Let us pass, at this point, to the great survey. I urged in the earlier portion of this paper that the argument from the silence of Domesday is of no value. Even independently of direct allusions, whether to the case of individual holders, or to whole groups such as the _milites_ of Lanfranc, it can be shown conclusively that the normal _formulae_ cover unquestionable military tenure, tenure by knight service.[258] An excellent instance is afforded in the case of Abingdon Abbey (fol. 258_b_-9_b_), because the _formulae_ are quite normal and make 'no record of any new duties or services of any kind'.[259] Yet we are able to identify the tenants named in Domesday, right and left, with the foreign knights enfeoffed by Athelelm to hold by military tenure,[260] owing service for their fees 'to Lord as Lord'. There are some specially convincing cases, such as those of Hubert, who held five hides in a hamlet of Cumnor,[261] and whose fee is not only entered in the list of knights:[262] but is recorded to have been given before Domesday for military service.[263] Another case is that of William _camerarius_, who held Lea by the service of one knight;[264] so too with the Bishop of Worcester's Manor of Westbury-on-Trym, where the _homines_ of Domesday appear as _milites_ in a rather earlier survey.[265] Again, take the case of Peterborough. The Northamptonshire possessions of that house are divided by Domesday (fol. 221) into two sections, of which the latter is headed 'Terra hominum ejusdem ecclesiae', and represents the sub-infeudated portion, just as the preceding section contains the _dominium_ of the fief.[266] Here 'Terra hominum ejusdem' corresponds with the heading 'Terra militum ejus' prefixed to the knights of the Archbishop of Canterbury (fol. 4). The Peterborough _homines_ are frequently spoken of as _milites_ (fol. 221_b_, _passim_), and even where we only find such _formulae_ as 'Anschitillus tenet de abbate' we are able to identify the tenant as Anschetil de St Medard, one of the foreign knights enfeoffed by Abbot Turold.[267] But it is not only on church fiefs that the Domesday under-tenant proves to be a feudal _miles_. At Swaffham (Cambridgeshire) we read in Domesday (fol. 196) 'tenet Hugo de Walterio [Gifard]'.[268] Yet in the earlier record of a _placitum_ on the rights of Ely, we find this tenant occurring as '_Hugo de bolebec_ miles _Walteri Giffard_', while in 1166 his descendant and namesake is returned as the chief tenant on the Giffard fief. The same _placitum_ supplies other illustrations of the fact.[269] The cases taken from the Percy fief and from the honour of Britanny afford further confirmation, if needed, of the conclusions I draw.[270]