ABSTRACT
The most striking instance, possibly, of that confusion was Mr. Haldane's argument, before the Committee for Privileges, in the Great Chamberlain case:- if they were services of a higher degree, of a military nature, then you had knight's service, and it was petty serjeanty (serjeanty, of course, really comes from serviens), the work of a knight. 1
But, apart from this example of' clear thinking,' we have the statement in what is now the standard work on Magna Carta, that grand serjeanties were not liable "as a rule to payment of scutage. " 2 This is a relatively trifling slip, but if any serjeanty had been liable to scutage, the tenure would have been thereby proved to be, not serjeanty, but
knight-service.1 More surprising is the classification, under the head of ' serjeanties,' in a Record Office Publication, of such services as " to maintain 5 knights in the King's army for 40 days " 2 or " to provide two horsemen 3 at his own charge in time of war" or "to find three knights with horses, arms," etc.4 If this classification were right, there would be an end of my case. But, when we refer to the text, we find no mention of serjeanty. In the first entry (abbot of Sherborne) the words are :-"De feodis militum ...... baroniam suam, pro qua baronia faciet servicium f[ eod'J duorum m [iiitum]." 6 In the third (abbot of Glastonbury) the words are, " per baroniam, " and it is notorious that both abbots held by knight-service.6 The intermediate entry relates to William of Bigford, one of Fitz Alan's tenants by knight-service.7
