[Footnote 164: 'Episcopus Lond' reddit compotum de xiii. libris et vi. sol. et viii. den. de Servicio militum.... Idem reddit compotum de cxiiii. marcis et v. sol. de promissione servientium Walie' (_ibid._, p. 19).] [Footnote 165: 'Willelmus de Siffrewast reddit compotum de lxxvi. sol. et iii. den.... Hugo de Bochelanda reddit compotum de. v. servientibus' (_ibid._, p. 75). Compare the love of variety in Domesday, _supra_, pp. 41, 42, 77.] [Footnote 166: 'Scutagium de ii. exercitibus' in next roll (rot. 12 Hen. II).] [Footnote 167: _Itinerary of Henry II_, p. 79 _et seq._ Compare also the payment from the Giffard fief 'de secundo exercitu' (p. 25).] [Footnote 168: _Angevin Kings_, ii. 180, note.] [Footnote 169: _Liber Rubeus_, p. 193.] [Footnote 170: This was the point on which Abbot Sampson insisted, against his knights, at St Edmund's. In the case of Canterbury, the inquest of 1163 would have ascertained the actual number of the archbishop's knights and their fees.] [Footnote 171: Ignorasse quidem haec [debita] servitia militaria Regis ... successores subsequentium argumento non immerito potuit dubitare: quia cum Rex Henricus ... traderet, a quolibet sui regni milite marcam unam ... exegit, publico praecipiens edicto quod quilibet praelatus et baro quot milites de eo tenerent in capite publicis suis instrumentis significarent' (_Liber Rubeus_, p. 4).] [Footnote 172: 'Teneo de vobis ... feodum i. militis, unde debeo vobis facere servitium i. militis' (_carta_).] [Footnote 173: 'De hoc predicto feodo debet Regi v. milites' (_Carta_).] [Footnote 174: It must always be remembered that, as explained above, in cases where the requisite number of knights had not been enfeoffed by 1166, the balance _de dominio_ was added to those actually created, as _de veteri_ together.] [Footnote 175: Thus Daniel de Crevec[oe]ur pays on one fee (_de veteri_) more than his _carta_ records, William de Tracy on half a fee (_de veteri_), Adam de Port on one, the Earl of Gloucester on two, the Earl of Warwick on two and a half, Maurice de Craon on one, the Abbot of Hulme on a quarter of a fee, William de Albini (Pincerna) on one, Henry de Lacy on one and a half, William de Vescy on one, Bertram de Bulemer on a half, and William Paynell on one (these figures are all subject to correction). The case of William de Vescy is specially conspicuous, because the nineteen fees enumerated are distinctly spoken of as twenty.] [Footnote 176: This brings it into relation with the _Constabularia_ of which it thus formed just a third.] [Footnote 177: The same formula is found in Domesday applied to hidation in East Anglia, where the assessment of Manors is expressed not in terms of the hide, but in fractions of the pound. (_Vide supra_, p. 89.)]