Proceeding to the 'service' of the religious houses:
| House | Service Due | House | Service Due |
|---|---|---|---|
| knights | knights | ||
| Peterborough | 60 | Wilton | 5 |
| Glastonbury | 40 [60] | Ramsey | 4 |
| St Edmundsbury | 40 | Chertsey | 3 |
| Abingdon | 30 | St Bene't of Hulme | 3 |
| Hyde | 20 | Cerne[64] | 2 [3] |
| St Augustine's | 15 | Pershore | 2 [3] |
| Westminster | 15(?) | Malmesbury | 3 |
| Tavistock | 15(?) | Winchcombe | 2 |
| Coventry | 10 | Middleton | 2 |
| Shaftesbury | 7 [10] | Sherburne | 2 |
| St Alban's | 6 | Michelney | 1 |
| Evesham | 5 | Abbotsbury | 1 |
The changes of assessment on religious houses were few, and are thus accounted for. Glastonbury, which paid on sixty knights in the first two scutages of the reign, paid on forty in the third and in those which followed. Pershore paid on three in the first scutage, protesting that it was only liable to two, and from 1168 it was only rated at two. Shaftesbury, which had paid on ten knights in the first scutage, was assessed at only seven in the third scutage and those which followed. Cerne also succeeded in getting its assessment reduced from three knights to two. With these changes should be compared the letter of Bishop Nigel of Ely to Ramsey Abbey certifying that it was only liable to an assessment of four knights. Two cases remain which require special treatment—Tavistock and Westminster.
Although Tavistock, in the first scutage, appears to have paid on the anomalous assessment of ten and a half knights its payment on fifteen in the two succeeding ones may fairly be taken as evidence that this was its servitium debitum.[65] Its abbot, however, made no reference to that servitium in his return, and—by an exception to the regular practice in the case of church fiefs—we find him charged, not on the fees, (1) 'quos recognoscit', (2) 'quos non recognoscit', but on those which were enfeoffed 'de veteri', and 'de novo' just as if he were a lay tenant. As his fees 'de veteri' were sixteen, this figure recurs in successive scutages, until in 3 John we find him contesting as to one knight ('unde est contentio') who, doubtless, represented the difference between fifteen and sixteen.
The case of Westminster presents considerable difficulty, the entries relating to its payments of scutage being very puzzling. The abbey's fees lay chiefly in Worcestershire and Gloucestershire—especially Worcestershire—and it is under this county that we find it ultimately (i.e. from 1168 onwards) assessed at fifteen fees, an assessment which the abbot himself seems to have claimed, in the first scutage, as the right one.
Taking then the servitium debitum of all the church fiefs, at their earliest ascertainable assessment, we obtain this result:
| Bishops | 458½ |
| Heads of religious houses | 318 |
| Capellaria de Bosham | 7½ |
| —— | |
| Grand total | 784[66] |
Far more difficult is the calculation of the servitium debitum from the lay fiefs. The list which follows is constructed from the evidence of the cartae and the rolls, and, though substantially correct, is liable to emendation in details. It only comprises those fiefs the servitium of which I have been able to ascertain with certainty or probability.
| Robert 'filius Regis' | 100[67] |
| Earl Ferrers | 80 (? 60)[68] |
| Honour of Totness | 75 |
| Honour of Tickhill | 60 (?)[69] |
| Robert de Stafford | 60 |
| Count of Eu | 60 (?)[70] |
| Earl Warrenne | 60 (?)[71] |
| Lacy of Pontefract | 60 |
| Roger de Mowbray | 60[72] |
| Earl of Essex | 60 |
| Walter fitz Robert (of Essex) | 50 |
| Honour of Richmond | 50[73] |
| Gervase Paynell | 50 |
| Reginald de St Valery | 50 (?)[74] |
| Patrick, Earl of Salisbury | 40 |
| Walter de Aincurt | 40 |
| William de Montfichet | 40 |
| Payn de Montdoubleau | 40[75] |
| William de Roumare | 40 (?)[76] |
| Hubert de Rye | 35 |
| Hubert fitz Ralf (Derbyshire) | 30 |
| Walter de Wahulle | 30 |
| William fitz Robert (Devon) | 30 |
| William de Traci | 30[77] |
| Robert de Valoines | 30[77] |
| Maurice de Craon | 30[77] |
| William de Albini (of Belvoir) | 30[77] |
| Bernard Balliol | 30[78] |
| Roger de Arundel | 30[79] |
| Walter de Mayenne | 30 (?)[80] |
| Robert de Albini (Bucks) | 25 |
| Robert fitz Hugh | 25 |
| Alfred of Lincoln | 25 |
| Ralf Hanselin | 25 |
| William de Braose | 25[81] |
| Oliver de Traci | 25[81] |
| Gerard de Limesi | 25 (?)[82] |
| Walter Waleran | 20 |
| Richard de Hay | 20 |
| Honour of Holderness | 20 |
| William de Windsor | 20 |
| Hugh de Bayeux | 20 |
| William de Vesci | 20 (?)[83] |
| Daniel de Crevecœur | 20 (?)[84] |
| Thomas de Arcy | 20 (?)[85] |
| Hugh de Dover | 15 |
| Walter Bret | 15 |
| Baderon de Monmouth | 15 |
| Earl Richard de Redvers | 15[86] |
| Adam de Brus | 15 |
| Hamo fitz Meinfelin | 15 |
| Osbert fitz Hugh | 15 (?)[87] |
| ? Hugh de Scalers | 15[88] |
| ? Stephen de Scalers | 15 |
| Gilbert de Pinkeni | 15 |
| Geoffrey Ridel | 15 |
| Robert Foliot | 15 |
| Robert de Choques | 15 |
| Robert de Caux | 15 |
| William Paynell | 15 (?) |
| Richard de Reimes | 10 |
| Roger de Buron | 10 |
| Richard fitz William | 10 |
| William fitz Alan | 10 |
| Richard de Cormeilles | 10 |
| Roger de Kentswell | 10 |
| William Trussebut | 10 |
| Nigel de Lovetot | 10 |
| Manasser Arsic | 10 |
| Richard de Montacute | 10 |
| Wandrille de Courcelles | 10 |
| Walter de Bolebec (Bucks) | 10 |
| Robert de Hastings | 10 |
| Lambert de Scotenni | 10 |
| Drogo de Montacute | 10 (?)[89] |
| William de Reimes | 10 (?)[90] |
| William de Helion | 10 (?)[91] |