Page:English Historical Review Volume 37.djvu/338

 330 SGUTAGE UNDER EDWARD I July summons was issued, providing for a muster at Rhuddlan in the following August. 1 The marshal's roll for this year 2 shows the extremely small total of 218 knights actually serving, 3 but as it includes the proffers made at head-quarters only, the figures cannot be regarded as complete. Writs issued to the sheriffs on 22 June had authorized the payment of fines in lieu of service by those tenants who had not ' equos magnos et competentes ad arma ', 4 the official rate being 50 marks the fee upon the fees of the new service. 5 On the return of the king from the west in May 1285 a parlia- ment was held in London, in consultation with which a levy of scutage was put in charge, 6 and from the end of June onwards writs de scutagio habendo were issued by the chancery to the sheriffs on behalf of tenants who had served either in person or by substitute, or who had made fine in lieu thereof with the Crown. 7 The account of the scutage did not appear in the Pipe Roll until the fifteenth year. 8 Writs of quittance had begun to issue from the chancery as early as 1283, 9 but, as in the case of the previous levy, no allowance was made for service or fine at the time of the framing of the accounts, and few tenants who took the trouble to obtain writs were able to secure their acceptance. 10 The unwelcome activity of the exchequer led the tenants in chief, in the parliament of February 1292, to petition the Crown for a remedy. They complained that those who, by themselves or their predecessors, had already discharged their obligations, were now, nevertheless, being frequently and grievously distrained to pay scutage on the fees which they held of the king. 11 In response to the petition, a writ was issued to the treasurer and barons, directing them to examine the scutage rolls from the time of Richard I onwards, and to acquit all who could be proved to ] Parl. Writs, i. 224-6. 2 Ibid. i. 228 seq. 3 Morris, p. 45. 5 Exch. Mem. Roll, Lord Treas. Rem., no. 58, Comm. Trin., m. 12. Robert de Stuteville, who failed to answer the royal summons in 1282, is fined 100 marks, the fee ' duplum scilicet finis communis quern Rex tune cepit '. For lists of the fines made see Exch. Lord Treas. Rem. Misc., Roll 1/13, m. 11 ; Chron. loh. de Oxenedes (Rolls Series), appendix, p. 332. (Rolls Series), iii. 317 ; loh. de Oxenedes (Rolls Series), p. 265 ; Knighton, Chron. (Rolls Series), i. 279 ; Chron. Petroburg. (Camden Soc.), p. 29. 7 Scutage Roll, no. 9 ; Cal. Chanc. Bolls, Various, pp. 363 seq. 8 Pipe Roll, no. 132. <J Exch. Mem. Roll, Lord Treas. Rem., no. 57, passim. 10 Hugh de Courtenay was, however, acquitted in virtue of a writ of 18 September 1291, apparently because the order was couched in general terms (' fecit servicium suum . . . pro feodis militum que de Rege tenet '), and did not specify the amount of service performed (Pipe Roll, no. 146, 29 Edw. I, Devon). Henry de la Pomeraye also received acquittance as a minor in the king's wardship at the time of the summons, under a writ of 10 October 1287 (Pipe Roll, no. 141, 24 Edw. I, Devon). 11 Botuli Parliamentorum, i. 80.
 * Parl. Writs, i. 226 ; Cal. of Chanc. Bolls, Various, Welsh Boll, 10 Edw. I, p. 253-
 * Flor. Wigorn. (English Hist. Soc.), ii. 235; Ann. de Dunstapl., in Ann. Monastics