1922 SCUTAGE UNDER EDWARD I 329 dated 14 June 1293 * and 24 July 1297 2 respectively, he did not succeed in getting the debt written off, and was even compelled to pay up about half of the total amount charged against him. 3 It appears, in fact, that the form of the quittance itself supplied the exchequer with its pretext for continuing the demand for scutage. The writ, as issued by the chancery after examination of the marshal's rolls, specified in general the number of fees for which service had been performed or fine paid. 4 If this number did not tally with the traditional total upon which, according to the evidence of the Pipe Rolls, scutage was customarily charged, and if no adequate explanation of the discrepancy was forth- coming from the tenant concerned, 5 the writ was disregarded by the exchequer officials, and the tenant continued to be charged with scutage as before. Before, however, the new policy had been completely evolved, a second scutage was imposed in connexion with the Welsh expedition of the tenth year. On 21 March 1282 David of Wales rose in revolt and launched an unexpected attack upon Ha warden Castle. All available forces were hurriedly concentrated on the Welsh border, but it was not till 20 May that the formal feudal 1 Exch. Mem. Roll, Lord Treas. Rem., no. 64, Comm. Trin., m. 26 d.
- Cal. of Close Rolls, 1296-1302, p. 50.
3 Pipe Roll, no. 168, Devon, m. 2. H. de la Pomeraye pays 30 ; owes 33 6s. 8d. Pipe Roll, no. 181, Devon. Sheriff responds for 16s. 8d. for H. de la Pomeraye. 4 The formula of the writ was : ' Quia A. B. fuit cum Rege per preceptum Regis [or habuit servicium suum ; or finem fecit cum Rege] in exercitu Wallie anno regni sui quinto, pro servicio x feodorum militum quod tune Regi recognovit, sicut per inspeccionem rotulorum Marescalcie regis de eodem exercitu constat : Rex mandat Baronibus quod ipsum A. B. de demanda quam ei fieri faciunt per summonicionem scaccarii de scutagio ad opus Regis levando de predictis x feodis, pacem habere per- mittant, et ipsum inde quietum esse faciant. Teste rege etc.' (Exch. Mem. Roll, Lord Treas. Rem., no. 58,-Communia). 5 That this was the pretext is clear from various entries in the Memoranda Rolls, e. g. Exch. Mem. Roll, Lord Treas. Rem., no. 74, Brevia directa Baronibus, Mich., m. 10 d, Richard Lovell ' debet 1 m. de fine pro servicio unius feodi militis ... in exercitu vestro Wallie anno X. Item debet xl m. pro eodem pro exercitu vestro Wallie anno V. Item exiguntur ab eodem xxii li. x s. de scutagio Wallie anno V de xviii feodis de feodis de Morteyn et xxii li. x s. de scutagio Wallie anno X de feodis predictis, pro eo quod antecessores predict! Ricardi in dictis exercitibus servicium unius feodi militis solummodo recognoverunt, et inde finem fecerunt, ubi ipsi predicta xviii feoda de Morteyn tenent, pro quibus xviii feodis asserebant se fore facturos servicium unius feodi militis tantum in quolibet exercitu Regis, set nihilinde preter predictam assercionem ostendunt.' See also Exch. Mem. Roll, Lord Treas. Rem., no. 75, Rec. Mich., m. 12, where the abbot of St. Benedict of Holme is charged with 8 4s. Qd. scutage for the fifth and tenth years respectively : ' et inspectis rotulis etc. compertum est quod Abbas domus predicte fecit Regi servicium in exercitu Wallie anno V, pro duobus feodis et dimidio ; et predictum finem ^ iii li. vi s. viii d. pro eervicio dictorum duorum feodorum et dimidii in exercitu Wallie anno X. Et licet summa scutagii superius annotata ad plura feoda se extendat quam servicium pre- dictum ; tamen, quia predictus Abbas clamat habere acquietanciam de scutagio omnium feodorum que tenet de Rege per servicium duorum feodorum et dimidii . . . con- cessum est quod habeat respectum de scutagio predicto, etc.'
