[456] Brien fitz Ralf may have been a son of the Ralf fitz Brien who appears in Domesday as an under-tenant of Randulf Peverel. According to the inquisition on the honour of Peverel assigned to 13th John, "Brien filius Radulfi" held five fees of the honour, the very number here given. [457] William de Tresgoz appears in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. as a landowner in Essex (where the family held Tolleshunt Tregoz of the honour of Peverel) and elsewhere. He was then fermor of the honour of Peverel. In the above inquisition "William de Tregoz" holds six fees of the honour. [458] William "de Boevilla" (_sic_) appears in the same roll as a landowner in Essex (pp. 53, 60), and William "de Bosevill" (_sic_) is found in (Hearne's) _Liber Niger_ (p. 229) as a tenant of the Earl of Essex (1½ fees de vet. fef.). But what is here granted is the manor of Springfield Hall, which William de Boseville held of the honour of Peverel "of London," by the service of two knights. Mathew Peverel, the Tresgoz family, and the Mauduits were all tenants of the same honour. [459] Mathew Peverel similarly appears in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. as holding land in Essex and Norfolk. In the above inquisition William Peverel holds five fees of the honour. [460] Elmdon (Essex) had been held of Eustace of Boulogne at the Survey by Roger de Someri, ancestor of the family of that name seated there. Stephen was of course entitled to their _servicium_ in right of his wife. Adam de Sumeri held seven fees of the Earl of Essex in 1166. [461] Possibly the _Ralph_ Brito who appears in the Pipe-Rolls of Hen. II. as holding _terræ datæ_ "in Chatelegâ," and who also figures as "Ralph le Bret," under Essex, in the _Liber Niger_ (p. 242), and as Radulfus Brito, a tenant of Robert de Helion (_ibid._, p. 240). [462] Duchy of Lancaster, _Royal Charters_, No. 18. [463] This same principle is well illustrated by two _cartæ_ which follow one another in the pages of the _Liber Niger_. They are those of "Willelmus filius Johannis _de Herpetreu_" and "Willelmus filius Johannis _de Westona_." Here the suffix (which in such cases is rather a crux to genealogists) clearly distinguishes the two Williams, and is not the appellation of their respective fathers (as it sometimes is). This leads us to such styles as "Beauchamp de Somerset" and "Beauchamp de Warwick," "Willoughby d'Eresby" and "Willoughby de Beke." Many similar instances are to be found in writs of summons, and, applying the above principle, we see that, in all cases, the suffix must originally have been added for the sake of distinction only. [464] See p. 120.