national accounts. They probably do not exhaust the receipts (for some,
it is believed, were paid ‘in camera’), and they certainly only record
a portion of the royal expenditure. What became of the money which
is so continually entered as paid ‘in Thesauro’? It found its way
into the national treasury, whence it was paid out as was required by
writ of ‘Liberate’ addressed to the Treasurer and chamberlains.[166]
Of these outgoings, in the 12th century, there is, it would seem, no
record; but they were certainly audited from time to time, the king
calling on the Treasurer to account for the money in his charge, as,
at the Exchequer, the Treasurer himself had called on the sheriffs to
account for the sums for which they were liable. To this ‘generalis
compotus,’ associated with the Winchester Treasury, there are, in the
‘Dialogus,’ several allusions which may have been somewhat overlooked.
Quod thesaurarius a vicecomite compotum suscipiat, hinc
manifestum est, quod _idem ab eo cum regi placuerit
requiritur_.... Sunt tamen qui dicunt thesaurarium et
camerarios obnoxios tantum hiis quæ scribuntur in rotulis ‘in
thesauro,’ ut _de hiis compotus ab eis exigatur_ (i. 1).
Raro inquam, hoc est, _cum a rege, vel mandato regis, a magnis
regni[167] compotus a thesaurario et camerariis regni totius
recepta suscipitur_ (i. 5).
Thesaurarius et camerarii, nisi regis expresso mandato vel
præsidentis justiciarii, susceptam pecuniam non expendunt:
oportet enim ut habeant auctoritatem rescripti regis de
distributa pecunia, _cum ab eis compotus generalis
exigitur_ (i. 6).
[De combustione] ... ut de summa ejus _thesaurarius et
camerarii respondeant_ (ib.).
These are sufficient allusions to the Treasury, as distinct from the
Exchequer, account. I invite particular attention to this Treasury
audit, because, so far as I can find, it has hitherto escaped notice.
The second extract refers to the use of the £10,000 space on the
chequered table, and therefore proves the use of such a table for the
Treasury account as well.
Now my point is that the earl of Gloucester and Brian ‘Fitz Count,’
in 1130, were magnates (_magni regni_) delegated by the king, as
described in the second passage,[168] to audit the Treasurer’s account.
And this view is confirmed by the fact that William de Pont de l’Arche,
who here accounts to them, is styled by Dr. Stubbs “the Treasurer,”
and is, in any case, subsequently described as “custos thesaurorum
regalium.” Their mission had nothing, I hold, to do with that audit of
the sheriffs’ accounts, which was the annual function of the Exchequer.
There is a remarkable entry on the roll of 1187 which alludes to an
overhauling of the national treasure at Winchester, at the beginning of
that year, the date proving that it was wholly unconnected with either
session of the Exchequer:
Et in custamento numerandi et ponderandi thesaurum apud
Wintoniam post Natale, et pro forulis novis ad reponendum eundem
thesaurum et pro aliis minutis negociis ad predictum opus,
etc.... Et pro carriando thesauro a Wintoniâ ad Saresburiam et
ad Oxinford’ et ad Geldeford’ et ad plura loca per Angliam £4
8_s._ 3_d._
One might compare with these phrases the ‘Dialogus’ language as to the
knights, ‘qui et camerarii dicuntur, quod pro camerariis ministrant.’
Item officium horum est numeratam pecuniam, et in vasis ligneis
per centenos solidos compositam, ponderare, ne sit error in
numero, tunc demum in forulos mittere, etc. (i. 3).
Also the description of the usher’s office:
Hic ministrat forulos ad pecuniam reponendam, etc. (ib.).
But the latter part of the entry (which is duly quoted by Eyton[169])
is also of much importance. For in Mr. Hall’s work, under 1187, we only
read, ‘Treasure conveyed abroad from Winchester.’[170]
It is an essential part of Mr. Hall’s theory, which makes the
“Westminster Treasury ... the principal Treasury of the kingdom,”[171]
that the Winchester Treasury was merely “an emporium in connection with
the transport of bullion (and especially of the regalia and plate),
as well as other supplies, _viâ_ Southampton, or other seaports, to
the Continent.”[172] But the above passage shows us, on the contrary,
treasure sent thence to Salisbury, Oxford, and Guildford. It is
manifest that treasure, despatched from Westminster to Oxford or
Guildford would not be sent _viâ_ Winchester. From this it follows that
Winchester was still a central Treasury, and not a mere ‘emporium’
_en route_ to the south. It is certain that under Henry I., some
sixty years before, the session at Westminster of the Barons of the
Exchequer did not, as Stapleton observed, affect the position of the
national Treasury at Winchester. It is, then, equally certain that the
money received at that session must have been duly transmitted to the
Winchester Treasury. For that was where the treasure (in coined money)
was kept when Stephen succeeded at the close of 1135.
The whole difficulty has arisen from Mr. Hall’s inability to
distinguish between the ‘Receipt’ at Westminster, where the money
was paid in, and the national Treasury at Winchester in which it was
permanently stored. This is, roughly speaking, like confusing a man’s
investments with his balance at his bankers. The steadily growing
importance of Westminster and the concurrent decadence of Winchester
led, of course, eventually, to the shifting of the central Treasury,
but at the time of the ‘Dialogus,’ in the days of Henry II., it is
clear that the Exchequer was not looked on as the seat of a permanent
Treasury. For the storage of treasure is always implied by the payment
for the light of the night watchman; and as to the watchman and his
light, the evidence of the ‘Dialogue’ is clear:
Vigilis officium idem est ibi quod alibi; diligentissima
scilicet de nocte custodia, thesauri principaliter, et omnium
eorum quæ in domo thesauri reponuntur.... Sunt et hiis
liberationes constitutæ _dum scaccarium est, hoc est a die qua
convocantur usque ad diem qua generalis secessio_.... Vigil
unum denarium. Ad lumen cujusque noctis circa thesaurum, obolum
(i. 3).
There is absolutely no escaping from these words: a watchman is only
provided for the treasure “while the Exchequer is in session”; its
treasury is temporary, not permanent. The whole passage, as it seems
to me, is absolutely destructive of Mr. Hall’s hypothesis of “the
existence of a permanent financial staff under the Treasurer and
chamberlains of the Exchequer at Westminster.”[173]
The change from the “Treasury” to the “Exchequer” was, I hold, a
gradual process. Careful study of the annual revenues bestowed by our
sovereigns on the foreign houses of Tiron, Fontevrault, and Cluny[174]
proves clearly how insensibly the “Treasury at Winchester” was
superseded by the “Exchequer at London” as the place of payment. This
is especially the case with Tiron, where Henry I.’s original grant,
made about the middle of his reign, provides for payment “de thesauro
meo, in festo Sancti Michaelis, _Wintonie_.”[175] Under Richard I.
this becomes payable “at Michaelmas from his exchequer at London.”[176]
Documents between the two show us intermediate stages.
Precisely the same gradual process is seen in the parallel development
of the chamberlainship of the “Exchequer” from that of the “Treasury.”
Just as Henry II., shortly before his accession, confirmed the grant
to Tiron as “de thesauro Wintonie,”[177] so he restored to William
Mauduit, at about the same time, “camerariam meam _thesauri_,” which
office was held by his descendants as a chamberlainship of the
_Exchequer_.
The ‘Dialogus’ shows us the Treasurer and the two chamberlains of the
Exchequer as the three inseparable Treasury officers. Domesday connects
the first with Winchester by showing us Henry “thesaurarius” as a
tenant-in-chief in Hampshire. I propose to show that it also connects
one of the chamberlains with that county. In that same invaluable but
unprinted charter of which I have spoken above, which was granted at
Leicester (1153) to William Mauduit, Duke Henry says:
Insuper etiam reddidi eidem camerariam meam thesauri cum
liberatione[178] et cum omnibus pertinentibus, castellum
scilicet de Porcestra ut supradiximus, et omnes terras ad
predictum camerariam et ad predictum castellum pertinentes, sive
sint in Anglia sive Normannia, sicut pater suus illam camerariam
cum pertinentibus melius habuit et sicut Robertus Maledoctus
frater suus eam habebat die quo vivus fuit et mortuus.
This carries back the ‘cameraria thesauri’ (‘_illam_ camerariam’)
to the Domesday tenant, whose son Robert occurs in the earlier
Winchester Survey, and, though dead in 1130, is mentioned on the Roll
of that year (p. 37), in connection with the Treasury in Normandy.
The history of Porchester, in the Norman period, has yet to be worked
out. Mr. Clark, for instance, tells us that the castle was “always in
the hands of the Crown,”[179] yet we find it here appurtenant to the
chamberlainship, and in Domesday (47 _b_) it was a ‘manor’ held by
William Malduith. The above charter, in my opinion, was one of those
which Duke Henry granted without intending to fulfil.[180] Porchester
had clearly been secured by the Crown, and Henry was not the man to
part with such a fortress. Of William Mauduith’s Domesday fief, Hartley
Mauditt (‘Herlege’) also was held by the later Mauduits; but they
held it still “per serjanteriam camar[ariæ] Domini Regis”[181] or “per
camerariam ad scaccarium.”[182]
It should be added that the other chamberlainship of the Exchequer was
similarly a serjeanty associated with land. It cannot, however, be
carried back beyond 1156, when Henry II. bestowed on Warin Fitz Gerold,
chamberlain, lands in Wiltshire worth £34 a year, and in Berkshire
to nearly the same amount.[183] The former was the chamberlainship
estate, and reappears as Sevenhampton (near Highworth) in his brother’s
_carta_ (1166), where it is expressly stated to have been given to
Warin by the king.[184] It was similarly held by his heir and namesake
(with whom he is often confused), under John,[185] and by the latter’s
heir, Margaret ‘de Ripariis,’ under Henry III.[186]
This estate must not be confused with that of Stratton, Wilts, which
was bestowed by John (to whom it had escheated) on the later Warin Fitz
Gerold, to hold at a fee-farm rent of £13 a year.[187] It is necessary
to make this distinction, because Mr. Hall, in dealing with the
subject, speaks of it as “held apparently by the Countess of Albemarle
as pertaining to the (_sic_) chamberlainship of England” (_sic_).[188]
On the same page he speaks of a deed, on page 1024 of the same volume,
whereby she “secures to Adam de Strattone, clerk, an annuity of £13,
charged on the farm of Stratton.” Reference to page 1024 shows that,
on the contrary, what she did was to make herself and her heirs
responsible to the Exchequer for the annual £13, which _was_ “the farm”
of Stratton (so that Adam might hold Stratton quit therefrom). This is
a further instance of Mr. Hall’s unhappy inability to understand or
describe accurately the documents with which he deals.[189]
I have now traced for the first time, so far as I can find, the origin
of the two chamberlainships of the Exchequer. That of Mauduit can
be traced, we see, to a chamberlainship of the ‘Treasury,’ existing
certainly under Henry I., and possibly under the Conqueror. Of the
other the existence is not proved before 1156. Both, I have shown, were
associated with the tenure of certain estates.
It is very strange that, in his _magnum opus_,[190] Madox not only
ignores, it would seem, this descent of the office with certain lands,
but gives a most unsatisfactory account of those who held the office,
confusing it, clearly, with the chamberlainship of England, and not
distinguishing or tracing its holders.
* * * * *
For the different standards of payment in use at the Exchequer, our
authority, of course, is the ‘Dialogus,’ but the subject, I venture to
think, is still exceedingly obscure. Even Mr. Hall, who has studied
so closely the ‘Dialogus,’ seems to leave it rather doubtful whether
payment in ‘blank’ money meant a deduction of 6_d._ or of 12_d._ on the
pound.[191] It will be best to leave the ‘Dialogus’ for the moment, and
take an actual case where the charters and the rolls can be compared,
and a definite result obtained.
In Lans. MS. 114, at fo. 55, there is a series of extracts transcribed
from a Register of Holy Trinity (or Christchurch) Priory, London, in
which are comprised the royal charters relating to Queen Maud’s gift of
two-thirds of the revenues (ferm) of Exeter. First, Henry I. confirms
it, late in his reign,[192] as “xxv libras ad scalam,” the charter
being addressed to William bishop of Exeter, and Baldwin the sheriff
(_sic_). Then we have another charter from him addressed “Rogero
episcopo Sar[esbiriensi] et Baronibus Scaccarii,” and witnessed,
at Winchester, by Geoffrey de Clinton, in which it is “xxv libras
blancas.” Stephen’s charter follows, addressed to William bishop of
Exeter, and Richard son of Baldwin, the sheriff, in which again we have
“xxv lib. ad scalam.” Lastly, we come to an important entry that seems
to have remained unknown:
In 1180, on St. Martin’s Day, king Henry issued (_fecit
currere_) his new money, in the 26th year of his reign, and
as the sheriff of Exeter (_Exon’_) would not pay the prior of
Christchurch, for Michaelmas term, £12 16_s._ 3_d._ “_secundum
pondus blancum_,” Prior Stephen obtained from the king the
following writ.
Then follows a writ which clearly belongs not to 1180, but to an
earlier period. It is addressed “prepositis et civibus Exonie,”
and directs that the canons are to enjoy their rents as in
his grandfather’s time (‘Teste Manessero Biset dapifero, apud
Wirecestriam’). Next comes a passage so important that it must
be quoted in the original words, although, like the whole of the
transcript, it seems slightly corrupt.
Comperuit igitur Paganus attornatus vicecomitis predicti in
Scaccario, ubi inspecto Rotulo Regis in quo continebatur carta
predict[i] r[egis] Quod ecclesiam Christi London debere habere
predictos denarios blancos et ad scalam id est ad pondus qui
fuerint meliores in pondere quam illa nova moneta per vi _s._
iii _d._ pro termino sancti Mich. arch. predicto. Et sic
predictus prior et conventus haberent quolibet anno xii _s._ vi
_d._ de incremento, XXV li. blanc. prout patet in carta sequenti.
The writ of the earl of Cornwall, in 1256, which follows, is obviously
out of place for our period. Lastly, the canons record the triumph of
their case thus:
Perlecta ista carta, constitutus est dies priori Stephano ad
peticionem Pagani clerici gerentis vices vicecomitis Exonie a
Justicia idem cancellario et baronibus scaccarii ut innotesceret
causam istam vicecomiti predicto. Et sic predicti prior et
conventus reciperent predictos xii li. xvi _s._ iii _d._ infra
xii dies natalis domini de tali moneta qualis tunc curreret.
Et ibidem (_i.e._ inde) fuerunt plegii Radulphus de Glanvilla
tunc Justicia Regis et Rogerus filius Reinfridi et Alanus de
Furnellis, coram hiis testibus Gaufrido episcopo Eliensi;
Ricardo thesaurario Regis, postea episcopo Londoniensi; Roberto
Mantello; Michaele Belet; Edwardo clerico; Elia hostiario, et
multis aliis. Ad terminum vero predictun* Willelmus, vicecomes
Exonie, de (_sic_) Br[iwerre], etc.
So at length the prior received the full amount “numeratos, blancos, ad
scalam, tales (eis) quorum xx solidi numerati fecerunt libram Regis.”
Corrupt though the text in places is, the outline of the story is clear
enough, and is supported by such record evidence as survives. The local
authorities, clearly, were directed to pay the canons £25 “ad scalam”
annually, “hoc est,” says the ‘Dialogus,’ “propter quamlibet numeratam
libram vi _d._” This is fully borne out by the Pipe Rolls which both
in 1130 and under Henry II. record the annual payment as £25 12_s._
6_d._ “numero.” When the new coinage became current in 1180, the local
authorities evidently claimed that as they had to pay in standard
coin, they ought no longer to be liable for the 12_s._ 6_d._ excess
which they paid under the old system. The case, however, was given
against them, apparently on the ground that they were liable for 6_d._
additional on every “numbered” pound, irrespective of the quality of
the coin.
The difficulty is created by the use of the term “blancos” throughout
as equivalent to “ad scalam,” an equation which is certainly found in
the text of the charters. It will, however, be better to discuss this
point when dealing with the blanch system as a whole.
Before leaving the above case, we should notice, first, that the
crown had a ‘roll,’ on which were recorded such charters as this of
Henry I. I do not remember mention of such a roll elsewhere. The
question irresistibly suggests itself whether we have not here the
origin of those “Cartæ Antiquæ,” of which the existence, I am given to
understand, has ever yet been accounted for. On turning to these most
interesting records we find that Roll N commences with twenty-three
charters to Holy Trinity Priory, all of them previous to the middle of
Henry II.’s reign. They are transcribed in a hand of the period, those
which follow being later additions. It seems to me, therefore, that in
this “Roll N” we may have the actual “Rotulus Regis,” produced in court
before Glanville, which contained, as does “Roll N,” the charter of
Henry I.
It would seem probable that such charters were already kept in the
Treasury, for reference, under Henry I., though not as yet enrolled.
For a writ of the latter king, addressed to Richard son of Baldwin
(sheriff of Devon) and G. ‘de Furnellis’ directs them to discharge
the land of the canons of Plympton “de geldis et assisis et omnibus
aliis rebus, quia episcopus Sarum _recognovit per cartam de thesauro
meo_ quod ipsa ex toto ita quieta est.”[193]
Secondly, we should note that, although the narrative assigns the issue
of the new coinage to November 11 (1180), yet the sheriff’s deputy
raised his claim at Michaelmas (for that half year’s term). That he
did so is in harmony with the current Pipe Roll, which, as Eyton has
shown, had numerous references to the change of coinage having been in
progress. Lastly, we have here an Exchequer case, hitherto, I believe,
unknown, and learn the names of the officials present, which harmonize
with what we know _aliunde_ of the judicial and financial _personnel_
at the time.
Apart from the “rotulus Regis” discussed above, the Exchequer, it
would seem, enrolled its decisions even under Henry II. We read in
the chronicle of Jocelin de Brakelonde that Abbot Sampson, called
upon to contribute, on behalf of St. Edmund’s Abbey, to a “communis
misericordia” imposed on the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, went
to the king at Clarendon [? February, 1187] and obtained from him
a writ directing “ut sex milites de comitatu de Norfolchia et sex
de Suffolchia summonerentur ad recognoscendum coram baronibus
scaccarii utrum dominia Sancti Ædmundi deberent esse quieta de
communi misericordia.”[194] When the knights had found their verdict,
“justiciarii assidentes veredictum illorum inrollaverunt.”
* * * * *
We may now return to the reckonings in use at the early Exchequer.
It may fairly be said that in 1130 the _normal_ method of accounting
for the ferm was the payment by the sheriff of silver “ad pensum,” the
allowance to him of his outgoings “numero,” and the reckoning of the
balance in “blanch” money. The counties of which the sheriffs paid in
their silver “ad pensum” were Notts and Derby, Hampshire, Surrey with
Cambridgeshire and Hunts, Essex and Herts, Gloucestershire, Northants
and Leicestershire, Norfolk and Suffolk, Warwick, Lincolnshire, Berks
and Devon, seventeen in all. Dorset and Wilts, Kent, and Bucks and
Beds, that is five counties, had their silver paid partly “ad pensum”
and partly “numero.” Northumberland, Carlisle, and Sussex, were
accounted for “numero,” in accordance with the ‘Dialogus.’[195] For
Yorkshire the silver was paid in “numero,” but the balance accounted
for “blanch”; Cornwall seems to be accounted for “numero.” London and
Staffordshire alone have sheriffs who pay in their silver “blanch.”
In this labyrinth of account one point at least is clear. The outgoings
credited to the sheriff “numero” were “blanched,” exactly as described
in the ‘Dialogus,’ by a uniform deduction of a shilling in the
pound.[196] This is proved by the account for the outstanding ferm
of Berkshire, rendered by Anselm _vicomte_ of Rouen.[197] He has to
account for £522 18_s._ “blanch.” For this he pays in £251 6_s._ 8_d._
“blanch,” claims £63 4_s._ 5_d._ “numero” for money disbursed by the
king’s writ, and is left owing £211 10_s._ “blanch.” Now, if we deduct
a shilling in the pound from £63 4_s._ 5_d._, we obtain £60 1_s._
2½_d._ “blanch.” Adding up the three “blanch” amounts, we have £522
17_s._ 10½_d._, which is within a penny halfpenny of the sum he has to
account for.
We may further say that this Pipe Roll reveals a tendency to reduce
all the ferms to a “blanch” denomination; that is to say that the
balance left outstanding is normally given in “blanch” money, and
accounted for accordingly in a subsequent year. Moreover, when it
is so accounted for, the sheriff pays in his money, not “ad pensum”
but “blanch.” Examples of this are found in the cases of Wilts and
Dorset, Hampshire, Surrey with Cambridge and Hunts, Essex and Herts,
Gloucestershire, Leicestershire and Northants, etc. It seems to be
only when a sheriff is rendering his account “de Nova Firma” that he
pays in money “ad pensum.” The provoking practice of not recording the
amount of the ferm to be accounted for makes it impossible to check
these different methods of reckoning. In the case, however, of Bosham,
we have the “veredictum” in the ‘Testa’ that its annual ferm was “xlii
libras arsas et ponderatas”; and though this of itself might be slight
evidence,[198] it is in harmony with the Pipe Rolls of Henry II. Now in
that of 1130 the ferm is thus accounted for:
£ _s._ _d._
27 3 8 ‘ad pensum.’
0 5 0 ‘numero.’
0 8 0 ‘ad pensum.’
16 0 10 ‘blanch.’
This is equivalent to £16 5_s._ 7_d._ ‘blanch’ plus £27 11_s._ 8_d._
‘ad pensum.’ If then the total ferm was £42 ‘blanch,’ we have an excess
of £1 17_s._ 3_d._ ‘ad pensum.’ If this calculation is to be depended
on, it would give us a deduction of about sixteenpence in the pound
from the weighed money when subjected to assay.
In 1157, the ferm was accounted for as follows:
£31 13_s._ 8_d._ “blanch,” paid in by sheriff.
13_s._ 4_d._ “numero,” already to his credit.
£12 7_s._ 4_d._ “numero,” paid out.
Deducting, as before, a shilling in the pound from the sums reckoned
“numero,” we find them amount to £12 7_s._ 8_d._ “blanch.” Adding
this amount to the £31 13_s._ 8_d._ “blanch,” we have £44 1_s._ 4_d._
to the accountant’s credit. But the ferm was only £42 “blanch.” He
had, therefore, a “superplus” of £2 1_s._ 4_d._ “blanch,” and that is
precisely what the roll records that he had. We may then, from this
comparison, conclude positively that the money paid in “ad pensum” was
liable to a further deduction when the assay made it “blanch.”
The case of Bosham certainly suggests that in the time of Henry I. the
ferm on the “Rotulus exactorius” might be reckoned in ‘blanch’ money,
even where the accountant paid in his cash by weight. But what is
obscure is why the cash so paid should be merely entered ‘ad pensum,’
instead of its assayed value being recorded as under Henry II. For this
value must have been ascertained in order to balance the account.