The use of the mound as the site of the “maison seigneuriale” was general in England, and several such—as Barwick-in-Elmet and Laughton-en-le-Morthen—are still pointed out as the seats of early English nobles and kings; and of others thrown up primarily for defence, as Tamworth and Leicester, and afterwards occupied as royal and other residences, the date is on record. After the Conquest, the English term “burh” seems to have given place to the Latin “mota,” at least in public records. It is true that in a charter by the Conqueror, given by Rymer, occurs “Et in burgis, et muro-vallatis, et in castellis,” but “burgis” may be held to mean borough towns. In the charter of Matilda, 1141, bestowing the earldom of Hereford on Milo de Gloucester, she grants “Motam Hereford et cum toto castello,” words which evidently refer to the mound, now destroyed, and not, as has been supposed, to the right to hold a moot there. Also, in the convention between Stephen and Henry of Anjou the distinction is drawn between “Turris Londinensis et ‘Mota de Windesora,’” London having a square keep or tower, and Windsor a shell keep upon a mound. Probably when, as at Durham, keeps of masonry superseded the “ligna tabulata firmissime compacta,” the fortress ceased to be called a mote, and became a castle; but in very many instances this change was a long time in coming about, and in many of the less important and private residences it never occurred at all. Thus, the moated mounds on the Upper Severn show no trace whatever of masonry, and as late as the reign of Henry III., 159 years after the Conquest, and years too of incessant battling with a warlike and sleepless foe, timber was still the material of their defences. The Close Roll of 9 Henry III., 30 May, 1225, thus addresses the Custos of Montgomery:—