Page:English Historical Review Volume 37.djvu/83

1922 In the case of Robert and Restold the problem is complicated somewhat by the damaged condition of the roll, for the beginning of the account is missing, and with it the name of the sheriff accounting for the current farm. But since the items that stand at the beginning of the roll, as we now have it, obviously form part of the accounting for the current farm, and since the next entry begins with the words 'And the same Robert', it is possible to supply the missing name of the sheriff. That 'Robert' was the name of the sheriff for the year 1129–30 is further confirmed by an entry ocurring almost immediately after, which states: 'Et Idem Robertus deb. .ccc. m. argenti de Gersoma pro Comitatu habendo.' This entry is again immediately followed by one in which Restold renders account of £166 and more de veteri firma de Oxenefordscira. He paid down £46, and was debited with £120. Restold would, therefore, seem to have been the immediate predecessor of Robert. Yet the year to which the 'old farm' of Restold should be assigned is not at first sight clear, for Robert may also, on the part of the roll which is now missing, have accounted for an 'old farm', that, namely, for the year 1128–9. That such was the case is highly probable, as will appear from a consideration of the other evidence afforded by the roll. In the first place, closely following Restold's account of the farm, occurs this entry:

"Et idem [Restoldus] debet .c. et .xv. l. et .xv. s. et .viij. d. quos iniuste abstulit villanis et burgensibus de propresturis Maneriorum Regis postquam rex mare transivit."

The crossing of the king here referred to took place in August 1127, and he did not return to England until July 1129. His stay abroad thus fell within the three fiscal years 1126–7, 1127–8, 1128–9. Thus during all or a part of the period, Michaelmas 1126–9, Restold was in office.

In the next place, among the older items, there occurs this entry: "Et idem Vicecomes [Robertus] reddit compotum de .xxxv. l. et .iij. s. et .x. d. de veteribus placitis et danegeldo de tempore Restoldi."

The date of this danegeld 'from the time of Restold' is shown by another entry later in the account and nearer to the heading Nova Placita et Nove Conventiones:

"Et Idem Vicecomes [Robertus] reddit compotum de .xlv. l. et .ij. s. et .j. d. de preterito danegeldo."

From the very fact that this entry stands closer to the heading Nova Placita, &c., than does the one first mentioned, it follows,