Note 132 — PART I TERRITORIAL STUDIES (continued 3)

I have already shown that the levy in question was not, as alleged, an innovation. Dr Stubbs writes: 'The peculiar measure of the second year was the collection of scutage from the knights' fees holding of ecclesiastical superiors,132 a measure which met with much opposition from Archbishop Theobald at the time';133 and speaking of William of Newburgh, he suggests that 'possibly in William's estimation the consent of St Thomas took from the scutage on church fees its sacrilegious character'.134 But if the institution was fully recognized under Henry I, how was it 'sacrilegious'? Theobald's 'opposition' in 1156 can only be inferred from the king's reply explaining the necessity for the levy,135 and was clearly directed, not against the principle, but by way of appeal against the necessity in that instance. Miss Norgate holds that 'no resentment seems to have been provoked by the measure', although she sees in it 'the origin of the great institution of scutage'.136 Then there is the question of the object for which the levy was made. Swereford says 'pro exercitu Walliæ',137 and this misled, through Madox, Dr Stubbs (who wrote 'the scutage of 1156 was also for the war in Wales',138) and Gneist.139 The former writer, however, has elsewhere140 pointed out that 'its object was to enable Henry to make war on his brother'; and Miss Norgate gives the same explanation.141 Swereford's error, I believe, can undoubtedly be traced to an entry on the Pipe-Roll of the third year (1157) recording the payment by the Abbot of Abbotsbury of two marcs 'de exercitu Walie'.142 But this must refer to the Welsh campaign of that year, not to the foreign trouble of the year before.143