This was the last levy raised previous to the making of the returns (_cartae_) in 1166. These returns were followed in 1168 by the first levy on the new assessment. I have already dealt with the changes which this new assessment involved, but I would here again insist upon the fact that the church and the lay fiefs were not dealt with alike, the latter being assessed wholly _de novo_, while the former retained their old assessments, while accounting separately, and under protest, for the fees in excess of their _servitium debitum_. So far as the lay fiefs were concerned, their _servitia_, congenital with Norman rule, were now swept away. Here, from the single county of Northumberland, are three cases in point:
De scutagio Walteri de Bolebec. Walterus de Bolebec redd. comp. In thesauro v. marcae.[172] de iiii. marcis et dim. de eodem auxilio.
Idem debet xlviii. s. et v. d. pro tribus Militibus et ii^{ abus.} terciis partibus Mil. de Novo feffamento.
De scutagio Stephani de Bulemer. Stephanus de Bulemer redd. In thesauro v. marcae. comp. de iiii. marcis de eodem auxilio.
Idem debet xxiii. s. et iiii. d. de i. milite et dim. et quarta parte Mil. de Novo feffamento.
De scutagio Radulfi de Wircestria. Radulfus de Wigornio redd. comp. In thesauro i. marca.[173] de i. marca de eodem auxilio pro i. milite.
Idem debet xiii. s. de dim. Mil. et de i. tercia et de i. septima parte Mil. de Novo feffamento.
The change thus made by the restless king was permanent in its effect, and thenceforth the only assessment recognized was that based upon the fees, which, by 1166, had been created de veteri and de novo.[174]
Before leaving the subject of this levy, there is one point on which I would touch. When we find, as we often do, that the sum paid in 1168 in respect of a fief does not tally with the number of fees recorded in the _cartae_, we must remember that in the _Liber Niger_ and _Liber Rubeus_ we have not the original _cartae_, but only transcripts liable to clerical error. Checking the _cartae_ by these payments, we constantly find cases in which the number of fees should be slightly greater than is recorded in the _carta_.[175] I suspect that the transcriber, in these cases, has omitted entries in the original _carta_, and this suspicion is strongly confirmed by the fact that where the original return enables us to test the transcript, we find in the great _carta_ for the honour of Clare that the original transcriber has omitted half a fee of William de Hastinges, has left out altogether the entry 'Reginaldus de Cruce, _dimidium militem_', and has changed the quarter fee of Geoffrey fitz Piers into half a fee; while in that of the Bishop of Chichester, Robert de Denton's half fee is converted into a whole one. The later (Red Book) transcriber has made a further omission.