But if this document was not the original return, what was? To answer this question, we must turn to Worcestershire, one of the counties cited by Mr. Hall for the parallel character of the returns. How significantly close is the parallel these entries will show:
| Comes Albemarlie j militem et dimidium in Severnestoke, pro qua et Kenemertone et Botintone in Gloucestresyra Rex acquietat abbatem Westmonasterii de iij militibus (‘Liber Rubeus,’ p. 567). | Comes Albemarlie tenet Savernestoke de dono regis Ricardi per servicium j militis et dimidii pro qua et pro Kenemerton et Botinton in Glouc[estresyra] dominus Rex acquietat abbatem Westmonasterii de iij militibus (‘Testa de Nevill,’ p. 43). |
It will be obvious, from the verbal concordances, that instead of representing, as Mr. Hall holds, two “independent” returns made in different years these texts are derived from one and the same return. But instead of being, as in the case of Middlesex, arranged in the same order, they are here found, in the respective texts, arranged in very different order. The explanation of this is that the ‘Testa’ records the Inquest by Hundreds, while the ‘Red Book’ groups the fees under the barons’ names and the sergeanties apart at the end. This is particularly interesting from the parallel of Domesday Book, where the Inquest, of which the original returns were drawn up hundred by hundred, was rearranged in Domesday Book in similar fashion. I was led to suspect that this great Inquest was, generally at least, drawn up by Hundreds, from Mr. Hall’s remark that
There is a marginal note in the Red Book returns for Wilts, now partially illegible, but (sic) which clearly records the loss of the Inquisition of several of the Hundreds of that county, while a precisely similar note is entered on the dorse of one of the original returns for Norfolk in the Testa (p. ccxxiv.).[533]
The view I advance at once explains and is confirmed by the remarkable allusion to this Inquest in the ‘Annals of Waverley’:
(1212) Idem (rex) scripsit vicecomitibus ut per singulos hundredos facerent homines jurare quæ terræ essent de dominico prædecessorum suorum regum antiquitus, et qualiter a manibus regum exierint, et qui eas modo tenent et pro quibus servitiis.
There can, in my opinion, be no question whatever that this refers to the writ ordering the great Inquest of service in 1212. This is printed in the ‘Testa’ (p. 54), and as an appendix to the ‘Red Book’ (p. cclxxxv.). It is too lengthy to be quoted entire, but in it are found these words:
De tenementis omnibus quæ antiquitus de nobis aut de progenitoribus nostris regibus Angliæ teneri solent, quæ sint data vel alienata ... et nomina illorum qui ea teneant et per quod servitium.
The only difference is that the writ leaves the method of inquest to the sheriff’s discretion (“sicut melius inquiri poterit”) while the chronicler says it was to be made Hundred by Hundred, which, as we have seen, was probably the method adopted.
In the ‘Testa’ the writ is not dated, but the copy printed by Mr. Hall is dated June 1 (1212) at Westminster. This seems but short notice for a return due on June 25, but it is remarkable that the ‘Annals of Waverley’ mention it in conjunction with a writ dated June 7, which certainly favours the statement. This latter writ directs an enquiry as to the ecclesiastical benefices held under gift of the prelates lately exiled from the realm.[534] It is remarkable that the Worcester returns to the great Inquest of service in 1212 are followed by a return made to such an enquiry: