Before taking leave of 'the great scutage', another point demands notice. Gervase of Canterbury sets forth its proceeds in terms of great precision: _Hoc anno_ rex Henricus scotagium sive scutagium _de Anglia_ accepit, cujus summa fuit centum millia et quater viginti millia librarum argenti (i. 167). Quite desperate attempts have been made to reconcile this statement with the actual sums raised. In his preface to the _Gesta Henrici Regis_, Dr Stubbs suggests that Gervase included in his total the scutage of two years later (1161), but adds that, if so, the rolls are very incomplete. In his _Constitutional History_ he speaks of 'this [scutage] and a very large accumulation of treasure from other sources, amounting, according to the contemporary writers, to £180,000' (i. 457), but admits, in a footnote, that 'the sum is impossible', and throws out as probable a different explanation. Miss Norgate writes that 'the proceeds, with those of a similar tax levied upon Henry's other dominions, amounted to some £180,000'.[156] But Gervase distinctly states that this sum was raised _from England_. Now the actual sum raised, _by scutage_, in England (1159) was £2,440 in all, as I reckon it, while the special clerical impost produced some £3,130 in addition. Consequently, no ingenuity can save the credit of Gervase. He was not, after all, worse than his fellows. We shall find that when mediæval chroniclers endeavour to foist on us these absurd sums they require much bolder handling than they have ever yet received. Pass we now to the _third_ levy, that of 1161. For this the rate was again _two marcs_ on the fee according to Swereford (followed, of course, by subsequent writers), though the study of the roll (7 Henry II) reveals that in many cases, on the lay fiefs at least, the rate was _one_ marc. Both this and the levy of the following year are most difficult to deal with in every way. We have seen that an entry on the roll of 1163 led Swereford to believe that the levy of 1161 was made for the Toulouse campaign, and Dr Stubbs has made the suggestion that it might have been raised to defray 'debts' incurred on that occasion;[157] but the difficulties in the way of accepting this view seem insuperable.[158] The _fourth_ levy, which is that of 1162 (8 Henry II), was at the rate of _one_ marc, and is recorded by Swereford, but not by Dr Stubbs.[159] Though richer in names than that of 1161, it is even less useful for our purpose, as the sums entered are most irregular, perhaps owing to the adoption of a new method of collection.[160] Neither of these levies affords, in the absence of corroboration, trustworthy evidence on the _servitium_ of any lay fief. The _fifth_ levy, on the other hand, in 1165 (11 Henry II), affords most valuable evidence, although it is ignored by Swereford and by those who have followed him. It is, however, of a singular character. The money was raised, we gather from the roll, on two different systems: