Fleta, ii. cap. 57, § 1, 2. “Imprimis autem debet quilibet qui testaverit dominum suum de meliori re quam habuerit recognoscere, et postea aecclesiam de alia meliori, et in quibusdam locis habet aecclesia melius animal de consuetudine, in quibusdam secundum vel tertium melius, et in quibusdam nihil: et ideo observanda est consuetudo loci.” § 2. “Item de morte uxoris alicuius viri, dum vir superstes fuerit, de toto grege communi secundum melius averium, quasi de parte sua: sed hoc non nisi de permissione et gratia viri.” This Melius catallum, Bestehaupt or Best-head was in fact a servile due: but in this sense it was an alleviation; for strictly speaking the lord could take the whole inheritance of his unfree tenant. In 1252 Margaret Countess of Flanders gave this alleviation to the serfs of the crown: “Tous les serfs demeurant en Flandre, sous la justice propre de la comtesse, furent affranchis de servitude en 1252, à charge de payer par homme trois deniers, et par femme un denier annuellement; et le droit qu’elle avait à la moitié des meubles en catteux des serfs morts, fut reduit au meilleur cattel, [melius catallum] autre que maison ou bête de somme.” Warnkönig. Hist. Fland. i. 259. On this subject generally see Nelson, Lex Maneriorum, p. 154. ----- It appears from what has been said in this chapter that the kings were provided very sufficiently with the means of maintaining their dignity: the benefactions which they were enabled to make out of the folcland relieved their private estates from the burthen of supporting the thanes, clerical and lay, who flocked to their service. Still there must have been a constant drain upon their possessions; and many of the regalia became lost to the crown by successive alienations. It is true that they were generally purchased at a high price, but in this case the king who sold them was the only gainer: he secured considerable sums for himself, but he impoverished all his successors to a much greater amount. The loans for which we occasionally find him indebted to his prelates, show how completely at times the crown had been pillaged, as well as who were the principal sharers in the plunder. The attempt to draw in lands and privileges which had once been alienated, was questionable in policy and harsh to the innocent holders; but it does not always seem to have been viewed impartially even by those least concerned; we may however now express our conviction that in many cases the alienations themselves had been made improperly and without sufficient authority; and, that if it was hard upon an abbot or bishop to lose what his predecessor had gained, it was very hard upon a king to be without what _his_ predecessor had unjustly and often illegally squandered. CHAPTER III. THE KING’S COURT AND HOUSEHOLD.