[Footnote 64: Cerne had to provide 'ten' knights _ad wardam_ at Corfe Castle, or 'two' _ad exercitum_ (_vide_ cartam).]
[Footnote 65: This indeed is proved by an extract quoted by Madox (_Exchequer_) from the Roll of 22 Hen. II (rot. 10_a_).]
[Footnote 66: The effect of all the changes of assessment we have traced under Henry II would only be the reduction of this total to 774.]
[Footnote 67: Roll of 11 Hen. II. (This was, of course, the son of Henry I by Edith.)]
[Footnote 68 The custos of his fief paid scutage for eighty knights in 1159, but he speaks 'de meis lx. militibus' in his _carta_.]
[Footnote 69: The undoubted assessment in 1162. Afterwards it is found paying on sixty and a fraction.]
[Footnote 70: 'Lx. milites ... habere solebat pater meus' (_Carta_).]
[Footnote 71: This figure is given in the _Liber Niger_, but is really derived from his recorded payments.]
[Footnote 72: Tot habuit milites feodatos ... scilicet lx. de antiquo feodo (_Carta_).]
[Footnote 73: In Yorkshire alone. In all England, many more.]
[Footnote 74: This figure is taken from the payments in 1161 and 1172.]
[Footnote 76: _Ibid._ It is impossible, within the compass of a note, to discuss the two consecutive and most important entries on the Roll (pp. 37-8), which represent a payment by the Earl of Chester on 20 fees, 'pro feodo Turoldi vicecomitis', and by Richard de Camville on 40 fees, 'pro feodo Willelmi de Romara'. I called attention to the former entry in the _Academy_ (April 21, 1888), but did not at that time explain it. Mr R. E. G. Kirk undertook to explain 'its real meaning' (_Genealogist_, v. 141), which, however, he completely mistook (_ibid._, July 1891). The two entries, I think, should be read together as relating to the estates of the famous Lucy, the common ancestress of the earl and of William. If so, they may refer to a fief with an original _servitium_ of 60 knights, of which one-third was in the hands of the Earl of Chester, and two-thirds in that of his cousin. Independently of the light they throw on the obscure history of this divided and contested fief, they are of value for the unique reference (in this Roll) to 'noviter feffati' (_vide infra_). The total (including these) for the two fiefs is 66-31/80. There is no return for the earl's Lindsey fief in 1166, but William de Roumare's return acknowledges 57 fees. If to these we add the 9-1/2 fees which, it says, had formerly existed in addition, we obtain 66-1/2. This suggests that the one fief of 1166 represents the two of 1165. It should be added that the Hampshire fief of William de Roumare is paid for as 20 fees in 1159 and 1162, and was similarly accounted for by Richard de Camville in both these years.]