THE NORTHAMPTONSHIRE SURVEY unique difficulties presented by this Survey. Sometimes the tenant's name is that of the Domesday holder ; sometimes that of his son or grandson. Indeed, the names given may belong to any date from the Conqueror's reign to the later days of Henry II. Again, we have sometimes the name of the tenant-in-chief himself, sometimes that of the under-tenant, and sometimes no name at all. And, as if this were not enough, the text is corrupted by scribal errors of almost grotesque character. ' Comes Abbemar',' for instance, was not the earl of Albe- marle, but Earl Aubrey (' Albericus ') of Oxford ; ' Comes Mauricius,' who was taken by Baker for an ' Earl Maurice,' otherwise unknown, was clearly developed out of ' Comes Maurit',' under which form there lurks that greatest of Domesday tenants, Robert count of Mortain. There is nothing, therefore, improbable in suggesting that the Survey's earl of Leicester should, in places, be the earl of Chester. In spite, however, of these drawbacks the document below, when critically treated, can be made to yield that very information which is, in county history, the most difficult to obtain. For it gives us not only names of sons of Domesday tenants and under-tenants, but also those of the new grantees who obtained possessions in the shire later than the Domesday Survey. We are shown Guy de ' Reinbuedcurt ' succeeded by his son Richard, Winemar of Hamslape by his son Walter, Oger the Breton by his son Ralf. Gilbert (Fauvel), an under-tenant of Peter- borough Abbey, is succeeded by his son Richard Fitz Gilbert, Otbert by his son Alouf de Merke, Odelin by his son Robert, Alvred, ' butler ' of the count of Mortain and a very important under-tenant, by his son William, and so forth. Other names emphatically belong to the days of Henry I. The Domesday fief of Countess Judith is almost invariably entered in our Survey as in the hands of ' king David,' who ascended the throne of Scotland in 1 1 24, and who was dead before the accession of Henry II. Contemporary with him were Brian Fitz Count, a trusted officer of Henry I., who had succeeded to the Domesday fief of Robert d'Ouilly (' de Oilgi'), Aubrey de Vere, another of his officers, Robert, afterwards earl of Gloucester, who occurs in the Survey as ' the King's son,' Richard Basset, and others. We see, moreover, how the vast fiefs of the count of Mortain and the bishop of Coutances, as well as those of less extent which had come, by escheat, to the Crown, were distributed piecemeal or bestowed entire, and yet how the Crown, not content with the lands thus at its disposal, was steadily granting away the demesne it held in Domesday. So far indeed had this process of alienation been carried that Towcester, Brix- worth, Faxton, Barnwell All Saints, Hardingstone, Tansor, Rothwell and Orton had all passed from the hands of the Crown. And each had a different grantee. On the other hand, even the profuse grants that were made to supporters or officers of the King could hardly dispose fast enough of the fiefs that returned into his hand. Even before the Domesday Survey Earl Aubrey had lost his lands, which were entered in Domesday Book as then ' in the King's hand.' These together with the 359
