But all this is insignificant by the side of Mr. Oman’s double error on the _vetus feoffamentum_. This begins on p. 359, which is headed “The old enfeoffment,’” and which describes the distribution of fiefs by William among the tenants-in-chief. On the next page he writes of “the knights of ‘the old enfeoffment,’ as William’s arrangement was entitled,” and proceeds to vouch my ‘Feudal England’ as his authority for this statement! On the same page we read of the landholder’s “_servitium debitum_ according to the assessment of the _vetus feoffamentum_ of the Conqueror”; and further learn that Henry II. demanded a statement as to the number of knights whom each tenant-in-chief owed as subtenants, how many were under the ‘old enfeoffment’ of William I., and how many of more recent establishment. We also read that-- the importance of King Henry’s inquest of 1166 was twofold. It not only gave him the information that he required as to the proper maintenance of the _debitum servitium_ due under the ‘old enfeoffment’ of the Conqueror, but showed him how many more knights had been planted out (_sic_) since that assessment (p. 363). Again, on page 364 we read of “the ‘old enfeoffment’ of the eleventh century,” and the phrase (which Mr. Oman quite properly places within quotation marks) occurs in at least three other passages. It is quite evident that Mr. Oman imagines the _vetus feoffamentum_ to be (1) the original distribution by the Conqueror (2) among the tenants-in-chief. Both ideas are absolutely wrong. For (1) it had nothing to do with “William’s arrangement”--which determined the _servitium debitum_, a very different matter; and (2) it referred to the _sub_-enfeoffment of knights by tenants-in-chief. The dividing line between the “old” and the “new” feoffments, was the death of Henry I. in 1135. All fees existing at that date were of the _antiquum feoffamentum_; all fees created subsequently were of the _novum feoffamentum_. This essential date is nowhere given by Mr. Oman, who evidently imagined that the latter were those “of more recent establishment” than “the old enfeoffment of William I.” The frightful confusion into which Mr. Oman has been led by his double blunder is shown by his own selected instance, the _carta_ of Roger de Berkeley in 1166. According to him, “Roger de Berkeley owed (_sic_) two knights and a half on the old enfeoffment.”[130] Two distinct things are here hopelessly confused. (1) Roger “owed” a _servitium debitum_ (not of 2½, but) of 7½ knights to the Crown; and his fief paid scutage[131] accordingly in 1168, 1172, and 1190. (2) Roger “has” two and a half knights enfeoffed under the old feoffment[132] (that is, whose fiefs existed in 1135), the balance of his _servitium debitum_ being, therefore, chargeable on his demesne,[133] as no knights had been enfeoffed since 1135.