quite in the dark as to the development of feudal law in Normandy before
the invasion, and may be reasonably inclined to refer some at least of
the peculiarities of English feudal law to the leaven of the system
which it superseded. Nor is it easy to reduce the organization described
in _Domesday_ to strict conformity with feudal law as it appears later,
especially with the general prevalence of military tenure.

The growth of knighthood is a subject on which the greatest obscurity
prevails, and the most probable explanation of its existence in
England--the theory that it is a translation into Norman forms of the
_thegnage_ of the Anglo-Saxon law--can only be stated as probable.

Between the picture drawn in _Domesday_ and the state of affairs which
the charter of Henry I was designed to remedy, there is a difference
which the short interval of time will not account for, and which
testifies to the action of some skilful organizing hand working with
neither justice nor mercy, hardening and sharpening all lines and points
to the perfecting of a strong government.

It is unnecessary to recapitulate here all the points in which the
Anglo-Saxon institutions were already approaching the feudal model; it
may be assumed that the actual obligation of military service was much
the same in both systems, and that even the amount of land which was
bound to furnish a mounted warrior was the same however the conformity
may have been produced. The _heriot_ of the English earl or _thegn_ was
in close resemblance with the _relief_ of the Norman count or knight.
But however close the resemblance, something was now added that made the
two identical. The change of the heriot to the relief implies a
suspension of ownership, and carries with it the custom of "livery of
seisin." The heriot was the payment of a debt from the dead man to his