.]

[**** Madox, p. 529.]

[***** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 275, 276, 277,
etc.]

[****** LL. Will. Conq. sect. 55.]

[******* Gervase de Tilbury, p. 25.]

Danegelt was another species of land-tax levied by the early Norman
kings, arbitrarily, and contrary to the laws of the Conqueror.[*]
Moneyage was also a general land-tax of the same nature, levied by the
two first Norman kings, and abolished by the charter of Henry I.[**] It
was a shilling paid every three years by each hearth, to induce the king
not to use his prerogative in debasing the coin. Indeed, it appears from
that charter, that though the Conqueror had granted his military tenants
an immunity from all taxes and talliages, he and his son William had
never thought themselves bound to observe that rule, but had levied
impositions at pleasure on all the landed estates of the kingdom. The
utmost that Henry grants is, that the land cultivated by the military
tenant himself shall not be so burdened; but he reserves the power of
taxing the farmers: and as it is known that Henry's charter was never
observed in any one article, we may be assured that this prince and his
successors retracted even this small indulgence, and levied arbitrary
impositions on all the lands of all their subjects. These taxes were
sometimes very heavy; since Malmsbury tells us that, in the reign of
William Rufus, the farmers, on account of them, abandoned tillage, and a
famine ensued.[***]

[* Madox, Hist, of the Exch. p. 475.]

[** M. Paris, p. 38.]

[*** So also Chron. Abb. St. Petri de Burgo, p.
55. Knyghton, p. 2366.]

The escheats were a great branch both of power and of revenue,
especially during the first reigns after the conquest. In default of
posterity from the first baron, his land reverted to the crown, and
continually augmented the king's possessions. The prince had indeed by
law a power of alienating these escheats; but by this means he had an
opportunity of establishing the fortunes of his friends and servants,
and thereby enlarging his authority. Sometimes he retained them in his
own hands; and they were gradually confounded with the royal demesnes,
and became difficult to be distinguished from them. This confusion is
probably the reason why the king acquired the right of alienating his
demesnes.

But besides escheats from default of heirs, those which ensued from
crimes or breach of duty towards the superior lord