Page:VCH Herefordshire 1.djvu/373

 DOMESDAY SURVEY of that which is found on the fief of William de Scohies it has been suggested that it refers to Broadfield. But Broadfield duly occurs as ' Bradefelle ' among the members of Leominster in the very column which contains the ' Brade- ford ' of William Fitz Norman. Moreover, there is proof that Domesday made no mistake, for a ' Bradeford ' can be traced as held by William's heirs, the lords of Kilpeck. The most important item of this evidence is an entry, early in the reign of Henry III, that William de Cantilupe held a moiety of ' Bradeford' as guardian of John de Kilpeck /'^r serjanf for, the other moiety being held by the monks of Reading, in almoin, of the gift of Roger, Earl of Hereford.^'' In 1257 ^^^^ warren was granted to Philip Marmion, who had married one of the Kilpeck co-heiresses, in "• Lastres, Bradeford, and LafFerne,' ^^^ and when he died these three manors were found to be of his wife's inheritance. As to the other moiety a document of 1 1 50—4 connects the ' villula de Brade- ford ' with Leominster and the earl of Hereford, but here again the place is not identified.'" One seems driven to recognize it in the present Broadward, a township where the Arrow is crossed by the great high road from Leo- minster, and which therefore might well be named from the ' broad ford,' as Stretford to the west represents the crossing of a stream by the Watling Street, or as Ford to the south, on the Hereford road, derives its name. The Domesday ' Bradeford ' is entered as having a fishery and a water-mill, and the only difficulty is that which is caused by the singular corruption of the name. The last case I shall deal with is that of a ' Lude ' entry, in which that eminent authority, Mr. Eyton, in his feudal History of Shropshire, claimed to have discovered the Domesday mention of Ludlow. Although, so far as we know, Ludlow has always been in Shropshire and is divided from Hereford- shire by the Teme, he pitched upon this Herefordshire entry as resembling (though not representing) the name of Ludlow. He was influenced by the accident of its being entered next to Ludford (opposite Ludlow). Now the entry in question, it is essential to explain, is but one of three relating to 'Lude,' which is placed by all three in ' Cutestorn Hundred,' where the name is still represented by Upper and Lower Lyde and Lyde Court, some three miles north of Hereford. There is absolutely no reason to suppose that the three entries do not all relate to the same place, and as a matter of fact the hundredal survey of 1 243 enters under ' Lude ' three separate holdings as held of the Lacy fee of Weobley.''*' With that fee Domesday connects all its three ■■ Lude ' entries : — Lude (184), Ralf under Roger de Laci, 2 hides ; Lude (184), Ralf under Roger de Laci, i hide ; Lude (186/^), Roger de Laci under Osbern Fitz Richard, 2 hides : total, 5 hides. Here we have two features familiar to the Domesday student : (i) the total of 5 hides formed by the items when com- bined; (2) the acceptance by Laci of the position of under tenant on 2 hides '^^ ^''^ Testa de Nevill, JO. A less accurate version on p. 73 shows us William de Cantilupe holding in ' Bradeford ' by serjeanty, and the Red Book contains a similar entry, but the editor cannot identify ' Bradeford.' ^'^ Cal. Chart. R. i, 474. Here again ' Bradeford ' is not identified. '*' Brit. Mus. Index to Chart, and Rolls, 444. concern the problem. ^'' It is this portion which was claimed by Mr. Eyton as Ludlow. The elimination of Osbern Fitz Richard's overlordship would have to be accounted for on either interpretation of the entry. I 305 39
 * '^ Testa de Nevill, 63-4. There is also a fourth entry of a portion in ecclesiastical hands which does not