975; 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 4500/., and the scutage 4000l. The amounts of scutage in the aggregate were not sufficient to support 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 2m., 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 accustomed 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 succeeding years in the Pipe Rolls. But, on the whole, if the amounts of arrears are a criterion, no tax was more promptly and cheerfully 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 mention knights by name.1 The knights were the flower of the "In Flandria quidam miles nomine Valterus de Fontanis." (Ben. Pet., I, 99.) 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 equitum peditumque multitudine." (Ben. Pet., I, 339.) 1186. Richard against the Count of Toulouse "copiosam militum peditumque multitudinem collegit." (Ibid., 345.) 66 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. 13s. 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 kingdom 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.3 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/. 'There is a single item of Scutage "propter Walens" in the first year. (R. 1, Ric., p. 5.) R. 3, Ric. See Madox, I, 637. 3 R. 14, Hen. II, p. 38. 4 Ben. Pet., II, 87. I 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 147. 5 s., the same as Reginald de Warenne in 1172;2 William de Dammartin, 20s., the same as Alberic de Dammartin in 1172;2 the Abbot of Burg rendered account for 60/., while in 1172 the same rendered account for 60/. for knights "quos recognoscit," and also 75 s. for knights "quos non recognoscit;"3 the Bishop of Chester, 157., the same as in 1172; the Archbishop of York rendered account for 20 l., while in 1172 he rendered account for 20l. and 23. 10s. for knights "quos non recognoscit;"4 Henry de Tilli rendered account for 14 l. 15 s. de scutagio, while in 1172 William fitz John owes 14 7. 15 s. scutage, "which ought to be required of Henry de Tilli," and the same owes 20 s. new enfeofment; 5 the Earl of Warwick renders account in the seventh year of Richard for 100l. 46s. 8 d., which is the scutage of 102% knights; in the fourteenth year of Henry II the Earl of Warwick rendered account for 102 knights old enfeofment and for 2 knights new enfeofment." 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 nothing is longer claimed for these extra knights. The Churchmen paid according to their servitium debitum, just as in the earlier "Madox, ibid. R. 14, Henry II, p. 59. 'Hov., III, 215. Madox, I, 590. 3 Madox, I, 591. 18, Henry II, p. 30. 4 Madox, ibid. R. 18, Henry II, p. 61. 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." I The words of the great historian indicate a singular misapprehension, 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 25,000l. and 12,000l. 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 to1, but rather, if I may hazard such a conjecture, 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 scutage could possibly be. It will be remembered that the aid of 1168 was the most extensively applied and most rigorously collected of any scutage that has thus far been levied. The amount was 4000l., the rate being I m. Therefore, if the collection of the ransom was as thoroughly carried out as was the aid to marry the daughter, the total amount would have been between 5000l. and 6000 /. 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."2 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, lxxxiv. 2 "Quod accidisse creditur per fraudem executorum." (Will. New., Lib. IV, c. 38.) |