de Ferers; and Adam, the brother of Eudo Dapifer. These, upon the oaths of the sheriffs-the lords of each manor ; the presbyters of every church; the reeves of every hundred ; and the bailiffs and six villans of every village were to enquire into and record the name of the place who held T. R. E. (in the time of King Edward the Confessor), who was the present possessor, how many hides; how many carrucates in demesne; how many persons yielding service of a higher kind; how many villani; how many cotarii (cottars); how many servi (slaves); how many Bordarii (Boors or Bordars); how many tenants in socage; what quantity of marsh, wood, meadow, pasture; what mills, fishponds, and rights of fishery; how much added or taken away and added to other manors; what were the customs of the manors; what the gross value, T. R. E.; what the present value; and all this was to be triply estimated: 1. As the estate was held T. R. E., and its value. 2. As it was bestowed by William the Conqueror. 3. As to its value at the time of the survey.

It is certain that in some counties, and in the original rolls-probably in all-the number and variety of the live stock were inserted in the returns, and it is extremely probable that when the Exchequer Domesday was excerpted from the rolls, the irrelevant matter appears to have been struck out, while in others it was retained. In this opinion Sir Henry Ellis concurs.

In 38 Henry III. there was produced in evidence, in an assize in the county of Chester, a roll called the Domesday of Chester, and it was mentioned by the judges in their judgment, in the King's Bench, where the case had been removed by certiorari. Dugdale cites a Domesday Ebor, which is still at York. We know of a Domesday of St. Paul's, of Winton (1148), of Ely (1083), of Exon (1083), and the Boldon Book for Durham (1183).

Turning to another part of the book for evidence of contradiction in terms, I would, if space permitted, enlarge and show from internal evidence in "Exon," that as far as regards entries from page 27 to 457, the returns seem exhaustive enough, and that not even "one swine was omitted," although two hundred and eighteen vaccas (cows) have been recorded and one hundred and forty-two boves (oxen), there is but one taurus (bull). There are, however, four hundred and forty animalia (animals). The latter do not include runcini nor equas, nor equas cum pullis, nor equas indomitas, nor equus indomitus, nor equus sivestris, nor equas silvestras, nor the forty pues (?), nor the thirteen caballos, nor the three he-asses. And we must conclude, that whilst in some manors we have a detailed account of cows, swine, sheep, wethers, she-goats, and animalia ociosa, the one thousand four hundred and forty animalia must have contained tauri in some considerable numbers, or the race must perforce have died out.

On page 2676 in Cestrescire we have an example of an entry wherein it is evident that during the inquiry some additional evidence was adduced, which led to the erasure by ruling out of such entries (unless it be the transcriber's error) and its repetition in extenso on the next page. I allude to the four lines respecting Gretford in Exestan hundred on p. 2676, and its enlargement to twelve lines on p. 268a. In the first we have Rainald holds of Earl Hugh, and in the second we find that Hugh and Osbern and Rainald hold Gretford. As Hugo Comes held the succeeding and many of the preceding, this Hugo may have been the Comes the Osbern-Osb fil Tezzonis (also of Warburton), and the Rainald he who held Erpestock, p. 2676. If the error be that of the transcriber, it is singular, for if the usually presumed care had been exercised the erasures might have been avoided. The erased entry evidently refers

to Rainald's portion only. In most of the entries respecting other counties we find "Terra Regis," but in Cheshire and Shropshire they do not occur. In Somersetshire the names of the tenants, as enumerated at the beginning, do not answer to the arrangement of the return, and at the beginning of Cheshire they are omitted altogether. In vol. ii., Essex, p. 17, ten names are entered, and erased by two lines saltirewise; but the reason for this erasure is not patent, as the names agree with the owners and run in right order, unless it was found that the list had been given on page 1. The erasures, however, furnish information which is wanting in the list on page 1 in three instances-Berch in Berchingis, Aldreda, the name of the patron saint of Ely Abbey, and Martin, the name of the patron saint, De Bello (Battle Abbey). The returns, however, fortunately, also contained these names. castles of Halton and

baronies by Hugh Lupus.

Domesday is also silent about the
Durham, though made caputs of

Now where Domesday proves too much: "In Sciropesberie (Shrewsbury) 'civitate facit Rogerius Comes Abbatiam; et eidem dedit Monasterium St. Petri ubi erat parochia civitatis.' In the church of St. Peter here alluded to Roger of Arundel, alias R. de Belesme and Roger de Montgomery, in 1083 vowed the construction of an abbey, placing his gloves upon the altar in token of his intent." Such is the account of Ordericus Vitalis (Dug. iii. 513). On turning to Cal. Rot. Pat., p. 109, 4 E. III., we read that the king confirmed to the Abbot of St. Peter's, Salop, certain manors, &c., including "Medietatem piscariæ de Merse," near Thelwall, granted to him by Ranulf, sometime Earl of Chester; and in the same volume, p. 201, 3 R. II., more ample confirmation of all previous grants to the Abbot of Salop, "Et notandum quod Hugo Comes Cestriae fuit fundator ejusdem in anno. 1087, et anno. 20 Willi

Conquestris." This note was made, evidently correcting the statement, three hundred years after Domesday was written. There is also the inquiry, "Who founded the monastery, and who the abbey?"

The copying was only partial, or only part of what was copied has come down to us, for Northumberland, Cumberland, Westmoreland, and Durham are not described in the survey, neither is Lancashire under its proper title; but Furness and the northern part of the county, as well as the south of Westmoreland, with part of Cumberland, are included with the West Riding of Yorkshire. That part of Lancashire which lies between the Ribble and the Mersey, which in 1086 comprehended six hundreds and one hundred and eighty-eight manors, is subjoined to Cheshire, and strange to say, part of Rutlandshire is described in the counties of Northants and Lincoln. At the end of the Atiscross Hundred in Cheshire we find North Wales occupying four lines only (269a), and there are eleven manors included "in Marcha de Walis" on 1866 in eight lines only. On folio 269 there are three entries respecting manors in Cheshire "nunquam geldavit nec hidata fuit." This is also applied "In hoc eodem in est silva una nunquam geldavit, nec hidata fuit."

It must therefore be universally regretted that the more ample record has not been handed down to us instead of the imperfect one before us.

E

NOTES ON CHURCH RESTORATION.

IN

BY ROBERT LANGTON, F.R.HIST. Soc.

N the following paper I have sought, first, to point out to some extent the wrong that has been done under the mistaken notion that in the repairs to the fabrics I shall mention (our fine mediæval churches) they were being restored to their original condition; and in the second place to embody a few notes on the so-called restorations of some of our ancient and more important churches, which have come under my own notice during the last thirty-five years.

I need scarcely remark that the few instances I shall have time to mention are by no means exhaustive of the theme, but are, on the contrary, merely an introduction to a very sad story of spoliation and wilful destruction.

Any one who has at all studied this subject of church restoration will, I think, cordially agree with me that, while in many modern instances satisfactory reparation and even renovation has been made, yet in far more numerous cases during the last half century irreparable mischief has been wrought on some of our stateliest ecclesiastical buildings over the whole of England.

I have no hesitation in saying that in by far the greater number of our beautiful parish churches, and in many of our cathedrals, which have passed through this ordeal of restoration, the lapse of time, indeed whole centuries of