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, 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 Leicester were seized by the king, and one person who held of the Earl paid Im. for I knight, whereas the scutage of 1172 was

"Saher concessit Matild' et heredibus suis illos duo solidatos redditus cum omnibus 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.)

regularly 17. 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.

2

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 immediately after the general allotments of the Conqueror, but the process was not spontaneous, but gradual and adapted to individual conditions. The process of division and subdivision went on indefinitely, and the reports of 1166, making a distinction 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. 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 and and and and and 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 respectively †,†, †, †, †, †, †, †, †, †, † fees.3 Sevenths, twelfths, twentieths of fees are to be met with. 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 presumption 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

1 1

"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. 3 Lib. Nig., 78.

4 Feet of Fines, 7, Ric. I, 56.

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 character 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 service. If a lord was unable to secure the due service of his tenant 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

I

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 feceris 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 praedictus Rob. concessit priori de Lewwes tenere in perpetuum libere et quiete praedictam 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.)

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.2

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 I, but they were not at that time common. the time of Richard I they were quite numerous.

By

The knight service in these cases is generally to be rendered by scutage. It might seem that these holdings were a combination 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."6

A mesne lord often let out his land for a rent "for every service saving forinsec service;"7 that is, the tenant paid an annual rent, and was under the obligations of knight tenure

"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.)

6 Bracton, De Legibus, I, 293.

5 Feet of Fines, Ric. I, passim. 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.)

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 agricultural habits of the small military holder.

up.

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 antifeudal 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 2500/.; in 1861 the donum from the towns was 840/., the scutage

'Two bovates held for one pound of pepper, saving forinsec service. (Fines, Ric., 35.) A messuage and 7 virgates held at 24s. annually besides royal service of one-half knight. (Fines, ed. Hunter, 274.)

2 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 equivalent 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.)