an inquiry into the circumstances, or took it upon himself to do so. That may appear surprising, since it was evidently a civil inquiry and, less than a century before, Thomas Becket had, by his death, won his battle against Henry II to preserve the jurisdiction of the ecclesiastical courts over criminous clerks. In consequence, it might have been expected that the misdeeds of Thomas and Abel would not have been the concern of the Crown. Such would likewise have been the case with Scoland, if he was implicated. In point of fact, it does look as if tongues may have been wagging against the parson of Stone, since Gilbert, in the report that he made to the King, was at pains to make clear that Scoland was much upset by what had occurred and was blameless in the matter.⁷
   Although there were three parishes in Kent named Stanes, or Stone, it is most unlikely that the affray took place in the diminutive parish of Stone near Faversham,

which was a chapelry of Teynham, or that Thomas and Abel had made their way to Stone in the far distant Isle of Oxney. Almost certainly, the locus in quo was the parish of that name which lies a mile or two eastwards from Dartford.
   The church of Stone by Dartford, which must have been built a few years either way from the time of this affair, is a puzzle, partly by reason of its quite exceptional magnificence and partly because, as is generally accepted, the royal masons at Westminster were responsible for much of the work. It may be that Scoland’s party had no connection with the building of the church or, alternatively, that it was given to mark the church’s completion. There is another and more intriguing possibility. Henry III was a man of great piety and he was also a great builder. If he felt, as well he may have felt, that so dastardly a deed called for expiation of a special kind, he would not have been