[Footnote 346: It appears to have been thus settled by a Law of the Conqueror. (LL. Gul. Conq. c. 40. Ed. Wilkins.) This, as Mr. Watkins observes, seems to have been no more than accounting to the Lord for the profits of that year, for which he might under certain circumstances, have retained the Lands. (Treat. on Copyh. 1. 231.)] [Footnote 347: Dr. Sullivan accounts for the advantage which the Knights had obtained, when compared to the great Barons, in having their Reliefs reduced to a certainty, from the number of the Knights who made the strength of the Kingdom and were not to be disobliged; and also from the precarious situation many of the great Lords were in, who had been attached to the cause of Stephen. (Lectures p. 109.)] [Footnote 348: Statutum. “From the word _statutum_,” says Dr. Sullivan, commenting upon the Text, “I take it for granted, this change of Reliefs into money was by Act of Parliament.” (Lectures p. 290.)] [Footnote 349: This was remedied by Magna Carta cap. 2. The Reader may consult Lord Coke’s comment on the words _antiquum relevium_, where he endeavours to prove, the ancient Relief was certain. (2 Inst. 7. and 8.) Lord Coke, in support of his position, cites a MS. in the Library of Archbishop Parker, which seems almost word for word to coincide with the Laws of the Conqueror. (LL. Gul. Conq. c. 22. 23. 24.) This is the more remarkable, as his Lordship cites from a MS. merely, without describing the nature of it.] [Footnote 350: Vide Co. Litt. 105. b. and Bracton 84. a.] CHAP. V. “The King to the Sheriff, Health.[351] Command _N._ that, justly and without delay, he receive the Homage, and reasonable Relief of _R._ concerning the free Tenement which he holds, in such a Vill, and that he claims to hold of him; and, unless he does so, summon him by good Summoners, that he be before me or my Justices on such a day, to shew why he has not done it. And have there the Summoners, and this Writ. Witness &c.” [Footnote 351: Vide Co. Litt. 101. a.] CHAP. VI.