manorial administration does not much concern itself with these details: the township is answerable for the whole sum. [Payments to State and Church.] It is to be added that the payment is sometimes actually mentioned as a political one in direct connexion with 'forinsec' duties towards the king. The burdens which lay on the land in consequence of the requirements of State and Church appear not unfrequently in the documents. Among those the _scutage_ and _hidage_ are the most important. The first of these taxes is so well known that I need not stop to discuss it. It may be noticed however that in relation to the dependent people scutage is not commonly spoken of; the tax was levied under this name from the barons and the armed gentry, and was mostly transmitted by these to the lower strata of society under some other name, as an aid or a tallage. Hidage is historically connected with the old English Danegeld system, and in some cases its amount is set out separately from other payments, and the tenants of a manor have to pay it to the bailiff of the hundred and not to the steward. A smaller payment called _ward-penny_ is bound up with it, probably as a substitute for the duty of keeping watch and ward[651]. In the north the hidage is replaced by _cornage_[652], a tax which has given rise to learned controversy and doubt; it looks like an assessment according to the number of horns of cattle, _pro numero averiorum_, as our Latin extents would say. The Church has also an ancient claim on the help of the faithful; the _churchscot_ of Saxon times often occurs in the feudal age under the name of _churiset_ or _cheriset_[653]. It is mostly paid in kind, but may be found occasionally as a money-rent. [Questions suggested by a survey of work and rents.] A survey of the chief aspects assumed by the work and the payments of the dependent people was absolutely necessary, in order to enable us to understand the descriptions of rural arrangements which form the most instructive part of the so-called extents. But every survey of terms and distinctions (even if it were much more detailed than the one I am able to present), will give only a very imperfect idea of the obligations actually laid on the peasantry. It must needs take up the different species one by one and consider them separately, whereas in reality they were meant to fit together into a whole. On the other hand it may create a false impression by enumerating in systematic order facts which belonged to different localities and perhaps to different epochs. To keep clear of these dangers we have to consider the deviations of practical arrangements from the rules laid down in the books and the usual combinations of the elements described. [Cases where the usual order was not adhered to.]