ax 
 
 ttft**^ 
 
 Hi' 
 
 m 
 
 ^ 
 
 !1 
 
 THE RED BOOK 
 
 OF THE 
 
 EXCHEQUER 
 
 A REPLY TO MR J. H. ROUND 
 
 BY 
 
 HUBERT HALL 
 
 lonlion 
 
 SPOTTISWOODE & CO. PRINTERS, NEW-STREET SQUARE, E.G. 
 
 1898 
 
 V>I 
 
 ^m
 
 THE RED BOOK 
 
 OF THE 
 
 EXCHEQUER 
 
 A REPLY TO MR J. H. ROUND 
 
 BY 
 
 HUBERT HALL 
 
 Quatuor ista timor, odium, dilectio, census, 
 Sxpe Solent hominum rectos pervertere sensus. 
 
 Red Book of the Exchequer, fo, xi''. 
 
 )| 
 
 , ILontion 
 
 SPOTTISWOODE & CO. PRINTERS, NEW-STREET SQUARE, E.C. 
 
 1898 
 
 Fif/v Copies printed for private circulation only
 
 THE 
 
 RED BOOK OF THE EXCHEQUER 
 
 c>»;o 
 
 I 
 
 It is not easy for a man of ordinary sensibility to approach the subject of his 
 proclaimed deHnquencies. We have all of us an instinctive dread of falling in the good 
 esteem of our fellows, and when there is not much to be made of a bad case, a policy of 
 silence is masterly. 
 
 Again, it may be that our adversary is one who is, so to speak, de faniilia nostra, a 
 colleague, a collaborator, a once intimate friend ; one who has shared our early toil, into 
 whose sympathetic ears we have poured all our hopes and fears ; one who knows both 
 the richness and the poverty of the land, but who, for a personal offence, a fancied 
 injury, turns and rends us with the very weapons which we have ourselves forged to his 
 hand. 
 
 It is surely to the credit of our human nature that, in a case like this, our first 
 impulse is to try to forget that such a one has been, as the only means of avoiding 
 exceeding bitterness of feeling towards a fellow labourer. But the necessity may arise, 
 against our earnest wish, for throwing aside our reserve in the interests of others who are 
 perplexed and misled by uncontroverted falsities ; or it may be that the matter is one 
 which seems to touch our honour. 
 
 For a year past I have remained silent, whilst Mr. Round has striven with 
 all the perverted learning and all the distorted rhetoric at his command to darken 
 and blight my official and literary life — to denounce me as an impostor, a fraud, one who 
 has drawn payment for a work which he has shirked, one who has undertaken 
 to teach others to their undoing, and whose reputation has been maintained by the 
 connivance of too friendly reviewers. Not content with publishing a violent attack upon 
 my work in certain Antiquarian journals which he knew would be read in my own circle, 
 Mr. Round has lately recast these published articles, embodying with them others which 
 had been rejected by more discerning editors. Herein he has interpolated the most 
 injurious suggestions which he could propose to those who have the control of my 
 
 A 2 
 
 211614^^
 
 4 THE RED BOOK OF THE EXCHEQUER 
 
 official destinies and of that arduous mission for the advancement of historical fellowship 
 and for the help of younger students which he knew to be so near my heart. This work, 
 privately printed, that no circumstance of bad taste might be wanting, by the printers of 
 my own Society, to whom I had given him a former introduction, with copies of the above 
 mentioned articles, Mr. Round has distributed by his own hand to my official superiors, 
 colleagues, literary friends and correspondents, to all with whom it might injure or impair 
 my credit. 
 
 It is possible that the stones which Mr. Round has thrown may have rebounded 
 upon his own head. The World knows us both. But the World passes swiftly away. 
 Litera scripta manct. The man who has a family and friends to whom his good name 
 is dear, cannot afford to let such charges as Mr. Round has thought fit to print remain 
 unanswered. 
 
 In the first place it seems to be of much importance to ascertain whether, apart from 
 those offences against good taste which are inseparable from such productions, Mr. 
 Round's attack may be regarded as legitimate criticism or as the expression of private 
 malice. 
 
 Mr. Round has published his motives for this attack, which are stated to be the 
 ' public spirit ' which has induced him to ' devote his time and toil to the work, and to 
 publish the result of his labours at his own expense.' And the writer adds — ' It is simply 
 because I felt it my duty, as possessing the special knowledge required, to undertake this 
 thankless task that I now publish these studies.' Unfortunately it can be shown that 
 there is no real zeal for the public welfare underlying Mr. Round's criticism of my work, 
 but that it is throughout actuated by private malice. It will also appear from the facts 
 which I am about to relate, that Mr. Round has sought to wreak his malice by means 
 which I will not attempt to characterise. 
 
 It is necessary for me to refer very briefly to the circumstances under which my 
 edition of the ' Red Book ' was carried out. 
 
 The work was undertaken as far back as the year 1885 by Mr. Walford Selby. On 
 his death in 1889 I was selected to complete the work on account of my interest in 
 Exchequer antiquities, and Mr. Round was appointed my co-editor in the interests of the 
 genealogical portion of the MS. 
 
 Within a few months of its commencement Mr. Round withdrew from the work on 
 the plea of ill-health. Knowing that his withdrawal would be most prejudicial to the 
 work, I used every inducement to prevail on him to reconsider his decision, but without 
 success. He, however, strongly encouraged me to continue the work, offering to see me 
 through the genealogical difficulties. 
 
 When the first sheets of the text were passing through the press Mr. Round, who 
 was then abroad, begged earnestly that he might be allowed to revise them. I gladly 
 consented to this, but a circumstance occurred in connection with his revision the full 
 significance of which was not perceived by me till long afterwards. In the first place, 
 Mr. Round, assuming a consent which, under the circumstances, I could scarcely 
 withhold, used these sheets for the purpose of the calculations and theories which he 
 embodied in his memorable articles on the ' Origin of Knight Service ' in the ' English 
 Historical Review.' Whether this proceeding was fair or not, my own consent to it
 
 A REPLY TO MR. J. II. ROUND 5 
 
 debars me from inquiring. At least, the gain to the historical student was great, and 
 I cordially welcomed these brilliant researches and abruptly closed the chapter I was 
 myself preparing. But more than this. I stoutly defended Mr. Round against the not 
 unnatural annoyance caused in official quarters at this anticipatifjn of an official work, and 
 I took the whole blame of the matter on myself. 
 
 After returning my sheets with a few unimportant corrections, Mr. Round wrote 
 privately to my official chief, informing him that he had discovered a great number of 
 mistakes, especially in respect of personal names, in my sheets, and asking, in view of 
 this discovery, that he might have the zuork of preparing the Index. These alleged errors 
 were examined both by myself and by an independent authority by reference to the 
 MS., when it was found that in this long list of errors not 5 per cent, were other than 
 mere unfounded conjectures of Mr. Round, who in those days was even younger in the 
 art of text-editing than myself The incident made an unpleasant impression at the time, 
 but I freely imputed it to Mr. Round's enthusiasm for accuracy, and dismissed it from 
 my mind. 
 
 I need not refer to my subsequent intimacy with Mr. Round, or to the very different 
 opinions which he has publicly expressed of the value of my work. In time came our 
 unhappy quarrel. 
 
 As there has been no suggestion on Mr. Round's part of any personal cause of 
 offence, and as I am wholly innocent of any such intention, I think that I may take it for 
 granted that the immediate cause of Mr. Round's vindictive persecution of my work was 
 an article in the ' Quarterly Review ' which has been attributed to me, and the authorship 
 of which I have never denied. Into the nature and spirit of that article it would be 
 improper to enter here. I refer it to the judgment of all. It was such a fearless estimate 
 of a man's work and worth as might have been written by his brother in arms. ' Can 
 kindness wound ? ' exclaimed a friend of both of us when he read Mr. Round's bitter 
 outcry in the ' Athenaeum.' 
 
 A few days after the review had appeared, Mr. Round addressed to me the first of 
 several letters filled with the most violent abuse and insults, and ending with the sinister 
 remark that I had ' dug my own grave as a scholar.' Then appeared the scandalous 
 articles in the ' Genealogical Magazine ' and the ' Genealogist.' When I saw the latter the 
 whole truth flashed upon me. For years past, whilst he was using my unpublished 
 sheets, Mr. Round had taken note of my mistakes, all of which he did not think 
 fit to communicate to me. 
 
 At this point I would venture to express a strong opinion that under the circumstances 
 Mr. Round should not have continued to refer to my unpublished sheets. The reason 
 may be found in more than one passage of his printed criticisms. My editorial defence 
 of Swereford, though wholly courteous and even deferential in tone, accompanied, 
 moreover, by private explanations and excuses, implied that Mr. Round's ferocious 
 onslaught upon my author was, to some extent at least, unjustified ; and to hint that 
 Mr. Round might be mistaken was an unpardonable offence. The suppressed passion 
 with which Mr. Round must have read the advanced sheets of my work, with which I 
 innocently supplied him at his urgent request, may be judged from the following passage 
 in his privately printed book : —
 
 6 THE RED BOOK OF THE EXCHEQUER 
 
 This must be my last instance of Mr. Hall's unhappy efforts to use the preface of an official 
 work for the purpose of assailing the results obtained by the labours of others [sic]. Unable to 
 grasp their arguments, or too self-satisfied to do so, he discovers ' positive proof or ' a most decisive 
 statement' (p. clxxiii) which enables him, iie thinks, to destroy those results and to substitute error 
 in their place. 
 
 The unavoidable conclusion which must be drawn from this jind other passages is 
 that Mr. Round read my advanced sheets with resentment, and was. prepared to make his 
 resentment felt. 
 
 In general, I will admit that Mr. Round was not bound by more than the mere 
 obligations of friendship to open his mouth. As a prospective reviewer of the forthcoming 
 work he might feel justified in looking out for smart points, but even on this ground the 
 business does not seem an attractive one. If, whilst I was smoothing the path for Mr. 
 Round's studies, giving him a share of my private time and of my official quarters, 
 ministering with all my heart to his lightest wish, he chose to collect materials for such a 
 malignant review as that which forms the basis of the chapter on the ' Red Book of the 
 Exchequer ' in his privately printed work— if, I say, he chose to make this return for 
 my kindness — that is a matter for his own private conscience. In two particulars, 
 however, I venture to think that Mr. Round was not justified in the course which he 
 has thought fit to adopt. In the first place, he not only used the early sheets 
 of my edition which he had undertaken to revise, and for which revision he was 
 paid by me, for his own purposes, which I freely permitted and of which I do not 
 complain, but he has now produced mistakes which he did not discover at that 
 time, and he has published those mistakes with the object of bringing me into ridicule. 
 
 In the second place, Mr. Round having begged me to let him revise the whole of 
 the Index, I gladly accepted an offer so advantageous to the interests of the work from 
 a genealogical point of view, of which I was notoriously ill-informed. How Mr. Round 
 carried out his engagement the following documents will show, to which I have no wish 
 to add any words of comment. 
 
 I regret to say that none of the errors which Mr. Round has now pointed out in 
 my Index were notified by him during his revision of the proofs. And yet he has 
 insisted especially on the fact that the identifications complained of by him were 
 comparatively easy. ' The above identification . . . took me just five minutes,' we are 
 told. And again : ' Really, these names present no special difficulty ; I have dealt with 
 them on the very principles laid down by the Editor himself Had he followed them in 
 practice, as he professes to have done, he could not have thus erred, to the lasting 
 confusion of the student' It is with such words as these that Mr. Round has added 
 insult to injury. If these identifications were so simple, why, I might not unnaturally 
 ask, did not Mr. Round make the necessary corrections in his revision of my proofs ? 
 However, I do not wish to press this question at all. I never expected Mr. Round to 
 be omniscient or even laborious in his proffered assistance ; but that he should now hold 
 up to ridicule mistakes which he must either have overlooked or else have deliberately 
 held back is a proceeding which can only be described as positively indecent. Whatever 
 may have been the extent of my instructions or of my reasonable expectations, I had at 
 least a right to expect that any information which Mr. Round had obtained from my
 
 A REPLY TO MR. J. H. ROUND 7 
 
 unpublished Index sheets should not be used to my disadvantage. It is true that 
 Mr. Round might argue that as he received no remuneration in this instance, nor gave 
 any undertaking as to thoroughness of revision, and as, indeed, I had myself begged that 
 he would not bestow too much labour on the task, therefore that such corrections as he 
 did make were clear profit to me, and he may choose to assume that 1 could not have 
 made those corrections myself. 
 
 I should not like to speak with confidence on this point, but, at least, I should have 
 made the effort, I should have had a chance. To assume that you have acquired the 
 right to cut a man's throat because you are persuaded that you have saved him from 
 drowning, is not an argument that can commend itself to humane persons. 
 
 It will be only too evident from these painful revelations that Mr. Round's repeated 
 assertion that his several criticisms have been inspired by a sense of public duty are 
 untrue. Whether the untruth is deliberate or unconscious it is not for me to inquire, but, 
 at least, the criticisms which are the outcome of this vindictive spirit can now be estimated 
 at their true worth. 
 
 I. Hubert Hall to J. H. Round. 
 
 Public Record Office : December 20, 1895. 
 
 Dear Round. — I enclose text of Liber Rubeus' and first instalment of Index. Please let me 
 have back the bound volume eventually. Would you cast your falcon's eye over the Index slips to 
 detect, not the ' Liber Rubeus' scribe's mis-scripts, but Hubert Hall's blunders? 
 
 (i) Place names. 
 
 (2) Personal names (only so far as unintelligent. I chose after long meditation to give the 
 form characteristic of the MS., but as there are cross-references it doesn't matter much, and I don't 
 want to give any conventional forms, which, d'ai/leias, I mistrust), in which you may detect any 
 ' howlers,' as you doubtless will, for I have a poor head for names. 
 
 (3) General. 
 
 If you would not mind using pencil for observations it would save preparing another proof 
 This is all I have as yet. 
 
 II. /. H. Round to Hubert Hall. 
 
 31 Alfred Place West, S.W. : January 8, 1896. 
 
 My dear Hall, — Yours to hand. I will endeavour to check my impulse with every new job, 
 namely, to throw over everything else and devote myself wholly to it
 
 8 THE RED BOOK OF THE EXCHEQUER 
 
 HI. Facsimile of an envelope addressed to Mr. Round, bearing the postmark 17 February, 
 1896, found in a book which Mr. Round is known to have been using at that date. 
 
 xAAjUiAAjykvTii 
 
 m 
 
 ,.'- 
 
 r 
 
 Note. — Proofs of the Index were in Mr. Round's possession until April 1896. The Red Book was published in 
 April 1897. 
 
 IV. Mr. Round in the 'Genealogist,' October 1897. 
 
 I will conclude with a crowning instance. We read in a list of the honour of Boulogne : 
 ' Robertus filius Rogeri VII milites in Torp, Widone, Andagane, Massingham, etc' M_y suspicions 
 being roused by the resemblance of the second and third place names to Widon' Andagav' [that is 
 ' of Guy the Angevin '), / turned to the Boulogne fief in Domesday, and there read ' Hoc totum tenet 
 Wido Angevin[us].' This at once explained the matter. Norfolk was a county rich in Thorpes, and 
 that which was held by the ancestor of the Claverings (for Blomefield is here hopelessly at sea) was 
 distinguished by our forefathers from its Domesday tenant, as the Thorpe ' of Guy the Angevin.' 
 Yet the Editor actually converted his name into two Norfolk villages, and proceeded to scour the 
 county for anything resembling them. The result is seen in the Index, where we find the imaginary 
 ' Andagane ' positively identified as ' Antingham,' while the fatal entry ' Witton, see Widone ' is still 
 found on p. 1357. Now as 'Andagane' and 'Widone' had no existence save in Mr. Hall's 
 imagination, this case is a conclusive test of his method of identification. They were shots, pure and 
 simple. Long after all the text, and indeed when most of the Index, had been printed off, Mr. Hall 
 seems to have discovered the error he had clung to so lo7ig, for we find under ' Widone ' a reference to 
 'Torp,' and on p. 1331, ' Torp [Widonis Andegavensis] ' identified as ' Gunthorpe.' 
 
 Note. — The italics are my own. The original proof-sheets of my Index show that I had queried these 
 places, but Mr. Round did not respond. I afterwards discovered, as Mr. Round regretfully admits, the true 
 reading in seeking to identify 'Torp' and 'Widone,' but it was then too late to correct 'Andagane' except in the 
 Errata. As it can be proved that when the notes on the envelope were written my Inde.\ slips were still in Mr. 
 Round's hands, I think that I am justified in asking for an explanation.
 
 A REPLY TO MR. J. H. ROUND 
 
 II 
 
 In the preceding pages I have been compelled to show that Mr. Round is not 
 qualified by the impartiality towards his subject which he claims for a critical review of my 
 work. I shall now attempt to show how far his criticisms are justified by the facts of 
 the case. 
 
 In making this attempt I do not wish in any way to minimise the effect of those 
 errors which he has detected in the course of such a searching and merciless investigation 
 as, perhaps, no work of research was ever yet subjected to. Errors remain errors, 
 whether they are revealed by friends or enemies, by public spirit or by private spite. As 
 there should be no errors, at least of a certain kind, in works of this description, I must 
 plead guilty to many counts of a long indictment, and, profiting by my conviction, I hope 
 to find an opportunity of adding to the existing list of errata. 
 
 But, in making this admission, I have to also make many important exceptions and 
 reservations which affect at least three-fifths of Mr. Round's printed criticisms. In these 
 I have noted with pain and amazement a very large number of absolutely unfounded 
 charges of carelessness and ignorance, and, in addition to charges which are wholly 
 unfounded, a still larger number which are based upon some trivial and wholly 
 unimportant slip — a slip which, by means of what I am reluctant to regard as unfair 
 suggestions and deliberate perversions and mis-statements of my words and views, has 
 been magnified into a blunder of the most flagrant description. 
 
 The residutwi (which I propose to sift and amend as above stated, and which for the 
 present I must perforce admit, chiefly for want of special knowledge to decide upon their 
 merits) will be found to consist of not wholly unfamiliar mistakes in the identification 
 of personal and place names, together with a doubtless undue number of ' careless ' 
 oversights, as to which I should like to offer such slight excuses as I am able. 
 
 The whole of the Feodary in the ' Red Book,' comprising volumes I. and II. of the 
 edition, had been already transcribed and collated by Mr. Selby. An Editor is always at 
 a great disadvantage in the case of difficult MSS., when he is unable to make the 
 transcript for himself. It is almost impossible to avoid passing in proof a few ingenious 
 and plausible mis-scripts, but in this case it proved that the transcripts had not even been 
 made from the MS. itself but from a modern office copy, and the proofs were loaded with 
 corrections down to the second revise. In Mr. Selby's scheme for the edition of the 
 ' Red Book of the Exchequer,' the publication of the Feodary only was contemplated. 
 In order to extend my own sphere of usefulness I added to this the unpubhshed and 
 practically unknown Exchequer Collections, and to make the whole of the MS. readily 
 accessible to students I planned, under the experienced direction of the Deputy-Keeper 
 of the Records, and executed with more labour than would be easily believed, the Table
 
 lo THE RED BOOK OF THE EXCHEQUER 
 
 of Contents which precedes the present edition, giving in parallel columns the original 
 and printed references, the description, the parallel MSS., and printed versions of every 
 one of the 300 pieces contained in the great Exchequer Register. This necessary- 
 extension of the work, added to the above-mentioned difficulties of the corrections, coupled 
 with the slowness of the press, prevented the publication of the work for a period of seven 
 years. This enforced delay led in turn to fresh difficulties. During seven years how 
 much have we learnt, how much have we not repented of! But the Government press 
 gives no room for repentance. The Te.xt and Preface, printed off years before the actual 
 date of publication, must bear the brunt of the latest criticism. The Editor must suffer 
 silently the reproaches of inconsistency and indifference made by one who has a private 
 knowledge of this weak side of his work. 
 
 Mr. Round's small volume is composed of three chapters or parts. Of the first of 
 these, which treats of the ' Antiquity of Scutage,' I will only observe that it deals somewhat 
 too seriously with my very cursory remarks on this much debated subject. Indeed, Mr. 
 Round had already anticipated anything that I might have had to say, and that, perhaps, 
 of no great value. At the same time I must adhere to the view that the sentence referred 
 to at page 4 of Mr. Round's book, implying the assessment of Scutage in the reign of 
 Henry I. is a forged interpolation in the Ely charter. Mr. Round now seeks to strengthen 
 his case by adducing instances from other early charters. It is curious to find him seriously 
 citing the forgeries of Westminster, St. Martin's, Lewes and Colchester in support of the 
 definition of Scutage before the reign of Henry I. We are certainly entitled to suspect 
 that such definitions were interpolated in genuine charters, as lawyers would say, ' in 
 mitigation of damages.' That the incidence of some such military assessment existed 
 in these early times none can now deny, but that this was levied at the Exchequer in the 
 shape of ' Scutage ' or even eo iwmine requires more proof than the dichim of a monkish 
 cartulary. The instruction in ' Diplomatic ' about which Mr. Round so frequently makes 
 merry at least aims at distinguishing between forged and genuine charters. 
 
 The second chapter of Mr. Round's book is occupied with a lengthy criticism of my 
 edition of the ' Red Book of the Exchequer,' and to this I shall presently revert. The third 
 and concluding chapter deals with the credibility of the manuscript compilations attributed 
 to Alexander de Swereford. With regard to this now well-worn subject I will only say 
 that I have spoken my mind once for all (and perhaps at undue length) in my Preface to 
 the ' Red Book.' But I will add that the time may come when Mr. Round's allegations 
 with respect to Swereford's works will be examined in detail and found unproved. 
 
 The exceptions, however, which I have to take to Mr. Round's criticisms are chiefly 
 based on passages contained in the principal section of his privately printed book, which 
 deals with my edition of the ' Red Book ' as a whole, and must be judged by the examples 
 set forth below. I will beQ:in with a mis-statement of facts. 
 
 In the course of a long and violent tirade against the incapacity and (at least implied) 
 dishonesty of the ' English Historical Reviewer' of my edition of the ' Red Book' Mr. 
 Round remarks : — 
 
 It is only, however, because of its appearance in the recognised organ of English historians that 
 this review need detain us. The following extract is conclusive : — 
 
 ' Indeed, the more technical Mr. Hall is, the more satisfactory does his method seem. The
 
 A REPLY TO MR. J. H. ROUND ii 
 
 emendation of Dr. Luard's text of Wykcs whicli turns the misleading monasterium Quarrerice 
 into the intelligible ministerium Camerarice is a brilliant piece of work. Equally fascinating, 
 though not perhaps so convincing, is the reading extra legem tola MarcJiia Wallicc for the 
 obscure ex legem totain IViillice.' 
 We have only to turn to ' Dr. Luard's te.xt ' to discover that it reads monasterium Camerarice, 
 and that the above Qiiarrerice is a sheer invention of Mr. Hall's. 
 
 Of the other 'brilliant' and 'fascinating' example one need but say that extJ-a is the vv-ord of 
 Mr. Hall's own text (p. 762), and that ex (p. cclix) is merely the result of his strange inability to 
 quote his own text correctly in his own preface. Here, then. Professor Tout is convicted of 
 accepting Mr. Hall's preface without an attempt to test it, with the natural result that his review is 
 as worthless as it is misleading. 
 
 It is scarcely credible that Mr. Round, after referring, as he says, to the texts cited 
 should have charged me with this ' sheer invention.' These are my words : — 
 
 It is certainly strange that the learned Editor of the Annales Monastici (Rolls) should have been 
 betrayed by a rare inadvertence into the following remarkable error whereby the chronicle of Thomas 
 Wykes is made to state that the Countess of Albemarle conferred the monastery of Quarr upon 
 Adam de Stratton, &c. (p. cccxvii.). 
 
 Now the Editor of Wykes not only read ' monasterium ' for ' ministerium ' ^ and 
 supplied ' Ouarreri^e,' for ' cameraria;,' but goes out of his way to make the matter plain. 
 This is the text to which Mr. Round appeals. 
 
 ' Ad quam nobile illud monasterium Camerariae, &c.,' to which is appended the 
 following explanatory note, ' i.e. Ouarreria (Ouarr) in the Isle of Wight,' whilst we read in 
 the Inde.x : 
 
 Ouarr Abbc,v {Cameraria, Ouadraria, Ouararia). The prerogative given by Isabella, countess of 
 Albemarle, to Adam de Stratton. 
 
 The second part of this paragraph remains to be displayed as a curious specimen of 
 petty spite and disingenuous criticism. It must be obvious to every one that the whole 
 point of the emendation which Professor Tout was pleased to commend lies in the reading 
 ' tota m[archia] Wallice ' for ' totam Walliae.' The ' extra legem ' has absolutely nothing 
 to do with the matter. But by a printer's error the reading of the te.xt has been changed 
 in the Preface to ' ex legem,' and Professor Tout has quoted from the Preface. But 
 Professor Tout has failed to find as much fault with my work as a whole as Mr. Round 
 could have wished. Therefore his review is as ' worthless and misleading ' as the subject 
 matter. 
 
 After this, one is naturally tempted to throw this privately printed criticism on the 
 fire ; but there is no short way with an unpleasant task. Let us therefore take another 
 example : — 
 
 Perhaps, however, the climax of error is attained in Mr. Hall's treatment of Swercford's word 
 ' prsemissa.' On p. 689, Swereford argues, from an entry on the Rolls, that certain 'praemissa 
 scutagia ' must be ' de exercitu Tholosre.' From his use of ' praemissa ' on pp. 696 and 697 we learn 
 that he means thereby some preceding entry, precisely as on p. 580, 'summa xiii preemissorum ' 
 means ' of the thirteen preceding (entries).' Now, on p. 6S9, we have three preceding entries of 
 
 ' I find that, as I had conjectured, the MS. of Wykes (T'b. A 9 fo 87) has 'ministerium.'
 
 12 THE RED BOOK OF THE EXCHEQUER 
 
 scutage, and it is to these that Svvereford's note obviously and clearly applies. Mr. Hall, however, 
 quotes the words ' pritmissa scutat^ia ' (p. 689) as ' promis.sa scutagia ' (p. clxxii), and proceeds on 
 this misquotation of his own printed text to announce a great discovery : — 
 
 ' At last then we can clearly distinguish between the two separate assessments 
 for a typical campaign between the middle of the twelfth and the middle of the 
 thirteenth centuries. On the one hand, we have the promissa or other compo- 
 sitions in lieu of personal service, &c., &c. (p. cxcii).' 
 
 No one, surely, can pretend that criticism is not called for when such theories as this are 
 advanced in official works, not as mere speculations, but as historical fact. The ridiculous word on 
 which it is based occurs, I believe, no fewer than ten times in Mr. Hall's preface. To those who are 
 competent to grasp all that such a blunder means it may seem that I have treated too seriously this 
 official production ; the only doubt that remains in one's mind is whether to describe such editing as 
 this as a farce or a burlesque. 
 
 It is painful to find that the whole of this pungent criticism is a tissue of glaring 
 mis-statements. In the first place, I did not ' proceed ' from quoting Swereford's note on 
 these 'preemissa scutagia' to announce a 'great discovery.' I merely remarked in 
 passing at page clxxii of my Preface that Swereford was not unaware of the history of 
 the Toulouse campaign, as was proved ' by his note in another place.' I then proceeded 
 through twenty pages of Preface to explain the theory of the assessment of scutage at 
 the Exchequer (dealing especially with the evidence of the ' promissa scutagia ' of the 
 later Pipe Rolls) to the passage at p. cxcii, which Mr. Round has deliberately repre- 
 sented as hingeing on the note above referred to. The passage quoted by Mr. Round 
 has no reference whatever to my allusion on a preceding page. It is true that by an 
 obvious misprint the word ' premissa ' in the text is quoted as ' promissa ' in the Preface, 
 but this is the extent of my offence. 
 
 Now Mr. Round, unable to get over the positive evidence of the ' promissa ' of the later 
 Pipe Rolls adduced by me in the twenty pages that follow, has pitched on this misprint, 
 and by ' cooking ' his quotations makes me appear guilty of a tremendous blunder. His 
 irritation at what he calls ' this ridiculous word ' will be carefully noted. But promisstim 
 is a term which is really as exact and convenient as Donum or Assisa ; and it occurs over 
 and over again on every membrane of these Pipe Rolls of John in the headings ' De 
 Promissis ' and ' De Finibus et Promissis Militum ne transfretent.' Nay, Mr. Round 
 himself, in another place, has more than once used it himself in the form 'de promissione.' 
 It was to this use and value and meaning of the word from these later sources that I 
 referred in my lengthy argument, and yet Mr. Round deliberately ' jumps ' twenty pages, 
 and dragging my words out of their context gives it to be understood that I have coined 
 the term ' promissum ' from a complete misunderstanding of one of the common formulas 
 of abbreviated MS S. 
 
 After this appalling act of literary dishonesty it matters comparatively little that Mr. 
 Round is wrong in his very explanation of this same common formula. Mr. Round, it 
 will be seen, ' proceeds ' to announce his own ' discovery ' of the true meaning of these 
 'premissa scutagia.' Ignoring the fact that this is a marginal entry in another hand, 
 whilst the parallel instances cited are part of the text in the writing of the copyist, and
 
 A REPLY TO MR. J. H. ROUND 13 
 
 that they are not references, as he alleges, to preceding entries but to preceding rolls ; 
 ignoring also the fact that Swereford's explanatory note has no possible analogy with 
 these bald cross references, Mr. Round triumphandy points to a ' preceding entry' on the 
 same page. But on Mr. Round's own showing, such a cross reference is meaningless, for 
 Swereford does not tell us what he ' argues ' there at all. The reference is really, as I 
 had already indicated, to page 7 of my text, where we read in Swereford's preface to this 
 particular scutage : ' Fuisse quidem scutagium ex hoc argno . . . quod vicecomites 
 Wigorniae et Warwikae reddunt ibi compotum de scutagio militum Episcopi Wigornensis 
 et comitis Warwikae,' giving thus a further reference to the complete entries, to the 
 scutage of the Bishop and Earl, on page 18, whereas only the scutage of the former 
 is entered in the passage cited by Mr. Round. It was in fact from this cross reference 
 that I was able to extend with confidence the words abbreviated in Swereford's marginal 
 note. 
 
 I will next give a few instances of Mr. Round's deliberate misrepresentation of facts 
 and of arsfuments founded on those facts : — 
 
 Another test of Mr. Hall's capacity to edit a medijeval MS. is afforded by that important 
 document, the ' Constitutio domus regis,' of which the text is found both in the ' Red Book ' and the 
 ' Black Book.' No one can collate these texts, as Mr. Hall has done, without seeing clearly that 
 the ' Black Book ' has the best text. Bearing in mind this superiority, we may approach the Editor's 
 hypothesis on p. ccc : — 
 
 ' There is another doubtful reading of the text which has hitherto escaped 
 attention. The " Red Book," under the head of the Marshal's office, mentions the 
 Hostiarii niilitis Episcopi. The " Black Book " has the reading " milites ipsi," 
 but it seems more probable that the officers referred to are Bishop Roger's deputies 
 (the technical meaning of milites) namely his nephew Nigel and Osbert 
 Pont de I'Arche, who, as we know from the Pipe Rolls, were custodes of the 
 Norman Treasury ; and this explanation accords well with the pointed 
 allusion to the rare attendance of the Treasurer himself in the Norman 
 household (p. ccc).' 
 
 It is desirable to print the texts side by side : — 
 
 Black Book. Red Book. 
 
 Hostiarii milites ipsi in dome comedent, et Hostiarii milites ep'i in Domo commedent, 
 
 unicuique hominum suorum iij ob. in die et viij unicuique hominum suorum iij ob. in die et viij 
 
 frustra candelorum. Gilebertus Bonus Homo frustra candelarum. Gilbertus Bonus Homo 
 
 et Ranulfus in domo comedent, et iij ob. et Radulfus in Domo commedent sine alia 
 
 hominibus siiis. Alii Hostiarii, tion milites, in liberatione (p. 812). 
 domo comedent sine alia liberatione (Hearne 
 
 P- 3SS)- 
 
 Apart from the superiority of the ' Black Book ' text throughout, it is obvious that in this passage 
 the ' Red Book ' has a grave omission. And yet Mr. Hall deliberately selects the reading in the worse 
 text. Now, observe what his theory is : he holds that 'the treasurer' was Bishop Roger, and that 
 the ' milites ep(iscop)i ' were the deputy treasurers. But the clause has nothing to do with treasurers ; 
 it deals with the ushers (hostiarii). Indeed, Mr. Hall himself, in his analysis (p. ccxcii) renders the 
 word ' ushers [of the Treasury].' Ushers are not treasurers, and never were. We need not, therefore,
 
 14 THE RED BOOK OF THE EXCHEQUER 
 
 waste time by explaining that Mr. Hall's reading would make nonsense of the ' ]Mack Book ' text, or 
 by proving the incorrectness of the statement that ' deputies ' is ' the technical meaning of milites.' 
 The point one has to insist upon is the utterly uncalled for character of the wild suggestion 
 heralded by the words ' it seems more probable.' 
 
 Such instances as this may render us disposed to extend the time limit in this extract from an 
 article assigned to Mr. Hall himself: — 
 
 ' We must have more texts and better texts to work from. We must resolutely discard the 
 useless editions of our national records, prepared by the well-meaning official antiquaries of the first 
 half of the present century.' 
 
 Now whether my suggestion is right or wrong, it was at least advanced with some 
 show of reason and inteHigence. In holding it up to ridicule, Mr. Round unconsciously 
 displays a complete ignorance of the technical points at issue. My suggestion was that 
 certain ushers, referred to as ' milites ep[iscop]i ' in the ' Red Book ' may well have been 
 the ' servants ' of the Treasurer, since we know from the ' Dialogus ' that the clerks of the 
 Lower Exchequer were attached by this title to the service of the greater officials. But 
 although I gave full authority for this statement, Mr. Round contemptuously brushes it 
 aside with the following footnote : — 
 
 We are referred for this assertion to ' Dialogus,' i. 3 ; but the Chamberlain's \sic\ ' milites ' here 
 mentioned, were so called not because they were his [sic] deputies, but because they were knights, 
 bound to have horses and arms, and paid ' ratione militia; ' (p. 32). 
 
 Yet the ' Dialogus,' enumerating the establishment of the Lower Exchequer, really 
 tells us this : ' Noveris autem quod inferius illud scaccarium suas habet personas, ratione 
 quidem officiorum a se distinctas . . . onmes quidem dominorum suorum nominibus, non 
 propriis militantes.' The 'militia' of the Chamberlains' (of whom it is notorious that 
 there were always two) knights was, as the least careful inquiry would have revealed, of 
 an entirely different nature, and they were obviously not included in my reference to this 
 chapter of the ' Dialogus.' 
 
 Mr. Round, however, has not troubled to inquire how an usher could possibly be a 
 knight. To anyone who had ever read Madox's account of this office, or who had any 
 knowledge of Exchequer or royal establishments for two centuries after the Conquest, 
 the existence of classes of knightly and non-knightly ushers either of the Exchequer or of 
 the Household (for 1 had considered both possibilities) must come as a complete surprise, 
 and must excite some feelings of incredulity. It was certainly news to the scribe of the 
 ' Red Book,' who has made the bold and, I still venture to say, beautiful emendation to 
 which I merely drew attention in my Preface. For I did not, as Mr. Round would 
 have it understood, 'deliberately select the reading of the worse text.' I was bound to 
 follow the ' Red Book ' text and give variants in footnotes, and Mr. Round, as my 
 co-editor, was well aware of this. Moreover, although the ' Black Book ' text is slightly 
 fuller than that of the ' Red Book,' I can by no means admit that it preserves the purest 
 forms. 
 
 Mr. Round then proceeds as follows : — 
 
 One of the closest and most important parallels in the ' Dialogus ' and the ' Constitutio' is 
 found in the passage relating to the marshal and the tallies. . . . The important point is that the
 
 A REPLY TO 'MR. J. H. ROUND 15 
 
 marshal is here connected with the keeping of the tallies (which were sometimes called dicce). Mr. 
 Hall, accordingly, rightly points out as to the ' Tallator ' mentioned in the ' Constitutio,' that ' the 
 presence of this officer is explained by the reference to the dicce used by the marshal.' But no 
 sooner has he made this just remark than he suddenly proceeds : — 
 
 ' For other reasons, however, it would be more convenient to suppose that dicas 
 stands for decwnrs, the allusion being to the official fees which were certainly 
 taken at a later date at the Receipt.' (P. 973.) 
 
 How characteristically hopeless ! No clue is given us as to the 'other reasons' which require 
 this violence to the text ; and all that we can find on p. 973 is that the chamberlains, not the 
 marshal, were charged with exacting not ' decimas ' (!), but 'graves fines, et rcdemptiones,' and did so 
 ' propria auctoritate,' not in right of their office, and not for the matters spoken of in the ' Constitutio.' 
 Could any emendation of the text be more wantonly wrong-headed ? ' (P. 33.) 
 
 It is to be observed that in this criticism Mr. Round has simply 'pirated' my own 
 theory, and has attempted to improve upon it with very small success. The ' important 
 point ' is, in fact, my own suggestion previously advanced in the ' Dictionary of Political 
 Economy ' (s. v. Dica), that these mysterious tokens were rough tallies for household 
 supplies, which give us the more modern use of ' Diker ' as a tally of ten. Mr. Round's 
 only contribution to our knowledge, beyond the calm assumption that tallies ' were 
 sometimes called dices,' consists in a reference to a Cottonian MS., which preserves a 
 commonplace of Exchequer practice concerning which the Records themselves are loaded 
 with information. But now for Mr. Round's charge. Unwilling to press my own theory 
 too far, I modestly allowed in the tail of a footnote that there might be something to be 
 said for the other view. Mr. Round, however, dresses his quotation to make it appear 
 that this is a contradiction of my own argument, as well as an unjustified ' emendation of 
 the text.' 
 
 As to the concluding attack on my example in point, I need merely observe that the 
 ' other reasons,' which it was only necessary to allude to thus in a footnote, are set forth 
 at length in the ' Glossaries.' That the very title of the Ordinance on p. 973, ' Quod 
 camerarii nichil exigant pro talliis perditis, querendis, scrutandis et innovandis,' &c., 
 shows that these were office fees : that this very document actually recites that the existing 
 hereditary Chamberlain had consented to waive these fees ' tanquam pertinentes ad 
 officium Camerarise,' and lastly, that I never stated or implied that this casual 
 illustration referred directly to the Marshal or to Decimcs, but to the officers of the 
 Receipt, and to the fee system at large. To such lengths of misquotation may a critic 
 blinded by passion allow himself to proceed. 
 
 A little further on Mr. Round returns to the attack on my Exchequer antiquities : — 
 
 Here is another instance in point : On pp. 835-837 are some interesting tables of ' dietae.' The 
 ' dieta ' was, as Ducange explains, a day's journey, and the entry here, ' pro qualibet dieta ad 
 brevia portanda iij d ' (p. 837), is in harmony with that explanation. Thus, these tables record the 
 number of days' journeys deemed necessary for reaching the different counties of England. By an 
 incomprehensible misconception, the Editor describes this in his table of contents (p. Ixxi) as ' a scale 
 of diets for accountants in the several counties of England allowed at the Exchequer.' It is, of 
 course, nothing of the kind. On p. cccxxxvii he is nearer the truth in describing it as ' a curious 
 scale of diets or daily wages and allowances for the service of the writs and summonses of the
 
 i6 THE RED BOOK OF THE EXCHEQUER 
 
 Court.' But even this is not accurate, for the ' dieta ' was the day's journey, of which the number 
 varied, not the uniform wages paid for that day's journey. (P. 6i.) 
 
 Mr. Rfiund again ignores the fact that I had myself written the approved definition 
 of this word in the ' Dictionary of PoUtical Economy,' and that here also I had referred to 
 the evidence of the ' Red Book.' By means of grossly perverting my editorial statement, 
 Mr. Round makes me appear as an unconscious opponent of my own views. A 'diet' 
 at the Exchequer was a ' diet,' and I have clearly explained its meaning. If Mr. Round's 
 objection has any meaning at all, it amounts to an insinuation that I have mistaken it for 
 ' something to eat.' 
 
 A considerable number of Mr. Round's criticisms certainly appear to myself, 
 whether rightly or wrongly, to be too puerile for serious discussion. Such is his 
 objection to the current year date given in the margin of the text of the Scutages of 
 Richard I. and John. The same remark seems to apply still more strongly to the whole 
 of his elaborate criticisms of the relationship of the ' Red Book,' the ' Black Book,' and 
 the ' Hargrave MS.,' to judge from the following specimen : — 
 
 Mr. Hall may pose as an authority on ' diplomatic ' and paleography, but the student must 
 really beware of him when he writes on medieval MSS. For instance, he holds that in the ' Red 
 Book ' the text of the ' Dialogus ' was written ' before 1 227, for a report of the proceedings of the 
 Council in that year is endorsed upon it in another but a contemporary hand ' (p. Ixi). Good. 
 But on turning to the Hargrave MS. I found this note to be there, also an addition in another (^sic) 
 hand, appended in precisely the same manner, at the tail of the ' Dialogus.' Therefore, by Mr. 
 Hall's argument, the Hargrave text also must have been written ' before 1227,' and yet we find him 
 assigning that text to ' the middle of the thirteenth century.' (P. 40.) 
 
 That is to say, because a MS. of the date 1260 has an addition to it in 'another 
 hand,' also of 1260, it must be of the same date as a MS. of 1227, which has an addition 
 to it in a ' contemporary hand.' What are we to think of such criticism as this ? But, 
 indeed, it was never seriously meant as criticism, but as a flimsy pretext for the insulting 
 words with which the passage opens. 
 
 Similarly, Mr. Round has devoted six whole pages to the question of the entry in 
 the ' Red Book ' ' specialiori modo,' as far as I can see, for the sole purpose of making it 
 appear that I have been engaged in ' a triangular duel ' with my colleagues and friends. 
 Here, again, Mr. Round is completely out of his depth, and his criticism of the position 
 taken up by Mr. Pike and myself is not worth the paper it is written on. 
 
 Now, the case is this. Mr. Pike, in a well-known passage in his Preface to the 
 'Year Book of 14 Edward HI.,' pointed out that a certain record of a case tried 
 in the Exchequer by writ of error was entered in the Memoranda Roll of that year, with a 
 note that the body of the Record omitting the originating writs is entered in the ' Red 
 Book' of the Exchequer 'specialiori modo.' But it is contended by Mr. Round that the 
 words ' ccetera contenta ' do not mean the contents of the Record, and that the words 
 ' annotantur specialiori modo in Rubeo Libro de Scaccario et in Recordis et processubus 
 habitis coram Baronibus ad placlta ibidem,' do not at all imply an actual entry in the ' Red 
 Book,' but merely a reference to certain precedents touching the question of Exchequer 
 privilege which are found entered on the margins of the existing volume. But if thisisSo, 
 what is the meaning of words at all ; or why did a scribe in the reign of Henry VI. think 
 it necessary to copy this missing record into the fly-leaves of the ' Red Book '
 
 A REPLY TO MR. J. H. ROUND 17 
 
 But the whole outcome of Mr. Round's lengthy criticism of this argument is that he 
 has discovered evidence in the 'Red Book' itself which is ' absolutely conclusive.' This 
 'discovery ' is a marginal heading, in a hand of Edward II., to the Certificates of Knight 
 Service, and is as follows : ' Certificationes factcu de feodis militum tempore Regis 
 Henrici Secundi per prelatos et barones pretextu mandati Regis ejusdem annotati alibi in 
 hoc libro, folio videlicet xlvii° precedenti.' 
 
 Hereupon Mr. Round observes : — 
 
 As the terms of this ' mandate ' have not been preserved, we eagerly turn to folio 47 for its 
 ' enrolment.' But what we find there is neither enrolment nor writ, but merely Swereford's narrative, 
 in which he speaks of Henry II. 'publico praecipiens edicto quod quilibet prelatus et baro quot 
 milites de co tenerent in capite publicis suis instrumentis significarent ' (p. S). So far from being an 
 enrolment of the writ, this is nothing but a conjecture of Swereford as to what the tenor of the writ 
 must have been — a conjecture, moreover, which is probably inaccurate. 
 
 This evidence, it will be seen, is absolutely conclusive as to the loose use of the word 
 ' annotatur.' 
 
 But is it quite clear that this reference is to folio 47, and to this obscure allusion in 
 Swereford's Preface at all .'' Is it altogether probable that this Edwardian scribe would 
 have caught the importance of what is merely one of the desiderata curiosa of modern 
 scholars } Mr. Round, apparently, is not aware that it is extremely improbable that the 
 ' Red Book ' was paged before the end of the reign of Edward III., when it was bound, 
 and that in the reign of Edward II. the scribes who wished to refer to other pages of the 
 work did so by counting the preceding and subsequent pages. Thus we find references 
 to writs ' annotata ' on the loth or other preceding page, and one is strongly tempted to 
 suspect that ' the 47th preceding page ' does not mean here the 47th page of the existing 
 volume. Moreover, by a curious coincidence — more curious than that of the occurrence 
 of a casual allusion to a ' public edict ' on folio 47 of the existing MS. — the 47th folio, 
 counted backwards, brings us to the very spot where the record discussed by Mr. Pike 
 should have been entered, but was not. 
 
 A familiar phase of Mr. Round's characteristic criticism is seen in the frequently- 
 expressed wonder that its subject should have failed to notice some passage or fact which 
 was, so to speak, 'staring him in the face all the time.' Naturally Mr. Round delights in 
 applying this critical method as a test of the merit of my own work, as in the following 
 instances. 
 
 ' Another instance ' he tells us (p. 55) ' of those unlucky footnotes' is found in the case 
 of my observations on the ' Boulogne Inquisition ' in the ' Black Book of the Exchequer' 
 which are supposed to show that I was ignorant of the fact that the Inquisition in question 
 is included in Hearne's edition of the Liber Niger, and is reproduced ' also, actually, in the 
 Testa itself.' Now apart from the fact that Mr. Round and myself had purchased jointly 
 a copy of Hearne's edition which we had collated and annotated together, including this 
 Inquisition, and that therefore Mr. Round must have known that I was well aware of the 
 fact in question, I had twice in my Preface (pp. Hi and Ivi) enumerated this list amongst 
 the contents of the ' Black Book,' and had also stated (p. ccxxvi) that here ' a much closer 
 resemblance to the Testa originals is noticed, amounting in the case of the Honour of
 
 i8 THE RED BOOK OF THE EXCHEQUER 
 
 Boulogne to a verbatim transcript.' But Mr. Round, who professes to have read my 
 Preface, states that this version in the Testa ' has not yet apparently revealed its existence 
 to his eyes.' 
 
 Another well-known device consists in the revelation of an impending ' climax ' of 
 error. The ' climax' is reached on each succeeding page only to be deferred, after all, for 
 the sake of dwelling upon one more 'characteristic instance.' It might, however, be 
 thought that Mr. Round's invective does really reach a climax in the following 
 passage : — 
 
 Moreover, I cannot find any notice taken by Mr. Hall of the remarkable allusion on p. 659 
 (fo. 1 86) to the ' Dialogus' as ' iibro superior!,' which bears directly on his conclusion that the main 
 contents of the volume were not at first bound together, but were separate 'libelli.' (P. 41.) 
 
 Would it be believed that only a few pages further on (p. 49) Mr. Round has a 
 special footnote with the object of confuting my statement that this very reference 
 ' need not be to the " Dialogus," as scholars have supposed. But it clearly is '.'' 
 
 But clearly it is impossible to please Mr. Round. And yet the most curious part ef 
 the matter is this, that in the passage referred to in this footnote I have made no allusion 
 whatever (as may be easily seen, p. xix) to this well-worn question. It is true that I 
 did discover a new and very interesting fact bearing on the authorship of the ' Dialogus ' 
 for which Mr. Round, of course, gives me no credit whatever, but as I was not editing the 
 ' Dialogus,' I was content to send the reader for the whole subject to Madox, Liebermann, 
 and Benedict Abbas (ed. Stubbs). 
 
 When we find a critic at once contradicting his author and himself over a non- 
 existent passage it is almost time to part company with him. 
 
 But is one really compelled on peril of one's good name to traverse the whole of 
 his monstrous production ? I could show that a like mis-statement and perversion of 
 my words and meaning, a like exaggeration of even the smallest errors, pervades the 
 remainder of this chapter on the ' Red Book of the Exchequer.' 
 
 Of that part which must be taken seriously I have already said my .say. There 
 are instruction and profit to be dredged even from this sordid criticism — from this 
 degraded scholarship. 
 
 For not all the virtuous indignation which Mr. Round pours forth with the breath 
 of malice can exceed my own knowledge and sense of the shortcomings of my work. 
 And yet I am prouder of that work than many would be of the most faultless 
 achievement ; when I remember that I carried it through as a forlorn hope, single 
 handed ; that for seven years I gave up for it all that makes life joyous, knowing tha 
 it must be a failure in the end, and that I must pay the penalty. 
 
 Of the merits and defects of this edition the future will reveal the soundest 
 judgment, but of the Editor's industry and honesty there must be no question that cannot 
 be fully maintained.
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 405 Hilgard Avenue, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1388 
 
 Return this material to the library 
 
 from which it was borrowed.
 
 Mfc^.^^MftZ
 
 Univer! 
 
 Sout 
 
 Lib 
 
 V 1.