The cardinal error has been the supposition that when the citizens of London, under Henry I., were given Middlesex _ad firmam_, the "Middlesex" in question was only Middlesex _exclusive of London_. The actual words of the charter are these:— "Sciatis me concessisse civibus meis London[iarum], tenendum Middlesex ad firmam pro ccc libris ad compotum, ipsis et hæredibus suis de me et hæredibus meis ita quod ipsi cives ponent vicecomitem qualem voluerint de se ipsis; et justitiarium qualem voluerint de se ipsis, ad custodiendum placita coronæ meæ et eadem placitanda, et nullus alius erit justitiarius super ipsos homines London[iarum]." Now, it is absolutely certain that the shrievalty (_vicecomitatus_) and the ferm (_firma_) mentioned in this passage are the shrievalty and the ferm not of Middlesex apart from London, nor of London apart from Middlesex, but of "London _and_ Middlesex." For there is never, from the first, but one ferm. It is here called the ferm of "Middlesex;" in the almost contemporary Pipe-Roll (31 Hen. I.) it is called the ferm of "London" (there being no ferm of Middlesex mentioned); and Geoffrey's charters clinch the matter. For while Stephen grants him "the shrievalties of London and Middlesex,"[1010] the Empress, in her turn, grants him "the shrievalty of London and Middlesex."[1011] Further, the Pipe-Rolls of Henry II. describe this same _firma_ both as the ferm of "London," and as that of "London and Middlesex;" while in the Roll of 8 Ric. I. we find the phrase, "de veteri firma _Comitat'_ Lond' et Middelsexa." Lastly, the charter of Henry III. grants to the citizens of London— "Vicecomitatum Londoniæ et de Middelsexia, cum omnibus rebus et consuetudinibus quæ pertinent ad predictum Vicecomitatum, infra civitatem et extra per terras et aquas; ... Reddendo inde annuatim ... trescentas libras sterlingorum blancorum.[1012] And so, to this day, the shrievalty is that of "London and Middlesex."[1013] The royal writs and charters hear the same witness. When they are directed to the local authorities, it is to those of "London and Middlesex," or of "London," or of "Middlesex." The three are, for all purposes, used as equivalent terms. There was never, as I have said, but one ferm, and never but one shrievalty.[1014] Now, this completely disposes of the view that the "Middlesex" of Henry I.'s charter was Middlesex _apart from London_. This prevalent but erroneous assumption has proved the cause of much confusion and misunderstanding of the facts of the case. It has nowhere, perhaps, been assigned such prominence as in that account of London by Mr. Loftie which may derive authority in the eyes of some from the editorial _imprimatur_ of Mr. Freeman.[1015] We there read as follows:— "It may be as well, before we proceed, to remember one thing. That London is not in Middlesex, that it never was in Middlesex, ... is a fact of which we have to be constantly reminded" (p. 125).