THE DOMESDAY SURVEY ' Altenai ' or c Eltenai ' of Domesday (i.e. Iltney), is not named in the great Survey. But its history shows that this was because it was then reckoned, for the most part at least, as belonging to the manor of South- minster. That great manor of the Bishop of London was assessed at thirty hides and probably extended some eight miles, as the crow flies, east and west. The valuable list of the bishop's knights in 1212* shows us ' Alestorn ' held as three knights' fees and consisting of four carucates ; but the first occurrence of the name, perhaps, is found in the earlier list of his knights which belongs to 1166;* among them occurs Walter ' de Aletor.' The manor of Mayland (Hall) adjoining Althorne and South- minster appears to have been similarly treated as part of the latter in Domesday, where its name is not found. Walter ' de la Maylande ' held of the bishop a carucate in Althorne in 1212. There remain however in Dengie Hundred, among its Domesday manors, not only several, mentioned above, of which the identity is doubtful, but others on which it has not yet been possible to throw any light. Such are the king's ' Ulwinescherham,' Bishop Odo's ' Hacflet,' Eudo Dapifer's ' Wringehala,' * Landuna' and ' Acleta,' Hugh de Mont- fort's ' Estoleia,' and Hamo Dapifer's ' Carseia.' Of these the most pro- voking is ' Hacflet,' for a century later we meet with it as ' Hackeflete,' 3 with a glebe reckoned, as in Domesday, at 40 acres, and held appar- ently by John son of Guy de Rochford, who was then a minor in the king's gift. This should enable us to trace the manor without difficulty, but it does not do so. As for ' Estoleia,' it reappears as ' Scoleghe ' under Henry III., 4 but, even then, cannot be identified. The prettiest identification perhaps of a Domesday name in the county is that of a mysterious ' Adem,' an evidently valuable manor, which Domesday assigns to Ralf Bainard and places in Tendring Hundred. As there is no name resembling it in that Hundred, Mr. Chisenhale-Marsh abandoned it, naturally enough, in despair. But the Domesday scribe was apt to be misled by the similarity, in MS., of ' cl ' and ' d ' ; in Sussex he entered Donnington as ' Cloninctune,' and in Northamptonshire, conversely, he made Clapton into ' Dotone.' If ' Adem ' represents a similar blunder, its true form would be ' Aclem,' and, further, on subtracting the final ' m,' which distinguishes the eastern counties Domesday and by which Mr. Seebohm was so strangely misled, 8 we obtain the form ' Acle,' which is the Domesday name of the Suffolk Oakley. Turning to Tendring Hundred for an Oakley held by Ralf, we find at once that Little Oakley (which is supposed to be omitted in Domesday) was always held of his successors, the lords Fitz Walter. And the evidence takes us further. For the two manors which, in Domesday, were held of Ralf by ' Germund ' were Little Baddow and ' Adem ' ; and Little Baddow and Little Oakley were held together of 1 Red Book of the Exchequer, p. 542. * Ibid. p. 187. Rota/us de Dominabui (1185), p. 39. * Red Boot of the Exchequer, p. 743. See The Commune of London and other Studies, p. 14. I have there cited ' Accleiaw ' (Great Oakley) as an instance in point. 395
