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: