This one _firma_, of which the history has here been traced, represents one _corpus comitatus_, namely, Middlesex inclusive of London.[1036] From this conclusion there is no escape. Hence the _firmarii_ of this _corpus comitatus_ were from the first the _firmarii_ (that is, the sheriffs) of Middlesex inclusive of London. This, similarly, is beyond dispute. As with the _firma_ so with the sheriffs. Whether described as "of London," or "of Middlesex," or "of London and Middlesex," they are, from the first, the sheriffs of Middlesex inclusive of London. This conclusion throws a new light on the charter by which Henry I. granted to the citizens of London Middlesex (_i.e._ Middlesex inclusive of London) at farm. Broadly speaking, the transaction in question may be regarded in this aspect. Instead of leasing the _corpus comitatus_ to any one individual for a year, or for a term of years, the king leased it to the citizens as a body, leased it, moreover, in perpetuity, and at the low original _firma_ of £300 a year. The change effected was simply that which was involved in placing the citizens, as a body, in the shoes of the Sheriff "of London and Middlesex."[1037] The only distinction between this lease and one to a private individual lies in the corporate character of the lessee, and in the consequent provision for the election of a representative of that corporate body: "Ita quod ipsi cives ponent vicecomites qualem voluerint de seipsis." It would seem that under the _régime_ adopted by Henry I., the financial exactions of which a glimpse is afforded us in the solitary Pipe-Roll of his reign, included the leasing of the counties, etc. (_i.e._ of the financial rights of the Crown in them), at the highest rate possible. This was effected either by adding to the annual _firma_, a sum "de cremento," or by exacting from the _firmarius_, over and above his _firma_, a payment "de gersoma" for his lease. Where the lease was offered for open competition it would be worth the while of the would-be _firmarius_ to offer a large payment "de gersoma" for his lease, if the _firma_ was a low one. But if the _firma_ was a high one, he would not offer much for his bargain. In the case of Oxfordshire we find the sheriff paying no less than four hundred marks "de gersoma, pro comitatu habendo."[1038] But in Berkshire the payment "de gersoma" would seem to have been considerably less.[1039] Sometimes the county (or group of counties) was leased for a specified term of years. Thus "Maenfininus" had taken a lease of Bucks. and Beds. for four years,[1040] for which, seemingly, he paid but a trifling sum "de gersoma," while William de Eynsford (Æinesford) paid a hundred marks for a five years' lease of Essex and Herts.[1041] Now, the fact that William de Eynsford was not an Essex but a Kentish landowner obviously suggests that in taking this lease he was actuated by speculative motives. It is, indeed, an admitted