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. In addition to the _Inquisitio_ itself, as printed by the Record Commission, there is a record, or collection of records, which follows it in all three MSS., and which is printed in Mr Hamilton's book (pp. 168-89). Although its character is not there described, it can be determined. For in the _Inquisitio_ there are three references to the 'breve abbatis de ely' (pp. 123-4), all three of which can be identified in the above record (pp. 175-7). It is noteworthy that the record in question is only complete in C, which confirms my view that B and its offspring A were independent of C. Though the word _Breve_ in Domesday Book normally means the king's writ, there are passages which seem to have been overlooked, and in which it bears another and very suggestive meaning. One of them is found at the end of the Survey of Worcestershire and was foolishly supposed by the compilers of the index volume (pp. 250, 315) to relate to lands held by 'Eddeva' and entered immediately before it. The passage is an independent note, running thus: In ESCH Hund' jacent x. hidæ in Fecheham et iii. hidæ in Holewei et scriptæ sunt in _brevi de Hereford_. In DODINTRET Hund' jacent xiii. hidæ de Mertelai et v. hidæ de Suchelei quæ hic placitant et geldant, et ad Hereford reddunt firmam suam, et sunt scriptæ in _breve regis_ (i. 178). All four places are found on fo. 180_b_, 'Feccheham' and 'Haloede' [_sic_][243] together (under 'Naisse' Hundred[244]) as paying a joint ferm--'Merlie' (Martley) under 'Dodintret' Hundred and Suchelie (Suckley), now in Herefordshire, as 'in Wirecestrescire' (cf. i. 172).