Feudal Assessments and the Political Community under Henry II and His Sons [Reprint 2019 ed.] 9780520316485

Citation preview

Feudal Assessments and the Political Community under Henry II and His Sons

Published under the auspices of the C E N T E R FOR MEDIEVAL AND RENAISSANCE STUDIES University of California,

Los

Angeles

Publications of the

UCLA Center for Medieval and Renaissance Studies

1.

Jeffrey Burton Russell, Dissent and Reform in the Early Middle Ages (1965)

2.

C . D. O'Malley, ed., Leonardo's Legacy: An International Symposium (1968)

3.

Richard H. Rouse, Serial Bibliographies for Medieval Studies (1969)

4.

Speros Vryonis, Jr., The Decline of Medieval Hellenism in Asia Minor and the Process of Islamization from the Eleventh through the Fifteenth Century (1971)

5.

Stanley C h o d o r o w , Christian Political Theory and Church Politics in the Mid-Twelfth Century: The Ecclesiology of Gratian's Decretum (1972)

6.

Joseph J. Duggan, The Song of Roland: Formulaic Style and Poetic Craft (1973)

7.

Ernest A. Moody, Studies in Medieval Philosophy, Science, and Logic: Collected Papers 1933-1969 (1975)

8.

Marc Bloch, Slavery and Serfdom in the Middle Ages: Selected Essays (1975)

9.

Michael J. B. Allen, Marsilio Ficino: The Philebus Commentary, A Critical Edition and Translation (1975)

10.

Richard C . Dales, Marius: On the Elements, A Critical Edition and Translation (1976)

11.

Duane J. Osheim, An Italian Lordship: The Bishopric of Lucca in the Late Middle Ages (1977)

12.

Robert Somerville, Pope Alexander III and the Council of Tours (1163): A Study of Ecclesiastical Politics and Institutions in the Twelfth Century (1977)

13.

Lynn White, j r . , Medieval Religion and Technology: Collected Essays (1978)

14.

Michael J. B. Allen, Marsilio Ficino and the Phaedran Charioteer: Introduction, Texts, Translations (1981)

15.

Barnabas Bernard Hughes, O . F . M . , Jordanus de Nemore: De numeris datis, A Critical Edition and Translation (1981)

16.

Caroline Walker Bynum, fesus as Mother: Studies in the Spirituality of the High Middle Ages (1982)

17.

Carlo M . Cipolla, The Monetary Policy of Fourteenth-Century Florence (1982)

18.

J o h n H . Van Engen, Rupert of Deutz (1983)

19.

T h o m a s K. Keefe, Feudal Assessments and the Political Community under Henry II and His Sons (1983)

Feudal Assessments and the Political Community under Henry II and His Sons Thomas K. Keefe

University of California Press Berkeley Los Angeles London

T h e e m b l e m of the Center f o r M e d i e v a l a n d Renaissance Studies r e p r o d u c e s t h e imperial eagle o f t h e g o l d angtistalis struck after 1231 b y E m p e r o r Frederick II; Elvira a n d V l a d i m i r Clain-Stcfanclli, The Beauty and Lore of Coins, Currency and Medals ( C r o t o n - o n - H u d s o n , 1974), fig. 130 and p. 106. U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a Press B e r k e l e y and Los A n g e l e s , C a l i f o r n i a U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a Press, Ltd. London, England © 1983 b y T h e R e g e n t s o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f California Printed in t h e U n i t e d States o f A m c r i c a 12345 6 789

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Kcefc, T h o m a s K. Feudal a s s e s s m e n t s a n d t h e political c o m m u n i t y u n d e r H e n r y II and his sons. ( P u b l i c a t i o n s o f t h e U C L A C e n t e r for M e d i e v a l and R e n a i s s a n c e Studies ; 19) R e v i s i o n o f thesis ( P h . D ) — U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a at Santa B a r b a r a , 1978. B i b l i o g r a p h y : p. Includes I n d e x . 1. S c u t a g e . 2. T a x a t i o n — E n g l a n d — H i s t o r y . 3. F e u d a l i s m — E n g l a n d . 4. G r e a t B r i t a i n — H i s t o r y — H e n r y II, 1154-1189. 5. K n i g h t s a n d knighthood—England—History. I. Title. II. Series. JC116.S4K4 1983 321.3'0942 82-15986 ISBN 0-520-04582-3

FOR

Warren and Megan

Contents

Acknowledgments I.

Feudal Surveys: T h e Infendationes

ix militum

and the Cartae baronum

1

II.

T h e K n i g h t ' s Fee and Scutage

20

III.

H e n r y II's Scutage Policy and the Servicium Debitum

41

IV. Feudal Patronage V.

Feudal T a x a t i o n under Henry II

A p p e n d i x I.

T h e N o r m a n Itifeudationes militum: 1172

A p p e n d i x II.

T h e Cartae baronum and the Assessment of K n i g h t Service: 1166-1210

90 116 141

154

A p p e n d i x III. K n i g h t s ' Fees in Cheshire and Wales

189

A p p e n d i x IV. Scutages and Feudal Aids, 1159-1214 (Frequencies)

191

Notes

203

Bibliography

265

Index

281

Acknowledgments

B O O K B E G A N as a doctoral dissertation submitted to the U n i v e r s i t y of California at Santa Barbara in 1978. I am grateful to Professor C . Warren Hollister of the University of California at Santa Barbara, w h o supervised that study, and to Professor J. C . H o l t of C a m b r i d g e University and Professor J a m e s W. Alexander of the U n i v e r s i t y of Georgia, w h o read the entire b o o k in typescript and offered m a n y helpful suggestions t o w a r d its i m p r o v e m e n t . I am also grateful to Karen Reeds, Susan Peters, M e r y l Lanning, and Darcy Ritzau for their advice and w o r k in the preparation of the final manuscript and to Barbara Ingle for p r e p a r i n g the index. I wish to thank the C o m m i t t e e on Research of Appalachian State University for its financial s u p p o r t and the editors of Albion and Notes and Queries for permission to use material f r o m m y articles published in these journals. M y largest debt of gratitude is to m y wife, Susan, w h o s e encouragem e n t over the years has b r o u g h t this book to its completion. THIS

B l o w i n g R o c k , N o r t h Carolina D e c e m b e r 1982

T.K.K.

IX

I Feudal Surveys: The Infeudationes

militum

and the Cartae

baronum

I N THE FORMATIVE years of 1035-1154, the greater part of the land in N o r m a n d y and England came to be held by feudal military tenure. From the time of William the C o n q u e r o r , the barons w h o held estates in the A n g l o - N o r m a n realm as tenants-in-chief by k n i g h t service bore the annual responsibility of furnishing at their o w n cost set quotas of knights to serve in the royal host, or a r m y , and to defend the king's castles. These barons gradually granted o u t portions of their estates to warriors w h o would perf o r m the necessary knight service and who, in turn, created similar subtenancies. By the m i d - t w e l f t h century, the knight's fee—a fief f r o m which the service o f a single knight was due—had b e c o m e the basic unit of A n g l o - N o r m a n feudal organization t h r o u g h the territorialization of military service and the process of subinfeudation. A n d yet, it is only in the period 1155 to 1216 that a clear picture of knight service and its allied institutions begins to take shape. M u c h o f this increase in our k n o w l e d g e is due to the inquisitiveness o f H e n r y II, w h o c o m m a n d e d his tenants-in-chief both in E n g l a n d and N o r m a n d y to set d o w n in writing the names, k n i g h t s ' fees, and service of their rear-vassals. T h e information accumulated t h r o u g h H e n r y II's feudal surveys is preserved in t w o w e l l - k n o w n feodaries: the English Cartae baronum and the N o r m a n Infeudationes militumIt is to these surveys that all studies o f A n g l o - N o r m a n feudalism eventually must turn.

1

FEUDAL

SURVEYS

T h e Cartae baronum also has a p r o m i n e n t place in the history o f taxation and royal-baronial relations. As early as the eleventh century, English tenants-in-chief periodically c o m m u t e d part of their military obligation t h r o u g h the p a y m e n t of scutage, or "shield m o n e y . " B y the reign of H e n r y II, scutage was assessed against the b a r o n s ' servicia debita (due service): that is, the n u m b e r of k n i g h t s o w e d t o the host. T h u s , if the scutage rate were set at 20s. o n the k n i g h t ' s fee, a b a r o n w h o s e servicium was fifteen k n i g h t s w o u l d pay £15 to acquit himself and his knights f r o m the obligation to take part in a royal expedition. T h e required sum was collected by the b a r o n f r o m his rear-vassals, w h o collected it f r o m their vassals, and so forth. Eventually the m o n e y was h a n d e d o v e r to the k i n g ' s exchequer, w h e r e the a m o u n t assessed and the a m o u n t paid in was recorded in the pipe roll. U n d e r this s y s t e m a profit w o u l d accrue to barons w h o collected scutage f r o m knights w h o had been enfeoffed in excess of their servicia. H e r e , according to J o h n H o r a c e R o u n d , writing in the 1890s, lay the m o t i v a t i o n b e h i n d the great survey that produced the Cartae. H e n r y II u n d e r t o o k this survey, R o u n d argued, because he intended t o increase the c r o w n ' s profit f r o m scutage by m a k i n g the b a r o n s liable f o r k n i g h t s ' fees in excess of their servicia debita. R o u n d p r o v e d his thesis by s h o w i n g a correlation between the assessments levied in 1168 and 1172 and the n u m b e r of knights' fees r e t u r n e d in the b a r o n s ' cartae. F r o m this evidence, he w e n t o n to speculate that the n e w assessments w e r e wholly advantag e o u s to the c r o w n , that they w e r e p e r m a n e n t , and that they f o r m e d part of a financial revolution. 2 R o u n d ' s conclusions concerning the success of H e n r y II's scutage policy h a v e been rejected by English medievalists, w h o generally c o n c u r in the belief that baronial opposition forced H e n r y to c o m p r o m i s e his policy to such an extent that it had little if any p e r m a n e n t success. T h i s has been the view of such scholars as J a m e s B a l d w i n , 3 Sydney Mitchell, 4 Helena C h e w , 3 Austin Poole, 6 Sidney Painter, 7 Frank B a r l o w , 8 and C . Warren Hollister, 9 and it has been restated m o r e recently by G. L. Harriss in his s t u d y of public finance in medieval England 1 " and W. L. W a r r e n in his well received b i o g r a p h y of H e n r y I I . " In fact, W . L. W a r r e n goes so far as to include H e n r y II's feudal surveys

2

FEUDAL SURVEYS and the 1168 and 1172 levies in a list of administrative provocations that helped to bring about a major baronial rebellion in 1173.12 These convictions readily merge with the generally held notion of the burdensome nature of Angevin governance and the monarchy's reckless abuse of its powers of taxation. 13 N o one has sought to draw a clear parallel between the actions and motivations of Henry IPs barons in this regard with their heirs' more eventful protests against the policies of his son John; but such an inference can be made. In the minds of many scholars, no doubt, the revolt of 1173 foreshadows the revolts of 1212 and 1215, which, as it happened, were preceded by another universal survey and a levy on the total enfeoffment. 14 The alleged widespread opposition to scutage under Henry II continues to be seen as the first instance of a collective effort by an aroused baronage to successfully combat the aggrandizing policies of the Angevin monarchs. But how valid is this impression? In this book, Henry II's feudal surveys and the assessment of knight service will be examined in some detail, using statistical analyses whenever possible, to determine whether the heavier quotas were abandoned as the result of baronial pressure, and whether they were a major cause for discontent and rebellion. Certainly Round's thesis that the new assessments formed part of a financial revolution warrants serious modification. Scutage was an occasional tax at best under Henry II and Richard I. Only twelve royal scutages were levied in the nearly forty-five years in which these monarchs reigned, in comparison with eleven almost consecutive levies made by John during his seventeen years on the throne. And yet, under all three monarchs, a sizable number of the more heavily enfeoffed barons remained unassessed when a scutage was levied because they had performed corporal service or had served the king in some other capacity. O f those who were assessed, many later received a complete or partial pardon of the sums charged against them. Whatever the method of assessment, then, scutage itself was never a major source of royal income. The same argument, on the other hand, works against the theory put forward by Round's critics. Because scutage was occasional, often pardoned, or not assessed at all, it is hazardous to generalize, solely on the

3

FEUDAL SURVEYS basis of the adoption of a more rigorous method of assessment by H e n r y II, that the baronage was inclined toward rebellious opposition to royal policy. It will become clear that, in the case of scutage and other forms of taxation, the wealthiest and most influential tenants-in-chief and those close to the king rarely suffered any of the burdensome exactions that have traditionally been associated with the policies of the early Angevin monarchs.

I Briefly described, the Infeudationes militum is a listing of the n u m b e r of knights owed by the N o r m a n tenants-in-chief to the duke's service, as well as the number of knights retained in their o w n service. 15 It covers, with a few notable exceptions, all those w h o held of the duke by knight service. 16 A typical entry reads: Robert de Montfort, six knights from the honor of Coquainvilliers [to the duke's service]; and thirty-three and onerthird, onefourth knights to his o w n service. 17

or In the bailliage of Tinchebray, the Fee of Gilbert d'Avranches, two knights. 1 "

T o avoid confusion, it should be mentioned that when a total for the knights due the duke and a total for those in the baron's private service are both given in the feodary, as they are in Robert de M o n t f o r t ' s case, the first total is included in the second, and the t w o should not be added together in calculating a baron's total enfeoffment. O n the other hand, if the feodary lists only a single total without designating to w h o m the service was due, it can usually be inferred that this total reflects both the seruicium debitum and the enfeoffment. Sometimes, however, only the n u m b e r of knights in private service has been set d o w n because the a m o u n t of the servicium debitum was u n k n o w n when the survey was taken. 1 9 A trustworthy description of h o w the survey was made, which comes f r o m the Cartulary of Mont-Saint-Michel, contains so many points of interest that it is worth reprinting in full: 4

FEUDAL

SURVEYS

In the one-thousandth, one-hundred and seventy-sccond year after the incarnation of Our Lord, all the barons of Normandy assembled at Caen on the feast of the Nativity of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the command of King Henry II; and there each baron acknowledged, in the presence of the justiciars, how many knights he owed to the king's service and how many knights he had in his own service. And each baron also returned two writs: one with a seal and the other without a seal. In the sealed writs only the number of knights owed to the king was entered, while the names of the barons' knights and the "partes ct divisiones" of their fees were written in the unsealed writs. Afterwards, all the writs, both those with and without seals, were collected and deposited in the royal treasury. 2 " T h i s account was written by R o b e r t of T o r i g n y , the noted historian w h o as a b b o t of M o n t - S a i n t - M i c h e l in 1172 n o d o u b t t o o k part in the events he describes. It can be concluded f r o m his r e m a r k s that the Infeudationes militum was d r a w n u p f r o m the b a r o n s ' verbal t e s t i m o n y because the names of the subtenants and the parts and divisions of their fees w e r e left unrecorded. This fact is suggested t o o by a c o m p a r i s o n of the entry in the feodary f o r M o n t - S a i n t - M i c h e l and also by a list of the abbey's subtenants and fees, f o l l o w i n g R o b e r t ' s description of the survey in the cartulary, that m a y be a c o p y of either the writs returned by him in 1172 or the notes f r o m w h i c h he f r a m e d his reply. 2 1 In considering the p u r p o s e of the N o r m a n survey, the initial question is: D i d H e n r y II increase the assessment of knight service in the d u c h y as he did in England? T h e loss of all but a few f r a g m e n t s of the N o r m a n pipe rolls for H e n r y ' s reign makes it uncertain w h e t h e r heavier assessments w e r e made. 2 2 It is k n o w n f r o m the rolls f o r Richard and J o h n that scutage was levied in their reigns o n the c u s t o m a r y servicium debitum, unless an h o n o r had c o m e u n d e r ducal control t h r o u g h escheat and wardship or its q u o t a had n o t been reported in 1172. In the latter instance the d e m a n d was m a d e on the total e n f e o f f m e n t of the h o n o r . 2 3 T h a t H e n r y II himself intended to abide by the traditional quotas is s t r o n g l y suggested b y the w r i t s returned in 1172. If his intention had been to raise the barons' service, it is hard to imagine w h y he requested that the servicium debitum be set d o w n in a sealed writ.

5

FEUDAL SURVEYS O n the contrary, the intention must have been to preserve the c u s t o m a r y quotas as a matter of certified written record for both host service and scutage. 2 4 Similar registers, it seems, were kept for the military service due f r o m t o w n s m e n . 2 3 T h e i m m e d i a t e incentive for recording the names and n u m bers of the barons' knights is m o r e difficult to discover. This i n f o r m a t i o n m a y have been intended for future administrative use w h e n a b a r o n y came under ducal control. 2 6 A m o r e direct p u r p o s e could have been to record the barons' military strength, because in times of emergency the N o r m a n dukes had a right to call o u t the d u c h y ' s full knight service. T h e desire to learn the d u c h y ' s feudal strength and to fix the servitia debita perhaps explains w h y only this information was enrolled in the Infeudationes militum. In m o r e general terms, the 1172 inquiry can be viewed as part of an overall p r o g r a m to maintain an accurate record of N o r m a n resources and to recover ducal rights and lands lost as a result of the A n g l o - N o r m a n civil war. 2 7 In 1163 Henry II instructed that the l a w f u l rents and privileges of both the duke and the barons in each N o r m a n diocese be surveyed. 2 8 Eight years later he had a survey taken of all the estates and forests that had belonged to the ducal demesne in the reign of his grandfather H e n r y I but that w e r e n o w occupied by others, and he ordered that these lands be restored to the ducal demesne. 2 9 T h e capacity to conduct largescale investigations was an important feature of N o r m a n administration u n d e r H e n r y II, it appears; and it follows that this capacity could hardly have been realized without some cooperation f r o m a m a j o r portion of the baronage.

II Like its N o r m a n counterpart, the English Cartae baronum is the product of a universal survey that relied heavily on baronial cooperation for its completion. Because there is no exemplar o f the writ that commissioned the Cartae, the barons' returns must be trusted as a source of the particulars. T h e best evidence of the questions asked by H e n r y II is found in the archbishop of York's carta (return): 6

FEUDAL

SURVEYS

T o his most beloved lord, Henry, by the grace of God king of England, duke of Normandy and of Aquitaine, and count of Anjou, his Roger, by the same grace archbishop of York and legate of the Apostolic See, greeting. Your majesty has commanded that all your faithful men, both churchmen and laymen, w h o hold of you in-chief. . . shall signify to you by their letters, bearing their seals outside, how many knights cach of them has who were enfeoffed by the old enfeoffment [de veteri fefamento] in the time of King Henry, your grandfather, namely on the day and in the year that he was alive and dead; and how many he has who were enfeoffed by the new enfeoffment [de novo fefamento] after the death of your said grandfather of blessed memory; and how many knights' fees [feoda militum] are on the demesne [super dominium] of each. And the names of all those knights, both of the old enfeoffment and of the new, arc to be inscribed in that writ, because you wish that, if there arc any who have not yet sworn fealty to you and whose names are not yet entered in your role, they should swear fealty to you before the first Sunday in Lent. As one of your faithful men, being subject in all things to your command, I have with all diligence, and in so far as the shortness of the time would allow, made an investigation within my tenement and by the present writing signify to you my lord the results. T h e i m p o r t a n t questions t o u c h i n g the tenurial arrangements o f the b a r o n s were, therefore: (1) H o w m a n y knights do you h a v e e n f e o f f e d f r o m the time of the de veteri, or old, e n f e o f f m e n t , that is, b e f o r e the death of K i n g H e n r y I on 1 D e c e m b e r 1135? (2) H o w m a n y knights d o y o u have enfeoffed f r o m the time of t h e de novo, or n e w , e n f e o f f m e n t , that is, since the death of King H e n r y I? A n d (3) h o w m a n y k n i g h t s ' fees remain on y o u r dem e s n e , or super dominium?31 T h e final q u e r y warrants further explanation. It refers to the n u m b e r of knights a baron w o u l d have t o a r m and equip f r o m his private resources if he had created f e w e r fees than the n u m b e r of knights he o w e d to the king's service u n d e r his servicium debitum. Technically, it w o u l d be incorrect t o speak of the balance of service d u e f r o m the demesne in t e r m s o f the k n i g h t ' s fee because the phrase super dominium implies the absence of k n i g h t l y tenure. Nonetheless, an h o n o r w i t h a servicium debitum of sixty knights and a reported enfeoffm e n t o f fifty knights could be said to contain sixty knights' 7

FEUDAL SURVEYS fees—-just as the rear-vassal w h o o w e d his lord the services of five knights b u t had granted tenures to only three would be considered as holding five knights' fees, and the lord would be considered to have thereby enfeoffed five knights. It should thus n o t be a surprise to find the phrase feoda militum super dominium in t w e l f t h - c e n t u r y documents. 3 2 In fact, this conceptualization no d o u b t aided in the calculation o f taxes using the knight's fee as the unit of assessment. T h e statement that an h o n o r contained sixty knights' fees need not then always mean that exactly sixty k n i g h t s were given tenures; s o m e of the sixty fees might be merely notational. T h e barons also w e r e asked to give the names of their knights, so that they could be checked against a roll to determine which of t h e m had not yet s w o r n h o m a g e to the king. All such knights w o u l d be required to do so before the first Sunday in Lent. T h e c r o w n ' s insistence o n this information was firm, and at least one carta was rejected because it lacked the knights' names. 3 3 It is also interesting that the cartae had to be sent extra sigillum pendentes, that is, with the seals on the outside as with letters patent. T h e seal was affixed to a strip of parchment run through the b o t t o m of the message so it could be inspected and read w i t h o u t d a m a g i n g the seal. 34 By ordering each baron, w h o alone was responsible for making out his return, to affix his seal to the carta, the king aimed to legally certify its contents as an accurate representation of the baron's entire enfeoffment. T h e omission of any fees could be seen as an admission of disownership. 3 5 T o avoid such a consequence, the archbishop of York formulated this postscript to his carta: And since my lord, of these knights there are some from whom I demand more service than they are now performing, while others are witholding what is said to belong to the demesne of the archbishop rather than to themselves, I humbly ask that this writing shall not be held against me or my successors if we are unable to restore the rights of the church. 36 Similarly, the head of the p o w e r f u l Clare family took the precaution o f sending the king a note explaining that a one-half knight's fee o f the n e w e n f e o f f m e n t held by Isaac the J e w had been inadvertently excluded f r o m his carta.37 8

FEUDAL SURVEYS English h o n o r s that were unaccounted for in the Cartae baronum w e r e mostly in royal custody at the time of the survey. 3 8 O n the whole, the baronage cooperated remarkably well with the c r o w n ' s inquiry into their tenurial arrangements. M a n y responses actually provided m o r e details than had been requested, as the carta of a Lincolnshire baron illustrates: To his revered Lord, Henry, king of the English Lambert of Etocquigny, greeting. Know that I hold from you by your favor 16 carucates of land and 2 bovatcs for the service of 10 knights. In these 16 carucates I have 5 knights enfeoffed by the old enfeoffment: Richard of Hay holds 1 knight's fee; and he withheld the service which he owes to you and to me from the day of your coronation up to now, except that he paid mc 2 marcs. Odo of Cranesby holds 1 knight's fee. Thomas son of William holds 1 knight's fee. Roger "dc Millers" holds 2 knights' fees. And from my demesne I provide the balance of the service which I owe to you: that is, 5 knights. And from that demesne I have given Robert "de Portcmort" three-quarters of a knight's fee. Therefore, I pray to you that you will send me your judgement concerning Richard of Hay who holds back the service of his fee, because I cannot obtain that service except by your command. This is the total service in the aforesaid 16 carucates of land. Farewell.3''

Lambert recorded not only the totality of his enfeoffment in responding to the king's writ but also the extent of his entire fief and royal service. H e also took the opportunity to ask the king's assistance in motivating Richard of Hay—a tenant-in-chief—to p e r f o r m the full service for his fee. T h e frequency with which the b a r o n s ' cartae contain such unsolicited details and requests adds i m m e a s u r a b l y to their interest. T h e texts of the Y o r k and Etocquigny cartae, like others found in the feodary, read like faithful copies of the originals, but m a n y of the entries in the feodary are clearly summaries or abridgements. 4 0 O m i t t e d , for instance, are the salutation and introduction a c c o m p a n y i n g the carta returned by the abbot of Abingdon. 4 1 T h e transcripts of the cartae are enrolled in the feo9

FEUDAL

SURVEYS

dary under the county from which a carta had been forwarded, or in which a baron had his chief estates. Notices sometimes appear stating the lands and fees o f those who had failed to respond to the survey or were granted newly created fees by the king after the survey had been completed. 42 An examination o f these notices, which are often written in a later hand, suggests that the feodary was drawn up prior to 1189. 43 The date o f the survey itself is controversial and must be considered before its purpose can be explained. T h e traditional date for the Cartae baronum was fixed as February-March 1166 by the antiquarian Robert W. Eyton. 4 4 Historians have never been certain how to reconcilc this dating with Ralph de Diceto's report o f a general inquisition into English tenures in 1163. Charles Homer Haskins thought the 1163 date was an obvious error on the chronicler's part. 41 More recently, John Schlight, accepting Ralph's date o f 1163, has advanced the thesis that the survey lasted three years and has placed the error in the lap o f modern authorities. 4 '' O f course, these divergent perspectives assume a single inquest. They overlook the possibility o f two independent inquiries—which, in fact, was the ease. That the survey might have run for three years is entirely unacceptable. T h e Domesday survey lasted no longer than one year, and English feudal surveys following the Cartae took place within a period o f two months or less. 47 The administrative process was swift even when it covered the entire kingdom. The archbishop o f York's carta points out the short time he had to prepare his return and also makes it clear that the survey was concluded within one year: the knights were to be checked against the king's roll and, if not found therein, were to perform homage "before the first Sunday in Lent." Unfortunately, his statements do not indicate whether the year was 1163 or 1166. Diceto's report o f the 1163 inquisition is mentioned in a chronological list o f the confrontations between Thomas a Becket as archbishop o f Canterbury and Henry II, beginning in 1162 with Becket's resignation o f the chancellorship and ending with his flight from England in autumn 1164. The report must be interpreted within this context and chronology.

10

FEUDAL SURVEYS [In the year 1163] a general inquisition was undertaken throughout all England in order to determine in whose secular service each one was subject by right. And in Kent the royal justices found that William of Ros ought to recognize the king and not the archbishop in the performance of a certain service. This personal hatred [between Henry and Becket] was to become detrimental to the church. 48 T h e r e is a n o t e w o r t h y parallel between Diceto's statement and a passage in the Actus pontificum describing h o w T h o m a s a Becket, shortly after becoming archbishop of Canterbury, o f fended H e n r y II and his courtiers by suing for the restoration of certain services and lands that had hitherto belonged to the See of C a n t e r b u r y . 4 9 Becket, it relates, claimed f r o m the king himself the castles o f Rochester, Saltwood, and H y t h e in addition to the service o f seven knights due f r o m William of Ros; he claimed f r o m Earl R o g e r of Clare his h o m a g e for T o n b r i d g e castle. Diceto takes n o t e o f the T o n b r i d g e dispute a few sentences prior to the report o f the inquest, mentioning Earl Roger's claim to hold the castle directly f r o m the king. 3 " Becket's biographer, William fitz Stephen, tells m u c h the same story but adds that the conflict w i t h the earl greatly damaged the archbishop's position at court because almost all of the English nobility were related to the Clare family. 5 1 Becket's actions w o u l d appear ill-advised, but his motives w e r e natural enough and should have been understood b y H e n r y II. T h e f o r m e r chancellor w h o had for so long aided his prince in recovering alienated estates, had set out on a similar course u p o n entering his n e w "realm." T h e inquisition outlined by Diceto then, I suspect, was connected w i t h the judicial process put in m o t i o n by the archbisho p ' s suits. T h e suits w o u l d not have been rejected summarily. C a n t e r b u r y ' s lordship over T o n b r i d g e can be traced to the eleventh century. 5 2 T h e other claims were of m o r e recent origin. In 1127 King H e n r y I granted C a n t e r b u r y control of Rochester castle in perpetuity. 5 3 King Stephen had m a d e a similar gift of the R o s b a r o n y in 1136. 54 Some sort of inquisition must have been conducted to decide whether the disputed service and castles w e r e the king's or the archbishop's by right. Diceto's report coincides w i t h this inference; and his only reason for mentioning

11

FEUDAL SURVEYS the affair at all is to illustrate one of the many confrontations between T h o m a s a Becket and Henry II, which in this instance resulted in Canterbury's loss of a "certain service," elsewhere stated as seven knights, due f r o m William of Ros. 55 It follows, therefore, that the inquisition took place before Becket's final disgrace and flight f r o m England in 1164, in other words, decidedly in 1163. If this is correct, then, the 1163 inquest was quite independent f r o m the Cartae baronum. T h e date of 1166 for the universal survey into knight service is supported by evidence f r o m the cartae, from the pipe roll for the twelfth year of Henry II's reign (1165-66), and from a passage in a contemporary chronicle. When John Marshal, senior, died in 1165, 56 his fiefs went to his sons John and Gilbert, w h o are named as owners of their father's mesne-tenures by several of the cartae.57 T h e y also appear on Pipe Roll 12 Henry II, charged £100 each for their inheritances; however, the roll clearly states that by the time the final account was drawn up Gilbert had died. 5 8 In other words, Gilbert Marshal received his inheritance after the 1165 exchequer session, he was living when the cartae were returned, and he was dead by the 1166 exchequer session— all of which indicates that the survey was conducted between September 1165 and September 1166. This is confirmed elsewhere in the roll, for the sheriff of Wiltshire is credited with the 22d. he had expended in that year on "a hutch for keeping the Barons' Charters of knights." 5 9 T h e time span is narrowed further to a short period before the first Sunday in Lent by the statements already discussed in connection with the archbishop of York's carta. If any doubt remains, it is quickly dispelled by a little-known yet decisive passage in the Chronicles of Ralph Niger that reads: "1166. Henry II made all the barons [milites] state openly h o w many knights or fees each one of them possessed; desiring that knight service should be assessed according to the n u m b e r of their fees." 60 This not only corroborates the 1166 date but gives a contemporary opinion of the survey's purpose. Alt h o u g h the passage was not discussed by Round, it nevertheless proves his theory that the cartae were meant to provide Henry II with enough information to assess the tenants-in-chief "pro feodorum numero."

12

FEUDAL SURVEYS W h a t significance, then should be attached to the h o m a g e d e m a n d e d f r o m the tenants' knights in 1166? For Sir Frank Stenton it was the all-important immediate motive for the survey. 6 1 He used the f a m o u s oath of Salisbury—taken by William I f r o m every m a j o r l a n d o w n e r in England in 1086, w h e n the danger of a massive Scandinavian invasion had only recently subsided and the king o f France and count of Flanders remained hostile—to d r a w an analogy between H e n r y H's position in 1166 and the position o f his great-grandfather in 1086. But he offers no tangible evidence to support the analogy. 6 2 Pursuing Stenton's lead, Frank B a r l o w sought the source of danger in an invasion threatened by M a t t h e w , count of Boulogne. 6 3 But this invasion, which never took place, was conceived in 1167 in connection with the war being f o u g h t by Henry II and Louis VII of France and could not have been foreseen in the early m o n t h s of 1166. 64 M o r e likely, H e n r y took advantage of the survey and introduced the h o m a g e requirement in order to further his ongoing campaign to m a k e the barons and their rear-vassals p e r f o r m h o m a g e both to himself and to his eldest son, w h o was being g r o o m e d as the royal successor. General h o m a g e ceremonies had been conducted in 1155 and 1163 for this purpose. 6 5 It is clear f r o m statements in several cartae that h o m a g e had already been made to both "the king and his son." 6 6 In 1170, in conjunction with the Inquest of Sheriffs, H e n r y again called for the enrollment of names of all those w h o o w e d h o m a g e but had n o t yet s w o r n it to him or to his son. 6 7 T h e fact that Henry possessed a roll of the knights w h o , in fact, had done their h o m a g e even before the survey began—as the archbishop of Y o r k ' s carta testifies 68 —should have caused historians to realize that the h o m a g e requirement itself was not an innovation that necessitated this unprecedented inquiry into the knight service o f the entire English baronage. W h a t p r o m p t e d the 1166 survey was the contracted marriage of H e n r y H's eldest daughter. T h e marriage between Princess Matilda and Henry the Lion, d u k e of Saxony, was proposed by Rainald, archbishop of C o logne, in spring 1165. It was contracted near the end of the year, w h e n an article of agreement was reached and the covenant signed. 6 9 H e n r y II's thoughts must then have turned to the rais-

13

FEUDAL SURVEYS ing of Matilda's marriage portion, which had been set by the covenant. There is no indication of the exact sum, but it must have been considerable, for Henry's mother is said to have brought her first husband nearly £10,000 sterling, 7 " and the king's granddaughters' marriage portions later reached £20,000 sterling. 71 T h e marriage of an eldest daughter, according to feudal custom, was one of three occasions on which a lord might levy a c o m m o n tax or an aid, or tribute, against each of his subjects; the other t w o occasions were the knighting of his eldest son and his o w n ransom if taken prisoner on the battlefield. 72 Henry chose to base the aid in part on the knight's fee, and he evidently ordered the great feudal survey for this purpose. Following Matilda's departure for Saxony in fall 1167 and her wedding in February 1168, 73 an aid was levied on every knight's fee irrespective of the traditional servicium debitum.74 Some historians refuse to accept the Cartae barottum as preliminary to the Aid of 1168. Even Round sought to deny this connection on grounds that the marriage and aid did not take place until t w o years after the returns had been made. 75 But he did not take into account the timing of the marriage contract and the survey. Prior to 1168, the only recorded aid levied by an English king occurred in 1110, when Henry I "taxed each hide of land in England three shillings for the marriage of his daughter." 7 '' Likewise, the 1168 aid was levied on all segments of society: the moneyers, t o w n s m e n , and royal demesne tenants, along with the tenants-inchief by knight service. 77 T h e recognizable difference between the 1110 and the 1168 aids is the unit of taxation used in assessing those w h o held by knight service: namely, the knight's fee (1168) rather than the hide (1110). Noting this point, W. L. Warren holds that this part of the 1168 aid was levied as a scutage because it was meant to defray the costs of mercenaries fighting alongside the king on the continent. 7 8 Nothing is further from the truth; if anything was defrayed, it was the cost of the marriage portion of Henry II's daughter. But even more important, the dissimilarity between scutage and a feudal aid is significant, and the t w o levies should not be confused. 7 9 Scutage never was and never would be demanded f r o m all the barons in c o m m o n in any given year because it was an alternative to military service—a military service

14

FEUDAL

SURVEYS

that m a n y b a r o n s in fact p e r f o r m e d . But there was n o chance of alternate service w h e n a feudal aid ran. T h u s in 1168, for the first time in o v e r fifty years, all barons w e r e subject to an assessment. In levying the aid, H e n r y II chose n o t to follow the precedent set by his g r a n d f a t h e r b u t rather to use the k n i g h t ' s fee as the unit of taxation, w h i c h accorded w i t h the current practice of the barons themselves. 8 0 In s u m , H e n r y II was aware in 1166 that every tenant-in-chief b y k n i g h t service w o u l d be liable to "the aid for the m a r r i a g e of the k i n g ' s eldest d a u g h t e r , " and he ordered the Cartae baronum w i t h the intention of levying the aid on each baron's total e n f e o f f m e n t (those w h o w e r e o v e r e n f e o f f e d had n o right to expect a profit) and of c o n t i n u i n g this policy w h e n scutage was due, as the N i g e r chronicle suggests. B u t the m o s t difficult p r o b l e m s of all remain: what was the reason for distinguishing b e t w e e n de veteri (old) and de novo (new) k n i g h t s ' fees in 1166, and w h y did the exchequer assess the de novo fees separately f r o m those returned de veteri and super dominium?81 T h e r e is n o guidance in this matter f r o m any sources other than the cartae and pipe rolls, and all possible solutions m u s t c o m e f r o m a s t u d y of these records. Because m a n y o t h e r wise astute historians have misinterpreted this evidence in an issue crucial t o a correct u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the Cartae baronum, their theories will be e x a m i n e d in detail. Discussing the survey and subsequent assessments, Paul Vinogradoff comments: We know from the comparison of the returns of 1166 . . . that there were three kinds of knight service at that time: that from the old fees . . . created in the reigns of the three Norman kings, that of the new fees . . . instituted after Henry I's reign, and that of the knights, not enfeoffed with particular estates, but maintained on the domain of the barony. The first and third categories were drawn together in respect of the feudal obligation of the barony; they represented the original service due from it, its servicium debitum. The second category arose from the policy of subinfeudation . . . and had nothing to do with the original due service . . . We need not dwell longer on these cardinal facts, as they are clearly set forth in the evidence. 82

15

FEUDAL SURVEYS According to V i n o g r a d o f F s theory, combination of the old and demesne fees equaled the traditional servicium debitum of a barony, and the n e w fees were created in excess of that quota. These "cardinal facts," as he calls t h e m , by no means accord with the evidence. T h e Aincourt b a r o n y ' s servicium was 40 knights, whereas in 1166 its lord, William d'Aincourt, reported holding 24 knights' fees o f the old e n f e o f f m e n t , 5 of the new enfeoffment, and a balance of 11 knights due f r o m the domain. 8 3 T h e n e w fees created by the Aincourts, then, were not in excess of their quota. In contrast, the bishopric of Lincoln, with a quota of 60 knights, contained 104 knights' fees in 1166, of which 102 belonged to the old enfeoffment. 8 4 It is true that the bishopric was heavily overenfeoffed, b u t only 4 percent of these fees were n e w creations. So a barony's excess enfeoffments might have fallen into either the old or the n e w fee category, just as the new fees m i g h t have been needed to complete its servicium debitum. T h e same a r g u m e n t w o r k s against the theory put forward by Sidney Painter. For Painter, the old and new fee categories were a consequence o f the civil w a r in Stephen's reign, when the barons m a y have been forced to m a k e enfeoffments under duress. Because the reign o f H e n r y I was considered by both the barons and the c r o w n to be the m o s t recent normal period, he concluded: "the barons objected to paying scutage on the fees granted d u r i n g Stephen's reign, and . . . while H e n r y [II] refused to accept the protest, he recognized it by making the distinction between old and n e w fees." 8 5 A protest f r o m those barons w h o had n e w fees yet were n o t overenfeoffed is hard to imagine because they w e r e unaffected by H e n r y II's policy. If the overenfeoffed barons entered a protest, it probably w o u l d have been connected w i t h s o m e increase in their obligation, and would not have pertained to w h e t h e r the surplus fees had been created in a time o f w a r versus a time of peace. O n e might also question w h e t h e r the n u m b e r of fees forcibly created in Stephen's reign was m u c h higher than the n u m b e r voluntarily granted out for the provision o f friends, relatives, and retainers. William 'de Arches' does n o t seem to have acted under duress when he granted eight carucates of land to his kinsman and knight Elias 'de H o u ' (1140 x 1147). 86 O n the other hand, the "de n o v o fefa-

16

FEUDAL SURVEYS m e n t o " category covered all enfeoffments made f r o m December 1135 t h r o u g h February 1166 and thus included twelve years of H e n r y II's reign in addition to Stephen's reign. A comparison of charter evidence with the cartae indicates that m a n y lords had created n e w fees during the period 1154-1166. T h e lord of M o w b r a y , for example, ceded certain lands to T h o m a s of Coleville for the services o f one knight, sometime after 1154 but before 1157, and T h o m a s appears in the M o w b r a y carta holding a k n i g h t ' s fee o f the n e w enfeoffment. 8 7 J o h n H o r a c e R o u n d advanced a sinister explanation for the categories. H e observed that if a baron's enfeoffed knights were short of the original servicium, he was caught under the third query; if he had a surplus, he was caught under the other t w o queries. R o u n d then postulated that the categories were carefully designed to trick the barons into revealing the full n u m b e r of their enfeoffments. 8 8 T h e idea that the king meant to trick the barons in 1166 is an u n p r o v e n assumption on R o u n d ' s part, alt h o u g h he is correct in seeing as the king's intent the accurate reporting o f each knight's fee. But the same results would have been achieved by simply asking h o w m a n y knights were enfeoffed and h o w m a n y , if any, were due f r o m the domain. Round, in effect, chose not to c o n f r o n t the problem of the distinction between the old and the n e w e n f e o f f m e n t . A n enterprising solution to this problem has been sought by W. L. Warren, in a comparison of the pipe roll entries for the 1168 aid and the 1172 scutage with the apparent later reduction of the barons' obligations. O n the 1168 and 1172 rolls, the lay barons accounted for the fees returned as having been either enfeoffed before the death of King H e n r y I or due f r o m the domain u n d e r a single assessment designated "de veteri fefamento," and for these fees as having been created after the death of King H e n r y I u n d e r another assessment designated "de n o v o fefam e n t o . " In contrast, the ecclesiastical barons answered on the o n e hand for "militibus suis quos recognoscit se debere Regi" (that is, the servicium debitum) and on the other for "militibus suis quos n o n recognoscit se debere Regi" (the surplus knights). T h e following assessments taken f r o m the 1168 pipe roll illustrate these facts:

17

FEUDAL SURVEYS Gcrbcrt o f Percy renders account of £20 for 30 knights of the old enfeoffment of the honor of Roger Arundel; this has been paid into the treasury and he is quit.

The bishop of Norwich renders account of 40 marks for 40 knights which he acknowledges arc owed to the king; this has been paid into the treasury and he is quit.

The same Gcrbcrt owes 1 mark for 1 knight of the new enfeoffment. 8 "'

The same bishop owes 116s. 8d. for 8 K knights which he docs not acknowledge arc owed to the king. 9 "

But in 1187 and afterward, with few exceptions, scutage came to be demanded (when an honor was not in royal custody) on the fees reported de veteri and super dominium by the lay baronage and on the ecclesiastics' original servicium debitum, fees "quos recognoscit se debere." 9 1 From this evidence, Warren supposes that Henry II anticipated resistance to his policy of increased assessments and structured the 1166 questions and ensuing levies to facilitate a compromise: namely, he was prepared to permit the ecclesiastics to pay on the servicium debitum but would require payment f r o m laymen on no less than the fees in existence before 1135. 92 As Sydney Painter has pointed out, such reasoning suffers f r o m the often untrustworthy method of accepting without direct corroboration the result of an innovation as the premeditated aim of the innovator. 9 3 In order to embrace Warren's theory, one must believe that Henry was ready to reduce the barons' obligations as early as 1166, and that there was a causal relation between the questions posed then, the separate accounts entered by the exchequer on the 1168 and 1172 rolls, and the reductions that took place twenty-one years later. All this would be more convincing if the 1172 scutage had not been demanded on each knight's fee of those honors under assessment. Perhaps there is no certain explanation for Henry H's distinction between the old and the new enfeoffment. In the end, one can only speculate about this matter. 9 4 It is more important here to correctly understand the meaning of the various fee categories in the Cartae baronum and the pipe rolls. T o reiterate, de veteri, de novo, and super dominium refer, respectively, to knights' fees created before December 1135 (the date of Henry I's death), fees 18

FEUDAL SURVEYS created f r o m December 1135 through February 1166 (the date of the Cartae), and those remaining that were charged to the demesne if sufficient enfeoffments had not been made to complete a tenant's seruicium debitum. (Demesne fees, as noted earlier, are to be regarded as notational fees, not actual enfeoffments.) In 1166, H e n r y did not request—as he would, later, in Normandy—the a m o u n t of the tenants' host service, though this information was forthcoming in responses that covered all three questions. Where surplus fees had been created, whether they were of the old or the new enfeoffment had no direct bearing on the original seruicium debitum, for the surplus may just as well have existed before 1135 as after. T h e introduction of the heavier assessments on knights' fees in 1168, then, resulted in t w o obligations where formerly there had been one: the knight service due for the host, based on the original servicium, and the service due for scutages and aids, based on the total enfeoffment. For some baronies these obligations were the same; but this was not always the case, as, for example, with the bishopric of Lincoln.

19

II The Knight's Fee and Scutage

I I T W O U L D BE incorrect to envision the knight's fee as necessarily a contiguous estate, for, like the honor, its segments could lie miles apart. And although the knight's fee has been described as the basic unit of A n g l o - N o r m a n feudalism, it was in fact divisible into lesser parts. Fiefs owing a fraction of a knight's service regularly appear in both N o r m a n and English feodaries. For instance, a late eleventh-century feodary preserved in The Domesday Monachorum of Christ Church Canterbury lists rear-vassals as holding a fourth or half of a knight's fee. 1 Most fractional fees in twelfth-century records fall within a range of one-tenth to threefourths, but a few occur that are as low as one-fourtieth, oneeightieth, and one one-hundredth part. 2 Several factors contributed to the fractionalization process: (1) fiefs were sometimes awarded outright for just part of a knight's service, (2) whole fees could be granted to t w o or more tenants in joint tenure only to be partitioned later by their heirs, (3) whole fees were divided between the female heirs of tenants w h o died without male offspring, (4) fees were split by rear-vassals through subinfeudation, and (5) a fee's service was sometimes reduced by an overlord to something less than a full knight. 3 Although the fractionalization of knights' fees may well have

20

T H E K N I G H T ' S FEE A N D

SCUTAGE

contributed to the ultimate demise of feudal military service and its replacement w i t h monetary payment, the fractional fee by itself was n o t incompatible w i t h personal service. Fees held j o i n t l y often provided a knight for the host by means of a rotation system, t h r o u g h which one tenant rendered service and the others paid his expenses. 4 O n s o m e baronies, fractional feeholders w e r e called on to p e r f o r m military service in proportion to the a m o u n t of knight service due f r o m their fee. For example, Nicholas of Stafford, one of William R u f u s ' barons, freed a vassal holding half a knight's fee f r o m all castle ward obligations while requiring h i m to p e r f o r m a full knight's service in the host. 5 In contrast, Faritius, abbot of Abingdon (1100-1117), enj o i n e d the holder of half a knight's fee to remain on expeditions and castle ward for three weeks instead o f the usual six-week period d e m a n d e d f r o m those w h o had a whole fee. 6 Some lords, even at the end o f the twelfth century, still may have preferred actual service over scutage f r o m fractional fee-holders. In 1197, Samson o f P o m e r a y sued William of U p t o n in the king's court to force h i m to render personal service f r o m three-tenths of a fee. T h e final concords in this suit specify that William should join S a m s o n ' s retinue with t w o horses, a shield, and a lance whenever s u m m o n e d , and that Samson in turn should quitclaim to William all f u t u r e scutages payable f r o m his fee. 7 T h a t the knight's fee was measurable in fractions leads us to consider whether it c o n f o r m e d to any accepted territorial n o r m . S o m e t h i n g akin to a standardized fee did prevail on a few E n glish baronies, b u t on most, like Peterborough, there was no u n i f o r m i t y . 8 A survey of the abbey of Peterborough's estates conducted in H e n r y I's reign shows Geoffrey, "nephew of the A b b o t , " in possession of eight hides of land in return for the service o f three knights, whereas Ascelin of Walterville o w e d the same a m o u n t of knight service f r o m over thirteen hides. 9 W h e r e the c o m m o n unit of land measurement was the carucate, in the Midlands and northern counties, fees contained f r o m onehalf u p to sixty carucates.w In the southern counties, where the hide was the n o r m a l unit of land measurement, fees were made u p f r o m groups of two, four, five, six, seven, ten, and even t w e n t y - s e v e n h i d e s . " U n i f o r m i t y a m o n g the fees on a given

21

T H E K N I G H T ' S FEE A N D

SCUTAGE

b a r o n y cannot therefore be taken as establishing a pattern for English fees in general. 1 2 N o single explanation accounts for the variety in the territorial extent o f knights' fees. Certainly soil conditions and exposure to attack w e r e factors, as fees in frontier regions tended to be larger than those in m o r e productive and peaceful regions. 1 3 Largesse and favoritism seem to have been equally important factors: recall, for example, Gerald o f Wales' c o m m e n t a r y on the enfeoffments arranged by Bernard, bishop of Saint Davids (1115-1148): He alienated many lands o f the church without advantage or profit, and disposed of others so imprudently, that when 10 carucatcs were required for military purposes, he would, with a liberal hand, give 20 or 30 carucates.14

But the irregularity of units of land measurement was the chief cause o f this variety. Neither the hide n o r the carucate was standardized. Each had a subunit, the virgate and the bovate, respectively, which were f u r ther divisible into acres. These in turn were plotted by the linear perch, which m i g h t contain 16.5 to 25.5 feet. 15 T h e size of an acre therefore fluctuated according to the length of its perch. As a result, bovates w i t h 15, 18, 20, or 28 acres have been found, 1 6 and although the carucate is said to have had 8 bovates, some actually had 18. 17 It comes as n o surprise, then, to find carucates rated at 80, 100, 105, 120, and 130.50 acres. 18 T h e same irregularity is evident in land measured by the virgate and the hide. O n the C a m b r i d g e s h i r e , Huntingdonshire, Hertfordshire, Norfolk, and Suffolk estates of Ramsey abbey, hides consisted of 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 virgates, or 80, 90, 96, 100, 108, 120, 144, 160, 176, 201, and 256 acres. 19 F r o m this it can be concluded that knights' fees said to have an equal n u m b e r of hides or carucates really m i g h t not be similar in extent. T h e reverse is also true. A fee rated at five hides could have had as m a n y m o d e r n statute acres as a fee rated, say, at four or seven hides. Whatever the case, had the baronage or the c r o w n been willing to enforce a territorial n o r m for the knight's fee, the a t t e m p t w o u l d have been d o o m e d f r o m the start by the absence of a standard in land measurement.

22

T H E KNIGHT'S FEE AND S C U T A G E O n the other hand, there was a standard monetary system at this time throughout England. Could there have been common agreement on the revenue a fee ought to produce under normal circumstances to support a knight? Contemporary statements concerning land values were often based on arbitrary judgments rather than actual returned income. This is apparent to anyone who has read through Domesday Book, and it is reflected in the explicit instructions given by King Richard I to those officials charged with surveying crown lands. The king told them to "determine how many carucates were in each manor and their value, and not to estimate a carucate at the fixed value o f 20 shillings, but to evaluate the land according to its productivity." 2 0 Despite this limitation, such surveys as Domesday Book and The Domesday Monachorum of Christ Church Canterbury are our earliest source for fee values. Drawing on these two surveys, F. H. R. Du Boulay has proven that a great disparity existed between the value o f fees on Canterbury estates at the end o f the eleventh century. 31 Some fees were worth £1, others £20. The average Canterbury fee brought £ 5 - £ 7 to its owner annually. A more direct source for fee values is provided by charters o f enfeoffment, which become plentiful in the mid-twelfth century. An 1154 charter documents Henry o f Hereford's enfeoffment o f William ofFurches with £10 worth o f land for half o f a knight's service, promising an additional £10 at a future date in return for the full service o f a knight. 22 Here, then, is a clear equation o f £20 worth o f land as the desired value o f the knight's fee. Scholars thought o f this sum as the ideal value o f the fee in the twelfth century until Sir Frank Stenton observed that grants worth half this amount were more common. 2 3 But in fact neither conclusion seems warranted. Grants for £10 appear with no greater frequency in the extant charters than grants for £20, nor is there a sharp separation in the chronology o f the grants. 24 Judging from the crown's actions, the notion o f an accepted value for the knight's fee is ill-advised. The 1181 Assize o f Arms, contrary to the opinion o f some scholars, did not affix a value to knights' fees but simply stated that each fee-holder must possess the arms o f a knight. 25 T o have done otherwise would have

23

T H E KNIGHT'S FEE AND

SCUTAGE

caused an unnecessary reduction o f numbers liable for knight service, as the true value o f fees varied extensively. Moreover, the c r o w n did not adhere to any perceptible standard when m a k ing enfeoffments. Richard I once endowed a knight with land to the value o f £66 13s. 3d. for his service. 2 6 J o h n awarded his followers fees worth £3 6s. 8d., £15, £20, and £40. 2 7 And J o h n , within a five-month period, presented R o g e r o f Sascey with £50 worth o f land and R o b e r t Peverel with £10 o f land, for which each man was to provide a single knight for royal service. 2 8 In short, the English kings never recognized an ideal fee value; knights' fees were as irregular in value as they were in extent. It would be nice to k n o w i f N o r m a n fees were equal, generally speaking, to English fees, but the evidence is too scant for comparison. It is k n o w n that N o r m a n fees were as irregular as those across the Channel. According to a study undertaken by Henri Navel, fees in the region o f Caen fell into three broad territorial groups: (1) 2 0 0 - 3 0 0 hectares, or 5 0 0 - 7 5 0 acres, (2) 3 0 0 - 5 0 0 hectares, or 7 5 0 - 1 , 2 5 0 acres, and (3) 5 0 0 - 8 0 0 hectares, or 1 , 2 5 0 - 2 , 0 0 0 acres. 2 9 So, although English and N o r m a n fees each o w e d the services o f a knight, they were dissimilar in size and value.

II N o allowance was made in the second half o f the twelfth century for the disparate value o f the knight's fee when scutage ran. Fees owing the services o f a knight were assessed at a single rate whether their annual landed income was £10 or £50. As Henry II's treasurer Richard Fitz Nigel once observed: It sometimes happens that when enemies threaten or attack the kingdom, the king decrees that a payment shall be made, say a mark or a pound from every knight's fee, to provide payment and gifts for soldiers . . . This sum, paid as it is according to the number o f shields [scuta] is called scutage.30 T h e origins o f scutage reach back beyond the reign o f Henry II to the N o r m a n period: in about the year 1100, the word scutagiis first appears in an original royal charter exempting the monks o f

24

T H E K N I G H T ' S FEE A N D

SCUTAGE

the Lewes priory f r o m this and other financial burdens. 3 1 Alt h o u g h the Lewes charter, and several similar extant royal-baronial e x e m p t i o n s of church properties dating f r o m the early twelfth century, prove the contemporary usage of the term, 3 2 they reveal little about the beginnings of scutage or the methods by w h i c h it was initially assessed. Was this payment in lieu of military service based exclusively on the knight's fee? If so, h o w was the rate of assessment determined? A n d h o w did the rate c o m p a r e to the m a r k or the p o u n d on the fee referred to by Fitz Nigel? T o p u t it succinctly, what differences, if any, existed between c o m m u t a t i o n in the N o r m a n period, w h e n the knight's fee was b e c o m i n g the basic unit of feudal tenurial organization, and the Angevin period, when most fees contributed money rather than knights to their lord's host? T h e Pipe Roll of 1156 offers an excellent vantage point f r o m which to explore the history of c o m m u t a t i o n . T h e roll records the first of H e n r y II's English scutages, levied in this instance against the church fiefs. T h e impost—clearly designated on the roll as scutagio militum—conforms in all essential respects with the description given by Fitz Nigel. It was assessed on the clerics' servicia debita (that is, the n u m b e r of shields) at a rate of 20s. on the fee. 3 3 T h e frequency with which scutage might have run u n d e r King Stephen is impossible to determine, for no pipe rolls have survived f r o m his reign. Anything resembling the kingd o m - w i d e scutages of the Angevin monarchs would, of course, have been o u t of the question while the civil war was in progress (1138-1153). B u t the competing factions did impose military taxes of all sorts, perhaps including scutage, on the population within their spheres of influence. T h e Anglo-Saxon Chronicle speaks of taxes called tenserie, or protection money, that were set against the t o w n s . 3 4 T h e Gesta Stephani relates h o w Miles, earl of H e r e f o r d , forced the churches under his control to pay large a m o u n t s w h e n e v e r m o n e y was needed to hire mercenaries. 3 3 R o b ert, earl of Gloucester, military leader of the Angevin faction until his death in 1147, is said to have demanded everyone's aid w h e n he was about to face the enemy, "either by sending knights or by paying taxes of all descriptions" (uel in militibus mittendis, vel in aeris descriptione reddendo).36 Still, the chroniclers fail to m e n -

25

T H E K N I G H T ' S FEE A N D

SCUTAGE

d o n scutage by n a m e in their reports, and the w o r d is conspicuously absent f r o m all but one of Stephen's extant royal charters. 3 7 Private charter evidence confirms the existence of recent precedents for the 1156 levy. 3 8 A charter of Gilbert, earl of P e m b r o k e (1138-1148), issued early in Stephen's reign grants land at Pardon, in Essex, to the C h u r c h of St. M a r y ' s Southwark, free from all service exccpt scutage, so that when it shall happen that a knight gives 20 shillings, that land shall give 2 shillings, and if a knight gives 1 mark, it shall give 16 pencc, and this by the favor of the lord Talbot to whom the scrvicc of that land is due, and w h o holds it of me. w

T h i s charter establishes b e y o n d d o u b t the continuity between the m e t h o d and rate of assessments in H e n r y II's and Stephen's reigns. U n i m p e a c h a b l e evidence of the rate and method of scutage assessments before 1135 is m o r e elusive. M u c h attention has been focused o n H e n r y I's writ of 1127 that released the bishopric of Ely f r o m "40 p o u n d s out of those 100 pounds the aforesaid church was accustomed to give for scutage when scutage ran t h r o u g h o u t m y land of England"; 4 0 also on a letter f r o m Herbert, bishop o f N o r w i c h (d. 1119), to Roger of Salisbury complaining of his having been compelled to pay the crown £60 pro militibus.4I Because Ely and N o r w i c h each bore a servicium debitum of forty knights, m a n y scholars have taken Ely's reduced obligation of £60 and the similar s u m demanded f r o m N o r w i c h as representing an assessment rate of 30s. on individual knights' fees (£60 = 30s. x 40 knts.). 4 2 According to this theory, the £100 formerly due f r o m the bishopric of Ely can be understood if it is assumed that H e n r y I d e m a n d e d scutage f r o m the barons' excess enfeoffm e n t s unless s o m e other arrangement was reached. An entry in the Pipe Roll o f 1130 supports this argument. T h e bishop of Ely is said to o w e £240 f o r a royal quitclaim of the bishopric's superplus militum.4i If these perceptions are valid, then the assessment of k n i g h t service was altered significantly after Henry I's death. T h e scutage rate fell f r o m 30s. to 20s. or less, and the impost on excess e n f e o f f m e n t s was altogether abandoned until its reinstatem e n t in 1168 b y H e n r y II. Yet acceptance of a 30s. rate—the key element in this theory—remains problematical.

26

T H E K N I G H T ' S FEE A N D

SCUTAGE

In 1166 Nigel, bishop o f Ely, admitted to holding 56.25 knights' fees de veteri and 16.50 de novo,44 T h e payment of £100 for scutage before 1127, on the other hand, implies a de veteri e n f e o f f m e n t of 66.66 knights if a 30s. rate is assumed. As Stenton has pointed out, the 66.66 figure is not impossible because some Ely tenures w e r e demilitarized between Nigel's investiture in 1133 and H e n r y I's death in 1135. 43 M y research shows that at least 9.50 fees that existed before 1135 are included a m o n g the n e w fees reported in 1166. 46 Therefore the bishopric of Ely might well have had s o m e 6 5 - 6 7 knights' fees in the 1120s; then again, the actual n u m b e r m i g h t have been even higher. T h e same a m biguity prevails in the N o r w i c h case. Altogether, the bishops of N o r w i c h held 47.75 knights' fees in chief at the time of Henry I's death. 4 7 Nevertheless, it is uncertain whether the bishopric was underenfeoffed w h e n Bishop Herbert's letter was written. Were the £60 pro militibus, based on N o r w i c h ' s servicium debitum, its full n u m b e r of fees, or was s o m e other standard applied? T a k i n g into account irregularities in certain levies during later reigns, it w o u l d be hazardous to extrapolate a c o m m o n rate and m e t h o d of assessment f r o m the Ely writ and the N o r w i c h letter even t h o u g h this evidence, at first glance, seems compatible. O n Pipe Roll 18 Henry II, for example, the custodian of the h o n o r of R i c h m o n d is mentioned as o w i n g £176 12s. Id. for the scutage of 1172, which had been set at the rate of 20s. on the fee. 48 "This s u m , " writes C . T . Clay, " m a y be compared with the £175 3s. 4d. for which Earl C o n a n had rendered account at Michaelmas 1167 for the expenses of sergeants in the army of Wales, suggesting a total of 175 X knights." 4 9 T h e 1167 render, however, is not an indication of R i c h m o n d ' s knight service. T h e initial assessm e n t , m a d e in 1165, was for £227 10s., and it was not based on the knight's fee. 50 T h e 1165 levy deserves special attention. Actually, t w o distinct m e t h o d s of assessment were in effect that year for Henry IPs Welsh campaign. S o m e tenants-in-chief, as Round has s h o w n , w e r e charged 1 m a r k per fee on their servicium debitum; others w e r e charged sums that were multiples of the unit 15s. 3d. 5 1 Accordingly, the bishop o f Hereford answered for £76 5s. (100 x 15s. 3d.) and the bishop of Winchester for £228 15s. (300

27

TABLE 1 Special Levy o f 1165 Tenant Matthew o f Gerardville

AftR(»aqii«int

Unit o f

AftRpanmpnt.

30s. 6d.

2

X

1 5 s . 3d.

l*5s. 9d.

3

X

Aubrey Dajsmartin

7 6 s . 3d.

5

Abt. S t . Benets

7 6 s . 3d.

5

Villiam Anchard

£7 1 2 s . 6d.

10

X

Walter Seinure

Knights* IWa

Serviciua TVh-i t u m

1

1

15s. 3d.

2

(?)

X

1 5 s . 3d.

1

1

X

15s. 3d.

3.65

3

1 5 s . 3d.

3

1

Baldvin Buetot

£7 1 2 s . 6d.

10

X

1 5 s . 3d.

5

5

Richard o f Cormeilles

£7 1 2 s . 6d.

10

X

1 5 s . 3d.

10

10

£7 1 2 s . 6d.

10

X

15s. 3d.

lk.57

(?)

Pr. Coventry

£11

8 s . 9d.

15

X

15s. 3d.

10

10

William o f Wormegay

£15

5s.

20

X

15s. 3d.

15

15

Richer o f Liagle

£15 5 s .

20

X

15s. 3d.

35.50

(?)

William o f Moiun

£22 1 7 s . 6d.

30

X

15s. 3d.

li6.50

1»0

Hascuil Mussard

Abt. o f Malmesbury

£30 1 0 s .

U0

X

15s. 3d.

William o f Avranches

£30 1 0 s .

uo X

15s. 3d.

John o f Port

£30 1 0 s .

kO

X

Hugh o f Wake

£38

2 s . 6d.

50

X

Abt. o f Hyde

£38

2 s . 6d.

50

X

Earl

£61

8.75

(?)

15s. 3d.

57

(?)

1 5 s . 3d.

10.38

(?)

15s. 3d.

20

20 (?)

80

X

1 5 s . 3d.

82.66

Bap. Chichester

£76

5s.

100

X

1 5 s . 3d.

12.11

Abt. S t . Albans

£76

5s.

100

X

15s. 3d.

Simon S t . Liz

3

2k

6

2 6

Bsp. o f Bath

£76

5s.

100

X

15s. 3d.

20.60

20

Abt. Peterborough

£76

5s.

100

X

15s. 3d.

60.83

60

Roger o f Nonant

£76

5s.

100

X

15s. 3d.

Earl William o f Nevburgh

£76

5s.

100

X

1 5 s . 3d.

10U.33 62.50

(?) 60

72.25

UO

(?)

John c t . o f Eu

£152 10

200

X

1 5 s . 3d.

Bsp. o f Ely

£152 1 0 s .

200

X

15s. 3d.

Bsp. o f Lincoln

£152 10s.

200

X

1 5 s . 3d.

X

15s. 2d.

6.50

5

X

15s. 2d.

3.26

(?)

William Paynel

£7 l i s . 8d. £15 3s. ltd.

7 10 20

X

1 5 s . 2d.

38

(?)

William o f Percy

£30

6 s . 8d.

UO

X

15s. 2d.

36. U3

(?)

Archbsp. o f York

£106

3s. ltd.

iUo

X

1 5 s . 2d.

U7.37

7

Earl Hugh Bigod

£227 1 0 s .

300

X

1 5 s . 2d.

160.75

60

Earl William o f Gloucester £227 1 0 s .

300

X

1 5 s . 2d.

27lt. 50

(?)

Roger Bertram Bertram Bulmer

£5

d.

6s.

(sic)

75

2d.

10U

60

T H E K N I G H T ' S FEE A N D

SCUTAGE

X 15s. 3d.). 3 2 So the sums charged in 1165 cannot be automatically divided by the conventional 20s. (or 13s. 4d.) rate in expectation o f finding a b a r o n y ' s knight service, as Clay has done. 3 3 B u t even R o u n d missed the subtle adjustment o f the unit of assessment in several 1165 accounts, w h e r e it is 15s. 2d. T h e £227 10s. d u e f r o m R i c h m o n d represents three hundred of these units. M o r e i m p o r t a n t here, the overall s u m demanded in 1165 has no direct relation w i t h a tenant's total enfeoffment or his servicium, w h e t h e r the 15s. 3d. or the 15s. 2d. unit was employed (Table 1). In this respect, the levy was clearly arbitrary. Dual m e t h o d s of assessment occur again under Richard I and J o h n . B o t h kings imposed fines pro servicium in lieu of or in addition to scutage. T h e rationale for these fines lay in the c r o w n ' s undisputed right to corporal service instead of c o m m u tation. O n c e a tenant-in-chief was s u m m o n e d for host service, he was released f r o m his military obligation only after having agreed to pay a heavy fine. M e n without summonses, on the other hand, were responsible only for scutage. T h e a m o u n t of a fine seems to have been determined by an individual bargain with t h e royal justices, rather than by following a set formula. As Tables 2 and 3 s h o w , the fluctuation in scutage rates in this period, c o m b i n e d with the irregularity of the fines pro servicium, led to w i d e differences in the sums due f r o m the tenants-in-chief (and the undertenants on escheated honors) f r o m levy to levy. For instance, between 1196 and 1206 the abbot of H y d e was charged sums a m o u n t i n g to £33 6s. 8d.; £40; £66 13s. 4d.; and £20. D u r i n g the same period, Robert Fitz Harding accounted for £40; £46 13s. 4d; £13 6s. 8d.; and £20; and J o h n , son of Leonardi o f Venice, answered for £6 13s. 4d. and £13 6s. 8d. for the one k n i g h t ' s fee he held of the h o n o r of Peverel of London. T h e scutage of Toulouse, taken in 1159, provides still another example o f dual assessments f r o m the Angevin period. U n d e r this levy a dono militum (sometimes rendered as scutagio militum) was raised f r o m church and lay fiefs in c o m m o n , but the ecclesiastical tenants w e r e asked for a voluntary gift or dona in addition to their knights' scutage. 5 4 A m o n g the ecclesiastics, Henry, bishop o f Winchester, paid 120m. de dono militum on his bishopric's servicium o f sixty knights and a further 500m. of his o w n de

29

T H E K N I G H T ' S FEE A N D S C U T A G E TABLE 2 English Feudal Assessments, 1156-1221:

Rate Per Knight's Fee

Year

Rate

Year

Rate

1156 1159 ll6l 1162

20s. 26s. 8d. 26s. 8d. 13s. Ud.

1201 1202

26s. 8d. 26s. 8d. 26s. 8d.

1165 1168

13s. ltd. 13s. Ud.

1205 1206

26s. 8d. 20s.

1172

20s.

20s.

1187 1190

20s. 10s. 20s. 20s.

1209 1210 1211 12lU 1218

20s.

1221

10s.

1191» 1195 1196 1199

1203 120U

33s. Ud.

UOs.

26s. 8d. UOs.

26s. 8d.

26s. 8d.

dono,55 Gerald of Wales tells us that Bishop Henry managed to recoup this latter sum by calling together all the prelates of his diocese and demanding an aid from them to reimburse "the 500 marks he had recently given the king for the Toulouse campaign." 56 This illustrates the method of assessment by knights' fees accompanied by a general dona or auxilium at the royal and subroyal levels. Faced with the Angevin evidence, the possibility cannot be overlooked that the £60 pro militibus of the Norwich letter and the £100 scutagio of the Ely writ reflect, in whole or in part, assessments unrelated to knights' fees. If Henry II exacted from the clergy a payment supplementary to scutage shortly after his accession, in all likelihood Henry I had followed a similar practice. According to the author of the Gesta Stephani, the Norman monarch "had extorted annual gifts from the clergy like a tax" and "had oppressed the church with monetary exactions for all kinds of service." 57 Surely military service is one of the services implied here. In this context, a private charter in favor of Kenilworth priory, later confirmed by Henry I, is of interest. The 30

•Ö VO • O 0 evi 3 H •O -1

•

•p a o

w J

I

•o a 0)

'S

+>

•p 01 o J

o EH

01 0) u h

1 O O Ov H rH CU rH rH +> V . £3 O 41 a

u D

fi a P B

o H

CVJ

H I CO vo

h 01 to

a i

J3 to

+> c < h Vi

CVJ

O rH on

rH CO

m irv

-3 rH

IA Ov

on Ov

H rH

cvj

0O CVJ

Ov -3

LTN co

O

ir\

o lf\

00

cvj -3

CO OO

o CVJ rH

H rH u-v

CVJ vo t—

l/\ m

o\ OO

o\ Ov

-3 -3-

t— VO

vo m

ov o H

VO rH

o\

o -3 1—

ir\ ir\ O rH

vo rH

CVJ -3

M H

Ov m

O H

rH l/N

rH OJ H

H t— H

Ov vo t-

rñ H rH rH

•

t-

•

•

•

h IU * 4) H •9 -5 a a c 3 - H 4J S J B

01 U 4J fr. . Vi O

en

•

•

oo vo rH rH C -H

-0 4) cvj U 01 t— 0) 01 rH rH "i " 3 oi U 0

•

•

»
O O H 4) M « 4) rQ 01 g 41 3 4) a t*.

M

«4 o

tt e •H 4i i d M rH •rt O CO »

•

Vi 4!

ov 1 O

o EH

o

CU o\

H CU

l/\ VO

LA OO Ov t -

JITV

cu tf\

CO t—

t ^ 00 t— v o vo

t oo

o rH

CU H

l— v o CO J -

SS.

o VO

co o cu

cu 00 fO

+> 01 5 Ol ti 4) í*. o U 0)

ja 0 3

c o

I CO vo

3 i

•p 6C

«i-i O V C ID e

g o

i o o CK r - i H O I H H

C\l co

+> gj S 01 01 I t i c o evi w v o (— « ri H

1 CO 01 ti o Ol ol H 11 to CM t> < rH 1* 1 ** o Vi p On O V. H rH h ti « I H » •B - 0 d e g 3 *r) flJ K j e

uv IT*

rH rH

co l/\

co o

t— cu

CU CU

VX) rH

OO rH

-at— cu

H OO 00

VO VO " u-v o m

O vo • rH t l/V

Ov t • irv IT» o rH

H rH

vo rH

t/\ c o rH - a CO t— 0 0 l/N

rH CU

Ov VO

CO vo 01 rH 0) rH c •H CVI oi t V 01 rH , 2 « rH B 01 9 n ^ ^ O a

G O U ^

•A S

tu M

(S o •H ti 11 CO g

1 jC

t~ o

cu cu en tH

-3 evi o vo CM

CM Ov O Ov

OJ CO CO CO

O rH b"\ co

t— Ov OJ VO

ON o ov rH

vo CO H o\ o rH

CM (M VO O OJ

co Ov l/\ CO OJ

H Ov OV Ov

CM on CO o rH

rH fVO Ov

rH tt— VO

O rH

CO rH

VO

OJ rH

VO

OV

on rH

irv on

t—

CO

rH OV

rH Ov

CM CO

on co

on ov

rH ov CM H H

CO

«H o

I) •H O C -H ^ 5 Í» O w —' c ai 3 co w J

CO Ov

«H T> O rH V u S ai 01 •9 g ai 3 a; B Pu

n a m fc a





Beauchamp. Wm. o f

16

26

B e l e t . Michael

1

S

1»

_

2 3

X

Courtenay. Re«, o f

e*

3

X

Croan, Maurice o f

27

Cressy, Hugh o f F i t z Stephen. Radulf F i t z P e t e r . Geoff.

1

Kyne, P h i l i p o f L&nvelay, Va. o f

X X

X

X

X X

X

X

1190

X

1188 1188

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

1213

X

X

X

X

X

X

118U

X

X

X

X

X

X

1190

X

1180?

3 13

_

13

X

X

X

?

X

X

X

Malet. Vm.

21.

2U

X

X

X

Marmion. Robert

17

_

5

X

X

X

6

X

X

X

X

3

X

X

X

X

-

1

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Quincy, Saher o f 3 16

X

X

X

X

1198 1195 1169 1181 X 1190

X X

2

5

X

X

Ver, Geoff, o f

12

16

X

X

1

3

Vescy, Vm. o f

26

22

X

Varenne, Reg. o f

15

12

X

X

X

X

1203 12027

X

13

Vaux, Robert o f Verdun, Bertram o f

X

X

5

T i l l y . Henry o f

121U

X

X

X

X

S t u t e v i l l e . Vm. o f

X

X

3

8

S t . Martin, Alured o f

1188 1187

It

1

Pipard. G i l b e r t

X

1

Î

Mauduit, Vm.

^ a

1170

X X

v

isü Iä t

X

31

Lincoln, Alured o f

s s

£*>

15

F i t z Bernard, Thos. G l a n v i l l e , Ran.

27

*« V

X X

20

_

«J h

X X

Camville. Gerard of

B r i t o , Ralph

>4 O

v. « a O H €» a s . o a »4 -C-P H 4> 1 sR °9 »s o u

119!» X

X

X

X

X

1170

X

1192?

X

1181»

X

1179

FEUDAL PATRONAGE f r o m t w o overlapping groups: (1) old baronial families and (2) the A n g e v i n m o n a r c h ' s o w n familiares and administrators. Reginald o f Warenne, a brother of the third earl of Surrey, w h o had risen at court to b e c o m e an official of the exchequer, a sheriff, and a baron by marriage, 8 1 was a m e m b e r of the first group. T h e N o r m a n castellan, justice, and viscount Saher of Quincy, a halfb r o t h e r of the English magnate Walter Fitz Robert of Clare, is another example. 8 2 O f those in the second group, Bertram of V e r d u n had been the protégé of Richard of H o m m e t . 8 3 Ralph Brito had c o m e to court via the household of Richard of Lucy, 84 and H u g h o f Cressy via the households of William of A n j o u and Hameline, earl o f Surrey. 8 5 O f the king's servants, many—like Reginald of C o u r t e n a y , T h o m a s Bardolf, Gerard of Camville, and Ralph Fitz Stephen—were of noble background and became barons t h r o u g h marriages arranged by the king. 8 6 F r o m many points o f view, it is difficult to distinguish between H e n r y II's familiares and administrators and the baronage, for in a real sense they w e r e the same. T h i s is also true of the great ecclesiastical magnates. H e n r y II, like his predecessors, pursued a policy of bringing members of the clergy into his curia and of m a k i n g his curiales bishops (see Table 18). H e n r y m a y have misjudged Becket, but his other choices w e r e sound: Geoffrey Ridel, bishop of Ely, a former keeper o f the great seal; Richard of Ilchester, bishop of Winchester, a f o r m e r exchequer official; J o h n Fitz Luce, bishop of E v r e u x , a f o r m e r royal clerk; J o h n , bishop of N o r w i c h , a former royal clerk; Froger, bishop of Séez, a f o r m e r royal almoner; Ralph of Warneville, bishop of Lisieux, a f o r m e r chancellor; Walter of Coutances, archbishop of Rouen, a f o r m e r vice-chancellor—to n a m e a f e w . All these prelates remained active in H e n r y II's administration after their elections, traveling frequently w i t h the royal court and performing m a n y of the same duties as before. T h e interrelation between church and curia is equally o b v i o u s in the choices of the canons of Lincoln in 1186 for their n e w bishop: Richard Fitz Nigel, royal treasurer; G o d frey of Lucy, son o f Richard o f Lucy; or Herbert, archdeacon of C a n t e r b u r y , a m e m b e r o f the king's household. 8 7 In this instance, the canons misread H e n r y II's mind. T h e king wanted the

110

FEUDAL

PATRONAGE TABLE 18

Reginald, bsp. o f Bath Henry, b s p . o f Bayeux John, archbsp. o f Dublin

21

_ _

Hugh, b s p . o f Durham

70

G e o f f r e y , bsp. o f Ely

72

G i l l e s , b s p . o f Evreux

_

John, b s p . o f Evreux

_ 120

X

?

X

X

?

X

X

_

X

X

7

Ranulf, b s p . o f L i s i e u x

U3

-

X

G i l b e r t , b s p . o f London

36

Richard, bsp. o f London

36

Godfrey, b s p . o f Winchestr Richard, b s p . o f Winchestr Roger, archbsp. o f York

10 -

75 75 1»8

_ _

1181-12

X

1173-89

X

1170-80

X

II8III61-8I4

X X

X

X

1189-98

X

X

X

1175-00

X X

II8U-

X

X

X

X

6

X

X

_ _

X

X

X

X

X

1165-83 X

1185-

X

X

-

11821163-87

X

?

X

1186-98 llUl-82

X

9

_

X

1153-95 X

X

X X

117U-91 1165-05

X

X

Former Household Department member Dates of Episcopate

Custodian Estates/Wards

Justice

X

1*3

Froger, bsp. of Séei

Castellan

X

Arnulf, bsp. of Lisieux

G i l b e r t , b s p . o f Rochester

X X

X

_ _

X X

18

Rotrou, archbsp. o f Rouen

X

X

William, b s p . o f Hereford

Walter, archbsp. o f Rouen

X

_ _ _

37

*»9

X

X X

Bartholomev. bsp. o f Exon.

John, bishop o f Norwich

Royal Envoy

Frequent Attestor

Knights' Fees Normandy

Bishop

Knights' Fees England

Bishops i n Royal S e r v i c e

X

X

X

1159-85

X

II89-OU

X

1173-88 ii5>»-8i

see for the pious Hugh o f Avalon, and he had his way. Godfrey o f Lucy, in return, was offered the bishopric o f Exeter, which he turned d o w n because "its revenues were not sufficient to meet his expenses." 88 N o doubt he was more than satisfied with the revenues o f the bishopric o f Winchester, to which he was later elected. Richard Fitz Nigel and Herbert later became bishop o f London and bishop o f Salisbury, respectively. Contrary to the traditional view that Henry II, like Henry I, created "a new administrative class whose wealth and political

111

FEUDAL PATRONAGE power could provide some counter balance to those of the baronage," 89 it seems rather that he relied on both barons and administrators for the defense and governance of the Angevin territories and the Anglo-Norman kingdom. Wealth and political power seemed to remain province of the barons. Henry II had no intention of changing the social and political order. Few of his administrative intimates who started out as lesser men ever rose into the select group of the feudal elite and if they did this often happened through the offices of the church. As Henry II's reign progressed, death removed many of his most trusted magnates from his inner circle, the natural consequence of a lengthy reign. The rise of such ministerial families as the Bardolfs, Fitz Bernards, Fitz Stephens, Glanvilles, and others can be linked with this mortality rate. Members of Henry's household, because of their long-standing relations with the king and their experience, stepped in to fill the void left when the magnates died, for the magnates' sons rarely gained the intimacy with the older king that their fathers had enjoyed. In Henry's time, moreover, the younger magnates might have been attracted to the courts of his sons. Whatever the case, it would be wrong to conclude that Henry II, in his later years and at the height of his power, turned away from the magnates. This is best illustrated, perhaps, by his continuing relationship with William II ofMandeville, third earl of Essex.

V William of Mandeville inherited the earldom of Essex in 1166,90 following the death of his eldest brother, Geoffrey III.91 Little is known of William's early years and training. The Walden chronicler reveals that he spent most of his youth at the court of the counts of Flanders, receiving the belt of knighthood from Count Philip, Henry II's first cousin. 92 Philip's warm recommendation of William was partly responsible for Henry II's speedy transfer of the earldom to him. 93 The Mandeville lands, from which their earldom had been created in 1141, formed one of the wealthiest honors in England at the time of Domesday

112

FEUDAL PATRONAGE Book. 9 4 By 1166 the honor contained 110 knights' fees. The family's hereditary custodianship of the Tower of London and t w o valuable manors were withheld f r o m William, however. 9 5 If he harbored any grievances over this reduction of his inheritance, they never surfaced. Besides, he was more than compensated for their loss by his friendship with the king. Earl William became part of Henry II's entourage immediately after his investiture. His rise at court during the 1170s was due as much to his o w n considerable military and diplomatic skills as to the deaths of barons w h o had advised the king from the early years. William distinguished himself as a general in putting d o w n the 1173 revolt. 9 6 Thereafter, he remained at Henry II's side 97 or was engaged elsewhere on royal business. It is possible to trace his movements back and forth from England and the continent in the pipe rolls. 98 Between 1173 and 1187, no less than nineteen Channel crossings are recorded, some of which no doubt were related to the embassies he led to the courts of Flanders, France, and Germany. 9 9 Earl William gained the respect not only of Henry II, but of the younger generation as well. When Philip of France in 1188 suggested that he and Henry should settle their differences through a trial by combat, William Marshal volunteered that the English king's champions should be himself and Earl William of Mandeville. 100 King Richard I later showed his confidence in the earl by naming him co-justiciar and regent of England. 1 0 1 There are many rewards for royal service. As might be suspected of someone with Earl William's social status and proximity to the king, he rarely paid monies into the English exchequer; rather, monies were paid out to him. Over a twenty-two-year period, the minuscule sum of £183 was levied against William in the f o r m of scutages, feudal aids, forest pleas, murder fines, and communal aids. O f this amount, £3 was paid into the exchequer, and the remaining sum was pardoned. 1 0 2 In contrast, William received m o r e than £1,600 f r o m the exchequer in terrae datae, outright gifts, and the third penny for Essex. 103 Surely the idea of the burdensome nature of the early Angevin monarchy requires serious modification, at least as far as the great magnates are concerned.

113

FEUDAL PATRONAGE An even more valuable reward came to William through his marriage in 1180, arranged by Henry II, to Hawise, heiress to the English and Norman lands and fees of the counts of Aumale. l,H Richard of Devizes characterized the countess of Aumale as "a woman who was almost a man, lacking nothing virile except virile organs." 105 Whether or not this is an apt description, Hawise was a rich prize, bringing William the honors of Holderness (20 kf.: E) and Skipton (21 kf.: E) in England and the county and castle of Aumale in Normandy (fees unknown). 106 Henry II seems to have had more in mind in arranging this marriage than the mere augmentation of his companion's already considerable estates. William's possession of the county of Aumale established him as one of the great border magnates along the sensitive eastern Norman frontier, and Henry II meant to rely on him to defend that frontier. This design is revealed by two contemporary sources. The Walden chronicler, after discussing Earl William's marriage, continues: "He was a brave man, mighty in arms and held in esteem by all; and therefore he abode little in England among his own people, but guarded the castles and fortifications in Normandy handed over to him by King Henry, which were stronger than the rest and situated along the frontier." 107 A fragment from the 1184 Norman exchequer roll discloses that the strongholds in question were the strategic Vexin castles of Gisors, Neufle, Dangu, Neufchateau-sur-Epte, and the neighboring castle of Vaudreuil (Eure, Louviers district). 108 Henry II's trust was not betrayed. William of Mandeville continued to be a valued and useful ally, especially in the matter of the aging king's relations with his troublesome cousin Count Philip of Flanders. From 1180 until his death in 1189, Henry II was involved in maintaining the integrity of his vast dominions, finding a workable solution to the succession problem brought on by the premature deaths of his eldest sons, and preventing an ongoing dispute between Philip of Flanders and Philip of France from erupting into a large-scale war that could have endangered the tenuous balance of power on the continent. In this last endeavor he sought to utilize Earl William's longstanding friendship with Philip of Flanders to help end the conflict. This is no doubt the reason that Henry chose the city of Aumale on at least two 114

FEUDAL PATRONAGE occasions as the site of peace conferences that he arranged between the warring parties. 109 It also explains why William was named as receiver for C o u n t Philip's English revenues while the count was in disfavor."" Henry H's effort to end the hostilities were all too successful: once the t w o Philips were reconciled, they turned their energies toward humbling the English king, w h o found no respite in his final years, not even from his sons Richard and John. William of Mandeville, on the other hand, remained loyal to Henry II until the last. His final meeting with this king he had served so faithfully came in June 1189, a month before Henry's death. O n this occasion the earl was made to swear that if any ill befell Henry, he would hand over the castles in his charge to no one except Prince John. 1 1 1 Clearly, Henry II was toying with the idea of replacing Richard with John as his heir, but John's own disloyalty to his father in these final months released the earl f r o m his vow. In fact, Richard inherited the Angevin territories intact; like his father, he sought to utilize Earl William's talents, appointing him co-justiciar and regent of England and sending him on an embassy to the court of Philip of France. But the earl never returned to England: departing from the French court, he fell ill at Gisors and died five months after the passing of his patron and friend, King Henry II." 2

115

V Feudal Taxation under Henry II

I E N G L I S H H I S T O R I A N S , conditioned by the real or imagined excesses of later Angevin monarchs, are prone to portray Henry II's administration as one that burdened the baronage with taxes and extralegal levies.1 Even the king's usually sympathetic biographer, W. L. Warren, could not escape perceiving "an element of financial extortion" in Henry's dealings with the barons. 2 Warren finds in the pipe rolls a number of assessments to regain the king's good will or to turn aside his anger. Included in this list are the fines levied against Hamo of Mascy, Gervase Paynel, Adam of Port (Kingston, county Hereford), and Gilbert, son of Fergus of Galloway. 3 These debtors had much in common: they all figured in the revolt of Henry II's sons in 1173 and 1174, which helped lead to their amercement. 4 Adam of Port had been exiled for treason prior to his participation in the revolt.D Gilbert, son of Fergus and a descendant of one of Henry I's many illegitimate children, had caused the grotesque mutilation and death of his brother, which had appalled his royal cousin/' In fact, all these men were fortunate to have been left with their lives and most of their lands intact. It simply does not work to settle blindly upon unexplained fines from the record evidence to show the extortionist tendencies of the Angevin monarchs. 7 I am reminded of the "unfortunate" thirteenth-century noble who complained vociferously that his predecessor had been dispossessed

116

F E U D A L T A X A T I O N U N D E R H E N R Y II by H e n r y II w i t h o u t justice, as the result of an unpaid gambling debt. 8 O n e thing is certain: if you plan to gamble with the king, y o u should be prepared to lose. T h e revolt of H e n r y II's y o u n g sons Henry, Richard, and G e o f f r e y in 1173, encouraged and backed by members of the French court, was such a gamble; and it did not pay off. W. L. Warren sees the revolt in England as an "attempted revanche of the earls." 9 T r u e , the recently invested earls of Leicester, Chester, and H u n t i n g t o n p r o v e d disloyal, along with the m o r e seasoned earls of N o r f o l k and D e r b y . Yet the earls of Cornwall, Sussex, Essex, Surrey, P e m b r o k e , Salisbury, Warwick, N o r t h a m p t o n , and Gloucester all f o u g h t on the side of Henry II, as did most of the great magnates. 1 0 Still, the rebellion did occur. Warren includes the 1166 and 1172 surveys, and the 1168 and 1172 assessments, in a list of administrative provocations that helped bring it a b o u t . " In this connection, J o h n Morris 1 2 and D. E. Greenway 1 3 have pointed to the imposition of heavier assessm e n t s for knight service as a p r i m e reason w h y Simon of Beauc h a m p and Roger of M o w b r a y joined the rebels. But baronial opposition to the assessments was not nearly as widespread or eventful as has been imagined; further, the 1168 and 1172 levies w e r e not a factor in the rebellion. T h e taxation o f surplus knights' fees after 1166 hardly seems a s t r o n g e n o u g h issue to have caused the barons and earls to rise against the c r o w n . O n m a n y honors, like those of Robert of Stafford and Richard of H a y , n o excess knights' fees had been created in surplus of the traditional seruicium debitum, whereas the surplus that did exist on several other honors amounted to no m o r e than a fraction of a single knight's fee. Moreover, the pipe rolls s h o w that scutage under H e n r y II for the tenants-in-chief was an occasional tax at best. O n l y seven royal scutages were levied t h r o u g h o u t H e n r y ' s thirty-five year reign. O n each of these occasions, a sizeable n u m b e r of the tenants-in-chief remained unassessed either because they had served with the host, acted in s o m e other royal capacity, or were passed over by the exchequer. O f those w h o w e r e assessed, m a n y later received complete or partial pardons of the sums charged against them. Pardons were similarly granted by the c r o w n f r o m the 1168 aid.

117

F E U D A L T A X A T I O N U N D E R H E N R Y II Some barons who came under assessment in 1168 for the first and last time in the entire reign had the full amounts of their assessments remitted and consequently never paid a penny toward any of the royal taxes levied against knights' fees. This was the case with William II of Aubigny, earl of Sussex;14 Walter Fitz Robert of Clare; 15 William II of Mandeville, earl of Essex; 16 and Hugh of Lacy 17 —to name but a few. It is therefore hazardous to generalize that the baronage was inclined toward rebellion solely on the basis of the heavier assessments introduced in 1168 (or the feudal surveys themselves). A casual examination of the 1168 and 1172 assessment records of barons who revolted in 1173 goes far to support the above conclusion. Fewer than thirteen English tenants-in-chief by knight service are known to have played an active part in the revolt. 18 Of these, neither the earl of Huntingdon nor the earl of Chester had been charged for either levy. In five other cases, Walter of Wahull 19 and Gervase Paynel2" had not been assessed for surplus enfeoffments; Gilbert of Mountfichet 21 and Simon of Beauchamp 22 had had substantial portions of their assessments pardoned; and the earl of Derby 23 had received a full pardon from the 1168 aid and had not come under reassessment in 1172. One is hard pressed to show, then, that many of the barons who took part in the 1173 rebellion did so because they had been alienated by the taxation of surplus knights' fees. In contrast, Reginald, earl of Cornwall, was in debt to the crown for £358 in 1173 for past military assessments, 24 yet the earl remained one of Henry II's most loyal supporters in England throughout the two years of rebellion. Given the ties between the monarchy and the baronage already noted, along with the occasional nature of feudal taxation and the Angevin's liberal policy of pardons, there are strong grounds for doubting whether taxation in general or scutage in particular were ever a cause of enmity between Henry II and the Anglo-Norman tenants-in-chief. A more comprehensive examination of Henry II's financial dealings with the magnates and lesser nobles makes it possible to place his fiscal policies in a context of royal-baronial cooperation and interdependence—quite a different context from that traditionally presented by historians.

118

F E U D A L T A X A T I O N U N D E R H E N R Y II

II It is all but impossible to attempt a reconstruction of Henry II's overall financial dealings with the magnates because only a few fragments of the N o r m a n pipe rolls have survived. Many of the crown's tenants-in-chief held knights' fees and estates both in England and N o r m a n d y (see Table 19). Although the administration of the A n g l o - N o r m a n realm had never been fully integrated, even under King Henry I, there were important links between the regnum's t w o exchequers. Fines incurred in N o r m a n d y could be acquitted at the exchequer in England and vice versa. 2 ' Reliefs and fines to gain possession of transChannel holdings were often debited at one exchequer or the other. 2 6 And members of the trans-Channel baronage could and did come under assessments simultaneously on both sides of the Channel. 2 7 In other words, as far as Henry II's reign is concerned, the evidence permits us to see only half of what actually transpired; and any statement of royal-baronial relations must take this into account. Fortunately, the 1180 N o r m a n pipe roll is relatively complete, but before venturing to analyze it, something must be said of the inherent dangers in working with figures from a single pipe roll. Many historians are accustomed to stating that a baron paid a certain amount, say 1,000m., when what they really mean is that 1,000m. was assessed. T h e distinction between assessment and payment is critical. According to W. L. Warren, William of Briouze, lord of Bramber and several Welsh honors (121 kf.: E/W), "paid 1,000m." for a moiety of his grandfather's honor of Barnstaple (28 kf.: E). 28 Warren cites Pipe Roll 23 Henry II as his source. T h e roll, however, states that William owed, not paid, 1,000m. 2 9 Actually, this debt first appears on Pipe Roll 4 Henry II in 1158. 30 T h e debt is carried on the rolls year after year until 1179, with no reduction of the amount through payment. When William does finally begin to pay off the debt, he does so in sums ranging f r o m £6 to £57. By the end of Henry II's reign, only some £200 of the initial 1,000m. (£666) had in fact been paid. 31 William's heir continued to make small payments in Richard's reign, and in 1201 the remainder of the debt, £426, was fully

119

TABLE 19 Some Trans-Channel Fee-Holders, ca. 1173 English/Welsh/ Cheshire Fees

Norman Fees

Leicester, Robert III e.

157

138

Chester, Hush e. of

198

Gloucester, William e. of

322

Surrey, Hameline e. of

lUO

Name

52 2 5 ab

b

Eu, Henry cnt. of

63

b

Tosny, Ro«er of

52

50

Courcy, William of

1»6

51 1 b

Sussex, William II e. of Lisieux, Arnulph bsp. of

163 8

Essex, William of Mandeville e. of

110

U3 b

20

b

Aumale, William cnt. of Briouze, William of Nonant, Roger of Roumare, William of Lucy, Richard of

121

1»

75

12

69 8 plus l»2a

11» 17 12

Moiun. William of

UT

Bohun, Humphrey IV of

6I

2

St. Valéry, Bernard of

50

b

Hommet, Richard of

3a

18

Laigle, Richer of

36

6

Pomeray, Henry of

32

b

Percy, Gerbert of

31

U

Tilly, Henry of

16

Mansion, Robert

16

b 5*»

Patri, William

15

3

Fitz Herneis, Eudo

2

Sifrevast, William of a ^Fees held as mesne'tenant Fees held in chief unknown

1

f

.50

F E U D A L T A X A T I O N U N D E R H E N R Y II pardoned by King John. 32 Thus William of Briouze farmed Barnstaple for more than twenty years before even beginning to pay off the sum he had promised the crown. And in the end, only some £240 was ever paid in at the exchequer. The amount of an assessment, then, is less significant than the actual payment, and accounts often must be traced over several years, decades, and even reigns before we can be certain of the facts. " The assessments on the Norman pipe roll of 1180 must therefore be treated with caution. The following list is a representative sample of the various accounts as they appear in the 1180 roll: Ingelram Patri owes £100 because he left the court of the king without permission and for disseisins of the men of Rouen. N o payment. 34 Fulk of Alnou owes £117 17s. 6d. from his fine for the land of Flers. N o payment. 3 ' Herbert, brother of Alured of Ferrers, owes £99 10s. from his fine to marry the daughter of Ermeneld. Paid: 10s.3f' Clementia, sometime wife of Robert of Montfort, owes £500 from her fine for the custody of her children and her husband's estates. Paid: £200.37 Hugh of Gournay owes £100 because he did not respond to the justices' summons to attend a forest assize. N o payment. 38 Gerard of Camville owes £879 from the debt of his father. £879 pardoned to Gerald and the account is quit. 39 Robert of Mortimer owes £40 for disseisins. £40 pardoned to Robert and the account is quit. 4 " Thomas of Tornebu owes £800 from his fine to have the lands of his brother Simon. Paid: £200.41 121

F E U D A L T A X A T I O N U N D E R H E N R Y II Robert, count of Meulan, owes £4 4s. f r o m the debt of William of Moreville. Paid: 58s. 42 Peter Paynel owes £500 as his fine to have the lands of his father. Paid: £200. 43 Hameline, earl of Surrey (Warenne), owes £20 from past forest pleas. £20 pardoned to the earl and the account is quit. 44 These accounts are not too dissimilar from those found on the English pipe rolls in the reign of Henry II—reliefs and an assortment of charges for possession of land, marriage, the custody of minor heirs, unlawful disseisin, leaving or refusing to come to courts of justice, forest pleas, and other debts the origins of which can only be guessed at. O n e important difference, of course, is the money of account. T h e English pound sterling in the twelfth century was valued four times higher than the Norman money of account, the Angevin pound. Thus, the largest debt noted above, £879 angevin, amounts to less than £220 sterling, whereas the largest payment shown, £200 angevin, comes to £50 sterling. Much more research is needed on the twelfth-century N o r m a n economy before w e can determine how these sums compare relatively with those paid and assessed in England. Until then, it would seem safe to reserve j u d g m e n t on whether Henry II exacted heavier sums f r o m his English than his N o r m a n tenants. It can be said that the pattern of assessment and payment was about the same in N o r m a n d y as in England. Debts ran over a course of several years with little or no payment, others were paid promptly, and still others were pardoned. But because of the fragmentary nature of the N o r m a n evidence, this study of royal-baronial financial arrangements before 1189 must be limited to England. Ill Although twelfth-century society was largely agrarian, it was also very much a monied society. Few transactions of any importance took place without some silver exchanging hands. John of

122

F E U D A L T A X A T I O N U N D E R H E N R Y II Salisbury, in a letter to his fellow Englishman Pope Adrian IV, asks the pontiff whether he has sent Baldwin, archdeacon of Norwich, to England to collect 700m. as the payment from William of Blois, earl of Surrey, for a papal hearing of certain pleas against the king. 45 The pleas, no doubt, were a consequence of Henry II's seizure of the earl's castles and nonhereditary AngloNorman fiefs—pleas that would not have had much chance of being heard in a royal court. Whatever the case, the letter indicates that the Holy See was as interested in the profits of justice as in dispensing justice. Closer to home, Hugh of Ralegh offered John Marshal, senior, 80 silver marks, 2 gold talents, and an ounce of gold to hold the manor of Nettlecombe (county Somerset) for the service of one knight. In the next generation, the Ralegh heir paid John Marshal, junior, 130 silver marks to renew the grant. 46 Roger of Mowbray accepted gifts of 50m., 80m., 121m., and £100 from various monasteries to confirm previous grants from the Mowbray honor and to receive new grants. 47 This brief summary is not meant to exonerate the fiscal policies of the Angevin monarchs, but rather to call attention to a simple relevant point: the dispensation of justice, lands, and privilege is always paid for, whether one looks to the Church, the crown, or the baronage. This is the reality of the times. The practice did not begin in the twelfth century, nor did it end there. Thirty-five miscellaneous fines levied during the period 1161-1186, and accounted for at the English exchequer, are traced in Table 20. The figure of the total payment divided by the number of years the account ran provides a means of comparing the actual severity of fines of varying amounts with a common unit. (A £200 fine paid off over a period of ten or twenty years was certainly less burdensome than a £100 fine paid off in one or two years.) The brackets in column 9 indicate that an account was either joined with another and was untraceable, that it disappeared from the rolls without quittance or cancellation, or that it ran beyond 1218. In this case, it was not possible to determine the per annum index. O f those assessed, Radulf Brito, Hugh of Mortimer, Hugh of Ralegh, Hugh Pincerna, Gilbert of Pinkeney, William of Chesney, Roger of Stuteville, and William Basset were all sheriffs or

123

Range

1 H 0)

«

ha Vt O

¡3

£

£

M 'H

•S 41 H •H C > O o «H rH O i 4> ki JS 41 H V 4» o s •H 'flj 41 •H O O » flC 33 O as 3 k

i

M > M M M M M

+> m n ä l

£

u

4) c

M O M o

6û — S

m h 4>

S o

C O

fc

li t «s rH •H O co s à J5 U O o VH 0 Ä Cl! o 4) •o Cu s* h O i •H •H 4> rH rH rH X» •H •H 1 •H * » O h

fi

§

£

a •r» u

tu v

w 3

a» g

s X 3 01 V c •tí w CU e a < M

ir

01 h M c 3

VO

c oo J H (M

+>

on o cu H

JOO H H

OJ rH OJ H

rH S OO H rH eu rH rH t—

o\ t— .-i rH

vo VO H rH

IP OO rH rH

OO O CD VO VO UN t - co m Í - t - OO rH rH H rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH rH

H

t - CM CM

eu oo VO OO CO OO oo 1— O oo rH rH rH H r- rH H rH H

rH H tCM rH H rH

«

•H I 1 rH rH 01 «) +> +> c •H CO Si C a M 1 01 01 +> 41 C 01 ai 0) a +>

fc.

I CO

Si rH H rH VO CO ao CJ rH H

UN

«o

S u

cu rH VO VO rH \

CM CO rH rH

oo vo U> CO O CO UN vo CO t— CO UN rH rH rH rH H H rH H rH rH H H

Ov 0O rH rH

VO UN oo VO t— OO r- H H rH H

O trH rH

VO VO rH rH

UN UN UN vo UN 0O O VO OO vo VO VO OO t M H rH t~ H H rH H rH rH 1— rH H rH

O

O




01

£

li > fe ij

«

lVO

O

o o cv

n en rH

tt-

Ci on m

O O CM

o o cv

o o eu

vo en -a- cr rH rH

H es

*

O ca

>

M

(H

M H H

V

o CU

vo VO VO O VO VO en O VO VO VO CTVO VO m VO PO VO OJ VO J - VO

1 H *> PL. t, T. S 11 01 fio fi01 H fi O p o « (C fc (S

0) g 5 o h aj

»

O •H

ȣ

a) O S) «H > O

«H O Vi •O O

»

ai

8 c ai h •ri > ai M •rt rH 1) H (d K O >

g .c 0 m n Vt T> ai o t. >1 « 0) u h « ai •p B H ai

«

>

H

C 3 JS o m u o h «H Ì o g S à o >1 O

rH O •H rH rH n •tí

3 p ai m

KL V PU

1

C C 3

u A) >I

X OI •TÍ E I—I

O> M C A) «

•P •H S,

u

RH RH

O

OJ ÍH

M

C* CTV RH RH

TVO RH RH

OJ

OJ

H

RH

O O RH

CO RH

CA RH

RH

CO

OI OJ

O O OJ H

O V£> RH H

M RH RH

ON CO RH RH

+

OJ — I—(

IA

CO

ON ON

CO RH

CO

1RH

OJ RH OJ

OI O OI RH

IA T~RH RH

+

—

OJ

OL

> > -1

ON ON

J -

ON RH

T—

VO M

OL

T— H

CA

T -

VO

ON

RH O OJ RH

RCA R—

CA C7\ H RH

OJ T RH RH

TT— RH H

F CO H H

T CO RH RH

+

'—

ON

OJ OO CO

>-L

H P H CO A P P E CO •H C E HH

u

1 CO CO P AI C UL A) CO S TI

M T-1 «


IJ

»-I I—I

HH H

1—1 N M

> M

M HH HH

> M

M M

M

O

M M H

M M M

> M

M M

> > M

H

•P

£

U) •H B

•B C0 •H RH M B

M

fi

>»

•

fl —

>>

• 4) S 3 S

È B 0) S

•H CO

RH 01 O L*.

VO VO

01

>>

•P ß 3 O O

VO VO

VI O E S S

B •H RH 01 • VI VI B •H TI O E S 3

CD U OL 6 E

>J CD

U 01 S O A. CM O

>1 H E M X

£

»

D TO VI O

s

W 3 S

VI O S S -RI RH RH •RH

»

•O B A) VI VI •H O CO 0) •IH RH H

CO 01 RH AT O TO

«M O S 3 •H RH RH •RL

>

JQ

C 0) E-« VI 0 CM RH 3 U CO A) S

C O P T£ B •H

h u

O EH CM O

•P

^

3 O CI C •H

< VI O

fi fi a

O •"3

C

O

fi

RH RH 01 B M 3

B O •H H 01 B

fe. «H O

B 0) RH




•P O

VL O

•P

u

fi 01

O OH

+> 01

> 3 RA

VI O •Ö KL II X O •H OS

•P CO AD

>

+> A) O •RI

CO •H

•H

01 B •H RH 01

CO RH 01 > O> H

3 J

>

S. O H

C0

B -H 0)

01 01 [I. ID

•ri

J3 CI 1 B •H 1 •P B CD C 01 •P

xt

>>

•tí

a

CM

IH 3 BO •H VI

fi 0>

F

0)

+>

f>

f¡

(C CL,

•P O S

01 Q

O

O> •P O

F E U D A L T A X A T I O N U N D E R H E N R Y II

IV Scutages and feudal aids imposed on lay tenancies-in-chief in early Angevin England were occasional. In the sixty-two-year period separating Henry II's coronation in 1154 and his son John's death in 1216, only twenty-two feudal assessments were levied in common against the laity. A sampling o f assessments o f lay tenancies-in-chief from all four fee levels is given in Appendix IV. The frequency o f assessments by year o f levy is set forth in Table 23, which reflects the continuous low rate o f assessments over the entire sixty-two-year period. On average, less than half the tenancies in this sample, 42 percent, answered for assessments on knights' fees. The yearly averages, however, vary widely. The highest, 84 percent, occurred in 1168 with the aid for the marriage o f Henry II's daughter. This illustrates the significance o f the 1168 aid and the Cartae baromun preceding it. The lowest rate o f assessment was in 1210, when only 5 percent o f the lay tenancies were assessed. This low rate reflects, in part, King John's mobilization o f the English baronage for the 1210 Irish campaign and an irregular recording o f assessments that year in the pipe rolls. When subgroups o f tenancies in fee levels I and II and fee levels III and IV are considered, it becomes apparent that the wealthiest and most heavily enfeoffed tenancies, those in levels I and II, were consistently assessed at a lower rate. Three exceptions to this pattern are found under the levies o f 1190, 1194, and 1209, but in each case the difference in frequency o f assessment is no greater than 3 percent. Thus, despite the exceptions just noted, the yearly average frequency o f assessment for fee levels I and II is much lower (35 percent) than the 52-percent figure for levels III and IV. The obvious conclusion is that feudal assessments were a minor factor in the taxation o f lay tenants-in-chief and that their incidence tended to be inversely proportional to the tenants' wealth. This conclusion becomes clearer if the assessment frequencies are broken down by fee level for the reigns o f Henry II (Table 24), Richard I (Table 25), and John (Table 26). For the purposes o f this analysis, earldoms have been factored out as a separate fee level category. Although few in number, earldoms in the early 134

TABLE 23 Frequency of Assesement of Lay Tenancies-in-Chief for Scutages and Feudal Aids, 1159-121U Year of Levy

Frequency of Assessment Levels I and II (*)

1159

11

Levels III and IV (*)

All Fee Levels (*)

18

1U

ll6l

1U

1(2

25

1162

26

uu

33

1165

51 81

62

1168

55 8U

1172

1»0

89 68

1187

51

33

39

1190

57

5U

55

1191»

57

5U

55

1195 1196

58

75

69

U7

57

51

1199

32

80

51

1201

38

76

1202

20

53 38 36

35

1203

22

67 56

120U

8

25

15

1205

63

6U

63

1206

9

UU

23

1209

22 5

19 U

21

1210 1211

30

53

39

I21U

Uo

53

1*5

35

52

1»2

Yearly Average Source:

Appendix

5

IV.

Note:. lUU tenancies-in-chief are included in the sample for 1159-1196; 107 tenancies-in-chief are included in the sample for 1199-121U.

F E U D A L T A X A T I O N U N D E R H E N R Y II Angevin period contained almost one-third of all the knights' fees in England (31 percent). 57 Thus, the frequency with which earldoms came under assessment in the period covered by this book has a major bearing on the number of fees brought under assessment. Further, in looking at assessment frequencies, it is necessary to take account of instances in which substantial pardons of assessments were forthcoming (that is, pardons from 50 to 100 percent of the sums charged) or in which assessments were made during minorities and escheats. In the first instance, the fact of an assessment is negated by the subsequent pardon; in the second, there was a greater chance for an assessment to be made if a tenancy was lordless. Viewed in this context, Tables 24-26 reveal that the magnate and baron classes rarely answered for scutage or feudal aids. First, let us consider the details of assessment during the reign of Henry II. During the seven royal levies, there was an opportunity for some 140 individual assessments against earldoms, but in actuality only 42 assessments (30 percent) were ever made. Of these assessments, more than half (62 percent) either were pardoned or came while an earldom was in wardship or royal custody. In comparison, there were 210 opportunities for assessment in the level IV fiefs in our sample, and 104 (54 percent) were in fact levied. And, it should be pointed out, only 5 percent of the assessments at this fee level were pardoned. Figures for the remaining fee levels fall somewhere between the 30-percent rate for earldoms and the 54-percent rate for the level IV fiefs. A similar pattern emerges if we look at the data for Richard's and John's reigns, but there is one noteworthy difference. Despite the greater number of levies under John, there was a decrease in assessment frequency over the two previous reigns: 35 percent for John, 56 percent for Richard, and 43 percent for Henry II. Some historians might see in these statistics evidence for the decline of scutage as a viable royal institution, effecting some degree of loss to the crown. This view has been expressed by M. M. Postan, who writes: "By the end of the twelfth century scutage was on its way out. By then the greater magnates appear to have been exempted from it, as were apparently the more recently created knights' fees." 58 But the high frequency of exemp-

136

o «s

o •o a) ai

S

m

ir»

H

ir\

U

U

0 " » C ^ d Ci CV «I S t-t

m

CM

§

S

U

H •J

o C ^ "m «¡ o e

on J-

£ Ü m Si6 ai to • o to I C 0) ; «s co S 3

JC\J C\J

o H C\J

o H C\J

r£ *tí O • v. -o • OH J O «

te

ß Vi •H o

•o c a> p.

1

ai > ai •J ai ai

ai > ai •J ai ai Et.

ai > ^ai ai ai

a>> a> J ai a) h

£ 3 S

o co

•tí o o • •tí H 'tí a> ai co o tn 01 43 co ai a> m w co oí o 01 a) i/\

os

Il II II * j ai ¡§

— ,

^

o

£

o

o

t— H

o\

co rH

vo

t-

o H

t— rH

CVJ ro

OJ ^

•—.

M

/í

a) V

,—.

Vi o vû Vi 0\ rH V i rH 01 1 •H O rC o\ O rH 1 rH C •H 1 M

l-i m •P c Si S CO co 01 to to C


.

9 E-i

d

ai •o c

Vl O

to •O •p •H

a
J

ai H p. a 3 CQ

^

o

,

o\

'—

o

,, rH

H

-=r OJ

IA

OJ rH

H VO

o\ lA

O CO

tt—

o s

OJ oj

LA

rH VO

\o

Os

0\

m

VO t-

o co

o cu

_ H -

IA

•

O a

_

o

OJ

VD

O rH

—

t-

*—




rH 01

rH 01

rH 01

rH 01

01

01 •J

Ol 1-3

01 •J

01 01 b.

01 01 PH

01 01

01 01 h

LA

IA

•p ttì 01 x: o co 01

T3 ai c o •o Vi k. O a) a f-> •P •p •H c u ai o e c co •rt co e ai to a) to a) to c Vi •H O

c -H

U) C •H Vl T) O rH O w

co e o Tj H H 3 H

¡»

J

>

>

fe.

•O C 0) O. O.


o E-»

S

O co

ai •P o 8

II

li




c 01 s 0) u ti io IO

•