Chapter XI: Part I: Territorial Studies (8)

car car
Scanketon' 2 Scantone 2 Robert de Veci.
Chiburd 12 Chiborne 12 Robert de Veci.

_Edward of Salisbury's fief_

Dalby on the }
Wolds } 9 Dalbi 9 Ralf fitz Hubert.

_William Meschin's fief_

Seustern 5 Seustern 5 William Lovet.

_Henry de Albini's fief_

Scegla 2 Sela 2 Nigel de Albini.

_Gilbert's son's fief_

Sproxcheston 2 Sprotone 2 Godfrey de Cambrai.

_William Chamberlain's fief_

Great Dalby 1 Dalby 1 {Hunfridus Camerarius.

_Thomas's fief_

car car
Thrussington 10-3/4}
Hoby 7-1/4} 18 Thrussington 18 Guy de Raimbercurt.

_Count of Mortain's fief_

Broctone 12 Broctone 12 Rex.
Knipton 8-3/4 Cnipeton 8-3/4 Rex.
Croxton 24 Croxton 24 Rex.
Harestan 12 Horstan 12 Rex.

_Alan de Craon's fief_

Stoneby 8 Stoneby 8 Guy de Craon.
Waltham 2-1/2 Waltham 2-1/2 Guy de Craon.
Sproxton 3 Sproxton 2 Guy de Craon.

_William de Albini's fief_

Cold Overton 12 Cold Overton 12 Dru de Bevrere.
Knipton 3-1/4 Knipton 3-1/4 Robert de Todeni.
Herdebi and
Plungar 17 Herdeby 17 Robert de Todeni.
Stacthirn 8-1/2 Stacthirn 9-3/4 Robert de Todeni.
Bottlesford 32 Bottlesford 24(?) Robert de Todeni.

_Henry Tuchet's fief_

Claxton 10-7/8 Claxton 6 } Robert Hostiarius.
}10-1/2
Howes 4-1/2} Robert Hostiarius

_Richard Basset's fief_

Langton 3-1/4
Chiburd 1
Skeffington 3-1/2 Skeffington 3-1/2 Rex.
Lodington 12 Lodington 12 Robert de Buci.
Sileby 2 Sileby 2-1/4 Rex.
Gaddesby 1/2
Reresby 5 Reresby 1-3/4 Robert de Buci.
Grimstone 3 Grimstone 3 Robert de Buci.
Overton 4 Overton 4 Robert de Buci.
Kettleby and } Holwell 5 }
Holwell } 9 Kettleby 6 } Robert de Buci.
Goatby 6 Goatby 6 Robert de Buci.
Scaldeford Scaldeford 1/2 Robert de Buci.
Wymondham }
and Thorpe } 3-1/2 Wymondham 3-1/2 Robert de Buci.
Hardebi 1 Hertebi 1 Robert de Buci.

The fief of Richard Basset is that of a typical man, of one of those trusted officials who flourished under Henry I. We know not the fate of Robert de Buci, a Domesday baron in Leicestershire and Northants; but as two, at least, of his Leicestershire estates passed, we have seen, to Mowbray, it was, we may infer, forfeiture or escheat that brought his fief into the king's hands, and enabled him to divide it among his own favourites. We learn from the evidence to which I am coming that the eight carucates in Swinford and Walcote, and the two in little Ashby which Robert de Buci had held in 1086, were in the hands of Geoffrey Ridel ninety years later. We may then infer, though they are not included in the sphere of our survey, that they had been obtained, like the rest, by Basset _temp._ Hen. I.[56]

The elaborate fine made at Leicester, June 31, 1176,[57] has an important bearing on the Bassets' Leicestershire possessions. Not only does it specify the lands they held at Swinford (with Walcote), Ashby, and Fleckney, but it mentions their fee of Madeley, Staffordshire. Now the descent of this Staffordshire fee can be traced by charters on the same roll.[58] One of these (No. 12) is a confirmation, by Robert de Stafford, of Madeley to Geoffrey Ridel, to be held as his 'antecessores' had held it. This was Geoffrey, son of Richard Basset, by Maud Ridel, as is shown by the fact that the first witness to the charter is Hervey de Stretton, who held two knights' fees of Stafford in 1166,[59] and that another is Robert Bagot, who held a quarter of a fee,[60] while Geoffrey Ridel himself then held one, namely, Madeley.[61] But the enrolling scribe confused him with his (maternal) grandfather and namesake (d. 1120), and thus wrongly assigned this charter to the reign of Henry I, and threw the whole descent into utter confusion. The right clue is found in a charter of Robert 'de Toni' (_i.e._ de Stafford), 'conceding' Madeley to Robert 'de Busa' (_alias_ 'de Busci'), 'per servitium unius militis'.[62] This fee, therefore, must have come to the Bassets with the rest of the Buci estates; and we thus learn that this must have been late in the reign of Henry I, for the names of the witnesses to this charter prove that it must be subsequent to 1122.[63]

As Robert de Buci was then in possession, it cannot have been, here at least, till later that Basset succeeded him.

Among the points to be observed in the descent of the above fiefs are Edward of Salisbury's succession to that of Ralf fitz Hubert,[64] the appearance of Henry de Albini, founder of the Cainho line, as successor to Nigel, and the portions of the great Belvoir fief, held in Domesday by Robert de Todeni, now owned by Robert de L'Isle and William de Albini 'Brito'. In the midst of great but vanished names, it is pleasant to meet with one, at least, still surviving in the male line: William de Gresley, holder of Linton (a Derbyshire hamlet close to Gresley), had succeeded, there and at 'Widesers', Nigel, a tenant of Henry de Ferrers in 1086 (D.B., i. 233_b_).[65] In this 'Nigel', therefore, it would seem, we have Nigel de Stafford, Lord of Drakelow (D.B., i. 278).

I will close with the names of those who had succeeded the Domesday tenants-in-chief.

HEIRS

Count of Meulan Earl of Leicester
Earl Aubrey (Escheat)
'Countess' Godgifu
'Countess' Ælfgifu Earl of Chester (Donnington)
Earl of Chester Earl of Chester
Hugh de Grentmesnil Earl of Leicester
Henry de Ferrers Robert de Ferrers
Robert de Todeni William de Albini
Robert de Veci [Anschitil]
Roger de Busli [Honour of Blyth]
{ Walter de Beauchamp
Robert Dispensator { Robert Marmion
{ Henry Tuchet (10-7/8)
Robertus Hostiarius, (10-1/2)
Ralf Mortimer
Ralf fitz Hubert Edward of Salisbury
Guy de Raimbercurt [Thomas]
Guy de Craon Alan de Craon
William Peverel Honour of Peverel
William Buenvaslet Comes War'?
William Loveth Will. Meschin
Geoffrey Alselin
Geoffrey de 'Wirce' [Escheat]
Godfrey de Cambrai the son of Gilbert
Gunfrid de Cioches
Humfrey Camerarius Willelmus Camerarius
Drogo de Bevrere Albemarle
Nigel de Albini Henry de Albini
'Countess' Judith King David

[Footnote 1: Q.R., Misc. Bdle. 558, I.P.R., 8113; Knight's
Fees, Com. Leic.]

[Footnote 2: See pp. 75-6.]

[Footnote 3: MS. 'in'.]

[Footnote 4: Langton, Thorpe Langton, Tur Langton, Shangton.]

[Footnote 5: Kibworth, Burton Overy, Carlton Curlieu.]

[Footnote 6: Knossington, Owston, Picwell and Leesthorpe,
Newbold, Burrow, Baggrave, Marefield.]

[Footnote 7: Skeffington, Allexton, Thorpe and Twyford, East
Norton.]

[Footnote 8: MS. 'in'.]

[Footnote 9: MS. 'Archid'.]

[Footnote 10: Tilton, Loseby, Whadborough, Halstead.]

[Footnote 11: Interlined.]

[Footnote 12: Beeby, Keyham, Hungerton, [? Sileby].]

[Footnote 13: MS. injured here.]

[Footnote 14: Barkby, Hambleton, Thorpe, Thurmaston, South
Croxton, Barsby, Gaddesby.]

[Footnote 15: Ashby, Humberstone, Belgrave, Thurmaston,
Birstall, Wanlip, Ansty.]

[Footnote 16: Rearsby, Queensborough, Syston, Brooksby,
Rothley, Thurcaston, Cropston.]

[Footnote 17: Great Dalby, Frisby, Rotherby, Asfordby,
Wartnaby.]

[Footnote 18: Dalby on the Wolds, Grimston, Saxelby, Sileby,
Cossington, Hoton.]

[Footnote 19: Thrussington, Ragdale, Hoby.]

[Footnote 20: MS. illegible.]

[Footnote 21: Tong, Kegworth, Worthington.]

[Footnote 22: MS. 'in'.]

[Footnote 23: Loughborough, Charley, Dishley, Garendon,
Thorpe, Hathern.]

[Footnote 24: Belton, [? Coleorton], Worthington, Staunton
Harold, Castle Donington, Whitwick.]

[Footnote 25: Diseworth, Hathern, Linton (Derby), Blackfordby,
Ravenstone, Snibston.]

[Footnote 26: Seal (Nether and Over), Bogthorpe, Appleby,
Stretton on le Field, Donisthorpe, Swepston, Oakthorpe, Ashby,
Pakington, Osgathorpe.]

[Footnote 27: Blank in MS.]

[Footnote 28: Sheepshed, Whatton, Lockington.]

[Footnote 29: Cold Overton, Somerby, Burrow, Dalby, Withcote,
Newbold.]

[Footnote 30: Eastwell, Eaton, Branston.]

[Footnote 31: Melton Mowbray, Burton Lazars, Freeby.]

[Footnote 32: Kirby Bellars, Abkettleby, Sysonby.]

[Footnote 33: Nether Broughton, Thorpe, Brentingby, Wyfordby,
Abkettleby, Holwell.]

[Footnote 34: Scalford, Goadby, Knipton.]

[Footnote 35: MS. 'in'.]

[Footnote 36: Waltham, Stonesby, Coston.]

[Footnote 37: Barkstone, Saltby, [? Bescoby], Garthorpe.]

[Footnote 38: Sproxton, Seustern, Buckminster, Saxby.]

[Footnote 39: Clawson, Hose.]

[Footnote 40: Stapleford, Wymondham, Edmondthorpe.]

[Footnote 41: Harby, Plungar, Stathern.]

[Footnote 42: Bottesford, Muston, Normanton.]

[Footnote 43: Croxton, Harston.]

[Footnote 44: See the valuable list, for Dorset, in Mr Eyton's
_Key to Domesday_, p. 143.]

[Footnote 45: The Lincolnshire 'Hundred'.]

[Footnote 46: Waters' _Survey of Lindsey_, p. 5; _Eng. Hist.
Rev._, v. 100; _supra_, p. 73.]

[Footnote 47: _Supra_, p. 90.]

[Footnote 48: Ed. Hamilton, pp. 113, 116.]

[Footnote 49: _Supra_, p. 101.]

[Footnote 50: _Supra_, p. 127.]

[Footnote 51: Including Hambleton and Hungerton (6) in
Domesday.]

[Footnote 52: By grant of Robert, Count of Meulan.]

[Footnote 53: In Newbold.]

[Footnote 54: In Barnsby.]

[Footnote 55: Given (as 24 virgates) to Leicester Abbey.]

[Footnote 56: See also _supra_, p. 130.]

[Footnote 57: _Infra_, p. 388.] (See T.N. at end)

[Footnote 58: _Sloane Cart._, xxxi. 4.]

[Footnote 59: _Liber Rubeus_, Ed. Hall, p. 266.]

[Footnote 60: _Ibid._, p. 268.]

[Footnote 61: _Ibid._]

[Footnote 62: _Sloane_, xxxi. 4, No. 10.]

[Footnote 63: They are 'Nigellus de Aubeni, Ran[ulfus] Comes
Cestrie, Galfridus Cancellarius, Simon decanus Lincolnie,
Willelmus fil' Reg', Thomas de Sancto Johanne, Willelmus
de Aubeny Brito, Unfridus de Bohun et alii.' The Dean's
occurrence so late is worth noting.]

[Footnote 64: Compare 'The Barons of Criche' (_Academy_, June
1885).]

[Footnote 65: That William was his son is proved by the
Ferrers _Carta_ (1166), which enters 'Willelmus filius
Nigelli' as the tenant of four fees under Henry I, and as
succeeded, in 1166, by his son Robert.]

THE NORTHAMPTONSHIRE SURVEY

(HEN. I-HEN. II)

This 'Hydarium' of Northamptonshire is found in a Peterborough Cartulary (Cott. MS. Vesp. E. 22, fo. 94 _et seq._). It is drawn up Hundred by Hundred, like the surveys of Leicestershire and of Lindsey, and is, therefore, probably connected with the assessment of Danegeld. Although it is of special value for reconstituting the Domesday Vills, the assessment it records so often varies from that which is found in Domesday that we cannot institute a close comparison. The introduction of a 'parva virgata' further complicates the reckoning. That the original document was written on a roll is shown by the use of the phrase 'per alium rotulum'. The statement on fo. 97_b_ that there ought, at one place, to be half a hide more 'per rotulos Wyncestr[ie]', would seem to refer to Domesday; but on the next page we read:

In Pytesle Abbas de Burgo v. hid. [et] dim. set tamen in
Rotulis Wyncestr[ie] vi. hid. et iii. parvas virgatas.

Since Domesday records this holding as 'v. hid. et una virgata terræ', the reference (if the text of the survey is right) must clearly be to some other record preserved in the national treasury.

I append about a fifth of the Survey as a specimen of the whole.

HOKESLAWE

Twywell. Albr[icus] camerar[ius] ii. hidas de feudo Abbatis
de Thorneya. Ibidem de feudo Comitis David. Ibidem de feudo
Abbatis Burgi i. magnam virgatam.

In Slipton i. hidam et unam virgatam de feudo Will'i de Corcy.
Ibidem Ricardus filius Hugonis ii. partes unius hidæ de feudo
Burgi. Ibidem Rogerus nepos Abbatis tertiam partem unius hidæ
de eodem feudo.

In Suburc [Sudboro'] ii. hidas [et] dim. de feudo
Westmonaster'.

In Lofwyc [Luffwick] Th----[1] i. hidam et unam virgatam de
feudo de Deneford. Ibidem Radulfus Fleming i. virgatam et
dim. de feudo Comitis David. Ibidem Wydo frater ejus i. magnam
virgatam de feudo de Thorneya.

In Drayton Albr[icus] camerar[ius] dimidiam hidam de feudo
R[egis].

In Yslep [Islip] idem Albri[cus] de feudo Regis. Ibidem
iiii^{or.} sokemanni Regis i. hidam de feudo Westmonaster'.

In Audewyncle [Aldwinkle] Abbas de Burgo iiii. hidas [et]
dimidiam quas Ascelinus de Waterville tenet. Ibidem Galfridus
de Glynton i. magnam virgatam de feudo Glovernie pertinens ad
Barton. Ibidem Ricardus filius Wydonis iii. hidas dim. virg.
minus de feudo Regine [_sic_].

Item in Benifeld [Benefield] Willelmus le Lisurs iii. magnas
virg. de feudo Regis.

In Bernewelle [Barnwell] Robertus de ferariis vi. hidas et i.
magnam virg. de feudo Regis. Ibidem Reginaldus le Moyne vi.
hidas de feudo de Rammeseye.

In Lilleford Willelmus Olyfart v. hidas de feudo Regis Scotie.

NAUEFORD

In Tytheni [? Tichmarsh] Robertus de Ferr[ers] x. hid. Ibidem
Ascelinus de Waterville iii. hid. et i. virg. et tres partes
dim. hid. de Burgo.

In Thrapston Radulfus fil. Oger ii. hid. et i. virg. de feudo
de Brunne. Ibidem Robertus filius Edelinæ i. hid. et i. virg.
de feudo de Clare.

In Torpe et Achirche Ascelinus de Waterville vi. hid. [et]
dim. de feudo Burgi.

In Clopton Walterus i. hid. et i. virg. de feudo Regis. Ibidem
iii. hid. [et] dim. de feudo Burgi. Ibidem Ascelinus dim. hid.
de feudo Burgi.

Wadenhowe [Wadenhoe]. Albricus de Ver ii. hid. et i. virg. de
feudo Regis David. Ibidem Wymunt de Stok[e] i. virg. de feudo
Burgi. Ibidem Rogerus Infans ii. parvas virg. de eodem feudo.
Ibidem Wivienus de Chirchefelde dim. hid. de eodem feudo.
Ibidem Galfridus de Gonthorp ii. hid. de eodem feudo. In
Catteworthe i. hid. [et] dim. de feudo Burgi.

POKEBROC

In Pokebroc Robertus de Cauz i. hid. et. i. virg. de feudo
Regis. Ibidem Walterus de Clopton ii. hid. et dim. de feudo
Burgi. Ibidem Rogerus Marmium i. hid. et i. virg. de eodem
feudo.

In Armeston [Armston] de Burgelay ii. hid. [et] dim. de eodem
feudo. Ibidem Turkil i. hid. de eodem feudo. Ibidem Wydo
Maufee i. hid. de eodem feudo. Ibidem Galfridus de Gunthorp
ii. partes dim. hid. de eodem feudo. Ibidem Tedrik' iii.
partes de dim. hid. de eodem feudo.

In Pappele [Papley] i. hid.

In Lillington [Lutton] i. hid.

In Hennington Berengerus le Moyne ii. hid. [et] dim. de feudo
de Rammes[eye]. Ibidem Ricardus filius Gilberti i. hid. et i.
virg. et dim. de feodo Burgi. Ibidem Wydo Maufe dim. hid. et
dim. virg. de eodem feodo. Ibidem Reginaldus le Moyne dim.
hid. et dim. virg. de eodem feodo.

In Kynesthorp [Kingsthorp] Walterus de Lodington i. hid. et i.
virg. de feodo Burgi. Ibidem Willelmus de Chirchetot dim. hid.
de feodo Regis.

In Therninge [Thurning] Rogerus Marmioun iii. parvas virg. de
feodo Burgi.

In Ayston [Ashton] Abbas de Burgo iiii. hid. in dominico.
Ibidem Papilun dim. hid. de eodem feodo. Ibidem Leuenoth dim.
hid. de eodem feodo.

In Undele [Oundle] Abbas in dominico vi. hid. Ibidem Vivien i.
parvam virg.[2]

DUO HUNDRED DE NASSO

In Stinton Willelmus de Lisurs ii. hid.

In Bernak Fulco paynel iii. hid.[3]

In Wirthorpe Abbas Croylaund ii. hid. Ibidem de feodo Eudonis
Dapiferi i. virg.

In Eston [Easton] Simon i. hid. [et] dim.

In Peychirche [Peakirk]. In Etton. In Northburgo dim. virg.

In dominico Abbatis de Burgo sancti Petri lxx. hid. et iii.
virg. et dim.

HUNDRED DE SUTTON

In eadem villa [King's Sutton] Dominus Rex habit in dominico
iiii. hid.

In eadem villa Willelmus de Quency i. hid. [et] dim. et parvam
virg. terre de Comitat[u] Leycestr[ie]. Ibidem Alfredus viii.
parvas virg. de Gilberto de Pinkeny. Ibidem Paganus i. hid.
et dim. et i. parvam virg. de feodo Comit[is] Leycestri[ie],
Robertus filius Osberti tenuit.

In Evenle i. hid. et i. parvam virg. de feodo Comit[is]
Leyc[estrie].

In Preston dim. hid. de feodo Comit[is] Leyc[estrie].

In Croulton [Croughton] iiii{^or.} parvas virg. de feodo
Comit[is] Leyc[estrie]. Ibidem Sewar' i. hid. et ii. parvas
virg. de feodo Leyc[estrie]. Ibidem Brien filius Comitis i.
hid. [et] dim. et ii. parvas virg. de feodo de Walinford.

In Neubottle Regis [_sic_] de Reynes vi. hid. et i. parvam
virg. de feodo Comitis Leyc[estrie], Willelmus de Lepyn
tenuit.

In furningho [Farningho] iiii. hid. de feodo Comitis
Leyc[estrie].

In Cherlington [Charlton] Maynardus i. hid. [et] dim. et i.
parvam virg. Ibidem Simon Chendut i. hid. [et] dim. de feodo
de Berkamstede et i. parvam virg. Ibidem Odo dapifer viii.
parvas virg. de feodo de Colescestra.

In Gremesbir' [Grimsbury] Aunsel' de Chokes ii. hid. et iiii.
parvas virg. scil. quarta pars ii. hid.

In Middleton Willelmus Me[s]chin i. hid. et dim. et i. parvam
virg. de feodo Willelmi de Curcy.

In alia Middleton [Middleton Chenduit] Simon Chendut ii. hid.
de feodo de Berkamstede.

In Thayniford [Thenford] Mainfenn de Walrentone i. hid. Ibidem
Robertus Basset i. hid. de feodo de Walingford.

In Ayno [Aynho] Willelmus de Mandeville iii. hid.

In Middelton monachi de sancto Eu'ald[4] ii. hid.

In Walton i. hid. cum ii. virg. in Sutton quas Suouild tenuit.

In Gildeby i. hid. et vii. parvas virg. de feodo de Mortal'
[_sic_].

HUNDRED DE ALBODESTOWE

In Chacombe iiii. hid. de feodo Episc. Lincoln.

In Evenle ii. hid. et [_sic_] i. parvam virg. minus quas Alouf
de Merke tenuit.

In Thorpe [Thorpe-Mandeville] ii. hid.

In Stanes [Stene] Gilbertus de Pinkeny ii. hid.

In Colewyth [Culworth] Willelmus ii. hid. et iiii. parvas
virg. Ibidem Otuer i. hid.

In Stotebyr[e] [Stotesbery] ii. hid. quas monachi Norht'[5]
tenent.

In Rodestone [Radston] ii. hid. de feodo Comitis Cestr[ie].

In Wytefeld [Whitfield] Gilbertus de Monte ii. hid. et ii.
virg. in dominico.

In Merston [Merston St Lawrence] Radulfus Murdac iiii. hid. de
feodo Comitis Leyc[estrie].

In Siresham Thomas Sorel i. hid. [et] dim. Ibidem Comes
Leyc[estrie] i. parvam virg. Ibidem Gilo dim. hid. Ibidem
Willelmus filius Alui' [? Alan] iiii. parvas virg.

In Helmendene [Helmedon] Willelmus de Torewelle iiii. hid. de
feodo Comitis Leyc[estrie].

In Chelverdescote dim. hid. Idem. Comes Leyc[estrie].

In Brackle et Hausho [Hawes] idem Comes vii. hid. [et] dim.

HUNDRED DE WARDON

In Wardon Ricardus foliot[6] ii. hid. [et] dim. et i. magnam
virg., scilicet quarta pars i. militis de feodo Regis in
capite.

In Estone [Aston] et Apeltreya [Apeltre] Willelmus de Bolonia
vii. hid. de feodo Comitis de Mandeville.

In Bottolendon [Boddington] Fulco Paynel[7] ii. hid. una ex
illis de feodo Cestr[ie]. Ibidem Willelmus Meschin i. hid.
Ibidem i. hid. de feodo Episcopi Lincoln.

The only writer, it would seem, who has used this important survey is Bridges, who refers to it throughout in his _Northamptonshire_ as of the time of 'Henry II'. A good instance of the confusion caused by this assumption is seen in the remarks of Bridges as to Barnack (ii. 491), where he is puzzled by our record, giving as its lord, not Gervase Paynell, but Fulc Paynell (who was really his grandfather). To refute his conclusion, it is sufficient to refer to the first name entered--that of 'Albricus Camerarius'. This was no other than Aubrey de Vere, a trusted minister of Henry I, who was made by him Great Chamberlain in 1133, and who was slain in May 1141.[8] His Northamptonshire estate descended to his younger son, Robert, who, as 'Robertus filius Albrici Camerarii', made his return as a Northamptonshire 'baron' in 1166.[9] There can, therefore, be no confusion between Aubrey the Chamberlain (d. 1141) and his eldest son and namesake. Yet if, from the occurrence of his name, we pronounced the date of this survey to be 1133-41, we should be in error. There are names belonging to an earlier, as to a later, date than this.

Among the earliest are 'Ricardus filius Wydonis', the son and successor of Guy de Raimbercurt, a great Domesday tenant-in-chief; Walter fitz Winemar, whose father was both a tenant _in capite_ and under-tenant in Domesday; and Ralf fitz Oger, whose name illustrates the value of these early surveys; for the entry proves that Oger, the Northamptonshire tenant-in-chief (D.B., i. 228), was identical with Oger 'Brito', the Lord of Bourne, Linc. (i. 364_b_), and that the son and successor of this Oger was Ralf. We also recognize Roger Marmion, who was succeeded, under Henry I, by Robert; Nigel de Albini, the founder of the house of Mowbray; Michael de Hanslape, who died under Henry I; and 'Robertus filius Regis', who became Earl of Gloucester _circ._ 1122. Other tenants, living _temp._ Hen. I, are William de Mandeville,[10] William Meschin, Richard Basset, Viel (Vitalis) Engaine, Baldwin fitz Gilbert, and Brian fitz Count. As for Ascelin de Waterville and Alouf de Merke, they are found as under-tenants in Domesday itself. On the other hand, such a name as 'Comes Warenn de Morteyn' points to the latter years of Stephen's reign, or to the early days of that of Henry II; while the mention of the earldoms of Arundel, Ferrers (Derby) and Essex preclude, of course, an earlier date than 1140.

After careful examination, I propound the solution that this survey was originally made under Henry I, and was subsequently corrected here and there, to bring the entries up to date, down to the days of Henry II. The late transcriber, to whom we owe the survey in its present form, has incorporated these additions and corrections in a single text with the most bewildering result. We trace exactly the same process in the Red Book of the Exchequer. In the Black Book the later additions that were made to the barons' _cartae_ of 1166 are distinguished by the difference in handwriting. But in the Red Book these interpolations are found transcribed in the same hand as the genuine original returns. To the uninitiated this has been the cause of no small confusion. So, too, in the above list of Peterborough knights (p. 157), the very first entry, made _temp._ Hen. I, has been carried on by a later hand to the time of Henry III. But there Stapleton, who transcribed the list, carefully discriminated between the two.[11] It is probable that the lists of Abingdon knights, published in the Abingdon cartulary, are rendered untrustworthy in places from the same cause of error.

The transcriber's ignorance is clearly shown by such a name as 'Comes Mauricius', which is evidently his erroneous extension of an original 'Comes Maur'', _i.e._ Count of Mortain! So also we are enabled to detect proof of the theory I advance in such an entry as 'Willelmus Meschin de feodo Wellelmi de Curcy'; for William de Curcy held, _temp._ Henry II, the barony held by William Meschin (his maternal grandfather, according to Stapleton[12]) _temp._ Henry I. Thus, the original entry will have run 'William Meschin', while a later hand, in his grandson's days, will have added, by way of substitution, 'De feodo William de Curcy'.[13] Our transcriber, combining the two, has, of course, made nonsense of the whole. The same explanation applies to the entry, 'Robertus filius Regis de feodo Glovernie', where the first three words represent the original entry, while the others were added, probably under Henry II, to connect the holding with the fief of [the Earl of] Gloucester. 'Brien filius Comitis de feodo de Wallin[g]ford' is another instance in point, and so, I suspect, is 'Odo [_sic_] dapifer de feodo de Colcestra'; for I take it that the entry was originally made in the lifetime of Eudo Dapifer (d. 1120) and that, as his 'honour' passed into the King's hands, the 'de feodo de Colcestra' was added at a later time.[14]

I have given sufficient of the survey to prove that, in spite of confusion and corruption, it possesses a real value. If we take, for instance, Polebrook ('Pochebroc'), a township of five hides, we find that in Domesday (221_b_, 228) Eustace ('the Sheriff') held a hide and a quarter _in capite_ and three hides and three quarters as a tenant of Peterborough Abbey (see p. 138). Now our survey shows us the former holding in the hands of Robert de Cauz, while the other has been broken up, two-thirds of it passing to Walter 'de Clopton' and one-third to Roger Marmion.

Just below, in the case of Hemington, also a Vill of five hides, which was equally divided between the Abbeys of Peterborough and Ramsey, we read in Domesday that 'iii. milites' held the Peterborough half (221_b_). Our survey enables us to distinguish their tenancies--Richard fitz Gilbert holding a hide and three-eighths; Guy Maufe, five-eighths of a hide, and Reginald le Moyne the same.[15] But we can go further and identify the first, from his holding, as the son of Gilbert Fauvel, the Domesday tenant (see p. 138); while the second was the heir, and probably the son of Roger Malfed (see p. 132).

One more instance may be given. Our survey reckons Clapton ('Cloptone') as five and a quarter hides, of which 'Walter' held one and a quarter _in capite_. Here again he had succeeded Eustace, whose Domesday estate at 'Dotone' (228) ought, as Bridges conjectured, to have been entered 'Clotone'.[16] On the other hand, his tenancy of the Abbot at 'Clotone' had been broken up, half a hide of it passing to Ascelin de Waterville. All this goes to show that the fief of Eustace the Sheriff did not, as has been alleged, descend to his heirs.

Such an entry as 'In Lilleford, Willelmus Olyfart v. hidas de feudo Regis Scotiæ' is peculiarly suggestive. It reminds us that David Holyfard, godson of King David of Scotland, and his protector in 1141, was the founder of the house of Oliphant; and in the family's possession of Lilford (which was held of the Countess Judith in 1086) we see the origin of their Scottish connection. William 'Olifard' was of Northamptonshire, and Hugh 'Olifard' of Huntingdonshire in 1130;[17] while Hugh 'Olifart' (of Stoke) was a knight of the Abbot of Peterborough in rather earlier days. The earliest member of the house, however, it would seem, on record is Roger Olifard, who witnessed (doubtless as his tenant) Earl Simon's charter to St. Andrew's, Northampton, granted, probably, not later than 1108. This, of course, is but one of the cases in which the son of a Norman house settled in Scotland through its King's connection with the earldoms of Huntingdon and Northampton.

At the close of the survey I have here discussed there is a list of the knights of Peterborough (fos. 99_b_, 100) holding in Northamptonshire. It ought to be carefully compared with the one I have examined above (p. 131), being, it seems probable, about a generation later. Such entries as these, at least, are conclusive for the holding to which they refer:

Paganus de Helpestun terciam Roger fil[ius] Pagan[i] in
partem unius militis Helpestun terciam partem i.
(_Chronicon Petroburgense_, militis (Vesp. E. xxii.,
p. 171). fo. 100).

In the same way, Roger Marmion had been succeeded by Robert. This second list is of special value from the fact that the Peterborough _carta_ of 1166 gives no particulars of the knights or of their fees.

[Footnote 1: Or Sh----.]

[Footnote 2: See _Chronicon Petroburgense_, p. 158.]

[Footnote 3: See Bridges' _Northamptonshire_, ii. 491.]

[Footnote 4: St. Evroul, Grantmesnil's in Domesday.]

[Footnote 5: St Andrew's Priory, Northampton.]

[Footnote 6: The heir of Guy de Raimbercurt.]

[Footnote 7: Clearly Fulk Paynel the first, Founder of Tykford
Priory.]

[Footnote 8: _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, p. 81.]

[Footnote 9: See also as to Twywell itself. _Mon. Ang._, ii.
603:

'Ego Albericus, regis camerarius terram de Twiwell quamdiu vixero
de domino abbate Guntero et monachis de Thorneya per talem
conventionem teneo adfirmam.'

'Ego Robertus filius Albrici camerarii regis terram de Twiwelle
quamdiu vixero de domino abbate Roberto et monachis de Thorneia
per eandem conventionem in feodi firmam teneo per quam
conventionem pater meus ante me tenuit.'

The Great Chamberlain occurs again on fo. 97_b_, where we
read:

'In alia Adington Albric[us] Camerar[ius], ii. hid. de feodo
Regis.']

[Footnote 10: If, as probable, the son of the Domesday Baron.]

[Footnote 11: _Chronicon Petroburgense_, pp. 168-9.]

[Footnote 12: _Holy Trinity Priory, York_, p. 35.]

[Footnote 13: Since this was written I have come across
a curious confirmation of the hypothesis advanced. In the
Lindsey Survey (Ed. Greenstreet), an entry on fo. 20, in the
original ran: 'Comes Odo [tenet] in Aldobi', above which a
later hand has interlined, 'De feodo Comitis Albemerle'. It
is curious that in the same survey another later
interlineation--'Comes Lincoln'--was, though distinguished by
Hearne, incorporated with the text by Mr Waters (see p. 151).]

[Footnote 14: Eudo was identified with Colchester.]

[Footnote 15: Giving a total of 2-5/8, instead of 2-1/2--a
trivial discrepancy.]

[Footnote 16: It is singular that in Sussex the 'Cloninctune'
of Domesday is, conversely, an error for 'Doninctune'. The
source of the error in both cases must have been the likeness
of 'cl' to 'd' in the original returns, on which these names
cannot have begun with a capital letter.]

[Footnote 17: _Rot. Pip._, 31 Hen. I.]

THE INTRODUCTION OF KNIGHT SERVICE INTO ENGLAND[1]

'The growth of knighthood is a subject on which the greatest
obscurity prevails; and the most probable explanation of its
existence in England, the theory that it is a translation into
Norman forms of the thegnage of the Anglo-Saxon law, can only
be stated as probable.'--STUBBS, _Const. Hist._, i. 260.

In approaching the consideration of the institutional changes and modifications of polity resulting from the Norman Conquest, the most conspicuous phenomenon to attract attention is undoubtedly the introduction of what it is convenient to term the feudal system. In the present paper I propose to discuss one branch only of that process, namely, the introduction of that military tenure which Dr Stubbs has termed 'the most prominent feature of historical feudalism'.

In accordance with the anticataclysmic tendencies of modern thought, the most recent students of this obscure problem have agreed to adopt the theory of gradual development and growth. The old views on the subject are discredited as crude and unhistorical:[2] they are replaced by confident enunciation of the theory to which I have referred.[3] But when we examine the matter closely, when we ask for details of the process by which the Anglo-Saxon thegn developed into the Norman knight, we are met at once by the frank confession that 'between the picture drawn in Domesday and the state of affairs which the charter of Henry I was designed to remedy, there is a difference which the short interval of time will not account for'.[4] To meet this difficulty, to account for this flaw in the unbroken continuity of the series, a _Deus ex machinâ_ has been found in the person of Ranulf Flambard.

Now this solution of the difficulty will scarcely, I venture to think, bear the test of investigation. It appears to have originated in Dr Stubbs' suggestion that there must have been, between the days of Henry I and of William I, 'some skilful organizing hand working with neither justice nor mercy'[5]--a suggestion subsequently amplified into the statement that it is to Ranulf Flambard 'without doubt that the systematic organization of the exactions' under William Rufus 'is to be attributed',[6] and that by him 'the royal claims were unrelentingly pressed', his policy being 'to tighten as much as possible the hold which the feudal law gave to the king on all feudatories temporal and spiritual'.[7] There is nothing here that can be called in question, but there is also nothing, be it observed, to prove that either 'feudal law' or 'military tenure' was introduced by Ranulf Flambard. Indeed, with his usual caution and unfailing sound judgment, our great historian is careful to admit that 'it is not quite so clear' in the case of the lay as of the church fiefs 'that all the evil customs owed their origin to the reign of William Rufus'.[8] And, even if they did, they were, it must be remembered, distinctly abuses--'evil customs', as Henry I himself terms them in his charter--namely (in the matter we are considering), '_excessive_ exactions in the way of reliefs, marriages and wardships, debts to the crown, and forfeiture. In the place,' we are told, 'of _unlimited_ demands on these heads, the charter promises, not indeed fixed amercements, but a return to ancient equitable custom'.[9] All this refers, it will be seen, to the abuse of an existing institution, not to the introduction of a new one. The fact is that Ranulf's proceedings have been assigned a quite exceptional and undue importance. Broadly speaking, his actions fall under a law too often lost sight of, namely, that when the crown was strong it pressed, through the official bureaucracy, its claims to the uttermost; and when it found itself weak, it renounced them so far as it was compelled. Take, for instance, this very charter issued by Henry I, when he was 'playing to the gallery', and seeking general support: what was the value of its promises? They were broken, says Mr Freeman, to the Church;[10] they were probably broken, says Dr Stubbs, to the knights;[11] and they were certainly broken, I may add, to the unfortunate tenants-in-chief, whom the Pipe-Roll of 1130 shows us suffering from those same excessive exactions, of which the monopoly is assigned to Ranulf Flambard, and which 'the Lion of Justice' had so virtuously renounced. I might similarly adduce the exactions from the Church by that excellent king, Henry II (1159), 'contra antiquum morem et debitam libertatem'; but it is needless to multiply examples of the struggle between the interests of the crown and those of its tenants-in-chief, which was as fierce as ever when, in later days, it led to the provisions of the Great Charter. What the barons, lay and spiritual, complained of from first to last, was not the feudal system that accompanied their military tenure, but the abuse of that system in the excessive demands of the crown.

Mr Freeman, however, who had an equal horror of Ranulf Flambard and of the 'feudal system', did not hesitate to connect the two more closely even than Dr Stubbs, though invoking the authority of the latter in support of his extreme views. The passages to which I would invite attention, as expressing most concisely Mr Freeman's conclusions, are these:

The system of military tenures, and the oppressive
consequences which were held to flow from them, were a work of
the days of William Rufus.

If then there was any time when 'the Feudal System' could be
said to be introduced into England, it was assuredly not in
the days of William the Conqueror, but in the days of William
the Red. It would be more accurate to say that all that we
are really concerned with, that is, not an imaginary 'Feudal
System', but a system of feudal land-tenures, was not
introduced into England at all, but was devised on English
ground by the malignant genius of the minister of Rufus.[12]

As the writer's line of argument is avowedly that of Dr Stubbs, it is only necessary to consider the point of difference between them. Where his predecessor saw in Henry's charter the proof that Ranulf Flambard had abused the existing feudal system by 'excessive' and 'unlimited' demands, Mr Freeman held, and endeavoured to convince us, that he had introduced not merely abuses of the system, but the actual system itself.[13] The question virtually turns on the first clause of the charter;[14] and it will not, I think, be doubted that Dr Stubbs is right in adopting its natural meaning, namely, that the novelty introduced by Ranulf was not the _relevatio_ itself, but its abuse in 'excessive exactions'. Indeed, even Mr Freeman had virtually to admit the point.[15] If, then, the argument breaks down, if Ranulf cannot be shown to have 'devised' military tenure, how are we to bridge over the alleged chasm between the date of Domesday (1086) and that of Henry's charter (1100)? The answer is simply that the difficulty is created by the very theory I am discussing: it is based on the assumption that William I did not introduce military tenure,[16] combined with the fact that 'within thirteen years after the Conqueror's death, not only the military tenures, but the worst abuses of the military tenures, were in full force in England'.[17] But, here again, when we examine the evidence, we find that this assumption is based on the silence, or alleged silence, of Domesday Book.[18] Now no one was better aware than Mr Freeman, as an ardent student of 'the great Record', that to argue from the silence of Domesday is an error as dangerous as it is common. Speaking from a rather wide acquaintance with topographical works, I know of no pitfall into which the local antiquary is more liable to fall. Wonderful are the things that people look for in the pages of the great survey; I am always reminded of Mr Secretary Pepys' writing for information as to what it contained 'concerning the sea and the dominion thereof'.[19] Like other inquests, the Domesday Survey--'the great inquest of all', as Dr Stubbs terms it--was intended for a special purpose; special questions were asked, and these questions were answered in the returns. So with the 'Inquest of Sheriffs' in 1170; so also with the Inquest of Knights, if I may so term it, in 1166. In each case the questions asked are, practically, known to us, and in each they are entirely different. Therefore, when Mr Freeman writes:

The survey nowhere employs the feudal language which became
familiar in the twelfth century. Compare, for instance,
the records in the first volume of Hearn's _Liber Niger
Scaccarii_. In this last we find something about knights' fees
in every page. In Domesday there is not a word--[20]

it is in no spirit of captious criticism, but from the necessity of demolishing the argument, that I liken it to basing conclusions on the fact that in the census returns we find something about population in every page, while in the returns of owners of land there is not a word. As the inquest of 1166 sought solely for information on knights and their fees, the returns to it naturally contain 'something about knights' fees in every page'; on the other hand, 'the payment or nonpayment of the _geld_ is a matter which appears in every page of the survey' [of 1086] because 'the formal immediate cause of taking the survey was to secure its full and fair assessment'.[21] Nor is this all. When the writer asserts that 'in Domesday there is not a word' about knights' fees, he greatly overstates his case, as indeed is shown by the passages he proceeds to quote. I shall be able to prove, further on, that knights' fees existed in cases where Domesday does not mention them, but even the incidental notices found in the Great Survey are quite sufficient to disprove its alleged silence on the subject. As Mr Freeman has well observed:

Its most incidental notices are sometimes the most precious.
We have seen that it is to an incidental, an almost accidental
notice in the Survey that we owe our knowledge of the great
fact of the general redemption of lands.[22]

Here then the writer does not hesitate to base on a single accidental notice the existence of an event quite as widespread and important as the introduction of knight service.[23]

I have now endeavoured to make plain one of the chief flaws in the view at present accepted, namely, that it is mainly grounded on the negative evidence of Domesday, which evidence will not bear the construction that has been placed upon it--and further that, even if it did, we should be landed in a fresh difficulty, the gulf between Domesday and Henry's charter being only to be bridged by the assumption that Ranulf Flambard 'devised' and introduced military tenure, with its results--an assumption, we have seen, which the facts of the case not only fail to support, but even discountenance wholly.

Let us pass to a second difficulty. When we ask the advocates of the view I am discussing what determined the number of knights due to the crown from a tenant-in-chief, we obtain, I venture to assert, no definite answer. At times we are told that it was the number of his hides; at times that it was the value of his estate. Gneist, who has discussed the matter in detail, and on several occasions, has held throughout, broadly speaking, the same view: he maintains that 'since Alfred's time the general rule had been observed that a fully equipped man should be furnished for every five _hidæ_, but it had never been established as a rule of law as in the Carlovingian legislation':[24] consequently, he urges, 'a fixed standard for the apportionment of the soldiery was wanting' at the time of the Conquest, and this want was a serious flaw in the Anglo-Saxon polity. William resolved to make the system uniform, and

the object that the royal administration now pursued for
a century was to impose upon the whole mass of old and new
possessors an equal obligation to do service for reward. The
standard adopted in carrying out this system was approximately
that of the five hides possession of the Anglo-Saxon period;
yet with a stricter rating according to the value of the
produce.[25]

The difficulty encountered in ascertaining this value was a main cause of the Domesday Survey being undertaken. This is Gneist's special point on which he invariably insists: 'Domesday book laid the basis of a roll of the crown vassals';[26] upon it, 'in later times, the fee-rolls were framed'.[27] By its evidence, 'according to the extent and the nature of the productive property, could be computed how many shields were to be furnished by each estate, according to the gradually fixed proportion of a £20 ground rent'.[28] For 'the _feuda militum_ thus computed are no knights' fees of a limited area',[29] but 'units of possession', the unit being £20 in annual value.

Dr Stubbs, on the other hand, while rejecting the view that military service, since the days of Alfred, had been practically fixed at one warrior for every five hides,[30] leans nevertheless to the belief that the knight's fee was developed out of the five-hide unit, and that the military 'service' of a tenant-in-chief was determined by the number of such units which he possessed. But, as he also recognizes the £20 unit, there will be less danger of misrepresenting his views if I append _verbatim_ the relevant passages:

The customary service of one The value of the knight's fee
fully armed man for each five hides must already have been fixed
was probably the rate at which the --twenty pounds a year.[32]
newly endowed follower of the king
would be expected to discharge his
duty ... and the number of knights
to be furnished by a particular
feudatory would be ascertained by
inquiring the number of hides that
he held.[31]

The number of hides which the It cannot even be granted that
knight's fee contained being known, a definite area of land was
the number of knights' fees in any necessary to constitute a
particular holding could be easily knight's fee; ... It is
discovered.[33] impossible to avoid the
conclusion that the extent of a
All the imposts of the ... Norman knight's fee was determined by
reigns, were, so far as we know, rent and valuation rather than
raised on the land, and according acreage, and that the common
to computation by the hide: ... the quantity was really expressed
feudal exactions by way of aid ... in the twenty librates, etc.
were levied on the hide.[34] [35]

The variation in the number of
hides contained in the knight's
fee.[36]

Mr Freeman's views need not detain us, for he unhesitatingly accepts Dr Stubbs' arguments as proving that the Norman military tenure was based on 'the old service of a man from each five hides of land'.[37]

We find then, I submit, that the recognized leaders of existing opinion on the subject cannot agree among themselves in giving us a clear answer, when we ask them what determined the amount of 'service' due from a Norman tenant-in-chief, or, in other words, how that 'service' was developed in unbroken continuity from Anglo-Saxon obligations.

The third point that I would raise is this. Even assuming that the amount of 'service' bore a fixed proportion--whether in pecuniary or territorial units--to the extent of possession, we are, surely, at once confronted by the difficulty that the owner of _x_ units of possession would be compelled, for the discharge of his military obligations, to enfeoff _x_ knights, assigning a 'unit' to each. A tenant-in-chief, to take a concrete instance, whose fief was worth £100 a year, would have to provide _ex hypothesi_ five knights; if, as was quite usual, he enfeoffed the full number, he would have to assign to each knight twenty librates of land (which I may at once, though anticipating, admit was the normal value of a knight's fee), that is to say, the crown would have forestalled Henry George, and the luckless _baro_ would see the entire value of his estate swallowed up in the discharge of its obligations.[38] What his position would be in cases where, as often, he enfeoffed more knights than he required, arithmetic is unable to determine. I cannot understand how this obvious difficulty has been so strangely overlooked.

The fourth and last criticism which I propose to offer on the subject is this. If we find that under Henry II--when we meet with definite information--a fief contained, as we might expect, more 'units of possession' than it was bound to furnish knights (thus leaving a balance over for the _baro_ after sub-infeudation), we must draw one of two conclusions: either this excess had existed from the first; or, if the fief (as we are asked to believe) was originally assessed up to the hilt for military service, that assessment must, in the interval, have been reduced. In other words, Henry I--if, as Dr Stubbs in one place suggests,[39] he was the first to take a 'regular account of the knights' fees'--must have found the land with a settled liability of providing one knight for every five hides, and must, yet, have reduced that liability of his own accord, on the most sweeping scale, thus, contrary to all his principles, ultroneously deprived himself of the 'service' he was entitled to claim.

Having completed my criticisms of the accepted view, and set forth its chief difficulties, I shall now propound the theory to which my own researches have led me, following the same method of proof as that adopted by Mr Seebohm in his _English Village Community_, namely working back from the known to the relatively unknown, till the light thrown upwards by the records of the twelfth century illumines the language of Domesday and renders the allusions of monks and chroniclers pregnant with meaning.

1. THE 'CARTAE' OF 1166

In the formal returns (_cartae_) made to the exchequer in 1166 by the tenants-in-chief (_barones_) of England, of which the official transcripts are preserved in the _Liber Niger_ and the _Liber Rubeus_, we have our earliest glimpse of the organization of that purely feudal host among whom our lands had been parcelled out to be held, as I shall show, by military service. We have, therefore, in them our best starting-point for an inquiry into the origin and growth of military tenure in England.

It may be well perhaps, at the very outset, to contrast these _cartae_ of 1166 with those of the Domesday Inquest eighty years before.[40] For the essentially feudal character of the former is at once, by the comparison, thrown into relief. The original returns of the Domesday Inquest were made Hundred by Hundred; those of 1166 were made fief by fief. The former were made by the jurors of the Hundred-court; the latter by the lord of the fief. Thus, while the one took for its unit the oldest and most familiar of native organizations, the other, ignoring not only the Hundred, but even the shire itself, took for its unit the alien organization of the fief.[41] The one inquest strictly continued, the other wholly repudiated, the Anglo-Saxon system.

It is consequently worse than lost labour to examine these two inquests, based as they are on opposite systems, and giving us as they do a cross-division as if they were but successive editions of the national register or rate-book.

The first point to be considered is this: What was the information which the tenants-in-chief were called upon to supply in these returns? It was _not_, as Dr Stubbs and others have supposed, the amount of 'service' due from each fief to the crown.[42] The information asked for was _the number of 'milites' actually enfeoffed_ by each 'baron' and his predecessors in title, with the number of 'servitia' due from each such 'miles' to the 'baron'. In this distinction, missed by Dr Stubbs, we find the key to the problem. The crown, we shall see, must previously have known the total amount of 'service' due from each fief; but what it did not know, and what it wished to know, was the number of knights' fees which, up to 1166, had been created on each fief.

Although there is great diversity in the form of return adopted--a diversity which imparts to the _cartae_ a pleasant flavour of character--it may fairly be assumed that, as in similar cases, they were called for throughout the realm by one uniform writ. If we may deduce the purport of that writ from the collation of those returns which refer to it most explicitly, we must infer that the information asked for was to be given under four heads:

(1) How many knights had been enfeoffed before the death of
Henry I?

(2) How many have been enfeoffed since?

(3) How many (if any) remain to be enfeoffed to complete the
'service' due from the fief. Or, in other words, what is
the balance of your 'service' remaining chargeable to your
'demesne'?

(4) What are the names of your knights?

In support of these statements I append the whole of the relevant returns.

BISHOP OF EXETER ARCHBISHOP OF YORK BISHOP OF DURHAM

Praecepistis mihi Praecipit dignitas Praecepit nobis,
quod mandarem vobis vestra omnibus domine, vestra
per breve meum fidelibus vestris sublimitas, quod
sigillatum et apertum, clericis et laicis, literis nostris
non quot servitia qui de vobis sigillatis, extra
militum vobis debeam, tenent de capite sigillum
sed (1) quot habeam in Eboracsira, ut pendentibus, vobis
milites feffatos de mandent vobis per mandaremus (1) quot
tempore Regis Henrici literas suas, extra milites feffatos
avi vestri, et (2) sigillum pendentes haberemus de veteri
quot post mortem (1) quot milites feffamento et
ipsius, et (3) quot quisquis habeat de (2) de novo,
sint super dominium veteri feffamento scilicet, anno et
meum.[43] de tempore Regis die quo Rex Henricus
Henrici avi vestri, fuit vivus et
scilicet de die et mortuus et de [_sic_]
anno quo ipse fuit post mortem ejus ...
vivus et mortuus, (3) super dominium
et (2) quot habeat vero nostrum, de quo
de novo feodamento similiter mandare
feffatos post mortem præcepistis, etc.
bonae memoriae avi (pp. 416, 418).
vestri ejusdem, et
(3) quot feoda
militum sint super
dominium
uniuscujusque, et
(4) omnium illorum
nomina, tam de novo
feffamento quam de
veteri feffatorum
quae sint in illo
brevi scripta, quia
vultis quod si
aliqui ibi sunt qui
vobis nondum
fecerunt ligantiam,
et quorum nomina
non sunt scripta in
rotulo vestro, quod
infra dominicam
primam xl^{ae}
ligantiam vobis
faciant (p. 412).

HERBERT DE ENGELARD DE ROBERT DE
CASTELLO STRATTONE BRINTONE

Michi et comparibus Michi et ceteris Michi et aliis
meis mandastis ut comparibus meis comparibus meis per
vobis per breve qui de vobis litteras vestras
nostrum pendens tenemus in capite innotuistis ut per
extra sigillum, per litteras fidem et ligantiam
mandaremus (1) quot vestras mandastis quam vobis debemus
milites antiquitus ut vobis per breve per breve nostrum
feodatos de tempore nostrum pendens pendens extra
Regis Henrici avi extra sigillum sigillum mandaremus
vestri habeamus et mandaremus (1) quot milites
(2) quot de novo (1) quot milites haberemus de veteri
feodamento.... Et habeamus de veteri feodamento de tempore
hii omnes ligantiam feodamento de Henrici Regis avi
et homagium vobis tempore Henrici vestri, et (2) quot
fecerunt (pp. 275-6). Regis avi vestri, milites haberemus de
et (2) quot novo feodamento post
habeamus de novo tempus Regis Henrici
feodamento (p. 276). avi vestri, et (3)
quot milites habeamus
super dominium
nostrum....
Et vobis quidem et
filio vestro
ligantiam et
homagium fecerunt
(p. 277).[44]

Let me here break off for a moment to consider one of the most important points suggested by this great inquest, namely, the issue of the writs under which it was held. It has been generally assumed that each tenant received his writ direct from the crown; and a casual reading of the _cartae_ might, perhaps, favour such a view. I have, however, been led to the conclusion that a general writ was issued to the sheriff of each county, and that its terms were communicated by him to the several tenants-in-chief, whose _capita baroniæ_ lay within his jurisdiction.

Baderun of Monmouth has heard the writ read out in the county court;[45] Earl Patrick also has heard the writ read out.[46] William fitz Siward derives from the sheriff, he tells us, his knowledge of the writ:[47] even the bishop of Chester has received his instructions from the sheriff.[48] But more especially do I rely upon the return of the Archbishop of York because he recites the tenor of the writ in terms which can leave no doubt that it was addressed, through the sheriff, to the whole shire collectively.[49] If the Archbishop of York did not receive a special writ, we may fairly infer that no other tenant can have done so.

Further, I believe that as the 'barons' received their instructions from the sheriffs, so they also sent in their returns through those officers. The memorandum, for instance, on the missing _carta_ of Osbert fitz Hugh informs us that it was brought to the exchequer by William de Beauchamp. Now, William de Beauchamp was sheriff of the shire. This would account for the grouping of the returns 'per singulos comitatus', as Swereford expresses it, and indeed this arrangement would but follow the existing practice of collecting the scutage shire by shire.

Returning now to the terms of the inquiry, it is obvious that the tenant (_baro_) to whom such queries were addressed must of necessity have belonged to one of these three classes--

(_a_) Those who had created _the exact number_ of knights'
fees sufficient to discharge their 'service'.

(_b_) Those who had created _more_ than sufficient.

(_c_) Those who had created _less_ than sufficient.