This Norfolk roll contains rotulets relating to several collection of the hearth tax.

The majority of the document is clearly part of the assessment for Michaelmas 1664 for which several other rotulets have survived in the E 179 class. The roll was originally made up of sixty two rotulets of which forty have survived, of these twenty one are in the present piece (rots 1-3, and 13-30). The other surviving parts of the roll may be found in E 179/154/700 (two rotulets), E 179/367/13 (seven rotulets), E 179/154/707 (five rotulets), E 179/154/709 (four rotulets), and E 179/238/119 (one rotulet). The heading for the roll was on one of the rotulets that is now missing, but the final membrane survives in the present piece and is endorsed with two notes. The first 'Norff. 1664' suggests that this assessment was compiled in association with one of the collections of that year, the second is a date of return to the Exchequer 3 May 1667. The signatures of Francis Cory, Herbert Astley and William Burleigh appear on the same rotulet. It is most likely that this document represents the assessment for Michaelmas 1664, rather than Lady Day 1664, as the assessment for Lady Day 1664 covered only the previous half year, the officials responsible being Sir Jacob Astley and William Randall, whereas the Michaelmas 1664 assessment covered the year and a half ending Michaelmas 1665 (i.e. including the collections Michaelmas 1664, and Lady Day and Michaelmas 1665) which explains the late date of return to the Exchequer. All of the above documents relating to the Michaelmas 1664 assessment have been published in P. J. Seaman and M. S. Frankel |The Norfolk Hearth Tax Assessment Michaelmas 1664| Norfolk and Norwich Genealogical Society, vol. 15, (1983). A note at the foot of the twenty fifth rotulet states that five towns, Bodney, Great Cressingham, Little Cressingham, Dillington and Langford, in South Greenhoe hundred had not submitted their returns. The final three membranes contain lists of those exempt from payment.

The remaining rotulets in this piece (rots 4-12) have not been identified as belonging to particular collections, although in style and form are early. Rots 4 - 11 appear, on the evidence of style and hand appear to belong to the same collection, while rot 12 is from a different, but still early, assessment. Rev. John Heckman, who is listed as the vicar of Bexwell (rot 4d), was replaced by J. Randolph 19 October 1664.