Comperuit igitur Paganus attornatus vicecomitis predicti in Scaccario, ubi inspecto Rotulo Regis in quo continebatur carta predict 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 12s. 6d. “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 12s. 6d. excess which they paid under the old system. The case, however, was given against them, apparently on the ground that they were liable for 6d. 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.”