ and Baldwin (holds it) of
- The words are 'vocato filio suo ep'o
Li.' This name has caused difficulty. It would suggest Lyfing bishop of Worcester, but chronology is against this. Mr. Freeman was doubtless right in holding {Norm. Conq., V. 779) that 'this must mean Leofwine,' bishop of Lichfield (before the see was moved to Chester). But as the Domesday equiva- lent of Leofwine was ' Lewinus,' the ' Li ' might conceivably represent ' Licefelle,' the Domesday Lichfield. ^ This is identified with (Chadwick and) Willingwick in the royal manor of Broms- grove by the entry above (p. 286), under that manor, which shows us 3 virgates ' in Wil- lingewic' held, as here, by Baldwin of William Fitz Ansculf. The two entries should be carefully compared, as it seems impossible to say positively whether they refer to the same holding or not. If they do, we him. There are 3 virgates of land. There are one villein and i bordar with half a plough. There could be (employed) 2^ ploughs more. It was worth 5 shillings ; now 3 shillings. The same William holds Escelie [Selley F].^ Tumi and ' Eleva ' held it as 2 manors. Robert holds it of William. There is i hide. In (the) demesne is I plough, and (there are) 3 villeins and 2 bordars and 2 oxmen (bovarii) with 2 ploughs. There is i 'leuede' of wood(land). It was worth 20 shillings ; now 15 shillings. The same William holds Werwelie [Warley Wigorn], and ' Alelm ' (holds it) of him. ^thelward {/Eilward) held (it). There is half a hide. In (the) demesne is I plough, and (there are) 2 villeins and 8 bordars with 4^ ploughs. There are 2 serfs. It was worth 17 shillings T.R.E. ; now 10 shillings. The same William holds Cercehalle [Churchill], and Walter (holds it) of him. Wigar held (it). There are 2 hides. In (the) demesne is i plough, and 5 ploughs more can be (employed) there. It was worth 60 shillings ; now 8 shillings. In Clent Hund[ret] The same William holds Bellem [Belne in Belbroughton], Leofnoth (L«<OT«r), a thegn of king Edward, held (it). There are 3 hides. Robert holds it of William. In (the) de- mesne is I plough, and (there are) 7 villeins and 4 bordars with 4 ploughs. There are 2 serfs, and a saltpan worth {de) 2 ounces (of silver). There could be (employed) 3 ploughs more. It was worth 25 shillings; now 15 shillings. This manor was held by Ralf Fitz Hubert for more than 5 years, but William Fitz Osbern took it from him wrongfully.* have a further instance of discrepancies in Domesday Surveys. ^ See note 9 on p. 315 above.
- This is a difficult passage. Ralf Fitz
Hubert may possibly have been the tenant- in-chief of that name, who held land in several counties, but William Fitz Osbern cannot be the celebrated Norman of that name, who is spoken of in Domesday as 'earl William,' and who did not live long enough for the entry to be applicable to him. It looks as if ' William Fitz Osbern ' was possibly an error for William Fitz Ansculf. 316
