B 342466
DUPL
MWONIK MAINWV
.
bernambulis
mit widt
Ult
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
1. AMOL NAM
11
1817
WWUUR
IS
fo:
THITATU
SCIENTIA
ARTES
VERITAS
LIBRARY
OF THE
eram por RRE
...
MUHIMUSTES
HONK1:1,1.
Ci
MSPICE
Yuri
C.UW.WD ww WWW.In
YA
ITT
I!!!
***
*
:
JC
1
B3
1
:
!
JC
116
F'
!
31
Tbe University of Cbicago
POUNDED BY JOHN D, ROCKEFELLER
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE
IN ENGLAND
А
DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF ARTS, LITERA-
TURE, AND SCIENCE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO,
IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF
PHILOSOPHY
DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY
BY JAMES FOSDICK BALDWIN
CHICAGO
The University of Chicago Press
1897
TABLE OF CONTENTS.
Page
INTRODUCTION: Early Form of Military Service
-
.
V
CHAPTER
I.
Origin and Nature of the Scutage
I
1
1
!
CHAPTER II. Levies of Scutage under Henry II
-
18
CHAPTER III. Effects of the Scutage and Condition of
Knighthood under Henry II
59
CHAPTER IV. Scutage of Richard and John
66
CHAPTER V.
V. The Scutage under Henry III
-
86
CHAPTER VI. Scutage and Knight Service under Edward I
107
BIBLIOGRAPHY
115
A)
6- 2 ?
?
iii
Reil
INTRODUCTION.
EARLY FORMS OF MILITARY SERVICE.
In order to discuss the development of some of the peculiar
features of knight service in England, it is necessary to recall
kertain facts relating to the earlier forms of military service, as
they existed under the Anglo-Saxon and under the Norman
kings. It is not within the scope of this dissertation to present
any new views upon the beginning of English feudalism, or the
political relations of Norman to pre-Norman England. Of these
trite questions it seems as though satisfactory solutions have
been reached. That the Norman Conquest was "a catastrophe
which determined the whole future of English Law;" : that in Eng-
land "consecutive political history does, in a sense, begin with the
Norman Conquest,"' in opposition
"o in opposition to the older view that "it
(the Norman Conquest) must be considered as an event rather
than an overwhelming catastrophe,” 3 appears to be pretty well
established,
One of the most prevalent of all mediaeval institutions is
that of the obligation of military service for land.
It is an
essential feature of feudalism, but it is not peculiar to feudal
times or feudal countries alone. The idea is seen developed in
the declining Roman Empire, when requisitions for soldiers were
made by the government upon the landed proprietors; * under
Charles the Great, whatever may have been the theory of mili-
tary duty, in practice it was made dependent on the possessors
of land is in England, from the time Hengest and Horsa promised
* Polluck and Maitland, Hist. Eng. Law, I, 57.
Round, Feud. Eng., 317.
3 Palgrave, Eng, and Nor., III, 596. !
"It is not with the coming of William that the history or the law of England began."
Freeman, N. C., V, 55.
* Coulange, La Gaule Romaine, 292.
5 Capit., 808.
vi
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
.
to act in defense of Vortigern by virtue of their holding the
land of Thanet/military duty for tenure is apparent in some form
or other. The system naturally suggests itself and springs up
spontaneously wherever the conditions are favorable. When, by
reason of the demands for special training or expenditure
on the part of those who comprise the fighting force of the
country, the ordinary freemen can no longer be depended upon
to form an adequate army, and when the nation has not a fiscal
system capable of maintaining mercenary troops, the landed
estates of the country are alone capable of furnishing a soldiery
that will have the necessary equipment of horse and armor, to
say nothing of skill at arms and military esprit.
So, under the Anglo-Saxon system, the host which was origi..
nally the people in arms,' came to depend for its strength upon
the thegnhood. The thegn bore a twofold relation in the state.
First, he was generally, though not necessarily, a landowner. Five
hides are the traditional quantum since Alfred for a thegn to hold,
yet one might be a thegn and hold less, or hold more and still
not be a thegn. The presumption was that a thegn should have
the means to maintain his rank on the usual scale, and that one
possessing five hides of land was "of thegn-right worthy."
Secondly: as a soldier the thegn was of the character of the
gesith, a purely personal follower and beneficiary of the king.
That he was remotely a development from the early German
comes of Tacitus is not unlikely. As early as the heptarchy
period not only the kings, but other lords by gifts of land were
providing for these antrustions, who, being bound by special oath
to their lords, could be used more freely than the fyrd, which
could be arrayed only in the defense of the kingdom, while the
thegns could be mustered for any service. 1. By reason of this
personal connection with the king, the thegn-born acquired a
quality of nobility after the third generation. In this capacity
they resemble the knights of later time, and the documents some-
* Stubbs, C. H., I, 208.
3 Freeman, N. C., I, 90.
2 Polluck and Maitland, His. Eng. Law, I, 10.
* Gneist, Self gov., 4.
5 Stubb, C. H., I, 174.
1
INTRODUCTION
vii
i
times use the words knight and thegn interchangeably. Thus
cniht appears in the Codex Diplomaticus, and miles is used by
Latin writers. These things, among others, led Palgrave to call
the system of the Anglo-Saxons feudal. Thus:
"The feudal period of their government must be placed under Egbert,
when we suddenly discover the application of feudal principles in ensuring
and enforcing the imperial supremacy of the crown.
“But the full establishment of feudality appears in the reign of Edgar." 3
What is characteristic of true feudalism is not merely the
relationship of letter and hirer of land, or that of lord and vassal
alone, but the union of both of these. Of the twofold aspect.
of thegnhood, the thegn resembled the knight as a military fol-
lower of the king (or other lord), who owed personal service, at
his own expense of equipment, and at his own expense during
the campaign.5 Like the knight, the thegn on assuming his rank
was ushered in with the honorable ceremony of girding with the
sword and belt. The principle of commendation also was
extended to the utmost before the Conquest. Every freeman
inust choose his lord, and the lordless man became a kind of
outlaw. But in the aspect of a landholder the thegn was
imaterially different from the knight. Among the Saxons there
were none of the peculiar Roman forms of tenure, such as the
precarium, emphyteusis, colonat. Being free from these Roman
influences England developed its land system from its Ger-
man foundation, and so proprietorship in land was far less
complicated than in Gaul. All land, whether folk-land or book-
land, was subject to the trinoda necessitas. I/Each hide was to
furnish its man, and a thegn might be liable for five men or a
$ingle warrior five times as well equipped though this principle
was never carried out with strict regularity. In this way each
*“Hic Edwardi Regis armiger fuit, et ab illo cingulum militiae accepit.” (Ord.
Vit., 669. See also in Bede, miles.)
Palgrave, Commonwealth, I, 586.
6 Freeman, N. C., I, 91.
3 Ibid., 587.
7 Glasson, Droit Ang., I, 133.
4 Polluck and Maitland, His. Eng. Law, I, 44. 8 Stubbs, C. H., I, 211.
5 Gneist, Self gov., II.
9 Gneist, Self gov., 3.
viii
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
landowner performed service according to the amount of his
land. Under the feudal régime this was very different. Land
that had been allotted as knights' fees owed its given quota of
service irrespective of its extent or value. Lands that were not
specially designated as knights' fees did not furnish this kind of
service. The holder of knights' fees or a portion of one fur-
nished the particular service that this land called for, irrespective
of his own status or whatever other kind of land he might hold.
The Anglo-Saxon proprietor, on the other hand, performed ser-
vice, not because of a piece of land, but for the amount of his
land; not for land, but because he was a landholder. In the case
of knights' fees, however they might be divided and cut up, they
ever remained knights' fees; in the case of a five-hide estate
supporting one equipped as a thegn, if it was broken up, the
fragments would not be different from other small estates. It
is no proof of a theory, but a significant fact, that the word
beneficium by which tenure in Gaul was commonly known does
not appear in the document of England for this epoch.
The tendency which is conspicuous at a later time among
the knights is noticeable among the thegns--that of becoming
more attached to their landed interests than to their military
functions. The kings from the time of Canute had to depend
for their immediate needs upon the Hus-carls. In the summer
of 1066 Harold could not keep his regular levies together during
the long time he had to wait for William, and the battle of
Hastings was fought largely by Hus-carls.
Such was the uncertain but simple condition of military land
tenure to the time that the Normans came in 1066. An impor;
tant question then is, what ideas of tenure did William and his
men bring with them? One is confronted with the lack of all
distinct information of the jurisprudence of Normandy prior to'
1
the time of Philip Augustus. The most that is known is that
Normandy became French rather than remained Scandinavian in
character and language; that Roman influence is evident in the
chartered towns; the Duke did homage to the King of France
as suzerain and was a "peer" in a distinctly feudal state ; the
V
X
INTRODUCTION
ix
i
duke received homage and fealty of vassals acknowledging their
duties and services; an aristocracy became defined. At the
Council of Lillebonne, 1066, a dispute between the duke and
Barons arose over the service to be derived from their tenure,
just such as afterwards arose from time to time in England over
the question of foreign expeditions. Richard the Fearless,
perhaps upon the suggestion of Hugh the Great, had enforced
an extensive conversion of allodial lands into feudal tenure, and
the Baronage either accepted their Sovereign's bounty upon his
own terms or received a new investiture of their lands."2 The
words alodium, beneficium, foedum, honor, praecarium appear in the
documents defining tenures.3 Military service was due from
tenures, as seen from these extracts :
Is enim [i, e., William, brother of Richard II] fraterno contubernio Oxi-
mensem ab ipso [Duke Richard II] accipiens munere comitatum ut inde
exhiberet ei militiae statuta .... dominium ejus sprevit." *
William the Conqueror gave to the church of Lisieux
terram de Fontaines ... et servitium militum .... dominium cum
militibus quod dedit Olilia.s
The idea of the right of marriage is suggested when William
of Jumièges says that Richard the Good gave to his brother
William the county of Eu and a beautiful girl named Lescelina,
the daughter of a man of noble birth. Orderic says:
Guillelmus Gualterii de Falesia filius fuit et in militia nimium viguit, unde
Guillelmus Princeps (the Conqueror] filiam Guidmundi cum toto ei honore
Molinensi contulit.?
It is possible that the French kings may have claimed to
exercise the right of wardship over the dukes in the case of
Louis d'Outre-Mer and Richard the Fearless, and in that of
Henry I and William.8
· Palgrave, Eng. and Nor., III.
Palgrave, Eng. and Nor., II, 535.
3 Polluck and Maitland, His. Eng. Law, I, 47. Neustria Pia.
4 William of Jumièges (Duchesne), 250.
5 Neustria Pia, 585.
6 Polluck and Maitland, His. Eng. Law, I, 48.
9 Ord. Vit., II, 409.
8 Luchaire, Inst. Monarchiques, I, 118. Ibid., II, 16.
х
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
ܫ ܙܙ
But to say that Normandy was feudal does not tell much
about the system of tenures. It is not possible to say how
definitely military obligations were attached to land; very likely
the system was less fixed than that developed under the Norman
kings in England. The general uncertainty regarding Norman
institutions and the fuller knowledge at command of English
law have led to a belief that the customs of Normandy as shown
in Le Très Ancien Coutumier and the Grand Coutumier were a reflex
of the English administration, rather than that the English ten-
ures were an introduction from Normandy. Says Palgrave in
this connection, "the laws imposed by the Norman dynasty upon
the English were reflected back upon the victors;". Freeman
writes, “a system of feudal land-tenures was not introduced at
all, but was devised on English ground.' It may not be pos-
sible to decide the question absolutely, but if it is proved that
William the Conqueror instituted knights' fees, it seems a more
reasonable hypothesis that he built upon what he and his follow-
ers had been accustomed to in Normandy, than that he con-
tinued the Anglo-Saxon system. What little we know of the
feudalism of Normandy is more like the English knight service
than is the Anglo-Saxon thegn service.
While it is not possible to determine with what ideas of land-
tenure William came to England, there has also been great dis-
agreement as to what kind of tenure was sanctioned by the
Conqueror, and when knights' fees were introduced. The older
view of Selden and Blackstone is represented by Hume:
He introduced into England the feudal law, which he found established
in France and Normandy. . . . . He divided all the lands of England, with
very few exceptions besides the royal demesnes, into baronies, and he co42-
ferred these, with the reservation of stated services and payments, on the
most considerable of his adventurers.3
That is, an artificial form of feudalism was foisted full-fledged
upon the country, and the round numbers of a chronicler are
* Palgrave, Eng. and Nor., III, 626.
N. C., V, 377.
3 Hume, Hist. of Eng., I, chap. iv, p. 243.
INTRODUCTION
xi
accepted as authentic. This view has been supplanted by Stubbs
'
and Freeman:
r
9
1
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
þeen produced.?
The system of military tenures was a work of the days of William
Rufus. 3
It is strange that with all the records of the actions of the
Conqueror, which in most details are quite minute, and with the
Domesday Book, which is an extraordinary compendium of the
economic condition of the time, there should be no direct infor-
ination upon this subject. There is abundance of evidence of
grants made to Normans and of regrants made to Englishmen.
He governed and disposed of the realm of England as God 1066
permitted him.''4 It appears in Domesday that where there was
much rebellion, as in Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Cheshire, Derby-
shire, Shropshire, Normans were given estates; where the people
were submissive, as in Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Norfolk,
the English were allowed to keep their lands. William's con-
firmations read like the following:
Rex eorum sacramenta accepit, liberalita eis donavit gratiam
síuam, reddidit eis cuncta quae possiderant, habebat eos magno honore.5
Terras autem militibus ita distribuit, et eorum ordines ita disposuit, ut
Angliae regnum lx millia militum indesinenter haberet, ac ad imperium
regis, prout ratio poposcerit, celeriter exhiberet."
The use of the word "thegn"in the chronicle does not throw
light on the question of tenure? any more than the use of miles
before the Conquest. “Thegn" is used in 1124, much later than
any possible survival of the institution.
* For the argument showing these numbers are preposterous, see Round, Feud.
Eng., 290.
2 Stubbs, C. H., I, 283.
5 Will. Pict., 1066–7, 148.
3 Freeman, N. C., V, 377.
6 Ord. Vit., 1086, IV, chap. 7.
4 Ang.-Sax. Chron., 1087.
7 “And then were with him all the rich men over all England, archbishops, and
suffragan bishops, abbots and earls, thegns and knights." (Ang.-Sax. Chron., 1087.)
í
1
!
xii
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
ܐ ܙܙ
112
'
The conclusions from these premises, or rather lack of
premises, have been that “the customary service of one fully
armed man for each five hides was probably the rate at which
the newly-endowed follower of the king would be expected to
discharge his duty. The wording of Domesday does not imply
that in this respect [tenure] the new military service differed
from the old;": "There is no ground for thinking that William
directly or systematically introduced any new kind of tenure
into the holding of English land.”
The necessary corollary to these propositions is elaborately:
worked out by Freeman: “But we have seen that in the days of
the Conqueror there was no such elaborate system of tenure [as in
the charter of Henry 1]. The inference is obvious. The
system of military tenures and the oppressive consequences
which were held to flow from them were a work of the days of
William Rufus."'3
That is, in the fourteen years between 1086 and 1100 therje
was brought about a most remarkable revolution in the systenh
of land-tenures. Not only feudal aids and incidents and the
most flagrant abuses of these, but the foundation system itself
are all conceived of as "not introduced into England at ail,
but devised on English ground by the malignant genius of the
minister of Rufus.” All this is stated to be not only institutedt,
but firmly established in the rather short reign of William II:
for the inaugural charter of Henry I aims to correct not the sys-
tem itself, but the “evil customs” which have unjustly sprung up,4
and, as Mr. Freeman says, "there is no surer witness to the firin
establishment of an institution than that it is thought pos-
sible to reform its abuses without abolishing the institution
itself.”'5 It is possible that even the feudal incidents were better
known before William II than Mr. Freeman represents. Almost
*Stubbs, C. H., I, 284.
3 Ibid., 377. .
5 Freeman, N. C., V, 377.
- Freeman, N. C., V, 372. 4 Stubbs, Sel. Char., 100.
6 N. C., V, 374. “Relief does not appear in evidence before William II.” Yell
there is an entry in Domesday which says when a Kentish alodarius dies, “ Rex inde
habet relevationem terrae.” (p. 1.) Of the right of marriage he states that in the days
of the Conqueror there is some glimmering.
INTRODUCTION
xiii
the only thread upon which the Flambard theory hangs is a little
Yveak, for the authenticity of the charter of Henry I is not above
question.
If no ordinance can be produced by which military tenures
were established it need not seem very strange, when one consid-
fers the peculiar spirit with which formal enactments were regarded
ģin the Middle Age. A law to meet a particular emergency was
á thing which men always shrank from. The entire bulk of the
Waws of William would be an insignificant amount compared with
the standards of today. It would be in keeping with the gen-
eeral policy of William not to employ even an ordinance that
would seem to be striking at the existing order of things,' were
it possible to secure the same results by an understanding with
the individual vassals. It will be further shown that a general
Srdinance was not necessary, when the manner of enfeofment is
considered.
To the Norman followers of William there can be no doubt
that a settled feudal tenure was the most natural form of settle-
nient. The barons had knights personally attached to them-
selves — for example, the “knights of Bishop Odo;"3 and of
other barons the expression "his knights" is repeatedly used.
The Abbot of Abingdon required a guard of knights to protect
his person wherever he went and to defend his monastery. At
i first he hired mercenaries,5 but afterward he supported his
knights by grants that were strictly military. It has been sup-
posed that all grants at first were on the five-hide standard.?
1
1“We cannot refuse the conclusion that there was no written document testifying
t.) the creation of military tenure." (Palgrave, Eng. and Nor., III, 612.)
* Freeman, N. C., V, 368. 3 Ang. Sax. Chron., 1087. 4 Ibid., passim.
5 Primo quidem mercenaries in hoc utebatur. (His. Ab., II,
. ., 3.)
• His sopitis incursibus, quum jam Regis edicto in annalibus annotaretur quot de
episcopiis, quodve de abbatiis ad- publicam rem tuendam milites (si forte hinc quid
caussae propellendae contingeret) exigerentur, eisdem donativis prius retentis, abbas
mansiones possessionum ecclesiae pertinentibus inde delegavit, edicto cuique tenore
parendi de suae portionis mansione. (Ibid.)
7 The land is marked out not into knights' fees, but into hides, and the number of
knights to be furnished by a particular feudatory would be ascertained by inquiring
into the number of hides that he held. (Stubbs, C. H., I, 284.)
1
xiv
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT' SERVICE IN ENGLAND
There is nothing to support this view but the general theory of
the continuity of Anglo-Saxon institutions. As soon as there is
any data whatever there is obviously no five-hide standard either
for tenants-in-chief or subtenants.' In 1101, which is only al
short time after the enfeofments already referred to, there were
seven hides held of the Abbot of Abingdon for one knight.
When the five-hide unit no longer furnishes a working basis ą
£20 income is believed to be the standard for rating a knight's
fee. There is no positive evidence that a knight's fee in the
twelfth century was determined by its yearly value any more,
than by its acreage; although under the peculiar exigencies of
the thirteenth century 20 librates were decided upon as the rate
for the constraint of knighthood, Mr. Round has pointed out
the main difficulties in the way of this theory, but the facts may
be stated more fully.
The Pipe Rolls of Henry II, while raising many a question:
as to how much service a certain tenant owed, do not make any
reference to the income of the land as determining the quantum
of service due.4
When the lord came to sublet his land, it might be expected
that he would exact knights from his tenants after a similar rat->
ing. But a study of the Scutage shows that he did not do this.
It
may be well here to bring out some facts as to how the mesne
lords regranted the lands which they held of the king. A mesne
lord had the same rights of granting his domains to his vassals
i The Abbot of St. Albans owed the king the service of 6 knights, and he had
himself enfeoffed 6 knights, of whom one held 5 hides and i virgate for the service of
I knight; another 6 hides as a knight's fee; another 7 hides and 172 virgates as
knight's fee ; another 5% hides as a knight's fee. The number of hides in the other
two knights' fees is not given. The abbot had other hides that were not given ou!
as knights' fees. (Gesta St. Alban.)
* Bigelow, Placita, 78.
3“ The value of the knight's fee must already have been fixed at £20 a year.”
(Stubbs, C. H., I, 285.) Gneist's idea is still more unsatisfactory in the statement: “The
standard adopted was approximately that of the five hides' possession of the
Anglo-Saxon period, with a still stricter rating according to the value of the produce.”
(Gneist, C. H., I, 118.)
4 Round, Feud. Eng., 231-235.
1
.
i
INTRODUCTION
XV
as the king had in his domains. Suppose the lord was bound
to furnish the king 100 knights; was he sure to hold from his
tenants just 100 knights, no more, no less ? Not at all. Brac.
ton says: “As the donor may grant more freely than he held,
and charge himself and his heirs towards his feoffers, so he may
charge his feoffee with more services and other than those
which he owes to his feoffer. For he may make out of a
Socage a Military tenure, and conversely, if it has been so
agreed between himself and his feoffee.” And the documents
show this usage in early times.
1. A lord might enfeof his lands for more knights than he
owed to the king, as is seen from the fact that when a bishop-
rick was vacant and in the custody of the king, the Treasury
received more scutage than when the incumbent paid his servi-
tium debitum. The Lord was not allowed to gain too much
from the military tenures held of him, as he was allowed to
levy Scutage only when the king levied a scutage upon him,
and often he paid a fine to obtain his scutage."
2. A tenant-in-chief might grant out of a knight tenure a
holding free from service. In such case the domain retained
had to furnish the knight service for the whole.3 The grants in
elemosinam to churches were of this kind.
3. A lord might grant military fiefs with limitations of his
right such as did not exist between the king and himself.4
4. The obligations of the under-tenant to his lord might be
a perfect counterpart of those of his lord to the kings
These are instances enough to show that mesne lords not only
let out their holdings as they pleased, but it was not done upon
the basis of hidage or evaluation. These facts are of impor-
tance in their bearing upon the development of the Scutage.
* The Archbishoprick of Canterbury regularly paid for 60 knights, but when it
was in the hands of the king it paid for 89 knights.- Pipe Roll, 18 Hen. II, 180.
Roger de Verli paid 261. 8 d., that he might have the Scutage of his men. (21 y
Hen 11.)
3 Ancient Charters, Ed. Round, 11, 12, 21.
5 Sarum char., 193.
* Feet of Fines, 7, Ric. I, No. 75.
"In the place of a discordant system of national militia and personal vassalage,
xvi
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
The explanation of Mr. Round is full and convincing that
As against the theory that the military obligation of the Anglo-Norman
tenant-in-chief was determined by the assessment of his holding, whether in
hidage or yalue, .i. the extent of that obligation was not determined, by
his holding, but was fixed in relation to, and expressed in terms of, the yon-
stabularia of ten knights, the unit of the feudal host. And .... that his
military service was in no way derived or developed from that of the Anglo-
Saxons, but was arbitrarily fixed by the king, from whom he received his thief,
irrespectively both of its size and of all preëxisting arrangements."
Matthew of Paris, therefore, while he could not be accepted
as a first-hand authority to prove a theory for this period in
speaking of church holdings merely, is more nearly correct than
he has been given credit of being, when he says:
Episcopatus autem et abbatias omnes, quae baronias tenebant, et eate-
nus ab omni servitio seculari libertatem habuerant, sub servitute statuit nili-
tari; inrotulans episcopatus et abbatias pro voluntate sua, quot milites sibi et
successoribus suis, hostilitatis tempore, voluit a singulis exhiberi.”
The same thing in the main is true of all holdings that were
made military. The idea of a fixed servitium debitum as applied
in England was an advance upon the system in vogue in France.
There the great seigneurs were obliged to serve the king, but
they could elude the law and make the royal summons ineffect-
ive by bringing an insignificant number of combatants. Their
servitium debitum was not fixed; but 10 knights seems to have
been the minimum which a great lord could furnish. The
Count of Flanders in his treaty with Henry II agreed to furnish
the King of France no more than 10 knights to fight the Eng-
lish King -
In the case of the few great tenants-in-chief the service of
some number of knights, from 15 to 100, might be assigned
without much regard to the extent of their holdings. But in
the case of the small tenant-in-chief, who held but one or sev-
1
the whole of the landed property in the country, so far as it was able to bear the nec.-
essary burden of heavily armed troops, had to adopt the principle of a standing arn:
based upon the revenue derived from the land. (Gneist, C. H., 1,"117.)
Round, Feud. Eng., 261.
3 Luchaire, Manuel, 607.
> Mat. Par., Historia Anglorum, I, 13.
4 Liber Niger, 15 et seq.
INTRODUCTION
xvii
eral knights' fees, some regard had to be paid to the principle
which was necessarily the basis of the whole system- that a
knight's fee, like the estate of a thegn, must be sufficient to sup-
port the dignity and requirements of knighthood. While it
is true that the area of a normal fee was not infrequently
between 4 and 5 hides, the irregularity was too great to allow
of any fixed rule. On the same estate one will find fees con-
sisting of any number from 9 to 22 carucates."
There is another feature of the early knight service which is
to be carefully noted, because of its bearing upon the later devel-
opment of this institution. The "feudal system," so called,
which was introduced into England, does not mean a system of -
feudal government, but merely designates the system of land...
tenures which came into vogue. Any kind of free tenure,
whether by knight service, serjeantry, socage, burgage, frankal-
moigne, was considered a feodum with its respective obliga-
tions. That by knight service was the tenure par excellence ;
how extensive it was cannot be determined from any evidences
before the time of Henry II.2 The purpose of granting knights'
fees on the part of the king was almost exclusively military;
that is, to have a self-supporting army ready for any exigency
at his command.3 That the knights might be able to equip
themselves with horses and arms in a proper manner, they were
given exemptions from gelds and other burdens in the charter
of Henry 1. The political functions of tenants-in-chief, with
the exception of the earls, were scarcely thought of. They
were called together from time to time solely for the satisfac-
tion of the monarch, whether to take the oath of allegiance, to
lend their advice, or merely for pompous display. The barons
did not regard themselves of any consequence, by virtue of
their baronies, in the settlement of public business. The ques-
.
Red Book of Exch., 735.
* That the estimates of 32,000 or 60,000 knights are totally mythical, see Round,
Feud. Eng., 289.
3 Terras autem militibus ita distribuit et eorum ordines ita disposuit, ut Angliae
regnum-millia militum indesiniter haberet, ac ad imperium regis, prout ratio, popo.
scerit, celeriter exhiberet. (Ord. Vit., IV, 7.)
xviii
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
tion of a right on the part of the barons to a voice in the great
council for this early time does not need to be raised, because
there is no trace of any desire on their part to be summoned, as
a privilege and honor, before the reign of John, and even then
the summons was desired not as an honor so much as the means
of mitigating demands for money. So far as we know, there
was no such term as “Peer of the Realm” for the Norman
period. “ Earl” was used as a title ; “ Baron” was not so used,
much less “ Knight." //The knights of William were necessarily
adventurous soldiers, who were recommended by nothing but
their fighting qualities. In other words, there was the closest
connection between this form of land-tenure and personal serv-
ice in the field. If knights did not conduct themselves with
bravery, their fiefs might be taken from them and given to
others of better courage."3 || The writers of the time of the Con-
queror hardly refer to knights except in their military connec-
tion; thus there are probati milites, "good knights,” “brave
knights." Yet knighthood was of itself honorable, as the Con-
queror at Westminster, in the Pentacostal season, dubbed the
atheling, Henry, to rider or knight.- || But under William Rufus
there was an infusion of the chivalric idea, and the knight
first appears as belonging to a special class with peculiar ties to
others of that class. ll The expression probus miles, afterwards
so common, occurs for the first time. There is a manifest
increase in social prestige of knighthood, as is indicated by such
expressions as "a wealthy and powerful knight," "the noble
* Pike, Const. His. of House of Lords, 92.
Ignorant upstarts, driven almost mad by their sudden elevation, wondered how
they arrived at such a pitch of power, and thought they might do what they liked."
(Ord. Vit. IV, 8.)
3 When the Welsh in 1096 were besieging Pembroke castle, 15 knights, despair-
ing of resistance, made their escape in a boat. Their esquires were more faithful :
ex desperatione scapham intrantes navigio fugam attemptassent, in crastino mane
Giraldus eorum armigeris arma dominorum cum feodis dedit, ipsosque statim militari
cingulo decoravit.” (Gir. Camb. See Freeman, William R., II, 109.)
* Chron. Petrib., 1086.
5 Absit a me ut credam quod probus miles violet fidem suam. (Ord. Vit.
X, 7.)
INTRODUCTION
xix
knight, "* "who ranked high as knights and men of worth,”?
these phrases being employed aside from any military connec-
tion.ll In France it became a custom with the early kings to
create titles of knighthood purely as an honor. And it came
about that as the dignity of an honorary title was great, that
those who were already knights by virtue of their lands wished
to submit to the formalities of admission into the honorary
knighthood. // No such usage became common in England before
John, but there is a suggestion of it under William II, who, it is
said, "gloried in the pomp of his numerous troops. His great
delight consisted in conferring the honors of knighthood on
account of the worldly splendor with which it surrounded him."3.,
Under Henry I the employment of the baronage in the work
of administration becomes prominent. Many of the older nobil-
ity had proved themselves too wartike and fractious, like Robert
of Bellesme; these were dispossessed, and men of lower rank
were_endowed with the estates made vacant. Many of the
novi homines, though of humble origin, were ennobled, as nobil-
ity depended more upon land-tenure and the king's will than
upon the transmission of blood. In this reign undoubtedly
feudal tenures were thoroughly established. Yet the aid for the
marriage of the king's daughter in ling is stated to have been
raised not from knights' fees, but by a tax on the hides,' and
this "new-fangled form of exaction" naturally seemed unreason-
able to the people who were not feudal tenants. Yet such con-
fusion of the national and feudal ideas is to be constantly met
with. The king, according as it serves his purpose, has the
vantage ground of both suzerain and sovereign. | Among the
knights, encouraged perhaps by the spirit of the crusades, chiv-
alrous and courtier-like tendencies are growing? in spite of the
stricter discipline introduced by Henry on his accessio'n.//
Throughout the reigns of the Norman kings the array of
* Ord. Vit., VII, 22; Ibid, VIII, 24.
3 Ibid., VIII, 8.
a Ibid., VIII, 25.
* Ibid., XI, 3.
s Cepit de unaquaque hida Angliae tres solidas. (Hen. Hunt.)
6 Ang.-Sax. Chron., 1110.
? See description of changes in fashion of hair-cutting. (Will. Malm., II, 476.)
6
XX
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
knights was the main reliance in military matters.!! Of the
forces which followed William to England no enumeration is
made of any except the knights, and wherever infantry are
employed in conjunction with the cavalry figures are not given
to such an extent that one can estimate the relative numbers
generally used. Yet the popular levy, under the old name the
fyrd, was used by each of the Norman kings; whether to sup-
port them against a rebellious baronage, as at the beginning of
the reigns of William II and Henry I, or act as a reinforcement
of the knight service, as in 1097 William Rufus found he could
succeed much better against the Welsh with the aid of the fyrd;2
or it may have been simply convenient at times to call out the
fyrd alone, as, in 1094, 20,000 English were ordered to aid the
king in Normandy. Not counting the anarchical period of
Stephen, when the right of private warfare was almost admitted
by the king. Such was the legal status of knight tenure at the
beginning of the reign of Henry II. In a word, the chief differ-
ences from the old régime were:
1. Fixed obligations in tenure.
2. A strengthening of the hereditary principle.
3. A closer connection between land and title or rank.4
*1149; Henry came to England with 140 knights and 3,000 infantry. (Will.
New., 88.)
1119; “Acies pedestris in qua filii Henrici inerant.” (Hen. Hunt., 241.)
Henry of Huntingdon speaks in one connection of princeps militum and princeps
peditum. (278.)
3 Ang. Sax. Chron., 1094.
* Pike, Const. His. of House of Lords, chap. v.
CHAPTER I.
ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE SCUTAGE.
« The obligations of knight tenure may be considered as mili-
tary and non-military. The military obligations are those of
personal service in the field, and Scutage under proper con-
ditions / the non-military features are the three regular feudal
aids, namely, for the marriage of the lord's eldest daughter, at
the knighting of his eldest son, and for the ransom of his
person, besides the so-called feudal incidents, such as wardship,
escheat, forfeiture, marriage, which are hardly to be called obli-
gations.ll A non-military obligation of an irregular kind was the
Tallage. This was theoretically a gift to the king or lord, but
practically a mulct of an arbitrary nature. The Tallage was
generally levied by no regular method of assessment, and it may
be considered at times of a feudal, and again of a non-feudal
character, as it was levied upon a variety of objects, and often
appears in the light of class taxation.
As the subject of feudal taxation is studied in the Rolls the
names used are somewhat confused, and it will aid the following
discussion to define these terms. Auxilium, donum, assisa, and
scutagium, particularly in the early records, are used in senses
overlapping one another. Auxilium is used most broadly for
any kind of a grant, whether feudal or non-feudal. Donum also
is quite a general term, and is applied to a variety of ablations,
as the Donum vicecomitis, Donum praelatorum, Donum militum.
Donum, therefore, may mean either some form of Tallage or
Scutage. Assisa is an old-fashioned term meaning the same
as Donum. Tallagium is a word seldom used in the Rolls of
Henry II, but is much used at a later period. Scutagium will be
better defined at a later point. The use of these various terms in
the official records may be illustrated by the following diagram :
I
2
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
Auxilium
Feudal
Non-feudal
Occasional Aids,
called Dona
3. Regular aids -
I) Lord's Ransom
2) Marriage of the
daughter
3) Knighting of
the son
Tax on
Carucage
or Hidage
Scutage
mobilia
Tallage
1. On Towns
2. Desmesne
3. Carucates
4. Church lands
5. Jews, Moneyers, etc.
1
The word Scutage, says Madox, had both a limited and an
extensive sense--the one being that of payment in lieu of per-
sonal service; the other referring to any aid paid from the
knights' fees. // Whatever difference there is between the one
case and the other in regard to the object for which the money
was raised, the mode of levying was the same in either case. In
1168 an aid was raised for the marriage of the King's daughter;
auxilium is the word commonly employed in the Pipe Roll, but
scutagium is used here and there, as if interchangeably. The
subject of the Scutage, as it appeared under Henry II, will be
discussed in reference to origin, nature, occasions, and effect.
It has been supposed that there was no such thing as scutage
before the year 1156." But like some other institutions which
began under Henry I, and were more fully developed by Henry
II, scutage in some form or other existed in the time of Henry I.?
How generally it was applied, whether it extended to any but
fiefs of the clergy, does not appear; but from the fragmentary
references which have been found by Mr. Round, it is evident
that such payments were not unusual, and that they were made,
as at a later time, "pro militibus," that is, in accordance with the
2“The term Scutage, now (1156) first employed.” (Stubbs, C. H., I, 491.)
* Round, Feud. Eng., 268.
ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE SCUTAGE
3
number of knights owed by the tenants. The rate of assess-
ment for this early time appears as high as 1/2 l. per fee, a rate
higher than at any time under Henry II, and was not always
easy to pay. The assumption that scutage did not exist before
Henry II has been based upon the statement of Swereford, the
author of the Red Book of the Exchequer. He, however, only
states that, while he has inspected but few annals, he has never
observed or heard of the assessment of scutage for the time of
Henry I. It is also due this author to state that he modestly
claims knowledge from the rolls alone.3
Thus the church of Ely, which owed 40 knights, is given a
charter permitting it to pay 60 l. scutage instead of 100 l., which
it used to pay,3 and the Bishop of Norwich, who owed 40 knights,
complains of the difficulty of paying 60 l. for his knights. The
occasion, therefore, of a scutage in 1156 should not have created
any surprise. John of Salisbury, the only writer who says anything
about it, does not refer to it as a new thing 5 As the rate was 20 s. it
was less than had been paid before. The opposition, therefore, of
Archbishop Theobald, which is brought up by historians to
imply that the tax was a new departure, may have been not
against the Scutage as an institution, but against the particular
levy. The mere opposition of an individual churchman, as can
be shown in repeated instances, does not prove anything regard-
ing the validity of a constitutional principle. Likewise, it will
be made clear that the grumbling of the clergy over the exac-
tion of 1159 was not because they objected to the Scutage
itself.
The levy of 1159, which has been commonly called the “Great
I“ Praedicta ecclesia solebat dare de Scutagio quando Scutagium currebat per
terram.” Liber Eliensis, Charter, no. xxi. The authenticity of parts of this charter
is questioned by Mr. Hubert Hall, Red Book cliż, but the main fact of an assessment
on church fiefs is admitted.
3“Temporibus regis Henrici primi, licet ejusdem paucos inspeximus annales, nec
inspeximus vel audivi fuisse scutagia assisa.” (Red Book of Exch., 5.)
3 Red Book of Exch., 6.
4 Letters: Ed. Giles, 51.
5 Verum interim Scutagium remittere non potest, et a quibusdam exactionibus, etc.
(Jn Sal., Ep., 128.)
6 Stubbs, C. H., I, 492.
4
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
.
Scutage,” has occasioned most of the discussion as to the origin
of the institution. Kate Norgate finds its suggestion in the device
of Ranulf Flambard, who, when 20,000 men of the fyrd had been
called out in 1093 to follow the King to Normandy, took from
each soldier 10 shillings of the money he had with him for per-
sonal expenses, and disbanded the army. The explanation is a
fanciful one, for it is impossible to say whether the promoters
of the Scutage had the single event of 1093 in mind any
more than several other things not more remotely suggestive,
Stubbs considers that a precedent was found in the ancient
fyrdwite, the heavy fine by the Anglo-Saxon freeman for neglect
of the host.? The fyrdwite explanation does not meet the case.3
The fine and forfeiture of the Anglo-Saxons imposed for
neglect or desertion of duty+ had their exact counterparts under
the feudal régime. According to the feudal law, if a military
tenant failed in his obligations, he was guilty of a default, and in
an extreme case would be liable to forfeiture, which might be
mitigated to a fine. In 1205 John threatened with forfeiture
the knights as well as other tenants who failed to come for the
defense of the kingdom. The Scutage did not supplant the
fines, for in the 13th century fines for failure to obey the summons
went along together with Scutage in a peculiar way. The truth
7
* Norgate, Anj. Kings, I, 432. Also, Palgrave, Eng. and Nor., IV, 409.
2 Stubbs, C. H., I, 209 and 494.
3 John did the same thing with his barons in 1201. “Cum barones Angliae essent
congregati ad Portesmoue ad transfretandum cum rege, rex cepit de quibusdam illorum
pecuniam quam expenderent in servicio suo, et permişit eos domum redire. (Hoved.,
IV, 163.)
4 Stubbs, C. H., I, 209.
51203. Deinde in comites et barones occasiones praetendens quod ipsum inter
hostes reliquerant in partibus transmarinis, unde castella et terras suas pro eorum
defectu amiserat, cepit ab eis septimam partem omnem mobilium suorum. (Matt. Par.,
209.)
“Wer nicht erschien, ging, wenn er ohne Erlaubnis des Herrn daheim geblieben,
seines Leben verlustig." (Waitz, D. V. G., VIII, 144.)
6 Et si quis miles vel serviens vel alius terram tenens inventus fuerit, qui se inde
retraxerit, dummodo tanta non fuerit gravatus infirmitate quod illuc venire non possit,
ipse et haeredes sui in perpetuum exhaeredabuntur, et feodum suum remanebit domino
fundi ad faciendum inde voluntatem suam. (Sel. Char., 282.)
ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE SCUTAGE
5
one.
is that an exchange of money payment for any kind of service
is a most natural thing, and the principle is exemplified in various
countries, times, and conditions. Thus under the later Roman
.
Empire armies were raised by a system of conscriptions upon the
possessors of landed property. A great proprietor was bound
to furnish several soldiers from his estate or wherever he could
get them, while several small proprietors combined to furnish
This custom naturally conduced the government to replace
the impost in men by an impost in money; that is, for the
praebitio tironum was substituted the aurum tironicum. When the
state had more need of men than money it exacted the former;
when more need of money than men it permitted or prescribed
that the proprietors should pay for each man the sum determined. '
In Germany, as early as the 11th century, it was encumbent on
those remaining at home from an expedition to pay a tax.?
Indeed, some of the usages so resemble those adopted in England
as to render it likely that the English king received some
suggestion from the German custom.3, The device of two knights
uniting to support a third, as employed by Henry II, is likewise
exemplified in Germany at an earlier time. In France the idea
of commutation is worked out in the twelfth and thirteenth cen-
turies, and Philip III found it advisable to make a general appli-
cation of it. Particularly in the South of France did the nobles
obtain the privilege of paying money equivalent to the number
of knights they were bound to furnish, till in the thirteenth
century the soldiers who did the service of the host were for the
most part soldiers by profession.
* Coulange, La Gaule Romaine, 293.
2 Baltzer, 43, 44. Waitz, D. V. G. VI, 30.
3 Praedictus abbas (of Fulda] pecuniam quam pro Italica expeditione debuit, illi
dimiset. (1048. Dronke, 359. See Baltzer, 43.)
* Compare the statement of the English Chronicler, Robert de Torigni: “Preparavit
(1157) maximam expeditionem, ita ut duo milites de tota Anglia tertium pararent,"
with the following: "Si expeditis . . . . alio, duo ex illis tercio dent expensas."
(Bamberger, Dienstrecht. See Baltzer, 43.)
5 Langlois, Le Règne de Philippe III, 365. Daniel, Histoire de la Milice fran-
çaise, 1, 80.
6 Luchaire, Manuel, 197.
6
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
In England some forms of payment in lieu of military
service, that of payment to a substitute and payment to the
crown in reference to the fyrd, are visible in Domesday.' The
Abbot of Abingdon hired mercenaries before he had made
enfeofments. Even the payments to the crown in place of
service were not absorbed in the Scutage, for in the Pipe Roll of
1172 the Scutage was paid by those "qui nec milites nec denarios
miserunt."'3 Private substitution still went on, as in 1213 scutage
was paid by those "qui nec ierant nec miserunt."'4 It was a
general tendency of the times to pay in money all kinds of
services due from a vassal to a lord. The Dialogus de Scaccario
tells how the Norman kings found it necessary to receive
the dues at the treasury in money instead of in kind, so that
by the time of Henry I 1 s. was paid as the value of an ox, 4 d.
of a sheep, etc. The same principle was working more slowly
in tenures other than military. Instead of a fixed amount of
field labor or agricultural produce, a money equivalent was
agreeable to both parties. These facts show that it is unneces-
sary and even futile to refer back to any particular event or
institution as suggesting or forming a precedent for the Scutage.
The insular position of England made it less liable to attack
than the continental kingdoms, and the theatre of war being often
remote, it is not strange that the knight tenants preferred to get
rid of their obligations of personal service in whatever ways
they could
The origin of the institution being found to be in the general
tendency of the times, the discussion may now be directed to the
question, What was the Scutage? It is commonly referred to as
a “commutation of personal military service for money."? It
*Si quis in expeditionem summonitus non ibat, totam terram suam ergo regem
foris faciebat. Quod si quis remanendi habens alium pro se mittere promitteret, et
tamen qui mittendus erat remaneret, pro l. solidis quietus dominus ejus. (Customs
of Berkshire.)
2 See Introduction.
5 Dial., 1, $ 7.
3 Pipe Roll, 18 y. Henry II.
6 Vinagradoff, Villeinage in England.
* Walt. Convent., II, 217.
7 "The institution, on the occasion of the Toulouse war, of a commutation of
X Х
X
Y
ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE SCUTAGE
7.
has already been pointed out that the Scutage was not the only
form of such pecuniary commutation either before 1159 or
after. As early as any record of the matter is found, the Scu-
tage is referred to as paid by tenants-in-chief to the crown, and
the accounts in the Pipe Rolls of Henry II are of this kind;
but as soon as there are documents to indicate, it is seen that
there were similar relations established between the lords and
their tenants. Whether the system was extended from the for-
mer class to the latter, or from the latter to the former, it would
not be safe to say.
An accurate definition of the Scutage is not easy to find, for
the word was used in several different relations. The definitions y
given by historical writers are apt to be incomplete or incorrect.
Vincent, the editor of "Lancashire Lay Subsidies," says: "Scu-
tage was a duty or service arising out of baronies and knights'
fees, which compelled attendance on the king as chief lord,
when he went forth to war; with the alternative of paying in
lieu of service for each knight's fee a sum of money varied in
amount from time to time as necessity might require.” This
definition is quite inaccurate in confusing the personal service
and the money payment under the same name. A tenant, how-
ever, might hold in escuage, with obligations to pay scutage with-
out being a knight or ever owing personal service. The state-
ment is incomplete in that it does not allow for the fact that
the various aids levied upon knights' fees for knighting the
eldest son, marrying the eldest daughter, and ransoming the
king's person, were also called Scutage. To be true to all the
facts one must make the definition somewhat broad and leave
sore points to be brought out by a further discussion. The
Х
1
1
personal military service, for a money payment termed Scutage." (Tas.-Langmead,
97. Stubbs, C. H., I, 493.)
i
I * The Pipe Rolls indirectly give a little testimony on this point. Thus, the church
of Canterbury regularly owed the king 60 knights. But after the quarrel with Becket
aroße, and all the incomes from the lands of Canterbury were taken into the king's
hands, the scutage from the archbishoprick in 1166 was that arising from 8434 knights'
fee. Showing that if the archbishop were in his place he would have taken scutage
from his tenants, while he in turn paid the king. (Pipe Roll, 11, Hen. II, 109.)
8
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
X Х
appendix
Scutage was a form of tax levied by a pro-rata assessment of
the knights' fees of the kingdom. It was collected primarily
by the king of all or part of his tenants-in-chief according to
the number of knights they were bound to furnish. The ten-
ants-in-chief, having rendered their obligations, either by actual
service or a money equivalent in the form of a donum, promissum,
fine, or scutage, might in turn levy a proportionate rate upon
their tenants. The double aspect of the case, including, first,
the relation between king and tenant-in-chief, and, second, the
relation between lord and sub-tenant, is one of the utmost impor-
tance; for the one was dependent on the others On the one
hand, the lord could not collect from the sub-tenant until he had
satisfied the king; on the other hand, the lord might not be
able to pay the king until he had first collected from his men."
Nothing is more clear than that it applied to military tenures,
principally knights' fees, and to some extent serjeantries, but
whatever composition was applicable to the fyrd was not scu-
tage.?
There is a question that may be raised concerning the legal
status of the Scutage. It hinges on the question whether the
X king had a right to call his English vassals without their con-
sent into service outside the British islands. Liability to foreign
military service has been claimed to be of doubtful legality,
although before the thirteenth century the barons never objected.
The debate of 1197 has been pointed out as "establishing one
of the great principles of English parliamentary right.”3 Rich-
ard asked the assembled barons for 300 knights to serve in
Normandy for a year, or else money sufficient to hire as many
for that length of time. The Bishop of Lincoln made opposi-
tion on the ground that consent to the demand.would be an
* Ricardus de Reimes debet 10 l. de praedicto auxilio (1168) et de pluribus eker-
citibus; sed nondum potuit justiciare tenentes suos. (Pipe R., 30, Henry II, Essex
and Hert.)
2“The famous scutage, the acceptance of a money composition for military ser-
vice alike for the Old-English service of the fyrd and for the newer military tenures.
(Freeman, N. C., V, 674.)
3 Freeman, N. C., V, 695. Stubbs, C. H., I, 548.
}
;
i
1
ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE SCUTAGE
9
injury to his church, as the church of Lincoln owed service
within the bounds of England but not beyond. He referred,
therefore, merely to the prescriptive rights of his own church,
and not to any general principle of law. Other churches had
| similar prescriptive rights. Under John such claims became
numerous. . Thus, 1205, the knights of the Abbot of St.
Edmunds claim that neither they nor their fathers ever had
to do service outside of England, but paid scutage instead.?
How generally such prescriptive rights had grown up among
the churches cannot be shown, but it has been believed that
the church contingents were "for defense, not defiance."; It
is true, however, that the Bishop of Lincoln could not have X
meant to refuse the king scutage, as the church of Lincoln had
regularly paid it, likewise the Abbot of St. Edmunds paid scu-
tage, and his knights stated their obligations in these terms.
Mr. Round expresses the view that here is the explanation of
X
the fact that scutage as an institution first appears peculiar to
church fiefs. The explanation cannot be more than a plausible
speculation. Granted that such rights existed, it cannot be told
when or how they ever came about. They might have come to
be recognized since the institution of the Scutage as well as
before. Among lay holders there came to be arranged obliga-
tions on the part of sub-tenants to pay scutage and to render
no personal service at all. Such relations could spring up only
under the influence of the Scutage. Moreover, the claims of the
Bishop of Lincoln were not made good, for he and other barons
were made to suffer temporary forfeiture as for a default, and
afterwards were reinstated by paying a fine. The Abbot of St..
Edmunds feared in his dilemma that he also would lose his
seisin, as the king did not want his money, but men.5 Whatever
may be argued concerning the liability of church fees, the same
thing would not necessarily be true of lay fees. The oath
Hoved., IV, 40. Magna Vita, 248.
3 Round, Feud. Eng., 533.
Ric. Devizes, 409.
* Round, ibid.
5 Abbas (of St. Edmunds) vero in arcto posito, hinc videns libertatem suorum
militum periclitari, illinc timens ne amitteret saisinam baronie sue pro defectu servicii
ΙΟ
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
exacted by William the Conqueror seems broad enough to
include feudal service extra regnum." Yet after 1205, when Nor-
mandy was practically lost to the English king, disputes arose
between king and nobles. In 1213 some of them claimed they
did not owe either service or scutage for a campaign in Poitou.?
These claims were not made good during this epoch. In Ger-
many similar claims were made by vassals that they were
obliged to serve only within the kingdom or on the expedition
to Rome, but, says Schroeder, it is not to be believed that there
was any real foundation for these claims.3
To return to the legal aspect of the scutages as established
in 1156 and 1159, there is hardly ground for the notion that the
scutage of Toulouse was legally permissible when military ser-
vice could not have been exacted. The most that can be said
is that during the century 1066-1166, "in which the military
tenures are really military, as yet there is little law about them.
. In speaking of knight service before Edward I we have to
speak not of a stable, but an unstable institution."'5 As there
was no particular reason in law for establishing the Scutage, the
only motives for its systematic adoption will be found to rest
X
etc.
.
+
regis, sicut contigerat Episcopo Lundonensi et multis baronibus Angliae, statim
transfretavit, et .... in primis nullum potuit facere finem cum rege per denarios.
Dicenti ergo se non indigere auro nec argento, sed quattuor milites instanter exigenti,
(Ric. Devises, 409.)
I“Statuimus ut omnes liberi homines foedere et sacramento affirment, quod intra
et extra universum regnum Angliae Wilhelmo suo domino fideles esse velint; terras
et honores illius fidelitate ubique servare cum eo, et contra inimicos, et alienigenas
defendere.” (Sel. Char., 83.)
)
*1213 — " Dissentio orta est inter Johannem regem Angliae et quosdam de pro-
ceribus pro Scutagio qui nec ierant nec miserant cum ipso in Pictaviam dicen-
tes se propter in Anglia tenent non debere regem extra regnum sequi ipsum euntem
nec scutagio juvare. E contra rege id tanquam debitum exigente eo quod in diebus
patris sui necnon et fratris sic fieret.” (Walt. Covent., II, 217.)
3“ Nach den Rechtsbüchern beanspruchten die Vassallen, nur innerhalb der
Grenzen des Reiches oder bei Romfahrt verwendet zu werden. Dass dieser Anspruch
eine reale Grundlage gehabt haben sollte, ist nicht anzunehmen.” (Schroeder, 499.)
4 " It was scarcely fair to call on the military tenants of England and Normandy to
fight as a matter of duty for the aggrandizement of the estates of the Duke of Aqui-
taine.” (Stubbs, C. H., I, 494.)
5 Polluck and Maitland, Hist. Eng. Law., I, 231.
ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE SCUTAGE
II
upon policy and expediency. These may be set forth in another
connection. It has been claimed that the application of the
Scutage was contrary to the 11th clause of the charter of Henry
1,' which reads :
"Militibus qui per loricas terras suas defendunt, terras dominicarum car-
rucarum suarum quietas ab omnibus gildis, et omni opere, proprio dono con-
cedo," etc.
c
2
To show that this article could not have fairly stood in the
way of the Scutage, it may be well to indicate what was meant
by demesne lands. Demesne, whether of the king or any other
landlord, was that portion of his lands which he did not give out
in fiefs. The barons generally divided and sublet their holdings
among tenants who would be answerable to them. The tenant-
in-chief, who was under obligations directly to the king, was
perfectly free to distribute the weight of these obligations
among his vassals as he chose. He might (a) create the exact
number of knights' fees sufficient to discharge his service; (6)
he might create more than sufficient; (c) he might create less
than sufficient, If he created fewer fees than were
neces-
sary to discharge his own service due the king, the non-infeu-
dated portion became liable for the remainder. So in the cartae
of 1166 one of the inquiries made by Henry II was quot milites
super dominium. Of course it was not so easy to raise knights
from the unenfeoffed lands as from the other kind, as the
Abbot of Ramsey, who had made no enfeofments, afterwards
found out. At the same time, barons whose enfeoffed knights
were performing all the services that might be claimed of them
might reasonably expect to enjoy the full profits of the lands
which remained over and above. It was these domain caru-
cates only which were given exemptions. A tax upon knights'
fees pure and simple, therefore, could not have been objected to
on the ground of the charter of Henry I. But the Scutage in its
"Its universal application might be hindered at present (1156) by a clause in the
charter of Henry I, which exempted the tenants by knight service from all pecuniary
charges on their demesne lands.” (Norgate, Anj. Kings., I, 433.)
2 Round, Feud. Eng., 240.
I 2
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
2
inception was not regarded in the light of a land tax, but
appears as pro militibus or donum militum. Its basis was not the
knight's fee, but the knight's service, and there is no evidence of
any intention of making a tax on fees take the place of or sup-
plement the hidage tax." No objection to the impost could have
been raised; none was ever raised on the ground of immunity of
taxation.
The Scutage is commonly spoken of as a "commutation for
personal service." Commutation was certainly the basic idea of
the institution. The payment was made pro militibus, that is, so
much for every knight owing service. The conventional service
of a knight was 40 days in a year. Now the wages of a knight
at that time was about 8 pence per day, and a payment of two
marks would be exactly the wages of a knight for 40 days. But
Scutage was not the only form of composition. Hiring substi-
tutes privately still went on; sending money to the king con-
tinued to some extent in the old way;5 fines were paid for
default, as in the case of the Bishop of Lincoln and in the offer
of the Abbot of St. Edmunds. A rather nice question is, How
far did the privilege of commuting service by scutage extend to
the subject ? Could a lord upon a summons to war say, “I would
I“ The use of the word 'scutage,' implying an assessment of taxation based on
the knight's ſee instead of the old rating division of the hide," etc. (Norgate, Anj.
Kings, I, 432.)
“It marks a turning point in the history of military tenure. It broke down the
old exemption of 'fiefs of the hauberk' from pecuniary taxation, in such a way as to
make the encroachment upon their privileges assume the shape of a favor." (Ibid.,
459.)
?"At the moment (1156) no resentment seems to have been provoked by the
measure; its ultimate tendency was not foreseen, the sum actually demanded was not
great, and the innovation was condoned on the ground of the king's lawful need and
in the belief that it was only an isolated demand.” (Norgate, Anj. Kings, I, 433.)
3“ It is termed Scutage because such supplying of it appertains to the shield,
which is assumed for military service." (Bracton, I, 283.)
4" The two knights who bear the keys have each 8 (d.) by reason of their knight-
hood.” (Dial., I, 3.) In the customs of Berkshire the rate was 20 s. for 2 months, which
is also 8 d. a day.
s In the Roll for 1172 the Scutage accounts read, “de Scutagio Baronum qui nec
abierunt cum Regi in Hibernia nec milites nec denarios illuc p' se miserunt." (Pipe R.,
18, H. II.)
ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE SCUTAGE
13
rather not go to war, but will pay a scutage instead, and will reim-
burse myself from my tenants, and as they are bound to me for
more than I am bound to the king, I can make a little profit” ?
Such an absolute freedom of choice on the part of the subject,
if it became usual, would take from the king a considerable
degree of his control of the army. Such a negation of the royal
authority could never have been legally permissible. In the
Roman Empire the government exacted men or money accord-
ing as the one or the other was more necessary.' In the Rom-
fahrtsconstitution of Germany, it is expressly declared that the
lord is to decide which of his men shall pay the Herrsteuer
and which shall perform service ;? and in the Dienstrecht
of Cöln it is prescribed that the Ministeriales must either follow
their lord into the field or pay the Herrsteuer, as the lord should
determine.3 While in Germany the lords were the unit of the
political system, in England the king always remained the real
center of authority. It will be found that he did not willingly
lose control of the feudal host as a fighting machine., Moreover,
the opportunity of a composition was not always given. It was
not for every campaign that a scutage was levied at all. So,
while there was a scutage for the campaign of Ireland in 1171,
there was none for the campaign of Scotland in 1173. It is true,
as a rule, that scutages were levied in the case of the larger cam-
paigns, when the entire knighthood of the kingdom was sum-
moned, but not in the case of smaller expeditions, when only a
part of the host was brought into the field. Another most
important fact to be remembered in considering the Scutage as
a whole is, that while the scutage of 1159 was announced prob-
ably in advance of the campaign, the method which came to be
established was to levy the money some time after. The cam-
paign of Ireland in 1171 was accounted for in the Rolls of the
*
Coulange, La Gaule Romaine, 293.
2" Da war es natürlich von Wichtigkeit, ob der Herr bestimmen konnte, wer von
seinen Mannen ausziehen, wer steuern sollte. Die Befugnis, hierüber zu entscheiden,
wird dem Herrn gegenüber seinen Ministerialen in der Romfahrtsconstitution aus-
drücklich zugesprochen." (Baltzer, Geschichte des deutschen Kriegswesen, 44.)
3 Baltzer, Ibid.
14
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
following year, and from that time such was the customary
method of levying the Scutage. So that in 1159 the barons may
have had this option presented to them; generally they could
not know whether they would be allowed to offer a scutage
instead of their service or not. The rate also was not deter-
mined till after the defaulters had made themselves derelict, and
as it varied under Henry II from í mark to 2 marks, and under
subsequent kings it might be much more, they could not tell in
advance how much they would have to pay.
Furthermore, it is evident that if a choice between personal
service and payment of scutage were given, the barons would
everyone have chosen to pay the scutage, and the king in tak-
ing this money to hire mercenaries would have been the loser
thereby. For while at the time of the Toulouse campaign 2
marks may have sufficed to hire a knight for forty days, the
wages of a knight seems from about this time to have gone
up. In 1198 the abbot of St. Edmunds hired knights at the
rate of 3 shillings a day, and the rate became higher in the
thirteenth century. In the treaty made by Henry with the
Count of Flanders, the count was to furnish 1000 knights for a
subsidy of 500 m. a year. But in addition to the subsidy to the
count, who was not to offer any obstacle to any of his men wish-
ing to serve the king of England, the individual baron was to
receive 30 m. for his own service and a following of ten knights."
While 2 m. was about the cost of a knight for forty days under
Henry, the rate of scutage was more often i mark. It would
not have been a paying business for the king to have dismissed
a soldier for i mark, when he would have to pay 2 marks or
more to hire another soldier. The Scutage, therefore, considered
as an institution was not in a full sense a commutation of service,
although the idea of commutation was at its foundation. The
legal obligations of the king's vassals to furnish their quota of
knights was not in any way altered. If they neglected the sum-
mons they did so at their peril, but if an opportunity was offered
for them to pay scutage instead, they were generally glad to do it.
* Lib. Nig. 15 et seq.
X
CRIGIN AND NATURE OF THE SCUTAGE
15
no
If one tries to discern the reasons which actuated the intro-
duction of this institution, he will have to consider some of the
effects at the same time, for causes and effects are necessarily
intertwined and act and react one upon another. The reasons
assigned by the writers of the time are:
“ Considerans longitudinem et difficultatem viae, nolens vexare agrarios
milites nec burgensem nec rusticorum multitudinem," etc. (Rob. de Monte,
1159.)
Mavult enim princeps stipendiarios, quam domesticos bellicis opponere
casibus." (Dial., I, 9.)
The Latin writers of the Middle Age are apt to follow the
models of Julius Caesar in assigning some reason for every phe-
nomenon, even though it is a purely fanciful one. The writer of
the Dialogue, with all his array of facts, is particularly prone to
speculative discursions, while at the same time he loses no
opportunity for eulogy of the prince. That he is not strictly accu-
rate in regard to the scutage may be seen in the same sentence as
that part already quoted, when he says that the scutage is raised
for defensive war: "imminente vel insurgente in regnum hostium
machinatione decernat rex de singulis feodis militum summam
aliquam solvi.". The explanations of these writers then, while
they are not to be disregarded, are yet to be considered in the
light of facts. Robert de Monte is certainly within the bounds
of truth in indicating that an expedition to Toulouse would be
long and difficult for Englishmen, and would be considered a
grievous hardship. To force them to go would have been “both
unjust and impolitic, if not absolutely impracticable."'s The
expression agrarios milites, suggests that a number of the
knights were more interested as proprietors in looking after
their estates than they were in the dubious fortunes of war.
Giraldus, in writing about 1170, describes a knight industriously
looking after the sowing of his crops. It has been observed
that the existence of sınall aliquot parts of knights' fees soon
after' 1159 is a result of the custom of commuting military
3 Gir. Cam., IV, 229.
Dial., I, 9.
• Norgate, Anj. Kings, I, 459.
16
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
1x?n,,,
service by payments. The practice of granting fractions of
knights' fees had in a measure begun before Henry II, Consid-
ered in this light, the Scutage was even a necessary expedient
for obtaining the services due from a reluctant knighthood. The
church tenants would naturally be less inclined to the pursuit of
war than other tenants, and it is not strange that the Scutage
in first appearance is applicable to church
tenants,
Another explanation given is that the king wished to be inde- |
pendent of his barons and to have mercenaries in their stead.'
Freeman designates the tax as "a blow at feudalism;"3 Stubbs
speaks of it as the “disarming of the feudal party,"4. In consid-
ering these questions it must be remembered that the Scutage
was not merely an expedient for a single year, but a permanent
institution. Motives of a temporary nature, which would have
been sufficient for making a single experiment, will not account for
its permanent adoption and continuance for 200 years. The
causes must likewise have been of a permanent nature. It is
true that at the beginning of the reign of Henry II the barons,
after the license of the previous reign, needed to be restrained.
Their political power was curtailed, but it was not intended that
they should be less serviceable in the king's army. In most of
his campaigns Henry depended on the support of his barons; in
the campaign of Toulouse, we are told, they took part, but not
with many followers. The fyrd had at times been used by the
Norman kings against the obstreperous feudal barons, but hence-
forth, being recognized by Henry II in the Assize of Arms,
it :
was to act in support of the feudal host, because the latter was
not sufficient for all the military needs. None of the Anjevin
kings rose to the conception of a modern standing army of mer-
cenaries. Mercenary troops were never more than a temporary
makeshift. It will be shown how subsequent kings did their
Lest not to break down, but to maintain the feudal service. It
* Polluck and Maitland, I, 246.
3 Freeman, N. C., V, 674.
* Taswell-Lang., 97.
Stubbs, C. H., I, 214.
5" Capitales barones suos cum paucis secum duxit, solidarios vero milites innu-
meros." (Rob. de Monte, 1159.)
ORIGIN AND NATURE OF THE SCUTAGE
17
SO
seems on the whole a reasonable belief that, as there were
many knights averse to performing their military service at any
particular time, the king would not find it expedient to push
them to extremities under penalty for default. The Scutage,
therefore, so far from being a means of breaking down the feudal
service, was rather a means.of-maintaining it. It is a noteworthy
fact, gathered from the Exchequer roll, that no one of the great
lay barons of the kingdom paid the sçutage of 1159. Only such
of the large baronies as were for the time in custody are
accounted for in this levy. It may be questioned from this
whether they could have remained at home instead of attending
the expedition when summoned. Those who took part in the
contribution were the churchmen, the minor tenants-in-chief, and
probably the subtenants of the great barons. But the surmise
of Polluck and Maitland is not correct, that the king himself
took the scutage of the undertenants. The king makes no account
of undertenants until after the inquest of 1166, and even then
the assessment is made directly upon the lord,
I"The king does not give his capitales barones an option between going to the
war and paying scutage, but he absolves from the duty, of personal attendance their
undertenants, and instead he takes a scutage.” (His. Eng. Law, I, 250, Note 2.)
CHAPTER II.
LEVIES OF SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY II.
1
There is not enough recorded of the Scutage of Henry I to
make any discussion of it for that time possible. The first
scutage of Henry II, as has been said, was in the second year,
and was upon church tenants only. A levy of a scutage was
usually closely associated with the levy of some other kind of
aid, both because the scutage alone would not have brought in
enough money, and because it was equitable to bring other classes
besides the knight tenants under the taxation. Inasmuch as the
various tallages have sometimes been confused in the minds of
writers with the Scutage, and as it is desirable to show the rela-
tive importance of the various scutages and other aids, a method
of analysis will be followed for each year.
The special levy for the second year consisted in:
I. An auxilium of cities and burgs.
By making a comparison of the tallages of a few towns taken
at random, as paid in the second year and fifth year respectively,
the nature of this levy will easily be seen :
Tallage
Tallage
paid ad year
paid 5th year
London,
I 201.
10431.
Norwich,
50in. 4141. 135. 4d.
- Burg of Geldford,
Iom.
Southwark,
Huntington,
87.
lol.
Canterbury,
12l.
201.
Hertford,
50m.
Colecester,
121. 18s. 8d.
Bedford,
40m.
York,
401. 1331. 6s. 8d.
Lincoln,
401.
Although the sums in the aggregate of the fifth year were
IOOS.
I OOS.
Iom.
IOOS.
Iom.
18
LEVIES OF SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY II
19
fifth year.
much larger, some towns paid more in the second year, and
some which paid in the second year did not pay anything in the
Stafford and Hertford paid a second aid, de alio
auxil., and Salisbury paid a donum besides an auxilium. It is
obvious that the towns were assessed not on any principle of
area, wealth, or population, but arbitrarily by the king or his
officers. The tallage of cities and burgs for this year amounted
to about 450 1.
II. An auxilium or donum of the counties.
The kingdom was not yet reorganized, and certain of the
counties were not accounted for in the rolls at all : Northumber-
land, Chester, Rutland, Carlysle. Most of the counties are
accounted for in this aid; but Norfolk, Suffolk, Surry, Bucking-
ham, Bedford, and Stafford are not. The accounts are in some
cases confused, as the returns from murder fines and pleas and
the donum are given in a lump sum." Where the amounts of the
donum or auxilium of the various counties can be clearly made
out they are reduceable to a round number of marks, e.g., 40 m.,
60 m., 80 m., 100 m., 120 m., 200 m., 400 m., with no apparent
basis of assessment. Making some allowance for a little con-
fusion in the method of recording the accounts, the sum total of
the auxilium comitatus was not much over 1500 l.
III. A scutagium militum.
The rate was 20 s. per knight. A table will show how fully
it was carried out:
Knights due Money paid ad year Money paid 5th year
Bishop of London,
2ol.
Bishop of Lincoln,
60
80l.
Archbishop of York,
20 (7)
71.
91. 6s. 8d.
Bishop of Durham,
Iol. .
Bishop of Chester
15
151.
30m.
Bishop of Bath,
201.
40m.
Bishop of Exeter,
17% (1572) 151. Ios.
231. 6s. 8d.
Bishop of Hertford,
15
151.
Bishop of Winchester,
60
561. ios.
80l.
Bishop of Salisbury,
32
3ol.
* Et Id. vic' redd' Comp'de 122 l. 13 s. 4 d. de murdr' et plac p Henr' de Essex et
de dono Comitatus. (2, Hen. II, 47.)
20
541.
IO
20m
-
20
20
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
Knights duc
Money paid ad year
Money paid 5th year
4
50
41.
3
15 (?)
4
6
405.
401. Ios.
405.
71.
41.
116s.
201. 105. (incomplete)
.
411.
12m.
40
I
205.
2 [3]
бт. .
bos.
10l.
2
405.
4m.
2
20S.
Bishop of Chicester,
Bishop of Worcester,
Abbot of Chertsey,
Abbot of Westminster,
Abbot of Ramsey,
Abbot of St. Albans,
Abbot of Glastonbury,
Abbot of Michelney,
Abbot of Cerne,
Abbot of St. Edward,
Abbot of Sherburne,
Abbot of Middleton,
Abbot of Abingdon,
Abbot of Burc,
Abbot of Tavistock,
Abbot of Hyde,
Abbot of Malmsbury,
Abbess of Wilton,
Abbot of Evesham,
Abbot of Pershore,
Abbot of St. Augustine,
Abbot of Abbotsbury,
Abbot of Winchcombe,
Chapel of Bosham,
30
60
15 (?)
401.
80l.
231. 1os.
60l.
iol. ros.
202.
6os.
52.
20
40ni,
uru w
IOOS.
lom.
2
405.
151.
.
-ūna
15
I
IOS.
201.
2m.
4m.
2
40s.
71. Ios.
7½
Thus most of the churchmen paid in full according to the
amount of service due; but in some cases they paid and were
acquitted for a less amount, e.g., Bishop of Lincoln, Bishop
of Winchester, the Bishop of Salisbury, the Bishop of Worces-
ter, the Abbot of Chertsey, etc. It may be that the exact
amount of service due in each case had not always been insisted
on, and that the king did not find it prudent at that time to be
too rigid. There could hardly have been any different appor-
tionment made between the second year and the fifth year.
Perhaps the opposition of Archbishop Theobald made some
difference, for Canterbury is not charged for any scutage; nei-
ther were the bishopricks of Ely, Norwich, and the houses of St.
Edmundsbury, Coventry, Shaftesbury, St. Benedict. It is hard
to see any reason for these exemptions, as most of them cer
LEVIES OF SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY II
2 I
tainly were not in the king's hand at the time, and paid at the
next scutage. The entire amount of the scutage for the second
year was less than 500l. The entire servitium debitum from
church fiefs amounted to 784."
SCUTAGES OF THE FIFTH, SEVENTH, AND EIGHT YEARS.
The scutage of 1159 is commonly given as the beginning of
the levy upon lay tenures. Yet in the Pipe Roll of the third
year, for the single county of Northamptonshire, there is
record of a scutage of the Abbot of Abbotsbury and the
knights of the county for the Welsh war of that year. This is
in fact the first record at hand of a lay scutage, although it was
by no means a general levy. It is noteworthy that in the Pipe
Roll for the fifth year the word scutagium does not appear but a
few times. The entire special levy for the year is under the
name donum. It has already been pointed out that donum may
mean aid, scutage, or tallage. It was believed by Alexander de
Swereford that the entire donum for the year was some kind of
a scutage, and this view has been perpetuated by Madox, Kate
Norgate, and others. It is plain, however, that the items include
several kinds of donum, e.g.:
"Id vic Redd' Comp'de 200 m. de dono Episcopi Lundon."
“Id vic Redd' Comp’de 40 m. de dono militum ejusdem episcopi." 3
I. The donum militum, or scutage of 2 m. per knight's fee :
paid alike by clerical and lay tenants.
II. A donum: arbitrarily fixed on clerical tenants-in-chief,
irrespective of their fees, and whether they paid donum militum
or not.
III. A donum: arbitrarily fixed on some of the non-military
religious houses.
IV. A donum: arbitrarily, fixed on towns. These amounts
were much larger than those of the second year, as has been
shown before.
V. A donum from some of the sheriffs :
3R. 5, H. II, 4.
* Round, Feud. Eng., 282.
* Madox, His. Exch., I, 625.
22
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
This did not correspond in amount to the auxilium comitatus
of the former year.
For example :
Donum of sheriffs
Aux. comitatus
Devonshire,
Dorsetshire,
Nothinghamshire,
Somerset,
Yorkshire,
-
room. .
2ol.
Iom.
2om.
50m.
1221. 135. 3d.
541. 25.
8ol.
.
2601. 135. 4d.
Iooni.
VI. A donum from the Jews.
VII. A donum from the moneyers."
The entire amount of the various dona is calculated to be
about 12000 l., while the scutage was about 2440 1. The special
donum from the clergy produced 3130 l., while the regular scu-
tage of the clergy was only 1101 m. Thus it is plain that the
scutage was only a small part of this year's special levy. Wel
are told that the campaign of Toulouse was large and expensive,'
and it took all of these devices and perhaps more to pay a large
army of mercenaries. The churchmen complained bitterly of
the extortion as being a sheer robbery, contrary to the ancient
customs and exposing them to the arbitrary will of the king's
officers. A large share of the blame for the Scutage is laid at
the door of the Chancellor. But if Becket is to be given credit
for any originality in this matter, it is in regard to taking from
the clergy a special donum, such as had before been taken from
towns, counties, and sheriffs. It is also noticeable that both the
* Round, Feud. Eng., 276.
3."Habuit secum viginti millia Brabancenorum qui fideliter servicrunt illi, et non
sine magna mercede, quam eis dedit.” (Hoved., II, 47, 65.)
3(1159) “Rex. magno congregato exercitu obsedit Tolosam ; et quamvis
ibi diu sedisset, et thesauros suos in variis expensis exinanisset,” etc. (Hoved., I,
217.)
4“Tolosam bello aggressurus, omnibus contra antiquum morem et debitam liberta-
tem indixit ecclesiis, ut pro arbitrio ejus satraporum suorum conferrent in censum
Nec permisit ut ecclesiae saltem coaequarentur in hac contributione, vel magis cxa
tione tam indebita." (Sal. Ep., 145.)
5 Norgate, Anj. Kings, I, 461.
6“Ille quidem gladius quem in sancte matris ecclesiae viscera vestra paulo
manus immerserat cum ad trajiciendum in Tolosam exercitum tot ipsam marci
millibus aporiastis." (Gill. Foliot, Ep., 194.)
LEVIES OF SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY II
23
scutages of 1156 and 1159 were paid with great promptness,
leaving few arrears for the rolls of the following years, whereas
the tallages of towns and counties were quite slow in payment.
The Red Book of the Exchequer states that the levy of 1159
was for an army of Wales, and that the contributions of 1161
and 1162 were for the army of Toulouse. There is no state-
ment in the Pipe Rolls upon this point, but the venerable author-
ity of Swereford has been displaced by collateral evidence that
the donum in question was for the Toulouse campaign. Yet
there is some justification of the error. The normal practice of
the Exchequer for nearly the whole period of the scutages was
to record them the year following their assessment. Swereford
states this as a general principle, and inasmuch as there was
fighting against Wales in 1157, 1158, and 1159, he not unnatu-
rally assigned one of these campaigns as the object of the levy.
There is still something further to be learned from his very
error. The chronology for the campaign of 1159 was as follows:
March 22, Henry advertises his intended expedition.
July 1-3, muster of forces at Agen.
September 22, Henry breaks up the siege.3
Now it would not have been possible for the barons at the
close of the campaign to have gotten their certificates from the
marshal, to have made their levies upon the subtenants, and to
have paid the money at the Exchequer by the Michaelmas ses-
sion, in the way that was usual at a later time. The contri-
bution of this year, therefore, must have been an oblation made
in advance of the campaign, and so was not a scutage in the
accepted sense of the term, and was very properly called a
donum.5
The next levy of this kind was in 1161, recorded in the Rolls
of seventh year:
I. A donum of the towns.
Red Book, 6 and 7.
3 Eyton, Eyres, 44-47.
2 Henry of Winchester “dederat enim paulo ante quingentas marcas regi ad
expeditionem Tholosanam.” (Gir. Cam., III, 357.)
4 Hubert Hall, Red Book, clxxxv.
5 Ibid., cxcii.
24
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
A few examples will show the irregularity of these tallages :
2d year
5th year
th year
1201.
50m.
10431.
4141. 135. 4d.
Ioos.
Іот. .
IOOS.
Iom. .
iol.
2001.
Iom.
Ioos.
lol.
201.
82.
12l.
201.
I QOS.
50m.
20m.
London,
Norwich,
Geldford,
Southwark,
Huntingdon,
Canterbury,
Hertford,
Colecester,
Bedford,
York,
Lincoln,
Chicester,
Gloucester,
Exeter,
Northampton,
121. 18s. 8d.
1
Iom.
40m.
40m.
200m.
200ni.
401.
401.
5m.
room.
1
15%.
2ol.
5m.
50m.
2631. 135. 4d.
200m. .
801.
40m.
16om.
I
II. A donum from the Moneyers.
III. A scutage of 2 m. per knight's fee.
The records of this scutage show a more careful account of
the smaller tenants-in-chief. In the former year the sheriff
generally rendered the scutage of the tenants of the county en
bloc, and this method was still continued in some cases, e. g., a
sheriff renders account of 1061. for the knights of Essex and
Hertford. But in Norfolk and Suffolk, besides four great
barons, like the Bishop of Norwich (40 knights) and the Abbot
of St. Edmunds (40 knights), who together owed the service
of 125 knights, there were some 54 persons, most of whom owed
service for one or one-half fee, owing service in the aggregate for
91 knights. The number of small knight tenants was at this time
quite large and was destined to increase. The sum total of the
scutage is about 2244 1.
It was customary to levy a scutage in reference to some
definite military campaign for which a general summons had been
issued. As to the scutage of 1161, there is no direct evidence in
the Rolls for what object it was taken. The Red Book states that
this was the scutage of Toulouse. Stubbs suggests that the
*R. 7., H. II, 67.
2 Red Book, 7.
LEVIES OF SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY II
25
a way
money was raised to defray debts incurred in the Toulouse cam-
paign.' This would have been contrary to all customary usage.
If it was done, the levy must have been either (1) on all tenants-
in-chief ; (2) on the same contributors as in 1159; or (3) on a
new set of contributors. The assessment was made, however, in
which shows no connection with the former one. It seems
to be true that after a brief peace following the campaign of
Toulouse,3 Henry was at war again with Louis. It is evident
from the Pipe Roll that there was a gathering of forces at
Pevensey, as each of the tenants owing scutage in the county of
Sussex is recorded as being acquitted for liveries to the knights
of Pevensey.5
The next levy to be considered is that of the eighth year,
1162. It consisted in:
I. A Danegeld. The last imposition of this tax, from which
churches and religious houses were "pardoned.”
II. A donum or auxilium upon towns.
E. g. :
2d year
5th year
7th year
8th year
1131.
4141, 135. 4d.
5m.
251.
301.
50m.
2001.
5m.
121. 18s. 8d.
20.
201.
201.
2631. 135. 4d.
Iool.
160m.
40m.
200ni.
10l.
IOOS.
Ioni.
I0OS.
52.
I 202.
10431.
Winchester,
Norwich,
Chicester,
Colecester,
Exeter,
Northampton,
Southwark, -
London,
Geldford,
Huntingdon,
Canterbury,
Hertford,
Bedford,
York,
Lincoln,
Gloucester,
I OOS.
Iom.
Ioni.
I OOS,
81.
I 21.
lol.
201.
Iol.
201.
81.
12l.
lol.
IOOS.
2011,
50m.
40m.
Iom.
40m.
2007n.
2007.
6501.
401.
401.
152.
50m.
I Oom.
152.
2
* Stubbs, Preface Ben. Pet., xcv.
Round, Feud. Eng., 282.
3“Ab expeditione Tolosa reversus, brevi quievit.” (Will. New., 130.)
4 Eyton, Eyres, 54.
5" In liberatione militum de Pevensel . . . . et quietus est.” (Roll 7, H. II, 13.)
26
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
2
It is interesting to see how in many cases former assessments
were repeated in the tallages of the towns. But a very little
observation of these tables will show that none of these dona,
either of towns or counties, could have been a hidage or carucage,
as Stubbs says,' for there is too great irregularity in the assess-
ments.
The Dialogue describes the method of assessment of the
dona of cities and burgs as being made by the justices in one
of two ways : first, per capita, that is, not necessarily a poll tax
but rather a family or household tax, according to which arrange
ment all payers paid equally ; second, some fixed amount being
agreed between the justices and the citizens. In the former case
the king's officers took control of the levy, in the latter case the
citizens make up the sum in whatever way they saw fit. The
different methods of assessments are discernible in the variety
of figures presented.
III. A scutage of 1 m. per knight's fee. The Roll gives
evidence of greater care in keeping the individual accounts of
the minor tenants-in-chief. The greater number of tenants hold
for 1 to 5 knights. The levy did not extend to as many knights
as in 1159 or 1161, for the amount was about 975 1., while the
donum of the towns was 8401. The object of this levy is not
stated in the returns. The Red Book gives this also as for the
army of Toulouse. The explanation of Mr. Hall is a good one,
that the expedition of 1159 as well as succeeding campaigns in
France were part and parcel of an intermittent forty-years' war.4
Another expedition against the King of France in the eighth year
accounts for the scutage. But the further theory, advanced by
I"This sort of impost (i. C., Hidage or Carucage) had been levied during Henry
II's reign, generally under the name donum, as supplementary to the Scutage.”
(Stubbs, Pref. Rog. Hoved., IV.)
> Dial. de Scac., II, 13.
3 Red Book, 7.
4 “Bellum quoque Tolosanum quod per annos quadringenta vires multo-
rum attriverat populorum, eodem tempore (1196), Deo propitio, exspiravit.” (Will
New., 491. See Red Book, clxxiii.)
Sequent' anno, qui fuit regni ejus octavus, ira inter ipsum et regem Francorum
tempore ejusdem expeditionis concepta, causis ingravescentibus tandem quasi parta
erupit. Denique immensis hinc inde exercitibus congregatis," etc. (Will. New., 130.)
1
.
5
LEVIES OF SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY II
27
Mr. Hall, that there were but two campaigns represented by the
several payments of 1159, 1161, 1162, that those who paid in 1159
made simply a prepayment, while the regular scutages were paid
in 1161 and 1162, meets with some difficulty. There were some
tenants, such as the Bishop of Norwich and the Abbot of St.
Augustine, who paid in each of the three years. As the rate was
I m. in the eighth year, those who paid in the seventh and eighth
years instead of in the fifth and seventh would have paid less
than their share. It seems, therefore, that there must have been
three distinct campaigns to correspond to these levies.
SCUTAGE OF THE ELEVENTH YEAR.
1
IOOS.
100m.
Ioni.
60
2011.
The next levy was in the eleventh year, 1165. It is the most
curious of any of the various scutages and throws light on some
features of knight tenure. The analysis may be made as follows:
I. A donum from some of the towns, e.g.:
York,
200l. “de exercitu Walliae"
London,
500m.
Hertford,
Northampton,
Southwark,
Geldford,
8n2.
Bedford,
Gloucester,
401.
Tedford,
66s. 8d.
II. Certain mysterious sums which have been a puzzle,' but
are found to be multiples of 155. 3 d., 21.8., 71. 12 s. 6d., 157. 5 so,
455.9d., 381. 2 s. 6 d., 114 m. 5 s., 1521. 10 s., 2281. 155., etc. Some-
times these amounts are designated “de exercitu Walie," but they
are not a scutage, nor do they bear any relation to the amount
of knight service due ; sometimes they are stated to be " de pro-
missione Servientium Walie."3 They are plainly a donum inde-
pendent of scutage for :
I“ The sums paid de promissione sua hath made me hesitate. Perhaps it may
not be much amiss to say that this payment when made by laity was a Donum, and
when made by ecclesiastical persons was a Donum Praelatorum.” (Madox, His. Exch.,
1, 582.)
Round, Feud. Eng., 282.
3 R. II, 74.
28
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
Knights due
Scutage
De promissione
IIth year
11th year
661.55.
-
20
60
-
Bishop of Bath,
Bishop of Lincoln,
Abbot of Gloucester,
Earl of Gloucester,
Bishop of London,
Bishop of Salisbury,
Abbot of Malmsbury,
Earl of Warwick,
20
131. 6s. 8d.
1521. 1os.
381. 2s.6d.
2281. 155.
I 14m. 55.
761. 55.
3ol. ros.
761. 55.
32
3
The 15 s. 3 d. was plainly the unit of pay for a serjeant, and
the only possible term of service for such pay would be one-half
a year, or 183 days at 1 d. per day. These sums were paid by a
great number of persons, both great tenants and small tenants,
lay and clerical. Thus the magnates paid for 50, 100, 150, 200,
or 300 serjeants, while small tenants, some owing knight service
and others not, paid for a number of from 1 to 5. These
accounts are given intermixed with the scutages, but the same
persons did not pay for both knights and serjeants, except in the
case of the Bishop of London. The amount thus recorded is
about 2676 l., which is larger than any single kind of contribution
thus far considered, except the donum of ecclesiastics in 1159.
There was probably no particular basis of assessment to deter-
mine for how many serjeants one should pay any more than in the
case of the other dona that have been discussed. The Bishop of
Chicester who owed only 2 knights paid for 200 servientes.
While these oblations were theoretically voluntary contributions
to the King, if a tenant did not do what was expected he might
be amerced. The Abbot of St. Edmunds made no proffer of
scutage in the eighth year nor of the promissum in the eleventh
year, and in the latter year he is entered “in Misericordia
200 m."
III. Other sums, designated de exercitu, or de militibus, which
prove to be a scutage of 1 m. per fee, although this scutage is
' Epis' Lond' redd' Comp' de 131. 6s. 8d. de Servicio militum.
Id' redd' Comp' de 114 m. ss. de promissione Servientium Walie." (R. 11, H.
II, 19.)
LEVIES OF SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY II
29
1 not acknowledged in the Red Book.' Those who paid for knights
did not as a rule pay for serjeants. Thus the Bishop of Dur-
ham rendered 7 1. 6 s. 8 d. for his ten knights, while the Bishop
of Chicester with two knights paid 76 l. 5 s. for 100 serjeants.
The scutage of this year throws light upon a certain question of
events. From passages in the Pipe Roll it is plain that the
service exacted in 1165 was more than that of the usual forty
days, eg.:
“Comes Hugo redd' Comp'de 227 1. et 10 s. de Militibus et Servientibus
exercitus Walie de quarta anni." (R. II, p. 7.)
"Et 5 militibus euntibus in exercitu, 131. 6 s. 8 d." (R. II, p. 7.)
For five knights the above amount represents a service of
80 days at the usual rate, 8 d. per day. Indeed, there is
evidence of two separate armies for Wales and two separate
scutages, eg.:
"Id' vic' redd' Comp' de 8 m. de secundo exercitu." (R. 11, p. 25.)
“Ric de Wivill' redd' Comp' de 1 m. de ii summonicionibus exercitus.'
(R. 11, pp. 52 and 62.)
Richard held half a fee, paying i m. in the fourteenth year.":
"Id' redd' Comp' de 1131. de milit' de Archiepatu (Canterbury) de ii
exercitibus." (R. 11, p. 109.)
1131. is the amount that the 8434 knights belonging to the
Archbishop of Canterbury would render by paying the scutage
of i m. twice.
These facts are in accord with the testimony of Brut y Tywys,
who says that Henry first "moved an army with extreme haste
and came to Rhuddlam, and proposed to erect a castle there,
and stayed there three nights. After that he returned into Eng-
land and collected a vast army."3
As neither the Ann. Cambr, nor Gerald makes any mention of
the earlier Ruddlam expedition, the testimony of Brut has been
thrown out by Kate Norgate. As the earlier expedition was
" Quod quidem auxilium (of 1165) in numero scutagiorum nolui apponere, quo-
niam probata summa auxilii propter hoc non probatur numerus militum vel serjan-
torum." (Red Book of Exch., 9.)
*R. 14, p. 90.
3 See Norgate, Anj. Kings, II, 180, note.
3
30
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
I
hasty and not attended by a general summons, so the minor
scutage of the year did not amount to much, as very few made
any such payment. While the donum for serjeants was on a
basis of six months' service for each serjeant “promised," the
actual campaign was not over eighty days or three months, as
may be inferred from some passages, and may be demonstrated
from the following:
Comes Ric' redd' Comp' de 76 1. 5 S. In pardon' pro breve Regis
eidem comiti, 76.1 5 s. propter 20 milites et to servientes quos duxit in exer-
citu cum Rege." (R. II, p. 3.)
The only explanation for this item is on the ground that the
knights and serjeants did actual service for three months.
Another matter of interest, indicated in the Rolls, is the
importance attached to the serjeants in the army of this year.
This was before the Assize of Arms of 1181, but the "promise of
serjeants” was used not merely as a money-making device. The
passages quoted show that whoever conducted knights or ser-
jeants in the campaign was exempt from either payment. It is
noticeable in the Pipe Rolls that in whatever counties there hap-
pens to be an aggregation of soldiers, those counties are imme-
diately called upon to some extent for the necessary expenses
of those soldiers. So where the king maintained castles, a part
of the revenue due from the Sheriff was paid not directly into
the Exchequer, but was accounted "in operatione castellorum,";
or in liveries for the garrisons, “in liberatione castellanorum." 3
In 1161 the scutage money from Sussex was not turned
into the treasury, but was laid out in "liveries" of the knights
assembled at Pevensey.4 In 1163 Shropshire,5 Hertfordshire,
Gloucestershire, Worcestershire 8 paid liveries toward military
si knight=8 serjeants. 76 l. 5 s. is the wages of 100 serjeants for six months or
200 serjeants for three months. The actual number of serjeants was 40. 200—40
= 160. 160 serjeants = 20 knights, according to the hypothesis.
R. 8, pp. 39, 49, 50, 53, etc.
* R. 7, p. 13.
3 R. 8, p. 20.
5 R. 9, p. 3.
7" In Liberatione militum et servientum in exercitu Walie p' Willm de Bellocampo, .
70 1. 9 s. I d.” (R. 9, p. 9.)
8“In Munitione portata in Wal, 39 l. 3 s. 4 d." (R. 9, p. 44
6
6R. 9, p. 7.
LEVIES OF SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY II
31
operations in Wales. In 1165 the sheriff or other party is
accredited with paying liveries to a large number of serjeants, e.g.:
“ Et 300 servientibus 51. 7 s. 5 d. et 60 servientibus apud Surwardin
61." (R. 11, p. 90.) Et item 300 servientibus, p' Pasca 69 1. 18 s. 7 d." (Ibid.)
"Et Walto de Bellocampo 13 1. 10 s. 10 d. ad lib' servientum de Bergeveni.'
(R. II, p. 101.)
The liveries in these cases were paid for serjeants, and not
for "knights and serjeants," as in 1163. It had been found by
experience as early as William Rufus that infantry was more
serviceable than .cavalry for operations in Wales. The use of
serjeants as an integral part of the military force in the king-
dom was to assume a greater relative importance. The obliga-
tions to such service were defined in the Assize of Arms, 1181.
The relative value of a knight and a serjeant, which in 1165 was
considered to be in the ratio of 8 to 1, was finally that of 2 to 1.
The amount of the scutage for this year would be difficult to com-
pute with any confidence, because the accounts in the Rolls are
generally not designated. But it would be safe to say that the
scutage was not as large as the donum for serjeants. The prin-
cipal thing to be remembered in this connection is that the
donum of serjeants was not a scutage or anything similar in prin-
ciple.
IV. A few other items of revenue, which are not of much
consequence in themselves, but which further illustrate the prin-
ciple that the occasion of an expedition might call for most any
kind of levy. While not to the same extent as in 1159, a few
of the moneyers paid a tallage, and in one instance the money
is stated specifically to be for the sake of the army.”
1
year
5th year
8om.
40ni.
62m.
Moneyers of York,
Moneyers of London,
Moneyers of Northampton,
Moneyers of Norwich,
I0OS.
40s.
50m.
* Freeman, William Rufus, II, 110.
2 Monetarii Lund' redd' Comp' de 40 m. de Assisa ejusdem exercitus. (R. 11, p.
33.)
32
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
A singular item occurs in which the socmen of a certain Earl
pay a donum.:
AID FOR THE MARRIAGE OF THE DAUGHTER.
The levy of 1168 was the aid to marry the king's daughter
The impression has been given by certain writers that this aid
as well as others of a similar kind was raised purely by an assess-
ment upon knights' fees. Says Kate Norgate, “the aid itself
(of 1168) was a strictly feudal impost, assessed at one mark on
every knight's fee."? Stubbs tells only a part of the facts when
he takes no notice of any part of this levy but the one mark on
the knight's fee. It will be found, however, that the aid was
made up of several different kinds of levy, very much as in the
other years cited,
I. Aid from Cities, Burgs, and Villes.—The aggregate sum
taken from the towns was larger than ever before. Not only
were the items from the towns separately larger than before
on the average,4 but the tallage was the most general in
application of any of the levies of Henry II. The assess-
ments of the towns were made in connection with a judicial
iter,5 so that it was not possible to have the returns from
all the counties of England in the same year. The aid burgo-
rum et villarum of the counties Warwick and Leicester, Buck-
ingham and Bedford, Shrop, Worcester, Hertford in Wales,
Stafford, Gloucester, Northumberland, Berks, Oxford is recorded
in the Rolls of 1169. As may be seen from the table, in former
200m.
200m.
* Sochemanni Comitis Conani redd' Comp' de 100 m. de Dono. (R. II, p. 37.)
Norgate, Anj. Kings, II, 125.
3“ The assessment was one mark on the fee." (Stubbs, C. H., I, 509.)
4 Colecester,
321.
Huntingdon,
10m.
Exeter,
Canterbury,
521. 135. 4d.
Northampton,
Bedford,
30m.
Southwark,
1971.
York,
London,
6171. 16s. 8d.
Lincoln,
· 2331. 6s. 8d.
Geldford,
91. 6s. 8d.
Gloucester,
611. 6s. 8d.
5 The accounts are often under a heading :
"Nova Placita et Novae Conventiones de Auxil' ad maritand' filiam Regis; "the
fines and amerciaments being given in connection with the Aid.
LEVIES OF SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY II
33
years the towns were generally tallaged for a round lump sum,
and while the amount in the case of a single town was not the
same every year, an assessment of this kind was apt to recur.
In 1168 a different method was applied. Prominent men of the
town, like the reeve,' in many cases paid individually, and even
where the community contributes, men also give individually.”
Counting what came from individual contributions of towns
as well as from the collective “burgers" and "men" of the
various towns, the entire amount collected in the 2 years was
about 4549 1.
II. The Scutage of 1 m. per Knights' Fee.- In the various
levies of the scutages hitherto there has been a portion of
the knight tenants who performed their obligations by per-
sonal service, and a portion who paid the tax.
In the case
of the aid for the marriage of the king's daughter such a
question is eliminated. The demand naturally fell upon all ten-
ants in capite and it may be expected that as a tax on knights'
fees it applied more extensively than any other levy of Henry
II. A number of the greater barons appear in the Roll contrib-
uting toward this aid, who did not make any payments in the
previous scutages. More may be learned, therefore, from the
records of 1168 concerning knights' fees than those of any
other year. The payment of 1 m. per fee as aid may justly be
called scutage, for while auxilium is the word commonly
employed in the roll, scutagium is also used.3
Before the aid of 1168 was taken a new method of assess-
ment in regard to knights' fees had been introduced. It has
already been described in this essay how the barons owed the
king for their estates their certain quotas of knight service,
?“ Rob' prepositus de S. Martino redd' Comp' de im. de eodem auxilio." (R. 14,
p. 155.)
* In Waltham: “Rad' le Napier redd' Comp'de 20 s. de eodem auxilio."
“Commune ville reddt Comp' de 40 s. de eodem auxilio."
“Ceteri homines ejusdem ville reddt Comp' de 4 1. 3 s. 4 d. de eodem auxilio."
(R., 14, p. 40.)
3 Abbas de Certesia debet i m. de Scut ad maritandam filiam Regis. (Pipe Roll,
I, Ric. I., 218; Pipe Roll, 14, H. II., 26.)
34
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
which were the result of common understanding and tradition;
how the barons fulfilling their obligations to the king could sub-
divide their estates as they saw fit, whether they enfeoffed more
knights than they themselves owed, or fewer knights, or the
same number. Those holding the largest estates had the best
opportunities to create fees far beyond what they owed the
king, so that when the Scutage was collected they would derive
a certain profit from the surplus fees. The archbishop of Can-
terbury regularly owed 60 knights, but in. 1165, when the arch-
bishoprick was "in custody,” and the king derived all the
profits from the lands, the scutage returned was that of 8494
knights. With a view to putting an end to such special advan-
tages which the barons were deriving from the system, and to
bring these advantages to the side of the crown, the king, 1166,
had issued, probably through the agency of the sheriffs, inquir-
ies to each of the barons as to how many knights they each had
enfeoffed. As Mr. Round has paraphrased these inquiries :
I) “How many knights had been enfeoffed before the
death of Henry I ?”
2) "How many have been enfeoffed since?”
3) “How many (if any) remain to be enfeoffed to complete
the 'service' due from the fief ?"
4) "What are the names of your knights ?”
The barons, not knowing the object of these inquiries,
answered for the most part in good faith, and sent their answers
in the form of cartels. Such cartels were not altogether a new
thing, as one may be seen for about the year 1125, naming all
the tenants of a manor. The demand, therefore, in 1166 did
not occasion any surprise.
The king did not altogether discard the old system of assess-
ment based on the servitium debitum, or uniformly substitute the
new one based on the actual number of fees created, but
selected in every case whichever of these two systems told in
!
*R. II, p. 109.
. For the discussion of the Cartae, see Round, Feud. Eng., 236.
3 Chron. Petrob. (Cam. Society), Appendix.
LEVIES OF SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY II
35
| his own favor and against the tenant of the fief. The barons
were surprised and showed some chagrin at being obliged to
pay for all the knights' fees belonging to them. The church-
inen were permitted to make their payments under a mild form
of protest recorded in the following way. An amount such as
one was accustomed to pay according to the old servitium debi-
tum was designated for knights."quos recognoscit ;" what had
to be paid beyond this was for knights “quos non recognoscit
se debere Regi."? As a rule the first item was paid with prompt-
ness, while the second fell in arrears. In some cases the new
method did not make any difference in the amounts paid, while
in others, like the Bishop of Durham, it made a great deal. E.g.:
1131. 6s. 8d. q. recognoscit
Bishop of London,
il. 175.9d. q. non recognoscit
401.
Bishop of Lincoln,
287.
40m.
Bishop of Ely, -
Archbishop of York,
5.20m.
2372m.
321. 175. 4d.
Bishop of Worcester,
Iol.
Bishop of Chester,
Bishop of Exeter,
| 1ol. 6s. 8d.
III. 16s. 2d.
401.
91. 135. 4d.
4m.
Bishop of Winchester,
Bishop of Chicester,
{976100
735. Tod.
Bishop of Durham,
| IOIN.
401. 12s. 2d.
Archbishop of Canterbury
(in custody),
{561.105.
Abbot of Cerne,
| 2m.
8m.
211. 6s. 8d.
.
1135. 4d.
Bishop of Salisbury,
266
* Round, Feud. Eng., 236.
Archiepc Ebor' redd' Comp' de 20 m. de eodem auxil' pro 20 militibus quos
recognoscit se debere Regi. In thro liberavit. Et quietus."
“Id deb 2372m. pro 23% Mil' quos non recognoscit se debere Regi.” (R. 14, 88.)
36
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
20m.
Bishop of Bath,
Abbot of St. Edmunds,
40m.
1272 m.
261. 135. 4d.
60s.
Abbess of Glastonbury,
The lay barons, so far as they were affected by the new
arrangement, made their payments, first, for old enfeofments,
that is, land enfeoffed before the death of Henry I; second, for
new enfeofments, or lands enfeoffed since that time. A few
examples will illustrate how in some cases the new enfeofments
exceeded the old, while in others there was little difference:
Simon de Bellocamp,
William Malduit,
301. 1os. 8d., Old Enf.
51. 6s. 8d., New "
235. 4d.
36s. 8d.
941. IIs. rod.
57. 35. 4d.
311. 1os.
Earl of Clare,
{957. 11S. Toda
William de Muntfichet,
9s. 4d.
Earl William,
98m. 35. 5d.
687. 45. 5d.
Earl of Warwick,
2m.
Roger de Mobray,
Henry de Lacy,
581. 16s. 8d.
71. 155. 6d.
421. 1os. rod.
132. 8s. 6d.
261 2m.
215m. 45. 5d.
Earl of Gloucester,
Earl Reginald,
80l. 70s.
Earl Hugh of Chester,
{891 m
37 72m.
211. Ios.
William de Muntfichet,
95. 4d.
Walter fil Robert,
{435.6Bd.
Maurice de Creon,
Earl Simon,
{452. 135:
{
421. 6s. 8d.
435. 4d.
157.
6os.
451. 135. od.
91. ios. 5d.
581. 16s. 8d.
71. 155. 6d.
371. 45. rod.
121. 155. id.
Roger de Mobray,
Honor of Toteneis,
LEVIES OF SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY II
37
14th year
{
135. 4d.4
In most cases the amount that was paid for old enfeofments
was fully as great as what had been paid before for the servitium
debitum, or greater, while what was paid for new enfeofment was
an increment to the advantage of the crown.' Yet this was not
true in every instance, for
Simon de Bellocamp paid 361. 11th year; and in s 301. 10s. 8d. old enfeof.
106s. 8 d. new
Earl Simon paid 617. ith year; and in 14th ( 457. 135. gd.
year
1 91. 1os. 5d.3
Robert "filius Regis" paid 100m. 11th year; and 611. 175. Id.
in 14th year
The servitium debitum of the first two men cannot be deter-
mined with accuracy, but the servitium debitum of Robert is given
as 100 knights in the list compiled by Round.5 Simon de Bello-
camp reported in his Carta 531knights, while in 1165 he paid ->
for 54 knights. Earl Simon, in his Carta, did not report any
knights on domain. These must be taken as exceptions to the
statement of Mr. Round that the king was in every case the
gainer by the new arrangement. The question of paying
according to the number of fees created came up only in refer-
ence to the greater barons and churchmen who were in a
position to sublet their lands on an extensive scale, but most of
the landholders of the kingdom, who held not more than sev-
eral fees each, were not affected by the new arrangement at all.
They paid for their one, two, or more knights as before.
Most of the barons drew up their cartae, showing the number
of fiefs created on their estates and the number of knights super
dominium, willingly and carefully, and these returns were kept in
* Robert de Stutevill in 1165 paid 106s. 8d. (R. 11, p. 50). In 1168 he paid 106s.
8d. old enfeofment, and 20d. new. (R. 14, p. 88.)
Robert Marmion, 1165, paid 81. (R. II, p. 83); in 1168, { 72. 7as: 8d. old, enfeof.
?R. 14, p. II.
5 Round, Feud. Eng., 253.
3R. 14, p. 65.
6 Lib. Nig., 201.
4 R. 14, p. 127.
7 Instead of adhering to the old assessment, or uniformly substituting a new one
based on the fees actually created, the crown selected in every case whichever of these
two methods told in its own favor and against the tenant of the fief. (Feud. Eng.,
242.)
38
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
Towns
the Exchequer as the basis for future levies of the Scutage. But
all did not. Some of these are accounted for by the sheriffs in
the fourteenth year as knights “qui de Rege tenent in Capite in
Baillia sua qui non miserunt Regi Cartas de Tenemento suo.”.
Many such delinquents escaped payment for the aid, and were
not made to pay for their fees until the scutage of Ireland in
1172. In the Roll for that year, in the returns from the counties
of Oxford, Northampton, Buckingham and Bedford, York,
Dorset and Somerset, Wilts, Sussex, Kent, Lincoln, are special
lists "de his qui Cartas non miserunt.”? In Dorset and Somer-
set the list represented payments for as many as 8 knights.
None of these were made to pay towards the aid of 1168, and
this may have been one of the points in which the sheriffs were
derelict, wherefore they were dismissed from office in 1170.
It is instructive to note the amount of the scutage as com-
pared with the tallage. This may be done with the aid of the
following table:
Knight fees
Middlesex (London),
6171. 16s. 8d. 251. 45. 5d.
Buckingham and Bedford,
*471, 16s. 8d. 1741. 25. 8d.
Norfolk and Suffolk,
6531. 35. 4d. 4471. 45. 13d.
Essex and Hertford (no large towns), 1711. 55. 4d. 3801. 135. rod.
Northampton,
2001. 135. 4d. 751. 25. 3d.
York,
5656. 135. 4d. 3754. 35. id.
Nottingham and Derby,
17ıl. 45. 8d. 1401. 135. 4d.
Warwick and Leicester,
*271. 135. 4d. 1071. 165. id
Lincoln,
3111. 8s. 6d. 2551. 45. 7d
Shropshire,
*301. 35. 4d.
*3 655. 4d
Cambridge and Huntingdon,
1191. 16s. 8d. 2031. 16s. 9d.
Worcester,
*721. 6s. 8d. 521, 135. 9d.
Hertford in Wal.,
*211. 135. 4d. 1161. rod.
Stafford,
*441. 195. rod. 846.
Gloucester,
*1621. 45. 4d. 2181. 25. iod,
Devon,
2571. gs. 8d. 4521. 25. 2d.
Dorset and Somerset,
3301. 45. 6d. 2854. 35. 5d.
*R. 14, pp. 65, 90.
* R., 18 y
.
3*" Vic non reddidit Compotum de feodis Aliorum Militum de Ballia sua de
eodem Auxilio filiae R. quia est in respectu p Barones donec Rex praecipiat.” (R. 14,
p. 95.)
LEVIES OF SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY II
39
+
Wilts,
Northumberland,
Hampshire,
Sussex,
Berks,
Oxford,
Kent,
Surrey,
671. 6s. 8d.
*1561. 6s. 8d.
2081. 12s.
191. 45. 4d.
241.
731. 6s. 8d.
2471. 16s. 8d.
471. 6s.
1361. 135. 4d
571. 25. 9d.
101l. 35. 4d.
1481. 195. iod.
481.
371. 175. gd.
781. 16s.
31.
Total,
45491. 145. 6d.
40061. 35. 58.
It will be seen that in most of the counties the tallage of
towns was larger than the scutage, Where the county was
made up mostly of urban population, and did not contain
extensive rural districts, as in the case of Middlesex, the revenue
from the towns was sure to be more important; where there
were no great towns and there was some earl who held perhaps
200 knights, as in Gloucester, the scutage predominated; while
in an average district like Nottingham and Derby, as well as in
the entire kingdom, the donum from the towns brought in the
more money. It has been true in other years that the scutage
was not as important as levies of other kinds, but the fact of its
being so at this time is of more significance.
III. The aid was increased by certain other contributions,
mostly from the churchmen. These are designated "de pro-
missione sua ad maritandam filiam.” Thus:
Serv, deb.
Bishop of Norwich (40 knights), 40 m., "de promissione."
Bishop of Chester (15 knights), 40 m., "de promissione."
Abbot of St. Edmunds (40 knights), 40 m., “de promissione."
Abbot of Burton (no knights), 40 s., "de promissione."
Abbot of Gloucester (no knights), 40 m., "de promissione." "
Abbey Hulm (3 knights), 28 l. 6 s. 8 d., “ad maritandam filiam R.":
Abbey Bath -), 100 1., "de assisa facta super Dominia Ep'atus ad
maritandam filiam R."
William de Bellocamp, 40 m., “de promissione."
Sheriff of Northumberland, 40 m., de promissione."
Not all the churchmen paid these sums, and those who did
paid irrespective of their knights or whether they held any at
*R. 14, p. 33.
40
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
are
not
ܕܙܙ
all. Some of the institutions making these returns were for the
time in custody, and William de Bellocamp and the Sheriff of
Northumberland probably made the "promise" for establish-
ments in their custody. The amount gathered from this source
was not large.
IV. An aid from some of the moneyers, e.g.: moneyers of 1
Northampton, 101. (100 s. in 11th year); moneyers of London,
2772 m. (6272 m. in 5th year); moneyers of Norwich, 10 m. (40 s.
in 11th year). Yet all the moneyers are not charged. Those
of York, Lincoln, Nottingham, Oxford, Stafford
charged.
Thus it is evident that the aid for the marriage of the king's
daughter was made up in several ways, and that of the different
forms the scutage was not the most important financially. It
has been said that this aid "was a strictly feudal impost." Miss
Norgate thought of the scutage as being the whole of this
impost, but in this connection it may be asked to what extent
the tallage of towns and other such dona were feudal. A
tallage was an arbitrary due payable from demesnes, escheats,
and warships to the King or other lord. It was technically of a
feudal character, the principle being that a lord could use as he
pleased the uninfeudated portion of his estate. So the King
could administer as he saw fit the uninfeudated portions of the
kingdom. The strictly feudal parts or knights' fees were pro-
tected by the crude code of feudal law. A certain amount of
service could be exacted from them for a limited time; money
payments could be demanded from them only at certain junctures,
as defined by the three regular aids, relief, etc. Knights' fees !
could not be tallaged. The portions that were not given out in
knights' fees were not defended by the feudal code. The towns
were not limited in their obligations to the king except so far as
he chose to give the charters. Ferms (or socage) and other
forms of tenure besides knights' fees could likewise be tallaged.4
Norgate, Anj. Kings, II, 125.
3 Ibid., 745.
a Madox, Hist. Exch., I, 694.
* Tallage was not chargeable on land held by knight service, e. g.: “Villata de
1
LEVIES OF SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY II
41
ers.
In a larger sense the uninfeudated parts of the kingdom were
the non-feudal parts; the king's domain was the strictly national
portion. The clergy always bore a relation to the state that did
not admit of their being considered merely as feudal landhold-
Henry II made the coinage of the country truly national,
and the moneyers were held closely accountable to him. When
the hidage or carucage first appeared under Richard, 1194, it was
called a tallage. The various imposts, therefore, which were
levied upon towns, clergy, moneyers, Jews, may be regarded as
non-feudal in character, and if they do not rise to the dignity of
national taxes, they may be considered in the light of a crude
form of class taxation under the complete control of the King's
Exchequer.
Relating to the aid of 1168 Stubbs says that "the collection
of the money occupied the barons two years, and, as appears
from the action of the next year, did not satisfy the King, while
it called forth great complaints on the part of the people.".
This summary statement of the case is worth a little explana-
tion. As has been said before, the assessment on the towns for
the aid was made by judges who were going about on a judicial
circuit. As they held pleas in each of the counties, it was
impossible for the work to be finished in one year, and the aid
from a number of the counties as well as returns from the court
proceedings were recorded for the first time in the Roll for 1161.
The scutage of 1 m. per knight's fee, however, was all accounted
for in the Roll for 1168, but there were many arrears left to be
paid in the next year or even after. Yet it will be noticed that
the portion of the aid that was unpaid in the year of its assess-
ment was the new increment which they had not been accus-
tomed to pay; in the case of the churchmen for the knights
"quos non recognoscit," in other instances for new enfeofments.
Wicumbe debet 301. 8 d. de Taillagio. Sed consideratum est per justiciarium et
Barones, quod Manerium illud non debet tailliari, quia inde facit Alanus de Basset
servicium militare, sicut continentur in Carta ipsius." (Rob., 1, Jn. Madox, I, 745.)
* Rot. Curiae Regis (Ed. Maitland), 108, 1220: "Taillagium per Angliam de
Singulis carucis 2 sol.” (Ann. Wav., 293.)
- Stubbs, C. H., I, 509.
42
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
For example, the Bishop of Norwich paid for the 40 knights
"quos recognoscit," and was acquitted in the 14th year, but he still
owed for the 834 knights "quos non recognoscit” in the 19th
year.' Of course, the barons did not relish being called to
account for more knights than they had been before, but the rate
of i mark per fee could not be considered oppressive, and it was
paid generally with fair promptness. The new method of
assessing the barons for the fees they had created could not have
been the cause of popular complaint, for the new arrangement
affected only the magnates, while the lesser tenants-in-chief paid
just as before. With subtenants it could make no difference
whether the emoluments from the extra fees created went to the
advantage of the lord or of the king. Yet there was complaint
of the manner in which the sheriffs conducted the business in
connection with the aid, and in 1170, when the sheriffs were
turned out of office and an investigation of their conduct was
made, the subject of the aid was one of the articles in the
Inquest. We know that a number of persons holding knights'
fees did not make any response to the demand for the cartoe, and
so escaped the payment of the aid. As the barons received
their instructions in this matter from the sheriffs, and likewise
sent in their returns through those officers,3 the blame for per-
mitting any parties to escape the payment might reasonably fall
upon the sheriffs. In taking the aid of the towns, also, and
individuals of the towns, there was plenty of opportunity for
favoritism and venality on their part.
The king was not wrong in trying to bring about a more
rational method in the assessment of scutage. The old servi-
tium debitum, as has been said, was based upon allotments made
in a former generation. The amount of service due had been
I“ Epc Norwic' redd'Comp de 40 m. p 40 mil' quos recognoscit se debere Regi.
In thro liberavit. Et Quietus est." “Ib debet 116 s. 8 d. p. viii Mil. et dim et quarta
parte Mil. quos non recognoscit se debere Regi.” (R. 14, p. 21.)
7“VI. Et inquiratur de auxiliis ad maritandam filiam regis, quid inde exierit de
singulis hundredis et singulis villatis, sive in redditis sive in perdonis, et cui illud
traditum fuerit et liberatum.” (Sel. Char., 149.)
3 Round, Feud. Eng., 240.
LEVIES OF SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY II
43
determined apparently haphazard rather than upon any settled
principle. How many knights a baron owed was a matter of
tradition and common understanding. There was room here for
disagreement, and there was a perpetual squabble between the
constable and some of the barons as to how many knights ought
to be furnished. The assessments of the different scutages were
not in every case uniform. The Abbey of Glastonbury in the
first two scutages paid for 60 knights, but after that for 40;
Shaftesbury at first paid for 10, but afterwards for 7; the Bish-
oprick of Exeter sometimes paid for 1572 knights, and at other
times for 1772; the Abbey of Pershore paid for 3 knights in the
first scutage, protesting that it only owed 2, and after 1168 it
was charged for 2; the Earl of Ferrers paid for 80 knights
in 1159, but in his carta speaks of 60 knights; Daniel de Creve-
coeur paid for 20 fees in 1161, but in the eighth year paid for 12, in
the fourteenth year for 14; William de Helion paid for 15 knights
at first, and later for 10.' In many instances it is impossible to
tell what their servitium debitum was. Great inequalities had
grown up. The Bishop of Durham, whose servitium debitum
was 10 knights, had enfeoffed 70;2 the Abbot of Cerne, whose
servitium debitum was 2 knights for the army, had enfeoffed 10.
Some had made enfeofments far beyond what they owed the
king, but most had made enfeofments to correspond more nearly
to what they had to render. It was, therefore, a measure not only
greatly to the advantage of the crown, but of ordinary fair policy,
to have the burdens of army service borne more nearly according
to the means of the barons. If some estates had proved to be
more valuable than others, it was not unjust that their burdens
should be heavier. The efforts of the king in carrying out this
policy were not wholly successful, for the accounts for knights
"quos recognoscit” and new enfeofment fell universally in arrears,
and Madox states that he never knew of such arrears being paid.
Yet a new era was inaugurated when the crown could keep
accurate statements of the available resources of each of its
tenants.
* For instances see Round, Feud. Eng., 249 et seq.
2R. 14, p. 89.
44
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
SCUTAGE OF IRELAND.
The scutage of the eighteenth year differed from any of the
others thus far considered, in that it was not attended by any
other kind of donum. It was customary to take in connection
with the scutage a donum from the towns, and perhaps from the
moneyers, Jews, or clergy some impost, both with a view to rais-
ing the necessary amount of money and to bring other classes of
the population as well as the knight tenants under some form of
taxation. The two years following the death of Becket, 1 170, and
receding the rebellion of 1173, were troubled ones, and the
stern king had to compromise himself even so far as to renounce
the Constitutions of Clarendon. The accounts for the marriage
of the daughter were still running and seem to have been paid
with some difficulty. In this condition of affairs it would not
have been wise to lay any additional burdens on the people. The
accounts are given under the title, "Scutage of barons who did
not go with the king to Ireland, nor send knights or money for
themselves thither."2 The expedition in question took place in
1171, and, considering all the facts in the case, the army could
not have been a very large one. The number of knights is given
as 400 or 500, while the whole force was about 4000 men, car-
ried by 400 ships. We are not told of the employment of any
mercenaries, and the Roll of the eighteenth year shows that
most of the tenants in chivalry did not follow in the campaign
It may be inferred from the fact that the barons were considered
under obligations to go or contribute towards this expedition
that the summons in 1171 was a general one. Legally the
barons who did respond to the summons were liable to forfeiture
or fine at the king's mercy, but inasmuch as six-sevenths of the
barons were remiss, stringent measures against them would be
out of the question, if at all contemplated. The scutage was a
* Stubbs, C. H., I, 513.
3" De Scutagio Baronum qui nec abierunt cum Regi in Ibernia nec milites nec
denarios illuc pro se miserunt." (R. 187.)
3 Giraldus gives 500 knights, V, p. 275; Anglo-Norm. Poem, 400, p. 123. Bene-
dict says, “ Magnum congregavit exercitum,” Ben. Pet., I, 25. (See Norgate, II, 112.)
LEVIES OF SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY II
45
Į
convenient and equitable means for the king to get even with
the barons, and thus it may be regarded, as Stubbs says, in the
light of a fine. This is the form that the scutage generally
assumed in succeeding years, though it may not always be con-
fused with the fines. It will be seen from the amount of the scu-
tage in the appended table that in a few counties the sums were
larger than in 1168. This is due partly to the larger rate of
the levy, this being 20 s. per fee, and partly to the fact of certain
persons being made to contribute who did not when the aid was
taken. In Oxfordshire, among those "who did not send cartae,"
Hugh de St. German rendered account for 50 l. for the fief of
Bernard of St. Waleric; Walkelin of Hareng rendered 20 s.;3 in
Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire the land which was Osbert
Martell, Humphrey Vis de Lu, Agnes Bereville, Robert Survia,
etc., rendered accounts which are noticed in the fourteenth year
i Stubbs, Pref. Ben. Pet., 8, etc.
Hertford in Wales,
Nottingham and Derby,
York,
Worcester,
Oxford,
Norfolk and Suffolk,
Northampton,
Essex and Hertford,
Buckingham and Bedford,
Dorset and Somerset,
Hampshire,
Lincoln,
Devon,
Stafford,
Warwick and Leicester,
Shrop,
Cambridge and Huntington,
Gloucester,
Wilts,
Sussex,
Kent,
Surrey,
Middlesex,
1851. 125. id.
1241. ios.
4041. 145. 6d.
641. Ios.
751. 55.
1971. 75.
1951. 8s. 4d.
661. 185. 7d.
2691. 155. 8d.
1341. 75. 8d.
571. 205.
921. 16s.
2991. 145.
161.
(Bp. Chester)
1881. 75. rod.
1361. 10s.
551. 155.
1461. 135.
1561.
2101. 145.
41.
(Abbot)
371. 165. 8d. (Bp.)
32981. 35. 4d.
Total,
3 R. 18, p. 20.
46
ANGLO-SCOTCH FEUDAL RELATIONS
I
claim to the district north of this line as theirs by right of
inheritance. Northumbria had a varying boundary, and the
region from Tyne to Forth seems to have been included, now
under the name Bernicia, again under Saxonia, and sometimes
under the varying names of Lothian. “The Border" was an
exceedingly unstable quantity. But in the feudal period Lothian
seems to have been always shut off from the Tweed by the Scot-
ish March. The similarity, in the Latin, of Lothian and Leeds
has increased the confusion. Beda twice refers to Loidis, and it
seems pretty clear that to his mind "regio Loidis" meant the
district of Leeds.
The A.-S. Chronicle reads, "when King Malcolm heard that
they (William and Robert] would seek him with a force, he went
with his force ut of Scotlande into Lothene on Englaland and there
awaited” (1091). This Mr. Thorpe translates the district of
Leeds,” in accordance with Florence of Worcester, who wrote
"provincia Loidis." It should be remembered that Florence
followed a copy of the Chronicle which has not been preserved.
Simeon of Durham and later writers agree with Florence in using
"provincia Loidis,” though in 1018 Simeon designates Lothian
as "Lodoneium." Walter of Hemingburgh writes "provincia
Lowdicensis juxta confinia ad resistiendum praeparatus.*
Was the meeting of Malcolm and William, then, in the
district of Leeds, or north of the Tweed in what was definitely
known as Lothian, or at some place between the Tyne and Tweed,
in the region anciently claimed by the Picts and Scots? Mr. Bur-
ton maintains the first view, and is supported by Mr. Thorpe's
translation of the Chronicle.3 Mr. Skene and English writers
oppose this view in favor of the second.* Pinkerton is a strong
advocate of the third view, making the place of meeting in the
modern county of Northumberland.5
There is at least one objection to a meeting in the district of
* Beda, Bk. II, Cap. 14; Bk. III, Cap. 24; Celtic Scot., I, p. 254
2 Chronicon, I, p. 23.
4 Celtic Scot., I, p. 429, mpte.
3 Hist. Scot., I, pp. 378, 444, notes.
5 An Enquiry, etc., II, p. 209. Cf. Hailes' Annals, I, p. 24.
LEVIES OF SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY IT
47
who are reported in the Roll of the eighteenth year as not hav-
ing sent cartae, the three mentioned are about the only ones
who are recorded at all in the fourteenth year, e.g.,
8., compare the
lists of Oxford for the eighteenth year and the fourteenth
year;? Walkelin Harenc is one of the list in the eighteenth year
who did not send cartae, and in the fourteenth year the sheriff
renders his account as he did not send a charta,” the other
names do not appear in the fourteenth year; in Northampton,
for the eighteenth year, the sheriff renders account for the
knights' fees of Hecham and Olney. In the fourteenth year
these fees are recorded as escheats, and so there would be no
one in possession of them to return cartels; the name Lachuche
is not recorded in the fourteenth year; in Buckingham and
Bedford some of the names in the eighteenth year occur in the
fourteenth year, but most do not;s in York, for the fourteenth
year, is the following entry:
“Id vic' redd' Comp' de feodis Baron' et milit' qui de Rege tenent in
capite in Baillia sua qui cartas de tenemento suo Regi non miserunt. Scili-
cet de 20 m. de feodo Com’Albemarl'. Et de 50 m. de feodo Com' Conani. Et
de 2 m. de feodo Ade de Brus quod tenet de Com' Cestr. Et de 16 m. de feodo
quod idem Adam tenet de Rege. Et de 10 m. de feod' Willi Tussebut. Et
de 5 m. de feod' Rob de Bruis. Et de 5 m. et dim de feodo Jocelini de Luvain.
Et de i m. de feodo Willi de Filger.
16
All of these names except Earl Conan appear in the eigh-
teenth year among those who did not send cartae; while in the
eighteenth year other names are added. In Dorset and Som-
erset none of those who did not send cartae are recorded in the
fourteenth year. It seems altogether likely that in the four-
teenth year
the sheriffs made some efforts to get returns from
*R. 18, p. 20 ; R. 14, p. 207.
a "Id vic' redd' Comp' de i m. p. feodo Walchelini Harenc qui de tenemento suo
Chartam non misit.” (R. 14, 207.)
3 R. 18, p. 37 ; R. 14, p. 53.
4 "Id vic' redd' Comp' de 23 s. 4 d. de feodo mil' escaett' de Olnea de eodem
auxilio." (R. 14, p. 53.)
5 R. 18, p. 52; R. 14, p. 10.
R. 18, p. 62.
6 R. 14, p. 90.
•R. 18, p. 77 ; R. 14, p. 141.
48
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
I
those who had not sent cartae. Their efforts in this direction,
whether from remissness or inability, were not wholly successful
or satisfactory. The work was further carried out and the lists
made complete by the new sheriffs in 1172. In some cases the
number of fiefs for which the party paid was amended. Thus,
in Yorkshire, Jocelin de Luvain in the fourteenth year paid for
572 fiefs, but in the eighteenth year paid for 6;2 certain fees in
Hecham in the fourteenth year paid for 272 knights, but in the
eighteenth year paid for 234.3 Madox failed to understand the
real purport of the cartae of 1166; he ignored the sweeping
nature of the revolution that was thereby affected in the assess-
ments of knights' fees. Believing that the cartae of 1166 were for
the specific levy of the aid to marry the daughter,4 he under-
stood that the cartae referred to in the eighteenth year were for
the particular scutage of Ireland.5 The Red Book, however,
whose authority on this point Madox questions, is in the right
about the matter. In some respects a better organization of
the great honors or baronies was affected under the new sheriffs.
In 1166 there was no cartel made out for the knights of Earl
Conan. As his estates were in several parts of the kingdom,
the accounts for his aid in 1168 are given under three separate
counties by the respective sheriffs each for the knights qui sunt
in Ballia sua.? In this way about 76 knights were accounted
for. In 1172 the honor in question was accounted for as a
ferm of Ranulf Glanvil, and money for 176 knights was paid,
but no account was rendered, because Glanvil was not as yet
able to tell the number of knights of the honor.
I
Id vic' redd' Comp' de feodo milit' qui de Rege tenent in Capite in Baillia sua
qui non miserunt Regi Cartas de tenemento suo. Scl de 20 s. de proprio feodo. Et de
Hacunebi terra escaeta in manum Regio de 20 s.” (R. 14. p. 65.)
*R. 14, p. 90; R. 18, p. 62.
3 R. 14, p. 53 ; R. 18, p. 37.
4“In order to the due levying of this aid out of the several fees within the
realm, the barons and tenants in capite were commanded to certify to the king what
fees they had," etc. (Madox, His. Exch., I, 575.)
5 Ibid., I, 580.
6 Red Book, 8.
7 R. 14, pp. 23, 90, 103.
8“Id' de Scutagio ejusdem Honoris de Exercitu Hyberniae. In thesauro 176 1.
12 s. id. Sed non redd' Comp' quia nondum potuit scire numerum militum ejusdem
Honoris." (R. 18, p. 5.)
1
LEVIES OF SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY II
49
Another remarkable feature of the scutage of 1172 is the
number of greater barons who paid the money instead of going
to the war.
At the time of the campaign of Toulouse the Earls
and most of the greater barons attended the army, while the
scutage was paid almost altogether by the Churchmen and tenants
holding less than 10 knights. The lands of Simon de Bellocamp
and the Earl of Warwick were at that time in ferm and made
returns for 88 and 73 knights respectively, and the custos of the
fiefs of the Earl of Ferrers paid for 80 knights. There were
several instances of paying for knights from 10 to 20 in this
year ; 6. g., of William de Romara (20), Nigel de Lovetot (10,
Robert of Heliun (15).3
In the scutage of 1161, the custos of the Earl of Ferrers
again paid for 80 knights, the land being in the king's hand. A
number of barons paid for knights for 10 to 20; e. g., Osbert son
of Hugh for 15, Hamo fitz Meinfelin for 15, Nigel de Lovetot
for 10.5 Next to the great churchmen the highest numbers
accounted for were by Reginald de St. Valory and Roger de
Arundel, who paid for 50 and 30 knights respectively.
In the year 1162 the custos of the honor of Tickhill paid for
60 knights.? The scutage of Simon de Bellocamp was for
about 46 knights ;8 that of Walter de Aincourt was for 40
knights ;' that of Ralf Hanselin was for 25; 10 of Bernard Balliol, ,
30 knights;" of Hubert de Rye, 30 knights; of Earl Geoffrey, 34
knights." The name of the Earl of Chester appears, but the
amount that was accounted for him is effaced from the mem-
brane. Some of these payments were probably for estates which
were in the king's hand for the time, but the Roll is the most
unsatisfactory of any in the method of its accounts, and it can
not be determined from this record what estates were in custody.
In 1165 a larger number of the earls and greater barons paid
scutage instead of attending the army of Wales. Earl Hugh and
6
*R. 5, pp. 22 and 26.
2 R. 5, p. 57.
3R. 5, pp. 4, 47, 55.
4R. 7, p. 29.
5 R. 7, pp. 12, 20, 45.
6R. 7, pp. 26 and 47.
7 R. 8, p. 34.
8 R. 8, P, 42.
9 R. 8, p. 20.
10 R. 8, p. 33
11 R. 8, p. 52.
12 R. 8, p. 71.
50
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
Earl Conan each paid the large sum of 227 l. 10 s. for knights
and serjeants for 14 year. Simon de Bellocamp rendered
account for 54 knights ;? Earl Simon rendered account for 611.;3
the Earl of Clare rendered 160 m. 20 d.* (in the 14th year he paid for
131 knights). Walter de Aincourt paid for 40 knights ;5 Henry
de Rye for 35;6 Bernard Balliol for 30;7 Richard de Hay for
20; 8 Robert the king's son accounted for 100 knights; Tayn de
Montdoubleau for 40 knights; and a large number paid for 20
knights and less.
In 1168, of course, barons great and small paid the aid irre-
spective of whether they went to war or not.
In 1172 the following barons are conspicuous in paying the
scutage. The rate being 20 s., the number of pounds paid will be
the same as the number of knights which they represent:
Earl Hugh, 881. 16s. 40.9
Simon de Bellocamp. 531. 155. 8 d.ko
Henry de Lacy, 751. II S."
Adam de Port, 551. 40 s."
Earl Reginald (deb.), 2151. 6s. 8 d.13
William, son of Earl Patrick, 561. 16s.54
Earl of Warenne, 60/.15
Walter de Marne, 291. 30 s.16
William Fossard, 311. 1os."?
A number of honors and baronies which were in charge of
custodians rendered scutage, e.g.:
Honor of Earl Conan, 1761. 12 s. Id.18
Honor of Henry de Rye, 351.19
Honor of Eye, gol. 10 s.20
Honor of William de Curci, 451. 95.21
12
1 R. II, pp. 7, 49.
?R. II, p. 24.
3 R. II, p. 49.
* P. 105.
5 P. 37.
OP. 8.
8 P. 37
9 R. 18, p. 27.
10 R. 18, p. 52.
I R. 18, p. 61.
12 R. 18, p. 83.
13 R. 18, p. 132.
14 R. 18, p. 127.
15 R. 18, p. 132.
16 R. 18, p. 138.
17 R. 18, p. 60.
18 R. 18, p. 6.
19 R. 18, p. 30.
20 R. 18, p. 38.
21 R. 18, p. 33.
7 P. 28.
LEVIES OF SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY II
51
Honor of Warrengef, 100l. 55.
Honor of Earl Giffard, 661. 30 3.2
A little observation of these facts will give one some insight
into the way in which the scutage was applied in actual practice.
The churchmen, owing to their peculiar position and principles,
were always less inclined to military pursuits than other classes
of people. The Scutage first appears applied to them only, and
in each of the levies the churchmen pretty generally fulfilled
their obligations in this way. The minor barons were, many of
them, becoming more and more disinclined to leave their estates
and follow the pursuits of chivalry, and the early scutages were
almost altogether made up from the contributions of churchmen
and minor tenants in capite. The honors and baronies which
were for the time being "in the king's hand," and placed in the
custody of some sheriff or bailiff, owing to the death or displace-
ment of its lord, when there was no successor of suitable age to
take immediate possession, were thus temporarily deprived of
their natural military leaders. “Without the earl or baron it
would be difficult to get the quotas of service from a swarm of
subtenants who held small fiefs and fractions of fiefs. Ranulf
Glanvil confessed that for the honor of which he had the custody
he had not been able to find out the number of knights.3 The
estates which were accounted for by custodians formed a
considerable part of the scutage of Ireland. It is evident that at
first the great lay barons had little or nothing to do with paying
scutage. In 1159, so far as they were summoned, they seem to
have gone with the king on the expedition of Toulouse. In the
IIth year, and much more in the 18th year, the great barons to
some extent are found paying the scutage. The reasons why
the greater tenants-in-chief became inclined to pay scutage may
be considered in another connection.
(
SCUTAGE OF GALWAY.
The only other levy of scutage under Henry II was that for
the army of Galway, taken in 1187. The expedition took place
*R. 18, p. 53.
a R. 18, p. 54.
3 R. 18, p. 6.
52
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
in 1186, and the "scutage of Galwey” is referred to in the Pipe
Rolls for that year. The levy, which was put in charge in the
summer of 1186, is accounted in the Roll for 1187, like the scu-
tage of Ireland, for the barons or knights "who did not go with
the king in the army of Galway.” The rate was 20 s., the same
as in the 18th year. The Pipe Roll for this year is not printed,
but for some of the counties Madox gives the most of the
items.
Scutage, 33 year Tallage, 33 year
Yorkshire,
691. 25. 3641. 18s.
Wiltshire,
991. 55. 1401.
IS. 8d.
Dorset and Somerset,
1191. 1os.
2
and 18th years.
The method of assessment upon both old and new enfeof-
ments seems not to have been strictly carried out as in the 14th
A great number of bishopricks and honors,
however, were in the king's hand at the time, and under these
circumstances he received the income from all the fees which
were upon the several estates. The following quotations will
indicate :
“Custodes Episcopatus Saresberiae debent 321. de Scutagio Militum quos
episcopus recognoscit se debere Regi.
“ Idem debent 81. 1os. pro militibus quos non recognoscit se debere regi;
qui ideo reddendi sunt quia Honor est in manu Regis.":
Margareta de Bohun redd' Comp'de 301. 1os. de Scutagio Militum
Honoris Hunfridi de Bohun, quem habet in custodia per Regem de veteri fef-
famento.
Eadem Margareta debet 91. 1os. de novo feffamento." 4
"Laurentius -- et Magister Rogerus Arundelredd' Comp' de 2ol. de Scu-
tagio Militum Archiepiscopatus de Everwic quos Archiepiscopus recognoscit
se debere Regi.
“Idem r. c. de 271. gs. 8d. de Militibus quos Archiepiscopus non recog-
noscit se debere Regi; qui idcirco redduntur quia Archiepiscopatus est in
manu Regis."5
“Id vic' deb 81. ios, de Scut . . . . Honoris Peverelli de London de veteri
feff' et novo, quia honor est in manu Regis."
"16
4 Ibid.
Eyton, Itin., 269.
2 Madox, Hist. Exch., I, 634.
3 R. 33, Wiltshire.
5 R. 33, York.
OR. I, Ric., p. 24.
LEVIES OF SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY II
53
ܙ ܙܙ
Of those who were in possession of their fiefs, some who
paid for old and new enfeofments before, are found accounting
only for old enfeofments, or in the case of clergy for “quos
recognoscit," e.g:
“Id Vic deb 70s. de Scut Roberti de Helion de veteri ff."?
"Episcopus Norwic de 4os. de Scut militum suorum quos recognoscit se
debere Regi."
Like most of the other scutages that have been considered,
this of the thirty-third year was accompanied by a general tallage
of towns of the king's demesne and manors which were in manu.
2
OTHER FORMS OF SCUTAGE.
1
i
The levies of scutage, which have been thus far considered,
were of general application throughout the kingdom, and were
taken with special reference to some great military expedition,
for which a general summons was issued which placed all military
tenants under obligations for service. The expeditions of Tou-
louse 1159, of Wales 1165, of Ireland 1171, of Galway 1186, are
each reported as being large and of general concern. Besides
these military operations for which the whole or a large part of
the feudal host was called upon, there were a number of minor X
campaigns which were supported by only partial levies or even
the king's household troops. For example, in 1157, there
was an invasion of Wales, which is attested by a number of items
in the Pipe Roll for the third year. It is said that this force was
raised by every two knights joining to support a third, so that
a third of the whole body took part in the expedition. A cam-
paign is reported in 1163, when the English army wasted Carmar- x
thenshire.5 A continual state of border warfare existed between
R. I, Ric., p. 24.
2R. 1, Ric., p. 46.
3“ Abbas de Abbedesbi redd' Comp'de 2m. arg. de Exercitu Walliae." (R. 3, H.
II, 99.)
In liberatióne Archiariorum Regis in exercitu.” (Ibid., 89.)
“ Pro 500 baconibus et in conductu eorum ad Waliam 521.” (R. 4, H. II, 112.)
4 Stubbs, C. H., I, 492.
5 Eyton, Itin., 62.
“In liberacione militum et servientum in exercitu Wallia, per Willielmum de
Bellocampo." (R. 9, H. II, Glouc.)
54
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
X
the years 1164 and 1167.*
1167. The Norfolk Inquisitions contain
notices of two campaigns between 1166 and 1170, one in Wales,
the other on the continent.2
In 1973 (April) occurred the outbreak of Prince Henry's
rebellion, in which Hugh Earl of Chester, Robert Earl of Leices-
ter, Robert Earl of Ferrers and others of the Norman-English
nobility were participants. The king of Scotland also was
implicated. Henry was busy suppressing the rebels in Normandy,
while in England the Earl of Cornwall and Richard de Lucy, the
Justiciar, raised an army called the “army of Leicester," besieged
that city and reduced it to ashes.
For operations of this kind the king relied either upon
partial levies, his household troops, or foreign mercenaries. .
The means of raising the force of 1157 was a special device.
The first of the two expeditions to Wales in 1165, which have
been already referred to, was attended by a levy upon a portion
of the entire knight service of the state, for the expedition was
of too little significance to be noted by more than one chronicler,
and the scutage was taken from very few. Aside from tenants
who owed a term of service by virtue of holding certain estates,
the king had a body guard who attended him wherever he went.
Giraldus tells of the desertion of household troops 1173, on
whom Henry specially depended to defend him. Thomas à
Becket is reported to have been attended by a band of 700
knights de familia at the siege of Toulouse ; 5 this was far beyond
his possible number of tenants. Henry was obliged to depend
upon 10,000 or more Brabantine mercenaries, who served him
loyally but not for nothing. One can almost trace the itinerary
1 Brut., 204-6.
3 Eyton, Itin., 172.
a Red Book of Exch., cclxvii.
4" Hoc ei ad cumulum doloris et desperationis accessit, quod illi quoque quos
cubicularios sibi milites elegerat, in quorum manibus mortem simul et vitam commiserat,
qualibet fere nocte ad filios hostili animo se transferentes, mane requisiti non compare-
bant." (Gir. Cam., V, 229.)
“Cum decem militibus de privata familia.” (Ibid., 223.)
5“ Cancellarius de propria familia lectam manum septingentos milites habebat.”
(Materials His. Becket, III, 33.)
6 "Iis quoque qui sibi adhaerere videbantur, in gratiam filii remisius agentibus
LEVIES OF SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY II
55
of the King, by the records in the Pipe Rolls of the transmission
of treasure to the place where the army or court happened to be.
Thus in 1174 treasure was taken across the sea." In 1187 Welsh
mercenaries were hired in anticipation of a war in France, and
were paid out of the Exchequer. One is reminded of the dis-
tinction that is sometimes made in reference to l'ost and la chevau-
chée of France. L'ost is the great expedition, the regular army,
assembled for an important war; la chevauchée is an expedition
of little importance and short duration, a military procedure
through an enemy's country. For ordinary wars the suzerain
addressed only the nobles and those living at no great dis-
tance.3
It is generally supposed that before the Scutage was made a
general levy it was employed as a means of commutation in
individual instances. The scutages of 1156, 1159, and others
were of general application, but there are some traces in the
Pipe Rolls of the older, individual form remaining. There are a
number of curious items which can hardly be explained in any
X Х
other way.
In the Roll of the second year is the item :
Abbas de Westm' deb. 2ol. de Scutagio suo.4
This must have been an arrear from a former time and not a
payment of the scutage of 1156, for the Abbot accounts for
that in another place. As the servitium debitum of the Abbot
of Westminster was 15 knights, the payment of 201. signifies a
rate of 2m. per fee, whereas the rate in 1156 was 20 s. That is,
before 1156 there must have been a scutage of 2 m. paid either
minus se credens, stipendiari Bribantionum copias, quas Rutas vocant, accersivit, eo
quod de thesauris regiis, quibus in tali articulo parcendum non esset, pecunia copiosa
suppeteret.” (Will. New, 172; Ben. Pet., I, 51.)
I“Et in liberacione Esneccae 71. Ios. quando Radulfus clericus camerae trans-
fretavit cum thesauro. (R. 20, H. II, Southampton.)
2"Et pro ducendo thesauro de Oxineford ad London' ad faciendas liberaciones
Welensibus transfretaturis in Normanniam ad regem.” (R. 33, H. II, Oxford.)
3 Luchaire, Manuel, 196.
SR. 2, pp. 13 and 63.
4R. 2, p. 92.
56
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
by the Abbot of Westminster alone or by a larger number.
The payment of the Abbot, however, is the only one of which
there is a record remaining. The Abbot was given a respite for
this payment, and the money is still due in the nineteenth
year."
In the Roll of the third year is the item :
Abbas de Abbedesbi redd' Comp' de 2m, arg. de Exercitu Wal.»
As the Abbot of Abbotsbury owed i knight, this was a
payment of 2 m. on the fee. It had no connection with the
scutage of 1156, as the Abbot also paid that. He was the
only one who made any such payment for the army of Wales
in 1157
X
There is ample evidence of scutages exacted by lords of
their undertenants independent of any general levy by the king.
In the Red Book of the Exchequer are printed certain Inquisi-
tions made in the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk about 1170.
Whether there were similar Inquisitions made in other counties
or not cannot be told. These returns differ from those of 1166
in that they endeavor to inform the king just how much the
undertenants are paying. The earlier inquiries were made of the
tenants-in-chief, the latter take the point of view of the sub-
tenant.4 Among other aids, such as to discharge the lord's
debts, to marry his daughter, or to knight his eldest son,
scutages for various armies are referred to since the king crossed
the sea in 1166. As many as five armies of Wales were paid
for by one tenant, while most of them paid for not more than
two armies of Wales and one "de ultra mare."
It is to be pre-
sumed that the king permitted the barons to take these scu-
tages in return for their service in these campaigns. The rate
*R. 19, p. 152.
3R. 2, 33; R. 3, 99.
4" Haec est inquisitio de manerio Comitis Arundeliae in Snetesham, scilicet quod
homines sui dederunt postquam dominus noster Rex Anglorum extreme transfretavit
in Normanniam," etc. (Red Rook, cclxvii.)
5 Red Rook, cclxxix.
"Hervicus de Ingelose dedit comiti Arundeliae de Scutagio
Regis de ultra mare, de ultimo exercitu Franciae, de quattuor militibus, 4l.” (Red
Book, cclxxi.)
?R. 3, 99.
666
per breve
LEVIES OF SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY II
57
for the Welsh wars was about 2m., though it was not uniform ;
that for “the last army of France” was 20 s." The Pipe Rolls
as well give evidence of desultory scutages paid by underten-
ants where the estates were held in custody by the king. In
the Roll for the nineteenth year, in the accounts of Yorkshire,
under the title, " De Scutag' militum qui non abierunt in Exercitu
Legr'," are two entries :
Rand' fil' Walti redd' Comp' de 295. 8d. de eodem Scutagio p' vindic-
tum suum.
Id' Vic' redd' Comp’ de 66s. 8d. de Scut' libere tenentium de feod' de
Wartra.2
No other payments of scutage for the army of Leicester are
recorded. Inasmuch as both Randulf and the fief of Wartora
paid and were acquitted for the scutage of Ireland, there can
be no doubt that these payments are not related to those of the
former year. As these parties in the eighteenth year paid for
3} and 47 knights respectively, one may doubt if these charges
are a scutage strictly, but perhaps a fine for failure in fulfilling
their obligations. A still stranger item is in the same Roll:
the custos for the Abbey of Hyde “redd Comp de 151. de
Scut' militum de exercitu Scottiae."'4
The Abbey also paid 151. for the scutage of Ireland. It is
hard to see why anyone should have spoken of the “army of
Scotland." The Justiciar was engaged in the siege of Leices-
ter when the King of Scotland, who had been watching his
chance, marched down against Carlysle. De Lucy, after taking
the town of Leicester, did not wait to besiege the castle, but
turned his army northward after the fleeing King of Scotland.
The English army passed the Tweed, wasting the country, but
was soon called back to defend the kingdom against Hugh
Bigod and others who were assailing Norwich.5 Do not the
instances here given strengthen the hypothesis, already indi-
cated, that the Scutage was intended primarily for church ten-
* Red Book, cclxxi.
4 R. 19, p. 57
?R. 19, p. 1o.
5 Will. New., 177.
3R. 18, p. 61.
58
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
ants and subtenants ? The institution generally implies in the
first place the rendition by the lord of service or payment to the
king, and in the second place the collection in turn of the money
from his tenants. That the payments by the lower grades of
holders were so common suggests that the custom began with
them and thence worked its way to the upper ranks.
CHAPTER III.
EFFECTS OF THE SCUTAGE, AND CONDITION OF KNIGHT SERVICE
UNDER HENRY II.
The relation of king to tenant-in-chief had its counterpart in
the relation of baron to subtenant. The baron might grant his
lands upon terms of whatever kind of tenure and whatever
amount of service he chose or was able to impose. He could
not rightfully call upon his men to go to war unless he himself
was summoned by the king, nor could he demand scutage, x
except as the scutage "ran through the kingdom,” to use a
common expression of the day, for the right of private war did
not exist in England. One finds where agreements were made
between lord and tenant upon the subject, the scutage of the
tenant was to be rated in proportion to the scutage of the king.'
Yet it does not follow that the tenants of barons always paid as
much per fee as the rate which was set by the king. When
baronies were “in the king's hand" and the tenants paid to the
king just as they otherwise would pay to their lords, it may be
seen that they did not necessarily pay the same; e. g., on certain
baronies in the 14th year tenants were paying 8 s. 4 d. for each
knight instead of im., and in the 18th year they likewise paid
of the regular rate." In 1173 the lands of the Earl of Leices-
ter were seized by the king, and one person who held of the
Earl paid im. for i knight, whereas the scutage of 1172 was
I"Saher concessit Matild' et heredibus suis illos duo solidatos redditus cum omni-
bus pertinenciis tenendos de se et heredibus suis ipperpetuum reddendo inde annuatim
duodecim denarios . . . . et ad exercitum Regis ad viginti solidos, quinque denarios
et ad plus plus, et ad minus minus.” (Feet of Fines, 7, Ric. I, 197.)
“Rob. de Bellocampo redd' Comp' de 71. 20d. pro 17 Mil. scl de unoquoque Mil.
8s. 4d. de feodo Comitis de Moret'.” (R. 14, 142.)
“Id' redd' Comp'de 53s. 2d. de 6 Mil' et dim. de feodo de Monte Acuto.” (R. 14,
ibid; R. 14, p. 144.)
59
60
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
regularly 1l. Perhaps there is some excuse here for the barons
having a greater number of enfeofments on their estates than
the amount of their servitium debitum.
It has been shown how the churchmen and small tenants in
capite took to the Scutage foremost and most naturally. How
was it with the great barons ? They began to assign fiefs imme-
diately after the general allotments of the Conqueror, but the
process was not spontaneous, but gradual and adapted to indi-
vidual conditions. The process of division and subdivision
went on indefinitely, and the reports of 1166, making a distinc-
tion between old enfeofments and new enfeofments, indicate
how many fiefs had been created before the death of Henry I
and how many since that time.
since that time. The payments made in 1168
will give an idea to what extent new enfeofments had been
created. The cartae of 1166 show to what extent the baronies
were cut up into quite small holdings. The Earl of Clare
rendered account for 131 knights' fees and and j and 1
and f and and to and 30 parts;' the Abbess of St. Edwards
in her cartel acknowledged 7 knights, each holding one or two
fees, but of new enfeofments there were tenants holding respec-
tively 1, 1, $, &, 3, 4, }, }, , }, } fees.3 Sevenths, twelfths, twen-
tieths of fees are to be met with.4 The new enfeofments are
more apt to contain such fractional parts than old enfeofments.
The cartae of 1166 represent the process of infeudation at one
stage of its growth. The division of fees was still to go on
after that time. These tenures on their face render a presump-
tion that the obligations were not rendered by personal service.
In the case of halves and thirds it would have been possible for
the holders to combine with one another to furnish a knight,
but in the instances cited any rendition of active service would
have been a too complex problem, The barons, therefore, were
obliged in some degree to accept the services of their tenants in
1
I“ Hugo de Berkineol redd' Comp' de im. de Scut. p. 1 Milite q' tenebat de
Comite." (R. 19, p. 67.)
*R. 14, p. 20, and Lib. Nig., 292. Feet of Fines, 7, Ric. I, 56.
3 Lib. Nig., 78.
EFFECTS OF SCUTAGE AND CONDITION OF KNIGHT SERVICE
61
\money. The tenants of integral fees were often as undesirous
of doing personal service as those holding fractional parts, and
the barons, not finding it practicable to array their tenants, were
in turn glad of an opportunity to pay the scutage of the king.
It was for the interest of the baron to keep up the military charac-
ter of his tenants, and to see that persons granted lands were
capable at arms,
A lord could insert in the charter of a tenant
that there should always be persons of knightly rank to perform
the service, and the lord might have a choice in the knights
whom the tenant would place on his land to perform the ser-
vice. If a lord was unable to secure the due service of his ten-
ant the case might be tried in the king's court, and the tenant
receive a writ to perform his full service.?
In the Fine Rolls of Richard I, which are the earliest records
we have of this kind, it is possible to learn the terms upon which
barons were granting their lands.
1. Grants in frankalmoign to ecclesiastical institutions, that
is, " free and quit” of all secular services, had always been made
to some extent by both king and lords. Knights' fees as well
as other kinds of land were transformed in this way.3
2. To some extent knights' fees were granted on terms of a
*1133–60. “Carta . . . . Walterus de Bolebeche, Waltero Abbati de Ramesia et
caeteribus abbatibus sequentibus ejusdem loci, donavit terram de Waltona per
servitium duorum militum .... et de hoc pacto Walterus abbas fecit eum securum
per duos milites, quos abbas posuit in suo loco, et si aliquis eorum moriatur,
alium ponat in loco suo abbas per electionem domini Walteri de Bolebech aut heredis
sui. Et si alius abbas venerit, iterum faciet dominum Walterum de Bclebech securum,
vel heredum suum, de hoc eodem pacto, per alios duos milites in electione Walteri vel
heredis sui, si alios habere voluerit et is forisfecerit, abbas aliquid erga dominum
Walterum, unde velit eum implacitare, in curia sua veniet, et faciet ei rectum sicut de
laico feodo." (Cart. Ramsey, I, 153.)
2“ Henricus (I) .... Rualloni salutem. Praecipio quod facias abbati Ramesia
domino tuo servitium et auxilium quod ei juste facere debes de terra sua, et nisi fece-
ris ipse te justificet per pecuniam tuam donec facias." (Chron. Abb. Ram., 232.)
3“Concordia facta in Curia Regis . . . . intra Robertum de Mortuo Mari petentem
et Priorem de Lewwes tenentem de quarta parte uni militis .... quod prae-
dictus Rob. concessit priori de Lewwes tenere in perpetuum libere et quiete praedic-
tam feodi unius militis cum omnibus pertinentiis suis in Hecgham.” (Feet of Fines, 3,
Ric. I, 10. See Polluck and Maitland, His. Eng. Law, I, 218.)
.
.
62
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
payment of rent. This represents the general tendency now
beginning to exchange knight tenure for socage tenure, yet it
does not follow that every knight's fee placed at a rental
became a socage tenure. Land was in this way given for the
dowry of a daughter for a nominal return.?
Whenever a mesne lord relieved a fief of its obligations to
military service or any other kind of service, those services had
to be met from the lord's demesne. It was particularly to
churches that such immunities were granted, and this process
was carried on to such an extent that in the charter of 1217 it
was provided that no free man should give or sell so much of
his land that from the remaining portion the service which
belonged to that fief could not be sufficiently rendered.3
3. To a considerable extent lands were granted for a return
both of money and knight service. Such tenures existed as
early as Henry 1,4 but they were not at that time common. By
the time of Richard I they were quite numerous.
The knight service in these cases is generally to be rendered
by scutage. It might seem that these holdings were a combi-
nation of socage and knight tenure, but they were considered
military tenures. Says Bracton, "if he superadd (to a rental)
scutage and a royal service, although for one-half penny or a
serjeantry, according to what has been said, that may be called
a military fief.”
A mesne lord often let out his land for a rent "for every
service saving forinsec service;”, that is, the tenant paid an
annual rent, and was under the obligations of knight tenure
I“Praedictus Greg' concessit praedicto et haeredibus praedictum feodum dimid'
militis. p' decem solidarios annuatim inde reddendos pro omni servicio.” (Feet of
Fines, 3, Ric. I, 19.)
2 Ancient Charters, Ed. Round, No. 12.
3 Second Charter Hen. III, § 39. Sel. Char., 346.
4 A grant by the Abbot of Ramsey was for 100 s. and the service of one knight.
(Chron. Abb. Ram., 260.)
5 Feet of Fines, Ric. I, passim.
6 Bracton, De Legibus, I, 293.
7 “Gregorius concessit praedicto Osberto et heredibus suis tenere pdictum feodum
dimid militis cum pertinentiis. ... p' decem Solidos annuatim inde reddendos pro
omni servicio. . . . Salvo servicio Domini Regis." (Feet of Fines, 6, Ric., 191.)
EFFECTS OF SCUTAGE AND CONDITION OF KNIGHT SERVICE
63
up.
only when the king called for service. It is not to be regarded
that the lords imposed rents as an extra burden in addition to
the military service already incumbent on the land. Lands had
to be granted at their market price. It is obvious that rents
were becoming the more popular form of obligation with the
small holder; there still had to be some means of discharging
the duties imposed by the king. The two modes of discharging
obligations would naturally adjust themselves. It is obvious
that among the small tenants military fiefs were somewhat of
an anomaly. The increasing use of the words "carucate,"
“bovate," "acre," referring to military lands, suggests the agri-
cultural habits of the small military holder.
The subject of the effects of the Scutage may now be taken
The Scutage of Henry II has been called "a blow at
feudalism," and a "disarming of the feudal party." There can
be no doubt that the Scutage was one of the strongest anti-
feudal influences of the period, but it has not been fairly treated
as to the way in which it operated. It has been held that the
Scutage broke the power of the feudal party by imposing a
heavy weight of taxation. It has been clearly shown in this
essay that the scutage was at no time as large a contribution as
has been supposed. The money for the great campaigns was
usually raised in greater part by other dona. In 1156 the dona
of counties and towns were nearly 2000 l., the scutage about
500l.; in 1159, out of a levy of 12000l., the scutage was about
2500l.; in 1061 the donum from the towns was 8401., the scutage
*Two bovates held for one pound of pepper, saving forinsec service. (Fines, Ric.,
35.) A messuage and 7 virgates held at 245. annually besides royal service of one-half
knight. (Fines, ed. Hunter, 274.)
? Polluck and Maitland, Hist. Eng. Law, I, 256.
3“ After the privileged landed proprietors, from the greatest crown 'vassal down
to the lowest, had been subjected to heavy money contributions, which were equiva-
lent to the actual burdens of feudal service, that impediment had been overcome in
England which on the continent caused the failure of land and income tax." (Gneist,
C. H., I, 214.)
4“But such a measure (the scutage) implies that the whole country was already
divided into knights' fees. And for the next two centuries the knight's fee was the
unit of reckoning for most military and many financial purposes." (Const. Essays, 57.)
64
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
9751.; in 1165 the greater amount was raised by the donum of
the towns, and the donum of serjeants; in 1168, when the fairest
comparison may be made, besides several other dona, the
donum of the towns was 4500l., and the scutage 4000l. The
amounts of scutage in the aggregate were not sufficient to sup-
port the several expeditions, neither in the individual case was
the scutage of a knight equivalent to his actual service, for out
of the eight times the scutage was imposed only twice was the
rate as high as 2 m., which can be considered such an equivalent.
There is no evidence that the Scutage, apart from other
dona, was considered oppressive under Henry II by the knight
tenants. When the churchmen and people complained it
was more likely because of the arbitrary tallages, which might
well seem unreasonable. The new feature, introduced in the
levy of 1168, of charging the barons according to the fees they
had created, instead of the amount of service they were accus-
tomed to render, was naturally disliked, and the payments for
knights "new enfeofment" or "which he does not acknowledge"
were made reluctantly, as we may see in the arrears of succeed-
ing years in the Pipe Rolls. But, on the whole, if the amounts
of arrears are a criterion, no tax was more promptly and cheer-
fully paid. The most potent anti-feudal influence of the Scutage
was not the way in which it affected the barons directly. That
a few of them were disposed to stay at home at times instead of
attending the army made little difference. The way in which
the barons themselves extended the system of shield money and
rents in return for military lands did the most to take away
from the knight tenants their military character. Service in the
army and the pursuit of husbandry did not go well together.
Influenced partly by the Crusades and the upgrowth of the
spirit of chivalry, considerable skill was required of a man at
arms., Troops of knights are sometimes referred to by the
chroniclers as "peritissimi milites," "lectissimi milites," "electa
militia," and it is often worth the while for a chronicler to men-
tion knights by name. The knights were the flower of the
I“In Flandria quidam miles nomine Valterus de Fontanis." (Ben. Pet., I, 99.)
EFFECTS OF SCUTAGE AND CONDITION OF KNIGHT SERVICE
65
army, but the infantry was of considerable consequence. An
army regularly consisted of "milites et servientes.". The army
organization was more complex than formerly. The Assize of
Arms created three classes of soldiers besides the knights.?
The serjeants were employed as cavalry as well as infantry, and
the cavalry seems to have been paid three times as much as the
infantry.3 Archers were also employed.
Seventeen Brabantine knights were captured “quorum nomina haec sunt.” (Hoved.,
II, 51, 55, etc.)
*1165. In Wales : "multos tamen ex suis tam milites quam pedites perdidit.”
(Gervase, I, 197.)
1185. " Johannes. . .. in Hiberniam cum copiosa cquitum peditumque multi-
tudine." (Ben. Pet., I, 339.)
1186. Richard against the Count of Toulouse “copiosam militum peditumque
multitudinem collegit.” (Ibid., 345.)
1187. King. . cum copiosa militum et servientium multitudine venit usque
Doveram.” (Ibid., II, 4.)
2 Sel. Char., 154.
3" Et in liberacione 250 servientum peditum qui abierunt praecepto Regis ultra
mare 161. 135. 4d. Et in liberacione 38 servientum equitum qui similiter abierunt ultra
mare 71. 12s.” (R, 33, Shropshire.)
CHAPTER IV.
SCUTAGE OF RICHARD AND JOHN.
After the time of Henry II it is not possible to scrutinize
each levy of the Scutage as could be done with the aid of the
Exchequer rolls, but it will be profitable to note the progress
of the Scutage as an institution and its effect on the conditions
of knight tenure. "Under Richard the same administrative
methods went on, but there were lacking the vigor and perpetual
oversight of his father. The great political officers of the king-
dom were quarrelsome among themselves, and the sheriffs were
rapacious and corrupt. A Scutage of Wales appears in the Rolls
for the second year of Richard. The method of assessment for
old and new enfeofments seems not to have been carried out.
Richard de Muntfichet rendered account of his knights old
enfeofment only, while, in the fourteenth year of Henry II,
William de Muntfichet of the same county paid both for old and
new enfeofments. Most paid simply “pro militibus suis." The
campaign in question was probably that of the fall of 1189, when
Richard sent John against the Welsh. The expedition soon
came to an end, as peace was made with the Welsh king at
Worcester before the army reached Wales. This will account
for the rate of the levy being so low as 10 s.
The levy of the famous ransom of Richard was collected in
the years 1193 and 1194. It would be the most interesting of
any levy thus far, but unfortunately the Roll of the fifth year is
lost. Some things, however, may be inferred from what has
been learned of other levies. The sum to be raised was 100,000 1.
* There is a single item of Scutage "propter Walens” in the first year. (R. I,
Ric., p. 5.)
*R. 3, Ric. See Madox, I, 637.
4 Ben. Pet., II, 87.
3R. 14, Hen. II, p. 38.
66
SCUTAGE OF RICHARD AND JOHN
67
altogether, but 100,000 m. was all that was to be attempted
before the actual release of the King. The ransom was an
occasion for one of the three customary aids, but it was not
merely a feudal levy. All the means both of feudal and national
taxation were brought to bear.
I. A scutage, under the circumstances, would naturally be the
first expedient thought of. A rate of 20 s. on the fee was not
above the average. To compare the accounts with those of
1172, William de Warenne paid 141. 55., the same as Reginald
de Warenne in 1172;2 William de Dammartin, 20 s., the same as
Alberic de Dammartin in 1172;the Abbot of Burg rendered
account for 60l., while in 1172 the same rendered account for 60l.
for knights quos recognoscit," and also 75 s. for knights “quos
non recognoscit;"3 the Bishop of Chester, 15l., the same as in 1172;
the Archbishop of York rendered account for 20 l., while in 1172
he rendered account for 201. and 231, 10s, fer knights “quos
non recognoscit ; "4 Henry de Tilli rendered account for 141.
15 s. de scutagio, while in 1172 William fitz John owes 141. 155.
scutage, “which ought to be required of Henry de Tilli," and
the same owes 20 s. new enfeofment;5 the Earl of Warwi
renders account in the seventh year of Richard for 1001.24
8 d., which is the scutage of 10213 knights; in the fourteent.
year of Henry II the Earl of Warwick rendered account for
10273 knights old enfeofment and for 2 knights new enfeof-
ment.6
It is evident that the experiment made in 1168 and 1172 to
levy upon all the enfeofments of the barons was not repeated.
The charges for "new enfeofments" and for knights "quos non
recognoscit" had remained nothing but idle records, and noth-
ing is longer claimed for these extra knights. The Churchmen
paid according to their servitium debitum, just as in the earlier
R. 14, Henry II, p. 59.
* Hov., III, 215.
• Madox, ibid.
Madox, I, 590. 18, Henry II, p. 30.
3 Madox, 1, 591. R. 18, Henry II, p. 37.
- Madox, ibid. R. 18, Henry II, p. 61.
5 Madox, ibid. R. 18, Henry II, p. 76.
68
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
scutages, while the lay tenants paid for “old enfeofments,
according to their cartae of 1166.
As to the amount which was raised by this scutage, Stubbs
says, “the sum thus levied must have amounted to not less than
25,000 l., if rigorously collected; but it was probably assessed
on the old system, and if so would not amount to more than
12,000 l." ;
The words of the great historian indicate a singular misap-
prehension, not only of the levy in question, but of the scutage
in general, as it existed under Henry II. In the first place, if
one will notice the statistics given in connection with the aid of
1168, it will appear at a glance that the difference between the
amounts under the old system of collecting and the new was
nothing like the ratio of difference between 25,000 l. and 12,000 l.
The new system affected only the tenants of the upper class, and
with them the amounts which they had to pay under the new
arrangement would not on the average compare with those under
the old in a ratio of 2 toi, but rather, if I may hazard such a con-
jecture, in the ratio of at most 5 to 4. In the second place, the
figure 12,000l., to say nothing of 25,000l., is far above what any
tage could possibly be. It will be remembered that the aid
1168 was the most extensively applied and most rigorously
collected of any scutage that has thus far been levied. The
amount was 4000 l., the rate being im. Therefore, if the collec-
tion of the ransom was as thoroughly carried out as was the aid
to marry the daughter, the total amount would have been between
5000 l. and 6000 l. But nothing can be more certain than that
the imposition was not carried out conscientiously. The sheriffs
in office were a corrupt class of men. William of Newburgh may
refer to the sheriffs when he lays the blame for the insufficiency
of the returns upon the "fraud of the executors. Aside from
this a large number of barons were acquitted by writs, by virtue
of their seats in the Exchequer, while others were acquitted by
the king himself on the ground of having accompanied the king
*Stubbs, Pref. Rog. Hov., IV, Ixxxiv.
2" Quod accidisse creditur per fraudem executorum.” (Will. New., Lib. IV, c. 38.) )
!
+
SCUTAGE OF RICHARD AND JOHN
69
!
in an army of Normandy." For example, in Norfolk and
Suffolk, the Earl of Clare, the Earl of Arundel, Robert de Tres-
goz, the Bishop of Ely were thus acquitted; in Yorkshire, knights
to the value of 162 l.; in Warwick and Leicestershire, the Earl
of Chester, Earl David, Hugh of Say, the Earl of Ferrers, the
Earl of Albermarle, Richard Basset, William de Longchamp,
Robert Marmion, etc. As these persons were some of the chief
barons who had the largest number of knights, it is at once evi-
dent how the total amount was considerably reduced. Accord-
ing to the transcripts of the Rolls made in the Red Book, the
entire sum of the scutage recorded for the ransom was about
34321., exclusive of the exemptions. Hoveden speaks of four
special officers being appointed as guardians of the ransom.' It
is hardly to be supposed that any scutage could have been raised
outside the ordinary process of the Exchequer. A part would
not have been accounted for at the Exchequer, and another part
in some other way. The conclusions thus reached harmonize
with the general view of Stubbs, that "the scutage of 1194 would
produce no more than those of Henry II's reign;"4 only Stubbs
misapprehended the scutages of Henry II.S
II. A hidage or carucage at a rate of 2 s. on the hide or caru
cate was levied on lands other than military. The amount is
said to be 5000 l., or nearly the same as the ancient Danegeld.
The tax may be regarded as a revival of the principle involved in
the Danegeld, and was levied according to the hidage assess-
ments of Domesday. It did not exist in the donums of Henry
II, as Stubbs has supposed. It has been the effort in the first !
part of this essay to show that the various donums of Henry II
were at first arbitrary assessments upon classes of people and
lands other than military. These prepared the way for a system
of taxation upon such lands according to a fixed principle, as in
the hidage.
I" Iti habent Quietantiam per Regem, quia fuerunt cum eo in exercitu Nor-
manniae." (See Madox, I, 591.)
2 Hoved., III, 212.
5 See Preface Ben. Pet., II.
3 Stubbs, Pref. to Hov., III, 83, note. 6 Hov. Preface, 84.
4 Ibid., p. 84, note i.
I
70
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
!
III. The grant of one-fourth of the revenue and mobilia
on the part of all persons, clergy and lay, comprised the largest
part of the money required. It is not possible that an actual
fourth was raised, as there was no adequate method of assess-
ment of a man's wealth by a jury, as in the case of the Saladin
tythe; but thenceforth large subsidies were to be raised by this
kind of taxation.
IV. All the wool of the Cistercians and Gilbertines.
V. The gold and silver implements of the churches."
It was perhaps because of the unusual character of such a
demand that Richard in his letter to England asking for aid,
while not directing any of the other forms of levy, especially
enjoins that of the gold and silver of the churches.?
There is a passage in William of Newburgh which has caused
difficulty of explanation, wherein he states that a first collection
of the aid was found insufficient, and the ministers resorted to a
second and again a third collection. As to what is meant by a
first, second, and third collection some light is given by a roll
of the Curia Regis for 1194.4 In September of that year jus-
Ptices itinerant were sent out to try pleas, with the aid of a jury
each hundred, and among other things they were given direc-
tions to ascertain "concerning all the aids given for the ransom
of the king, how much each one promised, how much he has
contributed, how much he is in arrear."5 The justices rendered
their reports on the aids for each hundred visited.
example of these reports :
“Summa primi auxil., 331. 18s. 4d. Adam clericus vicecomes recepit.
Summa secundi auxil., 121. Ios. quos Thom. clericus recepit.
Summa hidagii, 71. 14 sol. quos Thom. clericus recepit.
Summa Totius, 541. 25. 4d."6
* The analysis is taken from Stubbs' Preface to Hoveden, III, with amendments
and additions.
Hov., III, 209.
4 Pipe Roll Soc., vol. 14.
3“Denique propter hanc primae collationis insufficientam, ministri regii secundam
tertiamque instaurant.” (Will. New, Lib. IV., c. 38.)
5 "Item de omnibus auxiliis datis ad redemptionem domini regis, quis quantum
promiserit, et quantum reddiderit, et quantuin a retro sit.” (Hov., III, 263.)
OR. Curia Regis (Ed. Maitland), 78.
As an
SCUTAGE OF RICHARD AND JOHN
71
€.g.,
This is the form which generally appears for each hundred,
but a few variations of form give additional information. The
first aid was certainly the fourth, as it is sometimes called such;
“Summa primi auxilii de Quarto.". The hidage is also called
the third aid or tallage. The second aid is harder to define.
It was not a scutage, for in some hundreds the scutage return is
given, and the second aid bears no relation to it;3 neither is it
another levy of the fourth or hidage, for it bears no constant
relation to either. The second aid is once given in this form :
“Summa de assisa decem solidorum, 5m. ;'' 4 and again, “De 10 sol,
et eo amplius."'s Assisa is an old word which sometimes appears
instead of donum in the Rolls of Henry II. Evidently there is
some form of donum in the “second aid” which is not men-
tioned by the chroniclers, and so does not appear in the scheme
given above. It was something based on an assessment of “10l.
and upward," whether in land or other property. It may have
been a special imposition upon the richer class. William of
Newburgh speaks particularly of the rich being despoiled. It
will be remembered that in the aid of 1168 there was a special
donum "de promissione" on the part of the richer ecclesiastics and
some others. This levy, however, was of a more general char-
acter.
Only in several instances do the reports say anything about
the scutage. It cannot be known to what extent scutage
accounts were rendered in the year 1194, but very many were
not rendered till the following year. The facts as here given
indicate that the ransom was raised, not by a variety of contri-
butions all levied at once, but by a succession of impositions
extending over two years and more. First was the fourth, then
the " 10 shillings and upward" tax, then the hidage, the scutage,
and finally the gold and silver of the churches. Not all of the
*R. Curia Regis (Ed. Maitland), 108.
5 Ibid., 91.
2 Ibid., 108.
o See Introd. of Roll of Curia Regis (Ed. Maitland).
3 Ibid., 109.
7" Quosque locupletiores pecuniis spoliant." (IV, 38.)
4 Ibid., 95.
8 R. Cur. Reg., 86, 109.
9" Postremo ad vasa sacra ventum est.” (Will. New, ibid.)
72
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
to.
ransom, but probably the greater part, was raised in England."
Under Richard there were a second and a third scutage of
Normandy, assessed in the years 1196 and 1197 for campaigns
taking place respectively in 1195 and 1196. The carucage
of 5 s. in 1198 is said by Stubbs to redress the balance of tax-
ation between tenants in knight service
knight service and tenants in
socage. The Oxford debate of 1198 has already been referred
The question of liability to foreign service on the part of
the Bishops of Lincoln and Salisbury was raised, but there was
in the resistance of Hugh of Lincoln no refusal of a scutage
demanded by the king.
The question may be asked, how far the crusade of Richard
and Philip Augustus affected England in respect to knight ten-
ures and knight service. The chivalric king was continually
sapping the country for sums of money to support his military
enterprises, and the ransom took still more. In 1188 probably
most of the barons and a large number of the knights of Eng-
land put themselves under obligations by vows to go on the cru-
sade 3
If there had been a general exodus of the knighthood
of the kingdom it would certainly have had a great effect upon
the economic condition of the country. But it does not appear
that a large number of Englishmen took part in this great expe-
dition. The king obtained from the Pope permission to release
whomsoever he chose from their vows, and this he employed as
an expedient for getting money. A number of prominent men
in England, such as Ranulf Glanvil, Roger Glanvil, Archbishop
Baldwin, the Bishop of Norwich, the Bishop of Salisbury, the
Archdeacon of Colchester and others, 5 went with the king, in
some cases because they could not pay for a release. But the
most of the barons paid for licenses to stay at home. The cru-
sading fleet which accompanied Richard is said to have consisted
* Similiter factum est per omnes terras regis transmarinas." (Hov., III, 225.)
Stubbs, Pref. Rog. Hov., IV, 92,
3 Ben. Pet., I, 336.
* Rex obtinuit ab eo (Pope) litteras patentes ut quoscunque ipse vellet dimittere
ad terras suas custodiendas, essent quieti a captione crucis, et ab itinere Jerusalomito
unde ipse sibi inaestimabilem acquisivit pecuniam.” (Hov., III, 17.)
5 Hov., III, Preface, 28; Mem. Ric. I, 93.
SCUTAGE OF RICHARD AND JOHN
73
of 37 capacious vessels, not a large number certainly compared
with the fleets ordinarily used to convey armies to the conti-
nent. Of the men who thus embarked, we may well believe
from the encouragement given to enlistments, and the subse-
quent conduct of many crusaders, that a considerable part of
Richard's following were of the more doubtful classes of
society. In the conduct of the crusade the leaders that are
noticed by English writers are mostly not men of England.
Over the English fleet were placed in command the Archbishop
of Auxerre, the Bishop of Bayeux, Richard of Camville, Wil-
liam de Forz de Wheran, and Robert of Sablul, only two of
whom were men of England. In the matter of tenures, it is not
possible to discern that the third crusade, which was the first in
which England had a direct interest, made any difference. The
general tendency of the times, the gradual assimilation of lands
held by military tenures to those held by rents, was already
under way before the time of the crusade, and was not particu-
larly affected by it. If there had been any considerable depar-
ture of knights from the country they would have been likely to
try to dispose of their lands, and the putting of many knights'
fees at one time on the market would have caused a fall in the
price of such lands. The tendency was just the opposite, how-
ever. In spite of the considerable outpourings of money for
the crusade and the ransom, there is perceptible a general rise
in value of land as well as prices. Knights' fees were being
disposed of, generally at a rental superimposed on the military
obligations. The fad of holding tournaments, common at that
time, was an outgrowth of the crusading spirit. The increase in
the wages paid a knight at arms may have been partly encouraged
by the crusades. Yet the general upward tendency of prices
bespeak an economical development quite independent of any
crusade.3;
There were but three scutages under Richard, besides that
i R. Diceto.
3“Quidam hominum qui in comitatu Roberti de Sablul et Ricardi de Camvilla
venerant, malefactores erant et perversi.” (Hov., III, 35.)
3 Compare Thompson, Development of the French Monarchy, p. 80.
.
74
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
for the ransom. Under his successor there were eleven assessed.
John was crowned in May 1199, and in the Pipe Roll for the
first year is recorded a scutage entitled "de primo Scutagio post
Coronationem Regis."'! There was no regular military expedition
for which a scutage might properly be levied, but in June John
went to Normandy, concluding a truce with the King of France.
There were fines paid by some who failed to accompany the
King in this passage to Normandy. It was unusual for scutages
to be recorded in the same year that they were assessed, and the
object of the levy was generally made more definite.
This scutage of 2 m. was raised upon an assessment of old
enfeofments only, and in the case of churchmen for the knights
"quos recognoscit." The Archbishop of York paid 40 m., the old
servitium debitum being 20 knights; the Bishop of Durham paid
20m. for the 10 knights of his servitium debitum instead of for
the 70 knights which he had enfeoffed ; William de Mobray
rendered account for 176 m. for 88 knights, which is about the
same as the old enfeofment rendered by Roger de Mobray in
1168, who paid for 8874 knights besides over 11 knights new
enfeofment.4 So that new enfeofments were not paid by the
barons.
There were six scutages of Normandy levied in successive
years :
For a campaign in 1201, enrolled 1202 @ 2
I 203 @ 2
I 204 @ 2
" 1204,
1205 @ 22m.5
1205,
1206 @ 2
1206,
1207 @ 205.
in.
ni.
I 202,
I 203,
mi.
66
m.
These exactions were more frequent than ever before, but
the rate 2 m. was the same as in 1159 and 1161, although a
chronicler states it had never been over 20 s. before.6
.
* Red Book, 10.
- Hoved., IV, 93.
3" De hiis qui finem fecerunt pro Passagio suo.” (Madox, I, 638.)
* Madox, I, 263; R. 14, Hen. II, p. 87.
5 The Red Book gives the rate 2 m. (See Doc. Scot., I, 64.)
6 Rad. Coggeshale, Sel. Char., 272.
SAUSAGE OF RICHARD AND JOHN
75
The particular grievance on account of these levies was not
the high rate or the frequency of the demand, so much as it was
the specious occasions for raising them. Under Henry II and
Richard scutages had been raised always with reference to bona-
fide military expeditions, and generally campaigns of consider-
able import, for which a general summons had been issued, and
as large a force as possible actually marshalled. The summonses
and campaigns of John were often mere pretexts for raising
money, and the military operations were trifling, if carried out
at all. In 1201 the king assembled an army at Portsmouth to
cross into Normandy. But the King of France, on hearing of
this, gave up the sieges he had undertaken. John sent home
again most of the army, first taking from each man the money
he had brought for his personal expenses.' In 1202 and 1203,
having reached Normandy with an army, the king remained
engaged in idle pleasures, indisposed to fight. The barons left
him in disgust. This act on their part the king considered a
desertion, and made it the pretext for an extortion of one-seventh
upon the mobilia of the barons. In 1205 a large army was col-
lected at Portsmouth to cross into Normandy. A large fleet
and many sailors were ready to convey the forces, but it was
decided in a council that only a small force should cross over.
With the smaller following, however, only a feigned start for
France was made, the vessels being made to change their course
and return to Warham. The king offered a pretext that the
barons and knights refused to follow hiin, although one writer
says that never were soldiers more eager for war.3
The expedition to Wales in 1211 was equally a farce, for the
King, hearing that the barons were planning an insurrection,
dismissed his army and betook himself to Nottingham castle.
In the light of these abuses it is easy to understand the article
in the charter of 1217, that “Scutage shall be taken just as it used
to be in the time of Henry our grandfather.”
It is stated that in the year 1204, an assembly at Oxford
Hov., IV, 160–163.
3 Mat. Par., II, 290; R. Cog., 153, 154.
2 Mat. Par., II, 282.
4 Rad. Cog., 164.
4
76
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
1212 @ 205.
granted a scutage of 272 m. as a special aid. This is notable
as being the first instance that such a tax was said to be granted
to the King by the barons. In connection therewith was a
donum.' The remaining scutages of the reign were:
For an expedition to Ireland, 1210, enrolled 1211 @ 2m.
Wales, I211,
1212 @ 2m.
Scotland, 1211,
Poictou, 1214,
1215 @ 3m.?
It is quite evident that the knights' fees were assessed in the
same manner as under Richard, that is, upon old enfeofments
according to the returns made under Henry II.3 Thus, in the
'Pipe Roll of the 13th year of John, for Yorkshire, Robert de
Turnham owes 311. 10 s. for 31 fees of William Fossard's fee.
In 1168 William Fossard rendered 21 l. for 3172 knights. Wil-
liam de Mobray was discharged for 884 fees; in 1168 Roger
de Mobray accounted for 8814 knights old enfeofment;5
Richard de Perci for 15 fees of one-half William de Perci's
honor, and William Briwere 15 fees of the same honor; in 1168
William de Perci accounts for 30 knights;6 Geoffrey Lutrel for
772 fees of one-half Wm. Painel's barony; in 1168 William
Painel accounted for 15 knights old enfeofment;6 Roger de
Lacy for 4334 fees; in 1168 Henry de Lacy renders account
for 291. 35. 4 d.?
The clergy paid for the knights “quos recognoscit,” which was
the same as the old servitium debitum. The Prior of Coventry
repeatedly renders account for 20 m. on 10 fees, the same as
under Henry II.8 Likewise the Abbot of St. Albans for 6 fees.
In the case of custodies the rating of 1166, both for old and
new enfeofments, was taken; 1.8., Roger, constable of Chester,
I“ Convenerunt ad Oxoniam rex et magnes Angliae; ubi concessa sunt regi
auxilia militaria, de quolibet scuto scilicet duae marcae et dimidia. Nec etiam
episcopi et abbates sive ecclesiasticae personae sine promissione recesserunt.” (Mat.
Par., .484; Madox, I, 605.)
? Red Book of Exch., 12.
6 Ibid., 88.
3 Doc. Scot., 1, 84.
7 Ibid., and Doc. Scot., I, 84.
4 R. 14, H. II, 87.
8 Madox, I, 639.
5 R. 14, H. II, 87.
SCUTAGE OF RICHARD AND JOHN
77
owes 471. 55. for 4714 knights' fees of the fee of Richard
Muntfichet, whose heir he has in ward; and 145. of half a fee
and of a new enfeofment;' in 1168 William de Muntfichet
accounted for the same number of knights, 31 1. 10s. old enfeof-
ment, and gs. 4 d. new.?
The fact that the barons did not have to answer to the king
for their full enfeofments did not preclude them from receiving
the full emoluments of all the fees they might create. An
interesting case, bringing up this question, was tried in the king's
court in 1196. The abbot of St. Edmunds' servitium debitum was
40 knights, but he had as many as 50 upon his estate 3 He
claimed to have the scutages, aids and the like, of 50 knights,
while his tenants claimed that the 1o extra knights should not
render service to the abbot, but support the 40 knights, and that
such had been the custom. The tenants probably had this much
of right on their side that in rendering active service the forty
knights would not always be the same, and groups of ten in
rotation would be relieved. After the abbot had been put to
considerable annoyance, as it not infrequently happened that
undertenants had some success in resisting the demands of their
lords, it was decided by the Justiciar that "each knight should
answer individually for his own tenement.”4 This ended any
claim of collective obligation on the part of the tenants.
A question closely allied to the liability of scutage is that of
the obligation to foreign service, which now became a mooted
one. There is nothing inherent in the English constitution dur-
ing the feudal period which precludes the obligation of foreign
military service as well as domestie service. The issue was not
thought of under the Norman kings. William II even gathered
together the fyrd at Hastings to take across the sea. Though
the plan was not actually carried out, the obligation to go was
not questioned. Likewise in 1177 Henry II was prepared to
take his English baronage across to Normandy, though the
* Pipe Roll, 13; Doc. Scot., I, 85.
2 R. 14, H. II, 38.
3 There were 52% knights accounted for in 1168. (R. 14, H. II, 22.)
+ Chron. Jocelin de Brakelonda, 48.
78
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
necessity for it was averted. The idea that they were not obliged
to serve abroad took hold of the barons slowly under the new
conditions. Under Henry II and Richard the custom of levying
scutages after such campaigns made it possible for many of the
barons to remain at home at such times, and so perhaps less
inclined to serve abroad. In 1197 the Bishops of Lincoln and
Salisbury resisted a demand for foreign service upon the ground
of some prescriptive rights of their respective churches. In 1201
the barons gathered at Leicester in common council decided that
they would not follow him abroad unless he rendered them their
rights. There does not appear any basis of law for this refusal ;
nor is it likely that the barons thought there was, except that it
was only fair that the king should perform his part if they were
to perform theirs. In 1205, when a large assembly had been
brought together, the Archbishop of Canterbury and William
Marshall, who had just come home from abroad, tried to dis-
suade the king from his undertaking, showing that the king of
France was better prepared than he, that it would be unsafe for
him personally, and impolitic in behalf of the state. The barons
in council took the question up, and the king felt himself obliged
to yield to their objections and not send the whole army to
France. In 1214 was the first time that a question of law was
raised between king and barons upon the obligation of foreign
service. Upon the levy of scutage for the expedition to Poictou
some of the northern barons, who would naturally have had less
interest than others in continental affairs, claimed that for lands
held in England they were not obliged to serve outside the
realm. It is noteworthy that they placed the obligation to
scutage upon the same footing 5 The barons had the better
Stubbs, C. H., I, 524.
Round, Feud. Eng., 528.
3“ Mandaverunt regi quod non transfretarent cum illo, nisi ille reddiderit eis jura
petebat ab eis castella sua.” (Hov., IV, 161.)
4 R. Cog., 153.
5" Dantibus enim illud (scutage) plurimis, contradixerunt ex aquilonibus non-
nulli, illi videlicet qui anno praeterito regem ne in Pictaviam transiret impedierunt;
dicentes se propter terras quas in Anglia tenent non debere regem extra regnum sequi,
nec ipsum euntem scutagio juvare. E contrario, rege id tanquam debitum exigente,
!
sua.
Rex autem
SCUTAGE OF RICHARD AND JOHN
79
I
as ever.
reason, but the king had the precedents on his side. None of
these disagreements between king and nobles received a satis-
factory solution at the time. Every instance of opposition,
however, was an encouragement to another. The fact of the
loss of Normandy to the English crown in 1204 could make no
difference as to the legal situation, for the king did not acknowl-
edge that Normandy was not his rightful possession as much
It made a great difference, however, in the degree of
interest in Normandy felt by the English baronage, and the con-
nection between families on either side of the Channel.
Although it had become quite customary with the Anjevin's
kings to remit military obligations by levies of scutage, and to
carry on their military operations to a greater or less extent
by the employment of Flandrine, Brabantine, Welsh, and other
mercenaries, and although landholding was visibly coming to be
less and less on a soldierly basis, it would be a mistake to sup-
pose that it was a policy of these kings to break down the feudal
military system, and that they purposely set about to establish
some other system. The documents relating to land grants are
fairly copious under John, and there are numberless instances
like the following:
"Sciatis quod dedimus dilecto et fideli nostro Rob. de Veteri Ponti West-
miland ad se sustentandum in servicio nostro.” (1205.)?
“ Praecipimus .... quod facias habere Thom. de Erdington 15 libra-
tas terrae extensas in manerio in W. cum pertinentiis
quas ei dedimus
ad sustentandum se in servicio nostro.” (1205.)3
« Terram quam dominus Rex ei concessit ad se sustentandum in
servicio suo quamdiu ei placuit." (1216.) 4
It did not necessarily follow that one who was a knight in
England held land for which he owed service. Throughout the
eo quod in diebus patris sui et patris sic fieret; res ulterius processisset, nisi legati
praesentia obstituisset.” (Wal. Cov., II, 217.)
*Stubbs, Pref. W. Cov., II.
3 Rot. Claus., I, 19.
2 Rot. Claus., I, 27.
* Ibid., 282,
5 See Writ for the levying of a force to defend the kingdom : “Et si quis miles vel
serviens vel alius terram tenens inventus erit, qui, etc. Si qui vero milites, servi-
entes, vel alii qui terram non habent, inventi fuerint, etc." (Sel. Char., 281.)
.
.
80
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
2ܙܙ
reign of John there was a continual infeudation of lands on terms
of knight service, particularly in Ireland," and to a considerable
extent in England. The terms of a grant to a person were
often expressed "to sustain himself in our service," or "as long
as it was pleasing to him to sustain himself in the king's service."2
Those who were in the king's service were allowed special privi-
leges, particularly respite for their dues at the Exchequer, e.g.:
“Mandamus vobis quod ponatis in respectum demandam quam facis
Henr' fil' Com' de debito quod nobis debet quamdiu idem Henricus fuerit in
hoc exercitu nostro modo summonito cum equis et armis par praeceptum
nostrum.” (1205.) 3
The king places the property of one who is in service under
the special care of his officer, e.g.:
“Rex Justiciario Hiberniae .... ducimus eum (Hugh de Lacy) cum
corpore nostro in servicium nostrum unde vobis mandamus quod sicut nos
diligitis terram suam et omnia sua custodiatis mantineatis et defendatis sicut
nostra dominica," etc.4
The king paid a man a yearly income for his homage and
service, e. &.:
“Sciatis quod dedimus Willelmo de Wika pro homagio et servicio suo
Iom. percipiendas annuatim.”5
Various liveries were paid to secure men for the king's service,
e. g.:
“Rex Gef' fill Pet. . . . . mandamus vobis quod faciatis habere de
Wigorn' 2om. ad preparandum se ad veniendum in servicium nostrum."6
In some instances other obligations of a tenure were removed,
provided the tenant did knight service. Thus:
Johannis .. Sciatis nos concessisse et hac presenti carta confirmasse
quod Wills de Moriston et heredes sui post eum teneant de nobis et heredibus
nostris in perpetuum totum tenementum suum quod de nobis et de ances-
soribus nostris tenuit in hundred de Midelton p'50 sol. p' annum et qui-
• Rot. Chartarum, I, 19, 30, etc.
“ Terram quam dominus Rex ei dedit quamdiu fuit in servicio suo."
(Rot. Lit. Claus., I, 280.)
3 Rot. Lit. Claus., I, 30.
4 Rot. Lit. Claus., I, 37.
5 Ibid., 37.
6 Ibid., 19.
SCUTAGE OF RICHARD AND JOHN
81
busdam aliis serviciis in gavelcunde, faciendo in amore nobis et heredibus
nostris servicium feudi unius militis p'omni servicio," etc.
As the instances cited are not taken from the years of the
rebellion against John, they may be taken to fairly represent the
condition of the military service of the time.
At the time of Henry II a scutage of 2 m. might be consid-
ered a fair equivalent for the service of a knight for 40 days.
Until about the time of John the payment of a scutage, when
permitted, was considered a complete acquittal of the obligation
of serving in the army and leading one's contingent of followers.
At the beginning of the 13th century, however, the wages of a ,
knight in the field had risen far beyond what the highest rate of
scutage could pay for. In 1198 the Abbot of St. Edmunds hired
knights at the rate of 3 s. a day. Many knights of Flanders were
given by John 3 m. or 5 m. de dono for a term of service.3 Per-
haps the average cost of a knight is found in the writ of 1205,
vhich directs nine knights to find a tenth at a livery of 25. a
day. A select body of knights is referred to as solidati milites.5
The custom of levying scutage had not come to such,
a pass
that
a tenant could claim as a right the fulfillment of his military
obligations by scutage-except as such a right had been specif-
ically granted, particularly in the charters of undertenants. The
feudal law was still in force that one who failed to obey his sum-
mons was guilty of a default and might suffer forfeiture or pay a
fine. The king, therefore, after an expedition, had a right to
demand fines of those who had not attended, aside from scutage.
In the 8th year of Richard the Prior of Coventry paid a fine of
251. "for not crossing the sea and for having the scutage of 25
At most of the levies of scutage there are accounts
of fines as well, and in the rolls there are titles de finibus et scuta-
giïs militum. In 1199, soon after his coronation, John passed over
into Normandy.7 No scutage was raised in reference to this
knights."6
? Rot. Char., 1199, p. 31.
• Jocelin (Cam. Soc.), 63.
3 Misae Roll, 14 y.
* Sel. Char., 281.
5 R. Cog., 155.
6 Madox, I, 638.
7 Hov., IV, 42.
82
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
excursion, but there were fines pro passagio paid by some who
did not follow him. Ralph Musard rendered 10 m. pro passagio
suo. Such a fine had no connection with the number of knights'
fees. In 1168 Hascuil Musard paid for 12 knights.3 Of knights'
fines of the second scutage Walter fitz Gilbert accounts for rom.
for 3 knights' fees. It has been shown that the barons in ren-
dering their scutage paid for old enfeofments only. So that in
collecting from their undertenants the barons would have as
profit the returns from new enfeofments, if there were any. But
it was likely they had to pay fine for collecting the scutage from
their men, in case they had not merited it by actual service. The
Prior of Coventry, who regularly paid scutage for 10 knights,
paid a fine of 251. for not having crossed the sea and for having
the scutage of 25 knights owing him. Ralph, son of Stephen,
rendered account of 40 m. " for passage and for having his scu-
tage."5 The idea was that a lord should have the scutage of his
tenants to support him in war, but that he could not have that
scutage merely for his pecuniary gain. When the baron had
made his settlement with the king, he was given permission to
levy the scutage of his tenants, often by a writ to the sheriff like
the following: · King to the Sheriff of York.–We direct you
that you permit the scutage of William de Albeny for the knights'
fees which he holds of us in capite in your bailiwick to be col-
lected by the hands of his bailiffs, since he will answer to us
therefor, and do you let us know the amount of the scutage.”6
Sometimes the scutage of undertenants was collected by the
king's officers. In the 16th year of John are numerous writs
directing sheriffs to collect and account for the scutage due from
persons specified, or to permit such scutage to be collected by
the hands of the persons entitled thereto.?
*R. 1, Jn.; Madox, I, 638.
Unless the scutage of that year designated "first after the coronation" was
because the passage to Normandy.
3 R. 14, H. II, 99.
4 Pipe R., 3; John Northumberland, Doc. Scot., I, 53.
5 Madox, I, 538.
6 Close Roll, I, 43.
7 Scutage Rolls; see Bird, Genealogist, 1884.
SCUTAGE OF RICHARD AND JOHN
83
I
:
Thus the policy in which the administration of Henry II had
seemed to fail was in fact carried out. It had been found
impracticable to charge the barons according to their entire
number of enfeofments, and so remove at once the feudal charac-
ter of the levy. But the same results were practically brought
about in another way. If the crown, being well informed of the
resources of a baron, could exact from him in connection with
the scutage what was called a fine, or a payment in camera,
according to his ability to pay, the baron could no longer be the
gainer by the operation of the levy.
In the years 1210-12 inquisitions were made throughout
the kingdom concerning the services of knights and others hold-
ing in capite. The method was quite different from that
employed in 1166. Then the returns were made by the barons
according to the number of fees in their baronies; now the
returns are made by the sheriffs according to the holdings in
their respective counties. The reports for different counties
vary. Some name all the tenants of a barony or tell how many
fiefs they possess, as in the case of the archbishoprick of Canter-
bury and the bishoprick of Salisbury; while most indicate the
services owing the king. The object of the inquisitions was not
to introduce any new method in the assessment of scutage, for
in the succeeding years the payments of the barons will be found
to be made according to the cartae of 1166. For example, the
Earl of Warwick is reported for Warwickshire with 98 knights ;?
in the 14th year of Henry III the Earl paid for 10273 fiefs, the
same as in 1168.3 The main purpose, therefore, was not to
ascertain the resources of the barons, but to determine the ten-
ants, and particularly the small tenants, for whom the sheriffs
were to answer. So that lists are given of tenants in serjeantry
and of those holding “lands without service”4 and of those
holding lands "whose services are not known."'5
From the data that have been brought out relating to the
A Red Book, 530.
* Red Book, 469 et seq.
2 Red Book, 549.
3 Madox, I, 640.
5 Ibid., 534.
84
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
11
!
Scutage under Richard and John it is perfectly clear that a levy
of scutage was then of no greater relative importance than under
Henry II. This fact has not been clearly understood. Under
John the levies were more frequent than formerly, and the aver-
age rate was higher, but the basis of assessment was the Cartae
of 1166. The levies were not executed with any such rigor as
those of 1168 and 1172, for the assessments were upon old
enfeofments only. The documents show also a great number of
acquittals for scutage. The remittances of the ransom have been
referred to; for the scutage of Scotland of 1212 it seems as if the
most of the greater tenants in Yorkshire, Essex and Hertford-
shire, Northumberland were discharged by writs. So that the
actual amounts attained even with the higher rate would not be
materially greater than under Henry II.
In Magna Charta it is laid down that no scutage or aid should
be levied unless by the common council of the realm, except for
the three regular aids. There has been but one instance thus
far where a scutage was plainly granted by the barons. In the
future this rule was at times to be adhered to, at other times not,
but the law once laid down could not fail to have a strong influ-
ence. Unless the king was himself strong and had a good cause,
the consent of the barons must be invoked. It was also pro-
vided that no one should be distrained to do more service from
a knight's fee or other free tenement than was due from it. At
times a service of 80 days in a year had been asked for under
Henry II and John, and two scutages were imposed in one year.s
This did not happen more than once again. In the Charter of
Henry III of 1217 it was understood that scutages were to be
levied only for bona-fide expeditions. In reference to the 44th
article of the charter of 1217 Stubbs says: “The exact force of
the clause is, however, uncertain; if, as may be thought, it was
I“Among the manifold sources of revenue under the Crown, undeniably the most
important for the future of the Exchequer and the Constitution was the Scutagium."
(Gneist, C. H., I, 214.)
See Doc. Scot., 1, 83 et seq.
5 R. II, Henry II. -
3 Magna Charta, Sec. 12.
6 Sel. Char., 345, § 44.
* Magna Charta, Sec. 16.
SCUTAGE OF RICHARD AND JOHN
85
to restrict the amount of scutage, it was a concession on the part
of the crown; if it means that scutages should be taken without
asking the commune concilium, it was a retrograde act." The
explanation already presented, that scutage should be levied
only upon adequate occasions, finds this much plausibility that
in this sense the new restriction was timely and was subse-
quently heeded, whereas in either of the other senses it was a
sheer dead letter.
* The period of John presents a transition in the development
of the Scutage.!. On the one hand, the king becomes more
dependent on his barons for the levies of scutage imposed
throughout the kingdom; on the other hand, by the system of
fines and a close supervision through the courts and Exchequer
of the relations existing between tenants and mesne lords, the
individual baron becomes totally dependent on the king's per-
mission to have the scutage of his men. The system is more
complicated than at first, but the tendencies to a greater national
unity are visible in this institution as in others.
I
CHAPTER V.
THE SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY III.
Rate
2ni.
I 221
12
IOS.
2m.
The Scutage, having become firmly implanted in the constitu-
tion, continued under Henry III and Edward. But it was little
more than the survival of an institution which had seen its best use.
It began with the idea of being in some measure a pecuniary
equivalent for the service which was the part of military fiefs. It
no longer can pretend to be anything like such an equivalent,
but the institution, being so well established, is kept up under
fiction of law, while the real compositions for feudal service are
made in other ways.
The first period of Henry III, 1216 to 1227, was that of the
regency. The following scutages were levied:
Occasion
Levy
Army of 1217 (?),
1218 (called “the first ")
Siege of Biham,
Army of Montgomery, 1221? I 2233
Siege of Bedford, • 1224
The scutage of 1218 is designated, like the first of John, as
"first after the first coronation.” It probably was in reference
to an army raised in 1217 against Louis VII, for in some of the
writs for collecting it is the clause, "scias quod A. B. venit ad
fidem et servicium."5 The siege of Biham was short, being from
February 3 to February 8; the scutage was at a correspondingly
low rate; there was no objection raised against another army of
the same year, which was against Wales. In this period of the
regency, when the barons in council had virtual control of the
government, each one of these levies of scutage was by consent
*Close R., I, 475; Lanc., Lay Sub., 124.
2 Mat. Par., III, 64.
3 Mat. Par, says the scutage was granted 1221, but the writs were issued 1223.
(Close R., I, 570.)
4 Pipe R., 8, H. III; Madox, I, 669.
Close R., I, 373.
12244
2m.
86
THE SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY III
87
ܫ ܙܙ
of the barons. Thus, in the scutage of 1218, it was said in the
writs "which was assessed by common council of our realm."
In 1221 news of a rebellion was brought while the king and
barons were sitting at Oxford, and there the army of Biham was
decided upon;", in 1221 the grant of scutage by the magnates
was said to be at the time the army was dismissed; in 1224 the
form of expression is varied somewhat: after the capture of
Bedford castle the barons who were with the king granted for
his expenses a carucage, and the king in turn granted the mag-
nates a scutage, after which the army was dismissed.3
The other scutages of this reign were as follows:
Occasion
Levy
Rate
2ni.
3m.
3n.
20.
Army of Wales, 1228 + (Kerry),
Expedition to Brittany, 1230,
Expedition of Poitou, 1230,
Expedition against the Marshal, 1233,
Aid for sister's marriage,
Expedition to Gascony, 1242,
Aid for daughter's marriage,
Expedition of Gaunoc, 1245,
Aid for knighting son,
1229
1230
1231
1233
1235
1243
1245
1246
1252
2011.
5
3m2.
209.
3m.
3m.
It may now be stated as law, both in theory and in fact, that
a levy of scutage should be by consent of the council, and the
fact of a grant is generally carefully stated in the official docu-
ments. Even the refusal of a single churchman to assent to a
levy seemed to have been some ground for his exemption. In
the Pipe Roll for the fifth year it is stated that the Bishop of
Winchester was charged with 159 m. for the first scutage, but it
was testified at the Exchequer by Hubert de Burgh, William
Briwere, and other barons, that the Bishop of Winchester never
consented to the granting of the said scutage. This was admitted
1 Close R., I, 349.
* Mat. Par., III, 158; Ann. Dunst.
2 Mat. Par., III, 61.
5 Madox, I, 609.
3 Mat. Par., III, 88.
6" Auxilium regi concessum ad primogenitam filiam suam maritandam.” (Pipe
Roll 39, Hen. III.) "Fines militum ne transfretarent cum rege in Wasconiam praeter
scutagia sua quae regi sponte concesserunt.” (Pipe Roll 30, Hen. III.)
88
THE SCUT'AGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
to be true by William Mareschalle, the rector, and by the coun-
cil. The bishop was acquitted."
After Henry's return from France in 1231, Matthew of Paris
says that in a council at Westminster the king "exacted” a
scutage, but the Archbishop of Canterbury and other bishops
resisted the demand on the ground that the clergy were not
subject to the decisions of the laiety, and a grant had not been
made by themselves. After a little delay they yielded. The
expeditions of Brittany and Poitou were really a continuous one,
and the chronicle of Peterborough says that two scutages were
levied in one year.3
There is sufficient evidence to show upon what enfeofments
most of the ,scutages of Henry III were made. It does not
appear that he is brought about any new method of assessment,
for the old baronies are accounted for on the same basis as under
Richard and John. For example: In the scutage of Biham the
Earl of Clare is acquitted by writ for 131 and j, , , , , ,
30 fees, and 9 fees of the countess.4 This is the same num-
ber accounted for as old enfeofment in 1168.5
In the scutage of Poitou, William de Albineio accounts for
33 knights, the same number as one of the same name accounted
for in 1168.6
In the scutage of Brittany the Earl of Warwick renders
account for 102} fees ;' in 1168 the Earl of Warwick rendered
account for 102 fees old enfeofment, and 2 new enfeofment.8
In 1129 the estate of Roger Bigod was discharged by writ
of the scutage of Kery for 1251 fees old enfeofment, and 371
new enfeofment. The carta of Hugh Bigod for 1166 shows 125
old enfeofment and 35 new enfeofment.10 Such discrepancies are
not infrequent, owing to errors in the transcriptions.
Madox, I, 290.
3 Chron. Pet., II.
Mat. Par., II, 200.
4 R. 5, H. III ; Madox, I, 666. There is an extra 23 in the writ, which is undoubt-
edly a mistake.
5 R. 14, H. II, 20.
8 R. 14, H. II, 59.
6 Madox, I, 640, and R. 14, H. II, 59.
9R. 13, H. III; Doc. Scot., 188.
7 Madox, I, 640.
10 Lib. Nig., 283.
THE SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY III
89
3
In 1129 John de Bailliol owes 125 l. for the relief of 30 fees
which his father Hugh de Bailliol held of the king in capite."
The servitium debitum of Bernard Bailliol was 30 knights, and
he omitted to send a carta in 1166.
In the scutage of Gannoc one Luvetot rendered account for
of 10 fees of Nigel de Luvetot. In 1168 a certain Nigel de
Luvetot held 10 fees.3
The Prior of Coventry continued to pay for 10 knights, and
in 1146 the Abbot of Ramsay was acquitted for 4 knights, and
the Bishop of Ely for 40, the numbers of their servitia debita
respectively.+
These instances go to show that the general methods of
assessment were not changed. The lay barons paid for their
old enfeofments and the clergy for their knights quos recognoscit,
and where the tenement was in the king's hand he received what
accrued from all enfeofments. In other words, the cartae of
1166 were still relied upon at the Exchequer to determine the
returns of scutage.
The old baronies were breaking up and
passing into the hands of different parties, but to identify the
fiefs the old names were often retained. Thus:
In 1229, of those discharged by writs were Hubert de Burg
for 311 fees of the honor of Peverell of London, and Earl John
of Huntingdon for 10 fees of the same honor.5 The Honor
contained 414 and knights in 1168.6
The name of the old holder often continues to identify the
land, as "the land which was Henry de Essex's."It seems
desirable to prove these points at each stage of the subject,
because they have always been somewhat uncertain in the minds
of writers.8
*R. 13, H III; Doc. Scot., I, 189.
5 Doc. Scot., I, 188.
Madox, I, 667.
6 R. 14, H. II, 40.
3 R. 14, H. II, 103.
1 Doc. Scot., I, 189.
4 Madox, I, 639, 667.
8“We must speak with great diffidence about this matter (i. e., the way in which
tenants-in-chief discharged their obligations), for it has never been thoroughly examined,
and we are by no means sure, that all scutages were collected on the same principle."
(Polluck and Maitland, I, 249.)
90
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
While it was as a rule true that the barons, having fulfilled their
obligations to the king in one of several ways, could in turn
demand like services of all their tenants, which services might
amount to more than they owed the king, there was at least one
levy which was an exception to the rule. As to the aid for the
marriage of the king's sister, 1a 35, the Annals of the Dunstaple
state: "Pro quibus petitum et concessum fuit generale scutagium
duarum marcarum per totam Angliam, non solum de feodis habitis
in capite de rege, sed etiam de aliis cultis.". That is, the grant
was for a scutage to be collected according to the entire number
of knights' fees, whether held in capite or otherwise. In the
writs to the sheriffs for the collection of this aid it is stated that
"it was provided by the council that we should have from each
of the fees of knights who hold of us in capite and of wards, new
enfeofment as well as old, two marcs,” etc.? The sheriffs were
directed themselves to distrain all free tenants who held of lords
by military service. This was but a return to the principle
adopted by Henry II in 1168. The Annals of Teukesbury
say that the bishops paid nothing,3 but in the following year
there is a letter patent to the clergy upon this subject. The
letter is instructive as showing that generally they did not answer
for all their fiefs, but retained some "for their own use," and
the exceptional nature of this grant is included in the promise
that it will not be derogatory to the churches in the future.
The principles on which the various scutages were levied
seem to be simple enough, but in application they were compli-
cated in several ways. The Close Rolls of Henry III give a
good idea of the process by which scutage was collected, but
* Dunst., 142.
3 Ann. Theok., 97.
2 Writ for the collection of scutage, Sel. Char., 364.
4“Rex. . . . . Sciatis quod cum nuper rogassemus Archiepiscopos, Episcopos,
Abbates, Priores, et alias personas Ecclesiasticas de Regno nostro, quod pro urgenti
necessitate nostra auxilium nobis impenderent, Ipsi gratis et spontanea voluntate sua
communiter nobis concesserunt quoddam Auxilium de omnibus feodis suis, tam de illis
de quibus nobis respondent quando Scutagium datur, quam de aliis quae retinent ad
opus suum, videlicet duas marcas de Scuto. Ne igitur hujusmodi concessio et auxilii
praestatio possit aliquo tempore trahi in consequentiam, concedimus . . in posterum
non derogetur.” (Pat. 20, H. III; Madox, I, 608.)
THE SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY III
91
while the evidence is most clear for the period of Henry III,
much of what is presented is also true for the preceding period.
It had become quite customary for a levy of scutage to be in
accordance with a grant by the barons. But this was only one
side of the matter. It was quite as essential that the king in
turn grant the barons their scutage, that is, the scutage of their
tenants. The king's grant might be made in a general way, as
when after the siege of Bedford he granted the magnates who
were in attendance a scutage and dismissed them. Regularly
each baron had a special writ de scutagio habendo, to show that
he was entitled to the scutage of his men. A scutage roll for
the army of Poitou of Henry III contains 162 names of tenants
who were summoned without special writ; after each name is a
writ like the following:
Rex . ... cancellario suo, etc. Mandamus vobis quod habere faciatis
A. B. scutagium suum de feodis militum que nobis tenet in capite, sc. de
scuto tres marcas pro exercitu nostro Pictavie post primam transfretationem
nostram in quo fuit nobiscum per preceptum nostrum.”
The Close Rolls abound in such writs. We can imagine
there was a time when the baron by himself settled with his ten-
ants about the payment of scutage and other aids. In 1182 the
Abbot of St. Edmunds asked aid from his knights, who with
some demur promised him 20s. from each one. But with the
growing influence of the king's court all controversies over
services between lord and tenant might be tried upon appeal of
either party in that tribunal. The king gave a writ to a lord
directed to the Sheriff of Devon for having a reasonable aid
from his fiefs to marry his eldest daughter, and all his knights
came to his court by summons and granted to him 20s. from
each fief. The king might permit a lord to tallage his tenants
or restrict him from tallaging certain ones.5
In the 27th year
of Henry III the king writes that the bishops "have granted
Mat. Par., III, 88.
3 Jocelin de B., 20.
2 Bird, Genealogist, 1884.
* Bracton's Note Book, 1146.
5“Nos non concedemus de cetero aliqui quod capiat auxilium,"etc. (Mag. Char., 15.)
1229, “ Rex vicecomite . . . . Praecipimus tibi quod, occasione tallagii, de quo
tibi praecipimus, quod faceres illud habere priori et Dunstaple, de hominibus suis de
92
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
ܐ ܙܙ
12
us from each of their knights' fees 40s., for so many as they
are held to answer to us when they make us military service.
And we have granted to the same bishops that for making us
the above said aid they shall have from each of the knights' fees
which are held of them 40s.": With the writ for having scu-
tage went the distraint of the royal officers, and, if necessary,
they assisted the mesne lord in the collection. In 1218 many
barons had writs addressed to the sheriffs as follows:
"We direct you that without delay you aid our beloved and
faithful A. B. to distrain his knights and free tenants for his
fiefs and wards, and all others who hold by military service, to
render him their scutage .. with which he ought to
answer to us by his hand at our exchequer."'.
The lords might obtain the right of having their scutage in
one of several ways:
1. By actual service in the army for which the levy was
assessed. It was customary for the marshal to record the
name of those attending a campaign, and writs would be issued
in favor of such persons. Many of the writs in 1218 contain
the clause, “Scias quod A. B. venit ad fidem et servicium nos-
trum.”3
Sometimes under Henry III the barons had no right
to collect the Scutage. In the 27th year Swereford, the author
of the Red Book, was distrained by his earl for a fee held in
Bedfordshire, on the occasion of the levy of scutage for Gas-
cony. Swereford relied on the terms of the grant of this scu-
tage, "per commune consilium Regni," namely, that it should
be collected by the sheriff and not otherwise. Accordingly a
writ was addressed to the sheriff enjoining him to restore the
chattels seized by the earl and not allow the scutage to be col.
lected by anyone but himself.4 Under Edward I a petition was
formally directed by the bishops, abbots, earls, barons, and
others that in return for their services in the wars of Scotland
Dunstaple, non permittas quod ipse talliet homines Willelmi Russelle in eadem villa,
nec homines tenentes de hominibus ipsius prioris." (Ann. Dunst., 121.)
Mich. Com., 27, H. III; Madox, I, 609.
3 Close R., I, 373.
2 Close R., I, 371.
* Red Book, xlv.
THE SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY III
93
the king direct that they should have the scutages belonging to
them. A baron was not permitted to collect scutage from
those who did not follow him. The king might have the ten-
ants give aid for the support of a baron who was actually in
service. In 1223 there are a number of writs directed to sher-
iffs to this effect: “Know that we have granted to A. B. that
he have his scutage from his knights in your bailiwick to sustain
himself in the army of Wales, where he now is by our com-
mand."
2. If a knight could not himself go to war, he was ordinarily
allowed to furnish a suitable substitute. This is implied in the
record of the scutage for 1172, which was paid by those "who
neither went to Ireland, nor sent knights or money thither.”4
But as service by substitute was necessarily by consent of the
king or lord, a baron was often made to pay a fine for being
permitted to serve by a substitute. In the 12th year of John,
Gilbert Percy paid a fine of 4 palfreys that he might send
two knights to serve for him.5 "There was no regularity in the
amount of such fines, and they were determined for each indi-
vidual case.
A person might be acquitted of service in a given
campaign by virtue of being in the king's service elsewhere.
3. By Special Fines. Here again it must be recalled that
by feudal law the tenant who ignored the summons to war was
guilty of a default and was liable to penalty to the extent of
forfeiture. Such a punishment was too harsh for ordinary
times, and some means of pecuniary composition as a means of
satisfying both sides to the contract is not only natural, but is
found in practice wherever such obligations existed. The scu-
tage as a general levy seemed for a time to equalize the military
burdens between those who served and those who did not; but
this condition was only a temporary one.
The burdens of
* Mem. Parlm., 1305, p. 122.
* In 1221 is a mandate to the sheriff of Cambridgeshire not to distrain or permit
to be distrained the knights of the Bishop of Rochester, because the Bishop had his
knights in the army of Biham. (Close R., I, 465.)
3 Close R., I, 571.
5 Madox, 1, 658.
* Pipe R., 18, H. II.
6 Close R., II, 10.
94
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
1
knight service were such that a mere payment of scutage could
not be considered an equivalent. As an equivalent for the
service of 300 knights Richard asked for an aid equal to 3 s. a
day for each knight. When a summons to war came, there-
fore, the baron who did not wish to answer in person must com-
pound for his service with a fine. Such a baron could then
collect the scutage of his tenants, and as a rule did not pay the
king's scutage in addition. The fines are generally designated
as paid, both for freedom from the service and for having one's
scutage. The baron, having duly performed his service or hav-
ing paid a fine which was accepted in lieu of service, was given
a writ of the king for having his own scutage; and when direc-
tions were given the sheriffs as to how they were to collect the
king's scutage they were told to collect “from all who have not
our letters," or from all “excepting those who have quittance
therefor by our letters.". Sometimes, however, fines were paid
with a clause saving the scutage of the king. In the twenty-
sixth year of Henry III several tenants paid “fines that they
might not take the voyage with the king into Gascony, besides
the scutages which they voluntarily granted the king for that
voyage;"3 in the third year of John is an item, "from William,
Earl of Vernon, no scutage is to be required in any sum, since
he has made a fine with the king pro licentia remanendi, and that
the king would take the scutage of his knights which he holds
of the king in capite."
Just when fines of this kind began would not be easy to say.
Of fines for the distraint of the tenants of a mesne lord under
Henry II there is some evidence, as in the following: “Rogerus
de Verli deb. 5 m. pro habendo servitio de hominibus suis." 5
Under Richard the records of fines for passage and for having
scutage are considerable. The amount of these fines dif-
*Close Rolls, passim.
2“ Rex remisit David Cumin' transfretacionem suam cum rege in Wascon' pro 20
m. quas regi dat pro remissione' illius passagii . . . . salvo tamen regi scutagio.”
(Lanc., Lay Subs., 117.)
3 Madox, I, 660.
5 R. 18, H. II, 31.
4 Madox, I, 659.
THE SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY III
95
fered in a general way from one period to another. Under
Richard they were not very heavy. The Bishop of Coven-
try regularly accounted to the king for 15 knights; in the
eighth year of Richard he paid a fine of 25 1. for not taking the
voyage to Normandy and for having the scutage of 25 knights
altogether. In the seventh year of Richard the Countess of
Warwick paid a fine of 40 m. for having the scutage of 15
knights and for not sending the knights across the sea.? There
was no fixed scale for determining the amount of a fine. Under
Richard the amounts varied from 20 s. to 15 m. for a single
knight's fee. Under John the average fine, roughly estimated,
was from 3 m. to 5 1. per fee,3 and sometimes as high as 15 m.
Under Henry III the fines of this kind varied from 5 1. to 25
m., and in subsequent reigns from 20 l. to 40 l. Under Edward
the fines were fixed at a rate of 40 l. per fee. The relation
between scutage and fines may be illustrated by the similar
tariffs laid down by Philip III of France. In the thirteenth
century the feudal host in that country was already difficult to
operate. There were difficulties also about the summoning of
rear vassals, whether it pertained to the king or nobles to sum-
mon them. The infinite variety of the contracts of vassalage
prevented the contingents furnished from being a great help in
prolonged or distant hostilities. For example, the Bourgeois of
Rouen represented that they owed service in the host not more
than one day's journey from town; some persons owed 20 days,
others 10 or less. The abbots had failed to exercise their ten-
ants in arms. Many lords preferred to pay a sum of money
rather than serve. In 1272 the bishops of Narbonnais protested
that they were not bound to the host. Philip was very severe
upon such delinquents, and in 1274 offered a fixed scale of the
charges to be incurred by the different ranks of soldiers. Barons
were charged 100 sous tournois as an equivalent for the expenses
which he would have incurred, and 50 sous “pour l'amende ;'
* Madox, I, 638.
? Madox, I, 676.
3 The Earl of Clare, who had over 131 knights, rendered a fine of 500 m. for his
passage. (Madox, I, 660.)
96
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
the banneret 20 sous for expenses and 10 sous " pour l'amende ;"
a knight 10 sous expenses and 5 sous " pour l'amende."': In the
period now under discussion there was no similarity between
the different fines of the same year.
In the same roll the
Abbot of Evesham renders account for 20 l. for passage and
scutage of 472 knights' fees, the Abbot of Pershore 10 l. for
2 fees, and the Abbot of Westminster 100 m. for 15 fees."
The fines were paid either in advance of the campaign under-
taken or afterwards.3
In case a baron did not properly perform the service
required, and did not, on the other hand, compound for it in a
satisfactory way, was the feudal law of forfeiture for default
always carried out ? The summonses were sent to the greater
barons individually, and to all the tenants-in-chief, that they
should come prepared to perform the service due, “as they love
themselves, their lands, and tenements.” Temporary forfeiture
of lands was not infrequently carried out, most noticeably under
John.
In the Close Roll of 1223 there is a list of persons who had
been disseized for not being in the army of Wales in 1221, and
whose estates are to be restored. It is not likely that such
disseizins were of common occurrence. It seems to be gener-
ally true that those who paid fines for not following a campaign
were the greater barons or those who held fees with underten-
ants. The king could not afford to let his barons off with a
Langlois, Philippe le Hardi, 363–365.
* Madox, I, 660.
3“Rad' de Comeys dat domino regi 10 m. pro eo quod possit morari in Anglia,
salvo regi Scutagio suo." (Lanc., Lay Sub., 117.)
“Abbas S. Albani r. c. de 100 m. pro militibus suis quos debuerat misisse in ser-
vicium Regis ultra mare." (R. 1, Jn.; Madox, I, 659.)
4“Malgerus le Vavasur debet 300 m. et tres optimos palefridos, pro habenda
saisina terrae suae, unde dissaitus fuit eo quod non transfretavit cum Rege in Iber-
niam, nec finem fecit pro Passagio. (R. 12, Jn.; Madox, I, 663.)
5“Rex Vic' Suf' .. .. Precipimus tibi quod David de Lindes qui est in custodia
A. Reg' Scott' de omnibus terris suis quas in manum nostram cepiste par pre-
ceptum nostrum eo quod non fuit nec habuit nobiscum servicium suum nobis debitum
in exercitu Wallie; sine dilatione resaissas." (Close R., I., 628.)
!
THE SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY III
97
mere payment of scutage, who were the responsible leaders of
retinues of knights, great or small, as the case might be. In
the case of the small tenant-in-chief, with one fee or only a
fraction of one, who had no followers to answer for, the matter
stood differently. In the first place, as military tactics were, he
was of little use to the king as a soldier; in the second place, he
did not have the need which the greater tenants did of buying
the assistance of his undertenants. In the writ for collecting
the scutage of 1214 the Justiciar is directed to have scutages
collected from all fiefs except of those who were in the army of
Poitou.' In certain writs of pardon it is evident that scutage was
all that was asked of some persons for not attending the army.
In the case of subtenants scutage was all that was regularly!
demanded for failure to follow the lord, and this was by permis-
sion of the king and at the rate fixed by him. Many tenants by
knight service could legitimately claim that they could not be
held to active service, but only to payment of scutage. Some
had such rights expressed in their charters, and others asserted
their right, which seemed to have for its only foundation a long-
continued custom, which they somehow made good by persever-
ance.
In 1198 the knights of St. Edmunds refused to do service
in Normandy, though they were willing to pay scutage, and the
abbot found himself obliged to hire knights for the king's serv-
ice. An early baronial court might have imposed forfeiture on
a tenant or a fine for default of service, but feudal courts had
declined, and controversies between lord and tenant came before !
the king's court, so that arbitrary fines imposed by a mesne lord
were not possible. The tenants, however, might voluntarily con-
tribute towards the fine which their lord compounded with the
king. In the twenty-eighth year of Henry III the Abbot of St.
Edmunds agreed with the king to pay a fine of 50 l., provided
each of his 20 knights were willing to contribute 50 s. towards
making up the 50 l., and, in case they were willing, they should
not have to pay scutage, in case it were levied.3
* Close R., I, 166.
2 Chron. Jocelin, 63.
3 Kal. and Inven., Hen. III, 28 y.
98
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
While the tenants throughout the country regularly paid
scutage at the rate per fee declared by the king, the amount
that an individual paid might be fixed by special agreement. A
clause in a charter might say, for instance, that when a scutage
was levied at 2 m. one should pay 15 s." One holding of the
Abbot of St. Edmunds, when the regular scutage amounted to
II S., paid 1/2 m.? A certain person held a tenant in perpetuum
by the service of 4 knights in respect to relief and all other
services, but when scutage happened to be given he paid as much
as pertained to 5722 fees.3
These facts recall some statements that were made concern-
ing the very beginnings of scutage. The institution found its
greatest usefulness in the relations of baron and tenant, and
between the king and minor tenant-in-chief, for the material
condition of a small vassal of the king was similar to that of the
ordinary tenant of a great lord. In 1159 the great barons served
in the campaign of Toulouse, while the "rustic knights” paid
scutage. In the thirteenth century the great barons had either
to serve in the army or pay a fine, just as though the scutage
never existed, while the scutage was accepted from the same
class of persons as in the early time. In case the tenant refused to
pay his dues, the baron had the right of distraint.
Glanvil was
in doubt whether lords could distrain tenants against their will
to pay aid for maintaining wars; yet they could certainly make
distraint for relief and the services due from the fiefs. The
favorite mode of distraint was to seize and sell the chattels of
tenant. In case the lord was unable to make the distraint, and
many times he was not able, he had a special writ of aid from
the Chief Justice,5 and the distraint was made by the sheriff.
Under Edward I it is declared in a statute that if anyone with-
hold from his lord his due and accustomed service by two
years, the lord shall have an action to demand the land
demesne by a writ of cessavit.
» Bracton's Note Book, 361, etc.
4 Glanvil, de Legibus, IX, 8.
2 Doc. Scot., I, 358.
3 Feet of Fines, 7 John, 66.
6 Stat. Westm., Ed. I, 13.
.
6
5 lbid.
THE SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY III
99
V
In the system of land tenure which we have to consider, a
man who was a tenant of one party was also lord of another. Sup-
pose A to be a great lord holding of the king for 25 knights; B
holds of A for 4 knights; and still further C is a tenant of B for
% knight. If matters were running smoothly, the king was not
ordinarily concerned with the way B fulfilled his duties toward
A, so long as A rendered the service of his 25 knights. In case
B did not perform the services to which A had a right, or if A
tried to exact from B more than what belonged to him, the
king, as the supreme judge of the land, could be appealed to by
either party. In case A did not perform the services which the
king as his suzerain could demand, the king would make the
tenants of A together render those services, no matter what B
had rendered to A. If B did not satisfy A, A could distrain C;
but if C had rendered his service to B, C had a right of action
against B to be acquitted for that service.? If B had an acquit-
tance for his service from the king, this availed against any
demand of A. If it was in doubt whether B held of A or of the
king, he was safe if he paid the king his scutage. Likewise, if
C could show that he had done the service for A, it availed
against B.3 In case of default on the part of B, A might dis-
train C for more than his right of service, and C's action for sat-
isfaction would lie against B.4 If C was in the army, neither A
nor B had the right to take scutage from him.
Much can be learned concerning the status of knight tenure
from the records of litigation in the king's court. In disputes of
the thirteenth century about the kind of services to be rendered
for a given piece of land, the smaller tenants were eager to prove,
wherever they could, that their lands were held by socage rather
than military tenure, and the general tendency was in the direc-
tion of such a transformation. While a socage tenure did not
lend the holder as much dignity as the other, the reason why it
was preferred can readily be seen.
* Bracton's N. B., 674.
3" Id. vic. redd' Comp' de 2 m de feodo Rad' de Toeni de mil. quos idem comes
clamat sed Rad' de Toeni negat." (R. 14, H. II, 94.)
3 Bracton's N. B., 698, 202.
Bracton's N. B., 390.
Іоо
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
1. The dues were met by a fixed rental, instead of the uncer-
tain demands of aid, scutage, relief,' and feudal service in the
army.
2. The vexatious rights of wardship and marriage, which
often were sources of great abuse, were not connected with
socage tenures. The custody of a minor heir was left in the
hands of the family instead of the lord.
3. Lands held in socage were partible among sons, whereas
those held by knight service were descended to the eldest son,
and were partible in case there were daughters only.
4. As a rule a socage tenant had to give fealty, but not to do
homage to his lord.”
If one held by mixed service, a tenure was called military by
preference. In case of doubt as to the kind of services due
from a tenure, a charter was the most convincing proof, and
took precedence over other kinds of evidence; but if there
was no charter at hand, it was necessary to prove what services
had been rendered in the past. If a charter showed that the
enfeofment called for the service of one-third knight, and the
lord could show that the service of one-half knight had actu-
ally been rendered, the court would accept the terms of the
charter.3 The following case at law came up in 1228. Isabella
claimed the land of her deceased husband as a socage tenure.
Richard claimed that she could not have the custody of the
land, since the Earl Marshall, of whom Richard held the fief,
had that custody, and admitted a charter which he gave Stephen,
the husband, by which Richard granted Stephen the land for
homage and service; Stephen to render 2m. a year. Richard
and his heirs acquitted him of the forinsec service which per-
tained to the same one-fourth of a knight's fee, so that the
freemen who held of the same fee always did forinsec service for
Stephen, so that they gave at the scutage of Montgomery a scu-
tage of 172m. Thus Stephen preferred to hold the one-fourth
Some modifications in regard to Relief. See Polluck and Maitland, His. Eng.
Law, I, 289.
* Polluck and Maitland, His. Eng. Law, I, 286.
3 Bracton's N. B., 657.
THE SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY III
IOI
knight's fee at an annual payment of 2 m. rather than the regular
feudal services. At the same time the tenants of Stephen paid
him a scutage, which he did not render to his lord.
It was
decided that the land was not a socage, and that Isabella could
not claim the custody. The land owed knight service, though
the individual did not.
The Prior of Lewes, as chief lord, placed a land owing mili-
tary service at a fixed rental (“posuit servicium militare ad
denarios”), so that, instead of rendering for one-third knight's
fee, it paid 40 s. a year. Yet he claimed that it was still a mili-
tary tenure and was not partible. Six pounds a year for every
service seems to have been a common rate for placing a knight's
fee at a fixed rental, instead of the ordinary feudal services, at
this period?
As a rule, a lord had the custody of the heirs of his military
tenants, but when the same party held lands by socage tenure,
as well as lands by military tenure, it was not always possible for
the lord to realize this right, Herardus de Vernon could not
claim the son of Geoffrey and Katrina, because Geoffrey held 10
librates in socage of other men and 7 acres military of Hever-
ardus,3 If a party were enfeoffed of more than one lord the
custody of the heirs regularly went to the lord whose ancestors
had made the prior enfeofment.*
Another form of evidence as to whether a tenure were mili-
tary or not is found in the question of homage. If a person
owed homage, the tenement was presumably one by knight
service or serjeantry. If one owed no homage, it was question-
able if he owed scutage. If a land was given in maritagium, it
was apt to be placed under lighter burdens, and sometimes abso-
!
1 Bracton's N. B., 288.
* Wm. Lungespey and his wife were asked by what service they held a knight's
fee, and they said for 61. a year for every service. (Bracton's N. B., 627.) The same
rate as in the other cases quoted.
Stephen de Ceoherst held a land by rendering 4 sol. a year, and 25. scutage when
the scutage became fixed at 2m. (Ibid., 477.)
3 Bracton's N. B., 237.
5 Polluck and Maitland, His. Eng. Law, I, 286.
4 Bracton's N. B., 661.
6 Bracton's N. B., 747.
102
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
lutely free. The anomalous condition of such lands remained
until after the third inheritance, when it reverted to its former
status."
It has already been noticed how the older baronies were
breaking up. Having reverted to the king, they were given out
again, divided among two or more holders. Another way in
which they disintegrated was by partition, which was permissible
when the holder left no male issue, but more than one daughter.
Lyttelton says that from the time of William I to Henry II he
knew of no baronies divided into more than three parts, but
after that time they split into very small parts, so that under
Richard II a certain knight held one-hundredth part of a
barony? Peter of Savoy held the honor of Richmond for the
service of five knights. He complained that, while the honor
had been diminished by many knights' fees, he remained burdened
for five knights. Regarding the unstable condition of feudal
territory, the words of Luchaire are as applicable to England as
to France: “One seeks in vain in the feudal world for the fixity
and regularity which would seem to comport with the a priori
relations between fiefs. The order of tenures has varied not only
from period to period, but considerably within each period.”+
Before the statutes of 1279 and 1290 of Edward I there were
no effective restraints on the alienation of fees or subinfeudation.
The clause in the charter of 1217, that “no free man should give
or sell to anyone so much of his land that from the remainder
the service could not be sufficiently rendered the lord of the fief
which belongs to that fief,"5 was too indefinite to be effective.
The statute de viris religiosis in 1279 forbade the fraudulent
bestowal of estates on religious foundations, so that the donor
might hold them as fiefs of the Church, and the statute quia
emptores in 1290 directed that in all future transfers of land the
purchaser, instead of becoming the feudal dependent of the
alienor, should enter into the same relations in which the alienor
1 Bracton's N. B., 273, 279, 477, 664.
2 Lyttelton, His. Hen. II, III, 127.
3 Letters Hen. III, II, 210.
4 Luchaire, Manuel, 221.
5 Sel. Char., 346.
THE SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY III
103
had stood to the next lord. These enactments operated to cor-
rect these abuses. Yet there is some reason to think that if the
chief lord could enforce his rights, a tenant might be prevented
from making an undesirable enfeofment, as was once done in
1275, showing that in a measure the statutes of Edward were
the recognition of rights which already had some vague exist-
ence.
A few words will suffice to discuss the general relation of
knighthood and knight tenure of this time. Nothing can be
plainer than that the old system of enfeofment as a basis for
the army service was outgrown. The accepted principle that a
given piece of land being once a knight's fee was always a
knight's fee, no matter how much it was cut up or transferred,
coupled with the fact that there were no definite restrictions on
alienation or subinfeudation, other than the vague clause in the
charter of 1217, brought the system of knight service to a state
of great intricacy. There is nothing unusual in a barony made
up of the following enfeofments, several tenements of 3 fees
each, 6 and į and á fees, 5, 46, 11, 21, d. 91, 2, 51, 21, , zo
fees. Anyone of the tenants of this barony might have several
ranks of subtenants holding of one another and of him respect-
ively. Compare such a barony with the cartulary of the Abbey
of Peterborough given 1125-28! In the statement of enfeof-
ments made therein of 6673 fiefs, there is only one tenement of
13 fee, and two of 1/2 fee. It would almost go without saying
that the smaller tenants were not of much account so far as the
army was concerned. In the cartulary of the Abbey of Eves-
ham the reluctance of its knight tenants to do the king's serv-
ice is complained of. The abbots of Ramsey had not followed
the method generally adopted by the tenants-in-chief of creating
definite knights' fees on their estates. The abbey owed the
Chron. Petrob., 22.
2 Charter 1217, § 39 ; Polluck and Maitland, I, 310.
3 Chron. Petrob., Appendix.
* Hic notantur milities et liberi tenentes de Abbatia de Evesham, multi injuste
fefati, pauci vero juste. Isti nullum servitium faciunt ecclesiae nisi servitium Regis
et hoc tepide. (Burton Cart., 2.)
104
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
4
king the service of 4 knights, but instead of these being 4 ten-
ants who were each time to render this service, there were some
18 who were to elect the 4 who were to serve on a particular
occasion, while those who remained were to contribute towards
the expenses of those who served in person. The arrangement
did not work very well. In 1212 the king sent a special writ to
the sheriff, directing him to see that the 4 knights of the abbey
of Ramsey who were in his service have necessaria sua from the
other knight tenants who remained. In 1258 the abbot brought
the manorial court of Broughton together, which selected
knights to do the required service at a payment of 4 s. a day,
but the tenants would not serve when elected, and the abbot had
to hire his knights and serjeants as best he could.3 In 1257 the
Abbot of St. Albans could hardly get his military tenants to
admit that they owed personal service at all. The underten-
ants are not the only ones who showed themselves reluctant to
go to war. The tenants-in-chief often preferred to pay fines,
though they were heavy, than attend an expedition. In 1142
the king writes to his justiciars to remit the fines which had
been made for non-attendance, and induce the knights to come
prepared with horses and arms; and if remitting the fines were
not sufficient, they should offer money out of the treasury to
induce them to come. There is reason to suppose that when
the barons went to war with the king they were not always
required to furnish their full service. In 1157, according to
Matthew of Paris, whoever owed the king military service was
summoned against the Welsh. The writs of summons to the
barons, as printed in the Foedera, give the quotas to be fur-
nished by them. E. g.:
Roger de Mohun, to serve as a fourth knight, that is, himself
with three others.
Henry de Tracy, to serve as a third knight.
John de Corteny, to serve as a third knight, etc.
Chron. Ram., 212, 378; Lib. Nig., 257; Stubbs, C. H., I, 262.
a Close R., I, 123.
5 Foedera, I, 404.
3 Sel. Soc., II, 76.
o Mat. Par., V, 639.
* Mat. Par., VI, 372–76.
.
THE SCUTAGE UNDER HENRY III
105
Only one was to bring as many as 4 knights. These quotas
represent but small portions of the fees held by these barons.
Thus, William de Bellocamp was asked for three knights; in
1230 he is accounted for 7 knights.?
Robert de Bellocamp for 3 knights; in 1230 he is accounted
for 17.3
William de Monte Acuto of Somerset for i knight; in 1230
John de Monte Acuto of the same county is accounted for
10.3
Robert de Newburg for i knight; in 1230 is accounted
for 15.3
+
At the same time the ecclesiastics were summoned for their
full service,4 and the Abbot of Ramsey actually endeavored to
bring 4 knights, his regular quota, into service. There is a
tendency, which becomes more noticeable under Edward, for the
barons to lower their quotas if they could.
In the 22d year
the king had 24 persons brought together to testify whether
William de Fesnes or any of his ancestors did or ought to do
more than the service of one knight for the 6 fees which he
held in capite, and whether the full service of 6 knights was
rendered in scutage at the Exchequer. In 1221 William
Mareshalle, the Earl of Pembroke, who was then out of favor,
writes to the king that he has learned of the gathering of the
force against the Earl of Albermarle and regretted that he had
not been summoned. Wherefore he supplicated the king to
send him a writ telling him with how many knights he wished
him to come. It will be remembered that the scutages of
Henry II were paid with fair promptness at the Exchequer.
How different this had become in the 13th century can be seen
in the way the scutage of Poitou, levied in the 16th year of
John, was rendered for the Honor of Lancaster, which con-
tained 781, 4, and I fees.
5 Above.
* Rymer's Foedera, 1, 635.
2 Madox, 1, 660.
3 Ibid., 661.
4 Foedera, 636.
6 Memor., 22, Hen. III; Madox, I, 648.
7 Royal Letters, I, 170.
106
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
In the Pipe Roll, 17th year of John, the Sheriff renders account
for
- 1571. 125. 9d.
In the Pipe Roll, 2d year of Henry III, the Sheriff renders
account for
- 1271. 125. 9d.
In the Pipe Roll, 3d year,
1271. 125. 9d.
- 1187. 16s. Id.
5th year,
1071. 16s. Id.
- 1071. 165. Id.
7th year,
102l. id.
9th year,
· 102l. id.
4th year,
60
6th year,
ro
1
Although the Scutage grew up as applied to knights' fees
only, in the 13th century it evidently was collected from some
tenures by serjeantry. It has been shown how under Henry II
there was promissio servientum of a most irregular kind, but there
was nothing of a scutage upon serjeantry tenures. From that
time, however, the use of serjeants in the army became of
increasing importance. Gneist estimates that the number of
serjeants in the armies were to the knights in the ratio of 8 to 1.
The muster rolls of Edward show that the difference was
greater even than this, for two serjeants were considered
exchangeable for one knight, and many owing knight service,
especially for fractional parts of fees, offered the service of ser-
jeants. Tenure by serjeantry is the most irregular of all the
different classes of tenure, and includes many kinds and all
degrees of services. Some serjeantries called for services in
the army,3 and it is not strange that scutage was exacted from
such tenements. But it was the exception and not the rule for
a serjeantry to pay scutage, for in other cases whether a party
should pay scutage or not depended on whether the tenement
was by knight service or serjeantry. William Aguilon being
able to prove that he held by serjeantry, namely, to furnish a
cook at the king's coronation, was acquitted of the scutages
charged against him.4
*Lanc. Lay. Subs., 122–25.
2 Polluck and Maitland, I, 262.
3 Persons holding by serjeantry had tenants owing knight service, e. g., for i fee,
sto or ab fee. (Madox, I, 650, 651.)
4 Madox, I, 651.
CHAPTER VI.
SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE UNDER EDWARD I.
There were several scutages during the reign of Edward I,
as follows:
For an army of Wales.
of Scotland,
An aid to marry daughter,
For an army of Scotland,
1277 @ 40s.
1282 @ 40s.
1300 @ 405.
1302 @ 40s.
1303 @ 40s.
1 306 @ 40s.
The feudal army was thus called upon only for insular wars.
The time had not come for a standing army, but the continental
wars were manned by Welsh and Scotch mercenaries and by
subsidized forces from Flanders or Castile. The rate of the
royal levies was uniformly 40 s. on the fee, although by the
first statute of Westminster, 1275, it was decided that the aid
taken by a lord to knight his son or marry his daughter should
not be over 20 5.2 In reference to the levies of knight service
for this period many curious features present themselves. In
the first place it was quite impossible for the Churchmen to get
their military tenants to do service. The Abbot of Peterborough
in 1277 could not prevail upon his men to serve even at his own
expense.3 Out of a list of 48 bishops and abbots in the Par-
liamentary Writs of 1277, 8 rendered their service by knights or
serjeants. The difficulty of obtaining fully equipped knights is
evident on all sides. Most of those attempting to render their
service do so by means of serjeants, two serjeants being com-
monly accepted instead of one knight. One who owes 4 knights
presents 2 and requests that he be permitted to do the service in
* Foedera, II, 637, 676.
3 Chron. Petrob., 24.
*Statute, Sel. Char., 450.
4 Parlm. Writs, I, 197.
107
108
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
two periods of 40 days. In 1282 the need of horses was such
that it is said many could not do their service even if they wished.”
Most striking of all is the reduction in the number of fees
accounted for by the great tenants-in-chief. Compare the
quotas accounted for in 1282 with the old servitium debitum.3
1282
IIth century
20
fiefs.
5 fiefs
9
IO
2
1772
5
20
Archbishop of York
Bishop of Durham,
« Exeter,
" Bath and Wells,
« Lincoln,
London,
Abbot of St. Albans,
Abbingdon,
" St. Edmunds,
5
60
20
5
6
o
6
3
6 "
30
40
The lay barons did about the same, for William de Bello
Camp, Earl of Surrey, offered 6 knights, Humphry de Bohun,
3 knights, John Warenne, Earl of Surrey, 11 knights.* Very
few proffered more than 3 knights. How this change in the
quotas furnished by the tenants-in-chief came about is obscure.
The earliest writs of summons which are at hand show that the
king was accustomed to call upon the tenants-in-chief for small
quotas, when it was unnecessary to bring out the whole force.
Thus, in 1234, Henry de Trubleville is ordered to attend "te
quinto," that is, with four other knights; Walter Godarville "te
altero," that is, with one.5 To furnish large numbers of knights,
as formerly, would under the new conditions be excessively
arduous, if not impossible. The great proponderance of the
fighting forces was now infantry rather than cavalry. The ratio
of cavalry to infantry may be inferred from statements of the
chroniclers like the following: "Earl Patrick with 336 mailed
horses and 6000 infantry;"6 "15 knights, 32 armigers and 1000
foot soldiers;"? " 4000 infantry and 200 cavalry."8 Most of the
* Parlm. Writs, I, 200.
* Ibid., 226.
3 Ibid., 235.
* Ibid., 228, 229.
5 Lord's Report, 1, 6, 7; Foedera, I, 635.
6 Wig., 527
1 Ibid., 484.
8 Rishanger, 147.
SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE UNDER EDWARD I
109
cavalry used were mounted serjeants, not knights. So that even
when all the knight service due was called for, the barons fur-
nished no more than what was reasonably necessary. Gilbert
of Clare placed io knights in service, with a promise that he
would send more if it were found that more were due. So far
as the Scutage was concerned this change made no difference
whatever. The relations between the tenants-in-chief and the
king were no longer on a scutage basis. The king profited by
the Scutage only indirectly, as it was paid by undertenants to
the lords. The obligations of tenants-in-chief to the king were
satisfied by fines, or informal payments "in garderoba" or "in
camera." In 1277 the Abbot of Peterborough paid 250 m. for
the service of 5 knights;' in 1282 the same paid a like amount.?
Another mode of summons was analogous to the distraint of
knighthood. In 1296 those having 48 librates of land were
called upon to provide themselves with horses and arms to fol-
low the king at his expense.3 In 1297 those with 20 librates
were summoned. The sheriffs made reports
The sheriffs made reports of the persons
holding 20 librates in their counties; in Hertford 53, of whom
13 were churchmen; in Nottingham and Derby 181, including
36 churchmen; in Northampton 215, including 48 churchmen
and 30 women. So that in all England there were hardly more
than 3000 persons assessed on this basis. On the other hand, if
one can estimate from the numbers of infantry which the Commis-
sions of Array were deputed to raise from the several counties,
in 1297, from Northumberland 1000, from York 4000, from Lan-
caster 3000, etc., the available force of infantry for the whole
country must easily have been 60,000 foot soldiers. 5
The Scutage as a means of revenue to the crown was not
worth while keeping up.
After the reign of Edward I the only
levies reported are one under Edward II and one under Edward
III. Even an aid levied upon all the knights' fees could not
compare in amount with the other forms of taxes. The Fifteenth,
Chron. Petrob., 24.
4 Ibid., 294.
5 Parlm. Writs, I, 308.
2 Ibid., 40.
3 Parlm. Writs, I, 278.
IIO
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
in 1224-25, was at least 31,000 l.;' the Thirtieth, in 1237, was
22,000 l.;the Twentieth, in 1270, was 31,488 1.3 As an influence
against the feudal character of the chief lords the institution had
outlived its day. The lords were little more than middle men,
who by a fiction of law had to be reckoned as a factor in passing
money from the lower tenants to the crown. They made the
grants in Parliament, but in so doing they acted in the capacity
of legislators representing more or less truly the nation. On
the other hand, the collection in behalf of an individual lord had
to be by the officers of the crown or by permission of the same.
The methods of collection were complex, and the operation of a
levy was becoming more and more slow, the payment of the
money more and more reluctant, until in the roth year of
Edward II collectors for the scutages of the 28th, 31st and 34th
years of Edward I were sent out, with injunctions "quod rebelles
et inobedientes Collectoribus Scutagii amerciantur."4 The scutage of
the 5th year was enrolled in the 7th year, and that of the ioth
year in the 15th. The whole system was unnatural, because it
rested upon historical tradition whether a piece of land owed
this kind of service or not, and it took laborious inquisitions
from time to time to ascertain the true status of the tenants.
The burden of proof whether he had fulfilled the service or not
rested with the tenant, and he might have to prove 17 years
back that he or his ancestor had done the service required.
Knighthood and knight tenure did not necessarily go together.
If one was a knight, it did not follow that he held land by knight
tenure; if he held by knight tenure, it did not follow that he was a
knight. In 1224 was an order that every layman of full age
who held a knight's fee or more should have himself knighted.5
Fines were taken for respite under this order. 1234 was an order
that all holding in capite a knight's fee or more should take
arms and be knighted.? 1 242 there was an order to the sheriffs
* Lanc., Lay Subs., 15.
Ibid., 49.
3 Ibid., 101.
* Madox, His. Exch., I., 684.
5 Close Roll, II, p. 69.
6 Close Roll, II, pp. 26, 36.
7 Royal Letters, I, p. 456.
SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE UNDER EDWARD I
III
to distrain all those having lands, whether in knight's fee or
socage, to take arms. At the same time the sheriffs were told
to leave in peace any who had not as much as 20 librates, even
if they had an entire knight's fee." 1254 those having 20
librates were summoned to do service? 1256 there was a dis-
traint of all those having lands to a yearly value of 151. to get
themselves knighted, or to pay fines for respite. The distraint
of knightheod at the rate of 20 librates or even 15 librates is not
to be considered unreasonable so far as the rate is concerned.
It seems to be the general rule that actual knights' fees were not
worth nearly as much as 20 1. a year. It is true that as early as
Henry II there are instances of 20 librates of land being held
as an equivalent of a knight's fee. But in general the assimila-
tion of 20 librates to a knight's fee was a gradual process, and
even then was a somewhat artificial estimate. A certain barony
whose value is stated to be at 941. a year held for 30 knights.5
One finds scrips of land held as follows: 10 librates for the serv-
ice of i knight;6 50 librates (Anjevian money) for i knight;?
4 librates and 4 solidatae for 2 knight; 8 25 marcatae for I
knight. The distraints were not empty threats, for in the 17th
year of Henry III Roger de Sumery was disseized of all his
lands in Worcestershire for neglecting to take the honor of
knighthood upon summons. It seems that not a great number
of persons were found eligible to knighthood in this way. In
1254 there are 5 names returned for the county of Lancaster, of
those holding 20 librates of land in capite of the king." In 1256
the sheriff of Lancashire reported the names of 6 as holding 15
librates and more.
Aside from the fact that not many persons
*Close Roll, 26, H. III; Lanc., Lay Sub., p. 62.
- Sel. Char., p. 376.
3 Lanc., Lay Sub., p. 28.
4“Et Comes Galfridus de Mendeville dedit domino Gwarino fratri meo, et mihi
Sabriteswrthe pro 74 libratis terrae ; singulas 20 libratas pro servicio i militis.” (Red
Book, p. 356.)
5 Bracton's N. B., 1182.
8 Ibid., p. 84.
6 Rot. Char., 1, p. 33.
9 Doc. Scot., I, p. 43.
1 Ibid., p. 34.
10 Brady, Introduction to the Old Eng. His., p. 36; Lanc., Lay Sub., p. 30.
1 Lanc., Lay Sub., p. 28.
12 Ibid., p. 29.
IO
12
I I2
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
had a revenue as great as 20 l. a year, it may be suspected that
the assessments were not strictly made. Edward I, in his 18th
year, wrote to the sheriffs of London to distrain all those hold-
ing 401, a year in land or rent. The sheriffs made answer that
although they had inquiries made of good and lawful men upon
oath, they were unable to find anyone in London who had 40 l.
a year for certain.
" In the 30th year of Edward a like order
received a similar reply."
If a person was distrained for knight service or knighthood
on the ground of having 20 librates, or 40 librates, as the case
might be, it did not follow that his land became a knight tenure
in the sense that an ancient knight's fee was, A plea in the
Common Bench illustrates this point. The case was whether B,
who held by escuage of A, owed also aid for the marriage of an
eldest daughter. It was held that the aid was not accessory to
escuage;
“for if one holds of you 20 librates of land, and you
are about to distrain him for making your eldest son a knight,
and he can show that none of your ancestors was ever a knight,
I think that you cannot avow the taking.
While the institution of knight tenure was declining in these
ways there was, on the other hand, a corresponding effort to
maintain the honor of knighthood itself. While men shrank
from the burdens of military tenure it was something of an honor
to be a knight. It was customary for the royal family to have
the princes knighted upon state occasions, and at the hands of
eminent persons. In honor of the marriage of Edmund of Corn-
wall in 1272 many noble youths were knighted. When the
young Edward, in 1306, was knighted, 300 others were knighted
the same day, and 600 that week. John de Blount, the mayor
of London, accepted knighthood at that time. In the records
of the 13th century a knight is commonly given the title dominus
(Sir), as dominus Johannes Heyron Miles. In giving the list of a
jury it was worth while to indicate which ones were knights. In
the functions relating to the government the knights ranked
112
1
1 Lib. Albus.
3 Wykes, p. 251.
* Annal. Lund., I, p. 146.
2 Year Book, XX, Ed. I, p. 260.
SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE UNDER EDWARD I
113
next to the barons, in the order of ecclesiastics, earls, barons,
knights. A clear distinction between knight and baron is not
easily made.
In a general sense a baron was any person holding
of the crown in capite by military service. But there is a dis-
tinction, borne out in Magna Charta, between greater barons and
lesser barons. When it is stated that the king called the barons
in Parliament, the word meant simply those barons whom the
king chose to summons, for there is no hereditary right on the
part of the barons to be summoned before 1295.3 A barony
was a mere collection of knights' fees, and there was no particu-
lar number of knights' fees necessary to constitute a barony. So
that a fixed distinction between barons and knights who were
tenants-in-chief cannot be made for this period. The knights
were early employed in matters of administration, for service on
juries, and took precedence over other “lawful men," and in the
13th century they found a place in Parliament. Suit at court,
however, was generally regarded in the light of a burden, and
even summons to Parliament was not at first sought after as an
honor and a privilege, but as the means of mitigating demands
for money. So that altogether the honor of knighthood did
not counterbalance the disadvantages.
*Pike, Const. His. House of Lords, p. 89.
Mag. Char., 14.
3 Stubbs, C. H., II, p. 192; Pike, p. 93.
* Pike, House of Lords, p. 92.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.
SOURCES
PUBLICATIONS OF THE RECORD COMMISSIONERS.
Rotuli Chartarum in Turri Londinensi Asservati: Ed., Thomas Duffus Hardy. 1837.
Ancient Laws and Institutes of England: Ed., Benjamin Thorpe. 2 vols. 1840.
Rotulorum Originalium in Curia Scaccarii Abbreviatio. Hen. III-Edw. III: Ed.,
Henry Playford. 1805-1810.
Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum in Turri Londinensi Asservati : Ed., Thomas Duffus
Hardy. 2 vols. 1833, 1844.
Rotuli Curiae Regis : Ed., Francis Palgrave. Vol. II. 1835.
Rotuli de Oblatis et Finibus in Turri Londonensi Asservati : Ed., Thomas Duffus
Hardy. 1835.
Excerpta e Rotulis Finium in Turri Londonensi Asservati : Ed., Charles Roberts.
2 vols. 1835, 1836.
Fines, sive Pedes Finium: sive Finales Concordiae in Curia Domini Regis: Ed.,
Joseph Hunter. 1835-1844.
Rotuli Parliamentorum; ut et petitiones et placita in Parliamento Edwardi I - Hen.
VII, 1278–1503. Vol. I.
Ancient Kalendars and Inventories of the Treasury of His Majesty's Exchequer: Ed.,
Francis Palgrave. 3 vols. 1836.
Rotuli de Liberate ac de Misis et Praestitis : Ed., Thomas Duffus Hardy. 1844.
Great Rolls of the Pipe, 2, 3, 4, Hen. II : Ed., Joseph Hunter. 1844.
Great Rolls of the Pipe, 1, Richard I: Ed., Joseph Hunter. 1844.
Issues of the Exchequer, Hen. III-Hen. VI: Ed., Frederick Devon.
'Statutes of the Realm : Ed., J. E. Tomlins, John Raithby, John Caley, William Elliott.
1824-1828.
CHRONICLES AND MEMORIALS (ROLLS SERIES).
Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon : Ed., Joseph Stevenson. 2 vols. 1858.
Munimenta Gildhallae Londoniensis; Liber Albus, Vol. I: Ed., Henry Thomas Riley.
1859.
Brut y Tywysogion: Ed., John Williams ab Ithel. 1860.
Works of Giraldus Cambrensis: Ed., J. S. Brewer, James F. Dimock, and George F.
Warner. 8 vols. 1861–1891.
· Anglo-Saxon Chronicle ; Vol. II, translation: Ed., Benjamin Thorpe. 1861.
• Royal and other Historical Letters illustrative of the Reign of Henry III: Ed., W.
W. Shirley. 3 vols. 1862-1866.
115
116
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
Chronica Monasterii S. Albani. 12 Vol. 1863-1876.
Willelmi Rishanger Chronica et Annales.
I Vol.
Johannes de Trokelowe et Henrici de Blaneforde Chronica et Annales.
I Vol.
Gesta Abbatum Monasterii S. Albani. 3 vols.
Ed., Henry Thomas Riley. 1863-1876.
· Year-Books of the Reign of Edward I: Ed., Alfred John Horwood. 5 vols. 1863-1879.
Annales de Burton;
Annales Prioratus de Dunstaplia ;
Chronicon Thomae Wykes :
Ed., Henry Richards Luard. 1864-1869.
Magna Vita S. Hugonis : Ed., James F. Dimock. 1864.
Chronica Monasterii de Melsa : Ed., Edward Augustus Bond. 1866–1868.
Matthae Parisiensis Historia Anglorum : Ed., Frederick Madden. 3 vols. 1866–1869.
Liber Monasterii de Hyda: Ed., Edward Edwards. 1866.
Gesta Regis Henrici Secundi Bendicti Abbatis : Ed., William Stubbs. 2 vols. 1867.
Chronica Magistri Rogeri de Hovedene: Ed., William Stubbs. 4 vols. 1868-1871.
Matthaei Parisiensis Chronica Majora : Ed., Henry Richards Luard. 7 vols. 1872–
1894.
Memoriale Fratris Walteri de Coventria : Ed., William Stubbs. 2 vols. 1872-1873.
Radulphi de Coggeshall Chronicon Anglicanum : Ed., Joseph Stevenson. 1875.
• Materials for the History of Thomas Becket : Ed., James Craigie Robertson. 1875–
1885.
Radulfi de Diceto Opera Historica : Ed., William Stubbs. 2 vols. 1876.
Henrici de Bracton de Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae: Ed., Travers Twiss.
6 vols. 1878-1883.
· Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury: Ed., William Stubbs. 2 vols. 1879-1880.
Henrici Archidiaconi Huntendonensis Historia Anglorum: Ed., Thomas Arnold. 1879.
Cartulary of the Abbey of Ramsey: Ed., Ponsonby Annesley Lyons. 3 vols. 1884–
1893.
Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I: Ed., Richard Howlett.
4 vols. 1884-1890.
Chronicle of the Abbey of Ramsey: Ed., William Dunn Macray. 1886.
Willelmi Monachi Malmesbiriensis de Regum Gestis Anglorum : Ed., William Stubbs.
2 vols. 1887-1889.
- Chronica Rogeri de Wendover: Ed., Henry Gay Hewlett. 3 vols. 1886–1889.
Memoranda de Parliamento: Ed., F. W. Maitland. 1893.
- Red Book of the Exchequer: Ed., Hubert Hall. 1896.
PIPE ROLL SOCIETY.
Pipe Rolls of the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 15th, 16th, 17th,
18th, 19th years of Henry II.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
117
Ancient Charters : Ed., John Horace Round.
- Three Rolls of the King's Court in the Reign of Richard I: Ed., Frederic William
Maitland.
Feet of Fines of the Reign of Henry II and of the first seven years of Richard.
ENGLISH HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
.
Chronicon Walteri de Heminburgh. 2 vols.
F. Nicholai Triveti Annales.
RECORD SOCIETY.
Lancashire Lay Subsidies: Ed., John A. C. Vincent.
SELDEN SOCIETY.
Select Pleas of the Crown.
Select Pleas in Manorial and other Seignorial Courts.
Select Civil Pleas.
Court Baron.
CAMDEN SOCIETY. ,
Chronica Jocelini de Brakelonda.
Chronicon Petroburgense.
MISCELLANEOUS.
Foedera, Conventiones, Litterae, etc., Thoma Rymer. Vols. I and II. London, 1727.
Syllabus in English of Rymer's Foedera : Ed., Thomas Duffus Hardy. 3 vols. 1869-
1885.
Calendar of the Patent Rolls of the Reign of Edward I: 1894.
Liber Niger Scaccarii Thomae Hearnii: 2 vols. London, 1774.
Gilberti Foliot ex Abbate Gloucestriae Epistolae: Ed., Giles. London, 1846.
Calendar of Documents relating to Scotland, preserved in Her Majesty's Public
Record Office, London: Ed., Joseph Bain. Vols. I and II. Edinburgh, 1881
and 1884.
Ducange: Glossarium Mediae et Infimae Latinitatis. Niort, 1883.
Bigelow, Melville Madison : Placita Anglo-Normannica. Law cases from William I
to Richard I. London, 1879.
Parliamentary Writs and Writs of Military Summons: Ed., Francis Palgrave. Vol. I.
1827.
AUTHORITIES.
Baltzer, Martin: Dissertation zur Geschichte des deutschen Kriegswesens in der
Zeit von den letzten Karolingern bis auf Kaiser Friedrich II. Leipzig, 1877.
Coulange, Fustel de: La Gaule Romaine. Paris, 1891.
Creasy, Edward S.: Rise and Progress of the English Constitution. New York,
1892.
i
118
THE SCUTAGE AND KNIGHT SERVICE IN ENGLAND
2
Daniel, Gabriel : Histoire de la Milice française et des Changements qui s'y sont faits
depuis l'établissement de la Monarchie française dans les Gaules jusqu'à la fin
du Règne de Louis le Grand. 2 vols. Amsterdam, 1724.
Dowell, Stephen : History of Taxes and Taxation in England. 4 vols. London, 1888.
Eyton, Robert William : Court, Household, and Itinerary of Henry II. London,
1878.
Feilden, H. St. Clair : Short Constitutional History of England. Oxford, 1895.
Finlason, W. F., Editor : Reeve's History of the English Law. 3 vols. London.
1869.
Freeman, Edward A.. History of the Norman Conquest in England. 5 vols.
Oxford, 1877.
* Freeman, Edward A.: Reign of William Rufus and the Accession of Henry I.
vols. Oxford, 1882.
Gardiner, Samuel R., and J. Bass Mullinger: English History for Students. New
York, 1881.
Garnier, Russel M.: History of the English Landed Interests. London, 1892.
Glasson, Ernest: Histoire du Droit et des Institutions politiques, civiles et judiciaires
de l'Angleterre. 6 vols. Paris, 1882.
Gneist, Rudolph: Selfgovernment, Communalverfassung und Verwaltungsgerichte in
England. Berlin, 1871.
Gneist, Rudolph: History of the English Constitution. 2 vols., transl. London,
1885.
+ Green, John Richard : History of the English People. 4 vols. New York.
Green, John Richard : Conquest of England. New York.
* Hall, Hubert: Court Life under the Plantagenets. London, 1890.
Hallam, Henry: Europe during the Middle Ages. 3 vols. London, 1871.
Hutton, W. H.: Misrule of Henry III. 1887.
Kemble, John Mitchell: Saxons in England. 2 vols. London, 1876.
Langlois, Victor: Le Règne de Philippe le Hardi. Paris, 1887.
Lappenberg, J. M.: History of England under the Anglo-Saxon Kings. Translated
by Benjamin Thorpe. 2 vols. London, 1845.
Luchaire, Achille : Manuel des Institutions françaises. Paris, 1892.
Luchaire, Achille : Histoire des Institutions monarchiques de la France sous les pre-
miers Capétians. 2 vols. Paris, 1891.
Lyttelton, George Lord: History of the Life of King Henry the Second and of the
age in which he lived. 6 vols. London, 1769.
Madox, Thomas : History and Antiquities of the Exchequer of the Kings of Eng-
land. 2 vols. London, 1769.
Makower, Felix: Constitutional History and Constitution of the Church of England.
English translation. London, 1895.
+ Nicholas, Nicholas H.: History of the Orders of Knighthood. 4 vols. London, 1842.
Norgate, Kate : England under the Anjevin Kings. 2 vols. London, 1887.
+
BIBLIOGRAPHY
119
mannen.
✓
Palgrave, Francis: Rise and Progress of the English Commonwealth. 2 vols. Lon
don, 1832.
Palgrave, Francis : History of Normandy and of England. 4 vols. London, 1878.
Pauli, Rheinhold: Geschichte von England. 3 vols. 1829.
* Pearson, Charles H.: History of England during the Early and Middle Ages. 2 vols,
London, 1867.
Phillips, Georg : Englische Reichs- und Rechtsgeschichte seit der Ankunft der Nor-
2 vols. Berlin, 1827. (Appendix with Tractatus de Legibus of
Glanvil.)
Pike, Luke Owen : Constitutional History of the House of Lords. London, 1894.
Polluck, Frederick, and Frederic William Maitland: History of English Law before
the Time of Edward I. Cambridge, 1895.
Round, John Horace : Geoffrey de Mandeville : A Study of the Anarchy. London,
1892.
Round, John Horace: Feudal England, London, 1895.
Seebohm, Frederic: English Village Community. London, 1890.
Seeley, John Robert : Greatest of All the Plantagenets. London, 1860.
Smith, G. Barnett: History of the English Parliament. 2 vols. London, 1892.
Z
Stubbs, William: Constitutional History of England. 3 vols. Oxford, 1891.
Z
Stubbs, William : Early Plantagenets. New York, 1891.
Stubbs, William : Select Charters. 7th ed. Oxford, 1890.
Taswell-Langmead, Thomas Pitt : English Constitutional History. London, 1890.
Thierry, Augustin : Histoire de la Conquête de l'Angleterre par les Normands. 4
vols. Paris, 1877.
Traill, H. D., Editor : Social England. 4 vols. London, 1894.
Vinagradoff, Paul: Villainage in England. Oxford, 1892.
Waitz, Georg : Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte. 8 vols. Kiel, 1880.
Wakeman, Henry Ofley, and Arthur Hassall, Editors : Essays introductory to the
Study of the English Constitution. London, 1891.
..
SPECIAL ARTICLES.
Bird, S. R.: Scutage and Marshal's Rolls. Genealogist, 1884, p. 65.
Boutmy, E.: Le Parlement en Angleterre. Revue des Deux Mondes, 1886, clxxvi,
p. 90.
Hall, Hubert : Preface to Red Book of the Exchequer (Rolls Series).
Little, A. G.: Gesith and Thegn. English Historical Review, IV, p. 723.
Round, J. H.: English Historical Review, III, 501; VI, 417 and 625; VII, 301.
(Republished in Feudal England.)
Stubbs, William : Preface to Benedict of Peterborough, Vol. II (Rolls Series).
Stubbs, William : Preface to Roger Hoveden (Rolls Series).
Stubbs, William : Preface to Walter of Coventry (Rolls Series).
DATINO
::
و نیز
۰۹۲ ...
SRARY
030 . جفا
کرد
::
::
: ۔
" ....
،'
..:..
::
::
.:: ..
3 9015 07344 7685
Cannot in
send
BEVARONOWZMAWAKIWA WA
UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
"
نمر
بر اسا
not
2
سلا -/- ہے
برا
اور میر
را در سراسازی سے مندر
دار ہیں ۔ یہ کون ہیں اور سر
iHi