Note 848 — APPENDICES.
Reading edition
Constitutional History, i. 139.
[849] Ibid., i. 363.
[850] This insured him his participation pro rata in any future increase ("crementum") of the render.
[851] Const. Hist., i. 361.
[852] Ibid., p. 113.
[853] We must, further, observe that, of these six, Lewes, of which we are not told if, or how, its redditus was divided before the Conquest, and Shrewsbury, of which we are told that the "third penny" of its redditus went, not to the earl, but to the sheriff ("Tempore Regis E ... duas partes habebat rex et vicecomes tertiam") are not in point for the earl's share.
[854] Exeter, p. 43 (cf. p. 55).
[855] This passage appears to imply that Dr. Stubbs, who sees in the "third penny" of the county the perquisite of the earl, would look on that of the borough as the perquisite of the sheriff. But the latter, as we have seen, was held, as a rule, by the earl, though occasionally by the sheriff.
[856] This has been strangely misunderstood by Mr. Eyton in his analysis of the Staffordshire survey. See my paper in Domesday Studies.
[857] Domesday, ii. 280, 294. We read of Alan's heir, Conan, in 1156, "Comiti Conano de tercio denario Comit' ix li. et x sol" (Rot. Pip, 2 Hen. II., p. 8). It is a singular circumstance that Robert de Torigny alludes to this under 1171, when, at the death of Conan, "tota Britannia, et comitatus de Gippewis [Ipswich], et honor Richemundie" passed to the king,—and still more singular that his latest editor, Mr. Howlett, identifies "Gippewis" with Guingamp (p. 391).
[858] Will. Rufus, i. 40.
[859] Domesday, i. 38 b, 101, 87 b, 186 b, 253; ii. 294 b.
[860] Baronia Anglica, pp. 137, 138.
[861] Exeter, p. 55.
[862] Const. Hist., i. 139.
[863] The Palatinate of Chester is, of course, anomalous, and does not, strictly, tell either way.
[864] In the third and fifth years the Earl of Arundel is entered as receiving the third penny "per breve regis."
[865] Dialogus de Scaccario, ii. 17.
[866] Reports on the Dignity of a Peer, iii. 68.
[867] Gneist is right in insisting on the fact that an earl was only entitled to the "tertius denarius" in virtue of a distinct grant, but he fails to grasp the important point that such grant was not made to every earl as a matter of course, but only as a special favour. He is also, as we have seen, quite mistaken as to the extent of the third penny (see p. 287).
[868] Norman Britain, p. 168.
[869] These figures are taken from the Rolls of 2-7 Hen. II., a range sufficiently wide to establish their permanence. Occasionally, as in the case of Wilts and Sussex, the "tertius denarius" seems to be omitted for a year or two, but this does not affect the general result.
[870] Pipe-Roll of John, quoted by Madox (Baronia Anglica, p. 139).
[871] Madox (Baronia Anglica, p. 139).