special interest. Domesday, on the other hand, looking at the matter from a more general point of view than that of the chronicler interested in the relations between the king and Canterbury, includes amongst royal dues the relief from the alodiarii and forfeitures from other tenants and other services and rents paid to the king. These tenants, it will be noticed, were Saxons who, in spite of Domesday’s use of the present tense, were no longer tenants of lands at the time of the taking of the Inquest, although they may have been so in 1071 at Pennenden Heath. It would seem probable that the Domesday account of customs owes many, if not all, its facts to the findings of the meeting at Pennenden Heath.
   A word should be said of Odo’s knights. Eight manors were held in dominio ; in the rest tenants were enfeoffed by the bishop. Sixty-four was probably the number of these tenants, although in cases where surnames are not given in the Survey it is sometimes difficult to be sure of the identity of the tenant. Two were ecclesiastics; many of the lay holders held land in several different vills, Ansfridus, ‘Hugo nepos Herberti,’ Adam son of Hubert, Ralf son of Turald each held in ten, Ralf de Curbaspina in eighteen, including some large manors. Some bore great names : Hugh de Montfort, Hamon the sheriff, Richard of Tonbridge. Some are found also among the knights of the archbishop: Wadard, Vitalis, William de Arcis, Ralf son of Turald. The holdings of these Norman tenants were probably more concentrated geographically than those of the Saxon tenants preceding them, but on this point more will be said later.
   Hugh de Montfort is interesting from a somewhat different point of view.. He was granted a collection of fiefs lying, as a glance at the map will show, as a geographical unit, with the castle of Saltwood, which he held directly as he himself claimed, or of the archbishop as was decided at Pennenden Heath, as a sort of fortified nucleus, commanding Romney Marsh. His fiefs, while small in extent, resemble in their contiguity to one another a Sussex rape. In addition to his fief, Hugh seems to have held a position of trust either under Odo, or independently. Freeman, following William of Poitiers, makes him warden of Dover castle, and on the whole Dr. Round seems to support this contention.⁶⁰  Hasted does not allow for Hugh’s wardenship, but regards him as subsidiary to Odo, showing how when Eustace attempted to take the castle in 1067 he chose the time of Hugh’s absence north of the Thames with Odo.⁶¹  The interesting point with regard to his lands is the evidence of William’s desire to have a military unit at a vulnerable spot, held for defence by one of his chief lords.
   A similar explanation may be suggested for the grant made to Richard fitz Gilbert, that is to say, Richard of Tonbridge, of his so-called lowy, which probably in no essential point differed in origin from the combination, of fiefs granted to Hugh, but which continued to exist and to add to itself lands and franchises in the days after the Conquest, until it became the great franchise described in the quo warranto proceedings. Richard held as tenant in chief, according to Domesday, only Yalding in Twyford hundred rated at 2 sulungs with 16 ploughs, and valued in the time of King Edward at £30, and now at only £20, because wasted, and East Barming (Barmeling),
   ⁶⁰  Commune of London, p. 281 ; Geoffrey de Mandeville, p. 326; Freeman, Norman Conquest, iv, 48.
   ⁶¹  Freeman, op. cit. iv, 75.