Et idem Episcopus debet ccxl. li. ut rex clamet eum quietum de superplus militum Episcopatus, et ut Abbatia de Cateriz sit quieta de Warpenna (p. 44).
This entry, moreover, connects the _scutagium_ with the system of knight-service (_superplus militum_).
It is delicious to learn, on comparing the records, that the virtuous king who made these grants for the weal of his parents' souls and the remission of his own sins, extorted from the church, for making them, an equivalent in hard cash.[125]
Again, the (MS.) Cartulary of St Evroul contains a confirmation by Randulf, Earl of Chester (1121-29) of his predecessor (d. 1120) Earl Richard's benefaction, 'liberam et quietam ab _escuagio_', etc., etc. The list of the Abbot of Peterborough's knights (see p. 131) is a further illustration of knight-service _temp._ Henry I, while the entry as to Vivian, who was enfeoffed by Abbot Turold: 'servit pro milite _cum auxilio_' (_Chron. Petrob._, p. 175), must refer to the somewhat obscure 'auxilium militum' of the period. So also, it would seem, must the curious charter of Eustace, Count of Boulogne,[126] in which he speaks of his knights serving: 'sive _in nummis_, sive in exercitu, sive in guarda', under Henry I. Most important of all, however, is a passage on which I have lighted since this essay first appeared. In reading through the letters of Herbert (Losinga), Bishop of Norwich (d. 1119), I found this appeal to the Bishop of Salisbury, in the king's absence from England:
In terris meis exiguntur quinquaginta libræ pro placitis, cum earundem terrarum mei homines nec in responsionem nec in facto peccaverint.[127] Item _pro militibus sexaginta libræ_ quos [? quas] tanto difficilius cogor reddere, quanto annis præteritis mea substantia gravius attenuata est (Ed. Giles, p. 51).
The sum is that to which the Ely contribution is reduced by the above charter, and the death of the writer in 1119 proves the early date of the payment.
Indeed, a little consideration will show that payment in lieu of military service, which was the essential principle of scutage, could be no new thing. The two forms which this payment might assume--payment to a substitute, or payment to the crown--both appear in Domesday as applicable to the fyrd; the former is found in the 'Customs' of Berkshire, the latter in other passages. From the very commencement of knight service, the principle must have prevailed; for the 'baron' who had not enfeoffed knights enough to discharge his _servitium debitum_, must always have hired substitutes to the amount of the balance. Nor is this a matter of supposition: we know as a fact, from the _Abingdon Chronicle_ and the _Ely History_, that under William I knights were so hired.[128] Here it should be noted, as a suggestive fact, that the 'forty days' of military service, though bearing no direct proportion either to the week or to the month, do so to the marc and to the pound. The former represents 4d, and the latter 6d, for each day of the military service.[129] It may fairly be assumed that this normal 'scutage' would be based on the estimated cost of substitutes paid direct. Thus the only change involved would be that the tenant would make his payments not to substitutes, but to the crown instead.