In each succeeding year-roll, from the beginning of the reign of Henry II., the sheriff of Cumberland had rendered his account for the Neatgild of the county. The amount of this tribute was fixed at £80.... But we have no means of showing how the £80 was made up, because the sheriff answered for it in a lump sum, and no particulars of his account have survived as in the case of the Northumberland list happily preserved in the Red Book. But this Neatgild (or cornage) can be traced back much further, namely, to the year-roll of 1130, and even earlier. It was £85 8_s._ 8_d._ under Henry I., and over £80 under Henry II.; and details of sums paid in respect of it are duly found, not only in the ‘Red Book’ (pp. 493–4),[574] but also in the ‘Testa de Nevill.’ Moreover, the cornage of Northumberland as well was answered for “in a lump sum,” and this leads me to explain the entry of the Northumbrian lists. Mr. Hall has failed to observe that his manuscript adds up the cornage wrongly, and is even guilty of a further error in asserting that this erroneous total is “xxii den. plus quam alii solebant respondere,” its real excess being £1 1_s._ 10_d._[575] Apart from its obvious bearing on the character and value of the manuscript, this error has misled the editor into stating that the sums entered, “less the pardons of the Prior of Tynemouth and the King of Scots, make up the charge of £20 for the county.” On the contrary, the grand total is £21 3_s._ 10_d._, although the sheriffs were only liable for the “lump sum” of £20. Why is this? It is because Robert “de Insula,” to whom we owe the list, held the shire “ut custos.” This most important Exchequer phrase, which the editor must have overlooked on the roll, can be traced back, at least, as far as 1130. It means that the Crown had put its own man in office, and was thus able to get at the details of the payment, for which the normal sheriff was only liable in a “lump sum.” This is why the opportunity was taken to set these details on record. This explanation applies also to the details of Newcastle ward service immediately preceding the cornage payments. The editor might have learnt from the Pipe Rolls that the sheriff was normally charged, in respect of this payment, with £32 4_s._ 5_d._ gross, and £28 14_s._ 5_d._ net, which latter sum he was entitled to retain for his wardenship of the castle. But Robert, as “custos,” recorded the receipts as amounting to £33, and was consequently called upon in 1267 to account for £4 5_s._ 7_d._(the difference between £33 and £28 14_s._ 5_d._) “de cremento wardarum Novi Castri de anno xlix° sicut recepit.” The entry, therefore, of both lists can be traced to Robert’s position “ut custos” in 49 Hen. III. Lastly, the statement that “the cornage of Westmoreland can also be traced on the rolls, but it was of very trifling value,” seems unfortunate in view of the fact that it was, when it first appears,