Page images

and is said to have levied large sums on ecclesiastics and others who had, he declared, refused to accompany him.1


The records of these expeditions prove that, in John's reign, no distinction was made between ecclesiastical and lay tenants; in other words, King Richard's vague discrimination of 1196 was was no longer necessary. The question had been raised formally by Hugh of Lincoln in 1197 he refused either to serve or to contribute towards an expedition in Normandy. Four years later, in 1201, a few months after the bishop's death, the knights of the bishopric make fines with King John in order to be released from service across the Channel, 3 The transition from resistance to submission may be illustrated, as Mr. Round long ago pointed out, by the action of St. Edmund's. The bishop of Lincoln refused both men and money; the abbot of St. Edmund's admitted a claim for scutage, but denied that his church had ever been obliged to provide knights for service across the sea. However, the abbot submitted. Richard, it is stated, had demanded a tenth of the knight service due from the fiefs of English bishops and abbots; the abbot, therefore, equipped four knights and gave them sufficient money to maintain themselves during the usual forty days of service. But at this stage the connection made by the king between small numbers and long service was pointed out to the abbot by his friends. His knights might be kept for a whole year, and their maintenance would be very expensive; it would be cheaper to make an arrangement with the king. This the abbot did his knights might return after forty days,

1. Wendover, ii, 10.

2. See Round, Feudal England, pp. 528-534.

3. The bishopric was at this time in the king's hands. It is clear, however, that some bishops contributed knights and served in person, e.g., the bishop of Norwich. See above, p. 239.

4. Feudal England, p. 531.

5. Joceline of Brakelond (ed. Rokewode), p. 63.

and the king received a fine of £100.1 The royal rights were completely acknowledged. 2


John's relations with the barons and their tenants at Portsmouth help to establish the nature of scutage at the end of the twelfth century. Unless local privilege, such as Saint Hugh claimed in 1197, involved a prescriptive right to offer payment instead of service, the duty to serve was clear. King John insisted upon the connection between fees (feoda) on the one hand, and horses and men on the other, with no uncertain voice. On the other hand, the primary object of levying a scutage was the collection of wages for a hired force, and as a rule King John was content to lay the heavy burden of an annual scutage upon the English. Payment and service were not interchangeable: if the king called for service, only a



1. The principle of representation, adopted by the Angevin kings, was in vogue on some ecclesiastical estates, and was, therefore, not unfamiliar. Representatives were elected by the tenants to perform the servitium debitum. See Select Pleas in Manorial Courts (Selden Society), pp. 50, 61.

2. It should be noticed that John expressly disclaimed any right to exact service for Normandy from Ireland: Rot. Chart., 133b. See below, p. 480.

3. On the whole subject of scutage, which is still very obscure, see Baldwin, The Scutage and Knight Service in England (Chicago, 1897); Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law (second edition), i, 253, 266 seqq.; Round, Feudal England; and for this period, Miss Norgate, John Lackland, pp. 122 seqq.; Ramsay, Angevin Empire, 390; McKechnie, Magna Carta, pp. 86-90. Petit-Dutaillis, Studies supplementary to Stubbs' Const. Hist., pp. 56, 141. The confusion of practice and theory which these discussions of the evidence reveal is due to the fact that, on the one hand, the payment of scutage and the performance of service were not interchangeable, while, on the other, no cases seem to have been found in which both service and payment were clearly exacted.

4. See his letters to bailiffs of the count of Flanders and to the prepositus of Bruges, in Rot. Pat., 11b, 26b.

5. Dialogus, lib. i, c. 9 (ed. Oxford), p. 99. 6. Cf. Ramsay, Angevin Empire, p. 390.

special arrangement could justify the payment of scutage instead. Thus in 1201, although the scutage of two marks was accepted in many cases in lieu of service, the scutage was carefully distinguished from the fine pro transfretatione. In many cases, however, the alternative character of scutage was sufficiently established to secure the exemption from payment of those who served freely. We cannot be sure that this concession was general, because we do not know exactly who served and who did not, but we can safely assert that it was frequent. 2

In Normandy the practice seems to have been simpler. The feudal tax which corresponded to the English scutage, the auxilium exercitus, was only levied upon the knight service actually owing to the king, whereas in England scutage was levied upon the number of knights enfeoffed." It was, thus, easier to regard the service of 40 days and the aid as interchangeable; and as a matter of fact, although the feudal host was frequently called out, the aid appears to have been levied and deduction made in favour

1. For example, Rot. Canc., 191: "Lambertus de Scoteigni reddit compotum de xx li. ne transfretet et pro habendo scutagio suo de x militibus"; ibid., p. 134, etc.: "de finibus et scutagiis." On exceptional occasions, as in 1172 and 1213, we find a scutage paid by those who nec milites nec denarios miserunt," or "nec ierant nec miserunt." See Baldwin, The Scutage and Knight Service in England, p. 6.



2. Rot. Pat., 14b, July 17th, 1202 in favour of Thomas of St. Valery, who nobis libenter servit et nos de ejus servicio multum laudamus." Cf. Rot. de Lib., 15, June 10th, 1201 in favour of Thomas de Burgh, the king's valetus. This is an interesting case, because Thomas was a sub-tenant who paid scutage, here excused him, to several lords. Finally, compare the lists of exemptions in the Pipe Rolls under the several counties.

3. The proof of this lies in a comparison of the inquest into knights' fees in the Red Book, with the payments or debts enrolled in the Exchequer Rolls; for example, compare Rot. Scacc., i, 208 (Montfort, for Coquainvilliers); ii, 448 (knights of Caux), 479 (Bohon), 513 (Rollos), 534 (Moyon), with Red Book, ii, 627, 632, 628, 634, 629.

of those who served.1 Occasionally, the aid was granted to the lord himself to maintain him in the ducal service, 2 just as was sometimes done in the case of scutage. The comparative rarity of entries relating to the aid which can be traced on the Exchequer rolls may be interpreted to show that service was more common than payment. There are cases of amercement for non-appearance. 3 But the evidence is not sufficient to prove this view. In the first place, only the debtors are mentioned on the Exchequer rolls; there may have been separate collection of the aid as a whole. In the second place, other entries point to an opposite conclusion, and would justify the view, so far as they go, that payment was more common than service: for example, a man might pay the aid and at the same time receive wages for service. 4 We must be content to state and leave the facts, which may be summarised as follows: The feudal host seems to have been summoned frequently, at least in John's reign. It was organised in the ordinary feudal manner by the ducal officials. It would presumably include the knights and armed servientes of the ducal demesne, and references to the

1. Rot. Scacc., ii, 444, 445: "Helouis de Venneval . . . reddit compotum de xxx li. de feodo iij militum de duobus quadraginta (i.e., for two periods). In thesauro xx li. Galfrido de Sauchosa Mara x. li. pro servicio i. militis quod fecit. Et quieta est." Cf. i, 145, 270.

2. Rot. Norm., 105: "quietavimus Gillebertum de Aquila de auxilio exercitus quod ab eo exigitur de exercitu Wasconie." At the time of this grant, September, 1203, Gilbert of L'Aigle was serving with John (Rot. Pat., 34b). Another case of exemption in Rot. Norm., 92.

3. Generally, however, for non-appearance on some special service, e.g., the payments "pro servicio Regis non facto apud Nonancourt" in 1202 or 1203 (Rot. Scacc., ii, 554-9 passim), also 1198 (ibid., 458). Such an entry as the following (ibid., 330) points, on the other hand, to a general amercement: "Gueroldus Lailier reddit compotum de xxiiij li. pro ii servientibus quos debuit mittere in exercitum et non misit."

4. Ibid., i, 270 (1195). "Fulco de Veteri ponte xvi li. de auxilis exercitus de feodo ij militum. Et x li. quas habuit pro servicio Regis faciendo et non fecit." But this service may not have been military.

arrière-ban and view of arms show that it might be reinforced by the military subtenants, if not by the national host. On the other hand, the service due from each tenant-in-chief was fixed, and seems to have been regarded as redeemable by payment of the aid. The aid was levied regularly in time of war and was generally £5 Angevin, that is about 25 shillings sterling, on the knight's fee; 1 but it is uncertain to what extent and under what conditions payment of the aid was substituted for service, or, to express the same thing in other words, to what extent the host was composed of men who were serving for forty days at their lord's expense. The Exchequer records show that the knights and servientes were paid as well as the mercenaries. The duty to provide servientes did not necessarily involve the duty to pay them. 3 On the whole the tendency of the evidence is to show that the Norman army was a paid army, and was paid by aids of all kinds, tallages, and loans. The defence of the March was the chief task of Normandy, and this required permanent garrisons.


In one respect, it would seem, Norman and English.

1. There was some variation, as the entry in the last note shows; and cf. ii, 357 (1202): "Willelmus de Mara lxx. so. de feodo dimidii militis de exercitu Normannie anni preteriti." It is just possible that these variations point to special arrangements with the duke like the varying scutage or fines of 1201 in England. Above, p. 318.

2. Rot. Scacc., i, 115 (1184). Payment of £100 to Hugh of Cressy "ad faciendas liberationes militum, quos duxit ad ultimam guerram Pictavie"; i, 145-repayment of money granted "de liberationibus servientum qui debuerunt facere servitium Regis et non fecerunt"; ii, 480, "Robertus de Tresgoz debet xxv so. de servientibus qui redierunt de exercitu de Aube Merle." A previous entry (p. 478) seems to refer to wages, but may be an instance of amercement. The bailiff, Robert of Tresgoz, accounts for £112. 10s. Od. "de denariis captis de servientibus qui debuerunt ire apud Goislanfontem in exercitus (sic) et non ierunt." Gaillefontaine is between Neufchâtel and Gournai, in Bray.

3. See the expenditure of the tallage of Caux in 1198 (ibid., ii, 448). Much of it was given to lords on the March, "de hominibus feodi sui."

« PreviousContinue »