Chapter XIV: Part I: Territorial Studies (11)

It would be easy to assume that this was the abuse renounced by Henry I.[279] But _distinguo_. The above abuse was quite distinct from the practice of annexing to the revenues of the crown, during a vacancy, the temporalities. This, which was undoubtedly renounced by Henry, and as undoubtedly resorted to by himself and by his successors afterwards, was, however distasteful to the church,[280] a logical deduction from feudal principles, and did not actually wrong any individual. It could thus be retained when the crown abandoned such unjust exactions as the Worcester relief, and it afforded an excellent substitute for wardship, though practically mischievous in the impulse it gave to the prolongation of vacancies.

There are many other points suggested by the record I am discussing, but they can only be touched on briefly. It gives us a singularly early use of the remarkable term 'honour', here employed in its simplest and strictly accurate sense; the same term was similarly employed, we have seen, in the case of Abingdon (1097), where we also find the fief described as reverting to the crown _vacante sede_.[281] It further alludes to a special assessment by 'barons' deputed for the purpose; it affords a noteworthy formula for distraint in case of non-payment; and it gives us, within barely nine years of the great survey itself, a list of the tenants of the fee, which should prove of peculiar value.

If the sums entered be added up, their total will amount to exactly £250. It is tempting to connect this figure with a _servitium debitum_ (_teste episcopo_) of fifty fees at the 'ancient relief' of £5 a fee; but we are only justified in treating it as one of those round sums that we find exacted for relief under Henry II, especially as its items cannot be connected with the actual knights' fees. The appended analysis will show the relation (where ascertainable) of sums paid to hides held.

DOMESDAY, 1086 THE RELIEF, 1095

_h._ _v._ _£_ _s._

Roger de Laci 23 2 Hugh de Laci 20 0
Walter Ponther 10 2 Walter Punther 20 0
Gilbert fitz Thorold 7 2 Gilbert fitz Thorold 5 0
Bishop of Hereford 5 0 Bishop Robert [of Hereford] 10 0
Abbot of Evesham 9 0 Abbot of Evesham 30 0
Walter fitz Roger 8 0 Walter de Gloucester 20 0
Durand the sheriff 6 0 Roger fitz Durand 10 0
Winebald de Balaon 10 0
Drogo 10 0 Drogo fitz Ponz 10 0
Schelin 5 0 Robert fitz Schilin 5 0
Robert Stirman 3 0
Anschitil 2 0 Anschitil de Colesbourne 10 0
Roger de Compton 1 0
Eudo 1 3 Eudo 3 0
William de Begeberi 2 0
Richard & Franca 5 0
Ansgot 1 2 Angot 1 0
Berald 1 0
William de Wick 1 0
Robert fitz Nigel 5 0
Ælfric the archdeacon 4 0 Ælfric the archdeacon 5 0
Orderic} 6 1 Orderic the _Dapifer_ 40 0
Orderic} Orderic Black 5 0
Coleman 2 0
Warine 1 10
Baldwin 2 0
Swegen fitz Azor 1 0
Alfred 1 10
Siward 5 0 Siward 2 0
Sawulf 15 0
Ælfar 2 0
Cheping 1 0
-----------------
£250 0

The comparison of these two lists suggests some interesting conclusions. Roger de Laci, forfeited early in the reign for treason, had been succeeded by his brother Hugh. 'Punher' supplies us with the transitional form from the 'Ponther' of Domesday to the 'Puher' of the reign of Henry I. The identity of the names is thus established. Walter fitz Roger has already assumed his family surname as Walter de Gloucester, and his uncle Durand has now been succeeded by a son Roger, whose existence was unknown to genealogists. The pedigree of the family in the Norman period has been well traced by Mr A. S. Ellis in his paper on the Gloucestershire Domesday tenants, but he was of opinion that Walter de Gloucester was the immediate successor in the shrievalty of his uncle, Durand, who died without issue. This list, on the contrary, suggests that the immediate successor of Durand was his son Roger, and that if, like his father, he held the shrievalty, this might account for the interlineation remitting, in his case, the sum due. In this Roger we, surely, have that 'Roger de Gloucester' who was slain in Normandy in 1106, and whom, without the evidence afforded by this list, it was not possible to identify.[282]

The chief difficulty that this list presents is its omission of the principal tenant of the see, Urse d'Abetot. One can only assign it to the fact of his official position as sheriff enabling him to secure exemption for himself, and perhaps even for his brother, Robert 'Dispensator'. Their exemption, however accounted for, involved an arbitrary assessment of all the remaining tenants, irrespective of the character or of the extent of their tenure. With these remarks I must leave a document, which is free from anachronism or inconsistency, and as trustworthy, I think, as it is useful.

It is my hope that this paper may increase the interest in the forthcoming edition of the _Liber Rubeus_ under the care of Mr Hubert Hall, and that it may lead to a reconsideration of the problems presented by the feudal system as it meets us in England. Nor can I close without reminding the reader that if my researches have compelled me to differ from an authority so supreme as Dr Stubbs, this in no way impugns the soundness of his judgment on the _data_ hitherto known. The original sources have remained so strangely neglected, that it was not in the power of any writer covering so wide a field to master the facts and figures which I have now endeavoured to set forth, and on which alone it is possible to form a conclusion beyond dispute.

[Footnote 1: Reprinted, with additions, from the _English
Historical Review_.]

[Footnote 2: 'The belief which has come down to us from
Selden, and the antiquarian school, a belief which was
hitherto universally received, that William I divided the
English landed property into military fees, is erroneous, and
results from the dating back of an earlier [? later] condition
of things.'--GNEIST, _Const. Hist._, i. 129.]

[Footnote 3: 'There can be no doubt that the military tenure,
the most prominent feature of historical feudalism, was itself
introduced by the same gradual process which we have assumed
in the case of the feudal usages in general.'--STUBBS, _Const.
Hist._, i. 261.]

[Footnote 4: Stubbs, _C.H._, i. 260-1. So too Freeman.]

[Footnote 5: Stubbs, _C.H._, i. 261.]

[Footnote 6: _Ibid._, i. 298.]

[Footnote 7: _Ibid._, i. 298, 301.]

[Footnote 8: _Ibid._, i. 300.]

[Footnote 9: _Select Charters_, p. 96.]

[Footnote 10: _Norm. Conq._, v. 380.]

[Footnote 11: _C.H._, i. 581.]

[Footnote 12: _N.C._, v. 377; cf. _History of William II_, pp.
335, 337, 'The whole system, a system which logically hangs
together in the most perfect way, was the device of the same
subtle and malignant brain.']

[Footnote 13: _Ibid._, p. 374.]

[Footnote 14: 'Si quis baronum meorum, comitum sive aliorum
qui de me tenent, mortuus fuerit, heres suus non _redimet_
terram suam sicut faciebat tempore fratris mei, sed justa et
legitima relevatione _relevabit_ eam.']

[Footnote 15: 'In that charter the military tenures are
taken for granted. What is provided against is their being
perverted, as they had been in the days of Rufus, into engines
of oppression.'--_N.C._, v. 373.]

[Footnote 16: _N.C._, v. 372; _C.H._, i. 261.]

[Footnote 17: _N.C._, v. 373.]

[Footnote 18: Palgrave, as Mr Freeman observes, 'strongly and
clearly brought out the absence of any distinct mention of
military tenures in Domesday'. Dr Stubbs more cautiously
wrote: 'The wording of the Domesday Survey does not imply that
in this respect the new military service differed from the
old.' (_C.H._, i. 262.) Mr Freeman confidently asserts:
'Nothing is more certain than that from one end of Domesday
to the other, there is not a trace of military tenures as they
were afterwards understood.... We hear of nothing in Domesday
which can be called knight-service or military tenure in
the later sense.' (_N.C._, v. 370, 371.) Mr Hunt (_Norman
Britain_) follows the same line, and Gneist, vouching
Palgrave, Stubbs, and Freeman, repeats the argument. (_C.H._,
i. 130.)]

[Footnote 19: 'I spoke to Mr Falconberge to look whether he
could out of Domesday Book give me anything concerning the sea
and the dominion thereof' (1661).]

[Footnote 20: _N.C._, v. 465.]

[Footnote 21: _N.C._, v. 4.]

[Footnote 22: _Ibid._, p. 42.]

[Footnote 23: As so much stress has been laid on the argument
from Domesday, it is desirable further to demonstrate its
worthlessness by referring to the Lindsey Survey (_vide
supra_, p. 149). This survey can only be a few years
previous to 1120, and was therefore made at a time when, _ex
hypothesi_, feudal tenures had been established for some time.
Yet here, also, page after page may be searched in vain for
any mention of 'knights' or 'fees'.]

[Footnote 24: Gneist, _C.H._, i. 132.]

[Footnote 25: Gneist, _C.H._, i. 118.]

[Footnote 26: _Ibid._, i. 156, 133, 124.]

[Footnote 27: _Ibid._, i. 130.]

[Footnote 28: _Ibid._, i. 156.]

[Footnote 29: _Ibid._, i. 133.]

[Footnote 30: Stubbs, _C.H._, i. 192. I do not quite
understand the passage that 'it is probable that the complete
following out of the Frank idea [exact proportion of service
to hides] was reserved for Henry II, unless his military
reforms are to be understood, as so many of his other measures
are, as the revival and strengthening of anti-feudal and
pre-feudal custom'. (_Ibid._) The allusion is, clearly, to the
assize of arms; but was that assize based on fixed quantities
of land? Mr Little has discussed the five-hide question in the
_English Historical Review_, xvi. pp. 726-9 (_vide supra_, p.
65).]

[Footnote 31: _Ibid._, i. 262.]

[Footnote 32: _Ibid._, i. 262.]

[Footnote 33: _C.H._, i. 386.]

[Footnote 34: _Ibid._, i. 581.]

[Footnote 35: _Ibid._, i. 264-5.]

[Footnote 36: _Ibid._, i. 432.]

[Footnote 37: 'The growth of the system of knights' fees out
of the older system of hides is traced by Stubbs. The old
service of a man from each five hides of land would go on,
only it would take a new name and a new spirit' (_N.C._, v.
866).]

[Footnote 38: This argument, of course, applies, _mutatis
mutandis_, to a five-hide unit as well.]

[Footnote 39: _C.H._, i. 265.]

[Footnote 40: Henry of Huntingdon (p. 207) speaks of the
Domesday returns by the same name (_cartae_).]

[Footnote 41: _Domesday Book_ occupies a medial position,
being arranged under counties, but within each county, under
fiefs.]

[Footnote 42: Compare the _carta_ of the bishop of Exeter,
_Præcepistis mihi quod mandarem vobis_ non _quod servitia
militum vobis debeam_, etc. Dr Stubbs writes: 'The king issued
a writ to all the tenants-in-chief of the crown, lay and
clerical, directing each of them to send in a cartel or report
of the number of knights' fees for the service of which he was
legally liable.'--_Const. Hist._, i. 584.]

[Footnote 43: The bishop of 'Coventry' expresses it: 'numerum
... eorum si quos in dominio tenemus, et eorum nomina' (p.
263).]

[Footnote 44: These references are to the pages of the
forthcoming edition of the _Liber Rubeus_. It will be observed
that the second three returns are too closely alike for
accidental coincidence; the three Shropshire 'barons' who
made them must have been in some communication. Note here the
remarkable use of the term 'compares'.]

[Footnote 45: Audivi praeceptum vestrum in consulatu
Herefordiae.]

[Footnote 46: Audito praecepto vestro.]

[Footnote 47: Praeceptum vestrum, per totam Angliam
divulgatum, per vicecomitem vestrum Northumberlande ad me,
sicut ad alios, pervenit.]

[Footnote 48: Mandavit nobis ... Vicecomes Stephanus, ex parte
vestra quatinus, etc.]

[Footnote 49: Praecepit dignitas vestra omnibus fidelibus
vestris, clericis et laicis, qui de vobis tenent in capite in
Eboracsira ut mandent, etc.... Quorum ego unus, etc.]

[Footnote 50: It should be scarcely necessary to warn the
reader against confusing the _dominium_, or non-infeudated
portion of the entire fief, with the _dominium_, or demesne
portion, of each Manor upon that fief.]

[Footnote 51: An instance in point is afforded by the Bardolf
barony (_i.e._ fief) _temp._ John: 'Heres Dodon' Bardulf tenet
feoda xxv. militum per totum. Inde xv. milites sunt feoffati
et x. feoda sunt super dominium' (_Testa de Nevill_, p. 19).]

[Footnote 52: (1) Old feoffment, (2) new feoffment, (3)
demesne.]

[Footnote 53: He and his successors are consequently found
paying, time after time, on thirty-five fees.]

[Footnote 54: William de Beauchamp, of Worcestershire, is
virtually a solitary exception. He inserts, _cavendi causa_,
this significant clause: 'De hiis praenominatis non debeo Regi
nisi servitium vii. militum, nec antecessores mei unquam plus
fecerunt, sed quia dominus Rex praecepit michi mandare quot
milites habeo et eorum nomina, ideo mando quod istos [_i.e._
16] habeo fefatos de veteri feffamento; sed non debeo Regi
nisi servitium vii. militum.' But William was a sheriff at the
time, and may have had special information which put him on
his guard.]

[Footnote 55: Compare the case of the Irish bishops six years
later (1172), who sent the king 'litteras suas in modum
cartae extra sigillum pendentes' (Howden). Note also that the
addition of the seal made the return essentially a _carta_.
In Normandy, the tenants by knight-service were only required
(1172) to seal the return (_breve_) of their _servitium
debitum_.]

[Footnote 56: The point is of some importance in its bearing
on the right of the individual to assess himself, which is
held in this case to have been exercised. 'The assessment,'
writes Dr Stubbs, 'of the individual depended very much on
his own report, which the exchequer had little means of
checking.'--_C.H._, i. 585.]

[Footnote 57: By one of those slips so marvellously rare in
his writings Dr Stubbs writes that 'the Bishop of Durham's
service for his demesne land was that of ten knights, but it
was not cut up into fees' (i. 263). What the bishop said was
that he owed no service for his demesne, because there were
already over seventy fees created on his fief, though he only
owed ten.]

[Footnote 58: This is one of the points on which Madox is
completely at sea. He quotes the case of the Bishop of Durham
(1168) as an instance of 'Doubts about the number of knights'
fees' (_Baronia Anglica_, p. 122); and he writes, of the above
uniform formula: 'This uncertainty about the number of
the fees frequently happened in the case of ecclesiastical
persons, Bishops, and Abbots.'--_Exchequer_, i. 647.]

[Footnote 59: _C.H._, i. 264.]

[Footnote 60: See my papers on 'The House of Lords; the
Transition from Tenure to Writ' (_Antiquary_, October and
December 1884, April 1885).]

[Footnote 61: See, for instance, the language used in the
_carta_ of Ralf de Worcester (p. 441): 'Teneo de vobis in
capite de veteri fefamento feodum i. militis, unde debeo vobis
facere servitium i. militis. Et de eodem feodo Jordanus Hairum
debet mihi facere iiii.^{am.} partem servitii,' etc. In Normandy
(1172), the phrase ran: 'quot milites unusquisque baronum
deberet ad servicium regis, et quot haberet ad suum proprium
servicium'.]

[Footnote 62: Sometimes Exeter pays on 15-1/2 (14, 33, Hen.
II), but 17-1/2 (2, 5, 7, 18 Hen. II) is the normal amount.
The explanation of this odd number is found in the _Testa
de Nevill_ (p. 226) where ('Veredictum militum de Rapo de
Arundel') we read: 'Episcopus Exoniensis tenet de Domino Rege
de Capellaria de Boseham vii. feoda militum et dimidium.' The
Bosham estate (as belonging to Osbern) had formed part of the
episcopal fief in Domesday, but (the bishops having founded
a church there) we find it assessed and paying separately as
7-1/2 fees.]

[Footnote 63: I have found a case bearing upon this point and
reported at great length (Thorpe's _Registrum Roffense_, pp.
70 _et seq._). It arose from an attempt of the Archbishop of
Canterbury, in 1253, to distrain the Bishop of Rochester for
the 'auxilium ad filium regis primogenitum militem faciendum'.
The bishop 'posuit se super recordum rotulorum de Scaccario,
per quos rotulos poterit et illa quam rex contra episcopum et
etiam illa quam archiepiscopus contra episcopum movit questio
diffiniri. Didicerat enim episcopus per unum fidelem amicum
quem in scaccario tunc habebat quod nunquam tempore alicujus
regis pro aliquo feodo episcopatus aliquod fuit regi factum
servicium vel datum scutagium.... Unde consulebat quod
audaciter poneret se episcopus super recordum rotulorum de
Scaccario, nichil enim tenet episcopus per baroniam de rege,
sed per puram elemosinam, quod non est dicendum de aliquo
episcopatu Anglie, nec de Archiepiscopatu, nisi dumtaxat de
Karleolen. Cumque cum audacia institisset episcopus, quod
decideretur per rotulos de Scaccario quibus creditur in omnibus
illis sicut sancto evangelio', etc., etc. The barons of the
exchequer examined the rolls, 'a tempore primi conquestus' (?)
and reported: 'nusquam invenerunt episcopum Roffensem solvisse
aut dedisse aliquod servicium regibus temporale'. But the
dispute was not finally decided till 1259. The clue to the
matter is found in the Canterbury 'Domesday Monachorum' (8th
Report Hist. MSS. i. 316), where a list of the archbishop's
knights, perhaps coeval with Domesday (_vide infra_, p. 236),
is headed by 'Episcopus Roffensis' with a _servitium_ of ten
knights to the Primate.]

[Footnote 64: Cerne had to provide 'ten' knights _ad wardam_
at Corfe Castle, or 'two' _ad exercitum_ (_vide_ cartam).]

[Footnote 65: This indeed is proved by an extract quoted by
Madox (_Exchequer_) from the Roll of 22 Hen. II (rot. 10_a_).]

[Footnote 66: The effect of all the changes of assessment we
have traced under Henry II would only be the reduction of this
total to 774.]

[Footnote 67: Roll of 11 Hen. II. (This was, of course, the
son of Henry I by Edith.)]

[Footnote 68 The custos of his fief paid scutage for eighty
knights in 1159, but he speaks 'de meis lx. militibus' in his
_carta_.]

[Footnote 69: The undoubted assessment in 1162. Afterwards it
is found paying on sixty and a fraction.]

[Footnote 70: 'Lx. milites ... habere solebat pater meus'
(_Carta_).]

[Footnote 71: This figure is given in the _Liber Niger_, but
is really derived from his recorded payments.]

[Footnote 72: Tot habuit milites feodatos ... scilicet lx. de
antiquo feodo (_Carta_).]

[Footnote 73: In Yorkshire alone. In all England, many more.]

[Footnote 74: This figure is taken from the payments in 1161
and 1172.]

[Footnote 75: Roll of 11 Hen. II.]

[Footnote 76: _Ibid._ It is impossible, within the compass
of a note, to discuss the two consecutive and most important
entries on the Roll (pp. 37-8), which represent a payment
by the Earl of Chester on 20 fees, 'pro feodo Turoldi
vicecomitis', and by Richard de Camville on 40 fees, 'pro
feodo Willelmi de Romara'. I called attention to the former
entry in the _Academy_ (April 21, 1888), but did not at that
time explain it. Mr R. E. G. Kirk undertook to explain 'its
real meaning' (_Genealogist_, v. 141), which, however, he
completely mistook (_ibid._, July 1891). The two entries, I
think, should be read together as relating to the estates
of the famous Lucy, the common ancestress of the earl and
of William. If so, they may refer to a fief with an original
_servitium_ of 60 knights, of which one-third was in the hands
of the Earl of Chester, and two-thirds in that of his cousin.
Independently of the light they throw on the obscure history
of this divided and contested fief, they are of value for the
unique reference (in this Roll) to 'noviter feffati' (_vide
infra_). The total (including these) for the two fiefs is
66-31/80. There is no return for the earl's Lindsey fief in
1166, but William de Roumare's return acknowledges 57 fees.
If to these we add the 9-1/2 fees which, it says, had formerly
existed in addition, we obtain 66-1/2. This suggests that the one
fief of 1166 represents the two of 1165. It should be added
that the Hampshire fief of William de Roumare is paid for as
20 fees in 1159 and 1162, and was similarly accounted for by
Richard de Camville in both these years.]

[Footnote 77: Roll of 11 Hen. II.]

[Footnote 78: He omitted to send in a _carta_ in 1166; but,
both before and after, he paid on 30 fees.]

[Footnote 79: He twice pays on 30 fees before 1166, in which
year his fief was held by Gerbert de Percy. Subsequently, as
the honour of Poerstoke (Poorstock), it always pays on 30.]

[Footnote 80: This is a very difficult case. Walter's _carta_
might easily be read as implying a _servitium debitum_ of 20
fees, and his fief paid on 29 _de veteri_ and 1-1/2 _de novo_.
But careful scrutiny reveals that the words 'hos iiij^{or.}
milites qui has predictas terras tenent' are preceded by _six_
names. If they refer, either to the four names immediately
preceding, or (which is more probable) to the four knights who
held his lands but rendered him no service, the total of his
_servitium debitum_ would, in either case, be 30.]

[Footnote 81: Roll of 11 Hen. II.]

[Footnote 82: He paid on 25 fees in 1162.]

[Footnote 83: 'Feodum xx. militum de rege de veteri feffamento
quod pater suus tenuit' (_carta_).]

[Footnote 84: He paid on 20 fees in 1161, but the subsequent
assessment of the fief varies considerably.]

[Footnote 85: He paid on 20 fees in 1162 and 1165, and
returned his fees in 1166 as 20 _de veteri_ and 3/4 _de novo_.]

[Footnote 86: The scutages record him as paying always on
15 knights _quos recognoscit_--the formula for _servitium
debitum_.]

[Footnote 87: His payment on 15 fees in 1161 probably
represents his _servitium debitum_. His total enfeoffments
were 23.]

[Footnote 88: Hugh and Stephen de Scalers are the names given
in the _cartae_, but Henry and William de Scalers held the
fiefs at the time.]

[Footnote 89: He paid 10 marcs in 1168, though his _carta_
only records 9-5/6 fees.]

[Footnote 90: A difficult fief to deal with, but almost
certainly the half of an original Reimes fief owing 20 knights
(_vide supra_).]

[Footnote 91: Apparently 15 at first, and 10 later.]

[Footnote 92: _i.e._ the Peverel Honour of Bourne,
Cambridgeshire (held in Domesday by Picot, the Sheriff), not
Bourne, Lincolnshire, held by the Wakes.]

[Footnote 93: He only pays on 5 fees in 1162, and the excess
_de novo_ in his _carta_ is accounted for, he says, by the
necessities of his position.]

[Footnote 94: This is not proved for the latter fief.]

[Footnote 95: Compare with these allusions to a traditional
_servitium debitum_ the significant words of Wace (_Roman de
Rou_):

'Ne ke jamez d'ore en avant,
Ço lor a miz en covenant,
N'ierent de servise requis,
Forz tel ke solt estre al paiz,
E tel come lor ancessor
Soleient fere a lor Seignor,'--

which are the reply to the fears of the barons (_Norm. Conq._,
iii. 298):

'Li servise ki est doblez
Creiment k'il seit en feu tornez,
Et en costume seit tenu
Et par costume seit rendu (lines 11272 _et seq._).']

[Footnote 96: It can be shown that the 'service' in Normandy
was based on precisely the same five-knight unit.]

[Footnote 97: 'The estates of the twenty greatest feodaries in
Domesday Book contain, according to the ordinary computation,
793, 439, 442, 298, 280, 222, 171, 164, 132, 130, 123, 119,
118, 107, 81, 47, 46 and 33 knights' fees.'--Gneist (_Const.
Hist._, i. 334).]

[Footnote 98: _C.H._, i. 289.]

[Footnote 99: For instance, the Abbot of St Edmund's
'quinquaginta milites' are spoken of as 'milites de quatuor
constabiliis' with 'decem miles de quinta constabilia'
(_Memorials of St Edmunds_, Ed. Arnold, i. 269, 271).]

[Footnote 100: Robert fitz Stephen lands with 30 knights,
Maurice de Prendergast with 10, Maurice fitz Gerald with 10,
Strongbow with 200, Raymond the Fat with 10, Henry himself
with either 400 or 500, etc.]

[Footnote 101: See my _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, p. 103.]

[Footnote 102: Lines 11253 _et seq._ The figures, however, are
far too large, and savour of poetic licence.]

[Footnote 103: _N.C._, v. 368.]

[Footnote 104: Meath with a _servitium debitum_ of 100,
Limerick of 60, Cork with two _servitia_ of 30 each.]

[Footnote 105: _N.C._, v. 378.]

[Footnote 106: Gneist, _C.H._, i. 129, 156.]

[Footnote 107: Freeman, _N.C._, v. 372, 371.]

[Footnote 108: Stubbs, _C.H._, i. 261.]

[Footnote 109: Mr Hall informs me that is the name of the
official referred to.]

[Footnote 110: 'Prout rumor ex rotulis ad me devenit.']

[Footnote 111: See p. 221 _infra_.]

[Footnote 112: 'Et nota quod quandocumque assidentur scutagia,
licet eodem anno solvantur, annotantur tamen in annali anni
sequentis' (_Red Book_, ed. Hall, p. 8).]

[Footnote 113: It is just possible that the source of his
error is to be found in a solitary entry on the roll of 1163:
'Advocatus de Betuna reddit compotum de vi. li. xiii. s. iiii.
d. de auxilio exercitus de Tolusa' (p. 9)--which refers to the
levy of 1161.]

[Footnote 114: 'Temporibus enim regis Henrici primi ... nec
inspexi vel audivi fuisse scutagia assisa' (p. 5).]

[Footnote 115: _Vide supra_, p. 118 note.]

[Footnote 116: 'Illud commune verbum in ore singulorum tunc
temporis divulgatum.']

[Footnote 117: See _Red Book of the Exchequer_, pp. 5, 8.]

[Footnote 118: See list of church fiefs.]

[Footnote 119: His _carta_ is corrupt.]

[Footnote 120: 'Abbas Gloucestrie tenet omnes terras in libera
elemosina.'--_Testa_, p. 77.]

[Footnote 121: 'A new impost specially levied (1156) upon some
of the ecclesiastical estates, under the name of _scutage_'
(Norgate's _Angevin Kings_, i. 433). 'The famous scutage, the
acceptance of a money composition for military service, alike
for the old English service of the fyrd' [this, of course, is
a misconception], 'and for the newer military tenures, dates
from this (1159) time' (Freeman's _Norman Conquest_, v. 674).
'The term _scutage_ now (1156) first employed.... As early as
his second year (1156) we find him collecting a scutage, a new
form of taxation' (Stubbs' _Const. Hist._, i. 454, 458, 581,
590).]

[Footnote 122: The phrase 'debet scutagium quando currit' is
of course, a normal one.]

[Footnote 123: 'Teste Gaufrido Cancellario et Willelmo de
Albineio Pincerna et Gaufrido de Clintona et Pagano fil
Johannis. Apud Sanctum Petrum desuper Divam.']

[Footnote 124: Cott. MS. Julius A., i. 6, fo. 74_a_.]

[Footnote 125: These charters have an independent value for
the light they throw, in conjunction with the roll, on the
movements of the king. The roll itself alludes to the occasion
on which the king crossed from Eling--'ex q[uo] rex
mare transivit de Eilling[es]'--and as it is assigned to
Michaelmas, 1130, the entry cannot refer to his departure at
that very date, especially as these charters are not paid for
among the _nova_ proceedings of the year. They must therefore
have been granted at his previous departure (August 1127),
when he must have crossed from Eling and have gone to S.
Pierre sur Dive (and Argentan) in Normandy. Pleas were heard
before him at Eling on this occasion (_Rot. Pip._, pp.
17, 38), and are referred to in a charter of Stephen to
Shaftesbury Abbey.]

[Footnote 126: Printed in _Athenæum_, December 2, 1893.]

[Footnote 127: Cf. _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, p. 105.]

[Footnote 128: 'Abbas locum sibi commissum munita manu militum
secure protegebat; et primo quidem stipendiariis in hoc
utebatur' (_Cart. Abingdon_, ii. 3). 'Unde abbas tristis
recedens conduxit milites', etc. (_Historia Eliensis_, p.
275). So too Bishop Wulfstan is found 'pompam militum secum
ducens qui stipendiis annuis', etc. (W. Malmesb.)]

[Footnote 129: It is singular that in his admirable work, _The
English Village Community_, pp. 38-9, Mr Seebohm connects 'the
normal acreage of the hide of 120 a., and of the virgate of 30
a., with the scutage of 40s per knight's fee', and argues that
'in choosing the acreage of the standard hide and virgate, a
number of acres was probably assumed corresponding with the
monetary system, so that the number of pence in the _scutum_
should correspond with the number of acres assessed to its
payment'. It need hardly be observed that the institution of
scutage was, on the contrary, long posterior to that of a hide
of 120 acres.]

[Footnote 130: Walton was at the mouth of the Orwell and
the Stour, and was thus an exposed port towards
Flanders as Dover was towards France. It is noteworthy that
when the Earl of Leicester did invade England from Flanders a
few years later, it was at 'Walton' that he landed.]

[Footnote 131: Compare Will. Pict.: 'Custodes in castellis
strenuos viros collocavit ex Gallis traductos, quorum fidei
pariter ac virtuti credebat, cum multitudine peditum et
equitum, ipsis opulenta beneficia distribuit,' etc.]

[Footnote 132: Should not this rather be 'from ecclesiastical
tenants-in-chief holding by military service'? For it was
neither collected from knights' fees, nor with reference to
their existing number.]

[Footnote 133: Preface to _Gesta Henrici Regis_, II. xciv.
So too _Const. Hist._, i. 454: 'The practice was, as we learn
from John of Salisbury, opposed by Archbishop Theobald'; and
(i. 577) 'Archbishop Theobald had denounced the scutage of
1156'; and (_Early Plant._, p. 54) 'he made the bishops,
notwithstanding strong objections from Archbishop Theobald,
pay scutage'.]

[Footnote 134: Preface to _Gesta Henrici Regis_, II. xcviii.]

[Footnote 135: 'Honori et utilitati ecclesiae tota mentis
intentione studiosius invigilabit. Verum interim', etc. John
of Salisbury (Ep. cxxviii). Note that 'ecclesiae' is the
church at large, not the See of Canterbury.]

[Footnote 136: _Angevin Kings_, i. 443.]

[Footnote 137: _Red Book_, p. 6.]

[Footnote 138: Preface to _Gesta Henrici Regis_, II. xcv.]

[Footnote 139: _Const. Hist._, i. 454.]

[Footnote 140: _Ibid._, i. 164.]

[Footnote 141: _Angevin Kings_, i. 458. Both writers quote the
passage from John of Salisbury (Ep. xcxviii), on which this
explanation is based.]

[Footnote 142: His _servitium debitum_ was one knight.]

[Footnote 143: The force for the Welsh campaign was raised,
as we learn from Robert de Monte (_alias_ de Torigni), 'by
demanding that every three knights should, instead of serving
in person, equip one of their number', as Dr Stubbs rightly
puts it (_Const. Hist._, i. 589), and not, as he elsewhere
writes (preface to _Gesta Henrici Regis_, II. xciv.), by
requiring every two to add to themselves a third, 'by which
means, if we are to understand it literally, 90,000 knights
would appear from 60,000 knights' fees'. The real number would
probably be under 2,000.]

[Footnote 144: 'This impost, which afterwards came to be known
in English history as the "Great Scutage"' (_Angevin Kings_,
i. 459).]

[Footnote 145: _Liber Rubeus_, p. 6.]

[Footnote 146: _Angevin Kings_, i. 461.]

[Footnote 147: The abbots of Shrewsbury, Thorney, and
Croyland; the abbesses of Barking, Winchester, and Romsey. The
total of their _dona_ amounted to £51 13s 4d.]

[Footnote 148: Not, however, by Dr Stubbs (Preface to _Gesta
Henrici Regis_, II. xciv-xcvi).]

[Footnote 149: Dr Stubbs, independently, reckons the total
payments of the church at £3,700 (_Gesta Henrici Regis_),
which does not differ greatly from the above calculation
(£3,167 6s 8d). ]

[Footnote 150: 'Ille quidem gladius quem in sancte matris
ecclesiae viscera vestra paulo ante manus immerserat cum ad
trajiciendum in Tolosam exercitum tot ipsam marcarum millibus
aporiastis.' Gilbert Foliot (Ep. cxciv).]

[Footnote 151: 'Nec permisit ut ecclesiae saltem proceribus
coaequarentur in hac contributione vel magis exactione
tam indebita quam injusta.' John of Salisbury (Ep. cxlv).
Swereford, though confused in his account of the tax, points
out that levy was made 'non solum super praelatos, verum _tam
super ipsos_, quam super milites suos' (_L.R._, p. 6).]

[Footnote 152: Gneist, for instance, writes: 'The first
general imposition took place in 5 Henry II for the campaign
against Toulouse, with two marcs per fee from all crown
vassals' (_C.H._, i. 212).]

[Footnote 153: Entered as 'Dona militum comitatus', not to
be confused with the 'dona comitatus', a special levy of the
following year (6 Hen. II), raised, it will be found, from the
western counties, from Stafford in the north to Devonshire in
the south.]

[Footnote 154: 'Rex ... nolens vexare agrarios milites ...
sumptis lx. solidis Andegavensium in Normannia de feudo
uniuscujusque loricae et de reliquis omnibus tam in Normannia
quam in Anglia, sive etiam aliis terris suis, secundum hoc
quod ei visum fuit, capitales barones suos cum paucis secum
duxit, solidarios vero milites innumeros' (p. 202, ed.
Howlett).]

[Footnote 155: This was certainly the case with the fiefs
of Simon de Beauchamp and the Earl Ferrers, two of the most
considerable.]

[Footnote 156: _Angevin Kings_, i. 462.]

[Footnote 157: 'A second scutage was raised in the seventh
year, probably for payment of debts incurred for the same war,
the assessment being in this, as in the former case, two marcs
to the knight's fee.' (Preface to _Gesta Henrici Regis_, p.
xcv.)]

[Footnote 158: If it was raised for this purpose, it must have
been levied either (1) from _all_ tenants-in-chief, which it
certainly was not; or (2) from the _same_ contributors as in
1159, which a comparison of the two rolls will at once show
it was not; or (3) from a _new_ set of contributors, which was
also not the case, for the prelates, the Ferrers fief, etc.,
are found contributing as before.]

[Footnote 159: _Const. Hist._, i. 582.]

[Footnote 160: Instead of a fief paying _en bloc_, it seems to
have paid through the sheriffs of the counties in which it was
situate.]

[Footnote 161: "Episcopus de Heref' reddit compotum de lxxvi.
libris et v. solidis de promiss[ione] c. Servientium de Wal'"
(p. 84).]

[Footnote 162: 'Abbas de Abendona reddit compotum de lxxvi.
libris et v. solidis de promise sione servientium in Waliam'
(rot. 11 Hen. II, p. 74).]

[Footnote 163: 'Abbas de Sancto Albano reddit compotum de
lxxvi. libris et v. solidis de Exercitu' (_ibid._, p. 19).]

[Footnote 164: 'Episcopus Lond' reddit compotum de xiii.
libris et vi. sol. et viii. den. de Servicio militum.... Idem
reddit compotum de cxiiii. marcis et v. sol. de promissione
servientium Walie' (_ibid._, p. 19).]

[Footnote 165: 'Willelmus de Siffrewast reddit compotum de
lxxvi. sol. et iii. den.... Hugo de Bochelanda reddit compotum
de. v. servientibus' (_ibid._, p. 75). Compare the love of
variety in Domesday, _supra_, pp. 41, 42, 77.]

[Footnote 166: 'Scutagium de ii. exercitibus' in next roll
(rot. 12 Hen. II).]

[Footnote 167: _Itinerary of Henry II_, p. 79 _et seq._
Compare also the payment from the Giffard fief 'de secundo
exercitu' (p. 25).]

[Footnote 168: _Angevin Kings_, ii. 180, note.]

[Footnote 169: _Liber Rubeus_, p. 193.]

[Footnote 170: This was the point on which Abbot Sampson
insisted, against his knights, at St Edmund's. In the case
of Canterbury, the inquest of 1163 would have ascertained the
actual number of the archbishop's knights and their fees.]

[Footnote 171: Ignorasse quidem haec [debita] servitia
militaria Regis ... successores subsequentium argumento non
immerito potuit dubitare: quia cum Rex Henricus ... traderet,
a quolibet sui regni milite marcam unam ... exegit, publico
praecipiens edicto quod quilibet praelatus et baro quot
milites de eo tenerent in capite publicis suis instrumentis
significarent' (_Liber Rubeus_, p. 4).]

[Footnote 172: 'Teneo de vobis ... feodum i. militis, unde
debeo vobis facere servitium i. militis' (_carta_).]

[Footnote 173: 'De hoc predicto feodo debet Regi v. milites'
(_Carta_).]

[Footnote 174: It must always be remembered that, as explained
above, in cases where the requisite number of knights had not
been enfeoffed by 1166, the balance _de dominio_ was added to
those actually created, as _de veteri_ together.]

[Footnote 175: Thus Daniel de Crevec[oe]ur pays on one fee
(_de veteri_) more than his _carta_ records, William de Tracy
on half a fee (_de veteri_), Adam de Port on one, the Earl
of Gloucester on two, the Earl of Warwick on two and a half,
Maurice de Craon on one, the Abbot of Hulme on a quarter of a
fee, William de Albini (Pincerna) on one, Henry de Lacy on one
and a half, William de Vescy on one, Bertram de Bulemer on
a half, and William Paynell on one (these figures are all
subject to correction). The case of William de Vescy is
specially conspicuous, because the nineteen fees enumerated
are distinctly spoken of as twenty.]

[Footnote 176: This brings it into relation with the
_Constabularia_ of which it thus formed just a third.]

[Footnote 177: The same formula is found in Domesday applied
to hidation in East Anglia, where the assessment of Manors is
expressed not in terms of the hide, but in fractions of the
pound. (_Vide supra_, p. 89.)]

[Footnote 178: _Vide supra_, p. 205.]

[Footnote 179: 'Willelmus Malet tenet Cari de Domino Rege et
alias terras suas per servicium viginti militum' (p. 163).]

[Footnote 180: Ducange (1887), ii. 581.]

[Footnote 181: _Ibid._, viii. 255. Ducange indeed asserts that
five knights was the qualification in Normandy for barony,
but the statement is based on a mistaken rendering and is
elsewhere disproved.]

[Footnote 182: _Liber Rubeus_, p. 4.]

[Footnote 183: 'Illud commune verbum in ore singulorum, tunc
temporis divulgatum, fatuum reputans et mirabile, quod in
regni conquisitione Dux Normannorum, Rex Willelmus, servitia
xxxii. militum infeodavit' (_ibid._).]

[Footnote 184: Swereford, it is clear, failed to grasp the
great change of assessment in 1166.]

[Footnote 185: _Const. Hist._, i. 432.]

[Footnote 186; _Ibid._, i. 157. Dr Stubbs rightly rejects Mr
Pearson's conjecture that the number of 32,000 applied to the
hides, and that 'the number of knights' fees, calculated at
five hides each, would be 6,400'.]

[Footnote 187: 'His temporibus militiam Anglici regni Rex
Willelmus conscribi fecit et lx. millia militum invenit, quos
omnes, dum necesse esset, paratos esse praecepit.']

[Footnote 188: 'A whole army was by this means encamped upon
the soil, and the king's summons could at any moment gather
60,000 knights to the royal standard.']

[Footnote 189: _Const. Hist._, i. 264. Compare pp. 16, 17.]

[Footnote 190: Freeman (_Norm. Conq._, iv. 694).]

[Footnote 191: _Ibid._, iv. 562.]

[Footnote 192: _Ibid._, iii. 387. In _Social England_ (i. 373)
we read that 'William is believed to have landed in England
with at least 60,000 men, 50,000 horse and 10,000 foot'. But
on turning to p. 306 of that great effort of co-operative
genius, we learn that only 'some of William's ships carried
horses to the number of from three to eight--as well as men'.
So the number of his ships (396, according to Wace) is as
great a difficulty as the proportions of Noah's Ark.]

[Footnote 193: _William Rufus_, i. 17.]

[Footnote 194: _Ibid._, i. 313.]

[Footnote 195: 'Annui fiscales redditus ... ad sexaginta
millia marcarum summam implebant.']

[Footnote 196: 'Sexaginta millia peditum' (p. 4).]

[Footnote 197: 'Sexaginta millia silinas de frumento,
sexaginta millia de hordeo, sexaginta millia de vino'
(_Richard of Devizes_, ed. Howlett, p. 396).]

[Footnote 198: 'Sexaginta accipitur indefinite de magno
numero. Sexcenti saepe usurpatur pro numero ingenti et
indefinito' (Forcellini, _Totius Latinitatis Lexicon_).]

[Footnote 199: 'Bis sex sibi millia centum' (_Carmen de bello
Hastingensi_).]

[Footnote 200: It must be clearly understood that these
figures cannot be absolutely accurate. Some honours are
omitted, it seems, in the returns from which we have to work,
and for these allowance must be made.]

[Footnote 201: '[1235] Sicut Stephanus Segrave ... asserebat
et affirmabat vetus scutagium ad xxxii. millia scuta
assumabatur et irrotulabatur; et ad tantundem plene et plane
potuit novum scutagium de novis terris assumari' (_Ann.
Monast._, i. 364).]

[Footnote 202: 'Nine thousand for all England would be a
large estimate at any time of the twelfth century' (_Early and
Middle Ages_, i. 375).]

[Footnote 203: The italics represent Anglo-Saxon characters.]

[Footnote 204: _Lib. Rub._, pp. 188, 214, 237, 238, 292.]

[Footnote 205: _Ibid._, pp. 211, 214.]

[Footnote 206: _Ibid._, pp. 214, 292.]

[Footnote 207: _Lib. Rub_., p. 292.]

[Footnote 208: _Ibid._, pp. 200, 210.]

[Footnote 209: _Ibid._, p. 210.]

[Footnote 210: _Ibid._, pp. 390, 444.]

[Footnote 211: _Ibid._, p. 429.]

[Footnote 212: _Ibid._, pp. 431-2.]

[Footnote 213: M. Paris, _Additamenta_, p. 436. This list,
which seems scarcely known, is very valuable for its early
date, being, I think, about contemporaneous with the _cartae_
of 1166.]

[Footnote 214: _L.R._, pp. 229, 245, 356.]

[Footnote 215: 'Et predictus Willelmus dedit predictas
tres carucatas terre Osberto vicecomiti pro servicio unius
militis.']

[Footnote 216: Together with castle-guard of thirty knights at
Newcastle.]

[Footnote 217: 'Post tempus domini Regis Willelmi Ruffi, qui
eos feoffavit.']

[Footnote 218: _Testa_, p. 69.]

[Footnote 219: 'Post Conquestum Angliae' (_Liber Rubeus_, p.
332).]

[Footnote 220: _Const. Hist._, i. 263.]

[Footnote 221: 'Et deinceps tres (milites) mihi habeat _sicut
antecessores sui faciebant_ in septentrionali parte fluminis
Tamesie' (1091-1100).--_Ramsey Cartulary_, i. 234.]

[Footnote 222: Compare the Ely entry (_supra_ p. 213) for
'superplus'.]

[Footnote 223: Could this have been Richard fitz Nigel
himself?]

[Footnote 224: _Ramsey Cartulary_, i. 255. Compare with
this expression 'in rotulo scripti', the Conqueror's
command (_infra_), that the number of knights 'in annalibus
annotarentur'.]

[Footnote 225: Select Pleas in Manorial Courts, p. 50.]

[Footnote 226: It enables us to correct such an entry in the
Black Book as 'Radulfus Maindeherst', by identifying him with
Ralph Mowyn, the tenant at Hurst. It supplies an entry as to
Henry de 'Wichetone' (Whiston) which is omitted in _L.R._,
and entered in _L.N._, with wrong name and wrong holding; and,
better still, it shows that Silvester of Holwell held only 2
hides, not 12, as given in error, both in _L.N._, and _L.R._
The existence of this error in both bears, of course, on their
relation (cf. p. 287, _supra_).]

[Footnote 227: _Const. Hist._, i. 357. Gneist writes that
Matthew's statement 'is for good reasons called in question by
Stubbs' (_C.H._, i. 255, note).]

[Footnote 228: _Cartulary of Abingdon_, ii. 3.]

[Footnote 229: _Historia Eliensis_ (ed. 1848), p. 276.]

[Footnote 230: _Ibid._, p. 274.]

[Footnote 231: 'Praecepit illi (_i.e._ abbati) ex nutu regis
custodiam xl. militum habere in insulam.' _Ibid._, p. 275.
This is the very _servitium debitum_ that appears under Henry
II.]

[Footnote 232: Compare for the initiative of the crown, the
Domesday phrase, 'miles jussu regis', and the statement that
Lanfranc replaced the drengs of his See by knights at the
royal command ('Rex praecepit.')]

[Footnote 233: Madox writes (_Baronia Anglica_, p. 114)
bitterly and unjustly: 'In process of time, several of the
religious found out another piece of art. They insisted that
they held all their land and tenements in frankalmoigne,
and not by knight-service.' In the cases he quotes, 'this
allegation' was perfectly correct, and was recognized as such
by the judges.]

[Footnote 234: Turoldus vero sexaginta et duo hidas terrae de
terra ecclesiae Burgi dedit stipendiariis militibus' (_John of
Peterborough_, ed. Giles).]

[Footnote 235: _Cart. Abingdon_, ii. 3.]

[Footnote 236: _Liber Eliensis_, p. 275.]

[Footnote 237: 'De militibus Archiepiscopis.' 8th Report on
Historical MSS., i. 316.]

[Footnote 238: _Ibid._]

[Footnote 239: A charter of Henry I (_Mon. Ang._, vi. 496)
addressed 'Willelmo Episcopo Exoniensi et Ricardo filio
Baldwini vicecomiti' (see p. 256) contains the clause:
'Prohibeo ne aliquis præter monachos ipsas terras amplius
teneat vel alias aliquas quæ de dominio ecclesie fuerunt,
exceptis illis quas Gaufridus abbas dedit _ad servicium
militare_.' Abbot Geoffrey is said to have died in 1088. A
curious difficulty has been raised about the words in italics.
It is argued in Alford's _Abbots of Tavistock_ (p. 68) that
as, according to Mr Freeman, military tenures did not exist in
Abbot Geoffrey's day, there was perhaps a second abbot of that
name to whom that charter refers. But he is only introduced by
Mr Alford under protest; and we see now that there is no need
for him. Henry's charter being witnessed by Ralph, Archbishop
of Canterbury, William, the King's son, and the Count of
Meulan, at Odiham, belongs, I may observe to 1114-16.]

[Footnote 240: 'Quis stipendii annuis quotidianisque
cibis immane quantum populabantur' (Will. Malmesb., _Gesta
Pontificum_).]

[Footnote 241: _Liber Eliensis_, p. 275.]

[Footnote 242: _Cart. Abingdon_, ii. 3.]

[Footnote 243: _Ibid._, p. 2331: 'misit ... in Normanniam pro
cognatis suis, quibus multas possessiones ecclesiae dedit et
feoffavit, ita ut in anno lxx. de possessionibus ecclesiae eis
conferret.']

[Footnote 244: Cott. MS. Vesp. B. xxiv. f. 8, 'Randulfus
frater abbatis Walterii habet in Withelega iii. hidas de
dominio, etc., etc. ... dono Walterii Abbatis contradicente
capitulo'. This was the 'Rannulfum [_sic_] fratrem ejusdem
Walteri abbatis ... qui cum fratre suo tenebat illud placitum'
(_temp._ Will. I), whom the Bishop of Worcester's knights
challenged to trial by battle (Heming's _Chart. Wig._, ed.
Hearne, p. 82). His holding was represented in 1166 by the
fees of Randulf de Kinwarton and Randulf de Coughton. Other
cases of contested enfeoffment by Abbots Walter and Robert are
those of Hugh Travers and Hugh de Bretfertun.]

[Footnote 245: See the _carta_ of 1166, which explains how
this holding became half a fee.]

[Footnote 246: 'Miles quidam, Odo nomine, dono praedecessoris
mei Sifridi abbatis, ob graciam cusjusdam consobrinae suae,
quam idem Odo conjugem duxerat ... tria maneria de dominio
sibi astrinxerat ... invitis fratribus. Alius quidam ... dono
abbatis ... tamen absque fratrum consensu manerium possidebat'
(_Domerham_, p. 306).]

[Footnote 247: 'De his terris quas, ut diximus, suo tempore
acquisivit, quibusdam bonis hominibus pro magna necessitate et
honore ecclesiae dedit, et inde Deo et sibi fideliter quamdiu
vixit serviebant' (_Chronicon Evesh._, p. 96). His successor,
Walter (1077-86), incited by his own young relatives, 'noluit
homagium a pluribus bonis hominibus quos praedecessor suus
habuerat suscipere eo quod terras omnium, si posset, decrevit
auferre' (_ibid._, p. 98). In the result, 'dicitur quod fere
omnes milites hujus abbatiae haereditavit' (_ibid._, p. 91).]

[Footnote 248: He begged Anselm that 'terras ecclesiae
quas ipse rex, defuncto Lanfranco, suis dederat pro statuto
servicio, illis ipsis haereditario jure tenendas, causa sui
amoris, condonaret' (_Eadmer_).]

[Footnote 249: Foundation charter of Alcester Priory.]

[Footnote 250: Three other documents are found on the same
folio. Of these the first is addressed to Lanfranc, Odo of
Bayeux, Bishop Wulfstan, and Urse d'Abetot, and witnessed by
Bishop Geoffrey (of Coutances) and (like our writ) by Eudo
Dapifer, being also witnessed, like it, at Winchester. It is
noteworthy that it grants Æthelwig the Hundred of Fishborough
'in potestate et _justitia_ sua'.]

[Footnote 251: Cott. MS. Vesp. B. xxvi. f. 15[18].]

[Footnote 252: 'Rex commisit ei curam istarum partium terrae
... ita ut omnium hujus patriae consilia atque judicia fere in
eo penderent' (_Hist. Evesham_).]

[Footnote 253: Florence of Worcester.]

[Footnote 254: 'Cernens itaque rex grande sibi periculum
imminere, debitum servitium ... exigit' (_Liber Eliensis_, p.
276).]

[Footnote 255: 'Rex Henricus contra fratrem suum Robertum,
Normanniae comitem, super se in Anglia cum exercitu venientem,
totius regni sui expeditionem dirigit' (_Cart. Abingdon_, ii.
121).]

[Footnote 256: In the former case, between the crown and
its tenant; in the latter, between the tenant and his
under-tenant.]

[Footnote 257: 'Idem [Godcelinus de Riveria] dicebat se non
debere facere servitium, nisi duorum militum, pro feudo quem
tenebat de ecclesia, et abbas et sui dicebant eum debere
servitium trium militum' (_Cart. Abingdon_, ii. 129). 'Cum a
quodam duos milites ad servicium regis exigerem (tantum enim
inde deberi ab olim a commilitonibus didiceram) ipse toto
conatu obstitit, unius dumtaxat se militis servicio obnoxium
obtestans.'--Henry, Abbot of Glastonbury (_Domerham_, p.
318).]

[Footnote 258: Thus undermining Mr Freeman's argument: 'We
hear of nothing in Domesday which can be called knight-service
or military tenure in the later sense; the old obligations
would remain; the primeval duty of military service, due, not
to a lord as lord, but to the state and to the king as its
head, went on,' etc. (_Norm. Conq._, v. 371).]

[Footnote 259: _Norm. Conq._, v. 865.]

[Footnote 260: _Cartulary of Abingdon_, ii. 3-7.]

[Footnote 261: 'In Winteham tenet Hubertus de Abbate v. hidas
de terra villanorum' (i. 58_b_).]

[Footnote 262: 'Hubertus i. militem pro v. hidis in Witham'
(p. 4).]

[Footnote 263: 'In Wichtham de terra villanorum curiae
Cumenore obsequi solitorum, illo ab abbate cuidam militi
nomine Huberto v. hidarum portio distributa est' (p. 7).]

[Footnote 264: See _Cart. Ab._, ii. 138. Cf. _Domesday_, i.
58_b_: 'Willelmus tenet de abbate Leie.']

[Footnote 265: See p. 231.]

[Footnote 266: This distinction, it will be found, is
preserved in Henry's Charter of Liberties (1101): 'nec ...
aliquid accipiam [1] de dominico ecclesiae vel [2] de hominibus
ejus'.]

[Footnote 267: See my paper on 'The Knights of Peterborough',
_supra_, p. 131.]

[Footnote 268: In the transcript of the original return it is:
'habet hugo de bolebech ... de waltero giffard'.]

[Footnote 269: _Inquisitio Eliensis_ (_O._ 2. 1), f. 210, _et
seq._ (see below, page 349).]

[Footnote 270: See p. 166.]

[Footnote 271: Hemingi _Chartularium_ (ed. Hearne), 1723.]

[Footnote 272: _Norman Conquest_, vol. v.]

[Footnote 273: Interlineation.]

[Footnote 274: _Dapifer_ to Bishop Wulfstan.]

[Footnote 275: He witnessed, as 'Ordric Niger', the
_conventio_ between Bishop Wulfstan and Abbot Walter of
Evesham, and was perhaps Bishop Wulfstan's reeve (Heming, p.
420).]

[Footnote 276: Probably Bishop Wulfstan's chancellor.]

[Footnote 277: Although, from his ignorance of this document,
Dr Stubbs was not aware of Ranulf's _modus operandi_, its
evidence affords a fresh illustration of his unfailing
insight, and of his perfect grasp of the problem even in the
absence of proof. 'The analogy', he writes, 'of lay fiefs
was applied to the churches with as much minuteness as
possible.... Ranulf Flambard saw no other difference between
an ecclesiastical and a lay fief than the superior facilities
which the first gave for extortion.... The church was open to
these claims because she furnished no opportunity for reliefs,
wardships, marriage, escheats, or forfeiture' (_Const. Hist._,
pp. 298-300).]

[Footnote 278: It has been urged to me that relief on _mutatio
domini_ was a recognized practice, but I cannot find proof of
it in English feudalism.]

[Footnote 279: 'Nec mortuo archiepiscopo, sive episcopo,
sive abbate, aliquid accipiam de dominico ecclesiae vel de
hominibus ejus donec successor in eam ingrediatur.']

[Footnote 280: There is a very important allusion to it, as
introduced under Rufus, in the _Abingdon Cartulary_, ii. 42:
'Eo tempore [1097] infanda usurpata est in Anglia consuetudo,
ut si qua prelatorum persona ecclesiarum vita decederet mox
honor ecclesiasticus fisco deputaretur regis.']

[Footnote 281: Compare the words of the chronicle on the
king claiming to be heir of each man, lay or clerk, with the
expression 'honor in manum meam rediit'.]

[Footnote 282: 'Rogerium de Glocestra, probatum militem, in
obsessione Falesiae arcubalistae jactu in capite percussum'
(_William of Malmesbury_, ii. 475).]