introductory remarks to the volume, could only say, 'In the archives of the earl of Chester there formerly existed a Roll, denominated "the Domes-day of Chester"; the entries in this roll were esteemed of high authority and perhaps conclusive evidence'.[1] In 1833 Sir Henry Ellis quotes Illingworth's remarks in his General Introduction to Domesday Book (proper),[2] which could only tend to lend colour to the suggestion that there was some relation between the two records.
When discussing the name 'Domesday' in his Rise and Progress of the English Commonwealth,[3] Sir Francis Palgrave goes still further and clearly assumes the Chester record to be analogous to Domesday Book proper, for, after mentioning similarly named records at Norwich and Ipswich containing entries of charters and customs, he tells us 'the Domesday of Chester, being a record more nearly approximating to the real Domesday, was preserved among the archives of the Earldom'.
In 1840 Mr. W. H. Black of the Record Office, in his Report on the records of Wales and Chester,[4] has the following remarks:
For the ancient Domesday of Chester I made special inquiry but it is not known to be extant. It was a record of high authority and seems to have contained evidence of judgments and various ascertained rights, recorded for the Earls of Chester and their subjects in early times.
After a reference to the Sandbach case, he proceeds:
Entries continued to be made in it until 15 Edward I (1287)[5] as it appears by an original document contained in the oldest bundle of fines in the Prothonotary's office; which is thus subscribed: Ista carta irrotulata est in libro qui vocatur Domesday, die Iovis proxima ante purificationem beate Marie, coram militibus et libere tenentibus de Com. Cestr. in pleno scaccario; ubi predicti Ricardus et Agnes venerunt; et predicta Agnes super hoc examinata, predictam cartam recognoverunt anno r.r. E. XVo.[6] Hence it appears that the Chester Domesday was not a roll as repeatedly it is called in the [Sandbach] record before quoted, but a book similar perhaps to the Black Book and Red Book of the Exchequer at Westminster.
In a foot-note Mr. Black says:
It may here be observed that the record of Chester was most likely not a Survey, like the Domesday of Exeter, &c., because Cheshire is included in the Book of Westminster, unless the Earl of Chester had a transcript of the latter, so far as his Palatinate was concerned, with space left in the volume for additional matter to be recorded therewith.
In papers read before the Chester Archaeological Society in
