With Essex, we enter at once on a different system. This portion, which extends from p. 125 to p. 130 (line 8), is arranged not by Hundreds but by fiefs. It first gives the lands actually held by the Abbey (as coming first in Domesday), and then those of which laymen were in possession. To the latter section are prefixed the words: 'Has terras calumpniatur abbas de ely secundum breve regis'. From Essex we pass to Norfolk, the entries for which, commencing on p. 130 with the words 'In Teodforda', end on p. 141 at 'Rogerus filius Rainardi'. These again are divided into two portions, namely, the lands credited to the Abbey in Domesday (pp. 130-6), and those which it claimed but which Domesday enters under other owners (pp. 137-41). Between the two comes the total value of the former portion and a list of the Norfolk churches held by the Abbey. Last of the Eastern counties is Suffolk, which begins on p. 141 at 'In Tedeuuartstreu hund.', and ends on p. 166. This also is in two portions, but the order seems to be reversed, the alleged aggressions on the Abbey's lands coming first and its uncontested possessions last. The latter portion begins on p. 153, where the B text inserts the word 'Sudfulc'. The following parallel passages are of interest as showing how closely the I.E. followed D.B. even when recording a judicial decision. _D.B._ _I.E._ In dermodesduna tenuerunt xxv. In dermodesduna tenuerunt xxv. liberi homines I car. terræ ex lib. homines I car. terre ex quibus habuit sca. Al. commend. quibus habuit S. Ædel. sacam et et socam T.R.E. Tunc vi. car. socam et commend. T.R.E. Tunc modo ii., et iii. acre prati, vi. car. modo ii., et iii. acre et val. xx. sol. prati, et val. xx. Rogerus bigot[us] tenet de abbate, sol. R. bigot tenet de Abbate quia abbas eam derationavit super quia Abbas eam dirationavit eum coram episcopo de sancto super eum coram episcopo Laudo, sed prius tamen tenebat de constantiensi. Sed prius rege (ii. 383). tamen tenuit de rege (p. 157). The one variation, the Bishop's style, has a curious parallel in Domesday Book (i. 165), where under the rubric 'Terra Episcopi Constantiensis' we read 'Episcopus de Sancto Laudo tenet', etc. We may take it then that the compilers of the _Inquisitio Eliensis_ worked for Cambridge and Herts from the original returns, but, for the eastern counties, from the second volume of Domesday. What are the corollaries of this conclusion? They used, for some reason or other, the second volume of Domesday, but not the first--if, indeed, it then existed. Speaking for myself, I have always felt not a little uneasy as to the accepted date for the completion of Domesday Book.[248] Mr Eyton went so far as to write: