[520]. In theory, in Henry II.’s reign at least, a royal writ was not required in the normal case. See Dialogus, II. viii., and the editors’ comment (p. 191): “Normally the levying of money under any pretext from a land-owner gave him a right to make a similar levy on his under-tenants.” As regards scutage, a distinction was recognized. The lord who actually paid scutage might collect it from his sub-tenants without a licence; but, if he served in person, he could recover none of his expenses except by royal writ. See Ibid., and cf. Madox, I. 675. It is necessary, however, to avoid confusion between two types of writ, (a) that which merely authorized contributions, e.g., de scutagio habendo; (b) that which commanded the sheriff to give his active help.
[521]. Cf. Pollock and Maitland, I. 331: “The clause expunged from the Charter seems practically to have fixed the law.”
[522]. Close Rolls, I. 306, cited Pollock and Maitland, I. 331.
[523]. Patent Rolls, 5 John, cited Madox. I. 615.
[524]. Close Rolls, 7 John, cited Madox, I. 616.
[525]. See Glanvill, IX. 8.
[526]. See Round, Commune of London, 130.
[527]. See Madox, I. 617, citing Patent Rolls, 18 Henry III. Various other examples are given by Pollock and Maitland, I. 331, e.g. “the earl of Salisbury, to enable him to stock his land.”
[528]. Supra, p. 303, and cf. Pollock and Maitland, I. 331.
[529]. See Madox, I. 677.