1920 THE EARLY SHERIFFS OF NORFOLK 493 de Nevill and p. 575 of the Red Book} The entry in question runs thus : Testa (p. 273) Red Booh (p. 576) Willelmus de Norwich modo Willelmus de Norwicho, modo Robertus filius Rogeri vii mil. in Robertas fiUus Rogeri, vij milites Thorp Wydon Andigau' Massing- in Torp, Widone, Andagane, Mas- ham Anemere Wythingham in singeham, Anemere, Freinge, Wich- NorfE' et in Chishull' in Essex' j ingeham, in Norfolcia, sciUcet vj feodum Summa vii. mihtes, in Chishulle in Essexa, j.^ This entry admirably illustrates my own theory that the above return was largely based on one of earlier date, which was posted up by the addition of the names of those tenants who were holding when it was compiled. Of the earlier tenants, William de Mustroil (six knights), Pheramus de Boulogne (six), Gervase de Cornhill, and Richard de Lucy ^ of Ongar (four), were all certainly dead before Richard I's accession ; nor is this list exhaustive. The case, however, of William ' de Norwich ' (seven) is perhaps the most decisive ; for William ' de Caisneto ' , whose identity with himself I have proved, died no later than the year 1174, so that the date of the earlier return of which I postu- late the existence cannot have been later than this year. Moreover, I have been able to show that Robert Fitz Roger appears, in the later list, as the holder, because his wife had inherited almost all the holdings of her father, William ' de Caisnei '. The only other case of his so appearing to which I need refer is in the return for the honour of Eye. This return is found on p. 411 of the Red Book of the Exchequer, where Robert is entered as second on the list of its knights and as holding no fewer than ten of its knights' fees. These were probably inherited from his wife's Domesday ancestor, Walter de Caen, who held under the lord of that vast honour. This return, in the Red Book, is assigned by a marginal note, like the other cartae, to 1166, although the name of the earl of Norfolk, which stands fourth on the list, is ' Comes Rogerus '. The earl who made his return in 1166 * was not Roger, but Hugh. It is obvious, therefore, that this list cannot have been compiled earlier than 1177, when Earl Roger's father died ; possibly, indeed, not earlier than 1189,^ when the earldom was definitely granted to him by Richard I. Again, the very first name on the list is that of Hubert de
- It is headed in the latter : ' Inquisitiones de hoaoribus exchaetis aliquo tempore,
factae anno xiij° Regis lohannis, de servitiis militum eorundem. H(^nor Boloniae, secundum inquisitiones inde factas tempore Regis lohannis.' ^ Compare list of errata (pp. 1363-6) after the index. » d. 1179. * Ibid. pp. 395-7. ' It will be found that even so late as Michaelmas 1189, he was still only styled ' Rogerus Bigot ' officiallj' (Pipe Roll 1 Rio. I, p. 39) and not recognized as earl.
