Feudal England: Historical Studies on the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries

by John Horace Round

If to escape from this conclusion the suggestion be made that these servitia debita were compositions effected by English antecessores, it need only be answered that the fiefs acquired were wholly new creations, constructed from the scattered fragments of Anglo-Saxon estates. And though in the case of the church fiefs this objection might not apply, yet we have evidence, as I shall show, to prove that their servitia also were determined by the conqueror's will, as indeed might be inferred from their close correspondence with those of the lay barons.

But if the lands of the conquered realm were so granted to be held by a servitium debitum of knights, the key of the position is won, and the defenders of the existing view must retire along the whole line; for, as Mr Freeman himself observed, 'Let it be once established that land is held as a fief from the crown on condition of yielding certain services to the crown, and the whole of the feudal incidents follow naturally.'[¹⁰⁵]

I am anxious to make absolutely clear the point that between the accepted view and the view which I advance, no compromise is possible. The two are radically opposed. As against the theory that the military obligation of the Anglo-Norman tenant-in-chief was determined by the assessment of his holding, whether in hidage or in value, I maintain that the extent of that obligation was not determined by his holding, but was fixed in relation to, and expressed in terms of, the constabularia of ten knights, the unit of the feudal host. And I, consequently, hold that his military service was in no way derived or developed from that of the Anglo-Saxons, but was arbitrarily fixed by the king, from whom he received his fief, irrespectively both of its size and of all pre-existent arrangements. Such propositions, of course, utterly and directly traverse the view which these passages best summarize:

The belief that William I divided the English landed property into military fees is erroneous.... According to the extent and the nature of the productive property it could be computed how many shields were to be furnished by each estate, according to the gradually fixed proportion of a £20 ground-rent.[¹⁰⁶]

There is no ground for thinking that William directly or systematically introduced any new kind of tenure into the holding of English lands. There is nothing to suggest any such belief, either in the chronicles of his reign, in the Survey, which is his greatest monument, in the genuine or even in the spurious remains of his legislation.... As I have had to point out over and over again, the grantee of William, whether the old owner or a new one, held his land as it had been held in the days of King Edward.[¹⁰⁷]

There can be no doubt that the military tenure ... was itself introduced by the same gradual process which we have assumed in the case of the feudal usages in general. We have no light on the point from any original grant made by the Conqueror to a lay follower; but ... we cannot suppose it probable that such gifts were made on any expressed condition, or accepted with a distinct pledge to provide a certain contingent of knights for the king's service.[¹⁰⁸]

If my own conclusions be accepted, they will not only prove destructive of this view, but will restore, in its simplicity, a theory which removes all difficulties, and which paves the way to a reconsideration of other kindred problems, and to the study of that aspect of Anglo-Norman institutions in which they represent the feudal spirit developed on feudal lines.

III. SCUTAGE, AID, AND 'DONUM'

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.