Since the article which forms pp. 23-34 was printed, the writer noticed a surprising entry on the Close Roll of 1248, by which the Escheators in Hunts, and Cambs. are ordered “that, with regard to the revenue of Simon de sancto Licio in Huntindon’ from the third penny of the County, which the King caused to be taken into his own hand by reason that in these days there is no Earl of Huntindon’, they cause him again to have (rehabere) full seisin, provided that according to justice he answer for it in the King's Court to his summons.” This seems to be the only case as yet noticed of the allowance of the third penny of the County to one who had no claims on an Earldom. The nearest comparable case seems to be that of Hugh de Courtenay; he was a distant kinsman of the last of the family de Reviers, Earls of Devon, and succeeded to their estates about 1293; he claimed the third penny of Devon from the Sheriff, and it was allowed at the Exchequer till about 1325/6, when the Treasurer disallowed it on the ground that Hugh was not the Earl; Hugh protested, and finally was created Earl of Devon with full grant of the third penny, and was acquitted of the claims made by the Exchequer for what he had irregularly received in the last 8J years. A serious search of the Pipe Rolls of the period has not been possible, but no payment to Simon de St. Liz of the third penny appears in the Rolls for 1248, 1249, 1250; it might have been paid in some other way. Both in these three years and earlier is an allowance for ‘lands granted’ (terrae datae) “to the heirs of the Earl of Huntendon 40li in Brampton and Alemundebiri” (Brampton and Alconbury co. Hunts., royal lands at Domesday).

It seemed worth while to attempt to trace this highly favoured recipient, but as the eldest son of the family seems always to have been called Simon, the separation of successive generations is merely inferential.

It appears from a case reported by Bracton under 1220, that William Marshal duly received the manor of Luton with his wife, but that it was escheated in 1216 in consequence of his opposition to King John. At the conclusion of peace Falk (whether willingly or not) restored it to William, who re-granted it to him (on lease or farm) by charter. The transaction becomes thus somewhat clearer.

In another place Bracton reports an action for novel disseisin by Will, de Stanes against Falk for 2 carucates and a mill in Luton, under the year 1224. Falk does not appear, “and Robert de Lexinton and his fellows, who were Justices at Dunstaple to take that assise and before whom it was summoned, recall (recordantur) that that assise stood over for hearing because” etc. ; this seems to confirm the suggestion that the Rolls had been lost; if they had been accessible, the phrasing would probably have been different. A note to this case by Bracton's editor, Prof. Maitland, shows that he had detected the Inquisition by Martin de Pateshull which is dealt with on pp. 51-60 above, but that he regarded it (erroneously, as we think) as the record of the original Eyre of Martin de Pateshull and his fellows.—[G.H.F.].