By the Rev, W. H. Jones. 



3 



from which we derive the text given below, are contained in two 

 manuscripts, referred to in the following paper respectively as A 

 and B, included among the Harleian collection in the British 

 Museum, of which the following accounts are given. 



A. Harl. MS. 6281. This manuscript is described in the 

 catalogue, as — " A folio, containing the Cities, Boroughs, Villages 

 and Hundreds, their Names, and who were the Lords of every 

 Manor throughout all the Counties of England in the year of our 

 Lord 131.6, entitled 'A transcript of the Book called Nomina 

 Yillarum, kept in the office of the Treasurer's Remembrancer in 

 the Exchequer.' " 



Judging from the hand-wmting, this transcript appears to have 

 been made in the early part of the reign of Elizabeth. The Ex- 

 chequer Book is copied on the left hand of the page, and at the 

 foot of each page, or in the margin, or on the opposite page, are 

 added many notes of possessors of the manors in times subsequent 

 to the date when the record was first compiled, or of other manors 

 held by such persons, extracted from commissions, escheats, subsidy- 

 rolls, and other documents of various classes. The hand-writing 

 of this manuscript is singularly perplexing, and in some places 

 almost illegible. Without local knowledge it would be impossible 

 to decipher it with any accuracy, especially as regards the additions, 

 which are written in a more than usually abbreviated form and 

 with great indistinctness. 



B. Harl. MS., 2195. This Manuscript contains the original 

 heading of the Exchequer volume, omitted in the MS. A., and the 

 returns for several counties, and amongst them, for Wilts. This 

 transcript, from the hand-writing, appears to have been made in 

 the 17th century. It is in every respect a more legible manuscript 

 than the former, and the two are useful in helping to interpret 

 each other. Sir Francis Palgrave observed that there were suf- 

 ficient variations between them to show that the latter was made 

 from the original record, and not from the former transcript. It is 

 certain however that in both are the same omissions as regards 

 Wilts, and that an undoubted error in one case (see below, 

 under § 23), is found in both manuscripts. 



b 2 



