YALE HISTORICAL PUBLICATIONS STUDIES . II PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY FROM THE INCOME OF THE FREDERICK JOHN KINGSBURY MEMORIAL FUND STUDIES IN TAXATION UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III BY SYDNEY KNOX MITCHELL, PH.D. Assistant Professor of History in Yale College NEW HAVEN: YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS LONDON: HUMPHREY MILFORD OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS MDCCCCXIV M5 COPYRIGHT, 1914, BY YALE UNIVERSITY PRESS Printed from type, 400 copies, June, 1914 TO MY MOTHER PREFACE THE following studies on taxation were originally written several years ago to fulfil in part the requirements for the degree of doctor of philosophy at Yale University. Since that time they have been rewritten and material taken from manuscript sources has been added. My plan has been to give as complete an account as possible of each tax levied during the reigns of John and Henry III, presenting all the material in print and as much from the unprinted rolls as could be gathered within a limited time. A more careful study of the unprinted exchequer rolls will undoubtedly modify many of the statements made here, but until that study has been completed, or until the rolls have been printed and put into the hands of students of English history, this essay may be of service. In common with other students, I have enjoyed the privileges of the Public Record Office, meeting always with unfailing courtesy on the part of the officials who often aided me in reading difficult passages in the manu- script. To the officials of the Yale University Library also I am grateful for generous consideration in the use of books. For assistance in preparing the volume for the press, I am indebted to Professor Charles M. Andrews, who has read both the manuscript and the proof and made suggestions and corrections from which I have profited much. Above all, I wish to acknowledge my obligation to Professor George Burton Adams, at whose suggestion these studies were undertaken. He has at all times placed freely at my disposal his wide and accurate vn PREFACE knowledge of the period, and at the cost of time taken from his own researches has read and criticised the work with unwearied care and kindness. Lastly, I record with gratitude the cooperation of my wife, whose constant aid in collecting the material and in preparing it for publication has been of the greatest service. S. K. M. Vlll TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION PAGE Analysis of the royal income at the close of the twelfth century The ordinary revenue The extraordinary revenue Insufficient amount of the ordinary in- come Inquests of 1166 Number of knights' fees in England Scutage in the twelfth century Taxes on property before John Subjects treated in the studies of this book General statement concerning each of the following in the thirteenth century: dona from religious bodies, tallage, scutage and military service, aids Amount of the ordinary income under John 1 CHAPTER II THE TAXES IN DETAIL FROM 1199 TO 1206 General statement of the matter contained in the chapter The taxes of 1199, military service, scutage and fines, tallage, dona from religious houses The carucage of 1200, occasion, composition allowed, opposition to the tax, assessment The taxes of 1201, military service, scutage and fines, tallage, aid on men of the Channel Isles, the fortieth for the crusade The taxes of 1202, military service, scutage and fines The taxes of 1203, military service, scutage and fines, tallage, dona ix TABLE OF CONTENTS from religious houses, the seventh of personal property, pretext for its levy, when levied, by whom paid, method of assessment, significance of the levy, the fifth of revenues in the Channel Isles The taxes of 1204, military service, scutage and fines, dona from religious houses, tallage, fifteenth of the property of merchants, amount yielded, method of assessment and collection The taxes of 1205, mili- tary service, scutage and fines, tallage The taxes of 1206, military service, scutage and fines, tallage . 17 CHAPTER III THE THIRTEENTH OF 1207 Summary of the matter in the chapter Grant of the tax by the great council Men taxed Composition allowed Taxation of the royal demesne Assess- ment and collection Amount yielded Significance of the levy ......... M CHAPTER IV THE TAXES IN DETAIL FROM 1208 TO 1216 Summary of the matter contained in the chapter The expedition against the Scots, military service, levy of scutage The expedition to Ireland, military service, levy of scutage, fines, tallage The expedi- tion to Wales, military service, levy of scutage Development of the account of scutage rendered in the Pipe Roll Taxation of religious houses and the Jews Royal income from church lands during the interdict Partial service rendered by tenants in 1213 The taxes of 1214, military service, levy of scutage, tallage . . . . . .93 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER V THE TAXES IN DETAIL FROM 1216 TO 1229 Summary of material in the chapter The twentieth of 1216 The taxes of 1217, fines during the civil war, carucage, indemnity in connection with the peace of 1217, methods of raising money, aid on the knight's fee, tallage, contribution from Ireland The carucage of 1220 The Biham campaign, levy of scutage The poll tax of 1222 The Welsh expedition of 1223, levy of scutage, tallage The taxes of 1224, the Bedford campaign, levy of scu- tage, carucage of the clergy The fifteenth of 1225, a grant by the great council, classes taxed, assess- ment and collection The receipts from the fif- teenth The sixteenth of 1226, assessment and collection The tallage of 1226, connection with the confirmation of charters The Welsh campaign of 1228, levy of scutage The papal tenth of 1229, occasion, assessment and collection . . .119 CHAPTER VI THE TAXES IN DETAIL FROM 1229 TO 1242 Summary of the matter contained in the chapter The expedition to Gascony, two scutages levied, the scutage of Brittany, grant of aid by the bishops instead of scutage, dona from religious houses, tallage, taxation of the Jews, the scutage of Poitou, opposition of the clergy The expedition to Wales in 1231, levy of the scutage of Elveyn The fortieth, 1232, occasion, grant by the great council, classes which paid the aid, assessment and collection, amount yielded, points of difference between the fifteenth and the fortieth The campaign against Richard Marshal in 1233, no scutage levied The xi TABLE OF CONTENTS tallage of 1234 The aid of 1235, occasion, granted by the great council, assessment and collection, inquest into knights' fees, dona from religious houses, taxation of sergeants, tallage The thirtieth of 1237, occasion, grant by the great council, classes taxed, assessment and collection, the receipts, tallage of the Jews, contribution from Ireland Tallage of 1238 Tallage of the Jews in 1241 Expedition to Wales in 1241, tallage, roll of reduced servitium debit um . . . . . .179 CHAPTER VII THE TAXES IN DETAIL FROM 1242 TO 1253 Summary of the matter in the chapter The taxation of 1242, the expedition to France, levy of scutage and fines, assessment and collection, inquest into military service, aid from the bishops instead of scutage, dona from religious houses, other contri- butions, cost of the expedition The Scottish cam- paign The aid of 1245, grant by the great council, assessment and collection, dona from religious houses The expedition to Wales, levy of scutage and fines, tallage Royal devices to raise money from 1246 to 1253 222 CHAPTER VIII THE TAXES IN DETAIL FROM 1253 TO 1258 Summary of the matter contained in the chapter The expedition to Gascony of 1253, fines, dona, aid from the towns, the aid to knight the king's son, assess- ment, expenses of the king in Gascony, further royal requests for men and money against the king of Castile The tenth of the clergy, cases of papal taxation of the clergy after 1229, grant of the tenth TABLE OF CONTENTS in 1253, assessment and collection, the receipts, poverty of the royal exchequer The tallage of 1255 Welsh campaign of 1257, levy of scutage . 252 CHAPTER IX THE END OF THE REIGN Summary of the matter in the chapter Tallage of 1260 Papal taxation of the clergy in 1262 Tenth of the clergy in 1264 Fines in 1265 The tenth of three years in 1266, occasion, grant by the prel- ates, assessment and collection Tallage of 1268 Twentieth of the clergy in 1268 Twentieth of 1269, its grant, assessment and collection, receipts . 288 CHAPTER X SUMMARY Subject of the chapter Military service under John and Henry III Commutation for service in fines and scutages Tallage Dona from religious bodies The king's income Origin of modern taxation was the gracious aid; its three forms Aid on the knight's fee Carucage and taxation on moveables The great council under John and Henry III Composition and authority of the council Conclusion . 300 ABBREVIATIONS A. H. R. American Historical Review. E. H. R. English Historical Review. Rot. Litt. Glaus., I, II Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum, Record Commission, vols. I, II. Close Rolls, I, II, III, IV Close Rolls, 1227-1231, 1231- 1234, 1234-1237, 1237-1242. Rot. Litt. Pat. Rotuli Litterarum Patentium, Record Com- mission. Pat. Rolls, I, II Patent Rolls, 1216-1225, 1225-1232. Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, II, III, IV Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1232-1247, 1247-1258, 1258-1266, 1266-1272. Select Charters Stubbs, Select Charters, 8th ed. CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION FTHHE king's revenue at the close of the twelfth century may be classed as ordinary and extraordinary. By the ordinary revenue is meant that which came into the exchequer every year through the ordinary adminis- tration of the government. It was made up of several items, the chief of which were: the county farm, a fixed sum paid by the sheriff for the privilege of farming the revenue of the royal demesne and the fines of the local courts; amercements imposed by the king's justices for violations of the law; the firma burgi, a lump sum paid by certain towns for the privilege of farming the town revenues ; the income from the feudal incidents, reliefs, marriages, wardships, escheats, etc. ; fines or oblations, payments to the king for such privileges as the permis- sion to marry a certain person, the custody of the lands of minors, the bringing of cases into the king's court, the delaying or expediting a trial, and the grant and confirmation of charters. 1 With the income derived mainly from these sources, the king had to carry on his government in ordinary times. In a general way, he probably knew the amount. Besides the ordinary revenue, which did not always suffice for his needs, the king obtained in certain unusual cases an additional contribution, the extraordinary revenue. This revenue consisted of: 1, the three regular feudal aids ; 2, scutage from those military tenants who i The fines would include many of the cases under the head of the feudal incidents. STUDIES IN TAXATION failed to perform their service in the army in time of war; 3, an extra contribution called tallage, occasionally levied on his demesne; 4, sums called dona, or auxilia, taken less often from Jews, moneyers, prelates, and reli- gious houses. 2 None of these contributions would be taken to raise money for the ordinary expenses of the government. There was no assessment of property. In the case of the scutage, an attempt was made to propor- tion it to the size of the tenant's holding. It was paid at a fixed rate per fee for those fees from which service was owed to the king. The tallage varied in amount from one levy to another. 3 The dona on religious houses, Jews, etc., were set at round sums. These levies (except the scutage) were arbitrarily exacted by the king. The money was collected in different ways. The great lords responded personally for their contributions. The sheriff might assess the lesser tenants of the king. The tallages were usually assessed by the itinerant justices ; the money might be collected by the sheriff, but sometimes the towns paid it directly into the exchequer. In the twelfth century the customary income from all sources was already becoming insufficient. This was due in part to the great development of the machinery of the government which took place in Henry II's reign ; in part to the numerous foreign wars, the heavy expenses of the crusade and of Richard's ransom, and careless adminis- tration. A rise in prices was going on, probably slowly, from about 1190 to 1250. 4 It is likely that this increased the difficulties of the government somewhat. The machinery for collecting the income was inefficient. It 2 Baldwin, The Scutage and Knight Service in England, pp. 21, 22, 31, 39. a In 1156, London paid 120; in 1159, 1043. York paid 40 in 1156, 650 in 1162, and 200 in 1165. The variation is not usually so great (Baldwin, pp. 24, 25, 27). * Ramsay, Dawn of the Constitution, p. 301. UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III was impossible for the exchequer to compel the prompt payment of dues. The rolls are full of debts which have run on for years. Instead of insisting on the payment of the full sum as a government would do to-day, arrange- ments were often made with a debtor to pay a certain amount each year till the debt was discharged. 5 A con- siderable part of the revenue was thus continually in arrears. The government was accordingly forced to devise means to increase the national income. This seems to have been the purpose of the inquest of knights' fees of 1166. The military service owed by tenants to the king had been fixed at some time after the conquest; it corresponded only very roughly to the amount of land held by each vassal. While a few tenants had enfeoffed exactly the number of knights whose service they owed the king, some had enfeoffed more, and others fewer. The inquest asked each tenant in chief: 1, for how many knights he owed service to the king (this was the servitium debitum) ; 2, how many knights had been enfeoffed before the death of Henry I (this was the old enfeoffment) ; 3, how many had been enfeoffed since (this was the new enfeoffment). Whenever the number of knights enfeoffed, both new and old, exceeded the servitium debitum, the king considered this as the servitium of the holding and collected scutage on it. If, however, the number of knights enfeoffed fell short of the old servitium, the latter remained as the servitium debitum of the holding. 6 This attempt to *E.g. Walter de Lacy owed 933 6s 8d. He paid 113 6s 8d and thereafter was to pay 200 marks yearly (Rotulua Cancellarii, 3 John, p. 108). In the case of a churchman, the servitium debitum is usually referred to as the knights "quos recognoscit," and the excess charged against them as the knights "quos non recognoscit." On the subject of the service owed by the tenants in chief originally and the changes introduced by Henry II, see Round, Feudal England, pp. 225-314, and Baldwin, pp. 33-39. STUDIES IN TAXATION increase the knights' service owed to the king, and conse- quently the scutage, was not entirely successful. 7 The number of fees of the servitium debitum is esti- mated by Round at about 5,000. 8 The number does not seem too small. The aid of 1168 amounted to about 6,000 marks. 9 As the rate was one mark per fee, the number of fees would be about 6,000, but the account is incomplete and includes fees of the new enfeoffment. No attempt has been made in this essay to ascertain the total servitium debitum of England. It has been shown below that the number of fees in the kingdom which might pay scutage in the thirteenth century approached 7,000. 10 This number is larger than the old servitium debitum, for the custom seems to have been to collect scutage on the old enfeoffment when that was larger than the servitium debitum and from the old servitium when that in turn exceeded the old enfeoffment. 11 The new enfeoffment was not taxed, except in the case of honors in hand when all the fees enfeoffed were taxed. The calculations which are given below of the number of fees which paid scutage and those which were exempt on account of service are based not on the servitium debitum, but on the number which might pay scutage. Such calculations will not vitiate the correctness of the proportion existing between the part taxed and the part exempt, for an excess over the servi- tium debitum in the fees taxed will be balanced by a similar excess in the fees exempt. During the reign of Henry II, the scutage was the commutation of service with the host. Early in the reign, the rate had risen to two marks per fee (1m = 13s 4d, or two-thirds of a pound), though after 1161, the customary 7 Baldwin, pp. 43, 67. 8 Round, Feudal England, p. 292. Baldwin, p. 39. 10 See below, p. 302. 11 See below, p. 301. UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III rate was twenty shillings or less. 12 But the wages of the knight had increased and twenty shillings was not enough to enable the king to hire a substitute for the tenant whose service was thus commuted into money. 18 For this reason, apparently, the effort was made to obtain from the tenants who did not wish to take part in a campaign a larger sum which would more nearly equal the real value of the tenant's service. The practice is found in Richard's reign, if not earlier. The sums were called fines ne trans- fretent or pro passagio. 1 * They were larger than the scutage would have been, were taken in place of it, and were not at a fixed rate per fee. In return, the tenant in chief was allowed to absent himself from the campaign and collect scutage from his tenants and thus partly recoup himself. Besides these purely feudal devices for increasing the revenue, there were, just before the accession of John, some levies of an entirely different nature. They began the transition from feudal to modern taxation for they were based on property, not tenure, and they employed new machinery, 15 the local bodies (the county, the hun- dred, and the vill), to assist the royal officials who repre- sented the central government, to assess and collect the tax. The new taxes finally supplanted most of the feudal taxes because they yielded more money. The first case 12 In 1162, 1165, and 1168, one mark; in 1172 and 1187, 20s; in 1190, 10s; the scutages of Richard were at 20s. is In Richard's reign a knight might receive Is a day ( William Salt Archceological Society Collections, II, 54); in 1199, knights in castles in Devon received the same (Pipe Roll, 1 John, m. 17 d). In 1198 the abbot of St. Edmunds paid knights for service in Normandy 3s a day (Chronica, Joceline de Brakelond, p. 63). i* "de hiis qui finem fecerunt pro passagio"; "habet quietantiam de scutagio suo per finem quern fecit cum rege"; "isti finem fecerunt pro passagio" (Red Book of the Exchequer, Rolls Series, I, 102, 106, note, 115). is That is, new in assessing and collecting taxes. STUDIES IN TAXATION was not a levy for national purposes. In 1166, a tax of six pence in every pound's worth of personal property was taken for the relief of the Holy Land. 16 In 1188, an important step was taken introducing a modern idea of taxation. A tenth of personal property (except arms, horses, dress, and precious stones) was levied for the crusade. The assessment was made by parishes. In each, two churchmen of the parish, a Templar, a Hospitaller, a sergeant and a clerk of the king, a sergeant and a clerk of the baron of the parish, and a clerk of the bishop of the diocese formed the body of assessors. Each man swore to the value of his revenues and personal property before this commission. If it was believed that anyone had sworn falsely, the value of his property was fixed by a jury of four or six men of the parish. Crusaders were exempt and also received the tithes of their men. Those who tried to evade the tax were excommunicated. 17 Though the purpose of this levy was religious, it was a national tax, and what is more significant, it suggested to the king the source from which an increased revenue could be drawn and indicated the machinery of assess- ment. That this suggestion did not pass unnoticed is shown by the fact that when in 1193-1194 it was necessary to raise 100,000 marks for Richard's ransom, the same kind of a tax was levied, amounting on this occasion to a fourth of revenues and moveables. 18 The amount raised i Two pence in each pound the first year and then a penny in the pound for four successive years, making six pence in all; those whose property was less than a pound should pay a penny (Gervase of Canterbury, I, 198) ; Chronica Roberti de Toreigni, in Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, Rolls Series, ed. Richard Hewlett, IV, 227; Pipe Roll, 13 Henry II, p. 194; A. Cartellieri, Philipp II, August, Vol. I. "Benedict of Peterborough, ed. Stubbs, Rolls Series, II, 31; Stubbs, Select Charters, ed. 1895, p. 160; Cartellieri, Vol. II. is Roger of Hoveden, ed. Stubbs, Rolls Series, III, 225; the total ransom was 100,000. UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III was insufficient and this was said to be due to the pecula- tion of the collectors. No special machinery was employed and there may not have been a careful assessment, a fact which may account for the failure to obtain a larger sum. 19 Another new expedient for taxing property was the hidage or carucage. The first example of this was in connection with Richard's ransom. It was a tax on the hides or carucates of the Domesday assessment 20 and was called a hidage in the accounts which we have, but as hide and carucate were names for the same thing in different parts of England, hidage and carucage were the same tax. The next levy was the carucage of 1198, which was taken to supply money for the war in France. 21 The tax met with opposition, for the religious houses refused to pay it, and in consequence the king took from them the protection of the courts. By this act their position was rendered so unbearable that they had to buy back the royal protection and thus furnish the king with the desired contribution. 22 The taxable unit was the plough- land or carucate of 100 acres. 23 A new assessment was made which should be noticed, for, with some variation, it was that which was employed in the new taxes of the thirteenth century. Two commissioners, a knight and a clerk, were sent into each county. Probably the sheriff summoned the county court to meet them and then two knights were chosen from each hundred. Before this body of four, the reeve and four men of each vill and the bailiffs of barons holding lands in that vill made oath to the number of carucates in the vill. Four rolls of the is Baldwin, pp. 68, 70. 20 Ibid.; Hov., Ill, 240. 21 Hov. } IV, 46, 47. 22 Ibid., IV, 66. On the carucage of 1198, see Round, E. H. R., Ill, 501. 23 That is, 100 long acres or 120 acres. STUDIES IN TAXATION vill were drawn up : one each for the clerk, the knight, and the sheriff, and one for the bailiff, containing an account of the lands of his lord. The money was to be collected by the two elected knights and the bailiff of each hundred, who paid it to the sheriff, and he delivered it at the exchequer with the rolls. 24 It is doubtful whether this assessment was fully carried out. Later in the year, the itinerant justices were ordered to inquire how far the assessment and collection had been made. 25 Many counties fined for their carucage in lump sums, the amount charged against twenty- three counties being 1,516 marks. 26 At this rate, the total sum realised from Eng- 2* Hov., IV, 46. 25 Ibid., 62. 2 Accounts of a carucage appear in twenty counties in the Pipe Roll of 1199 and of three counties (York, Warwick, and Leicester) in 1200. In eighteen of these the county paid a lump sum; in four, round sums were charged against the hundreds and in Wilts, one vill was charged with 10. These probably did not belong to the carucage of 1200 levied by John, for in some cases it is stated that they belonged to the carucage of Richard's time: "pro quietantia ne fiat inquisitio de carrucagio posito tempo re regis Ricardi" (Pipe Roll, 1 John, m. 3 d). They can hardly refer to the carucage of 1194; in every case, the amount charged was a round sum; it was plainly the first proffer at the exchequer. It seems reasonable, therefore, to assign these sums to the levy of 1198. The entries follow: Rutland, 20m "de fine comitatus pro carrucagio"; Gloucester- shire, 100m "pro quietantia carrucagii"; Worcestershire, 35m "de comitatu pro quietantia de inquisitione carrucagii"; Warwickshire, 100m; Leicestershire, 100m; Salop, 30m; Hertfordshire, 60m; Essex, 150m; Bedfordshire, 80m; Bucks, 120m; Berks, 70m; Northampton- shire, 150m "de comitatu pro remanenda inquisitione carrucagii"; Yorkshire, 100m; Staffordshire, 30m; Oxfordshire, 120m; Surrey, 40m; Hereford, 30m; Dorset, 150m; Cambridge and Huntington, 51m (17 hundreds charged with 40s each) ; Norfolk and Suffolk, 165m (48 hundreds at 40s each, 3 hundreds at 60s each and 2 hundreds at 4 each); Wilts, 15m (one vill). See also Ramsay, Angevin Empire, p. 358. Possibly these fines refer, not to the original payment of carucage, but to fines made by the counties in order to escape the further inquest into the assessment which the itinerant justices had been ordered to make. 8 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III land could hardly have exceeded 2,500 marks, only a frac- tion of what a strict assessment would have yielded. Thus, at the close of the twelfth century, there were examples of all the taxes levied under John and his son. The machinery for their assessment and collection had been devised and it will be found that it did not vary much throughout the period. The change which took place lay in the attitude of the government toward these levies, for they soon came to be regarded as regular sources of the king's income. The increase in their fre- quency and the severity with which the royal rights in connection with them were insisted on led to the combi- nation of the barons which resulted in the establishment of an effective check on the king's control of taxation. In the following sections, each tax will be treated in detail in chronological order ; the chief points to be studied are the occasion and the circumstances under which it was levied, the incidence, the assessment and collection, and the amount yielded. This method involves consider- able repetition, but in no other way can the facts of the taxation of the period be presented. In a final chapter an effort will be made to draw the conclusions which the details warrant; and at that point some new material will be introduced concerning military service and the growth of corporate unity among the baronage. The taxes to be discussed are the dona on religious houses, the tallage, the scutage levied in connection with cam- paigns, and the aids, under which term are grouped three levies : the aid on knights' fees, called also scutage, the carucage, and the tax on personal property. The dona from religious houses were in theory purely voluntary. In practice, they may be regarded as com- pulsory. By 1250, they were taken with some regularity. Whenever the king took an aid from other classes, or when he made an expedition to France, the religious 9 STUDIES IN TAXATION houses usually paid dona. In 1248, a further step was taken by Henry III when he collected dona from them although no other class made him a contribution. We may say therefore that when he was in great need, the king was establishing the right to take dona from the religious houses. The sums paid were not based on an assessed valuation of property and there was no con- certed action among the heads of the houses. Each paid a lump sum fixed by a bargain between the royal officer and the house. The tallage became a more regular levy and was taken independently of levies on other classes. It was not vol- untary, but owed. It was not based on property, whether the town fined for it or paid a per capita tax. It was assessed by royal officials, usually judges. Both the tal- lage and the dona added considerable sums to the royal income of the year. They illustrate the tendency to have service performed in money, but except in this very gen- eral sense they did not lead to further development in taxation. In other words, the taxation of property did not grow out of either of these levies. The scutage for war would naturally be an important levy, taken as it was from the most powerful class in society. It not only added a considerable amount to the royal income, but it was also one of the causes of Magna Carta. The provision inserted in that instrument con- cerning scutage is one of the early steps leading to the control of the king in taxation. The points which will later be considered in connection with this tax are the occasion for the levy, the authority by which it was taken, the rate, the accompanying fines, the incidence of both fines and scutage, the method of collection, the amount, and the military service which tenants rendered to the king. A study of these topics should give the character of the scutage and explain the grievance which was regis- 10 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III tered in the charter. Two alternative theories of John's levies may be offered. First, that the king changed scutage from the commutation for service into a general tax on the knight's fee, while at the same time he exacted the military service due from each holding, or collected a fine which would be the money equivalent of that ser- vice; second, that scutage did not lose its original char- acter as the composition for service, though as such, it might be replaced by a fine. In the first case, the griev- ance of the tenants would be clear; they would still have to perform the service due from their fees, while in addi- tion the king gained a new customary levy, a tax on the land. Though the evidence is left for future discussion, it may be said at once that the second alternative is the true one scutage did not become a general tax. The grievance of the tenants, therefore, is less obvious, but it will be found to lie in the fact that John did not observe the limits which had been customary when tenants com- pounded for their services. He increased the rate ; he took fines ; he took composition on improper occasions ; and he levied the tax at the opening rather than at the close of campaigns. But the grievance of the increase of the rate and the fines is hardly intelligible unless we consider the military service of the time. In the majority of cases, the yield from the scutage, or even the fine, would not enable the king to put in the field a number of knights equal to the number of fees which were exempted. The fact to be noticed is that the amount of military service had been reduced. There was no regularity in this reduction, sometimes indeed there was no reduction at all. 27 The greater tenants usually served with reduced 27 Thus in 1258 the abbot of St. Albans sent six knights to the host, his full service (see below, p. 285). It is usually the lesser tenants who continue to perform their full service or serve with contingents which are comparatively only slightly reduced; see for examples, below, pp. 97, 110, 111, 150. 11 STUDIES IN TAXATION contingents ; of the lesser tenants some continued to serve while others had their service in practice entirely com- muted into money. The reduced number of knights which the tenant led to the host was regarded as the entire ser- vice due from his holding. Thus the sum total which the tenants paid in fine or scutage was really the composition for a smaller number of knights than was furnished under the old nominal service. Consequently the rate of commu- tation per knight actually furnished was much higher than the nominal rate of the scutage or the fine; 28 it is likely that a rate of composition at one pound (1% marks) per fee was not far from a fair rate of commutation for the knights whom the tenant in chief would otherwise furnish. But a further element must be considered. The king had broken away from the old customary rate. If he could raise the rate, what limit would there be to his exactions? He had the right to full military service from his tenants. A sum which would be the full equiva- lent would raise the rate of scutage or fine to six, eight, or ten marks per fee. Probably neither the king nor the tenants reasoned the matter out beyond the point that the former would take all he could get. But that the latter would demand and obtain composition at these high rates is not pure theory, for in 1210 and 1211 we find John levying such fines. Thus the grievance of the tenants as expressed in Magna Carta cannot be based on the sum total which the scutage yielded, for that is often not very large, often not so large even as the tal- lage, and it is not found if we consider merely the amount which a tenant paid in fine or scutage. The cause of complaint becomes evident only when we examine the amount of composition in connection with military ser- 28 The term, fine, is here used to mean the scutage plus the extra amount which a tenant might pay in order to be exempt from ser- vice. The fine was ordinarily a lump sum. 12 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III vice. From the study of the scutages of Henry III, it will be seen that while in many respects they resemble John's levies, there is enough difference to show that the king took them in accordance with the law and that the tenants no longer feared that the king would find in them a weapon of oppression. If we consider the effects of scutage on the relations between the king and his vassals, we shall find that it was the most important levy of John's reign. After Magna Carta, it was still levied, but its importance declined. It was supplanted by the aids which came to be the king's main resource for extraor- dinary levies and over which the king and the barons struggled. Under the term aid are embraced three sorts of levies : the aid on knights' fees, called also scutage; the caru- cage; and the tax on moveables. The last named, the aid on moveables, came to be the favorite levy of the king because it yielded so much more than the others. These were all general levies and the royal revenue was greatly increased by them. Of the points discussed in connection with each case of taxation, viz., the occasion of the levy, the authority by which it was taken, the incidence, the assessment and collection, and the amount, the second, concerning the authority for the levy, should be espe- cially mentioned here, for it was along this line that an unusual development occurred. The tallage was a tax which the king levied arbitrarily on his demesne; the scutage was a composition for service and was therefore taken by virtue of the king's right to military service from his vassals. But most of the aids were voluntary just as were the dona from the clergy. In theory, the king could not take either of these levies except by the consent of the contributors, but in fact he had practically been able to establish the right to take dona from relig- 13 STUDIES IN TAXATION ious bodies on certain important occasions, the consent of the latter being purely formal. This he was unable to do with the aids on the tenants in chief because of the development of corporate opposition to his demands. Thus the great council came to be a part of the financial machinery in a new sense; out of individual consent was developed a measure of corporate consent. In connection with the aids, therefore, we shall consider the composition of the great council, the completeness of the corporate feeling among its members, the extent of its authority over the taxes, and its aims in taxation. Furthermore a final feature of the reign of Henry III will enjoy our attention, the taxation of the beneficed clergy. Between 1253 and the close of his reign, Henry III repeatedly taxed them. It is at first sight surprising that he should have succeeded where his father failed. Some precedent may perhaps be sought for these levies in the sixteenth of 1226 and the dona of the religious clergy, but it is likely that these taxes were of slight importance. The direct historical preparation for this taxation is to be found rather in the similar taxation of the English clergy levied by the pope before 1250. The union of the pope and the king made it possible for Henry III to tax the English clergy. Thus by the reign of Edward I, the scutage, the tal- lage, and the donum had all become fixed in form and amount ; they were incapable of further development. Progress lay along another line. Precedents had been established for the taxation of all classes in the kingdom, a taxation based on property, assessed and collected by special royal officials in combination with representatives of the locality. At the same time a series of precedents had established the fact that the king could not levy aids at will. 14 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III The ordinary revenue, as it has been called in this study, was also increased at about the beginning of John's reign. The farms of boroughs and manors were raised. 29 The fines seem to have become heavier as the reign went on. 30 The county farm had become a fixed sum in the closing years of the twelfth century, amounting to about 16,000 marks, 31 but the exchequer was beginning to charge an additional sum in some counties. The earliest case is that of Bucks in 14 Henry II, an increase of 10. This increase was called increment, and was kept separate from the farm. In John's reign it was charged against thirteen sheriffs and amounted to 1,525 marks. 32 In 1205 a further charge was made (kept separate from the other two), called the proficuum; it amounted to about 2,000 marks. 33 For purposes of comparison with the sums realized from the scutages, tallages, and the taxes on personal property, some calculations of the ordinary income are here given. 29 Fairer, Lancashire Pipe Rolls and Early Charters, p. 137; in 1201, some towns were paying an increment on their farms (Rot. Cane., 3 John, pp. 35, 63, 116, 324). so E.g. for the custody of Doun Bardolfs land, 1,000 marks (Pipe Roll, 10 John, Cumberland) ; Roger Fitz Adam, 1,000 marks "pro habenda benevolentia regis" (ibid., 11 John, Hants); R. de Cornhull, 10,000 marks to be quit of the debts, etc., of his father (ibid., 12 John, Kent) ; the monks of Battle Abbey, 1,500 marks for confirma- tion of their liberties (ibid., 13 John, Sussex post Line.); the citizens of Lincoln, a fine of 2,000 marks "pro excessu suo" (ibid., 14 John, Line.) ; Hugh de Nevill, 6,000 marks "pro habenda benevolentia regis pro duobus prisonibus . . . qui . . . evaserunt" and for other things (ibid., 14 John, Wilts; Madox, History and Antiquities of the Exchequer, ed. 1769, I, 475, n. k) ; the countess of Albemarle, 5,000 marks for having her inheritance and dowry and not to be forced to marry (Pipe Roll, 14 John, York). 3 1 Turner, in the Royal Historical Society Transactions, New Series, XII, 142-149. 32 Rot. Cane., 3 John. 33 These figures are not exact ; the amount of the proficuum was not always the same. 15 STUDIES IN TAXATION In 1201 : County farm and increment (about) . . 17,000 marks Town farms, fines, escheats, etc. (sums paid) 22,000 Total 89,000 " In 1205: County farm and increment . . . 17,000 marks Town farms, etc 20,000 " Proficuum 2,000 " Total 89,000 " On the basis of the returns of these two years, the amount of the ordinary income hardly reached 40,000 marks (26,666%), for part of the farm was granted out to various persons and the revenue from the county was thus diminished. 34 Sir James Ramsay makes the total for 8 John somewhat larger, 51,774m 12s 3d (34,516 12s 3d). 85 The account of that year was swelled by the income of the archbishopric of Canterbury, amounting to 5,169 19s 5d ( a little over 7,500 marks) . Deducting this, the sum total will not be much greater than in the years just cited. It is not possible to say how complete a statement of the ordinary income was rendered in the Pipe Roll. It is striking that the accounts of the three years should be so nearly equal. Part of the income was certainly not given in the roll. Of the carucage of 1200, of the seventh in 1203, of the thirteenth of 1207, no return is given. These levies, however, belonged to the extraordinary revenue. * Turner, p. 117. 85 Ramsay, Angevin Empire, p. 304. 16 rilHE taxes, which had been taken more often under * Richard than under Henry II, became still more fre- quent in John's reign. From 1199 till the fall of 1206, an intermittent struggle was carried on against Philip Augustus for the possession of the Angevin lands in France. This occasioned in one form or another seven scutages, four or five tallages, a carucage, a seventh of moveables, and two or three dona from religious houses which did not hold by military tenure. The scutages were all scutages in the strict sense; they were not aids taken on all the fees. Each year some tenants received writs of quittance and the rest paid a money composition, either scutage or fine. Now the writ of quittance did not, as might be supposed, cover merely the personal service of the tenant in chief; it included also the service of his whole holding. 1 In order to make this fact clear, we must say something about the accounts of scutage ren- dered in the Pipe Roll. The names entered were regularly those of the tenants in chief. The only exception to this statement was when an honor was in hand ; then the rear- vassals would sometimes be enrolled charged with scutage or acquitted. 2 A baron who held lands in more than one 1 It often happens that a tenant is entered as acquitted in one county because he renders his account in another. The statement in the text applies to the case when a tenant is entered as acquitted wherever his name appears in the roll. 2 The tenants of the honor of Gloucester appear in the roll in the first scutages of John ; the tenants of the honor of William de Mohun appear in the second and third scutages of John. When these honors pass into the hands of tenants in chief, the rear-vassals no longer 17 STUDIES IN TAXATION county would sometimes be entered in the accounts of the different counties, but under his own name, not under the names of his vassals. 8 When, therefore, we find a tenant acquitted of scutage whenever his name appears in the roll, we may conclude that this writ of quittance applies to all the land which he holds of the king. 4 The scutage rolls contain the names of those tenants to whom the king has granted their scutage because they have performed their service. Many exist for the reign of Henry III, but only one for John's reign, that of Poitou, 1214. A comparison of the Scutage Roll with the corre- sponding Pipe Roll shows that the tenants who are entered in the former as having their scutage are entered in the latter in the list of those having writs of quittance. It seems fair to conclude, therefore, that the lists of writs of quittance under John contain the names of those who have performed their service, have been exempted from paying scutage at the exchequer, and have been granted writs de habendo scutagio. 5 appear (cf. the entry for the honor of Gloucester in Rot. Cane., p. 55, with Pipe Roll, 16 John, Glouc. m. 5 d; for the honor of Dunstor, cf. Rot. Cane., pp. 205-209, with Pipe Roll, 7 John, Dors, and Somers. m. 11 d). This does not mean that when an honor is in hand the rear-vassals always appear in the roll. * In 1199, Ralph de Sumery was entered as acquitted in six baili- wicks: Staff., Bucks and Bedf., Berks, Wigorn., Rutland, War. and Leic. (Pipe Roll, 1 John). * An analysis of the account of any scutage shows that there is no amount of scutage charged large enough to represent a scutage paid by the rear-vassals of those tenants who have performed their service and have received writs of quittance. Thus in 1199, the first scutage of John, about 2,500 fees are charged with fine or scutage; that leaves about 3,500 fees with no charge against them. The amount charged against the 2,500 fees can be practically identified as charged against certain clergy and greater lay tenants. Such amount as cannot be thus identified will be entirely inadequate to represent a scutage against rear-vassals of the remaining tenants in chief. s There are some writs in the Close Roll under John by which a tenant is granted his scutage; such a man will appear in the Pipe 18 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III These scutages were then taken in connection with expeditions, but not always fairly. They were levied at the opening rather than at the close of a campaign and sometimes the character of the operations which followed would hardly justify their levy. Thus in 1199, John concluded a truce immediately after landing in France; in 1201, there seems to have been no fighting at all. In 1202 and 1203, there is no existing copy of a summons, though probably one was issued; at any rate a scutage was taken. In 1204 and 1205, the host was summoned but not despatched, and a scutage was levied. In 1206, the levy of the scutage was entirely legal. All these levies were accompanied by fines which in many cases increased the amount of composition of those tenants who failed to perform their service. The levy of 1204 merits special notice. It was taken at a meeting of the great council and is said to have been granted by it. Probably this expression does not mean anything more than that the barons agreed to the increase in the rate of that year and to the proposition of the king that the levy should be put in charge before the host was summoned so that he could have the use of more of the money in that campaign. We have already said that these scutages were not Roll in the list of those who have been granted writs of quittance. "Mandatum est vicecomiti Bukingh' quod faciat habere Sahero de Quency scutagium suum in balliva sua. Similiter mandatum est aliis vicecomitibus in quorum ballivis terras habet" (Rot. Lift. Claus., I, 43b, 6th scutage) ; in the Pipe Roll this tenant is entered as acquitted in Bucks and Bedf., Norf. and Suff., and Oxford. "Rex cancellario suo salutem. Mandamus vobis quod habere faciatis Thomae de NevilT scutagium suum de feodo militis que tenet de nobis in capite scilicet de scuto iii marcas pro exercitu Pictaviae in quo militem suum nobiscum habuit" (ibid., 177a) ; Thomas de Nevill is among the list of those having writs of quittance in Bucks and Bedf. (Pipe Roll, 16 John, m. 2). Cf. also the men who are granted their scutage in Rot. Litt. Claus., I, 200b with the account of the scutage of Poitou in Pipe Roll, 16 John. 19 STUDIES IN TAXATION general taxes. It seems clear that in general the king did not collect them from the rear-vassals of the tenants in chief who were liable, but as had been customary col- lected them from the tenants in chief. The tallage calls for no special comment here other than to say that it was taken less often than the scutage. The explanation for this is probably that the king had the excuse for levying the scutage in the summons to the host. The tallage was owed, but it would seem that there was no such convenient excuse for taking it as often as the scutage. The carucage, it will be found, was taken with the feudal excuse that it was to pay the relief for the lands in France. It was customary to take an aid to pay the lord's relief, but the so-called relief of this year was not for the kingdom of England, but for other lands which the king of England held. The levy of the carucage for this purpose may therefore have been considered an abuse. Regarding the actual assessment and collection, we know little. The fact that the carucage was to be based on the ploughlands instead of being paid in lump sums indicates that the government wanted to base the levy on property. That would not only give a more definite basis for the tax, but would also make it neces- sary for those who did not wish to pay it to obtain special exemption from the king. The seventh also was taken under a feudal plea, viz., that the tenants had deserted the king. Hence their lands would be technically forfeit. John seems to have made this tax a general levy, basing it on property and apply- ing it to men who could not have been guilty. From the seventh, the tenant had also to get a special writ of exemption. Other levies which fell in this period are these: the fortieth for the crusade ; the fifteenth on merchants ; and 20 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III taxes on the Channel Isles, all of which were taken on property or income. Some local machinery was used to assess and collect them. Thus they illustrate the general tendency to base taxation on property and to get at the value of the property through the jury, that is, the jury was used for the advantage of the king and not to protect the taxpayer. THE TAXES OF 1199 On June 20 or 21, within a month after his coronation on May 27, John returned to Normandy to carry on the struggle against Philip Augustus. The host was assembled 6 and a considerable army crossed the channel with the king, 7 This force was partly composed of mercenaries. 8 The campaign lasted till the end of October, but there was no fighting in July and August. 9 Just how many English tenants performed their service in the field this year cannot be stated. Not more than 2,500 fees were charged in the roll with fines or scutage. If we deduct this number from the total number of fees in England, we get about 4,000 knights serving, a number which seems far too large. 10 The array however included "de hanc summonitione exercitus" ; "pro remanendo quod non trans fretet cum domino rege"; "pro militibus quos debuerat misisse in servicio domini regis in Normanniam" (Rotuli de Oblatis et Finibus, pp. 2, 11, 27). 7 "Maximum exercitum" (Ralph of Coggeshal, Chronicon Angli- canum, ed. Stevenson, Rolls Series, p. 100) ; "collecta multitudine militum et peditum" (Ralph of Diceto, Opera Historica, ed. Stubbs, Rolls Series, II, 166). 8 "Et in quingentis Walensibus peditibus et x Walensibus equiti- bus . . . qui trans fretaverunt in servicium regis per breve regis" (Pipe Roll, 1 John, Hereford) ; in 1200, payments were made to mercenaries, so that the practice was not uncommon (Rotuli de Liberate, p. 6). Hov., IV, 92, 93, 97; there was a truce from June 24 till August 16 and hostilities were not renewed till September. 1 These figures, as has been said above (p. 4), are based on the number of fees which paid scutage and hence are somewhat larger 21 STUDIES IN TAXATION many of the greater tenants in chief and about half of the service of the clergy. 11 In connection with this expedition there were levied a scutage, a tallage, and sums, called variously dona, tallagia, or promissa, on religious houses. The taxation was put in charge and the collection begun during the summer, perhaps before the expedition sailed. It appears in the Pipe Roll of 1199 as partly paid; there is an order for the collection of the scutage on September 1 ; 12 the demand for dona from religious houses was made before June 20. 13 The levy on knights' fees usually took the form of a scutage at two marks per fee, sometimes accompanied or replaced by a sum, called a fine ne transfretet, pro passagio, etc., which was not at a fixed rate per fee. The following account will show the character of this levy: Scutage at 2m. M s d Clerical tenants . . . 1049 11 6 Forty-three 14 lay tenants (each 5 or more fees) 15 . . . 1972 1 Lay tenants (each fewer than 5 fees, etc.) 16 . . . 1257 8 6 Total 4279 6 9 than the servitium debitum. A tenant who refused to serve might be disseized. Matthew Turpin, a sergeant, was disseized (Madox, I, 663, n. ); Henry Faulkner, 1 fee (Rot. Obi, p. 40). 11 These were excused from any money payment. 12 Madox, I, 680, n. n. In the Memoranda Roll of Michaelmas, 1199, is the following item: "Eustachius de Baillol habet respectum per justic' de debito suo de secundo scutagio (of Richard) et tercio et novo (i.e. of 1199)" (Exch., L. T. R., Bundle 1, no. 3, m. 1 d). Thus the scutage was to be paid at the exchequer at Michaelmas, 1199. is "de auxilio quod dominus rex exegit ab eis ante trans fretationem suam" (Rot. Obi, p. 22). 14 Of this number, four are tenants on honors in hand and there are three honors which account in one sum through the custodian: Wallingford (200^m) ; Brittany (280m); Chokes (30m). 22 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III Fines M s d Clerical tenants . . . 320 on 53 fees Eleven lay tenants (each 5 or more fees) 17 . . . 705 6 8 " 149 " Other lay tenants (each fewer than 5 fees) 17 . . 252 " 50 " Total .... . 1277 68" 252 " Additional fine or scutage 18 . 201 5 Fees taxed (about) 2500. Total fine and scutage . . 5758 6 Paid, 1 and 2 John 19 . . 3395 3 7 Thus tenants holding about 2,500 fees are entered in the roll as owing scutage or fine. Some of these seem to have also performed service with the host. The abbot of is In this essay, the lay tenants in chief have been arbitrarily divided into two classes, those who held five or more fees, called here the greater lay tenants, and those who held fewer than five fees, the lesser lay tenants. We do not claim that it was necessary for a tenant to have at least five fees in order to be considered a great tenant, but there can be no doubt that the division into greater and lesser tenants which was recognized in the thirteenth century rested mainly on the number of fees which the tenant held. For purposes of illustrating the incidence of the scutage, it is convenient to draw a horizontal line between the greater and the lesser tenants, and to draw it at ten fees seemed too high. Inasmuch as the unit of the allotment of lands by the Conqueror (Round, Feudal England, p. 259) was a five-knight unit, it seems fair to take the number five as the line of division between the greater and the lesser tenants. If an honor in hand accounted in one sum through the custodian, that too has been included in this group. But if the sub-tenants on an honor in hand accounted separately to the sheriff or the exchequer, they have been included in the group of greater or lesser tenants according as they held more or fewer than five fees and the honor as a whole has not been counted as one great tenant. Thus the group of greater lay tenants will usually include some honors in hand and some sub-tenants on honors in hand, while the group of lesser tenants will always include some tenants who are sub-tenants. 16 Besides tenants in chief, this group includes tenants who are on honors in hand and are entered by name in the roll; when an honor 23 STUDIES IN TAXATION Ramsey paid eight marks on his four fees, yet his knights were with the king ; 20 the bishop of Winchester likewise ; 21 the earl of Devon had knights in the king's service and paid 30 marks scutage; 22 William de Braose was charged with 56 marks on 28 fees and he performed at least part of his service. 23 The first three are clear cases of double exaction, 24 but in general it seems to be true that tenants who performed their service received writs of quittance and either paid nothing at the exchequer, or only the amount due on fees detached from the main body of their holding. They might also pay a part of their scutage, apparently because the sheriff had not yet received notification of their exemption from the levy. But all sums collected in this way were small; they are not suffi- cient to show that the tenants as a rule paid scutage and served as well. 25 Men who served were granted writs of is only partly accounted for by the custodian, it is entered in this group. Detached fees of a barony not in hand are included here unless it is certain that they should be included in the main account of the barony. This year, 628m were charged against honors in hand and 60m against detached fees of great barons, leaving less than 600m against tenants in chief. IT Both tenants in chief and tenants on honors in hand who are entered by name in the roll. 1 8 I cannot find the number of fees held by these men. 19 That is, the payment is enrolled in the Pipe Rolls of these years. Of this sum, 2,645m 4s 3d were paid in 1199 and 749m 12s 8d in 1200. 20 Pipe Roll, 1 and 7 John, Cant, and Hunt.; Rotuli Curia Regis, ed. Palgrave, 1835, II, 122. 21 Pipe Roll, 2 John, Hants, m. 7 d; Rot. Cur. Regis, II, 67. 22 Pipe Roll, 1 John, Devon, m. 14 d; 2 John, Devon; Rot. Cur. Regis, II, 38. 23 Pipe Roll, ibid.; Rot. Cur. Regis, II, 8. He never paid it. 2 * The explanation of these cases may be that the tenants bar- gained to pay their scutage and perform part of their service, instead of paying a fine. Different sorts of bargains were made (see below, p. 27) ; see the bargains made with Fulk Painel and the earl of Devon in the second scutage (see below, p. 39, note 117). 25 The following men were quit, but paid some small sums as 24 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III quittance which are listed in each county under the head- ing: "Isti habent quietantiam per brevia." Thus the bishop of London had his knights with the king and had a writ of quittance; 26 also, William de Mowbray; 27 the earl of Warwick ; 28 Ralph de Sumery ; 29 William de Long- champ ; 30 Gilbert Peke ; 31 the earl of Chester. 32 If a tenant performed his service, but failed to secure the writ of quittance, he would be charged with scutage in the roll. But he would not be forced to pay. Time would be granted him and later when he secured the necessary writ, his debt would be crossed off. 33 described in the text: Walter de Lacy, 51% fees, paid 2m in Berks; Gilbert Peke, 19 fees, paid 1m in Berks; Guido de Laval, 20 fees, paid 3m in Oxford ; Gerard de Canvill paid ^m in Berks, was charged with 2m in Oxford, of which he paid 1m "et debet i marcam sed postea habuit quietanciam de marca ilia per breve regis" (Pipe Roll, 1 John, Oxf., m. 16 d). 26 "habet milites suos cum rege" (Rot. Cur. Regis, II, 7); he has quittance of the first scutage in Glouc., Essex and Hertf., Wilts, Oxford, and Line. (Pipe Roll, 1 John, m. 3 d, 11, 13 d, 16 d). 27 Rot. Cur. Regis, II, 42; has quittance of the first scutage (Pipe Roll, 1 John, War. and Leic., Northamp., York). 28 Rot. Cur. Regis, II, 76; Pipe Roll, 1 John, War. and Leic., Wigorn., Northamp. 29 William Salt Arch. Soc. Coll., Ill, 31; Pipe Roll, 1 John, Staff. *o Rot. Cur. Regis, II, 33; is quit of scutage (Pipe Roll, 1 John, Line., War. and Leic.). 31 Gilbert Peke "dicit quod ipse milites habet cum domino rege" (Rot. Cur. Regis, II, 122) ; has quittance of his scutage (Red Book, I, 119). 32 William Salt, etc., Ill, 36; has quittance in five bailiwicks. 33 This seems to be the meaning of cases where a tenant is charged with scutage in the roll and the amount later written off with the note that afterward he had a writ of quittance. Simon de Beauchamp "debet quater xx et xi marc, et dimidiam de scutagio sed postea habuit quietantiam per breve Galfridi filii Petri" (Pipe Roll, 1 John, Bucks and Bedf., m. 8 d) ; also, William de Mowbray, Robert de Turnham, and Guido de Laval (ibid., York, m. 4 d) ; "Philippus de Columbieres debet xx marc, de scutagio; sed habet quietantiam per breve regis de ultra mare" (ibid., Dors, and Somers., m. 17 d). A small part of the scutage of such a tenant might be paid before the writ of quittance arrived; e.g. see note 25, for Guido de Laval. 25 STUDIES IN TAXATION The levy of the scutage proper was not confined to the lesser tenants. Of the forty tenants who held five or more fees, four held more than twenty. The earl of Clare was charged with 283m 10s 4d of scutage (paid 51m) ; 34 Henry de Oilli with 65m; 35 Hervey Bagot with 120m; 36 William de Braose with 56m; 37 the earl of Devon (15 fees) paid his scutage. 38 Fines ne transfretet began to be taken at least in Richard's reign. 39 By virtue of the fine, the whole fee of the tenant escaped service in the host. The fines did not form an important part of the levy this year as only about 250 fees were charged with them. Some important tenants are included. Eustace de Balliol was charged with 60m scutage and 200m fine on 30 fees; 40 William Fitz Alan with 55m scutage on 27% fees and 60m fine; 41 Ralph 3* Pipe Roll, 1 John, Norf. and Suff., m. 20. 35 Ibid., Oxf., m. 16 d. About half was paid. 3 Ibid., Staff., 35 paid. 37 Ibid., Devon, m. 14 d. No payment is recorded. Another tenant holding more than 20 fees was Henry de Tracy, who is charged with 50im of scutage for the fee of William de Tracy (ibid.). The charge appears in the roll till 1209, when this note is added: "sed inquisitum est que habuit quietantiam de L marcis et dim. per breve regis" (Pipe Roll, 11 John, Devon, m. 8). In 1199, he accounts for 1,000 marks for having all the land of his father, William de Tracy, and his scutage is perhaps to be included in this fine (ibid., 1 John, m. 14 d). 38 Ibid., 1 and 2 John, Devon. 3 "De illis qui finem fecerunt pro passagio" (Red Book, I, 99, 102, 115). They perhaps go back to the time of Henry II: "de scutagio baronum qui nee abierunt cum rege in Hiberniam nee milites nee denarios pro se miserunt" (Pipe Roll, 18 Henry II, p. 187). 40 Pipe Roll, 1 John, Northumb., m. 8 d ; 2 John, Northumb. *i Ibid., Salop, m. 6. His servitium debitum was 10 fees (Round, Feudal England, p. 256). His old enfeoffment was 22^ fees in Salop, and Wilts, and 5 fees in Norfolk; his new enfeoffment was 8 fees (Red Book, I, 271-274). In 1194 and 1196, he was charged with scutage on 27i fees (ibid., pp. 86, 105), and accounted for this num- ber in 1199, 1201 and 1202 (Pipe Roll, Salop, 1 John and 4 John; Rot. Cane., p. 128) ; in 1203, he is charged with 20m, i.e., 10 fees (Pipe Roll, 26 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III Fitz Stephen with 40m fine on 13% fees; 42 the abbot of St. Albans with 150m fine on 40 fees. 43 It is impossible to say why these tenants paid fines while other tenants paid scutage only. Sometimes the fine was so large that it doubled what the scutage would have been. The fine was reckoned in two ways : a lump sum by virtue of which the tenant was exempt from service and was given the right to collect scutage from his vassals ; 44 a fine for his personal service and for the right to collect scutage from his demesne while he paid scutage on the infeudated part of his holding. 45 The difference was one of form, not of principle; it depended on the bargain made between the king and the tenant. In effect, the tenant paid a sum larger than his scutage and his whole fee escaped service with the host. Ultimately the rear-vassals paid the scutage, whether the tenant in chief paid fine or scutage. In paying either contribution, the tenant in chief received the right to 5 John, Salop). In 1214, the guardian of the fee accounted for fees old and 8 fees new enfeoffment (ibid., 16 John, Salop) ; in 1218 and thereafter, John Fitz Alan, who succeeded to the barony, ac- counted for 221^ fees (Pipe Roll, 2 Henry III, Salop). 42 Ibid., Notts, and Derby, m. 15 d. 43 Ibid., Norf . and Suff., m. 20. 44 "Willelmus de Scalariis dat domino regi xl marc, pro habenda quietantia de hac summonitione exercitus et pro habendo scutagio suo de feodo quod tenet de domino rege in capite" (Rot. Obi., p. 27). He held 15 fees. 45 Walter de Cormeiles "r c de viii li. de scutagio suo praeter feoda trium militum qui sunt in dominico suo de quibus pacem habet per finem quod fecit qui infra annotatur" (Pipe Roll, 1 John, Heref. m. 16) ; the fine referred to was for 10 "pro eodem, i.e. ne transfretet et pro habendo scutagio de dominico suo" (ibid.). In 1166, this fee consisted of 6 fees of old enfeoffment and 3 fees "de dominio" (Red Book, I, 286). Henry de Pinkney paid 100s fine "pro habenda pace ne transfretet et pro habendo scutagio de dominico suo"; he also paid scutage on 13i fees (Pipe Roll, 1 John, Bucks, Berks, Northamp., m. 2 d, 8 d, 18 d). In 1166, the servitium debitum was 15 fees of which 2 fees were "in dominico" (Red Book, I, 317). 27 STUDIES IN TAXATION collect scutage from his vassals. 46 Barons were charged with scutage and acquitted in several counties. They might indeed pay the whole amount in one sum, but often that part due from a detached part of the honor was paid separately. Thus Henry de Pinkney accounted for 27m in Bucks, of which sum, 7m were paid in Berks and 15m 4d in Northamptonshire. 47 Henry de Oilli paid 8s lOd in Staffordshire, 6s 8d in Berks, 4m in Bucks, 30m 8s in Oxfordshire and 2m in Northamptonshire. 48 This also shows that the exchequer was trying to find out the location of fees. The practice had already begun in Richard's reign. 49 A good example is the case of the bishop of Winchester. He owed scutage in Essex, but the sheriff reported that he did not know how many fees the bishop held in that bailiwick. 50 The total service of the bishopric was of course known. The rear-vassal was not responsible for the fine; he paid scutage only. The writ which the tenant in chief received when he paid a fine gave him permission to collect scutage from his vassals. 51 The collection of the scutage and fine was made in dif- ferent ways. Part of the levy was paid at the exchequer, * Above, notes 44 and 45; "Praecipimus tibi (the sheriff of Notting- ham) quod justicies milites de balliva tua quos archiepiscopus Ebora- censis tenet in comitatu tuo de dono regis, quod sine dilatione red- dant ballivis ipsius archiepiscopi scutagium suum, scilicet, duas marcas de scutagio" (Madox, I, 680, n. n). The archbishop pays scutage this year so he is collecting it from his tenants to pay at the exchequer. *7 See note 45. 48 Pipe Roll, 1 John. See also the account in Berks ; the sheriff accounts for 7 1m of earl Ferrers, 2m of the abbot of Hide, etc. "de hiis qui non habent capitales honores" (Red Book, I, 100, 104, 107). BO "Isti debent respondere de scutagio sed vicecomes nescit quot feoda habeant: Comes de Ferrariis, episcopus Winton'" (Pipe Roll, 1 John, Essex and Hert., m. 13 d). Above, note 44. UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III or to the king directly, in camera, by the tenants in chief in person, or by their representatives. 52 Part they paid to the sheriff who accounted for it at the exchequer, not in a lump sum, but with the amounts due from and paid by each. 53 In some cases, the sheriff seems to have collected from the rear-vassals. 54 Sometimes this may have been done after an arrangement was made with the lord. At any rate, the royal official did not make a general collection from the rear-vassals. His business was with the tenant in chief. Thus he collected nothing, or practically nothing, from the fees of tenants who had writs of quittance, or who were performing their service, though the latter might not yet have received their writs of exemption. 55 In the cases of men who owed fine or scutage, he often reported fees in his district which belonged to them, but he did not collect the money and 52 Ralph Fitz Stephen accounts for 20 marks, the balance of his fine; "in thesauro nichil et G. filio Petri xx marc, per manum Ricardi filii Roberti senescalli ipsius Radulfi per breve regis" (Pipe Roll, 2 John, m. 1 d). William Fitz Alan "r c de Ix marcis ne transfretet cum rege; in thesauro nichil et ipsi regi in camera sua Ix marc, de praedicto fine per breve regis" (ibid., 1 John, Salop, m. 6). The sheriff reports the names of tenants who had promised to pay at the exchequer and who failed to come: "Hugo de Morba senescallus Henrici de Trasci affidavit facere pacem de L marcis et dim. de scutagio suo sicut vicecomes dicit et non venit" (Exchequer, L. T. R., Bundle 1, No. 3, Mem. Roll, 1 John, m. 19 d) ; "Senescallus Hugonis Bard cujus nomen vicecomes nescit affidavit facere pacem de iiii marcis de scutagio suo duorum militum et non venit" (ibid., m. 14 d) ; see also cases in Staffordshire (ibid., m. 14) ; for the earl of Clare (ibid., m. 20 d). The Pipe Roll has two sorts of entries: A (tenant) r c de y marcis; idem vicecomes r c de y marcis de A. This difference in form suggests that some tenants account in person or through their steward at the exchequer. 53 Pipe Roll, 1 John, passim. 54 E.g. above, notes 25, 47, 48 ; the sheriff of Northamptonshire accounts for 10s of the scutage of the priory of Coventry and 4 of that of Gilbert Gaunt and the sums are paid (Pipe Roll, 1 John, Northamp., m. 2 d). 55 Above, note 25. STUDIES IN TAXATION it is stated that payment was made in another bailiwick. 56 In the main, he was to supervise the levy and be able to render a statement at the exchequer concerning all the fees which were liable for scutage in his bailiwick. One sheriff had been remiss in his duty. A list of thirteen tenants, some of them great men in his bailiwick, is given concerning whom he had made no report. The comment of the exchequer barons shows what he was expected to do, viz., either to collect the scutage and pay it at the exchequer, or to produce the writs of quittance, or to report the number of fees for which each tenant owed scutage. 57 He also aided tenants in chief to collect 5 "Idem vicecomes xl sol. de scutagio feodorum comitis Alberici de quibus H. Cantuariensis archiepiscopus debet respondere sicut vicecomes dicit" (Pipe Roll, 1 John, Northamp., m. 2 d) ; William de Erlega "debet ii marcas; sed respondet in Berchscira sicut vice- comes dicit" (ibid., Dors, and Somers., m. 17 d) ; Fulk de Alno "debet ii marcas de scutagio ; sed respondet in Wiltscira" (ibid. ) ; the bishop of Durham "debet xx marc, de scutagio; sed respondet inde in Everwicscira" (ibid., Line., m. 11). When an honor in hand is given over to a custodian, the latter is often charged with and responds for the scutage and in doing so seems to be acting as a tenant in chief; thus Alexander de Pointone accounts for the scutage of the honor of the countess of Brittany (ibid., 2 John, Line., m. 6 d) ; Nicholas Poinz for the honor of William de Mohun (ibid., I and 2 John, Dors, and Somers.). 07 "Hii omnes invenientur in rotulo anni vii annotati inter quietos de primo scutagio regis Ricardi nee vicecomes aliquid pro eis reddi- dit nee brevia de acquietantia eorum ostendit nee baronibus (i.e. scaccarii) certificavit de quot feodis debeant respondere in his comi- tatibus" (Pipe Roll, 1 John, War. and Leic., m. 18 d; Red Book, I, 126, with slightly different wording). The collection referred to is not necessarily from rear-vassals. In the Pipe Roll there are occasional references that the sheriff is keeping track of all the fees in his district; the sheriff of Kent "r c de xvii marc, de scutagio militum honoris Peverelli quos invenire potuit" (Pipe Roll, 1 John, m. 5 d) ; similarly for the honor of Mortain (ibid., Northamp., m. 2 d) ; William Fitz Martin "r c de xi marc, de scutagio sicut vice- comes dicit" (ibid., Dors, and Somers., m. 17 d) ; cf. John Fitz Rich- ard (ibid.) ; Adam de Tindale (ibid., Northumb., m. 8 d) ; chapel of Boseham and William de Kahaignes (ibid., Suss., m. 9) ; "idem 30 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III scutage from their vassals. 58 If a baron refused to pay his scutage or fine, he might be distrained. 59 The tallage was levied on the king's demesne which included the towns and on lands in hand. 60 It amounted to about 5,500 marks. 61 The assessment and collection were made in 1199 and 1200. Not much was paid there- after. The work of assessment was done in part by the itinerant justices on their rounds. 62 Some of the towns compounded in a lump sum, settling the incidence of the levy themselves and responding for it to the exchequer or to the sheriff. But this was not always the case. In Northampton the justices assessed the individual burghers. 63 In those vills or lands in which the justices personally made the assessment, a roll of the persons vicecomes ii marc, de feodo Alberici de Danmartin de quibus comes Boloniae debet respondere sicut vicecomes dicit" (ibid., Norf. and Suff., m. 20). 58 Above, note 46. 59 "Idem Henricus (de Pinkeni) promisit coram justic' quod acquietabit averia sua que capta sunt pro scutagio; recognovit enim quod idem debet" (Rot. Cur. Regis, II, 43). I think that this is probably a reference to the scutage of 1199; at any rate the case is entered in the fall of this year and illustrates the point that at this time distraint is in use to enforce payment of scutage. "Walterus de Cormeiles debet .c. sol. de scutagio suo .ii. marcarum; vicecomes distringat eum de .iiii. marc, et de .c. sol." (Exch., L. T. R., Bundle 1, No. 3, Mem. Roll, 1 John, m. 14). 60 London does not appear in the roll of any year charged with this tallage. It paid, however, 3,000 "pro habenda conflrmatione regis de libertatibus suis" (Pipe Roll, 2 John, m. 11) and the tallage may have been included in this sum. 61 The following counties are omitted: Cant, and Hunt., Notts, and Derby, and Lane. 62 E.g. in Wigorn., the tallage wa!s laid by the abbot of Tewkesbury, the archdeacon of Stafford, and Simon de Pateshull, who were the justices of the year (Pipe Roll, 1 John, Wig., Oxf., m. 6 d, 16 d). 63 "Homines de Norhanton' r c de Ix Ii. et xviii sol. de taillagio facto per G. de Norwiz et socios suos quorum particulae sunt in rotulo que ipse G. liberavit in thesauro" (ibid., 2 John, Northamp., m. 4 d). 31 STUDIES IN TAXATION and the amount of their tallage was drawn up in dupli- cate, one copy sent to the exchequer and the other given to the sheriff for collection. 64 Some vills had a lump sum of tallage charged against them. 65 The first assessment might be reduced later by the exchequer. Winchester had its tallage reduced from 807m to 400m. 66 A contri- bution was exacted from some religious houses called donum, promissum, or tallagium. Houses which held by military service and those which did not were included. In the case of the former, the contribution was a payment in addition to the scutage. The abbot of Winchcomb paid 4m scutage and 30m de promisso; 61 the abbot of Evesham 9m scutage and 50m de dono;* 6 the abbey of St. Edward 14m scutage and 20m de taillagio. The amount of these contributions was 868% marks. The sums were assessed and collected by the itinerant justices and the sheriffs. 70 In January, 1200, John and Philip Augustus met and made a treaty of peace. By it the king of England promised 20,000 marks as a relief for his lands in France. 71 To raise the money to meet this promise, an auxilium was taken throughout England under the name of a caru- 4 "De t aillagio facto per Ricardum Malebisse et socios suos ; idem vicecomes r c de . . . taillagiis hominum et villarum quorum nomina annotantur in rotulo que prsedicti (justices) liberaverunt in the- sauro" (ibid., York, m. 8 d) ; the sheriff accounts for a total of 4 16s 8d charged against twelve men, who are named (ibid., Kent, m. 15). 5/6tU, 1 John, War. and Leic., m. 18 d; 2 John, Westm., m. 2 d. Ibid., 4 John, Hants. * Pipe Roll, 1 John, Glouc., m. 3 d. s Ibid., Wigorn., m. 6 d. 9 Ibid., Dors, and Somers., m. 17 d. TO "Promissa abbatum et priorum facta regi per praedictos" (i.e. Henry, Archdeacon of Stafford, William de Falesia, and their com- panions) (ibid., Glouc., m. 3 d). These were the itinerant justices. " Rymer, Fcedera, etc., ed. 1816, I, 80; Hov., IV, 107; Cogg., p. 101; Annales Prioratus de Dunstaplia, ed. Luard, Rolls Series, p. 27; the last three sources say that the amount was 30,000 marks. 32 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III cage, 72 a tax of three shillings on each ploughland under cultivation. 73 How strict an assessment was made cannot be stated. One item suggests that it was searching. The men of Ketsteven and Holland in Lincolnshire paid 100 that the carucage be taken from them as in the past, viz., "5 carrucae contra 2 carrucas de Lindeseia." 7 ' The exche- quer did not insist on an assessment, but allowed men to compound for the tax, all of whom, as the notices of com- position show, were of the clergy. The abbot of Furness gave 100 for the renewal of his charters and in order to be quit of the aid of the carucage. 75 The abbot of St. Albans paid 310 marks for his charters and for exemption from the carucage. 76 Perhaps the churchmen usually compounded; the annals of St. Edmunds say that the carucage was not allowed on religious houses, but that 72 Rot. Obi, pp. 45, 55; Walter of Coventry, Memoriale, ed. Stubbs, Rolls Series, II, 158; Hov., IV, 107; "de universitate Angliae" (Madox, I, 400, n. z) ; "per totam Angliam" (Liebermann, Ungedruckte Anglo-Normannische Oeschichts-quellen, Annales 8. Edmundi, p. 139). 73 Cogg., ibid. Hov., ibid. Dunst., ibid. Some of the documents catalogued as Lay Subsidies at the Record Office record an assess- ment of a carucage levied at three shillings. This assessment may refer to the levy of 1200, for the rate is the same. It may, however, relate to the tax of 1198, for that was first to be taken at three shillings and the king later took two shillings more. This assessment was probably based on the land, for the fractional parts which appear are not easily explainable on the theory that it was based on the team: quarta pars unius car'; octava pars unius car'; sexta pars unius car'; tercia pars unius car' (Lay Subsidies, Bundle 242, no. 113). Sometimes, however, the oxen are mentioned: "apud Westone viii car' et quinque boves"; "iiii carr' et duos boves" (ibid., Bundle 73, No. la). This carucage included the lands of priors, abbots, bishops, Templars, and churches: de elemosina abbatis Croil; de feodo episcopi Lincoln' xxix car', de terra ecclesiae i car'; etc. 74 Madox, I, 401, n. e. 75 Rot. Obi., p. 55. 76 Rot. Obi., p. 45; Madox, I, 400, n. z; 401, n. d. STUDIES IN TAXATION the king took large sums from the bishops, abbots, and other clergy. 77 The tax met with opposition. The archbishop of York refused to allow his lands to be assessed. His refusal availed nothing, for the king disseized him. 78 The Cister- cians, who had a general immunity from taxation, would not pay a fine for the carucage without the consent of their order. The king at first deprived them of the pro- tection of the courts, but was finally reconciled with them. 79 The tax was collected by special officials. 80 There is no statement about the machinery of assessment other than this and nothing about the method of assess- ment. We are not told how much the tax yielded; one writer states that after John returned to France in April, he paid his debt to Philip. 81 As the money could not have been collected at that time, the king must have made up the sum in other ways. War between the Lusignans and John broke out in March, 1201. Writs were issued summoning the host to meet at Portsmouth on May 13 for an expedition to Normandy. 82 When the force assembled, many were allowed to remain at home ; 83 with the rest, which included most of the greater barons, the king crossed. 8 * Besides " Liebermann, p. 139. 78 Hov., IV, 140. Cogg., pp. 102-110. so "servientes regis" (Hov., IV, 140); "Willelmus de Wrotham et socii sui, receptores carrucagii" (Rot. Cane., p. 23). 81 Cogg., p. 103. The king received some of it in August, 1200 (Rotuli Normannice, ed. Hardy, Record Com., p. 28). In September, 1200, he received 8,000m from the English treasury, not necessarily from the carucage (ibid., p. 36). szDiceto, II, 172; Hov., IV, 160. 83 Hov., IV, 163. si "Puis s'en revint en Normendie, li reis o tot sa baronie" (His- toire de Guillaume le Martchal, ed. Paul Meyer, 1. 12005). If the account of the scutage given in the Pipe Roll is at all complete, just 34 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III the tenants, the army included mercenaries. 85 This expedition was the occasion of the second scutage of the reign, although there seems to have been no fighting after John arrived in France. 88 It was accompanied by many fines ne transfretet, which till 1209 were characteristic of John's scutages. The tax was determined on and col- lection was begun before the departure of the army and not at the close of the campaign. The chroniclers state that when the barons met at Portsmouth, the king took from some of them the money which they would spend in his service and allowed them to return home. 87 Fines were assessed and the right to collect scutage from rear- vassals was granted by the king to tenants in chief before the host gathered, hence the scutage must have been already put in charge as the rate was known. Some tenants compounded for their service, half to be paid on the king's departure and half at a later date. 88 The sheriff of Somersetshire was to collect the scutage on all the fees of Fulk Painel and have it at Portsmouth on May 5 with the writ. 89 about half of the feudal service of England was represented in the host. The number of fees which compounded is not over 3,250. 85 "Et (rex) praemisit in Normanniam Villelmum Marescallum . . . cum centum militibus soldariis et Rogerum de Lasci, . . . cum aliis centum militibus, ad reprimendum impetum inimicorum suorum in finibus Normanniae. Et rex tradidit Huberto de Burgo . . . centum milites, et constituit eum custodem finium Angliae et Valliae" (Hov., above) ; "et quater viginti libras et xiii libras et v solidos ad libera- tionem Lupilionis et aliorum balistorum nostrorum qui transfretant nobiscum" (Rotuli de Libtrate ac de Misis, ed. Hardy, Record Com., p. 14). se Hov., IV, 161, 164; Norgate, John Lackland, p. 81; Adams, Political History of England, 1066-1216, p. 398. 87Cov., II, 184; Hov., IV, 163. 88 Rot . Obi, pp. 127, 134, 135, 136, 137. 89 Ibid., p. 131. This was a fine. On June 10, the king pardoned Thomas de Burgh, a rear-vassal, his scutage and wrote to Geoffrey Fitz Peter as follows: "et si quid de feodis ipsius Thomas captum 35 STUDIES IN TAXATION The account follows: Scutage at 2 marks s Clerical tenants .... Thirty-six lay tenants (each 5 or more fees) 90 Lay tenants (each fewer than 5 fees, etc.) 91 .... Total Clerical tenants . Fifty-seven lay tenants (each more fees) 92 Other lay tenants (each fewer 5 fees, etc.) 93 Total .... Sergeants, thegns, drengs, etc. Additional 94 Total levied 95 Paid, 3 John Paid, 4 John Fees, taxed, not over 8200. 5 or than M 717 5 4 2090 7 11 894 9 5 8702 9 4 Fines 1200 5 8 1988 1401 8 4539 6 4 199 56 8497 2 4 5321 10 5 391 2 3 Fees 272 625 385 1282 Tenants who performed their service were acquitted of scutage. William Earl Marshal, Warren Fitz Gerold, and Robert de Tateshal were in France on the king's fuerit de scutagio suo" (Rot. Lib., p. 15). Hence scutage must have been put in charge at this time. 9 Almost all are tenants in chief. 9i Of this sum, 375m are on honors in hand and 127m on detached fees of great barons, leaving about 392m on tenants in chief. 2 Of these, 24 are tenants on honors in hand and are charged with 575m fine on 169 fees, leaving 33 tenants in chief charged with 1,363m on 456 fees. 93 Of this sum, 997m are charged on 236 fees on honors in hand. 94 Number of fees unknown. One man charged with 20m is entered in the Fine Roll and not in the Pipe Roll. 95 Of the total fine, 167m are charged on 43 fees which are entered in the Fine Roll and not in the Pipe Roll. 36 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III service in May; 98 Robert de Turnham and the earl of Chester were there in September; 97 Eustace de Vescy, the earl of Albemarle, the constable of Chester, Adam de Novo Mercato (four fees of the honor of Tickhill), Roger de Valtort, the earl of Winchester, and Robert de Cardi- gan were probably in France, for they received loans made by the king ultra mare. 98 All these received writs of quittance of their scutage." About half of the clergy paid scutage. Several of the chief laymen of the kingdom were also charged with it : Hervey Bagot, 60 fees ; Ralph de Sumery, 50 fees ; 100 the earl of Clare, about 140 fees; 101 Walter de Lacy, 51/4 fees; 102 earl Aubrey de Ver, 30% fees; 103 Richard de Munfichet, 32 fees; 104 Henry de Nonant, 55%% fees; 105 96 Rymer, Foedera, I, 83. 97 Rot. Litt. Pat., p. la. 98 "De praestitis f actis a rege ultra mare" ; the names and sums follow (Rot. Cane., pp. 89, 94, 302-303). Robert de Muscamp also receives a loan ultra mare; he held 4 fees in Northumberland for which he has this year a writ of quittance (ibid., p. 65) ; but he paid 10m fine for his crossing in Notts, and Derby (ibid., p. 318). In no other year is he entered in Notts, and Derby. 99 Such a tenant may pay part of his scutage either on a detached fee, or because the sheriff had not received notice concerning the writ of quittance; such payments are, however, too small to show that there was a general levy on the rear-vassals, e.g. the earl of Albe- marle paid 5m in War. and Leic. and 16d in Norf. and Suff. (Rot. Cane., pp. 13, 339). None of the other barons mentioned in the text paid anything. When the tenant is apparently performing his ser- vice, but has neglected to secure his writ of quittance, he is charged with scutage in the roll, but he does not necessarily pay anything, and later when he secures the writ his debt is crossed off; Robert Fitz Walter and William Malet are both charged with scutage, but no payment is made. A note is added "sed postea habuit quietanciam per breve" (ibid., p. 162) ; Hamo de Valoignes (ibid., p. 87). 100 Ibid., pp. 50, 51. 101 Ibid., p. 338. 102 ibid., p. 110. 103 Ibid., p. 162. i* Ibid. The old enfeoffment was 47} fees and the servitium debitum 40 fees (Red Book, I, 351). Why he pays on 32 fees, I do 37 STUDIES IN TAXATION Robert de Albini, 25 fees. 106 Thus the great barons were liable for scutage, for these sums were not merely charged, but were partly paid. Some tenants apparently performed part of their ser- vice and paid for the rest. This is probably the expla- nation of cases in which part of the scutage was paid and the rest pardoned. Thus half of the scutage of Earl Ferrers was pardoned. 107 Godfrey de Luvein owed 181m for the honor of Eye, of which he paid 67 10s and was pardoned the rest. 10 * Henry de Nonant owed lllm 8s lOd in Devon; he paid 21m 11s lid and was pardoned the remainder. 105 A case which seems to be of this kind comes from the honor of Gloucester. The custodian still owed six and a half marks on the five fees of Robert de Gouiz for which Robert was performing his service in Normandy. 110 Only a few of the great vassals fined for their service : ln Henry de Oilli, 97m on 32% fees; 112 Simon de Beau- champ, 100m on 45%% fees; 113 William de Longchamp, not know. It is not a mistake of the clerk, for in the roll of 1202, the same amount is repeated with partial payment; he makes a pay- ment of llm in 1201 in Norf. and Suff. (Rot. Cane., p. 339), but this is included in the charge of 64m (Pipe Roll, 4 John, Essex and Hert.). 105 Rot. Cane., p. 26. loe ibid., p. 355. 107 Rot. Cane., p. 319; Pipe Roll, 4 John, Berks and War. and Leic. 108 Pipe Roll, 4 John and 7 John, Norf. and Suff. io9jRoj. Cane., p. 26; Pipe Roll, 4 John, Devon. no "de quibus (6^m) facit servicium in Normannia" (Rot. Cane., p. 57). The other 3iXj marks were evidently paid, for in 4 John this fee paid 10 marks. in It might be suggested that the fines would not normally be found in the Pipe Roll, but would only appear in the Fine Roll. This is not so. In 1201, some 400 tenants appear in the Fine Roll charged with fines for their military service; all but 30 of these are also in the Pipe Roll. 112 Rot. Cane., p. 279. "3 76d., p. 354. 38 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III 60m on 25 fees; 114 Simon de Avranches, 60m on fees; 115 the abbot of St. Augustine, 40m on 15 fees. 116 The earl of Devon fined in an unusual way: he allowed the exchequer to collect scutage from all his fees whether or not they owed service to the king, thus paying 30m on 15 fees quos recognoscit and 90m on 45 fees quos non recognoscit. 117 For tenants holding five or more fees, the rate of the fine per fee (including scutage) was a little more than three marks. The extra sum over and above the scutage was neither an equivalent of the total service of the holding, nor so burdensome that the tenant would prefer to perform his service in the field, if he performed full service. 118 The lesser tenants (holding 385 fees) bore heavier fines. The average rate was nearly four marks per fee, or almost double what the scutage would have amounted to and in some cases the rate was still higher. Simon de Kyme paid 10 marks on 2 fees; 119 Walter de Bolebec, 30 marks on 5 fees ; and Richard de Umfravill, 50 marks on 2^/2 fees. 12C Most of these lesser tenants were not tenants in chief, but rear-vassals on honors in hand. 121 This year the tenant usually paid a lump sum as a fine and in return performed no service for his fee and was allowed I" Ibid., p. 191; Rot. Obi, p. 152. us Rot. Cane., p. 220. n6/6tU, p. 219; Rot. Obi, p. 128. 117 Rot. Cane., p. 26. This formula is used usually of ecclesiastical fees only. Fulk Painel made a similar bargain: "Fulco Painel dat domino regi scutagium viite militum et aliorum militum si plures de domino rege teneat in capite pro passagio suo et passagio praedic- torum militum" (Rot. Obi, p. 131). us As we increase the average holding, the rate of the fine dimin- ishes. On tenants holding 10 or more fees, the average rate of the fine is under 3 marks per fee. us Rot. Cane., p. 192. 120 Ibid., p. 64. 121 See above, p. 36, note 93. 89 STUDIES IN TAXATION to collect scutage from his vassals. 122 But he might pay a fine for his crossing in addition to his scutage. 123 Abbots and priors paid fines, but not usually the bishops. The bishopric of Lincoln fined this year, but was vacant ; 124 the bishop of Winchester paid a fine of 300 marks, but in return he also obtained certain rights enjoyed by his predecessors. 125 The account of the scutage of this year as given in the Pipe Roll does not suggest that the king collected a scutage from the sub-tenants of those tenants who per- formed their service, 128 so that the scutage was not a 122 E.g. "Nigellus de Luvetot debet L marcas ne transfretet et pro habendo scutagio suo de xv militibus" (Rot. Cane., p. 318). 123 "Walterus de Cormeilles r c de xii libris de fine suo ne trans- fretet et de xii libris de scutagio suo" (ibid., p. 110). An unusual sort of fine was one at a fixed rate per fee: "Henricus de Oilli r c de quater xx et xvii marcis de fine que fecit scilicet pro quolibet milite que tenet de rege iii marcis" (ibid., p. 279). A tenant might pay a fine larger than his scutage in order to be allowed to send a sub- stitute: "Radulfus de Cruminwell dat vi marcas. Tenet feodum i militis. Si filius transfretat dabit nisi iii marcas; sin autem vi marcas" (Rot. Obi., p. 153). 12* Rot. Cane., p. 98. 125 ibid., p. 211. 1 26 See above, p. 36. Thus the total number of fees taxed is not over 3,200, leaving about 3,000 at least who are not charged with a tax and who are represented by the lists of those who receive writs of quittance in each county. It may be observed that the great bulk of the scutage and fine are charged against certain men, viz., clerical tenants and lay tenants holding 5 or more fees who, we know, are either tenants in chief or tenants on honors in hand. Now the only part of the account where the sub-tenants of those tenants in chief who have received writs of quittance might possibly be found is in the two groups of lay tenants holding fewer than 5 fees each and in the group headed "Additional." The total amount in these three groups which I have not identified with honors in hand will not exceed 852m. From this would have to be deducted all the scutage levied on tenants in chief who hold fewer than 5 fees each and some allowance would have to be made for tenants on honors in hand who have not been identified. The remainder would be far too small to represent anything like a general tax on the rear-vassals of those 40 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III general tax, but retained its old form of the composition for service. Though this is true, yet in some cases the levy was collected by the sheriff, apparently from the rear-vassals. That official accounted for 11 Yz marks of the scutage of the Earl Ferrers in Berks. 127 The sheriff of Bucks accounted for 8 10s of the scutage of the earl of Clare, 3 marks for Henry de Oilli, and 25s 4d for the count of Perche. 128 Some of these sums may have been paid to the sheriff by the tenant in chief; most of the amounts were small. In many cases, the sheriff did not collect from the sub-tenants. He took little, if any, from the rear-vassals of those tenants who served. 129 Often the charge against a tenant in one county was crossed off with the statement that payment was made in another county. 130 All this seems to indicate that the royal official tenants in chief who have received writs of quittance. With this statement should be combined the evidence given above that the tenants who served are exempt from a money payment and the further fact that the tenants who fined obtained the exemption of their whole fee from paying scutage to the king (see above, pp. 37, 39). All this points to the conclusion that the king did not take a scutage from the rear-vassals while at the same time he obtained the whole service of the fee from the tenant in chief, either by a money fine or by a quota of knights. In other words the scutage was not a general tax, but was the composition for service, though, as such, it might be replaced by the fine. 127 R t. Cane., p. 263. 128 Rot. Cane., p. 355; Henry de Oilli is quietus in War. and Leic. ; the sheriff accounts for him for 8s lOd in Staff., for 2m in Northamp., for 6s 8d in Berks, for 3m in Bucks and Bedf., and Henry himself accounts for 97m, his whole charge, in Oxfordshire (Rot. Cane., pp. 14, 51, 88, 262, 279, 355) ; Fulk Painel, 5m on 1 fee "de quibus vice- comes de Sumersete redidit ii marc, in Sumersate" (ibid., p. 233) ; see other cases, pp. 239, 262-263, 339, 355. 129 See above, p. 37. 130 "Galf ridus de Paveilli debet x li. et i palef ridum ; sed non debet summoneri quia respondit in Norhantesira" (Rot. Cane., p. 317, Notts, and Derby) ; Robert de Mara, Lucia de Mohun, Anselmus Biset, Nigel de Luvetot (ibid., pp. 44, 143, 220, 318). He may be charged with scutage and the charge written off with the statement that the 41 STUDIES IN TAXATION dealt with the tenant in chief rather than with the sub- tenant. But the rear-vassal ultimately paid the scutage. Both the barons who fined and those who paid scutage obtained the right to collect the tax from their tenants, given them by the writ de scutagio habendo. 131 A further indication of the same thing is that tenants rendered their accounts in more than one county. 132 This does not mean that the rear-vassal was responsible to the exchequer for the scutage. The debt to the king was not his debt, but his lord's and it was the lord's name that appeared regu- larly in the roll. When the sub-tenant is found charged with fine or scutage, it means probably that the honor was in hand and that the tenants were treated for the time as immediate vassals of the king. 133 The rear-vassal tenant has a quittance in another county: William de Windsor, Rich- ard Fitz Nigel, Warren Fitz Gerold (ibid., pp. 209, 354). The fine of the earl of Devon illustrates the point that the sheriff ordinarily did not collect from the rear-vassals; he fined under the conditions that no scutage was to be demanded of him personally, but that the king should take scutage from all his knights. "A Willelmo comite de Vernun nullum scutagium requirendum est in aliqua summa quia finivit cum rege pro licentia remanendi ut rex capiat de omnibus militibus suis scutagium suum quos tenet de rege in capite" (ibid., p. 263) ; cf. Fulk Painel, Rot. Obi, p. 131. The earl therefore paid on 15 fees of his servitium debitum and on 45 fees of new enfeoffment (ibid., p. 26). The fact that the sheriff collects from the sub-tenants seems to be unusual as well as the fact that the earl pays on the extra fees. This was not the first time that the earl had made such a payment (Red Book, I, 88). 131 See above, notes 122, 123. I have found no writ this year grant- ing a tenant in chief who pays only scutage the right to collect it from his vassals. That such was the case, however, is shown by the fact that if a rear-vassal was pardoned his scutage by the king, that amount was deducted from the scutage of his lord. Thomas de Burgo holds 2^ fees of both Aubrey de Ver and of the abbot of St. Edmunds, both of whom pay scutage only this year; he is pardoned the 10m due (Rot. Lib., p. 15) ; and his lords likewise (Rot. Cane., pp. 162, 337). 132 See above, note 128. isa Thus the tenants on great honors like that of Gloucester appear in the roll; cf. the entry of Adam de Port's fee (Rot. Obi, p. 145); 42 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III on an honor in hand should have paid the king what he paid his lord. If the tenant in chief had enfeoffed more knights than his servitium debitum, he collected from them all. 134 When the honor fell into the king's hand, the latter did likewise. 135 The rear- vassal was not responsible for the fine. The king granted his lord permission to collect scutage only. 13 * From tenants on honors in hand, how- ever, John exacted fines which were larger than the scutage, as though they were tenants in chief. 131 The king could not at will collect from a tenant in chief from a larger number of fees than the tenant was accus- tomed to respond for. The law of the land was a pro- tection. Some dispute arose over the amount of service owed by Gerard de Canvill in Oxfordshire; an inquest the knights of the honor of Walter de Dunstanvill appear in the roll "de furious militum ne trans fretent" (Rot. Cane., p. 233), but the honor was in hand: "de remanenti firmae terrarum Walter! de Dunestanvill' de anno praeterito" (ibid., p. 224). There are excep- tions to this, e.g. the tenants of Sibilla de Fesnes (ibid., p. 162); but two cases show that such appearance was not the rule. William Luvel was a tenant of the earl of Leicester; he gave 20m and a palfrey for his crossing and "pro habendis litteris domini regis depre- catoriis ad regem Franc' " (Rot. Obi., p. 144) ; he thus had some special privilege to gain. His payment this year led to his being charged with scutage in 1202, but it was crossed off because he held of the earl of Leicester (see below, p. 52, note 186). The following extract needs no comment: "Willelmus de Lumeneye dat 3m qui nichil tenet de domino rege in capite et qui summonitus fuit ad trans- fretandum per sic quod dominus rex non habeat malam voluntatem erga ipsum eo quod non transfretet secum et faciat servicium suum quod facere debet Mabilie de Soliis de qua tenet" (Rot. Obi., p. 135) ; cf. William de Lond' (ibid., p. 145). is* Chron., Joe. de Brak., pp. 48-49. iss The bishopric of Lincoln which was in hand paid on 102^ fees instead of on 60 fees (Rot. Cane., p. 98). 136 See above, p. 40, note 122; "et mandatum est justic' quod eidem episcopo faciat habere scutagium suum de militibus suis, scilicet, de scuto, duas marcas" (Rot. Obi, pp. 156-157); the same as to John de Hastings and William de Muntcheney (ibid., p. 128). 137 See above, p. 36, notes 92, 93. 43 STUDIES IN TAXATION was held in the county court by knights of the county who determined the amount of service as that of one fee only in that county. 138 What seems to be evidence that the exchequer was trying to obtain a more exact account of the number of fees held by each of the king's vassals is suggested by the frequent statement that "x tenet y feoda, sicut dicit," or "sicut vicecomes dicit." 1 There is no evidence as to how the scutage was put in charge. The fines were assessed partly at the meeting of the host and partly by special justices, perhaps the itinerant justices on their rounds. 140 Some of the fines were laid before the host met. 141 Some of the tenants in chief accounted for their scutage or fine at the exchequer or in camera, in person or by a representative; some paid it to the sheriff who rendered the account at the exche- quer. 142 Some of the fines were this year brought to Portsmouth when the king sailed. iss "non debet respondere nisi ad feodum 1 militis sicut inquisitum fuit per milites comitatus" (Rot. Cane., p. 279). The total service of Gerard was sixteen fees. 139 "Rogerus de Sumeri dat domino regi c marcas pro transf reta- tione sua. Tenet feoda L militum in capite et non plus ut dicit" (Rot. Obi., p. 146) ; "Comes de Clare vicecomes pro eo r c de xiii libris de scutagio, scilicet, de ix feodis et dimid' et quarta parte feodi i militis que praedictus comes habet in Surreia sicut vicecomes dicit" (Rot. Cane., p. 32). 140 Hov., IV, 160-161; "de scutagio militum . . . quorum nomina et debita annotantur in rotulo que magister Radulfus de Stoke liberavit in thesauro ex parte justic' de finibus militum ne trans- fretent" (Rot. Cane., p. 233) ; "Cecilia comitissa Herefordiae r c de xl marcis per quas finivit sicut recordatum est per justiciarium pro habendo scutagio suo et pro passagio suo" (Madox, I, 676, n. y). Hi E.g. Fulk Painel, Giffard Whiting (Rot. Obi., pp. 131, 136). 1*2 The roll has two sorts of entries: A (tenant) r c de y marcis; idem vicecomes r c de y marcis de B (tenant). The difference seems to be intentional, for the first form may appear: A vicecomes pro eo r c etc. (Rot. Cane., p. 32). Again, the tenant may account and yet the payment be made at the exchequer by the sheriff, but in that case, the roll sometimes states the fact: Henry de Oilli "r c etc.; in thesauro xxiii li. et vi sol. et ix den. per manum vicecomitis" (ibid., 44 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III Some notices of a tallage appear, but there was no general levy. The bishopric of Lincoln, in hand, was charged with 522 5s 2d of tallage. 143 In Yorkshire, 379m 6s 6d of tallage were charged, 100 marks of which fell on the city of York, 60 marks on Scarborough, 15 marks on Richmond, and the rest on persons. 144 The men who were charged with tallage held of the king; others were not liable. 141 The assessment was made by the itinerant justices. 148 An aid of some sort was collected this year from the men of the Channel Islands, no matter of whom they held. It is of interest because of the way in which the assessment was made, viz., by four legal knights of the islands. 147 In 1201 a fortieth of revenues for one year was levied for the Holy Land. 148 Churchmen paid it on their spir- itualities and temporalities by order of the pope; each bishop had charge of the collection from the clergy of his diocese. The king granted a fortieth of the revenues of his demesne, his escheats, wardships, and lands in hand and he asked the earls, barons, knights, and freemen to contribute. The first three classes were to pay a fortieth of the annual value of each vill held by them in whole or p. 279) ; cf. the cases of the Sari of Clare and Aubrey de Ver (ibid., pp. 162, 338). However, the tenant who is said by the roll to account for his scutage does not always do so; see the cases of the earl of Devon and Fiilk Painel (ibid., pp. 26, 207, 263; Rot. Obi., p. 131). As to payment in camera, see the bishop of Norwich (Rot. Cane., p. 338). The fines which were to be brought to Portsmouth when the king sailed would be paid in camera (see above, note 141). i Rot. Cane., pp. 96-97. i** Ibid., p. 297 ; other notices of a tallage, pp. 255, 337. 145 "Rogerus de Schipton' c sol. de eodem [taillagio], sed non debent exigi quia per inquisicionem factam percepto justic' nichil tenet de rege" (ibid., p. 297). "6 Ibid. i*7 Rot. Lift. Pat., p. 3a. 1*8 Hov., IV, 187; Wend., Ill, 167; Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 5a; Diceto, II, 169; Cogg., pp. 115-117. 45 STUDIES IN TAXATION in part, based on an estimate of what it would yield if farmed. The freemen were to pay a sum equal to the fortieth of the annual rent owed to their lords. There was no assessment by the royal officials. Each man cal- culated the amount of his contribution. The sheriff appointed discreet and legal men to receive it. A roll was drawn up by the collectors, arranged by vills; it contained the names of the contributors and the amount paid by each. The royal demesne was enrolled separately. If anyone refused to pay, his name was reported to the king. 14J Assessed and collected in this way, the tax could not have been very productive, but it should be noted as an experiment in taxation. The detailed account which was enrolled and the use of some local machinery of collection are of interest. THE TAXATION OF 1202 The occasion for new taxation was the war between John and Philip Augustus which had broken out again in the spring of 1202. No writ exists of a general sum- mons to the host, but in April the barons of the Cinque Ports were ordered to place their ships at the command of Hubert de Burgh, probably to bring forces from England, 150 and in May Flemish knights who held feoda of John were summoned to perform their service. 153 Others were summoned who were to receive wages. 152 Sev- 1*9 Hov., IV, 188-189; the royal contribution is given in the Pipe Roll (William Salt, etc., II, 108, 112). iso Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 9b. 151 Ibid., p. lib. 152 ibid., p. lOa, 12a; Pipe Roll, 4 John, Suss., Wilts, m. 9d; pay- ment of mercenaries is also mentioned in Rot. Norm., pp. 47, 53, 55. The king was well provided with money. He acknowledges the receipt of 7,000m from England on June 12 and on June 17 is providing transport for treasure from England (ibid., pp. 49, 51); at the end of the month, he acknowledges the receipt of 2,000m (Rot. Lift. Pat., p. 13a). 46 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III eral of the English barons were serving with the king: the earl of Albemarle and Robert de Tresgoz; 153 Roger de Tony, William de Roches and the earl of Chester; 154 William Earl Marshal, William de Braose, 155 William Briwerre, the earl of Salisbury, the earl of Leicester, the earl of Arundel, and Geoffrey de Say. 15f It seems prob- able therefore that a general summons was issued. For this campaign a scutage was levied and in some counties there are notices of a tallage. 157 The levy appears in the Michaelmas roll of 1202 and was partly paid when the roll was made up. The scutage was levied at two marks per fee, the rate which had now become usual. The account follows : Scutage at 2 marks. M s d Clerical tenants .... 829 5 4 Seventeen lay tenants (each 5 or more fees) .... 489 8 8 Other lay tenants (each fewer than 5 fees, etc.) 158 709 10 4 Total 2028 11 iss Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 12. 154 Ibid., p. 8a. ^55 ibid., p. 19a. 156 Ibid., p. 19b. "7 There are notices of this in 8 counties, amounting to about SOO marks. Sometimes the tallage is mixed with amercements so that it is impossible to tell how much it amounted to. These sums have not been included. Such composite accounts probably occur because the tallage was levied by the itinerant justices and was reported by them with the amercements; e.g. "De ammerciamentis et taillagiis maneriorum regis in Berchscira factis per Galfridum filium Petri et Ricardum de Heriet et socios suos. Idem vicecomes r c de c li. et xvi d de praedictis misericordiis et taillagiis hominum quorum nomina et debita et causae debitorum annotantur in rotulo que praedicti liberaverunt in thesauro" (Pipe Roll, 4 John, Berks, m. 1 d). iss 127m are on honors in hand like Peverel, Wallingford, Lancas- 47 STUDIES IN TAXATION Fines Fees Clerical tenants .... 362 00 98 Thirty-nine lay tenants (each 5 or more fees) 159 . . . 1611 3 4 569 Lay tenants (each fewer than 5 fees, etc.) 160 . . . . 1892 2 6 303 Total 3865 5 10 970 Sergeants 202 3 4 Additional 161 . . . . 122 13 Total charged . . . . 6219 6 6 Paid, 4 and 5 John . . . 4418 1 9 Fees taxed, not over 2100. The bulk of the scutage proper fell on the prelates and the greater lay tenants. The laymen holding more than 20 fees and charged with scutage were: Simon de Avranches, 43m; 162 Walter de Lacy, 102Mm; 163 Guido de Laval 20 fees ; 164 William Fitz Alan 27 1 / 2 fees. 185 A little more than half of the church fees paid the scutage proper. Tenants who performed their service in the field were exempted from any payment. All the barons mentioned above had writs of quittance. In some cases the roll states that the tenant was exempt from scutage on account of service performed in person or by deputy. 166 ter, Tickhill, Brittany, and Gloucester. 85m are on detached fees of great baronies, not in hand. This leaves not more than 500m on lesser tenants in chief. i<5 In this case, 17 men holding 188 fees are charged with 558m fine who hold of honors in hand, leaving 22 tenants in chief who are charged with 1,053m on 381 fees. io In this case, 977m are charged against 209 fees on honors in hand. 161 Number of fees unknown. 162 Pipe Roll, 4 John, Kent, m. 15 d. 163 Ibid., Hereford, m. 19 d. i6*/6fd., 4 John, York, m. 5. 165 Ibid., Salop, m. 3 d. 166 Richard de Munfichet is quit "quia est in servicio regis"; also Warren Fitz Gerold and others (ibid., Essex and Herts, m. 19 d) ; 48 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III Only three of the clergy paid fines : the abbot of Sher- burne, 20m on 2% fees ; the abbess of St. Edward, 50m on 7 fees and the abbot of Michelney, 10m on 1 fee. 167 The tenants of the abbey of Ramsey and of the bishopric of Lincoln fined, but both honors were in hand. 168 Of the laymen, three great lords fined: the earl of Warwick, 20m and the scutage on his 102% fees ; 169 Hervey Bagot, 20m and his scutage on 60 fees; 170 and Robert de Cardinan, 120m on 71 fees of the honor of Mortain. 171 The average rate per fee for the larger holdings (five fees each) was about three marks (though the fine was not reckoned at so much per fee). 172 The lesser tenants paid heavier fines, the average rate being over six marks per fee. But there was no fixed rate; William de Nova Mercato paid 50m on 17%/4 fees; 173 Robert de Muschans, 50m on 4s fees. 174 Most of the fines were lump sums for service and scutage. Sometimes the fine and scutage were separate; the tenant paid his scutage and in addition a fine pro passagio, ne transfretet. The latter was apparently for his personal service and for the scutage of his demesne. 175 In such cases the fine was not large enough to represent the service of the whole holding. Brian Fitz Ralph is quit "per militem que misit ultra mare" (ibid., Norf. and Suff., m. 8 d). As he held 5 fees, he was thus exempt from scutage by performing only part of his service. i7 Ibid., Dors, and Somers., m. 7 d. 168 Ibid., Cant, and Hunt., m. 10 d, m. 20; Cart, Mon. de Rameseia, I, 227. IBS Pipe Roll, War. and Leic., m. 3 d. no Ibid., Staff. i 71 Ibid., Corn., m. 12 d. These fees paid scutage at % the regular rate, so that the scutage would have been 88%m. i" On tenants holding 10 or more fees each, the rate is about 2i/m per fee, the fine including scutage. 1? 3 Pipe Roll, 4 John, Dors, and Somers., m. 7 d. n*Ibid., Northumb., m. 14 d. !75 See the earl of Warwick and Hervey Bagot above; "Willelmus filius Ricardi . . . r c de 15m de scutagio . . . et de 5m de fine suo 49 STUDIES IN TAXATION The king did not as a rule take scutage from the rear- vassals while he obtained the whole service of the fief either in money or knights from the tenant in chief, that is, the scutage was not a general tax levied in addition to service in the host, or a money equivalent. 176 We may take first the case of the tenant who performed his service with the host. He obtained a writ of quittance which exempted from paying scutage to the exchequer not only his demesne but also the lands which he had enfeoffed. Thus his writ was entered in the roll in all counties where his lands lay. 177 Some tenants, however, who were evidently performing service did not receive their writs of quittance till after the sheriff had rendered his account of the year at the exchequer and the roll had been drawn up. From some of these men part of their scutage was collected. Philip de Colombiers paid eight shillings out of twenty marks, then obtained his writ of quittance and the remain- der of the debt was cancelled. 178 Robert Fitz Payn paid one mark out of thirty and then was acquitted the balance. The earl of Devon paid six marks in Dorset and Somerset- shire and was acquitted the rest. 178 In this last bailiwick, the rear- vassals paid the sheriff 20 13s before the writs of quittance of their lords arrived. 180 Yet it will be noticed that the amounts thus paid were small. Furthermore, pro passagio et pro scutagio de dominico suo" (ibid., Northamp., m. 11 d); Richard Foliot (ibid.). i It may be observed at the outset that only about 2,100 fees were taxed this year. i" The earl of Leicester has quittance in ten bailiwicks. It should be remembered that rear-vassals do not appear in the roll unless the honor is in hand. Consequently when the tenant in chief is thus returned as quit, none of his land pays scutage to the king. ITS "Philippus de Columbieres rcdexxm.de feodis x militum. In thesauro nichil et Galfrido filio Petri viii s. . . . et debet xix marc, et v sol. et iiii den. Sed habet quietanciam per breve regis" (Pipe Roll, 4 John, m. 7 d). 170 Jbid., and m. 18 d. iso "De scutagiis militum tenentium de pluribus baronibus quae 50 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III they might be returned by the sheriff. 183 Other tenants in the same circumstances paid nothing at all and later when their writs of quittance were received, their debts were cancelled in the roll. 182 The tenant who had not performed his service and paid a fine or scutage some- times paid part of it to the sheriff of the county contain- ing the head of his barony and part to the sheriffs of other counties where his land lay. This may mean that sometimes the royal official collected from the rear- vassals. 18: In other cases, the tenant in chief accounted for his fine or scutage in one county and was entered as acquitted in the other counties where he held fees. 184 The sheriff also reported fees in his bailiwick, but stated that the payment was made in other counties. 185 Occasionally capta fuerunt antequam brevia de quietantia scutagiorum baronum illorum pervenirent ad vicecomitem. Idem vicecomes r c de xx li. et xiii sol. etc." It was all paid into the treasury (ibid., m. 7 d). isi The earl of Devon had his six marks returned to him by the sheriff: "et comiti Willelmo de Vernun iiii li. pro iiii li. quas recepit (vicecomes) ab eo de tercio scutagio regis" (Pipe Roll, 5 John, m. 12). 182 "Willelmus filius Martini debet xxx marc, de fine suo pro x militibus et dim. Sed postea habuit quietanciam per breve Galfridi filii Petri" (ibid., 4 John, m. 7 d) ; Robert de Seccheville (ibid., Devon, m. 18 d) ; John Fitz Hugh (ibid., Berks, m. 1 d). isa Walter de Lacy owed 102^ marks ; he paid in 1202 thirty marks in Hereford, two marks in Berks, 13 7s 7d in Gloucestershire "quos vicecomes potuit invenire in hoc comitatu," was charged with five marks in Oxfordshire and the sheriff of Salop accounted for 20 marks on 10 fees of Walter "in hoc comitatu sicut vicecomes dicit," of which 10 marks were paid in 1202 (Pipe Roll, 4 John) ; the earl of Warwick, 4 marks in Northamptonshire, 4 7s 9d in Gloucestershire on the fees "quos (vicecomes) potuit invenire"; 6 marks in Berks; 10i marks in Rutland; the whole sum due from his barony was charged in War. and Leic. (ibid.). is* Guido de Laval was charged with 40 marks in Yorkshire and was quit in Line., Oxford, and Surrey; the archbishop of York, with 40 marks in Yorkshire and quit in Oxford; William de Novo Mercato, 50 marks fine in Dors, and Somerset and quit in Gloucester (Pipe Roll, 4 John) ; see William de Reimes, Geoffrey Fitz Geoffrey, and John de Venecia (ibid., Norf. and Suff., m. 8 d). iss "Henricus de Taiden debet etc. Et debent requiri in honore 51 STUDIES IN TAXATION the exchequer seemed to recognize that it could not legally collect from the rear-vassal. William Luvel owed two marks on one fee, but the amount was cancelled because he held of the earl of Leicester and not of the king. 186 Milo de Buteford owed four marks on one fee, but the following year the charge was crossed off because he held of William Briwerre who had a writ of quittance. 181 That scutage fell back on the rear-vassal is shown by three facts: the king sometimes collected from him, tenants in chief were entered in the roll in the different counties in which they held lands, and if rear-vassals were pardoned their scutage, their lords were also pardoned an equal amount. 188 When a fee fell into the king's hand, scutages and fines were collected from all the knights enfeoffed. The abbot of Ramsey owed the service of four knights, but in 1202, when the abbey was vacant, it paid eight marks of scutage and forty-five marks of fines. 18 The bishopric of Lincoln was also vacant at that time. It de Wallingf sicut vicecomes dicit" (ibid., Glouc., m. 13). Cf. the case of the fee of Oliver de Tracy which owed 56 marks of scutage (ibid., Devon, m. 18 d) ; "sed aniodo requiri a Willelmo de Braiosa qui habet feoda militum illorum per concordiam factam inter ipsum Willelmum et Oliverum per regem" (ibid., 5 John, Devon). Evidently the sheriff had not collected from the rear-vassals. 186 "Willelmus Luvel debet ii marcas pro i feodo. Sed non debet summoneri quia recordatum est quod non tenet feodum illud de rege sed de comite Leircestrie" (ibid., 4 John, Oxf., m. 15). IST Milo de Buteford, 4m on 1 fee (ibid., Devon, m. 18 d) ; "sed Willelmus Briwerre habet quietanciam de quo . . . Milo tenet feodum (illud) (ibid., 5 John, Devon). 188 Stephen de Longchamp held 1 fee of Walter de Lacy, was pardoned the scutage on this fee and the amount was deducted from Walter's debt to the exchequer (ibid., 4 John, Heref., m. 19 d) ; Alfred of Lincoln held 5 fees of the abbot of Glastonbury, was acquitted the scutage due from them and the sum was accordingly deducted from the abbot's scutage (ibid., m. 7 d). Each of these tenants in chief paid scutage this year only, and these extracts show that they were allowed to collect scutage from their vassals. iss ibid., 4 John, Cant, and Hunt., m. 10 d. 52 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III owed the service of sixty knights, but it paid 189 19s of fines on 102% fees. 190 The method of accounting shows no change. The fines were assessed by special officials, perhaps the itinerant justices. 191 The king could not at will increase the number of fees on which a tenant paid scutage; the tenant clung to his previous assessment and the law upheld him. 192 THE TAXATION OF 1203 The following year, the war in France continued. 198 No copy of a summons to the English tenants for a cam- paign at this time exists, but in March the Flemish knights who held feoda of John were summoned to meet at Easter. 194 One can collect from the Patent Roll a fair list of great English barons who were in France this year. In June, the king wrote of the service which the barons were performing. 195 At Easter, English barons were 190 "de flnibus Ix militum . . . quos episcopus debet regi et de xlii militibus et dim. quos habet in dominico" (Pipe Roll, 4 John, m. 20). 191 "Radulfus films Main' r c de x marcis pro i feodo sicut con- tinetur in breve justic' quod est in forulo marescalli" (ibid., Northumb., m. 14 d) ; "postea recordatum fuit per justic' quod non finivit nisi per tres marcas" (ibid., Oxf., m. 15). 192 "Willelmus Malet habet quietanciam de xxii militibus et dim. et duabus terciis et i quarta et i vicesima per breve regis. Sed de his non debet respondere regi nisi de xx feodis militum et unius militis et dim. et duabus quintis sicut carta ipsius testatur" (ibid., 4 John, Dors, and Somers., m. 7 d). In 1166, this fee contained 22%^%i^ fees of the old enfeoffment and 1^% fees of the new enfeoffment in Somerset and % fee in Kent (Red Book, I, 227-228). 193 John remained in France through the winter of 1202-1203 to carry on the war. In December he received 3,000m from England and in January, 1203, 1,000m (Rot. Norm., pp. 65, 72). There are several notices of mercenaries (ibid., pp. 69, 70, 75, 77). is* Rot. Lift. Pat., p. 26b. 195 "ipse Thomas nobis faciet servicium suum de baronia sua sicut alii barones nobis faciunt . . . et milites ipsius Thomas distringatis que ei servicia sua faciant" (Rot. Lib., p. 44). 53 STUDIES IN TAXATION compelled to remain in the king's service; there were rumors that some were plotting to abandon him, 196 though one might be disseized for failure to be in the king's service. 197 Finally, only a little over 2,000 fees were taxed; the rest were excused probably on account of service. All these facts indicate that a general summons was issued. The king's desire to have more men in his army than were furnished him by his English tenants is shown by his summons to Flemish knights and by his pardoning debts to men who in return were to supply him with knights. 198 The taxation for the year consisted of a scutage at two marks per fee, accompanied by fines pro passagio, a tallage in some counties, contributions called dona from religious houses, and later in the year, what was really a tax, but took the form of a fine for military service, a seventh of personal property. The scutage was probably put in charge in the spring of 1203. The account appears in the Michaelmas roll of this year; an entry dated September 19 refers to it as in process of collection; 195 on May 19, there is reference to its collection on the lands of William of Albini. 200 The account follows : 201 Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 29a; Rot. Norm., p. 96. !9 7 "unde disseisitus fuit eo quod non fuit in servicio nostro in quo ipse modo est" (Rot. Lib., p. 69) ; "Radulfus de Bolebec debet xx marcas et i palefridum ut sit quietus de concelatione servitii quartae partis feodi i militis unde retatus fuit" (Pipe Roll, 5 John, York, m. 17). 198 "pro ista quietacione (of a debt) tenebit praedictus Radulphus (de Ruperia) tres milites in servicio nostro cum equis et armis" for a stated period (Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 32b) ; Thomas de Arcy (Rot. Lib., p. 44). 199 "et si scutagium illud captum fuerit" (Rot. Lib., p. 64). zoOjRof. Lib., p. 34. This is not the scutage of 1202, for which William had a writ of quittance. 201 The account for Norfolk and Suffolk is in Pipe Roll, 10 John, m. 19. 54 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III Scutage at 2m M s d Clerical tenants . . . . 818 Twenty-eight lay tenants (each 5 or more fees) 202 . . 986 7 2 Other lay tenants (each fewer than 5 fees, etc.) 203 . . . 611 5 Total 2415 12 Clerical tenants .... Thirty-seven lay tenants (each 6 or more fees) 204 Other lay tenants (each fewer than 5 fees, etc.) 205 Total Sergeants ..... Additional 206 .... Grand total charged Paid, 5 and 6 John Fees taxed, about 2300. Fines 676 3 4 1466 8 10 1881 8 3924 7 223 5 53 12 6617 4748 6 4 9 10 6 11 Fees 143 556 422 1121 Those who performed their service did not as a rule pay scutage. William Earl Marshal, and others were thus exempt. 207 Robert de Gouiz of the honor of Glouces- ter was charged with 10m on 5 fees, but was acquitted 202 Of these, 14 held 10 or more fees. 203 Of this sum, 76m are on detached fees of great barons and 307m on honors in hand, leaving about 228m on tenants in chief. 204 Of this number, 18 tenants on honors in hand held 242 fees and were charged 580m, leaving 19 lay tenants in chief holding 314 fees charged with 880m. 2 Qo Of this sum, 793m are charged against 214 fees on honors in hand, leaving not over 1,088m against 208 fees of tenants in chief. 2 8 Number of fees unknown. 207 "William Earl Marshal, the earls of Chester, Leicester, Albemarle, Salisbury, Robert Fitz Walter, Saher de Quincy, Geoffrey Fitz Peter, Fulk Painel, Robert de Tresgoz, and Roger de Lacy were in France 55 STUDIES IN TAXATION because of service in the field. 20 * William of Albini was in the army in France; the sheriff had collected eight marks on his land in Oxfordshire. This sum the king ordered to be paid into the exchequer, but it was to be placed to the account of other debts, not scutage. 20t Exceptions however occurred. Hervey Bagot was charged with 120 marks, 210 yet he was in the king's service in France. 211 Nicholas de Verdun who held one fee paid his scutage, 212 though he was in the army. 213 Not much scutage was charged against the greater lay tenants. Other men than Hervey Bagot (holding twenty fees or more) were Henry de la Pomeraie, 63% marks, of which only 8% marks are recorded as paid ; 214 Aubrey de Ver, 60/4 marks, all of which was paid; 215 and Henry de Oilli, 64m 8s 10d. 218 Nearly all of the sum charged against clerical tenants was paid promptly. The remain- ing 610 odd marks of the scutage proper fell on some lesser tenants in chief, on detached holdings of great lords, on escheats, and on parts of baronies in hand. 211 Some of these sums should be probably included in the main accounts of great lords, so that this amount is too large. In any case, it is much too small to represent a (Rot. Lift. Pat., pp. 26-34; Roger of Wendover, Flores Historiarum, ed. Coxe, Engl. Hist. Soc., Ill, 173) and all receive writs of quittance in the Pipe Roll; Thomas de St. Valery was in France and had his scutage (Madox, I, 668, n. x). 208 "sed facit servicium suum in Normannia" (Pipe Roll, 5 John, Glouc., m. 3 d). 209 Rot. Lib., p. 34; see also Thomas de St. Valery (Madox, I, 668, n. x). Pipe Roll, 5 John, Staff. No payment was made however. 211 William Salt Arch. Soc. Coll., Ill, 116. 212 Pipe Roll, 5 John, Staff. 213 William Salt, etc., Ill, 117. 2n Pipe Roll, 5 John, Devon, m. 6. 215 Ibid., 5 and 11 John, Essex and Hert. 2ie/6td., 5 John, Oxf., m. 15; ibid., 6 John. 2i 7 See above, p. 55, note 203. 56 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III general payment by rear-vassals while the king was obtaining also scutage, fine, or service from the tenants in chief. As before, not many fines were levied on clerical tenants. Fifteen abbots and priors holding 93 fees paid fines the chief being Abingdon, 80 marks on 30 fees ; 218 Tavistock, 40 marks on 16 fees; 219 Coventry, 25 marks on 10 fees; 220 Ramsey, in hand, 30 marks on 4 fees; 221 St. Albans, 100 marks on 6 fees. 222 The amounts were paid promptly. Worcester was the only bishopric which fined, 123m 3s 4d on about 50 fees. 223 The lay barons holding more than 20 fees who fined were: the earl of War- wick, 60 marks and his scutage on 102% fees; 224 Doun Bardolf, 60 marks on 25 fees; 225 Robert de Cardinan, 120 marks on 71 fees, and Roger de Valtort, 100 marks on 60 fees. 226 It will be noticed from the table given above that the fines of vassals holding five fees or over were at a rate of less than three marks per fee. 227 The fine therefore did not represent the whole service of the holding in addition to the scutage. The bulk of the fines in rate and amount fell on the small tenants. About half of these held of honors like Tickhill, Peverel, Gloucester, etc., which were in hand. 228 Usually the fine included the 218 Pipe Roll, 5 John, Berks, m. 4. 219 Ibid., Devon, m. 6. The service was either 15 or 16 fees. 220 Ibid., War. and Leic., m. 3 d. 221 Ibid., Cant, and Hunt., m. 1. 222 Jbid., Essex and Hert., m. 10 d. 223 The original service was 60 fees (Round, Feudal England, p. 250). 224 pipe Roll, 5 John, War. and Leic., m. 3 d. 225 ibid., Notts, and Derby, m. 13 d. 220 ibid., Cornw., m. 6 d. These held of the honor of Mortain which always paid scutage at five-eighths the ordinary rate. 227 The scutage on these holdings is included ; fees on the honor of Mortain are not included. 228 See above, p. 55, notes 204, 205. 57 STUDIES IN TAXATION scutage, but there were some cases in which they were separate. 229 As noted in previous years, barons who received writs of quittance were entered as exempt in all counties where they held fees and therefore all their land, not their demesne only, was exempt from scutage. Thus Warren Fitz Gerold was quit in nine counties and the earl of Leicester in eleven. Sometimes, however, the sheriff col- lected part of the scutage for the exchequer, apparently taking it from the rear-vassal. Robert Marmiun was exempt, but paid a mark in Northamptonshire; Gilbert Peke also, but the sheriff collected one mark on his fee in Berks ; that official took eight marks from the fees of William of Albini in Oxfordshire before the writ of quittance was received. 230 The number of fees taxed indicates that this was not a common practice and the sums taken in most cases were small. It was illegal to collect from such men, and the sums could be and were recovered by the tenant. 233 In those baronies which paid scutage or fine, the sheriff sometimes seems to have col- lected from the sub-tenants. The earl of Warwick had 22 E.g. as above, the earl of Warwick. 230 Rot. Lib., p. 34; see Thomas de St. Valery (Madox, I, 668, n. x). 231 In the account of allowances and payments made by the sheriff is the item: "et Hugoni de Ferrariis Ixxvi sol. et i den. pro scutagio militum suorum capto in hoc comitatu" (Pipe Roll, 5 John, Wig., m. 4 d). This may refer to the scutage of 1202, but the point holds good, for he had writs of quittance both in 1202 and 1203. The 8m collected from William of Albany are not returned to him, but they are placed to his credit at the exchequer for other debts, not scutage (Rot. Lib., p. 34). William de Braose was in France (Rot. Litt. Pat., pp. 27, 28, 31b) and was charged with 56m of scutage on the honor of Berdestaple, 56m on the honor of Torrington, and 56m on the honor of Oliver de Tracy; of this sum 33 15s Id were paid and the rest pardoned (Pipe Roll, 5 John, Devon, m. 6 d). Thus he seems to have performed his service and paid part of his scutage, but as the amount paid was credited to William in another 58 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III his whole account entered in the counties of Warwick and Leicester where part is entered as paid; part was also paid in three other counties. 235 Yet that this was not a general practice is shown by the fact that the tenant in chief might account for the whole sum due from him in one county and be acquitted in the other counties where his fees lay. 233 The law seems to have upheld the rear- vassal who refused to pay the scutage to the sheriff. In several cases a tenant protested that he was not an immediate vassal of the king and hence owed him no scutage. An inquest was held which showed that his con- tention was true, that he did not hold of the king in chief, and consequently the demand for scutage was remitted. 234 debt, he really paid no scutage: 'et in perdonis ipsi Willelmo xxxiii li. et xv sol. et i den. per breve regis quia denarios illos reddidit de scutagio praedicto de quo habuit quietantiam" (Pipe Roll, 5 John, Heref., m. 4 d). 232 in Glouc., 4 7s 9d; in Berks, 6m and in Northamp., 4im (Pipe Roll, 5 John). 233 Thus Baldwin Wak accounts for 20m for his whole barony in Line, and is acquitted in Rutl. and War. and Leic.; Hervey Bagot 120m in Staff., pays 9s in Berks through the sheriff and is quit in War. and Leic., and Oxf. ; Doun Bardolf 60m fine on 25 fees in Notts, and Derby and quit in War. and Leic.; Ralph Musard 30m in Glouc. and quit in Bucks and Bedf., Berks, and War. and Leic., and Oxford; the bishop of Winchester 120m in Hants and quit in Berks; Elias Giffard 27m on 9 fees in Glouc. and quit in Berks; all of the Pipe Roll, 5 John. 234 "Arnaldus de Bosco debet xx marc, de feodis x militum, sed non debet inde summoneri per inquisitionem factam que non tenet de rege sed de comite Leircestr' Wintonie" (ibid., 8 John, Glouc., in the account of the fourth scutage) ; the lord here had a writ of quittance. "Milo de Buteford debet iiii marc, de feodis ii militum, sed W. Briewerre habet quietanciam de quo praedictus M. tenet feoda per breve G. filii Petri nee debet ulterius Milo inde summoneri sed W. Briewerre de quo idem M. tenet feoda [ilia]" (ibid., 5 John, Devon, m. 6). "Sewal' films Fulcherii debet i marcam (of the fourth scutage), sed non debet summoneri propter causam superius anno- tatam viz., per inquisitionem factam que non tenet praedictum feodum 59 STUDIES IN TAXATION The tenant in chief shifted the scutage onto the rear- vassal. In the roll the fine is said to have been paid for this privilege. 235 If a rear-vassal was exempted from scutage by the king, his lord was pardoned that amount. 236 That the exchequer officials had the liability of the sub- tenant in mind is shown by the entry of the name of a tenant in chief in the different counties in which he held fees, either when payments were made or when the tenant received a writ of quittance. The fines were not shifted to the rear-vassal. Tenants on honors in hand paid fines to the king as though they were tenants in chief. 237 The exchequer desired to have an exact account of all fees in each county, and information on this point was supplied by the sheriff. 238 As usual some of the tenants in chief rendered their accounts directly at the exchequer, 239 though the sheriff responded for considerable sums. de rege sed de comite de Warewic' " (ibid., 6 John, m. 9, fourth scutage) ; in this case the lord owes fine and scutage this year. See also Ralph de Marci (ibid., 7 John, Essex and Herts, m. 16) ; William Fitz Geoffrey (ibid., 1 John, Notts, and Derby, m. 19 d) ; Richard Engaine (ibid., 9 John, Northamp., m. 13) ; Geoffrey de la Hose (ibid., 9 John, Berks, m. 18 d) ; all in the accounts of the fourth scutage of these years. 235 "Episcopus Wigorn' r c de quater xx li. et xliii sol. et iiii den. de fine suo ne transfretet et pro habendo scutagio suo" (Pipe Roll, 5 John, Wig., m. 4 d). 23 The abbess of Godestow was pardoned her scutage on half a fee held of Geofifrey de Chausi and he also was pardoned that amount (ibid., Berks, m. 4) ; the king held 3 fees of the bishop of Worcester who was therefore pardoned the scutage on them; William Marshal was pardoned 20s scutage on fees held of the same bishop and the latter was likewise exempt (ibid., Wig., m. 4 d). 237 E.g. in the honor of Gloucester (ibid., m. 3 d). 238 David earl of Huntingdon 8m of scutage "sicut vicecomes dicit scilicet de iiii feodis" (ibid., m. 3 d). This is also shown by the entry of men in counties other than where the heads of their baronies lie. 239 Simon Basset and Richard de Vermin account for 10m on 3 fees: "in thesauro v marc, per man urn praedicti Simonis" (ibid., Notts, and Derby, m. 13 d). 60 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III Part at least of the fines were assessed by special justices. 240 Notices of the tallage appear in thirteen counties. It was assessed by the itinerant justices 241 and was collected by the sheriff. Sums were charged against persons, vills, and towns. Towns often assumed the work of repartition. 242 The contributions from religious houses in 1203 were usually called dona. In Dorset, the title was "De auxilio abbatum et priorum." These dona were round sums exacted arbitrarily. The list of contributors included houses which held by military tenure and those which did not. In the first case the donum sometimes acquitted the tenant from paying scutage ; sometimes another payment was made for the military service due. 243 Part of the money was collected by the sheriff, 244 though some houses responded to the exchequer by their own representa- 240 "qui finis intravit per os justiciar"' (ibid., Line., m. 9). 241 In Gloucestershire, the tallage was laid by Simon de Pateshull, William de Cantelu and Henry de Northampton (ibid., Glouc., m. 5) ; in the county of Northampton is the following title: "De ammer- ciamentis per S. de Pateshull et socios suos; idem vicecomes r c de C et quater xx et ix li. et xi sol. et vii den. de misericordiis et tal- lagiis hominum et villarum quorum nomina et debita et causae debi- torum annotantur in rotulo que praedicti liberaverunt in thesauro" (ibid., m. 14 d). These men seem to be the itinerant justices. 242 "Civitas Ebor' r c de D marc, de taillagio; in thesauro xv li. et episcopo Norwiz xxx li. . . . et debet civitas" 4321^ marks (ibid., York, m. 17). The tallage of these thirteen counties amounted to about 1,500, but this sum is incomplete for these bailiwicks, as it does not include sums in which the tallage was mixed with amercements. 24 3 Abbot of Evesham "r c de xl marcis de dono et pro habendo scutagio suo" (Wigorn.) ; the abbot of Abingdon 40m donum and 80m fine on 30 fees (Berks) ; the abbey of Ramsey, in hand, 40m de dono and 30m fine on 4 fees (Cant, and Hunt.). These are from the Pipe Roll of 5 John, m. 1, 4, 4 d. 244 "Idem vicecomes r c," etc. 61 STUDIES IN TAXATION tive. 245 Seventy-three houses scattered over twenty-six counties contributed 1,577 marks. Another levy of importance was the seventh of personal property. According to the chroniclers, this tax was taken on the pretext that the barons had deserted him after the return of John to England in December, 1203. 246 That there was disaffection was evident in the spring. 247 During the year some of the tenants had withdrawn from John's service, but they were disseized and in November returned to their allegiance, receiving their lands again. 248 The seventh was not levied however at the end of the year, but at the beginning of the summer of 1203. 24 If at first it was a fine for default of service, it was apparently extended, when the levy was once begun, to all the tenants in chief and to the clergy as well. 25C We do not know whether property was actually assessed. The donum already discussed may be the exaction from the clergy which is spoken of by the chroniclers. If so, no assessment of property was made, but lump sums were demanded under the name of an aid. 251 The collection 245 The donum of the abbot of Westminster was paid in camera at Rouen, probably by the agent of the abbot (ibid., 6 John, Lond. and Midd., m. 8). 246 Wend., Ill, 173; Cogg., p. 144; Liebermann, Ann. 8. Edm., p. 142. Wendover is the one who says that the king pretended it was on account of desertion. 2*7 R t. Lift. Pat., p. 29a. 248 Rot. Lib., pp. 73, 74. For other cases of withdrawal from the king's service, see Rot. Norm., pp. 92, 93. 249 "Rex etc., Galfrido filio Petri salutem. Mandamus vobis quod faciatis habere comiti AlbemarP septimam denariorum de terra sua. Teste me ipso apud Aurivall,' xviii die Junii" (Rot. Lib., p. 43) ; "Sciatis quod quietavimus dilectum et fidelem nostrum W. Maresc' comitem de Penbroc de septena de dominico suo; et ideo vobis man- damus quod eum inde quietum esse faciatis. Teste me ipso apud Roth', x die Julii" (ibid., p. 47). 250 Thus William Earl Marshal who did not desert the king had to get a special writ of exemption; Wend., above. 25 1 An item in the Pipe Roll suggests that an assessment was UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III from the clergy was in charge of the archbishop of Canterbury, and from laymen, of the justiciar. 252 Refusal to pay was punishable by fine, payment of which might be long deferred. 253 The account of the levy is not in the Pipe Roll. The tax is noteworthy for it shows that the attention of the government was directed more and more to the personal property of the kingdom as a source of revenue. Another example of taxation of this character is worth notice. In the Channel Islands, a fifth of revenues of one year was to be collected on the lands of bishops, abbots, clerks, knights, rear-vassals, and others to support the knights and sergeants who were defending the islands. 25J THE TAXATION OF 1204 After a disastrous year in Normandy, John returned to England in December, 1203, for men and money to continue the struggle against Philip Augustus. 20 ' On January 2, 1204, the great council of lay and clerical tenants met at Oxford and the state of the king's affairs in France was discussed. An expedition to be led by John was proposed and the host was summoned to Ports- made. In the compotus of the lands of William de Longchamp rendered by the custodian is the entry: "et in septima data regi per assisam 77s 2d de dominico ipsius Willelmi" (Pipe Roll, 6 John, Wilts, m. 19 d). 252 Wend., above. 253 "Willelmus de Berton r c de C libris pro concelamento septime. In thesauro 39 5s 3d et debet 60 14s 9d" (Pipe Roll, 12 John, Hants). 254 R t. Liit. Pat., pp. 32b, 33b; Rymer, I, 89. 258 "sperans se copiosum exercitum . . . congregaturum et violen- tiam regis Philippi exterminaturum" (Cogg., p. 144) ; "omnes in regno Anglise . . . nos efficaciter faciunt auxilium tarn in veniendo corporaliter in servicium nostrum in Normanniam quam de militibus et pecuniis" (letter of John to the clergy of Ireland asking for an aid, February 10, 1204; Rymer, I, 90); Wend., Ill, 173. 63 STUDIES IN TAXATION mouth. 256 For some reason, the invasion did not take place as planned. The king remained at home with the body of the host ; a few of the barons were sent. 25 ' Mer- cenaries were to have been employed, 258 and when John decided not to go, money was still sent to hire soldiers abroad. 259 To defray the expenses of the war, it was determined in the council to levy a scutage at the advanced rate of two and a half marks per fee. Religious houses which did not hold by military service were also compelled to con- tribute. 260 This is a case of a levy put in charge before the expedition was to set out, and collected although the host was not dispatched. The account follows: Scutage at 2%m M s d Clerical tenants . . . . 553 10 Four lay tenants (each 5 or more fees) 102 6 8 Other lay tenants (each fewer than 5 fees, etc.) . . . . 94 6 Total 750 9 4 256 Rymer, above; "comites et barones se transfretaturos cum rege spoponderunt" (Liebermann, p. 144) ; Hist, de O. le Mar., 11. 12922-6, anno 1204; Miss Norgate suggests that this may be the summons of 1205 (John Lackland, p. 102); but an entry on the Pipe Roll implies that the host was summoned in 1204 and that writs of quittance were issued to those who came: "isti habent quietantiam praeter eos qui inbreviati sunt ad trans fretandum in rotulo que rex misit" (Pipe Roll, 6 John, Honor Glouc., m. 17 d). 257 The earl of Albemarle went with knights (Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 41b, May, 1204) ; Henry de Scalariis crossed with two knights appar- ently for his father, Hugh, who held 15 fees (Rot. Lib., p. 89). 258 "et Willelmo de Braiosa 10m ad opus Leisani Walensis qui venit in servicium regis cum 200 Walensibus"; "et Cadwalano Walensi 10m ad preparandumse ad trans fretandum in servicium regis" (Pipe Roll, 6 John, Glouc.; Rot. Lib., p. 88). 25928,000 marks (Cogg., p. 147). 2o Wend., Ill, 175; Liebermann, p. 143; Pipe Roll, 6 John, passim. 64 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III Fines Fees Clerical tenants .... 1375 229 Twenty-three lay tenants (each 5 or more fees) 261 . . . 1482 2 2 349 Other lay tenants (each fewer than 5 fees, etc.) 262 . . . . 2194 9 4 334 Total 5051 11 6 912 Sergeants 499 6 8 Additional 263 . . . 157 Abbots, priors (not military tenants) 748 Total charged .... 7207 10 Paid, 6 and 7 John . . . 5291 10 8 Fees taxed, not over 1300. It is seen that this levy was not a general tax although the host did not carry on the campaign. Of the men who were acquitted, some actually served and others appeared at Portsmouth at the appointed time ready to serve. 264 The men who paid scutage or who fined were those who had sought exemption from the expedition while the host was gathering. Only about 300 fees paid the scutage proper and these were nearly all churchmen. Only one lay tenant holding more than ten fees (the countess of Warwick, fifteen fees) paid it. 265 The bulk 2 i Of these, 11 men holding 184 fees on honors in hand paid 673m, leaving 12 tenants in chief charged with 809m on 165 fees. 262 Of this sum, 1,207m were charged against 224 fees on honors in hand, leaving not more than 987m charged against 110 fees of tenants in chief. zes Number of fees unknown. 204 The earl of Albemarle who served and Hugh de Scalariis who sent part of his service (above, p. 64, note 257) were acquitted of scutage. "Isti habent quietantiam praeter eos qui inbreviati sunt ad trans fretandum in rotulo que rex misit" (Pipe Roll, 6 John, Honor Glouc., m. 17 d). 265 The countess of Perche paid 471^ marks on 19 fees in Kent, but she had made a special arrangement with the king to pay scutage whenever it should be levied (Pipe Roll, 6 John, m. 3 d, m. 16 d; Rot. Lib., p. 74). 65 STUDIES IN TAXATION of the levy consisted of fines. Of churchmen, only abbots and priors were so charged (229% out of 318 fees). The average rate on them was very heavy, about six marks per fee. The abbey of Ramsey, in hand, paid 100m on 4 fees; the abbot of St. Edmunds, 100m of scutage and 120m de dono; the abbot of Peterborough, 150m of scutage and 100m de fine; the abbot of St. Albans, 100m on 6 fees. 266 In general, sums levied on religious houses were heavier than before. Of the greater lay tenants, Hervey Bagot paid 20m and his scutage on 60 fees; 261 Roger de Valtort, 200m on 60 fees ; Robert de Cardinan, 300m on 71 fees ; 268 Hubert Fitz Ralph, 105m on 15 fees, and Robert de Novo Burgo, 100m on 15 fees. 269 The fines on tenants holding five fees or over average more than four marks per fee. Tenants holding fewer than five fees each paid heavier fines, nearly seven marks per fee. 270 Sometimes the fine and scutage formed a lump sum; sometimes the tenant paid a fine in addition to his scutage. 271 In the latter case, the sheriff perhaps col- lected the scutage from the rear-vassals. 272 The pro- 266 Pipe Roll, 6 John, Cant, and Hunt., Norf. and Suff., Northamp., Essex and Hert., m. 3 d, 9 d, 11 d, 18 d. M Ibid., Staff. 268 ibid., Cornw., m. 4. The king granted Robert the right to collect 21^ marks per fee from each of his tenants (Rot. Litt. Clau*., I, 2b) ; this honor of Mortain usually paid at five-eighths the regular rate; on this occasion, the vassals had to help pay the fine of their lord. 269 Ibid., Notts, and Derby, Dors, and Somers., m. 13 d, 14 d. 270 See above, p. 65. 271 Sometimes the fine is only for his demesne and the scutage is only for the knights whom he had enfeoffed; William de Heliun accounts for 6m "de dominico suo" and for 221^01 "de scutagio militum suorum" (ibid., Essex and Hert., m. 3 d). This barony in 1166 consisted of 10 fees, nine enfeoffed and one on the demesne (Red Book, I, 357). 272 "Comitissa Herefordiae r c de L marcis de dominico suo et scutagium capiatur de hominibus suis" (Pipe Roll, 6 John, Glouc., m. 12) ; her scutage was 36m 40d "de scutagio militum suorum de UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III cedure depended apparently on a bargain between the king and the tenant. That the exchequer did not arbi- trarily take scutage from the sub-tenant without the knowledge or consent of his lord is shown by cases in which it was demanded, but remitted when it was found that the tenant was a rear-vassal. 273 If a tenant in chief did not secure a writ of quittance, the sheriff might collect some scutage from his lands. Later, when he had secured the necessary writ, the money was returned to him. 274 If a tenant refused to pay the scutage, the sheriff did not take it from the rear-vassal but disseized his lord. 275 The feodis xiv militum et dim." (ibid., Kent, m. 16 d). The form of this entry suggests that the king collected scutage from her knights. Yet it is doubtful whether this was the case. She held part of the barony of Walter de Mayenne which in 1166 consisted of 20 fees of the old enfeoffment, 1^ fees of the new enfeoffment, and 9 fees on the demesne (Red Book, I, 195; servitium debitum, 30 fees, Round, Feudal England, p. 254, note 80). In 1201, 1202, and 1203, she accounted for 14^ fees, or half of 29 fees, the sum of the old enfeoffment and the demesne. Thus apparently all of the 14J^ knights were not enfeoffed so that the sheriff could not collect from them. The entry cited at the beginning of this note probably means that the countess paid all the scutage due from her lands in addition to a fine. 273 In the list of those granted writs of quittance is a name now blurred of one who is quit "quia nichil tenet de rege" (Pipe Roll, 6 John, Bucks and Bedf., m. 2) ; "Ricardus de Bellocampo et Milo f rater ejus . . . quieti sunt per inquisitionem factam qui nichil tenent de rege" (ibid., Notts, and Derby, m. 13 d) ; Gilbert de Hastings is quit in 1207 of the fourth and fifth scutages "per inquisitionem quia nichil tenet de rege" (Lancashire Pipe Rolls and Early Charters, ed. W. Farrer, p. 214). He held of the barony of Penwortham which came into the king's hand in 1200. In 1205, it was turned over to the constable of Chester and this was evidently the reason why Gilbert was excused payment by the exchequer in 1207 of the two scutages mentioned (ibid., pp. 139, 146, 161, 379). 274 The sheriff was ordered to allow Robert de Tresgoz to have his scutage "et si aliquid scutagii captum est idem que sit ad scac- carium solutum idem ei de aliis denariis reddi facias et nos tibi alias idem locari faciemus" (Rot. Lib., p. 93). 275 The archbishop of York had been disseized "occasione scutagii que ipse debet domino regi" (Rot. Lift. Claus., I, lib). 67 STUDIES IN TAXATION sub-tenant, however, ultimately paid the scutage, whether his lord paid scutage or fine, or served. This was done by the royal writ de scutagio habendo. 27 * A charge, amounting to 748 marks, appears in the roll against twenty-six religious houses which did not hold by military tenure. Probably the increase in the fines of those houses which held by knight service was due to this exaction from the regular clergy. 277 There are accounts of a tallage in fourteen counties, amounting to about 5,000 marks. 278 Sometimes the town fined in a lump sum and sometimes the assessment was made per capita by the justices. 279 In the latter case, a roll of the sums charged against all persons was drawn up in duplicate, one copy was sent to the exchequer and the other delivered to the sheriff who made the collection. 280 276 Robert de Cardinan, the archbishop of York (ibid., I, 2b, lib) ; William de London and Robert de Tresgoz (Rot. Lib., pp. 88, 93). Tenants who obtained writs of quittance on account of service (see above, p. 65, note 264-) probably received this right. The writ some- times, not always, stated the rate which was the rate of scutage of the year. The tenant in chief was not to collect more than this amount: Ralph Teisun, warden of the lands of Henry de Tilli, had apparently violated this rule and the additional money collected from the sub-tenants was ordered to be returned (Rot. Lib., p. 92). 277 Sometimes the donum on a house which held by military service was called a fine. 278 It was not always called a tallage: "Gives Lond' M li. pro fine passagii" (Pipe Roll, 6 John, Lond. and Midd., m. 8). In the total sum is included a tallage of 104 18s in Oxfordshire, which first appears in the roll of 9 John, (m. 5), but seems to belong to the tallage of 1204. 27 "Homines de Solopesbiria r c de quater xx marcis de taillagio facto per S. de PateshulT et Willelmum de CanteP in villa de Solopes- biria per capita" (ibid., 6 John, Salop, m. 12 d). Probably these men were the itinerant justices, for they also laid the amercements in Salop. zso "Idem vicecomes r c de xv li. et xiiii sol. et viii den. de taillagiis hominum de villa de Hereford' quorum nomina et debita annotantur in rotulo que praedicti (tallagers) liberaverunt in thesauro" (ibid., Heref., m. 2 d). 68 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III Another levy which was collected at this time was the fifteenth on the property of merchants. The amount yielded by this tax furnishes a basis for estimating the relative importance of scutage and tallage in the budget of the year, for these three levies were all part of the extraordinary revenue. Such a comparison is fairer than one with the ordinary income. In the Pipe Roll of 1204 an account of the fifteenth is rendered for a period of about sixteen months ; the sum received was 4,958 7s 3%d. 28J The assessment and collection of the fifteenth in the different towns was in general charge of three men appointed by the king. Under them, six, seven, or more men of each port, one knight, and one clerk were to be chosen, called the bailiffs (ballivi) of the fifteenth. These latter had direct charge of the tax in their own town and were responsible to the three chief supervisors. They were to draw up a roll containing the names of the mer- chants and a list of their payments. 282 Here is another example of a levy on personal property. The use of local machinery to assess and collect the tax is seen to have been a royal device to get at a fair valuation of property. THE TAXATION OF 1205 In June, 1205, a very large army was gathered for the invasion of Poitou and Gascony. 283 The expedition was opposed by the barons and the king was obliged to yield. Instead, there was sent a picked force of knights and 281 Pipe Roll, 6 John, Kent, in. 10 d; Madox, I, 722, n. . 232 R t. Litt. Pat., p. 42. 283 "cum maximo et nobili exercitu" (Cogg., p. 152) ; "exercitum grandem" (Wend., Ill, 182) ; militumque et peditum populus innu- merabilis" (Gervase of Canterbury, Historical Works, ed. Stubbs, Rolls Series, II, 98); Annales Monasterii de Waverleia, ed. Luard, Rolls Series, p. 256. 69 STUDIES IN TAXATION barons under the leadership of the earl of Salisbury and John's natural son, Geoffrey, to relieve La Rochelle, and the body of knights remained at home. 284 In connection with this expedition, fines and scutages were levied, a tallage was taken in several counties, and some sums were received from religious houses, though only a few of these appear in the roll. 285 The scutage (at two marks) was put in charge, at the latest, immediately after the knights were dismissed, 286 but some fines were made while the host was waiting to sail, and it is possible that the scutage also was levied at that time. 287 Inasmuch as only a small force of knights was sent, we should expect to find an unusually large number of fees contributing. Such is the case, as the following table will show: Scutage at 2m M s d Clerical tenants .... 1060 10 8 Sixty-one lay tenants (each 5 or more fees) 288 .... 8444 6 Other lay tenants (each fewer than 5 fees, etc.) 289 . . . 954 12 9 Total 6460 2 9 284 "quosdam ex proceribus Anglias fore mittendos cum strenuis militibus . . . Rex denuncians principibus atque militibus quatinus ad propria remearent" (Cogg., p. 153). 285 Wend., above: "pro communi auxilio abbatum Angliae" (Rot. Litt. Claw., I, 52a, 32b, 59b). 286 "Reversus autem rex cepit de comitibus, baronibus, militibus et viris religiosis pecuniam infinitam" (Wend., above) ; writs granting tenants the right to collect scutage from their vassals were issued in July (Rot. Litt. Clau*., I, 43b). 287 The earl Warenne makes a fine of 120m (60 fees so that it is really scutage) that his knights shall not cross, to be paid in camera in the octave of St. John, that is, before the host was to sail and before it was dismissed. The archbishop of Canterbury also fined 70 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III Fine Fees Clerical tenants 290 . . 740 116 Fifty-two lay tenants (each 6 or more fees) 291 . . . 2300 12 6 681 Other lay tenants (each fewer than 5 fees, etc.) 292 . . . 1801 4 7 263 Total 4842 3 9 1060 Additional 293 . . . 808 1 8 Sergeants 80 1 8 Grand total .... 10690 9 10 Paid, 7 and 8 John . . . 7412 10 11 Fees taxed, nearly 4000. In many counties, no list of writs of quittance is given and in the others comparatively few names appear of tenants who were exempt. As we know that only a small number of knights performed their service, we may con- clude that the writs of quittance correspond quite closely to the tenants who served in the host. Furthermore, we in 200m to be paid at the same time (Rot. Obi., p. 366). These entries are given under the year 1206, but the next item in the roll is of 1205 and refers to this scutage; and the Pipe Roll of 1205 makes the earl fine in 120m. zss Si x m en are tenants on honors in hand holding 182 fees ; the following holdings respond in one amount through the sheriff or a custodian: Gilbert de 1'Aigle 35 fees, rape of Hastings 62^ fees, the earl of Warwick, 102^ fees. 289 Of this sum, 187m were on scattered fees of great barons and 424m on honors in hand, leaving not over 350m on tenants in chief. 290 Of this sum, 500m were on the abbot of St. Edmunds and were only partly a fine for service. He paid 500m "pro passagio militum suorum et pro habendo scutagio suo et de auxilio de quolibet feodo militis i marc, et pro habenda una feria octo dierum apud Becles et pro habendo uno cuneo apud S. Edmund' cum cambio" (Pipe Roll, 7 John, Norf. and Suff., m. 19b; Rot. Obi., p. 293). 291 Of this sum, 17 men holding 115 fees on honors in hand were charged with 510m, leaving 35 lay tenants in chief who fined. 292 Of this sum, 860m are charged against 157 fees on honors in hand. 293 Number of fees unknown. 71 STUDIES IN TAXATION know that some of the men who are given as quieti accompanied the army. 29 * Nearly all the churchmen were taxed this year; only three however fined: the archbishop of Canterbury, 200m on 60 fees; 295 the abbot of Tavistock, 40m on his 15 or 16 fees; 299 the abbot of St. Edmunds, 500m on 40 fees. Among the greater barons who paid scutage were: Earl Roger, 125% fees; Earl Warenne, 60 fees; 297 the earl of Arundel, 84% fees ; 298 Earl Ferrers, 68^ fees ; 299 William de Albini, 33 fees; 300 Warren Fitz Gerold, about 53 fees; 301 Walter de Lacy, 51% fees; 302 William de Mow- bray, 60 fees; 303 Hervey Bagot, 60 fees. 304 The sums were not merely charged; they were partly paid. An increased number of the greater lay tenants paid fines. Those holding 20 or more fees were: Thomas de St. Valery, 100m fine and the scutage of 10 fees; 305 Robert Fitz Walter, 20m fine and the scutage of 63% fees; 306 the earl of Chester, 100m fine which includes his scutage on 40% fees; 307 Simon de Beauchamp, 100m fine which 28* The earl of Salisbury who led the expedition is quit (Pipe Roll, 7 John, Wilts, m. 14 d) ; Robert de Turnham was fighting in France this year (Cogg., p. 152) and is quit (Pipe Roll, 7 John, York, m. 5 d) ; Gilbert Gaunt had his scutage because his brother was hi the king's service (ibid., Notts, and Derby, York, Line., m. 5 d, 18 d, 19 d; Rot. Litt. Claus., I, 46a). 295 Rot. Obi., p. 366. 296 Pipe Roll, 7 John, Devon, m. 2 d. 287 ibid., Norf. and Suff., m. 19b. 298 ibid., Suss., m. 9. 299 ibid., Notts, and Derby, m. 19 d. 800 Ibid., War. and Leic., m. 3 d. 80i/6uJ., Essex and Herts., m. 15. 302 ibid., Heref., m. 22 d. BOS ibid., York, m. 5 d. so* Ibid., Staff. sos ibid., Oxf., m. 12. He usually paid on 25 fees. SOB ibid., Essex and Hert., m. 15. SOT ibid., York, m. 5 d. 72 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III includes his scutage on 45%% fees; 308 Ralph de Sumery, 20m fine plus his scutage on 50 fees ; 309 Norman de Arescy 50m fine which includes his scutage on 20 fees. 310 Except the first, the fines were not heavy. The separation of the fine from the scutage seems to imply that the former was for the personal service of the tenant in chief. 311 The heaviest fines fell on the small tenants. The average rate per fee (including the scutage on those fees which fined) on the lesser lay tenants (each fewer than five fees) was about seven marks, while on the larger lay holdings (each five fees of more) it was about three marks. 312 This scutage was not a general tax levied by the exchequer on rear-vassals. The exemption from a money contribution of those tenants who received writs of quit- tance extended to all their fees. 313 But did the sheriff ordinarily collect from the rear-vassals of those tenants who were liable for scutage or fine who did not secure writs of quittance, or did the tenant in chief respond for his whole tax either to the sheriff or to the exchequer? Sometimes the former was the case. The sheriff paid in at the exchequer sums which seem to have been paid him 308 pipe Roll, 7 John, Bucks and Bedf., m. 6. 309/fcjd., Staff. 3io/6id., Line., m. 18 d. 311 Thirteen out of twenty-three tenants, each holding ten or more fees, separate the fine from the scutage. In the small holdings there is no separation. 312 See above, p. 71. sis "Mandatum est vicecomiti Bukingh' quod faciat habere Sahero de Quency scutagium suum in balliva sua. Similiter mandatum est aliis vicecomitibus in quorum ballivis terras habet" (Rot. Litt. Claus., I, 43b). Gilbert Gaunt has writs of quittance in three bailiwicks: Notts, and Derby, York, and Line. If a tenant has not secured such a writ, scutage would not necessarily be taken from him. Hugh de Nevill was charged with 10m scutage; no payment was made and later a note is added: "sed postea habuit quietantiam per breve regis quod est in forulo marescalli in anno sequent!" (Pipe Roll, 7 John, Glouc., m. 8 d) ; see also Peter de Stokes, m. 7 d. 73 STUDIES IN TAXATION by the rear-vassal, though perhaps he received them from the steward of the tenant in chief. 314 But many of the sums received in this way were small, due from detached fees of baronies, the heads of which lay in other counties. 318 The government seems to have recognized that it could not collect from the sub-tenant. In Devonshire eleven men were charged with scutage, but the accounts were crossed off because an inquest showed that the men held nothing in chief of the king. 316 The case of Cecilia de Crevequor illustrates this point. She was disseized because she had not fined with the king for her passage. She then fined in forty marks, received back her lands, and was granted the right to collect scutage from her tenants. It is to be observed that in her case the sheriff dealt directly with the tenant in chief and collected no 3i* E.g. the sheriff accounts for 2m of Walter Clifford in this county, 2m on one fee of the abbot of Hide, etc. (Pipe Roll, 7 John, Berks, m. 6 d) ; see like cases in Rutland, Warwick, Bucks and Bedf. Orders exist to the sheriff to return any moneys which he may have collected to a tenant in chief who has obtained the right to collect his scutage from his vassals, e.g. for the earl of Clare (Rot. Litt. Clans., I, 43b). Henry de Pinkeny accounts for 34m, his full charge, in Northamp., where he pays 12m this year, for 34m in Bucks and Bedf., where he pays 2m and the sheriff accounts for him for 7m which is paid in Berks (Pipe Roll, 7 John, m. 6, 6 d, 21 d). SIB Sometimes the sheriff of the county where the head of the barony lies accounts for the scutage; this does not necessarily mean that he collects it from the rear-vassals; the tenant in chief may have paid it to him to deliver at the exchequer. The sheriff con- tinually reports the number of fees held by tenants in chief in his district: "Comes Ebroic debet scutagium sed vicecomes dicit que nullum habet feodum in comitatibus suis" (ibid., Bucks and Bedf., m. 6) ; William Marshal 5m on 2^ fees "sicut vicecomes dicit" (ibid., Berks, m. 5a) ; Geoffrey de Say (ibid., m. 6). 8i "sed omnes isti non debent summoneri quia per inquisitionem factam nichil tenent de rege in capite" (Pipe Roll, 9 John, Notts, and Derby) ; also, wife of John de Crioil (ibid., 10 John, War. and Leic., m. 3). 74 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III scutage from sub-tenants. 317 Further, for his fees lying in one county a tenant often accounted in another, show- ing that there was no collection by the sheriff. 318 The tenants in chief would oppose such a collection, for they preferred to do the work themselves. When they fined for their passage, they were allowed not only to remain at home, but also to collect scutage from their tenants. 318 Those tenants who did not fine, but paid scutage only, obtained the same privilege. 320 SIT Rot. Obi., p. 302; another case of disseizin, Henfridus de Criketot (ibid., p. 301). sis Earl Ferrers owed ll^m in Berks "sed respondet in Noting- hamsira" (Pipe Roll, 7 John, Berks, m. 5a) ; Eustace de Vescy held fees in York, Northumberland, and Norfolk and Suffolk; he pays 4m in York, pays fine and scutage in the second and is quit in the last; William Earl Warenne is quietus in Essex and Herts., is charged with 120m fine in Norf. and Suff., with 120m fine in Bucks where the roll adds "sed requirendus est in Surreia," and in Surrey with 120m "qui requirebatur" in Bucks. Robert Fitz Walter "debet iiii marc, de eodem (i.e. scutage of 1205), sed non debet summoneri quia respondit de toto hoc scutagio in Essex" (ibid., 10 John, Cant, and Hunt., m. 9) ; William de Cornhull (ibid., 1 John, m. 5a). sis "Roaldus constabularius Richemund' dat domino regi 80m pro passagio suo et pro habendo scutagio suo" (Rot. Obi., p. 288). The separation of the fine from the scutage does not mean that the tenant in chief pays the king a fine for his personal service while the king collects scutage from the sub-tenants, unless there is a bargain to that effect. Robert Fitz Walter fined in 20m in addition to his scutage and he collected the scutage with his own hand from his vassals (Rot. Litt. Claus., I, 43b) ; a similar case in Matilda de Chandos (Rot. Obi., p. 304). 320 William de Mowbray paid only scutage this year (see above, p. 72, note 303; he received a writ to collect his scutage by his own hand and respond for it at the exchequer (Rot. Obi., p. 306) ; the archbishop of York paid scutage only and received a like writ (Rot. Litt. Claus., I, 46a) ; the earl of Arundel paid scutage only in 1205; one of his tenants was pardoned his scutage (Roger de la Zouche, 16m) and the earl was likewise acquitted this amount, so that he must have collected from his vassals (Pipe Roll, 7 John, Suss., m. 9) ; for William de Albini and the earl of Clare (Rot. Litt. Claus., I, 43b). "Johannis filius Hugonis habet scutagium suum et dominus rex illud computari faciet dominis de quibus ipse tenet" (ibid., 46a). 75 STUDIES IN TAXATION All this shows, moreover, that the scutage was shifted by the lord to his vassal, though to do so required the king's consent, the sheriff being instructed to allow the tenant to collect his scutage. The sheriff was also to report the amount. 321 Compliance with this order may explain the entries in the Pipe Roll of amounts written opposite the names of tenants with no statement concern- ing payment. In this way the king had a check on his tenants. But the writ to the sheriff meant more than this; if the tenant were unable to force his vassals to pay, the sheriff came to his aid and distrained them. 325 The fine of the tenant in chief did not fall upon the rear- vassal, who was liable for scutage only. 328 The king dealt directly with the rear-vassal in another way, by pardoning him his scutage. In that case, his lord was also acquitted of that amount. 324 Returns of a tallage were made in twenty-six counties. Some of the shires were the same as those tallaged in 1204; in part of these the accounts seem to have been additional returns of the same tax; in others a new levy was made. 321 The assessment was made by the itinerant justices and was collected by the sheriff. 326 Some towns 21 The writs for William de Albini and the archbishop of York (Rot. Litt. Glaus., I, 43b, 46a). 822 The writ for the archbishop of York (ibid., 46a). 323 Thus when the tenant in chief fined in a lump sum for his passage and his scutage, he could collect only scutage from his vassals (Rot. Obi., p. 288) ; when he fined in a certain sum and his scutage, the latter is evidently the sum which the rear-vassals are to pay; see the case of Robert Fitz Walter (see above, p. 75). 324 See above, p. 75. 325 Worcester pays 43 3s lid in 1204 and 40m in 1205 (Pipe Roll, 6 and 7 John, Wig.) ; Salop 80m in 1204 and 50m in 1205 (ibid., Salop) ; Hereford to the sheriff 58m 10s 4d in 1204 and 50m in 1205 (ibid., Heref.). 328 in Kent, the tallage was laid by the justiciar, "per j usticiarium" (Pipe Roll, 7 John, Kent, m. 9 d). In Worcestershire is the title: "de amerciamentis et taillagiis per Robertum de Berkelai et Johannem 76 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III and vills had lump sums charged against them, that is, they agreed to pay a certain sum and settle the incidence themselves ; in others the assessment was made per capita. 827 The amount charged was over 3,000m. 828 THE TAXATION OF 1206 This year John was able to carry out his invasion of France. On May 27, he sailed for La Rochelle with a great army. 329 The campaign lasted till October 6, or over four months. 33 ' The taxation of the year consisted of a scutage at twenty shillings per fee with fines ne transfretet and a tallage. 331 The following is the account : Scutage at 20s M s d Clerical tenants . . . . 251 3 4 Lay tenants (each 5 or more fees) . 112 10 Other lay tenants (each fewer than 5 fees, etc.) . . . 180 11 4 Total 544 11 4 ftlium Hugonis"; the sheriff accounts for these sums at the exchequer (ibid., m. 22). 327 Ibid.; e.g. in Devon, there are many persons in the roll charged with tallage, but the city of Exeter accounts for 100 and three palfreys (ibid., Devon, m. 2 d). 328 in this sum are included the following tallages : s d Line 31 17 (in 8 John, m. 10) Cant, and Hunt. . . 93 6 8 (in 8 John, m. 16) Oxford . . . . 64 11 10 (in 9 John, m. 5) These seem to belong to the tallage of 1205. 329 Rot. Litt. Pat., pp. 62b, 64b, 65a; Wend., Ill, 186; Liebermann, p. 144; Wav., p. 258; Annales Honasterii de Wintonia, ed. Luard, Rolls Series, p. 79. ssoRymer, I, 95. 33i There are also some references to a contribution by religious houses, irrespective of their tenure. They may be deferred entries 77 STUDIES IN TAXATION Fine Fees Clerical tenants . . . 670 11 7 220 Thirty lay tenants (each 5 or more fees) 332 . . . . 1174 6 6 342 Other lay tenants (each fewer than 5 fees, etc.) 333 . . . 1349 5 4 306 Total 3194 10 1 868 Additional 384 . . . 324 Sergeants 123 11 8 Total charged . . . . 4187 6 5 Paid, 8 and 9 John . . . 3128 11 8 Fees taxed, not over 1500. If a tenant performed his service, he obtained a writ of exemption from scutage. A considerable number of barons and knights went from Devonshire and Cornwall, as nine naves were employed to carry them. The only fees taxed in these counties were those of the abbot of Tavistock, the bishop of Exeter, and four small tenants who held together about ten fees. The list of writs of quittance is long and complete; it included William Briwerre, Henry Fitz Count, and Reginald de Mohun who led the fleet. 335 The earl of Salisbury, Hugo de Chaurces, and Paganus de Chaurces were in the cam- paign 336 and received writs of quittance. 331 The scutage of the dona of 1205. The abbot and convent of Cernel,' 30m "ut sint quieti de communi auxilio"; the abbot of Burton, 40m "de promissione ad sustentationem regni"; the abbot of Peterborough, 60m (Rot. Obi, pp. 343, 354, 356). 332 Of this sum, 9 men who held 56 fees on honors in hand were charged with 172 marks. sss There were 688m charged against 197 fees on honors in hand, leaving 661m on 109 fees of tenants in chief. 334 Scutage or fine ; number of fees unknown. sss Pipe Roll, 8 John, Devon, Dors, and Somers., m. 13 d, 14, 14 d. 336 "De praestitis factis in Pictavia: Comes Sarresbiriae 100m," etc. (ibid., Wilts, m. 18 d). 337 The earl of Salisbury in Wilts and Yorkshire; Paganus in Bucks and Dorset. 78 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III proper was not very important. No great lay tenant paid it, though several of the chief prelates did so (the bishops of Hereford, Bath, Exeter, Salisbury, and Worcester, and the abbot of Hide). No bishop was charged with a fine. The fines on religious houses amounted to about double what their scutage would have been. In some cases it might be much more than this ; the abbot of Malmesbury paid 21m 10s 6d on his three fees. 336 Lay tenants holding 20 fees or more who fined were: Walter de Lacy, 40m fine and 51 5s scutage; 338 Thomas de St. Valery, 150m fine on 25 fees; 340 Gilbert Peke, 40m fine and 19 Is 6d scutage; 341 and Hervey Bagot, 12m fine and 45m scutage. 3 * 2 The fines fell heaviest on the men with small holdings, many of whom were not tenants in chief, but tenants on honors in hand. 345 Among the lesser tenants, the fine and the scutage were almost always lumped together ; while among the greater vassals, they were often separated. The abbot of Glastonbury paid 40m fine and 60m scutage; 344 William Fitz Hamon, 20m fine and 22M>m scutage; 345 Nigel de Luvetot, 20m fine and 22%m scutage ; 346 Richard Basset, 20m fine and 22%m scutage; 347 the abbot of 338 pipe Roll, 8 John, Wilts, m. 18; the abbey of Ramsey, in hand, paid 4 of scutage and 73 3s Id "de auxilio posito per maneria" (Cartularium Monasterii de Rameseia, Rolls Series, I, 231). Prob- ably this should be classed as a tallage on the demesne rather than as a fine. 339 pipe Roll, 8 John, Heref., m. 7. **Ibid., Oxf., m. 12 d. 3*i Ibid., Norf. and Suff., m. 4. 3*2 pipe Roll, 8 John, Staff. This entry is peculiar; he held 60 fees. 3*3 See above, p. 78, note 333. 3*4 Pipe Roll, 8 John, Dors, and Somers., m. 13 d. 345 Ibid., Bucks and Bedf., m. 4 d. 346 ibid., Cant, and Hunt., m. 16 d. 347 Ibid., Northamp., m. 17 d. 79 STUDIES IN TAXATION Westminster, 10m fine and 22M>m scutage. 348 In some of these cases the fine represented not merely the personal service of the tenant in chief and that of his demesne, but an amount as large as the scutage from his holding, so that the king was really being paid for the same thing twice over. The scutage thus had the appearance of a royal tax on the rear- vassals. Other indications, as in previous years, show not only that the scutage fell ultimately on the rear-vassal, but also that the exchequer knew to an extent the distribution of the fees of the tenants in chief, and was thus prepared to collect and in some cases actually did collect the amounts charged against the latter from the sub-tenants. Tenants who secured writs of quittance had that fact noted in each county where their lands lay, not merely in the one where the head of the barony was. 34 The prior of Coventry held most of his fees in the counties of War- wick and Leicester, but owed 10 shillings in Northampton- shire. 350 The abbot of Westminster (10m fine and 15 scutage) paid 12 of his scutage in Worcestershire and owed 3 "qui requirendus est in London'." 351 Walter de Baillolet held of the abbot of Peterborough. He was pardoned his scutage on two fees per breve regis and so both he and the abbot were quit. 355 Walter de Lacy paid his scutage in five counties. 353 But it does not follow that the sheriff in general collected from the rear-vassals of those tenants who owed scutage or fine. The tenant in chief might personally account in one sum for the 348 ibid., Lond. and Midd., m. 6. 349 E.g. the earl of Chester is quit in five bailiwicks : Gloucester, Bucks and Bedf., Notts, and Derby, York, Berks; Warren Fitz Gerold in eight; William Earl Marshal in eight. 350 Ibid., Northamp., m. 17 d. 351 Ibid., Wigorn., m. 20 d. 352 Ibid., Northamp., m. 17 d. 353 ibid., Hereford, Gloucester, Oxford, Salop, and Berks. 80 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III whole amount due from his holding. The fine of Thomas de St. Valery covered all his lands. 354 In each of the cases cited, the tenant compounded this year; he obtained no writ of quittance. A different sort of case would be where the baron was exempted, yet the rear-vassal paid a scutage to the king. If this were commonly done, the scutage would not be a composition for the service of the tenants in chief, but an aid, a general tax on all the fees in England. Robert Marmiun had a general writ of quittance yet the sheriff collected ten shillings in Northamptonshire. 355 The practice of the exchequer seems to have been not to collect such sums if the tenant in chief had a writ of exemption. The arch- bishop of York was charged with 63s 4d in Gloucester- shire, but the roll adds that he was quit in Yorkshire; 356 the bishop of Durham owed half a mark in Rutland, but he did not pay it as he was quit in Yorkshire ; 357 Peter de Anesie of the fee of Baldwin Wak owed ten shillings, but was acquitted as his lord was exempted ; 358 John Briwerre who held one fee of William Briwerre was charged with two marks, but for the same reason it was not collected. 356 35* Thomas de St. Valery is quit in Bucks and Bedf. and in Berks, pays 100 fine in Oxfordshire, is charged with 100 fine in Lond. and Midd., but the roll states "sed respondet inde in Oxeneford' " (ibid., Lond. and Midd., m. 6) ; Gilbert Peke pays 10s in Berks, is charged with his whole fine and scutage in Norf. and Suff. and is quit in Cant, and Hunt.; Cecilia countess of Hereford is quit in Gloucester and pays in Kent; Ralph Dairel pays 20s on } fee in Berks, is charged with it in Lond. and Midd., but "quietus est in honore Warengef" (ibid., m. 6, 21 d) ; Philip de Girund pays the sheriff of Bucks and Bedf. 9m on 3 fees; he is also charged in the roll with scutage in Kent for these 3 fees, "sed quietus est in Buking- hamsira in summa ix marc." (ibid., Kent, m. 5 d). 355 pipe Roll, 8 John, Oxf., War. and Leic., m. 1 d, 12 d; 9 John, Northamp. 356 ibid., 8 John, Glouc., m. 2. 357 ibid., Rutland, m. 13 d. sss Ibid., 9 John, Rutland. 359 Ibid., 8 John, Norf. and Suff., m. 4. Four tenants on the honor 81 STUDIES IN TAXATION Returns of the tallage are given in thirty-two counties ; the amount charged was nearly 4,000 marks. 36C Persons appear in the roll charged with tallage; vills and towns have lump sums charged against them ; that is, the tallage was made in some cases per capita and in others the town or vill fined in a lump sum for its contribution. The sheriff collected the tax, but the assessment was probably made by the itinerant justices. 361 Despite the long campaign, John did not lack ready money in the autumn. Early in November he acknowl- edged the receipt of 14,000 marks from England. 365 In December he seems to have had over 15,000 marks of treasure at Porchester. 363 of Richmond were charged with scutage; "sed isti quatuor non debuerunt summoneri quia per inquisitionem factam tenent per feodum militia de honore Richemund' et debet servitium eorum exigi a Petro de Leonibus" (ibid., 9 John, Hants, m. 14 d). The exchequer acts toward this warden probably as it does toward a tenant in chief. 380 There is no tallage on London in the roll. The return for Oxfordshire is given in 9 John (m. 5). In some counties (Salop, Cant, and Hunt., Bucks and Bedf., Northamp.) two levies appear, one of which probably belongs to a preceding year. 36i For an example of persons charged with tallage, see Pipe Roll, 8 John, Surr., m. 12; "De taillagiis et ammerciamentis per Walterum de Creppinges et Henricum de Ver et socios suos. Idem vicecomes r c de c et xlvii marcis et iiii sol. et iii den. de misericordiis et tail- lagiis hominum et villarum quorum nomina annotantur in rotulo que praedicti liberaverunt in thesauro; in thesauro liberavit in Ixxi talliis et quietus est" (Pipe Roll, 8 John, Berks, m. 21 d). When a town pays a round sum, it is probable that it fined with the justices for this amount and apportioned the tax itself; when it pays an irregular amount, it is probable that the justices levied the tallage per capita; e.g. "Burgus de Notingeham r c de xii li. et iiii sol. de taillagio" (ibid., Notts, and Derby, m. 8 d). sea R t. Litt. Glaus., I, 75a. sea Ibid, and 75b, 77a. In these two references from the Close Roll there are four sums of money: 12,000m, 2,000m, 10,000m, and 5,000m. If there is no duplication, we have the interesting fact that John received in November and December nearly 30,000m. There can be no doubt that he received 14,000m, for he acknowledged the receipt 82 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III of that sum while he was in Poitou and it is possible that he brought part of it back with him to England, yet in that case, it is strange that he immediately sent 5,000m back to Poitou. It would seem more likely that the 5,000m were a fresh sum which he sent out. It is also possible that the 5,000m were a part of the sum of 10,000m which was in the hands of the wardens of the treasure. 83 CHAPTER III THE THIRTEENTH OF 1207 HE thirteenth of revenues and moveables was the last " of a series of taxes on property which were levied in John's reign. The basis of this levy was that on which the great taxes of the future were to be taken ; the amount which it yielded was very large ; the assessment was quite generally carried out; and the plea for its levy was ingenious and unanswerable at the time. These facts combine to make the thirteenth of 1207 the most impor- tant single levy of the reign. That it was so regarded by the men of the time is doubtful. To them it seems to have appeared as a rather unusual levy, but on the whole as of less importance than the scutage because it was taken only once. Since this is the last example of a series of taxes on property on both a great and a small scale in John's reign, it looks as though the government had experimented till finally it knew the form of taxation that would yield the most. But that was not enough. There must be found a method by which the new tax could be legally taken. Different devices had already been employed in the case of the carucage and the seventh of 1203, but they could only be employed in very excep- tional cases. The method was found in 1207 when the king asked for a gracious aid. Such an aid needed the consent of the taxpayers. This was considered to have been obtained when the tenants in chief agreed to the thirteenth. Thus the root of the levy is to be found in feudal custom. A request from the king for a gracious aid was almost without precedent, though the practice 84 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III was common among his vassals. At first sight, it might be thought surprising that the king could succeed in taking an aid from the great barons while he seems to have failed to obtain a grant from the parochial clergy. The explanation lies in the fact that the aid on the clergy was without precedent while the aid on the tenants in chief found plenty of precedent in feudal practice. Now the feudal aid was to be taken only in case of a lord's great need. What was the need in 1207? John had a large sum of money on hand in the fall of 1206; he had just made a truce with Philip II and he had no debts to pay. Nevertheless the excuse assigned was the war against the French, 1 which the king planned to renew at some future time not definitely fixed. Levied as it was to provide money against a remote need, the thirteenth was a precedent of great importance for establishing a right of arbitrary taxation by the king. The ease with which the opposition to the tax in the council was over- come shows the great power of John; it also reveals the lack of unity among the baronage and the difficulty of finding an effective ground for resistance. The opposition did not end with the dissolution of the council, but it was fruitless; the collection went steadily on. This throws an instructive light on scutage. After the tax had been put in charge, it was difficult to resist payment. Here lay one advantage to the king of putting the scutage in charge when the host assembled. The method of assessment shows a return to the plan employed in the tenth of 1188, the personal oath of the i"ad defensionem regni nostri et recuperationem juris nostri" (Select Charters, Stubbs, 8th ed., p. 283; Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 72b) ; "ad recuperandam haereditatem suam in Normannia" (Wav., p. 258); "ad manutenendum guerram suam contra regem Franciae" (Historia et Cartularium Monasterii 8. Petri Oloucestrice , Rolls Series, I, 23) ; "ad opus regium, sub praetextu terrarum quas . . . amiserat, per werram recuperandarum" (Cov., II, 198). 85 STUDIES IN TAXATION property holder before the justices. Perhaps the king thought that the fear of punishment for false swearing would be more effective if each man were held to account for his own property than if a jury were employed. Perhaps it was thought that the former method would be quicker. The clergy opposed the assessment on their demesne lands and the king allowed them to compound, an illustration of the strength of the opposition to a tax on property. At first sight, the thirteenth seems to have been with- out result on the financial policy of the government, for another tax on moveables did not come till 1225. The reason why none was taken in John's reign lies in the political situation. The king could not levy it again till a certain interval had passed. By 1212, the trouble with the pope and the barons had reached such a pass that a tax on moveables was no longer feasible. In Henry Ill's reign, when an unusual effort was to be put forth in 1225 in order to retain the provinces in France, the scutage and the carucage were passed over and a tax on move- ables taken. There can hardly be a doubt that this was because of the memory of the great yield of the thirteenth of 1207. 2 Two meetings of the magnates were held in connection with the taxation of 1207. John had returned from Poitou in December, 1206; the great council was sum- moned and met at London on January 8, 1207. It was composed of the bishops, abbots, priors, earls, and barons. The king asked the bishops and abbots to make him a grant from the revenues of the beneficed clergy. 3 It was 2 That the thirteenth was not forgotten is shown by the reference to it in 1242 when the barons speak of it as granted to Henry III (Matthew Paris, Chronica Majora, IV, 186). As a thirteenth had never been granted to him, it is clear that the barons were thinking of the levy of 1207. a Wav., p. 258. 86 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III not the first time that he had tried to levy a tax on them, for in 1202 he had written to the clergy of the province of Canterbury asking for an aid. 4 In 1207, the prelates refused to accede to his request. The council was pro- rogued till February 2, when it met at Oxford with a very full attendance. The king repeated his request and after discussion he was again refused. He then apparently abandoned his attempt to persuade the ecclesiastics present to consent to this tax on the property of the churches, but he did not give up his intention of getting a tax granted. After a session of a week, the council agreed to levy a thirteenth on personal property and revenues. 5 Although there was opposition to this also, it was unsuccessful. 8 The tax was levied on the property not only of laymen, but also of the clergy. The chroni- clers state that both the clergy and the laity paid it. 7 When some of the prelates compounded in a lump sum for their thirteenth, the king advised his collectors of the fact and this was evidently a notice to them not to make * Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 18a. 6 "congregata infinita multitudine praelatorum ecclesiae et magnati- bus regni" (Wav., p. 258); Wend., Ill, 209; Cov., II, 198; Gerv. Cant., II, Ivii; Select Charters, p. 283; Wint., p. 79; Annales de Margan, ed. Luard, Rolls Series, p. 28; Annales Monasterii de Burton, ed. Luard, Rolls Series, p. 209; Dunst., p. 29; Annales Monasterii de Bermundeseia, p. 450; Annales Cambrics, p. 66. The Waverley chronicle says that the council was held on February 9 and Wendover on February 2; February 9 was the close of the session ("in octavis Purificationis B. Mariae, scilicet ad terminum concilii," Select Charters, p. 283) and probably February 2 was the date of the opening. "cunctis murmurantibus" ; cf. the action of the archbishop of York. 7 "quilibet laicus homo . . . de cuj uscunque f eodo sit ... det nobis in auxilium etc." (Select Charters, above) ; "tarn de laicis quam viris ecclesiasticis et praelatis" (Wend., Ill, 210) ; "ab ecclesiasticis sicut a laicis" (Cov., II, 199) ; "de episcopis, abbatibus, prioribus, canonicis, clericis, laicis, divitibus, et de omni populo simul" (Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, ed. Hewlett, Rolls Series, Continuation of William of Newburgh's History, II, 509). 87 STUDIES IN TAXATION the assessment on those lands. 8 Further, when some churchmen refused to pay anything, the king dealt with them in summary style. The case of the archbishop of York is familiar. As he refused to yield, he was obliged to leave England, and the king took the archbishopric into his hand. 9 The abbot of Seleby had to pay forty marks and two palfreys that the king would remit his malevolence because he had refused to give the thirteenth, for which he was ordered to be amerced ad plus quod posset. 10 The abbot of Furness refused to pay and his goods were seized and sold. 11 This is evidence enough to show that the clergy as well as the laity were liable for the thirteenth. The churches were probably not taxed, or if they were, the collectors did not at once make a general assessment on them, though some of the fines are said to have been paid partly for quittance of the aid owed by the parochial churches. 12 After the council in February, the king sent letters to the clergy of Canter- bury, and received a reply that they would decide after Easter what aid they would make him. Probably no grant was made at that time, for John wrote again in May asking that each give him a lump sum. 13 At any rate the king did not collect the thirteenth from the churches on the authority of the grant in the great council. The Cistercians and the Hospitallers were exempt. 14 The king did not insist on an assessment of the property of the prelates. Some paid a lump sum called a fine or a donum. This was not a payment s Rot. Litt. Claus., I, 79a, bishop of Bath; 84b, abbot of Abingdon; 79b., prior of Hurl'. 9 Wend., Ill, 210. loMadox, I, 474, n. a. " Rot. Litt. Claus., I, 85a. 12 Ibid., I, 79a, 80b. is Rot. Litt. Pat., pp. 71b, 72a. i* Rot. Litt. Claus., I, 81b; Wav., p. 258. 88 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III extorted from tenants who did not hold by lay tenure and hence were not liable for the thirteenth ; for by reason of this fine, the king, in some cases at least, granted to the tenants of each prelate exemption from assessment by the county officials. 15 These fines were round sums which did not bear any direct relation to the value of the property. The bishop of Bath paid 700 marks; 16 the prior and monks of Canterbury 1,000 marks; 17 the abbot of Abingdon 600 marks; 18 the prior of Dunstable 111 marks. 19 Perhaps the churchmen as a rule made their contribution in this way. An entry in the Fine Rolls favors such a conclusion for it summarizes the returns under the headings, the common thirteenth, the fines of religious men, and the dona of bishops. 20 The prelate could recoup himself, in part at least, by levying an aid on his tenants with the king's permission. 21 A single reference shows that the towns, that is, the royal demesne, were assessed for the thirteenth: the king ordered the bailiffs of Bristol not to prevent the departure of the merchants of Breteuil on account of this tax. 22 Hence we may conclude that other towns as well were paying it. The assessment was made by special justices sent into each county. The number seems to have been large; in Lincolnshire there were fourteen. 23 They were divided is "pro habenda quietancia de dominicis, feodis, hominibus, et omnibus tenentibus suis . . . de auxilio" (Rot. Litt. Glaus., I, 84b, 79a). wRot. Obi, p. 413. if Ibid. is Rot. Lift. Glaus., I, 84b. is Dunst., p. 29. 20 Rot. Obi, p. 459. 2i J Roi. Litt. Claus., I, 84b, the abbot of Abingdon; "Philippus episcopus Dunelmensis r c de M libris, pro habenda benevolentia regis . . . et pro habendo ausilio de terris suis quod modo assisura est, scilicet de marca xii d" (Madox, I, 408, n. .). 22 Rot. Litt. Claus., I, 81a. 23Gerv. Cant., II, lix. STUDIES IN TAXATION into groups, each taking a different part of the county, in order to conclude the work more quickly. They were to assess each vill by itself. Probably the sheriff sum- moned all the men of the vill to meet the justices. The bailiffs of the earls and barons holding property in the vill swore to the value of their lords' revenues and move- ables as well as that of their own. The other men of the vill made oath in person. A roll was drawn up in duplicate. One copy was given to the sheriff; the other was retained by the assessors for delivery at the ex- chequer. The officials took oath to perform their duties faithfully 24 and attempts to defraud by false swearing or by concealment of goods were punishable by imprisonment and confiscation of chattels. The assessment was made quickly ; in May much of it was completed, for on May 25, the king sent a new set of justices to Warwickshire to correct mistakes of the first assessment. 25 As soon as the assessment of a vill was completed, the roll was delivered to the sheriff and he began the collection. It was to be paid within two weeks, 26 but in fact it took the whole summer to finish the work. 27 The punishments threatened in the writ were carried out. Men were fined, disseized, and imprisoned for false swearing and for refusal to swear to the value of their property. William and Gerard de Lancaster were thrown into the Fleet 2* Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 72; Select Charters, p. 283. 25 Ibid. 26 "Liberentur (rotuli) vicecomiti colligendum per terminum quin- denae in quindenam cum omni festinatione." 27 Liebermann, p. 184: "et incepit haec collecta a Purificatione beatae Marias et duravit usque ad festum S. Michaelis" (Ann. de Bermundeseia, p. 450). A collector might keep the money for a long time. In 1212, the sheriff of Hertfordshire was ordered to produce Thomas de Wylie before the exchequer "ad ostendendum quare non pacavit nobis ducentas marcas de lacto tredecime" (Rot. Litt. Claus., I, 117a). 90 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III prison for the thirteenth; 28 Roaldo Fitz Alan was dis- seized of Richmond castle for refusal to swear. 29 Some men in Lincolnshire sought to escape assessment by depositing their property with religious houses and the king threatened to seize the property of the houses if they did not surrender it. 30 The amount raised was over 60,000. 31 Such a sum was striking testimony to the inefficiency of the scutage as a tax, which in 1206 amounted only to about 4,000 marks. 32 This tax is a step in the transition from feudal to national taxation, and certain features of it are deserving of attention. It was levied not as one of the three aids, or in connection with a campaign just completed, as the composition for service, or one in progress, or about to be begun. Its purpose was to carry on a war to be under- taken at some undetermined time in the future; this principle, if established, would give the king an almost unrestricted right of taxation. It was levied on property. It was national in scope, all classes (except perhaps the beneficed clergy and some religious orders) being subject to the same levy. The method of assessment and collec- tion was national, not feudal. The territorial unit of the levy was the vill, a national unit, and not the feudal holding; the work was done by royal officials, not the 28 Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 73a. Ibid.; Rot. Obi., p. 372; see also the cases of William Frankelein (ibid., p. 374) and Philip de Valoines (Rot. Litt. Claus., I, 85a). so Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 71a. si "Recepta totius tredecime tarn de communi quam de finibus religiosorum et de donis episcoporum quinquaginta et septem inillia CCCC xxi li. xi s v d. Summa debiti totius tredecime, duo millia sexcent' xv li. v sol. x den. excepto debito vicecomitis Sussex' et vice- comitis Cumberland' qui nondum computaverunt et exceptis aliis quibusdam que vobis plenius dicemus cum ad vos veniemus" (Rot. Obi, p. 459). 32 See above, p. 78. Cf. also the amounts realized by aids levied on the knight's fee, below, pp. 126, 243, 257. 91 STUDIES IN TAXATION feudal tenants. Another fact worth noticing is that there was no use of local machinery in the work of assess- ment; each man assessed himself in the presence of the justices. 92 CHAPTER IV THE TAXES IN DETAIL FROM 1208 TO 1216 DURING the next few years, much of the property of the church was in hand and the king derived considerable income from it; there were also exactions from religious orders. While these returns increased the royal revenue, they had little or no result in developing a system of taxation. The regular levies of the period consisted of four scutages and two tallages. 1 The scutages differed on the whole from those of the earlier part of the reign. Only one, the scutage of Scotland, could be legally questioned; the others were fully justified by the law. But there is evidence that the barons were beginning to criticise the occasions on which the king took scutage, and in 1214, as is well known, the northern barons refused to pay the scutage of Poitou on the ground that they did not owe service in France. Only one of the scutages, that of Ireland, was generally accompanied by fines, which, as it happened, were the highest that had ever been levied. In the scutage of Scotland, some tenants paid scutage at a rate higher than the prevailing rate of the year, so that in effect they paid fines. It is also to be noticed that the rate of scutage in two cases, those of Ireland and Poitou, was three marks per fee, the highest ever reached in the history of the tax. In every case the scutages were taken only from those tenants who had failed to perform their i In 1211, there were some fines levied on the fees of Robert Fitz Walter, Eustace de Vescy, and the bishops who were in exile (Dunst,, p. 35). 93 STUDIES IN TAXATION service, though some of the tenants served with only part of their contingents. The tallage, it will be noticed, was levied only once in connection with a scutage, viz., in 1210, and then it resembled the scutage of Ireland of the same year in the enormous amounts paid. The total tallage charged would approach 15,000 marks, an unprecedented sum. The only other tallage of this period was taken in 1214, but it had no connection with the scutage of that year. It was taken to raise money to pay the indemnity for the interdict. The king does not seem to have lacked money during this period, a condition due in part to the additions to his income from the church lands. THE SCUTAGE OF SCOTLAND In June or July, 1209, John summoned the host against the king of Scots to enforce security for his loyalty. He marched north as far as Norham where, without any fighting, a treaty was made on August 7. 2 In connection with this expedition, a scutage at twenty shillings was levied. Some accounts of it appear in the rolls of 1209 and 1210, but most of the counties reported in 1211 (13 John). 3 Norgate, John Lackland, p. 133; Gerv. Cant., II, 203. One of the terms of the treaty was that King William was to pay John 15,000 marks (Rymer, I, 103); 13,000 (Chronicon de Lanercost, ed. Steven- son, Bannatyne Club, p. 7) ; 12,000 marks (Wend., Ill, 226) ; 11,000 marks (Matthew Paris, II, 525). Part of this sum had been paid in 1211: "et in cariagio vii milia marcarum de fine regis Scottorum a Norham usque ad Notingeham" (Pipe Roll, 13 John, m. 4 d). * Devon and Cumberland account in full and Dorset and Somerset, Bucks and Bedford in part in 1209; in 1210, there are returns for Sussex, Berks, and part of Essex and Hertford. No full returns appear in any year for Dorset and Somerset, Kent, Stafford, Salop, or Wigorn. 94 The account follows : M s d Fines 4 . . . 873 8 8 on 240 fees Scutage at 20s . . 1303 10 9 on 869 fees Additional 5 . . 800 Total 6 . . . 2185 6 1 Fees taxed, about, 1110 Paid, 13 John . . 769 11 8 Practically all the tenants holding five fees or more received writs of quittance, probably because of service with the host. Stephen de Hamton was charged with twenty shillings on one fee. He was quit because he sent his son in his stead. 7 There is no account of the scutages of Lancashire or Hereford because all the knights of those counties were in the host. 8 Thus John did not allow the military service to be commuted into money at the will of the tenants. One very important tenant fined: the earl of Albemarle. 9 He paid 132m on 33 fees, or 4m per fee, 4 Some tenants pay at rates different from the prevailing one of 20s. In Devon, several pay sums "de scutagio Scociae" which equal 3m per fee: knights of the honors of Oliver de Tracy, 72m on 24 fees; Hawise de Courtney, 185 11s 8d on 92 -f fees; abbey of Tavi- stock, 32 on 16 fees; tenants of the honor of Berdestaple, 84m on 28 fees. Part of one honor (Toteness) pays at 2m per fee (Pipe Roll, 11 John, m. 8, 13). The earl of Albemarle paid 132m on 33 fees "scilicet iiii marc, de scuto" (ibid., 13 John, m. 1, 4). These have been added as fines. 5 Number of fees unknown. The bulk of this levy falls on honors in hand: at least, 1,219m 3s 4d on 731 fees are of this description. Of the remainder, 966m 2s 9d, over a fourth, fell on one holding, the honor of Okehampton, held by Hawise de Courtney, 278m 5s on 92 -j- fees. 7 "Sed non debet summoneri quia misit filium suum in exercitum" (Pipe Roll, 13 John, Oxf., m. 21 d). s Farrer, Lane. Pipe Roll, p. 241 ; Pipe Roll, 13 John, Heref., m. 7 d; likewise for the archbishopric of Canterbury, m. 5 d; for Brian de L'Isle, m. 2 d; for Robert de Vieux-Pont, m. 4. Other lay tenants who held more than five fees and were not exempt were: Baldwin Wak and Cecilia de Crevequor in Lincoln- shire; William de Windsor in Bucks and Bedford; Robert de Turn- 95 STUDIES IN TAXATION though the rate of scutage was 20s. 10 The tenant who failed to perform his service did not always escape with the payment of scutage or a moderate fine. Duncan de Lascels was disseized of 3% fees, because he was not in the army of Scotland and he had to pay a fine of 65m to recover his land. 11 The abbot of Michelney had to pay 100m because he neither came himself nor sent his ser- vice. 12 The exchequer might deal directly with the rear- vassal. When the tenant in chief was charged with scutage, the amount due from the sub-tenant might be pardoned. 13 This also shows that the scutage fell back on the rear-vassal. THE SCUTAGE OF IRELAND (1210) The expedition to Ireland set sail on June 6, 1210, and was back again in England on August 29. The campaign lasted therefore about eighty days. 14 According to the chroniclers the army was large, 15 being composed of knights and sergeants holding by military service and of mercenaries as well. 16 Those who responded to the sum- mons to the array usually did not furnish the whole ham in York; and Roger de Berkeley in Gloucestershire. Some of these may have been in hand. 10 Pipe Roll, 13 John, Norf. and Suff., Bucks and Bedf. and York, m. 1, 4, 21. u Pipe Roll, 12 John, m. 2. 12 Ibid., 11 John, m. 9 d. 13 The earl of Albemarle owed 132m of fine in Yorkshire; he paid so much "et in perdonis Ricardo de Argent' iii marc, per breve regis" (Pipe Roll, 13 John, m. 4); the sheriff accounted for 13 of the scutage of Cecilia de Crevequor, paid so much "et in perdonis Alexandra de Nevilla Ixx sol. per breve regis" (ibid., 14 John, m. 12 d). n Wend., Ill, 233, 234. i5"collecto multo exercitu" (Wav., p. 265); "copioso exercitu congregate" (Wend., above). is "Praestitum factum militibus Flandren'" (Rot. Lib., pp. 174, 195, 210, 224). 96 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III number of knights due from them, nor was it expected apparently that they should. The abbot of Pershore owed the service of two knights and one was summoned; the abbot of Evesham owed the service of four and a half knights and two were summoned. 17 Gilbert Peke held 19 + fees and sent two knights. 18 The Prasstita Roll of this year contains long lists of sums loaned by the king to the members of his force and in several cases enters the number of knights for whose use the money was advanced. This number probably represents the knights present with the tenant in chief. As a rule it was much smaller than either the servitium debitum or the number for which the tenant in chief usually responded for scutage. The following are some examples : Knights Fees present held 19 Earl Warenne ... 8 60 Robert de Tateshall . .3 25 William Malet . . .5 21 + Earl Albericus . . .6 30% Bishop of Salisbury 9 32 Ralph Sudley ... 2 3 Robert de Mara ... 2 4 Robert de Turnham . .3 31 + Henry de Oilly . . .2 32% Geoffrey Fitz Peter . .10 98% Earl of Hereford . . .10 30% Countess of Clare . . .2 9 + Nigel de Luvetot . . .2 15 Robert Marmion ... 3 25 Gilbert Gaunt . . .6 68% Gilbert Peke . . . 2 20 19 + " Pipe Roll, 12 John, Wigorn., m. 15 d. is Ibid., Norf. and Suff., m. 4. is In this list the numbers are either the servitium debitum or the number of fees for which the tenants in chief usually respond. 20 This is the number of knights that we know Gilbert sent; see 97 STUDIES IN TAXATION In connection with this campaign there were collected a scutage, fines, and a tallage. The roll is incomplete. Most of the tenants do not appear at all. In only one bailiwick (Norfolk and Suffolk) is a list of writs of quittance given. For York- shire and Northumberland it is stated that only part of the account was rendered at the exchequer. For Salop no return was made. Many names appear which cannot be identified and which never appear again. The following is the account: M s d Fees Fines .... 6,963 1 8 432 Scutage . . . . 800 3 4 27 1% 21 Additional 22 . . . 1,471 74 Sergeants 23 . . . . 979 6 8 Total charged . . .10,214 58 Paid, 12 and 13 John . . 8,496 12 6 According to the Red Boole, the rate of this scutage was two marks, 24 but most of the tenants who accounted for sums de scutagio paid at the rate of three marks ; for example, the honor of Eye was charged with 270m (90 fees) ; 25 that of Walter de Lacy 26 and of Hawise de note 18. For the number of knights present as given in this list, see Rot. Lib., pp. 177, 189, 193, 207, 216, 219, 221, 222, 225, 226. 21 256} fees pay at 3m per fee. Ralph Basset pays 30m "pro concelamento servitii sui et pro fine passagii" (Pipe Roll, 12 John, Notts, and Derby, m. 12). He held 15 fees. I have included this amount as a scutage at 2m. 22 Number of fees unknown. 23 Of this sum, 494i / m are charged in Cumberland on sergeants, drengs, etc. z* Red Book, I, 12. 25 180, "de scutagio militum honoris de Eia, scilicet de quater xx et x feodis" (Pipe Roll, 12 John, Norf. and Suff., m. 4). Usually, fees. 2e Ibid., Heref., m. 13 d. 98 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III Courtney 27 at three marks. On the average the fines exceeded anything imposed before. Though the number of fees recorded in the roll is small, yet, as both great and small holdings are included, the sums demanded may fairly be regarded as typical. The abbey of Ramsey (in hand) paid 258m 6s 4d; the abbey of Peterborough (in hand, 60 fees) paid 364m 5s 4d; 28 the bishopric of Durham (in hand, 10 fees) paid 2,279m 3s 4d. 29 Aside from these three holdings, about 360 fees paid about 4,000 marks of fines, or at the rate of over 10 marks per fee. Some greater lay tenants who fined were: the earl of Clare, 500m on 140 + fees ; so Henry Luvel, 330m on 18 fees; 31 Hubert Fitz Ralph, 210m on 15 fees. 32 These fines are heavy. Some tenants in chief sent knights in their stead, but had to fine for the privilege. 33 Cases of disseizin occur for failure to answer the summons, either by sending the quota of knights demanded or by making 27 She accounts for 185 10s "de scutagio Yberniae de scutagio quater xx et xii militibus et tribus partibus unius militis . . . scilicet de quolibet feodo iii marc." (ibid., Devon, m. 15). The custodian of the abbey of Abbotsbury in his account has the item "et de xl sol. de scutagio feodi i militis de scutagio Yberniae" (ibid., m. 1). It seems probable that the rate of this scutage was 3m. However part of the fee of William de Braose, in hand, paid scutage at 4m per fee (ibid., m. 6 d), which has been added as a fine. 28 Pipe Roll, 12 John, m. 19. 29 Ibid., 13 John, m. 4 d. ao Ibid., 12 John, Norf. and Suff., m. 4. si Ibid., Dors, and Somers., m. 6; 300m and 3 "optimos" palfreys. Mlbid., Notts, and Derby, m. 12; 200m and 2 palfreys. 33 Gilbert Peke paid 40m to send 2 knights pro se (ibid., Norf. and Suff.); Hugh de Bolebec 30m to send 2 knights pro se (5 fees) (ibid., Northumb., m. 10 d) ; Ralph de Trihamton 1 palfrey to send his uncle pro se (ibid., Line., m. 2) ; Walter de Ver one good palfrey to send 1 knight pro se (ibid.) ; he held of the bishopric of Lincoln which was in hand. 99 STUDIES IN TAXATION a satisfactory fine. 34 The king could not at will collect scutage or fine from those who were not tenants in chief. The law protected them. Hugh de Canvill was summoned to cross with the king. He protested and paid thirty marks for an inquest to determine whether or not his two and one-fourth fees were held of the king. 35 The inference is that if he were not an immediate vassal, he was not liable to the king for anything in connection with this expedition. The tallage was levied on cities, towns, and the king's manors, 36 and lands in hand. The greater part accounted for fell on towns and cities, all of which compounded and determined the incidence themselves. Sometimes the towns paid the tallage into the exchequer and sometimes to the sheriff. 37 Sums were also charged against persons, probably of the king's manors, which were collected by the sheriff. 88 The total amount entered in the roll, not including lands in hand, was 12,416m Is 3* Albreda de Lincoln "quia non habuit 1 militem in servitio regis" (ibid., Dors, and Somers., m. 7) ; Malgerus le Vavasour "eo quod non transfretavit . . . nee finem fecit pro passagio suo" (ibid., York, m. 19 d) ; Matthew de Clivedon "eo quod non transfretavit . . . quia finis x marcarum non fuit sufficiens (ibid., Heref., m. 9 d) ; Geoffrey de Mandeville 50m and 1 palfrey "pro habenda saisina terrae suae unde fuit dissaisitus eo quod non ivit cum rege in Yberniam (ibid., 14 John, Wilts, m. 16) ; Roger de Cramavill, Elias Ginant (Madox, I, 491, n. d, 663, n. x). 35 "pro habenda inquisitione an teneat de rege feoda ii militum et i quartern, unde summonitus fuit ad transfretandum" (Pipe Roll, 12 John, War. and Leic., m. 9). 36 "taillagia maneriorum" ; "compotus non redditur hie . . . de taillagiis hominum vel maneriorum" (ibid., Cornw., Northumb., m. 7, 10 d). 37 "Homines de Bristou r c de mille marcis de eodem ; in thesauro D marc, et Engelardo de Cigoni D marc, ad ponendum in thesauro regis per breve regis et quieti sunt" (Pipe Roll, 12 John, m. 13). Usually the sheriff accounts for the tallage at the exchequer. 38 The sheriff accounts for 42im of the tallage "hominum quorum nomina annotantur in originali" (Pipe Roll, 12 John, Wilts, m. 8). 100 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III and it was nearly all paid in 1210. 39 The account given is incomplete. Both the sums levied on individual towns and the sum total show a marked increase in the tallage this year. THE SCUTAGE OF WALES, 1211 John made two expeditions against the Welsh in 1211, one in May and one in July. The first failed through lack of supplies, but the second with a larger army and abun- dance of provisions was successful. 40 The full quota of knights either did not respond to the first summons or was not summoned, and there is one case which suggests that individual tenants did not furnish their full con- tingents. 41 The second campaign lasted about forty days, from July 8 till August 15. At the close, a scutage was taken from those who had not taken part. 42 A few tenants paid fines. 39 This includes 30 counties. London is entered in 1211: "Gives London' r c de MM marc, de dono" (Pipe Roll, 13 John, m. 9 d). The tallage of the following counties is not entered in the Pipe Roll: York, Kent, Sussex, Salop, Stafford, and Lancashire. Only a small part of the levy in Northumberland and Lincolnshire is recorded. A complete account of this levy would probably bring it up to 15,000 marks, though this figure would not include tallages levied on lands in hand. 40 Ann. Camb., pp. 67, 68; Cov., II, 203; Wend., Ill, 235; Norgate, John Lackland, p. 158; Liebermann, Ungedr. Anglo-Norm. Oesch.- Quellen, Annales 8. Albani, p. 169. 41 Robert de Mandevill was charged with 29^m of scutage. He was first pardoned 8m by the king for some reason which is not stated. He was later pardoned the balance because he sent knights to Poitou (Pipe Roll, 13 John, Dors, and Somers., m. 7 d). May not the first sum pardoned refer to the service of 4 knights in Wales? 42 Wend., Ill, 236; Liebermann, Ann. S. Edm., p. 150: "de scutagio militum qui non fuerunt in exercitu Walliae" (Pipe Roll, 13 John, York, m. 4 d). 101 STUDIES IN TAXATION The account of the scutage follows : M s d Clerical tenants 43 1,714 2 9 Seventy-two lay tenants (each 5 or more fees) 4 * 3,741 6 10 Other lay tenants (each fewer than 5 fees, etc.) 45 1,091 1 10 Total 6,546 11 5 Fines 46 . . . . . 277 12 10 Total 47 6,824 10 11 Paid, 13 and 14 John . . . 3,774 10 2 Fees taxed, over 3300. Thus the levy was charged against about half of the fees of England. Nearly all the churchmen were taxed. The number of lay tenants holding five fees or more who contributed, seventy-two in number, is noteworthy. The list includes the earl of Hereford, 30% fees; Henry de Oilli, 32 + fees ; the earl of Albemarle, 33 fees ; Alfred 43 This entry includes charges of 436m 6s 5d against the new enfeoffment of church lands in hand. ** Some of these are in hand: Peverel, 127m; Robert de Tateshal, 50m; Chokes, 30m; Honor of Gloucester, 654m 4s; honor of Thomas of St. Valery accounts for 86m 8s; the rape of Hastings accounts for 104m. * 5 About 885m were on honors in hand: Lancaster, 40m; honor of the count of Perche, 214m 6s lOd (Pipe Roll, 14 John, m. 1); of the constable of Chester, 231m 3s 4d (ibid.) ; of the honor of Brecknock, etc., of William de Braose, 109m 5s 8d (ibid., m. 17); part of the honor of Angrie, 52m 5s; half of the old enfeoffment and all the new enfeoffment of Totness, 91m 15s; part of Wallingford, 114m; Knaresburgh, 34m 6d. This leaves about 200m on tenants in chief holding fewer than 5 fees each. The abbey of Ramsey paid 100m on 4 fees (Pipe Roll, 13 John, Cant, and Hunt., m. 8) ; the men in note 59 may be military tenants. 177m 12s lOd are charged against 88^-f- fees of the honor of Mortain; this is a fine, for these fees paid at % the ordinary rate. * 7 At least 1,100m of this sum were pardoned. 102 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III of Lincoln, 25 + fees ; 48 Robert de Cardinan ; 49 the earl of Devon, 89 fees. 50 This scutage was in general a commutation for service. Tenants who performed their service paid no scutage on any of their fees, 51 but those who were liable for scutage might pay on their fees in the different counties where their lands lay. Sometimes the sheriff collected from the rear-vassals, 52 though it may be doubted whether this was ordinarily done. The charge in the roll was regularly made against the tenant in chief, not against the sub- tenant. If for any reason part of the fee changed hands temporarily, the debit was changed accordingly. Had he was exempted by the king. 83 The aid of the clergy was collected by them from their tenants. The sheriff assisted the prelates with distraint. Any sum pardoned to a rear-vassal by the king was deducted from the aid due from his lord. The prelate who could not distrain his tenants to pay was no longer held accountable for that amount. 84 Thus it is seen that the ordinary revenue was insuffi- cient to defray the expenses of a foreign war and that the money for this purpose was raised by laying different classes under contribution in a manner similar to that employed by Henry II. 85 THE SCUTAGE or ELVEYN, 1232 Hardly had the question of the payment of the aid of the clergy been decided, when a new occasion for taxation rear-vassal is that a tenant responds in one county for scutage which he owes in another. Peter Fitz Herbert was charged with 29 8d scutage in Hereford "sed respondit inde in Glovernia in rotulo sequenti" (Pipe Roll, 15 Henry III, Heref.). Godfrey de Alno owes 40s on 1 fee in Wilts "sed non debet summoneri in hoc comitatu quia non tenet nisi unicum feodum et de illo respondit in Sumersat'" (ibid., 16 Henry III, Wilts, m. 17 d). ss Thus Anketill Malore, Robert Aguillum, and Godfrey de Craucumb were pardoned their scutage on fees held of tenants in chief (Pipe Roll, 15 Henry III, York, Bucks and Bedf.; Close Rolls, I, 461); this was probably on account of service, for they had writs of protection to go with the king on the expedition of 1230 (Pat. Rolls, II, 359, 360). 84 Pat. Rolls, II, 429; "si nos aliquid perdonaverimus tenentibus de predictis prelatis vel si ipsi aliquos tenentes de se distringere non possint id eis allocabitur. . . . Mittimus etiam vobis literas nostras directas vicecomiti nostro Surreiae per quas ei damus in mandatis quod vobis et aliis prelatis . . . de singulis feodis . . . xl sol. habere faciat ad predictura auxiliura nobis faciendum" (Fine Roll, 15 Henry III, part 1, m. 5). ss An unusual contribution was that from the king of Scotland who gave 2,000m. It was not to be drawn into a precedent (Pat. Rolls, II, 332, 348, 414). 195 STUDIES IN TAXATION arose. The renewed activity of the Welsh made an expe- dition against them necessary. 86 The campaign lasted from the end of July till the end of September, about two months. 87 Besides the knights, part of the "jurati ad arma" and men of the towns were ordered to perform service in the army for forty days. 88 MDunst., p. 127; Wend., IV, 220-223; Wig., p. 422; Osney, p. 72; Wykes, p. 72; Brut, p. 319. 87 The host assembled in July (Close Rolls, I, 592, 594, 595); the king was at Hereford on July 27, at Elveyn on July 30 and remained in Wales till September 22, was again at Hereford on September 25, where he remained till October 1, when he started for London (ibid., 536-561). ss Ibid., 592, 595, 597 ; Rymer, I, 200. Lesser tenants either served or furnished their service; some tenants performed only part of their service as will be seen from the following table: Jordan de Saukevill Henry Fitz Richard Walter de Pavilly Matthew Wake Robert de Saliceto Roger de Sumery Hugh le Poer Thomas de Canvill Ralph Pirot William de NeviU Joslan de Nevill Richard Luvel Norman de Arescy Ser- vice owed 1 7 1 1 1 50 Knights fur- nished 1 Quit, Oxford. 2 serg. Quit, Dors, and Somers. 1 Quit, Wilts. 2 serg. Quit, Wilts. 2 serg. owes 20s, 1 fee, Notts, and Derby. 3 Quit, Staff. 1 serg. Quit, Heref. 1 Quit, Essex and Hert. 1 kn'ht Quit, Essex and Hert., Cant, and 2 serg. Hunt. 1 Quit, Wilts. 1 Quit, Kent. 1 Quit, Dors, and Som. 1 Quit, Line. 1 kn'ht Quit, Essex and Hert., Bucks and 2 serg. Bedf. 1 Quit, Hants. 1 Quit, Notts, and Derby. 1 Quit, Cant, and Hunt. 1 Quit, Essex and Hert. 7 serg. Quit, Oxford. 1 Quit, Wilts. 2 serg. Quit, Notts, and Derby. The number of knights furnished is given in Scutage Rolls, no. 2. The number of knights owed and the fact that each tenant is quit 1 18 20 17 Robert de Pinkney Michael de Columbar' 1 John de Heriz 4 Nigel de Amundevill 3% Baldwin de Rivera 5 Henry de Oilli 32% Albreda des Boterels 8% Robert de Pavilly 4 196 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III The lack of money in the treasury is shown by the means employed to raise the sums necessary for such a campaign as this. In August the justiciar of Ireland was to forward at once all the money possible. 89 The farms of towns on the Welsh frontier which were not due till September were ordered on August 1 to be paid imme- diately. 90 The aid granted by the prelates in April had not been entirely paid, but all that had been received was sent to the king ; 91 in August Henry III wrote to each of the prelates, asking that the part in arrears be paid without delay and complaining bitterly that this was the third time he had been obliged to write about it. 92 The rate of scutage was reduced to twenty shillings though the campaign had lasted two months. This reduction was probably due to the high rates of the pre- ceding years, and is an indication that the tenants exercised a certain control over the scutage. The levy was put in charge on September 6, before the close of the campaign. 93 It amounted to 1,547 14s lid, of which 828 2s 7d were paid in 1232 and 1233. 94 It was of scutage are taken from the Pipe Roll, 16 Henry III. I am not certain that in each case I have the total number of fees held by each tenant, but each held at least as many as given here. 89 Close Rolls, I, 599. 9o/6Jd., 538. si Ibid., 544. 92 Ibid., 598. In July, the king was trying to borrow 1,200 marks (Pat. Rolls, II, 440). 93 On September 6, writs de scutagio habendo were issued to tenants (Scutage Rolls, no. 2) and this is probably the date when the scutage was ordered. a* The account appears in the Pipe Roll of 16 Henry III, as follows: Scutage at 20s s d Clerical tenants 641 6 Thirty-two lay tenants (each 5 or more fees) 604 17 -4 Other lay tenants (each fewer than 5 fees, etc.) 301 11 7 Total 1547 14 11 Paid, 16 and 17 Henry III . . . . 828 2 7 197 STUDIES IN TAXATION the composition for service; no fines are recorded. Those who served did not pay scutage. They received writs de scutagio habendo** and if necessary, the sheriff assisted the tenant in chief with distraint. 96 The tenant in chief who compounded was also allowed to collect scutage from his tenants in order to respond at the exchequer. 97 Thus the tax fell back on the rear-vassal. An interesting feature of this levy is that in several counties those jurati ad arma who held of the king and did not take part in the campaign were fined, the assessment being made by the sheriff and another official appointed by the king. 98 Some of the towns which were summoned to send men to the army fined to escape service, but the amounts paid were merely nominal. 99 The tenant was still liable to be distrained for his scutage by the sheriff. The amount for which he was responsible was determined by the number of fees for which he customarily paid. Additional fees created by him were not bound to contribute to the royal exchequer. Further, if the sheriff distrained for payment, he dis- trained the goods of the tenant in chief, not those of the rear-vassal. Thus the sheriffs were ordered to distrain for the scutage of Elveyn, but only for as many fees as Of the sum charged against lay tenants, each fewer than 5 fees, etc., 120 were against tenants on the honors of Boulogne, Peverel, Lan- caster, and Brittany. This leaves about 180 against the lesser tenants in chief, or 180 fees. Of the total amount recorded as paid, 527 19s 4d were paid by the clergy, as Scutage Rolls, No. 2. 96 Thomas, earl of Warwick, for the army of Elveyn, "in quo habuit milites suos per preceptum regis" (Close Rolls, I, 570). 97 "R. Sarresbiriensis episcopus habet literas regis quod per manum suani colligat scutagium regi debitum etc. pro exercitu de Elvein ad respondendum regi in octav' S. Andree anno etc. xvi" (Fine Roll, 16 Henry III, m. 7) ; other similar entries on this roll. 98 Close Rolls, I, 561, 597. 99 Derby, 4; Merleberg, 5m; Nottingham, 10m (ibid., I, 542, 545, 548). 198 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III a tenant "is held to respond at the exchequer" and to distrain only those tenants who held of the king in chief. 100 Two men were charged with scutage in Wittshire, but it appeared that they held of Robert de Mandevill, not of the king, and the roll states that Robert ought to acquit them. 101 THE FORTIETH, 1232 In 1232, the king asked for an aid to pay his debts occasioned by the campaign in Gascony. 102 He was really short of money. At the beginning of the year, Peter, count of Brittany, had arrived in England and asked for aid. On March 10, Henry agreed to pay him 3,000 marks and as security deposited his plate and jewels with the Templars. 103 He also borrowed of Florentine and Sienese money lenders, 2,420 marks, promising to repay the loan at Michaelmas ; failing to keep his word, he was to pay interest at ten per cent, per month. 104 The debt to Count Peter was paid in the summer, but in September, the king agreed to pay him 6,000 marks more at Michael- 100 "Mandatum est vicecomiti Cornubiae quod, occasione praecepti regis, quod ei fecit de districcione facienda pro scutagio exercitus de Elvein, nullum distringat nisi pro tot feodis quot regi tenetur respon- dere ad scaccarium, et pro eodem scutagio non distringat, nisi tantum eos qui de rege tenent in capite." The same order was issued to other sheriffs (Close Rolls, II, 10). 101 "Anno regis Henrici, filii regis Johannis, in residuo de Wilt- esira, post Devonesiram, Robertus Maudut, dimidiam marcam de tertia parte 1 feodi de scutagio de Elevein. Willelmus Comin, dimid- iam marcam de tertia parte 1 feodi de eodem scutagio. Sed Rob- ertus de Mandeville debet eos acquietare, quia Robertus Maudut debet tenere feodum illud de eodem Roberto de Mandeville . . . et Willelmus Comin debet tenere feodum illud de eodem Roberto de Mandeville" (Red Book, II, 770; Pipe Roll, 16 Henry III, m. 6 d). 102 Wend., IV, 233-234; "pro debitis, quibus comiti Britanniae tenebatur astrictus" (ibid., 249) ; see above, p. 181. 103 Pat. Rolls, II, 465, 490. 10* Ibid., 514, 515. 199 STUDIES IN TAXATION mas. los About this time the Jews paid a tallage of 10,000 marks. 106 There were two or three meetings of the council to consider this aid. On March 7, the magnates assembled in response to a general summons, but for some reason many ecclesiastics were absent. The king asked for the aid and the earl of Chester replied for the lay tenants that they had personally served with the king in France and hence did not legally owe him any aid. With the king's permission, the laity then withdrew. The clergy who were present asked for a delay because many were absent. So the council was prorogued till after Easter. 101 A second meeting of the earls and barons was held at London after that festival, but it is not known what was done. 10 * In September, a council composed of the prel- ates, the earls, and the barons granted an aid of a fortieth of personal property. If the lesser tenants in chief were present at any of these councils, they were included in the term barones, for they were not separately mentioned as forming part of the council. 105 105 Pat . Rolls, II, 490, 501. loe Cat. Pat. Rolls, I, 12-13, March, 1233. 107 Wend., above. 108 "Comites et barones qui de mandato regis convenerunt apud London a die Paschse in tres septimanas'' (Pat. Rolls, II, 473). 109 "de communi consilio et unanimi assensu omnium magnatum de regno nostro, tarn episcoporum, quam comitum, baronum, abbatum et priorum, concessum fuit" (Close Rolls, II, 311); Shirley, I, 415; "episcopi et alii ecclesiarum praelati cum proceribus regni" (Wend., IV, 249); Theok., p. 87; Dunst., p. 131; Gerv. Cant., II, 129; Osney, pp. 73-74; Wykes, pp. 72, 74. Notices which include more classes than those given here are merely descriptions of the taxpayers, that is, of an ideal council, not of the actual members of the council; thus the writ of collection says that the tax was granted by the "archi- episcopi, episcopi, abbates, priores, et clerici terras habentes qui ad ecclesias suas non pertinent, comites, barones, milites, liberi homines et villani de regno nostro" (Select Charters, p. 360; Wend., IV, 254). The description given in Waverley, p. 310, is probably taken from the writ. Stubbs (Select Charters, p. 360) says that if the words 200 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III The levy was paid by the following men: 1. All laymen holding of lay tenants or of the king down to and including villeins. The royal demesne was included, though there was no special reference to it in the writ. As the fortieth was assessed on the men of Pevensey, Hastings, and Rye, it is evident that no exemption was intended for the king's lands. 110 A refer- ence to some boroughs might perhaps be taken to mean that they were excepted. The assessors were ordered not to demand the fortieth from the burgesses of Grimsby in Lincolnshire, and Scarborough in Yorkshire, except on those chattels which they held outside their boroughs. 111 But this meant probably that the assessment would be made in the borough by special officials, or that the borough might fine in a lump sum for its tax. In 1225 there were somewhat similar cases. London merchants having goods in other counties were allowed to pay the fifteenth on those goods when the fifteenth of London was collected. 112 2. All churchmen except the beneficed clergy who of the writ "are to be understood literally, the freeholders and villeins must have been consulted in the shire moots, or else the lords must have been supposed to represent their own villein-tenants in the 'Commune Consilium.' " Aside from this expression in the writ, there is nothing to suggest that the first alternative is true. An expression in the king's letter to the abbot of Coggeshal describing the grant of the fortieth suggests that it was understood that the lords represented their tenants. The king states "concessum fuit nobis ab ipsis (the magnates) auxilium, scilicet, quadragesima pars omnium mobilium suorum et aliorum de regno nostro" (Close Rolls, II, 311). The expression "suorum et aliorum" means the goods of the tenants in chief and those of their men; cf. for a similar use of these pronouns, and in this sense exactly, the writ to tenants to assist in ploughing the king's demesne: "faciatis auxilium de carucis vestris et aliis, ad terras nostras . . . excolendas" (Pat. Rolls, I, 323). no Close Rolls, II, 297. in Ibid., 307, 311. 112 Rot. Litt. Claus., II, 26a. 201 STUDIES IN TAXATION were specially exempted in the writ. 113 With this excep- tion, the tax was demanded not merely of the churchmen who were military tenants, but also of all sorts of religious houses and orders. Those who wished to escape assess- ment of their property had to get a writ to that effect from the king. The order of Sempringham obtained such a writ; 114 as also the brothers of St. Lazarus for their own property, though the goods of their men were assessed. 115 The opposition of the Hospitallers, Templars, and Cistercians resulted in a delay in assessment. 11 ' Most of these orders probably paid a lump sum as a fine for their fortieth, with the possible exception of the Cister- cians who may have paid nothing in the end. While the tax was being collected, the king wrote to the Cistercian abbot of Coggeshal saying he had never heard that the Cistercians should be exempt from this sort of a general subsidy and begging him to make an aid as others were doing, even if it were not a fortieth. 117 There was an effort in the writ to make a clearer state- ment of the goods to be assessed. Instead of enumerating those excepted, the writ named the kinds of property to be taxed, grain, plows, oxen, sheep, hogs, and work horses. 115 Nevertheless there were complaints that the us Select Charters, p. 360; Close Rolls, II, 155. 11* Close Rolls, II, 292. "5/&id., pp. 290, 291, 295, 303; III, 114. Similar cases are given in these references. n6/6td., II, 284, 285, 292, 293, 294, 300. The Hospitallers paid 300m: "prior Hospital' S. Johannis Jerosolim' in Anglia r c de CCC marc, pro quadragesima mobilium suorum et hominum suorum; in thesauro liberavit et quietus est" (Pipe Roll, 18 Henry III, Lond. and Midd., m. 7) ; the Templars paid 300m and the order of Semp- ringham 100 (Fine Roll, IT Henry III, m. 6, 9). i" "Rogamus attentius quatinus, etsi non nomine quadragesimae subsidium consimile aliis de regno nostro nobis duxeritis impenden- dum, ad tale et tana efficax auxilium nobis faciendum de bonis vestris manum nobis porrigere velitis" (Close Rolls, II, 311). 118 Select Charters, above; Osney, p. 73; for a part of a roll of 202 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III justices assessed goods not liable and orders were issued to them to note carefully the taxable property described. 115 The method of assessment differed somewhat from that employed in 1225. To each county was sent by the king a certain number of men called assessors and collectors. Sometimes they went through the county in pairs. The number varied: in most of the counties there were four; in several there were two; in Lincolnshire and Norfolk, there were six; in Yorkshire, eleven; in Suffolk, eight. 120 Before these collectors the sheriff summoned the men of the vill at certain places on certain dates. Four of the vill were chosen, who with the reeve in the presence of the royal commissioners swore to the value of each man's chattels in the vill, except their own, which were appraised in the same way by two other men of the vill. 121 A roll of the vill was drawn up, in which was stated the barony or liberty to which each man belonged. As soon as the assessment was completed, a copy of the roll was sent to the exchequer. The manner of collection differed also. Those men having part of their baronies or a liberty in the vill were allowed to collect the fortieth, but they paid the money to the royal commissioners, not to the exche- quer. 122 If they did not collect it, the sheriff was to dis- assessment, see Niemeyer, "An Assessment for the Fortieth of 1232," in E. H. R., XXIV, 733-735. us Close Rolls, II, 288, 290, 291. To the assessors in Suffolk, "diligentius inspicientes verba brevis eis direct! de prsedicta quad- ragesima assidenda et colligenda." 120 Ibid., 156-160. 121 That the men of the township and not merely the four chosen men came before the commissioners is shown by two facts: the order states "mandavimus vicecomiti . . . quod singulas villatas comitatus sui certis diebus et locis ... ad mandatum nostrum coram vobis venire faciat" (Select Charters, above) ; the manner of assess- ment of the goods of the four chosen men indicates the presence of the other men of the vill. 122 This was the provision made in the writ of collection; cf. the order to these men in Yorkshire (Close Rolls, II, 299). 203 STUDIES IN TAXATION train those who were assessed to pay it to the collectors. The money was deposited in a safe place, such as a castle, sealed with the seals of the sheriff and the collectors, till it was later forwarded to London. 123 The sheriff cared for the transportation. 124 The roll of receipts was for- warded as soon as the money was collected. 125 No one was to be assessed unless he had at least forty pence worth of property. The writs of collection were sent out September 28 and the assessment began in October. 126 Some men were not compelled to submit to assessment and collection by royal officials. Several churchmen obtained writs of exemption. The Hospitallers assessed their property by their own men and a number of bishops and heads of religious houses did likewise the bishops of Ely, Hereford, Durham, Worcester, the abbots of Read- ing, Ramsey, and St. Mary's of York, and the prior of Wenlac. 127 A lay tenant also might obtain this privi- lege. 128 A powerful baron seems to have been able to prevent the assessors from taxing his men. In March, 1235, the assessors in Yorkshire were ordered to assess and collect the fortieth on the lands of W., earl of Albe- marle, John, earl of Lincoln, and Richard de Percy, and the king requested these tenants to allow this to be done. 128 This order was issued over two years after the tax had been granted. Richard refused and the tax was not assessed on his men till September, 1236, when he per- 123 Close Rolls, II, 255, 300; Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 33, 42, 45. 124 Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 33, 37, 42, 45, 60. 125 Close Rolls, II, 295. 126 Ibid., 156. 127 Ibid., II, 160, 283, 285, 287, 288, 290, 294, 301. Such tenants might be allowed also to pay the tax to the king direct, not to the county assessors; the bishop of Ely was permitted to do this (Close Rolls, II, 301, 302). Thus the royal officials would be kept entirely off their lands. 128 Ibid., 295, Richard Marshal. 129 Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 124. 204 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III mitted it to be done. 130 Distraint was however employed to compel payment. 131 The greater part of the tax was turned in during 1233 and 1234. 13 ~ But some accounts were unpaid for a long time. 13S The total amount received was 16,475 Os 9d, 134 a much less proportionate yield than was received from the fifteenth. There is no record that the money was placed in the care of special officials or held as a special fund, as was the case with the previous tax on moveables. Certain points of difference between the fifteenth and the fortieth may be noticed. Some of the changes in the assessment of the latter were evidently the result of the experience gained in 1225. The change in the descrip- tion of the goods to be taxed is a case in point, as it was an attempt to word the writ more clearly. The goods taxed were in both cases the same. The provision in 1232 that no one was to be taxed who had not at least forty pence worth of property was introduced undoubt- edly because of complaints of the poor in 1225, when the king issued a special order not to tax them. 135 The machinery of assessment was simplified: the elected knights of the county were dropped and for the individual oaths of the men of the vill was substituted the assessment by the reeve and four men. The interests of the tenants in chief were protected in a different way: in 1225, though the tax was collected by the reeve and four men, the bailiffs swore to the value of their lords' chattels ; in 1232, the men of the vill assessed all the goods, but the 13 Col. Pat. Rolls, I, 159; a similar case of failure to collect on account of the opposition of the tenant (Close Rolls, III, 184). isi Madox, II, 193, n. z; Close Rolls, III, 404. 132 Most of the notices of payment are in those years (Cal. Pat. RoUs, I). 133 Madox, above, from 27 Henry III. is* Red Book, III, 1064. iss Pat. Rolls, I, 572. 205 STUDIES IN TAXATION bailiffs were allowed to collect the tax on their lords' lands. The sheriff remained subordinate to the collectors. The campaign against Richard Marshal in 1233 was waged partly with the aid of tenants in chief and partly by mercenaries. 136 No scutage was levied. Fines were however assessed on tenants for failure to perform service and for having their scutage. Some of these fines were paid, but many stand in the roll either unpaid or par- doned. Important tenants paid fines, 137 but probably these payments were made early in the campaign and when it was known that no scutage would be taken, they were stopped. 138 That in the end a scutage was not levied indicates that the king recognized the necessity of consulting the tenants in chief before declaring a scutage which he was unable to levy at will. He took measures to protect against loss a tenant who fined and who might not be able to recoup himself by taking a scutage from his men. The bishop of Lincoln made a fine of 110. If the scutage did not run, the king prom- ised him letters to his men to make him a reasonable aid to pay his fine. This also shows that the scutage fell 136 The tenants were summoned to meet in August and again on November 2 (Wend., IV, 271, 277; Cal. Pat. Roll*, I, 22, 24); on mercenaries (Wend., IV, 269, 272, 279, 280; Dunst., p. 136). is? Madox, I, 617, n. e; 661, n. /; Excerpta, I, 251 ; Close Rolls, III, 116, 117, 129; Pipe Roll, 18 Henry III, passim, under the title "Nova Oblata." The bishop of London fined in 60m; 40m were pardoned and he paid 20m. The abbot of Abingdon fined in 100m, of which he paid 50m; the bishop of Bath fined in 90, of which he paid 45 and was pardoned 45; the abbot of Ramsey fined in 20m and paid it; the abbot of Tavistock, in 25m and paid it (Pipe Roll, 18 Henry III, m. 7, 9 d, 13 d, 14, 15 d). 138 The occasional introduction of the clause, if scutage run, shows that the king began to collect the fines before the close of the cam- paign. By the fine the tenant escaped service and had his scutage from his tenants, although the latter provision is not always introduced. 206 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III back on the rear-vassal, a fact which is further illustrated by the pardons for scutage which it was expected might be issued to sub-tenants. If the rear-vassal was pardoned his scutage, the amount due from him was deducted from his lord's fine. 13 The pardoning and non-collection of fines when scutage did not run indicate that the fine and scutage were identical in character, the commutation of service. From 1232 to 1235 no general aid was granted to the king. In 1234, he levied a tallage. 140 It was taken in the customary way. Towns and boroughs compounded for it. The assessment was made in each county by a committee of royal officials ; one of these was sometimes the sheriff; royal judges also were used in this work. 14: Sometimes the fine which a town offered for its tallage 139 Madox, I, 617, n. e; "W. Wigorn' episcopus r c de C li. de fine pro eodem, ita quod in fine allocabuntur ei feoda ilia que de eo tenentur et sunt in manu regis et similiter feoda illorum qui de illo tenent et quorum scutagia rex eis perdonabit vel pro habendo auxilio illorum feodorum si scutagium non assideatur. In thesauro nichil et in perdonis ipsi episcopo C li. per breve regis et quietus est" (Pipe Roll, above, m. 10 d) ; "J. Bathon' episcopus r c de quater xx et x libris ut sit quietus de militibus mittendis ad exercitum regis contra R. marescallum et pro habendo scutagio suo ejusdem exercitus de feodis mih'tum que de rege tenet in capite ita quod si rex aliquid de scutagio illo perdonaverit alicui allocabitur ei in fine predicto sicut continetur in originali" (ibid., m. 13 d). i4oWykes, p. 77; Osney, p. 77; Cal Pat. Rolls, I, 36; Pipe Roll, 18 Henry III; Madox, I, 707, n. k; 743, n. p, q. 1*1 Thus the sheriff is mentioned as one of the tallagers in York, Notts, and Derby, Hants, Northamp., Line., Oxford, Bucks and Bedf. (Pipe Roll, 18 Henry III) (in some of these cases it is the under- sheriff who is mentioned). In Northampton, the tallage was laid by the sheriff, John de Ulecot and Robert de Salceto. John acted as a judge in 1235 (Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 127); Robert was a justice in eyre in 1234 (ibid., 77). In Notts, and Derby one of the tallagers was William Basset; one of the justices in eyre in those counties in 1232 was a William Basset (Close Rolls, II, 136). 207 STUDIES IN TAXATION was raised by the king; 142 in several cases the tallage laid by the justices was reduced. 142 THE AID OF 1235 In the spring of 1235, when Isabella, John's second daughter, was married to Frederick II, Henry III prom- ised her a dowry of 30,000 marks. As she was not the king's eldest daughter, the feudal aid was not legally due. 144 To help raise this sum, the great council was summoned and it granted an aid in the form of a scutage at two marks per fee. 145 This council was composed of the lay and clerical tenants in chief. 14 ' Though the eccle- 142 The burgesses of Oxford offered 100m, but the king refused to accept less than 100 (Madox, I, 743, n. p). The burgesses paid 100m and the king gave them the other 50m "ad villam suam claudendam" (Pipe Roll, 18 Henry III, Oxf., m. 3). i Close Rolls, II, 389, 391, 393, 396, 401, 407. Some towns responded for their tallage to the sheriff; others responded directly to the exchequer, e.g. Southampton (ibid., 459). The amount of the tallage charged in 21 counties in the Pipe Rolls of 18 and 19 Henry III is about 2,200 marks. London does not appear in the rolls of these years as tallaged. 144 " casus i n quibus licet dominis auxilia . . . exigere ab hominibus suis, ... si primogenitam filiam suam maritaverit" (Glanvill, lib. ix, cap. 8, in Select Charters, p. 163) ; Magna Carta, cap. 12. Cf. however the testament of Elzear, seigneur of Uzes, of 1254: remission of all "tallias . . . preterquam in iv casibus, scilicet . . . vel maritare filiam vel sororem suam" (Hist. Languedoc, VIII, No. 400, col. 1330, in H. See, Clauses rurales, p. 485, note) ; here it is not restricted to the eldest daughter. (For this reference, I am indebted to Professor Adams.) No aid had been levied when Joanna, John's eldest daugh- ter, had been married to the king of Scotland in 1219; a tallage had been levied on the Jews (Receipt Roll, Auditor's, no. 1, 5 Henry III). 1 45 It is called "auxilium" and "scutagium" in the writs (Select Charters, p. 364; Close Rolls, III, 186, 189); also, "generale scuta- gium" (Dunst., p. 142); "tallagium" (Theok., p. 97); "carucagium" (Matthew Paris, III, 327); "scutagium vetus et novum" (Burton, p. 364). 146 "archiepiscopi, episcopi, abbates, priores, comites, barones, et omnes alii de regno nostro Angliae qui de nobis tenent in capite spontanea voluntate sua et sine consuetudine concesserunt" ; "comites, 208 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III siastics met probably at the same time as the lay barons, 147 they seem to have dealt separately with the king. They had a different method of collection and they received letters patent promising that their grant should not form a precedent for future levies. 148 This then was a general tax on knights' fees and was taken by the authority of the great council. Theoretically, however, each tenant made the grant for his own fees. 149 The levy was as follows : 1. A scutage at two marks on all fees of laymen, half to be paid at Michaelmas, 1235, and the other half at the following Easter. The writs for collection were issued July 17. 15C Special machinery was employed. Two knights were chosen in each county to receive the tax which was collected by the bailiffs of the tenants in chief. 151 If the barons were unwilling or unable to force barones et omnes alii de toto regno nostro" (Close Rolls, III, 186, 189); "per commune consilium regni concessse" (Madox, I, 593, n. d). It cannot be concluded from this that all the tenants in chief, par- ticularly the lesser tenants, were present. This is a list of the men who in theory compose the great council. 14? The writs of collection for both classes were sent out at about the same time; for the clergy, July 10; for the laity, July 17 (Close Rolls, above). "8 ibid.; Madox, I, 607, n. 6; Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 145. 149 Thus the council is composed of all the tenants in chief. Cf. the writ to the barons of the exchequer concerning the aid due from the fee of a tenant: "pro auxilio quod idem Nicholaus regi concessit ad Isabellam sororem regis . . . maritandam" (Excerpta, I, 438). iso Select Charters, above; Close Rolls, III, 189^. The first half was not all paid at Michaelmas and orders were issued to the col- lectors to pay it in some counties on the morrow of Martinmas (November 12) and in others on the morrow of St. Andrew (Decem- ber 1) (Fine Roll, 19 Henry III, part 1, m. 1). This was not carried out and the half was ordered paid on February 12, 1236 (ibid., 20 Henry III, m. 14). Some still remained due (ibid., m. 13). isi Select Charters, above; Close Rolls, above. In Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, there were six each. A roll of the receipts was drawn up by the collectors and sent to the exchequer. It contained the names of the tenants, the amounts paid by each, and the names of 209 STUDIES IN TAXATION their tenants to pay the aid, the sheriff distrained the latter to pay it to the collectors. 152 A point of some importance, showing that the sheriff did not customarily collect from the rear-vassal, is that tenants often paid the whole sum due from them to the sheriff of the county where lay the bulk of their fees. They were evidently following the usual practice. 153 2. A scutage at the same rate on the clerical tenants in chief. Each prelate collected and paid it at the exchequer. The sheriff aided with distraint, if neces- sary. 154 Some of the clerical tenants made a fine for their aid which was larger than the aid itself would have been. 155 The fine was doubtless for the lands which they did not hold by military tenure and was taken because the persons who gave the money to the collectors: "Rotulus collec- torum auxilii in comitatu Wiltes'; de Ela comitissa Sar 5 xlii li. iiii den. per manum Petri de Salceto, etc." (Subsidies, Bundle 196, no. 2). In this roll of Wilts, there are 32 names. The persons who give the money to the collectors (per manum, etc.) are different for each tenant; they are probably the bailiffs as the writs of collection pro- vided. Twice they are described: "De Johanne de Balun xiii sol. iiii den. per Willelmum prepositum; de Reginaldo de Moun xiii sol. iiii den. per Johannem hominem suum." Twice the tenant is said to give the money himself to the collectors. Thus the sheriff did not collect the aid. iss Close Rolls, III, 329-330; "et si predict! senescalli non possint illos distringere qui auxilium illud deberent dominis suis ipse (the sheriff) eos sine dilatione distringat ad predictum auxilium predictis militibus solvendum ad opus regis" (Fine Roll, 20 Henry III, m. 14) ; Madox, II, 192, n. w; 193, n. z. isa Thus men holding in Gloucestershire paid in other counties where they had more fees (Bristol and Gloucester Archaeological Society Transactions, XIII, 309). is* Rotulorum Originalium in Curia Scaccarii Abbreviatio, Record Com., p. 1, for the bishop of Winchester. IBS E. archiepiscopus Cantuar' r c de CCC marcis de auxilio con- cesso ad maritagium imperatori sororis regis, viz., de C marcis ultra omnia feoda sua que non debet sicut continetur in rotulo" (Testa, p. 218b) ; the abbot of St. Albans fined in 50 marks and had his scutage (Fine Roll, 20 Henry III, m. 11). 210 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III the king levied a donum upon those religious houses which did not hold by knights' service. All tenants, clerical and lay, were to pay on both the old and new enfeoffment. 156 The amount realized from the new basis of assessment did not meet the expectations of the exchequer. It was believed that many fees were escaping taxation. 15 ' Measures were taken to prevent this loss to the treasury. In May, 1236, the sheriffs were ordered to report to the exchequer the number of fees held in each vill by the lesser tenants ; the prelates and the greater lay tenants were to make similar reports by vills of all their fees and those who held them. All land held by military service was to be included. 158 An inquest may have been held by the sheriff to enable him to make out his report, but no orders to this effect exist. The sheriff of Lancashire reported the number of fees of the honor without holding an inquest, and, in order to be sure that no mistake had iseMadox, I, 607, n. b; Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 145; Close Rolls, III, 186, 189; "generate scutagium . . . non solum de feodis habitis in capita de rege, sed etiam de aliis cultis" (Dunst., p. 142) ; "scutagium vetus et novum" (Burton, p. 364). Round, Commune of London, p. 275, suggests that the aid of 1235 may have been assessed on the returns of the inquests of 1212: "in the case of Middlesex, the returns of 1212 were made the basis for collecting the aid for the marriage of the king's sister, in 1235, the same personal names appearing in both lists." It should be observed not only that the same personal names appear in both lists, but that they appear in the same order. This is quite unusual and suggests that the inquest belongs to 1235, rather than to 1212. 157 That the exchequer expected a large increase in the tax is indicated, apart from the fact of the inquests, by the statement, purporting to come from Stephen de Segrave "qui tune temporis fuit exulatus, in abbatia de Leycestria latitans et moram faciens, assere- bat et affirmabat, vetus scutagium ad xxxii milia scuta assummabatur et irrotulabatur; et ad tantumdem plene et plane potuit novum scutagium de novis terris assummari et inrotulari" (Burton, p. 364). iss Farrer, Lane. Inquests, pp. 143-144; Testa, p. 44. The terms, "old enfeoffment" and "new enfeoffment" are probably not used in the technical sense employed under Henry II. By them is meant all land held by military tenure. 211 STUDIES IN TAXATION been made, he sent a transcript of the royal writ to the keeper of the honor that the latter might report from his records. 158 This effort to obtain detailed information was not successful. Some tenants apparently did not try to supply it. Arnold de Bosco held seven fees and a half of the earl of Leicester; it was not known in what vills. 16C The abbot of St. Edmunds reported the number of his fees and the counties in which they lay, but "in what vills they lie and how much in each place, God knows." 1 In 1248, the jury was employed to find out these facts in connection with this aid in the county of Hereford. 182 The method of this inquest was like that of 1166. Its aim was purely financial: to furnish the government with an exact account of the amount of land held by military tenure in order that the payment of the aid might be enforced. 3. A donum or auxilium of the clergy who did not hold by military service. 163 This was not levied by the authority of the great council. In July, August, and September, the heads of these religious houses were sum- moned to meet the king or special officials at convenient places to discuss this aid. 164 A roll of the contributors was drawn up and in this roll the clergy who held by isoFarrer, p. 144. io Bristol and Gloucester Arch. Soc., XIII, 326. lei Testa, p. 415. i2 Madox, I, 593, n. d. 163 Testa, pp. 23b, 38b, 73b; Madox, I, 593, n. e; Dunst., p. 142; Theok., p. 97 ; "de auxilio quod viri religiosi nobis per regnum nostrum concessemnt" (Close Rolls, III, 223, 211, 212, 221, 228). 164 Close Rolls, III, 187-188. All the houses did not comply with the summons and were later called together to meet officials of the king and make a contribution (Fine Roll, 19 Henry III, part 1, m. 1). The officials who sought the aid from them were the tallagers. The consent of the religious houses was individual and not corporate. The orders of Cistercians, Premonstratensians, and of Sempringham were exempt. 212 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III military service often appear. 16 ' The amounts raised by the donum were considerable. In Gloucestershire, it yielded 189 2s 3d, almost as much as the scutage brought in (210 7s 5d). 16e Property was not assessed; each house paid a lump sum. 167 4. The sheriff was to report also the names of those tenants who held of the king by sergeanty and socage and in what vills their holdings lay and what service they rendered. Perhaps such tenants were expected to contribute also. 188 5. A tallage was levied. 169 165 Testa, above; "in rotulo de auxilio prelatorum" (Madox, I, 593, n. e). 166 Bristol, etc., XIII, 354, 355. 167 Sir Henry Barkly thinks that this donum was very strictly exacted, for he says that the branches of five foreign houses con- tributed for the first time. lesFarrer, p. 143; Bristol, etc., XIII, 355. 169 Theok., p. 97; "talliari fecimus dominica nostra per Angliam" (Close Rolls, III, 206); ibid., 206-316, passim; Madox, I, 735, notes; Pipe Roll, 19 Henry III. The tallage was assessed by committees of royal officials. The sheriff is mentioned as one of these com- mittees in Hereford, Gloucester, Cumberland, Salop, Stafford, Norfolk and Suffolk (Pipe Roll, 19 Henry III). Royal judges also served: Thomas de Muleton was a tallager in Northumberland; he was an itinerant justice in 1235 (Bracton, Note Book, p. 141); Eudo de Beauchamp was one of the tallage rs in Worcester and was a judge of assize in 1235 (Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 108) ; R. de Lexinton was a justice in eyre in Somerset in November, 1235, and he ("et socios suos") was tallaging the demesne in Gloucester that year (Close Rolls, III, 209, 212). In Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, the tallagers were William Bretun and Roger de Essex (Fine Roll, 19 Henry III, part 1, m. 1); Roger de Essex was a king's escheator and a forest justice in 1236 (Close Rolls, III, 269, 344); William de Eboraco "et socii sui" tallaged Hants and Surrey (Fine Roll, above, m. 1) ; William was an itinerant justice in 1235 (Close Rolls, III, 111). The towns compounded in lump sums for their tallages. The amount charged in 30 counties was 3,400 marks. London paid 1,000 marks (Pipe Roll, 21 Henry III, m. 7). 213 STUDIES IN TAXATION The amount of the dowry was raised in some way. The last payment of 10,000 marks was made in June, 1237. 17C THE THIRTIETH, 1237 On January 13, 1237, the great council met at Lon- don 171 in response to a special summons. There was a large attendance; those present were the prelates, the earls, and the barons. If the lesser tenants in chief attended, they did not receive special mention as a sepa- rate class. 172 The distinction made in the writ of collec- tion between knights and barons may imply that the latter term when used alone included only the greater lay tenants. 173 ITO Cat. Pat. Rolls, I, 188; Rymer, I, 232. i Matthew Paris says that the council met January 13 (III, 380); the Close Roll gives January 20, octave of St. Hilary's day (III, 543). The council lasted several days (Matthew Paris says four) and the decision to make the grant may have been taken on the octave. 172 Those summoned were: "archiepiscopis, episcopis, abbatibus, et prioribus installatis, comitibus, et baronibus" (Matthew Paris, III, 380); these met: "infinita nobilium multitudo, scilicet, regni totalis universitas" (ibid.) ; "convocato magno colloquio archiepiscoporum, episcoporum, abbatum et priorum, comitum et baronum, civium et burgensium et aliorum multorum" (Theok., p. 102); "tarn a clero qua: 1 1 a populo" (Wykes, p. 83) ; Osney, p. 84. ITS Three descriptions of the tenants are given: the king states that those who assembled were: "archiepiscopi, episcopi, abbates, priores, comites et barones totius regni nostri et tractatum haberent nobis- cum"; and then that "iidem archiepiscopi, episcopi, abbates, priores et clerici terras habentes que ad ecclesias suas non pertinent, comites, barones, milites et liberi homines pro se et suis villanis nobis con- cesserunt in auxilium tricesimam partem etc."; and finally he con- firms the charters to "archiepiscopis, episcopis, abbatibus, prioribus, comitibus, baronibus et vobis omnibus aliis de regno nostro" (Close Rolls, III, 543-545; Select Charters, pp. 366-368). The last phrase is also given, "et aliis magnatibus regni nostri" (Close Rolls, III, 546). The second description is that of the taxpayers; the other of the members of the council. The concluding phrases "vobis omnibus aliis de regno nostro," etc., do not seem to refer to a definite class at the council, but seem to be used vaguely to include all to whom 214 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III The king asked for an aid of a thirtieth of moveables. His reasons for the request were that his officials had been dishonest in the management of his income and that the heavy expenses of his own marriage and that of his sister had depleted the treasury. 174 All this was probably true. The dower of the empress was still in arrears. The demand met with opposition at once. Consider- able discussion ensued, but finally it was agreed to make the grant. The king was to admit three barons to his council and reconfirm the charters; a new sentence of excommunication was proclaimed against violators. No one was to pay unless he had more than forty pence worth of goods. That property was to be taxed which would be held on September 14, 1237, when the assess- ment was to begin. The dates of payment were half on December 1, 1237, and half on May 31, 1238. 175 The clerical tenants in chief made a separate arrangement with the king, though they paid the same tax. The words of Matthew Paris in describing the grant suggest this, when he says that the archbishop of Canterbury with his bishops and clergy first agreed to a thirtieth. 176 The clergy furthermore assessed and collected the tax on their own lands. 177 the grant of the charters might apply. The reference to citizens and burgesses in the Tewkesbury chronicle probably refers merely to the presence of some Londoners. At any rate, it was of no importance as a precedent. "4 Matthew Paris, III, 380-383. i 75 Select Charters, above; Close Rolls, above. The original dates of a payment were not always enforced (Close Rolls, IV, 116, 117, 119, 130, 263). Sometimes a taxpayer obtained a postponement of the date of payment (ibid., pp. 115, 130). Besides the chroniclers cited above, the tax is noted by Dunst., p. 147; Wav., p. 317; Wint., p. 87; "vicesima," Wig., p. 428; Gerv. Cant., II, 130; Ann. Camb., p. 82. iT6 "consientibus igitur primum archiepiscopo Cantuariensi cum suis episcopis et clero" (Matthew Paris, above). i" See below, p. 217. 215 STUDIES IN TAXATION The persons who paid the thirtieth seem to have been the same as in the previous cases of taxes on personal property. 178 The beneficed clergy were again exempt. 178 Great foreign orders did not pay the tax as granted by the council. The abbot of Cluny made a separate grant of a thirtieth and received letters patent stating that it was a free gift and not owed and that it was not to form a precedent. 180 The Cistercians, the Premonstratensians, the Templars, and the Hospitallers did not pay the thir- tieth and may have paid nothing at all. 181 Some religious houses had their property assessed, but were finally exempted. 182 Th royal demesne probably did not pay the thirtieth. 183 The method of assessment did not vary materially from that employed in 1232. The king sent commissioners, four knights and a clerk, called assessors and collectors, to each county. 184 The sheriff summoned the men of the vills to meet them and four men were chosen from each ITS See note 175. The writ enumerates the same persons as in 1232. The wording is exactly the same except for the last phrase: in 1232, "liberi homines et villani"; in 1237, "liberi homines, pro se et suis villanis." The change is due to the desire to make a more careful statement. The same desire is shown by the fact that for the first time both the taxable and the exempt property is enumerated. The list of taxable goods is practically the same as in 1232 except that more discretion is given the assessors by the addition of the phrase, "et aliis pecoribus et bonis." i Select Charters, above. iso Gal. Pat. Rolls, I, 205; Close Rolls, IV, 9. M Close Rolls, III, 567, 569; IV, 45, 67, 114, 119. 182/6,'d., Ill, 569, 570, 575; IV, 2, 8, 20, 29. iss The reference to citizens and burgesses in the great council suggests that the demesne paid the thirtieth (Theok., p. 102), but in 18 counties, the assessors were directed not to assess the tax on the royal demesne (Close Rolls, III, 575; IV, 37, 115); in the follow- ing year the king levied a tallage, which he would hardly have done had the demesne just paid the thirtieth. is* Except in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. In the East and North Ridings of Yorkshire there were two knights and a clerk; in the 216 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III vill to assess the tax. There does not seem to be any difference between this method of choosing the local assessors and that of 1232. 18J These four men, in the presence of the county commissioners and of the bailiffs of the lords of the vill, if they wished to be present, were to swear to the number and value of the chattels of each man in the vill, except their own, which were to be assessed by four other men chosen in the same way. The valuation was to be reasonable. A roll of the vill was to be drawn up and after it had been approved by the commissioners, the four men of the vill were to collect the tax and pay it to the commissioners for deposit in a safe place (a castle, an abbey) till it was brought to London. 186 The method of collection therefore differed from that of 1232. The barons were not to collect. Their interests were safe- guarded in another way, viz., by the presence of their bailiffs when the assessment was made. 187 The county officials did not assess the property of the clergy. The same method was employed, but each prelate had charge of the assessment and made use of his own knights or freemen, who however needed a royal writ to undertake this work. 185 After the money had been collected, it was delivered to the royal commissioners. Efforts were made to escape assessment. Tenants concealed their goods. West Riding, four knights and a clerk. In each of the three parts of Lincolnshire, Lindes', Ketsteven, and Holland, there were four knights and a clerk (ibid., Ill, 546-554). iss See above, p. 203. 186 Close Rolls, III, 546-554; IV, 12, 111, 116, 118, 119, 388, 389; Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 225. The sheriff was to provide transportation for the money. He was to distrain men to pay the tax to the county assessors: "et si indigeant auxilio tuo circa districtionem faciendam in collectione dicte pecunie, tu eis auxilium parabis" (Close Rolls, III, 545; IV, 116; Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 231). 187 A lay baron however might be allowed to collect from his men; e.g. Gilbert de Umfravill (Close Rolls, IV, 45). iss Select Charters, p. 367; Close Rolk, III, 555, 557, 559; IV, 4, 15, 18. 217 STUDIES IN TAXATION Some juries of the vills were corrupted, assessing property at less than its real value. Whenever this fraud was discovered, the property was re-assessed by a new jury and the former jurors were punished for perjury. 188 The amount received was 33,811m 2s Id. 190 The greater part of the tax was probably paid in 1238 ; most of the notices of payment are of that year, 191 though there are references to payment years afterward. 192 As in 1225, the receipts were regarded as a special fund for use on extraordinary occasions. The king borrowed from this fund and promised to repay the loan from the ordi- nary income of the exchequer. 193 Mention has been made of the three magnates who were to have been added to the king's council. According to Matthew Paris, the magnates in 1242 claimed that the king had promised to store the money in castles under the care of four mag- nates and to spend it only by the advice of the latter, but that none had been thus spent so far as they had heard. 194 This was not the regulation which the same chronicler describes in 1237. Yet Henry III had taken some measures to restrict his expenditure. On November 28, 1237, he declared that he would store the thirtieth in some safe place and spend none of it except by the advice of the legate, Otho. 195 A part of the tax of Lincolnshire was left in 1242 and was still in the custody 189 Close Rolls, III, 569. An interesting entry is one concerning a man whose grain was destroyed after the assessment was made and his thirtieth was pardoned (ibid., IV, 15). 190 Red Book, III, 1064. ii Cal Pat. Rolls, I, passim. MExcerpta, I, 449, anno 1246; II, 279, anno 1258. Both of these cases refer to collectors who apparently had levied the tax but had not closed their accounts with the exchequer. 193 Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 212. 19* Matthew Paris, IV, 186. 195 Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 205. 218 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III of the collectors, 198 and a part was still at the Temple. 197 Yet early in 1238, the king had succeeded in getting rid of 12,480 marks of this tax. A thousand pounds were lent to the prior of the Hospitallers to spend in the Holy Land. Five hundred pounds were sent as a gift to the Greek emperor. Six thousand marks were paid to Richard, earl of Cornwall, to advance his interests at Paris. 19 * Three thousand marks which Henry III prom- ised to repay went to pay knights in Gascony. 199 The rest went in gifts, loans, and expenses. An interesting feature of this levy is the king's promise that the aid should not form a precedent for future taxation. He had made such promises before, but only to the clergy; now the promise was made to the laity as well. Another tax of 1237 was a tallage of 6,000 marks levied on the Jews ; half was to be paid to the earl of Cornwall to supply him with money for a pilgrimage and half to the king. 200 The magnates in Ireland had been asked in 1235 to grant an aid to the king similar to that paid in England that year. Up to the close of 1237, they had not complied with the request. They were now asked to make a further grant of a thirtieth, and some contributed. 201 As has been said, the royal demesne does not seem to have paid the thirtieth, 202 but in 1238 it paid the king a i9a The collectors of the thirtieth in that county were to deliver 453 10s of the thirtieth in their custody to the sheriff to bring to London (Ca.1. Pat. Rolls, I, 275, 277). 197 l,247m 2s lO^d (ibid., 281). 198 ibid., 209, 217, 222. 199 Ibid., 212. 200 ibid., 173, 178. 201 Ibid., 215; Close Rolls, III, 571-575. 202 There are orders not to assess or collect without the special order of the king the thirtieth on the demesne in eighteen counties (Close Rolls, III, 575; IV, 115): "Quia rex wult quod manerium de Bruges Walteri tallientur inter dominica regis, cum rex fecerit ea talliari, mandatum est assessoribus et collectoribus tricesime in 219 STUDIES IN TAXATION tallage, a levy which apparently took the place of the aid of the previous year. 202 The demesne thus paid a tax to which the king was entitled by customary law, not one which he levied by virtue of a grant by the great council. Three years later, in 1241, another tallage was levied on the demesne. In twenty counties, the sum charged amounted to 4,240 marks. 204 As usual towns fined for the levy. Sometimes the tax was assessed by the sheriff alone; sometimes special officials assessed it either alone or in conjunction with the sheriff. These officials were usually, perhaps always, royal judges. 205 In the same year, a tallage of 20,000 marks was levied on the Jews. 206 There was also an expedition against the Welsh, who how- comitatu Sumers' quod nullam tricesimam in eodem manerio assideri vel colligi faciant" (ibid., IV, 16). 203 On October 18, 1238, the king granted the earl of Cornwall the right to tallage his demesnes "quia rex talliari facit civitates, burgos et alia dominica sua" (ibid., IV, 109). In 1236 and 1237, the bishop- rics of Durham and of Norwich were void and were tallaged (Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 158, 169, 173, 185, 190), but this was done before the thirtieth was collected and had nothing to do with the tallage on the demesne. 204 The accounts appear in the Pipe Rolls of 1241, 1242, and 1243. London is included; it fined in 1,000. For other references to this tallage, see Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 275; Vincent, p. 61; Madox, I, 723, n. c; Liber Mem. de Bernewelle, p. 78; Matthew Paris, IV, 95; Close Rolls, IV, 281-339. 205 in Salop and Stafford, John Lestrange, the sheriff, was ap- pointed to assess it (Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 273; Pipe Roll, 26 Henry III, Salop). Henry de Bathonia and William de S. Edmundo were appointed to assess it in four counties (Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 293) ; the first was a justice in eyre in Hants in January, 1241; the second was a justice in eyre in 1238 and was acting as a judge in December, 1240 (Close Rolls, IV, 58, 345; Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 262). John Gum- baud and Richard Duket, justices in eyre in January, 1241, assessed the tallage in seven bailiwicks, probably always in conjunction with the sheriff (Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 263; Pipe Roll, 26 Henry III, Cant, and Hunt., Bucks and Bedf., Norf. and Suff., York, Cumb., Northamp., and Northumb.). 206 Close Rolls, IV, 281, 312; Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 247, 249; Madox, I, 224, notes. 220 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III ever submitted without any fighting. 207 Accordingly a scutage was not levied. We have already noted that many tenants no longer served with their full contingents and that the reduced service was considered to be the total service owed by the holding. An entry on the Close Roll of 1241 suggests that the practice had become so common that a roll had been drawn up stating the amount of the new servitium debitum, as it may properly be called. On July 25, Henry III wrote from Gloucester to his treasurer ordering him to examine the exchequer rolls and report to the king the amount of service owed by the tenants in chief as contained in a certain roll of that service. 208 20T Matthew Paris, IV, 149-151; Theok., p. 120; Wint., p. 89; Wav., p. 328; Ann. Camb., p. 83; Brut., p. 329; Gal. Pat. Rolls, I, 254, 256, 257, 264; Close Rolls, IV, 326. 208 "Mandatum est W. de Haverhull', thesaurario regis, quod dili- genter scrutatis rotulis de scaccario, significet regi quod et quantum servicium regi debetur ab archiepiscopis, episcopis, abbatibus, priori- bus, comitibus, baronibus, militibus et servientibus, in quodam rotulo servicium illud continente. Hoc cum summa festinatione faciat et regi transmittat" (Close Rolls, IV, 360). The probability that the text gives the correct interpretation of this extract from the Close Roll is strengthened by the fact that we have such a roll of the new servitium debitum from the expedition to Wales of 1245 (see below, pp. 246, 247). 221 CHAPTER VII THE TAXES IN DETAIL FROM 1242 TO 1253 T P to this time, there had been evident a disposition ^-^ on the part of the barons to criticise the financial demands of the government and to make some efforts to unite in opposition to the king. These efforts had culmi- nated in 1237 in the suggestion that there should be some baronial supervision of royal expenditure and in the king's promise that the thirtieth of that year should not form a precedent for future demands. But the oppo- sition of the tenants in chief never reached the point where the king failed to have the tax granted. Beginning in 1242, a further step was taken by the barons. They refused to grant aids to the king. The reasons which Henry III gave at that time and afterward to explain why taxes were necessary were the same that he had given before. In 1242, he wanted to raise money for the expedition to Gascony; later, he needed it to pay his debts. But to these demands the barons turned a deaf ear. The cause for their refusal was twofold. They did not deny that the king was in want of money, but they felt that this want was due to his own mismanage- ment of his income and that therefore such frequent taxes were unnecessary. At the same time, they feared that the king was establishing a right of arbitrary taxation, and on this account they demanded that the king allow them to supervise his expenditure and thus enable them to decide when taxes were necessary. The claim that Henry III should live of his own probably states in exag- gerated form the belief of the barons that extraordinary 222 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III levies should be demanded less frequently. The king's refusal to admit any control of his expenses was met by the barons' refusal to grant aids. That this refusal was effective is shown by the king's fruitless appeals to indi- viduals, which now appear for the first time, and by his frequent summoning of the great council to persuade its members to make him a grant. Baronial control is illus- trated in 1245 when the tenants refused to grant any aid other than the one which the feudal law gave the king, the aid to marry his daughter, and in the low rate which was fixed, twenty shillings per fee. The taxes of the period therefore comprise only those levies to which Henry III was entitled by feudal law, with one possible exception, the donum from religious houses in 1248. There were two scutages, an aid to marry the king's daughter, three tallages, and three dona from religious bodies. Both the scutages were legal (in 1242 for Gascony and in 1246 for Wales). They were both accompanied by fines, but were not aids, that is, they were paid only by the tenants who had failed to perform their service. In the case of the levy of 1242, it will be noticed that the king tried to enlarge the number of fees which paid scutage. As far as the scutage of Gascony was concerned, the effort was in part at least unsuccessful and it certainly did not result in a permanent increase in the number of fees from which the king could collect scutage. 1 The bishops in 1242 again renewed the claim successfully that they did not owe scutage for a campaign in Gascony; they made instead an aid at the same rate as the scutage. This seems to be a denial of military service overseas. There was an expedition to Scotland in 1244, but no scutage was taken, clearly because there was no fighting. Thus scutage could not i There is no change in the number of fees for which individual tenants account at the exchequer after 1242. 223 STUDIES IN TAXATION be levied at the will of the king. For the first time, the rate of scutage for a campaign in Wales was three marks, an increase which shows the king's lack of money. In this campaign, too, we see that the incomplete quotas with which tenants had long been serving were coming to be regarded as the servitium debitum of their holdings. It will be noticed that in 1245 the barons put a check on the efforts which the king had been making to increase the number of fees which should pay scutage. The writs of collection state that the aid was to be paid on the number of fees which paid customarily. With 1246, there began a barren period for the exchequer. The only levies till 1253 were two tallages on the demesne and one donum on religious bodies. It is noteworthy that the latter were now taxed for the first time when no aid or scutage was levied on other classes of the community. THE TAXATION or 1242 On December 14, 1241, Henry III issued writs sum- moning the tenants in chief to meet at London on the January 27 following. 2 January 8, 1242, he ordered the sheriffs of the maritime counties to provide ships at Portsmouth before April 13, ready to cross the seas with him. 3 January 28, the great council met and was asked to grant the king an aid for the campaign in France, a demand which, in accordance with a previous agreement among themselves, the magnates refused. After some attempts, partly successful, to persuade the tenants singly 2 Close Rolls, IV, 428. The writ given is addressed to the arch- bishop of York; "eodem modo scribitur omnibus episcopis, abbatibus, comitibus et baronibus." The business is described as follows: "ad tractandum nobiscum una cum ceteris magnatibus nostris quos simili- ter fecimus convocari de arduis negociis nostris statum nostrum et tocius regni nostri specialiter tangentibus." See also Matthew Paris, IV, 180. s Close Rolls, IV, 429. 224 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III to grant him money, the king dissolved the council. 4 He did not however give up his proposed expedition. Orders were immediately issued to collect money from religious bodies, 5 and on February 8, the military tenants were summoned to meet at Winchester on April 27. 6 They were reluctant to serve, but some met and on May 9, the king sailed for France with eight earls and 300 knights. 7 He had no intention of carrying on the campaign with this force alone. Those tenants who had failed to answer the summons were distrained to appear at London on July 15 and cross to Gascony. 8 As soon as the king arrived in France, he wrote urgently for 200 knights, 100 ser- geants, 500 good Welshmen, and money. Fines were to be remitted and money paid to knights if they would come to his aid. 9 On the same date, he wrote to fifty tenants, < Matthew Paris, IV, 181-188. Those summoned were "archi- episcopis, episcopis, abbatibus, prioribus, comitibus, et baronibus"; those present were "totius Angliae nobilitas, tarn praelatorum quam comitum et baronum"; "dominus Eboracensis archiepiscopus et omnes episcopi Angliae, abbates et priores, per se, vel per procurators suos, necnon et omnes comites et fere omnes barones Angliae ad mandatum domini regis convenissent." 5 Close Rolls, IV, 430, 431. This probably began during the coun- cil: "protendens rotulum, in quo scriptum monstravit, quid ille vel ille abbas vel prior tantum vel tantum promisit se daturum" (Matthew Paris, IV, 182, 189). s Close Rolls, IV, 431. Another summons was issued to this effect to all sheriffs on March 24 (ibid., p. 435; Vincent, p. 64). ^ Rymer, I, 246; Matthew Paris, IV, 192; Theok., p. 122. May 5, Dunst., p. 158; May 9, Wav., p. 329, and Wint., p. 89. s "et quia plures . . . non venerunt ad trans fretandum nobiscum sicut summoniti fuerunt, tibi (vicecomiti) praecipimus quod omnes tales distringas per terras et catalla quod sint apud Lond' . . . parati ad transfretandum post corpus nostrum" (Close Rolls, IV, 486). This order was enrolled May 19. The order to distrain was not a mere threat, but was carried out; see the cases of Isabella de Morti- mer, William de Ros, and Robert de Hayford (ibid., pp. 427, 453, 465, 472). 9 Rymer, I, 246 ; Close Rolls, IV, 496-499. William de Cantilupe, who was a leader of the reinforcements which later crossed, received a loan of 100m that was afterward pardoned (Pipe Roll, 26 Henry 225 STUDIES IN TAXATION summoning them to come at once. 10 Nor was this order disregarded. Tenants were going over to Gascony throughout the summer. 11 Some tenants who served this year came with only part of their contingents. 12 Mer- III, Dors, and Somers.). Matthew Paris says that the count of la Marche had advised the king to bring money, not men, as he would provide a sufficient military force (IV, 189); the king therefore may have been unusually lenient in allowing men to fine for their service. 10 Rymer, above; Close Rolls, IV, 498, 527. n August 28, men were being sent over (Rymer, I, 248); see also Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 302; Close Rolls, IV, 460; Matthew Paris, IV, 198. William de Albiniaco, Andrew Lutrel, and Thomas Gresley fined (Rymer, I, 246; Pipe Roll, 26 Henry III, Line., War. and Leic.), but later crossed to the king (letters of protection for them, Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 294-297). Vital Engayne fined in 40m and later sent his son and part of his fine was pardoned (Close Rolls, IV, 473) ; William de Siffrewast (ibid., no. 58, m. 15). Thomas de Berkeley fined in 60m, then sent his son with two knights and his fine was pardoned (ibid., m. 14) ; Robert de Hayford was to be distrained to cross on October 6 "cum aliis militibus qui ad mandatum nostrum tune ad regem similiter trans fretabunt" (ibid., IV, 465). For the persistent opposition of the barons to this expedition, in spite of which they were still obliged to serve, see Dunst., pp. 158-159: "rex ... a magnatibus suis Angliae fere omnibus ibi (at Bordeaux, after the campaign) dimittitur, sine quorum consilio ab Anglia fuerat profectus." Matthew Paris rather exaggerates this feeling when he says that the king had to persuade rather than to com- mand the magnates to accompany him, "datis muneribus preciosis" (Matthew Paris, IV, 189). By these gifts are meant probably loans (see above, note 9) ; they were not uncommon under John (see above, pp. 37, 97, 111). 12 Richard de Munfichet, 47% fees, had two knights with the king and received all his scutage (Michel, Roles gascons, no. 145; Close Rolls, IV, 493) ; the earl of Arundel, 84^ fees, had five knights in the host and was granted all his scutage (Michel, no. 138; Close Rolls, above) ; Thomas de Berkeley, five fees, first fined in 60m, then sent his son "se tertio" and his fine was pardoned (Rymer, I, 246; Close Rolls, no. 58, m. 14) ; "Rex dedit respectum Johanni de Stute- vill' de servicio trium militum quod regi debet donee rex venerit in Wasconiam" (Close Rolls, IV, 413); he held fifteen fees. Notice however that Andreas Peverel and Richard de Harecurt each sent one knight to Gascony (ibid., 493) ; they held respectively one fee, and a third of a fee (Pipe Roll, 29 Henry III, Sussex, Oxon., m. 9, 7 d) ; in War. and Leic. a Richard Fitz William de Harecurt held 226 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III cenaries were employed. 13 Thus the king was able but with difficulty to compel tenants to perform their service. In connection with this expedition, there were levied a scutage at three marks on the fees of religious houses and of lay tenants together with fines, an aid at the same rate on the bishops, and dona (contributions in lump sums) on religious houses. 14 The scutage on religious houses and the laity was put in charge before the king's departure. On May 19, a writ was issued to the sheriff of Yorkshire ordering him to collect scutage at three marks from all fees in hand and from rear-vassals of all tenants who had no writs of scutage, and to have the money at the exchequer on October 13. 15 Before the date of sailing, grants were made to tenants in chief of the scutage of their vassals. On May 1, the sheriffs in whose bailiwicks Richard, earl of Cornwall, had fees were to cause him to have his scutage at three marks per fee at the coming October 13, 1242, two fees (ibid., m. 10) and he may be the Richard de Harecurt mentioned above; in any case, the entries illustrate the fact that a small tenant might furnish all or nearly all his service. 13 Rymer, I, 247, 249; Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 308, 316; Michel, no. 248; Close Rolls, IV, 406; in August, efforts were being made to provide 500 Welshmen, probably the force concerning which the king had written in June (ibid., 458) ; in September, 100 knights, 100 sergeants, and 4,000 Welsh (ibid., 514). 14 No tallage was levied throughout England for the expedition. The entries concerning tallage which appear in the Pipe Roll of 1242 belong to the levy of 1241. Matthew Paris says that in 1243 the citizens of London were compelled to pay a tallage under the follow- ing form: "Venerunt exactores et regales aeditui ad ilium vel ilium civem, dicentes; 'Tantam et tantam oportet te pecuniam domino regi, in longinquis partibus pro commoditate regni militant! et nimis indigenti, donee in regno suo restauretur, commodare.' Et secundum voluntatem et aestimationem extortorum pecuniam civium mutilarunt" (Matthew Paris, IV, 242). Probably this was done, for in the Pipe Roll of 1242 two Londoners pay each 40 "de auxilio" (Pipe Roll, 26 Henry III, Lond. and Midd.). is Close Rolls, IV, 486. 227 STUDIES IN TAXATION because he accompanied the king. 16 The date, October 13, is that on which the scutage was to be paid at the exche- quer by the sheriff according to the writ of May 19; the order suggests therefore that the scutage had already been put in charge on May 1. On this same date, May 1, the king acknowledged the receipt of fifty marks on April 30 from the abbot of Hyde in aid of his crossing and released him of the scutage due on five of the twenty fees which the abbot held. 17 Men fined before the king started with the proviso "saving to the king his scutage." 1 It seems clear therefore that the levy was fixed before the king crossed. The account of the tax in the Pipe Roll is incomplete. The title is "Fines militum ne transfretent cum rege in Wasconiam praeter scutagia sua quae regi sponte conces- serunt ad istam transfretationem." The returns of the scutage (at three marks) are not given; 19 no lists of men granted writs of quittance appear; only fines for default i Vincent, p. 116. Other cases are cited here. 17 Col. Pat. Rolls, I, 284; Madox, I, 609, n. d. The writ in Madox was issued 27 Henry III. On May 4, 1242, the sheriffs were ordered to allow the abbot of Hyde to have his scutage "ad respondendum inde regi scaccarium" (Fine Roll, no. 38, part 1, m. 3). is Vincent, p. 117. The introduction of this saving clause shows that the scutage had been declared. Had the levy not been fixed already, the clause introduced would have indicated that fact. Cf. the fines in connection with the campaign against Richard Marshal in 1233, which were made when no scutage had been put in charge; they say "si scutagium currat" (see above, p. 206). is The scutage does not appear in the later Pipe Rolls. The account was made in a separate roll, which is mentioned in the Pipe Roll: "sicut continetur in rotulo compoti hujus scutagii" (Pipe Roll, 27 Henry III, passim, from Hall, Red Book, II, p. clxxxix, note 5). Mr. Hall speaks as though only the scutages which were unpaid at Michaelmas, 1242, were entered in this roll, but all the scutage which came in was entered in it: "Hec summa vera est et soluta unde vicecomes protulit talliam coram baronibus a die S. Michaelis in xv dies anno xxvito" (Testa, p. 14b). This seems to refer to the com- potus which the sheriff presented at the exchequer on October 13, 1-24-2, the date when the first rendering of the scutage was due. 228 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III of service are entered and the list of these is not com- plete. The title implies that all these fines were paid in addition to the scutage. This is not always the case; sometimes the fine included the scutage. 20 The scutage was not an aid in the technical sense, but was the compo- sition for service. 21 Those tenants who were in the host did not pay it, but were granted permission to collect it for their own use from their vassals. There is a roll containing the names of seventy-seven tenants who accompanied the king and for this reason received writs de habendo scutagio. 22 The order instructing the sheriff to collect scutages exempted those who had such writs. 23 Mention should be made in this connection of the king's letter of June 8, directing fines to be remitted and even money paid in addition to those tenants who would join him in France. 24 This seems evidence enough to show that the tenant in chief was exempt from all taxation on his tenement, if he served. Nor was it necessary for a vassal to provide his full contingent in order to be exempt from all money payment. 25 Some tenants who failed to perform their service did not escape with scutage only. Fines were also levied, often very heavy. A few cases may be given: William de Percy, 100m on 15 fees ; 28 Gilbert de Umfravill, 100m; 27 John de Bayeux, 100m; 28 Henry de Pinkney, 20 See below, note 35. 21 Not the full composition in all cases, perhaps not in most, but not a general aid on knights' fees. 22 Scutage Rolls, No. 6; Bristol and Glouc., etc., XIV, 22, note. For such writs, see Close RolU, IV, 489-493. 23 Madox, I, 682, n. s; see above, p. 227, note 15. 2* See above p. 225, note 9. 25 See above, p. 226, note 12. 26 Pipe Roll, 26 Henry III, York. 27 Ibid., Northumb. He held 2^ fees. 28 Ibid., Line. The servitium of this fee was 20 knights (Round, Feudal England, p. 253) ; the old enfeoffment was 151^ fees and the 229 STUDIES IN TAXATION 30m ; 29 Elias Giffard, 35m, 9 fees ; 30 Robert de Evering- ham, 50m not to cross and to have his scutage ; 81 Thomas Gresley, 100m not to cross and to have his scutage; 32 Roger de Merlai, 50m on 4 fees. 33 The amount of fines charged in the Pipe Roll in twenty-nine counties was 3,146 marks of which 1,555 marks were entered as paid. There seems to have been a tendency to separate the fine from the scutage. The title of the levy in the Pipe Roll speaks of "fines . . . praeter scutagia" and there was a separate account of the scutage. Some of the fines were evidently payments in addition to the scutage; 34 other fines however included the scutage. 35 There was nothing new in the separation of the two payments and we can hardly say whether or not the practice was more common new, 4% fees (Red Book, I, 387) ; in 1230 and 1246 it accounted for l fy&i> fees ( pi pe Roll, 14 and 30 Henry III, Line.). 2 Ibid., Bucks and Bedf . ; 15 fees ; probably a fine in addition to scutage. so/fttd., Glouc. si Vincent, p. 117, quoting Fine Roll, 26 Henry III. 32 Vincent, p. 118, quoting Fine Roll, 26 Henry III; 12 fees. 33 Pipe Roll, 26 Henry III, Northumb. s* E.g. the countess of Warwick, 100s (ibid., Oxon.) ; William Fitz Hamon, 10m (ibid., Bucks and Bedf.); Robert de Novo Burgo, 20m; Walter de Estleg, 10 fees, 10m (ibid., Dors, and Somers.). ss Robert de Everingham paid 50m not to cross and to have his scutage (Vincent, p. 117) ; similarly, Thomas Gresley, 100m (ibid., p. 118) ; Gilbert Gaunt "finem fecit cum rege pro eodem (scutagio suo et pro relaxacione passagii sui) per CC marc." (ibid.). He held 68^4 fees so that he really paid only scutage. John de Bayeux, 100m "de eisdem finibus" (Pipe Roll, 26 Henry III, Line.); this fine in- cludes his scutage, for "finem fecit pro habendo scutagiis suis per C marcas" (Testa, p. 306b). The earl of Warwick, 180 marks "pro omnibus feodis suis et pro habendo scutagio suo" (Pipe Roll, above, War. and Leic.) ; in the Fine Roll he is charged with the same amount "pro scutagio suo et pro relaxacione passagii sui" (Vincent, above). He held 102% fees. Dugdale, I, 72b, quotes the rolls of 25 and 26 Henry III to show that the earl paid two fines of 120 each, one to be absent from attendance on the king in Gascony and the other to levy scutage on his tenants. It is unlikely that there were two distinct fines. 230 this year than in previous years. Some, perhaps all, of the fines were levied at the beginning of the campaign. 36 The method of collection of the levy varied. If a tenant in chief received a writ for having his scutage, he col- lected from his tenants and accounted either to the sheriff or to the exchequer. Such a writ was granted both to tenants who fined and to those who paid scutage. If the tenant did not secure the writ the great council had pro- vided that the sheriff should collect from his rear-vassals. 37 36 Vincent, above ; cf. Rymer, I, 246 ; the king writes from France, June 8: "Fines vero quos a quibusdam militibus recepimus"; see above, p. 228. 37 The writ of collection of May 19 orders the sheriff "quod de omnibus feodis militum que tenentur de tenentibus de nobis in capita in balliva tua et que ipsi de nobis tenent in capite que quidem brevia nostra tibi non tulerint de habendo scutagio suo etc. . . . scutagium nostrum colligi facias" (Close Rolls, IV, 486). This means that the sheriff will collect from the rear-vassals unless the tenant in chief has a writ which empowers him to collect. The expression "brevia nostra . . . de habendo scutagio suo" refers not only to the men who have performed their service and hence have their scutage for their own use, but also to those who have fined and those who pay scutage only and who are allowed to collect from their vassals. For cases of the latter, see note 35; also the case of Earl Ferrers (Testa, p. 15a) from whose tenants the sheriff collects nothing, but who will respond himself. The abbot of Peterborough, 60 fees, paid 120 (his scutage only) at the exchequer "licet non colligerit illud scuta- gium, ut dicit, nee milites sui qui de illo tenent scutagia sua solverunt et ideo tibi (vicecomiti) praecipimus que sis in auxilio ipsi abbati ubi non sufficiat in balliva tua ad distringendum dictos milites suos ad reddendum ei scutagia sua de quibus illos acquietavit ad scacca- rium (Exch. L. T. R. Mem. Roll, 27 Henry III, m. 3). The abbot of Westminster was allowed to collect his scutage from his tenants (ibid.); also Robert de Stafford (ibid., 28 Henry III, m. 2). See also the cases of Ada, wife of John, son of Robert (Close Rolls, IV, 452); the abbot of Hyde (see above, p. 228); William Marshal (Excerpta, I, 390). But if the tenant did not secure such a writ, the sheriff collected from the rear-vassals. If such a tenant tried to collect, the rear-vassal could appeal to the king who would inter- fere to prevent it. Thus Payn de Clermund was summoned before the exchequer to explain why he had distrained his tenant William Hayrun "contra provisionem prasdictam," viz., "quod scutagia nobis concessa ad transfretationem nostram in Wasconiam colligerentur 231 STUDIES IN TAXATION This was the method employed in the aid of 1217; doubt- less the same method was often followed in the collection of a scutage. per vicecomites nostros" (Madox, I, 682, n. r). The case of Alexan- der Swereford: "Questus est nobis . . . Alexandr* thesaurarius S. Pauli London' que cum per commune consilium regni nostri sit provisum quod scutagia nobis concessa . . . colligantur per manus vicecomitum in singulis comitatibus exceptis feodis illorum quibus scutagia sua concessimus, H. comes Kanciae distringit eum pro scutagio unius militis in warda sua in Middleton' licet non con- cesserimus eidem scutagia sua et que tu (the sheriff) potius deberes levare quam ipse," and so the goods of Alexander are to be released and he is to be distrained by no one but the sheriff (Exch. L. T. R. Mem. Roll, 27 Henry III, m. 4). These writs might seem to mean that the sheriff collected from all the rear-vassals, but the cases cited above show that he took it only from the sub-tenants of those barons who had not writs for collecting their own scutage. Whether the sub-tenant always held his lord to the strict letter of the provision concerning the method of collection, we cannot say. The reason for the protest in the two cases cited above was not merely that the tenant in chief collected without the king's authority. Payn de Clermund had distrained his tenant for scutage "et etiam plus quam idem Willelmus recognoscit se debere"; concerning the fee of Alexan- der Swereford, "pendet adhuc placitum in curia nostra coram justic' nostris inter dictum comitem (who had distrained it) et Willelmum de Bellocampo ad quern illorum pertinebit dicta warda." In another case in which the tenant in chief had collected from the rear-vassal "contra provisionem nostram desicut vicecomes noster per praeceptum nostrum praedictum scutagium nostrum debuit colligisse," the sheriff was merely ordered to release the distraint which he had made against the rear-vassal and distrain the tenant in chief to pay at the exchequer (Exch. L. T. R. Mem. Roll, 27 Henry III, m. 2, the case of Robert le Buteiler and David de GarpunvilT, his lord). But a writ on the Close Roll possibly refers to the collection of scutage from rear-vassals by tenants in chief who had not received the king's permission to do this; if so, it indicates that the king intended to prevent such collection: the regents were to inquire "qui magnates de Anglia, sive episcopi, sive alii, tallagium vel scutagium in auctoritate sua propria super liberos homines suos assiderunt et ab eisdem ea ceperunt contra consuetudinem Anglic . . . ita quod rex ... in ad- ventu suo in Angliam possit testincari" (Michel, no. 1633). The collector of the scutage might be an official other than the sheriff; in Gloucestershire, it was the abbot of Chichester (Bristol, etc., XIV, 19-37). 232 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III This scutage was to be paid by all knights' fees on the holdings of lay tenants and religious houses. 38 It was believed that many of these fees were escaping taxation and a determined effort was made to ascertain the total amount of land held by military service in England. 39 In the writ of collection of May 19 the sheriff had been ordered to find out and report on October 13 the number of fees held in his bailiwick both of the old and the new enfeoffment. 40 The returns made were evidently unsatis- factory. This was due partly at least to the opposition of the tenants. On October 29, another order was issued in sharper language. The sheriffs had been negligent; if they did not wish their own lands and chattels to be seized by the government, they were to present at the exchequer on December 7 all the arrears of scutage and a complete report of all fees. Any tenant who opposed the collection or the inquest was to be summoned before the exchequer barons. 41 But the report rendered in con- sequence of this order was unsatisfactory. Many men had claimed that they did not hold by military service of any one and hence owed no scutage. Accordingly, on December 9, new writs were issued containing detailed ss The writs cited below say that the scutage was to be paid both on the new and the old enfeoffment; these terms are not used in the technical sense employed in the reign of Henry II and his sons. They mean all the land held by military service whenever enfeoffed (see the form of the inquest, Madox, I, 681, n. g). 39 Although the bishops did not pay on all their fees, they were to certify to the king the number of fees held of them (see the report of the bishop of Worcester, Testa, p. 44b). 40 Close Rolls, IV, 486. This report was to cover all fees whether or not the tenant in chief owed scutage. See below, p. 234, note 43, where the sheriff later tried to hold inquests on the lands of tenants who had writs of quittance, but as they were unwilling, he was unable to do so. 4 1 Madox, I, 682, n. s; "et si quos inveneris tibi resistentes quo minus colligere praedicta scutagia et inquisitionem praedictam facere possis, summone eos . . . quod tune sint coram baronibus responsuri." 233 STUDIES IN TAXATION instructions for an inquest of knights' fees all over Eng- land. This was not to be done as in 1235 by the tenants in chief. The sheriff was to conduct it by the aid of twelve legal men, knights or others, who were under oath. They were to inquire the location of all fees, the number each man held and of whom he held them. 42 All this information together with the arrears of scutage was to be delivered at the exchequer on January 27, 1243. 43 The opposition of the tenants to the inquests was so strong that on January 30, a writ was issued to the sheriffs directing them not to hold the inquests on the lands of those tenants who had writs for having their scutage. 4 * The king's effort to get a complete report of the land held by military service therefore failed. These inquests are of interest because they were made for purposes of taxation; they are another example of the use of the jury in that connection. All this, the collection from rear- vassals by the sheriff or some special collector, the inquests, the separation of the fine from the scutage, indi- 42 In addition, a roll was to be drawn up of the other lands of the county made out by hundreds, containing the names of the vills and their holders, of whom and by what service they held them (Madox, I, 681, n. q). *s Madox, I, 681, n. p, q; Farrer, Lane. Inquests, p. 145. The writs both of October and December show that tenants paid the scutage unwillingly and opposed the inquest. If the tenant was unwilling, the sheriff was unable to hold the inquest: "Comes de Ferrar fecit de securitate satisfac' de scutagio. Et ballivi sui non permittunt quod vicecomes intret infra libertatem suam ad inquiren- dum quot feoda militum teneantur de ipso'U "isti vero qui habent breve de habendo scutagio non permittunt quod inquisitio fiat de feodis militum que teneantur de ipsis"; the names of seventeen tenants follow (Testa, p. 15a). "Mandatum est vicecomiti (Oxon') quod nullam faceret inquisi- tionem in comitatu suo de feodis praelatorum, baronum, vel militum qui tulerunt sibi brevia regis de scutagiis suis habendis; quia rex non vult quod inquisiciones fiant de feodis illorum de quibus non recepit scutagia sua" (Exch. L. T. R. Mem. Roll, 27 Henry III, m. 6 d). This order was given to the sheriffs of nineteen other counties. 234 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III cates a tendency to make the scutage a general tax pay- able at the exchequer. The fine represented the service of the tenant in chief for his holding; the scutage levied on the holdings of the rear-vassals was their fine for ser- vice. As most of the rear-vassals did not go on the campaign, the scutage would become in effect a general tax on knights' fees. At the same time, the king retained his right to demand service or a fine from his barons. But it must be remembered that those tenants who served obtained the scutage on all their fees, that there were tenants who paid scutage only, that both these and those who fined might collect from their vassals, and that the inquests were incomplete. Thus as far as the exchequer was concerned, this levy differed in no respect from pre- vious levies of scutage; part of the fees paid to the king and part did not. Distraint was used to force tenants to pay the scu- tage. 45 If the sub-tenant continued to be unwilling, it seems to have been difficult to compel him to pay. In 1247, Henry de Tracy had not collected all the scutage due him from his vassals and the sheriff was ordered to come to his assistance. 48 What authority had the king for making this levy? A writ issued in 1242 states that the scutage was granted "per commune consilium regni." 4 The Pipe Roll says that the scutages were willingly 45 Madox, I, 672, n. i; "mandatum est vicecomiti Kanciae quod averia militum qui tenent de R. comite Pictaviae et Cornubiae in balliva sua de dote comitisse Isabelle quondam uxoris suae et que averia cepit pro scutagio deliberari faciat" (Close Rolls, IV, 477) ; for the earl of Oxford, Johanna Briwere and Hugh de Verly (ibid., 466, 471, 478). Distraint was made both on the demesne of the tenant in chief and on his vassals; each of the latter was to pay only so much as pertained to his fees (case of Henry de Merck, ibid., 469). 46 Madox, I, 677, n. e; in 1254 all of the scutage of 1242 had not been paid, e.g. fee of William de Kaines (Exch. K. R., 38 Henry III, Mem. Roll, m. 27 d). <7 Madox, I, 681, n. p. 235 STUDIES IN TAXATION granted by the knights. 48 As the king demanded and obtained military service from his tenants, as he took scutage from those only who failed to serve, and as he was able to levy fines as well as scutage on recalcitrants, it is likely that he took the scutage because of his right to military service. Probably the king consulted with the tenants concerning the levy and they agreed that the rate should be three marks per fee and that the collection should be made at the opening of the campaign. To this extent, it may be said that they granted the scutage. The bishops made a separate arrangement as they had done in 1229. Instead of paying a scutage, they granted an aid at three marks per fee and on their servi- tium debitum only. They received letters patent stating that the grant should not form a precedent. They were allowed to collect the aid from their tenants. 49 It is diffi- cult to see why the bishops should pay an aid instead of a scutage, as it was a denial of the king's right to military service in France. The last sentence of the letters patent 48 "Fines militum . . . praeter scutagia sua que regi sponte con- cesserunt ad istam trans fretationem." Madox, I, 609, n. c; Close Rolls, IV, 487 ; if a rear-vassal was exempt, so was his lord (ibid., 507, fees held of the bishop of Nor- wich). It is not stated when the bishops made this grant, but it is likely that it was done early in May. The orders to the sheriffs to aid the bishops to collect the aid from their tenants were issued on May 21. The Tewkesbury chronicler speaks of a meeting of the bishops at London about May 6 and this was probably the assembly which agreed to the aid. The chronicler states that the king crossed to Gascony on May 6 and that the abbot paid him 20m at Ports- mouth; he continues: "audito ibidem de morte Nicholai personae de Merlawe, dominus abbas adivit episcopum Lincolniae apud Londoniam, ubi tune multi fuerunt episcopi in unum congregati" (Theok., p. 122). It was not granted before May 2, for on that date the king issued at Marwell the following writ: "Rex concessit Roberto le Noreis senescallo N. Dunholm' episcopi quod per scutagium suum regi dandum quietus sit de transfret' in Pictaviam; et mandatum est vicecomiti Cantebr' quod per predictum scutagium ei pacem de trans fretacione predicta habere permittat" (Fine Roll, 26 Henry III, part 1, m. 3). UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III may have been added by the king to prevent, if possible, such an interpretation. He declares that this concession which he has made shall neither increase nor decrease his own rights nor those of his heirs. 50 Although the aid was to be paid only on the servitium debitum, the inquest into the military service in England extended to the fees of the clergy. 51 A donum also was asked from religious houses, both from those which held by military tenure and those which did not. In the case of the former, it did not take the place of the scutage. The abbot of Hyde gave 50m. He was pardoned the scutage of five of his twenty fees. 52 Requests were already made from the prelates in the council of January, 1242. 53 The work was continued by special collectors and the sheriffs throughout the king- dom. 54 Many of these amounts were paid before the king set out. 55 There was no assessment of property; each house paid a lump sum. An aid was also asked from the 50 "Nolumus etiam quod per hanc concessionem nostram quam fecimus, nobis et heredibus nostris accrescat vel decrescat" (Madox, above). It may relate to the king's concession to the bishops to collect the aid from their tenants. 51 The clergy reported the number of their fees and an inquest was not held on their lands by the sheriff and the twelve legal men; e.g. the bishop of Worcester made a report of his fees to the king (Testa, p. 44b). 52 Gal. Pat. Rolls, I, 284. ss "Petensque ab eis auxilium pecuniare, (rex) ait; Ecce, quid concessit ille abbas mihi in subsidium; ecce, quid alius; et protendens rotulum, in quo scriptum monstravit, quid ille vel ille abbas vel prior tantum vel tantum promisit se daturum" (Matthew Paris, IV, 182). 54 The king sent a clerk to cooperate with the sheriff in the dioceses of Lincoln and Ely (Gal. Pat. Rolls, I, 272, 282, 28T) ; Matthew Paris, IV, 189; Theok., p. 122. 55 Bristol, etc., XIV, 20-21 ; in the Testa are given lists of con- tributors, many of them small; the total amount given there is l,685i/^ marks (Testa, pp. 22a, 37b, 44a, etc.). Some cases follow: abbot of St. Mary's of York, 100m; prior of Kenilworth, 30m; prior of St. Swithin, 200m ; prior of Worcester, 30m ; abbot of St. Edmunds, 237 STUDIES IN TAXATION Cistercians and Premonstratensians before the king crossed, but the request was refused. 56 In October, the former were again asked to contribute and again refused ; then the king asked for their wool for a year. This they refused on the ground that such a contribution needed the consent of the order. 57 The clergy in Ireland were asked to contribute with the promise that the grant should not form a precedent. What answer was given is not known. 58 The several devices employed to raise money increased the revenue of the year. The Pells Issue Rolls for 1242 record 38,606 10s l%d, to which, according to Ramsay, should be added the average amount received directly at the king's wardrobe, about 7,000, and so we get a total income for the year of about 45,000 (67,500 marks). 69 From March, 1242, till September, 1243, the king gave orders covering over 36,000 from England, all of which was spent either in Gascony or in preparation for the expedition. 60 While abroad, he borrowed about 1 0,000. 61 100m; abbot of Abingdon, 100m; bishop of St. Davids, 40m; prior of Lewes, 50m (Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 278-298); these sums were all received between March 28 and May 20, 1242. See also, Close Rolls, IV, 417-421, 430, 431; Vincent, p. 60; Theok., p. 122; Wig., p. 433. se Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 279, 280; Close Rolls, IV, 430. 57 Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 330, 336; Matthew Paris, IV, 234-235. 68 Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 378; Close Rolls, IV, 407. 59 R. J. Whitwell in E. H. R., XVIII, 710; Ramsay, Dawn of the Const., pp. 294-295. oo Orders were issued to pay the following sums : 3,000m on March 7; 3,005m 9s 6%d, April 19; 10,000m out of the exchequer of the Jews on the same date; 291m, April 25. The following sums were acknowledged as received in Gascony from England: 2,500m, July 27; 5,345m 7s 9d, October 17; 10,000m, January 8, 1243; 12,000m, April 16; 2,000m, July 8; 6,000m, August 30. This gives a total of 54,142m 3s lid or over 36,000 (Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 274, 281, 282, 313, 332, 355, 372, 384, 394). We cannot be certain that the sums ordered out of the exchequer were actually paid, but they do not appear excessive unless one takes exception to the 10,000 marks of the Jews. As to that, it must be remembered that a tallage of 20,000 marks had been levied on them in 1241 and that this sum must have come in part into the exchequer. 238 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III Some of the loans were repaid out of moneys received in Gascony from the English treasury, but some were to be paid at the exchequer in England. The cost of the expedition therefore will probably approach 40,000 (60,000 marks). 62 THE SCOTTISH CAMPAIGN, 1244 On May 13, the host was summoned to meet on August I at Newcastle-on-Tyne for a campaign against Scot- 61 Ibid., 315-406. Part of this money is given in pounds and shill- ings of Bordeaux which I have reduced to English money at the rate of 3 li. ( 60s) to 1m sterling, but the ratio fluctuated (ibid., 368, 389). 62 With this account of the scutage, compare Stubbs, Const. Hist. II (3rd ed.), 61: "Henry wished to raise as his father had done, a scutage by way of fine from the barons who had left him alone in Gascony, besides that which he received, twenty shillings on the fee, from those who had stayed at home." Stubbs bases this on Matthew Paris, IV, 227, 233. But the chronicler does not refer to the levy of a scutage of twenty shillings as a fine on those who had left the king in Gascony. He says that Henry III wished to confiscate the lands of those who had left him as if they were traitors, but that the archbishop of York did not do so (IV, 230-231). The reference on p. 227 speaks of a scutage of 20s which "per totam Angliam" the king "fecit extorqueri"; that on p. 233 is as follows: "Prseter scutagium quod extorserat rex Angliae, omnia jam con- sumpserat inutiliter quae in bonis habuit et eguit. [This is the title of the chapter.] Ipso quoque tempore, rex a Pictavensibus et Was- conensibus undique delusus, immo potius defraudatus, in tantam paupertatem et ignominiam delapsus est, quod scutagio extorto et omnibus thesauris et donativis ei collatis inutiliter consumptis, necnon extorsionibus, tallagiis, et aliis collectis excogitatis, post amissionem terrarum suarum et honorum in Pictavia, jam in Wasconia acre alieno graviter est obligatus, licet in dicto scutagio, non sine multo gravamine Anglorum, pro scuto viginti solidos extorserit." It is clear that we have here not a reference to another scutage, but a commentary on the royal exactions of the year. Such a statement is natural as this chapter comes at the end of the history of 1242. All the other references speak of only one scutage of 40s (e.g. Dunst., p. 160; Cont. Flor. Wig., II, 178; Wykes, p. 91; Pipe Roll, 26 Henry III). 239 STUDIES IN TAXATION land. 63 The army assembled, but there was no fighting. A treaty was made; Henry's daughter, Margaret, was betrothed to Alexander's son. No scutage was taken, but some tenants fined for their service before the host gathered. 64 These fines were fixed by an agreement between the king and the tenant in chief, and the rear- vassal was not responsible for their payment. Legally the latter could not be forced to help his lord discharge this debt if he were unwilling. But there was a method by which the sub-tenant could probably be compelled to help pay the fine, or, if he were very stubborn, to render more than an equivalent. He could be legally distrained by the sheriff to perform his military service for his lord, and in this way, the king could practically enforce the payment of the fine by the sub-tenant. 65 The situation here involved indicates the unwillingness with which rear- vassals performed their service. 66 3 Vincent, Lane. Lay Subsidies, p. 77, quoting the Close Roll, 28 Henry III; Paris, IV, 379-380, 385; Lanercost, p. 51; Dunst., p. 164; Wint., p. 90; Wav., p. 333; Lords' Report on the Dignity of a Peer, vol. Ill, App. I, p. 9. * Two laymen each paid a fine of 1m to be exempt from service "salvo regi scutagio si scutagium debeat dari"; the abbots of Winch- comb and Holme fined in 10m and 20m respectively besides scutage if it were given; the abbot of Abingdon fined in 40 "ita quod si scutagium assessum fuerit pro exercitu illo idem abbas habebit scutagium suum et accrescet finis suus usque ad Ix libras" (Fine Roll, no. 41, part 1, m. 4). The archbishop of Canterbury made an aid (Cal Pat. Rolls, I, 433). 65 The bishop of Lincoln fined in 60m in addition to his scutage, if scutage should be levied, and the sheriff of Northamptonshire was ordered "quod milites ipsius episcopi qui prefato fine assentire vel portionem ipsos de prefato fine contingentem solvere noluerint dis- tringat ad veniendum in predictum exercitum, allocate predicto episcopo in prefato fine servitio predictorum mill turn qui in predictum exercitum venerint" (Fine Roll, above). 66 Cf. the case of the knights of the abbot of St. Albans in this campaign (Matthew Paris, VI, 437, 439). 240 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III THE AID OF 1245 67 Early in May, 1244, a meeting of the great council (prelates, earls, and barons) 68 was held at Westminster. The king asked for an aid to pay debts incurred in Gas- cony. The magnates withdrew to deliberate ; a committee of twelve representatives (four each from the bishops, the earls, and the barons) was appointed to draw up a common reply. They asked for the appointment of a justiciar and a chancellor. As the king declined to agree to this the council was prorogued till February 23, 1245. If by that time Henry III had reformed his government, the magnates declared that they would consider making an aid, but that it must be spent by the advice of the committee of twelve. 69 On September 9, another council of the prelates and barons was held at Windsor. The lay magnates refused to do anything before February. The prelates were presented with a papal letter which urged them to grant the king an aid. After a discussion lasting seven days, they too declined to accede to the king's request. 70 On February 23, 1245, the great council met 71 " In this account of the councils of 1244 and 1245, the statement given by Plehn, Der Politische Charakter von Matheus Parisiensis (pp. 124-126) has been followed. es "convenerant regia submonitione convocati Londoniis magnates totius regni, archiepiscopi, episcopi, abbates, priores, comites et barones" (Matthew Paris, IV, 362). Matthew Paris does not date this council. It met before the summons to the Scottish campaign was issued (May 13). That summons was sent out "de communi consilio regni nostri"; probably the decision to attack the Scots was taken in the same council in which the aid was asked for. The statement of Matthew Paris that the king asked for an aid to pay his debts incurred in Gascony, "sub silentio praeteriens propositum suum de rege Scotiae potenter expugnando," does not contradict this conclusion. That description applies to the king's speech at the opening of the council. 69 Matthew Paris, IV, 362-363. wDunst., p. 164; Wav., p. 332; Matthew Paris, IV, 363-366; the king was at Windsor at this time (Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 435). Matthew Paris speaks of a meeting of the magnates on November 3 in which 341 STUDIES IN TAXATION and after long discussion agreed to grant an aid of twenty shillings on the fee to marry the king's eldest daughter, half to be paid at Easter and half at Michaelmas. 72 The king promised to observe the charters. He was reminded of the numerous taxes which he had received, and a scheme for the reform of the government was presented to him which however was not put in force. 78 In form this grant of twenty shillings was one of the feudal aids. It was not the kind of a grant which the king desired, but the council would agree to nothing else, 74 and their determination in this particular is a further illustration of the united attitude of the tenants in chief. The barons could not refuse the aid, but they apparently could limit the rate to twenty shillings. They also had another grievance to remedy, the number of fees on which the aid should be paid. In 1235 and 1242, the king tried to have all land held by military service contribute, an effort which had been strongly opposed by the tenants in the latter year. 75 Probably to prevent a recurrence of such attempts the barons in 1245 provided that they they refused the king an aid (IV, 395). Plehn rejects this and thinks that it has been confused with the meeting of September 9. His argument does not seem conclusive. 71 "magnatibus cum praelatis." 72 Matthew Paris, IV, 372-373; Dunst., p. 167, giving only the fact of the grant. "Provisum est per commune consilium magnatura Angliae" (Madox, I, 593, n. /) ; Red Book, III, 1064. 73 Matthew Paris, IV, 366-368, 373. 7* "cum nullo modo ad aliam formam possent flecti." As the princess was yet a child, the aid would not ordinarily be taken at this time. Its payment was a sort of compromise. The magnates paid an aid, but only one to which the king had a legal right. For the law as enforced at this time did not insist that the aid to marry the lord's daughter should be taken at the time of the marriage. In 1251, the earl of Gloucester collected an aid to marry his daughter although she was not yet betrothed: "Ricardus de Clare comes Gloucestriae exegit a suis auxilium ad filiam suam maritandam, quam necdum scivit cui" (Theok., p. 146). 75 See above, pp. 211, 233. 242 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III should pay the aid on the number of fees for which they customarily responded, 76 not on the total number of fees on their lands. 77 No special officials were appointed to collect the tax. The levy fell ultimately on the rear- vassals. 78 Distraint was employed to enforce payment. 79 The greater part of the aid was entered in the Pipe Roll of 1245. The total amount charged was 6,001 15s Od, of which sum 2,480 9s 4d were paid in 1245-1 247. 80 An 76 That is, on the servitium debitum or the old enfeoffment, as the case might be. 77 The fact that the barons stipulated that the king should not try to collect the aid on all land held by military service is suggested by a writ on the Memoranda Roll which states that the magnates pro- vided that the aid was to be paid on all the fees which they held of the king in chief and from which they owed military service: "Quia provisum est per commune consilium magnatum Angliae, quod ipsi reddant regi de singulis feodis militum quae de rege tenent in capite et de quibus debent servicium militare, xx sol. ad primogenitam filiam regis maritandam" (Madox, I, 593, n. /). That this descrip- tion was restrictive as stated above is shown by the fact that in the account of the aid in the Pipe Roll, tenants paid on the number of fees for which they had long been accustomed to account. The new enfeoffment was not paid for unless the servitium debitum exceeded the total enfeoffment or unless the honor was in hand, e.g. the bishopric of Chichester (Pipe Roll, 29 Henry III, Sussex). How- ever the extra enfeoffments might be entered in the roll. If one examines the writs of collection of 1235 and 1242 (Close Rolls, III, 186, 189; IV, 486), it will be found that the clause restricting pay- ment to those fees from which the barons owe military service is not introduced in those years. 78 Orders to the custodians of the bishopric of Chester and of William de Percy and the earl of Devon to collect the aid from the rear-vassals; pardon of the aid to one of the tenants of the earl of Oxford (Rot. Orig., I, 8b, 9a; Madox, I, 593, n. /). 79 Madox, I, 672, n. k. so The account is as follows : s d Clerical tenants 708 2 One hundred and seventy-one lay tenants (each 5 or more fees) 4763 8 9 Other lay tenants (each fewer than 5 fees, etc.) . . 530 4 3 Total 6001 15 Paid, 1245, 1246 2480 9 4 243 STUDIES IN TAXATION aid was also taken from the abbots and priors who did not hold by military service, and was collected in each county by the sheriff and a clerk of the king. 81 It amounted in twenty-three counties to 580 13s 4d. 82 THE SCUTAGE OF GANNOC, 1246 In the fall and winter of 1244-1245, the Welsh invaded English territory. A force of mercenaries was sent against them without success. 83 The king celebrated the feast of Pentecost (June 4, 1245) at Westminster with the magnates and it was then determined to summon the host for an invasion of Wales. The campaign was carried on under the personal direction of Henry III from August 29 till October 28, about two months. 84 The army was composed of tenants, both great and small, either per- forming their service, or providing their due contingents of knights. A tenant however did not have to furnish The number of great lay tenants, 171, includes 7 tenants on the honor of Boulogne, 4 on Lancaster, and 1 on Peverel. Of the sum charged against the lesser lay tenants, 157 were charged against tenants on the honors of Boulogne, Lancaster, and Peverel. This roll therefore gives a total of about 6,000 fees in the kingdom. Mr. Round has made the total number of clerical fees in England 784; if we add 76 fees of the clergy which have been omitted this year, and 220 fees of the county of Cornwall, about 100 fees of the honor of Wallingford, and 127 fees of the honor of Brittany, we get over 6,500 fees. If we make some deduction for scattered fees of great baronies which have been entered twice, we still get a total of prob- ably 6,500 fees. siCaf. Pat. Rolls, I, 463; Dunst., p. 167; Wig., p. 436; Madox, I, 595, n. q; 596, n. r, s; Pipe Roll, 29 Henry III, passim. 82 Pipe Roll, 29 Henry III. 83 Matthew Paris, IV, 385, 386 ("trecentis commilitonibus stipen- diariis"), 407, 409. 84 Ibid., p. 423; a sort of preparatory summons was sent out on June 7, to be followed by a later one fixing the date for the host to assemble (Close Rolls, No. 58, m. 8 d). The king was at Chester August 17, in Wales, August 29, where he remained till October 29 (Gal. Pat. Rolls, I, 459-465; Matthew Paris, IV, 481, 486, 487); Ann. Cambr., p. 85; Brut., p. 331; Dunst., p. 168. 244 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III his full quota of men. 85 This had been a customary practice for a long time. But already a further step was being taken ; this incomplete service was now coming to be regarded as all that could legally be demanded from the holding. There is a roll of the service which tenants had performed in Wales in 1245. It states the number of knights or sergeants furnished by each tenant and in addition the number which he recognized that he owed. 85 The Scutage Roll sometimes states how many knights or sergeants were provided by the tenant. From the examples given below it will be seen that lesser tenants were compelled to give service and that for the greater tenants probably only service in part was the rule. The number of fees assigned to each tenant is taken from the Pipe Rolls of 1245 and 1246. Knights fur- Fees nished held Hugo Fitz Ralph ... 1 3 Ralph de Gaugy ... 1 3 Roger Bertram ... 1 5 Nicholas de Bassingburn . . 1 serg. 1 Ralph de Cameys . . .1 1^ Ralph de Haya . . .1 serg. 1 Henry de Merk . . .2 serg. 3 Roger de Albemarle . . 1 serg. 1 Roger Fitz Ralph ... 1 1 William de Hastings . . 1 1^ Roger de Muschamps . 2 4 Joanna de Neville . . .1 8% Ralph Ridel .... 1 serg. % John de Pabeham . . .1 serg. 14 Richard Luvel ... 1 18 (Saher) de Wahull ... 2 30 (Scutage Rolls, no. 7). The entry in each case is "qui habuit x milites" etc. I am not certain that I have the whole number of fees held by each man, but each held at least as many as are given above. Mercenaries were also employed; 3,000 footmen came from Ireland who received 2d a day (Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 458, 461). Service in the army was not limited to 40 days: "Quia Stephanus Lungesp' est in expedicione exercitus Walliae et quamdiu ibidem erit ignoratur" etc. (Close Rolls, no. 58, m. 4 d). If the rear-vassal refused to obey the summons of his lord, the sheriff distrained him; the vassals of the abbot of Abingdon were thus distrained (ibid., m. 3, 5). 245 STUDIES IN TAXATION In the case of the greater tenants, both the service done and the service recognized were sometimes smaller than the old servitium debitum. Sometimes the old service was recognized, though it was not performed. Sometimes a tenant performed de gratia more than he recognized. 86 Immediately after the resolution to make war had been taken, the king set about providing the money. During the month of June, the Italian merchants in England were summoned to appear at Westminster at the end of the month to grant either an aid or a loan of 6,000 marks or less. Failing a satisfactory reply, they were to be expelled the kingdom. 87 The Jews owed the treasury 4,000 marks, due on September 29. After the campaign began, the king ordered that if they failed to pay, some of the wealthiest should be seized and sent to him in Wales, whence he would send them to Ireland to be kept in prison. 88 Money was borrowed from the earl of Corn- wall. 89 All this shows the poverty of the exchequer. For this campaign, a scutage at three marks per fee was taken, levied while the host was in Wales. 90 It appears in the Pipe Roll of 1246. This was not an aid, but was paid by those who had not performed their ser- vice. Some tenants seem to have fined in addition to paying scutage. 91 Tenants who served were allowed to collect scutage from their men, even when service in part only was performed. 92 Distraint was used to compel rear- vassals to pay scutage to their lords and to enforce the payment of the tax at the exchequer. The collection might be long delayed. 93 The total amount charged was 3,903 5s 8d, of which 756 16s lid was paid in 1246 and 1247. 94 se "Servicium factum domino H. regi Angliae in Wallia anno regni sui vicesimo nono." The entries which contain notices of the service which the tenants recognized run as follows: "Johannes de Curteney se tercio non plus recognovit"; "Robertus de S. Johanne se quinto 246 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III militum recognovit servicium trium militum et residuum facit de gratia." The following are some cases: Bishop of Bath . Philip de Columbiers . . Abbess of St. Edwards . Robert de Novo Burgo . Albreda des Boterels . Bishop of Salisbury Abbot of Abingdon . . Saher de Wahull . Abbot of Peterborough . Ralph Basset . . . William Fitz Hamon Earl of Winchester John de Curteney (Okehampton) Robert de St. John Hugh Fitz Ralph . ... Joanna de Nevill . . . Godfrey de Alno . Robert Belet Walter de Pavilly . Henry Hose .... William Maudut . Roger de St. John William de Hampton Nicholas de Bassingburn Gilbert de Bolebec Peter de Sabaudia (Honor Rich- mond) .... Old Knights Service servi- fur- recog- cium nished nized 20 2 2 j 1 knight 10 j 2 serg. 2 j 3 knights 7 ] 8 serg. 15 2 12 8 2 serg. 1 32 j 2 knights ( 6 serg. 5 30 4 30 30 2 2 60 j 1 knight ( 8 serg. 60 15 2 15 15 2 15 60 10 3% "et residuum de gratia." 92 3 3 55 5 3 "et residuum facit de gratia." 3 1 3 8 2 serg. 1 1 2 serg. 1 1 2 serg. 1 1 2 serg. 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 serg. % 1 1 serg. 1 1 1 1 140 13 5 "et residuum facit de gratia." (Chancery, Miscellanea, bundle 5, no. 1.) The old service in the case of most of the greater tenants has been taken from the reign of Henry II, but in the case of the smaller tenants, I have given the number of fees for which they account in the Pipe Roll of the scutage of Gannoc, 1246. The legal reduction of the old service at this time is also illus- trated by the grant of the honor of Richmond. That honor con- 247 STUDIES IN TAXATION tained 140 fees. In 1241, it was granted to Peter de Sabaudia (Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 251); the service which he was to perform for it was that of only five knights: "ex concessione vestra (i.e. regis) hactenus tenui honorem Richemundiae a vobis pro servitio quinque militum" (Shirley, II, 210). See also above, p. 221, note 208. 87 Close Rolls, no. 58, m. 7, 8. ss Ibid., m. 2. 892,000m (ibid., m. 2); of this sum, 1,750m were a loan and 250m were the earl's fee (Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 456, 459) ; 3,000m "sub pignore jocalium regis" (Matthew Paris, IV, 487); probably this is the same loan as that mentioned in the Patent Roll, as both are secured in the same way. See Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 458, for another loan; 397 10s 6d of the treasure of Ireland were paid at Gannoc (ibid., 361) ; Septem- ber 14, the king asked the officials of the exchequer to forward him 3,000m at once, or at least 2,000m (Close Rolls, no. 58, m. 2). so "Scutagium exercitus domini regis de Gannok concessum apud Gannok" (Scutage Rolls, no. 7, m. 1). 91 The bishop of Winchester was charged with scutage and also with a fine of 100m (Pipe Roll, 30 Henry III, Hants, m. 12 d). 92 Scutage Rolls, no. 7. The men who furnished only part of their nominal service were granted all their scutage in the Scutage Roll. 93Madox, I, 678, n. g, 40 Henry III; n. /, 38 Henry III; distraint of the tenants of Nigel de Amundevill' (Exch. K. R. Mem. Roll, 38 Henry III, m. 11); distraint on the lands of Ralph Musard to pay scutage to the exchequer (ibid., m. 25 d) ; distraint of tenants of Roger de Luvetot to pay him his scutage (Exch. L. T. R. Mem. Roll, 39 Henry III, m. 10) which he owed at the exchequer (Pipe Roll, 32 Henry III, Cant, and Hunt.). When the orders to collect the scutage were originally issued, the sheriff was to take nothing from the lands of those who had writs of scutage: "Quia alias mandatum est vicecomiti quod de singulis feodis militum que de rege tenentur in capite in comitatu suo levaret xl sol. de scutagio de Gannok praeterquam de feodis illorum qui ei detulerunt brevia regis de scutagio suo habendo" (Exch. K. R. Mem. Roll, 36 Henry III, m. 17 d). Thus there was not a general collection from the rear- vassals. 4 The account follows : s d Clerical tenants 380 Fifty-nine lay tenants (each 5 or more fees) . . 2909 3 10 Other lay tenants (each fewer than 5 fees, etc.) . 614 1 10 Total 3903 5 8 Paid, 1246, 1247 756 16 11 Fees taxed, less than 2,000. Of the sum charged against lay tenants, each fewer than 5 fees, etc., 248 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III In 1245, a tallage was assessed on the royal demesne. Towns and cities fined for it. The levy was made by the sheriffs and other royal officials, assigned to this work. 95 An incomplete account ( twenty- three counties) gives 6,646 marks charged. 96 In 1247, the king received a loan of 10,000 marks from the earl of Cornwall. 97 In July, 1248, after the great council had refused him an aid, Henry III sold his plate and jewels to the Londoners to raise money. 98 At the close of this year and in 1249, as he was still unable to get a grant from the council, he asked contributions from individual barons and clergy, claiming that he owed 30,000 marks. 99 He obtained some from religious houses. St. Albans paid sixty marks and promised sixty marks more in 1250; Dunstable paid ten marks ; the priory of Worcester, fifteen marks. 100 Simon Passelew was sent into Essex and Hertfordshire with orders to cooperate with the sheriff to collect an aid from religious houses. 101 A tallage was levied, amounting in 205 were charged on tenants on the honors of Boulogne, Lancaster, and Peverel, leaving about 400 on tenants in chief, or 200 fees. 95 In Northumberland, it was assessed by the sheriffs of Northum- berland and Cumberland (Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 502) ; in Chester, by the justice of Chester and Henry de Wengham, a royal justice (ibid., 467) ; in Yorkshire, by Richard de Tatesden and John Gumbaud, a royal justice (Pipe Roll, 30 Henry III, York; Close Rolls, IV, 345). 9 This includes London, 2,000m. These entries are from the Pipe Rolls of 1245, 1246, 1247. There are references to this tallage in Madox, I, 707, 709, 710, 711, 735, 743, 755; II, 116, n. x; Maitland, Manorial Courts, pp. 10-14. The reference in Madox, I, 739, n. c, to a tallage on London per capita and by wards, taken from the roll of 31 Henry III, refers to the tallage of 1226. 97 Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 505. He also borrowed 350 from Florentine merchants (ibid., II, 1); in January, 1246, he was loaned 1,000m by Siennese merchants and 500m by the Hospitallers (Pells Receipt Rolls, No. 124). 98 Matthew Paris, V, 20-22. 9 Ibid., pp. 50-53. 100 ibid., p. 52; Dunst., p. 176; Wig., p. 439. Some houses refused. 101 Matthew Paris, V, 53; Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 34. In the Pipe 249 STUDIES IN TAXATION thirty counties to about 6,000 marks. 102 In this year also, Henry III borrowed from Italian merchants to pay the pope's tribute. 103 In 1250, the pope is said to have granted the king a twenty-third of the goods of all the clergy, but little was realized from this because some of the bishops opposed it. 104 This year, the king is said to have reduced the expenses of his court and at Christmas to have made none of the customary presents to his familiars. 101 On December 26, 1251, the marriage was celebrated between Margaret, Henry Ill's daughter, and the king of Scotland; the English king promised to pay 5,000 marks as a dowry within the next four years. 106 To raise this sum, a tallage was levied. Towns fined for Roll of 1249, there are given in 11 counties, 78 houses which con- tributed 370 marks; "et de C et xlvi li. xiiis iiiid de abbate de Cogeshal' et aliis diversis abbatibus de ordine Cyscestrens' . . . et de MCC Ixiii m et dim. de privatis donis quorundam abbatum et priorum . . . et de M d c Ixxvi li. xvs iiid de donis diversorum" (from a Wardrobe Account, 29-36 Henry III, Pipe Roll, 35 Henry III, m. 7). 102 Devon, Lincoln, Essex and Hertford, and Sussex are the missing counties. London paid 1,000. In the counties of Notts, and Derby, Cumberland, York, Lancaster, Northumberland, and Worcester, the assessment was made by the sheriff and Thomas de Stanford and William de Axemuth. In May, 1248, Thomas was the king's escheator in all these counties except Worcestershire (Cat. Pat. Rolls, II, 16) ; William is spoken of as a king's clerk in 1248 and as a judge in 1249 (ibid., pp. 24, 34, 51, 53). In Stafford, Dorset and Somerset, Salop and Gloucester the assessment was made by the sheriff and Henry de Wengham, later, chancellor, an escheator (ibid., II, 11, 72) ; in Northampton, by William de Axemuth, Fulk de Orreby, escheator of Chester (ibid., 40, 41), and J. de Grey, justice of Chester (ibid., 45) ; in Surrey by the sheriff and Simon Passelew, a king's clerk. The tallage is mentioned in Madox, II, 215, n. y; Lane. Record. Soc., XLVIII, 176. The Jews were tallaged this year in 500m of silver and 20m of gold (Gal. Pat. Rolls, II, 46; Matthew Paris, V, 114, 136). 103 Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 41, 42. io*TAcofc., p. 139. 105 Matthew Paris, V, 114, 199. loe Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 121. 250 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III it as usual. The total amount recorded as levied is 7,100m 10s 5d of silver and 20m of gold. 107 It was assessed by the sheriff and other royal officials. 108 107 The account is taken from the Pipe Rolls of 1252, 1253 and 1254. Only Devon, Sussex, and Cornwall are omitted, so that we have practically a complete account as far as the Pipe Rolls record it. London paid 1,000m of silver and 20m of gold (Close Rolls, 39 Henry III, m. 20 d) ; Matthew Paris, V, 333, mentions only the 20m gold. 108 In London, it was assessed by John Mansell, "chancellor of London, . . . the king's secretary" (Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 230), William de Haverhull, the treasurer, and Edward de Westmonasterio, a clerk of the exchequer (ibid., II, 142) ; in Dorset and Somerset, by the sheriff and William de Axemuth, a justice (Pipe Roll, 37 Henry III, Dors, and Somers.); in Cant, and Hunt., by Richard de Sire- burne and Richard Rus, clerks of the exchequer (Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 218, 277). Other notices of this tallage: Theok., p. 145; Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 139; Excerpta, II, 126, 145; Madox, I, 752, n. g. 251 CHAPTER VIII THE TAXES IN DETAIL FROM 1253 TO 1258 f I ^ HE taxes in this period consisted of an aid to knight * the king's son, a scutage, the tenths on the clergy, a tallage and an aid on the towns, and a donum from religious houses. The tenants in chief continued to refuse to grant a gracious aid on their military fees, and the king did not try to collect it without their consent. It is likely that the aid to knight the king's son was taken after the failure to obtain a gracious aid from the great council for the expenses of the campaign in Gascony. The two expeditions of the period (one to Gascony in 1253 and one to Wales in 1257) were both properly occa- sions for scutage. None was taken in 1253, doubtless on account of the aid of that year. Both expeditions were accompanied by fines ; in both, tenants served with only part of their contingents. Though the barons thus had to perform service overseas, they were disposed to set limits to it. They objected to fighting against the king of Castile, and Henry III promised that such service should not be considered a precedent. The refusal of gracious aids on military fees was one important feature of this period; the taxation of the clergy was the other. That Henry III should succeed in taxing a class which apparently had successfully resisted John is sufficiently striking, the more so that he did it at a time when the opposition to his extraordinary levies had so greatly increased. The reasons for the king's success lie in the support which he received from 252 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III the pope and in the attitude of neutrality adopted by the lay tenants in chief. The historical preparation for this taxation is to be found not in the sixteenth of 1226 or in the dona which Henry III levied on religious bodies, but in the repeated taxes on church property which the pope had levied. The levy of the tenths caused great opposition. The king was unable to collect them till the clergy had given their consent. The method of assess- ment was by a jury which was composed of the clergy. The whole work of assessment was in the hands of the clergy, not of lay officials. Even the disbursement seems to have been controlled by the papal nominee, Rostand. The sums received were spent not in England, but in furthering the war in Sicily. The opposition of the clergy was so strong that the tenth for the last two years was compounded for in a lump sum. Finally, it will be observed that the tenths were much heavier than the papal taxes which had immediately preceded them, and this increase was no doubt one of the causes of complaint. THE TAXATION OF 1253 On October 13, 1252, the prelates and lay tenants in chief met by special summons at Westminster. The king proposed to lead an expedition at this time to Gascony, but it was postponed on account of the opposition of the magnates. 1 Henry III asked the clergy for the tenth of ecclesiastical revenues which the pope had granted him, but they refused. His request to the laity to grant him an aid for the crusade met with the response that they i Matthew Paris, V, 324, 334-337; Burton, p. 305; B&nont, Simon de Mont fort, p. 278, citing a writ from the Close Roll of August 6, 1252, summoning tenants to Westminster on October 13, ready to cross with him; men of the coast towns were to have ships at Ports- mouth on October 6 ad trans fretandum nobiscum in Vasconiam, Close Rolls, No. 65, m. 7 d; Lords' Report on the Dignity of a Peer, III, App. I, p. 11. 253 STUDIES IN TAXATION would do nothing without the clergy. The whole matter was finally postponed to a meeting of the great council which was to be held in the spring of 1253. 2 On April 27, 1253, the council met; the prelates granted the tenth and all the tenants in chief agreed to pay an aid of three marks on the fee for the knighting of Edward, half to be paid at Michaelmas, 1253, and half at Easter, 1254. In return the great charter was confirmed. 3 The prince was knighted in 1254, but the aid on military tenants, though nominally levied for this purpose, seems really to have been taken to defray the expenses of the campaign in Gascony. 4 The king was unable however to obtain the kind of grant that he wished and had to resort to one of the regular aids. After the meeting, the host was summoned to meet at Portsmouth at the end of June. 5 The departure of the fleet was delayed till August 6, on account of adverse winds, according to Matthew Paris, but there seems to have been some opposition to the expedition among the barons. 6 Thus the king expected his tenants in chief to 2 Matthew Paris, above; Burton, above. 8 A special summons to the council was issued : "tota edicto regio convocata Angliae nobilitas" (Matthew Paris, V, 373). Those present were "cum comitibus et baronibus quamplurimis archiepiscopus Cantuariensis B., episcopi Angliae fere omnes" (ibid.) ; "episcopis, comitibus, baronibus, militibus, abbatibus, prioribus" (Dunst., p. 186); Matthew Paris, VI, 250; Close Rolls, no. 66, m. 11. * "convocavit rex magnates suos pro succursu habendo ad terram Wasconiae recuperandum. . . . Et tune petiit auxilium" (Dun*t., above). 6 The barons of the Cinque Ports were ordered to have their ships at Portsmouth on June 22 to transport the host (Close Rolls, no. 66, m. 12 d); Col. Pat. Rolls, II, 230; Matthew Paris, V, 381. Matthew Paris, V, 383; Dunst., above; Theok., p. 153; Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 236; "quia plures tenentes de nobis in capite . . . sepius a nobis requisiti ut nobiscum trans fretarent in Vasconiam . . . man- data nostra contempnentes nobis super hoc respondere . . . tibi dis- tricte precipimus . . . quod ipsos contemptores distringas ad venien- dum . . . coram consilio nostro" (Close Rolls, no. 66, m. 4 d). 254 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III perform service in Gascony and was able to compel them to serve. 7 Some were distrained; some fined to be allowed to remain at home; some were excused because they were on the Welsh frontier and were to assist in keeping order there. 8 It was not necessary for the tenant to furnish his whole quota of knights. Service in part was considered to be the equivalent of full service. 9 In addition to the fines from military tenants, the king, as usual, collected contributions from religious houses, some of which did not hold by military service. The prior of Tewkesbury paid 20 marks ; the prior of Dunstable, 10 ; the prior of Worcester, 40 marks ; the abbot of St. Albans, 70 marks ; 7 Over 300 writs of protection were issued to men accompanying the king (Cal Pat. Rolls, II, 231, 235). 8 William de Beauchamp, 45 -(- fees, fined in 100 for his passage (Close Rolls, No. 66, m. 9) ; Roger de Huntingfield fined in 60 marks, but afterward sent one knight instead (Madox, I, 669, n. z) ; Philip de Colombiers (10 fees) fined in 30 marks (Excerpta, II, 186) ; Henry de Tracy (56 fees) "C marcas de auxilio contra transfreta- cionem regis in Vasconiam"; Ralph de Valtort 10; Matthew de Luvein (10 fees) 20 marks; Richard de Munfichet (47 -(- fees) 100 marks; Earl Ferrers (68% fees) 200 marks (Pipe Roll, 38 Henry III, Devon, Essex and Hertford, Notts, and Derby) ; "quia Willelmus Maudut transfretaturus est cum rege in Vasconiam mandatum est vicecomiti Wiltes' quod districcionem quam ei facit pro dicta trans- fretatione penitus relaxet" (Close Rolls, no. 66, m. 5); "quia Hugo de Bolebec finem fecit cum rege pro transfretatione sua cum rege in Vasconiam mandatum est vicecomiti Norhumbr' quod districcionem quam facit super eum occasione praedictae relaxet" (July 16, ibid., m. 8 d) ; also the cases of William de Ros, Reginald de Mohun, Gilbert de Gaunt (ibid., m. 6, m. 6 d, m. 8 d) ; Walter de Clifford and John de Monmouth were excused on account of service in the march of Wales (ibid., m. 6 d). The summons issued August 6, 1252, called for partial service. Warner de Munchanesy was to come se quinto; Hugo de Vivoniis, se altero (Bemont, op. cit., p. 278). They held respectively 14% fees and 11-j- fees (half of the fee of William Malet) (Pipe Roll, 38 Henry III, Kent, Dors, and Somers.). Philip de Colombiers served se quarto (Excerpta, II, 186); he held 10 fees. William de Say was summoned se tercio; he held 42 fees. The writ of summons rarely states with how many knights the tenant is to come. 255 STUDIES IN TAXATION the prior of Wotton, 10 marks; the abbot of Tavistock, 10. Some of these sums were paid before the king set out. 10 This was not a part of the tenth ; it was a donum for the king's crossing. 11 A tallage had recently been levied for the marriage of the king's daughter and Henry III apparently did not venture to collect another in 1253. Instead, he sent out officials to ask the tenants on his demesne to contribute an aid to his crossing and to pay it before June 22. 12 In these ways, money was gathered in addition to the aid granted by the great council. Xo scutage was taken for the expedition, though the possi- bility of such a levy was considered. 13 10 Theok., p. 152; Dunst., p. 186; Wig., p. 442; Matthew Paris, VI, 251; Madox, I, 268, n. s; Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 236; Pipe Roll, 38 Henry III, Devon; Wav., p. 345. The prior of Tewkesbury paid about February 2; the abbot of St. Albans on June 19. 11 E.g. "de promisso ad ultimam trans fretationem regis" (Madox, above) ; "to receive from the said abbots ... a competent aid" (Cal. Pat. Rolls, above) ; several contributions appear in the Pipe Roll from religious bodies "de auxilio ad transfretationem regis in Wasconiam"; as not all the payments were made at the exchequer, this list is probably not exhaustive. 12 "To all the tenants of the king's manors in the counties of ... As the king cannot enter upon the business, . . . without the aid of them and other his tenants, he is sending them his clerk ... to explain . . . and to require of them a competent aid against his said crossing" (Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 229) ; "competens auxilium de gratia" (Close Rolls, no. 66, m. 11 d) ; Cambridge, 20 "in auxilium trans- fretationis" (Madox, I, 609, n. g) ; London, 500 marks "quas regi promiserunt in subsidium eundi in Vasconiam et pro quibusdam libertatibus" (ibid., n. h) ; "de auxilio ad passagium" (Madox, II, 240, n. fc) ; the Liber de Antiquis Legibus (p. 19) mentions this pay- ment by London, but says it was for certain liberties, pro ilia carta habenda; Madox, I, 718, n. o; 747, n. m; Rot. Orig., I, 12b; in the Pipe Roll, there are some cases, e.g. "totum hundredum de Middelton' r c de C marcis de auxilio ad transfretationem regis in Vasconiam" (Pipe Roll, 38 Henry III, Kent, m. 12 d). The accounts of the tal- lage in the Pipe Roll of 1253 belong to the tallage of 1251. is William de Beauchamp fined in 100 for his crossing "et rex concessit ei quod si ratione transfretacionis illius scutagium currat quod idem Willelmus habeat scutagium suum sicut etiam ceteri mag- nates qui cum eo transfretant" (Close Rolls, no. 66, m. 9). 256 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III The aid to knight the king's son was an aid in the technical sense. 14 Though taken at the time of the expe- dition to Gascony, it was not paid in lieu of military ser- vice. The earl of Warwick took part in the campaign, yet he was liable for the aid on all his lands. 15 The earl Warenne paid the aid and accompanied the king. 16 Both clerical and lay tenants shifted the tax to their vassals. 17 i* This the account: s d Clerical tenants 1,263 12 One hundred and sixty lay tenants (each 5 or more fees) 9,570 19 6 Other lay tenants (each fewer than 5 fees, etc.) . 1,077 12 5 Total 11,912 ,3 11 Paid, 1254 and 1255 5,794 17 6 Ten of the 160 greater lay tenants are on honors in hand. Of the sum charged against tenants holding fewer than five fees each, etc., 317 were against fees on honors in hand, leaving not over 760 on tenants in chief. The total number of fees charged with the aid in the roll is 5,956. The following number of fees was omitted: clerical fees, about 150; the county of Cornwall, 220 fees; the honor of Wal- lingford, 100 fees; and 113 fees of the honor of Brittany (that honor had 140 fees). This gives a total number of fees which accounted at the exchequer of 6,537. is He had a writ of protection for accompanying the king (Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 232) ; "as he ought shortly to pay for all his fees the aid due for making the king's first-born son a knight" (ibid., II, 393) ; Madox, I, 617, n. /; 683, n. w. laDugdale, The Baronage of England, I, 77b; Philip de Arcy accompanied the king (Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 231), probably in place of his father Norman who had been given into his care (ibid., II, 264), yet the fee of his father paid the aid (Pipe Roll, 38 Henry III, Line.); cf. Roger de Sumery (Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 233 and Excerpta, II, 187); William Bardolf (Dugdale, I, 681); Philip Marmiun (Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 232; Madox, I, 597, n. y, and Michel, Roles gascons, I, 307, no. 2361). Those men who fined to escape service paid both the fine and the aid: William de Beauchamp fined in 100 and paid his aid (Close Rolls, no. 66, m. 9; Pipe Roll, 38 Henry III, m. 4 d) ; Henry de Tracy fined in 100 marks and paid the aid (Pipe Roll, 38 Henry III, m. 5 d). 17 For the prelates (Matthew Paris, VI, 250; Madox, I, 598, n. d; Red Book, III, 842). No general order to this effect has been found for lay tenants, but the following cases show that such was probably 257 STUDIES IN TAXATION The arrangements for the collection of the aid are worth notice. As this was an aid to knight the king's son, the tenants in chief could not legally refuse either to grant or to pay it. But if they had to pay the tax, they pro- posed that the king should collect it strictly according to the law. The sheriff could distrain for payment, but his distraint was to be done legally. 18 He was not to enter a holding and distrain the rear-vassals without the con- sent of the tenant in chief. Thus clerical tenants had arranged with the king to take the aid from their vassals who were to be distrained by the sheriff to pay it, not to the exchequer, but to the prelates who would respond. 19 In accordance with the provisions of the royal writ, the sheriff was further to distrain only the immediate tenant of the prelate. 20 When he distrained the lay barons to pay the aid, he was to distrain the demesne, not the knights enfeoffed on their lands. 21 All these regulations issued: order to the sheriff of Devon not to distrain the demesne of the countess of Devon for the aid "et distringat omnes tenentes per servicium militare tarn de eadem comitissa quam eodem B. (de Insula, part of whose lands she held at farm) ad reddendum regi praedictum auxilium" (Exch., K. R. Mem. Roll, 38 Henry III, m. 12 d) ; to the sheriff of Salop "quod distringat tarn tenentes de feodo Roberti de Stafford' quam ipsum R. per dominicum suum ad red- dendum regi auxilium, etc." (ibid., m. 23 d) ; "Quia Johannes de Pleissis comes War' non potest habere auxilium ad primogenitum etc. de tenementis suis de praedicto comitatu eo quod ilium comitatum non tenet hereditarie, mandatum est vicecomiti quod de demanda quam facit praedicto comiti de praedicto auxilio pro praedictis tene- mentis pacem etc. et distringat praedictos tenentes ad reddendum regi praedictum auxilium" (Madox, I, 683, n. w). is "Willelmus de Michedeure, vicecomes Surr' et Sussex', venit coram baronibus et recognoscit quod ceperat averia plurimum mag- natum in comitatibus suis pro auxilio ad primogenitum etc. et ea tenuerat per tres septimanas et amplius et quia hoc est contra assisam regni consideratum est quod praedictus vicecomes est in misericordia" (Mem. Roll, above, m. 17 d). 1 9 See above, note 17. 20 Madox, I, 597, n. z; 598, n. c, d. 21 "Monstravit regi Radulfus Dayrel' quod cum ipse nichil teneat UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III do not mean that the different grades of rear- vassals escaped paying the aid ; they were designed to prevent the entrance of the sheriff on the tenants' lands without their knowledge or consent, and were a protest against the increasing activity of the royal administration. The de rege in capite in comitatu Buk' vicecomes injuste distringit ipsum ad reddendum regi xl sol. de auxilio ad primogenitum filium etc. de feodo unius militis . . . de H. de Ver comite Oxoniae ut dicit et ideo mandatum est vicecomiti quod si ita est tune de demanda quam facit ei de praedicto auxilio pacem etc. et distringat praedictum comitem ad reddendum regi praedictum auxilium" (Exch., K. R. Mem. Roll, 38 Henry III, m. 13) ; see also the cases of the earl of Gloucester and David de Flutewik (ibid., m. 15, 15 d) ; Madox, I, 597, n. a, b. The following entry is difficult to explain satisfactorily: "Mon- stravit regi Galfridus le Chamberleing' quod cum magnates Angliae concesserint regi auxilium ad primogenitum etc. de dominicis feodis suis et non de feodis que de eis tenentur, vicecomes injuste dis- tringit ipsum ad reddendum regi praedictum auxilium desicut ipse nichil tenet de rege in capite set de Avic' de Ferlinton' ut dicit, et ideo mandatum est vicecomiti quod si ita est tune de demanda quam facit praedicto Galfrido pacem etc. et distringat praedictam Aviciam etc." (Mem. Roll, above, m. 17 d). This statement that the magnates granted the aid on their demesne fees and not on the fees held of them cannot mean that the tenant in chief paid the aid on the fees which he held in dominico only, for in the Pipe Roll each tenant accounts for the usual number of fees. It cannot mean that the baron paid the aid due on all the fees of his barony out of his demesne alone, while his vassals escaped. It is difficult to see why the barons should make such a grant; the permits to the clergy to collect from their tenants and the cases of lay tenants cited in note 17 show that the rear-vassals paid the aid. What this statement must refer to is the way in which distraint is to be applied to enforce the payment of the aid. "In collecting the aid, the king is not to pass over the heads of the barons and deal directly with the rear-vassals. For the complaint in all the cases given in this note is not merely that the sheriff has dis- trained the rear-vassal, but that he has distrained him to pay the aid to the exchequer. It is true that in cases the sheriff does this and no complaint seems to be raised (note 17), but in each of these cases either some agreement has been made between the king and the tenant in chief, or there is some reason why the tenant cannot collect from his vassals. Evidently this has not been done here and hence the sheriff has done wrong to distrain the sub-tenant. It is possible that when the magnates granted the aid, they stipulated that Henry III was not to deal with the sub-tenant without further warrant. At 259 STUDIES IN TAXATION king's letter to the barons of the exchequer states that fees both of the new and the old enfeoffment were to be taxed. 22 This means that each tenant paid on the number of fees for which he ordinarily responded at the exche- quer. 23 Tenants by military service in Ireland were also asked to make an aid or serve and the clergy and the towns were to contribute money. 24 Matthew Paris says that the expenses of the campaign were 2,700,000 and that when the king returned, he owed 300,000 marks. 25 These figures are too high. The expe- dition, however, made a heavy extra demand on the exchequer which it was impossible to satisfy without loans. 26 The expenses of the king in Gascony amounted to at least 45,000 marks. 27 At the end of December, 1253, letters were received by the regents from Henry III which stated that he was any rate, the king is held to this regulation. Another example of the way in which the government is held to the letter of the law is that the sheriff is permitted to distrain only the immediate tenants of the clergy to pay them the aid (Matthew Paris, VI, 250 and above, note 20). 22 Vincent, p. 87; Close Rolls, no. 66, m. 11. 23 The expression is no longer anything but a form. 24 Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 229, 316; Close Rolls, no. 66, m. 12 d. 25 Matthew Paris, V, 450, 484, 488. 26 See the king's letter of August 31, 1254, requesting a loan from his brother, "as the king is so much in debt that he cannot leave Gascony before" October 13 (Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 326). 27 The following sums were received from the treasury: s d July, 1253, treasure of Ireland .... 2,499 5 3 ( 2,085 16 10 July, 1254, treasure from England . . ) $ 52 3 4 August, 1254, treasure from Ireland . . . 1,533 6 8 August, 1254, treasure from England . . . 3,114 December, 1254, treasure from England . . . 2,666 13 4 Total 14,751 5 5 These sums are taken from the Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 216, 314, 317, 320, 386. The following sums were borrowed and were to be repaid in Eng- 260 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY HI threatened by an attack from the king of Castile. Aid was asked from England. The great council was sum- moned and met on January 27 at Westminster. 28 After considering the king's situation, the great barons and some of the prelates promised to go in person to the king's aid after Easter, if there was really danger from the Spanish king. The rest of the prelates agreed to con- tribute money at that time. The lesser lay tenants were not present and the great lay lords declined to make an answer for them. The regents therefore summoned two representatives from each county to meet at Westminster after Easter and report what contribution the lesser tenants of each county would make to the king. The land, after the king's return. Of this money part, at least, was for use in Gascony. s d July, 1253, from the earl of Cornwall . . . 4,000 February, 1254, from the same .... 2,666 13 4 September, 1254, from citizens of Agen . . . 1,440 8 4 March, 1255, bond to Luccan merchants . . . 1,497 18 7 March, 1255, bond to Luccan merchants . . . 1,411 4 March, 1255, payment of loan by merchants of Toulouse 760 December, 1254, residue of debt of king to the arch- bishop of Bordeaux 733 6 8 September, 1254, bond to merchants of Bordeaux . 3,333 6 8 Total 15,842 17 7 These sums are taken from the Gal. Pat. Rolls, II, 236, 300, 315, 328, 335, 340, 341, 353, 359, 364, 386, 404, 405, 528, 555. The total received from the exchequer and borrowed is 30,594 3s (45,891m 3s). This is an incomplete account. No money is reported as received from the English treasury till July, 1254. The loans recorded in the Patent Roll amount to much more than the sum given above, but part of them were paid by money received from home and by other loans, how much it is impossible to say; those given here were not paid till Henry III returned to England. Cf. Ramsay, Dawn of the Constitution, p. 148, note 4, for money received from England; also p. 294; R. J. Whitwell, E. H. R., XVIII, 710, for the income of the year 1253-1254. 28 It was composed of "archiepiscopos, episcopos, abbates, priores, comites et barones regni Angliae" (Matthew Paris, VI, 282). 261 STUDIES IN TAXATION regents also asked for an aid from the lower clergy which the prelates would not grant at this time. In return for the promises of aid, the king confirmed the charters in the counties and promised that the assistance given him at this time should not be considered as a precedent. 29 There was some opposition to the aid among the barons, for it was thought that there was no danger of an attack from Spain. 30 In addition to the help promised by the council, the regents ordered the sheriffs to hire as many knights and sergeants as possible to cross with the barons in the spring. 31 The magnates met at London on April 26, as had been agreed at the January meeting. An order from the king was produced asking for money to help him against the king of Castile. The magnates doubted whether the king was really in danger ; if he was, they offered to go to his assistance, but they do not seem to have granted him any money. 32 When the queen sailed 29 Shirley (II, 101) and Matthew Paris (VI, 282) give letters of the regents to Henry III describing the action taken at the January council; Theok., p. 154; Dunst., p. 189; Matthew Paris, V, 423-425; in the Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 279, 281, are given the letters patent that the assistance shall not be a precedent and there is mention there of the order to the sheriffs to proclaim the charter in the counties; Lords' Report on the Dignity of a Peer, III, App. I, pp. 12-13. so Matthew Paris, V, 424. si Order to the sheriff of Wiltshire (Close Rolls, no. 67, m. 12 d) ; the same order was given all the sheriffs (Matthew Paris, VI, 287). 32 Matthew Paris says that Henry III was merely talking of the king of Castile to help persuade the magnates to grant him money, that the earl of Leicester was present and told them the true situa- tion, and that they returned home without doing anything (V, 440). Negotiations between Henry III and Alfonso had been in progress for some time and this was probably the cause of the magnates' suspicions. The treaty was made on April 1 (Rymer, I, 297-298) and news could have reached England while the barons were meeting. The Annals of Tewkesbury say that the council met first at Ports- mouth, then moved to London, and then to Winchester, and that the earl of Gloucester, all the magnates assenting, refused to go to Gascony unless the lands of which he had been deprived were returned to him (Theok., p. 155). UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III for France in May, she was accompanied by some knights and the archbishop of Canterbury. 33 The representatives of the counties also met, but it is not known what action they took. 34 At the same meeting of the magnates, the arrangements for the immediate collection of the tenth were made. 35 Part of the clergy had promised in January to bring an aid for the king at Easter time, and one case is given where this was done. The abbot of St. Albans gave to the queen 50 when she crossed and to earl Richard an equal sum. 36 Probably others did the same. The account of this expedition shows that the king was still able to enforce military service in France from his tenants and that they disliked it. The speech of the earl of Gloucester, as reported by Matthew Paris, shows that they wished to hold Henry III within the limits of the feudal contract. 37 THE TENTH OF 1254 38 Before discussing this tax, it will be necessary to notice the taxes on the clergy which were levied by the pope for ss Matthew Paris, V, 447 ; a list of letters of protection, issued on May 3 to persons going with the queen, is given in Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 374; not all of these were tenants in chief and not all of these went, e.g. the earl of Gloucester who received a letter did not cross till September (Theok., p. 154). 34 The writ of summons is in the Close Rolls, no. 67, m. 13 d; Select Charters, p. 376; Matthew Paris, VI, 286. The orders were carried out and choice made, for one of those elected in Essex could not serve and on April 2, the sheriff was ordered to have another chosen in his stead (Close Rolls, no. 67, m. 9). ss See below, p. 271. se Matthew Paris, VI, 293. This was not a delayed payment of the aid for the king's crossing in 1253; see above, p. 256, note 10. 37 "Comes insuper Gloverniae auxilium secundum posse suum spo- pondit; addens quod nullo modo ipsum regem juvaret ad adquiren- dum terram, sed ad corpus suum, si ipsum rex Castellae hostiliter impeteret, liberandum" (Matthew Paris, V, 424). ss On the taxation of the clergy from 1254 on, see the article by Miss Rose Graham, on "The Taxation of Pope Nicholas IV," in 263 STUDIES IN TAXATION the benefit of the Roman curia after 1229, for such cases serve as an introduction to the royal taxation of the clergy. In 1238, the pope was in want of money to carry on the war against the emperor and he wrote to the legate, Otho, suggesting that the English clergy give a thirtieth of their revenues for three years. 39 In 1240, the legate asked for a fifth of the revenues of foreigners beneficed in England and also for a contribution from the native clergy. 40 There was much opposition to this demand. Otho held a meeting of the bishops and abbots in the early part of the year to obtain their consent to the levy, but they asked that the matter be postponed. 41 Later he met the bishops and they declined to agree to the tax without the consent of the archdeacons. Accordingly another meeting was held in July when the legate received nothing more than reasons for not making a grant. 42 Then he called together the rectors of Berkshire, who also refused to assent to the tax. 43 He was more successful when he approached the prelates individually. Many yielded, in E. H. R., XXIII, 434, which has been freely drawn upon here. On the tenth of 1254, see the valuable essay by W. H. Hudson on "The Norwich Taxation of 1254," in Norfolk and Norwich Archaeological Society Publications, XVII (1910), 43-157, of which I regret that I have not been able to make extended use. See also Barker, pp. 55-59. 39 Bliss, Calendar of Papal Registers, I, 177; "de . . . tricesima" (Matthew Paris, VI, 91). 4 Matthew Paris, IV, 9 ; a fifth from foreign clerks and lump sums from the prelates (Dunst., p. 154) ; a fifth from foreign clerks and "xii omnium bonorum beneficiatorum Angliae" (Theok., pp. 115, 116) ; a fifteenth (Wint., p. 88) ; Burton, p. 257; Hist, et Cart. S. Petri Olouc., I, 28; Barker, p. 54. 4i Matthew Paris, IV, 10. 42/6tU, IV, 37; Theok., p. 115. Matthew Paris gives objections as coming from the rectors of Berkshire when the demand for the tax was made from them "et quosdam alios" (IV, 38-43). The Burton annalist gives practically the same document, omitting the last four arguments against the 264 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III each case paying a lump sum. The archbishop of Canter- bury paid 800 marks; the church of Lincoln, 100; the prior of Dunstable, 20 marks; the bishop of Lincoln, 600 marks for his secular clergy; the prior of Tewkes- bury, 50 marks ; the abbot of Burton, 30 marks ; the prior of Worcester, 140 marks. 44 Another papal delegate, Peter Rosso, had arrived in England to collect money. He obtained considerable sums from religious bodies, dealing with each separately. Each house paid a lump sum and its revenues were not assessed. 45 At a final meet- ing of the clergy on November 1, the legate obtained the tax from all who up to that time had resisted. 46 In 1244, Martin, a papal clerk, was sent to England by Innocent IV, with powers of suspension and interdict, to collect arrears of papal taxes and to exact money in procurations, provisions, etc., from the English clergy. 47 In addition he demanded the immediate payment of a lump tax, but he states that it came from the rectores ecclesiarum Anglioe and related to the levy of 1244 demanded by Innocent IV {Burton, pp. 265-267). There is nothing contradictory in the statements of the two chroniclers as to the source of the document; as to the date, one item in the list of objections shows that Matthew Paris is correct: "item, quod nuper alias praestiterunt contributionem in casu consimili, et promissum esset praebentibus, auctoritate istius ejusdem Papse, quod de caetero non fieret hujusmodi exactio, etc." (Burton, p. 266; Matthew Paris, IV, 41). This seems to mean that the contribution now demanded was to be made to that pope who had formerly promised that another exaction of this kind should not be made. This would refer to Gregory IX, who died in 1241, and not to Innocent IV, for the contribution which he demanded in 1244 was his first. 44 Matthew Paris, IV, 15, 32; Dunst., pp. 154, 155; Theok., p. 116; Burton, p. 366; Wig., p. 432. 45 Matthew Paris, IV, 35-37. Peter and a companion went to Scotland where they obtained 3,000 (ibid., 55, 160). * Ibid., IV, 60; Theok., p. 116. The collection of this levy for the pope continued through 1240 and 1241 (Matthew Paris, IV, 137) ; Close Rolls, IV, 361. Matthew Paris says that a twentieth was collected in Ireland (ibid., p. 160). 47 Matthew Paris, IV, 284, 379, 391; Dunst., p. 166. 265 STUDIES IN TAXATION sum of 10,000 marks from the clergy as a whole, a demand that was strongly opposed by the king as well as by the clergy and lay magnates. The papal emissary was finally obliged to leave the country in 1245 and the question of the subsidy was postponed till the council of Lyons met. 48 Then the pope asked for a twentieth of the revenues of the clergy for three years. 49 A great council was held at London on March 18, 1246, and the grievances of the English against the Roman curia were discussed. Letters were written to the pope, one by the bishops, one by the abbots and priors, one by the laity, and one by the king who also wrote to the cardinals. Pending the pope's reply, the twentieth was not to be levied. 50 The council of London had hardly dissolved when the bishop of Norwich issued orders for the collection of a subsidy of 6,000 marks for the pope. It appeared from the papal letter which the collector enclosed that the bishops who were at Lyons had agreed that the English church should pay this amount. 51 Henry III at first forbade this to be paid, Matthew Paris, IV, 311-316, 368-370, 374-376, 379, 416, 419-422; Dunst., p. 167; Robert! Grosseteste Epistolae, pp. 276-277; Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 463. The annals of Burton give a reply of the clergy, for which, see above, note 43. * Matthew Paris, IV, 458; Burton, p. 269. so Matthew Paris, IV, 526-536; Burton, pp. 278-280, 283-285. The whole extract from Burton is the same as part of the extract from Matthew Paris. The latter states that this action was taken before the decision was made to pay 6,000 marks, the twentieth; the former connects all the protests with the second payment of 11,000 marks. 5i Matthew Paris, IV, 555-557. This order was issued on March 24. Delegates had been sent by the king and magnates to protest at the council of Lyons against the papal exactions. These had refused to agree to any payment by the English church (Matthew Paris, IV, 419-420; Dunst., p. 167). The bishops however had consented; notice also "de importabili contributione praetacta, ad quam episcopi in generali concilio clerum infeliciter obligarunt" (Matthew Paris, IV, 590). 266 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III but was finally forced to yield. 52 The tax was not based on an assessed value of clerical revenues ; the bishops had agreed to pay a lump sum of 6,000 marks and this was apportioned among the dioceses. 53 In the same year, the pope made another demand for money, from certain clergy half of their revenues, from others a third, and from others a twentieth, all for three years. 54 Clergy, laity, and king all strongly opposed this contribution. The pope had appointed the bishop of London to carry out his mandate. On December 1, 1246, the latter held a meeting of some of the bishops in London and they, fortified by the king's command, refused to consent to this tax. 55 On February 2, 1247, there was another council of the lay magnates and the archdeacons, who had been specially summoned; the bishops however absented themselves. Letters protesting against the tax were drawn up and sent to the pope and cardinals. 56 On April 7, however, the prelates gave way. A lump sum of 11,000 marks was granted, which was paid to the bishops of Norwich and Winchester, the collectors of the previous subsidy. 57 The pope sent out friars to collect sums from individual churchmen. 58 52 Matthew Paris, IV, 554, 557-558, 560-561, 577. 53 Ibid., IV, 555-557; "cum nuper nomine vicesimae sex milia marcarum domino papae sint soluta" (ibid., p. 584); Burton, p. 282; Wykes, p. 94; Rob. Grosseteste Epist., pp. 340-341. 5* An interesting feature of this demand is that certain ecclesiastics were to pay a twentieth on incomes of 100m and less; when the income exceeded 100m, a third of the excess was to be paid. 55 Matthew Paris, IV, 580-585; Burton, pp. 277-278, 280-282. 56 Matthew Paris, IV, 590, 594-597. 5T Ibid., IV, 622-623; in 1246, Dunstable paid 6m 5s and in 1247, 24m (Dunst., pp. 171, 175) ; the priory of Worcester paid in both years (Wig., p. 438). The pope's demand is also given in Wykes, p. 94. Perhaps the bishops at the council of Lyons had also agreed to this levy, for Matthew Paris says "de importabili contributione prastacta, ad quam episcopi in generali concilio clerum infeliciter obligarunt" (IV, 590). He may however be confusing this with the twentieth. It is apparent from the protests that the sum of 11,000 267 STUDIES IN TAXATION In 1250, the clergy despatched representatives to Rome to work against the right of visitation of the archbishop of Canterbury. An aid of an eightieth of revenues was taken to provide the delegates with funds. 59 In 1252, they were successful in obtaining a limitation of the arch- bishop's right of visitation, for which they paid the pope 6,000 marks, apportioned among the bishoprics. No assessment of property seems to have been made. 60 Henry Ill's promise to assume the cross led to the systematic taxation of the clergy for the king's benefit. He first obtained from the pope a grant of the sums collected in England for the crusade. 61 In 1250, the pope marks was fixed as a composition for the tax by the clergy in England, not by the pope and bishops at Lyons. ss The bishop of Lincoln was asked for 6,000 marks, which he refused (ibid., 600). The abbey of St. Albans was asked for 400m; it appealed to the pope and the amount was reduced to 200m. More trouble arose when it was asked to contribute to the donation of 11,000 marks (ibid., pp. 600, 617-622). 59 "Acceperunt igitur a beneficiatis de qualibet marca duos dena- rios" (Matthew Paris, V, 186) ; "pro qualibet marca duos denarios exigendo" (Dunst., p. 181). o Matthew Paris, V, 346, VI, 232; 6,000 (Theok., p. 150); 4,000 marks, Burton, p. 300; Osney, p. 104; Wykes, p. 104; Wig., p. 441. The chronicle of Dunstable, p. 186, says that a twentieth was paid; probably this was because the sum, 6,000 marks, was what the clergy had paid for the twentieth of 1246 and the assessment of that year may have been followed. There is another case of assessment of ecclesiastical goods in 1252. The bishop of Rochester took a fifth for five years: "a beneficiatis in suo episcopatu quintam partem reddituum suorum usque in quin- quennium, . . . non secundum aestimationem bonorum ecclesiasticorum a subjectis, sed quocunque modo ex bonis ecclesiasticis emergentium" (Matthew Paris, V, 273). In 1256, there is another case. The dean and canons of St. Martin's, London, gave "with no one contradicting" "the yearly value of their prebends, calculated according to the ancient taxation, in aid of their church, so that in the first year, one quarter, in the second year, the second quarter, . . . shall be given, etc.," that is a fourth for four years. The money was to be collected by one of the canons (Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 588). eiGasquet, Henry III and the Church, p. 276. 268 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III gave the king a tenth of all the revenues of the clergy for three years, to be collected by the prelates after the king should swear to go on the crusade and had fixed a date for his departure. The yield of the first two years was to be collected and delivered to the king when he was ready to set out. 62 After Easter, 1252, Henry III swore to leave on June 24, 1256. 63 He then asked the archbishop of Canterbury to issue orders for the collection to be begun on September 29. 84 Similar orders were sent to the archbishop of York. The clergy of the latter prov- ince refused to allow the grant without the assent of the whole church of England. 65 Accordingly the prelates were summoned to meet at Westminster on October 13, 1252, and the question of the tenth was discussed. The king asked that the money of at least two and a half years be paid him at once. The prelates proposed condi- tions which the king refused, and they then declined to make the grant. Henry III tried to break up the oppo- sition by approaching each singly, but the attempt failed. Another council was appointed to meet after Easter, 1253. 66 Despite this refusal, the king sought to begin the col- lection before the council met again. In November, 1252, he appointed as collector the bishop of Chichester. 67 In January, 1253, the bishops of the province of Canterbury 62 Rymer, I, 272, 274; in 1252 (Theok., p. 150). February 16, 1251, the pope asked the bishops and archbishops to allow the first two years of the tenth to be collected for the king before he set out (Bliss, I, 267). 63 Rymer, I, 282. 6* Vincent, p. 85, citing Rot. Litt. Claus., 36 Henry III, m. 18 d. 65 Shirley, II, 95. 66 Matthew Paris, V, 324-333; Burton, p. 305. According to Matthew Paris, the king produced an order from the pope, directing the tenth of the first two years to be collected for the king before he started. Probably this was the papal letter of September 1, cited by Bliss, I, 279. 67 Rymer, I, 288; Gal. Pat. Rolls, II, 164. 269 STUDIES IN TAXATION met at London and the tenth was again discussed. They finally agreed that if the king would promise to redress certain grievances of the church, they would make him a liberal grant of aid, though they did not as yet agree to the tenth. The king was willing to promise. Articles containing the grievances were to be drawn up. 68 On April 27, a great parliament met at London. After a session lasting over two weeks, the king obtained the grant of a tenth for three years and in return swore to observe the charters. 69 The collection however did not begin till after Easter, 1254. The pope had instructed the clergy that the money of the first two years should be collected and delivered to the king when he started, and this was apparently interpreted to mean that the collection should not begin till two years before the sworn date of his departure. 70 On September 12, 1253, the pope wrote, appointing new collectors and directing them to begin the work at once, but his orders were not carried 8 The proceedings described here are given in Matthew Paris, V, 359-360; a meeting of the bishops is mentioned in Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 171. "concessa est igitur decima pars proventuum ab ecclesia re- cipienda cum iter Jerosolimitanum (arriperet) . . . per triennium"; at this meeting the aid to knight the king's son was also granted: "et a militibus, scutagium illo anno" (Matthew Paris, V, 373-377). Excommunication of violators of the charters is given in Burton, but there is no mention of the grant of the tenth at this time (Burton, p. 305); Rymer, I, 289; Bliss, I, 306. "fraternitate vestra . . . mandamus quatinus postquam statu- tum fuerit ejus passagium et juratum, per biennium ante idem passagium decimam . . . colligentes etc." (pope's letter to the prel- ates, 1250, Rymer, I, 274); Bliss, I, 279; in May, 1253, the king declared to the crusaders coming from Ireland that he had sworn to leave on the crusade at midsummer, 1256 (Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 191). So the regents writing to Henry III in February, 1254, say "decima clericorum vobis concessa de crucesignatione de primero anno quae in praesentia debet incipere" (Shirley, II, 101); the same to the same, "propter decimam colligendam ... in proximum" (Matthew Paris, VI, 283). 270 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III out. 71 At a meeting of the magnates at Westminster on January 27, 1254, the king through the regents asked that the tenth of the first year should be given him to use in Gascony. The prelates refused to agree to this, 72 nor do they seem to have granted the request at the Easter meeting. 73 Finally in May, 1254, the arrange- ments were made for the immediate levy of the tenth. The bishops of Chichester and Norwich and the abbot of Westminster were in charge of the work. 74 Each prelate 71 Matthew Paris, VI, 296; Bliss, I, 290; Cal Pat. Rolls, II, 164. These collectors were the same as those who took charge in 1254, viz., the bishops of Chichester and Norwich and the abbot of Westminster. 72 Matthew Paris, VI, 283; Shirley, II, 101; Dunst., p. 189. 73 This is not quite certain. According to the letter of the regents, the prelates doubted whether the lower clergy would agree to the use of the first year's tenth in Gascony unless the king issued letters patent declaring that this took the place of the first year's tenth for the crusade, and unless the king postponed the collection of the last two years till just before he started ("collecta ejusdem decimae de duobus annis sequentibus . . . ponatur in respectum usque ad ter- minum duorum annorum ante passagium vestrum," Shirley, II, 101). The Dunstable annals say that the clergy demanded papal letters to the effect that this took the place of the tenth of the first year for the crusade (Dunst., p. 189). No such letters patent have been found, but arrangements to collect the tenth were made after Easter, 1254, and most of the chroniclers say that it was granted at that time (see below). Furthermore the whole yield of the first year was to be paid on September 29, if possible (Close Rolls, no. 67, m. 8 d). The date of payment suggests that the tenth was to be used by the king in 1254. The clergy therefore may have agreed to the king's request. But it is to be observed that when the col- lectors in July, 1254, ordered the tenth to be paid, they enclosed a papal letter written September 12, 1253, which, they declared, was "non cancellatum, non abolitum, non in aliqua sui parte vitiatum." This papal order stated "volumus autem quod in tutis locis dicta pecunia fideliter deponatur, assignanda eidem regi pro praefatae Terrae (Sanctae) subventione, cum iter arripuerit transmarinum, ita quod nihil interim sumatur vel extrahatur exinde absque mandate sedis Apostolicae special!" (Matthew Paris, VI, 296). The Burton annalist says, after describing the assessment on his priory, "facta est autem solutio istius pecuniae primo anno nunciis ejusdem epis- copi . . . et in depositum missa" (Burton, p. 327). i*Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 370, 377; Matthew Paris, VI, 297. The fact 271 STUDIES IN TAXATION had a different district to supervise, but the levy is gen- erally known as the Norwich taxation. The tax fell on spiritualities (tithes, offerings) and temporalities (rents, income from lands). 75 The abbot of St. Albans paid the tenth of all the revenues of his churches, "praeter baro- niam." 76 The prior of Worcester paid 7 Is l%d on spiritualities and 19 10%d on temporalities. 77 Land held by military service was however exempt. 78 A new assessment was made. In each deanery, the dean and three important rectors or vicars made oath to fix a just valuation of all the incomes of the churches and that the assessment was not made till 1254 leads all the chroniclers to put the date of the grant in 1254: Dunst., p. 190; Wykes, p. 107; Osney, p. 107; Wint., p. 95; Theok., p. 156; Wig., p. 443; Wav., p. 348; Cont. Flor. Wig., II, 184; Burton, p. 325, who speaks of the bishop of Norwich only as the assessor. Both Burton and Matthew Paris say that the bishop of Norwich acted unwillingly. It is to be noticed however that the bishop had been one of the assessors of the papal subsidy of 1247 and had apparently done his work so well that the pope now appointed him to do similar work. Further, according to a writ on the Close Roll, he, as one of the assessors, was responsible for a measure designed to make the clergy pay on the full value of their property, viz., that if they thought that any one had made too low an estimate, the truth should be ascertained by their oath and that of their neighbors : "cum nuper consilio nostro . . . per litteras vestras significaveritis quod in imponenda decima . . . formam subscriptam provideritis . . . videlicet per sententiam excom- municationis promulgandae in omnes personas ecclesiasticas qui justam proventuum suorum estimationem . . . ocultabunt et si aliquos merito suspectos habueritis quod sua beneficia minus plene estima- verint per sacramentum ipsorum vel vicinorum suorum rei veritatem plenius eruendo, vobis significandum duximus quod ex quo vobis videtur quod forma ilia est ydonea earn approbamus" (Close Rolls, no. 67, m. 8 d). 75 The prelates had not wished to include income from their lands, but the pope refused to admit this: "faciatis . . . de maneriis eisdem decimam . . . exhiberi" (Rymer, I, 280, anno 1252) ; Bliss, I, 284. ? Matthew Paris, V, 451. " Wig., p. 443; "tarn de laico feudo quam de ecclesiis" (Dunst., p. 196) ; for the prior of Malton, see Graham, in Royal Hist. Soc. Trans., New Series, XVIII, 148; Theok., p. 156; Burton, pp. 325-327. See below. 272 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III of the clergy. If necessary, they could compel anyone to swear to the value of any goods. They were also to assess property which lay in the deanery but belonged to religious houses outside. The rest of the property of religious houses, except parish churches and goods in the king's hand, was to be assessed by the head and some other members of the house. Those who opposed the tax or swore falsely were liable to excommunication. A roll of the assessment was to be drawn up and returned to the chief collector, to whom the tax was later to be paid. 79 The detailed account of the goods and revenues, the use of the jury, the oath, and the penalty of excommunication were all designed to get at the real value of clerical property. No such searching inquiry had been made since 1229 and the severity of the measures caused com- plaint. The whole yield of the first year was to be paid on September 29, if possible; if not, part then and part later. 80 The money was stored in churches and monas- 79 Burton, pp. 325-327; Matthew Paris, V, 451; Close Rolls, No. 67, m. 8 d. For returns made, Burton, pp. 327, 366; Registrum Malmesburiense (Rolls Series), I, 268-271; Liber Mem. Ecclesie de Bernewelle, pp. 190-199. The last is apparently the valuation made in 1254, but the tax levied was a twentieth, not a tenth, perhaps the levy of 1268. See also Graham, E. H. R., XXIII, 436, "The Taxation of Pope Nicholas IV," for references to other returns. See also Royal Hist. Soc. Trans., in note 77. 80 "primum terminum ad pecuniam solvendam circa festum S. Michaelis proximo futurum praefigatis et si ad unum terminum haberi non poterit praefigatis alios terminos solutionis ejusdem pecuniae prout vobis magis videritis expedire" (letter of the regents to the collectors, May 28, 1254, Close Rolls, no. 67, m. 8 d). Thus it was hardly expected that the assessment would be completed as early as this. On October 9, Henry III wrote to the official of the arch- bishop of Canterbury, asking him to ascertain carefully the value of the tenth, although he said it might seem difficult or even impos- sible to do so (quod cautiori modo et certiori quo poterit, diligenter scrutari et inquiri faciat estimacionem et valenciam decime) (Michel, Roles gascons, no. 3727). Miss Graham, E. H. R., XXIII, 467, thinks that this request was an order for a new, independent inquiry into the value of church property and connects it with the writ for 273 STUDIES IN TAXATION teries and remained in charge of the collectors ; it was not turned over to the exchequer. 81 Henry III was not satisfied with the grant which had been made. He desired to extend the tenth to the baronies of the clergy. This was opposed and on February 5, 1255, orders were issued to suspend such demands till the meeting of the great council after the following Easter. 82 At that time the king asked for a tenth from the baronies of both laity and clergy. After deliberation the council asked for the confirmation of the charters and for the appointment of a justiciar, a chancellor, and a treasurer who should not be removed without the consent of the magnates. The king declined to agree to this request and the meeting was finally prorogued till October. 83 The entrance of Henry III into the Sicilian affair gave the pope a more direct interest in the product of the tenth. The king had promised to pay a lump sum of 135,541 marks together with interest for the expenses already incurred by the papacy in Sicily. 84 In May, 1254, the pope extended the period of the tenth from three to five years and ordered the collectors to store the receipts in safe places, where they were to be kept, not, as an inquest into the manors of religious houses issued October 13 from the chancery, given in Matthew Paris, V, 464 (see also, Hall, Studies in English Official Historical Documents, p. 299, note 9). But it seems better to connect it with the writ cited from the Close Rolls and to regard it merely as an order to find out the amount of the tenth. 81 "the money for the Holy Land deposited in divers churches and monasteries" (Col. Pat. Rolls, II, 429, 500) ; the collectors were in charge of the tenth when Rostand arrived, paid some of it to mer- chants by his orders, and turned the rest over to him (ibid., pp. 462, 508) ; "solutio istius pecuniae ... in depositum missa" (Burton, p. 327). 82 Cal Pat. Rolls, II, 396. 83 Burton, p. 336; Matthew Paris, V, 493-495; Dunst., p. 195; Wint., p. 95. 8*Rymer, I, 318; 135,501 marks (Shirley, II, 115). 274 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III before, till the king set out on the crusade, but until the pope should decide how it should be spent for the cru- sade. 85 The statement suggests that it was planned to spend some of the tenth in Sicily. Finally in May, 1255, Alexander IV commuted the king's vow to go to the Holy Land into a vow to invade Sicily. Rostand, a papal sub- deacon, was sent to England to take charge, in company with the archbishop of Canterbury, of the collection of all moneys for the crusade, including the tenth. 86 On October 13, 1255, he summoned the clergy to Westminster and demanded that they should honor bills drawn on them in favor of Italian merchants, that the payment of the tenth of the second year should be hastened, and that the lay fees of the clergy should pay the tenth; at the same time, the king asked for an aid from his lay tenants. The prelates demurred and finally their answer was postponed till January, on account of the absence of some important bishops. Protests were sent to the pope. From the laity the king obtained nothing. 87 Rostand however proceeded to issue orders for a new assessment which should include the baronies of the clergy. 88 New deputies, some of whom were foreigners, but all clergymen, were appointed. 89 The method of assessment was the same as in the preceding year, 90 but the assessment was much stricter and was to be done 85 Rymer, I, 303. The grant of the tenth for five years was con- firmed by Alexander V in the spring of 1255 (Bliss, I, 314). Matthew Paris, V, 452. se Rymer, I, 319, 322; Matthew Paris, V, 519-520; Burton, pp. 350- 352; Dunst., p. 196. 87 Matthew Paris, V, 520-521, 524-526, 530-532; Burton, p. 360. 88 Burton, p. 354. so Ibid., p. 353; Gal. Pat. Rolls, II, 485, 505, 514, 515, 519. 90 In each deanery, the dean and four jurors under oath made the assessment of all the goods and revenues of the churches; each abbot and prior with some members of his house assessed their own prop- erty by inquest (Burton, pp. 350-360). 275 STUDIES IN TAXATION more rapidly. The only deduction allowed in the valua- tion was for the necessary expenses of gathering crops. All manors and baronies were to be included. No religious house of any sort was to be exempt. No item of property or income was to be omitted. Prices had risen and val- uations were to be increased accordingly. No attention was to be paid to previous assessments. 91 The roll was to be forwarded to the chief collector early in January at the latest; all the arrears of the first year and the whole product of the second year were to be paid in January and February, 1256. 92 To allay discontent, the collectors stated that the tenth was to be paid for three years only, 93 despite the fact that the pope had already granted it for two years more. This new assessment si "decimam de vestris maneriis ac etiam baroniis quam pro anno praeterito non solvistis"; "justas aestimationes omnium ecclesiarum et capellarum exemptarum et non exemptarum, et omnium proven- tuum ecclesiasticorum, quocumque nomine censeantur, secundum quod ad firmam poni solebant vel poni possint communibus annis, nullo deducto praeter expensas necessarias circa fructus colligendos fac- tas, . . . praesentetis" ; "fideli, legitima, et justa aestimatione facta omnium possessionum suarum temporalium et spiritualium" ; "aestimationes omnium non fictas sed veras"; "non timeant taxatores praeteriti anni quod reprehendentur de perjurio, si modo plus solito taxaverint, quia tune multa deducta fuerunt quae modo non deducun- tur, et blada carius venduntur"; "nulla sit portio adeo modica, in quibuscumque consistat in pondere, numero, et mensura, terris, pratis, pascuis, pannagiis, auro, argento, grano, liquore, operibus, servitiis liberis vel rusticis consuetudinibus, in panibus deferendis ad Natale Domini, gallinis, ovis, et quibuscumque aliis ad ecclesias vel eccle- siasticas personas spectantibus, quin taxetur et aestimetur"; "religio- sorum nullum excipimus, nisi privilegium istius exemptionis . . . contra Mamfredum . . . ostendat, vel per literas magistri Rostandi immunis sit" (Burton, pp. 350-360). 92 Burton, pp. 354, 355 ; Matthew Paris, VI, 312, 313. Rostand was successful in making the clergy pay more promptly; Dunstable did not pay the first year's tenth till November 11, 1255, eighteen months after the tax was put in charge and after Rostand began his work; the second year's tenth was paid on time, about February 2, 1256 (Dunst., p. 196). 93 Burton, p. 357. 276 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III aroused much complaint. On January 13, 1256, Rostand met an assembly of the clergy at London, composed of the prelates and representatives of the lower clergy. So strong was the opposition to the new valuation that Rostand abandoned it and ordered the tenth of the second year to be collected on the basis of the assessment of 1254. 94 It is not stated whether any of the clergy paid the tenth on their land held by military service. The bishops however did not do so; after Easter, 1256, they again refused to assent to it. The pope continued to order it to be paid. 95 In 1257, the period of the three years of the tenth which the clergy had granted ended. The pope had already extended the period from three to five years. The king was unable to collect it on this authority alone. After the middle of March, 1257, a great council com- posed of the barons, the prelates, and representatives of the lower clergy met at Westminster and remained in session till the early part of April. 96 The king asked for an aid from both the clergy and the laity for the Sicilian affair, but they refused to grant it. 97 On April 2, Rostand 94 Matthew Paris, V, 539, VI, 314; Burton, p. 363. Rostand's order to go back to the Norwich assessment was issued January 29, 1256, after this meeting, apparently as a result of the opposition there. One of the complaints of the lower clergy was that the tax had been levied on them without their consent: "Procuratores cleri- corum beneficiatorum archidiaconatus Lincolniae pro tota communi- tate proponunt, quod gravati sunt, eo quod decima beneficiorum suorum domino regi fuit concessa, ipsis non vocatis; maxime, cum agitur de aliquo obligando, necessarius est ejus expressus consensus"; "Proponunt procuratores subditorum ecclesiarum Covintrensis et Lichfeldensis dioecesis; . . . item, gravantur in eo, quod decima bonorum suorum ecclesiasticorum concessa fuit domino regi in sub- sidium executionis voti sui in Terram Sanctam, ipsis penitus irre- quisitis" (Burton, pp. 360, 362). s Matthew Paris, V, 553; Rymer, I, 342, 345, 346. Burton, pp. 384, 388; Matthew Paris, V, 621. 7 Burton, p. 386; Matthew Paris, V, 623; Dunst., pp. 199-200. 277 STUDIES IN TAXATION asked the clergy to continue the tax on clerical property for two years more and gave papal authority for this demand. At first he met with no success. Finally, he produced a papal letter addressed to himself and to the bishops of Norwich and Salisbury, directing them to compound for this tenth in a lump sum. It was agreed that the meeting should be prorogued till May 8 and that in the meantime the prelates should consult the clergy at home and learn their will. 98 When they met again, they offered the king 52,000" and after some delay this may have been accepted. 100 At the close of this year, the pope sent Herlot, another nuncio, to England with Rostand to get money. In a great council, held on March 31, 1258, the king asked for an aid. This was refused repeatedly by the magnates, although Henry prolonged the council till May 5 in the hope of breaking down their opposition. 101 He also applied to religious houses to go surety for him for con- siderable sums and was partly successful. 102 The revolu- tion of 1258 finally put an end to the taxation for the war in Sicily. 103 Burton and Dunstable give this under the year 1256, which is a mistake (Ramsay, Dawn of the Constitution, p. 163, note). 8 Burton, pp. 388-389. 99 Burton, p. 402; 52,000 marks, Matthew Paris, V, 623-624, 637. Ramsay, p. 163, thinks that it was never paid. 100 Matthew Paris, V, 637 ; "per totam Angliam exactum fuerat soccagium" (Theok., p. 159). Matthew Paris says that the king promised to redress grievances of the church. The articles containing them are given in VI, 353. Mention of the grievances which were to be discussed at a convocation on August 22 is made in Burton, pp. 401-408; Wint., p. 96. 101 April 2, Matthew Paris, V, 673, 676, 680, 682, 688; "quinzaine of Easter," that is, March 31 (Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 626); Dunst., p. 208; Bliss, I, 354; Rymer, I, 370. 102 Matthew Paris, V, 682-687; Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 631, 634; Oesta Abbatum, I, 373-379. 103 The king ceased to ask for a subsidy, but the pope continued to send men to collect all arrears of tenths, twentieths, remission of 278 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III The receipts of the tenth could not come in fast enough to satisfy the papal demands. It was necessary to borrow money. By 1256, merchants of Siena had advanced 41,000 marks which were to be repaid out of the tenth. 104 In June, 1256, the king gave power to borrow 10,000 marks to envoys who were going to Rome. 105 In June, 1257, the queen and prince Edward went security for a loan of 10,000 marks which was to be made by Italian merchants, 106 while at the same time orders were being issued to forward 20,000 marks of the tenth to Rome. 101 One of the devices employed for raising money quickly was that begun by Innocent IV and with which the bishop of Hereford was later so closely identified. Sums were borrowed and religious houses were pledged to repay them. 105 The clergy resisted this vigorously. In October, 1255, and January, 1256, the king was unable to get them to accept these bills drawn on them without their knowl- edge and consent. They appealed to the pope, who ordered them to pay, but agreed that the money should be counted as part of their tenth. Houses which resisted were excommunicated and put under an interdict and the clergy were finally obliged to yield. 109 The amount which was borrowed and secured in this way was estimated by crusaders' vows, etc. After a time the government seems to have opposed this (Cat. Pat. Rolls, III, 8, 9; Bliss, I, 383, 385). 104 Shirley, II, 115; Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 519. 105 Col. Pat. Rolls, II, 481; a notice of a loan of 2,000 marks actually made on this authority (ibid., II, 520). ice Ibid., p. 562. 107 Ibid., p. 563. losRymer, I, 301; Bliss, I, 316; Matthew Paris, V, 510-513. 109 Matthew Paris, V, 522, 523, 525-527. 532, 533, 539-540, 552, 558, 581-584; VI, 305, 307, 315; Gerv. Cant., II, 205; Osney, pp. 107-112; Dunst., p. 199; Cont. Flor. Wig., II, 185; Oesta Abbatum, I, 379-384; Shirley, II, 115; Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 515, 557, 558, 651; Memorials of 8. Edmunds Abbey, III, 29-30. No house was to pay more than its tenth for five years would amount to (Matthew Paris, VI, 315-317, 323, 350, 382). 279 STUDIES IN TAXATION the king in 1256 to amount to 30,000 marks besides 5,000 marks "damna et expensas." 110 In the Patent Roll there are fifty-eight houses which went security for about 20,000 marks. 111 One cause of the opposition to the tenth was the belief that the king was not sincere in his promise to lead a crusade but intended to spend the proceeds of the tax in other ways. 112 The pope however had no intention of allowing it to be spent for any other purpose than the crusade. 113 With the entrance of the king into the Sicilian affair, the papal attitude changed somewhat. The tenth was conceded for two years more, probably in the expecta- tion that the extra sum would be used in Sicily, 114 but the king was not yet released from the crusade to Palestine. 118 In the autumn of 1254, Henry III was already promising to pay debts incurred at Rome out of the proceeds of the tenth. 116 It must have become evident to the pope that the king could not fulfill his contract for the Sicilian crown and carry on the crusade at the same time. At any rate, in May, 1255, Alexander IV commuted the king's vow as a crusader into a vow to invade Sicily and sent Rostand to England to take charge of the collection of the tenth. 117 As far as the evidence of the Patent Rolls goes to show, all the receipts from the tax were sent to no Shirley, II, 115. in Cal. Pat. Rolls, above. 112 Matthew Paris, V, 282, 327; in 1252, the clergy stated that if they granted the tenth "utiliter distribuenda . . . prout fidelibus suis cautius solito videbitur expedire" (ibid., p. 328). When the tax was granted, the chronicler states that it was "per visum magnatum in viaticum distribuenda" (ibid., p. 375). us See above, p. 271, note 73. 11* See above, p. 274. us Rymer, I, 304, 308, 316. no Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 344, 358. ii 7 See above, p. 275. Probably the change in the king's vow was made at this time because it was when the final arrangements for the bestowal of Sicily on Edmund were made. 280 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III Italy or paid to merchants for loans made to the pope. 118 In April, 1257, the king forbade Rostand to make any payments to any one in connection with the realm of Sicily, 119 probably to induce the pope to modify the con- ditions of the Sicilian grant. 120 To this policy, Henry III did not adhere, for in June he was trying to borrow money to use at Rome, and Rostand, who was leaving England, appointed a clerk to receive in his absence the tenth and all other money of the cross. 121 Thus while the receipts from the tax must have been large, the king was able to use very little of it for his government in England except in the shape of loans which he had to repay. In 1256, 2,000 marks of the tenth were paid him and he promised us "mandamus quatenus vos vel alter vestrum omnem pecuniam ... ex quacumque causa Terrae Sanctae deputatam . . . integre recip- ere, ac eidem regi pro executione negotii regni Ciciliae assignare curetis" (letter of the pope to the archbishop of Canterbury and Rostand, 1255, Burton, p. 351); "pecuniam Terrae Sanctae . . . nulli alii quam nobis assignetis, nisi etiam de speciali mandate magistri Rostandi" (letter of the collector, William de Ros, to certain arch- deacons) (ibid., p. 356) ; the abbot of Westminster paid 1,755 17s 8d and other sums to merchants of Siena by order of Rostand and was to turn over to him the rest of the tenth which he had if any were left (Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 462); the bishop of Norwich paid 5,500 marks of the tenth to merchants of Siena by Rostand's orders (ibid., II, 508) ; similar payments (ibid., p. 514) ; in October, 1256, the pope granted the king a delay for fulfilling the conditions of the Sicilian affair till June 1, 1257, "provided that the tithe of church revenue as granted to the king be paid over to merchants for paying the debts of the Roman church" (Bliss, I, 338); in June, 1257, 20,000 marks were to be delivered to Florentine merchants to be carried to Rome; this was done by the advice of the king's council, one of whom was Rostand (Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 563) ; "it has been provided by the council that the money of the cross and of the tenth . . . shall be deposited with certain merchants" (ibid., p. 605; see also pp. 566, 587); in 1258, the king is said to have sent the pope 5,000 marks (Matthew Paris, V, 666). us Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 566. i2o/6id., 567. 121 Ibid., 562, 566. The king also sent money after this (see above, note 118). 281 STUDIES IN TAXATION to repay the money out of the income of church lands in hand. 122 For another loan of 1,300 marks, he pledged the gold in his treasury. 123 He was throughout this period short of money. In 1255 he borrowed 1,000 marks from the bishop of Durham, and to repay it assigned to the bishop the issues of the archbishopric of York and of Yorkshire. 124 In February, 1256, a loan of 800 or 1,000 marks was to be raised on the security of certain church lands which were in hand. 126 William de Valence lent the king 1,100 marks in November, 1257. 126 Merchants of Siena lent 550 in May, 1258, on security of the royal jewels. 127 The same year, 2,250 marks were lent by Italians, secured by the abbot of Westminster, who was in turn secured by the pledge of the king's jewels. 128 In November, 1256, the king delivered to his brother, the earl of Cornwall, 1,207 marks of gold, pledged to the latter for a loan of 10,000 marks of silver made to the king during the last campaign in Gascony. This trans- action shows the poverty of the exchequer. 125 The same year, Henry III declared that he had no ready money to buy goods at the Boston fair, except the fines and amerce- ments in the eyres of the northern counties, though all that he wanted was 700 marks. 180 In 1257, the treasurer was ordered to sell wood to raise three or four thousand marks. 181 Templars, Hospitallers, and Cistercians were exempt 122 Cal Pat. Rolls, II, 480. 123 Ibid., 498, 500. 12* Ibid., 423, 448. 128 Ibid., 461. 126 /bid., 603. 127 Ibid., 629. 128 This was to pay the pope's tribute for two years, 2,000 marks, with 250 marks profit for the merchants (ibid., 631, 634). i2 Ibid., 528. iso Ibid., 483. isi Ibid., 544, 550. 282 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III from the tenth unless they held churches as private per- sons. 132 Efforts were made to extend the levy to all the property of the Cistercians, but the latter were finally excused by the pope. 133 After Henry Ill's return from Gascony in 1255, a tallage was levied. 134 Most of the towns compounded. The assessment was made usually, perhaps always, by royal judges, sometimes aided by the sheriff. 135 A con- troversy arose between the king and the citizens of London concerning the character of the contribution which the city should pay; the dispute illustrates the fact that tallage was still levied per capita. The exchequer demanded 3,000 marks as a tallage from London. The Londoners refused to pay this amount, offering instead 2,000 marks as an aid and declaring that they were not liable for tallage. The king then ordered that the city should be tallaged per capita, but the justices could not carry out these orders. In February, 1256, the citizens appeared before the king to settle the matter. An exami- nation of the records showed that the Londoners had been paying tallages, not aids, and the citizens then admitted that they could be tallaged and were charged with 3,000 marks. 136 The amount of the tallage in twenty- eight counties was about 8,500 marks. 131 132 Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 524; Matthew Paris, V, 553, 555, 610, 637; Wav., p. 348. iss Rymer, I, 323. i34Madox, I, 712, n. a. 135 in Norfolk, the tallage was assessed by William Brito, a justice in eyre in 1255, and by the sheriff (Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 436; Pipe Roll, 39 Henry III, Norf. and Suff.); in Notts, and Derby, by William Trussel and Roger de Whytcestre, who were justices in eyre in 1255 (Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 436; Pipe Roll, above, Notts, and Derby). 136 Madox, I, 712, n. a; Exch. K. R. Mem. Roll, 39 Henry III, m. 9 d; Close Rolls, No. 69, m. 20 d. For a discussion of this tallage on London, see Adams, E. H. R., XXIV, 490, who shows that the point at issue between the king and the citizens was whether they owed aid or tallage and that the latter had to admit that they owed tallage. In 283 STUDIES IN TAXATION Throughout 1256 and 1257, there had been fighting on the Welsh frontier. In 1257, the host was summoned to meet on August 1 at Chester and a brief campaign in Wales followed. 138 Tenants were summoned to come with part only of their quotas. 138 An excuse (e.g. sickness, old age) was still necessary to exempt from personal service any tenant, great or small. 140 There is some evidence that it was still difficult to exact service from rear-vassals. 141 Toward the close of the campaign, it was determined to levy a scutage at three marks per fee. 142 From some tenants, both clerical and lay, the king the citation from the Memoranda Roll as given by Madox, four cases were found when they searched the rolls, in which the citizens had been tallaged, viz., in 1214, 1223, 1242, and 1253. Both the Memoranda Roll itself and the Close Roll give two more cases: "et anno ejusdem xxix talliati fuerunt ad duo millia marcarum, et anno ejusdem xxxiii ad mille libras" (above). Three cases at least do not appear in the record of this dispute as having been cited: the tallage on London of 1226, which was levied per capita, the tallage in 1230 of 1,000m "de auxilio promisso regi ad primam transfretationem," and the tal- lage of 1235 (see above, pp. 172, 190, 213). That the method of levying tallage was still either "per capita," or "in communi" is also shown by the following: "ad assidendum tallagium nostrum in civitatibus, etc., separatim per capita vel in communi" (Close Rolls, 39 Henry III, m. 19 d). is? Pipe Roll, 39, 40, 41 Henry III. For other references to this tallage, see Madox, I, 356, n. z; 726, n. I; another case of tallage per capita, 740, n. d; II, 232, n. i; Excerpta, II, 211; Rot. Orig., I, 15; Cat. Pat. Rolls, II, 404. Matthew Paris, V, 568, says that the Lon- doners were tallaged in 500m in 1256 "et ut color causae variatus est, nunc ad opus regis, nunc ad opus reginae, expectantes ad opus Edwardi, quasi servi ultimae conditionis, etc." The Jews were bound to pay the earl of Cornwall 8,000 marks (Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 400) ; Rymer, I, 315. iss Close Rolls, 41 Henry III, m. 6 d; Rymer, I, 361 ; Matthew Paris, V, 639, 645-647, 649; Theok., p. 158; Dunst., p. 203. The king was at Chester till August 17, when he went into Wales, and was again at Chester on September 12 (Cal Pat. Rolls, II, 573-577). Men were on the king's service in Wales at different times all summer (ibid., pp. 586, 595-598). 139 The following cases show that only part of the tenant's service was summoned. The amount of service owed is taken from the Pipe 284 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III Knights Service summoned County 41 4 Dors, and Somers. 10 2 Dors, and Somers. 20 2 Dors, and Somers. 15 1 Dors, and Somers. 3 2 Dors, and Somers. 24 2 Dors, and Somers. 11 2 Dors, and Somers. 92 3 Devon. 30 4 York. 50 5 Staff. 10 4 Essex and Hert. 1 1 Oxford. 1 1 Berks. 1 1 Wilts. 1% 2 Oxford 15 2 Notts, and Derby. Roll of 42 Henry III, in the account of the scutage. Fractions are omitted. The service summoned is given in the Close Rolls, 41 Henry III, m. 6 d; Rymer, I, 361; Lords' Report on the Dignity of a Peer, III, App., I, p. 14. Roger de Mohun ... Philip de Columbariis Hugh de Nevill ... Henry de Novo Burgo William de Kaynes Aluredus de Lincoln Hugh de Vivoniis . . . John de Curtenay ... Henry de Percy ... Roger de Sumery ... Robert de Brus ... Jordan de Saukvill Peter Achard ... Reginald (Roger) de Pavilly Almaricus de S. Amando . Ralph Musard ... From this list we see that some tenants were expected to perform full service. The abbot of St. Albans, 6 fees, sent two knights and eight sergeants (= four knights) (Matthew Paris, VI, 373-374). 140 "\v. de Fortibus comes Albemarl' qui propter infirmitatem suam illi exercitui interesse non potuit et habuit milites etc. et habet scutagium" (Scutage Rolls, no. 8) ; other cases are given in this roll. 141 The abbot of St. Albans summoned his knights to serve. On this barony, it was the custom for the tenants by military service to assemble and choose six representatives, the others contributing to their support in the army. But the abbot was unable to force his tenants to serve and had himself to provide the service of his fee (Matthew Paris, VI, 374-376). The abbess of Wilton was unable to distrain her knights to serve, "quod milites vestros ad sua servicia facienda distringere non valetis" (Close Rolls, 41 Henry III, m. 4 d). 142 On September 14, the king granted Philip Basset his scutage "quia per commune consilium comitum, baronum, et aliorum magna- tum nobiscum in Wallia nuper existentium provisum est quod habeant scutagium suum"; in a similar writ dated September 25, the last expression runs: "provisum est quod nos et ipsi qui servicium nobis fecerunt in Wallia habeamus scutagium nostrum" (Scutage Rolls, no. 8, m. 1); Dunst., p. 207; Theok., p. 158; Madox, II, 70, n. g. That the levy was not put in charge before the campaign is shown by two entries: one showing that on July 18, the king remitted to his 285 STUDIES IN TAXATION took a fine or aid which was greater than their scutage. 143 Rear-vassals were asked to grant their lords an aid to help pay the fine. 144 A tenant who performed his service, even when he furnished only part of the quota due from him, was allowed to collect scutage from his vassals with the king's permission. 14 * The incidence of the levy did not stop with the immediate vassal of the tenant in chief. 14 * brother, Richard, all his service for this army, "and if a scutage be levied for the said army, the king grants, etc." (Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 571) ; the other that of the bishop of Bath (ibid., p. 564). 1*3 "De hiis qui fecerunt finem pro servicio suo et pro scutagio habendo"; "Abbas de Abbindon' similiter finem fecit cum rege pro servicio suo quod regi debet et pro scutagio suo habendo" (Scutage Rolls, no. 8) ; sometimes a tenant paid part fine and performed part of his service: Ralph Basset "tarn per finem quam per servicium suum satisfecit regi pro scutagio suo habendo" (ibid.). These fines do not ordinarily appear in the Pipe Roll, but there are some entries: "Abbas de Burgo debet c et xx li. de Ix feodis sed non debet inde summoneri per finem cc marcarum inde factam sicut continetur in rotulo principali"; William de Dyva 20m fine "pro exercitu Walliae sicut continetur in rotulo de eisdem finibus" (Pipe Roll, 42 Henry III, Northamp., Oxf., m. 9 d, 18 d). In the Patent Roll, the pay- ment over and above the scutage is called an aid: "the king ... is requiring from their lord a competent aid beyond the service due from him" (Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 599, 600). 144 Cal. Pat. Rolls, above. 145 Scutage Rolls, no. 8 ; the tenants, cited in note 139, who were summoned with part of their service received writs of quittance. Some of them fined instead of serving, e.g. Peter Achard and Ralph Musard (ibid.). 146 Thomas de Whereweton, a rear-vassal, paid scutage to his lords and was allowed to collect it from his tenants (Cal. Pat. Rolls, II, 666). This is the account of the scutage: Scutage at 2. s d Clerical tenants 451 13 4 Forty-six lay tenants (each 5 or more fees) . 2004 17 6 Other lay tenants (each fewer than 5 fees, etc.) 670 10 2 Four clerical tenants who fined . . 280 (89 fees) Sergeants 13 18 Total 3420 19 Paid, 1258, 1259 272 4 6 Fees taxed, about, 1600. 286 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III Among the 46 greater lay tenants the following are reckoned as one tenant each: the honors of Henry de Essex (113 4s), Hagenet (100) and an entry of 63 for the honor of Peverel in Essex and Hertford. Five more of these tenants hold of the honor of Boulogne. Of the sum charged against the lesser tenants, 211 are on the honors of Boulogne and Peverel, leaving about 460 charged against tenants in chief. A charge of 13 18s against sergeants should also be noticed. The account that I have of the scutage of this year is incomplete, for I failed to copy from the Pipe Roll the scutage in the following counties: Salop, Stafford, Gloucester, Lancashire, and London and Middlesex. 287 CHAPTER IX THE END OF THE REIGN AFTER 1258, there was a lull in the struggle over taxation. The power of the barons in the govern- ment was reflected in the cessation of demands for aid from them. None was asked for till 1269, when a twen- tieth was granted for the crusade. Thus the king suc- ceeded in obtaining at that time what he had failed to get in 1253 from the tenants in chief. It is likely that his success was due to the belief that he really did intend to use the money for the crusade. The clergy however demanded that the twentieth should be held in deposit till Henry III or his son departed. Without doubt, the barons were influenced to grant the twentieth by the fact that Henry III had levied no tax on property since 1237, and thus had convinced them that there was no danger of his establishing the right to tax them at will. The method of assessment and collection resembles that employed in the early part of the reign. To say that the council granted the twentieth does not accurately describe the issue of this tax. The military tenants agreed to it; then the bishops conceded it on their demesnes; later the beneficed clergy consented to it; the towns paid a tallage. This division of the levy suggests that each part of the community granted its own tax and that the council of military tenants in chief represented only those who held by knights' service. The chief feature of this period was the taxation of the clergy. Following the precedent established before the revolution of 1258, they were taxed four- tenths and 288 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III a twentieth. In each case, the pope or his legate assented to or requested it, but the consent of the English clergy was also requisite. Generally the levy was made on the basis of the assessment of 1254, though not always. The assessment and collection were usually in the hands of the clergy. Composition was often allowed. Thus the clergy granted the tax, and in the main assessed and collected it, and in a measure tried to supervise the expenditure. Two tallages were taken and a donum on religious bodies, and there was also papal taxation of the clergy. In 1260, a tallage was levied. The kingdom was divided into districts, each embracing several counties. Two commissioners were sent to each district to assess the tallage, except in London and Middlesex, where the assess- ment was made by the justiciar, Hugh Bigod. The assessors delivered a copy of their roll to the sheriff who collected the money. They could at their discretion allow a city to compound in a lump sum, or they could assess it per capita, and they were to see that the rich did not shift the burden of the tax onto the poor. The writs of assessment were sent out in June and the tallage was to be paid at the exchequer, half on November 1 and half at the Easter following. 1 A contribution was also asked from the moneyers, who protested that they were not accustomed to pay a tallage. They finally agreed to iRot. Orig., I, 16b; Vincent, p. 110; Cal. Pat. Rolls, III, 75-76. Royal officials were appointed as assessors. Geoffrey de Leuknor was in 1262 appointed justice in eyre (ibid., p. 200); William de Hecham and William de Engleby were in 1260 appointed to view the sale of wines in certain counties (ibid., pp. 66, 67), and in the same year the former was to hold an inquest into the seizure of a ship (ibid., p. 103) ; Robert de Crepping was in 1259 appointed keeper of the lands of William de Valence (ibid., pp. 15, 22, 35) ; Hugh Bigod was justiciar. The sheriff of one of the counties in the district might be a tallager, e.g. Hamo Hauteyn, sheriff of Lin- coln, and Robert de Meisy, sheriff of Hereford, helped to tallage their counties. 289 STUDIES IN TAXATION pay 200 marks on condition that their liberties were confirmed. 2 In 1262, the pope asked the prelates individually to make him an aid for the business of Sicily, and he followed it up the next year with an order to the clergy to pay a hundredth of church revenues for five years for the Holy Land. 3 In the summer of 1264, after the battle of Lewes, there was danger of an invasion by the king's continental friends. 4 Great preparations for resistance were made. The sea was guarded and all the ports except Dover closed. The tenants by military service were summoned to arms in August. In addition, each vill, city, and borough was to furnish a quota of armed men. 5 By decision of the bishops, religious orders and the beneficed clergy were either to pay a subsidy or to furnish armed men. 6 At some time before September 4, the prelates granted a tenth for one year of ecclesiastical goods. Each bishop collected it in his diocese ; it was to be levied 2 Cal. Pat. Rolls, III, 89. s Bliss, I, 379, 382, 383, 394. One chronicler states that in 1259 a thirtieth of all ecclesiastical revenues was to be collected and paid to the bishops of Bath, Ely, and Rochester, together with arrears of tenths and other past contributions, to make up the sum of 5,500 marks. To this amount these bishops had gone security to the pope for the king to enable him to avoid excommunication and an interdict (Flores Historiarum, ed. Luard, Rolls Series, II, 433; III, 349-354). In December, 1257, the pope suspended these penalties for a time (Bliss, I, 354) ; Matthew Paris says, V, 666, that the pope threatened an interdict and excommunication, which the king avoided by sending him 5,000 marks; the pope in a letter of December, 1257, speaks of 5,500 marks to be paid to these three bishops (Rymer, I, 368). *Cal. Pat. Rolls, III, 338; Shirley, II, 257-273. s Cal. Pat. Rolls, III, 340, 341, 349, 351, 352, 354-368; Shirley, II, 259, 269, 271; Cont. Flor. Wig., II, 192; Lib. de Ant. Leg., pp. 67-69. 8 Cal. Pat. Rolls, III, 365. This payment was probably the tenth spoken of below, although Dunstable sent four horsemen and six foot- men and also paid the tenth (Dunst., p. 233); Shirley, II, 273; Chronicon Willelmi de Rishanger (Camden Society), p. 35. 290 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III secundum communem cestimationem of the revenues. 7 As an instance of the despotic power of Simon may be cited the order which he issued in September to the bishops to pay the tax at once, or the sheriffs would collect it. 8 As soon as the pope heard of the levy, he commanded the bishops to turn the receipts over to his legate, Ottobon. 9 The death and overthrow of Simon did not cause the cessation of the tax. It was still collected and the pope ordered it to be delivered to the king. 10 The restoration of Henry III to power in 1265 was attended by fines on those who had been partisans of the earl of Leicester, especially the towns. London paid 20,000 marks, Oxford 500 marks, Hereford 600 marks, and Lincoln 1,000 marks. 11 Some prelates paid fines. 12 THE TENTH, 1266 13 The expenses of the war and the disorder of the king- dom made new taxation necessary. The pope's tribute had not been paid in five years. 14 Clement IV was asked to aid the king from the revenues of the English church T Cal. Pat. Rolls, III, 345, 346, 568; Dunst., p. 233; Lib. de Ant. Leg., p. 69; Wykes, p. 155; Flores Hist., II, 499; Rymer, I, 445; Bliss, I, 432; Chron. Will, de Rishanger, p. 36; Lords' Report on the Dignity of a Peer, Vol. Ill, App. I, p. 32. s Rymer, I, 445. Ibid., I, 459; Bliss, I, 432. 10 Rymer, I, 462. ii-Lifc. de Ant. Leg., p. 80; Cal. Pat. Rolls, III, 530, 548, 554, 567, 576; ibid. (Record Com.), p. 40b; Annales Londonienses (ed. Stubbs), p. 70. ^Cont. Flor. Wig., II, 194; the bishop of Lincoln, 500 marks "whereby he made a fine with the king for not having done his service that time"; he paid 100 and the rest of the fine was par- doned (Cal. Pat. Rolls, III, 333); the bishop of Winchester, 600 marks (ibid., 342). is The volume of Calendar of the Patent Rolls, 1266-1272, came to hand too late to be used in the following taxes. 14 Ottobon was to collect the 5,000m due out of the tenth (Bliss, I, 423, 424). This was not done: "de solvendo dementi Papae 7,000m 291 and in 1266 he granted a tenth of the spiritualities and temporalities of the clergy for three years, except those of certain orders. The grant was confirmed by the Eng- lish prelates before it was collected. 15 At the meeting where this was done, the king tried to get the clergy to consent to pay a larger sum, but the request was refused. 16 The collection was in charge of the papal legate, Ottobon ; under him each bishop collected it in his diocese. 17 The tenth was to be assessed "according to the true, and not according to the old valuation." 18 But the valuation according to which the tax of the first year was levied seems to have been that of 1254, the Norwich assessment. 19 The king was not satisfied with this, but as long as the legate remained in England, no change was made. Otto- bon departed, however, in 1268, leaving strict orders that the tenth was not to be assessed or collected by the laity and that lay force should not be employed to compel payment. 20 Immediately, royal officers were sent out to make a new assessment by means of juries of the locality. 21 de areragiis annul census, 1,000m per annum" July, 1267 (Gal. Pat. Rolls, Record Com., p. 40a; Rymer, I, 473). is Gasquet, Henry III and the Church, p. 412; Wig., p. 457; Cotton, p. 141; Wykes, p. 212; Osney, p. 198; Cont. Flor. Wig., II, 198; Wint., p. 104; Wav., p. 371; Gerv. Cant, II, 242; Rymer, I, 473; Bliss, I, 432; Annales Lond., p. 80; Chron. Will, de Rishanger, pp. 61, 64. ^Dunst., p. 244. IT Gasquet, p. 413; see letters of Ottobon concerning the tenth (Raine, Letters from Northern Registers, pp. 7, 13) ; Bliss, I, 432. is Bliss, I, 432. i Graham, E. H. R., XXIII, 438. The case of the abbot of St. Edmunds given below suggests, though it does not state, that the assessment which was used at first was that of the bishop of Norwich. 20 Wilkins, Concilia, II, 21. Lay force should not compel payment unless ecclesiastical penalties failed, and the initiative in its employ- ment should not come from the king, but from the clergy. 21 "secundum verum valorem . . . per aestimationem plebeiorum ad hoc vocatorum" (Cont. Flor. Wig., II, 202). It is clear that this was done after Ottobon's departure. In July, 1268, just before he left, 292 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III The new assessment was much more stringent than the old, so much so that the bishops preferred to compound for their tenth. The abbot of St. Edmunds had paid his tenth of the first year, but to avoid the new assessment, he paid the bishop a tenth for three more years, calcu- lated on the Norwich assessment, on the property which had been included in that valuation. That assessment had however omitted certain property of the abbot on which he now had to pay the tenth for the two remaining years according to the new valuation made by the royal assessors. 22 In 1269, the clergy stated that in some cases the new assessment had raised the valuation of their property from ten marks in 1254 to twenty-six marks in the new tenth and so on in proportion. 23 the legate wrote to the archbishop of York that the tenth was not to be assessed or collected by the laity (Wilkins, II, 21). The Continuator of the Flowers of Worcester states that the tenth of the first year had already been paid when the new valuation was made; he refers to the assessors as "exactores . . . regales" and con- trasts them with the "episcopales exactores" and gives the date of the assessment as 1268, the year of Ottobon's departure (Cont. Flor. Wig., II, 202) ; in 1269, the clergy complained that the tenth was collected by the laity (Wilkins, II, 19). See also Cal. Pat. Rolls, IV, 247, 311, 313, 332, 352, 379, 380, 404. Cont. Flor. Wig., II, 202; the bishop of Winchester paid 3,000 for the tenth of his diocese for three years (Vincent, p. 94, citing Patent Rolls, 54 Henry III, m. 11). Probably other prelates in addi- tion to the abbot of St. Edmunds paid the tenth for four years according to the old valuation in order to escape the new assess- ment: "rex . . . tandem extorsit, ut pro recompensatione veri valoris non percepti per triennium decimam quarti anni singuli reddere cogerentur"; "per quadriennalem decimarum extorsionem" (Wykes, pp. 225, 227) ; in 1269, the king, according to one authority, tried to collect the tenth for a fourth year, but the clergy protested (Cont. Flor. Wig., II, 203) ; the chronicler may however refer to the pay- ments described in this note. The total amount of composition was about 40,000 marks in the following dioceses: Worcester, Bath, Salis- bury, Winchester, Norwich, London, Ely, Lichfield, Lincoln (Cal. Pat. Rolls, IV, 247, 267, 269, 352, 354, 356, 359, 373, 417). 23 Wilkins, II, 19. This tenth was extended to Ireland (Rymer, I, 485). 293 STUDIES IN TAXATION In 1268, a tallage was levied, 24 assessed by royal officials who were delegated for this work probably by the exche- quer. 25 As usual, towns and vills either compounded or paid a per capita charge. Even in the former case, the royal officials exercised some supervision over the assess- ment, for they were instructed to prevent unfair taxation of the poor. The collection was made by the sheriff. 28 Peace between the king and the last of the rebellious barons was finally made in 1268. The latter were allowed to redeem their lands, but they claimed that they were too poor to do this. Influenced by Ottobon, the bishops agreed to the levy of a twentieth on the spirit- ualities and temporalities of the clergy to be paid to the king on behalf of the disinherited barons. 27 The tax was levied according to the assessment of 1254 28 and was collected by the bishops and archdeacons. 29 24 Madox, I, 727, n. TO; 748, n. n; 749, n. x; 756, n. *; Vincent, pp. 109, 111; Cat. Pat. Rolls (Record Com.), pp. 41b, 42b. 25 In Cambridgeshire, the king's escheator made the assessment (Liber Mem. de BernewelU, p. 80). 26 The tallage was to be levied "separatim per capita, vel in com- nnini, prout magis viderit expedire"; if a fine were made in grosso, the tallager was to remain till the tallage was assessed "ita quod divitibus non parcatur, nee pauperes indebite graventur. Et extractas tocius tallagii predicti liberetis vicecomitibus nostris citra Trentam, ad illud tallagium levandum" (Rymer, I, 478). 27Raine, pp. 17, 18; Wykes, pp. 219-220; a fortieth, Osney, p. 218. 28 "secundum taxationem domini Walteri de Suthfeud, quondam episcopi Norwycensis" (Bartholomew Cotton, Historia Anglicana, ed. Luard, Rolls Series, p. 141); "taxacio facta per bone memorie dominum Walterum episcopum Norwycensem" (Liber Mem. de Bernewelle, p. 191); there is no date given for this last valuation; the amount paid was a twentieth and the valuation refers either to the levy of 1268 or to the twentieth for the crusade of 1270. 29 Thus the archbishop of York ordered the archdeacon of Rich- mond to make a payment of fifty marks out of the twentieth which the latter had collected (Raine, p. 19). 294 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III THE TWENTIETH, 1269-1270 The purpose of the twentieth was to supply money for the crusade made by Edward in 1270. As this was not one of the regular feudal aids in England, the king could not levy it at will, nor did he obtain from any single body of men the authority to collect it from all the property in the realm. At some time before August 7, 1269, 30 the so The date of the grant can not be exactly fixed. Thomas Wykes says that Henry III summoned the prelates, lay magnates, and important men of the towns to London to celebrate the translation of the remains of St. Edward on October 13, 1269 (convocatis uni- versis Angliae praelatis et magnatibus, necnon cunctarum regni sui civitatum pariter et burgorum potentioribus) (Wykes, p. 226) ; after- ward, a council was held and the king asked for a grant for the crusade. The question was discussed and a twentieth of the goods of the laity and of the lay fees of the clergy was granted (coeperunt nobiles, ut assolent, parliamentationis genere de regis et regni negotiis pertractare . . . concessum est quod de universis laicorum mobilibus per regnum Angliae sibi vicesima solveretur) (ibid., p. 227). Accord- ing to this source, the grant was made about the middle of October. Furthermore, we know that there was discussion of the twentieth at this time, for on October 14, the clergy refused to agree to it on the property of the churches and of religious houses which did not hold by military service (Wilkins, II, 19-20). But a letter from Henry III to the bishop of Worcester shows that the tax had already been granted when the October council met. This letter speaks of the tax as "vicesimam . . . nobis a magnatibus et aliis regni nostri fideli- bus in subsidium terrae sanctae concessum"; the date of the document is given at its close: "Teste me ipso apud Cicestr' vii die Augusti, a. r. n. liii," or August 7, 1269 (Wilkins, II, 20; Vincent, p. 93). Henry III was at Chichester on August 7 and 8 only, during the fifty-third year of his reign (Vincent, above). The instructions to the bishop show that the date of this letter is correct. He is ordered to have the knights, already chosen as assessors and collectors of the tax, take the oath which has been provided so that on the morrow of Michaelmas (1269) they could at once proceed to carry out the orders concerning the twentieth which were sent with the letter (vobis mandamus rogantes quod a ... Willielmo de Salsomarisco, etc. electis ad vicesimam hujusmodi colligendam, recipiatis sacramentum . . . ita quod in crastino S. Michaelis proxime future sine ulteriore dilatione procedere possint, ad faciendum in hac parte quod eis de praedicta vicesima secundum dictam formam injunxeritis) (Wilkins, 295 STUDIES IN TAXATION lay and clerical tenants in chief granted a twentieth of the personal property on all lands of lay tenants in chief and on the lands which the clergy held by knights' ser- vice. 31 Toward the end of April, 1270, the bishops and II, 20). Now the work for which preparation was to be made during August and September and which was to begin on September 30 was the assessment of the twentieth. The testimony of Wykes bears directly on this point; the goods which were assessed, he says, were those which were held on September 29, 1269 (regia cupiditas . . . compulit ut secundum fere verum valorem, prout in festo S. Michaelis proximo praecedente, quaecumque bonorum genera habebant, mobilia pariter et immobilia, taxarentur) (Wykes, p. 228). The twentieth on lay fees was granted, therefore, and the method and time of assessment provided in some council which met before August 7, 1269. What then was the action of the council described by Wykes? The chronicler can not be referring to the refusal of the clergy of October 14, for he states specifically that it was the laity who were taxed: "concessum est quod de universis laicorum mobilibus per regnum Angliae sibi vicesima solveretur ut non solum ut praediximus clericorum marsupia per quadriennalem decimarum extorsionem vacua redderentur sed et regis insatiata cupido laicorum medullas profundissime scrutaretur" (ibid., p. 227). The grant of October must have been a confirmation of the previous decision to pay the twentieth, an action which was necessitated by the opposition to the tax (see below). Such a confirmation would have especial force because there was a very large attendance at the October session, due to the unusual character of the religious ceremonies in connection with the feast of St. Edward in 1269; no doubt many more were present than at the previous meeting. 31 Vincent, pp. 92-96; Gerv. Cant., II, 250; Cont. Chron. Will, de Novo Burgo, II, 556, 557; Lib. de Ant. Leg., p. 122; Ann. Cestrienses, p. 100; Cotton, pp. 143, 144. That the grant made at this time extended to the lay fees of the prelates is not certain. Thomas Wykes says that the tax was granted on the property of the laity, "de uni- versis laicorum mobilibus." He is however contrasting this levy with the clerical tenths which had not been paid by property on land held by military tenure. The chronicler's phrase therefore may mean the moveables on land held by lay tenure. There is also a writ on the Close Roll which, as paraphrased by Vincent (pp. 93-94), speaks of the "twentieth . . . granted ... by the magnates and knights and other laymen; commanding those assigned for levying the tax not to intermeddle at present with the goods of ecclesiastical persons," but the meaning of the document is not clear. In the council of April 20, 1270, the bishops and heads of religious houses granted the 296 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III heads of religious houses agreed that the twentieth should be paid on their demesne lands. This grant by the prel- ates was not to form a precedent; the receipts were to be devoted only to the crusade and were to be held in deposit till the king or his son departed. 32 In October, 1269, the beneficed clergy and the abbots and priors of the province of Canterbury refused to concede the twentieth. 33 At some time in 1270, however, the bishops agreed that the property of the churches should pay the levy 34 and to this the beneficed clergy later assented. 35 The twentieth was also collected on the royal demesne, apparently by virtue of the grant made by the tenants in chief. The towns often compounded for it, so that in effect they paid a tallage, a customary due. 36 Thus in spite of opposition, 37 the king finally obtained the tax from all classes in the kingdom. The government intended to make a new valuation of all property which was held on September 29, 1269. The assessment was often delayed till the goods were sold or consumed and the choice of that date aroused complaint. 38 twentieth on their demesnes. This means, not that their fees were to escape, but that arrangements had already been made to tax them. We can say certainly that the prelates agreed to the tax on their fees at some time before April 20, 1270, and that probably the deci- sion was made when the laity agreed to the twentieth. 32 Shirley, II, 336; Vincent, p. 94; Raine, pp. 23, 24; Wilkins, II, 21, 22; meeting of the council mentioned and the twentieth (Wint., p. 108). 33 Wilkins, II, 19-20. s* Raine, p. 25. 35 Raine, p. 38. se Vincent, pp. 97, 104. 37 See above, note 33; Wykes, p. 228. The statement of Cotton that the twentieth was asked for in 1269 but not granted till 1270, shows the opposition to the tax (Cotton, pp. 143, 144). 38"vicesimam verae sestimationis" (Raine, p. 38); "secundum fere verum valorem, prout in festo S. Michaelis proximo praecedente" (Wykes, p. 228) ; Vincent, p. 93. 297 STUDIES IN TAXATION The method of assessment was about the same as in 1237, but there was a new device for choosing the jurors of the vill. The king sent assessors and collectors, usually four in number, into each county. 39 These royal officials chose twelve men in each hundred; the latter then chose six men from each vill who swore to the value of the per- sonal property of every man in the vill. The property of the jurors was assessed by six other men of the vill. All the officials were under oath. The goods assessed as well as those exempt were enumerated in the writ; they comprised the same kinds of property as before. 40 The royal commissioners received the money and delivered it to a body of three men who stored it in the New Temple at London. 41 There were some exceptions to this scheme of assessment. The clergy were allowed to assess and collect the tax on their demesnes and on the property of the churches. 42 There is no evidence to show whether they made a new assessment or levied the tax on the basis of the valuation of 1254. 43 Some churchmen fined for the twentieth. 44 The complete account of the tax was not rendered till 39 In Bucks, there were two assessors ; in Yorkshire, six. 40 Vincent, pp. 92, 93, 94; Wilkins, II, 20. 41 Vincent, pp. 98, 100-105. The three men who received the money were a Templar, a Hospitaller, and a clerk of the wardrobe; the whole of the twentieth was paid to them, both that coming from the regular county assessors and that from the clergy and the towns. 42 Shirley, II, 336; Vincent, p. 94; Raine, pp. 23, 24, 25; Wilkins, II, 22. The king at first thought of compelling the clergy to pay to his own assessors: "si necesse fuerit, ipsam vicesimam levari faciant in manu forti" (Raine, p. 25), but thought better of it (Wilkins, II, 22). He tried the plan in the archbishopric of York, but the arch- bishop intervened successfully to prevent its execution (Raine, p. 38). 43 Probably the assessment used was that of 1254. The churchmen had preferred that in 1266 and 1268 (see above, pp. 292, 294); the tenths of 1273 were based on that valuation: "secundum taxationem Northwicensem" (Dunst., p. 256); see above, p. 293, note 22. 44 Raine, p. 38; Dunst., pp. 254, 257. UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III 1273, but much of the money had been paid before Edward set out in 1270. 45 The account of the twentieth follows : 4 * s d Counties . . . 27,013 1% Cities and towns . . 2,086 1 4 Bishops . . . 541 6 8 Abbots and priors . . 1,848 9 3 Total .... 31,488 17 Nearly the whole of this sum was spent on the crusade. He sailed August 20 (Ramsay, p. 272). Vincent, pp. 100-105 ; Madox, I, 610, n. . CHAPTER X SUMMAEY T N our study of the material thus far presented, certain * tentative conclusions have already been advanced. In this chapter, however, we shall endeavor to draw those conclusions together in a final statement which will deal in turn with the military service under John and Henry III, the scutage and the fine, the tallage, the donum, the carucage, and the tax on personal property, and, because of its marked development in the thirteenth century, with the great council and its relation to taxation. As the scutage grew directly out of knights' service, any study of it in the thirteenth century involves an examination of the amount of military service rendered to the king by his vassals. Round has estimated the servitium debitum under Henry II at about 5,000 knights, a number which does not seem too large. For calculations dealing with the service due from England as a whole, it is however more convenient to take the number of fees on which scutage was paid to the king rather than the servitium debitum. In a great many cases, we cannot do otherwise, for the amount of the latter is known in only about two-thirds of the lay holdings of five or more fees each, 1 and furthermore, in making our calculation on this basis no great error will be introduced. If we say that one-fourth of the fees of England compounded in any given year while three- fourths were exempt on account of service, and if we base each amount on the number of fees which accounted at the exchequer, we shall reach a proportion that would not be essentially different from that obtained by using the servitium debitum. The i Round, Feudal England, p. 292. 300 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III number of fees which accounted at the exchequer prob- ably became fixed at some time before the close of the twelfth century, and certainly did not change materially after 121 1. 2 The number was somewhat greater than the servitium debitum. If the old enfeoffment exceeded the servitium debitum on any holding, then the old enfeoffment was taxed ; contrariwise, if the servitium debitum exceeded the old enfeoffment, the servitium debitum was taxed. The new enfeoffment was never taxed except when the honor was in hand, though there were many cases when it was entered in the roll. 8 Ordinarily the old enfeoffment 2 The number of fees is regularly stated in the roll beginning with 1211. s fe SSj os ze If Hugh de Dover, Kent .... 12% 2% 14 William de Abrincis, Kent . . . 21% 2% 21% Walkelin de Mamignot, Kent ... 27 1 27 Walter de Mayenne, Kent ... 20 1% 30 29 John de Port, Hants .... 55 2 55 Aluredus de Lincoln, Dors, and Somers. 25 4 24 Gerbert de Percy, Dors, and Somers. 80 1 30 William de Curcy, Dors, and Somers. . 25% 4 24 William de Mohun, Dors, and Somers. . 39% 4 41 Robert de Beauchamp, Dors, and Somers. 15 17 17 Walter Waleram, Wilts .... 12 25 25 Humphrey de Boun, Wilts . . . 30% 9% 30% Earl of Essex, Essex and Herts . . 97% 15 60 98% Walter Fitz Robert, Essex and Herts . 63% 3 50 63% William de Munfichet, Essex and Herts . 47% % 40 47% Earl of Arundel, Sussex . . . 84% 26 84% Gervase Painel, Staff ..... 50 5% 50,51 Baderun de Munemue, Hereford 10 15 15 Walter de Wahull, Bucks and Bedf. . 27%% 1% 30 30 Robert de Albeny, Bucks and Bedf. . 13 25 25 Richard de Haia, Lincoln . . .11 4 20 16 Roger de Mowbray, York . . . 88% 11% 60 88% The clergy regularly paid on the fees quos recognoscit only. 301 STUDIES IN TAXATION exceeded the servitium debitum. The total number of fees which were liable for scutage in the thirteenth century was somewhat over 6,500.* When we examine the scutage accounts of the first half of the thirteenth century, we see that the king in summoning the host did not actually secure all this service in the field. The number of fees which purchased exemption by scutage or fine varied from 800 in 1221 to 4,000 in 1205. 5 If we consider the holders rather than the fees, we get the same result. Taking 150 as a fair number of lay tenants holding five or more fees each in the kingdom, we see that although a majority of them usually continued to perform their service, yet many compounded for it. Not only did part of the tenants fail to serve, but those who answered the summons to the host brought with them only part of their nominal con- tingents. We cannot say when this practice of serving with only fractional quotas became widespread, but probably it was customary from the beginning of John's reign. 6 The king sometimes summoned only a fraction of the knights: Henry II, in 1157, called out a third; 7 Richard in 1194, a third, and in 1198 a tenth; 8 and John in 1205 a tenth. 9 These summons have been treated as though they were merely examples of an occasional practice, 10 but taken in conjunction with the other evidence of reduced service, they seem to be the substi- * See above, pp. 127, note 33; 243, note 80; 257, note 14. Morris, The Welsh Wars of Edward I, p. 36, gives about the same figures: "towards 7,000." He bases his conclusions on the Pipe Rolls of 7 and 8 Edward I. Morris, however, is wrong in thinking that his conclusion differs from that of Round. They are calculating different things. Round is estimating the servitium debitum and Morris is taking the number of fees that pay scutage, a number which in the thirteenth century is larger than the servitium debitum. s See above, pp. 71, 139. See above, pp. 48, note 166; 64, note 257; 97, 110, 111, 150, 174, 183, 196, 226, 245, 255, 285. 302 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III The composition of an army of 1218 shows partial service: "Exercitus summonitus apud Stamford' . . . anno regni domini Henricis regis secundo" (Scutage Rolls, no. 2). The following are some examples: Knights Ser- fur- vice nished Hervey Bagot ... 60 5 John Fitz Alan . . . 22} 5 Bishop of Hereford ... 15 5 Robert de Chandos ... 13 1 Walter de Lacy ... 51 5 Earl of Gloucester . . .261 21 Earl of Warwick . . . 102 4 Oliver de Aincurt ... 35 3 Peter de Brus ... 15 5 William de Mowbray 88 5 Archbishop of York . 20 15 Bishop of Durham ... 10 15 Gilbert Gaunt ... 68 5 Abbot of Peterborough . . 60 30 Honor of Wallingford . . 100 10 Roger Bigod .... 125 5 Abbot of S. Edmunds 40 10 Robert Fitz Walter 63 3 Earl of Oxford ... 30 4 Abbot of S. Albans 6 10 From an account of another army (during the minority, for Falkes de Breaut6 served), the following cases are taken (Scutage Rolls, n ' 3 ) : Knights Ser- fur- vice nished Bishop of Norwich ... 60 5 Roger Clifford ... 19 5 William de St. John 55 5 Earl Warenne ... 60 15 Earl of Salisbury ... 40 5 Earl Ferrers .... 68 10 Honor of Wallingford . . 100 12 John Fitz Alan . . . 22^ 6 Richard de Munfichet 47 4 Robert Marmiun . . . 11 6 Norman de Arescy 20 2 Walter de Lacy . . . 51 4 Ivo de Heriz .... 4 1 7 Chronica Roberti de Torigneio, ed. Richard Hewlett, Chroniclet of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I, IV, 193. 303 STUDIES IN TAXATION tution of a uniform fractional part of the service for the irregular fractional contingents which the tenants ordi- narily brought to the host. By the middle of Henry Ill's reign, the partial service from the greater fees was coming to be recognized in law as the total service which the king could exact from the holding. 11 That is, a new servitium debitum had been created. By Edward I's day, the king had abandoned in many cases any claim which in theory he might still have maintained to more than a small fraction of the old servitium debitum. 12 If the greater tenants (each five or more fees) had their service thus reduced, it might be expected that the lesser tenants (each fewer than five fees) would have their service entirely commuted into money. This was true of the majority, though some lesser vassals continued to serve with the host in person or by deputy. 13 The reduced amount of service was insufficient for the king's needs, at least for campaigns abroad. Both John and Henry III continually employed mercenaries as well as tenants in their armies. 14 Special inducements were made to tenants to serve overseas for a long period. In 1204, Henry de Scalariis crossed to Normandy with two knights and in return his father was acquitted of his scutage and pardoned a forest fine of sixty marks. 15 William de Mara owed the Jews 25 10s which was par- s HOT., Ill, 242; Chron. Joe. de Brak., p. 63. See also Powicke, The Loss of Normandy, ch. VIII, and especially p. 315, in regard to a summons of 1196. Professor Powicke's book contains much material on the financial and military aspects of John's reign, but it came to hand too late to be of service here. Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 55a. 10 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law (2d ed.), I, 255. " See above, pp. 221, 245 ff. 12 Parliamentary Writs, I, 197; Morris, p. 43 ff. is See index: lesser tenants. n See index: mercenaries. 16 Rot. Lib., p. 89. 304 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III doned by the king in June, provided he served with three knights and five sergeants till the following Easter. 16 A debt of 250 marks owed by Geoffrey de Say to the Jews was pardoned under similar conditions. 17 In 1213, men promised to serve the king usually for a year, and in return debts to the exchequer were cancelled. 18 Did the king want more or fewer English tenants with him? For the Welsh wars, a large force of knights was not neces- sary, as the most valuable army was a combination of knights and footmen, a condition due to the mountainous character of the country, 19 and it is likely that the king obtained knights enough from his tenants. 20 But in France conditions were different. The king's dependence there was mainly on knights, and he does not seem to have succeeded in obtaining a sufficient number from his English tenants. The loss of Normandy was due in part to the withdrawal of the English vassals. In 1205 and in 1213, campaigning on a large scale was abandoned because the English tenants refused to take part. 21 In 1214, after considerable success, John asked that more tenants come to his aid. 22 Henry III undertook to invade France in 1229 only after consultation with the barons; he also i Rot. Lib., p. 42. 17 Ibid., p. 48. In 1204 a certain de Nevill fined in 60m and one palfrey to marry the widow of Jordan de Anevill and have her land "et serviet regi solus miles cum equis et armis per annum unum ad custum suum" (Pipe Roll, 6 John, m. 3 d). is Rot. Obi., pp. 465-476. 19 Morris, pp. 16, 18. 20 Mercenaries however were used against the Welsh ; tenants were disseized for failure to serve. In 1211 an insufficient number answered the first summons (see above, pp. 101, 145, 206, 244, 245). In 1245, the host which accompanied the king's person was sufficient: "Quia rex credit sufficientem gentem se habere ad inimicos regis gravandos" (Close Rolls, no. 58, m. 3 d) ; additional knights were to go to other parts of Wales. 21 See above, p. 69, and below, p. 310. 22 See above, p. 112. 305 STUDIES IN TAXATION granted them their scutages before the host assembled, evidently that they might be able to come as well equipped as possible. 23 On two other occasions he showed his reliance on the English tenants. 24 The same desire of the king is shown when we look at the tenants who appeared in the host. The greater tenants for the most part con- tinued to serve, although a fine or a scutage would often have been less burdensome. It is also noteworthy that lesser tenants, even men holding one or two fees, continued to serve in person or by deputy. 25 Furthermore, a tenant who failed to answer the summons to the host might still fear the loss of his lands. The abbot Samson hastened to satisfy Richard for his knights lest he should lose his barony as others had done before him. 28 There are several cases of disseizin under John, though none of a great baron. 27 Under Henry III there are frequent references either to disseizin or to dis- 23 See above, pp. 171, 181, 186, note 42; 187. 2* In 1242 and 1253 (see above, pp. 224 f., 254, 261^.). 25 If we take 150 as the number of tenants who held five or more fees each, we see that usually only a minority paid scutage or fine, except in 1205, when only a picked body of knights was sent. See above for the number of greater tenants who compounded, pp. 22, 23, 36, 47, 48, 55, and see index: tenants. In 1242, eight earls went with Henry III (Matthew Paris, IV, 192). The king's letter of that year in which he asked knights to come to his aid and promised them remission of fines and also wages, if they demanded them, does not show that the king was unable to enforce service in Gascony (Rymer, I, 246). The tenants had already agreed to fine and Henry III was unable to set this bargain aside at will. He had therefore to ask them for service as a favor. Notice the entry in the Dunstable annals, above, p. 226, note 11. Some cases of tenants holding fewer than five fees who served have been given above in the references on p. 302, note 6; see p. 304, note 13. 2 "timens ne amitteret saisinam baronie sue pro defectu servicii regis, sicut contigerat episcopo Lundoniensi et multis baronibus" (Chron. Joe. de Brak., p. 63). 27 Henry de Criketot in 1205 (Rot. Obi, p. 301); Malgerus le Vavasur in 1210 (Madox, I, 663, n. y) ; William de Kav' in 1207 (Rot. Lift. Glaus., I, 85a) ; Hugh de Gornaco, Fulk Fitz Warin, and 306 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III traint to compel tenants to serve. 28 Some of the orders thus referred to may have been merely formal, yet the practice of disseizin or distraint, as a means of compelling obedience to the summons, must have been in force, else it is difficult to see how the king could have got so much service out of his tenants, particularly for campaigns in France. 29 One cause of the decrease in the amount of service rendered by the greater tenants was their inability to exact knights' service from their vassals. The latter were reluctant to serve. In 1198 the tenants of the abbot of St. Edmunds claimed that they were bound to pay scutage, but not to serve outside England. 30 The tenants of the abbey of Evesham were unwilling to serve. 31 In 1258, the tenants of the abbot of Ramsey refused to serve and the abbot had to hire knights and sergeants. 32 In 1257 the abbot of St. Albans with difficulty got his knights to acknowledge that they owed service. 33 The success of Badwinus de Hodenet for withdrawing from the king's service in 1203 (Rot. Lib., pp. 73, 74) ; Philip de Aire for failure to answer the summons (ibid., p. 69); Matthew de Cliveden, Elias Ginant, and Robert of London in 1210 (Madox, I, 491, n. 6, d, e) ; Duncan de Lasceles for the Scottish expedition (ibid., p. 663, n. w) ; Albreda de Lincoln in 1210 (Pipe Roll, 12 John, Dors, and Somers., Nova Oblata). 28 In 1221 the sheriff was forbidden to trouble those tenants who did not answer the summons to the army of Biham (Rot. Litt. Claus., I, 475a) ; in 1223, tenants who had failed to serve in the army of Wales were disseized (ibid., 572b) ; the case of Robert de Amauri (ibid., 617a) ; see also above, pp. 225, 226, 245, 254, 255. 29 This conclusion seems to be warranted also by the fact that when the tenant was excused from the host by the king, a writ was issued to the sheriff not to distrain him for his service: Henry de Waltham in 1229, the Templars in 1231; Thomas Mauduit was in the host and was not to be distrained for his service (Close Rolls, I, 216, 540, 593). so Chron. Joe. de Brak., p. 63. si William Salt Arch. Soc. Coll, V, part I, p. 2. 32 Maitland, Manorial Courts, pp. 60-62. 33 Matthew Paris, VI, 375-376. See above, pp. 240, 245, 285. 307 STUDIES IN TAXATION the rear-vassals has been attributed to the lack of power of the baronial courts. The lords were unable to compel their knights to perform their service without the aid of the king's court, which gave them little assistance. 34 Although there is evidence that royal aid was necessary during John's reign, 35 this explanation of the decline of service is on the whole unsatisfactory because it implies that the king was indifferent to the number of knights which he obtained from his vassals, whereas the contrary seems to have been true. It has also been suggested that sub-infeudation was so great that there were few actual knights left who were holding land, 36 and undoubtedly this was an important factor. 37 But of greater importance were the character of the campaigns and the increased value of a knight's service. Tenants were expected to serve both in England and in France. At home, cam- s* Pollock and Maitland, I, 272. ss For the earl of Chester (Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 88b, 1209). In 1203, Thomas de Arcy was to be helped in making his tenants serve: "Rex etc. G. filio Petri etc. . . . et milites ipsius Thomae distringatis que ei servitia sua faciant que facere debent" (Rot. Lib., p. 44). 3 Pollock and Maitland, I, 272-274. 37 Most of this sub-infeudation in the higher ranks of rear-vassals must have taken place before the thirteenth century. The practice of dividing fees into fractional parts should not be exaggerated, though many examples can be cited of tenants who held tenth, twentieth, fortieth, and sixtieth parts of fees. Some of these were new creations. It is likely that the size of holdings among rear- vassals remained fixed in the thirteenth century just as they did among the tenants in chief, and that there were therefore many rear- vassals who held more than one fee. If one compares the account of the escheated honor of Peverel in 1211 with the account in 1246 (Pipe Roll, 13 John, m. 2 d; 30 Henry III, m. 6 d), it will be seen that there has been very little change. Only a few of the tenants hold less than one fee each. Certainly at the opening of John's reign, sub-infeudation had not been carried to such an extreme that it would be impossible to get military service (see the account of the honor of Gloucester, part of the bishopric of Lincoln, and the honor of Wallingford; Rot. Cane., 3 John, pp. 55-56, 278-279, 266-268; also the account of the honor of Boulogne, Pipe Roll, 17 John, m. 1). 308 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III paigns were like raids ; it was not necessary to assemble the whole host, a fact which would tend to reduce the number of knights which each tenant furnished. In France, campaigns required more men, but the long period of service which was often demanded 38 helped equally to reduce the quotas which the king took from his vassals. The increase in the value of a knight's service as shown by the increase in his wage also served to keep down the quotas. The ordinary pay under Henry II was eight pence a day. 39 In the thirteenth century it had risen to two shillings, 40 and in some cases it might be more. The knights whom the abbot Samson hired in 1198 were to receive three shillings a day. 41 The abbot of St. Albans hired two knights and eight sergeants in 1257 and paid nearly 100 marks. 42 In 1258, the knights of the abbot of Ramsey received four shillings a day for their expenses. 43 This increase in the wages of the knight was in part due to the general rise in prices which took place in the thirteenth century, but it was in great meas- ure due to the more elaborate equipment required. 44 At the average rate of two shillings a day, the wages for forty days would be six marks (4), a much higher amount than any scutage and higher than the average rate of the fine. 45 Yet it may be questioned whether the feudal term of service should be thus limited. 46 Almost 38 The campaign in France might last eight months, as in 1214. 39 Round, Feudal England, pp. 271-273. 40 The pay of the knights furnished in 1205 was two shillings. Tenants had knights in the expedition of 1214 at this rate (Rot. Litt. Glaus., II, 87a) ; in 1230, the king was to support knights in France at two shillings (Pat. Rolls, II, 403). 41 Chron. Joe. de Brak., p. 63. 42 Matthew Paris, VI, 374, 438. 43 Maitland, Manorial Courts, pp. 60-62. 44 Morris, p. 49. 45 E.g. above, pp. 23, 36, 48, 65, 71, 185. 46 "Even the limit of forty days seems to have existed rather in 309 STUDIES IN TAXATION all of the campaigns of John and Henry III lasted more than forty days and some, particularly those in France, much longer. Thus in practice, the knights must have served more than forty days. In 1198 the abbot Samson provided his knights with the expenses for this period, but he was advised to fine with the king, else he would have to pay the wages of the knights throughout the war, which, it was said, might last a year. 47 That there was no set term of service is further shown by two cases. In 1212 the four knights of the abbey of Ramsey were to be supported by their fellow tenants as long as they were in the king's service. 48 In 1213, the host had been sum- moned in April to resist an expected invasion by Philip, whose fleet was destroyed in May. In August, John proposed to the knights to invade Poitou, but they com- plained that their means had already been exhausted and refused to go unless their expenses were paid. John was enraged at this demand and refused it. 49 This is the time when some barons claimed that they did not owe service in France. 50 Neither demand seems to represent the general practice. After the middle of the century, there are cases which speak of forty days as the period of service. 51 Despite this fact, it seems probable that John and Henry III did not as a rule regard that period as theory than in practice and its theoretic existence can hardly be proved for England out of any authoritative document" (Pollock and Maitland, I, 254). 47 Chron. Joe. de Brak., p. 63. He did so for 100. 48 Rot. Litt. Glaus., I, 123a. 4 Wend., Ill, 261. 5( > Cogg., p. 167. 5i In 1258, the knights of the abbey of Ramsey were to serve forty days and to receive four shillings a day (Maitland, Manorial Courts, pp. 60-62); in 1267, they served for the same period (Vincent, p. 116, quoting Patent Roll, 52 Henry III); in 1277, the knights of St. Albans served for eight weeks, for forty days at their own expense and for the rest of the time in the pay of the king (Oesta Abbatum, I, 435). Other cases are given in Morris, pp. 69, 70, 75, 132, 137. 310 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III the limit of service, 52 though they had no right to demand unlimited service from their vassals. That John made special arrangements with tenants whereby they were to serve for long periods would prove this to be the case. 53 The service should be reasonable. 52 Their campaigns were not limited to forty days. See also, above, pp. 21, 77, 96, 101, 109, 137, 143, 149, 173, 181, 196, 244, 284. Notice also the case of the abbot of St. Albans in the war against the barons after the battle of Evesham. Henry III summoned the host to meet at the feast of St. Lucy the Virgin (December 13) ; the abbot sent his knights with twenty horses and they remained with the army (though apparently without fighting) from December 13 till the feast of St. Vincent (January 22), or just forty days. The service however was not concluded. The king demanded sixty marks per knight from those who wished to retire: "Cumque ibidem a festo S. Luciae usque ad festum S. Vicentii proximum sequens cum xx equis dies (sic) con- tinuassent, in multis expensis et angustiis, dominus rex pro quolibet milite Ix marcas exegit a viris religionis servitium militare debentibus, et pro militibus finem facere volentibus" (Chron. Will, de Rishanger, p. 50). 53 The following case is cited in Pollock and Maitland, I, 255, as possible evidence that the king had the right to demand longer ser- vice than forty days, if he paid wages for it: "Rex B. de Podio, major! Engolism' et G. de Nevill' camerario, R. de Faya, E. de Chawurt', Petro de Faya, salutem. Mandamus vobis quod cum ter- minurn militum nostrorum qui nobiscum sunt trans fretaturi venerint de tempore quo nobis ad custum suum servire debent juxta scriptum quod inde habetis eos de denariis nostris quos ad hoc recepistis pacari faciatis tamquam si essent in Pictavia" (Rot. Litt. Claus., I, 117b). There is no mention specifically of the forty days, but the statement, "the time during which they ought to serve us at their own cost," may refer to that period. The men to whom the writ was addressed were leaders of an expedition going to Poitou (ibid., p. 117a), and the knights whom they were to pay were the men with them, not knights with the king. If these knights were tenants performing their service and if the period refers to the forty days, then payment for service beyond the forty days was a regular custom. For so common is it that the leaders carry a scriptum, a list of the knights with the wages (see ibid., pp. 185a, 188b, 192b, for three examples of a scriptum in this sense). Why then should the king refuse to pay the expenses of the knights in 1213 and be enraged at the demand? In the expedition to Ireland in 1210, the king made many payments to knights with him, but 311 STUDIES IN TAXATION The king therefore continued to insist on the perform- ance of service by his military tenants, great and small. In doing so, he was only partly successful. The greater tenants served but with reduced contingents. Some tenants did not serve at all, but compounded each time, though not necessarily for scutage only. It is clear that the tenant had acquired no right to compound at will. Further, since the king did not allow the development of this right and his armies of tenants were often not large enough for his needs, it is evident that he preferred the service to the money. Hence it follows that the com- mutation of service into money was not a custom favored by the king in the first half of the thirteenth century, but was forced on him by conditions over which he had no control. 84 they were loans, not wages, and were made at irregular intervals, before and after the forty days had expired (Rot. Lib., p. 172^.). It seems possible that those knights mentioned in the writ above from the Close Roll were mercenaries who had agreed to serve for a certain period at their own cost. John led no general expedition to Gascony in 1212, though he seems to have been thinking of one toward the end of June (Rot. Litt. Glaus., I, 130b); the writ discussed above was issued May 23. John had different kinds of arrangements with hired knights. English tenants were granted favors (usually pardon of a debt) in return for which they were to serve the king for a long period, at their own cost, and this without regard to the service owed for their fees (see note 18). In 1213, Hugh de Fornes of Flanders was to furnish five knights; they were to be sent to England ad custum suum, they were to serve John for 120 days and then were to be sent back to Flanders ad custum nostrum (i.e. at John's cost). Hugh was also, if necessary, to furnish 500 or 1,000 sergeants "et a die quo ultimo a portu reces- serint trans fretantes in Angliam erunt ad liberaciones nostras dum fuerint in servicio nostro" (Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 98b). There is men- tion of Flemish knights who held feoda of John (i.e. money fees) in return for which they did him a certain amount of service: "nobis faciunt servicium quod nobis facere debent"; "veniatis ad faciendum nobis servicium que nobis debetis" (ibid., pp. lib, 12a, 26b; Rot. Litt. Glaus., I, 183a). s* This would not be true of those campaigns in which the king summoned knights simply as an excuse to raise money. 312 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III Before discussing the scutages of John and Henry III, something should be said about the account of the scutage as rendered in the Pipe Roll. That account falls into two parts : first, the portion containing the names of the men who were charged with scutage or fine; secondly, that containing the names of the men who received writs of quittance with the title "Isti habent brevia de quietan- tia." The latter were the tenants who had performed their service and hence were excused from any money payment. 55 The men whose names appear in the roll were always the tenants in chief, never the rear-vassals, except in cases when the honor was in hand. 58 Consequently when a tenant was entered as acquitted, his land paid nothing, as far as we can judge from the evidence of the Pipe Roll. 87 Similarly, the fine or scutage charged against the tenant is all that appears against any of his lands. 58 Taking the men who were quit and the men who were charged with ss A comparison of the Scutage Roll with the names of those in the Pipe Roll who are entered as having writs of quittance shows that this is true in the main. Occasionally a tenant who fined is entered as quit "per finem," but usually those who fine are entered in the part of the roll above the list of writs of quittance. 58 E. g., in 1201, the tenants of the honor of Gloucester appear in the roll (Rot. Cane., p. 55). After Isabella had been re-endowed and married to the earl of Essex, only the tenant in chief appears (Pipe Roll, 16 John, Glouc., m. 5 d). The custodian might account for an honor as if he were tenant in chief, and in that case his name only appears; e.g. Guido de Chancels accounts for the scutage of Wales of the honor of Gloucester as if he were the tenant in chief (Pipe Roll, 13 John, m. 17 d). 57 Thus a tenant is entered as quit in the different counties where he holds fees; see above, pp. 28, 50, 58, 73. ss That is, the tenant in chief and his vassals will not be charged with scutage or fine. It is true that the tenant in chief may be charged in more than one county. Sometimes, the amount charged in any given county will be paid elsewhere; sometimes it will be entered as paid in that same county, but in any case, the tenant will not pay for the same fees twice over (see above, pp. 29, 51, 59, 74). 313 STUDIES IN TAXATION fine or scutage, the roll gives a fairly complete account of the fees in the kingdom. 59 A comparison of the scu- tage accounts given in the Pipe Rolls of Henry II, Rich- ard, John, and Henry III shows that the entries become fuller, more exact, and more detailed as time goes on till near the end of John's reign '(1211), when the account appears in a form which remains practically the same throughout the reign of his son. 60 It might be suggested that in the matter of the fines, the Pipe Roll would be defective and that it would contain only the scutages, while the fines would appear mainly in the Fine Roll. This is not so. Practically all the fines in the Fine Roll are found entered in the Pipe Roll also. 61 A distinction should be noted in the financial levies of the time, which is often ignored, viz., between aids and scutages. The aid could not be levied by the king with- out the consent of the vassal; it was not obligatory on the latter to pay it if the king asked for it. If he did pay it, he made in theory a free grant to the king as lord. It might take the form of a tax on the ploughland, as in 09 This is true for all of John's scutages except that of 1204 and the scutage of Ireland which are incomplete. oo Under Henry II, the men who are taxed, not those who receive writs of quittance, are the ones entered in the roll. In 6 Richard, the latter begin to be entered. The number of fees which each man holds is not given. Such an entry would not be necessary when scutage only was paid. Under Richard, the reports of sheriffs con- cerning fees in their counties which hold of baronies whose heads lie in other counties are entered in the roll. Under John the account is thus rendered in two parts: first the tenants who are charged with fines or scutage and second those who are quit; sometimes the number of fees is given but there is no regularity about it. Beginning with the roll of 13 John, the practice is set up of entering the number of fees after the name of each tenant whether he is charged with scutage or is quit. This remains the custom throughout the reign of Henry III. i Two of the years in which there are a large number of fines entered in the Fine Roll are 1201 and 1230. Nearly all are also found in the Pipe Roll. 314 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III the carucage ; of a tax on personal property ; of a tax on the knight's fee, as in the aid of 1217; or of a lump sum, not based on property. On the other hand, scutage in the strict sense of the word was a composition for military service and as such was owed. If the king waged a campaign, he was entitled by law to a scutage at least from such tenants as had failed to come to the host. The custom of taking scutage was well established before the close of the twelfth century; it was levied in connection with military expeditions, and was usually taken at the close of the campaign. It was in general the full commu- tation for service, and the customary rate was 1 (lH marks) or less per fee. The occasion for the scutage remained the same. John usually observed the form though not the spirit. In 1199, a truce was concluded as soon as the king landed in June and fighting did not begin till September. 62 In 1201, there was no fighting at all. 63 In 1204 and 1205, the host was summoned, but was not despatched; in the latter year, a picked body of knights was sent. 64 On all these occasions scutage was taken. In 1209, the host was sum- moned and the king led it against the Scots. The diffi- culty was settled without fighting, but a scutage was taken. 65 On other occasions, the scutage was levied for campaigns which were actually waged by the king at the head of the host. 66 Henry III only once took a scutage to which he was not fully entitled by feudal law. 67 62 See above, p. 21. 03 Hov., IV, 161, 164; Norgate, John Lackland, p. 81. 84 See above, pp. 64, 69. Some tenants seem also to have gone in 1204. 65 See above, p. 94. 66 In 1202, 1203, 1206, 1210, 1211, 1214 (see above, pp. 46, 53, 77, 96, 101, 109). 67 In 1231, after the campaign in Poitou, for which he had taken a scutage once (see above, p. 191). 315 STUDIES IN TAXATION Several of John's scutages were put in charge probably when the host was summoned, or soon after, and not at the close of the campaign ; but this was not an invariable rule. 68 Henry III, however, put the scutage in charge at or near the close of the campaign, except in 1229 and 1242, on the occasion of the expeditions to France. 69 At other times he levied fines for exemption from service during the campaign. 70 In many cases, therefore, the baron knew what the rate of scutage would be. In others, if he did not perform his service, he would naturally expect to pay scutage at least, though this was not cer- tain, for the rule was not invariable that a scutage should be taken for each campaign. 71 The account was entered in the Pipe Roll of the financial year when the scutage was put in charge. 72 The advantage to the king of levying scutage and fines at the opening of the campaign is obvious. Not only would he be able to use part of the money in carrying on the war, but he would have more complete control of the right to fix the rate and deter- mine the circumstances under which scutage was due. The rate too was raised by John. His first scutage was placed at two marks per fee, "a change which caused es In 1209 the scutage seems to have been levied after the host had met that of the king of Scots and a treaty had been made; in 1211, the scutage of Wales was taken at the close of the campaign (see above, pp. 94, 101). 9 See above, pp. 184, 227. TO See above, pp. 206, 240, 255, 286. 71 It was always taken under John. Under Henry III, none was taken for the campaign against Richard Marshal in 1233; none for the march against Wales in 1241, Scotland in 1244, or Gascony, 1253 (see above, pp. 206, 220, 240, 256). 72 The scutage of Scotland was spread over the three years, 1209- 1211. The siege of Bedford ended in the middle of August, 1224, yet the scutage was entered in the roll of that year. If a campaign did not end till the close of September, the account was not entered till the following year (see above, pp. 94, 151, 196, 197). 816 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III unfavorable comment," 73 and later it was raised to three marks. 74 During the minority of Henry III, the rate fell, 75 but rose again to three marks in 1229, a figure which became common. Though the change was thus considerable, it is clear that the king was not unrestricted in determining the rate. The most important question in connection with the scutage is its character, for with it the king began to take fines, "pro passagio," "ne trans fretent," which usually included the scutage, but were often distinct from it, that is, were in addition to it. 76 We should remember that the king was also trying to get as much service as possible out of his English tenants. Was the scutage, therefore, especially in John's reign, transformed to any extent into a general tax on the rear-vassals while at the same time the king was getting the service of the fee from the tenant in chief, either in knights, or by a fine? 77 It is hard to believe that even John, strong though he was, could carry through such a financial and military revolu- tion as is implied by this query. Though examples of a double contribution will be pointed out, it seems unques- tionable that they were exceptions, and that in general scutage did not become a general tax, but retained its original character as the composition for service, though often not the only composition. To put it another way, the tenants who performed their service, or paid a fine, 73 "gravis exactio scutagii" ; "nunquam amplius quam viginti solid! ad scutum exigerentur" (Cogg., pp. 101, 102). 74 Ireland and Poitou (see above, pp. 98, 112). 75 Biham 10s; Wales, Bedford, and Kerry, two marks. 7 * The fines begin to appear under Richard (Red Book, I, 99, 102, 115; Madox, I, 676, n. t). They perhaps go back to Henry II. 77 "And so in the thirteenth century the king, while he is exacting military service or fines from his tenants in chief, will also collect scutage from their military tenants. Theoretically he is not entitled to be paid for the same thing twice over" (Pollock and Maitland, I, 270). 317 STUDIES IN TAXATION made no additional payment for their fees to the king. Unless the Pipe Rolls are far more defective than they seem to be, they offer good evidence that scutage did not become a general tax. The total number of fees on which scutage might be paid was about 6,500. If scutage were a general tax, the number of fees taxed should remain approximately the same and should approach 6,500. But this is not the case. The number never rose above 4,000 and varied from one levy to another, apparently accord- ing to the amount of service which the tenants performed. Furthermore, the tenants who are not charged with scu- tage or fine in the roll are not left unaccounted for. They also appear in the roll as receiving writs of quittance. 78 It might be suggested that the king took a fine or service from the tenant in chief and in addition collected scutage from the rear-vassals, but the accounts of scutage in the Pipe Roll support no such theory. 79 When we turn to individual cases we get the same result. Tenants who performed their service were acquitted of part or all their scutage and received writs de scutagio habendo. Such a writ exempted the whole holding of the tenant from paying scutage to the exchequer. 80 If a 78 It should be observed that in the account of most scutages a fairly complete statement of the fees of the kingdom is rendered, either charged with scutage or fine or receiving writs of quittance; and that the writ of quittance means that the tenant in chief had performed his service and was allowed to have his scutage for his own use (see above, pp. 18, 313, 314). 7 If we add together the sums charged against tenants in chief who hold five or more fees and to this sum add the scutage charged against fees on honors in hand which can be identified, and then subtract this total from the total amount of the scutage proper which appears in the roll, the remainder will be far too small to represent anything like a general payment by rear-vassals. Even this remainder could not all be charged against rear-vassals, for from it would have to be deducted scutage charged against tenants in chief holding fewer than five fees each (e. g. above, pp. 22, 23, the account of the first scutage of John). so See above, pp. 24, 36, 40, 48, 50, 55, 58, and index: service. 318 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III tenant did not obtain a writ at first, he might be charged with scutage ; later, when he secured the writ, his account would be written off. 81 Sometimes part of the scutage was collected; if so, it was either returned to the tenant or credited to some account of his other than scutage. 82 Tenants who fined or who paid only scutage were allowed to collect scutage from their vassals and nothing but that fine or scutage was paid from all their holding to the exchequer. 83 A tenant might hold fees in other counties than where the head of his barony lay. If the sheriff of the county in which these detached fees lay collected the scutage from them, either from the rear-vassals or from the tenant's steward, the amount collected was credited to the tenant in chief in the main account of his honor. This shows that a double payment was not made by the tenants and his vassals. 84 Then there are several cases of men who are charged with scutage in the roll. Appar- ently they protested, for an inquest was held to determine whose tenants they were. It was found that they were rear-vassals and accordingly they were excused from pay- ing to the exchequer. 85 Thus the king's courts protected the sub-tenant from such an extension of the royal authority. Again, when the tenant in chief opposed the payment of scutage, the sheriff did not collect it, but distrained him to compel payment. 86 The tenant might be disseized if he refused to pay, as in the case of the archbishop of York. 87 Occasionally the tenant fined in an si See above, pp. 25, 37, note 99 ; 51, 73, note 313. 82 See above, pp. 50, 51, note 181; 56, 58, 67. 83 See above, pp. 27, 28, 42, 60, 68, 75, 76, 80. s* See above, pp. 28, 40, 41, 51, 59, 74, 80, 103. ss See above, pp. 52, 59, 67, 74, 81, 100, 116. 86 "Henricus (de Pinkeni) promisit coram justic' quod acquietabit averia sua que capta sunt pro scutagio; recognovit enim quod idem debet" (Rot. Curios Regis, II, 43, anno 1 John). 87 Rot. Litt. Claus., I, lib. Cecilia de Crevequor was disseized "eo quod proinde finem (pro passagio) . . . non fecerat" and it was 319 STUDIES IN TAXATION unusual way. He himself paid no scutage, but allowed the king to collect it from all his military tenants. Here the collection by the king from the rear-vassal seems unusual. 88 Stewards of tenants in chief continually appeared before the exchequer to answer for the scutage of their lords 89 and secured the king's aid to distrain the ordered "quod (vicecomes) faciat ei habere scutagium suum de feodis militum que de domino rege tenet in capite in balliva sua." She had fined in 40 marks as a result of the disseizin (Rot. Obi., p. 302). Notice that the king had not collected from the rear-vassals. 88 "Fulco Painel dat domino regi scutagia septime militum et aliorum militum si plures de domino rege teneat in capite pro pas- sagio suo et passagio praedictorum militum. Et mandatum est vicecomitibus . . . quod colligant scutagia de feodis omnium militum suorum quos de domino rege tenet in capite" (Rot. Obi, p. 131). "A Willelmo comite de Vernun (earl of Devon) nullum scutagium requirendum est in aliqua summa quia finivit cum rege pro licentia remanendi ut rex capiat de omnibus militibus suis scutagium suum quos tenet de rege in capite" (Rot. Cane., p. 263). That these cases mean that the king takes from all the knights whom the tenant in chief had enfeoffed and not merely from the servitium debitum is shown by the case of the earl of Devon who this year in another part of the roll paid on fifteen knights "quos recognoscit" and forty- five knights "quos non recognoscit (Rot. Cane., p. 26). If the col- lection from the rear-vassals by the king comes in, it is under John. What the abbot Samson feared in 1198, if he failed to satisfy the king was that he would be disseized, not that the king would collect scutage from his men (Chron. Joe. de Brak., p. 63). 89 "Simon de Charterai senescallus Willelmi de Brause affidavit facere pacem de xxviii li. de secundo scutagio (of Richard) sicut vicecomes dicit et non venit; habeat judicium senescalli"; "Ricardus del Estre debet xvi sol et viii den. de primo scutagio regis Ricardi . . . senescallus ejus affidavit facere pacem et non venit"; Hugo de Morba senescallus Henrici de Trasci affidavit facere pacem de L marc, et dim. de scutagio suo sicut vicecomes dicit et non venit" (Exch. L. T. R., bundle I, no. 3, Mem. Roll, 1 John m. 19, 17, 19 d). "Eustachius filius Willelmi senescallus Eustachii de Vesci affidavit h' de . . . xx li. de sexto scutagio (of John)"; "Eadmundus clericus senescalli Robert! filii Walteri affidavit facere pacem . . . de xx marcis de fine et de quater xx et iiii li. et i marc, de scutagio sexto"; "Rogerus de Lilleston' senescallus comitis Alberici affidavit facere pacem de . . . Ix marc, at xl den. de iiii scutagio . . . et de xxx marc, de scutagio vi"; "Willelmus de Rollest' senescallus Jollani de 320 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III rear-vassals to pay to their lords the scutage which was owed to the king. 90 That the king tried to get scutage, fine, or service out of every fee in England held of him is certain. In so doing, he systematized the collection of the money and at times overstepped his rights. Putting the scutage in charge early in the campaign made it possible for him to demand and in some cases to collect from rear-vassals before it was known whether or not the tenant in chief owed scutage. 91 The fact that rear-vassals had to protest against payment shows the activity of the exchequer. Sheriffs were ordered to report the number of fees held in their counties by tenants in chief, 92 and the latter were no longer charged with their whole scutage in one county only, but were entered either charged or acquitted, in each county in which they held fees. Sometimes the whole amount due was charged in more than one place; some- Nevill' affidavit de ii marc, de vi scutagio et de xx sol. de vii scutagio; non venit; judicium"; "Comes de Ferar' debet xxxii marc, de vi scutagio; Willelmus de Radewar' senescallus affidavit et non venit" (ibid., bundle 1, no. 4, Mem. Roll, 10 John, m. 4a d; m. 8a; m. lla or m. 10). Below, p. 336. 90 In 1220, Melicent de Stafford agreed with the king that he should collect the arrears of scutages due on the fee of Hervey Bagot (her deceased husband) since the early part of John's reign. The king evidently had not collected from the rear-vassals (Madox, I, 680, n. m). "Episcopus Line' debet scutagia vii militum de militibus quos non potest distringere de baillia de N. ut baillivus suus dixit" (Exch. L. T. R. Mem. Roll, 2 Henry III, m. 6 d); "Rex vicecomiti. Precipimus tibi quod sis in auxilium Willelmo de Mowbray ad distringendum milites suos quos tenet de nobis in capita in balliva tua ad reddendum ei scutagium Pictaviae de feodis que ipsi tenent de eo, scilicet, iii marc, de scuto quia idem Willelmus inde debet respondere" (ibid., 7 Henry III, m. 13) ; similarly for the abbot of Holme (ibid., m. 6 d) ; for the abbot of Peterborough (ibid., 6 Henry III, m. 2 d) ; for Margaret de Cressy (ibid., 8 Henry III, m. 4) ; for the abbot of Westminster for the scutages of Biham and Bedford (ibid., 9 Henry III, m. 2). si See above, p. 319, notes 81, 82. 92 See above, pp. 29, 30, 44, 51, 60. 321 STUDIES IN TAXATION times the amount due from the fees held by each tenant in each county was charged. 93 This work of locating the fees was only partly carried out by John. At the close of his reign, in 1212, there was the great inquest of service to find out the location of the fees of the tenants in chief as well as the total service of the kingdom. This inquest did not result in any increase in the number of fees for which each tenant accounted at the exchequer. 9 * An indication that the king got both scutage and ser- vice from his direct tenants is to be found in the fact that some tenants in chief performed their service and were charged with scutage. 95 In some of these cases part of the scutage may have been legally due because the tenant had performed only part of his service. Yet there were unquestionably times when the king exacted not only all the scutage but some service also. 96 Moreover, men with small holdings appear and disappear in the roll. Such tenants might be taken to be rear-vassals accounting for scutage directly to the exchequer while their lords had either served or compounded elsewhere. Wherever they can be traced, some of these men are found to be sergeants while others are indeed rear-vassals, but on honors in hand. In any case, the number of fees which they held was too small to represent a general tax on knights' fees. 97 All this shows that John was collecting his scutages with great care and that the exchequer was locating fees owing scutage rather than making a general collection of the tax from rear-vassals, in addition to scutage, fine, or service from the tenant in chief. The scutage at a fixed rate per fee would not always 3 See above, pp. 28, 41, 51, 59, 74. * See above, p. 301. 95 See above, pp. 23, 24, 38, 56. 96 Ibid. 97 See above, p. 40, note 126. 322 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III exempt a tenant from taking part in a campaign. From many tenants John took a larger amount than the scutage, called a fine. All classes, great vassals and lesser vassals, lay tenants and clerical tenants, paid fines. 98 Each year some tenants paid scutage and others fines ; the same tenant paid fine one year and scutage another." The fine was usually a lump sum paid by the tenant in chief in return for which he was exempted from service and was given the right to collect scutage from his tenants. 100 Sometimes, however, the vassal paid in addition to his scutage a fine, 101 and occasionally the fine was levied at a fixed rate per fee. 102 Legally the king had warrant for this extra demand. He was entitled to full military service from his tenants. If they did not wish to serve, they would have to pay whatever sum he might fix or lose their lands. The sums which he took in fines were usually smaller than the cost to the tenant of answering the summons to the host with his full contingent. Yet as partial service in the field seems to have been the equivalent of the old servitium debitum, the scutage was probably regarded as a fair amount of composition, espe- cially as it had been the full composition before. There can be no doubt that the extra amount of composition was regarded as excessive. At the close of his reign when discontent was growing, John stopped taking fines. 108 When the barons were in control of the government, during 98 With few exceptions, bishops never paid fines. wE.g. Henry de Oilli paid scutage in 1199 and 1203 and a fine of 97 marks in 1201; William Painel paid scutage in 1199 and 1202 on 15 fees and in 1201 a fine of 40 marks. w The fine is paid "ne transfretet et pro habendo scutagio suo," "pro passagio et ad habendum scutagium suum." 101 See above, pp. 27, 40, 49, 58, 66, 73, 79. 102 "Henricus de Oilli r c de 97 marcis de fine que fecit scilicet pro quolibet milite que tenet de rege 3m" (Rot. Cane., p. 279). i3 No fines were taken for the last two scutages, Wales and Poitou, and few for the Scottish scutage. 328 STUDIES IN TAXATION the minority of Henry III, scutage was all that was demanded. The fine was not an amercement in any sense different from the scutage, not the punishment on the tenant who had failed to answer the summons to the host and had stayed at home. It was not the substitute for disseizin or distraint as a means of compelling the vassal to serve. 104 Later the two levies may have been distinct in character, 105 but in the first half of the thirteenth century, the fine was a composition for service which differed from the scutage in form only. The fines were levied at the begin- ning of the campaign when the king was gathering the host, not at the end when he might be determining the punishment to be inflicted on defaulters. 106 Some of the fines were hardly larger than the scutage would have 10* The purpose of the scutage and the fine was not to punish the tenant so that he would not repeat the offence, but to charge an amount commensurate with the amount of service which the king had lost. It is true that a high rate of composition contains an element of amercement, for such a rate will retard a tendency to commute service into money. If that element was present in the fine, it was also present in the scutage, particularly among the greater tenants. If Ralph de Sumery who holds 50 fees pays 100 marks scutage and thus buys the exemption from service of 50 knights, then his scutage is a mere nominal composition; if he pays 120 marks fine instead of scutage (see below, note 107), his fine is also only nominal. In either case, the tenant would gain by compounding. The point has already been made that military service in the thirteenth century had become reduced. If Ralph would have served with only 10 knights instead of with 50, then his fine of 120 marks doubtless has an element of amercement, but so has the scutage of 100 marks. 105 "In Edward I's day, the fine for default is an utterly different thing from the scutage" (Pollock and Maitland, I, 268). loe See above, pp. 35, 70, 187, 206, 228, 240, 255. The abbot of St. Edmunds went to the king at the opening of the war and fined for his service (Chron. Joe. de Brak., p. 63) ; the abbot of St. Albans in 1265 sent his knights to the meeting of the host under two of his officials to see whether the king would use them on the campaign or to fine (Chron. Will, de Rishanger, p. 50). 324 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III been, 107 and occasionally the scutage was called a fine. 108 The fact should be recalled that ordinarily most of the great barons paid neither scutage nor fine 109 for the reason that the king refused to allow them to compound, pre- ferring the service to the money. For a tenant to pay scutage or fine, the king's permission was necessary. 110 That the fine and scutage had different names does not mean that there was anything different in principle between them. Composition in a lump sum was at the time new; it was assessed and in part collected by special officials. Naturally it was given a different name. 111 The separation of the fine from the scutage suggests that the 107 It is possible to cite fines that were enormous in comparison with the full service of the tenant, but with these will be found others which are small. Notice such fines as the following: Hervey Bagot, 20m fine and 120m scutage on 60 fees (Pipe Roll, 4 John, Staff.) ; Doun Bardolf, 60 marks fine on 25 fees (includes scutage at 2m per fee) (ibid., 5 John, Notts, and Derby) ; Geoffrey Fitz Hugh de Scalariis, 50m fine on 15 fees (includes scutage at 3m per fee) (ibid., 14 Henry III, Cant, and Hunt.); Simon de Beauchamp, 100m on about 45 fees (Rot. Cane., p. 354) ; the earl of Warwick, 20m and his scutage on 102ii fees (Pipe Roll, 4 John, War. and Leic.) ; Ralph de Sumery, 20m fine and his scutage on 50 fees (ibid., 7 John, Staff.). IDS "Hubertus filius Radulfi r c de 30 marcis de fine suo" (Pipe Roll, 7 John, Notts, and Derby, sixth scutage) ; as he held 15 fees, this was really a scutage. "Willelmus comes Waren' 120 marc, de fine pro passagio (et) scutagio, qui finis intravit per breve regis" (ibid., 7 John, Norf. and Suff.); the service of the earl was 60 fees and as scutage was at the rate of 2m, this was scutage. "Baldwinus Waac r c de 20 marcis de eodem (fine et scutagio) qui finis intravit per os justiciar'" (ibid., 5 John, Line.). He held 10^ fees and the rate of scutage was 2m, so that this was a scutage. 109 See above, p. 302. no The evidence of this has already been mentioned. It is shown by the use of distraint and disseizin to enforce service, by the fact that a tenant might have to pay a fine instead of a scutage, and by the fact that tenants sought exemption by fines at the opening of the campaign; see also above, pp. 305-307, 312. in Cf. the farm of the county, the increment, and the proficuum. The farms of some of the counties were increased by a sum called 325 STUDIES IN TAXATION two differed in character. The difference however was merely one of form and depended on the bargain which the tenant had made with the king. Sometimes the tenant preferred to pay a lump sum in addition to the scutage; sometimes to pay a sum which should include the scutage. Both arrangements continued side by side throughout the reigns of John and his son. 112 Nor does the separation mean that the tenant in chief paid the fine personally while the king took a scutage from the rear-vassals, unless there was a special agreement, as in the case of the earl of Devon in 1201. 118 The question may be raised whether the heaviest fines were paid by the greater or by the lesser lay tenants. 114 Taking the total amount of the fines in any given year, it will be found that the rate was without exception higher on the lesser than on the greater tenants. 115 That is, considering the fine as a tax on the land and measuring the ability of the tenants to pay by the number of fees increment under Henry II; in 1205, some farms were increased by another sum called the proficuum. Instead of calling the whole sum the farm, each amount was kept separate with its own name. 112 Thus in 1242, both kinds of fines were made (see above, p. 230) ; in the scutage of 1257, the last of Henry Ill's reign, several tenants fined as follows: "Abbas de Abbindon' similiter finem fecit cum rege pro servicio suo quod regi debet -et pro scutagio suo habendo ; habet scutagium suum in comitatibus etc." The title of the section con- taining these names is "De hiis qui fecefunt finem pro servicio suo et pro scutagio habendo" (Scutage Rolls, no. 8). us See above, p. 39. Robert Fitz Walter in 1205 fined in 20 marks and all his scutage which was collected by himself (Rot. Lift. Claus., I, 43b). 11* The term fine is used here to mean the total amount of composi- tion charged against those tenants who fined, not the amount over and above their scutage. The statements which follow in the text relate only to lay tenants. us See above, pp. 23, 36, 48, 55, 65, 71, 78, 98, 185. It is how- ever pos'sible to cite examples of fines on great tenants which are as high in rate as the average rate of fines on the lesser tenants (see above, pp. 66, 99, 188, 229). 326 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III which they held, it will be found that the burden of the fines always fell on the lesser tenants. But there is another phase of the question to be considered. The fine was the composition for service and the quotas which the tenants led to the host had become reduced. Now if we divide the amount of money paid by a great tenant in either scutage or fine by the number of knights which he would have supplied had he served, we find that the rate of composition per knight furnished was very high in the scutage as well as in the fine. 1 " From this point of view, the fine may have been heavier on the greater than on the lesser tenant. All the fines seem to have become heavier in John's reign as time went on, till we reach the Irish scutage when the great barons paid very heavy fines and the lesser tenants averaged ten marks per fee. 117 Yet this policy did not continue; after 1210, John levied no more fines on the tenants as a whole. Why some men paid fines and others scutage is not clear. Perhaps those men who were charged with scutage performed part of their service in addition, 118 or paid a fine which is nowhere entered. Yet it might be expected that John would not be able, indeed probably would not try, to substitute at one stroke the new way of composition for the old. Sometimes the fine was little greater than the scutage, an indication that there was a gradation in composition beginning with the scutage and rising through fines of varying amounts. 1 " In the first four levies of Henry Ill's reign, the scutage was the entire composition for service, 120 but in 1229, the us See below, p. 363. H7 See above, p. 99. us There are some cases in which this seems to be true (see above, pp. 24, 38, 99, 286). n See above, p. 324. 120 Scutages of Biham, Wales, Bedford, and Kerry (see above, pp. 139, 144, 151, 175). Perhaps there were some fines in the 327 STUDIES IN TAXATION king began to levy fines as well as scutages, though not as an invariable rule, for no fines were levied in 1231. 121 Fines were taken for campaigns in which scutage did not run, though some of these were afterwards pardoned. 122 The levy of 1253 was an aid to knight the king's son, and not a strict scutage, so that it had no connection with the campaign in Gascony of that year. Fines were how- ever taken from tenants who did not perform their ser- vice. 123 Only in 1229 and 1242 was the number of fines considerable that was entered in the roll. As under John, the scutage was sometimes the full commutation for ser- vice, though at times a fine was paid in addition and in other cases the scutage was replaced by a fine. In general, tenants who had performed partial service made no pay- ment at all. 124 It is possible to quote examples of very heavy fines, but as a rule, the amount paid over and above the scutage was not as heavy as in some of John's levies. 12 ' As before, the burden of the fines fell on the lesser ten- ants. 126 The fine was collected at the beginning of the campaign, thus showing that it was not an amercement on the tenant who had failed to serve, but was a commu- tation for the service, like the scutage. 127 Thus the scu- tage did not become a general tax on knights' fees, payable to the king, but retained its original character as the commutation for service, though the fine often replaced it. There was however a tendency to make the campaign of Bedford, but they were not generally taken. The levy of 1217 is not here included, for it was an aid, not a scutage in the strict sense. 121 See above, p. 191. 122 See above, pp. 206, 240. 123 See above, p. 255. No scutage was taken for that campaign. 124 See above, pp. 150, 174, 193, 196, 226, 246. 125 Cf. the rate of the fines in 1229 with that of 1210 (see above, pp. 98, 185). 126 See above, p. 185. 127 See above, pp. 187, 206, 228, 255. 328 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III scutage and the fine different in character, the former to be a tax on the rear-vassals, the latter the composition of the tenant in chief for his service. This tendency is shown by the levy of fines for campaigns when no scutage was taken and by the separation of the fine from the scutage to such an extent that in 1242 a roll was drawn up containing scutage only. 128 The tenant in chief therefore discharged his obligation of military service in one of three ways : he performed the service, he paid a scutage, or he paid a fine. 129 To fulfil his duty to the king, he relied on his tenants, for they formed part at least of the men whom he led to the host. 130 If he performed all his service, he made no payment to the exchequer. If he furnished what the king considered a reasonable fraction of his nominal service, no money would be demanded of him. But the matter did not stop with a settlement of this obligation. The king granted the tenant in chief a writ de scutagio habendo, giving him the power to collect the scutage from his vassals and instructed the sheriff to assist him with distraint in obtaining it. Tenants in chief who fined and those who paid scutage only received the same writ. Thus the scutage fell back on the rear-vassal. The nature of the obligation of these men must be carefully stated. If the rear-vassal had performed his service, he owed no scutage, whatever bargain had been made between the king and his lord. Sometimes a writ of scutage especially exempted 128 See above, p. 228. 129 The tenant might fulfil his obligation partly in one way and partly in another; he might pay part of his scutage and perform part of his service (see above, note 118). iso Disseizin of a rear-vassal by his lord, Geoffrey Fitz Peter, for failure to serve (Rot. Lift. Claus., I, 148a) ; see above, pp. 307, 308, note 35. Rear-vassals are acquitted of paying scutage to their lords evidently because they have performed their service (see above, pp. 140, 175, 195). STUDIES IN TAXATION him. 131 He owed scutage not to the king, but to his lord. 132 Now, though the scutage was owed to the lord, the latter could not collect it without a royal writ. 133 In this way the king had a check on the tenants in chief. But the writ was important in another way, for the tenant sometimes could not force his vassals to pay without the king's aid. 134 The necessity for this assistance is shown by the fact that when there was a dispute over the scu- tage between the tenant in chief and his vassal, the case had to be brought before the king's court. The baronial courts were not sufficiently powerful. Thus when the abbot Samson and his tenants quarreled over their liability for scutage, the case was tried in the royal court. 135 It follows that the king would not collect from his tenants unless they had collected from their vassals. 13 * The isi See above, p. 140. 132 Because he owed service to the lord. If he paid scutage to the king, the presumption was that the fee was held of the king. See the case in 1208 in which a tenant paid scutage to the king, but made homage to another. He was summoned to court to show by what warrant he made homage to another when he made the service of the fee to the king: "Ricardus films Guarneri affidavit facere pacem de 20 solidis de quinto scutagio. Idem R. tenet feodum de Seirico de (Lacy?) unde reddet scutagium ad scaccarium et inde fecit homagium suum praedicto Seirico de Lacy. Et ideo datus est ei dies ad clausum Paschae, ut ostendat quo waranto fecerit homagium suum Seirico de feodo unde facit servicium domino regi" (Exch. L. T. R., bundle 1, no. 4, m. 8a or 7). iss This seems to be shown by the fact that the king continually issued such writs. In 1305, the king was petitioned to grant the barons these writs for wars in which they (the barons) had per- formed their service (Memoranda de Parlamento, p. 122). 134 See above, pp. 31, note 58; 76, 140, 147, 152, 188, 194, 198, 231, 235, 248, 321. iss The abbot of Abingdon sued Peter Fitz Herbert for scutage (Close Rolls, II, 154) ; the bishop of Bath sued William de Ferrar who refused payment (ibid., I, 512) ; cf. Bracton, Note Book, cases 190, 202, 664, 1049, 1674, 1687. ise See the case in 1233 in which the tenant declares that he had not collected his scutage and the sheriff is ordered not to distrain 330 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III tenant in chief collected scutage from all the knights whom he had enfeoffed, but he paid the exchequer only on a customary number, usually only the servitium debi- tum or the old enfeoffment. Sometimes therefore he made a profit on the scutage. 137 By the inquests of 1166, the king had tried to get the benefit of the extra enfeoffments. As a rule he was not successful in obtaining scutage from the new enfeoffment, when it exceeded the servitium debi- tum. 13S If however the barony was in hand, the king collected from all the knights enfeoffed. 13 ' Thus the rear-vassal was responsible for the scutage, but he was not liable for the part of the fine which was over and above the scutage. Ordinarily that came out of the coffers of the tenant in chief. What the writ de scutagio habendo stated was that the lord was to have scutage. 14C Sometimes the rate was mentioned, which was the same as the rate of scutage of the year. 141 When the fine and the scutage were separated, the latter only was to be collected from the rear-vassal. 1 * 2 When a rear- vassal was exempted by the king from paying while his lord was charged with a fine, the sub-tenant was pardoned scutage only and that was the amount deducted from his him: "Mandatum est vicecomiti Lincoln' quod non distringat Hugo- nem de NevilF pro scutagio exercitus Pictaviae post etc. reddendo de feodis militurn que de rege tenet in capite in balliva sua de quo colligendo non habuit breve regis, nee illud collegit, ut dicit" (Close Rolls, II, 201); see above, pp. 104, 195, 321, note 90. 137 Thus in 1198, the abbot Samson owed the service of 40 knights to the king and tried to collect scutage on 50 knights whom he had enfeoffed. The knights claimed that they owed scutage on 40 fees only. The abbot won his case in the king's court (Chron. Joe. de Brak., p. 63) ; that the tenant collected on all the knights enfeoffed is implied in note 139. "8 See above, p. 301. "9 See above, pp. 43, 52, 104. i 40 See above, p. 75. i See above, pp. 43, 188, note 56. 1*2 See above, p. 75, note 319. 381 STUDIES IN TAXATION lord's fine. 143 A method remained however by which the lord could shift the fine to his tenant: by a royal writ granting him permission to collect an aid from his men. 14 * The aid would in theory not be obligatory on the sub- tenant. How generally such permission was granted by the king, it is impossible to say; only a few cases have come down to us. The fine therefore bore with especial force on the tenants in chief and probably for this reason they were opposed to it. John was not content with collecting scutage from all the knights enfeoffed, when an honor fell into his hand. In addition he collected heavy fines as though the sub-tenants were tenants in chief. 145 This was a cause for complaint. 146 Henry III abandoned his father's policy, except in the case of honors which had been long in hand. 147 From the point of view of the exchequer, the scutage did not become a general tax in the reign of John or his son. It remained the composition for service. But from the point of view of tenants, both tenants in chief and rear-vassals, it did not fall much short, if at all, of being a tax on all the fees held by military service in the realm. Scutage was of course paid by all men holding by military service on the lands of those tenants in chief who paid fine or scutage to the exchequer. The rest of the tenants in chief performed service and so made no payment to the king. Those of their vassals however who had not performed their service in the host had to pay us See above, pp. 60, note 236; 80, note 352; 188, note 56; 207. i** See above, pp. 66, 206, 240, 286. i See above, pp. 36, 48, 55, 65, 71, 78, 95. i4 Is this not legislated against in Magna Carta, cap. 16? "Nullus distringatur ad faciendum majus servitium de feudo militis, nee de alio libero tenemento, quam inde debetur." i Cf. the king's letter concerning the scutage of the tenants of the earl of Devon in 1224 (see above, p. 152). Fines were paid by tenants on such honors as Mortain (Pipe Roll, 14 Henry III, Dors, and Somers.). 332 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III scutage to their lords. But the reduction in the amount of service which each tenant in chief furnished the king means that a large part of the rear-vassals paid scutage instead of serving, though the payment was made to their lords, not to the king. 148 The service did not stop with the immediate vassal of the tenant in chief. 149 The sub- tenants of lower rank would be still more likely to pay scutage than to serve, for their holdings would be smaller. The tendency may be illustrated by the fact that tenants in letting land arranged for the incidence of scutage which was called the service of the fee. 15C The tenures of these 1*8 See above, p. 302. 14 9 Tenants on honors in hand collected scutage from their vassals ; e. g., above, p. 66, note 268. Here is an example of a long chain of tenants: "Haec est inquisicio facta de scutagio in comitatu Wigorn' per sacramentum Simon' de Frankeleg et (11 others). In Holreton' dimid' feod' quod Ricardus de Karsy tenet de Willelmo de Wasse- burn, Willelmus de Rogero de Clifford, Rogerum de Waltero Clifford, Walterum de Willelmo de Stutevill, ipse de domino rege" (Testa, p. 39a). Bracton, Note Book, cases 657, 660, 1211. Geoffrey de Mandevill paid scutage on one fee which he held of Robert de St. John, who held it of the abbot of Hyde who held it of the king (Exch. L. T. R. Mem. Roll, 27 Henry III, m. 7); Michael Belet paid scutage on three fees which he held of William de Say and he of the earl Warenne and he of the king (ibid., m. 7 d). 150 Stephen de Croherst holds land of Roland de Acsted for 4 shillings per annum and 2 shillings "ad scutagium quando scutagium eveniret, scilicet 2 solidos ad 2 marcas et ad plus plus et ad minus minus" (Bracton, N. B., case 477) ; one Gilbert gave to Simon land for the yearly service of one pair of gilt spurs or 6d at Easter and performing at a scutage of 20 shillings, when any should happen, Id, and so proportionately more or less (Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, xxxix, 92, 30 Henry III). Adam granted to Robert land for the forinsec service belonging to one carucate, whereof 9^ carucates make one fee, at a scutage only, for all service (ibid., p. 104) ; Richard le Boteler gave to Waltheve de Waleton 2 bovates of land by knight service where 10 carucates of land make the fee of one knight (ibid., xlviii, 10). "tenuit idem Walterus de Gretona terram illam per servicium militare . . . reddendo inde per annum xii d et faciendo servicium forinsecum, scilicet ad scutagium viginti solidorum iii den. et ad plus plus et ad minus minus" (Bracton, N. B., case 33; also cases 288, 361, 477, 795). 333 STUDIES IN TAXATION men were called military, though they did not have to perform military service. All this suggests that at some point in the feudal ladder, every fee in the kingdom was held by a man whose tenure was military, yet who did not and was not expected to perform military service, except by paying scutage. From the standpoint of these men of different grades, the king's summons to the host was merely the occasion for the levy of a tax. The existence of the scutage as a general tax on the rear-vassals helps to explain the feeling in the thirteenth century that the increase in the rate and the greater frequency of the levy was a burden under John. Such a feeling would not be confined to rear-vassals, but would animate tenants in chief as well, though the majority of the latter usually performed their service in the field, for they would find it increasingly difficult to collect from their men. 151 Moreover, if discontent were aroused, it would all be directed against the king, for he was the cause of the levy. 152 isi This feeling of the rear-vassals and its influence is a matter of conjecture. There are cases when rear-vassals resist the collection of scutage, but one cannot safely generalize from them (see above, p. 321). The cases cited above in which men were enfeoffed for a payment of scutage will illustrate the feeling of the sub-tenant. They usually were to pay scutage as often as it should run, and not at a fixed rate, but at so much and ad plus plus et ad minus minus. When the scutage was only an occasional levy as under Henry II and was never taken at more than 20s, as was the case for years, the amount of such an additional rent would be clearly under- stood; when however these men who had enfeoffed for such amounts found that sometimes they had to pay every year and at a much higher rate, it is likely that they would be discontented. 152 The king decided on the war and summoned the host. He levied the scutage, he gave tenants permits to collect scutage from their vassals, and his officer distrained those of the latter who were unwilling or were slow to pay; sometimes the king collected it directly from the sub- tenant for the exchequer. It was to the king that the rear-vassal could appeal if his lord tried to collect scutage from him unjustly. Thus the whole levy centered in the king. 334 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III Part of the scutage and fine was paid at the exchequer, and part of it was paid either to the king himself, "in camera," into the wardrobe, or to the sheriff. 153 How was the money collected? When the scutage was put in charge, did the sheriff immediately begin to collect it from the rear-vassals, or did he deal with the tenant in chief? Two varieties of cases arose: that of the tenant in chief who performed his service and that of the tenant who paid a fine or scutage. Sometimes the sheriff collected scutage from the rear-vassals of the tenant who had served, but in general such a tenant received a writ from the king (de scutagio habendo) allowing him his scutage in whole or in part. Such a writ covered all his fees. 154 The sheriff had his work to do here. He aided the tenant with distraint, if necessary; he reported the number of his fees at the exchequer and he certified to the exchequer barons that the tenant had received a writ of quittance. 155 When the tenant in chief owed fine or scutage, there are cases in which the sheriff seems to have collected from the rear-vassals. 156 But the normal method is probably given in the instructions for the levy of the aid of 1217. Those tenants who desired it obtained a royal writ to collect from their vassals. If they failed to do this, the sheriff entered their lands and collected the aid from the rear- vassals. 157 It is not possible to prove that the tenant in chief would ordinarily prefer to secure such a writ, but probably that was the case, for such a writ would keep the king's official off his land. Tenants were con- tinually receiving these writs. 158 Throughout the period, 153 E. g., see above, pp. 28, 29, 44, 146. 154 See above, p. 318. 155 See above, pp. 29, 30, 152, 318 ff . 156 See above, p. 321. 157 See above, p. 128. iss See above, pp. 140, 147, 152, 230, 319. See also such writs for the scutage of Kerry in Fine Roll, 13 Henry III, m. 12, 13; 335 STUDIES IN TAXATION stewards of tenants in chief were summoned to appear at the exchequer to account for the scutage of their lords. 156 The charge in the Pipe Roll was always against the tenant in chief, never against the rear-vassal, except sometimes when the barony was in hand. 160 Rear-vassals of whom scutage was demanded by the sheriff for the exchequer protested that they were not tenants in chief and the demand was remitted. 161 When a tenant in chief refused to fine, he was disseized, or distrained, and for the time nothing was collected from his land. 162 When a scutage was paid to the overlord, the presumption was that the fee was held directly of him. 163 Tenants in chief for the scutage of Poitou of 1231 in Fine Roll, 15 Henry III, part I, m. 6, 7, 8; for the scutage of Elveyn, ibid., 16 Henry III, m. 7. 159 "Ricardus del Estre debet xvi sol. et viii den. de primo scutagio Regis Ricardi . . . senescallus ejus affidavit facere pacem et non venit; in termino pasch' " (Exch. L. T. R. bundle 1, no. 3, Mem. Roll, 1 John, m. 17). See also Simon de Charterai, steward of William de Braose (ibid., m. 19, m. 19 d). "Hugo de Morba senescallus Henrici de Trasci aff' facere pacem de L marc, et Him. de scutagio suo sicut vicecomes dicit et non venit" (ibid., m. 19 d). See also the cases of summons of stewards of Eustace de Vescy, Robert Fitz Walter, Aubrey de Ver, Joskin de Nevill, Earl Ferrers (Exch. L. T. R., bundle 1, no. 4, Mem. Roll, 10 John, m. 4a dorso, 8a, lla). "Hamo Pech' debet xiiii li. viii sol. x den. de scutagio Regis H. tercii, de scutagio Walliae xx marc.; senescallus ejus R. de Craweden' aff. que fac' pacem de praedicto debito" (Proceedings of His Majesty's Com- missioners on the Public Records, 1832-1833, ed. C. P. Cooper, Record Com., p. 455; Mem. Roll, K. R., 3 Henry III) ; other references to the stewards on pp. 385, 392, 459. "Humfr' de Bohun debet xxii li. et 1 marc, de scutagio pictaviae; Robertus de Suham senescallus afF. Fiant brevia et colligatur illud scutagium" (Exch. L. T. R., Mem. Roll, 9 Henry III, m. 9 d). See references to stewards of Hugh de Nevill, William Fitz Hamon, Robert Fitz Walter, the heir of Robert de Ver, the earl of Chester (ibid., 27 Henry III, m. 13 d, 14, 15, 15 d, 16); see also William Marshal (ibid., 28 Henry III, m. 16); Cristiana Ledet (ibid., 40 Henry III, m. 21). 160 See above, p. 42. 161 See above, p. 319. 162 See above, pp. 31, 67, 74, 99. 163 See above, p. 330. It was to the interest of the mesne lord to defend those tenants who owed no scutage against the distraint 336 were charged with scutage in more than one county, yet the amount due in one county might be paid in another. 164 It is likely therefore that in ordinary cases, when the pay- ment of scutage was not too long delayed, the sheriff dealt with the tenant in chief rather than with the rear-vassal. Besides the sums which were paid to the sheriff and for which he accounted to the exchequer, some payments were made by tenants in chief directly to the exchequer. 165 Possibly some of the fines were paid to special justices who had levied them. 166 The question may be raised whether the king when he came to distrain for his scutage paid any attention to the arrangements by which tenants in chief and sub-tenants had distributed the incidence of scutage and service. According to the law, every part of the tenement was responsible to the king for the whole of the service due from the tenement. 167 Consequently the king in order to get his scutage could enter any holding which owed military service and distrain any property which he found there. 168 Yet some attention was paid to arrangements of the sub-tenants. If the rear-vassal had paid his lord the scutage, he would not be distrained. 168 of the overlord; otherwise, he might lose those lands which would then hold directly of the former overlord (Bracton, Note Book, cases 563, 674, 1622). 164 See above, pp. 29, 41, 51, 59, 75, 81. iss See above, p. 320. IBS See above, pp. 44, 53, 61. i7 Pollock and Maitland, I, 261. is Bracton, Note Book, cases 202, 657, 660, 674, 1146, 1211. leg "Milites tenentes de honore de Stafford' venerunt ad scacca- rium . . . Omnes dicunt quod soluerunt scutagia regis domine Mili- sente . . . Mandatum est vicecomiti quod non distringat eos" (Exch., L. T. R., Mem. Roll, 5 Henry III, m. 1 d). "Mandatum est vicecomiti quod distringat milites tenentes de abbatia Sancti Augustini Cantuar' in bailiva sua ad reddendum eidem abbati scutagium de Biham nisi habeant quietanciam per breve regis vel nisi fuerint in exercitu" (ibid., 6 Henry III, m. 2 d). "Mandatum est vicecomiti quod pacem habere permittat Willelmo de Gernun de demanda scutagii de terris que tenet de Ernulfo de Maundevill' quas idem Ernulfus tenet de 337 STUDIES IN TAXATION If he had neither paid nor performed his service, then both he and his lord might be distrained, though the rear- vassal was only responsible for the amount due from his holding. 170 About three-fourths of the fine and scutage entered under John is recorded as paid in the first two years after the levy. 171 In Henry Ill's reign, the proportion is still less. 172 After the first two years, little scutage is recorded as paid. The debts ran on for years. 173 Payments were made and the scutage pardoned long after the levy was put in charge. This means that the machinery for com- pelling payment was inefficient, a condition true with reference to other debts owed to the crown. What authority had the king for the levy of a scutage? The question that arises is whether the king took it by virtue of a right which he possessed as feudal lord, or whether, as in the case of the aids, he could levy it only by the consent of his tenants. It seems unquestionable that the king took the scutage as his due. In the first place, by the terms of the feudal contract, the tenant in domino rege in capite quia idem Ernulfus debet inde respondere" (ibid., 7 Henry III, m. 12). See the case of Robert le Buteiler (ibid., 27 Henry III, m. 2) ; of Geoffrey de MandevilT (ibid., m. 7) ; of Michael Belet (ibid., m. 7 d) ; of the abbot of Beaulieu (ibid., m. 8 d) ; of the tenants of the bishop of Durham (ibid., 39 Henry III, m. 13). This was the custom under Henry II (Dialogus de Scaccario, ed. Hughes, Crump and Johnson, p. 148). 170 That both might be distrained, see the Dialogus, above, note 169; that the rear-vassal only for the amount due from his holding, Bracton, Note Book, cases 624, 657, 1146. 171 See above, pp. 23, 36, 48, 55, 65, 71, 78, 98, 102. "2 See above, pp. 139, 144, 150, 174, 185, 191, 197, 248. 173 The abbot of Ramsey paid the first scutage of John in 1205 ; the abbot of Westminster in 1207; Eustace de Balliol paid on the same scutage 15 in 1208 and 10 18s 8d in 1209; in 1227, the bishop of Salisbury was pardoned sums due for the first six scutages of John because of services performed for Henry III (Rot. Litt. Claus., II, 195a); in 1251, scutage of Elveyn (1231) was pardoned a tenant (Excerpta, II, 102, 157). 338 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III chief was bound to serve the king in war. If he failed to perform this service, he failed to keep his contract and his fee was technically forfeit. The king would have an undoubted right to a money composition. There was therefore in the scutage no question of the consent of the tenant. In the second place, to say that the tenants granted the scutage is to say that scutage was an aid. Such a statement involves a difficulty at once. Many scutages were declared at the close of a campaign in the presence of the host. Those present would not as a rule pay, for they had performed their service. The scutage thus would be granted by the men who did not pay it at all, or in other words, the barons throughout Henry Ill's reign acknowledged the validity of the principle that the consent to a tax of those present bound those who were not present. When however we examine the history of the aids, we find that even at the close of Henry Ill's reign, the tenants in chief doubted their right to levy aids on the property of absentees. 174 Hence we may question whether consent was involved in taking scutage. Furthermore, for thirty years after 1237, the barons refused to grant the king aids. 175 Yet during this time, three scutages were levied. 176 In view of the attitude of the barons toward extraordinary taxation at this time, and considering the fact that these scutages were the composition for service, it seems clear that the power to take them rested in the king's right to military service rather than in a grant by his tenants. Although this is true, there yet remain other questions which need answer- ing, particularly in the case of a king like John who insisted on his rights to the utmost. The king had the 174 See below, p. 388. ITS Two aids were levied in this period, that of 1245 to marry the king's daughter, and that of 1253, to knight his eldest son; they were obligatory. i 1242, 1246, 1257. STUDIES IN TAXATION right to levy the scutage, but could he arbitrarily deter- mine the rate? Could he levy it on some men while others were not asked for either service or scutage? Could he levy fines as well? Was he the only one to decide when scutage was legally due? The expansion of the king's power along these lines led to the provisions introduced into Magna Carta. 177 The tallage was levied on the royal demesne, including all demesne cities and boroughs. It was owed to the king, though he was not unrestricted in taking it. On an aver- age he levied a tallage only once in three years. 178 Tallage was not always the correlative of the scutage, to the extent that when the scutage was taken from the military tenants, a tallage was levied on the demesne. This was done in many cases, but in many other instances, tallage was levied when no scutage was taken and scutage when there was no tallage, so that it is fair to say that the two levies were independent of each other. John levied both scutage and tallage in six or perhaps eight cases ; 179 he levied no tallage when he took scutage in at least three cases. 180 Henry III levied both scutage (or an aid on knights' fees) and tallage four times. 181 He levied scutage and no tallege nine times, 182 and tallage, but no scutage, eleven times. 183 When the king took an aid from the tenants by military service, he took a tallage from the demesne. This was the case in 1217, 1235, and 1245. 18 * In 1253, no tallage was levied, although there was an aid 177 See below, p. 361. 178 John took a tallage six or eight times in 17 years ; Henry III 15 times in 56 years. ITS In 1199, 1202, 1204, 1206, 1210, 1214, and perhaps in 1203 and 1205: See index: tallages, list of. iso 1201, 1209, 1211. isi 1217, 1229, 1235, 1245. 182 1221, 1223, 1224, 1228, 1231, 1232, 1242, 1246, 1257. iss 1223, 1227, 1234, 1238, 1241, 1249, 1252, 1255, 1260, 1268, 1269. is* See above, pp. 128, 213, 249. 340 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III to knight the king's son. The omission was doubtless due to the fact that a tallage which had not yet been fully collected was levied in 1252. The king however asked the towns to make him a gracious aid for the expedition to Gascony. 181 The demesne paid the new taxes on property. 188 In 1237 and 1270, however, the towns paid a tallage instead of the thirtieth and twentieth. 187 The scutage never became fixed at a certain rate, yet its variations were within limits. As the tallage was always levied in a lump sum, its variations could not have the regular character of the scutage. Yet with the exception of the tallages of 1210, there is a sort of limit beyond which the king did not go in the amount which he took from the towns. 188 Just as the rate of scutage iss See above, p. 256. 186 in 1207, 1225, and 1232; probably part of the demesne them in 1237 and 1270, that is, the part outside the towns. IST See above, pp. 219, 297. paid 188 1199 1205 1206 1210 1214 m m m m m Worcester 40 40 70 500 150 Gloucester 120 80 60 500 Bristol 350 468-12-8 150 1000 750 Winchester 400 62 700 200 Norwich 150 105 50 Cambridge 20-3-0 60-9-8 150 150 Huntingdon 10-14-4 21-2-2 100 30 Northampton 60-18-0 1791 600 400 Lincoln 250 3832 750 Hereford 100 50 30 300 200 Newcastle 100 139 300 Derby 15-4-0 60 Nottingham 12-4-0 20 100 Oxford 100 87-14-4 500 300 York . 300 4103 150 500 Salop 60 50 60 200 Southampton 120 120 35 40 40 Canterbury 100 60 300 London 1500* 2000 2000 1 179m 12s 8d in Pipe Roll of 5 John. 2 383m 8s 8d in Pipe Roll of 4 John. a In Pipe Roll of 6 John ; in 5 John there is a tallage of 500 marks on York. * In Pipe Roll of 6 John. 341 STUDIES IN TAXATION increased toward the close of Henry Ill's reign, so the tallages seem to have become heavier. In Henry IPs reign, the tallage was levied by the itinerant justices. 189 The same method continued in the thirteenth century. The itinerant justices, justices of assize, or some other royal official specially assigned to this work, made the levy, often, perhaps always, aided by the sheriff. 190 The method of assessment which is *88 (Continued) 1223 1227 1230 1234 1235 1241 1245 1252 1255 m m m m m m m m m Worcester 50 40 50 50 50 80 100 135 Gloucester 60 100 60 100 80 80 100 140 Bristol . 300 250 300 150 400 430 Winchester 100 60 200 200 220 Norwich 150 150 150 75 50 120 168i 1779 Cambridge 25 100 60 60 45 592 95 Huntingdon . 15 30 20 30 25 203 36 Northampton 100 300 180 100 150 200 200 158* Lincoln . 300 400 150 120 160 200 1545 300 Hereford 120 60 100 132 Newcastle 180 150 150 100 100 100 100 Derby . 50 30 30 30 20 55 356 60 Nottingham . 100 60 60 50 40 60 41T 75 Oxford 200 300 150 150 200 270 300 York . 300 500 300 300 500 500 Salop 100 300 70 100 40 60 120 160 Southampton 60 60 100 300 200 210 Canterbury . 100 75 100 100 120 London . 1600 4120 1000 1000 1500 2000 10008 3000 1 168 18s 4d. 2 59 5s. s 20 11s Id. * 158 15s 8d. s 154 4s 8d. 35 3s 4d. 7 41 6s 8d. s 1,000m of silver and 20m gold (Pipe Roll, 37 Henry III, m. 4 d). 177 10s. 189 See above, p. 2. i See above, pp. 31, 45, 47, 61, and index: tallage. 342 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III described in the Dialogus was followed. A town either paid a lump sum or was tallaged by the justices per capita. If the sum offered by the town was not sufficient, the citizens had to increase it till the royal officers were satisfied, or be tallaged per capita. 191 Men outside the towns might pay per capita; 192 a vill or hundred might fine in a lump sum. 192 Property however was not to be assessed. 194 Religious houses which held land by military tenure paid fine or scutage. Sometimes the fine was called a donum. 19E When a scutage was taken, or an aid on knights' fees, the king might ask religious houses which did not hold by knights' service to grant him an auxilium or a donum. John did this four times in connection with scutages. 19e Henry III took a donum from religious houses in connection with the aids of 1235 and 1245, 197 and when he went to Gascony. 198 He took one donum from them when no scutage or aid was levied. 195 The amounts raised in this way were often considerable. 200 The scutages, fines, and tallages were sometimes suffi- cient to defray the cost of a campaign. In 1210, these levies yielded not far from 25,000 marks, 201 a sum which would probably pay the expenses of the expedition to Ireland. Usually however they fell short of supplying the necessary money. As the king did not always levy i9i See above, pp. 32, 68, 76, 82, 148, 172, 207. i2 See above, pp. 45, 61, 82, 100, 128, 148. 193 See above, pp. 32, 61, 76, 82, 128. 194 This is indicated by the lump suras which individuals and towns paid. 195 See above, pp. 32, 61. 196 See above, pp. 32, 61, 68, 70, 77. 197 See above, pp. 212, 244. 198 See above, pp. 190, 237, 255. 199 See above, p. 249. 200 See above, notes 196-199. 201 See above, p. 98 ff. 343 STUDIES IN TAXATION a tallage, he often had only the scutage to increase his income. In 1214, John took with him at least 40,000 marks, not counting money which he sent to Flanders; the scutage and tallage (amount charged not paid) amounted to about 18,000 marks. 202 The campaign of Bedford cost about 2,000 marks, while the scutage on laymen amounted to about 1,350 marks, of which 300 marks were paid in 1224 and 1225. 203 The expedition of 1225 cost at least 36,000; that of 1242, about 60,000 marks; that of 1253, at least 45,000 marks. 204 It is not possible to state exactly the total income of either John or his son, but it is quite evident that the former was well supplied with money during the greater part of his reign. In 1200, he was able to pay 20,000 marks to Philip. 205 In 1204, he is said to have sent much money to Poitou. 206 In 1206, he had a large sum on hand in the autumn at the close of his long campaign in France. 207 The thirteenth of 1207 brought in at least 60,000. 208 In 1208, the king had 40,000 marks at Winchester. 209 In 1212, he was keeping at the single castle of Nottingham over 50,000 marks. 210 In the last half of the year 1213 and the early part of 1214, there are notices, which do not seem to be duplicates, of over 202 See above, pp. 110-118. 203 See above, pp. 150, 159. 204 See above, pp. 168, 238, 260. 205 See above, pp. 32, 34. For 1203, see Powicke, p. 348. 20628,000 marks (Cogg., p. 147); Davis, Normans and Angevint, Oman Series, p. 345, says, "This is preposterous." 207 See above, p. 82. 208 See above, p. 91. 209 "et in liberationibus thesaurarii et camerariorum qui moram fecerunt apud Winton' ad numerandum xl millia marcarum ibidem" (Pipe Roll, 10 John, Hants, m. 6 d). 210 Thus on July 26 he sent there from Bristol over 48,000 marks and he acknowledged the receipt at Nottingham of 3,900m from London on August 19 (Rot. Litt. Glaus., I, 122a, 123b) ; there is a sum of 18,000m received at Merleberg (ibid., 116b). 344 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III 80,000 marks of money on hand. 211 Unlike his father, Henry III was always short of money when he had no grant from the great council. 212 This lack was due in part to his extravagance and bad management 213 and in part to the expense of certain outside interests : Gascony, Sicily, and his sister's marriage. But these explanations are not sufficient; his predecessors also had a share in foreign affairs, yet they levied few aids. Two other causes helped to bring about the financial troubles of Henry III : a rise in prices 21 * and the reduction by Magna Carta of the ordinary income of the king. 215 The origin of modern taxation is not to be found in the development of scutage from its original character as a 2 n In July, 10,000m and in August 2,000m were to be sent from the Templars in London to Flanders (Rot. Litt. Claris., I, 145b; Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 103b); the king had left 20,000m at the Temple to be drawn on for this purpose (Rot. Litt. Glaus., I, 136b; Rot. Litt. Pat., p. lOOb) ; in August, 5,410m were sent to Poitou (Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 102b) ; in December, 1213, and January, 1214, 27,000m were paid to the clergy (see above, p. 109) ; and the king took 40,000m with him to France in February, 1214 (see above, p. 110) ; this gives a total of over 84,000 marks. There is an entry in the Close Roll which mentions three items footing up to 120,000 marks, but the sums may not be mutually exclusive: "et pro cariagio quin- quaginta millia marcarum a Bristoll' usque Divis' per Thomam de Saunford' C sol. . . . et Hugoni de NevilP xv li. ad liberaciones faciendas quinquaginta et duarum quadrigarum qui portaverunt xx millia marcarum ... a Bristoll' usque Cant' . . . Item pro cariagio xv carectarum qui portaverunt thesaurum nostrum scilicet L milia marcarum a Bristoll' usque Corf" (Rot. Litt. Claw., I, 152b). 212 See index: Henry III. 213 The most striking case of his lack of foresight is in the Sicilian affair. He had for several years been short of money although at the time he had had no great extraordinary expense; he had just concluded an expensive campaign in Gascony partly on borrowed money. Yet he agreed to pay the pope 135,000 marks for expenses which the papacy had already incurred in Sicily with no certainty that he would be able to use any of the tenth of 1254 to pay this debt (see above, p. 274). 214 Ramsay, Dawn of the Constitution, p. 301. 215 See above, p. 119. 345 STUDIES IN TAXATION commutation of military service into a general tax on all fees levied by the exchequer whenever the king waged war. The scutage retained its original character throughout Henry Ill's reign and continued to be levied without difficulty while the king and his barons were struggling over the question of taxation. 218 The source of modern taxation was the feudal aid, the voluntary contribution which the vassal made to relieve the wants of his lord. There were certain aids which were not voluntary, but which were fixed by the feudal law. In France, there were the three regular aids, to which was added later the aid for the crusade. 217 In Normandy, the vassal owed aids for the lord's relief, the marriage of his daughter, and the knighting of his eldest son. 218 In the Latin king- dom of Jerusalem, the king could levy an aid to provide for his ransom and to pay a debt incurred for the general welfare. 219 The aids in England were fixed by Magna Carta at three, 220 but the previous practice recognized an aid to pay relief. 221 It is however not with the aids which had become fixed that we are chiefly concerned, but with those which still remained voluntary, the gracious aids. Examples of these aids appear under Henry II, granted by the tenants to their lords for expenses on trips abroad on the king's service, for war, to pay the lord's debts, and simply as auanlium, made gratis, bona voluntate. 22 ' 216 In 1242, 1246, and 1258. 217 Esmein, Cours eUmentaire du droit fran^ais, ed. 1901, p. 190. 218 Tres ancien coutumier, cap. 47, 48; also, to ransom the lord, Ancien coutumier, cap. 33. 219 Dodu, Institutions monarchiques dans le royaume latin de Jerusalem, p. 249. 220 Cap. 12. 22iGlanvill, cap. 4, 8; Stubbs, Select Charters, p. 163. 222 R e d Book, II, cclxvii-lxxx, Appendix A. The date of the returns is 1170 (Round, Commune of London, p. 125). "Quando comes perexit ad servandas les Marches de Wales pluribus vicibus, scilicet, homines de domenio suo dederunt 100 solidos; et Ricardus films Atrac et sui pares de uno socagio dederunt 3 marcas gratis. . . . Sed postea 346 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III They continued in John's reign. Isabella de Bolebec paid 300 marks and three palfreys for certain privileges and to have a reasonable aid from her tenants to pay this fine. 225 Warren Fitz Gerold had a reasonable aid to pay his debts. 224 The abbot of Westminster had a reasonable aid from his free tenants secundum quantitatem tenemen- torum suorum to pay the aid promised by him to the king; 220 likewise the prior of Acra. 226 Such permits except in the three regular cases were forbidden by Magna Carta of 1215 (cap. 15), but the article was dropped in reissues of the charter. Henry III issued numerous writs requesting the tenants of his vassals to make their lords an aid. Though in theory these aids were of grace, the frequency with which the king made such requests for the benefit of his vassals suggests that his request had the force of a command. The causes assigned were to pay the lord's debts to the king and others, to sustain a tenant in the king's service, to discharge reliefs, to take up knighthood, to marry the lord's eldest daughter, to go on a crusade, etc. 227 The general levies made by John and Henry III were the application of this custom to homines de domenio comitis dederunt 11 marcas ad quietanda debita comitis; et Ricardus filius Atraci et sui pares dederunt 4 marcas et hoc bona voluntate (no. 1). Homines inde (de Dentuna) dicunt quod post transitum domini regis in Normanniam, dederunt eidem Roberto filio Hugonis domino suo 10 solidos ad exercitum domini regis Walliae; et dederunt illi in auxilio, ad quietanda debita adversus Judaeos, 16 sol. et 8 den., gratis (no. 45)." 223 Madox, I, 616, n. 6. 224 Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 85a. 225 R t. Litt. Claus., I, 59b. 226 Ibid., p. 32b. For similar aids, see Madox, I, 411, n. t; for the earl of Salisbury, for the earl of Winchester, for the earl of Surrey to sustain himself in the king's service, for earl Ferrers (Rot. Litt. Glaus., I, 127a, 144a, b, 211a) ; for the constable of Chester, for the prior of S. Swithin (Rot. Litt. Pat., pp. 41b, 52a). 227 For the bishop of Worcester "pro expensis quas fecit in servicio domini J. regis"; to the knights and free tenants of the abbot of St. Edmunds, to make him a reasonable aid "pro amore et petitione 347 STUDIES IN TAXATION the kingdom as a whole with the king as chief lord. 228 Such levies had the same name and the reasons assigned for them were similar. 229 A somewhat similar develop- ment was attempted by the French kings about a century later. Philip IV tried to establish a uniform tax by exacting the feudal aid in more than the four regular cases. He was only partly successful in doing so; the aids needed the consent of the taxpayers and varied in amount from one district to another. 230 Thus the starting point of the change in both countries was the same, viz., the feudal aid. The aid was levied in three forms: a general aid on knights' fees, called also scutage; a carucage; and taxa- tion of a certain percentage of personal property, the tax on moveables. None of the scutages levied by John were aids ; all were compositions for service. Under Henry III four aids on all knights' fees were taken ; 231 two aids were taken on the fees of bishops (in 1229 and 1242) and one aid on the fees of all the clergy (1231). The first aid was nostra" to pay his debts to the king, "tantumque inde pro nostra petitione faciatis quod preces nostras sibi sentiat fructuosas et nos vobis inde ad grates teneamur"; for the new abbot of Fiscamp, a reasonable aid "ita quod dominus rex eos inde commendare debeat"; for the constable of Chester "pro expensis suis factis in servicio crucis"; for the prior of Stokes, to pay his debts to the king; for the bishop of London, to pay his debts ; John Marescallus has litteras deprecatorias to pay his debts (Pat. Rolls, I, 143, 223, 270, 284, 329, 363, 372). There are many examples of these in the Patent Rolls of Henry III. 228 They were not of course compulsory. 229 Thus the carucage of 1200, the thirteenth of 1207, the fifteenth of 1225, etc., were called auxilia. The cause assigned was to pay the king's debts, to carry on war, etc. 230 Vuitry, Regime financier de la France, II, 144, 169-170. Vuitry classes under the aids the "retribution egalement proportionnelle aux fortunes et lib^rant du service de l'arme." This was in England the fine and scutage, which had an independent development. 231 1217, 1235, 1245, 1253. 348 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III levied by reason of the grant of the great council. 232 The king had no legal right to it without this grant. The second general aid (1235) was also made by grant of the great council, though perhaps it was thought that the king was legally entitled to it. 23J To the third and fourth aids (1245, 1253) the king was entitled by law without the consent of his vassals for they were of the three regular aids which every lord could levy. 234 Both were indeed levied at a meeting of the great council. Consent to the aid was however not involved. In both cases, the king tried to get a gracious aid from the tenants, was unsuccessful, and then turned to the feudal aid which had to be paid. 235 It is probable that he could not fix the rate: in 1245, the fact that only twenty shill- ings per fee were taken was doubtless due to the unwilling- ness of the barons to pay more. The other three cases of aids are interesting because they look like a denial of the king's right to service in France from the fees of bishops. 236 They are perhaps to be connected with the claim set up in 1198. Bishops however had furnished knights to serve in France in John's reign. 237 A state- ment in Henry Ill's letters patent which were issued to the clergy in connection with these aids was perhaps intended to guard against the establishment of a precedent that the clergy did not owe service in France. 238 Like the scutage, the aids fell back on the rear-vassals. 232 See above, p. 125. 233 See above, p. 208. 234 TO marry the king's daughter and to knight his eldest son. 235 See above, pp. 241, 254. 236 See above, pp. 189, 193, 236. 237 They receive writs of quittance in John's reign. "Milites archi- episcopi Cantuar' qui fuerunt in servicio regis ultra mare" (Rot. Cane., p. 220) ; Powicke, pp. 239, note 4, 319. 238 See above, note 236. The scutage of 1242 on all tenants in chief except the bishops was not an aid, but a scutage in the strict sense, viz., the commutation for service (see above, p. 229). 349 STUDIES IN TAXATION As to the collection, ordinarily the tenant in chief received a letter from the king, which authorized him to collect an aid from his tenants and respond at the exchequer. If he did not receive such a letter, the sheriff collected the aid from the rear-vassals. 239 In 1235, a new method, copied probably from the taxes on moveables, was em- ployed. Two knights were appointed in each county to receive the aid from the tenants in chief in that county, but the innovation was not permanent. 240 The sheriff aided the tenants with distraint. Each tenant in chief responded for the same number of fees as in the scutage proper. The king attempted to increase the number 241 but his efforts were not successful. 242 As with the scutage, there were many delays in payment. The aid on military tenants was usually supplemented by a tallage on the demesne and by dona from religious houses. 242 The aid on knights' fees, the tallage, and the dona covered after a fashion most of the property in the king- 239 See above, p. 128. 24 it was not done in the cases of the later aids. 2*1 The aid of 1235 is not given in the Pipe Roll and we cannot say on how many fees it was paid in general. Inquests were made in 1235 and 1242. 242 The number of fees is not increased in the case of tenants holding five or more fees each in the accounts of the aids of 1245 and 1253. Mr. Inman has compared the tenants holding ten or more fees in the roll of 1253 with the holdings of 1166 and says that new enfeoffments have been entirely omitted (feudal Statistics, p. 51). In the roll of 1253 there are some sergeants holding by small frac- tional parts of fees who are charged with aid; these may be the results of the inquests (Pipe Roll, 38 Henry III, passim}. 243 No dona from religious houses were taken in 1217 in connection with the aid, probably because the clergy had just made a contri- bution to the king (see above, p. 123). Dona were taken in 1229, 1235, 1242, and 1245. Those taken in 1253 are said to have been taken for the expedition to Gascony, not for the knighting of the king's son. No tallage was taken in 1253, probably because one had been levied in 1252 which had not yet been entirely paid. The king however asked the towns for an aid for the campaign in Gascony (see above, pp. 341, 343). 350 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III dom. The scutage was levied at a uniform rate. It also fell back on men who were not the king's vassals and hence owed him nothing. These levies helped to form the idea of a general tax, taken for the needs of the government and paid by all who were in its care. Yet directly out of these taxes was to grow no system of national taxation, or perhaps it would be better to say that no further development was to be made along this line. This was the old method of raising extraordinary revenues. It was inelastic. At a time when the expenses of the govern- ment were increasing, it could not respond. The rate of scutage had become fixed at not more than three marks per fee; the number of fees which should pay had also become fixed. The contributions of the towns might be somewhat enlarged, though custom restrained too great an increase. The dona from religious houses could not be too large. The levies were not based on property so that there would be no increase in the amount of the tax corresponding to a rise in the value of the property. The method of collection was old and evidently ineffective, so that in the scutage at least the government could hardly realize more than half of the nominal tax charged. 244 The other forms which the aid assumed, the carucage and the tax on moveables, brought about a revolution in taxation. With them modern taxes began. In the first place, the basis of these levies was property not tenure; men paid directly to the king, no matter of whom they held or by what tenure. 245 In the second place, though the members of the council which granted these aids may have thought that each acted for himself, individually, yet the result of the deliberations was to create a uniform 244 See above, p. 338. 2*5 There were many exceptions to this, but it was the normal method; in the case of the aids on knights' fees, the rear-vassals normally paid to their lords. 351 STUDIES IN TAXATION tax, proportional to the amount of property. 246 Finally, the machinery of assessment and collection was new (in taxation) and was national, not feudal. This machinery was in general in two parts : commissioners to each county representing the king, whose main duty was to supervise the assessment and receive the money; a committee from the locality, on whom fell the burden of assessment and collection. 247 The sheriff cooperated as a subordinate. He summoned the men of the locality to appear before the justices for the assessment ; he distrained men to pay the tax; he furnished the transportation for the money; he distrained the collectors to pay the money at the exchequer. 248 The use of local bodies in taxation is regarded as one of the roots of the representative system. 24 * This does not mean that under John and Henry III, they acted as a check on the king's power, protecting the taxpayer from unjust assessment. It is likely that the employment of the jury was a royal device in taxation as well as in other cases in which it was intro- duced. 250 The rights of the barons were protected in other ways. 251 There is evidence that both the clergy and 2*6 That is, uniform within the class on which it was levied, not necessarily throughout all England: e.g. the carucage of 1224 on the clergy only; the sixteenth of 1226 only on the beneficed clergy; the tenths of 1253 and after, on the clergy only. 247 In 1207, each man made oath personally before the king's commissioners. In the other cases where we have a complete descrip- tion of the machinery, the locality is represented. 2*8 See above, pp. 90, 122, 135, 166, 204, 216. 249 Adams, Political History of England, 1066-1216, p. 386 ; Stubbs, Const. Hist., I (4th ed.), 652. 250 it seems to have been the natural way to get at the value of property. Notice that in the levy of the fifteenth on merchants and the aid on the Channel Islands, the jury was used (see above, pp. 45, 69). 251 In 1225, the bailiffs of the earls and barons made oath to the value of their lords' property; in 1232, the collection was in the hands of the barons; in 1237, the bailiffs of the barons were to be present when the assessment was made. 352 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III the laity disliked the inquests into their property and did not therefore regard the jury as a means of protecting their rights. 252 Most of the property in the kingdom paid the new taxes according to an assessment made as just described, but there were many exceptional cases. One can hardly say that there was a gradual change from payment of aid in lump sums to payment on an assessed valuation of property. It would be better to say that in the presence of so great a change the king was unable to enforce the new method against everyone. Thus in 1198, we know that most of the counties fined for their carucage; perhaps all did. 253 In 1207, most of the clergy seem to have fined or paid dona for their thirteenth. 254 In the aids of Henry III, there are many special provisions made for the assessment and collection on the lands of the clergy. 25 " Religious orders often were allowed to fine and so their property was not assessed. 256 The carucage was taken from more men on the holding of any tenant in chief than was the scutage, for it was paid by men who did not hold by military tenure. One cannot say whether more men were liable for it on the royal demesne than for the tallage. The tax on move- ables fell on more men than the scutage on land held by military tenure and probably on more than did the caru- cage. 257 Doubtless, it was paid by more men on the 252 I n 1198, the inquests ordered were not taken in the majority of cases (see above, p. 8) ; in 1207, the clergy often paid lump sums for their thirteenth (see above, p. 88) ; in 1225, the clergy were to assess their demesnes themselves; in 1237, all their property; in 1242, the inquests were opposed; in 1253, there was opposition to the method of levying the tenth (see above, pp. 166, 217, 234, 273). 253 See above, p. 8. 254 See above, p. 88. 255 See above, pp. 136, 166, 204, 210, 215. 256 See above, pp. 135, 163, 202, 216. 257 The main difference between the carucage and the tax on moveables was not in the amount of property which was assessed; 353 STUDIES IN TAXATION demesne than was the tallage. 258 In some cases, the carucage yielded more than the scutage though this may not have been true in every county. 259 The tax on move- ables however yielded unquestionably far more than any scutage or carucage which was taken at the customary rate. 260 A characteristic of the new levies was that a new assess- ment was made each time the tax was taken. 261 A roll of the property was drawn up and sent to the exchequer which thus had a fairly complete "extent" of the whole kingdom along certain lines. This was probably done at the king's wish, not at that of the barons, for the possession of such an extent was wholly to the king's advantage. The new assessment would prevent the growth of immunities and keep the tax increasing with the increasing wealth of the community. Whether the tax did so increase under Henry III is doubtful. The thirteenth of 1207 yielded about 60,000, showing an assessed value of property of 780,000. 262 The fifteenth yielded about 57,000, an assessed value of 850,000 ; the fortieth yielded 16,000, an assessment of 640,000 ; the for in that respect there would not be much, if any, difference. It lay in the rate of assessment; the rate of two or three shillings per carucate would not yield as much as a fifteenth, etc. 258 On the demesne, there would be men in the towns who would not pay the carucage, but who would pay the tax on moveables. Some men would not pay the tallage because they had a charter of exemption from tallage; they would not be exempt from the tax on moveables. 259 See above, p. 136 and Baldwin, p. 38. 260 Thus the thirteenth in 1207 yielded 60,000, more than any scutage or carucage yielded. 261 Notice, too, that the thirtieth of 1237 and the twentieth of 1269 were taken in September, when the largest quantity of farm products would be on hand; the carucage of 1220 was to be levied in June, when the amount of land to be put under cultivation would be the greatest. 262 See above, p. 91. 354 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III thirtieth, 22,000, an assessed value of 660,000; the twentieth of 1270, 32,000, an assessed value of 640,000. 262 These figures may be incomplete, for the fifteenth of 1275 yielded 80,000, an assessed value of 1,200,000. 264 The increase may be due to more careful assessment, for John and Henry III did not always insist that the property be assessed, accepting lump sums instead. As the taxes on property were new, old immunities from taxation were disregarded. Thus Richard taxed the churches and the Cistercians. 265 John tried to tax the beneficed clergy, but does not seem to have been successful up to the time of the interdict. 266 Under Henry III, the clergy became regular contributors to the king for property which in part at least had never been taxed before. 267 Beginning with 1253, they paid taxes to the king in eleven different years either on the assessed value of their property or in lump sums calculated on the basis of such an assessment. 268 These levies were bitterly resisted for two reasons: the clergy objected in the first place to paying any levy at all and in the second to the method of levy. In the first case they failed. It is clear that they preferred to grant a lump sum like a donum and to divide it up themselves among the different ecclesiastical divisions, thus avoiding the assessment of 263 See above, pp. 169, 205, 218, 299. 264 Ramsay, Dawn of the Constitution, p. 536. 265 Baldwin, p. 70; see above, p. 7. 266 See above, p. 86. During the interdict, all the clergy including all kinds of religious orders were taxed (see above, p. 106). 267 They had paid on their land held by military tenure ; religious houses had paid dona. The beneficed clergy had never been taxed by the king before 1226 and for the dona on religious bodies was substituted a tax on the assessed value of their property. 268 For five years beginning in 1253, then in 1264, 1266, 1268, 1269 (see above, pp. 263, 290/.). 355 STUDIES IN TAXATION their property. In this they were partly successful. 28 The alliance between the pope and the king was the immediate cause of the heavy taxation of the clergy which began in 1253. But the levy of a tax on the assessed value of the property of the clergy (other than their land held by military tenure) was no new thing. At least three different valuations had been made before. 270 In three or four other cases, a lump sum had been levied on the whole church, had been divided up among the different bishoprics, and had been called a certain fractional part of the church revenues. 271 The difference between the preceding assessments and that of 1253 lies in the severity of the latter, 272 which however did not give the full value of the revenues. 272 Thus the clergy finally became subject to royal taxation. The assessment of the new taxes was mainly in the king's hands. 27 * The disbursement of the money was wholly in his power. Some attempts had been made to restrain him in this, but they had been unsuccessful. 275 269 The last two years of the tenth of 1253 was compounded for in a lump sum of 52,000. There was composition by individuals in 1266 (see above, pp. 278, 293) and a kind of composition was made generally for the tenth of 1266 when the clergy agreed to pay a tenth for three years on the assessment of 1254 rather than pay a tenth for the last two years of the levy on a new assessment (ibid., p. 293); there was composition by the clergy in 1269 (ibid., p. 298). 270 in 1216, 1226, 1229 (see above, pp. 121, 170, 177, 178). 271 Perhaps in 1240; certainly in 1245, 1246, 1252 (see above, p. 264 if.)- 272 See above, pp. 273, 275, 276. 273 Graham, in E. H. R., XXIII, 434; Hudson, "The Norwich Taxation of 1254," in Norf. and Norw. Arch. Soc. Publ, XVII (1910), 43-157. 274 Except in the taxes on the clergy. 275 For the fifteenth of 1225, see above, p. 167. The thirtieth was to be spent by the advice of some of the magnates who were added to the council; it was also to be stored in some safe place "ut si forte velit rex a proposito . . . resilire, reddatur unicuique quod suum est, fideliter distributum" (Matthew Paris, III, 383, 410; IV, 356 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III The main significance of the changes thus far dis- cussed lies in the growth of the king's power. The new taxes gave him an increased revenue over which he had complete control; they provided him with a definite basis for future levies and with the machinery for their assess- ment and collection; they brought under contribution classes which formerly paid nothing or an amount greatly beneath their capabilities; and they swept away the checks on his taxing power which lay in the feudal system. It becomes necessary therefore to examine the way in which the king's power was checked and controlled. The origin of that control is to be found in the feudal principle that for the levy of any extraordinary contri- bution by the lord on his vassal, the consent of the latter was necessary. Such contribution was a gracious aid. It is unquestionable that this principle was well under- stood and in full force, and was not the shadow of a theory. 276 Otherwise it is difficult to see why John, strong as he was, never ventured to levy a tax on property in defence of which he could not allege some law, though he well knew how great an addition to his income it would make to do so. 277 The case of the thirteenth of 1207 does not form an exception to this statement, for that tax 186). In 1244, the magnates asked for the appointment of twelve councillors satisfactory to them by whom any aid which might be granted should be expended (ibid., IV, 363) ; another account makes the number of councillors four, but this was probably another proposal (ibid., p. 367; Plehn, Der Politische Charakter von Matheus Parisiensis, p. 125). In 1248 and later, the magnates demanded the appointment of a chancellor, a justiciar, and a treasurer with their approval (Matthew Paris, V, 5, 20). 276 "For the shadow of the feudal fiction, that the taxpayer made a voluntary offering to relieve the wants of his ruler, seems to have subsisted throughout the period" (Stubbs, Const. Hist., I, 4th ed., 619). 277 Thus the thirteenth yielded nearly 60,000. For the carucage of 1200, the excuse was that it was a relief for his lands in France; the seventh was a fine for desertion (see above, pp. 32, 62). The 357 STUDIES IN TAXATION was taken with the consent of a great council of tenants in chief. 278 Historically the control of the king in taxa- tion was brought about by the growth of a feeling of corporate unity among the members of the great council. There is not much trace of this in questions of taxation except among the clergy before the reign of Henry III. 27S But the feeling of unity in general began to grow during John's reign. 28C In 1201 occurred the meeting at Leices- ter in which the earls agreed not to follow the king to France unless he gave them back their rights. 281 It is not known whether their demands were granted, but in some way their opposition was overcome, for they accompanied the king to France. 282 In 1203, there was a plot of some of the barons to withdraw from the king's service, which was related to the king and which he frustrated in part. 283 In 1205, John was forced at a meeting of the magnates to swear to preserve the rights of England. 284 Some kind of united action is indicated this same year when John gave up his invasion of France at the wish of the barons. 285 In 1207, the bishops and abbots refused to allow a con- scutages of John were owed to the king, for they were taken in place of military service, consequently consent was not involved. 278 See above, p. 87. The consent was individual and not cor- porate; the action of one tenant had no binding force on another. 279 The cases of 1163 and 1197 have been shown by Round not to involve the constitutional discussion of taxation (Feudal England, pp. 497, 528). zso For a discussion of this, see Plehn, pp. 9-14. 281 HOV., IV, 161. 282 Adams, Political History of England, 1066-1316, p. 398; William of Albini who was one of the leaders is found with the king in this expedition for he has a writ of quittance for scutage in 1201 (Rot. Cane., pp. 89, 193, 305, 355). 283 R t. Litt. Pat., p. 29a. 284 "ipse quoque rex, convocatis magnatibus Angliae ad Oxonefor- diam, jurare compulsus est, quod jura regni Angliae de eorum consilio pro posse suo conserverat illaesa" (Gerv. Cant., Oesta Regum, II, 97). 285 "prohibente sibi Cantuariensi archiepiscopo et aliis multis" (Wend., Ill, 182); Cogg., p. 152; Hist. O. le Mar., 1. 13103 ff. 358 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III tribution from the beneficed clergy. 286 In 1212, the king received warning of a combination of the barons against him, a warning moreover which he heeded. 287 These cases show not merely discontent with John, but efforts at united action. This union came quickly at the close of the struggle with the pope; in 1215, a strong coalition of the barons obtained Magna Carta from the king. The corporate unity of the barons which was so important a factor under Henry III thus began to appear under John. The question of taxation appears at the close of his reign as one of the causes which drew a section of the magnates together. 288 It is necessary therefore to ask what was the bearing on taxation of the provisions in Magna Carta. The articles cover all the levies which the king might take from his military tenants. Only two terms are mentioned, the auxilium and the scutagium. The auxilium used loosely may mean any kind of a contribution, a donum, a thir- teenth, a carucage, or a scutage in the strict sense. 28 The scutagium in the same way may mean an aid to marry the king's daughter (1168); to ransom the king (1194); a gracious aid (1217); to knight the king's son (1253); and the composition for military service. It is likely that in articles 12 and 14, both terms were used in the strict technical sense, the scutage as the composition for service 286 "consilio inito, omnes tarn Cantuarienses quam Eboracenses metropolitan! unanimiter responderunt, Anglicanam ecclesiam nullo modo sustinere posse. . . . Rex ergo saniori usus consilio, exactionem illam penitus relaxavit" (Wav., p. 258). 287 Wav., p. 268; Cov., II, 207; Wend., Ill, 239. 288 Cov., II, 217-218. 289 See above, pp. 32, 61, 87. The money paid by the tenant in Normandy was called auxilium exercitus. The tallage on the towns for the Irish expedition was called auxilium villarum (Pipe Roll, 12 John, passim). The fine which the abbot of Malmesbury paid for his knights was called auxilium (Rot. Obi., pp. 13, 32). The scutage of 1204 was called auxilium by Wendover, auxilia militaria (Wend., Ill, 175). 359 STUDIES IN TAXATION and the aid as the gracious aid which from time to time the vassal might make to relieve the wants of his lord. 290 The articles provide that for the levy of a scutage or of a gracious aid, the great council shall be summoned. An interval of at least forty days shall elapse between the date of the summons and the time of meeting. Those who answer the summons shall have the power to grant or to refuse either a scutage or an aid and their decision shall be binding on those who failed to come. The regu- lation was a great change in several ways. It made it obligatory always to summon the great council for aids and scutages. It changed an occasional practice into a rule. The aid of 1207 had been taken in such a council. Whether the carucages of Richard and John had been granted in a great council, we do not know. The scutage of 1204 had been taken in such an assembly, but this was not John's ordinary procedure. Another change was that the articles substituted corporate for individual consent. Finally, scutage was transformed from the composition for military service into an aid which the king could only levy with the consent of his tenants. But the articles were not satisfactory. In 1217, the barons said that they contained grave and doubtful mat- ters, which seems to mean that the barons had not said in 1215 exactly what they wished to say. One of these doubtful matters was the question of corporate consent in connection with aids. It was a principle not fully accepted at the close of the reign of Henry III. A case involving it arose with the aid of 1217, levied while these articles were being recast. The bishop of Winchester claimed that he had never agreed to this aid, and accord- 290 That they are used in this strict technical sense is suggested by the fact that another sort of aid is carefully distinguished from these two levies, viz., the aid in the three regular cases, to knight the king's son, etc. 360 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III ingly the government exempted him from paying it. 291 But the great difficulty lay with the regulation of the scutage, and it was scutage that the barons had chiefly in mind. There can hardly be a doubt of the truth of this last statement, for the final version of the charter mentions scutage only. Hence in order to understand the regulation in the charter of 1215, we must consider the character of John's scutages in order to ascertain the grievance which the barons sought to remedy. At the outset it must be remembered that all of John's scutages were scutages in the strict sense, the composition for service; they were not aids. The right to take them therefore rested on the king's right to military service from his tenants, not on their consent. Now the barons had no wish to change the feudal law by which they held their fees. It follows that the introduction of consent to scutage in the charter of 1215 was not due to a wish to change the fundamental principle upon which the levy was based, but rather to correct abuses and to fix the limits within which it could be legally taken. The abuses had arisen in connection with the rate of scutage, the fines, and the occasions on which scutage had been demanded. For forty years before the accession of John, the rate of scutage had not exceeded 1 (one and one-half marks) per fee. John had immediately raised the rate to two marks and finally to three marks per fee. In addition, he had collected fines which still further increased the amount of composition, taking them from both greater and lesser tenants. The fines seem to have become heavier as the reign went on. Levied at no customary rate, usually in a lump sum, the fine threatened to become a heavy burden. To say however that the rate of scutage was increased from one and one-half to three marks per 201 See above, p. 127. 361 STUDIES IN TAXATION fee and that the average rate of the fine (including scutage) was four or five marks per fee still leaves the grievance almost inexplicable, for the price of a knight's service far exceeded any rate of scutage, or the average rate of the fine. The difficulty lies in the fact that the amount of composition has been compared with the con- ventional number of fees on which a tenant paid scutage or fine at the exchequer, in the belief that such a number equalled the quota of knights which the tenant would otherwise have furnished. The solution will be found if we remember that military service had become reduced and that the tenant's contingent therefore was smaller than the number of fees on which his scutage was com- puted. Thus if a tenant held fifty fees, he might answer the summons to the host with ten knights, and in doing so he would be considered to have performed his full ser- vice. If the rate of scutage were two marks, his scutage would have been one hundred marks; that sum of money however would have bought the exemption from service, not of fifty, but of ten knights. The rate of composition therefore would really have been, not two marks, but ten marks per knight actually furnished, an amount which would in some cases have been the full commutation for service. Now the king was increasing the rate of scutage and he was levying fines as well; that is, he had broken away from the customary rate of composition. There was only one logical limit to his exactions, a rate which should be the equivalent of full service from each tenant in chief, or something like ten marks per fee. There were cases in which he had actually demanded this amount, 292 but in the state of military service at that time, a rate of ten marks per fee meant in cases a composition of twenty or thirty or more marks per knight actually furnished. Thus the increase in the rate of scutage and the fines 292 See above, p. 98 and below, note 294. 362 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III was not a theoretical but a real grievance. 295 Again, when a scutage was not taken throughout the kingdom and when the host was not summoned, John would demand service from a section of the tenants and collect fines from such as did not wish to go. In 1211, no general expedition was sent to France, yet the king summoned the knights of Robert Fitz Walter and Eustace de Vescy, both honors being in hand, and the tenants on the fees of bishops in exile, sent 100 knights to France, and com- pelled the rest to fine at ten marks per fee. 294 Moreover, 293 That tenants served with only part of their nominal contingents from the beginning of the thirteenth century, see above, p. 302. The difference between the rate of scutage and the composition per knight furnished can be well illustrated from the scutage of Ireland, taken at three marks per fee (see above, p. 97). The following table gives the number of fees held by each tenant, the scutage which he would have paid, the number of knights furnished in the cam- paign, and the rate of commutation per knight furnished. Number of fees Scutage at 3m Earl Warenne Robert de Tateshal William Malet Earl Aubrey de Ver Bishop of Salisbury Ralph Sudley Robert de Turnham Henry de Oilli Geoffrey Fitz Peter Earl of Hereford . Countess of Clare . Nigel de Luvetot . Robert Marmiun . Gilbert Gaunt Gilbert Peke This explanation makes intelligible the minimum rate of scutage at one mark given in the "Unknown Charter of Liberties." If tenants served with their full contingents, such a rate would be absurd. 29* Dunst., p. 35. 60 180 8 25 75 3 21 63 5 30% 90% 6 32 96 9 3 9 2 31 93 3 32 96 2 98% 295 10 30% 91% 10 9 27 2 15 45 2 25 75 3 68% 205 6 19 57 2 Number of knights furnished Rate of commutation per knight furnished m 8 22% 3 25 5 12 6 15 9 10 2 4% 3 31 2 48 10 29% 10 9 2 13% 2 22% 3 25 6 34 2 28 STUDIES IN TAXATION John had collected scutage when the feudal law would hardly justify him in so doing. That he was able to do this was partly due to the fact that he put the scutage in charge at the opening of the campaign. Then whatever happened afterward, he continued to collect the levy. In 1199 and in 1201 there was little or no fighting after the king crossed to France, yet a scutage was taken. 292 In 1204, some knights were sent and a scutage was paid, but the king neither went nor led the host to France. 296 In 1205 only a picked body of knights was sent ; still the king collected scutage. 297 In 1209, the host was sum- moned and the king led it against the king of Scots. When the two hosts met, there was no fighting; a treaty was made. Those tenants who had not been present in the host paid a scutage. 298 In 1214, the question that arose over the scutage was not whether it had been granted by the tenants, but whether the king was legally entitled to it. The barons claimed that they did not owe service across the seas and that consequently scutage was not due. 299 Indications of discontent with the fines and scutages are not wanting during the reign. In 1199, one chronicler calls the scutage of that year a grains exactio and says that never before had more than twenty shillings been paid. 30C In 1206, though the campaign was to be fought in France, the rate was reduced to twenty shillings. 301 In 1209 and in 1211, John took hardly any fines. In 1214, no fines were levied, but the rate was raised to three zss See above, pp. 21, 315. 2 See above, p. 64. 297 See above, p. 69. 298 See above, p. 94. 299 See above, p. 112. sooCogg., p. 101. 301 The concession, if it was a concession, was more apparent than real. Nearly the whole levy consisted of fines (see above, p. 77/.). 364 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III marks per fee. Now here is a great grievance, felt by the barons since the beginning of John's reign and based on a legal right of the king, the law of military service. The tenant was bound to serve the king in war; if he wished to be exempt, he must pay any sum that the king demanded, or forfeit his lands. Thus the king had the right to much more than he took in fines and scutages. If he retained this right in entirety, he had a tremendous weapon of financial extortion. The reform therefore which the barons desired was that the commutation of military service should be uniform, reasonable, and taken only when the king had a legal right to it. The question at issue was accordingly not whether they should have the right to grant or to refuse a scutage. The tenants would come very near to this, especially in determining whether or not a scutage was legally due, yet the real point to be decided would not be consent. When the king had waged a proper campaign at the head of the host, there would be no question of his right to take a scutage. This can be well illustrated from the reign of Henry III. Beginning with 1242, the barons refused again and again to grant the king an aid except those to which he was entitled by the feudal law. Yet during this time, three scutages were taken, that of Gascony of 1242, that of Gannoc of 1246, and that of Wales of 1258, all based evidently on the king's right to military service. This interpretation of articles 12 and 14 shows why the articles were dropped by the barons. As to the aids, the reason was because corporate consent was substituted for individual consent. As to scutage, it was because this levy had been changed from the composition of military service into an aid. Moreover, it was a cumbrous pro- cedure to summon the great council to discuss a scutage which could be conveniently declared at the close of the 365 STUDIES IN TAXATION campaign. As many of the tenants in chief would be present, they could watch over their rights as effectually as in a specially summoned council. The charter of 1217 answers to the desires of the barons. It limited the regu- lation to the scutage, a word which might be interpreted to mean either the composition for military service or one kind of an aid. 302 The abuses of scutage from which they had suffered under Richard and John were to be abandoned, though no method by which this reform was to be enforced was prescribed. In all probability, the omission was due to the difficulty of framing such an article. Furthermore, John was dead and his successor was a boy who was controlled by the barons. Under these conditions, the king would hardly violate the law which, though well understood, was hard to put into words. 305 The expectation of the barons was in great measure realized. The reign of Henry III shows that the king was restricted in determining the time and the circum- stances under which a scutage would be due. A campaign against a rebel might sometimes be considered a sufficient cause for a levy but not always. 304 Once the host was 302 "Scutagium capiatur de cetero sicut capi consuevit tempore Henrici regis avi nostri." 303 Professor Adams, whose interpretation of the articles I have followed, says: "There is certainly some ground for thinking that the barons may have been conscious that in their statement about scutage in clause 12 they had gone farther than they were justified in going and that, therefore, as scutage was the main reason for the clause the whole subject was omitted in 1216, with a general refer- ence to dubitabilia, because no satisfactory substitute could be thought of in the hurried conditions of the moment, and later, still troubled by the difficulty of accurate statement, they contented themselves with the historical reference to the time of Henry II, which did really state vaguely but accurately what they wanted" (Origin of the English Constitution, p. 223). so* It was so considered in 1221 and 1224, the campaigns of Biham and Bedford; no scutage was however levied in 1233 for the cam- paign against Richard Marshal. 366 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III summoned and marched to Wales and once it was led against the Scots, but there was no fighting in either case and no scutage was taken. 30J Throughout the reign, the scutage was regularly levied at or near the close of a campaign. When in 1229 and 1242, the king wished to take it at the outset, he did so with the consent of the barons. 30e The rate gradually rose again to three marks per fee, yet it seems in general to have been fixed by con- sultation with the barons. 307 As to the fines, few if any were taken while the barons were in control of the govern- ment. Beginning with 1229, after Henry III took charge, fines reappeared. The barons were therefore unsuccessful in making scutage the sole composition for service. But the importance of the fines diminished after 1230 because the struggle then was no longer over the scutage, but over the taxes on personal property. As to the aids, although the machinery for summoning the council was dropped from the charter, the king con- formed to the regulation laid down in 1215. He never took an aid except by the consent of the great council. It is likely that this was due to the growth of corporate feeling among the magnates, rather than to a desire to conform to article 14. However that may be, the method followed was the same as that provided in the dropped articles. There need therefore be no surprise that the articles were never reinstated, though there was much discussion of taxation under Henry III. The policy which they embodied was practically carried out. The barons in the course of the reign faced a new problem, to devise a method to prevent the king from levying aids at will when he summoned the great council. The charter of 1215 would not help them in this. sos The expedition against Wales in 1241 ; against the Scots in 1244. soe See above, pp. 186, 227, 236. SOT See above, note 306, and pp. 139, 151, 197, 246, 284. 367 STUDIES IN TAXATION At the opening of Henry Ill's reign, the king had no unrestricted right to tax. It was still necessary for him to get the consent of his vassals if he wished a contribution over and above those given him by the feudal law, but it was individual consent, not corporate, and except in the case of an aid on knights' fees, the right was not protected by the charter. 308 The men who obtained the charter were the tenants in chief described in clause 14. It was thus a bargain, a sos Cf. Stubbs, Const. Hist., II (3rd ed), 21: "The constitutional clauses, those touching taxation and the national council, were omitted. . . . The reasons for this course are obvious. The baronage was for the moment in the place of the king; to limit the taxing powers of the crown would be to tie their own hands"; and again, p. 27, on the charter of 1217: "the 44th (clause) which provides that scutages shall be taken as in King Henry's time, may show that in some points, the current of recent history had been retrogressive"; and in note 2, p. 27: "the exact force of the clause (44) is however uncertain: if as may be thought, it was to restrict the amount of scutage, it was a concession on the part of the crown; if it means that scutages should be taken without asking the commune concilium, it was a retrograde act. The scutage taken nearly at this time was assessed by the commune concilium." Stubbs believed that John's scutages were general taxes, levied by the sole authority of the king and that in theory they needed the consent of the barons; hence these statements. Scutage however under John was not a general tax, but was the commutation for knight service, and as such did not in law need the consent of the tenants. The scutage of 1217 should not be classed with John's scutages, for it was an aid and therefore was taken and had to be taken with the consent of the barons. Clause 44 of the charter of 1217 had the same aim as clauses 12 and 14 of the charter of 1215; it undoubtedly restricted the amount of composition which the king could demand, as Stubbs says, though it did not provide any method by which that was to be accomplished. But the reason for dropping the constitutional clauses was not to untie the hands of the barons in the matter of taxation (see above, p. 365). Cf. Petit-Dutaillis, Studies Supple- mentary to Stubbs' Constitutional History, pp. 141-142: "This word- ing (of the charter of 1217) clearly proves that the barons . . . only wished to be secured, in some way or other, against the too frequent return and the raising of the rate of scutage." Cf. McKechnie, Magna Carta, pp. 282-284. 368 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III treaty between the king and his vassals. There existed among the latter a certain feeling of unity which had been called into existence by the tyranny of John, but was not yet permanent. Nor did the barons represent the nation; 309 they were not the regnum. The phrase "per commune consilium regni," on which some emphasis has been laid, 310 as representing a new conception of their assembly by the barons, was merely a form, a variant of the familiar "per consilium baronum nostrorum" etc. 31] The settlement of the question of taxation was yet in the future. It was the work of Henry Ill's reign to establish certain precedents concerning the levy of taxes, to. make this corporate feeling permanent, and to change individual into corporate consent. It is the purpose of this section to outline the steps by which this was accomplished. The cause of the conflict between the king and his barons which resulted in the control of taxation by parlia- 309 Adams, Pol. Hist, of England, 1066-1216, p. 437; Petit-Dutaillis, Studies, p. 129; Norgate, John Lackland, p. 234. 310 "Der dem Parlament mit den deutschen Landstanden gemein- same Anspruch, die Vertretung des ganzen Landes zu sein, tritt bereits in der Magna Charta hervor. Hier findet sich zum ersten Male die spater regelmassig gebrauchte Formel: nach dem gemein- samen Rate des Landes (per commune consilium regni), wodurch die Zustimmung des Parlaments zu Gesetzen und Verordnungen ausgedriickt wird" (Plehn, p. 14). sii John issued orders per consilium baronum, etc. The assize of the fifteenth on merchants, 1204, per consilium fidelium nostrorum (Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 42); a safe conduct, juxta consilium vestrum et aliorum fidelium nostrorum (ibid., p. 48b) ; liberation of ships, communi consilio baronum nostrorum (ibid., p. 52b) ; for nine knights to equip a tenth, cum assensu archiepiscoporum, episcoporum, comitum, baronum et omnium fidelium nostrorum Angliae (ibid., p. 55a) ; for the levy of the thirteenth, per commune consilium et assensum concilii nostri (ibid., p. 72b) ; assize concerning clippers and counterfeiters of money, per commune consilium regni nostri (ibid., p. 54b) ; in 1194, John was disseized per commune consilium regni (Hov., Ill, 236). STUDIES IN TAXATION ment was the king's lack of money. 312 Henry III tried to increase his insufficient income by taxes granted by the great council, and the frequency and severity of his demands led to the development of corporate unity among the barons and to a measure of corporate consent. According to Magna Carta, the great council was com- posed of the tenants in chief, viz., the clerical tenants, the greater barons, and the lesser barons or knights. The clergy and the greater barons were summoned by individual writs ; the knights by a general writ trans- mitted to them by the sheriff. This body, known as the great council, varied greatly in its composition and in the conditions under which it met. It was usually spe- cially summoned, 313 but the tenants in chief in the host with whom the king would consult in levying a scutage after a campaign would be equally regarded as the great council. When the body was specially called together, the writs of summons stated the time and place of the meeting. The business to be transacted was described in general terms, e.g. "tractaturi de magnis et arduis negotiis nostris." 314 Magna Carta stated that forty days 12 See above, p. 345. A great difficulty seems to have been that Henry was not a good financier. 3!3 E.g. in 1225 when the fifteenth was granted; "convocantur . . . proceres Angliae" (Cov., II, 256) ; "convenerunt ... ad vocationem regis magnates Angliae tarn laici quam praelati" (Wend., IV, 233) ; "misit . . . scripta regalia, praecipiens omnibus . . . videlicet archi- episcopis, etc., ut omnes . . . Londoniis convenirent" (Matthew Paris, III, 380, 1237); also, ibid., IV, 180, 1242; "regia submonitione convocati" (ibid., 362, 1244) ; "rex, missis literis suis, . . . convocavit" (ibid., 511, 1246) ; "per scripta sua regia . . . convocari" (ibid., 590, 1247) ; "edicto regio convocata" (ibid., V, 5, 1248) ; "vocavit dominus rex per literas suas" (ibid., 47-48, 1249) ; "ex edicto regio convocati" (ibid., 324, 1252); in 1253, 1254, 1255 (ibid., V, 373, 493; VI, 282). 3 14 Select Charters, p. 282, summons to the bishop of Salisbury in 1205. In 1237, the council met "credentes se vel imperialia vel alia ardua negotia provisuros" (Matthew Paris, III, 380) ; in 1242, a writ summoned the members of the great council to London to delib- erate on difficult affairs of the kingdom which admitted no delay; 370 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III must elapse between the time when the summons was sent out and the meeting of the council. The regulation was not always observed, but about a month was regarded as the necessary interval. 315 As to those who attended such a council, no hard and fast rule can be laid down. The membership varied from one time to another. Only those came who were summoned, and attendance was obligatory. But a summons was not regarded as a privilege, for in 1258 an arrangement was made by which the presence of all would not be necessary. 316 If a tenant failed to come, an excuse was given or a substitute sent. 317 Not all were always summoned. In 1220, the carucage was granted, according to the king's writ, by all the magnates and faithful of the realm. Yet the tenants of Yorkshire were neither present nor summoned. 318 In 1229, the earls and barons were summoned to meet at Northampton and the bishops met later at London. 319 Sometimes the tenants were unwilling to take any action because of the absence this was to get an aid for the invasion of Gascony (ibid., IV, 180) ; in 1248 "edicto regio convocata totius regni Angliae nobilitas convenit Londoniis"; that the writ did not state that an aid was to be asked is indicated by Matthew Paris: "et cum proposuisset dominus rex (non enim proposition suum latuit universitatem) pecuniare auxilium postulare etc." (ibid., V, 5, 6). sis In 1253, the regents received the king's letters at Christmas to summon the council on January 13 to get an aid for him. The interval was too short, so it was summoned for January 27 (ibid., V, 423, giving the date of the meeting; ibid., VI, 282, for the state- ment of the regents). 3i6 There were three parliaments to meet whether summoned or not and composed of twelve men chosen by the commonalty (Select Charters, p. 396). SIT Thus in the April parliament of 1253, "archiepiscopus vero Eboracensis . . . excusavit se, asserens se esse remotum et senem"; "pro Cestrensi autem absente valitudo manifeste allegavit" (Matthew Paris, V, 373). The cases of substitutes relate to the clergy (ibid., IV, 185, 372; Wilkins, II, 20.) sis Select Charters, p. 352; Shirley, I, 151. 3i9 Madox, I, 607, n. z. 371 STUDIES IN TAXATION of some members. In 1232, in response to the king's demand for an aid, the clergy asked for a postponement of the matter because many bishops and abbots were absent. 320 In 1249, the absence of Richard of Cornwall prevented the barons from taking action on the demands which they had previously made of the king. 323 In 1252, the clergy refused to act on account of the absence of the archbishops of Canterbury and York. 322 In 1254, at the Easter meeting of the magnates in London, a demand for money was presented from the king who was in Gascony. The barons replied that they had now been waiting for three weeks for earl Richard and some other magnates who delayed in coming. No further action was taken, except to repeat that they would come personally to the king's aid as they had promised in a previous meeting. 825 In 1255, the clergy refused a demand for money on account of the absence of the archbishop of Canterbury and of some bishops. 824 In this same year, the barons refused to take any action on a request for money, because their peers had not been summoned to the council. 328 There were no fixed dates on which the council met, but favorite times were early in February, after Easter and after Michaelmas. Nor were the meetings always held at the same place, though toward the end of the reign, London and Westminster were often selected. 32 * When the council met, the initiative was taken by the king. The aid was asked for either by the king in person 320 See above, p. 200. 321 Matthew Paris, V, 73. 322 ibid., 328. 323 Ibid., 424, 440. 324 Matthew Paris, V, 532. 825 "Et responsum fuit quod omnes tune temporis non fuerunt juxta tenorem magnae cartae suae vocati, et ideo sine paribus suis tune absentibus nullum voluerunt tune responsum dare, vel auxilium concedere vel praestare" (ibid., 520). 326 Other places were Winchester, Oxford, and Northampton. 372 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III or by deputy. The tax was not merely demanded ; reasons for its necessity were always given to persuade the barons to make the grant. Sometimes the demand was for a special kind of tax. In 1225, Hubert de Burgh asked for a fifteenth; in 1237, a thirtieth was requested; in 1257, a tenth from the clergy for two years. 327 The council might substitute a different kind of an aid for the one which the king wanted. 828 Discussion always followed, which was usually secret. 329 It ended in all cases in a definite reply which a committee might announce to the king. In case the response of the magnates was unsat- isfactory, the king communicated further with the mem- 327 in 1225, Hubert de Burgh explained why an aid should be made (Wend., IV, 99); in 1237, William de Ralegh spoke "quasi mediator inter regem et regni magnates"; the king was however present and later spoke to the magnates, "quod cum rex audisset (complaints of the magnates) . . . pollicebatur" (Matthew Paris, III, 380-382) ; in 1242, the king seems to have addressed the barons, for they "contradixerunt igitur regi in faciem" (ibid., IV, 182); in 1244, the king asked "ore proprio"; in 1245, "in propria persona"; in 1246, "ore proprio" (ibid., 362, 373, 526) ; in 1248, the king was present and probably made the demand: "cum proposuisset dominus rex. . . . Haec (the complaints) cum audisset dominus rex, confusus in semetipso erubuit" (ibid., V, 6, 7) ; in 1255, "prius rex alloque- batur fratrem suum" (ibid., 520) ; in 1257, "rex ... in audientia totius populi . . . ait" (ibid., 623). 328 "cum nullo modo ad aliam formam (auxilii) possent flecti (magnates) (ibid., IV, 373); in 1257, the clergy granted an aid of 52,000 which was not what the king wanted. 329 The cases in which the king was present seem to have been exceptional. In 1225, the discussion concerning the fifteenth seems to have taken place in the presence of the justiciar who represented the king (Wend., IV, 100) ; this would hardly be a fair example of the usual practice, for the king was young and his representative, Hubert de Burgh, was one of the tenants in chief. There are cases later in which the magnates sometimes did not hesitate to express openly their opinions concerning the king's demand, e.g. in 1237; perhaps in 1248; in 1255, the earl of Cornwall was first asked to contribute and refused; the other barons then refused to give a decision on account of the absence of their peers (Matthew Paris, III, 381; V, 6, 21, 520). 373 STUDIES IN TAXATION bers of the council in person or by representatives, at times approaching them singly in the hope of breaking down their opposition. 330 There is a suggestion that the barons conferred together after the demand for a fortieth in 1232, because the earl of Chester is made to reply "for the magnates." 331 In 1237, the magnates withdrew to discuss the aid while the king waited in the hall to hear their decision. 332 In 1244, after hearing the royal demand, the barons made no answer except that they would delib- erate. The clergy and the laity met separately and finally appointed committees to draw up a common reply. In one of the parliaments of that year, the king sent repre- sentatives to plead with the clergy. Suddenly he himself appeared before them and begged for the aid, but with- drew when met with the reply that they would consult upon it. The answer was postponed to a later meeting, 333 which was held the next year when the king renewed his petition for aid, summoning the magnates day after day and making many promises, in person or by deputy. 334 In 1252, the king was clearly absent from the discussion; his representatives labored with the bishops who declined to accede to his demand for aid and announced their refusal to him by a committee. The king then sent word changing his demand to a request, but the decision of the prelates remained unaltered. 335 In April, 1255, the barons decided to make certain demands on the king and to post- pone further action till September to see if he would perform what they had asked. This decision was prob- 330 For cases of asking the magnates singly for an aid, see above, pp. 224, 249. 331 "pro magnatibus loquens" (Wend., IV, 233). 332 Matthew Paris, III, 380-383. 333 ibid., IV, 362-366. 334 "circa quod de die in diem convenit eos dominus rex, turn in propria persona, turn per internuntios sollempnes, per quos promisit etc." (Matthew Paris, IV, 372-373). sss Ibid., V, 324-328, 334, 336. 374 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III ably made at a meeting from which the king was absent, for it was announced to him ex parte universitatis. 330 The reason for secret deliberation was probably the unwillingness of the magnates to oppose the king singly to his face. Not everyone would dare risk the royal displeasure even by a smaller display of independence than was made by the earl marshal when he called the king a liar, unless he knew that the magnates as a whole would support him. Thus in 1226, when the pope's nuncio, Otho, demanded aid for the pope, the clergy retired and decided on a common reply which was deliv- ered by one of their number. 337 No individual prelate wished to draw on himself the papal hostility. In 1242, the barons could contradict the king to his face without first going into special session because they had sworn beforehand not to grant an aid. 33S The fear of the king is plainly shown in the statement of Matthew Paris that the prelates did not wish to respond with an out and out refusal. 335 In 1256, when the prelates were about to make a common reply by one of their members, Rostand stopped the speaker, demanding that each one reply for himself so that the king and the pope might know the opinion of each. This was what the prelates wished to avoid. 340 The difference in attitude of the barons when they faced the king and when they faced another of whom they were not afraid is seen in the council of 1229 when the papal nuncio demanded tenths for the pope. The king in the council kept silent, as he had been persuaded 336 Matthew Paris, V, 493-494. 337 "cum super rebus propositis diutius deliberassent, responsum suum in ore magistri Johannis . . . communiter posuerunt" (Wend., IV, 115). sss Matthew Paris, IV, 181. 339 "sed ne f rontose viderentur cum praecisa negatione respondisse domino suo regi" (ibid., V, 328). 539-540. 375 STUDIES IN TAXATION by Gregory IX not to oppose the demand. The clergy deliberated and finally yielded, fearing excommunication or interdict. But the laity spoke out boldly at once and refused the grant. 341 The meetings of the council were not long. The chroni- clers usually measure them by days. 342 They became longer in the latter part of Henry Ill's reign, not because more business was transacted, but because of the king's attempts to overcome the opposition of the magnates to granting aid. In 1229, the council which considered the tenth lasted four days ; 843 in 1237, four days ; 344 in 1244, Matthew Paris says that the king kept the magnates at the council many days as if wishing to weary them out, but this long council lasted only seven days. 345 In 1253, the deliberations lasted fifteen days and more; 346 in 1254, at least three weeks; 347 in 1255, a month; 348 and in 1258, the first parliament was held from April 2 to May 5. 34S Just as the tenants who were summoned were obliged to attend, so they were not allowed to leave without the king's permission. Thus the latter was able to prolong the period of the council much beyond the desires of the magnates in the hope of breaking down their resistance to his demands for aid. 350 3*1 "comites vero et barones ac laid omnes plane decimas se daturos contradixerunt" (Wend., IV, 201). 342 "per plures dies protraheret eos dominus rex, volens eos quasi taedio affectos flectere ad consensum" (Matthew Paris, IV, 363) ; "circa quod de die in diem convenit eos" (ibid., 372) ; "per plures . . . dies" (ibid., 594). The council which granted the thirteenth to John in 1207 lasted a week (see above, p. 87). 343 Wend., IV, 201. s** Matthew Paris, III, 382; perhaps a week (see above, p. 214). 346 Ibid., IV, 365. 346 Ibid., V, 374. 347 ibid., 440. 348 Ibid., 521. 34 Ibid., 676, 688. sso in 1226, after the pope's demand had been refused by the king, 376 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III It is a matter of great interest to know whether the knights, the lesser tenants, continued to attend the great council. In the meetings which were specially summoned, the notices given in the writs and chronicles afford no evidence to show that they were in attendance during the reign of Henry III up to 1248. Two terms used in describing the members of the council may relate to the knights : barones and milites. The term barones might mean any tenant in chief, as barones majores et minores; but it might also mean the great lay tenants only. 351 In some of the descriptions, it seems to be used in the restricted sense. The term milites in the writs really tells nothing as to the composition of the council. When the king is said to grant liberties to classes among whom the knights are mentioned, it does not mean that they were present. Since the liberties applied to several classes, the prelates and the lay magnates, "concessa est omnibus licentia recedendi" (Wend., IV, 124) ; in 1232, "et sic, petita licentia, laici omnes recesserunt" (ibid., 233) ; in 1252, the elect of Winchester came to the king, "ut vale dicto licentiatus repatriaret . . . Cui (regi) ait electus: Domine, mihi videtur solvitur concilium; patefactum est vobis, prout mihi videtur, praelatorum incommutabile propositum. In procinctu sum, ut de vestra licentia redeam praematurus" (Matthew Paris, V, 332) ; in 1270, the prior of Worcester had returned home without the king's permission and Henry III wrote to him, "de tractatu nobiscum habendo supersedimus ad praesens propter quod vos a curia nostra sine colloquio nobiscum habito recessistis" (Raine, p. 24). Cf. the case of 1244; the lay magnates had gone home, but the king kept the clergy and tried to break down their opposition to a grant. Finally he asked them to come one day more; they were unwilling and "sumo mane recedentes, retia, quibus aliquando invol- vebantur, prudenter evaserunt. Et murmurante et rege, solutum est concilium" (Matthew Paris, IV, 366). This was however unusual. 351 In Magna Carta, clause 2, is the statement concerning the relief of an earl, a baron, and a knight; in clause 21, is the provision that earls and barons shall only be amerced by their peers. In 1222, an aid was levied for the relief of the Holy Land, as follows: on each earl, 3 marks; each baron, 1 mark; each knight, 1 shilling (Rot. Litt. Glaus., I, 516b). 377 STUDIES IN TAXATION these classes were all mentioned. 352 When the knights among others are said to grant a tax to the king, we seem to be getting a list of the taxpayers, men who, according to the feudal theory, would have to give their consent to the tax, not an enumeration of the men who actually had a part in the deliberations of the council. 353 This does not mean that the knights did not attend, only that these notices do not prove their presence. On the other hand, the fact that representatives were introduced at the close of the reign is not necessarily evidence that the knights had ceased to attend. All through the reign the exchequer believed that much land held by military service was not paying scutage, that its holders were not taking up knighthood, and that tenants were fining to escape becoming knights. Inquests were held to get hold of men who should hold by knights' service, but without success. 354 The use of representatives was probably another way of bringing these men under contribution. There are however references to the knights in the great council. Article 14 of the charter of 1215 mentions them. In this connection, it should be recalled that although this article was later dropped, the policy 352 gee above, pp. 161, 162, 214. 353 See above, pp. 160, 200, 214. 35* See above, pp. 211, 233, in 1235 and 1242. The barons put a stop to these inquests in 1245 (see above, pp. 242, 243). Inasmuch as the king held one great council for the whole kingdom, it would probably be a burden for the knights to attend and we might expect therefore that the king would exempt them from being present. There is a case which has some similarity to this; in 1235, heads of small religious houses were summoned to meet the king to confer about an aid, not in one place, but in different places, convenient to them, throughout the kingdom (see above, p. 212). Yet on the other hand, the king summoned all the sergeants to meet him at West- minster on a certain day (Close Rolls, no. 59, m. 24 d). It would be as burdensome for them to attend as for the knights, yet the king summoned the sergeants to meet at one place. 378 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III embodied in it seems to have been carried out. 358 In 1248, Matthew Paris says that knights were present at a meet- ing of the great council. 356 In 1254, the knights were absent, but the great barons in response to the king's demand for an aid refused to answer for them. 357 In 1255, the barons declined to take any action on a tax on account of the absence of their peers, a term which may refer to the knights. 358 At the parliament of Oxford in 1258, the knights were present. 359 All the cases men- tioned are of councils specially summoned for purposes of deliberation. But the tenants in chief met and delib- erated at other times, though they were not primarily summoned for that purpose, viz., when the host was called together. On such occasions there is no doubt that the lesser tenants met all through Henry Ill's reign. 360 These would be considered meetings of the great council and at them the tenants present discussed taxation. 361 It seems fair to conclude therefore that the lesser tenants continue to attend the great council. The council did not act as a unit in taxation. The division into groups which is seen in Edward I's reign, when barons, clergy, knights, and towns each made a separate grant, begins to be seen early in the thirteenth sss See above, p. 366. 350 "edicto regio convocata totius regni Angliae nobilitas convenit Londoniis. . . . Advenerunt igitur illuc, excepta baronum et militum, nobilium, necnon et abbatum, priorum, et clericorum multitudine copiosa, novem episcopi cum totidem comitibus" (Matthew Paris, V, 5). 357 See above, p. 261. sss Matthew Paris, V, 520-521. 359 "totius regni magnatibus cum equis et armis majoribus et minoribus" (Burton, p. 438). sec Because they continued to serve in the host (see above, p. 304). 361 Thus scutage was determined at the close of campaigns : 1223, 1224, 1228, 1231, 1245, 1257 (see above, pp. 144, 151, 174, 191, 197, 246, 284). The host was summoned to meet in October, 1252, and when it met the question of an aid was discussed (ibid., p. 253). 379 STUDIES IN TAXATION century; the two classes which appeared were the clergy and the barons. Thus the feeling of corporate unity, when it developed, was strongest among members of a certain class, rather than among the members of the council as a whole. This is most clearly seen in the case of the clergy. The prelates were tenants in chief, but they were also officials of the church and it was the latter bond which was chiefly strengthened. 362 In John's reign, a certain distinction had already been made. Fines for exemption from military service were paid by all tenants, but not generally by the bishops. Instead of paying the thirteenth on the assessed value of their property, the clergy seem to have fined for it. 363 In 1224, the clergy made an independent grant of a carucage to the king while the lay tenants paid scutage. 36 * In 1225, the prel- ates paid the fifteenth, but were allowed to assess and collect it on their demesne lands. 365 In 1229, the bishops did not pay a scutage, but made a grant of an auxilium and were given letters patent affirming that this grant should not prejudice them in the future. 36 * In 1231, all the clergy owing military service made a grant of this kind and received similar letters. 387 In 1232, the clergy and laity deliberated separately on the aid; the laity refused a grant and were allowed to withdraw, while the clergy obtained a delay because many of their number were absent. 368 In 1235, the clergy obtained writs declar- ing that the grant of aid should not constitute a precedent 362 See Stubbs, Const. Hist., II (3rd ed), 175, on the development of the system of estates. sea The account of the thirteenth is given: the common thirteenth, the fines of abbots, and the dona of bishops (see above, p. 89). 364 See above, p. 148 ff. ses See above, p. 166. see See above, p. 189. 367 See above, p. 192. 368 See above, p. 200. 380 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III for future demands by the king. 369 In 1237, the thirtieth was granted first by the archbishop of Canterbury and his prelates, and all the clergy were allowed to assess and collect it on their lands. 370 In 1242, the bishops and in 1269 all the clergy received writs that the aid should not prejudice their rights. 371 In 1244, clergy and laity delib- erated separately and each body agreed to do nothing without the other. 372 In 1252, the barons stated that their reply to the king's demand for an aid depended on the reply of the prelates. 373 In 1254, the clergy and the barons made separate replies to the king's request for aid in Gascony. 374 In 1256, bishops refused a separate grant to the king from their baronies. 375 The growth of unity among the clergy was furthered by the special taxes which they paid, first, to the pope and later to the king, levied partly on property which laymen did not have (spiritualities) ; the barons moreover did not aid them to prevent this taxation. 376 Thus several grants of money were made by the clergy while the lay tenants were un- taxed. 377 By the close of Henry Ill's reign, the clergy 369 See above, p. 209. 370 See above, p. 215. 371 See above, pp. 236, 296, 297. 372 See above, p. 374. 373 "eorum (i.e. baronum) responsio a praelatorum responsione dependebat, nee voluerunt ab eorum assertione discrepantes seques- trari" (Matthew Paris, V, 335). 374 See above, p. 261. 375 Matthew Paris, V, 553. 3-6 "magnates matri suae ecclesiae non compatiebantur" (ibid., V, 526). This was in 1255 when Rostand was demanding aid for the king by papal authority. See above, p. 263 ff ., for the taxes which the clergy had to pay to the pope. When it was a question of taxing the baronies of the clergy, the lay barons came to their aid and encouraged the prelates to refuse. 377 The tenths for five years for the Sicilian affair, a tenth in 1264, a tenth for three years in 1266, a twentieth in 1268. All military tenants paid aids in 1245 and 1253, but these were owed and so are not exceptions to the statement in the text. 381 STUDIES IN TAXATION formed a definite part of the great council and responded separately for their taxes. Of a division between the greater and lesser lay tenants, there is evidence in the different form of summons in Magna Carta. The refusal of the great men to reply for the lesser tenants in 1254 378 indicates the same. Other than these cases, there is little proof of such a division under Henry HI. 879 In what sense is it true that the great council of tenants in chief represented those who were neither present nor summoned? To what extent did it act as a unit? Was the council regarded as the universitas Anglias, the reg- num, in taxation? In the earliest taxes, the tenant repre- sented all the men on his land and granted the king a tax on them. 38c This view of the matter apparently came from the feudal system, for the French kings levied taxes in the same way. 38] In theory, such a procedure was impossible; the tenant in chief had no right to take such a tax from his men without their consent. How then could he grant the king the right to tax them? The solution is not to be found by stating that the tenant put the king in his place and allowed him to ask the sub- tenants for an aid. There is no evidence that the king 378 See above, p. 261. 379 If one thinks that the introduction of representatives was due to the fact that the lesser tenants had ceased to attend the great council, then that fact should be mentioned. To the writer, the introduction of representatives has no direct bearing on the normal attendance of the lesser tenants who had formerly been accustomed to attend, but is to be connected with the tenants who ought to have held by military service, and who never had attended the great council (see above, p. 378). sso In 1207, the consent of the tenants was individual; thus each must have made the grant to the king for his own men and hence each represented his men. Cf. the grant of the carucage in 1224 (see above, p. 156); see also the letter of the king to the abbot of Coggeshal, above, p. 201, note 109. ssiVuitry, II, 144^. 382 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III took any consent but that of the barons; when this had been obtained, the writs of assessment were issued. 385 The explanation seems to be that the barons did not conform strictly to the law, but followed one of their common practices in a modified form. With the king's permission, when in financial need, they constantly applied to their vassals for auxilia. 3S Legally the vassals could not be forced to pay such aids ; they were aids of grace. At the same time, as feudal tenants, they were under obligation to come to their lord's assistance when necessary, and partly for this reason, no doubt, the requests of the ten- ants in chief for aid were commonly granted. Such an occasion for seeking an aid from their men arose when the barons granted an auxilium to their lord, the king. Instead however of raising the money by asking their vassals for a gracious aid 384 with the help of royal literae deprecatoriae, the tenants in chief modified the procedure by allowing the government to collect the aid directly from the sub-tenants. 385 In so doing, they changed the character of the levy. From being a voluntary grant by the barons' men to their lords, it became a compulsory payment, enforced by all the power of the king. Yet as the aid, in any case, would fall back in part on the sub- 382 Plehn, p. 16. sss See above, pp. 346, 347. 38* In 1207, however, many of the prelates paid lump sums for their aid to the king; to pay the money they asked their tenants for an aid (see above, pp. 88, 89, notes 8, 21, for the abbot of Abingdon and the bishop of Durham); for two cases in other years when the tenant promised the king an aid and to pay it asked his vassals for an aid, see above, p. 347, notes 225, 226. 385 Many times when property was assessed, the work of assessment and collection was in the hands of the tenants; nearly all the cases in which this was done relate to the clergy. Aids on the property of laymen were regularly assessed by the royal officials; the rights of the tenants in chief were protected in different ways (see above, pp. 205, 217). 383 STUDIES IN TAXATION tenant, the change may well have seemed mainly one of form. After 1215, the view that each baron represented all his men began to be supplemented by a feeling that the council of lay and clerical tenants in chief represented property holders who were not in attendance. This development was due to the increased frequency of taxes, to the fact that they were granted in one great council, and that they were paid, not only by all the men on the lands of tenants in chief present, but also by laymen, who were not rear-vassals ; some of these laymen had been summoned, but were not present, and others had not been summoned. 386 If such men were represented at all, they were represented by the council as a whole. 381 It is not probable that the powers of the council were clearly defined in the minds of either the king or the magnates. Yet the language of the writs of assessment shows that this question was considered. There was a steady advance in the belief that the council as a body represented men who did not attend it and in the effort to express the limits of this representation completely and precisely. In 1207, the writ states merely that the aid was provided and granted by the common advice and assent of the council. 888 In 1220, all the magnates and faithful of the realm granted the carucage. 388 In 1225, the fifteenth was granted by the archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, earls, barons, knights, free tenants, and all in the kingdom. 390 ass These laymen who had not been summoned would be men on the royal demesne and probably some minor tenants in chief. 387 Cf. Plehn, p. 16. sss "per commune consilium et assensum concilii nostri . . . pro- visum est . . . (et) concessum est" (Rot. Litt. Pat., p. 72b). 389 "concesserunt nobis sui gratia communiter omnes magnates et fideles tocius regni nostri" (Rot. Litt. Claus., I, 437a). 390 "archiepiscopi, episcopi, abbates, priores, comites, barones, milites, libere tenentes et omnes de regno nostro" (Select Charters, p. 354). 384 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III The fortieth was granted by the archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, and clergy having lands which did not belong to their churches, earls, barons, knights, freemen, and villeins of the kingdom. 391 The aid on knights' fees of 1235 was granted by the archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, earls, barons, and all others of the realm of Eng- land who held of the king in chief. 382 The thirtieth in 1237 was granted by the archbishops, bishops, abbots, priors, and clergy having lands which did not belong to their churches, earls, barons, knights, and freemen for themselves and their villeins. 393 In theory, then, every taxpayer was represented in the council or was present. In practice, also, there was much corporate activity by the council. The meetings in which taxes were considered were characterized frequently by animated discussion, especially in the latter part of the period. 394 This was a sign of corporate feeling and a cause of its growth. Taxes were granted as a result of a bargain between the king and the magnates. 39J Taxes were at first postponed and finally refused altogether. 39 * The council was described in terms which imply a unified body, as barna- 39i Select Charters, p. 360; "archiepiscopi, episcopi, abbates, priores, et clerici terras habentes quae ad ecclesias suas non pertinent, comites, barones, milites, liberi homines et villani de regno nostro" (Close Rolls, II, 155). 302 "archiepiscopi, episcopi, abbates, priores, comites, barones et omnes alii de regno nostro Anglic qui de nobis tenent in capite" (Close Rolls, III, 186). 393 The same classes as in note 391, except at the end "et liberi homines pro se et suis villanis" (Close Rolls, III, 544). 394 See above, pp. 160, 177, 200, 215, 224, 241, 249, 253 ff. 395 in 1225, the king confirmed the charter and was in return granted the fifteenth; also in 1237 (see above, pp. 160, 215). 396 in 1231, the aid of the clergy was made after it had been first denied; in 1232, there was a postponed meeting to grant the aid; in 1242 and in 1245, the king was unable to get the kind of an aid which he had wanted; in 1252, the grant of the aid was postponed. There were numerous refusals of aid after 1245. 385 STUDIES IN TAXATION gium, universitas, communitas, regnum. The king's efforts, which were often unsuccessful, to get a contribu- tion by appealing to tenants individually imply unity of action by the tenants. 397 In general it was the growth of this corporate feeling which made it possible to resist successfully the king's demands for taxes. At the same time certain qualifications must be intro- duced to show that the corporate activity of the great council and the representative character of the great council were imperfect. The previous practice had been to make aids by bargain between the king and the vassal. That this theory of individual consent should die out at once is hardly possible. The fact that the taxes were uniform in rate in great part gives them the appearance of being the result of corporate action, more than was perhaps actually the case. 398 The great barons would attend the council and there give their consent. Natur- ally therefore they would be the ones who could make most effective opposition. A small tenant who opposed, and there were such, could easily be distrained by the royal officials, fortified by the support of the magnates. 395 The persistence of the practice of individual consent is shown by cases scattered through the reign. In 1217, the bishop of Winchester protested that he had never consented to the aid of that year and he was excused payment by the king's council. 400 In 1220, the tenants of Yorkshire refused to pay the carucage, because they had not been summoned to the council which granted it. 403 397 See above, pp. 224, 249, 263, 269, 373, note 329. 39 8 The thirteenth of 1207 and the aid of 1222 were at a uniform rate, yet there seems to have been no corporate action; if there was corporate action in the grant of the carucages of 1220 and 1224, it did not bind absentees (see above, pp. 87, 131, 141, 157). 399 See above, pp. 166, 205, 217, note 186. 400 See above, p. 127. 401 Shirley, I, 151. 386 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III Some great men in other counties refused to allow dis- traint to be made on their lands for that carucage, and the royal officials seem to have been powerless. 402 The poll tax of 1222 was by individual consent. 403 The special carucage of the clergy in 1224 bound only those prelates who agreed to it. 404 In 1225, the bishop of Durham received the king's writ stating that the fifteenth had been granted "ex mero liberalitatis vestrae dono." 4 In connection with the discussion over the sixteenth of 1226, the church of Salisbury asked the question what was to be done if some canons refused to grant the sum to which the majority of the chapter agreed. 406 In 1232, the clergy, on the ground that many were absent, asked for and were granted a delay in order to consider the king's request for an aid. 401 The earl of Albemarle, the earl of Lincoln, and Richard de Percy refused to allow the fortieth to be collected on their property up to March 12, 1235, and not till 1236 was it collected from Richard "who then prevented it, but now has granted that it shall be collected." 4 A notice concerning the aid of 1235 due from the fee of a certain tenant takes the form of indi- vidual consent. 405 In 1237, the words of Matthew Paris in describing the conditions under which the grant was made imply individual consent. 41 ' In 1257, the grant of 52,000 was made by a council in which absentees were represented on condition that the absent prelates should 402 See above, p. 132. 403 See above, p. 141. <04 See above, p. 156. 405 R t. Lift. Glaus., II, 75. 406 See above, p. 170. 407 Wend., IV, 233. 408 Cal. Pat. Rolls, I, 124, 159. 409 See above, p. 209, note 149. 410 "Consentientibus igitur primum archiepiscopo Cantuariensi cum suis episcopis et clero"; "saepe tamen annexum fuit in conditione" (Matthew Paris, III, 383). 387 STUDIES IN TAXATION give their consent to it. 411 In 1270, the bishops granted a twentieth on their demesnes, but bound only those prel- ates who were present. 412 It is evident that the definite establishment of the principle, that the consent of those present to a tax binds the absentees, does not take place in Henry Ill's reign, and that the members of the great council consciously recognize this fact. If there is thus doubt about the corporate activity of the great council, we cannot state definitely that the council as a whole represented the kingdom. There were some classes over whom its authority did not extend. One of these classes was the beneficed clergy. In 1207, the grant of the thirteenth did not extend to them. 413 In 1225, the churches made a separate grant, and in 1232 and 1237 no grant at all. 414 In 1240, the papal legate dealt with the rectors of Berkshire concerning taxation for the pope. 415 In 1247, the council held to consider another papal aid contained the archdeacons. 416 In 1253, the tenth seems to have been granted by the prelates with- out consulting the lower clergy, who however later com- plained of it. 411 Perhaps as a result of this feeling, the prelates in 1254 refused to answer for the lower clergy concerning an aid. 418 In 1256 and 1257, the tenths were discussed by the lower as well as the higher clergy. 418 In the grants of aid in 1264, 1266, and 1268 only the 411 "ac praelati absentes oblationem praedictam duxerint acceptan- dam" (Burton, p. 402). 412 "Nos episcopi, qui praesentes sumus, quantum in nobis est, parati sumus gratanter subvenire de vicesima terrarum nostrarum et tenementorum feudalium, quae tenemus in dominico" (Wilkins, II, 21). 3 See above, p. 88. 414 See above, pp. 169, 201, 216. 415 See above, p. 264. 4ie See above, p. 267. 417 See above, p. 277. 418 See above, p. 262. 419 See above, pp. 277, 278. UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III higher clergy seem to have been consulted ; 420 the twentieth of 1270 was discussed by the lower clergy. 421 Another class regarding whom the same question may be raised was the religious orders which did not hold by military tenure. When the king received a grant of a tax on personal property from the great council, he demanded it from all sorts of religious houses. In order to escape paying any tax at all, to avoid the assessment of their property, or to be allowed to fine, these houses had to get a special writ from the king. When they fined, their fine was called a fine for the fifteenth. 422 Thus the presumption was that they owed the tax. This looks very much as though the king felt that the grant in the great council empowered him to collect from them although they were not members of the council. If how- ever we remember that it was customary to collect dona from religious houses when scutage was levied, or even when no scutage was taken (1248), it will seem probable that the king was following this custom in connection with the aids on personal property, rather than levying a tax by the authority of the great council. Nevertheless, a change had been brought about in the relation of these religious bodies toward taxation which was due to the fact that taxes were levied on property. In the case of the ordinary dona, no house would be liable unless it were approached by officials specially appointed to ask for a contribution; in the case of the dona taken in connection with the aids on moveables, the mere fact that a house possessed property rendered it liable to assessment by the ordinary assessors of the county. The other class which was not represented in the great council was the tenants on the royal demesne. They paid 420 See above, pp. 290, 292, 294. 421 See above, p. 297. 422 See above, p. 163. 389 STUDIES IN TAXATION the taxes on personal property in 1225 and 1232. In 1237, part, perhaps all, of the demesne paid a tallage. 423 In 1270, the towns on the demesne again paid a tallage instead of the twentieth on the assessed value of their property. 424 Henry III levied tallages during his entire reign, independently of any grant by the great council, but a tallage was not based on property. He never levied a tax on the property of the demesne except when he had received a grant from the great council. This suggests that the council represented the demesne. But when the towns paid a tallage instead of a twentieth or a thirtieth, they paid the old customary levy which they owed to the king and over which the council had no control. Such a payment had the effect of denying the authority of the council to tax them. Therefore at the close of Henry's reign, the council cannot be regarded as the representative of the towns. Certain other influences operated to prevent the forma- tion of the great council into a unified body which repre- sented the whole kingdom. The great growth of corporate feeling was after 1237. As this feeling grew, there was a tendency for the council to split into groups, each of which should have charge of its own taxes. 425 The result 3 See above, pp. 162, 201, 216. 4 See above, p. 297. 425 in 1229, the bishops paid an aid while the lay tenants and the religious houses which held by military tenure paid fines and scu- tages; in 1231, the laity paid scutage while all the clergy paid an aid. In 1237, the clergy were allowed to assess and collect the thirtieth themselves. In 1242, the laity and the religious houses paid fines and scutages and the bishops paid aid. In 1244, groups appear in the council (see above, p. 381). In 1252, the laity stated that their reply to the king for an aid depended on the reply of the clergy (see above, ibid.). In 1253, the clergy granted a tenth on their property other than their baronies. In 1254, the great barons refused to reply for the other laity. In 1255, tiie clergy refused the grant of the tenth on their baronies. There are taxes on the clergy only in 1264, 1266, and 1268. In 1269, the tenants in chief granted the 390 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III would be to restrict rather than to broaden the repre- sentative character of the assembly. By whom would the unrepresented elements be taxed? That was a matter which could be settled only by precedent. But the action of the council after 1237 as to taxes on laymen was negative. The tenants refused to grant aids. General taxes on laymen, except those legally due, ceased for over a generation (from 1237 till 1269). 426 The principle was thus established that the king could not tax without the consent of the tenants in chief. But the precedents by which that principle was fixed by no means established the principle that the tenants in chief were competent to grant taxes on property other than their own. That was left for another generation to work out. Another question arises: When the great council, or a group in it, refused a tax, was the king able to exact the tax from another group or from individual members? Up to 1242, there is no evidence that an effort was made to obtain money from individuals when the group had refused it. In 1231, though scutage was being collected from lay tenants, nothing was demanded from clerical tenants till the grant of aid was made by them. 427 After 1242, demands were made on individuals for aid. But the frequent refusals and the recourse of the king to money lenders show how insufficient were the sums which could be raised if there was not a grant by the council. 428 The magnates were continually summoned and asked for aid. The lay tenants were especially successful in escaping twentieth on their baronies, then the bishops on their demesnes, then the religious houses, probably on property other than lands held by military tenure; the towns also paid a tallage (see above, p. 296/.). 426 The only taxes levied were the scutages and the aids of 1245 and 1253, to marry the king's daughter and to knight the king's eldest son. 427 See above, p. 192. 428 See above, p. 241 ff. 391 STUDIES IN TAXATION taxation. In 1258 they did not complain of excessive taxes ; it was the clergy and the towns that had suffered. 429 CONCLUSION As between the king and the tenants in chief, the scutage therefore never became a general tax; it remained the composition for military service. It was however often accompanied or replaced by a fine. Military service was essentially changed. The old servitium debitum disap- peared, and a new servitium debitum took its place. In the case of the greater tenants, the new service was usually only a fraction of the old service; in the case of the lesser tenants, it was often, probably generally, com- muted into money. The scutage or fine was the composi- tion for this reduced service; the scutage was computed at a customary rate and the fine was taken at a lump sum which was restricted in amount by custom. The number of fees for which a tenant was held to respond at the exchequer had also become fixed at a number representing either the old servitium debitum or the old enfeoffment of the time of Henry II. Attempts to increase the rate and the number of fees failed. The scutage however did not stop with the tenant in chief; it was shifted from one grade to another of holders of land. The decline in the amount of military service which tenants in chief furnished the king means that the great majority of rear- vassals ceased to serve in the field, but performed their service by paying scutage. Each military expedition for which scutage was levied became therefore the occasion for a tax on all land held by military service. Thus the scope of the scutage as a tax is far wider than is represented by what the king received or what the Pipe Rolls record. As between the king and his vassals, the 420 Select Charters, pp. 394, 395. 392 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III scutage continued to be the composition for service, levied only on part of the fees ; as between tenants of different grades, it was a tax on all the fees. The opposition of tenants in chief to John's scutages was probably in part the result of the opposition of the sub-tenants to the greater frequency of the levy and the increase in the rate. The same method of collection persisted throughout the period. The sheriff usually supervised the collection, though twice special officers were appointed. Tenants who served retained the scutage from their lands for their own use. Other tenants were allowed to collect from their vassals and to respond either to the sheriff or directly to the exchequer. The sheriff was constantly brought into direct relations with the sub-tenants. He distrained them to pay scutage to their lords ; if the latter refused to pay, he distrained both lord and vassal. If the lord had no writ to collect his scutage, the royal officer col- lected it from the rear- vassals. But in general, the scu- tage was not paid by the rear-vassals to the sheriff for the exchequer. The abuses of scutage under John were twofold: the increase in the amount of composition and its levy on improper occasions. These abuses brought about an attempt to regulate them in Magna Carta of 1215. The provision there made covered all kinds of extraordinary levies on tenants in chief, aids as well as scutages. It was dropped chiefly because it changed scutage into an aid, but the abuses remained reformed under Henry III. The tallage retained its original character. It was levied from time to time independently of other levies. Towns, vills, and individuals paid lump sums assessed by royal officers, usually judges, who were generally assisted in this work by the sheriff. It was paid either to these assessors, or to the sheriff, or directly to the exchequer. 393 STUDIES IN TAXATION The amounts charged varied within limits. There was no assessment of property. The dona from religious houses remained the same, lump sums, not based on property, assessed and collected in about the same way as the tallage. They were always taken, up to 1248, in connection with a levy on tenants in chief, but in that year one was taken although the military tenants paid nothing. The king therefore was establish- ing the right to take this voluntary levy independently of other taxes. These three levies, the scutage, the tallage, and the donum, therefore became stereotyped. It was clearly understood when and how they were to be taken. The amount which could be demanded, even in the case of the fines, was practically fixed. Henceforth it would tend to diminish rather than increase. The development of a system of taxes along this line had stopped. The further growth of taxation was connected with these levies only in an indirect way, viz., through the king's power to obtain service in money by means of them. The necessity of the government for a larger income led to modern taxation. Its origin was the voluntary feudal aid, a levy never taken by the king on a grand scale before Richard I, but constantly taken by the barons. Thus an occasion for repeated levies was found in the financial necessities of the feudal lord, in this case the king. But of greater importance was the form which the aid assumed in the carucage and the tax on moveables. They were based on property. New machinery of assess- ment and collection was devised, representing both the central government and the locality. Ultimately all classes in the community were brought under contribution on the assessed value of their property. Along with this went a change in the feeling toward these extraordinary levies. By the end of Henry Ill's reign, it was admitted 394 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III that the king could not live of his own, but that from time to time he needed an aid to supplement the ordinary income of the state. All this meant an immense increase of the royal power. At the same time, an effective check on the king's taxing power was developed through the growth of a feeling of unity among the tenants in chief. This check first appeared under John, partly caused by his levy of scu- tage. At the close of his reign the barons succeeded through combination in placing limits to the king's rights over scutage. The great development of corporate feel- ing however was under Henry III. The strength of the combination of the barons made the king observe in the main the regulation laid down for scutage. It was not hard for the tenants to combine to this end, for they understood clearly what they desired. If the king had waged a proper campaign, he should have scutage from those who had failed to serve; he might also have a fine on occasion. If there had been no proper campaign, then no scutage was due. Rate of scutage and fines should be reasonable. It was less easy for the barons to arrive at a satis- factory arrangement of the aid. They would hardly deny the truth of the proposition that, if a lord were in financial straits, his vassals ought to come to his assist- ance. Such a situation however should occur infrequently and it was hard to know what to do with a king like Henry III who was always short of money. Furthermore, the aids which the king finally came to ask had dangerous forms. All property was to be assessed by juries under the supervision of royal officers, and a certain proportion of the value was to be paid. This payment looks very much like rent (consuetudo). If the requests of the king were always granted, he would develop a customary right to aids corresponding to his right to tallage. Never- 395 STUDIES IN TAXATION theless, resistance was difficult. The royal demand was based on feudal custom practised by the barons themselves and the king was very strong. Hence arose the combi- nation of the barons to resist the royal power and refuse to grant aids. To the custom that the lord could ask aids of his vassals when he was in great need, the tenants opposed the principle that consent to the aid was neces- sary. The consent was however in origin individual, but by the union of the barons a measure of corporate consent was developed. The composition of the great council was ill-defined under Henry III. In theory that body was composed of all tenants in chief by military service; in practice there was much variation. Probably many of the lesser tenants ceased to attend just as they had ceased to go to war with the host, but neither in fact nor in theory was the council composed only of the greater tenants in chief. The authority of the council was equally ill-defined. In the early part of the reign it granted several taxes. These were levied on men who were not represented in it. Then ensued a period of thirty-two years (1237-1269) in which the council refused to grant aids, and the refusal was effective as far as the property on land held by military service was concerned. The principle was thus established that the king could not tax his military ten- ants without the consent of the great council. During this period, no aids were levied on the demesne. It may be that the refusal of the tenants in chief was partly responsible for this, but it must be remembered that the aid of 1237 was not levied on all the royal demesne. Instead the king took a tallage. It is likely therefore that the refusal of the great council was not the reason why the king did not levy aid on his demesne and that refusal did not operate to prevent the king from taxing 396 UNDER JOHN AND HENRY III the property of the clergy which was not held by military service. The corporate activity of the tenants in chief therefore seems to have applied only to their own prop- erty. Nor was that activity complete, for the idea of individual consent persisted throughout Henry Ill's reign. The council tended to split into groups. Thus though the king could not tax his military tenants without their consent when they were gathered in an assembly, the principle was not yet established that the council could tax any property other than that of its members. The questions of the final composition of the council and the definition of its authority were left for a later age. 397 INDEX Aid: distinct from scutage, pp. 13, 314, 315; gracious, pp. 346-349; kinds of, fixed by feudal law, p. 346; levies included under, pp. 13, 314, 315, 348, 359; points discussed under each, pp. 13, 14; reasons for asking, pp. 346-348; see each aid. refusal of; by the clergy to the king, 1207, p. 87; in 1217, p. 123; by lay tenants in 1220, pp. 130-132; by lay tenants to the pope, 1229, p. 177; to the king, 1232, p. 200; in 1242, p. 224; in 1244, p. 241; in 1248, 1249, p. 249; in 1252, pp. 253, 269; in 1254, pp. 262, 271; in 1255-1258, pp. 274-278; in 1266, p. 292; in general, pp. 385, 386, 387. regulated in Magna Carta, pp. 359 ff. requests for, from individuals; by the pope, 1240, p. 264; 1245- 1247, p. 267; 1252, p. 269; 1262, p. 290; by the king: 1242, pp. 224, 225; 1248, p. 249; 1252, p. 269; 1254, p. 263; p. 373 note 329; in general, p. 374. Aids, list of: see aids on knights' fees; carucages; personal property, taxes on; dona, on knights' fees: list of: pp. 348-350; in 1217, p. 125; 1229, on bishops, p. 189; 1231, on clergy, p. 192; 1235, p. 208; 1242, on bishops, p. 236; 1245, p. 241; 1253, p. 253. amount yielded, p. 354; assessment and collection, in general, p. 350; see also each aid. authority for the levy of: in 1217, p. 125; 1229, p. 189; 1231, p. 192; 1235, p. 209; 1242, p. 236; 1245, p. 242; 1253, pp. 253, 254. exemption from, in 1217, pp. 127, 128. Army, composition of, pp. 304-306, and see each scutage. Assessment and collection of taxes: aids on knights' fees, p. 350; carucage and taxes on personal property, pp. 352-353; scutage, pp. 335-337; tallage, pp. 342-343; and see each tax. Auxilium; see aid. Bedford, scutage of, p. 148; carucage of, p. 148. Beneficed clergy: not represented by the great council, p. 388; taxation of, by the king, pp. 14, 355-356, and see list of taxes on personal property; taxation of, by the pope, p. 356. exempt from aids on personal property granted by the great council, p. 388. 899 INDEX Biham, scutage of, p. 136. Bishops: paid aid in 1229, p. 189; in 1242, p. 236; seldom paid fines for knights' service: in 1201, p. 40; in 1203, p. 57; in 1204, p. 66; 1206, p. 79. Burgh, Hubert de, marches into Wales, 1223, p. 143; asks for a fifteenth, 1225, p. 160; his account of the fifteenth, p. 16T note; opposes the expedition of 1230, p. 181. Campaigns, cost of, pp. 159, 343-344; length of: in 1199, p. 21; 1201, pp. 34, 35; 1206, p. 77; 1210, p. 96; 1211, p. 101; 1214, p. 109; 1221, p. 137; 1223, pp. 143- 144; 1224, p. 149; 1228, p. 173; 1230, p. 181; 1231, p. 196; 1245, p. 244; 1257, p. 284 note; in general, pp. 310-311. Carucage: amount yielded, p. 354; assessment and collection, p. 352; change in the character of taxation in the, p. 351; compo- sition for, p. 353; incidence of, pp. 351, 353; inquests into the, in 1198, p. 8; number of men paying the, p. 353; opposition to the, in 1198, p. 7; in 1200, p. 34; in 1217, p. 123; in 1220, p. 130. Carucages, list of: in 1194, p. 7; 1198, p. 7; 1200, p. 32; 1217, p. 121; 1220, p. 129; 1224, on clergy, p. 148. Channel Isles, aid on the, in 1201, p. 45; fifth on the, 1203, p. 63. Chester, earl of, opposes the tenth df 1229, p. 177; opposes the fortieth, 1232, p. 193. Commune consilium regni, meaning of, p. 369. Composition for taxes: see carucages; personal property, taxes on. Confirmation of charters, 1227, p. 173. Consent to taxation: see individual consent; great council, corporate action of. County farm, amount of, p. 15. Demesne, royal: not represented by the great council, p. 389; pays the thirteenth, 1207, p. 89; pays the carucage, 1220, p. 134; the fifteenth, 1225, p. 162; the fortieth, 1232, p. 201; partly exempt from the thirtieth, 1237, pp. 216, 219; and from the twentieth, 1269, p. 297. Disinherited, twentieth paid by the clergy for the, 1268, p. 294. Disseizin: for fine: in 1205, p. 74; 1210, pp. 99-100; in general, p. 336. for knights' service: in 1203, p. 62; 1209, p. 96; 1210, p. 99; 1223, p. 145; in general, pp. 306-307. for scutage: 1204, p. 67; 1210, p. 99; 1228, p. 175; in general, p. 319. for tax on personal property: in 1207, p. 90. Distraint: for fines for military service: in 1199, p. 31; in general, p. 336. for aids: in 1217, p. 128; 1225, p. 166; of clergy, 1231, p. 195; 400 INDEX 1232, p. 205; 1235, p. 210; 1237, p. 217 note; 1245, p. 243; 1253, pp. 258-259; in general, p. 386. for knights' service: 1210, p. 99; 1242, pp. 225, 226; 1244, p. 240; 1245, p. 245 note; 1253, pp. 254, 255; in general, p. 307. for scutage: in 1199, p. 31; 1205, p. 76; 1221, p. 140; 1223, p. 147; 1224, p. 152; 1228, pp. 175, 176; 1229, p. 188 note; 1230, pp. 194, 195; 1231, p. 198; 1242, p. 235; 1245, pp. 246-248; in general, pp. 319-320, 330, 335-338. Dona from religious houses: in general, pp. 9, 343, 350. assessment and collection, see references in the list below, list of: in 1199, p. 32; 1203, p. 61; 1204, p. 68; 1205, p. 70; 1206, p. 77 note; 1210, p. 105; 1217, p. 121; 1220, p. 135; 1230, p. 190; 1235, p. 212; 1242, pp. 225, 237-238; 1245, p. 244; 1249- 1250, pp. 249-250; 1253, p. 255-256; 1254, p. 263; 1255, p. 275; 1264, p. 290. Eightieth of 1250, p. 268. Elveyn, scutage of, p. 195. Falkes de Br6aut6, rebellion of, p. 148. Fifteenth: of merchants, 1204, p. 69; of personal property, 1225, p. 159. Fifth: of Channel Isles, 1203, p. 63; on the clergy for the pope, 1240, p. 264. Fine for knights' service: meaning of, pp. 26, 324, 325; general statement concerning, pp. 322-323. assessed by special justices: in 1201, p. 44; 1202, p. 53; 1203, p. 61. date of levy of, pp. 316, 324, 328. opposition to, pp. 323, 324; paid by bishops; see bishops, rate of the: in 1201, p. 39; 1202, pp. 48, 49; 1203, pp. 55, 57; 1204, pp. 65, 66; 1205, pp. 71, 73; 1206, p. 78; 1210, p. 99; 1229, pp. 185, 187; in general, pp. 326, 327, 328. two forms of: in 1199, p. 27; 1201, p. 39; 1202, p. 49; 1203, p. 57; 1204, p. 66; 1205, p. 73; 1206, p. 79; 1229, p. 187; 1242, pp. 228-230; in general, pp. 323, 326, 328. incidence of: in 1201, p. 43; 1203, p. 60; 1204, p. 66 note; 1205, p. 76; 1210, p. 100; 1233, pp. 206, 207; 1244, p. 240; 1257, p. 286; in general, pp. 331-332. Fines, list of: under Henry II and Richard I, pp. 5, 26; in 1199, p. 22; 1201, p. 35; 1202, p. 48; 1203, p. 54; 1204, p. 65; 1205, p. 70; 1206, p. 77; 1209, p. 95; 1210, p. 98; 1211, p. 363; 1215-1217, p. 121; 1224, p. 151 note; 1229, p. 187; 1233, p. 206; 1242, p. 224; 1244, p. 240; 1245, p. 246; 1253, p. 255; 1257, p. 286. 401 INDEX Fines for the aid of 1235, p. 210; paid by the partisans of Simon de Montfort, 1265, p. 291. Fortieth, the, 1201, p. 45; of 1232, p. 199. Forty days, the, pp. 245 note, 309-311. Gannoc, scutage of, p. 244. Gascony, expeditions to; see Henry III. Great council: representative character of the, pp. 369, 382-385, composition of the, pp. 370-372, 377-379 ; and see list of meetings ; corporate action of, pp. 358, 360, 369, 382, 391; and see list of meetings; dates of meeting, p. 372; discussion in the, pp. 372-375, 385; length of sessions of the, p. 376; writ of summons to, p. 370; list of meetings mentioned: 1204, p. 63; 1207, p. 86; 1217, pp. 122, 125; 1220, p. 130; 1221, pp. 137, 139; 1222, p. 141; 1224, p. 148; 1225, pp. 159-161; 1229, pp. 176, 181, 189; 1230, p. 191; 1231, p. 192; 1232, p. 200; 1235, p. 208; 1237, p. 214; 1242, pp. 224, 236; 1244-1245, pp. 241, 242; 1246-1249, pp. 249, 250, 266, 267; 1252, pp. 253, 269; 1253, pp. 254, 270; 1254, pp. 261-263; 1255, pp. 274, 275; 1256-1258, pp. 277, 278; 1264, p. 290; 1266, p. 292; 1269, p. 295. Half of revenues of clergy demanded by the pope, 1246, p. 267. Henry III: insufficient income and loans: in 1217, pp. 121, 124; 1220, pp. 129, 130; 1221, p. 138; 1224, p. 159; 1231, p. 197; 1232, p. 199; 1235, p. 208; 1237, p. 215; 1242, p. 238; 1244- 1245, pp. 241, 246; 1247-1250, pp. 249-250; 1253-1258, pp. 260, 279, 281, 282. and Gascony: sends money to, in 1226-1227, p. 168; desires to lead expedition to, pp. 171, 172; leads expedition to, in 1230, p. 181; in 1242, p. 224; in 1253, p. 253; expenses in, in 1230, p. 181; in 1242, p. 238; in 1253, p. 260; and Sicilian crown, pp. 274^.; assumes the cross, p. 268; causes of his poverty, p. 345; of his conflict with the barons, pp. 119, 345, 370; measures to restrict his expenditure, in 1237, p. 218; promises that aid shall not form a precedent; see precedent. Herlot, papal delegate to England, 1257, p. 278. Hidage; see carucage. Honors in hand, scutage and fine on; in 1201, pp. 39, 43; 1202, p. 52; 1203, pp. 57, 60; 1206, p. 79; 1211, p. 104; 1224, p. 152; in general, pp. 331-332. Hundredth, on the clergy for the pope, 1263, p. 290. Increment of county farm, amount of, p. 15. 402 INDEX Indemnity of 1217, pp. 124, 125. Individual consent to taxation: in 1217, p. 127; in 1220, pp. 131, 132; in 1222, p. 141; in 1224, p. 156; in 1225, pp. 161, 162; in 1226, p. 170; in 1235, p. 209; in general, pp. 379 ff., 386-388. Inquests: of 1166, p. 3; 1198, p. 8; 1212, p. 322; 1235, pp. 211-212; 1242, pp. 233-234, 237, 353. Interdict, tallage for the, 1214, p. 117; income from church lands during the, pp. 106-108. Ireland, expedition to, 1210, p. 96; taxation of, 1217, p. 129; in 1220, p. 135; clergy, 1226, p. 171; in 1235-1237, p. 219; from clergy, 1242, p. 238; in 1253, p. 260; twentieth for the pope, 1241, p. 265 note; tenth, 1266, p. 293. Jews, tallages of: in 1210, p. 105; 1220, p. 208 note; 1224, p. 163 note; 1230, p. 191; 1233, p. 200; 1237, p. 219; 1241, p. 220; 1249, p. 250 note; 1256, p. 284 note. John: treaty with Philip Augustus, 1200, p. 32; money in hand in 1206, p. 82; income from church lands during the interdict, pp. 106-108; funds in 1214, p. 110 note; royal income under, pp. 15, 16, 344. Jury, a royal device in taxation, p. 352. Knights; see lesser tenants. Knights' service: fines of towns for: in 1224, p. 149; 1231, p. 198; 1264, p. 290; performed by rear-vassals: in 1221, p. 140; 1228, p. 175; 1229- 1230, p. 195; in general, p. 329; reduction of: in 1202, p. 48 note; 1204, p. 64 note; 1210, p. 97; 1211, p. 101; 1213, pp. 109-110; 1214, p. Ill; 1221, p. 138; 1223, p. 146; 1224, pp. 149-152; 1228, p. 174; 1229-1230, pp. 182-183, 193; 1231, p. 196; 1241, p. 221; 1242, p. 226; 1245, pp. 245-248; 1253, p. 255; 1257, pp. 284-285; in general, pp. 11, 302-304, 362-363; causes of reduction, pp. 307-309; unwillingness to perform, in 1213-1214, p. 113; 1242, p. 225; 1244, p. 240; 1253, pp. 253-254; 1254, pp. 261-263; 1257, p. 284; in general, pp. 307-308. Lambeth, treaty of, 1217, p. 124. Lesser tenants: in the great council: in 1225, p. 160; 1232, p. 200; 1235, p. 208 note; 1237, p. 214; 1254, p. 261; in general, pp. 377 ff. rate of fines on: p. 328, and see references in list of fines, service of, in the host: p. 306, and see references to host in list of scutages. London, tallage on, per capita, 1226, p. 172; dispute over the tallage of, 1255, p. 283. Louis of France, in England, pp. 121-125. 403 INDEX Magna Carta: provisions concerning taxation, pp. 359 ff.; these provisions obeyed under Henry III, pp. 366-367; grievances concerning scutage in, pp. 10-12, 361 ff.; reduction of royal income resulting from, p. 119. Martin, papal delegate to England to collect money, 1244, pp. 265- 266. Mercenaries, use of: in 1199, p. 21; 1201, p. 35; 1202, p. 46; 1203, p. 53; 1204, p. 64; 1210, p. 96; 1214, p. Ill; 1221, p. 138; 1225, p. 168; 1230, p. 182; 1233, p. 206; 1242, pp. 225, 227; 1245, pp. 244, 245; 1254, p. 262; in general, pp. 304-305; 311 note 53. Modern taxation, origin of, p. 346. Moneyers, tallage of, p. 289. Montgomery, scutage of, 1223, p. 143. New enfeoffment, p. 3. Norwich, bishop of: collector of papal subsidies, 1246-1247, pp. 266, 267; collector of the tenth, 1254, p. 271. Norwich taxation, pp. 272, 292, 294, 298 note. Old enfeoffment, p. 3. Otho, papal legate, levies taxes on the clergy, 1238-1241, pp. 264-265. Ottobon, papal legate, pp. 291 ff. Personal property, taxes on: assessment and collection, pp. 352-356; change in the character of taxation in the, p. 351 ; composi- tion for the, pp. 353, 355; incidence of, pp. 351-353, 355- 356; number of men paying the, p. 353; occasion for, pp. 347-348; receipts from, pp. 354-356; rights of barons protected in the, pp. 205, 217, 352; and see each tax. Personal property, taxes on, list of: 1166, p. 6; tenth, for the crusade, 1188, p. 6; fourth, for Richard's ransom, 1194, p. 6; levied during the reigns of John and Henry III: fortieth, for the crusade, 1201, p. 45; aid on the Channel Islands, 1201, p. 45; fifth on the Channel Islands, 1203, p. 63; seventh, fine for desertion, 1203, p. 62; thirteenth, 1207, p. 84; twentieth, on the clergy, 1216, p. 121; fifteenth, 1225, p. 159; sixteenth on the clergy, 1226, p. 169; tenth on the clergy, 1229, papal, p. 176; fortieth, 1232, p. 199; thirtieth, 1237, p. 214; thirtieth, papal, on the clergy, 1238, p. 264; fifth, papal, on the clergy, 1240, p. 264; twentieth, papal, on the clergy, 1246, p. 265; papal levies of 1247, on the clergy, p. 267; twenty-third, 1250, p. 250; eightieth, on the clergy, 1250, p. 268; twentieth, on the clergy, 1252, p. 268; tenth, for five years, 1253, on the clergy, pp. 254, 263; hundredth, papal, on the clergy, 1263, p. 290; tenth, on the clergy, 1264, p. 290; tenth, for three years, 1266, on the 404 INDEX clergy, p. 291; twentieth, on the clergy, for the Disinherited, 1268, p. 294; twentieth, for the crusade, 1269, p. 295. Poll tax of 1222, p. 141. Precedent, letters patent that taxes shall not form a: in 1224, to clergy, p. 157; in 1227, to the beneficed clergy, p. 171; in 1229, to the bishops, p. 189; 1231, to clergy, p. 192; 1235, to clergy, p. 209; 1237, to all tenants, p. 219; 1242, to bishops, p. 236; tax on the clergy of 1269, not to be a, pp. 296, 297. Proficuum, amount of, p. 15. Quota, service by; see knights' service, reduction. Revenue, king's: classification of, p. 1; ordinary revenue insufficient, p. 2; amount of ordinary revenue under John, p. 16; total revenue in 1242, pp. 238-239; in 1253, pp. 260, 261; in general, under John and Henry III, pp. 344, 345. Richard I, taxation for the ransom of, p. 6. Richard, earl of Cornwall: in Gascony, 1226, p. 168; receives money from Henry III, p. 219; loans to Henry III, pp. 246, 249, 282; accompanies Henry III to Gascony, 1242, p. 227; absent from the great council, p. 372. Richard Marshal, fines for campaign against, 1233, p. 206. Rosso, Peter, papal delegate to England, p. 265. Rostand, sent to England to assess the tenth, pp. 275 ff. Round: estimate of the servitium debitum, pp. 4, 300. Saladin tithe; see tenth of 1188. Scotland, scutage of, 1209-1211, p. 94. Scutage: abuses of, under John, pp. 361-366; amount of, paid, p. 338; assessment and collection, pp. 335-338, and see each scutage; authority for the levy of: in 1204, p. 64; in 1221, p. 139; 1224, p. 151; 1229, p. 186; 1230, p. 191; 1231, p. 197; 1233, p. 206; 1242, pp. 235-236; in general, pp. 338-340. character of, pp. 10-13, 317-321, 332-334. date of levy of, p. 316; see each scutage. delays in paying, p. 338; description of account of, in the Pipe Roll, pp. 17-18, 313-314; more complete form of account of, in 1211, p. 104. incidence of, pp. 329, 330, and see each scutage. incomplete accounts of, in 1204, p. 314 note; 1210, p. 98; 1242, p. 228; in Magna Carta, p. 359; levies included under, p. 359; number of fees paying, in the thirteenth century; in 1217, p. 127; 1245, p. 243; 1253, p. 257; also, pp. 4, 300-302, 331. number of greater tenants paying, or fine, pp. 302, 306, and see each scutage; 405 INDEX paid and service rendered: in 1199, pp. 23, 24; 1201, p. 38; 1203, p. 56; 1214, p. 115; in general, p. 322; opposition to: 1214, pp. 112-114; 1229, of bishops, p. 189; 1230, of clergy, p. 192; in general, pp. 333-334, 361 ff. pardoned in part: in 1201, p. 38; 1223, pp. 145, 146; points discussed in connection with each, p. 10. rate of: under Henry II, p. 4; in 1210, p. 98; in general, pp. 316-317; the entire composition for service, pp. 17, 317-322, 328, and see each scutage; under Henry III, pp. 366-367; and fine under Henry III, pp. 327-329. Scutages, list of, levied by John: 1199, p. 22; 1201, p. 34; 1202, p. 46; 1203, p. 53; 1204, p. 63; 1205, p. 69; 1206, p. 77; 1209, Scotland, p. 94; 1210, Ireland, p. 96; 1211, Wales, p. 101; 1214, Poitou, p. 109; levied by Henry III: 1221, Biham, p. 136; 1223, Montgomery, p. 143; 1224, Bedford, p. 148; 1228, Kerry, p. 173; 1230, Brittany, p. 180; 1231, Poitou, p. 191; 1232, Elveyn, p. 195; 1242, Gascony, p. 224; 1246, Gannoc, p. 244; 1258, \Vales, p. 284. Scutagio habendo, the writ de, examples of, pp. 140, 147, 152, 230, 318, 335. Service exempted from scutage and fine, pp. 317, 318, 328, 329, and see each scutage; not commuted at the will of the tenant, p. 312. Servitium debitum, amount of, pp. 3, 4, 300. Seventh, 1203, pp. 54, 62. Sheriff, duties of, in connection with scutage, pp. 335-338; tallage, p. 342; taxes on personal property and carucages, p. 352; and see each tax. Sicilian crown, taxation for the, pp. 274 if. Sixteenth on the beneficed clergy, 1226, pp. 169 ff. Sub-infeudation, extent of, p. 308. Tallage: assessment and collection, pp. 342-343, and see each tallage; character of, p. 10; frequency of, p. 340; levied in connection with aids, p. 340; relation of, to scutage, p. 340; restrained in amount, pp. 341-342; TaUages, list of, under John and Henry III: 1199, p. 31; 1201, p. 45; 1202, p. 47; 1203, pp. 54, 61; 1204, p. 68; 1205, p. 76; 1206, p. 82; 1210, p. 100; 1214, p. 116; 1217, p. 128; 1223, p. 147; 1226, p. 172; 1230, p. 190; 1234, p. 207; 1235, p. 213; 1238, p. 219; 1241, p. 220; 1242, p. 227 note; 1245, p. 249; 1249, p. 250; 1251, p. 250; 1253, aid on the towns, p. 256; 1255, p. 283; 1260, p. 289; 1268, p. 294; 1269, p. 297. 406 INDEX Tenants, division into greater and lesser, p. 382; continue to serve with the host, pp. 305-306; number of greater tenants who compound for knights' service, pp. 302, 306, and see each scutage. Tenth of personal property, of 1188, p. 6; 1229, p. 176; 1253, pp. 254, 263; 1264, p. 290; 1266, p. 291. Third of personal property, from the clergy by the pope, 1247, p. 267. Thirteenth of personal property, 1207, p. 84. Thirtieth, 1237, p. 214; for the pope, 1238, p. 264. Twentieth of personal property, 1216, p. 121; 1246, p. 265; 1247, p. 267; 1252, p. 268; 1268, p. 294; 1269, p. 295. Twenty-third, 1250, p. 250. Wages of knights, pp. 5, 309. Wales, scutage of, 1211, p. 101; 1258, p. 284. Welsh, expedition against the, 1241, p. 220. 407 University of California SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 305 De Neve Drive - Parking Lot 17 Box 951388 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90095-1388 Return this material to the library from which it was borrowed. CAYLORO PRINTED IN U.S.A.