The king was never content with the stated rents, but levied heavy talliages at pleasure on the inhabitants both of town and country, who lived within his demesne. All bargains of sale, in order to prevent theft, being prohibited, except in boroughs and public markets , he pretended to exact tolls, on all goods which were there sold [w]. He seized two hogsheads, one before and one behind the mast, from every vessel that imported wine. All goods paid to his customs a proportionable part of their value [x]: passage over bridges and on rivers was loaded with tolls at pleasure [y]: and though the boroughs by degrees bought the liberty of farming these impositions, yet the revenue profited by these bargains: new sums were often exacted for the renewal and confirmation of their charters [z] and the people were thus held in perpetual dependence. [FN LL. Will. I. cap. 61. [w] Madox, p. 530. [x] Ibid. p. 529. This author says a fifteenth. But it is not easy to reconcile this account to other authorities. [y] Madox, p. 529. [z] Madox's Hist. of the Exch. p. 275, 276, 277, &c.]
Such was the situation of the inhabitants within the royal demesnes. But the possessors of land, or the military tenants, though they were better protected both by law, and by the great privilege of carrying arms, were, from the nature of their tenures, much exposed to the inroads of power, and possessed not what we should esteem, in our age, a very durable security. The Conqueror ordained, that the barons should be obliged to pay nothing beyond their stated services [a], except a reasonable aid to ransom his person if he were taken in war, to make his eldest son a knight, and to marry his eldest daughter. What should, on these occasions, be deemed a reasonable aid, was not determined; and the demands of the crown were so far discretionary. [FN [a] LL. Will. Conq. Sec. 55.]
The king could require in war the personal attendance of his vassals, that is, of almost all the landed proprietors; and if they declined the service, they were obliged to pay him a composition in money, which was called a scutage. The sum was, during some reigns, precarious and uncertain; it was sometimes levied without allowing the vassal the liberty of personal service ; and it was an usual artifice of the king, to pretend an expedition, that he might be entitled to levy the scutage from his military tenants. Danegelt was another species of land-tax levied by the early Norman kings, arbitrarily, and contrary to the laws of the Conqueror [c]. Moneyage was also a general land-tax of the same nature, levied by the two first Norman kings, and abolished by the charter of Henry I. [d]. It was a shilling paid every three years by each hearth, to induce the king not to use his prerogative in debasing the coin. Indeed it appears from that charter, that though the Conqueror had granted his military tenants an immunity from all taxes and talliages, he and his son William had never thought themselves bound to observe that rule, but had levied impositions at pleasure on all the landed estates of the kingdom. The utmost that Henry grants, is, that the land cultivated by the military tenant himself shall not be so burdened; but he reserves the power of taxing the farmers; and as it is known that Henry's charter was never observed in any one article, we may be assured that this prince and his successors retracted even this small indulgence, and levied arbitrary impositions on all the lands of all their subjects. These taxes were sometimes very heavy; since Malmesbury tells us, that in the reign of William Rufus, the farmers, on account of them, abandoned tillage, and a famine ensued [e]. [FN Gervase de Tilbury, p. 25. [c] Madox's Hist of the Exch. p. 475. [d] Matth. Paris, p. 38. [e] So also Chron. Abb. St. Petri de Burgo, p. 55. Knyghton, p. 2366.]
The escheats were a great branch both of power and of revenue, especially during the first reigns after the Conquest. In default of posterity from the first baron, his land reverted to the crown, and continually augmented the king's possessions. The prince had indeed by law a power of alienating these escheats; but by this means he had an opportunity of establishing the fortunes of his friends and servants, and thereby enlarging his authority. Sometimes he retained them in his own hands; and they were gradually confounded with the royal demesnes, and became difficult to be distinguished from them. This confusion is probably the reason why the king acquired the right of alienating his demesnes.
But besides escheats from default of heirs, those which ensued from crimes, or breach of duty towards the superior lord, were frequent in ancient times. If the vassal, being thrice summoned to attend his superiors court, and do fealty, neglected or refused obedience, he forfeited all title to his land [f]. If he denied his tenure, or refused his service, he was exposed to the same penalty [g]. If he sold his estate without licence from his lord [h], or if he sold it upon any other tenure or title than that by which he himself held it , he lost all right to it. The adhering to his lord's enemies [k], deserting him in war [l], betraying his secrets [m], debauching his wife, or his near relations [n], or even using indecent freedoms with them [o], might be punished by forfeiture. The higher crimes, rapes, robbery, murder, arson, &c., were called felony; and being interpreted want of fidelity to his lord, made him lose his fief [p]. Even where the felon was vassal to a baron, though his immediate lord enjoyed the forfeiture, the king might retain possession of his estate during a twelvemonth, and had the right of spoiling and destroying it, unless the baron paid him a reasonable composition [q]. We have not here enumerated all the species of felonies, or of crimes by which forfeiture was incurred: we have said enough to prove, that the possession of feudal property was anciently somewhat precarious, and that the primary idea was never lost, of its being a kind of FEE or BENEFICE. [FN [f] Hottom. de Feud. Disp. cap. 38. col. 886. [g] Lib. Feud. lib. 3. tit. 1; lib. 4. tit. 21, 39. [h] Id. lib. 1. tit. 21. Id. lib. 4. tit. 44. [k] Id. lib. 3. tit. 1. [l] Id. lib. 4. tit. 14, 21. [m] Id. lib. 4. tit. 14. [n] Id. lib. 1. tit. 14, 23. [o] Id. lib. 1. tit. 1. [p] Spellm. Gloss. in verb. FELONIA. [q] Ibid. Glanville, lib. 7 cap. 17.]
When a baron died, the king immediately took possession of the estate; and the heir, before he recovered his right, was obliged to make application to the crown, and desire that he might be admitted to do homage for his land, and pay a composition to the king. This composition was not at first fixed by law, at least by practice: the king was often exorbitant in his demands, and kept possession of the land till they were complied with.
If the heir were a minor, the king retained the whole profit of the estate till his majority; and might grant what sum he thought proper for the education and maintenance of the young baron. This practice was also founded on the notion, that a fief was a benefice, and that while the heir could not perform his military services, the revenue devolved to the superior, who employed another in his stead. It is obvious, that a great proportion of the landed property must, by means of this device, be continually in the hands of the prince, and that all the noble families were thereby held in perpetual dependence. When the king granted the wardship of a rich heir to any one, he had the opportunity of enriching a favourite or minister: if he sold it, he thereby levied a considerable sum of money. Simon de Mountfort paid Henry III. ten thousand marks, an immense sum in those days, for the wardship of Gilbert de Umfreville [r]. Geoffrey de Mandeville paid to the same prince the sum of twenty thousand marks, that he might marry Isabel, Countess of Gloucester, and possess all her lands and knights' fees. This sum would be equivalent to three hundred thousand, perhaps four hundred thousand pounds in our time . [FN [r] Madox's Hist. of the Exch. p. 223. Madoxs Hist. of the Exch. p. 322.]
If the heir were a female, the king was entitled to offer her any husband of her rank he thought proper; and if she refused him, she forfeited her land. Even a male heir could not marry without the royal consent; and it was usual for men to pay large sums for the liberty of making their own choice in marriage [t]. No man could dispose of his land, either by sale or will, without the consent of his superior. The possessor was never considered as full proprietor: he was still a kind of beneficiary; and could not oblige his superior to accept of any vassal that was not agreeable to him. [FN [t] Ibid. p. 320.]
Fines, amerciaments, and oblatas, as they were called, were another considerable branch of the royal power and revenue. The ancient records of the exchequer, which are still preserved, give surprising accounts of the numerous fines and amerciaments levied in those days and of the strange inventions fallen upon to exact money from the subject. It appears that the ancient kings of England put themselves entirely on the footing of the barbarous eastern princes, whom no man must approach without a present, who sell all their good offices, and who intrude themselves into every business that they may have a pretence for extorting money. Even justice was avowedly bought and sold; the king's court itself, though the supreme judicature of the kingdom, was open to none that brought not presents to the king; the bribes given for the expedition, delay [w], suspension, and, doubtless for the perversion of justice, were entered in the public registers of the royal revenue, and remain as monuments of the perpetual iniquity and tyranny of the times. The barons of the exchequer, for instance, the first nobility of the kingdom, were not ashamed to insert, as an article in their records, that the county of Norfolk paid a sum that they might be fairly dealt with [x]; the borough of Yarmouth, that the king's charters, which they have for their liberties, might not be violated [y]; Richard, son of Gilbert, for the king's helping him to recover his debt from the Jews [z]; Serlo, son of Terlavaston, that he might be permitted to make his defence in case he were accused of a certain homicide [a]; Walter de Burton, for free law, if accused of wounding another ; Robert de Essart, for having an inquest to find whether Roger the Butcher, and Wace and Humphrey, accused him of robbery and theft out of envy and ill-will or not [c]; William Buhurst, for having an inquest to find whether he were accused of the death of one Godwin out of ill-will, or for just cause [d]. I have selected these few instances from a great number of a like kind, which Madox had selected from a still greater number, preserved in the ancient rolls of the exchequer [e]. [FN Id. p. 272. [w] Id. p. 274, 309. [x] Id. p. 295. [y] Id. ibid. [z] Madoxs Hist. of the Exch. p. 296. He paid two hundred marks, great sum in those days. [a] Id. p. 296. Id. ibid. [c] Id. p. 298. [d] Id. p. 302. [e] Id. chap. 12.]
Sometimes the party litigant offered the king a certain portion, a half, a third, a fourth, payable out of the debts, which he, as the executor of justice, should assist him in recovering [f]. Theophania de Westland agreed to pay the half of two hundred and twelve marks, that she might recover that sum against James de Fughleston [g]; Solomon, the Jew, engaged to pay one mark out of every seven that he should recover against Hugh de la Hose [h]; Nicholas Morrel promised to pay sixty pounds, that the Earl of Flanders might be distrained to pay him three hundred and forty-three pounds, which the earl had taken from him; and these sixty pounds were to be paid out of the first money that Nicholas should recover from the earl . [FN [f] Id. p. 311. [g] Id. ibid. [h] Id. p. 79, 312. Id. p. 312.]