Geoffrey de Mandeville: A study of the AnarchyRound, John Horace
History
Geoffrey de Mandeville: A study of the Anarchy
Round, John Horace
Great Britain -- History -- Stephen, 1135-1154; Mandeville, Geoffrey de, earl of Essex, -1144
Again, if we turn to the succeeding reign, we find, though the fact
appears to have hitherto escaped notice, that, as far as the printed
Pipe-Rolls take us—that is, for the first few years—less than half the
existing earls were in receipt of the "third penny." Careful examination
of the Rolls of 2-7 Hen. II. reveals this fact. The earls to whom was
paid "the third penny of the pleas" were these: Essex, Hertford,
Norfolk, Gloucester, Wiltshire (Salisbury), Devon, and Sussex. Those who
are not entered in the Rolls, and who, therefore, it would seem, cannot
have received it, are Warwick, Leicester, Huntingdon, Northampton, Derby
(Ferrers), Oxford, Surrey, Chester,[863] Lincoln, and Cornwall. Thus
seven received this sum, and ten did not. The inference, of course, from
this discovery is that the possession of the dignity of an earl did not
_per se_ carry with it "the third penny of the pleas," the right to
which could only be conferred by a special grant.[864] This, apparently
conclusive, evidence illustrates and confirms the words of the
_Dialogus_:—
"Comes autem est qui tertiam portionem eorum quæ de placitis proveniunt
in quolibet comitatu percipit. Summa namque illa quæ nomine firmæ
requiritur a vicecomite tota non exsurgit ex fundorum redditibus, sed
ex magna parte de placitis provenit; et horum tertiam partem comes
percipit, qui ideo sic dici dicitur, quia fisco socius est et comes in
percipiendis."
D. "Nunquid ex singulis comitatibus comites ista percipiunt."
M. "Nequaquam: sed hii tantum ista percipiunt, quibus regum
munificentia, obsequii præstiti vel eximiæ probitatis intuitu comites
sibi creat et ratione dignitatis illius hæc conferenda decernit,
quibusdam hæreditarie, quibusdam personaliter."[865]
This passage requires to be read as a whole, for the answer might easily
be differently understood, as indeed it has been in the Lords'
Reports,[866] where it is taken to apply to the earls as well as to "the
third penny." The point is of no small importance, for the conclusion
drawn is that "both [the dignity and the third penny] were either
hereditary or personal, at the pleasure of the Crown." Careful reading,
however, will show, I think, that, like the question, the reply deals
with "the third penny" alone. The "hæc conferenda decernit" of the
latter refers to the "ista" of the former.
Confirmed as they are by the evidence of the Pipe-Rolls, the words of
the _Dialogus_ clearly prove that the view I take is right, and that
Professor Freeman is certainly wrong in stating that "earldoms," at this
stage, "carry with them the third penny."[867] Mr. Hunt, who, here as
elsewhere, seems to follow Dr. Stubbs, writes that:—
"The earl still received the third penny of all profits of jurisdiction
in his county. With this exception, however, the policy of the Norman
kings stripped the earls of their official character."[868]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account