Page:English Historical Review Volume 37.djvu/339

1922 SCUTAGE UNDER EDWARD I 331 have satisfied the Crown. 1 At the same time, the constable and marshal and other military officers were ordered to send the rolls of service in their custody to the exchequer, 2 so that the officials might inform themselves ' super serviciis ... in exercitibus retroactis factis et etiam que de iure fieri deberent '. 3 The petition of 1292, so far from producing the effect desired by the magnates, appears to have impressed the exchequer with the necessity for further defining its position. The records of this year furnish evidence which incontestably disproves the theory of Dr. Morris that a tenant in chief who wished to escape service might tender at will either scutage or a fine. The claim that reduced service did not exempt the Crown vassal from the payment of scutage had already been advanced by the exchequer. As the natural corollary of that claim, the principle was now clearly laid down that scutage alone could not absolve a tenant in chief from all his military obligations to the Crown. By a curious coincidence the case of the abbot of Tavistock, which is adduced by Dr. Morris in support of his theory of the alter- native methods of commutation, 4 affords the direct refutation of that same argument. The abbot, who in 1279 had waited to be assessed by the sheriff, and had paid scutage on his sixteen fees, was brought before the exchequer in the Easter term of 1292, and fined 5 marks, ' quia . . . tantum solvit xxxii li. pro scutagio, nullo servicio faciendo '. 5 The obvious implication of this sentence was that every tenant in chief was expected to offer some service or its money equivalent in response to the royal summons, in addition to paying scutage afterwards upon all his fees. A further charge preferred against the abbot was that in fining for his service in the tenth year he paid upon one fee only instead of upon the full sixteen. On examination of the rolls, however, it was discovered that he had perfoimed a similar amount of service under Henry III, and he was accordingly acquitted on this count. Yet, although the fine pro servitio was paid in full in 1292, 6 it was clearly not considered to have purchased exemption from scutage, for the abbot continued to be charged in the Pipe Boll on all his sixteen fees, until 17 Edward II, when the debt was finally transferred to the Exannual Boll. 7 In consequence of the failure of the previous petition the question of the relation between the reduced service and the scutage came again under discussion in the parliament held at 1 Ibid. See also Cal. of Close Rolls, 1288-96, p. 258. 2 Rot. Parl. i. 80 b ; Exch. Mem. Roll, Lord Treas. Rem., no. 63, Hil. m. 34 d. 3 Ibid. Morris, p. 44. 5 Exch. Mem. Roll, Lord Treas. Rem., no. 63, Comm. Easter, mm. 13 and 35 d. 6 Pipe Roll, no. 137, Devon. 7 Pipe Roll, no. 169, Devon ; Exannual Roll, no. 1, Devon, under ' Debita extracta de rotulo xvii Regis Edwardi filii Regis Edwardi '.