« PreviousContinue »
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.
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. 3 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. 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. 2 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 redie. runt 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. 108. 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."
tendencies differed. In England the exigencies of service across the Channel brought about a closer organisation of the feudal force on a representative basis. There is no trace in Normandy of any system of representative service. 1 There was not the
excuse in Normandy for lengthening the term of service in the open, and permanent garrisons were more suitably composed of paid men. Moreover, it is quite probable that
that the different methods of assessing the aid in the two countries helped to encourage a representative system in England and to hinder it in Normandy. In Normandy, as we have seen, the aid was not payable on every knight enfeoffed, but only upon the servitium debitum.? When
1. The knights and barons who were sent to Issoudun in 1194 (Rot. Scacc., i, 136, above, p. 160) are the nearest example, but there is no evidence that they were systematically selected. I am, of course, not referring to the provision of knight-service by the knights of a fief for war or castleguard. The returns from Bayeux in 1133 show that in this respect a representative system was developed in Normandy as in England.
cases this doubtless resulted in a long service system, especially on the marches : “idem episcopus debebat servicium viginti militum in marchis Normanniae per quadraginta dies, ubicunque rex vellet, et istud servicium faciebant quinque milites per unum." (sic, ? annum. Histor, de France, xxiii, 699). There are many instances, e.g., in the Feoda Normanniae compiled after 1204 (Ibid, p. 705).
2. The aid was of course collected from all the knights during an escheat, e.g., the long list of payments by the knights of the honour of Montfort in 1198 and 1203 (Rot. Scacc., ii, 364, 559). In 1198 Richard Silvain accounted in detail for the aids of 22 and seventwenty-fourths. The number of knights' fees in the service of the lord in 1172 was 22 and seven-twelfths (Red Book, ii, 642). Stapleton incorrectly identified these knights with the 33 and seven-twelfths ad servitium suum of Hugh of Montfort in Coquainvilliers, and suggests an emendation accordingly (II, Ixvii), but Coquainvilliers was never in ducal hands. The aid was also paid upon all the knights during a minority, as in 1198 in the honour of Moion (Rot. Scacc., ii, 298, compared with Red Book, ii, 629). The relief also seems to have been paid on all the knights; see the entry relating to Peter of Sablé's payment, for the knight's of Gacé (Rot. Scacc., ii, 317). It is an interesting
Henry II extended the assessment in England, he was doubtless thinking of the superior advantages of financial to military aid in his continental wars: it would be tedious to ship the military service of England across the Channel, and if taxation were resorted to, it might be general,-not confined, like the old scutage on ecclesiastical fiefs, to a tax on the service which was legally due. The next step was easy. If personal service were needed, a proportion of the knight service legally due, or, better still, a hundred knights or so picked from the whole of England, would be much more useful, since they would be available for a longer period. On the scene of warfare no such necessity was apparent; and, in any case, it would have been more difficult to disturb military obligations which had been fixed before the conquest of England. But several important results might have followed the extension of Henry's policy into Normandy. The towns might have escaped with lighter tallages; the English scutages need not have been so onerous; and more scope would have been offered for the development of a national representative system of military service.
In England, after the loss of Normandy, the growth of such a system was checked, and it gradually gave way before different methods of raising an army; but no student of John's reign can doubt that military organisation had great influence upon later experiments in political representation. Is it too fanciful to suggest that if such a system had taken root in Normandy, the whole history of the duchy might have been changed?
On the other hand, we cannot be certain that no attempts were made in Normandy to establish a definite territorial
question whether the lord who was given power to collect an aid on his estates was expected to maintain himself in the ducal service from the surplus, after the payment of the aid on the servitium debitum. A ducal writ permitted a lord to levy an aid upon his tenants pro gravamine guerre (Statuta et Consuet., c. xlviii, in Tardif, I, I, 39).