d contrary to the laws of the Conqueror [c]. 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. [d]. 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
Malmesbury tells us, that in the reign of William Rufus, the farmers,
on account of them, abandoned tillage, and a famine ensued [e].
[FN [b] Gervase de Tilbury, p. 25. [c] Madox's Hist of the Exch. p.
475. [d] Matth. Paris, p. 38. [e] 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, were frequent in
ancient times. If the vassal, being thrice summoned to attend his
superior's court, and do fealty, neglected or refused obedience, he
forfeited all title to his land [f]. If he denied his tenure, or
refused his service, he was exposed to