Feudal England: Historical Studies on the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries

by John Horace Round

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).