Comperuit igitur Paganus attornatus vicecomitis predicti in Scaccario, ubi inspecto Rotulo Regis in quo continebatur carta predict[i] r[egis] Quod ecclesiam Christi London debere habere predictos denarios blancos et ad scalam id est ad pondus qui fuerint meliores in pondere quam illa nova moneta per vi _s._ iii _d._ pro termino sancti Mich. arch. predicto. Et sic predictus prior et conventus haberent quolibet anno xii _s._ vi _d._ de incremento, XXV li. blanc. prout patet in carta sequenti. The writ of the earl of Cornwall, in 1256, which follows, is obviously out of place for our period. Lastly, the canons record the triumph of their case thus: Perlecta ista carta, constitutus est dies priori Stephano ad peticionem Pagani clerici gerentis vices vicecomitis Exonie a Justicia idem cancellario et baronibus scaccarii ut innotesceret causam istam vicecomiti predicto. Et sic predicti prior et conventus reciperent predictos xii li. xvi _s._ iii _d._ infra xii dies natalis domini de tali moneta qualis tunc curreret. Et ibidem (_i.e._ inde) fuerunt plegii Radulphus de Glanvilla tunc Justicia Regis et Rogerus filius Reinfridi et Alanus de Furnellis, coram hiis testibus Gaufrido episcopo Eliensi; Ricardo thesaurario Regis, postea episcopo Londoniensi; Roberto Mantello; Michaele Belet; Edwardo clerico; Elia hostiario, et multis aliis. Ad terminum vero predictun* Willelmus, vicecomes Exonie, de (_sic_) Br[iwerre], etc. So at length the prior received the full amount “numeratos, blancos, ad scalam, tales (eis) quorum xx solidi numerati fecerunt libram Regis.” Corrupt though the text in places is, the outline of the story is clear enough, and is supported by such record evidence as survives. The local authorities, clearly, were directed to pay the canons £25 “ad scalam” annually, “hoc est,” says the ‘Dialogus,’ “propter quamlibet numeratam libram vi _d._” This is fully borne out by the Pipe Rolls which both in 1130 and under Henry II. record the annual payment as £25 12_s._ 6_d._ “numero.” When the new coinage became current in 1180, the local authorities evidently claimed that as they had to pay in standard coin, they ought no longer to be liable for the 12_s._ 6_d._ excess which they paid under the old system. The case, however, was given against them, apparently on the ground that they were liable for 6_d._ additional on every “numbered” pound, irrespective of the quality of the coin. The difficulty is created by the use of the term “blancos” throughout as equivalent to “ad scalam,” an equation which is certainly found in the text of the charters. It will, however, be better to discuss this point when dealing with the blanch system as a whole.