=Origin of Name.=--Eight hundred years ago the name of Birmingham first appeared in history, and almost exactly with the present name of the town. In the famous Domesday Book (1083-1086), compiled for William the Norman, the name is spelled “Bermingeha’,” but the varieties of spelling, from the conquest, have been remarkable. Some curious collector has summed up one hundred and forty variations, but most of these may be resolved into two forms of pronunciation--either Birmingham or Bromicham. It is curious that no other town or village in England seems to have a similar name to that of Birmingham, and hence its etymology is somewhat obscure. Hutton’s favourite origin was Broom from the plant, Wych, a dwelling or a descent, and Ham a home, so that Bromwycham was supposed to be the original name indicating local details; but Hutton had forgotten to look at Domesday Book, or to explain how Bromwycham had been turned into Birmingham. Still more, he had neglected Dugdale’s remark that while “ham,” for home, explained the final syllable, the other two syllables certainly denoted some personal name. All later researches have tended to confirm this suggestion, and modern philologists, including Prof. E. A. Freeman, are almost unanimous in agreeing that “Berm,” or “Beorm,” or some similar form represents the name of some Saxon tribe or people, and that Bermingham would be a patronymic or family name, with the “ing” or “iung” denoting some progeny or tribe, and giving the name to the “de Berminghams,” who flourished in the place, as Dugdale fully shows. =Early History.=--As to the ante-Norman holders, Dugdale says on the authority of Domesday Book, that in “Edward the Confessor’s days (Birmingham was) the freehold of one Ulvvine,” but the history begins with the Domesday Book which gives the following details:--“Richard holds of William (Fitz Ausculf) four hides in Bermingha’. The arable employs six ploughs; one is in the demesne. There are five villeins and four bordars with two ploughs. Wood half a mile long, and four furlongs broad. It was, and is worth 20s.” These few facts compare very favourably with the description of other places, and show that Birmingham was then a place of some importance. No church is mentioned, and no priest, but those omissions do not necessarily prove that the place had neither, and probably it had both. The extent of the “hide” is very uncertain and it seems to have varied from sixty to one hundred acres. This entry obviously relates to Birmingham only, and Edgbaston, Aston, and other places are similarly described. This extract is merely given to show that some sort of town existed long before 1083-1086, and that its name was nearly as we spell and sound it now.