diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/62878-h/62878-h.htm')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/62878-h/62878-h.htm | 26312 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 26312 deletions
diff --git a/old/62878-h/62878-h.htm b/old/62878-h/62878-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index 70ade5d..0000000 --- a/old/62878-h/62878-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,26312 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> - -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> - <head> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /> - <title> - The Project Gutenberg eBook of - Geoffrey de Mandeville - A Study of The Anarchy - by J. H. ROUND - </title> - - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> - - <style type="text/css"> - - body { - margin-left: 6%; - margin-right: 7%; - font-size: 100%; - } - - p { - margin-top: .5em; - text-indent: 1em; - text-align: justify; - margin-bottom: .5em; - line-height: 120%; - } - - h1 { - text-align: center; - clear: both; - font-weight: normal; - font-style: normal; - font-size: 125%; - line-height: 125%; - margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 1em; - } - - h2 { - text-align: center; - clear: both; - font-weight: normal; - font-style: normal; - font-size: 115%; - line-height: 115%; - margin-top: 1.5em; - margin-bottom: 0.75em; - page-break-before: avoid; - } - - h3,h4 { - text-align: center; - clear: both; - font-weight: normal; - font-style: normal; - font-size: 105%; - line-height: 105%; - margin-top: 1.5em; - margin-bottom: 0.75em; - page-break-before: avoid; - } - - hr { - margin-left: 30%; - margin-right: 30%; - margin-top: 0.5em; - margin-bottom: 0.5em; - } - - /* styles for Transcriber's Note */ - #tnote { - background-color: #EEE; - color: inherit; - margin: 1em 10%; - padding: 0.5em 1em; - border: 0.1em solid gray; - font-size: small; - } - #tnote p { - text-indent: 0; - text-align: justify; - margin-bottom: .75em; - margin-top: .25em; - } - - /* styles for front matter */ - .front { - margin: 2em 25%; - } - .front p { - margin-top: 1em; - margin-bottom: 2em; - text-indent: 0; - text-align: center; - line-height: 120%; - } - - /* styles for illustration */ - .image-center { - margin: 1.5em auto; - text-align: center; - } - .caption { - font-size: small; - margin: 0.25em 0; - } - .caption p { - text-align: center; - text-indent: 0; - } - - /* styles for table of contents */ - .toc { - border-collapse: separate; - border-spacing: 2px; - width: 90%; - max-width: 30em; - line-height: 95%; - font-size: 95%; - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; - margin-bottom: 2em; - } - .toc td.chap { - padding-top: 0.75em; - vertical-align: top; - text-align: center; - padding-bottom: 0.1em; - } - .toc td.ltr { - padding-top: 0.25em; - vertical-align: top; - text-align: right; - } - .toc td.titl { - padding-top: 0.25em; - padding-left: 0.5em; - vertical-align: top; - text-align: left; - font-variant: small-caps; - } - .toc td.pag { - width: 2.5em; - vertical-align: bottom; - text-align: right; - } - - /* styles for multi-column text */ - .multi { - border-collapse: separate; - border-spacing: 2px; - width: 96%; - line-height: 95%; - font-size: small; - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; - margin-bottom: 1em; - } - .multi th { - padding-top: 0.75em; - text-align: center; - font-variant: small-caps; - padding-bottom: 0.1em; - } - .multi td { - padding: 0.5em; - vertical-align: top; - text-align: left; - } - .multi-f { - border-collapse: separate; - border-spacing: 2px; - width: 77%; - line-height: 95%; - font-size: small; - margin-left: 3%; - margin-right: 20%; - margin-bottom: .5em; - } - .multi-f th { - padding-top: 0.75em; - text-align: center; - font-variant: small-caps; - padding-bottom: 0.1em; - } - .multi-f td { - padding-top: 0.25em; - vertical-align: top; - text-align: left; - } - - /* styles for earl income table */ - .earlinc { - border-collapse: separate; - border-spacing: 2px; - width: 60%; - max-width: 20em; - line-height: 95%; - font-size: 95%; - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; - margin-bottom: 1em; - } - .earlinc td.earl { - font-variant: small-caps; - } - .earlinc td.sd { - text-align: right; - } - - /* styles for order table */ - .order { - border-collapse: separate; - border-spacing: 2px; - width: 60%; - max-width: 20em; - line-height: 95%; - font-size: 95%; - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; - margin-bottom: 1em; - } - - /* style for genealogical tables */ - pre { - display: block; - font-family: monospace; - white-space: pre; - margin: 1em; - font-size: 85%; - line-height: 85%; - } - - /* styles for poetry */ - .poetry-container { - text-align: center; - } - .poetry-fn { - padding-left: 4em; - } - .poetry { - display: inline-block; - text-align: left; - } - .poetry .stanza { - margin: 0.5em auto; - } - .poetry .verse { - font-size: small; - text-indent: -3em; - padding-left: 3em; - } - .poetry .quote1 { - text-indent: -3.25em; - } - .poetry .indent2 { - text-indent: -2em; - } - - /* styles for letters etc */ - .foot { - margin-top: 0.25em; - margin-bottom: 1.5em; - } - div.right1 { - padding-right: 3%; - text-align: right; - } - div.right2 { - padding-right: 6%; - text-align: right; - } - div.left1 { - padding-left: 3%; - text-align: left; - } - div.left2 { - padding-left: 6%; - text-align: left; - } - - /* style for page numbers */ - .pagenum { - position: absolute; - right: 1.5%; - font-size: small; - font-style: normal; - font-weight: normal; - text-align: right; - } - - /* styles for footnotes */ - .fnanchor { - vertical-align: 20%; - font-size: x-small; - } - .footnote { - margin-top: 1em; - } - .footnote p { - margin-top: 0.5em; - margin-left: 3%; - margin-right: 20%; - font-size: small; - } - - /* style for list of earls */ - .earl ul { - list-style-type: none; - } - - /* style for list of charters */ - .charter ol { - list-style-type: decimal; - } - - /* styles for index */ - div.index { - font-size: 90.0%; - width: 85%; - max-width: 30em; - margin-left: auto; - margin-right: auto; - line-height: 97.5%; - } - .index ul { - list-style-type: none; - font-size: inherit; - padding-left: 0.5em; - margin-top: 0em; - } - .index li { - margin-top: 0.25em; - margin-left: 1.0em; - text-indent: -1.0em; - } - - /* style for page-breaks */ - div.chapter { page-break-before: always; } - - /* other styles */ - .center { text-indent: 0; text-align: center; } - .nodent { text-indent: 0; } - .smc { font-variant: small-caps; } - .small { font-size: small; } - .squash { letter-spacing: -4px } - .spaced { letter-spacing: 0.25em; } - .gap-above2 { margin-top: 2em; } - .und { text-decoration: underline; } - - </style> - </head> -<body> - - -<pre> - -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Geoffrey de Mandeville, by John Horace Round - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - -Title: Geoffrey de Mandeville - A study of the Anarchy - -Author: John Horace Round - -Release Date: August 8, 2020 [EBook #62878] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE *** - - - - -Produced by MWS, Chris Pinfield and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was -produced from images generously made available by The -Internet Archive) - - - - - - -</pre> - - -<div id="tnote"> - -<p>Transcriber's Note:</p> - -<p>Obvious printer errors have been corrected. Hyphenation has been -rationalised. Inconsistent spelling (including accents and capitals) has -been retained.</p> - -The sidenotes to the Empress' Charter in Chapter 4 have been transferred -to "pop ups" that accompany underlined words. These may not display -properly in all applications. - -<p>Footnote references in the genealogical tables are not hyper-linked -to the corresponding footnotes. Small capitals in the tables have been -replaced by full capitals. Italics are indicated by _underscores_. The -tables in Appendices K and U have been split into two in order to reduce -their width.</p> - -<p>Some references to years are encased in square brackets, as for example -[1136]. To avoid confusion with the numbered footnotes, these references -have instead been encased in rounded brackets.</p> - -</div> - -<h1>GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE</h1> - -<div class="image-center"> - <img src="images/charter.jpg" width="700" height="534" alt="charter" /> - <div class="caption"> - <p>FACSIMILE OF CHARTER CREATING GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE EARL OF ESSEX (<i>see p.</i> 51).</p> - </div> -</div> - -<div class="front"> - -<p><span style="font-size:115%">GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE</span></p> - -<p><i>A STUDY OF THE ANARCHY</i></p> - -<p><span style="font-size:65%">BY</span><br /> -J. H. ROUND, M.A.<br /> -<span style="font-size:65%">AUTHOR OF "THE EARLY LIFE OF ANNE BOLEYN: A CRITICAL ESSAY"</span></p> - -<p class="small">"Anno incarnationis -Dominicæ millesimo centesimo quadragesimo primo inextricabilem -labyrinthum rerum et negotiorum quæ acciderunt in Anglia aggredior -evolvere."—<i>William of Malmesbury</i></p> - -<p><span style="font-size:80%">LONDON</span><br /> -<span class="spaced">LONGMANS, GREEN, & CO.</span><br /> -<span style="font-size:80%">AND NEW YORK: 15 EAST 16ᵗʰ STREET<br /> -1892</span></p> - -<p class="small"><i>All rights reserved</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_v" id="Page_v">{v}</a></span> - -<h2>PREFACE</h2> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent">"<span class="smc">The</span> reign of Stephen," in the words of our greatest -living historian, "is one of the most important in our -whole history, as exemplifying the working of causes and -principles which had no other opportunity of exhibiting -their real tendencies." To illustrate in detail the working -of those principles to which the Bishop of Oxford thus -refers, is the chief object I have set before myself in these -pages. For this purpose I have chosen, to form the basis -of my narrative, the career of Geoffrey de Mandeville, as -the most perfect and typical presentment of the feudal -and anarchic spirit that stamps the reign of Stephen. By -fixing our glance upon one man, and by tracing his policy -and its fruits, it is possible to gain a clearer perception of -the true tendencies at work, and to obtain a firmer grasp -of the essential principles involved. But, while availing -myself of Geoffrey's career to give unity to my theme, -I have not scrupled to introduce, from all available sources, -any materials bearing on the period known as the Anarchy, -or illustrating the points raised by the charters with which -I deal.</p> - -<p>The headings of my chapters express a fact upon which -I cannot too strongly insist, namely, that the charters -granted to Geoffrey are the very backbone of my work. -By those charters it must stand or fall: for on their -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_vi" id="Page_vi">{vi}</a></span> -relation and their evidence the whole narrative is built. -If the evidence of these documents is accepted, and the -relation I have assigned to them established, it will, I trust, -encourage the study of charters and their evidence, "as -enabling the student both to amplify and to check such -scanty knowledge as we now possess of the times to which -they relate."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1" id="Ref_1" href="#Foot_1">[1]</a></span> -It will also result in the contribution of -some new facts to English history, and break, as it were, -by the wayside, a few stones towards the road on which -future historians will travel.</p> - -<p>Among the subjects on which I shall endeavour to throw -some fresh light are problems of constitutional and institutional -interest, such as the title to the English Crown, -the origin and character of earldoms (especially the earldom -of Arundel), the development of the fiscal system, and the -early administration of London. I would also invite -attention to such points as the appeal of the Empress to -Rome in 1136, her intended coronation at Westminster -in 1141, the unknown Oxford intrigue of 1142, the new -theory on Norman castles suggested by Geoffrey's charters, -and the genealogical discoveries in the Appendix on Gervase -de Cornhill. The prominent part that the Earl of -Gloucester played in the events of which I write may -justify the inclusion of an essay on the creation of his -historic earldom, which has, in the main, already appeared -in another quarter.</p> - -<p>In the words of Mr. Eyton, "the dispersion of error is -the first step in the discovery of truth."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_2" id="Ref_2" href="#Foot_2">[2]</a></span> -Cordially adopting -this maxim, I have endeavoured throughout to correct -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_vii" id="Page_vii">{vii}</a></span> -errors and dispose of existing misconceptions. To "dare -to be accurate" is, as Mr. Freeman so often reminds us, -neither popular nor pleasant. It is easier to prophesy -smooth things, and to accept without question the errors -of others, in the spirit of mutual admiration. But I would -repeat that "boast as we may of the achievements of our -new scientific school, we are still, as I have urged, behind -the Germans, so far, at least, as accuracy is concerned." -If my criticism be deemed harsh, I may plead with Newman -that, in controversy, "I have ever felt from experience -that no one would believe me to be in earnest if I spoke -calmly." The public is slow to believe that writers who -have gained its ear are themselves often in error and, by -the weight of their authority, lead others astray. At the -same time, I would earnestly insist that if, in the light of -new evidence, I have found myself compelled to differ from -the conclusions even of Dr. Stubbs, it in no way impeaches -the accuracy of that unrivalled scholar, the profundity of -whose learning and the soundness of whose judgment can -only be appreciated by those who have followed him in -the same field.</p> - -<p>The ill-health which has so long postponed the completion -and appearance of this work is responsible for -some shortcomings of which no one is more conscious than -myself. It has been necessary to correct the proof-sheets -at a distance from works of reference, and indeed from -England, while the length of time that has elapsed since -the bulk of the work was composed is such that two or -three new books bearing upon the same period have -appeared in the mean while. Of these I would specially -mention Mr. Howlett's contributions to the Rolls Series, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_viii" id="Page_viii">{viii}</a></span> -and Miss Norgate's well-known <i>England under the Angevin -Kings</i>. Mr. Howlett's knowledge of the period, and -especially of its MS. authorities, is of a quite exceptional -character, while Miss Norgate's useful and painstaking -work, which enjoys the advantage of a style that one -cannot hope to rival, is a most welcome addition to our -historical literature. To Dr. Stubbs, also, we are indebted -for a new edition of William of Malmesbury. As I had -employed for that chronicler and for the <i>Gesta Stephani</i> -the English Historical Society's editions, my references -are made to them, except where they are specially assigned -to those editions by Dr. Stubbs and Mr. Howlett which -have since appeared.</p> - -<p>A few points of detail should, perhaps, be mentioned. -The text of transcripts has been scrupulously preserved, -even where it seemed corrupt; and all my extensions as to -which any possible question could arise are enclosed in -square brackets. The so-called "new style" has been -adhered to throughout: that is to say, the dates given are -those of the true historical year, irrespective of the wholly -artificial reckoning from March 25. The form "fitz," -denounced by purists, has been retained as a necessary -convention, the admirable <i>Calendar of Patent Rolls</i>, now -in course of publication, having demonstrated the impossibility -of devising a satisfactory substitute. As to the -spelling of Christian names, no attempt has been made to -produce that pedantic uniformity which, in the twelfth -century, was unknown. It is hoped that the index -may be found serviceable and complete. The allusions -to "the lost volume of the Great Coucher" (of the duchy -of Lancaster) are based on references to that compilation -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_ix" id="Page_ix">{ix}</a></span> -by seventeenth-century transcribers, which cannot be -identified in the volumes now preserved. It is to be -feared that the volume most in request among antiquaries -may, in those days, have been "lent out" (cf. p. 183), -with the usual result. I am anxious to call attention to -its existence in the hope of its ultimate recovery.</p> - -<p>There remains the pleasant task of tendering my thanks -to Mr. Hubert Hall, of H.M.'s Public Record Office, and -Mr. F. Bickley, of the MS. Department, British Museum, -for their invariable courtesy and assistance in the course -of my researches. To Mr. Douglass Round I am indebted -for several useful suggestions, and for much valuable help -in passing these pages through the press.</p> - -<div class="foot"> -<div class="right1">J. H. ROUND.</div> -<div class="left1"><span class="smc">Pau</span>,</div> -<div class="left2"><i>Christmas</i>, 1891.</div> -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1" id="Foot_1" href="#Ref_1">[1]</a> -Preface to my <i>Ancient Charters</i> (Pipe-Roll Society).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_2" id="Foot_2" href="#Ref_2">[2]</a> -<i>Staffordshire Survey</i>, p. 277.</p> - -</div> - -<h2>CONTENTS</h2> - -<table class="toc" summary="ToC"> - -<tr> - <td colspan="3" class="pag" style="font-size:75%">Page</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td colspan="3" class="chap">CHAPTER I.</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td colspan="2" class="titl">The Accession of Stephen</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_1">1</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td colspan="3" class="chap">CHAPTER II.</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td colspan="2" class="titl">The First Charter of the King</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_37">37</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td colspan="3" class="chap">CHAPTER III.</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td colspan="2" class="titl">Triumph of the Empress</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_55">55</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td colspan="3" class="chap">CHAPTER IV.</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td colspan="2" class="titl">The First Charter of the Empress</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_81">81</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td colspan="3" class="chap">CHAPTER V.</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td colspan="2" class="titl">The Lost Charter of the Queen</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_114">114</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td colspan="3" class="chap">CHAPTER VI.</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td colspan="2" class="titl">The Rout of Winchester</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_123">123</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td colspan="3" class="chap">CHAPTER VII.</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td colspan="2" class="titl">The Second Charter of the King</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_136">136</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td colspan="3" class="chap">CHAPTER VIII.</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td colspan="2" class="titl">The Second Charter of the Empress</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_163">163</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td colspan="3" class="chap">CHAPTER IX.</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td colspan="2" class="titl">Fall and Death of Geoffrey</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_201">201</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td colspan="3" class="chap">CHAPTER X.</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td colspan="2" class="titl">The Earldom of Essex</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_227">227</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td colspan="3" class="chap">APPENDICES.</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="ltr">A.</td> - <td class="titl">Stephen's Treaty with the Londoners</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_247">247</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="ltr">B.</td> - <td class="titl">The Appeal to Rome in 1136</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_250">250</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="ltr">C.</td> - <td class="titl">The Easter Court of 1136</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_262">262</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="ltr">D.</td> - <td class="titl">The "Fiscal" Earls</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_267">267</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="ltr">E.</td> - <td class="titl">The Arrival of the Empress</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_278">278</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="ltr">F.</td> - <td class="titl">The Defection of Miles of Gloucester</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_284">284</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="ltr">G.</td> - <td class="titl">Charter of the Empress to Roger de Valoines</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_286">286</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="ltr">H.</td> - <td class="titl">The "Tertius Denarius"</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_287">287</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="ltr">I.</td> - <td class="titl">"Vicecomites" and "Custodes"</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_297">297</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="ltr">J.</td> - <td class="titl">The Great Seal of the Empress</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="ltr">K.</td> - <td class="titl">Gervase de Cornhill</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_304">304</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="ltr">L.</td> - <td class="titl">Charter of the Empress to William de Beauchamp</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_313">313</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="ltr">M.</td> - <td class="titl">The Earldom of Arundel</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_316">316</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="ltr">N.</td> - <td class="titl">Robert de Vere</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_326">326</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="ltr">O.</td> - <td class="titl">"Tower" and "Castle"</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_328">328</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="ltr">P.</td> - <td class="titl">The Early Administration of London</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_347">347</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="ltr">Q.</td> - <td class="titl">Osbertus Octodenarii</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_374">374</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="ltr">R.</td> - <td class="titl">The Forest of Essex</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_376">376</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="ltr">S.</td> - <td class="titl">The Treaty of Alliance between the Earls of Hereford<br />and Gloucester</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_379">379</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="ltr">T.</td> - <td class="titl">"Affidatio in manu"</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_384">384</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="ltr">U.</td> - <td class="titl">The Families of Mandeville and De Vere</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_388">388</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="ltr">V.</td> - <td class="titl">William of Arques</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_397">397</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="ltr">X.</td> - <td class="titl">Roger "de Ramis"</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_399">399</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="ltr">Y.</td> - <td class="titl">The First and Second Visits of Henry II. to England</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_405">405</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="ltr">Z.</td> - <td class="titl">Bishop Nigel at Rome</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_411">411</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="ltr">AA.</td> - <td class="titl">"Tenserie"</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_414">414</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="ltr">BB.</td> - <td class="titl">The Empress's Charter to Geoffrey Ridel</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_417">417</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td colspan="3" class="chap">EXCURSUS.</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td colspan="2" class="titl">The Creation of the Earldom of Gloucester</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_420">420</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td colspan="2" class="titl">ADDENDA</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_437">437</a></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td colspan="2" class="titl">INDEX</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_441">441</a></td> -</tr> - -</table> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">{1}</a></span> - -<h2>CHAPTER I.<br /> -<small>THE ACCESSION OF STEPHEN</small>.</h2> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">Before</span> -approaching that struggle between King Stephen -and his rival, the Empress Maud, with which this work -is mainly concerned, it is desirable to examine the peculiar -conditions of Stephen's accession to the crown, determining, -as they did, his position as king, and supplying, -we shall find, the master-key to the anomalous character -of his reign.</p> - -<p>The actual facts of the case are happily beyond -question. From the moment of his uncle's death, as Dr. -Stubbs truly observes, "the succession was treated as an -open question."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_3" id="Ref_3" href="#Foot_3">[3]</a></span> Stephen, quick to see his chance, made -a bold stroke for the crown. The wind was in his favour, -and, with a handful of comrades, he landed on the shores -of Kent.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_4" id="Ref_4" href="#Foot_4">[4]</a></span> His first reception was not encouraging: Dover -refused him admission, and Canterbury closed her gates.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_5" id="Ref_5" href="#Foot_5">[5]</a></span> -On this Dr. Stubbs thus comments:—</p> - -<p class="small">"At Dover and at Canterbury he was received with sullen silence. -The men of Kent had no love for the stranger who came, as his predecessor -Eustace had done, to trouble the land."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_6" id="Ref_6" href="#Foot_6">[6]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">{2}</a></span> -But "the men of Kent" were faithful to Stephen, -when all others forsook him, and, remembering this, one -would hardly expect to find in them his chief opponents. -Nor, indeed, were they. Our great historian, when he -wrote thus, must, I venture to think, have overlooked the -passage in Ordericus (v. 110), from which we learn, incidentally, -that Canterbury and Dover were among those -fortresses which the Earl of Gloucester held by his father's -gift.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_7" id="Ref_7" href="#Foot_7">[7]</a></span> It is, therefore, not surprising that Stephen should -have met with this reception at the hands of the lieutenants -of his arch-rival. It might, indeed, be thought -that the prescient king had of set purpose placed these -keys of the road to London in the hands of one whom he -could trust to uphold his cherished scheme.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_8" id="Ref_8" href="#Foot_8">[8]</a></span></p> - -<p>Stephen, undiscouraged by these incidents, pushed on -rapidly to London. The news of his approach had gone -before him, and the citizens flocked to meet him. By -them, as is well known, he was promptly chosen to be king, -on the plea that a king was needed to fill the vacant -throne, and that the right to elect one was specially vested -in themselves.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_9" id="Ref_9" href="#Foot_9">[9]</a></span> The point, however, that I would here -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">{3}</a></span> -insist on, for it seems to have been scarcely noticed, is -that this election appears to have been essentially conditional, -and to have been preceded by an agreement -with the citizens.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_10" id="Ref_10" href="#Foot_10">[10]</a></span> The bearing of this will be shown -below.</p> - -<p>There is another noteworthy point which would seem -to have escaped observation. It is distinctly implied by -William of Malmesbury that the primate, seizing his -opportunity, on Stephen's appearance in London, had -extorted from him, as a preliminary to his recognition, -as Maurice had done from Henry at his coronation, and -as Henry of Winchester was, later, to do in the case of -the Empress, an oath to restore the Church her "liberty," -a phrase of which the meaning is well known. Stephen, -he adds, on reaching Winchester, was released from this -oath by his brother, who himself "went bail" (made -himself responsible) for Stephen's satisfactory behaviour -to the Church.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_11" id="Ref_11" href="#Foot_11">[11]</a></span> It is, surely, to this incident that Henry -so pointedly alludes in his speech at the election of the -Empress.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_12" id="Ref_12" href="#Foot_12">[12]</a></span> It can only, I think, be explained on the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">{4}</a></span> -hypothesis that Stephen chafed beneath the oath he had -taken, and begged his brother to set him free. If so, the -attempt was vain, for he had, we shall find, to bind himself -anew on the occasion of his Oxford charter.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_13" id="Ref_13" href="#Foot_13">[13]</a></span></p> - -<p>At Winchester the citizens, headed by their bishop, -came forth from the city to greet him, but this reception -must not be confused (as it is by Mr. Freeman) with his -election by the citizens of London.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_14" id="Ref_14" href="#Foot_14">[14]</a></span> His brother, needless -to say, met him with an eager welcome, and the main -object of his visit was attained when William de Pont de -l'Arche, who had shrunk, till his arrival, from embracing -his cause, now, in concert with the head of the administration, -Roger, Bishop of Salisbury, placed at his disposal -the royal castle, with the treasury and all that it contained.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_15" id="Ref_15" href="#Foot_15">[15]</a></span></p> - -<p>Thus strengthened, he returned to London for coronation -at the hands of the primate. Dr. Stubbs observes -that "he returned to London for <i>formal election</i> and -coronation."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_16" id="Ref_16" href="#Foot_16">[16]</a></span> His authority for that statement is Gervase -(i. 94), who certainly asserts it distinctly.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_17" id="Ref_17" href="#Foot_17">[17]</a></span> But it will -be found that he, who was not a contemporary, is the -only authority for this second election, and, moreover, -that he ignores the first, as well as the visit to Winchester, -thus mixing up the two episodes, between which that visit -intervened. Of course this opens the wider question as to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">{5}</a></span> -whether the actual election, in such cases, took place at -the coronation itself or on a previous occasion. This -may, perhaps, be a matter of opinion; but in the preceding -instance, that of Henry I., the election was admittedly -that which took place at Winchester, and was previous to -and unconnected with the actual coronation itself.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_18" id="Ref_18" href="#Foot_18">[18]</a></span> From -this point of view, the presentation of the king to the -people at his coronation would assume the aspect of a -ratification of the election previously conducted. The -point is here chiefly of importance as affecting the validity -of Stephen's election. If his only election was that which -the citizens of London conducted, it was, to say the least, -"informally transacted."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_19" id="Ref_19" href="#Foot_19">[19]</a></span> Nor was the attendance of -magnates at the ceremony such as to improve its character. -It was, as Dr. Stubbs truly says, "but a poor substitute -for the great councils which had attended the summons of -William and Henry."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_20" id="Ref_20" href="#Foot_20">[20]</a></span> The chroniclers are here unsatisfactory. -Henry of Huntingdon is rhetorical and vague; -John of Hexham leaves us little wiser;<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_21" id="Ref_21" href="#Foot_21">[21]</a></span> the Continuator of -Florence indeed states that Stephen, when crowned, kept -his Christmas court "cum totius Angliæ primoribus" -(p. 95), but even the author of the <i>Gesta</i> implies that the -primate's scruples were largely due to the paucity of -magnates present.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_22" id="Ref_22" href="#Foot_22">[22]</a></span> William of Malmesbury alone is -precise,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_23" id="Ref_23" href="#Foot_23">[23]</a></span> possibly because an adversary of Stephen could -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">{6}</a></span> -alone afford to be so, and his testimony, we shall find, is -singularly confirmed by independent charter evidence (p. 11).</p> - -<p>It was at this stage that an attempt was made to dispel -the scruples caused by Stephen's breach of his oath to the -late king. The hint, in the <i>Gesta</i>, that Henry, on his -deathbed, had repented of his act in extorting that oath,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_24" id="Ref_24" href="#Foot_24">[24]</a></span> -is amplified by Gervase into a story that he had released -his barons from its bond,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_25" id="Ref_25" href="#Foot_25">[25]</a></span> while Ralph "de Diceto" represents -the assertion as nothing less than that the late king -had actually disinherited the Empress, and made Stephen -his heir in her stead.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_26" id="Ref_26" href="#Foot_26">[26]</a></span> It should be noticed that these last -two writers, in their statement that this story was proved -by Hugh Bigod on oath, are confirmed by the independent -evidence of the <i>Historia Pontificalis</i>.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_27" id="Ref_27" href="#Foot_27">[27]</a></span></p> - -<p>The importance of securing, as quickly as possible, -the performance of the ceremony of coronation is well -brought out by the author of the <i>Gesta</i> in the arguments -of Stephen's friends when combating the primate's -scruples. They urged that it would <i>ipso facto</i> put an end -to all question as to the validity of his election.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_28" id="Ref_28" href="#Foot_28">[28]</a></span> The -advantage, in short, of "snatching" a coronation was -that, in the language of modern diplomacy, of securing a -<i>fait accompli</i>. Election was a matter of opinion; coronation -a matter of fact. Or, to employ another expression, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">{7}</a></span> -it was the "outward and visible sign" that a king -had begun his reign. Its important bearing is well seen -in the case of the Conqueror himself. Dr. Stubbs observes, -with his usual judgment, that "the ceremony was understood -as bestowing the divine ratification on the election -that had preceded it."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_29" id="Ref_29" href="#Foot_29">[29]</a></span> Now, the fact that the performance -of this essential ceremony was, of course, wholly in the -hands of the Church, in whose power, therefore, it always -was to perform or to withhold it at its pleasure, appears -to me to have naturally led to the growing assumption -that we now meet with, the claim, based on a confusion -of the ceremony with the actual election itself, that it -was for the Church to elect the king. This claim, which -in the case of Stephen (1136) seems to have been only -inchoate,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_30" id="Ref_30" href="#Foot_30">[30]</a></span> appears at the time of his capture (1141) in a -fully developed form,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_31" id="Ref_31" href="#Foot_31">[31]</a></span> the circumstances of the time -having enabled the Church to increase its power in the -State with perhaps unexampled rapidity.</p> - -<p>May it not have been this development, together with -his own experience, that led Stephen to press for the -coronation of his son Eustace in his lifetime (1152)? In -this attempted innovation he was, indeed, defeated by the -Church, but the lesson was not lost. Henry I., unlike his -contemporaries, had never taken this precaution, and -Henry II., warned by his example, succeeded in obtaining -the coronation of his heir (1170) in the teeth of Becket's -endeavours to forbid the act, and so to uphold the veto of -the Church.</p> - -<p>Prevailed upon, at length, to perform the ceremony, -the primate seized the opportunity of extorting from the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">{8}</a></span> -eager king (besides a charter of liberties) a renewal of his -former oath to protect the rights of the Church. The oath -which Henry had sworn at his coronation, and which -Maud had to swear at her election, Stephen had to swear, -it seems, at both, though not till the Oxford charter was -it committed, in his case, to writing.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_32" id="Ref_32" href="#Foot_32">[32]</a></span></p> - -<p>We now approach an episode unknown to all our -historians.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_33" id="Ref_33" href="#Foot_33">[33]</a></span></p> - -<p>The Empress, on her side, had not been idle; she had -despatched an envoy to the papal court, in the person of -the Bishop of Angers, to appeal her rival of (1) defrauding -her of her right, and (2) breach of his solemn oath. Had -this been known to Mr. Freeman, he would, it is safe -to assert, have been fascinated by the really singular -coincidence between the circumstances of 1136 and of -1066. In each case, of the rivals for the throne, the one -based his pretensions on (1) kinship, fortified by (2) an -oath to secure his succession, which had been taken by -his opponent himself; while the other rested his claims on -election duly followed by coronation. In each case the -election was fairly open to question; in Harold's, because -(<i>pace</i> Mr. Freeman) he was <i>not</i> a legitimate candidate; in -Stephen's, because, though a qualified candidate, his -election had been most informal. In each case the ousted -claimant appealed to the papal court, and, in each case, -on the same grounds, viz. (1) the kinship, (2) the broken -oath. In each case the successful party was opposed by a -particular cardinal, a fact which we learn, in each case, -from later and incidental mention. And in each case that -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">{9}</a></span> -cardinal became, afterwards, pope. But here the parallel -ends. Stephen accepted, where Harold had (so far as we -know) rejected, the jurisdiction of the Court of Rome. -We may assign this difference to the closer connection -between Rome and England in Stephen's day, or we may -see in it proof that Stephen was the more politic of the -two. For his action was justified by its success. There -has been, on this point, no small misconception. Harold -has been praised for possessing, and Stephen blamed for -lacking, a sense of his kingly dignity. But <i>læsio fidei</i> was -essentially a matter for courts Christian, and thus for the -highest of them all, at Rome. Again, inheritance, so far -as inheritance affected the question, was brought in many -ways within the purview of the courts Christian, as, for -instance, in the case of the alleged illegitimacy of Maud. -Moreover, in 1136, the pope, though circumstances played -into his hands, advanced no such pretension as his successor -in the days of John. His attitude was not that of -an overlord to a dependent fief: he made no claim to -dispose of the realm of England. Sitting as judge in a -spiritual court, he listened to the charges brought by -Maud against Stephen in his personal capacity, and, without -formally acquitting him, declined to pronounce him -guilty.</p> - -<p>Though the king was pleased to describe the papal -letter which followed as a "confirmation" of his right to -the throne, it was, strictly, nothing of the kind. It was -simply, in the language of modern diplomacy, his "recognition" -by the pope as king. If Ferdinand, elected Prince -of Bulgaria, were to be recognized as such by a foreign -power, that action would neither alter his status relatively -to any other power, nor would it imply the least claim to -dispose of the Bulgarian crown. Or, again, to take a -mediæval illustration, the recognition as pope by an -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">{10}</a></span> -English king of one of two rival claimants for the papacy -would neither affect any other king, nor constitute a claim -to dispose of the papal tiara. Stephen, however, was -naturally eager to make the most of the papal action, -especially when he found in his oath to the Empress the -most formidable obstacle to his acceptance. The sanction -of the Church would silence the reproach that he was -occupying the throne as a perjured man. Hence the -clause in his Oxford charter. To the advantage which -this letter gave him Stephen shrewdly clung, and when -Geoffrey summoned him, in later years, "to an investigation -of his claims before the papal court," he promptly retorted -that Rome had already heard the case.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_34" id="Ref_34" href="#Foot_34">[34]</a></span> He turned, in -fact, the tables on his appellant by calling on Geoffrey to -justify his occupation of the Duchy and of the Western -counties in the teeth of the papal confirmation of his -own right to the throne.</p> - -<p>We now pass from Westminster to Reading, whither, -after Christmas, Stephen proceeded, to attend his uncle's -funeral.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_35" id="Ref_35" href="#Foot_35">[35]</a></span> The corpse, says the Continuator, was attended -"non modica stipatus nobilium catervâ." The meeting -of Stephen with these nobles is an episode of considerable -importance. "It is probable," says Dr. Stubbs, -"that it furnished an opportunity of obtaining some vague -promises from Stephen."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_36" id="Ref_36" href="#Foot_36">[36]</a></span> But the learned writer here -alludes to the subsequent promises at Oxford. What I -am concerned with is the meeting at Reading. I proceed, -therefore, to quote <i>in extenso</i> a charter which must have -passed on this occasion, and which, this being so, is of -great value and interest.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_37" id="Ref_37" href="#Foot_37">[37]</a></span></p> - -<div class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">{11}</a></div> - -<p class="center">Carta Stephani regis Angliæ facta Miloni Gloec' de honore -Gloecestr' et Brekon'.</p> - -<p>S. rex Angl. Archiepĩs Epĩs Abbatibus. Com̃. Baroñ. -vic. præpositis, Ministris et omnibus fidelibus suis Francis -et Anglicis totius Angliæ et Walliæ Saɫ. sciatis me reddidisse -et concessisse Miloni Gloecestriæ et hæredibus suis -post eum in feoᵭ et hæreditate totum honorem suum de -Gloec', et de Brechenion, et omnes terras suas et tenaturas -suas in vicecomitatibus et aliis rebus, sicut eas tenuit die -quâ rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus. Quare volo et -præcipio quod bene et honorifice et libere teneat in bosco -et plano et pratis et pasturis et aquis et mariscis, in -molendinis et piscariis, cum Thol et Theam et infangenetheof, -et cum omnibus aliis libertatibus et consuetudinibus -quibus unqũ melius et liberius tenuit tempore regis Henrici. -Et sciatis q̃m ego ut dñs et Rex, convencionavi ei sicut -Baroni et Justiciario meo quod eum in placitum non -ponero quamdiu vixero de aliquâ tenatura ꝗ̃ tenuisset die -quâ Rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus, neq' hæredem -suum. T. Arch. Cantuar. et Epõ Wintoñ. et Epõ Sar'. et -H. Big̃ et Roᵬ filio Ricardi et Ing̃ de Sai. et W. de Pont̃ et -P. filio Joħ. Apud Rading̃.</p> - -<div class="foot"> -<div class="right2">Sub magno sigillo suo.</div> -</div> - -<p>The reflections suggested by this charter are many and -most instructive. Firstly, we have here the most emphatic -corroboration of the evidence of William of Malmesbury. -The four first witnesses comprise the three bishops who, -according to him, conducted Stephen's coronation, together -with the notorious Hugh Bigod, to whose timely assurance -that coronation was so largely due. The four others are -Robert fitz Richard, whom we shall find present at the -Easter court, attesting a charter as a royal chamberlain; -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">{12}</a></span> -Enguerrand de Sai, the lord of Clun, who had probably -come with Payne fitz John; William de Pont de l'Arche, -whom we met at Winchester; and Payne fitz John. The -impression conveyed by this charter is certainly that -Stephen had as yet been joined by few of the magnates, -and had still to be content with the handful by whom his -coronation had been attended.</p> - -<p>An important addition is, however, represented by the -grantee, Miles of Gloucester, and the witness Payne fitz -John. The former was a man of great power, both of -himself and from his connection with the Earl of Gloucester, -in the west of England and in Wales. The latter is represented -by the author of the <i>Gesta</i> as acting with him at this -juncture.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_38" id="Ref_38" href="#Foot_38">[38]</a></span> It should, however, be noted, as important in -its bearing on the chronology of this able writer, that -he places the adhesion of these two barons (p. 15) considerably -after that of the Earl of Gloucester (p. 8), whereas -the case was precisely the contrary, the earl not submitting -to Stephen till some time later on. Both these magnates -appear in attendance at Stephen's Easter court (<i>vide infra</i>), -and again as witnesses to his Oxford charter. The part, -however, in the coming struggle which Miles of Gloucester -was destined to play, was such that it is most important -to learn the circumstances and the date of his adhesion -to the king. His companion, Payne fitz John, was slain, -fighting the Welsh, in the spring of the following year.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_39" id="Ref_39" href="#Foot_39">[39]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">{13}</a></span> -It is a singular fact that, in addition to the charter I -have here given, another charter was granted to Miles -of Gloucester by the king, which, being similarly tested at -Reading, probably passed on this occasion. The subject -of the grant is the same, but the terms are more precise, -the constableship of Gloucester Castle, with the hereditary -estates of his house, being specially mentioned.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_40" id="Ref_40" href="#Foot_40">[40]</a></span> Though -both these charters were entered in the Great Coucher (in -the volume now missing), the latter alone is referred to by -Dugdale, from whose transcript it has been printed by -Madox.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_41" id="Ref_41" href="#Foot_41">[41]</a></span> Though the names of the witnesses are there -omitted, those of the six leading witnesses are supplied -by an abstract which is elsewhere found. Three of -these are among those who attest the other charter—Robert -fitz Richard, Hugh Bigod, and Enguerrand de -Sai; but the other three names are new, being Robert de -Ferrers, afterwards Earl of Derby, Baldwin de Clare, the -spokesman of Stephen's host at Lincoln (see p. 148), and -(Walter) fitz Richard, who afterwards appears in attendance -at the Easter court.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_42" id="Ref_42" href="#Foot_42">[42]</a></span> These three barons should -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">{14}</a></span> -therefore be added to the list of those who were at Reading -with the king.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_43" id="Ref_43" href="#Foot_43">[43]</a></span></p> - -<p>Possibly, however, the most instructive feature to be -found in each charter is the striking illustration it affords -of the method by which Stephen procured the adhesion -of the turbulent and ambitious magnates. It is not so -much a grant from a king to a subject as a <i>convencio</i> between -equal powers. But especially would I invite attention to -the words "ut dominus et Rex."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_44" id="Ref_44" href="#Foot_44">[44]</a></span> I see in them at once the -symbol and the outcome of "the Norman idea of royalty." -In his learned and masterly analysis of this subject, a -passage which cannot be too closely studied, Dr. Stubbs -shows us, with felicitous clearness, the twin factors of -Norman kinghood, its royal and its feudal aspects.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_45" id="Ref_45" href="#Foot_45">[45]</a></span> Surely -in the expression "dominus et Rex" (<i>alias</i> "Rex et -dominus") we have in actual words the exponent of this -double character.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_46" id="Ref_46" href="#Foot_46">[46]</a></span> And, more than this, we have here -the needful and striking parallel which will illustrate and -illumine the action of the Empress, so strangely overlooked -or misunderstood, when she ordered herself, at Winchester, -to be proclaimed "<span class="smc">Domina et Regina</span>."</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">{15}</a></span> -Henry of Huntingdon asserts distinctly that from -Reading Stephen passed to Oxford, and that he there -renewed the pledges he had made on his coronation-day.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_47" id="Ref_47" href="#Foot_47">[47]</a></span> -That, on leaving Reading, he moved to Oxford, though the -fact is mentioned by no other chronicler, would seem to be -placed beyond question by Henry's repeated assertion.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_48" id="Ref_48" href="#Foot_48">[48]</a></span> -But the difficulty is that Henry specifies what these pledges -were, and that the version he gives cannot be reconciled -either with the king's "coronation charter" or with what is -known as his "second charter," granted at Oxford later in -the year. Dr. Stubbs, with the caution of a true scholar, -though he thinks it "probable," in his great work, that -Stephen, upon this occasion, made "some vague promises," -yet adds, of those recorded by Henry—</p> - -<p class="small">"Whether these promises were embodied in a charter is uncertain: -if they were, the charter is lost; it is, however, more probable that the -story is a popular version of the document which was actually issued -by the king, at Oxford, later in the year 1136."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_49" id="Ref_49" href="#Foot_49">[49]</a></span></p> - -<p>In his later work he seems inclined to place more -credence in Henry's story.</p> - -<p class="small">"After the funeral, at Oxford or somewhere in the neighbourhood, -he arranged terms with them; terms by which he endeavoured, -amplifying the words of his charter, to catch the good will of each -class of his subjects.... The promises were, perhaps, not insincere at -the time; anyhow, they had the desired effect, and united the nation -for the moment."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_50" id="Ref_50" href="#Foot_50">[50]</a></span></p> - -<p>It will be seen that the point is a most perplexing one, -and can scarcely at present be settled with certainty. But -there is one point beyond dispute, namely, that the so-called -"second charter" was issued later in the year, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">{16}</a></span> -after the king's return from the north. Mr. Freeman, -therefore, has not merely failed to grasp the question at -issue, but has also strangely contradicted himself when he -confidently assigns this "second charter" to the king's -first visit to Oxford, and refers us, in doing so, to another -page, in which it is as unhesitatingly assigned to his other -and later visit after his return from the north.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_51" id="Ref_51" href="#Foot_51">[51]</a></span> If I call -attention to this error, it is because I venture to think -it one to which this writer is too often liable, and -against which, therefore, his readers should be placed -upon their guard.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_52" id="Ref_52" href="#Foot_52">[52]</a></span></p> - -<p>It was at Oxford, in January,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_53" id="Ref_53" href="#Foot_53">[53]</a></span> that Stephen heard of -David's advance into England. With creditable rapidity -he assembled an army and hastened to the north to meet -him. He encountered him at Durham on the 5th of -February (the day after Ash Wednesday), and effected a -peaceable agreement. He then retraced his steps, after a -stay of about a fortnight,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_54" id="Ref_54" href="#Foot_54">[54]</a></span> and returned to keep his Easter -(March 22) at Westminster. I wish to invite special -attention to this Easter court, because it was in many -ways of great importance, although historians have almost -ignored its existence. Combining the evidence of charters -with that which the chroniclers afford, we can learn not a -little about it, and see how notable an event it must have -seemed at the time it was held. We should observe, in -the first place, that this was no mere "curia de more": -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">{17}</a></span> -it was emphatically a great or national council. The -author of the <i>Gesta</i> describes it thus:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Omnibus igitur summatibus regni, fide et jurejurando cum rege -constrictis, edicto per Angliam promulgato, summos ecclesiarum ductores -cum primis populi ad concilium Londonias conscivit. Illis quoque -quasi in unam sentinam illuc confluentibus ecclesiarumque columnis -sedendi ordine dispositis, vulgo etiam confuse et permixtim,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_55" id="Ref_55" href="#Foot_55">[55]</a></span> ut solet, -ubique se ingerente, plura regno et ecclesiæ profutura fuerunt et -utiliter ostensa et salubriter pertractata."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_56" id="Ref_56" href="#Foot_56">[56]</a></span></p> - -<p>We have clearly in this great council, held on the -first court day (Easter) after the king's coronation, a revival -of the splendours of former reigns, so sorely dimmed -beneath the rule of his bereaved and parsimonious uncle.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_57" id="Ref_57" href="#Foot_57">[57]</a></span></p> - -<p>Henry of Huntingdon has a glowing description of this -Easter court,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_58" id="Ref_58" href="#Foot_58">[58]</a></span> which reminds one of William of Malmesbury's -pictures of the Conqueror in his glory.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_59" id="Ref_59" href="#Foot_59">[59]</a></span> When, -therefore, Dr. Stubbs tells us that this custom of the -Conqueror "was restored by Henry II." (<i>Const. Hist.</i>, -i. 370), he ignores this brilliant revival at the outset of -Stephen's reign. Stephen, coming into possession of his -predecessor's hoarded treasure, was as eager to plunge into -costly pomp as was Henry VIII. on the death of his mean -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">{18}</a></span> -and grasping sire. There were also more solid reasons -for this dazzling assembly. It was desirable for the king -to show himself to his new subjects in his capital, surrounded -not only by the evidence of wealth, but by that -of his national acceptance. The presence at his court -of the magnates from all parts of the realm was a fact -which would speak for itself, and to secure which he had -clearly resolved that no pains should be spared.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_60" id="Ref_60" href="#Foot_60">[60]</a></span></p> - -<p>If the small group who attended his coronation had -indeed been "but a poor substitute for the great councils -which had attended the summons of William and Henry," -he was resolved that this should be forgotten in the -splendour of his Easter court.</p> - -<p>This view is strikingly confirmed by the lists of witnesses -to two charters which must have passed on this -occasion. The one is a grant to the see of Winchester -of the manor of Sutton, in Hampshire, in exchange for -Morden, in Surrey. The other is a grant of the bishopric -of Bath to Robert of Lewes. The former is dated -"Apud Westmonasterium in presentia et audientia subscriptorum -anno incarnationis dominicæ, 1136," etc.; -the latter, "Apud Westmonasterium in generalis concilii -celebratione et Paschalis festi solemnitate." At first -sight, I confess, both charters have a rather spurious -appearance. Their stilted style awakes suspicion, which -is not lessened by the dating clauses or the extraordinary -number of witnesses. Coming, however, from independent -sources, and dealing with two unconnected subjects, they -mutually confirm one another. We have, moreover, still -extant the charter by which Henry II. confirmed the -former of the two, and as this is among the duchy of -Lancaster records, we have every reason to believe that -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">{19}</a></span> -the original charter itself was, as both its transcribers -assert, among them also. Again, as to the lists of witnesses. -Abnormally long though these may seem, we -must remember that in the charters of Henry I., especially -towards the close of his reign, there was a tendency to -increase the number of witnesses. Moreover, in the Oxford -charter, by which these were immediately followed, -we have a long list of witnesses (thirty-seven), and, which -is noteworthy, it is similarly arranged on a principle of -classification, the court officers being grouped together. -I have, therefore, given in an appendix, for the purpose of -comparison, all three lists.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_61" id="Ref_61" href="#Foot_61">[61]</a></span> If we analyze those appended -to the two London charters, we find their authenticity -confirmed by the fact that, while the Earl of Gloucester, -who was abroad at the time, is conspicuously absent -from the list, Henry, son of the King of Scots, duly -appears among the attesting earls, and we are specially -told by John of Hexham that he was present at this -Easter court.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_62" id="Ref_62" href="#Foot_62">[62]</a></span> Miles of Gloucester and Brian fitz Count -also figure together among the witnesses—a fact, from -their position, of some importance.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_63" id="Ref_63" href="#Foot_63">[63]</a></span> It is, too, of interest -for our purpose, to note that among them is Geoffrey de -Mandeville. The extraordinary number of witnesses to -these charters (no less than fifty-five in one case, excluding -the king and queen, and thirty-six in the other) is not -only of great value as giving us the <i>personnel</i> of this -brilliant court, but is also, when compared with the Oxford -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">{20}</a></span> -charter, suggestive perhaps of a desire, by the king, -to place on record the names of those whom he had induced -to attend his courts and so to recognize his claims. -Mr. Pym Yeatman more than once, in his strange <i>History -of the House of Arundel</i>, quotes the charter to Winchester -as from a transcript "among the valuable collection of -MSS. belonging to the Earl of Egmont" (p. 49). It may, -therefore, be of benefit to students to remind them that -it is printed in Hearne's <i>Liber Niger</i> (ii. 808, 809). -Mr. Yeatman, moreover, observes of this charter—</p> - -<p class="small">"It contains the names of no less than thirty-four noblemen of the -highest rank (excluding only the Earl of Gloucester), but not a single -ecclesiastical witness attests the grant, which is perhaps not remarkable, -since it was a dangerous precedent to deal in such a matter with -Church property, perhaps a new precedent created by Stephen" (p. 286).</p> - -<p>To other students it will appear "perhaps not remarkable" -that the charter is witnessed by the unusual -number of no less than three archbishops and thirteen -bishops.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_64" id="Ref_64" href="#Foot_64">[64]</a></span></p> - -<p>Now, although this was a national council, the state -and position of the Church was the chief subject of -discussion. The author of the <i>Gesta</i>, who appears to have -been well informed on the subject, shows us the prelates -appealing to Stephen to relieve the Church from the -intolerable oppression which she had suffered, under the -form of law, at the hands of Henry I. Stephen, bland, -for the time, to all, and more especially to the powerful -Church, listened graciously to their prayers, and promised -all they asked.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_65" id="Ref_65" href="#Foot_65">[65]</a></span> In the grimly jocose language of the day, -the keys of the Church, which had been held by Simon -(Magus), were henceforth to be restored to Peter. To this -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">{21}</a></span> -I trace a distinct allusion in the curious phrase which -meets us in the Bath charter. Stephen grants the -bishopric of Bath "<i>canonica prius electione præcedente</i>." -This recognition of the Church's right, with the public -record of the fact, confirms the account of his attitude on -this occasion to the Church. The whole charter contrasts -strangely with that by which, fifteen years before, his -predecessor had granted the bishopric of Hereford, and its -reference to the counsel and consent of the magnates -betrays the weakness of his position.</p> - -<p>This council took place, as I have said, at London and -during Easter. But there is some confusion on the subject. -Mr. Howlett, in his excellent edition of the <i>Gesta</i>, assigns -it, in footnotes (pp. 17, 18), to "early in April." But -his argument that, as that must have been (as it was) the -date of the (Oxford) charter, it was consequently that of -the (London) council, confuses two distinct events. In -this he does but follow the <i>Gesta</i>, which similarly runs into -one the two consecutive events. Richard of Hexham -also, followed by John of Hexham,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_66" id="Ref_66" href="#Foot_66">[66]</a></span> combines in one the -council at London with the charter issued at Oxford, besides -placing them both, wrongly, far too late in the year.</p> - -<p>Here are the passages in point taken from both writers:—</p> - -<table class="multi" summary="multi-1"> - - <colgroup> - <col span="2" style="width:48%" /> - </colgroup> - -<tr> - <th>Richard of Hexham.</th> - <th>John of Hexham.</th> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>Eodem quoque anno Innocentius - Romanæ sedis Apostolicus, - Stephano regi Angliæ litteras - suas transmisit, quibus eum Apostolica - auctoritate in regno Angliæ - confirmavit.... Igitur Stephanus - his et aliis modis in regno Angliæ - confirmatus, episcopos et proceres - sui regni regali edicto in unum - convenire præcepit; cum quibus - hoc generale concilium celebravit.</td> - <td>Eodem anno Innocentius papa - litteris ab Apostolica sede directis - eundem regem Stephanum in negotiis - regni confirmavit. Harum - tenore litterarum rex instructus, - generali convocato concilio bonas - et antiquas leges, et justos consuetudines - præcepit conservari, - injustitias vero cassari.</td> -</tr> - -</table> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">{22}</a></span> -The point to keep clearly in mind is that the Earl of -Gloucester was not present at the Easter court in London, -and that, landing subsequently, he was present when the -charter of liberties was granted at Oxford. So short an -interval of time elapsed that there cannot have been two -councils. There was, I believe, one council which adjourned -from London to Oxford, and which did so on -purpose to meet the virtual head of the opposition, the -powerful Earl of Gloucester. It must have been the -waiting for his arrival at court which postponed the issue -of the charter, and it is not wonderful that, under these -circumstances, the chroniclers should have made of the -whole but one transaction.</p> - -<p>The earl, on his arrival, did homage, with the very -important and significant reservation that his loyalty -would be strictly conditional on Stephen's behaviour to -himself.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_67" id="Ref_67" href="#Foot_67">[67]</a></span></p> - -<p>His example in this respect was followed by the -bishops, for we read in the chronicler, immediately afterwards:</p> - -<p class="small">"Eodem anno, non multo post adventum comitis, juraverunt episcopi -fidelitatem regi quamdiu ille libertatem ecclesiæ et vigorem -disciplinæ conservaret."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_68" id="Ref_68" href="#Foot_68">[68]</a></span></p> - -<p class="nodent">By this writer the incident in question is recorded in connection -with the Oxford charter. In this he must be -correct, if it was subsequent to the earl's homage, for this -latter itself, we see, must have been subsequent to Easter.</p> - -<p>Probably the council at London was the preliminary -to that treaty (<i>convencio</i>) between the king and the -bishops, at which William of Malmesbury so plainly hints, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">{23}</a></span> -and of which the Oxford charter is virtually the exponent -record. For this, I take it, is the point to be steadily -kept in view, namely, that the terms of such a charter as -this are the resultant of two opposing forces—the one, the -desire to extort from the king the utmost possible concession; -the other, his desire to extort homage at the lowest -price he could. Taken in connection with the presence at -Oxford of his arch-opponent, the Earl of Gloucester, this -view, I would venture to urge, may lead us to the conclusion -that this extended version of his meagre "coronation -charter" represents his final and definite acceptance, by -the magnates of England, as their king.</p> - -<p>It may be noticed, incidentally, as illustrative of the -chronicle-value of charters, that not a single chronicler -records this eventful assembly at Oxford. Our knowledge -of it is derived wholly and solely from the testing clause -of the charter itself—"Apud Oxeneford, anno ab incarnatione -Domini <small>MCXXXVI</small>." Attention should also, perhaps, -be drawn to this repeated visit to Oxford, and to -the selection of that spot for this assembly. For this its -central position may, doubtless, partly account, especially -if the Earl of Gloucester was loth to come further east. -But it also, we must remember, represented for Stephen, -as it were, a post of observation, commanding, in Bristol -and Gloucester, the two strongholds of the opposition. -So, conversely, it represented to the Empress an advanced -post resting on their base.</p> - -<p>Lastly, I think it perfectly possible to fix pretty closely -the date of this assembly and charter. Easter falling -on the 22nd of March, neither the king nor the Earl of -Gloucester would have reached Oxford till the end of March -or, perhaps, the beginning of April. But as early as -Rogation-tide (April 26-29) it was rumoured that the king -was dead, and Hugh Bigod, who, as a royal <i>dapifer</i>, had -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">{24}</a></span> -been among the witnesses to this Oxford charter, burst -into revolt at once.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_69" id="Ref_69" href="#Foot_69">[69]</a></span> Then followed the suppression of the -rebellion, and the king's breach of the charter.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_70" id="Ref_70" href="#Foot_70">[70]</a></span> It would -seem, therefore, to be beyond question that this assembly -took place early in April (1136).</p> - -<p>I have gone thus closely into these details in order to -bring out as clearly as possible the process, culminating -in the Oxford charter, by which the succession of Stephen -was gradually and, above all, conditionally secured.</p> - -<p>Stephen, as a king, was an admitted failure. I cannot, -however, but view with suspicion the causes assigned to -his failure by often unfriendly chroniclers. That their -criticisms had some foundation it would not be possible -to deny. But in the first place, had he enjoyed better -fortune, we should have heard less of his incapacity, and -in the second, these writers, not enjoying the same standpoint -as ourselves, were, I think, somewhat inclined to -mistake effects for causes. Stephen, for instance, has -been severely blamed, mainly on the authority of Henry -of Huntingdon,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_71" id="Ref_71" href="#Foot_71">[71]</a></span> for not punishing more severely the rebels -who held Exeter against him in 1136. Surely, in doing -so, his critics must forget the parallel cases of both his -predecessors. William Rufus at the siege of Rochester -(1088), Henry I. at the siege of Bridgnorth (1102), should -both be remembered when dealing with Stephen at the -siege of Exeter. In both these cases, the people had -clamoured for condign punishment on the traitors; in -both, the king, who had conquered by their help, was held -back by the jealousy of his barons, from punishing their -fellows as they deserved. We learn from the author of -the <i>Gesta</i> that the same was the case at Exeter. The -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">{25}</a></span> -king's barons again intervened to save those who had -rebelled from ruin, and at the same time to prevent the -king from securing too signal a triumph.</p> - -<p>This brings us to the true source of his weakness -throughout his reign. That weakness was due to two -causes, each supplementing the other. These were—(1) the -essentially unsatisfactory character of his position, as -resting, virtually, on a compact that he should be king so -long only as he gave satisfaction to those who had placed -him on the throne; (2) the existence of a rival claim, -hanging over him from the first, like the sword of Damocles, -and affording a lever by which the malcontents could -compel him to adhere to the original understanding, or -even to submit to further demands.</p> - -<p>Let us glance at them both in succession.</p> - -<p>Stephen himself describes his title in the opening clause -of his Oxford charter:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Ego Stephanus Dei gratia assensu cleri et populi in regem Anglorum -electus, et a Willelmo Cantuariensi archiepiscopo et sanctæ -Romanæ ecclesiæ legato consecra tus, et ab Innocentio sanctæ Romanæ -sedis pontifice confirmatus."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_72" id="Ref_72" href="#Foot_72">[72]</a></span></p> - -<p>On this clause Dr. Stubbs observes:—</p> - -<p class="small">"His rehearsal of his title is curious and important; it is worth -while to compare it with that of Henry I., but it need not necessarily -be interpreted as showing a consciousness of weakness."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_73" id="Ref_73" href="#Foot_73">[73]</a></span></p> - -<p>Referring to the charter of Henry I., we find the clause -phrased thus:—</p> - -<p class="small">"<span class="smc">Henricus filius Willelmi Regis</span> -post obitum fratris sui Willelmi, -Dei gratia rex Anglorum."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_74" id="Ref_74" href="#Foot_74">[74]</a></span></p> - -<p>Surely the point to strike us here is that the clause -in Stephen's charter contains just that which is omitted in -Henry's, and omits just that which is contained in Henry's. -Henry puts forward his relationship to his father and his -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">{26}</a></span> -brother as the sole explanation of his position as king. -Stephen omits all mention of his relationship. Conversely, -the election, etc., set forth by Stephen, finds no place in -the charter of Henry. What can be more significant than -this contrast? Again, the formula in Stephen's charter -should be compared not only with that of Henry, but with -that of his daughter the Empress. As the father had -styled himself "Henricus filius Willelmi Regis," so his -daughter invariably styled herself "Matildis ... Henrici -regis [<i>or</i> regis Henrici] filia;" and so her son, in his time, -is styled (1142), as we shall find in a charter quoted in -this work, "Henricus filius filiæ regis Henrici." To the -importance of this fact I shall recur below. Meanwhile, -the point to bear in mind is, that Stephen's style contains -no allusion to his parentage, though, strangely enough, in -a charter which must have passed in the first year of his -reign, he does adopt the curious style of "Ego Stephanus -Willelmi Anglorum primi Regis nepos," etc.,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_75" id="Ref_75" href="#Foot_75">[75]</a></span> in which -he hints, contrary to his practice, at a quasi-hereditary -right.</p> - -<p>Returning, however, to his Oxford charter, in which he -did not venture to allude to such claim, we find him -appealing (<i>a</i>) to his election, which, as we have seen, was -informal enough; (<i>b</i>) to his anointing by the primate; -(<i>c</i>) to his "confirmation" by the pope. It is impossible -to read such a formula as this in any other light than that -of an attempt to "make up a title" under difficulties. I -do not know that it has ever been suggested, though the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">{27}</a></span> -hypothesis would seem highly probable, that the stress -laid by Stephen upon the ecclesiastical sanction to his -succession may have been largely due, as I have said -(p. 10), to the obstacle presented by the oath that had -been sworn to the Empress. Of breaking that oath the -Church, he held, had pronounced him not guilty.</p> - -<p>Yet it is not so much on this significant style, as on the -drift of the charter itself, that I depend for support of my -thesis that Stephen was virtually king on sufferance, or, to -anticipate a phrase of later times, "Quamdiu se bene -gesserit." We have seen how in the four typical cases, (1) -of the Londoners, (2) of Miles of Gloucester, (3) of Earl -Robert, (4) of the bishops, Stephen had only secured their -allegiance by submitting to that "original contract" which -the political philosophers of a later age evolved from their -inner consciousness. It was because his Oxford charter set -the seal to this "contract" that Stephen, even then, chafed -beneath its yoke, as evidenced by the striking saving -clause—</p> - -<p class="small">"Hæc omnia concedo et confirmo salva regia et justa dignitate -meâ."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_76" id="Ref_76" href="#Foot_76">[76]</a></span></p> - -<p class="nodent">And, as we know, at the first opportunity, he hastened to -break its bonds.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_77" id="Ref_77" href="#Foot_77">[77]</a></span></p> - -<p>The position of his opponents throughout his reign -would seem to have rested on two assumptions. The first, -that a breach, on his part, of the "contract" justified -<i>ipso facto</i> revolt on theirs;<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_78" id="Ref_78" href="#Foot_78">[78]</a></span> the second, that their allegiance -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">{28}</a></span> -to the king was a purely feudal relation, and, as -such, could be thrown off at any moment by performing -the famous <i>diffidatio</i>.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_79" id="Ref_79" href="#Foot_79">[79]</a></span></p> - -<p>This essential feature of continental feudalism had -been rigidly excluded by the Conqueror. He had taken -advantage, as is well known, of his position as an English -king, to extort an allegiance from his Norman followers -more absolute than he could have claimed as their feudal -lord. It was to Stephen's peculiar position that was due -the introduction for a time of this pernicious principle -into England. We have seen it hinted at in that charter -of Stephen in which he treats with Miles of Gloucester -not merely as his king (<i>rex</i>), but also as his feudal lord -(<i>dominus</i>). We shall find it acted on three years later -(1139), when this same Miles, with his own <i>dominus</i>, -the Earl of Gloucester, jointly "defy" Stephen before -declaring for the Empress.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_80" id="Ref_80" href="#Foot_80">[80]</a></span></p> - -<p>Passing now to the other point, the existence of a rival -claim, we approach a subject of great interest, the theory -of the succession to the English Crown at what may be -termed the crisis of transition from the principle of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">{29}</a></span> -election (within the royal house) to that of hereditary -right according to feudal rules.</p> - -<p>For the right view on this subject, we turn, as ever, -to Dr. Stubbs, who, with his usual sound judgment, writes -thus of the Norman period:—</p> - -<p class="small">"The crown then continued to be elective.... But whilst the -elective principle was maintained in its fulness where it was necessary -or possible to maintain it, it is quite certain that the right of inheritance, -and inheritance as primogeniture, was recognized as co-ordinate.... -The measures taken by Henry I. for securing the crown to his -own children, whilst they prove the acceptance of the hereditary -principle, prove also the importance of strengthening it by the recognition -of the elective theory.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_81" id="Ref_81" href="#Foot_81">[81]</a></span></p> - -<p>Mr. Freeman, though writing with a strong bias in -favour of the elective theory, is fully justified in his main -argument, namely, that Stephen "was no usurper in the -sense in which the word is vulgarly used."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_82" id="Ref_82" href="#Foot_82">[82]</a></span> He urges, -apparently with perfect truth, that Stephen's offence, -in the eyes of his contemporaries, lay in his breaking his -solemn oath, and not in his supplanting a rightful heir. -And he aptly suggests that the wretchedness of his reign -may have hastened the growth of that new belief in the -divine right of the heir to the throne, which first appears -under Henry II., and in the pages of William of -Newburgh.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_83" id="Ref_83" href="#Foot_83">[83]</a></span></p> - -<p>So far as Stephen is concerned the case is clear -enough. But we have also to consider the Empress. On -what did she base her claim? I think that, as implied in -Dr. Stubbs' words, she based it on a double, not a single, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">{30}</a></span> -ground. She claimed the kingdom as King Henry's -daughter ("regis Henrici filia"), but she claimed it -further because the succession had been assured to her -by oath ("sibi juratum") as such.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_84" id="Ref_84" href="#Foot_84">[84]</a></span> It is important to -observe that the oath in question can in no way be -regarded in the light of an election. To understand it -aright, we must go back to the precisely similar oath -which had been previously sworn to her brother. As -early as 1116, the king, in evident anxiety to secure the -succession to his heir, had called upon a gathering of -the magnates "of all England," on the historic spot of -Salisbury, to swear allegiance to his son (March 19).<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_85" id="Ref_85" href="#Foot_85">[85]</a></span> -It was with reference to this event that Eadmer described -him at his death (November, 1120) as "Willelmum jam -olim regni hæredem designatum" (p. 290). Before leaving -Normandy in November, 1120, the king similarly secured -the succession of the duchy to his son by compelling its -barons to swear that they would be faithful to the youth.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_86" id="Ref_86" href="#Foot_86">[86]</a></span> -On the destruction of his plans by his son's death, he -hastened to marry again in the hope of securing, once -more, a male heir. Despairing of this after some years, -he took advantage of the Emperor's death to insist on his -daughter's return, and brought her with him to England -in the autumn of 1126. He was not long in taking steps -to secure her recognition as his heir (subject however, -as the Continuator and Symeon are both careful to point -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">{31}</a></span> -out, to no son being born to him), by the same oath being -sworn to her as, in 1116, had been sworn to his son. -It was taken, not (as is always stated) in 1126, but on -the 1st of January, 1127.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_87" id="Ref_87" href="#Foot_87">[87]</a></span> Of what took place upon that -occasion, there is, happily, full evidence.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_88" id="Ref_88" href="#Foot_88">[88]</a></span></p> - -<p>We have independent reports of the transaction from -William of Malmesbury, Symeon of Durham, the Continuator -of Florence, and Gervase of Canterbury.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_89" id="Ref_89" href="#Foot_89">[89]</a></span> From -this last we learn (the fact is, therefore, doubtful) that -the oath secured the succession, not only to the Empress, -but to her heirs.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_90" id="Ref_90" href="#Foot_90">[90]</a></span> The Continuator's version is chiefly -important as bringing out the action of the king in -assigning the succession to his daughter, the oath being -merely an undertaking to secure the arrangement he had -made.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_91" id="Ref_91" href="#Foot_91">[91]</a></span> Symeon introduces the striking expression that -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">{32}</a></span> -the Empress was to succeed "hæreditario jure,"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_92" id="Ref_92" href="#Foot_92">[92]</a></span> but -William of Malmesbury, in the speech which he places -in the king's mouth, far outstrips this in his assertion -of hereditary right:—</p> - -<p class="small">"præfatus quanto incommodo patriæ fortuna Willelmum filium -suum sibi surripuisset, <i>cui jure regnum competeret</i>: nunc superesse -filiam, <i>cui soli legitima debeatur successio, ab avo, avunculo, et patre -regibus</i>; a materno genere multis retro seculis."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_93" id="Ref_93" href="#Foot_93">[93]</a></span></p> - -<p>Bearing in mind the time at which William wrote -these words, it will be seen that the Empress and her -partisans must have largely, to say the least, based their -claim on her right to the throne as her father's heir, and -that she and they appealed to the oath as the admission -and recognition of that right, rather than as partaking in -any way whatever of the character of a free election.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_94" id="Ref_94" href="#Foot_94">[94]</a></span> -Thus her claim was neatly traversed by Stephen's advocates, -at Rome, in 1136, when they urged that she was -not her father's heir, and that, consequently, the oath -which had been sworn to her as such ("sicut hæredi") -was void.</p> - -<p>It is, as I have said, in the above light that I view her -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">{33}</a></span> -unvarying use of the style "regis Henrici filia," and that -this was the true character of her claim will be seen from -the terms of a charter I shall quote, which has hitherto, -it would seem, remained unknown, and in which she -recites that, on arriving in England, she was promptly -welcomed by Miles of Gloucester "sicut illam quam -justam hæredem regni Angliæ recognovit."</p> - -<p>The sex of the Empress was the drawback to her claim. -Had her brother lived, there can be little question that he -would, as a matter of course, have succeeded his father -at his death. Or again, had Henry II. been old enough -to succeed his grandfather, he would, we may be sure, -have done so. But as to the Empress, even admitting the -justice of her claim, it was by no means clear in whom it -was vested. It might either be vested (<i>a</i>) in herself, in -accordance with our modern notions; or (<i>b</i>) in her husband, -in accordance with feudal ones;<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_95" id="Ref_95" href="#Foot_95">[95]</a></span> or (<i>c</i>) in her son, as, in -the event, it was. It may be said that this point was still -undecided as late as 1142, when Geoffrey was invited to -come to England, and decided to send his son instead, -to represent the hereditary claim. The force of circumstances, -however, as we shall find, had compelled the -Empress, in the hour of her triumph (1141), to take her -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">{34}</a></span> -own course, and to claim the throne for herself as queen, -though even this would not decide the point, as, had she -succeeded, her husband, we may be sure, would have -claimed the title of king.</p> - -<p>Broadly speaking, to sum up the evidence here collected, -it tends to the belief that the obsolescence of the -right of election to the English crown presents considerable -analogy to that of canonical election in the case of -English bishoprics. In both cases a free election -degenerated into a mere assent to a choice already made. -We see the process of change already in full operation -when Henry I. endeavours to extort beforehand from -the magnates their assent to his daughter's succession, -and when they subsequently complain of this attempt -to dictate to them on the subject. We catch sight of it -again when his daughter bases her claim to the crown, -not on any free election, but on her rights as her father's -heir, confirmed by the above assent. We see it, lastly, -when Stephen, though owing his crown to election, claims -to rule by Divine right ("Dei gratia"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_96" id="Ref_96" href="#Foot_96">[96]</a></span>), and attempts to -reduce that election to nothing more than a national -"assent" to his succession. Obviously, the whole question -turned on whether the election was to be held first, -or was to be a mere ratification of a choice already made. -Thus, at the very time when Stephen was formulating his -title, he was admitting, in the case of the bishopric of -Bath, that the canonical election had <i>preceded</i> his own -nomination of the bishop.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_97" id="Ref_97" href="#Foot_97">[97]</a></span> Yet it is easy to see how, -as the Crown grew in strength, the elections, in both cases -alike, would become, more and more, virtually matters of -form, while a weak sovereign or a disputed succession -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">{35}</a></span> -would afford an opportunity for this historical survival, -in the case at least of the throne, to recover for a moment -its pristine strength.</p> - -<p>Before quitting the point, I would venture briefly to -resume my grounds for urging that, in comparing Stephen -with his successor, the difference between their circumstances -has been insufficiently allowed for. At Stephen's -accession, thirty years of legal and financial oppression -had rendered unpopular the power of the Crown, and had -led to an impatience of official restraint which opened the -path to a feudal reaction: at the accession of Henry, on -the contrary, the evils of an enfeebled administration and -of feudalism run mad had made all men eager for the -advent of a strong king, and had prepared them to welcome -the introduction of his centralizing administrative reforms. -He anticipated the position of the house of Tudor at the -close of the Wars of the Roses, and combined with it the -advantages which Charles II. derived from the Puritan -tyranny. Again, Stephen was hampered from the first -by his weak position as a king on sufferance, whereas -Henry came to his work unhampered by compact or concession. -Lastly, Stephen was confronted throughout by -a rival claimant, who formed a splendid rallying-point for -all the discontent in his realm: but Henry reigned for as -long as Stephen without a rival to trouble him; and when -he found at length a rival in his own son, a claim far -weaker than that which had threatened his predecessor -seemed likely for a time to break his power as effectually -as the followers of the Empress had broken that of Stephen. -He may only, indeed, have owed his escape to that efficient -administration which years of strength and safety had -given him the time to construct.</p> - -<p>It in no way follows from these considerations that -Henry was not superior to Stephen; but it does, surely, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">{36}</a></span> -suggest itself that Stephen's disadvantages were great, and -that had he enjoyed better fortune, we might have heard -less of his defects. It will be at least established by -the evidence adduced in this work that some of the -charges which are brought against him can no longer -be maintained.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_3" id="Foot_3" href="#Ref_3">[3]</a> -<i>Early Plantagenets</i>, p. 13; <i>Const Hist.</i> (1874), i. 319.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_4" id="Foot_4" href="#Ref_4">[4]</a> -<i>Gesta Stephani</i>, p. 3.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_5" id="Foot_5" href="#Ref_5">[5]</a> -"A Dourensibus repulsus, et a Cantuarinis exclusus" (<i>Gervase</i>, i. -94). As illustrating the use of such adjectives for the garrison, rather than -the townsfolk, compare Florence of Worcester's "Hrofenses Cantuariensibus -... cædes inferunt" (ii. 23), where the "Hrofenses" are Odo's garrison. -So too "Bristoenses" in the <i>Gesta</i> (ed. Hewlett, pp. 38, 40, 41), though -rendered by the editor "the people of Bristol," are clearly the troops of -the Earl of Gloucester.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_6" id="Foot_6" href="#Ref_6">[6]</a> -<i>Early Plantagenets</i>, p. 14. Compare <i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 319: "The men of -Kent, remembering the mischief that had constantly come to them from -Boulogne, refused to receive him." Miss Norgate adopts the same explanation -(<i>England under the Angevin Kings</i>, i. 277).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_7" id="Foot_7" href="#Ref_7">[7]</a> -There is a curious incidental allusion to the earl's Kentish possessions -in William of Malmesbury, who states (p. 759) that he was allowed, while -a prisoner at Rochester (October, 1141), to receive his rents from his Kentish -tenants ("ab hominibus suis de Cantia"). Stephen, then, it would seem, did -not forfeit them.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_8" id="Foot_8" href="#Ref_8">[8]</a> -In the rebellion of 1138 Walchelin Maminot, the earl's castellan, held -Dover against Stephen, and was besieged by the Queen and by the men of -Boulogne. Curiously enough, Mr. Freeman made a similar slip, now corrected, -to that here discussed, when he wrote that "whatever might be -the feelings of the rest of the shire, the men of Dover had no mind to see -Count Eustace again within their walls" (<i>Norm. Conq.</i>, iv. 116), though they -were, on the contrary, quite as anxious as the rest of the shire to do so.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_9" id="Foot_9" href="#Ref_9">[9]</a> -"Id quoque sui esse juris, suique specialiter privilegii ut si rex ipsorum -quoquo modo obiret, alius suo provisu in regno substituendus e vestigio succederet" -(<i>Gesta</i>, p. 3). This audacious claim of the citizens to such right -as vested in themselves is much stronger than Mr. Freeman's paraphrase -when he speaks of "the citizens of London and Winchester [why Winchester?], -who freely exercised their ancient right of <i>sharing in</i> the election -of the king who should reign over them" (<i>Norm. Conq.</i>, v. 251; cf. p. 856).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_10" id="Foot_10" href="#Ref_10">[10]</a> -"Firmatâ prius utrimque pactione, peractoque, ut vulgus asserebat, -mutuo juramento, ut eum cives quoad viveret opibus sustentarent, viribus -tutarentur; ipse autem, ad regnum pacificandum, ad omnium eorundem suffragium, -toto sese conatu accingeret" (<i>Gesta</i>, p. 4). See Appendix A.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_11" id="Foot_11" href="#Ref_11">[11]</a> -"Spe scilicet captus amplissima quod Stephanus avi sui Willelmi in -regni moderamine mores servaret, precipueque in ecclesiastici vigoris -disciplinâ. Quapropter districto sacramento quod a Stephano Willelmus -Cantuarensis archiepiscopus exegit de libertate reddenda ecclesiæ et conservanda, -episcopus Wintoniensis se mediatorem et vadem apposuit. Cujus -sacramenti tenorem, postea scripto inditum, loco suo non prætermittam" -(p. 704). See Addenda.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_12" id="Foot_12" href="#Ref_12">[12]</a> -"Enimvero, quamvis ego vadem me apposuerim inter eum et Deum -quod sanctam ecclesiam honoraret et exaltaret, et bonas leges manuteneret, -malas vero abrogaret; piget meminisse, pudet narrare, qualem se in regno -exhibuerit," etc. (<i>ibid.</i>, p. 746).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_13" id="Foot_13" href="#Ref_13">[13]</a> -The phrase "districto Sacramento" is very difficult to construe. I -have here taken it to imply a release of Stephen from his oath, but the -meaning of the passage, which is obscure as it stands, may be merely that -Henry became surety for Stephen's performance of the oath as in an agreement -or treaty between two contracting parties (<i>vide infra passim</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_14" id="Foot_14" href="#Ref_14">[14]</a> -<i>Ante</i>, p. 3.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_15" id="Foot_15" href="#Ref_15">[15]</a> -<i>Gesta</i>, 5, 6; <i>Will. Malms.</i>, 703. Note that William Rufus, Henry I., and -Stephen all of them visited and secured Winchester even before their -coronation.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_16" id="Foot_16" href="#Ref_16">[16]</a> -<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 319.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_17" id="Foot_17" href="#Ref_17">[17]</a> -"A cunctis fere in regem electus est, et sic a Willelmo Cantuarensi -archiepiscopo coronatus."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_18" id="Foot_18" href="#Ref_18">[18]</a> -"The form of election was hastily gone through by the barons on the -spot" (<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 303).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_19" id="Foot_19" href="#Ref_19">[19]</a> -<i>Select Charters</i>, p. 108.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_20" id="Foot_20" href="#Ref_20">[20]</a> -<i>Early Plantagenets</i>, p. 14.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_21" id="Foot_21" href="#Ref_21">[21]</a> -"Consentientibus in ejus promotionem Willelmo Cantuarensi archiepiscopo -et clericorum et laicorum universitate" (<i>Sym. Dun.</i>, ii. 286, 287).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_22" id="Foot_22" href="#Ref_22">[22]</a> -"Sic profecto, sic congruit, ut ad eum in regno confirmandum omnes -pariter convolent, parique consensu quid statuendum, quidve respuendum -sit, ab omnibus provideatur" (pp. 6, 7). Eventually he represents the -primate as acting "Cum episcopis frequentique, qui intererat, clericatu" (p. 8).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_23" id="Foot_23" href="#Ref_23">[23]</a> -"Tribus episcopis præsentibus, archiepiscopo, Wintoniensi, Salesbiriensi, -nullis abbatibus, paucissimis optimatibus" (p. 704). See Addenda.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_24" id="Foot_24" href="#Ref_24">[24]</a> -"Supremo eum agitante mortis articulo, cum et plurimi astarent et -veram suorum erratuum confessionem audirent, de jurejurando violenter -baronibus suis injuncto apertissime pænituit."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_25" id="Foot_25" href="#Ref_25">[25]</a> -"Quidam ex potentissimis Angliæ, jurans et dicens se præsentem -affuisse ubi rex Henricus idem juramentum in bona fide sponte relaxasset."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_26" id="Foot_26" href="#Ref_26">[26]</a> -"Hugo Bigod senescallus regis coram archiepiscopo Cantuariæ sacramento -probavit quod, dum Rex Henricus ageret in extremis, ortis quibus -inimicitiis inter ipsum et imperatricem, ipsam exhæredavit, et Stephanum -Boloniæ comitem hæredem instituit."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_27" id="Foot_27" href="#Ref_27">[27]</a> -"Et hæc juramento comitis (<i>sic</i>) Hugonis et duorum militum probata -esse dicebant in facie ecclesie Anglicane" (ed. Pertz, p. 543).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_28" id="Foot_28" href="#Ref_28">[28]</a> -"Cum regis (<i>sic</i>) fautores obnixe persuaderent quatinus eum ad -regnandum inungeret, quodque imperfectum videbatur, administrationis -suæ officio suppleret" (p. 6).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_29" id="Foot_29" href="#Ref_29">[29]</a> -<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 146.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_30" id="Foot_30" href="#Ref_30">[30]</a> -See his Oxford Charter.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_31" id="Foot_31" href="#Ref_31">[31]</a> -See the legate's speech at Winchester: "Ventilata est hesterno die -causa secreto coram majori parte cleri Angliæ, <i>ad cujus jus potissimum spectat -principem eligere, simulque ordinare</i>" (<i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. 746).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_32" id="Foot_32" href="#Ref_32">[32]</a> -Henry had sworn "in ipso suæ consecrationis die" (Eadmer), Stephen -"in ipsa consecrationis tuæ die" (Innocent's letter). Henry of Huntingdon -refers to the "pacta" which Stephen "Deo et populo et sanctæ ecclesiæ -concesserat in die coronationis suæ." William of Malmesbury speaks of the -oath as "postea [<i>i.e.</i> at Oxford] scripto inditum." See Addenda.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_33" id="Foot_33" href="#Ref_33">[33]</a> -See Appendix B: "The Appeal to Rome in 1136."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_34" id="Foot_34" href="#Ref_34">[34]</a> -See Appendix B.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_35" id="Foot_35" href="#Ref_35">[35]</a> -<i>Hen. Hunt.</i>, 258; <i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i>, 95; <i>Will. Malms.</i>, 705.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_36" id="Foot_36" href="#Ref_36">[36]</a> -<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 321.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_37" id="Foot_37" href="#Ref_37">[37]</a> -Lansdowne MS. 229, fol. 109, and Lansdowne MS. 259, fol. 66, both -being excerpts from the lost volume of the Great Coucher of the Duchy.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_38" id="Foot_38" href="#Ref_38">[38]</a> -Speaking of the late king's trusted friends, who hung back from coming -to court, he writes: "Illi autem, intentâ sibi a rege comminatione, cum -salvo eundi et redeundi conductu curiam petiere; omnibusque ad votum -impetratis, peracto cum jurejurando liberali hominio, illius sese servitio ex -toto mancipârunt. Affuit inter reliquos Paganus filius Johannis, sed et Milo, -de quo superius fecimus mentionem, ille Herefordensis et Salopesbiriæ, iste -Glocestrensis provinciæ dominatum gerens: qui in tempore regis Henrici -potentiæ suæ culmen extenderant ut a Sabrinâ flumine usque ad mare per -omnes fines Angliæ et Waloniæ omnes placitis involverent, angariis onerarent" -(pp. 15, 16).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_39" id="Foot_39" href="#Ref_39">[39]</a> -<i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i></p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_40" id="Foot_40" href="#Ref_40">[40]</a> -"S. rex Angliæ Archiepĩs etc. Sciatis me reddidisse et concessisse Miloni -Gloec̃ et heredibus suis post eum in feodo et hereditate totum honorem patris -sui et custodiam turris et castelli Gloecestrie ad tenendum tali forma (<i>sic</i>) -qualem reddebat tempore regis Henrici sicut patrimonium suum. Et totum -honorem suum de Brechenion et omnia Ministeria sua et terras suas quas -tenuit tempore regis Henrici sicut eas melius et honorificentius tenuit die -qua rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus, et ego ei in convencionem habeo -sicut Rex et dominus Baroni meo. Quare precipio quod bene et in honore -et in pace et libere teneat cum omnibus libertatibus suis. Testes, W. filius -Ricardi, Robertus de Ferrariis, Robertus filius Ricardi, Hugo Bigot, Ingelramus -de Sai, Balduinus filius Gisleberti. Apud Radinges" (Lansdowne -MS. 229, fols. 123, 124).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_41" id="Foot_41" href="#Ref_41">[41]</a> -<i>History of the Exchequer</i>, p. 135.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_42" id="Foot_42" href="#Ref_42">[42]</a> -I am inclined to believe that in Robert fitz Richard we have that Robert -fitz Richard (de Clare) who died in 1137 (Robert de Torigny), being then -described as paternal uncle to Richard fitz Gilbert (de Clare), usually but -erroneously described as first Earl of Hertford. If so, he was also uncle to -Baldwin (fitz Gilbert) de Clare of this charter, and brother to W(alter) fitz -Richard (de Clare), another witness. We shall come across another of Stephen's -charters to which the house of Clare contributes several witnesses. There is -evidence to suggest that Robert fitz Richard (de Clare) was lord, in some -way, of Maldon in Essex, and was succeeded there by (his nephew) Walter -fitz Gilbert (de Clare), who went on crusade (probably in 1147).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_43" id="Foot_43" href="#Ref_43">[43]</a> -There is preserved among the royal charters belonging to the Duchy of -Lancaster, the fragment of one grant of which the contents correspond exactly, -it would seem, with those of the above charter, though the witnesses' names -are different. This raises a problem which cannot at present be solved.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_44" id="Foot_44" href="#Ref_44">[44]</a> -In the fellow-charter the phrase runs: "sicut Rex et dominus Baroni -meo."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_45" id="Foot_45" href="#Ref_45">[45]</a> -"The Norman idea of royalty was very comprehensive; it practically -combined all the powers of the national sovereignty, as they had been exercised -by Edgar and Canute, with those of the feudal theory of monarchy, which was -exemplified at the time in France and the Empire.... The king is accordingly -both the chosen head of the nation and the lord paramount of the whole of -the land" (<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 338).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_46" id="Foot_46" href="#Ref_46">[46]</a> -Compare the words of address in several of the <i>Cartæ Baronum</i> (1166): -"servitium ut domino;" "vobis sicut domino meo;" "sicut domino carissimo;" -"ut domino suo ligio."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_47" id="Foot_47" href="#Ref_47">[47]</a> -"Inde perrexit rex Stephanus apud Oxeneford ubi recordatus et confirmavit -pacta quæ Deo et populo et sanctæ ecclesiæ concesserat in die -coronationis suæ" (p. 258).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_48" id="Foot_48" href="#Ref_48">[48]</a> -"Cum venisset in fine Natalis ad Oxenefordiam" (<i>ibid.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_49" id="Foot_49" href="#Ref_49">[49]</a> -<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 321.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_50" id="Foot_50" href="#Ref_50">[50]</a> -<i>Early Plantagenets</i>, pp. 15, 16.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_51" id="Foot_51" href="#Ref_51">[51]</a> -"The news of this [Scottish] -inroad reached Stephen at Oxford, -where he had just put forth his -second charter" (<i>Norm. Conq.</i>, v. 258).</p> - -<p class="nodent">"The second charter ... was put -forth at Oxford before the first year -of his reign was out. Stephen had -just come back victorious from driving -back a Scottish invasion (see -p. 258)" (<i>ibid.</i>, p. 246).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_52" id="Foot_52" href="#Ref_52">[52]</a> -See Mr. Vincent's learned criticism on Mr. Freeman's <i>History of Wells -Cathedral</i>: "I detect throughout these pages an infirmity, a confirmed -habit of inaccuracy. The author of this book, I should infer from numberless -passages, cannot revise what he writes" (<i>Genealogist</i>, (N.S.) ii. 179).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_53" id="Foot_53" href="#Ref_53">[53]</a> -"In fine Natalis" (<i>Hen. Hunt.</i>, 258).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_54" id="Foot_54" href="#Ref_54">[54]</a> -<i>Sym. Dun.</i>, ii. 287.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_55" id="Foot_55" href="#Ref_55">[55]</a> -The curious words, "vulgo ... ingerente," may be commended to -those who uphold the doctrine of democratic survivals in these assemblies. -They would doubtless jump at them as proof that the "vulgus" took part in -the proceedings. The evidence, however, is, in any case, of indisputable -interest.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_56" id="Foot_56" href="#Ref_56">[56]</a> -Ed. Howlett, p. 17.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_57" id="Foot_57" href="#Ref_57">[57]</a> -"Quem morem convivandi primus successor obstinate tenuit, secundus -omisit" (<i>Will. Malms.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_58" id="Foot_58" href="#Ref_58">[58]</a> -"Rediens autem inde rex in Quadragesimâ tenuit curiam suam apud -Lundoniam in solemnitate Paschali, quâ nunquam fuerat splendidior in -Angliâ multitudine, magnitudine, auro, argento, gemmis, vestibus, omnimodaque -dapsilitate" (p. 259).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_59" id="Foot_59" href="#Ref_59">[59]</a> -"[Consuetudo] erat ut ter in anno cuncti optimates ad curiam convenirent -de necessariis regni tractaturi, simulque visuri regis insigne -quomodo iret gemmato fastigiatus diademate" (<i>Vita S. Wulstani</i>). "Convivia -in præcipuis festivitatibus sumptuosa et magnifica inibat; ... omnes -eo cujuscunque professionis magnates regium edictum accersiebat, ut -exterarum gentium legati speciem multitudinis apparatumque deliciarum -mirarentur" (<i>Gesta regum</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_60" id="Foot_60" href="#Ref_60">[60]</a> -See in <i>Gesta</i> (ed. Howlett, pp. 15, 16) his persistent efforts to conciliate -the ministers of Henry I., and especially the Marchers of the west.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_61" id="Foot_61" href="#Ref_61">[61]</a> -See Appendix C.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_62" id="Foot_62" href="#Ref_62">[62]</a> -"In Paschali vero festivitate rex Stephanus eundem Henricum in -honorem in reverentia præferens, ad dexteram suam sedere fecit" (<i>Sym. -Dun.</i>, ii. 287).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_63" id="Foot_63" href="#Ref_63">[63]</a> -Dr. Stubbs appears, unless I am mistaken, to imply that they first -appear at court as witnesses to the (later) Oxford charter. He writes, of -that charter: "Her [the Empress's] most faithful adherents, Miles of Hereford" -[<i>recté</i> Gloucester] "and Brian of Wallingford, were also among the -witnesses; probably the retreat of the King of Scots had made her cause -for the time hopeless" (<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 321, <i>note</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_64" id="Foot_64" href="#Ref_64">[64]</a> -See Appendix C.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_65" id="Foot_65" href="#Ref_65">[65]</a> -"His autem rex patienter auditis quæcumque postulârant gratuite eis -indulgens ecclesiæ libertatem fixam et inviolabilem esse, illius statuta rata -et inconcussa, ejus ministros cujuscunque professionis essent vel ordinis, -omni reverentiâ honorandos esse præcepit" (<i>Gesta</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_66" id="Foot_66" href="#Ref_66">[66]</a> -John's list of bishops attesting the (London) council is taken from -Richard's list of bishops attesting the (Oxford) charter.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_67" id="Foot_67" href="#Ref_67">[67]</a> -"Eodem anno post Pascha Robertus comes Glocestræ, cujus prudentiam -rex Stephanus maxime verebatur, venit in Angliam.... Itaque homagium -regi fecit sub conditione quadam, scilicet quamdiu ille dignitatem suam -integre custodiret et sibi pacta servaret" (<i>Will. Malms.</i>, 705, 707).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_68" id="Foot_68" href="#Ref_68">[68]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, 707.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_69" id="Foot_69" href="#Ref_69">[69]</a> -<i>Hen. Hunt.</i>, p. 259.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_70" id="Foot_70" href="#Ref_70">[70]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, p. 260.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_71" id="Foot_71" href="#Ref_71">[71]</a> -"Vindictam non exercuit in proditores suos, pessimo consilio usus; si -enim eam tunc exercuisset, postea contra eum tot castella retenta non fuissent" -(<i>Hen. Hunt.</i>, p. 259).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_72" id="Foot_72" href="#Ref_72">[72]</a> -<i>Select Charters</i>, 114 (cf. <i>Will. Malms.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_73" id="Foot_73" href="#Ref_73">[73]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i></p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_74" id="Foot_74" href="#Ref_74">[74]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, 96.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_75" id="Foot_75" href="#Ref_75">[75]</a> -<i>Confirmation Roll</i>, 1 Hen. VIII., Part 5, No. 13 (quoted by Mr. J. A. C. -Vincent in <i>Genealogist</i> (N. S.), ii. 271). This should be compared with the -argument of his friends when urging the primate to crown him, that he had -not only been elected to the throne (by the Londoners), but also "ad hoc -<i>justo germanæ propinquitatis jure</i> idoneus accessit" (<i>Gesta</i>, p. 8), and with the -admission, shortly after, in the pope's letter, that among his claims he "de -præfati regis [Henrici] prosapia prope posito gradu originem traxisse."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_76" id="Foot_76" href="#Ref_76">[76]</a> -<i>Select Charters</i>, 115. But cf. <i>Will. Malms.</i></p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_77" id="Foot_77" href="#Ref_77">[77]</a> -As further illustrating the compromise of which this charter was the -resultant, note that Stephen retains and combines the formula "Dei gratiâ" -with the recital of election, and that he further represents the election as -merely a popular "<i>assent</i>" to his succession.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_78" id="Foot_78" href="#Ref_78">[78]</a> -Compare the clause in the <i>Confirmatio Cartarum</i> of 1265, establishing -the right of insurrection: "Liceat omnibus de regno nostro contra nos insurgere."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_79" id="Foot_79" href="#Ref_79">[79]</a> -See <i>inter alia</i>, Hallam's <i>Middle Ages</i>, i. 168, 169.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_80" id="Foot_80" href="#Ref_80">[80]</a> -"Fama per Angliam volitabat, quod comes Gloecestræ Robertus, qui -erat in Normannia, in proximo partes sororis foret adjuturus, <i>rege tantummodo -ante diffidato</i>. Nec fides rerum famæ levitatem destituit: celeriter -enim post Pentecosten missis a Normanniâ suis regi <i>more majorum amicitiam -et fidem interdixit, homagio etiam abdicato</i>; rationem præferens quam id -juste faceret, quia et rex illicite ad regnum aspiraverat, et omnem fidem -sibi juratam neglexerat, ne dicam mentitus fuerat" (<i>Will. Malms.</i>, 712). So, -too, the Continuator of Florence: "Interim facta conjuratione adversus -regem per prædictum Brycstowensem comitem et conestabularium Milonem, -<i>abnegata fidelitate quam illi juraverant</i>, ... Milo constabularius, <i>regiæ -majestati redditis fidei sacramentis</i>, ad dominum suum, comitem Gloucestrensem, -cum grandi manu militum se contulit" (pp. 110, 117). Compare with -these passages the extraordinary complaint made against Stephen's conduct -in attacking Lincoln without sending a formal "defiance" to his opponents, -and the singular treaty, in this reign, between the Earls of Chester and of -Leicester, in which the latter was bound not to attack the former, as his -lord, without sending him the formal "diffidatio" a clear fortnight beforehand.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_81" id="Foot_81" href="#Ref_81">[81]</a> -<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 338, 340.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_82" id="Foot_82" href="#Ref_82">[82]</a> -<i>Norm. Conq.</i>, v. 251.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_83" id="Foot_83" href="#Ref_83">[83]</a> -"In a later stage, when the son of his rival was firm on the throne, the -doctrine of female succession took root under a king who by the spindle-side -sprang from both William and Cerdic, but who by the spear-side had nothing -to do with either. Then it was that men began to find out that Stephen had -been guilty not only of breaking his oath, but also of defrauding the heir to -the crown of her lawful right" (<i>ibid.</i>, p. 252).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_84" id="Foot_84" href="#Ref_84">[84]</a> -"Henrici regis filia, ... vehementer exhilarata utpote regnum sibi -juratum ... jam adepta" (<i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i>, 130). But the above duplex -character of her claim is best brought out in her formal request that the -legate should receive her "tanquam regis Henrici filiam et cui omnis Anglia -et Normannia jurata esset."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_85" id="Foot_85" href="#Ref_85">[85]</a> -"Conventio optimatum et baronum totius Angliæ apud Salesbyriam <span class="smc">xiv.</span> -kalend. Aprilis facta est, qui in præsentiâ regis Henrici homagium filio suo -Willelmo fecerunt, et fidelitatem ei juraverunt" (<i>Flor. Wig.</i>, ii. 69).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_86" id="Foot_86" href="#Ref_86">[86]</a> -"Normanniæ principes, jubente rege, filio suo Willelmo jam tunc xviii. -annorum, hominium faciunt, et fidelitatis securitatem sacramentis affirmant" -(<i>Sym. Dun.</i>, ii. 258).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_87" id="Foot_87" href="#Ref_87">[87]</a> -Oddly enough, the correct date must be sought from Symeon of Durham, -though, at first sight, he is the most inaccurate, as he places the event under -1128 (a date accepted, in the margin, by his editor) instead of 1126, the year -given by the other chroniclers. But from him we learn that the Christmas -court (<i>i.e.</i> Christmas 1126) was adjourned from Windsor to London, for the -new year, "ubi Circumcisione Domini" (January 1) the actual oath was taken. -William of Malmesbury dates it, loosely, at Christmas (1126), but the Continuator -of Florence, more accurately, "finitis diebus festivioribus" (p. 84), -which confirms Symeon's statement.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_88" id="Foot_88" href="#Ref_88">[88]</a> -It is scarcely realized so clearly as it should be that the oath taken on -this occasion was that to which reference was always made. Dr. Stubbs -(<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 341) recognizes "a similar oath in 1131" (on the authority -of William of Malmesbury), and another in 1133 (on the authority of Roger -of Hoveden). But the former is only incidentally mentioned, and is neither -alluded to elsewhere, nor referred to subsequently by William himself; and -the latter, which is similarly devoid of any contemporary confirmation, is -represented as securing the succession, not to Matilda, but to her son. It is -strange that so recent and important an oath as this, if it was really taken, -should have been ignored in the controversy under Stephen, and the earlier -oath, described above, alone appealed to.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_89" id="Foot_89" href="#Ref_89">[89]</a> -Henry of Huntingdon merely alludes to it, retrospectively, at Stephen's -accession, as the "sacramentum fidelitatis Anglici regni filiæ regis Henrici" -(p. 256).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_90" id="Foot_90" href="#Ref_90">[90]</a> -"Fecit principes et potentes adjurare eidem filiæ suæ et heredibus suis -legitimis regnum Angliæ" (i. 93). This is, perhaps, somewhat confirmed by -the words which the author of the <i>Gesta</i> places in the primate's mouth (p. 7).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_91" id="Foot_91" href="#Ref_91">[91]</a> -"In filiam suam, sororem scilicet Willelmi, ... regni jura transferebat" -(p. 85). The oath to secure her this succession was taken "ad jussum regis" -(p. 84). Compare with this expression that of Gervase above, and that -(<i>quantum valeat</i>) of Roger Hoveden, viz. "<i>constituit</i> eum regem;" also the -"jubente rege" of Symeon in 1120. It was accordingly urged, at Stephen's -accession, that the oath had been compulsory, and was therefore invalid.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_92" id="Foot_92" href="#Ref_92">[92]</a> -"Juraverunt ut filiæ suæ imperatrici fide servata regnum Angliæ <i>hæreditario -jure</i> post eum servarent" (p. 281). Compare William of Newburgh, -on Henry's accession: "Hæreditarium regnum suscepit." These expressions -are the more noteworthy because of the contrast they afford to the Conqueror's -dying words, "Neminem Anglici constituo heredem ... non enim tantum -decus hereditario jure possedi" (<i>Ord. Vit.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_93" id="Foot_93" href="#Ref_93">[93]</a> -<i>Will. Malms.</i>, 691.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_94" id="Foot_94" href="#Ref_94">[94]</a> -That the oath of January 1, 1127, preceding the marriage of the -Empress, was, as I have urged, the ruling one seems to be further implied -by the passage in William of Malmesbury: "Ego Rogerum Salesbiriensem -episcopum sæpe dicentem audivi, 'Solutum se sacramento quod imperatrici -fecerat: eo enim pacto se jurasse, ne rex præter consilium suum et cæterorum -procerum filiam cuiquam nuptam daret extra regnum,'" etc., etc. (p. 693).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_95" id="Foot_95" href="#Ref_95">[95]</a> -As for instance when Henry II. obtained Aquitaine with his wife. -There is, as it happens, a passage in Symeon of Durham, which may have -been somewhat overlooked, where it is distinctly stated that in the autumn -of the year (1127), Henry conceded, as a condition of the Angevin match, -that, in default of his having a son, Geoffrey of Anjou should succeed him -("remque ad effectum perduxit eo tenore ut regi, de legitima conjuge hæredem -non habenti, mortuo <i>gener illius</i> in regnum succederet"). That Geoffrey's -claim was recognized at the time is clear from the striking passage quoted -by Mr. Freeman from his panegyrist ("sceptro ... non injuste aspirante"), -and even more so from the explicit statement: "Volente igitur Gaufrido -comite cum uxore suâ, quæ hæres erat [here again is an allusion to her -hereditary right], in regnum succedere, primores terræ, juramenti sui male -recordantes, reg<i>em</i> e<i>um</i> suscipere noluerunt, dicentes 'Alienigena non -regnabit super nos'" (<i>Select Charters</i>, p. 110).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_96" id="Foot_96" href="#Ref_96">[96]</a> -Compare the style of "Alphonso XIII., by the grace of God constitutional -King of Spain."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_97" id="Foot_97" href="#Ref_97">[97]</a> -"Canonica prius electione præcedente."</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">{37}</a></span> - -<h2>CHAPTER II.<br /> -<small>THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE KING.</small></h2> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">Geoffrey de Mandeville</span> -was the grandson and heir of a -follower of the conqueror of the same name. From -Mandeville, a village, according to Mr. Stapleton, near -Trevières in the Bessin,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_98" id="Ref_98" href="#Foot_98">[98]</a></span> the family took its name, which, -being Latinized as "De Magnavilla," is often found as "De -Magnaville." The elder Geoffrey appears in Domesday -as a considerable tenant-in-chief, his estates lying in no -less than eleven different counties.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_99" id="Ref_99" href="#Foot_99">[99]</a></span> On the authority of -the <i>Monasticon</i> he is said by Dugdale to have been made -constable of the Tower. Dugdale, however, has here -misquoted his own authority, for the chronicle printed by -him states, not that Geoffrey, but that his son and heir -(William) received this office.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_100" id="Ref_100" href="#Foot_100">[100]</a></span> Its statement is confirmed -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">{38}</a></span> -by Ordericus Vitalis, who distinctly mentions that the -Tower was in charge of William de Mandeville when -Randulf Flambard was there imprisoned in 1101.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_101" id="Ref_101" href="#Foot_101">[101]</a></span> This -may help to explain an otherwise puzzling fact, namely, -that a Geoffrey de Mandeville, who was presumably his -father, appears as a witness to charters of a date subsequent -to this.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_102" id="Ref_102" href="#Foot_102">[102]</a></span></p> - -<p>Geoffrey de Mandeville founded the Benedictine priory -of Hurley,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_103" id="Ref_103" href="#Foot_103">[103]</a></span> and we know the names of his two wives, -Athelais and Leceline. By the former he had a son and -heir, William, mentioned above, who in turn was the father -of Geoffrey, the central figure of this work.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_104" id="Ref_104" href="#Foot_104">[104]</a></span></p> - -<p>The above descent is not based upon the evidence of -the <i>Monasticon</i> alone, but is incidentally recited in those -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">{39}</a></span> -royal charters on which my story is so largely based. -It is therefore beyond dispute. But though there is no -pedigree of the period clearer or better established, it has -formed the subject of an amazing blunder, so gross as to -be scarcely credible. Madox had shown, in his <i>History of -the Exchequer</i> (ii. 400), that Geoffrey "Fitz Piers" (Earl of -Essex from 1199 to 1213) was Sheriff of Essex and Herts in -1192-94 (4 & 5 Ric. I.). Now Geoffrey, the son of Geoffrey -"Fitz Piers," assuming the surname of "De Mandeville," -became his successor in the earldom of Essex, which he -held from 1213 to 1216. The noble and learned authors -of the <i>Lords' Reports on the Dignity of a Peer</i> began by -confusing this Geoffrey with his namesake the earl of 1141, -and bodily transferring to the latter the whole parentage -of the former. Thus they evolved the startling discovery -that the father of our Geoffrey, the earl of 1141, "was -Geoffrey Fitz Peter [<i>i.e.</i> the earl of 1199-1213], and probably -was son of Peter, the sheriff at the time of the -Survey."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_105" id="Ref_105" href="#Foot_105">[105]</a></span> But not content even with this, they transferred -the shrievalty of Geoffrey "Fitz Piers" from 1192-94 (<i>vide -supra</i>)<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_106" id="Ref_106" href="#Foot_106">[106]</a></span> to a date earlier than the grant to Geoffrey de -Mandeville (his supposed son) in 1141. Now, during that -shrievalty the Earls "of Clare" enjoyed the <i>tertius denarius</i> -of the county of Hertford. Thus their lordships were -enabled to produce the further discovery that the Earls -"of Clare" enjoyed it before the date of this grant (1141), -that is to say, "either before or early in the reign of -King Stephen."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_107" id="Ref_107" href="#Foot_107">[107]</a></span> The authority of these Reports has -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">{40}</a></span> -been so widely recognized that we cannot wonder at -Courthope stating in his <i>Historic Peerage of England</i> -(p. 248) that "Richard de Clare ... was Earl of Hertford, -and possessed of the third penny of that county, -before or early in the reign of King Stephen." Courthope -has in turn misled Dr. Stubbs,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_108" id="Ref_108" href="#Foot_108">[108]</a></span> and Mr. Doyle has now -followed suit, stating that Richard de Clare was "created -Earl of Hertford (about) 1136."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_109" id="Ref_109" href="#Foot_109">[109]</a></span> It is therefore something -to have traced this error to its original source in the -<i>Lords' Reports</i>.</p> - -<p>The first mention, it would seem, of the subject of this -study is to be found in the Pipe-Roll of 1130, where we -read—</p> - -<p class="small">"Gaufridus de Mandeville reddit compotum de Dccclxvj<i>li.</i> et xiii<i>s.</i> et -iiij<i>d.</i> pro terra patris sui. In thesauro cxxxiii<i>li.</i> et vi<i>s.</i> et viii<i>d.</i></p> - -<p class="small">"Et debet Dcc et xxxiij<i>li.</i> et vj<i>s.</i> et viij<i>d.</i>" (p. 55).</p> - -<p>As he had thus, at Michaelmas, 1130, paid only two-thirteenths -of the amount due from him for succession, -that is the (arbitrary) "relief" to the Crown, we may infer -that his father was but lately dead. He does not again -meet us till he appears at Stephen's court early in 1136.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_110" id="Ref_110" href="#Foot_110">[110]</a></span> -From the date of that appearance we pass to his creation -as an earl by the first of those royal charters with which -we are so largely concerned.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_111" id="Ref_111" href="#Foot_111">[111]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">{41}</a></span> -The date of this charter is a point of no small interest, -not merely because we have in it the only surviving charter -of creation of those issued by Stephen, but also because -there is reason to believe that it is the oldest extant charter -of creation known to English antiquaries. That distinction -has indeed been claimed for the second charter in -my series, namely, that which Geoffrey obtained from the -Empress Maud. It is of the latter that Camden wrote, -"This is the most ancient creation-charter that I ever -saw."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_112" id="Ref_112" href="#Foot_112">[112]</a></span> Selden duly followed suit, and Dugdale echoed -Selden's words.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_113" id="Ref_113" href="#Foot_113">[113]</a></span> Courthope merely observes that it "is -presumed to be one of the very earliest charters of express -creation of the title of earl;"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_114" id="Ref_114" href="#Foot_114">[114]</a></span> and Mr. Birch pronounces -it "one of the earliest, if not the earliest, example of a -deed creating a peerage."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_115" id="Ref_115" href="#Foot_115">[115]</a></span> In despite, however, of these -opinions I am prepared to prove that the charter with -which we are now dealing is entitled to the first place, -though that of the Empress comes next.</p> - -<p>We cannot begin an investigation of the subject better -than by seeking the opinion of Mr. Eyton, who was a -specialist in the matter of charters and their dates, and -who had evidently investigated the point. His note on -this charter is as follows:—</p> - -<div class="small"> - -<p>"Stephen's earlier deeds of 1136 exhibit Geoffrey de Magnaville as -a baron only. There are three such, two of which certainly, and the -third probably, passed at Westminster. He was custos of the Tower -of London, an office which probably necessitated a constant residence. -There are three patents of creation extant by which he became Earl of -Essex. Those which I suppose to precede this were by the Empress. -The first of them passed in the short period during which Maud was -in London, <i>i.e.</i> between June 24 and July 25, 1141. The second within -a month after, at Oxford. In the latter she alludes to grants of lands -previously made by Stephen to the said Geoffrey, but to no patent of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">{42}</a></span> -earldom except her own. Selden calls Maud's London patent the -oldest on record. It is not perhaps that, but it is older than this, -though Dugdale thought not. Having decided that Stephen's patent -succeeded Maud's, it follows that it (viz. this charter) passed after -Nov. 1, 1141, when Stephen regained his liberty and Geoffrey probably -forsook the empress. The king was at London on Dec. 7. In 1142 we -are told (Lysons, <i>Camb.</i>, 9) that this Geoffrey and Earl Gilbert were -sent by Stephen against the Isle of Ely. He is called earl. We shall -also have him attesting a charter of Queen Matilda (Stephen's wife).</p> - -<p>"In 1143 he was seized in Stephen's court at St. Alban's.</p> - -<p>"In 1144 he is in high rebellion against Stephen, and an ally of -Nigel, Bishop of Ely. He is killed in Aug., 1144.</p> - -<p>"On the whole then it would appear that the Empress first made -him an earl as a means of securing London, the stronghold of Stephen's -party, but that, on Stephen's release, the earl changed sides and Stephen -opposed Maud's policy by a counter-patent (we have usually found -counter-charters, however, to be Maud's). We have also a high probability -that this charter passed in Dec., 1141, or soon after; for Stephen -does not appear at London in 1142, when Geoffrey is earl and in -Stephen's employ."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_116" id="Ref_116" href="#Foot_116">[116]</a></span></p> - -</div> - -<p>Here I must first clear the ground by explaining as to -the "three patents of creation" mentioned in this passage, -that there were only <i>two</i> charters (not "patents") of -creation—that of the king, which survives in the original, -and that of the Empress, which is known to us from a -transcript. As to the latter, it certainly "passed in the -short period during which Maud was in London," but -that period, so far from being "between June 24 and July -25, 1141," consisted only of a few days ending with "June -24, 1141." The main point, however, at issue is the -priority of the creation-charters. It will be seen that -Mr. Eyton jumped at his conclusion, and then proceeded: -"Having decided," etc. This is the more surprising -because that conclusion was at variance with what he -admits to have been his own principle, namely, that he -had "usually found counter-charters to be Maud's."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_117" id="Ref_117" href="#Foot_117">[117]</a></span> In -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">{43}</a></span> -this case his conclusion was wrong, and his original -principle was right. I think that Mr. Eyton's error was -due to his ignorance of the second charter granted by the -king to Geoffrey.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_118" id="Ref_118" href="#Foot_118">[118]</a></span> As he was well acquainted with the -royal charters in the duchy of Lancaster collection it is -not easy to understand how he came to overlook this very -long one, which is, as it were, the keystone to the arch I -am about to construct.</p> - -<p>It is my object to make Geoffrey's charters prove their -own sequence. When once arranged in their right order, -it will be clear from their contents that this order is the -only one possible. We must not attempt to decide their -dates till we have determined their order. But when that -order has been firmly established, we can approach the -question of dates with comparative ease and confidence.</p> - -<p>To determine from internal evidence the sequence of -these charters, we must arrange them in an ascending -scale. That is to say, each charter should represent an -advance on its immediate predecessor. Tried by this test, -our four main charters will assume, beyond dispute, this -relative order.</p> - -<div class="charter"> - -<ol> - <li>First charter of the king.</li> - <li>First charter of the Empress.</li> - <li>Second charter of the king.</li> - <li>Second charter of the Empress.</li> -</ol> - -</div> - -<p>The order of the three last is further established by -the fact that the grants in the second are specifically confirmed -by the third, while the third is expressly referred -to in the fourth. The only one, therefore, about which -there could possibly be a question is the first, and the fact -that the second charter represents a great advance upon it -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">{44}</a></span> -is in this case the evidence. But there is, further, the fact -that the place I have assigned it is the only one in the series -that it can possibly occupy. Nor could Mr. Eyton have -failed to arrive at this conclusion had he included within -his sphere of view the second charter of the king.</p> - -<p>It is clear that Mr. Eyton was here working from -the statements of Dugdale alone. For the three charters -he deals with are those which Dugdale gives. The order -assigned to these charters by Dugdale and Mr. Eyton -respectively can be thus briefly shown:—</p> - -<table class="order" summary=""> - -<tr> - <td>Right order</td> - <td>1</td> - <td>2</td> - <td></td> - <td>3</td> - <td>4</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>Eyton's order</td> - <td></td> - <td>2</td> - <td>4</td> - <td>1</td> - <td></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>Dugdale'a order</td> - <td>1</td> - <td>4</td> - <td>2</td> - <td></td> - <td></td> -</tr> - -</table> - -<p>How gravely Mr. Eyton erred in his conclusions will be -obvious from this table. But it is necessary to go further -still, and to say that of the seven charters affecting -Geoffrey de Mandeville, three would seem to have been -unknown to him, while of the rest, he assigned three, one -might almost say all four, to a demonstrably erroneous -date. It may be urged that this is harsh criticism, and -the more so as its subject was never published, and exists -only in the form of notes. There is much to be said for -this view, but the fact remains that rash use is certain to -be made of these notes, unless students are placed on their -guard. That this should be so is due not only to Mr. -Eyton's great and just reputation as a laborious student -in this field, but also to the exaggerated estimate of the -value and correctness of these notes which was set, somewhat -prominently, before the public.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_119" id="Ref_119" href="#Foot_119">[119]</a></span></p> - -<p>Advancing from the question of position to that of -actual date, we will glance at the opinion of another expert, -Mr. Walter de Gray Birch. We learn from him, as to the -date of this first creation-charter, that—</p> - -<div class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">{45}</a></div> - -<p class="small">"The dates of the witnesses appear to range between <small>A.D.</small> 1139 and -<small>A.D.</small> 1144.... The actual date of the circumstances mentioned in this -document is a matter of question.... He [Geoffrey] was slain on the -14th of September, <small>A.D.</small> 1144, and therefore this document must be -prior to that date."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_120" id="Ref_120" href="#Foot_120">[120]</a></span></p> - -<p>We see now that it is by no means easy to date this -charter with exactness. It will be best, in pursuance of -my usual practice, to begin by clearing the ground.</p> - -<p>If we could place any trust in the copious chronicle of -Walden Abbey, which is printed (in part) in the <i>Monasticon</i> -from the Arundel manuscript, our task would be easy -enough. For we are there told that Stephen had already -created Geoffrey an earl when, in 1136, he founded Walden -Abbey.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_121" id="Ref_121" href="#Foot_121">[121]</a></span> And, in his foundation charter, he certainly -styles himself an earl.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_122" id="Ref_122" href="#Foot_122">[122]</a></span> But, alas for this precious narrative, -it brings together at the ceremony three bishops, -Robert of London, Nigel of Ely, and William of Norwich, -of whom Robert of London was not appointed till 1141, -while William of Norwich did not obtain that see till -1146!</p> - -<p>Dismissing, therefore, this evidence, we turn to the -fact that no creation of an earldom by Stephen is mentioned -before 1138. But we have something far more -important than this in the occurrence at the head of the -witnesses to this creation-charter, of the name of William -of Ypres, the only name, indeed, among the witnesses that -strikes one as a note of time. Mr. Eyton wrote: "A -deed which I have dated 1140 ... is his first known -attestation."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_123" id="Ref_123" href="#Foot_123">[123]</a></span> I have found no evidence contrary to this -conclusion. It would seem probable that when the arrest -of the bishops "gave," in Dr. Stubbs' words, "the signal -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">{46}</a></span> -for the civil war," Stephen's preparations for the -approaching struggle would include the summons to his -side of this experienced leader, who had hitherto been -fighting in Normandy for his cause. Indeed, we know -that it was so, for he was at once despatched against the -castle of Devizes.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_124" id="Ref_124" href="#Foot_124">[124]</a></span></p> - -<p>Happily, however, there remains a writ, which should -incidentally, we shall find, prove the key to the problem. -This, which is printed among the footnotes in Madox's -<i>Baronia Anglica</i> (p. 231), from the muniments of Westminster -Abbey, is addressed "Gaufrido de Magnavilla" -simply, and is, therefore, previous to his elevation to the -earldom. Now, as this writ refers to the death of Roger, -Bishop of Salisbury, it must be later than the 11th of -December, 1139.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_125" id="Ref_125" href="#Foot_125">[125]</a></span> Consequently Geoffrey's charter must be -subsequent to that date. It must also be previous to the -battle of Lincoln (February, 1141), because, as I observed at -the outset, it must be previous to the charter of the Empress. -We therefore virtually narrow its limit to the year 1140, -for Stephen had set out for Lincoln before the close of the -year.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_126" id="Ref_126" href="#Foot_126">[126]</a></span> Let us try and reduce it further still. What was -the date of the above writ? Stephen, on the death of -Bishop Roger, hastened to visit Salisbury.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_127" id="Ref_127" href="#Foot_127">[127]</a></span> He went there -from Oxford to spend Christmas (1139), and then returned -to Reading (<i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i>). Going and returning he -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">{47}</a></span> -would have passed through Andover, the place at which -this writ is tested. Thus it could have been, and probably -was, issued at this period (December, 1139). Obviously, -if it was issued in the course of 1140, this would reduce -still further the possible limit within which Geoffrey's -charter can have passed. Difficult though it is to trace -the incessant movements of the king throughout this -troubled year, he certainly visited Winchester, and (probably -thence) Malmesbury. Still we have not, I believe, -proof of his presence at Andover.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_128" id="Ref_128" href="#Foot_128">[128]</a></span> And there are other -grounds, I shall now show, for thinking that the earldom -was conferred before March, 1140.</p> - -<p>William of Newburgh, speaking of the arrest of Geoffrey -de Mandeville, assures us that Stephen bore an old grudge -against him, which he had hitherto been forced to conceal. -Its cause was a gross outrage by Geoffrey, who, on the -arrival of Constance of France, the bride of Eustace the -heir-apparent, had forcibly detained her in the Tower.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_129" id="Ref_129" href="#Foot_129">[129]</a></span> -We fix the date of this event as February or March, 1140, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">{48}</a></span> -from the words of the Continuator of Florence,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_130" id="Ref_130" href="#Foot_130">[130]</a></span> and that -date agrees well with Henry of Huntingdon's statement, -that Stephen had bought his son's bride with the treasure -he obtained by the death of the great Bishop of Salisbury -(December 11, 1139).<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_131" id="Ref_131" href="#Foot_131">[131]</a></span></p> - -<p>It would seem, of course, highly improbable that this -audacious insult to the royal family would have been -followed by the grant of an earldom. We might consequently -infer that, in all likelihood, Geoffrey had already -obtained his earldom.</p> - -<p>We have, however, to examine the movements of -Stephen at the time. The king returned, as we saw, to -Reading, after spending his Christmas at Salisbury. He -was then summoned to the Fen country by the revolt of -the Bishop of Ely, and he set out thither, says Henry of -Huntingdon, "post Natale" (p. 267). He <i>may</i> have taken -Westminster on his way, but there is no evidence that he -did. He had, however, returned to London by the middle -of March, to take part in a Mid-Lent council.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_132" id="Ref_132" href="#Foot_132">[132]</a></span> His movements -now become more difficult to trace than ever, but -it may have been after this that he marched on Hereford -and Worcester.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_133" id="Ref_133" href="#Foot_133">[133]</a></span> Our next glimpse of him is at Whitsuntide -(May 26), when he kept the festival in sorry state at -the Tower.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_134" id="Ref_134" href="#Foot_134">[134]</a></span> It has been suggested that it was for security -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">{49}</a></span> -that he sought the shelter of its walls. But this explanation -is disposed of by the fact that the citizens of London -were his best friends and proved, the year after, the virtual -salvation of his cause. It would seem more likely that he -was anxious to reassert his impaired authority and to -destroy the effect of Geoffrey's outrage, which might otherwise -have been ruinous to his <i>prestige</i>.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_135" id="Ref_135" href="#Foot_135">[135]</a></span></p> - -<p>It was, as I read it, at the close of Whitsuntide, that -is, about the beginning of June, that the king set forth for -East Anglia, and, attacking Hugh Bigod, took his castle of -Bungay.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_136" id="Ref_136" href="#Foot_136">[136]</a></span></p> - -<p>In August the king again set forth to attack Hugh -Bigod;<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_137" id="Ref_137" href="#Foot_137">[137]</a></span> and either to this, or to his preceding East -Anglian campaign, we may safely assign his charter, -granted at Norwich, to the Abbey of Reading.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_138" id="Ref_138" href="#Foot_138">[138]</a></span> Now, the -first witness to this charter is Geoffrey de Mandeville himself, -who is not styled an earl. We learn, then, that, at -least as late as June, 1140, Geoffrey had not received his -earldom. This would limit the date of his creation to -June-December, 1140, or virtually, at the outside, a period -of six months.</p> - -<p>Such, then, is the ultimate conclusion to which our -inquiry leads us. And if it be asked why Stephen should -confer an earldom on Geoffrey at this particular time, -the reply is at hand in the condition of affairs, which had -now become sufficiently critical for Geoffrey to begin the -game he had made up his mind to play. For Stephen -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">{50}</a></span> -could not with prudence refuse his demand for an -earldom.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_139" id="Ref_139" href="#Foot_139">[139]</a></span></p> - -<p>The first corollary of this conclusion is that "the -second type" of Stephen's great seal (which is that -appended to this charter) must have been already in use -in the year 1140, that is to say, before his fall in 1141.</p> - -<p>Mr. Birch, who, I need hardly say, is the recognized -authority on the subject, has devoted one of his learned -essays on the Great Seals of the Kings of England to those -of Stephen.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_140" id="Ref_140" href="#Foot_140">[140]</a></span> He has appended to it photographs of the -two types in use under this sovereign, and has given -the text of nineteen original sealed charters, which he has -divided into two classes according to the types of their -seals. The conclusion at which he arrived as the result -of this classification was that the existence of "two distinctly -variant types" is proved (all traces of a third, if -it ever existed, being now lost), one of which represents the -earlier, and the other the later, portion of the reign.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_141" id="Ref_141" href="#Foot_141">[141]</a></span> To -the former belong nine, and to the latter ten of the charters -which he quotes in his paper. The only point on which a -question can arise is the date at which the earlier was replaced -by the later type. Mr. Birch is of opinion that—</p> - -<p class="small">"the consideration of the second seal tends to indicate the alteration -of the type subsequent to his liberation from the hands of the Empress, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">{51}</a></span> -and it is most natural to suppose that this alteration is owing to the -destruction or loss of his seal consequent to his own capture and -incarceration" (p. 15).</p> - -<p>There can be no doubt that this is the most natural -suggestion; but if, as I contend, the very first two of the -charters adduced by Mr. Birch as specimens of the later -type are previous to "his capture and incarceration," it -follows that his later great seal must have been adopted -before that event. One of these charters is that which -forms the subject of this chapter; the other is preserved -among the records of the duchy of Lancaster.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_142" id="Ref_142" href="#Foot_142">[142]</a></span> -At the date when the latter was granted, the king was -in possession of the temporalities of the see of Lincoln, -which he had seized on the arrest of the bishops in -June, 1139. As Alexander had regained possession of -his see by the time of the battle of Lincoln, this charter -must have passed before Stephen's capture, and most -probably passed a year or more before. We have then -to account for the adoption by Stephen of a new great -seal, certainly before 1141, and possibly as early as 1139. -Is it not possible that this event may be connected with the -arrest of the chancellor and his mighty kinsmen in June, -1139, and that the seal may have been made away with in -his and their interest, as on the flight of James II., in order -to increase the confusion consequent on that arrest?<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_143" id="Ref_143" href="#Foot_143">[143]</a></span></p> - -<p>And now we come to Geoffrey's charter itself<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_144" id="Ref_144" href="#Foot_144">[144]</a></span>:—</p> - -<p>"S. Rex Ang[lorum] Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus -Comitibus Justiciis Baronibus Vicecomitibus et -Omnibus Ministris et fidelibus suis francis et Anglis -totius Angliæ salutem. Sciatis me fecisse Comitem de -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">{52}</a></span> -Gaufr[ido] de Magnauillâ de Comitatu Essex[e] hereditarie. -Quare uolo et concedo et firmiter precipio quod -ipse et heredes sui post eum hereditario jure teneant de -me et de heredibus meis bene et in pace et libere et quiete -et honorifice sicut alii Comites mei de terrâ meâ melius vel -liberius vel honorificentius tenent Comitatus suos unde -Comites sunt cum omnibus dignitatibus et libertatibus et -consuetudinibus cum quibus alii Comites mei prefati -dignius vel liberius tenent.</p> - -<p>"T[estibus] Will[elm]o de Iprâ et Henr[ico] de Essexâ<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_145" id="Ref_145" href="#Foot_145">[145]</a></span> -et Joh[ann]e fil[io] Rob[erti] fil[ii] Walt[eri]<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_146" id="Ref_146" href="#Foot_146">[146]</a></span> et Rob[erto] -de Nouo burgo<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_147" id="Ref_147" href="#Foot_147">[147]</a></span> et Mainfen[ino] Britoñ<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_148" id="Ref_148" href="#Foot_148">[148]</a></span> et Turg[esio] de -Abrinc[is]<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_149" id="Ref_149" href="#Foot_149">[149]</a></span> et Will[elm]o de S[an]c[t]o Claro<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_150" id="Ref_150" href="#Foot_150">[150]</a></span> et Will[elm]o -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">{53}</a></span> -de Dammart[in]<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_151" id="Ref_151" href="#Foot_151">[151]</a></span> et Ric[ardo] fil[io] Ursi<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_152" id="Ref_152" href="#Foot_152">[152]</a></span> et Will[elm]o -de Auco<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_153" id="Ref_153" href="#Foot_153">[153]</a></span> et Ric[ardo] fil[io] Osb[erti]<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_154" id="Ref_154" href="#Foot_154">[154]</a></span> et Radulfo -de Wiret<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_155" id="Ref_155" href="#Foot_155">[155]</a></span> (<i>sic</i>) et Eglin[o]<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_156" id="Ref_156" href="#Foot_156">[156]</a></span> et Will[elm]o fil[io] Alur[edi]<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_157" id="Ref_157" href="#Foot_157">[157]</a></span> -et Will[elmo] filio Ernald[i].<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_158" id="Ref_158" href="#Foot_158">[158]</a></span> Apud Westmonasterium."</p> - -<p>Taking this, as I believe it to be, as our earliest charter -of creation extant or even known, the chief point to attract -our notice is its intensely hereditary character. Geoffrey -receives the earldom "hereditarie," for himself "et -heredes sui post eum hereditario jure." The terms in -which the grant is made are of tantalizing vagueness; -and, compared with the charters by which it was followed, -this is remarkable for its brevity, and for the total omission -of those accompanying concessions which the statements -of our historians would lead us to expect without fail.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_159" id="Ref_159" href="#Foot_159">[159]</a></span> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">{54}</a></span></p> - -<p>We must now pass from the grant of this charter to -the great day of Lincoln (February 2, 1141), where the fortunes -of England and her king were changed "in the -twinkling of an eye" by the wild charge of "the Disinherited," -as they rode for death or victory.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_160" id="Ref_160" href="#Foot_160">[160]</a></span></p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_98" id="Foot_98" href="#Ref_98">[98]</a> -<i>Rotuli Scaccarii Normanniæ</i>, <small>II.</small> clxxxviii. Such was also the opinion -of M. Leopold Delisle. The French editors, however, of Ordericus write: -"On ne sait auquel des nombreux Magneville, Mandeville, Manneville de -Normandie rapporter le berceau de cette illustre maison" (iv. 108).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_99" id="Foot_99" href="#Ref_99">[99]</a> -There is a curious story in the Waltham Chronicle (<i>De Inventione</i>, -cap. xiii.) that the Conqueror placed Geoffrey in the shoes of Esegar the -staller. The passage runs thus: "Cui [Tovi] successit filius ejus Adelstanus -pater Esegari qui stalra inventus est in Angliæ conquisitione a Normannis, -cuius hereditatem postea dedit conquisitor terræ, rex Willelmus, Galfrido de -Mandevile proavi presentis comitis Willelmi. Successit quidem Adelstanus -patri suo Tovi, non in totam quidem possessionem quam possederat pater, sed -in eam tantum quæ pertinebat ad stallariam, quam nunc habet comes -Willelmus." The special interest of this story lies in the official connection -of Esegar [or Ansgar] the staller with London and Middlesex, combined with -the fact that Geoffrey occupied the same position. See p. 354, and Addenda.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_100" id="Foot_100" href="#Ref_100">[100]</a> -"Post cujus [<i>i.e.</i> Galfridi] mortem reliquit filium suum hæredem, cui -firmitas turris Londoniarum custodienda committitur. Nobili cum Rege -magnificé plura gessit patri non immerito in rebus agendis coæqualis" -(<i>Monasticon</i>). Dugdale's error, as we might expect, is followed by later -writers, Mr. Clark treating Geoffrey as the first "hereditary constable," and -his son, whom with characteristic inaccuracy he transforms from "William" -into "Walter," as the second (<i>Mediæval Military Architecture</i>, ii. 253, 254). -The French editors of Ordericus (iv. 108) strangely imagined that William -was brother, not son, of Geoffrey de Mandeville.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_101" id="Foot_101" href="#Ref_101">[101]</a> -"In arce Lundoniensi Guillelmo de Magnavilla custodiendus in vinculis -traditus est" (iv. 108).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_102" id="Foot_102" href="#Ref_102">[102]</a> -See for instance <i>Abingdon Cartulary</i>, ii. 73, 85, 116, where he attests -charters of <i>circ.</i> 1110-1112.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_103" id="Foot_103" href="#Ref_103">[103]</a> -<i>Monasticon</i>, iii. 433. He founds the priory "pro anima Athelaisæ -primæ uxoris meæ, matris filiorum meorum jam defunctæ;" and "Lecelina -domina uxor mea" is a witness to the charter.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_104" id="Foot_104" href="#Ref_104">[104]</a> -It is necessary to check by authentic charters and other trustworthy -evidence the chronicles printed in the <i>Monasticon</i> under Walden Abbey. -One of these was taken from a long and interesting MS., formerly in the -possession of the Royal Society, but now among the Arundel MSS. in the -British Museum. This, which is only partially printed, and which ought to -be published in its entirety, has the commencement wanting, and is, -unfortunately, very inaccurate for the early period of which I treat. It is -this narrative which makes the wild misstatements as to the circumstances of -the foundation, which grossly misdates Geoffrey's death, etc., etc. All its -statements are accepted by Dugdale. The other chronicle, which he printed -from Cott. MS., Titus, D. 20, is far more accurate, gives Geoffrey's death correctly, -and rightly assigns him as wife the <i>sister</i> (not the daughter) of the -Earl of Oxford, thus correcting Dugdale's error. It is the latter chronicle -which Dugdale has misquoted with reference to the charge of the Tower.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_105" id="Foot_105" href="#Ref_105">[105]</a> -Who was really Peter de Valognes.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_106" id="Foot_106" href="#Ref_106">[106]</a> -"Madox ... has shown ... that Geoffrey Fitzpeter, Earl of Essex, -obtained from the Crown Grants of the shrievalty of the Counties of Essex -and Hertford when the Earls, commonly called Earls of Clare, were Earls of -Hertford, and had the Third Penny of the Pleas of that County" (iii. 69, -ed. 1829).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_107" id="Foot_107" href="#Ref_107">[107]</a> -"The County of Hertford appears to have been, at the time of the -Survey, in the King's hands, and Peter was then Sheriff; and the Sheriffwick -of Hertfordshire was afterwards granted in Fee, by the Empress Maud, to -Geoffrey de Mandeville, Earl of Essex, at a rent as his father and grandfather -had held it. The father of Geoffrey was Geoffrey Fitz Peter, and -probably was son of Peter, the Sheriff at the time of the Survey. The first -trace which the Committee has discovered of the title of the Earls of Clare -to the Third Penny of the County is in the reign of Henry the Second, -subsequent to the grants under which the Earls of Essex claimed the -Shrievalty in fee, at a fee-farm rent. But the grant of the Third Penny must -have been of an earlier date, as the grant to the Earl of Essex was subject -to that charge. The family of Clare must therefore have had the Third -Penny either before or early in the Reign of King Stephen" (iii. 125).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_108" id="Foot_108" href="#Ref_108">[108]</a> -<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 362.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_109" id="Foot_109" href="#Ref_109">[109]</a> -<i>Official Baronage</i>, ii. 175.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_110" id="Foot_110" href="#Ref_110">[110]</a> -See Appendix C.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_111" id="Foot_111" href="#Ref_111">[111]</a> -See Frontispiece.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_112" id="Foot_112" href="#Ref_112">[112]</a> -<i>Degrees of England.</i></p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_113" id="Foot_113" href="#Ref_113">[113]</a> -"Note that this is the most ancient creation-charter which hath ever -been known." <i>Vide</i> Selden, <i>Titles of Honour</i>, p. 647.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_114" id="Foot_114" href="#Ref_114">[114]</a> -<i>Historic Peerage</i>, p. 178.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_115" id="Foot_115" href="#Ref_115">[115]</a> -<i>Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass.</i>, xxxi. 386.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_116" id="Foot_116" href="#Ref_116">[116]</a> -<i>Addl. MSS.</i>, 31,943, fol. 97.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_117" id="Foot_117" href="#Ref_117">[117]</a> -Comp. fol. 96: "My position is that where this system of -counter-charters between Stephen and the Empress <i>is proved</i>, the former generally is -the first in point of date."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_118" id="Foot_118" href="#Ref_118">[118]</a> -See p. 41 <i>ad pedem</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_119" id="Foot_119" href="#Ref_119">[119]</a> -<i>Notes and Queries</i>, 6th Series, v. 83.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_120" id="Foot_120" href="#Ref_120">[120]</a> -<i>On the Great Seal of King Stephen</i>, pp. 19, 20.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_121" id="Foot_121" href="#Ref_121">[121]</a> -"Apud regem Stephanum, ac totius regni majores tanti erat ut nomine -comitis et re jampridem dignus haberetur" (<i>Mon. Angl.</i>, vol. iv. p. 141).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_122" id="Foot_122" href="#Ref_122">[122]</a> -"Gaufridus de Magnavillâ comes Essexe" (<i>ibid.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_123" id="Foot_123" href="#Ref_123">[123]</a> -<i>Addl. MSS.</i> 31,943, fol. 85 <i>dors.</i></p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_124" id="Foot_124" href="#Ref_124">[124]</a> -<i>Ordericus Vitalis</i>, vol. v. p. 120.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_125" id="Foot_125" href="#Ref_125">[125]</a> -See p. 282, <i>n.</i> 4.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_126" id="Foot_126" href="#Ref_126">[126]</a> -"Protractaque est obsidio [Lincolnie] a diebus Natalis Domini (1140) -usque ad Ypapanti Domini" (<i>Will. Newburgh</i>, i. 39).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_127" id="Foot_127" href="#Ref_127">[127]</a> -To this visit may be assigned three charters (<i>Sarum Charters and -Documents</i>, pp. 9-11) of interest for their witnesses. Two of them are attested -by Philip the chancellor, who is immediately followed by Roger de Fécamp. -The latter had similarly followed the preceding chancellor, Roger, in one -of Stephen's charters of 1136 (see p. 263), which establishes his official -position. Among the other witnesses were Bishop Robert of Hereford, -Count Waleran of Meulan, Robert de Ver, William Martel, Robert d'Oilli -with Fulk his brother, Turgis d'Avranches, Walter de Salisbury, Ingelram -de Say, and William de Pont de l'Arche.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_128" id="Foot_128" href="#Ref_128">[128]</a> -The "P. cancellarius," by whom the writ is tested, was a chancellor of -whom, according to Foss, virtually nothing is known. He was, however, -Philip (de Harcourt), on whom the king conferred at Winchester, in 1140, -the vacant see of Salisbury ("Rex Wintoniam veniens consilio baronum -suorum cancellario suo Philippo Searebyriensem præsulatum ... dedit" -(<i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i>)). But the chapter refused to accept him as bishop, and -eventually he was provided for by the see of Bayeux. He is likely, with or -without the king, to have gone straight to Salisbury after his appointment -at Winchester, in which case he would not have been present at Andover, -even if Stephen himself was.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_129" id="Foot_129" href="#Ref_129">[129]</a> -"Acceptam ab eo injuriam rex caute dissimulabat, et tempus opportunum -quo se ulcisceretur, observabat. Injuria vero quam regi nequam ille intulerat -talis erat. Rex ante annos aliquot episcopi, ut dictum est, Salesbiriensis -thesauros adeptus, summa non modica regi Francorum Lodovico transmissa, -sororem ejus Constantiam Eustachio filio suo desponderat; ... eratque hæc -cum socru sua regina Lundoniis. Cumque regina ad alium forte vellet cum -eadem nuru sua locum migrare, memoratus Gaufridus arci tunc præsidens, -restitit; nuruque de manibus socrus, pro viribus obnitentis, abstracta atque -retenta, illam cum ignominia abire permisit. Postea vero reposcenti, et justum -motum pro tempore dissimulanti, regi socero insignem prædam ægre resignavit" -(ii. 45).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_130" id="Foot_130" href="#Ref_130">[130]</a> -(1140) "Facta est desponsatio illorum mense Februario in transmarinis -partibus, matre regina Anglorum præsente" (ii. 725).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_131" id="Foot_131" href="#Ref_131">[131]</a> -"Accipiens thesauros episcopi comparavit inde Constantiam sororem -Lodovici regis Francorum ad opus Eustachii filii sui" (p. 265). It is amusing -to learn from his champion (the author of the <i>Gesta Stephani</i>) that the king -spent this treasure on good and pious works. This matrimonial alliance is -deserving of careful attention, for the fact that Stephen was prepared to buy -it with treasure which he sorely needed proves its importance in his eyes as -a prop to his now threatened throne.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_132" id="Foot_132" href="#Ref_132">[132]</a> -<i>Annals of Waverley</i> (<i>Ann. Mon.</i>, ii. 228), where it is stated that, at this -council, Stephen gave the see of Salisbury to his chancellor, Philip. According, -however, to the Continuator of Florence, he did this not at London, but -at Winchester (see p. 47, <i>supra</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_133" id="Foot_133" href="#Ref_133">[133]</a> -See the Continuator of Florence.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_134" id="Foot_134" href="#Ref_134">[134]</a> -<i>Will. Malms.</i></p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_135" id="Foot_135" href="#Ref_135">[135]</a> -See p. 81 as to the alleged riot in London and death of Aubrey de -Vere, three weeks before.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_136" id="Foot_136" href="#Ref_136">[136]</a> -"Ad Pentecostem ivit rex cum exercitu suo super Hugonem Bigod in -Sudfolc" <i>Ann. Wav.</i> (<i>Ann. Mon.</i>, ii. 228).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_137" id="Foot_137" href="#Ref_137">[137]</a> -"Item in Augusto perrexit super eum et concordati sunt, sed non diu -duravit" (<i>ibid.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_138" id="Foot_138" href="#Ref_138">[138]</a> -Printed in <i>Archæological Journal</i>, xx. 291. Its second witness is Richard -de Luci, whom I have not elsewhere found attesting before Christmas, 1141.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_139" id="Foot_139" href="#Ref_139">[139]</a> -If, as would seem, Hugh Bigod appears first as an earl at the battle -of Lincoln, when he fought on Stephen's side, it may well be that the -"concordia" between them in August, 1140, similarly comprised the concession -by the king of comital rank. On the other hand, there is a noteworthy -charter (<i>Harl. Cart.</i>, 43, c. 13) of Stephen, which seems to belong to -the winter of 1140-1, to which Hugh Bigod is witness, not as an earl, so -that his creation may have taken place very shortly before Stephen's fall. -As this charter, according to Mr. Birch, has the second type of Stephen's -seal, it strengthens the view advanced in the text.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_140" id="Foot_140" href="#Ref_140">[140]</a> -<i>Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature</i>, vol. xi., New Series.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_141" id="Foot_141" href="#Ref_141">[141]</a> -Mr. Birch points out the interesting fact that while the earlier type -has an affinity to that of the great seal of Henry I., the later approximates -to that adopted under Henry II.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_142" id="Foot_142" href="#Ref_142">[142]</a> -<i>Royal Charters</i>, No. 15. See my <i>Ancient Charters</i>, p. 39.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_143" id="Foot_143" href="#Ref_143">[143]</a> -Dr. Stubbs observes that the consequence of the arrest was that "the -whole administration of the country ceased to work" (<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 326).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_144" id="Foot_144" href="#Ref_144">[144]</a> -Cotton Charter, vii. 4. See Frontispiece.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_145" id="Foot_145" href="#Ref_145">[145]</a> -This is the well-known Henry de Essex (see Appendix U), son of -Robert (<i>Rot. Pip.</i>, 31 Hen. I.), and grandson of Swegen of Essex (Domesday). -He witnessed several of Stephen's charters, probably later in the reign, -but was also a witness to the Empress's charters to the Earls of Oxford and -of Essex (<i>vide post</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_146" id="Foot_146" href="#Ref_146">[146]</a> -A John, son of Robert fitz Walter (sheriff of East Anglia, <i>temp.</i> -Hen. I.), occurs in <i>Ramsey Cartulary</i>, i. 149.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_147" id="Foot_147" href="#Ref_147">[147]</a> -Robert de Neufbourg, said to have been a younger son of Henry, Earl -of Warwick, occurs in connection with Warwickshire in 1130 (<i>Rot. Pip.</i>, 31 -Hen. I.). Mr. Yeatman characteristically advances "the idea that Robert de -Arundel and Robert de Novoburgo were identical." He was afterwards -Justiciary of Normandy (<i>Ord. Vit.</i>), having sided with Geoffrey of Anjou -(<i>Rot. Scacc. Norm.</i>). He is mentioned in the Pipe-Rolls of 2 and 4 Henry -II. According to Dugdale, he died (on the authority of the <i>Chronicon Normanniæ</i>), -in August, 1158, a date followed by Mr. Yeatman. Mr. Eyton, -however (<i>Court and Itinerary</i>, p. 47), on the same authority (with a reference -also to Gervase, which I cannot verify) makes him die in August, 1159. The -true date seems to have been August 30, 1159, when he died at Bec (<i>Robert -de Torigni</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_148" id="Foot_148" href="#Ref_148">[148]</a> -The Maenfininus Brito (Mr. Birch reads "Mamseu"), who, in the -Pipe-Roll of 1130 (p. 100), was late sheriff of Bucks. and Beds. Probably -father of Hamo filius Meinfelini, the Bucks. baron of 1166 (<i>Cartæ</i>). See -also p. 201, <i>n.</i> 2.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_149" id="Foot_149" href="#Ref_149">[149]</a> -Turgis d'Avranches appears in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. as having -married the widow of Hugh "de Albertivillâ." We shall find him witnessing -Stephen's second charter to the earl (Christmas, 1141).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_150" id="Foot_150" href="#Ref_150">[150]</a> -William de St. Clare occurs in Dorset and Huntingdonshire in 1130 -(<i>Rot. Pip.</i>, 31 Hen. I.). He was, I presume, of the same family as Hamon -de St. Clare, <i>custos</i> of Colchester in 1130 (<i>ibid.</i>), who was among the witnesses -to Stephen's Charter of Liberties (Oxford) in 1136.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_151" id="Foot_151" href="#Ref_151">[151]</a> -Odo de Dammartin states in his <i>Carta</i> (1166) that he held one fee (in -Norfolk) of the king, of which he had enfeoffed, <i>temp.</i> Hen. I., his brother, -William de Dammartin.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_152" id="Foot_152" href="#Ref_152">[152]</a> -Richard fitz Urse is of special interest as the father (see <i>Liber Niger</i>) of -Reginald fitz Urse, one of Becket's murderers. He occurs repeatedly in the -Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. After this charter he reappears at the battle of -Lincoln (Feb. 2, 1141):—"Capitur etiam Ricardus filius Ursi, qui in ictibus -dandis recipiendisque clarus et gloriosus comparuit" (<i>Hen. Hunt.</i>, p. 274). -For his marriage to Sybil, daughter of Baldwin de Bollers by Sybil de Falaise -(<i>neptis</i> of Henry I.), see Eyton's <i>Shropshire</i>, xi. 127, and <i>Genealogist</i>, N.S., iii. -195. One would welcome information on his connection, if any, with the -terrible sheriff, Urse d'Abetot, and his impetuous son; but I know of none.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_153" id="Foot_153" href="#Ref_153">[153]</a> -William de Eu appears as a tenant of four knights' fees <i>de veteri feoffamento</i> -under Mandeville in the <i>Liber Niger</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_154" id="Foot_154" href="#Ref_154">[154]</a> -Richard fitz Osbert similarly figures (<i>Liber Niger</i>) as a tenant of four -knights' fees <i>de veteri feoffamento</i>. He also held a knight's fee of the Bishop -of Ely in Cambridgeshire. An Osbert fitz Richard, probably his son, attests -a charter of Geoffrey's son, Earl William, to Walden Abbey.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_155" id="Foot_155" href="#Ref_155">[155]</a> -A Ralph de <i>Worcester</i> occurs in the <i>Cartæ</i> and elsewhere under Henry II.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_156" id="Foot_156" href="#Ref_156">[156]</a> -"Eglino," an unusual name, probably represents "Egelino de Furnis," -who attests a charter of Stephen at Eye (<i>Formularium Anglicanum</i>, p. 154).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_157" id="Foot_157" href="#Ref_157">[157]</a> -William fitz Alfred held one fee of Mandeville <i>de novo feoffamento</i>. -He also attests the earl's foundation charter of Walden Abbey (<i>Mon. Ang.</i>, -iv. 149). A William fitz Alfred occurs, also, in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_158" id="Foot_158" href="#Ref_158">[158]</a> -William fitz Ernald similarly held one knight's fee <i>de novo feoffamento</i>. -He also attests the above foundation charter just after William fitz Alfred.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_159" id="Foot_159" href="#Ref_159">[159]</a> -See Appendix D, on "Fiscal Earls."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_160" id="Foot_160" href="#Ref_160">[160]</a> -"Acies exhæredatorum, quæ præibat, percussit aciem regalem ... -tanto impetu, quod statim, quasi in ictu oculi, dissipata est.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">{55}</a></span> - -<h2>CHAPTER III.<br /> -<small>TRIUMPH OF THE EMPRESS.</small></h2> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">At</span> -the time of this sudden and decisive triumph, the -Empress had been in England some sixteen months. With -the Earl of Gloucester, she had landed at Arundel,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_161" id="Ref_161" href="#Foot_161">[161]</a></span> on -September 30, 1139,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_162" id="Ref_162" href="#Foot_162">[162]</a></span> and while her brother, escorted by -a few knights, made his way to his stronghold at Bristol, -had herself, attended by her Angevin suite, sought shelter -with her step-mother, the late queen, in the famous castle -of Arundel. Stephen had promptly appeared before its -walls, but, either deeming the fortress impregnable or -being misled by treacherous counsel,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_163" id="Ref_163" href="#Foot_163">[163]</a></span> had not only raised -his blockade of the castle, but had allowed the Empress to -set out for Bristol, and had given her for escort his brother -the legate, and his trusted supporter the Count of Meulan.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_164" id="Ref_164" href="#Foot_164">[164]</a></span> -From the legate her brother had received her at a spot -appointed beforehand, and had then returned with her to -Bristol. Here she was promptly visited by the constable, -Miles of Gloucester, who at once acknowledged her claims -as "the rightful heir" of England.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_165" id="Ref_165" href="#Foot_165">[165]</a></span> Escorted by him, she -removed to Gloucester, of which he was hereditary castellan, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">{56}</a></span> -and received the submission of that city, and of -all the country round about.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_166" id="Ref_166" href="#Foot_166">[166]</a></span> The statements of the -chroniclers can here be checked, and are happily confirmed -and amplified by a charter of the Empress, apparently -unknown, but of great historical interest. The following -abstract is given in a transcript taken from the lost volume -of the Great Coucher of the duchy<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_167" id="Ref_167" href="#Foot_167">[167]</a></span>:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Carta Matilde Imperatricis in quâ dicit, quod<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_168" id="Ref_168" href="#Foot_168">[168]</a></span> quando in -Angliam venit post mortem H. patris sui<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_169" id="Ref_169" href="#Foot_169">[169]</a></span> Milo de Gloecestrâ quam -citius potuit venit ad se<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_170" id="Ref_170" href="#Foot_170">[170]</a></span> apud Bristolliam et recepit me ut dominam -et sicut illam quam justum hæredem regni Angliæ recognovit, et -inde me secum ad Gloecestram adduxit et ibi homagium suum mihi -fecit ligie contra omnes homines. Et volo vos scire quod tunc quando -homagium suum apud Gloecestram recepit, dedi ei pro servicio suo in -feodo et hereditate sibi et heredibus suis castellum de Sancto Briavel(li) -et totam forestam de Dene,"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_171" id="Ref_171" href="#Foot_171">[171]</a></span> etc., etc.</p> - -<p>It was at Gloucester that she received the news of her -brother's victory at Lincoln (February 2, 1141), and it was -there that he joined her, with his royal captive, on Quinquagesima -Sunday (February 9).<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_172" id="Ref_172" href="#Foot_172">[172]</a></span> It was at once decided -that the king should be despatched to Bristol Castle,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_173" id="Ref_173" href="#Foot_173">[173]</a></span> and -that he should be there kept a prisoner for life.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_174" id="Ref_174" href="#Foot_174">[174]</a></span></p> - -<p>In the utter paralysis of government consequent on the -king's capture, there was not a day to be lost on the part -of the Empress and her friends. The Empress herself was -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">{57}</a></span> -intoxicated with joy, and eager for the fruits of victory.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_175" id="Ref_175" href="#Foot_175">[175]</a></span> -Within a fortnight of the battle, she set out from -Gloucester, on what may be termed her first progress.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_176" id="Ref_176" href="#Foot_176">[176]</a></span> -Her destination was, of course, Winchester, the spot to -which her eyes would at once be turned. She halted, -however, for a while at Cirencester,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_177" id="Ref_177" href="#Foot_177">[177]</a></span> to allow time for -completing the negotiations with the legate.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_178" id="Ref_178" href="#Foot_178">[178]</a></span> It was -finally agreed that, advancing to Winchester, she should -meet him in an open space, without the walls, for a conference. -This spot a charter of the Empress enables us -apparently to identify with Wherwell.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_179" id="Ref_179" href="#Foot_179">[179]</a></span> Hither, on Sunday, -the 2nd of March, a wet and gloomy day,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_180" id="Ref_180" href="#Foot_180">[180]</a></span> the clergy and -people, headed by the legate, with the monks and nuns of -the religious houses, and such magnates of the realm as -were present, streamed forth from the city to meet her.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_181" id="Ref_181" href="#Foot_181">[181]</a></span></p> - -<p>The compact ("pactum") which followed was strictly -on the lines of that by means of which Stephen had -secured the throne. The Empress, on her part, swore that -if the legate would accept her as "domina," he should -henceforth have his way in all ecclesiastical matters. And -her leading followers swore that this oath should be kept. -Thereupon the legate agreed to receive her as "Lady of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">{58}</a></span> -England," and promised her the allegiance of himself and -of his followers so long as she should keep her oath. The -whole agreement is most important, and, as such, should -be carefully studied.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_182" id="Ref_182" href="#Foot_182">[182]</a></span></p> - -<p>On the morrow (March 3) the Empress entered Winchester, -and was received in state in the cathedral, the -legate supporting her on the right, and Bernard of St. -David's on the left.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_183" id="Ref_183" href="#Foot_183">[183]</a></span></p> - -<p>Now, it is most important to have a clear understanding -of what really took place upon this occasion.</p> - -<p>The main points to keep before us are—(1) that there -are two distinct episodes, that of the 2nd and 3rd of March, -and that of the 7th and 8th of April, five weeks intervening -between them, during which the Empress left Winchester -to make her second progress; (2) that the first -episode was that of her <i>reception</i> at Winchester, the second -(also at Winchester) that of her <i>election</i>.</p> - -<p>It is, perhaps, not surprising that our historians are -here in woeful confusion. Dr. Stubbs alone is, as usual, -right. Writing from the standpoint of a constitutional -historian, he is only concerned with the election of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">{59}</a></span> -Empress, and to this he assigns its correct date.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_184" id="Ref_184" href="#Foot_184">[184]</a></span> In his -useful and excellent <i>English History</i>, Mr. Bright, on the -contrary, ignores the interval, and places the second -episode "a few days after" the first.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_185" id="Ref_185" href="#Foot_185">[185]</a></span> Professor Pearson, -whose work is that which is generally used for this period, -omits altogether the earlier episode.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_186" id="Ref_186" href="#Foot_186">[186]</a></span> Mr. Birch, on the -other hand, in his historical introduction to his valuable -<i>fasciculus</i> of the charters of the Empress, ignores altogether -the later episode, though he goes into this question with -special care. Indeed, he does more than this; for he -transfers the election itself from the later to the earlier -occasion, and assigns to the episode of March 2 and 3 the -events of April 7 and 8. This cardinal error vitiates his -elaborate argument,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_187" id="Ref_187" href="#Foot_187">[187]</a></span> and, indeed, makes confusion worse -confounded. Mr. Freeman, though, of course, in a less -degree, seems inclined to err in the same direction, when -he assigns to the earlier of the two episodes that importance -which belongs to the later.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_188" id="Ref_188" href="#Foot_188">[188]</a></span></p> - -<p>Rightly to apprehend the bearing of this episode, we -must glance back at the preceding reigns. Dr. Stubbs, -writing of Stephen's accession, observes that "the example -which Henry had set in his seizure and retention of the -crown was followed in every point by his successor."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_189" id="Ref_189" href="#Foot_189">[189]</a></span> -But on at least one main point the precedent was older -than this. The Conqueror, in 1066, and his heir, in 1087, -had both deemed it their first necessity to obtain possession -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">{60}</a></span> -of Winchester. Winchester first, and then London, -was a rule that thus enjoyed the sanction of four successive -precedents. To secure Winchester with all that it -contained, and with all the <i>prestige</i> that its possession -would confer, was now, therefore, the object of the Empress. -This object she attained by the <i>pactum</i> of the 2nd of March, -and with it, as we have seen, the conditional allegiance of -the princely bishop of the see.</p> - -<p>Now, Henry of Blois was a great man. As papal -legate, as Bishop of Winchester, and as brother to the -captive king, he possessed an influence, in his triple -capacity, which, at this eventful crisis, was probably -unrivalled in the land. But there was one thing that he -could not do—he could not presume, of his own authority, -to depose or to nominate an English sovereign. Indeed -the very fact of the subsequent election (April 8) and of -his claim, audacious as it was, that that election should -be the work of the clergy, proves that he had no thought -of the even more audacious presumption to nominate the -sovereign himself. This, then, is fatal to Mr. Birch's contention -that the Empress was, on this occasion (March 3), -elected "domina Angliæ." Indeed, as I have said, it is -based on a confusion of the two episodes. The legate, as Mr. -Birch truly says, "consented to recognize (<i>sic</i>) the Empress -as <i>Domina Angliæ</i>, or Lady, that is, Supreme Governor of -England," but, obviously, he could only do so on behalf of -himself and of his followers. We ought, therefore, to compare -his action with that of Miles of Gloucester in 1139, -when, as we have seen, in the words of the Empress—</p> - -<p class="small">"<i>Recepit</i> me ut dominam et sicut illam quam justum hæredem -regni Angliæ <i>recognovit</i> ... et ibi homagium suum mihi fecit ligie -contra omnes homines."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_190" id="Ref_190" href="#Foot_190">[190]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">{61}</a></span> -Notice here the identity of expression—the "reception" -of the Empress and the "recognition" of her claims. I -have termed the earlier episode the "reception," and the -later the "election" of the Empress. In these terms is -precisely expressed the distinction between the two events. -Take for instances the very passages appealed to by Mr. -Birch himself:—</p> - -<p class="small">"The exact words employed by William of Malmesbury are 'Nec -dubitavit Episcopus Imperatricem in Dominam Angliæ recipere' -(<i>sic</i>). In another place the same Henry de Blois declares of her, 'In -Angliæ Normanniæque Dominam eligimus' (<i>sic</i>). This regular -election of Mathildis to the dignity and office of <i>Domina Angliæ</i> took -place on Sunday, March 2, <small>A.D.</small> 1141" (p. 378).</p> - -<p>Now we know, from William of Malmesbury himself, that -"the regular election in question" took place on the 8th -of April, and that the second of the passages quoted above -refers to this later episode,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_191" id="Ref_191" href="#Foot_191">[191]</a></span> while the other refers to the -earlier.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_192" id="Ref_192" href="#Foot_192">[192]</a></span> I have drawn attention to the two words (<i>recipere</i> -and <i>eligimus</i>) which he respectively applies to the "reception" -and the "election." The description of this "reception" -by William of Malmesbury<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_193" id="Ref_193" href="#Foot_193">[193]</a></span> completely tallies with -that which is given by the Empress herself in a charter.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_194" id="Ref_194" href="#Foot_194">[194]</a></span> It -should further be compared with the account by the author -of the <i>Gesta Stephani</i>, of the similar reception accorded to -Stephen in 1135.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_195" id="Ref_195" href="#Foot_195">[195]</a></span></p> - -<p>But though the legate could open to the Empress the -cathedral and the cathedral city, he had no power over -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">{62}</a></span> -the royal castle. This we saw in the case of Stephen, -when his efforts to secure the constable's adherence were -fruitless till the king himself arrived. Probably the -constable, at this crisis, was the same William de Pont de -l'Arche, but, whoever he was, he surrendered to the -Empress the castle and all that it contained. In one -respect, indeed, she was doomed to be bitterly disappointed, -for the royal treasury, which her adventurous rival had -found filled to overflowing, was by this time all but empty. -One treasure, however, she secured; the object of her desires, -the royal crown, was placed in her triumphant hands.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_196" id="Ref_196" href="#Foot_196">[196]</a></span></p> - -<p>To the one historian who has dealt with this incident -it has proved a stumbling-block indeed. Mr. Freeman -thus boldly attacks the problem:—</p> - -<p class="small">"William of Malmesbury (<i>Hist. Nov.</i>, iii. 42) seems distinctly to -exclude a coronation; he merely says, 'Honorifica factâ processione, -recepta est in ecclesia episcopatus Wintoniæ.' We must, therefore, -see only rhetoric when the Continuator says, 'Datur ejus dominio -corona Angliæ,' and when the author of the <i>Gesta</i> (75) speaks of -'regisque castello, et regni coronâ, quam semper ardentissime -affectârat, ... in deliberationem suam contraditis,' and adds that -Henry 'dominam et <i>reginam</i> acclamare præcepit.' The Waverley -Annalist, 1141, ventures to say, 'Corona regni est ei tradita.'"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_197" id="Ref_197" href="#Foot_197">[197]</a></span></p> - -<p>"Only rhetoric." Ah, how easily could history be -written, if one could thus dispose of inconvenient evidence! -So far from being "rhetoric," it is precisely -because these statements are so strictly matter-of-fact -that the writer failed to grasp their meaning. Had he -known, or remembered, that the royal crown was preserved -in the royal treasury, the passage by which he is -so sorely puzzled would have proved simplicity itself.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_198" id="Ref_198" href="#Foot_198">[198]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">{63}</a></span> -Here again, light is thrown on these events and on the -action of the Empress by the precedent in the case of her -father (1100), who, on the death of his brother, hastened -to Winchester Castle ("ubi regalis thesaurus continebatur"), -which was formally handed over to him with all -that it contained ("arx cum regalibus gazis filio regis -Henrico reddita est").<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_199" id="Ref_199" href="#Foot_199">[199]</a></span></p> - -<p>We have yet to consider the passage from the <i>Gesta</i>, -to which Mr. Birch so confidently appeals, and which is -dismissed by Mr. Freeman as "rhetoric." The passage -runs:—</p> - -<p class="small">"In publica se civitatis et fori audientia dominam et reginam -acclamare præcepit."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_200" id="Ref_200" href="#Foot_200">[200]</a></span></p> - -<p>By a strange coincidence it has been misconstrued by -both writers independently. Mr. Freeman, as we saw, -takes "præcepit" as referring to Henry himself, and so -does Mr. Birch.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_201" id="Ref_201" href="#Foot_201">[201]</a></span> Though the sentence as a whole may -be obscure, yet the passage quoted is quite clear. The -words are "præcepit <i>se</i>," not "præcepit illam." Thus -the proclamation, if made, was the doing of the Empress -and not of the legate. Had the legate been indeed -responsible, his conduct would have been utterly inconsistent. -But as it is, the difficulty vanishes.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_202" id="Ref_202" href="#Foot_202">[202]</a></span></p> - -<p>To the double style, "domina et regina," I have made -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">{64}</a></span> -reference above. My object now is to examine this -assumption of the style "regina" by the Empress. It -might perhaps be urged that the author of the <i>Gesta</i> cannot -here be implicitly relied on. His narrative, however, is -vigorous and consistent; it is in perfect harmony with -the character of the Empress; and so far as the assumption -of this style is concerned, it is strikingly confirmed -by that Oxford charter, to which we are now coming. -After her election (April 8), the Empress might claim, as -queen elect, the royal title, but if that were excusable, -which is granting much, its assumption before her election -could admit of no defence. Yet, headstrong and impetuous, -and thirsting for the throne, she would doubtless -urge that her rival's fall rendered her at once <i>de facto</i> -queen. But this was as yet by no means certain. -Stephen's brother, as we know, was talked of, and the -great nobles held aloof. The Continuator, indeed, asserts -that at Winchester (March) were "præsules pene totius -Angliæ, barones multi, principes plurimi" (p. 130), but -William, whose authority is here supreme, does not, though -writing as a partisan of the Empress, make any allusion to -their presence.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_203" id="Ref_203" href="#Foot_203">[203]</a></span> Moreover, the primate was still in doubt, -and of the five bishops who were present with the legate, -three (St. David's, Hereford, and Bath) came from -districts under the influence of the Empress, while the -other two (Lincoln and Ely) were still smarting beneath -Stephen's action of two years before (1139).</p> - -<p>The special interest, therefore, of this bold proclamation -at Winchester lies in the touch it gives us of that -feminine impatience of the Empress, which led her to -grasp so eagerly the crown of England in her hands, and -now to anticipate, in this hasty manner, her election and -formal coronation.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_204" id="Ref_204" href="#Foot_204">[204]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">{65}</a></span> -Within a few days of her reception at Winchester, she -retraced her steps as far as Wilton, where it was arranged -that she should meet the primate, with whom were certain -bishops and some lay folk.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_205" id="Ref_205" href="#Foot_205">[205]</a></span> Theobald, however, professed -himself unable to render her homage until he had received -from the king his gracious permission to do so.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_206" id="Ref_206" href="#Foot_206">[206]</a></span> For this -purpose he went on to Bristol, while the Empress made -her way to Oxford, and there spent Easter (March 30th).<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_207" id="Ref_207" href="#Foot_207">[207]</a></span> -We must probably assign to this occasion her admission -to Oxford by Robert d'Oilli.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_208" id="Ref_208" href="#Foot_208">[208]</a></span> The Continuator, indeed, -assigns it to May, and in this he is followed by modern -historians. Mr. Freeman, for instance, on his authority, -places the incident at that stage,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_209" id="Ref_209" href="#Foot_209">[209]</a></span> and so does Mr. Franck -Bright.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_210" id="Ref_210" href="#Foot_210">[210]</a></span></p> - -<p>But the movements of the Empress, at this stage, are -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">{66}</a></span> -really difficult to determine. Between her presence at -Oxford (March 30)<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_211" id="Ref_211" href="#Foot_211">[211]</a></span> and her presence at Reading (May -5-7),<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_212" id="Ref_212" href="#Foot_212">[212]</a></span> we know nothing for certain. One would imagine -that she must have attended her own election at Winchester -(April 7, 8), but the chroniclers are silent on -the subject, though they, surely, would have mentioned -her presence. On the whole, it seems most probable -that the Continuator must be in error, when he places -the adhesion of Robert d'Oilli so late as May (at Reading) -and takes the Empress subsequently to Oxford, as if for -the first time.</p> - -<p>It was, doubtless, through her "brother" Robert -"fitz Edith" that his step-father, Robert d'Oilli, was -thus won over to her cause. It should be noted that -his defection from the captive king is pointedly mentioned -by the author of the <i>Gesta</i>, even before that of the Bishop -of Winchester, thus further confirming the chronology -advanced above.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_213" id="Ref_213" href="#Foot_213">[213]</a></span> At Oxford she received the submission -of all the adjacent country,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_214" id="Ref_214" href="#Foot_214">[214]</a></span> and also executed an important -charter. This charter Mr. Birch has printed, having -apparently collated for the purpose no less than five -copies.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_215" id="Ref_215" href="#Foot_215">[215]</a></span> Its special interest is derived from the fact that -not only is it the earliest charter she is known to have -issued after Stephen's fall (with the probable exception of -that to Thurstan de Montfort), but it is also the only one -of her charters in which we find the royal phrases "ecclesiarum -<i>regni mei</i>" and "pertinentibus <i>coronæ meæ</i>." Mr. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">{67}</a></span> -Birch writes of its testing clause ("Apud Oxeneford Anno -ab Incarnatione Domini MC. quatragesimo"):</p> - -<p class="small">The date of this charter is very interesting, because it is the only -example of an actual date calculated by expression of the years of the -Incarnation, which occurs among the entire series which I have been -able to collect.... Now, as the historical year in these times commenced -on the 25th of March, there is no doubt but that this charter -was granted to the Abbey of Hulme at some time between the 3rd -and the 25th of March, <small>A.D.</small> 1140-41.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_216" id="Ref_216" href="#Foot_216">[216]</a></span></p> - -<p>Mr. Eyton has also independently discussed it (though -his remarks are still in MS.), and detects, with his usual -minute care, a difficulty, in one of the three witnesses, to -which Mr. Birch does not allude.</p> - -<p class="small">"St. Benet of Hulme.</p> - -<p class="small">"The date given (1140) seems to combine with another circumstance -to lead to error. Matilda's style is 'Matild' Imp. H. regis filia,' -not, as usual, 'Anglorum domina.' One might therefore conclude that -the deed passed before the battle of Lincoln, and so in 1140. However, -this conclusion would be wrong, for though Matᵃ does not style herself -Queen, she asserts in the deed Royal rights and speaks of matters -pertaining 'coronæ meæ.' But we do not know that Maud was ever -in Oxford before Stephen's captivity, nor can we think it. Again, it -is certain that Robᵗ de Sigillo did not become Bishop of London till -after Easter, 1141, for at Easter, 1142, he expressly dates his own deed -'anno primo pontif' mei.' He was almost certainly appointed when -Maud was in London in July, 1141, for he attests Milo's patent of -earldom on July 25."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_217" id="Ref_217" href="#Foot_217">[217]</a></span></p> - -<p>The omission of the style "Anglorum domina" is, -however, strictly correct, and not, as Mr. Eyton thought, -singular. For it was not till her election on the 8th of -April that she became entitled to use this style. As for -her assumption of the royal phrases, it is here simply <i>ultra -vires</i>. Then, as to the attesting bishop ("R. episcopo -Londoniensi"), his presence is natural, as he was a monk -of Reading, and his position would seem to be paralleled -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">{68}</a></span> -by that of his predecessor Maurice, who appears as bishop -in the Survey, though, probably, only elect. As her father -"gave the bishopric of Winchester" the moment he was -elected, and before he was crowned,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_218" id="Ref_218" href="#Foot_218">[218]</a></span> so the Empress -"gave," it would seem, the see of London to Robert "of -the Seal," even before her formal election—an act, it -should be noted, thoroughly in keeping with her impetuous -assumption of the regal style. Besides the bishop and the -Earl of Gloucester, there is a third witness to this charter—"Reginaldo -filio Regis." No one, it seems, has noticed -the fact that here alone, among the charters of the Empress, -Reginald attests not as an earl, which confirms the early -date claimed for this charter. A charter which I assign -to the following May is attested by him: "Reginaldo -<i>comite</i> filio regis." This would seem to place his creation -between the dates of these charters, <i>i.e.</i> <i>circ.</i> April (1141).<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_219" id="Ref_219" href="#Foot_219">[219]</a></span> -To sum up, the evidence of this charter is in complete -agreement with that of William of Malmesbury, when he -states that the Empress spent Easter (March 30) at -Oxford; and we further learn from it that she must have -arrived there at least as early as the 24th of March.</p> - -<p>The fact that Mr. Freeman, in common with others, -has overlooked this early visit of the Empress in March, -is no doubt the cause of his having been misled, as I have -shown, by the Continuator's statement.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">{69}</a></span> -The Assembly at Winchester took place, as has been -said, on the 7th and 8th of April. William of Malmesbury -was present on the occasion, and states that it was -attended by the primate "and all the bishops of -England."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_220" id="Ref_220" href="#Foot_220">[220]</a></span> This latter phrase may, however, be questioned, -in the light of subsequent charter evidence.</p> - -<p>The proceedings of this council have been well -described, and are so familiar that I need not repeat them. -On the 7th was the private conclave; on the 8th, the -public assembly. I am tempted just to mention the -curiously modern incident of the legate (who presided) -commencing the proceedings by reading out the letters of -apology from those who had been summoned but were -unable to be present.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_221" id="Ref_221" href="#Foot_221">[221]</a></span> On the 8th the legate announced -to the Assembly the result of the previous day's conclave:—</p> - -<p class="small">"filiam pacifici regis ... in Angliæ Normanniæque dominam -eligimus, et ei fidem et manutenementum promittimus."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_222" id="Ref_222" href="#Foot_222">[222]</a></span></p> - -<p>On the 9th, the deputation summoned from London -arrived and was informed of the decision; on the 10th -the assembly was dissolved.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">{70}</a></span> -The point I shall here select for discussion is the -meaning of the term "domina Angliæ," and the effect -of this election on the position of the Empress.</p> - -<p>First, as to the term "domina Angliæ." Its territorial -character must not be overlooked. In the charters of the -Empress, her style "Ang' domina" becomes occasionally, -though very rarely, "Anglor' domina," proving that its -right extension is "Angl<i>orum</i> Domina," which differs, -as we have seen, from the chroniclers' phrase. The -importance of the distinction is this. "Rex" is royal -and national; "dominus" is feudal and territorial. We -should expect, then, the first to be followed by the nation -("Anglorum"), the second by the territory ("Angliæ"). -But, in addition to its normal feudal character, the term -may here bear a special meaning.</p> - -<p>It would seem that the clue to its meaning in this -special sense was first discovered by the late Sir William -(then Mr.) Hardy ("an ingenious and diligent young -man," as he was at the time described) in 1836. He -pointed out that "Dominus Anglie" was the style adopted -by Richard I. "between the demise of his predecessor and -his own coronation."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_223" id="Ref_223" href="#Foot_223">[223]</a></span> Mr. Albert Way, in a valuable -paper on the charters belonging to Reading Abbey, which -appeared some twenty-seven years later,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_224" id="Ref_224" href="#Foot_224">[224]</a></span> called attention -to the styles "Anglorum <i>Regina</i>" and "Anglorum -<i>Domina</i>," as used by the Empress.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_225" id="Ref_225" href="#Foot_225">[225]</a></span> As to the former, he -referred to the charter of the Empress at Reading, granting -lands to Reading Abbey.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_226" id="Ref_226" href="#Foot_226">[226]</a></span> As to the latter ("Domina -Anglorum"), he quoted Mr. Hardy's paper on the charter -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">{71}</a></span> -of Richard I., and urged that "the fact that Matilda was -never crowned Queen of England may suffice to account -for her being thus styled" (p. 283). He further quoted -from William of Malmesbury the two passages in which -that chronicler applies this style to the Empress,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_227" id="Ref_227" href="#Foot_227">[227]</a></span> and he -carefully avoided assigning them both to the episode of the -2nd of March. Lastly, he quoted the third passage, that -in the <i>Gesta Stephani</i>.</p> - -<p>Mr. Birch subsequently read a paper "On the Great -Seals of King Stephen" before the Royal Society of -Literature (December 17, 1873), in which he referred to -Mr. Way's paper, as the source of one of the charters -of which he gave the text, and in which he embodied -Mr. Way's observations on the styles "Regina" and -"Domina."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_228" id="Ref_228" href="#Foot_228">[228]</a></span> But instead, unfortunately, of merely following -in Mr. Way's footsteps, he added the startling error -that Stephen was a prisoner, and Matilda consequently -in power, till 1143. He wrote thus:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Did the king ever cease to exercise his regal functions? Were -these functions performed by any other constitutional sovereign meanwhile? -The events of the year 1141 need not to be very lengthily -discussed to demonstrate that for a brief period there was a break -in Stephen's sovereignty, and a corresponding assumption of royal -power by another ruler unhindered and unimpeached by the lack of -any formality necessary for its full enjoyment.... William -of Malmesbury, writing with all the opportunity of an eye-witness, -and moving in the royal court at the very period, relates at full length -in his <i>Historia Novella</i> (ed. Hardy, for Historical Society, vol. ii. -p. 774<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_229" id="Ref_229" href="#Foot_229">[229]</a></span>), the particulars of the conference held at Winchester subsequent -to the capture of Stephen after the battle of Lincoln, in the -early part of the year, 4 Non. Feb. <small>A.D.</small> 1141.... This election of -Matilda as Domina of England in place of Stephen took place on -Sunday, March 2, 1141.... Until the liberation of the king from his -incarceration at Bristol, as a sequel to the battle at Winchester in -<small>A.D.</small> 1143, so disastrous to the hopes of the Empress, she held her -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">{72}</a></span> -position as queen at London. The narrative of the events of this -period, as given by William of Malmesbury in the work already -quoted, so clearly points to her enjoyment of all temporal power -needed to constitute a sovereign, that we must admit her name -among the regnant queens of England" (pp. 12-14).</p> - -<p>Two years later (June 9, 1875), Mr. Birch read a -paper before the British Archæological Association,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_230" id="Ref_230" href="#Foot_230">[230]</a></span> in -which, in the same words, he advanced the same thesis.</p> - -<p>The following year (June 28, 1876), in an instructive -paper read before the Royal Society of Literature,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_231" id="Ref_231" href="#Foot_231">[231]</a></span> Mr. -Birch wrote thus:—</p> - -<p class="small">"As an example of new lights which the study of early English -seals has thus cast upon our history (elucidations, as it were, of facts -which have escaped the keen research of every one of our illustrious -band of historians and chroniclers for upwards of seven hundred -years), an examination into the history of the seal of Mathildis or -Maud, the daughter and heiress of King Henry I. (generally known -as the Empress Maud, or <i>Mathildis Imperatrix</i>, from the fact of her -marriage with the Emperor Henry V. of Germany), has resulted in -my being fortunately enabled to demonstrate that royal lady's -undisputed right to a place in all tables or schemes of sovereigns of -England; nevertheless it is, I believe, a very remarkable fact that her -position with regard to the throne of England should have been so long, -so universally, and so persistently ignored, by all those whose fancy -has led them to accept facts at second hand, or from perfunctory -inquiries into the sources of our national history rather than from -careful step-by-step pursuit of truth through historical tracks which, -like indistinct paths in the primæval forest, often lead the wanderer -into situations which at the outset could not have been foreseen. In -a paper on this subject which I prepared last year, and which is now -published in the <i>Journal of the British Archæological Association</i>, I have -fully explained my views of the propriety of inserting the name of -Mathildis or Maud as Queen of England into the History Tables -under the date of 1141-1143; and as this position has never as yet -been impugned, we may take it that it is right in the main; and -I have shown that until the liberation of King Stephen from his -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">{73}</a></span> -imprisonment at Bristol, as a sequel to the battle at Winchester in -1143 (so disastrous to the prospects of Mathildis), she held her position -as queen, most probably at London....</p> - -<p class="small">"Now, I have introduced this apparent digression in this place to -point to the importance of the study of historical seals, for my claim -to the restoration of this queen's name is not due so much to my own -researches as it is to the unaccountable oversight of others."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_232" id="Ref_232" href="#Foot_232">[232]</a></span></p> - -<p>I fear that, notwithstanding Mr. Birch's criticism on -all who have gone before him, a careful analysis of the subject -will reveal that the only addition he has made to -our previous knowledge on this subject, as set forth in Mr. -Way's papers, consists in two original and quite incomprehensible -errors: one of them, the assigning of Maud's -election to the episode of the 2nd and 3rd of March, -instead of to that of the 7th and 8th of April (1141); the -other, the assigning of Stephen's liberation to 1143 instead -of 1141. When we correct these two errors, springing -(may we say, in Mr. Birch's words?) "from perfunctory -inquiries into the sources of our national history rather -than from careful step-by-step pursuit of the truth," we -return to the <i>status quo ante</i>, as set forth in Mr. Way's -paper, and find that "the unaccountable oversight," by -all writers before Mr. Birch, of the fact that the Empress -"held her position as queen," for more than two years, -"most probably at London," is due to the fact that her -said rule lasted only a few months, or rather, indeed, a -few weeks, while in London itself it was numbered by days.</p> - -<p>But though it has been necessary to speak plainly on -Mr. Birch's unfortunate discovery, one can probably agree -with his acceptance of the view set forth by Mr. Hardy, -and espoused by Mr. Way, that the style "domina" -represents that "dominus" which was used as "a temporary -title for the newly made monarch during the -interval which was elapsing between the death of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">{74}</a></span> -predecessor and the coronation day of the living king."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_233" id="Ref_233" href="#Foot_233">[233]</a></span> -To Mr. Hardy's instance of Richard's style, "Dominus -Angl[iæ]," August, 1189, we may add, I presume, that -of John, "Dominus Angliæ," April 17th and 29th, (1199).<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_234" id="Ref_234" href="#Foot_234">[234]</a></span> -Now, if this usage be clearly established, it is certainly -a complete explanation of a style of which historians have -virtually failed to grasp the relevance.</p> - -<p>But a really curious parallel, which no one has pointed -out, is that afforded in the reign immediately preceding this, -by the case of the king's second wife. Great importance is -rightly attached to "the election of the Empress as 'domina -Angliæ'" (as Dr. Stubbs describes it<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_235" id="Ref_235" href="#Foot_235">[235]</a></span>), and to the words -which William of Malmesbury places in the legate's -mouth;<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_236" id="Ref_236" href="#Foot_236">[236]</a></span> and yet, though the fact is utterly ignored, the -very same formula of election is used in the case of Queen -"Adeliza," twenty years before (1121)!</p> - -<p>The expression there used by the Continuator is -this: "Puella prædicta, <i>in regni dominam electa</i>, ... regi -desponsatur" (ii. 75). That is to say that before her -marriage (January 29) and formal coronation as queen -(January 30) she was elected, it would seem, "Domina -Angliæ." The phrase "in regni dominam electa" precisely -describes the <i>status</i> of the Empress after her election at -Winchester, and before that formal coronation at Westminster -which, as I maintain, was fully intended to follow. -We might even go further still, and hold that the description -of Adeliza as "futuram regni dominam,"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_237" id="Ref_237" href="#Foot_237">[237]</a></span> when the -envoys were despatched to fetch her, implies that she had -been so elected at that great Epiphany council, in which -the king "decrevit sibi in uxorem Atheleidem."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_238" id="Ref_238" href="#Foot_238">[238]</a></span> But I -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">{75}</a></span> -do not wish to press the parallel too far. In any case, -precisely as with the Empress afterwards, she was clearly -"domina Angliæ" before she was crowned queen. And, -if "electa" means elected, the fact that these two -passages, referring to the two elections (1121 and 1141), -come from two independent chronicles proves that the -terms employed are no idiosyncracy, but refer to a -recognized practice of the highest constitutional interest.</p> - -<p>Of course the fact that the same expression is applied -to the election of Queen "Adeliza" as to that of the Empress -herself, detracts from the importance of the latter event, -regarded as an election to the throne.</p> - -<p>At the same time, I hold that we should remember, as -in the case of Stephen, the feudal bearing of "dominus." For -herein lies its difference from "Rex." The "dominatus" of -the Empress over England is attained step by step.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_239" id="Ref_239" href="#Foot_239">[239]</a></span> At -Cirencester, at Winchester, at Oxford, she becomes -"domina" in turn.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_240" id="Ref_240" href="#Foot_240">[240]</a></span> Not so with the royal title. She -could be "lady" of a city or of a man: she could be -"queen" of nothing less than England.</p> - -<p>I must, however, with deep regret, differ widely from -Mr. Birch in his conclusions on the styles adopted by the -Empress. These he classes under three heads.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_241" id="Ref_241" href="#Foot_241">[241]</a></span> The -second ("Mathildis Imperatrix Henrici regis filia et -Anglorum regina") is found in only two charters, which -I agree with him in assigning "to periods closely consecutive," -not indeed to the episode of March 2 and 3, but -to that of April 7 and 8. Of his remaining twenty-seven -charters, thirteen belong to his first class and fourteen to -his third, a proportion which makes it hard to understand -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">{76}</a></span> -why he should speak of the latter as "by far the most -frequent."</p> - -<p>Of the first class ("Mathildis Imperatrix Henrici -Regis filia") Mr. Birch writes:—</p> - -<p class="small">"It is most probable that these documents are to be assigned to -a period either before the death of her father, King Henry I., or at most -to the initial years of Stephen, before any serious attempt had been -made to obtain the possession of the kingdom."</p> - -<p>Now, it is absolutely certain that not a single one of -them can be assigned to the period suggested, that not one -of them is previous to that 2nd of March (1141) which -Mr. Birch selects as his turning-point, still less to "the -death of her father" (1135). Nay, on Mr. Birch's own -showing, the first and most important of these documents -should be dated "between the 3rd of March and the 24th -of July, <small>A.D.</small> 1141" (p. 380), and two others (Nos. 21, 28) -"must be ascribed to a date between 1149 and 1151" -(p. 397 <i>n.</i>). Nor is even this all, for as in two others the -son of the Empress is spoken of as "King Henry," they -must be as late as the reign of Henry II.</p> - -<p>So, also, with the third class ("Mathildis Imperatrix -Henrici regis filia et Anglorum domina"), of which we are -told that it—</p> - -<p class="small">"was in the first instance adopted—I mean used—in those charters -which contain the word and were promulgated between <small>A.D.</small> 1135 and -<small>A.D.</small> 1141, by reason of the ceremony of coronation not yet having been -performed; and with regard to those charters which are placed subsequent -to <small>A.D.</small> 1141, either because the ceremony was still unperformed, -although she had the possession of the crown, or because of some -stipulation with her opponents in power" (p. 383).</p> - -<p>Here, again, it is absolutely certain that not a single -one of these charters was "promulgated between <small>A.D.</small> 1135 -and <small>A.D.</small> 1141." We have, therefore, no evidence that the -Empress, in her charters, adopted this style until the -election of April 7 and 8 (1141) enabled her justly to do -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">{77}</a></span> -so. But the fact is that Mr. Birch's theory is not only -based, as we have seen, on demonstrably erroneous -hypotheses, but must be altogether abandoned as opposed -to every fact of the case. For the two styles which he -thus distinguishes were used at the same time, and even -in the same document. For instance, in the very first of -Mr. Birch's documents, that great charter to Geoffrey de -Mandeville, to which we shall come, in the next chapter, -issued at the height of Matilda's power, and on the eve, -as we shall see, of her intended coronation, "Anglorum -domina" is omitted from her style, and the document is -therefore, by Mr. Birch, assigned to the first of his classes. -Yet I shall show that in a portion of the charter which has -perished, and which is therefore unknown to Mr. Birch, -her style is immediately repeated with the addition -"Anglorum Domina." It is clear, then, on Mr. Birch's -own showing, that this document should be assigned both -to his first and to his third classes, and, consequently, that -the distinction he attempts to draw has no foundation in fact.</p> - -<p>Mr. Birch's thesis would, if sound, be a discovery of -such importance that I need not apologize for establishing, -by demonstration, that it is opposed to the whole of the -evidence which he himself so carefully collected. And -when we read of Stephen's "incarceration at Bristol, -which was not terminated until the battle of Winchester -in <small>A.D.</small> 1143, when the hopes of the Empress were shattered" -(p. 378), it is again necessary to point out that her flight -from Winchester took place not in 1143, but in September, -1141. Mr. Birch's conclusion is thus expressed:—</p> - -<p class="small">"We may, therefore, take it as fairly shown that until the liberation -of the king from his imprisonment at Bristol (as a sequel to the -battle at Winchester in <small>A.D.</small> 1143, so disastrous to the queen's hopes) -she held her position, as queen, most probably at London," etc. -(p. 380).</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">{78}</a></span> -Here, as before, it is needful to remember that the date -is all wrong, and that the triumph of the Empress, so far -from lasting two years or more, lasted but for a few months -of the year 1141, in the course of which she was not at -London for more than a few days.</p> - -<p>And now let us turn to my remaining point, "the effect -of this election on the position of the Empress."</p> - -<p>To understand this, we must glance back at the -precedents of the four preceding reigns. The Empress, -as I have shown, had followed these precedents in making -first for Winchester: she had still to follow them in -securing her coronation and anointing at Westminster. -It is passing strange that all historians should have lost -sight of this circumstance. For the case of her own father, -in whose shoes she claimed to stand, was the aptest -precedent of all. As he had been elected at Winchester, -and then crowned at Westminster, so would she, following -in his footsteps. The growing importance of London had -been recognized in successive coronations from the Conquest, -and now that it was rapidly supplanting Winchester -as the destined capital of the realm, it would be more -essential than ever that the coronation should there take -place, and secure not merely the <i>prestige</i> of tradition, but -the assent of the citizens of London.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_242" id="Ref_242" href="#Foot_242">[242]</a></span></p> - -<p>It has not, however, so far as I know, occurred to any -writer that it was the full intention of the Empress and -her followers that she should be crowned and anointed -queen, and that, like those who had gone before her, she -should be so crowned at Westminster. It is because they -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">{79}</a></span> -failed to grasp this that Dr. Stubbs and Mr. Freeman are -both at fault. The former writes:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Matilda became the Lady of the English; she was not crowned, -because perhaps the solemn consecration which she had received as -empress sufficed, or perhaps Stephen's royalty was so far forth indefeasible."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_243" id="Ref_243" href="#Foot_243">[243]</a></span></p> - -<p class="small">"No attempt was made to crown the Empress; the legate simply -proposes that she should be elected Lady of England and Normandy. -It is just possible that the consecration which she had once received -as empress might be regarded as superseding the necessity of a new -ceremony of the kind, but it is far more likely that, so long as Stephen -was alive and not formally degraded, the right conferred on him by -coronation was regarded as so far indefeasible that no one else could -be allowed to share it."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_244" id="Ref_244" href="#Foot_244">[244]</a></span></p> - -<p>Dr. Stubbs appears here to imply that we should have -expected her coronation to follow her election. And in -this he is clearly right. Mr. Freeman, however, oddly -enough, seems to have looked for it <i>before</i> her election. -This is the more strange in a champion of the elective -principle. He writes thus of her reception at Winchester, -five weeks before her election:—</p> - -<p class="small">"If Matilda was to reign, her reign needed to begin by something -which might pass for an election and coronation. But her followers, -Bishop Henry at their head, seem to have shrunk from the actual -crowning and anointing ceremonies, which—unless Sexburh had, ages -before, received the royal consecration—had never, either in England -or in Gaul, been applied to a female ruler. Matilda was solemnly -received in the cathedral church of Winchester; she was led by two -bishops, the legate himself and Bernard of St. David's, as though to -receive the crown and unction, but no crowning and no unction is -spoken of."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_245" id="Ref_245" href="#Foot_245">[245]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">{80}</a></span> -At the same time, he recurs to the subject, after -describing the election, thus:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Whether any consecration was designed to follow, whether at -such consecration she would have been promoted to the specially -royal title, we are not told."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_246" id="Ref_246" href="#Foot_246">[246]</a></span></p> - -<p>But all this uncertainty is at once dispelled when we -learn what was really intended. Taken in conjunction -with the essential fact that "domina" possessed the -special sense of the interim royal title, the intention of -the Empress to be crowned at Westminster, and so to -become queen in name as well as queen in deed, gives us -the key to the whole problem. It explains, moreover, -the full meaning of John of Hexham's words, when he -writes that "David rex videns multa competere in imperatricis -neptis suæ promotionem post Ascensionem Domini -(May 8) ad eam in Suth-Anglia profectus est ... plurimosque -ex principibus sibi acquiescentes habuit ut ipsa -promoveretur ad totius regni fastigium." We shall see -how this intention was only foiled by the sudden uprising -of the citizens; and in the names of the witnesses to -Geoffrey's charter we shall behold those, "tam episcopi -quam cinguli militaris viri, qui <i>ad dominam inthronizandam</i> -pomposé Londonias et arroganter convenerant."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_247" id="Ref_247" href="#Foot_247">[247]</a></span></p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_161" id="Foot_161" href="#Ref_161">[161]</a> -<i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. 724; <i>Gesta Stephani</i>, p. 56.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_162" id="Foot_162" href="#Ref_162">[162]</a> -<i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. 724. See Appendix E.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_163" id="Foot_163" href="#Ref_163">[163]</a> -Such are the alternatives presented by Henry of Huntingdon (p. 266). -The treacherous counsel alluded to was that of his brother the legate (<i>Gesta -Stephani</i>, p. 57). According to John of Hexham (<i>Sym. Dun.</i> ii. 302), Stephen -acted "ex indiscretâ animi simplicitate."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_164" id="Foot_164" href="#Ref_164">[164]</a> -<i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. 725.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_165" id="Foot_165" href="#Ref_165">[165]</a> -See Appendix F: "The Defection of Miles of Gloucester."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_166" id="Foot_166" href="#Ref_166">[166]</a> -<i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. 725; <i>Cont. Flor.</i>, p. 118. Here the Continuator's chronology -is irreconcilable with that of our other authorities. He states that the -Empress removed to Gloucester on October 15, after a stay of two months -at Bristol. This is, of course, consistent, it should be noticed, with the -date (August 1) assigned by him for her landing.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_167" id="Foot_167" href="#Ref_167">[167]</a> -The text is taken from the transcript in Lansdowne MS. 229, fol. 123, -collated with Dugdale's transcript in his MSS. at the Bodleian Library -(L. 21). It will be seen that Dugdale transcribed <i>verbatim</i>, while the -other transcript begins in <i>narratio obliqua</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_168" id="Foot_168" href="#Ref_168">[168]</a> -"Sciatis quod" (D.).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_169" id="Foot_169" href="#Ref_169">[169]</a> -"Mei" (D.).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_170" id="Foot_170" href="#Ref_170">[170]</a> -"Me" (D.).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_171" id="Foot_171" href="#Ref_171">[171]</a> -These were specially excepted from the grants of royal demesne made -by Henry II. to his son, the second earl.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_172" id="Foot_172" href="#Ref_172">[172]</a> -<i>Cont. Flor.</i>, p. 129; <i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. 712; <i>Gesta</i>, p. 72.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_173" id="Foot_173" href="#Ref_173">[173]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>; <i>John Hex.</i>, p. 308; <i>Hen. Hunt.</i>, p. 275.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_174" id="Foot_174" href="#Ref_174">[174]</a> -<i>Gesta</i>, p. 72.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_175" id="Foot_175" href="#Ref_175">[175]</a> -"Ob illiusmodi eventum vehementer exhilarata, utpote regnum sibi juratum, -sicut sibi videbatur, jam adepta" (<i>Cont. Flor.</i>, p. 130).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_176" id="Foot_176" href="#Ref_176">[176]</a> -<i>Cont. Flor.</i>, 130.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_177" id="Foot_177" href="#Ref_177">[177]</a> -"Simul et ejusdem civitatis sumens dominium" (<i>ibid.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_178" id="Foot_178" href="#Ref_178">[178]</a> -"Ut ipsam tanquam regis Henrici filiam et cui omnis Anglia et -Normannia jurata esset, incunctanter in ecclesiam et regnum reciperet" -(<i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. 743). Compare the writer's description of the oath -(1127) that the magnates "imperatricem <i>incunctanter</i> et sine ullâ retractione -dominam susciperent" (p. 690).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_179" id="Foot_179" href="#Ref_179">[179]</a> -<i>Journ. B. A. A.</i>, xxxi. 389. Mr. Howlett asserts that the evidence of -William of Malmesbury as to the date (2nd and 3rd of March) "is refuted" -by this charter, which places them a fortnight earlier (Introduction to -<i>Gesta Stephani</i>, p. xxii.). But I do not think the evidence of the charter is -sufficiently strong to overthrow the accepted date.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_180" id="Foot_180" href="#Ref_180">[180]</a> -"Pluvioso et nebuloso die" (<i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. 743).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_181" id="Foot_181" href="#Ref_181">[181]</a> -<i>Cont. Flor.</i>, p. 130; <i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. 743.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_182" id="Foot_182" href="#Ref_182">[182]</a> -"Juravit et affidavit imperatrix episcopo, quod omnia majora negotia -in Anglia, precipueque donationes episcopatuum et abbatiarum, ejus nutum -spectarent, si eam ipse in sancta ecclesia in dominam reciperet, et perpetuam -ei fidelitatem teneret. Idem juraverunt cum ea, et affidaverunt pro ea, -Robertus frater ejus comes de Gloecestrâ, et Brianus filius comitis marchio -de Walingeford et Milo de Gloecestrâ, postea comes de Hereford, et nonnulli -alii. Nec dubitavit episcopus imperatricem in dominam Angliæ recipere et -ei cum quibusdam suis affidare, quod, quamdiu ipsa pactum non infringeret, -ipse quoque fidem ei custodiret" (<i>Will. Malms.</i>, 743, 744). The parallel -afforded by the customs of Bigorre, as recorded (it is alleged) in 1097, is so -striking as to deserve being quoted here. Speaking of the reception of a -new lord, they provide that "antequam habitatorum terræ fidejussores -accipiat, fide sua securos eos faciat ne extra consuetudines patrias vel eas in -quibus eos invenerit aliquod educat; hoc autem sacramento et fide quatuor -nobilium terræ faciat confirmari."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_183" id="Foot_183" href="#Ref_183">[183]</a> -"Crastino, quod fuit quinto nonas Martii, honorifica facta processione -recepta est in ecclesia episcopatus Wintoniæ," etc., etc. (<i>ibid.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_184" id="Foot_184" href="#Ref_184">[184]</a> -<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 326 (<i>note</i>); <i>Early Plantagenets</i>, 22.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_185" id="Foot_185" href="#Ref_185">[185]</a> -<i>English History for the Use of Public Schools</i>, i. 83. The mistake may -have arisen from a confusion with the departure of the Empress from Winchester -a few days ("paucis post diebus") after her reception.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_186" id="Foot_186" href="#Ref_186">[186]</a> -<i>History of England during the Early and Middle Ages</i>, i. 478.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_187" id="Foot_187" href="#Ref_187">[187]</a> -<i>Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass.</i>, xxxi. 377-380.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_188" id="Foot_188" href="#Ref_188">[188]</a> -<i>Norm. Conq.</i>, v. 303. At the same time it is right to add that this is -not a question of accuracy, but merely of treatment. In the marginal notes -the two episodes are respectively assigned to their correct dates.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_189" id="Foot_189" href="#Ref_189">[189]</a> -<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 318.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_190" id="Foot_190" href="#Ref_190">[190]</a> -Compare also, even further back, the action, in Normandy, of Gingan -Algasil in December, 1135, who, on the appearance of the Empress, "[eam] -ut naturalem dominam suscepit, eique ... oppida quibus ut vicecomes, -jubente rege præerat, subegit" (<i>Ord. Vit.</i>, v. 56).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_191" id="Foot_191" href="#Ref_191">[191]</a> -<i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. 747.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_192" id="Foot_192" href="#Ref_192">[192]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, p. 743.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_193" id="Foot_193" href="#Ref_193">[193]</a> -"Honorifica facta processione <i>recepta est</i> in ecclesia" (p. 744).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_194" id="Foot_194" href="#Ref_194">[194]</a> -"Idem prelatus et cives Wintonie honorifice in ecclesia et urbe Wintonie -me <i>receperunt</i>" (<i>Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass.</i>, xxxi. 378)</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_195" id="Foot_195" href="#Ref_195">[195]</a> -"Præsul Wintonie ... cum dignioribus Wintonie civibus obvius ei -advenit, habitoque in communi brevi colloquio, in civitatem, secundam duntaxat -regni sedem, honorifice induxit" (p. 5). Note that in each case the -"colloquium" preceded the entry.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_196" id="Foot_196" href="#Ref_196">[196]</a> -"Regisque castello, et regni coronâ, quam semper ardentissimé affectârat -thesaurisque quos licet perpaucos rex ibi reliquerat, in deliberationem suam -contraditis" (<i>Gesta</i>, 75).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_197" id="Foot_197" href="#Ref_197">[197]</a> -<i>Norm. Conquest</i>, v. 804 (<i>note</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_198" id="Foot_198" href="#Ref_198">[198]</a> -As an instance of the crown being kept at Winchester, take the entry in -the Pipe-Roll of 4 Hen. II.: "In conducendis coronis Regis ad Wirecestre de -Wintoniâ," the crowns being taken out to be worn at Worcester, Easter, 1158. -Oddly enough, Mr. Freeman himself alludes, in its place, to a similar taking -out of the crown, from the treasury at Winchester, to be worn at York, -Christmas, 1069. The words of Ordericus, as quoted by him, are: "Guillelmus -ex civitate Guentâ jubet adferri coronam, aliaque ornamenta regalia et -vasa" (cf. <i>Dialogus</i>, I. 14).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_199" id="Foot_199" href="#Ref_199">[199]</a> -<i>Ordericus Vitalis.</i></p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_200" id="Foot_200" href="#Ref_200">[200]</a> -<i>Gesta</i>, 75; <i>Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass.</i>, xxxi. 378.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_201" id="Foot_201" href="#Ref_201">[201]</a> -"He (<i>sic</i>) ordered that she should be proclaimed lady and queen."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_202" id="Foot_202" href="#Ref_202">[202]</a> -The <i>Gesta</i> itself is, on this point, conclusive, for it distinctly states that -the Empress "solito severius, solito et arrogantius procedere et loqui, et -cuncta cœpit peragere, adeo ut in ipso mox domini sui capite reginam se -totius Angliæ fecerit, <i>et gloriata fuerit appellari</i>."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_203" id="Foot_203" href="#Ref_203">[203]</a> -<i>Will. Malms.</i>, 744.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_204" id="Foot_204" href="#Ref_204">[204]</a> -To this visit (if the only occasion on which she was at Winchester in -the spring) must belong the Empress's charter to Thurstan de Montfort. -As it is not comprised in Mr. Birch's collection, I subjoin it <i>in extenso</i> -(from Dugdale's MSS.):—</p> - -<p class="nodent">"M. Imperatrix H. Regis filia Rogero Comiti de Warwick et omnibus -fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis de Warewicscire salutem. Sciatis me -concessisse Thurstino de Monteforti quod habeat mercatum die dominica ad -castellum suum de Bellodeserto. Volo igitur et firmiter præcipio quatenus -omnes euntes, et stantes, et redeuntes de Mercato prædicto habeant firmam -pacem. T. Milone de Glocestria. Apud Wintoniam."</p> - -<p class="nodent">As Milo attests not as an earl, this charter cannot belong to the subsequent -visit to Winchester in the summer. The author of the Gesta mentions -the Earl of Warwick among those who joined the Empress at once "sponte -nulloque cogente."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_205" id="Foot_205" href="#Ref_205">[205]</a> -<i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i>, p. 130.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_206" id="Foot_206" href="#Ref_206">[206]</a> -This he did on the ground that the recognition of Stephen as king by -the pope, in 1136, was binding on all ecclesiastics (<i>Historia Pontificalis</i>). -<i>Vide infra</i>, p. 69, <i>n.</i> 1.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_207" id="Foot_207" href="#Ref_207">[207]</a> -<i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. 744. Oddly enough, Miss Norgate gives this very -reference for her statement that in a few days the Archbishop of Canterbury -followed the legate's example, and swore fealty to the Empress at Wilton.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_208" id="Foot_208" href="#Ref_208">[208]</a> -"Convenitur ibi ab eadem de principibus unus, vocabulo Robertus de -Oileio, de reddendo Oxenfordensi castello; quo consentiente, venit illa, -totiusque civitatis et circumjacentis regionis suscepit dominium atque -hominium" (<i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i>, p. 131).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_209" id="Foot_209" href="#Ref_209">[209]</a> -"She then made her way to London by a roundabout path. She was -received at Oxford by the younger Robert of Oily," etc. (<i>Norm. Conq.</i>, v. 306).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_210" id="Foot_210" href="#Ref_210">[210]</a> -<i>English History</i>, I. 83.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_211" id="Foot_211" href="#Ref_211">[211]</a> -<i>Will. Malms.</i></p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_212" id="Foot_212" href="#Ref_212">[212]</a> -<i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i></p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_213" id="Foot_213" href="#Ref_213">[213]</a> -"Aliis quoque sponte, nulloque cogente, ad comitissæ imperium conversis -(ut Robertus de Oli, civitatis Oxenefordiæ sub rege præceptor, et comes -ille de Warwic, viri molles, et deliciis magis quam animi fortitudine affluentes)" -(p. 74).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_214" id="Foot_214" href="#Ref_214">[214]</a> -<i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i> (<i>ut supra</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_215" id="Foot_215" href="#Ref_215">[215]</a> -<i>Journ. B. A. A.</i>, xxxi. 388, 389. It will also be found in the <i>Monasticon</i> -(iii. 87).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_216" id="Foot_216" href="#Ref_216">[216]</a> -<i>Journ. B. A. A.</i>, xxxi. p. 379.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_217" id="Foot_217" href="#Ref_217">[217]</a> -<i>Addl. MSS.</i>, 31,943, fol. 118.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_218" id="Foot_218" href="#Ref_218">[218]</a> -<i>Ang. Sax. Chron.</i>, <small>A.D.</small> 1100.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_219" id="Foot_219" href="#Ref_219">[219]</a> -Relying on the explicit statement of the chronicler (<i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. -732), that the Earl of Gloucester "fratrem etiam suum Reinaldum in tanta -difficultate temporis comitem Cornubiæ creavit," historians and antiquaries -have assigned this creation to 1140 (see Stubbs' <i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 362, <i>n.</i>; Courthope's -<i>Historic Peerage</i>; Doyle's <i>Official Baronage</i>). In the version of -Reginald's success given by the author of the <i>Gesta</i>, there is no mention of -this creation, but that may, of course, be rejected as merely negative evidence. -The above charter, however, certainly raises the question whether -he had indeed been created earl at the time when he thus attested it. The -point may be deemed of some importance as involving the question whether -the Empress did really create an earl before the triumph of her cause.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_220" id="Foot_220" href="#Ref_220">[220]</a> -"Concilium archiepiscopi Cantuariæ Thedbaldi, et omnium episcoporum -Angliæ" (p. 744). Strange to say, Professor Pearson (I. 478) states that -"Theobald remained faithful" to Stephen, though he had now formally -joined the Empress. On the other hand, "Stephen's queen and William of -Ypres" are represented by him as present, though they were far away, -preparing for resistance. An important allusion to the primate's conduct -at this time is found (under 1148) in the <i>Historia Pontificalis</i> (Pertz's <i>Monumenta -Historica</i>, vol. xx.), where we read "propter obedienciam sedis -apostolicæ proscriptus fuerat, quando urgente mandato domni Henrici Wintoniensis -episcopi tunc legationem fungentis in Anglia post alios episcopos -omnes receperat Imperatricem ... licet inimicissimos habuerit regem et -consiliarios suos."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_221" id="Foot_221" href="#Ref_221">[221]</a> -"Si qui defuerunt, legatis et literis causas cur non venissent dederunt.... -Egregie quippe memini, ipsâ die, post recitata scripta excusatoria quibus -absentiam suam quidem tutati sunt," etc. (<i>Will. Malms.</i>, pp. 744, 745). -Is it possible that we have, in "legati," a hint at attendance by proxy?</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_222" id="Foot_222" href="#Ref_222">[222]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, p. 746.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_223" id="Foot_223" href="#Ref_223">[223]</a> -<i>Archæologia</i>, xxvii. 110. See the charter in question in the Pipe-Roll -Society's "Ancient Charters," Part I., p. 92.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_224" id="Foot_224" href="#Ref_224">[224]</a> -<i>Arch. Journ.</i> (1863), xx. 281-296.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_225" id="Foot_225" href="#Ref_225">[225]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, p. 283. Mr. Way adopts the extension "Angl<i>orum</i>" throughout.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_226" id="Foot_226" href="#Ref_226">[226]</a> -"The only instances in which we have documentary evidence that she -styled herself Queen of England occur in two charters of this period" (<i>ibid.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_227" id="Foot_227" href="#Ref_227">[227]</a> -<i>Vide supra</i>, pp. 61, 69.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_228" id="Foot_228" href="#Ref_228">[228]</a> -Pp. xi.-xiv. (see footnotes).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_229" id="Foot_229" href="#Ref_229">[229]</a> -The volume closes at p. 769.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_230" id="Foot_230" href="#Ref_230">[230]</a> -"A Fasciculus of the Charters of Mathildis, Empress of the Germans, -and an Account of her Great Seal" (<i>Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass.</i>, xxxi. 376-398).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_231" id="Foot_231" href="#Ref_231">[231]</a> -"On the Seals of King Henry the Second and of his Son, the so-called -Henry the Third" (<i>Transactions</i>, vol. xi. part 2, New Series).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_232" id="Foot_232" href="#Ref_232">[232]</a> -Pp. 2, 3.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_233" id="Foot_233" href="#Ref_233">[233]</a> -<i>Journ. B. A. A.</i>, xxxi. 383.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_234" id="Foot_234" href="#Ref_234">[234]</a> -Wells <i>Liber Albus</i>, fol. 10 (<i>Hist. MSS. Report on Wells MSS.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_235" id="Foot_235" href="#Ref_235">[235]</a> -<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 326, 341, 342.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_236" id="Foot_236" href="#Ref_236">[236]</a> -"In Angliæ Normanniæque dominam eligimus."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_237" id="Foot_237" href="#Ref_237">[237]</a> -<i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i>, ii. 75. See Addenda.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_238" id="Foot_238" href="#Ref_238">[238]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i></p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_239" id="Foot_239" href="#Ref_239">[239]</a> -"Pleraque tunc pars Angliæ dominatum ejus suscipiebat" (<i>Will. -Malms.</i>, p. 749).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_240" id="Foot_240" href="#Ref_240">[240]</a> -"Ejusdem civitatis sumens dominium ... totiusque civitatis suscepit -dominium," etc. (<i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_241" id="Foot_241" href="#Ref_241">[241]</a> -<i>Journ. B. A. A.</i>, xxxi. 382, 383.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_242" id="Foot_242" href="#Ref_242">[242]</a> -It is very singular that Mr. Freeman failed to perceive this parallel, -since he himself writes of Henry (1100). "The Gemót of election was held -at Winchester while the precedents of three reigns made it seem matter -of necessity that the unction and coronation should be done at Westminster" -(<i>Will. Rufus</i>, ii. 348). Such an admission as this is sufficient to prove -my case.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_243" id="Foot_243" href="#Ref_243">[243]</a> -<i>Early Plantagenets</i>, 22.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_244" id="Foot_244" href="#Ref_244">[244]</a> -<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 339.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_245" id="Foot_245" href="#Ref_245">[245]</a> -<i>Norm. Conq.</i>, v. 303, 304. The footnote to this statement ("William of -Malmesbury seems distinctly to exclude a coronation," etc., etc.) has been -already given (<i>ante</i>, p. 62). Mr. Birch confusing, as we have seen, the reception -of the Empress with her election, naturally looks, like Mr. Freeman, to the -former as the time when she ought to have been crowned: "The crown of -England's sovereigns was handed over to her, a kind of <i>seizin</i> representing -that the kingdom of England was under the power of her hands (although -it does not appear that any further ceremony connected with the rite of -coronation was then performed)" (<i>Journ. B. A. A.</i>, xxxi. p. 378). This assumes -that the crown was "handed over to her" at a "ceremony" in the -cathedral, whereas, as I explained, my own view is that she obtained it -with the royal castle.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_246" id="Foot_246" href="#Ref_246">[246]</a> -<i>Norm. Conq.</i>, v. p. 305.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_247" id="Foot_247" href="#Ref_247">[247]</a> -<i>Gesta</i>, 79. In the word "inthronizandam," I contend, is to be found -the confirmation of my theory, based on comparison and induction, of an -intended coronation at Westminster. So far as I know, attention has never -been drawn to it before.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">{81}</a></span> - -<h2>CHAPTER IV.<br /> -<small>THE FIRST CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS.</small></h2> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">Though</span> -the election of the Empress, says William of -Malmesbury, took place immediately after Easter, it was -nearly midsummer before the Londoners would receive -her.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_248" id="Ref_248" href="#Foot_248">[248]</a></span> -Hence her otherwise strange delay in proceeding to -the scene of her coronation. An incidental allusion leads -us to believe that this <i>interregnum</i> was marked by tumult -and bloodshed in London. We learn that Aubrey de Vere -was killed on the 9th of May, in the course of a riot in the -city.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_249" id="Ref_249" href="#Foot_249">[249]</a></span> This event has been assigned by every writer that -I have consulted to the May of the previous year (1140), -and this is the date assigned in the editor's marginal -note.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_250" id="Ref_250" href="#Foot_250">[250]</a></span> The context, however, clearly shows that it belongs -to 1141. Aubrey was a man of some consequence. He -had been actively employed by Henry I. in the capacity -of justice and of sheriff, and was also a royal chamberlain. -His death, therefore, was a notable event, and one is -tempted to associate with it the fact that he was father-in-law -to Geoffrey. It is not impossible that, on that -occasion, they may have been acting in concert, and -resisting a popular movement of the citizens, whether -directed against the Empress or against Geoffrey himself.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">{82}</a></span> -The comparison of the Empress's advance on London -with that of her grandfather, in similar circumstances, is -of course obvious. The details, however, of the latter are -obscure, and Mr. Parker, we must remember, has gravely -impugned the account of it given in the <i>Norman Conquest</i>.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_251" id="Ref_251" href="#Foot_251">[251]</a></span></p> - -<p>Of the ten weeks which appear to have elapsed between -the election of the Empress and her reception in London, -we know little or nothing. Early in May she came to -Reading,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_252" id="Ref_252" href="#Foot_252">[252]</a></span> the Continuator's statement to that effect being -confirmed by a charter which, to all appearance, passed -on this occasion.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_253" id="Ref_253" href="#Foot_253">[253]</a></span> It is attested by her three constant -companions, the Earl of Gloucester, Brian fitz Count, -and Miles of Gloucester (acting as her constable), together -with John (fitz Gilbert) the marshal, and her brothers -Reginald (now an earl)<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_254" id="Ref_254" href="#Foot_254">[254]</a></span> and -Robert (fitz Edith).<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_255" id="Ref_255" href="#Foot_255">[255]</a></span> But a -special significance is to be found in the names of the five -attesting bishops (Winchester, Lincoln, Ely, St. David's, -and Hereford). They are, it will be found, the same five -who attest the charter to Geoffrey de Mandeville (midsummer), -and they are also the five who (with the Bishop -of Bath) had attended, in March, the Empress at Winchester. -This creates a strong presumption that, in despite -of chroniclers' vague assertions, the number of bishops -who joined the Empress was, even if not limited to these, -at least extremely small.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_256" id="Ref_256" href="#Foot_256">[256]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">{83}</a></span> -This is one of the two charters in which the Empress -employs the style "Regina." It is probable that the -other also should be assigned to this period.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_257" id="Ref_257" href="#Foot_257">[257]</a></span> These two -exceptional cases would thus belong to the interim period -during which she was queen elect, though technically only -"domina." Here again the fact that, during this period, -she adopted, alternatively, both styles ("regina" and -"domina"), as well as that which Mr. Birch assigns to -his first period, proves how impossible it is to classify -these styles by date.</p> - -<p>If we reject the statement that from Reading she -returned to Oxford,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_258" id="Ref_258" href="#Foot_258">[258]</a></span> the only other stage in her progress -that is named is that of her reception at St. Albans.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_259" id="Ref_259" href="#Foot_259">[259]</a></span> In -this case also the evidence of a charter confirms that of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">{84}</a></span> -the chronicler.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_260" id="Ref_260" href="#Foot_260">[260]</a></span> At St. Albans she received a deputation -from London, and the terms on which the city agreed to -receive her must have been here finally arranged.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_261" id="Ref_261" href="#Foot_261">[261]</a></span> She -then proceeded in state to Westminster,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_262" id="Ref_262" href="#Foot_262">[262]</a></span> no doubt by the -Edgware Road, the old Roman highway, and was probably -met by the citizens and their rulers, according to the -custom, at Knightsbridge.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_263" id="Ref_263" href="#Foot_263">[263]</a></span></p> - -<p>Meanwhile, she had been joined in her progress by -her uncle, the King of Scots, who had left his realm about -the middle of May for the purpose of attending her -coronation.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_264" id="Ref_264" href="#Foot_264">[264]</a></span></p> - -<p>The Empress, according to William of Malmesbury, -reached London only a few days before the 24th of June.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_265" id="Ref_265" href="#Foot_265">[265]</a></span> -This is the sole authority we have for the date of her visit, -except the statement by Trivet that she arrived on the -21st (or 26th) of April.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_266" id="Ref_266" href="#Foot_266">[266]</a></span> This latter date we may certainly -reject. If we combine the statement that her flight took -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">{85}</a></span> -place on Midsummer Day<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_267" id="Ref_267" href="#Foot_267">[267]</a></span> with that of the Continuator -that her visit lasted for "some days,"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_268" id="Ref_268" href="#Foot_268">[268]</a></span> they harmonize -fairly enough with that of William of Malmesbury. If it -was, indeed, after a few days that her visit was so rudely -cut short, we are able to understand why she left without -the intended coronation taking place.</p> - -<p>From another and quite independent authority, we -obtain the same day (June 24th) as the date of her flight -from London, together with a welcome and important -glimpse of her doings. The would-be Bishop of Durham, -William Cumin, had come south with the King of Scots -(whose chancellor he was), accompanied by certain barons -of the bishopric and a deputation from the cathedral -chapter. Nominally, this deputation was to claim from -the Empress and the legate a confirmation of the chapter's -canonical right of free election; but, in fact, it was composed -of William's adherents, who purposed to secure from -the Empress and the legate letters to the chapter in his -favour. The legate not having arrived at court when -they reached the Empress, she deferred her reply till he -should join her. In the result, however, the two differed; -for, while the legate, warned from Durham, refused to -support William, the Empress, doubtless influenced by -her uncle, had actually agreed, as sovereign, to give him -the ring and staff, and would undoubtedly have done so, -but for the Londoners' revolt.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_269" id="Ref_269" href="#Foot_269">[269]</a></span> It must be remembered -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">{86}</a></span> -that, for her own sake, the Empress would welcome every -opportunity of exercising sovereign rights, as in her -prompt bestowal of the see of London upon Robert. And -though she lost her chance of actually investing William, -she had granted, before her flight, letters commending him -for election.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_270" id="Ref_270" href="#Foot_270">[270]</a></span></p> - -<p>Thus we obtain the date of the charter which is the -subject of this chapter. In this case alone was Mr. Eyton -right in the dates he assigned to these documents. Nor, -indeed, is it possible to be mistaken. For this charter can -only have passed on the occasion of this, the only visit -that the Empress paid to Westminster. Yet, even here, Mr. -Eyton's date is not absolutely correct. For he holds that -it "passed in the short period during which Maud was in -London, <i>i.e.</i> between June 24 and July 25, 1141";<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_271" id="Ref_271" href="#Foot_271">[271]</a></span> whereas -"June 24" is the probable date of her departure, and -not of her arrival, which was certainly previous to that -day.</p> - -<p>There is but one other document (besides a comparatively -insignificant precept<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_272" id="Ref_272" href="#Foot_272">[272]</a></span>) which can be positively -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">{87}</a></span> -assigned to this visit.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_273" id="Ref_273" href="#Foot_273">[273]</a></span> This consideration alone would -invest our charter with interest, but when we add to this -its great length, its list of witnesses, and its intrinsic -importance, it may be claimed as one of the most instructive -documents of this obscure and eventful period.</p> - -<p>Of the original, now among the Cottonian Charters -(xvi. 27), Mr. Birch, who is exceptionally qualified to pronounce -upon these subjects, has given us as complete a -transcript as it is now possible to obtain.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_274" id="Ref_274" href="#Foot_274">[274]</a></span> To this he has -appended the following remarks:—</p> - -<p class="small">"This most important charter, one of the earliest, if not the -earliest example of the text of a deed creating a peerage, does not -appear to have been ever published. I cannot find the text in any printed -book or MS. Fortunately Sir William Dugdale inspected this -charter before it had been injured in the disastrous Cottonian fire, -which destroyed so many invaluable evidences of British history. In -his account of the Mandevilles, Earls of Essex (<i>Baronage</i>, vol. i. p. 202) -he says that 'this is the most antient creation-charter, which hath ever -been known, <i>vide</i> Selden's <i>Titles of Honour</i>, p. 647,' and he gives an -English rendering of the greater portion of the Latin text, which has -enabled me to conjecture several emendations and restorations in the -above transcript."</p> - -<p>Mr. Birch having thus, like preceding antiquaries, -borne witness to the interest attaching to "this most -important charter," it is with special satisfaction that I -find myself enabled to print a transcript of the entire -document, supplying, there is every reason to believe, a -complete and accurate text. Nor will it only enable us -to restore the portions of the charter now wanting,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_275" id="Ref_275" href="#Foot_275">[275]</a></span> for it -further convicts the great Dugdale of no less serious an -error than the omission of two most important witnesses -and the garbling of the name of a third.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_276" id="Ref_276" href="#Foot_276">[276]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">{88}</a></span> -The accuracy of my authorities can be tested by collation -with those portions of the original that are still perfect. -This test is quite satisfactory, as is also that of comparing -one of the passages they supply with Camden's transcript -of that same passage, taken from the original charter. -Camden's extract, of the existence of which Mr. Birch was -evidently not aware, was printed by him in his <i>Ordines -Anglicani</i>,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_277" id="Ref_277" href="#Foot_277">[277]</a></span> from which it is quoted by Selden in his well-known -<i>Titles of Honour</i>.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_278" id="Ref_278" href="#Foot_278">[278]</a></span> It is further quoted, as from -Camden and Selden, at the head of the Patents of Creation -appended to the <i>Lords' Reports on the Dignity of a Peer</i>,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_279" id="Ref_279" href="#Foot_279">[279]</a></span> -as also in the Third Report itself (where the marginal -reference, however, is wrong).<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_280" id="Ref_280" href="#Foot_280">[280]</a></span> It is specially interesting -from Camden's comment: "This is the most ancient -creation-charter that I ever saw" (which is clearly the -origin of the statement as to its unique antiquity), and -from the fact of that great antiquary speaking of it as -"now in my hands."</p> - -<p>The two transcripts I have employed for the text (D. -and A.) are copies respectively found in the Dugdale MSS. -(L. fol. 81) and the Ashmole MSS. (841, fol. 3). I have -reason to believe that this charter was among those duly -recorded in the missing volume of the Great Coucher.</p> - -<h3><span class="smc">Charter of the Empress to Geoffrey de Mandeville</span><br /> -(Midsummer, 1141).</h3> - -<p>M. Imperatrix regis Henrici filia -<span title="Archiepiscopis, etc. (D.)."><span class="und">Archiepiscopis</span></span> -Episcopis Abbatibus (Comitibus Baronibus Justiciariis Vicecomitibus -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">{89}</a></span> -et ministris et omnibus baronibus et fidelibus) suis Francis et Anglis -totius Angliæ et Normanniæ salutem. -(<span title="Sciant (D.)."><span class="und">Sciatis</span></span> -omnes tam præsentes quam futuri quod Ego Matildis regis Henrici filia et -<span title="or' (D.); oru' (A.)."><span class="und">Anglor[um]</span></span> -domina) do et concedo -<span title="Galfrido (A.)."><span class="und">Gaufrido</span></span> -de Magnavillâ (pro servitio suo et heredibus suis -post eum hereditabiliter ut sit comes de -<span title="Essexa (D.); Essex' (A.)."><span class="und">Essex[iâ]</span></span> -et habeat tertium denarium Vicecomitatus de placitis -sicut comes habere debet in -<span title="comitat' su' (A.); comitatu[m] suu[m] (D.)."><span class="und">comitatu suo</span></span><span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_281" id="Ref_281" href="#Foot_281">[281]</a></span> -in omnibus rebus, et præter hoc reddo illi in feodo et hereditate de me -et heredibus meis totam terram quam) tenuit<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_282" id="Ref_282" href="#Foot_282">[282]</a></span> (Gaufridus -de Magnavilla avus suus et Serlo de Matom in Angliâ et -Normanniâ ita libere et<span class="fnanchor"><a href="#Foot_282">[282]</a></span>) -bene et quiete sicut aliquis antecessorum -suorum illam unquam melius (et liberius tenuit, -vel ipsemet) postea (aliquo in tempore, sibi dico) et heredibus -suis (post eum), et concedo illi et heredibus suis Custodiam turris -<span title="London (A.); Londoniæ (D.)."><span class="und">Londonie</span></span> -(cum parvo Castello quod) fuit -Ravengeri in feodo et hereditate de me (et heredibus) meis cum -terris et liberationibus et omnibus Consuetudinibus -quæ ad (eandem -<span title="terram (D., A.)."><span class="und">terram</span></span><span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_283" id="Ref_283" href="#Foot_283">[283]</a></span>) -<span title="pertinat (A.); pertinent (D.)."><span class="und">pertinerent</span></span>, -et ut inforciet illa secundum voluntatem suam. (Et -similiter<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_284" id="Ref_284" href="#Foot_284">[284]</a></span>) do ei et -concedo et heredibus suis C libratas terræ de me et de -(heredibus) meis in dominio, videlicet -<span title="Newport (A.)."><span class="und">Niweport</span></span><span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_285" id="Ref_285" href="#Foot_285">[285]</a></span> -pro tanto quantum reddere solebat die qua -<span title="Henricus rex (A.)."><span class="und">rex H[enricus]</span></span> -pater meus fuit vivus et mortuus, et ad rem(ovend') mercatum de -<span title="Newport (A.)."><span class="und">Niweport</span></span> -in Castellum suum de Waldena cum -omnibus Consuetudinibus que prius mercato illi melius -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">{90}</a></span> -pertinuerunt in (Thelon[eo] et -<span title="passagio (A.)."><span class="und">passag[io]</span></span><span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_286" id="Ref_286" href="#Foot_286">[286]</a></span>) -et aliis consuetudinibus, (et) ut vie de -<span title="Newport (A.)."><span class="und">Niweport</span></span> -quæ sunt juxta littus aquæ<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_287" id="Ref_287" href="#Foot_287">[287]</a></span> -dirigantur ex consuetudine ad Waledenam (sup[er] -foris) facturam meam et Mercatum de Waldenâ sit ad diem -<span title="dictam (A.)."><span class="und">dominicam</span></span> -et ad diem Jovis et ut feria<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_288" id="Ref_288" href="#Foot_288">[288]</a></span> habeatur apud -Waledenam et incipiat in -(<span title="Vigilia Pentecost (A.); vigil' pentecostes (D.)."><span class="und">Vigiliâ Pentecost</span></span><span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_289" id="Ref_289" href="#Foot_289">[289]</a></span>) -et duret per totam hebdomadam pentecostes Et Meldonam<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_290" id="Ref_290" href="#Foot_290">[290]</a></span> ad -perficiendum predictas C libratas terræ pro tanto -<span title="quanto (A.); quantum (D.)."><span class="und">quantum</span></span> -inde reddi solebat die quâ (Rex Henricus fuit) vivus et -mortuus cum omnibus Appendiciis et rebus que adjacebant -in terrâ et mari ad Burgum illud predicto die mortis Regis -Henrici, et (Deopedenam<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_291" id="Ref_291" href="#Foot_291">[291]</a></span>) similiter pro tanto quantum -inde reddi solebat die quâ rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus -cum omnibus Appendiciis suis et Boscum de chatelegâ<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_292" id="Ref_292" href="#Foot_292">[292]</a></span> -cum (hominibus pro)<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_293" id="Ref_293" href="#Foot_293">[293]</a></span> xx solidis, -et terram de Banhunta<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_294" id="Ref_294" href="#Foot_294">[294]</a></span> -pro xl solidis, -<span title="et si in D.; et omitted in A."><span class="und">et si</span></span> -quid defuerit ad C libratas -<span title="perfici end' (D.)."><span class="und">perficiendas</span></span> -perficiam ei in loco competenti in Essexa (aut in -<span title="Heortfordescira (D.); Hertfordscira (A.)."><span class="und">Hert)fordescirâ</span></span> -aut in Cantebriggscirâ tali tenore quod si -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">{91}</a></span> -(reddi)dero Comiti Theobaldo totam terram quam (tenebat)<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_295" id="Ref_295" href="#Foot_295">[295]</a></span> -in An(gliâ dabo -<span title="Gaufrido (D.); Galfrido (A.)."><span class="und">Gaufrido</span></span> -Comiti Essex[ie] escambium suum ad -<span title="valens (D.); valentiam (A.)."><span class="und">valentiam</span></span> -in his prædictis -<span title="his tribus (A.)."><span class="und">tribus</span></span> -Comitatibus antequam de) predictis terris dissais(iatur; si -<span title="et etiam (A.)."><span class="und">etiam</span></span> -reddidero totum honorem et totam terram) heredibus Willelmi peur[elli] -de Lond[oniâ]<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_296" id="Ref_296" href="#Foot_296">[296]</a></span> dabo similiter ei escambium ad valens -antequam dissaisiatur de illâ quæ fuit peurelli et illud -(escambium erit) de terrâ que remanebit illi hereditabiliter -Et preter hoc do et concedo ei et heredibus suis de me et -heredibus meis tenendum feodum (et servicium) xx militum -et infra servicium istorum xx militum do ei feodum et -servicium terre quam Hasculf[us] de tania<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_297" id="Ref_297" href="#Foot_297">[297]</a></span> tenuit in -Angliâ die quâ fuit (vivus et) mortuus, quam tenet Graeleng[us]<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_298" id="Ref_298" href="#Foot_298">[298]</a></span> -et mater sua pro tanto servicii quantum de feodo -illo debent et totum superplus istorum xx militum<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_299" id="Ref_299" href="#Foot_299">[299]</a></span> ei -perficiam in (prenomina)tis<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_300" id="Ref_300" href="#Foot_300">[300]</a></span> tribus comitatibus. Et servicium -istorum xx militum faciet mihi separatim preter -aliud servicium alterius feodi sui. Et preterea concedo -(illi ut)<span class="fnanchor"><a href="#Foot_300">[300]</a></span> -castella sua que habet stent et ei remaneant (ad) -<span title="inforciand' (A.); inforciandum (D.)."><span class="und">inforcia(nd[um])</span></span><span -class="fnanchor"><a href="#Foot_300">[300]</a></span> -ad voluntatem suam Et ut ille et omnes homines sui teneant -<span title="terras et tent' (A.)."><span class="und">terras (et tenaturas)</span></span> -suas omnes de -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">{92}</a></span> -quocunque teneant sicut tenuerunt die quâ ipse homo meus -effectus est salvo servitio dominorum Et ut ipse et homines -sui (sint quieti) de omnibus debitis que debuerunt regi -Henrico aut regi Stephano et ut ipse et omnes homines -sui per totam Angliam sint quieti de Wastis fores(tariis et) -assartis que facta sunt in feodo ipsius -<span title="Gaufridi (D.); Galfridi (A.)."><span class="und">Gaufredi</span></span> -usque ad (diem quo) homo meus devenit Et ut a die illo in antea -omnia illa ess(arta sint amodo excultibilia et arrabilia sine -forisfacto et ut habeat mercatum die Jovis apud Bisseiam<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_301" id="Ref_301" href="#Foot_301">[301]</a></span> -et feriam similiter ibidem quoque anno; et -<span title="anno incipiat (A.)."><span class="und">incipiat</span></span> -vigiliâ Sancti Jacobi et duret tres dies. Et -<span title="preteria (A.); præterea (D.)."><span class="und">[preterea]</span></span> -do et concedo ei et heredibus suis in feodo et hereditate ad -tenendum de me et heredibus meis vicecomitatum -<span title="Essex (A.); de Essexâ (D.)."><span class="und">Essex[ie]</span></span> -reddendo inde rectam firmam que inde reddi solebat -die quâ rex Henricus pater meus fuit vivus et mortuus, -ita quod auferat de summâ -<span title="firmæ (D.); firma (A.)."><span class="und">firmâ</span></span> -vice)comitatus quantum pertinuerit<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_302" id="Ref_302" href="#Foot_302">[302]</a></span> -(ad) Meldonam et -<span title="Newport (A.)."><span class="und">Niweport</span></span> -que ei -(<span title="donu' (A.); donavi (D.)."><span class="und">donavi</span></span> -et) quantum (pertinuerit<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_303" id="Ref_303" href="#Foot_303">[303]</a></span> ad tertium) denarium de placitis -Vicecomitatus unde eum feci Comitem, et ut teneat omnia -excidamenta mea que mihi exciderint (in com)itatu Essexe -reddendo inde firmam rectam quamdiu erunt in -<span title="Dominica (D.)."><span class="und">Dominio</span></span> -meo Et ut sit capitalis Justicia in -<span title="Essexiâ (A.)."><span class="und">Essexâ</span></span> -hereditabiliter -<span title="meo (A.)."><span class="und">mea</span></span> -(et hered[um]) meorum de placitis et forisfactis que -pertinuerint ad Coronam meam, ita quod non mittam aliam -Justiciam super eum in Comitatu illo nisi<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_304" id="Ref_304" href="#Foot_304">[304]</a></span> (ita sit quod -ali)quando mittam aliquem de paribus suis qui audiat cum -illo quod placita mea juste tractentur Et ut ipse et omnes -homines sui sint (quieti versus) me et versus heredes meos -de omni forisfacto et omni -<span title="malevolentia (A.)."><span class="und">malivolentiâ</span></span> -preteritâ -<span title="anno et die quo (A.); ante diem (D.)."><span class="und">ante diem quo</span></span> -meus homo devenit Et ei firmiter concedo et (heredibus -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">{93}</a></span>s -suis) quod bene et in pace et libere et sine placito -habeat et<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_305" id="Ref_305" href="#Foot_305">[305]</a></span> teneat hereditabiliter, sicut hæc carta confirmat, -omnia tenementa sua (que ei concessi, in terris) et -<span title="tenaturis (D.); tenem'tis (A.)."><span class="und">tenaturis</span></span> -et in feodis et firmis et Castellis et libertatibus et in omnibus -<span title="consuetudinibus (A.)."><span class="und">Conventionibus</span></span> -inter nos factis (sicut aliquis Comes) -terre<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_306" id="Ref_306" href="#Foot_306">[306]</a></span> mee melius et quietius et liberius tenet ad modum -Comitis in omnibus rebus ita quod ipse vel aliquis hominum -suorum non -(ponantur<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_307" id="Ref_307" href="#Foot_307">[307]</a></span> -<span title="ponantur ullo (D.)."><span class="und">in ullo</span></span> -modo) in -<span title="placitum (D.); placit' (A.)."><span class="und">placitum</span></span> -de aliquo forisfacto quod fecissent antequam homo meus factus -esset, nec pro aliquo forisfacto quod facturus sit in (antea -ponatur in) placit[um] -de feodo vel Castello vel terrâ vel -tenurâ quam ei concesserim quamdiu se defendere -potuerit de scelere sive -(<span title="de traditione (A., D.)."><span class="und">traditione</span></span>) -ad corpus meum pertinente per se aut per unum militem si quis coram -venerit qui eum appellare inde voluerit.</p> - -<p>(T[estibus] H[enrico] Ep[iscop]o Winton[ensi]) et A[lexandro] -Ep[iscop]o Lincoln[ensi] et R[oberto] Ep[iscop]o -Heref[ordensi] et N[igello] Ep[iscop]o Ely[ensi] (et B[ernardo] -Ep[iscop]o de S[ancto] David et W[illelmo] -Cancellario et Com[ite] R[oberto] de Glocestr[iâ] et -Com[ite] B[aldewino<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_308" id="Ref_308" href="#Foot_308">[308]</a></span>]) et Com[ite] W[illelmo] de Moion -et B[riano] fil[io] Com[itis] (et M[ilone] Glocestr[ie] et -R[oberto] Arundell<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_309" id="Ref_309" href="#Foot_309">[309]</a></span>] et R[oberto] Malet<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_310" id="Ref_310" href="#Foot_310">[310]</a></span> et Rad[ulfo] -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">{94}</a></span> -Lovell<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_311" id="Ref_311" href="#Foot_311">[311]</a></span> et Rad[ulfo] Painell<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_312" id="Ref_312" href="#Foot_312">[312]</a></span>) et W[alkelino] Maminot<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_313" id="Ref_313" href="#Foot_313">[313]</a></span> et -Rob[erto] fil[io] R[egis]<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_314" id="Ref_314" href="#Foot_314">[314]</a></span> et Rob[erto] fil[io] Martin<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_315" id="Ref_315" href="#Foot_315">[315]</a></span> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">{95}</a></span> -(et Rob[ert]o fil[io] Heldebrand[i]<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_316" id="Ref_316" href="#Foot_316">[316]</a></span> Apud Westmonaster[ium]).<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_317" id="Ref_317" href="#Foot_317">[317]</a></span></p> - -<p class="gap-above2">One cannot but be greatly struck by the names of the -witnesses to this charter. The legate and his four brother -prelates, who had been with the Empress in Winchester, at -her reception on March 3, are here with her again at Westminster. -So are her three inseparable companions; but -where are the magnates of England? Two west-country -earls, one of them of her own making,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_318" id="Ref_318" href="#Foot_318">[318]</a></span> and a few west-country -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">{96}</a></span> -barons virtually complete the list. I do not say -that these were, of necessity, the sole constituents of her -court; but there is certainly the strongest possible presumption -that had she been joined in person by any number of -bishops or nobles, we should not have found so important -a charter witnessed merely by the members of the <i>entourage</i> -that she had brought up with her from the west. We -have, for instance, but to compare this list with that of -the witnesses to Stephen's charter six months later.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_319" id="Ref_319" href="#Foot_319">[319]</a></span> Or, -indeed, we may compare it, to some disadvantage, with -that of the Empress herself a month later at Oxford.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_320" id="Ref_320" href="#Foot_320">[320]</a></span> -Where were the primate and the Bishop of London? -Where was the King of Scots? These questions are -difficult to answer. It may, however, be suggested that -the general disgust at her intolerable arrogance,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_321" id="Ref_321" href="#Foot_321">[321]</a></span> and her -harshness to the king,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_322" id="Ref_322" href="#Foot_322">[322]</a></span> kept the magnates from attending -her court.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_323" id="Ref_323" href="#Foot_323">[323]</a></span> Her inability to repel the queen's forces, and -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">{97}</a></span> -her instant flight before the Londoners, are alike suggestive -of the fact that her followers were comparatively few.</p> - -<p>There are several points of constitutional importance -upon which this instructive charter sheds some welcome -light.</p> - -<p>In the first place we should compare it with Stephen's -charter (p. 51), to which, in Mr. Eyton's words, it forms -the "counter-patent."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_324" id="Ref_324" href="#Foot_324">[324]</a></span> In the former the words of -creation are: "Sciatis me fecisse comitem de Gaufredo," -etc. In the charter of the Empress they run thus: -"Sciatis ... quod ... do et concedo Gaufredo de Magnavilla -... ut sit Comes," etc. This contrast is in itself -conclusive as to the earldom having been first <i>created</i> by -Stephen and then <i>recognized</i> by the Empress. This being -so, it is the more strange that Mr. Eyton should have -arrived at the contrary conclusion, especially as he noticed -the stronger form in the charter creating the earldom of -Hereford ("Sciatis me fecisse Milonem de Glocestriâ Comitem"), -a form corresponding with that in Stephen's -charter to Geoffrey. The earldom of Hereford being -<i>created</i> by the Empress, as that of Essex had been by -Stephen, we find the same formula duly employed by both. -The distinction thus established is one of considerable -importance.</p> - -<p>The special grant of the "tertius denarius" is a point -of such extreme interest in its bearing on earls and -earldoms that it requires to be separately discussed in a -note devoted to the subject.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_325" id="Ref_325" href="#Foot_325">[325]</a></span></p> - -<p>But without dwelling at greater length upon the peerage -aspect of this charter, let us see how it illustrates the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">{98}</a></span> -ambitious policy pursued in this struggle by the feudal -nobles. Dr. Stubbs writes:—</p> - -<p class="small">"It is possible that the frequent tergiversations which mark the -struggle may have been caused by the desire of obtaining confirmation -of the rank [of earl] from both the competitors for the crown."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_326" id="Ref_326" href="#Foot_326">[326]</a></span></p> - -<p>But it is my contention that Geoffrey and his fellows -were playing a deeper game. We find each successive -change of side on the part of this unscrupulous magnate -marked by a distinct advance in his demands and in the -price he obtained. Broadly speaking, he was master of -the situation, and he put himself and his fortress up to -auction. Thus he obtained from the impassioned rivals -a rapid advance at each bid. Compare, for instance, this -charter with that he had obtained from Stephen, or, -again, compare it with those which are to follow.</p> - -<p>The very length of this charter, as compared with -Stephen's, is significant enough in itself. But its details -are far more so. Stephen's grant had not explicitly -included the <i>tertius denarius</i>; the Empress grants him the -<i>tertius denarius</i> "sicut comes habere debet in comitatu -suo."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_327" id="Ref_327" href="#Foot_327">[327]</a></span> But what may be termed the characteristic -features are to be found in such clauses as those dealing -with the license to fortify, and with the grants of lands.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_328" id="Ref_328" href="#Foot_328">[328]</a></span> -These latter, indeed, teem with information, not only for -the local, but for the general historian, as in the case of -Theobald's forfeiture. But their special information is -rather in the light they throw on the nature of these grants, -and on the sources from which the Empress, like her rival, -strove to gratify the greed of these insatiable nobles.</p> - -<p>Foremost among these were those "extravagant grants -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">{99}</a></span> -of Crown lands" spoken of by Dr. Stubbs and by Gneist.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_329" id="Ref_329" href="#Foot_329">[329]</a></span> -Now, in this charter, and in those which follow, we are -enabled to trace the actual working of this fatal policy in -practice. The Empress begins, in this charter, by granting -Geoffrey, for this is its effect, £100 a year in land -("C libratas terræ"). Stephen, we shall find, a few -months later, regains him to his side by increasing the -bid to £300 a year ("CCC libratas terræ"). But how is the -amount made up? It is charged on the Crown lands in -his own county of Essex. But observe, for this is an -important point, that it is not charged as a lump sum on -the entire <i>corpus comitatus</i> (or, to speak more exactly, on -the annual <i>firma</i> of that <i>corpus</i>), but on certain specified -estates. Here we have a welcome allusion to the practice -of the early Exchequer. The charter authorizes Geoffrey, -as sheriff, to deduct from the annual ferm of the county, -for which he was responsible at the Exchequer (being that -recorded on the <i>Rotulus exactorius</i>), that portion of it -represented by the annual rents (<i>redditus</i>) of Maldon and -Newport, which, as estates of Crown demesne, had till -then been included in the <i>corpus</i>.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_330" id="Ref_330" href="#Foot_330">[330]</a></span> From the earliest -Pipe-Rolls now remaining we know that the estates so -alienated were usually entered by the sheriff under the -head of "<i>Terræ Datæ</i>," with the amount due from each, -for which amounts, of course, he claimed allowance in his -account. I think we have here at least a suggestion that -even at the height of the anarchy and of the struggle, -the Exchequer, with all the details of its practice, was -recognized as in full existence. I have never been able -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">{100}</a></span> -to reconcile myself to the accepted view, as set forth by -Dr. Stubbs, of the "stoppage of the administrative -machinery"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_331" id="Ref_331" href="#Foot_331">[331]</a></span> under Stephen. He holds that on the arrest -of the bishops (June, 1139) "the whole administration -of the country ceased to work," and that Stephen was -"never able to restore the administrative machinery."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_332" id="Ref_332" href="#Foot_332">[332]</a></span> -Crippled and disorganized though it doubtless was, the -Exchequer, I contend, must have preserved its existence, -because its existence was an absolute necessity. Without -an exchequer, the income of the Crown would, obviously, -have instantly disappeared. Moreover, the case of -William of Ypres, and others to which reference will be -made below, will go far to establish the important fact -that the Exchequer system remained in force, and that -accounts of some kind must have been kept.</p> - -<p>The next point to which I would call attention is the -expression "pro tanto quantum inde reddi solebat die quâ -Rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus," which is applied -to Maldon and Newport. The Pipe-Rolls, it should be -remembered, only took cognizance of the total ferm of -the shire. The constituents of that ferm were a matter -for the sheriff. At first sight, therefore, these expressions -might seem to cause some difficulty. Their explanation, -however, is this. Just as I have shown in <i>Domesday -Studies</i><span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_333" id="Ref_333" href="#Foot_333">[333]</a></span> that the ferm of a town, as in the case of Huntingdon, -was in truth the aggregate of several distinct and -separate ferms, so the ferm of a county must have comprised -the separate and distinct ferms of each of the royal -estates. That ferm would be a customary, that is, fixed, -<i>redditus</i> (or, as the charter expresses it, "quantum inde -reddi solebat"). A particularly striking case in point is -afforded by Hatfield Regis (<i>alias</i> Hatfield Broadoak). -When Stephen increased the alienation of Crown demesne -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">{101}</a></span> -to Geoffrey, he granted him Hatfield <i>inter alia</i> "pro -quater xx libris," that is, as representing £80 a year. -This same estate, after the fall of Geoffrey, was alienated -anew to Richard de Luci, and in the early Pipe-Rolls of -Henry II. we read, under "Terræ Datæ" in Essex, -"Ricardo de Luci quater xx libræ numero in Hadfeld." -That is to say, in his annual account, the sheriff claimed -to be allowed £80 off the amount of his ferm, in respect -of the alienated estate. Now, the Domesday valuation of -this manor is fortunately very precise: "Tunc Manerium -valuit xxxvi libras. Modo lx. Sed vicecomes recipit inde -lxxx libras et c solidos de gersuma" (ii. 2 b). The -Domesday <i>redditus</i> of the manor, therefore, had remained -absolutely unchanged. In such cases of alienation of -demesne, it was, obviously, the object of the grantee that -the manor should be valued as low as possible, while that -of the sheriff was precisely the reverse. It was on this -account doubtless, to prevent dispute, that these charters -carefully named the sum at which the manor was to be -valued, either in figures, as in the case of Bonhunt,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_334" id="Ref_334" href="#Foot_334">[334]</a></span> or, as -in that of Maldon and Newport, in the formula "quantum -inde reddi solebat" at the death of Henry I., this formula -probably implying that the earlier ferm had been -forced up in the days of the Lion of Justice.</p> - -<p>The conclusion I would draw from the above argument -is that the sheriff was not at liberty to exact arbitrary -sums from the demesne lands of the Crown. A fixed -annual render (<i>redditus</i>) was due to him from each, though -this, like the <i>firma</i> of the sheriff himself, was liable to -revision from time to time.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_335" id="Ref_335" href="#Foot_335">[335]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">{102}</a></span> -But it would be difficult to overestimate the importance -of evidence which forms a connecting link between Domesday -and the period of the Pipe-Rolls, especially if it throws -some fresh light on the vexed question of Domesday -values. Moreover, we have here an obvious suggestion as -to the purpose of the Conqueror in ascertaining values, at -least so far as concerned the demesne lands of the Crown, -for he was thus enabled to check the sheriffs, by obtaining -a basis for calculating the amount of the <i>firma comitatus</i>. -With this point we shall have to deal when we come to -Geoffrey's connection with the shrievalty of Essex and -Herts.</p> - -<p>Attention may also be called to the formula of -"excambion" (as the Scottish lawyers term it) here -employed, for it would seem to be earlier than any of -those quoted in Madox's <i>Formularium</i>. But the suggested -exchange is specially interesting in the case of Count -Theobald, because it gives us an historical fact not elsewhere -mentioned, namely, that the Empress, on obtaining -the mastery, forfeited his lands at once. Her doing -so, we should observe, is in strict accordance with the -chroniclers' assertions as to her wholesale forfeitures and -her special hostility to Stephen's house. And we can go -further still. We can ascertain not only that Count -Theobald was forfeited, as we have seen, by the Empress, -but also that the land she forfeited had been given him -by Stephen himself. In a document which I have -previously referred to, we read that Stephen had given -him the "manor" of Maldon,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_336" id="Ref_336" href="#Foot_336">[336]</a></span> being that manor of Crown -demesne which the Empress here bestows upon Geoffrey.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">{103}</a></span> -Another important though difficult subject upon which -this charter bears is that of knight-service. Indeed, -considering its early date—a quarter of a century earlier -than the returns contained in the <i>Liber Niger</i>—it may, -in conjunction with Stephen's charter of some six -months later, be pronounced to be among our most -valuable evidences for what Dr. Stubbs describes as "a -subject on which the greatest obscurity prevails."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_337" id="Ref_337" href="#Foot_337">[337]</a></span></p> - -<p>Let us first notice that the Empress grants "feodum -et servicium <small>XX</small> militum," while Stephen grants "<small>LX</small> -milites feudatos ... scilicet servicium" of so and so -"pro [<small>LX</small>] militibus." Thus, then, the "milites feudatos" -of Stephen equates the "feodum et servicium ... militum" -of the Empress. And, further, it repeats the -remarkable expression employed by Florence of Worcester -when he tells us that the Conqueror instructed the Domesday -Commissioners to ascertain "quot milites feudatos" -his tenants-in-chief possessed, that is to say, how many -knights they had enfeoffed. But the Empress in her -charter complicates her grant by adding the special -clause: "Et servicium istorum <small>XX</small> militum faciet mihi -separatim preter aliud servicium alterius feodi sui." -Had it not been for this clause, one might have inferred -that the object of the grant was to transfer, to Earl -Geoffrey the "servicium" of these twenty knights' fees -due, of right, to the Crown, so that he might enjoy all -such profits as the Crown would have derived from that -"servicium," and, at the same time, have employed these -knights as substitutes for those which he was bound to -furnish, from his own fief, to the Crown. But the above -clause is fatal to such a view. Again, both in the charters -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">{104}</a></span> -of the Empress and of her rival, these special grants of -knights and their "servicium" are kept entirely distinct -from those of Crown demesne or escheated land, which, -moreover, are expressed in terms of the "librata terræ." -On the whole I lean strongly to the belief that, although -the working of the arrangement may be obscure, the -object of Geoffrey was to add to the number of the knights -who followed his standard, and thus to increase his power -as a noble and the weight that he could throw into the -scale. And the special clause referred to above would -imply that the Crown was to have a claim on him for -twenty knights more than those whom he was bound to -furnish from his own fief.</p> - -<p>Lastly, we may note the identity of the formula -employed for the grant of lands and for that of knights' -service. In each case the grant is made "pro tanto,"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_338" id="Ref_338" href="#Foot_338">[338]</a></span> -and in each case the Empress undertakes to make good -("perficere") the balance to him within the limit of the -three counties of Essex, Cambridgeshire, and Herts.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_339" id="Ref_339" href="#Foot_339">[339]</a></span></p> - -<p>With the subject of castles I propose to deal later -on. But there is one point on which the evidence of -this charter is perhaps more important than on any -other, and that is in the retrospective light which it -throws on the system of reform introduced by the first -Henry.</p> - -<p>Incidentally, we have here witness to that system, of -which the Pipe-Roll of 1130 is the solitary but vivid -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">{105}</a></span> -exponent, and under which the very name of "plea" -became a terror to all men. Every man was liable, on -the slightest pretext, to be brought within the meshes -of the law, with the object, as it seemed, and at least -with the result, of swelling the royal hoard (cf. pp. 11, 12, -<i>n.</i> 1). Even to secure one's simplest rights money had -always to be paid. Thus, here, Geoffrey stipulates that -he and his men are to hold their possessions "sine placito," -and "ita quod ... non ponantur in ullo modo in placito -de aliquo forisfacto," etc., etc. So again, in his later -charter, we find him insisting that he and they shall hold -all their possessions "sine placito et sine pecuniæ donatione," -and that "Rectum eis teneatur de eorum calumpniis -sine pecuniæ donatione." The exactions he dreaded -meet us at every turn on the Pipe-Roll of 1130.</p> - -<p>But, on the other hand, the charter, broadly speaking, -illustrates, by the retrograde concessions it extorts, the -cardinal factor in the long struggle between the feudal -nobles and their lord the king, namely, their jealousy of -that royal jurisdiction by which the Crown strove, and -eventually with success, to break their semi-independent -power, and to bring the whole realm into uniform subjection -to the law.</p> - -<p>After the clauses conferring on Geoffrey the <i>hereditary</i> -shrievalty of Essex, a matter which I shall discuss further -on, there immediately follows this passage, the most -significant, as I deem it, in the whole charter:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Et ut sit Capitalis Justicia in Essexiâ hereditabiliter mea et heredum -meorum de placitis et forisfactis que pertinuerint ad coronam -meam, ita quod non mittam aliam justiciam super eum in comitatu -illo nisi ita sit quod aliquando mittam aliquem de paribus suis qui -audiat cum illo quod placita mea juste tractentur."</p> - -<p>The first point to be dealt with here is the phrase -"<i>Capitalis</i> Justicia in Essexiâ." Here we have the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">{106}</a></span> -term "capitalis" applied to the <i>justicia</i> of a single -county. On this I would lay some stress, for it has been -generally supposed that this style was reserved for the -Great Justiciary, the <i>alter ego</i> of the king himself.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_340" id="Ref_340" href="#Foot_340">[340]</a></span></p> - -<p>In his learned observations on the "obscurities" of -the style "<i>justitia</i> or <i>justitiarius</i>," Dr. Stubbs writes that -"the <i>capitalis justitia</i> seems to be the only one of the -body to whom a determinate position as the king's representative -is assigned in formal documents" (i. 389). It -was probably the object of Geoffrey, when he secured this -particular style, to obtain for himself all the powers vested -in "the king's representative," and so to provide against -his supersession by a justiciar claiming in that capacity.</p> - -<p>Let us now examine the witness of the charter to the -differentiation of the sheriff (<i>vicecomes</i>) and the justice -(<i>justitia</i>), for that is the development which its terms -involve.</p> - -<p>Dr. Stubbs points out that, under the Norman kings, -"the authority of the sheriff, when he was relieved from -the company of the ealdorman, ... would have no check -except the direct control of the king" (i. 272); and -Gneist similarly observed that "After the withdrawal of -the eorl, the Anglo-Saxon shir-gerefa became the regular -governor of the county, who was henceforth no longer dependent -upon the eorl, but upon the personal orders of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">{107}</a></span> -the king, and upon the organs of the Norman central administration" -(i. 140). And for a period of transition -between the two systems, the Anglo-Saxon and the late -Norman, the sheriff not only presided, in his court, as its -sole lay head, but also in a dual capacity. Dr. Stubbs, it -is true, with his wonted caution, does but suggest it as -"probable that whilst the sheriff in his character of -sheriff was competent to direct the customary business -of the court, it was in that of <i>justitia</i> that he transacted -special business under the king's writ."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_341" id="Ref_341" href="#Foot_341">[341]</a></span> But Gneist -treats of him, under a separate heading, in his capacity -of "royal justiciary" (i. 142). It is from this dual position -that there developed, by specialization of function, -two distinct officers, the sheriff (<i>vicecomes</i>) and the -justice (<i>justicia</i>). This is the development which, as yet, -has been somewhat imperfectly apprehended.</p> - -<p>The centralizing policy of Henry I., operating through -the <i>Curia Regis</i>, has, I need hardly observe, been admirably -explained by Dr. Stubbs. He has shown how two methods -were employed to attain the end in view: the one, to call -up certain pleas from the local courts to the <i>curia</i>; the -other, to send down the officers of the <i>curia</i> to sit in the -local courts.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_342" id="Ref_342" href="#Foot_342">[342]</a></span> In the latter case, the royal officer ("justicia") -appeared as the representative of the central -power of which the <i>Curia Regis</i> was the exponent. Thus, -there were, again, for the county court two lay presidents, -but they were now the sheriff, as local authority, and the -justice, who represented the central. Such an arrangement -was, of course, a step in advance for the Crown, -which had thus secured for itself, through its justice, a -footing in the local courts.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_343" id="Ref_343" href="#Foot_343">[343]</a></span> But with this arrangement -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">{108}</a></span> -neither side was able to rest satisfied. Broadly speaking, -if I may be allowed the expression, the Crown sought to -centralize the sheriff, and to exclude the local element; -the feudatories would fain have localized the justice, and -so have excluded the central. Thus, before the close of -Henry's reign, he had actually employed on a large scale -the officers of his <i>curia</i> as sheriffs of counties, and "by -these means," as Dr. Stubbs observes, "the king and -justiciar kept in their hands the reins of the entire judicial -administration" (i. 392).<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_344" id="Ref_344" href="#Foot_344">[344]</a></span> The same policy was faithfully -followed by his grandson, a generation later, on the occasion -of the inquest of sheriffs (1170), when, says Dr. -Stubbs, "the sheriffs removed from their offices were most -of them local magnates, whose chances of oppression and -whose inclination towards a feudal administration of -justice were too great. In their place Henry instituted -officers of the Exchequer, less closely connected with the -counties by property, and more amenable to royal influence, -as well as more skilled administrators—another -step towards the concentration of the provincial jurisdiction -under the <i>Curia Regis</i>."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_345" id="Ref_345" href="#Foot_345">[345]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">{109}</a></span> -This passage enables us to see how essentially contrary -to the policy of the Crown were the provisions of Geoffrey's -charter. It not only feudalized the local shrievalty by -placing it in the hands of a feudal magnate, and, further -still, making it hereditary, but it seized upon the centralizing -office of justice, and made it as purely local, nay, as -feudal as the other.</p> - -<p>But let us return to the point from which we started, -namely, the witness of Geoffrey's charter to the differentiation -of the sheriff and the justice. It proves that the -sheriff could no longer discharge the functions of "a royal -justiciary," without a separate appointment to that distinct -office. When we thus learn how Geoffrey became both -sheriff and justice of Essex, we can approach in the light -of that appointment the writ addressed "Ricardo de Luci -Justic' et Vicecomiti de Essexa," on which Madox relies -for Richard's tenure of the post of chief justiciary.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_346" id="Ref_346" href="#Foot_346">[346]</a></span> It -may be that Richard's appointment corresponded with that -of Geoffrey. But whatever uncertainty there may be on -this point, there can be none on the parallel between -Geoffrey's charter and that which Henry I. granted to the -citizens of London. Indeed, in all municipal charters of -the fullest and best type, we find the functions of the -sheriff and the justice dealt with in the same successive -order. The striking thought to be drawn from this is that -the feudatories and the towns, though their interests were -opposed <i>inter se</i>, presented to the Crown the same attitude -and sought from it the same exemptions. In proof of -this I here adduce three typical charters, arranged in -chronological order. The first is an extract from that -important charter which London obtained from Henry I., -the second is taken from Geoffrey's charter, and the third -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">{110}</a></span> -from that of Richard I. to Colchester, which I quote -because it contains the same word "justicia," and also -because it is, probably, little, if at all, known.</p> - -<table class="multi" summary="multi-2"> - - <colgroup> - <col span="3" style="width:32%" /> - </colgroup> - -<tr> - <th>Charter of Henry I. to London.</th> - <th>Charter of the Empress to Geoffrey.</th> - <th>Charter of Richard I. to Colchester.</th> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>"Ipsi cives ponent - <i>vicecomitem</i> qualem voluerint de se ipsis, <i>et - justitiarium</i> qualem voluerint de se ipsis ad custodiendum - placita coronæ meæ et eadem placitanda; et nullus alius erit - Justitiarius super ipsos homines Londoniarum."</td> - <td>"Concedo ei et - heredibus suis ... <i>vicecomitatum</i> Essexie. Et ut sit - Capitalis <i>Justicia</i> ... de placitis et forisfactis que - pertinuerint ad coronam meam, ita quod non mittam aliam Justiciam - super eum in comitatu illo," etc.</td> - <td>"Ipsi ponant de se - ipsis <i>Ballivos</i> quoscunque voluerint et <i>Justiciam</i> ad - servanda placita Coronæ nostræ et ad placitanda eadem placita infra - Burgum suum et quod nullus alius sit inde Justicia nisi quem - elegerint."</td> -</tr> - -</table> - -<p>Here we have the two offices similarly distinct throughout. -We have also the <i>ballivi</i>, representing to the town -what the <i>vicecomes</i> represents to the shire, a point which -it is necessary to bear in mind. The "bailiff," so far as -the town was concerned, stood in the sheriff's shoes. So -also did the "coroner" (or "coroners") in those of the -justice. Indeed, at Colchester, two "coroners" represented -the "justice" of the charter. I cannot find that Dr. -Stubbs calls attention to the fact of this twin privilege, -the fact that exemption from the sheriff and from the -justice went, in these charters, hand in hand.</p> - -<p>Lastly, we should observe that though, in these charters, -the clause relating to the sheriff precedes that which -relates to the justice, yet, conversely, in the enumeration -of those to whom a charter is directed, "justices" are -invariably, I believe, given the precedence of "sheriffs." -This, which would seem to have passed unnoticed, may -have an important bearing. Ordericus, in a famous -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">{111}</a></span> -passage (xi. 2) describing Henry's ministers, tells us how -the king</p> - -<p class="small">"favorabiliter illi obsequentes de ignobili stirpe illustravit, de pulvere, -ut ita dicam, extulit, dataque multiplici facultate <i>super</i> consules et -illustres oppidanos exaltavit.... Illos ... rex, cum de infimo genere -essent, nobilitavit, regali auctoritate de imo erexit, in fastigio potestatum -constituit, ipsis etiam spectabilibus regni principibus formidabiles -effecit."</p> - -<p class="nodent">Observe how vivid a light such a passage as this throws -upon the clause in Geoffrey's charter:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Non mittam aliam Justiciam <i>super</i> eum in Comitatu illo, nisi -ita sit quod aliquando mittam aliquem de paribus suis qui audiat cum -illo quod placita mea juste tractentur."</p> - -<p>The whole clause breathes the very spirit of feudalism. -It betrays the hatred of Geoffrey and his class for those -upstarts, as they deemed them, the royal justices, who, -clad in all the authority of the Crown, intruded themselves -into their local courts and checked them in the exercise -of their power. Henceforth, in the courts of the favoured -earl, the representative of the Crown was to make his -appearance not regularly, but only now and then ("aliquando"); -moreover, when he came, he was to figure in -court not as the superior ("super eum"), but as the -colleague ("cum illo") of the earl; and, lastly, he was not -to belong to the upstart ministerial class: he was to be -one of his own class—of his "peers" ("de paribus suis").</p> - -<p>As an illustrative parallel to this clause, I am tempted -to quote a remarkable charter, unnoticed, it would seem, -not only by our historians, but even by Mr. Eyton himself. -The Assize of Clarendon, a quarter of a century -(1166) after the date of our charter to Geoffrey, contained -clauses specially aimed against such exemption as he -sought. Referring to these clauses, Dr. Stubbs writes:—</p> - -<p class="small">"No franchise is to exclude the justices.... In the article which -directs the admission of the justices into every franchise may be -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">{112}</a></span> -detected one sign of the anti-feudal policy which the king had all his -life to maintain."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_347" id="Ref_347" href="#Foot_347">[347]</a></span></p> - -<p class="nodent">But the clauses in question, though their sweeping character -fully justifies this description,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_348" id="Ref_348" href="#Foot_348">[348]</a></span> contrast strangely -with the humble, almost apologetic, charter in which -Henry II., immediately afterwards, announces that he is -only sending his "justicia" into the patrimony of St. -Cuthbert "by permission" of the bishop, and as a quite -exceptional measure, not to be taken again. It throws, -perhaps, some new light on the character and methods -of the king, when we find him thus stooping, in form, to -gain his point in fact.</p> - -<p>"Henricus Rex Angl' et Dux Normann' et Aquitan' -et Comes Andegav', justiciariis Vicecomitibus et omnibus -ministris suis de Eborac'sir et de Nordhummerlanda -salutem. Sciatis quod consilio Baronum meorum,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_349" id="Ref_349" href="#Foot_349">[349]</a></span> et -Episcopi Dunelmensis licencia, mitto hac vice in terram -sancti Cuthberti justiciam meam, quæ<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_350" id="Ref_350" href="#Foot_350">[350]</a></span> videat ut fiat -justicia secundum assisam meam de latronibus et murdratoribus -et roboratoribus;<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_351" id="Ref_351" href="#Foot_351">[351]</a></span> non quia velim ut trahatur in -consuetudinem tempore meo vel heredum meorum, sed -ad tempus hoc facio, pro prædicta necessitate; quia volo -quod terra beati Cuthberti suas habeat libertates et -antiquas consuetudines, sicut unquam melius habuit. T. -Gavfrido Archiepiscopo [<i>sic</i>] Cant. Ric. Arch. Pictav. -Comite Gaufrido, Ricardo de Luci. Apud Wodestoc."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_352" id="Ref_352" href="#Foot_352">[352]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">{113}</a></span> -The first charter of the Empress has now been -sufficiently discussed. It was, of course, his possession -of the Tower that enabled Geoffrey to extort such terms, -the command of that fortress being essential to the -Empress, to overawe the disaffected citizens.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_248" id="Foot_248" href="#Ref_248">[248]</a> -"Itaque multæ fuit molis Londoniensium animos permulcere posse, ut, -cum hæc statim post Pascha (ut dixi) fuerint actitata, vix paucis ante -Nativitatem beati Johannis diebus imperatricem reciperent" (p. 748).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_249" id="Foot_249" href="#Ref_249">[249]</a> -"Galfridus de Mandevilla firmavit Turrim Londoniensem. Idibus -Maii Albericus de Ver Londoniis occiditur" (M. Paris, <i>Chron. Major.</i>, ii. 174).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_250" id="Foot_250" href="#Ref_250">[250]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i></p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_251" id="Foot_251" href="#Ref_251">[251]</a> -<i>The Early History of Oxford</i>, cap. x.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_252" id="Foot_252" href="#Ref_252">[252]</a> -"Ad Radingum infra Rogationes veniens, suscipitur cum honoribus, -hinc inde principibus cum populis ad ejus imperium convolantibus" (<i>Cont. -Flor. Wig.</i>, 130).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_253" id="Foot_253" href="#Ref_253">[253]</a> -<i>Add. Chart.</i> (Brit. Mus.), 19,576; <i>Arch. Journ.</i>, xx. 289; <i>Journ. B. A. A.</i>, -xxxi. 389.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_254" id="Foot_254" href="#Ref_254">[254]</a> -"Reginaldo <i>comite</i> filio regis." He had attested, as we have seen, an -Oxford charter (<i>circ.</i> March 24) as Reginald "filius regis" simply. This -would seem to fix his creation to <i>circ.</i> April, 1141 (see p. 68).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_255" id="Foot_255" href="#Ref_255">[255]</a> -"Roberto fratre ejus."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_256" id="Foot_256" href="#Ref_256">[256]</a> -We obtain incidentally, in another quarter, unique evidence on this -very point. There is printed in the <i>Cartulary of Ramsey</i> (Rolls Series), -vol. ii. p. 254, a precept from Nigel, Bishop of Ely, to William, Prior of Ely, -and others, notifying the agreement he has made with Walter, Abbot of -Ramsey:—"Sciatis me et Walterum Abbatem de Rameseia consilio et -assensu dominæ nostræ Imperatricis et Episcopi Wynton' Apost' sedis legati -aliorumque coepiscoporum meorum scilicet Linc', Norwycensis, Cestrensis, -Hereford', Sancti Davidis, et Roberti Comitis Gloecestrie, et Hugonis Comitis -et Brienni et Milonis ad voluntatem meam concordatos esse. Quapropter -mando et præcipio sicut me diligitis," etc., etc. This precept, in the printed -cartulary, is dated "1133-1144." These are absurdly wide limits, and a -little research would, surely, have shown that it must belong to the period -in which the Empress was triumphant, and during which the legate was with -her. This fixes it to March-June, 1141. Independent of the great interest -attaching to this document as representing a "concordia" in the court of -the Empress during her brief triumph, it affords in my opinion proof of the -<i>personnel</i> of her court at the time. Five of the seven bishops mentioned -were, as observed in the text, in regular attendance at her court, and we may -therefore, on the strength of this document, add those of "Chester" and -Norwich, as visiting it, at least, on this occasion. So with the laity. Three -of the four magnates named (of whom Miles had not yet received the earldom -of Hereford) were her constant companions, so that we may safely rely on -this evidence for the presence at her court on this occasion of Hugh, Earl of -Norfolk.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_257" id="Foot_257" href="#Ref_257">[257]</a> -<i>Journ. B. A. A.</i>, xxxi. 389. Note that in this case Seffrid, Bishop of -Chichester, appears as a witness, doubtless because he had been Abbot of -Glastonbury, to which abbey the charter was granted.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_258" id="Foot_258" href="#Ref_258">[258]</a> -See above, p. 66.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_259" id="Foot_259" href="#Ref_259">[259]</a> -"Proficiscitur inde cum exultatione magna et gaudio, et in monasterio -Sancti Albani cum processionali suscipitur honore, et jubilo" (<i>Cont. Flor. -Wig.</i>, 131).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_260" id="Foot_260" href="#Ref_260">[260]</a> -"Apud sanctum Albanum" (Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, -No. 16; <i>Journ. B. A. A.</i>, xxxi. 388).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_261" id="Foot_261" href="#Ref_261">[261]</a> -"Adeunt eam ibi cives multi ex Londoniâ, tractatur ibi sermo multimodus -de reddenda civitate" (<i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i>, 131).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_262" id="Foot_262" href="#Ref_262">[262]</a> -"Imperatrix, ut prædiximus, habito tractatu cum Londoniensibus, -comitantibus secum præsulibus multis et principibus, secura properavit ad -urbem, et apud Westmonasterium cum processionali suscipitur honorificentiâ." -(<i>ibid.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_263" id="Foot_263" href="#Ref_263">[263]</a> -<i>i.e.</i> Hyde Park Corner, as it now is. See, for this custom, the <i>Chronicles -of the Mayors of London</i>, which record how, a century later (1257), upon the -king approaching Westminster, "exierunt Maior et cives, <i>sicut mos est</i> ad -salutandum ipsum usque ad Kniwtebrigge" (p. 31). The Continuator -(p. 132) alludes to some such reception by the citizens ("cum honore susceperunt").</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_264" id="Foot_264" href="#Ref_264">[264]</a> -"Videns itaque David rex multa competere in imperatricis neptis suæ -promotionem, post Ascensionem Domini ad eam in Suthangliam profectus -est: ... Venit itaque rex ad neptem suam, plurimosque ex principibus sibi -acquiescentes habuit ut ipsa promoveretur ad totius regni fastigium" (<i>Sym. -Dun.</i>, ii. 309). As he did not join her till after her election, I have taken -this latter phrase as referring to her coronation (see p. 80). Cf. p. 5, <i>n.</i> 5.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_265" id="Foot_265" href="#Ref_265">[265]</a> -"Vix paucis ante Nativitatem beati Johannis diebus."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_266" id="Foot_266" href="#Ref_266">[266]</a> -"Cives ... Imperatricem ... favorabiliter susciperunt undecimo [<i>al.</i> -Sexto] Kal. Maii."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_267" id="Foot_267" href="#Ref_267">[267]</a> -See the <i>Liber de Antiquis Legibus</i>: "Tandem a Londonensibus expulsa -est in die Sancti Johannis Bapt." So also Trivet.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_268" id="Foot_268" href="#Ref_268">[268]</a> -"Ibique aliquantis diebus ... resedit" (p. 131).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_269" id="Foot_269" href="#Ref_269">[269]</a> -"[Legatus] rem exanimans, præscriptam factionem invenit, fautoribusque -ipsius dignâ animadversione interdixit ne Willelmum in Episcopum nisi -canonicâ electione susciperent. Ipsi quoque Willelmo interdixit omnem -ecclesiasticam communionem, si Episcopatum susciperet nisi Canonice promotus. -Actum id in die S. Johannis Baptistæ. Pactus erat Willelmus ab -Imperatrice baculum et annulum recipere; et data hæc ei essent, nisi, facta -a Londoniensibus dissentione, cum omnibus suis discederet <i>ipso die</i> a Londonia -Imperatrix."—Continuatio Historiæ Turgoti (<i>Anglia Sacra</i>, i. 711). -This passage further proves (though, indeed, there is no reason to doubt it) -that the legate remained in London till the actual flight of the Empress. It -also illustrates their discordance.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_270" id="Foot_270" href="#Ref_270">[270]</a> -"Literas Imperatricis directas ad Capitulum, quarum summa hæc erat: -Quod vellet Ecclesiam nostram de Pastore consultam esse, et nominatim de -illo quem Robertus Archidiaconus nominaret, et quod de illo vellet, et de -alio omnino nollet. Quæsitum est ergo quis hic esset. Responsum est quod -Willelmus" (<i>ibid.</i>). This has, of course, an important bearing on the -question of episcopal election. Strong though the terms of her letter appear -to have been, the Empress here waives the right, on which her father and -her son insisted, of having the election conducted in her presence and in -her own chapel, and anticipated the later practice introduced by the charter -of John.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_271" id="Foot_271" href="#Ref_271">[271]</a> -<i>Add. MSS.</i>, 31,943, fol. 97. So too fol. 115: "After June 24, 1141, when -the Empress was received in London; before July 25, when Milo was created -Earl of Hereford."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_272" id="Foot_272" href="#Ref_272">[272]</a> -Mandate to Sheriff of Essex in favour of William fitz Otto (<i>Journ. -B. A. A.</i>, xxxi. 387). It is possible that the charter to Christ Church, -London (<i>ibid.</i>, p. 388), may also belong to this occasion; but, even if so, it -is of no importance.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_273" id="Foot_273" href="#Ref_273">[273]</a> -A charter to Roger de Valoines. See Appendix G.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_274" id="Foot_274" href="#Ref_274">[274]</a> -<i>Journ. B. A. A.</i>, pp. 384-386.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_275" id="Foot_275" href="#Ref_275">[275]</a> -The portions which are wanting in the charter and which are supplied -from my transcript will be found enclosed in brackets.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_276" id="Foot_276" href="#Ref_276">[276]</a> -Robert, Earl of Gloucester, and William the chancellor are omitted -altogether, and Ralph <i>Lovell</i> becomes Ralph <i>de London</i>. Dugdale has, of -course, misled Mr. Birch.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_277" id="Foot_277" href="#Ref_277">[277]</a> -Appended (as the "Degrees of England") to Gibson's well-known -edition of the <i>Britannia</i> (1772), vol. i. p. 125.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_278" id="Foot_278" href="#Ref_278">[278]</a> -Second edition, p. 647.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_279" id="Foot_279" href="#Ref_279">[279]</a> -Appendix V., p. 1 (ed. 1829).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_280" id="Foot_280" href="#Ref_280">[280]</a> -Page 164.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_281" id="Foot_281" href="#Ref_281">[281]</a> -"Ego Matildis filia regis Henrici et Anglorum domina do et concedo -Gaufredo de Magnavilla pro servicio suo et heredibus suis post eum -hereditabiliter ut sit Comes de Essexia, et habeat tertium denarium -Vicecomitatus de placitis sicut Comes habere debet in comitatu suo" -(Camden).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_282" id="Foot_282" href="#Ref_282">[282]</a> -Mr. Birch reads "tenuit bene," omitting the intervening words.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_283" id="Foot_283" href="#Ref_283">[283]</a> -Mr. Birch for "eandem terram" (<i>rectius</i> "turrem") conjectures "illam".</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_284" id="Foot_284" href="#Ref_284">[284]</a> -Mr. Birch conjectures "Preterea."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_285" id="Foot_285" href="#Ref_285">[285]</a> -Newport (the name hints at a market-town) was ancient demesne of -the Crown. It lay about three miles south-west of (Saffron) Walden.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_286" id="Foot_286" href="#Ref_286">[286]</a> -There was still a toll bridge there in the last century. For table of tolls -and exemptions, see Morant's <i>Essex</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_287" id="Foot_287" href="#Ref_287">[287]</a> -Apparently, the high road on the left bank, and the way on the right -bank, of the Cam.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_288" id="Foot_288" href="#Ref_288">[288]</a> -Neither this market nor this fair are, it would seem, to be traced -afterwards.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_289" id="Foot_289" href="#Ref_289">[289]</a> -Mr. Birch conjectures "vigiliam."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_290" id="Foot_290" href="#Ref_290">[290]</a> -This was presumably a grant of the borough of Maldon (<i>i.e.</i> the royal -rights in that borough), though Peverel's fee in Maldon was an escheat at the -time. The proof of this is not only that it is here described as a "borough" -(<i>burgus</i>), but also that its annual value was to be deducted from the sheriff's -ferm, which could only be the case if it formed part of the <i>corpus comitatus</i>, -<i>i.e.</i> was Crown demesne. In Domesday, Peverel's fee in Maldon was valued -at £12, and the royal manor at £16 ("ad pondus"), though it had been £24. -It was probably the latter which Henry II. granted to his brother William -as representing ("pro") £22 ("numero") (see Pipe-Rolls).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_291" id="Foot_291" href="#Ref_291">[291]</a> -Depden, three miles south of Walden. It had formed part, at the -Survey, of the fief of Randulf Peverel.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_292" id="Foot_292" href="#Ref_292">[292]</a> -Catlidge, according to Morant.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_293" id="Foot_293" href="#Ref_293">[293]</a> -Mr. Birch conjectures "tenentibus ibidem pro."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_294" id="Foot_294" href="#Ref_294">[294]</a> -Bonhunt, now part of Wickham Bonhunt, adjoining Newport. It had -been held by Saisselinus at the Survey. In 1485 it was held of the honour -of Lancaster.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_295" id="Foot_295" href="#Ref_295">[295]</a> -Mr. Birch conjectures "ipse habuit."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_296" id="Foot_296" href="#Ref_296">[296]</a> -This, apparently, refers to Depden, as forming part of Peverel's fief, -which had been an escheat, in the king's hands, as early as 1130 (<i>Rot. Pip.</i>, -31 Hen. I.).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_297" id="Foot_297" href="#Ref_297">[297]</a> -Hasculf de Tany was ancestor of the Essex family of Tany, of Stapleford-Tany, -Theydon Bois, Elmstead, Great Stambridge, Latton, etc. He -appears repeatedly in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. (pp. 53, 56, 58, 60, -99, 152), when he was in litigation with William de Bovill and Rhiwallon -d'Avranches.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_298" id="Foot_298" href="#Ref_298">[298]</a> -"Graelengus" is proved to be identical with "Graelandus de Thania," -the Essex tenant-in-capite of 1166, by Stephen's second charter (Christmas, -1141), which gives his holding as 7½ fees, the very amount at which he -returns it in his <i>Carta</i> (see p. 142). But his contemporary, Graeland "fitz -Gilbert" de Tany, on the Pipe-Rolls of Henry II., was probably so styled for -distinction, being a son of Gilbert de Tany who figures on the Essex Pipe-Roll -of 1158.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_299" id="Foot_299" href="#Ref_299">[299]</a> -Compare the phrase "superplus militum" in <i>Rot. Pip.</i> 31 H. I. (p. 47).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_300" id="Foot_300" href="#Ref_300">[300]</a> -"Predictis;" "ei quod omnia;" "et sint inforciata" (Mr. Birch).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_301" id="Foot_301" href="#Ref_301">[301]</a> -Bushey in Hertfordshire. Part of Mandeville's Domesday fief.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_302" id="Foot_302" href="#Ref_302">[302]</a> -Mr. Birch reads "pertinuerunt."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_303" id="Foot_303" href="#Ref_303">[303]</a> -"Pertinuit"—Mr. Birch's conjecture.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_304" id="Foot_304" href="#Ref_304">[304]</a> -"Quod aliquando"—Mr. Birch's conjecture.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_305" id="Foot_305" href="#Ref_305">[305]</a> -Mr. Birch reads "placito hac teneat."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_306" id="Foot_306" href="#Ref_306">[306]</a> -Mr. Birch reads "tre mee."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_307" id="Foot_307" href="#Ref_307">[307]</a> -Mr. Birch conjectures "ponantur in (placitum)."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_308" id="Foot_308" href="#Ref_308">[308]</a> -Mr. Birch conjectures "Baldewino Comite Devonie."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_309" id="Foot_309" href="#Ref_309">[309]</a> -On Robert Arundell, see Yeatman's <i>History of the House of Arundel</i>, -p. 49 (where too early a date is suggested for this charter), and p. 105 (where -it is implied that he was a tenant of the Earl of Gloucester). He occurs -repeatedly in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I., and again in the Westminster -charters (1136) of Stephen. (See Appendix C.)</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_310" id="Foot_310" href="#Ref_310">[310]</a> -Robert Malet also was a west-country baron. He figures in connection -with Warminster in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I., and is among the witnesses -to the Westminster charters (1136), being there styled "Dapifer" (see -Appendix C.). The <i>carta</i> of the Abbot of Glastonbury (1166) proves that -he was the predecessor of William Malet, <i>dapifer</i> to Henry II.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_311" id="Foot_311" href="#Ref_311">[311]</a> -Another west-country baron. He was one of the rebels of 1138, when -he held Castle Carey against the king (<i>Hen. Hunt.</i>, p. 261; <i>Ord. Vit.</i>, v. 310; -<i>Gesta</i>, p. 43). According to Mr. Yeatman, he was son of "William Gouel -de Percival, called Lovel," Lord of Ivry (<i>History of the House of Arundel</i>, -p. 136). He is however wrongly termed by him "Robert (<i>sic</i>) Lovel" on -p. 268. He witnessed an early charter of the Empress to Glastonbury (<i>Journ. -B. A. A.</i>, xxxi. 390).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_312" id="Foot_312" href="#Ref_312">[312]</a> -Ralph Paynell had instigated the Earl of Gloucester's raid on -Nottingham the previous September (<i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i>, 128), and was one -of the rebels in 1138, when he held Dudley against the king (<i>ibid.</i>, 110). -He was presumably identical with the "Rad[ulfus] Paen[ellus]" of 1130 -(<i>Rot. Pip</i>, 31 Hen. I.). He witnessed the charter to Roger de Valoines -(see p. 286), and three other charters of the Empress (<i>Journ. B. A. A.</i>, xxxi. -391, 395, 398), including the creation of the earldom of Hereford (25 -July, 1141).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_313" id="Foot_313" href="#Ref_313">[313]</a> -Walchelin Maminot had been among the witnesses to the above Westminster -charters of (Easter) 1136, but had held Dover against the king in -1138 (<i>Ord. Vit.</i>, v. 310). when Ordericus (v. 111, 112) speaks of him as a -son-in-law of Robert de Ferrers (Earl of Derby). He witnessed the charter -to Roger de Valoines (see p. 286), and five other charters of the Empress -(<i>Journ. B. A. A.</i>, xxxi. 388, 391, 394 <i>bis</i>, 398), including the creation of -the earldom of Hereford (25 July 1141), and he appears in the Pipe-Rolls -and other records under Henry II. from 1155 to 1170.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_314" id="Foot_314" href="#Ref_314">[314]</a> -Robert, natural son of Henry I. by Edith (afterwards married to Robert -d'Oilli of Oxford), and uterine brother, as Mr. Eyton observes (<i>Addl. MSS.</i>, -31,943, fol. 115), "to Henry d'Oilli of Hook-Norton." He appears in connection -with Devonshire in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I., and is probably -identical with Robert "brother" of Earl Reginald of Cornwall (<i>vide ante</i>, -p. 82). He is mentioned as present (as "Robert fitz Edith") at the siege -of Winchester, a few weeks later (<i>Sym. Dun.</i>, ii. 310), and he was among -the witnesses to the Empress's charters (Oxford, 1142) to the earls of Oxford -and of Essex, and to her charter (Devizes) to Geoffrey de Mandeville the -younger (<i>vide post</i>). He subsequently witnessed Henry II.'s charter (? 1156) -to Henry de Oxenford (<i>Cart. Ant.</i> D., No. 42). See also <i>Liber Niger</i>. -Working from misleading copies, Mr. Eyton wrongly identifies this Robert -"filius Regis," as a witness to three charters of the Empress, with a Robert -fitz Reg<i>inald</i> (de Dunstanville) (<i>History of Shropshire</i>, ii. 271).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_315" id="Foot_315" href="#Ref_315">[315]</a> -Robert fitz Martin occurs in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. in connection -with Dorset. Dugdale and Mr. Eyton (<i>Addl. MSS.</i>, 31,943, fol. 90) affiliate -him as son of a Martin of Tours, who had established himself in Wales. -He witnessed two other charters of the Empress (<i>Journ. B. A. A.</i>, xxxi. 391, -395), both of them at Oxford. A son of his (filius Roberti filii Martini) held -five knights' fees of Glastonbury Abbey in 1166.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_316" id="Foot_316" href="#Ref_316">[316]</a> -Robert fitz Hildebrand witnessed the Empress's second charter to -Geoffrey with that to the Earl of Oxford (<i>vide post</i>). See for his adultery, -treason, and shocking death (? 1143), <i>Gesta Stephani</i>, pp. 95, 96, where he -is described as "virum plebeium quidem, sed militari virtute approbatum." -He is also spoken of as "vir infimi generis, sed summæ semper malitiæ -machinator" (<i>ibid.</i>, p. 93). He is affiliated by the editors of Ordericus -(Société de l'Histoire de France) as "Robert fils de Herbrand de Sauqueville" -(iii. 45, iv. 420), where also we learn that he had refused to embark -upon the White Ship. He was perhaps a brother of Richard fitz Hildebrand, -who held five fees from the Abbot of Sherborne and five from the Bishop -of Salisbury in 1166.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_317" id="Foot_317" href="#Ref_317">[317]</a> -As the closing names vary somewhat in the two transcripts, I give -both versions:—</p> - -<table class="multi-f" summary="multi-3"> - - <colgroup> - <col span="2" style="width:48%" /> - </colgroup> - -<tr> - <th>Dugdale MS.</th> - <th>Ashmole MS.</th> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>"Rad Lond' et Rad' painel et W. - Maminot et Rob' fil. R. et Rob' fil. Martin et Rob' fil Heldebrand' - apud Westmonasterium."</td> - <td>"Rad lovell et Rad Painell et W. - Maminot et Roberto filio R. et Roberto filio Martin Roberto filio - <i>Haidebrandi apud Oxford</i>."<br /><br /> - The three last words are added in a different hand, and "Oxford" - appears to have been substituted for "Westmr" by yet another hand.</td> -</tr> - -</table> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_318" id="Foot_318" href="#Ref_318">[318]</a> -William de Moiun (Mohun) had attested <i>eo nomine</i> the charter to -Glastonbury (<i>Journ. B. A. A.</i>, xxxi. 389; <i>Adam de Domerham</i>) which probably -passed soon after the election of the Empress (April 8) at Winchester -(see p. 83). He now attests, among the earls, as "<i>Comite</i> Willelmo de -Moion." This fixes his Creation as April-June, 1141. Courthope gives no -date for the creation, and no authority but his foundation charter to Bruton, -in which he styles himself "Comes Somersetensis." Dr. Stubbs, following -him, gives (under "dates and authorities for the empress's earldoms") no -date and no further authority (<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 362). Mr. Maxwell Lyte, in -his learned and valuable monograph on <i>Dunster and its Lords</i> (1882), quotes -the <i>Gesta Stephani</i> for the fact "that at the siege of Winchester, in 1140, -the empress bestowed on William de Mohun the title of Earl of Dorset" -(p. 6). But Winchester was besieged in (August-September) 1141, not in -1140, and though the writer does speak of "Willelmus de Mohun, quem -comitem ibi statuit Dorsetiæ" (p. 81), this charter proves that he postdates -the creation, as he also does that of Hereford, which he assigns to the same -siege (cf. pp. 125, <i>n.</i>, 194). Mr. Doyle, with his usual painstaking care, places -the creation (on the same authority) "before September, 1141" (which -happens, it will be seen, to be quite correct), and assigns his use of the above -style ("comes Somersetensis") to 1142. See also, on this point, p. 277 <i>infra</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_319" id="Foot_319" href="#Ref_319">[319]</a> -See p. 143.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_320" id="Foot_320" href="#Ref_320">[320]</a> -The grant of the earldom of Hereford to Miles of Gloucester.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_321" id="Foot_321" href="#Ref_321">[321]</a> -"Erecta est autem in superbiam intolerabilem ... et omnium fere -corda a se alienavit" (<i>Hen. Hunt.</i>, 275).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_322" id="Foot_322" href="#Ref_322">[322]</a> -"Interpellavit dominam Anglorum regina pro domino suo rege capto et -custodiæ ac vinculis mancipato. Interpellata quoque est pro eadem causa -et a majoribus seu primoribus Angliæ; ... at illa non exaudivit eos" -(<i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i>, 132).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_323" id="Foot_323" href="#Ref_323">[323]</a> -All this, however, is subject to the assumption that this charter passed -at Westminster. That assumption rests on Dugdale's transcript and his statement -to that effect in his <i>Baronage</i>. There is nothing in the charter -(except, of course, the above difficulty) inconsistent with this statement, -which is strongly supported by the Valoines charter; but, unfortunately, -the transcript I have quoted from gives <i>Oxford</i> as the place of testing. But, -then, the word (<i>vide supra</i>) appears to have been added in a later hand, -and may have been inserted from confusion with the Empress's <i>second</i> charter -to Geoffrey, which did pass at Oxford. Still, there is no actual reason why -this charter may not have passed at Oxford, though its subject makes Westminster, -perhaps, the more likely place of the two. Personally, I feel no -doubt whatever that Westminster was the place.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_324" id="Foot_324" href="#Ref_324">[324]</a> -See p. 42.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_325" id="Foot_325" href="#Ref_325">[325]</a> -See Appendix H: "The Tertius Denarius."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_326" id="Foot_326" href="#Ref_326">[326]</a> -<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 362.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_327" id="Foot_327" href="#Ref_327">[327]</a> -This, however, raises the question of comital rights, on which see -pp. 143, 169, 269, and Appendix H.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_328" id="Foot_328" href="#Ref_328">[328]</a> -Cf. William of Malmesbury: "Hi prædia, hi castella, postremo quæcunque -semel collibuisset, petere non verebantur."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_329" id="Foot_329" href="#Ref_329">[329]</a> -See also Mr. S. R. Bird's valuable essay on the Crown Lands in vol. -xiii. of the <i>Antiquary</i>. He refers (p. 160) to the "extensive alienations of -these lands during the turbulent reign of Stephen, in order to enable that -monarch to endow the new earldoms."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_330" id="Foot_330" href="#Ref_330">[330]</a> -"Quod auferat de summâ firma vicecomitatus quantum pertinuerit ad -Meldonam et Niweport que ei donavi."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_331" id="Foot_331" href="#Ref_331">[331]</a> -<i>Select Charters.</i></p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_332" id="Foot_332" href="#Ref_332">[332]</a> -<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 326, 327.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_333" id="Foot_333" href="#Ref_333">[333]</a> -<i>Domesday Studies</i>, vol. i. (Longmans), 1887.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_334" id="Foot_334" href="#Ref_334">[334]</a> -It is in this case alone, in the Empress's charter, that we can compare -the value with that in Domesday. The charter grants it "pro xl solidis." -In Domesday we read "Tunc et post valuit xl solidos. Modo lv" (ii. 93).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_335" id="Foot_335" href="#Ref_335">[335]</a> -See an illustration of this principle, some years later, in the <i>Chronicle -of Ramsey</i> (p. 287): "Sciatis me concessisse Abbati de Rameseia ut ad -firmam habeat hundredum de Hyrstintan reddendo inde quoque anno -quatuor marcas argenti, quicunque sit vicecomes ita ne vicecomes plus ab eo -requirat."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_336" id="Foot_336" href="#Ref_336">[336]</a> -"Die quâ dedi Manerium illud [de Meldonâ] Comiti Theobaldo."—Westminster -Abbey Charters (Madox's <i>Baronia</i>, p. 232, note).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_337" id="Foot_337" href="#Ref_337">[337]</a> -<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 260. See my articles on the "Introduction of Knight -Service into England" in <i>English Historical Review</i>, July and October, 1891, -January, 1892. See also Addenda (p. 439).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_338" id="Foot_338" href="#Ref_338">[338]</a> -The lands were granted "pro tanto quantum inde reddi solebat," and -the knights' service (of Graaland de Tany) "pro tanto servicii quantum de -feodo illo debent," which amount is given in Stephen's charter as 7½ knights' -service (as also in the <i>Liber Niger</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_339" id="Foot_339" href="#Ref_339">[339]</a> -"Et si quid defuerit ad C libratas perficiendas, perficiam ei in loco -competenti in Essexiâ aut in Hertfordescirâ aut in Cantebriggscirâ ... et -totum superplus istorum xx. militum ei perficiam in prenominatis tribus -comitatibus."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_340" id="Foot_340" href="#Ref_340">[340]</a> -Dr. Stubbs writes: "From the reign of Henry I. we have distinct -traces of a judicial system, a supreme court of justice, called the Curia Regis, -presided over by the king or justiciary, and containing other judges also -called justiciars, the chief being occasionally distinguished by the title of -'summus,' 'magnus,' or 'capitalis'" (<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 377). But, in another -place, he points out, of the Great Justiciar, Roger of Salisbury, that "several -other ministers receive the same name [<i>justitiarius</i>] even during the time at -which he was actually in office; even the title of <i>capitalis justitiarius</i> is -given to officers of the <i>Curia Regis</i> who were acting in subordination to -him" (i. 350). Of this he gives instances in point (i. 389). On the whole -it is safest, perhaps, to hold, as Dr. Stubbs suggested, that the style "capitalis" -was not reserved to the Great Justiciar alone till the reign of Henry -II. (i. 350).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_341" id="Foot_341" href="#Ref_341">[341]</a> -<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 389, <i>note</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_342" id="Foot_342" href="#Ref_342">[342]</a> -See Appendix I.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_343" id="Foot_343" href="#Ref_343">[343]</a> -I cannot quite understand Gneist's view that "A better spirit is infused -into this portion of the legal administration by the severance of the farm-interest -(<i>firma</i>) from the judicial functions, which was effected by the -appointment of royal <i>justitiarii</i> in the place of the <i>vicecomes</i>. The reservation -of the royal right of interference now develops into a periodical -delegation of matters to criminal judges" (i. 180). It is probable that this -eminent jurist has a right conception of the change, and that, if it is -obscured, it is only by his mode of expression. But, when arguing from the -laws of Cnut and of Henry, as to pleas "in firma," he might, if one may -venture to say so, have added the higher evidence of Domesday. There are -several passages in the Great Survey bearing upon this subject, of which the -most noteworthy is, I think, this, which is found in the passage on Shrewsbury:—"Siquis -pacem regis manu propria datam scienter infringebat utlagus -fiebat. Qui vero pacem regis a vicecomite datam infringebat, C solidos -emendabat, et tantundem dabat qui Forestel vel Heinfare faciebat. <i>Has -iii forisfacturas</i> habebat in dominio rex E. in omni Angliâ extra firmas" -(i. 152).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_344" id="Foot_344" href="#Ref_344">[344]</a> -See Appendix I: "Vicecomites" and "Custodes."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_345" id="Foot_345" href="#Ref_345">[345]</a> -<i>Select Charters</i>, 141.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_346" id="Foot_346" href="#Ref_346">[346]</a> -Foss's <i>Judges</i>, i. 145.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_347" id="Foot_347" href="#Ref_347">[347]</a> -<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 470.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_348" id="Foot_348" href="#Ref_348">[348]</a> -"Nulli sint in civitate vel burgo vel castello, vel extra, nec in honore -etiam de Walingeford, qui vetent vicecomites [<i>sic</i>] intrare in terram suam -vel socam suam." Strictly speaking, this refers to sheriffs, but <i>à fortiori</i> it -would apply to the king's "justicia."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_349" id="Foot_349" href="#Ref_349">[349]</a> -The Assize of Clarendon describes itself as passed "de consilio omnium -baronum suorum."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_350" id="Foot_350" href="#Ref_350">[350]</a> -Notice the "justicia ... quæ videat," as answering to the "aliquis -... qui audiat" in Geoffrey's charter.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_351" id="Foot_351" href="#Ref_351">[351]</a> -These are the words of the Assize itself, which deals throughout with -"robatores," "murdratores," and "latrones."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_352" id="Foot_352" href="#Ref_352">[352]</a> -This charter is limited, by the names of the witnesses, to 1163-1166. -It can only, therefore, refer to the Assize of Clarendon, which conclusion is -confirmed by its language. It must consequently have been granted immediately -after it, before the king left England in March. Observe that the -two last witnesses are the very justices who were entrusted with the execution -of the Assize, and that "Earl Geoffrey," by the irony of fate, was no -other than the son and successor of Geoffrey de Mandeville himself.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">{114}</a></span> - -<h2>CHAPTER V.<br /> -<small>THE LOST CHARTER OF THE QUEEN.</small></h2> - -</div> - -<p><span class="smc">It</span> was at the very hour when the Empress seemed to have -attained the height of her triumph that her hopes were -dashed to the ground.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_353" id="Ref_353" href="#Foot_353">[353]</a></span> The disaster, as is well known, -was due to her own behaviour. As Dr. Stubbs has well -observed, "She, too, was on the crest of the wave and -had her little day ... she had not learned wisdom or -conciliation, and threw away opportunities as recklessly -as her rival."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_354" id="Ref_354" href="#Foot_354">[354]</a></span> Indeed, even William of Malmesbury -hints that the fault was hers.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_355" id="Ref_355" href="#Foot_355">[355]</a></span></p> - -<p>The Queen, having pleaded in vain for her husband, -resolved to appeal to arms. Advancing on Southwark -at the head of the forces which she had raised from Kent, -and probably from Boulogne, she ravaged the lands of -the citizens with fire and sword before their eyes.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_356" id="Ref_356" href="#Foot_356">[356]</a></span> The -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">{115}</a></span> -citizens, who had received the Empress but grudgingly, -and were already alarmed by her haughty conduct, were -now reduced to desperation. They decided on rising -against their new mistress, and joining the Queen in her -struggle for the restoration of the king.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_357" id="Ref_357" href="#Foot_357">[357]</a></span> There is a -stirring picture in the <i>Gesta</i> of the sudden sounding of -the <i>tocsin</i>, and of the citizens pouring forth from the -gates amidst the clanging of the bells. The Empress was -taken so completely by surprise that she seems to have -been at table at the time, and she and her followers, -mounting in haste, had scarcely galloped clear of the -suburbs when the mob streamed into her quarters and -rifled them of all that they contained. So great, we are -told, was the panic of the fugitives that they scattered -in all directions, regardless of the Empress and her fate. -Although the <i>Gesta</i> is a hostile source, the evidence of -its author is here confirmed by that of the Continuator -of Florence.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_358" id="Ref_358" href="#Foot_358">[358]</a></span> William of Malmesbury, however, writing -as a partisan, will not allow that the Empress and her -brother were thus ignominiously expelled, but asserts -that they withdrew in military array.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_359" id="Ref_359" href="#Foot_359">[359]</a></span></p> - -<p>The Empress herself fled to Oxford, and, afraid to -remain even there, pushed on to Gloucester. The king, -it is true, was still her prisoner, but her followers were -almost all dispersed; and the legate, who had secured her -triumph, was alienated already from her cause. Expelled -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">{116}</a></span> -from the capital, and resisted in arms by no small -portion of the kingdom, her <i>prestige</i> had received a fatal -blow, and the moment for her coronation had passed -away, never to return.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_360" id="Ref_360" href="#Foot_360">[360]</a></span></p> - -<p>Here we may pause to glance for a moment at a -charter of singular interest for its mention of the citizens -of London and their faithful devotion to the king.</p> - -<p class="small">"Hugo dei gratia Rothomagensis archiepiscopus senatoribus inclitis -civibus honoratis et omnibus commune London concordie gratiam, -salutem eternam. Deo et vobis agimus gratias pro vestra fidelitate -stabili et certa domino nostro regi Stephano jugiter impensa. Inde -per regiones notæ vestra nobilitas virtus et potestas."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_361" id="Ref_361" href="#Foot_361">[361]</a></span></p> - -<p>It is tempting to see in this charter—unknown, it -would seem, to the historians of London—a mention of -the famous "communa," the "tumor plebis, timor regni," -of 1191. But the term, here, is more probably employed, -as in the "communa liberorum hominum" of the Assize -of Arms (1181), and the "communa totius terre" of the -Great Charter (1215). At the same time, there are two -expressions which occur at this very epoch, and which -might support the former view. One is <i>conjuratio</i>, which, -as we have seen, the Continuator applies to the action -of the Londoners in 1141,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_362" id="Ref_362" href="#Foot_362">[362]</a></span> and which Richard of Devizes -similarly applies to the commune of 1191.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_363" id="Ref_363" href="#Foot_363">[363]</a></span> The other -is <i>communio</i>, which William of Malmesbury applies to -their government in the previous April, and which the -keen eye of Dr. Stubbs noted as "a description of -municipal unity which suggests that the communal idea -was already in existence as a basis of civil organization."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_364" id="Ref_364" href="#Foot_364">[364]</a></span> -But he failed, it would seem, to observe the passage -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">{117}</a></span> -which follows, and which speaks of "omnes barones, qui -in eorum communionem jamdudum recepti fuerant." For -in this allusion we recognize a distinctive practice of -the "sworn commune," from that of Le Mans (1073),<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_365" id="Ref_365" href="#Foot_365">[365]</a></span> -to that of London (1191), "in quam universi regni -magnates et ipsi etiam ipsius provinciæ episcopi jurare -coguntur."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_366" id="Ref_366" href="#Foot_366">[366]</a></span></p> - -<p>Meanwhile, what of Geoffrey de Mandeville? A tale -is told of him by Dugdale, and accepted without question -by Mr. Clark,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_367" id="Ref_367" href="#Foot_367">[367]</a></span> which, so far as I can find, must be traced -to the following passage in Trivet:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Igitur in die Nativitatis Precursoris Domini [June 24], <i>obsessâ -turri</i>, fugatur imperatrix de Londoniâ. Turrim autem Galfridus de -Magnavillâ potenter defendit, et egressu facto, Robertum civitatis -episcopum, partis adversæ fautorem, cepit apud manerium de -Fulham."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_368" id="Ref_368" href="#Foot_368">[368]</a></span></p> - -<p>It is quite certain that this tale is untrustworthy as -it stands. We have seen above that Trivet's date for the -arrival of the Empress at London is similarly, beyond -doubt, erroneous.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_369" id="Ref_369" href="#Foot_369">[369]</a></span> That the citizens, when they suddenly -rose against the Empress, may also have blockaded Geoffrey -in his tower, not only as her ally, but as their own natural -enemy, is possible, nay, even probable. But that he -ventured forth, through their ranks, to Fulham, when -thus blockaded, is improbable, and that he captured the -bishop as an enemy of the Empress is impossible, for the -Empress herself had just installed him,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_370" id="Ref_370" href="#Foot_370">[370]</a></span> and we find him -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">{118}</a></span> -at her court a month later.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_371" id="Ref_371" href="#Foot_371">[371]</a></span> At the same time Trivet, we -must assume, cannot have invented all this. His story -must preserve a confused version of the facts as told in -some chronicle now lost, or, at least, unknown.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_372" id="Ref_372" href="#Foot_372">[372]</a></span> On this -assumption it may, perhaps, be suggested that Geoffrey -was indeed blockaded in the Tower, but that when he -accepted the Queen's offers, and thus made, as we shall -see, common cause with the citizens, he signalized his -defection from the cause of the Empress by seizing her -adherent the bishop,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_373" id="Ref_373" href="#Foot_373">[373]</a></span> and holding him a prisoner till, -as Holinshed implies, he purchased his freedom, and so -became free to join the Empress at Oxford.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_374" id="Ref_374" href="#Foot_374">[374]</a></span></p> - -<p>And now let us come to the subject of this chapter, -the lost charter of the Queen.</p> - -<p>That this charter was granted is an historical fact -hitherto absolutely unknown. No chronicler mentions the -fact, nor is there a trace of any such document, or even -of a transcript of its contents. And yet the existence of -this charter, like that of the planet Neptune, can be -established, in the words of Sir John Herschel, "with a -certainty hardly inferior to ocular demonstration." The -discovery, indeed, of that planet was effected (<i>magnis componere -parva</i>) by strangely similar means. For as the -perturbations of Uranus pointed to the existence of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">{119}</a></span> -Neptune, so the "perturbations" of Geoffrey de Mandeville -point to the existence of this charter.</p> - -<p>We know that the departure of the Empress was -followed by the arrival of the Queen, with the result that -Geoffrey was again in a position to demand his own terms. -Had he continued to hold the Tower in the name of the -Empress, he would have made it a thorn in the side of the -citizens now that they had declared for her rival. We -hear, moreover, at this crisis, of offers by the Queen to -all those whom bribes or concessions could allure to her -side.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_375" id="Ref_375" href="#Foot_375">[375]</a></span> We have, therefore, the strongest presumption -that Geoffrey would be among the first to whom offers -were made. But it is not on presumption that we depend. -Stephen, we shall find, six months later, refers distinctly -to this lost charter ("Carta Reginæ"),<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_376" id="Ref_376" href="#Foot_376">[376]</a></span> and the Empress -in turn, in the following year, refers to the charters of the -king <i>and of the queen</i> ("quas Rex Stephanus <i>et Matildis -regina</i> ei dederunt ... sicut habet inde cartas ill<i>orum</i>").<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_377" id="Ref_377" href="#Foot_377">[377]</a></span> -Thus its existence is beyond question. And that it passed -about this time may be inferred, not only from the circumstances -of the case, but also from the most significant -fact that, a few weeks later, at the siege of Winchester, -we find Geoffrey supporting the Queen in active concert -with the citizens.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_378" id="Ref_378" href="#Foot_378">[378]</a></span></p> - -<p>What were the terms of the charter by which he was -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">{120}</a></span> -thus regained to his allegiance we cannot now tell. To -judge, however, from that of Stephen, which was mainly -a confirmation of its terms, it probably represented a -distinct advance on the concessions he had wrung from -the Empress.</p> - -<p>It is an interesting fact, and one which probably is -known to few, if any, that there is still preserved in the -Public Record Office a solitary charter of the Queen, -granted, I cannot but think, at this very crisis. As it is -not long, I shall here quote it as a unique and instructive -record.</p> - -<p class="small">"M. Regina Angl[ie] Omnibus fidelibus suis francis et Anglis -salutem. Sciatis quod dedi Gervasio Justiciario de Lond[oniâ] x -marcatas terræ in villâ de Gamelingeia pro servicio suo ... donec ei -persolvam debitum quod ei debeo, ut infra illum terminum habeat -proficua que exibunt de villa predictâ ... testibus Com[ite] Sim[one] -et Ric[ardo] de Bolon[iâ] et Sim[one] de Gerardmot[a] et Warn[erio] -de Lisor[iis]. apud Lond[oniam].<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_379" id="Ref_379" href="#Foot_379">[379]</a></span></p> - -<p>The first of the witnesses, Earl Simon (of Northampton), -is known to have been one of the three earls -who adhered to the Queen during the king's captivity.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_380" id="Ref_380" href="#Foot_380">[380]</a></span> -Richard of Boulogne was possibly a brother of her <i>nepos</i>, -"Pharamus" of Boulogne, who is also known to have -been with her.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_381" id="Ref_381" href="#Foot_381">[381]</a></span> Combining the fact of the charter being -the Queen's with that of its subject-matter and that of -its place of testing, we obtain the strongest possible presumption -that it passed at this crisis, a presumption confirmed, -as we have seen, by the name of the leading -witness. The endeavour to fix the date of this charter -is well worth the making. For it is not merely of interest -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">{121}</a></span> -as a record unique of its kind. If it is, indeed, of the -date suggested, it is, to all appearance, the sole survivor -of all those charters, such as that to Geoffrey, by which -the Queen, in her hour of need, must have purchased -support for the royal cause. We see her, like the queen of -Henry III., like the queen of Charles I., straining every -nerve to succour her husband, and to raise men and -means. And as Henrietta Maria pledged her jewels as -security for the loans she raised, so Matilda is here shown -as pledging a portion of her ancestral "honour" to raise -the sinews of war.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_382" id="Ref_382" href="#Foot_382">[382]</a></span></p> - -<p>But this charter, if the date I have assigned to it be -right, does more for us than this. It gives us, for an -instant, a precious glimpse of that of which we know so -little, and would fain know so much—I mean the government -of London. We learn from it that London had then -a "justiciary," and further that his name was Gervase. -Nor is even this all. The Gamlingay entry in the <i>Testa -de Nevill</i> and <i>Liber Niger</i> enables us to advance a step -further and to establish the identity of this Gervase with -no other than Gervase of Cornhill.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_383" id="Ref_383" href="#Foot_383">[383]</a></span> The importance of -this identification will be shown in a special appendix.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_384" id="Ref_384" href="#Foot_384">[384]</a></span></p> - -<p>Among those whom the Queen strove hard to gain was -her husband's brother, the legate.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_385" id="Ref_385" href="#Foot_385">[385]</a></span> He had headed, as we -have seen, the witnesses to Geoffrey's charter, but he was -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">{122}</a></span> -deeply injured at the failure of his appeal, on behalf of his -family, to the Empress, and was even thought to have -secretly encouraged the rising of the citizens of London.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_386" id="Ref_386" href="#Foot_386">[386]</a></span> -He now kept aloof from the court of the Empress, and, -having held an interview with the Queen at Guildford, -resolved to devote himself, heart and soul, to setting his -brother free.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_387" id="Ref_387" href="#Foot_387">[387]</a></span></p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_353" id="Foot_353" href="#Ref_353">[353]</a> -"Ecce, dum ipsa putaretur omni Anglia statim posse potiri, mutata -omnia" (<i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. 749).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_354" id="Foot_354" href="#Ref_354">[354]</a> -<i>Early Plantagenets</i>, p. 22; <i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 330.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_355" id="Foot_355" href="#Ref_355">[355]</a> -"Satisque constat quod si ejus (<i>i.e.</i> comitis) moderationi et sapientiæ a -suis esset creditum, non tam sinistrum postea sensissent aleæ casum" (p. 749).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_356" id="Foot_356" href="#Ref_356">[356]</a> -"Regina quod prece non valuit, armis impetrare confidens, splendidissimum -militantium decus ante Londonias, ex alterâ fluvii regione, transmisit, -utque raptu, et incendio, violentiâ, et gladio, in comitissæ suorumque prospectu, -ardentissime circa civitatem desævirent præcepit" (<i>Gesta Stephani</i>, -p. 78). These expressions appear to imply that she not only wasted the -southern bank, but sent over (<i>transmisit</i>) her troops to plunder round the -walls of the city itself (<i>circa civitatem</i>). Mr. Pearson strangely assigns -this action not to the Queen, but to the Empress: "Matilda brought up -troops, and cut off the trade of the citizens, and wasted their lands, to -punish their disaffection" (p. 478).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_357" id="Foot_357" href="#Ref_357">[357]</a> -The <i>Annals of Plympton</i> (ed. Liebermann, p. 20) imply that the city -was divided on the subject:—"In mense Junio facta est sedicio in civitate -Londoniensi a civibus; sed tamen pars sanior vices imperatricis agebat, -pars vero quedam eam obpugnabat."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_358" id="Foot_358" href="#Ref_358">[358]</a> -"Facta conjuratione adversus eam quam cum honore susceperunt, cum -dedecore apprehendere statuerunt. At illa a quodam civium præmunita, -ignominiosam cum suis fugam arripuit omni sua suorumque supellectili post -tergum relicta."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_359" id="Foot_359" href="#Ref_359">[359]</a> -"Sensim sine tumultu quadam militari disciplina urbe cesserunt." This -is clearly intended to rebut the story of their hurried flight (see also p. 132, -<i>infra</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_360" id="Foot_360" href="#Ref_360">[360]</a> -See Appendix J: "The Great Seal of the Empress."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_361" id="Foot_361" href="#Ref_361">[361]</a> -<i>Harl. MS.</i> 1708, fo. 113.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_362" id="Foot_362" href="#Ref_362">[362]</a> -"Conjuratione facta."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_363" id="Foot_363" href="#Ref_363">[363]</a> -"In indulta sibi conjuratione ... quanta quippe mala ex conjuratione -proveniunt" (ed. Howlett, p. 416).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_364" id="Foot_364" href="#Ref_364">[364]</a> -<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 407.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_365" id="Foot_365" href="#Ref_365">[365]</a> -"Facta conspiratione quam <i>communionem</i> vocabant sese omnes pariter -sacramentis adstringunt, et ... ejusdem regionis proceres quamvis invitos, -sacramentis suæ conspirationis obligari compellunt."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_366" id="Foot_366" href="#Ref_366">[366]</a> -<i>Richard of Devizes</i> (ed. Howlett, p. 416).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_367" id="Foot_367" href="#Ref_367">[367]</a> -<i>Mediæval Military Architecture</i>, ii. 254.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_368" id="Foot_368" href="#Ref_368">[368]</a> -Trivet's <i>Annals</i> (Eng. Hist. Soc., p. 13).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_369" id="Foot_369" href="#Ref_369">[369]</a> -See p. 84.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_370" id="Foot_370" href="#Ref_370">[370]</a> -"Primo quidem [apud Westmonasterium] quod decuit, sanctæ Dei -Ecclesiæ, juxta bonorum consilium, consulere procuravit. Dedit itaque Lundoniensis -ecclesiæ præsulatum cuidam Radingensi monacho viro venerabili -præsente et jubente reverendo abbate suo Edwardo" (<i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i>, 131).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_371" id="Foot_371" href="#Ref_371">[371]</a> -See p. 123.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_372" id="Foot_372" href="#Ref_372">[372]</a> -We have, indeed, a glimpse of this incident in the <i>Liber de Antiquis -Legibus</i> (fol. 35), where we read: "Anno predicto, statim in illa estate, -<i>obsessa est Turris Londoniarum a Londoniensibus</i>, quam Willielmus (<i>sic</i>) -de Magnavilla tenebat et firmaverat."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_373" id="Foot_373" href="#Ref_373">[373]</a> -The city, it must be remembered, lay between him and Fulham, so -that, obviously, he is more likely to have made this raid when the city was -no longer in arms against him.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_374" id="Foot_374" href="#Ref_374">[374]</a> -We have a hint that the bishop was disliked by the citizens in the -<i>Historia Pontificalis</i> (p. 532), where we learn (in 1148) that they had disobeyed -the papal authority: "Quando episcopus bone memorie Robertus -expulsus est, cui hanc exhibuere devocionem ut omni diligentia procurarent -ne patri exulanti in aliquo prodessent."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_375" id="Foot_375" href="#Ref_375">[375]</a> -"Regina autem a Londoniensibus suscepta, sexusque fragilitatis, femineæque -mollitiei oblita, viriliter sese et virtuose continere; invictos ubique -coadjutores prece sibi et pretio allicere, regis conjuratos ubi ubi per Angliam -fuerant dispersi ad dominum suum secum reposcendum constanter sollicitare" -(<i>Gesta Stephani</i>, 80). "Regina omnibus supplicavit, omnes pro -ereptione mariti sui precibus, promissis, et obsequiis sollicitavit" (<i>Sym. -Dun.</i>, ii. 310).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_376" id="Foot_376" href="#Ref_376">[376]</a> -See p. 143.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_377" id="Foot_377" href="#Ref_377">[377]</a> -See p. 167.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_378" id="Foot_378" href="#Ref_378">[378]</a> -"Gaufrido de Mandevillâ (<i>qui jam iterum auxilio eorum cesserat</i>, antea -enim post captionem regis imperatrici fidelitatem juraverat) et Londoniensibus -maxime annitentibus, nihilque omnino quod possent prætermittentibus quo -imperatricem contristarent" (<i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. 752).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_379" id="Foot_379" href="#Ref_379">[379]</a> -<i>Royal Charters</i> (Duchy of Lancaster), No. 22. N.B.—The above is -merely an extract from the charter.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_380" id="Foot_380" href="#Ref_380">[380]</a> -Waleran of Meulan, William of Warrenne, and Simon of Northampton -(<i>Ord. Vit.</i>, v. 130).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_381" id="Foot_381" href="#Ref_381">[381]</a> -See p. 147.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_382" id="Foot_382" href="#Ref_382">[382]</a> -Gamlingay, in Cambridgeshire, had come to the Queen as belonging to -"the honour of Boulogne."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_383" id="Foot_383" href="#Ref_383">[383]</a> -"Gamenegheia valet xxx <i>li.</i> Inde tenent ... heredes Gervas[ii] de -Cornhill x <i>li.</i>" (<i>Liber Niger</i>, 395; <i>Testa</i>, pp. 274, 275). This entry also proves -that the loan (1141?) to the Queen was not repaid, and the property, therefore, -not redeemed.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_384" id="Foot_384" href="#Ref_384">[384]</a> -See Appendix K: "Gervase de Cornhill."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_385" id="Foot_385" href="#Ref_385">[385]</a> -"Nunc quidem Wintoniensem episcopum, totius Angliæ legatum, ut -fraternis compatiens vinculis ad eum liberandum intenderet, ut sibi maritum, -plebi regem, regno patronum, toto secum nisu adquireret, viriliter supplicare" -(<i>Gesta</i>, 80).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_386" id="Foot_386" href="#Ref_386">[386]</a> -<i>Gesta</i>, 79.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_387" id="Foot_387" href="#Ref_387">[387]</a> -<i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. 750; <i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i>, 132; <i>Gesta</i>, 80; <i>Annals of -Winchester</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">{123}</a></span> - -<h2>CHAPTER VI.<br /> -<small>THE ROUT OF WINCHESTER.</small></h2> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">The</span> -Empress, it will be remembered, in the panic of her -escape, on the sudden revolt of the citizens, had fled to -the strongholds of her cause in the west, and sought -refuge in Gloucester. Most of her followers were scattered -abroad, but the faithful Miles of Gloucester was found, as -ever, by her side. As soon as she recovered from her first -alarm, she retraced her steps to Oxford, acting upon his -advice, and made that fortress her head-quarters, to which -her adherents might rally.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_388" id="Ref_388" href="#Foot_388">[388]</a></span></p> - -<p>To her stay at Oxford on this occasion we may assign -a charter to Haughmond Abbey, tested <i>inter alios</i> by the -King of Scots.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_389" id="Ref_389" href="#Foot_389">[389]</a></span> But of far more importance is the well-known -charter by which she granted the earldom of -Hereford to her devoted follower, Miles of Gloucester.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_390" id="Ref_390" href="#Foot_390">[390]</a></span> -With singular unanimity, the rival chroniclers testify to -the faithful service of which this grant was the reward.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_391" id="Ref_391" href="#Foot_391">[391]</a></span> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">{124}</a></span> -It is an important fact that this charter contains a record -of its date, which makes it a fixed point of great value for -our story. This circumstance is the more welcome from the -long list of witnesses, which enables us to give with absolute -certainty the <i>personnel</i> of Matilda's court on the day this -charter passed (July 25, 1141), evidence confirmed by -another charter omitted from the fasciculus of Mr. Birch.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_392" id="Ref_392" href="#Foot_392">[392]</a></span> -From a comparison of the dates we can assign these -documents to the very close of her stay at Oxford, by -which time her scattered followers had again rallied to her -standard. It is also noteworthy that the date is in -harmony with the narrative of the Continuator of Florence. -This has a bearing on the chronology of that writer, to -which we have now in the main to trust.</p> - -<p>William of Malmesbury, who on the doings of his -patron is likely to be well informed, tells us that the -rumours of the legate's defection led the Earl of Gloucester -to visit Winchester in the hope of regaining him to his -sister's cause. Disappointed in this, he rejoined her at -Oxford.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_393" id="Ref_393" href="#Foot_393">[393]</a></span> It must have been on his return that he witnessed -the charter to Miles of Gloucester.</p> - -<p>The Empress, on hearing her brother's report, decided -to march on Winchester with the forces she had now -assembled.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_394" id="Ref_394" href="#Foot_394">[394]</a></span> The names of her leading followers can be -recovered from the various accounts of the siege.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_395" id="Ref_395" href="#Foot_395">[395]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">{125}</a></span> -The Continuator states that she reached Winchester -shortly before the 1st of August.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_396" id="Ref_396" href="#Foot_396">[396]</a></span> He also speaks of the -siege having lasted seven weeks on the 13th of September.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_397" id="Ref_397" href="#Foot_397">[397]</a></span> -If he means by this, as he implies, the siege -by the queen's forces, he is clearly wrong; but if he was -thinking of the arrival of the Empress, this would place -that event not later than the 27th of July. We know -from the date of the Oxford charter that it cannot well -have been earlier. The <i>Hyde Cartulary</i> (Stowe MSS.) is -more exact, and, indeed, gives us the day of her arrival, -Thursday, July 31 ("pridie kal. Augusti"). According to -the <i>Annals of Waverley</i>, the Empress besieged the bishop -the next day.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_398" id="Ref_398" href="#Foot_398">[398]</a></span></p> - -<p>Of the struggle which now took place we have several -independent accounts. Of these the fullest are those given -by the Continuator, who here writes with a bitter feeling -against the legate, and by the author of the <i>Gesta</i>, whose -sympathies were, of course, on the other side. John of -Hexham, William of Malmesbury, and Henry of Huntingdon -have accounts which should be carefully consulted, -and some information is also to be gleaned from the <i>Hyde -Cartulary</i> (Stowe MSS.).</p> - -<p>It is John of Hexham alone who mentions that the -bishop himself had commenced operations by besieging -the royal castle, which was held by a garrison of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">{126}</a></span> -Empress.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_399" id="Ref_399" href="#Foot_399">[399]</a></span> It was in this castle, says the Continuator, -that she took up her quarters on her arrival.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_400" id="Ref_400" href="#Foot_400">[400]</a></span> She at -once summoned the legate to her presence, but he, dreading -that she would seize his person, returned a temporizing -answer, and eventually rode forth from the city (it would -seem, by the east gate) just as the Empress entered it in -state.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_401" id="Ref_401" href="#Foot_401">[401]</a></span></p> - -<p>Though the Continuator asserts that the Empress, on -her arrival, found the city opposed to her, William of -Malmesbury, whose sympathies were the same, asserts, -on the contrary, that the citizens were for her.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_402" id="Ref_402" href="#Foot_402">[402]</a></span> Possibly, -the former may only have meant that she had found the -gates of the city closed against her by the legate. In -any case, she now established herself, together with her -followers, within the walls, and laid siege to the episcopal -palace, which was defended by the legate's garrison.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_403" id="Ref_403" href="#Foot_403">[403]</a></span> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">{127}</a></span> -The usual consequence followed. From the summit of -the keep its reckless defenders rained down fire upon the -town, and a monastery, a nunnery, more than forty (?) -churches, and the greater part of the houses within the -walls are said to have been reduced to ashes.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_404" id="Ref_404" href="#Foot_404">[404]</a></span></p> - -<p>Meanwhile, the legate had summoned to his aid the -Queen and all the royal party. His summons "was -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">{128}</a></span> -promptly obeyed;<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_405" id="Ref_405" href="#Foot_405">[405]</a></span> even the Earl of Chester, "who," -says Dr. Stubbs, "was uniformly opposed to Stephen, -but who no doubt fought for himself far more than for -the Empress,"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_406" id="Ref_406" href="#Foot_406">[406]</a></span> joined, on this occasion, the royal forces, -perhaps to maintain the balance of power. But his -assistance, naturally enough, was viewed with such deep -suspicion that he soon went over to the Empress,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_407" id="Ref_407" href="#Foot_407">[407]</a></span> to -whom, however, his tardy help was of little or no value.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_408" id="Ref_408" href="#Foot_408">[408]</a></span> -From London the Queen received a well-armed contingent, -nearly a thousand strong;<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_409" id="Ref_409" href="#Foot_409">[409]</a></span> but Henry of Huntingdon -appears to imply that their arrival, although it turned -the scale, did not take place till late in the siege.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_410" id="Ref_410" href="#Foot_410">[410]</a></span></p> - -<p>The position of the opposing forces became a very -strange one. The Empress and her followers, from the -castle, besieged the bishop's palace, and were in turn themselves -besieged by the Queen and her host without.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_411" id="Ref_411" href="#Foot_411">[411]</a></span> It -was the aim of the latter to cut off the Empress from her -base of operations in the west. With this object they -burnt Andover,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_412" id="Ref_412" href="#Foot_412">[412]</a></span> and harassed so successfully the enemy's -convoys, that famine was imminent in the city.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_413" id="Ref_413" href="#Foot_413">[413]</a></span> The -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">{129}</a></span> -Empress, moreover, was clearly outnumbered by the forces -of the Queen and legate. It is agreed on all hands that the -actual crisis was connected with an affair at Wherwell, but -John of Hexham and the author of the <i>Gesta</i> are not -entirely in accord as to the details. According to the -latter, who can hardly be mistaken in a statement so precise, -the besieged, now in dire straits, despatched a small -force along the old Icknield Way, to fortify Wherwell and -its nunnery, commanding the passage of the Test, in order -to secure their line of communication.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_414" id="Ref_414" href="#Foot_414">[414]</a></span> John of Hexham, -on the contrary, describing, it would seem, the same incident, -represents it as merely the despatch of an escort, -under John the Marshal and Robert fitz Edith, to meet -an expected convoy.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_415" id="Ref_415" href="#Foot_415">[415]</a></span> In any case, it is clear that William -of Ypres, probably the Queen's best soldier, burst upon -the convoy close to Wherwell, and slew or captured all but -those who sought refuge within the nunnery walls.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_416" id="Ref_416" href="#Foot_416">[416]</a></span> Nor -are the two accounts gravely inconsistent.</p> - -<p>On the other hand, the Continuator of Florence appears -at first sight to imply that the Marshal and his followers -took refuge at Wherwell in the course of the general -flight,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_417" id="Ref_417" href="#Foot_417">[417]</a></span> and this version is in harmony with the <i>Histoire -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">{130}</a></span> -de Guillaume le Maréchal</i>.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_418" id="Ref_418" href="#Foot_418">[418]</a></span> But putting aside William -of Malmesbury, whose testimony is ambiguous on the -point, I consider the balance to be clearly in favour of -the <i>Gesta</i> and John of Hexham, whose detailed accounts -must be wholly rejected if we embrace the other version, -whereas the Continuator's words can be harmonized, and -indeed better understood, if we take "ad monasterium -Warewellense fugientem" as referring to John taking -refuge in the nunnery (as described in the other versions) -when surprised with his convoy. Moreover, the evidence -(<i>vide infra</i>) as to the Empress leaving Winchester by the -west instead of the north gate, appears to me to clinch -the matter. As to the Marshal poem, on such a point its -evidence is of little weight. Composed at a later period, -and based on family tradition, its incidents, as M. Meyer -has shown, are thrown together in wrong order, and its -obvious errors not a few. I may add that the Marshal's -position is unduly exalted in the poem, and that Brian fitz -Count (though it is true that he accompanied the Empress in -her flight) would never have taken his orders from John the -Marshal.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_419" id="Ref_419" href="#Foot_419">[419]</a></span> Its narrative cannot be explained away, but it is -the one that we are most justified in selecting for rejection.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">{131}</a></span> -To expel the fugitives from their place of safety, -William and his troopers fired the nunnery. A furious -struggle followed in the church, amidst the shrieks of the -nuns and the roar of the flames; the sanctuary itself -streamed with blood; but John the Marshal stood his -ground, and refused to surrender to his foes.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_420" id="Ref_420" href="#Foot_420">[420]</a></span> "Silence, -or I will slay thee with mine own hands," the undaunted -man is said to have exclaimed, as his last remaining -comrade implored him to save their lives.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_421" id="Ref_421" href="#Foot_421">[421]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">{132}</a></span> -On receiving intelligence of this disaster, the besieged -were seized with panic, and resolved on immediate retreat.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_422" id="Ref_422" href="#Foot_422">[422]</a></span> -William of Malmesbury, as before, is anxious to deny the -panic,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_423" id="Ref_423" href="#Foot_423">[423]</a></span> and the Continuator accuses the legate -of treachery.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_424" id="Ref_424" href="#Foot_424">[424]</a></span> -The account, however, in the <i>Gesta</i> appears thoroughly -trustworthy. According to this, the Empress and her -forces sallied forth from the gates in good order, but -were quickly surrounded and put to flight. All order was -soon at an end. Bishops, nobles, barons, troopers, fled in -headlong rout. With her faithful squire by her side the -Empress rode for her life.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_425" id="Ref_425" href="#Foot_425">[425]</a></span> The Earl of Gloucester, with -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">{133}</a></span> -the rear-guard, covered his sister's retreat, but in so doing -was himself made prisoner, while holding, at Stockbridge, -the passage of the Test.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_426" id="Ref_426" href="#Foot_426">[426]</a></span></p> - -<p>The mention of Stockbridge proves that the besieged -must have fled by the Salisbury road, their line of retreat -by Andover being now barred at Wherwell. After crossing -the Test, the fugitive Empress must have turned northwards, -and made her way, by country lanes, over Longstock -hills, to Ludgershall. So great was the dread of -her victorious foes, now in full pursuit, that though she had -ridden more than twenty miles, and was overwhelmed with -anxiety and fatigue, she was unable to rest even here, and, -remounting, rode for Devizes, across the Wiltshire downs.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_427" id="Ref_427" href="#Foot_427">[427]</a></span> -It was not, we should notice, thought safe for her to make -straight for Gloucester, through Marlborough and Cirencester; -so she again set her face due west, as if making -for Bristol. Thus fleeing from fortress to fortress, she came -to her castle at Devizes. So great, however, was now her -terror that even in this celebrated stronghold<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_428" id="Ref_428" href="#Foot_428">[428]</a></span> she would -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">{134}</a></span> -not, she feared, be safe. She had already ridden some -forty miles, mainly over bad country, and what with grief, -terror, and fatigue, the erst haughty Empress was now -"more dead than alive" (<i>pene exanimis</i>). It was out of -the question that she should mount again; a litter was -hurriedly slung between two horses, and, strapped to this, -the unfortunate Lady was conveyed in sorry guise (<i>sat -ignominiose</i>) to her faithful city of Gloucester.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_429" id="Ref_429" href="#Foot_429">[429]</a></span></p> - -<p>On a misunderstanding, as I deem it, of the passage -(and especially of the word <i>feretrum</i>), writers have successively, -for three centuries, represented the Continuator -as stating that the Empress, "to elude the vigilance of -her pursuers," was "laid out as a corpse!" Lingard, -indeed, while following suit, gravely doubts if the fact -be true, as it is recorded by the Continuator alone; but -Professor Pearson improves upon the story, and holds -that the versatile "Lady" was in turn "a trooper" and -a corpse.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_430" id="Ref_430" href="#Foot_430">[430]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">{135}</a></span> -On the 1st of November the king was released, and -a few days later the Earl of Gloucester, for whom he -had been exchanged, reached Bristol.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_431" id="Ref_431" href="#Foot_431">[431]</a></span> Shortly after, it -would seem, there were assembled together at Bristol, -the Earl, the Empress, and their loyal adherents, Miles, -now Earl of Hereford, Brian fitz Count, and Robert fitz -Martin.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_432" id="Ref_432" href="#Foot_432">[432]</a></span></p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_388" id="Foot_388" href="#Ref_388">[388]</a> -"Porro fugiens domina per Oxenefordiam venit ad Glavorniam, ubi cum -Milone ex-constabulario consilio inito statim cum eodem ad Oxenefordensem -revertitur urbem, ibi præstolatura seu recuperatura suum dispersum militarem -numerum" (<i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i>, 132).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_389" id="Foot_389" href="#Ref_389">[389]</a> -The other witnesses were Robert, Bishop of London, Alexander, Bishop -of Lincoln, William the chancellor, R[ichard] de Belmeis, archdeacon, G[ilbert?], -archdeacon, Reginald, Earl of Cornwall, William Fitz Alan and Walter his -brother, Alan de Dunstanville (<i>Harl. MS.</i>, 2188, fol. 123). The two bishops -and the King of Scots also witnessed the charter to Miles.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_390" id="Foot_390" href="#Ref_390">[390]</a> -<i>Fœdera</i>, N.E., i. 14.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_391" id="Foot_391" href="#Ref_391">[391]</a> -"Et quia ejusdem Milonis præcipue fruebatur consilio et fovebatur auxilio, -utpote quæ eatenus nec unius diei victum nec mensæ ipsius apparatum aliunde -quam ex ipsius munificentiâ sive providentiâ acceperat sicut ex ipsius Milonis -ore audivimus, ut eum suo arctius vinciret ministerio, comitatum ei Herefordensem -tunc ibi posita pro magnæ remunerationis contulit præmio" (<i>Cont. -Flor. Wig.</i>, 133). Comp. <i>Gesta</i>, 81: "Milo Glaornensis, quem ibi cum gratiâ -et favore omnium comitem præfecit Herefordiæ."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_392" id="Foot_392" href="#Ref_392">[392]</a> -See Appendix L: "Charter of the Empress to William de Beauchamp."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_393" id="Foot_393" href="#Ref_393">[393]</a> -"Ad hos motus, si possit, componendos comes Gloecestrensis non adeo -denso comitatu Wintoniam contendit; sed, re infecta, ad Oxeneford rediit, -ubi soror stativâ mansione jamdudum se continuerat" (p. 751). The "jamdudum" -should be noticed, as a hint towards the chronology.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_394" id="Foot_394" href="#Ref_394">[394]</a> -"Ipsa itaque, et ex his quæ continue audiebat et a fratre tunc cognovit -nihil legatum molle ad suas partes cogitare intelligens, Wintoniam cum -quanto potuit apparatu venit" (<i>ibid.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_395" id="Foot_395" href="#Ref_395">[395]</a> -They were her uncle, the King of Scots;* her three brothers, the Earls -of Gloucester* and of Cornwall,* and Robert fitz Edith; the Earls of -Warwick and Devon ("Exeter"), with their newly created fellows, the Earls -of Dorset (or Somerset) and Hereford; Humphrey de Bohun,* John the -Marshal,* Brien fitz Count,* Geoffrey Boterel (his relative), William fitz Alan, -"William" of Salisbury, Roger d'Oilli, Roger "de Nunant," etc. The -primate* was also of the company. N.B.—Those marked with an asterisk -attested the above charter to Miles de Gloucester.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_396" id="Foot_396" href="#Ref_396">[396]</a> -"Inde [<i>i.e.</i> from Oxford] jam militum virtute roborata et numero, -appropinquante festivitate Sancti Petri, quæ dicitur ad Vincula" [August 1] -(<i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i>, 133).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_397" id="Foot_397" href="#Ref_397">[397]</a> -"Septem igitur septimanis in obsidione transactis" (<i>ibid.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_398" id="Foot_398" href="#Ref_398">[398]</a> -"Die kalendarum Augusti" (<i>Ann. Mon.</i>, ii. 229).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_399" id="Foot_399" href="#Ref_399">[399]</a> -"Imperatrix, collectis viribus suis, cum rege Scotiæ et Rodberto comite -ascendit in Wintoniam, audiens milites suos inclusos in regia munitione -expugnari a militibus legati qui erant in mœnibus illius" (<i>Sym. Dun.</i>, -ii. 310).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_400" id="Foot_400" href="#Ref_400">[400]</a> -"Ignorante fratre suo, comite Bricstowensi (<i>i.e.</i> Earl Robert), Wintoniensem -venit ad urbem, sed eam a se jam alienatam inveniens, in castello -suscepit hospitium" (p. 133). It seems impossible to understand what can -be meant by the expression "ignorante fratre suo." So too <i>Will. Malms.</i>: -"intra castellum regium sine cunctatione recepta."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_401" id="Foot_401" href="#Ref_401">[401]</a> -<i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. 751; <i>Gesta</i>, p. 80; <i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i>, 133. The <i>Gesta</i> -alone represents the Empress as hoping to surprise the legate, which is -scarcely probable.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_402" id="Foot_402" href="#Ref_402">[402]</a> -"Wintonienses porro vel tacito ei favebant judicio, memores fidei quam -ei pacti fuerant cum inviti propemodum ab episcopo ad hoc adacti essent" -(p. 752).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_403" id="Foot_403" href="#Ref_403">[403]</a> -There is some confusion as to what the Empress actually besieged. The -<i>Gesta</i> says it was "(1) castellum episcopi, quod venustissimo constructum -schemate in civitatis medio locarat, sed et (2) domum illius, quam ad instar -castelli fortiter et inexpugnabiliter firmarat." We learn from the <i>Annals of -Winchester</i> (p. 51) that, in 1138, the bishop "fecit ædificare domum quasi -palatium cum turri fortissima in Wintonia," which would seem to be -Wolvesey, with its keep, at the south-east angle of the city. Again, -Giraldus has a story (vii. 46) that the bishop built himself a residence from -the materials of the Conqueror's palace: "Domos regios apud Wintoniam -ecclesie ipsius atrio nimis enormiter imminentes, ... funditus in brevi -raptim et subito ... dejecit, et ... ex dirutis ædificiis et abstractis domos -episcopales egregias sibi in eadem urbe construxit." On the other hand, the -<i>Hyde Cartulary</i> assigns the destruction of the palace to the siege (<i>vide -infra</i>.).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_404" id="Foot_404" href="#Ref_404">[404]</a> -"Interea ex turre pontificis jaculatum incendium in domos burgensium -(qui, ut dixi, proniores erant imperatricis felicitati) comprehendit et -combussit abbatiam totam sanctimonialium intra urbem, simulque cænobium -quod dicitur ad Hidam extra" (<i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. 752). "Qui intus recludebantur -ignibus foras emissis majorem civitatis partem sed et duas abbatias -in favillas penitus redegerunt" (<i>Gesta</i>, p. 83). "Siquidem secundo die -mensis Augusti ignis civitati immissis, monasterium sanctimonialium cum -suis ædificiis, ecclesias plus <small>XL</small> cum majori seu meliori parte civitatis, -postremo cænobium monachorum Deo et Sancto Grimbaldo famulantium, -cum suis ædibus redegit in cineres" (<i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i>, p. 133). It is from -this last writer that we get the date (August 2), which we should never -have gathered from William of Malmesbury (who mentions this fire in conjunction -with the burning of Wherwell Abbey, at the close of the siege) or -from the <i>Gesta</i>. M. Paris (<i>Chron. Maj.</i>, ii. 174) assigns the fire, like William -of Malmesbury, to the end of the siege, but his version, "Destructa est -Wintonia <small>XVIII</small> kal. Oct., et captus est R. Comes Glovernie die exaltationis -Sancte Crucis," is self-stultifying, the two dates being one and the same. -The Continuator's date is confirmed by the independent evidence of the <i>Hyde -Cartulary</i> (among the Stowe MSS.), which states that on Saturday, the 2nd -of August ("Sabbato <small>IIII.</small> non. Augusti"), the city was burned by the -bishop's forces, "et eodem die dicta civitas Wyntonie capta est et spoliata." -From this source we further obtain the interesting fact that the Conqueror's -palace in the city ("totum palatium cum aula sua") perished on this -occasion. Allusion is made to this fact in the same cartulary's account of a -council held by Henry of Winchester in the cathedral, in November, 1150, -where the parish of St. Laurence is assigned the site "super quam aulam -suam et palacium edificari fecit (Rex Willelmus)," which palace "in adventu -Roberti Comitis Gloecestrie combustum fuit." The Continuator (<i>more suo</i>) -assigns the fire to the cruelty of the bishop; but it was the ordinary practice -in such cases. As from the tower of Le Mans in 1099 (<i>Ord. Vit.</i>), as from -the tower of Hereford Cathedral but a few years before this (<i>Gesta Stephani</i>), -so now at Winchester the firebrands flew: and so again at Lewes, in far later -days (1264), where on the evening of the great battle there blazed forth from -the defeated Royalists, sheltered on the castle height, a mad shower of fire.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_405" id="Foot_405" href="#Ref_405">[405]</a> -"Statimque propter omnes misit quos regi fauturos sciebat. Venerunt -ergo fere omnes comites Angliæ; erant enim juvenes et leves, et qui mallent -equitationum discursus quam pacem" (<i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. 751). Cf. <i>Hen. -Hunt.</i>, p. 275, and <i>Gesta</i>, pp. 81, 82.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_406" id="Foot_406" href="#Ref_406">[406]</a> -<i>Early Plantagenets</i>, p. 25. Compare <i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 329: "The Earl of -Chester, although, whenever he prevailed on himself to act, he took part -against Stephen, fought rather on his own account than on Matilda's."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_407" id="Foot_407" href="#Ref_407">[407]</a> -<i>Sym. Dun.</i>, ii. 310.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_408" id="Foot_408" href="#Ref_408">[408]</a> -"Reinulfus enim comes Cestrie tarde et inutiliter advenit" (<i>Will. -Malms.</i>, p. 751).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_409" id="Foot_409" href="#Ref_409">[409]</a> -"Invictâ Londoniensium catervâ, qui, fere mille, cum galeis et loricis -ornatissime instructi convenerant" (<i>Gesta</i>, p. 82).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_410" id="Foot_410" href="#Ref_410">[410]</a> -"Venit <i>tandem</i> exercitus Lundoniensis, et aucti numerose qui contra -imperatricem contendebant, fugere eam compulerunt" (p. 275).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_411" id="Foot_411" href="#Ref_411">[411]</a> -<i>Gesta</i>, p. 82. The <i>Annals of Winchester</i> (p. 52) strangely reverse the -respective positions of the two: "Imperatrix cum suis castellum tenuit -regium et orientalem (<i>sic</i>) partem Wintonie et burgenses cum ea; legatus -cum suis castrum suum cum parte occidentali" (<i>sic</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_412" id="Foot_412" href="#Ref_412">[412]</a> -<i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. 752.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_413" id="Foot_413" href="#Ref_413">[413]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>; <i>Gesta</i>, p. 83.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_414" id="Foot_414" href="#Ref_414">[414]</a> -"Provisum est igitur, et communi consilio provisé, ut sibi videbatur, -statutum, quatinus penes abbatiam Werwellensem, quæ a Ventâ civitate VI. -milliariis distabat, trecentis (<i>sic</i>) ibi destinatis militibus, castellum construerent, -ut scilicet inde et regales facilius arcerentur, et ciborum subsidia -competentius in urbe dirigerentur" (p. 83).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_415" id="Foot_415" href="#Ref_415">[415]</a> -"Emissi sunt autem ducenti (<i>sic</i>) milites, cum Rodberto filio Edæ et -Henrici regis notho et Johanne Marascaldo, ut conducerent in urbem eos qui -comportabant victualia in ministerium imperatricis et eorum qui obsessi fuerant" -(<i>Sym. Dun.</i>, ii. 310).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_416" id="Foot_416" href="#Ref_416">[416]</a> -"Quos persecuti Willelmus Dipre et pars exercitus usque ad Warewella -(ubi est congregatio sanctimonialium) et milites et omnem apparatum, qui -erat copiosus, abduxerunt" (<i>ibid</i>). "Subito et insperaté, cum intolerabili -multitudine Werwellam advenerunt, fortiterque in eos undique irruentes -captis et interemptis plurimis, cedere tandem reliquos et in templum se -recipere compulerunt" (<i>Gesta</i>, p. 83).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_417" id="Foot_417" href="#Ref_417">[417]</a> -<i>Vide infra.</i> Since the above was written Mr. Howlett, in his edition of -the <i>Gesta</i> (p. 82, <i>note</i>), has noted the contradiction in the narrative, but -seems to lean to the latter version as being supported by the Marshal poem.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_418" id="Foot_418" href="#Ref_418">[418]</a> -As has been duly pointed out by its accomplished editor, M. Paul -Meyer (<i>Romania</i>, vol. xi.), who will shortly, it may be hoped, publish the -entire poem.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_419" id="Foot_419" href="#Ref_419">[419]</a> </p> - -<div class="poetry-fn"> -<div class="poetry"> - -<div class="verse quote1">"Li Mareschals de son afaire</div> -<div class="verse">Ne sout que dire ne que feire,</div> -<div class="verse">N'i vit rescose ne confort.</div> -<div class="verse">A Brien de Walingofort</div> -<div class="verse">Commanda a mener la dame,</div> -<div class="verse">E dist, sor le peril de s'alme</div> -<div class="verse">Q'en nul lieu ne s'aresteiisent,</div> -<div class="verse">Por nul besoing que il eiisent,</div> -<div class="verse">N'en bone veie ne en male,</div> -<div class="verse">De si qu'a Lothegaresale;</div> -<div class="verse">E cil tost e hastivement</div> -<div class="verse">En fist tot son commandement" (Lines 225-236).</div> - -</div> -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_420" id="Foot_420" href="#Ref_420">[420]</a> -"Cumque vice castelli ad se defendendos templo uterentur, alii, facibus -undique injectis, semiustulatos eos e templo prodire, et ad votum suum se -sibi subdere coegerunt. Erat quidem horrendum," etc. (<i>Gesta</i>, p. 83). -"Johannem etiam, fautorem eorum, ad monasterium Warewellense fugientem -milites episcopi persequentes, cum exinde nullo modo expellere valuissent, -in ipsâ die festivitatis Exaltationis Sanctæ Crucis [Sept. 14], immisso -igne ipsam ecclesiam Sanctæ Crucis cum sanctimonialium rebus et domibus -cremaverunt, ... prædictum tamen Johannem nec capere nec expellere -potuerunt" (<i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i>, p. 135). So also <i>Will. Malms.</i> (p. 752): "Combusta -est etiam abbatia sanctimonialium de Warewellâ a quodam Willelmo -de Iprâ homine nefando, qui nec Deo nec hominibus reverentiam observaret, -quod in eâ quidam imperatricis fautores se contutati essent."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_421" id="Foot_421" href="#Ref_421">[421]</a> </p> - -<div class="poetry-fn"> -<div class="poetry"> - -<div class="verse quote1">"Li Mareschas el guié s'estut,</div> -<div class="verse">A son poer les contrestut.</div> -<div class="verse">Tute l'ost sur lui descarcha</div> -<div class="verse">Qui si durement le charcha</div> -<div class="verse">Que n'i pont naint plus durer;</div> -<div class="verse">Trop lui fui fort a endurer,</div> -<div class="verse">Einz s'enbati en un mostier;</div> -<div class="verse">N'ont o lui k'un sol chevaler.</div> -<div class="verse">Quant li real les aperçurent</div> -<div class="verse">Qu'el mostier enbatu se furent:</div> -<div class="verse">'Or ça, li feus!' funt il, 'or sa,</div> -<div class="verse">Li traitres ne li garra.'</div> -<div class="verse">Quant li feus el moster se prist,</div> -<div class="verse">En la vis de la tor se mist.</div> -<div class="verse">Li chevaliers li dist: 'Beau sire,</div> -<div class="verse">Or ardrum ci a grant martire:</div> -<div class="verse">Ce sera pecchiez e damages.</div> -<div class="verse">Rendom nos, si ferom que sages.'</div> -<div class="verse">Cil respundi mult cruelment:</div> -<div class="verse">N'en parler ja, gel te defent;</div> -<div class="verse">Ke, s'en diseies plus ne mains,</div> -<div class="verse">Ge t'occirreie de mes mains.'</div> -<div class="verse">Por le grant feu qui fu entor</div> -<div class="verse">Dejeta li pluns de la tor,</div> -<div class="verse">Si que sor le vis li chaï,</div> -<div class="verse">Dunt leidement li meschaï,</div> -<div class="verse">K'un de ses elz i out perdu</div> -<div class="verse">Dunt molt se tint a esperdu,</div> -<div class="verse">Mais, merci Dieu, n'i murust pas.</div> -<div class="verse">E li real en es le pas</div> -<div class="verse">Por mort e por ars le quiderent;</div> -<div class="verse">A Vincestre s'en returnerent,</div> -<div class="verse">Mais n'i fu ne mors ne esteinz" (Lines 237-269).</div> - -</div> -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_422" id="Foot_422" href="#Ref_422">[422]</a> -"Ubi lacrymabilem præfati infortunii audissent eventum de obsidione -diutius ingerendâ ex toto desperati, fugæ quammaturé inire præsidium -sibi consuluere" (<i>Gesta</i>, pp. 83, 84). "Qui jam non in concertatione sed in -fuga spem salutis gerentes egressi sunt, ne forte victores cum Willelmo -d'Ipre ad socios regressi, sumptâ fiduciâ ex quotidianis successibus, aliquid -subitum in eos excogitarent" (<i>Sym. Dun.</i>, ii. 310).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_423" id="Foot_423" href="#Ref_423">[423]</a> -"[Comes] cedendum tempori ratus, compositis ordinibus discessionem -paravit" (p. 753).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_424" id="Foot_424" href="#Ref_424">[424]</a> -P. 134. His strong bias against the legate makes this somewhat -confused charge unworthy of credit.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_425" id="Foot_425" href="#Ref_425">[425]</a> </p> - -<div class="poetry-fn"> -<div class="poetry"> - -<div class="stanza"> -<div class="verse quote1">"La fist tantost metre a la voie</div> -<div class="verse">Tot dreit a Lotegaresale.</div> -</div> - -<div class="stanza"> -<div class="verse">Ne[l] purrent suffrir ne atendre</div> -<div class="verse">Cil qui o l'empereriz erent:</div> -<div class="verse">Al meiz ku'il purent s'en alerent,</div> -<div class="verse">Poingnant si que regne n'i tindrent</div> -<div class="verse">[J]esque soz Varesvalle vindrent;</div> -<div class="verse">Mès forment les desavancha</div> -<div class="verse">L'empereriz qui chevacha</div> -<div class="verse">Cumme femme fait en seant:</div> -<div class="verse">Ne sembla pas buen ne seant</div> -<div class="verse">Al Marechal, anceis li dist:</div> -<div class="verse">'Dame, si m'ait Jesucrist,</div> -<div class="verse">L'em ne puet pas eu seant poindre;</div> -<div class="verse">Les jambes vos covient desjoindre</div> -<div class="verse">E metre par en son l'arçun.'</div> -<div class="verse">El le fist, volsist ele ou non,</div> -<div class="verse">Quer lor enemis le[s] grevoient</div> -<div class="verse">Qui de trop près les herd[i]oient" (Lines 198, 199, 208-224).</div> -</div> - -</div> -</div> - -<p class="nodent">The quaint detail here given is confirmed, as M. Meyer notes, by the Continuator's -phrase (<i>vide infra</i>, note 2).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_426" id="Foot_426" href="#Ref_426">[426]</a> -"In loco qui Stolibricge dicitur a Flammensibus cum comite Warrennensi -captus" (<i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i>, p. 135). Cf. p. 134, and <i>Will. Malms.</i> (pp. -753, 758, 759), <i>Gesta</i> (p. 84), <i>Sym. Dun.</i> (ii. 311), <i>Hen. Hunt.</i> (p. 275). As in -Matilda's flight from London, so in her flight from Winchester, the author of -the <i>Gesta</i> appears to advantage with his descriptive and spirited account.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_427" id="Foot_427" href="#Ref_427">[427]</a> -"Hæc audiens domina, vehementer exterrita atque turbata, ad castellum -quo tendebat de Ludkereshala tristis ac dolens advenit, sed ibi locum tutum -quiescendi, propter metum episcopi, non invenit. Unde, hortantibus suis, -equo iterum usu masculino supposita, atque ad Divisas perducta" (<i>Cont. -Flor. Wig.</i>, p. 134).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_428" id="Foot_428" href="#Ref_428">[428]</a> -"Castellum quod vocatur Divise, quo non erat aliud splendidius intra -fines Europæ" (<i>Hen. Hunt.</i>, p. 265). "Castellum ... multis et vix numerabilibus -sumptibus, non (ut ipse præsul dictabat) ad ornamentum, sed (ut se rei -veritas habet) ad ecclesiæ detrimentum, ædificatum" (<i>Will. Malms.</i>, pp. 717, -718). It had been raised by the Bishop of Salisbury, and it passed, at his -fall, into Stephen's hands. It is then described by the author of the <i>Gesta</i> -(p. 66) as "castellum regis, quod Divisa dicebatur, ornanter et inexpugnabiliter -muratum." It was subsequently surprised by Robert fitz Hubert, -who held it for his own hand till his capture, when the Earl of Gloucester -tried hard to extort its surrender from him. In this, however, he failed. -Robert was hanged, and, soon after, his garrison sold it to Stephen, by whom -it was entrusted to Hervey of Brittany, whom he seems to have made Earl -of Wilts. But on Stephen's capture, the peasantry rose, and extorted its -surrender from Hervey. Thenceforth, it was a stronghold of the Empress -(see for this the Continuator and the <i>Gesta</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_429" id="Foot_429" href="#Ref_429">[429]</a> -"Cum nec ibi secure se tutari posse, ob insequentes, formidaret, jam pene -exanimis feretro invecta, et funibus quasi cadaver ligata, equis deferentibus, -sat ignominiose ad civitatem deportatur Glaornensem" (<i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i>, -134). The author of the <i>Gesta</i> (p. 85) mentions her flight to Devizes ("Brieno -tantum cum paucis comite, ad Divisas confugit"), and incidentally -observes (p. 87) that she was "ex Wintoniensi dispersione quassa nimis, et -usque ad defectum pené defatigata" (<i>i.e.</i> "tired to death;" cf. <i>supra</i>). John -of Hexham merely says: "Et imperatrix quidem non sine magno conflictu -et plurima difficultate erepta est" (<i>Sym. Dun.</i>, ii. 310).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_430" id="Foot_430" href="#Ref_430">[430]</a> -Camden, in his <i>Britannia</i>, gives the story, but Knighton (De eventibus -Angliæ, lib. ii., in <i>Scriptores</i> X.) seems to be the chief offender. Dugdale follows -with the assertion that "she was necessitated ... for her more security to -be put into a coffin, as a dead corps, to escape their hands" (i. 537 <i>b</i>). -According to Milner (<i>History of Winchester</i>, p. 162), "she was enclosed like a -corpse in a sheet of lead, and was thus suffered to pass in a horse-litter as -if carried out for interment, through the army of her besiegers, a truce -having been granted for this purpose." Even Edwards, in his introduction -to the <i>Liber de Hyda</i> (p. xlviii.), speaks of "the raising of the siege; a raising -precipitated, if we accept the accounts of Knighton and some other chroniclers -who accord with him, by the strange escape of the Empress Maud from -Winchester Castle concealed in a leaden coffin." <i>Sic crescit eundo.</i></p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_431" id="Foot_431" href="#Ref_431">[431]</a> -<i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. 754.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_432" id="Foot_432" href="#Ref_432">[432]</a> -See donation of Miles (<i>Monasticon</i>, vi. 137), stated to have been made in -their presence, and in the year 1141, in which he speaks of himself as "apud -Bristolium positus, jamque consulatus honorem adeptus." Brian had escorted -the Empress in her flight, but Miles, intercepted by the enemy, had barely -escaped with his life ("de solâ vita lætus ad Glaornam cum dedecore -fugiendo pervenit lassus, solus, et pene nudus."—<i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i>, p. 135).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">{136}</a></span> - -<h2>CHAPTER VII.<br /> -<small>THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE KING.</small></h2> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">The</span> -liberation of the king from his captivity was hailed -with joy by his adherents, and not least, we may be sure, -in his loyal city of London. The greatness of the -event is seen, perhaps, in the fact that it is even mentioned -in a private London deed of the time, executed "Anno -MCXLI., Id est in exitu regis Stephani de captione Roberti -filii regis Henrici."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_432b" id="Ref_432b" href="#Foot_432b">[432]</a></span></p> - -<p>In spite of his faults we may fairly assume that the -king's imprisonment had aroused a popular reaction in -his favour, as it did in the case of Charles I., five centuries -later. The experiences also of the summer had been -greatly in his favour. For, however unfit he may have -been to fill the throne himself, he was able now to point to -the fact that his rival had been tried and found wanting.</p> - -<p>He would now be eager to efface the stain inflicted on -his regal dignity, to show in the sight of all men that he -was again their king, and then to execute vengeance on -those whose captive he had been. The first step to be -taken was to assemble a council of the realm that should -undo the work of the April council at Winchester, and -formally recognize in him the rightful possessor of the -throne. This council met on the 7th of December at -Westminster, the king himself being present.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_433" id="Ref_433" href="#Foot_433">[433]</a></span> The -ingenious legate was now as ready to prove that his -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">{137}</a></span> -brother, and not the Empress, should rightly fill the -throne, as, we saw, he was in April to prove the exact -reverse. The two grounds on which he based his renunciation -were, first, that the Empress had failed to fulfil -her pledges to the Church;<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_434" id="Ref_434" href="#Foot_434">[434]</a></span> second, that her failure -implied the condemnation of God.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_435" id="Ref_435" href="#Foot_435">[435]</a></span></p> - -<p>A solemn coronation might naturally follow, to set, as -it were, the seal to the work of this assembly. Perhaps -the nearest parallel to this second coronation is to be -found in that of Richard I., in 1194, after his captivity -and humiliation.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_436" id="Ref_436" href="#Foot_436">[436]</a></span> I think we have evidence that -Stephen himself looked on this as a second coronation, -and as no mere "crown-wearing," in a precept in favour -of the monks of Abingdon, in which he alludes incidentally -to the day of his <i>first</i> coronation.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_437" id="Ref_437" href="#Foot_437">[437]</a></span> This clearly implies -a second coronation since; and as the precept is attested -by Richard de Luci, it is presumably subsequent to that -second coronation, to which we now come.</p> - -<p>It cannot be wondered that this event has been unnoticed -by historians, for it is only recorded in a single -copy of the works of a single chronicler. We are indebted -to Dr. Stubbs and his scholarly edition of the writings -of Gervase of Canterbury for our knowledge of the fact that -in one, and that comparatively imperfect, of the three -manuscripts on which his text is based, we read of a -coronation of Stephen, at Canterbury, "placed under -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">{138}</a></span> -1142." We learn from him that in this MS. "it is probably -inserted in a wrong place," as indeed is evident from -the fact that at Christmas, 1142, Stephen was at Oxford. -Here is the passage in question:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Deinde rex Stephanus una cum regina et nobilitate procerum ad -Natale Domini gratiosus adveniens, in ipsa solempnitate in ecclesiâ -Christi a venerabili Theobaldo ejusdem ecclesiæ archiepiscopo coronatus -est; ipsa etiam regina cum eo ibidem coronam auream gestabat -in capite" (<i>Gervase</i>, i. 123).</p> - -<p>It should perhaps be noticed that, while the Queen is merely -said to have worn her crown, Stephen is distinctly stated -to have been crowned. I cannot but think that this must -imply a distinction between them, and supports the view -that this coronation was due to the captivity of the king.</p> - -<p>My contention is that the date of this event was -Christmas, 1141, and that the choice, for its scene, of the -Kentish capital was a graceful compliment to that county -which, in the darkest hour of the king's fortunes, had -remained faithful to his cause, and to the support of which -his restoration had been so largely due.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_438" id="Ref_438" href="#Foot_438">[438]</a></span></p> - -<p>I further hold that the second charter granted to -Geoffrey de Mandeville was executed on this occasion, -and that in its witnesses we have the list of that "nobilitas -procerum" by which, according to Gervase, this coronation -was attended.</p> - -<p>This charter, when rightly dated, is indeed the keystone -of my story. For without it we could not form that series -on which the sequence of events is based. It is admittedly -subsequent to the king's liberation, for it refers to the -battle of Lincoln. It must also be previous to Geoffrey's -death in 1144. These are the obvious limits given in the -official calendar.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_439" id="Ref_439" href="#Foot_439">[439]</a></span> But it must further be previous to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">{139}</a></span> -Geoffrey's fall in 1143. Lastly, it must be previous to the -Oxford, or second, charter of the Empress, in which we -shall find it is referred to. As that charter cannot be -later than the summer of 1142, our limit is again narrowed. -Now the charter is tested at Canterbury. Stephen cannot, -it seems, have been there in the course of 1142. This -accordingly leaves us, as the only possible date, the close -of 1141; and this is the very date of the king's coronation -at Canterbury. When we add to this train of reasoning -the fact that the number of earls by whom the charter is -witnessed clearly points to some great state ceremonial, -we cannot feel the slightest doubt that the charter must, -as I observed, have passed on this occasion. With this -conclusion its character will be found in complete accordance, -for it plainly represents the price for which the -traitor earl consented to change sides again, and to place -at the disposal of his outraged king that Tower of London, -its citadel and its dread, the possession of which once -more enabled him to dictate his own terms.</p> - -<p>Those terms were that, in the first place, he should -forfeit nothing for his treason in having joined the cause -of the Empress, and should be confirmed in his possession -of all that he held before the king's capture. But his -demands far exceeded the mere <i>status quo ante</i>. Just as he -had sold his support to the Empress when she gave him -an advance on Stephen's terms, so the Queen must have -brought him back by offering terms, at the crisis of the -struggle, in excess even of those which he had just wrung -from the Empress. He would now insist that these great -concessions should be confirmed by the king himself. -Such is the explanation of the strange character of this -Canterbury charter.</p> - -<div class="pagenum"><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">{140}</a></div> - -<h3><span class="smc">Charter of the King to Geoffrey de Mandeville</span><br /> -(Christmas, 1141).</h3> - -<p>S. rex Angl[orum] Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus -Comitibus Justic[iariis] Vicecomitibus Baronibus et -Omnibus Ministris et fidelibus suis francis et Anglis totius -Anglie salutem. Sciatis me reddidisse et firmiter concesisse -Gaufr[ido] Comiti de Essexâ omnia sua tenementa -que tenuit, de quocunque illa tenuerit, die quâ impeditus -fui apud Linc[olniam] et captus. Et præter hoc dedi ei -et concessi <span class="smc">ccc</span> libratas terræ scilicet Meldonam<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_440" id="Ref_440" href="#Foot_440">[440]</a></span> et -Neweport et Depedenam et Banhunte et Ingam et Phingriam<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_441" id="Ref_441" href="#Foot_441">[441]</a></span> -et Chateleam cum omnibus suis Appendiciis pro <span class="smc">c</span> -libris. Et Writelam<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_442" id="Ref_442" href="#Foot_442">[442]</a></span> pro vi.xx libris. Et Hadfeld<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_443" id="Ref_443" href="#Foot_443">[443]</a></span> pro -quater.xx libris cum omnibus appendiciis illorum Maneriorum. -Et præter hec dedi ei et concessi in feodo et hereditate -de me et de meis hæredibus sibi et suis heredibus -<span class="smc">c</span> libratas terræ de terris excaatis, scilicet totam terram -Roberti de Baentona<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_444" id="Ref_444" href="#Foot_444">[444]</a></span> quam tenuit in Essexâ, videlicet -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">{141}</a></span> -Reneham<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_445" id="Ref_445" href="#Foot_445">[445]</a></span> et Hoilandam,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_446" id="Ref_446" href="#Foot_446">[446]</a></span> Et Amb[er]denam<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_447" id="Ref_447" href="#Foot_447">[447]</a></span> et Wodeham<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_448" id="Ref_448" href="#Foot_448">[448]</a></span> -et Eistan',<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_449" id="Ref_449" href="#Foot_449">[449]</a></span> quam Picardus de Danfront<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_450" id="Ref_450" href="#Foot_450">[450]</a></span> tenuit. Et Ichilintonam<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_451" id="Ref_451" href="#Foot_451">[451]</a></span> -cum omnibus eorum appendiciis pro <span class="smc">c</span> libris. Et -præterea dedi ei et firmiter concessi in feodo et hereditate <span class="smc">c</span> -libratas terræ ad opus Ernulfi de Mannavilla de ipso Comite -Gaufredo tenendas, scilicet Anastiam,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_452" id="Ref_452" href="#Foot_452">[452]</a></span> et Braching,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_453" id="Ref_453" href="#Foot_453">[453]</a></span> et -Hamam<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_454" id="Ref_454" href="#Foot_454">[454]</a></span> cum omnibus eorum appendiciis. -Et <span class="smc">c</span> solidatas -terræ in Hadfeld ad præfatas <span class="smc">c</span> libratas terræ perficiend[um]. -Et præterea dedi ei et concessi custodiam turris -Lond[oniæ] cum Castello quod ei subest habend[um] et -tenendum sibi et suis hæredibus de me et de meis heredibus -cum omnibus rebus et libertatibus et consuetudinibus prefate -turri pertinentibus. Et Justicias et Vicecomitat' de -Lond[oniâ] et de Middlesexâ in feodo et hereditate -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">{142}</a></span> -eadem firma qua Gaufridus de Mannavilla avus suus eas -tenuit, scilicet pro <span class="smc">ccc</span> libris. Et Justitias et Vicecomitat' -de Essexâ et de Heortfordiscirâ eâdem firmâ quâ avus ejus -eas tenuit, ita tamen quod dominica que de prædictis -Comitatibus data sunt ipsi Comiti Gaufredo aut alicui alii -a firmâ præfatâ subtrahantur et illi et hæredibus suis ad -scaccarium combutabuntur. Et præterea firmiter ei concessi -ut possit firmare quoddam castellum ubicunque voluerit -in terrâ suâ et quod stare possit. Et præterea dedi -eidem Comiti Gaufr[edo] et firmiter concessi in feodo et -hereditate sibi et hæredibus suis de me et de meis heredibus -lx milites feudatos, de quibus Ernulfus de Mannavillâ -tenebit x in feodo et hereditate de patre suo, scilicet -servicium Graalondi de Tania<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_455" id="Ref_455" href="#Foot_455">[455]</a></span> pro vii militibus et dimidio -Et servicium Willelmi filii Roberti pro vii militibus Et servicium -Brient[ii] filii Radulfi<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_456" id="Ref_456" href="#Foot_456">[456]</a></span> pro v militibus Et servicium -Roberti filii Geroldi pro xi militibus Et servicium -Radulfi filii Geroldi pro i milite Et servicium Willelmi -de Tresgoz<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_457" id="Ref_457" href="#Foot_457">[457]</a></span> pro vi militibus Et servicium Mauricii de -Chic[he] pro v militibus et servicium Radulfi Maled[octi] -pro ii militibus Et servicium Goisb[erti] de Ing[â] pro -i milite Et servicium Willelmi filii Heru[ei] pro iii militibus -Et servicium Willelmi de Auco pro j milite et dimidio -Et servicium Willelmi de Bosevillâ<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_458" id="Ref_458" href="#Foot_458">[458]</a></span> pro ii militibus -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">{143}</a></span> -Et servicium Mathei Peur[elli]<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_459" id="Ref_459" href="#Foot_459">[459]</a></span> pro iiij militibus Et -servicium Ade de Sum[er]i de feodo de Elmedonâ<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_460" id="Ref_460" href="#Foot_460">[460]</a></span> pro -iij militibus Et servicium Rann[ulfi] Briton[is]<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_461" id="Ref_461" href="#Foot_461">[461]</a></span> pro i -milite. Et præterea quicquid Carta Regine testatur ei -dedi et concessi. Omnia autem hec prædicta tenementa, -scilicet in terris et dominiis et serviciis militum et in Custodia -turris Lon[doniæ] et Castelli quod turri subest -et in Justiciis et Vicecomitatibus et omnibus prædictis -rebus et consuetudinibus et libertatibus, dedi ei et firmiter -concessi Comiti Gaufredo in feodo et hereditate de me et -de meis heredibus sibi et heredibus suis pro servicio suo. -Quare volo et firmiter præcipio quod ipse et heredes sui -post eum habeant et teneant omnia illa tenementa et concessiones -adeo libere et quiete et honorifice sicut aliquis -omnium Comitum totius Angliæ aliquod suum tenementum -tenet vel tenuit liberius et honorificentius et quietius et -plenius.</p> - -<p>T[estibus] M. Regina et H[enrico] Ep[iscop]o Wint[onensi] -et W[illelmo] Com[ite] Warenn[a] et Com[ite] -Gisl[eberto] de Pembroc et Com[ite] Gisl[eberto] de heortford -et W[illelmo] Com[ite] de Albarm[arlâ] et Com[ite] -Sim[one] et Comite Will[elmo] de Sudsexâ et Com[ite] -Alan[o] et Com[ite] Rob[erto] de Ferrers et Will[elmo] -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">{144}</a></span> -de Ip[râ] et Will[elmo] Mart[el] et Bald[wino] fil[io] -Gisl[eberti] et Rob[erto] de V[er] et Pharam[o] et Ric[ardo] -de Luci et Turg[isio] de Abrincis et Ada de Belum. Apud -Cantuar[iam].<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_462" id="Ref_462" href="#Foot_462">[462]</a></span></p> - -<p class="gap-above2">It will at once be seen that this charter is one of -extraordinary interest.</p> - -<p>The first point to strike one, on examining the list of -witnesses, is the presence of no less than eight earls and -of no more than one bishop. To these, indeed, we may -add perhaps, though by no means of necessity, the Earl of -Essex himself. Though the evidence is, of course, merely -negative, it is probable, to judge from similar cases, that -had other bishops been present, they would appear among -the witnesses to the charter. The absence of their names, -therefore, is somewhat difficult to explain, unless (if -present) they were at enmity with Geoffrey.</p> - -<p>Another point deserving of notice is that this great -gathering of earls enables us to draw some important conclusions -as to the origin and development of their titles. -We may, for instance, safely infer that when a Christian -name was borne by one earl alone, he used for his style -that name with the addition of "Comes" either as a -prefix or as a suffix. Thus we have in this instance -"Comes Alanus" and "Comes Simon." But when two -or more earls bore the same Christian name, they had to -be distinguished by some addition. Thus we have "Comes -Gislebertus de Pembroc" and "Comes Gislebertus de -Heortford," or "Comes Robertus de Ferrers," as distinguished -from Earl Robert "of Gloucester." The addition -of "de Essexa" to Earl Geoffrey himself, which is found -in this and other charters (see pp. 158, 183), can only, -it would seem, be intended to distinguish him from Count -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">{145}</a></span> -Geoffrey of Anjou. But here the striking case is that -of "Willelmo Comite Warenna," "Willelmo Comite de -Albarmarlâ," and "Comite Willelmo de Sudsexâ." These -examples show us how perfectly immaterial was the source -from which the description was taken. "Warenna" is -used as if a surname; "Albarmarla" is "Aumâle," a -local name; and "Sudsexa" needs no comment. The -same noble who here attests as Earl of "Albarmarla" -elsewhere attests as Earl "of York," while the Earl "of -Sussex" is elsewhere a witness as Earl "of Chichester" -or "of Arundel." In short, the "Comes" really belongs -to the Christian name alone. The descriptive suffix is -distinct and immaterial. But the important inference -which I draw from the conclusion arrived at above is that -where we find such descriptive suffix employed, we may -gather that there was in existence at the time some other -earl or count with the same Christian name.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_463" id="Ref_463" href="#Foot_463">[463]</a></span></p> - -<p>Among the earls, we look at once, but we look in vain, -for the name of Waleran of Meulan. But his half-brother, -William de Warenne, one, like himself, of the faithful -three,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_464" id="Ref_464" href="#Foot_464">[464]</a></span> duly figures at the head of the list. He is followed -by their brother-in-law, the Earl of Pembroke, whose -nephew and namesake, the Earl of Hertford, and brother, -Baldwin fitz Gilbert, are also found among the witnesses. -With them is another of the faithful three, Earl Simon of -Northampton. There too is Earl Alan of Richmond, and -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">{146}</a></span> -the fortunate William of Albini, now Earl William of -Sussex. Robert of Ferrers and William of Aumâle, both -of them heroes of the Battle of the Standard, complete the -list of earls.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_465" id="Ref_465" href="#Foot_465">[465]</a></span></p> - -<p>It would alone be sufficient to make this charter of -importance that it affords the earliest record evidence of -the existence of two famous earldoms, that of Hertford or -Clare, and that of Arundel or Sussex.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_466" id="Ref_466" href="#Foot_466">[466]</a></span> Indeed I know -of no earlier mention in any contemporary chronicler. -We further learn from it that William of Ypres was not -an earl at the time, as has been persistently stated. Nor -have I ever found a record in which he is so styled. -Lastly, we have here a noteworthy appearance of one -afterwards famous as Richard de Luci the Loyal, who was -destined to play so great a part as a faithful and trusted -minister for nearly forty years to come.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_467" id="Ref_467" href="#Foot_467">[467]</a></span> His appearance -as an attesting witness at least as early as this (Christmas, -1141) is a fact more especially deserving of notice because -it must affect the date of many other charters. Mr. Eyton -thought that "his earliest attestation yet proved is 1146,"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_468" id="Ref_468" href="#Foot_468">[468]</a></span> -and hence found his name a difficulty, at times, as a -witness. William Martel was another official in constant -attendance on Stephen. He is described in the <i>Gesta</i> -(p. 92) as "vir illustris, fide quoque et amicitiâ potissimum -regi connexus." At the affair of Wilton, with its -disgraceful surprise and rout of the royal forces, he was -made prisoner and forced to give Sherborne Castle as the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">{147}</a></span> -price of his liberty (<i>ibid.</i>). By his wife "Albreda" he was -father of a son and heir, Geoffrey.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_469" id="Ref_469" href="#Foot_469">[469]</a></span></p> - -<p>Of the remaining witnesses, Pharamus (fitz William) -de Boulogne was <i>nepos</i> of the queen. In 1130 he was indebted -£20 to the Exchequer "pro placitis terre sue -[Surrey] et ut habeat terram suam quam Noverca sua -tenet" (<i>Rot. Pip.</i>, 31 Hen. I., p. 50). In the present -year (1141) he had been in joint charge of the king's -<i>familia</i> during his captivity:—"Rexit autem familiam -regis Stephani Willelmus d'Ipre, homo Flandrensis et -Pharamus nepos reginæ Matildis, et iste Bononiensis" -(<i>Sym. Dun.</i>, ii. 310). His ravages—"per destructionem -Faramusi"—are referred to in the Pipe-Roll of 1156 (p. -15), but he retained favour under Henry II., receiving £60 -annually from the royal dues in Wendover and Eton. -In May, 1157, he attested, at Colchester, the charter of -Henry II. to Feversham Abbey (Stephen's foundation). -He held six fees of the honour of Boulogne. His grandfather, -Geoffrey, is described as a <i>nepos</i> of Eustace of -Boulogne. With his daughter and heiress Sibyl, his -lands passed to the family of Fiennes.</p> - -<p>Robert de V(er) would be naturally taken for the -younger brother of Aubrey the chamberlain, slain in -1141.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_470" id="Ref_470" href="#Foot_470">[470]</a></span> This might seem so obvious that to question it -may appear strange. Yet there is reason to believe that -his identity was wholly different. I take him to be -Robert (fitz <i>Bernard</i>) de Vere, who is presumably the -"Robert de Vere" who figures as an Essex landowner in -the Pipe-Roll of 1130, for he is certainly the "Robert de -Vere" who is entered in that same roll as acquiring lands -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">{148}</a></span> -in Kent, with his wife, for whom he had paid the Crown -£210, at that time a large sum. She was an heiress, -(sister of Robert and) daughter of Hugh de Montfort, -a considerable landowner in Kent and in the Eastern -Counties. With her he founded, on her Kentish estate, -the Cluniac priory of Monks Horton, and in the charters -relating to that priory he is spoken of as a royal constable. -As such he attested the Charter of Liberties -issued by Stephen at Oxford in 1136. I am therefore of -opinion that he is the witness who attests this Canterbury -charter, the Oxford charter of about a year later,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_471" id="Ref_471" href="#Foot_471">[471]</a></span> -and some others in the course of this reign.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_472" id="Ref_472" href="#Foot_472">[472]</a></span> He had -also witnessed some charters towards the close of the -preceding reign, and would seem to be the Robert de Ver -who was among those who took charge of the body of -Henry I. at his death.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_473" id="Ref_473" href="#Foot_473">[473]</a></span></p> - -<p>Baldwin fitz Gilbert occurs repeatedly in the Pipe-Roll -of 31 Hen. I. He was a younger son of Gilbert de Clare, -a brother of Gilbert, afterwards Earl of Pembroke, and -uncle of Gilbert, Earl of Hertford. He appears, as early -as January, 1136, in attendance on Stephen, at Reading, -where he witnessed one of the charters to Miles of -Gloucester. He was then sent by the king into Wales to -avenge the death of his brother Richard (de Clare); but, -on reaching Brecknock, turned back in fear (<i>Gesta</i>, p. 12). -At the battle of Lincoln (February 2, 1141), he acted as -spokesman on the king's behalf, and was captured by -the forces of the Empress, after he had been covered with -wounds.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_474" id="Ref_474" href="#Foot_474">[474]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">{149}</a></span> -Turgis of Avranches (the namesake of its bishop) we -have met with as a witness to Stephen's former charter -to Geoffrey. He seems to have been placed, on Geoffrey's -fall (1143), in charge of his castle of Walden, and, apparently, -of the whole property. Though Stephen had -raised him, it was said, from the ranks and loaded him -with favours, he ended by offering him resistance, but -was surprised by him, in the forest, when hunting, and -forced to surrender (<i>Gesta</i>, p. 110).</p> - -<p>Passing now from the witnesses to the subject-matter -of the charter, we have first the clause replacing Geoffrey -in the same position as he was before the battle of Lincoln, -in despite of his treason to the king's cause. The -next clause illustrates the system of advancing bids. -Whereas the Empress had granted Geoffrey £100 a year, -charged on certain manors of royal demesne in Essex, -Stephen now increased that grant to £300 a year, by -adding the manors of Writtle (£120) and Hatfield (£80). -He further granted him another £100 a year payable -from lands which had escheated to the Crown. And -lastly, he granted to his son Ernulf £100 a year, likewise -charged on land.</p> - -<p>The next clause grants him, precisely as in the charter -of the Empress, the constableship of the Tower of London -and of its appendant "castle,"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_475" id="Ref_475" href="#Foot_475">[475]</a></span> with the exception that -the Empress uses the term "concedo" where Stephen -has "dedi et concessi." The latter expression is somewhat -strange in view of the fact that Geoffrey had been -in full possession of the Tower before the struggle had -begun, and, indeed, by hereditary right.</p> - -<p>We then return to what I have termed the system of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">{150}</a></span> -advancing bids. For where the Empress had granted -Geoffrey the office of justice and sheriff of Essex alone, -Stephen makes him justice and sheriff, not merely of -Essex, but of Herts and of London and Middlesex to boot. -Nor is even this all; for, whereas the Empress had allowed -him to hold Essex to farm for the same annual sum -which it had paid at her father's death,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_476" id="Ref_476" href="#Foot_476">[476]</a></span> Stephen now -leases it to him at the annual rent which his grandfather -had paid.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_477" id="Ref_477" href="#Foot_477">[477]</a></span> The fact that in the second charter of the -Empress she adopts, we shall find, the original rental,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_478" id="Ref_478" href="#Foot_478">[478]</a></span> -instead of, as before, that which was paid at the time of -her father's death, proves that, in this Canterbury -charter, Stephen had outbid her, and further proves that -Henry I. had increased, after his wont, the sum at which -the sheriff held Essex of the Crown. This, indeed, is -clear from the Pipe-Roll of 1130, which records a <i>firma</i> -far in excess of the £300 which, according to these -charters, Geoffrey's grandfather had paid.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_479" id="Ref_479" href="#Foot_479">[479]</a></span> It may be -noted that while Stephen's charter gives in actual figures -the "ferm" which had been paid by Geoffrey's grandfather, -and which Geoffrey himself was now to pay for -London and Middlesex, it merely provides, in the case of -Essex and Hertfordshire, that he was to pay what his -grandfather had paid, without mentioning what that sum -was. Happily, we obtain the information in the subsequent -charter of the Empress, and we are tempted to infer -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">{151}</a></span> -from the silence of this earlier charter on the point, that -while the ancient <i>firma</i> of London and Middlesex was a -sum familiar to men, that of Essex and Herts could only -be ascertained by research, pending which the Crown -declined to commit itself to the sum.</p> - -<p>It is scarcely necessary that I should insist on the -extraordinary value of this statement and formal admission -by the Crown that London and Middlesex had been held -to farm by the elder Geoffrey de Mandeville—that is, -towards the close of the eleventh century, or, at latest, in -the beginning of the twelfth—and that the amount of the -<i>firma</i> was £300 a year. One cannot understand how -such a fact, of which the historical student cannot fail to -grasp the importance, can have been overlooked so long, -when it has virtually figured in Dugdale's <i>Baronage</i> for -more than two centuries. The only writer, so far as I -know, who has ventured on an estimate of the annual -render from London at the time of Domesday arrives at -the conclusion that "we can hardly be wrong in putting -the returns at ... about £850 a year."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_480" id="Ref_480" href="#Foot_480">[480]</a></span> We have seen -that, on the contrary, the rental, even later than Domesday, -was £300 a year, and this not for London only, but -for London and Middlesex together.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_481" id="Ref_481" href="#Foot_481">[481]</a></span></p> - -<p>Nothing, indeed, could show more plainly the necessity -for such a work as I have here undertaken, and the new -light which the evidence of these charters throws upon the -history of the time, than a comparison of the results -here obtained with the statements in Mr. Loftie's work,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_482" id="Ref_482" href="#Foot_482">[482]</a></span> -published under the editorship of Professor Freeman, -which, though far less inaccurate than his earlier and -larger work, contains such passages as this:—</p> - -<p class="small"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">{152}</a></span> -"Matilda had one chance of conciliating the citizens, and she -threw it away. The immemorial liberties which had been enjoyed -for generations, and confirmed by William and Henry, were taken -from the city, which for the first and last time in its history was put -'in demesne.' The Earl of Essex, Geoffrey de Mandeville, whose -father is said by Stow to have been portreeve, was given Middlesex -'in farm' with the Tower for his castle, and no person could hold -pleas either in city or county without his permission. The feelings -of the Londoners were fully roused. Though Stephen was actually a -prisoner, and Matilda's fortunes never seemed brighter, her cause was -lost.... The citizens soon saw that her putting them in demesne -was no mistake committed in a hasty moment in times of confusion, -but was part of a settled policy. This decided the waverers and -doubled the party of Stephen.... Stephen was exchanged for the -Earl of Gloucester, the Tower was surrendered, the dominion was -removed, and London had its liberty once more; but after such an -experience it is not wonderful that the citizens held loyally to Stephen -during the short remainder of his life" (pp. 36, 37).<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_483" id="Ref_483" href="#Foot_483">[483]</a></span></p> - -<p>A more complete travesty of history it would not be -possible to conceive. "The immemorial liberties" were -no older than the charter wrung from Henry a few years -before, and so far from the city being "put 'in demesne'" -(whatever may be meant by this expression),<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_484" id="Ref_484" href="#Foot_484">[484]</a></span> "for the -first and last time in its history," the Empress, had she -done what is here charged to her, would have merely -placed Geoffrey in the shoes of his grandfather and namesake.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_485" id="Ref_485" href="#Foot_485">[485]</a></span> -But the strange thing is that she did nothing of -the kind, and that the facts, in Mr. Loftie's narrative, are -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">{153}</a></span> -turned topsy-turvey. It was not by Matilda in June, but -by Stephen in December, that London and Middlesex -were placed in Geoffrey's power. The Empress did not do -that which she is stated to have done; and Stephen did -do what he is said to have undone. The result of his -return to power, so far as London was concerned, was that -the Tower was <i>not</i> surrendered, but, on the contrary, confirmed -to Geoffrey, and that so far from "the dominion" -(an unintelligible expression) being "removed," or London -regaining its liberty, it was now deprived of its liberty by -being placed, as even the Empress had refrained from -placing it, beneath the yoke of Geoffrey. Thus it was -certainly not due to his conduct on this occasion "that -the citizens of London held loyally to Stephen during the -short remainder of his life." Nor, it may be added, is it -possible to understand what is meant by that "short -remainder," for these events happened early in Stephen's -reign, not a third of which had elapsed at the time.</p> - -<p>But the important point is this. Here was Stephen -anxious on the one hand to reward the Londoners for -their allegiance, and, on the other, to punish Geoffrey for -his repeated offences against himself, and yet compelled -by the force of circumstances actually to reward Geoffrey -at the cost of the Londoners themselves. We need no -more striking illustration of the commanding position and -overwhelming power which the ambitious earl had now -obtained by taking advantage of the rival claims, and -skilfully holding the balance between the two parties, as -was done by a later king-maker in the strife of Lancaster -and York.</p> - -<p>Passing over for the present the remarkable expressions -which illustrate my theory of the differentiation of -the offices of justice and sheriff, I would invite attention -to Geoffrey's claim to be placed in the shoes of his grandfather, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">{154}</a></span> -as an instance of the tendency, in this reign, of -the magnates to advance quasi-hereditary claims, often -involving, as it were, the undoing of the work of Henry I. -William de Beauchamp was anxious to be placed in the -shoes of Robert le Despenser; the Beaumont Earl of -Leicester in those of William Fitz Osbern; the Earl of -Oxford in those of William of Avranches; and Geoffrey -himself, we shall find, in those of "Eudo Dapifer."</p> - -<p>A point of great importance awaits us in the reference -which, in this charter, is made to the Exchequer. I -expressed a doubt, when dealing with the first charter -of the Empress,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_486" id="Ref_486" href="#Foot_486">[486]</a></span> as to the supposed total extinction of -the working of the Exchequer under Stephen. The author -of the <i>Dialogus</i>, though anxious to emphasize its re-establishment -under Henry II., goes no further than to speak -of its system being "<i>pene</i> prorsus abolitam" in the terrible -time of the Anarchy (<small>I.</small> viii.). Now here, in 1141, at the -very height, one might say, of the Anarchy, we not only -find the Exchequer spoken of as in full existence, but, -which is most important to observe, we have the precise -Exchequer <i>formulæ</i> which we find under Henry II. The -"Terræ datæ," or alienated Crown demesnes, are represented -here by the "dominia que de predictis comitatibus -data sunt," and the provision that they should be subtracted -from the fixed ferm ("a firma subtrahantur") -is a formula found in use subsequently, as is, even more, -the phrase "ad scaccarium computabuntur."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_487" id="Ref_487" href="#Foot_487">[487]</a></span></p> - -<p>The next clause deals with castles, that great feature -of the time. Here again the accepted view as to Stephen's -laxity on the subject is greatly modified by this evidence -that even Geoffrey de Mandeville, great as was his power, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">{155}</a></span> -deemed it needful to secure the royal permission before -erecting a castle, and that this permission was limited -to a single fortress.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_488" id="Ref_488" href="#Foot_488">[488]</a></span></p> - -<p>In the next clause we return to the system of counter-bids. -As the king had trebled the grants of Crown -demesne made to Geoffrey by the Empress, and trebled -also the counties which had been placed in his charge -by her, so now he trebled the number of enfeoffed knights -("milites feudatos"). The Empress had granted twenty; -Stephen grants sixty. Of these sixty, ten were to be held -of Geoffrey by his son Ernulf. Here, as before,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_489" id="Ref_489" href="#Foot_489">[489]</a></span> the -question arises: what was the nature of the benefits thus -conferred on the grantee? They were, I think, of two -kinds. In the first place, Geoffrey became entitled to -what may be termed the feudal profits, such as reliefs, -accruing from these sixty fees. In the second, he secured -sixty knights to serve beneath his banner in war. This, -in a normal state of affairs, would have been of no -consequence, as he would only have led them to serve -the Crown. But in the then abnormal condition of affairs, -and utter weakness of the crown, such a grant would be -equivalent to strengthening <i>pro tanto</i> the power of the -earl as arbiter between the two rivals for the throne.</p> - -<p>Independently, however, of its bearing at the time, -this grant has a special interest, as placing at our disposal -a list of sixty knights' fees, a quarter of a century older -than the "cartæ" of the <i>Liber Niger</i>.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_490" id="Ref_490" href="#Foot_490">[490]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">{156}</a></span> -At the close of all these specified grants comes a -general confirmation of the lost charter of the Queen -("Carta Regine").</p> - -<p>Our ignorance of the actual contents of that charter -renders it difficult to speak positively as to whether -Geoffrey obtained from Stephen all the concessions he -had wrung from the Empress, or had to content himself, -on some points, with less, while on most he secured -infinitely more. Thus, in the matter of "the third penny," -which was specially granted him by the Empress, we find -this charter of Stephen as silent as had been the former.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_491" id="Ref_491" href="#Foot_491">[491]</a></span> -And the omission of a clause authorizing the earl to -deduct it from the ferm of the county virtually implies -that he did not receive it. He gained, however, infinitely -more by the great reduction in the total ferm. The grant -by the Empress of a market at Bushey, and her permission -that the market at Newport should be transferred -to his castle at Walden, are not repeated in this charter; -nor does the king, as his rival had done, grant the earl -permission to fortify the Tower at his will, or to retain -and strengthen the castles he already possessed. On the -other hand, he allowed him, by a fresh concession, to -raise an additional stronghold. It may also be mentioned, -to complete the comparison, that the curious reference to -appeal of treason is not found in the king's charter.</p> - -<p>We will now turn from this charter to the movements -by which it was followed.</p> - -<p>At the close of the invaluable passage from Gervase -alluded to above, we read:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Rex Stephanus a Cantuariâ recedens vires suas reparare studuit, -quo severius et acrius imperatricem et omnes ipsius complices debellaret."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_492" id="Ref_492" href="#Foot_492">[492]</a></span></p> - -<p>His first step in this direction was to make a progress -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">{157}</a></span> -through his realm, or at least through that portion over -which he reigned supreme. William of Malmesbury -writes of his movements after Christmas:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Utræque partes imperatricis et regis se cum quietis modestiâ -egerunt a Natale usque ad Quadragesimam; magis sua custodire -quam aliena incursare studentes: rex in superiores regiones abscessit -nescio quæ compositurus" (p. 763).</p> - -<p>This scrupulous reluctance of the writer to relate -events of which he had no personal knowledge is evidently -meant to confirm his assurance, just above, that he had -the greatest horror of so misleading posterity.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_493" id="Ref_493" href="#Foot_493">[493]</a></span> The -thread of the narrative, however, which he drops is taken -up by John of Hexham, who tells us that "after Easter" -(April 19) the king and queen arrived at York, put a -stop to a projected tournament between the two great -Yorkshire earls, and endeavoured to complete the preparations -for the king's revenge upon his foes.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_494" id="Ref_494" href="#Foot_494">[494]</a></span></p> - -<p>Before proceeding, I would call attention to two -charters which must, it seems, have passed between the -king's visit to Canterbury (Christmas, 1141), and his -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">{158}</a></span> -appearance with the queen in Yorkshire (Easter, 1142). -I do so, firstly, because their witnesses ought to be compared -with those by whom the Canterbury charter was -attested; secondly, because one of them is a further -instance of how, as in the case of the Canterbury charter, -chronicles and charters may be made to confirm and -explain each other.</p> - -<p>The first of these charters is the confirmation by -Stephen of the foundation, by his constable Robert de -Vere, of Monks Horton Priory, Kent.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_495" id="Ref_495" href="#Foot_495">[495]</a></span> If we eliminate -from its eleven witnesses those whose attendance was due -to the special contents of the charter, namely, the Count -of Eu and two Kentish barons,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_496" id="Ref_496" href="#Foot_496">[496]</a></span> there remain eight -names, every one of which appears in the Canterbury -charter, one as grantee and seven as witnesses. Here -is the list:</p> - -<p>"Testibus Comite Gaufrido de Essex et Willelmo -Comite de Warrenne ... Et Comite Gilleberto de Penbroc -et Willelmo de Iprâ et Willelmo Mart[el] et Turgisio de -Abrincis et Ricardo de Luci et Adam de Belu[n] ... apud -Gipeswic."</p> - -<p>Here then we have what might be described as King -Stephen's Restoration Court, or at least the greater -portion of its leading members; and this charter is therefore -evidence that Stephen must have visited the Eastern -Counties early in 1142. It is also evidence that Earl -Geoffrey was with him on that occasion, and thus throws -a gleam of light on the earl's movements at the time.</p> - -<p>The other charter is known to us only from a transcript -in the Great Coucher (vol. ii. fol. 445), and is -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">{159}</a></span> -strangely assigned in the official calendar to 1135-37.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_497" id="Ref_497" href="#Foot_497">[497]</a></span> -The grantee is William, Earl of Lincoln, and the list of -witnesses is as follows:—</p> - -<p>"T. Com. Rann. et Com. Gisl. de Pembroc* et Com. -Gisl. de hertf.* et Com. Sim.* et Com. R. de Warwic' et -Com. R. de Ferr.* et W. mart.* et Bald. fil. Gisl.* et -W. fil. Gisl. et Ric. de Camvill et Ric. fil. Ursi* et -E[ustachio] fil. John' et Rad. de Haia et h' Wac' et W. -de Coleuill apud Stanf'."</p> - -<p>Of these fifteen witnesses at least five are local men, -and of the remaining ten no fewer than seven (here distinguished -by an asterisk) had attested the Canterbury -charter. But further evidence of the close connection, -in date, between these two charters is found in yet another -quarter. This is the <i>English Chronicle</i>. We there read -that after the release of Stephen from his captivity, "the -king and Earl Randolf agreed at Stamford and swore -oaths and plighted troth, that neither of them should -prove traitor to the other." For this is the earliest -occasion to which that passage can refer. Stephen would -pass through Stamford on his northward progress to York, -and here, clearly, at his entrance into Lincolnshire, he was -met by the two local magnates, William, Earl of Lincoln, -and Randolf, Earl of Chester. Their revolt at Lincoln, -at the close of 1140, had led directly to his fall, but it -was absolutely needful for the schemes he had in view -that he should now secure their support, and overlook -their past treason. He therefore came to terms with the -two brother earls, and, further, bestowed on the Earl of -Lincoln the manor of Kirton-in-Lindsey ("Chircheton"), -and confirmed him in possession of his castle of Gainsborough -and his bridge over Trent, "libere et quiete -tenendum omnibus liberis consuetudinibus cum quibus -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">{160}</a></span> -aliquis comes Anglie tenet castella sua,"—a formula well -deserving attention as bearing on the two peculiar features -of this unhappy time, its earls and its castles.</p> - -<p>Lastly, we should observe the family relationship -between the grantee and the witnesses of this charter. -The first witness was his half-brother, Earl Randolf of -Chester, who was uncle of Earl Gilbert of Hertford, who -was nephew of Earl Gilbert of Pembroke, who was brother -of W(alter) fitz Gilbert and Baldwin fitz Gilbert, of whom -the latter's daughter married H(ugh) Wac (Wake). Of -the other witnesses, Ralph de Haye was of the family -which then, and Richard de Camville of that which afterwards, -held the constableship of Lincoln Castle. Earl -R(oger) of Warwick (a supporter of the Empress) should -be noticed as an addition to the Canterbury list of earls, -and the descriptive style "de Warwicâ" may perhaps be -explained as inserted here to distinguish him from Earl -R(obert) "de Ferrers."</p> - -<p>Gervase of Canterbury and John of Hexham alike lay -stress on the fact that the king, eager for revenge, was bent -on renewing the strife. William of Malmesbury echoes the -statement, but tells us that the king was struck down just -as he was about, we gather, to march south. As it was -at Northampton that this took place he must have been -following the very same road as he had done at this same -time of year in 1138.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_498" id="Ref_498" href="#Foot_498">[498]</a></span> Nor can we doubt that his objective -was Oxford, now again the head-quarters of his foe.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_499" id="Ref_499" href="#Foot_499">[499]</a></span> So -alarming was his illness that his death was rumoured, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">{161}</a></span> -and the forces he had gathered were dismissed to their -homes.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_500" id="Ref_500" href="#Foot_500">[500]</a></span></p> - -<p>But, meanwhile, where was Earl Geoffrey? We have -seen that early in the year he was present with Stephen -at Ipswich.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_501" id="Ref_501" href="#Foot_501">[501]</a></span> If we turn to the <i>Ely History</i>, printed in -Wharton's <i>Anglia Sacra</i>, we shall find evidence that he -was, shortly after, despatched with Earl Gilbert of -Pembroke, who had been with him at Ipswich, to Ely.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_502" id="Ref_502" href="#Foot_502">[502]</a></span> -When Stephen had successfully attacked Ely two years -before (1140), the bishop had fled, with three companions, -to the Empress at Gloucester. His scattered followers had -now reassembled, and it was to expel them from their -stronghold in the isle that Stephen despatched the two -earls. Geoffrey soon put them to flight, doubtless at -Aldreth, and setting his prisoners on horseback, with their -feet tied together, led them in triumph to Ely.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_503" id="Ref_503" href="#Foot_503">[503]</a></span> To the -monks, who came forth to meet him with their crosses -and reliquaries, he threatened plunder and death, and -their possessions were at once seized into the king's hands. -But, meanwhile, their bishop's envoy to the pope, "a man -skilled in the use of Latin, French, and English," had -returned from Rome with letters to the primates of -England and Normandy, insisting that Nigel should be -restored to his see. The monks, also, had approached -Stephen and obtained from him a reversal of Geoffrey's -violent action. Nigel, therefore, returned to Ely, to the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">{162}</a></span> -joy, we are told, of his monks and people; and the two -earls delivered into his hands the isle and Aldreth, its -key.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_504" id="Ref_504" href="#Foot_504">[504]</a></span></p> - -<p>The point to insist upon, for our own purpose, is that -the Earls Geoffrey and Gilbert were both concerned in this -business, and that their names will again be found in -conjunction in the records of that intrigue with the Empress -which is the subject of the next chapter.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_432b" id="Foot_432b" href="#Ref_432b">[432]</a> -<i>Ninth Report Hist. MSS.</i>, App. i. p. 62 <i>b</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_433" id="Foot_433" href="#Ref_433">[433]</a> -"Regem ipsum in concilium introisse" (<i>Will. Malms.</i>, 755).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_434" id="Foot_434" href="#Ref_434">[434]</a> -"Ipsam quæcunque pepigerat ad ecclesiarum jus pertinentia obstinate -fregisse" (<i>ibid.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_435" id="Foot_435" href="#Ref_435">[435]</a> -"Deum, pro sua clementia, secus quam ipsa sperasset vertisse negotia" -(<i>ibid.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_436" id="Foot_436" href="#Ref_436">[436]</a> -Dr. Stubbs well observes of this coronation of Richard: "His second -coronation was understood to have an important significance. He had by his -captivity in Germany ... impaired or compromised his dignity as a crowned -king. The Winchester coronation was not intended to be a reconsecration, but -a solemn assertion that the royal dignity had undergone no diminution" -(<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 504).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_437" id="Foot_437" href="#Ref_437">[437]</a> -"Die qua primum coronatus fui" (<i>Cartulary of Abingdon</i>, ii. 181).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_438" id="Foot_438" href="#Ref_438">[438]</a> -"Cantia quam solam casus non flexerat regius" (<i>Will. Newburgh</i>, i. 41).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_439" id="Foot_439" href="#Ref_439">[439]</a> -<i>Thirty-first Report of Deputy Keeper</i>, p. 3 (based on the late Sir -William Hardy's register of these charters). Mr. Birch, in his learned -paper on the seals of King Stephen, also assigns these limits to the charter.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_440" id="Foot_440" href="#Ref_440">[440]</a> -"Meldona." This manor, and those which follow are the same, with -the addition of 'Inga' and 'Phingria,' as had been granted Geoffrey by the -Empress to make up his £100 a year. Thus these two manors represent -the "si quid defuerit ad <span class="smc">c</span> libratas perficiendas" of the Empress's charters. -Maldon itself had, we saw (p. 102), been held by Stephen's brother Theobald, -forfeited by the Empress on her triumph, and granted by her to Geoffrey. -Theobald's possession is further proved by a writ among the archives of -Westminster (printed in Madox's <i>Baronia Anglica</i>, p. 232), in which Stephen -distinctly states (1139) that he had given it him. Thus, in giving it to -Geoffrey, he had to despoil his own brother.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_441" id="Foot_441" href="#Ref_441">[441]</a> -The "Phenge" and "Inga" of Domesday (ii. 71 <i>b</i>, 72 <i>a</i>), which were -part of the fief of Randulf Peverel ("of London").</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_442" id="Foot_442" href="#Ref_442">[442]</a> -Writtle was ancient demesne of the Crown (Pipe-Roll, 31 Hen. I.). -Its <i>redditus</i>, at the Survey, was "c libras ad pondus et c solidos de gersumâ."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_443" id="Foot_443" href="#Ref_443">[443]</a> -Hatfield Broadoak, <i>alias</i> Hatfield Regis. This also was ancient -demesne, its <i>redditus</i>, at the Survey, being "lxxx libras et c solidos de gersumâ." -Here the Domesday <i>redditus</i> remained unchanged, an important -point to notice.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_444" id="Foot_444" href="#Ref_444">[444]</a> -Robert de Baentonâ was lord of Bampton, co. Devon. He occurs in the -Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. (p. 153, 154). He is identical with the Robert "de -Bathentona" whose rebellion against Stephen is narrated at some length in -the <i>Gesta</i>. His lands were forfeited for that rebellion, and consequently -appear here as an escheat (see my note on him in <i>English Historical Review</i>, -October, 1890).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_445" id="Foot_445" href="#Ref_445">[445]</a> -Rainham, on the Thames, in South Essex. It had formed part of the -Domesday (<i>D. B.</i>, ii. 91) barony of Walter de Douai, to whose Domesday fief -Robert de Baentonâ had succeeded.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_446" id="Foot_446" href="#Ref_446">[446]</a> -Great Holland, in Essex, adjacent to Clacton-on-Sea. It had similarly -formed part of the Domesday barony of Walter de Douai.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_447" id="Foot_447" href="#Ref_447">[447]</a> -Amberden, in Depden, with which it had been held by Randulf Peverel -at the Survey.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_448" id="Foot_448" href="#Ref_448">[448]</a> -Woodham Mortimer, Essex. This also had been part of the fief of -Randulf Peverel.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_449" id="Foot_449" href="#Ref_449">[449]</a> -Easton, Essex. Geoffrey de Mandeville had held land, at the Survey -in (Little) Easton.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_450" id="Foot_450" href="#Ref_450">[450]</a> -Picard de Domfront occurs in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. as a landowner -in Wilts and Essex (pp. 22, 53).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_451" id="Foot_451" href="#Ref_451">[451]</a> -Ickleton, Cambridgeshire, on the borders of Essex, the "Ichilintone" -of Domesday (in which it figures), was <i>Terra Regis</i>. In the <i>Liber Niger</i> -(special inquisition), however (p. 394), it appears as part of the honour of -Boulogne.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_452" id="Foot_452" href="#Ref_452">[452]</a> -Anstey, Herts, the "Anestige" of Domesday, part of the honour of -Boulogne.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_453" id="Foot_453" href="#Ref_453">[453]</a> -Braughing, Herts, the "Brachinges" of Domesday. Also part of the -honour of Boulogne.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_454" id="Foot_454" href="#Ref_454">[454]</a> -Possibly that portion of Ham (East and West Ham), Essex, which -formed part of the fief of Randulf Peverel.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_455" id="Foot_455" href="#Ref_455">[455]</a> -On Graaland de Tany, see p. 91.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_456" id="Foot_456" href="#Ref_456">[456]</a> -Brien fitz Ralf may have been a son of the Ralf fitz Brien who appears -in Domesday as an under-tenant of Randulf Peverel. According to the -inquisition on the honour of Peverel assigned to 13th John, "Brien filius -Radulfi" held five fees of the honour, the very number here given.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_457" id="Foot_457" href="#Ref_457">[457]</a> -William de Tresgoz appears in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. as a landowner -in Essex (where the family held Tolleshunt Tregoz of the honour of -Peverel) and elsewhere. He was then fermor of the honour of Peverel. -In the above inquisition "William de Tregoz" holds six fees of the -honour.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_458" id="Foot_458" href="#Ref_458">[458]</a> -William "de Boevilla" (<i>sic</i>) appears in the same roll as a landowner in -Essex (pp. 53, 60), and William "de Bosevill" (<i>sic</i>) is found in (Hearne's) -<i>Liber Niger</i> (p. 229) as a tenant of the Earl of Essex (1½ fees de vet. fef.). -But what is here granted is the manor of Springfield Hall, which William -de Boseville held of the honour of Peverel "of London," by the service of -two knights. Mathew Peverel, the Tresgoz family, and the Mauduits were -all tenants of the same honour.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_459" id="Foot_459" href="#Ref_459">[459]</a> -Mathew Peverel similarly appears in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. as -holding land in Essex and Norfolk. In the above inquisition William -Peverel holds five fees of the honour.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_460" id="Foot_460" href="#Ref_460">[460]</a> -Elmdon (Essex) had been held of Eustace of Boulogne at the Survey -by Roger de Someri, ancestor of the family of that name seated there. -Stephen was of course entitled to their <i>servicium</i> in right of his wife. Adam -de Sumeri held seven fees of the Earl of Essex in 1166.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_461" id="Foot_461" href="#Ref_461">[461]</a> -Possibly the <i>Ralph</i> Brito who appears in the Pipe-Rolls of Hen. II. as -holding <i>terræ datæ</i> "in Chatelegâ," and who also figures as "Ralph le -Bret," under Essex, in the <i>Liber Niger</i> (p. 242), and as Radulfus Brito, a -tenant of Robert de Helion (<i>ibid.</i>, p. 240).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_462" id="Foot_462" href="#Ref_462">[462]</a> -Duchy of Lancaster, <i>Royal Charters</i>, No. 18.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_463" id="Foot_463" href="#Ref_463">[463]</a> -This same principle is well illustrated by two <i>cartæ</i> which follow one -another in the pages of the <i>Liber Niger</i>. They are those of "Willelmus -filius Johannis <i>de Herpetreu</i>" and "Willelmus filius Johannis <i>de Westona</i>." -Here the suffix (which in such cases is rather a crux to genealogists) clearly -distinguishes the two Williams, and is not the appellation of their respective -fathers (as it sometimes is). This leads us to such styles as "Beauchamp de -Somerset" and "Beauchamp de Warwick," "Willoughby d'Eresby" and -"Willoughby de Beke." Many similar instances are to be found in writs of -summons, and, applying the above principle, we see that, in all cases, the -suffix must originally have been added for the sake of distinction only.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_464" id="Foot_464" href="#Ref_464">[464]</a> -See p. 120.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_465" id="Foot_465" href="#Ref_465">[465]</a> -Of the absentees, the Earl of Chester and his half-brother the Earl of -Lincoln will be found accounted for below, as will also the Earl of Warwick; -the Earl of Leicester was absent, like his brother the Count of Meulan, but -he generally, as here, held aloof; the Earls of Gloucester, Cornwall, Devon, -and Hereford were, of course, with the Empress. Thus, with the nine -mentioned in the charter, we account for some eighteen earls.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_466" id="Foot_466" href="#Ref_466">[466]</a> -See Appendix M, on the latter earldom.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_467" id="Foot_467" href="#Ref_467">[467]</a> -See p. 49, <i>n.</i> 4.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_468" id="Foot_468" href="#Ref_468">[468]</a> -<i>Add. MSS.</i>, 31,943, fol. 85 dors.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_469" id="Foot_469" href="#Ref_469">[469]</a> -<i>Colchester Cartulary</i> (Stowe MSS.). See also p. 406.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_470" id="Foot_470" href="#Ref_470">[470]</a> -As by Mr. Eyton (<i>Addl. MSS.</i>, 31,943, fol. 96). The said Robert appears -in the latter part of this reign as "Robertus filius Alberici de Ver" -(<i>Report on MSS. of Wells Cathedral</i>, p. 133), and sent in his <i>carta</i> in -1166 as "Robertus filius Alberici Camerarii," not as Robert de Vere.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_471" id="Foot_471" href="#Ref_471">[471]</a> -<i>Abingdon Cartulary</i>, ii. 179.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_472" id="Foot_472" href="#Ref_472">[472]</a> -See Appendix N, on "Robert de Vere."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_473" id="Foot_473" href="#Ref_473">[473]</a> -See <i>Ord. Vit.</i>, v. 52 (where the French editors affiliate him wrongly).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_474" id="Foot_474" href="#Ref_474">[474]</a> -"Tunc, quia rex Stephanus festivâ carebat voce, Baldewino filio Gilleberti, -magnæ nobilitatis viro et militi fortissimo, sermo exhortatorius ad universum -cœtum injunctus est.... Capitur etiam Baldewinus qui orationem -fecerat persuasoriam, multis confossus vulneribus, multis contritus ictibus, ubi -egregie resistendo gloriam promeruit sempiternam" (<i>Hen. Hunt.</i>, pp. 271, 274).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_475" id="Foot_475" href="#Ref_475">[475]</a> -See Appendix O: "Tower and Castle."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_476" id="Foot_476" href="#Ref_476">[476]</a> -"Reddendo mihi rectam firmam que inde reddi solebat die quâ rex -Henricus pater meus fuit vivus et mortuus." Perhaps this indefinite phrase -was due to the fact that Essex and Herts had a <i>joint</i> firma at the time (see -<i>Rot. Pip.</i>, 31 Hen. I.).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_477" id="Foot_477" href="#Ref_477">[477]</a> -"Eadem firma qua avus ejus ... tenuit."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_478" id="Foot_478" href="#Ref_478">[478]</a> -"Pro CCC libris sicut idem Gaufredus avus ejus tenuit."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_479" id="Foot_479" href="#Ref_479">[479]</a> -The <i>firma</i> of Essex with <i>Herts</i>, in 1130, was £420 3<i>s.</i> "ad pensum," -<i>plus</i> £26 17<i>s.</i> "numero," <i>plus</i> £86 19<i>s.</i> 9<i>d.</i> "blancas," whereas Geoffrey secured -the two for £360. The difference between this sum and the joint <i>firma</i> of -1130 curiously approximates that at London (see Appendix, p. 366, <i>n.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_480" id="Foot_480" href="#Ref_480">[480]</a> -Pearson's <i>History of England during the Early and Middle Ages</i>, i. 664 -("County Rentals in Domesday").</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_481" id="Foot_481" href="#Ref_481">[481]</a> -See Appendix P: "The Early Administration of London."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_482" id="Foot_482" href="#Ref_482">[482]</a> -<i>Historic Towns: London</i> (1887).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_483" id="Foot_483" href="#Ref_483">[483]</a> -The two omitted portions amount to but a few lines. There is, however, -an error in each. The first implies that the charter to Geoffrey was -granted before the Empress reached, or was even invited to, London. The -second contains the erroneous statement that the Empress, on her flight from -London, "withdrew towards Winchester," and that her brother was captured -by the Londoners in pursuit, whereas he was not captured till after the siege -of Winchester, later in the year, and under different circumstances.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_484" id="Foot_484" href="#Ref_484">[484]</a> -It looks much as if Mr. Loftie had here again attempted to separate -London from Middlesex, and to treat the former as granted "in demesne," -and the latter "in farm." Such a conception is quite erroneous.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_485" id="Foot_485" href="#Ref_485">[485]</a> -It was his grandfather and not (as Mr. Loftie writes) his "father" -who "is said by Stow to have been portreeve."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_486" id="Foot_486" href="#Ref_486">[486]</a> -See p. 99.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_487" id="Foot_487" href="#Ref_487">[487]</a> -"Et computabitur tibi ad scaccarium" is the regular form found in the -precepts of Henry II. (<i>Dialogus</i>, ii. 8).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_488" id="Foot_488" href="#Ref_488">[488]</a> -See also, for Stephen's attitude towards the "adulterine" castles, the -<i>Gesta Stephani</i> (p. 66): "Plurima adulterina castella, alia solâ adventus sui -famâ vacuata, alia viribus virtuose adhibitis conquisita subvertit: omnesque -circumjacentes provincias, quas castella inhabitantes intolerabili infestatione -degravabant, purgavit tunc omnino, et quietissima reddidit" (1140).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_489" id="Foot_489" href="#Ref_489">[489]</a> -See p. 103.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_490" id="Foot_490" href="#Ref_490">[490]</a> -Note here the figures 60, 20, 10, as confirming the theory advanced by -me in the <i>English Historical Review</i> (October, 1891) as to knight-service -being grouped in multiples of ten (the <i>constabularia</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_491" id="Foot_491" href="#Ref_491">[491]</a> -See Appendix H.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_492" id="Foot_492" href="#Ref_492">[492]</a> -<i>Gervase of Canterbury</i>, i. 123.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_493" id="Foot_493" href="#Ref_493">[493]</a> -"Semper quippe horrori habui aliquid ad posteros transmittendum -stylo committere, quod nescirem solidâ veritate subsistere. Ea porro, quæ -de præsenti anno dicenda, hoc habebunt principium."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_494" id="Foot_494" href="#Ref_494">[493]</a> -"Post Pascha Stephanus, prosequente eum reginâ suâ Mathilde, venit -Eboracum militaresque nundinas a Willelmo comite Eboraci et Alano -comite de Richemunt adversus alterutrum conductas solvit; habuitque -in votis pristinas suas injurias ultum ire, et regnum ad antiquam dignitatem -et integritatem reformare" (<i>Sym. Dun.</i>, ii. 312). Notice that John of Hexham -always speaks of Alan as Earl "of Richmond" and William as Earl "of -York." He is probably the first writer to speak of an Earl "of Richmond," -and this early appearance of the title was clearly unknown to the Lords' -committee when they drew up their elaborate account of its origin and -descent (<i>Third Report on the Dignity of a Peer</i>). If, as I believe, no county -could, at this period, have two earls, it follows that either Alan "Comes" -did not hold an English earldom, and was merely described as of Richmond -because that was his seat; or, that "Richmondshire" was, at that time, -treated as a county of itself. One or other of these alternatives must, I -think, be adopted. But see also p. 290, <i>n.</i> 2.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_495" id="Foot_495" href="#Ref_495">[495]</a> -<i>Harl. MS.</i>, 2044, fol. 55 <i>b</i>; <i>Addl. MSS.</i>, 5516, No. 9, p. 7 (printed in -<i>Archæologia Cantiana</i>, x. 272, but not in Dugdale's <i>Monasticon</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_496" id="Foot_496" href="#Ref_496">[496]</a> -Robert de Crevecœur and William de Eynsford. The Count of Eu -was a benefactor to the priory.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_497" id="Foot_497" href="#Ref_497">[497]</a> -<i>Thirty-first Report of Deputy Keeper</i>, p. 2.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_498" id="Foot_498" href="#Ref_498">[498]</a> -He held a council at Northampton on his way south in Easter -week, 1138.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_499" id="Foot_499" href="#Ref_499">[499]</a> -William of Malmesbury writes: "In ipsis Paschalibus feriis regem -quædam (ut aiunt) dura meditantem gravis incommodum morbi apud -Northamptunam detinuit, adeo ut in tota propemodum Angliâ sicut mortuus -conclamaretur" (p. 763). There is a discrepancy of date between this -statement and that of John of Hexham, who states that Stephen did not -reach York till "post Pascha." William's chronology seems the more probable.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_500" id="Foot_500" href="#Ref_500">[500]</a> -"Præventus vero infirmitate copias militum quas contraxerat remisit -ad propria" (<i>Sym. Dun.</i>, ii. 312).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_501" id="Foot_501" href="#Ref_501">[501]</a> -<i>Supra</i>, p. 158.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_502" id="Foot_502" href="#Ref_502">[502]</a> -"Dirigitur enim in Ely a rege Stephano cum militari manu in armis -strenuus Comes Gaufridus de Mannavillâ, associante ei Comite Gileberto, ut -homines episcopi, qui tunc latenter affugerent, inde abigeret, aut gladiis -truncaret" (<i>Anglia Sacra</i>, i. 621). Earl Gilbert was uncle to Earl Geoffrey's -wife.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_503" id="Foot_503" href="#Ref_503">[503]</a> -"Qui festinus adveniens, hostilem turbam fugavit; milites vero teneri -jussit; et equis impositos pedes eorum sub equis ligatos spectante populo -usque in Ely perduxit" (<i>ibid.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_504" id="Foot_504" href="#Ref_504">[504]</a> -See Appendix Z: "Bishop Nigel at Rome."</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">{163}</a></span> - -<h2>CHAPTER VIII.<br /> -<small>THE SECOND CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS.</small></h2> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">We</span> -left, it may be remembered, the Empress and her -supporters assembled at Bristol, apparently towards the -close of the year 1141. Their movements are now somewhat -obscure, and the hopes of the Empress had been so -rudely shattered, that for a time her party were stunned -by the blow. We gather, however, from William of -Malmesbury that Oxford became her head-quarters,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_504b" id="Ref_504b" href="#Foot_504b">[504]</a></span> and -it was at Oxford that she granted the charter which forms -the subject of this chapter.</p> - -<p>From internal evidence it is absolutely certain that this -charter is subsequent to that dealt with in the last chapter. -That is to say, it must be dated subsequent to Christmas, -1141. But it is also certain, from the fact that the Earl -of Gloucester is a witness, that it must have passed -previous to his departure from England at the end of -June, 1142.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_505" id="Ref_505" href="#Foot_505">[505]</a></span></p> - -<p>It may, at first sight, excite surprise that, after having -extorted such concessions from Stephen, Geoffrey should -so quickly turn to his rival, more especially when Stephen -appeared triumphant, and the chances of his rival desperate. -But, on the one hand, in accordance with his -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164">{164}</a></span> -persistent policy, he hoped, by the offer of a fresh treason, -to secure from the Empress an even higher bid than that -which he had wrung from Stephen; and, on the other, the -very weakness of the Empress, he must have seen, would -place her more completely at his mercy. In short, he -now virtually aspired to the <i>rôle</i> of "the king-maker" -himself.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_506" id="Ref_506" href="#Foot_506">[506]</a></span></p> - -<p>Even he, however, strong though he was, could scarcely -have attempted to stem the tide, while the flood of reaction -was at its height. He watched, no doubt, for the first -signs of an ebb in Stephen's triumph. It was not long -before this ebb came in the form of that illness by which -the king, as we saw, was struck down about the end of -April, on his way south, at Northampton.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_507" id="Ref_507" href="#Foot_507">[507]</a></span> The dismissal -of the host he had so eagerly collected was followed by a -rumour of his death.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_508" id="Ref_508" href="#Foot_508">[508]</a></span> No one, it would seem, has ever -noticed the strange parallel between this illness and that -of 1136. In each case it was about the end of April that -the king was thus seized, and in each case his seizure -gave rise to a widespread rumour of his death.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_509" id="Ref_509" href="#Foot_509">[509]</a></span> On the -previous occasion that rumour had been followed by an -outburst of treason and revolt,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_510" id="Ref_510" href="#Foot_510">[510]</a></span> and it is surely, to say the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165">{165}</a></span> -least, not improbable that it now gave the sign for which -Geoffrey was watching, and led to the extraordinary -charter with which we have here to deal.</p> - -<p>The movements of the Empress have also to be considered -in their bearing on the date of the charter. We -learn from William of Malmesbury that she held two -councils at Devizes, one about the 1st of April (Mid-Lent), -and one at Whitsuntide (7-14 June). The latter council -was held on the return of the envoys who had been -despatched, after the former one, to request Geoffrey of -Anjou to come to his wife's assistance. Geoffrey had -replied that the Earl of Gloucester must first come over -to him, and the earl accordingly sailed from Wareham -about the end of June. It is most probable that he went -there straight from Devizes, in which case he was not -at Oxford after the beginning of June. In this case, -that is the latest date at which the charter can have -passed.</p> - -<p>Although the original of this charter cannot, like its -predecessor of the previous year, be traced down to this -very day, we have the independent authorities of Dugdale -and of another transcriber for the fact that it was duly -recorded in the Great Coucher of the duchy.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_511" id="Ref_511" href="#Foot_511">[511]</a></span> If the missing -volume, or volumes, of that work should come to light, -I cannot entertain the slightest doubt that this charter -will be found there entered. Collateral evidence in its -favour is forthcoming from another quarter, for the record -with which, as I shall show, it is so closely connected that -the two form parts of one whole, has its existence proved -by cumulative independent evidence.</p> - -<p>I have taken for my text, in this instance, the fine -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166">{166}</a></span> -transcript from the Great Coucher in <i>Lansd. MS.</i> 229 (fol. -109), with which I have collated Dugdale's transcript, -among his MSS. at Oxford (L. 19), "ex magno registro in -officio Ducatus Lancastrie." I have also collated another -transcript which is among the Dodsworth MSS. (xxx. 113), -and which was made in 1649. It is, unfortunately, incomplete. -Yet another transcriber began to copy the -charter, but stopped almost at once.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_512" id="Ref_512" href="#Foot_512">[512]</a></span> I have given in the -notes the variants (which are slight) in the Dodsworth -and Dugdale transcripts.</p> - -<h3>Carta M. Imperatricis facta Com̃ Gaufredo Essexiæ de -pluribus terris et libertatibus.</h3> - -<p>"M. Imperatrix. H. regis filia et Anglorum Domina. -Archiepiscopis.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_513" id="Ref_513" href="#Foot_513">[513]</a></span> Episcopis. Abbatibus. Comitibus. Baronibus. -Justiciariis. Vicecomitibus. Ministris. et omnibus -fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis totius Angliæ et Normanniæ -Salutem. Sciatis me reddidisse et concessisse -Comiti Gaufr[edo] Essexe omnia tenementa sua, sicut -Gaufredus avus suus,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_514" id="Ref_514" href="#Foot_514">[514]</a></span> aut Willelmus pater suus,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_515" id="Ref_515" href="#Foot_515">[515]</a></span> aut -ipsemet postea unquam melius vel liberius tenuerit<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_516" id="Ref_516" href="#Foot_516">[516]</a></span> aliquo -tempore in feodo et hæreditate sibi et hæredibus suis, ad -tenendum de me et de hæredibus meis. Videlicet in terris -et turribus, in Castellis et Bailliis. Et nominatim Turrim -Lund[oniæ] cum Castello quod subtus<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_517" id="Ref_517" href="#Foot_517">[517]</a></span> est, ad firmandum -et efforciandum ad voluntatem suam. Et Vicecomitatum -Lund[oniæ]<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_518" id="Ref_518" href="#Foot_518">[518]</a></span> et Middelsex per CCC lib[ras] sicut Gaufredus -auus eius tenuit. Et vicecomitatum Essex per CCC lib[ras] -sicut idem Gaufredus auus eius tenuit.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_519" id="Ref_519" href="#Foot_519">[519]</a></span> Et vicecomitatum -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167">{167}</a></span> -de Heortfordscirâ per LX libras sicut avus eius tenuit. Et -præter hoc do et concedo eidem Gaufredo quod habeat -hæreditabiliter Justiciã Lund[oniæ] et Middelsex et Essex -et de Hertfordscirâ, ita quod nulla alia justicia placitet in -hiis supradictis vicecomitatibus nisi per eis<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_520" id="Ref_520" href="#Foot_520">[520]</a></span> [<i>sic</i>]. Et -concedo illi,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_521" id="Ref_521" href="#Foot_521">[521]</a></span> ut habeat illas C libratas terræ quas dedi illi, -et servicium illorum XX militum sicut illud ei dedi et per -aliam cartam meam confirmavi. Et illas CC libratas -terræ quas Rex Stephanus et Matildis regina ei dederunt. -Et illas C libratas terræ de terris Eschaetis quas idem Rex -et Regina ei dederunt, et servicium militum quod ei -dederunt, sicut habet inde cartas illorum. Et do ei totam -terram quæ fuit<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_522" id="Ref_522" href="#Foot_522">[522]</a></span> Eudonis Dapiferi in Normanniâ et Dapiferatum -ipsius. Et hæc reddo ei ut Rectum suum ut -habeat et teneat hæreditabiliter, ita ne ponatur inde in -placitum versus aliquem. Et si dominus meus Comes -Andegaviæ et ego voluerimus, Comes Gaufredus accipiet -pro dominiis et terris quas habet Eschaetis et pro servicio -militum<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_523" id="Ref_523" href="#Foot_523">[523]</a></span> quod habet totam terram quæ fuit Eudonis -Dapiferi in Anglia sicut tenuit ea die qua fuit et vivus -et<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_524" id="Ref_524" href="#Foot_524">[524]</a></span> mortuus, quia hoc est Rectum suum, Præter illas<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_525" id="Ref_525" href="#Foot_525">[525]</a></span> -libratas terræ quas ego dedi ei Et præter seruicium XX -militum quod ei dedi, Et præter terram Ernulfi de -Mannavill sicut eam tenet de Comite Gaufredo ex servicio -X militum Et si potero perquirere erga Episcopum -Lund[oniæ] et erga ecclesiam Sancti Pauli Castellum de -Storteford per Escambium ad Gratum suum tunc do et -concedo illud ei et hæredibus suis in feodo et hereditate -tenendum de me et hæredibus meis. Quod si facere non -potero, tunc ei convenciono quod faciam illud prosternere -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_168" id="Page_168">{168}</a></span> -et ex toto cadere. Et concedo quod Ernulf[us] de Mannavill -teneat illas C libratas terræ quas ei dedi, et servicium -X militum de Comite Gaufredo patre suo. Et præter hoc -do et concedo eidem Ernulfo C libratas terræ de terris -Eschaetis Et servicium X militum ad tenendum de domino -meo Comite Andegau[ie] et de me in capite hæreditarie sibi -et hæredibus suis de nobis et de hæredibus nostris videlicet -Cristeshalam<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_526" id="Ref_526" href="#Foot_526">[526]</a></span> et Benedis<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_527" id="Ref_527" href="#Foot_527">[527]</a></span> pro quanto valent. Et superplus -perficiam ei per considerationem Comitis Gaufredi. -Et convenciono eidem Gaufredo Comiti Essex quod -dominus meus Comes Andegauie vel ego vel filii nostri -nullam pacem aut concordiam cum Burgensibus Lund[oniæ] -faciemus, nisi concessu et assensu prædicti Comitis -Gaufredi quia inimici eius sunt mortales. Concedo etiam -eidem Gaufredo quod novum castellum quod firmavit super -Lviam<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_528" id="Ref_528" href="#Foot_528">[528]</a></span> stet et remaneat ad efforciandum ad voluntatem -suam. Concedo etiam ei quod firmet unum Castellum -ubicunque voluerit in terrâ suâ sicut ei per aliam cartam -meam concessi, et quod stet et remaneat. Concedo etiam -eidem Gaufredo quod ipse et omnes homines sui habeant -et lucrentur omnia essarta sua libera et quieta de omnibus -placitis facta usque ad diem qua servicio domini mei Comitis -Andegavie ac meo adhesit. Hæc autem omnia supradicta -tenementa in omnibus rebus concedo ei tenenda hæreditarie -sibi et hæredibus suis de me et hæredibus meis. Quare -volo et firmiter præcipio quod ipse Gaufredus comes et -hæredes sui teneant hæc omnia supradicta tenementa -ita bene et in pace et libere et quiete et honorifice et -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_169" id="Page_169">{169}</a></span> -plenarie sicut unquam aliquis Comitum meorum totius -Angliæ melius vel liberius tenuit vel tenet Et præter hoc -dedi Willelmo filio Otueɫ<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_529" id="Ref_529" href="#Foot_529">[529]</a></span> fratri ejusdem Comitis Gaufredi -C libratas terræ de terris Escaetis tenendis de me et de -hæredibus meis in feudo et hæreditate pro seruicio suo, -et pro amore fratris sui Comitis Gaufredi. Concedo etiam -quod Willelmus de Sai<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_530" id="Ref_530" href="#Foot_530">[530]</a></span> habeat omnes terras et tenementa -quæ fuerunt patris sui, et ipse et hæredes sui, et quod -Willelmus Cap'.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_531" id="Ref_531" href="#Foot_531">[531]</a></span> habeat terram patris sui sine placito -et ipse et hæredes sui. Concedo etiam eidem Comiti Gaufredo -quod Willelmus filius Walteri<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_532" id="Ref_532" href="#Foot_532">[532]</a></span> et hæredes sui -habeant custodiam Castelli de Windesh' et omnia sua -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_170" id="Page_170">{170}</a></span> -tenementa sicut ipse Willelmus et antecessores sui eam -habuerunt de Rege H. patre meo et antecessoribus ipsius. -Et quod Matheus de Rumilli<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_533" id="Ref_533" href="#Foot_533">[533]</a></span> habeat terram patris sui -quam Gaufridus de Turevill<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_534" id="Ref_534" href="#Foot_534">[534]</a></span> tenet. Et Willelmus de -Auco<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_535" id="Ref_535" href="#Foot_535">[535]</a></span> habeat Lauendonam sicut Rectum suum hæreditarie. -Concedo etiam eidem Comiti Gaufredo quod omnes homines -sui teneant terras et tenementa sua de quocunque teneant -sine placito et sine pecuniæ donatione et ut Rectum eis -teneatur de eorum Calumpnijs sine pecuniæ donatione Et -quod Osb[ertus] Octod[enarii]<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_536" id="Ref_536" href="#Foot_536">[536]</a></span> habeat illas XX libratas -terræ quas ei dedi et confirmaui per cartam meam.</p> - -<p>"Hanc<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_537" id="Ref_537" href="#Foot_537">[537]</a></span> autem convencionem et donationem tenendam -affidavi manu mea propria in manu ipsius Comitis Gaufredi. -Et hujus fiduciæ sunt obsides per fidem et Testes -Robertus Comes Gloec': et Milo Com' Heref':<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_538" id="Ref_538" href="#Foot_538">[538]</a></span> et Brianus -filius Comitis: et Rob' fil' Reg':<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_539" id="Ref_539" href="#Foot_539">[539]</a></span> et Rob' de Curc' Dap:<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_540" id="Ref_540" href="#Foot_540">[540]</a></span> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_171" id="Page_171">{171}</a></span> -et Joh'es filius Gisleberti:<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_541" id="Ref_541" href="#Foot_541">[541]</a></span> et Milo de Belloc':<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_542" id="Ref_542" href="#Foot_542">[542]</a></span> et Rad' -Paganell:<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_543" id="Ref_543" href="#Foot_543">[543]</a></span> et Rob' de Oilli Conest':<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_544" id="Ref_544" href="#Foot_544">[544]</a></span> et Rob' fil' Heldebrand'.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_545" id="Ref_545" href="#Foot_545">[545]</a></span></p> - -<p>"Et<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_546" id="Ref_546" href="#Foot_546">[546]</a></span> convencionavi eidem Comiti Gaufredo pro posse -meâ quod Comes Andegavie dominus meus assecurabit ei -manu sua propria illud idem<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_547" id="Ref_547" href="#Foot_547">[547]</a></span> tenendum et Henricus filius -meus similiter. Et quod rex Franciæ erit inde<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_548" id="Ref_548" href="#Foot_548">[548]</a></span> obses si -facere potero. Et si non potero, faciam quod ipse Rex -capiet in manu illud tenendum. Et de hoc debent esse -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_172" id="Page_172">{172}</a></span> -obsides per fidem: Juhel de Moduana,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_549" id="Ref_549" href="#Foot_549">[549]</a></span> et Robertus de -Sabloill et Wido de Sabloill<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_550" id="Ref_550" href="#Foot_550">[550]</a></span> et Pagan' de Clarevall'<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_551" id="Ref_551" href="#Foot_551">[551]</a></span> et -Gaufredus de Clarevall' et Andreas de Aluia:<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_552" id="Ref_552" href="#Foot_552">[552]</a></span> et Pipinus -de Turon': et Absalon Rumarch'<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_553" id="Ref_553" href="#Foot_553">[553]</a></span> et Reginaldus comes -Cornubiæ et Balduinus Comes Devon': et Gislebertus -Comes de Penbr': et Comes Hugo de Norff': et Comes -Albericus: et Henricus de Essex: et Petrus de Valon':<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_554" id="Ref_554" href="#Foot_554">[554]</a></span> -et alii Barones mei quos habere voluerit et ego habere -potero, erunt inde obsides similiter. Et quod x'rianitas -Angliæ quæ est in potestate meâ capiet in manu istam -supradictam conventionem tenendam eidem Comiti<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_555" id="Ref_555" href="#Foot_555">[555]</a></span> -Gaufredo et hæredibus suis de me et de hæredibus meis. -Apud Oxineford.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_556" id="Ref_556" href="#Foot_556">[556]</a></span></p> - -<p class="center">"Sub magno sigillo dictæ Matildis Imperatricis."</p> - -<p class="gap-above2">Let us now, in accordance with the guiding principle -on which I have throughout insisted, compare this charter -<i>seriatim</i> with those by which it was preceded, with a view -to ascertaining what further concessions the unscrupulous -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_173" id="Page_173">{173}</a></span> -earl had won by this last change of front. We shall find -that, as we might expect, it marks a distinct advance.</p> - -<p>The earlier clauses do little more than specifically confirm -the privileges and possessions that he had inherited -from his father or had already wrung from the eager rivals -for the Crown. This was by no means needless so far as -the Empress was concerned, for his desertion of her cause -since her previous charter involved, as an act of treason, -his forfeiture at her hands. These are followed by a new -grant, namely, "totam terram quæ fuit Eudonis Dapiferi in -Normannia et Dapiferatum ipsius," with a conditional -proposal that Geoffrey should also, in exchange for the -grants he had already received, obtain that portion of the -Dapifer's fief which lay in England. The large estate -which this successful minister had accumulated in the -service of the Conqueror and his sons had escheated to -the Crown at his death, and is entered accordingly in the -Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I. This has an important bearing on -the noteworthy admission in the charter that Geoffrey is -to receive the Dapifer's fief not as a gift, but as his right -("rectum suum"). This expression is referred to by Mr. -Eyton in his MSS., as placing beyond doubt the received -statement that Geoffrey was maternally a grandson of the -Dapifer, whose daughter and heiress Margaret had married -his father William. But this statement is taken from -Dugdale, who derived it solely from the <i>Historia Fundationis</i> -of St. John's Abbey, Colchester, a notoriously inaccurate -and untrustworthy document printed in the <i>Monasticon</i>. -The fact that this fief escheated to the Crown, instead of -passing to the Mandevilles with the Dapifer's alleged -daughter, is directly opposed to a story which has no -foundation of its own.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_557" id="Ref_557" href="#Foot_557">[557]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_174" id="Page_174">{174}</a></span> -The next clause to be noticed is that which refers to -Bishop's Stortford. It implies a peculiar antipathy to -this castle on the part of Earl Geoffrey, an antipathy -explained by the fact of its position, lying as it did on -the main road from London to (Saffron) Walden, and thus -cutting communications between his two strongholds. We -have a curious allusion to this episcopal castle a few years -before (1137), when Abbot Anselm of St. Edmund's, -who claimed to have been elected to the see, seized and -held it.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_558" id="Ref_558" href="#Foot_558">[558]</a></span></p> - -<p>The next additional grant made in this charter is -that of "C libratas terræ de terris eschaetis et servicium -X militum" to the earl's son Ernulf. This is followed by -what is certainly the most striking clause in the whole -charter, that which binds the Empress and her husband "to -make no peace and come to no terms with the burgesses -(<i>sic</i>) of London, without the permission and assent of the -said Earl Geoffrey, because they are his mortal foes." -Comment on the character of such a pledge on the part of -one who claimed the crown, or on the light it throws on -Geoffrey's doings, is surely needless.</p> - -<p>The clauses relating to Geoffrey's castles are deserving -of special attention on account of the important part -which the castle played in this great struggle. The -erection of unlicensed ("adulterine") castles and their -rapid multiplication throughout the land is one of the -most notorious features of the strife, and one for which -Stephen's weakness has been always held responsible. It -is evident, however, from these charters that the Crown -struggled hard against the abdication of its right to control -the building of castles, and that even when reduced -to sore straits, both Stephen and the Empress made this -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_175" id="Page_175">{175}</a></span> -privilege the subject of special and limited grant. By this -charter the earl secures the license of the Empress for a -new castle which he had erected on the Lea. He may have -built it to secure for himself the passage of the river, it -being for him a vital necessity to maintain communication -between the Tower of London and his ancestral stronghold -in Essex. But the remainder of the passage involves a -doubt. The Empress professes to repeat the permission in -her former charter that he may construct one permanent -castle, in addition to those he has already, anywhere -within his fief. Yet a careful comparison of this permission -with that contained in her former charter, and -that which was granted by Stephen, in his charter between -the two, proves that she was really confirming what he, -not she, had granted.</p> - -<table class="multi" summary="multi-4"> - - <colgroup> - <col span="3" style="width:32%" /> - </colgroup> - -<tr> - <th>Maud (1141).</th> - <th>Stephen.</th> - <th>Maud (1142).</th> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>"Et præterea concedo - illi ut castella sua que habet stent ei et remaneant ad - inforciandum ad voluntatem suam."</td> - <td>"Et præterea firmiter - ei concessi ut possit firmare quoddam castellum ubicunque voluerit - in terra sua, et quod stare possit."</td> - <td>"Concedo etiam ei - quod firmet unum castellum ubicunque voluerit in terra sua, - <i>sicut ei per aliam cartam meam concessi</i>, et quod stet et - remaneat."</td> -</tr> - -</table> - -<p>As we can trace, in every other instance, the relation -of the various charters without difficulty or question, it -would seem that we have here to do with an error, whether -or not intentional.</p> - -<p>We then come to the clauses in favour of Geoffrey's -relatives and friends. This is a novel feature which we -cannot afford to overlook. It is directly connected with -the question of that important De Vere charter to which -we shall shortly come.</p> - -<p>Lastly, there is the remarkable arrangement for -securing the validity of the charter. Let us look at this -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_176" id="Page_176">{176}</a></span> -closely.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_559" id="Ref_559" href="#Foot_559">[559]</a></span> We should first notice that the Empress describes -it, not as a charter, but as a "convencio et donatio." -Now this "convencio" is a striking term, for it virtually -denotes a treaty between two contracting powers. This -conception of treaty relations between the Crown and its -subjects is one of the marked peculiarities of this singular -reign. It is clearly foreshadowed in those noteworthy -charters which the powerful Miles of Gloucester secured -from Stephen at his accession, and it meets us again in -the negotiations between the youthful Henry of Anjou, -posing as the heir to the crown, and the great nobles, -towards the close of this same reign. It is in strict -accordance with this idea that we here find the Empress -naming those who were to be her sureties for her -observance of this "convencio," precisely as was done in -the case of a treaty between sovereign powers.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_560" id="Ref_560" href="#Foot_560">[560]</a></span> The -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_177" id="Page_177">{177}</a></span> -exact part which the King of France was to play in this -transaction is not as clear as could be wished, but the -expression "capere in manu" is of course equivalent to -his becoming her "manucaptor," and "tenere" is here -used in the sense of "to hold good."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_561" id="Ref_561" href="#Foot_561">[561]</a></span> The closing words -in which "the Lady of England" declared that all the -Church of Christ then beneath her sway shall undertake -to be responsible for her keeping faith, present a striking -picture: but yet more vivid, in its dramatic intensity, is -that of the undaunted Empress, the would-be Queen of the -English, standing in her water-girdled citadel, surrounded -by her faithful followers, and playing, as it were, her last -card, as she placed her hand, in token of her faith, in the -grip of the Iron Earl.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_562" id="Ref_562" href="#Foot_562">[562]</a></span></p> - -<p>It was only, indeed, the collapse, to all appearance, of -her fortunes, that could have tempted Geoffrey to demand, -or have induced the Empress to concede, terms so preposterously -high. The fact that she was hoping, at this -moment, to allure her husband to her side, that he might -join her in a crowning effort, explains her eagerness to -secure allies, at the cost of whatever sacrifice, and also, in -consequence, the anxiety of those allies to bind her to her -promises hard and fast. It further throws light on the -constant reference throughout this charter to Geoffrey of -Anjou and his son.</p> - -<p>Turning to the names of her proposed sureties, we find -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_178" id="Page_178">{178}</a></span> -among them five earls, of whom the Earls of Norfolk and -of Pembroke invite special notice. The former had played -a shifty part from the very beginning of the reign. He -appears to have really fought for his own hand alone, and -we find him, the year after this, joining the Earl of Essex -in his wild outburst of revolt. With Pembroke the case -was different. He had been among the nobles who, the -Christmas before, had assembled at Stephen's court, and -had attested the charter there granted to the Earl of -Essex. He may, in the interval, have quarrelled with -Stephen and joined the party of the Empress; but I think -the occurrence of his name may be referred, with more -probability, to another cause, that of his family ties. It is, -indeed, to family ties that we must now turn our attention.</p> - -<p>The Earl of Essex had included, as we have seen, in -his demands on this occasion, provisions in favour of -certain of his relatives, including apparently his sisters' -husbands. But these by no means exhausted the concessions -he had resolved to exact. He had come prepared -to offer the Empress the support, not only of himself, but -of a powerful kinsman and ally. This was his wife's -brother, Aubrey de Vere.</p> - -<p>It will be better to relegate to an appendix the relationship -of these two families, without a clear understanding -of which it is impossible to grasp Geoffrey's scheme, or to -interpret aright these charters in their relation to one -another, and in their bearing as parts of a connected whole. -Unfortunately, the errors of past genealogists have rendered -it a task of some difficulty to ascertain the correct pedigree.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_563" id="Ref_563" href="#Foot_563">[563]</a></span></p> - -<p>When the fact has been established on a sure footing -that Aubrey stood in the relation of wife's brother to -Geoffrey, we may turn to the charter upon which my -narrative is here founded.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_179" id="Page_179">{179}</a></span> -This is a charter of the Empress to Aubrey at -Oxford. Mr. Eyton had, of course, devoted his attention -to this, as to the other charters, in his special studies on -the subject, but his fatal mistake in assigning both this -and the above charter to Geoffrey to the year 1141 -deprives his conclusions of all value. We may note, however, -that he argued from the mention, in the charter -granted to Geoffrey, of "Earl Aubrey," that it must, in -any case, be subsequent to the charter by which Aubrey -was created an earl. He, therefore, dated the latter as -"<i>circ.</i> July, 1141," and the former "<i>circ.</i> August, 1141" -(or "between July 25 and Aug. 15, 1141").<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_564" id="Ref_564" href="#Foot_564">[564]</a></span> This reasoning -could at once be disposed of by pointing out that the -Empress accepted her new ally and supporter as "Earl -Aubrey" already. Of this, however, more below. But -the true answer is to be found in the fact, which Mr. -Eyton failed to perceive, that these two charters were not -only granted simultaneously, but formed the two complements -of one connected whole. In the light of this -discovery the whole episode is clear.</p> - -<p>It is now time to give the charter with the grounds for -believing in its existence and authenticity. We have two -independent transcripts to work from. One of them was -taken from the Vere register by Vincent in 1622, and -printed by him in his curious <i>Discoverie of Brook's Errors</i>. -The other was taken, apparently, in 1621, and was used -by Dugdale for his <i>Baronage</i>. Vincent's original transcript -is preserved at the College of Arms, and this I have -used for the text. But we have, fortunately, strong external -testimony to the existence of the actual document. There -is printed in Rymer's <i>Fœdera</i> (xiii. 251) a confirmation by -Henry VIII. (May 6, 1509) of this very charter, in which -he is careful to state that it was duly exhibited before -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_180" id="Page_180">{180}</a></span> -him.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_565" id="Ref_565" href="#Foot_565">[565]</a></span> Thus, from an unexpected source we obtain the -evidence we want. It must further be remembered that -our knowledge of these twin charters comes from two -different and unconnected quarters, one being recorded in -the duchy coucher (see p. 165), while the other was found -among the muniments of the heir of the original grantee -(see p. 183). If, then, these two independent documents -confirm and explain one another, there is every reason to -believe that their contents are wholly authentic.</p> - -<h3><span class="smc">Charter of the Empress to Aubrey de Vere</span> (1142).</h3> - -<p>M. Imp'atrix H. Regis filia et Anglorum Domina -Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus Comitibus Baronibus -Justiciariis Vicecomitibus ministris et omnibus fidelibus -suis Francis et Anglis totius Angliæ salutem. Sciatis me -reddidisse et concessisse Comiti Alberico omnes terras et -tenementa sua, sicut pater eius Albericus de Veer tenuit, die -quâ fuit vivus et mortuus, videlicet, in terris, in feodis, in -firmis, in ministeriis, in vadiis, in empcionibus, et hæreditatibus. -Et nominatim Camerariam Angliæ sicut Albericus -de Veer pater eius vel Robertus Malet vel aliquis Antecessorum -suorum eam melius vel liberius tenuit cum -omnibus consuetudinibus et libertatibus quæ ad ea pertinent -sicut alia Carta mea quam inde habuit testatur. Et -do et concedo ei totam terram Willelmi de Albrincis sine -placito pro seruicio suo, simul cum hæreditate et iure quod -clamat ex parte uxoris sue sicut umquam Willelmus de -Archis<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_566" id="Ref_566" href="#Foot_566">[566]</a></span> ea melius tenuit. Et turrim et Castellum de -Colecestr' sine placito finaliter et sine escampa<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_567" id="Ref_567" href="#Foot_567">[567]</a></span> quam -citius ei deliberare potero. Et omnes tenuras suas de -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_181" id="Page_181">{181}</a></span> -quocunque eas teneat in omnibus rebus sicut Carta sua -alia quam inde habuit testatur. Et preter hoc do ei et concedo -quod sit Comes de Cantebruggescr' et habeat inde -tertium denarium sicut Comes debet habere, ita dico si Rex -Scotiæ non habet illum Comitatum. Et si Rex habuerit -perquiram illum ei ad posse meum per escambium. Et si -non potero tunc do ei et concedo quod sit Comes de quolibet -quatuor Comitatuum subscriptorum, videlicet Oxenefordscira, -Berkscira, Wiltescira, et Dorsetscira per consilium -et consideracionem Comitis Gloecestrie fratris mei -et Comitis Gaufridi et Comitis Gisleberti et teneat Comitatum -suum cum omnibus illis rebus que ad comitatum -suum pertineat ita bene et in pace et libere et quiete et -honorifice et plenarie sicut unquam aliquis Comes melius -vel liberius tenuit vel tenet comitatum suum. Concedo -etiam ei in feodo et hæreditate seruicium Willelmi de -Helion,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_568" id="Ref_568" href="#Foot_568">[568]</a></span> videlicet decem militum ut ipse Willelmus teneat -de Comite Alberico et ipse Comes faciat inde michi seruicium -et michi et hæredibus meis. Concedo etiam ei et -hæredibus suis de cremento Diham<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_569" id="Ref_569" href="#Foot_569">[569]</a></span> que fuit Rogeri de -Ramis<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_570" id="Ref_570" href="#Foot_570">[570]</a></span> rectum nepotum ipsius comitis Alberici, videlicet -filiorum Rogeri de Ramis.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_571" id="Ref_571" href="#Foot_571">[571]</a></span> Et similiter concedo ei et -heredibus suis Turroc̃<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_572" id="Ref_572" href="#Foot_572">[572]</a></span> que fuit Willelmi Peuerelli de -Nottingh', et terram Salamonis Presbiteri<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_573" id="Ref_573" href="#Foot_573">[573]</a></span> de Tilleberiâ.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_574" id="Ref_574" href="#Foot_574">[574]</a></span> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_182" id="Page_182">{182}</a></span> -Concedo etiam eidem Alberico Comiti quod ipse et omnes -homines sui habeant et lucrentur omnia essarta sua libera -et quieta de omnibus placitis que fecerant usque ad diem -quâ seruicio domini mei Comitis Andegavie et meo adhæserunt.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_575" id="Ref_575" href="#Foot_575">[575]</a></span> -Hec omnia supradicta tenementa concedo ei -tenenda hæreditarie in omnibus rebus sibi et hæredibus -suis de me et de hæredibus meis. Quare volo et firmiter -præcipio quod ipse Albericus Comes et heredes sui teneant -omnia tenementa sua ita bene et in pace et libere et quiete -et honorifice et plenarie sicut unquam aliquis Comitum -meorum melius vel liberius tenuit vel tenet et preter hoc -do et concedo Galfrido de Ver totam terram que fuit Galfridi -Talebot<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_576" id="Ref_576" href="#Foot_576">[576]</a></span> in dominiis in militibus si eam ei Warantizare -potero. Et si non potero, escambium ei inde dabo -ad valentiam per consideracionem Comitis Galfridi Essex -et Comitis Gisleberti et Comitis Alberici fratris sui. Et -preter hoc concedo Roberto de Ver unam baroniam ad -valentiam honoris Galfridi de Ver infra annum quo potestatiua -fuero regni Angliæ. Vel aliam terram ad valentiam -illius terræ. Et preter hoc do et concedo eidem Comiti -Alberico Cancellariam ad opus Willelmi de Ver fratris sui -ex quo deliberata fuerit de Willelmo Cancellario fratre -Johannis filii Gisleberti qui eam modo habet. Hanc -autem convencionem et donacionem tenendam affidaui -manu mea propria in manu Galfridi Comitis Essex. -Et hujus fiduciæ sunt obsides per fidem et Testes: -Robertus Comes Gloec', et Milo Comes Heref', et Brianus -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_183" id="Page_183">{183}</a></span> -filius Comitis, et Robertus filius Regis<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_577" id="Ref_577" href="#Foot_577">[577]</a></span> et Robertus de -Curci Dap', et Johannes filius Gisleb', et Milo de Belloc', -et Radulfus Paganel, et Robertus filius Heldebrandi et -Robertus de Oileio Conestabularius. Et Convencionaui -eidem Comiti Alberico quod pro posse meo Comes Andegavie -dominus meus assecurabit ei manu suâ propriâ illud -idem tenendum et Henricus filius meus similiter. Et -quod Rex ffrancie erit mihi obses si facere potero Et si -non potero, faciam quod rex capiet in manu illud idem -tenendum. Et de hoc debent esse obsides per fidem Juhel -de Meduana et Rob[ertus] de Sabloill et Wido de Sabloill -et Paganus de Clarievall' et Gaufridus de Clarievall et -Andreas de Alvia et Pepinus de Turcin, et Absalon de -Ruinard<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_578" id="Ref_578" href="#Foot_578">[578]</a></span> et Reginaldus Comes Cornubiæ et Baldwinus -Comes Deuoniæ et Comes Gislebertus de Pembroc et Comes -Hugo de Norfolc et Comes de Essex Gaufridus et Patricius<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_579" id="Ref_579" href="#Foot_579">[579]</a></span> -(<i>sic</i>) de Valoniis, et alii barones mei quos habere voluerit -et ego habere potero erunt inde obsides similiter et quod -Christianitas Angliæ quæ in potestate meâ est capiat in -manu supradictam convencionem tenendam eidem Comiti -Alberico et hæredibus suis de me et hæredibus meis Apud -Oxin.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_580" id="Ref_580" href="#Foot_580">[580]</a></span></p> - -<p class="gap-above2">The first point to which I would call attention is the -identity of expression in the two charters, proving, as I -urged above, their close and essential connection. It may -be as well to place the passages to which I refer side by side.</p> - -<div class="pagenum"><a name="Page_184" id="Page_184">{184}</a></div> - -<table class="multi" summary="multi-5"> - - <colgroup> - <col span="2" style="width:48%" /> - </colgroup> - -<tr> - <th>Charter to Geoffrey.</th> - <th>Charter to Aubrey.</th> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>Hanc autem conventionem et - donationem tenendam affidavi manu mea propria in manu ipsius - Comitis Gaufredi. Et hujus fiduciæ sunt obsides per fidem et - Testes, Robertus etc.<br /> - <br /> - Et conventionavi eidem Comiti Gaufrido pro posse meâ quod Comes - Andegavie dominus meus assecurabit ei manu suâ propriâ illud idem - tenendum et Henricus filius meus similiter, etc., etc.</td> - - <td>Hanc autem conventionem et - donationem tenendam affidavi manu mea propria in manu Galfredi - Comitis Essex. Et hujus fiduciæ sunt obsides per fidem et Testes, - Robertus, etc.<br /> - <br /> - Et conventionavi eidem Comiti Alberico quod pro posse meo Comes - Andegavie dominus meus assecurabit ei manu suâ propriâ illud idem - tenendum et Henricus filius meus similiter, etc., etc.</td> -</tr> - -</table> - -<p>Putting together these passages with the fact that the -witnesses also are the same in both charters, we see -plainly that these two documents, while differing from all -others of the kind, correspond precisely with each other. -Above all, we note that it was to Geoffrey, not to Aubrey, -that the Empress pledged her faith for the fulfilment of -Aubrey's charter. This shows, as I observed, that Aubrey -obtained this charter as Geoffrey's relative and ally, just -as Geoffrey's less important kinsmen were provided for -in his own charter.</p> - -<p>Here we may pause for a moment, before examining -this record in detail, to glance at another which forms its -corollary and complement.</p> - -<p>It will have been noticed that in both these charters -the Empress undertook to obtain their confirmation by her -husband and her son. We know not whether the charter -to Geoffrey was so confirmed, but presumably it was. -For, happily, in the case of its sister-charter, the confirmation -by the youthful Henry was preserved. And -there is every reason to believe that when this was confirmed -the other would be confirmed also.</p> - -<p>The confirmation by the future King Henry II. of his -mother's charter to Aubrey de Vere may be assigned -to July-November, 1142. His uncle Robert crossed to -Normandy shortly after witnessing the original charter, -and returned to England, accompanied by his nephew, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_185" id="Page_185">{185}</a></span> -about the end of December.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_581" id="Ref_581" href="#Foot_581">[581]</a></span> We may assume that no -time was lost in obtaining the confirmation by the youthful -heir, and though the names of the witnesses and the place -of testing are, unluckily, omitted in the transcript, the -fact that a Hugh "de Juga" acted as Geoffrey's proxy -for the occasion supports the hypothesis that the confirmation -took place over sea. That we have a confirmation -by Henry, but not by his father, is doubtless due to -Geoffrey of Anjou refusing, on this occasion, to come to -his wife's assistance, and virtually, by sending his son in -his stead, abdicating in his favour whatever pretensions -he had to the English throne.</p> - -<p>As Henry's charter is printed at the foot of his -mother's by Vincent, I shall content myself with quoting -its distinctive features, for the subject matter is the same -except for some verbal differences.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_582" id="Ref_582" href="#Foot_582">[582]</a></span> There is some confusion -as to the authority for its text. Vincent transcribed -it, like that of the Empress, from the Hedingham -Castle Register. Dugdale, in his <i>Baronage</i>, mixes it up -with the charter granted by Henry when king, so that -his marginal reference would seem to apply to the latter. -In his MSS., however, he gives as his authority "Autographum -in custodia Johis. Tindall unius magror. -Curie cancellarie temp. Reg. Eliz." If the original -charter itself was in existence so late as this there is -just a hope that it may yet be found in some unexplored -collection. From time to time such "finds" are made,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_583" id="Ref_583" href="#Foot_583">[583]</a></span> -and few discoveries would be more welcome than that of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_186" id="Page_186">{186}</a></span> -the earliest charter of one of the greatest sovereigns who -have ever ruled these realms, the first Plantagenet king.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_584" id="Ref_584" href="#Foot_584">[584]</a></span></p> - -<h3><span class="smc">Charter of Henry of Anjou to Aubrey de Vere.</span><br /> -July-November, 1142.</h3> - -<p>"Henricus filius filiæ Regis Henrici, rectus heres Angl. -et Normann. etc. Sciatis quod sicut Domina mea, viz. -mater mea imperatrix reddidit et concessit, ita reddo et -concedo.... Hanc autem convencionem tenendam affidavi -manu mea propria in manu Hugonis de Juga,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_585" id="Ref_585" href="#Foot_585">[585]</a></span> sicut -mater mea Imperatrix affidavit in manu Comitis Gaufr. -Testibus," etc.</p> - -<p class="gap-above2">Henry "fitz Empress" was at this time only nine and -a half years old. The claim he is here made to advance -as "rightful heir" of England and Normandy sounds the -key-note of the coming struggle. Not only till he had -obtained the crown, but also after he had obtained it, -he steadily dwelt on his "right" to the throne, of which -Stephen had wrongfully deprived him.</p> - -<p>We should also note that he claims to be "heir" of -England and Normandy, but not of Anjou. I take this -to imply that he posed as no mere heir-expectant, but -as one who ought, by right, to be in actual possession of -his realm. He could not, in the lifetime of his father, -assume this attitude to Anjou. Hence its omission. As -for his mother, he seems, from the first, to have claimed -her inheritance, as he eventually obtained it, not for her, -but for himself.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_187" id="Page_187">{187}</a></span> -Let us now return to the charter of the Empress.</p> - -<p>It will be best to discuss its successive clauses <i>seriatim</i>. -The opening portion, from "Sciatis me reddidisse" to -"sicut alia Carta mea quam inde habuit testatur," is -merely a confirmation of her previous charter, granted, -as we learn from this, for the purpose of securing him -in the possession of his father's fief and office of royal -chamberlain. His father, who is said to have been slain -in May, 1141, had been granted the chamberlainship by -Henry I. in 1133, the charter being printed by Madox from -Dugdale's transcript. This confirmation repeats its terms.</p> - -<p>The next portion extends from the words "Et do et -concedo" to "sicut Carta sua alia quam inde habet -testatur." About this there is some obscurity. The -word is "do," not "<i>red</i>do," and the expression "Carta -sua" replaces "Carta mea." The clause clearly refers -to grants made to Aubrey himself since his father's death, -but whether by the king or by the Empress is not so -clear as could be wished. The point need not be discussed -at length, but the former seems the more probable.</p> - -<p>Fortunately, there is no such doubt about the clauses -of creation. Here the question of the formula becomes -all-important. The case stands thus. There are only -two instances in the course of this reign in which we can -be quite certain that we are dealing with creations <i>de novo</i>. -The one is that by which the king "made" Geoffrey Earl -of Essex; the other, that by which the Empress "made" -Miles Earl of Hereford. We know that neither grantee -had been created an earl before; and we find that the -sovereign, in each instance, speaks of having "made" -("fecisse") him an earl.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_586" id="Ref_586" href="#Foot_586">[586]</a></span> So, again, in the only instance -of a "counter-patent" of creation, of which we can be quite -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_188" id="Page_188">{188}</a></span> -certain, namely, that by which the Empress recognized -Geoffrey as Earl of Essex after he had received that title -from Stephen, the formula used is: "Do et concedo ut sit -Comes." The two are essentially distinct. Now, applying -this principle to the present charter, we find the latter of -the two <i>formulæ</i> employed on this occasion. The words -are: "Do ei et concedo ut sit Comes." We infer, therefore, -if my view be right, that Aubrey was already in -enjoyment of comital rank when he received this charter. -It might be, and indeed has been, supposed that he was -so by virtue of a creation by Stephen. I have noted an -instance in which he attests a charter of Stephen (at the -siege of Wallingford) as a "comes,"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_587" id="Ref_587" href="#Foot_587">[587]</a></span> and it is not likely -that Stephen would allow him this title in virtue of a -creation by the Empress. On the other hand, in this -charter the Empress treats him as already a <i>comes</i>, which -she does not do in the case of Geoffrey, who had been -created a <i>comes</i> by Stephen.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_588" id="Ref_588" href="#Foot_588">[588]</a></span> The difference between the -two cases is accounted for by the fact that Aubrey was <i>comes</i> -not by a creation of Stephen, but in right of his wife -Beatrice, heiress of the <i>Comté</i> of Guisnes. This has been -clearly explained by Mr. Stapleton in his paper on "The -Barony of William of Arques,"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_589" id="Ref_589" href="#Foot_589">[589]</a></span> although he is mistaken -in his dates. He wrongly thought, like others, that -Aubrey's father, the chamberlain, was killed in May, 1140, -instead of May, 1141, and, like Mr. Eyton, he wrongly -assigned this charter of the empress to 1141, instead of -1142.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_590" id="Ref_590" href="#Foot_590">[590]</a></span> His able identification of "Albericus <i>Aper</i>" with -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_189" id="Page_189">{189}</a></span> -Aubrey de Vere may be supplemented by a reference to -the fact that "the blue <i>boar</i>" was the badge of the family -through a pun on the Latin <i>verres</i>.</p> - -<p>Aubrey was already the husband of Beatrice, the heiress -of Guisnes, at the death of her grandfather Count Manasses -(? 1139). He thereupon went to Flanders and became -(says Lambart d'Ardes) Count of Guisnes. Returning to -England, he sought and obtained from Stephen his wife's -English inheritance and executed, as Mr. Stapleton -observes, in his father's lifetime (<i>i.e.</i> before May, 1141), -the charter printed in Morant's <i>Essex</i> (ii. 506). Aubrey -was divorced from Beatrice a few years later, when she -married (between 1144 and 1146, thinks Mr. Stapleton) -Baldwin d'Ardres, the claimant of Guisnes. Thus did -Aubrey come to be for a time "Count of Guisnes," as -recorded, according to Weever, on his tomb at Colne -Priory.</p> - -<p>Mr. Stapleton was unable to produce any English -record or chronicle in which Aubrey is given the style of -"Count of Guisnes." It is, therefore, with much satisfaction -that I print, from the original charter, the following -record, conclusively establishing that he actually had that -style:—</p> - -<h3><span class="smc">Cott. Chart</span>, xxi. 6.</h3> - -<p>"Ordingus dei gratia Abbas ecclesie sancti eadmundi -Omnibus hominibus suis et amicis et fidelibus francis et -anglis salutem. Sciatis me concessisse Alberico comiti -Gisnensi per concessum totius conventus totum feudum et -servitium Rogeri de Ver auunculi sui sicut tenet de honore -sancti eadmundi uidelicet per seruitium unius militis et -dimidii et totum feudum et seruitium Alani filii Frodonis -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_190" id="Page_190">{190}</a></span> -sicut tenet de honore sancti eadmundi uidelicet per seruitium -iii militum, et insuper singulis annis centum solidos -ad pascha de camera mea. Hec omnia illi concedo in -feudo et hereditate, ipsi et heredibus suis de ecclesia sancti -eadmundi et de meis successoribus. Quare uolo et firmiter -precipio quod idem Albericus comes Gisnensis et heredes -sui jure hereditario teneant de ecclesia sancti eadmundi -bene et honorifice hec supradicta omnia per seruitium -quod supradiximus. Huius donationis sunt testes ex parte -mea Willelmus prior Radulfus sacrista Gotscelinus et -Eudo monachi Mauricius dapifer Gilebertus blundus Adam -de cocef' Radulfus de lodn' Willelmus filius Ailb'. Helias -de melef' Gauffridus frater eius. Ex parte comitis, Gauffridus -de ver Robertus filius humfridi Robertus filius Ailr' -Garinus filius Geroldi Hugo de ging' Albericus de capella -Radulfus filius Adam Guarinus frater eius Radulfus de -gisnes Gauffridus filius Humfridi Gauffridus Arsic Rodbertus -de cocef' Radulfus carboneal et Hugo filius eius et -plures alii."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_591" id="Ref_591" href="#Foot_591">[591]</a></span></p> - -<p class="gap-above2">But, to return to Maud's charter, the point which I -am anxious to emphasize is that of the formula she -employs, namely, "do et concedo," as against the "sciatis -me fecisse" of an original creation. I trace this distinction -in later years, when her son, who had already, as we -have seen, confirmed this charter to Aubrey, again confirmed -it when king (1156), employing for that purpose -the same formula: "Sciatis me dedisse et concessisse -comiti Alberico." Conversely, in the case of Hugh Bigod, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_191" id="Page_191">{191}</a></span> -he employs the formula: "Sciatis me fecisse Hugonem -Bigot comitem de Norfolca" (1155), this being an earldom -of Stephen's creation, and, so far as we know, of his alone. -This is a view which should be accepted with caution, but -which has, if correct, an important bearing.</p> - -<p>The very remarkable shifting clause as to the county -of which the grantee should be earl requires separate -notice. The axiom from which I start is this: When a -feudatory was created an earl, he took if he could for -his "comitatus" the county in which was situated the -chief seat of his power, his "Caput Baroniæ." If this -county had an earl already he then took the nearest -county that remained available. Thus Norfolk fell to -Bigod, Essex to Mandeville, Sussex to Albini, Derby to -Ferrers, and so on. De Clare, the seat of whose power -was in Suffolk, though closely adjoining Essex, took Herts, -probably for the reason that Mandeville had already -obtained Essex, while Bigod's province, being in truth the -old earldom of the East Angles—"Comes de Estangle," as -Henry of Huntingdon terms him,—took in Suffolk. So -now, Aubrey de Vere probably selected Cambridgeshire as -the nearest available county to his stronghold at Castle -Hedingham.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_592" id="Ref_592" href="#Foot_592">[592]</a></span></p> - -<p>But the Empress, we see, promised it only on the -strange condition that her uncle was not already in -possession. I say "the strange condition," for one would -surely have thought that she knew whether he was or -not. Moreover, the dignity was then held not by her -uncle, but by his son, and is described as the earldom of -Huntingdon, never as the earldom of Cambridge. The -first of these difficulties is explained by the fact that the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_192" id="Page_192">{192}</a></span> -King of Scots had, early in the reign, made over the -earldom to his son Henry, to avoid becoming himself the -"man" of the King of England. The second requires -special notice.</p> - -<p>We are taken back, by this provision, to the days -before the Conquest. Mr. Freeman, in his erudite essay -on <i>The Great Earldoms under Eadward</i>, has traced the -shifting relations of the counties of Northamptonshire, -Huntingdonshire, Cambridgeshire, and Northumberland. -The point, however, which concerns us here is that, -"under William," Earl Waltheof, "besides his great -Northumbrian government, was certainly Earl of Northamptonshire -(<i>Ord. Vit.</i>, 522 C.), and of Huntingdonshire -(<i>Will. Gem.</i>, viii. 37)."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_593" id="Ref_593" href="#Foot_593">[593]</a></span> His daughter Matilda -married twice, and between the heirs of these two marriages -the contest for her father's inheritance was obstinate -and long. Restricting ourselves to his southern -province, with which alone we have here to deal, its -western half, the county of Northampton, had at this -time passed to Simon of St. Liz as the heir of the first -marriage, while Huntingdon had conferred an earldom on -Henry, the heir of her marriage with the Scottish king. -The house of St. Liz, however, claimed the whole inheritance, -and as the Earl of Huntingdon, of course, -sided with his cousin, the Empress, Earl Simon of -Northampton was the steadfast supporter, even in their -darkest hours, of Stephen and his queen. Now, the -question that arises is this: Was not Earl Henry's province -Huntingdonshire <i>with</i> Cambridgeshire? Mr. Freeman -writes of Huntingdonshire, that "in 1051 we find it, -together with Cambridgeshire, a shire still so closely -connected with it as to have a common sheriff, detached -altogether from Mercia," etc.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_594" id="Ref_594" href="#Foot_594">[594]</a></span> It is true that when the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_193" id="Page_193">{193}</a></span> -former county became "an outlying portion of the -earldom of Northumberland," it does not, he observes, -"appear that Cambridgeshire followed it in this last -migration;"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_595" id="Ref_595" href="#Foot_595">[595]</a></span> but when we compare this earlier connection -with that in the Pipe-Roll of 1130,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_596" id="Ref_596" href="#Foot_596">[596]</a></span> and with the fact -that under another David of Scotland, this earldom, some -seventy years later, appears as that of Huntingdon and -Cambridge,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_597" id="Ref_597" href="#Foot_597">[597]</a></span> we shall find in this charter a connecting -link, which favours the view that the two counties had, -for comital purposes, formed one throughout. We have -a notable parallel in the adjacent counties of Norfolk and -Suffolk, which still formed one, the East Anglian earldom. -Dorset and Somerset, too, which were under one -sheriff, may have been also intended to form one -earldom, for the Lord of Dunster is found both as Earl -of "Dorset" and of "Somerset." I suspect also that -the Ferrers earldom was, in truth, that of the joint -shrievalty of Derbyshire and Notts, and that this is why -the latter county was never made a separate earldom till -the days of Richard II.</p> - -<p>The doubt of the Empress must therefore be attributed -to her anxiety not to invade the comital rights of her -cousin, in case he should deem that her creation of an -earldom of Cambridgeshire would constitute such invasion. -It is evident, we shall find, that he did so. The -accepted view is, it would appear, that Aubrey, by virtue -of this charter, became Earl "of Cambridge."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_598" id="Ref_598" href="#Foot_598">[598]</a></span> Mr. -Doyle, indeed, in his great work, goes so far as to state -that he was "cr. Earl of <span class="smc">Cambridge</span> by the Empress -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_194" id="Page_194">{194}</a></span> -Maud (after March 2) 1141; ... cr. Earl of <span class="smc">Oxford</span> (<i>in -exchange</i>) 1155."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_599" id="Ref_599" href="#Foot_599">[599]</a></span> But in Cole's (unpublished) transcript -of the Colne Cartulary (fols. 34, 37), we have a charter -of this Aubrey, "Pro animâ patris mei Alberici de Vere," -which must have passed between 1141 and 1147, for it is -attested by Robert, Bishop of London, appointed 1141, -and Hugh, Abbot of Colchester, who died in 1147. In -this charter his style is "Albericus Comes Oxeneford." -Here, then, we have evidence that, in this reign, he was -already Earl "of Oxford," not Earl of Cambridge.</p> - -<p>Before quitting the subject of Aubrey's creation, we -may note the bearing of the shifting clause on the creation -of the earldom of Wiltshire. It implies that Patrick of -Salisbury had not yet received his earldom. This conclusion -is confirmed by a charter of the Empress tested -at Devizes, which he witnesses merely as "Patricio de -Sarum conestabulo."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_600" id="Ref_600" href="#Foot_600">[600]</a></span> The choice of Dorset is somewhat -singular, as it suggests an intrusion on the Mohun earldom. -But this rather shadowy dignity appears, during its -brief existence, as an earldom of Somerset rather than of -Dorset.</p> - -<p>The specific grant of the "tertius denarius," as in the -creation charters of the earldoms of Essex and of Hereford, -should also be noticed.</p> - -<p>The "Earl Gilbert" who is repeatedly mentioned in -the course of this charter is Earl Gilbert "of Pembroke," -maternal uncle to Aubrey. It is this relationship that, -perhaps, accounts for the part he here plays.</p> - -<p>Of the remaining features of interest in the record, -attention may be directed to the phrase concerning the -knights' fees of William de Helion: "Ut ipse Willelmus -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_195" id="Page_195">{195}</a></span> -teneat de Comite Alberico, et ipse Comes faciat inde michi -servitium;" also to the implied forfeiture of William -Peverel of Nottingham, he having been made prisoner at -Lincoln, fighting on Stephen's side. Lastly, the promise -to the earl of the chancellorship for his brother William -becomes full of interest when we know that this was the -Canon of St. Osyth,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_601" id="Ref_601" href="#Foot_601">[601]</a></span> and that he was to be thus rewarded -as being the clerical member of his house. It enables -us further to identify in William, the existing chancellor, -the brother of John (fitz Gilbert) the marshal.</p> - -<p>We have now examined these two charters, parts, I -would again insist, of one connected negotiation. What -was its object? Nothing less, in my opinion, than a -combined revolt in the Eastern Counties which should -take Stephen in the rear, as soon as the arrival from -Normandy of Geoffrey of Anjou and his son should give -the signal for a renewal of the struggle, and a fresh advance -upon London by the forces of the west country. -Earl Geoffrey himself was now at the height of his power. -If he were supported by Aubrey de Vere, and by Henry of -Essex with Peter de Valoines (who are specially named in -Geoffrey's charter), he would be virtually master of Essex. -And if the restless Earl of the East Angles (p. 178 <i>supra</i>) -would also join him, as eventually he did, while Bishop -Nigel held Ely, Stephen would indeed be placed between -two fires. I cannot but think that it is to the rumour -of some such scheme as this that Stephen's panegyrist -refers, when he tells us, the following year, that Geoffrey -"had arranged to betray the realm into the hands of the -Countess of Anjou, and that his intention to do so had -been matter of common knowledge."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_602" id="Ref_602" href="#Foot_602">[602]</a></span></p> - -<p>I would urge that in the charters I have given above -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_196" id="Page_196">{196}</a></span> -we find the key to this allusion, and that they, in their -turn, are explained, and at the same time confirmed, by -the existence of this concerted plot. We have now to trace -the failure of the scheme, and to learn how it was that -all came to nought.</p> - -<p>Stephen's illness, to which, it may be remembered, I -had attributed in part the inception of the scheme, only -lasted till the middle of June. By the time that Robert -of Gloucester had set forth to cross the Channel, Stephen -was restored to health, and ready and eager for action.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_603" id="Ref_603" href="#Foot_603">[603]</a></span> -Swift to seize on such an opportunity as he had never -before obtained, he burst into the heart of the enemy's -country and marched straight on Wareham. He found -its defenders off their guard; the town was sacked and -burnt, and the castle was quickly his.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_604" id="Ref_604" href="#Foot_604">[604]</a></span> The precautions -of the Earl of Gloucester had thus been taken in vain, -and the port he had secured for his return was now -garrisoned by the king.</p> - -<p>The effect of this brilliant stroke was to paralyze the -party of the Empress. Her brother, who had left her with -great reluctance, dreading the fickleness of the nobles, had -made her assembled supporters swear that they would -defend her in his absence, and had further taken with him -hostages for their faithful behaviour.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_605" id="Ref_605" href="#Foot_605">[605]</a></span> He had also so -strengthened her defences at Oxford that the city seemed -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_197" id="Page_197">{197}</a></span> -almost impregnable.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_606" id="Ref_606" href="#Foot_606">[606]</a></span> Lastly, a series of outlying posts -secured the communications of its defenders with the -districts friendly to their cause.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_607" id="Ref_607" href="#Foot_607">[607]</a></span></p> - -<p>But Stephen, in the words of his panegyrist, had -"awaked as one out of sleep." Summoning to his -standard his friends and supporters, he marched on -Gloucestershire itself, and appeared unexpectedly at -Cirencester on the line of the enemy's communications. -Its castle, taken by surprise, was burnt and razed to the -ground. Then, completing the isolation of the Empress, by -storming, as he advanced, other of her posts,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_608" id="Ref_608" href="#Foot_608">[608]</a></span> he arrived -before the walls of Oxford on the 26th of September.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_609" id="Ref_609" href="#Foot_609">[609]</a></span> The -forces of the Empress at once deployed on the left bank of -the river. The action which followed was a curious -anticipation of the struggle at Boyne Water (1690). The -king, informed of the existence of a ford, boldly plunged -into the water, and, half fording, half swimming, was one -of the first to reach the shore. Instantly charging the -enemy's line, he forced the portion opposed to him back -towards the walls of the city, and when the bulk of his -forces had followed him across, the whole line was put to -flight, his victorious troops entering the gates pell-mell -with the routed fugitives. The torch was as familiar as -the sword to the soldier of the Norman age, and Oxford -was quickly buried in a sheet of smoke and fire.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_610" id="Ref_610" href="#Foot_610">[610]</a></span> The -castle, then of great strength, alone held out. From the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_198" id="Page_198">{198}</a></span> -summit of its mound the Empress must have witnessed the -rout of her followers; within its walls she was now -destined to stand a weary siege.</p> - -<p>It is probable that Stephen's success at Oxford was -in part owing to the desertion of the Empress by those -who had sworn to defend her. For we read that they -were led by shame to talk of advancing to her relief.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_611" id="Ref_611" href="#Foot_611">[611]</a></span> -The project, however, came to nothing, and Earl Robert, -hearing of the critical state of affairs, became eager to -return to the assistance of his sister and her beleaguered -followers.</p> - -<p>Geoffrey of Anjou had, on various pretences, detained -the earl in Normandy, instead of accepting his invitation -and returning with him to England. But Robert's -patience was now exhausted, and, bringing with him, -instead of Geoffrey, the youthful Henry "fitz Empress," -he sailed for England with a fleet of more than fifty ships. -Such was the first visit to this land of the future Henry II., -being then nine years and a half, not (as stated by Dr. -Stubbs) eight years old.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_612" id="Ref_612" href="#Foot_612">[612]</a></span></p> - -<p>The earl made it a point of honour to recapture Wareham -as his first step. He also hoped to create a diversion -which might draw off the king from Oxford.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_613" id="Ref_613" href="#Foot_613">[613]</a></span> This was -not bad strategy, for Stephen was deemed to be stronger -behind the walls of Oxford than he would be in the open -country. The position of affairs resembled, in fact, that -at Winchester, the year before. But the two sides had -changed places. As the Empress, in Winchester, had -besieged Wolvesey, so now, in Oxford, Stephen did the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_199" id="Page_199">{199}</a></span> -same. It would, therefore, have been necessary to besiege -him in turn as the Empress was besieged the year before. -Well aware of the advantage he enjoyed, Stephen refused -to be decoyed away, and allowed the castle of Wareham -to fall into Robert's hands. The other posts in the neighbourhood -were also secured by the earl, who then advanced -to Cirencester, where he had summoned his friends to -meet him. Thus strengthened, he was already marching -to the relief of Oxford, when he received the news of his -sister's perilous escape and flight. A close siege of three -months had brought her to the extremity of want, and -Stephen was pressing the attack with all the artillery of -the time. A few days before Christmas, in a long and -hard frost, when the snow was thick upon the ground, she -was let down by ropes from the grim Norman tower, -which commanded the approach to the castle on the side -of the river. Clad in white from head to foot, and escorted -by only three knights, she succeeded under cover of the -darkness of night, and by the connivance of one of the -besiegers' sentries, in passing through their lines undetected -and crossing the frozen river. After journeying -on foot for six miles, she reached the spot where horses -were in waiting, and rode for Wallingford Castle, her still -unconquered stronghold.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_614" id="Ref_614" href="#Foot_614">[614]</a></span></p> - -<p>On receiving the news of this event Robert changed -his course, and proceeded to join his sister. In her joy -at the return of her brother and the safe arrival of her -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_200" id="Page_200">{200}</a></span> -son, the Empress forgot all her troubles. She was also -in safety now, herself, behind the walls of Wallingford, -the support of that town and its fidelity to her cause -being gratefully acknowledged by her son on his eventual -accession to the throne.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_615" id="Ref_615" href="#Foot_615">[615]</a></span></p> - -<p>But her husband had declined to come to her help; -her city of Oxford was lost; her <i>prestige</i> had suffered a -final blow; the great combination scheme was at an -end.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_504b" id="Foot_504b" href="#Ref_504b">[504]</a> -He states that the Earl of Gloucester, on his release, "circa germanam -sedulo apud Oxeneford mansitabat; quo loco, ut præfatus sum, illa sedem -sibi constituens, curiam fecerat" (p. 754).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_505" id="Foot_505" href="#Ref_505">[505]</a> -He set sail "aliquanto post festum sancti Johannis" (<i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. 765).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_506" id="Foot_506" href="#Ref_506">[506]</a> -See the dazzling description of his power given by the author of the -<i>Gesta</i>, who speaks of him as one "qui omnes regni primates et divitiarum -potentiâ et dignitatis excedebat opulentiâ; turrim quoque Londoniarum in -manu, sed et castella inexpugnabilis fortitudinis circa civitatem constructa -habebat, omnemque regni partem, quæ se regi subdiderat, ut ubique per -regnum regis vices adimplens, et, in rebus agendis, rege avidius exaudiretur, -et in præceptis injungendis, plus ei quam regi obtemperaretur" (p. 101). -William of Newburgh, in the same spirit, speaks of him as "regi terribilis" -(i. 44).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_507" id="Foot_507" href="#Ref_507">[507]</a> -See p. 160.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_508" id="Foot_508" href="#Ref_508">[508]</a> -"In totâ propemodum Angliâ sicut mortuus conclamaretur" (<i>ibid.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_509" id="Foot_509" href="#Ref_509">[509]</a> -William of Malmesbury (<i>ut supra</i>) is the authority for 1142, and Henry -of Huntingdon for 1136: "Ad Rogationes vero divulgatum est regem -mortuum esse" (p. 259).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_510" id="Foot_510" href="#Ref_510">[510]</a> -"Jam ergo cœpit rabies prædicta Normannorum, perjurio et proditione -pullulare" (<i>ibid.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_511" id="Foot_511" href="#Ref_511">[511]</a> -It would seem to have been entered immediately after that charter to -Miles of Gloucester which I have printed on p. 11, and which precedes it in -the transcripts.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_512" id="Foot_512" href="#Ref_512">[512]</a> -<i>Lansdowne MS.</i> 259, fol. 66.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_513" id="Foot_513" href="#Ref_513">[513]</a> -"Archiepiscopis, etc." (Dug.).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_514" id="Foot_514" href="#Ref_514">[514]</a> -"suus" omitted (Dug.).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_515" id="Foot_515" href="#Ref_515">[515]</a> -"ejus" (Dug.).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_516" id="Foot_516" href="#Ref_516">[516]</a> -"tenuerunt" (Dug., Dods.).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_517" id="Foot_517" href="#Ref_517">[517]</a> -"subjectum" (Dods.).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_518" id="Foot_518" href="#Ref_518">[518]</a> -"Lundoniæ et Middlesexiæ" (Dug.).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_519" id="Foot_519" href="#Ref_519">[519]</a> -"Et ... tenuit" (Essex shrievalty) omitted by Dugdale (and, consequently, -in his <i>Baronage</i> also).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_520" id="Foot_520" href="#Ref_520">[520]</a> -Dodsworth transcript closes here.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_521" id="Foot_521" href="#Ref_521">[521]</a> -"illi" omitted by Dugdale.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_522" id="Foot_522" href="#Ref_522">[522]</a> -"quæ fuit" omitted by Dugdale.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_523" id="Foot_523" href="#Ref_523">[523]</a> -"per servicium militare" (wrongly, Dug.).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_524" id="Foot_524" href="#Ref_524">[524]</a> -"et" omitted by Dugdale.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_525" id="Foot_525" href="#Ref_525">[525]</a> -"centum libratas" (Dug.).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_526" id="Foot_526" href="#Ref_526">[526]</a> -Chreshall, <i>alias</i> Christhall, Essex. Part of the honour of Boulogne. -Was held by Count Eustace, at the Survey, in demesne. Stephen granted -it to his own son William, who gave it to Richard de Luci.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_527" id="Foot_527" href="#Ref_527">[527]</a> -Bendish Hall, in Radwinter, Essex. Part of the honour of Boulogne. -It was given by Stephen's son William to Faversham Abbey, Kent.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_528" id="Foot_528" href="#Ref_528">[528]</a> -This word is illegible. It baffled the transcriber in <i>Lansd. MS.</i> 259. -Dugdale has "wiam." The right reading is "luiam," the river Lea being -meant, as is proved by the Pipe-Roll of 14 Hen. II.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_529" id="Foot_529" href="#Ref_529">[529]</a> -William fitz Otwel, Earl Geoffrey's "brother," is referred to by Earl -William (Geoffrey's son) as his uncle ("avunculus") in a charter confirming -his grant of lands (thirty-three acres) in "Abi et Toresbi" to Greenfield -Nunnery, Lincolnshire (<i>Harl. Cart.</i>, 53, C, 50). He is also a witness, as -"patruus meus," to a charter of Earl Geoffrey the younger (<i>Sloane Cart.</i>, -xxxii. 64), early in the reign of Henry II. He was clearly a "uterine" -brother of Earl Geoffrey the elder, so that his father must have married -William de Mandeville's widow—a fact unknown to genealogists.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_530" id="Foot_530" href="#Ref_530">[530]</a> -William de Sai had married Beatrice, sister (and, in her issue, heiress) -of the earl, by whom he was ancestor of the second line of Mandeville, Earl -of Essex. In the following year he joined the earl in his furious revolt -against the king.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_531" id="Foot_531" href="#Ref_531">[531]</a> -This was William "Capra" (<i>Chévre</i>), whose family gave its name to -the manor of "Chevers" in Mountnessing, county Essex. He was probably -another brother-in-law of the earl, for I have seen a charter of Alice -(<i>Adelid[is]</i>) Capra, in which she speaks of Geoffrey's son, Earl William, as -her nephew ("nepos"). There is also a charter of a Geoffrey Capra and -Mazelina (<i>sic</i>) his wife, which suggests that the name of Geoffrey may have -come to the family from the earl. Thoby Priory, Essex, was founded (1141-1151) -by Michael Capra, Roesia his wife, and William, their son. The -founder speaks of Roger fitz Richard ("ex cujus munificentiâ mihi idem -fundus pervenit"), who was the second husband (as I have elsewhere -explained) of "Alice of Essex," <i>née</i> de Vere, the sister of Earl Geoffrey's -wife. A Michael Capra and a William Capra, holding respectively four and -four and a half knights' fees, were feudal tenants of Walter fitz Robert (the -lord of Dunmow) in 1166.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_532" id="Foot_532" href="#Ref_532">[532]</a> -William, son of Walter (Fitz Other) de Windsor, castellan of Windsor. -In the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I., he appears as in charge of Windsor -Forest, for which he renders his account. It is probably to this charter -rather than to any separate grant that Dugdale refers in his account of the -family.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_533" id="Foot_533" href="#Ref_533">[533]</a> -This is an unusual name. As William de Say is mentioned just -before, it may be noted that his son (Earl Geoffrey's nephew) promised (in -1150-1160) to grant to Ramsey Abbey "marcatam redditus ex quo adipisci -poterit quadraginta marcatas de hereditate sua, scilicet de terra Roberti -<i>de Rumele</i>" (<i>Chron. Ram.</i>, p. 305). Mathew de Romeli, according to -Dugdale, was the son of Robert de Romeli, lord of Skipton, by Cecily his -wife. A Mathew de Romeli, with Alan his son, occur in a plea of 1236-7 -(<i>Bracton's Note-Book</i>, ed. Maitland, iii. 189).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_534" id="Foot_534" href="#Ref_534">[534]</a> -Geoffrey de Tourville appears in 1130 as holding land in four counties -(<i>Rot. Pip.</i>, 31 Hen. I.).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_535" id="Foot_535" href="#Ref_535">[535]</a> -William de Ou (Auco) or Eu is returned in the <i>carta</i> of the Earl of -Essex (1166) as holding four fees of him.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_536" id="Foot_536" href="#Ref_536">[536]</a> -See Appendix Q, on "Osbertus Octodenarii."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_537" id="Foot_537" href="#Ref_537">[537]</a> -Dodsworth's transcript begins again here, and is continued down to -"Belloc[ampo]."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_538" id="Foot_538" href="#Ref_538">[538]</a> -"Comes Herefordiæ" (Dug.).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_539" id="Foot_539" href="#Ref_539">[539]</a> -So also Dodsworth; but Dugdale wrongly extends: "Robertus filius -Reginaldi." See p. 94, <i>n.</i> 4.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_540" id="Foot_540" href="#Ref_540">[540]</a> -Robert de Courci of Stoke (Courcy), Somerset. He figures in the Pipe-Roll -of 31 Hen. I. As "Robert de Curci" he witnessed the Empress's -charter creating the earldom of Hereford (July 25, 1141), and as "Robert de -Curci Dapifer" her confirmation of the Earl of Devon's gift (<i>Mon. Aug.</i>, v. -106; <i>Journ. B. A. A.</i>, xxxi. 391), both of them passing at Oxford, the latter -(probably) in 1142, subsequent to the above charter. He was slain at -Counsylth, 1157.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_541" id="Foot_541" href="#Ref_541">[541]</a> -John Fitz Gilbert, marshal to the Empress, and brother, as the succeeding -charter proves, to William, her chancellor. With his father, Gilbert -the Marshal (<i>Mariscallus</i>), he was unsuccessfully impleaded, under Henry I., -by Robert de Venoiz and William de Hastings, for the office of marshal -(<i>Rot. Cart.</i>, 1 John), and in 1130, as John the Marshal (<i>Mariscallus</i>), he -appears as charged, with his relief, in Wiltshire, for his father's lands and -office (<i>Rot. Pip.</i>, 31 Hen. I.). He is mentioned among the "barons" on the -side of the Empress at the siege of Winchester (<i>Gesta Stephani</i>), and he was, -with Robert de Curcy, witness to her (Oxford) charter, which I assign in the -last note to later in this year, as he also had been to her charter creating the -earldom of Hereford (July 25, 1141). Subsequently, he witnessed the charter -to the son of the Earl of Essex (<i>vide post</i>). He played some part in the next -reign from his official connection with the Becket quarrel. See also p. 131.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_542" id="Foot_542" href="#Ref_542">[542]</a> -Miles de Beauchamp, son of Robert de Beauchamp, and nephew to -Simon de Beauchamp, hereditary castellan of Bedford. In 1130 he appears -in connection with Beds. and Bucks. (<i>Rot. Pip.</i>, 31 Hen. I.). With his -brother (<i>Salop Cartulary</i>) Payn de Beauchamp (who afterwards married -Rohaise, the widow of this Geoffrey de Mandeville), he had held Bedford -Castle against the king for five weeks from Christmas, 1137, as heir-male to -his uncle, whose daughter and heir, with the Bedford barony, Stephen had -conferred on Hugh <i>Pauper</i>, brother of his favourite, the Count of Meulan -(<i>Ord. Vit.</i>; <i>Gesta Steph.</i>). Dugdale's account is singularly inaccurate. -Simon, the uncle, must have been living in the spring of 1136, for he then -witnessed, as a royal <i>dapifer</i>, Stephen's great (Oxford) charter.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_543" id="Foot_543" href="#Ref_543">[543]</a> -See p. 94, <i>n.</i> 2.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_544" id="Foot_544" href="#Ref_544">[544]</a> -Robert de Oilli the second, castellan of Oxford, and constable. Founder -of Osney Priory. He appears in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Hen. I., and had witnessed, -as a royal <i>constabularius</i>, Stephen's great (Oxford) charter of 1136, -but had embraced the cause of the Empress in 1141 (see p. 66). He witnessed -five others of the Empress's charters, all of which passed at Oxford -(<i>Journ. B. A. A.</i>, xxxi. 391, 392, 396, 397).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_545" id="Foot_545" href="#Ref_545">[545]</a> -See p. 95, note 1.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_546" id="Foot_546" href="#Ref_546">[546]</a> -Dodsworth's transcript recommences and is continued to the end.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_547" id="Foot_547" href="#Ref_547">[547]</a> -"Ibidem" (Dods., wrongly).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_548" id="Foot_548" href="#Ref_548">[548]</a> -"Ijdem" (Dods., wrongly).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_549" id="Foot_549" href="#Ref_549">[549]</a> -"Meduana" (Dug., rightly). - -"Johelus de Meduanâ" (Juhel of Mayenne) figures in the Pipe-Roll -of 31 Hen. I. as holding land in Devonshire. At the commencement of -Stephen's reign, Geoffrey of Anjou had entrusted him with three of the -castles he had captured in Normandy, on condition of receiving his support -(<i>R. of Torigni</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_550" id="Foot_550" href="#Ref_550">[550]</a> -Guy de Sablé had accompanied the Empress to England in the autumn -of 1139 (<i>Ord. Vit.</i>, v. 121).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_551" id="Foot_551" href="#Ref_551">[551]</a> -Clairvaux was a castle in Anjou. Payn de Clairvaux (<i>de Claris vallibus</i>) -had, in 1130, and for some time previously, been fermor of Hastings, in -Sussex (<i>Rot. Pip.</i>, 31 Hen. I. p. 42). Later on, in Stephen's reign, he -appears at Caen, witnessing a charter of Geoffrey, Duke of Normandy -(Bayeux <i>Liber Niger</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_552" id="Foot_552" href="#Ref_552">[552]</a> -"Alvia" (Dug.).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_553" id="Foot_553" href="#Ref_553">[553]</a> -Or "Rumard." Dugdale has "Rumard."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_554" id="Foot_554" href="#Ref_554">[554]</a> -"Valoniis" (Dug.). - -Peter de Valoines. The occurrence of this great Hertfordshire baron is -of special interest, because we have seen the Empress granting a charter to -his father, Roger, in 1141. It is probable, therefore, that Roger had died in the -interval. Peter himself died before 1166, when his younger brother, Robert, -had succeeded him. His widow, Gundred (de Warrenne), was then living.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_555" id="Foot_555" href="#Ref_555">[555]</a> -"Comiti ... meis." Dodsworth has only "Com etc."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_556" id="Foot_556" href="#Ref_556">[556]</a> -"cum sigillo" (Dods.).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_557" id="Foot_557" href="#Ref_557">[557]</a> -The clause certainly favours the belief that a relationship existed, but -it was probably collateral, instead of lineal.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_558" id="Foot_558" href="#Ref_558">[558]</a> -"Possessiones omnes ad ecclesiam pertinentes, castellum quoque de -Storteford in sua dominatione recepit" (<i>Rad. de Diceto</i>, i. 250).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_559" id="Foot_559" href="#Ref_559">[559]</a> -This negotiation between the Empress and Geoffrey should be compared -with that between her and the legate in the spring of the preceding year. -Each illustrates the other. In the latter case the expression used is, -"Juravit et <i>affidavit</i> imperatrix episcopo quod," etc. In the former, the -empress is made to say, "Hanc autem convencionem et donacionem tenendam -<i>affidavi</i>," etc. But the striking point of resemblance is that in each case -her leading followers are made to take part in the pledge of performance. -At Winchester, we read in William of Malmesbury, "Idem juraverunt cum -ea, et affidaverunt pro eâ, Robertus frater ejus comes de Gloecestrâ, et -Brianus filius comitis marchio de Walingeford, et Milo de Gloecestriâ, postea -comes de Hereford, et nonnulli alii" (see p. 58). At Oxford, we read in -these charters, "Et hujus fiduciæ sunt obsides per fidem et Testes, Robertus -comes Gloecestrie, et Milo comes Herefordie, et Brianus filius comitis et," etc. -So close a parallel further confirms the genuineness of these charters. - -Another remarkable document illustrative of this negotiation is the -alliance ("Confederatio amoris") between the Earls of Hereford and -Gloucester (see Appendix S). Each earl there "affidavit et juravit" to the -other, and each named certain of his followers as his "obsides per fidem"—the -very phrase here used. See also p. 385, <i>n.</i> 3.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_560" id="Foot_560" href="#Ref_560">[560]</a> -That these securities were modelled on the practice of contracting -sovereign powers is seen on comparing them with the treaty between Henry I. -and the Count of Flanders (see Appendix S). But most to the point is the -treaty between King Stephen and Duke Henry, where the clause for -securing the "conventiones" runs:—"Archiepiscopi vero et episcopi ab -utraque parte in manu ceperunt quod si quis nostrum a predictis conventionibus -recederet, tam diu eum ecclesiastica justicia coercebunt, quousque errata -corrigat et ad predictam pactionem observandam redeat. Mater etiam -Ducis et ejus uxor et fratres ipsius Ducis et omnes sui quos ad hoc applicare -poterit, hæc assecurabunt."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_561" id="Foot_561" href="#Ref_561">[561]</a> -We may perhaps compare the oath taken by the French king some -years before, to secure the charter ("Keure") granted to St. Omer by -William, Count of Flanders (April 14, 1127):—"Hanc igitur Communionem -tenendam, has supradictas consuetudines et conventiones esse observandas -fide promiserunt et sacramento confirmaverunt Ludovicus rex Francorum, -Guillelmus Comes Flandriæ," etc., etc.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_562" id="Foot_562" href="#Ref_562">[562]</a> -See Appendix T, on "Affidatio in manu."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_563" id="Foot_563" href="#Ref_563">[563]</a> -See Appendix U: "The Families of Mandeville and De Vere."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_564" id="Foot_564" href="#Ref_564">[564]</a> -<i>Add. MSS.</i>, 31,943, fols. 86 <i>b</i>, 99, 116 <i>b</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_565" id="Foot_565" href="#Ref_565">[565]</a> -It is headed "Pro Comite Oxoniæ Carta Matildæ Imperatricis confirmata," -and it confirms the grants made by her "prout per cartam illam (<i>i.e.</i> -Matildæ) plenius liquet."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_566" id="Foot_566" href="#Ref_566">[566]</a> -See Appendix V, on "William of Arques."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_567" id="Foot_567" href="#Ref_567">[567]</a> -<i>i.e.</i> escambio.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_568" id="Foot_568" href="#Ref_568">[568]</a> -Of Helions in Bumsted Helion, Essex, the other portion of the parish, -viz. Bumsted Hall, being, at and from the Survey, a portion of the De Vere -fief. These his ten fees duly figure in the <i>Liber Niger</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_569" id="Foot_569" href="#Ref_569">[569]</a> -Dedham, Essex.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_570" id="Foot_570" href="#Ref_570">[570]</a> -They were named, I presume, from the castle of Rames, adjoining the -forest of Lillebonne.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_571" id="Foot_571" href="#Ref_571">[571]</a> -This would seem to imply that Roger de Ramis had married a sister of -Aubrey de Vere. See Appendix X: "Roger de Ramis."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_572" id="Foot_572" href="#Ref_572">[572]</a> -Grey's Thurrock, in South Essex, being that portion of it which had -been held by William Peverel at the Survey.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_573" id="Foot_573" href="#Ref_573">[573]</a> -Query, the "Salamon clericus de Sudwic" (Northants) of the Pipe-Roll -of 31 Hen. I. (p. 85)?</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_574" id="Foot_574" href="#Ref_574">[574]</a> -This was not Tilbury on the Thames, but Tilbury (Essex) near Clare, -as is proved by <i>Liber Niger</i> (p. 393), where this land of Salamon proves to -be part of the honour of Boulogne, held as a fifth of a knight's fee.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_575" id="Foot_575" href="#Ref_575">[575]</a> -See Appendix R: "The Forest of Essex."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_576" id="Foot_576" href="#Ref_576">[576]</a> -Geoffrey Talbot appears in the Pipe-Roll of 31 Henry I. as paying -two hundred marks of silver for his father's land in Kent (p. 67). As -"Agnes Vxor Gaufredi Talebot" is charged, at the same time, "pro dote et -maritagio suo" (<i>ibid.</i>), it would seem that our Geoffrey had a father of the -same name. We learn from the <i>Liber Niger</i> (i. 58) that at the death of -Henry I. (1135) he held twenty knights' fees in Kent.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_577" id="Foot_577" href="#Ref_577">[577]</a> -"Rogeri" in MS.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_578" id="Foot_578" href="#Ref_578">[578]</a> -Or "Rumard."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_579" id="Foot_579" href="#Ref_579">[579]</a> -<i>Rectius</i> Petr[us].</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_580" id="Foot_580" href="#Ref_580">[580]</a> -"Ex libro quodam pervetusto in pergamena manuscripto in custodia -Henrici Vere nunc Comitis Oxoniæ, et mihi per Capitan: Skipwith, mutuato -21 April, 1622."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_581" id="Foot_581" href="#Ref_581">[581]</a> -See Appendix Y.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_582" id="Foot_582" href="#Ref_582">[582]</a> -As "turrim de Colcestr' et castellum" for "turrim et castellum de -Colcestr'." The only difference of any importance is that Dugdale reads -"Albenejo" in this charter, where he has "Albrincis" in that of the Empress.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_583" id="Foot_583" href="#Ref_583">[583]</a> -I may perhaps be permitted to refer to my own discovery, in a stable -loft, of a document bearing the seal of the King-maker, and bearing his rare -autograph, which antiquaries had lost sight of since the days of Camden.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_584" id="Foot_584" href="#Ref_584">[584]</a> -Mr. Eyton must have strangely overlooked this charter, for he begins -his series of Henry's charters in 1149.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_585" id="Foot_585" href="#Ref_585">[585]</a> -"Inga" in Dugdale's transcript, and rightly so, for we find this same -Hugh, as "Hugo de Ging'," a witness to a charter on behalf of Earl Aubrey, -about this time (<i>infra</i>, p. 190). There were several places in Essex named -"Ging" <i>alias</i> "Ing."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_586" id="Foot_586" href="#Ref_586">[586]</a> -Compare the famous Lewes charter of William de Warenne, Earl of -Surrey, said (if genuine) to be the earliest allusion to a peerage creation. -There the earl speaks of William Rufus, "qui me Surreæ comitem <i>fecit</i>."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_587" id="Foot_587" href="#Ref_587">[587]</a> -<i>Abingdon Cartulary</i>, ii. 179.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_588" id="Foot_588" href="#Ref_588">[588]</a> -It should, however, be observed that in this same charter she refers to -Earl Gilbert (of Pembroke) and Earl Hugh (of Norfolk) by their comital -style, though, so far as we know, they were earls of Stephen's creation alone. -But such a reference as this is very different from the style formally given -in a charter of creation.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_589" id="Foot_589" href="#Ref_589">[589]</a> -<i>Archæologia</i>, vol. xxxi.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_590" id="Foot_590" href="#Ref_590">[590]</a> -"Its date is subsequent to the 25th of July, 1141, when the Empress -created Milo de Gloucester Earl of Hereford at Oxford, who has this title -in the charter, and, from its having been given at Oxford, there can be little -doubt that it was contemporaneous with that creation, and certainly prior to -the siege of Winchester in the month of August following" (<i>ibid.</i>, pp. 231, 232).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_591" id="Foot_591" href="#Ref_591">[591]</a> -Of these witnesses "ex parte comitis," Geoffrey de Ver held half a -knight's fee of him, Robert fitz Humfrey held one, Robert fitz "Ailric" one, -Ralph fitz Adam a quarter, Ralph de Guisnes one, Geoffrey Arsic two, -Robert de Cocefeld three, Ralph Carbonel one and a half. Hugh de Ging' -was the "Hugo de Inga" who acted as proxy (<i>vide supra</i>) at Henry's confirmation -of his mother's charter. This charter has an independent value -for its bearing on knights' fees. See also Addenda.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_592" id="Foot_592" href="#Ref_592">[592]</a> -At the same time, we must remember that he held a considerable fief -in Cambridgeshire (see Domesday), which, if he could not have Essex, might -lead him to select that county.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_593" id="Foot_593" href="#Ref_593">[593]</a> -<i>Norm. Conq.</i>, ii. 559.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_594" id="Foot_594" href="#Ref_594">[594]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i></p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_595" id="Foot_595" href="#Ref_595">[595]</a> -<i>Norm. Conq.</i>, ii. 559.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_596" id="Foot_596" href="#Ref_596">[596]</a> -Where they form one shrievalty with one <i>firma</i>, though the county of -Surrey as well is inexplicably combined with them.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_597" id="Foot_597" href="#Ref_597">[597]</a> -And the "tertius denarius" of Cambridgeshire was actually held by its -earl (1205).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_598" id="Foot_598" href="#Ref_598">[598]</a> -Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 362, <i>note</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_599" id="Foot_599" href="#Ref_599">[599]</a> -<i>Official Baronage</i>, i. 291.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_600" id="Foot_600" href="#Ref_600">[600]</a> -<i>Mon. Ang.</i>, v. 440; <i>Journ. B. A. A.</i>, xxxi. 392. This conclusion reveals -a further error in the <i>Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal</i>, which gives a very -incomprehensible account of this Patrick's action.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_601" id="Foot_601" href="#Ref_601">[601]</a> -See Appendix U.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_602" id="Foot_602" href="#Ref_602">[602]</a> -"Regnum, ut in ore jam vulgi celebre fuerat, comitissæ Andegavensi -conferre disposuerat" (<i>Gesta Stephani</i>, p. 101). This very remarkable incidental -allusion should be compared with that in which Henry of Huntingdon -justifies the earl's arrest by Stephen: "Nisi enim hoc egisset, perfidio -consulis illius regno privatus fuisset" (p. 276).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_603" id="Foot_603" href="#Ref_603">[603]</a> -"Duravit improspera valetudo usque post Pentecostem (June 7); tum -enim sensim refusus salutis vigor eum in pedes erexit" (<i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. -763).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_604" id="Foot_604" href="#Ref_604">[604]</a> -"Rex ... comitis absentiam aucupatus, subito ad Waram veniens, et -non bene munitum propugnatoribus offendens, succensa et depredata villa, -statim etiam castello potitus est" (<i>ibid.</i>, p. 766).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_605" id="Foot_605" href="#Ref_605">[605]</a> -"Obsides poposcit sigillatim ab his qui optimates videbantur, secum in -Normannia ducendos, vadesque futuros tam comiti Andegavensi quam imperatrici -quod omnes, junctis umbonibus ab ea, dum ipse abesset, injurias propulsarent, -viribus suis apud Oxeneford manentes" (<i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. 764). -The phrase "junctis umbonibus" revives memories of the shield-wall. See -also Appendix S.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_606" id="Foot_606" href="#Ref_606">[606]</a> -"Civitatem ... ita comes Gloecestrie fossatis munierat, ut inexpugnabilis -præter per incendium videretur" (<i>ibid.</i>, p. 766).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_607" id="Foot_607" href="#Ref_607">[607]</a> -<i>Gesta</i>, pp. 87, 88.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_608" id="Foot_608" href="#Ref_608">[608]</a> -<i>Gesta</i>, p. 88.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_609" id="Foot_609" href="#Ref_609">[609]</a> -"Tribus diebus ante festum Sancti Michaelis" (<i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. 766).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_610" id="Foot_610" href="#Ref_610">[610]</a> -See the brilliant description of this action in the <i>Gesta Stephani</i>, -pp. 88, 89.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_611" id="Foot_611" href="#Ref_611">[611]</a> -"Mox igitur optimates quidem omnes imperatricis, confusi quia a -domina sua præter statutum abfuerant, confertis cuneis ad Walengeford convenerunt," -etc. (<i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. 766).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_612" id="Foot_612" href="#Ref_612">[612]</a> -Dr. Stubbs has erroneously placed his landing in 1141 instead of in the -autumn of 1142. See Appendix Y, on "The First and Second Visits of Henry -II. to England."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_613" id="Foot_613" href="#Ref_613">[613]</a> -<i>Will. Malms.</i>, pp. 767, 768.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_614" id="Foot_614" href="#Ref_614">[614]</a> -See, for the story of her romantic escape, the <i>Gesta Stephani</i> (pp. 89, 90), -<i>William of Malmesbury</i> (pp. 768, 769), <i>John of Hexham</i> (<i>Sym. Dun.</i>, ii. 317), -<i>William of Newburgh</i> (i. 43), and the <i>Anglo-Saxon Chronicle</i> (p. 384). This -last is of special value for its mention of her escape from the tower of the -castle. It states that Stephen "besæt hire in the tur," and that she was on -the night of her escape let down by ropes from the tower ("me læt hire dun -on niht of the tur mid rapes"). It is difficult to see how this can mean anything -else than that she was lowered to the ground from the existing tower, -instead of leaving by a gate.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_615" id="Foot_615" href="#Ref_615">[615]</a> -See his charter to Wallingford (printed in Hearne's <i>Liber Niger</i> (1771), -pp. 817, 818), in which he grants privileges "pro servitio et labore magno -quem pro me sustinuerunt in acquisitione hereditarii juris mei in Anglia."</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_201" id="Page_201">{201}</a></span> - -<h2>CHAPTER IX.<br /> -<small>FALL AND DEATH OF GEOFFREY.</small></h2> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">The</span> -movements of Geoffrey during the latter half of 1142 -are shrouded in utter darkness. After the surrender of -the isle of Ely, we lose sight of him altogether, save in -the glimpse afforded us by the Oxford intrigue. It is, -however, quite possible that we should assign to the period -of the siege of Oxford Castle (September-December, 1142) -a charter to Abingdon Abbey which passed at Oxford.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_616" id="Ref_616" href="#Foot_616">[616]</a></span> -For if we deduct from its eight witnesses the two local -barons (Walter de Bocland and Hugh de Bolbec), five of -the remaining six are found in the Canterbury charter.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_617" id="Ref_617" href="#Foot_617">[617]</a></span> -In that case, Geoffrey, who figures at their head, must -have been at Oxford, in Stephen's quarters, at some time -in the course of the siege. He would obviously not declare -for the Empress till the time was ripe for the scheme, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_202" id="Page_202">{202}</a></span> -and, in the meanwhile, it might disarm suspicion, and -secure his safety in the case of the capture or defeat of -the Empress, if he continued outwardly in full allegiance -to the king.</p> - -<p>It was not till the following year that the crisis at -length came. Stephen, at Mid-Lent, had attended a -council at London, at which decrees were passed against -the general disregard of the rights and privileges of the -Church. Her ministers were henceforth to be free from -outrage, and her sanctuaries from violation, under penalty -of an excommunication which only the pope himself could -remove.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_618" id="Ref_618" href="#Foot_618">[618]</a></span></p> - -<p>At some period in the course of the year (1143) after -this council—possibly about the end of September—the -king held a court at St. Albans, to which, it would seem, -there came the leading nobles of the realm.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_619" id="Ref_619" href="#Foot_619">[619]</a></span> Among them -was the Earl of Essex, still at the height of his power. -Of what passed on this occasion we have, from independent -quarters, several brief accounts.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_620" id="Ref_620" href="#Foot_620">[620]</a></span> Of the main fact there -is no question. Stephen, acting on that sudden impulse -which roused him at times to unwonted vigour, struck at -last, and struck home. The mighty earl was seized and -bound, and according to the regular practice throughout -this internecine warfare, the surrender of the castles on -which his strength was based was made the price of his -liberty. As with the arrest of the bishops at Oxford in -1139, so was it now with the arrest of the great earl at St. -Albans, and so it was again to be at Northampton, with -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_203" id="Page_203">{203}</a></span> -the arrest of the Earl of Chester some three years later. -What it was that decided Stephen to seize this moment -for thus reasserting his authority, it is not so easy to -say. William of Newburgh, who is fullest on the subject, -gives us the story, which is found nowhere else, of the -earl's outrage on the king more than three years before,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_621" id="Ref_621" href="#Foot_621">[621]</a></span> -and tells us that Stephen had been ever since awaiting -an opportunity for revenge.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_622" id="Ref_622" href="#Foot_622">[622]</a></span> He adds that the height of -power to which the earl had attained had filled the king -with dread, and hints, I think, obscurely at that great -conspiracy of which the earl, as we have seen, was the -pivot and the moving spirit.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_623" id="Ref_623" href="#Foot_623">[623]</a></span> Henry of Huntingdon -plainly asserts that his seizure was a necessity for the -king, who would otherwise have lost his crown through -the King-maker's treacherous schemes.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_624" id="Ref_624" href="#Foot_624">[624]</a></span> We may, indeed, -safely believe that the time had now come when Stephen -felt that it must be decided whether he or Geoffrey were -master.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_625" id="Ref_625" href="#Foot_625">[625]</a></span> But, as with the arrest of the bishops at Oxford -four years before, so, at this similar crisis, his own feelings -and his own jealousy of a power beneath which he chafed -were assiduously fostered and encouraged by a faction -among the nobles themselves. This is well brought out -in the Chronicle of Walden Abbey,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_626" id="Ref_626" href="#Foot_626">[626]</a></span> and still more so in -the <i>Gesta</i>. It is there distinctly asserted that this faction -worked upon the king, by reminding him of Geoffrey's -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_204" id="Page_204">{204}</a></span> -unparalleled power, and of his intention to declare for -the Empress, urging him to arrest the earl as a traitor, -to seize his castles and crush his power, and so to secure -safety for himself and peace for his troubled realm.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_627" id="Ref_627" href="#Foot_627">[627]</a></span> It -is added that, Stephen hesitating to take the decisive step, -the jealousy of the barons blazed forth suddenly into open -strife, taunts and threats being hurled at one another by -the earl and his infuriated opponents.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_628" id="Ref_628" href="#Foot_628">[628]</a></span> On the king -endeavouring to allay the tumult, the earl was charged -to his face with plotting treason. Called upon to rebut -the charge, he did not attempt to do so, but laughed with -cynical scorn. The king, outraged beyond endurance, at -once ordered his arrest, and his foes rushed upon him.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_629" id="Ref_629" href="#Foot_629">[629]</a></span></p> - -<p>The actual seizure of the earl appears to have been -attended by circumstances of which we are only informed -from a somewhat unexpected quarter. Mathew Paris, -from his connection with St. Albans, has been able to -preserve in his <i>Historia Anglorum</i> the local tradition of -the event. From this we learn, firstly, that there was a -struggle; secondly, that there was a flagrant violation of -the right of sanctuary. The struggle, indeed, was so -sharp that the Earl of Arundel, whom we know to have -been an old opponent of Geoffrey (see p. 323), was rolled -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_205" id="Page_205">{205}</a></span> -over, horse and all, and nearly drowned in "Holywell." -The fact that this tussle took place in the open would -seem to imply that the whole of this highly dramatic -episode took place out of doors.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_630" id="Ref_630" href="#Foot_630">[630]</a></span> As to the other of these -two points, it is clear that there was something discreditable -to Stephen, according to the opinion of the time, in -his sudden seizure of the earl. William of Newburgh -observes that he acted "non quidem honeste et secundum -jus gentium, sed pro merito ejus et metu; scilicet, quod -expediret quam quod deceret plus attendens." Henry of -Huntingdon similarly writes that such a step was "magis -secundum retributionem nequitiæ consulis quam secundum -jus gentium, magis ex necessitate quam ex honestate."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_631" id="Ref_631" href="#Foot_631">[631]</a></span> -The Chronicle of Walden, also, complains of the circumstances -of his arrest;<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_632" id="Ref_632" href="#Foot_632">[632]</a></span> and even the panegyrist of Stephen -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_206" id="Page_206">{206}</a></span> -is anxious to clear his fame by imputing to the barons the -suggestion of what he admits to be a questionable act, and -claiming for the king the credit of reluctance to adopt -their advice.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_633" id="Ref_633" href="#Foot_633">[633]</a></span></p> - -<p>But there was a more serious charge brought against -the king than that of dishonourable behaviour to the earl. -He was accused of violating by his conduct the rights of -sanctuary of St. Albans, though he had sworn, we are -told, not to do so, and had taken part so shortly before -in that council of London at which such violations were -denounced. The abbot's knights, indeed, went so far as -to resist by force of arms this outrage on the Church's -rights.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_634" id="Ref_634" href="#Foot_634">[634]</a></span> It is clearly to the contest thus caused, rather -than (as implied by Mathew) to the actual arrest of -Geoffrey, that we must assign the struggle in which the -Earl of Arundel was unhorsed by Walchelin de Oxeai, for -Walchelin was one of the abbey's knights, and was, therefore, -fighting in her cause.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_635" id="Ref_635" href="#Foot_635">[635]</a></span></p> - -<p>Though the friends of the earl interceded on his -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_207" id="Page_207">{207}</a></span> -behalf,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_636" id="Ref_636" href="#Foot_636">[636]</a></span> the king had no alternative but to complete what -he had begun. After what he had done there could be no -hope of reconciliation with the earl. Geoffrey was offered -the usual choice; either he must surrender his castles, or -he must go to the gallows. Taken to London, he was -clearly made, according to the practice in these cases, to -order his own garrison to surrender to the king. Thus he -saw the fortress which he had himself done so much to -strengthen, the source of his power and of his pride, pass -for ever from his grasp. He had also to surrender, before -regaining his freedom, his ancestral Essex strongholds of -Pleshy and Saffron Walden.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_637" id="Ref_637" href="#Foot_637">[637]</a></span></p> - -<p>The earl's impotent rage when he found himself thus -overreached is dwelt on by all the chroniclers.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_638" id="Ref_638" href="#Foot_638">[638]</a></span> The king's -move, moreover, had now forced his hand, and the revolt -so carefully planned could no longer be delayed, but broke -out prematurely at a time when the Empress was not in -a position to offer effective co-operation.</p> - -<p>We must now return to the doings of Nigel, Bishop of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_208" id="Page_208">{208}</a></span> -Ely. That prelate had for a year (1142-43) been peacefully -occupied in his see. But at the council of 1143 his -past conduct had been gravely impugned. Alarmed at -the turn affairs were taking, he decided to consult the -Empress.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_639" id="Ref_639" href="#Foot_639">[639]</a></span> He must, I think, have gone by sea, for we -find him, on his way at Wareham, the port for reaching -her in Wiltshire. Here he was surprised and plundered -by a party of the king's men.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_640" id="Ref_640" href="#Foot_640">[640]</a></span> He succeeded, however, -in reaching the Empress, and then returned to Ely. He -had now resolved to appeal to the pope in person, a -resolve quickened, it may be, by the fact that the legate, -who was one of his chief opponents, had gone thither in -November (1143). With great difficulty, and after long -debate, he prevailed on the monks to let him carry off, -from among the remaining treasures of the church, a large -amount of those precious objects without the assistance -of which, especially in a doubtful cause, it would have been -but lost labour to appeal to the heir of the Apostles. As -it was Pope Lucius before whom he successfully cleared -his character, and as Lucius was not elected till the March -of the following year (1144), I have placed his departure -for Rome subsequent to that of the legate. He may, of -course, have arrived there sooner and applied to Cœlestine -without success, but as that pontiff favoured the Empress, -this is not probable. Indeed, the wording of the narrative -is distinctly opposed to the idea.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_641" id="Ref_641" href="#Foot_641">[641]</a></span> In any case, my object -is to show that the period of his absence abroad harmonizes -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_209" id="Page_209">{209}</a></span> -well with the London Chronicle, which places -Geoffrey's revolt about the end of the year. For the -bishop had been gone some time when the earl obtained -possession of Ely.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_642" id="Ref_642" href="#Foot_642">[642]</a></span></p> - -<p>Hugh Bigod, the Earl of Norfolk, whose allegiance -had ever sat lightly upon him, appears to have eventually -become his ally,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_643" id="Ref_643" href="#Foot_643">[643]</a></span> but for the time we hear only of his -brother-in-law, William de Say, as actively embracing his -cause.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_644" id="Ref_644" href="#Foot_644">[644]</a></span> He must, however, have relied on at least the -friendly neutrality of his relatives, the Clares and the -De Veres, in Cambridgeshire, Suffolk, and Essex, as well -as on the loyalty of his own vassals. It is possible, from -scattered sources, to trace his plan of action, and to reconstruct -the outline of what we may term the fenland -campaign.</p> - -<p>Fordham, in Cambridgeshire, on the Suffolk border, -appears to have been his base of operations. Here supplies -could reach him from Suffolk and North Essex. He was -thence enabled to advance to Ely, the bishop being at this -time absent at Rome, and his forces being hard pressed -by those which Stephen had despatched against them. -The earl gladly accepted their appeal to himself for -assistance, and was placed by them in possession of the -isle, including its key, Aldreth Castle.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_645" id="Ref_645" href="#Foot_645">[645]</a></span> He soon made -a further advance, and, pushing on in the same direction, -burst upon Ramsey Abbey on a December<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_646" id="Ref_646" href="#Foot_646">[646]</a></span> morning at -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_210" id="Page_210">{210}</a></span> -daybreak, seized the monks in their beds, drove them forth -clad as they were, and turned the abbey into a fortified -post.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_647" id="Ref_647" href="#Foot_647">[647]</a></span></p> - -<p>He was probably led to this step by the confusion then -reigning among the brethren. A certain scheming monk, -Daniel by name, had induced the abbot to resign in his -favour. The resignation was indignantly repudiated by -the monks and the tenants of the abbey, but Stephen, -bribed by Daniel, had visited Ramsey in person, and -installed him by force as abbot only eighteen days before -the earl's attack.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_648" id="Ref_648" href="#Foot_648">[648]</a></span> It is, therefore, quite possible that, as -stated in the Walden Chronicle, Daniel may have been -privy to this gross outrage. In any case the earl's -conduct excited universal indignation.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_649" id="Ref_649" href="#Foot_649">[649]</a></span> He stabled his -horses in the cloisters; he plundered the church of its -most sacred treasures; he distributed its manors among -his lawless followers, and he then sent them forth to -ravage far and wide. In short, in the words of the pious -chronicler, he made of the church of God a very den of -thieves.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_650" id="Ref_650" href="#Foot_650">[650]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_211" id="Page_211">{211}</a></span> -But for the time these same enormities enabled the -daring earl at once to increase the number of his followers -and to acquire a strategical position unrivalled for his -purpose. The soldiers of fortune and mercenary troopers -who now swarmed throughout the land flocked in crowds -to his standard, and he was soon at the head of a sufficient -force to undertake offensive operations.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_651" id="Ref_651" href="#Foot_651">[651]</a></span> From his advanced -post at Ramsey Abbey, he was within striking -distance of several important points, while himself comparatively -safe from attack. His front and right flank -were covered by the meres and fens; his left was to some -extent protected by the Ouse and its tributaries, and was -further strengthened by a fortified work, erected by his son -Ernulf at one of the abbey's manors, Wood Walton.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_652" id="Ref_652" href="#Foot_652">[652]</a></span> In -his rear lay the isle of Ely, with its castles in the hands -of his men, and its communications with the Eastern -Counties secured by his garrison at Fordham.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_653" id="Ref_653" href="#Foot_653">[653]</a></span> His positions -at Ely and Ramsey were themselves connected by a -garrison, on the borders of the two counties, at Benwick.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_654" id="Ref_654" href="#Foot_654">[654]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_212" id="Page_212">{212}</a></span> -Thus situated, the earl was enabled to indulge his -thirst for vengeance, if not on Stephen himself, at least -on his unfortunate subjects. From his fastness in the -fenland he raided forth; his course was marked by wild -havoc, and he returned laden with plunder.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_655" id="Ref_655" href="#Foot_655">[655]</a></span></p> - -<p>Cambridge, as being the king's town, underwent at his -hands the same fate that Nottingham had suffered in -1140, or Worcester in 1139, at the hands of the Earl of -Gloucester.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_656" id="Ref_656" href="#Foot_656">[656]</a></span> Bursting suddenly on the town, he surprised, -seized, and sacked it. As at Worcester, the -townsmen had stored in the churches such property as -they could; but the earl was hardened to sacrilege: the -doors were soon crashing beneath the axes of his eager -troopers, and when they had pillaged to their hearts' -content, the town was committed to the flames.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_657" id="Ref_657" href="#Foot_657">[657]</a></span> The -whole country round was the scene of similar deeds.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_658" id="Ref_658" href="#Foot_658">[658]</a></span> -The humblest village church was not safe from his -attack,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_659" id="Ref_659" href="#Foot_659">[659]</a></span> but the religious houses, from their own wealth, -and from the accumulated treasures which, for safety, -were then stored within their walls, offered the most -alluring prize. It is only from the snatch of a popular -rhyme that we learn incidentally the fact that St. Ives -was treated even as the abbey of which it was a daughter-house. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_213" id="Page_213">{213}</a></span> -In a MS. of the <i>Historia Anglorum</i> there is preserved -by Mathew Paris the tradition that the earl and -his lawless followers mockingly sang of their wild doings—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - -<div class="verse quote1">"I ne mai a live</div> -<div class="verse">For Benoit ne for Ive."<span class="fnanchor"><a - name="Ref_660" id="Ref_660" href="#Foot_660">[660]</a></span></div> - -</div> -</div> - -<p class="nodent">It may not have been observed that this jingle refers -to St. Benedict of Ramsey and its daughter-house of -St. Ives.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_661" id="Ref_661" href="#Foot_661">[661]</a></span></p> - -<p>Emboldened by success, he extended his ravages, till -his deeds could no longer be ignored.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_662" id="Ref_662" href="#Foot_662">[662]</a></span> Stephen, at -length fairly roused, marched in strength against him, -determined to suppress the revolt. But the earl, skilfully -avoiding an encounter in the open field, took refuge in -the depths of the fenland and baffled the efforts of the -king. Finding it useless to prolong the chase, Stephen -fell back on his usual policy of establishing fortified posts -to hem the rebels in. In these he placed garrisons, and -so departed.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_663" id="Ref_663" href="#Foot_663">[663]</a></span></p> - -<p>Geoffrey was now at his worst. Checked in extending -his sphere of plunder, he ravaged, with redoubled energy, -the isle itself. His tools, disguised as beggars, wandered -from door to door, to discover those who were still able -to relieve them from their scanty stores. The hapless -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_214" id="Page_214">{214}</a></span> -victims of this stratagem were seized at dead of night, -dragged before the earl as a great prize, and exposed in -turn to every torture that a devilish ingenuity could devise -till the ransom demanded by their captors had been -extorted to the uttermost farthing.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_664" id="Ref_664" href="#Foot_664">[664]</a></span> I cannot but think -that the terrible picture of the cruelties which have made -this period memorable for ever in our history was painted -by the Peterborough chronicler from life, and that these -very doings in his own neighbourhood inspired his imperishable -words.</p> - -<p>Nor was it only the earl that the brethren of Ely had -to fear. Stephen, infuriated at the loss of the isle, laid -the blame at their bishop's door, and seized all those of -their possessions which were not within the earl's grasp. -The monks, thus placed "between the devil and the deep -sea," were indeed at their wits' end.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_665" id="Ref_665" href="#Foot_665">[665]</a></span> A very interesting -reference to this condition of things is found in a communication -from the pope to Archbishop Theobald, stating -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_215" id="Page_215">{215}</a></span> -that Bishop Nigel of Ely has written to complain that -he found on his return from Rome that Earl Geoffrey, in -his absence, had seized and fortified the isle, and ravaged -the possessions of his church within it, while Stephen had -done the same for those which lay without it. As it -would seem that this document has not been printed, I -here append the passage:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Venerabilis frater noster N. elyensis episcopus per literas suas -nobis significavit quod dum apostolicorum limina et nostram presentiam -visitasset, Gaufridus comes de mandeuilla elyensem insulam ubi -sedes episcopalis est violenter occupavit et quasdam sibi munitiones -in ea parauit. Occupatis autem ab ipso comite interioribus, Stephanus -rex omnes ejusdem ecclesie possessiones exteriores occupavit et -pro voluntate sua illicite distribuit."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_666" id="Ref_666" href="#Foot_666">[666]</a></span></p> - -<p>This letter would seem to have been written subsequent -to Nigel's return. The bishop, however, had heard while -at Rome of these violent proceedings,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_667" id="Ref_667" href="#Foot_667">[667]</a></span> and had prevailed -on Lucius to write to Theobald and his fellow-bishops, -complaining—</p> - -<p class="small">"Quod a quibusdam parrochianis vestris bona et possessiones -elyensis ecclesie, precipue dum ipse ab episcopatu expulsus esset, -direpta sunt et occupata et contra justitiam teneantur. Quidam -etiam sub nomine <i>tenseriarum</i> villas et homines suos spoliant et -injustis operationibus et exaccionibus opprimunt."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_668" id="Ref_668" href="#Foot_668">[668]</a></span></p> - -<p>But the bishop was not the only sufferer who turned -to Rome for help. When Stephen installed the ambitious -Daniel as Abbot of Ramsey in person, Walter, the late -abbot, had sought "the threshold of the Apostles." -Daniel, whether implicated or not in Geoffrey's sacrilegious -deeds, found himself virtually deposed when the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_216" id="Page_216">{216}</a></span> -abbey became a fortress of the earl. Alarmed also for -the possible consequence of Walter's appeal to Rome, he -resolved to follow his example and betake himself to the -pope, trusting to the treasure that he was able to bring.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_669" id="Ref_669" href="#Foot_669">[669]</a></span> -The guileless simplicity of Walter, however, carried the -day; he found favour in the eyes of the curia and returned -to claim his abbey.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_670" id="Ref_670" href="#Foot_670">[670]</a></span> But though he had been absent only -three months, the scene was changed indeed. That which -he had left "the House of God," he found, as we have -seen, "a den of thieves." But the "dove" who had -pleaded before the papal court could show himself, at need, -a lion. Filled, we are told, with the Holy Spirit, he -entered, undaunted, the earl's camp, seized a flaming -torch, and set fire not only to the tents of his troopers, -but also to the outer gate of the abbey, which they had -made the barbican of their stronghold. But neither this -novel adaptation of the orthodox "tongues of fire," nor -yet the more appropriate anathemas which he scattered -as freely as the flames, could convert the mailed sinners -from the error of their unhallowed ways. Indeed, it was -almost a miracle that he escaped actual violence, for the -enraged soldiery threatened him with death and brandished -their weapons in his face.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_671" id="Ref_671" href="#Foot_671">[671]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_217" id="Page_217">{217}</a></span> -In the excited state of the minds of those by whom -such sights were witnessed, portents would be looked for, -and found, as signs of the wrath of Heaven. Before long -it was noised abroad that the very walls of the abbey were -sweating blood, as a mark of Divine reprobation on the -deeds of its impious garrison.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_672" id="Ref_672" href="#Foot_672">[672]</a></span> Far and wide the story -spread; and men told with bated breath how they had -themselves seen and touched the abbey's bleeding walls. -Among those attracted by the wondrous sight was Henry, -Archdeacon of Huntingdon, who has recorded for all time -that he beheld it with his own eyes.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_673" id="Ref_673" href="#Foot_673">[673]</a></span> And as they spoke -to one another of the miracle, in which they saw the finger -of God, the starving peasants whispered their hopes that -the hour of their deliverance was at hand.</p> - -<p>The time, indeed, had come. As the now homeless -abbot wandered over the abbey's lands, sick at heart, in -weariness and want, the sights that met his despairing -eyes were enough to make him long for death.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_674" id="Ref_674" href="#Foot_674">[674]</a></span> Barely -a plough remained on all his broad demesnes; all provisions -had been carried off; no man tilled the land. -Every lord had now his castle, and every castle was a -robber's nest.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_675" id="Ref_675" href="#Foot_675">[675]</a></span> In vain he boldly appealed to Earl -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_218" id="Page_218">{218}</a></span> -Geoffrey himself, warning him to his face that he and his -would remain cut off from the communion of Christians -till the abbey was restored to its owners. The earl listened -with impatience, and gave him a vague promise; but he -kept his hold of the abbey.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_676" id="Ref_676" href="#Foot_676">[676]</a></span> The heart of the spoiler was -hardened like that of Pharaoh of old, and not even -miracles could move him to part with his precious -stronghold.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_677" id="Ref_677" href="#Foot_677">[677]</a></span></p> - -<p>But if Ramsey had thus suffered, what had been the -fate of Ely? A bad harvest, combined with months of -systematic plunder, had brought about a famine in the -land. For the space of twenty or even thirty miles, -neither ox nor plough was to be seen; barely could the -smallest bushel of grain he bought for two hundred pence. -The people, by hundreds and thousands, were perishing -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_219" id="Page_219">{219}</a></span> -for want of bread, and their corpses lay unburied in the -fields, a prey to beasts and to fowls of the air. Not for -ages past, as it seemed to the monks, had there been such -tribulation upon earth.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_678" id="Ref_678" href="#Foot_678">[678]</a></span> Nor were the peasants the only -sufferers. Might was then right, for all classes, throughout -the land;<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_679" id="Ref_679" href="#Foot_679">[679]</a></span> the smaller gentry were themselves seized, and -held, by their captors, to ransom. As they heard of -distant villages in flames, as they gazed on strings of -captives dragged from their ravaged homes, the words of -the psalmist were adapted in the mouths of the terrified -monks: "They bind the godly with chains, and the nobles -with links of iron."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_680" id="Ref_680" href="#Foot_680">[680]</a></span> In the mad orgie of wickedness -neither women nor the aged were spared. Ransom was -wrung from the quivering victims by a thousand refinements -of torture. In the groans of the sufferers, in the -shrieks of the tortured, men beheld the fulfilment of the -words of St. John the Apostle, "In those days shall men -... desire to die, and death shall flee from them."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_681" id="Ref_681" href="#Foot_681">[681]</a></span></p> - -<p>Again we are tempted to ask if we have not in these -very scenes the actual original from which was drawn the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_220" id="Page_220">{220}</a></span> -picture in the English Chronicle, a picture which might -thus be literally true of the chronicler's own district, -while not necessarily applicable, as the latest research -suggests, to the whole of Stephen's realm.</p> - -<p>It was now that men "said openly that Christ slept, -and His saints." The English chronicler seems to imply, -and Henry of Huntingdon distinctly asserts, that the -wicked, emboldened by impunity, said so in scornful -derision; but William of Newburgh assigns the cry to -the sufferings of a despairing people. It is probable -enough that both were right, that the people and their -oppressors had reversed the parts of Elijah and the -priests of Baal. For a time there seemed to rise in vain -the cry so quaintly Englished in the paraphrase of John -Hopkins:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - -<div class="verse quote1">"Why doost withdraw thy hand aback,</div> -<div class="verse indent2">And hide it in thy lappe?</div> -<div class="verse">O pluck it out, and be not slack</div> -<div class="verse indent2">To give thy foes a rappe!"</div> - -</div> -</div> - -<p class="nodent">But when night is darkest, dawn is nearest,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_682" id="Ref_682" href="#Foot_682">[682]</a></span> and the end -of the oppressor was at hand. It was told in after days -how even Nature herself had shown, by a visible sign, -her horror of his impious deeds. While marching to the -siege of Burwell on a hot summer's day, he halted at the -edge of a wood, and lay down for rest in the shade. -And lo! the very grass withered away beneath the touch -of his unhallowed form!<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_683" id="Ref_683" href="#Foot_683">[683]</a></span></p> - -<p>The fortified post which the king's men had now established -at Burwell was a standing threat to Fordham, the -key of his line of communications. He was therefore -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_221" id="Page_221">{221}</a></span> -compelled to attack it. And there he was destined to die -the death of Richard Cœur de Lion. As he reconnoitred -the position to select his point of attack, or as, according -to others, he was fighting at the head of the troops, he -carelessly removed his headpiece and loosened his coat -of mail. A humble bowman saw his chance: an arrow -whizzed from the fortress, and struck the unguarded head.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_684" id="Ref_684" href="#Foot_684">[684]</a></span></p> - -<p>There is a conflict of testimony as to the date of the -event. Henry of Huntingdon places it in August, while -M. Paris (<i>Chron. Maj.</i>, ii. 177) makes him die on the 14th -of September, and the Walden Chronicle on the 16th. -Possibly he was wounded in August and lingered on into -September, but, in any case, Henry's date is the most -trustworthy.</p> - -<p>The monks of Ramsey gloried in the fact that their -oppressor had received his fatal wound as he stood on -ground which their abbey owned, as a manifest proof that -his fate was incurred by the wrong he had done to their -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_222" id="Page_222">{222}</a></span> -patron saint.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_685" id="Ref_685" href="#Foot_685">[685]</a></span> At Waltham Abbey, with equal pride, it -was recorded that he who had refused to atone for the -wrong he had done to its holy cross received his wound -in the self-same hour in which its aid was invoked against -the oppressor of its shrine.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_686" id="Ref_686" href="#Foot_686">[686]</a></span> But all were agreed that -such a death was a direct answer to the prayer of the -oppressed, a signal act of Divine vengeance on one who -had sinned against God and man.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_687" id="Ref_687" href="#Foot_687">[687]</a></span></p> - -<p>For the wound was fatal. The earl, like Richard in -after days, made light of it at first.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_688" id="Ref_688" href="#Foot_688">[688]</a></span> Retiring, it would -seem, through Fordham, along the Thetford road, he -reached Mildenhall in Suffolk, and there he remained, to -die. The monks of his own foundation believed, and perhaps -with truth, that when face to face with death, he -displayed heartfelt penitence, prayed earnestly that his -sins might he forgiven, and made such atonement to God -and man as his last moments could afford. But there -was none to give him the absolution he craved; indeed, -after the action which the Church had taken the year -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_223" id="Page_223">{223}</a></span> -before, it is doubtful if any one but the pope could absolve -so great a sinner.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_689" id="Ref_689" href="#Foot_689">[689]</a></span></p> - -<p>In the mean time the Abbot of Ramsey heard the startling -news, and saw that his chance had come. The earl -might be willing to save his soul at the cost of restoring -the abbey. To Mildenhall he flew in all haste, but only -to find that the earl had already lost consciousness. There -awaited him, however, the fruit of his oppressor's tardy -repentance in the form of instructions from the earl to -his son to surrender Ramsey Abbey. Armed with these, -the abbot departed as speedily as he had come.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_690" id="Ref_690" href="#Foot_690">[690]</a></span></p> - -<p>The tragic end of the great earl must have filled the -thoughts of men with a strange awe and horror. That -one who had rivalled, but a year ago, the king himself in -power, should meet an inglorious death at the hands of a -wretched churl, that he who had defied the thunders of the -Church should fall as if by a bolt from heaven, were facts -which, in the highly wrought state of the minds of men at -the time, were indeed signs and wonders.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_691" id="Ref_691" href="#Foot_691">[691]</a></span> But even more -tragic than his death was the fate which awaited his -corpse. Unshriven, he had passed away laden with the -curses of the Church. His soul was lost for ever; and his -body no man might bury.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_692" id="Ref_692" href="#Foot_692">[692]</a></span> As the earl was drawing his -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_224" id="Page_224">{224}</a></span> -last breath there came upon the scene some Knights -Templar, who flung over him the garb of their order so -that he might at least die with the red cross upon his -breast.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_693" id="Ref_693" href="#Foot_693">[693]</a></span> Then, proud in the privileges of their order, they -carried the remains to London, to their "Old Temple" in -Holborn. There the earl's corpse was enclosed in a leaden -coffin, which was hung, say some, on a gnarled fruit tree, -that it might not contaminate the earth, or was hurled, -according to others, into a pit without the churchyard.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_694" id="Ref_694" href="#Foot_694">[694]</a></span> -So it remained, for nearly twenty years, exposed to the -gibes of the Londoners, the earl's "deadly foes." But -with the characteristic faithfulness of a monastic house -to its founder, the monks of Walden clung to the hope -that the ban of the Church might yet be removed, and the -bones of the great earl be suffered to rest among them. -According to their chronicle, Prior William, who had -obtained his post from Geoffrey's hands, rested not till -he had wrung his absolution from Pope Alexander III.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_695" id="Ref_695" href="#Foot_695">[695]</a></span> -(1159-1181). But the <i>Ramsey Chronicle</i>, which appears -to be a virtually contemporary record, assigns the eventual -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_225" id="Page_225">{225}</a></span> -removal of the ban to Geoffrey's son and namesake, and -to the atonement which he made to Ramsey Abbey on his -father's behalf.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_696" id="Ref_696" href="#Foot_696">[696]</a></span> The latter story is most precise, but -both may well be true. For, although the Ramsey -chronicler would more especially insist on the fact that -St. Benedict had to be appeased before the earl could be -absolved, the absolution itself would be given not by the -abbot, but by the pope. The grant to Ramsey would be -merely a condition of the absolution itself being granted. -The nature of the grant is known to us not only from the -chronicle, but also from the primate's charter confirming -this final settlement.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_697" id="Ref_697" href="#Foot_697">[697]</a></span> As this confirmation is dated at -Windsor, April 6, 1163, we thus, roughly, obtain the date -of the earl's Christian burial.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_698" id="Ref_698" href="#Foot_698">[698]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_226" id="Page_226">{226}</a></span> -The Prior of Walden had gained his end, and he now -hastened to the Temple to claim his patron's remains. -But his hopes were cruelly frustrated at the very moment -of success. Just as the body of the then earl (1163) was -destined to be coveted at his death (1166) by two rival -houses, so now the remains of his father were a prize -which the indignant Templars would never thus surrender. -Warned of the prior's coming, they instantly seized the -coffin, and buried it at once in their new graveyard, where, -around the nameless resting-place of the great champion -of anarchy, there was destined to rise, in later days, the -home of English law.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_699" id="Ref_699" href="#Foot_699">[699]</a></span></p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_616" id="Foot_616" href="#Ref_616">[616]</a> -<i>Chronicle of Abingdon</i>, ii. 178, 179. Assigned to "probably about the -Christmas of 1135" (p. 542).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_617" id="Foot_617" href="#Ref_617">[617]</a> -See p. 143. They are Earl Geoffrey, Robert de Ver, William of Ypres, -Adam "de Belnaio," and Richard de Luci. The sixth, "Mainfeninus -Brito," we have seen attesting Stephen's first charter to Geoffrey in 1140 -(p. 52). Another charter, perhaps, may also be assigned to this period, -namely, that of Stephen (at Oxford) to St. Frideswide's, of which the original -is now preserved in the Bodleian Library. For this, as for the preceding -charter, the date suggested is 1135 (<i>Calendar of Charters and Rolls</i>), but the -names of William of Ypres and Richard de Luci prove that this date is too -early. These names, with that of Robert de Ver, are common to both -charters, and if Richard de Luci's earliest attestation is in the summer of -1140, it is quite possible that this charter should be assigned to the siege -of 1142.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_618" id="Foot_618" href="#Ref_618">[618]</a> -<i>Rog. Wend.</i>, ii. 233; <i>Mat. Paris</i> (<i>Hist. Angl.</i>), i. 270; <i>Hen. Hunt.</i>, p. 276.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_619" id="Foot_619" href="#Ref_619">[619]</a> -No clue to this date, important though it is for our story, is afforded -by any of the ordinary chroniclers. The London Chronicle, however, preserved -in the <i>Liber de Antiquis Legibus</i> (fol. 35), carefully dates it "post -festum Sancti Michaelis."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_620" id="Foot_620" href="#Ref_620">[620]</a> -<i>Mon. Ang.</i>, iv. 142; <i>Mat. Paris</i> (<i>Hist. Angl.</i>), i. 270, 271; <i>William of -Newburgh</i>, cap. xi.; <i>Gesta Stephani</i>, pp. 103, 104; <i>Hen. Hunt.</i>, p. 276.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_621" id="Foot_621" href="#Ref_621">[621]</a> -See p. 47.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_622" id="Foot_622" href="#Ref_622">[622]</a> -"Acceptam ab eo injuriam rex caute dissimulabat, et tempus opportunum -quo se ulcisceretur, observabat."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_623" id="Foot_623" href="#Ref_623">[623]</a> -"Subtili astutia ingentia moliens."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_624" id="Foot_624" href="#Ref_624">[624]</a> -"Nisi enim hoc egisset, perfidia consulis illius regno privatus fuisset."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_625" id="Foot_625" href="#Ref_625">[625]</a> -Compare the words of the <i>Gesta</i>: "Ubique per regnum regis vices -adimplens et in rebus agendis rege avidius exaudiretur et in præceptis -injungendis plus ei quam regi obtemperaretur."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_626" id="Foot_626" href="#Ref_626">[626]</a> -"Tandem vero a quibusdam regni majoribus, stimulante invidia, iniqua -loquentibus, quasi regis proditor ac patriæ dilator erga regem mendaciter -clanculo accusatus est.... Vir autem iste magnanimus subdola malignantium -fraude, ut jam dictum est, delusus" (<i>Mon. Ang.</i>, iv. 142).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_627" id="Foot_627" href="#Ref_627">[627]</a> -"Tum quia Galfridus, ut videbatur, omnia regni jura sibi callide -usurparat, tum quia regnum ut in ore jam vulgi celebre fuerat, comitissæ -Andegavensi conferre disposuerat, ad hoc regem secreta persuasione impulerunt, -quatinus Galfridum de proditionis infamia notatum caperet, et redditis -quæcunque possederat castellis, et rex post hinc securus, et regnum ipsius -haberetur pacatius" (<i>Gesta</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_628" id="Foot_628" href="#Ref_628">[628]</a> -"Rege multo tempore differente, ne regia majestas turpi proditionis -opprobrio infameretur, subito inter Galfridum et barones, injuriis et minis -utrinque protensis, orta seditio" (<i>ibid.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_629" id="Foot_629" href="#Ref_629">[629]</a> -"Cumque rex habitam inter eos dissensionem, sedatis partibus, niteretur -dirimere, affuerunt quidam, qui Galfridum de proditionis factione in se et -suos machinatâ, libera fronte accusabant. Cumque se de objecto crimine -minime purgaret, sed turpissimam infamiam verbis jocosis alludendo -infringeret, rex et qui præsentes erant Barones Galfridum et suos repente -ceperunt" (<i>ibid.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_630" id="Foot_630" href="#Ref_630">[630]</a> -This story, being told by Mathew Paris alone, and evidently as a -matter of tradition, must be accepted with considerable caution. He makes -the singular and careless mistake of speaking of Earl Geoffrey as William -(<i>sic</i>) de Mandeville, though he properly terms him, the following year, -"Gaufridus consul de Mandeville." On the other hand, it is possible to -apply a test which yields not unsatisfactory results. Mathew tells us that -the Earl of Arundel was unhorsed "a Walkelino de Oxeai [<i>alias</i> Oxehaie] -milite strenuissimo." Now there was, contemporary with Mathew himself, -a certain Richard "de Oxeya," who held by knight-service of St. Albans -Abbey, and who, in 1245, was jointly responsible with "Petronilla de -Crokesle" for the service of one knight (<i>Chron. Majora</i>, vi. 437). Turning -to a list of the abbey's knights, which is dated by the editor in the Rolls -Series as "1258," but which is quite certainly some hundred years earlier, -we find this same knight's fee held jointly by Richard "de Crokesle" and a -certain "Walchelinus." Here then we may perhaps recognize that very -"Walchelinus de Oxeai" who figures in Mathew's story, a story which -Richard "de Oxeya" may have told him as a family tradition. Indeed, -there is evidence to prove that this identification is correct.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_631" id="Foot_631" href="#Ref_631">[631]</a> -The coincidence of language between these two passages, beginning -respectively "eodem tempore" and "eodem anno," ought to be noticed, for -it has been overlooked by Mr. Howlett in his valuable edition of William -of Newburgh for the Rolls Series, though he notes those on p. 34 before it, -and on p. 48 after it, in his instructive remarks on the indebtedness of -William of Newburgh to others (p. xxvi.).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_632" id="Foot_632" href="#Ref_632">[632]</a> -"Vir iste nobilis, cæteris in pace recedentibus, solus, rege jubente, -fraudulenter comprehensus, et, ne abiret, custodibus designatis, detentus -est" (<i>Mon. Ang.</i>, iv. 142).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_633" id="Foot_633" href="#Ref_633">[633]</a> -"Ne regia majestas turpi proditionis opprobio infamaretur."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_634" id="Foot_634" href="#Ref_634">[634]</a> -"Milites autem beati Albani, qui tunc, ad ecclesiæ ejus custodiam et -villæ fossatis circumdatæ, ipsum vicum, qui juxta cænobium est, inhabitabant, -ipsi regi in faciem viriliter restiterunt, donec ecclesiæ, quam quidam ex -regiis ædituis violaverant, satisfecisset ipse rex, et ejus temerarii invasores.... -Et hoc fecit rex contra jusjurandum, quod fecerat apud Sanctum -Albanum, et contra statuta concilii nuper, eo consentiente, celebrati" -(Mathew Paris, <i>Historia Anglorum</i>, i. 271).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_635" id="Foot_635" href="#Ref_635">[635]</a> -An incidental allusion to this conflict between the followers of the king -and the abbey's knights is to be found, I think, in a curious passage in the -<i>Gesta Abbatum S. Albani</i> (i. 94). We there read of Abbot Geoffrey (1119-1146): -"Tabulam quoque unam ex auro et argento et gemmis electis -artificiose constructam ad longitudinem et latitudinem altaris Sancti Albani, -quam deinde, ingruente maxima necessitate, idem Abbas in igne conflavit et -in massam confregit. Quam dedit Comiti de Warrena et Willelmo de Ypra -et Comiti de Arundel et Willelmo Martel, temporibus Regis Stephani, <i>Villam -Sancti Albani volentibus concremare</i>." The conjunction of William of Ypres -with Abbot Geoffrey dates this incident within the limits 1139-1146, and -there is no episode to which it can be so fitly assigned as this of 1143, -especially as the Earl of Arundel figures in both versions.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_636" id="Foot_636" href="#Ref_636">[636]</a> -"Et licet multi amicorum suorum, talia ei injuste illata ægre ferentium, -pro eo regem interpellarent" (<i>Mon. Ang.</i>, iv. 142).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_637" id="Foot_637" href="#Ref_637">[637]</a> -"Rex igitur Galfridum, custodiis arctissime adhibitis, Londonias -adducens, ni turrim et quæ miro labore et artificio erexerat castella in manus -ejus committeret, suspendio cruciari paravit; cum salubri amicorum persuasus -consilio, ut imminens inhonestæ mortis periculum, castellis redditis, devitaret, -regis voluntati tandem satisfecit" (<i>Gesta</i>, p. 104). "Igitur, ut rex liberaret -eum reddidit ei turrim Lundoniæ et castellum de Waledene et illud de -Plaisseiz" (<i>Hen. Hunt.</i>, p. 276). "Eique arcem Lundoniensem cum duobus -reliquis quæ possidebat castellis extorsit [rex]" (<i>W. Newburgh</i>, i. 45). The -castle of (Saffron) Walden, with the surrounding district, was placed by -Stephen in charge of Turgis d'Avranches, whom we have met with before, -and who refused, some two years later, to admit the king to it (<i>Gesta</i>, ed. -Howlett, p. 101). Mr. Howlett appears to have confused it with another -castle which Stephen took "in the Lent of 1139," for Walden was Geoffrey's -hereditary seat and had always been in his hands.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_638" id="Foot_638" href="#Ref_638">[638]</a> -"Regnique totius communem ad jacturam, tali modo liberatus de medio -illorum evasit" (<i>Gesta</i>, p. 104). "Quo facto, velut equus validus et infrænis, -morsibus, calcibus quoslibet obvios dilaniare non cessavit" (<i>Mon. Ang.</i>, -iv. 142).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_639" id="Foot_639" href="#Ref_639">[639]</a> -"Episcopus vero Elyensis pro tam imminenti sibi negotio auxilium -Dominæ Imperatricis et suorum colloquium requirendum putavit" (<i>Anglia -Sacra</i>, i. 622).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_640" id="Foot_640" href="#Ref_640">[640]</a> -This might lead us to suppose that the incident belonged to the latter -half of 1142, when Wareham was in the king's hands. The date (1143), -however, cannot be in question.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_641" id="Foot_641" href="#Ref_641">[641]</a> -<i>Historia Eliensis</i>, p. 623. Theobald, from his Angevin sympathies, -supported Nigel's cause.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_642" id="Foot_642" href="#Ref_642">[642]</a> -See Appendix Z: "Bishop Nigel at Rome."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_643" id="Foot_643" href="#Ref_643">[643]</a> -"Hugone quoque, cognomente Bigot, viro illustri et in illis partibus -potenti, sibi confœderato" (<i>Gesta</i>, p. 106).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_644" id="Foot_644" href="#Ref_644">[644]</a> -<i>Mon. Ang.</i>, iv. 142.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_645" id="Foot_645" href="#Ref_645">[645]</a> -"Homines regis erga locum fratrum Ely insidias unanimiter paraverunt, -adversum quos cum custodes insulæ non sufficerent rebellare, Galfridum -comitem, tunc adversarium [Stephani regis,] incendiis patriam et seditione -perturbantem, suscipiunt; cui etiam castrum de Ely, atque Alrehede, ob -firmamentum tuitionis, submiserunt" (<i>Historia Eliensis</i>, p. 623).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_646" id="Foot_646" href="#Ref_646">[646]</a> -Here again we are indebted for the date to the London Chronicle (<i>Liber -de Ant. Leg.</i>, fol. 35), which states that Geoffrey "in adventu Domini fecit -castellum Ecclesiam de Rameseya." Geoffrey's doings may well have been -of special interest to the Londoners.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_647" id="Foot_647" href="#Ref_647">[647]</a> -"Ira humanum excedente modum, ita efferatus est, ut procurantibus -Willelmo de Saye et Daniele quodam falsi nominis ac tonsuræ monacho, -navigio cum suis subvectus Rameseiam peteret, ecclesiam Deo ac beato patri -Benedicto dicatam summo mane ausu temerario primitus invadendo subintraret, -monachosque omnes post divinum nocturnale officium sopori deditos comprehenderet, -et vix habitu simplici indutos expellendo statim perturbaret, -nullaque interveniente mora, ecclesiam illam satis pulcherrimam, non ut -Dei castrum sed sicut castellum, superius ac inferius, intus ac extra, fortiter -munivit" (<i>Mon. Ang.</i>, iv. 142). - -"Hic totus in rabiem invectus Ramesiam, nobile monasterium invadens, -fugata monachorum caterva, custodiam posuit" (<i>Leland's Collectanea</i>, i. 600).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_648" id="Foot_648" href="#Ref_648">[648]</a> -<i>Chronicon Abbatiæ Ramesiensis</i>, pp. 327-329.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_649" id="Foot_649" href="#Ref_649">[649]</a> -"Monachis expulsis, raptores immisit, et ecclesiam Dei speluncam fecit -latronum" (<i>Hen. Hunt.</i>, p. 277).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_650" id="Foot_650" href="#Ref_650">[650]</a> -"Vasa autem altaris aurea et argentea Deo sacrata, capas etiam cantorum -lapidibus preciosis ac opere mirifico contextas, casulis cum albis, et -cæteris ecclesiastici decoris ornamentis rapuit, et quibuslibet eruere volentibus -vili satis precio distraxit unde militibus et satellitibus suis debita largitus -est stipendia" (<i>Mon. Ang.</i>, iv. 142). "Cœnobiumque sancti Benedicti de -Rameseiâ non solum, captis monachorum spoliis, altaribus quoque et sanctorum -reliquiis nudatis, expilavit, sed etiam expulsis incompassive monachis -de monasterio, militibusque impositis castellum sibi adaptavit" (<i>Gesta</i>, p. 105). -"Cum manu forti monasterium ipsum occupavit, monachos dispersit, thesaurum -et omnia ecclesiæ ornamenta sacrilega manu surripuit et ex ipso monasterio -stabulum fecit equorum, villas adjacentes commilitonibus pro stipendiis -distribuit" (<i>Chron. Ram.</i>, p. 329).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_651" id="Foot_651" href="#Ref_651">[651]</a> -"Galfridus igitur, ubique in regno fide sibi et hominio conjuratis in -unum secum cuneum convocatis, gregariæ quoque militiæ sed et prædonum, -qui undecumque devote concurrerant, robustissima manu in suum protinus -conspirata collegium, ignibus et gladio ubique locorum desævire" (<i>Gesta</i>, -p. 105). "Crebris eruptionibus atque excursionibus vicinas infestavit provincias" -(<i>W. Newburgh</i>, i. 45).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_652" id="Foot_652" href="#Ref_652">[652]</a> -"Castellum quoddam fecerat apud Waltone" (<i>Chron. Ram.</i>, p. 332).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_653" id="Foot_653" href="#Ref_653">[653]</a> -"Inde recessum habuit per Ely quiete: Fordham quoque contra hostes -sibi cum valida manu firmare usurpavit" (<i>Historia Eliensis</i>, p. 623).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_654" id="Foot_654" href="#Ref_654">[654]</a> -"Similiter apud Benewik in transitu aquarum" (<i>ibid.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_655" id="Foot_655" href="#Ref_655">[655]</a> -"Omnia adversus regiæ partis consentaneos abripere et consumere, -nudare et destruere" (<i>Gesta</i>, p. 105). "Maneria, villas, ceteraque proprietatem -regiam contingentia primitus invasit, igni combussit, prædasque cum -rapinis non minimis inde sublatas commilitonibus suis larga manu distribuit" -(<i>Monasticon</i>, iv. 142).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_656" id="Foot_656" href="#Ref_656">[656]</a> -<i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i>, ii. 119, 128. Compare the Peterborough Chronicle: -"Ræuedan hi & brendon alle the tunes" (<i>Ang. Sax. Chron.</i>, i. 382).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_657" id="Foot_657" href="#Ref_657">[657]</a> -<i>Gesta.</i></p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_658" id="Foot_658" href="#Ref_658">[658]</a> -"Talique ferocitate in omnem circumquaque provinciam, in omnibus -etiam, quascunque obviam habebat, ecclesiis immiseranter desæviit; possessiones -cœnobiorum, distractis rebus, depopulatis omnibus in solitudinem -redegit; sanctuaria eorum, vel quæcumque in ærariis concredita reponebantur -sine metu vel pietate ferox abripuit" (<i>ibid.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_659" id="Foot_659" href="#Ref_659">[659]</a> -"Locis sacris vel ipsis de ecclesiis nullam deferendo exhibuit reverentiam" -(<i>Monasticon</i>, iv. 142).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_660" id="Foot_660" href="#Ref_660">[660]</a> -"Facti enim amentes cantitabat unusquisque Anglice," etc. The -"Anglice" reads oddly. Strange that the sufferings of the people should be -bewailed and made merry over in the same tongue!</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_661" id="Foot_661" href="#Ref_661">[661]</a> -Stephen himself behaved no better, to judge from the story in the -<i>Chronicle of Abingdon</i> (ii. 292), where it is alleged that the king, being -informed of a large sum of money stored in the treasury of the abbey, sent -his satellite, William d'Ypres, who, gaining admission on the plea of prayer, -broke open the chest with an axe, and carried off the treasure.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_662" id="Foot_662" href="#Ref_662">[662]</a> -"Militum suorum numerositate immanior factus, per totam circumcirca -discurrendo provinciam nulli cuicunque pecuniam possidenti parcere vovit" -(<i>Mon. Ang.</i>, iv. 142).]</p> - -<p class="nodent">"Crebris eruptionibus et excursionibus vicinas infestavit provincias. -Deinde sumpta ex successu fiducia longius progrediens, regem Stephanum -acerrimis fatigavit terruitque incursibus" (<i>Will. Newb.</i>, i. 45).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_663" id="Foot_663" href="#Ref_663">[663]</a> -<i>Gesta.</i></p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_664" id="Foot_664" href="#Ref_664">[664]</a> -"Exploratores vero illius, habitu mutato, more egenorum ostiatim -oberrantes, villanis et cæteris hujusmodi hominibus pecunia a Deo data -abundantibus insidiabantur, quibus taliter compertis intempestæ noctis -silentio, tempore tamen primitus considerato, Sathanæ satellites a comite -transmittebantur qui viros innocuos alto sopore quandoque detentos raperent -raptos vero quasi pro magno munere ei presentarent. Qui mox immani -supplicio, per intervalla tamen, vexabantur et tamdiu per tormenta varia -vicissim sibi succedentia torquebantur, donec pecuniæ eis impositæ ultimum -solverent quadrantem" (<i>Monasticon</i>, iv. 142). An incidental allusion to this -system of robbery by ransom is found in an inquisition (<i>temp.</i> John) on -the royal manor of Writtle, Essex (<i>Testa de Nevill</i>, p. 270 <i>b</i>). It is there -recorded that Godebold of Writtle, who held land at Boreham, was captured -by Geoffrey and forced to mortgage his land to raise the means for his -ransom: "Godebold de Writel' qui eam tenuit captus a comite Galfrido, -patre Willelmi de Mandevilla, tempore regis Stephani, pro redemptione sua -versus predictum comitem acquietanda posuit in vadimonium," etc.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_665" id="Foot_665" href="#Ref_665">[665]</a> -"Propterea Rex Stephanus, irâ graviter accensus, omnia hæc reputavit -ab Episcopo Nigello machinari; et jussit e vestigio possessiones Ecclesiæ -a suis undequaque distrahi in vindictam odiorum ejus. Succisâ igitur -Monachis rerum facultate suarum, nimis ægre compelluntur in Ecclesiâ, -maxime ciborum inedia. Unde non habentes victuum, gementes et anxii -reliquas thesaurorum," etc. (<i>Historia Eliensis</i>, p. 623).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_666" id="Foot_666" href="#Ref_666">[666]</a> -<i>Cotton. MS.</i>, Tib. A. vi. fol. 117.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_667" id="Foot_667" href="#Ref_667">[667]</a> -"Hæc omnia episcopo, quamvis Romæ longius commoranti, satis -innotuerunt, et gratiâ Domini Papæ sublimiter donatus, his munimentis -tandem roboratus contra deprimentum ingenia, ad domum gaudens rediit" -(<i>Historia Eliensis</i>, p. 623).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_668" id="Foot_668" href="#Ref_668">[668]</a> -<i>Cotton. MS.</i>, Tib. A. vi. fol. 116 <i>b</i>. See Appendix AA: "Tenserie."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_669" id="Foot_669" href="#Ref_669">[669]</a> -<i>Chronicle of Ramsey</i>, p. 329.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_670" id="Foot_670" href="#Ref_670">[670]</a> -"Quum autem negotium feliciter ibi consummasset, reversus in Angliam -infra tres menses per judices delegatos abbatiam suam, Rege super hoc -multum murmurante, recuperavit" (<i>ibid.</i>, p. 330).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_671" id="Foot_671" href="#Ref_671">[671]</a> -"Quum vero sæpedictus abbas in possessionem abbatiæ suæ corporaliter -mitti debuisset, invenit sceleratam familiam prædicti comitis sibi fortiter -resistentem. Sed ipse, Spiritu Dei plenus, inter sagittas et gladios ipsorum -sæpius in caput ejus vibratos, accessit intrepidus, ignem arripuit, et tentoria -ipsorum portamque exteriorem quam incastellaverant viriliter incendit et -combussit. Sed nec propter incendium nec propter anathema quod in eos -fuerat sententiatum locum amatum deserere vel abbati cedere voluerunt. -Creditur a multis miraculose factum esse quod nullus ex insanis prædonibus -illis manus in eum misit dum eorum tecta combureret quamvis lanceis et -sagittis, multum irati, dum hæc faceret, mortem ei cominus intentarent" -(<i>ibid.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_672" id="Foot_672" href="#Ref_672">[672]</a> -"Aliud etiam illis diebus fertur contigisse miraculum, quod lapides -murorum ecclesiæ Ramesensis, claustri etiam et officinarum quas prædones -inhabitaverant, in magna quantitate guttas sanguinis emiserunt, unde per -totam Angliam rumor abiit admirabilis, et magnæ super hoc habitæ sunt -inter omnes ad invicem collationes. Erat enim quasi notorium, et omnibus -intueri volentibus visu et tactu manifestum" (<i>ibid.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_673" id="Foot_673" href="#Ref_673">[673]</a> -"Dum autem ecclesia illa pro castello teneretur, ebullivit sanguis a -parietibus ecclesie et claustri adjacentis, indignationem divinam manifestans, -exterminationem sceleratorum denuntians; quod multi quidem, et ipse ego, -oculis meis inspexi" (<i>Hen. Hunt.</i>, p. 277).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_674" id="Foot_674" href="#Ref_674">[674]</a> -"Miserabilis abbas iste post tot labores et ærumnas quietem habere et -domum suam recuperasse sperabat a qua dolens et exspes recessit, laboribus -expensis ita fatigatus ut jam tæderet eum vivere. Non enim habebat unde -modice familiæ suæ equitaturas et sumptus necessarios posset providere" -(<i>Chron. Ram.</i>, p. 331).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_675" id="Foot_675" href="#Ref_675">[675]</a> -"In omnibus terris dominicis totius abbatiæ unam tantum carucam -reperit et dimidiam, reperit victualium nihil; debitum urgebat; terræ jacebant incultæ.... -Oportuit præfatum abbatem xxiiii castell[?anis] vel -amplius singulis mensibus pro rusticis suis redemptiones seu tenserias -præstare, qui tam per Danielem quam per ipsos malefactores multum exhausti -fuerant, et extenuati" (<i>Chron. Ram.</i>, 333, 334). This description, though it -is applied to the state of things which awaited the abbot on Earl Geoffrey's -death, is obviously in point here. It is of importance for its allusion to the -plough, which illustrates the language of Domesday (the plough-teams being -always the first to suffer, and the most serious loss: compare Bishop Denewulf's -tenth-century charter in <i>Liber de Hyda</i>), but still more for its mention -of the <i>tenseriæ</i>. Here we have the very same word, used at the very same -time, at Peterborough, Ramsey, and Ely. The correction, therefore, of the -English Chronicle is utterly unjustifiable (see Appendix AA). Moreover, a comparison -of this passage with the letter of Pope Lucius (<i>ante</i>, p. 215) shows that -at Ramsey, as at Ely, the evil effect of this state of things continued in these -<i>tenseriæ</i> even after the bishop and the abbot had respectively regained possession.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_676" id="Foot_676" href="#Ref_676">[676]</a> -"Suorum tandem consilio fretus, comitem Gaufridum adiit, monasterii -sui detentorem, patenter et audacter ei ostendens tam ipsum quam totam -familiam ipsius, tam ex ipso facto quam apostolica auctoritate interveniente, -a Christianâ communione esse privatos, domum suam sibi postulans restitui -si vellet absolvi. Quod comes vix patienter audiens, plures ei terminos de -reddenda possessione sua constituit, sed promissum nunquam adimplevit -ita ut cum potius deludere videretur quam ablatam possessionem sibi velle -restituere; unde miser abbas miserabiliter afflictus mortis debitum jam vellet -exsolvisse" (<i>Chron. Ram.</i>, p. 331).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_677" id="Foot_677" href="#Ref_677">[677]</a> -"Sed prophani milites in sua malitia pertinaces nec sic domum Dei -quam polluerant reddere voluerant; induratum enim erat cor eorum" -(<i>ibid.</i>, p. 330).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_678" id="Foot_678" href="#Ref_678">[678]</a> -"Oppresserat enim fames omnem regionem; et ægra seges victum -omnem negaverat; per viginti milliaria seu triginta non bos non aratrum est -inventus qui particulam terræ excoleret; vix parvissimus tunc modius emi -poterat ducentis denariis. Tantaque hominum clades de inopiâ panis -sequuta est, ut per vicos et plateas centeni et milleni ad instar uteris inflati -exanimes jacerent: feris et volatilibus cadavera inhumata relinquebantur. -Nam multo retro tempore talis tribulatio non fuit in cunctis terrarum regnis" -(<i>Historia Eliensis</i>, p. 623).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_679" id="Foot_679" href="#Ref_679">[679]</a> -"Efferbuit enim per totam Angliam Stephani regis hostilis tribulatio, -totaque insula vi potius quam ratione regebatur" (<i>Chron. Ram.</i>, p. 334).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_680" id="Foot_680" href="#Ref_680">[680]</a> -"Potentes, per circuitum late vastando, milites ex rapinâ conducunt; -villas comburunt: captivos de longe ducentes miserabiliter tractabant; pios -alligabant in compedibus et nobiles in manicis ferreis" (<i>Historia Eliensis</i>, -p. 623).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_681" id="Foot_681" href="#Ref_681">[681]</a> -"Furit itaque rabies vesana. Invicta lætatur malitia: non sexui non -parcunt ætati. Mille mortis species inferunt, ut ab afflictis pecuniam excutiant: -fit clamor dirus plangentium: inhorruit luctus ubique mærentium; -et constat fuisse completum quod nunciatur in Apocalypsi Joannis: 'quærent -homines mori et fugiet mors ab eis'" (<i>ibid.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_682" id="Foot_682" href="#Ref_682">[682]</a> -"Sed verum est quod vulgariter dicitur: 'Ubi dolor maximus ibi -proxima consolatio'" (<i>Chron. Ram.</i>, p. 331).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_683" id="Foot_683" href="#Ref_683">[683]</a> -"Herba viridissima emarcuit, ut eo surgente quasi præmortua videretur, -nec toto fere anno viridatis suæ vires recuperavit. Unde datur intelligi -quam detestandum sit consortium excommunicatorum" (<i>Gervase</i>, i. p. 128).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_684" id="Foot_684" href="#Ref_684">[684]</a> -"Accessit paulo post cum exercitu suo ad quoddam castellum expugnandum - quod apud Burewelle de novo fuerat constructum, et quum elevata -casside illud circuiret ut infirmiorem ejus partem eligeret ad expugnandum, -... quidam vilissimus sagittarius ex hiis qui intra castellum erant capiti -ipsius comitis lethale vulnus impressit" (<i>Chron. Ram.</i>, 331, 332). - -"Hic, cum ... in obsidione supradicti castelli de Burwelle in scuto et -lancea contra adversarios viriliter decertasset, ob nimium calorem cassidem -deposuit, et loricæ ventilabrum solvit, sicque nudato capite intrepidus -militavit. Æstus quippe erat. Quem cum vidisset quispiam de castello, et -adversarium agnosceret, telo gracili quod ganea dicitur eum jam cominus -positum petiit, que testam capitis ipsius male nudati perforavit" (<i>Gervase</i>, -i. 128). - -"Dum nimis audax, nimisque prudentiæ suæ innitens regiæ virtutis -castella frequentius circumstreperet, ab ipsis tandem regalibus circumventus -prosternitur" (<i>Gesta</i>, p. 106). - -"Post hujusmodi tandem excessibus aliisque multis his similibus publicam -anathematis non immerito incurrit sententiam, in qua apud quoddam -oppidulum in Burwella lethaliter in capite vulneratus est" (<i>Mon. Ang.</i>, -iv. 142). - -"Inter acies suorum confertas, a quodam pedite vilissimo solus sagitta -percussus est. Et ipse, vulnus ridens, post dies tamen ex ipso vulnere -excommunicatus occubuit" (<i>Hen. Hunt.</i>, 276).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_685" id="Foot_685" href="#Ref_685">[685]</a> -"In quodam prædio consisteret quod ... ad Ramesense monasterium -pertinebat, et pertinet usque in hodiernum diem.... Quod iccirco in fundo -beati Benedicti factum fuisse creditur ut omnes intelligere possent quod -Deus ultionum dominus hoc fecerat in odium et vindictam injuriarum -quas monasterio beati Benedicti sacrilegus comes intulerat" (<i>Chron. Ram.</i>, -p. 331).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_686" id="Foot_686" href="#Ref_686">[686]</a> -"Cum nollet satisfacere, placuit fratribus ibidem Deo servientibus in -transgressionis huius vindictam Crucem deponere si forte dives ille compunctus -hoc facto vellet rescipiscere. Tradunt autem qui hiis inquirendis -diligentiam adhibuerunt eadem depositionis hora Comitem illum ante castrum -de Burewelle ad quod expugnandum diligenter operam dabat letale vulnus -suscepisse et eo infra xl dies viam universe Carnis ingressum fuisse" (<i>Harl. -MS.</i>, 3776). See also Appendix M.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_687" id="Foot_687" href="#Ref_687">[687]</a> -"Verum tantarum tamque immanium persecutionum, tam crudelium -quoque, quas in omnes ingerebat, calamitatum justissimus tandem respector -Deus dignum malitiæ suæ finem imposuit" (<i>Gesta</i>, p. 106). - -"Quia igitur improbi dixerunt Deum dormitare, excitatus est Deus, et -in hoc signo, et in significato" (<i>Hen. Hunt.</i>, p. 277).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_688" id="Foot_688" href="#Ref_688">[688]</a> -"Letiferum sui capitis vulnus deridens nec sic a suo cessavit furore" -(<i>Gervase</i>, i. 128, 129).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_689" id="Foot_689" href="#Ref_689">[689]</a> -"Pœnitens itaque valde et Deo cum magna cordis contritione pro -peccatis suis supplicans, quantum taliter moriens poterat, Deo et hominibus -satisfecit, licet a præsentibus absolvi non poterat" (<i>Mon. Ang.</i>, iv. -142). Cf. p. 202, <i>supra</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_690" id="Foot_690" href="#Ref_690">[690]</a> -"Quum igitur apud Mildehale mortis angustia premeretur, hoc audiens -præfatus abbas ad eum citissime convolavit. Quo cum venisset, nec erat in -ipso comite vox neque sensus, familiares tamen ipsius, domino suo multum -condolentes, eum benigne receperunt et cum literis ipsius comitis eum ad -filium suum scilicet Ernaldum de Magna Villa ... statim miserunt ut sine -mora cœnobium suum sibi restitueret" (<i>Chron. Ram.</i>, p. 332).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_691" id="Foot_691" href="#Ref_691">[691]</a> -"Gaufridus de Magna Villa regem validissime vexavit et in omnibus -gloriosus effulsit. Mense autem Augusti miraculum justitia sua dignum Dei -splendor exhibuit" (<i>Hen. Hunt.</i>, p. 277).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_692" id="Foot_692" href="#Ref_692">[692]</a> -"Et sicut, dum viveret, ecclesiam confudit, terram turbavit, sic, ad -eum confundendum tota Angliæ conspiravit ecclesia; quia et anathematis -gladio percussus et inabsolutus abscessit, et terræ sacrilegum dari non licuit" -(<i>Gesta</i>, p. 106).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_693" id="Foot_693" href="#Ref_693">[693]</a> -"Illo autem, in discrimine mortis, ultimum trahente spiritum, quidam -supervenere Templarii qui religionis suæ habitum cruce rubea signatum ei -imposuerunt" (<i>Mon. Ang.</i>, <i>ut supra</i>). But the red cross is said not to have been -assumed by the order till the time of Pope Eugene (1145). See <i>Monasticon -Ang.</i>, ii. 815, 816.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_694" id="Foot_694" href="#Ref_694">[694]</a> -"Ac deinde jam mortuum secum tollentes, et in pomerio suo, veteris -scilicet Templi apud London' canali inclusum plumbeo in arbore torva suspenderunt" -(<i>Mon. Ang.</i>, iv. 142). - -"Corpus vero defuncti comitis in trunco quodam signatum, et propter -anathema quo fuerat innodatus Londoniis apud Vetus Templum extra -cimiterium in antro quodam projectum est" (<i>Chron. Ram.</i>, p. 332). This -would seem to be the earliest mention of the Old Temple. <i>Pomerium</i> in Low -Latin is, of course, an orchard, and not, as Mr. Freeman so strangely -imagines (at Nottingham, in Domesday), a town wall.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_695" id="Foot_695" href="#Ref_695">[695]</a> -"Post aliquod vero tempus industria et expensis Willelmi quem jam -pridem in Waldena constituerat priorem, a papa Alexandro, more taliter -decedentium meruit absolvi, inter Christianos recipi, et pro eo divina celebrari" -(<i>Mon. Ang.</i>, iv. 142).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_696" id="Foot_696" href="#Ref_696">[696]</a> -"Ibique jacuit toto tempore Regis Stephani magnaque parte Regis -Henrici Secundi, donec Gaufridus filius ejus, Comes Essexie, vir industrius -et justitiarius Domini Regis jam factus Dominum Willelmum abbatem cæpit -humiliter interpellare pro patre suo defuncto offerens satisfactionem, et quum -ab eo benignum super hoc responsum accepisset, statuta die convenerunt -ambo sub præsentia domini Cantuarensis, scilicet beati Thomæ martyris, super -hoc tractaturi.... Quo facto, pater ipsius comitis Christianæ traditus est -sepulturæ." - -The earl's grant runs as follows:— - -"Gaufridus de Magna Villa Comes Essexie, omnibus amicis suis et -hominibus et universis sanctæ Ecclesiæ filiis salutem. - -"Satis notum est quanta damna pater meus, Comes Gaufridus, tempore -guerrarum monasterio de Rameseia irrogaverit. - -"Et quia tanta noxia publico dinoscitur indigere remedio, ego tam pro eo -quam pro suis satisfacere volens, consilio sanctæ Ecclesiæ cum Willelmo -Abbate monachisque suprascripti cœnobii in hanc formam composui.... -Et quia constat sepedictum patrem meum in irrogatione damnorum memoratæ -ecclesiæ bona thesauri in cappis, et textis, et hujusmodi plurimum delapidasse, -ad eorundem reparationem ad ecclesiæ ornatum dignum duxi redditum istum -assignari" (<i>Cart. Ram.</i>, i. 197). Compare p. 276, <i>n.</i> 3, and p. 415.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_697" id="Foot_697" href="#Ref_697">[697]</a> -<i>Chron. Ram.</i>, pp. 306, 333. The king was probably at Windsor at the -time, and the date is a useful one for Becket's movements.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_698" id="Foot_698" href="#Ref_698">[698]</a> -A curious archæological question is raised by this date. According -to the received belief, the Templars did not remove to the New Temple till -1185, but, according to this evidence, they already had their churchyard there -consecrated in 1163, and had therefore, we may presume, begun their church. -The church of the New Temple was consecrated by Heraclius on his visit in -1185, but may have been finished sooner.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_699" id="Foot_699" href="#Ref_699">[699]</a> -"Cumque Prior ille corpus defunctum deponere et secum Waldenam -deferre satageret, Templarii illi caute premeditati statim illud tollentes, et in -cimiterio novi templi ignobili satis tradiderunt sepulturæ" (<i>Mon. Ang.</i>, iv. -142). It was generally believed that his effigy was among those remaining -at the Temple, but this supposition is erroneous, as has been shown by Mr. -J. G. Nichols in an elaborate article on "The Effigy attributed to Geoffrey -de Magnaville, and the Other Effigies in the Temple Church" (<i>Herald and -Genealogist</i> (1866), iii. 97, <i>et seq.</i>).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_227" id="Page_227">{227}</a></span> - -<h2>CHAPTER X.<br /> -<small>THE EARLDOM OF ESSEX.</small></h2> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">The</span> -death of Geoffrey was a fatal blow to the power of -the fenland rebels. According, indeed, to one authority, -his brother-in-law, William de Say, met his death on the -same occasion,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_700" id="Ref_700" href="#Foot_700">[700]</a></span> but it was the decease of the great earl -which filled the king's supporters with exultant joy and -hope.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_701" id="Ref_701" href="#Foot_701">[701]</a></span> For a time Ernulf, his son and heir, clung to the -abbey fortress, but at length, sorely against his will, he -gave up possession to the monks.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_702" id="Ref_702" href="#Foot_702">[702]</a></span> Before the year was -out, he was himself made prisoner and straightway -banished from the realm.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_703" id="Ref_703" href="#Foot_703">[703]</a></span> Nor was the vengeance of -Heaven even yet complete. The chief officer of the -wicked earl was thrown from his horse and killed,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_704" id="Ref_704" href="#Foot_704">[704]</a></span> and -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_228" id="Page_228">{228}</a></span> -the captain of his foot, who had made himself conspicuous -in the violating and burning of churches, met, as he fled -beyond the sea, with the fate of Jonah, and worse.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_705" id="Ref_705" href="#Foot_705">[705]</a></span></p> - -<p>Chroniclers and genealogists have found it easiest -to ignore the subsequent fate of Ernulf (or Ernald) de -Mandeville.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_706" id="Ref_706" href="#Foot_706">[706]</a></span> He has even been conveniently disposed -of by the statement that he died childless.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_707" id="Ref_707" href="#Foot_707">[707]</a></span> It may therefore -fairly be described as a genealogical surprise to -establish the fact, beyond a shadow of doubt, not only -that he left issue, but that his descendants flourished for -generations, heirs in the direct male line of this once -mighty house. Ernulf himself first reappears, early in -the following reign, as a witness to a royal charter confirming -Ernald <i>de Bosco's</i> foundation at Betlesdene.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_708" id="Ref_708" href="#Foot_708">[708]</a></span> -He also occurs as a principal witness in a family -charter, about the same time.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_709" id="Ref_709" href="#Foot_709">[709]</a></span> This document,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_710" id="Ref_710" href="#Foot_710">[710]</a></span> which -is addressed by Earl Geoffrey "baronibus suis," is a -confirmation of a grant of lands in Sawbridgeworth, by -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_229" id="Page_229">{229}</a></span> -his tenant Warine fitz Gerold "Camerarius Regis" and -his brother Henry, to Robert Blund of London, who is -to hold them "de predictis baronibus meis." The -witnesses are: "Roesia Com[itissa] matre mea, Eust[achia] -Com[itissa], Ernulfo de Mannavilla fratre meo, -Willelmo filio Otuwel patruo meo, Mauricio vicecomite, -Willelmo de Moch' capellano meo, Otuwel de bouile, -Ricardo filio Osberti, Radulfo de Bernires, Willelmo et -Ranulfo fil' Ernaldi, Gaufrido de Gerp[en]villa, Hugone -de Augo, Waltero de Mannavilla, Willelmo filio Alfredi, -Gaufredo filio Walteri, Willelmo de Plaisiz, Gaufrido -pincerna." He is, doubtless, also the "Ernald de Mandevill" -who holds a knight's fee, in Yorkshire, of Ranulf -fitz Walter in 1166.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_711" id="Ref_711" href="#Foot_711">[711]</a></span> But in the earliest Pipe-Rolls of -Henry II. he is already found as a grantee of <i>terræ datæ</i> -in Wilts., to the amount of £11 10<i>s.</i> 0<i>d.</i> (blanch) "in -Wurda." This grant was not among those repudiated -by Henry II., and Geoffrey de Mandeville, Ernulf's heir, -was still in receipt of the same sum in 1189<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_712" id="Ref_712" href="#Foot_712">[712]</a></span> and 1201-2.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_713" id="Ref_713" href="#Foot_713">[713]</a></span> -Later on, in a list of knights' fees in Wilts., which -must belong, from the mention of Earl William de -Longespée, to 1196-1226, and is probably <i>circ.</i> 1212, we -read: "Galfridus de Mandevill tenet in Wurth duas partes -unius militis de Rege."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_714" id="Ref_714" href="#Foot_714">[714]</a></span> That Ernulf should have received -a grant in Wilts., a county with which his family was not -connected, is probably accounted for by the fact that he -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_230" id="Page_230">{230}</a></span> -obtained it in the time of the Empress, who, as in the case -of Humfrey de Bohun, found the revenues of Wilts. convenient -as a means of rewarding her partisans.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_715" id="Ref_715" href="#Foot_715">[715]</a></span> But -we now come to a series of charters of the highest importance -for this discovery. These were preserved among the -muniments of Henry Beaufoe of Edmondescote, county -Warwick, Esq., when they were seen by Dugdale, who -does not, however, in his <i>Baronage</i>, allude to their -evidence. By the first of these Earl Geoffrey (died 1166) -grants to his brother Ernulf one knight's fee in Kingham, -county Oxon.:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Sciatis me dedisse et firmiter concessisse Ernulfo de Mandavilla -fratri meo terram de Caingeham, ... pro servitio unius militis in -excambitione terre Radulfi de Nuer.... Et si Caingeham illi garantizare -non potero dabo illi excambium ad valorem de Caingeham -antequam inde sit dissaisitus.... T. Com[ite] Albrico auunculo -meo, Henry (<i>sic</i>) fil[io] Ger[oldi], Galfr[ido] Arsic, Rad[ulf]o de -Berner[iis], Waltero de Mandavilla, Will[elm]o de Aino, Galfrido de -Jarpeuill, Will[elmo] de Plais', Jurdan[o] de Taid', Hug[one] de Auc[o], -Willelm[o] fil[io] Alured[i] Rad[ulfo] Magn[?avilla], Audoenus (<i>sic</i>) -Pincerna, Rad[ulfo] frater (<i>sic</i>) eius, Aluredus (<i>sic</i>) Predevilain."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_716" id="Ref_716" href="#Foot_716">[716]</a></span></p> - -<p>Ralph "de Nuers," is entered in 1166 as a former holder -of four fees from Earl Geoffrey (II.).<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_717" id="Ref_717" href="#Foot_717">[717]</a></span> Of the witnesses -to the charter,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_718" id="Ref_718" href="#Foot_718">[718]</a></span> Henry fitz Gerold (probably the chamberlain) -held four fees (<i>de novo</i>) of the earl in 1166, Ralph -de Berners four (<i>de veteri</i>), Walter de Mandeville four -(<i>de veteri</i>), Geoffrey de Jarpe[n]ville one (<i>de novo</i>), Hugh de -Ou and William fitz Alfred one each (<i>de novo</i>), "Audoenus -Pincerna" and Ralph his brother the fifth of a fee (<i>de -novo</i>) jointly. The relative precedence, according to holding, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_231" id="Page_231">{231}</a></span> -is not unworthy of notice. The second charter is -from Earl William, confirming his brother's gift:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Willelmus de Mandavilla comes Essexie Omnibus hominibus, -etc. Sciatis me concessisse Ernulfo de Mandauilla fratri meo donationem -quam Comes Galfridus illi fecit de villa de Kahingeham.... -T. Comite Albrico, Simone de Bellocampo, Gaufrido de Say, Will[elm]o -de Bouilla, Radu[lfo] de Berneres, Seawal' de Osonuilla, -Ric[ard]o de Rochellâ, Osberto fil[io] Ric[ard]i, Dauid de Gerponuilla, -Wiscardo Leidet, Waltero de Bareuilla, Albot Fulcino, Hugone -clerico," etc.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_719" id="Ref_719" href="#Foot_719">[719]</a></span></p> - -<p>Here Earl "Alberic" was uncle both to the grantor and -the grantee; Simon de Beauchamp was their uterine -brother; Geoffrey de Say their first cousin. William de -Boville would be related to Otuel de Boville, the chief -tenant of Mandeville in 1166.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_720" id="Ref_720" href="#Foot_720">[720]</a></span> "Sewalus de Osevill" -then (1166) held four fees (<i>de veteri</i>) of the earl. Richard -"de Rochellâ" held three-quarters of a fee (<i>de novo</i>). -Osbert fitz Richard was probably a son of Richard fitz -Osbert, who held four fees (<i>de veteri</i>) in 1166. Wiscard -Ledet was a tenant <i>in capite</i> in Oxfordshire (<i>Testa</i>, p. 103).<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_721" id="Ref_721" href="#Foot_721">[721]</a></span></p> - -<p>The third charter transfers the fee from the grantee -himself to his son:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Notum sit ... quod ego Arnulfus de Mandeuilla concessi et dedi -Radulfo de Mandeuilla filio meo pro suo servicio et homagio villam de -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_232" id="Page_232">{232}</a></span> -Chaingeham ... et hospitium meum Oxenfordie ad prædictam villam -pertinens<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_722" id="Ref_722" href="#Foot_722">[722]</a></span> ... T. Henrico Danuers," etc.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_723" id="Ref_723" href="#Foot_723">[723]</a></span></p> - -<p>From another quarter we are enabled to continue the -chain of evidence. We have first a charter to Osney:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Ego Gaufridus de Mandeuile ... confirmavi mercatam terre -quam Aaliz mater mea eis diuisit in Hugato, sic[?ut] Ernulfus de -Mandeuile pater meus eis assignavit."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_724" id="Ref_724" href="#Foot_724">[724]</a></span></p> - -<p>Then we have a charter which thus carries us a step -further:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Ego Galfridus de Mandeuilla filius Galfridi de Mandeuillâ concessi -Domino Galfrido patri meo, filio Arnulfi de Mandeuillâ," etc., etc.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_725" id="Ref_725" href="#Foot_725">[725]</a></span></p> - -<p>Among the witnesses to this last charter are Robert -de Mandeville, and Ralph his brother, and Hugh de -Mandeville. Lastly, we have a charter of Ralph de Mandeville, -to which the first witness is "Galfridus de Mandauilla -frater meus."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_726" id="Ref_726" href="#Foot_726">[726]</a></span></p> - -<p>We have now established this pedigree:—</p> - -<pre> - - GEOFFREY, = Roese - EARL OF ESSEX, | de Vere. - d. 1144. | - +--------+ - | - Ernulf = Aaliz. - de Mandeville, | - son and heir | - (disinherited). | - | - +-------------+---------+ - | | - Geoffrey Ralph - de Mandeville. de Mandeville. - | - Geoffrey - de Mandeville. - -</pre> - -<p>A further charter (<i>Harl. Cart.</i>, 54, I. 44) can now be -fitted into this pedigree. It is a notification by Adam de -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_233" id="Page_233">{233}</a></span> -Port, to the Bishop of Lincoln, etc., of his grant of the -church of "Hattele." The witnesses are: "Hernaldo de -Mandeville et domina Alicia uxore sua, domina Matiltide -uxore dicti Adæ de Port, Henrico de Port, fratre ejusdem, -Galfrido de Mandeville," etc.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_727" id="Ref_727" href="#Foot_727">[727]</a></span> Here we have a clue to -the parentage of Ernulf's wife.</p> - -<p>Passing to the reign of Henry III., we find Kingham -then still in possession of the family.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_728" id="Ref_728" href="#Foot_728">[728]</a></span> In Wiltshire they -are found yet later, Worth being still held by them in -1292-93 (21 Edw. I).<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_729" id="Ref_729" href="#Foot_729">[729]</a></span></p> - -<p>The importance of the existence of Ernulf and his -heirs is seen when we come to deal with the fate of the -earldom of Essex. That Ernulf was "exiled" even for -a time becomes a remarkable fact, when we remember that -he might have found shelter from the king among the -followers of the Empress in the west. But he and his -father had offended a power greater than the king. The -Empress could not shield him from the vengeance of -the outraged Church. It is, I think, in his doings at -Ramsey, and in the penalties he had thus incurred, that -we must seek the reason of his being, as we shall find, -so strangely passed over, in favour of his younger brother -Geoffrey, who had not partaken of his guilt.</p> - -<p>To another charter, hitherto unknown, we owe our -knowledge of the fact that Geoffrey was recognized as his -father's heir, by the Empress, on his death. Instructive -as its contents would doubtless be, it is known to us only -from the following note, made by one who had inspected -its transcript in the lost volume of the Great Coucher:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Carta M. Imperatricis per quam dat Gaufredo de Mannevill filio -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_234" id="Page_234">{234}</a></span> -Gaufredi Comitis Essexie totam hereditatem suam et omnes tenuras -quas concessit patri suo. Testes R. Com. Gloec., Rag. Com. Cornub., -Rog. Com. Hereford, R. Regis filio, Umfridus de Bohun Dap., Johannes -filius Gisleberti, W. de Pontlarch' Camerario. Apud Divisas.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_730" id="Ref_730" href="#Foot_730">[730]</a></span></p> - -<p>The names of Robert, Earl of Gloucester, and Roger, -Earl of Hereford, limit the date of this charter to 1144-1147, -and the father of the grantee died, as we have seen, -in August, 1144. It should be noted that nothing is said -here of the earldom of Essex, and that only an absolutely -new creation could confer the dignity on Geoffrey, -as he was not his father's heir.</p> - -<p>Here, however, yet another charter, also at present -unknown, comes to our assistance with its unique evidence -that Geoffrey must have held his father's title before 1147.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_731" id="Ref_731" href="#Foot_731">[731]</a></span> -He then disappears from view for the time.</p> - -<p>We must now skip some twelve years, and pass to that -most important charter in which the earldom was conferred -anew on Geoffrey by Henry II. Only those who -have made a special study of these subjects can realize -the value of this charter, a record hitherto unknown. The -attitude of Henry II. to the creations of Stephen and -Matilda, the extent to which he recognized them, and the -method in which he did so, are subjects on which the -historian is peculiarly anxious for information, but on -which our existing evidence is singularly and lamentably -slight. Of the four charters quoted in the <i>Reports on the -Dignity of a Peer</i>, only two can be said to have a real -bearing on the question, and of these one is of uncertain -date, while the meaning of the other is doubtful. But the -charter I am about to deal with is remarkably clear in -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_235" id="Page_235">{235}</a></span> -its meaning, and possesses the advantage that its contents -enable us to date it with precision.</p> - -<p>The original charter was formerly preserved in the -Cottonian collection, but was doubtless among those which -perished in the disastrous fire.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_732" id="Ref_732" href="#Foot_732">[732]</a></span> The copy of it made by -Dugdale, and now among his MSS. at Oxford, is unfortunately -imperfect, but the discovery of an independent copy -among the Rawlinson MSS. has enabled me not only to -fill the gaps in Dugdale's copy (which I have here placed -within brackets), but also to establish by collation the -accuracy of the text.</p> - -<h3><span class="smc">Charter of Henry II. to Geoffrey de Mandeville -the Younger</span> (Jan. 1156).</h3> - -<p>H. Rex Angl[orum] (et) Dux Normannie et Aquitanie et -Comes Andegavie Archiepiscopis Episcopis Abbatibus -Comitibus Justiciariis Baronibus Vicecomitibus ministris -et omnibus fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis Anglie et -Normannie salutem. Sciatis me fecisse Gaufridum de -Magna Villa Comitem de Essexa et dedisse et hereditarie -concessisse sibi et heredibus suis ad tenendum de me et -heredibus meis Tertium Denarium de placitis meis ejusdem -Comitatus. Et volo et concedo et firmiter precipio quod -ipse Comes et heredes sui<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_733" id="Ref_733" href="#Foot_733">[733]</a></span> post eum [habeant] et teneant -comitatum suum ita bene et in pace et libere et quiete et -plene et honorifice sicut aliquis Comes in Angliâ vel Normanniâ -melius, liberius, quietius, plenius, et honorificentius -tenet Comitatum suum. Præterea reddidi ei et concessi -totam terram Gaufridi de MagnaVilla proavi sui, et avi -sui, et patris sui, et omnia tenementa illorum, tam in -dominiis quam in feodis militum, tam in Anglia quam in -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_236" id="Page_236">{236}</a></span> -Normannia, que de me tenet in capite, et de quocunque -teneat et de cujuscunque feodo sint, et nominatim Waledenam -et Sabrichteswordam<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_734" id="Ref_734" href="#Foot_734">[734]</a></span> et Walteham. Et vadium -quod Rex Henricus avus meus habuit super predicta tria -maneria sua imperpetuum ei clamavi quietum sibi et heredibus -suis de me et de meis heredibus. Quare volo (et firmiter -precipio) quod ipse et heredes sui habeant et teneant -(de me et de meis heredibus) comitatum suum predictum -ita libere (et quiete et plene) sicut aliquis Comes in Anglia -(vel Normannia) melius, (liberius quietius et plenius comitatum -suum) tenet. Et habeant et teneant ipse et heredes -sui omnia predicta tenementa antecessorum suorum predictorum -et nominatim predicta tria maneria ita bene (et -in pace et libere et quiete et honorifice et plene, in bosco et -plano et pratis et pascuis in Aquis et molendinis in viis -et semitis in forestis et warrennis in rivariis et piscariis -infra Burgum et extra et in omnibus locis et nominatim -infra Civitatem London[ie], cum Soco et Saca et Toll et -Team et Infangtheof et cum omnibus Libertatibus et liberis -consuetudinibus et quietanciis suis) sicut Gaufridus de -MagnaVilla proavus suus et avus suus et pater suus -unquam melius, (liberius, quietius, et honorificentius et -plenius) tenuerunt, tempore Regis Willelmi et Regis Henrici -avi mei. Testibus T[heobaldo] Archiepiscopo Cantuar' -(Rog[er]o Archiep[iscop]o Eborac' Ric[ardo] Ep[iscop]o -London', Rob[erto] Ep[iscop]o Lincoln', Nigello Ep[iscop]o -Eliensi, Tom[a] Canc[ellario], Rag[inaldo] Com[ite] Cornub', -R[oberto] Com[ite] Legrec', Rog[ero] Com[ite] de Clara, -H[enrico] de Essex Conesta[bulo], Ric[ardo] de Hum[ez] -Conest[abulo], Ric[ardo] de Lucy, War[ino] fil[io] Ger[oldi] -Cam[er]ario, Man[assero] Bisset dap[ifero], Rob[er]to de -Dunest[anvilla] et Jos[celino] de Baillolio) Apud Cantuariam.</p> - -<p class="gap-above2"><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_237" id="Page_237">{237}</a></span> -The first point to be considered is that of the date. It -is obvious at once from the names of the primate and the -chancellor that the charter must be previous to the king's -departure from England in 1158. But the only occasion -within this limit on which the charter can have passed is -that of the king's visit to Canterbury on his way to Dover -and the Continent in January, 1156 (115⅚). On no other -occasion within this limit did he land at or depart from -Dover. Now, it is quite certain that the charter to Earl -Aubrey (de Vere), which is tested "Apud Dover in transitu -Regis," passed at the time of this departure from Dover -(January 10, 1156).<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_735" id="Ref_735" href="#Foot_735">[735]</a></span> We find, then, that as in 1142 the -charters to Earl Geoffrey and Earl Aubrey were part of -one transaction and passed on the same occasion, so now, -the charters to Earl Geoffrey the second and Earl Aubrey, -his uncle, passed almost on the same day. The long list -of witnesses to the former, for which we are indebted to -the Rawlinson MS., enables us to compare it closely with -those of the four other charters which passed, according -to Mr. Eyton, about the same time.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_736" id="Ref_736" href="#Foot_736">[736]</a></span> The proportions of -their witnesses found among the witnesses to this charter -are respectively: seven out of ten in the first; nine out -of eighteen in the second; the whole ten in the third; and -seven out of fourteen in the fourth. As the king had -spent his Christmas at Westminster, we can thus fix the -date almost to a day, viz. <i>circ.</i> January 2, 1156. And -this harmonizes well enough with the evidence of the -Pipe-Rolls, which show that Earl Geoffrey was in receipt -of the <i>tertius denarius</i> in 1157, as from Michaelmas, 1155.</p> - -<p>On looking at the terms of this instrument, we are -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_238" id="Page_238">{238}</a></span> -struck at once by the fact that it is a charter of actual -creation. This is in perfect accordance with the view -advanced above, namely, that the charter granted at -Devizes to this Geoffrey, as his father's son, has no bearing -on the earldom of Essex, "and that only an absolutely -new creation could confer the earldom on Geoffrey, -as he was not his father's heir." It is thus that the existence -of his brother Ernulf became a factor in the problem -of no small consequence.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_737" id="Ref_737" href="#Foot_737">[737]</a></span></p> - -<p>Being thus an undoubted new creation, its terms -should be examined most carefully. It will then be found -that the precedent they follow is not the charter of the -Empress (1141), but the original charter of the king -(1140).</p> - -<table class="multi" summary="multi-6"> - - <colgroup> - <col span="3" style="width:32%" /> - </colgroup> - -<tr> - <th>Stephen<br />(1140).</th> - <th>Maud<br />(1141).</th> - <th>Henry<br />(1156).</th> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>Sciatis me fecisse - Comitem de Gaufrido de Magnauillâ de Comitatu Essexe hereditarie.</td> - <td>Sciatis omnes ... - quod ego ... do et concedo Gaufrido de Magnavilla ... ut sit Comes - de Essexâ.</td> - <td>Sciatis me fecisse - Gaufridum de Magnauillâ Comitem de Essexâ.</td> -</tr> - -</table> - -<p class="nodent">The explanation is, of course, that the first and third -are new creations, while the second is virtually but a -confirmation of the previous creation by Stephen. So -again, comparing this creation with that of Hugh Bigod, -the only instance in point—</p> - -<table class="multi" summary="multi-7"> - - <colgroup> - <col span="2" style="width:48%" /> - </colgroup> - -<tr> - <th>(1155).</th> - <th>(1156).</th> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>Sciatis me fecisse Hugonem -Bigot Comitem de Norfolca, -scilicet de tercio denario de Nordwic -et de Norfolca.</td> - <td>Sciatis me fecisse Gaufridum -de Mandavillâ Comitem de Essexa, -et dedisse et hereditarie -concessisse sibi et heredibus suis.... -Tertium denarium de placitis -meis ejusdem Comitatus.</td> -</tr> - -</table> - -<div class="pagenum"><a name="Page_239" id="Page_239">{239}</a></div> - -<p class="nodent">Here the absolute identity of the actual formula of creation -accentuates the difference between the clauses relating to -the "Tertius Denarius." It will therefore be desirable -to compare the clauses as they stand in the Mandeville -and the Vere charters (January, 1156):—</p> - -<table class="multi" summary="multi-8"> - - <colgroup> - <col span="2" style="width:48%" /> - </colgroup> - -<tr> - <th>Mandeville.</th> - <th>Vere.</th> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>Sciatis me ... dedisse et -hereditarie concessisse sibi et -heredibus suis ad tenendum de -me et heredibus meis tertium -denarium de placitis meis ejusdem -Comitatus.</td> - <td>Sciatis me dedisse et concessisse -Comiti Alberico in feodo et hereditate -tertium denarium de placitis -Oxenfordscyre ut sit inde -Comes.</td> -</tr> - -</table> - -<p class="nodent">It is said with truth in the Lords' Reports that "inde" -is an ambiguous word, as it might refer either to the -county or to the "third penny" itself. And, indeed, the -above extract from the charter to Hugh Bigod would lend -support to the latter view. But the case of Earl Aubrey -was, we must remember, peculiar. As we saw in the -charter of the empress (1142), she recognized him as -already a "comes" in virtue of his rank as Count of -Guisnes (p. 188). It is my belief that in the present -charter he is styled "comes" by Henry on precisely the -same ground. For if Henry had recognized him as Earl -of Oxford in virtue of his mother's charter (1142), he must -also have recognized his right to "the third penny" of -the shire which was granted by that same charter.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_738" id="Ref_738" href="#Foot_738">[738]</a></span> But -he clearly did not recognize that right, for he here makes -a fresh grant. Therefore he did not recognize the validity -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_240" id="Page_240">{240}</a></span> -of his mother's charter. Consequently, he styled Aubrey -"comes" in virtue only of the comital rank he enjoyed -as Count of Guisnes. And as he could not <i>make</i> a -"comes" of a man who was a "comes" already (p. 187), -he merely grants him "the third penny of the pleas" of -Oxfordshire, "that he may be earl of that county" ("ut -sit inde Comes"). Hence the anomalous form in which -the charter is drawn.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_739" id="Ref_739" href="#Foot_739">[739]</a></span></p> - -<p>Different, again, yet no less instructive, is the case of -the Earl of Sussex. There the grant runs—</p> - -<p class="small">"Sciatis me dedisse Willelmo Comiti Arundel castellum de Arundel -cum toto honore Arundel ... et tercium denarium de placitis de -Suthsex unde comes est."</p> - -<p>This charter has been looked upon as relating to the -earldom itself, whereas it is clearly nothing but a grant -of the castle and honour of Arundel and of the "Tertius -Denarius" of Sussex, "of which county he is earl."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_740" id="Ref_740" href="#Foot_740">[740]</a></span> -When these two phrases are compared—"ut sit inde -Comes" and "unde Comes est"—their meaning is, surely, -clear. William was <i>already</i> Earl of Sussex (<i>alias</i> Arundel -<i>alias</i> Chichester), but his right to the "Tertius Denarius" -of the county was not recognized by the king. The fact -that this right required to be granted <i>nominatim</i> confirms -my view that it was not conveyed by Stephen's charter to -Geoffrey.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_741" id="Ref_741" href="#Foot_741">[741]</a></span></p> - -<p>The distinction between the "dedi et concessi" of the -"Tertius Denarius" clause and the "reddidi" and "concessi" -of those by which the king confirms to Geoffrey -his ancestral estates is one always to be noted. The -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_241" id="Page_241">{241}</a></span> -terms of what one may call this general confirmation are -remarkably comprehensive, going back as they do to the -days of King William and of the grantee's great-grandfather; -and the profusion of legal verbiage in which they -are enwrapped is worthy of later times. The charter also -illustrates the adaptation in Latin of the old Anglo-Saxon -<i>formulæ</i>, themselves the relics of those quaint jingles which -must bear witness to oral transmission in an archaic state -of society.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_742" id="Ref_742" href="#Foot_742">[742]</a></span></p> - -<p>The release of the lien (upon three manors) which -Henry I. had held is a very curious feature. One of these -manors, Sawbridgeworth in Herts., is surveyed in Domesday -at great length. Its value had then sunk from £60 -to £50; but early in the reign of Henry II., Earl Geoffrey -gave it in fee to Warine fitz Gerold, the chamberlain, "per -(<i>sic</i>) <small>LXXIIII</small> libratas terræ, singulas <small>XX</small> libratas pro servitio -unius militis."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_743" id="Ref_743" href="#Foot_743">[743]</a></span></p> - -<p>Under this charter Earl Geoffrey held the dignity till -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_242" id="Page_242">{242}</a></span> -his death, at which time we find him lord of more than -a hundred and fifty knights' fees. The earldom then -(1166) passed to his younger brother William, and did so, -as far as we know, without a fresh creation. For the -limitation, it is important to observe, in this as in other -early creations, is not restricted to heirs <i>of the body</i>—a -much later addition. As this point is of considerable -importance it may be as well here to compare the essential -words of inheritance in the three successive charters:—</p> - -<table class="multi" summary="multi-9"> - - <colgroup> - <col span="3" style="width:32%" /> - </colgroup> - -<tr> - <th>Stephen<br />(1140).</th> - <th>Maud<br />(1141).</th> - <th>Henry II<br />(1156).</th> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>Sciatis me fecisse - Comitem de Gaufrido de Magnavillâ de Comitatu Essexe - <i>hereditarie</i>. Quare volo ... quod ipse <i>et heredes sui post - eum hereditario jure</i> teneant de me et de heredibus meis ... - sicut alii Comites mei de terra meâ, etc.</td> - <td>Sciatis ... quod - ego do et concedo Gaufrido de Magnavillâ ... <i>et heredibus suis - post eum hereditabiliter</i> ut sit Comes de Essexâ.</td> - <td>Sciatis me fecisse - Gaufridum de Magna Villa Comitem de Essexa.... Et volo ... quod - ipse Comes <i>et heredes sui post eum</i> habeant et teneant - Comitatum suum ... sicut aliquis Comes in Angliâ, etc.</td> -</tr> - -</table> - -<p>It is noteworthy that the earliest of these three—the -earliest of all our creation-charters—has the most -intensely hereditary ring, a fact at variance with the -favourite doctrine that the hereditary principle was a late -innovation, and ousted but slowly the official position. It -is further to be observed that the term "Comitatus," of -which the denotation in Scottish charters has been so long -and fiercely debated, has here the abstract signification -which it possesses in our own day, namely, that of the -dignity of an earl.</p> - -<p class="gap-above2">When we think of their father's stormy career, it is -not a little strange to find these two successive Earls of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_243" id="Page_243">{243}</a></span> -Essex high in favour with the order-loving king, throughout -whose reign, for more than thirty years (1156-1189), we -find them honoured and trusted in his councils, in his -courts, and in his host. Of Earl William Miss Norgate -writes: "The son was as loyal as his father was faithless; -he seems, indeed, to have been a close personal friend of -the king, and to have well deserved his friendship."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_744" id="Ref_744" href="#Foot_744">[744]</a></span> His -fidelity was rewarded by the hand of the heiress of the -house of Aumâle, so that, already an earl in England, he -thus became, also, a count beyond the sea.</p> - -<p>Yet well might men believe that the awful curse of -Heaven rested on this great and able house. At the very -moment when Earl William seemed to have attained the -pinnacle of power, when he had reached the point which -his father had reached some half a century before, then, -as in his father's case, the prize was snatched from his -grasp. King Richard, rightly prizing the earl's loyalty -and worth, announced his intention, at the Council of -Pipewell (September, 1189), of leaving him, with the -Bishop of Durham as his assessor, in charge of the kingdom, -as Justiciar, during his own absence in the East. -Such an office would have made the earl the foremost layman -in the realm. But before the time had come for -entering on his exalted duties, indeed within a few weeks -of his appointment, he was dead (November 14, 1189).</p> - -<p>Like his brother Geoffrey before him, the earl died -childless; the vast estates of the house of Mandeville -passed to the descendants of his aunt; to his earldom -there was no heir.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_745" id="Ref_745" href="#Foot_745">[745]</a></span> Such was the end that awaited the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_244" id="Page_244">{244}</a></span> -ambition of Geoffrey de Mandeville. The earldom for -which he had schemed and striven, the strongholds on -which his power was based, the broad lands which owned -his sway—all were lost to his house. And as if by the -very irony of fate, Ernulf, his disinherited son, alone -continued the race, that there might not be wanting in -his hapless heirs an ever-standing monument to the greatness -at once of the guilt and of the fall of the man whose -story I have told.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_700" id="Foot_700" href="#Ref_700">[700]</a> -"Willelmi de Say et Galfridi de Mandeville, qui apud Borewelle interfecti -fuerunt" (<i>Chron. Ram.</i>, App. p. 347).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_701" id="Foot_701" href="#Ref_701">[701]</a> -"Isto itaque tali modo ad extrema deducto, nox quædam et horror omnes -regis adversarios implevit, quique ex dissensione a Galfrido exorta regis -annisum maxime infirmari putabant, nunc, eo interfecto, liberiorem et ad se -perturbandum, ut res se habebat, expediorem fore æstimabant" (<i>Gesta</i>, p. 104). -"Sicque Dei judicio patriæ vastatore sublato, virtus bellatorum qui secum -manum ad perniciem miserorum firmaverunt plurimum labefacta est, cognoscentes -Dominum Christum fideli suo Regi de hostibus dare triumphum, -et adversantes ei potenter elidere, ad hoc expavit cor inimicorum illius" -(<i>Historia Eliensis</i>, p. 628).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_702" id="Foot_702" href="#Ref_702">[702]</a> -"Quod post dilationes, non sine difficultate, tandem invitus fecit; locum -enim illum et vicinas ejus partes multum dilexerat. Prophani milites -recedunt cum iniquo satellite" (<i>Chron. Ram.</i>, p. 332).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_703" id="Foot_703" href="#Ref_703">[703]</a> -"Eodem quoque anno, Ernulfus filius comitis, qui post mortem patris -ecclesiam incastellatam retinebat, captus est et in exilium fugatus" (<i>Gervase</i>, -i. 129. Cf. <i>Hen. Hunt.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_704" id="Foot_704" href="#Ref_704">[704]</a> -"Cujus princeps militum ab equo corruens effuso cerebro spiritum exhalavit" -(<i>ibid.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_705" id="Foot_705" href="#Ref_705">[705]</a> -"Magister autem peditum suorum, qui plus cæteris solitus erat ecclesias -concremare et frangere, dum mare transiret cum uxore sua, ut multi perhibuerant, -navis immobilis facta est. Quod monstrum nautis stupentibus et -sorte data rei causam inquirentibus, sors cecidit super eum. Quod cum ille -totis viribus, nec mirum, contradiceret, secundo et tertio sors jacta in eum -devenit: formidantibus igitur nautis positus est in cymbam parvulam ipse -et uxor ejus et eorum pecunia nequiter adquisita, ut cum illis esset in perditione; -quo facto, navis ut prius maria libera sulcavit, cymba vero in voragine -subsistens circumducta et absorpta est" (<i>Hen. Hunt.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_706" id="Foot_706" href="#Ref_706">[706]</a> -There is abundant evidence that the two names are used indifferently.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_707" id="Foot_707" href="#Ref_707">[707]</a> -Burke's <i>Extinct Peerage</i>. So also Dr. Stubbs.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_708" id="Foot_708" href="#Ref_708">[708]</a> -<i>Harl. Cart.</i>, 84. C. 4. The charter being attested by Thomas the -Chancellor must be previous to August, 1158, as it passed at Westminster. -It has a rather unusual set of witnesses.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_709" id="Foot_709" href="#Ref_709">[709]</a> -This charter may fairly be dated 1157-1158, on the following grounds. -It speaks of Warine fitz Gerold as the king's chamberlain, and as living. -But he died in the summer of 1158. It is, however, subsequent to Henry's -accession, because it was not till after that event that Fitz Gerold was enfeoffed -in Sawbridgeworth (<i>Liber Niger</i>), and also subsequent to 1155, because Geoffrey -occurs as earl. But as Maurice (de Tiretei) was not sheriff, within these -limits, till Michaelmas, 1157, we obtain the date 1157-1158.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_710" id="Foot_710" href="#Ref_710">[710]</a> -<i>Sloane Cart.</i>, xxxii. 64.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_711" id="Foot_711" href="#Ref_711">[711]</a> -<i>Liber Niger</i> (ed. 1774), p. 326. The return of the Barony of Helion -(p. 242), in which an Ernulf de Mandeville appears as holding half a knight's -fee in Bumsted (Helion), is of later date.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_712" id="Foot_712" href="#Ref_712">[712]</a> -<i>Rot. Pip.</i>, 1 Ric. I. The "Ernald de Magneville" who was among the -Crusaders that reached Acre in June, 1191, may have been a younger son of -the disinherited Ernald, if the latter was then dead. An Ernulf de Mandeville -is found among the witnesses to a star of Abraham fitz Muriel (1214), -granting a house in Westcheap to Geoffrey "de Mandeville," Earl of Essex -and Gloucester.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_713" id="Foot_713" href="#Ref_713">[713]</a> -<i>Rot. Pip.</i>, 3 John.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_714" id="Foot_714" href="#Ref_714">[714]</a> -<i>Testa</i>, p. 142 <i>b</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_715" id="Foot_715" href="#Ref_715">[715]</a> -See, for the exceptionally heavy alienations in this county (some £440 -a year), the Pipe-Roll of 2 Henry II., p. 57.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_716" id="Foot_716" href="#Ref_716">[716]</a> -<i>Dugdale MS.</i>, 15 (H) fol. 129.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_717" id="Foot_717" href="#Ref_717">[717]</a> -"Feod[um] Rad[ulfi] de Nuers iiii. milites" (<i>Liber Niger</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_718" id="Foot_718" href="#Ref_718">[718]</a> -Compare them with the preceding charter of Earl Geoffrey.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_719" id="Foot_719" href="#Ref_719">[719]</a> -<i>Dugdale MS.</i>, <i>ut supra</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_720" id="Foot_720" href="#Ref_720">[720]</a> -William's succession to Otwel suggests that they were somehow related -to William fitz Otuel (p. 169).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_721" id="Foot_721" href="#Ref_721">[721]</a> -With this charter of Earl William may be compared another (<i>Cart. -Cott.</i>, x. 1), in which he confirms to Westminster Abbey the church of -Sawbridgeworth. The witnesses are "Willielmo de Ver, Asculfo Capellano, -Ricardo de Vercorol, Willelmo de Lisoris, David de Jarpouilla, Symone -fratre eius, Osberto filio Ricardi, Osberto de sancto Claro, Willelmo de Norhala, -Johanne de Rochella, Eustachio Camerario, Rogero et Simone clericis -Abbatis West'." The second and third witnesses are also found attesting -the earl's charter to the nuns of Greenfield (see p. 169). Compare further -"A charter of William, Earl of Essex" (<i>Eng. Hist. Review</i>, April, 1891). -"Asculfus (or Hasculfus) Capellanus" was the hero of the adventure, on -the earl's death, thus related by Dugdale: "A chaplain of the earl's, called -Hasculf, took out his best saddle-horse in the night, and rode to Chicksand, -where the Countess Rohese then resided," etc., etc.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_722" id="Foot_722" href="#Ref_722">[722]</a> -This is a good instance of the custom, so constantly met with in Domesday, -by which a house in a county town was attached to a manor.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_723" id="Foot_723" href="#Ref_723">[723]</a> -<i>Dugdale MS.</i>, <i>ut supra</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_724" id="Foot_724" href="#Ref_724">[724]</a> -<i>Dodsworth MS.</i>, vii. fol. 299.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_725" id="Foot_725" href="#Ref_725">[725]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i></p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_726" id="Foot_726" href="#Ref_726">[726]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, xxx. fol. 104.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_727" id="Foot_727" href="#Ref_727">[727]</a> -"Alano de Matem" is among them (cf. p. 89).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_728" id="Foot_728" href="#Ref_728">[728]</a> -"Willelmus de Mandevill tenet in Kaingham feodum unius militis de -feod[o] Comitis Hereford[ie]" (<i>Testa</i>, pp. 102 <i>a</i>, 106 <i>a</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_729" id="Foot_729" href="#Ref_729">[729]</a> -<i>Lansdowne MS.</i>, 865, fol. 118 <i>dors.</i>; <i>Harl. MS.</i>, 154, fol. 45.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_730" id="Foot_730" href="#Ref_730">[730]</a> -<i>Lansdowne MS.</i>, 229, fol. 123 <i>b</i>. This note is followed by one of the -charter by which the Empress confirmed Humfrey de Bohun in his post of -<i>Dapifer</i>, and of which the original is still extant among the Duchy of -Lancaster Royal Charters (Pipe-Roll Society: <i>Ancient Charters</i>, p. 45).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_731" id="Foot_731" href="#Ref_731">[731]</a> -See Appendix BB.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_732" id="Foot_732" href="#Ref_732">[732]</a> -It was, I believe, duly entered in the lost volume of the Great Coucher.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_733" id="Foot_733" href="#Ref_733">[733]</a> -"Sui" omitted in Rawlinson MS.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_734" id="Foot_734" href="#Ref_734">[734]</a> -"Dabrichteswordam" (Rawlinson).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_735" id="Foot_735" href="#Ref_735">[735]</a> -<i>R. Diceto</i>, p. 531.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_736" id="Foot_736" href="#Ref_736">[736]</a> -(1) To the church of St. Jean d'Angely (Canterbury); (2) to Christchurch, -Canterbury (Dover); (3) to St. Mary's Abbey, Leicester (Dover); -(4) to Earl Aubrey (Dover) (<i>Court and Itinerary of Henry II.</i>, pp. 15, 16).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_737" id="Foot_737" href="#Ref_737">[737]</a> -It is true that the charter to Geoffrey Ridel (Appendix BB) proves that -Geoffrey de Mandeville the younger enjoyed, at the court of the Empress, the -title of Earl of Essex. But the same charter proves that Henry did not hold -himself bound by his mother's charters or deeds.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_738" id="Foot_738" href="#Ref_738">[738]</a> -"Do et concedo quod sit Comes de ... et habeat inde tertium denarium -sicut comes debet habere."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_739" id="Foot_739" href="#Ref_739">[739]</a> -It is one of the mysteries of the Pipe-Rolls that no such payment to -the earl is to be traced on them, though the grant is quite unmistakable in -its terms. See Appendix H.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_740" id="Foot_740" href="#Ref_740">[740]</a> -The "unde" of this charter answers to the "inde" in the charters to -Earl Aubrey.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_741" id="Foot_741" href="#Ref_741">[741]</a> -See Appendix H.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_742" id="Foot_742" href="#Ref_742">[742]</a> -See, for instance, survivals of them in the charters of Henry I. to -Christchurch, Canterbury, and of Henry II. to Oxford. The former runs, -"on strande and on stream, on wudan and on feldan" (Campbell Charter, -xxix. 5); the latter, "by water and by stronde, by Gode (<i>sic</i>) and by londe" -(Hearne's <i>Liber Niger</i>, Appendix).</p> - -<p class="nodent">The formula "cum omnibus ad hoc rebus rite pertinentibus, sive <i>litorum</i>, -sive camporum, agrorum, saltuumve" (Kemble, <i>Cod. Dipl.</i>, No. 425; Earle, -<i>Land Charters</i>, p. 186), suggested to Prof. Maitland (<i>Select Pleas in Manorial -Courts</i>) a connection with the "leet" through the "litus" of early Teutonic -law, but Mr. W. H. Stevenson, correcting him, observed (<i>Academy</i>, June 29, -1889) that <i>litorum</i> referred to the seashore at Reculver (with which this grant -deals). Both these distinguished scholars are mistaken, for the words only -render the general formula: "by lande and by strande ('litorum'), by wode -and by felde." So for instance—</p> - -<div class="poetry-fn"> -<div class="poetry"> - -<div class="verse quote1">"bi water and bi lande</div> -<div class="verse">mid inlade and mid utlade</div> -<div class="verse">wit inne burghe and wit outen</div> -<div class="verse">bi lande and by strande</div> -<div class="verse">bi wode and by felde" (<i>Ramsey Cart.</i>, ii. 80, 81).</div> - -</div> -</div> - -<p class="nodent">Thus we have "in bosco et plano ... infra burgum et extra" (<i>supra</i>, p. 236). -See also pp. 286, 314, 381.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_743" id="Foot_743" href="#Ref_743">[743]</a> -<i>Liber Niger</i> (1774), i. 239.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_744" id="Foot_744" href="#Ref_744">[744]</a> -<i>Angevin Kings</i>, ii. 144.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_745" id="Foot_745" href="#Ref_745">[745]</a> -The inheritance was in dispute for some time between his aunt's -younger son and the two daughters and co-heirs of her elder son deceased. -As the latter were eventually successful in their claim, there was no one -heir to whom the earldom could pass, as of right, under the charter of 1156 -(accepting it as representing a limitation to heirs whatsoever). I have, -however, elsewhere suggested (Pipe-Roll Society: <i>Ancient Charters</i>, p. 99) -that the <i>salvo</i> to the elder of the two daughters of her <i>antenatio</i> may have -been connected with a claim to the dignity by her husband, in her right.</p> - -</div> - -<hr /> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<h2 class="gap-above2">APPENDICES.</h2> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_247" id="Page_247">{247}</a></span> - -<h3>APPENDIX A.<br /> -<small>STEPHEN'S TREATY WITH THE LONDONERS.</small></h3> - -<p class="center small">(See p. <a href="#Page_3">3</a>.)</p> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">There</span> -are few more suggestive passages in the chronicles of -Stephen's reign than that which describes, in the <i>Gesta</i>, his -"pactio" with the citizens of London. This, because of the -striking resemblance between the "pactio ... mutuo juramento" -there described and the similar practice in those foreign -towns which enjoyed the rights of a "communa." Thus at -Bazas, in Aquitaine, "quum dominus rex venit apud Vasatum, -omnes cives Vasatenses jurant ei fidelitatem et obedientiam ... -similiter et rex et senescallus jurant dictis civibus Vasatensibus -quod sit bonus dominus eis et teneat consuetudines, et custodiat -eos de omni injuria de se et aliis pro posse suo." At Issigeac, -in the Perigord, it was (as was usual) the lord who had to -swear first before the citizens would do so: "en aital manieira -que'l seinher reis ... cant requerra et queste sagrament ...; -deu jurar a lor premeirament qu'il los defendra de si et d'autrui -de tot domnage, et las bonas custumas que il ont et que il -auront lor gardet et lor amelhoret, à bona fe, ... et que las -males lor oste et lor tolha de tot. Et en après, li prohome -deven li far lo sagrament sobredich, que'l garderon son corps -et sas gentz qui par lui esseron et sas dreituras de tort et de -forsa," etc., etc. At Bourg-sur-Mer, in Gascony, the clause -runs: "Dum dominus rex venit primo in Vasconia, juratur ab -eo, dum est sistens et coram senescallo suo (vel a senescallo -suo, dum ipse non est præsens, qui pro tempore veniet) quod -villam et jus custodiet et defendet et de se et de alio ab omni -injuria, et quod servabit foros et consuetudines suas. Nos -juramus ei et senescallo fidelitatem." So too at Bayonne, when -the Great Seneschal of Aquitaine, as representing the king, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_248" id="Page_248">{248}</a></span> -first arrived, he was called upon to swear by all the saints that -he would be a good and loyal lord; that he would protect the -citizens from all wrong and violence, either from himself or -from others; that he would preserve all their rights, customs, -and privileges, as granted them by the Kings of England and -Dukes of Guyenne, to the utmost of his power, so long as he -held the office, saving his fealty to the king.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_746" id="Ref_746" href="#Foot_746">[746]</a></span> When he had -done so, the mayor and jurats swore in their turn to him:— -"By those saints, will we be good, faithful, loyal, and obedient -to you; your life and limbs we will guard; good and loyal -counsel will we give you to the best of our power, and your -secrets will we keep."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_747" id="Ref_747" href="#Foot_747">[747]</a></span> These examples, which could be widely -paralleled, not only in municipalities, but also in the rural -commonwealths of the Pyrenean valleys, illustrate the principle -and uniform character of this "mutuum juramentum."</p> - -<p>We are tempted then to ask whether it was not by some -such transaction as this that Stephen secured the adhesion of -the citizens. We shall find the Empress securing the city in -1141, after a formal "tractatus" at St. Albans with its -authorized representatives, and we know that the Conqueror -himself made some terms with the citizens before he entered -London. Comparing these facts with the reception at Winchester -of Stephen and the Empress in turn, it may fairly be -questioned whether we should accept the startling assertion in -the <i>Gesta</i> as literally correct. It would seem at least highly -probable that what the Londoners really claimed in 1135 was -not the right to elect a king of all England, but to choose their -own lord independently of the rest of the kingdom, and to do -so by a <i>separate negotiation</i> between himself and them. They -were not, in any case, prepared to receive the king as their -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_249" id="Page_249">{249}</a></span> -lord unless he would first guarantee them the possession of all -their liberties. This semi-independent attitude, which was -virtually that assumed by Exeter when it attempted to treat -with the Conqueror, was distinctly foreign to the English polity -so far as our knowledge goes. There are faint hints, however, -in Domesday that such towns as London, York, Winchester, -and Exeter may have possessed a greater independence than -it has hitherto been the custom to believe.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_746" id="Foot_746" href="#Ref_746">[746]</a> -"Lo senescaut de Guiayne deu jurar en sa nabere vengude au mayre -juratz et cent partz et a laut poble et comunautat de Baione ... en queste -forme: Per aques sentz Job serey bon seinhor et leyau, de tort et de force -vos guoarderey de mi medichs et dautruy; a mon leyau poder vostres fors -vostres costumes et vostres priviledges sa en rer per los reys Dangleterre et -dux de Guiayne autreyatz vos sauberey, tant quoant serey en lodit offici, -sauban le fideutat de nostre seinhor lo Rey."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_747" id="Foot_747" href="#Ref_747">[747]</a> -"Et losditz maire et juratz deben jurar en le maneyre seguent disent -assi: Per aques sentz nos vos seram bons, fideus, leyaus, et hobediens; vite -et menbres vos guarderam; bon cosseilh et leyau vos deram, a nostre leyau -poder; et segretz vos thieram."</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_250" id="Page_250">{250}</a></span> - -<h3>APPENDIX B.<br /> -<small>THE APPEAL TO ROME IN 1136.</small></h3> - -<p class="center small">(See p. <a href="#Page_8">8</a>.)</p> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">One</span> -of the most interesting and curious discoveries that I have -made in the course of my researches has been the true story -of the appeal to Rome as arbiter between Stephen and Maud. -Considering the exceptional importance of this episode, in -many ways, it has received strangely little attention, with the -result that it has been imperfectly understood and almost -incredibly misdated.</p> - -<p>Mr. Freeman, working, in the <i>Norman Conquest</i>, from the -<i>Historia Pontificalis</i>,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_748" id="Ref_748" href="#Foot_748">[748]</a></span> writes of this episode as taking place on -and in consequence of Stephen's attempt to secure the coronation -of Eustace in 1152.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_749" id="Ref_749" href="#Foot_749">[749]</a></span> Miss Norgate has gone into the -matter far more fully than Mr. Freeman, but at first assigned -the debate described in the <i>Historia Pontificalis</i> to "1151."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_750" id="Ref_750" href="#Foot_750">[750]</a></span></p> - -<p>In so doing, she was guided merely by the <i>Historia</i> passage -itself, which she did not connect, as did Mr. Freeman, with the -episode of the proposed coronation in 1152. But on investigating -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_251" id="Page_251">{251}</a></span> -the matter more closely, she was clearly led to reject -the date she had first given:—</p> - -<p class="small">"From the way in which the trial is brought into the <i>Historia Pontificalis</i>, -it would at first sight seem to have taken place in 1151. But the presence of -Bishop Ulger of Angers and Roger of Chester, both of whom died in 1149, -and the account of the proceedings written by Gilbert Foliot to Brian fitz -Count, clearly prove the true date to be 1148."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_751" id="Ref_751" href="#Foot_751">[751]</a></span></p> - -<p>As to the time of the bishop's death, Roger died, not in 1149, -but in April, 1148, and at Antioch, so that the chronology is no -less fatal to Miss Norgate's date than to Mr. Freeman's own. -But the additional evidence she obtains from Gilbert Foliot's -letter requires a special examination.</p> - -<p>The sequence of events at which she arrives is this:—</p> - -<p>(1) Theobald goes, in defiance of Stephen, to the council -convened at Rheims by Eugenius III. for Mid-Lent Sunday, -(March) 1148 (N.S.).</p> - -<p>(2) Stephen forfeits Theobald, and is threatened in consequence -by the Pope.</p> - -<p>(3) Geoffrey of Anjou, thereupon, challenges Stephen "to -an investigation of his claims before the papal court." Stephen, -in reply, calls on Geoffrey to surrender Normandy "before he -would agree to any further proceeding in the matter."</p> - -<p>(4) Geoffrey surrenders Normandy—but to his son Henry, -and Stephen "appears to have consented, as if in desperation, -to the proposed trial at Rome."</p> - -<p>(5) "The trial" takes place, as recorded in the <i>Historia -Pontificalis</i>, and is attended, <i>inter alios</i>, by Gilbert Foliot, Abbot -of Gloucester, who had obtained "the succession to the vacant -see" of Hereford at the Council of Rheims, and had added, in -consequence, to his style the words "et Herefordiensis ecclesiæ -mandato Domini Papæ vicarius."</p> - -<p>(6) Gilbert Foliot writes the letter to Brian fitz Count, -reviewing the treatise which Brian had just composed in -support of the claims of the Empress, and alluding to the above -"trial" at Rome which he (Gilbert) had attended.</p> - -<p>(7) Gilbert Foliot is consecrated Bishop of Hereford by -Theobald, at St. Omer, in September (1148).<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_752" id="Ref_752" href="#Foot_752">[752]</a></span></p> - -<p>Of these events, the cession of Normandy by Geoffrey to his -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_252" id="Page_252">{252}</a></span> -son Henry belongs, as Mr. Howlett has pointed out, not to 1148, -but to 1150 or 1151.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_753" id="Ref_753" href="#Foot_753">[753]</a></span> This, however, scarcely affects Miss -Norgate's sequence of events. It is when we turn to Foliot's -letter that our suspicions begin to be aroused. Although Dr. -Giles has placed it at the end of those letters which belong to -the period of his rule as abbot (1139-1148), we must be struck -by the fact that if (as Miss Norgate holds) it was written just -before his consecration as Bishop of Hereford, the style would -have been "elect of Hereford," or, at least, "Vicar of the -Diocese (<i>ut supra</i>)," instead of "Abbot of Gloucester" only. -Moreover, as Henry was <i>ex hypothesi</i> now Duke of Normandy, -the "trial" would have been, surely, of his own claims, not of -those of his mother, who had virtually retired in his favour. -Lastly, we must see that the date assigned by her to this -"trial" at Rome (1148) is a mere hypothesis unsupported by -any direct evidence.</p> - -<p>But, indeed, we have only to read the letter and the <i>Historia -Pontificalis</i> to see that they must have been perused with almost -incredible carelessness. For Gilbert Foliot distinctly mentions -(<i>a</i>) that he is writing in the time of Pope Celestine,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_754" id="Ref_754" href="#Foot_754">[754]</a></span> (<i>b</i>) that -the "trial" took place under Pope Innocent.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_755" id="Ref_755" href="#Foot_755">[755]</a></span> Now, Celestine -died in March, 1144, and his predecessor Innocent had died in -September, 1143. The letter, therefore, must have been written -within these six months, and the "trial" at Rome must have -taken place before September 24, 1143. This being clear, we -naturally ask:—How came Innocent thus to hear the case -argued, when he had admittedly "confirmed" Stephen at the -very beginning of his reign? Having decided the question at -the outset, how could he ignore that decision, and begin, as it -were, <i>de novo</i>? Moreover, Stephen's champion is described by -the <i>Historia</i> writer as Arnulf, Archdeacon of Séez, afterwards -Bishop of Lisieux. Now, Miss Norgate, with her usual care, fixes -the date of his elevation to the see as 1141.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_756" id="Ref_756" href="#Foot_756">[756]</a></span> A council, therefore, -which he attended as archdeacon must, on her own showing, -be not later than this.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_757" id="Ref_757" href="#Foot_757">[757]</a></span> Lastly, now that we know the council -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_253" id="Page_253">{253}</a></span> -to be previous to 1141, do not the words of the writer—"Magno -illi conventui cum domino et patre nostro domino abbate Cluniacensi -interfui et ego Cluniacensium minimus"—suggest that -it was, further, previous to his becoming Abbot of Gloucester -in 1139? Turning again to the passage in the <i>Historia Pontificalis</i> -(41), we find that, in the light of the above evidence, its -meaning is beyond dispute. So, indeed, it should be of itself, -but for a most incomprehensible blunder by which two passages -of the <i>narrative</i> are printed in Pertz as part of the arguments -advanced in the debate. The fact is that the writer of the -<i>Historia</i>, when he comes to the proposal to crown Eustace, is -anxious to show us how the matter stood by tracing the -attitude of the Papacy to Stephen since the beginning of his -reign. He, therefore, takes us right back to the year of the -king's accession, and tells us how, and to what extent, his claim -came to be confirmed.</p> - -<p>This discovery at once explains Gilbert Foliot's expression. -For, the trial at Rome taking place, as I shall show, early in -1136, he attended it, not as Abbot of Gloucester, but merely as -"minimus Cluniacensium," in attendance on his famous abbot, -Peter the Venerable (1122-1158). It may have been as prior -("claustral" prior?) of the abbey that he thus attended him, -for we know from himself that he had held that office.</p> - -<p>Everything now fits into place. We find that, following in -her grandfather's footsteps, Maud at once appealed to Rome -against Stephen's usurpation, charging him, precisely as William, -in his day, had charged Harold, (1) with defrauding her of her -rightful inheritance, (2) with breach of his oath. Stephen, -when he had overcome the scruples of William of Corbeuil, and -had secured coronation at his hands, hastened to take his next -step by despatching to Rome three envoys to plead his cause -before the pope. These envoys were Roger, Bishop of Chester, -Arnulf, Archdeacon of Séez (the spokesman of the party), and -"Lovel," a clerk of Archbishop William.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_758" id="Ref_758" href="#Foot_758">[758]</a></span> This last was, of -course, intended to represent his master in the matter, and to -justify his action in crowning Stephen by explaining the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_254" id="Page_254">{254}</a></span> -grounds on which his scruples had been overruled. The -envoys were abundantly supplied with the requisite motive -power—or, shall we say, the oil for lubricating the wheels of -the Curia?—from the hoarded treasure of the dead king, which -was now in his successor's hands. The pope resolved that so -important a cause required no ordinary tribunal: he convoked -for the purpose a great council, and among those by whom it -was attended was Peter, Abbot of Cluny, with Gilbert Foliot -in his train.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_759" id="Ref_759" href="#Foot_759">[759]</a></span></p> - -<p>The name of Cluny leads me to break the thread for a -moment for the purpose of insisting on the important fact that -the sympathies of the house, under its then abbot, must have -been with the Angevin cause. This is certain from the documents -printed by Sir George Duckett,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_760" id="Ref_760" href="#Foot_760">[760]</a></span> especially from the -Mandatory Epistle of this same Abbot Peter relating to the -Empress.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_761" id="Ref_761" href="#Foot_761">[761]</a></span> We have here, I think, the probable explanation -of the energy with which that cause was espoused by Gilbert -Foliot.</p> - -<p>To return to the council. The case for the prosecution, as -we might term it, was opened by the Bishop of Angers, who -charged Stephen both with perjury, that is, with breaking the -oath he had sworn to Henry I., and with usurpation in seizing -the throne to the detriment of the rightful heir.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_762" id="Ref_762" href="#Foot_762">[762]</a></span> Stephen's -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_255" id="Page_255">{255}</a></span> -supporters, with Arnulf at their head, met these charges by a -defence, the two reports of which are not in absolute harmony. -It is quite certain that to the charge of usurpation they retorted -that the Empress was the offspring of an unlawful alliance, and -had, therefore, suffered no wrong.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_763" id="Ref_763" href="#Foot_763">[763]</a></span> But how they disposed of -the oath is not so clear. According to Gilbert Foliot, whose -account we may safely follow, they advanced the subtle and -ingenious plea that fidelity had only been sworn to the Empress -as heir ("sicut heredi") to the throne, and since (they urged) -she was not such heir (for the reason given above), the oath -was <i>ipso facto</i> void, and the charge fell to the ground.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_764" id="Ref_764" href="#Foot_764">[764]</a></span> The -other writer asserts that the defence was based, first, on the -plea that the oath had been forcibly extorted, and, second, on -the cunning pretence that the king had reserved to himself -the right of appointing another heir, and had exercised that -right on his deathbed, to the extent of disinheriting the -Empress and nominating Stephen in her stead.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_765" id="Ref_765" href="#Foot_765">[765]</a></span></p> - -<p>A careful study of the two versions has led me to believe -that both writers were, probably, right in their facts. Gilbert -Foliot would be the last man to invent an argument in favour -of Stephen, nor would the other writer have any inducement to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_256" id="Page_256">{256}</a></span> -do so, writing (as he did) long after that king's death. Moreover, -the pleas that (1) the oath had been extorted, (2) Henry I. -had released his barons from its obligation, are precisely those -which the author of the <i>Gesta</i> and William of Malmesbury<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_766" id="Ref_766" href="#Foot_766">[766]</a></span> -respectively mention as being advanced on Stephen's behalf. -Lastly, we have yet another plea advanced by Bishop Roger of -Salisbury, namely, that, so far as he was himself concerned, he -looked on the re-marriage of the Empress, without the consent -of the Great Council, as absolving him from his oath. Now, all -this points to one conclusion. The thorn in the side of Stephen -and of his friends was, clearly, this unlucky oath. Their -various attempts to excuse its breach betray their consciousness -of the fact. More especially was this the case before a spiritual -court. Hence their ingenious endeavour, described by Gilbert -Foliot, to keep the oath in the background as the lesser of the -two points. Hence, too, their accumulated pleas. First, they -urge that the oath was void because the Empress was not the -heir; then, that it was void, because extorted; lastly, that it was -void because the dying king had released them from their -obligation. Such an argument as this speaks for itself.</p> - -<p>The only point on which the two witnesses do, at first sight, -differ, is the attitude taken by the Bishop of Angers with regard -to the plea that the Empress was not of legitimate birth. -Did he contravene this plea? The <i>Historia</i> asserts that when -Stephen's advocates had stated the case for the defence, the -bishop rose and traversed their pleadings, rejecting them one by -one. But Gilbert, writing to Brian fitz Count, admits that the -attack on the birth of the Empress (the only argument which -he discusses) had not been replied to.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_767" id="Ref_767" href="#Foot_767">[767]</a></span> Now, the version found -in the <i>Historia</i>, though composed much later, is a more detailed -account, and bears the stamp of truth. Yet Gilbert's admission -to his friend and ally betrays an uneasy consciousness that the -charge had not been disposed of. For he asks him to suggest -an effectual reply, and proceeds to suggest one himself.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_768" id="Ref_768" href="#Foot_768">[768]</a></span> He -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_257" id="Page_257">{257}</a></span> -relies on St. Anselm's consent to her parents' marriage. We -have here possibly the clue we seek. For the Bishop of Angers, -in his speech, as given by the writer of the <i>Historia</i>, had not -alluded to St. Anselm's consent.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_769" id="Ref_769" href="#Foot_769">[769]</a></span> Perhaps he was taken by -surprise, and had not expected the plea.</p> - -<p>Stephen's advocates seem, from a hint of Gilbert Foliot,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_770" id="Ref_770" href="#Foot_770">[770]</a></span> to -have simply "stampeded the convention" (<i>conventus</i>), and the -wrath of the Angevin champion rose to a white heat.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_771" id="Ref_771" href="#Foot_771">[771]</a></span> The -pope commanded that the wrangling should cease, and announced -that he would neither pass sentence nor allow the trial to be -adjourned. This was equivalent to a verdict that the king was -not guilty, and was duly followed by a letter to Stephen confirming -him in his possession of the kingdom and the duchy.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_772" id="Ref_772" href="#Foot_772">[772]</a></span></p> - -<p>Seeing that he had lost his case, the aged Bishop of Angers -relieved his feelings by a bitter jest at the cost of the heir of -St. Peter.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_773" id="Ref_773" href="#Foot_773">[773]</a></span></p> - -<p>But we are more immediately concerned with that letter by -which the pope (the writer tells us) confirmed Stephen in -possession. For this connecting link is no other than the letter -which meets us in the pages of Richard of Hexham.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_774" id="Ref_774" href="#Foot_774">[774]</a></span></p> - -<p>Its relevant portion runs thus:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Nos cognoscentes vota tantorum virorum in personam tuam, præeunte -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_258" id="Page_258">{258}</a></span> -divina gratia, convenisse, pro spe etiam certa,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_775" id="Ref_775" href="#Foot_775">[775]</a></span> et [quia] beato Petro in ipsa -consecrationis tuæ die obedientiam et reverentiam promisisse, et quia de -præfati regis prosapia prope posito gradu originem traxisse dinosceris, quod -de te factum est gratum habentes, te in specialem beati Petri et sanctæ -Romanæ ecclesie filium affectione paterna recipimus, et in eadem honoris -et familiaritatis prærogativa, qua predecessor tuus egregiæ recordationis -Henricus a nobis coronabatur, te propensius volumus retinere."</p> - -<p class="nodent">The chronicler, observing that Stephen was "his et aliis modis -in regno Angliæ confirmatus," passes straight from this letter -to the King's Oxford charter, in which he describes himself as -"ab Innocentio sanctæ Romanæ sedis pontifice confirmatus." -Of this "confirmation," as we find it styled by the author of -the <i>Historia</i>, by Richard of Hexham, by John of Hexham, -and lastly, by Stephen himself, I speak more fully in the text. -For the present the point to be grasped is that (1) the "conventus" -at Rome was previous to (2) this letter of the pope, -which was previous itself to (3) Stephen's charter, which is -assigned to the spring (after Easter) of 1136. Thus we arrive -at the fact that the council and debate at Rome belong to the -early months of 1136.</p> - -<p>To complete while we are about it the explanation of the -<i>Historia</i> narrative, we will now take the second passage which -has been erroneously printed in Pertz—</p> - -<p class="small">"Postea, cum prefatus Guido cardinalis promoveretur in papam Celestinum, -favore imperatricis scripsit domno Theobaldo Cantuarensi archiepiscopo -inhibens ne qua fieret innovatio in regno Anglie circa coronam, quia res erat -litigiosa cujus translatio jure reprobata est. Successores eius papæ Lucius et -Eugenius eandem prohibitionem innovaverunt."</p> - -<p class="nodent">This passage is absurdly given as part of Bishop Ulger's sneer.</p> - -<p>The above cardinal is Guy, cardinal priest of St. Mark, -referred to in the previous misplaced passage as opposing the -confirmation of Stephen. Observe here that three writers -allude quite independently to his sympathy with the Angevin -cause. These are—(1) the writer (<i>ut supra</i>) of the <i>Historia -Pontificalis</i>; (2) Gilbert Foliot, who speaks of him, when pope, -as "favente parti huic domino papa Celestino," and (3) John -of Hexham, who describes him as "Alumpnus Andegavensium." -A coincidence of testimony, so striking as this, strengthens the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_259" id="Page_259">{259}</a></span> -authority of all three, including that of the writer of the <i>Historia -Pontificalis</i>.</p> - -<p>The step taken by Pope Celestine was based on the alleged -doubt in which his predecessor had left the question. It was, -he held, still "res litigiosa," and, therefore, without reversing -the action of Innocent in the matter, he felt free to forbid any -further step in advance. His instructions to that effect, to the -primate, were duly renewed by his successors, and covered, -when the time arrived, the case of the coronation of Eustace -as being an "innovatio in regno Anglie circa coronam." -Stephen had, indeed, been confirmed as king, and this could not -be undone. But that confirmation did not extend to the son of -the "perjured" king.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_776" id="Ref_776" href="#Foot_776">[776]</a></span></p> - -<p>With the character and meaning of the "confirmation" obtained -by Stephen from the pope, I have dealt in the body of -this work. There are, however, a few minor points which had -better be disposed of here. Of these the first is Miss Norgate's -contention that when, in 1148, Stephen met Geoffrey's challenge -to submit his claims to Rome, "by a counter challenge calling -upon Geoffrey to give up his equally ill-gotten duchy before -he would agree to any further proceeding in the matter,"</p> - -<p class="small">"Geoffrey took him at his word, but in a way which he was far from -desiring. He did give up the duchy of Normandy, by making it over to his -own son, Henry Fitz-Empress."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_777" id="Ref_777" href="#Foot_777">[777]</a></span></p> - -<p>A reference to the passage in the <i>Historia</i><span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_778" id="Ref_778" href="#Foot_778">[778]</a></span> on which Miss -Norgate relies, will show at once that Geoffrey, on receiving -the counter-challenge, abandoned all thought of carrying the -matter further.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_779" id="Ref_779" href="#Foot_779">[779]</a></span> It also incidentally proves that Geoffrey had -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_260" id="Page_260">{260}</a></span> -refused admission to his dominions to either pope or legate. -This is a fact of interest.</p> - -<p>This was not the only occasion on which Stephen's "recognition" -by the pope stood him in good stead. At the crisis of -1141, the sensitive conscience of Archbishop Theobald had prevented -his transferring his allegiance to the Empress, badly -though Stephen had treated him, till he received permission -from the Lord's anointed to follow in the footsteps of his brother -prelates.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_780" id="Ref_780" href="#Foot_780">[780]</a></span></p> - -<p>The loyal primate explained the position when Gilbert -Foliot had enraged the Angevins by doing homage to Stephen -for the see of Hereford. Wholly Angevin though they were -in their sympathies, the prelates maintained that they were -bound as Churchmen to follow the pope's ruling, and that the -Papacy had "received" Stephen as king.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_781" id="Ref_781" href="#Foot_781">[781]</a></span></p> - -<p>Another point deserving notice is the choice of Arnulf, -afterwards the well-known Bishop of Lisieux, as Stephen's -chief envoy in 1136. For Miss Norgate, oddly enough, misses -this point in her sketch of this distinguished man's career.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_782" id="Ref_782" href="#Foot_782">[782]</a></span> -She has nothing to say of his doings between his <i>Tractatus de -Schismate</i>, "about 1130," and his appointment to the see of -Lisieux in 1141, from which date "for the next forty years -there was hardly a diplomatic transaction of any kind, ecclesiastical -or secular, in England or in Gaul, in which he was -not at some moment or in some way or other concerned."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_783" id="Ref_783" href="#Foot_783">[783]</a></span> This, -therefore, constitutes a welcome addition to his career, and, -moreover, gives us the reason of Geoffrey's aversion to him, -when duke, and of the "heavy price" with which his favour -had to be bought by Arnulf.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_784" id="Ref_784" href="#Foot_784">[784]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_261" id="Page_261">{261}</a></span> -The last point concerns the "most interesting and valuable"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_785" id="Ref_785" href="#Foot_785">[785]</a></span> -letter from Gilbert Foliot to Brian fitz Count. A careful -perusal of this composition has led me to believe, from internal -evidence, that it refers not (as Miss Norgate puts it) to a -"book" by Brian fitz Count, or "a defence of his Lady's rights -in the shape of a little treatise,"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_786" id="Ref_786" href="#Foot_786">[786]</a></span> but to a justification of his -own conduct in reply to hostile criticism. And I venture to -think that so far from this composition being "unhappily lost,"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_787" id="Ref_787" href="#Foot_787">[787]</a></span> -it may be, and probably is, no other than that lengthy epistle -from Brian to the Bishop of Winchester, of which a copy was -entered in Richard de Bury's <i>Liber Epistolaris</i>. And there, -happily, it is still preserved.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_788" id="Ref_788" href="#Foot_788">[788]</a></span> This can only be decided when -the contents of that epistle are made accessible to the public, -as they should have been before now.</p> - -<p>To resume. I have now established these facts. The "trial" -at Rome took place, not, as Mr. Freeman assumes, in 1152, nor, -as Miss Norgate argues, in 1148, but early in 1136. The letter -of Gilbert Foliot, in which he refers to it, was written, not in -1148, but late in 1143 or early in 1144. The whole of Miss -Norgate's sequence of events (i. 369, 370) breaks down entirely. -The great debate before the pope at Rome was not the result -of Stephen's attempt to get Eustace crowned, nor of Geoffrey's -challenge to Stephen by the mouth of Bishop Miles, but of the -charge brought against Stephen at the very outset of his reign. -The true story of this debate and of Stephen's "confirmation," -by the pope, as king is here set forth for the first time, and -throws on the whole chain of events a light entirely new.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_748" id="Foot_748" href="#Ref_748">[748]</a> -Pertz's <i>Monumenta Historica</i>, vol. xx.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_749" id="Foot_749" href="#Ref_749">[749]</a> -"The application to Rome and the debate which followed it there are -to be found in the <i>Historia Pontificalis</i>, 41 (Pertz, xx. 543). Bishop (<i>sic</i>) -Henry 'promisit se daturum operam et diligentiam ut apostolicus Eustachium -filium regis coronaret. Quod utique fieri non licebat, nisi Romani -pontificis veniâ impetratâ.' I have already (see above, p. 251) had to refer -to some of the points urged in this debate" (<i>Norm. Conq.</i>, v. 325, note). On -turning to "p. 251," we similarly find the debate spoken of as belonging to -"later years," and at p. 354 also, while at p. 857 we read: "At a later time, -in the argument before Pope Innocent (<i>sic</i>), when Stephen is trying to -get the pontiff's consent to the coronation of his son Eustace (p. 325)," -etc., etc. How an argument could be held before Innocent, many years -after his death, Mr. Freeman does not explain.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_750" id="Foot_750" href="#Ref_750">[750]</a> -<i>England under the Angevin Kings</i>, i. 278, <i>note</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_751" id="Foot_751" href="#Ref_751">[751]</a> -<i>England under the Angevin Kings</i>, i. 370, <i>note</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_752" id="Foot_752" href="#Ref_752">[752]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, i. 370, 371, 495, 496.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_753" id="Foot_753" href="#Ref_753">[753]</a> -<i>Academy</i>, November 12, 1887.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_754" id="Foot_754" href="#Ref_754">[754]</a> -"Sed jam nunc Deo propitio et favente parti huic domino papa Celestino."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_755" id="Foot_755" href="#Ref_755">[755]</a> -"Audisti dominum papam Innocentium convocasse ecclesiam et Romæ -conventum celebrem habuisse."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_756" id="Foot_756" href="#Ref_756">[756]</a> -<i>England under the Angevin Kings</i>, i. 500.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_757" id="Foot_757" href="#Ref_757">[757]</a> -Perhaps she did not recognize his name (see below).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_758" id="Foot_758" href="#Ref_758">[758]</a> -"Ex adverso steterunt a rege missi Rogerus Cestrensis episcopus -Lupellus clericus Guillelmi bone memorie Cantuarensis archiepiscopi, et -qui eis in causa patrocinabatur Ernulfus archidiaconus Sagiensis" (<i>Hist. -Pontif.</i>, 41).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_759" id="Foot_759" href="#Ref_759">[759]</a> -"Audisti dominum papam Innocentium convocasse ecclesiam et Romæ -conventum celebrem habuisse. Magno illi conventui cum domino et patre -nostro domino abbato Cluniacensi interfui et ego Cluniacensium minimus. -Ibi causa hæc in medium deducta est, et aliquandiu ventilata" (Foliot's letter, -lxxix., ed. Giles, i. 100).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_760" id="Foot_760" href="#Ref_760">[760]</a> -<i>Charters and Records of the Ancient Abbey of Cluni</i> (1888).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_761" id="Foot_761" href="#Ref_761">[761]</a> -"Felicis memoriæ rex Anglorum et Dux Normannorum, Henricus, -Willelmi primo ducis dein regis filius, speciali eam [Cluniacensem ecclesiam] -amore coluit et veneratus est. Donis autem multiplicibus et magnis omnes -jam dictos exsuperans, etiam majorem ecclesiam ... miro et singulari opere -inter universas pene tocius orbis ecclesias consummavit. Ea de causa, specialis -apud universos Cluniacensis ordinis fratres ejus memoria habetur et in perpetuum -per Dei gratiam habebitur. Cui in paterna hereditate succedens -Matildis, ejus filia, Henrici magni Romanorum imperatoris conjux ... -paternæ imaginis et prudentiæ formam velut sigillo impressam representavit, -et præter alia digna relatu, Cluniacensem ecclesiam more patris sincere dilexit" -(<i>ibid.</i>, ii. 104).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_762" id="Foot_762" href="#Ref_762">[762]</a> -"Stabat ab Imperatrice dominus Andegavensis episcopus, qui ... duo -inducebat precipue, jus scilicet hereditarium et factum imperatrici juramentum" -(Foliot's letter, <i>ut supra</i>). "Querimoniam imperatricis ad papam -Innocentium Ulgerius Andegavorum venerandus antistes detulit, arguens -regem periurii et illicité presumptionis regni" (<i>Hist. Pontif.</i>, 41).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_763" id="Foot_763" href="#Ref_763">[763]</a> -"Hic [Ernulfus] adversus episcopum allegavit publice, quod imperatrix -patris erat indigna successione, eo quod de incestis nupciis procreata et filia -fuerat monialis, quam Rex Henricus de monasterio Romeseiensi extraxerat -eique velum abstulerat" (<i>Hist. Pontif.</i>). "Imperatricem, de qua loquitur, -non de legitimo matrimonio ortam denuntiamus. Deviavit a legitimo tramite -Henricus rex, et quam non licebat sibi junxit matrimonio, unde istius sunt -natalitia propagata: quare illam patri in heredem non debere succedere et -sacra denuntiant" (Foliot's letter).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_764" id="Foot_764" href="#Ref_764">[764]</a> -"Sublato enim jure principali, necessario tollitur et secundarium. In -hac igitur causâ principale est, quod dominus Andegavensis de hereditate -inducit et ab hoc totum illud dependet, quod de juramento subjungitur. -Imperatrici namque sicut heredi juramentum factum fuisse pronunciat. -Totum igitur quod de juramento inducitur, exinaniri necesse est, si de ipso -hereditario jure non constiterit" (<i>ibid.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_765" id="Foot_765" href="#Ref_765">[765]</a> -"Juramentum confessus est [Ernulfus], sed adjecit violentur extortum, -et sub conditione scilicet imperatrici successionem patris se pro viribus servaturum, -nisi patrem voluntatem mutare contingeret et heredem alium instituere; -poterat enim esse ut ei de uxore filius nasceretur. Postremo subjecit -quod rex Henricus mutaverat voluntatem et in extremis agens filium sororis -suæ Stephanum designavit heredem" (<i>Hist. Pontif.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_766" id="Foot_766" href="#Ref_766">[766]</a> -So also Gervase of Canterbury.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_767" id="Foot_767" href="#Ref_767">[767]</a> -"Hoc in communi audientiâ multum vociferatione declamatum est, et -nihil omnino ab altera parte responsum."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_768" id="Foot_768" href="#Ref_768">[768]</a> -"Rogo, mihi in parte ista respondeas. Interim dicam ipse quod sentio. -Majores natu, personas religiosas et sanctas, sæpius de re ista conveni. -Audio illius matrimonii copulam sancto Anselmo archiepiscopo ministrante -celebratam.... Manus autem sibi præcidi permississet [Anselmus], -quam eas ad opus illicitum extendisset."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_769" id="Foot_769" href="#Ref_769">[769]</a> -His reply was: "Ipsa [Romana ecclesia] enim confirmavit matrimonium -quod accusas, filiamque ex eo susceptam domnus Pascalis Romanus -pontifex inunxit in imperatricem. Quod utique non fecisset de filia monialis. -Nec eum veritas latere poterat, quia non fuit obscurum matrimonium aut -contractum in tenebris."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_770" id="Foot_770" href="#Ref_770">[770]</a> -"Multorum vociferatione declamatum est."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_771" id="Foot_771" href="#Ref_771">[771]</a> -"In Archidiaconum excandescens" (<i>Hist. Pontif.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_772" id="Foot_772" href="#Ref_772">[772]</a> -"Non tulit ulterius contentiones eorum domnus Innocentius nec -sententiam ferre voluit aut causam in aliud differre tempus, sed contra -consilium quorundam cardinalium et maxime Guidonis presbiteri sancti -Marci, receptis muneribus regis Stephani, ei familiaribus litteris regnum -Angliæ confirmavit et ducatum Normanniæ." This is the passage so inexplicably -printed in Pertz as part of the bishop's speech, which immediately -precedes it.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_773" id="Foot_773" href="#Ref_773">[773]</a> -"Ulgerius vero cum cognitioni cause supersederi videret, verbo -comico utebatur dicens: 'De causa sua querentibus intus despondebitur;' et -adjiciebat: 'Petrus enim peregre profectus est, nummulariis relicta domo'" -(<i>Hist. Pontif.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_774" id="Foot_774" href="#Ref_774">[774]</a> -Ed. Howlett, p. 147.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_775" id="Foot_775" href="#Ref_775">[775]</a> -Compare the description of Henry of Winchester, shortly before this, -as "spe scilicet captus amplissima" that Stephen would do his duty by the -Church.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_776" id="Foot_776" href="#Ref_776">[776]</a> -"Ne filium regis, qui contra jusjurandum regnum obtinuisse videbatur -in regem sublimaret" (<i>Gervase</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_777" id="Foot_777" href="#Ref_777">[777]</a> -Vol. i. p. 369.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_778" id="Foot_778" href="#Ref_778">[778]</a> -Pertz, xx. p. 531. Bishop Miles is sent to England, "ad petitionem -Gaufridi comitis Andegavorum, ut regem super perjurio et regni occupatione -conveniret et ducatu Normanniæ, quem invaserat."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_779" id="Foot_779" href="#Ref_779">[779]</a> -Mr. Howlett has duly pointed out that Geoffrey did not, as Miss Norgate -imagines, hand over Normandy to his son in consequence of this challenge; -but I would point out further that Stephen demanded not merely the surrender -of Normandy, but also that of the <i>English</i> districts then under Angevin -sway ("Hoc retulit responsum: quod rex <i>utrumque</i> honorem et jure suo -<i>et ecclesie Romane auctoritate</i> adeptus erat, <i>nec refugerat stare judicio apostolicæ -sedis</i>, quando eum comes violenter ducatu spoliavit et parte regni. -<i>Quibus</i> non restitutis non debebat subire judicium" (p. 531)).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_780" id="Foot_780" href="#Ref_780">[780]</a> -"Confiscata sunt (1148) bona ejus et secundo proscriptus pro obediencia -Romane ecclesie. Nam et alia vice propter obedienciam sedis Apostolicæ -proscriptus fuerat, quando, urgente mandato domini Henrici Wintoniensis -episcopi tunc legatione fungentis in Anglia post alios episcopos omnes receperat -imperatricem ... licet inimicissimos habuerit regem et consiliarios -suos" (<i>Hist. Pontif.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_781" id="Foot_781" href="#Ref_781">[781]</a> -[Stephen] "quem tota Anglicana ecclesia sequebatur ex constitutione -ecclesie Romane. Licet proceres divisi diversos principes sequerentur, -unum tamen habebat ecclesia ... quod episcopo non licuerat ecclesiam -scindere ei subtrahendo fidelitatem quem ecclesia Romana recipiebat ut principem" -(<i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 532, 533).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_782" id="Foot_782" href="#Ref_782">[782]</a> -<i>England under the Angevin Kings</i>, i. 500-502.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_783" id="Foot_783" href="#Ref_783">[783]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i></p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_784" id="Foot_784" href="#Ref_784">[784]</a> -The stinging taunts of the Bishop of Angers on Arnulf's humble origin, -as given in the <i>Hist. Pontif.</i>, are of great importance in their bearing on -Henry I.'s policy of raising men to power "from the dust." They should -be compared with the well-known sneer of Ordericus (see p. 111).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_785" id="Foot_785" href="#Ref_785">[785]</a> -<i>England under the Angevin Kings</i>, i. p. 496, <i>note</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_786" id="Foot_786" href="#Ref_786">[786]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, p. 369.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_787" id="Foot_787" href="#Ref_787">[787]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, p. 496, <i>note</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_788" id="Foot_788" href="#Ref_788">[788]</a> -I called attention to this letter in a communication to the <i>Athenæum</i>, -pointing out that in Mr. Horwood's report on the <i>Liber Epistolaris</i> in an -Historical MSS. Commission Report on Lord Harlech's MSS. (1874), mention -was made, among its contents, of a letter from the Bishop of Winchester to -Brian fitz Count, and of Brian's reply, which is merely described as "a long -reply to the above" (it extends over three folios), and of which a <i>précis</i> -should certainly have been given.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_262" id="Page_262">{262}</a></span> - -<h3>APPENDIX C.<br /> -<small>THE EASTER COURT OF 1136.</small></h3> - -<p class="center small">(See p. <a href="#Page_19">19</a>.)</p> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">I here</span> -give in parallel columns the witnesses to (I.) Stephen's -grant to Winchester; (II.) his grant of the bishopric of Bath; -(III.) his great charter of liberties subsequently issued at -Oxford.</p> - -<div class="pagenum"><a name="Page_263" id="Page_263">{263}</a></div> - -<table class="multi" summary="multi-10"> - - <colgroup> - <col span="3" style="width:32%" /> - </colgroup> - -<tr> - <th>I.</th> - <th>II.</th> - <th>III.</th> -</tr> - -<tr> -<td> -King Stephen.<br /> -Queen Matilda.<br /> -William, Earl Warenne.<br /> -Ranulf, Earl of Chester.<br /> -Henry, son of the King of Scotland [Scotie].<br /> -Roger, Earl of Warwick.<br /> -Waleran, Count of Meulan.<br /> -William de Albemarla.<br /> -Simon de Silvanecta.<br /> -Aubrey de Vere, Camerarius.<br /> -William de Albini, Pincerna.<br /> -Robert de Ver, Conestabularius.<br /> -Miles de Gloucester, Conestabularius.<br /> -Brian fitz Count, Conestabularius.<br /> -Robert fitz Richard, Dapifer.<br /> -Robert Malet, Dapifer.<br /> -[William] Martel, Dapifer.<br /> -Simon de Beauchamp, Dapifer.<br /> -William, Archbishop of Canterbury.<br /> -Thurstan, Archbishop of York.<br /> -Hugh, Archbishop of Rouen.<br /> -Roger, Bishop of Salisbury.<br /> -Nigel, Bishop of Ely.<br /> -Seffrid, Bishop of Chichester.<br /> -Ebrard, Bishop of Norwich.<br /> -Simon, Bishop of Worcester.<br /> -Robert, Bishop of Bath.<br /> -Bernard, Bishop of St. David's.<br /> -Robert, Bishop of Hereford.<br /> -John, Bishop of Rochester.<br /> -Audoen, Bishop of Evreux.<br /> -John, Bishop of Séez.<br /> -Richard, Bishop of Avranches.<br /> -"Algarus," Bishop of Coutances.<br /> -Roger the Chancellor.<br /> -Roger de Fecamp, Capellanus.<br /> -Henry, nephew of King Stephen.<br /> -Reginald, son of King Henry.<br /> -<i>Barones.</i><br /> - Robert de Ferrers.<br /> - William Peverel de Nottingham.<br /> - Ilbert de Lacy.<br /> - Walter Espec.<br /> - Payn fitz John.<br /> - Eustace fitz John.<br /> - Walter de Salisbury.<br /> - Robert Arundel.<br /> - Geoffrey de Mandeville.<br /> - Hamo de St. Clare.<br /> - Roger de Valoines.<br /> - Henry de Port.<br /> - Walter fitz Richard.<br /> - Walter de Gant.<br /> - Walter de Bolebec.<br /> - Walchelin Maminot.<br /> - William de Percy.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_790" id="Ref_790" href="#Foot_790">[790]</a></span> -</td> -<td> -William, Archbishop of Canterbury.<br /> -Thurstan, Archbishop of York.<br /> -Hugh, Archbishop of Rouen.<br /> -Henry, Bishop of Winchester.<br /> -Roger, Bishop of Salisbury.<br /> -Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln.<br /> -Nigel, Bishop of Ely.<br /> -Seffrid, Bishop of Chichester.<br /> -Robert, Bishop of Hereford.<br /> -John, Bishop of Rochester.<br /> -Bernard, Bishop of St. David's.<br /> -Simon, Bishop of Worcester.<br /> -Ebrard, Bishop of Norwich.<br /> -Audoen, Bishop of Evreux.<br /> -John, Bishop of Séez.<br /> -"Algarus," Bishop of Coutances.<br /> -Richard, Bishop of Avranches.<br /> -Athelwulf, Bishop of Carlisle.<br /> -Roger the Chancellor.<br /> -Henry, the nephew of the king.<br /> -Henry, son of the King of Scotland.<br /> -William, Earl Warenne.<br /> -Waleran, Count of Meulan.<br /> -Roger, Earl of Warwick.<br /> -Robert de Ver, Conestabularius.<br /> -Miles de Gloucester, Conestabularius.<br /> -Aubrey de Vere, Camerarius.<br /> -William de Pont de l'arche, Camerarius.<br /> -Robert fitz Richard, Camerarius.<br /> -William de Albini, Pincerna.<br /> -Robert de Ferrars.<br /> -Robert Arundel.<br /> -Geoffrey de Mandeville.<br /> -Ilbert de Lacy.<br /> -William Peverel.<br /> -Geoffrey Talbot. -</td> -<td> -William, Archbishop of Canterbury.<br /> -Hugh, Archbishop of Rouen.<br /> -Henry, Bishop of Winchester.<br /> -Roger, Bishop of Salisbury.<br /> -Alexander, Bishop of Lincoln.<br /> -Nigel, Bishop of Ely.<br /> -Ebrard, Bishop of Norwich.<br /> -Simon, Bishop of Worcester.<br /> -Bernard, Bishop of St. David's.<br /> -Audoen, Bishop of Evreux.<br /> -Richard, Bishop of Avranches.<br /> -Robert, Bishop of Hereford.<br /> -John, Bishop of Rochester.<br /> -Athelwulf, Bishop of Carlisle.<br /> -Roger the Chancellor.<br /> -Henry, the nephew of the king.<br /> -Robert, Earl of Gloucester.<br /> -William, Earl Warenne.<br /> -Ranulf, Earl of Chester.<br /> -Roger, Earl of Warwick.<br /> -<i>Conestabuli.</i><br /> - Robert de Ver.<br /> - Miles de Gloucester.<br /> - Brian fitz Count.<br /> - Robert de Oilli.<br /> -<i>Dapiferi.</i><br /> - William Martel.<br /> - Hugh Bigot.<br /> - Humphrey de Bohun.<br /> - Simon de Beauchamp.<br /> -<i>Pincernæ</i><br /> - William de Albini.<br /> - Eudo Martel.<br /> -Robert de Ferrers.<br /> -William Peverel de Nottingham.<br /> -Simon de Saintliz.<br /> -William de Albamarla.<br /> -Payn fitz John.<br /> -Hamo de St. Clare.<br /> -Ilbert de Lacy.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_789" id="Ref_789" href="#Foot_789">[789]</a></span> -</td> -</tr> - -</table> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_264" id="Page_264">{264}</a></span> -There were thus assembled at the Easter court of 1136 -the two primates of England and twelve of their suffragans, -and the primate of Normandy, with four of his—nineteen prelates -in all. Next to these, in order of precedence, were Henry, the -king's nephew,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_791" id="Ref_791" href="#Foot_791">[791]</a></span> Henry, son of the King of Scots, and Reginald, -afterwards Earl of Cornwall, whose presence, as a son of the -late king, was of importance in the absence of the Earl of -Gloucester. The names in all three lists repay careful study. -Among them we find all those of the leading supporters of the -Empress in the future, while in Robert de Ferrers, William de -Aumale, and Geoffrey de Mandeville, we recognize three of -those who were to receive earldoms from Stephen. The style -and place of William de Aumale deserves special notice, -because they prove that he did not, as is supposed, enjoy -comital rank at the time.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_792" id="Ref_792" href="#Foot_792">[792]</a></span> This fact, further on, will have an -important bearing. So, too, Simon de St. Liz ("de Silva -Necta") was clearly not an earl at the time of these charters. -It is believed indeed that he was Earl of Northampton, while -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_265" id="Page_265">{265}</a></span> -Henry of Scotland was Earl of Huntingdon. But it is clear -that when Henry received from Stephen, as he had just done, -Waltheof's earldom, that grant must have comprised Northampton -as well as Huntingdon; and I have seen other evidence -pointing to the same conclusion. In after years, when Simon -was as loyal as the Scotch court was hostile to Stephen, he -may well have received the earldom of Northampton from the -king he served so well. But for the present, Henry of Scotland -was in high favour with Stephen, so high that the jealousy of -the Earl of Chester, stirred by the alienation of Carlisle, blazed -forth at this very court.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_793" id="Ref_793" href="#Foot_793">[793]</a></span> Their mention of Ranulf's presence, -as of Henry's, confirms the authenticity of our charters.</p> - -<p>The document with which they should be compared is the -charter granted to the church of Salisbury by Henry I. at his -Northampton council in 1131 (September 8).<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_794" id="Ref_794" href="#Foot_794">[794]</a></span> Its witnesses -are the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, ten bishops -(Gilbert of London, Henry of Winchester, Alexander of -Lincoln, John of Rochester, Seffrid of Chichester, William -of Exeter, Robert of Hereford, Symon of Worcester, Roger of -"Chester," and Ebrard of Norwich), seven abbots (Anscher -of Reading, Ingulf of Abingdon, Walter of Gloucester, Geoffrey -of St. Albans, Herbert of Westminster, Warner of Battle, and -Hugh of St. Augustine's), Geoffrey the chancellor,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_795" id="Ref_795" href="#Foot_795">[795]</a></span> with -Robert "de Sigillo,"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_796" id="Ref_796" href="#Foot_796">[796]</a></span> and Nigel the Bishop of Salisbury's -nephew,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_797" id="Ref_797" href="#Foot_797">[797]</a></span> five earls (Robert of Gloucester, William of Warenne, -Randulf of Chester, Robert of Leicester, and Roger of Warwick), -nineteen barons (Brian fitz Count, Miles de Gloucester, Hugh -Bigod, Humfrey de Bohun, Payne fitz John, Geoffrey de -Clinton, William de Pont de l'Arche, Richard Basset, Aubrey -de Ver, Richard fitz Gilbert, Roger fitz Richard, Walter fitz -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_266" id="Page_266">{266}</a></span> -Richard, Walter de Gant, Robert de Ferrers, William Peverel -of Nottingham, Baldwin de Redvers, Walter de Salisbury, -William de Moion, Robert de Arundel), forty-six in all. In -many ways a very noteworthy list, and not least in its likeness -to the future House of Lords, with its strong clerical element. -It is impossible to comment on all the magnates here assembled -at Henry's court, many of whom we meet with again, but -attention may be called to the significant fact that nine of the -earldoms created under Stephen were bestowed on houses -represented among the nineteen barons named above.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_798" id="Ref_798" href="#Foot_798">[798]</a></span></p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_789" id="Foot_789" href="#Ref_789">[789]</a> -This list is taken from that in Stubbs' <i>Select Charters</i>, which is derived, -through the <i>Statutes of the Realm</i>, from a copy at Exeter Cathedral. There -is another version in Richard of Hexham (ed. Howlett, pp. 149, 150), in -which Payn fitz John is omitted and <i>Hugh</i> de St. Clare entered in error for -<i>Hamon</i>. But the reading "Silvanecta" (for "Saint liz") is confirmed by -Charter No. I., as well as by a charter in <i>Cott. MSS.</i>, Nero, C. iii. (fol. 177). -Both versions of this list are questionable as to the second "pincerna," the -statutes reading "Eudone Mart'," while Richard gives "Martel de Alb'."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_790" id="Foot_790" href="#Ref_790">[790]</a> -This list is here printed as it is given by Hearne, but the order of the -names, of course, is wholly erroneous, the prelates being placed low down -instead of at the head. The right order would be prelates, chancellor (and -chaplain), the "royalties," the earls, the household officers, and the -"barones." But it would not be safe to rearrange the names in the absence -of the original charter, in which they probably stood in parallel columns.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_791" id="Foot_791" href="#Ref_791">[791]</a> -Henry de Soilli (or Sully), son of Stephen's brother William. I find him -attesting a charter of Stephen abroad, subsequently, as "H. de Soilli, nepote -regis." He was a monk, and failing to obtain the bishopric of Salisbury or -the archbishopric of York, in 1140, was consoled with the Abbey of Fécamp.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_792" id="Foot_792" href="#Ref_792">[792]</a> -For if he had even been then a count over sea, he would have ranked, -like the Count of Meulan, among English earls.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_793" id="Foot_793" href="#Ref_793">[793]</a> -"Fuit quoque Henricus filius regis Scottiæ ad curiam Stephani regis -Angliæ in proxima Pascha, quam apud Londoniam festive tenuit, cum -maximo honore susceptus, atque ad mensam ad dexteram ipsius regis sedit. -Unde et Willelmus archiepiscopus Cantuarensis se a rege subtraxit, et quidam -proceres Angliæ erga regem indignati coram ipso Henrico calumpnias -intulerant" (<i>Ric. Hexham</i>). Among these "proceres" was the Earl of Chester.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_794" id="Foot_794" href="#Ref_794">[794]</a> -<i>Sarum Charters and Documents</i> (Rolls Series), pp. 6, 7.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_795" id="Foot_795" href="#Ref_795">[795]</a> -Afterwards Bishop of Durham.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_796" id="Foot_796" href="#Ref_796">[796]</a> -Afterwards Bishop of London.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_797" id="Foot_797" href="#Ref_797">[797]</a> -Afterwards the celebrated Bishop of Ely.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_798" id="Foot_798" href="#Ref_798">[798]</a> -See Appendix D: "The 'Fiscal' Earls."</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_267" id="Page_267">{267}</a></span> - -<h3>APPENDIX D.<br /> -<small>THE "FISCAL" EARLS.</small></h3> - -<p class="small center">(See p. <a href="#Page_53">53</a>.)</p> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">"Stephen's</span> -earldoms are a matter of great constitutional -importance." Such are the words of the supreme authority -on the constitutional history of the time. I propose, therefore, -to deal with this subject in detail and at some length, and to -test the statements of the chroniclers—too readily, as I think, -accepted—by the actual facts of the case, so far as they can -now be recovered.</p> - -<p>The two main propositions advanced by our historians on -this subject are: (1) that Stephen created many new earls, -who were deposed by Henry II. on his accession;<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_799" id="Ref_799" href="#Foot_799">[799]</a></span> (2) that -these new earls, having no means of their own, had to be provided -for "by pensions on the Exchequer."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_800" id="Ref_800" href="#Foot_800">[800]</a></span> That these -propositions are fairly warranted by the statements of one or -two chroniclers may be at once frankly conceded; that they -are true in fact, we shall now find, may be denied without -hesitation.</p> - -<p>Let us first examine Dr. Stubbs's view as set forth in his -own words:—</p> - -<div class="pagenum"><a name="Page_268" id="Page_268">{268}</a></div> - -<table class="multi" summary="multi-11"> - - <colgroup> - <col span="2" style="width:48%" /> - </colgroup> - -<tr> - -<td>"Not satisfied with putting this -weapon into the hands of his enemies, -he provoked their pride and jealousy -by conferring the title of earl upon -some of those whom he trusted most -implicitly, irrespective of the means -which they might have of supporting -their new dignity. Their poverty was -relieved by pensions drawn from the -Exchequer.... Stephen, almost before -the struggle for the crown had -begun, attempted to strengthen his -party by a creation of new earls. To -these the third penny of the county -was given, and their connection with -the district from which the title was -taken was generally confined to this -comparatively small endowment, the -rest of their provision being furnished -by pensions on the Exchequer" (<i>Const. -Hist.</i>, i. 324, 362).</td> - -<td>"Stephen also would have a court -of great earls, but in trying to make -himself friends he raised up persistent -enemies. He raised new men -to new earldoms, but as he had no -spare domains to bestow, he endowed -them with pensions charged on the -Exchequer ... the new and unsubstantial -earldoms provoked the real -earls to further hostility; and the -newly created lords demanded of the -king new privileges as the reward -and security for their continued services" -(<i>Early Plants.</i>, p. 19).<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_801" id="Ref_801" href="#Foot_801">[801]</a></span></td> - -</tr> - -</table> - -<p>Now, these "pensions on the Exchequer" must, I fear, be -dismissed at once as having an existence only in a misapprehension -of the writer. Indeed, if the Exchequer machinery had -broken down, as he holds, it is difficult to see of what value -these pensions would be. But in any case, it is absolutely -certain that such grants as were made were alienations of lands -and rents, and not "pensions" at all.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_802" id="Ref_802" href="#Foot_802">[802]</a></span> The passages bearing -on these grants are as follows. Robert de Torigny (<i>alias</i> "De -Monte") states that Stephen "omnia pene ad fiscum pertinentia -minus caute distribuerat," and that Henry, on his accession, -"cœpit revocare in jus proprium urbes, castella, villas, quæ ad -coronam regni pertinebant."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_803" id="Ref_803" href="#Foot_803">[803]</a></span> William of Newburgh writes:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Considerans autem Rex [Henricus] quod regii redditus breves essent, -qui avito tempore uberes fuerant, eo quod regia dominica per mollitiem regis -Stephani ad alia multosque dominos majori ex parte migrassent, præcepit -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_269" id="Page_269">{269}</a></span> -ea cum omni integritate a quibuscunque detentioribus resignari, et in jus -statumque pristinum revocari."</p> - -<p>In the vigorous words of William of Malmesbury:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Multi siquidem ... a rege, hi prædia, hi castella, postremo quæcumque -semel collibuisset, petere non verebantur; ... Denique multos etiam -comites, qui ante non fuerant, instituit, applicitis possessionibus et redditibus -quæ proprio jure regi competebant."</p> - -<p>It is on this last passage that Dr. Stubbs specially relies; -but a careful comparison of this with the two preceding extracts -will show that in none of them are "pensions" spoken of. The -grants, as indeed charters prove, always consisted of actual -estates.</p> - -<p>The next point is that these alienations were, for the most -part, made in favour not of "fiscal earls," but, on the contrary, -in favour of those who were not created earls.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_804" id="Ref_804" href="#Foot_804">[804]</a></span> There is reason -to believe, from such evidence as we have, that, in this matter, -the Empress was a worse offender than the king, while their -immaculate successor, as his Pipe-Rolls show, was perhaps the -worst of the three. It is, at any rate, a remarkable fact that -the only known charter by which Stephen creates an earldom—being -that to Geoffrey de Mandeville (1140)—does not grant -a pennyworth of land, while the largest grantee of lands known -to us, namely, William d'Ypres, was never created an earl.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_805" id="Ref_805" href="#Foot_805">[805]</a></span> -Then, again, as to "the third penny." It is not even mentioned -in the above creation-charter, and there is no evidence that -"the third penny of the county was given" to all Stephen's -earls; indeed, as I have elsewhere shown, it was probably -limited to a few (see Appendix H).</p> - -<p>The fact is that the whole view is based on the radically -false assumption of the "poverty" of Stephen's earls. The -idea that his earls were taken from the ranks is a most extraordinary -delusion. They belonged, in the main, to that class -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_270" id="Page_270">{270}</a></span> -of magnates from whom, both before and after his time, the -earls were usually drawn. Dr. Stubbs's own words are in -themselves destructive of his view:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Stephen made Hugh Bigod Earl of Norfolk, Aubrey de Vere Earl of -Oxford, Geoffrey de Mandeville Earl of Essex, Richard de Clare Earl of -Hertford, William of Aumâle Earl of Yorkshire, Gilbert de Clare Earl -of Pembroke, Robert de Ferrers Earl of Derby, and Hugh de Beaumont -Earl of Bedford."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_806" id="Ref_806" href="#Foot_806">[806]</a></span></p> - -<p>Were such nobles as these "new men"? Had <i>their</i> -"poverty" to be "relieved"? Why, their very names are -enough; they are those of the noblest and wealthiest houses in -the baronage of Stephen's realm. Even the last, Hugh de -Beaumont, though not the head of his house, had two elder -brothers earls at the time, nor was it proposed to create him -an earl till, by possession of the Beauchamp fief, he should be -qualified to take his place among the great landowners of the -day.</p> - -<p>Having thus, I hope, completely disposed of this strange -delusion, and shown that Stephen selected his earls from the -same class as other kings, I now approach the alleged deposition -of the earls created by the Empress and himself, on the -accession of Henry II.</p> - -<p>I would venture, on the strength of special research, to -make several alterations in the lists given by Dr. Stubbs.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_807" id="Ref_807" href="#Foot_807">[807]</a></span></p> - -<p>The earldoms he assigns to Stephen are these:—</p> - -<div class="earl"> - -<ul> - <li><span class="smc">Norfolk.</span> Hugh Bigod (before 1153).</li> - <li><span class="smc">Oxford.</span> Aubrey de Vere (<i>questionable</i>).</li> - <li><span class="smc">Essex.</span> Geoffrey de Mandeville (before 1143).</li> - <li><span class="smc">Hertford.</span> Richard de Clare (uncertain).</li> - <li><span class="smc">Yorkshire.</span> William of Aumâle (1138).</li> - <li><span class="smc">Pembroke.</span> Gilbert de Clare (1138).</li> - <li><span class="smc">Derby.</span> Robert de Ferrers (1138).</li> - <li><span class="smc">Bedford.</span> Hugh de Beaumont.</li> - <li><span class="smc">Kent.</span> William of Ypres (<i>questionable</i>).</li> -</ul> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent">From these we must at once deduct the two admitted to be -"questionable:" William of Ypres, because I am enabled to state -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_271" id="Page_271">{271}</a></span> -absolutely, from my own knowledge of charters, that he never -received an English earldom,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_808" id="Ref_808" href="#Foot_808">[808]</a></span> and Aubrey de Vere, because -there is no evidence whatever that Stephen created him an earl. -On the other hand, we must add the earldoms of Arundel (or -Chichester or Sussex) and of Lincoln.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_809" id="Ref_809" href="#Foot_809">[809]</a></span> When thus corrected, -the list will run:—</p> - -<div class="earl"> - -<ul> - <li><span class="smc">Derby.</span> Robert de Ferrers (1138).</li> - <li><span class="smc">Yorkshire.</span> William of Aumâle (1138).</li> - <li><span class="smc">Pembroke.</span> Gilbert de Clare (1138).</li> - <li><span class="smc">Essex.</span> Geoffrey de Mandeville (1140).</li> - <li><span class="smc">Lincoln.</span> William de Roumare (? 1139-1140).</li> - <li><span class="smc">Norfolk.</span> Hugh Bigod (before February, 1141).</li> - <li><span class="smc">Arundel.</span> William de Albini (before Christmas, 1141).</li> - <li><span class="smc">Hertford.</span> Gilbert de Clare<span class="fnanchor"><a name="Ref_810" id="Ref_810" - href="#Foot_810">[810]</a></span> (before Christmas, 1141).</li> - <li><span class="smc">Bedford.</span> Hugh de Beaumont (? 1138).</li> -</ul> - -</div> - -<p>A glance at this list will show how familiar are these titles -to our ears, and how powerful were the houses on which they -were bestowed. With the exception of the last, which had a -transitory existence, the names of these great earldoms became -household words.</p> - -<p>Turning now to the earldoms of the Empress, and confining -ourselves to new creations, we obtain the following list:—</p> - -<div class="earl"> - -<ul> - <li><span class="smc">Cornwall.</span> Reginald fitz Roy (? 1141).</li> - <li><span class="smc">Devon.</span> Baldwin de Redvers (before June, 1141).</li> - <li><span class="smc">Dorset</span> (or <span class="smc">Somerset</span>). William de Mohun (before June, 1141).</li> - <li><span class="smc">Hereford.</span> Miles of Gloucester (July, 1141).</li> - <li><span class="smc">Oxford.</span> Aubrey de Vere (1142).</li> - <li><span class="smc">Wiltshire</span> ("<span class="smc">Salisbury</span>"). Patrick of Salisbury (in or before 1149).<span - class="fnanchor"><a name="Ref_811" id="Ref_811" - href="#Foot_811">[811]</a></span></li> -</ul> - -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_272" id="Page_272">{272}</a></span> -This varies from Dr. Stubbs's list in omitting <span class="smc">Essex</span> -(Geoffrey de Mandeville) as only a confirmation, and adding -<span class="smc">Devon</span> (Baldwin de Redvers), an earldom which is always, -but erroneously, stated to have been conferred upon Baldwin's -father <i>temp.</i> Henry I.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_812" id="Ref_812" href="#Foot_812">[812]</a></span> Of these creations, Hereford is the -one of which the facts are best ascertained, while Dorset or -Somerset is that of which least is known.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_813" id="Ref_813" href="#Foot_813">[813]</a></span></p> - -<p>The merest glance at these two lists is sufficient to show -that the titles conferred by the rival competitors for the crown -were chosen from those portions of the realm in which their -strength respectively lay. Nor do they seem to have encroached -upon the sphere of one another by assigning to the same county -rival earls. This is an important fact to note, and it leads us -to this further observation, that, contrary to the view advanced -by Dr. Stubbs, the earls created in this reign took their title, -wherever possible, from the counties in which lay their chief -territorial strength. Of the earldoms existing at the death -of Henry (Chester, Leicester, Warwick, Gloucester, Surrey, -[Northampton?], Huntingdon, and Buckingham<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_814" id="Ref_814" href="#Foot_814">[814]</a></span>), Surrey was -the one glaring exception to this important rule. Under -Stephen and Matilda, in these two lists, we have fifteen new -earls, of whom almost all take their titles in accordance with -this same rule. Hugh Bigod, Robert de Ferrers, William -of Aumâle, Geoffrey de Mandeville, William de Albini, William -de Roumare, William de Mohun, Baldwin de Redvers, Patrick -of Salisbury, are all instances in point. The only exceptions -suggest the conclusion that where a newly created earl could -not take for his title the county in which his chief possessions -lay, he chose the nearest county remaining vacant at the time. -Thus the head of the house of Clare must have taken Hertford -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_273" id="Page_273">{273}</a></span> -for his title, because Essex had already been given to Geoffrey, -while Suffolk was included in the earldom of Hugh, as "Earl -of the East Angles." So, too, Miles of Gloucester must have -selected Hereford, because Gloucester was already the title of -his lord. Aubrey de Vere, coming, as he did, among the later -of these creations, could not obtain Essex, in which lay his -chief seat, but sought for Cambridge, in which county he held -an extensive fief. But here, too, he had been forestalled. He -had, therefore, to go further afield, receiving his choice of the -counties of Oxford, Berks, Wilts, or Dorset. And of these he -chose the nearest, Oxford to wit. Here then we have, I think, -a definite principle at work, which has never, so far as I know, -been enunciated before.</p> - -<p>It may have been observed that I assume throughout that -each earl is the earl of a county. It would not be possible here -to discuss this point in detail, so I will merely give it as my -own conviction that while comital rank was at this period -so far a personal dignity that men spoke of Earl Hugh, Earl -Gilbert, or Earl Geoffrey, yet that an earl without a county -was a conception that had not yet entered into the minds of -men.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_815" id="Ref_815" href="#Foot_815">[815]</a></span> In this, of course, we have a relic of the earl's <i>official</i> -character. To me, therefore, the struggles of antiquaries to -solve puzzles of their own creation as to the correct names -of earldoms are but waste of paper and ink, and occasionally, -even, of brain-power. "Earl William" might be spoken of -by that style only, or he might be further distinguished by -adding "of Arundel," "of Chichester," or "of Sussex." But -his earldom was not affected or altered by any such distinctive -addition to his style. A firm grasp of the broad principle -which I have set forth above should avoid any possibility of -trouble or doubt on the question.</p> - -<p>But, keeping close to the "fiscal earls," let us now see -whether, as alleged, they were deposed by Henry II., and, if -so, to what extent.</p> - -<p>According to Dr. Stubbs, "amongst the terms of pacification -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_274" id="Page_274">{274}</a></span> -which were intended to bind both Stephen and Henry ... -the new earldoms [were] to be extinguished."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_816" id="Ref_816" href="#Foot_816">[816]</a></span> Consequently, -on his accession as king, "Henry was bound to annul the -titular creations of Stephen, and it was by no means certain -within what limits the promise would be construed."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_817" id="Ref_817" href="#Foot_817">[817]</a></span> But -I cannot find in any account of the said terms of pacification -any allusion whatever to the supposed "fiscal earls." Nor -indeed does Dr. Stubbs himself, in his careful analysis of these -terms,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_818" id="Ref_818" href="#Foot_818">[818]</a></span> include anything of the kind. The statement is therefore, -I presume, a retrospective induction.</p> - -<p>The fact from which must have been inferred the existence -of the above promise is that "cashiering of the supposititious -earls" which rests, so far as I can see, on the statement of a -single chronicler.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_819" id="Ref_819" href="#Foot_819">[819]</a></span> Yet that statement, for what it is worth, -is sufficiently precise to warrant Dr. Stubbs in saying that "to -abolish the 'fiscal' earldoms" was among the first of Henry's -reforms.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_820" id="Ref_820" href="#Foot_820">[820]</a></span> The actual words of our great historian should, in -justice, be here quoted:—</p> - -<table class="multi" summary="multi-12"> - - <colgroup> - <col span="2" style="width:48%" /> - </colgroup> - -<tr> - -<td>"Another measure which must -have been taken at the coronation -[December 19, 1154], when all the recognized -earls did their homage and -paid their ceremonial services, seems -to have been the degrading or cashiering -of the supposititious earls created -by Stephen and Matilda. Some of -these may have obtained recognition -by getting new grants; but those -who lost endowment and dignity at -once, like William of Ypres, the -leader of the Flemish mercenaries, -could make no terms. They sank to -the rank from which they had been -so incautiously raised" (<i>Early Plantagenets</i>, -pp. 41, 42).</td> - -<td>"We have no record of actual displacement; -some, at least, of the -fiscal earls retained their dignity: -the earldoms of Bedford, Somerset, -York, and perhaps a few others, drop -out of the list; those of Essex and -Wilts remain. Some had already -made their peace with the king; -some, like Aubrey de Vere, obtained -a new charter for their dignity: this -part of the social reconstruction was -despatched without much complaint -or difficulty" (<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 451).</td> - -</tr> - -</table> - -<p>Before examining these statements, I must deal with the -assertion that William of Ypres was a fiscal earl who "lost -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_275" id="Page_275">{275}</a></span> -endowment and dignity at once." That he ever obtained an -English earldom I have already ventured to deny; that he lost -his "endowment" at Henry's accession I shall now proceed to -disprove. It is a further illustration of the danger attendant -on a blind following of the chroniclers that the expulsion of -the Flemings, and the fall of their leader, are events which are -always confidently assigned to the earliest days of Henry's -reign.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_821" id="Ref_821" href="#Foot_821">[821]</a></span> For though Stephen died in October, 1154, it can be -absolutely proved by record evidence that William of Ypres -continued to enjoy his rich "endowment" down to Easter, -1157.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_822" id="Ref_822" href="#Foot_822">[822]</a></span> Stephen had, indeed, provided well for his great and -faithful follower, quartering him on the county of Kent, where -he held ancient demesne of the Crown to the annual value of -£261 "blanch," <i>plus</i> £178 8<i>s.</i> 7<i>d.</i> "numero" of Crown escheats -formerly belonging to the Bishop of Bayeux. Such a provision -was enormous for the time at which it was made.</p> - -<p>Returning now to the "cashiering" of the earls, it will be -noticed that Dr. Stubbs has great difficulty in producing -instances in point, and can find nothing answering to any -general measure of the kind. But I am prepared to take firm -ground, and boldly to deny that a single man, who enjoyed -comital rank at the death of Stephen, can be shown to have -lost that rank under Henry II.</p> - -<p>Rash though it may seem thus to impugn the conclusions -of Dr. Stubbs <i>in toto</i>, the facts are inexorably clear. Indeed, -the weakness of his position is manifest when he seeks evidence -for its support from a passage in the <i>Polycraticus</i>:—</p> - -<p class="small">"The following passage of the <i>Polycraticus</i> probably refers to the -transient character of the new dignities, although some of the persons mentioned -in it were not of Stephen's promoting: "Ubi sunt, ut de domesticis -loquar, Gaufridus, Milo, Ranulfus, Alanus, Simon, Gillibertus, non tam -comites regni quam hostes publici? Ubi Willelmus Sarisberiensis?" (<i>Const. -Hist.</i>, i. 451 note).</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_276" id="Page_276">{276}</a></span> -For this passage has nothing to do with "the transient -character of the new dignities": it alludes to a totally different -subject, the <i>death</i> of certain magnates, and is written in the -spirit of Henry of Huntingdon's <i>De Contemptu Mundi</i>.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_823" id="Ref_823" href="#Foot_823">[823]</a></span> The -magnates referred to are Geoffrey, Earl of Essex (d. 1144); -Miles, Earl of Hereford (d. 1143); Randulf, Earl of Chester -(d. 1153); Count Alan of Richmond (d. 1146?); Simon, Earl -of Northampton (d. 1153); and Gilbert, Earl of Pembroke -(d. 1148).<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_824" id="Ref_824" href="#Foot_824">[824]</a></span> Their names alone are sufficient to show that the -passage has been misunderstood, for no one could suggest that -the Earl of Chester or Earl Simon, Waltheof's heir, enjoyed -"new dignities," or that their earldoms proved of a "transient -character."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_825" id="Ref_825" href="#Foot_825">[825]</a></span></p> - -<p>Of the three cases of actual displacement tentatively selected -by Dr. Stubbs, Bedford may be at once rejected; for Hugh de -Beaumont had lost the dignity (so far as he ever possessed it<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_826" id="Ref_826" href="#Foot_826">[826]</a></span>), -together with the fief itself, in 1141.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_827" id="Ref_827" href="#Foot_827">[827]</a></span> York requires separate -treatment: William of Aumâle sometimes, but rarely, styled himself, -under Stephen, Earl of York; he did not, however, under -Henry II., lose his comital rank,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_828" id="Ref_828" href="#Foot_828">[828]</a></span> and that is sufficient for my -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_277" id="Page_277">{277}</a></span> -purpose. The earldom of Dorset (or Somerset) is again a -special case. Its existence is based—(1) on "Earl William de -Mohun" appearing as a witness in June, 1141; (2) on the -statement in the <i>Gesta</i> that he was made Earl of Dorset in -1141; (3) on his founding Bruton Priory, as "William de -Mohun, Earl of Somerset," in 1142. The terms of the charter -to Earl Aubrey may imply a doubt as to the <i>status</i> of this -earldom, even in 1142, but, in any case, it does not subsequently -occur, so far as is at present known, and there is -nothing to connect the disappearance of the title with the -accession of Henry II.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_829" id="Ref_829" href="#Foot_829">[829]</a></span></p> - -<p>Such slight evidence as we have on the dealings of Henry -with the earls is opposed to the view that anything was done, -as suggested, "at the coronation" (December 19, 1154). It -was not, we have seen, till January, 1156, that charters were -granted dealing with the earldoms of Essex and of Oxford. -And it can only have been when some time had elapsed since -the coronation that Hugh Bigod obtained a charter creating -him anew Earl of Norfolk.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_830" id="Ref_830" href="#Foot_830">[830]</a></span></p> - -<p>To sum up the result of this inquiry, we have now seen that -no such beings as "fiscal" earls ever existed. No chronicler -mentions the name, and their existence is based on nothing but -a false assumption. Stephen did not "incautiously" confer on -men in a state of "poverty" the dignity of earl; he did not -make provision for them by Exchequer pensions; no promise -was made, in the terms between Henry and himself, to degrade -or cashier any such earls; and no proof exists that any were -so cashiered when Henry came to the throne. Indeed, we may -go further and say that Stephen's earldoms all continued, and -that their alleged abolition, as a general measure, has been here -absolutely disproved.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_799" id="Foot_799" href="#Ref_799">[799]</a> -So also Gneist: "Under Stephen, new comites appear to be created -in great numbers, and with extended powers; but these pseudo-earls were -deposed under Henry II." (<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 140, <i>note</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_800" id="Foot_800" href="#Ref_800">[800]</a> -Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 362. Hence the name of "fiscal earls," invented, -I believe, by Dr. Stubbs. See also Addenda.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_801" id="Foot_801" href="#Ref_801">[801]</a> -See also <i>Select Charters</i>, p. 20.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_802" id="Foot_802" href="#Ref_802">[802]</a> -The error arises from a not unnatural, but mistaken, rendering of the -Latin. The term "fiscus" was used at the time in the sense of Crown -demesne. Thus Stephen claimed the treasures of Roger of Salisbury "quia -eas tempore regis Henrici, avunculi et antecessoris sui, <i>ex fisci regii redditibus</i> -Rogerius episcopus collegisset" (<i>Will. Malms.</i>). So, too, in the same reign, -the Earl of Chester is suspected of treason, "quia <i>regalium fiscorum redditus</i> -et castella, quæ violentur possederat reddere negligebat" (<i>Gesta</i>). This -latter passage has been misunderstood, Miss Norgate, for instance, rendering -it: "to pay his dues to the royal treasury." It means that the earl -refused to surrender the Crown castles and estates which he had seized. -Again, speaking of the accession of Henry of Essex's fief to the Crown -demesne, William of Newburgh writes: "amplissimo autem patrimonio ejus -<i>fiscum</i> auxit."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_803" id="Foot_803" href="#Ref_803">[803]</a> -Anno 1155. Under the year 1171 he records a searching investigation -by Henry into the alienated demesnes in Normandy.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_804" id="Foot_804" href="#Ref_804">[804]</a> -The erroneous view is also found in a valuable essay on "The Crown -Lands," by Mr. S. R. Bird, who writes: "It is true that extensive alienations -of those lands [the demesne lands of the Crown] took place during the turbulent -reign of Stephen, in order to enable that monarch to endow the new -earldoms" (<i>Antiquary</i>, xiii. 160).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_805" id="Foot_805" href="#Ref_805">[805]</a> -The king's "second charter" to Geoffrey de Mandeville is not in point, -for it was unconnected with his creation as earl, and was necessitated by the -grants of the Empress.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_806" id="Foot_806" href="#Ref_806">[806]</a> -<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 362.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_807" id="Foot_807" href="#Ref_807">[807]</a> -"As Stephen's earldoms are a matter of great constitutional importance, -it is as well to give the dates and authorities" (<i>Ibid.</i>, i. 362).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_808" id="Foot_808" href="#Ref_808">[808]</a> -There is a curious allusion to him in John of Salisbury's letters (ed. -Giles, i. 174, 175) as "famosissimus ille tyrannus et ecclesiæ nostræ gravissimus -persecutor, Willelmus de Ypra" (cf. pp. 129, 206 <i>n.</i>, 213 <i>n.</i>, 275 <i>n.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_809" id="Foot_809" href="#Ref_809">[809]</a> -A shadowy earldom of Cambridge, known to us only from an Inspeximus -<i>temp.</i> Edward III., and a doubtful earldom of Worcestershire bestowed on the -Count of Meulan, need not be considered here.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_810" id="Foot_810" href="#Ref_810">[810]</a> -Son of Richard de Clare, who, in Dr. Stubbs's list and elsewhere, is -erroneously supposed to have been the first earl.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_811" id="Foot_811" href="#Ref_811">[811]</a> -The earliest mention of Patrick, as an earl, that I have yet found is in -the Devizes charter of Henry (1149).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_812" id="Foot_812" href="#Ref_812">[812]</a> -In an interesting charter (transcribed in <i>Lansdowne MS.</i>, 229, fol. 116<i>b</i>) -of this Earl Baldwin as "Comes Exonie," granted at Carisbrooke, he speaks, -"Ricardi de Redvers patris mei."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_813" id="Foot_813" href="#Ref_813">[813]</a> -I have shown (p. 95 <i>n.</i>) that William de Mohun was already an earl in -June, 1141, though the <i>Gesta</i> assigns his creation to the siege of Winchester, -later in the year.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_814" id="Foot_814" href="#Ref_814">[814]</a> -Buckingham is a most difficult and obscure title, and is only inserted -here <i>cavendi causa</i>. Northampton, also, and Huntingdon are most troublesome -titles, owing to the double set of earls with their conflicting claims, and -the doubt as to their correct title.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_815" id="Foot_815" href="#Ref_815">[815]</a> -This view is not affected by the fact that two or even more counties (as -in the case of Waltheof's earldom) might be, officially, linked together, for -where this arrangement had lingered on, the group might (or might not) be -treated as one county, as regarded the earl. Warwick and Leicester are -an instance one way; Norfolk and Suffolk the other.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_816" id="Foot_816" href="#Ref_816">[816]</a> -<i>Select Charters</i>, pp. 20, 21. Cf. <i>Early Plants.</i>, p. 37: "All property -alienated from the Crown was to be resumed, especially the pensions on the -Exchequer with which Stephen endowed his newly created earls."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_817" id="Foot_817" href="#Ref_817">[817]</a> -<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 451.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_818" id="Foot_818" href="#Ref_818">[818]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, i. 333, 334.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_819" id="Foot_819" href="#Ref_819">[819]</a> -Robert de Monte.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_820" id="Foot_820" href="#Ref_820">[820]</a> -<i>Select Charters</i>, p. 21.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_821" id="Foot_821" href="#Ref_821">[821]</a> -The chroniclers are positive on the point. At the opening of 1155, -writes Gervase (i. 161), "Guillelmus de Ypre et omnes fere Flandrenses qui -in Angliam confluxerant, indignationem et magnanimitatem novi regis -metuentes, ab Anglia recesserunt." So, too, Fitz Stephen asserts that "infra -tres primos menses coronationis regis Willelmus de Ypra violentus incubator -Cantiæ cum lachrymis emigravit."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_822" id="Foot_822" href="#Ref_822">[822]</a> -Pipe-Rolls, 2 and 3 Hen. II. (published 1844).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_823" id="Foot_823" href="#Ref_823">[823]</a> -Compare also the moralizing of Ordericus on the death of William fitz -Osbern (1071): "Ubi est Guillelmus Osberni filius, Herfordensis comes et -Regis vicarius," etc.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_824" id="Foot_824" href="#Ref_824">[824]</a> -This is the date given for his death in the <i>Tintern Chronicle</i> (<i>Monasticon</i>, -O.E., i. 725).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_825" id="Foot_825" href="#Ref_825">[825]</a> -"William of Salisbury" was a deceased magnate, but is mentioned -by himself in the above passage because he was not an earl. As he is overlooked -by genealogists, it may be well to explain who he was. He fought -for the Empress at the siege of Winchester, where he was taken prisoner by -the Earl of Hertford (<i>Will. Malms.</i>, ed. Stubbs, ii. 587). He was also the -"Willelmus ... civitatis Saresbiriæ præceptor ... et municeps" (<i>Gesta</i>, -ed. Howlett, p. 96), who took part in the attack on Wilton nunnery in 1143, -and "lento tandem cruciatu tortus interiit." This brings us to a document -in the register of St. Osmund (i. 237), in which "Walterus, Edwardi vicecomitis -filius, et Sibilla uxor mea et heres noster Comes Patricius" make -a grant to the church of Salisbury "nominatim pro anima Willelmi filii -nostri fratris comitis Patricii in restauramentum dampnorum quæ prænominatus -filius noster Willelmus Sarum ecclesie fecerit." The paternity of William -is thus established.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_826" id="Foot_826" href="#Ref_826">[826]</a> -I have never found him attesting any charter as an earl, though this -does not, of course, prove that he never did so.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_827" id="Foot_827" href="#Ref_827">[827]</a> -<i>Gesta</i> (ed. Howlett), pp. 32, 73.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_828" id="Foot_828" href="#Ref_828">[828]</a> -Aumâle ("Albemarle") is notoriously a difficult title, as one of those -of which the bearer enjoyed comital rank, though whether as a Norman -count or as an English earl, it is, at first, difficult to decide. Eventually, of -course, the dignity became an English earldom.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_829" id="Foot_829" href="#Ref_829">[829]</a> -Nor was it an earldom of Stephen's creation.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_830" id="Foot_830" href="#Ref_830">[830]</a> -It was granted at Northampton. Its date is of importance as proving -that the charter to the Earl of Arundel, being attested by Hugh as earl, -must be of later date. Mr. Eyton, however, oddly enough, reverses the order -of the two (<i>Itinerary of Henry II.</i>, pp. 2, 3). He was thus misled by an -error in the witnesses to the Earl of Arundel's charter, which Foss had -acutely detected and explained long before.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_278" id="Page_278">{278}</a></span> - -<h3>APPENDIX E.<br /> -<small>THE ARRIVAL OF THE EMPRESS.</small></h3> - -<p class="center small">(See p. <a href="#Page_55">55</a>.)</p> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">The</span> -true date of this event is involved in considerable obscurity. -The two most detailed versions are those of William of Malmesbury -and of the Continuator of Florence of Worcester. The -former states precisely that the Ecclesiastical Council lasted -from August 29 to September 1 (1139), and that the Empress -landed, at Arundel, on September 30; the latter gives no date -for the council, but asserts that the Empress landed, at Portsmouth, -before August 1—that is, two months earlier. These -grave discrepancies have been carefully discussed by Mr. Howlett,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_831" id="Ref_831" href="#Foot_831">[831]</a></span> -though he fails to note that the Continuator is thoroughly -consistent in his narrative, for he subsequently makes the -Empress remove from Bristol, after spending "more than two -months" there, to Gloucester in the middle of October. He -is, however, almost certainly wrong in placing the landing at -Portsmouth,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_832" id="Ref_832" href="#Foot_832">[832]</a></span> and no less mistaken in placing it so early in the -year. The "in autumno" of Ordericus clearly favours William -rather than the Continuator.</p> - -<p>Mr. Howlett, in his detailed investigation of this "exceedingly -complex chronological difficulty," endeavours to exalt the -value of the <i>Gesta</i> by laying peculiar stress on its mention -of Baldwin de Bedvers' landing, as suggestive of a fresh conjecture. -Urging that "Baldwin's was in very truth the main -army of invasion," he advances the</p> - -<p class="nodent small">"theory that the expedition came in two sections, for the <i>Gesta Stephani</i> -say that Baldwin de Bedvers arrived 'forti militum catervâ,' as no doubt -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_279" id="Page_279">{279}</a></span> -he did, for it was only his presence in force that could render the coming of -Maud and her brother with twenty or thirty retainers anything else than -an act of madness."</p> - -<p>Here we see the danger of catching at a phrase. For if -the <i>Gesta</i> says that Baldwin landed "forti militum catervâ" -(p. 53), it also asserts that the Empress came "cum robustâ -militum manu" (p. 55)—a phrase which Mr. Howlett ignores—while -it speaks of her son, in later years, arriving "cum florida -militum catervâ," when, according to Mr. Howlett, "his following -was small" (p. xvii.), and when, indeed, the <i>Gesta</i> itself -(p. 129) explains that this "florida militum catervâ" was in -truth "militum globum exiguum." But this is not all. Mr. -Howlett speaks, we have seen, of "twenty or thirty retainers," -and asserts that "Malmesbury and Robert of Torigny agree -that he [Earl Robert] had but a handful of men—twenty, or -even twelve as the former has it" (p. xxiv.). It is difficult to -see how he came to do so, for William of Malmesbury distinctly -states that he brought with him, not twelve, but a hundred -and forty knights,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_833" id="Ref_833" href="#Foot_833">[833]</a></span> and, in his recapitulation of the earl's -conduct, repeats the same number. Now, if the <i>Gesta</i> admits -that the little band of knights who accompanied, in later -years, the young Henry to England, was swollen by rumour -to many thousands,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_834" id="Ref_834" href="#Foot_834">[834]</a></span> surely it is easy to understand how the -hundred and forty knights, who accompanied the earl to -England, were swollen by rumour (when it reached the Continuator -of Florence of Worcester) to a "grandis exercitus,"—without -resorting to Mr. Howlett's far-fetched explanation -that the Continuator confused the two landings and imagined -that the Empress had arrived with Baldwin, who "landed at -Wareham ... about August 1." But if he was so ill informed, -what is the value of his evidence? And indeed, his statement -that she landed "at Portsmouth" (not, be it observed, at Wareham, -nor with Baldwin) places him out of court, for it is -accepted by no one. Mr. Howlett offers the desperate explanation, -which he terms "no strained conjecture," that "Earl -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_280" id="Page_280">{280}</a></span> -Robert went on by sea to Portsmouth," a guess for which there -is no basis or, indeed, probability, and which, even if admitted, -would be no explanation; for the Continuator takes the Empress -and her brother to Portsmouth first and to Arundel afterwards.</p> - -<p>The real point to strike one in the matter is that the -Empress should have landed in Sussex when her friends were -awaiting her in the west—for Mr. Howlett fails to realize that -she trusted to them and not to an "army" of her own.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_835" id="Ref_835" href="#Foot_835">[835]</a></span> The -most probable explanation, doubtless, is that she hoped to -evade Stephen, while he was carefully guarding the roads -leading from the south-western coast to Gloucester and Bristol. -Robert of Torigny distinctly implies that Stephen had effectually -closed the other ports ("Appulerunt itaque apud Harundel, -quia tunc alium portum non habebant").</p> - -<p>In any case Mr. Howlett's endeavour to harmonize the two -conflicting dates—the end of July and the end of September—by -suggesting as a compromise the end of August, cannot be -pronounced a success.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_836" id="Ref_836" href="#Foot_836">[836]</a></span></p> - -<p>It may afford, perhaps, some fresh light if we trace the -king's movements after the arrival of the Empress.</p> - -<p>Though the narratives of the chroniclers for the period -between the landing of the Empress and the close of 1139 are -at first sight difficult to reconcile, and, in any case, hard to -understand, it is possible to unravel the sequence of events -by a careful collation of their respective versions, aided by -study of the topography and of other relative considerations. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_281" id="Page_281">{281}</a></span></p> - -<p>On the landing of the Empress, the Earl of Gloucester, -leaving her at Arundel, proceeded to Bristol (<i>Will. Malms.</i>, -p. 725). Stephen, who, says Florence's Continuator (p. 117), -was then besieging Marlborough, endeavoured to intercept him -(<i>Gesta</i>, p. 56), but, failing in this, returned to besiege the -Empress at Arundel (<i>ibid.</i>; <i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i>, p. 117; <i>Gervase</i>, i. -110). Desisting, however, from this siege, he allowed her to -set out for Bristol.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_837" id="Ref_837" href="#Foot_837">[837]</a></span> Meanwhile, her brother, on his way to -Bristol, had held a meeting with Brian fitz Count (<i>Will. -Malms.</i>, p. 725), and had evidently arranged with him a concerted -plan of action (it must be remembered that they intended -immediate revolt, for they had promised the Empress possession -of her realm within a few months<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_838" id="Ref_838" href="#Foot_838">[838]</a></span>). Brian had, accordingly, -returned to Wallingford, and declared at once for the Empress -(<i>Gesta</i>, p. 58). Stephen now marched against him, but either -by the advice of his followers (<i>ibid.</i>) or from impatience at the -tedium of the siege,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_839" id="Ref_839" href="#Foot_839">[839]</a></span> again abandoned his undertaking, and -leaving a detachment to blockade Brian (<i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i>, p. 118), -marched west, himself, to strike at the centre of the revolt. He -first attacked and captured Cerney (near Cirencester), a small -fortress of Miles of Gloucester (<i>Gesta</i>, p. 59; <i>Will. Malms.</i>, -p. 726), and was then called south to Malmesbury by the news -that Robert fitz Hubert had surprised it (on the 7th of October) -and expelled his garrison (<i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. 726; <i>Cont. Flor. -Wig.</i>, p. 119; <i>Gesta</i>, p. 59). Recovering the castle, within a -fortnight of its capture (<i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. 726), after besieging -it eight days (<i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i>, p. 125), he was then decoyed -still further south by the news that Humphrey de Bohun, at the -instigation of Miles, had garrisoned Trowbridge against him. -Here, however, he was not so fortunate (<i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. 726; -<i>Gesta</i>, p. 59). In the meanwhile Miles of Gloucester, with the -instinct of a born warrior, had seized the opportunity thus -afforded him, and, striking out boldly from his stronghold at -Gloucester, marched to the relief of Brian fitz Count. Bursting -by night on the blockading force, he scattered them in all -directions, and returned in triumph to Gloucester (<i>Gesta</i>, p. 60). -It was probably the tidings of this disaster (though the fact is -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_282" id="Page_282">{282}</a></span> -not so stated) that induced Stephen to abandon his unsuccessful -siege of Trowbridge, and retrace his steps to the Thames -valley (<i>ibid.</i>, pp. 61, 62). This must have been early in -November.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_840" id="Ref_840" href="#Foot_840">[840]</a></span></p> - -<p>Seizing his chance, the active Miles again sallied forth from -Gloucester, but this time toward the north, and, on the 7th of -November, sacked and burnt Worcester (<i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i>, pp. 118-120). -About the same time he made himself master of Hereford -and its county for the Empress (<i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. 727; <i>Gesta</i>, -p. 61). Stephen was probably in the Thames valley when he -received news of this fresh disaster, which led him once more -to march west. Advancing from Oxford, he entered Worcester, -and beheld the traces of the enemy's attack (<i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i>, -p. 121). After a stay there of a few days, he heard that the -enemy had seized Hereford and were besieging his garrison in -the castle (<i>ibid.</i>).<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_841" id="Ref_841" href="#Foot_841">[841]</a></span> He therefore advanced to Leominster by -way of Little Hereford,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_842" id="Ref_842" href="#Foot_842">[842]</a></span> but Advent Sunday (December 3) -having brought about a cessation of hostilities, he retraced his -steps to Worcester (<i>ibid.</i>). Thence, after another brief stay, -he marched back to Oxford, probably making for Wallingford -and London. Evidently, however, on reaching Oxford, he -received news of the death of Roger, Bishop of Salisbury.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_843" id="Ref_843" href="#Foot_843">[843]</a></span> It -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_283" id="Page_283">{283}</a></span> -was probably this which led him to keep his Christmas at -Salisbury. Thither, therefore, he proceeded from Oxford, returning -at the close of the year to Reading (<i>ibid.</i>).</p> - -<p>The question, then, it will be seen, is this. Assuming, as -we must do, that William of Malmesbury is right in the date -he assigns to Stephen's visit to Malmesbury and recovery of -Malmesbury Castle, is it consistent with the date he assigns to -the landing of the Empress and her brother? That is to say, -is it possible that the events which, we have seen, must have -occurred between the above landing and Stephen's visit to -Malmesbury can have been all comprised within the space of a -fortnight? This is a matter of opinion on which I do not -pronounce.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_831" id="Foot_831" href="#Ref_831">[831]</a> -Introduction to <i>Gesta Stephani</i>, pp. xxi.-xxv.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_832" id="Foot_832" href="#Ref_832">[832]</a> -The <i>Gesta</i> and Robert "De Monte" concur with William that it was at -Arundel.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_833" id="Foot_833" href="#Ref_833">[833]</a> -"Centum et quadraginta milites tunc secum adduxit."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_834" id="Foot_834" href="#Ref_834">[834]</a> -"Ut fama adventus ejus se latius, sicut solet, diffunderet, multa scilicet -millia secum adduxisse ... postquam certum fuit ... militum eum globum -exiguum, non autem exercitum adduxisse" (p. 130).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_835" id="Foot_835" href="#Ref_835">[835]</a> -William of Malmesbury, who was well informed, lays stress on this, -describing the earl as "fretus pietate Dei et fide legitimi sacramenti; ceterum -multo minore armorum apparatu quam quis alius tam periculosum -bellum aggredi temptaret ... in sancti spiritus et dominæ sanctæ Mariæ -patrocinio totus pendulus erat."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_836" id="Foot_836" href="#Ref_836">[836]</a> -Mr. Freeman (<i>Norm. Conq.</i>, v. 291) takes the place of landing (Portsmouth) -from the one account, and the date (September 30) from the other, -without saying so. I notice this because it is characteristic. Thus Mr. James -Parker (<i>Early History of Oxford</i>, p. 191) observes of Mr. Freeman's account -of the Conqueror's advance on London: "Though by leaving out here and -there the discrepancies, the residue may be worked up into a consecutive and -consistent series of events, such a process amounts to making history, not -writing it. Amidst a mass of contradictory evidence it is impossible to arrive -at any sure conclusion.... It is, however, comparatively easy to piece -together such details as will fit out of the various stories; and more easy -still to discover reasons for the results which such mosaic work produces."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_837" id="Foot_837" href="#Ref_837">[837]</a> -See p. 55.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_838" id="Foot_838" href="#Ref_838">[838]</a> -<i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i>, p. 115.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_839" id="Foot_839" href="#Ref_839">[839]</a> -"Obsidionis diutinæ pertæsus" (<i>ibid.</i>, p. 118).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_840" id="Foot_840" href="#Ref_840">[840]</a> -It is an instance of the extraordinary confusion, at this point, in the -chroniclers that the author of the <i>Gesta</i> makes him go from Trowbridge to -London, and thence to Ely, omitting all the intervening events, which will -be found set forth above.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_841" id="Foot_841" href="#Ref_841">[841]</a> -"Fama volante regiæ majestati nunciatur inimicos suos, juratæ quidem -pacis violatores Herefordiam invasisse, monasterium S. Æthelberti regis et -martyris, velut in castellinum munimen penetrasse." It seems absolutely -certain, especially if we add the testimony of the other MSS., that this passage -refers to the attack on the royal garrison in the castle so graphically -described by the author of the <i>Gesta</i>, but (apparently) placed by him among -the events of the summer of the following year. As, however, his narrative -breaks off just at this point, his sequence of events is left uncertain, and in -any case the chronology of the local chronicler, who here writes as an eyewitness, -must be preferred to his.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_842" id="Foot_842" href="#Ref_842">[842]</a> -This passage (p. 121) should be compared with that on pp. 123, 124 -("Rex et comes ... Oxenefordiam"), which looks extremely like a repetition -of it (as the passage on pp. 110, 111 is an anticipation of that on pp. 116, -117).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_843" id="Foot_843" href="#Ref_843">[843]</a> -Assigned to December 11 by William of Malmesbury (p. 727), and to -December 4 by the Continuator (p. 113). The above facts are rather in -favour of the former of the two dates.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_284" id="Page_284">{284}</a></span> - -<h3>APPENDIX F.<br /> -<small>THE DEFECTION OF MILES OF GLOUCESTER.</small></h3> - -<p class="center small">(See p. <a href="#Page_55">55</a>.)</p> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">Miss Norgate</span> -assigns this event to the early summer of the -year 1138,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_844" id="Ref_844" href="#Foot_844">[844]</a></span> on the authority of Gervase of Canterbury (i. 104). -The statement of that writer is clear enough, but it is also -clear that he made it on the authority of the Continuator of -Florence. Now, the Continuator muddled in inextricable confusion -the events of 1138 and 1139. In this he was duly followed -by Gervase, who gives us, under 1138, first the arrest of -the bishops at Oxford (June, 1139), then the <i>diffidatio</i> of the -Earl of Gloucester, next the revolt of 1138 and the defection -of Miles, next the invitation to the Empress (1139), followed by -the Battle of the Standard (1138), and lastly the death of the -Bishop of Salisbury (December, 1139). This can be clearly -traced to the Continuator,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_845" id="Ref_845" href="#Foot_845">[845]</a></span> and conclusive evidence, if required, -is afforded by the fact that Gervase, like the Continuator, -travels again over the same ground under 1139. Thus the -defection of Miles is told twice over, as will be seen from these -parallel extracts:—</p> - -<div class="pagenum"><a name="Page_285" id="Page_285">{285}</a></div> - -<table class="multi" summary="multi-13"> - - <colgroup> - <col span="2" style="width:48%" /> - </colgroup> - -<tr> - <th>Cont. Flor. Wig.<br />(1138.)</th> - <th>Gerv. Cant.<br />(1138.)</th> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>"Interim facta conjuratione adversus -regem per predictum Brycstowensem -comitem et conestabularium -Milonem, abnegata fidelitate -quam illi juraverant, missis nuntiis -ad Andegavensem civitatem accersunt -ex-imperatricem," etc., etc.</td> - <td>"Qui [Comes Glaornensis] ... -fidei et sacramentis quibus regi tenebatur -renuntiavit.... Milo quoque -princeps militiæ regis avertit se a -rege, ... Interea conjuratio in regem -facta per comitem Glaornensem -et Milonem summum regis constabularium -invaluit, nam missis -nuntiis ... asciverunt ex-imperatricem," -etc., etc.</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <th>(1139.)</th> - <th>(1139.)</th> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>"Milo constabularius, regiæ majestati -redditis fidei sacramentis, ad -dominum suum, comitem Gloucestrensem, -cum grandi manu militum -se contulit, illi spondens in fide -auxilium contra regem exhibiturum."</td> - <td>"Milo regis constabularius multique -procerum cum multa militum -manu ab obsequio regis recesserunt, -et pristinis fidei sacramentis innovatis -ad partem imperatricis tuendam -conversi sunt."</td> -</tr> - -</table> - -<p>It is obvious from these extracts that the Continuator tells -the tale of the constable's <i>diffidatio</i> and defection twice over; -it is further obvious, from his own evidence, that the second of -the two dates (1139) is the right one, for he tells us that so -late as February, 1139, Stephen gave Gloucester Abbey to -Gilbert Foliot "petente constabulario suo Milone."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_846" id="Ref_846" href="#Foot_846">[846]</a></span> When -we find that this event is assigned by the author of the <i>Gesta</i> -to 1139, that the constableship of Miles was not transferred to -William de Beauchamp till the latter part of 1139, and that -Miles is not mentioned among the rebels in 1138 (though his -importance would preclude his omission), nor is any attack on -Gloucester assigned to Stephen in that year, we may safely -decide that the defection of Miles did not take place till the -arrival of the Empress in 1139.</p> - -<p>Since writing the above I have noted the presence of Miles -of Gloucester among the followers of Stephen at the siege of -Shrewsbury (August, 1138).<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_847" id="Ref_847" href="#Foot_847">[847]</a></span> This is absolutely conclusive, -proving as it does that Miles was still on the king's side in the -revolt of 1138.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_844" id="Foot_844" href="#Ref_844">[844]</a> -<i>England under the Angevin Kings</i>, i. 295.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_845" id="Foot_845" href="#Ref_845">[845]</a> -Ed. Eng. Hist. Soc., ii. 107-113.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_846" id="Foot_846" href="#Ref_846">[846]</a> -ii. 114. Miss Norgate, having accepted the date of 1138 for the -defection of Miles, finds it difficult to explain this passage. She writes -(i. 494): "Stephen's consent to his appointment can hardly have been -prompted by favour to Miles, who had openly defied the king a year ago."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_847" id="Foot_847" href="#Ref_847">[847]</a> -Charter dated in third year of Stephen, "Apud Salopesbiriam in -obsidione" (Nero, C. iii. fol. 177).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_286" id="Page_286">{286}</a></span> - -<h3>APPENDIX G.<br /> -<small>CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS TO ROGER DE VALOINES.</small></h3> - -<p class="center small">(See p. <a href="#Page_87">87</a>.)</p> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">As</span> -this charter is not included in Mr. Birch's <i>Fasciculus</i>, and -is therefore practically unknown, I here give it <i>in extenso</i> from -the <i>Cartæ Antiquæ</i> (K. 24). It will be observed that, of its six -witnesses, five attest the Westminster charter to Geoffrey de -Mandeville. The sixth is Humfrey de Bohun, a frequent -witness to charters of the Empress. This charter is preceded -in the <i>Cartæ Antiquæ</i> by enrolments of two charters to the -grantee's predecessors from William Rufus and Henry I. -respectively. The "service" of Albany de Hairon, a Herts -tenant-in-capite, is an addition made by the Empress to these -grants of her predecessors. The <i>cartæ</i> of 1166 prove that it -was subsequently ignored.</p> - -<p>"M. Imperatrix regis H. filia archiepiscopis episcopis abbatibus -comitibus baronibus justiciariis vicecomitibus ministris -et omnibus fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis tocius Anglie salutem. -Sciatis me reddidisse et concessisse Rogero de Valoniis -in feodo et hereditate sibi et heredibus suis Esendonam et -Begefordiam et molendina Heortfordie et servitium Albani de -Hairon et omnes alias terras et tenaturas patris sui sicut pater -suus eas tenuit die qua fuit vivus et mortuus et preter hoc -quicquid modo tenet de quocunque teneat. Quare volo et -firmiter precipio quod bene et in pace et honorifice et libere -et quiete teneat in bosco et plano in pratis et pascuis in turbariis -in via et semita in exitibus in aquis et molendinis in vivariis -et stagnis in foro et navium applicationibus infra burgum et -extra cum socha et saka et thol et theam et infanenethef et -cum omnibus libertatibus et consuetudinibus et quietantiis cum -quibus pater suus melius et quietius et liberius tenuit tempore -patris mei regis Henrici et ipse post patrem. T. R[oberto] -Com[ite] Gloec[estrie] et M[ilone] Gloec[estrie] et Brientio -fil[io] Com[itis] et Rad[ulfo] Painel et Walchel[ino] Maminot -et Humfr[ido] de Buh[un] apud Westmonasterium."</p> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_287" id="Page_287">{287}</a></span> - -<h3>APPENDIX H.<br /> -<small>THE "TERTIUS DENARIUS."</small></h3> - -<p class="center small">(See p. <a href="#Page_97">97</a>.)</p> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">Special</span> -research has led me to discover that all our historians -are in error in their accounts of this institution.</p> - -<p>The key to the enquiry will be found in the fact that the -term "tertius denarius" had two distinct denotations; that is -to say, was used in two different senses. Dr. Stubbs and Mr. -Freeman have both failed to grasp this essential fact. The two -varieties of the "tertius denarius" were these:—</p> - -<p>(1) The "tertius denarius placitorum comitatus." This -is the recognized "third penny" of which historians speak. -Observe that this was not, as it is sometimes loosely termed, -and as, indeed, Gneist describes it, "the customary third of -the revenues of the county,"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_848" id="Ref_848" href="#Foot_848">[848]</a></span> but, as Dr. Stubbs accurately -terms it, "the third penny of the pleas."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_849" id="Ref_849" href="#Foot_849">[849]</a></span> So here the Empress -grants to Geoffrey de Mandeville "tertium denarium vicecomitatus -<i>de placitis</i>" (cf. p. 239). This distinction is all-important, -for "the pleas" only represented a small portion of -the total "revenues of the county" as compounded for in the -sheriff's <i>firma</i>.</p> - -<p>(2) The "tertius denarius redditus burgi." This "third -penny," which has been strangely confused with the other, -differs from it in these two respects. Firstly, it is that, not of -the pleas ("placitorum"), but of the total revenues ("redditus"); -secondly, it is that, not of the county ("comitatus"), -but of a town alone ("burgi").</p> - -<p>This distinction, which is absolutely certain from Domesday -and from record evidence, is fortunately shown, with singular -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_288" id="Page_288">{288}</a></span> -clearness, in the charter of the Empress to Miles of Gloucester, -creating him Earl of Hereford. In it she grants—</p> - -<p class="small">"Tertium denarium redditus burgi Hereford quicquid unquam reddat,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_850" id="Ref_850" href="#Foot_850">[850]</a></span> -et tertium denarium placitorum totius comitatus Hereford."</p> - -<p>Nor is it less clear in the charter (1155), by which Henry II. -creates Hugh Bigod Earl of Norfolk "scilicet de tercio denario -de Norwic et de Norfolca."</p> - -<p>Now, let us trace how the "tertius denarius redditus burgi" -has been erroneously taken for the "tertius denarius placitorum -totius comitatus," the only recognized "third penny."</p> - -<p>Dr. Stubbs writes: "The third penny of the county which -had been a part of the profits of the English earls is occasionally -referred to in Domesday."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_851" id="Ref_851" href="#Foot_851">[851]</a></span> The passage on which this statement -is based is found earlier in the volume. Our great -historian there writes:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Each shire was under an ealdorman, who sat with the sheriff and -bishop in the folkmoot, and received a third part of the profits of jurisdiction. -(The third penny of the county appears from Domesday [i. 1. 26, 203, 246, -252, 280, 298, 336] to have been paid to the earl in the time of Edward the -Confessor.—Ellis, <i>Introduction to Domesday</i>, i. 167)."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_852" id="Ref_852" href="#Foot_852">[852]</a></span></p> - -<p>The argument that the ealdorman, or earl, of the days before -the Conquest, received "a third part of the profits of jurisdiction" -in the county, rests here, it will be seen, wholly on -the evidence of Domesday. But in six of the eight passages -on which Dr. Stubbs relies we are distinctly dealing, not with -the county ("comitatus"), but with a single town ("burgus"). -These are Dover, Lewes, Huntingdon, Stafford, Shrewsbury, -and Lincoln. In these, therefore, the third penny could only -be that of the <i>redditus burgi</i>, not of the <i>placita comitatus</i>.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_853" id="Ref_853" href="#Foot_853">[853]</a></span> -Huntingdon is specially a case in point, for there the earl -received a third of each of the items out of which the render -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_289" id="Page_289">{289}</a></span> -("redditus") of the town was composed. The only cases of -those mentioned which could possibly concern the third penny -"placitorum comitatus" are those of Yorkshire (298), Lincolnshire -(336), and Nottinghamshire with Derbyshire (280). -Even in these, however, "the third penny of the pleas" is only -vaguely implied, the passages referring to a peculiar system -which has, I believe, never obtained the attentive study it -deserves. This system was confined to the Danish district, to -which these counties all belonged.</p> - -<p>The main point, however, which we have to keep in view -is that "the third penny" of the <i>revenues</i> of the <i>town</i> has -nothing to do with "the third penny" of the <i>pleas</i> of the -<i>county</i>, and that the passages in Domesday concerning the -former must not be quoted as evidence for the latter. I do not -find that Ellis (<i>Introduction</i>, i. 167, 168) is responsible for so -taking them, but Dr. Stubbs, as we have seen, clearly confused -the two kinds of <i>tertius denarius</i>, and we find that Mr. Freeman -does the same when he tells us that at Exeter "six pounds—that -is, the earl's third penny—went to the Sheriff Baldwin."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_854" id="Ref_854" href="#Foot_854">[854]</a></span></p> - -<p>We are reminded by this last instance that not only the -earl, but the sheriff, was concerned with "the third penny" of -the <i>revenues</i> of the <i>town</i>. This—which (I would here again -repeat) is not the earl's "third penny" to which historians -allude—sometimes, as for instance at Shrewsbury and Exeter, -fell to the sheriff's share. Dr. Stubbs mentions the case of -Shrewsbury only, and takes it as evidence that "the sheriff -as well as the ealdorman was entitled to a share of the profits -of administration."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_855" id="Ref_855" href="#Foot_855">[855]</a></span></p> - -<p>This third penny "redditus burgi" is in Domesday absolutely -erratic. In the Wiltshire and Somersetshire towns, it seems -to have been held by the king himself, though at Cricklade -both he and Westminster Abbey are credited with it (64 <i>b</i>, 67). -At Leicester it was held by Hugh de Grantmesnil, but we are -not told by what right (i. 230). At Stafford it had been held -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_290" id="Page_290">{290}</a></span> -by the English earl, and had fallen with his estates to the -Crown. The Conqueror kept it, but, halving his own two-thirds -share, made a fresh "third," which he granted to Robert de -Stafford.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_856" id="Ref_856" href="#Foot_856">[856]</a></span> At Ipswich it had, with the "tertius denarius [<i>i.e.</i> -placitorum] de duobus hundret," been annexed to an estate -held by the local earl. The whole of this was granted by the -Conqueror to his follower, Earl Alan.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_857" id="Ref_857" href="#Foot_857">[857]</a></span> At Worcester, by a -curious arrangement, the total render had been divided, in unequal -portions, between the king and the earl, while a third of -the whole was received by the bishop. At Fordwich "the -third penny" fell to Bishop Odo, and was bestowed by him, with -the king's consent, on St. Augustine's, Canterbury, to which -the other two-thirds had been given already by the Confessor. -The case of Bristol has led Mr. Freeman into a characteristic -error. We read in Domesday:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Burgenses dicunt quod episcopus G. habet xxxiii marcas argenti et -unam marcam auri p[re]ter firmam regis" (i. 163).</p> - -<p>Mr. Freeman, who is never weary of insisting on the value of -Domesday, is clearly not so familiar as one could wish with its -normal contractions, for he renders the closing words "p<i>rop</i>ter -firmam regis." On this he observes: "This looks like the earl's -third penny; but Geoffrey certainly had no formal earldom in -Gloucestershire."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_858" id="Ref_858" href="#Foot_858">[858]</a></span> When we substitute for the meaningless -"propter" the right reading "preter" ("in addition to"), we -see at once that the figures given no longer suggest a "third -penny."</p> - -<p>Leaving now the third penny of the revenues of the country -town, let us turn our attention to that of the pleas of the whole -county. Independent of the system in the Danelaw to which -I have referred above, we have two references in Domesday to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_291" id="Page_291">{291}</a></span> -this "third penny." Firstly, the "tercius denarius de totâ -scirâ Dorsete" (i. 75); secondly (in the case of Warwickshire) -"tercio denario placitorum siræ" (i. 278), yet neither of these is -among the cases appealed to by Dr. Stubbs. Now, the curious -point about them is that in neither instance was the right -annexed to the dignity of earl, but to a certain manor, which -manor was held by the earl. That is to say, he was entitled to this -"third penny of the pleas" not <i>quâ</i> earl, but <i>quâ</i> lord of that -estate. The distinction is vital. Whether "the third penny -of the pleas" be that of the whole shire or only of a single -hundred, it is always attached, under the Confessor, to the -possession of some manor. We find the "tercius denarius" of -one, of two, of three, of even six hundreds so annexed.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_859" id="Ref_859" href="#Foot_859">[859]</a></span> This -peculiarity would seem to have been an essential feature of the -system, and I need scarcely point out how opposed it is to the -alleged tenure <i>ex officio</i> in days before the Conquest, or to that -granted to the earl <i>quâ</i> earl under the Norman and Angevin -kings. Let us seek to learn when the latter institution, the -recognized "tertius denarius," became first annexed to the -dignity of earl.</p> - -<p>The prevailing view would seem to be that it was so annexed -from the first; that its possession, in fact, was part of, or rather -was connoted by, the dignity of an earl. Madox held that the -oldest mode of conferring the dignity of earl, a mode "coeval -to the Norman Conquest," was by charter; and he further -held that "By the charter the king granted to the earl the -<i>tertius denarius comitatus</i>."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_860" id="Ref_860" href="#Foot_860">[860]</a></span> Dr. Stubbs writes, of the investiture -of earls in the Norman period:—</p> - -<p class="small">"The idea of official position is not lost sight of, although the third penny -of the pleas and the sword of the shire alone attest its original character" -(<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 363).</p> - -<p>Mr. Freeman puts the case thus:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Earldoms are now in their transitional stage. They have become -hereditary; but they carry with them the official perquisite of the ancient -official earls, the third penny of the king's revenues in the shire."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_861" id="Ref_861" href="#Foot_861">[861]</a></span></p> - -<p>Here it may at once be pointed out that the mistake which I -referred to at the outset is again made, "the third penny" being -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_292" id="Page_292">{292}</a></span> -described as that not of the pleas, but "of the revenues" of the -county. Then there is the question whether this perquisite -was indeed the right of "the ancient official earls." Lastly, we -must ask whether the earldoms granted in this period did unquestionably -"carry with them" this "official perquisite."</p> - -<p>To answer this last question, we must turn to our record -evidence. Now, the very first charter quoted by Madox himself, -in support of his own view, is the creation by Stephen of -the earldom of Essex in favour of Geoffrey de Mandeville. The -formula there is quite vague. Geoffrey is to hold "bene et in -pace et libere et quiete et honorifice sicut alii Comites mei de -terrâ meâ melius vel honorificentius tenent Comitatus suos -unde Comites sunt." Here there is nothing about the "third -penny," and we must therefore ask whether its grant is included -in the above formula; that is to say, whether an earl -received his "third penny" as a mere matter of course. The -contrary is, it would seem, implied by the special way in which -the "third penny" is granted him in the charter of the Empress, -together with the curious added phrase, "sicut comes habere -debet in comitatu suo." This phrase may, of course, be held -to imply that an earl had, as earl, a recognized right to the sum, -but the fact that in the other charters of the Empress (those of -the earldoms of Hereford and Oxford) the "tertius denarius" -is made the subject of a special grant, and that in her son's -charters it is the same, would suggest that, without such special -grant, the right was not conveyed. This is the view taken by -Gneist (who founds, in the main, on Madox):—</p> - -<p class="small">"It is only a <i>donatio sub modo</i>, the grant of a permanent income 'for -the better support of the dignity of an earl;' it consists in a mere order or -precept addressed to the sheriff, and is therefore a right of demand, but no -feudal right, and is accompanied by no investiture."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_862" id="Ref_862" href="#Foot_862">[862]</a></span></p> - -<p>That the grant of "the third penny" (of the pleas of the -county) was not an innovation introduced in this reign, is -proved by the solitary surviving Pipe-Roll of Henry I., in -which, however, there is but one mention of this "third penny," -namely, in the case of the Earl of Gloucester. Indeed, with -the exception of this entry, and of the special arrangement -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_293" id="Page_293">{293}</a></span> -which existed before the Conquest in the Danish districts (<i>ut -supra</i>), it may be said that the charters of the Empress, in 1141, -represent the first occurrence of this "third penny."</p> - -<p>Again, if we turn to the succeeding reign, we find, though -the fact appears to have hitherto escaped notice, that, as far -as the printed Pipe-Rolls take us—that is, for the first few years—less -than half the existing earls were in receipt of the "third -penny." Careful examination of the Rolls of 2-7 Hen. II. -reveals this fact. The earls to whom was paid "the third -penny of the pleas" were these: Essex, Hertford, Norfolk, -Gloucester, Wiltshire (Salisbury), Devon, and Sussex. Those -who are not entered in the Rolls, and who, therefore, it would -seem, cannot have received it, are Warwick, Leicester, Huntingdon, -Northampton, Derby (Ferrers), Oxford, Surrey, Chester,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_863" id="Ref_863" href="#Foot_863">[863]</a></span> -Lincoln, and Cornwall. Thus seven received this sum, and ten -did not. The inference, of course, from this discovery is that -the possession of the dignity of an earl did not <i>per se</i> carry with -it "the third penny of the pleas," the right to which could -only be conferred by a special grant.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_864" id="Ref_864" href="#Foot_864">[864]</a></span> This, apparently conclusive, -evidence illustrates and confirms the words of the -<i>Dialogus</i>:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Comes autem est qui tertiam portionem eorum quæ de placitis proveniunt -in quolibet comitatu percipit. Summa namque illa quæ nomine firmæ requiritur -a vicecomite tota non exsurgit ex fundorum redditibus, sed ex magna -parte de placitis provenit; et horum tertiam partem comes percipit, qui ideo -sic dici dicitur, quia fisco socius est et comes in percipiendis."</p> - -<p class="small">D. "Nunquid ex singulis comitatibus comites ista percipiunt."</p> - -<p class="small">M. "Nequaquam: sed hii tantum ista percipiunt, quibus regum munificentia, -obsequii præstiti vel eximiæ probitatis intuitu comites sibi creat -et ratione dignitatis illius hæc conferenda decernit, quibusdam hæreditarie, -quibusdam personaliter."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_865" id="Ref_865" href="#Foot_865">[865]</a></span></p> - -<p>This passage requires to be read as a whole, for the answer -might easily be differently understood, as indeed it has been -in the Lords' Reports,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_866" id="Ref_866" href="#Foot_866">[866]</a></span> where it is taken to apply to the earls -as well as to "the third penny." The point is of no small -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_294" id="Page_294">{294}</a></span> -importance, for the conclusion drawn is that "both [the -dignity and the third penny] were either hereditary or personal, -at the pleasure of the Crown." Careful reading, however, -will show, I think, that, like the question, the reply deals with -"the third penny" alone. The "hæc conferenda decernit" of -the latter refers to the "ista" of the former.</p> - -<p>Confirmed as they are by the evidence of the Pipe-Rolls, -the words of the <i>Dialogus</i> clearly prove that the view I take -is right, and that Professor Freeman is certainly wrong in -stating that "earldoms," at this stage, "carry with them the -third penny."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_867" id="Ref_867" href="#Foot_867">[867]</a></span> Mr. Hunt, who, here as elsewhere, seems to -follow Dr. Stubbs, writes that:—</p> - -<p class="small"> -"The earl still received the third penny of all profits of jurisdiction in -his county. With this exception, however, the policy of the Norman kings -stripped the earls of their official character."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_868" id="Ref_868" href="#Foot_868">[868]</a></span></p> - -<p>This view must now be abandoned, and the total absence -of any allusion, in Stephen's creation of the earldom of Essex, -to "the third penny of the pleas," must be taken to imply that -the charter in question did not convey a right to that sum. -Thus the charter of the Empress to Geoffrey in 1141 remains -the first record in which that perquisite is granted.</p> - -<p>We should also note that the <i>Dialogus</i> passage establishes -the fact that the only recognized "third penny" of the earl -was "the third penny of the pleas," and that the third penny -"redditus burgi," which, we saw, had been taken for it, is not -alluded to at all.</p> - -<p>Before leaving this subject it may be well to record the -sums actually received under this heading:—</p> - -<div class="pagenum"><a name="Page_295" id="Page_295">{295}</a></div> - -<table class="earlinc" summary=""> - -<tr> - <td class="earl"><span class="fnanchor"><a name="Ref_869" id="Ref_869" - href="#Foot_869">[869]</a></span></td> - <td>£</td> - <td class="sd"><i>s.</i></td> - <td class="sd"><i>d.</i></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="earl">Devon</td> - <td>18</td> - <td class="sd">6</td> - <td class="sd">8</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="earl">Essex</td> - <td>40</td> - <td class="sd">10</td> - <td class="sd">10</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="earl">Gloucestershire</td> - <td>20</td> - <td class="sd">0</td> - <td class="sd">0</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="earl">Herts.</td> - <td>33</td> - <td class="sd">1</td> - <td class="sd">6</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="earl">Norfolk</td> - <td>28</td> - <td class="sd">4</td> - <td class="sd">0</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="earl">Sussex</td> - <td>13</td> - <td class="sd">6</td> - <td class="sd">8</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td class="earl">Wilts.</td> - <td>22</td> - <td class="sd">16</td> - <td class="sd">7</td> -</tr> - -</table> - -<p>These figures are sufficient to disprove the view that the -third penny actually formed an endowment for the dignity of -an earl, but their chief interest is found in the light they throw -on the farming of the "pleas," illustrating, as they do, the -statement in the <i>Dialogus</i> that the sheriff's <i>firma</i> "ex magna -parte de placitis provenit." For multiplying these sums by -three we obtain the total for which the pleas were farmed in -their respective shires. It will be observed that "the third -penny" is stereotyped in amount, but an important passage -bearing upon this point is quoted by Madox (<i>Baronia Anglica</i>, -p. 139) from the Roll of 27 Hen. II.:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Idem Vicecomes redd. comp. de £xxviii de tercio denario Comitatus -de Legercestria de vii annis præteritis, quos Comes Leg. accipere noluit, nisi -haberet similiter de cremento, sicut prædecessores sui recipere consueverunt -tempore Regis Henrici" (<i>sic</i>).</p> - -<p>The meaning of this entry is that the earl demanded the -"third penny," not only of the old composition for the "pleas," -but also of the increased sum now paid for them. The passage, -of course, is puzzling in its statement that the earl's predecessors -had received "the third penny," for, so far as the -printed Rolls take us, they never did so. A similar difficulty -is caused, in the case of Oxfordshire, by the charter of Henry -II. (see p. 239) granting to Aubrey de Vere its "third penny" -"ut sit inde Comes;" for there is no trace in the printed Rolls -of such payment being made, and in 7 John the then earl -actually owes "cc marcas pro habendo tercio denario Comitatus -Oxoniæ de placitis, et ut sit Comes Oxoniæ."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_870" id="Ref_870" href="#Foot_870">[870]</a></span></p> - -<p>Passing from these perplexing cases, on which we need -fuller knowledge, we have a simple example in 12 Hen. III., -when, on the death of the Earl of Essex (February 15, 1228), his -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_296" id="Page_296">{296}</a></span> -annual third penny, as £40 10<i>s.</i> 10<i>d.</i>, was allowed to count, for -his heirs, towards the payment of his debts to the Crown.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_871" id="Ref_871" href="#Foot_871">[871]</a></span> A -much later and most important instance is that of Devon, -where Hugh de Courtenay, as the heir of the Earls of Devon, -is found receiving their "third penny" in 8 Edw. III., though -not an earl, a state of things which provoked a protest, a -decision against him, and, eventually, his elevation to comital -rank.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_848" id="Foot_848" href="#Ref_848">[848]</a> -<i>Constitutional History</i>, i. 139.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_849" id="Foot_849" href="#Ref_849">[849]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, i. 363.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_850" id="Foot_850" href="#Ref_850">[850]</a> -This insured him his participation <i>pro rata</i> in any future increase -("crementum") of the render.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_851" id="Foot_851" href="#Ref_851">[851]</a> -<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 361.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_852" id="Foot_852" href="#Ref_852">[852]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, p. 113.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_853" id="Foot_853" href="#Ref_853">[853]</a> -We must, further, observe that, of these six, Lewes, of which we are not -told if, or how, its <i>redditus</i> was divided before the Conquest, and Shrewsbury, -of which we are told that the "third penny" of its redditus went, not -to the earl, but to the sheriff ("Tempore Regis E ... duas partes habebat -rex et <i>vicecomes</i> tertiam") are not in point for the earl's share.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_854" id="Foot_854" href="#Ref_854">[854]</a> -<i>Exeter</i>, p. 43 (cf. p. 55).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_855" id="Foot_855" href="#Ref_855">[855]</a> -This passage appears to imply that Dr. Stubbs, who sees in the "third -penny" of the county the perquisite of the earl, would look on that of the -borough as the perquisite of the sheriff. But the latter, as we have seen, -was held, as a rule, by the earl, though occasionally by the sheriff.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_856" id="Foot_856" href="#Ref_856">[856]</a> -This has been strangely misunderstood by Mr. Eyton in his analysis -of the Staffordshire survey. See my paper in <i>Domesday Studies</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_857" id="Foot_857" href="#Ref_857">[857]</a> -<i>Domesday</i>, ii. 280, 294. We read of Alan's heir, Conan, in 1156, "Comiti -Conano de tercio denario Comit' ix <i>li.</i> et x <i>sol</i>" (<i>Rot. Pip</i>, 2 Hen. II., p. 8). -It is a singular circumstance that Robert de Torigny alludes to this under -1171, when, at the death of Conan, "tota Britannia, et <i>comitatus de Gippewis</i> -[Ipswich], et honor Richemundie" passed to the king,—and still more -singular that his latest editor, Mr. Howlett, identifies "Gippewis" with -Guingamp (p. 391).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_858" id="Foot_858" href="#Ref_858">[858]</a> -<i>Will. Rufus</i>, i. 40.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_859" id="Foot_859" href="#Ref_859">[859]</a> -<i>Domesday</i>, i. 38 <i>b</i>, 101, 87 <i>b</i>, 186 <i>b</i>, 253; ii. 294 <i>b</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_860" id="Foot_860" href="#Ref_860">[860]</a> -<i>Baronia Anglica</i>, pp. 137, 138.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_861" id="Foot_861" href="#Ref_861">[861]</a> -<i>Exeter</i>, p. 55.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_862" id="Foot_862" href="#Ref_862">[862]</a> -<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 139.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_863" id="Foot_863" href="#Ref_863">[863]</a> -The Palatinate of Chester is, of course, anomalous, and does not, strictly, -tell either way.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_864" id="Foot_864" href="#Ref_864">[864]</a> -In the third and fifth years the Earl of Arundel is entered as receiving -the third penny "per breve regis."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_865" id="Foot_865" href="#Ref_865">[865]</a> -<i>Dialogus de Scaccario</i>, ii. 17.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_866" id="Foot_866" href="#Ref_866">[866]</a> -<i>Reports on the Dignity of a Peer</i>, iii. 68.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_867" id="Foot_867" href="#Ref_867">[867]</a> -Gneist is right in insisting on the fact that an earl was only entitled -to the "tertius denarius" in virtue of a distinct grant, but he fails to grasp -the important point that such grant was not made to every earl as a matter -of course, but only as a special favour. He is also, as we have seen, quite -mistaken as to the extent of the third penny (see p. 287).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_868" id="Foot_868" href="#Ref_868">[868]</a> -<i>Norman Britain</i>, p. 168.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_869" id="Foot_869" href="#Ref_869">[869]</a> -These figures are taken from the Rolls of 2-7 Hen. II., a range -sufficiently wide to establish their permanence. Occasionally, as in the case -of Wilts and Sussex, the "tertius denarius" seems to be omitted for a year or -two, but this does not affect the general result.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_870" id="Foot_870" href="#Ref_870">[870]</a> -Pipe-Roll of John, quoted by Madox (<i>Baronia Anglica</i>, p. 139).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_871" id="Foot_871" href="#Ref_871">[871]</a> -Madox (<i>Baronia Anglica</i>, p. 139).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_297" id="Page_297">{297}</a></span> - -<h3>APPENDIX I.<br /> -<small>"VICECOMITES" AND "CUSTODES."</small></h3> - -<p class="center small">(See pp. <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, 108.)</p> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">Dr. Stubbs</span> -writes: "A measure dictated still more distinctly -by this policy may be traced in the list of sheriffs for <small>A.D.</small> 1130. -Richard Basset and Aubrey de Vere, a judge and a royal -chamberlain, act as joint sheriffs in no less than eleven -counties; Geoffrey de Clinton, Miles of Gloucester, William -of Pont l'Arche, the treasurer, are also sheriffs as well as -justices of the king's court" (i. 892). But this statement -requires a certain qualification. For though they appear as -sheriffs (<i>vicecomites</i>) on the Roll, and have been always so -reckoned, we gather from one passage in the record that they -were, strictly speaking, not <i>vicecomites</i>, but <i>custodes</i>. The -difference is this. By the former a county was held <i>ad firmam</i>; -by the latter it was held <i>in custodia</i>. In the Inquest of Sheriffs -(1170) the distinction is clearly recognized. We there find -the expressions used: "sive eos tenuerint ad firmam, sive in -custodia." By the true sheriff (<i>vicecomes</i>) the county was, -in fact, leased. He, as its farmer (<i>firmarius</i>), was responsible -for its annual rent (<i>firma</i>). It was thus, virtually, a speculation -of his own, and the profit, if any, was his. But by a -process exactly analogous to that of a modern landlord taking -an estate into his own hands, and farming it himself through -a bailiff, the king could, under special circumstances, take a -county into his own hands, and farm it himself through -a bailiff (<i>custos</i>). Henry II., in his twentieth year, did this -with London, putting in his own <i>custodes</i> in the place of the -regular sheriffs, and, in later days, Henry III. and Edward I. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_298" id="Page_298">{298}</a></span> -did the same. It was this, I contend, that Henry I. had done -with the counties in question. The proof of it is found in -this passage:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Ricardus basset et Albericus de Ver reddunt Compotum de M marcis -argenti de superplus Comitatuum, quas habent <i>in custodia</i>" (p. 63).</p> - -<p>Here we have the very same phrase as that in the Inquest of -Sheriffs, while the enormous "superplus" of a thousand marcs -must represent the excess of receipts over the amount required -for the <i>firmæ</i>, which excess, the counties being "in custodia," -fell to the share of the Crown. Thus we obtain the right -explanation of the employment in this capacity of royal officers, -and we further get a glimpse, which we would not lose, of one -of those administrative changes which, as under Henry II., tell -of a system of government as yet empirical and imperfect.</p> - -<p>It is clear that this measure was no mere development, but -a sudden and unforeseen step. For in the case of Essex, the -scene of our story, William de Eynsford ("Æinesford"), a -Kentish landowner, had leased the county for five years, from -Michaelmas, 1128, the consideration he paid for his lease being -a hundred marcs (£66 13<i>s.</i> 4<i>d.</i>). Early in the second year of -his lease, that is between Michaelmas, 1129, and Easter, 1130, -he must have been superseded by the royal <i>custodes</i>, on the -king taking the county into his own hands. He, however, -received "compensation for disturbance," four-fifths of his -hundred marcs ("de Gersoma") being remitted to him in -consideration of his losing four out of his five years' lease. All -this we learn from the brief record in the Roll (p. 63).</p> - -<p>Another point that should be here noticed is the use of -the term "Gersoma." Retrospectively, its use in this Roll -illustrates its use in Domesday. In those cases, where a -<i>firmarius</i> was willing, as a speculation, to give for an estate -more than its fixed rental (<i>firma</i>), he gave the excess "de -Gersoma," either in the form of a lump sum, or in that of an -annual payment.</p> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_299" id="Page_299">{299}</a></span> - -<h3>APPENDIX J.<br /> -<small>THE GREAT SEAL OF THE EMPRESS.</small></h3> - -<p class="center small">(See p. <a href="#Page_116">116</a>.)</p> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">There</span> -yet remains one point, in connection with this remarkable -charter, perhaps the most striking, certainly the most novel, -of all. This is that of the seal. According to the transcript in -the Ashmole MSS., the legend "in circumferentia sigillo" was -this: "Matildis Imperatrix Rom' et Regina Angliæ."</p> - -<p>Now, that any such seal was designed for the Empress has -never been suspected by any historian. We cannot, on a -question of royal seals, appeal to a higher or more recognized -authority than Mr. Walter de Gray Birch. He has written as -follows on the subject:—</p> - -<p class="small">"The type of seal of the empress which is invariably fixed to every -document among this collection that bears a seal is that used by her in -Germany as 'Queen of the Romans.'... From this date (1106) to that of -her death, which took place on the 16th of December, <small>A.D.</small> 1167, long after the -solution of the troubles of the years 1140-1142 in England, she was accustomed -to use this seal, and this only. It has never been suggested by any -writer upon the historic seals of England that Mathildis employed any -Great Seal as Queen of England, made after the conventional characteristics -which obtain in the Great Seals of Stephen, her predecessor, or of her son, -King Henry II. The troubled state of this country, the uncertain movements -of the lady, the unsettled confidence of the people, and the consequent -inability of attending to such a matter as the engraving of a Great Seal—a -work, it must be borne in mind, involving some time and care—are, when -taken together, more than sufficient causes to account for the continued usage -of this type; although we may fairly presume that it was intended to supersede -this foreign seal with one more consentaneously in keeping with English -tradition."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_872" id="Ref_872" href="#Foot_872">[872]</a></span></p> - -<p>The seal to which Mr. Birch refers bore the legend -"Mathildis dei Gratia Romanorum regina."</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_300" id="Page_300">{300}</a></span> -The question, of course, at once arises as to the amount of -reliance that can be placed on the above transcriber's note. -For my part, while fully admitting the right to reject such -evidence, I cannot believe that any transcriber would for his -own private gratification have forged such a legend, which he -could not hope to foist upon the world, if it were indeed a -forgery, since a reference to the original would at once expose -him.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_873" id="Ref_873" href="#Foot_873">[873]</a></span> And it is quite certain that we cannot account for it by -any misreading, however gross. A comparison of the two -legends will put this out of the question:—</p> - -<p class="center smc">Mathildis dei gratia Romanorum regina.<br /> -Matildis Imperatrix Rom' et regina Angliæ.</p> - -<p>If we accept the fact, and believe the legend genuine, the -first point to strike us is the substitution of "<i>Imperatrix</i>" for -"<i>Regina</i> Romanorum."</p> - -<p>It is passing strange that Maud should have retained, indeed -that she should ever have possessed, a seal which gave her no -higher style than that of "Queen of the Romans." It is true -that at the time of her actual betrothal (1110), her husband was -not, in strictness, "emperor," not having yet been crowned at -Rome; yet the performance of that ceremony a few months later -(April, 1111) made him fully "emperor." At the time therefore -of their marriage and joint coronation (1114), they were, -one would imagine, "emperor" and "empress;" and indeed we -read in the <i>Lüneburg Chronicle</i>, "dar makede he se to <i>keiserinne</i>." -At the same time, as has been well observed, "matters of phrase -and title are never unimportant, least of all in an age ignorant -and superstitiously antiquarian,"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_874" id="Ref_874" href="#Foot_874">[874]</a></span> and there must be some good -reason for what appears to be a singular contradiction, though -the point is overlooked by Mr. Birch. Two explanations -suggest themselves. The one is that while Henry was fully -and strictly "emperor," having been duly crowned at Rome, -his wife, having only been crowned in Germany (1114), was not -entitled to the style of "empress," but only to that of "Queen -of the Romans." As against this, it would seem impossible -that the wife of a crowned emperor can have been anything -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_301" id="Page_301">{301}</a></span> -but an empress. Moreover, from the pleadings of her advocate -at Rome, in 1136 (see p. 257 <i>n.</i>), we learn incidentally that she -had duly been "anointed to empress." The only other explanation -is that her seal had been engraved in 1110—when the -emperor was, as I have shown, only "Rex Romanorum"—and -had not been altered since.</p> - -<p>It is important to remember that a seal is evidence of -formal style, and not of current phraseology. In spite of the -efforts of Messrs. Bryce and Freeman to insist on accuracy in -the matter, it is certain that at the time of which I write a -most loose usage prevailed. Thus William of Malmesbury, -although he specially records the solemn coronation of Henry V. -as "Imperator Romanorum," at Rome in 1111, speaks of him -as "Imperator Alemanniæ," or "Imperator Alemannorum," -both before and after that event. This circumstance is the -more notable, because I cannot find that style recognized in -Mr. Bryce's work, where the terms "German Emperor" and -"Emperor of Germany" are treated as recent corruptions.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_875" id="Ref_875" href="#Foot_875">[875]</a></span> Its -common use in the twelfth century is shown by the scene, in -the next reign, between Herbert of Bosham and the king -(May 1, 1166), when the latter takes the former to task for -speaking of Frederick as "King," not as "Emperor" <i>of the -Germans</i>. Had Henry enjoyed the advantage of sitting under -our own professors, he would have insisted on Frederick being -styled Emperor <i>of the Romans</i>; but as he lived in the twelfth -century, he employed, to the annoyance of modern pedants, the -current language of his day.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_876" id="Ref_876" href="#Foot_876">[876]</a></span></p> - -<p>It was natural and fitting that, the legend on her seal being -at variance with her style, the Empress should embrace the -opportunity afforded, by the making of a wholly new seal, to -bring the two into harmony.</p> - -<p>The next point is the adoption of the form "Angliæ," not -"Anglorum." This, at first sight, seemed suspicious. For -though the abbreviation found in charters ("Angl'") might -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_302" id="Page_302">{302}</a></span> -stand for "Anglorum" or for "Angliæ," the legend on the -seal of Stephen, as on that of Henry I., contains the form -"Anglorum;" and Matilda styled herself in her charters -"Anglorum" (not "Anglie) Domina." But the remarkable -fact that both the queens of Henry I. bore on their seals the -legend "Sigillum ... Reginæ Ang<i>lie</i>" led me to the conclusion -that, so far from impugning, this form actually confirmed -the genuineness of the alleged legend.</p> - -<p>It will doubtless be asked why this seal should have been -affixed, so far as we know, to this charter alone. But it is -precisely this that gives it so great an interest. For this is the -only known instance of an original charter, still surviving, -belonging to the brief but eventful period of the Empress's stay -at Westminster on the eve of her intended coronation.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_877" id="Ref_877" href="#Foot_877">[877]</a></span> It -may safely be presumed that a Great Seal was made in readiness -for this event, and that its legend would necessarily include the -style of "Queen of England." The Empress, in at least two -of her charters, had already, though irregularly, assumed this -style,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_878" id="Ref_878" href="#Foot_878">[878]</a></span> and was clearly eager to adopt it. As to her retention -of her foreign style on her seal as an English sovereign, it -might be suggested that she clung to the loftiest style of all<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_879" id="Ref_879" href="#Foot_879">[879]</a></span> -from that haughty pride which was to prove fatal to her -claims; but it is more likely that she found it needful to -distinguish thus her style from that of her rival's queen. For -by a singular coincidence, they would both have had, in the -ordinary course, upon their seals precisely the same legend, -viz. "Mathildis dei gratia Regina Anglie."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_880" id="Ref_880" href="#Foot_880">[880]</a></span></p> - -<p>We may then, I think, thus account for the presence of this -seal at Westminster, and for its use, with characteristic eagerness, -by the Empress on this occasion. We may also no less -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_303" id="Page_303">{303}</a></span> -satisfactorily account for the fact that it was never used again. -For this, indeed, the events that followed the fall of the Empress -from her high estate, and the virtual collapse of her hopes, may -be held sufficiently to account. But it is quite possible that in -the headlong flight of the Empress and her followers from -Westminster, the Great Seal may have fallen, with the rest of -her abandoned treasure, into the hands of her triumphant foes.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_872" id="Foot_872" href="#Ref_872">[872]</a> -<i>Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass.</i>, xxxi. 381.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_873" id="Foot_873" href="#Ref_873">[873]</a> -This transcript was taken before the fire in which the charter was so -badly injured.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_874" id="Foot_874" href="#Ref_874">[874]</a> -Bryce's <i>Holy Roman Empire</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_875" id="Foot_875" href="#Ref_875">[875]</a> -P. 317 (3rd edition).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_876" id="Foot_876" href="#Ref_876">[876]</a> -"<i>Rex.</i> Quare in nomine dignitatis derogas ei, non vocans eum imperatorem -Alemannorum? <i>Herbertus.</i> Rex est Alemannorum; sed ubi scribit, -scribit 'Imperator Romanorum, semper Augustus'" (<i>Becket Memorials</i>, iii. -100, 101).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_877" id="Foot_877" href="#Ref_877">[877]</a> -The two other charters which belong (certainly) to this visit are known -to us only from transcripts.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_878" id="Foot_878" href="#Ref_878">[878]</a> -"M. Imperatrix Henrici regis filia et Angl[ie] regina."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_879" id="Foot_879" href="#Ref_879">[879]</a> -We must remember the then supreme position and lofty pretensions of -"the Emperor."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_880" id="Foot_880" href="#Ref_880">[880]</a> -Original charters of Stephen's queen are so extremely rare, that we -know but little of her seal. Transcripts, however, of two fine charters of -hers, formerly in the Cottonian collection, will be found in <i>Add. MS.</i> 22,641 -(fols. 29, 31), and to one of them is appended a sketch of the seal, the first -half of the legend being "Matildis Dei Gratia," and the second being lost.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_304" id="Page_304">{304}</a></span> - -<h3>APPENDIX K.<br /> -<small>GERVASE DE CORNHILL.</small></h3> - -<p class="center small">(See p. <a href="#Page_121">121</a>.)</p> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">Few</span> -discoveries, in the course of these researches, have afforded -me more satisfaction and pleasure than that of the origin of -Gervase de Cornhill, the founder of an eminent and wealthy -house, and himself a great City magnate who played, we shall -find, no small part in the affairs of an eventful time.</p> - -<p>The peculiar interest of the story lies in the light it throws -on the close amalgamation of the Normans and the English, -even in the days of Henry I., thereby affording a perfect -illustration of the well-known passage in the <i>Dialogus</i>:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Jam cohabitantibus Anglicis et Normannis, et alterutrum uxores -ducentibus vel nubentibus, sic permixtæ sunt nationes, ut vix discerni possit -hodie, de liberis loquor, quis Anglicus, quis Normannus sit genere."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_881" id="Ref_881" href="#Foot_881">[881]</a></span></p> - -<p>It also affords us a welcome glimpse of the territorial aristocracy -of the City, as yet its ruling class.</p> - -<p>It has hitherto been supposed, as in Foss's work, that -Gervase de Cornhill first appears in 1155-56 (2 Hen. II.), -in which year he figures on the Pipe-Roll as one of the sheriffs -of London. I propose to show that he first appears a quarter -of a century before, and so to bridge over Stephen's reign, and -to connect the Pipe-Roll of Henry I. with the earliest Pipe-Rolls -of Henry II. The problem before us is this. We have -to identify the "Gervasius filius Rogeri nepotis Huberti," who -figures prominently on the Pipe-Roll of 1130 (31 Hen. I.), -with "Gervase, Justiciary of London," who meets us twice -under Stephen, with "Gervase" who was one of the sheriffs -of London in 1155 and 1156, and with Gervase de Cornhill, -whose name occurs at least twice under Stephen, and innumerable -times under Henry II., both in a public and private capacity.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_305" id="Page_305">{305}</a></span> -Let us first identify Gervase de Cornhill with Gervase, the -Justiciary of London. The latter personage occurs once in the -legend on the seal affixed to "a 'star' with Hebrew words," -which reads, "Sigillum Gervas' justitia' Londoniar';"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_882" id="Ref_882" href="#Foot_882">[882]</a></span> and once -in a charter which confirms this legend, dealing, as it does, with -a grant: "Gervasio Justic' de Lond'."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_883" id="Ref_883" href="#Foot_883">[883]</a></span> But the land (in -Gamlingay) granted to "Gervase, Justiciary of London," is -entered in a survey of the reign of John as held by "the heirs of -Gervase <i>de Cornhill</i>" (see p. 121). Similarly, the land mortgaged -in the former transaction to "Gervase, Justiciary of London," is -afterwards found in possession of Henry, son and heir of -Gervase <i>de Cornhill</i>. Thus is established the identity of the two.</p> - -<p>The identity of the Gervase who thus flourished in the -reigns of Stephen and Henry II. with the Gervase fitz Roger -of 1130 must next occupy our attention. Here are the entries -relating to the latter:—</p> - -<div class="small"> - -<p>"Radulfus filius Ebrardi debet cc marcas argenti pro placitis pecunie -Rogeri nepotis Huberti."</p> - -<p>"Andreas bucca uncta reddit compotum de lxiiij libris et vii solidis et viiij -denariis pro xx libratis terre de terra Rogeri nepotis Huberti."</p> - -<p>"Johannes filius Radulfi filii Ebrardi et Robertus frater suus reddunt -Compotum de <span class="smc">dcccc</span> et ij marcis argenti iiij denarios minus de debitis Gervasii -filii Rogeri pro totâ terrâ patris sui exceptis xx libratis terræ quas rex -retinuit ad opus Andr' bucca uncta.... Et Idem debent iij marcas auri -pro concessione terrarum quas Gervasius eis dedit."</p> - -<p>"Ingenolda uxor Rogeri Nepotis Huberti debet ij marcas auri ut habeat -maritagium et dotem et res suas."</p> - -<p>"Gervasius filius Rogeri nepotis Huberti debet vj libras et xii solidos et -vj denarios de debitis patris sui."</p> - -<p>"Robertus filius Radufi et Johannes frater ejus reddunt Compotum de iij -marcis auri ut rex concederet eis vadimonium et terras quas Gervasius eis -concessit."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_884" id="Ref_884" href="#Foot_884">[884]</a></span></p> - -</div> - -<p>These entries are explained by the charter subjoined, which -shows how John and Robert came to have charge of the estate:—</p> - -<p class="small">"H. rex Angl[orum] Vic' Lund' et omnibus Baronibus et Vicecomitibus -in quorum Bailiis Gervasius filius Rogeri terram habet salutem. Precipio -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_306" id="Page_306">{306}</a></span> -quod Gervasius filius Rogeri sit saisitus et tenens de omnibus terris et -rebus patris sui sicut pater ejus erat die quo movit ire ad Jerosolimam.... -Et ipse et tota terra sua interim sint in custodia et saisina Johannis et -Roberti filiorum Radulfi.... T. Comite Gloecestrie. Apud West'."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_885" id="Ref_885" href="#Foot_885">[885]</a></span></p> - -<p>John fitz Ralph (fitz Ebrard) was another London magnate, -who was more or less connected with Gervase throughout his -career. He is found with him at St. Albans, late in Stephen's -reign, witnessing a charter of the king;<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_886" id="Ref_886" href="#Foot_886">[886]</a></span> and the two men, as -"Gervase and John," were joint sheriffs of London in 2 Hen. II. -He is also the first witness to one of Gervase's charters after -his brother Alan.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_887" id="Ref_887" href="#Foot_887">[887]</a></span></p> - -<p>We further find Gervase fitz Roger excused (in the Pipe-Roll -of 1130) the payment of two shillings "de veteri Danegeldo" -(? 1127-28) in Middlesex, and seven shillings "de preterito -Danegeldo" (1128-29) because his land is "waste."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_888" id="Ref_888" href="#Foot_888">[888]</a></span> The -inference to be drawn from all these passages is that Gervase -had then (1130) recently succeeded his father, a man of unusual -wealth and considerable property in land. We should therefore -expect to find him, in his turn, a man of some importance, -as was our own Gervase the Justiciar (<i>alias</i> Gervase de Cornhill), -the only Gervase who meets us as a man of any consequence. -Fortunately, however, we are not dependent on -mere inference. The manor of Chalk was granted by the -Crown to Roger "nepos Huberti;"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_889" id="Ref_889" href="#Foot_889">[889]</a></span> it was subsequently -regranted to Gervase de Cornhill,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_890" id="Ref_890" href="#Foot_890">[890]</a></span> whom I identify with -Gervase his son. Moreover, the adoption by Gervase of the -surname "de Cornhill" can, as it happens, be accounted for. -Among the records of the duchy of Lancaster is a grant by -William, Archbishop of Canterbury (1123-1136), of land at -"Eadintune" to Gervase and Agnes his wife, Agnes being -described as daughter of "Godeleve."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_891" id="Ref_891" href="#Foot_891">[891]</a></span> By the aid of another -document relating to the same property,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_892" id="Ref_892" href="#Foot_892">[892]</a></span> we identify this -"Godeleve" as the wife of Edward de Cornhill. To the eye -of a trained genealogist all is thus made clear. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_307" id="Page_307">{307}</a></span></p> - -<p>But we now find ourselves in the midst of a most interesting -family connection. For these same records carry us back to the -father of this "Godeleve," namely, Edward of Southwark.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_893" id="Ref_893" href="#Foot_893">[893]</a></span> It -is true that here he figures merely as a "æ. desudwerc," but -we have only to turn to another quarter, and there we find -"Edwardo de Suthwerke et Willelmo filio ejus" among the -leading witnesses to the invaluable document recording the -surrender by the English Cnihtengild of their soke to -the priory of Christchurch (1125).<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_894" id="Ref_894" href="#Foot_894">[894]</a></span> I need scarcely lay stress -on the interest and importance of everything bearing on that -remarkable and as yet mysterious institution. We find ourselves -now brought into actual contact with the gild. For in -one of its members, as named in that document, "Edwardus -Hupcornhill," we recognize no other than that "Edward of -Cornhill" who was son-in-law to "Edward of Southwark."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_895" id="Ref_895" href="#Foot_895">[895]</a></span> -Following up our man in yet another quarter, we find him -witnessing a London deed (<i>temp.</i> William the Dean),<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_896" id="Ref_896" href="#Foot_896">[896]</a></span> and -another one of about the middle of the reign of Henry I.,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_897" id="Ref_897" href="#Foot_897">[897]</a></span> -though wrongly assigned in the (Hist. MSS.) Report to "about -1127."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_898" id="Ref_898" href="#Foot_898">[898]</a></span> Lastly, turning to still another quarter, we find his -name among those of the witnesses to an agreement between -Ramsey Abbey and the priory of Christchurch soon after 1125.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_899" id="Ref_899" href="#Foot_899">[899]</a></span></p> - -<p>We are now in a position to construct this remarkable -pedigree:—</p> - -<div class="pagenum"><a name="Page_308" id="Page_308">{308}</a></div> - -<pre> - - Edward of Southwark, - living 1125. - | - +---+---------+ - | | - "Ingenolda," = Roger Edward = Godeleve. William, - living 1130. | "nepos de Cornhill,| living 1125. - | Huberti." living 1125.| - | | - | +----------+ - | | - Gervase = Agnes - Fitz Roger de Cornhill, - (afterwards married - Gervase de before 1136. - Cornhill). - -</pre> - -<p>I say that this is a remarkable pedigree because, from the -dates, Edward of Southwark must have been born within a -very few years of the Conquest, and also because we can feel -sure, in the case both of him and of his son-in-law, that we are -dealing with men of the old stock, connected with the venerable -gild of English "Cnihts." But it further shows us how the -elder of the two bestowed on his English son the name of the -Norman Conqueror, and how the Norman settlers intermarried -with the English stock.</p> - -<p>Let us now return to the father of Gervase, Roger "nepos -Huberti." Here, again, there come to our help the records of -the duchy of Lancaster. Among them are two royal charters, -the first of which grants to Roger the manor of Chalk, in -Kent,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_900" id="Ref_900" href="#Foot_900">[900]</a></span> while the second was consequent on his death,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_901" id="Ref_901" href="#Foot_901">[901]</a></span> and -should be read in connection with the above extracts from the -Pipe-Roll of 1130. This charter has a special interest from its -mention of the fact that Roger had gone "ad Jerosolima." -We may infer from this that he had died on pilgrimage.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_902" id="Ref_902" href="#Foot_902">[902]</a></span> As -Gervase inherited from his father so large an estate, Roger -must have been, in his day, a man of some consequence. It -is, therefore, rather strange that his name does not occur in the -report on the muniments of St. Paul's, nor in any other quarter -to which I have been able to refer. Luckily, however, Stow -has preserved for us the gist of a document which he had -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_309" id="Page_309">{309}</a></span> -seen, when he tells us that on the grant of their soke, in 1125, -by the Cnihtengild—</p> - -<p class="small">"The king sent also his sheriffs, to wit Aubrey de Vere and <i>Roger -nephew to Hubert</i>, which (upon his behalf) should invest this church with -the possessions thereof; which the said sheriffs accomplished, coming upon -the ground, Andrew Buchevite<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_903" id="Ref_903" href="#Foot_903">[903]</a></span> and the forenamed witnesses and others -standing by."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_904" id="Ref_904" href="#Foot_904">[904]</a></span></p> - -<p>If we can trust to this passage, as I believe we certainly -can, our Roger was a sheriff of London in 1125. This makes -it highly probable that he was identical with the "Roger" -named in a document addressed, a few years earlier:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Hugoni de Bocheland, <i>Rogero</i>, Leofstano, Ordgaro, et omnibus aliis -baronibus Lundoniæ."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_905" id="Ref_905" href="#Foot_905">[905]</a></span></p> - -<p>I do not know of any other Roger who is likely to have been -thus addressed.</p> - -<p>We are given by Gervase de Cornhill a further clue as to -his parentage in a charter of his, under Henry II., in which he -mentions Ralph fitz Herlwin as his uncle ("avunculus"). -Ralph fitz Herlwin was in 1130 joint-Sheriff of London.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_906" id="Ref_906" href="#Foot_906">[906]</a></span> This -clue, therefore, is worth following up. Now, Ralph must either -have been a brother of the father or of the mother of Gervase. -It is highly improbable that Ralph "filius Herlwini" was a -brother of Roger "nepos Huberti," each of the two being -always mentioned by the same distinctive suffix. It may, -therefore, be presumed that Ralph was brother to Roger's wife. -Now, we happen to have two documents which greatly concern -this Ralph and his son, and which belong to one transaction, -although they figure widely apart in the report on the muniments -of St. Paul's.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_907" id="Ref_907" href="#Foot_907">[907]</a></span> Nicholas, son of Ælfgar, parish priest of -the church of St. Michael's, Cheap, a living which, like his -father before him, he held at lease from St. Paul's, exercised -his right to the next presentation in favour of a son of Ralph -fitz Herlwin, who had married his niece Mary. From the -evidence now in our possession, we may construct this pedigree:—</p> - -<div class="pagenum"><a name="Page_310" id="Page_310">{310}</a></div> - -<pre> - - "Algar Colessune,"[908] "Herlwin." - priest of St.Michael's, | - Cheap. | - | | - +-------+------+ +-------------+-------+------+----- - | | | | | - Nicolas, [dau.] = Baldwin Ralph William Herlwin - priest of | de Arras. fitz fitz fitz - St. Michael's, | Herlwin, Herlwin,[909] Herlwin, - Cheap. | joint-sheriff living 1130. living 1130. - | in 1130. [909] - | | - | +------+----+------------+ - | | | | - Mary = Robert William. Herlwin. - fitz Ralph, - inherited the - living of - St. Michael's - from his - wife's uncle. - - - "Herlwin." - | - | - | - ---+------------+ - | - "Ingenolda."[910] = Roger "nepos - | Huberti," - | joint-sheriff, - | 1125. - +-+----------+ - | | - Agnes = Gervase Alan, - de Cornhill, | (nephew to Ralph brother - dau. of Edward | fitz Herlwin), to - de Cornhill. | joint-Sheriff of Gervase. - | London, 1155-56. . - +--------------+--------------+ . - | | | . - Alice[911] = Henry de Reginald Ralph Roger - de Courci, | Cornhill, de Cornhill, de Cornhill. fitz - heiress of | Sheriff of Sheriff of Alan. - the English | London and Kent. - De Courcis, | of Kent and | - afterwards | of Surrey. | - wife of Warin | | - fitz Gerold. | +--------------+ - | | - Joan de = Hugh de Nevill, Reginald de - Cornhill. Forester of England. Cornhill, junior. - -</pre> - -<div class="pagenum"><a name="Page_311" id="Page_311">{311}</a></div> - -<p>It will have been noticed that in this pedigree I assign to -Gervase a brother Alan. I do so on the strength of a charter -of Archbishop Theobald, late in the reign of Stephen, to Holy -Trinity, witnessed <i>inter alios</i> by "Gervasio de Cornhill et Alano -fratre ejus,"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_912" id="Ref_912" href="#Foot_912">[912]</a></span> also of a charter I have seen (Duchy of Lanc., -<i>Cart. Misc.</i>, ii. 57), in which the first witness to a charter of -Gervase is Alan, his brother. The "Roger fitz Alan" for -whom I suggest an affiliation to this Alan occurs among the -witnesses to a grant made by Ralph, and witnessed by Reginald -de Cornhill.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_913" id="Ref_913" href="#Foot_913">[913]</a></span> This suggests such paternity, and his name, -Roger, would then be derived from Roger, his paternal grandfather. -We have here, at least, another clue which ought to -be followed up, for Roger fitz Alan is repeatedly found among -the leading witnesses to London documents of the close of the -twelfth and beginning of the thirteenth centuries, his career -culminating in his appointment as mayor on the death of the -well-known "Henry fitz Ailwin" in 1212.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_914" id="Ref_914" href="#Foot_914">[914]</a></span></p> - -<p>The fact that Gervase and Alan were brothers tempts one -to recognize in them the "Alanus juvenis et Gervasius fratres," -who witness a grant to (their cousin) Robert fitz Ralph fitz -Herlwin,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_915" id="Ref_915" href="#Foot_915">[915]</a></span> and the "Alanus juvenis" and "Gervasius frater -Alani" of a similar document.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_916" id="Ref_916" href="#Foot_916">[916]</a></span> But, unluckily, we find this -same Alan elsewhere styled "Alanus filius <i>Huberti</i> juvenis."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_917" id="Ref_917" href="#Foot_917">[917]</a></span> -Possibly they were sons of that Hubert to whom his father -was "nepos." But the question, for the present, must be left -in doubt.</p> - -<p>Both Gervase de Cornhill and Henry his son appear, it may -be added, from the evidence of charters, to have lent money -on mortgage, and to have acquired landed property by foreclosing. -A curious allusion to the mercantile origin and the -profitable money-lending transactions of Geoffrey is found in a -sneer of Becket's biographer, when, as Sheriff of Kent, he -opposed the primate's landing.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_918" id="Ref_918" href="#Foot_918">[918]</a></span> The contemporary allusion to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_312" id="Page_312">{312}</a></span> -such pursuits, in the <i>Dialogus</i>, breathes the same scornful spirit -for the trader and all his works.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_919" id="Ref_919" href="#Foot_919">[919]</a></span> Gervase, I think, may -have been that "Gervase" who, at the head of the citizens of -London, met Henry II. in 1174 (<i>Fantosme</i>, l. 1941); he would -seem to have lived on till 1183, and was probably, at his -death, between seventy and seventy-five years old. Among his -descendants were a Dean of St. Paul's (1243-1254) and a -Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield (1215-1223).</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_881" id="Foot_881" href="#Ref_881">[881]</a> -<i>Dialogus</i>, i. 10.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_882" id="Foot_882" href="#Ref_882">[882]</a> -Such is the reading given by Anstis, who saw this star among the -duchy records. It is greatly to be hoped that it may still be found. Anstis -describes the device as "a Lyon."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_883" id="Foot_883" href="#Ref_883">[883]</a> -Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 22.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_884" id="Foot_884" href="#Ref_884">[884]</a> -<i>Rot. Pip.</i>, 31 Hen. I., pp. 144, 145, 147-149. Compare the clause in -Henry's charter guaranteeing to the citizens "terras suas et vadimonia." -Here the possession has to be paid for.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_885" id="Foot_885" href="#Ref_885">[885]</a> -Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 8.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_886" id="Foot_886" href="#Ref_886">[886]</a> -"Gervasio de Corn ..., Johanne filio Radulfi" (Madox's <i>Formularium</i>, -293).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_887" id="Foot_887" href="#Ref_887">[887]</a> -Duchy of Lancaster: <i>Cart. Misc.</i>, ii. 57.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_888" id="Foot_888" href="#Ref_888">[888]</a> -<i>Rot. Pip.</i>, 31 Hen. I., pp. 150, 151.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_889" id="Foot_889" href="#Ref_889">[889]</a> -Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 3.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_890" id="Foot_890" href="#Ref_890">[890]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, No. 26 (see Pipe-Roll Society: <i>Ancient Charters</i>, p. 66).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_891" id="Foot_891" href="#Ref_891">[891]</a> -Grants in boxes, A., No. 156.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_892" id="Foot_892" href="#Ref_892">[892]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, 154.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_893" id="Foot_893" href="#Ref_893">[893]</a> -"Ego Radulfus Archiepiscopus [1114-1122] concedo Æadwardo de -Cornhelle et uxori ejus Godelif et hæredibus suis terram de Eadintune ... -quam æ. desudwerc dedit cum filia sua æ. de Cornhelle" (<i>ibid.</i>, 154). We -have here an instance of the caution with which official calendars should be -used. In the official abstract of the above record (<i>Thirty-fifth Report of Dep. -Keeper</i>, p. 15), the above words are rendered, "with his daughter æ. de Cornhelle," -the dative being taken for an ablative, and the wife transformed into -her husband!</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_894" id="Foot_894" href="#Ref_894">[894]</a> -<i>London and Middlesex Arch. Journ.</i>, v. 477.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_895" id="Foot_895" href="#Ref_895">[895]</a> -The curious form "Hupcornhill" should, of course, be noted. I have -met with a similar form at Colchester, where the name "Opethewalle," which -has been supposed to have been connected with the town wall, occurs earlier -(under Edward I.) as "Opethehelle," <i>i.e.</i> up the hill. The idiom still survives -in such forms as "up town" and "up the street." It probably accounts for -the strange name, "Hoppeoverhumber," <i>i.e.</i> a man who came from "up -beyond the Humber" (cf. for aspirate "Huppelanda de Berchamstede").</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_896" id="Foot_896" href="#Ref_896">[896]</a> -<i>Ninth Report Hist. MSS.</i>, i. 61 <i>b</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_897" id="Foot_897" href="#Ref_897">[897]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, p. 66 <i>a</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_898" id="Foot_898" href="#Ref_898">[898]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, p. 31 <i>b</i>. It is certainly earlier than 1120, when Otuel fitz Count (the -leading witness) was drowned, and probably earlier than the spring of 1116.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_899" id="Foot_899" href="#Ref_899">[899]</a> -Pipe-Roll Society: <i>Ancient Charters</i>, p. 26 (Eadwardus de Corhulle).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_900" id="Foot_900" href="#Ref_900">[900]</a> -Royal Charters, No. 3. This charter must belong to the years 1116-1120.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_901" id="Foot_901" href="#Ref_901">[901]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, No. 8 (see p. 305).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_902" id="Foot_902" href="#Ref_902">[902]</a> -This has a curious bearing on the legend that Gilbert Becket, the -primate's father, had journeyed to Palestine, as showing that this was actually -done by a contemporary City magnate.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_903" id="Foot_903" href="#Ref_903">[903]</a> -This name should be Andrew Buccuinte (Bucca uncta).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_904" id="Foot_904" href="#Ref_904">[904]</a> -Strype's <i>Stow</i>, ii. 4.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_905" id="Foot_905" href="#Ref_905">[905]</a> -<i>Ramsey Cartulary</i>, i. 130. The date there assigned is 1114-1130, but -Hugh de Bocland appears to have died several years before 1130.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_906" id="Foot_906" href="#Ref_906">[906]</a> -<i>Rot. Pip.</i>, 31 Hen. I, p. 149.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_907" id="Foot_907" href="#Ref_907">[907]</a> -<i>Ninth Report Hist. MSS.</i>, App. i. pp. 20 <i>a</i>, 64 <i>a</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_908" id="Foot_908">[908]</a> -The form of this surname should be noted as illustrating the practice -of abbreviation. The name of Ælfgar's father must have been Colswegen, or -some other compound of "Col—"</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_909" id="Foot_909">[909]</a> -See Pipe-Roll of 1130.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_910" id="Foot_910">[910]</a> -This involves a double supposition: (<i>a</i>) that "Ingenolda," who is -proved to have been the widow of Roger, was the mother of his son Gervase; -(<i>b</i>) that Ralph fitz Herlwin was brother to the mother, not the father, of -Gervase. These assumptions seem tolerably certain, but, at present, they -can only be provisionally accepted.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_911" id="Foot_911">[911]</a> -For this descent see Stapleton's preface to the <i>Liber de Antiquis -Legibus</i> (Cam. Soc.).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_912" id="Foot_912" href="#Ref_912">[912]</a> -From a MS. note of Dugdale (L. 41, dors.).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_913" id="Foot_913" href="#Ref_913">[913]</a> -<i>Ninth Report Hist. MSS.</i>, i. 52 <i>b</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_914" id="Foot_914" href="#Ref_914">[914]</a> -This, it must be well understood, is thrown out merely as a suggestion.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_915" id="Foot_915" href="#Ref_915">[915]</a> -<i>Ninth Report Hist. MSS.</i>, i. 64 <i>a</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_916" id="Foot_916" href="#Ref_916">[916]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, 66 <i>b</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_917" id="Foot_917" href="#Ref_917">[917]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, 20 <i>a</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_918" id="Foot_918" href="#Ref_918">[918]</a> -"Cujus jurisdictioni Cantia subjiciebatur, plus besses et centesimas -usuras quam bonum et æquum attendens" (<i>Becket Memorials</i>, iii. 100).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_919" id="Foot_919" href="#Ref_919">[919]</a> -"Quod si forte miles aliquis vel liber alius a sui status dignitate, quod -absit, degenerans, multiplicandis denariis per publica mercimonia, vel per -turpissimum genus quæstus, hoc est per fœnus extiterit.... Hiis similis -qui multiplicant quocunque modo rem." Compare <i>Quadripartitus: ein -Englisches Rechtsbuch von 1114</i> (ed. Liebermann): "qui, vera morum generositate -carentes et honesta prosapia, longo nummorum stemmate gloriantur, -... qui vetitum pecunie fenus exercent, ... miseram pecunie stipem, -pauperum lacrimis et anxietatibus cruentatam, omni veritatis et justicie -sanctioni mentes perdite prefecerunt et id solum sapientiam reputant quod -eis obtatum pecunie fenus quibuscunque machinationibus insusurrat" -(Dedicatio, § 16, § 33). Compare also with these Cicero (<i>De Officiis</i>, i. 42): -"Jam de artificiis et quæstibus, qui liberales habendi, qui sordidi sint, hæc -præaccepimus. Primum improbantur ii quæstus qui in odia hominum -incurrunt, ut portitorum, ut feneratorum.... Sordidi etiam putandi qui -mercantur a mercatoribus quod statim vendant. Nihil enim proficiunt nisi -admodum mentiantur."</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_313" id="Page_313">{313}</a></span> - -<h3>APPENDIX L.<br /> -<small>CHARTER OF THE EMPRESS TO WILLIAM DE BEAUCHAMP.</small></h3> - -<p class="center small">(See p. <a href="#Page_124">124</a>.)</p> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">As</span> -this important charter has never, I believe, been printed, I -have taken the present opportunity of publishing it <i>in extenso</i>. -The grantee must, at first, have staunchly supported Stephen, -for he received in 1139, from the king, a grant of that constableship -which Miles of Gloucester had forfeited on his defection.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_920" id="Ref_920" href="#Foot_920">[920]</a></span> -It is evident, however, from the terms of this charter that he -was jealous of Stephen's favourite, Gualeran, Count of Meulan, -and of the power which the king had given him at Worcester. -The grant of Tamworth also should be carefully noted, because -that portion of the Despencer inheritance had fallen to the -share of Marmion, which suggests that the Beauchamps and -the Marmions were at strife, and that therefore, in this struggle, -they embraced opposite sides. An intermarriage between Robert -Marmion and Maud de Beauchamp was probably, as in other -cases, a compromise of the quarrel.</p> - -<p>"M. Imperatrix H. Regis filia et Anglor[um] domina Archiepiscopis -Episcopis Abbatibus Comitibus Baronibus Justic[iariis] -vicecomitibus ministris et omnibus fidelibus suis francis et -Anglis tocius Angliæ salutem. Sciatis me dedisse et reddidisse -Willelmo de Bellocampo hereditario jure Castellum de -Wigorn[ia] cum mota sibi et heredibus suis ad tenendum de me -in capite et heredibus meis. Dedi ei et reddidi vicecomitatum -Wigorn[ie] et forestas cum omnibus appendiciis suis in feodo -et hereditarie per eandem firmam quam pater eius Walterus -de Bellocampo inde reddebat. Et de hoc devenit ipse -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_314" id="Page_314">{314}</a></span> -Willelmus meus ligius homo contra omnes mortales et nominatim -contra Gualerann[um] Comitem de Mellent et ita quod -nec ipse Comes Gualeran[us] nec aliquis alius de hiis predictis -mecum finem faciet quin semper ipse Willelmus de me in capite -teneat nisi ipse bona voluntate et gratuita concessione de -predicto Comite tenere voluerit. Et præter hoc dedi ei et -reddidi castellum et honorem de Tamword ad tenend[um] ita -bene et in pace et quiete et plenarie et honorifice et libere sicut -unquam melius et quietius et plenarius et honorificentius et -liberius Robertus Dispensator frater Ursonis de Abbetot ipsum -castellum et honorem tenuerit. Et eciam dedi ei et reddidi -Manerium de Cokeford cum omnibus appendiciis suis ut rectum -suum sine placito. Et cum hoc dedi ei et reddidi Westonam -et Luffenham in Roteland cum omnibus appendiciis suis ut -rectum suum similiter sine placito. Dedi eciam ei et concessi -de cremento lx libratas terræ de perquisitione Angl' pro -servicio suo. Et iterum dedi ei et reddidi conestabulatum -quem Urso de Abetot tenuit et dispensam ita hereditarie sicut -Walterus pater ejus eam de patre meo H. Rege tenuit. Et -item dedi ei et concessi terras et hereditates suorum proximorum -parentum qui contra me fuerint in Werra mea et mecum -finem facere non poterunt nisi de sua parentela propinquiore -michi in ipsa Werra servierit. Quare volo et firmiter precipio -quod de me et de quocunque teneat bene et honorifice in pace -et hereditarie et libere et quiete teneat ipse Willelmus et heres -suus post eum in bosco in plano in pratis et pasturis in forestis -et fugaciis in percursibus et exitibus in aquis et molendinis -in vivariis et piscariis in stagnis et mariscis et salinis et viis -et semitis in foris et in feriis infra burgum et extra in civitate -et extra et in omnibus locis cum saca et soka et toll et team et -Infangenthef et cum omnibus consuetudinibus et libertatibus -et quietudinibus T[estibus] Ep'o Bern[ardo] de S'cto D., et -Nigello Ep'o de Ely, et Rob[erto] Com[ite] Gloec[estrie] et -Milon[e] Com[ite] He[re]ford et Brienc[io] fil[io] Com[itis] -et Unfr[ido] de Buh[un] et Joh[ann]e fil[io] Gilleb[erti] et -Walkel[ino] Maminot et Milon[e] de Belloc[ampo] et Gaufr[edo] -de Walt[er]vyll[a] et Steph[ano] de Belloc[ampo] et Rob[er]to -de Colevill et Isnardo park[?ario] Gaufr[edo] de Abbetot -Gilleb[erto] Arch' Nich[olao] fil[io] Isnardi. Apud Oxineford."</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_315" id="Page_315">{315}</a></span> -There can, I think, be little question that this charter -passed at Oxford just after that by which Miles of Gloucester -was created Earl of Hereford (July 25, 1141). It is certainly -previous to the Earl of Gloucester's departure from England -in the summer of 1142, and I do not know of any evidence for -the presence of these bishops with the Empress at Oxford after -the rout of Winchester. The names of the eight first witnesses -to this charter are all found in Miles's charter (<i>Fœdera, N.E.</i>, i. -14). As to the others, Miles de Beauchamp had held his castle -of Bedford against Stephen (Christmas, 1137), and, though -compelled to surrender it, had regained it on the triumph of -the Empress. Stephen de Beauchamp heads the list of William -de Beauchamp's under-tenants in his <i>Carta</i> (1166), and the -Abetots—Heming's "Ursini"—also held of him. "Isnardus" -was a landowner in Worcestershire and witnessed a charter -to Evesham Abbey in 1130.</p> - -<p>The text of this charter—which is taken from the Beauchamp -Cartulary (<i>Add. MSS.</i>, 28,024, fol. 126 <i>b</i>), a most precious -volume, of which the existence is little known—is perhaps -corrupt in places, but the document affords several points of -considerable interest. Among them are the formula "dedi et -reddidi" applied to the grantee's previous possessions, as contrasted -with the "dedi et concessi" of the new grant (60 -"librates" of land) and of the grant of his relatives' inheritance; -the reference to the hereditary shrievalty of Worcester; -the allusion to Tamworth Castle as the head of its "honour" -(as at Arundel); and the phrase "de hoc devenit ... meus -ligius homo contra omnes mortales," to be compared with "pro -hiis ... devenit homo noster ligius contra omnes homines" -in the charter (1144) to Humfrey de Bohun (Pipe-Roll -Society: <i>Ancient Charters</i>, p. 46), and the "homagium suum -fecit ligie contra omnes homines" in the charter to Miles of -Gloucester (see p. 56). The statement that active opponents -of the Empress were precluded from compounding for their -offence, except by special intervention, occurs, I think, here -alone. The facts that Urse de Abetot was a constable and Walter -de Beauchamp an hereditary "Dispenser" are also noteworthy, -the latter bearing on the question of the succession to Robert -"Dispensator" (see my remarks in <i>Ancient Charters</i>, p. 2).</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_920" id="Foot_920" href="#Ref_920">[920]</a> -See Appendix F.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_316" id="Page_316">{316}</a></span> - -<h3>APPENDIX M.<br /> -<small>THE EARLDOM OF ARUNDEL.</small></h3> - -<p class="center small">(See p. <a href="#Page_146">146</a>.)</p> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">It</span> -is difficult to overrate the importance of the Canterbury -charter to Geoffrey in its bearing on the origin and nature of -this far-famed earldom. For centuries, antiquaries and lawyers -have wrangled over this dignity, the premier earldom of -England, but its true character and history have remained an -unsolved enigma.</p> - -<p>The popular belief that the dignity is "an earldom by -tenure" and is annexed to the possession of Arundel Castle, -is based on the petitions of John fitz Alan in 11 Hen. IV. -and of Thomas Howard in 3 Car. I. This view would be -strenuously upheld, of course, by the possessors of the castle, -but neither their own <i>ex parte</i> statements, nor even the tacit -admission of them by the Crown, can override the facts of the -case as established by the evidence of history. The problem -is for us, it should be added, of merely historical interest, as -the dignity is now, and has been since 1627, held under a -special parliamentary entail created in that year.</p> - -<p>Even the warmest advocates of the "earldom by tenure" -theory would admit that such an anomaly was absolutely -unique of its kind. The <i>onus</i> of proving the fact must therefore -rest on them, and the presumption, to put it mildly, is -completely against them, for I do not hesitate to say that to a -student of the dignity of an earl the proposition they ask us to -accept is more than impossible: it is ludicrous.</p> - -<p>Tierney endeavoured, with some skill, to rebut the arguments -of Lord Redesdale in the <i>Reports of the Lords' Committee</i>, -but the advance of historical research leaves them both behind. -The latest words on the subject have been spoken by Mr. Pym -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_317" id="Page_317">{317}</a></span> -Yeatman, the confidence of whose assertions and the size of -whose work<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_921" id="Ref_921" href="#Foot_921">[921]</a></span> might convey the erroneous impression that he -had solved this ancient riddle. I shall therefore here examine -his arguments in some detail, and, having disposed of his -theories, shall then discuss the facts.</p> - -<p>An enthusiastic champion of the "earldom by tenure" -theory, Mr. Yeatman has further advanced a view which is -quite peculiar to himself. So far as this view can be understood, -it "dimidiates" the first earl (d. 1176), and converts -him into two, viz. a father who died about 1156, and a son who -died in 1176. This is first described as "certain" (p. 281),<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_922" id="Ref_922" href="#Foot_922">[922]</a></span> -then as "probable" (p. 288),<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_923" id="Ref_923" href="#Foot_923">[923]</a></span> lastly, as "possible" (p. 285).<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_924" id="Ref_924" href="#Foot_924">[924]</a></span> -But when we look for the foundation of the theory, and for -evidence that the first earl died in 1156, we only read, to our -confusion, that the doings of the Becket earl are "possibly" to -be attributed to "his [the first earl's] son, and we must come to -that conclusion, if we believe the only evidence we possess in -relation to the death of his father in 1156; at any rate, before -it is rejected some reason should be shown for doing so." -Yet the only scrap of "evidence" given us is the incidental -remark (p. 283) that "the year 1156 is usually assigned as -that of the death of the first Earl of Arundel." Now, this is -directly contrary to fact. For Mr. Yeatman himself tells us -that Dugdale's is "the generally received account" (p. 282), -and Dugdale, like every one else, kills the first earl in 1176.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_925" id="Ref_925" href="#Foot_925">[925]</a></span> -Again, it is "very certain," we learn, that the Earl of Arundel -"died the 3rd (<i>sic</i>) of October, 1176" (p. 281), while "Diceto -is the authority for the statement that William Albini, Earl of -Arundel, died the 17th (<i>sic</i>) of October, 1176" (p. 285), the -actual words of the chronicler being given as "iv. die Octobus" -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_318" id="Page_318">{318}</a></span> -(<i>sic</i>). Now, all three dates, as a matter of fact, are wrong, -though this is only introduced to show how the laborious researches -of the author are marred by a carelessness which is -fatal to his work.</p> - -<p>Let us now turn to this argument:—</p> - -<p class="small">"The foundation charter of Bungay, in Suffolk, contains the first entry -known to the author of the title of Earl of Sussex. It was founded in 1160 -by Roger de Glanville.... This charter seems to confirm the statement -that the first Earl of Arundel died about 1156. If not, he too was styled -Earl of Sussex. It disposes as well of the theory that the first (<i>sic</i>) Earl -of Arundel was so created<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_926" id="Ref_926" href="#Foot_926">[926]</a></span> in 1176" (p. 284).</p> - -<p>This argument is based on the fact that the house was -"founded in 1160." The <i>Monasticon</i> editors indeed say that -this was "about" the date, but, unluckily, a moment's examination -of the list of witnesses to the charter shows that its date -must be much later,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_927" id="Ref_927" href="#Foot_927">[927]</a></span> while Mr. Eyton unhesitatingly assigns -it to 1188. All the above argument, therefore, falls to the -ground.</p> - -<p>Another point on which the author insists as of great -importance is that the first earl was never Earl of <i>Sussex</i>:—</p> - -<div class="small"> - -<p>"The first Earl of Arundel was never called Earl of Sussex, nor did he -bear that title.... His son was the first Earl of Sussex, and he would -certainly have given his father the higher title if he ever bore it. Yet in -confirming his charter to Wymondham, William, Earl of Sussex, confirms -the grants of his ... father, William, the venerable Earl of Arundel.... -An earl could not call himself the earl of a county unless he had a grant of -it, and of this, with respect to the husband of Queen Adeliza, there is no -evidence" (p. 282).</p> - -<p>"That his son was called Earl of Sussex, and that he was the first earl, -is equally clear" (p. 282).</p> - -<p>"The chartulary of the Abbey of Buckenham, which the first Earl of -Arundel founded, preserves the distinction in the titles of himself and his -son and successor already insisted upon. It was founded <i>tempe</i> Stephen, -and the founder is styled William, Count of Chichester. William, Count of -Sussex, confirms the charter" (p. 284).</p> - -</div> - -<p>But on the very next page he demolishes his own argument -by quoting Hoveden to the effect that "Willielmus (<i>sic</i>) de -Albineio filio Willielmi Comitis de <i>Arundel</i> [Rex] dedit comitatum -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_319" id="Page_319">{319}</a></span> -de <i>Southsex</i>." For here his own rule would require that -if the late earl was, as he admits, Earl of <i>Sussex</i>, he would not -be described as Earl of <i>Arundel</i>.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_928" id="Ref_928" href="#Foot_928">[928]</a></span></p> - -<p>But, in any case, the still existing charter to Geoffrey de -Mandeville (1141), which the earl attests as "Earl of Sussex" -(evidence which does not stand alone), is absolutely conclusive -on the subject, and simply annihilates Mr. Yeatman's attempts -to deny to the husband of Queen Adeliza the possession of that -title.</p> - -<p>With this there falls to the ground the argument based on -that denial, viz.:—</p> - -<p class="small">"There is another argument which appears to have been lost sight of, -which proves distinctly that there was (<i>sic</i>) at least five earls, and probably -six, of the name of William de Albini. The record of the 12 Henry III. -which was made after the last earl of that name was dead three years proves -that there were four Earls of Sussex.... Now, the first Earl of Arundel -was never called Earl of Sussex, nor did he bear that title," etc. (p. 282).</p> - -<p>The above argument that the record in question proves the -existence of <i>five</i>, not of four, earls thus falls to the ground. -But this is by no means all. Mr. Yeatman first asserts -(p. 281 <i>a</i>) that there were five Albini Earls of Arundel in all, -"if indeed there were not six of them." Deducting the last -earl, Hugh de Albini, this leaves us <i>four</i> or <i>five</i> Earl Williams -in succession. Yet on the very next page he urges it (in the -above passage) as "distinctly proved" that "there was (<i>sic</i>) at -least <i>five</i> earls, and probably <i>six</i>, of the name of William de -Albini." And, lastly, on p. 284, he announces that "there -must have been <i>six</i>"!</p> - -<p>We will now dismiss from our minds all that has been -written on the point by Mr. Yeatman and other antiquaries, -and turn to the facts of the case, which are few and beyond -dispute. It is absolutely certain, from the evidence of contemporary -chronicles and charters, that the first Albini earl, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_320" id="Page_320">{320}</a></span> -the husband of Queen Adeliza, was indifferently styled at the -time (1) Earl of Sussex, (2) Earl of Chichester, (3) Earl of -Arundel, (4) Earl William de Albini. The proofs of user of -these styles are as follows. First, he attests as Earl of Sussex -the Canterbury charter to the Earl of Essex (Christmas, 1141);<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_929" id="Ref_929" href="#Foot_929">[929]</a></span> -he also attests as Earl of Sussex Stephen's charter to Barking -Abbey, which may have passed about the same time. As this -charter is of importance for the argument, I append the full -list of witnesses as extracted by me from the Patent Rolls:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Matild[a] Regina & Will[elm]o Comite de Sudsexa, & Will[elm]o -Mart[el], & Adam de Belum, & Rog[ero] de Fraxin[eto] & Reinald[o] fil[io] -Comitis, & Henr[ico] de Novo Mercato, & Ric[ard]o de Valderi, & Godefrid[o] -de Petrivilla, & Warn[erio] de Lusoris, Apud Berching[es].<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_930" id="Ref_930" href="#Foot_930">[930]</a></span></p> - -<p>Secondly, it is as "Earl of Chichester" that he attests four -charters,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_931" id="Ref_931" href="#Foot_931">[931]</a></span> one of which is dated 1147, and is confirmed by King -Stephen as the grant "quod Comes Willelmus de <i>Arundel</i> fecit;" -it is also as Earl of Chichester that he appears in the Buckenham -foundation charter,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_932" id="Ref_932" href="#Foot_932">[932]</a></span> and that he confirms the grants to -Boxgrove.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_933" id="Ref_933" href="#Foot_933">[933]</a></span> As to the two other styles no question arises.</p> - -<p>Thus the case of the earldom of Arundel is one of special -interest in its bearing on the adoption of comital titles. For it -affords, according to the view I have advanced, an example of -the use, in a single case, of all the four possible varieties of an -earl's title. These four possible varieties are those in which -the title is taken (1) from the county of which the bearer is -earl, (2) from the capital town of that county, (3) from the -earl's chief residence, (4) from his family name. Strictly -speaking, when an earl was created, it was always (whatever -may be pretended) as the earl of a particular county. The -earl and his county were essentially correlative; nor was it -then possible to conceive an earl unattached to a county. -Titles, however, like surnames in that period of transition, had -not yet crystallized into a hard and fast form, and it was -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_321" id="Page_321">{321}</a></span> -deemed unnecessary, when speaking of an earl, that his county -should always be mentioned. Men spoke of "Earl Geoffrey," -or of "Geoffrey, Earl of Essex," just as they spoke of "King -Henry," or of "Henry, King of the English." If the simple -"Earl Geoffrey" was not sufficiently distinctive, they added -his surname, or his residence, or his county for the purpose of -identification. The secondary importance of this addition is -the key to Norman polyonomy. The founder, for instance, of -the house of Clare was known as Richard "Fitz-Gilbert," or -"de Tunbridge," or "de Bienfaite," or "de Clare." The -result of this system, or rather want of system, was, as we -might expect, in the case of earls, that no fixed principle guided -the adoption of their styles. It was indeed a matter of haphazard -which of their <i>cognomina</i> prevailed, and survived to -form the style by which their descendants were known. Thus, -the Earls of Herts and of Surrey, of Derby and of Bucks, were -usually spoken of by their family names of Clare and of -Warenne, of Ferrers and of Giffard; on the other hand the -Earls of Norfolk and of Essex, of Devon and of Cornwall, were -more usually styled by those of their counties. Where the name -of the county was formed from that of its chief town, the latter, -rather than the county itself, was adopted for the earl's style. -Familiar instances are found in the earldoms of Chester, -Gloucester, and Hereford, of Lincoln, of Leicester, and of -Warwick. Rarest, perhaps, are those cases in which the earl -took his style from his chief residence, as the Earls of Pembroke(shire) -from Striguil (Chepstow), and, perhaps, of Wiltshire -from Salisbury, though here the case is a doubtful one, for -"de Salisbury" was already the surname of the family when -the earldom was conferred upon it. The Earl of Gloucester is -spoken of by the Continuator of Florence of Worcester as "Earl -of Bristol" (see p. 284), and the Earls of Derby occasionally as -Earls "of Tutbury," but the most remarkable case, of course, is -that of Arundel itself. It was doubtful for a time by which style -this earldom would eventually be known, and "Sussex," under -Henry II., seemed likely to prevail. The eventual adoption of -Arundel was, no doubt, largely due to the importance of that -"honour" and of the castle which formed its "head."</p> - -<p>Having now established that the earldom of "Arundel" -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_322" id="Page_322">{322}</a></span> -was from the first the earldom of a county, and thus similar -to every other, one is led to inquire on what ground there is -claimed for it an absolutely unique and wholly anomalous -origin. I reply: on none whatever. There is nothing to -rebut the legitimate assumption that William de Albini was -created an earl in the ordinary course of things. Here, again, -the facts of the case, few and simple though they are, have -been so overlaid by assumption and by theory that it is -necessary to state them anew. All that has been hitherto -really known is that Queen Adeliza married William de Albini -between King Henry's death (December, 1135) and the landing -of the Empress in the autumn of 1139, and that her husband -subsequently appears as an earl. The assertion that he became -an earl on his marriage, in virtue of his possession of Arundel -Castle, is pure assumption and nothing else.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_934" id="Ref_934" href="#Foot_934">[934]</a></span> I have already -dwelt on the value of the Canterbury charter to Geoffrey as -evidence not only that William was Earl "of Sussex," but also -that he was already an earl at Christmas, 1141. In that charter -I claim to have discovered the earliest contemporary record -mention of this famous earldom.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_935" id="Ref_935" href="#Foot_935">[935]</a></span> William, therefore, became -an earl between Christmas, 1135, and Christmas, 1141. This -much is certain.</p> - -<p>The key to the problem, however, is found in another -quarter. The curious and valuable <i>Chronicle of the Holy Cross -of Waltham</i> (<i>Harl. MS.</i>, 3776) was the work of one who was -acquainted—indeed, too well acquainted—with the persons and -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_323" id="Page_323">{323}</a></span> -the doings of those two nobles, Geoffrey de Mandeville and -William de Albini. His own neighbourhood became their battleground, -and when William harried Geoffrey's manors, and Geoffrey, -in revenge, fired Waltham, he was among the sufferers -himself.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_936" id="Ref_936" href="#Foot_936">[936]</a></span> The pictures he draws of these rival magnates are, -therefore, of peculiar interest, and his admiration for Geoffrey -is so remarkable, in the face of the earl's wild deeds, that no -apology is needed for quoting the description in full:—</p> - -<p class="small">"E contra Gaufridus iste præcellens multiformi gratia, præcipuus totius -Anglie, militia quidem præclivis, morum venustate præclarus, in consiliis -regis et regni moderamine cunctis præminens, agebat se inter ceteros quasi -unus ex illis, nullius probitatis suæ garrulus, nullius probitatis sibi collatæ -vel dignitatis nimius ostensator, rei suæ familiaris providus dispensator, -omnium virtutum communium quæ tantum decerent virum affluentia exuberans, -si Dei gratiam diligentius acceptam et ceteris prelatam, diligens -executor menti suæ sedulus imprimeret; novit populus quod non mentior, quem -si laudibus extulerim, meritis ejus assignari potius quam gratiæ nostræ id -debere credimus, verumptamen gratiæ divinæ de cujus munere venit quicquid -boni provenit homini" (cap. 29).</p> - -<p class="small">"Tempore igitur incendii supra memorati, dum observaret comes ille -ecclesiam cum multis ne succenderetur, amicissimus ipse et devotus ecclesiæ, -afflictus multo dolore quod periclitarentur res ecclesiæ (non tamen poterat -manentibus illis injuriam sibi illatam vindicare)," etc. (cap. 31).</p> - -<p>As eager to denounce the character of William as to palliate -the excesses of Geoffrey, the chronicler thus sketches the -husband of Queen Adeliza:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Seditionis tempore, cum se inæqualiter agerent homines in terra nostra, -et de pari contenderet modicus cum magno, humilis cum summo, et fide -penitus subacta, nullo respectu habito servi ad dominum, sic vacillaret -regnum et regni status miserabili ductore premeretur fere usque ad exanimationem, -e vicino contendebant inter se duo de præcipuis terræ baronibus, -Gaufridus de Mandeville, et Comes de Harundel, quem post discessum Regis -Henrici conjugio Reginæ Adelidis contigit honorari, unde et superbire et -supra se extolli cœpit ultra modum, ut [non] posset sibi pati parem, et -vilesceret in oculis suis quicquid præcipuum præter regem in se habebat -noster mundus. Habebat tunc temporis Willelmus ille, pincerna, nondum -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_324" id="Page_324">{324}</a></span> -comes, dotem reginæ Waltham, contiguam terris comitis Gaufridi de -Mandeville, impatiens quidem omnium comprovincialium terras suo dominio -non mancipari.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_937" id="Ref_937" href="#Foot_937">[937]</a></span></p> - -<p>In the words "nondum comes" we find the clue we seek. -If the writer had merely abstained from giving William his -title, the value of his evidence would be slight; but when he -goes, as it were, out of his way to inform us that though -William, in virtue of his marriage, was already in possession of -the queen's dower, he was "not yet an earl," he tells us, in -unmistakable language, the very thing that we want to know. -It was probably in order to accentuate his pride that his critic -reminds us that the future earl was as yet only a <i>pincerna</i>;<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_938" id="Ref_938" href="#Foot_938">[938]</a></span> -but, whatever the motive, the fact remains, on first-hand -evidence, that William was "not yet an earl" at a time when -he possessed his wife's dower, and consequently Arundel Castle. -This fact, hitherto overlooked, is completely destructive of the -time-honoured belief that he acquired the earldom on, and by, -obtaining possession of the castle.</p> - -<p>So far, all is clear. But the question is further complicated -by William appearing in two distinct documents as earl, not of -Arundel or Chichester, but of Lincoln! That he held this -title is a fact so utterly unsuspected, and indeed so incredible, -that Mr. Eyton, finding him so styled in a cartulary of Lewes -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_325" id="Page_325">{325}</a></span> -Priory, dismissed the title, without hesitation, as an obvious -error of the scribe.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_939" id="Ref_939" href="#Foot_939">[939]</a></span> But I have identified in the Public Record -Office the actual charter from which the scribe worked, and the -same style is there employed. Even so, error is possible; but -the evidence does not stand alone. In a cartulary of Reading<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_940" id="Ref_940" href="#Foot_940">[940]</a></span> -we find William confirming, as Earl of Lincoln, a grant from -the queen, his wife, and here again the original charter is there -to prove that the cartulary is right.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_941" id="Ref_941" href="#Foot_941">[941]</a></span> The early history of the -earldom of Lincoln is already difficult enough without this -additional complication, of which I do not attempt to offer any -solution.</p> - -<p>But so far as the earldom of "Arundel" is concerned, I -claim to have established its true character, and to have shown -that there is nothing to distinguish it in its origin from the -other earldoms of the day. The erratic notion of "earldom by -tenure," held when the strangest views prevailed as to peerage -dignities, was a fallacy of the <i>post hoc propter hoc</i> kind, based on -the long connection of the castle with the earls. Nor has Mr. -Freeman's strange fancy that the holder of this earldom is "the -only one of his class left" any better foundation in fact.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_921" id="Foot_921" href="#Ref_921">[921]</a> -<i>The Early Genealogical History of the House of Arundel</i> (1882).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_922" id="Foot_922" href="#Ref_922">[922]</a> -"Very certain it is that William Earl of Arundel died the 3rd (<i>sic</i>) of -October, 1176, and equally certain is it that this was the son of the first -earl."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_923" id="Foot_923" href="#Ref_923">[923]</a> -Where the earl of the Becket quarrel is described as "probably his -[the first earl's] son."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_924" id="Foot_924" href="#Ref_924">[924]</a> -"It is possible that the new earl [son of the earl who died 1176] was -the grandson of the first Earl of Arundel."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_925" id="Foot_925" href="#Ref_925">[925]</a> -Weever similarly kills him in 1176, though he wrongly assigns the -death of his father (the founder of Wymondham) to 3 Hen. II.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_926" id="Foot_926" href="#Ref_926">[926]</a> -? created Earl of Sussex.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_927" id="Foot_927" href="#Ref_927">[927]</a> -Bishop John of Norwich, for instance, was not elected till 1175.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_928" id="Foot_928" href="#Ref_928">[928]</a> -Mr. Yeatman attempts to get over this difficulty by suggesting that -"Henry's charter to William, Earl of Arundel, styling himself [? him] -incidentally Earl of Sussex, shows that these earls bore both titles [<i>i.e.</i> -Arundel and Sussex], just as the first earl was called of Chichester as well -as of Arundel" (p. 285). But this alternative use of Arundel and Sussex -is precisely what the author denies above, in the case of the first earl, as -impossible.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_929" id="Foot_929" href="#Ref_929">[929]</a> -<i>Supra</i>, p. 143.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_930" id="Foot_930" href="#Ref_930">[930]</a> -It is not safe from the concurrence of only three witnesses to assign this -charter positively to the same period as the Canterbury one. The grant -which it records is that of the hundred of Barstable, which Stephen offered -"super altare beatæ Mariæ et beatæ Athelburgæ in ecclesia de Berching[es] -per unum cultellum" (Pat. 2 Hen. VI., p. 3, m. 18).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_931" id="Foot_931" href="#Ref_931">[931]</a> -<i>Monasticon</i>, vi. 1169.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_932" id="Foot_932" href="#Ref_932">[932]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, vi. 419.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_933" id="Foot_933" href="#Ref_933">[933]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, vi. 645.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_934" id="Foot_934" href="#Ref_934">[934]</a> -Robert of Torigny, a contemporary witness, speaks of him, in 1139, as -"Willelmus de Albinneio, qui duxerat Aeliz quondam reginam, quæ -habebat castellum et comitatum Harundel, quod rex Henricus dederat ei in -dote." The possession of Arundel by Queen Adeliza may probably be -accounted for by William of Malmesbury's statement that Henry I. had -settled Shropshire on her,—"uxori suæ ... comitatum Salopesberiæ dedit" -(ed. Stubbs, ii. 529),—for this would represent the forfeited inheritance of the -house of Montgomery, including Arundel and its rights over Sussex. A -curious incidental allusion in the <i>Dialogus</i> (i. 7) to "Salop, <i>Sudsex</i>, Northumberland, -et Cumberland" having only come to pay their <i>firmæ</i> to the -Crown "per incidentes aliquos casus," suggests that, like his neighbour in -Cheshire, Roger de Montgomery had palatine rights, including the <i>firmæ</i> -of both his counties, Shropshire and Sussex, which escheated to the Crown -on the forfeiture of his heir.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_935" id="Foot_935" href="#Ref_935">[935]</a> -See p. 146.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_936" id="Foot_936" href="#Ref_936">[936]</a> -"Intra se igitur tanti viri pacis et tranquillitatis metas excedentes et -seditiose alter alterius predia vastantes contigit Gaufridum furore exagitatum, -quia succenderat Willelmus domos suas et universam predam terræ suæ abigi -fecerat villam Walthamensem succendere nec posse domibus canonicorum -parcere quia reliquis domibus erant contigue, testimonium prohibemus qui -et dampna cum ceteris sustinuimus" (<i>Harl. MS.</i>, 3776). Compare p. 222, -<i>supra</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_937" id="Foot_937" href="#Ref_937">[937]</a> -There is a curious incidental allusion to the possession of Waltham by -the Earl of Arundel (jure uxoris) in the <i>Testa de Nevill</i> (p. 270 <i>b</i>). In an -inquisition of John's reign we have the entry: "Menigarus le Napier dicit -quod Rex Henricus, avus [<i>lege</i> proavus] domini Regis feodavit antecessores -suos per serjantiam de Naperie et dicit quod <i>quando comes de Arundel duxit -Reginam Aliciam in uxorem</i> removit illud servicium et fecit inde reddere -xx sol. per annum et predictus Menigarus tenet," etc. That is, that while -Waltham was in Henry's hands, he had enfeoffed this man's predecessor by -serjeanty, but that, this tenure becoming inept when the manor passed to a -private owner, the earl substituted for it an annual money rent. Note here -how Henry provided for his widow from escheats rather than Crown demesne, -and observe the origin of the name "Napier," comparing <i>Testa</i>, p. 115: -"Robertus Napparius habet feodum unius militis de hereditate uxoris suæ -... dominus Rex perdonavit predicto Roberto et heredibus ejus per cartam -suam predictum servicium militare per unam nappam de precio iii sol. vel -per tres solidos reddendo pro precio illius nappæ." And p. 118: "Thomas -Napar tenet terram suam ... per serjantiam reddendo singulis annis unam -nappam ... et debet esse naparius domini Regis."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_938" id="Foot_938" href="#Ref_938">[938]</a> -This proves, incidentally, the fact that he had succeeded his father in -this office at the time.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_939" id="Foot_939" href="#Ref_939">[939]</a> -Speaking of the earl's confirmation of a grant by Alan de Dunstanville -to Lewes Priory, of lands at Newtimber, he writes: "This confirmation purports -to be that of William, Earl of <i>Lincoln</i>, but is addressed to his barons -and men of the honour of Arundel. The mistake of the transcriber is -obvious" (<i>History of Shropshire</i>, ii. 273).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_940" id="Foot_940" href="#Ref_940">[940]</a> -<i>Harl. MS.</i>, 1708, fol. 97.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_941" id="Foot_941" href="#Ref_941">[941]</a> -<i>Add. Cart.</i>, 19,586: "Ego Willelmus, Comes Lincolnie."</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_326" id="Page_326">{326}</a></span> - -<h3>APPENDIX N.<br /> -<small>ROBERT DE VERE.</small></h3> - -<p class="center small">(See p. <a href="#Page_128">128</a>.)</p> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">This</span> -personage, who, as charters show, was in constant attendance -on Stephen, is usually, and very naturally, taken by -genealogists, from Mr. Eyton downwards, for a younger brother -of Aubrey de Vere (the chamberlain) and uncle of the first -Earl of Oxford. He was, however, quite distinct, being a son -of Bernard de Vere. He owed his position to a marriage with -Adeline, daughter of Hugh de Montfort, as recorded on the -Pipe-Roll of 1130. By this marriage he became possessed of -the honour of Haughley ("Haganet"), and with it (it is -important to observe) of the office of constable, in which -capacity he figures among the witnesses to Stephen's Charter of -Liberties (1136). In conjunction with his wife he founded, on -her Kentish estate, the Cluniac priory of Monks Horton. -They were succeeded, in their tenure of the honour, by the -well-known Henry of Essex, who thus became constable in his -turn. As supporting this view that the honour carried the -constableship, attention may be drawn to its <i>compotus</i> as "Honor -Constabularie" in 1189-90 (<i>Rot. Pip.</i>, 1 Ric. I., pp. 14, 15), -just before that of the "Terra que fuit Henrici de Essex." It -is therefore worth consideration whether Robert de Montfort, -general to William Rufus—"strator Normannici exercitus hereditario -jure"—may not have really held the post of constable.</p> - -<p>The history of the Montfort fief in Kent is of interest from -the Conquest downwards owing to its inclusion of Saltwood -and other estates claimed by the Archbishops of Canterbury.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_942" id="Ref_942" href="#Foot_942">[942]</a></span> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_327" id="Page_327">{327}</a></span> -Dugdale is terribly at sea in his account of the Montfort -descent, wrongly affiliating the Warwickshire Thurstan (ancestor -of the Lords Montfort) to the Kentish house, and confusing his -generations wholesale (especially in the case of Adeline, wife -of William de Breteuil).</p> - -<p>The fact that Henry of Essex was appealed of treason and -defeated in the trial by battle by a Robert de Montfort (1163), -suggests that a grudge on the part of a descendant of the dispossessed -line against himself as possessor of their fief may -have been at the bottom of this somewhat mysterious affair.</p> - -<hr /> - -<p><span class="smc">Note.</span>—Since the above was in type, there has appeared (<i>Rot. Pip.</i>, 15 -Hen. II., p. 111) a most valuable <i>compotus</i> of the 'Honor Constabularie' (with -a misleading head-line) for 1169, proving that Gilbert de Gant had held it, -at one time, under Stephen, and had alienated nearly a third of it.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_942" id="Foot_942" href="#Ref_942">[942]</a> -Saltwood was granted by the Conqueror to Hugh de Montfort, was -recovered by Lanfranc in the great <i>placitum</i> on Pennenden Heath, was -thereafter held by the Montforts from the archbishop as two knights' fees, -was so held by Henry of Essex as their successor, was seized by the Crown -upon his forfeiture, was persistently claimed by Becket, and was finally -restored to the see by Richard I.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_328" id="Page_328">{328}</a></span> - -<h3>APPENDIX O.<br /> -<small>"TOWER AND CASTLE."</small></h3> - -<p class="center small">(See p. <a href="#Page_149">149</a>.)</p> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">The</span> -description of the Tower by the Empress, in her charter, -as "turris Londonie cum parvo castello quod fuit Ravengeri," -and its similar description in Stephen's charter as "turris Lond[oniæ] -cum castello quod ei subest," though at first sight -singular and obscure, are fraught, when explained, with interest -and importance in their bearing on military architecture.</p> - -<p>It will be found, on reference to the charter granted to -Aubrey de Vere (p. 180), that the Empress gives him Colchester -Castle as "turrim et castellum de Colcestr[a]," a grant confirmed -by her son as that of "turrim de Colcestr[a] et castellum" -(p. 185 <i>n.</i>), and, in later days, by Henry VIII., as -"Castrum et turrim de Colcestr[a]."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_943" id="Ref_943" href="#Foot_943">[943]</a></span> Further, in the charter -to William de Beauchamp (p. 313), we find Worcester Castle -described as "castellum de Wigorn[ia] cum mota," Hereford -Castle being similarly described in the charter granted at the -same time to Miles de Gloucester as "motam Hereford cum -toto castello." Before proceeding to the inferences to be -drawn from these expressions, it may be as well to strengthen -them by other parallel examples. Taking first the case of -Colchester, we turn to a charter of Henry I., granted to his -favourite, Eudo Dapifer, at the Christmas court of 1101,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_944" id="Ref_944" href="#Foot_944">[944]</a></span> in -which Colchester Castle is similarly described:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Henricus Rex Angliæ Mauricio Lond. Episcopo et Hugoni de Bochelanda -et omnibus baronibus suis Anglis et Francis de Essex salutem. Sciatis me -dedisse benigne et ad amorem concessisse Eudoni Dapifero meo Civitatem -de Colecestrâ et <i>turrim et castellum</i> et omnes ejusdem civitatis firmitates Cum -omnibus quæ ad illam pertinent sicut pater meus et frater et ego eam melius -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_329" id="Page_329">{329}</a></span> -habuimus et cum omnibus consuetudinibus illis quas pater meus et frater et -ego in eâ unquam habuimus. Et hæc concessio facta fuit apud Westmonaster -in primo natali post concordiam Roberti comitis fratris mei de me et -de illo.</p> - -<p class="small">"T. Rob. Ep. Lincoln et W. Gifardo Wintoniensi electo et Rob. Com. de -Mellent. et Henr. Com. fr. ejus et Roger Bigoto et Gisleberti fil. Richard et -Rob. fil. Baldwin et Ric. fratr. ejus."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_945" id="Ref_945" href="#Foot_945">[945]</a></span></p> - -<p>Turning to Hereford, we find its description as "mota cum -toto castello" recurring in the confirmation by Henry II. and -the recital of that confirmation by John.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_946" id="Ref_946" href="#Foot_946">[946]</a></span> There is another -example sufficiently important to deserve separate treatment. -This is that of Gloucester.</p> - -<p>We find that, in 1137, "Milo constabularius Glocestrie" -granted to the canons of "Llanthony the Second"</p> - -<p class="small">"Tota oblatio custodum <i>turris et castelli</i> et Baronum ibi commorantium."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_947" id="Ref_947" href="#Foot_947">[947]</a></span></p> - -<p>Here again the correctness of the description is fortunately -confirmed by subsequent evidence; for John recites (April 28, -1200) a charter of his father, Henry II. (which is assigned by -Mr. Eyton to the spring of 1155), granting to Miles's son, Roger, -Earl of Hereford,</p> - -<p class="small">"custodiam <i>turris Gloc' cum toto castello</i>," etc., etc.... "per eandem firmam -quam reddere solebat comes Milo pater ejus tempore H. R. avi mei;"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_948" id="Ref_948" href="#Foot_948">[948]</a></span></p> - -<p>while Robert of Torigny speaks, independently, of "discordia -quæ erat inter regem Anglorum Henricum et Rogerium, filium -Milonis de Gloecestria, propter <i>turrim</i> Gloecestrie."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_949" id="Ref_949" href="#Foot_949">[949]</a></span> The -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_330" id="Page_330">{330}</a></span> -"tower" of Gloucester is also referred to in the Pipe-Roll of -1156,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_950" id="Ref_950" href="#Foot_950">[950]</a></span> and in the Cartulary of Gloucester Abbey.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_951" id="Ref_951" href="#Foot_951">[951]</a></span> The importance -of its mention lies in the fact that it establishes the -character of Gloucester Castle, and proves that what the leading -authority has written on the subject is entirely erroneous. -Mr. G. T. Clark, in his great work on our castles, refers thus -to Gloucester:—</p> - -<p class="small">"The castle of Gloucester ... was the base of all extended operations in -South Wales. Here the kings of England often held their court, and here -their troops were mustered. Brichtric had a castle at Gloucester, <i>but his -mound has long been removed, and with it all traces of the Norman building</i>."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_952" id="Ref_952" href="#Foot_952">[952]</a></span></p> - -<p>In another place he goes further still:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Gloucester, a royal castle, stood on the Severn bank, at one angle of the -Roman city. <i>It had a mound and a shell-keep, now utterly levelled</i>, and the -site partially built over. It was the muster-place and starting-point for -expeditions against South Wales, and the not infrequent residence of the -Norman sovereigns."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_953" id="Ref_953" href="#Foot_953">[953]</a></span></p> - -<p>It may seem rash, in the teeth of these assertions, to maintain -that this mound and its shell-keep are alike imaginary, but -the word "turris" proves the fact. For, as Mr. Clark himself -observes with perfect truth,</p> - -<p class="small">"in the convention between Stephen and Henry of Anjou (1153) the distinction -is drawn between '<i>Turris</i> Londinensis et <i>Mota</i> de Windesorâ,' London -having a square keep or tower, and Windsor a shell-keep upon a mound."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_954" id="Ref_954" href="#Foot_954">[954]</a></span></p> - -<p>So the keep of Gloucester, being a "turris" and not a -"mota," was clearly "a square tower" and not "a shell-keep -upon a mound." The fact is that Mr. Clark's assertions would -seem to be a guess based on the hypothesis, itself (as could be -shown) untenable, that "Brichtric had a castle at Gloucester." -Assuming from this the existence of a mound, he must further -have assumed that the Normans had crowned it, as elsewhere, -with a shell-keep. But the true character of this great fortress -is now determined.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_331" id="Page_331">{331}</a></span> -Two examples of the double style shall now be adduced -from castles outside England. In Normandy we have an entry, -in 1180, referring to expenditure "in operationibus domorum -<i>turris et castri</i>," etc., at Caen;<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_955" id="Ref_955" href="#Foot_955">[955]</a></span> in Ireland the grant of Dublin -Castle to Hugh de Laci (1172) is thus related in the so-called -poem of Matthew Regan (ll. 2713-2716):—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - -<div class="verse quote1">"Li riche rei ad dune baillé</div> -<div class="verse">Dyvelin en garde la cité</div> -<div class="verse"><i>E la chastel e le dongun</i></div> -<div class="verse">A Huge de Laci le barun."</div> - -</div> -</div> - -<p>The phrase, it will be seen, corresponds exactly with those -employed to describe the castles of Carlisle and Appleby, at the -same period:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - -<div class="verse quote1">"Mès voist au rei Henri, si face sa clamur</div> -<div class="verse">Que jo tieng Carduil, <i>le chastel e la tur</i>."</div> -<div class="verse quote1">"Li reis out ubblié par itant sa dolur</div> -<div class="verse">Quant avait Appelbi, <i>le chastel e la tur</i>."<span - class="fnanchor"><a name="Ref_956" id="Ref_956" href="#Foot_956">[956]</a></span></div> - -</div> -</div> - -<p>Having thus established the use of the phrase, let us now -pass to its origin.</p> - -<p>I would urge that it possesses the peculiar value of a genuine -transition form. It preserves for us, as such, the essential fact -that there went to the making of the mediæval "castle" two -distinct factors, two factors which coalesced so early that the -original distinction between them was already being rapidly -forgotten, and is only to be detected in the faint echoes of this -"transition form."</p> - -<p>The two factors to which I refer were the Roman <i>castrum</i> -or <i>castellum</i> and the mediæval "motte" or "tour." The former -survived in the <i>fortified enclosure</i>; the latter, in the <i>central keep</i>. -The Latin word <i>castellum</i> (corresponding with the Welsh <i>caer</i>) -continued to be regularly used as descriptive of a fortified -enclosure, whether surrounded by walls or earthworks.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_957" id="Ref_957" href="#Foot_957">[957]</a></span> It is -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_332" id="Page_332">{332}</a></span> -singular how much confusion has resulted from the overlooking -of this simple fact and the retrospective application of -the denotation of the later "castle." Thus Theodore, in the -seventh century, styles the Bishop of Rochester, "Episcopus -<i>Castelli</i> Cantuariorum, <i>quod dicitur Hrofesceaster</i>" (<i>Bæda</i>, iv. 5); -and Mr. Clark gives several instances, from the eighth and -ninth centuries, in which Rochester is alternatively styled a -"civitas" and a "castellum."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_958" id="Ref_958" href="#Foot_958">[958]</a></span> So again, in the ninth century, -where the chroniclers, in 876 <small>A.D.</small>, describe how "bestæl se here -into Werham," etc., Asser and Florence paraphrase the statement -by saying that the host "<i>castellum quod dicitur Werham</i> intravit." -Now, it is obvious that there could be no "castle" at Wareham -in 876, and that even if there had been, an "army" could not -have entered it. But when we bear in mind the true meaning -of "castellum," at once all is clear. As Professor Freeman -observes, "Wareham is a fortified town."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_959" id="Ref_959" href="#Foot_959">[959]</a></span> Its famous and -ancient defences are thus described by Mr. Clark:—</p> - -<p class="small">"In figure the town is nearly square, the west face about 600 yards, the -north face 650 yards.... The outline of this rectangular figure is an earthwork, -within which the town was built."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_960" id="Ref_960" href="#Foot_960">[960]</a></span></p> - -<p>Such then was the nature of the "castellum," within which -the host took shelter.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_961" id="Ref_961" href="#Foot_961">[961]</a></span> Passing now to a different instance, we -find the Greek κώμη ("a village") represented by "castellum" -in the Latin Gospels (Matt. xxi. 2), and this actually Englished -as "castel" in the English Gospels of 1000 <small>A.D.</small><span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_962" id="Ref_962" href="#Foot_962">[962]</a></span> Here again, -confusion has resulted from a misunderstanding.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_333" id="Page_333">{333}</a></span> -As against the <i>castellum</i>, the fortified enclosure, we have a -new and distinct type of fortress, the outcome of a different -state of society, in the single "motte" or "tour." I shall not -here enter into the controversy as to the relation between these -two forms, my space being too limited. For the present, we -need only consider the "motte" (<i>mota</i>) as a mound (<i>agger</i>) -crowned by a stronghold (whether of timber or masonry), but -<i>not</i>, as Mr. Clark has clearly shown, "crowned with the square -donjon," as so strangely imagined by Mr. Freeman.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_963" id="Ref_963" href="#Foot_963">[963]</a></span> In the -"tour" (<i>turris</i>) we have, of course, the familiar keep of -masonry, rectangular in form, and independent of a mound.</p> - -<p>The process, then, that we are about to trace is that by -which the "motte" or "tour" coalesced with the <i>castellum</i>, and -by which, from this combination, there was evolved the later -"castle." For my theory amounts to this: in the mediæval -fortress, the keep and the <i>castellum</i> were elements different in -origin, and, for a time, looked upon as distinct. It was impossible -that the compound fortress, the result of their combination, -should long retain a compound name: there must be -one name for the entire fortress, either "tour" (<i>turris</i>) or -"chastel" (<i>castellum</i>). Which was to prevail?</p> - -<p>This question may have been decided by either of two considerations. -On the one hand, the relative importance of the -two factors in the fortress may have determined the ultimate -form of its style; on the other—and this, perhaps, is the more -probable explanation—the older of the two factors may have -given its name to the whole. For sometimes the keep was -added to the "castle," and sometimes the "castle" to the keep. -The former development is the more familiar, and three striking -instances in point will occur below. For the present I will -only quote a passage from Robert de Torigny, to whom we are -specially indebted for evidence on military architecture:—</p> - -<p class="small">(1123) "Henricus rex ... turrem nihilominus excelsam fecit in castello -Cadomensi, et murum ipsius castelli, quem pater suus fecerat, in altum -crevit.... Item castellum quod vocatur Archas, turre et mœnibus mirabiliter -firmavit.... Turrem Vernonis similiter fecit."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_964" id="Ref_964" href="#Foot_964">[964]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_334" id="Page_334">{334}</a></span> -More interesting for us is the other case, that in which the -"castle" was added to the keep, because it is that of the -respective strongholds in the capitals of Normandy and of -England. The "Tower of Rouen" and the "Tower of London"—for -such were their well-known names—were both older than -their surrounding wards (<i>castra</i> or <i>castella</i>). William Rufus -built a wall "circa turrim Londoniæ" (<i>Henry of Huntingdon</i>):<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_965" id="Ref_965" href="#Foot_965">[965]</a></span> -his brother and successor built a wall "circa turrim Rothomagi."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_966" id="Ref_966" href="#Foot_966">[966]</a></span> -The former enclosed what is now known as "the -Inner Ward" of the Tower,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_967" id="Ref_967" href="#Foot_967">[967]</a></span> the "parvum castellum" of -Maud's charter.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_968" id="Ref_968" href="#Foot_968">[968]</a></span></p> - -<p>Of "the Tower of Rouen" I could say much. Perhaps -its earliest undoubted mention is in or about 1078 (the exact -date is doubtful), when Robert "Courthose," revolting from -his father "Rotomagum expetiit, et <i>arcem regiam</i> furtim præoccupare -sategit. Verum Rogerius de Iberico ... qui turrim -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_335" id="Page_335">{335}</a></span> -custodiebat ... diligenter arcem præmunivit," Ordericus here, -as often, using <i>turris</i> and <i>arx</i> interchangeably.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_969" id="Ref_969" href="#Foot_969">[969]</a></span> Passing over -other notices of this stronghold, we come in 1090 to one of -those tragic deeds by which its history was destined to be -stained.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_970" id="Ref_970" href="#Foot_970">[970]</a></span> Mr. Freeman has told the tale of Conan's attempt -and doom.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_971" id="Ref_971" href="#Foot_971">[971]</a></span> The duke, who was occupying the Tower, left it -at the height of the struggle,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_972" id="Ref_972" href="#Foot_972">[972]</a></span> but on the triumph of his party, -and the capture of Conan, the prisoner was claimed by Henry -for his prey and was led by him to an upper story of the Tower.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_973" id="Ref_973" href="#Foot_973">[973]</a></span> -At this point I pause to discuss the actual scene of the tragedy. -Mr. Freeman writes as follows:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Conan himself was led into the castle, and there Henry took him.... -The Ætheling led his victim up through the several stages of the loftiest -tower of the castle," etc., etc.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_974" id="Ref_974" href="#Foot_974">[974]</a></span></p> - -<p>Here the writer misses the whole point of the topography. -The scene of Conan's death was no mere "tower of the castle," -but "<i>the</i> Tower," the Tower of Rouen—<i>Rotomagensis turris</i>, as -William here terms it. He fails to realize that the Tower of -Rouen held a similar position to the Tower of London. Thus, -in 1098, when Helias of Le Mans was taken prisoner, we -read that "Rotomagum usque productus, in arce ipsius civitatis -in vincula conjectus est" (<i>Vetera Analecta</i>), which Wace -renders:—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - -<div class="verse quote1">"Li reis à Roem l'enveia</div> -<div class="verse">E garder le recomenda</div> -<div class="verse">En la tour le rova garder."</div> - -</div> -</div> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_336" id="Page_336">{336}</a></span> -Again, even in the next reign, a royal charter, assigned by -Mr. Eyton to 1114-15, is tested, not at the "castle" of -Rouen, but "in <i>turre</i> Rothomagensi."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_975" id="Ref_975" href="#Foot_975">[975]</a></span> And so, two reigns -after that, a century later than Conan's death, we find the -<i>custodes</i> of "the Tower of Rouen" entered in the Exchequer -Rolls, where it is repeatedly styled "turris."</p> - -<p>Thus at Rouen, as at London, the "Tower" not only preserved -its name, but ultimately imposed it on the whole fortress. -And precisely as the Tower of London is mentioned in 1141 -by the transition style of "turris Londoniæ cum castello," so in -1146 we find Duke Geoffrey repairing "sartatecta turris Rothomagensis -et castelli," after it fell into his hands.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_976" id="Ref_976" href="#Foot_976">[976]</a></span></p> - -<p>Here then we have at length the explanation of a difficulty -often raised. Why is "the Tower of London" so styled?<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_977" id="Ref_977" href="#Foot_977">[977]</a></span> -And although, in England, the style may now be unique, men -spoke in the days of which I write of the "Tower" of Bristol -or of Rochester as of the Tower of Gloucester.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_978" id="Ref_978" href="#Foot_978">[978]</a></span> Abroad, -the form was more persistent, and special attention may be -drawn to the Tower of Le Mans ("Turris Cenomannica),"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_979" id="Ref_979" href="#Foot_979">[979]</a></span> -because the expression "regia turris" which Ordericus applies -to it is precisely that which Florence of Worcester applies, in -1114, to the Tower of London, to which it bore an affinity in -its relation to the Roman Wall.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_980" id="Ref_980" href="#Foot_980">[980]</a></span></p> - -<p>All that I have said of the "turris" keep is applicable to -the "mota" also, <i>mutatis mutandis</i>, for the <i>motte</i>, though its -name was occasionally extended to the whole fortress, was -essentially the actual keep, the crowned mound, as is well -brought out in the passages quoted by Mr. Clark from French -charters:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Le motte <i>et les fossez d'entour</i> ... le motte de Maiex ... le motte de -mon manoir de Caieux <i>et les fossez d'entour</i>."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_981" id="Ref_981" href="#Foot_981">[981]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_337" id="Page_337">{337}</a></span> -Here the "fossez d'entour" represent the surrounding works, -the "castellum" referred to in the charters of the Empress. -But between "the right to hold a moot there," "the moat -(<i>sic</i>) and castle" as Mr. Hallam rendered it, "the moat (<i>sic</i>) -probably the <i>motte</i>" of Mr. Clark (ii. 112), and the clever -evasion "mote" in the <i>Reports on the Dignity of a Peer</i> (<i>Third -Report</i>, p. 163), the unfortunate "mota" of Hereford has had -a singular fate.</p> - -<p class="gap-above2">And now for the results of those conclusions that I have -here endeavoured to set forth. The three castles to which I -shall apply them are those of Rochester, of Newcastle, and of -Arques.</p> - -<p>In an elaborate article on the keep of Rochester, Mr. -Hartshorne showed that it was erected, not as was believed -by Gundulf, but by Archbishop William of Corbeuil,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_982" id="Ref_982" href="#Foot_982">[982]</a></span> between -1126 and 1139. But he did not attempt to explain what was -the "castle of stone" which Gundulf is recorded to have there -constructed. As everything turns on the exact wording, I here -give the relevant portions of the document in point: —</p> - -<p class="small">"Quomodo Willelmus Rex filius Willelmi Regis rogatu Lanfranci Archiepiscopi -concessit et confirmavit Rofensi ecclesiæ S. Andreæ Apostoli ad -victum Monachorum manerium nomine Hedenham; quare Gundulfus Episcopus -<i>Castrum</i> Rofense <i>lapideum</i> totum de suo proprio Regi construxit.</p> - -<p class="small">"Gundulfus ... illis contulit beneficium ... <i>castrum</i> etenim, quod situm -est in pulchriore parte Hrovecestræ.... Regi consuluerunt [duo amici] -quatinus ... Gundulfus, quia in opere cæmentarii plurimum sciens et -efficax erat, <i>castrum</i> sibi Hrofense <i>lapideum</i> de suo construeret.... Dixerunt -[Archiepiscopus et Episcopus] ... quotiescunque quidlibet ex infortunio -aliquo casu in <i>castro</i> illo contingeret aut infractione muri aut fissura maceriei, -id protinus ... exigeretur.... Hoc pacto coram Rege inito fecit <i>castrum</i> -Gundulfus Episcopus de suo ex integro totum, costamine, ut reor, lx librarum."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_983" id="Ref_983" href="#Foot_983">[983]</a></span></p> - -<p>Though <i>castrum</i> is the term used throughout, Mr. Parker -in his essay on <i>The Buildings of Gundulph</i>, 1863, assumed that -a <i>tower</i> must be meant, and wrote of "Gundulf's tower" in -the Cathedral: "This is probably the tower which Gundulph -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_338" id="Page_338">{338}</a></span> -is recorded to have built at the cost of £60."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_984" id="Ref_984" href="#Foot_984">[984]</a></span> So too, Mr. -Clark wrote:—</p> - -<p class="small">"As to his architectural skill and his work at Rochester Castle, ... the -bishop [was] to employ his skill, and spend £60 in building a castle, <i>that is, -a tower</i> of some sort. What Gundulf certainly built is the tower which still -bears his name.... It may be that Gundulf's tower was removed to make -way for the new keep, but in this case its materials would have been made -use of, and some trace of them would be almost certain to be detected. But -there is no such trace, so that probably the new keep did not supersede the -other tower."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_985" id="Ref_985" href="#Foot_985">[985]</a></span></p> - -<p>Mr. Freeman guardedly observes:—</p> - -<p class="small">"The noble tower raised in the next age by Archbishop Walter (<i>sic</i>) of -Corbeuil ... had perhaps not even a forerunner of its own class.</p> - -<p class="small">"Mr. Hartshorne showed distinctly that the present tower of Rochester was -not built by Gundulf, but by William of Corbeuil.... But we have seen -(see <i>N. C.</i>, vol. iv. p. 366) that Gundulf did build a stone castle at Rochester -for William Rufus ('castrum Hrofense lapidum' [<i>sic</i>]), and we should most -naturally look for it on the site of the later one. On the other hand, there -is a tower seemingly of Gundulf's building and of a military rather than an -ecclesiastical look, which is now almost swallowed up between the transepts -of the cathedral. But it would be strange if a tower built for the king stood -in the middle of the monastic precinct."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_986" id="Ref_986" href="#Foot_986">[986]</a></span></p> - -<p>Thus the problem is left unsolved by all four writers. -But the true interpretation of <i>castrum</i>, as established by me -above, solves it at once. For just as William of Corbeuil is -recorded to have built the "turris" or rectangular keep,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_987" id="Ref_987" href="#Foot_987">[987]</a></span> so -Gundulf is described as constructing the <i>castrum</i> or fortified -enclosure.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_988" id="Ref_988" href="#Foot_988">[988]</a></span> We must look, therefore, for his work in the wall -that girt it round. And there we find it. Mr. Clark himself -is witness to the fact:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Part of the curtain of the <i>enceinte</i> of Rochester Castle may also be Gundulph's -work. The south wall looks very early, as does the east wall."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_989" id="Ref_989" href="#Foot_989">[989]</a></span></p> - -<p>But Mr. Irvine had already, in 1874, pointed out, in a brief -but valuable communication, that a distinctive peculiarity of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_339" id="Page_339">{339}</a></span> -Gundulf's work—the absence of plinth to his buttresses—is -found "in the castle wall at Rochester (also his)."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_990" id="Ref_990" href="#Foot_990">[990]</a></span> Thus, -it will be seen, the character of the work independently confirms -my own conclusion.</p> - -<p>Some confusion, it may be well to add, has been caused by -such forms as "castellum Hrofi" and "castrum quod nominatur -Hrofesceaster." In these early forms (as in some other cases), -"castrum" denotes the whole of Rochester, girt by its Roman -wall, and not (as Mr. Hartshorne assumed throughout) the -castle enclosure. Mr. Clark leaves the point in doubt.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_991" id="Ref_991" href="#Foot_991">[991]</a></span></p> - -<p>Before leaving Rochester, I would point out that, unlike the -rest of Gundulf's work, this <i>castrum</i> can be closely dated. The -conjunction of Lanfranc and William Rufus, in the story of its -building, limits it to September, 1087-March, 1089, while Odo's -rebellion would probably postpone its construction till his -surrender. It is most unfortunate, therefore, that Mr. Clark -should write, "This transaction between the bishop and the -king occurred about 1076,"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_992" id="Ref_992" href="#Foot_992">[992]</a></span> when neither Gundulf was -bishop nor William king.</p> - -<p class="gap-above2">To the case of Newcastle and its keep, I invite special -attention, because we have here the tacit admission of Mr. -Clark himself that he has antedated, incredible though it may -seem, by more than ninety years the erection of this famous -keep. To prove this, it is only necessary to print his own -conclusions side by side:—</p> - -<div class="pagenum"><a name="Page_340" id="Page_340">{340}</a></div> - -<table class="multi" summary="multi-14"> - - <colgroup> - <col span="2" style="width:48%" /> - </colgroup> - -<tr> - <th>(1080.)</th> - <th>(1172-74.)</th> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>"Of this masonry there is but -little which can be referred to the -reign of the Conqueror or William -Rufus,—that is, to the eleventh century. -Of that period are certainly -(<i>sic</i>) ... the keeps of Chester, ... -and Newcastle, though this last looks -later than its recorded (<i>sic</i>) date.... -Carlisle ... received from Rufus a -castle and a keep, now standing; -and Newcastle, similarly provided in -1080, also retains its keep.... The -castle of Newcastle ... was built by -Robert Curthose in 1080, and is a -very perfect example of a rectangular -Norman keep. Newcastle, built in -1080, has very many chambers" -(<i>Mediæval Military Architecture</i>, 1884, -i. 40, 49, 94, 128).</td> - - <td>"Newcastle is an excellent example -of a rectangular Norman -keep.<br /> -"Its condition is perfect, its date -known (<i>sic</i>), and being late (1172-74) -in its style, it is more ornate than -is usual in its details, and is furnished -with all the peculiarities of a late -(<i>sic</i>) Norman work.<br /> -"The present castle is an excellent -example of the later (<i>sic</i>) form of -the rectangular Norman keep.... -Newcastle has its fellow in the keep -of Dover, known to have been the -work of Henry the Second" (<i>Archæological -Journal</i>, 1884).</td> -</tr> - -</table> - -<p>The origin, of course, of the astounding error by which "the -great master of military architecture" misdated this keep by -nearly a century,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_993" id="Ref_993" href="#Foot_993">[993]</a></span> and took an essentially late work for one of -the earliest in existence, was the same fatal delusion that -<i>castrum</i> or <i>castellum</i> meant precisely what it did not mean, -namely, a tower. "Castellum novum super flumen Tyne -condidit" is the expression applied to Robert's work in 1080, -and the absence of a "tower" explains the fact that Fantosme -makes no mention of a "tur" when describing "Le Noef -Chasteau sur Tyne," the existing keep not being available at -the time of which he wrote.</p> - -<p class="gap-above2">We now come to our last case, that of the Château d'Arques.</p> - -<p>"Arques," writes Mr. Clark, "is one of the earliest examples -of a Norman castle."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_994" id="Ref_994" href="#Foot_994">[994]</a></span> It is, Mr. Freeman holds, "a fortress -which is undoubtedly one of the earliest and most important -in the history of Norman military architecture."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_995" id="Ref_995" href="#Foot_995">[995]</a></span> No apology, -therefore, is needed for discussing the date of this celebrated -structure, so long a subject of interest and of study both to -English and to French archæologists.</p> - -<p>As at Colchester and in other places, the very wildest theories -have been generally advanced, and archæologists have only -gradually sobered down till they have virtually agreed upon -a date for this keep which is actually, I venture to think, less -than a century wrong.</p> - -<p>In his noble monograph upon the fortress, the basis of all -subsequent accounts,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_996" id="Ref_996" href="#Foot_996">[996]</a></span> M. Deville enumerates, with contemptuous -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_341" id="Page_341">{341}</a></span> -amusement (pp. 49, 268-272), the rival theories that it was -built (1) by the Romans; (2) by "Clotaire I." in 553—the date -1553 on one of the additions for the structure having actually -been so read; (3) by "Charles Martel" in 745, 747, or 749 (on -the strength of another reading of the same date, confirmed by -a carving of his coat-of-arms)—these being the dates given by -Houard and Toussaint-Duplessis. At the time when Deville -himself wrote the study of castles was still in its infancy, and -of the two sources of evidence now open to us, the internal -(that of the structure itself) and the external (that of chronicles -and records), the latter alone was ripe for use. Now, at -Arques, precisely as at our own Rochester, the written evidence -has hitherto appeared conflicting to archæologists, but only -because the language employed has never yet been rightly -understood. On the one hand we read in William of Jumièges, -an excellent authority in the matter, that "Hic Willelmus -[the Conqueror's uncle] castrum Archarum in cacumine ipsius -montis condidit;" and in the <i>Chronicle of Fontenelle</i>, that this -same William "Arcas castrum in pago Tellau primus statuit;" -also, in William of Poitiers, that "id munimentum ... ipse -primus fundavit:" on the other, we read in Robert du Mont, a -first-rate and contemporary authority, who may indeed be -termed a specialist on the subject, that "Anno MCXXIII. -castellum quod vocatur Archas turre et mœnibus mirabiliter -firmavit [Rex Henricus]."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_997" id="Ref_997" href="#Foot_997">[997]</a></span></p> - -<p>M. de Caumont, that industrious pioneer, whose work -appeared four years before that of M. Deville, boldly followed -Robert du Mont, and confidently assigned the existing keep to -1123.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_998" id="Ref_998" href="#Foot_998">[998]</a></span> Guided, however, by M. Le Prévost (1824), he held that -the original structure was raised by the Conqueror's uncle, and -that Henry I. merely "fit <i>re</i>construire en entier le donjon et -une partie des murs d'enceinte." M. Deville, on the contrary, -in his eager zeal for the honour and glory of the castle, stoutly -maintained that, keep and all, it was clearly Count William's -work. He admitted that his Norman brother-antiquaries assigned -it to Henry I., but urged that they had overlooked the -evidence of the structure, and its resemblance to English keeps -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_342" id="Page_342">{342}</a></span> -assigned (but, as we now know, wrongly) to the eleventh -century, or earlier;<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_999" id="Ref_999" href="#Foot_999">[999]</a></span> and that they had misunderstood the -passage in Robert du Mont, which must have referred to mere -alterations. In order thus to explain it away, he contends -(and this contention Mr. Clark strangely accepts) that Robert -says the same—which he does not—of "Gisors, Falaise, and -other castles known"—which they are not<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1000" id="Ref_1000" href="#Foot_1000">[1000]</a></span>—"to be of earlier -date" (<i>M. M. A.</i>, i. 194). Lastly, he appeals, though with an -apology for doing so ("s'il nous était permis d'invoquer à -l'appui de notre opinion"), to the far later "Chronique de -Normandie" for actual evidence, elsewhere wanting, that the -keep itself (<i>turris</i>) was built by William of Arques,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1001" id="Ref_1001" href="#Foot_1001">[1001]</a></span> that is, in -1039-1043.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1002" id="Ref_1002" href="#Foot_1002">[1002]</a></span></p> - -<p>"I went over the castle minutely," Professor Freeman -writes, "in May, 1868, with M. Deville's book in hand, and can -bear witness to the accuracy of his description, though I cannot -always accept his inferences" (<i>N. C.</i>, iii. 124, <i>note</i>). He accordingly -doubts M. Deville's date for the gateway and walls of the -inner ward, but sees "no reason to doubt that the ruined keep -is part of the original work" (<i>ibid.</i>). We must remember, however, -that the Professor is at direct variance with Mr. Clark on -the Norman rectangular keeps, for which he claims an earlier -origin than the latter can concede.</p> - -<p>Turning now to Mr. Clark himself, we learn from him -that—</p> - -<p class="small">"it seems probable that the keep is the oldest part of the masonry, and the -work of the Conqueror's uncle, Guillaume d'Arques, and it is supposed to be -one of the earliest, if not the earliest, of the rectangular keeps known" -(<i>M. M. A.</i>, i. 194).</p> - -<p>He adds that the passage in Robert du Mont</p> - -<p class="small">"has been held to show that the whole structure was the work of Henry, -who reigned from 1105 (<i>sic</i>) to 1135, and the extreme boldness of the -buttresses and superincumbent constructions of the keep no doubt favour -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_343" id="Page_343">{343}</a></span> -this view; but, as M. Deville remarks in the same passage, similar reference -is made to Gisors, Falaise, and other castles, known to be of earlier -date" (<i>ibid.</i>).</p> - -<p>To resume. The external or written evidence is as follows. -On the one hand, we have the clear and positive statement of -a contemporary writer, Robert du Mont, that Henry I. built -this keep in 1123. On the other, we have no statement from -any contemporary that it was built by William of Arques (in -1039-1043). He is merely credited with founding the <i>castellum</i>, -and in none of the contemporary accounts of its blockade and -capture by his nephew is there any mention of a <i>turris</i>. The -distinction between a <i>castellum</i> and a <i>turris</i>, with their respective -independence, has not, as I have shown, hitherto been realized, -and it is quite in the spirit of older students that M. Deville -confidently exclaims—</p> - -<p class="small">"Or, conçoit-on un château-fort sans murailles? Un château-fort sans -donjon, dans le cours du XIVᵉ siècle, en Normandie, n'est guère plus rationnel" -(p. 310).</p> - -<p>As to the "murailles," Mr. Clark has taught us that palisades -were not replaced by walls till a good deal later than has been -usually supposed; and as to the "donjon," if, as I have established, -so important a fortress as Rochester was without a keep -in the eleventh, and indeed well into the twelfth century, other -<i>castella</i> must have been similarly destitute—probably, for -instance, Newcastle, as we have seen, and certainly Exeter, -of which Mr. Clark writes: "There is no evidence of a keep, -nor, at so great a height, was any needed" (<i>M. M. A.</i>, ii. 47). -The same argument from strength of position would <i>à fortiori</i> -apply to Arques, and there is, in short, no reason for doubting -that the <i>castrum</i> of William of Arques need not have included -a <i>turris</i>.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1003" id="Ref_1003" href="#Foot_1003">[1003]</a></span></p> - -<p>On what, then, rests the assertion that the keep was the -work of the Conqueror's uncle? Strange as it may seem, it -rests solely on the so-called <i>Chronique de Normandie</i>, an anonymous -production, not of the eleventh, but of the fourteenth -century! "Si fist faire une tour moult forte audessus du -chastel d'Arques," runs the passage, which is quoted by Mr. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_344" id="Page_344">{344}</a></span> -Clark (i. 194), from Deville (pp. 311, 312), who, however, -apologized for appealing to that authority. This "Chronique" -is admitted to have been based on the poetical histories of Wace -and Benoit de St. More, themselves written several generations -later than the alleged erection of this keep. Of the former, -Mr. Freeman holds that, except where repeating contemporary -authorities, "his statements need to be very carefully weighed" -(<i>N. C.</i>, ii. 162); and of the latter, that he is "of much smaller -historical authority" (<i>ibid.</i>). To this I may add that, in my -opinion, Wace, writing as he did in the reign of Henry II., at -the close of the great tower-building epoch, spoke loosely -of towers, when mentioning castles, as if they had been equally -common in the reign of the Conqueror. A careful inspection -of his poem will be found to verify this statement. "La tur -d'Arques" was standing when he wrote: consequently he -talks of "La tur d'Arques" when describing the Conqueror's -blockade of the castle in 1053. There is no contemporary -authority for its existence at that date.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1004" id="Ref_1004" href="#Foot_1004">[1004]</a></span></p> - -<p>And now let us pass from documentary evidence to that of -the structure itself. We may call Mr. Clark himself to witness -that the presumption is against so early a date as 1039-1043. -He tells us, of the rectangular keep in general, that—</p> - -<p class="small">"not above half a dozen examples can be shown with certainty to have been -constructed in Normandy before the latter part of the eleventh century, and -but very few, if any, before the English conquest" (i. 35).</p> - -<p>Therefore, on Mr. Clark's own showing, we ought to ask for -conclusive evidence before admitting that any rectangular keep -is as old as 1039-1043. But what was the impression produced -on him by an inspection of the structure itself? This is a most -significant fact. While rejecting, apparently on what he believed -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_345" id="Page_345">{345}</a></span> -to be documentary evidence, the theory that the keep -(<i>turris</i>) was the work of Henry I., he confessed that the features -of the building "no doubt favour this view" (i. 194, <i>ut supra</i>).</p> - -<p>But leaving, for the present, Mr. Clark's views, to which -I shall return below, I take my stand without hesitation on -certain features in this keep. It is not needful to visit Arques—I -have myself never done so—to appreciate their true significance -and their bearing on the question of the date. The first -of these is the forebuilding. Mr. Clark tells us that Arques -possesses "the usual square appendage or forebuilding common -in these keeps" (<i>M. M. A.</i>, i. 198). But this unscientific treatment -of the forebuilding, ignoring so completely its origin and -development, cannot too strongly be resisted. Restricting -ourselves to the case before us, we at once observe the peculiarity -of an external staircase, not only leading up to a forebuilding, -through which the keep is entered, but actually -carried, through a massive buttress, round an angle of the keep.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1005" id="Ref_1005" href="#Foot_1005">[1005]</a></span> -Rochester being believed to be the work of Gundulf, in the days -when M. Deville wrote, it was natural that he should have -supposed "cette savante combinaison" to have been familiar -to Gundulf (p. 299). But now that, on these points, we are -better informed, let us ask where can Mr. Clark produce an -instance of this elaborate and striking device as old even as the -days of Gundulf, to say nothing of those of Count William -(1039-1043)? Where we do find it is in such keeps as Dover, -the work of Henry II., or Rochester, where the resemblance is -even more remarkable. Now, Rochester, as we know, was -actually built within a few years of the date given by Robert -du Mont, and upheld by me, as that of the construction of -Arques. Oddly enough, it is Mr. Clark himself who thus points -out another resemblance:—</p> - -<p class="small">"In the basement of the forebuilding ... was a vaulted chamber, opening -into the basement of the keep, <i>as at Rochester</i>, either a store or prison" -(<i>M. M. A.</i>, p. 188).</p> - -<p>Lastly, both at Arques and at Rochester, we find on the first -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_346" id="Page_346">{346}</a></span> -floor, near the entrance, the very peculiar feature of a smaller -doorway communicating with the rampart of the curtain.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1006" id="Ref_1006" href="#Foot_1006">[1006]</a></span> This -parallel, which is not alluded to by Mr. Clark, is the more -remarkable, as such a device is foreign to the earlier rectangular -keeps, and also implies that the keep must have been built -certainly no earlier, and possibly later, than the curtain, which -curtain, Mr. Clark, as we shall find, admits, cannot be so old as -the days of Count William.</p> - -<p>No one, in short, unbiassed by supposed documentary -evidence, could study this keep, with its "petites galeries avec -d'autres petites chambres ou prisons pratiquées dans l'épaisseur -des murs"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1007" id="Ref_1007" href="#Foot_1007">[1007]</a></span> (as at Rochester), with the elaborate defences of -its entrance, and with those other special features which made -even Mr. Clark uneasy, without rejecting as incredible the -accepted view that it was built by Count William of Arques -(1039-1043). And this being so, there is, admittedly, no -alternative left but to assign it to Henry I. (1123), the date -specifically given by Robert du Mont himself.</p> - -<p>But, it may be urged, though there is nothing improbable -in Mr. Freeman being wrong, is it conceivable that so unrivalled -an expert as Mr. Clark himself can have mistaken a keep of -1123 for one of 1039-1043, when we remember the wonderful -development of these structures in the course of those eighty -years? To this objection, I fear, there is a singularly complete -answer in the case of Newcastle, where, as we have seen, he -was led by the same misconception into no less amazing an -error.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1008" id="Ref_1008" href="#Foot_1008">[1008]</a></span></p> - -<p>In short, the view I have brought forward as to the separate -existence of "tower" and "castle" may be said, from these -examples, to revolutionize the study of Norman military -architecture.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_943" id="Foot_943" href="#Ref_943">[943]</a> -<i>Fœdera</i> (O.E.), xiii. 251. See p. 179.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_944" id="Foot_944" href="#Ref_944">[944]</a> -The internal evidence determines its date.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_945" id="Foot_945" href="#Ref_945">[945]</a> -"Collectanea quædam eorum quæ ad Historiam illustrandam conducunt -selecta ex Registro MSS. sive breviario Monasterii sancti Johannis Baptistæ -Colecestriæ collecto (<i>sic</i>) a Joh. Hadlege spectante Johanni Lucas armigero. -Anno Domini, 1633" (<i>Harl. MS.</i>, 312, fol. 92). This charter (which, being -in MS., was unknown, of course, to Prof. Freeman) has also an incidental -value for its evidence on the Clare pedigree, Gilbert, Robert, and Richard, -the witnesses, being all grandsons of Count Gilbert, the progenitor of the -house. Among the documents in the <i>Monasticon</i> relating to Bec, we find -mention of "Emmæ uxoris Baldewini filii Comitis Gilberti et filiorum ejus -Roberti et Ricardi," which singularly confirms the accuracy of this charter -and its list of witnesses. This is worth noting, because the charter is -curious in form, and has been described as having "a suspicious ring." It is -also found in (Morant's) transcript of the Colchester cartulary (<i>Stowe MSS.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_946" id="Foot_946" href="#Ref_946">[946]</a> -<i>Cart.</i>, 1 John, m. 6.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_947" id="Foot_947" href="#Ref_947">[947]</a> -<i>Mon. Ang.</i> (1661), ii. 66 <i>b</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_948" id="Foot_948" href="#Ref_948">[948]</a> -<i>Cart.</i>, 1 John, m. 6 (printed in Appendix 5 to <i>Lords' Reports on Dignity -of a Peer</i>, pp. 4, 5).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_949" id="Foot_949" href="#Ref_949">[949]</a> -Ed. Howlett, p. 184.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_950" id="Foot_950" href="#Ref_950">[950]</a> -"In operibus Turris de Gloec' vii <i>li.</i> vi <i>s.</i> ii <i>d.</i>" (Pipe-Roll, 2 Hen. II., -p. 78).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_951" id="Foot_951" href="#Ref_951">[951]</a> -Henry I. gave land to the abbey (1109) "in escambium pro placia ubi -nunc turris stat Gloecestrie" (i. 59).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_952" id="Foot_952" href="#Ref_952">[952]</a> -<i>Mediæval Military Architecture</i>, i. 108.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_953" id="Foot_953" href="#Ref_953">[953]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, i. 79.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_954" id="Foot_954" href="#Ref_954">[954]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, i. 29 (cf. "Mota de Hereford"—<i>Rot. Pip.</i>, 15 Hen. II., p. 140).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_955" id="Foot_955" href="#Ref_955">[955]</a> -<i>Rotuli scaccarii Normanniæ</i> (ed. Stapleton), i. 56. The "turris" had -been added by Henry I. (<i>vide infra</i>, p. 333). With the above entry may be -compared the phrase in one of Richard's despatches (1198)—"castrum cepimus -cum turre" (<i>R. Howden</i>, iv. 58); also the expression, "tunc etiam comes -turrem et castellum funditus evertit," applied to Geoffrey's action at Montreuil -(<i>circ.</i> 1152) by Robert de Torigny (ed. Howlett, p. 159).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_956" id="Foot_956" href="#Ref_956">[956]</a> -<i>Chronique de Jordan Fantosme</i> (ed. Howlett), ll. 1423, 1424, 1469, 1470.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_957" id="Foot_957" href="#Ref_957">[957]</a> -It is even applied by Giraldus Cambrensis to the turf entrenchment -thrown up by Arnulf de Montgomery at Pembroke.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_958" id="Foot_958" href="#Ref_958">[958]</a> -<i>M. M. A.</i>, ii. 420.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_959" id="Foot_959" href="#Ref_959">[959]</a> -<i>English Towns and Districts</i>, p. 152.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_960" id="Foot_960" href="#Ref_960">[960]</a> -<i>Mediæval Military Architecture</i>, ii. 514.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_961" id="Foot_961" href="#Ref_961">[961]</a> -There is a strange use of "castellum," apparently in this sense, in -William of Malmesbury's version (ii. 119) of Godwine's speech on the Dover -riot (1051). The phrase is "magnates <i>illius castelli</i>," which Mr. Freeman -unhesitatingly renders "the magistrates of that <i>town</i>" (<i>Norm. Conq.</i>, 2nd ed., -ii. 135), a rendering which should be compared with his remarks on "castles" -on the next page but one, and in Appendix S. Mr. Clark is of opinion that -"whether 'castellum' can [here] be taken for more than the fortified town -is uncertain" (<i>M. M. A.</i>, ii. 8).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_962" id="Foot_962" href="#Ref_962">[962]</a> -Skeat's <i>Etymological Dictionary</i>; Oliphant's <i>Old and Middle English</i>, -p. 37. It is not, therefore, strictly accurate to say of the expression "ænne -castel," in the chronicle for 1048, that it was "no English name," as Mr. -Freeman asserts (<i>Norm. Conq.</i>, 2nd ed., ii. 137), or to imply that it then first -appeared in the language.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_963" id="Foot_963" href="#Ref_963">[963]</a> -<i>Norman Conquest</i> (2nd ed.), ii. 189.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_964" id="Foot_964" href="#Ref_964">[964]</a> -Ed. Howlett, p. 106. Robert also mentions (p. 126) the "towers" of -Evreux, Alençon, and Coutances as among those constructed by Henry I.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_965" id="Foot_965" href="#Ref_965">[965]</a> -"About the Tower," as the chronicle expresses it.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_966" id="Foot_966" href="#Ref_966">[966]</a> -"Henricus Rex circa turrem Rothomagi ... murum altum et latum -cum propugnaculis ædificat, et ædificia ad mansionem regiam congrua infra -eundem murum parat" (<i>Robert of Torigny</i>, ed. Howlett, p. 106).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_967" id="Foot_967" href="#Ref_967">[967]</a> -I can make nothing of Mr. Clark's chronology. In his description of -the Tower he first tells us that "all save the keep [<i>i.e.</i> the White Tower] is -later, and most of it considerably later than the eleventh century" (<i>M. M. A.</i>, -ii. 205), and then that "the Tower of the close of the reign of Rufus" (i.e. -<i>before the end of</i> "the eleventh century") ... was probably composed of the -White Tower with a palace ward upon its south-east side, and a wall, probably -that we now see, and certainly along its general course, including what is -now known as the inner ward" (<i>ibid.</i>, ii. 253). Again, as to the Wakefield -Tower, which "deserves very close attention, its lower story being next to -the keep in antiquity" (<i>ibid.</i>, ii. 220), Mr. Clark tells us that Gundulf (who -died in 1108) was the founder "perhaps of the Wakefield Tower" (<i>ibid.</i>, ii. -252); nay, that "Devereux Tower ... may be as old as Wakefield, and -therefore in substance <i>the work of Rufus</i>" (<i>ibid.</i>, ii. 253); and yet we learn -of this same basement, that "the basement of Wakefield Tower is probably -late Norman, perhaps of the reign of Stephen or Henry II., although this is -no doubt early for masonry so finely jointed" (<i>ibid.</i>, ii. 224). In other words, -a structure which was "the work of Rufus," <i>i.e.</i> of 1087-1100, can only be -attributed, at the very earliest, to the days of "Stephen or Henry II.," <i>i.e.</i> -to 1135-1189.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_968" id="Foot_968" href="#Ref_968">[968]</a> -The very same phrase is employed by Robert de Torigny in describing -her husband's action at Torigny ten years later (1151): "dux obsederat -castellum Torinneium, sed propter adventum Regis infecto negotio discesserat; -combustis tamen domibus infra muros usque ad turrem et <i>parvum -castellum circa eam</i>" (ed. Howlett, p. 161).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_969" id="Foot_969" href="#Ref_969">[969]</a> -<i>Ord. Vit.</i>, ii. 296.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_970" id="Foot_970" href="#Ref_970">[970]</a> -A curious touch in a legend of the time brings before us in a vivid -manner the impression that this mighty tower had made upon the Norman -mind. Hugh de Glos, an oppressor of the poor, appearing, after death, to a -priest by night (1090), declared that the burden he was compelled to bear -seemed "heavier to carry than the Tower of Rouen" ("Ecce candens -ferrum molendini gesto in ore, quod sine dubio mihi videtur ad ferendum -gravius Rotomagensi arce."—<i>Ord. Vit.</i>, iii. 373).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_971" id="Foot_971" href="#Ref_971">[971]</a> -<i>W. Rufus</i>, i. 245-260.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_972" id="Foot_972" href="#Ref_972">[972]</a> -"De arce prodiit" (<i>Ord. Vit.</i>, iii. 353). <i>Arx</i>, here as above, is used as -a substitute for <i>turris</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_973" id="Foot_973" href="#Ref_973">[973]</a> -"Conanus autem a victoribus in arcem ductus est. Quem Henricus per -solaria turris ducens" (<i>ibid.</i>, iii. 355). "In superiora Rotomagensis turris -duxit" (<i>W. Malms.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_974" id="Foot_974" href="#Ref_974">[974]</a> -<i>W. Rufus</i>, i. 256, 257.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_975" id="Foot_975" href="#Ref_975">[975]</a> -<i>Ord. Vit.</i>, v. (Appendix) 199. See p. 422.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_976" id="Foot_976" href="#Ref_976">[976]</a> -<i>Robert of Torigny</i> (ed. Hewlett), p. 153.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_977" id="Foot_977" href="#Ref_977">[977]</a> -My alternative explanation of the choice of style, namely, the importance -of the keep itself relatively to the "castellum," must also be borne in mind.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_978" id="Foot_978" href="#Ref_978">[978]</a> -"[Rex] in <i>turri</i> de Bristou captivus ponitur.... [Imperatrix] obsedit -<i>turrim</i> Wintonensis episcopi.... Robertus frater Imperatricis in cujus <i>turri</i> -Rex captivus erat" (<i>Hen. Hunt.</i>, p. 275).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_979" id="Foot_979" href="#Ref_979">[979]</a> -"In turri Cenomannica" (<i>Annales Veteres</i>, 311).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_980" id="Foot_980" href="#Ref_980">[980]</a> -The Tower of Rouen, we have seen (p. 334), was styled "arx regia."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_981" id="Foot_981" href="#Ref_981">[981]</a> -A fine "motte" is visible from the line between Calais and Paris (on -the right); another, as I think, stood on the Lea, between Bow Bridge and -the "Old Ford," and is (or was) well seen from the Great Eastern line.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_982" id="Foot_982" href="#Ref_982">[982]</a> -<i>Archæological Journal</i>, xx. 205-223 (1863).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_983" id="Foot_983" href="#Ref_983">[983]</a> -<i>Anglia Sacra</i> (ed. Wharton), i. 337, 338.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_984" id="Foot_984" href="#Ref_984">[984]</a> -<i>Gentleman's Magazine</i>, N.S., xv. 260.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_985" id="Foot_985" href="#Ref_985">[985]</a> -<i>Mediæval Military Architecture</i>, ii. 421, 422.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_986" id="Foot_986" href="#Ref_986">[986]</a> -<i>William Rufus</i>, i. 53, 54.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_987" id="Foot_987" href="#Ref_987">[987]</a> -"Egregia turris" is the expression of Gervase (<i>Actus Pontificum</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_988" id="Foot_988" href="#Ref_988">[988]</a> -The "castrum lapideum" (compare the three "castra lapidea" erected -for the blockade of Montreuil in 1149) is so styled to distinguish it from the -"castrum ligneum," which occurs so often, and which Mr. Freeman so persistently -renders "tower."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_989" id="Foot_989" href="#Ref_989">[989]</a> -<i>Mediæval Military Architecture</i>, ii. 419.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_990" id="Foot_990" href="#Ref_990">[990]</a> -<i>Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass.</i>, xxxi., 471, 472.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_991" id="Foot_991" href="#Ref_991">[991]</a> -Both writers, also, mistake a general exemption from the <i>trinoda -necessitas</i> for a special allusion to Rochester keep.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_992" id="Foot_992" href="#Ref_992">[992]</a> -<i>Mediæval Military Architecture</i>, ii. 421.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_993" id="Foot_993" href="#Ref_993">[993]</a> -Mr. J. R. Boyle has shown that nearly £1000 was spent upon it between -1172 and 1177, when it was, therefore, in course of erection.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_994" id="Foot_994" href="#Ref_994">[994]</a> -<i>Mediæval Military Architecture</i>, i. 186.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_995" id="Foot_995" href="#Ref_995">[995]</a> -<i>Norman Conquest</i>, iii. 182.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_996" id="Foot_996" href="#Ref_996">[996]</a> -<i>Histoire du Château d'Arques</i>, by A. Deville, pp. x., 412 (Rouen).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_997" id="Foot_997" href="#Ref_997">[997]</a> -Ed. Howlett, p. 106.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_998" id="Foot_998" href="#Ref_998">[998]</a> -<i>Cours d'antiquités monumentales</i> (1835), v. 227, 228.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_999" id="Foot_999" href="#Ref_999">[999]</a> -Colchester, in <i>Archæologia</i>, to which he refers, was attributed to Edward -the Elder, and Rochester was, of course, as yet, believed to be the work of -Gundulf.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1000" id="Foot_1000" href="#Ref_1000">[1000]</a> -Compare Professor Freeman on Falaise: "More probably, I think, of -the twelfth than of the eleventh [century]" (<i>Norm. Conq.</i>, ii. 175).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1001" id="Foot_1001" href="#Ref_1001">[1001]</a> -<i>Château d'Arques</i>, pp. 307-312.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1002" id="Foot_1002" href="#Ref_1002">[1002]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 48, 267.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1003" id="Foot_1003" href="#Ref_1003">[1003]</a> -Compare the "castrum in cacumine ipsius montis condidit" at Arques -with the "castellum novum super flumen Tyne condidit" at Newcastle.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1004" id="Foot_1004" href="#Ref_1004">[1004]</a> -Compare, on this point, the acute criticism of Dr. Bruce (repeated by -Mr. Freeman) that "Wace (v. 12,628) speaks of the horse of William Fitz -Osbern [in 1066] as 'all covered with iron,' whereas in the [Bayeux] Tapestry -'not a single horse is equipped in steel armour; and if we refer to the -authors who lived at that period, we shall find that not one of them mentions -any defensive covering for the horse.'" Compare also the expression of -William of Malmesbury, who lived and wrote under the tower-building king, -that the Norman barons took advantage of the Conqueror's minority "<i>turres</i> -agere," these being the structures with the building of which the writer was -most familiar.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1005" id="Foot_1005" href="#Ref_1005">[1005]</a> -"A flight of steps, beginning upon the north face, passing by a doorway -through its most westerly buttress, and which then, turning, is continued -along the west face" (<i>M. M. A.</i>, i. 188). Cf. Deville (p. 298), and the plan -of 1708 (<i>ibid.</i>, Pl. XII.).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1006" id="Foot_1006" href="#Ref_1006">[1006]</a> -<i>M. M. A.</i>, i. 188, ii. 432.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1007" id="Foot_1007" href="#Ref_1007">[1007]</a> -Report of 1708 (<i>Deville</i>, p. 294).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1008" id="Foot_1008" href="#Ref_1008">[1008]</a> -It is only right to mention that, according to the <i>Academy</i>, "Mr. Clark -has long been recognized as the first living authority on the subject of -castellated architecture;" that, in the opinion of the <i>Athenæum</i>, all those -"who in future touch the subject may safely rely on Mr. Clark;" that his -is "a masterly history of mediæval military architecture" (<i>Saturday Review</i>); -and that, according to <i>Notes and Queries</i>, "no other Englishman knows so -much of our old military architecture as Mr. Clark."</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_347" id="Page_347">{347}</a></span> - -<h3>APPENDIX P.<br /> -<small>THE EARLY ADMINISTRATION OF LONDON.</small></h3> - -<p class="center small">(See p. <a href="#Page_151">151</a>.)</p> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">The</span> -new light which is thrown by the charters granted to -Geoffrey upon a subject so interesting and so obscure as the -government and <i>status</i> of London during the Norman period -requires, for its full appreciation, detailed and separate treatment. -But, before advancing my own conclusions, it is absolutely -needful to dispose of that singular accretion of error which -has grown, by gradual degrees, around the recorded facts.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1009" id="Ref_1009" href="#Foot_1009">[1009]</a></span></p> - -<p>The cardinal error has been the supposition that when the -citizens of London, under Henry I., were given Middlesex <i>ad firmam</i>, -the "Middlesex" in question was only Middlesex <i>exclusive -of London</i>. The actual words of the charter are these:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Sciatis me concessisse civibus meis London[iarum], tenendum Middlesex -ad firmam pro ccc libris ad compotum, ipsis et hæredibus suis de me et -hæredibus meis ita quod ipsi cives ponent vicecomitem qualem voluerint de -se ipsis; et justitiarium qualem voluerint de se ipsis, ad custodiendum -placita coronæ meæ et eadem placitanda, et nullus alius erit justitiarius -super ipsos homines London[iarum]."</p> - -<p class="nodent">Now, it is absolutely certain that the shrievalty (<i>vicecomitatus</i>) -and the ferm (<i>firma</i>) mentioned in this passage are the -shrievalty and the ferm not of Middlesex apart from London, -nor of London apart from Middlesex, but of "London <i>and</i> -Middlesex." For there is never, from the first, but one ferm. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_348" id="Page_348">{348}</a></span> -It is here called the ferm of "Middlesex;" in the almost contemporary -Pipe-Roll (31 Hen. I.) it is called the ferm of -"London" (there being no ferm of Middlesex mentioned); and -Geoffrey's charters clinch the matter. For while Stephen -grants him "the shrievalties of London and Middlesex,"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1010" id="Ref_1010" href="#Foot_1010">[1010]</a></span> the -Empress, in her turn, grants him "the shrievalty of London and -Middlesex."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1011" id="Ref_1011" href="#Foot_1011">[1011]</a></span> Further, the Pipe-Rolls of Henry II. describe this -same <i>firma</i> both as the ferm of "London," and as that of "London -and Middlesex;" while in the Roll of 8 Ric. I. we find the -phrase, "de veteri firma <i>Comitat'</i> Lond' et Middelsexa." Lastly, -the charter of Henry III. grants to the citizens of London—</p> - -<p class="small">"Vicecomitatum Londoniæ et de Middelsexia, cum omnibus rebus et -consuetudinibus quæ pertinent ad predictum Vicecomitatum, infra civitatem -et extra per terras et aquas; ... Reddendo inde annuatim ... trescentas -libras sterlingorum blancorum.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1012" id="Ref_1012" href="#Foot_1012">[1012]</a></span></p> - -<p class="nodent">And so, to this day, the shrievalty is that of "London and -Middlesex."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1013" id="Ref_1013" href="#Foot_1013">[1013]</a></span></p> - -<p>The royal writs and charters hear the same witness. When -they are directed to the local authorities, it is to those of -"London and Middlesex," or of "London," or of "Middlesex." -The three are, for all purposes, used as equivalent terms. -There was never, as I have said, but one ferm, and never but -one shrievalty.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1014" id="Ref_1014" href="#Foot_1014">[1014]</a></span> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_349" id="Page_349">{349}</a></span></p> - -<p>Now, this completely disposes of the view that the "Middlesex" -of Henry I.'s charter was Middlesex <i>apart from London</i>. -This prevalent but erroneous assumption has proved the cause -of much confusion and misunderstanding of the facts of the -case. It has nowhere, perhaps, been assigned such prominence -as in that account of London by Mr. Loftie which may derive -authority in the eyes of some from the editorial <i>imprimatur</i> -of Mr. Freeman.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1015" id="Ref_1015" href="#Foot_1015">[1015]</a></span> We there read as follows:—</p> - -<p class="small">"It may be as well, before we proceed, to remember one thing. That -London is not in Middlesex, that it never was in Middlesex, ... is a fact -of which we have to be constantly reminded" (p. 125).</p> - -<p class="nodent">From this interpretation of the "Middlesex" of the charter, -it, of course, followed that the writer took the <i>firma</i> of £300 -to be paid in respect of Middlesex <i>exclusive of London</i>.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1016" id="Ref_1016" href="#Foot_1016">[1016]</a></span> We -need not wonder, therefore, that to him the grant is difficult -to understand. Here are his comments on its terms:—</p> - -<p class="small">"If we could estimate the reasons which led to this grant with any -degree of certainty, we should understand better what the citizens expected -to gain by it besides rights of jurisdiction.... The meaning and nature of -the grant are subjects of which we should like to know more. But here we -can obtain little help from books ... and we may inquire in vain for a -definition of the position and duties of the sheriff who acts for the citizens -in their subject county.... There must have been advantages to accrue -from the payment by London of £300 a year, a sum which, small as it seems -to us, was a heavy tax in those days. We may be sure the willing citizens -expected to obtain correspondingly valuable liberties" (pp. 121-123).</p> - -<p class="nodent">Then follow various conjectures, all of them necessarily wide -of the mark. And as with the ferm, so with the sheriff. -Mr. Loftie, taking the sheriff (<i>vicecomes</i>) in question to be a -sheriff of Middlesex exclusive of London (which he hence -terms a "subject county"), is of necessity baffled by the charter. -For by it the citizens are empowered to appoint (<i>a</i>) a "vicecomes," -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_350" id="Page_350">{350}</a></span> -(<i>b</i>) a "justitiarius." As the "vicecomes," according -to his view, had nothing to do with the City itself, Mr. Loftie -has to account for "the omission of any reference to the portreeve -in the charter," his assumption being that the City itself -was at this time governed by a portreeve. Though his views -are obscurely expressed, his solutions of the problem are as -follows. In his larger work he dismisses the supposition that -the "justitiarius" of the charter was the "chief magistrate" -of the City, <i>i.e.</i> the portreeve, because the citizens must have -been "already" entitled to elect that officer. Yet in his later -work, with equal confidence, he tells us that by "justitiarius" -the portreeve is "evidently intended." The fact is that he is -really opposing two different suppositions; the one that Henry -granted by his charter the right to elect a portreeve, the other -that he did not grant it, but retained the appointment in his -hands. Mr. Loftie first denies the former, and then, in his -later work, asserts the former to deny the latter. But really -his language is so confused that it is doubtful whether he -realized himself the contradictory drift of his two arguments, -both based on the same assumption, which "it is manifestly -absurd," we learn, to dispute.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1017" id="Ref_1017" href="#Foot_1017">[1017]</a></span> And the strange part of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_351" id="Page_351">{351}</a></span> -business is this, What is the "proof" that Mr. Loftie offers -for the later of his two hypotheses? If the "trial" to -which he refers had ever taken place at all, and, still more, -if it had taken place before 1115, the fact would have an -important bearing. But, in the first place, he has wrongly -assigned to the record too early a date, and, in the second, -it represents Gilbert Prutfot, not as a judge, but as a culprit. -The expression used is, "Terra quam Gillebertus Prutfot nobis -disfortiat."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1018" id="Ref_1018" href="#Foot_1018">[1018]</a></span> Now "defortiare" (or "disfortiare") is rendered -by Dr. Stubbs, in his <i>Select Charters</i> (p. 518), "to deforce, to -dispossess by violence." We have here, therefore, an interesting, -because early, example of the legal offence of "deforcement," -defined by Johnson as "a withholding of lands and -tenements by force from the right owner." But the point to -which I would call attention is that, even if this writer were -correct in his facts (which he is not), his "proof" that (a -<i>vicecomes</i> and a <i>justitiarius</i> being mentioned in the charter) the -justitiarius was "evidently" the portreeve consists in the fact -that a <i>vicecomes</i> had "given judgment" in a trial, and being -styled <i>vicecomes</i>, was the portreeve! That is to say, the <i>justitiarius</i> -must have been the portreeve <i>because</i> the portreeve -was styled (<i>not</i> "justitiarius," but, on the contrary,) <i>vicecomes</i>. -Such is actually his argument.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1019" id="Ref_1019" href="#Foot_1019">[1019]</a></span></p> - -<p>I have dwelt thus fully on these observations, because they -illustrate the hopeless wandering which is the inevitable result -of the adoption of the above fundamental error.</p> - -<p>We have a curiously close parallel to this use of "London -and Middlesex" in the expression "turris et castellum," on -which I have elsewhere dwelt.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1020" id="Ref_1020" href="#Foot_1020">[1020]</a></span> Just as the relative importance -of the "Tower" of London to the encircling "castle" at its -feet led to the term "turris" alone being used to describe the -two,—while, conversely, in the provinces, "castellum" was the -term adopted,—so did the relative greatness of London to -the county that lay around its walls lead to the occasional use -of "London" as a term descriptive of both together, a usage -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_352" id="Page_352">{352}</a></span> -impossible in the provinces. Whether a "turris et castellum" -were destined to become known as a "turris" or a "castellum," -whether "Londonia et Middelsex" were described as -"Londonia" merely, or as "Middlesex," in each case the entity -is the same. For fiscal, and therefore for our purposes, "London -and Middlesex," under whatever name, remain one and -indivisible.</p> - -<p>The special value of the charters granted to Geoffrey de -Mandeville lies not so much in their complete confirmation of -the view that the <i>firma</i> of "Middlesex" was that of "London -<i>and</i> Middlesex" (for that would be evident without them), as in -their proof of the fact, so strangely overlooked, that this connection -was at least as old as the days of William the Conqueror, -and in their treatment of Middlesex (including London) as an -ordinary county like Essex or Herts, "farmed" in precisely -the same way. The <i>firma</i> of Herts was £60, of Essex £300, -and of Middlesex (because containing London) £300 also.</p> - -<p>But now let us leave our record evidence and turn to -geography and to common sense. What must have always -been the salient feature which distinguished Middlesex internally -from every other county? Obviously, that the shire was -abnormally small, and its chief town abnormally large. Nor -was it a mere matter of size, but, still more, of comparative -wealth. This is illustrated by the taxation recorded in the -Pipe-Roll of 1130. Unlike the <i>firma</i>, the taxes were raised, -as elsewhere, from the town and the shire respectively, the -town contributing an <i>auxilium</i>, and the shire, without the -walls, a Danegeld. We thus learn that London paid a sum -about half as large again as that raised from the rest of the -shire.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1021" id="Ref_1021" href="#Foot_1021">[1021]</a></span> The normal relation of the "shire" to the "port" was -accordingly here reversed, and so would be also, in consequence, -that of the shire-reeve to the portreeve. Where, as -usual, the "port" formed but a small item in the <i>corpus -comitatus</i>, it was possible to sever it from the rest of the -county, to place it <i>extra firmam</i>, and to give it a reeve who -should stand towards it in the same relation as the shire-reeve -to the shire, and would therefore be termed the "portreeve." -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_353" id="Page_353">{353}</a></span> -But to have done this in the case of Middlesex would -have been to reverse the nature of things, to place a mere -"portreeve" in a position greater than that of the "shire-reeve" -himself. This is why that change which, in the provinces, -was the aim of every rising town, never took place in -the case of London, though the greatest town of all. I say that -it "never took place," for, as we have seen, the city of London -was never severed from the rest of the shire. As far back as -we can trace them, they are found one and indivisible.</p> - -<p>What, then, was the alternative? Simply this. The -"reeve," who, in the case of a normal county, took his title -from the "shire" and not from the "port," took it, in the -abnormal case of Middlesex, from the "port" and not from the -"shire." In each case both "port" and "shire" were alike -within his jurisdiction; in each case he took his style from -the most important part of that jurisdiction. Such is the -original solution I offer for this most interesting problem, and -I claim that its acceptance will explain everything, will harmonize -with all existing <i>data</i>, and will dispose of difficulties -which, hitherto, it has been impossible to surmount.</p> - -<p>My contention is, briefly, that the Norman <i>vicecomes</i> of -"London," or "Middlesex," or "London and Middlesex" -was simply the successor, in that office, of the Anglo-Saxon -"portreeve." With the sphere of the <i>vicecomes</i> I have already -dealt, and though we are not in a position similarly to prove -the sphere of the Anglo-Saxon "portreeve," I might appeal -to the belief of Mr. Loftie himself that "Ulf the Sheriff of -Middlesex is identical with Ulf the Portreeve of London"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1022" id="Ref_1022" href="#Foot_1022">[1022]</a></span> -(though he adds, contrary to my contention, that "as yet their -official connection was only that of neighbourhood"),<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1023" id="Ref_1023" href="#Foot_1023">[1023]</a></span> and -that Ansgar, though one of the "portreeves" (p. 24); "was -Sheriff of Middlesex for a time there can be no doubt" -(p. 127).<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1024" id="Ref_1024" href="#Foot_1024">[1024]</a></span> But I would rather appeal to the vital fact that -the shire-reeve and the portreeve are, so far I know, never -mentioned together, and that writs are directed to a portreeve -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_354" id="Page_354">{354}</a></span> -or to a shire-reeve,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1025" id="Ref_1025" href="#Foot_1025">[1025]</a></span> but never to both. Specially -would I insist upon the indisputable circumstance that such -writs as were addressed to the "portreeve" by the Anglo-Saxon -kings, were addressed to the <i>vicecomes</i> by the Norman, and -that the turning-point is seen under the Conqueror himself, -whose Anglo-Saxon charter is addressed to the "bisceop" and -the "portirefan," and whose Latin writs are, similarly, addressed -to the <i>episcopus</i> and the <i>vicecomes</i>. More convincing evidence -it would not be easy to find.</p> - -<p>The acceptance of this view will at once dispose of the -alleged "disappearance of the portreeve," with the difficulties -it has always presented, and the conjectures to which it has -given rise.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1026" id="Ref_1026" href="#Foot_1026">[1026]</a></span> The style of the "portreeve" indeed disappears, -but his office does not. In the person of the Norman <i>vicecomes</i>, -it preserves an unbroken existence. Geoffrey de Mandeville -steps, as sheriff, into the shoes of Ansgar the portreeve.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1027" id="Ref_1027" href="#Foot_1027">[1027]</a></span></p> - -<p>The problem as to what became of the portreeve, a problem -which has exercised so many minds, sprang from the delusion -that in the Norman period the City must have had a portreeve -for governor independent of the Sheriff of Middlesex. I term -this an undoubted "delusion," because I have already made it -clear that the City was part of the sheriff's jurisdiction and contributed -its share to his <i>firma</i>. There was, therefore, no room -for an independent portreeve; nor indeed does a "portreeve" -of London, I believe, ever occur after the Conqueror's charter.</p> - -<p>But we must here glance at the contrary view set forth by -Mr. Loftie:—</p> - -<p class="small">"The succession of portreeves is uninterrupted. We have the names of -some of them in the records of the Exchequer. Occasionally two or three, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_355" id="Page_355">{355}</a></span> -once as many as five, came to answer for the City and pay the £300 which -was the farm of Middlesex. In 1129, a few years only after the retirement of -Orgar and his companions, we read of 'quatuor vicecomites' as attending for -London. The following year we hear of a single 'camerarius.' The 'Hugh -Buche' of Stowe may be identified with the Hugo de Bock of the St. Paul's -documents, and his 'Richard de Par' with Richard the younger, the chamberlain. -'Par' is probably a misreading for Parvus contracted. In the reign -of Stephen two members of the Buckerel family hold office, and we have -Fulcred and Robert, who were related to each other. Another early portreeve -was Wluardus, who attends at the Exchequer in 1138, and who continued to -be an alderman thirty years later" (<i>Historic Towns: London</i>, p. 34).</p> - -<p>Where are "the records of the Exchequer" from which -we learn all this? The only Pipe-Roll of the period is that -of 1130, in which "the farm of Middlesex" is not £300, -but a much larger sum, a fact which, as we shall find, has a -most important bearing. The "quatuor vicecomites" appear -"as attending," not in 1129, but in 1130. The "camerarius" -does not (and could not) appear "in the following year," -but, on the contrary, belonged to a preceding one ("Willelmus -<i>qui fuit</i> camerarius de <i>veteribus</i> debitis"); nor does -he account for the <i>firma</i>. The <i>firma</i> was always accounted -for by "vicecomites," and not (as implied on p. 108) by a -chamberlain, or by a "prefect." The "Hugh Buche" is given -in Mr. Loftie's former work (p. 98) as "Hugh de Buch." He -is meant (as even Foss perceived) for the well-known Hugh de -Bocland (the minister of Henry I.), who cannot be shown to -have been a "portreeve." No "Hugo de Bock" occurs in the -St. Paul's documents, which only mention "Hugo de Bochelanda" -and "Hugo de Bock[elanda]," the latter imperfection -being the source of the error. "Richard, the younger, -chamberlain" only occurs in these documents a century later -(1204-1215), and "the younger," I presume, there translates -"juvenis," and not "parvus." It is, moreover, quite certain -that Stowe's "de Par" was not "a misreading for 'parvus' -contracted," but for "delpare," as may easily be ascertained. -No member of the Bucherel family occurs in these documents -as holding office "in the reign of Stephen," though some do in -the next century. Fulcred was not a "portreeve," but a -"chamberlain;" and Robert, Fulcred's brother, was neither -one nor the other. But what are we to say to "Wluardus" -the portreeve, "who attends at the Exchequer in 1138"? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_356" id="Page_356">{356}</a></span> -Where are the "records of the Exchequer for 1138"? They -are known to Mr. Loftie alone.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1028" id="Ref_1028" href="#Foot_1028">[1028]</a></span> Moreover, his identification, -here, of the <i>vicecomes</i> with the portreeve is in direct antagonism -to the principle laid down just before (p. 29), that, on the -contrary, it was the <i>justitiarius</i> who should "evidently" be -identified with the portreeve (see p. 350, <i>supra</i>).</p> - -<p>Perhaps the assumption of a portreeve's existence springs -from forgetfulness or misapprehension of the condition of -London at the time. Its corporate unity, we must always -remember, had not yet been developed. As Dr. Stubbs so truly -observes, London was only</p> - -<p class="small">"a bundle of communities, townships, parishes, and lordships, of which each -has its own constitution."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1029" id="Ref_1029" href="#Foot_1029">[1029]</a></span></p> - -<p>I cannot indeed agree with him in his view that the result -of the charter of Henry I. was to replace this older system by -a new "shire organization."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1030" id="Ref_1030" href="#Foot_1030">[1030]</a></span> For my contention is that our -great historian not only misdates the charter in question, but -also misunderstands it (though not so seriously as others), and -that it made no difference in the "organization" at all. But -I would cordially endorse these his words:—</p> - -<p class="small">"No new incorporation is bestowed: the churches, the barons, the citizens -retain their ancient customs; the churches their sokens, the barons their -manors, the citizens their township organization, and possibly their guilds. -The municipal unity which they possess is of the same sort as that of the -county and hundred."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1031" id="Ref_1031" href="#Foot_1031">[1031]</a></span></p> - -<p>And he further observes that the City "clearly was organized -under a sheriff like any other shire." Thus the local government -of the day was to be found in the petty courts of these -various "communities," and not in any central corporation. -The only centralizing element was the sheriff, and his office was -not so much to "govern," as to satisfy the financial claims of -the Crown in ferm, taxes, and profits of jurisdiction. There was, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_357" id="Page_357">{357}</a></span> -of course, the general "folkmote" over which, with the bishop, -he would preside, but the true corporate organisms were those -of the several communities. The sheriff and the folkmote -could no more mould these self-governing bodies into one -coherent whole, than they could, or did, accomplish this in the -case of an ordinary shire. Here we have a somewhat curious -parallel between such a polity as is here described and that of -the present metropolis outside the City. There, too, we have the -local communities, with their quasi-independent vestries, etc., -and the Metropolitan Board of Works is a substitute for their -"folkmote" or "shiremote."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1032" id="Ref_1032" href="#Foot_1032">[1032]</a></span> But, to revert to the days of -Henry I., the Anglo-Saxon system of government, its strength -varying in intension conversely with its sphere in extension, -possessed the toughest vitality in its lowest and simplest forms. -Thus the original territorial system might never have led to a -corporate unity. But what the sheriff and the folkmote could -not accomplish, the mayor and the <i>communa</i> could and did. The -territorial arrangement was overthrown by the rising power of -commerce. To quote once more from Dr. Stubbs's work:</p> - -<p class="small">"The establishment of the corporate character of the City under a mayor -marks the victory of the communal principle over the more ancient shire -organization.... It also marks the triumph of the mercantile over the -aristocratic element."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1033" id="Ref_1033" href="#Foot_1033">[1033]</a></span></p> - -<p>At the risk of being tedious I would now repeat the view -I have advanced on the shrievalty, because the point is of such -paramount importance that it cannot be expressed too clearly. -The great illustrative value of Geoffrey's charters is this. They -prove, in the first place, that Middlesex (inclusive of London) -was treated financially on the same footing as Essex or Herts -or any other shire; and in the second they give us that all-important -information, the amount of the <i>firma</i> for each of -these counties at the close of the eleventh century. All we -have to do in the case of Middlesex is to keep steadily in view -its <i>firma</i> of £300. Sometimes described as the <i>firma</i> of -"London," sometimes "of Middlesex," and sometimes "of -London and Middlesex," its identity never changes; it is always, -and beyond the shadow of question, the <i>firma</i> of Middlesex -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_358" id="Page_358">{358}</a></span> -inclusive of London. The history of this ancient payment -reveals a persistent endeavour of the Crown to increase its -amount, an endeavour which was eventually foiled. Under the -first Geoffrey de Mandeville (William I. and William II.), it -was £300. Nearly doubled by Henry I., it was yet reduced to -£300 by his charter to the citizens of London. In the succeeding -reign, the second Geoffrey eventually secured it from both -claimants at the same low figure (£300). Under Henry II., as -the Pipe-Rolls show, it was again raised as under Henry I. -John, we shall find, reduced it again to the original £300, and -the reduction was confirmed by his successor on his assuming -the reins of power. For we find a charter of Henry III. -conceding to the citizens of London (February 11, 1227)—</p> - -<p class="small">"Vicecomitatum Londoniæ et de Middlesexiâ cum omnibus rebus et consuetudinibus -quæ pertinent ad prædictum Vicecomitatum, infra Civitatem et -extra per terras et aquas; Habendum et tenendum eis et heredibus suis de -nobis et heredibus nostris; Reddendo inde annuatim nobis et heredibus -nostris <i>trescentas libras</i> sterlingorum blancorum.... Hanc vero concessionem -et confirmationem fecimus Civibus Londoniæ propter emendationem ejusdem -Civitatis, et <i>quia antiquitus consuevit esse ad firmam pro trecentis libris</i>."</p> - -<p class="nodent">The adhesion of the City to Simon de Montfort resulted in the -forfeiture of its rights, and when, in 1270, the citizens were -restored to favour, on payment of heavy sums to the king and -to his son, they received permission "to have two sheriffs of -their own who should hold the shrievalty of the City and -Middlesex as they used to have." But the <i>firma</i> was raised -from £300 to £400 a year.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1034" id="Ref_1034" href="#Foot_1034">[1034]</a></span> Finally, on the accession of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_359" id="Page_359">{359}</a></span> -Edward III. (March 9, 1326/7), the <i>firma</i> was reduced to the -original sum of £300 a year, at which figure, Mr. Loftie says, -"it has remained ever since."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1035" id="Ref_1035" href="#Foot_1035">[1035]</a></span></p> - -<p>This one <i>firma</i>, of which the history has here been traced, -represents one <i>corpus comitatus</i>, namely, Middlesex inclusive of -London.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1036" id="Ref_1036" href="#Foot_1036">[1036]</a></span> From this conclusion there is no escape.</p> - -<p>Hence the <i>firmarii</i> of this <i>corpus comitatus</i> were from the -first the <i>firmarii</i> (that is, the sheriffs) of Middlesex inclusive of -London. This, similarly, is beyond dispute. As with the -<i>firma</i> so with the sheriffs. Whether described as "of London," -or "of Middlesex," or "of London and Middlesex," they are, -from the first, the sheriffs of Middlesex inclusive of London.</p> - -<p>This conclusion throws a new light on the charter by which -Henry I. granted to the citizens of London Middlesex (<i>i.e.</i> -Middlesex inclusive of London) at farm. Broadly speaking, -the transaction in question may be regarded in this aspect. -Instead of leasing the <i>corpus comitatus</i> to any one individual -for a year, or for a term of years, the king leased it to the -citizens as a body, leased it, moreover, in perpetuity, and at the -low original <i>firma</i> of £300 a year. The change effected was -simply that which was involved in placing the citizens, as a -body, in the shoes of the Sheriff "of London and Middlesex."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1037" id="Ref_1037" href="#Foot_1037">[1037]</a></span></p> - -<p>The only distinction between this lease and one to a private -individual lies in the corporate character of the lessee, and in -the consequent provision for the election of a representative of -that corporate body: "Ita quod ipsi cives ponent vicecomites -qualem voluerint de seipsis."</p> - -<p>It would seem that under the <i>régime</i> adopted by Henry I., -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_360" id="Page_360">{360}</a></span> -the financial exactions of which a glimpse is afforded us in the -solitary Pipe-Roll of his reign, included the leasing of the -counties, etc. (<i>i.e.</i> of the financial rights of the Crown in them), -at the highest rate possible. This was effected either by adding -to the annual <i>firma</i>, a sum "de cremento," or by exacting from -the <i>firmarius</i>, over and above his <i>firma</i>, a payment "de gersoma" -for his lease. Where the lease was offered for open -competition it would be worth the while of the would-be -<i>firmarius</i> to offer a large payment "de gersoma" for his lease, -if the <i>firma</i> was a low one. But if the <i>firma</i> was a high one, -he would not offer much for his bargain. In the case of -Oxfordshire we find the sheriff paying no less than four hundred -marks "de gersoma, pro comitatu habendo."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1038" id="Ref_1038" href="#Foot_1038">[1038]</a></span> But in Berkshire -the payment "de gersoma" would seem to have been considerably -less.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1039" id="Ref_1039" href="#Foot_1039">[1039]</a></span> Sometimes the county (or group of counties) -was leased for a specified term of years. Thus "Maenfininus" -had taken a lease of Bucks. and Beds. for four years,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1040" id="Ref_1040" href="#Foot_1040">[1040]</a></span> for which, -seemingly, he paid but a trifling sum "de gersoma," while -William de Eynsford (Æinesford) paid a hundred marks for -a five years' lease of Essex and Herts.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1041" id="Ref_1041" href="#Foot_1041">[1041]</a></span> Now, the fact that -William de Eynsford was not an Essex but a Kentish landowner -obviously suggests that in taking this lease he was -actuated by speculative motives. It is, indeed, an admitted -fact that the Norman gentry, in their greed for gain, were by -no means above indulging in speculations of the kind. But -when we make the interesting discovery that William de Eynsford, -in this same reign, had acted as Sheriff of London,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1042" id="Ref_1042" href="#Foot_1042">[1042]</a></span> may -we not infer that, there also, he had indulged in a similar -speculation? That the shrievalty of London (<i>i.e.</i> London -and Middlesex) was purchased by payments "de gersoma" is -a matter, itself, not of inference, but of fact. Fulcred fitz -Walter is debited in the Pipe-Rolls with a sum of "cxx marcas -argenti de Gersoma pro Vicecomitatu Londoniæ."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1043" id="Ref_1043" href="#Foot_1043">[1043]</a></span></p> - -<p>The <i>firmarius</i> who had succeeded in obtaining a lease would -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_361" id="Page_361">{361}</a></span> -have to recoup himself, of course, from his receipts the amount -of the actual "firma" <i>plus</i> his payment "de gersoma," before -he could derive for himself any profit whatever from the transaction. -This implied that he had closely to shear the flock -committed to his charge. If he was a mere speculator, unconnected -with his sphere of operations, he would have no scruple -in doing this, and would resort to every means of extortion. -What those means were it is now difficult to tell, for, obscure -as the financial system of the Norman period may be, it is clear -that just as the <i>rotulus exactorius</i> recorded the amounts to which -the king was entitled from the <i>firmarii</i> of the various counties, -so these <i>firmarii</i>, in their turn, were entitled to sums of ostensibly -fixed amount from the various constituents of their -counties' "corpora." Domesday, however, while recording -these sums, shows us, in many remarkable cases, a larger "redditus" -being paid than that which was strictly due. The fact -is that we are, and must be, to a great extent, in the dark as -to the fixity of these ostensibly stereotyped payments. That -the remarkable rise in the annual <i>firmæ</i> exacted from the towns -which, Domesday shows us, had taken place since, and consequent -on, the Conquest would seem to imply that these <i>firmæ</i>, -under the loose <i>régime</i> of the old system, had been allowed to -remain so long unaltered that they had become antiquated and -unduly low. In any case the Conqueror raised them sharply, -probably according to his estimate of the financial capacity of -the town. And this step would, of course, involve a rise in the -total of the <i>firma</i> exacted from the <i>corpus comitatus</i>. The -precedent which his father had thus set was probably followed -by Henry I., who appears to have exacted, systematically, the -uttermost farthing. It was probably, however, to the oppressive -use of the "placita" included in the "firma comitatus" -that the sheriffs mainly trusted to increase their receipts.</p> - -<p>But whatever may have been the means of extortion possessed -by the sheriffs in the towns within their rule,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1044" id="Ref_1044" href="#Foot_1044">[1044]</a></span> and exercised -by them to recoup themselves for the increased demands -of the Crown, we know that such means there must have been, -or it would not have been worth the while of the towns to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_362" id="Page_362">{362}</a></span> -offer considerable sums for the privilege of paying their <i>firmæ</i> -to the Crown directly, instead of through the sheriffs.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1045" id="Ref_1045" href="#Foot_1045">[1045]</a></span></p> - -<p>I would now institute a comparison between the cases of -Lincoln and of London. In both cases the city formed part of -the <i>corpus comitatus</i>; in both, therefore, its <i>firma</i> was included -in the total ferm of the shire. Lincoln was at this time one of -the largest and wealthiest towns in the country. Its citizens evidently -had reason to complain of the exactions of the sheriff of -the shire. London, we infer, was in the same plight. Both cities -were, accordingly, anxious to exclude the financial intervention -of the sheriff between themselves and the Crown. How was -this end to be attained? It was attained in two different ways -varying with the circumstances of the two cases. London was -considerably larger than Lincoln, and Middlesex infinitely -smaller than Lincolnshire. Thus while the <i>firma</i> of Lincoln -represented less than a fifth of the ferm of the shire,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1046" id="Ref_1046" href="#Foot_1046">[1046]</a></span> that of -London would, of course, constitute the bulk of the ferm of -Middlesex. Lincoln, therefore, would only seek to sever itself -financially from the shire; London, on the contrary, would -endeavour to exclude, still more effectually, the sheriff, by -itself boldly stepping into the sheriff's shoes. The action of -the citizens of Lincoln is revealed to us by the Roll of 1130:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Burgenses Lincolie reddunt compotum de cc marcis argenti et iiij -marcis auri ut teneant ciuitatem de Rege in capite" (p. 114).</p> - -<p>The same Roll is witness to that of the citizens of London:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Homines Londonie reddunt compotum de c marcis argenti ut habeant -Vic[ecomitem?] ad electionem suam" (p. 148).</p> - -<p>I contend that these two passages ought to be read together. -No one appears to have observed the fact that the sequel to -the above Lincoln entry is to be found in the Pipe-Roll of 1157 -(3 Hen. II.). We there find £140 deducted from the ferm of -the shire in consideration of the severance of the city from the -<i>corpus comitatus</i> ("Et in Civitate Lincol[nie] CXL libræ blancæ"). -But we further find the citizens of Lincoln, in accounting for -their <i>firma</i> to the Crown direct, accounting not for £140, but for -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_363" id="Page_363">{363}</a></span> -£180. It must, consequently, have been worth their while to -offer the Crown a sum equivalent to about a year's rental for -the privilege of paying it £180 direct rather than £140 through -the sheriff.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1047" id="Ref_1047" href="#Foot_1047">[1047]</a></span> Such figures are eloquent as to the extortions -from which they had suffered. The citizens of London, as I -have said, set to work a different way. They simply sought -to lease the shrievalty of the shire themselves. I can, on -careful consideration, offer no other suggestion than that the -hundred marcs for which they account in the Roll of 1130, -represent the payment by which they secured a lease of the -shrievalty for the year 1129-1130, the shrievalty being held in -that year by the "quatuor vicecomites" of the Roll. I gather -from the Roll that Fulcred fitz Walter had been sheriff for -1128-29, and his payment "de gersoma" is, I take it, represented -in the case of the following year (1129-30) by these hundred -marks, the "quatuor vicecomites" themselves having paid -nothing "de gersoma." On this view, the citizens must have -leased the shrievalty themselves and then put in four of their -fellows, as representing them, to hold it. But, obviously, such -a post was not one to be coveted. To exact sufficient from -their fellow-citizens wherewith to meet the claims of the Crown -would be a task neither popular nor pleasant. Indeed, the -fact of the citizens installing four "vicecomites" may imply -that they could not find any one man who would consent to -fill a post as thankless as that of the hapless <i>decurio</i> in the -provinces of the Roman Empire, or of the chamberlain, in a -later age, in the country towns of England. Hence it may be -that we find it thus placed in commission. Hence, also, the -eagerness of these <i>vicecomites</i> to be quit of office, as shown by -their payment, for that privilege, of two marcs of gold apiece.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1048" id="Ref_1048" href="#Foot_1048">[1048]</a></span> -It may, however, be frankly confessed that the nature of this -payment is not so clear as could be wished. Judging from the -very ancient practice with regard to municipal offices, one -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_364" id="Page_364">{364}</a></span> -would have thought that such payments would probably have -been made to their fellow-citizens who had thrust on them the -office rather than to the Crown. Moreover, if their year of -office was over, and the city's lease at an end, one would have -thought they would be freed from office in the ordinary course -of things. The only explanation, perhaps, that suggests itself -is that they purchased from the Crown an exemption from -serving again even though their fellow-citizens should again -elect them to office.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1049" id="Ref_1049" href="#Foot_1049">[1049]</a></span> But I leave the point in doubt.</p> - -<p>The hypothesis, it will be seen, that I have here advanced -is that the citizens leased the shrievalty (so far as we know, -for the first time) for the year 1129-30. We have the names -of those who held the shrievalty at various periods in the course -of the reign, before this year, but there is no evidence that, -throughout this period, it was ever leased to the citizens. The -important question which now arises is this: How does this -view affect the charter granted to the citizens by Henry I.?</p> - -<p>We have first to consider the date to which the charter -should be assigned. Mr. Loftie characteristically observes that -Rymer, "from the names appended to it or some other evidence, -dates it in 1101."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1050" id="Ref_1050" href="#Foot_1050">[1050]</a></span> As a matter of fact, Rymer -assigns no year to it; nor, indeed, did Rymer himself even -include it in his work. In the modern enlarged edition of that -work the charter is printed, but without a date, nor was it till -1885 that in the Record Office <i>Syllabus</i>, begun by Sir T. D. -Hardy, the date 1101 was assigned to it.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1051" id="Ref_1051" href="#Foot_1051">[1051]</a></span> That date is possibly -to be traced to Northouck's <i>History of London</i> (1773), in -which the commencement of Henry's reign is suggested as a -probable period (p. 27). This view is set forth also in a -modern work upon the subject.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1052" id="Ref_1052" href="#Foot_1052">[1052]</a></span> It is not often that we meet -with a charter so difficult to date. The <i>formula</i> of address, as -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_365" id="Page_365">{365}</a></span> -it includes justices, points, according to my own theory, to a -late period in the reign, as also does the differentiation between -the justice and the sheriff. And the witnesses do the same. -But there is, unfortunately, no witness of sufficient prominence -to enable us to fix the date with precision. All that we can say -is that such a name as that of Hugh Bigod points to the period -1123-1135, and that, of the nine witnesses named, seven or -eight figure in the Pipe-Roll of 1130 (31 Hen. I.). This would -suggest that these two documents must be of about the same date. -Now, though we cannot trace the tenure of the shrievalty before -Michaelmas, 1128, from the Roll, there is, as I have said, no -sign that this charter had come into play. Nor is it easy to -understand how or why it could be withdrawn within a very -few years of its grant. In short, for this view there is not -a scrap of evidence; against it, is all probability. If, on the -contrary, we adopt the hypothesis which I am now going to -advance, namely, that the charter was later than the Pipe-Roll, -the difficulties all vanish. By this view, the lease for a year, -to which the Pipe-Roll bears witness, would be succeeded by -a permanent arrangement, that lease of the ferm in perpetuity, -which we find recorded in the charter.</p> - -<p>It is, indeed, evident that the contrary view rests solely on -the guess at "1101," or on the assumption of Dr. Stubbs that -the charter was earlier than the Pipe-Roll. Mr. Freeman and -others have merely followed him. Dr. Stubbs writes thus:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Between the date of Henry's charter and that of the great Pipe-Roll, -some changes in the organization of the City must have taken place. In 1130 -there were four sheriffs or vicecomites, who jointly account for the ferm of -London, instead of the one mentioned in the charter; and part of the account -is rendered by a chamberlain of the City. The right to appoint the sheriffs -has been somehow withdrawn, for the citizens pay a hundred marks of silver -that they may have a sheriff of their own choice," etc., etc.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1053" id="Ref_1053" href="#Foot_1053">[1053]</a></span></p> - -<p class="nodent">But our great historian nowhere tells us what he considers -"the date of Henry's charter" to have been. If that date was -subsequent to the Pipe-Roll, the whole of his argument falls to -the ground.</p> - -<p>The substitution of four sheriffs for one, to which Dr. Stubbs -alludes, is a matter of slight consequence, for the number of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_366" id="Page_366">{366}</a></span> -the "vicecomites" varies throughout. As a matter of fact, -the abbreviated forms leave us, as in the Pipe-Roll of 1130, -doubtful whether we ought to read "vicecomite<i>m</i>" or "vicecomite<i>s</i>," -and even if the former is the one intended, we know, -both in this and other cases, that there was nothing unusual -in putting the office in commission between two or more. As -to the chamberlain, he does not figure in connection with the -<i>firma</i>, with which alone we are here concerned. But, oddly -enough, Dr. Stubbs has overlooked the really important point, -namely, that the <i>firma</i> is not £300, as fixed by the charter, but -over £500.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1054" id="Ref_1054" href="#Foot_1054">[1054]</a></span> This increases the discrepancy on which Dr. Stubbs -lays stress. The most natural inference from this fact is that, -as on several later occasions, the Crown had greatly raised the -<i>firma</i> (which had been under the Conqueror £300), and that -the citizens now, by a heavy payment, secured its reduction to -the original figure. Thus, on my hypothesis that the charter -was granted between 1130 and 1135, the Crown must have been -tempted, by the offer of an enormous sum down, to grant -(1) a lease in perpetuity, (2) a reduction of the fee-farm rent -("firma") to £300 a year. As the sum to which the <i>firma</i> -had been raised by the king, together with the annual <i>gersoma</i>, -amounted to some £600 a year, such a reduction can only -have been purchased by a large payment in ready money.</p> - -<p>It was, of course, by such means as these that Henry -accumulated the vast "hoard" that the treasury held at his -death. He may not improbably in collecting this wealth have -kept in view what appears to have been the supreme aim of his -closing years, namely, the securing of the succession to his -heirs. This was to prove the means by which their claims -should be supported. It would, perhaps, be refining too much -to suggest that he hoped by this charter to attach the citizens -to the interests of his line, on whom alone it could be binding. -In any case his efforts were notoriously vain, for London -headed throughout the opposition to the claims of his heirs. -I cannot but think that his financial system had much to do -with this result, and that, as with the Hebrews at the death of -Solomon, the citizens of London bethought them only of his -"grievous service" and his "heavy yoke," as when they met -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_367" id="Page_367">{367}</a></span> -the demand of his daughter for an enormous sum of money<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1055" id="Ref_1055" href="#Foot_1055">[1055]</a></span> -by bluntly requesting a return to the system of Edward the -Confessor.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1056" id="Ref_1056" href="#Foot_1056">[1056]</a></span></p> - -<p>In any case the concessions in Henry's charter were wholly -ignored both by Stephen and by the Empress, when they granted -in turn to the Earl of Essex the shrievalty of London and -Middlesex (1141-42).</p> - -<p>A fresh and important point must, however, now be raised. -What was the attitude of Henry II. towards his grandfather's -charter? Of our two latest writers on the subject, Mr. Loftie -tells us that</p> - -<p class="small nodent">"Henry II. was too astute a ruler not to put himself at once on a good footing -with the citizens. One of his first acts was to confirm the Great Charter -of his grandfather."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1057" id="Ref_1057" href="#Foot_1057">[1057]</a></span></p> - -<p>Miss Norgate similarly asserts that "the charter granted -by Henry II. to the citizens, some time before the end of 1158, -is simply a confirmation of his grandfather's."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1058" id="Ref_1058" href="#Foot_1058">[1058]</a></span> Such, indeed, -would seem to be the accepted belief. Yet, when we compare -the two documents, we find that the special concessions with -which I am here dealing, and which form the opening clauses -of the charter of Henry I., are actually omitted altogether in -that of Henry II.!<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1059" id="Ref_1059" href="#Foot_1059">[1059]</a></span> This leads us to examine the rest of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_368" id="Page_368">{368}</a></span> -latter document. To facilitate this process I have here arranged -the two charters side by side, and divided their contents into -numbered clauses, italicizing the points of difference.</p> - -<div class="pagenum"><a name="Page_369" id="Page_369">{369}</a></div> - -<table class="multi" summary="multi-15"> - - <colgroup> - <col span="2" style="width:48%" /> - </colgroup> - -<tr> - <th>Henry I.</th> - <th>Henry II.</th> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>(1) Cives non placitabunt extra muros civitatis pro ullo - placito.</td> - <td>(1) Nullus eorum placitet extra muros civitatis Londoniarum<span - class="fnanchor"><a name="Ref_1060" id="Ref_1060" - href="#Foot_1060">[1060]</a></span> de ullo placito <i>præter placita - de tenuris exterioribus, exceptis monetariis et ministris meis</i>.</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>(2) Sint quieti <i>de schot et de loth de Danegildo et</i> de - murdro, et nullus eorum faciat bellum.</td> - <td>(2) Concessi etiam eis quietanciam murdri, [<i>et</i><span - class="fnanchor"><a name="Ref_1061" id="Ref_1061" - href="#Foot_1061">[1061]</a></span>] <i>infra urbem et - Portsokna</i>,<span class="fnanchor"><a name="Ref_1062" id="Ref_1062" - href="#Foot_1062">[1062]</a></span> et quod nullus<span - class="fnanchor"><a name="Ref_1063" id="Ref_1063" - href="#Foot_1063">[1063]</a></span> faciat bellum.<span - class="fnanchor"><a name="Ref_1064" id="Ref_1064" - href="#Foot_1064">[1064]</a></span></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>(3) Et si quis civium de placitis coronæ implacitatus fuerit, per - sacramentum quod judicatum fuerit in civitate, se disrationet homo - Londoniarum.</td> - <td>(3) De placitis ad coronam [spectantibus<span class="fnanchor"><a - name="Ref_1065" id="Ref_1065" href="#Foot_1065">[1065]</a></span>] se - possunt disrationare secundum antiquam consuetudinem civitatis.</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>(4) Et infra muros civitatis nullus hospitetur, neque de mea - familia, neque de alia, nisi alicui hospitium liberetur.</td> - <td>(4) Infra muros nemo capiat hospitium per vim vel per liberationem - Marescalli.</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>(5) Et omnes homines Londoniarum sint quieti et liberi, et omnes - res eorum, et per totam Angliam <i>et per portus maris, de thelonio et - passagio</i> et lestagio <i>et omnibus aliis consuetudinibus</i>.</td> - <td>(5) Omnes cives Londoniarum<span class="fnanchor"><a - name="Ref_1066" id="Ref_1066" href="#Foot_1066">[1066]</a></span> sint - quieti de theloneo et lestagio per totam Angliam et per portum<span - class="fnanchor"><a name="Ref_1067" id="Ref_1067" - href="#Foot_1067">[1067]</a></span> maris.</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>(6) Et ecclesiæ et barones et cives teneant et habeant bene et in - pace socnas suas cum omnibus consuetudinibus, ita quod hospites qui in - soccis suis hospitantur nulli dent consuetudines suas, nisi illi cujus - socca fuerit, vel ministro suo quem ibi posuerit.</td> - <td>[This clause is wholly omitted.]</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>(7) Et homo Londoniarum non judicetur in misericordia pecuniæ nisi ad - suam <i>were</i>, scilicet ad c solidos, dico de placito quod ad pecuniam - pertineat.</td> - <td>(7) Nullus de misericordia pecuniæ judicetur nisi secundum legem - civitatis quam habuerunt tempore Henrici regis<span class="fnanchor"><a - name="Ref_1068" id="Ref_1068" href="#Foot_1068">[1068]</a></span> avi mei.</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>(8) Et amplius non sit miskenninga in hustenge, neque in folkesmote, - neque in aliis placitis infra civitatem; Et husteng sedeat semel in - hebdomada, videlicet die Lunæ.</td> - <td>(8) In civitate in nullo placito sit miskenninga; et quod Hustengus - semel tantum in hebdomada teneatur.</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>(9) Et terras suas <i>et wardemotum</i> et debita civibus meis habere faciam - <i>infra civitatem et extra</i>.</td> - <td>(9) Terras suas <i>et tenuras et vadimonia</i> et debita omnia juste - habeant, <i>quicunque eis debeat</i>.</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>(10) Et de terris de quibus ad me clamaverint rectum eis tenebo lege - civitatis.</td> - <td>(10) De terris suis et tenuris <i>quæ infra urbem sunt</i>, rectum eis - teneatur secundum legem<span class="fnanchor"><a - name="Ref_1069" id="Ref_1069" href="#Foot_1069">[1069]</a></span> civitatis; et de omnibus debitis suis quæ - accomodata fuerint apud Londonias,<span class="fnanchor"><a - href="#Foot_1070">[1070]</a></span> et de vadimoniis ibidem - factis, placita [? sint] apud Londoniam.<span class="fnanchor"><a - name="Ref_1071" id="Ref_1071" href="#Foot_1071">[1071]</a></span></td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>(12) Et omnes debitores qui civibus debita debent eis reddant vel in - Londoniis se disrationent quod non debent. <i>Quod si reddere noluerint, - neque ad disrationandum venire, tunc cives quibus debita sua debent - capiant intra civitatem namia sua, vel de comitatu in quo manet qui - debitum debet.</i></td> - <td>(11) Et si quis <i>in tota Anglia</i> theloneum et consuetudinem ab - hominibus Londoniarum<span class="fnanchor"><a - name="Ref_1070" id="Ref_1070" href="#Foot_1070">[1070]</a></span> ceperit, <i>postquam ipse a recto defecerit, - Vicecomes</i> Londoniarum<span class="fnanchor"><a - href="#Foot_1070">[1070]</a></span> namium inde <i>apud - Londonias</i><span class="fnanchor"><a - href="#Foot_1070">[1070]</a></span> capiat.</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>(11) Et si quis thelonium vel consuetudinem a civibus Londoniarum - ceperit, <i>cives</i> Londoniarum capiant de burgo vel de villa ubi - theloneum vel consuetudo capta fuit, quantum homo Londoniarum pro - theloneo dedit, et proinde de damno ceperit.<span class="fnanchor"><a - name="Ref_1072" id="Ref_1072" href="#Foot_1072">[1072]</a></span></td> - <td>(12) Habeant fugationes suas, ubicumque<span class="fnanchor"><a - name="Ref_1073" id="Ref_1073" href="#Foot_1073">[1073]</a></span>habuerunt tempore Regis - Henrici avi mei.</td> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>(13) Et cives habeant fugationes suas ad fugandum sicut melius et - plenius habuerunt antecessores eorum, scilicet Chiltre et Middlesex et - Sureie.</td> - <td>(13) <i>Insuper etiam, ad emendationem civitatis, eis - concessi quod<span class="fnanchor"><a - name="Ref_1074" id="Ref_1074" href="#Foot_1074">[1074]</a></span> - sint quieti de Brudtolle, et de Childewite, et de Yaresive,<span - class="fnanchor"><a - name="Ref_1075" id="Ref_1075" href="#Foot_1075">[1075]</a></span> et de - Scotale; ita quod Vicecomes meus</i> (sic) <i>London[iarum]<span - class="fnanchor"><a - name="Ref_1076" id="Ref_1076" href="#Foot_1076">[1076]</a></span> vel - aliquis alius ballivus Scotalla non faciat.</i></td> -</tr> - -</table> - -<p>Before passing to a comparison of these charters, we must -glance at the question of texts. The charter of Henry I. is -taken from the <i>Select Charters</i> of Dr. Stubbs, who has gone to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_370" id="Page_370">{370}</a></span> -the <i>Fœdera</i> for his text (which is taken from an Inspeximus of -5 Edw. IV.). That of Henry II. is taken from the transcript -in the <i>Liber Custumarum</i> (collated with the <i>Liber Rubeus</i>). -Neither of these sources is by any means as pure as could be -wished. The names of the witnesses in both had always aroused -my suspicions,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1077" id="Ref_1077" href="#Foot_1077">[1077]</a></span> but the collation of the two charters has led to -a singular discovery. It will be noticed that in the charter of -Henry I. the citizens are guaranteed "terras <i>et wardemotum</i> et -debita sua." Now, this is on the face of it an unmeaning combination. -Why should the wardmoot be thus sandwiched -between the lands of the citizens and the debts due to them? -And what can be the meaning of confirming to them their -wardmoot (? wardmoots), when the hustings is only mentioned -as an infliction and the folkmoot as a medium of extortion? -Yet, corrupt though this passage, on the face of it, appears, -our authorities have risen at this unlucky word, if I may -venture on the expression, like pike. Dr. Stubbs, Professor -Freeman, Miss Norgate, Mr. Green, Mr. Loftie, Mr. Price, etc., -etc., have all swallowed it without suspicion. Historians, like -doctors, may often differ, but truly "when they do agree their -unanimity is wonderful." Collation, however, fortunately -proves that "wardemotum" is nothing more than a gross misreading -of "vadimonia," a word which restores to the passage -its sense by showing that what Henry confirmed to the citizens -was "the property mortgaged to them, and the debts due to -them."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1078" id="Ref_1078" href="#Foot_1078">[1078]</a></span></p> - -<p>Having thus enforced the necessity for caution in arguing -from the text as it stands, I would urge that, with the exception -of the avowed addition at the close, the later charter has, in -sundry details, the aspect of a grudging confirmation, restricting -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_371" id="Page_371">{371}</a></span> -rather than enlarging the benefits conferred. This, however, -is but a small matter in comparison with its total omission of -the main concession itself. This fact, so strangely overlooked, -coincides with the king's allusion to the sheriff as "vicecomes -<i>meus</i>" (no longer the citizens' sheriff),<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1079" id="Ref_1079" href="#Foot_1079">[1079]</a></span> but explains above all -the circumstance, which would be quite inexplicable without -it, that the <i>firma</i> is again, under Henry II., found to be not -£300, but over £500 a year.</p> - -<p>In 1164 (10 Hen. II.) the <i>firma</i> of London, if I reckon it -right, was, as in 1130 (31 Hen. I.), about £520.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1080" id="Ref_1080" href="#Foot_1080">[1080]</a></span> In 1160 -(6 Hen. II.) it was a few pounds less,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1081" id="Ref_1081" href="#Foot_1081">[1081]</a></span> and in 1161 (7 Hen. II.) -it was little, it would seem, over £500.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1082" id="Ref_1082" href="#Foot_1082">[1082]</a></span> But in these calculations -it is virtually impossible to attain perfect accuracy, not -only from the system of keeping accounts partly in <i>libræ</i> partly -in <i>marcæ</i>, and partly in money "blanched" partly in money -"numero," but also from the fact that the figures on the Pipe-Rolls -are by no means so infallible as might be supposed.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1083" id="Ref_1083" href="#Foot_1083">[1083]</a></span></p> - -<p>Nor does the charter of Richard I. (April 23, 1194) make -any change. It merely confirms that of his father. But John, -in addition to confirming this (June 17, 1199), granted a -supplementary charter (July 5, 1199)—</p> - -<div class="pagenum"><a name="Page_372" id="Page_372">{372}</a></div> - -<p class="small">"Sciatis nos concessisse et præsenti Charta nostra confirmasse civibus -Londoniarum Vicecomitatum Londoniarum et de Middelsexia, cum omnibus -rebus et consuetudinibus quæ pertinent ad prædictum Vicecomitatum ... -reddendo inde annuatim nobis et heredibus nostris ccc libras sterlingorum -blancorum.... Et præterea concessimus civibus Londoniarum, quod ipsi -de se ipsis faciant Vicecomites quoscunque voluerint, et amoveant quando -voluerint; ... Hanc vero concessionem et confirmationem fecimus civibus -Londoniarum propter emendationem ejusdem civitatis et quia antiquitus -consuevit esse ad firmam pro ccc libris."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1084" id="Ref_1084" href="#Foot_1084">[1084]</a></span></p> - -<p>Here at length we return to the concessions of Henry I., with -which this charter of John ought to be carefully compared. -With the exception of the former's provision about the "justiciar" -(an exception which must not be overlooked), the -concessions are the same. The subsequent raising of the <i>firma</i> -to £400 (in 1270), and its eventual reduction to £300 (in 1327), -have been already dealt with (pp. 358, 359).</p> - -<p>We see then that, in absolute contradiction of the received -belief on the subject, the shrievalty was not in the hands of -the citizens during the twelfth century (<i>i.e.</i> from "1101"), -but was held by them for a few years only, about the close of -the reign of Henry I. The fact that the sheriffs of London -and Middlesex were, under Henry II. and Richard I., appointed -throughout by the Crown, must compel our historians to -reconsider the independent position they have assigned to the -City at that early period. The Crown, moreover, must have -had an object in retaining this appointment in its hands. We -may find it, I think, in that jealousy of exceptional privilege -or exemption which characterized the <i>régime</i> of Henry II. For, -as I have shown, the charters to Geoffrey remind us that the -ambition of the urban communities was analogous to that of -the great feudatories in so far as they both strove for exemption -from official rule. It was precisely to this ambition that -Henry II. was opposed; and thus, when he granted his charter -to London, he wholly omitted, as we have seen, two of his -grandfather's concessions, and narrowed down those that -remained, that they might not be operative outside the actual -walls of the city. When the shrievalty was restored by John -to the citizens (1199), the concession had lost its chief importance -through the triumph of the "communal" principle. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_373" id="Page_373">{373}</a></span> -When that civic revolution had taken place which introduced -the "communa" with its mayor—a revolution to which -Henry II. would never, writes the chronicler, have submitted—when -a Londoner was able to boast that he would have no -king but his mayor, then had the sheriff's position become but -of secondary importance, subordinate, as it has remained ever -since, to that of the mayor himself.</p> - -<p>The transient existence of the local <i>justitiarius</i> is a phenomenon -of great importance, which has been wholly misunderstood. -The Mandeville charters afford the clue to the nature -of this office. It represents a middle term, a transitional stage, -between the essentially <i>local</i> shire-reeve and the <i>central</i> "justice" -of the king's court. I have already (p. 106) shown that the -office sprang from "the differentiation of the sheriff and the -justice," and represented, as it were, the localization of the -central judicial element. That is to say, the <i>justitiarius</i> for -Essex, or Herts., or London and Middlesex, was a purely local -officer, and yet exercised, within the limits of his bailiwick, all -the authority of the king's justice. So transient was this state of -things that scarcely a trace of it remains. Yet Richard de Luci -may have held the post, as we saw (p. 109), for the county of -Essex, and there is evidence that Norfolk had a justice of its -own in the person of Ralf Passelewe.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1085" id="Ref_1085" href="#Foot_1085">[1085]</a></span> Now, in the case of -London, the office was created by the charter of Henry I., -granted (as I contend) towards the end of his reign, and it -expired with the accession of Henry II. It is, therefore, in -Stephen's reign that we should expect to find it in existence; -and it is precisely in that reign that we find the office <i>eo nomine</i> -twice granted to the Earl of Essex and twice mentioned as held -by Gervase, otherwise Gervase of Cornhill.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1086" id="Ref_1086" href="#Foot_1086">[1086]</a></span></p> - -<p>The office of the "Justiciar of London" should now be no -longer obscure; its possible identity with those of portreeve, -sheriff, or mayor cannot, surely, henceforth be maintained.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1009" id="Foot_1009" href="#Ref_1009">[1009]</a> -On the somewhat thorny question of the right extension of "Lond'" -(Lond<i>onia</i> or Lond<i>oniæ</i>) I would explain at the outset that both forms, the -singular and the plural, are found, so that either extension is legitimate. -I have seen no reason to change my belief (as set forth in the <i>Athenæum</i>, -1887) that "Londoni<i>a</i>" is the Latinization of the English "Londone," and -"Londoni<i>æ</i>" of the Norman "Londres."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1010" id="Foot_1010" href="#Ref_1010">[1010]</a> -"Vicecomitatus de Londonia et de Middelsexa ... pro ccc libris."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1011" id="Foot_1011" href="#Ref_1011">[1011]</a> -"Vicecomitatum Lundoniæ et Middelsex pro ccc libris."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1012" id="Foot_1012" href="#Ref_1012">[1012]</a> -Madox's <i>Firma Burgi</i>, p. 242, <i>note</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1013" id="Foot_1013" href="#Ref_1013">[1013]</a> -These words were written before the late changes.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1014" id="Foot_1014" href="#Ref_1014">[1014]</a> -A remarkable illustration of this loose usage is afforded by the case of -the archdeaconry. Take the styles of Ralph "de Diceto." Dr. Stubbs writes -of his archdeaconry: "That it was the archdeaconry of Middlesex is certain -... it is beyond doubt, and wherever Ralph is called Archdeacon of -London, it is only loosely in reference to the fact that he was one of the four -archdeacons of the diocese" (<i>Radulfi de Diceto Opera</i>, I. xxxv., xxxvi.). But, -as to this explanation, the writer adduces no evidence in support of this -view, that all "four archdeacons" might be described, loosely, as "of -London." Indeed, he admits, further on (p. xl., <i>note</i>), "that the title of -Essex or Colchester is generally given to the holders of these two archdeaconries, -so that really the only two between which confusion was likely -to arise were London and Middlesex." Now, in a very formal document, -quoted by Dr. Stubbs himself (p. 1., <i>note</i>), Ralph is emphatically styled -"Archdeacon of London." It is clear, therefore, that, in the case of this -archdeaconry, that style was fully recognized, and the explanation of this is -to be found, I would suggest, in the use, exemplified in the text <i>ut supra</i>, -of "London" and "Middlesex" as convertible terms.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1015" id="Foot_1015" href="#Ref_1015">[1015]</a> -Mr. Freeman himself makes the same mistake, and insists on regarding -Middlesex as a subject district round the City.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1016" id="Foot_1016" href="#Ref_1016">[1016]</a> -Even Dr. Sharpe, the learned editor of the valuable <i>Calendar of -Hustings Wills</i>, is similarly puzzled by a grant of twenty-five marks out of -the king's ferm "de civitate London," to be paid annually by the sheriffs -of London and Middlesex (i. 610), because he imagines that the <i>firma</i> was -paid in respect of the sheriffwick of Middlesex alone.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1017" id="Foot_1017" href="#Ref_1017">[1017]</a> </p> - -<table class="multi-f" summary="multi-16"> - - <colgroup> - <col span="2" style="width:48%" /> - </colgroup> - -<tr> - <td>"It has been supposed that the justiciar here mentioned means a - mayor or chief magistrate, and that the grant includes that of the - election of the supreme executive officer of the City. It may be so, - but all probability is against this view. For by this time the citizens - already appear to have selected their own portreeve, by whatever name - he was called; and it is absurd to suppose that the king gave them - power to appoint a sheriff of Middlesex, if they were not already - allowed to appoint their own. The omission of any reference to the - portreeve in the charter cannot, in fact, be otherwise accounted for" - (<i>History of London</i>, i. 90).</td> - <td>"The next substantial benefit they derived from the charter was the - leave to elect their own justiciar. They may place whom they will to - hold pleas of the Crown. The portreeve is here evidently intended, for - it is manifestly absurd to suppose, as some have done, that Henry - allowed the citizens to elect a reeve for Middlesex, if they could not - elect one for themselves; and if proof were wanting, we have it in the - references to the trials before the portreeve which are found in very - early documents. In one of these, which cannot be dated later than - 1115, Gilbert Proudfoot, or Prutfot, described as vicecomes, is - mentioned as having some time before given judgment against the dean - and chapter as to a piece of land on the present site of the Bank of - England" (<i>London</i>, p. 29).</td> -</tr> - -</table> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1018" id="Foot_1018" href="#Ref_1018">[1018]</a> -<i>Ninth Report Hist. MSS.</i>, i. 66 <i>b</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1019" id="Foot_1019" href="#Ref_1019">[1019]</a> -Reference to p. 110, <i>supra</i>, will show at once how vain is the effort to -wrench "justitiarius" from its natural and well-known meaning.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1020" id="Foot_1020" href="#Ref_1020">[1020]</a> -See Appendix O.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1021" id="Foot_1021" href="#Ref_1021">[1021]</a> -Here and elsewhere I use "shire" on the strength of Middlesex having -a "sheriff" (<i>i.e.</i> a shire-reeve).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1022" id="Foot_1022" href="#Ref_1022">[1022]</a> -<i>London</i>, p. 126.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1023" id="Foot_1023" href="#Ref_1023">[1023]</a> -This springs, of course, from what I have termed "the fundamental -error."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1024" id="Foot_1024" href="#Ref_1024">[1024]</a> -See p. 37, <i>ante</i>, and <i>Norm. Conq.</i>, iii. (1869) 424, 544, 729.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1025" id="Foot_1025" href="#Ref_1025">[1025]</a> -I would suggest that, as in the case of Ulf, the Reeve of "London -and Middlesex" might be addressed as portreeve in writs affecting the City -and as shire-reeve in those more particularly affecting the rest of Middlesex.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1026" id="Foot_1026" href="#Ref_1026">[1026]</a> -Dr. Stubbs, in a footnote, hazards "the conjecture" that "the disappearance -of the portreeve" may be connected with "a civic revolution, -the history of which is now lost, but which might account for the earnest -support given by the citizens to Stephen," etc. In another place (<i>Select -Charters</i>, p. 300) he writes: "How long the Portreeve of London continued -to exist is not known; perhaps until he was merged in the <i>mayor</i>." I have -already dealt with Mr. Loftie's explanation of "the omission of any reference -to the portreeve" in the charter.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1027" id="Foot_1027" href="#Ref_1027">[1027]</a> -See p. 37, <i>ante</i>, and Addenda.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1028" id="Foot_1028" href="#Ref_1028">[1028]</a> -See <i>Athenæum</i>, February 5, 1887, p. 191; also my papers on "The First -Mayor of London" in <i>Academy</i>, November 12, 1887, and <i>Antiquary</i>, March, -1887.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1029" id="Foot_1029" href="#Ref_1029">[1029]</a> -<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 404.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1030" id="Foot_1030" href="#Ref_1030">[1030]</a> -"The ... shire organization which seems to have displaced early in -the century" [<i>i.e.</i> by Henry's charter] "the complicated system of guild and -franchise" (<i>ibid.</i>, i. 630).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1031" id="Foot_1031" href="#Ref_1031">[1031]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, i. 405.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1032" id="Foot_1032" href="#Ref_1032">[1032]</a> -This was written before the days of the London County Council.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1033" id="Foot_1033" href="#Ref_1033">[1033]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, i. 630.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1034" id="Foot_1034" href="#Ref_1034">[1034]</a> -<i>Liber de Antiquis Legibus</i>, p. 124: "Circa idem tempus, scilicet Pentecosten -(1270), ad instantiam domini Edwardi concessit Dominus Rex civibus -ad habendum de se ipsis duos Vicecomites, qui tenerent Vicecomitatum Civitatis -et Midelsexiæ ad firmam sicut ante solebant: Ita, tamen, cum temporibus -transactis solvissent inde tantummodo per annum ccc libras sterlingorum -blancorum, quod de cetero solvent annuatim cccc libras sterlingorum -computatorum.... Et tunc tradite sunt civibus omnes antique carte eorum -de libertatibus suis que fuerunt in manu Domini Regis, et concessum est eis -per Dominum Regem et per Dominum Edwardum ut eis plenarie utantur, -excepto quod pro firma Civitatis et Comitatus solvent per annum cccc libras, -sicut præscriptum est.</p> - -<p>"Tunc temporis dederunt Cives Domino Regi centum marcas sterlingorum.... -Dederunt etiam Domino Edwardo Vᶜ. marcas ad expensas suas -in itinere versus Terram Sanctam." This passage is quoted in full because, -important though the transaction is, not a trace of it is to be found in <i>The -Historical Charters and Constitutional Documents of the City of London</i> -(1884), the latest work on the subject. So, in 1284, when Edward I., who -had "taken into his hands" the town of Nottingham for some years, restored -the burgesses their liberties, it was at the price of their <i>firma</i> being raised -from £52 to £60 a year.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1035" id="Foot_1035" href="#Ref_1035">[1035]</a> -<i>History of London</i>, ii. 208, 209.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1036" id="Foot_1036" href="#Ref_1036">[1036]</a> -A curious illustration of the fact that this <i>firma</i> arose out of the city -and county alike is afforded by Henry III.'s charter (1253): "quod vii libre -sterlingorum per annum allocarentur Vicecomitibus in firma eorum pro libertate -ecclesiæ sancti Pauli."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1037" id="Foot_1037" href="#Ref_1037">[1037]</a> -This is illustrated by the subsequent prohibition of the sheriffs themselves -underletting the county at "farm" (<i>Liber Custumarum</i>, p. 91; <i>Liber -Albus</i>, p. 46).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1038" id="Foot_1038" href="#Ref_1038">[1038]</a> -<i>Rot. Pip.</i>, 31 Hen. I., p. 2.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1039" id="Foot_1039" href="#Ref_1039">[1039]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, p. 122.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1040" id="Foot_1040" href="#Ref_1040">[1040]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, p. 100.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1041" id="Foot_1041" href="#Ref_1041">[1041]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, p. 52.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1042" id="Foot_1042" href="#Ref_1042">[1042]</a> -"William de Einesford, vicecomes de Londoniâ," heads the list of -witnesses to a London agreement assigned to 1114-1130 (<i>Ramsey Cartulary</i>, -i. 139).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1043" id="Foot_1043" href="#Ref_1043">[1043]</a> -<i>Rot. Pip.</i>, 31 Hen. I., p. 144.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1044" id="Foot_1044" href="#Ref_1044">[1044]</a> -Probably the mysterious "scotale" was among them (cf. Stubbs, <i>Const. -Hist.</i>, i. 628).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1045" id="Foot_1045" href="#Ref_1045">[1045]</a> -Cf. Stubbs, <i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 410.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1046" id="Foot_1046" href="#Ref_1046">[1046]</a> -The ferm of Lincolnshire in 1130 was rather over £750 (£40 "numero" -<i>plus</i> £716 16<i>s.</i> 3<i>d.</i> "blanch").</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1047" id="Foot_1047" href="#Ref_1047">[1047]</a> -We have a precisely similar illustration, ninety years later, in the case -of Carlisle. In 5 Hen. III. (1220-21) the citizens of Carlisle obtained permission -to hold their city <i>ad firmam</i> for £60 a year payable to the Crown -direct, in the place of £52 a year payable through the sheriff ("per vicecomitem") -and his ferm of the shire (<i>Ninth Report Hist. MSS.</i>, App. i. -pp. 197, 202).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1048" id="Foot_1048" href="#Ref_1048">[1048]</a> -<i>Rot. Pip.</i>, 31 Hen. I., p. 149.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1049" id="Foot_1049" href="#Ref_1049">[1049]</a> -Compare Henry III.'s charter to John Gifard of Chillington, conceding -that during his lifetime he should not be made a <i>sheriff</i>, coroner, or any other -bailiff against his will (<i>Staffordshire Collections</i>, v. [1] 158).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1050" id="Foot_1050" href="#Ref_1050">[1050]</a> -<i>History of London</i>, ii. 88. Compare Mr. Loftie's <i>London</i> ("Historic -Towns"), p. 28: "The exact date of the charter is given by Rymer as 1101."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1051" id="Foot_1051" href="#Ref_1051">[1051]</a> -Vol. iii. p. 4.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1052" id="Foot_1052" href="#Ref_1052">[1052]</a> -<i>The Charters of the City of London</i> (1884), p. xiiii.: "To engage the -citizens to support his Government he conferred upon them the advantageous -privileges that are conferred in this charter."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1053" id="Foot_1053" href="#Ref_1053">[1053]</a> -<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 406.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1054" id="Foot_1054" href="#Ref_1054">[1054]</a> -£327 3<i>s.</i> 11<i>d.</i> "blanch," <i>plus</i> £209 6<i>s.</i> 5½<i>d.</i> "numero."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1055" id="Foot_1055" href="#Ref_1055">[1055]</a> -"Infinitæ copiæ pecuniam ... cum ore imperioso ab eis exegit" -(<i>Gesta Stephani</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1056" id="Foot_1056" href="#Ref_1056">[1056]</a> -"Interpellata est et a civibus ut leges eis regis Edwardi observare liceret, -quia optimæ erant, non patris sui Henrici quia graves erant" (<i>Cont. Flor. -Wig.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1057" id="Foot_1057" href="#Ref_1057">[1057]</a> -<i>London</i> ("Historic Towns"), p. 38. The Master of University similarly -writes: "He [Henry II.] renewed the charter of the city of London" (i. 90).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1058" id="Foot_1058" href="#Ref_1058">[1058]</a> -<i>England under the Angevin Kings</i>, ii. 471. The writer, being only -acquainted with the printed copy of the charter (<i>Liber Custumarum</i>, ed. -Riley, pp. 31, 32), had only the names of the two witnesses there given (the -Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London) to guide her, but, -fortunately, the <i>Liber Rubeus</i> version records all the witnesses (thirteen in -number) together with the place of testing, thus limiting the date to 1154-56, -and virtually to 1155.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1059" id="Foot_1059" href="#Ref_1059">[1059]</a> -The omitted clauses are these: "Sciatis me concessisse civibus meis -Londoniarum, tenendum Middlesex ad firmam pro ccc libris ad compotum, -ipsis et heredibus suis, de me et heredibus meis, ita quod ipsi cives ponent -vicecomitem qualem voluerint de se ipsis, et justitiarium qualem voluerint -de se ipsis, ad custodiendum placita coronæ meæ et eadem placitanda; et -nullus alius erit justitiarius super ipsos homines Londoniarum."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1060" id="Foot_1060" href="#Ref_1060">[1060]</a> -"Lond'" (<i>Liber Rubeus</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1061" id="Foot_1061" href="#Ref_1061">[1061]</a> -"Et" omitted in <i>L. R.</i></p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1062" id="Foot_1062" href="#Ref_1062">[1062]</a> -"Portsoca" (<i>L. R.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1063" id="Foot_1063" href="#Ref_1063">[1063]</a> -"Nullus eorum" (<i>L. R.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1064" id="Foot_1064" href="#Ref_1064">[1064]</a> -"Duellum" (<i>L. R.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1065" id="Foot_1065" href="#Ref_1065">[1065]</a> -"Pertinentibus" (<i>L. R.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1066" id="Foot_1066" href="#Ref_1066">[1066]</a> -"London'" (<i>L. R.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1067" id="Foot_1067" href="#Ref_1067">[1067]</a> -"Port'" (<i>L. R.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1068" id="Foot_1068" href="#Ref_1068">[1068]</a> -"Regis H." (<i>L. R.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1069" id="Foot_1069" href="#Ref_1069">[1069]</a> -"Consuetudinem" (<i>L. R.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1070" id="Foot_1070" href="#Ref_1070">[1070]</a> -"Lond'" (<i>L. R.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1071" id="Foot_1071" href="#Ref_1071">[1071]</a> -"Apud Lond' teneantur" (<i>L. R.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1072" id="Foot_1072" href="#Ref_1072">[1072]</a> -Clauses 11 and 12 in the charter of Henry I. are transposed in that of -Henry II. But it is more convenient to show the transposition as I have -done in the text.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1073" id="Foot_1073" href="#Ref_1073">[1073]</a> -"Eas habuerunt" (<i>L. R.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1074" id="Foot_1074" href="#Ref_1074">[1074]</a> -"Omnes sint" (<i>L. R.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1075" id="Foot_1075" href="#Ref_1075">[1075]</a> -"Yeresgieve" (<i>L. R.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1076" id="Foot_1076" href="#Ref_1076">[1076]</a> -"London'" (<i>L. R.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1077" id="Foot_1077" href="#Ref_1077">[1077]</a> -The first two witnesses to that of Henry I. are given as "episcopo -Winton., Roberto filio Richer. (<i>sic</i>)." The bishop's initial ought to be given, -and the second witness is probably identical with Robert fitz Rich<i>ard</i>. -"Huberto (<i>sic</i>) regis camerario" has also a suspicious sound. In the second -charter the witnesses are given in the <i>Liber Custumarum</i> as "Archiepiscopo -Cantuariæ, Ricardo Episcopo Londoniarum." Here, again, the primate's -initial should be given; as, indeed, it is in the (more accurate) <i>Liber Rubeus</i> -version, where (<i>vide supra</i>, p. 367) all the witnesses are entered.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1078" id="Foot_1078" href="#Ref_1078">[1078]</a> -This explanation is confirmed by examining other municipal charters -based on that of London. In them this clause always confirms (1) "terras -et tenuras," (2) "vadia," (3) "debita."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1079" id="Foot_1079" href="#Ref_1079">[1079]</a> -In confirmation of this view, it may be pointed out that where this -same clause occurs in charters to other towns, the words are "vicecomes -<i>noster</i>" in cases, as at Winchester, where the king retains in his hand the -appointment of reeve, but simply (as at Lincoln) "præpositus" or (as at -Northampton) "præpositus Northamtonie," where the right to elect the -reeve was also conceded.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1080" id="Foot_1080" href="#Ref_1080">[1080]</a> -£66 17<i>s.</i> 1<i>d.</i> "blanch" <i>plus</i> £474 17<i>s.</i> 10½<i>d.</i> "numero."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1081" id="Foot_1081" href="#Ref_1081">[1081]</a> -£445 19<i>s.</i> "blanch" <i>plus</i> £78 3<i>s.</i> 6<i>d.</i> "numero."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1082" id="Foot_1082" href="#Ref_1082">[1082]</a> -£181 14<i>s.</i> 5<i>d.</i> "blanch" <i>plus</i> £335 0<i>s.</i> 7<i>d.</i> "numero."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1083" id="Foot_1083" href="#Ref_1083">[1083]</a> -As an example of the possibility of error, in the printed Roll of 1159 -(5 Hen. II.) a town is entered on the Roll as paying "quater xx. lv. -libras et ii marcas et dim'." The explanation of this unintelligible entry -is, I may observe, as follows. The original entry evidently ran, "quater xx -et ii marcas et dim'" (82½ marcs). Over this a scribe will have written the -equivalent amount in pounds ("lv libræ") by interlineation. Then came -the modern transcriber, who with the stupidity of a mechanical copyist -brought down this interlineation into the middle of the entry, thus converting -it into sheer nonsense. We have also to reckon with such clerical errors as -the addition or omission of an "x" or an "i," of a "bl." or a "no." Where -the total to be accounted for is stated separately, we have a means of checking -the accounts. But where, as at London, this is not so, we cannot be too -careful in accepting the details as given. See also Addenda.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1084" id="Foot_1084" href="#Ref_1084">[1084]</a> -<i>Liber Custumarum</i> (Rolls Series), pp. 249-251.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1085" id="Foot_1085" href="#Ref_1085">[1085]</a> -"Contra Radulfum de Belphago qui tunc vicecomes erat in provincia illa -et contra Radulfum Passelewe ejusdem provinciæ justiciarium" (<i>Ramsey -Cart.</i>, i. 149).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1086" id="Foot_1086" href="#Ref_1086">[1086]</a> -See Appendix K, on "Gervase of Cornhill."</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_374" id="Page_374">{374}</a></span> - -<h3>APPENDIX Q<br /> -<small>OSBERTUS OCTODENARII.</small></h3> - -<p class="center small">(See p. <a href="#Page_170">170</a>.)</p> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">The</span> -reference to this personage in the charter to the Earl of -Essex is of quite exceptional interest. He was the Osbert -(or Osbern) "Huit-deniers" (<i>alias</i> "Octodenarii" <i>alias</i> "Octonummi") -who was a wealthy kinsman of Becket and employed -him, in his house, as a clerk about this very time (<i>circ.</i> 1139-1142). -We meet him as "Osbertus VIII. denarii" at London -in 1130 (<i>Rot. Pip.</i>, 31 Hen. I.), and I have also found him -attesting a charter of Henry I., late in the reign, as "Osberto -Octodenar[ii]." Garnier<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1087" id="Ref_1087" href="#Foot_1087">[1087]</a></span> tells us that the future saint—</p> - -<div class="poetry-container"> -<div class="poetry"> - -<div class="verse quote1">"A soen parent vint, un riche hume Lundreis,</div> -<div class="verse">Ke mult ert koneiiz et de Frauns et d'Engleis,</div> -<div class="verse">O Osbern witdeniers, ki l'retint demaneis.</div> -<div class="verse">Puis fu ses escriveins, ne sais dous ans, u treis."</div> - -</div> -</div> - -<p>Another biographer writes:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Rursus vero Osbernus, Octonummi cognomine, vir insignis in civitate et -multarum possessionum cui carne propinquus erat detentum circa se Thomam -fere per triennium in breviandis sumptibus redditibusque suis jugiter -occupabat."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1088" id="Ref_1088" href="#Foot_1088">[1088]</a></span></p> - -<p>The influential position of this wealthy Londoner is dwelt -on by yet another biographer:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Ad quendam Lundrensem, cognatum suum, qui non solum inter -concives, verum etiam apud curiales, grandis erat nominis et honoris se -contulit."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1089" id="Ref_1089" href="#Foot_1089">[1089]</a></span></p> - -<p>In one of the appendices we shall detect him under the -strange form "Ottdevers"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1090" id="Ref_1090" href="#Foot_1090">[1090]</a></span> (= "Ottdeuers," a misreading for -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_375" id="Page_375">{375}</a></span> -"Ottdeners") witnessing a treaty arrangement between the -Earls of Hereford and Gloucester. This he did in his capacity -of feudal tenant to the latter, for in the Earl of Gloucester's -<i>Carta</i> (1166) of his tenants in Kent we read: "Feodum Osberti -oitdeniers i mil[item]," from which we learn that he had held -one knight's fee.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1091" id="Ref_1091" href="#Foot_1091">[1091]</a></span></p> - -<p>This singular <i>cognomen</i>, though savouring of the nickname -period, may have become hereditary, for we meet with a Philip -Utdeners in 1223, and with Alice and Agnes his daughters in -1233.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1092" id="Ref_1092" href="#Foot_1092">[1092]</a></span></p> - -<p>As I have here alluded to Becket it may be permissible to -mention that as the statements of his biographers in the matter -of Osbert are confirmed by this extraneous evidence, so have -we also evidence in charters of his residence, as "Thomas of -London," in the primate's household. To two charters of -Theobald to Earls Colne Priory the first witness is "Thoma -Lond' Capellano nostro,"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1093" id="Ref_1093" href="#Foot_1093">[1093]</a></span> while an even more interesting -charter of the primate brings before us those three names, -which, says William of Canterbury, were those of his three -intimates, the first witness being Roger of Bishopsbridge, while -the fourth and fifth are John of Canterbury and Thomas of -London, "clerks."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1094" id="Ref_1094" href="#Foot_1094">[1094]</a></span> Here is abundant evidence that Becket was -then known as "Thomas of London," as indeed Gervase of -Canterbury himself implies.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1095" id="Ref_1095" href="#Foot_1095">[1095]</a></span></p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1087" id="Foot_1087" href="#Ref_1087">[1087]</a> -<i>Vie de St. Thomas</i> (ed. Hippeau, 1859).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1088" id="Foot_1088" href="#Ref_1088">[1088]</a> -Grim.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1089" id="Foot_1089" href="#Ref_1089">[1089]</a> -Auctor anonymus.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1090" id="Foot_1090" href="#Ref_1090">[1090]</a> -Its apparent dissimilarity to the "Octod'" of Geoffrey's charter is -instructive to note.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1091" id="Foot_1091" href="#Ref_1091">[1091]</a> -Hearne, who prints this entry, "Feodum Osberti oct. deniers i. mil." -(<i>Liber Niger</i>, ed. 1774, i. 53), makes it the occasion of an exquisitely funny -display of erudite Latinity, in which he gravely rebukes Dugdale for his -ignorance on the subject ("quid sibi velit <i>denariata militis</i> ignorasse videtur -Dugdalius quam tamen is facile intelliget," etc., etc.), having himself mistaken -the tenant's name for a term of land measurement.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1092" id="Foot_1092" href="#Ref_1092">[1092]</a> -<i>Bracton's Note-book</i> (ed. Maitland), ii. 616; iii. 495. A Nicholas -"Treys-deners" or "Treydeners" occurs in Cornwall in the same reign -(<i>De Banco</i>, 45-46 Hen. III., Mich., No. 16, m. 62). "Penny" and "Twopenny" -are still familiar surnames among us, as is also "Pennyfather" -(? Pennyfarthing).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1093" id="Foot_1093" href="#Ref_1093">[1093]</a> -<i>Addl. MS.</i>, 5860, fols. 221, 223 (ink).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1094" id="Foot_1094" href="#Ref_1094">[1094]</a> -<i>Cott. MSS.</i>, Nero, C. iii. fol. 188.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1095" id="Foot_1095" href="#Ref_1095">[1095]</a> -"Clerico suo Thomæ Londoniensi" (i. 160).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_376" id="Page_376">{376}</a></span> - -<h3>APPENDIX R.<br /> -<small>THE FOREST OF ESSEX.</small></h3> - -<p class="center small">(See pp. <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>.)</p> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">The</span> -references to assarts and to (forest) pleas in the first and -second charters of the Empress ought to be carefully compared, -as they are of importance in many ways. They run thus -respectively:—</p> - -<table class="multi" summary="multi-17"> - - <colgroup> - <col span="2" style="width:48%" /> - </colgroup> - -<tr> - <th>First Charter.</th> - <th>Second Charter.</th> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td>Ut ipse et omnes homines sui per totam Angliam sint quieti de - Wastis forestariis et assartis que facta sunt in feodo ipsius Gaufredi - usque ad diem quo homo meus devenit, et ut a die illo in antea omnia - illa essarta sint amodo excultibilia, et arrabilia sine forisfacto.</td> - <td>Quod ipse et omnes homines sui habeant et lucrentur omnia essarta - sua libera et quieta de omnibus placitis facta usque ad diem qua - servicio domini mei Comitis Andegavie ac meo adhæsit.</td> -</tr> - -</table> - -<p>A similar provision will be found in the charter to Aubrey -de Vere. It is evident from these special provisions that the -grantees attached a peculiar importance to this indemnity for -their assarts; and it is equally noteworthy that the Empress -is careful to restrict that indemnity to those assarts which had -been made before a certain date ("facta usque ad diem quâ," -etc.). This restriction should be compared with that which -similarly limited the indemnity claimed by the barons of the -Exchequer,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1096" id="Ref_1096" href="#Foot_1096">[1096]</a></span> and which has been somewhat overlooked.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1097" id="Ref_1097" href="#Foot_1097">[1097]</a></span></p> - -<p>Assarts are duly dealt with in the <i>Leges Henrici Primi</i>, -and would form an important part of the "placita forestæ" -in his reign. It is reasonable to presume that one of the first -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_377" id="Page_377">{377}</a></span> -results of the removal of his iron hand would be a violent -reaction against the tyranny of "the forest." Indeed, we know -that Stephen was compelled to give way upon the point. A -general outburst of "assarting" would at once follow. Thus -the prospect of the return, with the Empress, of her father's -forest-law would greatly alarm the offenders who were guilty -of "assarts."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1098" id="Ref_1098" href="#Foot_1098">[1098]</a></span></p> - -<p>But, further, the earl's fief lay away from the forest proper. -Why, then, was this concession of such importance in his eyes? -We are helped towards an answer to this question by Mr. -Fisher's learned and instructive work on <i>The Forest of Essex</i>. -The facts there given, though needing some slight correction, -show us that the Crown asserted in the reign of Henry III., -that the portion of the county which had been afforested since -the accession of Henry II. had (with the exception of the -hundred of Tendring) been merely <i>re</i>afforested, having been -already "forest" at the death of Henry I., though under -Stephen it had ceased to be so. This claim, which was successfully -asserted, affected more than half the county. Now, it -is singular that throughout the struggle, on this subject, with -the Crown, the true forest, that of Waltham (now Epping), was -always conceded to be "within forest." Mr. Fisher's valuable -maps show its limits clearly. It was, accordingly, tacitly -admitted by the perambulation consequent on the Charter of -the Forest to have been "forest" before 1154.</p> - -<p>The theory suggested to me by these <i>data</i> is this. Stephen, -we know, by his Charter of Liberties consented that all the -forests created by Henry I. should be disafforested, and retained -for himself only those which had been "forest" in the days -of the first and the second William. Under this arrangement -he retained, I hold, the small true forest (Waltham forest), -but had to resign the grasp of the Crown on the additions made -to it by Henry I., which amounted to considerably more than -half the county. My view that this sweeping extension of -"forest" was the work of Henry I. is confirmed by the fact -that his "forest" policy is admittedly the most objectionable -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_378" id="Page_378">{378}</a></span> -feature of his rule. Nor, I take it, was it inspired so much -by the love of sport as by the great facilities it afforded for -pecuniary exaction. In the Pipe-Roll of his thirty-first year -we find (to adapt an old saying) "forest pleas as thick as -fleas" in Essex, affording proof, moreover, that his "forest" -had extended to the extreme north-east of the Lexden hundred. -Here then again, I believe, as in so many other matters, -Henry II. ignored his predecessor, and reverted to the <i>status -quo ante</i>. Nor was the claim he revived finally set at rest, till -Parliament disposed of it for ever in the days of Charles I.</p> - -<p>An interesting charter bearing on this subject is preserved -to us by Inspeximus.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1099" id="Ref_1099" href="#Foot_1099">[1099]</a></span> It records the restoration by Stephen -to the Abbess of Barking of all her estates afforested by -Henry I.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1100" id="Ref_1100" href="#Foot_1100">[1100]</a></span> Now, this charter, which is tested at Clarendon -(perhaps the only record of Stephen being there), is witnessed -by W[illiam] Martel, A[ubrey] de Ver, and E[ustace] fitz -John. The name of this last witness<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1101" id="Ref_1101" href="#Foot_1101">[1101]</a></span> dates the charter as -previous to 1138 (when he threw over Stephen), and, virtually, -to the king's departure for Normandy early in 1137. Consequently -(and this is an important point) we here have Stephen -granting, as a favour, to Barking Abbey what he had promised -in his great charter to grant universally.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1102" id="Ref_1102" href="#Foot_1102">[1102]</a></span> This confirms the -charge made by Henry of Huntingdon that he repudiated the -concession he had made. His subsequent troubles, however, -must have made it difficult for him to adhere to this policy, -or check the process of assarting. His grant to the abbess was -unknown to Mr. Fisher, who records an inquest of 1292, by -which it was found that the woods of the abbess were "without -the Regard;" and the Regarders were forbidden to exercise -their authority within them.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1096" id="Foot_1096" href="#Ref_1096">[1096]</a> -"Ut de hiis essartis dicantur quieti, quæ fuerant <i>ante diem quâ rex -illustris Henricus primus rebus humanis exemptus est</i>" (Dialogus, i. 11). The -reason for the restriction is added.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1097" id="Foot_1097" href="#Ref_1097">[1097]</a> -See, for instance, <i>The Forest of Essex</i> (Fisher), p. 313.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1098" id="Foot_1098" href="#Ref_1098">[1098]</a> -As a matter of fact, her son's succession was marked by the exaction of -heavy sums, under this head, as shown by the extracts from his first Pipe-Roll -in the Red book of the Exchequer.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1099" id="Foot_1099" href="#Ref_1099">[1099]</a> -Pat. 2 Hen. VI., p. 3, m. 18.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1100" id="Foot_1100" href="#Ref_1100">[1100]</a> -"Reddo et concedo ecclesiæ Berchingie et Abbatissæ Adel[iciæ] omnes -boscos et terras suas ... quas Henricus Rex afforestavit, ut illas excolat et -hospitetur."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1101" id="Foot_1101" href="#Ref_1101">[1101]</a> -Probably present as a brother of the abbess ("Soror Pagani filii -Johannis").</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1102" id="Foot_1102" href="#Ref_1102">[1102]</a> -"Omnes forestas quas rex Henricus superaddidit ecclesiis et regno -quietas reddo et concedo."</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_379" id="Page_379">{379}</a></span> - -<h3>APPENDIX S.<br /> -<small>THE TREATY OF ALLIANCE BETWEEN THE EARLS OF HEREFORD AND GLOUCESTER.</small></h3> - -<p class="center small">(See p. <a href="#Page_176">176</a>.)</p> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">The</span> -document which is printed below is unknown, it would -seem, to historians. It is of a very singular and, in many ways, -of a most instructive character. The fact that Earl Miles is -one of the contracting parties dates the document as belonging -to the period between his creation (July 25, 1141) and his -death (December 24, 1143). Further, the fact that the treaty -provides for the surrender by him to the Earl of Gloucester of -one of his sons as a hostage, taken with the fact that the Earl -of Gloucester is recorded (<i>supra</i>, p. 196) to have demanded -from his leading supporters their sons as hostages when he left -England for Normandy, creates an extremely strong presumption -that this document should be assigned to that occasion -(June, 1142). It is here printed from a transcript by Dugdale, -which I found among his MSS. The absence of any provision -defining the services to be rendered by Earl Miles suggests that -this portion of the treaty is omitted in the transcript. There is, -I think, just a chance that the original may yet be discovered -among the public records, for they fortunately contain a similar -treaty between the sons and successors of the two contracting -parties.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1103" id="Ref_1103" href="#Foot_1103">[1103]</a></span> It may be, however, that the original is the document -referred to by Dugdale (<i>Baronage</i>, i. 537) as "penes Joh. Philipot -Somerset Heraldum anno 1640." The close resemblance between -the later document<span class="fnanchor"><a href="#Foot_1103">[1103]</a></span> -and that which I here print confirms the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_380" id="Page_380">{380}</a></span> -authenticity of the latter, and is, it will be seen, illustrated by -the wording of the opening clauses:—</p> - -<table class="multi" summary="multi-18"> - - <colgroup> - <col span="2" style="width:48%" /> - </colgroup> - -<tr> - <td>Noscant omnes hanc esse confederationem amoris inter Robertum - Comitem Gloecestrie et Milonem Comitem Herefordie.</td> - <td>Hæc est confederatio amoris inter Willelmum Comitem Gloec[estrie] - et Rogerum comitem Herefordie.</td> -</tr> - -</table> - -<p class="nodent">We have also the noteworthy coincidence that Richard de St. -Quintin and Hugh de Hese, who are here hostages respectively -for the Earls of Gloucester and Hereford, figure again in the -later document as hostages for the earls' successors.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1104" id="Ref_1104" href="#Foot_1104">[1104]</a></span></p> - -<p>Another document with which this treaty should be carefully -compared is the remarkable agreement, in the same reign, -between the Earls of Chester and of Leicester,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1105" id="Ref_1105" href="#Foot_1105">[1105]</a></span> though this latter -suggests by its title—"Hæc est conventio ... et finalis pax et -concordia," etc.—the settlement of a strife between them rather -than a friendly alliance. I see in it, indeed, the intervention, -if not the arbitration, of the Church.</p> - -<p>Both these alliances, again, should be compared, for their -form, with the treaty between Henry I. and Count Robert of -Flanders.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1106" id="Ref_1106" href="#Foot_1106">[1106]</a></span> Although a generation earlier than the document -here printed, the parallels are very striking:—</p> - -<table class="multi" summary="multi-18"> - - <colgroup> - <col span="2" style="width:48%" /> - </colgroup> - -<tr> - <td>Robertus, Comes Flandriæ, fide et sacramento assecuravit Regi - Henrico vitam suam et membra quæ corpori suo pertinent ... et quod - juvabit eum, etc.<br /><br /> - Porro Comitissa affidavit, quod, quantum poterit, Comitem in hac - conventione tenebit, et in amicitia regis, et in prædicto servitio - fideliter per amorem.<br /><br /> - Hujus conventionis tenendæ ex parte Comitis obsides sunt subscripti.... - Quod si Comes ab hac conventione exierit et ... infra <small>XL</small> - dies emendare noluerit, etc.</td> - <td>Robertus, Comes Gloecestrie assecuravit Milonem Comitem Herefordie - fide et sacramento, ut custodiet illi pro toto posse suo et sine - ingenio suam vitam et suum membrum ... et auxiliabitur illi, etc.<br /><br /> - Et in hac ipsa confederatione amoris, affidavit Comitissa Gloecestrie - quod suum dominum in hoc amore erga Milonem Comitem Hereford pro posse - suo tenebit.<br /><br /> - Et de hac conventione tenendâ ex parte Comitis Gloecestrie sunt hii - obsides, etc.... Quod si Comes Gloecestrie de hac conventione - exiret.... Et si infra <small>XL</small> dies se nollet erga Comitem - Herefordie erigere, etc.</td> -</tr> - -</table> - -<div class="pagenum"><a name="Page_381" id="Page_381">{381}</a></div> - -<h4 class="smc">The Treaty.</h4> - -<p>Noscant omnes hanc esse confederationem amoris inter Robertum -Comitem Gloecestrie et Milonem Comitem Herefordie, -Robertus Comes Gloecestrie assecuravit Milonem Comitem -Herefordie fide et sacramento ut custodiet illi pro toto posse -suo et sine ingenio suam vitam et suum membrum et terrenum -suum honorem, et auxiliabitur illi ad custodiendum sua castella -et sua recta et sua hereditaria et sua tenementa et sua conquisita -quæ modo habet et quæ faciet, et suas consuetudines et -rectitudines et suas libertates in bosco et in plano et aquis, et -quod sua hereditaria quæ modo non habet auxiliabitur ad conquirendum. -Et si aliquis vellet inde Comiti Hereford malum -facere, vel de aliquo decrescere, si comes Hereford vellet inde -guerrare, quod Robertus comes Gloecestrie cum illo se teneret, -et quod ad suum posse illi auxiliaretur per fidem et sine ingenio, -nec pacem neque treuias cum illis haberet qui malum comiti -Herefordiæ inferret, nisi per bonum velle et grantam (<i>sic</i>) -Comitis Herefordiæ, et nominatim de hac guerra quæ modo -est inter Imperatricem et Regem Stephanum se cum comite -Hereford tenebit et ad unum opus erit, et de omnibus aliis -guerris.</p> - -<p>Et in hac ipsa confederatione amoris affidavit Comitissa -Gloecestrie quod suum dominum in hoc amore erga -Milonem Comitem Hereford pro posse suo tenebit. Et si inde -exiret, ad suum posse illum ad hoc reponeret. Et si non -posset, legalem recordationem, si opus esset, inde faceret ad -suum scire.</p> - -<p>Et de hac conventione firmiter tenendâ ex parte Comitis -Gloecestrie sunt hii obsides per fidem et sacramentum erga -Comitem Hereford: hoc modo, quod si comes Gloecestrie de -hac conventione exiret, dominum suum Comitem Gloecestrie -requirerent ut se erga Comitem Herefordiæ erigeret. Et si -infra xl dies se nollet erga Comitem Herefordie erigere, se -Comiti Herefordie liberarent, ad faciendum de illis suum velle, -vel ad illos retinendum in suo servitio donec illos quietos clamaret -vel ad illos ponendos ad legalem redemptionem ita ne terrâ -[? terram] perderent. Et quod legalem recordationem de hac -conventione facerent si opus esset, Guefridus de Waltervill, Ricardus -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_382" id="Page_382">{382}</a></span> -de Greinvill,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1107" id="Ref_1107" href="#Foot_1107">[1107]</a></span> Osbernus Ottdevers,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1108" id="Ref_1108" href="#Foot_1108">[1108]</a></span> Reinald de Cahagnis,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1109" id="Ref_1109" href="#Foot_1109">[1109]</a></span> -Hubertus Dapifer, Odo Sorus,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1110" id="Ref_1110" href="#Foot_1110">[1110]</a></span> Gislebertus de Umfravil,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1111" id="Ref_1111" href="#Foot_1111">[1111]</a></span> -Ricardus de Sancto Quintino.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1112" id="Ref_1112" href="#Foot_1112">[1112]</a></span></p> - -<p>Et ex parte Milonis Comitis Hereford ad istud confirmandum -concessit Milo Comes Hereford Roberto Comiti Gloecestrie -Mathielum filium suum tenendum in obsidem donec guerra -inter Imperatricem et Regem Stephanum et Henricum filium -Imperatricis finiatur.</p> - -<p>Et interim si Milo Comes Hereford voluerit aliquem alium de -suis filiis, qui sanus sit, in loco Mathieli filii sui ponere, recipietur.</p> - -<p>Et postquam guerra finita fuerit et Robertus Comes Gloecestrie -et Milo Comes Hereford terras suas et sua recta rehabuerint -reddet Robertus Comes Gloecestrie Miloni Comiti Herefordie -filium suum. Et hinc de probis hominibus utriusque -comitis considerabuntur et capientur obsides et securitates de -amore ipsorum comitum tenendo imperpetuum.</p> - -<p>Et de hac conventione amoris Rogerus filius Comitis Hereford -affidavit et juravit Comiti Gloecestrie quod patrem suum pro posse -suo tenebit; Et si Comes Hereford inde vellet exire, Rogerus filius -suus, inde illum requireret et inde illum corrigeret. Et si Comes -Hereford se inde erigere nollet, servicium ipsius Rogeri filii sui -prorsus perdet, donec se erga Comitem Gloecestrie erexisset.</p> - -<p>Et de hac conventione ex parte Comitis Hereford sunt hii -sui homines obsides erga Comitem Gloecestrie et per sacramenta; -hoc modo, quod si Comes Hereford de hac conventione -exiret, dominum suum Comitem Hereford requirerent ut se erga -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_383" id="Page_383">{383}</a></span> -Comitem Gloecestrie erigeret. Et si infra xl dies se nollet erga -Comitem Gloecestrie erigere se Comiti Gloecestrie liberarent ad -faciendum de illis suum velle, vel ad illos retinendum in suo -servicio donec illos quietos clamaret, vel ad illos ponendos ad -legalem redemptionem, ita ne terram perdent. Et quod legalem -recordationem de hac conventione in Curia facerent si opus -esset, Robertus Corbet, Willelmus Mansel, Hugo de la Hese.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1103" id="Foot_1103" href="#Ref_1103">[1103]</a> -Duchy of Lancaster: Ancient Charters, Box A. No. 4 (<i>Thirty-Fifth -Report of Deputy Keeper</i> (1874), p. 2).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1104" id="Foot_1104" href="#Ref_1104">[1104]</a> -A somewhat similar treaty to this may be hinted at in the statement -that Roger de Berkeley was connected with Walter de Gloucester "amicitia -et alternæ pacis fœdere sibi astrictum" (<i>Gesta Stephani</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1105" id="Foot_1105" href="#Ref_1105">[1105]</a> -<i>Cott. MS.</i>, Nero, C. iii. fol. 178.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1106" id="Foot_1106" href="#Ref_1106">[1106]</a> -Printed in Hearne's <i>Liber Niger</i> (i. 16-23).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1107" id="Foot_1107" href="#Ref_1107">[1107]</a> -Richard de Greinvill appears in 1166 as the <i>late</i> holder of seven knights' -fees from the earl (<i>Liber Niger</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1108" id="Foot_1108" href="#Ref_1108">[1108]</a> -Osbern Ottdevers (<i>i.e.</i> Ottde<i>n</i>ers) was Osbern Octodenarii, <i>alias</i> Octonummi -(see Appendix Q). He appears in 1166 as the <i>late</i> tenant of one -knight's fee from the earl <i>in Kent</i> (<i>ibid.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1109" id="Foot_1109" href="#Ref_1109">[1109]</a> -Philip "de Chahaines" appears as a tenant of the earl in 1166 -(<i>ibid.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1110" id="Foot_1110" href="#Ref_1110">[1110]</a> -An Odo Sorus is alleged to have accompanied Robert fitz Hamon into -Wales. Jordan Sorus was the largest tenant of the earl in 1166, holding fifteen -knights' fees from him (<i>Liber Niger</i>). His predecessor, Robert Sorus, had -held of the fief under Robert fitz Hamon <i>circ.</i> 1107 (<i>Cart. Abingdon</i>, ii. 96, 106).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1111" id="Foot_1111" href="#Ref_1111">[1111]</a> -Gilbert de Umfravill held nine knights' fees from the earl in 1166 (<i>Liber -Niger</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1112" id="Foot_1112" href="#Ref_1112">[1112]</a> -Richard de St. Quintin held ten knights' fees from the earl in 1166 -(<i>ibid.</i>). His family had been tenants of the fief even under Robert fitz -Hamon (<i>Cart. Abingdon</i>, ii. 96, 106).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_384" id="Page_384">{384}</a></span> - -<h3>APPENDIX T.<br /> -<small>"AFFIDATIO IN MANU."</small></h3> - -<p class="center small">(See p. <a href="#Page_177">177</a>.)</p> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">"Hanc</span> -autem ... affidavi manu mea propria in manu ipsius -Comitis Gaufredi." This formula ("affidavi ... in manu") -is deserving of careful study. It ought to be compared with -a passage in the <i>Chronicle of Abingdon</i> (ii. 160), describing how, -some quarter of a century before, in the assembled county -court (<i>comitatus</i>) of Berkshire, the delegate of the abbey, "pro -ecclesiâ affidavit fidem in manu ipsius vicecomitis, vidente -toto comitatu." This was a case of "affidatio" by proxy; but -in the above charter we find Geoffrey stipulating for "affidatio" -in person ("propria manu") by the Empress, her husband, and -her son. Accordingly, when the young Henry confirms his -mother's charter to Aubrey de Vere (see p. 186), he does so -"manu mea propria in manu Hugonis de Inga, sicut mater -mea Imperatrix affidavit in manu Comitis Gaufredi." Thus -Geoffrey allowed himself the privilege, which he refused to -the other contracting party, of "affidatio" by proxy, and made -Hugh de Ing his delegate for the purpose.</p> - -<p>A curious allusion to this practice is found in the words of -Ranulf Flambard some half a century earlier, when he promises -the captor in whose power he was to grant him all that he can -ask, "et ne discredas promissis, ecce <i>manu affirmo</i> quod polliceor."—Continuatio -Historiæ Turgoti (<i>Anglia Sacra</i>, i. 707). -The formula was probably of great antiquity. It occurs in the -lifetime of Archbishop Oswald (died 992), who obtained a -lease for life on behalf of a certain Wulfric, of the provisions -in which we read: "Hoc totum idem Wlfricus, sub oculis -multorum qui aderant, <i>in manu</i> viri Dei qui pro eo intercessor -accesserat <i>affidavit</i>" (<i>Chron. Ram.</i>, p. 81). It is found, however, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_385" id="Page_385">{385}</a></span> -as late as 1187, when at the foundation of Dodnash -Priory the canons "juraverunt et fidem <i>in manu nostra</i> corporaliter -... firmaverunt," says the bishop (<i>Ancient Charters</i>, -p. 88). Another late instance is found in the <i>Burton Cartulary</i> -(fol. 33), where Robert fitz Walter, that his grant "inconcussum -permaneat, in toto comitatu, multis cementibus qui se -ipsos testes concesserunt, in manu Vicecomitis Serlonis manu -meâ hoc tenendum et servandum affidavi." So also in the Pipe-Roll -of 3 John we find recorded a lease, "et quod ipse Micael -et Everardus frater suus affidaverunt in manu H. Cantuarensis -Arch. hanc Conventionem fideliter tenendam" (Rot. 6 <i>b</i>). An -instance, in 1159, may be quoted from the <i>Cartulary of St. Michael -on the Mount</i> because of its curious legal bearing. Robert de -Belvoir mortgages to the abbey lands which he had settled -on his wife in dower, and, in order to bar her claim, she, -<i>by her brother</i>, guarantees the transaction by "affidatio in -manu" to the abbot's delegate.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1113" id="Ref_1113" href="#Foot_1113">[1113]</a></span> This arrangement should be -compared with that which is discussed in my <i>Ancient Charters</i>, -pp. 22, 23.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1114" id="Ref_1114" href="#Foot_1114">[1114]</a></span> Perhaps, however, the most singular case is one -which I noted in the <i>Cartulary</i> (MS.) <i>of Rievaulx</i>, and which -is also of the reign of Henry II. A widow grants lands to -that abbey, "et illam donationem tenendam et fideliter observandam -manu propria affidavit in manu Vicecomitissæ, vid. -Bert[æ] uxoris vicecomitis Ranulfi de Glanvill[a]."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1115" id="Ref_1115" href="#Foot_1115">[1115]</a></span> The -conjunction here of the two women, the presence of the great -Glanville himself, and the part played by his wife, together -with the title assigned her, all combine to render the transaction -one of unusual interest.</p> - -<p>It was by this formal and binding pledge that the leaders -of the English host swore to one another to do or die on the -field of the Battle of the Standard. Turning to William of -Aumâle, and placing his hand in his, Walter Espec pledged -his faith that he would conquer or be slain; and his fellow-commanders -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_386" id="Page_386">{386}</a></span> -did the same."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1116" id="Ref_1116" href="#Foot_1116">[1116]</a></span> It was, again, by this solemn -pledge, towards the close of Stephen's reign, that the Bishop -of Winchester, before his brother prelates, covenanted to surrender -Winchester to the duke at the king's death<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1117" id="Ref_1117" href="#Foot_1117">[1117]</a></span>—even as -the duke himself had covenanted (April 9, 1152) with the -Bishop of Salisbury concerning Devizes Castle<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1118" id="Ref_1118" href="#Foot_1118">[1118]</a></span>—in terms to be -closely compared with those of his charter to Aubrey, and his -mother's to Earl Geoffrey in 1142.</p> - -<p>The practice is, I find, alluded to, incidentally, by Giraldus -Cambrensis, who tells us that the Welsh "Adeo fidei fœdus, -aliis inviolabile gentibus, parvipendere solent, ut non in seriis -solum et necessariis, verum in ludicris, omnique fere verbo -firmando, <i>dextræ manus ut mos est porrectione, signo usuali dato</i>, -fidem gratis effundere consueverint." Here the point of the -complaint is that they made light of this solemn practice, -indulging in it freely on every occasion instead of reserving it -for important matters. The existence of this archaic "fidei -fœdus" as the <i>formal confirmation</i> of a contract is, of course, -of the greatest interest. It still lingers on, not only with us, -but abroad. In San Marino (Italy), for instance, "sales are -conducted with much animation. Two sturdy proprietors -stand back to back.... A third party stands between the -two; ... he pulls one by the shoulder, the other by an elbow, -and finally by an apparently acrobatic feat <i>he unites their -hands</i>" ("A Political Survival," <i>Macmillan's</i>, January, 1891, p. -197). In the Lebanon, we are told by a well-informed writer: -"A few months ago I had occasion to enter into a business -contract with one of my Druse farmers. When we were about -to draw up the agreement, the Druse suggested that, as he -could neither read nor write, we should ratify the bargain in -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_387" id="Page_387">{387}</a></span> -the manner customary among his people. This consists of a -solemn grasping of hands together in the presence of two or -three other Druses as witnesses, whilst the agreement is recited -by both parties.... Accordingly, the farmer brought three -of his neighbours to me; and the terms of our contract having -been made known to them, one of them took the right hand of -each of us and joined them together, whilst he dictated to us -what to say after him" ("The Druses," <i>Blackwood's</i>, January, -1891, pp. 754, 755). With us, Gerald would be grieved to -hear, the ancient form survives not only for the bargain but -the bet, though it only continues in full vigour as the sign of -the marriage contract, where "the minister ... shall cause -the man with his right hand to take the woman by her right -hand, and to say after him as followeth,"—even as the Druses, -we have seen, make their contracts to-day, and as the Empress -Maud sealed her own seven centuries ago.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1119" id="Ref_1119" href="#Foot_1119">[1119]</a></span></p> - -<p>The allusion by the Empress to the "Christianitas Angliæ" -refers doubtless to the fact that the breach of such "affidatio" -would constitute a "læsio fidei," and would thus become a -matter for the jurisdiction of the courts Christian. It was -indeed on this plea that these courts claimed to attract to -themselves all cases of contract, a claim against which, it is -necessary to explain, an article (No. 15) of the Constitutions -of Clarendon (1164) was specially directed.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1120" id="Ref_1120" href="#Foot_1120">[1120]</a></span></p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1113" id="Foot_1113" href="#Ref_1113">[1113]</a> -"Invadiavit Rotbertus de Belueer pro sex libris Cenomannensium, terram -suam quam dederat uxori sue in dotem, ipsa bene hoc concedente, Philippo -fratri insuper fide sua in manu Johannis filii Bigoti illud idem sororem suam -tenere assecurante" (fol. 116).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1114" id="Foot_1114" href="#Ref_1114">[1114]</a> -Ed. Pipe-Roll Society.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1115" id="Foot_1115" href="#Ref_1115">[1115]</a> -"Hiis testibus, Ranulfo vicecomite, Bertha vicecomitissâ, Matilda -filia ejus."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1116" id="Foot_1116" href="#Ref_1116">[1116]</a> -"Hæc dicens vertit se ad comitem Albemarlensem, dataque dextera, -'Do,' inquit, 'fidem quia hodie aut vincam Scottos aut occidar a Scottis.' -Quo similiter voto cuncti se proceres constrixerunt" (Æthelred of Rievaulx).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1117" id="Foot_1117" href="#Ref_1117">[1117]</a> -"Episcopus Wintonie in manu archiepiscopi Cantuarensis coram episcopis -affidavit quod si ego decederem castra Wintonie ... Duci redderet."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1118" id="Foot_1118" href="#Ref_1118">[1118]</a> -"Hunc supradictam conventionem ... affidavit idem Comes (<i>sic</i>) in -manu domini Cantuarensis archiepiscopi ... sine malo ingenio tenendam; -et cum eo Comes Gloucestrie.... Similiter et dominus episcopus Sarum -affidavit in manu ejusdem Legati," etc. (<i>Sarum Charters and Documents</i>, -pp. 22, 23).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1119" id="Foot_1119" href="#Ref_1119">[1119]</a> -Compare the old English term "Handfasting." The law in Austria, -it is said, still recognizes the clasping of hands as a formal contract.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1120" id="Foot_1120" href="#Ref_1120">[1120]</a> -"Placita de debitis, quæ <i>fide interposita</i> debentur, ... sint in justitia -regis."</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_388" id="Page_388">{388}</a></span> - -<h3>APPENDIX U.<br /> -<small>THE FAMILIES OF MANDEVILLE AND DE VERE.</small></h3> - -<p class="center small">(See p. <a href="#Page_178">178</a>.)</p> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">The</span> -confusion on the pedigree and relationship of these two -families is due, in the first place, to the fact that, for several -generations, the successive heads of the family of De Vere -were all named Aubrey ("Albericus"); and in the second, to -a chronicle of Walden Abbey, which proves as inaccurate as to -the marriage of its founder as it is on the date of his creation.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1121" id="Ref_1121" href="#Foot_1121">[1121]</a></span> -Dugdale, accepting all its statements without the slightest -hesitation, has combined in a single passage no less than three -errors, together with the means for their detection.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1122" id="Ref_1122" href="#Foot_1122">[1122]</a></span> Among -these is the statement that Geoffrey's wife was a daughter of -Aubrey de Vere, "Earl of Oxford."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1123" id="Ref_1123" href="#Foot_1123">[1123]</a></span> Accordingly, she so -figures in Dugdale's tabular pedigree, and the same error has -now reappeared in Mr. Doyle's <i>Official Baronage</i>.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1124" id="Ref_1124" href="#Foot_1124">[1124]</a></span> Oddly -enough, in his account of the De Veres, a few pages before, -Dugdale makes Geoffrey's wife daughter not of the Earl of -Oxford, but of his grandfather Aubrey,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1125" id="Ref_1125" href="#Foot_1125">[1125]</a></span> and so enters her in -the tabular pedigree.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1126" id="Ref_1126" href="#Foot_1126">[1126]</a></span> And yet she was, in truth, daughter -neither of the earl nor of his grandfather, but of his father, -the chamberlain.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1127" id="Ref_1127" href="#Foot_1127">[1127]</a></span> To establish this will now be my task.</p> - -<p>Between the Aubrey de Vere of Domesday and the Aubrey -de Vere "senior" of the <i>Cartulary of Abingdon Abbey</i>, about -twenty years are interposed. Their identity, therefore, is not -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_389" id="Page_389">{389}</a></span> -actually proved, though the presumption, of course, is in its -favour. But from the time of the latter Aubrey all is clear. -The descent that we obtain from the Abingdon Cartulary is as -follows:—</p> - -<pre> - - Aubrey = Beatrice, - de Vere, | - "senior." | - | - +----------------+-----------+-+----------+-----------+ - | | | | | - Geoffrey Aubrey de Roger de Robert de William - (or Godfrey), Vere, Vere. Vere. de Vere, - ob. v. p. at "junior" died soon - Abingdon. (afterwards after his - "camerarius father. - Regis"), - d. 1141. - -</pre> - -<p>Our next source of information is the <i>Cartulary of Colne -Priory</i>,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1128" id="Ref_1128" href="#Foot_1128">[1128]</a></span> in combination with an invaluable tract, <i>De miraculis -S. Osythæ</i>, composed by William de Vere, a brother of the first -earl, and a canon of St. Osyth's Priory, Essex. Dugdale was -acquainted with both documents, but lost the full force of the -latter by failing to identify its author. He gives us as sons -to Aubrey the chamberlain, and brothers to Aubrey the first -earl, (<i>a</i>) William de Vere, (<i>b</i>) —— de Vere, canon of St. -Osyth's. The identity of the two is proved, first, by a charter -of Aubrey the chamberlain, in which he speaks of his "reverend" -son William;<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1129" id="Ref_1129" href="#Foot_1129">[1129]</a></span> secondly, by a charter of Aubrey the -earl, witnessed by his brother William, "presbyter;"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1130" id="Ref_1130" href="#Foot_1130">[1130]</a></span> thirdly, -by the charter from the Empress to the earl, in which she -provides for all his brothers, the chancellorship, a clerical post, -being promised to William.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1131" id="Ref_1131" href="#Foot_1131">[1131]</a></span> We may further assert of this tract -that it must have been written after 1163, for the canon tells -us that his mother has spent her twenty-two years of widowhood -at St. Osyth, and her husband had been killed in 1141.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1132" id="Ref_1132" href="#Foot_1132">[1132]</a></span> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_390" id="Page_390">{390}</a></span> -In it he refers to his father the chamberlain,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1133" id="Ref_1133" href="#Foot_1133">[1133]</a></span> as "justitiarius -totius Angliæ." To this we may trace Dugdale's assertion -that he held that high office, a statement which exercised -the mind of Foss, who complains that "it is difficult to tell on -what authority" he is introduced among its holders both by -Dugdale and Spelman.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1134" id="Ref_1134" href="#Foot_1134">[1134]</a></span> He further speaks of his mother as -"Adeliza," daughter of Gilbert de Clare, and exults in the fact -that she has spent her widowhood, not in the family priory at -Colne, but in that of his own St. Osyth. He refers also to his -sister "Adeliza de Essexâ filia Alberici de Vere et Adelizæ." -Now, we have abundant evidence that "Adeliza de Essex" was -sister to the Countess Rohese, wife of Geoffrey de Mandeville, -and was aunt to their sons, Earls of Essex.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1135" id="Ref_1135" href="#Foot_1135">[1135]</a></span> Accordingly, we -find the Countess Rohese giving a rent-charge to Colne Priory -for the souls of her father, Aubrey de Vere, and her husband, -Earl Geoffrey, and we also find her son, Earl William, confirming -the charter "avi mei Alberici de Vere."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1136" id="Ref_1136" href="#Foot_1136">[1136]</a></span> It is quite clear -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_391" id="Page_391">{391}</a></span> -that the Countess Rohese, wife of Geoffrey de Mandeville, first -Earl of Essex, was sister of Alice "de Essex," and daughter of -Aubrey de Vere the chamberlain, by his wife Alice, daughter of -Gilbert de Clare.</p> - -<p>But who was Alice "de Essex"? We must turn, for an -answer to this question, to the <i>Chronicle of Walden Abbey</i>. -There we shall find that she married twice, and left issue by -both husbands. Her first husband was Robert de Essex<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1137" id="Ref_1137" href="#Foot_1137">[1137]</a></span>; her -second was Roger fitz Richard, of Clavering, Essex, and Warkworth, -Northumberland, ancestor of the Claverings. Now, -"Robert de Essex" was a well-known man, being son and heir -of Swegen de Essex, Sheriff of Essex under William the Conqueror, -and grandson of Robert "fitz Wimarc," a favourite of -the Confessor, under whom he, too, was Sheriff of Essex. The -descent is proved, in a conclusive manner, by the description -of the second Robert among the benefactors to Lewes Priory, -in one place as Robert fitz Suein, and in another as Robert de -Essex.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1138" id="Ref_1138" href="#Foot_1138">[1138]</a></span> Robert had founded Prittlewell Priory as a cell to -Lewes, "Alberico de Ver et Roberto fratre ejus" attesting the -foundation charter.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1139" id="Ref_1139" href="#Foot_1139">[1139]</a></span> Robert's son and heir was the well-known -Henry de Essex.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1140" id="Ref_1140" href="#Foot_1140">[1140]</a></span> So far all is clear. But, unfortunately, it -is certain that Robert de Essex left a widow, Gunnor—a Bigod -by birth—who was mother of his son Henry. Therefore -"Alice of Essex" cannot have been his widow. Consequently -she must have been the widow of another Robert de Essex, -possibly a younger son of his, who held Clavering from his -elder brother Henry. In any case, by her second husband, -Roger fitz Richard, Alice was mother of Robert fitz Roger (of -Clavering).</p> - -<p>We are now in a position to construct an authentic tabular -pedigree, showing the relationship that existed between the -families of Mandeville and De Vere.</p> - -<div class="pagenum"><a name="Page_392" id="Page_392">{392}</a></div> - -<pre> - - William de Aubrey = Alice - Mandeville. de Vere, | de Clare, - | created Great | dau. of - | Chamberlain | Gilbert de - | 1133, | Clare, - | died 1141. | died _circ._ - | | 1163. - +---------+--------+ +-----------+------------ - | | | - William = Beatrice de (1) Geoffrey de = Rohese = (2) Payn de - de Say. | Mandeville. Mandeville, | de Vere, | Beauchamp, - | 1ST EARL OF | said to | of Bedford. - | ESSEX, d. 1144. | have died | - | | 1207. | - +--+---------+ +--------+------+ +-------+ - | | | | | - William Geoffrey Geoffrey de William de Simon de - de Say, de Say. Mandeville, Mandeville, Beauchamp. - ancestor of | 2ND EARL OF 3RD EARL OF | - Fitz Piers, | ESSEX, ESSEX, | - Earls of | d. 1166. d. 1189. | - Essex. | | - | | | - | | | - ↓ ↓ ↓ - Arms. Arms. Arms. - "_Quarterly, "_Quarterly, "_Quarterly, - or and or and or and gules_, - gules._" gules._" a bend." - -</pre> - -<pre class="gap-above2"> - - Aubrey = Alice - de Vere, | de Clare, - created Great | dau. of - Chamberlain | Gilbert de - 1133, | Clare, - died 1141. | died _circ._ - | 1163. - --------------------+-----------------------------+ - | | - (1) Robert = Alice = (2) Roger fitz Aubrey de - de Essex. de Vere. | Richard of Vere, - | Warkworth. 1ST EARL OF - | OXFORD. - | | - | | - | | - Robert fitz Aubrey - Roger of de Vere, - Clavering 2ND EARL OF - and OXFORD. - Warkworth. | - | | - | | - | | - ↓ ↓ - Arms. Arms. - "_Quarterly, _Quarterly, gu. - or and gules_, and or_, a - a bend sable." mullet argent - in the first - quarter. - -</pre> - -<div class="pagenum"><a name="Page_393" id="Page_393">{393}</a></div> - -<p>It should be observed that this pedigree is not intended to -show all the children. It gives those only which are required -for our special purpose. On some points there is still need of -more original information. No doubt Beatrice, wife of William -de Say, was sister, and not daughter, to Geoffrey de Mandeville. -I know of nothing to the contrary. Still the fact would -seem to rest on the authority of the <i>Walden Chronicle</i>. The -re-marriage of the Countess of Essex to Payn de Beauchamp, -and her parentage, by him, of Simon, are both well established, -but the date of her death is taken from the <i>Chronicle</i>, and seems -suspiciously late. So also does that which is assigned to her -brother, the Earl of Oxford, namely, 1194, fifty-two years after -the charter of the Empress. Still, the fact that his mother -survived her husband for twenty-two years implies that her -children may have been comparatively young at his death. -Both Aubrey and Rohese may therefore have been several -years junior to Geoffrey de Mandeville.</p> - -<p>But the main point has been, in any case, established, -namely, the true relationship of these baronial houses. That -which is given by Dugdale contains the further error of representing -Alice de Vere as wife, not of Robert de Essex, but -of Henry. Mr. W. S. Ellis, in his <i>Antiquities of Heraldry</i> -(p. 210), observes with truth that, as to this relationship, the -existing "accounts ... are conflicting, and that of Dugdale -contradictory." But I cannot admit that his own version is -"correct, or approximately so;" for while, with Dugdale, he -errs in assigning to Alice de Vere Henry de Essex for husband, -he transforms Roger fitz Richard, whom Dugdale had, rightly, -given as her second husband, into her son-in-law.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1141" id="Ref_1141" href="#Foot_1141">[1141]</a></span></p> - -<p>My reason for alluding to this passage is that, after I had -worked out the heraldic corollaries of this descent in their -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_394" id="Page_394">{394}</a></span> -bearing on the adoption of coat-armour, I found that I had -been anticipated in this investigation by the author of that -scholarly work, <i>The Antiquities of Heraldry</i>. As the conclusions, -however, at which I had arrived differ slightly from -those of Mr. Ellis, it may be worth while to set them forth.</p> - -<p>Mr. Ellis writes thus of "the simple <small>QUARTERLY</small> shield":—</p> - -<p class="small">"There can be little doubt that the source of this honoured armorial ensign -is to be found in the distinguished family of <span class="smc">De Vere</span>, as all the families in -the table who bear it are descended from the head of that house who lived -at the commencement of the twelfth century."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1142" id="Ref_1142" href="#Foot_1142">[1142]</a></span></p> - -<p class="nodent">I should differ with no slight hesitation from so ably argued -and erudite a work, were it not that, in this case, its conclusions -are based on a false premiss. Thus we read, further -on:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Which was the original bearer of the quarterly coat of De Vere? Was it -Say, or Mandeville, or Lacy, or Beauchamp, or was it De Vere, from whom -all, or their wives were descended?"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1143" id="Ref_1143" href="#Foot_1143">[1143]</a></span></p> - -<p class="nodent">Now, "the table" given by the writer himself (p. 210) disproves -this statement, for it rightly shows us Say as descended -from Mandeville, but <i>not</i> descended from De Vere. It is, -therefore, shown by his own "table" that this <i>must</i> have been -a case of the "collateral adoption" of arms, the very practice -against which he here strenuously argues.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1144" id="Ref_1144" href="#Foot_1144">[1144]</a></span> Thus the very -case he adduces against the existence of the practice is itself -proof absolute that the practice did exist. I am compelled to -emphasize this point because it is the pivot on which the -question turns. If "all the families in the table" who bore -the quarterly coat were indeed descended from De Vere, Mr. -Ellis's theory would account for the facts. But, by his own -showing, they were not. Some other explanation must therefore -be sought.</p> - -<p>That which had originally occurred to myself, and to which -I am still compelled to adhere, is that "the original bearer" -of this quarterly coat was the central figure of this family -group, Geoffrey de Mandeville himself. It being, as I have -shown, absolutely clear that there must have been collateral -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_395" id="Page_395">{395}</a></span> -adoption, the only question that remains to be decided is from -which of the two family stems, Mandeville or De Vere, was -the coat adopted? My first reason for selecting the former -is that the first Earl of Essex was far and away, at the time, -the greatest personage of the group. Aubrey de Vere figures, -at Oxford, as his dependant rather than as his equal. On this -ground, then, it seems to me far more probable that Aubrey -should have adopted his arms from Geoffrey than that Geoffrey -should have adopted his from Aubrey. The second reason is -this. Science and analogy point to the fact that the simplest -form of the coat is, of necessity, the most original. Now, the -simplest form of this coat, its only "undifferenced" variety, -is that borne by the Earls of Essex. We do not obtain recorded -blazons till the reign of Henry III., but when we do, it is as -"quartele de or & de goulez" that the coat of the Earl of -Essex, the namesake of Geoffrey de Mandeville, first meets us.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1145" id="Ref_1145" href="#Foot_1145">[1145]</a></span> -But all the descendants of De Vere, it would seem, bear this -coat "differenced," that of De Vere itself being charged with a -mullet in the first quarter, the tinctures also (perhaps for distinction) -being in this case reversed.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1146" id="Ref_1146" href="#Foot_1146">[1146]</a></span> Thus heraldry, as well -as genealogy, favours the claim of Mandeville as the original -bearer of the coat.</p> - -<p>It has been generally asserted in works on Heraldry that -Geoffrey de Mandeville added an escarbuncle to his simple -paternal coat, and that it is still to be seen on the shield of -his effigy among the monuments at the Temple Church. But -antiquaries have now abandoned the belief that this is indeed -his effigy, and the original statement is taken only from that -<i>Chronicle of Walden</i> which is in error in its statements on his -foundation, on his creation, on his marriage, and on his death. -Nor is there a trace of such a charge on the shields of any of -his heirs.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1147" id="Ref_1147" href="#Foot_1147">[1147]</a></span></p> - -<p>But the consequences of the theory here laid down have yet -to be considered. A little thought will soon show that no -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_396" id="Page_396">{396}</a></span> -hypothesis can possibly explain the adoption of the quarterly -coat by these various families at any other period than this -in which they all intermarried. If we wish to trace to its -origin such a surname as Fitz-Walter, we must go back to -some ancestor who had a Walter for his father. So with -derivative coats-of-arms. By Mr. Ellis's fundamental principle -we ought to find the house of De Vere imparting its coat, for -successive generations, to those families who were privileged -to ally themselves to it. Yet we can only trace this principle -at work in this particular generation. If Mandeville, and -Mandeville's kin, adopted, as he holds, the coat of De Vere, -why should not De Vere, in the previous generation, have -adopted that of Clare? Nothing, in short, can account for -the phenomena except the hypothesis that these quarterly coats -all originated in this generation and in consequence of these -intermarriages. The quarterly coat of the great earl would -be adopted by his sister's husband De Say, and by his wife's -brother De Vere, and by those other relatives shown in the -pedigree. Once adopted they remain, till they meet us in the -recorded blazons of the reign of Henry III.</p> - -<p>The natural inference from this conclusion is that the reign -of Stephen was the period in which heraldic bearings were -assuming a definite form. Most heralds would place it later: -Mr. Ellis would have us believe that we ought to place it -earlier. The question has been long and keenly discussed, -and, as with surnames, we may not be able to give with certainty -the date at which they became generally fixed. But, at any -rate, in this typical case, the facts admit of one explanation -and of one alone.</p> - -<p>If, as I take it, heraldic coats were mainly intended (as at -Evesham) to distinguish their bearers in the field, it is not -improbable that these kindred coats may represent the alliance -of their bearers, as typified in the Oxford charters, beneath -the banner of the Earl of Essex.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1148" id="Ref_1148" href="#Foot_1148">[1148]</a></span></p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1121" id="Foot_1121" href="#Ref_1121">[1121]</a> -See p. 45.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1122" id="Foot_1122" href="#Ref_1122">[1122]</a> -<i>Baronage</i>, i. 203 <i>b</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1123" id="Foot_1123" href="#Ref_1123">[1123]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, i. 201.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1124" id="Foot_1124" href="#Ref_1124">[1124]</a> -"m. Rohaise, d. of Aubrey de Vere, (afterwards) Earl of Oxford" -(i. 682).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1125" id="Foot_1125" href="#Ref_1125">[1125]</a> -<i>Baronage</i>, i. 188 <i>b</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1126" id="Foot_1126" href="#Ref_1126">[1126]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, 189.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1127" id="Foot_1127" href="#Ref_1127">[1127]</a> -Strange to say, Dugdale gives also this third (and right) version (<i>ibid.</i>, -i. 463 <i>a</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1128" id="Foot_1128" href="#Ref_1128">[1128]</a> -In Cole's transcript (British Museum).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1129" id="Foot_1129" href="#Ref_1129">[1129]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, No. 31.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1130" id="Foot_1130" href="#Ref_1130">[1130]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, No. 43.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1131" id="Foot_1131" href="#Ref_1131">[1131]</a> -See p. 182.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1132" id="Foot_1132" href="#Ref_1132">[1132]</a> -It would seem clear that this William must have been the "Dominus -Willelmus de Ver" to whom Dr. Stubbs alludes as the "early friend and -fellow-student," at the University of Paris, of Arnulf, Bishop of Lisieux, -and of the celebrated Ralf "de Diceto" (who may have been born, Dr. -Stubbs suggests, about 1122). Bishop Arnulf, asking Ralf to come over -and pay him a visit, tells him that William de Ver has promised to come too -(see preface to <i>Radulfus de Diceto</i>, pp. xxxii., <i>note</i>, liv.). But some difficulty -is caused by his appearing as a canon, not of St. Osyth's, but of St. Paul's, -in 1162 and later (<i>Ninth Report Historical MSS.</i>, App. i. pp. 19 <i>a</i>, 32 <i>a</i>). It -would seem to have been the latter William de Ver who became Bishop of -Hereford in 1185, and died 1199.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1133" id="Foot_1133" href="#Ref_1133">[1133]</a> -He had received the "Cameraria Angliæ" from Henry I., in a charter -which must have passed on the occasion of the king leaving England for the -last time in 1133. Madox has printed the charter (which has a valuable list -of witnesses) in his <i>Baronia Anglica</i>, from Dugdale's transcript.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1134" id="Foot_1134" href="#Ref_1134">[1134]</a> -<i>Judges of England</i>, i. 89.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1135" id="Foot_1135" href="#Ref_1135">[1135]</a> -Thus the <i>Chronicle of Walden Abbey</i> (<i>Arundel MSS.</i>) relates that at the -death of Geoffrey, Earl of Essex, in 1166, his mother was living at her Priory -of Chicksand, with her sister "Adeliza" of Essex. On the succession of his -brother William, "Alicia de Essexia" came to Walden Abbey "ordinante -comite Willelmo ejus nepote," and settled and died there (<i>ibid.</i>, cap. 18). -But the most important evidence is a charter of this same Earl William, -abstracted in <i>Lansdowne MSS.</i>, 259, fol. 67, granting to "Adelicia of Essex," -his mother's sister, the town of Aynho in free dower over and above the -dower she had received from Roger fitz Richard, her lord. This charter is -witnessed by his mother, "Roesia Comitissa;" Simon de Beauchamp, his -uterine brother; Geoffrey de Ver and William de Ver, his uncles; Ranulf -Glanville, and Geoffrey de Say, who was his cousin. He had previously -granted Aynho (? in 1170) to Roger fitz Richard in exchange for Compton -(co. Warwick), his charter being witnessed <i>inter alios</i> by John (de Lacy), the -constable of Chester (see p. 392 <i>n.</i>), Ranulf de Glanville, and Geoffrey de Say -(see my paper on "A Charter of William, Earl of Essex," in <i>Eng. Hist. -Review</i>, April, 1891).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1136" id="Foot_1136" href="#Ref_1136">[1136]</a> -<i>Colne Cartulary</i>, Nos. 51, 54.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1137" id="Foot_1137" href="#Ref_1137">[1137]</a> -"Domino suo primo marito Roberto scilicet de Essexiâ" (<i>Walden Abbey -Chronicle</i>). Dugdale makes her, in error, the wife of Henry de Essex.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1138" id="Foot_1138" href="#Ref_1138">[1138]</a> -This descent has not hitherto been established, and Mr. Freeman speaks -of Swegen of Essex as "father or grandfather of Henry de Essex."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1139" id="Foot_1139" href="#Ref_1139">[1139]</a> -He appears in the charters of this priory as "Robertus filius Suein" and -as "Robertus de Essex filius Suein."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1140" id="Foot_1140" href="#Ref_1140">[1140]</a> -See Appendix N. His paternity, which is well ascertained, is further -proved by his confirmation, in the (MS.) <i>Colchester Cartulary</i>, of a gift by his -father, Robert de Essex, to St. John's Abbey, Colchester.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1141" id="Foot_1141" href="#Ref_1141">[1141]</a> -I have purposely abstained from touching on the relationship of Lacy -to De Vere, because there is evidently error somewhere in the account given -by Dugdale, and as the descent is without my sphere, I have not investigated -the question. The <i>Rotulus de Dominabus</i> should be consulted. Nor do I -discuss the descent of Sackville. Mr. Ellis wrote: "The coat of Sackville, -<i>Quarterly, a bend vairé</i>, is doubtless derived from De Vere, but by what -match does not clearly appear." It is singular that William de Sackville, -who died <i>circa</i> 1158, is said to have married Adeliza, daughter of "Aubrey -the sheriff," which points to some connection between the two families.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1142" id="Foot_1142" href="#Ref_1142">[1142]</a> -<i>Antiquities of Heraldry</i>, p. 209.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1143" id="Foot_1143" href="#Ref_1143">[1143]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, p. 230.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1144" id="Foot_1144" href="#Ref_1144">[1144]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, pp. 228-232.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1145" id="Foot_1145" href="#Ref_1145">[1145]</a> -Doyle's <i>Official Baronage</i>, i. 685.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1146" id="Foot_1146" href="#Ref_1146">[1146]</a> -I must certainly decline to accept the rash conjecture of Mr. Ellis that -the mullet of De Vere represents the chamberlainship, on the ground that one -of his predecessors, Robert Malet, <i>might</i> have borne a mullet as an "heraldic -and allusive cognizance."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1147" id="Foot_1147" href="#Ref_1147">[1147]</a> -See p. 226 <i>n.</i></p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1148" id="Foot_1148" href="#Ref_1148">[1148]</a> -Compare the case of Raymond (le Gros) meeting William fitz Aldelin, -on his landing in Ireland (December, 1176), at the head of thirty of his -kinsmen, "clipeis assumptis unius armaturæ" (<i>Expugnatio Hiberniæ</i>).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_397" id="Page_397">{397}</a></span> - -<h3>APPENDIX V.<br /> -<small>WILLIAM OF ARQUES.</small></h3> - -<p class="center small">(See p. <a href="#Page_180">180</a>.)</p> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">Separate</span> -treatment is demanded by that clause in the charter -to Aubrey which deals with the fief of William of Arques:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Et do et concedo ei totam terram Willelmi de Albrincis sine placito, -pro servicio suo, simul cum hæreditate et jure quod clamat ex parte uxoris -suæ sicut unquam Willelmus de Archis ea melius tenuit."</p> - -<p class="nodent">The descent of this barony has formed the subject of an -erudite and instructive paper by the late Mr. Stapleton.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1149" id="Ref_1149" href="#Foot_1149">[1149]</a></span> The -pedigree which he established may be thus expressed:—</p> - -<pre> - - William = Beatrice. - of Arques, | - 1086. | - | - | - (1) Nigel = Emma, = (2) Manasses, - de Monville. | heiress of | _Comte_ of - | her father's | Guisnes, - | English | d. _circ._ - | fief. | 1139. - | | - Rualon = Matilda. Rose (or = Henry, - d'Avranches | Sybil), | Castellan of - (_de Abrincis_), | ob. v. p. | Bourbourg. - held part of the | | - Arques fief | | - _jure uxoris_, | | - Sheriff of Kent | | - 1130. | | - | | - +-----------+ | - | | - William (1) AUBREY = Beatrice, = (2) Baldwin, - d'Avranches, DE VERE. sole heiress. Lord of - son and heir. Ardres. - -</pre> - -<p>This descent renders the above clause in the charter intelligible -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_398" id="Page_398">{398}</a></span> -at once, for it shows that Aubrey was to reunite the -whole Arques fief in his own holding <i>jure uxoris</i>.</p> - -<p>Mr. Stapleton, who prints the clause from the translation -given by Dugdale, justly pronounces it "extremely important, -as establishing the fact of his marriage at its date with the -heiress of the barony of Arques as well as of the <i>comté</i> of -Guisnes." With Aubrey's tenure of this <i>comté</i> I have dealt -at p. 188.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1149" id="Foot_1149" href="#Ref_1149">[1149]</a> -<i>Archæologia</i>, vol. xxxi. pp. 216-237.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_399" id="Page_399">{399}</a></span> - -<h3>APPENDIX X.<br /> -<small>ROGER "DE RAMIS."</small></h3> - -<p class="center small">(See p. <a href="#Page_181">181</a>.)</p> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">The</span> -entries relating to the fief of this tenant <i>in capite</i> are -probably as corrupt as any to be found in the <i>Liber Niger</i>.</p> - -<p>The name of the family being "de Raimes"—Latinized in -this charter and Domesday invariably as <i>de Ramis</i>—an inevitable -confusion soon arose between it and the name of their -chief seat in England, Rayne, co. Essex. Morant, in his history -of Essex, identifies the two. Thus, Rayne being entered in -Domesday and in the <i>Liber Niger</i> as "Raines," the name of -the family appears in the latter as "de Raines," "de Reines" -(i. 237), "de Ramis," "de Raimis," and "de Raimes" (i. 239, -240). The Domesday tenant was Roger "de Ramis," who was -succeeded by William "de Raimes," who was dead in 1130, -when his sons Roger and Robert are found indebted to the -Crown for their reliefs and for their father's debts (<i>Rot. Pip.</i>, -31 Hen. I.). Further, if the <i>Liber Niger</i> (i. 237, 239) is to -be trusted, there were in 1135 two Essex fiefs, held respectively -by these very sons, Roger and Robert "de Ramis." So far all is -clear. But when we come to the <i>cartæ</i> of 1166 all is hopeless -confusion. There are, certainly, two fiefs entered in the Essex -portion, but while the <i>carta</i> of that which is assigned to Robert -"de Ramis" is intelligible, though very corrupt, the other is -assigned by an amazing blunder to William fitz Miles, who was -merely one of the under-tenants. Moreover, the entries are so -similar that they might be easily taken for variants of the same -<i>carta</i>.</p> - -<p>Let us, however, now turn to the Pipe-Roll of 1159 (5 -Hen. II.). We there find these entries (p. 5) under Essex:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Idem vicecomes reddit Compotum de <small>XII</small> <i>l.</i> et <small>XIII</small> <i>s.</i> et <small>IIII</small> <i>d.</i> pro Rogero -de Ram'.</p> - -<div class="pagenum"><a name="Page_400" id="Page_400">{400}</a></div> - -<p class="small">"Idem vicecomes reddit Compotum de <small>XII</small> <i>l.</i> et <small>XIII</small> <i>s.</i> <small>IIII</small> <i>d.</i> pro Ricardo -de Ram'."</p> - -<p>They require some explanation. The sums here accounted for -(though it is not so stated) are payments towards "the great -scutage" of the year at two marks on the knight's fee. These -were in most cases paid collectively by the aggregate of knights -liable. Here, luckily for us, these two tenants paid separately. -Turning the payments into marcs, and then dividing by two, -we find that each represents an assessment of nine and a half -knights. Now, we know for certain from the <i>Liber Niger</i> -(i. 240) that the assessment of one of these two fiefs was ten -knights, and that its holder was entitled to deduct from that -assessment an amount equivalent to half a knight. For such -is the meaning in the language of the Exchequer of the phrase: -"feodum dimidii militis ... <i>quod mihi computatur</i> in <small>X</small> militibus -quos Regi debeo." Thus we obtain the exact amount -(nine and a half knights) on which he pays in the above Roll.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1150" id="Ref_1150" href="#Foot_1150">[1150]</a></span></p> - -<p>But we can go further still. Each of the two fiefs was -entitled to the same deduction (<i>Liber Niger</i>). Both, therefore, -must have been alike assessed at ten knights. We are now on -the right track. These two fiefs in the <i>Liber Niger</i> are not -identical but distinct; they represent an original fief, assessed -at twenty knights, which has been divided into two equal -halves, each with an assessment of ten knights. And as with -the whole fief, so with some of its component parts. Dedham, -for instance, the "Delham" of Domesday (ii. 83) and the -"Diham" of our charter, was held of the lord of the fief by -the service of one knight. When the fief was divided in two, -Dedham was divided too. Accordingly, we find it mentioned in -our charter (1142) as "Diham que fuit Rogeri de Ramis, -rectum ... fili<i>orum</i> Rogeri de Ramis." It was their joint -right, because it was divided between them, just as it still -appears divided in the <i>cartæ</i> of 1166.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1151" id="Ref_1151" href="#Foot_1151">[1151]</a></span></p> - -<p>But further, why is Dedham alone mentioned in this charter? -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_401" id="Page_401">{401}</a></span> -Because it was that portion of the fief which the Crown had -seized and kept, and consequently that of which the restoration -was now exacted from the Empress. And why had the Crown -seized it? Possibly as security for those very debts, which were -due to it from William "de Raimes" (<i>Rot. Pip.</i>, 31 Hen. I.).<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1152" id="Ref_1152" href="#Foot_1152">[1152]</a></span></p> - -<p>Dedham was not the only divided manor in the fief. -"Totintuna," in Norfolk, was similarly shared, its one knight's -fee being halved. This enables us to correct an error in the -<i>Liber Niger</i>. We there read (i. 237)—</p> - -<div class="poetry-fn"> -<div class="poetry"> -<div class="verse quote1">"Warinus de Totinton' medietatem <small>I</small> militis."</div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>And again (i. 239)—</p> - -<div class="poetry-fn"> -<div class="poetry"> -<div class="verse quote1">"Warinus dim' mil'.</div> -<div class="verse">De Todinton' feodum dimidii militis."</div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>In the latter case the right reading is—</p> - -<div class="poetry-fn"> -<div class="poetry"> -<div class="verse quote1">"Warinus de Todinton' dim' mil'.</div> -<div class="verse">Feodum dimidii militis<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1153" id="Ref_1153" href="#Foot_1153">[1153]</a></span> de Hiham, quod," etc.</div> -</div> -</div> - -<p>Further, Robert "de Reines" is returned in both <i>cartæ</i> as -holding (1166) a quarter of a knight's fee in each fief, "de -novo fefamento," apparently in Higham (Suffolk), not far from -Dedham (Essex). This suggests his enfeofment by the service -of half a knight, and the division of his holding when the fief -was divided. It is strange that on the Roll of 1159 he is -entered as paying one marc, which would be the exact amount -payable for half a knight.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1154" id="Ref_1154" href="#Foot_1154">[1154]</a></span></p> - -<p>Thus the main points have been satisfactorily established. -The genealogy is not so easy. Our charter tells us that, in -1142, the sons of Roger "de Ramis" were the "nepotes" of -Earl Aubrey. From the earl's age at the time they could not -be his grandsons: they were, therefore, his nephews, the sons -of a sister. Were they the Richard and Roger who, in 1159, -held respectively the two halves of the original fief (<i>Rot. Pip.</i>, -5 Hen. II.)? To answer this question, we must grasp the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_402" id="Page_402">{402}</a></span> -<i>data</i> clearly. In 1130 and in 1135 the two fiefs were respectively -held by Robert and Roger, the sons of <i>William</i>. In our -charter (1142) we find them, it would seem, held by "the sons -of <i>Roger</i>," probably of tender years. This would suggest that -the Robert (son of William) of 1135 had died childless before -1142, and that his fief had been reunited to that of his brother -Roger, only, however, for the joint fief to be again divided -between Roger's sons. But the question is further complicated -by some documents relating to the church of Ardleigh, one of -which is addressed by "Robertus de Ramis filius Rogeri de -Ramis" to Robert [de Sigillo], Bishop of London, while another, -addressed to the same bishop, proceeds from Robert son of -<i>William</i> "de Ramis," apparently his uncle. In 1159 the two -fiefs reappear as held respectively by Roger and Richard "de -Ramis." In 1165 (<i>Rot. Pip.</i>, 11 Hen. II.) we find them held -by William and Richard de Ramis, and thenceforth they were -always known as the fiefs of William and of Richard. The -actual names of the holders of the fiefs in 1166 (one of which -is ignored by the Black Book and the other given as Robert) -are determined by the Pipe-Roll of 1168, where they are -entered as William and Richard. Thus, at length, we ascertain -that the <i>carta</i> assigned to William "filius Milonis" was in -truth that of William "de Ramis," while that which is assigned -to Robert "de Ramis" was in truth that of Richard "de -Ramis." The entry on this Pipe-Roll relating to the latter -fief throws so important a light on the <i>Carta</i> of 1166, that I -here print the two side by side.</p> - -<table class="multi" summary="multi-18"> - - <colgroup> - <col span="2" style="width:48%" /> - </colgroup> - -<tr> - <th>1166.</th> - <th>1168/</th> -</tr> - -<tr> - <td> Hii sunt milites qui tenuerunt de feodo Roberti de Raimes die qua - Rex Henricus fuit vivus et mortuus, viz:—... Willelmus filius Jocelini - II milites Philippus Parage feodum dim. militis. Horum servitium - difforciant mihi Willelmus filius Jocelini et Philippus. Simon de - Cantilupo detinet mihi Heingeham quam tenere debeo de Rege in dominio - meo.</td> - <td>Ricardus de Reimis [<i>al.</i> Raimes] reddit compotum de - <small>X</small> marcis pro <small>X</small> militibus. In thesauro - <small>XXXIII</small> sol. et <small>IIII</small> den. Et in dominio - Regis de Dedham i mar. Et debet <small>IIII</small> li. et - <small>VI</small> sol. et <small>VIII</small> den. sed calumpniatur - quod Picot de Tanie<span class="fnanchor"><a - name="Ref_1155" id="Ref_1155" href="#Foot_1155">[1155]</a></span> habet - <small>II</small> milites per Regem, et Simo de Cantelu - <small>II</small>os, et Comes Albricus dim., et Phylippus Parage dim.</td> -</tr> - -</table> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_403" id="Page_403">{403}</a></span> -If, as implied by our charter, the sons of Roger ("de -Ramis") were minors at the time of the Anarchy, this would -account for Earl Hugh seizing, as recorded in William's <i>carta</i>, -five of his knights' fees in the time of King Stephen (<i>Liber -Niger</i>, i. 237).</p> - -<p>The later history of these two fiefs is one of some complexity, -but the descent of Dedham, which alone concerns our -own charter, is fortunately quite clear. Its two halves are well -shown in the <i>Testa de Nevill</i> entry:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Leonia de Stutevill tenet feodum unius militia in Byh[a]m unde debet -facere unam medietatem heredi Ricardi de Reymes et alteram medietatem -heredi Willelmi de Reymes" (i. 276).</p> - -<p>For this Byham, improbable as it may seem, was really the -"Diham" of our charter, <i>i.e.</i> Dedham, and the two halves of -the original barony are here described (as I explained above) -as those of Richard and William. In a survey of Richard's -portion of the fief among the inquisitions of John (<i>circ.</i> 1212),<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1156" id="Ref_1156" href="#Foot_1156">[1156]</a></span> -we find Leonia holding half a knight's fee in "Dyham" of it, -and in a later inquisition we find her heir, John de Stuteville, -holding the estate as "Dyhale" (<i>Testa</i>, p. 281 <i>b</i>). As early as -1185-86 Leonia was already in possession of Dedham, as will -be seen by the extract below from the <i>Rotulus de Dominabus</i>. -This entry is one of a series which have formed the subject of -keen, and even hot, discussion. The fact that Dedham is -spoken of here as her "inheritance" has led to the hasty -inference that she was heiress, or co-heiress, to the Raimes fief. -This view seems to have been started by Mr. E. Chester Waters -in a communication to <i>Notes and Queries</i> (1872),<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1157" id="Ref_1157" href="#Foot_1157">[1157]</a></span> in which, on -the strength of the entries below relating to her and to Alice -de Tani, he drew out a pedigree deriving them both from the -"Roger de Ramis of Domesday." Writing to the <i>Academy</i> in -1885, he took great credit to himself for his performance in -<i>Notes and Queries</i>, and observed, of Mr. Yeatman: "I must -refer him to the <i>Rotulus de Dominabus</i> and to the Chartulary -of Bocherville Abbey for the true co-heirs of the fief of -Raimes."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1158" id="Ref_1158" href="#Foot_1158">[1158]</a></span> But the extracts which follow clearly show (when -combined with the <i>Testa</i> entry above) that neither Leonia nor -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_404" id="Page_404">{404}</a></span> -Alice were the "true co-heirs of the fief of Raimes," for they -were merely under-tenants of that fief, Leonia holding one -knight's fee from the tenants of the whole fief, and Alice two -knights' fees from the tenants of Richard's portion.</p> - -<div class="small"> - -<p class="center">(Lexden Hundred.)</p> - -<p>Uxor Roberti de Stuteville est de donatione Domini Regis, et de parentela -Edwardi de Salesburia ex parte patris, et ex parte matris est de progenie -Rogeri de Reimes. Ipsa habet j villam que vocatur Diham que est hereditas -ejus, que valet annuatim xxiiij libras. Ipsa habet j filium et ij filias, et -nescitur eorum etas.</p> - -<p class="center">(Tendring Hundred.)</p> - -<p>Alizia de Tany est de donatione Domini Regis; terra ejus valet vij -libras, et ipsa habet v filios et ij filias, et heres ejus est xx annorum, de -progenie Rogeri de Reimes.</p> - -<p class="center">(Hinckford.)</p> - -<p>Alicia filia Willelmi filii Godcelini quam tradidit Dominus Rex Picoto -de Tani est in donatione Domini Regis, et tenet de Domino Rege, et de -feodo Ricardi de Ramis; et terra sua valet vij libras; et ipsa habet v filios -et primogenitus est xx annorum, et ij filias. Picot de Tani habuit dictam -terram v annis elapsis, cum autumpnus venerit.</p> - -</div> - -<p>Leonia is indeed stated to be "de progenie Rogeri de -Reimes," and so is the heir of Alice (<i>not</i>, as alleged, Alice -herself), but there is nothing to show that this was the Roger -de Raimes "of Domesday." It may have been his namesake -(and grandson?) of 1130-35, or even (though probably not) -the Roger of 1159. Whether the allusion, in our charter (1142), -to Dedham being the "rectum" of the sons of Roger de Ramis, -and the fact of its being in the king's hands then and in -1166-68, had to do with a claim by Leonia or her mother, or -not, it is obvious that Leonia did not claim, nor did Alice de -Tani, to be, in any sense, the heir of either of the above Rogers, -though she may have been, as was the case so often with -under-tenants, connected with them in blood.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1150" id="Foot_1150" href="#Ref_1150">[1150]</a> -This instance proves that payment was sometimes made on the net -amount due, after making such deduction, instead of being entered as paid -in full, with a subsequent entry of deduction.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1151" id="Foot_1151" href="#Ref_1151">[1151]</a> -The forms "Diham," "De Hiham," and "Heham" are very confusing -from the fact that Higham also is on the border of Essex and Suffolk.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1152" id="Foot_1152" href="#Ref_1152">[1152]</a> -Compare the remission by Henry II., in his charter to the second Earl -of Essex, of the Crown's lien upon certain of his manors, dating from the time -of Henry I. (see p. 241).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1153" id="Foot_1153" href="#Ref_1153">[1153]</a> -The words which follow are on p. 240.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1154" id="Foot_1154" href="#Ref_1154">[1154]</a> -This has a direct bearing on the very difficult question of the assessment -of the new feoffment.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1155" id="Foot_1155" href="#Ref_1155">[1155]</a> -Picot de Tani (1168) stood in the shoes of William fitz Jocelin (1166), -having married his daughter Alice (<i>Rotulus de Dominabus</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1156" id="Foot_1156" href="#Ref_1156">[1156]</a> -Printed by Madox as from the <i>Liber Feudorum</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1157" id="Foot_1157" href="#Ref_1157">[1157]</a> -4th series, vol. ix. p. 314.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1158" id="Foot_1158" href="#Ref_1158">[1158]</a> -<i>Academy</i>, June 27, 1885.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_405" id="Page_405">{405}</a></span> - -<h3>APPENDIX Y.<br /> -<small>THE FIRST AND SECOND VISITS OF HENRY II. TO ENGLAND.</small></h3> - -<p class="center small">(See p. <a href="#Page_198">198</a>.)</p> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">The</span> -dates and circumstances of these two visits are a subject -of some importance and interest. Fortunately, they can be -accurately ascertained.</p> - -<p>It is certain that, on Henry's first visit, he landed with -his uncle at Wareham towards the close of 1142. Stephen had -been besieging the Empress in Oxford since the 26th of -September,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1159" id="Ref_1159" href="#Foot_1159">[1159]</a></span> and her brother, recalled to England by her -danger, must have landed, with Henry, about the beginning -of December, for she had then been besieged more than two -months, and Christmas was at hand.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1160" id="Ref_1160" href="#Foot_1160">[1160]</a></span> This date is confirmed -by another calculation. For the earl, on landing, we are told, -laid siege to the castle of Wareham, and took it, after three -weeks.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1161" id="Ref_1161" href="#Foot_1161">[1161]</a></span> But as the flight of the Empress from Oxford coincided -with, or followed immediately after, his capture of the castle,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1162" id="Ref_1162" href="#Foot_1162">[1162]</a></span> -and as that flight took place on the eve of Christmas,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1163" id="Ref_1163" href="#Foot_1163">[1163]</a></span> after a -siege of three months,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1164" id="Ref_1164" href="#Foot_1164">[1164]</a></span> this would similarly throw back the -landing of the earl at Wareham to the beginning of December -(1142).</p> - -<p>By a strange oversight, Dr. Stubbs, the supreme authority -on his life, makes Henry arrive in 1141, "when he was eight -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_406" id="Page_406">{406}</a></span> -years old, to be trained in arms;"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1165" id="Ref_1165" href="#Foot_1165">[1165]</a></span> whereas, as we have seen, -he did not arrive till towards the end of 1142, when he was -nine years and three-quarters old. Nor, it would seem, was -there any intention that he should be then trained in arms. -This point is here mentioned because it bears on the chronology -of Gervase, as criticised by Dr. Stubbs, who, I venture to -think, may have been thus led to pronounce it, as he does, -"unsound."</p> - -<p>On recovering Wareham, Henry and his uncle set out for -Cirencester, where the earl appointed a rendezvous of his party, -with a view to an advance on Oxford. The Empress, however, -in the mean time, unable to hold out any longer, effected her -well-known romantic escape and fled to Wallingford, where -those of her supporters who ought to have been with her -when Stephen assailed her, had gathered round the stronghold -of Brian fitz Count, having decided that their forces were not -equal to raising the siege of Oxford.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1166" id="Ref_1166" href="#Foot_1166">[1166]</a></span> Thither, therefore, the -earl now hastened with his charge, and the Empress, we are -told, forgot all her troubles in the joy of the meeting with -her son.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1167" id="Ref_1167" href="#Foot_1167">[1167]</a></span></p> - -<p>Stephen had been as eager to relieve his beleaguered -garrison at Wareham as the earl had been, at the same time, -to raise the siege of Oxford. Neither of them, however, would -attempt the task till he had finished the enterprise he had in -hand.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1168" id="Ref_1168" href="#Foot_1168">[1168]</a></span> But now that the fall of Oxford had set Stephen free, -he determined, though Wareham had fallen, that he would at -least regain possession.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1169" id="Ref_1169" href="#Foot_1169">[1169]</a></span> But the earl had profited, it seems, -by his experience of the preceding year, and Stephen found -the fortress was now too strong for him.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1170" id="Ref_1170" href="#Foot_1170">[1170]</a></span> He accordingly -revenged himself for this disappointment by ravaging the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_407" id="Page_407">{407}</a></span> -district with fire and sword.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1171" id="Ref_1171" href="#Foot_1171">[1171]</a></span> Thus passed the earlier months -of 1143. Eventually, with his brother, the Bishop of Winchester, -he marched to Wilton, where he proceeded to convert -the nunnery of St. Etheldred into a fortified post, which -should act as a check on the garrison of the Empress -at Salisbury.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1172" id="Ref_1172" href="#Foot_1172">[1172]</a></span> The Earl of Gloucester, on hearing of this, -burst upon his forces in the night, and scattered them in all -directions. Stephen himself had a narrow escape, and the -enemy made a prisoner of William Martel, his minister and -faithful adherent.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1173" id="Ref_1173" href="#Foot_1173">[1173]</a></span> This event is dated by Gervase July 1 -(1143).</p> - -<p>I have been thus particular in dealing with this episode -because, as Dr. Stubbs rightly observes, "the chronology of -Gervase is here quite irreconcilable with that of Henry of -Huntingdon, who places the capture of William Martel in -1142."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1174" id="Ref_1174" href="#Foot_1174">[1174]</a></span> But a careful collation of Gervase's narrative with that -given in the <i>Gesta</i> removes all doubt as to the date, for it is -certain, from the sequence of events in 1142, that at no period -of that year can Stephen and the Earl of Gloucester have been -in Wiltshire at the same time. There is, therefore, no question -that the two detailed narratives I have referred to are right in -assigning the event to 1143, and that Henry of Huntingdon, -who only mentions it briefly, has placed it under a wrong date, -having doubtless confused the two attacks (1142 and 1143) that -Stephen made on Wareham.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1175" id="Ref_1175" href="#Foot_1175">[1175]</a></span></p> - -<p>Henry, says Gervase (i. 131), now spent four years in -England, during which he remained at Bristol under the wing -of his mighty uncle, by whom his education was entrusted to -a certain Master Mathew.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1176" id="Ref_1176" href="#Foot_1176">[1176]</a></span> A curious reference by Henry himself -to this period of his life will be found in the <i>Monasticon</i> -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_408" id="Page_408">{408}</a></span> -(vol. vi.), where, in a charter (? 1153) to St. Augustine's, -Bristol, he refers to that abbey as one</p> - -<p class="small">"quam inicio juventutis meæ beneficiis et protectione cœpi juvare et -fovere."</p> - -<p>It should be noticed that Gervase twice refers to Henry's -stay as one of four years (i. 125, 133), and that this statement -is strictly in harmony with those by which it is succeeded. -Dr. Stubbs admits that Henry's departure is placed by him "at -the end of 1146,"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1177" id="Ref_1177" href="#Foot_1177">[1177]</a></span> and this would be exactly four years from -the date when, as we saw, he landed. Again, Gervase goes on -to state that two years and four months elapsed before his -return.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1178" id="Ref_1178" href="#Foot_1178">[1178]</a></span> This would bring us to April, 1149; and "here," as -Dr. Stubbs observes, "we get a certain date," for "Henry was -certainly knighted at Carlisle at Whitsuntide [May 22], -1149."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1179" id="Ref_1179" href="#Foot_1179">[1179]</a></span> It will be seen then that the chronology of Gervase -is thoroughly consistent throughout.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1180" id="Ref_1180" href="#Foot_1180">[1180]</a></span> When Dr. Stubbs -writes: "Gervase's chronology is evidently unsound here, but -the sequence of events is really obscure,"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1181" id="Ref_1181" href="#Foot_1181">[1181]</a></span> he alludes to the -mention of the Earl of Gloucester's death. But it will be -found, on reference to the passage, that its meaning is quite -clear, namely, that the earl died during Henry's absence -(<i>interea</i>), and in the November after his departure. And such -was, admittedly, the case.</p> - -<p>The second visit of Henry to England has scarcely obtained -the attention it deserved. It was fully intended, I believe, at -the time, that his arrival should give the signal for a renewal -of the civil war. This is, by Gervase (i. 140), distinctly -implied. He also tells us that it was now that Henry abandoned -his studies to devote himself to arms.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1182" id="Ref_1182" href="#Foot_1182">[1182]</a></span> It would seem, however, -to be generally supposed that the sole incident of this -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_409" id="Page_409">{409}</a></span> -visit was his receiving knighthood from his great-uncle, the -King of Scots, at Carlisle. But it is at Devizes that he first -appears, charter evidence informing us of the fact that he was -there, surrounded by some leading partisans, on April 13.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1183" id="Ref_1183" href="#Foot_1183">[1183]</a></span> -Again, it has, apparently, escaped notice that the author of the -<i>Gesta</i>, at some length, refers to this second visit (pp. 127-129). -His editor, at least, supposed him to be referring to Henry's -<i>first</i> (1142) and <i>third</i> (1153) visits; these, in that gentleman's -opinion, being evidently one and the same.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1184" id="Ref_1184" href="#Foot_1184">[1184]</a></span> According to -the <i>Gesta</i>, Henry began by attacking the royal garrisons in -Cricklade and Bourton, which would harmonize, it will be seen, -exactly with a northerly advance from Devizes. He was, however, -unsuccessful in these attempts. Among those who joined -him, says Gervase, were the Earls of Hereford and of Chester. -The former duly appears with him at Devizes in the charter to -which I have referred; the latter is mentioned by John of -Hexham as being present with him at Carlisle.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1185" id="Ref_1185" href="#Foot_1185">[1185]</a></span> This brings -us to the strange story, told by the author of the <i>Gesta</i>, that -Henry, before long, deserted by his friends, was forced to appeal -to Stephen for supplies. There is this much to be said in -favour of the story, namely, that the Earl of Chester did play -him false.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1186" id="Ref_1186" href="#Foot_1186">[1186]</a></span> Moreover, the Earl of Gloucester, who is said to -have refused to help him,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1187" id="Ref_1187" href="#Foot_1187">[1187]</a></span> certainly does not appear as taking -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_410" id="Page_410">{410}</a></span> -any steps on his behalf. Lastly, it is not impossible that -Stephen, whose generosity, in thus acting, is so highly extolled -by the writer, may have taken advantage of Henry's trouble, -to send him supplies on the condition that he should abandon -his enterprise and depart. It is, in any case, certain that he -did depart at the commencement of the following year (1150).<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1188" id="Ref_1188" href="#Foot_1188">[1188]</a></span></p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1159" id="Foot_1159" href="#Ref_1159">[1159]</a> -"Tribus diebus ante festum sancti Michaelis inopinato casu Oxeneford -concremavit, et castellum, in quo, cum domesticis militibus imperatrix erat -obsedit" (<i>Will. Malms.</i>, 766).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1160" id="Foot_1160" href="#Ref_1160">[1160]</a> -"Consummatis itaque in obsidione plus duobus mensibus ... appropinquante -Nativitatis Dominicæ solempnitate" (<i>Gervase</i>, i. 124).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1161" id="Foot_1161" href="#Ref_1161">[1161]</a> -"Fuitque comes Robertus in obsidione illâ per tres septimanas" (<i>ibid.</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1162" id="Foot_1162" href="#Ref_1162">[1162]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>, i. 125; <i>Will. Malms.</i>, 768.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1163" id="Foot_1163" href="#Ref_1163">[1163]</a> -"Non procul a Natali" (<i>Hen. Hunt.</i>, 276).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1164" id="Foot_1164" href="#Ref_1164">[1164]</a> -"Tribus mensibus" (<i>Gesta</i>, p. 89).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1165" id="Foot_1165" href="#Ref_1165">[1165]</a> -<i>Const. Hist.</i>, i. 448; <i>Early Plantagenets</i>, p. 33. Mr. Freeman rightly -assigns his arrival to 1142, as does also Mr. Hunt (<i>Norman Britain</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1166" id="Foot_1166" href="#Ref_1166">[1166]</a> -<i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. 766.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1167" id="Foot_1167" href="#Ref_1167">[1167]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i>; <i>Gervase</i>, i. 125.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1168" id="Foot_1168" href="#Ref_1168">[1168]</a> -<i>Will. Malms.</i>, p. 768. Compare the state of things in 1153 (<i>Hen. Hunt.</i>, -288).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1169" id="Foot_1169" href="#Ref_1169">[1169]</a> -"Deinde [after obtaining possession of Oxford] pauco dilapso tempore, -cum instructissimâ militantium manu civitatem Warham ... advenit" -(<i>Gesta</i>, p. 91).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1170" id="Foot_1170" href="#Ref_1170">[1170]</a> -<i>Ibid.</i></p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1171" id="Foot_1171" href="#Ref_1171">[1171]</a> -<i>Gesta</i>; <i>Gervase</i>, i. 125.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1172" id="Foot_1172" href="#Ref_1172">[1172]</a> -<i>Gesta</i>, p. 91.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1173" id="Foot_1173" href="#Ref_1173">[1173]</a> -<i>Gervase</i>, i. 126; <i>Gesta</i>, p. 92.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1174" id="Foot_1174" href="#Ref_1174">[1174]</a> -<i>Gervase</i>, i. 126, <i>note</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1175" id="Foot_1175" href="#Ref_1175">[1175]</a> -This episode also gave rise to another even stranger confusion, a misreading -of "Wi<i>n</i>ton" for "Wi<i>l</i>ton" having led Milner and others to suppose -that Stephen was the founder of the royal castle at Winchester.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1176" id="Foot_1176" href="#Ref_1176">[1176]</a> -"Puer autem Henricus sub tutelâ comitis Roberti apud Bristoviam -degens, per quatuor annos traditus est magisterio cujusdam Mathæi litteris -imbuendus et moribus honestis ut talem decebat puerum instituendus" -(i. 125).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1177" id="Foot_1177" href="#Ref_1177">[1177]</a> -i. 140, <i>note</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1178" id="Foot_1178" href="#Ref_1178">[1178]</a> -"Fuitque in partibus transmarinis annis duobus et mensibus quatuor" -(i. 131).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1179" id="Foot_1179" href="#Ref_1179">[1179]</a> -i. 140, <i>note</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1180" id="Foot_1180" href="#Ref_1180">[1180]</a> -The only point, and that a small one, that could be challenged, is that -Gervase makes him land "mense Maio mediante," whereas we know him to -have been at Devizes by the 13th of April (<i>vide infra</i>).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1181" id="Foot_1181" href="#Ref_1181">[1181]</a> -i. 131, <i>note</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1182" id="Foot_1182" href="#Ref_1182">[1182]</a> -"Postpositisque litterarum studiis exercitia cœpit militaria frequentare."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1183" id="Foot_1183" href="#Ref_1183">[1183]</a> -<i>Sarum Charters and Documents</i> (Rolls Series), pp. 15, 16. The -witnesses are Roger, Earl of Hereford, Patrick, Earl of Salisbury, John fitz -Gilbert (the marshal), Gotso "Dinant," William de Beauchamp, Elyas -Giffard, Roger de Berkeley, John de St. John, etc.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1184" id="Foot_1184" href="#Ref_1184">[1184]</a> -See his note to p. 127. Since the above passage was written, Mr. Howlett's -valuable edition of the <i>Gesta</i> for the Rolls Series has been published, in -which he advances, with great confidence, the view that we are indebted to -its "careful author" for the knowledge of an invasion of England by Henry -fitz Empress in 1147, "unrecorded by any other chronicler" (Chronicles: -<i>Stephen, Henry II., Richard I.</i>, III., xvi.-xx. 130; IV., xxi., xxii.). I have discussed -and rejected this theory in the <i>English Historical Review</i>, October, -1890 (v. 747-750).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1185" id="Foot_1185" href="#Ref_1185">[1185]</a> -<i>Sym. Dun.</i>, iii. 323. Henry of Huntingdon (p. 282) states that at -Carlisle he appeared "cum occidentalibus Angliæ proceribus," and that -Stephen, fearing his contemplated joint attack with David, marched to York, -and remained there, on the watch, during all the month of August.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1186" id="Foot_1186" href="#Ref_1186">[1186]</a> -"Ranulfus comes promisit cum collectis agminibus suis occurrere illis. -Qui, nichil eorum quæ condixerat prosecutus, avertit propositum eorum" -(<i>Sym. Dun.</i>, ii. 323).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1187" id="Foot_1187" href="#Ref_1187">[1187]</a> -The author of the <i>Gesta</i>, by a pardonable slip, speaks of the earl as -Henry's <i>uncle</i>. The then (1149) earl was, of course, his <i>cousin</i>. It is on -this slip that Mr. Howlett's theory was based.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1188" id="Foot_1188" href="#Ref_1188">[1188]</a> -"Henricus autem filius Gaufridi comitis Andegaviæ ducisque Normanniæ, -et Matildis imperatricis, jam miles effectus, in Normanniam transfretavit -in principio mensis Januarii" (<i>Gervase</i>, i. 142).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_411" id="Page_411">{411}</a></span> - -<h3>APPENDIX Z.<br /> -<small>BISHOP NIGEL AT ROME.</small></h3> - -<p class="center small">(See p. <a href="#Page_209">209</a>.)</p> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">A most</span> -interesting and instructive series of papal letters is -preserved in the valuable Cotton MS. known as Tiberius, A. vi. -The earliest with which we are here concerned are those referred -to in the <i>Historia Eliensis</i> as obtained by Alexander and his -fellows, the "nuncii" of Nigel to the pope, in virtue of which -the bishop regained his see in 1142 (<i>ante</i>, p. 162).<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1189" id="Ref_1189" href="#Foot_1189">[1189]</a></span> These -letters are dated April 29. As the bishop was driven from the -see early in 1140, the year to which they belong is not, at first -sight, obvious. The <i>Historia</i> indeed appears to place them just -before his return, but its narrative is not so clear as could be -wished, nor would it imply that the bishop returned so late as -May (1142). The sequence of events I take to have been this. -Nigel, when ejected from his see (1140), fled to the Empress at -Gloucester. There he remained till her triumph in the following -year (1141). He would then, of course, regain his see, -and this would account for his knights being found in possession -of the isle when Stephen recovered his throne. The king, -eager to reassert his rights and to avoid another fenland revolt, -would send the two earls to Ely (1142) to regain possession of -its strongholds. The bishop, now once more an exile, and -despairing of Maud's fortunes, would turn for help to the -pope, and obtain from him these letters commanding his -restoration to his see. I should therefore assign them to -April 29, 1142. This would account for the expression "per -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_412" id="Page_412">{412}</a></span> -longa tempora" in the letter to Stephen. They could not -belong to 1141, when the Empress was in power, and the above -expression would not be applicable in the year 1140.</p> - -<p>The following is the gist of the letter to Stephen:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Serenitati tue rogando mandamus quatinus dignitates et libertates.... -Venerabili quoque fratri nostro Nigello eiusdem loci episcopo in recuperandis -possessionibus ecclesie sue injuste distractis consilium et auxilium prebeas. -Nec pro eo quod ecclesia ipsa sua bona jam per longa tempora perdidit, -justitie sue eam sustinere aliquod preiuditium patiaris" (fol. 114).</p> - -<p>To his brother, the Bishop of Winchester, Innocent writes -thus:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Rogando mandamus et mandando precipimus quatinus sententiam -quam venerabilis frater noster Nigellus Elyensis episcopus in eos qui possessiones -ecclesie sue iniuste et per violentiam detinent rationabiliter promulgavit -firmiter observetis et observari per vestras parrochias pariter faciatis" -(fol. 113 <i>b</i>).</p> - -<p>A letter (also from the Lateran) of the same date to Nigel -himself excuses his presence and that of the Abbot of Thorney -at a council. A subsequent letter ("data trans Tyberim") of -the 5th of October, addressed to Theobald and the English -bishops, deals with the expulsion and restitution of Nigel, and -insists on his full restoration.</p> - -<p>The next series of letters are from Pope Lucius, and belong -to May 24, 1144, being written on the occasion of Nigel's visit -(<i>ante</i>, p. 208). Of these there are five in all. To Stephen -Lucius writes as follows:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Venerabilis frater noster Nigellus Elyensis episcopus quamvis quibusdam -criminibus in presentia nostra notatus fuerit, nec tamen convictus neque -confessus est. Unde nos ipsum cum gratia nostra ad sedem propriam -remittentes nobilitati tue mandamus ut eum pro beati Petri et nostra -reverentia honores, diligas, nec ipse sibi vel ecclesie sue iniuriam vel -molestiam inferas nec ab aliis inferri permittas. Si qua etiam ... ab -hominibus tuis ei ablata sunt cum integritate restitui facias" (fol. 117).</p> - -<p>The above "crimina" are those referred to in the <i>Historia -Eliensis</i> as brought forward at the Council of London in 1143:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Quidam magni autoritatis et prudentiæ visi adversus Dominum Nigellum -Episcopum parati insurrexerunt: illum ante Domini Papæ præsentiam -appellaverunt, sinistra ei objicientes plurima, maxime quod seditiones in -ipso concitaverat regno, et bona Ecclesie sue in milites dissipaverat; aliaque -ei convicia blasphemantes improperabant" (p. 622).</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_413" id="Page_413">{413}</a></span> -A second letter of the same date "Ad clerum elyensem -de condempnatione Symonie Vitalis presbyteri" deals with the -case of Vitalis, a priest in Nigel's diocese, who had been sentenced -to deprivation of his living, for simony, and whose -appeal to the Council of London in 1143 had been favourably -received by the legate.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1190" id="Ref_1190" href="#Foot_1190">[1190]</a></span> The pope had himself reheard the case, -and now confirmed Nigel's decision:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Dilectis filiis Rodberto Abbati Thorneie et capitulo elyensi salutem -etc. Notum vobis fieri quia iuditium super causa, videlicet symonia, Vitalis -presbyteri in synodo elyensi habitum in nostra presentia discussum est et -retractatum. Quod nos rationabile cognoscentes apostolice sedis auctoritate -firmavimus," etc., etc. (fol. 117).</p> - -<p>Then come two letters, also of the same date, one to -Theobald and the English bishops, the other to the Archbishop -of Rouen, both to the same effect, beginning, "Venerabilis -frater noster Nigellus elyensis episcopus ad sedem apostolicam -veniens, nobis conquestus est quod," etc. (fol. 116 <i>b</i>):<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1191" id="Ref_1191" href="#Foot_1191">[1191]</a></span> the fifth -document of the 24th of May (1144) is a general confirmation -to Ely of all its privileges and possessions (fols. 114 <i>b</i>-116 <i>b</i>).</p> - -<p>Last of all is the letter referring to Geoffrey de Mandeville, -which must, from internal evidence, have been written in reply -to a letter from Nigel after his return to England (<i>ante</i>, p. 215).</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1189" id="Foot_1189" href="#Ref_1189">[1189]</a> -"Et negotium strenuissime agentes, acceperunt ab excellentiâ Romanæ -dignitatis ad Archiepiscopum et episcopos Angliæ et ad Rothomagensem -Archiepiscopum literas de restituendo Nigello episcopo in sedem suam" -(<i>Hist. Eliensis</i>, p. 621).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1190" id="Foot_1190" href="#Ref_1190">[1190]</a> -"Presbyter quidam Vitalis nomine conquestus est coram omnibus quod -Dominus Elyensis episcopus eum non judiciali ordine de suâ Ecclesiâ -expulerit. Huic per omnia ille Legatus favebat" (<i>Hist. Eliensis</i>, p. 622).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1191" id="Foot_1191" href="#Ref_1191">[1191]</a> -See <i>ante</i>, p. 215, for Nigel's complaint.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_414" id="Page_414">{414}</a></span> - -<h3>APPENDIX AA.<br /> -<small>"TENSERIE."</small></h3> - -<p class="center small">(See p. <a href="#Page_215">215</a>.)</p> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">The</span> -mention of "tenseriæ" in the letter of Lucius is peculiarly -welcome, because (in its Norman-French form) it is the very -word employed by the Peterborough chronicler.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1192" id="Ref_1192" href="#Foot_1192">[1192]</a></span> As I have -pointed out in the <i>Academy</i>,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1193" id="Ref_1193" href="#Foot_1193">[1193]</a></span> the same Latin form is found in -the agenda of the judicial iter in 1194: "de prisis et <i>tenseriis</i> -omnium ballivorum" (<i>R. Hoveden</i>, iii. 267), while the Anglo-Norman -"tenserie" is employed by Jordan Fantosme, who, -writing of the burgesses of Northampton (1174), tells us that -David of Scotland "ne pot <i>tenserie</i> de eus aver." He also -illustrates the use of the verb when he describes how the Earl -of Leicester, landing in East Anglia, "la terre vait <i>tensant</i>.... -E ad <i>tensé</i> la terre cum il en fut bailli." The Latin form of -the verb was "tensare," as is shown by the records of the -Lincolnshire eyre in 1202 (Maitland's <i>Select Pleas of the Crown</i>, -p. 19), where it is used of extorting toll from vessels as they -traversed the marshes. A reference to the closing portion of -the Lincolnshire survey in Domesday will show the very same -offence presented by the jurors of 1086.</p> - -<p>To the same number of the <i>Academy</i>, Mr. Paget Toynbee -contributed a letter quoting some examples from Ducange of -the use of <i>tenseria</i>, one of them taken from the Council of -London in 1151: "Sancimus igitur ut Ecclesiæ et possessiones -ecclesiasticæ ab operationibus et exactionibus, quas vulgo -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_415" id="Page_415">{415}</a></span> -<i>tenserias</i> sive tallagia vocant, omnino liberæ permaneant, nec -super his eas aliqui de cætero inquietare præsumant." The -other is taken from the Council of Tours<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1194" id="Ref_1194" href="#Foot_1194">[1194]</a></span> (1163), and is -specially valuable because, I think, it explains how the word -acquired its meaning. The difficulty is to deduce the sense of -"robbery" from a verb which originally meant "to protect" or -"to defend," but this difficulty is beautifully explained by our -own word "blackmail," which similarly meant money extorted -under pretence of protection or defence. The "defensio" of -the Tours Council supports this explanation, as does the curious -story told by the monks of Abingdon,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1195" id="Ref_1195" href="#Foot_1195">[1195]</a></span> that during the Anarchy -under Stephen—</p> - -<p class="small"> -"Willelmus Boterel constabularius de Wallingford, pecunia accepta a -domno Ingulfo abbate, res ecclesiæ Abbendonensis a suo exercitu se defensurum -promisit. Sponsionis ergo suæ immemor, in villam Culeham, quæ huic -cænobio adjacet, quicquid invenire potuit, deprædavit. Quo audito, abbas -... admirans quomodo quod tueri deberet, fure nequior diripuisset" etc.</p> - -<p>William died excommunicate for this, but his brother Peter -made some slight compensation later.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1196" id="Ref_1196" href="#Foot_1196">[1196]</a></span> It was not unusual for -conscience or the Church to extort more or less restitution for -lawless conduct, as, indeed, in the case of Geoffrey de Mandeville -and his son. So, too, Earl Ferrers made a grant to Burton -Abbey "propter dampna a me et meis Ecclesiæ predictæ illata" -(cf. p. 276, <i>n.</i> 3), previous to going on pilgrimage to S. Jago de -Compostella—an early instance of a pilgrimage thither.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1197" id="Ref_1197" href="#Foot_1197">[1197]</a></span></p> - -<p>While on this subject, it may be as well to add that the -grant by Robert, Earl of Leicester, to the see of Lincoln in -restitution for wrongs,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1198" id="Ref_1198" href="#Foot_1198">[1198]</a></span> may very possibly refer to his alleged -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_416" id="Page_416">{416}</a></span> -share in the arrest of the bishops (1139), and so confirm the -statement of Ordericus Vitalis.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1199" id="Ref_1199" href="#Foot_1199">[1199]</a></span></p> - -<p>The complaint of the same English Chronicle that the lawless -barons "cruelly oppressed the wretched men of the land -with castle works" is curiously confirmed by a letter from -Pope Eugenius to four of the prelates, July 23, 1147:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Religiosorum fratrum Abbendoniæ gravem querelam accepimus quod -Willelmus Martel, Hugo de Bolebec, Willelmus de Bellocampo, Johannes -Marescallus, et eorum homines, et plures etiam alii parochiani vestri, possessiones -eorum violenter invadunt, et bona ipsorum rapiunt et distrahunt et -<i>indebitas castellorum operationes ab eis exigunt</i>."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1200" id="Ref_1200" href="#Foot_1200">[1200]</a></span></p> - -<p>With characteristic agreement upon this point, William -Martel, who served the king, John the marshal, who followed -the Empress, and William de Beauchamp, who had joined both, -were at one in the evil work.</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1192" id="Foot_1192" href="#Ref_1192">[1192]</a> -"Hi læiden gæildes on the tunes ... and clepeden it <i>tenserie</i>" (ed. -Thorpe, i. 382). Mr. Thorpe, the Rolls Series editor, took upon himself to -alter the word to <i>censerie</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1193" id="Foot_1193" href="#Ref_1193">[1193]</a> -No. 1001, p. 37 (July 11, 1891).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1194" id="Foot_1194" href="#Ref_1194">[1194]</a> -"De Cæmeteriis et Ecclesiis, sive quibuslibet possessionibus ecclesiasticis -tenserias dari prohibemus, ne pro Ecclesia vel cæmeterii defensione fidei -sui Clerici sponsionem interponant." Compare the passage from the <i>Chronicle -of Ramsey</i>, p. 218 <i>n.</i>, <i>ante</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1195" id="Foot_1195" href="#Ref_1195">[1195]</a> -<i>Abingdon Cartulary</i>, ii. 231.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1196" id="Foot_1196" href="#Ref_1196">[1196]</a> -William and Peter Boterel were related to Brian Fitz Count (of -Wallingford) through his father. They both attest a charter of his wife, -Matilda "de Wallingford," to Oakburn Priory.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1197" id="Foot_1197" href="#Ref_1197">[1197]</a> -<i>Burton Cartulary</i>, p. 50. A pilgrimage to this shrine is alluded to in -a charter (of this reign) by the Earl of Chester to his brother the Earl of -Lincoln, "in eodem anno quo ipsemet ... redivit de itinere S. Jacobi -Apostoli."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1198" id="Foot_1198" href="#Ref_1198">[1198]</a> -"Robertus Comes Leg' Radulfo vicecomiti. Sciatis me pro satisfactione, -ac dampnorum per me seu per meas Ecclesiæ Lincoln' Episcopo illatorum -restitutione, dedisse ... præfatæ Ecclesiæ Lincolnensi et Alexandro -Episcopo," etc. (<i>Remigius' Register</i> at Lincoln, p. 37).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1199" id="Foot_1199" href="#Ref_1199">[1199]</a> -See his life by me in <i>Dictionary of National Biography</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1200" id="Foot_1200" href="#Ref_1200">[1200]</a> -<i>Cartulary of Abingdon</i>, ii. 200, 543.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_417" id="Page_417">{417}</a></span> - -<h3>APPENDIX BB.<br /> -<small>THE EMPRESS'S CHARTER TO GEOFFREY RIDEL.</small></h3> - -<p class="center small">(See p. <a href="#Page_234">234</a>.)</p> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">This</span> -instrument, which is referred to in the text, belongs to -the Devizes series of the charters granted by the Empress, and -is enrolled among some deeds relating to the baronial family -of Basset.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1201" id="Ref_1201" href="#Foot_1201">[1201]</a></span> As every charter of the Empress is of interest, while -this one possesses special features, it is here given <i>in extenso</i>:—</p> - -<p class="small">M. Imperatrix Henrici Regis filia et Anglorum Domina, -et H. filius Ducis Normannorum, Archiep. Epis. Abb. Comit. -Baron. Justic. Vicecom. Minist. et omnibus fidelibus suis -Francis et Anglis tocius Anglie et Normannie salutem. Sciatis -me reddidisse et concessisse Galfrido Ridel filio Ricardi Basset -totam hereditatem suam et omnia recta sua ubicunque ea -ratione poteret ostendere sive in Normannia sive in Anglia -et totam terram quam pater eius Ricardus Basset habuit et -tenuit jure hereditario de Rege Henrico, vel de quocunque -tenuisset, in Normannia sive in Anglia, ad tenendum in feodo -et hereditate. Et totam terram Galfridi Ridel avi sui quamcunque -habuit et tenuit jure hereditario, In Anglia sive in -Normannia de Rege Henrico, vel de quocunque tenuisset, ad -tenendum in feudo et hereditate sibi et heredibus suis de nobis -et heredibus nostris. Quare volumus et firmiter precipimus -quod bene et in pace et quiete et honorifice teneat in bosco et -aquis et in viis et semitis in pratis et pasturis in omnibus locis -cum soch et sache cum tol et them et infangefethef et cum -omnibus consuetudinibus et quietudinibus et libertatibus cum -quibus antecessores eius tenuerunt. T[estibus]. Cancellario -et Roberto Comite Glovernie et Galfrido Comite Essex et -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_418" id="Page_418">{418}</a></span> -Roberto filio Reg[is] et Walchelino Maminot [et] Rogero filio -(<i>sic</i>) Apud Diuis[as].</p> - -<p>The charter with which this one ought to be closely compared -is that granted, also at Devizes, to Humfrey de Bohun, -early in 1144.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1202" id="Ref_1202" href="#Foot_1202">[1202]</a></span> These two are the only instances I have yet -met with of <i>joint</i> charters from the Empress and her son. It -may not be unjustifiable to infer that Henry was henceforth -included as a partner in his mother's charters. If so, it would -follow that her charters in which he is not mentioned are -probably of earlier date.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1203" id="Ref_1203" href="#Foot_1203">[1203]</a></span> The second point suggested by -a comparison of these charters is that here Henry figures as -the son of the Duke of the Normans, while in the other -document he is merely son of the Count of the Angevins. -This is at once explained by the fact that her husband had now -won his promotion (1144) from Count of the Angevins to Duke -of the Normans, an explanation which confirms my remarks on -the charter to Humfrey de Bohun.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1204" id="Ref_1204" href="#Foot_1204">[1204]</a></span> Thus this charter to -Geoffrey Ridel must be later than the spring of 1144, while -anterior to Henry's departure about the end of 1146. As the -(Coucher) charter to Geoffrey de Mandeville (junior) is attested -by Humfrey as "Dapifer," that, also, may be placed subsequent -to Humfrey's own. Again, in the charter here printed, we -have proof that Richard Basset was dead at the time of its -grant, if not before. There has been hitherto no clue as to the -time of his decease, though Foss makes him die, by a strange -confusion, in 1154. Nor is it unimportant to observe that the -Bassets and Ridels were typical members of that official class -which Henry I. had fostered, and which appears to have -strongly favoured his daughter's cause. Lastly, in the re-grant -of this charter, by Duke Henry at Wallingford (1153), we have -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_419" id="Page_419">{419}</a></span> -a valuable illustration of his practice in ignoring his mother's -charters, even when sanctioned by himself in his youth. For, -although the terms of the instrument are reproduced with -exactitude, the grant is made <i>de novo</i>, without reference to any -former charter.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1205" id="Ref_1205" href="#Foot_1205">[1205]</a></span></p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1201" id="Foot_1201" href="#Ref_1201">[1201]</a> -<i>Sloane</i>, xxxi. 4 (No. 48).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1202" id="Foot_1202" href="#Ref_1202">[1202]</a> -See my <i>Ancient Charters</i> (Pipe-Roll Society), pp. 45-47. There are two -Devizes charters of the Empress, besides this one, not included in Mr. Birch's -collection, namely, her grant of Aston (by the Wrekin) to Shrewsbury Abbey, -and her general confirmation to that house. They are both attested by Earl -Reginald, William fitz Alan, Robert de Dunstanville, and "Goceas" de -Dinan, but are later than 1141, to which date Mr. Eyton and others assign -them.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1203" id="Foot_1203" href="#Ref_1203">[1203]</a> -In the second charter of the Empress to Geoffrey de Mandeville the -elder (1142) we have the first sign of a desire to secure her son's adhesion.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1204" id="Foot_1204" href="#Ref_1204">[1204]</a> -<i>Ancient Charters</i>, p. 47.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1205" id="Foot_1205" href="#Ref_1205">[1205]</a> -<i>Sloane</i>, xxxi. 4. The witnesses are Randulf Earl of Chester, Reginald -Earl of Cornwall, William Earl of Gloucester, the Earl of Hereford, Richard -de Humez ("duhumesco"), constable, Philip de Columbers, Ralph Basset, -Ralph "Walensis," Hugh de "Hamslep."</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_420" id="Page_420">{420}</a></span> - -<h2>EXCURSUS.</h2> - -<h3>THE CREATION OF THE EARLDOM OF GLOUCESTER.</h3> - -</div> - -<p class="nodent"><span class="smc">One</span> -of the problems in English history as yet, it would seem, -unsolved, is that of the date at which Henry I. conferred on his -natural son Robert the earldom of Gloucester. The great part -which Robert played in the eventful struggles of his time, the -fact that this was, in all probability, almost the only earldom -created in the course of this reign (1100-1135), and the importance -of ascertaining the date of its creation as fixing that of -many an otherwise doubtful record, all combine to cause surprise -that the problem remains unsolved.</p> - -<p>Brooke wrote that the earldom of Gloucester was conferred -on Robert "in the eleventh year of his father's reign," and -his critic, the argus-eyed Vincent, in his <i>Discoverie of Errours</i>, -did not question the statement. As to Dugdale, he evaded the -problem. Ignorance on the point is frankly confessed in the -<i>Reports on the Dignity of a Peer</i>; while Mr. Freeman, so far -as I can find, has also deemed discretion the better part of -valour.</p> - -<p>Three dates, however, have been suggested for this creation.</p> - -<p>The first is 1109. This may be traced to Sandford (1707) -and Rapin (1724), who took it from the rhyming chronicle -assigned to Robert of Gloucester:—</p> - -<p class="small">"And of the kynges crownement in the [ninthe]<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1206" id="Ref_1206" href="#Foot_1206">[1206]</a></span> yere, -The vorst Erle of Gloucestre thus was mayd there."</p> - -<p>This date was revived by Courthope in his well-known -edition (1857) of the <i>Historic Peerage</i> of Sir Harris Nicolas (by -whom no date had been assigned to the creation). It may be -said, by inference, to have received the sanction of the -authorities at the British Museum.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_421" id="Page_421">{421}</a></span> -The second is 1119. This suspiciously resembles an adaptation -of the preceding date, but may have been suggested, and -in the case of Mr. Clark (<i>vide infra</i>) probably was, by reading -Dugdale wrong.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1207" id="Ref_1207" href="#Foot_1207">[1207]</a></span> It seems to have first appeared in a footnote -to William of Malmesbury (1840), as edited for the -English Historical Society by the late Sir Thomas Duffus -(then Mr.) Hardy. It is there stated that Robert "was -created Earl of Gloucester in 1119" (vol. ii. p. 692). No -authority whatever is given for this statement, but the same -date is adopted by Mr. Clark (1878), who asserts that "Robert -certainly bore it [the title] 1119, 20th Henry I." (<i>Arch. Journ.</i>, -xxxv. 5); by Mr. Doyle (1886) in his valuable <i>Official Baronage</i> -(ii. 9); and lastly (1887) by Mr. Hunt in his <i>Bristol</i> (p. 17). -In none of these cases, however, is the source of the statement -given.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1208" id="Ref_1208" href="#Foot_1208">[1208]</a></span></p> - -<p>In the mean while, a third date, viz. shortly before Easter -(April 2), 1116, was advanced with much assurance. In his -essay on the <i>Survey of Lindsey</i> (1882), Mr. Chester Waters -wrote:</p> - -<p class="small">"We know that the earldom was conferred on him before Easter, 1116, -for he attested as earl the royal charter in favour of Tewkesbury Abbey, -which was executed at Winchester on the eve of the king's embarkation for -Normandy" (p. 3).</p> - -<p>The date attributed to this charter having aroused the -curiosity of antiquaries, the somewhat singular discovery was -made that it could also be found in the MSS. of Mr. Eyton, -then lately deceased.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1209" id="Ref_1209" href="#Foot_1209">[1209]</a></span> For the time, however, Mr. Waters -enjoyed the credit of having solved an ancient problem, and -"the ennobling of Robert fitz Roy in 1116" was accepted by -no less an authority than Mr. Elton.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1210" id="Ref_1210" href="#Foot_1210">[1210]</a></span></p> - -<p>I propose to show that these three dates are all alike -erroneous, and that the Tewkesbury charter is spurious.</p> -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_422" id="Page_422">{422}</a></span> -Let us first observe that there is no evidence for the belief -that Robert received his earldom at the time of his marriage to -the heiress of Robert fitz Hamon. There is, on the contrary, a -probability that he did not. I do not insist on the Tewkesbury -charter (<i>Mon. Ang.</i>, ii. 66), in which the king speaks of the -demesne of Robert fitz Hamon as being now "Dominium -Roberti filii mei," for we have more direct evidence in a -charter of Robert to the church of Rochester, in which he confirmed -the gifts made by his wife and father, not as Robert -Earl of Gloucester, but merely as "Ego Rodbertus Henrici -Regis filius."</p> - -<p>We must further dismiss late authorities, in which, as we -might expect, we find a tendency to throw back the creation of -a title to an early period of the grantee's life. We cannot -accept as valid evidence the rhymes of Robert of Gloucester -(<i>circa</i> 1300), the confusion of later writers, or the assumptions -of the fourteenth-century <i>Chronicque de Normandie</i>, in which last -work Robert is represented as already "Earl of Gloucester" at -the battle of Tinchebrai (1106).</p> - -<p>The only chronicle that we can safely consult is that of the -Continuator of William of Jumièges, and this, unfortunately, -tells us nothing as to the date of the creation, which, however, -it seems to place some time after the marriage. It is worth -mentioning that the writer's words—</p> - -<p class="small">"Præterea, quia parum erat filium Regis ingentia prædia possidere absque -nomine et honore alicujus publicæ dignitatis, dedit illi pater pius comitatum -Gloecestre" (Lib. viii. cap. 29, ed. Duchesne, p. 306).</p> - -<p>are suspiciously suggestive of Robert of Gloucester's famous -story that Robert's bride refused to marry him "bote he adde -an tuo name." It would be very satisfactory if we could thus -trace the story to its source, the more so as the chronicle is not -among those from which Robert is supposed to have drawn.</p> - -<p>We are, therefore, left dependent on the evidence of charters -alone. That is to say, we must look to the styles given to -Robert the king's son, to learn when he first became Earl of -Gloucester.</p> - -<p>His earliest attestation is, to all appearance, that which -occurs in a charter of 1113. This charter is printed in the -appendix to the edition of Ordericus Vitalis by the Société de -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_423" id="Page_423">{423}</a></span> -l'Histoire de France,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1211" id="Ref_1211" href="#Foot_1211">[1211]</a></span> and as all the circumstances connected -with its grant, together with the names of the chief witnesses, -are given by Ordericus in the body of his work,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1212" id="Ref_1212" href="#Foot_1212">[1212]</a></span> there cannot -be the slightest doubt, or even hesitation, as to its date.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1213" id="Ref_1213" href="#Foot_1213">[1213]</a></span> In -the text he is styled "Rodbertus regis filius," and in the -charter "Rodbertus filius regis," his name being given, it -should be noticed, last but one. The next attestation, in order, -it would seem, is found in a writ of Henry I. tested at Reading, -some time before Easter, 1116, to judge from the presence of -"Rannulfus Meschinus."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1214" id="Ref_1214" href="#Foot_1214">[1214]</a></span> For Randulf became Earl of Chester -by the death of his cousin Richard, when returning to England -with the king in November, 1120.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1215" id="Ref_1215" href="#Foot_1215">[1215]</a></span></p> - -<p>We next find Robert in Normandy with his father. He -there attests a charter to Savigny, his name ("Robertus filius -regis") coming immediately after those of the earls (in this -case Stephen, Count of Mortain, and Richard, Earl of Chester), -that being the position in which, till his creation, it henceforth -always figures. This charter passed in 1118, probably in the -autumn of the year.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1216" id="Ref_1216" href="#Foot_1216">[1216]</a></span> Robert's next appearance is at the battle -of Brémulé (or Noyon), August 20, 1119. Ordericus refers to -his presence thus:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Ibi fuerunt duo filii ejus Rodbertus et Ricardus, milites egregii, et tres -consules," etc., etc. (iv. 357).</p> - -<p>This is certainly opposed to the view that Robert was already -an earl, for he is carefully distinguished from the three earls -("tres consules") who were present, and is classed with his -brother Richard, who never became an earl. We must assign -to about the same date the confirmation charter of Colchester -Abbey, which is known to us only from the unpublished -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_424" id="Page_424">{424}</a></span> -cartulary now in the possession of Lord Cowper. Robert's -name here comes immediately after those of the earls, and his -style is "Robertus filius henrici regis Anglorum."</p> - -<p>This charter suggests a very important question. That its -form, in the cartulary, is that in which it was originally -granted we may confidently deny. At the same time, the -circumstances by which its grant was accompanied are told -by the monks in great detail and in the form of a separate -narrative. Indeed, on that narrative is based the belief, so -dear to Mr. Freeman's heart, that Henry I. was, more or -less, familiar with the English tongue. Moreover, it is suggested -by internal evidence that the charter, as we have it, -is based on an originally genuine record. Now, the accepted -practice is to class charters as genuine, doubtful, or spurious, -"doubtful" meaning only that they are either genuine or -spurious, but that it is not quite certain to which of these -classes they belong. For my part I see no reason why there -should not be an indefinite number of stages between an -absolutely genuine record and one that is a sheer forgery. It -was often, whether truly or falsely, alleged (we may have our -own suspicions) that the charter originally granted had been -lost, stolen, or burnt. In the case of this particular charter, -its predecessor was said to have been lost; at Leicester, a riot -was made accountable; at Carlisle a fire. In these last two -cases, those who were affected were allowed to depose to the -tenor of the lost charter. In the case of that which we are now -considering, I have recorded in another place<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1217" id="Ref_1217" href="#Foot_1217">[1217]</a></span> my belief that -the story was probably a plot of the monks anxious to secure -an enlarged charter. Of course, where a charter was really -lost, and it was thought necessary to supply its place either by -a pseudo-original document, or merely in a cartulary, deliberate -invention was the only resource. But, in such cases, it was -almost certain that, in the days when the means of historical -information were, compared with our own, non-existent, the -forger would betray himself at once by the names in his list of -witnesses. There was, however, as I imagine, another class -of forged charters. This comprised those cases in which the -original had not been lost, but in which it was desired to -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_425" id="Page_425">{425}</a></span> -substitute for that original a charter with more extensive -grants. Here the genuine list of witnesses might, of course, be -copied, and with a little skill the interpolations or alterations -might be so made as to render detection difficult, if not -impossible. I speak, of course, of a cartulary transcript; in -an actual charter, the document and seal would greatly assist -detection. But I would suggest that there might be another -class to be considered. This Colchester charter is a case in -point. The impression it conveys to my mind is that of a -genuine charter, adapted by a systematic process of florid and -grandiloquent adornment to a depraved monkish taste. In -short, I look on this charter as not, of necessity, a "forgery," -that is, intended to deceive, but as possibly representing the -results of a process resembling that of illumination. Such -an hypothesis may appear daring, but it is based, we must -remember, on a mental attitude, on, so to speak, an historic -conscience, radically different from our own. After all, it is -but in the present generation that the sacredness of an original -record has been recognized as it should. Such a conception -was wholly foreign to the men of the Middle Ages. I had -occasion to allude to this essential fact in a study on "The -Book of Howth," when calling attention to the strange liberties -allowed themselves by the early translators of the <i>Expugnatio -Hiberniæ</i>. Geoffrey of Monmouth illustrates the point. Looking -not only at him but his contemporaries in the twelfth -century, we cannot but compare the impertinent obtrusion of -their pseudo-classical and, still more, their incorrigible Biblical -erudition, with the same peculiar features in such charters as -those of which I speak. Another remarkable parallel, I think, -may be found in the <i>Dialogus de Scaccario</i>. Observe there the -opening passage, together with the persistent obtrusion of texts, -and compare them with the general type of forged, spurious, or -"doctored" charters. The resemblance is very striking. It -was, one might say, the systematic practice of the monkish -forger or adapter to make the royal or other grantor in such -charters as these indulge in a homily from the monkish standpoint -on the obligation to make such grants, and to quote texts -in support of that thesis. Once viewed in this light, such -passages are as intelligible as they are absurd. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_426" id="Page_426">{426}</a></span></p> - -<p>But, in addition to, and distinct from, these stilted moralizations, -is the process which I have ventured to compare with -illumination or even embroidery. This was, in most cases, so -overdone, as to bury the simple phraseology of the original, if -genuine, instrument beneath a pile of grandiloquence. Take -for instance this clause from the Colchester charter in question:</p> - -<p class="small">"Data Rothomagi deo gratias solemniter et feliciter Anno ab incarn' -dom' <small>MCXIX</small>. Quo nimirum anno prætaxatus filius regis Henrici Will's rex -designatus puellam nobilissimam filiam Fulconis Andegavorum comitis -Mathildam nomine Luxouii duxit uxorem."</p> - -<p>Now, if we compare this clause with that appended to an -original charter of some ten years later, we there read thus:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Apud Wintoniam eodem anno, inter Pascham et Pentecostem, quo Rex -duxit in uxorem filiam ducis de Luvain."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1218" id="Ref_1218" href="#Foot_1218">[1218]</a></span></p> - -<p>This peculiar method of dating charters which is found in -this reign suggests that the genuine charter to Colchester -would contain a similar clause (if any),<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1219" id="Ref_1219" href="#Foot_1219">[1219]</a></span> beginning "Apud -Rothomagum eodem anno quo," etc., etc. As it stands in the -cartulary, the original clause has been treated by the monkish -scribe much as an original passage in a chronicle might be -worked into his text, in the present day, by an historian of the -"popular" school.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1220" id="Ref_1220" href="#Foot_1220">[1220]</a></span> But wide and interesting though the conclusions -are to which such an hypothesis might lead, I must -confine myself here to pointing out that the list of witnesses, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_427" id="Page_427">{427}</a></span> -in its minutest details, is apparently beyond impeachment. -Specially would I refer to four names, those of the clerks of -the king's chapel. It is rare, indeed, to find so complete and -careful a list. The four "capellani regis," as they are here -styled, are (1) John de Bayeux;<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1221" id="Ref_1221" href="#Foot_1221">[1221]</a></span> (2) Nigel de Caine;<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1222" id="Ref_1222" href="#Foot_1222">[1222]</a></span> (3) -Robert "Pechet;"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1223" id="Ref_1223" href="#Foot_1223">[1223]</a></span> (4) Richard "custos sigilli regis."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1224" id="Ref_1224" href="#Foot_1224">[1224]</a></span> The -remarkable and, we may fairly assume, undesigned coincidence -between the list of witnesses attesting this charter, and that of -the king's followers at the battle of Brémulé (fought, there is -reason to believe, within a few weeks of its grant), as given -by Ordericus Vitalis, ought to be carefully noted, confirming, -as it obviously does, the authority of both the lists, and consequently -my hypothesis that the charter in the Colchester -cartulary represents a genuine original record belonging to the -date alleged.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1225" id="Ref_1225" href="#Foot_1225">[1225]</a></span></p> - -<p>It is also, perhaps, worth notice that Eadmer applies to -William "the Ætheling" the very same term as that which -meets us in this charter, namely, "designatus."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1226" id="Ref_1226" href="#Foot_1226">[1226]</a></span></p> - -<p>Approaching now the question of date, we note that the -charter must have been subsequent to the marriage at Lisieux -(June, 1119) to which it refers, and previous to the Council -of Rheims (October 20, 1119), which Archbishop Thurstan -attended, and from which he did not return.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1227" id="Ref_1227" href="#Foot_1227">[1227]</a></span> We know that -between these dates Henry was in Rouen at least once, viz. at -the end of September (1119),<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1228" id="Ref_1228" href="#Foot_1228">[1228]</a></span> so that we can determine the -date of the charter within exceedingly narrow limits. -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_428" id="Page_428">{428}</a></span></p> - -<p>The remaining charters which we have now to examine are -all subsequent to the king's return and the disaster of the -White Ship (November 25, 1120).</p> - -<p>The desolate king had spent his Christmas (1120) in comparative -seclusion at Brampton, attended by his nephew, -Theobald of Blois.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1229" id="Ref_1229" href="#Foot_1229">[1229]</a></span> In January (1121) he came south to attend -a great council before his approaching marriage. By Eadmer -and the Continuator of Florence of Worcester, the assembling -of the council is assigned to the Epiphany (January 6, 1121). -Richard "de Sigillo" was on the following day (January 7) -elected to the see of Hereford, and was consecrated nine days -later (January 16, 1121) at Lambeth.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1230" id="Ref_1230" href="#Foot_1230">[1230]</a></span></p> - -<p>To this council we may safely assign a charter in the British -Museum (Harley, 111, B. 46),<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1231" id="Ref_1231" href="#Foot_1231">[1231]</a></span> of value for its list of witnesses, -twenty-six in number. It gives us the names of no fewer than -thirteen bishops, by whom, in addition to the primate, this -council was attended.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1232" id="Ref_1232" href="#Foot_1232">[1232]</a></span> Mr. Walter de Gray Birch, by whom -so much has been done to encourage the study of charters and -of seals, has edited this record in one of his instructive sphragistic -monographs.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1233" id="Ref_1233" href="#Foot_1233">[1233]</a></span> He has, however, by an unfortunate inadvertence, -omitted about half a dozen witnesses,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1234" id="Ref_1234" href="#Foot_1234">[1234]</a></span> while his two -limits of date are not quite correct; for Richard was consecrated -Bishop of Hereford, not on "the 16th of January, 1120," -but on the 16th of January, 1121 (N.S.), and Archbishop Ralph -died, not "19th September," but 19th October (xiv. kal. -Novembris), 1122. Thus the limit for this charter would be, -not "from April, 1120, to September, 1122," but from January, -1121, to October, 1122. Mr. Birch further observes that "the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_429" id="Page_429">{429}</a></span> -date may be taken very shortly after the consecration of -Richard." Here again, I must reluctantly differ, for by the -practice of the time, the grant of the temporalities did not come -after, but before, the consecration. The charter, in short, as -I observed above, can be safely assigned to the council of -January, 1121.</p> - -<p>In it the subject of this paper attests as "Roberto filio -Regis." His name occurs in its right place immediately after -those of the earls, who, oddly enough, are in this charter the -same two, at least in title,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1235" id="Ref_1235" href="#Foot_1235">[1235]</a></span> after whom he had attested the -Savigny charter in 1118.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1236" id="Ref_1236" href="#Foot_1236">[1236]</a></span></p> - -<p>The next charters in my chain of evidence are two which -passed at Windsor. We are told by Simeon of Durham that at -the time of the king's marriage (January 29-30, 1121) there -was gathered together at Windsor a council of the whole realm.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1237" id="Ref_1237" href="#Foot_1237">[1237]</a></span> -To this council I assign a charter printed by Madox from the -original among the archives of Westminster Abbey.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1238" id="Ref_1238" href="#Foot_1238">[1238]</a></span> I am led -to do so because, firstly, the names of the witnesses are all -found, with three exceptions, in charters belonging to this date; -second, the said three exceptions are those of Count Theobald -of Blois, who had, we know, joined the king not long before, of -Earl David, from Scotland, whose visit would be due to the occasion -of his brother-in-law's wedding, and of the Archbishop of -Rouen, whose presence may be also thus accounted for;<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1239" id="Ref_1239" href="#Foot_1239">[1239]</a></span> third, -the attestation of two archbishops with four bishops suggests the -presence of a "concilium," as described by Simeon of Durham.</p> - -<p>If this is the date of the charter in question, it may also be -that of another charter, also to Westminster Abbey,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1240" id="Ref_1240" href="#Foot_1240">[1240]</a></span> for its -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_430" id="Page_430">{430}</a></span> -eleven witnesses are all found among those of the preceding -charter. In both these cases "Robert, the king's son," attests -in his regular place immediately after the earls.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1241" id="Ref_1241" href="#Foot_1241">[1241]</a></span></p> - -<p>We now come to an original charter in every way of the -highest importance.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1242" id="Ref_1242" href="#Foot_1242">[1242]</a></span> I have already quoted its dating clause,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1243" id="Ref_1243" href="#Foot_1243">[1243]</a></span> -which proves it to have been executed at Winchester, between -Easter (April 10) and Pentecost (May 29), 1121. Moreover, as -the king spent his Easter at Berkeley and his Whitsuntide at -Westminster,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1244" id="Ref_1244" href="#Foot_1244">[1244]</a></span> the limit of date, as a matter of fact, is somewhat -narrower still. Here again Robert attests ("Rob[erto] -fil[io] Regis") at the head of all the laity beneath the rank -of earl.</p> - -<p>The last charter which I propose to adduce, as attested by -"Robert, the king's son," is one which, in all probability, may -be assigned to this same occasion, for the whole of its thirteen -witnesses had attested the previous charter, with the exception -of two bishops, whose presence can be otherwise accounted for,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1245" id="Ref_1245" href="#Foot_1245">[1245]</a></span> -and of William de Warenne (Earl of Surrey).</p> - -<p>The importance of this charter is not so great as that of -those adduced above, for it is known to us only from the Rymer -Collectanea (<i>Add. MSS.</i>, 4573), of which an abstract is appended -to the Fœdera.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1246" id="Ref_1246" href="#Foot_1246">[1246]</a></span> Moreover, in one minute detail its accuracy -may be fairly impugned, for "Willielmo de Warennâ" clearly -stands for "Willielmo <i>Comite</i> de Warennâ," Nor, indeed, is its -evidence needed, the proof being complete without it. Yet, as -the charter (<i>quantum valeat</i>) has been assigned, I think, to a -wrong date, the point may be worth glancing at. In the Rymer -Collectanea the date is fixed as "1115" (or "16 Henry I.") on the -ground that it belongs to the same date as a charter of Henry I. -to Bardney, which was granted "Apud Wynton' xvj. anno -postquam rex recepit regnum Angliæ."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1247" id="Ref_1247" href="#Foot_1247">[1247]</a></span> Mr. Eyton also, in a -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_431" id="Page_431">{431}</a></span> -late addition to his MS. Itinerary of Henry I.,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1248" id="Ref_1248" href="#Foot_1248">[1248]</a></span> wrote that the -presence of three of the bishops (Lincoln, Salisbury, and St -David's) suggested "the latter part of 1115." But we must -remember that the Bardney charter is known to us only from a -late Inspeximus,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1249" id="Ref_1249" href="#Foot_1249">[1249]</a></span> and that the dating clause is somewhat suspicious. -Yet even if the version were entirely genuine, the -fact remains that the list of witnesses has only four names<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1250" id="Ref_1250" href="#Foot_1250">[1250]</a></span> in -common with that in the charter I am discussing, which has, -on the contrary, no less than ten in common with those in the -original charter of 1121.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1251" id="Ref_1251" href="#Foot_1251">[1251]</a></span> I cannot, therefore, but fix on 1121 -as a far more probable date for its grant than 1115-1116.</p> - -<p>This, however, as I said, is but a small matter. The really -important fact is this: that we have a continuous chain of -evidence, proving that "Robert, the king's son," was not yet -Earl of Gloucester, at least as late as April-May, 1121.</p> - -<p>Against this weight of accumulated evidence what is there? -Absolutely nothing but that Tewkesbury charter, which is -quoted from Dugdale's <i>Monasticon</i>, where it is quoted from a -mere <i>Inspeximus</i> of the 10th Henry IV. (1408-9), some three -centuries after its alleged date!<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1252" id="Ref_1252" href="#Foot_1252">[1252]</a></span> I need scarcely say that this -miserable evidence for the assertion that Robert was Earl of -Gloucester, at Easter, 1116, is simply annihilated and crumpled -up by the proof afforded by original charters that he had not -yet received the earldom even five years later on (1121).</p> - -<p>It is, however, satisfactory to be able to add that, even -independent of this rebutting evidence, the charter itself, on its -own face, bears witness of its spurious character. Mr. Eyton, -indeed, was slightly uneasy about two of the witnesses, it being, -he thought, as unusually early for an attestation of Brian fitz -Count, as it was late for that of Hamo Dapifer.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1253" id="Ref_1253" href="#Foot_1253">[1253]</a></span> Yet he was -not, on that account, led to reject it; indeed, he not only -accepted, but unfortunately built upon its evidence. He never, -however, we must remember, committed his conclusions to print, -so that it may be urged with perfect justice that he might -have reconsidered and changed his views before he made them -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_432" id="Page_432">{432}</a></span> -public. Not so with Mr. Chester Waters. Announcing the discovery -which Mr. Eyton had so strangely anticipated, he wrote—</p> - -<p class="small">"We know that the earldom [of Gloucester] was conferred on him -[Robert] before Easter, 1116, for he attested as earl the royal charter in -favour of Tewkesbury Abbey which was executed at Winchester, on the eve -of the king's embarkation for Normandy (<i>Monasticon</i>, vol. ii. p. 66)."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1254" id="Ref_1254" href="#Foot_1254">[1254]</a></span></p> - -<p>When Mr. Waters thus wrote, had he observed that in this -charter the king's style appears as "Henr' dei gratia Rex Angl' -<i>et dux Norm'</i>"? And if he had done so, if he had glanced -at the charter on which he based his case, is it possible that -he was so unfamiliar with the charters and the writs of -Henry I., as not to be aware that such a style, of itself, throws -doubt upon the charter?<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1255" id="Ref_1255" href="#Foot_1255">[1255]</a></span> To those who remember that he -confessed (in reply to certain criticisms of my own) to having -"carelessly repeated a statement which comes from a discredited -authority,"<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1256" id="Ref_1256" href="#Foot_1256">[1256]</a></span> and that he announced a discovery as to -the meeting of Henry I. and Robert of Normandy, in 1101,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1257" id="Ref_1257" href="#Foot_1257">[1257]</a></span> -which, as I proved, was based only on his own failure to read -a charter of this reign aright,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1258" id="Ref_1258" href="#Foot_1258">[1258]</a></span> such a correction as this will -come as no surprise.</p> - -<p>Having now shown that Robert fitz Roy was not yet Earl -of Gloucester in April-May, 1121, I proceed to show that he -was earl in June, 1123.</p> - -<p>The charter by which I prove this is granted "apud Portesmudam -in transfretatione meâ."<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1259" id="Ref_1259" href="#Foot_1259">[1259]</a></span> It is dated in the thirty-first -Report of the Deputy Keeper of the Records (in the calendar -of these charters drawn up by the late Sir William Hardy) -as "1115-1123." Its exact date can, however, be determined, -and is 3-10 June, 1123. This I prove thus. The parties -addressed are Theowulf, Bishop of Worcester (who died -October 20, 1123), and Robert, Earl of Gloucester (who was -not yet earl in April-May, 1121). These being the limits of -date, the only occasion within these limits on which the king -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_433" id="Page_433">{433}</a></span> -"transfretavit" was in June, 1123. And we learn from the -Anglo-Saxon Chronicle that the king, on that occasion, was at -Portsmouth, waiting to cross, all Pentecost week (June 3-10). -This is conclusive.</p> - -<p>It is certain, therefore, that Robert fitz Roy received the -earldom of Gloucester between April-May, 1121, and June, -1123. We may even reduce this limit if we can trust a charter -in the Register of St. Osmund (i. 382) which is absurdly -assigned in the Rolls edition to circ. 1109. The occurrence -of Robert, Earl of Leicester, proves that it must be subsequent -to his father's death in 1118, and consequently (as the charter -is tested at Westminster) to the king's return in 1120. Again, -as Bishop Robert of Lincoln witnesses the charter, it must be -previous to his death, January 10, 1123, But as the king had -not been at Westminster for some time before that, it cannot -be placed later than 1122. Now, we have seen that in April-May, -1121, Robert was not yet Earl of Gloucester; consequently, -this charter must belong to the period between that date and -the close of 1122. It is, therefore, the earliest mention, as yet -known to me, of Robert as Earl of Gloucester. As we increase -our knowledge of the charters of this reign we shall doubtless -be able to narrow further the limit I have thus ascertained.</p> - -<p>There is, indeed, a charter which, if we could trust it, -would greatly reduce the limit. This is Henry I.'s great charter -to Merton,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1260" id="Ref_1260" href="#Foot_1260">[1260]</a></span> which is attested by Robert, as Earl of Gloucester, -and which purports to have passed August 5-December 31, -1121 (? 24th March, 1122).<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1261" id="Ref_1261" href="#Foot_1261">[1261]</a></span> But it is quite certain that, in the -form we have it, this charter is spurious. It is true that the -names given in the long list of witnesses are, apparently, consistent -with the date,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1262" id="Ref_1262" href="#Foot_1262">[1262]</a></span> but all else is fatally bad. Both the charter -itself, and the attestations thereto, are in the worst and most -turgid style; the precedence of the witnesses is distinctly -wrong,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1263" id="Ref_1263" href="#Foot_1263">[1263]</a></span> and the mention of the year-date would alone rouse -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_434" id="Page_434">{434}</a></span> -suspicion. Whether, and, if so, to what extent, the charter -is based on a genuine document, it is not easy to decide. -A reference to the new <i>Monasticon</i> will show that there is a -difficulty, a conflict of testimony, about the facts of the foundation. -This increases the doubt as to the authenticity of the -charter, from the evidence of which, if not confirmed, we are -certainly not entitled to draw any authoritative conclusion as -to the date of Robert's creation.</p> - -<p>Adhering then, for the present, to the limits I have given -above (1121-1122) I may point out that Robert's promotion -may possibly have been due to his increased importance, consequent -on the loss in the White Ship of the king's only -legitimate son, and of his natural son Richard. Of Henry's -three adult sons he now alone remained.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1264" id="Ref_1264" href="#Foot_1264">[1264]</a></span> It is certain that -he henceforth continued to improve his position and power -till, as we know, he contested with his future rival, Stephen, -the honour of being first among the magnates to swear -allegiance to the Empress.</p> - -<p>Before passing to a corollary of the conclusion arrived at in -this paper it may be well to glance at Robert's younger brother -and namesake. This was a son of Henry by another mother, -Edith, whose parentage, by the way, suggests a genealogical -problem.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1265" id="Ref_1265" href="#Foot_1265">[1265]</a></span> He was quite a nonentity in the history of the -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_435" id="Page_435">{435}</a></span> -time as compared with the elder Robert; nor does his name, -so far as I know, occur before 1130, when it is entered in the -Pipe-Roll for that year. He is found as a witness to one of -his royal father's charters, which is only known to us from -the <i>Cartæ Antiquæ</i>, and which belongs to the end of the reign.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1266" id="Ref_1266" href="#Foot_1266">[1266]</a></span> -There is no possibility of confusion between his brother and -himself, for his earliest attestations are, as we have seen, -several years later than his brother's elevation to the earldom, -so that they cannot both have been attesting, at any one period, -as "Robert, the king's son." It is, moreover, self-evident that -such a style could only be used when there was but one person -whom it could be held to denote.</p> - -<p>As illustrating the value of such researches as these, and -the importance of securing a "fixed point" as a help for other -inquiries, I shall now give an instance of the results consequent -on ascertaining the date of this creation. Let us turn to that -remarkable record among the muniments of St. Paul's, which -the present Deputy Keeper of the Records first made public,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1267" id="Ref_1267" href="#Foot_1267">[1267]</a></span> -and which has since been published <i>in extenso</i> and in fac-simile -by the Corporation of London in their valuable <i>History of the -Guildhall</i>. The importance of this record lies in its mention -of the wards of the City, with their respective rulers, at an -exceptionally early date. What that date was it is most -desirable to learn. Mr. Loftie has rightly, in his later work,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1268" id="Ref_1268" href="#Foot_1268">[1268]</a></span> -made the greatest use of this list, which he describes (p. 93) -as "the document I have so often quoted as containing a list -of the lands of the dean and chapter before 1115." Indeed, -he invariably treats this document as one "which must have -been written before 1115" (p. 82). But the only reason to be -found for his conclusion is that—</p> - -<p class="small">"Coleman Street appears in the St. Paul's list as 'Warda Reimundi,' -and this is the more interesting as we know that Reimund, or Reinmund, -was dead before 1115, which helps us to date the document. Azo, his son, -succeeded him" (p. 89).<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1269" id="Ref_1269" href="#Foot_1269">[1269]</a></span></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_436" id="Page_436">{436}</a></span> -This is a most astounding statement, considering that all "we -know," from these documents, of Reimund or Reinmund is -that both he and his son Azo were living in 1132, when they -attested a charter!<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1270" id="Ref_1270" href="#Foot_1270">[1270]</a></span> Turning from this strange blunder to -the fact that the Earl of Gloucester is among those mentioned -in this list,<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1271" id="Ref_1271" href="#Foot_1271">[1271]</a></span> we learn at once that, so far from being <i>earlier</i> than -1115, it is <i>later</i> than the earl's creation in 1121-1122. And -this conclusion accords well with the fact that other names -which it contains, such as those of John fitz Ralf (fitz -Evrard),<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1272" id="Ref_1272" href="#Foot_1272">[1272]</a></span> William Malet, etc., belong to the close of the -reign.<span class="fnanchor"><a -name="Ref_1273" id="Ref_1273" href="#Foot_1273">[1273]</a></span></p> - -<p>Before taking leave of this record, I would glance at the -curious entry:—</p> - -<p class="small">"Terra Gialle [reddit] ii sol[idos] et est latitudinis <small>LII</small> pedum longitudinis -<small>CXXXII</small> pedum."</p> - -<p>Mr. Price, the editor of the work, renders this "The land -of Gialla;" but what possible proper name can "Gialla" -represent? When we find that the list is followed by a -reference to the Jews being "incarcerati apud Gyhalam," <i>temp.</i> -Edward I., and when Mr. Price admits that "Gyaula" is -among the early forms of "Guildhall," is it too rash a conjecture -that we have in the above "Gialla" a mention of the -Guildhall of London earlier, by far, than he, or any one else, -has ever yet discovered?</p> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1206" id="Foot_1206" href="#Ref_1206">[1206]</a> -This, the important word, is unfortunately doubtful.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1207" id="Foot_1207" href="#Ref_1207">[1207]</a> -"He was advanced to the earldom of Gloucester by the king (his father). -After which, in Anno 1119 (20 Hen. I.), he attended him in that famous -battle at Brennevill," etc., etc. (<i>Baronage</i>, i. 534).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1208" id="Foot_1208" href="#Ref_1208">[1208]</a> -A paper on the earldom was read by the late Mr. J. G. Nichols, at the -Gloucester Congress of the Institute (1851), but I do not find that it was ever -printed, so that I cannot give the date which he assigned.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1209" id="Foot_1209" href="#Ref_1209">[1209]</a> -<i>Athenæum</i>, May 9 and June 27, 1885.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1210" id="Foot_1210" href="#Ref_1210">[1210]</a> -<i>Academy</i>, September 29, 1883 (p. 207).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1211" id="Foot_1211" href="#Ref_1211">[1211]</a> -v. 199.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1212" id="Foot_1212" href="#Ref_1212">[1212]</a> -iv. 302.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1213" id="Foot_1213" href="#Ref_1213">[1213]</a> -The king promised the charter on the occasion of his visit (February 3, -1113), and when it had been drawn up, it received his formal approval at -Rouen, "Anno quo comes Andegavensis mecum pacem fecit et Cenomanniam -de me, meus homo factus, recepit."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1214" id="Foot_1214" href="#Ref_1214">[1214]</a> -<i>Abingdon Cartulary</i>, ii. 77.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1215" id="Foot_1215" href="#Ref_1215">[1215]</a> -Henry remained abroad between the above dates.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1216" id="Foot_1216" href="#Ref_1216">[1216]</a> -<i>Gallia Christiana</i>, xi. (Instrumenta), pp. 111-112. The charter is -there assigned, but without any reason being given, to 1118. A collation, however, -of this record with the names given by Ordericus Vitalis (iv. 329) of -those present at the Council of Rouen, October 7, 1118, makes it all but certain -that it passed on that occasion.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1217" id="Foot_1217" href="#Ref_1217">[1217]</a> -<i>Academy</i>, No. 645.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1218" id="Foot_1218" href="#Ref_1218">[1218]</a> -Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 6.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1219" id="Foot_1219" href="#Ref_1219">[1219]</a> -Compare the Rouen charter (1113) to St. Evroul, where the clause is -"Anno quo comes Andegavensis mecum pacem fecit," etc., etc. (see p. 423).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1220" id="Foot_1220" href="#Ref_1220">[1220]</a> -This is specially applicable to the insertion of the year in numerals. -Such date would be, though actually an addition, yet a legitimate inference -from the event alluded to in the charter. It may be worth alluding to -another case, though it stands on somewhat a different footing, to illustrate -the infinite variety of treatment to which such charters were subjected, even -when there were neither occasion nor intention to deceive. This is that of -the final agreement between the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, of -which the record is preserved at Canterbury. It has been discovered that -the document from which historians have quoted (A. 1) is not really the -original, but a copy "which was plainly intended for public exhibition" -(<i>Fifth Report Hist. MSS.</i>, App. i. p. 452). Moreover, the real original (A. 2) -was found not to contain the final clause (narrating the place and circumstances -of the agreement), which is hence supposed to have been subsequently -added, for the sake of convenience, by the clerk. (See my letter in -<i>Athenæum</i>, December 19, 1891.)</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1221" id="Foot_1221" href="#Ref_1221">[1221]</a> -Natural son of Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, the Conqueror's half-brother.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1222" id="Foot_1222" href="#Ref_1222">[1222]</a> -"Nigellus de Calna reddit compotum de j marca argenti pro Willelmo -nepote suo" (<i>Rot. Pip.</i>, 31 Hen. I., p. 18).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1223" id="Foot_1223" href="#Ref_1223">[1223]</a> -Made Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry early in 1121.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1224" id="Foot_1224" href="#Ref_1224">[1224]</a> -<i>Alias</i> "de Sigillo." He was made Bishop of Hereford in January, -1121, as "Ricardus qui regii sigilli sub cancellario custos erat" (Eadmer).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1225" id="Foot_1225" href="#Ref_1225">[1225]</a> -In both we have the same three earls, neither more nor less; in both -we have the same two <i>filii regis</i>, Robert and Richard; in both we have -Richard de Tankerville and Nigel de Albini and Roger fitz Richard.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1226" id="Foot_1226" href="#Ref_1226">[1226]</a> -"Willelmum jam olim regni hæredem designatum" (p. 290). Compare -the Continuator of Florence of Worcester, who, speaking of the very event -(1119) by which this charter is dated, describes him as William "quem jam -[i.e. 1116] hæredem totius regni sui constituerat" (ii. 72).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1227" id="Foot_1227" href="#Ref_1227">[1227]</a> -<i>Florence of Worcester</i>, ii. 72.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1228" id="Foot_1228" href="#Ref_1228">[1228]</a> -<i>Ordericus Vitalis</i> (ed. Société de l'Histoire de France), iv. 371.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1229" id="Foot_1229" href="#Ref_1229">[1229]</a> -Henry of Huntingdon.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1230" id="Foot_1230" href="#Ref_1230">[1230]</a> -<i>Cont. Flor. Wig.</i>, ii. 75; <i>Eadmer</i>, 290.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1231" id="Foot_1231" href="#Ref_1231">[1231]</a> -"Sciatis me dedisse et concessisse Ricardo episcopo episcopatum de -Hereford," etc., etc.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1232" id="Foot_1232" href="#Ref_1232">[1232]</a> -Five of them joined the primate in the consecration of the Bishop of -Hereford (January 16). The Archbishop of York was not at the council, -being still in disgrace with the king for his conduct at the Council of Rheims -(October, 1119).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1233" id="Foot_1233" href="#Ref_1233">[1233]</a> -<i>Journ. Brit. Arch. Ass.</i>, xxix. 258, 259.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1234" id="Foot_1234" href="#Ref_1234">[1234]</a> -Reading "Willelmo, & Ricardo filiis Baldewini," where the charter -has:—"(1) William de Tankerville, (2) William de Albini, (3) Walter de -Gloucester, (4) Adam de Port, (5) William de Pirou, (6) Walter de Gant, -(7) Richard fitz Baldwin.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1235" id="Foot_1235" href="#Ref_1235">[1235]</a> -The Count of Mortain, and the Earl of Chester. The latter was, of -course, now Randolf, who had succeeded his cousin Richard, drowned in the -White Ship.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1236" id="Foot_1236" href="#Ref_1236">[1236]</a> -<i>Vide supra</i>, p. 423.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1237" id="Foot_1237" href="#Ref_1237">[1237]</a> -"Anno <small>MCXXI</small> Concilio totius Angliæ ante purificationem ... apud -Winderesoram adunato, Henricus rex ... Adelinam matrimonio sibi junxit" -(ii. 219).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1238" id="Foot_1238" href="#Ref_1238">[1238]</a> -<i>Formularium Anglicanum</i>, No. lxv. (p 39).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1239" id="Foot_1239" href="#Ref_1239">[1239]</a> -This would give us, as the principal guests assembled at the king's -wedding, his brother-in-law, Earl David, his nephews Theobald, Count of -Blois, and Stephen, Count of Mortain, with the primates of England and -of Normandy.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1240" id="Foot_1240" href="#Ref_1240">[1240]</a> -Madox's <i>Formularium Anglicanum</i>, No. ccccxcvi. (p. 292).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1241" id="Foot_1241" href="#Ref_1241">[1241]</a> -Earl David and the Count of Blois.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1242" id="Foot_1242" href="#Ref_1242">[1242]</a> -Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 6.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1243" id="Foot_1243" href="#Ref_1243">[1243]</a> -<i>Supra</i>, p. 426.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1244" id="Foot_1244" href="#Ref_1244">[1244]</a> -<i>Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.</i></p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1245" id="Foot_1245" href="#Ref_1245">[1245]</a> -Winchester, who had attested the Windsor charters, and who here -attests in his own city; and St. David's, who is constantly found at Court, -and who had attested, in January, the charter at Westminster, to the Bishop -of Hereford (<i>supra</i>, p. 428).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1246" id="Foot_1246" href="#Ref_1246">[1246]</a> -"Concessio Manerii de clara Archiepiscopo Rothomagensi."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1247" id="Foot_1247" href="#Ref_1247">[1247]</a> -<i>Mon. Ang.</i>, i. 629.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1248" id="Foot_1248" href="#Ref_1248">[1248]</a> -<i>Add. MSS.</i>, 31,937, fol. 130.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1249" id="Foot_1249" href="#Ref_1249">[1249]</a> -Cart., 5 Edw. III., n. 10.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1250" id="Foot_1250" href="#Ref_1250">[1250]</a> -The chancellor and three bishops.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1251" id="Foot_1251" href="#Ref_1251">[1251]</a> -Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 6.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1252" id="Foot_1252" href="#Ref_1252">[1252]</a> -<i>Monasticon Anglicanum</i>, ii. 66.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1253" id="Foot_1253" href="#Ref_1253">[1253]</a> -<i>Addl. MSS.</i>, 31,943, fol. 68, <i>b</i>.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1254" id="Foot_1254" href="#Ref_1254">[1254]</a> -<i>Survey of Lindsey</i>, p. 3. See my paper on "The spurious Tewkesbury -Charter" in <i>Genealogist</i>, October, 1891.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1255" id="Foot_1255" href="#Ref_1255">[1255]</a> -"Rex Anglorum" was the normal style employed in the English -charters of Henry I.: "Dux Normannorum," etc., was added by Henry II.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1256" id="Foot_1256" href="#Ref_1256">[1256]</a> -<i>Academy</i>, June 27, 1885.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1257" id="Foot_1257" href="#Ref_1257">[1257]</a> -<i>Notes and Queries</i>, 6th series, i. 6.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1258" id="Foot_1258" href="#Ref_1258">[1258]</a> -<i>Athenæum</i>, Dec. 19, 1885.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1259" id="Foot_1259" href="#Ref_1259">[1259]</a> -Duchy of Lancaster: Royal Charters, No. 5.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1260" id="Foot_1260" href="#Ref_1260">[1260]</a> -<i>Cartæ Antiquæ</i>, R. 5.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1261" id="Foot_1261" href="#Ref_1261">[1261]</a> -It is dated 1121, and in the twenty-second year of the reign.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1262" id="Foot_1262" href="#Ref_1262">[1262]</a> -That is, if Archbishop Thurstan was yet restored to favour.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1263" id="Foot_1263" href="#Ref_1263">[1263]</a> -The chancellor, for instance, instead of attesting after the bishops and -before the laity, actually follows immediately after the archbishops, and -precedes the whole "bench of bishops." I have been amazed to find -antiquaries who thought nothing of this matter of precedence.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1264" id="Foot_1264" href="#Ref_1264">[1264]</a> -Robert and Richard are the two of Henry's natural sons, who are -mentioned as with him in Normandy, and fighting beneath his standard at -Noyon (1119).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1265" id="Foot_1265" href="#Ref_1265">[1265]</a> -If, as suggested by the narrative in the <i>Monasticon</i> of the foundation -of Osney Abbey, her father's name was "Forne," one is tempted to ask if -the bearer of so uncommon a name was identical with the Forn Ligulfson -("Forne filius Ligulfi"), who is mentioned by Simeon of Durham, in 1121, -as one of the magnates of Northumbria, and if so, whether the latter was son -of the wealthy but ill-fated Ligulf, murdered near Durham in 1080. Should -both these queries be answered in the affirmative, Edith would have been -named after her grandmother "Eadgyth," the highly born wife of Ligulf. -Writing at a distance from works of reference I cannot tell whether such a -descent has been suggested before, but it would certainly, could it be proved, -be of quite exceptional interest. Edith, as is tolerably well known, was first -the mistress of Henry, and then the wife of Robert D'Oilli. Thus her son -by the former, Robert fitz Edith (see p. 94, <i>n.</i> 4), was (half)-brother to Henry -D'Oilli, and is so described by the latter in one of his grants to Osney (Dugdale's -<i>Baronage</i>, i. 460). It should be added that an "Ivo fil' Forn" appears -in the Pipe-Roll of 1130 (p. 25). Was he brother to Edith?</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1266" id="Foot_1266" href="#Ref_1266">[1266]</a> -Charter to the church of Durham, printed in Rymer's <i>Fœdera</i> (Record -edition), i. 13, and assigned by Sir T. D. Hardy (<i>Syllabus</i>) to "1134." It -was, in any case, subsequent to Flambard's death (September 5, 1128).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1267" id="Foot_1267" href="#Ref_1267">[1267]</a> -<i>Ninth Report Hist. MSS.</i>, App. i. p. 56.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1268" id="Foot_1268" href="#Ref_1268">[1268]</a> -<i>Historic Towns: London.</i></p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1269" id="Foot_1269" href="#Ref_1269">[1269]</a> -Mr. Loftie elsewhere tells us (p. 27) that Reinmund "was succeeded -by his more eminent son Azo, the goldsmith, whom it would be interesting -to identify with one of the Azors of Domesday." How does Mr. Loftie -know that Azo was "more eminent" than his father, or that he was a -"goldsmith"? On one point we can certainly agree with him. It <i>would</i> -be most "interesting" to identify a Domesday tenant in a man whose father -was living in 1132!</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1270" id="Foot_1270" href="#Ref_1270">[1270]</a> -<i>Ninth Report</i> (<i>ut supra</i>), p. 67 <i>b</i>. For similar instances of eccentric -statements on the City fathers in Mr. Loftie's book, see p. 355, and my paper -on "The First Mayor of London" (<i>Antiquary</i>, March, 1887). They throw, -it will be found, a strange light on Mr. Elton's unfortunate remark that -"Mr. Loftie makes good use of the documents discovered at St. Paul's" -(<i>Academy</i>, April 30, 1887, p. 301).</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1271" id="Foot_1271" href="#Ref_1271">[1271]</a> -"Socce Comitis Gloecestrie."</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1272" id="Foot_1272" href="#Ref_1272">[1272]</a> -Cf. pp. 305, 306.</p> - -<p class="nodent"><a name="Foot_1273" id="Foot_1273" href="#Ref_1273">[1273]</a> -Ralf fitz "Algod," Robert fitz Gosbert, and Robert d'Ou occur in a -deed of 1132 (<i>Ninth Report Hist. MSS.</i>, App. i. p. 67 <i>b</i>), and Osbert Masculus -in one of 1142 (<i>ibid.</i>, p. 40 <i>b</i>).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="chapter"> - -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_437" id="Page_437">{437}</a></span> - -<h2>ADDENDA.</h2> - -</div> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_5">5</a>. The assertion by the Continuator of Florence of -Worcester that Stephen kept his coronation court "cum totius -Angliæ primoribus" has an important bearing on the assertion -by Florence that Harold was elected to the throne "a totius -Angliæ primatibus." For this latter phrase is the sheet-anchor -upon which Mr. Freeman relies for the fact of Harold's valid -election, and which he is avowedly compelled to strain to the -uttermost:—</p> - -<p class="small">"He was chosen, not by some small or packed assembly, but by the chief -men of the land. And he was chosen, not by this or that shire or earldom, -but by the chief men of the whole land.... All this is implied in the -weighty and carefully chosen words of Florence" (<i>Norman Conquest</i> (1869), -iii. 597).</p> - -<p class="nodent">So also he confidently insists that—</p> - -<p class="small">"There can be no doubt that the Witan of Northumberland, no less than -the Witan of the rest of England, had concurred in the election of Harold. -The expressions of our best authorities declare that the chief men of all -England concurred in the choice" (<i>ibid.</i>, p. 57).</p> - -<p>The only authority given for this assertion is the above -statement by Florence that "Harold was 'a totius Angliæ primatibus -ad regale culmen electus.'"</p> - -<p>Now, the known authorities from which Florence worked -(the Abingdon and Worcester chronicles) "are," Mr. Freeman -admits, "silent about the election." The fact, therefore, rests -on the <i>ipse dixit</i> of Florence (for the words of the Peterborough -chronicler are quite general, and, moreover, he is admittedly -a partisan), who was, strictly speaking, not a contemporary -authority.</p> - -<p>Stephen's election, as Mr. Freeman observes, "can hardly -fail to call to our minds" that of Harold, and in the case of -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_438" id="Page_438">{438}</a></span> -Stephen's accession we have what he himself terms the "valuable -contemporary" evidence of the Continuator of Florence." -This evidence, which is better, because more contemporary, -than that of Florence as to 1066, is equally precise (<i>vide supra</i>), -and might, in the absence of rebutting testimony, be appealed -to as confidently as Mr. Freeman appeals to that of Florence. -But in this case it is proved, by rebutting evidence, to be worthless, -just as it is at Maud's "reception" in 1141 (see p. 64).</p> - -<p>Therefore, we see how dangerous it is to accept such statements, -when unsupported, as exact in every detail, and are led -to regard the words of Florence as a mere conventional phrase, -rather than to hold, as Mr. Freeman insists, that in "no passage -in any writer of any age ... does every word deserve to be -more attentively weighed."</p> - -<p>The caution with which such evidence should be used is one -of the chief lessons this work is intended to enforce (see p. 267).</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_8">8</a>. There is much confusion as to the charters of liberties -issued by Stephen. The "second" charter, as explained -in the text, was issued at Oxford in the spring of 1136; the -other, commonly termed the "coronation" charter, is found -only, it would seem, in the Cottonian MS. Claud. D. II., and -has no note of date. Mr. Hubert Hall has been good enough -to inform me that the authority of this MS. is first-rate; and, -as to the date at which the charter was issued, that of the -coronation, there is no doubt, was the most <i>probable</i>. It is -important to observe that the oath stated by William of Malmesbury -to have been taken by Stephen at his first arrival (and -afterwards committed to writing at Oxford) was "de libertate -reddenda ecclesiæ et conservanda." William's remark that -this oath, "postea scripto inditum, loco suo non prætermittam," -proves that he must have looked on the <i>Oxford</i> charter as the -record of this oath in writing; for that is the only charter -which he gives in his work. This fits in with the fact that the -charter assigned to the coronation contains no mention of the -Church and her liberties, while the "second" (Oxford) charter -is full of them. It would appear, then, that the Oxford charter -combined the original oath to the Church with the "coronation" -charter to the people at large, at the same time expanding -them both in fuller detail.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_439" id="Page_439">{439}</a></span> -Page <a href="#Page_37">37</a>. (Cf. p. <a href="#Page_354">354</a>.) It would, perhaps, have been rash -to introduce into the text the conjecture that in the first Geoffrey -de Mandeville we have the actual "Gosfregth Portirefan" -to whom the Conqueror's charter to the citizens of London -was addressed, although the story in the <i>De Inventione</i>, the -known connection of the Mandevilles with the shrievalty, and -the striking resemblance of the two names (even closer than in -"Esegar" and "Ansgar"), all point to the same conclusion.</p> - -<p>The association of the custody of the Tower with the -shrievalty of London and Middlesex is a point of considerable -interest, because in other cases—such as those of Worcestershire, -Gloucestershire, Wilts, and Devon—we find the custody -of the fortress in the county town and the shrievalty of the -shire hereditarily vested in the same hands.</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_74">74</a>. The phrase "in regni dominam electa" must, as -explained in the text, not be pressed too far, as it may be -loosely used. But the parallel is too curious to be passed over.</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_92">92</a>. The grant of "excidamenta" confers on Geoffrey -the escheatorship of Essex to the exclusion of any Crown -officer.</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_93">93</a>. The closing clauses of this charter suggest that -Geoffrey was even then guarding himself against the consequences -of future treason.</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_103">103</a>. The grants of knight-service to Geoffrey should -be carefully compared with those, by Henry I., to William de -Albini "Pincerna," as recorded in the <i>carta</i> of his fief (<i>Liber -Rubeus</i>, ed. Hall, p. 397), and are also illustrated by the charter -to Aubrey, p. 189.</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_112">112</a>. "Archiepiscopo Cant." is, of course, a transcriber's -wrong extension for "Arch[idiacono] Cant."</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_116">116</a>. The phrase "senatoribus inclitis, civibus honoratis, -et omnibus commune London" may be compared with the -"cent partz et a laut poble et comunautat de Baione" on -p. 248.</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_182">182</a>. The expression "una baronia" should be noted -as a very early instance of its use.</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_189">189</a>. The name of Abbot Ording dates this charter as -between 1148 and 1156 (<i>Memorials of St. Edmundsbury</i>, I. -xxxiv.).</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_190">190</a>. "Mauricius dapifer" was Maurice de Windsor, -<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_440" id="Page_440">{440}</a></span> -steward of the Abbey. For him and for the Cockfield family, -see the Camden Society's edition of Jocelyn de Brakelonde.</p> - -<p>"Alanus filius Frodonis" was probably the heir of Frodo, -brother to Abbot Baldwin of St. Edmund's (see Domesday).</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_205">205</a>. Compare William of Malmesbury's criticism on -Stephen's conduct in attacking Lincoln (1140) without due -notice: "Iniquum id visum multis," etc.</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_235">235</a>. The transcriber is responsible, of course, for the -extension of the king's style.</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_242">242</a>. It is only fair to add that the peculiar strength -of the words of inheritance might be held to support the view -that hereditary earldoms were a novelty.</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_267">267</a>. The charters of Henry II. to certain earls in no -way affect my real contention, namely, that no "fiscal" earls -were, as is alleged, deprived by him of their earldoms.</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_275">275</a>. On the gradual resumption of Crown Lands, see -my <i>Ancient Charters</i>, page 47.</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_286">286</a>. "Navium applicationibus" (cf. <i>Domesday</i>, 32: -"De exitu aquæ ubi naves applicabant") is a phrase occurring -elsewhere as "appulatione navium." It there equates "theloneum," -and was doubtless a payment for landing-dues. So, -"de teloneo dando ad Bilingesgate" is found in the Instituta -Londoniæ of Æthelred.</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_312">312</a>, note 1. Compare the charge against Harold (in -the French life of the Confessor) that he "deners cum usurer -amasse."</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_314">314</a>. The occurrence of "salinis" among the general -words in this charter is clearly due to the rights of the Beauchamps -in Droitwich and its salt-pans.</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_371">371</a>. The amount of the <i>firma</i> seems to be determined -by an entry in the Pipe-Roll of 15 Hen. II. (page 169), which -makes it £500 "blanch," <i>plus</i> a varying sum of about £20 -"numero."</p> - -<p>Page <a href="#Page_372">372</a>. Henry's jealousy of the Londoners might also be -due, in part, to their steadfast support of Stephen and opposition -to his mother. His restriction of clauses (1) and (10) to lands -within the walls is illustrated by a citizen having to pay, in -1169 (<i>Rot. Pip.</i> 15 Hen. II., p. 173), "ut placitet contra W. de -R. <i>in civitate Lund'</i> de terra de Eggeswera" (Edgware), as a -special favour.</p> - -<div class="pagenum"><a name="Page_441" id="Page_441">{441}</a></div> - -<h2>INDEX.</h2> - -<div class="index"> - -<p>A</p> - -<ul> - -<li>Abetot, Geoffrey d', <a href="#Page_314">314</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Urse d', <a href="#Page_314">314</a>, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li> -<li>Abingdon Abbey, its treasury robbed, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>; - <ul><li>its troubles, <a href="#Page_415">415</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a>;</li> - <li>its delegate, <a href="#Page_384">384</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, Ingulf, abbot of, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_415">415</a></li> -<li>Adeliza, Queen (wife of Henry I.), her "election," <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_439">439</a>; - <ul><li>marries Henry I., <a href="#Page_429">429</a>;</li> - <li>William de Albini, <a href="#Page_319">319</a>, <a href="#Page_322">322</a>, <a href="#Page_323">323</a>;</li> - <li>dowered by Henry I., <a href="#Page_322">322</a>, <a href="#Page_324">324</a>;</li> - <li>her grant to Reading, <a href="#Page_325">325</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Ælfgar ("Colessune"), <a href="#Page_310">310</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Nicholas, son of, <a href="#Page_309">309</a>, <a href="#Page_310">310</a></li> -<li><i>Affidatio</i>, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, - <a href="#Page_384">384</a>-<a href="#Page_387">387</a></li> -<li>Aino, William de, <a href="#Page_230">230</a></li> -<li>Albamarle. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Aumâle</span></li> -<li>Albini, Nigel de, <a href="#Page_427">427</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, William de ("Pincerna"), <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="#Page_324">324</a>, - <a href="#Page_428">428</a>, <a href="#Page_439">439</a>. <i>See also</i> <span class="smc">Arundel</span></li> -<li>Aldreth (Camb.), <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a></li> -<li>Alexander, Pope, absolves Earl Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_224">224</a></li> -<li>Algasil, Gingan, <a href="#Page_60">60</a></li> -<li>Alvia, Andrew de, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a></li> -<li>Anarchy, incidents of the, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>-132, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, - <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>-220, <a href="#Page_323">323</a>, - <a href="#Page_403">403</a>, <a href="#Page_414">414</a>-416</li> -<li>Andover, Stephen at, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>; - <ul><li>burnt by his queen, <a href="#Page_128">128</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Angers, Ulger, bishop of, pleads for Maud at Rome, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_254">254</a>-257</li> -<li>Anjou. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Geoffrey</span></li> -<li>Ansgar. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Esegar</span></li> -<li>Anstey (Herts.), <a href="#Page_141">141</a></li> -<li>Appleby Castle, <a href="#Page_331">331</a></li> -<li>Arch', Gilbert, <a href="#Page_314">314</a></li> -<li>Ardleigh (Essex), <a href="#Page_402">402</a></li> -<li>Ardres, Baldwin d', <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_397">397</a></li> -<li>Arms, collateral adoption of, <a href="#Page_394">394</a>; - <ul><li>date of their origin, <a href="#Page_396">396</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Arques, Château d', <a href="#Page_340">340</a>-346; - <ul><li>its keep built by Henry I., <a href="#Page_333">333</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Count William of, <a href="#Page_341">341</a>-343, <a href="#Page_345">345</a>, <a href="#Page_346">346</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, William of, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_397">397</a></li> -<li>Arras, Baldwin of, <a href="#Page_310">310</a></li> -<li>Arsic, Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a></li> -<li>Arundel, Robert, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, - <a href="#Page_261">261</a>, <a href="#Page_266">266</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Empress lands at, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_278">278</a>, <a href="#Page_280">280</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, William (de Albini), earl of, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>; - <ul><li>"pincerna," <a href="#Page_324">324</a>;</li> - <li>created earl, <a href="#Page_322">322</a>;</li> - <li>styled Earl of Chichester, <a href="#Page_318">318</a>, <a href="#Page_320">320</a>;</li> - <li>Earl of Sussex, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_319">319</a>, <a href="#Page_320">320</a>;</li> - <li>Earl of Lincoln, <a href="#Page_324">324</a>, <a href="#Page_325">325</a>;</li> - <li>his charter from Henry II., <a href="#Page_240">240</a>;</li> - <li>his "third penny," <a href="#Page_293">293</a>;</li> - <li>holds Waltham, <a href="#Page_324">324</a>;</li> - <li>at St. Albans, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>-206;</li> - <li>dies, <a href="#Page_317">317</a>;</li> - <li>his character, <a href="#Page_323">323</a></li> - </ul></li> - <li><span class="squash">———</span>—, earldom of, <a href="#Page_316">316</a>-325; - <ul><li>its earliest mention, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>, <a href="#Page_322">322</a>;</li> - <li>not an earldom by tenure, <a href="#Page_316">316</a>, <a href="#Page_324">324</a>;</li> - <li>its various names, <a href="#Page_320">320</a>, <a href="#Page_321">321</a>;</li> - <li>similar to other earldoms, <a href="#Page_322">322</a>, <a href="#Page_325">325</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Assarts (forest), <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, - <a href="#Page_376">376</a>-378</li> -<li>Aston (Salop), <a href="#Page_418">418</a></li> -<li>Auco. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Ou</span></li> -<li>Aumâle, William of (Earl of York), <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, - <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>-264, - <a href="#Page_276">276</a>, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></li> -<li>Avranches, Rhiwallon d', <a href="#Page_397">397</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Turgis d', <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, - <a href="#Page_149">149</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, <a href="#Page_207">207</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, William d', <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>, <a href="#Page_397">397</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, bishop of, Richard, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a></li> -<li>Aynho (Northants), <a href="#Page_390">390</a></li> -<li>Azo. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Reinmund</span></li> - -</ul> - -<p>B</p> - -<ul> - -<li>Baentona. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Bampton</span></li> -<li>Bailiffs, represent, in towns, the sheriff, <a href="#Page_110">110</a></li> -<li>Balliol, Joscelin de, <a href="#Page_236">236</a></li> -<li>Bampton, Robert de, <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li> -<li>Bareville, Walter de, <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li> -<li>Barking, Stephen at, <a href="#Page_320">320</a>; - <ul><li>his charters to, <a href="#Page_320">320</a>, <a href="#Page_378">378</a>;</li> - <li>Alice, abbess of, <a href="#Page_378">378</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>"Baronia," grant of a, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_439">439</a></li> -<li>Barstable, hundred of, grant of the, <a href="#Page_320">320</a></li> -<li>Basset, Ralf, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Richard, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_297">297</a>, - <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_417">417</a>, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></li> -<li>Bath, Stephen grants his bishopric of, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert, bishop of, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a></li> -<li>Battle, Warner, abbot of, <a href="#Page_265">265</a></li> -<li>Bayeux, John de, <a href="#Page_427">427</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Odo, bishop of, <a href="#Page_427">427</a></li> -<li>Bayonne, customs of, <a href="#Page_247">247</a></li> -<li>Bazas (Aquitaine), customs of, <a href="#Page_247">247</a></li> -<li>Beauchamp, Maud de, <a href="#Page_313">313</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Stephen de, <a href="#Page_314">314</a>, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Walter de, <a href="#Page_313">313</a>-315</li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, William de, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a>; - <ul><li>constable, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>, <a href="#Page_313">313</a>;</li> - <li>his charter from the Empress, <a href="#Page_313">313</a>-315</li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— (of Bedford), Miles de, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, - <a href="#Page_314">314</a>, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Payne de, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_392">392</a>, <a href="#Page_393">393</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert de, <a href="#Page_171">171</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Simon de, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_231">231</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, - <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a>, - <a href="#Page_392">392</a>, <a href="#Page_393">393</a></li> -<li>Beaudesert Castle, <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li> -<li>Beaufoe, Henry, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>; - <ul><li>Ralf de, <a href="#Page_373">373</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Beaumont, Hugh de. <i>See</i> "<span class="smc">Pauper</span>"</li> -<li>Becket, Thomas, his youth, <a href="#Page_374">374</a>, <a href="#Page_375">375</a>; - <ul><li>as chancellor, <a href="#Page_228">228</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>.</li> - <li><i>See also</i> <span class="smc">Canterbury</span></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Bedford, earldom of, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a></li> -<li>"Begeford," <a href="#Page_286">286</a></li> -<li>Belmeis, Richard de (archdeacon), <a href="#Page_123">123</a></li> -<li>Belun, Adam de, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, - <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_320">320</a></li> -<li>Belvoir, Robert de, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></li> -<li>Benwick, <a href="#Page_211">211</a></li> -<li>Berkeley, Henry I. at, <a href="#Page_430">430</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Roger de, <a href="#Page_380">380</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></li> -<li>Berkshire, earldom of, <a href="#Page_181">181</a></li> -<li>Berners, Ralf de, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>-231</li> -<li>Bigod, Gunnor, <a href="#Page_391">391</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Hugh (Earl of Norfolk), <a href="#Page_403">403</a>; - <ul><li>with Henry I., <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_365">365</a>;</li> - <li>asserts the Empress was disinherited, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>;</li> - <li>with Stephen at Reading, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>;</li> - <li>at Oxford, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>;</li> - <li>rebels, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>;</li> - <li>attacked by Stephen, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>;</li> - <li>created earl, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, - <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>;</li> - <li>with the Empress, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, - <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>;</li> - <li>opposed to Stephen, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>;</li> - <li>rebels, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>;</li> - <li>his earldom East Anglian, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>;</li> - <li>created anew by Henry II., <a href="#Page_277">277</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Roger, <a href="#Page_329">329</a></li> -<li>Bigorre, customs of, quoted, <a href="#Page_58">58</a></li> -<li>Birch, Mr. W. de Gray, on a charter of Henry I., <a href="#Page_428">428</a>; - <ul><li>on the charters to Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>;</li> - <li>on the seals of Stephen, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_139">139</a>;</li> - <li>on the election of the Empress, <a href="#Page_59">59</a>-61, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>;</li> - <li>on the charters of the Empress, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>;</li> - <li>on the styles of the Empress, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>-78, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>;</li> - <li>on the seal of the Empress, <a href="#Page_299">299</a>;</li> - <li>his remarkable discovery, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>-73</li> - </ul></li> -<li>Bishopsbridge, Roger of, <a href="#Page_375">375</a></li> -<li>Bishop's Stortford, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>; - <ul><li>its castle, <a href="#Page_174">174</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Bisset, Manasser, <a href="#Page_236">236</a></li> -<li>Blois, Count Theobald of, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>, <a href="#Page_428">428</a>-430; - <ul><li>forfeited by the Empress, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Blundus, Gilbert, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert, <a href="#Page_229">229</a></li> -<li>Bocland, Hugh de, <a href="#Page_309">309</a>, <a href="#Page_328">328</a>, <a href="#Page_355">355</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Walter de, <a href="#Page_201">201</a></li> -<li>Boeville, William de, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Otwel de, <a href="#Page_229">229</a></li> -<li>Bohun, Humfrey de, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, - <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>, - <a href="#Page_314">314</a>, <a href="#Page_315">315</a>, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></li> -<li>Bolbec, Hugh de, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Walter de, <a href="#Page_264">264</a></li> -<li>Bonhunt. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Wickham Bonhunt</span></li> -<li>Boreham (Essex), <a href="#Page_214">214</a></li> -<li>"Bosco, de," Ernald, <a href="#Page_228">228</a></li> -<li>Boseville, William de, <a href="#Page_142">142</a></li> -<li>Bosham, Herbert of, on the Emperor, <a href="#Page_301">301</a></li> -<li>Boterel, Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_125">125</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Peter, <a href="#Page_415">415</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, William, <a href="#Page_415">415</a></li> -<li>Boulogne, Count Eustace of, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, - <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_168">168</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Geoffrey de, <a href="#Page_147">147</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Pharamus de, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, - <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Richard de, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, honour of, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, - <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a></li> -<li>Bourton, young Henry attacks, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></li> -<li>Boxgrove Priory, <a href="#Page_320">320</a></li> -<li>Brampton, Henry I. at, <a href="#Page_428">428</a></li> -<li>Braughing (Herts.), <a href="#Page_141">141</a></li> -<li>Breteuil, William de, <a href="#Page_327">327</a></li> -<li>Bristol, Empress arrives at, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_278">278</a>; - <ul><li>Stephen imprisoned at, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>;</li> - <li>Empress and her followers at, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>;</li> - <li>young Henry at, <a href="#Page_407">407</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, St. Augustine's Abbey, <a href="#Page_408">408</a></li> -<li>Brito, Mainfeninus, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Ranulf (? Ralf), <a href="#Page_143">143</a></li> -<li>Brittany, Alan of. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Richmond</span></li> -<li>Buccuinte, Andrew, <a href="#Page_305">305</a>, <a href="#Page_309">309</a></li> -<li>Buckenham Abbey, foundation of, <a href="#Page_318">318</a></li> -<li>Buckingham, earldom of, <a href="#Page_272">272</a></li> -<li>Bumsted Helion (Essex), <a href="#Page_181">181</a></li> -<li>Bungay (Suffolk), the foundation at, <a href="#Page_318">318</a></li> -<li>Burwell, besieged by Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_220">220</a>; - <ul><li>who falls there, <a href="#Page_221">221</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Bury, Richard de, his "Liber Epistolaris," <a href="#Page_261">261</a></li> -<li>Bushey (Herts.), <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a></li> - -</ul> - -<p>C</p> - -<ul> - -<li>Caen, castle of, <a href="#Page_331">331</a>, <a href="#Page_333">333</a></li> -<li>Calne, Nigel de, <a href="#Page_427">427</a></li> -<li>Cambridge, sacked by Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_212">212</a></li> -<li>Cambridgeshire, "tertius denarius" of, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, - <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, earldom of, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>-193, - <a href="#Page_271">271</a>, <a href="#Page_273">273</a></li> -<li>"Camera abbatis," annuity from the, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li> -<li>Camerarius, Eustace, <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Fulcred, <a href="#Page_355">355</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Richard, <a href="#Page_355">355</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, William, <a href="#Page_355">355</a></li> -<li>Camville, Richard de, <a href="#Page_159">159</a></li> -<li>Cantelupe, Simon de, <a href="#Page_402">402</a></li> -<li>Canterbury, Gervase of, his accuracy confirmed, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_375">375</a>; - <ul><li>his chronology discussed, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>, <a href="#Page_406">406</a>-408</li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, John of (clerk), <a href="#Page_375">375</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, archbishops of, Lanfranc, <a href="#Page_326">326</a>, <a href="#Page_337">337</a>; - <ul><li><span class="squash">—</span>—Anselm, sanctions marriage of Henry I., <a href="#Page_257">257</a>;</li> - <li><span class="squash">—</span>—Ralf, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>, <a href="#Page_428">428</a>;</li> - <li><span class="squash">—</span>—William, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_306">306</a>; - <ul><li>extorts oath from Stephen, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>;</li> - <li>crowns him, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>-8, <a href="#Page_253">253</a>;</li> - <li>with him at Reading, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>;</li> - <li>at Westminster and Oxford, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>;</li> - <li>his clerk "Lovel," <a href="#Page_253">253</a>;</li> - <li>builds keep of Rochester, <a href="#Page_337">337</a>, <a href="#Page_338">338</a>;</li> - </ul></li> - <li><span class="squash">—</span>—Theobald, <a href="#Page_311">311</a>, <a href="#Page_370">370</a>, <a href="#Page_386">386</a>; - <ul><li>meets the Empress, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>;</li> - <li>hesitates to receive her, <a href="#Page_260">260</a>;</li> - <li>attends her election, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>;</li> - <li>at her court, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>;</li> - <li>supports her cause, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>;</li> - <li>forfeited by Stephen, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>;</li> - <li>with Henry II., <a href="#Page_236">236</a>;</li> - <li>patron of Becket, <a href="#Page_375">375</a>;</li> - <li>papal letters to, <a href="#Page_214">214</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, - <a href="#Page_412">412</a>, <a href="#Page_413">413</a>;</li> - </ul></li> - <li><span class="squash">—</span>—Thomas (Becket), confirms compensation to Ramsey, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>; - <ul><li>claims Saltwood, <a href="#Page_327">327</a>.</li> - <li><i>See also</i> <span class="smc">Becket</span></li> - </ul></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, archdeacon of, Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Page_439">439</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Stephen at, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>; - <ul><li>granted to Earl of Gloucester, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>;</li> - <li>Stephen re-crowned at, <a href="#Page_137">137</a>-139;</li> - <li>Henry II. at, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_237">237</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— and York, charter of settlement between, <a href="#Page_426">426</a></li> -<li>Capella, Aubrey de, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li> -<li>Capellanus, Hasculf, <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— regis, <a href="#Page_427">427</a>. <i>See also</i> <span class="smc">Fecamp</span></li> -<li>Capra. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Chiévre</span></li> -<li>Carbonel, Hugh (fitz Ralf) de, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Ralf de, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li> -<li>Carlisle, Athelwulf, bishop of, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, "firma" of, <a href="#Page_363">363</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, young Henry at, <a href="#Page_408">408</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Castle, <a href="#Page_331">331</a></li> -<li><i>Cartæ</i> of 1166, erroneous headings of, <a href="#Page_399">399</a>, <a href="#Page_402">402</a>; - <ul><li>carelessly transcribed, <a href="#Page_401">401</a>;</li> - <li>illustrated by Pipe-Rolls, <a href="#Page_402">402</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>"Castellum," special meaning of, <a href="#Page_331">331</a>-334, <a href="#Page_337">337</a>, - <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_340">340</a>, <a href="#Page_343">343</a></li> -<li>Castles, erection of, and license for, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, - <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, - <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>; - <ul><li>misery caused by, <a href="#Page_217">217</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a>;</li> - <li>surrender of, extorted, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_207">207</a>;</li> - <li>their character, <a href="#Page_331">331</a>, <a href="#Page_334">334</a>, <a href="#Page_343">343</a>, <a href="#Page_346">346</a>;</li> - <li>in hands of sheriffs, <a href="#Page_439">439</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>"Castrum." <i>See</i> "<span class="smc">Castellum</span>"</li> -<li>Catlidge (Essex), <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li> -<li>Celestine, Pope, favours the Empress, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>, <a href="#Page_258">258</a>, <a href="#Page_259">259</a></li> -<li>Cerney, <a href="#Page_281">281</a></li> -<li>Chahaines, Philip de, <a href="#Page_382">382</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Reginald de, <a href="#Page_382">382</a></li> -<li>Chalk (Kent), <a href="#Page_306">306</a>, <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li> -<li>Chamberlainship of England, the, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a></li> -<li>Chancellors (Stephen's), Philip (de Harcourt), <a href="#Page_46">46</a>-48; - <ul><li><span class="squash">—</span>—Roger (le Poor), <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— (the Empress's), William (fitz Gilbert), <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, - <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>; - <ul><li><span class="squash">—</span>—William de Vere, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— (of Henry I.), Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_265">265</a></li> -<li>Charters of Henry I., <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_422">422</a>-434; - <ul><li>to London, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_347">347</a>, - <a href="#Page_356">356</a>, <a href="#Page_359">359</a>, - <a href="#Page_364">364</a>, <a href="#Page_367">367</a>, <a href="#Page_370">370</a>;</li> - <li>to Aubrey de Vere, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a>;</li> - <li>to church of Salisbury, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>;</li> - <li>to Gervase of Cornhill, <a href="#Page_305">305</a>;</li> - <li>to Bishop of Hereford, <a href="#Page_428">428</a>;</li> - <li>to Colchester Abbey, <a href="#Page_423">423</a>-427;</li> - <li>to Westminster, <a href="#Page_429">429</a>;</li> - <li>to Tewkesbury, <a href="#Page_431">431</a>;</li> - <li>to Bardney, <a href="#Page_430">430</a>;</li> - <li>Eudo Dapifer, <a href="#Page_328">328</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— of Stephen, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, - <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_438">438</a>; - <ul><li>to Miles of Gloucester, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>-14, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>;</li> - <li>to church of Salisbury, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>;</li> - <li>to Geoffrey de Mandeville, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>-53, - <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>;</li> - <li>to Monks Horton, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>;</li> - <li>to Earl of Lincoln, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>;</li> - <li>to Abingdon, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>;</li> - <li>to St. Frideswide's, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>;</li> - <li>to Barking, <a href="#Page_320">320</a>, <a href="#Page_378">378</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— of the Empress Maud, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>; - <ul><li>to Geoffrey de Mandeville, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, - <a href="#Page_86">86</a>-113, <a href="#Page_139">139</a>, - <a href="#Page_163">163</a>-177, <a href="#Page_291">291</a>;</li> - <li>to Miles of Gloucester, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, - <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_288">288</a>;</li> - <li>to St. Bene't of Hulme, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>;</li> - <li>to Thurstan de Montfort, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>;</li> - <li>to Glastonbury, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>;</li> - <li>to Haughmond, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>;</li> - <li>to Aubrey de Vere, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>-195;</li> - <li>to Geoffrey de Mandeville, jun., <a href="#Page_233">233</a>;</li> - <li>to Roger de Valoines, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>;</li> - <li>to William de Beauchamp, <a href="#Page_313">313</a>-315, <a href="#Page_440">440</a>;</li> - <li>to Geoffrey Ridel, <a href="#Page_417">417</a>;</li> - <li>to Humfrey de Bohun, <a href="#Page_418">418</a>;</li> - <li>to Shrewsbury Abbey, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— of Queen Matilda, to Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>-121, - <a href="#Page_139">139</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>; - <ul><li>to Gervase, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— of Henry II., <a href="#Page_112">112</a>; - <ul><li>to Wallingford, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>;</li> - <li>to Feversham Abbey, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>;</li> - <li>to Aubrey de Vere, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>-186, - <a href="#Page_237">237</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>;</li> - <li>to Geoffrey the younger, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>-241;</li> - <li>to Earl of Arundel, <a href="#Page_240">240</a>, <a href="#Page_277">277</a>;</li> - <li>to Hugh Bigod, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_277">277</a>, <a href="#Page_288">288</a>;</li> - <li>to London, <a href="#Page_367">367</a>-371, <a href="#Page_440">440</a>;</li> - <li>to Geoffrey Ridel, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— of Richard I., to Colchester, <a href="#Page_110">110</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— of John, to London, <a href="#Page_372">372</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— of Henry III., to London, <a href="#Page_358">358</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, dating clauses in, <a href="#Page_426">426</a>, <a href="#Page_431">431</a>, <a href="#Page_433">433</a>; - <ul><li>archaic <i>formulæ</i>, in, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>;</li> - <li>forged, altered, and enlarged, <a href="#Page_424">424</a>, <a href="#Page_425">425</a>, <a href="#Page_431">431</a>;</li> - <li>garbled, <a href="#Page_426">426</a>, <a href="#Page_433">433</a>;</li> - <li>granted at Easter court (1136), <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>-265;</li> - <li>of Henry I. and Henry II. to London, compared, <a href="#Page_368">368</a>-371;</li> - <li>of Mandeville family, <a href="#Page_228">228</a>-233, <a href="#Page_390">390</a>;</li> - <li>of Basset family, <a href="#Page_417">417</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Chester, Randulf, earl of, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, - <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, - <a href="#Page_380">380</a>, <a href="#Page_423">423</a>, <a href="#Page_429">429</a>; - <ul><li>at Easter court (1136), <a href="#Page_265">265</a>;</li> - <li>at siege of Winchester, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>;</li> - <li>reconciled to Stephen, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>;</li> - <li>his wrong doings, <a href="#Page_268">268</a>;</li> - <li>arrested by Stephen, <a href="#Page_203">203</a>;</li> - <li>joins Henry, <a href="#Page_409">409</a>, <a href="#Page_419">419</a>;</li> - <li>dies, <a href="#Page_276">276</a>;</li> - <li>his charter of restitution, <a href="#Page_415">415</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Richard, earl of, <a href="#Page_423">423</a>, <a href="#Page_429">429</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Roger, bishop of, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_253">253</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>; - <ul><li>died, <a href="#Page_251">251</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, John (de Lacy), constable of, <a href="#Page_390">390</a></li> -<li>Chiche, Maurice de, <a href="#Page_142">142</a></li> -<li>Chichester, Seffrid, bishop of, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, - <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, earl of. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Arundel</span></li> -<li>Chicksand Priory, <a href="#Page_231">231</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a></li> -<li>Chiévre, Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Michael, <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, William, <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li> -<li>Chreshall (Essex), <a href="#Page_168">168</a></li> -<li>"Christianitas Angliæ," <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>, - <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_387">387</a></li> -<li>Cirencester, Empress at, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>; - <ul><li>captured by Stephen, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>;</li> - <li>Earl of Gloucester reaches, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_406">406</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Clairvaux, Payne de, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert de, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a></li> -<li>Clare, Richard "fitz Gilbert" de (I.), <a href="#Page_321">321</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Gilbert "fitz Richard" (I.) de, <a href="#Page_329">329</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, <span class="squash">———</span>—, Baldwin "fitz Gilbert" de, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, - <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, <span class="squash">———</span>—, Richard "fitz Gilbert" de (II.), <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, - <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, <a href="#Page_271">271</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, <span class="squash">———</span>—, Walter "fitz Gilbert" de, <a href="#Page_159">159</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert "fitz Richard" (I.) de, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, - <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="#Page_370">370</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Roger "fitz Richard" (I.) de, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_427">427</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Walter "fitz Richard" (I.) de, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, - <a href="#Page_264">264</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Alice de (wife of Aubrey de Vere), <a href="#Page_390">390</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, earldom of. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Hertford</span></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <i>See also</i> <span class="smc">Pembroke</span>, earl of; - <ul><li><span class="smc">Exeter</span>, Baldwin of</li> - </ul></li> -<li>Clarendon, Stephen at, <a href="#Page_378">378</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Assize of, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>-113</li> -<li>Clark, Mr. G. T., on Gloucester Castle, <a href="#Page_330">330</a>; - <ul><li>on the Tower of London, <a href="#Page_334">334</a>;</li> - <li>on Rochester Castle, <a href="#Page_338">338</a>;</li> - <li>on the keep of Newcastle, <a href="#Page_339">339</a>, <a href="#Page_346">346</a>;</li> - <li>on the Château d'Arques, <a href="#Page_340">340</a>-346;</li> - <li>his authority, <a href="#Page_346">346</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Clavering (Essex), <a href="#Page_391">391</a></li> -<li>Clericus, Hugh, <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Lovel, <a href="#Page_253">253</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Roger, <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Simon, <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li> -<li>Clinton, Geoffrey de, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_297">297</a></li> -<li>Cluny, Peter, abbot of, <a href="#Page_253">253</a>, <a href="#Page_254">254</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, abbey of, favours the Empress, <a href="#Page_254">254</a></li> -<li>Cnihtengild, the London, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>-309</li> -<li>Cockfield, Adam de, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_440">440</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert de, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li> -<li>Coffin, story of the Empress escaping in a, <a href="#Page_134">134</a></li> -<li>"Cokeford," <a href="#Page_314">314</a></li> -<li>Colchester, charter of Richard I. to, <a href="#Page_110">110</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Castle, granted to Eudo Dapifer, <a href="#Page_328">328</a>; - <ul><li>to Aubrey de Vere, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_328">328</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Abbey (St. John's), <a href="#Page_391">391</a>; - <ul><li>charter of Henry I. to, <a href="#Page_423">423</a>-427</li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, Hugh, abbot of, <a href="#Page_194">194</a></li> -<li>Coleville, Robert de, <a href="#Page_314">314</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, W. de, <a href="#Page_159">159</a></li> -<li>Colne Priory, <a href="#Page_390">390</a></li> -<li>Columbers, Philip de, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></li> -<li>"Communa." <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Londoners</span></li> -<li>"Communio." <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Londoners</span></li> -<li>Compostella, St. Jago de, pilgrimages to, <a href="#Page_415">415</a></li> -<li>Compton (Warwick), <a href="#Page_390">390</a></li> -<li>Constableship, hereditary, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>, <a href="#Page_314">314</a>, <a href="#Page_315">315</a>, <a href="#Page_326">326</a></li> -<li>"Constabularia" (of knights), the, <a href="#Page_155">155</a></li> -<li>"Constabularie, Honor," <a href="#Page_326">326</a>, <a href="#Page_327">327</a></li> -<li>Corbet, Robert, <a href="#Page_383">383</a></li> -<li>Cornhill, Edward de, <a href="#Page_306">306</a>, <a href="#Page_307">307</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, <span class="squash">———</span>—, his wife "Godeleve," <a href="#Page_306">306</a>-308</li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Gervase de, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>-312; - <ul><li>his loan to the Queen, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_305">305</a>;</li> - <li>justiciar of London, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, <a href="#Page_305">305</a>;</li> - <li>sheriff of London, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>;</li> - <li>of Kent, <a href="#Page_311">311</a>;</li> - <li>a money-lender, <a href="#Page_311">311</a>;</li> - <li>his descendants, <a href="#Page_312">312</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, <span class="squash">———</span>—, his wife Agnes, <a href="#Page_306">306</a>, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>; - <ul><li>his brother Alan, <a href="#Page_310">310</a>, <a href="#Page_311">311</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Henry de (son of Gervase), <a href="#Page_305">305</a>, <a href="#Page_310">310</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Ralph de, <a href="#Page_310">310</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Reginald de, <a href="#Page_310">310</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—. <i>See also</i> "<span class="smc">Nepos Huberti</span>," Roger</li> -<li>Cornwall, Reginald ("filius regis"), earl of, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, - <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, - <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, - <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>, - <a href="#Page_418">418</a>, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, earldom of, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_271">271</a></li> -<li>Coronation, its relation to election, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>; - <ul><li>its importance, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>;</li> - <li>in the power of the Church, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>;</li> - <li>performed at Westminster, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>;</li> - <li>repeated by Stephen and by Richard I., <a href="#Page_137">137</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Coroners represent, in towns, the "justiciar," <a href="#Page_110">110</a></li> -<li>Councils, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>-24, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, - <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, - <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, - <a href="#Page_278">278</a>, <a href="#Page_412">412</a>, <a href="#Page_413">413</a>, - <a href="#Page_415">415</a>, <a href="#Page_423">423</a>, <a href="#Page_427">427</a>-429</li> -<li>Courci, Robert de (Dapifer), <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Alice de, <a href="#Page_310">310</a></li> -<li>Courtenay, Hugh de, <a href="#Page_296">296</a></li> -<li>Coutances, "Algarus," bishop of, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Geoffrey, bishop of, <a href="#Page_290">290</a></li> -<li>Crevecœur, Robert de, <a href="#Page_158">158</a></li> -<li>Cricklade, young Henry attacks, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, "third penny" of, <a href="#Page_289">289</a></li> -<li>Crown, hereditary right to the, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, - <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, - <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, - <a href="#Page_200">200</a>, <a href="#Page_253">253</a>-256; - <ul><li>elective, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>;</li> - <li>kept at Winchester, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Crown lands, grants of, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, - <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>, - <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="#Page_269">269</a>, - <a href="#Page_275">275</a>, <a href="#Page_440">440</a>; - <ul><li>their rents, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_268">268</a>, <a href="#Page_293">293</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Culham, <a href="#Page_415">415</a></li> -<li>Cumin, William, <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li> -<li>Curci. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Courci</span></li> -<li>"Custodes" distinct from sheriffs, <a href="#Page_297">297</a></li> - -</ul> - -<p>D</p> - -<ul> - -<li>Dammartin, William de, <a href="#Page_53">53</a></li> -<li>Danfront, Picard de, <a href="#Page_141">141</a></li> -<li>Danish district, peculiar payments in the, <a href="#Page_289">289</a></li> -<li>Danvers, Henry, <a href="#Page_232">232</a></li> -<li>Dapifer, Eudo, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_328">328</a>; - <ul><li>his fief and office, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Hamo, <a href="#Page_431">431</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Hubert, <a href="#Page_382">382</a></li> -<li>David, King of Scots, with Henry I. (as earl), <a href="#Page_429">429</a>, <a href="#Page_430">430</a>; - <ul><li>invades England, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>;</li> - <li>joins the Empress, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>;</li> - <li>at her court, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>;</li> - <li>knights Henry, <a href="#Page_409">409</a>;</li> - <li>his earldom, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Dean, Forest of, <a href="#Page_56">56</a></li> -<li>Dedham (Essex), <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_400">400</a>-404</li> -<li>Deforcement, <a href="#Page_351">351</a></li> -<li>Depden (Essex), <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a></li> -<li>Derby, earldom of, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, <a href="#Page_271">271</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, earl of. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Ferrers</span></li> -<li>Devizes, castle of, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>; - <ul><li>Empress flees to, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>;</li> - <li>its story, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_386">386</a>;</li> - <li>councils of the Empress at, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>;</li> - <li>young Henry at, <a href="#Page_408">408</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a>;</li> - <li>charter granted at, <a href="#Page_417">417</a>, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Devon, earldom of, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>, <a href="#Page_272">272</a>, <a href="#Page_296">296</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, "tertius denarius" of, <a href="#Page_296">296</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Baldwin (de Redvers), earl of, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, - <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a></li> -<li>"Dialogus de Scaccario," the, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_293">293</a>, - <a href="#Page_304">304</a>, <a href="#Page_312">312</a>, <a href="#Page_322">322</a>, - <a href="#Page_376">376</a>, <a href="#Page_425">425</a></li> -<li>"Diffidatio," the, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, - <a href="#Page_284">284</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a></li> -<li>Diham. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Dedham</span></li> -<li>Dinan, Gotso (or Goceas) de, <a href="#Page_409">409</a>, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></li> -<li>Dispenser, Robert le, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, - <a href="#Page_314">314</a>, <a href="#Page_315">315</a>; - <ul><li>his inheritance, <a href="#Page_313">313</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Dodnash Priory, foundation of, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></li> -<li>D'Oilli. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Oilli</span></li> -<li>Domesday values, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, - <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, - <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_361">361</a>; - <ul><li>the "tertius denarius" in, <a href="#Page_287">287</a>-291</li> - </ul></li> -<li>Domfront. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Danfront</span></li> -<li>"Domina," the Empress as, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, - <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, - <a href="#Page_73">73</a>-75, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a></li> -<li>"Dominus," the king as, <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, - <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a></li> -<li>Dorset, earldom of, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>, - <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>, - <a href="#Page_272">272</a>, <a href="#Page_277">277</a>. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Mohun</span></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, "tertius denarius" of, <a href="#Page_291">291</a></li> -<li>Douai, Walter de, his fief, <a href="#Page_141">141</a></li> -<li>Dover, Stephen at, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>; - <ul><li>granted to Earl of Gloucester, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>;</li> - <li>held against Stephen, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>;</li> - <li>Henry II. at, <a href="#Page_237">237</a>;</li> - <li>a "castellum," <a href="#Page_332">332</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Castle, <a href="#Page_340">340</a>, <a href="#Page_345">345</a></li> -<li>Dower, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></li> -<li>Droitwich, <a href="#Page_440">440</a></li> -<li>Dublin Castle, <a href="#Page_331">331</a></li> -<li>Dugdale, his errors, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, - <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_327">327</a>, - <a href="#Page_388">388</a>, <a href="#Page_391">391</a></li> -<li>Dunstanville, Alan de, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_325">325</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert de, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></li> -<li>Durham, Stephen at, <a href="#Page_16">16</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, see of, contest for, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>; - <ul><li>privileges of, <a href="#Page_112">112</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, bishops of, Ranulf (Flambard), <a href="#Page_384">384</a>; - <ul><li><span class="squash">—</span>—Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_265">265</a></li> - </ul></li> - -</ul> - -<p>E</p> - -<ul> - -<li>"Eadintune," <a href="#Page_306">306</a>, <a href="#Page_307">307</a></li> -<li>Earldoms, always of a county, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>, <a href="#Page_320">320</a>; - <ul><li>or joint counties, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>-193, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>;</li> - <li>hereditary, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>, <a href="#Page_440">440</a>;</li> - <li>formula of creation, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, - <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>;</li> - <li>of confirmation, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, - <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>;</li> - <li>dealings of Henry II. with, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>, - <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_274">274</a>-277</li> - </ul></li> -<li>Earls, their privileges, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, - <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, - <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, - <a href="#Page_235">235</a>, <a href="#Page_292">292</a>; - <ul><li>at siege of Winchester, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>;</li> - <li>at Stephen's court, <a href="#Page_139">139</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>;</li> - <li>origin of their titles, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, - <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_272">272</a>, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>, - <a href="#Page_320">320</a>, <a href="#Page_321">321</a>;</li> - <li>their "third penny," <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_240">240</a>, - <a href="#Page_269">269</a>, <a href="#Page_287">287</a>-296</li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Stephen's, <a href="#Page_266">266</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>; - <ul><li>dates of their creation, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>;</li> - <li>choice of their titles, <a href="#Page_272">272</a>;</li> - <li>their alleged poverty, <a href="#Page_267">267</a>, <a href="#Page_269">269</a>;</li> - <li>not "fiscal," <a href="#Page_267">267</a>-277, <a href="#Page_440">440</a>;</li> - <li>their alleged deposition, <a href="#Page_274">274</a>-277</li> - </ul></li> -<li>Easton (Essex), <a href="#Page_141">141</a></li> -<li>Edgware, <a href="#Page_440">440</a></li> -<li>Edward I., his dealings with London, <a href="#Page_358">358</a>; - <ul><li>with Nottingham, <a href="#Page_359">359</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Eglinus (? de Furnis), <a href="#Page_53">53</a></li> -<li>Ellis, Mr. W. S., on the arms of Mandeville, <a href="#Page_394">394</a>; - <ul><li>of Sackville, <a href="#Page_393">393</a>;</li> - <li>of De Vere, <a href="#Page_395">395</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Elmdon (Essex), <a href="#Page_143">143</a></li> -<li>Elton, Mr., on Mr. Chester Waters, <a href="#Page_421">421</a>; - <ul><li>on Mr. Loftie, <a href="#Page_436">436</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Ely, Stephen marches on, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>; - <ul><li>Geoffrey despatched against, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_411">411</a>;</li> - <li>Geoffrey occupies, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>;</li> - <li>Geoffrey's doings at, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>;</li> - <li>Stephen's vengeance on, <a href="#Page_214">214</a>;</li> - <li>famine and misery at, <a href="#Page_219">219</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Nigel, bishop of, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>; - <ul><li>at Stephen's court, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>;</li> - <li>rebels, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>;</li> - <li>joins the Empress, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_411">411</a>;</li> - <li>attends her court, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, - <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_314">314</a>;</li> - <li>appeals to Rome against Stephen, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_411">411</a>;</li> - <li>restored to his see, <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_412">412</a>;</li> - <li>visits the Empress, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>;</li> - <li>goes to Rome, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>;</li> - <li>returns, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>;</li> - <li>with Henry II., <a href="#Page_236">236</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, William, prior of, <a href="#Page_83">83</a></li> -<li>Emperor, style of the, <a href="#Page_300">300</a>, <a href="#Page_301">301</a></li> -<li>Epping Forest. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Waltham</span></li> -<li>Esegar (the staller), succeeded by the Mandevilles, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>; - <ul><li>sheriff and portreeve, <a href="#Page_353">353</a>, <a href="#Page_354">354</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>"Esendona," <a href="#Page_286">286</a></li> -<li>Espec, Walter, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></li> -<li>Essex, hereditary shrievalty of, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, - <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, <span class="squash">———</span>— justiciarship of, - <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, - <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, "firma" of, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, - <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, - <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, "third penny" of, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, - <a href="#Page_235">235</a>, <a href="#Page_237">237</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, earldom of, created by Stephen, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>-53, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, - <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>; - <ul><li>confirmed by the Empress, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>;</li> - <li>assigned to Geoffrey the younger, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>, <a href="#Page_417">417</a>;</li> - <li>re-created by Henry II., <a href="#Page_234">234</a>-239;</li> - <li>extinct, <a href="#Page_243">243</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, escheatorship of, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_439">439</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, forest of, <a href="#Page_376">376</a>-378</li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, earls of. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Mandeville</span> - and <span class="smc">Fitz Piers</span></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Henry of, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, - <a href="#Page_183">183</a> (?), <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, - <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_268">268</a>, <a href="#Page_326">326</a>, - <a href="#Page_327">327</a>, <a href="#Page_391">391</a>, <a href="#Page_393">393</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert of, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_391">391</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Swegen of, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_391">391</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Alice of, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a></li> -<li>Eu, the count of, <a href="#Page_158">158</a></li> -<li>Eugene III., Pope, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>, - <a href="#Page_258">258</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a></li> -<li>Eustace, son and heir of Stephen, his betrothal, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>; - <ul><li>his intended coronation, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, - <a href="#Page_250">250</a>, <a href="#Page_259">259</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Evreux, Audoen, bishop of, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a></li> -<li>"Excambion," formula of, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, - <a href="#Page_180">180</a>-182, <a href="#Page_230">230</a></li> -<li>Exchequer system, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_293">293</a>, - <a href="#Page_352">352</a>, <a href="#Page_355">355</a>, - <a href="#Page_360">360</a>, <a href="#Page_400">400</a>; - <ul><li>not destroyed by the Anarchy, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, - <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, pensions on the, <a href="#Page_267">267</a>-269, <a href="#Page_274">274</a></li> -<li>Exeter, held against Stephen, <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, William, bishop of, <a href="#Page_265">265</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, earldom of, <a href="#Page_272">272</a>. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Devon</span></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, "third penny" of, <a href="#Page_289">289</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Baldwin, (sheriff) of, <a href="#Page_289">289</a>, <a href="#Page_329">329</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, <span class="squash">———</span>—, his wife Emma, <a href="#Page_329">329</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, <span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert, son of, <a href="#Page_329">329</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, <span class="squash">———</span>—, Richard, son of, <a href="#Page_329">329</a>, <a href="#Page_428">428</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Castle, <a href="#Page_343">343</a></li> -<li>Eynsford, William de, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li> -<li>Eyton, Mr., on the charters to Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>-44, - <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>; - <ul><li>to Aubrey de Vere, <a href="#Page_179">179</a>;</li> - <li>on the charters of the Empress, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>;</li> - <li>on Richard de Luci, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>;</li> - <li>on Robert de Vere, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>;</li> - <li>his MSS., <a href="#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>;</li> - <li>on the Tewkesbury charter, <a href="#Page_431">431</a></li> - </ul></li> - -</ul> - -<p>F</p> - -<ul> - -<li>Fecamp, Roger de, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a></li> -<li>Fenland campaign, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>-212</li> -<li>Ferrers, Robert de (Earl of Derby), <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, - <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, - <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, - <a href="#Page_266">266</a>, <a href="#Page_415">415</a></li> -<li>Feudalism, its aims, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, - <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>, - <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_372">372</a>. - <i>See also</i> "<span class="smc">Dominus</span>," "<span class="smc">Diffidatio</span>"</li> -<li>Feversham Abbey, <a href="#Page_147">147</a></li> -<li>Fiennes, Sybil de, <a href="#Page_147">147</a></li> -<li>"Firma burgi," <a href="#Page_361">361</a>-363</li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— comitatus," <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, - <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, - <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, - <a href="#Page_313">313</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a>, <a href="#Page_362">362</a>; - <ul><li>its constituents, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_287">287</a>, - <a href="#Page_293">293</a>, <a href="#Page_361">361</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>"Fiscus," meaning of, <a href="#Page_268">268</a></li> -<li>Fitz (<i>Filius</i>) Adam, Ralf, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, Warine, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Ailb', William, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— "Ailric," Robert, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Alan, Roger, <a href="#Page_310">310</a>, <a href="#Page_311">311</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, John, <a href="#Page_316">316</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, Walter, <a href="#Page_123">123</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, William, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Algod, Ralf, <a href="#Page_436">436</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Alvred, William, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Baldwin. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Exeter</span></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Bigot, John, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Brian, Ralf, <a href="#Page_142">142</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Count, Brian, with Henry I, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_431">431</a>; - <ul><li>meets Earl of Gloucester, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>;</li> - <li>is besieged and relieved, <i>ib.</i>;</li> - <li>at Stephen's court, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>;</li> - <li>escorts the Empress, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, - <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, - <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, - <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>, <a href="#Page_314">314</a>;</li> - <li>his letter, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>, <a href="#Page_261">261</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, Otwel, <a href="#Page_307">307</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, Reginald, <a href="#Page_320">320</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Ebrard, Ralf, <a href="#Page_305">305</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Edith, Robert (son of Henry I.), <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, - <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, - <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>, - <a href="#Page_418">418</a>, <a href="#Page_434">434</a>, <a href="#Page_435">435</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Ernald, William, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, Ranulf, <a href="#Page_229">229</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Frodo, Alan, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_440">440</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Gerold, Henry, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert, <a href="#Page_142">142</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, Ralf, <a href="#Page_142">142</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, Warine, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_228">228</a>, - <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Gilbert. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Clare</span></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, John (the marshal), <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, - <a href="#Page_129">129</a>-<a href="#Page_132">132</a>, - <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, - <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>, <a href="#Page_314">314</a>, - <a href="#Page_409">409</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a>. <i>See also</i> "<span class="smc">Histoire</span>"</li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, William. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Chancellors</span></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Gosbert, Robert, <a href="#Page_436">436</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Hamon, Robert, <a href="#Page_382">382</a>, <a href="#Page_422">422</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Heldebrand, Robert, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, Richard, <a href="#Page_95">95</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Herlwin, Ralf, <a href="#Page_309">309</a>, <a href="#Page_310">310</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, his sons, <a href="#Page_310">310</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, Herlwin, <a href="#Page_310">310</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, William, <a href="#Page_310">310</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Hervey, William, <a href="#Page_142">142</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Hubert, Robert, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>, <a href="#Page_281">281</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Humfrey, Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Jocelin, William, <a href="#Page_402">402</a>, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— John, Payne, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, - <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_378">378</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, Eustace, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>, <a href="#Page_378">378</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Liulf, Forn, <a href="#Page_434">434</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Martin, Robert, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="#Page_135">135</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Miles, William, <a href="#Page_399">399</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Muriel, Abraham, <a href="#Page_229">229</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Osbern, William (Earl of Hereford), <a href="#Page_154">154</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Osbert, Richard, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Other, Walter, <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Oto, William, <a href="#Page_86">86</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Otwel, William, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Piers, Geoffrey, Earl of Essex, <a href="#Page_39">39</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Ralf, Brian, <a href="#Page_142">142</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>— (fitz Ebrard), John, <a href="#Page_305">305</a>, - <a href="#Page_306">306</a>, <a href="#Page_436">436</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert, <a href="#Page_305">305</a>, <a href="#Page_306">306</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Richard. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Clare</span></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, Osbert, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, Roger, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a>-392</li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Robert, Walter (of Dunmow), <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, William, <a href="#Page_142">142</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>— (fitz Walter), John, <a href="#Page_52">52</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Roger, Robert, <a href="#Page_391">391</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Roy. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Cornwall</span>, <span class="smc">Fitz Edith</span>, - <span class="smc">Gloucester</span></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, Richard (son of Henry I.), <a href="#Page_423">423</a>, <a href="#Page_427">427</a>, <a href="#Page_434">434</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Urse, Richard, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, Reginald, <a href="#Page_53">53</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Walter, Fulcred, <a href="#Page_360">360</a>, <a href="#Page_363">363</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_229">229</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, Ranulf, <a href="#Page_229">229</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, William, constable of Windsor, <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Wimarc, Robert, <a href="#Page_391">391</a></li> -<li>Flanders, Count Robert of, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>, <a href="#Page_380">380</a></li> -<li>Flemings, expulsion of the, <a href="#Page_275">275</a></li> -<li>Florence of Worcester, his continuater's chronology, <a href="#Page_278">278</a>, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, - <a href="#Page_284">284</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>; - <ul><li>accuracy, <a href="#Page_437">437</a>, <a href="#Page_438">438</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Foliot, Gilbert, attends council at Rome, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>, <a href="#Page_253">253</a>; - <ul><li>his letter to Brian Fitz Count, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>, - <a href="#Page_254">254</a>-257, <a href="#Page_261">261</a>;</li> - <li>becomes Abbot of Gloucester (1139), <a href="#Page_285">285</a>;</li> - <li>Bishop of Hereford (1148), <a href="#Page_251">251</a>, <a href="#Page_260">260</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Fordham (Camb.), <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>, - <a href="#Page_220">220</a>, <a href="#Page_222">222</a></li> -<li>Fordwich, "third penny" of, <a href="#Page_290">290</a></li> -<li>Forests. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Assarts</span></li> -<li>France, King of, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a></li> -<li>Fraxineto. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Fresne</span></li> -<li>Freeman, Professor, his errors, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, - <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_250">250</a>, - <a href="#Page_261">261</a>, <a href="#Page_290">290</a>, <a href="#Page_291">291</a>, - <a href="#Page_294">294</a>, <a href="#Page_325">325</a>, <a href="#Page_333">333</a>, - <a href="#Page_335">335</a>, <a href="#Page_338">338</a>, - <a href="#Page_346">346</a>, <a href="#Page_349">349</a>; - <ul><li>Mr. J. Parker on, <a href="#Page_280">280</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Fresne, Roger du, <a href="#Page_320">320</a></li> -<li>Fulcinus, Albot, <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li> -<li>Fulham, <a href="#Page_117">117</a></li> - -</ul> - -<p>G</p> - -<ul> - -<li>Gainsborough Castle, <a href="#Page_159">159</a></li> -<li>Gamlingay (Camb.), <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_305">305</a></li> -<li>Gant, Walter de, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>, <a href="#Page_266">266</a>, <a href="#Page_428">428</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Gilbert de, <a href="#Page_327">327</a></li> -<li>Geoffrey of Anjou, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, - <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>; - <ul><li>was to succeed Henry I., <a href="#Page_33">33</a>;</li> - <li>summons Stephen before the Pope, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_259">259</a>;</li> - <li>invited to England, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>;</li> - <li>sends his son to England in his stead, <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>;</li> - <li>detains the Earl of Gloucester, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>;</li> - <li>conquers Normandy, <a href="#Page_418">418</a>;</li> - <li>cedes Normandy to Henry, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>, <a href="#Page_259">259</a>;</li> - <li>admits no legate, <a href="#Page_260">260</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Gerardmota, Simon de, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li> -<li>Gerpenville. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Jarpenville</span></li> -<li>"Gersoma," <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_360">360</a>, - <a href="#Page_363">363</a>, <a href="#Page_366">366</a></li> -<li>"Gesta Stephani," its accuracy impugned, <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a>; - <ul><li>confirmed, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, - <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>"Gialla." <i>See</i> <span class="smc">London</span></li> -<li>Gifard, John, <a href="#Page_364">364</a></li> -<li>Giffard, Elyas, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></li> -<li>"Ging'." <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Ing</span></li> -<li>Glanville, Ranulf de, <a href="#Page_385">385</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, <span class="squash">———</span>—, his wife Bertha, <a href="#Page_385">385</a>; - <ul><li>his daughter Maud, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Gloucester, Empress reaches, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_278">278</a>; - <ul><li>leaves it, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>;</li> - <li>returns to it, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>;</li> - <li>leaves it again, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>;</li> - <li>flees to it, <a href="#Page_134">134</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Castle, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_329">329</a>, <a href="#Page_330">330</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, earldom of, its creation, <a href="#Page_420">420</a>-422, <a href="#Page_431">431</a>-434</li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, honour of, <a href="#Page_11">11</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert (son of Henry I.), earl of, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>; - <ul><li>marries heiress of Robert fitz Hamon, <a href="#Page_422">422</a>;</li> - <li>his earliest attestation (Rouen, 1113), <a href="#Page_423">423</a>;</li> - <li>attends his father at Reading, <i>ib.</i>;</li> - <li>at the battle of Brémulé, <i>ib.</i>;</li> - <li>at Rouen, <a href="#Page_424">424</a>, <a href="#Page_426">426</a>;</li> - <li>in England, <a href="#Page_429">429</a>, <a href="#Page_430">430</a>;</li> - <li>created Earl of Gloucester, <a href="#Page_432">432</a>;</li> - <li>attends his father at Westminster, <a href="#Page_433">433</a>;</li> - <li>at Portsmouth, <a href="#Page_432">432</a>;</li> - <li>his increasing greatness, <a href="#Page_434">434</a>;</li> - <li>attests charters at Westminster, <a href="#Page_306">306</a>;</li> - <li>at Northampton, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>;</li> - <li>receives lands in Kent, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>;</li> - <li>does homage to Stephen at Oxford, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>;</li> - <li>"defies" Stephen, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>;</li> - <li>lands at Arundel with the Empress, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>;</li> - <li>reaches Bristol, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>;</li> - <li>escorts the Empress to Winchester, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>;</li> - <li>to Oxford, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>;</li> - <li>said to have created earldom of Cornwall, <i>ib.</i>;</li> - <li>at Reading, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>;</li> - <li>in London, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>;</li> - <li>advises moderation in vain, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>;</li> - <li>withdraws from London, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>;</li> - <li>goes to Oxford with Maud, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_314">314</a>;</li> - <li>visits Winchester, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>;</li> - <li>joins in its siege, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>;</li> - <li>captured at Stockbridge, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>;</li> - <li>released and goes to Bristol, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>;</li> - <li>removes with Maud to Oxford, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>;</li> - <li>his treaty with Earl Miles, <a href="#Page_379">379</a>;</li> - <li>goes to Normandy, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, - <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_379">379</a>;</li> - <li>returns and captures Wareham, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a>;</li> - <li>joins Maud at Wallingford, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_406">406</a>;</li> - <li>is with her at Devizes, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>, <a href="#Page_417">417</a>;</li> - <li>routs Stephen at Wilton, <a href="#Page_407">407</a>;</li> - <li>dies, <a href="#Page_408">408</a>;</li> - <li>his <i>Carta</i>, <a href="#Page_375">375</a>, <a href="#Page_382">382</a>;</li> - <li>his <i>tertius denarius</i>, <a href="#Page_292">292</a>-294;</li> - <li>his London soke, <a href="#Page_436">436</a>;</li> - <li>his wife, <a href="#Page_381">381</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, William, earl of, <a href="#Page_380">380</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a>, <a href="#Page_419">419</a>; - <ul><li>confused with his father, <a href="#Page_410">410</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Walter, abbot of, <a href="#Page_265">265</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Gilbert, abbot of. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Foliot</span></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Miles de (Earl of Hereford), employed by Henry I. (1130), <a href="#Page_297">297</a>; - <ul><li>with him at Northampton (1131), <a href="#Page_265">265</a>;</li> - <li>meets Stephen at Reading (1136), <a href="#Page_12">12</a>;</li> - <li>obtains charters from him, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, - <a href="#Page_14">14</a>, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>;</li> - <li>attends his Easter court as constable, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>;</li> - <li>and witnesses his Oxford charter, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>;</li> - <li>is with him at siege of Shrewsbury (1138), <a href="#Page_285">285</a>;</li> - <li>abandons Stephen (1139), <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_284">284</a>;</li> - <li>receives the Empress, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>;</li> - <li>obtains charter from her, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>;</li> - <li>loses constableship, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>;</li> - <li>relieves Brian fitz Count, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>;</li> - <li>sacks Worcester and captures Hereford, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>;</li> - <li>escorts the Empress to Winchester (1141), <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>;</li> - <li>to Reading (as constable), <a href="#Page_82">82</a>;</li> - <li>to London, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>;</li> - <li>to Gloucester, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>;</li> - <li>is created by her Earl of Hereford, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, - <a href="#Page_271">271</a>, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>, - <a href="#Page_288">288</a>, <a href="#Page_315">315</a>, <a href="#Page_328">328</a>;</li> - <li>is with her at Oxford, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_314">314</a>;</li> - <li>and at siege of Winchester, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>;</li> - <li>escapes to Gloucester and Bristol, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>;</li> - <li>with the Empress at Oxford, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>;</li> - <li>his treaty with the Earl of Gloucester, <a href="#Page_379">379</a>;</li> - <li>his grant to Llanthony, <a href="#Page_329">329</a>;</li> - <li>his death, <a href="#Page_276">276</a>;</li> - <li>his son Roger, <i>see</i> <span class="smc">Hereford</span>, Earls of;</li> - <li>his son Mahel, <a href="#Page_382">382</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Walter de (father of Miles), <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, <a href="#Page_428">428</a></li> -<li>Grantmesnil, Hugh de, <a href="#Page_289">289</a></li> -<li>Greenfield (Linc.), <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li> -<li>Greinville, Richard de, <a href="#Page_382">382</a></li> -<li>Greys Thurrock (Essex), <a href="#Page_181">181</a></li> -<li>Guisnes, <i>Comté</i> of, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_398">398</a>. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Vere</span>, Aubrey de</li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Manasses, Count of, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_397">397</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Ralf de, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li> - -</ul> - -<p>H</p> - -<ul> - -<li>Hairon, Albany de, <a href="#Page_286">286</a></li> -<li>Ham (Essex), <a href="#Page_141">141</a></li> -<li>"Hamslep," Hugh de, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></li> -<li>Handfasting. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Affidatio</span></li> -<li>Harold, his accession compared with Stephen's, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, - <a href="#Page_253">253</a>, <a href="#Page_437">437</a></li> -<li>Hartshorne, Mr., on Rochester Castle, <a href="#Page_337">337</a></li> -<li>Hastings, William de, <a href="#Page_171">171</a></li> -<li>Hatfield Broad Oak (Essex), <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, - <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a></li> -<li>"Hattele," church of, <a href="#Page_233">233</a></li> -<li>Haughley (Suffolk), <a href="#Page_326">326</a></li> -<li>Haye, Ralf de, <a href="#Page_159">159</a></li> -<li>Hearne as a critic, <a href="#Page_375">375</a></li> -<li>Hedenham (Bucks.), <a href="#Page_337">337</a></li> -<li>Hedingham (Essex), <a href="#Page_402">402</a></li> -<li>Helion, barony of, <a href="#Page_229">229</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert de, <a href="#Page_143">143</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, William de, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a></li> -<li>Henry I., secures Winchester, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>; - <ul><li>his style, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_432">432</a>;</li> - <li>at St. Evroul and Rouen, <a href="#Page_423">423</a>, <a href="#Page_426">426</a>;</li> - <li>at Brampton and Westminster, <a href="#Page_428">428</a>;</li> - <li>marries Adeliza, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, - <a href="#Page_426">426</a>, <a href="#Page_429">429</a>;</li> - <li>visits Winchester, <a href="#Page_426">426</a>, <a href="#Page_421">421</a>, - <a href="#Page_430">430</a>, <a href="#Page_432">432</a>;</li> - <li>Portsmouth, <a href="#Page_432">432</a>;</li> - <li>Westminster, <a href="#Page_433">433</a>;</li> - <li>secures succession to his children, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, - <a href="#Page_30">30</a>-32, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>;</li> - <li>dies, <a href="#Page_322">322</a>;</li> - <li>his widow's dower, <a href="#Page_324">324</a>;</li> - <li>his gifts to Cluny, <a href="#Page_254">254</a>;</li> - <li>his reforms, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>;</li> - <li>his ministers, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>, <a href="#Page_418">418</a>;</li> - <li>his exactions, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, - <a href="#Page_360">360</a>, <a href="#Page_361">361</a>, <a href="#Page_366">366</a>;</li> - <li>his forest policy, <a href="#Page_377">377</a>;</li> - <li>his dealings with London, <a href="#Page_347">347</a>, <a href="#Page_358">358</a>, - <a href="#Page_359">359</a>, <a href="#Page_365">365</a>-367;</li> - <li>his chaplains, <a href="#Page_427">427</a>;</li> - <li>his military architecture, <a href="#Page_333">333</a>, <a href="#Page_334">334</a>, - <a href="#Page_341">341</a>-343, <a href="#Page_345">345</a>, <a href="#Page_346">346</a>;</li> - <li>his charter to Eudo Dapifer, <a href="#Page_328">328</a>;</li> - <li>his treaty with the Count of Flanders, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="#Page_380">380</a>;</li> - <li>his knowledge of English, <a href="#Page_424">424</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, his son William, heir to the crown, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_427">427</a>; - <ul><li>married, <a href="#Page_426">426</a>;</li> - <li>drowned, <a href="#Page_434">434</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, his children. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Maud</span>, - <span class="smc">Gloucester</span>, <span class="smc">Fitz Edith</span>, - <span class="smc">Fitz Roy</span></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, his widow. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Adeliza</span></li> -<li>Henry II., mentioned in charters of the Empress, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a> - <a href="#Page_417">417</a>, <a href="#Page_418">418</a>; - <ul><li>confirms his mother's charter, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>-186, - <a href="#Page_384">384</a>, <a href="#Page_418">418</a>;</li> - <li>his hereditary right, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>;</li> - <li>lands with his uncle (1142), <a href="#Page_198">198</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a>;</li> - <li>joins the Empress, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_406">406</a>;</li> - <li>resides at Bristol, <a href="#Page_407">407</a>;</li> - <li>his gifts to St. Augustine's, <a href="#Page_408">408</a>;</li> - <li>lands afresh (1149), <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, <a href="#Page_408">408</a>;</li> - <li>visits Devizes, <a href="#Page_409">409</a>;</li> - <li>knighted at Carlisle, <a href="#Page_408">408</a>;</li> - <li>unsupported, <a href="#Page_409">409</a>;</li> - <li>leaves England, <a href="#Page_410">410</a>;</li> - <li>his third visit and negotiations, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>, - <a href="#Page_386">386</a>, <a href="#Page_418">418</a>;</li> - <li>strength of his position, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>;</li> - <li>his policy, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, - <a href="#Page_372">372</a>, <a href="#Page_378">378</a>;</li> - <li>his alienations of demesne, <a href="#Page_269">269</a>;</li> - <li>his charters to Aubrey de Vere, <a href="#Page_237">237</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>;</li> - <li>to Hugh Bigod, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>;</li> - <li>to Earl of Arundel, <a href="#Page_240">240</a>;</li> - <li>to Wallingford, <a href="#Page_200">200</a>;</li> - <li>his dealings with London, <a href="#Page_358">358</a>, <a href="#Page_367">367</a>, - <a href="#Page_370">370</a>, <a href="#Page_372">372</a>, <a href="#Page_440">440</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Henry III., his charter to London, <a href="#Page_358">358</a></li> -<li>Henry VIII., confirms charter of the Empress, <a href="#Page_179">179</a>, <a href="#Page_328">328</a></li> -<li>Henry (V.), the Emperor, <a href="#Page_300">300</a>, <a href="#Page_301">301</a></li> -<li>Henry of Scotland. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Huntingdon</span></li> -<li>Heraclius, the Patriarch, consecrates the Temple church, <a href="#Page_225">225</a></li> -<li>Heraldry. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Arms, Quarterly</span></li> -<li>Hereditary right. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Crown</span></li> -<li>Hereford, Stephen at, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>; - <ul><li>seized by Miles, <a href="#Page_282">282</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, its "tertius denarius," <a href="#Page_288">288</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Castle, <a href="#Page_328">328</a>, <a href="#Page_329">329</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, earldom of, created by the Empress, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, - <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>, <a href="#Page_273">273</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, earl of, William Fitzosbern, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, earls of. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Gloucester</span></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Roger, earl of, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>, <a href="#Page_329">329</a>, - <a href="#Page_380">380</a>, <a href="#Page_382">382</a>, - <a href="#Page_409">409</a>, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Richard ("de Sigillo"), bishop of, <a href="#Page_427">427</a>, <a href="#Page_428">428</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert, bishop of, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, - <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, - <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a></li> -<li>Hertford (or "Clare"), earldom of, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, - <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>-272</li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Gilbert, earl of, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, - <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Roger, earl of, <a href="#Page_236">236</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, mills of, <a href="#Page_286">286</a></li> -<li>Hertfordshire, shrievalty of, <a href="#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, - <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>; - <ul><li>justiciarship of, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, - <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>;</li> - <li>"firma" of, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, - <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Hexham, John of, his accuracy confirmed, <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li> -<li>Hinckford hundred (Essex), <a href="#Page_404">404</a></li> -<li>"Histoire de Guillaume le Maréchal," extracts from, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>-133; - <ul><li>its authority, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><i>Historia Pontificalis</i>, editorial errors in, <a href="#Page_253">253</a></li> -<li>Holland, Great (Essex), <a href="#Page_141">141</a></li> -<li>Howard, Thomas, <a href="#Page_316">316</a></li> -<li>Howlett, Mr., on the landing of the Empress, <a href="#Page_278">278</a>-280; - <ul><li>on an unknown landing by Henry II., <a href="#Page_409">409</a>, <a href="#Page_410">410</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>"Hugate," <a href="#Page_232">232</a></li> -<li>Huitdeniers, Osbert, <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, <a href="#Page_374">374</a>, - <a href="#Page_375">375</a>, <a href="#Page_382">382</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Philip, <a href="#Page_375">375</a></li> -<li>Humez, Richard de, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></li> -<li>Huntingdon, its "tertius denarius," <a href="#Page_288">288</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Henry of, his chronology discussed, <a href="#Page_407">407</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Henry (of Scotland), earl of, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, - <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, earldom of, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>-193, - <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_272">272</a></li> -<li>Hyde Abbey burnt, <a href="#Page_127">127</a></li> - -</ul> - -<p>I</p> - -<ul> - -<li>Ickleton (Camb.), <a href="#Page_141">141</a></li> -<li>"Inga" (Essex), <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a></li> -<li>Ing, Goisbert de, <a href="#Page_142">142</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Hugh de, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>, - <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_384">384</a></li> -<li>Innocent, Pope, hears Maud's appeal against Stephen (1136), <a href="#Page_250">250</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>; - <ul><li>dismisses it, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_257">257</a>;</li> - <li>"confirms" Stephen, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_257">257</a>, - <a href="#Page_258">258</a>, <a href="#Page_260">260</a>;</li> - <li>writes to Stephen, <a href="#Page_412">412</a>;</li> - <li>to Henry of Winchester, <i>ib.</i></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Ipra. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Ypres</span></li> -<li>Ipswich, "third penny" of, <a href="#Page_290">290</a></li> -<li>Irvine, Mr., on Rochester Castle, <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li> -<li>Issigeac (Perigord), <a href="#Page_247">247</a></li> - -</ul> - -<p>J</p> - -<ul> - -<li>Jarpenville, David de, <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, <span class="squash">———</span>—, Symon, his brother, <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Geoffrey de, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a></li> -<li>Jerusalem, pilgrimage to, <a href="#Page_306">306</a>, <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li> -<li>Jingles in charters, <a href="#Page_241">241</a></li> -<li>John, his charters to London, <a href="#Page_358">358</a>, <a href="#Page_371">371</a></li> -<li>Juga. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Inga</span> <i>and</i> - <span class="smc">Ing</span></li> -<li>Jurisdiction, the struggle for, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_111">111</a></li> -<li><i>Justicia</i>, the, localized, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, <a href="#Page_373">373</a>; - <ul><li>termed "capitalis," <a href="#Page_106">106</a>;</li> - <li>differentiated from the sheriff, <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>;</li> - <li>feudalized, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>;</li> - <li>represented by "coroners," <a href="#Page_110">110</a>;</li> - <li>has precedence of the sheriff, <a href="#Page_110">110</a></li> - </ul></li> - -</ul> - -<p>K</p> - -<ul> - -<li>Kent, faithful to Stephen, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a></li> -<li>Kingham (Oxon), <a href="#Page_230">230</a>-233</li> -<li>Kirton-in-Lindsey (Linc.), <a href="#Page_159">159</a></li> -<li>Knightsbridge, the Londoners meet kings at, <a href="#Page_84">84</a></li> -<li>Knights' service, grants of, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>, <a href="#Page_103">103</a>, - <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, - <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_439">439</a></li> - -</ul> - -<p>L</p> - -<ul> - -<li>Laci, Hugh de, <a href="#Page_331">331</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Ilbert de, <a href="#Page_263">263</a></li> -<li><i>Læsio fidei</i>, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_387">387</a></li> -<li>Lea, the river, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_337">337</a></li> -<li>Ledet, Wiscard, <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li> -<li>Legate, the papal. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Winchester</span>, Henry, bishop of; - <span class="smc">Canterbury</span>, Theobald, archbishop of</li> -<li>Leicester, "third penny" of, <a href="#Page_289">289</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert, earl of, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, - <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, - <a href="#Page_380">380</a>, <a href="#Page_415">415</a>, <a href="#Page_433">433</a></li> -<li>Leicestershire, "tertius denarius" of, <a href="#Page_295">295</a></li> -<li>Le Mans, tower of, <a href="#Page_336">336</a></li> -<li>Leofstan (of London), <a href="#Page_309">309</a></li> -<li>Leominster, Stephen at, <a href="#Page_282">282</a></li> -<li>Lewes Priory, <a href="#Page_391">391</a></li> -<li>Lexden hundred (Essex), <a href="#Page_378">378</a>, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></li> -<li><i>Librata terræ</i>, the, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, - <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, - <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_305">305</a>, <a href="#Page_314">314</a></li> -<li>Liege homage, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li> -<li>Lincoln, excludes the sheriff, <a href="#Page_362">362</a>; - <ul><li>its "firma burgi," <a href="#Page_362">362</a>, <a href="#Page_363">363</a>;</li> - <li>Stephen besieges, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_440">440</a>;</li> - <li>battle of, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, - <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Castle, constableship of, <a href="#Page_160">160</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, earldom of, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>, <a href="#Page_325">325</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert (I.), bishop of, <a href="#Page_329">329</a>, <a href="#Page_433">433</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Alexander, bishop of, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, - <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, - <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, - <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert (II.), bishop of, <a href="#Page_236">236</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, William, earl of, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, - <a href="#Page_271">271</a>, <a href="#Page_415">415</a></li> -<li>Lisieux, Arnulf, bishop of, Stephen's envoy (1136), <a href="#Page_252">252</a>, <a href="#Page_253">253</a>, - <a href="#Page_260">260</a>, <a href="#Page_389">389</a></li> -<li>Lisures, Warner de, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_320">320</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, William de, <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li> -<li>Little Hereford, Stephen at, <a href="#Page_282">282</a></li> -<li>Lodnes, Ralf de, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li> -<li>Loftie, Mr. W. J., his strange errors, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_349">349</a>-351, - <a href="#Page_354">354</a>-356, <a href="#Page_364">364</a>, <a href="#Page_436">436</a></li> -<li>London, its name latinized, <a href="#Page_347">347</a>; - <ul><li>inseparable from Middlesex, <a href="#Page_347">347</a>, <a href="#Page_352">352</a>, - <a href="#Page_353">353</a>, <a href="#Page_357">357</a>, <a href="#Page_359">359</a>;</li> - <li>not a corporate unit, <a href="#Page_356">356</a>;</li> - <li>its organization territorial, <a href="#Page_357">357</a>;</li> - <li>earliest list of its wards, <a href="#Page_351">351</a>, <a href="#Page_435">435</a>, <a href="#Page_436">436</a>;</li> - <li>its <i>auxilium</i>, <a href="#Page_352">352</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, portreeve of, <a href="#Page_439">439</a>; - <ul><li>ignored by Henry I., <a href="#Page_350">350</a>, <a href="#Page_351">351</a>;</li> - <li>difficulty concerning, <a href="#Page_354">354</a>, <a href="#Page_356">356</a>;</li> - <li>replaced by Norman <i>vicecomes</i>, <a href="#Page_353">353</a>, <a href="#Page_354">354</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, mayor of, <a href="#Page_356">356</a>, <a href="#Page_357">357</a>, - <a href="#Page_373">373</a>, <a href="#Page_436">436</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, chamberlain of, <a href="#Page_355">355</a>, <a href="#Page_366">366</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Tower of, its custody, <a href="#Page_439">439</a>; - <ul><li>held by the Mandevilles, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, - <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, - <a href="#Page_149">149</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>;</li> - <li>its importance, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_113">113</a>, - <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_139">139</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>;</li> - <li>Stephen at, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>;</li> - <li>surrendered by Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_207">207</a>;</li> - <li>explanation of its name, <a href="#Page_336">336</a>;</li> - <li>its inner ward, <a href="#Page_334">334</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Guildhall (?) of, earliest mention of, <a href="#Page_436">436</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, St. Michael's, Cheap, <a href="#Page_309">309</a>, <a href="#Page_310">310</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, bishops of, Maurice, <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, <a href="#Page_328">328</a>; - <ul><li><span class="squash">—</span>— Gilbert, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>;</li> - <li><span class="squash">—</span>— Robert ("de Sigillo"), <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, - <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, - <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_402">402</a>;</li> - <li><span class="squash">—</span>— Richard, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_370">370</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—. <i>See also</i> <span class="smc">Temple</span>; <span class="smc">Cnihtengild</span></li> -<li>London and Middlesex, spoken of as London, <a href="#Page_348">348</a>, <a href="#Page_351">351</a>, <a href="#Page_372">372</a>; - <ul><li>as Middlesex, <a href="#Page_347">347</a>;</li> - <li>sheriff of, replaces portreeve, <a href="#Page_353">353</a>, <a href="#Page_354">354</a>, <a href="#Page_356">356</a>;</li> - <li><i>firma of</i>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, - <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_347">347</a>-349, <a href="#Page_352">352</a>, - <a href="#Page_355">355</a>, <a href="#Page_357">357</a>-359, <a href="#Page_362">362</a>, - <a href="#Page_366">366</a>, <a href="#Page_371">371</a>, <a href="#Page_372">372</a>, <a href="#Page_440">440</a>;</li> - <li>shrievalty of, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, - <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, <a href="#Page_347">347</a>-349, <a href="#Page_358">358</a>, - <a href="#Page_359">359</a>, <a href="#Page_363">363</a>, <a href="#Page_364">364</a>, - <a href="#Page_367">367</a>, <a href="#Page_372">372</a>, <a href="#Page_439">439</a>;</li> - <li>justiciarship of, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, - <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="#Page_347">347</a>, <a href="#Page_373">373</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>London and Middlesex, sheriffs of, Esegar, <a href="#Page_353">353</a>; - <ul><li><span class="squash">—</span>— Ulf, <a href="#Page_353">353</a>, <a href="#Page_354">354</a>;</li> - <li><span class="squash">—</span>— Geoffrey de Mandeville (I.), <a href="#Page_354">354</a>, <a href="#Page_439">439</a>;</li> - <li><span class="squash">—</span>— William de Eynsford, <a href="#Page_360">360</a></li> - <li><i>See</i> also <span class="smc">Mandeville</span></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, justiciars of, Gervase (de Cornhill), <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, <a href="#Page_373">373</a>; - <ul><li><span class="squash">—</span>— Geoffrey de Mandeville, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="#Page_373">373</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Londoners, the, obtain from Henry I. shrievalty of Middlesex, <a href="#Page_347">347</a>, <a href="#Page_349">349</a>, - <a href="#Page_359">359</a>, <a href="#Page_363">363</a>, - <a href="#Page_364">364</a>, <a href="#Page_366">366</a>; - <ul><li>dislike his system, <a href="#Page_366">366</a>;</li> - <li>elect Stephen, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>;</li> - <li>their compact with him, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>-249;</li> - <li>faithful to him, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_354">354</a>;</li> - <li>at the election of the Empress, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>;</li> - <li>slow to receive her, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>;</li> - <li>admit her conditionally, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_248">248</a>;</li> - <li>harassed by the Queen, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>;</li> - <li>expel the Empress, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>;</li> - <li>join the Queen, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>;</li> - <li>record Stephen's release, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>;</li> - <li>abandoned by him to Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>;</li> - <li>whose mortal foes they are, <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>;</li> - <li>treatment of, by Henry II., <a href="#Page_370">370</a>-372, <a href="#Page_440">440</a>;</li> - <li>join Simon de Montfort, <a href="#Page_358">358</a>;</li> - <li>their charters from the Conqueror, <a href="#Page_354">354</a>, <a href="#Page_439">439</a>;</li> - <li>from Henry I., <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_347">347</a>, <a href="#Page_356">356</a>, - <a href="#Page_359">359</a>, <a href="#Page_364">364</a>;</li> - <li>from Henry II., <a href="#Page_367">367</a>-370, <a href="#Page_440">440</a>;</li> - <li>from Richard I., <a href="#Page_371">371</a>;</li> - <li>from John, <a href="#Page_358">358</a>, <a href="#Page_371">371</a>;</li> - <li>from Henry III., <a href="#Page_348">348</a>;</li> - <li>their <i>communa</i>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>, - <a href="#Page_357">357</a>, <a href="#Page_373">373</a>, <a href="#Page_439">439</a>;</li> - <li>their alleged early liberties, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_372">372</a>, <a href="#Page_440">440</a>;</li> - <li>their "wardmoot," <a href="#Page_370">370</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Lords' Reports, error in, <a href="#Page_39">39</a></li> -<li>Lovel, Ralf, <a href="#Page_94">94</a></li> -<li>Luci, Richard de, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, - <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_373">373</a>; - <ul><li>with Stephen at Norwich, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>;</li> - <li>at Canterbury, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>;</li> - <li>at Ipswich, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>;</li> - <li>at Oxford, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>;</li> - <li>with Henry II., <a href="#Page_236">236</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Lucius, Pope, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, - <a href="#Page_258">258</a>, <a href="#Page_412">412</a></li> -<li>Ludgershall, the Empress flees to, <a href="#Page_133">133</a></li> -<li>"Luffenham," <a href="#Page_314">314</a></li> - -</ul> - -<p>M</p> - -<ul> - -<li>Magn', Ralf, <a href="#Page_230">230</a></li> -<li>Maldon (Essex), <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, - <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li> -<li>Malet, Robert (I.), great chamberlain, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>, <a href="#Page_395">395</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert (II.), <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, William, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_436">436</a></li> -<li>Malmesbury, Stephen at, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_281">281</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, William of, his accuracy confirmed, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>; - <ul><li>impugned, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>;</li> - <li>discussed, <a href="#Page_283">283</a>, <a href="#Page_344">344</a>, <a href="#Page_438">438</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Maminot, Walchelin, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>, - <a href="#Page_286">286</a>, <a href="#Page_314">314</a>, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></li> -<li>Mandeville family, origin of, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>; - <ul><li>heirs of, <a href="#Page_232">232</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>, - <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="#Page_244">244</a>;</li> - <li>charters of, <a href="#Page_228">228</a>-233, <a href="#Page_390">390</a>;</li> - <li>pedigree of, <a href="#Page_392">392</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Mandeville, Geoffrey de (I.), <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, - <a href="#Page_235">235</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_358">358</a>; - <ul><li>receives fief from the Conqueror, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>;</li> - <li>founds Hurley Priory, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>;</li> - <li>sheriff of three counties, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>;</li> - <li>said to be "portreeve," <a href="#Page_152">152</a>;</li> - <li>and may have been, <a href="#Page_439">439</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Geoffrey de (II.), Earl of Essex, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>-184; - <ul><li>his parentage, <a href="#Page_37">37</a>;</li> - <li>succeeds his father, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>;</li> - <li>at Stephen's court (1136), <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>;</li> - <li>detains Constance in the Tower, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>;</li> - <li>his first charter from the king, <a href="#Page_41">41</a>-53, <a href="#Page_292">292</a>;</li> - <li>created Earl of Essex, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, <a href="#Page_272">272</a>;</li> - <li>with Stephen at Norwich, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>;</li> - <li>strengthens the Tower, <a href="#Page_81">81</a>;</li> - <li>his first charter from the Empress, <a href="#Page_87">87</a>-113, <a href="#Page_292">292</a>;</li> - <li>made justice, sheriff, and escheator of Essex, <a href="#Page_92">92</a>;</li> - <li>deserts the Empress, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>;</li> - <li>seizes Bishop of London, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>;</li> - <li>obtains a charter from the Queen, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>;</li> - <li>his second charter from the king, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>-156;</li> - <li>made justice and sheriff of Herts. and of London and Middlesex, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>;</li> - <li>with Stephen at Ipswich, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>;</li> - <li>sent against Ely, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>;</li> - <li>aspires to be king-maker, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>;</li> - <li>his second charter from the Empress, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>-178, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>;</li> - <li>obtains charter for Aubrey de Vere, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>;</li> - <li>his plot against Stephen, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>;</li> - <li>is with him at Oxford, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>;</li> - <li>arrested by Stephen, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>-206;</li> - <li>surrenders his castles, <a href="#Page_207">207</a>;</li> - <li>breaks into revolt, <i>ib.</i>;</li> - <li>secures Ely, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>;</li> - <li>seizes Ramsey Abbey, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>;</li> - <li>holds the fenland, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>;</li> - <li>sacks Cambridge, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>;</li> - <li>evades Stephen, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>;</li> - <li>his atrocities, <a href="#Page_214">214</a>, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>;</li> - <li>wounded at Burwell, <a href="#Page_221">221</a>;</li> - <li>dies at Mildenhall, <a href="#Page_222">222</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a>;</li> - <li>fate of his corpse, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>-226;</li> - <li>his alleged effigy, <a href="#Page_226">226</a>, <a href="#Page_395">395</a>;</li> - <li>his heirs, <a href="#Page_232">232</a>, <a href="#Page_244">244</a>;</li> - <li>he founds Walden Abbey, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>;</li> - <li>burns Waltham, <a href="#Page_323">323</a>;</li> - <li>his policy, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>, - <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_173">173</a>, <a href="#Page_439">439</a>;</li> - <li>his greatness, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_203">203</a>, - <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_323">323</a>;</li> - <li>his arms, <a href="#Page_392">392</a>-396</li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Geoffrey de (II.), his sister Beatrice (de Say), <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_392">392</a>, <a href="#Page_393">393</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, <span class="squash">———</span>—, his wife Rohese (de Vere), <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, - <a href="#Page_232">232</a>, <a href="#Page_388">388</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a>-393</li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, <span class="squash">———</span>—, his father-in-law, Aubrey de Vere, <a href="#Page_81">81</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, his brother-in-law, Earl Aubrey, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>. - <i>See also</i> <span class="smc">Vere</span></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Geoffrey de (III.), Earl of Essex, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>; - <ul><li>succeeds his father, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>;</li> - <li>styled earl, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>, <a href="#Page_417">417</a>;</li> - <li>his charter from Henry II., <a href="#Page_235">235</a>;</li> - <li>procures his father's absolution, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>;</li> - <li>his charter to Ernulf, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>, <a href="#Page_231">231</a>;</li> - <li>his grant of Sawbridgeworth, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>;</li> - <li>his death, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>;</li> - <li>struggle for his corpse, <a href="#Page_226">226</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, <span class="squash">———</span>—, his wife Eustachia, <a href="#Page_229">229</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Geoffrey de (IV.), Earl of Essex, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>; - <ul><li>confused with Geoffrey de Mandeville (II.), <a href="#Page_39">39</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, William de (I.), constable of the Tower, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, - <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_392">392</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, William de (II.), Earl of Essex, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a>; - <ul><li>his charter to Ernulf, <a href="#Page_231">231</a>;</li> - <li>succeeds his brother as earl, <a href="#Page_242">242</a>;</li> - <li>devoted to Henry II., <a href="#Page_243">243</a>;</li> - <li>becomes Great Justiciar, <i>ib.</i>;</li> - <li>dies, <i>ib.</i></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Ernulf (or Arnulf, or Ernald, or Hernald) de, grants to him, <a href="#Page_141">141</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, - <a href="#Page_149">149</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, - <a href="#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>; - <ul><li>fortifies Wood Walton, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>;</li> - <li>holds Ramsey Abbey, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>;</li> - <li>surrenders it, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>;</li> - <li>exiled, <i>ib.</i>;</li> - <li>reappears, <a href="#Page_228">228</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>;</li> - <li>occurs in family charters, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>-233;</li> - <li>disinherited, <a href="#Page_233">233</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, <span class="squash">———</span>—, his wife Aaliz, <a href="#Page_232">232</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, <span class="squash">———</span>—, his son Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_232">232</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, <span class="squash">———</span>—, his son Ralf, <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, <span class="squash">———</span>—, his grandson Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_232">232</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, <span class="squash">———</span>—, his heir Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_229">229</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Geoffrey de, <a href="#Page_233">233</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Hugh de, <a href="#Page_232">232</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert de, <a href="#Page_232">232</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, <span class="squash">———</span>—, Ralf, his brother, <a href="#Page_232">232</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Walter de, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, William de, <a href="#Page_233">233</a></li> -<li>Mansel, William, <a href="#Page_383">383</a></li> -<li>Marmion, Robert, <a href="#Page_313">313</a></li> -<li>Marshal, Gilbert the, <a href="#Page_171">171</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, John the. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Fitz-Gilbert</span></li> -<li>Martel, Eudo (?), <a href="#Page_263">263</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_147">147</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, William, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, - <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, - <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="#Page_320">320</a>, - <a href="#Page_378">378</a>, <a href="#Page_407">407</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a></li> -<li>Masculus, Osbert, <a href="#Page_29">29</a></li> -<li>Mathew, Master, <a href="#Page_407">407</a></li> -<li>Matilda (of Boulogne), Stephen's queen, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>; - <ul><li>advances on London, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>;</li> - <li>her charter to Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_118">118</a>-121, <a href="#Page_139">139</a>;</li> - <li>rallies her party, <a href="#Page_119">119</a>;</li> - <li>her charter to Gervase, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>;</li> - <li>gains the legate, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>;</li> - <li>wears crown at Canterbury, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>;</li> - <li>visits York, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>;</li> - <li>her charters and seal, <a href="#Page_302">302</a>;</li> - <li>at Barking, <a href="#Page_320">320</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Matom, Alan de, <a href="#Page_233">233</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Serlo de, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li> -<li>Maud, the Empress, her legitimacy, <a href="#Page_256">256</a>; - <ul><li>marries the Emperor, <a href="#Page_300">300</a>;</li> - <li>oath sworn to her (1127), <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, - <a href="#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="#Page_255">255</a>;</li> - <li>appeals to Rome (1136), <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, - <a href="#Page_253">253</a>-257;</li> - <li>her claim to the throne, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>-34;</li> - <li>lands in England (1139), <a href="#Page_55">55</a>, <a href="#Page_278">278</a>-280, - <a href="#Page_283">283</a>;</li> - <li>reaches Bristol, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>;</li> - <li>resides at Gloucester, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>;</li> - <li>joined by Miles, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>;</li> - <li>joined by Bishop Nigel, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>;</li> - <li>received at Winchester (1141), <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>;</li> - <li>her style, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>-67, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>-77, <a href="#Page_300">300</a>-302;</li> - <li>visits Wilton and Oxford, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>-67;</li> - <li>elected "Domina," <a href="#Page_58">58</a>-61, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>;</li> - <li>forfeits Count Theobald, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>;</li> - <li>visits Reading, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>;</li> - <li>advances to St. Albans, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>;</li> - <li>reaches London, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>;</li> - <li>her intended coronation, <a href="#Page_78">78</a>, - <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, <a href="#Page_84">84</a>, <a href="#Page_302">302</a>;</li> - <li>her Valoines charter, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>;</li> - <li>her first charter to Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_86">86</a>-113, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>-155, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>;</li> - <li>deals with see of Durham, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>;</li> - <li>expelled from London, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>;</li> - <li>flees to Gloucester, <a href="#Page_115">115</a>;</li> - <li>returns to Oxford, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>;</li> - <li>her Beauchamp charter, <a href="#Page_313">313</a>-315;</li> - <li>marches on Winchester, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>;</li> - <li>besieges the legate, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>-128;</li> - <li>flees from Winchester, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, <a href="#Page_133">133</a>;</li> - <li>reaches Gloucester, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>;</li> - <li>visits Bristol, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>;</li> - <li>again returns to Oxford, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>;</li> - <li>holds councils at Devizes, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>;</li> - <li>sends for her husband, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>;</li> - <li>her second charter to Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>-177;</li> - <li>her charter to Aubrey de Vere, <a href="#Page_179">179</a>-184, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>-195;</li> - <li>is besieged in Oxford, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>;</li> - <li>escapes to Wallingford, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>;</li> - <li>visited by Bishop Nigel, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>;</li> - <li>quarters her followers on Wilts, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>;</li> - <li>her charter to Geoffrey de Mandeville the younger, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>;</li> - <li>to Geoffrey Ridel, <a href="#Page_234">234</a>, <a href="#Page_417">417</a>;</li> - <li>her court, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, - <a href="#Page_124">124</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>;</li> - <li>her earls, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>-273;</li> - <li>her seal, <a href="#Page_299">299</a>-303;</li> - <li>her arrogance, <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_367">367</a>;</li> - <li>her gifts to Cluny, <a href="#Page_254">254</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Mauduit, Ralf, <a href="#Page_142">142</a></li> -<li>Mayenne, Juhel de, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a></li> -<li>Meduana. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Mayenne</span></li> -<li>Melford, Geoffrey de, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Helias de, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li> -<li><i>Mercata terræ</i>, <a href="#Page_232">232</a></li> -<li>Merton, charter to, <a href="#Page_433">433</a></li> -<li>Meulan, Robert, count of, <a href="#Page_329">329</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Waleran, count of, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, - <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>, - <a href="#Page_313">313</a>, <a href="#Page_314">314</a>; - <ul><li>escorts the Empress, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>;</li> - <li>faithful to Stephen, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>;</li> - <li>his brother Hugh, <a href="#Page_171">171</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Middlesex, comprised London, <a href="#Page_347">347</a>; - <ul><li>archdeaconry of, <a href="#Page_348">348</a>.</li> - <li><i>See</i> <span class="smc">London and Middlesex</span></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Mildenhall (Suffolk), Geoffrey dies at, <a href="#Page_222">222</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a></li> -<li>Moch' (? Woch[endona]), William de, <a href="#Page_229">229</a></li> -<li>Mohun (Moion), William de (Earl of Somerset or Dorset), <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, - <a href="#Page_266">266</a>, <a href="#Page_272">272</a>, <a href="#Page_277">277</a></li> -<li>Money-lending denounced, <a href="#Page_311">311</a>, <a href="#Page_312">312</a>, <a href="#Page_440">440</a></li> -<li>Monks Horton Priory, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, <a href="#Page_326">326</a></li> -<li>Montfort, Hugh de, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_326">326</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert de, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_327">327</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Thurstan de, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_327">327</a></li> -<li>Montgomery, Arnulf de, <a href="#Page_331">331</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Roger de, <a href="#Page_322">322</a></li> -<li>Montreuil, <a href="#Page_331">331</a>, <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li> -<li>Mortgage. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Vadimonium</span></li> -<li>'Mottes,' shell-keeps termed, <a href="#Page_328">328</a>, <a href="#Page_330">330</a>, - <a href="#Page_333">333</a>, <a href="#Page_336">336</a>, <a href="#Page_337">337</a></li> -<li>Mountnessing (Essex), <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li> - -</ul> - -<p>N</p> - -<ul> - -<li>Napier, origin of the name, <a href="#Page_324">324</a></li> -<li>"Navium applicationes," <a href="#Page_286">286</a>, <a href="#Page_440">440</a></li> -<li>"Nepos Huberti," Roger, <a href="#Page_305">305</a>,<a href="#Page_306">306</a>, - <a href="#Page_308">308</a>-310</li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, <span class="squash">———</span>—, Ingenolda, his wife, <a href="#Page_305">305</a>, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>, <a href="#Page_310">310</a></li> -<li>Neufbourg, Robert de, <a href="#Page_52">52</a></li> -<li>Neufmarché, Henry de, <a href="#Page_320">320</a></li> -<li>Nevill, Hugh de, <a href="#Page_310">310</a></li> -<li>Newburgh, William of, his chronicle, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, <a href="#Page_203">203</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a></li> -<li>Newcastle, keep of, <a href="#Page_339">339</a>, <a href="#Page_346">346</a></li> -<li>Newport (Essex), <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, - <a href="#Page_92">92</a>, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>, - <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a></li> -<li>Newtimber (Sussex), <a href="#Page_325">325</a></li> -<li>Norfolk, earldom of, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, - <a href="#Page_271">271</a>, <a href="#Page_273">273</a>, <a href="#Page_277">277</a>. - <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Bigod</span></li> -<li>Norhale, William de, <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li> -<li>Northampton, Stephen ill at, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>; - <ul><li>its burgesses, <a href="#Page_414">414</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Simon (de St. Liz or Silvanecta), earl of, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, - <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, - <a href="#Page_262">262</a>-264, <a href="#Page_276">276</a></li> -<li>Northamptonshire, earldom of, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>, <a href="#Page_272">272</a></li> -<li>Norwich, Stephen at, <a href="#Page_49">49</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Ebrard, bishop of, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, - <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, William, bishop of, <a href="#Page_45">45</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, John, bishop of, <a href="#Page_318">318</a></li> -<li>Novo burgo. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Neufbourg</span></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— mercato. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Neufmarché</span></li> -<li>Noyon, battle of, <a href="#Page_423">423</a>, <a href="#Page_427">427</a></li> -<li>Nuers, Ralf de, <a href="#Page_230">230</a></li> -<li>Nunant, Roger de, <a href="#Page_125">125</a></li> - -</ul> - -<p>O</p> - -<ul> - -<li>Octodenarii. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Huitdeniers</span></li> -<li>Oilli, Fulk d', <a href="#Page_46">46</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Henry d', <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="#Page_434">434</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert d', <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, - <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, - <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="#Page_434">434</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Roger d', <a href="#Page_125">125</a></li> -<li>Ordgar (of London), <a href="#Page_309">309</a></li> -<li>Osney Priory, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>; - <ul><li>charters to, <a href="#Page_232">232</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Osonville, Sewal de, <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li> -<li>Ottdevers. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Huitdeniers</span></li> -<li>Ou, Hugh d', <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert d', <a href="#Page_436">436</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, William d', <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_170">170</a></li> -<li>Oxeaie, Richard de, <a href="#Page_205">205</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Walkelin de, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206</a></li> -<li>Oxford, Stephen at (1136), <a href="#Page_15">15</a>, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, - <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>; - <ul><li>the Empress at, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, - <a href="#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="#Page_314">314</a>;</li> - <li>arrest of the bishops at, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>, <a href="#Page_203">203</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a>;</li> - <li>conspiracy against Stephen at (1142), <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, - <a href="#Page_203">203</a>, <a href="#Page_207">207</a>;</li> - <li>fortified by the Earl of Gloucester, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>;</li> - <li>stormed by Stephen, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>;</li> - <li>who besieges its castle, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a>;</li> - <li>from which the Empress escapes, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a>, <a href="#Page_406">406</a>;</li> - <li>leaving it to Stephen, <a href="#Page_406">406</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, St. Frideswide's, charter to, <a href="#Page_201">201</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, house at, <a href="#Page_232">232</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, earl of. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Vere, Aubrey</span> de</li> -<li>Oxfordshire, earldom of, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, - <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_240">240</a>, - <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>, <a href="#Page_295">295</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, "tertius denarius" of, <a href="#Page_295">295</a></li> - -</ul> - -<p>P</p> - -<ul> - -<li>Parage, Philip, <a href="#Page_402">402</a></li> -<li>Paris, Mathew, his accuracy confirmed, <a href="#Page_205">205</a></li> -<li>Park', Isnardus, <a href="#Page_314">314</a>, <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, <span class="squash">———</span>—, his son Nicholas, <a href="#Page_314">314</a></li> -<li>Parker, Mr., on Professor Freeman, <a href="#Page_280">280</a>; - <ul><li>on Rochester Castle, <a href="#Page_337">337</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Pascal, Pope, anoints the Empress, <a href="#Page_257">257</a></li> -<li>Passelewe, Ralf, <a href="#Page_373">373</a></li> -<li>"Pauper," Hugh (? Earl of Bedford), <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a></li> -<li>Paynell, Ralf, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, - <a href="#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="#Page_286">286</a></li> -<li>Pechet, Robert, <a href="#Page_427">427</a></li> -<li>Pedigrees, of Gervase de Cornhill, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>, <a href="#Page_310">310</a>; - <ul><li>of Aubrey de Vere, <a href="#Page_389">389</a>;</li> - <li>of the Mandevilles and De Veres, <a href="#Page_392">392</a>;</li> - <li>of William d'Arques, <a href="#Page_397">397</a>;</li> - <li>of Ernulf de Mandeville, <a href="#Page_232">232</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Pembroke, Gilbert, earl of, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, - <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, - <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>, - <a href="#Page_181">181</a>-183, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, - <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, earldom of, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, <a href="#Page_271">271</a></li> -<li>Percy, William de, <a href="#Page_264">264</a></li> -<li>Peterborough chronicle, the, on the Anarchy, <a href="#Page_214">214</a>, <a href="#Page_220">220</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a></li> -<li>Petrivilla. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Pierreville</span></li> -<li>Peverel (of London), William, his fief, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, - <a href="#Page_91">91</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>-142</li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— (of Nottingham), William, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="#Page_266">266</a>; - <ul><li>forfeited, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>;</li> - <li>his fief, <a href="#Page_181">181</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Mathew, <a href="#Page_143">143</a></li> -<li>Pharamus. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Boulogne</span></li> -<li>"Phingria" (Essex), <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li> -<li>Pierreville, Geoffrey de, <a href="#Page_320">320</a></li> -<li>Pincerna, Audoen, <a href="#Page_230">230</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, <span class="squash">———</span>—, Ralf, brother of, <a href="#Page_230">230</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_229">229</a></li> -<li>Pirou, William de, <a href="#Page_428">428</a></li> -<li>Pleas, dread of, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, - <a href="#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, - <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>; - <ul><li>farming of, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>, <a href="#Page_287">287</a>, - <a href="#Page_293">293</a>, <a href="#Page_295">295</a>, <a href="#Page_361">361</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— of the Crown, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, <a href="#Page_110">110</a>; - <ul><li>of the forest, <a href="#Page_376">376</a>-378</li> - </ul></li> -<li>Pleshy (Essex), <a href="#Page_207">207</a></li> -<li>Plessis, Walter de, <a href="#Page_229">229</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, William de, <a href="#Page_230">230</a></li> -<li>Ploughteam, importance of the, <a href="#Page_218">218</a></li> -<li>Poitiers, Richard, archdeacon of, <a href="#Page_112">112</a></li> -<li>Pont de l'Arche, William de, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, - <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, - <a href="#Page_234">234</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, - <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_297">297</a></li> -<li>Popes. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Alexander</span>, <span class="smc">Celestine</span>, - <span class="smc">Eugene</span>, <span class="smc">Innocent</span>, - <span class="smc">Lucius</span>, <span class="smc">Pascal</span></li> -<li>Port, Adam de, (I.) <a href="#Page_233">233</a>, (II.) <a href="#Page_428">428</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, <span class="squash">———</span>—, Matildis, his wife, <a href="#Page_233">233</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, <span class="squash">———</span>—, Henry, his brother, <a href="#Page_233">233</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Henry de, <a href="#Page_264">264</a></li> -<li>Portsmouth, alleged landing at, <a href="#Page_278">278</a>-280; - <ul><li>Henry I. at, <a href="#Page_432">432</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Predevilain, Alfred, <a href="#Page_230">230</a></li> -<li>Presbyter, Vitalis, <a href="#Page_413">413</a></li> -<li>Prittlewell Priory, <a href="#Page_391">391</a></li> -<li>Protection, money exacted for, <a href="#Page_415">415</a></li> -<li>Prudfot, Gilbert, <a href="#Page_350">350</a>, <a href="#Page_351">351</a></li> - -</ul> - -<p>Q</p> - -<ul> - -<li><i>Quadripartitus</i>, quotation from, <a href="#Page_312">312</a></li> -<li>Quarterly coat of Mandeville, the, <a href="#Page_392">392</a>-396</li> -<li>"Queen," the Empress styles herself, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, - <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_302">302</a></li> - -</ul> - -<p>R</p> - -<ul> - -<li>Radwinter (Essex), <a href="#Page_168">168</a></li> -<li>Raimes, family of de, <a href="#Page_399">399</a>-404; - <ul><li>Roger (I.), <a href="#Page_399">399</a>, <a href="#Page_403">403</a>, <a href="#Page_404">404</a>;</li> - <li>William (I.), <a href="#Page_399">399</a>, <a href="#Page_401">401</a>;</li> - <li>Roger (II.), <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_399">399</a>-404;</li> - <li>Robert (I.), <a href="#Page_399">399</a>, <a href="#Page_402">402</a>;</li> - <li>William (II.), <a href="#Page_402">402</a>, <a href="#Page_403">403</a>;</li> - <li>Richard, <a href="#Page_400">400</a>-404;</li> - <li>Robert (II.), <a href="#Page_401">401</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Rainham (Essex), <a href="#Page_141">141</a></li> -<li>Ramis de. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Raimes</span></li> -<li>Ramsey Abbey, grant of a hundred to, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>; - <ul><li>occupied by Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>;</li> - <li>fortified by him, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>, <a href="#Page_211">211</a>, - <a href="#Page_213">213</a>, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>;</li> - <li>claimed by Abbot Walter, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>;</li> - <li>sweats blood, <a href="#Page_217">217</a>;</li> - <li>avenged, <a href="#Page_221">221</a>;</li> - <li>surrendered to the abbot, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>;</li> - <li>compensated for its losses, <a href="#Page_225">225</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Walter, abbot of, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>; - <ul><li>goes to Rome, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>;</li> - <li>returns to Ramsey, <a href="#Page_216">216</a>;</li> - <li>his misery, <a href="#Page_217">217</a>;</li> - <li>at Geoffrey's deathbed, <a href="#Page_223">223</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Daniel, abbot of, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>, <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>; - <ul><li>goes to Rome, <a href="#Page_216">216</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, William, abbot of, <a href="#Page_225">225</a></li> -<li>Ravengerus, <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li> -<li>Rayne (Essex), <a href="#Page_399">399</a></li> -<li>Reading, Stephen at, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, - <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_283">283</a>; - <ul><li>the Empress at, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Anscher, abbot of (1131), <a href="#Page_265">265</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Edward, abbot of (1141), <a href="#Page_117">117</a></li> -<li>Redvers, Baldwin de, <a href="#Page_266">266</a>, <a href="#Page_272">272</a>, <a href="#Page_278">278</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Richard de, <a href="#Page_272">272</a></li> -<li>Reinmund (of London), <a href="#Page_435">435</a>, <a href="#Page_436">436</a>; - <ul><li>his son Azo, <i>ib.</i></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Richard I., his second coronation, <a href="#Page_137">137</a></li> -<li>Richmond, earldom of, <a href="#Page_157">157</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Alan, earl of, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, - <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Conan, earl of, <a href="#Page_290">290</a></li> -<li>Ridel, Geoffrey (II.), <a href="#Page_417">417</a>-419; - <ul><li>his grandfather, <a href="#Page_417">417</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Rochelle, Richard de, <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, John de, <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li> -<li>Rochester, its early name, <a href="#Page_332">332</a>, <a href="#Page_339">339</a>; - <ul><li>charter to church of, <a href="#Page_422">422</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Castle, <a href="#Page_337">337</a>-339, <a href="#Page_345">345</a>, <a href="#Page_346">346</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Gundulf, bishop of, <a href="#Page_334">334</a>, <a href="#Page_337">337</a>-339</li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, John, bishop of, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a></li> -<li>Rome, appeal of the Empress to, <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, <a href="#Page_250">250</a>-261; - <ul><li>appeals of Bishop Nigel to, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, <a href="#Page_411">411</a>-413;</li> - <li>Abbot of Ramsey appeals to, <a href="#Page_215">215</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Romeli. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Rumilli</span></li> -<li>Rouen, Hugh, archbishop of, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, - <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="#Page_412">412</a>, <a href="#Page_413">413</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, the Tower of, <a href="#Page_334">334</a>-336</li> -<li>Rumard, Absalom, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a></li> -<li>Rumilli, Alan de, <a href="#Page_170">170</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Mathew de, <a href="#Page_170">170</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert de, <a href="#Page_170">170</a></li> - -</ul> - -<p>S</p> - -<ul> - -<li>Sablé, Guy de, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert de, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a></li> -<li>Sackville, William de, <a href="#Page_393">393</a>; - <ul><li>arms of, <i>ib.</i></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Saffron Walden (Essex), <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, - <a href="#Page_149">149</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, - <a href="#Page_207">207</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a></li> -<li>Sai, Ingelram de, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>-13, <a href="#Page_46">46</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Geoffrey de, <a href="#Page_231">231</a>, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, - <a href="#Page_390">390</a>, <a href="#Page_392">392</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, William de, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, - <a href="#Page_227">227</a>, <a href="#Page_392">392</a>, <a href="#Page_396">396</a></li> -<li>St. Albans, the Empress at, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>; - <ul><li>Stephen arrests Geoffrey at, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>-207;</li> - <li>consequent struggle at, <a href="#Page_204">204</a>-206;</li> - <li>abbot of, Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>St. Augustine's, Hugh, abbot of, <a href="#Page_265">265</a></li> -<li>St Briavel's, castle of, <a href="#Page_56">56</a></li> -<li>St. Clare, Hamo de, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Osbert de, <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, William de, <a href="#Page_52">52</a></li> -<li>St. David's, Bernard, bishop of, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, - <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, - <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="#Page_314">314</a>, <a href="#Page_430">430</a></li> -<li>St. Edmundsbury, Anselm, abbot of, <a href="#Page_174">174</a>; - <ul><li>Ording, abbot of, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_439">439</a>;</li> - <li>William, prior of, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>;</li> - <li>Ralf, sacristan of, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>;</li> - <li>Maurice, dapifer of, <a href="#Page_190">190</a>;</li> - <li>Goscelin and Eudo, monks of, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>St. Evroul, charter to, <a href="#Page_423">423</a>, <a href="#Page_426">426</a></li> -<li>St. Ives, <a href="#Page_212">212</a>, <a href="#Page_213">213</a></li> -<li>St. John, John de, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></li> -<li>St. Liz. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Northampton</span></li> -<li>St. Osyth's Priory, <a href="#Page_389">389</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a></li> -<li>St. Quintin, Richard de, <a href="#Page_382">382</a></li> -<li>Salamon Presbyter, <a href="#Page_181">181</a></li> -<li>Salisbury, Stephen at, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_283">283</a>; - <ul><li>held for the Empress, <a href="#Page_407">407</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, earldom of. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Wiltshire</span></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, bishop of, Roger, builds Devizes Castle, <a href="#Page_134">134</a>; - <ul><li>receives Stephen as king, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>;</li> - <li>attends his coronation, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>;</li> - <li>with him at Reading, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>;</li> - <li>at Westminster, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>;</li> - <li>at Oxford, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>;</li> - <li>repudiates his oath to the Empress, <a href="#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="#Page_256">256</a>;</li> - <li>his death, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>;</li> - <li>his nephew Nigel, <a href="#Page_265">265</a> (<i>see</i> <span class="smc">Ely</span>, bishops of)</li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Edward de, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Walter de, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, - <a href="#Page_264">264</a>, <a href="#Page_266">266</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, <span class="squash">———</span>—, Sibyl, his wife, <a href="#Page_276">276</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, William de, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Patrick de (Earl of Salisbury or Wilts), <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>, - <a href="#Page_276">276</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></li> -<li>Saltpans, <a href="#Page_440">440</a></li> -<li>Saltwood (Kent), <a href="#Page_326">326</a></li> -<li>Savigny, charter to, <a href="#Page_423">423</a></li> -<li>Sawbridgeworth (Herts.), <a href="#Page_228">228</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a></li> -<li>Scotale, <a href="#Page_361">361</a>, <a href="#Page_369">369</a></li> -<li>Scutage of 1159, the, <a href="#Page_400">400</a></li> -<li>Seals, great, of Stephen, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>; - <ul><li>of Maud, <a href="#Page_299">299</a>, <a href="#Page_303">303</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, keepers of the. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Sigillo</span>, de</li> -<li>Seez, Arnulf, archdeacon of. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Liseux</span></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, John, bishop of, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a></li> -<li>Sherborne Castle, <a href="#Page_146">146</a></li> -<li>Sheriff, the, as "justicia," <a href="#Page_107">107</a>, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>; - <ul><li>as an officer of the "curia," <a href="#Page_108">108</a>;</li> - <li>as "firmarius," <a href="#Page_360">360</a>-363;</li> - <li>feudalized, <a href="#Page_109">109</a>;</li> - <li>his "third penny," <a href="#Page_289">289</a>;</li> - <li>distinct from the "custos," <a href="#Page_297">297</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—. <i>See also</i> <span class="smc">Bailiffs</span></li> -<li>Ships, toll from, <a href="#Page_414">414</a>, <a href="#Page_440">440</a></li> -<li>Shrewsbury, Stephen besieges, <a href="#Page_285">285</a></li> -<li>Shropshire settled on Queen Adeliza, <a href="#Page_322">322</a></li> -<li>Sigillo, Robert de, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">London</span>, bishops of.</li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Richard de, <a href="#Page_427">427</a>. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Hereford</span>, bishops of</li> -<li>Silvanecta. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Northampton</span></li> -<li>Soilli, Henry de ("nepos regis"), <a href="#Page_262">262</a>-264</li> -<li>Someri, Adam de, <a href="#Page_143">143</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Roger de, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_168">168</a></li> -<li>Somerset, earldom of, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Mohun</span></li> -<li>Sorus, Jordan, <a href="#Page_382">382</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Odo, <a href="#Page_382">382</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert, <a href="#Page_382">382</a></li> -<li>Southwark, Edward of, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>, <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, his son William, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>, <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li> -<li>Stafford, "third penny" of, <a href="#Page_289">289</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert de, <a href="#Page_289">289</a></li> -<li>Stamford, <a href="#Page_159">159</a></li> -<li>Stapleton, Mr., on William of Arques, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_397">397</a></li> -<li>Stephen, King, attends Henry I. (as Count of Mortain), <a href="#Page_423">423</a>, <a href="#Page_429">429</a>; - <ul><li>lands in England, <a href="#Page_1">1</a>;</li> - <li>his treaty with the Londoners, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>-249;</li> - <li>his election and coronation, <a href="#Page_2">2</a>-8, <a href="#Page_437">437</a>, - <a href="#Page_438">438</a>;</li> - <li>his embassy to Rome, <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, <a href="#Page_253">253</a>-257;</li> - <li>his charters to Miles of Gloucester, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>-14;</li> - <li>visits Oxford, <a href="#Page_15">15</a>;</li> - <li>Durham, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>;</li> - <li>keeps Easter at Westminster, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>-21, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>-265;</li> - <li>his Oxford charter of liberties, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_258">258</a>, <a href="#Page_438">438</a>;</li> - <li>his title to the throne, <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, <a href="#Page_258">258</a>-260;</li> - <li>besieges Shrewsbury, <a href="#Page_285">285</a>;</li> - <li>his movements in 1139, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>-283;</li> - <li>besieges the Empress at Arundel, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>;</li> - <li>his movements in 1140, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>-49;</li> - <li>his first charter to Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_49">49</a>-53, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_238">238</a>;</li> - <li>captured at Lincoln, <a href="#Page_54">54</a>;</li> - <li>imprisoned at Bristol, <a href="#Page_56">56</a>;</li> - <li>receives the primate, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_260">260</a>;</li> - <li>released, <a href="#Page_135">135</a>;</li> - <li>holds council at Westminster, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>;</li> - <li>crowned at Canterbury, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>;</li> - <li>his second charter to Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>, <a href="#Page_103">103</a>, - <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>-156, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>;</li> - <li>betrays the Londoners, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>;</li> - <li>goes north, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>;</li> - <li>visits Ipswich, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>;</li> - <li>Stamford, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>;</li> - <li>recovers Ely, <a href="#Page_411">411</a>;</li> - <li>ill at Northampton, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>;</li> - <li>restores Nigel to Ely, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, <a href="#Page_412">412</a>;</li> - <li>captures Wareham, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>;</li> - <li>storms Oxford, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>;</li> - <li>besieges the Empress, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a>;</li> - <li>his charters to Abingdon and St. Frideswide's, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>;</li> - <li>recovers Oxford Castle, <a href="#Page_406">406</a>;</li> - <li>besieges Wareham, <i>ib.</i>;</li> - <li>attends council at London, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>;</li> - <li>routed at Wilton, <a href="#Page_407">407</a>;</li> - <li>arrests Geoffrey at St. Albans, <a href="#Page_202">202</a>-207;</li> - <li>visits Ramsey Abbey, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>;</li> - <li>attacks Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>;</li> - <li>forfeits monks of Ely, <a href="#Page_214">214</a>;</li> - <li>arrests Earl of Chester, <a href="#Page_203">203</a>;</li> - <li>forfeits the primate, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>;</li> - <li>marches to York, <a href="#Page_409">409</a>;</li> - <li>stated to have assisted Henry, <a href="#Page_410">410</a>;</li> - <li>seeks coronation of Eustace, <a href="#Page_250">250</a>, <a href="#Page_259">259</a>;</li> - <li>his seal, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>;</li> - <li>his "fiscal" earls, <a href="#Page_276">276</a>, <a href="#Page_277">277</a>, - <a href="#Page_295">295</a>, <a href="#Page_440">440</a>;</li> - <li>his faults, <a href="#Page_24">24</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, - <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="#Page_267">267</a>, <a href="#Page_269">269</a>;</li> - <li>grant to his brother Theobald, <a href="#Page_102">102</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a>;</li> - <li>his forest policy, <a href="#Page_377">377</a>, <a href="#Page_378">378</a>;</li> - <li>papal letters to him, <a href="#Page_257">257</a>, <a href="#Page_412">412</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Stephen, King, his wife. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Matilda</span></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, his son. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Eustace</span></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, his nephew, Henry (de Soilli), <a href="#Page_262">262</a>-264</li> -<li>Stockbridge (Hants.), <a href="#Page_133">133</a></li> -<li>Stortford. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Bishop's Stortford</span></li> -<li>Stuteville, John de, <a href="#Page_403">403</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Leonia de, <a href="#Page_403">403</a>, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert de, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></li> -<li>Sumeri. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Someri</span></li> -<li>Sussex, question as to "firma" of, <a href="#Page_322">322</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, earl of. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Arundel</span></li> - -</ul> - -<p>T</p> - -<ul> - -<li>Taid', Jurdan de, <a href="#Page_230">230</a></li> -<li>Talbot, Geoffrey, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a></li> -<li>Tamworth, <a href="#Page_313">313</a>, <a href="#Page_314">314</a></li> -<li>Tani, Picot de, <a href="#Page_402">402</a>, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Alice de, <a href="#Page_402">402</a>-404</li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—. <i>See</i> also <span class="smc">Tany</span></li> -<li>Tankerville, Richard de, <a href="#Page_427">427</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, William de, <a href="#Page_428">428</a></li> -<li>Tany, Graeland de, <a href="#Page_91">91</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_142">142</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Hasculf de, <a href="#Page_91">91</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Gilbert de, <a href="#Page_91">91</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—. <i>See</i> also <span class="smc">Tani</span></li> -<li>Templars, at Geoffrey's deathbed, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>; - <ul><li>their red cross, <i>ib.</i>;</li> - <li>retain Geoffrey's corpse, <a href="#Page_226">226</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Temple (London), the old, <a href="#Page_224">224</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, the new, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, - <a href="#Page_226">226</a>, <a href="#Page_395">395</a></li> -<li>Tendring hundred (Essex), <a href="#Page_377">377</a>, <a href="#Page_404">404</a></li> -<li>"Tenserie," <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, <a href="#Page_218">218</a>, <a href="#Page_414">414</a>-416</li> -<li><i>Terræ datæ.</i> <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Crown Lands</span></li> -<li>"Tertius denarius," the, <a href="#Page_287">287</a>-296; - <ul><li>grants of the, by the Empress, <a href="#Page_292">292</a>, <a href="#Page_293">293</a>;</li> - <li>by Henry II., <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="#Page_240">240</a>, <a href="#Page_293">293</a>;</li> - <li>only given to some earls, <a href="#Page_269">269</a>, <a href="#Page_293">293</a>-295;</li> - <li>its two kinds, <a href="#Page_287">287</a>-290;</li> - <li>attached to manors, <a href="#Page_291">291</a>;</li> - <li>amount of, <a href="#Page_294">294</a>.</li> - <li><i>See also</i> <span class="smc">Earls</span></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Tewkesbury, spurious charter to, <a href="#Page_421">421</a>, <a href="#Page_431">431</a>, <a href="#Page_432">432</a></li> -<li>Theobald. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Blois</span></li> -<li>"Third penny," the. <i>See</i> "<span class="smc">Tertius Denarius</span>"</li> -<li>Thoby Priory, <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li> -<li>Thorney, Robert, abbot of, <a href="#Page_413">413</a></li> -<li>Tilbury by Clare (Essex), <a href="#Page_181">181</a></li> -<li>Tiretei, Maurice de, <a href="#Page_228">228</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a></li> -<li>Titles, peerage, origin of, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>. <i>See also</i> <span class="smc">Earls</span></li> -<li>Tolleshunt Tregoz (Essex), <a href="#Page_142">142</a></li> -<li>Torigny, castle of, <a href="#Page_334">334</a></li> -<li>Totintone, Warine de, <a href="#Page_401">401</a></li> -<li>"Towers," rectangular keeps termed, <a href="#Page_328">328</a>-331, <a href="#Page_333">333</a>, - <a href="#Page_336">336</a>, <a href="#Page_338">338</a>, - <a href="#Page_341">341</a>, <a href="#Page_343">343</a></li> -<li>Treason, appeal of, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="#Page_156">156</a>, - <a href="#Page_204">204</a>, <a href="#Page_327">327</a></li> -<li>Treaties between sovereign and subject, <a href="#Page_176">176</a></li> -<li>Tresgoz, William de, <a href="#Page_142">142</a></li> -<li>Treys-deners, Nicholas, <a href="#Page_375">375</a></li> -<li>Trowbridge (Wilts), <a href="#Page_281">281</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a></li> -<li>Tureville, Geoffrey de, <a href="#Page_170">170</a></li> -<li>Turonis (?), Pepin de, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a></li> -<li>Turroc', <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Greys Thurrock</span></li> - -</ul> - -<p>U</p> - -<ul> - -<li>Ulf the portreeve, <a href="#Page_353">353</a>, <a href="#Page_354">354</a></li> -<li>Umfraville, Gilbert de, <a href="#Page_382">382</a></li> -<li>Usury. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Money-lending</span></li> - -</ul> - -<p>V</p> - -<ul> - -<li>"Vadimonium" (or "Vadium"), <a href="#Page_214">214</a>, <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, - <a href="#Page_305">305</a>, <a href="#Page_369">369</a>, <a href="#Page_370">370</a></li> -<li>Valderi, Richard de, <a href="#Page_320">320</a></li> -<li>Valoines, Peter de (I.), <a href="#Page_39">39</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Peter de (II.), <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_183">183</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert de, <a href="#Page_172">172</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Roger de, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, <a href="#Page_264">264</a>; - <ul><li>Maud's charter to, <a href="#Page_286">286</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Venoiz, Robert de, <a href="#Page_171">171</a></li> -<li>Vercorol, Richard de, <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li> -<li>Vere, Aubrey de (I.), great chamberlain, his pedigree, <a href="#Page_389">389</a>, <a href="#Page_392">392</a>; - <ul><li>father-in-law of Geoffrey de Mandeville, <a href="#Page_388">388</a>;</li> - <li>"justiciar of England," <a href="#Page_390">390</a>;</li> - <li>slain (1141), <a href="#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, - <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_389">389</a>;</li> - <li>mentioned, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, - <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, - <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_297">297</a>, - <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, <a href="#Page_309">309</a>, - <a href="#Page_378">378</a>, <a href="#Page_388">388</a>-391</li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, <span class="squash">———</span>—, his wife, Alice de Clare, <a href="#Page_390">390</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, <span class="squash">———</span>—, his brothers, Roger de (brother of Aubrey (I.)), <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_389">389</a>; - <ul><li><span class="squash">—</span>—Robert de, <a href="#Page_389">389</a>, <a href="#Page_391">391</a>;</li> - <li><span class="squash">—</span>—William, <a href="#Page_389">389</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Geoffrey (fitz Aubrey) de, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, - <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Robert (fitz Aubrey) de, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_182">182</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, William (fitz Aubrey) de, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, - <a href="#Page_231">231</a>, <a href="#Page_389">389</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a>. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Chancellors</span></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Alice de, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="#Page_390">390</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Aubrey de (II.), Earl of Oxford, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, - <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>, - <a href="#Page_231">231</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, - <a href="#Page_271">271</a>, <a href="#Page_402">402</a>; - <ul><li>brother-in-law to Earl Geoffrey de Mandeville, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>;</li> - <li>his charter from the Empress, <a href="#Page_179">179</a>-195;</li> - <li>to be Earl of Cambridgeshire, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_191">191</a>-193;</li> - <li>his charter from Henry of Anjou, <a href="#Page_186">186</a>;</li> - <li>was Count of Guisnes, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_240">240</a>;</li> - <li>became Earl of Oxford, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>;</li> - <li>his charter from St. Edmund's, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_439">439</a>;</li> - <li>from Henry II., <a href="#Page_237">237</a>, <a href="#Page_239">239</a>;</li> - <li>his wife Beatrice, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="#Page_397">397</a>;</li> - <li>his arms, <a href="#Page_394">394</a>-396;</li> - <li>his connection with De Rames, <a href="#Page_401">401</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Ver, Robert (fitz Bernard) de, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, - <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, - <a href="#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, - <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="#Page_326">326</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, <span class="squash">———</span>—, his wife, Adeline de Montford, <a href="#Page_326">326</a></li> - -</ul> - -<p>W</p> - -<ul> - -<li>Wac (Wake), Hugh, <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_160">160</a></li> -<li>Wace, authority of, <a href="#Page_344">344</a></li> -<li>Walden. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Saffron Walden</span></li> -<li>Walden Abbey, chronicle of, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, - <a href="#Page_203">203</a>, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>, - <a href="#Page_210">210</a>, <a href="#Page_388">388</a>, - <a href="#Page_390">390</a>, <a href="#Page_393">393</a>, <a href="#Page_395">395</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, William, prior of, <a href="#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="#Page_226">226</a></li> -<li>Walensis, Ralf, <a href="#Page_419">419</a></li> -<li>Wallingford, Stephen besieges, <a href="#Page_188">188</a>, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>; - <ul><li>Empress escapes to, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_406">406</a>;</li> - <li>young Henry at, <a href="#Page_419">419</a>;</li> - <li>charter of Henry II. to, <a href="#Page_200">200</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Walterville, Geoffrey de, <a href="#Page_314">314</a>, <a href="#Page_381">381</a></li> -<li>Waltham (Essex), <a href="#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="#Page_323">323</a>, <a href="#Page_324">324</a>; - <ul><li>forest, <a href="#Page_377">377</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Waltham Abbey, Geoffrey's doings at, <a href="#Page_323">323</a>; - <ul><li>avenged, <a href="#Page_222">222</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— <span class="squash">———</span>—, Chronicle of, <a href="#Page_322">322</a>-324, <a href="#Page_439">439</a></li> -<li>Waltheof, Earl, <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a></li> -<li>Wareham, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>; - <ul><li>captured by Stephen, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_407">407</a>;</li> - <li>besieged by Earl of Gloucester, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>;</li> - <li>captured by him, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_405">405</a>;</li> - <li>Baldwin lands at, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>;</li> - <li>its defences, <a href="#Page_332">332</a>;</li> - <li>besieged by Stephen, <a href="#Page_406">406</a>, <a href="#Page_407">407</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Warenne, William, Earl, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, - <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, - <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_430">430</a></li> -<li>Warranty, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>, <a href="#Page_230">230</a></li> -<li>Warwick, Henry, earl of, <a href="#Page_329">329</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Roger, earl of, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, - <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, - <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a></li> -<li>Warwickshire, "tertius denarius" of, <a href="#Page_291">291</a></li> -<li>Waters, Mr. Chester, on the family of De Raimes, <a href="#Page_403">403</a>; - <ul><li>on the earldom of Gloucester, <a href="#Page_421">421</a>, <a href="#Page_432">432</a>;</li> - <li>his authority, <a href="#Page_432">432</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Way, Mr. Albert, on the styles of the Empress, <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li> -<li>Welsh, levity of the, <a href="#Page_386">386</a></li> -<li>Westminster, charters tested at, <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, - <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, <a href="#Page_95">95</a>, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>-264, - <a href="#Page_286">286</a>, <a href="#Page_302">302</a>, <a href="#Page_306">306</a>, - <a href="#Page_329">329</a>, <a href="#Page_428">428</a>, <a href="#Page_433">433</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Herbert, abbot of, <a href="#Page_265">265</a></li> -<li>Weston, <a href="#Page_314">314</a></li> -<li>Wherwell, Empress at, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>; - <ul><li>burning of, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>-131</li> - </ul></li> -<li>White Ship, loss of the, <a href="#Page_423">423</a>, <a href="#Page_428">428</a>, - <a href="#Page_429">429</a>, <a href="#Page_434">434</a></li> -<li>Wickham Bonhunt (Essex), <a href="#Page_90">90</a>, <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li> -<li>Wilton, the Empress at, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>; - <ul><li>affair of, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a>, <a href="#Page_407">407</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Wiltshire, earldom of, <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_271">271</a></li> -<li>Winchester, Stephen received at, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, <a href="#Page_47">47</a>; - <ul><li>Henry I. at, <a href="#Page_421">421</a>, <a href="#Page_430">430</a>, <a href="#Page_432">432</a>;</li> - <li>Empress received at, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>-64;</li> - <li>importance of its possession, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>;</li> - <li>its castle and treasury, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, - <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, - <a href="#Page_386">386</a>, <a href="#Page_407">407</a>;</li> - <li>election of the Empress at, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>;</li> - <li>its siege by the Empress, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>-132;</li> - <li>its royal palace, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, William (Giffard), bishop of, <a href="#Page_329">329</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Henry, bishop of (and papal legate), <a href="#Page_265">265</a>; - <ul><li>receives Stephen as king, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_4">4</a>;</li> - <li>attends his coronation, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>;</li> - <li>with him at Reading, <a href="#Page_11">11</a>;</li> - <li>at Westminster, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>;</li> - <li>at Oxford, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>;</li> - <li>at Arundel, <a href="#Page_55">55</a>;</li> - <li>receives the Empress, <a href="#Page_57">57</a>;</li> - <li>his mandate to Theobald, <a href="#Page_260">260</a>;</li> - <li>conducts Maud's election, <a href="#Page_69">69</a>;</li> - <li>escorts her, <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>;</li> - <li>opposes her as to William Cumin, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>;</li> - <li>deserts her and joins the Queen, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, <a href="#Page_122">122</a>;</li> - <li>besieged by the Empress, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>;</li> - <li>his palace, <a href="#Page_126">126</a>;</li> - <li>burns Winchester, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>;</li> - <li>restores Stephen, <a href="#Page_136">136</a>;</li> - <li>at his court, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>;</li> - <li>with him at Wilton, <a href="#Page_407">407</a>;</li> - <li>opposed to Nigel of Ely, <a href="#Page_413">413</a>;</li> - <li>goes to Rome, <a href="#Page_208">208</a>;</li> - <li>his letter to Brian Fitz Count, <a href="#Page_261">261</a>;</li> - <li>his covenant with Henry, <a href="#Page_386">386</a>;</li> - <li>papal letters to, <a href="#Page_412">412</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Windsor, Maurice de (dapifer of St. Edmund's), <a href="#Page_190">190</a>, <a href="#Page_439">439</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>— Castle, <a href="#Page_169">169</a>; - <ul><li>Henry I. at, <a href="#Page_429">429</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li>Wiret, Ralf de, <a href="#Page_53">53</a></li> -<li>Wood Walton, <a href="#Page_211">211</a></li> -<li>Woodham Mortimer (Essex), <a href="#Page_141">141</a></li> -<li>Worcester, Stephen at, <a href="#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>; - <ul><li>sacked by Miles, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>;</li> - <li>its "third penny," <a href="#Page_290">290</a></li> - </ul></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Castle, <a href="#Page_313">313</a>, <a href="#Page_328">328</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Simon, bishop of, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Theowulf, bishop of, <a href="#Page_432">432</a></li> -<li>Worcestershire, earldom (?) of, <a href="#Page_271">271</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, shrievalty of, <a href="#Page_313">313</a></li> -<li>Worth (Wilts), <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_233">233</a></li> -<li>Writtle (Essex), <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, <a href="#Page_149">149</a>, <a href="#Page_214">214</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Godebold of, <a href="#Page_214">214</a></li> -<li>Wymondham, the foundation at, <a href="#Page_318">318</a></li> - -</ul> - -<p>Y</p> - -<ul> - -<li>York, Stephen visits, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Roger, archbishop of, <a href="#Page_236">236</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, Thurstan, archbishop of, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_263">263</a>, - <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="#Page_427">427</a>, - <a href="#Page_428">428</a>, <a href="#Page_433">433</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, earldom of, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a></li> -<li><span class="squash">———</span>—, earl of. <i>See</i> <span class="smc">Aumâle</span></li> -<li>Ypres, William of, in England, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, - <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, <a href="#Page_201">201</a>; - <ul><li>not an earl, <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>;</li> - <li>in charge of Kent, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>;</li> - <li>burns Wherwell, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, <a href="#Page_132">132</a>;</li> - <li>tries to burn St. Albans, <a href="#Page_206">206</a>;</li> - <li>robs Abingdon, <a href="#Page_213">213</a>;</li> - <li>persecutes the Church, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>;</li> - <li>grants to him, <a href="#Page_269">269</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a></li> - </ul></li> - -</ul> - -</div> - - - - - - - - -<pre> - - - - - -End of Project Gutenberg's Geoffrey de Mandeville, by John Horace Round - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK GEOFFREY DE MANDEVILLE *** - -***** This file should be named 62878-h.htm or 62878-h.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/6/2/8/7/62878/ - -Produced by MWS, Chris Pinfield and the Online Distributed -Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was -produced from images generously made available by The -Internet Archive) - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - - - -</pre> - -</body> - -</html> - |