168
FIRMA BURGI AND COMMUNE
this sacrifice as a measure of relief to the citizens.1 June,
1174, was the critical point in the feudal revolt of 1173-74.
An invading force from Flanders had just landed on the east
coast. The city was raising a donum of IOOO marks, supple-
mented by large contributions from three leading citizens,
one of whom was William fitz Isabel, the most prominent
sheriff of the reign. It was manifestly in the king’s interest to
show liberality at such a time. At the end of two years, how-
ever, the keepers were dismissed and the farming system was
restored at the old high rate, but with some salutary improve-
ments in the system. From Midsummer 1176 until Easter
1187, except for the year 1178, William fitz Isabel was sheriff,
with a colleague for the three years following that, but for
the greater part of the time alone. This bold departure from
the policy of dividing the burden of the farm among as many
as four sheriffs, might seem risky, but on the whole it proved
successful. Debt was kept down to more moderate figures
by greater and more continuous cash payments combined,
in the earlier years at least, with larger royal drafts under the
head of exitus. Fitz Isabel’s first year and a quarter were
entirely free from debt, despite a heavy aid, and until 1183 the
adverse balances never rose above £188. As in the early
years of the reign, each debt account was kept separate and
closed in the year following that in which it was incurred.
And so, though fitz Isabel’s payments were unusually low in
1184, for no apparent reason, and in 1186, his last full year,
probably because he had been amerced IOOO marks for accept-
ing weak pledges, he went out of office six months later, owing
only £184 odd.8 His successors had only a slightly larger
debt at Henry IPs last Michaelmas audit.
A review of the history of the London farm during the
reign suggests that it was extortionate, but not crushing.
It could be paid without great difficulty in two annual instal-
ments over periods of years, but it was always liable to be
disturbed by other burdens cast upon the city, and unless the
sheriffs obtained some assistance from their wealthy fellow
citizens, which is hardly likely, they must have paid a large
part of the farm out of their own pockets. At the same
time, too much stress ought not perhaps to be laid upon the
debts of the sheriffs, owing to the peculiar form of their
account. The only payments compulsory upon them in the
current year were the royal drafts. These were normally
ɪ Commune of London, p. 232. 2 P.R. 33 Hen. II, p. 39.
REVOCABLE GRANTS OF FIRMA BURGI 169
for (ɪ) fixed alms and wages, less than £50 in all, and (2) house-
hold and national expenses, which varied considerably accord-
ing as the king was at home or abroad, at peace or at war and
so on, though for the most part the range of variation was
between about £200 and about £320. There is little evidence
of attempts to correct these variations by cash payments, for
it must often have been the sheriff’s apparent interest to post-
pone as much of his indebtedness as possible to the next year.
William fitz Isabel’s steady cash payments in the later years
of the reign showed sounder finance.
It was always in the power of the Crown to draw more
heavily upon the sheriffs, if it was wished to obtain a larger
portion of the farm in the current year or to close a sheriff’s
account. This was not infrequently done by “ attorning ”
to the farm part of the king’s debts to the financier William
Cade in the early years of the reign and afterwards, but more
rarely and in lesser amounts, to the Jews. The most striking
case occurred in 1163 when the sheriff paid nothing in cash and
a debt of £266 Js. ⅛d. was declared after the issue of the farm
had been allowed for, but was immediately wiped out by an
order to pay the whole sum to Cade.1 Such heavy calls were,
however, exceptional and as a rule the sheriffs were allowed
what advantage there might be in payment extended over
two years.
The farm of London and Middlesex included so slight a
contribution from the county 2 that London really ranks with
the boroughs which were farmed apart from their counties
by the sheriffs or other royal officials, and it will be convenient
to deal with these here, more briefly, before returning to the
grant of farms to burgess communities from which we digressed
after disposing of the early case of Lincoln. Of the nine 3
towns which fall in the category in question for the whole or
part of the reign of Henry II, five, Southampton, Winchester,
Northampton, Dover, and Colchester, had already been
1P.R. 9 Hen. II, p. 72. As the debt was in blanch money, it was
converted to tale for the purpose of this payment, by the usual addition of
a shilling in the pound, Cade receiving /279 13s. 8d.
2When London was again in the hands of keepers in 1189-90, the
county was farmed by John Bucuinte for /37 9s. 6d. (P.R. 2 Ric. I, p. 156 ;
3 κ^τ1, p' 135I-
Not including two cases on the first Pipe Rolls of the reign which
were relics of Stephen's arrangements. Canterbury was held by William
de Ypres down to Easter, 1157, the sheriff being allowed /129 blanch and
0o tale, Hertford was separately farmed for £12 by Stephen’s last sheriff,
Henry of Essex, down to Easter, 1155. The momentary instances at
Yarmouth and Norwich are also not reckoned (see p. 172).