[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).]