[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).] APPENDIX I. "VICECOMITES" AND "CUSTODES." (See pp. 107, 108.) Dr. Stubbs writes: "A measure dictated still more distinctly by this policy may be traced in the list of sheriffs for A.D. 1130. Richard Basset and Aubrey de Vere, a judge and a royal chamberlain, act as joint sheriffs in no less than eleven counties; Geoffrey de Clinton, Miles of Gloucester, William of Pont l'Arche, the treasurer, are also sheriffs as well as justices of the king's court" (i. 892). But this statement requires a certain qualification. For though they appear as sheriffs (_vicecomites_) on the Roll, and have been always so reckoned, we gather from one passage in the record that they were, strictly speaking, not _vicecomites_, but _custodes_. The difference is this. By the former a county was held _ad firmam_; by the latter it was held _in custodia_. In the Inquest of Sheriffs (1170) the distinction is clearly recognized. We there find the expressions used: "sive eos tenuerint ad firmam, sive in custodia." By the true sheriff (_vicecomes_) the county was, in fact, leased. He, as its farmer (_firmarius_), was responsible for its annual rent (_firma_). It was thus, virtually, a speculation of his own, and the profit, if any, was his. But by a process exactly analogous to that of a modern landlord taking an estate into his own hands, and farming it himself through a bailiff, the king could, under special circumstances, take a county into his own hands, and farm it himself through a bailiff (_custos_). Henry II., in his twentieth year, did this with London, putting in his own _custodes_ in the place of the regular sheriffs, and, in later days, Henry III. and Edward I. did the same. It was this, I contend, that Henry I. had done with the counties in question. The proof of it is found in this passage:— "Ricardus basset et Albericus de Ver reddunt Compotum de M marcis argenti de superplus Comitatuum, quas habent _in custodia_" (p. 63).