48 
scribes did their work somewhat carelessly. Sometimes omissions 
were detected and entered later on in false order ; for instance— 
Lituna (160), Aissa, Miluertona are inserted at the end of the 
Bishop’s land, either as omissions, or as involving questions of 
title. Aissa—terr. occ. f. 520 is also out of order. But at intervals 
‘comes a general review, and “ consummatum est” announces 
this fact. Another objection against the Exon Book as compared 
with the Exchequer is the succession of fiefs. The answer is 
simple and recorded in the Book itself. In the year 1816 Mr. 
Ralph Barnes, Chapter Clerk, copied it for the Government, and 
afterwards revised the proof sheets. The parchment sheets, or 
books, or fiefs, had hitherto been only stitched to one another. 
Mr. Barnes himself numbered the folios as in the printed copy, 
discarding previous numberings, and apparently not consulting 
the true order of fiefs as revealed in the Exchequer fac simile, had 
the book bound up in false order. To show how carelessly the 
book was kept in the 17th century, one of the fiefs was lost, and 
afterwards found in the roth century among the papers of a 
Devon magnate ; one is missing still. 
Take, then, the following rules as guides to identification. 
(1) Hundreds in a fief should be in index order of hundreds, 
allowing for cross order caused by simultaneous entries, and for 
omissions entered ate. 
(2) An identification, introducing a hundred roll defore it came 
into the hands of the clerks, must be false. 
EXPLANATIONS OF THE DOMESDAY BOOK. 
Folios 88 to 117 contain manors in the hand of the King. 
Every manor was either the caput of and gave name toa hundred, 
or was already included in a hundred. Notice how regularly 
“nescitur” comes in the King’s demesne. These manors, that is, 
were always in the King’s hand as pertaining to the Crown, and 
therefore never liable to danegeld. As is commonly said, they 
were extra hundredal, because of this exemption. But they were 
