A HISTORY OF NORFOLK manor {quia non possunt carere sua pastura reddunt ei consuetudineni)} No doubt the same method was found efficient in other cases also. It will be seen that before the Brevia of the tenants-in-chief could take the form in which we now have them, they must have undergone a great deal of revision, and it is not wonderful that they should have lost something in the process. We are fortunately able to produce a definite instance of this from the Inquisitio Eliemis. That document presents so close a resem- blance to Domesday in its account of the Norfolk manors of Ely, that it has been assumed that it was actually copied from Little Domesday as we now have it.' This cannot, however, be the case, since it includes an account of Burgh Apton, which Domesday omits." The correspondence is, however, so close, that we must conclude that the same returns were copied into both books. We can determine from Domesday the order in which the returns were arranged. They were compiled hundred by hundred, in accordance with the verdicts of the juries, and were arranged more or less in the follow- ing order : — Clackclose, Freebridge, Docking, Smethden ; South Greenhoe, Grimshoe ; Wayland, Shropham, Guiltcross ; Launditch, Forehoe, Midford ; Gallow, Brothercross, Holt, North Greenhoe, North Erpingham ; Walsham, Blofield, West Flegg ; Henstead, Earsham, Diss, Loddon ; Eynesford, Taverhall, South Erpingham, Tunstead, Happing ; East Flegg ; Humble- yard, Depwade, and Clavering. We see, accordingly, that Little Domesday, though more primitive than the larger volume, can hardly have sprung into existence in 1086.* We have too many stages to allow for : the original inquiry by the commissioners, first of the lord, then of the hundred ; the preparation of the verified returns by the comparison of the statements of the lords with the verdicts of the juries of the hundreds ; and lastly the copying out of the amended Brevia into the form in which we now have them. And there is, as we have seen from the allusions to the Rotuli Wintonie, some temptation to place the final stage as late as 1 100, even in the case of the smaller of the two volumes, which contains the counties of Essex, Norfolk, and Suffolk, and is styled Little Domesday Book. The other volume, which contains much less detail, is obviously later and shows signs of much more careful compilation. Proceeding from the manner to the matter of the survey, we must first consider its main object, the assessment and collection of the king's geld, for which purpose the unit was the hundred, and we shall see that these units as we find them in Domesday are not primitive. We may, however, make a good guess at the economic conditions of Norfolk when the first assess- ment was made by noticing the relative sizes of the hundreds, as it is clear (if the hundreds were areas of equal assessment) that the popula- tion must then have been thickest in the smallest hundreds. The arrangement of the Domesday hundreds in Norfolk differs a little from the modern arrangement, as will be seen from the map. In some cases the boundaries have been dictated by physical considerations. Thus the two hundreds of East and West Flegg must at a comparatively ' Dom. Bk. f. 274. s Round, Feud. Engl. p. 137. ' Hamilton, Inq. Com. Cantab.^. 136.
- It was observed by Mr. Round {Feud. Engl. pp. 139-140) that 'It seems to have been somewhat
hastily concluded that because the survey (" Descriptio Anglia: ") took place in 1086, Domesday Book (which styles lidi Liber de Wlntonid) was completed in that year.' The colophon to ' Little Domesday' refers, in his opinion, to the survey, not to the volume.
