Similiter inquiratur de Hæc est inquisitio de manerio archiepiscopis, episcopis, Comitis Arundeliæ in Snetesham, abbatibus, comitibus, baronibus, scilicet quod homines sui et eorum senescallis et dederunt postquam dominus noster ministris, quid vel quantum Rex Anglorum extremo acceperint per terras suas post transfretavit in Normanniam. terminum praedictum [postquam Quando Comes perexit ad servandas dominus Rex transfretavit] de les Marches de Wales pluribus singulis hundredis et de vicibus, scilicet, homines de singulis villatis suis, et domenio suo dederunt c solidos; singulis hominibus suis, per et Ricardus filius Atrac et sui judicium vel sine judicio; et pares de uno socagio dederunt omnes prisas illas scribant iii marcas gratis.... separatim et causas et Quando comes rediit de Francia, occasiones earum. iterum dederunt,’ &c., &c. I have slightly altered Mr. Hall’s punctuation, which seems to me erroneous; but this in no way affects the argument. It is to the enquiry I have printed above that these interesting documents are undoubtedly the returns. Their common feature is that they record payments made by vills, or by individuals to their lords, that they record them “separatim,” and that they specially record their “causas et occasiones.” We may go further. The very phrase in the above article--“per judicium”[321]--occurs no less than eleven times in the return for the Valoines barony, being duly appended, as prescribed, to the several payments and their “causes.” The correspondence of Inquest and returns being thus close and indeed obvious, one is led to wonder how their editor can have committed himself to so unfortunate an assertion. He would seem, instead of studying the articles, to have started with a preconceived and erroneous view of their character, and then rejected my own view because the returns “are not specially connected with the alleged maladministration of the fiscal officers which was the subject of the above inquiry, but ... with the private feudal relations of the same (_i.e._ individual barons) with their subtenants.” He cannot have read the second article, which is specially concerned with the latter relations, and which stands in every way on a level with the first (concerning the fiscal officers). Moreover, by a lucky chance, there is preserved among these documents at least one fragment of the return to the enquiry as to the king’s officers. For we read that the men on one manor “nil dederunt Vicecomiti neque prepositis Regis præter xvi d. quos dederunt ad castellum firmandum de Oreford,” etc., etc. Nay more, we can identify at least two of these returns as having been made in reply to the _third_ article of the Inquest: