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).]