THE DOMESDAY BOOK 
through Cumberland, her obligation lay in prima warda of his army in 
going and in the rearguard in returning, her sub-feudatories holding of 
her by the same tenure as she held of the king.’ It was not a military 
tenure in the sense of knight’s service, for on the introduction of the 
latter tenure into a few of the fiefs by Henry II. in substitution of tenure 
by cornage, the sheriff had a remission of the cornage due from them, 
as in the case of Gillesland and Edenhall, or in the case of the manor 
of Old Salkeld, when granted by king Richard I. to Adam the cook 
for the service of one pound of pepper. That the tenure was not a 
military tenure, properly so called, appears more evident from the king’s 
upholding the refusal of Richard de Levinton® to answer the military 
summons issued for the siege of Bedford in 1224, when it was occupied 
by Faukes de Breauté. The sheriff was forbidden to distrain him, as 
he did not hold of the king in chief by military service, but by cornage. 
In 1256 the freeholders of Robert de Veteri Ponte in Westmorland, who 
held by cornage tenure, successfully maintained their immunity from 
undertaking military service (arma militaria) against their will? If we 
couple these matters with the evidence of the Pipe Rolls that none of 
the tenants by cornage contributed to the scutages* of Henry II. and 
Richard I., it will be difficult to resist the conclusion that the tenure was 
in some way connected with the defence of their own borders. 
The relation of the payment of noutgeld, as a feudal obligation, to 
military service will come out clearly if we examine some of the 
instances in which one tenure was substituted for the other. We have 
already mentioned the grant of the barony of Gillesland to Hubert de 
Vallibus in 1158 by Henry II. as a fee of two knights. It is notable 
that, though the Scotic owners did not recognize English rule, as soon as 
the district was recovered by the Crown it was assumed that the tribute 
of noutgeld was due from it, as a penalty attached to all the land in the 
county held zm capite. Here was ‘a clean slate’ on which the king could 
have inscribed military service without any reservation if the payment 
of the geld had not been a service inherent in the tenure of the Border 
districts. But that course was not followed. In the charter to Hubert 
de Vallibus creating the barony, and in the two subsequent confirmations 
to Robert his son, by Henry II. and Richard I., freedom from noutgeld 
was made a prominent feature of the baronial service. In the enrol- 
1 Ing. p. m. 31 Hen. III. No. 32; Bain, Calendar of Documents, i. 1713. 
2 Close Roll, 8 Hen. III. m. 8. 
3 Fine Roll, 40 Hen. III. m. 2; Bain, Calendar of Documents, i. 2067. Does the phrase ‘arma 
militaria” mean knighthood ? 
* The Pipe Rolls correspond with the Red Book of the Exchequer in making this point clear. 
The only fees in Cumberland assessed to scutages were Gillesland and Edenhall, which were held by 
knight’s service, the former by the service of two knights and the latter by half a knight (Pie Rolls, 
18 Hen. II., 6 and 7 Ric. L, 1 John; Liber Rudeus, i. 54, 85, 122, ed. H. Hall). Eight tenants 
holding by cornage paid fines in 1201 ‘ne transfretent,’ one of whom was Adam the cook, whose 
cornage had been remitted by charter for the nominal rent of one pound of pepper (Pipe, 3 John). 
Tenants in serjeanty and drengage were placed in the same category of fines in 1204 (Pipe, 6 John). 
It would seem that king John was attempting innovations in the assessment for scutage, for in later 
Rolls of his reign a return to the assessment of tenants by knight’s service is observable, though other 
tenants were assessed to the scutage of Ireland in 1210 (Pipe, 12 John). 
319 
