Chapter VII: Part I: Territorial Studies (4)

Hale (p. 119) believed that this _Solande de Chesewich_ was no other than the _Scotlande thesaurarii_ of 1181, namely the prebend of Chiswick. The above passage should further be compared with the survey of Caddington (1222):

Dicunt juratores quod manerium istud defendit se versus regem
pro x. hidis ... preter duas prebendas quæ sunt in eadem
parochia.

The formula is the same in both cases, and a _solanda_ was clearly land held on some special terms, and was not a measure or unit of assessment at all. Indeed Hale himself admitted that it could not be identified with one or with two hides.

Fortunately I have discovered an occurrence of the word _solanda_ which conclusively proves that it meant an estate, such as a prebend, and was not a unit of measurement. We have, in 1183, a 'grant by William de Belmes, canon of St. Paul's, to the chapter of that church, of the Church of St. Pancras, situate in his _solanda_ near London' (i.e. his prebend of St. Pancras), etc.[193] This solves the mystery. The three _solandæ_ at Tillingham were no other than the three prebends--Ealdland, Weldland, and Reculverland--which that parish actually contained.[194]

Hale, however, misled Mr Seebohm, who in his great work on the _English Village Community_ (p. 54), wrote of Tillingham:

There was further in this Manor a _double hide_, called a
_solanda_, presumably of 240 acres. This double hide, called a
_solanda_, is also mentioned in a Manor in Middlesex [Sutton],
and in another in Surrey [Drayton][195]; and the term
_solanda_ is probably the same as the well-known '_Sollung_'
or '_solin_' of Kent, meaning a 'ploughland'.

Proceeding further (p. 395), Mr Seebohm wrote:

Generally in Kent, and sometimes in Sussex, Berks and Essex,
we found, in addition to, or instead of, the hide or carucate,
or 'terra unius aratri', _solins_, _sullungs_, or _swullungs_,
the land pertaining to a '_suhl_', the Anglo-Saxon word for
plough.

Unfortunately no reference is given for the cases of Sussex and Berks, and I know of none myself.

Turning now to the learned work of Professor Vinogradoff, we find him equally misled:

Of the _sulung_ I have spoken already. It is a full
ploughland, and 200 acres are commonly reckoned to belong
to it. The name is sometimes found out of Kent, in Essex for
instance. In Tillingham, a Manor of St. Paul's, of London, we
come across six hides 'trium solandarum'. The most probable
explanation seems to be that the hide or unit of assessment is
contrasted with the _solanda_ or _sulland_[196] (sulung), that
is with the actual ploughland, and two hides are reckoned as a
single _solanda_ (p. 255).

Lastly, we come to Mr Seebohm's reply to Professor Vinogradoff (_ante_, pp. 444-465). Here the identity is again assumed:

Along with parts of Essex, the Kentish records differ
in phraseology from those of the rest of England. Their
_sullungs_ of 240 acres occur also in the Manors of Essex
belonging to St. Paul's, and the custom of gavelkind and
succession of the youngest child mark it off as exceptional.
Mr Vinogradoff ... shows that in the Kentish district, and
in Essex, where the _sullung_ or _solanda_ takes the place of the
hide, and where gavelkind prevailed, the unity of the hides
and virgates was preserved only for the purposes of taxation
and the services; whilst in reality the holdings clustered
under the nominal unit were many and irregular.

I yield to no one in admiration for Mr Seebohm's work, but the question raised is so important that accuracy as to the fact is here essential. (1) _Sullung_ is nowhere found in Essex, but only _solanda_; (2) _Solanda_ does not occur 'in the Manors' referred to, but at Tillingham alone; (3) In Essex it nowhere 'takes the places of the hide', as it does in Kent; (4) The Essex instance adduced by Professor Vinogradoff is taken from a Manor where _solanda_ does not occur.

Two issues--quite distinct--are involved. In the first place, Mr Seebohm contends that Professor Vinogradoff must not argue from 'the custom of Kent' to the rest of England, because (_inter alia_) Kent, unlike the rest of England, was divided into _sulungs_, which points to some difference in its organization.[197] This contention is sound, and is actually strengthened if we reject the identity of _sulung_ and _solanda_. But, in the second place, he endeavours to explain away the Essex case of subdivision at Eadwulfsness, to which the Professor appeals, by connecting it with the Kentish system through the term _solanda_. This, as I have shown above, is based on a misreading of the evidence, and is contrary to the facts of the case.

Let us then look more closely at the Essex instance of subdivision. It is taken from one Manor alone, the great 'soke' of Eadwulfsness, in the north-east corner of the county. This 'soke' comprised the townships of Thorpe 'le soken', Kirby 'le soken', and Walton 'le soken' (better known as Walton-on-the-Naze). Such names proclaim the Danish origin of the community, and it is noteworthy that the 'hidarii', on whom the argument turns, are found only at Thorpe and Kirby, the very two townships which bear Danish names. This circumstance points to quite another track. That the system in this little corner of Essex was wholly peculiar had been pointed out by Hale, and it might perhaps have originated in the superimposition of hides on a previous system, instead of in the breaking up of the hide and virgate system. But this is only a conjecture. The two facts on which I would lay stress are that at Thorpe, according to Hale, 'the holders of the nine hides (in 1279) possessed also among them seventy-two messuages', which, by its proportion of eight to the hide, favours Mr Seebohm's views; and that the holdings of the 'hidarii' were rigidly formed on the decimal system (such as 60, 30, 15, 7-1/2 acres, or 40, 20, 10, 5 acres),[198] unlike the holdings of an odd number of acres on the Kentish Manors of St. Augustine's. The reason for the Essex system was clearly the necessity of keeping the holdings in a fixed relation to the hide, that their proportion of the hide's service might be easily determined. These two points have, perhaps, I think, been overlooked by both of the eminent scholars in their controversy.

Before leaving the subject of the _sulung_, one should mention perhaps that it was divided (as Mr Seebohm has explained) into four quarters known as _juga_, just as the hide was divided into four virgates. Mr Seebohm bases this statement on Anglo-Saxon evidence,[199] but it is abundantly confirmed by Domesday, where we read of Eastwell (in Kent): 'pro uno solin se defendit. Tria juga sunt infra divisionem Hugonis, et quartum jugum est extra' (i. 13). So far all is clear; but Professor Vinogradoff, on the contrary, asserts that 'the yokes (_juga_) of Battle Abbey (in Kent) are not virgates, but carucates, full ploughlands' (p. 225). This assertion is based on a very natural misapprehension. In the Battle Manor of Wye (Kent) we find that the _jugum_ itself was divided into four quarters, called 'virgates' which were each, consequently, the sixteenth, not, as in the hidated district, the fourth of a ploughland. Professor Vinogradoff, naturally assuming that the 'virgate' meant the same here as elsewhere, inferred that four 'virgates' (that is, a _jugum_) must constitute a full ploughland. But this change of denotation goes further still. The Battle Cartulary records yet another 'virgate', namely, the fourth (not of a ploughland, but) of an acre! This led me, on its publication, to wonder whether we have here the clue to the origin of the somewhat mysterious term 'virgate'. Starting from the acre, we should have in the _virgata_ (rood) its quarter, with a name derived from the _virga_ (rod) which formed its base in mensuration. The sense of 'quarter' once established, it might be transferred to the quarter of a _jugum_, or the quarter of a hide. This is a suggestion which, of course, I advance with all diffidence, but which would solve an otherwise insoluble problem. The relation of the bovate to the carucate, and of the _jugum_ to the _sulung_, are both so obviously based upon the unit of the plough-team that they raise no difficulty. But the term 'virgate' does not, like them, speak for itself. If we might take it to denote merely a 'quarter' of the hide, it would become a term of relation only, leaving the 'hide' as the original unit. Should this suggestion meet with acceptance, it might obviously lead to rather important results.

Mr Elton, in his well-known _Tenures of Kent_, attaches considerable importance to a list, 'De Suylingis Comitatus Kanciæ et qui eas tenent', in the Cottonian MS., Claud. C. IV, which he placed little subsequent to Domesday. Having transcribed it for collation with the Survey, I came to the conclusion that it was not sufficiently trustworthy for publication, for the names, in my opinion, involve some anachronism. The feature of the list is that it shows us as tenants-in-chief, the leading tenants of Bishop Odo; and the change of most interest to genealogists is the succession of Patrick 'de Caurcio' to the holding of Ernulf de Hesdin.

XIV. THE 'FIRMA UNIUS NOCTIS'

The curious and evidently archaic institution of the _firma unius noctis_ was clearly connected with the problem of hidation. In Somerset the formula for a Manor contributing to this _firma_ was:

Nunquam geldavit nec scitur quot hidæ sint ibi (i. 85).

In Dorset it ran:

Nescitur quot hidæ sint ibi quia non geldabat T.R.E. (i. 75).

In Wiltshire we read:

Nunquam geldavit nec hidata fuit, _or_ nunquam geldavit: ideo
nescitur quot hidæ sint ibi.[200]

In all these entries the 'hide' is recognized as merely a measure of assessment quite independent of area.

Hampshire affords us, in a group of Manors, a peculiarly good instance in point. Of Basingstoke, Kingsclere, and 'Esseborne', we read:

Rex tenet in dominio _Basingestoches_. Regale manerium fuit
semper. Numquam geldum dedit, nec hida ibi distributa fuit....

_Clere_ tenet rex in dominio. De firma Regis Edwardi fuit,
et pertinet ad firmam diei de Basingestoches. Numerum hidarum
nescierunt....

_Esseborne_ tenet rex in dominio. De firma Regis Edwardi fuit.
Numerum hidarum non habent....

Hæc tria maneria, Basingestoches, Clere, Esseborne, reddunt
firmam unius diei (39).

Other Manors are found about the county displaying the same peculiarity.

Ipse rex tenet _Bertune_. De firmâ Regis E. fuit, et dimidiam
diem firmæ reddidit in omnibus rebus.... Nunquam in hid(is)
numeratum fuit.... Numerum hidarum non dixerunt.

Ipse rex tenet _Edlinges_ in dominio. Hoc manerium reddidit
dimidiam diem firmæ tempore Regis E. Numerum hidarum nesciunt
(38).

Manors, such as Andover, not hidated, clearly belonged to the same system, though neither their value nor their render is given.

Thus, then, within the limits of Wessex, in the four adjacent counties of Dorset, Somerset, Wiltshire, and Hants, we find surviving, at the time of the Conquest, an archaic but uniform system of provision for the needs of the Crown by the assignment of certain estates or groups of estates, the render of which was expressed in terms of the 'firma noctis' or 'firma diei', and which, unlike the country around them, had never been assessed in 'hides'.

Mr Seebohm hints slightly at this _firma_ system,[201] but only speaks of it as existing in Dorset. Nor does he allude to the significant fact of such Manors having never been hidated. It would lead us far afield to speculate on the origin of this system, or to trace its possible connection with the Welsh _gwestva_.[202] Nor can we here concern ourselves with the few scattered traces of it that we meet with elsewhere in Domesday. Its existence in four adjacent counties, with non-hidation as a common feature, is the point I wish to emphasize.

The system of grouping townships in the west for the payment of a food-rent (_firma unius noctis_) was exactly parallel to the grouping in the east for the payment, not of rent but of 'geld'. We can best trace this parallel in Somerset, because the _firma unius noctis_ of the days before the Conquest had been there commuted for a money payment at the time of Domesday. Turning to the Cambridgeshire hundred of Long Stow, we find one of its 'blocks' (of twenty-five hides) divided into three equal parts, while another is divided into three parts, of which one is half the size of the two others. And so in Somerset we have Frome and Bedminster combined in one group for the payment of this _firma_, and the two Perrotts similarly combined with Curry. Frome and Bedminster are each assigned the same payment, but in the other group the contribution of one is half that of the two others.

Here are the Somerset groups of demesne, each charged with the render of a _firma unius noctis_.

_Commutation_ £ s d

Somerton (with Borough of Langport) 79 10 7 }
Chedder (with borough of Axbridge) 21 0 2-1/2} 100 10 9-1/2

North Petherton 42 8 4 }
South Petherton 42 8 4 } 106 0 10
Curry Rivell 21 4 2 }

Williton }
Carhampton } 105 17 4-1/2
Cannington }

Frome 53 0 5 }
Bruton 53 0 5 } 106 0 10

Milborne Port (with Ilchester) 79 10 7
[Bedminster[203] 21 0 2-1/2]

Of these two last, Milborne Port is entered as having paid three-quarters of a _firma noctis_ under the Confessor, while Bedminster--though in the midst of this group of _firma_ Manors--is alone in having no render T.R.E. assigned to it. One is tempted to look on the two as originally combined in one _firma_ (like Somerton and Chedder), save that the whole width of the county divides them, while in the other cases the constituents are grouped geographically.

The Wiltshire Manors, each of which rendered a _firma unius noctis_, were:

_Ploughlands_ _Valets_

Calne 29
Bedwin 79
Amesbury 40
Warminster 40
Chippenham 100 £110
'Theodulveshide' 40 £100

From the figures given for Somerset and Wilts, it may fairly be concluded that, in this district, the value of the 'firma' was about £105. In Somerset, however, there was clearly a special sum, £106 0s 10d, on which calculations were based.

An examination of Mr Eyton's statements on the _firma unius noctis_ in Somerset and Dorset would prove a peculiarly conclusive test of his whole system.

In the case of Somerset one need not dwell on his giving its amount for the Williton group as £105 16s 6-1/2d, when the sum named is £105 17s 4-1/2d, although absolute accuracy is, in these matters, essential. We will pass at once to the bottom of the page (ii. 2), and collate his rendering of Domesday with the original:

'T.R.E. reddebat dimidiam 'Reddebat T.R.E. dimidiam
firmam noctis et quadrantem' noctis firmam et unum quadrantem'
(Domesday). (Eyton).

Domesday gives the payment (in a characteristic phrase), as _three-quarters_ [a half and a quarter] of a _firma noctis_. Mr Eyton first interpolates a 'unum', and then overlooks the 'quadrantem', with the result that he represents the due T.R.E. as a _firma dimidiæ noctis_ (i. 77). So far, this is only a matter of error _per se_. But Domesday records the commutation of the due T.R.W. at £79 10s 7d. This proves to be _three-quarters_ of the commutation, in two other cases, for a whole _firma noctis_ (£106 0s 10d). Mr Eyton, however, imagining the due to have been only _half a firma_ set himself to account for its commutation at so high a figure (i. 77-8). This he found no difficulty in doing. He explained that 'this was not a mere commutation', but 'was doubtless a change which took into consideration the extra means and enhanced value of Meleborne'.

The probability is, then, that what we have called the
_enhanced ferm_, was enhanced by something less than the
gross profits we have instanced; that is, that a part of
those profits, say the Burgage rents, or some of them,
had contributed to the _dimidia firma noctis_ before the
commutation.

All these ready assumptions, we must remember, are introduced to account for a discrepancy which does not exist.

Great masses of Mr Eyton's work consist of similar guesses and assumptions. Now, if these were kept scrupulously apart from the facts, they would not much matter; but they are so inextricably confused with the real facts of Domesday that, virtually, one can never be sure if one is dealing with facts or fancies.

And far more startling than the case of Somerset is that of Dorset, the 'Key to Domesday'. Mr Eyton here held that Dorchester, Bridport, and Wareham paid a full _firma unius noctis_ each, the total amount being reckoned by him at the astounding figure of £312 (p. 70)! Exeter, which affords a good comparison, paid only £18 (as render), though the king had 285 houses there: the three Dorset towns in which, says Mr Eyton, the Crown had 323 houses, paid in all, according to him, £312. The mere comparison of these figures is sufficient. But further, Mr Eyton observes (p. 93), that in 1156 'Fordington, Dorchester, and Bridport' were granted by Henry II to his uncle, 'as representing Royal Demesne to the annual value of £60'. This is an instructive commentary on his view that Dorchester and Bridport alone rendered £208 per annum. Our doubts being thus aroused, we turn to Domesday and find that it does not speak of any of these towns as paying that preposterous _firma_. The right formula for that would be 'reddit firmam unius noctis' (p. 84). Instead of that, we only have 'exceptis consuetudinibus quæ pertinent ad firmam unius noctis' (p. 70). The explanation is quite simple. Just as in Somerset, Mr Eyton admits, Langport and Ilchester, although boroughs, were 'interned' in groups of Royal demesne, paying the _firma unius noctis_, so in Dorset the boroughs were 'interned' in groups of Royal demesne. Indeed one of these groups was headed by Dorchester, and is styled by Mr Eyton the 'Dorchester group'. But he boldly assumed that 'Dorchester' must have two different meanings:

[A] We assume about 100 acres to have belonged to the Domesday
Burgh, and perhaps 882 acres to represent land, subinfeuded
at Domesday, and annexed to Dorchester Hundred. [B] It follows
that we assume about 429 acres, [to be that] ... which here
figures [fo. 75] under the name Dorchester.

It is not too much to say that any one, who refers to pp. 70-3, 78-101 of the _Key to Domesday_, will find that the singular misconception as to the Dorset Boroughs makes havoc of the whole calculation. But here again the point to be insisted on is not the mere mistake _per se_, but the elaborate assumptions based upon it and permeating the whole work.[204]

Apart from the Manors grouped for a _firma unius noctis_, if we take the comital Manors (_mansiones de comitatu_) of Somerset, which were in the King's hands in 1086, we find their rentals given on quite a different principle to those of the Manors in private hands.

(1) They are entered as renders ('reddit'), not as values ('valet').

(2) The sums rendered are 'de albo argento'.

(3) In at least ten out of the fifteen cases, they are multiples of the strange unit £1 3s.

As this fact seems to have escaped Mr Eyton's notice, I append a list of these Manors, showing the multiples of this unit that their renders represent:

_£_ _s_ _d_

Crewkerne 46 0 0 40
Congresbury 28 15 0 25
Old Cleeve 23 0 0 20
North Curry 23 0 0 20
Henstridge 23 0 0 20
Camel 23 0 0 20
Dulverton 11 10 0 10
Creech St Michael 9 4 0 8
Langford 4 12 0 4
Capton[205] 2 6 0 2

Whatever this strange unit represented, it formed the basis in these Manors of a reckoning wholly independent of the 'hides' or ploughlands of the Manor, and as clearly artificial as the system of hidation I have made it my business to explain.

XV. 'WARA'

The meaning of 'Wara' is made indisputable by the I.C.C. When land was an appurtenance, _quoad_ ownership, of a Manor in one township, but was assessed in another in which it actually lay, the land was said to be in the former, but its 'wara' in the latter. As this 'wara' was an integral part of the total assessment of the township, it had to be recorded, under its township, in the I.C.C. Here are the three examples in point:

[HISTON.] De his xx. hidis jacet Warra de una hida et dimidia
in hestitone de manerio cestreford. Hanc terram tenuit comes
alanus [_sic_] et est appretiata in essexia (p. 40).

[SHELFORD.] De his xx. hidis tenet petrus valonensis iii.
hidas de firma regis in neueport.... Hæc terra est berewica in
neueport, sed Wara jacet in grantebrigge syra (p. 49).

[TRUMPINGTON.] De his vii. hidis [tenet] unus burgensis de
grenteburga i. virgam. Et Warra jacet in trompintona, et terra
in grantebrigga (p. 51).

To these I may add a fourth instance, although in this case the name _wara_ does not occur:

[BATHBURGAM.] De his vii. hidis tenet Picotus in manu
regis dimidiam hidam et dimidiam virgam. Hæc terra jacet in
cestreforda et ibi est appretiata xxx. sol. in essexia (p.
36).

The lands at Histon and 'Bathburgam' were mere outlying portions of the royal Manor of Chesterford in Essex, and those at Shelford were a 'berewick' of the royal Manor of Newport, also in Essex. But they were all _assessed_ in Cambridgeshire, where they actually lay.

So also we read under Berkshire (61_b_): 'Hæc terra jacet et appreciata est in Gratentun quod est in Oxenefordscire, et tamen dat scotum in Berchesire'. Again (203_b_) we read under Pertenhall: 'Hec terra sita est in Bedefordsire, set geldum et servitium reddit in Hontedunscyre'. A good instance of the same arrangement in another part of England is found in those Worcestershire Manors which were annexed as estates to Hereford, but which were assessed in those Worcestershire Hundreds where they actually lay (see p. 61).

A similar expression is applied to the possession of 'soca'. Thus under Shelford we read:

De hac terra adhuc tenuerunt iii. sochemanni dimidiam hidam
sub gurdo comite. Non potuerunt recedere sine licentia comitis
gurdi. Et soca jacebat in Witlesforda (p. 48).

Here the land was in Shelford, but the jurisdiction (soca) was attached to Earl Gyrth's Manor of Whittlesford.

Prof Vinogradoff has dealt with 'the word _wara_' in his _Villainage in England_ (i. 241-4), and asserts that the 'origin and use of the term is of considerable importance'. But he does not allude to the above evidence, and I cannot follow him in his argument. While rightly disregarding Mr Pell's fanciful derivation from 'warectum', he asserts that:

We often find the expression 'ad inwaram' in Domesday, and it
corresponds to the plain 'ad gildam [_sic_] regis'. If a Manor
is said to contain seven hides _ad inwaram_, it is meant that
it pays to the king for seven hides.... The Burton cartulary,
the earliest survey after Domesday, employed the word 'wara'
in the same sense.

One cannot disprove the first proposition without reading through all Domesday for this purpose. I can only say that I do not remember ever meeting in Domesday Book with such an expression. The solitary instance of its use known to me is in the _Liber Niger_ of Peterborough (p. 159), where we read: 'in Estona sunt iii. hidæ ad in Waram'; and there the relevant entry in Domesday has no such expression. Of the statement as to the Burton cartulary, one can positively say it is an error. Its 'waræ' have quite another meaning and are spoken of as virgates would elsewhere be.

Collation with what I have termed the Northamptonshire geld-roll renders it clear that 'wara', in Domesday, represents the old English word for 'defence', in the sense of assessment, the 'defendit se' formula of the great Survey leading even to the phrase of 'Defensio x. acrarum', for assessment to Danegeld, which is found in the first volume of Fines published by the Pipe-Roll Society.

XVI. THE DOMESDAY 'JURATORES'

I now approach the subject of the Domesday _juratores_.

The lists of these in the I.E. and in the I.C.C. afford priceless information. The latter gives us the names for all but three of the Cambridgeshire Hundreds, the former for all Cambridgeshire (one Hundred excepted) and for three Hertfordshire Hundreds as well. The opening paragraph of the I.E. tells us 'quomodo barones regis inquisierunt, videlicet per sacramentum vicecomitis scire et omnium baronum et eorum francigenarum et tocius centuriatus presbyteri prepositi vi. villani [_sic_] uniuscuiusque ville'.[206] Careful reading of this phrase will show that the 'barones regis' must have been the Domesday Commissioners. The difficulty is caused by the statement as to the oaths of the sheriff, the tenants-in-chief (_barones_), and their foreign (? military) under-tenants (_francigenæ_). The lists of _juratores_ contain the names of many _francigenæ_ in their respective hundreds, but, so far as I can find, of no tenants-in-chief. The sheriff, of course, stands apart. His name indeed in the I.C.C. is appended to the list of jurors for the first Hundred on the list, but is not found in the I.E. Moreover, it should be noted that the above formula speaks of all the tenants-in-chief, but only of a single Hundred court. Two hypotheses suggest themselves. The one, that the sheriff and _barones_ of the county made a circuit of the Hundreds, and then handed in, on their oaths, to the commissioners a return for the whole county; the other, that the circuit was made by the commissioners themselves, attended by the sheriff and _barones_. In the former case it is obvious that the commissioners would fail to obtain at first hand that direct local information which it was their object to elicit: and further, when we find the sheriff and _barones_ charged with wrongdoing in these very returns, it is, to say the least, improbable that they were their own accusers, especially in the case of such a sheriff as Picot, at once dreaded and unscrupulous.

It seems, therefore, the best conclusion that the Domesday commissioners themselves attended every Hundred court, and heard the evidence, sometimes conflicting, of 'French' and 'English'.[207]

The _order_ in which the Hundreds occur must not be passed over, because their sequence distinctly suggests a regular circuit of the country. Here is the sequence given in our three authorities: the I.C.C., the I.E., and the list of jurors prefixed to the latter:

Staplehow Staplehow Staplehow
Cheveley Cheveley Cheveley
Staines Staines Staines
Radfield Flammenditch Erningford
Flammenditch Childeford Triplow
Childerford Radfield Radfield
Whittlesford ([208]) Flammenditch
Triplow Triplow Whittlesford
Erningford Erningford Weatherley
Weatherley Weatherley Stow
Stow Stow Papworth
Papworth Papworth Northstow
Northstow Northstow Chesterton
Chesterton Ely
Ely

On comparing the first two of these lists it will be found that (except in the case of three contiguous Hundreds, which does not affect the argument) the Hundreds are taken in a certain sequence, which is seen, on reference to the valuable map prefixed to Mr Hamilton's book, to represent a circuit of the southern portion of the county from north-east to north-west, followed by an inquest on the district to its north, the 'two Hundreds' of Ely.

The third list, on the other hand, misplaces the Hundreds of Triplow and Erningford altogether, and wholly omits that of Childeford. The transposition and omission are both notable evidence that the B and C texts, as I shall urge, were derived from some common original which contained these defects.

The essential point, however, is that a circuit was made of the county whether merely by the sheriff, or, as seems most probable, by the Domesday Commissioners themselves--the 'barones regis' of the record--who must have attended the several Hundred-courts in succession.

But when we speak of the Hundred-court it is necessary to explain at once that the body which gave evidence for the Domesday Inquest was of a special and most interesting character. It combined the old _centuriatus_--deputations of the priest, reeve, and six villeins from each township (_villa_)--with the new settlers in the Hundred, the _francigenæ_. A careful investigation of the lists will prove that half the _juratores_ were selected from the former and half from the latter. This fact, which would seem to have been hitherto overlooked, throws a flood of light on the compilation of the Survey, and admirably illustrates the King's policy of combining the old with the new, and fusing his subjects, their rights and institutions, into one harmonious whole. Conquerors and conquered were alike bound by their common sworn verdicts.[209]

We have the lists, in all, for eighteen Hundreds, fifteen in Cambridgeshire and three in Herts, of which two were 'double'. There were, practically, for each Hundred exactly eight _juratores_, half of them 'French' and half 'English'. But the two 'double' Hundreds had sixteen each, half of them 'French' and half 'English'. Although it is recorded that 'alii omnes franci et angli de hoc hundredo juraverunt', it is obvious that the eight men always specially mentioned were, in a special degree, responsible for the verdict. Their position is illustrated, I think, by the record of a Cambridgeshire _placitum_ found in the Rochester chronicles. This is the famous suit of Bishop Gundulf against Picot the sheriff in the County Court of Cambridgeshire,[210] which affords a valuable instance of a jury being elected to confirm by their oaths the (unsworn) verdict of the whole court:

Cum illis (i.e. omnes illius comitatus homines) Baiocensis
episcopus, qui placito præerat, non bene crederet; præcepit
ut, si verum esse quod dicebant scirent, ex seipsis duodecim
eligerent, qui quod omnes dixerant jure jurando confirmarent.

Now we read of this jury:

Hi autem fuerunt Edwardus de Cipenham, Heruldus et Leofwine
saca de Exninge, Eadric de Giselham, Wlfwine de Landwade,
Ordmer de Berlincham, et alii sex de melioribus comitatus.

Investigation shows that the names mentioned are local. The land in dispute was a holding in Isleham in the Hundred of Staplehoe. One juror, Eadric, came from Isleham itself, two from Exning, one from Chippenham, one from Landwade, while the sixth, Ordmer, was an under-tenant of Count Alan, in the Manor from which he took his name (Badlingham), and was a Domesday juror for the Hundred. These six, then, were clearly natives chosen for their local knowledge. The other six, chosen 'de melioribus comitatus', were probably, as at the Domesday inquest, Normans (_Franci_). Thus the double character of the jury would be here too preserved, and the principle of testimony from personal knowledge upheld.

So again in the Dorset suit of St. Stephen's, Caen (1122),[211] the men of seven Hundreds are convened, but the suit is to be decided 'in affirmatione virorum de quatuor partibus vicinitatis illius villæ'.[212] Accordingly, 'sexdecim homines, tres videlicet de Brideport, et tres de Bridetona, et decem de vicinis, juraverunt se veram affirmationem facturos de inquisitione terræ illius'. The names of the jurors are carefully given: 'Nomina vero illorum qui juraverunt, hæc sunt'. Again in the same Abbey's suit for lands in London, 'per commune consilium de Hustingo, secundum præceptum regis, elegerunt quatuordecim viros de civibus civitatis Londoniæ qui juraverunt'. And in this case also we read: 'Hæc sunt nomina illorum qui juraverunt.... Et hæc sunt nomina eorum in quorum præsentia juraverunt.'[213]

This corresponds, it will be seen, exactly with the writ to which the _Inquisitio Eliensis_ was, I hold, the return: 'Inquire ... qui eas (terras) juraverunt et qui jurationem audierunt' (_infra_, p. 114).

Enough has now been said to show that the names of the Domesday jurors recorded for each Hundred represent a jury of eight, elected to swear on behalf of the whole Hundred, and composed of four foreigners and four Englishmen, in accordance with the principle that the conflicting interests ought to be equally represented.[214]

We may take, as a typical set of _juratores_, those for the Hundred of Erningford, the survey of which, in Mr Hamilton's book, occupies pp. 51-68. I give them in their order:

[_Francigenæ_] [_Angli_]

Walterus Monachus Colsuenus
Hunfridus de anseuilla Ailmarus eius filius
Hugo petuuolt Turolfus
Ricardus de Morduna Alfuuinus odesune

All four _francigenæ_ can be identified in the Hundred. Walter held a hide and a quarter in 'Hatelai' from the wife of Ralf Tailbois; Humfrey, a hide and a quarter in 'Hatelai', from Eudo dapifer;[215] Hugh, a hide and a half in 'Melrede', from Hardwin de Scalers; and Richard, three virgates in 'Mordune', from Geoffrey de Mandeville. Of the _Angli_, Colsuenus was clearly Count Alan's under-tenant at three townships within the Hundred, holding in all two hides; 'Ailmarus', his son, was, just possibly, the 'Almarus de Bronna', who was a tenant of Count Alan in two adjacent townships, holding two hides and three-eighths; 'Turolfus' and 'Alfuuinus' cannot be identified, and were probably lower in the social scale.

It will be observed that Colsweyn belongs to a special class, the English under-tenants. He is thus distinct at once from the _Francigenæ_, and from the villeins of the township. He and his peers, however, are classed with the latter as jurors, because they are both of English nationality. In the great majority of cases the English _juratores_ cannot be identified as under-tenants, and may therefore be presumed to have belonged to the township deputations.

XVII. THE 'INQUISITIO ELIENSIS'

The record known by this name has long been familiar to Domesday students, but no one, so far as I know, has ever approached the questions: Why was it compiled? When was it compiled? From what sources was it compiled? These three questions I shall now endeavour to answer.

First printed by the Record Commission in their 'Additamenta' volume of Domesday (1816), its editor, Sir Henry Ellis, selected for his text the most familiar, but, as I shall show, the worst of its three transcripts (Cott. MS., Tib. A. VI), though he knew of what I believe to be the best, the Trin. Coll. MS., O. 2, 1, which seems to be the one styled by him 68 B 2.[216] In his introduction he thus described it:

The _Inquisitio Eliensis_ is a document of the same kind with
the Exeter Domesday; relating to the property of the Monastery
of Ely recorded afterwards in the two volumes of the Domesday
Survey (p. xiv).

From this it would seem that Ellis believed the _Inquisitio_, at any rate, to be previous to Domesday Book, but he practically left its origin altogether in doubt.

Sixty years later (1876) the _Inquisitio_ was published anew, but without any further solution of the points in question being offered.[217] For this edition three MSS. were collated, with praiseworthy and infinite pains, by Mr N. E. S. A. Hamilton. Taking for his text, like Ellis, the Cottonian MS. Tib. A. VI, which he distinguished as A, he gave in footnotes the variants found in the MSS. at Trinity College, Cambridge, viz.: O. 2, 41 (which he termed B), and O. 2, 1 (which he distinguished as C). In Mr Hamilton's opinion (p. xiv) the 'C' text 'appears to have been derived from the "B" MS. rather than the Cottonian' ('A'). From this opinion, it will be seen, I differ wholly.

A careful analysis of the three texts has satisfied me beyond question that while C is the most accurate in detail, it is marred by a peculiar tendency to omission on the part of its scribe. This, indeed, is its distinctive feature. Now B cannot be derived from C, because it supplies the latter's omissions. On the other hand, C cannot be derived from B, because it corrects, throughout, B's inaccuracies. Consequently they are independent. More difficult to determine is the genesis of A, the worst of the three texts; but as it virtually reproduces all the inaccuracies found in B (besides containing many fresh ones), without correcting any, it can only be inferred that B was its source. Thus we have on the one hand C, and, on the other B (with its offspring A), derived independently from some common source. And this conclusion agrees well with the fact that a long catalogue of lands abstracted from the House of Ely is found in C, but not in A or B,[218] and with the circumstance that the famous rubric ('Hic subscribitur inquisitio'), which heads the inquisition in A and B, is placed by C at the end of the lists of jurors.[219]

Starting from this conclusion, let us now proceed to ask, what was the document from which B and C copied independently? Clearly, it was not Domesday Book, for outside the eastern counties they record the returns in full, like the _Inq. Com. Cant._ itself. Were they then taken from the original returns, or at least from the copy of those returns in the _Inq. Com. Cant._? This point can only be determined by close analysis of the variants; if we find B and C containing occasionally the same errors and peculiarities, although copied independently, it follows that the document from which they both copied must have contained those same errors and peculiarities. Let us take the case of Papworth. The right reading, as given both in Domesday and the _Inq. Com. Cant._, I have placed on the left, and the wrong reading, in B and C, on the right:

[tenet abbas] ii. hidas et iii. [tenet abbas] ii. hidas et dim.
virgas et dim. [virgam]. virgam et[220] iii. virgas.
I. hida et i. virga et dimidia I. hida et dimidia virga et una
[virga] in dominio. virga[221] in dominio.

Here are some further illustrations of errors in the I.E.:

_D.B. and I.C.C._ _I.E._

VIII. hidas et dimidiam et VIII. hidis et dimidia et dimidia
dimidiam virgam.... In dominio virga ... iii. hidæ et dimidia
iii. hidæ et dimidia (p. 18). _et dimidia virga_ in dominio
(p. 104).
II. carruce in dominio. Et IIII^{or.} carruce ... in
tercia potest fieri (p. 21). dominio.
I. hida _et dimidia_ et xii. I. hida et xii. acræ in dominio
acræ in dominio (p. 87). (p. 110).
tenet Radulfus de Picot (p. 85). Rod[bertus] tenet de vicecomite
(p. 110).
Johannes filius _Waleranni_ Johannem filium
(p. 27). _Walteri_ (p. 103).

Again, the clause 'Tost[222] pro viii. hidis et xl. acris', which ought to head the Hardwick entries, is wrongly appended in the I.E. (p. 110) to a Kingston entry with which it had nothing to do. So too, 'hoc manerium pro x. hidis se defendit [_sic_] T.R.E. et modo pro viii. hidis', which belongs to Whaddon, is erroneously thrown back by the I.E. (p. 107), into Trumpington, a Manor in another Hundred. It is singular also that all the MSS. of the I.E. read 'iii. cotarii' (p. 101), where D.B. and the I.C.C. have 'iii. bordarii' (p. 3), and 'x. cotarii' (p. 101), where they have 'x. bordarii' (p. 6): conversely, the former, in one place, read 'xv. bordarii' (p. 107), where the latter have 'xv. cotarii' (p. 63).

In comparing the text of the I.E. with that of the I.C.C., we shall find most striking and instructive variants in the lists of _juratores_ for the several Hundreds. Take, for instance, the lists for the Hundreds of Cheveley and Staines, which follow one another in both MSS.

_I.C.C._ _I.E._

CAUELEIE CAUELAI[223]

Ric[ardus] Ric[ardus] _prefectus huius
hundreti_.
Euerard[us] filius Brientii Æduuard[us] _homo Alb[er]ici de
uer_
Radulfus de hotot Radulfus de hotot
Will[elmu]s de mara Will[elmu]s de mara
Stanhardus de seuerlei Standard[224] de seuerlaio
Frauuin[us] de Curtelinga Frawinus[225] de quetelinge[226]
Carolus de cauelei _Brunesune_ Carlo de cauelaio[227]
Vlmar[us] homo Wigoni _et Wlmar' homo Wighen[228]
o[mne]s alii franci et
angli juraverunt_

The second name on these lists can be conclusively tested. For the relative entry in the I.C.C. is 'Esselei tenet euerard[us][229] filius brientii de Alberico'. This proves that the I.C.C. is right in reading 'Euerard[us]', while the I.E. is right in adding 'homo Alb[er]ici de uer'.

These are the lists for Staines Hundred.

_I.C.C._ _I.E._

STANE STANAS

Harold[us] Alerann[us]
Roger[us] Rogger[us] _homo Walt[er]i
giffardi_[230]
Aleranus _francigena_
Ric[ardus] fareman Ric[ardus] _p[ræ]fectus hui[us]
hundreti_ Farmannus
Huscarl de suafham[231] Huscarlo de suafham[231]
Leofuuin[us] _de bodischesham_ Leofuuin[us]
Harald _homo Hard[uuini] de
scalariis_
Alric[us] de Wilburgeham _et_ Aluric[us] de Wiburgeham _et
_omnes franci et angli_. alii omnes franci et angli
de hoc hundreto_.

In these two lists the points to strike us are that Harold is placed first on one list and seventh on another; Aleran third on one list and first on another; and 'Fareman' distinguished more clearly in the I.E. than in the I.C.C. as a separate individual.

If we now collect from the other Hundreds some instances of instructive variants, we shall obtain important evidence.

_I.C.C._ _I.E._

Rob[ertus] de Fordham Rob[er]tus _angli[cus]_ de Fordham
Picotus vicecomes [Omitted][232]
Walterus Monac[us] Walt[erus][233]
Gerardus Lotaringus _de Girardus lotherensis _Herveus de
salsintona_ salsitona_
Pagan[us] homo hardeuuini Paganus _dapifer_ Hard'
Rad[ulfus] de _scannis_ Radulfus de _bans_[234]
Fulco _Waruhel_ Fulcheus _homo vicecomitis_
Rumold[us] _de cotis_ Rumold _homo comitis Eustachio_
Will[elmu]s Will[elmus] _homo picoti vice
comitis_
Wlwi _de doesse_ Wlwi de _etelaie_
Godlid de _stantona_ Godliue

_I.C.C._ _I.E._

FLAMENCDIC FLAMMINGEDICH

Robert[us] de Hintona Rodb[er]t[us] de Histona
Fulcard[us] _de Dittona_ Osmundus parvus
Osmund[us] parvulus Fulcold _homo abbatis de
Ely_
Baldeuuinus _cum barba_ Baldeuuinus _cocus_
Æduuin[us] presbyter Æduuinus presbyter
Ulfric[us] de teuersham Wlfuric de teuersham
Silac[us] _eiusdem villæ_ Syla
Godwun[us] _nabesone_ Goduuine _de fulburne_

It is impossible to examine the italicized variations in these parallel texts without coming to the conclusion that they must have been independently derived from some common original, an original containing more detail than either of them. On the other hand, the comparatively close agreement between the texts of the actual returns in the I.C.C. and the I.E. leads one to infer that these were copied with far more exactitude than the comparatively unimportant surnames of the jurors. For us the value of these variations in the jurors' lists lies in the evidence afforded to the origin of the existing MSS.

The object of this careful scrutiny has been to prove that as certain errors and peculiarities are found in two independent MSS., they must have existed in the original document from which both were copied, and which was neither the I.C.C. transcripts nor the original Domesday returns. What then was this document? It was, and can only have been, the true _Inquisitio Eliensis_, the date and origin of which I shall discuss below. Further, I should imagine this document to have probably been a roll or rolls, which--on its contents being subsequently transcribed into a book for convenience--was allowed, precisely as happened to the Domesday rolls themselves, to disappear. In perfect accordance with this view we find the whole contents of the _Inquisitio_ arranged for a special purpose, and no mere transcript of the Domesday returns. Thus, after abstracting all the entries relating to the Cambridgeshire estates, and subjoining a list of houses held in Cambridge itself, it proceeds to add up all the items independently, and record their total values to the Abbey. This analysis is carried out for several counties (pp. 121-4), and is, of course, peculiar to the _Inquisitio_, although inserted between the abstracts of the Domesday returns for Cambridgeshire and Herts. So too the breviate or short abstract of the estates (pp. 168-173), which was part of the original document--for it is found in all the derived MSS.--must have been specially compiled for it, and so also was the _Nomina Villarum_ (pp. 174-83).

Another peculiarity of the _Inquisitio_ is the care with which it records the names of sokemen on the Abbey estates when omitted in the I.C.C. and D.B. This may lead us to ask whether its compilers supplied these names from their personal knowledge. We might think not, for in some cases they are recorded by the D.B. and the I.C.C., while in one (p. 106) the I.E. actually omits the name, reading only 'quidam sochemanus', where the other two documents (p. 46) supply his name ('Fridebertus'). From this we might infer that the names were probably recorded in the original returns, but deemed of too slight importance to be always copied by the transcriber. Yet the balance of evidence leads me to believe that the I.E. did supply names from independent knowledge. With the values, however, the case is clearer. The I.E. contains special and exclusive information on the value of socman-holdings, and must, I think, have derived it from some other source than the original Domesday returns. Here are some instances in point.

_I.C.C._ _I.E._

III. sochemanni fuerunt ... In Erningetone fuit quidam
secundus homo abbatis de Ely sochemannus, _Ædwardus_, et
tenuit ii.[235] hidas ... habuit i. hidam. Homo abbatis
Potuerunt Eli fuit in obitu regis Ædwardi,
recedere (p. 83). sed terram suam vendere potuit;
sed soca semper S. Ædeldrede
remansit (p. 110).

X. sochemanni ... et i. istorum In Ouro fuit quidam sochemannus
homo abbatis de Ely fuit. _nomine Standardus_, qui dimidiam
Dimidiam hidam habuit. Non hidam habuit sub abbate ely. Non
potuit dare neque vendere, et potuit ire ab eo nec separare ab
ii. istorum, homines predicti ecclesia _et valet viginti
abbatis, iii. virgas habuerunt, solidos_. Et modo habet
vendere potuerunt; soca remansit Hardwinus. Et alii ii. sochemanni
abbati (p. 91). iii. virgatas habuerunt.
Potuerunt dare vel vendere sine
soca cui voluerunt et modo tenet
Hardwinus. _Et valet_ xv.
_solidos_ (p. 112).

Et x^{us} [sochemannus] homo Quidam sochemannus sub abbate
abbatis de ely fuit. i. hidam et eli i. hidam et dim. tenuit
dim. habuit. Et omnes isti T.R.E. potuit dare sine licentiam
recedere potuerunt; et vendere [_sic_] eius, sine socha. Et modo
terram suam cui voluerunt Picot vicecomes tenet eam sub
(p. 95). abbate ely. _Valet_ x. _sol_.
(p. 113).

This last passage, of itself, is full of instruction. Firstly, the I.E. alone gives the value of the holding. Secondly, the I.E. preserves the 'sine socha' which qualifies the holder's right. Now D.B. gives the last clause as:

Hi omnes terras suas vendere potuerunt. Soca tantum hominis
abbatis de Ely remansit æcclesiæ.

This qualification corresponds with the 'sine socha' of the I.E., and is, we should observe, wholly omitted in the I.C.C. Thirdly, the three versions of the original return employ three different words to express the same one--'recedere', 'vendere', 'dare'. Fourthly, the superiority of the C text of the I.E. over B (which makes two blunders in this passage) and of B over its offspring A (which adds a third) is here well illustrated. Fifthly, the phrase 'Picot vicecomes tenet eam sub abbate ely' differs notably from Domesday, which assigns the estate to Picot unreservedly, and still more from the I.C.C. which reads 'tenet Robertus de Picoto vicecomite in feudo regis'.

The next example is taken from the township immediately preceding.

_I.C.C._ _I.E._

V. istorum (sochemannorum) Fuerunt quinque sochemani
homines abbatis de Ely fuerunt. Et T.R.E. unus istorum _sugga
unus istorum i. virg. et dim. habuit. nomine_ habuit una virg. et
Non potuit recedere. Et alii iiii. dim. sub abbate ely.
habuerunt v. hidas et i. virg. Non potuit recedere.
Potuerunt recedere sine soca (p. 95). _Et valet_ x. _sol._
Et alii iiii^{or}
sochemani v. hidas
et i. virg. tenuerunt de
abbate eli. Potuerunt
dare preter licentiam
abbatis et sine socha et modo
tenet eam Picot vicecomes
de abbate ely _et valet_
iii. _lib._ (p. 112).

I have said that in all these cases it might perhaps be held that the additional details found in the I.E. were not due to special information possessed by its compilers, but were derived from the original returns, though omitted by their other transcribers. It is possible, however, to put the matter to the test. If, anticipating for a moment, we find that we have, for the eastern counties, in Domesday the actual materials from which the compilers of the I.E. worked, we can assert that any additional details must have been supplied from their own knowledge. An excellent instance in point is afforded by Tuddenham, in Suffolk:

_D.B._ _I.E._

In Tudenham Geroldus i. lib' In Tudenham i. li. homo Ælfric'
hominem ... comend' Saxæ de commend' S. Ædel' xii. ac' et iii.
abbate T.R.E. xii. ac' pro man', b. et i. c. et iii. ac' prati et
iii. bord' Semp' i. car. ii. ac' val. viginti iii. s.
prati ... val. iii. sol.; et in
eadem ii. liberi homines comend' In eadem i. l. ho' hedric'[236]
i. sancte Æ. et alter comend' commend' S. Ædel' viii. ac' et val'
heroldi x. ac', et dim. car. et xx. den. Hoc tenet R. de Raimes
val. ii. sol. Hoc tenet Geroldus (p. 151).
de R. [de Raimes] (ii. 423_b_).

One knows not, truly, which blunder is the worst, that of the Domesday scribe, who has converted a probable 'S. æ',[237] i.e. Ely Abbey, into 'Saxæ', or that of the compiler of the I.E., who, by interpolating the word 'viginti', has converted three shillings into three-and-twenty. But the point is that the latter could name the Abbot's sokeman (nameless in Domesday) and could supply his acreage and the value of his holding. The actual details seem to have been:

Acres Pence

Abbot's sokeman 8 20
Harold's sokeman 2 4
---------------
10 24

Domesday records the totals only.

Enough has now been said of the twelfth century transcripts in which alone are preserved to us the contents of the _Inquisitio_. We have seen that they point to the existence of some common original, which, while closely parallel with Domesday, as a record of the Abbey's possessions, contained certain special features and additional information. Why, when, and from what sources that original was compiled, I shall now endeavour to explain.

XVIII. THE ELY RETURN

The theory I propound for the origin of the so-called _Inquisitio Eliensis_ is that it was the actual return ordered by that writ of the Conqueror,[238] of which a copy is given in all three MSS. (A, B, C) and which is printed in Mr Hamilton's book, on p. xxi (No. VIII). I give the wording of the writ, followed by the heading to the _Inquisitio_ with which it should be closely compared.

Willelmus Rex Anglorum Lanfranco archiepiscopo salutem....
Inquire per episcopum Constantiensem et per episcopum
Walchelinum et per ceteros qui terras sanctæ Ædeldrede
scribi et jurari fecerunt, quomodo jurate fuerunt et qui eas
juraverunt, et qui jurationem audierunt, et qui sunt terre,
et quante, et quot, et quomodo vocate [et] qui eas tenent. His
distincte notatis et scriptis fac ut cite inde rei veritatem
per tuum breve sciam. Et cum eo veniat legatus abbatis.

RETURN

Hic subscribitur inquisicio terrarum, quomodo barones regis
inquisierunt,[239] videlicet per sacramentum vicecomitis
scire et omnium baronum et eorum francigenarum, et tocius
centuriatus, presbiteri, prepositi, vi. villani [_sic_]
uniuscujusque ville; deinde quomodo vocatur mansio, quis
tenuit eam tempore R.E., quis modo tenet, quot hide, quot
carruce[240] in dominio, quot hominum, quot villani, quot
cotarii, quot servi, quot liberi homines, quot sochemanni,
quantum silve, quantum prati, quot[241] pascuorum, quot
molendina, quot piscine, quantum est additum vel ablatum,
quantum valebat totum simul,[242] et quantum modo, quantum
quisque liber homo vel sochemannus habuit vel habet. Hoc totum
tripliciter, scilicet tempore regis Æduardi, et quando Rex
Willelmus dedit et qualiter modo sit, et si potest plus haberi
quam habeatur.

Isti homines juraverunt, etc., etc.

Especially important is the fact that the return contains the jurors' names, in accordance with the express injunction to that effect in the Conqueror's writ.

Now if this theory meet with acceptance, and the writ be taken to refer, as I suggest, to the Domesday Inquest itself, it follows that the Bishop of Coutances and Bishop Walchelin were the heads of the Domesday Commission for this district. This, of course, has been hitherto unknown; but it adds to the presumption in favour of the facts that Bishop Walchelin is not mentioned in any of the Ely writs as taking part in the _placita_ concerning the Abbey's lands, and that, therefore, the only Inquest in which he could have been concerned was the Domesday Inquest itself. It should be added, however, that these two Bishops may have been, respectively, the heads of two distinct commissions for adjoining groups of counties.

The heading to the _Inquisitio Eliensis_ is so well known, and has been so often quoted by historians, that it is a gain to fix its _status_, the more so as it has been loosely described as the 'official' instructions for the Survey itself. We may also determine the date of the writ as the very close of the Conqueror's reign. For it must have been issued between William's departure from England, _circ._ September 1086, and his death (September 1087).

And now, how was the return compiled? It deals, we find, with six counties, arranged in this order: Cambridgeshire, Herts, Essex, Norfolk, Suffolk, and Hunts. For _Cambridgeshire_ it copies, clearly, from the original returns. For Herts it must have done so also, because it gives full details, which are not found in Domesday Book. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that, for these two counties, it gives the jurors' names (for the hundreds dealt with), which it could only have obtained from those original returns. For _Essex_, _Norfolk_, and _Suffolk_, on the contrary, it simply gives the same version as the second volume of Domesday Book, and omits accordingly the jurors' names. The case of the four Manors in _Hunts_ I leave in doubt, because the version in the _Inquisitio_ (pp. 166-7) has more details than that of Domesday, though the latter is here exceptionally full, and because it places first the Manor which comes fourth in Domesday (i. 204). The additional details (as to live-stock) are such as we might expect to be derived from the additional returns; but the names of the witnesses for the Hundred are not recorded, a fact to be taken in conjunction with the belated entry of these Huntingdonshire Manors not following, as they should, those in Cambridgeshire and Herts.