[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.]