Page:VCH Northamptonshire 1.djvu/331

 THE DOMESDAY SURVEY was ' waste ' ; (6) the total accounted for ; (7) the nominal total on the roll.' Hundred ' Gewered ' 'Inland' King's Not Waste Accounted Nominal land paid for total Sutton 215 40 10 28i 100 100 Warden i7f 40 4ii 99 100 Cleyley. 18 40 42 100 100 i8i 35 5 41^ 100 100 23i 45 5 26i 100 100 ' Ethelweardesle ' 1 61 40 7i 37 100 100 Foxley. 16 30 21 33 100 100 Towcester. 19' 40 20 21 100 1 00 Huxlow 8 15 39 62 62 WiUybrook. 7 II 31 '3, 66 62 ' Uptune grene ' 50 27 3i 291" no 109 Navereslund . 4 59 -a 8 I2i 160 Navisford . 15 14 _3 33 62 62 Polebrook . 10 20 6/J 32 62 62 Newbottlegrove 44| 72 3
 * Gravesende '.
 * Eadboldes stowe

33i 150 150 Gilsborough 16 68 2, 66 150 150 Spelho. . 20| [25] 16 281 90 90 ' Hwicceslea west ' 10 40 30 80 80 ' Hwicceslea east ' 15 34 31 80 80 ' Stotfalde '. . . 9 40 5oi 99i 100 Stoke. . . i8i "i 12 42 40 Higham 49^ 44 56 i49i 150 'Malesle' . . 12 30 8 30 80 80 Corby . . . H I2i I2i [U] lOf 48 47 Rothwell . . 10 20 15 45 60 Andverdesho * . [26?] 25 39 90 Orlingbury 29! 24i 21 80 80 Wymersley 41 60 49 150 150 It is probable that this most important record was compiled in con- sequence of the changes of assessment which in turn, probably, were due to the large extent of land lying waste in the county at the time. The total of the land returned as 'waste' is represented by 886 hides (which should perhaps be 901), that is, one-third of the county. But how did the assessment of the county stand at the time when this roll was com- piled .? It is the view of Professor Maitland that at the time of this roll, which belongs to the earlier half of the Conqueror's reign, the assessment was still as high as 2,664 hides, but that 'between 1075 and 1086 the text was collated by me (for Feudal England) with the original MS., which, however, is itself corrupt in places. ^ Wrongly given by Ellis as 'xviii.' ' Wrongly given by Ellis as 'viii. and xx.' must read : 'and thereof is "gewered" [? 26 hide and] five and twenty hides inland,' 2.59
 * The whole document is printed in Ellis, Introduction to Domesday, I. 1 84-1 87. This
 * The text here is evidently corrupt.
 * There are clearly some words omitted here in the Peterborough transcript. We