Читать книгу Magna Carta: A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John - William Sharp McKechnie - Страница 17

Fines, in addition to this scutage of two marks, were apparently exacted from those who had not made the necessary compromise for personal service in due time.^[134]

These scutages were collected with increasing difficulty, and arrears gradually accumulated; but the spirit of opposition increased even more rapidly. In 1206, apparently, the breaking point was almost reached.^[135] Accordingly, in that year, some slight relaxation was allowed—the annual scutage was reduced from two marks to 20s. John’s needs, however, were as great as ever, and would prevent all further concessions in future years, unless something untoward happened. Something untoward did happen in the summer of 1207, when John quarrelled with the Pope. This event came in time, not as John thought to prevent, but, as the sequel proved, merely to postpone, the crisis of the quarrel with the baronage. John had, for the time being, the whole of the confiscated property of the clergy in his clutches. The day of reckoning for this luxury was still far distant, and the King could meanwhile enjoy a full exchequer without goading his Crown tenants to rebellion. For three years no scutage was imposed. In 1209, however, financial needs again closed in on John, and a new scutage of two marks was levied; followed in the next year actually by two scutages, the first of two marks against Wales, and the second of 20s. against Scotland. John never knew when to stop. These three levies, amounting to a total of five-and-a-half marks per fee within two years, strained the tension almost to breaking point.

During the two financial years immediately following (Michaelmas, 1211, to Michaelmas, 1213) no scutage was imposed. John, however, although he thus a second time relaxed the tension, had no intention to do so for long. On the contrary, he determined to ascertain if scutages could not be made to yield more in the future. By writs, dated 1st June, 1212, he instituted a great Inquest throughout the land. Commissioners were appointed to take sworn verdicts of local juries as to the amount of liability due by each Crown vassal. Mr. Round^[136] considers that previous writers have unaccountably ignored the importance of this measure, “an Inquest worthy to be named in future by historians in conjunction with those of 1086 and 1166,”^[137] and describes it as an effort “to revive rights of the Crown alleged to have lapsed.” It is possible that John, by this Inquest of 1212, sought also (unsuccessfully, as the sequel proved) to do what Henry had done successfully in 1166—that is, to increase the amount of knights’ fees on which each Crown tenant’s scutage was assessed by adding to the previous total the number of knights recently enfeoffed.

John clearly intended by this Inquest, the returns to which were due on the 25th June, 1212, to prepare the necessary machinery for wringing the uttermost penny out of the next scutage when occasion for one again arose. That occasion came in 1214.

Up to this date, even John had not dared to exact a rate of more than two marks per knight’s fee; but the weight of his constant scutages had been increased by the fact that he sometimes exacted personal services in addition, and that he inflicted crushing fines upon those who neither went nor arranged beforehand terms of composition with the King.^[138]

Thus gradually and insidiously throughout the entire reign of John, the stream of feudal obligations by many different channels steadily rose until the barons feared that nothing of their property would be saved from the torrent. The normal rate of scutage had been raised, the frequency of its imposition had been increased, the conditions of foreign service had become more burdensome, and the objects of foreign expeditions more unpopular; while attempts were sometimes made to exact both service and scutage in the same year. The limit of the barons’ endurance was reached when, on 26th May, 1214, John, already discredited by his unsuccessful expeditions in Poitou, soon to be followed by the utter overthrow of his allies at Bouvines, issued writs for a scutage at the unheard-of rate of three marks, grounded doubtless on the inquest of 1212 and unusually far-reaching in the subjects which it embraced.^[139]

Then the final crash came; this writ was like a call to arms—a call not to follow the King’s banner, but to fight against him.

64. Commentaries, II. 59.

65. See Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, I. 218.

66. See Statute 12 Charles II. c. 24.

67. See Pollock and Maitland, I. 274, n.

68. Pollock and Maitland, I. 218.

69. Littleton, II. viii. s. 133.

70. Littleton, II. viii. s. 153.

71. Littleton, II. viii. s. 158.

72. History of Exchequer, I. 650, citing Pipe Roll of 18 Henry III.

73. See Littleton, II. ix. s. 159. With this may be compared the definition given in chapter 37 of Magna Carta, where John speaks of land thus held by a vassal as “quam tenet de nobis per servitium reddendi nobis cultellos, vel sagittas vel hujusmodi.”

74. Mediaeval England, pp. 249-250. A similar tenure still exists in Scotland under the name of "blench"—a tenure wherein the reddendo is elusory, viz., the annual rendering of such small things as an arrow or a penny or a peppercorn, “if asked only” (si petatur tantum).

75. Littleton, II. viii. s. 158.

76. Ibid., II. x. s. 162.

77. Pollock and Maitland, I. 218.

78. Littleton and Coke seem almost to countenance two additional tenures, viz., tenure by scutage or escuage, and tenure by Castle-guard. Pollock and Maitland consider both as alternative names for knight’s service. (See I. 251 and I. 257.) The latter is discussed infra under c. 29 of Magna Carta.

79. Jenks, Modern Land Law, p. 14.

80. It has been well described by Pollock and Maitland (I. 294) as “the great residuary tenure.” In Scotland the “residuary tenure” is not socage but “feu” (resembling the English fee-farm). Holdings in feu are still familiar to Scots lawyers. They are originated by a formal charter, followed by registration (the modern equivalent of infeftment or feudal investiture), thus preserving an unbroken connection with the feudal conveyancing of the Middle Ages.

81. Norman Conquest, V. 377; Hist. of William Rufus, 335–7.

82. Feudal England, p. 228 et seq.

83. All three forms of feudal obligation—service, incidents, and aids—have long been obsolete in England. The statute 12 Charles II. c. 24 swept away the feudal incidents along with the feudal system; centuries before, scutages in lieu of military service had become obsolete in the transition from the system of feudal finance to that of national finance, effected by the Crown in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. Feudal aids were also long obsolete, although James I., in desperate straits for money, had attempted to revive two of them. In France the feudal system, with all its burdensome obligations, remained in full vigour until it was abolished in one night by the famous decree of the National Assembly of 4th August, 1790. In Scotland, the feudal system of land tenure still exists, and certain of its incidents (e.g. reliefs and compositions or fines for alienation) are exacted at the present day.

84. Blackstone, Commentaries, II. 63, however arranges these in a different order, and mentions as a seventh incident “aids,” which are here reserved for separate treatment.

85. See Pollock and Maitland, I. 296.

86. See infra, under c.2, for the steps in the gradual process whereby this evil was redressed.

87. R. Thomson, Magna Charta, p. 236.

88. Infra, c. 32.

89. VII. 17.

90. Madox, I. 663.

91. See infra, c. 43.

92. See Hughes’ edition, p. 133.

93. See Dialogus, p. 222 (citing Pipe Roll, p. 27).

94. Glanvill, VII. c. 9. In socage and burgage tenures no incident of wardship was recognized; the guardianship went to the relations of the ward, and not to his feudal lord. Somewhat complicated, but exceedingly equitable, rules applied to socage. The maternal kindred had the custody, if the lands came from the father’s side; the paternal kindred, if from the mother’s side (Glanvill, VII. c. 11). In plain language, the boy and his property were entrusted to those who had no interest in his death.

95. Littleton, II. iv. s. 103.

96. See under c. 5.

97. What these were may be read in the Pipe Rolls, e.g., in that of 14 Henry II., when the Bishopric of Lincoln was vacant.

98. See Statutes of the Realm, Ch. of Liberties, p. 5, and Sel. Charters, p. 288: “Salva nobis et haeredibus nostris custodia ecclesiarum et monasteriorum vacantium quae ad nos pertinent.” Contrast the terms of Stephen’s Oxford Charter; Sel. Charters, pp. 120-1.

99. Rotuli de oblatis et finibus, p. 354.

100. Rot. Claus., pp. 37, 55.

101. Pollock and Maitland, I. 305.

102. See infra, under chapters 6, 7, and 8.

103. Middle Ages, II. 429.

104. p. 437.

105. The Bishop of Durham enjoyed it, so it seems to be stated in a charter extorted from him in 1303 by the men of his fief (see Lapsley, Pal. of Durham, p. 133). But this forms no real exception; since the Bishop, as an Earl Palatine, enjoyed exceptionally the regalia of a king.

106. See Pollock and Maitland, I. 292. It appears from statute of Marlborough, c. 16, that primer seisin extended over lands held by serjeanty as well as by knight’s service.

107. Rotuli de oblatis, p. 114.

108. Sir Edward Coke (Coke upon Littleton, 77 A) is the original source of much confusion as to the nature of primer seisin, which he seems to have considered as a second and additional relief exacted by the Crown amounting to the whole rent of the first year. The Popes, he further held (equally erroneously), were only imitating this practice when they exacted one year’s rent from every newly granted benefice under the name of “first fruits.” These errors have been widely followed (e.g. Thomson, Magna Charta, p. 416, Taswell Langmead, Const. Hist., p. 50).

109. See Taswell Langmead, Const. Hist., pp. 51-2; also Pollock and Maitland, II. 326. Cf., however, c. 39 of the re-issue of Magna Carta in 1217.

110. IX. c. 8.

111. See infra, under chapter 12.

112. Thus, the Abingdon version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (II. 113) speaks of “auxilium quod barones michi dederunt”; while Bracton says (Book II. c. 16, s. 8): “Auxilia fiunt de gratia et non de jure; cum dependeant ex gratia tenentium, et non ad voluntatem dominorum.”

113. 3 Edward I. c. 36.

114. Fixed at 100s. by c. 2 of Magna Carta.

115. One entry in the Memoranda Roll of 42 Henry III. (cited Madox I. 615) seems at first sight to contradict this. It seems in that year to be admitted that the Crown could not exact more than 20s. of aid per knight’s fee; but in 1258 the baronial opposition would be strong in the Exchequer as elsewhere.

116. 25 Ed. III. stat. 5, c. 11.

117. See infra, under chapter 39.

118. Some of these questions might be answered in particular cases by the terms of special charters. Thus the Hundred Rolls (1279) relate how Hugh de Plesens held the Manor of Hedington, and was liable for one knight’s fee when scutage ran; that he must go with the King andand serve him for forty days at his own expense, and thereafter at the expense of the King. Rot. Hund., II. p. 710; cf. for France, Etablissements de St. Louis, I. c. 65.

119. See R. Coggeshall, p. 167; the barons argued non in hoc ei obnoxios esse secundum munia terrarum suarum.

120. W. Coventry, II. 217.

121. See his letter dated 1st April, 1215, in New Rymer, I. 128, ordering the barons to pay the scutage of Poitou.

122. The evidence for this is chiefly inferential, but would be greatly strengthened if we could establish the genuineness of the charter discussed by Mr. J. H. Round, Mr. Prothero, and Mr. Hubert Hall in Eng. Hist. Rev., VIII. 288, and IX. 117 and 326. See the document in Appendix.

123. Chronicon, II. 121.

124. See, however, infra under c. 16.

125. Stubbs, Const. Hist., I. 632.

126. As was long ago pointed out by Madox, I. 619.

127. See Round, Feudal England, p. 268.

128. Madox, I. 658.

129. See Pipe Roll of 12 John, cited in Madox, I. 663.

130. See Pipe Roll of Richard I., cited ibid.

131. Feudal England, 277 seq.

132. Miss Norgate, John Lackland, p. 122.

133. Miss Norgate, John Lackland, p. 123 note, correcting Swereford’s lists in the Red Book of Exchequer.

134. See (for year 1201) Ramsay, Angevin Empire, p. 390, and authorities there cited.

135. Cf. Miss Norgate, John Lackland, p. 125.

136. Commune of London, pp. 273-4.

137. Two historians, however, who have recently given valuable and independent accounts of the reign of John, say little of its value. Sir James Ramsay (Angevin Empire, p. 432) treats it briefly, and Miss Norgate (John Lackland, p. 163) barely notices it.

138. Miss Norgate (John Lackland, p. 123) describes the exactions supplementing the scutages: "These scutages were independent of the fines paid by the barons who did not accompany the King on his first return to Normandy in 1199, of the money taken from the host as a substitute for its service in 1201, of the equipment and payment of the ‘decimated’ knights in 1205, and the fines claimed from all the tenants-in-chivalry after the dismissal of the host in the same year, as well as of actual services which many of those who had paid the scutage rendered in the campaigns of 1202-4 and 1206."

139. See Miss Norgate, John Lackland, 210, and cf. supra, p. 37.