[Footnote 75: Roll of 11 Hen. II.] [Footnote 76: _Ibid._ It is impossible, within the compass of a note, to discuss the two consecutive and most important entries on the Roll (pp. 37-8), which represent a payment by the Earl of Chester on 20 fees, 'pro feodo Turoldi vicecomitis', and by Richard de Camville on 40 fees, 'pro feodo Willelmi de Romara'. I called attention to the former entry in the _Academy_ (April 21, 1888), but did not at that time explain it. Mr R. E. G. Kirk undertook to explain 'its real meaning' (_Genealogist_, v. 141), which, however, he completely mistook (_ibid._, July 1891). The two entries, I think, should be read together as relating to the estates of the famous Lucy, the common ancestress of the earl and of William. If so, they may refer to a fief with an original _servitium_ of 60 knights, of which one-third was in the hands of the Earl of Chester, and two-thirds in that of his cousin. Independently of the light they throw on the obscure history of this divided and contested fief, they are of value for the unique reference (in this Roll) to 'noviter feffati' (_vide infra_). The total (including these) for the two fiefs is 66-31/80. There is no return for the earl's Lindsey fief in 1166, but William de Roumare's return acknowledges 57 fees. If to these we add the 9-1/2 fees which, it says, had formerly existed in addition, we obtain 66-1/2. This suggests that the one fief of 1166 represents the two of 1165. It should be added that the Hampshire fief of William de Roumare is paid for as 20 fees in 1159 and 1162, and was similarly accounted for by Richard de Camville in both these years.] [Footnote 77: Roll of 11 Hen. II.] [Footnote 78: He omitted to send in a _carta_ in 1166; but, both before and after, he paid on 30 fees.] [Footnote 79: He twice pays on 30 fees before 1166, in which year his fief was held by Gerbert de Percy. Subsequently, as the honour of Poerstoke (Poorstock), it always pays on 30.] [Footnote 80: This is a very difficult case. Walter's _carta_ might easily be read as implying a _servitium debitum_ of 20 fees, and his fief paid on 29 _de veteri_ and 1-1/2 _de novo_. But careful scrutiny reveals that the words 'hos iiij^{or.} milites qui has predictas terras tenent' are preceded by _six_ names. If they refer, either to the four names immediately preceding, or (which is more probable) to the four knights who held his lands but rendered him no service, the total of his _servitium debitum_ would, in either case, be 30.] [Footnote 81: Roll of 11 Hen. II.] [Footnote 82: He paid on 25 fees in 1162.] [Footnote 83: 'Feodum xx. militum de rege de veteri feffamento quod pater suus tenuit' (_carta_).] [Footnote 84: He paid on 20 fees in 1161, but the subsequent assessment of the fief varies considerably.]