Bishop 41-1/2 'Episcopus in dominio xli.' Monks 41 'Monachi xli.' Walter de Beauchamp 5-1/2 'Walterus de Bealcamp vi.' Hugh de Laci 5 'Hugo de Laci v.' Hugh Puiher 1 'Hugo Puiher i.' ------- ----- 94 94 In Oswaldeslaw 299 Outside ditto 94 --- 393 Summa hidarum, quas episcopus habet in toto vicecomitatu est ccc. et quater xx. et xvii. cum his quas Abbas de Evesham tenet de OSWALDES LAUUE.[10] It will be seen that of these 397 hides only 393 are accounted for above. The explanation is this. Of the five hides held in 'Fepsintune' by the Church of Worcester in Domesday, only one is entered in the above list, the other four being wholly omitted, both in the list itself and in the total. These four omitted hides bring up the 393 to 397, the exact sum that we have to account for. If the Manors in the above Survey are examined with care _seriatim_, it will be found that they bear manifest witness to the aggressions of Urse d'Abetot, who, we may gather from this Cartulary, was the _bête noire_ of the Church of Worcester. The various extensions of his Domesday holdings, as at 'Fledebyrie', where twelve hides had been increased to twenty-two, were partly due to the accession of the lands he inherited from his brother, but partly also to his absorption of the lands of other tenants and of portions of the episcopal demesne. All the benefit of these accessions passed to his son-in-law and successor, Walter de Beauchamp. But perhaps the most important information that this Survey gives us is to be found in the light it throws on the succession to Robert 'Dispensator'. That he was brother to Urse d'Abetot is, of course, generally known. His relationship to the Marmions is the _crux_. I deal with it under the Lindsey Survey,[11] which shows us his Lincolnshire fief in the hands of Roger Marmion. In the present Survey we find that of the seventeen hides and a half which Robert Dispensator had held, at the time of Domesday, from the Bishop, only seven were held by Robert (not Roger) Marmion when this document was compiled, the rest being held by Walter de Beauchamp. We thus learn that here, as in Leicestershire, the fief had been divided between the two.[12]