Precious for our purpose as are the _cartae_ of 1166, their evidence,

as it stands, is incomplete. It needs to be supplemented by the early

Pipe-Rolls of Henry II's reign. By collating these two authorities we

obtain information which, singly, neither the one nor the other could

afford. All those entries on the rolls which relate to _scutagia_,

_auxilia_ or _dona_ require to be extracted and classified before we

can form our conclusions. Hitherto, historians have remained content

with repeating Swereford's _obiter dicta_, as extracted from the

_Liber Rubeus_ by Madox, without checking these statements by the

evidence of the rolls themselves.

The question of Swereford's authority is one which it is absolutely

necessary to deal with, because his statements have been freely

accepted by successive historical writers, and have formed, indeed,

the basis on which their conclusions rest. Now the presumption is

naturally in favour of Swereford's knowledge of his subject. His

introduction to the _Liber Rubeus_ is dated 1230, and he tells us that

he had been at work among the records in the days of King John, under

William of Ely[109] himself: he wrote with the actual rolls before

him; he had been intimate with the leading officials of the exchequer,

and enjoyed full knowledge of its practice and its traditions. I

cannot wonder that, this being so, his positive assertions should have

been readily believed, or that Mr Hall, when, for a short time, I was

associated with him in preparing the Red Book for the press, should,

with a kindly bias in favour of so venerable an authority, have shrunk

from my drastic criticism of his famous introduction to that volume.

On the other hand we have Swereford's own admission that he worked

from the rolls alone.[110] These rolls are, for all purposes, as

accessible to us as they were to him, while we possess the advantage

of having, in contemporary chronicles, sources of information which

he did not use, and with which, indeed, he shows no sign of being even

conversant. We must go, therefore, behind Swereford and examine for

ourselves the materials from which he worked.

Passing, for the present, over minor points, I would fix on the 'Great

Scutage', or 'Scutage of Toulouse', as the test by which Swereford's

knowledge and accuracy must stand or fall. If he is in error on this

matter, his error is so grievous and so far-reaching that it must

throw the gravest doubt on all his similar assertions. The date of

the expedition against Toulouse was June 1159 (the host having been

summoned at Mid-Lent): from the chroniclers we learn that, to provide

the means for it, and especially to pay an army of mercenaries,

a great levy was made in England and beyond sea. The roll of the

following Michaelmas records precisely such a levy, and the payments

so recorded must have been made for the expenses of this campaign. But

we can go further still; we can actually prove from internal evidence

that sums accounted for on the roll of 1159 were levied expressly

for the Toulouse campaign.[111] Yet we are confidently informed by

Swereford that this levy was for a Welsh war, and that the scutage

of Toulouse is represented by the levies which figure on the rolls

of 1161 and 1162. He appears to have evolved out of his inner

consciousness the rule that a scutage, though fixed and even paid in

any given year, was never accounted for on the rolls till the year

after.[112] But as even this rule will not apply to his calculation

here, one can only suggest that he was absolutely ignorant of the date

of the Toulouse campaign.[113] The value of Swereford's calculations

is so seriously affected by this cardinal error, that one may reject

with less hesitation his statement that the scutage of 1156 was

taken for a Welsh war, and not, as there is evidence to imply, for a

campaign against the king's brother. Swereford, again, may be pardoned

for his ignorance of the fact that scutage existed under Henry

I,[114] but when he unhesitatingly assigns the Domesday Survey to

the fourteenth year of the Conqueror (1079-80), he shows us that the

precision of his statements is no proof of their accuracy. On both

these points he has misled subsequent writers.[115]

The incredible ignorance and credulity even of officials at the time

are illustrated by the fact that the Conqueror was generally believed

to have created 32,000 knights' fees in England, and that Swereford

plumed himself on his independence in doubting so general a

belief.[116] His less sceptical contemporary, Segrave, continued to

believe it, and even Madox hesitates to reject it.

The persistent assertion that the _Cartae Baronum_ were connected

with, and preliminary to, the _auxilium ad filiam maritandam_ of

1168 is undoubtedly to be traced to Swereford's _ipse dixit_ to that

effect. He distinctly asserts that the aid was fixed (_assisum_) in

the thirteenth year (1167), that the returns (_cartae_) were made in

the same year (1167), and that the aid was paid and accounted for in

the fourteenth year (1168).[117] Modern research, however, has shown

that the returns were made quite early in 1166, while the youthful

Matilda, we know, was not married till October 1168. This throws an

instructive light on Swereford's _modus operandi_. Finding from the

rolls that the payments made in 1168 were based on the returns in the

_cartae_, and not being acquainted with the date of the latter, he

jumped to the conclusion that they must have been made in 1167, it

being his (quite unsupported) thesis that all levies were fixed in the

year preceding that in which they were accounted for on the rolls.

Proceeding further, we find him explaining (p. 9) that he omits the

aid of 1165, 'quoniam probata summa auxilii propter hoc non probatur

numerus militum'. And yet this aid, the last to be taken before the

returns of 1166, is of special value and importance for the very

purpose he speaks of. It is, indeed, an essential element in the

evidence on which I build; and this compels me to discuss the point in

some detail.

Those who contributed towards this aid either (1) gave arbitrary sums

for the payment of _servientes_--whose number was almost invariably

some multiple of five--or (2) paid a marc on every fee of their

_servitium debitum_. We are only here concerned with those who adopted

the latter course. Now let us take the case of those who adopted this

alternative in the counties of Notts and Derby, and compare their

payments with their _servitium debitum_ as known to us from other

sources.

PAYMENTS (1165) SERVICE (1166)

_marcae_ knights

Hubert fitz Ralf 30 30

Ralf Halselin 25 25

Robert de 'Calz' 15 15

Roger de Burun 10 10

In this case there is no doubt as to the _servitium debitum_, for it

is ascertained from the _cartae_ themselves. Having then proved, by

this test, the exact correspondence of the payments, I turn to the

case of Devonshire.

PAYMENTS (1165) SERVICE (1166)

_marcae_ knights[118]

Robert 'filius Regis' 100 (?)

William de Traci 30 (?)

William de Braose 25 (?)

Oliver de Traci 25 (?)

Abbot of Tavistock 15 15

William fitz Reginald 1 1

Ralf de Valtort 1 1

Robert fitz Geoffrey 1 1

Here we are supplied by this roll with four important _servitia_ which

would otherwise be absolutely unknown to us. And they happen to be of

special interest. For while the _carta_ of William de Braose returns

twenty-eight fees, and that of Oliver de Traci twenty-three and a half

(though he pays on thirty and a half),[119] their payments in 1165,

by revealing their _servitium debitum_, show us that their fiefs

represent the two halves of the Honour of Barnstaple (which,

therefore, was assessed at 50 knights) then in their respective hands.

Again, William de Traci returns his fees in his _carta_ as twenty-five

and three-quarters, and says nothing about any balance on his

_dominium_, as he should have done. Hence we should not have known his

_servitium_ but for the roll of 1165.

Swereford's extraordinary failure to understand this roll aright

is possibly due to the fact that most of the relevant payments are

entered without mention of their object. He seems to have been very

dependent upon the rolls explaining themselves, and to have worked in

the spirit of a copying clerk rather than of an intelligent student.

One more example of his errors will suffice. In his abstracts from the

aid 'ad maritandam primogenitam filiam regis' (1168), we read:

Abbas Gloucestriæ de promissione, sed non numeratur quid;

sed in rotulo praecedenti dicitur:--Abbas Gloucestriæ debet

xxxviij. l. ij. s. vj. d. de veteri scutagio Walliae.

Now (1) the amount of the abbot's contribution is duly entered on the

roll ('xl. marcas de promissione de eodem auxilio'), and it is not

paid in respect of fees, but is a voluntary proffer; (2) the phrase

in the preceding roll is not 'de veteri _scutagio_', but 'de veteri

_exercitu'_; (3) the payment there recorded represents a contribution

of fifty _servientes_, and had nothing to do with scutage, for the

abbot (as Swereford should have known) did not hold by military

service, and ought not, therefore, to figure in his lists at all.[120]

Let us turn, therefore, to the rolls themselves. Now, although the

language of the exchequer was not so precise as we could wish, it

is possible, more or less, to distinguish and classify these levies.

Thus, we have of course a typical 'aid' in the levy for the marriage

of the king's daughter (1168), while, on the other hand, we have an

equally typical 'scutage' in 1156, in the payments made by the church

tenants in lieu of military service.

On the institution of 'scutage' there has been much misconception.

It is placed by our historians among the great innovations wrought by

Henry II, who is supposed by them to have introduced it in 1156.[121]

Here we see, once again, the danger of seeking our information on such

points secondhand, instead of going straight to the fountainhead for

ourselves.

John of Salisbury implies that scutage was no novelty in 1156 when he

writes, not that the king imposed it, but that he '_could not remit_

it'. This inference is at once confirmed by the appearance of scutage

_eo nomine_ in the reign of Henry I.

The following charter is found in the (MS.) _Liber Eliensis_ (Lib.

III), No. xxi, and in the Cottonian MS. Nero A. 15:

H. rex Anglorum Archiepiscopis, Episcopis, Abbatibus,

Comitibus, etc. Salutem. Sciatis me condonasse Ecclesiæ S.

Ætheldredæ de Ely pro Dei amore et anima Patris et Matris

meae et pro redemptione peccatorum meorum, et petitione Hervei

ejusdem Ecclesie Episcopi 40 libras de illis 100 libris

quas predicta Ecclesia solebat dare de _Scutagio_ quando

_Scutagium_ currebat[122] per terram meam Anglie: ita quod

Ecclesia amodo inperpetuum non dabit inde nisi 60 libras

quando _Scutagium_ per terram evenerit, et ita inperpetuum

sit de predictis libris Ecclesia predicta quieta. T. Rogero

Episcopo Saresberiensi, Gaufrido Cancellario meo et Roberto

de Sigillo et Willelmo de Tancarvilla et Willelmo de Albineio

Pincerna et Radulfo Basset et Gaufrido de Clintona et Willelmo

de Pondelarche. Apud Eilinges in transitu meo.

This is followed by (No. xxii) a grant of Chatteris Abbey to the

church of Ely;[123] and this again is followed, in a register of

Chatteris Abbey,[124] by a remission of 6s 7d Wardpenny hitherto

paid by that abbey. The first and third charters receive singular

confirmation, being thus accounted for in the Pipe-Roll of Henry I:

Et idem Episcopus debet ccxl. li. ut rex clamet eum quietum

de superplus militum Episcopatus, et ut Abbatia de Cateriz sit

quieta de Warpenna (p. 44).

This entry, moreover, connects the _scutagium_ with the system of

knight-service (_superplus militum_).

It is delicious to learn, on comparing the records, that the virtuous

king who made these grants for the weal of his parents' souls and the

remission of his own sins, extorted from the church, for making them,

an equivalent in hard cash.[125]

Again, the (MS.) Cartulary of St Evroul contains a confirmation by

Randulf, Earl of Chester (1121-29) of his predecessor (d. 1120) Earl

Richard's benefaction, 'liberam et quietam ab _escuagio_', etc., etc.

The list of the Abbot of Peterborough's knights (see p. 131) is a

further illustration of knight-service _temp._ Henry I, while the

entry as to Vivian, who was enfeoffed by Abbot Turold: 'servit pro

milite _cum auxilio_' (_Chron. Petrob._, p. 175), must refer to the

somewhat obscure 'auxilium militum' of the period. So also, it would

seem, must the curious charter of Eustace, Count of Boulogne,[126]

in which he speaks of his knights serving: 'sive _in nummis_, sive

in exercitu, sive in guarda', under Henry I. Most important of all,

however, is a passage on which I have lighted since this essay first

appeared. In reading through the letters of Herbert (Losinga), Bishop

of Norwich (d. 1119), I found this appeal to the Bishop of Salisbury,

in the king's absence from England:

In terris meis exiguntur quinquaginta libræ pro placitis, cum

earundem terrarum mei homines nec in responsionem nec in facto

peccaverint.[127] Item _pro militibus sexaginta libræ_ quos [?

quas] tanto difficilius cogor reddere, quanto annis præteritis

mea substantia gravius attenuata est (Ed. Giles, p. 51).

The sum is that to which the Ely contribution is reduced by the above

charter, and the death of the writer in 1119 proves the early date of

the payment.

Indeed, a little consideration will show that payment in lieu of

military service, which was the essential principle of scutage,

could be no new thing. The two forms which this payment might

assume--payment to a substitute, or payment to the crown--both appear

in Domesday as applicable to the fyrd; the former is found in the

'Customs' of Berkshire, the latter in other passages. From the very

commencement of knight service, the principle must have prevailed;

for the 'baron' who had not enfeoffed knights enough to discharge his

_servitium debitum_, must always have hired substitutes to the amount

of the balance. Nor is this a matter of supposition: we know as a

fact, from the _Abingdon Chronicle_ and the _Ely History_, that under

William I knights were so hired.[128] Here it should be noted, as a

suggestive fact, that the 'forty days' of military service, though

bearing no direct proportion either to the week or to the month, do so

to the marc and to the pound. The former represents 4d, and the

latter 6d, for each day of the military service.[129] It may fairly

be assumed that this normal 'scutage' would be based on the estimated

cost of substitutes paid direct. Thus the only change involved would

be that the tenant would make his payments not to substitutes, but to

the crown instead.

There is a valuable entry bearing on this point in the roll of 8 Henry

II (p. 53). We there read:

Et in liberatione vii. militum soldariorum de toto anno quater

xx. et iiii. li. et xviii. s. et viii. d. Et in liberatione

xx. servientium de toto anno xxx. li. et vi. s. et viii. d.

Et in liberatione viii. Arbalist' viii. li. et xvi. sol. Et in

liberatione v. vigilum et i. Portarii vi. li. et xvi. d.

This represents 8d a day to each of the seven knights for a year

of 364 days, which, be it observed, corresponds precisely with the

statements in the _Dialogus_: 'Duo milites bajuli clavium quisque

in die viii. [den.] _ratione militiae_; asserunt enim quod equis

necessariis et armis instructi fore teneantur', etc. (i. 3). And so,

we see, a scutage of two marcs, such as that which was raised for

the expedition of Toulouse (1159), would represent, with singular

accuracy, 8d a day for the forty days of feudal service, or exactly

a knight's pay. Again the pay of the _serviens_, recorded in this

passage, works out at a penny a day for a year of 364 days, which has

an important bearing, we shall find, on the roll of three years later

(11 Henry II). A similar calculation shows that the porter received 2d

a day, and the _vigil_ 1d--the very pay assigned him in the _Dialogus_

(i. 3). There is another similar passage in the roll of 14 Henry II

(p. 124):

Et in liberatione i. militis et ii. Portariorum, et ii.

vigilum de Blancmost' xviii. li. et v. sol. Et in liberatione

xl. servientum de Blancmust' de xxix. septimanis xxxiii. li.

et xvi. s. et viii. d. Et xx. servientibus qui remanserunt

xxiii. septimanas xiii. li. et viii. s. et iiii. d.

Here again the knight's pay works out at 8d a day, while the porters,

the watchmen, and the _servientes_ received 1d. Specially valuable,

however, are the entries (to which no one, I think, has drawn

attention) relating to the small standing guards kept up in the summer

months at 'Walton' and Dover.[130] Eventually the payments to these

guards were made from the central treasury ('exitus de thesauro'), and

are therefore appended, on the rolls, to the list of _combustiones_

where no one would think of looking for them.

On the roll of 10 Henry II we find: 'Liberatio iiii. militum et ii.

servientum de Waletone a festo Ap. Phil' et Jac' usque ad festum S.

Luce xxiiii. li. et xx. d.' This works out at exactly 8d a day for the

_miles_, and 1d for the _serviens_. On the roll of the next year the

five knights at Dover are paid £25 for 150 days' service, or exactly

8d a day each. So too on the roll of the thirteenth year we read:

'Liberatio iiii. militum de Waletone xxiii. li. et ix. s. et iiii. d.

de clxxvi. diebus.... Et ii. servientibus de clxxvi. diebus xxix. sol.

et iiii. d.' Here again the _miles_ gets 8d, the _serviens_ 1d a day.

It is needless to multiply instances, but it may be added that similar

calculations show the sailors of Richard's crusading fleet to have

received 2d and their boatswains 4d a day.

It is, perhaps, possible to trace a complete change of policy in this

matter by the crown. The Conqueror, we may gather from divers hints,

was anxious to push forward the process of sub-infeudation, that as

many knights as possible might be actually available for service. As

the chief danger lay, at first, in the prospect of English revolt

it was clearly his policy to strengthen to the utmost that 'Norman

garrison', as we may term it, which the feudal system enabled him

to quarter on the conquered land.[131] But as the two races slowly

coalesced, the nature of the danger changed: it was no longer a

question of Norman _versus_ Englishman, but of danger to the crown

from war abroad and feudal revolt at home. Thenceforth its policy

would be no longer to encourage personal service, but rather payment

in lieu thereof, which would provide the means of hiring mercenaries,

a more trustworthy and useful force. Clearly the accession of the

Angevin house would, and did, give to this new policy a great impetus.

The first levy to which the rolls bear witness is that of 1156. As

this was only raised from the _church_ fiefs, Henry II was, as yet,

confining himself strictly to the precedent set him, as we know, in

his grandfather's reign. This levy was at the rate of _one pound_ on

the fee, and was made on the old assessment (_servitium debitum_).

I have already shown that the levy in question was not, as alleged, an

innovation. Dr Stubbs writes: 'The peculiar measure of the second

year was the collection of scutage from the knights' fees holding

of ecclesiastical superiors,[132] a measure which met with much

opposition from Archbishop Theobald at the time';[133] and speaking

of William of Newburgh, he suggests that 'possibly in William's

estimation the consent of St Thomas took from the scutage on church

fees its sacrilegious character'.[134] But if the institution was

fully recognized under Henry I, how was it 'sacrilegious'? Theobald's

'opposition' in 1156 can only be inferred from the king's reply

explaining the necessity for the levy,[135] and was clearly directed,

not against the principle, but by way of appeal against the necessity

in that instance. Miss Norgate holds that 'no resentment seems to have

been provoked by the measure', although she sees in it 'the origin of

the great institution of scutage'.[136] Then there is the question of

the object for which the levy was made. Swereford says 'pro exercitu

Walliæ',[137] and this misled, through Madox, Dr Stubbs (who wrote

'the scutage of 1156 was also for the war in Wales',[138]) and

Gneist.[139] The former writer, however, has elsewhere[140] pointed

out that 'its object was to enable Henry to make war on his brother';

and Miss Norgate gives the same explanation.[141] Swereford's error, I

believe, can undoubtedly be traced to an entry on the Pipe-Roll of the

third year (1157) recording the payment by the Abbot of Abbotsbury of

two marcs 'de exercitu Walie'.[142] But this must refer to the

Welsh campaign of that year, not to the foreign trouble of the year

before.[143]

The next levy was 'the scutage of Toulouse' in 1159. This, 'the great

scutage' of Miss Norgate,[144] is, strange as it may seem, on the

Pipe-Roll itself almost uniformly styled not a scutage, but a _donum_.

The explanation given by Swereford is wholly inadequate, and is this:

'Intitulaturque illud scutagium _De Dono_ ea quidem, ut credo, ratione

quod non solum prelati qui tenentur ad servitia militaria sed etiam

alii abbates, de Bello et de Salopesbiria et alii tunc temporis

dederunt auxilium'.[145]

Miss Norgate, adopting this explanation, writes:

The reason doubtless is that they were assessed, as the

historians tell us, and as the roll itself shows, not only

upon those estates from which services of the shield were

explicitly due, but also upon all lands held in chief of the

crown, and all church lands without distinction of tenure; the

basis of assessment in all cases being the knight's fee, in

its secondary sense of a parcel of land worth twenty pounds a

year. Whatever the laity might think of this arrangement,

the indignation of the clergy was bitter and deep. The wrong

inflicted on them by the scutage of 1156 was as nothing

compared with this, which set at nought all ancient precedents

of ecclesiastical immunity, and actually wrung from the church

lands even more than from the lay fiefs.[146]

I am obliged to quote the passage _in extenso_, because, in this case,

the accomplished writer betrays a singular confusion of ideas, and

misrepresents not only the levy, but also the point at issue. The

whole passage is conceived in error, error the more strange because

Miss Norgate enjoyed over her predecessors the advantage of writing

with the printed roll before her. The lay estates were not, as implied

('all lands held in chief of the crown'), in any way exceptionally

assessed: in no case was the basis of assessment the unit alleged by

the writer; and as to the 'church lands', a reference to the roll will

show that all over England there were only eight cases in which those

not owing 'services of the shield' contributed (and that in no way as

an assessment on imaginary knights' fees) to this levy, while in six

out of the eight their contributions were so insignificant that their

collective amount barely exceeded £50.[147]

The true explanation is probably to be found in the fact that only a

portion of the tax was raised by way of scutage. As this great levy

has been wrongly supposed to have consisted of a scutage alone,[148]

and as it played an important part in the development of direct

taxation, I propose to set forth, for the first time, the various

methods by which the money was raised. These were eight in number:

I. (FIXED) A _donum_ of two marcs on the fee from the

under-tenants of the church, raised _by fiefs_ on the old

assessment (_servitium debitum_).

II. (FIXED ?) A _donum_ of (it is said) two marcs on the fee

from the under-tenants of the lay barons, raised partly _by

counties_ and partly _by fiefs_.

III. (ARBITRARY) A _donum_ from the church tenants-in-chief

themselves, irrespective of their fees.

IV. (ARBITRARY) A _donum_ from some of the non-feudal

religious houses (tenants _in elemosina_, and not by military

service).

V. (ARBITRARY) A _donum_ from the towns.

VI. (ARBITRARY) A _donum_ from the sheriffs.

VII. (ARBITRARY) A _donum_ from the Jewries.

VIII. (ARBITRARY) A _donum_ from the moneyers.

Of these, the _first_ was strictly regular, being merely a repetition

of the scutage of 1156, at the rate of two marcs instead of twenty

shillings. The _second_ presents some difficulty. Subject to

correction, there are some fifteen cases in which the payment is made

separately by fiefs, and in which the rate is clearly two marcs, while

there are twenty-two in which the _milites_ of the county pay as a

group through the sheriff, and in which, therefore, we cannot actually

test the rate of the levy or the manner of raising it. Swereford's

_ipse dixit_ as to the rate in these latter cases was probably based

on analogy, here our only guide.

With the _third_ and _fourth_ divisions we return to sure ground.

To them I invite particular attention, because it is to them (and

especially to the third) that apply the complaints of the church

chroniclers, and not (as has always, but erroneously, been supposed)

to the perfectly legitimate levy of two marcs on the fee. It is

necessary to emphasize the fact that the matter has been wholly

misunderstood. The bitter complaint of John of Salisbury that

Henry, on this occasion, 'omnibus (contra antiquum morem et debitam

libertatem) indixit ecclesiis ut _pro arbitrio_ ejus satraparum suorum

conferrunt in censum', would have been without meaning had it referred

(as alleged) to the latter levy (or even to the insignificant sums

contributed _ut supra_ by eight foundations); but when we learn that,

over and above this legitimate levy, a far larger sum was arbitrarily

wrung from the church, the truth and justice of the protest are

at once made evident. I here give two tables illustrative of this

exaction. Each is divided into three columns. In the first column

I give the number of the knights due from each bishopric and each

religious house. In the second column I give the marcs due, and paid

on this occasion, on the old assessment (_servitium debitum_). In the

third will be found the exaction complained of, namely, the _dona_

extorted from the spiritual 'barons' themselves.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

| | |_Donum_ of Knights|_Donum_ of Tenant|

|Sees |Knights due | (in marcs) |(in marcs) |

----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Winchester | 60 | 120 | 500 |

|Lincoln | 60 | 120 | 500 |

|Worcester | 60 | 120 | 200 |

|Norwich | 40 | 80 | 200 |

|Bath | 20 | 40 | 500 |

|London | 20 | 40 | 200 |

|Exeter | 17-1/2 | 35 | 150 |

|Chester | 15 | 30 | 100 |

|Durham | 10 | 20 | 500 |

|York | 7 | 14 | 500 |

----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Total | -- | 619 | 3,350 |

----------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------

| | |_Donum_ of Knights|_Donum_ of Tenant|

|Religious Houses |Knights due | (in marcs) | (in marcs) |

----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Peterborough | 60 | 120 | 100 |

|St Edmund's | 40 | 80 | 200 |

|Glastonbury | 40 | 80 | -- |

|Abingdon | 30 | 60 | 60 |

|Hyde | 20 | 40 | 150 |

|St Augustine's | 15 | 30 | 220 |

|St Alban's | 6 | 12 | 100 |

|Evesham | 5 | 10 | 60 |

|Wilton | 5 | 10 | 20 |

|Ramsey | 4 | 8 | 60 |

|St Benet of Hulme | 3 | 6 | 30 |

|Pershore | 3 | -- | 7-1/2 |

|Chertsey | 3 | 6 | 60 |

|Cerne | 3 | 6 | -- |

|Winchcombe | 2 | 4 | 7-1/2 |

|Middleton | 2 | 4 | -- |

|Sherburne | 2 | -- | 10 |

|Abbotsbury | 1 | 2 | 7-1/2 |

----------------------------------------------------------------------

|Total | -- | 482 | 1,092-1/2 |

----------------------------------------------------------------------

We thus obtain a grand total of 1,101 marcs raised from the church

by legitimate scutage, and 4,442-1/2 (or, adding the _dona_ from

non-feudal houses, 4,700) marcs by special imposition.[149] This

distinction at once explains the real extortion of which churchmen

complained;[150] and shows that it had nothing to do with scutage, but

was a special imposition on the church fees from which the lay ones

were exempt.[151] The idea of the impost was not improbably the

adjustment of inequalities in cases where the knight-service was a

quite inadequate assessment; the precedent created was not forgotten,

and it proved in later days a welcome source of revenue.

The discovery of this exaction identifies, it will be seen, in spite

of Swereford's error, the levy accounted for on the roll with the

famous 'scutage of Toulouse'. And if even further proof were needed,

it is found in an incidental allusion which clinches the argument.

Giraldus Cambrensis (iii. 357) refers to Bishop Henry of Winchester

assembling all the priests of his diocese 'tanquam ad auxilium

postulandum (dederat enim paulo ante quingentas marcas regi Henrico

_ad expeditionem Tholosanam_)'. The sum here named is that which he

paid in 1159, as my table shows. Its destination is thus established,

as also, it may be noted, the means by which he was expected to recoup

himself.

As to the scutage on the lay fiefs, the general impression, broadly

speaking, is that Henry replaced his English feudal host by an army of

mercenaries paid from the proceeds of a scutage of two marcs per fee

on all lands held by military service.[152] But is that impression

confirmed by the evidence of the rolls? Without setting forth the

evidence in detail, I may sum it up as amounting to this: that the

grouped payments found under twenty-two counties[153] present, I

think, a total of 1,895 marcs, while those of the fiefs which paid

separately amounted to 666. This gives us a grand total of 2,561

marcs, representing, of course, 1,280 knights. Now although the amount

of knight service due to the crown from its English realm has been, as

we shall see, absurdly exaggerated, the above number, I need scarcely

say, must represent a minority of the knights due from the lay fiefs.

This sets the matter in quite another aspect. In spite of the passage

in Robert de Monte, on which the accepted view is based,[154] the roll

presents proof to the contrary, and indeed the words of Robert show

that he knew so little of the levy in England as to believe that it

was wholly arbitrary. There are, perhaps, indications that the fiefs

which, on this occasion, paid scutage, were largely those in the

king's hands,[155] and if we add to these the escheated honours, of

which the scutage would be paid through the sheriffs, we must conclude

that the great bulk of the tenants who had a choice in the matter

served abroad with their contingents and did not pay scutage.

Before taking leave of 'the great scutage', another point demands

notice. Gervase of Canterbury sets forth its proceeds in terms of

great precision:

_Hoc anno_ rex Henricus scotagium sive scutagium _de Anglia_

accepit, cujus summa fuit centum millia et quater viginti

millia librarum argenti (i. 167).

Quite desperate attempts have been made to reconcile this statement

with the actual sums raised. In his preface to the _Gesta Henrici

Regis_, Dr Stubbs suggests that Gervase included in his total the

scutage of two years later (1161), but adds that, if so, the rolls are

very incomplete. In his _Constitutional History_ he speaks of 'this

[scutage] and a very large accumulation of treasure from other

sources, amounting, according to the contemporary writers, to

£180,000' (i. 457), but admits, in a footnote, that 'the sum is

impossible', and throws out as probable a different explanation. Miss

Norgate writes that 'the proceeds, with those of a similar tax levied

upon Henry's other dominions, amounted to some £180,000'.[156] But

Gervase distinctly states that this sum was raised _from England_. Now

the actual sum raised, _by scutage_, in England (1159) was £2,440 in

all, as I reckon it, while the special clerical impost produced some

£3,130 in addition. Consequently, no ingenuity can save the credit of

Gervase. He was not, after all, worse than his fellows. We shall find

that when mediæval chroniclers endeavour to foist on us these absurd

sums they require much bolder handling than they have ever yet

received.

Pass we now to the _third_ levy, that of 1161. For this the rate was

again _two marcs_ on the fee according to Swereford (followed, of

course, by subsequent writers), though the study of the roll (7 Henry

II) reveals that in many cases, on the lay fiefs at least, the rate

was _one_ marc. Both this and the levy of the following year are most

difficult to deal with in every way. We have seen that an entry on the

roll of 1163 led Swereford to believe that the levy of 1161 was made

for the Toulouse campaign, and Dr Stubbs has made the suggestion that

it might have been raised to defray 'debts' incurred on that

occasion;[157] but the difficulties in the way of accepting this view

seem insuperable.[158]

The _fourth_ levy, which is that of 1162 (8 Henry II), was at the

rate of _one_ marc, and is recorded by Swereford, but not by Dr

Stubbs.[159] Though richer in names than that of 1161, it is even

less useful for our purpose, as the sums entered are most irregular,

perhaps owing to the adoption of a new method of collection.[160]

Neither of these levies affords, in the absence of corroboration,

trustworthy evidence on the _servitium_ of any lay fief.

The _fifth_ levy, on the other hand, in 1165 (11 Henry II), affords

most valuable evidence, although it is ignored by Swereford and by

those who have followed him. It is, however, of a singular character.

The money was raised, we gather from the roll, on two different

systems:

(I) By a _fixed_ payment at the rate of one marc on the fee (old

assessment).

(II) By an _arbitrary_ payment of certain mysterious sums, which prove

to be multiples of the unit 15s 3d. But there is no fixed proportion

to be traced between the amount paid and the number of _servitia_ due.

Numerous instances are found of a single knight's fee being charged

with a sum equivalent to five of these mysterious units. Magnates,

again, are found paying apparently strange sums, which prove on

dissection to represent 50, 100, 200 and even 300 of these units.

The clue to the mystery is found in an entry on the Pipe-Roll of the

following year (12 Henry II), which proves that this unit was the

pecuniary equivalent of a _serviens_, and that the various payers had

'promised' the king so many _servientes_ for the war in Wales.[161]

Such 'promises' were evidently offers, made independently of the

actual service due from the 'promising' party. Following up this clue,

we see that the Abbot of Abingdon must, like the Bishop of Hereford,

have promised 100 'serjeants',[162] that the Abbot of St Alban's must

have done likewise,[163] while the Bishop of London must have promised

150, _in addition_, be it noted, to paying a scutage of a marc on each

knight's fee (20) of his _servitium debitum_.[164] For the rolls of

1162 and 1163 prove that he had duly paid the scutage of the former

year, and that this was a further payment. The varying form of these

entries should be observed, for it was evidently quite immaterial to

the clerks whether they wrote '5 serjeants' or their equivalent--76

shillings and 3 pence.[165] Taking the pay of the _serviens_ at 1d a

day, the unit in question would represent six months' pay (for a year

of 366 days).

But, for our present purpose, we must confine ourselves to the scutage

proper. The passage on which I would specially dwell is the entry

on the roll in which the _custos_ of the archbishopric of Canterbury

'reddit compotum de cxiii. li. de Militibus de Archiepiscopatu de ii.

Exercitibus' (p. 109).[166] In the first place, we have here, surely,

witness to the _two_ Welsh campaigns of this year, which Mr

Eyton adopts, following Mr Bridgeman,[167] but which Miss Norgate

rejects.[168] Secondly, this sum resolves itself, on analysis,

into two constituents of 84-3/4 marcs each. Now the return for the

archbishopric the following year is: 'Archiepiscopus habet iiij^{xx.}

et iiij^{or.} et dimidium et quartam partem feffatos.'[169] Having set

forth this exact corroboration, I will briefly trace the _servitium_

of the See. In 1156 and 1159 it pays no scutage when the other church

fiefs do, but within six months of Theobald's death it pays to the

scutage of 1161 on a _servitium_ of sixty knights, being then in the

hands of the crown. Under Becket, in 1162, it is once more omitted;

but in 1165 it again pays, as we have seen, and now not on sixty

knights but on 84-3/4. In 1168 it contributes, on the same amount, to

the _auxilium_, and in 1172, but the latter year is the first in which

the _recognoscit_ formula is employed, enabling us to determine that,

as in 1161, the _servitium debitum_ was sixty knights.

The typical difference between these sixty knights and the 84-3/4

actually enfeoffed will serve to illustrate the point on which I

insist throughout. Had the fee been held by its tenant, he would

have raised 84-3/4 marcs, paid sixty to the crown, and kept 24-3/4 for

himself.[170] But when a _custos_ held the fief, he could keep

nothing back, and therefore paid over the whole. We have, I think, an

illustration of the same kind in the payment (p. 202, note 76) by the

_custos_ of the Romare fief, 'de noviter feffatis' (_noviter_, be it

observed not yet _de novo_).

Having brought the levies down to 1165, I hope it has now been made

clear that the officials of the exchequer were well aware of the

amount of _servitium debitum_ from every fief, the levies being always

based on the said amount. Swereford, therefore, was quite mistaken in

the inference he drew from the inquest of 1166:[171] indeed, his words

prove that he completely misunderstood the problem.

This was the last levy raised previous to the making of the returns

(_cartae_) in 1166. These returns were followed in 1168 by the first

levy on the new assessment. I have already dealt with the changes

which this new assessment involved, but I would here again insist upon

the fact that the church and the lay fiefs were not dealt with alike,

the latter being assessed wholly _de novo_, while the former retained

their old assessments, while accounting separately, and under protest,

for the fees in excess of their _servitium debitum_. So far as the lay

fiefs were concerned, their _servitia_, congenital with Norman rule,

were now swept away. Here, from the single county of Northumberland,

are three cases in point:

1162 1168

De scutagio Walteri de Bolebec. Walterus de Bolebec redd. comp.

In thesauro v. marcae.[172] de iiii. marcis et dim. de eodem

auxilio.

Idem debet xlviii. s. et v. d. pro

tribus Militibus et ii^{abus.}

terciis partibus

Mil. de Novo feffamento.

De scutagio Stephani de Bulemer. Stephanus de Bulemer redd.

In thesauro v. marcae. comp. de iiii. marcis de eodem

auxilio.

Idem debet xxiii. s. et iiii. d.

de i. milite et dim. et quarta

parte Mil. de Novo feffamento.

De scutagio Radulfi de Wircestria. Radulfus de Wigornio redd. comp.

In thesauro i. marca.[173] de i. marca de eodem auxilio pro

i. milite.

Idem debet xiii. s. de dim. Mil.

et de i. tercia et de i. septima

parte Mil. de Novo feffamento.

The change thus made by the restless king was permanent in its effect,

and thenceforth the only assessment recognized was that based upon the

fees, which, by 1166, had been created de veteri and de novo.[174]

Before leaving the subject of this levy, there is one point on which

I would touch. When we find, as we often do, that the sum paid in 1168

in respect of a fief does not tally with the number of fees recorded

in the _cartae_, we must remember that in the _Liber Niger_ and _Liber

Rubeus_ we have not the original _cartae_, but only transcripts

liable to clerical error. Checking the _cartae_ by these payments, we

constantly find cases in which the number of fees should be slightly

greater than is recorded in the _carta_.[175] I suspect that the

transcriber, in these cases, has omitted entries in the original

_carta_, and this suspicion is strongly confirmed by the fact that

where the original return enables us to test the transcript, we

find in the great _carta_ for the honour of Clare that the original

transcriber has omitted half a fee of William de Hastinges, has left

out altogether the entry 'Reginaldus de Cruce, _dimidium militem_',

and has changed the quarter fee of Geoffrey fitz Piers into half a

fee; while in that of the Bishop of Chichester, Robert de Denton's

half fee is converted into a whole one. The later (Red Book)

transcriber has made a further omission.

Another source of discrepancy may be found in the dangerous

resemblance of formulae. Thus the _carta_ of Ranulf fitz Walter

records three and three-quarter fees duly accounted for. Yet his

payment in 1168 is not £2 10s but £2 4s 5d. The explanation is

that the holding was really three and one-third fees,[176] but

the transcriber read 'iij[^{a.}] pars' (one-third) as 'iij. partes'

(three-quarters).

How easily such errors arose may be seen in the elaborate entries on

Simon de Beauchamp's fief. Here the formula 'decem denarios quando

Rex accipit marcam de milite', correctly reproduced in the Black Book,

becomes 'x. denarius', etc., in the Red Book. The former expression

means '_tenpence_ in the marc' (_i.e._ one-sixteenth of a fee);

whereas the latter is equivalent to '_the tenth penny_ in the marc'

(_i.e._ one-tenth of a fee), and upsets the whole reckoning. The

correct formula is a not uncommon one and should be compared with the

'de xx. solidis viii. denarios' (eightpence in the pound) which

is given as the holding of two knights of the honour of Clare, and

represents the thirtieth of a fee.[177]

Lastly, I think that, on further examination, there are three fiefs of

which the _servitia debita_, though at first sight irregular,[178] may

fairly be brought into line as multiples of the _constabularia_.

That of Bohun, though implied by the _carta_ to be thirty and a half

knights, paid in the fifth and eighth years on exactly thirty; that of

Malet, though similarly given as twenty and one-sixth in the _carta_,

is returned in the _Testa de Nevill_ as exactly twenty;[179] that

of Beauchamp of Hacche, though distinctly given as seventeen in the

_carta_, will be found, on careful collation of the rolls for 7 and 8

Hen. II, to be claimed by the exchequer as 17 + 3, _i.e._ 20.

Here also, perhaps, it may be allowable to glance at the foreign

parallels to fiefs of sixty fees and smaller multiples of five. There

is a charter of Charles the Fair (1322-28) 'qua Alphonsum de Hispania

"Baronem et Ricum Hominem" Navarræ creat; et, ut Baronis et Rici

Hominis statum manu tenere possit, eidem de gratia speciali 60

militias [knight's fees] in regno sua Navarræ concedit modo consueto

tenendos et possidendos',[180] while an edict of earlier date

proclaims: 'De Vasvassore [_i.e._ baron] qui _quinque milites_ habet,

per mortem [? pro morte] ejus, emendetur 60 unciæ auri cocti, et

per plagam [? pro plaga] 30, et si plures habuerit milites, crescat

compositio sicut numerus militum.'[181]

IV. THE TOTAL NUMBER OF KNIGHTS DUE

'Ad hoc solicitius animum direxi ut per regna Angliæ debita Regi

servitia militaria quatinus potui plenissime percunctarer.'[182] So

writes Swereford, who proceeds to explain that neither the famous

Bishop Nigel himself, nor his successor, Bishop Richard, nor William

of Ely (_ut supra_) had left any certain information on the subject;

while he (Swereford) could not accept the common belief that

the Conqueror had created _servitia_ of knights to the amount of

32,000.[183] The cause of his failure is found in the fact that he

confused two different things: (1) the _debita Regi servitia_, which

formed the only assessment of fiefs down to 1166; (2) the assessment

based on the _cartae_ of 1166, which superseded the _debita servitia_,

and is not evidence of their amount.[184] But then, as I have already

explained above, the exchequer official was concerned only with the

actual claims of the crown; for him the original 'service due' had a

merely academic interest.

There are two estimates for the total of which we are in search. One

is 32,000 knights; the other 60,000.

'Stephen Segrave,' Dr Stubbs reminds us, 'the minister of Henry III,

reckoned 32,000 as the number' (which confirms Swereford's

statement); but he himself wisely declines to hazard 'a conjectural

estimate',[185] adding that 'the official computation, on which the

scutage was levied, reckoned in the middle of the thirteenth century

32,000 knights' fees, but the amount of money actually raised by

Henry II on this account, in any single year, was very far from

commensurate'. Gneist repeats this figure, but holds that 'as far

as we may conjecture by reference to later statements, the number of

shields may be fixed at about 30,000'.[186]

On the wondrous estimate of 60,000 I have more to say. Started by

Ordericus,[187] this venerable fable has been handed down by Higden

and others, till in the _Short History of the English People_ it

has attained a world-wide circulation.[188] Dr Stubbs has rightly

dismissed the statement 'as one of the many numerical exaggerations

of the early historians';[189] but neither he nor any other writer

has detected, so far as I know, the peculiar interest of the sum. What

that interest is will be seen at once when I say that Ordericus, who

asserts that the Conqueror had so apportioned the knight-service 'ut

Angliæ regnum lx. millia militum indesinenter haberet' (iv. 7), also

alleges that the number present at the famous Salisbury assembly

(1086) was 60,000. It is very instructive to compare this 'body

whose numbers were handed down by tradition as no less than sixty

thousand',[190] with the 'sixty thousand horsemen'[191]--'ut ferunt

sexaginta millia equitum'--of thirteen years earlier, and with

the number of the Norman invaders, 'commonly given at sixty

thousand',[192] of seven years earlier still. It is Ordericus, too,

who states that the treasure in Normandy at the death of Henry I was

£60,000. His father seems to have left behind him the same sum at

Winchester, for, though the chronicle left the amount in doubt, 'Henry

of Huntingdon,' Mr Freeman observed, with a touch of just sarcasm,

'knew the exact amount of the silver, sixty thousand pounds, one

doubtless for each knight's fee'.[193] He also reminds us, as to the

crusade of William of Aquitaine, that 'Orderic allows only thirty

thousand. In William of Malmesbury they have grown into sixty

thousand. Figures of this kind, whether greater or smaller, are always

multiples of one another'.[194]

Pursuing the subject, we learn from Giraldus that the Conqueror's

annual income was 60,000 marcs.[195] Fantosme speaks of marshalled

knights as

_Meins de_ seisante mile, _e plus de seisante treis,_

and the author of the Anglo-Norman poem on the conquest of Ireland

gives the strength of the Irish host, in 1171, as 60,000 men. Even

'Sir Bevis', if I remember right, slew in the streets of London 60,000

men; and Fitz Stephen asserts that, in Stephen's reign, London was

able to turn out 60,000 foot.[196] It may, also, not be without

significance that 60,000 Moors are said to have been slain at Navas

de Tolosa, and that William of Sicily was said to have bequeathed to

Henry II three distinct sums of 60,000 each.[197]

The fact is that 'sixty thousand' was a favourite phrase for a

great number, and that 'sixty' was used in this sense just as the

Romans[198] had used it in classical times and just as Russian

peasants (I think I have read) use it to this day. The 'twice six

hundred thousand men', who were burning to fight for England,[199] and

the £180,000 (60,000 × 3) of Gervase (1159), are traceable, doubtless,

to the same source.

How strangely different from these wild figures are the sober facts

of the case! The whole of the church fiefs, as we have seen, were

only liable to find 784 knights, a number which, small as it was, just

exceeded the entire knight service of Normandy as returned in 1171. As

to the lay fiefs it is not possible to speak with equal confidence. I

have ventured to fix the approximate _quota_ of 104 (more or less),

of which ninety-two are in favour of my theory: forty-eight fiefs, of

five knights and upwards, remain undetermined.[200] If the average of

knights to a fief were the same in the latter as in the former class,

the total contingents of the lay barons would amount, apparently, to

3,534 knights; but, as the latter one includes such enormous fiefs as

those of Gloucester and of Clare, with such important honours as those

of Peverel and Eye, we must increase our estimate accordingly, and

must also make allowance for fiefs omitted and for those owing less

than five knights (which are comparatively unimportant).

Making, therefore, every allowance, we shall probably be safe in

saying that the whole _servitium debitum_, clerical and lay, of

England can scarcely have exceeded, if indeed it reached, 5,000

knights.

Indefinite though such a result may seem, it is worth obtaining for

the startling contrast which it presents to the 60,000 of Ordericus,

to the 32,000 of Segrave,[201] and to the 30,000 of Gneist. The only

writer, so far as I know, who has approximated, by investigating

for himself, the true facts of the case, is Mr Pearson;[202] but his

calculations, I fear, are vitiated by the unfortunate guess that the

alleged 32,000 fees were really 6,400 of five hides each. It is a

hopeless undertaking to reconcile the facts with the wild figures

of mediæval historians by resorting to the ingenious devices of

apocalyptic interpretation.

V. THE NORMAL KNIGHT'S FEE

Much labour has been vainly spent on attempts to determine the true

area of a knight's fee. The general impression appears to be that

it contained five hides. Mr Pearson, we have seen, based on that

assumption his estimate of 6,400 fees, and other writers have treated

the fee as the recognized equivalent of five hides. The point is of

importance, because if we found that the recognized area of a knight's

fee was five hides, it would give us a link between the under-tenant

(_miles_) and the Anglo-Saxon thegn. But, as Dr Stubbs has recognized,

the assumption cannot be maintained; no fixed number of hides

constituted a knight's fee.

The circumstance of a fee, in many cases consisting of five hides, is

merely, I think, due to the existence of five-hide estates, survivals

from the previous _régime_. We have an excellent instance of such

fees in a very remarkable document, which has hitherto, it would seem,

remained unnoticed. This is a transcript, in Heming's Cartulary, of a

hidated survey of the Gloucestershire Manors belonging to the See of

Worcester. I believe it to be earlier than Domesday itself, in which

case, of course, it would possess a unique interest. Here are the

entries, side by side, relating to the great episcopal Manor of

Westbury (on Trym), Gloucestershire.

CARTULARY DOMESDAY

Ad _uuestbiriam_[203] pertinent Huesberie. Ibi fuerunt et sunt l.

l. hide. xxxv. hidas in dominio hidae.... De hac terra hujus

habe_t_[203] Manerii tenet Turstinus filius Rolf

episcopus, et milites sui habent v. hidas in Austrecliue et

xv. hidas. In icena_t_une v. Gislebertus filius Turold iii.

hidas, In com_t_una v. hidas, hidas et dimidiam jn Contone, et

In b_i_scopes s_t_oke v. hidas. Constantinus v. hidas jn

Icetune.... De eadem terra hujus

Manerii tenet Osbernus Gifard v.

hidae et nullum servitium facit....

Quod homines tenent (valet) ix.

libras.

The three five-hide holdings, we find, figure in both alike, but

Gilbert fitz Thorold's holding of three hides and a half appears in

addition in Domesday. The inference, surely would seem to be that

Gilbert was enfeoffed between the date of the survey recorded in

the Cartulary and the date of the Domesday Survey. If so, the former

survey is, as I have suggested, the earlier; and in that survey we

have the three tenants of five-hide holdings described _eo nomine_ as

the bishop's _milites_.

In the _cartae_ of 1166 we have fees of 5 hides,[204] of 4,[205]

of 6,[206] of 10,[207] of 2-1/2,[208] and even of 2;[209] also of 5

carucates,[210] of 11,[211] and of 14.[212] Cartularies, however, are

richer in evidence of this discrepancy. Thus the six fees of St Albans

contained 40 hides (an average of 6-2/3 hides each), the figures being

5-1/2, 7, 8-1/2, 6, 5-1/2, 7-1/2.[213] So too in the Abingdon Cartulary

(ii. 3) we find four fees containing 19 hides, three containing 14, a

half-fee 4, a fee and a half 13, one fee, 10, 5, 9. On the other hand,

if we take 20 _librates_ as the amount of the fee--which it was already,

as Dr Stubbs observes, in the days of the Conqueror--the _cartae_

confirm that conclusion.[214] We must therefore conclude that the

knight's fee, held by an under-tenant, consisted normally of an estate,

worth £20 a year, and was not based on the 'five hides' of the

Anglo-Saxon system.

VI. THE EARLY EVIDENCE

We will now work upwards from the _cartae_ to the Conquest.

Allusions to early enfeoffment are scattered through the _cartae_

themselves. Henry fitz Gerold begins his return: 'Isti sunt milites

Eudonis Dapiferi', and Eudo, we know, 'came in with the Conqueror'. We

learn from another return (_Lib. Rub._, p. 397) that Henry I had given

William de Albini, 'Pincerna, de feodo quod fuit Corbuchun xv. milites

feffatos'. Now this refers to 'Robertus filius Corbution', a Domesday

tenant in Norfolk. The _Testa_, again, comes to our help. Thus we

learn from Domesday that Osbern the priest _alias_ Osbern the sheriff

(of Lincolnshire) was William de Perci's tenant at Wickenby, co.

Lincoln, but the _Testa_ entry (p. 338_a_) proves that William had

enfeoffed him in that holding by the service of one knight.[215] So

too Count Alan (of Brittany) had enfeoffed his tenant Landri at Welton

in the same county for the service of half a knight (_ibid._, 338_b_),

and we find his son, Alan fitz Landri, tenant there to Count Stephen,

a generation later than Domesday, in the Lindsey Survey. The barony of

Bywell in Northumberland, we read in the _Testa_(p. 392_a_), had been

held by the service of five knights[216] since the days of William

Rufus, who had granted it on that tenure.[217] After this we are not

surprised to learn that the barony of Morpeth had been held 'from the

Conquest' by the service of four knights, and that of Mitford as

long by the service of five (_ibid._, p. 392_b_), or that those of

Calverdon, Morewic, and Diveleston had all been similarly held by

military service 'from the Conquest'. In Herefordshire, again, John

de Monmouth is returned as holding 'feoda xv. militum a conquestu

Anglie'.[218] So too Robert Foliot claims in his _carta_ (1166)

that his predecessors had been enfeoffed 'since the conquest of

England';[219] and William de Colecherche, that his little fief was

'de antiquo tenemento a Conquestu Angliae' (_L.R._, p. 400); Humphrey

de Bohun enumerates the fees 'quibus avus suus feffatus fuit in primo

feffamento quod in Anglia habuit' (_ibid._, p. 242), and refers to his

grandfather's subsequent enfeoffments in the days of William Rufus

(p. 244), while Alexander de Alno similarly speaks of sub-infeudation

'tempore Willelmi Regis' (p. 230). To take one more instance from the

_cartae_, an abbot sets forth his _servicium_ due to Henry, 'sicuti

debuit antiquitus regibus predecessoribus ejus' (p. 224). This brings

us to the instructive case of Ramsey Abbey.

Dr Stubbs refers to a document of the reign of William Rufus as 'proof

that the lands of the house had not yet been divided into knights'

fees'.[220] But he does not mention the striking fact that the special

knight service for which the abbot was to be liable is distinctly

stated to have been that for which his 'predecessors' had been

liable.[221] As this charter is assigned to 1091-1100, the mention of

'predecessors' would seem to carry back this knight service very far

indeed. And we have happily another connecting link which carries

downwards the history of this knight service, as the above-named

charter carries it upwards. This is the entry in the Pipe-Roll of

1129-30:

Abbas de Ramesia reddit compotum de xlviij. li. xj. s. et

vj. d. pro superplus militum qui requirebantur de Abbatia (p.

47).[222]

Further, we have a notable communication to the abbot from Bishop

Nigel of Ely, which must refer to the scutage of 1156 or to that of

1159 (probably the former):

Sciatis quod ubi Ricardus clericus[223] reddidit compotum de

scutagio militum vestrorum ad Scaccarium ego testificatus sum

vos non debere regi plusquam quatuor milites, et per tantum

quieti estis et in rotulo scripti.[224]

Lastly, we have the return in the Black Book (1166):

Homines faciunt iiii. milites in communi in servitium domini

regis, ita quod tota terra abbatiae communicata est cum eis

per hidas ad prædictum servitium faciendum.

Prof Maitland, writing on the Court of the Abbey of Ramsey, in the

thirteenth century, observes that:

The Abbot is bound to provide four knights, and (contrary to

what is thought to have been the common practice) he has not

split up his land into knights' fees so that on every occasion

the same four tenants shall go to the war ... the process by

which the country was carved out into knights' fees seems in

this case to have been arrested at an early stage.[225]

The case of Ramsey was undoubtedly peculiar, but in the third volume

of the Cartulary, now published, we have (pp. 48, 218) fuller versions

of the Abbot's return in 1166. The second of these is specially

noteworthy, and reads like a transcript of the original return.[226]

Here we see separate knights' fees duly entered, with the customary

formula 'debet unum militem'. But the service was certainly provided

in 1166 and afterwards 'per hidas'. Further inquiry, therefore, is

needed; but we have in any case, for Ramsey, a chain of evidence which

should prove of considerable value for the study of this difficult

problem.

The phenomenon, however, for which we have to account is the

appearance from the earliest period to which our information extends

of certain quotas of knight-service, clearly arbitrary in amount, as

due from those bishops and abbots who held by military service. When

and how were these _quotas_ fixed? The answer is given by Matthew

Paris--one of the last quarters in which one would think of

looking--where we read that, in 1070, the Conqueror

episcopatus quoque et abbatias omnes quae baronias tenebant,

et eatenus ab omni servitute seculari libertatem habuerant,

sub servitute statuit militari, inrotulans episcopatus

et abbatias _pro voluntate sua_ quot milites sibi et

successoribus suis hostilitatis tempore voluit a singulis

exhiberi (_Historia Anglorum_, i. 13).

This passage (which perhaps represents the St Albans tradition) is

dismissed by Dr Stubbs as being probably 'a mistaken account of the

effects of the Domesday Survey'.[227]

But the Abingdon Chronicle, quite independently, gives the same

explanation, and traces the _quota_ of knights to the action taken by

the Crown:

Quum jam regis edicto in annalibus annotarentur quot de

episcopiis quotve de abbatiis ad publicam rem tuendam

milites (si forte hinc quid causae propellendae contingeret)

exigerentur, etc.[228]

Moreover, the Ely Chronicle bears the same witness, telling us that

William Rufus, at the commencement of his reign,

_debitum servitium quod pater suus imposuerat_ ab ecclesiis

violenter exigit.[229]

It also tells us that, when undertaking his campaign against Malcolm

(1072), the Conqueror

jusserat tam abbatibus quam episcopis totius Angliae _debita

militiae obsequia_ transmitti;[230]

and it also describes how he fixed the _quota_ of knights due by an

arbitrary act of will.[231] The chronicler, like Matthew Paris, lays

stress upon the facts that (1) the burden was a wholly new one; (2)

its incidence was determined by the royal will alone.[232]

Here, perhaps, we have the clue to the (rare) clerical exemptions from

the burden of military tenure, such as the abbeys of Gloucester and of

Battle.[233]

The beginnings of sub-infeudation consequent on the Conqueror's action

are distinctly described in the cases of Abingdon and Ely, and alluded

to in those of Peterborough[234] and Evesham. At the first of these,

Athelelm

primo quidem stipendariis in hoc utebatur. At his sopitis

incursibus ... abbas mansiones possessionum ecclesiae

pertinentibus inde delegavit, edicto cuique tenore parendi de

suae portionis mansione.[235]

At Ely, the abbot

habuit ex consuetudine, secundum jussum regis, prætaxatum

militiae numerum infra aulam ecclesiae, victum cotidie de manu

celerarii capientem atque stipendia, quod intollerabiliter et

supra modum potuit vexare locum.... Ex hoc compulsus quasdam

terras sanctæ Ædeldredae invasoribus in feudum permisit tenere

... ut in omni expeditione regi observarent, [et] ecclesia

perpetim infatigata permaneret.[236]

For Canterbury we have remarkable evidence, not, it would seem,

generally known. In Domesday, of course, Lanfranc's _milites_ figure

prominently; but the absence of a detailed return in 1166 leaves their

names and services obscure. Now in the Christ Church Domesday there

is a list of the Archbishop's knights,[237] in which are names

corresponding with those of his tenants in 1086. It can, therefore,

be little, if at all, later than the Conqueror's reign. It is drawn

up exactly like a _carta_ of 1166, giving the names of the knights

and the service due from each. Its editor, instead of printing this

important document in full, has, unfortunately, given us six names

only, and--mistaking the familiar 'd[imidium]' and 'q[uarterium]'

of the list for 'd[enarios]' and 'q[uadrans]'--asserts that the

contributions of the knights are 'evidently ... expressed in terms

of the shilling and its fractions',[238] thus missing the essential

point, namely, that they are expressed in terms of knight service.

As Lanfranc had done at Canterbury, as Symeon at Ely, as Walter

at Evesham, as Athelelm at Abingdon, so also did Geoffrey at

Tavistock,[239] and so we cannot doubt, did Wulfstan at Worcester.

The _carta_ of his successor (1166) distinctly implies that before his

death he had carved some thirty-seven fees out of the episcopal fief.

Precisely as at Ely, he found this plan less intolerable than the

standing entertainment of a roistering troop of knights.[240]

The influence of nepotism on sub-infeudation, in the case of

ecclesiastical fiefs, is too important to be passed over. On every

side we find the efforts of prelates and abbots thus to provide for

their relatives opposed and denounced by the bodies over which they

ruled. The Archbishop of York in his _carta_ explains the excessive

number of his knights: 'Antecessores enim nostri, non pro necessitate

servitii, quod debent, sed quia cognatis et servientibus suis

providere volebant, plures quam debebant Regi feodaverunt.' The

Abbot of Ely, we are told by his panegyrist, enfeoffed knights by

compulsion, 'non ex industria aut favore divitum vel propinquorum

affectu'.[241] Abbot Athelelm of Abingdon, says his champion,

enfeoffed knights of necessity;[242] but a less friendly chronicler

asserts that, like Thorold of Peterborough, he brought over from

Normandy his kinsmen, and quartered them on the abbey lands.[243] The

Tavistock charter of Henry I restored to that abbey the lands which

Guimund, its simoniacal abbot (1088-1102), had bestowed on his brother

William. Abbot Walter of Evesham and his successor persisted in

enfeoffing knights 'contradicente capitulo'.[244]

So, during a vacancy at Abbotsbury under Henry I, 'cum Rogerus

Episcopus habuit custodiam Abbatiæ, duas hidas, ad maritandam quandam

neptem suam, dedit N. de M., contradicente conventu Ecclesiæ'.[245]

Henry of Winchester has left us a similar record of the action of his

predecessors at Glastonbury.[246] His narrative is specially valuable

for the light it throws on the power of subsequent revocation, perhaps

in cases where the corporate body had protested at the time against

the grant. Of this we have a striking instance in the grants of Abbot

Æthelwig of Evesham, almost all of which, we read, were revoked by

his successor.[247] Parallel rather to the cases of Middleton and

Abbotsbury (_vide cartas_) would be the action of William Rufus during

the Canterbury vacancy.[248]

It was to guard against the nepotism of the heads of monastic houses

that such a clause as this was occasionally inserted:

Terras censuales non in feudum donet: nec faciat milites nisi

in sacra veste Christi.[249]

And by their conduct in this matter, abbots, in the Norman period,

were largely judged. But this has been a slight digression.

Now that I have shown that in monastic chronicles we have the

complement and corroboration of the words of Matthew Paris, I propose

to quote as a climax to my argument the writ printed below. Startling

as it may read, for its early date, to the holders of the accepted

view, the vigour of its language convinced me, when I found it, that

in it King William speaks; nor was there anything to be gained by

forging a document which admits, by placing on record, the abbey's

full liability.[250]

W. Rex. Anglor[um] Athew' abbati de Euesh[am] sal[u]tem.

Precipio tibi quod submoneas omnes illos qui sub ballia et

i[us]titia s[un]t quatin[us] omnes milites quo mihi debent

p[ar]atos h[abe]ant ante me ad octavas pentecostes ap[ud]

clarendun[am]. Tu etiam illo die ad me venias et illos quinque

milites quos de abb[at]ia tua mihi debes tec[um] paratos

adducas. Teste Eudone dapif[er]o Ap[ud] Wintoniam.[251]

Being addressed to Æthelwig, the writ, of course, must be previous

to his death in 1077, but I think that we can date it, perhaps, with

precision, and that it belongs to the year 1072. In that year,

says the Ely chronicler, the Conqueror, projecting his invasion to

Scotland, 'jusserat tam abbatibus quam episcopis totius Angliae debita

militiae obsequia transmitti', a phrase which applies exactly to the

writ before us. In that year, moreover, the movements of William fit

in fairly with the date for which the feudal levy was here summoned.

We know that he visited Normandy in the spring, and invaded Scotland

in the summer, and he might well summon his baronage to meet him on

June 3rd, on his way from Normandy to Scotland, at so convenient a

point as Clarendon. The writ, again, being witnessed at Winchester,

may well have been issued by the king on his way out or back.

The direction to the abbot to summon similarly all those beneath his

sway who owed military service is probably explained by the special

position he occupied as 'chief ruler of several counties at the

time'.[252] We find him again, two years later (1074), acting as

a military commander. On that occasion the line of the Severn was

guarded against the rebel advance by Bishop Wulfstan, 'cum magna

militari manu, et Ægelwius Eoveshamnensis abbas cum suis, ascitis sibi

in adjutorium Ursone vicecomite Wigorniae et Waltero de Laceio cum

copiis suis, et cetera multitudine plebis'.[253] The number of knights

which constituted the _servitium debitum_ of Evesham was five then

as it was afterwards, and this number, as we now know, had been fixed

_pro voluntate sua_, in 1070, by the Conqueror.

We find allusions to two occasions on which the feudal host was

summoned, as above, by the Conqueror, and by his sons and successors.

William Rufus exacted the full _servitium debitum_ to repress the

revolt at the commencement of his reign.[254] Henry I called out the

host to meet the invasion of his brother Robert.[255] In both these

instances reference is made to the questions of 'service due' that

would naturally arise,[256] and that would keep the _quotas_ of knight

service well to the front. That these _quotas_, however, as I said

(_supra_, p. 205), were matter of memory rather than of record, is

shown by a pair of early disputes.[257]

Let us pass, at this point, to the great survey. I urged in the

earlier portion of this paper that the argument from the silence

of Domesday is of no value. Even independently of direct allusions,

whether to the case of individual holders, or to whole groups such

as the _milites_ of Lanfranc, it can be shown conclusively that the

normal _formulae_ cover unquestionable military tenure, tenure by

knight service.[258]

An excellent instance is afforded in the case of Abingdon Abbey (fol.

258_b_-9_b_), because the _formulae_ are quite normal and make 'no

record of any new duties or services of any kind'.[259] Yet we are

able to identify the tenants named in Domesday, right and left,

with the foreign knights enfeoffed by Athelelm to hold by military

tenure,[260] owing service for their fees 'to Lord as Lord'. There

are some specially convincing cases, such as those of Hubert, who

held five hides in a hamlet of Cumnor,[261] and whose fee is not only

entered in the list of knights:[262] but is recorded to have been

given before Domesday for military service.[263] Another case is

that of William _camerarius_, who held Lea by the service of

one knight;[264] so too with the Bishop of Worcester's Manor of

Westbury-on-Trym, where the _homines_ of Domesday appear as _milites_

in a rather earlier survey.[265]

Again, take the case of Peterborough. The Northamptonshire possessions

of that house are divided by Domesday (fol. 221) into two sections,

of which the latter is headed 'Terra hominum ejusdem ecclesiae', and

represents the sub-infeudated portion, just as the preceding section

contains the _dominium_ of the fief.[266] Here 'Terra hominum ejusdem'

corresponds with the heading 'Terra militum ejus' prefixed to the

knights of the Archbishop of Canterbury (fol. 4). The Peterborough

_homines_ are frequently spoken of as _milites_ (fol. 221_b_,

_passim_), and even where we only find such _formulae_ as

'Anschitillus tenet de abbate' we are able to identify the tenant as

Anschetil de St Medard, one of the foreign knights enfeoffed by Abbot

Turold.[267]

But it is not only on church fiefs that the Domesday under-tenant

proves to be a feudal _miles_. At Swaffham (Cambridgeshire) we read in

Domesday (fol. 196) 'tenet Hugo de Walterio [Gifard]'.[268] Yet in

the earlier record of a _placitum_ on the rights of Ely, we find this

tenant occurring as '_Hugo de bolebec_ miles _Walteri Giffard_', while

in 1166 his descendant and namesake is returned as the chief tenant on

the Giffard fief. The same _placitum_ supplies other illustrations of

the fact.[269] The cases taken from the Percy fief and from the honour

of Britanny afford further confirmation, if needed, of the conclusions

I draw.[270]

It will startle the reader, doubtless, to learn that there is in

existence so curious a document as a list of knights' fees drawn up

in Old English. Headed 'these beth thare Knystene londes', etc., and

terming a knight's fee a 'knystesmetehom', it has been placed by

the Editors of the new _Monasticon_ (ii. 477) among documents of the

Anglo-Saxon era, but belongs, I think (from internal evidence), to

about the same period as the _cartae_ (1166). The original is extant

in a Cartulary now in the British Museum.

VII. THE WORCESTER RELIEF (1095)

It was urged in the earlier part of this paper that Ranulf Flambard

had been assigned a quite unwarrantable share in the development of

feudalism in England. But so little is actually known of what his

measures were that they have hitherto largely remained matter of

inference and conjecture. It may be well, therefore, to call attention

to a record which shows him actually at work, and which illustrates

the character of his exactions by a singularly perfect example.

The remarkable document that I am about to discuss is printed in

Heming's 'Cartulary' (i. 79-80).[271] It is therefore most singular

that it should be unknown to Mr Freeman--to whom it would have been

invaluable for his account of Ranulf's doings--as it occurs in the

midst of a group of documents which he had specially studied for his

_excursus_ on 'the condition of Worcestershire under William'.[272]

It is a writ of William Rufus, addressed to the tenants of the See

of Worcester on the death of Bishop Wulfstan, directing them to pay

a 'relief' in consequence of that death, and specifying the quota

due from each of the tenants named. The date is fortunately beyond

question; for the writ must have been issued very shortly after the

death of Wulfstan (January 18, 1095), and in any case before the

death of Bishop Robert of Hereford (June 26, 1095), who is one of the

tenants addressed in it. As the record is not long, and practically,

as we have seen, unknown, one need not hesitate to reprint it.

W. Rex Anglorum omnibus Francis et Anglis qui francas terras

tenent de episcopatu de Wireceastra, Salutem. Sciatis quia,

mortuo episcopo, honor in manum meam rediit. Nunc volo, ut de

terris vestris tale relevamen mihi detis, sicut per barones

meos disposui. Hugo de Laci xx. libras. Walterus Punher xx.

libras. Gislebertus filius turoldi c. solidos. Rodbertus

episcopus x. libras. Abbas de euesham xxx. libras. Walterus

de Gloecestra xx. libras. Roger filius durandi [quietus per

breve regis][273] x. libras. Winebald de balaon x. libras.

Drogo filius Pontii x. libras. Rodbert filius Sckilin c.

solidos. Rodbert stirmannus lx. solidos. Willelmus de

begebiri xl. solidos. Ricardus & Franca c. solidos. Angotus

xx. solidos. Beraldus xx. solidos. Willelmus de Wic xx.

solidos. Rodbertus filius nigelli c. solidos. Alricus

archidiaconus c. solidos. Ordricus dapifer[274] xl. libras.

Ordricus blaca[275] c. solidos. Colemannus[276] xl. solidos.

Warinus xxx. solidos. Balduuinus xl. solidos. Suegen filius

Azor xx. solidos. Aluredus xxx. solidos. Siuuardus xl.

solidos. Saulfus xv. libras. Algarus xl. solidos. Chippingus

xx. solidos.

Testibus Ranulfo capellano & Eudone dapifero & Ursone de

abetot. Et qui hoc facere noluerit, Urso & bernardus sasiant

et terras et pecunias in manu mea.

The points on which this document throws fresh light are these.

First, and above all, the exaction of reliefs by William Rufus and

his minister, which formed so bitter a grievance at the time, and

to which, consequently, Dr Stubbs and Mr Freeman had devoted special

attention. On this we have here evidence which is at present unique.

It must therefore be studied in some detail.

Broadly speaking, we now learn how 'the analogy of lay fiefs was

applied to the churches with as much minuteness as possible'.[277] One

of the respects in which the church fiefs differed from those of

the lay barons was, that on the one hand they escaped such claims as

reliefs, wardships and 'marriage', while, on the other, their tenants,

of course also escaped payment of such 'aids' as those 'ad filium

militem faciendum' or 'ad filiam maritandam'. In this there was a fair

'give and take'. But Ranulf must have argued that bishops and abbots

who took reliefs from their tenants ought, in like manner, to pay

reliefs to the crown. This they obviously would not do; and, indeed,

even had they been willing, it would have savoured too strongly of

simony. And so he adopted, as our record shows, the unwarrantable

device of extorting the relief from the under-tenants direct. This

was not an enforcement, but a breach, of feudal principles; for an

under-tenant was, obviously, only liable to relief on his succession

to his own fee.[278]

It would be easy to assume that this was the abuse renounced by Henry

I.[279] But _distinguo_. The above abuse was quite distinct from the

practice of annexing to the revenues of the crown, during a vacancy,

the temporalities. This, which was undoubtedly renounced by Henry,

and as undoubtedly resorted to by himself and by his successors

afterwards, was, however distasteful to the church,[280] a logical

deduction from feudal principles, and did not actually wrong any

individual. It could thus be retained when the crown abandoned such

unjust exactions as the Worcester relief, and it afforded an excellent

substitute for wardship, though practically mischievous in the impulse

it gave to the prolongation of vacancies.

There are many other points suggested by the record I am discussing,

but they can only be touched on briefly. It gives us a singularly

early use of the remarkable term 'honour', here employed in its

simplest and strictly accurate sense; the same term was similarly

employed, we have seen, in the case of Abingdon (1097), where we also

find the fief described as reverting to the crown _vacante sede_.[281]

It further alludes to a special assessment by 'barons' deputed for

the purpose; it affords a noteworthy formula for distraint in case of

non-payment; and it gives us, within barely nine years of the great

survey itself, a list of the tenants of the fee, which should prove of

peculiar value.

If the sums entered be added up, their total will amount to exactly

£250. It is tempting to connect this figure with a _servitium debitum_

(_teste episcopo_) of fifty fees at the 'ancient relief' of £5 a fee;

but we are only justified in treating it as one of those round sums

that we find exacted for relief under Henry II, especially as its

items cannot be connected with the actual knights' fees. The appended

analysis will show the relation (where ascertainable) of sums paid to

hides held.

DOMESDAY, 1086 THE RELIEF, 1095

_h._ _v._ _£_ _s._

Roger de Laci 23 2 Hugh de Laci 20 0

Walter Ponther 10 2 Walter Punther 20 0

Gilbert fitz Thorold 7 2 Gilbert fitz Thorold 5 0

Bishop of Hereford 5 0 Bishop Robert [of Hereford] 10 0

Abbot of Evesham 9 0 Abbot of Evesham 30 0

Walter fitz Roger 8 0 Walter de Gloucester 20 0

Durand the sheriff 6 0 Roger fitz Durand 10 0

Winebald de Balaon 10 0

Drogo 10 0 Drogo fitz Ponz 10 0

Schelin 5 0 Robert fitz Schilin 5 0

Robert Stirman 3 0

Anschitil 2 0 Anschitil de Colesbourne 10 0

Roger de Compton 1 0

Eudo 1 3 Eudo 3 0

William de Begeberi 2 0

Richard & Franca 5 0

Ansgot 1 2 Angot 1 0

Berald 1 0

William de Wick 1 0

Robert fitz Nigel 5 0

Ælfric the archdeacon 4 0 Ælfric the archdeacon 5 0

Orderic} 6 1 Orderic the _Dapifer_ 40 0

Orderic} Orderic Black 5 0

Coleman 2 0

Warine 1 10

Baldwin 2 0

Swegen fitz Azor 1 0

Alfred 1 10

Siward 5 0 Siward 2 0

Sawulf 15 0

Ælfar 2 0

Cheping 1 0

-----------------

£250 0

The comparison of these two lists suggests some interesting

conclusions. Roger de Laci, forfeited early in the reign for treason,

had been succeeded by his brother Hugh. 'Punher' supplies us with the

transitional form from the 'Ponther' of Domesday to the 'Puher' of

the reign of Henry I. The identity of the names is thus established.

Walter fitz Roger has already assumed his family surname as Walter

de Gloucester, and his uncle Durand has now been succeeded by a son

Roger, whose existence was unknown to genealogists. The pedigree of

the family in the Norman period has been well traced by Mr A. S. Ellis

in his paper on the Gloucestershire Domesday tenants, but he was of

opinion that Walter de Gloucester was the immediate successor in the

shrievalty of his uncle, Durand, who died without issue. This list, on

the contrary, suggests that the immediate successor of Durand was his

son Roger, and that if, like his father, he held the shrievalty, this

might account for the interlineation remitting, in his case, the sum

due. In this Roger we, surely, have that 'Roger de Gloucester' who was

slain in Normandy in 1106, and whom, without the evidence afforded by

this list, it was not possible to identify.[282]

The chief difficulty that this list presents is its omission of the

principal tenant of the see, Urse d'Abetot. One can only assign it to

the fact of his official position as sheriff enabling him to secure

exemption for himself, and perhaps even for his brother, Robert

'Dispensator'. Their exemption, however accounted for, involved an

arbitrary assessment of all the remaining tenants, irrespective of the

character or of the extent of their tenure. With these remarks I must

leave a document, which is free from anachronism or inconsistency, and

as trustworthy, I think, as it is useful.

It is my hope that this paper may increase the interest in the

forthcoming edition of the _Liber Rubeus_ under the care of Mr Hubert

Hall, and that it may lead to a reconsideration of the problems

presented by the feudal system as it meets us in England. Nor can

I close without reminding the reader that if my researches have

compelled me to differ from an authority so supreme as Dr Stubbs, this

in no way impugns the soundness of his judgment on the _data_ hitherto

known. The original sources have remained so strangely neglected,

that it was not in the power of any writer covering so wide a field

to master the facts and figures which I have now endeavoured to set

forth, and on which alone it is possible to form a conclusion beyond

dispute.

[Footnote 1: Reprinted, with additions, from the _English

Historical Review_.]

[Footnote 2: 'The belief which has come down to us from

Selden, and the antiquarian school, a belief which was

hitherto universally received, that William I divided the

English landed property into military fees, is erroneous, and

results from the dating back of an earlier [? later] condition

of things.'--GNEIST, _Const. Hist._, i. 129.]

[Footnote 3: 'There can be no doubt that the military tenure,

the most prominent feature of historical feudalism, was itself

introduced by the same gradual process which we have assumed

in the case of the feudal usages in general.'--STUBBS, _Const.

Hist._, i. 261.]

[Footnote 4: Stubbs, _C.H._, i. 260-1. So too Freeman.]

[Footnote 5: Stubbs, _C.H._, i. 261.]

[Footnote 6: _Ibid._, i. 298.]

[Footnote 7: _Ibid._, i. 298, 301.]

[Footnote 8: _Ibid._, i. 300.]

[Footnote 9: _Select Charters_, p. 96.]

[Footnote 10: _Norm. Conq._, v. 380.]

[Footnote 11: _C.H._, i. 581.]

[Footnote 12: _N.C._, v. 377; cf. _History of William II_, pp.

335, 337, 'The whole system, a system which logically hangs

together in the most perfect way, was the device of the same

subtle and malignant brain.']

[Footnote 13: _Ibid._, p. 374.]

[Footnote 14: 'Si quis baronum meorum, comitum sive aliorum

qui de me tenent, mortuus fuerit, heres suus non _redimet_

terram suam sicut faciebat tempore fratris mei, sed justa et

legitima relevatione _relevabit_ eam.']

[Footnote 15: 'In that charter the military tenures are

taken for granted. What is provided against is their being

perverted, as they had been in the days of Rufus, into engines

of oppression.'--_N.C._, v. 373.]

[Footnote 16: _N.C._, v. 372; _C.H._, i. 261.]

[Footnote 17: _N.C._, v. 373.]

[Footnote 18: Palgrave, as Mr Freeman observes, 'strongly and

clearly brought out the absence of any distinct mention of

military tenures in Domesday'. Dr Stubbs more cautiously

wrote: 'The wording of the Domesday Survey does not imply that

in this respect the new military service differed from the

old.' (_C.H._, i. 262.) Mr Freeman confidently asserts:

'Nothing is more certain than that from one end of Domesday

to the other, there is not a trace of military tenures as they

were afterwards understood.... We hear of nothing in Domesday

which can be called knight-service or military tenure in

the later sense.' (_N.C._, v. 370, 371.) Mr Hunt (_Norman

Britain_) follows the same line, and Gneist, vouching

Palgrave, Stubbs, and Freeman, repeats the argument. (_C.H._,

i. 130.)]

[Footnote 19: 'I spoke to Mr Falconberge to look whether he

could out of Domesday Book give me anything concerning the sea

and the dominion thereof' (1661).]

[Footnote 20: _N.C._, v. 465.]

[Footnote 21: _N.C._, v. 4.]

[Footnote 22: _Ibid._, p. 42.]

[Footnote 23: As so much stress has been laid on the argument

from Domesday, it is desirable further to demonstrate its

worthlessness by referring to the Lindsey Survey (_vide

supra_, p. 149). This survey can only be a few years

previous to 1120, and was therefore made at a time when, _ex

hypothesi_, feudal tenures had been established for some time.

Yet here, also, page after page may be searched in vain for

any mention of 'knights' or 'fees'.]

[Footnote 24: Gneist, _C.H._, i. 132.]

[Footnote 25: Gneist, _C.H._, i. 118.]

[Footnote 26: _Ibid._, i. 156, 133, 124.]

[Footnote 27: _Ibid._, i. 130.]

[Footnote 28: _Ibid._, i. 156.]

[Footnote 29: _Ibid._, i. 133.]

[Footnote 30: Stubbs, _C.H._, i. 192. I do not quite

understand the passage that 'it is probable that the complete

following out of the Frank idea [exact proportion of service

to hides] was reserved for Henry II, unless his military

reforms are to be understood, as so many of his other measures

are, as the revival and strengthening of anti-feudal and

pre-feudal custom'. (_Ibid._) The allusion is, clearly, to the

assize of arms; but was that assize based on fixed quantities

of land? Mr Little has discussed the five-hide question in the

_English Historical Review_, xvi. pp. 726-9 (_vide supra_, p.

65).]

[Footnote 31: _Ibid._, i. 262.]

[Footnote 32: _Ibid._, i. 262.]

[Footnote 33: _C.H._, i. 386.]

[Footnote 34: _Ibid._, i. 581.]

[Footnote 35: _Ibid._, i. 264-5.]

[Footnote 36: _Ibid._, i. 432.]

[Footnote 37: 'The growth of the system of knights' fees out

of the older system of hides is traced by Stubbs. The old

service of a man from each five hides of land would go on,

only it would take a new name and a new spirit' (_N.C._, v.

866).]

[Footnote 38: This argument, of course, applies, _mutatis

mutandis_, to a five-hide unit as well.]

[Footnote 39: _C.H._, i. 265.]

[Footnote 40: Henry of Huntingdon (p. 207) speaks of the

Domesday returns by the same name (_cartae_).]

[Footnote 41: _Domesday Book_ occupies a medial position,

being arranged under counties, but within each county, under

fiefs.]

[Footnote 42: Compare the _carta_ of the bishop of Exeter,

_Præcepistis mihi quod mandarem vobis_ non _quod servitia

militum vobis debeam_, etc. Dr Stubbs writes: 'The king issued

a writ to all the tenants-in-chief of the crown, lay and

clerical, directing each of them to send in a cartel or report

of the number of knights' fees for the service of which he was

legally liable.'--_Const. Hist._, i. 584.]

[Footnote 43: The bishop of 'Coventry' expresses it: 'numerum

... eorum si quos in dominio tenemus, et eorum nomina' (p.

263).]

[Footnote 44: These references are to the pages of the

forthcoming edition of the _Liber Rubeus_. It will be observed

that the second three returns are too closely alike for

accidental coincidence; the three Shropshire 'barons' who

made them must have been in some communication. Note here the

remarkable use of the term 'compares'.]

[Footnote 45: Audivi praeceptum vestrum in consulatu

Herefordiae.]

[Footnote 46: Audito praecepto vestro.]

[Footnote 47: Praeceptum vestrum, per totam Angliam

divulgatum, per vicecomitem vestrum Northumberlande ad me,

sicut ad alios, pervenit.]

[Footnote 48: Mandavit nobis ... Vicecomes Stephanus, ex parte

vestra quatinus, etc.]

[Footnote 49: Praecepit dignitas vestra omnibus fidelibus

vestris, clericis et laicis, qui de vobis tenent in capite in

Eboracsira ut mandent, etc.... Quorum ego unus, etc.]

[Footnote 50: It should be scarcely necessary to warn the

reader against confusing the _dominium_, or non-infeudated

portion of the entire fief, with the _dominium_, or demesne

portion, of each Manor upon that fief.]

[Footnote 51: An instance in point is afforded by the Bardolf

barony (_i.e._ fief) _temp._ John: 'Heres Dodon' Bardulf tenet

feoda xxv. militum per totum. Inde xv. milites sunt feoffati

et x. feoda sunt super dominium' (_Testa de Nevill_, p. 19).]

[Footnote 52: (1) Old feoffment, (2) new feoffment, (3)

demesne.]

[Footnote 53: He and his successors are consequently found

paying, time after time, on thirty-five fees.]

[Footnote 54: William de Beauchamp, of Worcestershire, is

virtually a solitary exception. He inserts, _cavendi causa_,

this significant clause: 'De hiis praenominatis non debeo Regi

nisi servitium vii. militum, nec antecessores mei unquam plus

fecerunt, sed quia dominus Rex praecepit michi mandare quot

milites habeo et eorum nomina, ideo mando quod istos [_i.e._

16] habeo fefatos de veteri feffamento; sed non debeo Regi

nisi servitium vii. militum.' But William was a sheriff at the

time, and may have had special information which put him on

his guard.]

[Footnote 55: Compare the case of the Irish bishops six years

later (1172), who sent the king 'litteras suas in modum

cartae extra sigillum pendentes' (Howden). Note also that the

addition of the seal made the return essentially a _carta_.

In Normandy, the tenants by knight-service were only required

(1172) to seal the return (_breve_) of their _servitium

debitum_.]

[Footnote 56: The point is of some importance in its bearing

on the right of the individual to assess himself, which is

held in this case to have been exercised. 'The assessment,'

writes Dr Stubbs, 'of the individual depended very much on

his own report, which the exchequer had little means of

checking.'--_C.H._, i. 585.]

[Footnote 57: By one of those slips so marvellously rare in

his writings Dr Stubbs writes that 'the Bishop of Durham's

service for his demesne land was that of ten knights, but it

was not cut up into fees' (i. 263). What the bishop said was

that he owed no service for his demesne, because there were

already over seventy fees created on his fief, though he only

owed ten.]

[Footnote 58: This is one of the points on which Madox is

completely at sea. He quotes the case of the Bishop of Durham

(1168) as an instance of 'Doubts about the number of knights'

fees' (_Baronia Anglica_, p. 122); and he writes, of the above

uniform formula: 'This uncertainty about the number of

the fees frequently happened in the case of ecclesiastical

persons, Bishops, and Abbots.'--_Exchequer_, i. 647.]

[Footnote 59: _C.H._, i. 264.]

[Footnote 60: See my papers on 'The House of Lords; the

Transition from Tenure to Writ' (_Antiquary_, October and

December 1884, April 1885).]

[Footnote 61: See, for instance, the language used in the

_carta_ of Ralf de Worcester (p. 441): 'Teneo de vobis in

capite de veteri fefamento feodum i. militis, unde debeo vobis

facere servitium i. militis. Et de eodem feodo Jordanus Hairum

debet mihi facere iiii.^{am.} partem servitii,' etc. In Normandy

(1172), the phrase ran: 'quot milites unusquisque baronum

deberet ad servicium regis, et quot haberet ad suum proprium

servicium'.]

[Footnote 62: Sometimes Exeter pays on 15-1/2 (14, 33, Hen.

II), but 17-1/2 (2, 5, 7, 18 Hen. II) is the normal amount.

The explanation of this odd number is found in the _Testa

de Nevill_ (p. 226) where ('Veredictum militum de Rapo de

Arundel') we read: 'Episcopus Exoniensis tenet de Domino Rege

de Capellaria de Boseham vii. feoda militum et dimidium.' The

Bosham estate (as belonging to Osbern) had formed part of the

episcopal fief in Domesday, but (the bishops having founded

a church there) we find it assessed and paying separately as

7-1/2 fees.]

[Footnote 63: I have found a case bearing upon this point and

reported at great length (Thorpe's _Registrum Roffense_, pp.

70 _et seq._). It arose from an attempt of the Archbishop of

Canterbury, in 1253, to distrain the Bishop of Rochester for

the 'auxilium ad filium regis primogenitum militem faciendum'.

The bishop 'posuit se super recordum rotulorum de Scaccario,

per quos rotulos poterit et illa quam rex contra episcopum et

etiam illa quam archiepiscopus contra episcopum movit questio

diffiniri. Didicerat enim episcopus per unum fidelem amicum

quem in scaccario tunc habebat quod nunquam tempore alicujus

regis pro aliquo feodo episcopatus aliquod fuit regi factum

servicium vel datum scutagium.... Unde consulebat quod

audaciter poneret se episcopus super recordum rotulorum de

Scaccario, nichil enim tenet episcopus per baroniam de rege,

sed per puram elemosinam, quod non est dicendum de aliquo

episcopatu Anglie, nec de Archiepiscopatu, nisi dumtaxat de

Karleolen. Cumque cum audacia institisset episcopus, quod

decideretur per rotulos de Scaccario quibus creditur in omnibus

illis sicut sancto evangelio', etc., etc. The barons of the

exchequer examined the rolls, 'a tempore primi conquestus' (?)

and reported: 'nusquam invenerunt episcopum Roffensem solvisse

aut dedisse aliquod servicium regibus temporale'. But the

dispute was not finally decided till 1259. The clue to the

matter is found in the Canterbury 'Domesday Monachorum' (8th

Report Hist. MSS. i. 316), where a list of the archbishop's

knights, perhaps coeval with Domesday (_vide infra_, p. 236),

is headed by 'Episcopus Roffensis' with a _servitium_ of ten

knights to the Primate.]

[Footnote 64: Cerne had to provide 'ten' knights _ad wardam_

at Corfe Castle, or 'two' _ad exercitum_ (_vide_ cartam).]

[Footnote 65: This indeed is proved by an extract quoted by

Madox (_Exchequer_) from the Roll of 22 Hen. II (rot. 10_a_).]

[Footnote 66: The effect of all the changes of assessment we

have traced under Henry II would only be the reduction of this

total to 774.]

[Footnote 67: Roll of 11 Hen. II. (This was, of course, the

son of Henry I by Edith.)]

[Footnote 68 The custos of his fief paid scutage for eighty

knights in 1159, but he speaks 'de meis lx. militibus' in his

_carta_.]

[Footnote 69: The undoubted assessment in 1162. Afterwards it

is found paying on sixty and a fraction.]

[Footnote 70: 'Lx. milites ... habere solebat pater meus'

(_Carta_).]

[Footnote 71: This figure is given in the _Liber Niger_, but

is really derived from his recorded payments.]

[Footnote 72: Tot habuit milites feodatos ... scilicet lx. de

antiquo feodo (_Carta_).]

[Footnote 73: In Yorkshire alone. In all England, many more.]

[Footnote 74: This figure is taken from the payments in 1161

and 1172.]

[Footnote 75: Roll of 11 Hen. II.]

[Footnote 76: _Ibid._ It is impossible, within the compass

of a note, to discuss the two consecutive and most important

entries on the Roll (pp. 37-8), which represent a payment

by the Earl of Chester on 20 fees, 'pro feodo Turoldi

vicecomitis', and by Richard de Camville on 40 fees, 'pro

feodo Willelmi de Romara'. I called attention to the former

entry in the _Academy_ (April 21, 1888), but did not at that

time explain it. Mr R. E. G. Kirk undertook to explain 'its

real meaning' (_Genealogist_, v. 141), which, however, he

completely mistook (_ibid._, July 1891). The two entries, I

think, should be read together as relating to the estates

of the famous Lucy, the common ancestress of the earl and

of William. If so, they may refer to a fief with an original

_servitium_ of 60 knights, of which one-third was in the hands

of the Earl of Chester, and two-thirds in that of his cousin.

Independently of the light they throw on the obscure history

of this divided and contested fief, they are of value for the

unique reference (in this Roll) to 'noviter feffati' (_vide

infra_). The total (including these) for the two fiefs is

66-31/80. There is no return for the earl's Lindsey fief in

1166, but William de Roumare's return acknowledges 57 fees.

If to these we add the 9-1/2 fees which, it says, had formerly

existed in addition, we obtain 66-1/2. This suggests that the one

fief of 1166 represents the two of 1165. It should be added

that the Hampshire fief of William de Roumare is paid for as

20 fees in 1159 and 1162, and was similarly accounted for by

Richard de Camville in both these years.]

[Footnote 77: Roll of 11 Hen. II.]

[Footnote 78: He omitted to send in a _carta_ in 1166; but,

both before and after, he paid on 30 fees.]

[Footnote 79: He twice pays on 30 fees before 1166, in which

year his fief was held by Gerbert de Percy. Subsequently, as

the honour of Poerstoke (Poorstock), it always pays on 30.]

[Footnote 80: This is a very difficult case. Walter's _carta_

might easily be read as implying a _servitium debitum_ of 20

fees, and his fief paid on 29 _de veteri_ and 1-1/2 _de novo_.

But careful scrutiny reveals that the words 'hos iiij^{or.}

milites qui has predictas terras tenent' are preceded by _six_

names. If they refer, either to the four names immediately

preceding, or (which is more probable) to the four knights who

held his lands but rendered him no service, the total of his

_servitium debitum_ would, in either case, be 30.]

[Footnote 81: Roll of 11 Hen. II.]

[Footnote 82: He paid on 25 fees in 1162.]

[Footnote 83: 'Feodum xx. militum de rege de veteri feffamento

quod pater suus tenuit' (_carta_).]

[Footnote 84: He paid on 20 fees in 1161, but the subsequent

assessment of the fief varies considerably.]

[Footnote 85: He paid on 20 fees in 1162 and 1165, and

returned his fees in 1166 as 20 _de veteri_ and 3/4 _de novo_.]

[Footnote 86: The scutages record him as paying always on

15 knights _quos recognoscit_--the formula for _servitium

debitum_.]

[Footnote 87: His payment on 15 fees in 1161 probably

represents his _servitium debitum_. His total enfeoffments

were 23.]

[Footnote 88: Hugh and Stephen de Scalers are the names given

in the _cartae_, but Henry and William de Scalers held the

fiefs at the time.]

[Footnote 89: He paid 10 marcs in 1168, though his _carta_

only records 9-5/6 fees.]

[Footnote 90: A difficult fief to deal with, but almost

certainly the half of an original Reimes fief owing 20 knights

(_vide supra_).]

[Footnote 91: Apparently 15 at first, and 10 later.]

[Footnote 92: _i.e._ the Peverel Honour of Bourne,

Cambridgeshire (held in Domesday by Picot, the Sheriff), not

Bourne, Lincolnshire, held by the Wakes.]

[Footnote 93: He only pays on 5 fees in 1162, and the excess

_de novo_ in his _carta_ is accounted for, he says, by the

necessities of his position.]

[Footnote 94: This is not proved for the latter fief.]

[Footnote 95: Compare with these allusions to a traditional

_servitium debitum_ the significant words of Wace (_Roman de

Rou_):

'Ne ke jamez d'ore en avant,

Ço lor a miz en covenant,

N'ierent de servise requis,

Forz tel ke solt estre al paiz,

E tel come lor ancessor

Soleient fere a lor Seignor,'--

which are the reply to the fears of the barons (_Norm. Conq._,

iii. 298):

'Li servise ki est doblez

Creiment k'il seit en feu tornez,

Et en costume seit tenu

Et par costume seit rendu (lines 11272 _et seq._).']

[Footnote 96: It can be shown that the 'service' in Normandy

was based on precisely the same five-knight unit.]

[Footnote 97: 'The estates of the twenty greatest feodaries in

Domesday Book contain, according to the ordinary computation,

793, 439, 442, 298, 280, 222, 171, 164, 132, 130, 123, 119,

118, 107, 81, 47, 46 and 33 knights' fees.'--Gneist (_Const.

Hist._, i. 334).]

[Footnote 98: _C.H._, i. 289.]

[Footnote 99: For instance, the Abbot of St Edmund's

'quinquaginta milites' are spoken of as 'milites de quatuor

constabiliis' with 'decem miles de quinta constabilia'

(_Memorials of St Edmunds_, Ed. Arnold, i. 269, 271).]

[Footnote 100: Robert fitz Stephen lands with 30 knights,

Maurice de Prendergast with 10, Maurice fitz Gerald with 10,

Strongbow with 200, Raymond the Fat with 10, Henry himself

with either 400 or 500, etc.]

[Footnote 101: See my _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, p. 103.]

[Footnote 102: Lines 11253 _et seq._ The figures, however, are

far too large, and savour of poetic licence.]

[Footnote 103: _N.C._, v. 368.]

[Footnote 104: Meath with a _servitium debitum_ of 100,

Limerick of 60, Cork with two _servitia_ of 30 each.]

[Footnote 105: _N.C._, v. 378.]

[Footnote 106: Gneist, _C.H._, i. 129, 156.]

[Footnote 107: Freeman, _N.C._, v. 372, 371.]

[Footnote 108: Stubbs, _C.H._, i. 261.]

[Footnote 109: Mr Hall informs me that is the name of the

official referred to.]

[Footnote 110: 'Prout rumor ex rotulis ad me devenit.']

[Footnote 111: See p. 221 _infra_.]

[Footnote 112: 'Et nota quod quandocumque assidentur scutagia,

licet eodem anno solvantur, annotantur tamen in annali anni

sequentis' (_Red Book_, ed. Hall, p. 8).]

[Footnote 113: It is just possible that the source of his

error is to be found in a solitary entry on the roll of 1163:

'Advocatus de Betuna reddit compotum de vi. li. xiii. s. iiii.

d. de auxilio exercitus de Tolusa' (p. 9)--which refers to the

levy of 1161.]

[Footnote 114: 'Temporibus enim regis Henrici primi ... nec

inspexi vel audivi fuisse scutagia assisa' (p. 5).]

[Footnote 115: _Vide supra_, p. 118 note.]

[Footnote 116: 'Illud commune verbum in ore singulorum tunc

temporis divulgatum.']

[Footnote 117: See _Red Book of the Exchequer_, pp. 5, 8.]

[Footnote 118: See list of church fiefs.]

[Footnote 119: His _carta_ is corrupt.]

[Footnote 120: 'Abbas Gloucestrie tenet omnes terras in libera

elemosina.'--_Testa_, p. 77.]

[Footnote 121: 'A new impost specially levied (1156) upon some

of the ecclesiastical estates, under the name of _scutage_'

(Norgate's _Angevin Kings_, i. 433). 'The famous scutage, the

acceptance of a money composition for military service, alike

for the old English service of the fyrd' [this, of course, is

a misconception], 'and for the newer military tenures, dates

from this (1159) time' (Freeman's _Norman Conquest_, v. 674).

'The term _scutage_ now (1156) first employed.... As early as

his second year (1156) we find him collecting a scutage, a new

form of taxation' (Stubbs' _Const. Hist._, i. 454, 458, 581,

590).]

[Footnote 122: The phrase 'debet scutagium quando currit' is

of course, a normal one.]

[Footnote 123: 'Teste Gaufrido Cancellario et Willelmo de

Albineio Pincerna et Gaufrido de Clintona et Pagano fil

Johannis. Apud Sanctum Petrum desuper Divam.']

[Footnote 124: Cott. MS. Julius A., i. 6, fo. 74_a_.]

[Footnote 125: These charters have an independent value for

the light they throw, in conjunction with the roll, on the

movements of the king. The roll itself alludes to the occasion

on which the king crossed from Eling--'ex q[uo] rex

mare transivit de Eilling[es]'--and as it is assigned to

Michaelmas, 1130, the entry cannot refer to his departure at

that very date, especially as these charters are not paid for

among the _nova_ proceedings of the year. They must therefore

have been granted at his previous departure (August 1127),

when he must have crossed from Eling and have gone to S.

Pierre sur Dive (and Argentan) in Normandy. Pleas were heard

before him at Eling on this occasion (_Rot. Pip._, pp.

17, 38), and are referred to in a charter of Stephen to

Shaftesbury Abbey.]

[Footnote 126: Printed in _Athenæum_, December 2, 1893.]

[Footnote 127: Cf. _Geoffrey de Mandeville_, p. 105.]

[Footnote 128: 'Abbas locum sibi commissum munita manu militum

secure protegebat; et primo quidem stipendiariis in hoc

utebatur' (_Cart. Abingdon_, ii. 3). 'Unde abbas tristis

recedens conduxit milites', etc. (_Historia Eliensis_, p.

275). So too Bishop Wulfstan is found 'pompam militum secum

ducens qui stipendiis annuis', etc. (W. Malmesb.)]

[Footnote 129: It is singular that in his admirable work, _The

English Village Community_, pp. 38-9, Mr Seebohm connects 'the

normal acreage of the hide of 120 a., and of the virgate of 30

a., with the scutage of 40s per knight's fee', and argues that

'in choosing the acreage of the standard hide and virgate, a

number of acres was probably assumed corresponding with the

monetary system, so that the number of pence in the _scutum_

should correspond with the number of acres assessed to its

payment'. It need hardly be observed that the institution of

scutage was, on the contrary, long posterior to that of a hide

of 120 acres.]

[Footnote 130: Walton was at the mouth of the Orwell and

the Stour, and was thus an exposed port towards

Flanders as Dover was towards France. It is noteworthy that

when the Earl of Leicester did invade England from Flanders a

few years later, it was at 'Walton' that he landed.]

[Footnote 131: Compare Will. Pict.: 'Custodes in castellis

strenuos viros collocavit ex Gallis traductos, quorum fidei

pariter ac virtuti credebat, cum multitudine peditum et

equitum, ipsis opulenta beneficia distribuit,' etc.]

[Footnote 132: Should not this rather be 'from ecclesiastical

tenants-in-chief holding by military service'? For it was

neither collected from knights' fees, nor with reference to

their existing number.]

[Footnote 133: Preface to _Gesta Henrici Regis_, II. xciv.

So too _Const. Hist._, i. 454: 'The practice was, as we learn

from John of Salisbury, opposed by Archbishop Theobald'; and

(i. 577) 'Archbishop Theobald had denounced the scutage of

1156'; and (_Early Plant._, p. 54) 'he made the bishops,

notwithstanding strong objections from Archbishop Theobald,

pay scutage'.]

[Footnote 134: Preface to _Gesta Henrici Regis_, II. xcviii.]

[Footnote 135: 'Honori et utilitati ecclesiae tota mentis

intentione studiosius invigilabit. Verum interim', etc. John

of Salisbury (Ep. cxxviii). Note that 'ecclesiae' is the

church at large, not the See of Canterbury.]

[Footnote 136: _Angevin Kings_, i. 443.]

[Footnote 137: _Red Book_, p. 6.]

[Footnote 138: Preface to _Gesta Henrici Regis_, II. xcv.]

[Footnote 139: _Const. Hist._, i. 454.]

[Footnote 140: _Ibid._, i. 164.]

[Footnote 141: _Angevin Kings_, i. 458. Both writers quote the

passage from John of Salisbury (Ep. xcxviii), on which this

explanation is based.]

[Footnote 142: His _servitium debitum_ was one knight.]

[Footnote 143: The force for the Welsh campaign was raised,

as we learn from Robert de Monte (_alias_ de Torigni), 'by

demanding that every three knights should, instead of serving

in person, equip one of their number', as Dr Stubbs rightly

puts it (_Const. Hist._, i. 589), and not, as he elsewhere

writes (preface to _Gesta Henrici Regis_, II. xciv.), by

requiring every two to add to themselves a third, 'by which

means, if we are to understand it literally, 90,000 knights

would appear from 60,000 knights' fees'. The real number would

probably be under 2,000.]

[Footnote 144: 'This impost, which afterwards came to be known

in English history as the "Great Scutage"' (_Angevin Kings_,

i. 459).]

[Footnote 145: _Liber Rubeus_, p. 6.]

[Footnote 146: _Angevin Kings_, i. 461.]

[Footnote 147: The abbots of Shrewsbury, Thorney, and

Croyland; the abbesses of Barking, Winchester, and Romsey. The

total of their _dona_ amounted to £51 13s 4d.]

[Footnote 148: Not, however, by Dr Stubbs (Preface to _Gesta

Henrici Regis_, II. xciv-xcvi).]

[Footnote 149: Dr Stubbs, independently, reckons the total

payments of the church at £3,700 (_Gesta Henrici Regis_),

which does not differ greatly from the above calculation

(£3,167 6s 8d). ]

[Footnote 150: 'Ille quidem gladius quem in sancte matris

ecclesiae viscera vestra paulo ante manus immerserat cum ad

trajiciendum in Tolosam exercitum tot ipsam marcarum millibus

aporiastis.' Gilbert Foliot (Ep. cxciv).]

[Footnote 151: 'Nec permisit ut ecclesiae saltem proceribus

coaequarentur in hac contributione vel magis exactione

tam indebita quam injusta.' John of Salisbury (Ep. cxlv).

Swereford, though confused in his account of the tax, points

out that levy was made 'non solum super praelatos, verum _tam

super ipsos_, quam super milites suos' (_L.R._, p. 6).]

[Footnote 152: Gneist, for instance, writes: 'The first

general imposition took place in 5 Henry II for the campaign

against Toulouse, with two marcs per fee from all crown

vassals' (_C.H._, i. 212).]

[Footnote 153: Entered as 'Dona militum comitatus', not to

be confused with the 'dona comitatus', a special levy of the

following year (6 Hen. II), raised, it will be found, from the

western counties, from Stafford in the north to Devonshire in

the south.]

[Footnote 154: 'Rex ... nolens vexare agrarios milites ...

sumptis lx. solidis Andegavensium in Normannia de feudo

uniuscujusque loricae et de reliquis omnibus tam in Normannia

quam in Anglia, sive etiam aliis terris suis, secundum hoc

quod ei visum fuit, capitales barones suos cum paucis secum

duxit, solidarios vero milites innumeros' (p. 202, ed.

Howlett).]

[Footnote 155: This was certainly the case with the fiefs

of Simon de Beauchamp and the Earl Ferrers, two of the most

considerable.]

[Footnote 156: _Angevin Kings_, i. 462.]

[Footnote 157: 'A second scutage was raised in the seventh

year, probably for payment of debts incurred for the same war,

the assessment being in this, as in the former case, two marcs

to the knight's fee.' (Preface to _Gesta Henrici Regis_, p.

xcv.)]

[Footnote 158: If it was raised for this purpose, it must have

been levied either (1) from _all_ tenants-in-chief, which it

certainly was not; or (2) from the _same_ contributors as in

1159, which a comparison of the two rolls will at once show

it was not; or (3) from a _new_ set of contributors, which was

also not the case, for the prelates, the Ferrers fief, etc.,

are found contributing as before.]

[Footnote 159: _Const. Hist._, i. 582.]

[Footnote 160: Instead of a fief paying _en bloc_, it seems to

have paid through the sheriffs of the counties in which it was

situate.]

[Footnote 161: "Episcopus de Heref' reddit compotum de lxxvi.

libris et v. solidis de promiss[ione] c. Servientium de Wal'"

(p. 84).]

[Footnote 162: 'Abbas de Abendona reddit compotum de lxxvi.

libris et v. solidis de promise sione servientium in Waliam'

(rot. 11 Hen. II, p. 74).]

[Footnote 163: 'Abbas de Sancto Albano reddit compotum de

lxxvi. libris et v. solidis de Exercitu' (_ibid._, p. 19).]

[Footnote 164: 'Episcopus Lond' reddit compotum de xiii.

libris et vi. sol. et viii. den. de Servicio militum.... Idem

reddit compotum de cxiiii. marcis et v. sol. de promissione

servientium Walie' (_ibid._, p. 19).]

[Footnote 165: 'Willelmus de Siffrewast reddit compotum de

lxxvi. sol. et iii. den.... Hugo de Bochelanda reddit compotum

de. v. servientibus' (_ibid._, p. 75). Compare the love of

variety in Domesday, _supra_, pp. 41, 42, 77.]

[Footnote 166: 'Scutagium de ii. exercitibus' in next roll

(rot. 12 Hen. II).]

[Footnote 167: _Itinerary of Henry II_, p. 79 _et seq._

Compare also the payment from the Giffard fief 'de secundo

exercitu' (p. 25).]

[Footnote 168: _Angevin Kings_, ii. 180, note.]

[Footnote 169: _Liber Rubeus_, p. 193.]

[Footnote 170: This was the point on which Abbot Sampson

insisted, against his knights, at St Edmund's. In the case

of Canterbury, the inquest of 1163 would have ascertained the

actual number of the archbishop's knights and their fees.]

[Footnote 171: Ignorasse quidem haec [debita] servitia

militaria Regis ... successores subsequentium argumento non

immerito potuit dubitare: quia cum Rex Henricus ... traderet,

a quolibet sui regni milite marcam unam ... exegit, publico

praecipiens edicto quod quilibet praelatus et baro quot

milites de eo tenerent in capite publicis suis instrumentis

significarent' (_Liber Rubeus_, p. 4).]

[Footnote 172: 'Teneo de vobis ... feodum i. militis, unde

debeo vobis facere servitium i. militis' (_carta_).]

[Footnote 173: 'De hoc predicto feodo debet Regi v. milites'

(_Carta_).]

[Footnote 174: It must always be remembered that, as explained

above, in cases where the requisite number of knights had not

been enfeoffed by 1166, the balance _de dominio_ was added to

those actually created, as _de veteri_ together.]

[Footnote 175: Thus Daniel de Crevec[oe]ur pays on one fee

(_de veteri_) more than his _carta_ records, William de Tracy

on half a fee (_de veteri_), Adam de Port on one, the Earl

of Gloucester on two, the Earl of Warwick on two and a half,

Maurice de Craon on one, the Abbot of Hulme on a quarter of a

fee, William de Albini (Pincerna) on one, Henry de Lacy on one

and a half, William de Vescy on one, Bertram de Bulemer on

a half, and William Paynell on one (these figures are all

subject to correction). The case of William de Vescy is

specially conspicuous, because the nineteen fees enumerated

are distinctly spoken of as twenty.]

[Footnote 176: This brings it into relation with the

_Constabularia_ of which it thus formed just a third.]

[Footnote 177: The same formula is found in Domesday applied

to hidation in East Anglia, where the assessment of Manors is

expressed not in terms of the hide, but in fractions of the

pound. (_Vide supra_, p. 89.)]

[Footnote 178: _Vide supra_, p. 205.]

[Footnote 179: 'Willelmus Malet tenet Cari de Domino Rege et

alias terras suas per servicium viginti militum' (p. 163).]

[Footnote 180: Ducange (1887), ii. 581.]

[Footnote 181: _Ibid._, viii. 255. Ducange indeed asserts that

five knights was the qualification in Normandy for barony,

but the statement is based on a mistaken rendering and is

elsewhere disproved.]

[Footnote 182: _Liber Rubeus_, p. 4.]

[Footnote 183: 'Illud commune verbum in ore singulorum, tunc

temporis divulgatum, fatuum reputans et mirabile, quod in

regni conquisitione Dux Normannorum, Rex Willelmus, servitia

xxxii. militum infeodavit' (_ibid._).]

[Footnote 184: Swereford, it is clear, failed to grasp the

great change of assessment in 1166.]

[Footnote 185: _Const. Hist._, i. 432.]

[Footnote 186; _Ibid._, i. 157. Dr Stubbs rightly rejects Mr

Pearson's conjecture that the number of 32,000 applied to the

hides, and that 'the number of knights' fees, calculated at

five hides each, would be 6,400'.]

[Footnote 187: 'His temporibus militiam Anglici regni Rex

Willelmus conscribi fecit et lx. millia militum invenit, quos

omnes, dum necesse esset, paratos esse praecepit.']

[Footnote 188: 'A whole army was by this means encamped upon

the soil, and the king's summons could at any moment gather

60,000 knights to the royal standard.']

[Footnote 189: _Const. Hist._, i. 264. Compare pp. 16, 17.]

[Footnote 190: Freeman (_Norm. Conq._, iv. 694).]

[Footnote 191: _Ibid._, iv. 562.]

[Footnote 192: _Ibid._, iii. 387. In _Social England_ (i. 373)

we read that 'William is believed to have landed in England

with at least 60,000 men, 50,000 horse and 10,000 foot'. But

on turning to p. 306 of that great effort of co-operative

genius, we learn that only 'some of William's ships carried

horses to the number of from three to eight--as well as men'.

So the number of his ships (396, according to Wace) is as

great a difficulty as the proportions of Noah's Ark.]

[Footnote 193: _William Rufus_, i. 17.]

[Footnote 194: _Ibid._, i. 313.]

[Footnote 195: 'Annui fiscales redditus ... ad sexaginta

millia marcarum summam implebant.']

[Footnote 196: 'Sexaginta millia peditum' (p. 4).]

[Footnote 197: 'Sexaginta millia silinas de frumento,

sexaginta millia de hordeo, sexaginta millia de vino'

(_Richard of Devizes_, ed. Howlett, p. 396).]

[Footnote 198: 'Sexaginta accipitur indefinite de magno

numero. Sexcenti saepe usurpatur pro numero ingenti et

indefinito' (Forcellini, _Totius Latinitatis Lexicon_).]

[Footnote 199: 'Bis sex sibi millia centum' (_Carmen de bello

Hastingensi_).]

[Footnote 200: It must be clearly understood that these

figures cannot be absolutely accurate. Some honours are

omitted, it seems, in the returns from which we have to work,

and for these allowance must be made.]

[Footnote 201: '[1235] Sicut Stephanus Segrave ... asserebat

et affirmabat vetus scutagium ad xxxii. millia scuta

assumabatur et irrotulabatur; et ad tantundem plene et plane

potuit novum scutagium de novis terris assumari' (_Ann.

Monast._, i. 364).]

[Footnote 202: 'Nine thousand for all England would be a

large estimate at any time of the twelfth century' (_Early and

Middle Ages_, i. 375).]

[Footnote 203: The italics represent Anglo-Saxon characters.]

[Footnote 204: _Lib. Rub._, pp. 188, 214, 237, 238, 292.]

[Footnote 205: _Ibid._, pp. 211, 214.]

[Footnote 206: _Ibid._, pp. 214, 292.]

[Footnote 207: _Lib. Rub_., p. 292.]

[Footnote 208: _Ibid._, pp. 200, 210.]

[Footnote 209: _Ibid._, p. 210.]

[Footnote 210: _Ibid._, pp. 390, 444.]

[Footnote 211: _Ibid._, p. 429.]

[Footnote 212: _Ibid._, pp. 431-2.]

[Footnote 213: M. Paris, _Additamenta_, p. 436. This list,

which seems scarcely known, is very valuable for its early

date, being, I think, about contemporaneous with the _cartae_

of 1166.]

[Footnote 214: _L.R._, pp. 229, 245, 356.]

[Footnote 215: 'Et predictus Willelmus dedit predictas

tres carucatas terre Osberto vicecomiti pro servicio unius

militis.']

[Footnote 216: Together with castle-guard of thirty knights at

Newcastle.]

[Footnote 217: 'Post tempus domini Regis Willelmi Ruffi, qui

eos feoffavit.']

[Footnote 218: _Testa_, p. 69.]

[Footnote 219: 'Post Conquestum Angliae' (_Liber Rubeus_, p.

332).]

[Footnote 220: _Const. Hist._, i. 263.]

[Footnote 221: 'Et deinceps tres (milites) mihi habeat _sicut

antecessores sui faciebant_ in septentrionali parte fluminis

Tamesie' (1091-1100).--_Ramsey Cartulary_, i. 234.]

[Footnote 222: Compare the Ely entry (_supra_ p. 213) for

'superplus'.]

[Footnote 223: Could this have been Richard fitz Nigel

himself?]

[Footnote 224: _Ramsey Cartulary_, i. 255. Compare with

this expression 'in rotulo scripti', the Conqueror's

command (_infra_), that the number of knights 'in annalibus

annotarentur'.]

[Footnote 225: Select Pleas in Manorial Courts, p. 50.]

[Footnote 226: It enables us to correct such an entry in the

Black Book as 'Radulfus Maindeherst', by identifying him with

Ralph Mowyn, the tenant at Hurst. It supplies an entry as to

Henry de 'Wichetone' (Whiston) which is omitted in _L.R._,

and entered in _L.N._, with wrong name and wrong holding; and,

better still, it shows that Silvester of Holwell held only 2

hides, not 12, as given in error, both in _L.N._, and _L.R._

The existence of this error in both bears, of course, on their

relation (cf. p. 287, _supra_).]

[Footnote 227: _Const. Hist._, i. 357. Gneist writes that

Matthew's statement 'is for good reasons called in question by

Stubbs' (_C.H._, i. 255, note).]

[Footnote 228: _Cartulary of Abingdon_, ii. 3.]

[Footnote 229: _Historia Eliensis_ (ed. 1848), p. 276.]

[Footnote 230: _Ibid._, p. 274.]

[Footnote 231: 'Praecepit illi (_i.e._ abbati) ex nutu regis

custodiam xl. militum habere in insulam.' _Ibid._, p. 275.

This is the very _servitium debitum_ that appears under Henry

II.]

[Footnote 232: Compare for the initiative of the crown, the

Domesday phrase, 'miles jussu regis', and the statement that

Lanfranc replaced the drengs of his See by knights at the

royal command ('Rex praecepit.')]

[Footnote 233: Madox writes (_Baronia Anglica_, p. 114)

bitterly and unjustly: 'In process of time, several of the

religious found out another piece of art. They insisted that

they held all their land and tenements in frankalmoigne,

and not by knight-service.' In the cases he quotes, 'this

allegation' was perfectly correct, and was recognized as such

by the judges.]

[Footnote 234: Turoldus vero sexaginta et duo hidas terrae de

terra ecclesiae Burgi dedit stipendiariis militibus' (_John of

Peterborough_, ed. Giles).]

[Footnote 235: _Cart. Abingdon_, ii. 3.]

[Footnote 236: _Liber Eliensis_, p. 275.]

[Footnote 237: 'De militibus Archiepiscopis.' 8th Report on

Historical MSS., i. 316.]

[Footnote 238: _Ibid._]

[Footnote 239: A charter of Henry I (_Mon. Ang._, vi. 496)

addressed 'Willelmo Episcopo Exoniensi et Ricardo filio

Baldwini vicecomiti' (see p. 256) contains the clause:

'Prohibeo ne aliquis præter monachos ipsas terras amplius

teneat vel alias aliquas quæ de dominio ecclesie fuerunt,

exceptis illis quas Gaufridus abbas dedit _ad servicium

militare_.' Abbot Geoffrey is said to have died in 1088. A

curious difficulty has been raised about the words in italics.

It is argued in Alford's _Abbots of Tavistock_ (p. 68) that

as, according to Mr Freeman, military tenures did not exist in

Abbot Geoffrey's day, there was perhaps a second abbot of that

name to whom that charter refers. But he is only introduced by

Mr Alford under protest; and we see now that there is no need

for him. Henry's charter being witnessed by Ralph, Archbishop

of Canterbury, William, the King's son, and the Count of

Meulan, at Odiham, belongs, I may observe to 1114-16.]

[Footnote 240: 'Quis stipendii annuis quotidianisque

cibis immane quantum populabantur' (Will. Malmesb., _Gesta

Pontificum_).]

[Footnote 241: _Liber Eliensis_, p. 275.]

[Footnote 242: _Cart. Abingdon_, ii. 3.]

[Footnote 243: _Ibid._, p. 2331: 'misit ... in Normanniam pro

cognatis suis, quibus multas possessiones ecclesiae dedit et

feoffavit, ita ut in anno lxx. de possessionibus ecclesiae eis

conferret.']

[Footnote 244: Cott. MS. Vesp. B. xxiv. f. 8, 'Randulfus

frater abbatis Walterii habet in Withelega iii. hidas de

dominio, etc., etc. ... dono Walterii Abbatis contradicente

capitulo'. This was the 'Rannulfum [_sic_] fratrem ejusdem

Walteri abbatis ... qui cum fratre suo tenebat illud placitum'

(_temp._ Will. I), whom the Bishop of Worcester's knights

challenged to trial by battle (Heming's _Chart. Wig._, ed.

Hearne, p. 82). His holding was represented in 1166 by the

fees of Randulf de Kinwarton and Randulf de Coughton. Other

cases of contested enfeoffment by Abbots Walter and Robert are

those of Hugh Travers and Hugh de Bretfertun.]

[Footnote 245: See the _carta_ of 1166, which explains how

this holding became half a fee.]

[Footnote 246: 'Miles quidam, Odo nomine, dono praedecessoris

mei Sifridi abbatis, ob graciam cusjusdam consobrinae suae,

quam idem Odo conjugem duxerat ... tria maneria de dominio

sibi astrinxerat ... invitis fratribus. Alius quidam ... dono

abbatis ... tamen absque fratrum consensu manerium possidebat'

(_Domerham_, p. 306).]

[Footnote 247: 'De his terris quas, ut diximus, suo tempore

acquisivit, quibusdam bonis hominibus pro magna necessitate et

honore ecclesiae dedit, et inde Deo et sibi fideliter quamdiu

vixit serviebant' (_Chronicon Evesh._, p. 96). His successor,

Walter (1077-86), incited by his own young relatives, 'noluit

homagium a pluribus bonis hominibus quos praedecessor suus

habuerat suscipere eo quod terras omnium, si posset, decrevit

auferre' (_ibid._, p. 98). In the result, 'dicitur quod fere

omnes milites hujus abbatiae haereditavit' (_ibid._, p. 91).]

[Footnote 248: He begged Anselm that 'terras ecclesiae

quas ipse rex, defuncto Lanfranco, suis dederat pro statuto

servicio, illis ipsis haereditario jure tenendas, causa sui

amoris, condonaret' (_Eadmer_).]

[Footnote 249: Foundation charter of Alcester Priory.]

[Footnote 250: Three other documents are found on the same

folio. Of these the first is addressed to Lanfranc, Odo of

Bayeux, Bishop Wulfstan, and Urse d'Abetot, and witnessed by

Bishop Geoffrey (of Coutances) and (like our writ) by Eudo

Dapifer, being also witnessed, like it, at Winchester. It is

noteworthy that it grants Æthelwig the Hundred of Fishborough

'in potestate et _justitia_ sua'.]

[Footnote 251: Cott. MS. Vesp. B. xxvi. f. 15[18].]

[Footnote 252: 'Rex commisit ei curam istarum partium terrae

... ita ut omnium hujus patriae consilia atque judicia fere in

eo penderent' (_Hist. Evesham_).]

[Footnote 253: Florence of Worcester.]

[Footnote 254: 'Cernens itaque rex grande sibi periculum

imminere, debitum servitium ... exigit' (_Liber Eliensis_, p.

276).]

[Footnote 255: 'Rex Henricus contra fratrem suum Robertum,

Normanniae comitem, super se in Anglia cum exercitu venientem,

totius regni sui expeditionem dirigit' (_Cart. Abingdon_, ii.

121).]

[Footnote 256: In the former case, between the crown and

its tenant; in the latter, between the tenant and his

under-tenant.]

[Footnote 257: 'Idem [Godcelinus de Riveria] dicebat se non

debere facere servitium, nisi duorum militum, pro feudo quem

tenebat de ecclesia, et abbas et sui dicebant eum debere

servitium trium militum' (_Cart. Abingdon_, ii. 129). 'Cum a

quodam duos milites ad servicium regis exigerem (tantum enim

inde deberi ab olim a commilitonibus didiceram) ipse toto

conatu obstitit, unius dumtaxat se militis servicio obnoxium

obtestans.'--Henry, Abbot of Glastonbury (_Domerham_, p.

318).]

[Footnote 258: Thus undermining Mr Freeman's argument: 'We

hear of nothing in Domesday which can be called knight-service

or military tenure in the later sense; the old obligations

would remain; the primeval duty of military service, due, not

to a lord as lord, but to the state and to the king as its

head, went on,' etc. (_Norm. Conq._, v. 371).]

[Footnote 259: _Norm. Conq._, v. 865.]

[Footnote 260: _Cartulary of Abingdon_, ii. 3-7.]

[Footnote 261: 'In Winteham tenet Hubertus de Abbate v. hidas

de terra villanorum' (i. 58_b_).]

[Footnote 262: 'Hubertus i. militem pro v. hidis in Witham'

(p. 4).]

[Footnote 263: 'In Wichtham de terra villanorum curiae

Cumenore obsequi solitorum, illo ab abbate cuidam militi

nomine Huberto v. hidarum portio distributa est' (p. 7).]

[Footnote 264: See _Cart. Ab._, ii. 138. Cf. _Domesday_, i.

58_b_: 'Willelmus tenet de abbate Leie.']

[Footnote 265: See p. 231.]

[Footnote 266: This distinction, it will be found, is

preserved in Henry's Charter of Liberties (1101): 'nec ...

aliquid accipiam [1] de dominico ecclesiae vel [2] de hominibus

ejus'.]

[Footnote 267: See my paper on 'The Knights of Peterborough',

_supra_, p. 131.]

[Footnote 268: In the transcript of the original return it is:

'habet hugo de bolebech ... de waltero giffard'.]

[Footnote 269: _Inquisitio Eliensis_ (_O._ 2. 1), f. 210, _et

seq._ (see below, page 349).]

[Footnote 270: See p. 166.]

[Footnote 271: Hemingi _Chartularium_ (ed. Hearne), 1723.]

[Footnote 272: _Norman Conquest_, vol. v.]

[Footnote 273: Interlineation.]

[Footnote 274: _Dapifer_ to Bishop Wulfstan.]

[Footnote 275: He witnessed, as 'Ordric Niger', the

_conventio_ between Bishop Wulfstan and Abbot Walter of

Evesham, and was perhaps Bishop Wulfstan's reeve (Heming, p.

420).]

[Footnote 276: Probably Bishop Wulfstan's chancellor.]

[Footnote 277: Although, from his ignorance of this document,

Dr Stubbs was not aware of Ranulf's _modus operandi_, its

evidence affords a fresh illustration of his unfailing

insight, and of his perfect grasp of the problem even in the

absence of proof. 'The analogy', he writes, 'of lay fiefs

was applied to the churches with as much minuteness as

possible.... Ranulf Flambard saw no other difference between

an ecclesiastical and a lay fief than the superior facilities

which the first gave for extortion.... The church was open to

these claims because she furnished no opportunity for reliefs,

wardships, marriage, escheats, or forfeiture' (_Const. Hist._,

pp. 298-300).]

[Footnote 278: It has been urged to me that relief on _mutatio

domini_ was a recognized practice, but I cannot find proof of

it in English feudalism.]

[Footnote 279: 'Nec mortuo archiepiscopo, sive episcopo,

sive abbate, aliquid accipiam de dominico ecclesiae vel de

hominibus ejus donec successor in eam ingrediatur.']

[Footnote 280: There is a very important allusion to it, as

introduced under Rufus, in the _Abingdon Cartulary_, ii. 42:

'Eo tempore [1097] infanda usurpata est in Anglia consuetudo,

ut si qua prelatorum persona ecclesiarum vita decederet mox

honor ecclesiasticus fisco deputaretur regis.']

[Footnote 281: Compare the words of the chronicle on the

king claiming to be heir of each man, lay or clerk, with the

expression 'honor in manum meam rediit'.]

[Footnote 282: 'Rogerium de Glocestra, probatum militem, in

obsessione Falesiae arcubalistae jactu in capite percussum'

(_William of Malmesbury_, ii. 475).]