We refer, as invited, to the roll itself, only to find that, on the contrary, it first records the “assessments for the scutage of Ireland,” and then heads the lists which follow: “De his qui cartas non miserunt.”[325] It is this very sequence that is responsible for the error of Madox, who held, as Mr. Hall observes, “that the charters in question must have been returned for the purpose of the Scutage of Ireland in 1171.”[326] Swereford, on the other hand, wrote of the 1172 roll: Quo quidem rotulo supplentur nomina illorum qui cartas non miserunt anno xiij^o, prout superius tactum est (p. 8). He is wrong, of course, in stating that the charters were returned in the “13th year” (an error which his editor carefully ignores), but perfectly right in his explanation, if we substitute “12th” for his “13th” year. Yet, having thus rightly shown that Swereford’s explanation is the true one, his editor closes the paragraph thus: The simple solution of the difficulty is that the tenants who were in debt for the aid of 1168 were so entered on the occasion of the next assessment (1171) in a conspicuous form (p. cciii.). Really, this wanton confusion is enough to make Swereford turn in his grave. The entry which has caused the difficulty refers, not to “the tenants who were in debt for the aid” of 1168, but to those who had made no returns (“cartas non miserunt”) in 1166. Mr. Hall assigns Madox’s error to his finding no “corresponding entries,” under Sussex, in 1168 (14 Hen. II.) for those in 1172 (18 Hen. II.). And yet all three entries, in the latter year, of the earl of Arundel’s tenants[327] have their corresponding entries in 1168.[328] The real cause of Madox’s error has been explained above. It is, we read, “significant” that in 1168 the earl’s “assessment actually does not correspond with that recorded in the existing charter of 1166” (p. cciv.); for it only “gives 84½ fees for the Earl’s Sussex barony,” while the Inquest referred to in his charter had the result that “13 more were acknowledged by the Earl as chargeable upon his demesne, raising the total to 97½.” Therefore, “we are almost tempted to suspect that the Earl’s charter was not returned in 1166 at all, but only after an interval of several years.” On which, of course, a theory is built. Ingenious enough, is it not? Yet, as usual, a house of cards. For we find the “barony” charged only with 84½ fees in 1194,[329] in 1196, and in 1211 (13 John),[330] precisely as in 1168. The total had not been raised at all; and the house of cards topples over. The same unhappy paragraph closes with these words: It is quite clear ... that the dispute was practically settled, in the 18th year, only two refractory tenants remaining to be dealt with, and that the Earl paid the whole of his assessment in the 21st year.