tions of 



under- 

 tenants. 



88 Domesday and Feudal Statistics 



That the undertenant (Tohn-Ed. II.) was more 



f * r , / 



frequently or pecuniary than personal assistance 

 seems to be supported by evidence as known- 

 Prof. Maitland cites the legal view of a Knt. failing 

 to do service /. Hen. I. (Cbron. Abingdon, ii., 128); 

 the Earl of Chester's Knts. are to be compelled to 

 render him service (presumably partly or wholly 

 of a corporal nature) in 10 John (Pat. Rot.) ; and 

 a tenant's superior lord is to have full seizin if 

 former is unwilling to transit for him in 14 John 

 (Cl. Rot.) ; nevertheless it is apparent enough 

 that of very many mesne tenants there is no further 

 obligation to their lord than to pay escuage, how- 

 ever they may stand to the Crown in the matter of 

 fealty, as if I have rightly observed, they would be 

 a class liable for summons amongst the iurati ad 

 arma. 



In the Scutage Rolls (Chanc. Misc. ^1) in 10 

 Ed. III. is a mandate to the Sheriff of Yorks to 

 cease distraint on the Luterell estates, because by 

 the Rolls of the Marshal /. Ed. I. it appears that 

 Ro. Luterell, deceased, had his service for 2 fees 

 which he acknowledged, in 5 Ed. I. in the ist 

 Welsh war ; hence it appears that the Scutage due 

 in 1278 was still owing to the Crown in 1316-17,* 



Inade- * It seems clear that the notes as to tenants in 1278 (Pipe 



Scutag f Ro ^7 Ed - I- Ebor.} are indefinite, as some had, and others 



entries in na d not done service in the war of 5 Ed. I., but Ric. de 



Pipe Rolls, Malebisse who had been summoned to perform military 



' service in person (Muster at Worcester 5 Ed. 1.) does not 



acknowledge nor fine for same, but is noted in the 7 Ed. I. 



Pipe Roll, as paying 405. scutage for I fee (which was held of 



the Hon. of Eye). Again Peter de Mauley did his service, 



