[Footnote 12: We are enabled by this Survey, and by the division it records, to carry up the history of Elmley, the original seat of the Beauchamps, to Domesday itself. The great Manor of Cropthorne, by Evesham, was held by the Church of Worcester. In Bengeworth, one of its 'members', Urse d'Abetot, had seized an estate of five hides (_Heming's Cartulary_ fo. 125_b_). His brother, Robert Despencer, had seized two other 'members', Charlton ('Ceorlatuna') and Elmley (_ibid._). In Domesday we are merely told that Robert held eleven hides in Cropthorne. But the present Survey fortunately mentions that the portion which fell to Marmion's share was seven hides in 'Charlton'. This leaves four hides for Elmley, which, added to the five hides of Urse d'Abetot in Bengeworth, makes exactly the nine hides here entered to Walter de Beauchamp. We thus learn how the Beauchamps became possessed of Elmley. And this calculation is confirmed by the entry in the _Testa_ (p. 41): 'Willelmus de Bello Campo ... in Elmeleg in dominico iiij. hidas.'] [Footnote 13: It is worth noting that we find, in Domesday, both a Robert and a Walter holding of Urse in Worcestershire.] [Footnote 14: See p. 244 _infra_.] [Footnote 15: _Harl. MS._, 3,763, fo. 80.] [Footnote 16: _Cott. MS. Vesp._, B. xxiv. fo. 8.] THE LINDSEY SURVEY (1115-18) This 'invaluable Survey', as Mr Stevenson has termed it,[1] might be described as a miniature Domesday for each of the Wapentakes in the three trithings into which Lindsey was divided. For although drawn up, Wapentake by Wapentake, as is the Leicestershire Survey, Hundred by Hundred, the lands within each Wapentake described are grouped under the names of the holders of fiefs, instead of being entered Vill by Vill. It was doubtless compiled, like other surveys, in connection with the assessment of the 'geld'.[2] Remarkable from a palaeographic standpoint, as well as from the nature of its contents, the record, which is found in a Cottonian MS. (Claud. C. 5), has been singularly unfortunate in its editors. As Mr Greenstreet truly observed: The indefatigable Hearne, seeing that the manuscript related to a very ancient period of our history, and recognizing its great importance, printed it in the Appendix to his 'Liber Niger', but he does not appear to have properly examined either the question of the date of the writing, or the internal evidence.... As a natural consequence of his superficial examination, he associates it wrongly with the reign of Henry II.